miércoles, 22 de septiembre de 2010

DICTIONARY GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES - A Part 1º - WILLIAM SMITH





AB - AE - Part 1º

DICTIONARY GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES
OP 
GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES 
EDITED BY 
WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D. 
EDITOR OF THE "DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN BIOGRAPHY AND MYTHOLOGY." 

(graphic)(merged small)(ocr errors)(merged small)(merged small)(merged small)

LIST OF WRITERS.

INITIALS. NAMES.
A. A. Alexander Allen, Ph. D.
W. F. D. William Fisubuun Don Kin, M. A.

Fellow of University College, Oxford. W. A G. William Alexander Greenhill, M. D.
Trinity College, Oxford.
B. J. Benjamin Jowett, M.A.
Fellow of Baliol College, Oxford.
C. B. K. Charles Rann Kennedy, M. A.
Late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. T. H. K. Thomas Hewitt Key, M.A.
Professor of Comparative Grammar in University College, London.


(table)

The Articles which have no initials attached to them are written by the Editor.

PREFACE
THE SECOND EDITION.


It was inevitable that many defects should be found in the first Edition of n work like the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, embracing a great variety of subjects, written by different persons, and published periodically. Of these no one was more fully aware than the Editor; and accordingly, when the sale of a very large impression rendered the preparation of a second Edition necessary, he resolved to spare no pains and exertions to render the work still more worthy of the approbation with which it had been already received. The following will be found to be the principal improvements in the present Edition.

1. Many of the most important articles are rewritten. This is especially the case in the earlier portion of the work, since it was originally intended to complete it in a much smaller compass than was afterwards found advisable ; and accordingly many subjects in the earlier letters of the alphabet were treated in the first Edition with a brevity which prevented the writers from giving a full and satisfactory explanation of several important points.

2. Many subjects which were entirely omitted in the first Edition are here supplied. Any one who has had experience in the arrangement of a work in alphabetical order will not be surprised that there should be many omissions in the first Edition of such a work. Some idea may be formed of the extensive additions made to the work, when it is stated that, including the articles which have been rewritten, the present Edition contains upwards of three hundred pages of entirely new matter.

3. Those articles which have not been rewritten have been carefully revised, and in many of them errors have been corrected, extraneous matter omitted, and much additional information given. In this part of his labours the Editor has received the most valuable assistance from Mr. George Long, Dr. Schmitz, a»d Mr. Philip Smith.

4. Additional illustrations have been given by means of new woodcuts, wherever the subjects appeared to require them. Many of these new woodcuts are of considerable importance, as the reader may see by referring to the articles Amphitheatrum, Aquaeductits, Columna, Templum, and many others.


5. An alteration has been made in the arrangement of the work, which will tend to facilitate its use. In the former Edition there was some inconsistency in the use of Greek, Latin, and English words for the names of articles. In the present Edition the Latin language has been always employed for the heading of the articles, except in those subjects connected with Greek Antiquities where no corresponding words existed in Latin; as, for instance, in legal terms, and in the names of magistrates. In these cases the Greek language has been necessarily employed ; but, incompliance with a wish expressed by many persons, the Greek words are given in Latin letters, with the Greek characters subjoined.

In conclusion, the Editor has to express his regret that he is unable in any way to make the additions and alterations in the present Edition available to the purchasers of the former one. He had at one time thought of publishing them in a separate form; but he found, as the work proceeded, that this was quite impossible, on account of their great number and length. In fact, the present Edition must be regarded, to a considerable extent, as a new work.


WILLIAM SMITH.
London, August 1st, 1848.



PREFACE

T.i
THE FIRST EDITION.


The study of Greek and Roman Antiquities has, in common with all other philological studies, made great progress in Europe within the last fifty years. The earlier writers on the subject, whose works are contained in the collections of Gronovius and Gnevius, display little historical criticism, and give no com prehensive view or living idea of the public and private life of the ancients. They were contented, for the most part, with merely collecting facts, and arranging them in some systematic form, and seemed not to have felt the want of any thing more: they wrote about antiquity as if the people had never existed; they did not attempt to realise to their own minds, or to represent to those of others, the living spirit of Greek and Roman civilisation. But by the labours of modern scholars life has been breathed into the study: men are no longer satisfied with isolated facts on separate departments of the subject, but endeavour to form some conception of antiquity as an organic whole, and to trace the relation of one part to another.

There Ls scarcely a single subject included under the general name of Greek and Soman Antiquities, which has not received elucidation from the writings of the modern scholars of Germany. The history and political relations of the nations of antiquity have been placed in an entirely different light since the publication of Niebuhr's Roman History, which gave a new impulse to the study, and has been succeeded by the works of Bockh, K. O. Muller, Wachsmuth, K. F. Hermann, and other distinguished scholars. The study of the Roman law, which has been unaccountably neglected in this country, has been prosecuted with extraordinary success by the great jurists of Germany, among whom Savigny stands preeminent, and claims our profoundest admiration. The subject of Attic law, though in a scientific point of view one of much less interest and importance than the Roman law, but without a competent knowledge of which it is impossible to understand the Greek orators, has also received much elucidation from the writings of Meier, Schumann, Bunsen, Platner, Hudtwalcker, and others. Nor has the private life of the ancients been neglected. The discovery of Herculaneum and Pompeii has supplied us with important information on the subject, which has also been discussed with ability by several modern writers, among whom W. A. Becker, of Leipzig, deserves to be particularly mentioned. The study of ancient art likewise, to which our scholars have paid little attention, has been diligently cultivated in Germany from the time of Winckelmann and Lessing, who founded the modern school of criticism in art, to which we are indebted for so many valuable works.

"While, however, so much has been done in every department of the subject, no attempt has hitherto been made, either in Germany or in.this country, to make the results of modern researches available for the purposes of instruction, by giving them in a single work, adapted for the use of students. At present, correct information on many matters of antiquity can only be obtained by consulting a large number of costly works, which few students can have access to. It was therefore thought that a work on Greek and Roman Antiquities, which should be founded on a careful examination of the original sources, with such aids as could be derived from the best modern writers, and which should bring up the subject, so to speak, to the present state of philological learning, would form a useful acquisition to all persons engaged in the study of antiquity.

It was supposed that this work might fall into the hands of two different classes of readers, and it was therefore considered proper to provide for the probable wants of each, as far as was possible. It has been intended not only for schools, but also for the use of students at universities, and of other persons, who may wish to obtain more extensive information on the subject than an elementary work can supply. Accordingly numerous references have been given, not only to the classical authors, but also to the best modern writers, which will point out the sources of information on each subject, and enable the reader to extend his inquiries further if he wishes. At the same time it must be observed, that it has been impossible to give at the end of each article the whole of the literature which belongs to it. Such a list of works as a full account of the literature would require, would have swelled the work much beyond the limits of a single volume, and it has therefore only been possible to refer to the principal modern authorities. This has been more particularly the case with such articles as treat of the Roman constitution and law, on which the modern writers are almost innumerable.

A work like the present might have been arranged either in a systematic or an alphabetical form. Each plan has its advantages and disadvantages, but many reasons induced the Editor to adopt the latter. Besides the obvious advantage of an alphabetical arrangement in a work of reference like the present, it enabled the Editor to avail himself of the assistance of several scholars who had made certain departments of antiquity their particular study. It is quite impossible that a work which comprehends all the subjects included under Greek and Roman Antiquities can be written satisfactorily by any one individual. As it was therefore absolutely necessary to divide the labour, no other arrangement offered so many facilities for the purpose as that which has been adopted; in addition to which, the form of a Dictionary has the additional advantage of enabling the writer to give a complete account of a subject under one head, which cannot so well be done in a systematic work. An example will illustrate what is meant. A history of the patrician and plebeian orders at Rome can only be gained from a systematic work by putting together the statements contained in many different parts of the work, while, in a Dictionary, a connected view of their history is given from the earliest to the latest times under the respective words. The same remark will apply to numerous other subjects.

Some subjects have been included in the present work which hove not usually been treated of in works on Greek and Roman Antiquities. These subjects have been inserted on account of the important influence which they exercised upon the public and private life of the ancients. Thus, considerable space has been given to the articles on Painting and Statuary, and also to those on the different departments of the Drama. There may seem to be some inconsistency and apparent capriciousness in the admission and rejection of subjects, but it is very difficult to determine at what point to stop in a work of this kind. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, if understood in its most extensive signification, would comprehend an account of every thing relating to antiquity. In its narrower sense, however, the term is confined to an account of the public and private life of the Greeks and Romans, and it is convenient to adhere to this signification of the word, however arbitrary it may be. For this reason several articles have been inserted in the work which some persons may regard as out of place, and others have been omitted which have sometimes been improperly included in writings on Greek and Roman Antiquities. Neither the names of persons and divinities, nor those of places, have been inserted in the present work, as the former will be treated of in the " Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology," and the latter in the " Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography."

The subjects of the woodcuts have been chosen by the writers of the articles which they illustrate, and the drawings have been made under their superintendence. * Many of these have been taken from originals in the British Museum, and others from the different works which contain representations of works of ancient art, as the Museo Borbonico, Museo Capitolino, Millin's Peintures de Vases Antiques, Tischbein's and D'Hancarville's engravings from Sir William Hamilton's Vases, and other similar works. Hitherto little use has been made in this country of existing works of art, for the purpose of illustrating antiquity. In many cases, however, the representation of an object gives a far better idea of the purposes for which it was intended, and the way in which it was used, than any explanation in words only can convey. Besides which, some acquaintance with the remains of ancient art is almost essential to a proper perception of the spirit of antiquity, and would tend to refine and elevate the taste, and lead to a just appreciation of works of art in general.

Mr. George Long, who has contributed to this work the articles relating to Roman Law, has sent the Editor the following remarks, which he wishes to make respecting the articles he has written, and which are accordingly subjoined in his own words.

" The writer of the articles marked with the letters G. L. considers some " apology necessary in respect of what he has contributed to this work. He has " never had the advantage of attending a course of lectures on Roman Law, and " he has written these articles in the midst of numerous engagements, which left " little time for other labour. The want of proper materials also was often felt, " and it would have been sufficient to prevent the writer from venturing on " such an undertaking, if he had not been able to avail himself of the library " of his friend, Mr. William Wright, of Lincoln's Inn. These circumstances " will, perhaps, be some excuse for the errors and imperfections which will be " apparent enough to those who are competent judges. It is only those who " have formed an adequate conception of the extent and variety of the matter " of law in general, and of the Roman Law in particular, who can estimate the " difficulty of writing on such a subject in England, and they will allow to him " who has attempted it a just measure of indulgence. The writer claims such " indulgence from those living writers of whose labours he has availed himself, if any of these articles should ever fall in their way. It will be apparent " that these articles have been written mainly with the view of illustrating " the classical writers ; and that a consideration of the persons for whose use " they are intended, and the present state of knowledge of the Roman Law in " this country, have been sufficient reasons for the omission of many important " matters which would have been useless to most readers and sometimes unin" telligible.

" Though few modern writers have been used, compared with the whole " number who might have been used, they are not absolutely few, and many of " them to Englishmen are new. Many of them also are the best, and among " the best, of the kind. The difficulty of writing these articles was increased by " the want of books in the English language ; for, though we have many writers " on various departments of the Roman Law, of whom two or three have been " referred to, they have been seldom used, and with very little profit."

It would be improper to close these remarks without stating the obligations this work is under to Mr. Long. It was chiefly through his advice and encouragement that the Editor was induced to undertake it, and during its progress he has always been ready to give his counsel whenever it was needed. It is therefore as much a matter of duty as it i; of "leasure, to make this public acknowledgment to him.

WILLIAM SMITH.

London, April 2nd, 1842.

Note: • The woodcuts liavc been executed Ly Mr. John Jackson.

(merged small)(merged small)(merged small)(graphic)


ABACUS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). ABACUS (άβαξ) denoted primarily a quart tablet of any material and was hence applied in the following significations.

1. In Architecture it denoted the flat square stone which constituted the highest member of a column being placed immediately under the architrave The annexed figure is drawn from that in the British Museum which was taken from the Parthenon at Athena and is a perfect specimen the capital of a Doric column.

In the more ornamented orders of architecture, such as the Corinthian, the sides of the abacus were curved inwards, and a rose or some other decoration was frequently placed in the middle of each side ; but the name Abacus was given to the stone thus diversified and enriched, as well as in its original form. (Vitruv. iii, 3, iv, 1. § 7.)

2. A painted panel, coffer, or square compartment in the wall or ceiling of a chamber. (Plin. H.N.  xxxiii- 56, xxxv. 1, 13 ; Vitruv. vii. 3. § 10 ; Letronne, Peintur. mur. p. 476.)

3. A wooden tray, used for a variety of purposes in domestic economy. It was, for instance, the name given to the mactra (μάκτρα), or tray for kneading dough. (Cratin. Frag. p. 27, ed. Runkel; Pollux, vi. 90, x. 105 ; Cato, R. R. 10 ; Hesych. s.v. . μάκτρα ; Schol is Theocr. iv. 61.)

4. A board, covered with sand or dust, used by mathematicians for drawing diagrams (Eustath. in Od. i. 107), and by arithmeticians for the purposes of calculation. (Pers. Sat i. 131.) For the latter purpose perpendicular lines or channels seem to have been drawn in the sand upon the board ; but some times the board had perpendicular wooden divisions, the space on the right hand being intended for units, the next space for tens, the next for hundreds, and so on. Thus was constructed the άβάκιον, έφ̉ ονˆ ψηφίζονσιν, " the abacus on which they calculate," i. r. reckon by the use of stones (ψήφοι, calculi). (Comp. Pol v. 26.) The figure following represents the probable form and appearance of such an abacus. The reader will observe, that stone after stone might be put into the righthand partition until they amounted to 10, when it be necessary to tako them all out as rrprein the figure, and instead of them to put ne into the next partition. The stones in this division might in like manner amount to 10, thus representing 10 x 10 = 100, when it would be necessary to take out the 10, and instead of them to put one stone into the third partition, and so on. On this principle the stones in the abacus, as delineated in the figure, would be equivalent to 359,310.

(graphic)

5. A board adapted for playing with dice or counters, resembling a draught-board or bakc-gammon-board. (Caryst. ap. Atl x. p. 435, d ; Suet Ner. 22 ; Macrob. Sat. i. 5.) The Greeks had a tradition ascribing this contrivance to Palamedes, hence they called it "the abacus of Palamedea" (Tό Παλαμήδειον αβάκιον, Eustath. in Od. i 107.) (latruncull)

6. A table or sideboard, chiefly used for the display (exponere) of gold and silver cups. The tops of such tables were sometimes made of silver, but more usually of marble, and appear in some cases to have had numerous cells or partitions beneath, in which the plate was likewise placed. The use of abaci was first introduced at Rome from Asia Minor after the victories of Cn. Manlius Vulso, B. C. 187, and their introduction was regarded as one of the marks of the growing luxury of the age. (Cic Verr. iv. 16, Tusc. v. 21 ; Li v. xxxix. 6 ; Plin. H.N. xxxvii. 6 ; Petron. 73 ; Sid. Apoll. xvii. 7, 8.) These abaci are sometimes called mensae Delphicae. (Cic. Verr. iv. 59 ; Mart xii. 67 ; Becker, Callus, vol i. p. 140.)

7. A part of the theatre on or near the stage.

8. The diminutive ABACULUS (άβακίσκος) denoted a tile of marble, glass, or any other substance used for making ornamental pavements. They were of various colours. (Plin. H.N. xxxvi. 67 ; Moschion, ap. Ath. v. 207, d.) (J. Y.J)

ABACTUS VENTER: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (abortioi)

ABALIENA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (mancipium.)

ABDICA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (magistrates.)

ABOLLA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). the Latin form of άμβόλλα, i. e. άναβολή, a loose woollen cloak. Nonius quotes a passage of Varro to show that it was a garment worn by soldiers {vestis militaris and thus opposed to the toga. Its form and the mode of wearing it are seen in the figures annexed, taken from the bas-reliefs on the triumphal arch of Septimius Severus at Rome.

