Читать книгу A Smaller Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities - William Smith - Страница 15

Cloaca Maxima at Rome.

CŌA VESTIS, the Coan robe, was a transparent dress, chiefly worn by women of loose reputation. It has been supposed to have been made of silk, because in Cos silk was spun and woven at a very early period.

Coa Vestis. (From a Painting at Herculaneum.)

CŎACTOR, the name of collectors of various sorts, e.g. the servants of the publicani, or farmers of the public taxes, who collected the revenues for them, and those who collected the money from the purchasers of things sold at a public auction. Horace informs us that his father was a coactor of this kind. Moreover, the servants of the money-changers were so called, from collecting their debts for them. The “coactores agminis” were the soldiers who brought up the rear of a line of march.

CŎCHLĔA (κοχλίας), which properly means a snail, was also used to signify other things of a spiral form. (1) A screw, used in working clothes-presses, and oil and wine presses.—(2) A spiral pump for raising water, invented by Archimedes, from whom it has ever since been called the Archimedean screw.—(3) A peculiar kind of door through which the wild beasts passed from their dens into the arena of the amphitheatre.

COCHLĔAR. (κοχλιάριον), a kind of spoon, which appears to have terminated with a point at one end, and at the other was broad and hollow like our own spoons. The pointed end was used for drawing snails (cochleae) out of their shells, and eating them, whence it derived its name; and the broader part for eating eggs, &c. Cochlear was also the name given to a small measure like our spoonful.

CŌDEX, identical with caudex, as Claudius and Clodius, claustrum and clostrum, cauda and coda, originally signified the trunk or stem of a tree. The name codex was especially applied to wooden tablets bound together and lined with a coat of wax, for the purpose of writing upon them, and when, at a later age, parchment or paper, or other materials were substituted for wood, and put together in the shape of a book, the name of codex was still given to them. In the time of Cicero we find it also applied to the tablet on which a bill was written. At a still later period, during the time of the emperors, the word was used to express any collection of laws or constitutions of the emperors, whether made by private individuals or by public authority, as the Codex Gregorianus, Codex Theodosianus, and Codex Justinianeus.

COEMPTĬO. [Matrimonium.]

