FOOTNOTE:

Triple Aqueduct.

Three of them still serve for their ancient use. They are—(1.) TheAcqua Vergine, the ancientAqua Virgo. (2.) TheAcqua Felice, named after the conventual name of its restorer Sixtus V. (Fra Felice), is, probably, a part of the ancientAqua Claudia, though some take it for theAlexandrina. (3.) TheAcqua Paola, the ancientAlsietina.—The following woodcut represents a restored section of the triple aqueduct of Agrippa:—a.theAqua Marcia;b.theAqua Tepula;c.theAqua Julia. The two latter are of brick and vaulted over. The air-vents are also shown.—The channel of an aqueduct (specus,canalis) was a trough of brick or stone, lined with cement, and covered with a coping, which was almost always arched;and the water either ran directly through this trough, or it was carried through pipes laid along the trough. These pipes were of lead, or terra-cotta (fictiles), and sometimes, for the sake of economy, of leather. At convenient points on the course of the aqueduct, and especially near the middle and end, there was generally a reservoir (piscina,piscina limosa) in which the water might deposit any sediment that it contained. The water was received, when it reached the walls of the city, in a vast reservoir calledcastellum, which formed thehead of waterand also served the purpose of ameter. From this principalcastellumthe water flowed into othercastella, whence it was distributed for public and private use. The termcastellumis sometimes also applied to the intermediate reservoirs already mentioned. During the republic, the censors and aediles had the superintendence of the aqueducts. Augustus first establishedcuratores(orpraefecti)aquarum, who were invested with considerable authority. They were attended outside the city by two lictors, three public slaves, a secretary, and other attendants. In the time of Nerva and Trajan, 460 slaves were constantly employed under the orders of thecuratores aquarumin attending to the aqueducts. They consisted of:—1. Thevillici, whose duty it was to attend to the pipes andcalices. 2. Thecastellarii, who had the superintendence of all thecastella, both within and without the city. 3. Thecircuitores, so called because they had to go from post to post, to examine into the state of the works, and also to keep watch over the labourers employed upon them. 4. Thesilicarii, or paviours. 5. Thetectores, or masons. These and other workmen appear to have been included under the general term ofAquarii.

ĂQUAE ET IGNIS INTERDICTĬO. [Exsilium.]

ĂQUĀRĬI, slaves who carried water for bathing, &c., into the female apartments. The aquarii were also public officers who attended to the aqueducts. [Aquae Ductus.]

ĂQUĬLA. [Signa Militaria.]

Arae, Altars.

ĀRA (βωμός,θυτήριον), an altar.Arawas a general term denoting any structure elevated above the ground, and used to receive upon it offerings made to the gods.Altare, probably contracted fromalta ara, was properly restricted to the larger, higher, and more expensive structures. Four specimens of ancient altars are given below; the two in the former woodcut are square, and those in the latter round, which is the less common form. At the top of three of the above altars we see the hole intended to receive the fire (ἐσχαρίς,ἐσχάρα): the fourth was probably intended for the offering of fruits or other gifts, which were presented to the gods without fire. When the altars were prepared for sacrifice, they were commonly decorated with garlands or festoons. These were composed of certain kinds of leaves and flowers, which were considered consecrated to such uses, and were calledverbenae. The altars constructed with most labour and skill belonged to temples; and they were erected either before the temple or within the cella of the temple, and principally before the statue of the divinity to whom it was dedicated. The altars in the area before the temple were altars of burnt-offerings, at which animal sacrifices (victimae,σφάγια,ἱερεῖα) were presented: only incense was burnt, or cakes and bloodless sacrifices offered on the altars within the building.

Arae, Altars.