(graphic)

It was, however, not confined to military occasions, but was also worn in the city. (Suet CaL 35.) It was especially used by the Stoic philosophers at Rome as the pallium philosophicum, just as the Greek philosophers were accustomed to distinguish themselves by a particular dress. (Juv. iv. 75; Mart iv. 53, viii. 48.) Hence the expression of Juvenal (iv. 75) facinus majoris abollae merely signifies, "a crime committed by a very deep philosopher." (Heinrich, ad «Juv. l.c.; Becker, Gallus, vol. ii. p. 99.).

ABO'RTIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). This word and the cognate word abortivus, abortus, were applied to a child prematurely born, whence it appears that they were also applied to signify a premature birth brought about designedly. The phrase abactus venter in Paulus {Sent. Recep. iv. 9) simply means a premature birth. That abortion in the secondary sense of the word was practised among the Romans, appears from various passages and from there being an enactment against it (Dig. 48. tit 19. s. 38.) It is not stated at what time a penalty against procuring abortion was established. It is maintained by some modern writers that the practice of abortion became so common among the Romans, that combined with celibacy and other causes it materially diminished the population of Rome. But this general assertion is not sufficiently proved. The practice of abortion appears not to have been viewed in the same light by the Greeks and Romans as by the Christian nations of modern times. Aristotle in his Politik (vii. 14), recommends it on the condition that the child has not yet got sensation and life, as he expresses it In Plato's Republic (v. p. 25), it is also permitted. At Athens, a person who had caused the abortion of a child by means of a potion (άμβλωθρίδιον, was liable to an action (άμβλώσεως γραφή), but we do not know what was the penalty in case of conviction: it was certainly not death. There was a speech of Lysias on this subject, which is lost {Frag. p. 8. ed. Reiske.) (G. L.)

ABROGA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (lex.) .

ABSOLU'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (judex.)

ABSTINENDI BENEFIDUM: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). herbs.)

ABU'SUS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (Fructus.)

ACAENA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). ('Аκαίνή, ˇακαινα, or in later Greek (ˇακενα one place (α˘καινον) is a very ancient Greek word, for it is said to have been derived from the Thessalians or from the Pelasgians. It seems originally to have meant a pointed stick : thus it was applied both to a goad and to a shepherd's staff. Afterwards it came (like our pole and perch, and the German stange) to mean a measuring rod of the length of ten Greek feet, or, according to Hesychius, 9 πήχεις i which is the same thing. It was used in measuring land, and thus it resembles the Roman decempeda. It is doubtful whether there was a corresponding square measure. (Schol. tn Apoll. Rhod. iii. 1326 ; Suid. s.v.; Hesych. s.v, Schow, Hesych, Restit. p. 648 ; Olympiodor. ad Aristot Meteorolog. p. 25 ; Heron, ap. Salinas, ad. Solin. p. 481 ; Wurm, de Pond. p. 93.) Compare ACNA. (P. S.)

ACA'TIUM: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (navis.)

ACCENSI: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). 1. Public officers who attended on several of the Roman magistrates. They summoned the people to the assemblies, and those who had lawsuits to court; they preserved order in the assemblies and the courts, and proclaimed the time of the day when it was the third hour, the sixth hour, and the ninth hour. An accensuB anciently preceded the consul who had not the fasces, and lictors without fasces walked behind him, which custom after being disused was restored by Julius Caesar in his first consulship. (Varr. L. L. vii. 58, ed. Muller ; Plin. H. N. vii. 60; Suet Jul. 20 ; Liv. iii. 33.) Accensi also attended on the governors of provinces (Cic. ad Fratr. i. 1. § 4), and were commonly freedinen of the magistrate on whom they attended.

2. A body of reserve troops, who followed the Roman army without having any military duties to perform, and who were taken one by one to supply any vacancies that might occur in the legions. They were according to the census of Scrvius Tullius taken from the fifth class of citizens. They were placed in battle in the rear of the army, behind the triarii, and seem to have acted sometimes as orderlies to the officers. They were also called Adscripticii and in later times Supernumerarii. (Fest *. v. Accensi, Adscripticii; Liv.i. 43, viii. 8, 10 ; Veget ii. 19 ; Niebuhr, Rom. Hist. vol. i. p. 449, &c.)

ACCEPTILA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). is defined to be a release by mutual interrogation between debtor and creditor, by which each party is exonerated from the same contract. In other words acceptilatio is the form ef words by which a creditor releases his debtor from a debt or obligation, and acknowledges he has referred that which in fact he has not received (veluti imaginaria solutio). This release of debt by accept Qatio applies only to such debts as hare been contracted by stipnlatia, conformably to a rule of Roman law, that only contracts made by words can be put an end to by words. Bat the astuteness of the Roman lawyers found a mode of complying with the rale, and at the same time extending the rod to any number of contracts. This was the invention of Galius Aquilius, who devised a formula for reducing all and every kind of contract* to the stipulatio. This being done, the acceptilatio would immediately apply, inasmuch as the matter was by such formula brought within the general rule of law above mcnThe acceptilatio must be absolute and not A part of a debt or obligation might be released as well as the whole, provided the thing was in its nature capable of division. A papillu could not release a debt by acceptilatio, without the auctoritas of his tutor, but he could be released from a debt. A woman also could not release a debt by stipolatio without the auctoritaa of a tutor. The phrase by which a creditor is said to release his debtor by acceptilatio is, debitori acerptum, or accepto facere, or ferre, or aceptum kabere. When anything which teas done on the behalf of or for the state, such as a building for instance, was approved by the competent authorities, it was said, as acceptum ferric or referri. (Dig. 46. tit. 4; 48. tit. 11. a. 7; Gains, ii. 84, dec. Hi. 169, &c.) (O. L.)

ACCE'SSIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). is a legal term which signifies that two things are united in such wise that one is considered to become a component port of the other ; one thing is considered the principal, and the other is considered to be an accession or addition to it Sometimes it may be doubtful which is to be considered the principal thing and which the accession. Bat the owner of the principal thing, whichever it r of the accession also. The kind of accessio is that which > from the onion of a thing with the ground ; and when the union between the ground and the thing is complete, the thing belongs to him who is the owner of the ground. Thus if a man builds on the ground of another man, the building belongs to the owner of the ground, unless it is a building of a moveable nature, as a tent; for the rule of law is " superficies solo cedit" A tree belonging to one man, if planted in the ground of another man, to the owner of the ground as soon as it taken root. The same rule applies to seeds and plants.

I one man wrote on the papyrus (chartulae) or parchment (membranae) of another, the material was considered the principal, and of course the writing belonged to the owner of the paper or parchment. If a man painted a picture on another man's wood (tabula) or whatever the materials might be, the painting was considered to be the principal (tabula picturae cedit). The principle which determined the acquisition of a new property by accessio was this—the intimate and inseparable onion of the accessory with the principal. Accordingly, there might be accessio by pure accident without the intervention of any rational agent. If a piece of land was torn away by a stream from one man's land and attached to the land nf another, it 1 the property of the man to whose land it was attached after it was firmly attached to it, but not before. This must not be confounded with the case of ALLUVIO.

The person who lost his property by accessio had as a general rule a right to be indemnified for his loss by the person who acquired the new property. The exceptions were coses of mala fides.

The term accessio is also applied to things whwh are the products of other things, and not added to them externally as in the case just mentioned. Every accessio of this kind belongs to the owrwr of the principal thing: the produce of a beast, the produce of a field, and of a tree belongs to the owner. In some cases one man may have a rigln to the produce (frurtus) of a thing, though the thing belongs to another. (USUS FRUCTUS)

The term sccessiones was alio applied to those who were sureties or bound for others, as fidejussores. (Dig. 45. tit 1. a 91.; Puchta, Cursus der Intitusionen, ii. p. 661 ; Dig. 41. tit 1 ; Gains, it 73, &c CONFUSIO) (G. L.)

ACCLAMA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). was the public expression of approbation or disapprobation, pleasure or displeasure, Ac by loud acclamations On many occasions, there appear to have been certain forms of acclamations always used by the Romans ; as. for instance, at marriages, Io Hymen, Hymenace, or Talassio (explained by Liv. L 9.) ; at triumphs, Io triumphe, Io triumphe ; at the conclusion of plays the last actor called out Plaudite to the spectators ; orators were usually praised by such expressions as Bene et praecare, Belle et festive, Non potest melius, etc. (Cic De (hut. iii. 26.) Under the empire the name of acclamationes was given to the praises and flatteries which the senate bestowed upon the emperor and his family. These acclamationes, which are frequently quoted by the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, were often of considerable length, and seem to have been chanted by the whole body of senators. There were regular acclamationes shouted by the people, of which one of the most common was Dii te servent. (Capitol. Maxim, duo, 16, 26, Gordian. tres, 11 ; Lamprid. Alex Sever. 6—12 ; Vopisc Tac. 4, 5, 7, Prob. 11.) Other instances of acclamationes are given by Ferrarius, De Veterum Acclamationibus et Plausu, in Graevius Thesaur. Rom, Antiq. vol. vi.

ACCUBA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). the act of reclining at meals. (coena.)

ACCU'BITA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). the name of conches which were used in the time of the Roman emperors, instead of the triclinium, for reclining upon at meals. The mattresses and feather-beds were softer and higher, and the supports (fulcra) of them lower in proportion, than in the triclinium. The clothes and pillows spread over them were called accubitalia. (Lamprid. Heliog. 19, 25 ; Schol ad Jut. Sat. v. 17. ) (J.Y.)

ACCUSA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (judex.)

ACERRA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (λιβανωτρίς), the incense box used in sacrifices. (Hor. Cam. iii. 8. 2 ; Virg. Aex. v. 745.) The incense was taken out of the acerra and let fall opon the burning altar: hence, we have the expression de acerra libare. (Ov. ex Pont. iv. 8. 39 ; Pers. ii. 5.) (turibulum.) The acerra represented below is taken from a bas-relief in the museum of the Capitol.

The acerra was also, according to Festus (s. va small altar, placed before the dead, on which perfumes were burnt There was a law in the Twelve Tables, which restricted the use of acerrae at funerals. (Cic. de Leg. ii. 24.) (J. Y.)

(graphic)

ACETA'BULUM: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (όξίς, όξύβαφον, όξνβάφιον), a vinegar-cup, which, from the fondness of the Greeks and Romans for vinegar, was probably always placed on the table at meals to dip the food in before eating it. The vessel was wide and open above, as we see in the annexed cut, taken from Panof ka's work on Greek vases ; and the name was also given to all cups resembling it in size and form, to whatever use they might be applied. They were commonly of earthenware, but sometimes of silver, bronze, or gold. (Aristoph. Av. 361 ; Athen. vi. p. 230, xi. p. 494 ; Quintil. viii. 6.) The cups used by jugglers in their performances were also called by this name. (Sen. Ep. 45.)

(graphic)

ACETA'BULUM: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). a Roman measure of capacity, fluid and dry, equivalent to the Greek (όξύβαφον). It was one-fourth of the hemina; and therefore one-eighth of the sextarius. It contained the weight in water of fifteen Attic drachmae. (Plin. H.N.xxi. 34. s. 109.) (P.S.)

ACHAICUM FOEDUS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). the Achaean league. In treating of the Achaean league we must distinguish between two periods, the earlier and the later; the character of the former was pre-eminently religious, and that of the latter pre-eminently political

1. The earlier period..— When the Heracleidae took possession of Peloponnesus, which had until then been chiefly inhabited by Achaeans, a portion of the latter, under Tisamenus, turned northwards and occupied the north coast of Peloponnesus, which was called αίγιαλός, and from which the Ionians, its former inhabitants, were expelled and sought refuge in Attica. The country which was thus occupied by the Achaeans and derived from them its name of Achaia, contained twelve confederate towns, which were governed by the descendants of Tisamenus, till at length they abolished the kingly rule after the death of Ogyges, and established a democracy. In the time of Herodotus (i. 145 ; corap. Strab. viii. p. 383, &c.) the twelve towns of which the league consisted were: Pellene, Aegeira, Aegae, Bura, Helice, Aegium, Rhypes (Rhypae), Patreis (ae), Phareis (ae), Olenus, Dyme, and Tritaeeis (Tritaea). After the time of Herodotus, Rhypes and Aegae disappear from the number of the confederated towns, as they had become deserted (Paus. vii. 23. 25; Strab. viii. p. 387), and Ceryneia and Leontium stepped into their place. (Polyb. ii. 41 ; com p. Paus. vii. 6.) The common place of meeting was Helice, which town, together with Bura, was swallowed up by the sea during an earthquake in B.C. 373, whereupon Aegium was chosen as the place of meeting for the confederates. (Strab. viii. p. 384; Diod. xv. 48; Paus. vii. 24.) The bond which united the towns of the league was not so much a political as a religious one, as is shown by the common sacrifice offered at Helice to Poseidon. This solemn sacrifice was perfectly analogous to that offered by the Ionians at the Panionia, and it is even intimated by Herodotus that it was an imitation of the Ionian solemnity. After the destruction of Helice, and when Aegium had become the central point of the league, the common sacrifice was offered up to the principal divinities of the latter town ; that is, to Zeus, surnamed Homagyrius, and to Demeter Panachaea. (Paus. vii. 24.) In a political point of view the connection between the several towns appears to have been very loose, for we find that some of them acted quite independently of the rest. (Thuc ii. 9.) The confederation exercised no great influence in the affairs of Greece down to the time when it was broken up by the Macedonians. The Achaeans kept aloof from the restless commotions in the other parts of Greece, and their honesty and sincerity were recognised by the circumstance of their being appointed, after the battle of Leuctra, to arbitrate between the Thebans and Lacedaemonians. (Polyb. ii. 39.) Demetrius, Cassander and Antigonus Gonatas placed garrisons in some of their towns, and in others tyrants rose supported by Macedonian influence. The towns were thus torn from one another, and the whole confederacy destroyed.

2. The later period. — When Antigonus in B. C. 281 made the unsuccessful attempt to deprive Ptolemaeus Ceraunus of the Macedonian throne, the Achaeans availed themselves of the opportunity of shaking off the Macedonian yoke, and renewing their ancient confederation. The grand object however now was no longer a common worship, but a real political union among the confederates. The towns which first shook off the yoke of the oppressors, were Dyme and Patrae, and the alliance concluded between them was speedily joined by the towns of Tritaea and Pharae. (Polyb. ii. 41.) One town after another now expelled the Macedonian garrisons and tyrants ; and when, in B. C. 277, Aegium, the head of the earlier league, followed the example of the other towns, the foundation of the new confederacy was laid, and the main principles of its constitution were settled, though afterwards many changes and modifications were introduced. The fundamental laws were, that henceforth the confederacy should form one inseparable state, that each town, which should join it, should have equal rights with the others, and that all members, in regard to foreign countries, should be regarded as dependent, and bound to obey in every respect the federal government, and those officers who were entrusted with the executive, (Polyb. ii. 37, &c) No town therefore was allowed to treat with any foreign power without the sanction of the others. Aegiurn, for religious reasons, was at first appointed the central point of the league, and retained this distinction until the time of Philopoemen, who carried a decree that the meetings might be held in any of the towns of the confederacy. (Liv. xxxviii. 30.) Aegium therefore was the seat of the government, and it was there that the citizens of the various towns met at regular and stated times, to deliberate upon the common affairs of the league, and if it was thought necessary, upon those of separate towns, and even upon individuals, and to elect the officers of the league. After having thus established a firm union among themselves, they zealously exerted themselves in delivering other towns also from their tyrants and oppressors. The league, however, acquired its great strength in B.C. 251, when Aratus united Sicyon, his native place, with it, and some years later gained Corinth also for it. Megara, Troezene, and Epidaurus soon followed their example. Afterwards Aratus persuaded all the more important towns of Peloponnesus to join the confederacy, and thus Megalopolis, Argos, Hermione, Phlius, and others were added to it. In a short period the league reached the height of its power, for it embraced Athens, Megara, Aegina, Salamis, and the whole of Peloponnesus, with the exception of Sparta, Elis, Tegea, Orchomenos, and Mantineia. Greece seemed to revive, and promised to become stronger and more united than ever, but it soon was clear that its fresh power was only employed in self-destruction and annihilation. But it would be foreign to the object of this work to enter further into the history of the confederacy: we must confine ourselves to an outline of its constitution, as it existed at the time of its highest prosperity.

