Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.
In many ancient statues the sleeves and folds of the tunic, being very full, are apt to be confounded with the rest, but in the best style of art this is not the case. Quintilian cautions his orators against these incumbrances. A difference in size and fulness of the toga, modified according to the rank of the wearer, may be detected in coins and sculpture, but in all cases the mode of adjustment appears to be the same.—One mode of wearing the toga was the Cinctus Gabinus. It consisted in forming a part of the toga itself into a girdle, by drawing its outer edge round the body and tying it in a knot in front, and at the same time covering the head with another portion of the garment. It was worn by persons offering sacrifices, by the consul when he declared war, and by devoted persons, as in the case of Decius. Its origin was Etruscan, as its name implies. Persons wearing this dress were said to beprocincti(orincincti)cinctu(orritu)Gabino.—The colour of the toga worn by men (toga virilis) was generally white, that is, the natural colour of white wool. Hence it was calledpuraorvestimentum purum, in opposition to thepraetextamentioned below. A brighter white was given to the toga of candidates for offices (candidatifrom theirtoga candida) by rubbing it with chalk. There is an allusion to this custom in the phrasecretata ambitio. White togas are often mentioned as worn at festivals, which does not imply that they were not worn commonly, but that new or fresh-cleaned togas were first put on at festivals. The toga was kept white and clean by the fuller. When this was neglected, the toga was calledsordida, and those who wore such garmentssordidati. This dress (with disarranged hair and other marks of disorder about the person) was worn by accused persons, as in the case of Cicero. Thetoga pulla, which was of the natural colour of black wool, was worn in private mourning, and sometimes also by artificers and others of the lower orders.—Thetoga picta, which was ornamented with Phrygian embroidery, was worn by generals in triumphs [Triumphus], and under the emperors by the consuls, and by the praetors when they celebrated the games. It was also calledCapitolina. Thetoga palmatawas a kind of toga picta.—Thetoga praetextahad a broad purple border. It was worn with theBulla, by children of both sexes. It was also worn by magistrates, both those of Rome, and those of the colonies and municipia; by the sacerdotes, and by persons engaged in sacred rites or paying vows. Among those who possessed thejus togae praetextae habendae, the following may be more particularly mentioned: the dictator, the consuls, the praetors (who laid aside the praetexta when about to condemn a Roman citizen to death), the augurs (who, however, are supposed by some to have worn the trabea), the decemviri sacris faciundis, the aediles, the triumviri epulones, the senators on festival days, the magistri collegii, and the magistri vicorum when celebrating games. In the case of the tribuni plebis, censors, and quaestors, there is some doubt upon the subject. The toga praetexta is said to have been derived from the Etruscans, and to have been first adopted, with the latus clavus [Clavus Latus], by Tullus Hostilius as the royal robe, whence its use by the magistrates in the republic. The toga praetexta and the bulla aurea were first given to boys in the case of the son of Tarquinius Priscus, who, at the age of fourteen, in the Sabine war, slew an enemy with his own hand. Respecting the leaving off of the toga praetexta, and the assumption of the toga virilis, seeImpubesandClavus Latus. The occasion was celebrated with great rejoicings by the friends of the youth, who attended him in a solemn procession to the Forum and Capitol. This assumption of the toga virilis was calledtirocinium fori, as being the young man’s introduction to public life. Girls wore the praetexta till their marriage.—Thetrabeawas a toga ornamented with purple horizontal stripes. There were three kinds of trabeae; one wholly of purple, which was sacred to the gods, another of purple and white, and another of purple and saffron, which belonged to augurs. The purple and white trabea was a royal robe, and is assigned to the Latin and early Roman kings, especially to Romulus. It was worn by the consuls inpublic solemnities, such as opening the temple of Janus. The equites wore it at thetransvectio, and in other public solemnities. Hence thetrabeais mentioned as the badge of the equestrian order. Lastly, the toga worn by the Roman emperors was wholly of purple. It appears to have been first assumed by Julius Caesar.—The material of which the toga was commonly made was wool. It was sometimes thick and sometimes thin. The former was thetoga densa,pinguis, orhirta. A new toga, with the nap neither worn off nor cut close, was called pexa, to which is opposed thetritaorrasa, which was used as a summer dress. The toga was originally worn by both sexes; but when the stola came to be worn by matrons, the toga was only worn by the meretrices, and by women who had been divorced on account of adultery. [Stola.] In war the toga was laid aside, and replaced by thePaludamentumandSagum. Hencetogatusis opposed tomiles.
TONSOR. [Barba.]
TORCŬLAR, TORCŬLUM. [Vinum.]
TORMENTUM (ἀφετήρια ὄργανα), a military engine, so called from the twisting (torquendo) of hairs, thongs, and vegetable fibres. The principal military engines were thebalistaandcatapulta. Thebalista(πετροβόλος) was used to shoot stones; thecatapulta(καταπέλτης,καταπελτική) to project darts, especially the falarica [Hasta], and a kind of missile, 4½ feet long, calledtrifax. Whilst in besieging a city the ram [Aries] was employed in destroying the lower part of the wall, the balista was used to overthrow the battlements (propugnacula,ἐπαλξεῖς), and the catapult to shoot any of the besieged who appeared between them: the forms of these machines being adapted to the objects which they were intended to throw; the catapult was long, the balista nearly square. Instances are recorded in which the balista threw stones to the distance of a quarter of a mile. Some balistae threw stones weighing three hundredweight. Of thescorpiooronager, which was also a species of tormentum, we know next to nothing.
TORMENTUM (βάσανος), torture. (1)Greek.—By a decree of Scamandrius it was ordained that no free Athenian could be put to the torture, and this appears to have been the general practice. The evidence of slaves was, however, always taken with torture, and their testimony was not otherwise received. From this circumstance their testimony appears to have been considered of more value than that of freemen. Any person might offer his own slave to be examined by torture, or demand that of his adversary, and the offer or demand was equally calledπρόκλησις εἰς βάσανον. The parties interested either superintended the torture themselves, or chose certain persons for this purpose, hence calledβασανισταὶ, who took the evidence of the slaves. (2)Roman.—During the time of the republic freemen were never put to the torture, and slaves only were exposed to this punishment. Slaves, moreover, could not be tortured to prove the guilt of their own master, except in the case of incestus, which was a crime against the gods, or unless the senate made an exception in some special instance. At a later time slaves might be tortured to bear witness against their masters in cases of majestas and adultery. Under the emperors even free persons were put to the torture to extract evidence from them in cases of majestas; and although this indignity was confined for the most part to persons in humble circumstances, we read of cases in which even Roman senators and equites were exposed to it.