ĂRĀTRUM (ἄροτρον), a plough. Among the Greeks and Romans the three most essential parts of the plough were,—the plough-tail (γύης,buris,bura), the share-beam (ἔλυμα,dens,dentale), that is, the piece of wood to which the share is fixed, and the pole (ῥυμός],ἱστοβοεύς,temo). In the time and country of Virgil it was the custom to force a tree into the crooked form of theburis, or plough-tail. The upper end of theburisbeing held by the ploughman, the lower part,below its junction with the pole, was used to hold thedentaleor share-beam, which was either sheathed with metal, or driven bare into the ground, according to circumstances. The termvomerwas sometimes applied to the end of thedentale. To these three parts, the two following are added in the description of the plough by Virgil:—1. Theearth-boards, ormould-boards(aures), rising on each side, bending outwardly in such a manner as to throw on either hand the soil which had been previously loosened and raised by the share, and adjusted to the share-beam (dentale), which was made double for the purpose of receiving them. 2. Thehandle(stiva). Virgil describes this part as used to turn the plough at the end of the furrow; and it is defined by an ancient commentator on Virgil as the “handle by which the plough is directed.” It is probable that as thedentalia, the two share-beams, were in the form of the Greek letter Λ, which Virgil describes byduplici dorso, theburiswas fastened to the left share-beam and thestivato the right, so that the plough of Virgil was more like the modern Lancashire plough, which is commonly held behind with both hands. Sometimes, however, thestivawas used alone and instead of theburisor tail. In place ofstivathe termcapulusis sometimes employed. The only other part of the plough requiring notice is the coulter (culter), which was used by the Romans as it is with us. It was inserted into the pole so as to depend vertically before the share, cutting through the roots which came in its way, and thus preparing for the more complete overturning of the soil by the share. Two small wheels were also added to some ploughs. The plough, as described by Virgil, corresponds in all essential particulars with the plough now used about Mantua and Venice. The Greeks and Romans usually ploughed their land three times for each crop. The first ploughing was calledproscindere, ornovare(νεοῦσθαι, νεάζεσθαι); the secondoffringere, oriterare; and the third,lirare, ortertiare. The field which underwent the “proscissio” was calledvervactumornovale(νεός), and in this process the coulter was employed, because the fresh surface was entangled with numberless roots which required to be divided before the soil could be turned up by the share. The term “offringere” fromobandfrangere, was applied to the second ploughing; because the long parallel clods already turned up were broken and cut across, by drawing the plough through them at right angles to its former direction. The field which underwent this process was calledager iteratus. After the second ploughing the sower cast his seed. Also the clods were often, though not always, broken still further by a wooden mallet, or by harrowing (occatio). The Roman ploughman then, for the first time, attached the earth-boards to his share. The effect of this adjustment was to divide the level surface of the “ageriteratus” into ridges. These were calledporcae, and alsolirae, whence came the verblirare, to make ridges, and alsodelirare, to decline from the straight line. The earth-boards, by throwing the earth to each side in the manner already explained, both covered the newly-scattered seed, and formed between the ridges furrows (αὔλακες,sulci) for carrying off the water. In this state the field was calledsegesandτρίπολος. When the ancients ploughed three times only, it was done in the spring, summer, and autumn of the same year. But in order to obtain a still heavier crop, both the Greeks and the Romans ploughed four times, the proscissio being performed in the latter part of the preceding year, so that between one crop and another two whole years intervened.

Aratrum, Plough (now used at Mantua).1. Buris.2. Temo.3. Dentale.4. Culter.5. Vomer.6 6. Aures.

1. Buris.2. Temo.3. Dentale.

4. Culter.5. Vomer.6 6. Aures.

ARBĬTER. [Judex.]

ARCA (κιβωτός). (1) A chest, in which the Romans were accustomed to place their money; and the phraseex arca solverehad the meaning of paying in ready money. The term arcae was usually applied to the chests in which the rich kept their money, and was opposed to the smallerloculi,sacculus, andcrumena.—(2) The coffin in which personswere buried, or the bier on which the corpse was placed previously to burial.—(3) A strong cell made of oak, in which criminals and slaves were confined.

ARCĔRA, a covered carriage or litter, spread with cloths, which was used in ancient times in Rome, to carry the aged and infirm. It is said to have obtained the name of arcera on account of its resemblance to an arca, or chest.

Arcera. (Ginzrot, Wagen, Tav. 19, fig. 2.)

ARCHEION (ἀρχεῖον) properly means any public place belonging to the magistrates, but is more particularly applied to the archive office, where the decrees of the people and other state documents were preserved. This office is sometimes merely calledτὸ δημοσίον. At Athens the archives were kept in the temple of the mother of the gods (μήτρῳον), and the charge of it was entrusted to the president (ἐπιστάτης) of the senate of the Five-hundred.

ARCHĬĀTER (ἀρχίατρος), a medical title under the Roman emperors, the exact signification of which has been the subject of much discussion, but which most probably means “the chief of the physicians.” The first person whom we find bearing this title is Andromachus, physician to Nero. In after times the order appears to have been divided, and we find two distinct classes of archiatri, viz., those of the palace and those of the people.

ARCHĬMĪMUS. [Mimus.]