Polybius (ii- 38) remarks that there was no other constitution in the world, in which all the members of the community had such a perfect equality of rights, and so much liberty, and, in short, which was so perfectly democratical and so free from all selfish and exclusive regulations, as the Achaean league; for all members had equal rights, whether they had belonged to it for many years, or whether they had only just joined it, and whether they were large or small towns. The common affairs of the confederate towns were regulated at general meetings attended by the citizens of all the towns, and held regularly twice every year, in the spring and in the autumn. These meetings which lasted three days, were held in a grove of Zeus Homagyrius in the neighbourhood of Aegium,and near a sanctuary of Demeter Panachaea. (Polyb. ii. 54, iv. 37, v. 1, xxix. 9; Liv. xxxii. 22, xxrviii. 32 ; Strab. viii. p. 385 ; Pans. vii. 24.). In cases of urgent necessity, however, extraordinary meetings might be convened, either at Aegium or in any other of the confederate places. (Liv. xxxi. 25 ; "Polyb. xxv. 1, xxix. 8 ; Plut Aral. 41.) Every citizen, both rich and poor, who had attained the age of thirty, might attend the assemblies, speak and propose any measure, to which they were invited by a public herald. (Polyb. xxix. 9 ; Liv. xxxii. 20.) Under these circumstances the assemblies were sometimes of the most tumultuous kind, and a wise and experienced man might find it difficult to gain a hearing among the crowds of ignorant and foolish people. (Polyb., xxxviii. 4.). It is, however, natural to suppose that the ordinary meetings, unless matters of special importance were to be discussed, were attended chiefly by the wealthier classes, who had the means of paying the expenses of their journey, for great numbers lived at a considerable distance from the place of meeting.

The subjects which were to be brought before the assembly were prepared by a council (βονλή), which seems to have been permanent. (Polyb. xxiii 7, xxviii 3, xxix. 9; Plut. Arat 53.) The principal subjects on which the great assembly had to decide were — peace and war (Polyb. iv. 15, &c.) ; the reception of new towns into the confederacy (Polyb. xxv. 1) ; the election of the magistrates of the confederacy (Polyb. iv. 37. 82 ; Plut Arat. 41) ; the punishment of crimes committed by these magistrate, though sometimes special judges were appointed for that purpose, as well as the honours or distinctions to be conferred upon them. (Polyb. iv. 14, viii. 14, xi 5. 8 ; Paus. vii. 9.) The ambassadors of foreign nations had to appear before the assembly, and to deliver the messages of their states, which were then discussed by the assembled Achaeana. (Polyb. iv. 7, xxiii. 7, &c, xxviii 7; Liv. xxxii. 9.) The assembly likewise had it in its power to decree, as to whether negotiations were to be carried on with any foreign power or not, and no single town was allowed to send embassies to a foreign power on its own responsibility even on matters of merely local importance, although otherwise every separate town managed its own internal affairs at its own discretion, so long as it did not interfere with the interests of the league. No town further was allowed to accept presents from a foreign power. (Polyb. xxiii. 8 ; Paus. vii. 9.) The votes in the assembly were given according to towns, each having one vote, whether the town was large or small. (Liv. xxxii 22, &c.)

The principal officers of the confederacy were: 1. at first two strategi (στρατηγοί), but after the year B. C. 255, there was only one (Strab. viii. p. 385), who in conjunction with an hipparchus (ίππαρχος) or commander of the cavalry (Polyb. v. 95, xxviii. 6) and an under-strategus (ύποστρα-τηγός, Polyb. iv. 59) commanded the army furnished by the confederacy, and was entrusted with the whole conduct of war ; 2. a public secretary (γραμματεύς) and 3. ten demiurgi (δημιονργαί, Strab. l. c.; Liv. xxxii. 22, xxxviii 30 ; Polyb. v. 1, xxiii. 10, who calls the demiurgi (δρχοντες). These officers seem to have presided in the great assembly, where they probably formed the body of men which Polybius (xxxviii 5) calls the (γερονσία), the demiurgi or the strategus might convene the assembly, though the latter only when the people were convened in arms and for military purposes. (Polyb. iv. 7 ; Liv. xxxv. 25.) All the officers of the league were elected in the assembly held in the spring, at the rising of the Pleiades (Polyb. il 43, iv. 6. 37, v. 1), and legally they were invested with their several offices only for one year, though it frequently happened that men of great merit and distinction were re-elected for several successive years. (Plut. Aral. 24. 30, Cleom. 15.). If one of the officers died during the period of his office, his place was filled by his predecessor, until the time for the new elections arrived. (Polyb. xl. 2.) The close union existing among the confederate towns was, according to Polybius (ii. 37), strengthened by their adopting common weights, measures, and coins.

But the perpetual discord of the members of the league, the hostility of Sparta, the intrigues of the Romans, and the folly and rashness of the later strategi, brought about not only the destruction and dissolution of the confederacy, but of the freedom of all Greece, which with the fall of Corinth, in B. C. 146, became a Roman province under the name of Achaia. (Comp. Schorn, Gesch. Griechenlands von der Entstehung des Aetol. u. Achaisch. Bundes, especially pp. 49, &c 60, &c.; A. Matthiae, Vermischte Schriften, p. 239, &c.; Drumann, Ideen zur Gesch. des Verfalls der Griech, Staaten, p. 447 ; Tittmann, Grieck. Staatsverfass. p. 673, &c ; K. F. Hermann, Grieck. Staatsalterth. § 185.) (L. S.)

ACHANE: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (΄Аχάνη), a Persian and Boeotian measure, equivalent to 45 Attic medimni. (Aristot. ap. Schol. ad Aristoph. Acharn. 108,109; Suid. s.v.) According to Hesychius a Boeotian άχάνη was equal to one Attic medimnus. (P. S.)

A'CIES: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (exercitus.)

ACI'NACES: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άκινάκης), a Persian sword, whence Horace {Carm. i. 27. 5) speaks of the Medus acinaces. It was a short and straight weapon, and thus differed from the Roman sica, which was curved. (Pollux, i. 138 ; Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 7. § 10. (sica.) It was worn on the right side of the body (insignis acinaee dextro, Val. Flacc, Argon, vi. 701), whereas the Greeks and Romans usually had their swords suspended on the left side.

The form of the acinaces, with the method of using it, is illustrated by the following Persepolitan figures. In all the bas-reliefs found at Persepolis, the acinaces is invariably straight, and is commonly suspended over the right thigh, never over the left, but sometimes in front of the body. The form of the acinaces is also seen in the statues of the god Mithras, one of which is figured in the cut ou the title-page of this work.

(graphic)(merged small)

A golden acinaces was frequently worn by the Persian nobility and it was often given to individuals by the kings of Persia as a mark of honour. (Herod. viii 120; Xen. Anab. i. 2.§ 27, 8. § 29).

The acinaces was also used by the Caspii. (Herod. vii. 67.) It was an object of religious worship among the Scythians and many of the northern nations of Europe. (Herod. iv. 62; Comp. Mela, ii. l.; Amm. Marc. xxxi 2 .) (J.Y.)

ACI'SCULUS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (ascia.)

ACLIS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (hasta.)

ACNA or ACNUA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (also spelt agna and agnua) was, according to Varro, the Italian name, and according to Columella, the common Baetican name of the actus quadratus. (actus.) An old writer, quoted by Salmasius, says " agnua habet pedes XIIIL CCCC," i.e. 14,400 square feet. The name is almost certainly connected with the Greek άκαινα, though the measure is different (Varro, R.R. i. 10. § 2 ; Colum. R. R. v. 2. § 5 ; Schneider, Comment, ad ll. cc.', Salmasius, ad Solin. p. 481.) (P. S.)

ACO'NTION: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άκόντιον)(hasta.)

ACRATISMA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άκράτισμα). (coena.)

ACROA'MA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άκρόαμα) any thing heard, and especially any thing heard with pleasure, signified a play or musical piece; hence a concert of players on different musical instruments, and also an interlude, called embolia by Cicero (pro Sext. 54), which was performed during the exhibition of the public games. The word is also applied to the actors and musicians who were employed to amuse guests during an entertainment (Cic Verr. iv. 22 ; pro Arch. 9; Suet. Octav. 74 ; Macrob. Sat. ii. 4) ; and it is sometimes used to designate the anagnostae.(anagnostae.)

ACROLITHI: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άκρόλιθοι), statues, of which the extremities (face, feet, and hands, or toes and fingers) only were of marble, and the remaining part of the body of wood either gilt, or, what seems to have been more usual, covered with drapery. The word occurs only in the Greek Anthology (Brunck, Anal. vol. iii. p. 155, No. 20; Anth. Pal. xii. 40), and in Vitruvius (ii. 8. § 11) ; but statues of the kind are frequently mentioned by Pausanias (ii. 4. § 1, vi. 25. § 4, vii. 21. §§ 4 or 10, vii. 23. § 5, viii. 25. § 4 or 6, viii. 31. § 1 or 2, and § 3 or 6, ix. 4. § 1.) It is a mistake to suppose that all the statues of this kind belonged to an earlier period. They continued to be made at least down to the time of Praxiteles. (Comp. Jacobs, Comment, in Anth. Graec., vol. iii. Pt. 1. p. 298 ; and Winckelmann, Geschichte der Kunst, B. i. c. 2. §13.) (P.S.)

ACRO'POLIS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άκρόπολις). In almost all Greek cities, which were usually built upon a hill, rock, or some natural elevation, there was a kind of tower, a castle, or a citadel, built upon the highest part of the rock or hill, to which the name of acropolis was given. Thus we read of an acropolis at Athens, Corinth, Argos, Messene, and many other places. The Capitolium at Rome answered the same purpose as the Acropolis in the Greek cities ; and of the same kind were the tower of Agathocles at Utica (App. Pun. 14), and that of Antonia at Jerusalem. (Joseph. B. J. v. § 8, Act. Apostol. xxi. 34.) At Athens, the Acropolis served as the treasury, and as the names of all public debtors were registered there, the expression of "registered upon the Acropolis" (έγγεγραμ-μένος έν ̀Ακροπόλει) always means a public debtor (έν άκροπόλει γεγραμμένοι, Dem. c Theocr. p. 1337. 24 ; Bockh. Publ. Econ., of Athens, p. 388, 2nd edit).

ACROSTO'LIUM: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άκροστόλιον). (navis.)

ACROTE'RIUM: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άκρωτήριον)signifies an extremity of any thing. It is generally used in the plural.

1. In Architecture it seems to have been used originally in the same sense as the Latin fastigium. namely, for the sloping roof of a building, and more particularly for the ornamental front or gable of f such a roof, that is, the pediment. (Plut Caes. 63, compared with Cic. Philiipp. ii. 43, and Suet. Caes. 81.) The usual meaning of acroteria, however, is the pedestals placed on the summit of a pediment to receive statues or other ornamental figures. There were three acroteria, one above each angle of the pediment. Vitruvius says that those over the outer angles (acrot. angularia) should be as high as the apex of the tympanum, and the one over the highest angle one-eighth part higher. (Vitruv. iii. 3, or iii. 5. § 12, ed. Schneider.) Some writers include the statues themselves as well as the bases under the name ; but the only authority for this seems to be an error of Salmasius. (In Ael. Spart. Pescea. Nig. 12.) 2. The extremities of the prow of a vessel, which were usually taken from a conquered vessel as a mark of victory : the act of doing so was called (άκρωτηριάςειν) (Xen. Hell., ii. 3. § 8, vi 2 § 36; Herod, iii 59, viii. 121.) 3. The extremities of a statue, wings, feet, hands, &c (Dem. c. Teocr., p. 738 ; Athen. v. p. 199, c) (P. S.)

ACTA. : (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). 1. Signified the public acts and orders of a Roman magistrate, which after the expiration of his office were submitted to the senate for approval or rejection. (Suet. Caes. 19, 23 ; Cic Pid. i. 7, &c.) After the death of Julius Caesar the triumvirs swore, and compelled all the other magistrates to swear, to observe and maintain all his acta (in acta jurare, comp. Tac. Ann. i. 72; Suet. Tib. 87); and hence it became the custom on the accession of each emperor for the new monarch to swear to observe and respect all the acta of his predecessors from Julius Caesar downwards, with the exception of those who had been branded with infamy after death, such as Nero and Domitian. Every year all the magistrates upon entering upon their office on the 1st of January swore approval of the acts of the reigning emperor: this oath was originally taken by one magistrate in each department on behalf of his colleagues, bat subsequently it was the usual practice for each magistrate to take the oath personally. (Dion Cass, xlvii. 18, liii. 28; Tac. Ann. xvi 22, with the Excursus of Lipsius ; Dion. Cass, lviii. 17, lx. 25.)

2. Acta Forensia were of two kinds: first, those relating to the government, as leges, plebiscite edicta, the names of all the magistrates, &c., which formed part of the tabulae publicae; and secondly, those connected with the courts of law. The acta of the latter kind contained an account of the different suits, with the arguments of the advocates and the decisions of the court. In the time of the republic the names of those who were acquitted and condemned were entered on the records of the court (in tabula absolutum non rettulit, Cic. ad Fam. viii 8. §. 3), and it appears from the quotations of Asconius from these Acta, that they must have contained abstracts of the speeches of the advocates as early as the time of Cicero. (In Scaurian. p. 19, in Miloniam. pp. 32, 44, 47, ed. Orelli.) Under the empire the proceedings of the higher courts seem to have been always preserved, and they are frequently referred to in the Digest. They are sometimes called Gesta ; and they commenced with the names of the consuls for the year, and the day of the month. (Amm. Marc. xxii 3 ; August Acta c. Fortun. Munich, Retract. i. 16; Cod. Theod. 2. tit. 29. s. 3.) Specimens of these Acta are given by Brissonius. (De Formulis, v. § 113.) They were taken by clerks (ab actis fori), whose titles and duties occur in Lydus (de Magistr. ii. 20, &c) and the Notitia Dignitatum.

3. Acta Militaria, contained an account of the duties, numbers, and expences of each legion (Veget ii. 19), and were probably preserved in the military treasury founded bv Augustus (Suet. Aug. 49; Tac. Ann. i. 78; Dion Cass. Iv. 25.) The soldiers, who drew up these acta, are frequently mentioned in inscriptions and ancient writers under various titles, as, Iibrarius legionis ; actuarius or actarius legionis; tabularius castrensis, &c

4. Acta Senatus, called also Commentarii Senatus (Tac Ann. xv. 74) and Acta Patrum (Ann. v. 4), contained an account of the various matters brought before the senate, the opinions of the chief speakers, and the decision of the house. It has been usually inferred from a passage of Suetonius ("Inito honore primus omnium instituit, ut tam senatus quam populi diuma acta conficerentur et publicarentur," Cam. 20), that the proceedings of the senate were not published till the first consulship of Julius Caesar, B. C. 59; but this was not strictly the case ; for not only had the decrees of the senate been written down and published long previously, but the debates on tho Catilinarian conspiracy had been widely circulated by Cicero (p. Sull 14, 15.) All that Suetonius means to say is, that the proceedings of the senate, which had been only occasionally published before and by private individuals, were for the first time, by the command of Caesar, published regularly every day (senatus acta diurna) under the authority of government as part of the daily gazette. Augustus forbade the publication of the proceedings of the senate, but they still continued to be preserved, and one of the most distinguished senators, who received the title ab actis senatus, was chosen by the emperor to compile the account (Tac Ann. v. 4 ; Spart Hadr. 3; Orelli, Inser. No. 2274, 3186.) The persons entrusted with this office must not be confounded with the various clerks (actuarii, servi publici, scribae, censuales), who were present in the senate to take notes of its proceedings, and who were only excluded when the senate passed a senatusconsultum taciturn, that is, when they deliberated on a subject of the greatest importance, respecting which secresy was necessary or advisable. (Capit. Gord. 12.) It was doubtless from notes and papers of these clerks that the Acta were compiled by the senator, who was entrusted with this office. The Acta were deposited in some of the record offices in particular departments of the public libraries, to which access could only be obtained by the express permission of the praefectus urbi. They were consulted and are frequently referred to by the later historians (Vopisc Prob. 2 ; Lamprid, Sever. 56; Capitol. Opil. Macr. 6), and many extracts from them were published in tho Acta Diuma. Tacitus and Suetonius never refer to the Acta Senatus as authorities, but only to the Acta Diuma.

