Chapter XXXII: Part II: The Middle Ages and the Reformation. A.D. 1381-1593 (31)

SERVUS (δοῦλος), a slave. (1) GREEK. Slavery existed almost throughout the whole of Greece; and Aristotle says that a complete household is that which consists of slaves and freemen, and he defines a slave to be a living working-tool and possession. None of the Greek philosophers ever seem to have objected to slavery as a thing morally wrong; Plato in his perfect state only desires that no Greeks should be made slaves by Greeks, and Aristotle defends the justice of the institution on the ground of a diversity of race, and divides mankind into the free and those who are slaves by nature; under the latter description he appears to have regarded all barbarians in the Greek sense of the word, and therefore considers their slavery justifiable. In the most ancient times there are said to have been no slaves in Greece, but we find them in the Homeric poems, though by no means so generally as in later times. They are usually prisoners taken in war, who serve their conquerors: but we also read as well of the purchase and sale of slaves. They were, however, at that time mostly confined to the houses of the wealthy. There were two kinds of slavery among the Greeks. One species arose when the inhabitants of a country were subdued by an invading tribe, and reduced to the condition of serfs or bondsmen. They lived upon and cultivated the land which their masters had appropriated to themselves, and paid them a certain rent. They also attended their masters in war. They could not be sold out of the country or separated from their families, and could acquire property. Such were the Helots of Sparta [HELOTES], and the Penestae of Thessaly [PENESTAE]. The other species of slavery consisted of domestic slaves acquired by purchase, who were entirely the property of their masters, and could be disposed of like any other goods and chattels: these were the δοῦλοι properly so called, and were the kind of slaves that existed at Athens and Corinth. In commercial cities slaves were very numerous, as they performed the work of the artisans and manufacturers of modern towns. In poorer republics, which had little or no capital, and which subsisted wholly by agriculture, they would be few: thus in Phocis and Locris there are said to have been originally no domestic slaves. The majority of slaves was purchased; few comparatively were born in the family of the master, partly because the number of female slaves was very small in comparison with the male, and partly because the cohabitation of slaves was discouraged, as it was considered cheaper to purchase than to rear slaves. It was a recognised rule of Greek national law that the persons of those who were taken prisoners in war became the property of the conqueror, but it was the practice for Greeks to give liberty to those of their own nation on payment of a ransom. Consequently almost all slaves in Greece, with the exception of the serfs above-mentioned, were barbarians. The chief supply seems to have come from the Greek colonies in Asia Minor, which had abundant opportunities of obtaining them from their own neighbourhood and the interior of Asia. A considerable number of slaves also came from Thrace, where the parents frequently sold their children.--At Athens, as well as in other states, there was a regular slave-market, called the κύκλος, because the slaves stood round in a circle. They were also sometimes sold by auction, and were then placed on a stone, as is now done when slaves are sold in the United States of North America: the same was also the practice in Rome, whence the phrase _homo de lapide emtus_. [AUCTIO.] At Athens the number of slaves was far greater than the free population. Even the poorest citizen had a slave for the care of his household, and in every moderate establishment many were employed for all possible occupations, as bakers, cooks, tailors, &c.--Slaves either worked on their masters’ account or their own (in the latter case they paid their masters a certain sum a day); or they were let out by their master on hire, either for the mines or any other kind of labour, or as hired servants for wages. The rowers on board the ships were usually slaves, who either belonged to the state or to private persons, who let them out to the state on payment of a certain sum. It appears that a considerable number of persons kept large gangs of slaves merely for the purpose of letting out, and found this a profitable mode of investing their capital. Great numbers were required for the mines, and in most cases the mine-lessees would be obliged to hire some, as they would not have sufficient capital to purchase as many as they wanted. The rights of possession with regard to slaves differed in no respect from any other property; they could be given or taken as pledges. The condition, however, of Greek slaves was upon the whole better than that of Roman ones, with the exception perhaps of Sparta, where, according to Plutarch, it is the best place in the world to be a freeman, and the worst to be a slave. At Athens especially the slaves seem to have been allowed a degree of liberty and indulgence which was never granted to them at Rome. The life and person of a slave at Athens were also protected by the law: a person who struck or maltreated a slave was liable to an action; a slave too could not be put to death without legal sentence. He could even take shelter from the cruelty of his master in the temple of Theseus, and there claim the privilege of being sold by him. The person of a slave was, of course, not considered so sacred as that of a freeman: his offences were punished with corporal chastisement, which was the last mode of punishment inflicted on a freeman; he was not believed upon his oath, but his evidence in courts of justice was always taken with torture. Notwithstanding the generally mild treatment of slaves in Greece, their insurrection was not unfrequent: but these insurrections in Attica were usually confined to the mining slaves, who were treated with more severity than the others. Slaves were sometimes manumitted at Athens, though not so frequently as at Rome. Those who were manumitted (ἀπελεύθεροι) did not become citizens, as they might at Rome, but passed into the condition of _metoici_. They were obliged to honour their former master as their patron (προστάτης), and to fulfil certain duties towards him, the neglect of which rendered them liable to the δίκη ἀποστασίου, by which they might again be sold into slavery. Respecting the public slaves at Athens, see DEMOSII. It appears that there was a tax upon slaves at Athens, which was probably three oboli a year for each slave.