COENA (δεῖπνον), the principal meal of the Greeks and Romans, dinner. (1) Greek. Three names of meals occur in the Iliad and Odyssey—ariston (ἄριστον), deipnon (δεῖπνον), dorpon (δόρπον). The word ariston uniformly means the early, as dorpon does the late meal; but deipnon, on the other hand, is used for either, apparently without any reference to time. In the Homeric age it appears to have been usual to sit during mealtimes. Beef, mutton, and goat’s flesh were the ordinary meats, usually eaten roasted. Cheese, flour, and occasionally fruits, also formed part of the Homeric meals. Bread, brought on in baskets, and salt (ἃλς, to which Homer gives the epithet θεῖος), are mentioned. The Greeks of a later age usually partook of three meals, called acratisma (ἀκράτισμα), ariston, and deipnon. The last, which corresponds to the dorpon of the Homeric poems, was the evening meal or dinner; the ariston was the luncheon; and the acratisma, which answers to the ariston of Homer, was the early meal or breakfast. The acratisma was taken immediately after rising in the morning. It usually consisted of bread, dipped in unmixed wine (ἄκρατος), whence it derived its name. Next followed the ariston or luncheon; but the time at which it was taken is uncertain. It is frequently mentioned in Xenophon’s Anabasis, and appears to have been taken at different times, as would naturally be the case with soldiers in active service. We may conclude from many circumstances that this meal was taken about the middle of the day, and that it answered to the Roman prandium. The ariston was usually a simple meal, but of course varied according to the habits of individuals. The principal meal was the deipnon. It was usually taken rather late in the day, frequently not before sunset. The Athenians were a social people, and were very fond of dining in company. Entertainments were usually given, both in the heroic ages and later times, when sacrifices were offered to the gods, either on public or private occasions; and also on the anniversary of the birthdays of members of the family, or of illustrious persons, whether living or dead. When young men wished to dine together they frequently contributed each a certain sum of money, called symbole (συμβολή), or brought their own provisions with them. When the first plan was adopted, they were said ἀπὸ συμβολῶν δειπνεῖν, and one individual was usually entrusted with the money to procure the provisions, and make all the necessary preparations. This kind of entertainment, in which each guest contributed to the expense, is mentioned in Homer under the name of ἔρανος. An entertainment in which each person brought his own provisions with him, or at least contributed something to the general stock, was called a δεῖπνον ἀπὸ σπυρίδος, because the provisions were brought in baskets.—The most usual kind of entertainments, however, were those in which a person invited his friends to his own house. It was expected that they should come dressed with more than ordinary care, and also have bathed shortly before. As soon as the guests arrived at the house of their host, their shoes or sandals were taken off by the slaves and their feet washed. After their feet had been washed, the guests reclined on the couches. It has already been remarked that Homer never describes persons as reclining, but always as sitting at their meals; but at what time the change was introduced is uncertain. The Dorians of Crete always sat; but the other Greeks reclined. The Greek women and children, however, like the Roman, continued to sit at their meals. [Accubatio.] It was usual for only two persons to recline on each couch. After the guests had placed themselves on the couches, the slaves brought in water to wash their hands. The dinner was then served up; whence we read of τὰς τραπέζας εἰσφέρειν, by which expression we are to understand not merely the dishes, but the tables themselves, which were small enough to be moved with ease. In eating, the Greeks had no knives or forks, but made use of their fingers only, except in eating soups or other liquids, which they partook of by means of a spoon, called μυστίλη, μύστρον, or μύστρος. It would exceed the limits of this work to give an account of the different dishes which were introduced at a Greek dinner, though their number is far below those which were usually partaken of at a Roman entertainment. The most common food among the Greeks was the μάζα, a kind of frumenty or soft cake, which was prepared in different ways. Wheaten or barley bread was the second most usual species of food; it was sometimes made at home, but more usually bought at the market of the ἀρτοπῶλαι or ἀρτοπώλιδες. The vegetables ordinarily eaten were mallows (μαλάχη), lettuces (θρίδαξ), cabbages (ῥάφανοι), beans (κύαμοι), lentils (φακαῖ), &c. Pork was the most favourite animal food, as was the case among the Romans. It is a curious fact, which Plato has remarked, that we never read in Homer of the heroes partaking of fish. In later times, however, fish was one of