6. Acta Diurna, a gazette published daily at Rome by the authority of the government during the later times of the republic, and under the empire, corresponding in some measure to our newspapers. (Tac Ann. iii. 3, xiii. 31, xvi. 22.) In addition to the title Acta Diurna, we find them referred to under the names of Diurna, Acta Publica, Acta Urbana, Acta Rerum Urbanarum, Acta Populi, and they are frequently called simply Acta. The Greek writers on Roman history call them τά ύπομνήματα, τά δημόσια ύπομνήματα, τά δημόσια γράμματα and τά κοινά ύπομνήματα. The nature of their contents will be best seen from the following passage of Petronius (c. 53) where in imitation of them is given by the actuarius of Trimalchio: — " Actuarius — tamquam acta urbis recitavit: vii. Kal. Sextilis in praedio Cumano, quod est Trimalchionis, nati sunt pueri xxx., puellae XL.; sublata in horreum ex area tritici millia niodium quingenta; boves domiti quingenti. Eodem die Mithridates servus in crucem actus est, quia Gaii nostri genio maledixerat. Eodem die in arcam relatum est, quod collocari non potuit, sestertium centies. Eodem die incendium factum est in hortis Pompeianis, ortum ex aedibus Nastae villici. Jam etiam edicta aedilium recitabantur, et saltuariorum testamenta, quibus Trimalchio cum elogio exhaeredabatur ; jam nomina villicorum et repudiata a circumitore liberta in balneatoris contubernio deprehensa ; atriensis Baias relegatus ; jam reus factus dispensator; et judicium inter cubicularios actum." From this passage, and from the numerous passages in ancient writers, in which the Acta Diurna are quoted (references to which are given in the works of LeClercand Liberkuhn cited below), it would appear that they usually contained the following matters: — 1. The number of births and deaths in the city, an account of the money paid into the treasury from the provinces, and every thing relating to the supply of corn. These particulars would be extracted from the tabulae publicae. By an ancient regulation, ascribed to Servius Tullius (Dionys. iv. 15), all births were registered in the temple of Venus, and all deaths in that of Libitina ; and we know that this practice was continued under the empire, only that at a later time the temple of Saturn was substituted for that of Venus for the registration of births. (Jul Cap. M. Aurel. 9.) 2. Extracts from the Acta Forensia, containing the edicts of magistrates, the testaments of distinguished men, reports of trials, with the names of those who were acquitted and condemned, and likewise a list of the magistrates who were elected. 3. Extracts from the acta senatus, especially all the decrees and acclamationes (acclamatio) in honour of the reigning emperor. 4. A court circular, containing an account of the births, deaths, festivals, and movements of the imperial family. 6. An account of such public affairs and foreign wars as the government thought proper to publish. 6. Curious and interesting occurrences, such as prodigies and miracles, the erection of new edifices, the conflagration of buildings, funerals, sacrifices, a list of the various games, and especially amatory tales and adventures, with the names of the parties. (Comp. Cic ad Fam. ii. 15.) The fragments of some Acta Diurna have been published by Pighius and Dodwell, but their genuineness is too doubtful to allow us to make use of them as authorities.

It is certain that these acta were published under the authority of the government, but it is not stated under whose superintendence they were drawn up. It is probable, however, that this duty devolved upon the magistrates, who had the care of the tabulae publicae, namely, the censors under the republic (Liv. iv. 8, xliii. 16), and sometimes the quaestors, sometimes the praefecti aerarii under the empire. (Tac Am. xiii. 28.) By a regulation of Alexander Severus, seven of the fourteen curatores urbis, whom he appointed, had to be present when the acta were drawn up. (Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 33.) The actual task of compiling them was committed to subordinate officers, called actuarii or actarii, who were assisted by various clerks, and by reporters (notarii), who took down in short-hand the proceedings in the courts, &c. After the acta had been drawn up, they were exposed for a time in some public place in the city, where persons could read them and take copies of them. Many scribes, whom Cicero speaks of under the name of operarii, made it their business to copy them or make extracts from them for the use of the wealthy in Rome, and especially in the provinces, where they were eagerly sought after and extensively read. (Cic. ad Fam. viii. 1, xiii. 8; Tac. Ann. xvi. 22.) After the acta had been exposed in public for a certain time, they were deposited, like the Acta Senatus, in some of the record offices, or the public libraries.

The style of the acta, as appears from the passage in Petronius, was very simple and concise. They contained a bare enumeration of facts without any attempt at ornament

As to the time at which these acta were first composed, there is a considerable variety of opinion among modem writers. It is maintained that the passage of Suetonius (Caes. 20), quoted above, does not imply that the acta were first published in the first consulship of Julius Caesar, and that the meaning of it is, " that he first ordained that the acta diurna of the senate should be compiled and published just as (tam quam) those of the people had been." But although this interpretation is probably the correct one, still there is no passage in the ancient writers in which the Acta Diurna are decisively mentioned, previous to Caesar's first consulship ; for the diarium referred to by Sempronius Asellio (Gell v. 18), which is frequently brought forward as a proof of this early publication, is the journal of a private person. There is likewise no evidence to support an opinion adopted by many modern writers that the publication of the acta first commenced in B. C. 133 to supply the place of the Annales Maximi, which were discontinued in that year (Cic. de Orat. ii. 12), while on the contrary the great difference of their contents renders it improbable that such was the case. The Acta Diurna continued in use to the downfall of the western empire, or at least till the removal of the seat of government to Constantinople, but they were never published at the latter city.

(Lipsius, Excursus ad Tac. Ann. v. 4 ; Ernesti, Excursus ad Suet. J. Caes. 20 ; Schlosser, Ueber die Quellen der spatern latein. Geschichtschreiber, besonders uber Zeitungen, &c. in the Archiv fur Geschichte, pp. 80—106 ; Prutze, De Fontibus, quos in conscribendis rebus inde a Tiberio usque ad mortem Neronis gestis auctores veteres secuti videantur, Halle, 1840 ; Zell, Ueber die Zeitungen der alten, Friburg, 1834 ; but the two best works on the subject are, Le Clere, Des Journaux chez les Romains, Paris, 1838, and Lieberkuhn, De Diurnis Romanorum Actis, Weimar. 1840.)

A'CTIA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (̀˝Ακτια), a festival of Apollo, celebrated at Nicopolis in Epeirus, with wrestling, musical contests, horse-racing, and sea-fightings. It was established by Augustus, in commemoration of his victory over Antony off Actium, and was probably the revival of an ancient festival; for p. 9 there was a celebrated temple of Apollo at Actium, which is mentioned by Thucydides (I.29), and Strabo (VII p325), and which was enlarged by Augustus. The games instituted by Augustus were celebrated every four years (πενταετηρίς, ludi quinquennales); they received the title of a sacred Agon, and were also called Olympia. (Strab. l.c.; Dion Cass. LI.1; Suet. Aug. 18; Böckh, Corp. Inscr. No. 1720, p. 845; Krause, Olympia, p. 221.)

A'CTIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). is defined by Celsus (Dig. 44 tit. 7 s51) to be the right of pursuing by judicial means (judicio) what is a man's due.

With respect to its subject-matter, the actio was divided into its two great divisions, the in personam actio, and the in rem actio. The in personam actio was against a person who was bound to the plaintiff by contract or delict, that is, when the claim against such person was 'dare, facere, praestare oportere;' the in rem actio applied to those cases where a man claimed a corporal thing (corporalis res) as his property, or claimed a right, as for instance the use and enjoyment of a thing, or the right to a road over a piece of ground (actus). The in rem actio was called vindicatio; the in personam actio was called in the later law condictio, because originally the plaintiff gave the defendant notice to appear on a given day for the purpose of choosing a judex (Gaius, IV.5).

The old actions of the Roman law were called legis actiones, or legitimae, either because they were expressly provided for by laws (leges), or because they were strictly adapted to the words of the laws, and therefore could not be varied. In like manner, the old writs in England contained the matter or claim of the plaintiff expressed according to the legal rule.1

The five modes of proceeding by legal action as named and described by Gaius (IV.12), were, Sacramento, Per judicis postulationem, Per condictionem, Per manus injectionem, Per pignoris capionem.

But these forms of action gradually fell into disuse, in consequence of the excessive nicety required, and the failure consequent on the slightest error in the pleadings; of which there is a notable example given by Gaius himself (IV.11), in the case of a plaintiff who complained of his vines (vites) being cut down, and was told that his action was bad, inasmuch as he ought to have used the term trees (arbores) and not vines; because the law of the Twelve Tables, which gave him the action for damage to his vines, contained only the general expression "trees" (arbores). The Lex Aebutia and two Leges Juliae abolished the old legitimae actiones, except in the case of damnum infectum (Damnum infectum), and in matters which fell under the cognizance of the Centumviri. (Centumviri.)

In the old Roman constitution, the knowledge of the law was closely connected with the institutes and ceremonial of religion, and was accordingly in the hands of the patricians alone, whose aid their clients were obliged to ask in all their legal disputes. Appius Claudius Caecus, perhaps one of the earliest writers on law, drew up the various forms of actions, probably for his own use and that of his friends: the manuscript was stolen or copied by his scribe Cn. Flavius, who made it public; and thus, according to the story, the plebeians became acquainted with those legal forms which hitherto had been the exclusive property of the patricians (Cic. De Orat. I.41, pro Murena, c11; Dig. 1 tit. 2 s2 §7).

Upon the old legal actions being abolished, it became the practice to prosecute suits according to certain prescribed forms or formulae, as they were called, which will be explained after we have noticed various divisions of actions, as they are made by the Roman writers.

The division of actiones in the Roman law is somewhat complicated, and some of the divisions must be considered rather as emanating from the schools of the rhetoricians than from any other source. But this division, though complicated, may be somewhat simplified, or at least rendered more intelligible, if we consider that an action is a claim or demand made by one person against another, and that in order to be a valid legal claim it must be founded on a legal right. The main division of actions must therefore have a reference or analogy to the main division of rights; for in every system of law the form of the action must be the expression of the legal right. Now the general division of rights in the Roman law is into rights of dominion or ownership, which are rights against the whole world, and into rights arising from contract, and quasi contract, and delict. The actio in rem implies a complainant, who claims a certain right against every person who may dispute it, and the object and end of the action are to compel an acknowledgment of the right by the particular person who disputes it. By this action the plaintiff maintains his property in or to a thing, or his rights to a benefit from a thing (servitutes). Thus the actio in rem is not so called on account of the subject-matter of the action, but the term is a technical phrase to express an action which is in no way founded on contract, and therefore has no determinate individual as the other necessary party to the action; but every individual who disputes the right becomes, by such act of disputing, a party liable to such action. The actio in rem does not ascertain the complainant's right, and from the nature of the action the complainant's right cannot be ascertained by it, for it is a right against all the world; but the action determines that the defendant has or has not a claim which is valid against the plaintiff's claim. The actio in personam implies a determinate person or persons against whom the action lies, the right of the plaintiff being founded on the acts of the defendant or defendants: it is, therefore, in respect of something which has been agreed to be done, or in respect of some injury for which the plaintiff claims compensation. The actio mixta of Justinian's legislation (Inst. IV. tit. 6 s20) was so called from its being supposed to partake of the nature of the actio in rem and the actio in personam. Such was the action among co-heirs as to the division of the inheritance, and the action for the purpose of settling boundaries which were confused.

Rights, and the modes of enforcing them, may also be viewed with reference to the sources for which they flow. Thus, the rights of Roman citizens flowed in part from the sovereign power, in part from those to whom power was delegated. p. 10 That body of law which was founded on, and flowed from the edicts of the praetors, and curule aediles, was called jus honorarium, as opposed to the jus civile, in its narrower sense, which comprehended the leges, plebiscita, senatus consulta, &c. The jus honorarium introduced new rights and modified existing rights; it also provided remedies suitable to such new rights and modifications of old rights, and this was effected by the actions which the praetors and aediles allowed. On this jurisdiction of the praetors and aediles is founded the distinction of actions into civiles and honorariae, or, as they are sometimes called, praetoriae, from the greater importance of the praetor's jurisdiction.

There were several other divisions of actions, all of which had reference to the forms of procedure.

A division of actions was sometimes made with reference to the object which the plaintiff had in view. If the object was to obtain a thing, the action was called persecutoria. If the object was to obtain damages (poena) for an injury, as in the case of a thing stolen, the action was poenalis; for the thing itself could be claimed both by the vindicatio and the condictio. If the object was to obtain both the thing and the damages, it was probably sometimes called actio mixta, a term which had however another signification also, as already observed. The division of actiones into directae and utiles must be traced historically to the actiones fictitiae or fictions by which the rights of action were enlarged and extended. The origin of this division was in the power assumed by the praetor to grant an action in special cases where no action could legally be brought, and in which an action, if brought, would have been inanis or inutilis. After the decline of the praetor's power, the actiones utiles were still extended by the contrivances of the juris prudentes and the rescripts of the emperors. Whenever an actio utilis was granted, it was framed on some analogy to a legally recognized right of action. Thus, in the examples given by Gaius (IV.34), he who obtained the bonorum possessio by the praetor's edict, succeeded to the deceased by the praetorian and not the civil law: he had, therefore, no direct action (directa actio) in respect of the rights of the deceased, and could only bring his action on the fiction of being what he was not, namely, heres.

Actions were also divided into ordinariae and extraordinariae. The ordinariae were those which were presented in the usual way, first before the praetor, in jure, and then before the judex, in judicio. When the whole matter was settled before or by the praetor in a summary way, the name extraordinaria was applicable to such action. (Interdict.)

The term condiciones only applies to personal actions; but not to all personal actions. It does not comprehend actions ex delicto, nor bonae fidei actiones. As opposed to bonae fidei actiones, condictiones were sometimes called actiones stricti juris. In the actiones stricti juris it appears that the formula of the praetor expressed in precise and strict terms the matter submitted to the judex, whose authority was thus confined within limits. In the actiones bonae fidei, or ex fide bona (Cic. Top. 17), more latitude was given, either by the formula of the praetor, or was implied in the kind of action, such as the action ex empto, vendito, locato, &c., and the special circumstances of the case were to be taken into consideration by the judex. The actiones arbitrariae were so called from the judex in such case being called an arbiter, probably, as Festus says, because the whole matter in dispute was submitted to his judgment; and he could decide according to the justice and equity of the case, without being fettered by the praetor's formula. It should be observed also, that the judex properly could only condemn in a sum of money; but the arbiter might declare that any particular act should be done by either of the parties, which was called his arbitrium, and was followed by the condemnatio if it was not obeyed.

The division of actions into perpetuae and temporales had reference to the time within which an action might be brought, after the right of action had accrued. Originally those actions which were given by a lex, senatus consultum, or an imperial constitution, might be brought without any limitation as to time; but those which were granted by the praetor's authority were generally limited to the year of his office. A time of limitation was, however, fixed for all actions by the late imperial constitutions.

The division of actions into actiones in jus and in factum is properly no division of actions, but has merely reference to the nature of the formula. In the formula in factum concepta, the praetor might direct the judex barely to inquire as to the fact which was the only matter in issue; and on finding the fact, to make the proper condemnatio: as in the case of a freedman bringing an action against his patronus (Gaius, IV.46). In the formula in jus the fact was not in issue, but the legal consequences of the fact were submitted to the discretion of the judex. The formula in factum commenced with the technical expression, Si paret, &c., "If it should appear," &c.; the formula in jus commenced, Quod A. A., &c., "Whereas A. A. did so and so" (Gaius, IV.47).

The actions which had for their object the punishment of crimes, were considered public; as opposed to those actions by which some particular person claimed a right or compensation, and which were therefore called privatae. The former were properly called judicia publica; and the latter, as contrasted with them, were called judicia privata (Judicium.)

The actions called noxales arose when a filius familias (a son in the power of his father), or a slave, committed a theft, or did any injury to another. In either case the father or owner might give up the wrong-doer to the person injured, or else he must pay competent damages. These actions, it appears, take their name either from the injury committed, or because the wrong-doer was liable to be given up to punishment (noxae) to the person injured. Some of these actions were of legal origin, as that of theft, which was given by the Twelve Tables; that of damnum injuriae, which was given by the Aquilia Lex; and that of injuriarum et vi bonorum raptorum, which was given by the edict, and therefore was of praetorian origin. This instance will serve to show that the Roman division and classification of actions varied according as the Roman writers contemplated the sources of rights of action, or the remedies and the modes of obtaining them.