TORQUES or TORQUIS (στρεπτός), an ornament of gold, twisted spirally and bent into a circular form, which was worn round the neck by men of distinction among the Persians, the Gauls, and other Asiatic and northern nations. It was by taking a collar from a Gallic warrior that T. Manlius obtained the cognomen ofTorquatus. Such collars were among the rewards of valour bestowed after an engagement upon those who had most distinguished themselves.
TŎRUS, a bed covered with sheets or blankets, calledToralia.
TRĂBEA. [Toga.]
TRĂGOEDIA (τραγῳδία), tragedy. (1)Greek.The tragedy of the ancient Greeks as well as their comedy confessedly originated in the worship of the god Dionysus. The peculiarity which most strikingly distinguishes the Greek tragedy from that of modern times, is the lyrical or choral part. This was the offspring of the dithyrambic and choral odes from which, as applied to the worship of Dionysus, Greek tragedy took its rise. The name of Tragedy (τραγῳδία) is probably derived from the goatlike appearance of the Satyrs who sang or acted with mimetic gesticulations (ὄρχησις) the old Bacchic songs, with Silenus, the constant companion of Dionysus, for their leader. The Dionysian dithyrambs were sometimes of a gay and at other times of a mournful character: it was from the latter that the stately and solemn tragedy of the Greeks arose. Great improvements were introduced in the dithyramb by Arion, a contemporary of Periander. Before his time the dithyramb was sung in a wild and irregular manner; but he is said to have invented the Cyclic chorus, by which we are to understand that theDithyramb was danced by a chorus of fifty men round an altar. The choral Dithyrambic songs prevailed to some extent, as all choral poetry did, amongst the Dorians of the Peloponnesus; whence the choral element of the Attic tragedy was always written in the Dorian dialect, thus showing its origin. The lyrical poetry was, however, especially popular at Sicyon and Corinth. In the latter city Arion made his improvements; in the former “tragic choruses,” i.e. dithyrambs of a sad and plaintive character, were very ancient. From the more solemn Dithyrambs then, as improved by Arion, ultimately sprang the dramatic tragedy of Athens, somewhat in the following manner. The choruses were under the direction of a leader or exarchus, who, it may be supposed, came forward separately, and whose part was sometimes taken by the poet himself. We may also conjecture that the exarchus in each case led off by singing or reciting his part in a solo, and that the chorus dancing round the altar then expressed their feelings of joy or sorrow at his story, representing the perils and sufferings of Dionysus, or some hero, as it might be. The subjects of this Dithyrambic tragedy were not, however, always confined to Dionysus. Even Arion wrote Dithyrambs, relating to different heroes, a practice in which he was followed by succeeding poets. It is easy to conceive how the introduction of an actor or speaker independent of the chorus might have been suggested by the exarchs coming forward separately and making short off-hand speeches, whether learnt by heart beforehand, or made on the spur of the moment. [Chorus.] But it is also possible, if not probable, that it was suggested by the rhapsodical recitations of the epic and gnomic poets formerly prevalent in Greece: the gnomic poetry being generally written in Iambic verse, the metre of the Attic dialogue. This however is certain, that the union of the Iambic dialogue with the lyrical chorus took place at Athens under Pisistratus, and that it was attributed to Thespis, a native of Icaria, one of the country demes or parishes of Attica where the worship of Dionysus had long prevailed. The alteration made by him, and which gave to the old tragedy a new and dramatic character, was very simple but very important. He introduced an actor, as it is recorded, for the sake of giving rest to the chorus, and independent of it, in which capacity he probably appeared himself, taking various parts in the same piece, under various disguises, which he was enabled to assume by means of linen masks, the invention of which is attributed to him. Now as a chorus, by means of its leader, could maintain a dialogue with the actor, it is easy to see how with one actor only a dramatic action might be introduced, continued, and concluded, by the speeches between the choral songs expressive of the joy or sorrow of the chorus at the various events of the drama. With respect to the character of the drama of Thespis there has been much doubt: some writers, and especially Bentley, have maintained that his plays were all satyrical and ludicrous, i.e. the plot of them was some story of Bacchus, the chorus consisted principally of satyrs, and the argument was merry. But perhaps the truth is that in the early part of his career Thespis retained the satyrical character of the older tragedy, but afterwards inclined to more serious compositions, which would almost oblige him to discard the Satyrs from his choruses. That he did write serious dramas is intimated by the titles of the plays ascribed to him, as well as by the character of the fragments of Iambic verse quoted by ancient writers as his. It is evident that the introduction of the dialogue must also have caused an alteration in the arrangement of the chorus, which could not remain cyclic or circular, but must have been drawn up in a rectangular form about the thymele or altar of Bacchus in front of the actor, who was elevated on a platform or table (ἐλεός), the forerunner of the stage. The lines of Horace (Ar. Poet.276):—
“Dicitur et plaustris vexisse poemata Thespis,Quae canerent agerentque peruncti faecibus ora”—
“Dicitur et plaustris vexisse poemata Thespis,Quae canerent agerentque peruncti faecibus ora”—
“Dicitur et plaustris vexisse poemata Thespis,
Quae canerent agerentque peruncti faecibus ora”—
are founded on a misconception of the origin of the Attic tragedy, and the tale about the waggons of Thespis probably arose out of a confusion of the waggon of the comedian Susarion with theplatformof the Thespian actor. The first representation of Thespis was inB.C.535. His immediate successors were the Athenian Choerilus and Phrynichus, the former of whom represented plays as early asB.C.524. Phrynichus was a pupil of Thespis, and gained his first victory in the dramatic contestsB.C.511. In his works, the lyric or choral element still predominated over the dramatic, and he was distinguished for the sweetness of his melodies, which in the time of the Peloponnesian war were very popular with the admirers of the old style of music. The first use of female masks is also attributed to him, and he so far deviated from the general practice of the Attic tragedians as to write a drama on a subject of contemporary history, the capture of Miletus by the Persians,B.C.494.—We now come to the first writer of Satyrical dramas, Pratinas of Phlius, a town not far from Sicyon, and which laid claim to the invention of tragedy as well as comedy.For some time previously to this poet, and probably as early as Thespis, tragedy had been gradually departing more and more from its old characteristics, and inclining to heroic fables, to which the chorus of Satyrs was not a fit accompaniment. But the fun and merriment caused by them were too good to be lost. Accordingly the Satyrical drama, distinct from the recent and dramatic tragedy, but suggested by the sportive element of the old Dithyramb, was founded by Pratinas, who however appears to have been surpassed in his own invention by Choerilus. It was always written by tragedians, and generally three tragedies and one Satyrical piece were represented together, which in some instances at least formed a connected whole, called a tetralogy (τετραλογία). The Satyrical piece was acted last, so that the minds of the spectators were agreeably relieved by a merry after-piece at the close of an earnest and engrossing tragedy. The distinguishing feature of this drama was the chorus of Satyrs, in appropriate dresses and masks, and its subjects seem to have been taken from the same class of the adventures of Bacchus and of the heroes as those of tragedy; but of course they were so treated and selected, that the presence of rustic satyrs would seem appropriate. In their jokes and drollery consisted the merriment of the piece; for the kings and heroes who were introduced into their company were not of necessity thereby divested of their epic and legendary character, though they were obliged to conform to their situation and suffer some diminution of dignity, from their position. Hence Horace (Ar. Poet.231) says:—