the most favourite foods of the Greeks. A dinner given by an opulent Athenian usually consisted of two courses, called respectively πρῶται τράπεζαι and δεύτεραι τράπεζαι. The first course embraced the whole of what we consider the dinner, namely, fish, poultry, meat, &c.; the second, which corresponds to our dessert and the Roman bellaria, consisted of different kinds of fruit, sweetmeats, confections, &c. When the first course was finished, the tables were taken away, and water was given to the guests for the purpose of washing their hands. Crowns made of garlands of flowers were also then given to them, as well as various kinds of perfumes. Wine was not drunk till the first course was finished; but as soon as the guests had washed their hands, unmixed wine was introduced in a large goblet, of which each drank a little, after pouring out a small quantity as a libation. This libation was said to be made to the “good spirit” (ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος), and was usually accompanied with the singing of the paean and the playing of flutes. After this libation mixed wine was brought in, and with their first cup the guests drank to Διὸς Σωτῆρος. With the libations the deipnon closed; and at the introduction of the dessert (δεύτεραι τράπεζαι) the πότος, συμπόσιον or κῶμος commenced, of which an account is given under Symposium.—(2) Roman. As the Roman meals are not always clearly distinguished, it will be convenient to treat of all under the most important one; and we shall confine ourselves to the description of the ordinary life of the middle ranks of society in the Augustan age, noticing incidentally the most remarkable deviations. The meal with which the Roman sometimes began the day was the jentaculum, which was chiefly taken by children, or sick persons, or the luxurious. An irregular meal (if we may so express it) was not likely to have any very regular time: two epigrams of Martial, however, seem to fix the hour at about three or four o’clock in the morning. Bread formed the substantial part of this early breakfast, to which cheese, or dried fruit, as dates and raisins, were sometimes added. Next followed the prandium or luncheon, with persons of simple habits a frugal meal, usually taken about twelve or one o’clock. The coena, or principal meal of the day, corresponding to our “dinner,” was usually taken about three o’clock in the time of Cicero and Augustus, though we read of some persons not dining till near sunset. A Roman dinner at the house of a wealthy man usually consisted of three courses. The first was called promulsis, antecoena, or gustatio, and was made up of all sorts of stimulants to the appetite. Eggs also were so indispensable to the first course that they almost gave a name to it (ab ovo usque ad mala). The frugality of Martial only allowed of lettuce and Sicenian olives; indeed he himself tells us that the promulsis was a refinement of modern luxury. It would far exceed our limits to mention all the dishes which formed the second course of a Roman dinner. Of birds, the Guinea hen (Afra avis), the pheasant (phasiana, so called from Phasis, a river of Colchis), and the thrush, were most in repute; the liver of a capon steeped in milk, and beccaficos (ficedulae) dressed with pepper, were held a delicacy. The peacock, according to Macrobius, was first introduced by Hortensius the orator, at an inaugural supper, and acquired such repute among the Roman gourmands as to be commonly sold for fifty denarii. Other birds are mentioned, as the duck (anas), especially its head and breast; the woodcock (attagen), the turtle, and flamingo (phoenicopterus), the tongue of which, Martial tells us, particularly commended itself to the delicate palate. Of fish, the variety was perhaps still greater; the charr (scarus), the turbot (rhombus), the sturgeon (acipenser), the mullet (mullus), were highly prized, and dressed in the most various fashions. Of solid meat, pork seems to have been the favourite dish, especially sucking pig. Boar’s flesh and venison were also in high repute: the former is described by Juvenal as animal propter convivia natum. Condiments were added to most of these dishes: such were the muria, a kind of pickle made from the tunny fish; the garum sociorum, made from the intestines of the mackerel (scomber), so called because brought from abroad; alec, a sort of brine; faex, the sediment of wine, &c. Several kinds of fungi are mentioned, truffles (boleti), mushrooms (tuberes), which either made dishes by themselves, or formed the garniture for larger dishes. It must not be supposed that the artistes of imperial Rome were at all behind ourselves in the preparation and arrangements of the table. In a large household, the functionaries to whom this important duty was entrusted were four, the butler (promus), the cook (archimagirus), the arranger of the dishes (structor), and the carver (carptor or scissor). Carving was taught as an art, and performed to the sound of music, with appropriate gesticulations.