An action was commenced by the plaintiff summoning the defendant to appear before the praetor or other magistrate who had jurisdictio: this process was called in jus vocatio; and, according to p. 11 the laws of the Twelve Tables, was in effect a dragging of the defendant before the praetor if he refused to go quietly. This rude proceeding was modified in later times, and in many cases there could be no in jus vocatio at all, and in other cases it was necessary to obtain the praetor's permission under pain of a penalty. It was also established that a man could not be dragged from his own house; but if a man kept his house to avoid, as we should say, being served with a writ, he ran the risk of a kind of sequestration (actor in bona mittebatur). The object of these rules was to make the defendant appear before the competent jurisdiction; the device of entering an appearance for the defendant does not seem to have suggested itself to the Roman lawyers (Dig. 2 tit. 4). If the defendant would not go quietly, the plaintiff called on any bystander to witness (antestari) that he had been duly summoned, touched the ear of the witness, and dragged the defendant into court (Hor. Serm. I.9.75‑78; Plautus, Curcul. V.2). The parties might settle their dispute on their way to the court, or the defendant might be bailed by a vindex (Cic. Top. 2; Gaius, IV.46; Gellius, XVI.10). The vindex must not be confused with the vades. This settlement of disputes on the way was called transactio in via, and serves to explain a passage in St. Matthew (V.25).2

When before the praetor, the parties were said jure agere. The plaintiff then prayed for an action, and if the praetor allowed it (dabat actionem), he then declared what action he intended to bring against the defendant, which was called edere actionem. This might be done in writing, or orally, or by the plaintiff taking the defendant to the album, and showing him which action he intended to rely on (Dig. 2 tit. 13). As the formulae comprehended, or were supposed to comprehend, every possible form of action that could be required by a plaintiff, it was presumed that he could find among all the formulae some one which was adapted to his case, and he was accordingly supposed to be without excuse if he did not take pains to select the proper formula (Cic. Pro Ros. Com. c8). If he took the wrong one, or if he claimed more than his due, he lost his cause (causa cadebat, Cic. De Orat. I.36); but the praetor sometimes gave him leave to amend his claim or intentio (Gaius, IV.53, &c.). If, for example, the contract between the parties was for something in genere, and the plaintiff claimed something in specie, he lost his action: thus the contract might be, that the defendant undertook to sell the plaintiff a quantity of dye-stuff or a slave; if the plaintiff claimed Tyrian purple, or a particular slave, this action was bad; therefore, says Gaius, according to the terms of the contract so ought the claim of the intentio to be. As the formulae were so numerous and comprehensive, the plaintiff had only to select the formula which he supposed to be suitable to his case, and it would require no further variation than the insertion of the names of the parties and of the thing claimed, or the subject-matter of the suit, with the amount of damages, &c., as the case might be. When the praetor had granted an action, the plaintiff required the defendant to give security for his appearance before the praetor (in jure) on a day named, commonly the day but one after the in jus vocatio, unless the matter in dispute was settled at once. The defendant, on finding a surety, was said vades dare (Hor. Serm. I.1.11), vadimonium promittere, or facere; the surety, vas, was said spondere; the plaintiff when satisfied with the surety was said, vadari reum, to let him go on his sureties, or to have sureties from him. When the defendant promised to appear in jure on the day named, without giving any surety, this was called vadimonium purum. In some cases recuperatores were named, who, in the case of the defendant making default, condemned him in the sum of money named in the vadimonium.

If the defendant appeared on the day appointed, he was said vadimonium sistere; if he did not appear, he was said vadimonium deseruisse, and the praetor gave to the plaintiff the bonorum possessio (Hor. Serm. I.9.36‑41; Cic. Pro P. Quintio, c6). Both parties, on the day appointed, were summoned by a crier (praeco), when the plaintiff made his claim or demand, which was very briefly expressed, and may be considered as corresponding to our declaration at law.

The defendant might either deny the plaintiff's claim, or he might reply to it by a plea, exceptio. If he simply denied the plaintiff's claim, the cause was at issue, and a judex might be demanded. The forms of the exceptio also were contained in the praetor's edict, or upon hearing the facts the praetor adapted the plea to the case. The exceptio was the defendant's defence, and was often merely an equitable answer or plea to the plaintiff's legal demand. The plaintiff might claim a thing upon his contract with the defendant, and the defendant might not deny the contract, by might put in a plea of fraud (dolus malus), or that he had been constrained to come to such an agreement. The exceptio was in effect something which negatived the plaintiff's demand, and it was expressed by a negative clause: thus, if the defendant asserted that the plaintiff fraudulently claimed a sum of money which he had not given to the defendant, the exceptio would run thus: Si in ea re nihil dolo malo Auli Agerii factum sit neque fiat. Though the exceptio proceeded from the defendant, it was expressed in this form, in order to be adapted for insertion in the formula, and to render the condemnatio subject to the condition.

Exceptions were peremptoriae or dilatoriae. Peremptory exceptions were a complete and perpetual answer to the plaintiff's demand, such as an exceptio of dolus malus, or of res judicata. Dilatory exceptions were, as the name implies, merely calculated to delay the plaintiff's demand; as, for instance, by allowing that the debt or duty claimed was not yet due. Gaius considers the exceptio litis dividuae and rei residuae (IV.122) as belonging to this class. If a plaintiff prosecuted his action after a dilatory exception, he lost altogether his right of action. There might be dilatory exceptions also to the person of the plaintiff, by which class is the exceptio cognitoria, by which the defendant objects either that the plaintiff is not intitled to sue by a cognitor, or that the cognitor whom he had named was not qualified to act as a cognitor. If the exception was allowed, the plaintiff could either sue himself, or name a proper cognitor, as the case might be. If a defendant neglected to take advantage of a peremptory exceptio, the praetor p. 12 might afterwards give him permission to avail himself of it; whether he could do the same in the case of a dilatory was a doubtful question (Gaius, IV.125).

The plaintiff might reply to the defendant's exceptio, for the defendant by putting in his plea became an actor (Actor.) The defendant's plea might be good, and a complete answer to the plaintiff's demand, and yet the plaintiff might allege something that would be an answer to the plea. Thus, in the example given by Gaius (IV.126), if an argentarius claimed the price of a thing sold by auction, the defendant might put in a plea, which, when inserted in the formula, would be of this shape:— Ut ita demum emptor damnetur, si ei res quam emerit, tradita sit; and this would be in form a good plea. But if the conditions of sale were that the article should not be handed to the purchaser before the money was paid, the argentarius might put in a replicatio in this shape:— Nisi praedictum est ne aliter emptori res traderetur quam si pretium emptor solverit. If the defendant answered the replicatio, his answer was called duplicatio; and the parties might go on to the triplicatio and quadruplicatio, and even further, if the matters in question were such that they could not otherwise be brought to an issue.

The praescriptio, which was so called from being written at the head or beginning of the formula, was adapted for the protection of the plaintiff in certain cases (Gaius, IV.130, &c.; Cic. De Orat. I.37). For instance, if the defendant was bound to make to the plaintiff a certain fixed payment yearly or monthly, the plaintiff had a good cause of action for all the sums of money already due; but in order to avoid making his demand for the future payments not yet due, it was necessary to use a praescription of the following form:— Ea res agatur cujus rei dies fuit.

A person might maintain or defend an action by his cognitor or procurator, or, as we should say, by his attorney. The plaintiff and defendant used a certain form of words in appointing a cognitor, and it would appear that the appointment was made in the presence of both parties. The cognitor needed not to be present, and his appointment was complete when by his acts he had signified his assent (Cic. Pro Q. Roscio, c2; Hor. Serm. I.5.35). No form of words was necessary for appointing a procurator, and he might be appointed without the knowledge of the opposite party.

In many cases both plaintiff and defendant might be required to give security (satisdare); for instance, in the case of an actio in rem, the defendant who was in possession was required to give security, in order that if he lost his cause and did not restore the thing, nor pay its estimated value, the plaintiff might have an action against him or his sureties. When the actio in rem was prosecuted by the formula petitoria, that stipulatio was made which was called judicatum solvi. As to its prosecution by the sponsio, see Sponsioa and Centumviri. If the plaintiff sued in his own name, he gave no security; nor was any security required, if a cognitor sued for him, either from the cognitor or the plaintiff himself, for the cognitor was personally liable. But if a procurator acted for him, he was obliged to give security that the plaintiff would adopt his acts; for the plaintiff was not prevented from bringing another action when a procurator acted for him. Tutors and curators generally gave security like procurators. In the case of an actio in personam, the same rules applied to the plaintiff as in the actio in rem. If the defendant appeared by a cognitor, the defendant had to give security; if by a procurator, the procurator had to give security.

When the cause was brought to an issue, a judex or judices might be demanded of the praetor who named or appointed a judex and delivered to him the formula which contained his instructions. The judices were said dari or addici. So far the proceedings were said to be in jure; the prosecution of the actio before the judex requires a separate discussion. (Judicium.)

The following is an example of a formula taken from Gaius (IV.47):— Judex esto. Si paret Aulum Agerium apud Numerium Negidium mensam argenteam deposuisse eamque dolo malo Numerii Negidii Aulo Agerio redditam non esse quanti ea res erit tantam pecuniam judex Numerium Negidium Aulo Agerio condemnato: si non paret, absolvito.

The nature of the formula, however, will be better understood from the following analysis of it by Gaius:— It consisted of four parts, the demonstratio, intentio, adjudicatio, condemnatio. The demonstratio is that part of the formula which explains what the subject-matter of the action is. For instance, if the subject-matter be a slave sold, the demonstratio would run thus:— Quod Aulus Agerius Numerio Negidio hominem vendidit. The intentio contains the claim or demand of the plaintiff:— Si paret hominem ex jure Quiritium Auli Agerii esse. The adjudicatio is that part of the formula which gives the judex authority to adjudicate the thing which is the subject of dispute to one or other of the litigant parties. If the action be among partners for dividing that which belongs to them all, the adjudication would run thus:— Quantum adjudicari oportet judex Titio adjudicato. The condemnatio is that part of the formula which gives the judex authority to condemn the defendant in a sum of money, or to acquit him: for example, Judex Numerium Negidium Aulo Agerio sestertium milia condemna: si non paret, absolve. Sometimes the intentio alone was requisite, as in the formulae called praejudiciales (which some modern writers make a class of actions), in which the matter for inquiry was, whether a certain person was a freedman, what was the amount of a dos, and other similar questions, when a fact solely was the thing to be ascertained.

Whenever the formula contained the condemnatio, it was framed with the view to pecuniary damages; and accordingly, even when the plaintiff claimed a particular thing, the judex did not adjudge the defendant to give the thing, as was the ancient practice at Rome, but condemned him in a sum of money equivalent to the value of the thing. The formula might either name a fixed sum, or leave the estimation of the value of the thing to the judex, who in all cases, however, was bound to name a definite sum in the condemnation.

The formula then contained the pleadings, or the statements and counter-statements, of the plaintiff and the defendant; for the intentio, as we have seen, was the plaintiff's declaration; and if this was met by a plea, it was necessary that this also should be inserted in the formula. The formula also contained the directions for the judex, and gave him the power to act. The English and Roman procedure are severally stated in Mr. p.13 Spence's work on the Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, pp. 206‑235. The Roman forms of procedure underwent various changes in the course of time, which it is not very easy to describe; but it has been remarked by Hollweg (Handbuch des Civilprozesses, p. 19) that the system of procedure maintained itself in all essential particulars unaltered for many centuries, and what we learn from Cicero (B.C. 70) is almost the same as what we learn from Gaius (A.D. 160). Modern writers, however, differ on various points; and the subject requires a complete examination from one who is fully acquainted with the Roman law, and practically versed in the nature of legal proceedings generally.

The following are the principal actions which we read of in the Roman writers, and which are briefly described under their several heads:— Actio — Aquae pluviae arcendae; Bonorum vi raptorum; Certi et Incerti; Commodati; Communi dividundo; Confessoria; Damni injuria dati; Dejecti vel effusi; Depensi; Depositi; De dolo malo; Emti et venditi; Exercitoria; Ad Exhibendum; Familiae erciscundae; Fiduciaria; Finium regundorum; Furti; Hypothecaria; Injuriarum; Institoria; Judicati; Quod jussu; Legis Aquiliae; Locati et conducti; Mandati; Mutui; Negativa; Negotiorum gestorum; Noxalis; De pauperie; De peculio; Pignoraticia, or Pignoratitia; Publiciana; Quanti minoris; Rationibus distrahendis; De recepto; Redhibitoria; Rei uxoriae, or Dotis; Restitutoria and Rescissoria; Rutiliana; Serviana; Pro socio; Tributoria; Tutelae.

ACTOR: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). signified generally a plaintiff. In a civil or private action, the plaintiff was often called petitor; in a public action (causa publica), he was called accusator (Cic. ad Att. I.16). The defendant was called reus, both in private and public causes: this term, however, according to Cicero (De Orat. II.43), might signify either party, as indeed we might conclude from the word itself. In a private action, the defendant was often called adversarius, but either party might be called adversarius with respect to the other. Originally, no person who was not sui juris could maintain an action; a filius familias, therefore, and a slave, could not maintain an action; but in course of time certain actions were allowed to a filius familias in the absence of his parent or his procurator, and also in case the parent was incompetent to act from madness or other like cause (Dig. 47 tit. 10 s17). Wards (pupilli) brought their actions by their tutor (tutor); and in case they wished to bring an action against their tutor, the praetor named a tutor for the purpose (Gaius, I.184). Peregrini, or aliens, originally brought their action through their patronus; but afterwards in their own name, by a fiction of law, that they were Roman citizens. A Roman citizen might also generally bring his action by means of a cognitor or procurator (actio) . A universitas or corporate body, sued and was sued by their actor or syndicus (Dig. 3 tit. 4).

Actor has also the sense of an agent or manager of another's business generally. The actor publicus was an officer who had the superintendence or care of slaves belonging to the state. Lipsius says that the actor publicus was a slave or freedman. A slave could acquire property for others, though not for himself. In the case mentioned by Pliny (Ep. VII.18), the actor publicus was the representative of the community (respublica) of Comum. (Tacit. Ann. II.30, III.67; Lips. Excurs. ad Tacit. Ann. II.30.)

ACTUA'RIAE NAVES: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (navis.)

ACTUA'RII, or ACTA'RII: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). Clerks who compiled the Acta Publica (Acta, p.8B). The name is also sometimes given to the Notarii, or short-hand writers, who took down the speeches in the senate and the courts (Suet. Jul. 55; Sen. Ep. 33); respecting whom and the use of short-hand among the Romans, see Notarii.

2. Military officers whose duty it was to keep the accounts of the army, to see that the contractors supplied the soldiers with provisions according to agreement, &c. (Amm. Marc. XX.5; Cod. 12 tit. 37 s5, 16; 12 49).

3. The title of certain physicians at the court of Constantinople (Medicus.) (G.L.)

ACTU'S: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). a Roman measure of land, whieh formed the basis of the whole system of land measurement In that system the name actus (from ago), which originally meant a way between fields for beasts of burthen to pass (or, as some say, the length of a furrow), was given to such a way when of a definite width and length, and also to a square piece of land of the same length. The former was called actus minimus or simplex, and was 120 feet (Roman) long by 4 feet wide, (Varro, L. L. iv. 4, or v. 34, Muller; Colum, v. 1. § 5, ed. Schneider ; Festus, s. v. iter inter vicinos IV. pedum latum). The actus quadratus, which was the square unit in the system of Roman land measurement, was of the same length as the actus minimus, and of a width equal to its length: it was thus 120 feet square, and sontained 14,400 square feet. It was the half of a juger. (Colum. l.c.; Varro, I.c., and R.R.i. 10. § 2, ed. Schneider). The following are the etymological explanations of the word: Actus vocabatur, in quo boves agerentur cum aratro, uno impetu justo (Plin. xviii. 3) ; Ul oger quo agi poterat, sic qua agi actus. (Varro, L. L. l.c.). The actus furnishes an example of the use of the number twelve among the Romans, its length being twelve times the standard Decempeda. Columella (I.e. § 6) says that the Gauls called the actus quadratus, aripennis; but this could only be an approximate identification, for the actus quadratus is somewhat smaller than the great French arpent and much larger than the small arpent. (Compare Acna; Niebuhr, Hist, of Rome, vol. ii. Appendix I.) (P. S.)