“Effutire leves indigna Tragoedia versusIntererit Satyris paulum pudibunda protervis.”—
“Effutire leves indigna Tragoedia versusIntererit Satyris paulum pudibunda protervis.”—
“Effutire leves indigna Tragoedia versus
Intererit Satyris paulum pudibunda protervis.”—
alluding in the first line to the mythic or epic element of the Satyric drama, which he calls Tragoedia, and in the second representing it as being rather ashamed of its company. The “Cyclops” of Euripides is the only Satyric drama now extant.—The great improvements in tragedy were introduced by Aeschylus. This poet added a second actor, diminished the parts of the chorus, and made the dialogue the principal part of the action. He also availed himself of the aid of Agatharchus, the scene-painter, and improved the costume of his actors by giving them thick-soled boots (ἐμβάται), as well as the masks, which he made more expressive and characteristic. Horace (Ar. Poet.278) thus alludes to his improvements:—
“personae pallaeque repertor honestaeAeschylus, et modicis instravit pulpita tignisEt docuit magnumque loqui, nitique cothurno.”—
“personae pallaeque repertor honestaeAeschylus, et modicis instravit pulpita tignisEt docuit magnumque loqui, nitique cothurno.”—
“personae pallaeque repertor honestae
Aeschylus, et modicis instravit pulpita tignis
Et docuit magnumque loqui, nitique cothurno.”—
The custom of contending with trilogies (τριλογίαι), or with three plays at a time, is said to have been also introduced by him. In fact he did so much for tragedy, and so completely built it up to its “towering height,” that he was considered the father of it. The subjects of his dramas were not connected with the worship of Dionysus; but rather with the great cycle of Hellenic legends and some of the myths of the Homeric Epos. Accordingly, he said of himself that his dramas were but scraps and fragments from the great feasts of Homer. In the latter part of his life Aeschylus made use of one of the improvements of Sophocles, namely theτριταγωνιστής, or third actor. This was the finishing stroke to the dramatic element of Attic tragedy, which Sophocles is said to have matured by further improvements in costume and scene-painting. Under him tragedy appears with less of sublimity and sternness than in the hands of Aeschylus, but with more of calm grandeur and quiet dignity and touching incident. The plays of Sophocles are the perfection of the Grecian tragic drama, as a work of art and poetic composition in a thoroughly chastened and classic style. In the hands of Euripides tragedy deteriorated not only in dignity, but also in its moral and religious significance. He introduces his heroes in rags and tatters, and busies them with petty affairs, and makes them speak the language of every-day life. As Sophocles said of him, he represented men not as they ought to be, but as they are, without any ideal greatness or poetic character. His dialogues too were little else than the rhetorical and forensic language of his day cleverly put into verse: full of sophistry and quibbling distinctions. One of the peculiarities of his tragedies was theπρόλογος, an introductory monologue, with which some hero or god opens the play, telling who he is, what is the state of affairs, and what has happened up to the time of his address, so as to put the audience in possession of every fact which it might be necessary for them to know: a very business-like proceeding no doubt, but a poor make-shift for artistical skill. The “Deus ex machina,” also, though not always, in a “nodus, tali vindice dignus,” was frequently employed by Euripides to effect thedénoûmentof his pieces. The chorus too no longer discharged its proper and high functions either as a representative of the feelings of unprejudiced observers, or, as one of the actors, and a part of the whole, joining in the development of the piece. Many of his choral odes in fact are but remotely connected in subject with the action of the play. Another novelty of Euripides was the use of the monodies or lyrical songs, in which not the chorus, butthe principal persons of the drama, declare their emotions and sufferings. Euripides was also the inventor of tragi-comedy. A specimen of the Euripidean tragi-comedy is still extant in the Alcestis, actedB.C.438, as the last of four pieces, and therefore as a substitute for a Satyrical drama. Though tragic in its form and some of its scenes, it has a mixture of comic and satyric characters (e.g.Hercules) and concludes happily.—The parts which constitute a Greek tragedy,as to its form, are, the prologue, episode, exode, and choral songs; the last divided into the parode and stasimon. Theπρόλογοςis all that part of a tragedy which precedes the parodos of the chorus,i.e.the first act. Theἐπεισόδιονis all the part between whole choral odes. Theἔξοδοςthat part which has no choral ode after it. Of the choral part theπάροδοςis the first speech of the whole chorus (not broken up into parts): the stasimon is without anapaests and trochees. These two divisions were sung by all the choreutae, but the “songs on the stage” and theκόμμοιby a part only. The commus, which properly means a wailing for the dead, was generally used to express strong excitement, or lively sympathy with grief and suffering, especially by Aeschylus. It was common to the actors and a portion only of the chorus. Again theπάροδοςwas so named as being the passage-song of the chorus sung while it was advancing to its proper place in the orchestra, and therefore in anapaestic or marching verse: theστάσιμον, as being chaunted by the chorus when standing still in its proper position.—The materials of Greek tragedy were the national mythology,
“Presenting Thebes, or Pelop’s line,Or the tale of Troy divine.”
“Presenting Thebes, or Pelop’s line,Or the tale of Troy divine.”
“Presenting Thebes, or Pelop’s line,
Or the tale of Troy divine.”
The exceptions to this were the two historical tragedies, the “Capture of Miletus” by Phrynichus, and the “Persians” of Aeschylus; but they belong to an early period of the art. Hence the plot and story of the Grecian tragedy were of necessity known to the spectators, a circumstance which strongly distinguishes the ancient tragedy from the modern.—The functions of the Chorus in Greek Tragedy were very important, as described by Horace (Ar. Poet.193),
“Actoris partes chorus officiumque virileDefendat: neu quid medios intercinat actus,Quod non proposito conducat, et haereat apte,” &c.
“Actoris partes chorus officiumque virileDefendat: neu quid medios intercinat actus,Quod non proposito conducat, et haereat apte,” &c.