——“minimo sane discrimine refert,

Quo vultu lepores, et quo gallina secetur.”

In the supper of Petronius, a large round tray (ferculum, repositorium) is brought in, with the signs of the zodiac figured all round it, upon each of which the artiste (structor) had placed some appropriate viand, a goose on Aquarius, a pair of scales with tarts (scriblitae) and cheesecakes (placentae) in each scale on Libra, &c. In the middle was placed a hive supported by delicate herbage. Presently four slaves come forward dancing to the sound of music, and take away the upper part of the dish; beneath appear all kinds of dressed meats; a hare with wings to imitate Pegasus, in the middle; and four figures of Marsyas at the corners, pouring hot sauce (garum piperatum) over the fish, that were swimming in the Euripus below. So entirely had the Romans lost all shame of luxury, since the days when Cincius, in supporting the Fannian law, charged his own age with the enormity of introducing the porcus Trojanus, a sort of pudding stuffed with the flesh of other animals.—The third course was the bellaria or dessert, to which Horace alludes when he says of Tigellius ab ovo usque ad mala citaret; it consisted of fruits (which the Romans usually ate uncooked), such as almonds (amygdalae), dried grapes (uvae passae), dates (palmulae, caryotae, dactyli); of sweetmeats and confections, called edulia mellita, dulciaria, such as cheesecakes (cupediae, crustula, liba, placentae, artolagani), almond cakes (coptae), tarts (scriblitae), whence the maker of them was called pistor dulciarius, placentarius, libarius, &c. We will now suppose the table spread and the guests assembled, each with his mappa or napkin, and in his dinner dress, called coenatoria or cubitoria, usually of a bright colour, and variegated with flowers. First they took off their shoes, for fear of soiling the couch, which was often inlaid with ivory or tortoise-shell, and covered with cloth of gold. Next they lay down to eat, the head resting on the left elbow and supported by cushions. There were usually, but not always, three on the same couch, the middle place being esteemed the most honourable. Around the tables stood the servants (ministri) clothed in a tunic, and girt with napkins; some removed the dishes and wiped the tables with a rough cloth, others gave the guests water for their hands, or cooled the room with fans. Here stood an eastern youth behind his master’s couch, ready to answer the noise of the fingers, while others bore a large platter of different kinds of meat to the guests. Dinner was set out in a room called coenatio or diaeta (which two words perhaps conveyed to a Roman ear nearly the same distinction as our dining-room and parlour). The coenatio, in rich men’s houses, was fitted up with great magnificence. Suetonius mentions a supper-room in the golden palace of Nero, constructed like a theatre, with shifting scenes to change with every course. In the midst of the coenatio were set three couches (triclinia), answering in shape to the square, as the long semicircular couches (sigmata) did to the oval tables. An account of the disposition of the couches, and of the place which each guest occupied, is given in the article Triclinium.

A Feast. (Vatican Virgil MS.)

COENĀCŬLUM. [Domus.]

COENĀTĬO. [Coena.]

COGNĀTI, COGNĀTĬO. The cognatio was the relationship of blood which existed between those who were sprung from a common pair; and all persons so related were called cognati. The foundation of cognatio is a legal marriage. The term cognatus (with some exceptions) comprehends agnatus; an agnatus may be a cognatus, but a cognatus is only an agnatus when his relationship by blood is traced through males. Those who were of the same blood by both parents were sometimes called germani; consanguinei were those who had a common father only; and uterini those who had a common mother only.

COGNĬTOR. [Actio.]

COGNŌMEN. [Nomen.]

CŎHORS. [Exercitus.]

CŌLĂCRĔTAE (κωλακρέται, also called κωλαγρέται), the name of very ancient magistrates at Athens, who had the management of all financial matters in the time of the kings. Cleisthenes deprived them of the charge of the finances, which he transferred to the Apodectae. [Apodectae.] From this time the Colacretae had only to provide for the meals in the Prytaneium, and subsequently to pay the fees to the dicasts, when the practice of paying the dicasts was introduced by Pericles.

COLLĒGĬUM. The persons who formed a collegium were called collegae or sodales. The word collegium properly expressed the notion of several persons being united in any office or for any common purpose; it afterwards came to signify a body of persons, and the union which bound them together. The collegium was the ἑταιρία of the Greeks. The legal notion of a collegium was as follows:—A collegium or corpus, as it was also called, must consist of three persons at least. Persons who legally formed such an association were said corpus habere, which is equivalent to our phrase of being incorporated; and in later times they were said to be corporati, and the body was called a corporatio. Associations of individuals, who were entitled to have a corpus, could hold property in common. Such a body, which was sometimes also called a universitas, was a legal unity. That which was due to the body, was not due to the individuals of it; and that which the body owed, was not the debt of the individuals. The common property of the body was liable to be seized and sold for the debts of the body. It does not appear how collegia were formed, except that some were specially established by legal authority. Other collegia were probably formed by voluntary associations of individuals under the provisions of some general legal authority, such as those of the publicani. Some of these corporate bodies resembled our companies or guilds; such were the fabrorum, pistorum, &c. collegia. Others were of a religious character; such as the pontificum, augurum, fratrum arvalium collegia. Others were bodies concerned about government and administration; as tribunorum plebis, quaestorum, decurionum collegia. According to the definition of a collegium, the consuls being only two in number were not a collegium, though each was called collega with respect to the other, and their union in office was called collegium. When a new member was taken into a collegium, he was said co-optari, and the old members were said with respect to him, recipere in collegium. The mode of filling up vacancies would vary in different collegia. The statement of their rules belongs to the several heads of Augur, Pontifex, &c.