ACTUS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (SERVITUTES.)

ACUS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (βελόνη, βελονίς, ραφίςa) needle, a pin. The annexed figure of needles and pins, chiefly taken from originals in bronze, vary in length from an inch and a half to about eight inches.

(ocr errors)(ocr errors)

Pins were made not only of metal, but also of wood, bone, and ivory. They were used for the same purposes as with us, and also in dressing the hair. (Mart xiv. 24.) The mode of platting the hair, and then fastening it with a pin or needle, is shown in the annexed figure of a female head, taken from a marble group which was found at Apt, in the south of France. (Montfaucon, Ant. Exp. Suppl. iii. 3.) This fashion has been continued to our own times by the females of Italy, and of some parts of Germany, as for instance, in the neighbourhood of Coblenz.

(graphic)

ADDICTI: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (nexi)

ADDI'CTIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (actio.)

ADDIX: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άδδιξ, άδδιξiς, ), a Greek measure of capacity, equal to four χοίνικες (Hesych. s. v.; Schol. ad Hom. Od. 19.) (P. S.)

ADEIA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άδεια), freedom from fear, or security, in any public action. When any one in Athens, who had not the full privileges of an Athenian citizen, such as a foreigner, a slave, &c., wished to accuse a person of any offence against the people, he was obliged to obtain first permission to do so, which permission was called adeia. (Plut. Pericl. 31.) An Athenian citizen who had incurred atimia, was also obliged to obtain adeia before he could take part in public affairs (Plut. Phoc. 26) ; and it was not lawful for any one to propose to the people, that an atimus should be restored to his rights as a citizen, or that a public debtor should be released from his debt, till adeia had been granted for this purpose by a decree passed in an assembly of 6000 citizens voting secretly by ballot. (Dem. c. Timocr. p. 715 ; Andoc. de Myst. p. 36 ; Bockh, Public Economy of Athens, p. 392, 2d ed.)

ADE'MPTIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (lboatum)

ADGNA'TI: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (cognati)

ADGNA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (heres; Testamentum.)

ADI'TIO HEREDITA'TIS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (heres.)

ADJUDICA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (actio.)

ADLECTI or ALLECTI: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). 1. Those who were chosen to fill up a vacancy in any office or collegium, and especially those who were chosen to fill up the proper number of the senate. As these would be generally equites, Festus (s. v.) defines the adlecti to be equites added to the senate: and he appears in this passage to make a difference between the adlecti and conscripti. But they were probably the same ; for in another passage (s. v. conscripti), he gives the same definition of the conscripti as he had done of the adlecti, and Livy (ii. 1) says conscriptos in novum senatum appellabant lectos.

2. Those persons under the empire who were admitted to the privileges and honours of the praetorship, quaestorship, aedileship, and other public offices, without having any duties to perform. (Capitolin. Pertin. 6.) In inscriptions we constantly find, adlectus inter tribunes, inter quaestorts, inter praetores, &c.

ADLECTOR: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). a collector of taxes in the provinces in the time of the Roman emperors. (Cod. Theod. 12. tit 6. s. 12.)

ADMISSIONA'LES: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). were chamberlains at the imperial court, who introduced persons to the presence of the emperor. (Lamprid. Sever. 4 ; officium admissionis, Suet. Vesp. 14.) They were divided into four classes ; the chief officer of each class was called proximus admissionum (Amm. Marc. xxii. 7) ; and the proximi were under the magister admissionum. (Amm. Marc xv. 5 ; Vop. Aurel. 12.) The admissionales were usually freedmen. (Cod. Theod. 6. tit 2. s. 12 ; tit 9. s. 2 ; tit 35. s. 3.)

Friends appear to have been called amici admissionis primae, secundae, or tertiae. According to some writers, they were so called in consequence of the order in which they were admitted ; according to others, because the atrium was divided into different parts, separated from one another by hangings, into which persons were admitted according to the different degrees of favour in which they were held. (Sen. de Benef. vi. 33, 34, Clem. i. 10.)

ADOLESCENS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (infans.)

ADO'NIA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). ('Αδώνια), a festival celebrated in honour of Aphrodite and Adonis in most of the Grecian cities, as well as in numerous places in the East. It lasted two days, and was celebrated by women exclusively. On the first day they brought into the streets statues of Adonis, which were laid out as corpses ; and they observed all the rites customary at funerals, beating themselves and uttering lamentations. The second day was spent in merriment and feasting ; because Adonis was allowed to return to life, and spend half of the year with Aphrodite. (Aristoph. Pax, 412, Schol. ad loc.; Plut. Alcib. 18, Nic. 13.) For fuller particulars respecting the worship and festivals of Adonis, see Dict., of Biogr. s. v. Adonis.

ADO'PTIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). adoption. 1. Greek, was called by the Athenians είσποίησις, or sometimes simply ςοίησις or ζέσις. The Greek writers use ζέσις also as equivalent to the Roman adoptio, and ζέτοι as equivalent to adoptivi. (App. B. C. iii. 13, 14.) The adoptive father was said ποιεîσθαι, είσποιεî-σθαι, or sometimes ποιεîν: and the father or mother (for a mother after the death of her husband could consent to her son being adopted) was said έκποιεîν: the son was said έκποιεîθαι, with reference to the family which he left; and έìσποιεîσθαι, with reference to the family into which he was received. The son, when adopted, was called ποιητός, έìσποιητός, or ζετός: in opposition to the legitimate son born of the body of the father, who was called γνήσιος.

A man might adopt a son either in his lifetime or by his testament, provided he had no male offspring and was of sound mind. He might also, by testament, name a person to take his property, in case his son or sons should die under age. (Dem.Κατα Στεφάνου ψενοδ. 13.). If he had male offspring, he could not dispose of his property. This rule of law was closely connected with the rule as to adoption ; for if he could have adopted a son when be had male children, such son would have shared his property with the rest of his male children, and to that extent the rather would have exercised a power of disposition which the law denied him.

Only Athenian citizens could be adopted ; but females could be adopted (by testament at least) as well as males. (Isaeus, Περì τοû ́Αγνίου Κλήρου.). The adopted child was transferred from his own family and demus into those of the adoptive; father ; he inherited his property and maintained the sacra of his adoptive father. It was not necessary for him to take his new father's name, but he was registered as his son. The adopted son might return to his former family, in case he left a child to represent the family of his adoptive father: unless he so returned, he lost all right which he might have had on his fathers side if he had not been adopted ; but he retained all rights which he might have on his mother's side, for the act of adoption had no effect so far as concerned the mother of the adopted person ; she still continued his mother after the act of adoption.

The next of kin of an Athenian citizen were intitled to his property if he made no disposition of it by will, or made no valid adoption during his lifetime ; they were, therefore, interested in preventing fraudulent adoptions. The whole community were also interested in preventing the introduction into their body of a person who was not an Athenian citizen. To protect the rights of the next of kin against unjust claims by persons who alleged themselves to be adopted sons, it was required that the father should enter his son, whether born of his body or adopted, in the register of his phratria (φρατρικòν γραμματεîον) at a certain time, the Thargelia (Isaeus, Περì τοû ́Ατολλοδώρ Κλήρου, 3, 5.)., with the privity of his kinsmen and phratores (γεννήται, φράτορες). Subsequently to this, it was necessary to enter him in the register of the adoptive father's demus (ληξιαρχικòν γραμματεîον), without which registration it appears that he did not possess the full rights of citizenship as a member of his new demus.

If the adoption was by testament, registration was also required, which we may presume that the person himself might procure to be done, if he was of age, or, if not, his guardian or next friend. If a dispute arose as to the property of the deceased (κλήρον διαδικασία) between the son adopted by testament and the next of kin, there could properly be no registration of the adopted son until the testament was established. If a man died childless and intestate, his next of kin, according to the Athenian rules of succession (Dem. Πρòς Λεωχ. c. 6), took his property by the right of blood (άγχιστεία κατα γένος). Though registration might in this case also be required, there was no adoption properly so called, as some modem writers suppose; for the next of kin necessarily belonged to the family of the intestate.

The rules as to adoption among the Athenians are not quite free from difficulty, and it is not easy to avoid all error in stating them. The general doctrines may be mainly deduced from the orations of Isaeus, and those of Demosthenes against Macartatus and Leochares.

2. Roman. The Roman term was adoptio or adoptatio. (Gell. v, 19.) The Roman relation of parent and child arose either from a lawful marriage or from adoption. Adoptio was the general name which comprehended the two species, adoptio and adrogatio ; and as the adopted person passed from his own familia into that of the person adopting, adoptio caused a capitis dimimutio, and the lowest of the three kinds. Adoption, in its specific sense, was the ceremony by which a person who was in the power of his parent (in potestate parentum), whether child or grandchild, male or female, was transferred to the power of the person adopting him. It was effected under the authority of a magistrate (magistratus) the praetor, for instance, at Home, or a governor (praese) in the provinces. The person to be adopted was mancipated (mancipatio) by his natural father before the competent authority, and surrendered to the adoptive father by the legal form called jure cessio, (Gell. v. 19 ; Suet Aug. 64.)

When a person was not in the power of his parent (sui juris) the ceremony of adoption was called adrogatio. Originally, it could only bo effected at Rome, and only by a vote of the populus ( populi auctoritate) in the comitia curiata (lege curiata); the reason of this being that the caput or status of a Roman citizen could not, according to the laws of the Twelve Tables, be affected except by a vote of the populus in the comitia curiata. Clodius, the enemy of Cicero, was adrogated into a plebeian family by a lex curiata, in order to qualify himself to be elected a tribunus plebis. (Cic ad Att. ii. 7, p. Dom.) Females could not be adopted by the adrogatio. Under the emperors it became the practice to effect the adrogatio by an imperial rescript (principis auctoritate, ex rescripto principis) ; but this practice had not become established in the time of Gaius, or, as it appears, of Ulpian. (Compare Gaius, i. 98, with Gaius as cited in Dig. i. tit. 7. a. 2 ; and Ulpian, Frag. tit. 8.) It would seem, however, from a passage in Tacitus (Hist. i. 15), that Galba adopted a successor without the ceremony of the adrogatio. By a rescript of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, addressed to the pontifices, those who were under age (impuberes), or wards (pupilli), could, with certain restrictions, be adopted by the adrogatio. If a father who had children in his power consented to be adopted by another person, both himself and his children became in the power of the adoptive father. All the property of the adopted son became at once the property of the adoptive father. (Gaius, ii. 98H.) A person could not legally be adopted by the adrogatio till he had made out a satisfactory case (justa, bona, causa) to the pontifices, who had the right of insisting on certain preliminary conditions. This power of the pontifices was probably founded on their right to preserve the due observance of the sacra of each gens. (Cic. p. Dom. 13, &c.). It would accordingly have been a good ground of refusing their consent to an adrogatio, if the person to be adopted was the only male of his gens, for the sacra would in such case be lost. It was required that the adoptive father also had no children, and no reasonable hopes of any ; and that he should be older than the person to be adopted. It is generally assumed that all adrogations were made before the curiae. Gaius, however, and Ulpian use the expressions perpopulum, auctoritate populi, expressions of very doubtful import with reference to their period. After the comitia curiata fell into disuse, it is most probable that there was no formal assembly of the curiae, and that they were represented by the thirty lictors.

A woman could not adopt a person, for even her own children were not in her power.

The rules as to adoption which the legislation of Justinian established, are contained in the Institutes (i. tit 11).

The effect of adoption, as already stated, was to create the legal relation of father and son, just as if the adopted son were born of the blood of the adoptive father in lawful marriage. The adopted child was intitled to the name and sacra privata of the adopting parent, and it appears that the preservation of the sacra privata, which by the laws of the Twelve Tables were made perpetual, was frequently one of the reasons for a childless person adopting a son. In case of intestacy, the adopted child would be the heres of his adoptive father. He became the brother of his adoptive father's daughter, and therefore could not marry her ; but he did not become the son of the adoptive father's wife, for adoption only gave to the adopted son the jura agnationis. (Gaius, i. 97—107 ; Dig. 1. tit. 7; Cic. p. Domo.)

The phrase of " adoption by testament" (Cic. Brut. 58) seems to be rather a misapplication of the term; for though a man or woman might by testament name a heres, and impose the condition of the heres taking the name of the testator or testatrix, this so-called adoption could not produce the effects of a proper adoption. It could give to the person so said to be adopted, the name or property of the testator or testatrix, but nothing more. Niebuhr (Lectures, vol. ii. p. 100) speaks of the testamentary adoption of C. Octavius by C. Julius Caesar, as the first that he knew of; but the passage of Cicero in the Brutus and another passage (Ad Hirt. viii. 8), show that other instances had occurred before. A person on passing from one gens into another, and taking the name of his new familia, generally retained the name of his old gens also, with the addition to it of the termination anus. (Cic. ad Att. iii. 20, and the note of Victorius.) Thus, C. Octavius, afterwards the Emperor Augustus, upon being adopted by the testament of his uncle the dictator, assumed the name of Caius Julius Caesar Octavianus; but he caused the adoption to be confirmed by the curiae. As to the testamentary adoption of C. Octavius, see Drumann, Geschichte Roms, vol. i. p. 337, and the references there given. Livia was adopted into the Julia gens by the testament of Augustus (Tac Ann. i. 8); and it was not stated that this required any confirmation. But things were changed then. The Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea gave certain privileges to those who had children, among which privileges was a preference in being appointed to the praetorship and such offices. This led to an abuse of the practice of adoption : for childless persons adopted children in order to qualify themselves for such offices, and then emancipated their adopted children. This abuse was checked by a senatus consultum in the time of Nero. (Tac. Ann. xv. 19 ; Cic. de Of. iii. 18, ad Att. vii. 8 ; Suet Jul. Caes. 83, Tib. 2, &c. j Heinec. Syntagma ; Dig. 36. tit. 1. s. 63.) (Q. L.)

ADORA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (προσκυνησις) was paid to the gods in the following manner: — The person stretched out his right hand to the statue of the god whom he wished to honour, then kissed his hand and waved it to the statue. While doing this he moved round his whole body, for which custom Plutarch (Num. 14) gives some curious reasons ; but the true reason probably was, that the person might be the more surely put into communication with the deity, as it was uncertain where he would reveal himself as the deus praesens. It was also the practice to have the head and ears covered, so that only the forepart of the face remained uncovered. (Plin. N.H. xxviii. 5; Minucius Felix, 2 ; Lucret v. 1197.) The adoratio differed from the oratio or prayers, which were offered with the hands folded together and stretched out to the gods, the natural attitude prescribed by nature to the suppliant, and which we find mentioned by Homer. (II. vii. 177; (ύπτιά-σματα χερών, Ǽsch. Prom. 1004; caelo supinas ferre manus, Hor. Carm. iii. 23.1.). The adoration paid to the Roman emperors was borrowed from the eastern mode of adoration, and consisted in prostration on the ground, and kissing the feet and knees of the emperor.

ADROGA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (adoptio roman).)

ADSCRIPTI'VI: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (accensi.)

ADSERTOR: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (assertor.)

ADSESSOR: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (assessor.)

ADSIGNA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (agrariae Leges and Ager.)

ADSTIPULA'TIO: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (obligationes.)

ADSTIPULA'TOR: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (intercession)

ADULTUS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (infans.)

ADULTER'IUM: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). adultery. 1. Greek. Among the Athenians, if a man caught another man in the act of criminal intercourse (μοιχεία) with his wife, he might kill him with impunity; and the law was also the same with respect to a concubine (παλλακή). He might also inflict other punishment on the offender. It appears that among the Athenians there was no adultery, unless a married woman was concerned. (Lysias, Ύπέρ τού ́Ερατοσθένους φόνου.). But it was no adultery for a man to have connection with a married woman who prostituted herself, or who was engaged in selling any thing in the agora. (Demosth. (Κατά Nεαίρας, c. 18.) The Roman law appears to have been pretty nearly the same. (Paulus, Sent. Recept. vi. tit 26.) The husband might, if he pleased, take a sum of money from the adulterer by way of compensation, and detain him till he found sureties for the payment If the alleged adulterer had been unjustly detained, he might bring an action against the husband; and, if he gained his cause, he and his sureties were released. If he failed, the law required the sureties to deliver up the adulterer to the husband before the court, to do what he pleased with him, except that he was not to use a knife or dagger. (Demosth. (Κατά Nεαίρ. 18.)