--(2) ROMAN. The Romans viewed liberty as the natural state, and slavery as a condition which was contrary to the natural state. The mutual relation of slave and master among the Romans was expressed by the terms _Servus_ and _Dominus_; and the power and interest which the dominus had over and in the slave was expressed by _Dominium_. Slaves existed at Rome in the earliest times of which we have any record; but they do not appear to have been numerous under the kings and in the earliest ages of the republic. The different trades and the mechanical arts were chiefly carried on by the clients of the patricians, and the small farms in the country were cultivated for the most part by the labours of the proprietor and of his own family. But as the territories of the Roman state were extended, the patricians obtained possession of large estates out of the ager publicus, since it was the practice of the Romans to deprive a conquered people of part of their land. These estates probably required a larger number of hands for their cultivation than could readily be obtained among the free population, and since the freemen were constantly liable to be called away from their work to serve in the armies, the lands began to be cultivated almost entirely by slave labour. Through war and commerce slaves could easily be obtained, and at a cheap rate, and their number soon became so great, that the poorer class of freemen was thrown almost entirely out of employment. This state of things was one of the chief arguments used by Licinius and the Gracchi for limiting the quantity of public land which a person might possess. In Sicily, which supplied Rome with so great a quantity of corn, the number of agricultural slaves was immense: the oppressions to which they were exposed drove them twice to open rebellion, and their numbers enabled them to defy for a time the Roman power. The first of these servile wars began in B.C. 134 and ended in B.C. 132, and the second commenced in B.C. 102 and lasted almost four years. Long, however, after it had become the custom to employ large gangs of slaves in the cultivation of the land, the number of those who served as personal attendants still continued to be small. Persons in good circumstances seem usually to have had one only to wait upon them, who was generally called by the name of his master with the word _por_ (that is, _puer_) affixed to it, as _Caipor_, _Lucipor_, _Marcipor_, _Publipor_, _Quintipor_, &c. But during the latter times of the republic and under the empire the number of domestic slaves greatly increased, and in every family of importance there were separate slaves to attend to all the necessities of domestic life. It was considered a reproach to a man not to keep a considerable number of slaves. The first question asked respecting a person’s fortune was _Quot pascit servos_, “How many slaves does he keep?” Ten slaves seem to have been the lowest number which a person could keep in the age of Augustus, with a proper regard to respectability in society. The immense number of prisoners taken in the constant wars of the republic, and the increase of wealth and luxury, augmented the number of slaves to a prodigious extent. A freedman under Augustus, who had lost much property in the civil wars, left at his death as many as 4,116. Two hundred was no uncommon number for one person to keep. The mechanical arts, which were formerly in the hands of the clients, were now entirely exercised by slaves: a natural growth of things, for where slaves perform certain duties or practise certain arts, such duties or arts are thought degrading to a freeman. It must not be forgotten, that the games of the amphitheatre required an immense number of slaves trained for the purpose. [GLADIATORES.] Like the slaves in Sicily, the gladiators in Italy rose in B.C. 73 against their oppressors, and under the able generalship of Spartacus, defeated a Roman consular army, and were not subdued till B.C. 71, when 60,000 of them are said to have fallen in battle.--A slave could not contract a marriage. His cohabitation with a woman was _contubernium_; and no legal relation between him and his children was recognized. A slave could have no property. He was not incapable of acquiring property, but his acquisitions belonged to his master. Slaves were not only employed in the usual domestic offices and in the labours of the field, but also as factors or agents for their masters in the management of business, and as mechanics, artisans, and in every branch of industry. It may easily be conceived that, under these circumstances, especially as they were often entrusted with property to a large amount, there must have arisen a practice of allowing the slave to consider part of his gains as his own; this was his _Peculium_, a term also applicable to such acquisitions of a filius-familias as his father allowed him to consider as his own. [PATRIA POTESTAS.] According to strict law, the _peculium_ was the property of the master, but according to usage, it was considered