ARCHĬTECTŪRA (ἀρχιτεκτονία,ἀρχιτεκτονική), architecture. The necessity for a habitation, and the attempt to adorn those habitations which were intended for the gods, are the two causes from which the art derives its existence. In early times little attention was paid to domestic architecture. The resources of the art were lavished upon the temples of the gods; and hence the greater part of the history of Grecian architecture is inseparably connected with that of the temple, and has its proper place underTemplum, and the subordinate headings, such asColumna, &c. But, though the first rise of architecture, as a fine art, is connected with the temple, yet, viewed as the science of construction, it must have been employed, even earlier, for other purposes, such as the erection of fortifications, palaces, treasuries, and other works of utility. Accordingly, it is the general opinion of antiquaries, that the very earliest edifices, of which we have any remains, are the so-called Cyclopean works, in which we see huge unsquared blocks of stone built together in the best way that their shapes would allow. [Murus.] In addition to these, however, there are other purposes for which architecture, still using the term in its lower sense, would be required in a very early stage of political society; such as the general arrangement of cities, the provision of a place for the transaction of public business, with the necessary edifices appertaining to it [Agora,Forum], and the whole class of works which we embrace under the head of civil engineering, such as those for drainage [Cloaca,Emissarius], for communication [Via,Pons], and for the supply of water [Aquae ductus]. Almost equally necessary are places devoted to public exercise, health, and amusement,Gymnasium,Stadium,Hippodromus,Circus,Balneum,Theatrum,Amphitheatrum. Lastly, the skill of the architect has been from the earliest times employed to preserve the memory of departed men and past events; and hence we have the various works of monumental and triumphal architecture, which are described under the headsFunus,Arcus,Columna. The history of architecture may be divided into five periods. The first, which is chiefly mythical, comes down to the time of Cypselus, Ol. 30,B.C.660: the second period comes down to the termination of the Persian war, Ol. 75. 2,B.C.478: the third is the brilliant period from the end of the Persian war to the death of Alexander the Great, Ol. 114,B.C.323: the fourth period extends to the battle of Actium,B.C.31: the fifth period embraces the architecture of the Roman empire till it became mingled with the Gothic. Strongly fortified cities, palaces, and treasuries are the chief works of the earlier part of the first period; and to it may be referred most of the so-called Cyclopean remains; while the era of the Dorian invasion marks, in all probability, the commencement of the Dorian style of temple architecture. In the second period the art made rapid advances under the powerful patronage of the aristocracies in some cities, as at Sparta, and of the tyrants in others, as Cypselus at Corinth, Theagnes at Megara, Cleisthenes at Sicyon, the Peisistratids at Athens, and Polycrates at Samos. Architecture now assumed decidedly the character of a fine art, and became associated with the sister arts of sculpture and painting, which are essentialto its development. Magnificent temples sprung up in all the principal Greek cities; and while the Doric order was brought almost, if not quite, to perfection, in Greece Proper, in the Doric colonies of Asia Minor, and in Central Italy and Sicily, the Ionic order appeared, already perfect at its first invention, in the great temple of Artemis at Ephesus. The ruins still existing at Paestum, Syracuse, Agrigentum, Selinus, Aegina, and other places, are imperishable monuments of this period. To it also belong the great works of the Roman kings. The commencement of the third and most brilliant period of the art was signalized by the rebuilding of Athens, the establishment of regular principles for the laying out of cities by Hippodamus of Miletus, and the great works of the age of Pericles, by the contemporaries of Phidias, at Athens, Eleusis, and Olympia. The first part of the fourth period saw the extension of the Greek architecture over the countries conquered by Alexander, and, in the West, the commencement of the new style, which arose from the imitation, with some alterations, of the Greek forms by Roman architects, to which the conquest of Greece gave, of course, a new impulse. By the time of Augustus, Rome was adorned with every kind of public and private edifice, surrounded by villas, and furnished with roads and aqueducts; and these various erections were adorned by the forms of Grecian art; but already Vitruvius begins to complain that the purity of that art is corrupted by the intermixture of heterogeneous forms. This process of deterioration went on rapidly during the fifth period, though combined at first with increasing magnificence in the scale and number of the buildings erected. The early part of this period is made illustrious by the numerous works of Augustus and his successors, especially the Flavii, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines, at Rome and in the provinces; but from the time of the Antonines the decline of the art was rapid and decided. In one department a new impulse was given to architecture by the rise of Christian churches, which were generally built on the model of the Roman Basilica. One of the most splendid specimens of Christian architecture is the church of S. Sophia at Constantinople, built in the reign of Justinian,A.D.537, and restored, after its partial destruction by an earthquake, in 554. But, long before this time, the Greco-Roman style had become thoroughly corrupted, and that new style, which is called the Byzantine, had arisen out of the mixture of Roman architecture with ideas derived from the Northern nations.

ARCHITHĔŌRUS (ἀρχιθέωρος). [Delia.]