“Actoris partes chorus officiumque virile
Defendat: neu quid medios intercinat actus,
Quod non proposito conducat, et haereat apte,” &c.
It often expresses the reflections of a dispassionate and right-minded spectator, and inculcates the lessons of morality and resignation to the will of heaven, taught by the occurrence of the piece in which it is engaged. With respect to the number of the chorus seeChorus.—(2)Roman.The tragedy of the Romans was borrowed from the Greek, but the construction of the Roman theatre afforded no appropriate place for the chorus, which was therefore obliged to appear on the stage, instead of in the orchestra. The first tragic poet and actor at Rome was Livius Andronicus, a Greek by birth, who began to exhibit inB.C.240. In his monodies (or the lyrical parts sung, not by a chorus, but by one person), it was customary to separate the singing from the mimetic dancing, leaving the latter only to the actor, while the singing was performed by a boy placed near the flute-player (ante tibicinem); so that the dialogue only (diverbia) was left to be spoken by the actors. Livius Andronicus was followed by Naevius, Ennius, Pacuvius, and Attius. These five poets belong to the earlier epoch of Roman tragedy, in which little was written but translations and imitations of the Greek, with occasional insertions of original matter. How they imitated the structure of the choral odes is doubtful—perhaps they never attempted it. In the age of Augustus the writing of tragedies, whether original or imitations, seems to have been quite a fashionable occupation. The emperor himself attempted an Ajax, but did not succeed. One of the principal tragedians of this epoch was Asinius Pollio, to whom the line (Virg.Eclog.viii. 10) applies—
“Sola Sophocleo tua carmina digna cothurno.”
“Sola Sophocleo tua carmina digna cothurno.”
“Sola Sophocleo tua carmina digna cothurno.”
Ovid wrote a tragedy on the subject of Medea. Quintilian says of Varius, who was distinguished in epic as well as tragic poetry, that his Thyestes might be compared with any of the Greek tragedies. Some fragments of this Thyestes are extant, but we have no other remains of the tragedy of the Augustan age. The loss perhaps is not great. The only complete Roman tragedies that have come down to us are the ten attributed to the philosopher Seneca; but whether he wrote any of them or not is a disputed point. To whatever age they belong, they are beyond description bombastic and frigid, utterly unnatural in character and action, full of the most revolting violations of propriety, and barren of all theatrical effect. Still they have had admirers: Heinsius calls the Hippolytus “divine,” and prefers the Troades to the Hecuba of Euripides: even Racine has borrowed from the Hippolytus in Phèdre. Roman tragedians sometimes wrote tragedies on subjects taken from their national history. Pacuvius,e.g.wrote aPaulus, L. Accius aBrutusand aDecius. Curiatius Maternus, also a distinguished orator in the reign of Domitian, wrote a Domitius and a Cato, the latter of which gave offence to the rulers of the state.
TRĀGŬLA. [Hasta.]
TRANSTRA. [Navis.]
TRANSVECTĬO ĔQUĬTUM. [Equites,p. 157.]
TRIĀRĬI. [Exercitus.]
TRĪBŬLA or TRĪBŬLUM (τριβόλος), a corn-drag, consisting of a thick and ponderous wooden board, which was armed underneath with pieces of iron or sharp flints, and drawn over the corn by a yoke of oxen, either the driver or a heavy weight being placed upon it, for the purpose of separating the grain and cutting the straw.
TRĬBŬLUS (τρίβολος), a caltrop, also calledmurex. When a place was beset with troops, the one party endeavoured to impede the cavalry of the other party, either by throwing before them caltrops, which necessarily lay with one of their four sharp points turned upwards, or by burying the caltrops with one point at the surface of the ground.
TRĬBŪNAL, a raised platform, on which the praetor and judices sat in the Basilica. [Basilica.] There was a tribunal in the camp, which was generally formed of turf, but sometimes, in a stationary camp, of stone, from which the general addressed the soldiers, and where the consul and tribunes of the soldiers administered justice. When the general addressed the army from the tribunal the standards were planted in front of it, and the army placed round it in order. The address itself was calledAllocutio.
TRĬBŪNUS, a tribune. This word seems originally to have indicated an officer connected with a tribe (tribus), or who represented a tribe for certain purposes; and this is indeed the character of the officers who were designated by it in the earliest times of Rome, and may be traced also in the later officers of this name.—(1)Tribunes of the three ancient tribes.—At the time when all the Roman citizens were contained in the three tribes of the Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres, each of them was headed by a tribune, and these three tribunes represented their respective tribes in all civil, religious, and military affairs; that is to say, they were in the city the magistrates of the tribes, and performed the sacra on their behalf, and in times of war they were their military commanders. Thetribunus celerumwas the commander of theceleres, the king’s body-guard, and not the tribune of the tribe of the Ramnes, as is supposed by some modern writers. In what manner the tribunus celerum was appointed is uncertain, but it is probable that he was elected by the tribes; for we find that when the imperium was to be conferred upon the king, the comitia were held under the presidency of the tribunus celerum; and in the absence of the king, to whom this officer was next in rank, he convoked the comitia: it was in an assembly of this kind that Brutus proposed to deprive Tarquinius of the imperium. A law passed under the presidency of the tribunus celerum was called alex tribunicia, to distinguish it from one passed under the presidency of the king. The tribunes of the three ancient tribes ceased to be appointed when these tribes themselves ceased to exist as political bodies, and when the patricians became incorporated in the local tribes of Servius Tullius. [Tribus.]—(2)Tribunes of the Servian tribes(φύλαρχοι, τριττυάρχοι).—When Servius Tullius divided the commonalty into thirty local tribes, we again find a tribune at the head of these tribes. The duties of these tribunes, who were without doubt the most distinguished persons in their respective districts, appear to have consisted at first in keeping a register of the inhabitants in each district, and of their property, for purposes of taxation, and for levying the troops for the armies. When subsequently the Roman people became exempted from taxes, the main part of their business was taken from them, but they still continued to exist. Thetribuni aerarii, who occur down to the end of the republic, were perhaps only the successors of the tribunes of the tribes. When (B.C.406) the custom of giving pay (stipendium) to the soldiers was introduced, each of the tribuni aerarii had to collect the tributum in his own tribe, and with it to pay the soldiers; and in case they did not fulfil this duty, the soldiers had the right of pignoris capio against them. In later times their duties appear to have been confined to collecting the tributum, which they made over to the military quaestors who paid the soldiers. [Quaestor.] The Lex Aurelia,B.C.70, called the tribuni aerarii to the exercise of judicial functions, along with the senators and equites, as these tribunes represented the body of the most respectable citizens. But of this distinction they were subsequently deprived by Julius Caesar.—(3)Tribuni Plebis(δήμαρχοι, the officeδημαρχία).