CŎLŌNĬA, a colony, contains the same element as the verb colere, “to cultivate,” and as the word colonus, which probably originally signified a “tiller of the earth.” (1) Greek. The usual Greek words for a colony are ἀποικία and κληρουχία. The latter word, which signified a division of conquered lands among Athenian citizens, and which corresponds in some respects to the Roman colonia, is explained in the article Cleruchi. The earlier Greek colonies, called ἀποικίαι, were usually composed of mere bands of adventurers, who left their native country, with their families and property, to seek a new home for themselves. Some of the colonies, which arose in consequence of foreign invasion or civil wars, were undertaken without any formal consent from the rest of the community; but usually a colony was sent out with the approbation of the mother country, and under the management of a leader (οἰκιστής) appointed by it. But whatever may have been the origin of the colony, it was always considered in a political point of view independent of the mother country, called by the Greeks metropolis (μητρόπολις), the “mother-city,” and entirely emancipated from its control. At the same time, though a colony was in no political subjection to its parent state, it was united to it by the ties of filial affection; and, according to the generally received opinions of the Greeks, its duties to the parent state corresponded to those of a daughter to her mother. Hence, in all matters of common interest, the colony gave precedence to the mother state; and the founder of the colony (οἰκιστής), who might be considered as the representative of the parent state, was usually worshipped, after his death, as a hero. Also, when the colony became in its turn a parent, it usually sought a leader for the colony which it intended to found from the original mother country; and the same feeling of respect was manifested by embassies which were sent to honour the principal festivals of the parent state, and also by bestowing places of honour and other marks of respect upon the ambassadors and other members of the parent state, when they visited the colony at festivals and on similar occasions. The colonists also worshipped in their new settlement the same deities as they had been accustomed to honour in their native country: the sacred fire, which was constantly kept burning on their public hearth, was taken from the Prytaneium of the parent city; and sometimes the priests also were brought from the mother state. In the same spirit, it was considered a violation of sacred ties for a mother country and a colony to make war upon one another. The preceding account of the relations between the Greek colonies and the mother country is supported by the history which Thucydides gives us of the quarrel between Corcyra and Corinth. Corcyra was a colony of Corinth, and Epidamnus a colony of Corcyra; but the leader (οἰκιστής) of the colony of Epidamnus was a Corinthian who was invited from the metropolis Corinth. In course of time, in consequence of civil dissensions, and attacks from the neighbouring barbarians, the Epidamnians apply for aid to Corcyra, but their request is rejected. They next apply to the Corinthians, who took Epidamnus under their protection, thinking, says Thucydides, that the colony was no less theirs than the Corinthians’: and also induced to do so through hatred of the Corcyraeans, because they neglected them though they were colonists; for they did not give to the Corinthians the customary honours and deference in the public solemnities and sacrifices, which the other colonies were wont to pay to the mother country. The Corcyraeans, who had become very powerful by sea, took offence at the Corinthians receiving Epidamnus under their protection, and the result was a war between Corcyra and Corinth. The Corcyraeans sent ambassadors to Athens to ask assistance; and in reply to the objection that they were a colony of Corinth, they said, “that every colony, as long as it is treated kindly, respects the mother country: but when it is injured, is alienated from it; for colonists are not sent out as subjects, but that they may have equal rights with those that remain at home.” It is true that ambitious states, such as Athens, sometimes claimed dominion over other states on the ground of relationship; but as a general rule, colonies may be regarded as independent states, attached to their metropolis by ties of sympathy and common descent, but no further. The case of Potidaea, to which the Corinthians sent annually the chief magistrates (δημιουργοί), appears to have been an exception to the general rule.—(2) Roman. A kind of colonisation seems to have existed among the oldest Italian nations, who, on certain occasions, sent out their superfluous male population, with arms in their hands, to seek for a new home. But these were apparently mere bands of adventurers, and such colonies rather resembled the old Greek colonies, than those by which Rome extended her dominion and her name. Colonies were established by the Romans as far back as the annals or traditions of the city extend, and the practice was continued, without intermission, during the republic and under the empire. Colonies were intended to keep in check a conquered people, and also to repress hostile incursions; and their chief object was originally the extension and preservation of the Roman dominion in Italy. Cicero calls the old Italian colonies the propugnacula imperii. Another object was to increase the power of Rome by increasing the population. Sometimes the immediate object of a colony was to carry off a number of turbulent and discontented persons. Colonies were also established for the purpose of providing for veteran soldiers, a practice which was begun by Sulla, and continued under the emperors; these coloniae were called militares. The old Roman colonies were in the nature of garrisons planted in conquered towns, and the colonists had a portion of the conquered territory (usually a third part) assigned to them. The inhabitants retained the rest of their lands, and lived together with the new settlers, who alone composed the proper colony. The conquered people must at first have been quite a distinct class from, and inferior to, the colonists. No colonia was established without a lex, plebiscitum, or senatusconsultum; a fact which shows that a Roman colony was never a mere body of adventurers, but had a regular organisation by the parent state. When a law was passed for founding a colony, persons were appointed to superintend its formation (coloniam deducere). These persons varied in number, but three was a common number (triumviri ad colonos deducendos). We also read of duumviri, quinqueviri, vigintiviri for the same purpose. The law fixed the quantity of land that was to be distributed, and how much was to be assigned to each person. No Roman could be sent out as a colonist without his free consent, and when the colony was not an inviting one, it was difficult to fill up the number of volunteers. The colonia proceeded to its place of destination in the form of an army (sub vexillo), which is indicated on the coins of some coloniae. An urbs, if one did not already exist, was a necessary part of a new colony, and its limits were marked out by a plough, which is also indicated on ancient coins. The colonia had also a territory, which, whether marked out by the plough or not, was at least marked out by metes and bounds. Thus the urbs and territory of the colonia respectively corresponded to the urbs Roma and its territory. Religious ceremonies always accompanied the foundation of the colony, and the anniversary was afterwards observed. It is stated that a colony could not be sent out to the same place to which a colony had already been sent in due form (auspicato deducta). This merely means, that so long as the colony maintained its existence, there could be no new colony in the same place; a doctrine that would hardly need proof, for a new colony implied a new assignment of lands; but new settlers (novi adscripti) might be sent to occupy colonial lands not already assigned. Indeed it was not unusual for a colony to receive additions, and a colony might be re-established, if it seemed necessary, from any cause. The commissioners appointed to conduct the colony had apparently a profitable office, and the establishment of a new settlement gave employment to numerous functionaries, among whom Cicero enumerates—apparitores, scribae, librarii, praecones, architecti. The foundation of a colony might then, in many cases, not only be a mere party measure, carried for the purpose of gaining popularity, but it would give those in power an opportunity of providing places for many of their friends.—The colonies founded by the Romans were divided into two great classes of colonies of Roman citizens and Latin colonies; names which had no reference to the persons who formed the colonies, but merely indicated their political rights with respect to Rome as members of the colony. The members of a Roman colony (colonia civium Romanorum) preserved all the rights of Roman citizens. The members of a Latin colony (colonia Latina) ceased to have the full rights of Roman citizens. Probably some of the old Latin colonies were established by the Romans in conjunction with other Latin states. After the conquest of Latium, the Romans established colonies, called Latin colonies, in various parts of Italy. Roman citizens, who chose to join such colonies, gave up their civic rights for the more solid advantage of a grant of land, and became Latini. [Civitas.] Such colonies were subject to, and part of, the Roman state; but they did not possess the Roman franchise, and had no political bond among themselves.—The lex Julia, passed B.C. 90, gave the Roman franchise to the members of the Latin colonies and the Socii; and such Latin colonies and states of the Socii were then called municipia, and became complete members of the Roman state. Thus there was then really no difference between these municipia and the Roman coloniae, except in their historical origin: the members of both were Roman citizens, and the Roman law prevailed in both.—In the colonies, as at Rome, the popular assembly had originally the sovereign power; they chose the magistrates, and could even make laws. When the popular assemblies became a mere form in Rome, and the elections were transferred by Tiberius to the senate, the same thing happened in the colonies, whose senates then possessed whatever power had once belonged to the community. The common name of this senate was ordo decurionum; in later times, simply ordo and curia; the members of it were decuriones or curiales. Thus, in the later ages, curia is opposed to senatus, the former being the senate of a colony, and the latter the senate of Rome. But the terms senatus and senator were also applied to the senate and members of the senate of a colony. After the decline of the popular assemblies, the senate had the whole internal administration of a city, conjointly with the magistratus; but only a decurio could be a magistratus, and the choice was made by the decuriones. The highest magistratus of a colonia were the duumviri or quattuorviri, so called, as the members might vary, whose functions may be compared with those of the consulate at Rome before the establishment of the praetorship. The name duumviri seems to have been the most common. Their principal duties were the administration of justice, and accordingly we find on inscriptions “Duumviri J. D.” (juri dicundo), “Quattuorviri J. D.” The name consul also occurs in inscriptions to denote this chief magistracy; and even dictator and praetor occur under the empire and under the republic. The office of the duumviri lasted a year.—In some Italian towns there was a praefectus juri dicundo; he was in the place of, and not co-existent with, the duumviri. The duumviri were, as we have seen, originally chosen by the people; but the praefectus was appointed annually in Rome, and sent to the town called a praefectura, which might be either a municipium or a colonia, for it was only in the matter of the praefectus that a town called a praefectura differed from other Italian towns. Arpinum is called both a municipium and a praefectura; and Cicero, a native of this place, obtained the highest honours that Rome could confer.—The censor, curator, or quinquennalis, all which names denote the same functionary, was also a municipal magistrate, and corresponded to the censor at Rome, and in some cases, perhaps, to the quaestor also. Censors are mentioned in Livy as magistrates of the twelve Latin colonies. The quinquennales were sometimes duumviri, sometimes quattuorviri; but they are always carefully distinguished from the duumviri and quattuorviri J. D.; and their functions were those of censors. They held their office for one year, and during the four intermediate years the functions were not exercised. The office of censor or quinquennalis was higher in rank than that of the duumviri J. D., and it could only be filled by those who had discharged the other offices of the municipality.