ARCHON (ἄρχων). The government of Athens began with monarchy, and, after passing through a dynasty[1]and aristocracy, ended in democracy. Of the kings of Athens, considered as the capital of Attica, Theseus may be said to have been the first; for to him, whether as a real individual or a representative of a certain period, is attributed the union of the different and independent states of Attica under one head. The last was Codrus; in acknowledgment of whose patriotism in meeting death for his country, the Athenians are said to have determined that no one should succeed him with the title of king (βασιλεύς). It seems, however, equally probable that it was the nobles who availed themselves of the opportunity to serve their own interests, by abolishing the kingly power for another, the possessors of which they calledArchontes(ἄρχοντες) or rulers. These for some time continued to be like the kings of the house of Codrus, appointed for life: still an important point was gained by the nobles, the office being made accountable (ὑπεύθυνος), which of course implies that the nobility had some control over it. This state of things lasted for twelve reigns of archons. The next step was to limit the continuance of the office to ten years, still confining it to the Medontidae, or house of Codrus, so as to establish what the Greeks called a dynasty, till the archonship of Eryxias, the last archon of that family elected as such. At the end of his ten years (B.C.684), a much greater change took place: the archonship was made annual, and its various duties divided among a college of nine, chosen by suffrage (χειροτονία) from the Eupatridae, or Patricians, and no longer elected from the Medontidae exclusively. This arrangement lasted till the time of Solon, who still continued the election by suffrage, but made the qualification for office depend, not on birth, but property. The election by lot is believed to have been introduced by Cleisthenes (B.C.508). The last change is supposed to have been made by Aristides, who after the battle of Plataeae (B.C.479) abolished the property qualification, throwing open the archonship and other magistracies to all the citizens; that is, to the Thetes, as well as the other classes, the former of whom were not allowed by Solon’s laws to hold any magistracy at all. Still, after the removal of the old restrictions, some security was left to insure respectability; for, previously to an archon entering on office, he underwent an examination, called theanacrisis(ἀνάκρισις), as to his being a legitimate and a good citizen,a good son, and qualified in point of property, but the latter limitation was either done away with by Aristides, or soon became obsolete. Yet, even after passing a satisfactoryanacrisis, each of the archons, in common with other magistrates, was liable to be deposed on complaint of misconduct made before the people, at the first regular assembly in each prytany. On such an occasion theepicheirotonia(ἐπιχειροτονία), as it was called, took place: and we read that in one case the whole college of archons was deprived of office (ἀποχειροτονεῖσθαι). In consequence of the democratical tendency of the assembly and courts of justice established by Solon, the archons lost the great political power which they at one time possessed. They became, in fact, not as of old directors of the government, but merely municipal magistrates, exercising functions and bearing titles described below. It has been already stated, that the duties of the single archon were shared by a college of nine. The first, or president of this body, was calledArchon, by way of pre-eminence, orArchon Eponymus(ἄρχων ἐπώνυμος), from the year being distinguished by and registered in his name. The second was styledArchon Basileus(ἄρχων βασιλεύς), or the King Archon; the thirdPolemarchus(πολέμαρχος), or commander-in-chief; the remaining six,Thesmothetae(θεσμοθέται), or legislators. As regards the duties of the archons, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish what belonged to them individually, and what collectively. It seems that a considerable portion of the judicial functions of the ancient kings devolved upon theArchon Eponymus, who was also constituted a sort of state protector of those who were unable to defend themselves. Thus he was to superintend orphans, heiresses, families losing their representatives, widows left pregnant, and to see that they were not wronged in any way. This archon had also the superintendence of the greater Dionysia, and the Thargelia. The functions of theKing Archonwere almost all connected with religion; his distinguishing title shows that he was considered a representative of the old kings in their capacity of high priest, as the Rex Sacrificulus was at Rome. Thus he presided at the Lenaea, or older Dionysia; superintended the mysteries and the games calledLampadephoriae, and had to offer up sacrifices and prayers in the Eleusinium, both at Athens and Eleusis. Moreover, indictments for impiety, and controversies about the priesthood, were laid before him; and, in cases of murder, he brought the trial into the court of the areiopagus, and voted with its members. His wife, also, who was calledBasilissa(βασίλισσα), had to offer certain sacrifices, and therefore it was required that she should be a citizen of pure blood, without stain or blemish. ThePolemarchwas originally, as his name denotes, the commander-in-chief, and we find him discharging military duties as late as the battle of Marathon, in conjunction with the tenStrategi; he there took, like the kings of old, the command of the right wing of the army. This, however, seems to be the last occasion on record of this magistrate appointed by lot being invested with such important functions; and in after ages we find that his duties ceased to be military, having been, in a great measure, transferred to the protection and superintendence of the resident aliens, so that he resembled in many respects the praetor peregrinus at Rome. Thus, all actions affecting aliens, the isoteles and proxeni were brought before him previously to trial. Moreover, it was the polemarch’s duty to offer the yearly sacrifice to Artemis, in commemoration of the vow made by Callimachus, at Marathon, and to arrange the funeral games in honour of those who fell in war. The sixThesmothetaewere extensively connected with the administration of justice, and appear to have been called legislators, because, in the absence of a written code, they might be said to make laws, orthesmi(θεσμοί), in the ancient language of Athens, though in reality they only explained them. They were required to review, every year, the whole body of laws, that they might detect any inconsistencies or superfluities, and discover whether any laws which were abrogated were in the public records amongst the rest. Their report was submitted to the people, who referred the necessary alterations to a legislative committee chosen for the purpose, and calledNomothetae(νομοθέται). The chief part of the duties of the thesmothetae consisted in receiving informations, and bringing cases to trial in the courts of law, of the days of sitting in which they gave public notice. They did not try them themselves, but seem to have constituted a sort of grand jury, or inquest. The trial itself took place before the Dicastae. [Dicastae.] It is necessary to be cautious in our interpretation of the wordsἀρχήandἄρχοντες, since they have a double meaning in the Attic orators, sometimes referring to the archons peculiarly so called, and sometimes to any other magistracy. The archons had various privileges and honours. The greatest of the former was the exemption from the trierarchies—a boon not allowed even to the successors of Harmodius and Aristogeiton. As a mark of their office, they wore a chaplet or crown of myrtle; and if any one struck or abused one of the archons,when wearing this badge of office, he becameatimus(ἄτιμος), or infamous in the fullest extent, thereby losing his civic rights. The archons, at the close of their year of service, were admitted among the members of the areiopagus. [Areiopagus.]