—The ancient tribunes of the plebeian tribes had undoubtedly the right of convoking the meetings of their tribes, and of maintaining the privileges granted to them by king Servius, and subsequently by the Valerian laws. But this protection was very inadequate against the insatiable ambition and usurpations of the patricians. When the plebeians, impoverished by long wars, and cruelly oppressed by the patricians, at last seceded inB.C.494 to the Mons Sacer, the patricians were obliged to grantto the plebeians the right of appointing tribunes (tribuni plebis) with more efficient powers to protect their own order than those which were possessed by the heads of the tribes. The purpose for which they were appointed was only to afford protection against any abuse on the part of the patrician magistrates; and that they might be able to afford such protection their persons were declared sacred and inviolable, and it was agreed that whoever invaded this inviolability should be an outlaw, and that his property should be forfeited to the temple of Ceres. A subsequent law enacted that no one should oppose or interrupt a tribune while addressing the people, and that whoever should act contrary to this ordinance should give bail to the tribunes for the payment of whatever fine they should affix to his offence in arraigning him before the commonalty; if he refused to give bail, his life and property were forfeited. The tribunes were thus enabled to afford protection to any one who appealed to the assembly of the commonalty or required any other assistance. They were essentially the representatives and the organs of the plebeian order, and their sphere of action was the comitia tributa. With the patricians and their comitia they had nothing to do. The tribunes themselves, however, were not judges, and could inflict no punishments, but could only propose the imposition of a fine to the commonalty (multam irrogare). The tribunes were thus in their origin only a protecting magistracy of the plebs, but in the course of time their power increased to such a degree that it surpassed that of all other magistrates, and the tribunes then became a magistracy for the whole Roman people, in opposition to the senate and the oligarchical party in general, although they had nothing to do with the administration or the government. During the latter period of the republic they became true tyrants, and may be compared to the national convention of France during the first revolution. At first the number of the tribunes was only two, but soon afterwards they were increased to five, one being taken from each of the five classes, and subsequently to ten, two being taken from each of the five classes. This last number appears to have remained unaltered down to the end of the empire. The tribunes entered upon their office on the 10th of December, but were elected, at least in the time of Cicero, on the 17th of July. It is almost superfluous to state that none but plebeians were eligible to the office of tribune; hence when, towards the end of the republic, patricians wished to obtain the office, they were obliged first to renounce their own order and to become plebeians; hence also under the empire it was thought that the princeps should not be tribune because he was a patrician. But the influence which belonged to this office was too great for the emperors not to covet it. Hence Augustus was made tribune for life. During the republic, however, the old regulation remained in force, even after the tribunes had ceased to be the protectors of the plebs alone. There is only one instance recorded in which patricians were elected to the tribuneship, and this was probably the consequence of an attempt to divide the tribuneship between the two orders. Although nothing appears to be more natural than that the tribunes should originally have been elected by that body of Roman citizens which they represented, yet the subject is involved in considerable obscurity. Some writers state that they were elected by the comitia of the curies; others suppose that they were elected in the comitia of the centuries; but whether they were elected in the latter or in the comitia of the tribes, it is certain that at first the sanction of the curies to the election was at all events necessary. But after the time of the Lex Publilia (B.C.472) the sanction of the curies is not heard of, and the election of the tribunes was left entirely to the comitia tributa, which were convoked and held for this purpose by the old tribunes previous to the expiration of their office. One of the old tribunes was appointed by lot to preside at the election. As the meeting could not be prolonged after sunset, and the business was to be completed in one day, it sometimes happened that it was obliged to break up before the election was completed, and then those who were elected filled up the legitimate number of the college by cooptatio. But in order to prevent this irregularity, the tribune L. Trebonius, in 448B.C., got an ordinance passed, according to which the college of the tribunes should never be completed by cooptatio, but the elections should be continued on the second day, if they were not completed on the first, till the number ten was made up. The place where the election of the tribunes was held was originally and lawfully the Forum, afterwards also the Campus Martius, and sometimes the area of the Capitol.—We now proceed to trace the gradual growth of the tribunitian power. Although its original character was merely protection (auxiliumorβοήθεια) against patrician magistrates, the plebeians appear early to have regarded their tribunes also as mediators or arbitrators in matters among themselves. The whole power possessed by the college of tribunes was designated by thenametribunicia potestas, and extended at no time farther than one mile beyond the gates of the city; at a greater distance than this they came under the imperium of the magistrates, like every other citizen. As they were the public guardians, it was necessary that every one should have access to them and at any time; hence the doors of their houses were open day and night for all who were in need of help and protection, which they were empowered to afford against any one, even against the highest magistrates. For the same reason a tribune was not allowed to be absent from the city for a whole day, except during the Feriae Latinae, when the whole people were assembled on the Alban Mount. InB.C.456 the tribunes, in opposition to the consuls, assumed the right of convoking the senate, in order to lay before it a rogation, and discuss the same; for until that time the consuls alone had had the right of laying plebiscita before the senate for approbation. Some years after,B.C.452, the tribunes demanded of the consuls to request the senate to make a senatusconsultum for the appointment of persons to frame a new legislation; and during the discussions on this subject the tribunes themselves were present in the senate. The written legislation which the tribunes then wished can only have related to their own order; but as such a legislation would only have widened the breach between the two orders, they afterwards gave way to the remonstrances of the patricians, and the new legislation was to embrace both orders. From the second decemvirate the tribuneship was suspended, but was restored after the legislation was completed, and now assumed a different character from the change that had taken place in the tribes. [Tribus.] The tribunes now had the right to be present at the deliberations of the senate; but they did not sit among the senators themselves, but upon benches before the opened doors of the senate house. The inviolability of the tribunes, which had before only rested upon a contract between the two estates, was now sanctioned and confirmed by a law of M. Horatius. As the tribes now also included the patricians and their clients, the tribunes might naturally be asked to interpose on behalf of any citizen, whether patrician or plebeian. Hence the patrician ex-decemvir, Appius Claudius, implored the protection of the tribunes. About this time the tribunes also acquired the right of taking the auspices in the assemblies