The husband might also prosecute the adulterer in the action called (μοιχείας γραφή.). If the act of adultery was proved, the husband could no longer cohabit with his wife under pain of losing his privileges of a citizen (άτιμία.). The adulteress was excluded even from those temples which foreign women and slaves were allowed to enter; and if she was seen there, any one might treat her as he pleased, provided he did not kill her or mutilate her. (Dem. (Κατά Nεαίρ. 18.). c. 22; Aeschin. (Κατά Tiμάρχ. c. 36.)

2. Roman. Adulterium properly signifies, in the Roman law, the offence committed by a man, married or unmarried, having sexual intercourse with another man's wife. Stuprum (called by the Greeks φθορά) signifies the commerce with a widow or a virgin.º It was the condition of the female which determined the legal character of adultery; there was no adultery unless the female was married. It is stated, however (Dig.48 tit. 5 s13), that a woman might commit adultery whether she was "justa uxor sive injusta," the meaning of which is not quite certain; but probably it means whether she was living in a marriage recognised as a marriage by the Roman law or merely by the jus gentium. The male who committed adultery was adulter, the female was adultera. The Latin writers were puzzled about the etymology of the word adulterium; but if we look to its various significations besides that of illegal sexual commerce, we may safely refer it to the same root as that which appears in adultus. The notion is that of "growing to," "fixing," or "fastening to," one thing on another and extraneous thing: hence, among other meanings, the Romans used adulterium and adulteratio as we use the word "adulteration," to express the corrupting of a thing by mixing something with it of less value.

In the time of Augustus a lex was enacted (probably B.C. 17), intitled Lex Julia de Adulteriis coërcendis, the first chapter of which repealed some prior enactments on the same subject, with the provisions of which prior enactments we are, however, unacquainted. Horace (Carm. IV.5.21) alludes to the Julian law. In this law, the terms adulterium and stuprum are used indifferently; but, strictly speaking, these two terms differed as above stated. The chief provisions of this law may be collected from the Digest (Dig. 48.5), from Paulus (Sentent. Recept. II. tit. 26 ed. Schulting), and Brissonius (Ad Legem Juliam De Adulteriis, Lib. Sing.).

It seems not unlikely that the enactments repealed by the Julian law continued special penal provisions against adultery; and it is also not improbable that, by the old law or custom, if the adulterer was caught in the fact, he was at the mercy of the injured husband, and that the husband might punish with death his adulterous wife (Dionys. II.25; Suet. Tib. 35). It seems, also, that originally the act of adultery might be prosecuted by any person, as being a public offence; but under the emperors the right of prosecution was limited to the husband, father, brother, patruus, and avunculus of the adulteress.

By the Julian law, if a husband kept his wife after an act of adultery was known to him, and let the adulterer off, he was guilty of the offence of lenocinium. The husband or father in whose power the adulteress was, had sixty days allowed for commencing proceedings against the wife, after which time any other person might prosecute (Tacit. Ann. II.85). A woman convicted of adultery was mulcted in half of her dos and the third part of her property (bona), and banished (relegata) to some miserable island, such as Seriphos, for instance. The adulterer was mulcted in half his property, and banished in like manner, but not to the same island as the woman. The adulterer and adulteress were subjected also to civil incapacities; but this law did not inflict the punishment of death on either party; and in those instances under the emperors in which death was inflicted, it must be considered as an extraordinary punishment, and beyond the provisions of the Julian law (Tacit. Ann. II.50, Ann. III.24; J. Lips., Excurs. ad Tacit. Ann. IV.42; Noodt, Op. Omn. I.286, &c.). But by a constitution of Constantine (Cod. IX.30, if it is genuine), the offence in the adulterer was made capital. By the legislation of Justinian (Nov. 134 c10), the law of Constantine was probably only confirmed; but the adulteress was put into a convent, after being first whipped. If her husband did not take her out in two years, she was compelled to assume the habit, and to spend the rest of her life in the convent.

The Julian law permitted the father (both adoptive and natural) to kill the adulterer and adulteress in certain cases, as to which there were several nice distinctions established by the law. If the father killed only one of the parties, he brought himself within the penalties of the Cornelian law De Sicariis. The husband might kill persons of a certain class, described in the law, whom he caught in the act of adultery with his wife; but he could not kill his wife. The husband, by the fifth chapter of the Julian law, could detain for twenty hours the adulterer whom he had caught in the act, for the purpose of calling in witnesses to prove the adultery. If the wife was divorced for adultery, the husband was intitled to retain part of the dos (Ulp. Frag. VI.12). The authorities for the Lex Julia de Adulteriis, but ancient and modern, are collected by Rein, Das Criminalrecht der Römer, 1844.

ADVERSA'RIA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). note-book, memorandum-book, posting-book, in which the Romans entered memoranda of any importance, especially of money received and expended, è after transcribed, usually every month, into a kind of ledger (Tabulae justae, codex accepti et expensi). They were probably called Adversaria, because they lay always open before the eyes (Cic. p. Rosc. Com. 3; Prop. III.23.20).

ADVERSA'RIUS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (actor.)

ADU'NATI: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άδύνατοι), persons supported by the Athenian state, who, on account of infirmity or bodily defects, were unable to obtain a livelihood. The sum which they received from the state appears to have varied at different times. In the time of Lysias and Aristotle, one obolus a day was given ; but it appears to have been afterwards increased to two oboli. The bounty was restricted to persons whose property was under three minae. It was awarded by a decree of the people ; but the examination of the individuals belonged to the senate of the Five Hundred : the payments were made by prytaneias. Peisistratus is said to have been the first to introduce a law for the maintenance of those persons who had been mutilated in war; but, according to others, this provision derived its origin from a law of Solon. (Plat Solon. 31 ; Schol. ad Aesch. vol. iii. p. 738, ed. Reiske ; Aesch. c. Tim. p. 123 ; Harpocrat. Suid. Hesych. s.v.; Lysias, > (́Υπέρ τοû ́Αδυνάτουa speech written for an individual in order to prove that he was intitled to be supported by the state ; Bockh, Public Econ. of Athens p. 242, &c. 2nd edit)

ADVOCA'TUS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). seems originally to have signified any person who gave another his aid in any affair or business, as a witness for instance (Varr. De Re Rust. ii. c 5) ; or for the purpose of aiding and protecting him in taking possession of a piece of property. (Cic pro Caecin. c. 8.) It was also used to express a person who gave his advice and aid to another in the management of a cause, as a juris-consultus did ; but the word did not signify the orator or patronus who made the speech (Cic de Orat. ii. 74) in the time of Cicero. Under the emperors, it signified a person who in any way assisted in the conduct of a cause (Dig. 50. tit 13. a. 1), and was sometimes equivalent to orator. (Tacit. Ann. x. 6.) The advocate had then a fee, which was called honorarium. (orator, Patronus, Lex Cincia.)

The advocatus is defined by Ulpian (Dig. SO, tit. 13) to be any person who aids another in the conduct of a suit or action ; but under the empire the jurisconsulti no longer acted as advocates, in the old sense of that term. They had attained a higher position than that which they held under the republic.

The advocatus fisci was an important officer established by Hadrianus. (Spart. Hadrian. 60.) It was his business to look after the interests of the fiscus or the imperial treasury, and, among other things, to maintain its title to bona caduca. The various meanings of advocatus in the Middle Ages are given by Du Cange, Gloss. (Dig. 28. tit. 4. s. 3; Hollweg, Handbuch des Civilprozesses, p. 196.) (G.L.)

A'DYTUM: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (templum.)

AEACEIA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (αίάκεια), a festival of the Aeginetans in honour of Aeacus, the details of which are not known. The victor in the games which were solemnised on the occasion, consecrated his chaplet in the magnificent temple of Aeacus. (Schol. ad Pind. Ol. vii. 156, xiii. 155 ; Müller, Aeginetica, p. 140.) (L. S.)

AEDES: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (domus; Templum.)

AEDES VITIO'SAE, RUIN'O'SAE: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (damnum Infectum.)

AEDI'CULAE: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). signifies in the singular, a room, but in the plural, a small house. It is, however, more frequently used in the sense of a shrine, attached to the walls of temples or houses, in which the statue of a deity was placed. The acdiculae attached to houses, sometimes contained the penates of the house, but more frequently the guardian gods of the street in which they were placed. (Liv. xxxv. 41 ; Petron. 29.)

AEDI'LES: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άγορανόμοι). The name of these functionaries is said to be derived from their having the care of the temple (aedes) of Ceres. The aediles were originally two in number, and called aediles plebeii ; they were elected from the plebes, and the institution of the office dates from the same time as that of the tribuni plebis, B. C. 494. Their duties at first seem to have been merely ministerial; they were the assistants of the tribunes in such matters as the tribunes entrusted to them, among which arc enumerated the hearing of causes of smaller importance. At an early period after their institution (b. c. 446), we find them appointed the keepers of the senatus consulta, which the consuls had hitherto arbitrarily suppressed or altered. (Liv. iii. 55.) They were also the keepers of the plebiscita. Other functions were gradually entrusted to them, and it is not always easy to distinguish their duties from some of those which belong to the censors ; nor to distinguish all the duties of the plebeian and curule aediles, after the establishment of the curule aedileship. They had the general superintendence of buildings, both sacred and private : under this power they provided for the support and repair of temples, curiae, &c, and took care that private buildings which were in a ruinous state (aedes vitiosae, ruinosae) were repaired by the owners, or pulled down. The superintendence over the supply and distribution of water at Rome was, at an early period, a matter of public administration. According to Frontinus, this was the duty of the censors ; but when there were no censors, it was within the' province of the aediles. The care of each particular source or supply was farmed to undertakers (redemptores), and all that they did was subject to the approbation of the censors or the aediles. (De Aquaeduct. Rom. lib. ii.) The care of the streets and pavements, with the cleansing and draining of the city, belonged to the aediles, and the care of the cloacae. They had the office of distributing corn among the plebes, which was sometimes given gratuitously, sometimes sold at a cheap rate ; but this distribution of corn at Rome must not be confounded with the duty of purchasing or procuring it from foreign parts, which was performed by the consuls, quaestors, and praetors, and sometimes by an extraordinary magistrate, as the pracfectus annonae. The aediles had to see that the public lands were not improperly used, and that the pasture-grounds of the state were not trespassed on ; and they had power to punish by fine any unlawful act in this respect. The fines were employed in paving roads, and in other public purposes. They had a general superintendence over buying and selling, and, as a consequence, the supervision of the markets, of things exposed to sale, such as slaves, and of weights and measures: from this part of their duty is derived the name under which the aediles are mentioned by the Greek writers (άyoρανόμοι). It was their business to see that no new deities or religious rites were introduced into the city, to look after the observance of religious ceremonies, and the celebrations of the ancient feasts and festivals. The general superintendence of police comprehended the duty of preserving order, decency, and the inspection of the baths, and houses of entertainment, of brothels, and of prostitutes. The aediles had various officers under them, as praecones, scribae, and viatores.

The Aediles Curules, who were also two in number, were originally chosen only from the patricians, afterwards alternately from the patricians and the plebes, and at last indifferently from both. (Liv. vii. 1.) The office of curule aediles was instituted B.C. 365, and, according to Livy, on the occasion of the plebeian aediles refusing to consent to celebrate the ludi maximi for the space of four days instead of three ; upon which a senatus consultum was passed, by which two aediles were to be chosen from the patricians. From this time four aediles, two plebeian and two curule, were annually elected. (Liv. vi 42.) The distinctive honours of the aediles curules were, the sella curulis, from whence their title is derived, the toga praetexta, precedence in speaking in the senate, and the jus imaginum. (Cic. Verr. v. 14.) Only the aediles curules had the jus edicendi, or the power of promulgating edicta (Gaius, i. 6) ; but the rules comprised in their edicta served for the guidance of all the aediles. The edicta of the curule aediles were founded on their authority as superintendents of the markets, and of buying and selling in general. Accordingly, their edicts had mainly, or perhaps solely, reference to the rules as to buying and selling, and contracts for bargain and sale. They were the foundation of the actiones aediliciae, among which are included the actio redhibitoria, and quanti minoris. (Dig. 21. tit. 1. De Aedilicio Edicto ; Gell. iv. 2.) A great part of the provisions of the aediles' edict relate to the buying and selling of slaves. The persons both of the plebeian and curule aediles were sacrosancti. (Liv. iii. 55.)

It seems that after the appointment of the curule aediles, the functions formerly exercised by the plebeian aediles were exercised, with some few exceptions, by all the aediles indifferently. Within five days after being elected or entering on office, they were required to determine by lot, or by agreement among themselves, what parts of the city each should take under his superintendence ; and each aedile alone had the care of looking after the paving and cleansing of the streets, and other matters, it may be presumed, of the same local character within his district. ( Tabul. Heracl. ed. Mazoch.)

In the superintendence of the public festivals and solemnities, there was a further distinction between the two sets of aediles. Many of these festivals, such as those of Flora (Cic. Verr. v. 14 ; Ovid. Fast. v. '278, &c) and Ceres, were superintended by either set of aediles indifferently ; but the plebeian games (plebeii ludi) were under the superintendence of the plebeian aediles (Liv. xxxi 50.), who had an allowance of money for that purpose ; and the fines levied on the pecuarii, and others, seem to have been appropriated to these among other public purposes. (Liv. x. 23 ; imi 6 ; Ovid. Fatt. v. 278, &c) The celebration of the Ludi magni or Romani, of the Ludi ecenici, and the Ludi Megalesii or Megalenses, belonged specially to the curule aediles (Liv. xxxi. 50 ; and the Didascaliae to the plays of Terence), and it was on such occasions that they often incurred a prodigious expense, with the view of pleasing the people and securing their votes in future elections. This extravagant expenditure of the aediles arose after the close of the second Punic war, and increased with the opportunities which individuals had of enriching themselves after the Roman arms were carried into Greece, Africa, and. Spain. Even the prodigality of the emperors hardly surpassed that of individual curule aediles under the republic ; such as C. Julius Caesar (Plut Caesar, 5) afterwards the dictator, P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther ; and, above all, M. Aemilius Scaurus, whose expenditure was not limited to bare show, but comprehended objects of public utility, as the reparation of walls, dockyards, ports, and aquaeducts. (Cic. de Off", ii. 17 ; Plin. H.N. xxxiii. 3, xxxvi 15.) An instance is mentioned by Dion Cassius (xliii. 48) of the Ludi Megaiesii being superintended by the plebeian aediles ; but it was done pursuant to a senatus consultum, and thus the particular exception confirms the general rule.

In a. c. 45, Julius Caesar caused two curule aediles and four plebeian aediles to be elected ; and thenceforward, at least so long as the office of aedile was of any importance, six aediles were annually elected. The two new plebeian aediles were called Cereales, and their duty was to look after the supply of corn. Though their office may not have been of any great importance after the institution of a praefectus annonae by Augustus there is no doubt that it existed for several centuries, and at least as late as the time of Gordian.

The aediles belonged to the class of the minores magistratus. Dionysius states that the aediles were originally chosen at the comitia curiata (ix. 43) ; but this is not probable. The plebeian aediles were originally chosen at the comitia centuriata, but afterwards at the comitia tributa (Dionys. vi 90. ix. 43. 49 ; Liv. H. 56, 57), in which comitia the curule aediles also were chosen, at the same time (Plut Marius, 5); but it appears that there mas a separate voting for the curule and the plebeian aediles, and that the curule aediles were elected first It appears that until the lex annalis was passed, a Roman citizen might be a candidate for any office after completing his twenty-seventh year. This lex annalis, which was passed at the instance of the tribune L. Villius Tappulus, B.C. 180, fixed the age at which each office might be enjoyed. (Liv. xl. 44.) The passage of Livy does not mention what were the ages fixed by this law ; but it is collected from various passages of Roman writers, that the age fixed for the aedileship was thirty-six. This, at least, was the age at which a man could be a candidate for the curule aedileship, and it does not appear that there was a different rule for the plebeian aedileship. In Cicero's time, the aediles were elected some time in July, the usual place of election was the Field of Mars (Campus Martius), and the presiding magistrate was a consul.