FOOTNOTE:[1]By this is meant that the supreme power, though not monarchical, was confined to one family.

[1]By this is meant that the supreme power, though not monarchical, was confined to one family.

Arch of Tiryns. (Gell’s Itinerary, pl. 16.)

ARCUS (also fornix), an arch. A true arch is formed of a series of wedge-like stones, or of bricks, supporting each other, and all bound firmly together by their mutual pressure. It would seem that the arch, as thus defined, and as used by the Romans, was not known to the Greeks in the early periods of their history. But they made use of a contrivance, even in the heroic age, by which they were enabled to gain all the advantages of our archway in making corridors, or hollow galleries, and which in appearance resembled the pointed arch, such as is now termed Gothic. This was effected by cutting away the superincumbent stones in the manner already described, at an angle of about 45° with the horizon. The mode of construction and appearance of such arches is represented in the annexed drawing of the walls of Tiryns. The gate of Signia (Segni) in Latium exhibits a similar example. The principle of the true arch seems to have been known to the Romans from the earliest period; it is used in theCloaca Maxima. It is most probably an Etruscan invention. The use of it constitutes one leading distinction between Greek and Roman architecture, for by its application the Romans were enabled to execute works of far bolder construction than those of the Greeks. The Romans, however, never used any other form of arch than the semicircle.The arcus triumphalis, triumphal arch, was a structure peculiar to the Romans, erected in honour of an individual, or in commemoration of a conquest. Triumphal arches were built across the principal streets of Rome, and, according to the space of their respective localities, consisted of a single archway, or a central one for carriages, and two smaller ones on each side for foot-passengers.Those actually made use of on the occasion of a triumphal entry and procession were merely temporary and hastily erected; and, having served their purpose, were taken down again, and sometimes replaced by others of more durable materials. Stertinius is the first upon record who erected anything of the kind. He built an arch in the Forum Boarium, aboutB.C.196, and another in the Circus Maximus, each of which was surmounted by gilt statues. There are twenty-one arches recorded by different writers, as having been erected in the city of Rome, five of which now remain:—1.Arcus Drusi, which was erected to the honour of Claudius Drusus on the Appian way. 2.Arcus Titi, at the foot of the Palatine, which was erected to the honour of Titus, after his conquest of Judaea; the bas-reliefs of this arch represent the spoils from the temple of Jerusalem carried in triumphal procession. 3.Arcus Septimii Severi, which was erected by the senate (A.D.207) at the end of the Via Sacra, in honour of that emperor and his two sons, Caracalla and Geta, on account of his conquest of the Parthians and Arabians. 4.Arcus Gallieni, erected to the honour of Gallienus by a private individual, M. Aurelius Victor. 5.Arcus Constantini, which was larger than the arch of Titus. As a specimen of the triumphal arches, a drawing of the arch of Drusus is given in the preceding page.