of the tribes. They also assumed again the right, which they had exercised before the time of the decemvirate, of bringing patricians who had violated the rights of the plebeians before the comitia of the tribes. By the Lex Valeria passed in the Comitia Centuriata (B.C.449), it was enacted that a plebiscitum, which had been voted by the tribes, should bind the patricians as well. While the college thus gained outwardly new strength every day, a change took place in its internal organisation, which to some extent paralysed its powers. BeforeB.C.394, every thing had been decided in the college by a majority; but about this time, we do not know how, a change was introduced, which made the opposition (intercessio) of one tribune sufficient to render a resolution of his colleagues void. This new regulation does not appear in operation till 394 and 393B.C.; the old one was still applied inB.C.421 and 415. From their right of appearing in the senate, and of taking part in its discussions, and from their being the representatives of the whole people, they gradually obtained the right of intercession against any action which a magistrate might undertake during the time of his office, and this even without giving any reason for it. Thus we find a tribune preventing a consul from convoking the senate, and preventing the proposal of new laws or elections in the comitia; they interceded against the official functions of the censors; and even against a command issued by the praetor. In the same manner a tribune might place his veto upon an ordinance of the senate; and he could thus either compel the senate to submit the subject to a fresh consideration, or could raise the session. In order to propose a measure to the senate they might themselves convene a meeting, or when it had been convened by a consul they might make their proposal even in opposition to the consul, a right which no other magistrates had in the presence of the consuls. The senate, on the other hand, had itself, in certain cases, recourse to the tribunes. Thus, inB.C.431 it requested the tribunes to compel the consuls to appoint a dictator, in compliance with a decree of the senate, and the tribunes compelled the consuls, by threatening them with imprisonment, to appoint A. Postumius Tubertus dictator. From this time forward we meet with several instances in which the tribunes compelled the consuls to comply with the decrees of the senate,si non essent in auctoritate senatus, and to execute its commands. In their relation to the senate a change was introduced by thePlebiscitum Atinium, which ordained that a tribune, by virtue of his office, should be a senator. When this plebiscitum was made is uncertain; but we know that inB.C.170 it was not yet in operation. It probably originated with C. Atinius, who was tribune inB.C.132.But as the quaestorship, at least in later times, was the office which persons held previously to the tribuneship, and as the quaestorship itself conferred upon a person the right of a senator, the law of Atinius was in most cases superfluous.—In their relation to other magistrates we may observe, that the right of intercessio was not confined to stopping a magistrate in his proceedings, but they might even command their viatores to seize a consul or a censor, to imprison him, or to throw him from the Tarpeian rock. When the tribunes brought an accusation against any one before the people, they had the right ofprehensio, but not the right ofvocatio, that is, they might command a person to be dragged by their viatores before the comitia, but they could not summon him. They might, as in earlier times, propose a fine to be inflicted upon the person accused before the comitia, but in some cases they dropped this proposal and treated the case as a capital one. The college of tribunes had also the power of making edicts. In cases in which one member of the college opposed a resolution of his colleagues nothing could be done, and the measure was dropped; but this useful check was removed by the example of Tiberius Gracchus, in which a precedent was given for proposing to the people that a tribune obstinately persisting in his veto should be deprived of his office. From the time of the Hortensian law the power of the tribunes had been gradually rising to such a height that at length it was superior to every other in the state. They had acquired the right of proposing to the comitia tributa or the senate measures on nearly all the important affairs of the state, and it would be endless to enumerate the cases in which their power was manifested. Their proposals were indeed usually made ex auctoritate senatus, or had been communicated to and approved by it; but cases in which the people itself had a direct interest, such as a general legal regulation, granting of the franchise, a change in the duties and powers of a magistrate, and others, might be brought before the people, without their having been previously communicated to the senate, though there are also instances of the contrary. Subjects belonging to the administration could not be brought before the tribes without the tribunes having previously received through the consuls the auctoritas of the senate. This, however, was done very frequently, and hence we have mention of a number of plebiscita on matters of administration. It sometimes even occurs that the tribunes brought the question concerning the conclusion of peace before the tribes, and then compelled the senate to ratify the resolution, as expressing the wish of the whole people. Sulla, in his reform of the constitution on the early aristocratic principles, left to the tribunes only the jus auxiliandi, and deprived them of the right of making legislative or other proposals, either to the senate or the comitia, without having previously obtained the sanction of the senate. But this arrangement did not last, for Pompey restored to them their former rights. During the latter period of the republic, when the office of quaestor was in most cases held immediately before that of tribune, the tribunes were generally elected from among the senators, and this continued to be the case under the empire. Sometimes, however, equites also obtained the office, and thereby became members of the senate, where they were considered of equal rank with the quaestors. Tribunes of the people continued to exist down to the fifth century of our era, though their powers became naturally much limited, especially in the reign of Nero. They continued however to have the right of intercession against decrees of the senate, and on behalf of injured individuals.—(4)Tribuni militum cum consulari potestate.When inB.C.445 the tribune C. Canuleius brought forward the rogation that the consulship should not be confined to either order, the patricians evaded the attempt by a change in the constitution; the powers which had hitherto been united in the consulship were now divided between two new magistrates, viz. theTribuni militum cum consulari potestateand the censors. Consequently, inB.C.444, three military tribunes, with consular power, were appointed, and to this office the plebeians were to be equally eligible with the patricians. For the years following, however, the people were to be at liberty, on the proposal of the senate, to decide whether consuls were to be elected according to the old custom, or consular tribunes. Henceforth, for many years, sometimes consuls and sometimes consular tribunes were appointed, and the number of the latter varied from three to four, until inB.C.405 it was increased to six, and as the censors were regarded as their colleagues, we have sometimes mention of eight tribunes. At last, however, inB.C.367, the office of these tribunes was abolished by the Licinian law, and the consulship was restored. These consular tribunes were elected in the comitia of the centuries, and undoubtedly with less solemn auspices than the consuls.—(5)Tribuni Militares[Exercitus,p. 169.]