CŎLOSSUS (κολοσσός) is used both by the Greeks and Romans to signify a statue larger than life; but as such statues were very common, the word was more frequently applied to designate figures of gigantic dimensions. Such figures were first executed in Egypt, and were afterwards made by the Greeks and Romans. Among the colossal statues of Greece, the most celebrated was the bronze colossus at Rhodes, dedicated to the sun, the height of which was about 90 feet.

Colum. (Museo Borbonico, vol. viii. pl. 14.)

CŌLUM (ἠθμός), a strainer or colander, was used for straining wine, milk, olive-oil, and other liquids. Those that were used as articles of luxury for straining wine were frequently made of some metal, such as bronze or silver. Occasionally a piece of linen cloth (σάκκος, saccus) was placed over the τρύγοιπος or colum, and the wine (σακκίας, saccatus) filtered through. The use of the saccus was considered objectionable for all delicate wines, since it was believed to injure, if not entirely to destroy their flavour, and in every instance to diminish the strength of the liquor. For this reason it was employed by the dissipated in order that they might be able to swallow a greater quantity without becoming intoxicated. The double purpose of cooling and weakening was effectually accomplished by placing ice or snow in the filter, which under such circumstances became a colum nivarium, or saccus nivarius. The preceding woodcut shows the plan and profile of a silver colum.