Arch of Drusus at Rome

ARCUS (βιός,τόξον), the bow used for shooting arrows, is one of the most ancient of all weapons, but is characteristic of Asia rather than of Europe. In the Roman armies it was scarcely ever employed except by auxiliaries; and these auxiliaries, calledsagittarii, were chiefly Cretes and Arabians. The upper of the two figures below shows the Scythian or Parthian bow unstrung; the lower one represents the usual form of the Grecian bow, which had a double curvature, consisting of two circular portions united by the handle. When not used, the bow was put into a case (τοξοθήκη,γωρυτός,corytus), which was made of leather, and sometimes ornamented. It frequently held the arrows as well as the bow, and on this account is often confounded with thepharetraor quiver.

Arcus, Bow. (From paintings on vases.)Corytus, Bow-case. (From a Relief in theVatican, Visconti, iv. tav. 43.)

Arcus, Bow. (From paintings on vases.)

Corytus, Bow-case. (From a Relief in theVatican, Visconti, iv. tav. 43.)

ĀRĔA (ἅλως, orἁλωά), the threshing-floor, was a raised place in the field, open on all sides to the wind. Great pains were taken to make this floor hard; it was sometimes paved with flint stones, but more usually covered with clay and smoothed with a roller.

ĂREIOPĂGUS (ὁ Ἄρειος πάγος, or hill of Ares) was a rocky eminence, lying to the west of, and not far from the Acropolis at Athens. It was the place of meeting of the council (Ἡ ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ βουλή), which was sometimes calledThe Upper Council(Ἡ ἄνω βουλή), to distinguish it from the senate of Five-hundred, which sat in the Cerameicus within the city. It was a body of very remote antiquity, acting as a criminal tribunal, and existed long before the time of Solon, but he so far modified its constitution and sphere of duty, that he may almost be called its founder. What that original constitution was, must in some degree be left to conjecture, though there is every reason to suppose that it was aristocratical, the members being taken, like the ephetae, from the noble patrician families. [Ephetae.] By the legislation of Solon the Areiopagus was composed of the ex-archons, who, after an unexceptionable discharge of their duties, “went up” to the Areiopagus, and became members of it for life, unless expelled for misconduct. As Solon made the qualification for the office of archon to depend not on birth but on property, the council after his time ceased to be aristocratic in constitution; but,as we learn from Attic writers, continued so in spirit. In fact, Solon is said to have formed the two councils, the senate and the Areiopagus, to be a check upon the democracy; that, as he himself expressed it, “the state riding upon them as anchors might be less tossed by storms.” Nay, even after the archons were no longer elected by suffrage, but by lot, and the office was thrown open by Aristides to all the Athenian citizens, the “upper council” still retained its former tone of feeling. Moreover, besides these changes in its constitution, Solon altered and extended its functions. Before his time it was only a criminal court, trying cases of “wilful murder and wounding, of arson and poisoning,” whereas he gave it extensive powers of a censorial and political nature. Thus we learn that he made the council an “overseer of everything, and the guardian of the laws,” empowering it to inquire how any one got his living and to punish the idle; and we are also told that the Areiopagites were “superintendents of good order and decency,” terms as unlimited and undefined as Solon not improbably wished to leave their authority. When heinous crimes had notoriously been committed, but the guilty parties were not known, or no accuser appeared, the Areiopagus inquired into the subject, and reported to the demus.Thereport or information was calledapophasis. This was a duty which they sometimes undertook on their own responsibility, and in the exercise of an old established right, and sometimes on the order of the demus. Nay, to such an extent did they carry their power, that on one occasion they apprehended an individual (Antiphon), who had been acquitted by the general assembly, and again brought him to a trial, which ended in his condemnation and death. Again, we find them revoking an appointment whereby Aeschines was made the advocate of Athens before the Amphictyonic council, and substituting Hyperides in his room. They also had duties connected with religion, one of which was to superintend the sacred olives growing about Athens, and try those who were charged with destroying them; and in general it was their office to punish the impious and irreligious. Independent, then, of its jurisdiction as a criminal court in cases of wilful murder, which Solon continued to the Areiopagus, its influence must have been sufficiently great to have been a considerable obstacle to the aggrandisement of the democracy at the expense of the other parties in the state. Accordingly, we find that Pericles, who was opposed to the aristocracy, resolved to diminish its power and circumscribe its sphere of action. His coadjutor in this work was Ephialtes, a statesman of inflexible integrity, and also a military commander. They experienced much opposition in their attempts, not only in the assembly, but also on the stage, where Aeschylus produced his tragedy of the Eumenides, the object of which was to impress upon the Athenians the dignity, sacredness, and constitutional worth of the institution which Pericles and Ephialtes wished to reform. Still the opposition failed: a decree was carried by which, as Aristotle says, the Areiopagus was “mutilated,” and many of its hereditary rights abolished, though it is difficult to ascertain the precise nature of the alterations which Pericles effected. The jurisdiction of the Areiopagus in cases of murder was still left to them. In such cases the process was as follows:—The king archon brought the case into court, and sat as one of the judges, who were assembled in the open air, probably to guard against any contamination from the criminal. The accuser first came forwards to make a solemn oath that his accusation was true, standing over the slaughtered victims, and imprecating extirpation upon himself and his whole family were it not so. The accused then denied the charge with the same solemnity and form of oath. Each party then stated his case with all possible plainness, keeping strictly to the subject, and not being allowed to appeal in any way to the feelings or passions of the judges. After the first speech, a criminal accused of murder might remove from Athens, and thus avoid the capital punishment fixed by Draco’sThesmi, which on this point were still in force. Except in cases of parricide, neither the accuser nor the court had power to prevent this; but the party who thus evaded the extreme punishment was not allowed to return home, and when any decree was passed at Athens to legalize the return of exiles, an exception was always made against those who had thus left their country. The Areiopagus continued to exist, in name at least, till a very late period. Thus we find Cicero mentioning the council in his letters; and an individual is spoken of as an Areiopagite under the emperors Gratian and Theodosius (A.D.380). The case of St. Paul is generally quoted as an instance of the authority of the Areiopagus in religious matters; but the words of the sacred historian do not necessarily imply that he was brought before the council. It may, however, be remarked, that the Areiopagites certainly took cognizance of the introduction of new and unauthorised forms of religious worship, calledἐπίθετα ἱερά, in contradistinction to theπάτριαor older rites of the state.