to be the property of the slave. Sometimes it was agreed between master and slave, that the slave should purchase his freedom with his _peculium_ when it amounted to a certain sum. A runaway slave (_fugitivus_) could not lawfully be received or harboured. The master was entitled to pursue him wherever he pleased; and it was the duty of all authorities to give him aid in recovering the slave. It was the object of various laws to check the running away of slaves in every way, and accordingly a runaway slave could not legally be an object of sale. A class of persons called _Fugitivarii_ made it their business to recover runaway slaves. A person was a slave either jure gentium or jure civili. Under the republic, the chief supply of slaves arose from prisoners taken in war, who were sold by the quaestors with a crown on their heads (_sub corona venire, vendere_), and usually on the spot where they were taken, as the care of a large number of captives was inconvenient. Consequently slave-dealers usually accompanied an army, and frequently after a great battle had been gained many thousands were sold at once, when the slave-dealers obtained them for a mere nothing. The slave trade was also carried on to a great extent, and after the fall of Corinth and Carthage, Delos was the chief mart for this traffic. When the Cilician pirates had possession of the Mediterranean, as many as 10,000 slaves are said to have been imported and sold there in one day. A large number came from Thrace and the countries in the north of Europe, but the chief supply was from Africa, and more especially Asia, whence we frequently read of Phrygians, Lycians, Cappadocians, &c. as slaves. The trade of slave-dealers (_mangones_) was considered disreputable; but it was very lucrative, and great fortunes were frequently realised from it. Slaves were usually sold by auction at Rome. They were placed either on a raised stone (hence _de lapide emtus_), or a raised platform (_catasta_), so that every one might see and handle them, even if they did not wish to purchase them. Purchasers usually took care to have them stripped naked, for slave-dealers had recourse to as many tricks to conceal personal defects as the horse-jockeys of modern times: sometimes purchasers called in the advice of medical men. Newly imported slaves had their feet whitened with chalk, and those that came from the East had their ears bored, which we know was a sign of slavery among many eastern nations. The slave-market, like all other markets, was under the jurisdiction of the aediles, who made many regulations by edicts respecting the sale of slaves. The character of the slave was set forth in a scroll (_titulus_) hanging around his neck, which was a warranty to the purchaser: the vendor was bound to announce fairly all his defects, and if he gave a false account had to take him back within six months from the time of his sale, or make up to the purchaser what the latter had lost through obtaining an inferior kind of slave to what had been warranted. The chief points which the vendor had to warrant, were the health of the slave, especially freedom from epilepsy, and that he had not a tendency to thievery, running away, or committing suicide. Slaves sold without any warranty wore at the time of sale a cap (_pileus_) upon their head. Slaves newly imported were generally preferred for common work: those who had served long were considered artful (_veteratores_); and the pertness and impudence of those born in their master’s house, called _vernae_, were proverbial. The value of slaves depended of course upon their qualifications; but under the empire the increase of luxury and the corruption of morals led purchasers to pay immense sums for beautiful slaves, or such as ministered to the caprice or whim of the purchaser. Eunuchs always fetched a very high price, and Martial speaks of beautiful boys who sold for as much as 100,000 or 200,000 sesterces each (885_l._ 8_s._ 4_d._ and 1770_l._ 16_s._ 8_d._). Slaves who possessed a knowledge of any art which might bring profit to their owners, also sold for a large sum. Thus literary men and doctors frequently fetched a high price, and also slaves fitted for the stage.--Slaves were divided into many various classes: the first division was into public or private. The former belonged to the state and public bodies, and their condition was preferable to that of the common slaves. They were less liable to be sold, and under less control, than ordinary slaves: they also possessed the privilege of the testamenti factio to the amount of one half of their property, which shows that they were regarded in a different light from other slaves. Public slaves were employed to take care of the public buildings, and to attend upon magistrates and priests. A body of slaves belonging to one person was called _familia_, but two were not considered sufficient to constitute a _familia_. Private slaves were divided into urban (_familia urbana_) and rustic (_familia rustica_); but the name of urban was given to those slaves who served in the villa or country residence as well as in the town house; so that the words urban and rustic rather characterised the nature of their occupations than the place where they served. Slaves were also arranged in certain classes, which held a higher or a lower rank according to the nature of their occupation. These classes are _ordinarii_, _vulgares_, and _mediastini_.--_Ordinarii_ seem to have been those slaves who had the superintendence of certain parts of the housekeeping. They were always chosen from those who had the confidence of their master, and they generally had certain slaves under them. To this class the _actores_, _procuratores_, and _dispensatores_ belong, who occur in the familia rustica as well as the familia urbana, but in the former are almost the same as the _villici_. They were stewards or bailiffs. To the same class also belong the slaves who had the charge of the different stores, and who correspond to our house-keepers and butlers: they are called _cellarii_, _promi_, _condi_, _procuratores peni_, &c.