Читать книгу A Smaller Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities - William Smith - Страница 7

Table of Contents

[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 the Cloaca 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, about B.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, called sagittarii, 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 the pharetra or quiver.

Arcus, Bow. (From paintings on vases.)

Corytus, Bow-case. (From a Relief in the

Vatican, Visconti, iv. tav. 43.)

ĀRĔA (ἅλως, or ἁλωά), 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 called The 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. The report or information was called apophasis. 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’s Thesmi, 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, called ἐπίθετα ἱερά, in contradistinction to the πάτρια or 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 called Trapezitae (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. The Argentarii at Rome must be distinguished from the mensarii and nummularii, 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 or tabernae about 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 called depositum; the argentarius then paid no interest, and the money was called vacua pecunia. Or the money was deposited on condition of the argentarius paying interest; in this case the money was called creditum. A payment made through a banker was called per mensam, de mensa, or per mensae scripturam, while a payment made by the debtor in person was a payment ex arca or de domo. An argentarius never paid away any person’s money without being either authorised by him in person or receiving a cheque which was called perscriptio. The argentarii kept accurate accounts in books called codices, tabulae, or rationes, 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 expedire or expungere) 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. The solidorum 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 into societates or 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 by foro cedere, or abire, or foro 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, about B.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 from ἄργυρος, and not from χρυσός, as καταργυρόω, “to bribe with money;” ἀργυραμοιβός, “a money changer,” &c.; and ἄργυρος is itself not unfrequently used to signify money in general, as aes is in Latin. At Rome, on the contrary, silver was not coined till B.C. 269, before which period Greek silver was in circulation at Rome; and the principal silver coin of the Romans, the denarius, was borrowed from the Greek drachma. For further details respecting silver money, see Denarius, 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.