ĂRĒNA. [Amphitheatrum.]

ĂRĔTĀLŎGI, persons who amused the company at the Roman dinner tables.

ARGĒI, the name given by the pontifices to the places consecrated by Numa for the celebration of religious services. Varro calls them the chapels of the argei, and says they were twenty-seven in number, distributed in the different districts of the city. There was a tradition that these argei were named from the chieftains who came with Hercules, the Argive, to Rome, and occupied the Capitoline, or, as it was anciently called, Saturnian hill. It is impossible to say what is the historical value or meaning of this legend; we may, however, notice its conformity with the statement that Rome was founded by the Pelasgians, with whom the name of Argos was connected. The name argei was also given to certain figures thrown into the Tiber from the Sublician bridge, on the Ides of May in every year. This was done by the pontifices, the vestals, the praetors, and other citizens, after the performance of the customary sacrifices. The images were thirty in number, made of bulrushes, and in the form of men. Ovid makes various suppositions to account for the origin of this rite; we can only conjecture that it was a symbolical offering, to propitiate the gods, and that the number was a representative either of the thirty patrician curiae at Rome, or perhaps of the thirty Latin townships.

ARGENTĀRĬI, bankers or money changers. (1)Greek. The bankers at Athens were calledTrapezitae(τραπεζίται), from their tables (τραπεζαι) at which they sat, while carrying on their business, and which were in the market place. Their principal occupation was that of changing money; but they frequently took money, at a moderate premium, from persons who did not like to occupy themselves with the management of their own affairs, and placed it out at interest. Their usual interest was 36 per cent.; a rate that at present scarcely occurs except in cases of money lent on bottomry. The only instance of a bank recognized and conducted on behalf of the state occurs at Byzantium, where at one time it was let by the republic to capitalists to farm. Yet the state probably exercised some kind of superintendence over the private bankers, since it is hardly possible otherwise to account for the unlimited confidence which they enjoyed.—(2)Roman.TheArgentariiat Rome must be distinguished from themensariiandnummularii, or public bankers. [Mensarii.] The argentarii were private persons, who carried on business on their own responsibility, and were not in the service of the republic; but the shops ortabernaeabout the forum, which they occupied, and in which they transacted their business, were state property. The business of the argentarii may be divided into the following branches. 1.Permutatio, or the exchange of foreign coin for Roman, and in later times the giving of bills of exchange payable in foreign towns. 2. The keeping of sums of money for other persons. Such money might be deposited by the owner merely to save himself the trouble of keeping it and making payments, and in this case it was calleddepositum; the argentarius then paid no interest, and the money was calledvacua pecunia. Or the money was deposited on condition of the argentarius paying interest; in this case the money was calledcreditum. A payment made through a banker was calledper mensam,de mensa, orper mensae scripturam, while a payment made by the debtor in person was a paymentex arcaorde domo. An argentarius never paid away any person’s money without being either authorised by him in person or receiving a cheque which was calledperscriptio. The argentarii kept accurate accounts in books calledcodices,tabulae, orrationes, and there is every reason for believing that they were acquainted with what is called in book-keeping double entry. When a party found to be in debt paid what he owed, he had his name effaced (nomen expedireorexpungere) from the banker’s books. 3. Their connection with commerce and public auctions. In private sales and purchases, they sometimes acted as agents for either party (interpretes), and sometimes they undertook to sell the whole estate of a person, as an inheritance. At public auctions they were almost invariably present, registering the articles sold, their prices, and purchasers, and receiving the payment from the purchasers. 