TRĬBUS (φῦλον,φυλή), a tribe. (1)Greek.In the earliest times of Greek history mention is made of people being divided intotribes and clans. Homer speaks of such divisions in terms which seem to imply that they were elements that entered into the composition of every community. A person not included in any clan (ἀφρήτωρ), was regarded as a vagrant or outlaw. These divisions were rather natural than political, depending on family connection, and arising out of those times, when each head of a family exercised a patriarchal sway over its members. The bond was cemented by religious communion, sacrifices and festivals, which all the family or clansmen attended, and at which the chief usually presided.—Of the Dorian race there were originally three tribes, traces of which are found in all the countries which they colonised. Hence they are called by HomerΔωριέες τριχάϊκες. These tribes were theHylleis(Ὑλλεῖς),Pamphyli(Πάμφυλοι), andDymanataeorDymanes(ΔυμανάταιorΔυμᾶνες). The first derived their name from Hyllus, son of Hercules, the two last from Pamphylus and Dymas, who are said to have fallen in the last expedition when the Dorians took possession of the Peloponnesus. The Hyllean tribe was perhaps the one of highest dignity; but at Sparta there does not appear to have been much distinction, for all the freemen there were by the constitution of Lycurgus on a footing of equality. To these three tribes others were added in different places, either when the Dorians were joined by other foreign allies, or when some of the old inhabitants were admitted to the rank of citizenship or equal privileges. Thus the Cadmean Aegeids are said by Herodotus to have been a great tribe at Sparta, descended (as he says) from Aegeus, grandson of Theras, though others have thought they were incorporated with the three Doric tribes. The subdivision of tribes intophratriae(φρατρίαι) orpatrae(πάτραι),genē(γένη),trittyes(τρίττυες), &c. appears to have prevailed in various places. At Sparta each tribe contained tenobae(ὠβαί), a word denoting a local division or district; eachobecontained tentriacades(τριακάδες), communities containing thirty families. But very little appears to be known of these divisions, how far they were local, or how far genealogical. After the time of Cleomenes the old system of tribes was changed; new ones were created corresponding to the different quarters of the town, and they seem to have been five in number.—The first Attic tribes that we read of are said to have existed in the reign, or soon after the reign, of Cecrops, and were calledCecropis(Κεκροπίς),Autochthon(Αὐτόχθων),Actaea(Ἀκταία), andParalia(Παραλία). In the reign of a subsequent king, Cranaus, these names were changed toCranais(Κραναΐς),Atthis(Ἀτθίς),Mesogaea(Μεσόγαια), andDiacris(Διακρίς). Afterwards we find a new set of names;Dias(Διάς),Athenais(Ἀθηναΐς),Poseidonias(Ποσειδωνιάς), andHephaestias(Ἡφαιστιάς); evidently derived from the deities who were worshipped in the country. Some of those secondly mentioned, if not all of them, seem to have been geographical divisions; and it is not improbable that, if not independent communities, they were at least connected by a very weak bond of union. But all these tribes were superseded by four others, which were probably founded soon after the Ionic settlement in Attica, and seem to have been adopted by other Ionic colonies out of Greece. The namesGeleontes(Γελέοντες),Hopletes(Ὅπλητες),Argades(Ἀργάδεις),Aegicores(Αἰγικορεῖς), are said by Herodotus to have been derived from the sons of Ion, son of Xuthus. Upon this, however, many doubts have been thrown by modern writers. The etymology of the last three names would seem to suggest, that the tribes were so called from the occupations which their respective members followed; theHopletesbeing the armed men, or warriors; theArgades, labourers or husbandmen; theAegicores, goatherds or shepherds. But whatever be the truth with respect to the origin of these tribes, one thing is certain, that before the time of Theseus, whom historians agree in representing as the great founder of the Attic commonwealth, the various people who inhabited the country continued to be disunited and split into factions.—Theseus in some measure changed the relations of the tribes to each other, by introducing a gradation of ranks in each; dividing the people intoEupatridae(Εὐπατρίδαι),Geomori(Γεωμόροι), andDemiurgi(Δημιουργοί), of whom the first were nobles, the second agriculturists or yeomen, the third labourers and mechanics. At the same time, in order to consolidate the national unity, he enlarged the city of Athens, with which he incorporated several smaller towns, made it the seat of government, encouraged the nobles to reside there, and surrendered a part of the royal prerogative in their favour. The tribes or phylae were divided, either in the age of Theseus or soon after, each into threephratriae(φρατρίαι, a term equivalent to fraternities, and analogous in its political relation to the Romancuriae), and eachphratriainto thirtygene(γένη, equivalent to the RomanGentes), the members of agenos(γένος) being calledgennetae(γεννῆται) orhomogalactes(ὁμογαλάκτες). Eachgenoswas distinguished by a particular name of a patronymic form, whichwas derived from some hero or mythic ancestor. These divisions, though the names seem to import family connection, were in fact artificial; which shows that some advance had now been made towards the establishment of a closer political union. The members of thephratriaeandgenehad their respective religious rites and festivals, which were preserved long after these communities had lost their political importance, and perhaps prevented them from being altogether dissolved.—After the age of Theseus, the monarchy having been first limited and afterwards abolished, the whole power of the state fell into the hands of theEupatridaeor nobles, who held all civil offices, and had besides the management of religious affairs, and the interpretation of the laws. Attica became agitated by feuds, and we find the people, shortly before the legislation of Solon, divided into three parties,Pediaei(Πεδιαῖοι) or lowlanders,Diacrii(Διάκριοι) or highlanders, andParali(Πάραλοι) or people of the sea-coast. The first two remind us of the ancient division of tribes,MesogaeaandDiacris; and the three parties appear in some measure to represent the classes established by Theseus, the first being the nobles, whose property lay in the champaign and most fertile part of the country; the second, the smaller landowners and shepherds; the third, the trading and mining class, who had by this time risen in wealth and importance. To appease their discords, Solon was applied to; and thereupon framed his celebrated constitution and code of laws. Here we have only to notice that he retained the four tribes as he found them, but abolished the existing distinctions ofrank, or at all events greatly diminished their importance, by introducing his property qualification, or division of the people intoPentacosiomedimni(Πεντακοσιομέδιμνοι),Hippeis(Ἱππεῖς),Zeugitae(Ζευγῖται), andThetes(Θῆτες). [Census,Greek.] The enactments of Solon continued to be thelawat Athens, though in great measure suspended by the tyranny, until the democratic reform effected by Clisthenes. He abolished the old tribes, and created ten new ones, according to a geographical division of Attica, and named after ten of the ancient heroes:Erechtheis,Aegeis,Pandionis,Leontis,Acamantis,Oeneis,Cecropis,Hippothoontis,Aeantis,Antiochis. These tribes were divided each into tendemi(δῆμοι), the number of which was afterwards increased by subdivision; but the arrangement was so made that severaldeminot contiguous or near to one another were joined to make up a tribe. [Demus.] The object of this arrangement was, that by the breaking of old associations a perfect and lasting revolution might be effected, in the habits and feelings, as well as the political organisation of the people. Solon allowed the ancientphratriaeto exist, but they were deprived of all political importance. All foreigners admitted to the citizenship were registered in a phyle and demus, but not in a phratria or genos. The functions which had been discharged by the old tribes were now mostly transferred to thedemi. Among others, we may notice that of the forty-eightnaucrariaeinto which the old tribes had been divided for the purpose of taxation, but which now became useless, the taxes being collected on a different system. The reforms of Clisthenes were destined to be permanent. They continued to be in force (with some few interruptions) until the downfall of Athenian independence. The ten tribes were blended with the whole machinery of the constitution. Of the senate of five hundred, fifty were chosen from each tribe. The allotment of dicasts was according to tribes; and the same system of election may be observed in most of the principal offices of state, judicial and magisterial, civil and military, &c. InB.C.307, Demetrius Poliorcetes increased the number of tribes to twelve by creating two new ones, namely,AntigoniasandDemetrias, which afterwards received the names ofPtolemaisandAttalis; and a thirteenth was subsequently added by Hadrian, bearing his own name.