CŎLUMBĀRĬUM, a dovecot or pigeon-house, also signified a sepulchral chamber formed to receive the ashes of the lower orders, or dependants of great families; and in the plural, the niches in which the cinerary urns (ollae) were deposited.

Ancient Columns.

CŎLUMNA (κίων, στύλος), a pillar or column. The use of the trunks of trees placed upright for supporting buildings, unquestionably led to the adoption of similar supports wrought in stone. As the tree required to be based upon a flat square stone, and to have a stone or tile of similar form fixed on its summit to preserve it from decay, so the column was made with a square base, and was covered with an abacus. [Abacus.] Hence the principal parts of which every column consists are three, the base (basis), the shaft (scapus), and the capital (capitulum). In the Doric, which is the oldest style of Greek architecture, we must consider all the columns in the same row as having one common base (podium), whereas in the Ionic and Corinthian each column has a separate base, called spira. The capitals of these two latter orders show, on comparison with the Doric, a much richer style of ornament; and the character of lightness and elegance is further obtained in them by their more slender shaft, its height being much greater in proportion to its thickness. Of all these circumstances some idea may be formed by the inspection of the three accompanying specimens of pillars. The first on the left hand is Doric, the second Ionic, and the third Corinthian. In all the orders the shaft tapers from the bottom towards the top. The shaft was, however, made with a slight swelling in the middle, which was called the entasis. It was, moreover, almost universally channelled or fluted. Columns were used in the interior of buildings, to sustain the beams which supported the ceiling. Rows of columns were often employed within a building, to enclose a space open to the sky. Beams supporting ceilings passed from above the columns to the adjoining walls, so as to form covered passages or ambulatories (στοαί). Such a circuit of columns was called a peristyle (περίστυλον), and the Roman atrium was built upon this plan. The largest and most splendid temples enclosed an open space like an atrium, which was accomplished by placing one peristyle upon another. In such cases, the lower rows of columns being Doric, the upper were sometimes Ionic or Corinthian, the lighter being properly based upon the heavier. A temple so constructed was called hypaethral (ὕπαιθρος). But it was on the exterior of public buildings, and especially of temples, that columns were displayed in the most beautiful combinations, either surrounding the building entirely, or arranged in porticoes on one or more of its fronts. [Templum.] Their original and proper use was, of course, to support the roof of the building; and, amidst all the elaborations of architectural design, this object was still kept in view. On the summit of the row of columns rests the architrave, i.e. chief beam (ἐπιστύλιον, epistylium): above this is the frieze (ζωοφόρος, ζωφόρος, zophorus), in which the most ancient order, namely the Doric, shows, in its triglyphs, what were originally the ends of the cross-beams: in the other orders these ends are generally concealed, and the frieze forms a flat surface, which is frequently ornamented by figures in relief, whence its Greek name. Above the frieze projects the cornice (κορωνίς, coronis or corona), forming a handsome finish to the entablature (for so these three members taken together are called), and also, on the sides of the building, serving to unite the ends of the rafters of the roof. The triangular gable-end of the roof, above the entablature, is called the pediment. [Fastigium.]—Columns in long rows were used in aquaeducts, and single pillars were fixed in harbours for mooring ships.—Single columns were also erected to commemorate persons or events. Among these, some of the most remarkable were the columnae rostratae, called by that name because three ship-beaks proceeded from each side of them, designed to record successful engagements at sea. The most important and celebrated of those which yet remain, is one erected in honour of the consul C. Duillius, on occasion of his victory over the Carthaginian fleet, B.C. 261. Columns were also employed to commemorate the dead. The column on the right hand in the last woodcut exhibits that which the senate erected to the honour of the Emperor Trajan. Similar columns were erected to the memory of many of the Roman emperors.