The aediles existed under the emperors ; but their powers were gradually diminished, and their functions exercised by new officers created by the emperors. After the battle of Actium, Augustus appointed a praefectus urbi, who exercised the general police, which had formerly been one of the duties of the aediles. Augustus also took from the aediles, or exrrcised himself the office of superintending the religious rites, and the banishing from the city of all foreign ceremonials ; he also assumed the superintendence of the temples, and thus may be said to have destroyed the aedileship by depriving it of its old and original function. This will serve to explain the fact mentioned by Dion Cassius (lv. 24), that no one was willing to hold so contemptible an office, and Augustus was therefore reduced to the necessity of compelling persons to take it: persons were accordingly chosen by lot, out of those who had served the office of quaestor and tribune ; and this was done more than once. The last recorded instance of the splendours of the aedileship is the administration of Agrippa, who volunteered to take the office, and repaired all the public buildings and all the roads at his own expense, without drawing anything from the treasury. (Dion Cass. xlix. 43 ; Plin. H. N. xxxri 15.) The aedileship had, however, lost its true character before this time. Agrippa had already been consul before he accepted the office of aedile, and his munificent expenditure in this nominal office was the close of the splendour of the aedileship. Augustus appointed the curule aediles specially to the office of putting out fires, and placed a body of 600 slaves at their command ; but the praefecti vigilum afterwards performed this duty. In like manner the citratvres via rum were appointed by him to superintend the mnds near the city, and the quatuorviri to superintend those within Rome. The curatores operum publicorum and the curatores alvei Tiberis, also appointed by Augustus, stripped the aediles of the remaining few duties that might be called honourable. They lost also the superintendence of wells, or springs, and of the aquaeducts. (Frontinus ii. De Aquaeduciibus.) They retained, under the early emperors, a kind of police, for the purpose of repressing open licentiousness and disorder: thus the baths, eating-houses, and brothels were still subject to their inspection, and the registration of prostitutes was still within their duties. (Tacit Annul, ii. 85.) We read of the aediles under Augustus making search after libellous books, in order that they might be burnt ; and also under Tiberius (Tacit. Ann. iv. 35.)

The coloniae, and the municipia of the later period, had also their aediles, whose numbers and functions varied in different places. They seem, however, as to their powers and duties, to have resembled the aediles of Rome. They were chosen annually. (De Aedil. Col., Ac Otto. Lips. 1732.)

The history, powers, and duties of the aediles are stated with great minuteness by Schubert, De Romanorum Aedilibus, lib. iv. Regimontii, 1828. See also Wunder, De Romanorum Comitiis Aedilium Curulium, in his edition of Cicero's Oration Pro Cn. Plancio, Leipzig, 1830. (G. L.)

AEDI'TUI, AEDI'TUMI, AEDI'TIMI: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (νεωκόροι, ζάκοροι), persons who took care of the temples, and attended to the cleaning of them. Notwithstanding this menial service, they partook of the priestly character, and are sometimes even called priests by the Greek grammarians. (Suid. Hesych. Etym. M. s. v. (ζάκορος; Pollux, i.14.) In many cases they were women, as Timo in Herodotus (vi. 134), who also speaks of her as (ύποζάκορος), from which it is clear that in some places several of these priests must have been attached to one and the same temple, and that they differed among themselves in rank. Subsequently the menial services connected with the office of the Neocori were left to slaves, and the latter became a title given to priestly officers of high rank, of whom an account is given in a separate article. (neocori.) The aeditui lived in the temples, or near them, and acted as ciceroni to those persons who wished to see them. (Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 4. § 10 ; Cic. Verr. iv. 44 ; Liv. xxx. 17 ; Schol. ad Hor. Ep. ii. 1. 230.) In ancient times the aeditui were citizens, but under the emperors freedmen. (Serv. ad Virq. Aen. ix. 648.)

AEGINETA'RUM FE'RIAE: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (Aίγινητων έορτή)a festival in honour of Poseidon, which lasted sixteen days, during which time every family took its meals quietly and alone, no slave being allowed to wait, and no stranger invited to partake of them. From the circumstance of each family being closely confined to itself, those who solemnised this festival were called (μονοφάγοι). Plutarch (Quaest. Graec. 44) traces its origin to the Trojan war, and says that, as many of the Aeginetans had lost their lives, partly in the siege of Troy and partly on their return home, those who reached their native island were received indeed with joy by their kinsmen ; but in order to avoid hurting the feelings of those families who had to lament the loss of their friends, they thought it proper neither to show their joy nor to offer any sacrifices in public. Every family, therefore, entertained privately their friends who had returned, and acted themselves as attendants, though not without rejoicings. (L. S.)

AEGIS: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (αίγίς), the shield of Zeus, signifies literally a goat-skin, and is formed on the same analogy with (νεβρίς) a fawn-skin. (Herod, iv. 189.) According to ancient mythology, the aegis worn by Zeus was the hide of the goat Amaltheia, which had suckled him in his infancy. Hyginus relates (Astron. Poet. 13), that, when he was preparing to resist the Titans, he was directed, if he wished to conquer, to wear a goat-skin with the head of the Gorgon. To this particular goat-skin the term aegis was afterwards confined. Homer always represents it as part of the armour of Zeus, whom on this account he distinguishes by the epithet aegisbearing (αìγίοχος). He, however, asserts, that it was borrowed on different occasions both by Apollo (Il. xv. 229, 307—318, 360, xxiv. 20), and by Athena (Il. ii. 447—449, xviii. 204, xxi. 400).

The skins of various quadrupeds having been used by the most ancient inhabitants of Greece for clothing and defence, we cannot wonder that the goat-skin was employed in the same manner. It must also be borne in mind that the heavy shields of the ancient Greeks were in part supported by a belt or strap (τελαμών, balteus) passing over the right shoulder, and, when not elevated with the shield, descending transversely to the left hip. In order that a goat-skin might serve this purpose, two of its legs would probably be tied over the right shoulder of the wearer, the other extremity being fastened to the inside of the shield. In combat the left arm would be passed under the hide, and would raise it together with the shield, as is shown in a marble statue of Athena, preserved in the museum at Naples, which, from its style of art, may be reckoned among the most ancient in existence.

(graphic)(merged small)

(graphic)

Other statues of Athena represent her in a state of repose, and with the goat-skin falling obliquely from its loose fastening over her right shoulder, so as to pass round the body under the left arm. The annexed figure is taken from a colossal statue of Athena at Dresden.

Another mode of wearing this garment, alto of peaceful expression, is seen in a statue of Athena at Dresden, of still higher antiquity than that last referred to, and in the very ancient image of the same goddess from the temple of Zens at Aegina. In both of these the aegis covers the right as well as the left shoulder, the breast, and the back, tailing behind so as almost to reach the feet. Schom (in Bottiger's Amalthea, ii. 215) considers this as the original form of the aegis.

By a figure of speech, Homer uses the term aegis to denote not only the goat-skin, which it properly signified, but together with it the shield to which it belonged. By thus understanding the word, it is easy to comprehend both why Athena is said to throw her father's aegis around her shoulders (Il. v. 738, xviii. 204), and why on one occasion Apollo is said to hold it in his hand and to shake it so as to terrify and confound the Greeks (Il. xv. 229. 307—321), and on another occasion to cover with it the dead body of Hector in order to protect it from insult (xxiv. 20). In these passages we must suppose the aegis to mean the shield, together with the large expanded skin or belt by which it was suspended from the right shoulder.

As the Greeks prided themselves greatly on the rich and splendid ornaments of their shields, they supposed the aegis to be adorned in a style corresponding to the might and majesty of the father of the gods. In the middle of it was fixed the appalling Gorgon's head (Il. v. 741), and its border was surrounded with golden tassels (ζύσανοι), each of which was worth a hecatomb (ii. 446—449). In the figures above exhibited, the serpents of the Gorgon's head are transferred to the border of the skin.

By the later poets and artists, the original conception of the aegis appears to have been forgotten or disregarded. They represent it as a breast-plate covered with metal in the form of scales, not used to support the shield, but extending equally on both sides from shoulder to shoulder ; as in the annexed figure, taken from a statue at Florence.

With this appearance the descriptions of the aegis by the Latin poets generally correspond. (Virg. Aen. viii. 435—438 ; Val. Flacc. vi. 174 ; Sid. ApoIl. Carm. 15 ; Sil. Ital. ix. 442.)

It is remarkable that, although the aegis pro­perly belonged to Zeus, yet we seldom find it as an attribute of Zeus in works of art. There is, however, in the museum at Leyden, a marble statue of Zeus, found at Utica, in which the aegis hangs over his left shoulder. The annexed figure is taken from an ancient cameo. Zeus is here represented with the aegis wrapt round the fore part of his left arm. The shield is placed underneath it, at his feet.

(graphic)(merged small)(graphic)(merged small)

The Roman emperors also assumed the aegis, intending thereby to exhibit themselves in the character of Jupiter. Of this the armed statue of Hadrian in the British Museum presents an ex­ ample. In these cases the more recent Roman conception of the aegis is of course followed, co­ inciding with the remark of Servius (Aen. viiU 435), that this breast-armour was called aegis when worn by a god ; lorica, when worn by a man. (Comp. Mart. vii. 1.) (J. Y.)

AEINAUTAE: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (αειναύται), magistrates at Miletus, consisting of the chief men in the state, who obtained the supreme power on the deposition of the tyrants, Thoas and Damasenor. Whenever they wished to deliberate on important matters, they embarked on board ship (hence their name), put out at a distance from land, and did not return to shore till they had transacted their business. (Plat. Quaest. Graec. 32.)

AEIPHU'GIA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άειφυγία).(exsilium.)

AEISITI: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (άείσιτοι). (prytaneium.)

AENEATO'RES: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (ahenatores, Amm. Marc. xxiv. 4), were those who blew upon wind instruments in the Roman army, namely, the buccinatores, cornicines, and tubicines, and they were so called because all these instruments were made of aes or bronze. (Suet. Caes. 32.) Aeneatores were also employed in the public games. (Sen. Ep. 84.) A collegium aeneatorum is mentioned in inscriptions. (Orelli, Inscr. No. 4059.)

AENIGMA: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (αǐνιγμα), a riddle. It appears to have been a very ancient custom among the Greeks, especially at their symposia, to amuse themselves by proposing riddles to be solved. Their partiality for this sort of amusement is attested by the fact that some persons, such as Theodectes of Phaselis and Aristonymus, acquired considerable reputation as inventors and writers of riddles. (Athen. x. pp. 451, 452, xii. p. 538.) Those who were successful in solving the riddle proposed to them received a prize, which had been previously agreed upon by the company, and usually consisted of wreaths, taeniae, cakes, and other sweetraeats, or kisses, whereas a person unable to solve a riddle was condemned to drink in one breath a certain quantity of wine, sometimes mixed with salt water. (Athen. x. p. 457 ; Pollux, vi. 107 ; Hesych. s. v. (γρîφος.) Those riddles which have come down to us are mostly in hexameter verse, and the tragic as well as comic writers not unfrequently introduced them into their plays. Pollux (l. c.) distinguishes two kinds of riddles, the (αîνιγμα) and (γρîφος) and, according to him, the former was of a jocose and the latter of a serious nature; but in the writers whose works have come down to us, no such distinction is observed ; and there are passages where the name (γοîφος) is given to the most ludicrous jokes of this kind. (Aristoph. Vesp. 20 ; comp. Becker, Charicles, vol. i. p. 473.) The Romans seem to have been too serious to find any great amusement in riddles ; and when Gellius (xviii. 2) introduces some Romans at a banquet engaged in solving riddles, we must remember that the scene is laid at Athens ; and we do not hear of any Romans who invented or wrote riddles until a very late period. Appuleius wrote a work entitled Liber Ludicrorum el Griphorum, which is lost. After the time of Appuleius, several collections of riddles were made, some of which are still extant in MS. in various libraries. (L. S.)

AE'NUM, or AHE'NUM: (Mit. Gr. y Rom.). (sc. vas), a brazen vessel, used for boiling, is defined by Paullus to be a vessel hanging over the fire, in which water was boiled for drinking, whereas food was boiled in the cacabus. (Dig. 33. tit. 7. s. 18. § 3.) This distinction is not, however, always observed ; for we read of food being cooked in the aenum. (Juv. xv. 81 ; Ov. Met. vi. 645.) The word is also frequently used in the sense of a dyer's copper; and, as purple was the most celebrated dye of antiquity, we find the expressions Sidonium aenum, Tyrium aenum, &c (Ov. Fast. iii. 822; Mart, xiv. 133.)



Fuentes - Fonts
SOUV2
Balaram
ScaGoudy
FOLIO 4.2
Biblica Font







free counters






Disculpen las Molestias

Category: Greek Mythology


Category: Greek Mythology | A - Amp | Amp - Az | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q- R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
Greek Mythology stub | Ab - Al | Ale - Ant | Ant - Az | B | C | D | E | F - G | H | I | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q - R | R | S | T | A - K | L - Z
Category:Greek deity stubs (593)EA2 | A | B | C | D | E | G | H | I | K | L | M | N | O | P | S | T | U | Z




Mitología Romana


Category:Aeneid (662)EA2 | Category:Characters in the Aeneid (670)EA2 | Category:Characters in Book VI of the Aeneid (718)EA2 | Category:Kings of Rome (769)EA2 | Category:Latin kings (772)EA2 | Category:Deities in the Aeneid (803)EA2


Otras Ramas de Mitología


Mitología en General 1 | Mitología en General 2 | Category:Festivals in Ancient Greece (2865)JC | Category:Indo-European mythology | Category:Festivals in Ancient Greece (1483)JC | Category:Ancient Olympic Games (1484)JC | Category:Ancient Olympic Games (2876)JC | Category:Ancient Olympic competitors (2889)JC | Category:Ancient Olympic competitors (1485)JC | Category:Ancient Olympic competitors (2910)JC | Category:Ancient Greek athletes (2938)JC | Category:Ancient Greek athletes (1486)JC | Mitología General (3033)SC | 101SC | 3132SC | 3048SC | 3060SC | 3118SC | 3095SC | 876SC | 938SC | 986SC | 1289SC | 1109SC | 1407SC | 1107SC | 2494JC | 2495JC | 2876JC | 2865JC | 2889JC | 2938JC | 2596JC | 2606JC | 2621JC | 2450JC | 1476JC | 1477JC | 2825JC | 2740JC | 2694JC | 2806JC | 2738JC | 2660JC | 2808JC | 2734JC | 2703JC | 2910JC | 3051SK



Religión Católica


Religión Católica  |  PAPAS - POPES  |  Diccionario Bíblico - VINE

Via Crucis desde Roma - 10/04/2009 (Completo) (www.populartv.net Oficiado por su Santidad el Papa Benedicto XVI).
Papa Juan Pablo II (Karol Wojtyla). (Rosarium Mysteria Gloriosa | Rosarium Mysteria Doloris | Rosarium Mysteria Gaudii)


  1. CATHOLIC RELIGION  (2020)SK
  2. Category:Roman Catholicism (3219)SK
  3. Catolicismo (3220)SK
  4. Pope o Papas (3243)SK
  5. 3. Handel: Brockes Passion, HWV 48 / Marcus Creed (OedipusColoneus) (3243)SK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkBV6tEmYx8 4. Handel: Brockes Passion, HWV 48 / Marcus Creed (OedipusColoneus) (3243)SK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM3Y5CxvKcg
  6. Category:Popes (3221)SK
  7. Listado de Papas desde Pedro hasta el presente (738)EA2
  8. Catholics

jueves 11 de marzo de 2010

ENCICLOPEDIA - INDICE | DEVOTOS FACEBOOK | EGIPTO - USUARIOS de FLICKR y PICASAWEB

Otros Apartados


Main     SWAMIS · Mejoras · Catholics

Nota: JC: http://juancastaneira.multiply.com | SC: http://sricaitanyadas.multiply.com | SK: http://srikrishnadas.multiply.com | EA: http://elagua.multiply.com | EA2: http://elagua2.multiply.com | CA: http://casaindiasricaitanyamahaprabhu.blog.com

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario

Correo Vaishnava

Archivo del blog