—(2)Roman.The three ancient Romulian tribes, the Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres, or the Ramnenses, Titienses, and Lucerenses, to which the patricians alone belonged, must be distinguished from the thirty plebeian tribes of Servius Tullius, which were entirely local, four for the city, and twenty-six for the country around Rome. The history and organisation of the three ancient tribes are spoken of underPatricii. They continued of political importance almost down to the period of the decemviral legislation; but after this time they no longer occur in the history of Rome, except as an obsolete institution. The institution and organisation of the thirty plebeian tribes, and their subsequent reduction to twenty by the conquests of Porsena, are spoken of underPlebes. The four city tribes were called by the same names as the regions which they occupied, viz.Suburana,Esquilina,Collina, andPalatina. The names of the sixteen country tribes which continued to belong to Rome after the conquest of Porsena, are in their alphabetical order as follows:Aemilia,Camilia,Cornelia,Fabia,Galeria,Horatia,Lemonia,Menemia,Papiria,Pollia,Popillia,upinia,Romilia,Sergia,Veturia, andVoltinia. As Rome gradually acquired possession of more of the surrounding territory, the number of tribes also was gradually increased. When Appius Claudius, with his numerous train of clients, emigrated to Rome, lands were assigned to them in the district where the Anio flows into the Tiber, and a new tribe, thetribus Claudia, was formed. This tribe was subsequently enlarged, and was then designated by the nameCrustuminaorClustumina. This name is the first instance of a country tribe being named after a place, for the sixteen older ones all derived their name from persons or heroes. InB.C.387, the number of tribes was increased to twenty-five by the addition of four new ones, viz. theStellatina,Tromentina,Sabatina, andArniensis. InB.C.358 two more, thePomptinaandPublilia, were formed of Volscians. InB.C.332, the censors Q. Publilius Philo and Sp. Postumius increased the number of tribes to twenty-nine, by the addition of theMaeciaandScaptia. InB.C.318 theUfentinaandFalerinawere added. InB.C.299 two others, theAniensisandTerentina, were added by the censors, and at last inB.C.241, the number of tribes was augmented to thirty-five, by the addition of theQuirinaandVelina. Eight new tribes were added upon the termination of the Social War, to include the Socii, who then obtained the Roman franchise; but they were afterwards incorporated among the old 35 tribes, which continued to be the number of the tribes to the end of the republic. When the tribes, in their assemblies, transacted any business, a certain order (ordo tribuum) was observed, in which they were called upon to give their votes. The first in the order of succession was the Suburana, and the last the Arniensis. Any person belonging to a tribe had in important documents to add to his own name that of his tribe, in the ablative case. Whether the local tribes, as they were established by the constitution of Servius Tullius, contained only the plebeians, or included the patricians also, is a point on which the opinions of modern scholars are divided: but it appears most probable that down to the decemviral legislation the tribes and their assemblies were entirely plebeian. From the time of the decemviral legislation, the patricians and their clients were undoubtedly incorporated in the tribes. Respecting the assemblies of the tribes, seeComitia Tributa.
TRĬBŪTUM, a tax which was partly applied to cover the expenses of war, and partly those of the fortifications of the city. The usual amount of the tax was one for every thousand of a man’s fortune, though in the time of Cato it was raised to three in a thousand. The tributum was not a property-tax in the strict sense of the word, for the accounts respecting the plebeian debtors clearly imply, that the debts were not deducted in the valuation of a person’s property, so that he had to pay the tributum upon property which was not his own, but which he owed, and for which he had consequently to pay the interest as well. It was a direct tax upon objects without any regard to their produce, like a land or house-tax, which indeed formed the main part of it. That which seems to have made it most oppressive, was its constant fluctuation. It was raised according to the regions or tribes instituted by Servius Tullius, and by the tribunes of these tribes, subsequently called tribuni aerarii. It was not, like the other branches of the public revenue, let out to farm, but being fixed in money it was raised by the tribunes, unless (as was the case after the custom of giving pay to the soldiers was introduced) the soldiers, like the knights, demanded it from the persons themselves who were bound to pay it. [Aes equestreandHORDEARIUM.] When this tax was to be paid, what sum was to be raised, and what portion of every thousand asses of the census, were matters upon which the senate alone had to decide. But when it was decreed, the people might refuse to pay it when they thought it too heavy, or unfairly distributed, or hoped to gain some other advantage by the refusal. In later times the senate sometimes left its regulation to the censors, who often fixed it very arbitrarily. No citizen was exempt from it, but we find that the priests, augurs, and pontiffs made attempts to get rid of it: but this was only an abuse, which did not last. After the war with Macedonia (B.C.147), when the Roman treasury was filled with the revenues accruing from conquests and from the provinces, the Roman citizens became exempted from paying the tributum, and this state of things lasted down to the consulship of Hirtius and Pansa (43B.C.), when the tributum was again levied, on account of the exhausted state of the aerarium. After this time it was imposed according to the discretion of the emperors. Respecting the tributum paid by conquered countries and cities, seeVectigalia.
TRICLĪNĬUM, the dining-room of a Roman house, the position of which, relatively to the other parts of the house, is seen in the “house of the Tragic poet” (seep. 144). It was of an oblong shape, and was twiceas long as it was broad. The superintendence of the dining-room in a great house was intrusted to a slave calledtricliniarcha, who, through other slaves, took care that everything was kept and proceeded in proper order. Atricliniumgenerally contained three couches, and as the usual number of persons occupying each couch was three, the triclinium afforded accommodation for a party of nine. Sometimes, however, as many as four lay on each of the couches. Each man in order to feed himself lay flat upon his breast or nearly so, and stretched out his hand towards the table; but afterwards, when his hunger was satisfied, he turned upon his left side, leaning on his elbow. To this Horace alludes in describing a person sated with a particular dish, and turning in order to repose upon his elbow. (Sat.ii. 4, 39.) We find the relative positions of two persons who lay next to one another, commonly expressed by the prepositionssuperorsupra, andinfra. A passage of Livy (xxxix. 43), in which he relates the cruel conduct of the consul L. Quintius Flamininus, shows thatinfra aliquem cubarewas the same asin sinu alicujus cubare, and consequently that each person was considered asbelowhim to whose breast his own head approached. On this principle we are enabled to explain the denominations both of the three couches, and of the three places on each couch.