4. The testing of the genuineness of coins (probatio nummorum). This, however, seems originally to have been a part of the duty of public officers, the mensarii or nummularii, until in the course of time the opinion of an argentarius also came to be looked upon as decisive. 5. Thesolidorum venditio, that is, the obligation of purchasing from the mint the newly coined money, and circulating it among the people. This branch of their functions occurs only under the empire. The argentarii formed a collegium, divided intosocietatesor corporations, which alone had the right to admit new members of their guild. None but freemen could become members of such a corporation. It has already been observed that the argentarii had their shops round the forum: hence to become bankrupt was expressed byforo cedere, orabire, orforo mergi.

ARGENTUM (ἄργυρος), silver. The relative value of gold and silver differed considerably at different periods in Greek and Roman history. Herodotus mentions it as 13 to 1; Plato, as 12 to 1; Menander, as 10 to 1; and Livy as 10 to 1, aboutB.C.189. According to Suetonius, Julius Caesar, on one occasion, exchanged silver for gold in the proportion of 9 to 1; but the most usual proportion under the early Roman emperors was about 12 to 1. The proportion in modern times, since the discovery of the American mines, has varied between 17 to 1 and 14 to 1. In the earliest times the Greeks obtained their silver chiefly as an article of commerce from the Phocaeans and the Samians; but they soon began to work the rich mines of their own country and its islands. The chief mines were in Siphnos, Thessaly, and Attica. In the last-named country, the silver mines of Laurion furnished a most abundant supply, and were generally regarded as the chief source of the wealth of Athens. The Romans obtained most of their silver from the very rich mines of Spain, which had been previously worked by the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, and which, though abandoned for those of Mexico, are still not exhausted. By far the most important use of silver among the Greeks was for money. There are sufficient reasons for believing that, until some time after the end of the Peloponnesian war, the Athenians had no gold currency. [Aurum.] It may be remarked that all the words connected with money are derived fromἄργυρος, and not fromχρυσός, asκαταργυρόω, “to bribe with money;”ἀργυραμοιβός, “a money changer,” &c.; andἄργυροςis itself not unfrequently used to signify money in general, asaesis in Latin. At Rome, on the contrary, silver was not coined tillB.C.269, before which period Greek silver was in circulation at Rome; and the principal silver coin of the Romans, thedenarius, was borrowed from the Greekdrachma. For further details respecting silver money, seeDenarius,Drachma. From a very early period, silver was used also in works of art; and the use of it for mere purposes of luxury and ostentation, as in plate, was very general both in Greece and Rome.

ARGỸRASPĬDES (ἀργυράσπιδες), a division of the Macedonian army, who were so called because they carried shields covered with silver plates.

ARGỸROCŎPEION (ἀργυροκοπεῖον), the place where money was coined, the mint, at Athens.

ĂRĬES (κριός), the battering-ram, was used to batter down the walls of besieged cities. It consisted of a large beam, made of the trunk of a tree, especially of a fir or an ash. To one end was fastened a mass of bronze or iron (κεφαλή,ἐμβολή,προτομή), which resembled in its form the head of a ram. The aries in its simplest state was borne and impelled by human hands, without other assistance. In an improved form, the ram was surrounded with iron bands, to which rings were attached for the purpose of suspending it by ropes or chains from a beam fixed transversely over it. By this contrivance the soldiers were relieved from the necessity of supporting the weight of the ram, and could with ease give it a rapid and forcible motion backwards and forwards. The use of this machine was further aided by placing the frame in which it was suspended upon wheels, and also by constructing over it a wooden roof, so as to form a “testudo,” which protected the besieging party from the defensive assaults of the besieged.

Back to Index Next