--_Vulgares_ included the great body of slaves in a house who had to attend to any particular duty in the house, and to minister to the domestic wants of their master. As there were distinct slaves or a distinct slave for almost every department of household economy, as bakers (_pistores_), cooks (_coqui_), confectioners (_dulciarii_), picklers (_salmentarii_), &c., it is unnecessary to mention these more particularly. This class also included the porters (_ostiarii_), the bed-chamber slaves (_cubicularii_), the litter-bearers (_lecticarii_), and all personal attendants of any kind.--_Mediastini_, the name given to slaves used for any common purpose, was chiefly applied to certain slaves belonging to the familia rustica.--The treatment of slaves of course varied greatly, according to the disposition of their masters, but they were upon the whole, as has been already remarked, treated with greater severity and cruelty than among the Athenians. Originally the master could use the slave as he pleased; under the republic the law does not seem to have protected the person or life of the slave at all; but the cruelty of masters was to some extent restrained under the empire by various enactments. In early times, when the number of slaves was small, they were treated with more indulgence, and more like members of the family: they joined their masters in offering up prayers and thanksgivings to the gods, and partook of their meals in common with their masters, though not at the same table with them, but upon benches (_subsellia_) placed at the foot of the lectus. But with the increase of numbers and of luxury among masters, the ancient simplicity of manners was changed: a certain quantity of food was allowed them (_dimensum_ or _demensum_), which was granted to them either monthly (_menstruum_) or daily (_diarium_). Their chief food was the corn called _far_, of which either four or five modii were granted them a month, or one Roman pound (_libra_) a day. They also obtained an allowance of salt and oil: Cato allowed his slaves a sextarius of oil a month and a modius of salt a year. They also got a small quantity of wine, with an additional allowance on the Saturnalia and Compitalia, and sometimes fruit, but seldom vegetables. Butcher’s meat seems to have been hardly ever given them. Under the republic they were not allowed to serve in the army, though after the battle of Cannae, when the state was in imminent danger, 8000 slaves were purchased by the state for the army, and subsequently manumitted on account of their bravery. The offences of slaves were punished with severity, and frequently with the utmost barbarity. One of the mildest punishments was the removal from the familia urbana to the rustica, where they were obliged to work in chains or fetters. They were frequently beaten with sticks or scourged with the whip. Runaway slaves (_fugitivi_) and thieves (_fures_) were branded on the forehead with a mark (_stigma_), whence they are said to be _notati_ or _inscripti_. Slaves were also punished by being hung up by their hands with weights suspended to their feet, or by being sent to work in the Ergastulum or Pistrinum. [ERGASTULUM.] The carrying of the furca was a very common mode of punishment. [FURCA.] The toilet of the Roman ladies was a dreadful ordeal to the female slaves, who were often barbarously punished by their mistresses for the slightest mistake in the arrangement of the hair or a part of the dress. Masters might work their slaves as many hours in the day as they pleased, but they usually allowed them holidays on the public festivals. At the festival of Saturnus, in particular, special indulgences were granted to all slaves, of which an account is given under SATURNALIA. There was no distinctive dress for slaves. It was once proposed in the senate to give slaves a distinctive costume, but it was rejected, since it was considered dangerous to show them their number. Male slaves were not allowed to wear the toga or bulla, nor females the stola, but otherwise they were dressed nearly in the same way as poor people, in clothes of a dark colour (_pullati_) and slippers (_crepidae_). The rights of burial, however, were not denied to slaves, for, as the Romans regarded slavery as an institution of society, death was considered to put an end to the distinction between slaves and freemen. Slaves were sometimes even buried with their masters, and we find funeral inscriptions addressed to the Dii Manes of slaves (_Dis Manibus_).

SESCUNX. [AS.]

SESTERTĬUS, a Roman coin, which properly belonged to the silver coinage, in which it was one-fourth of the denarius, and therefore equal to 2½ asses. Hence the name, which is an abbreviation of _semis tertius_ (sc. _nummus_), the Roman mode of expressing 2½. The word _nummus_ is often expressed with _sestertius_, and often it stands alone, meaning _sestertius_. Hence the symbol HS or IIS, which is used to designate the sestertius. It stands either for LLS (_Libra Libra et Semis_), or for IIS, the two I’s merely forming the numeral two (sc. _asses_ or _librae_), and the whole being in either case equivalent to _dupondius et semis_. When the as was reduced to half an ounce, and the number of asses in the denarius was made sixteen instead of ten [AS, DENARIUS], the sestertius was still ¼ of the denarius, and therefore contained no longer 2½, but 4 asses. The old reckoning of 10 asses to the denarius was kept, however, in paying the troops. After this change the sestertius was coined in brass as well as in silver; the metal used for it was that called _aurichalcum_, which was much finer than the common _aes_, of which the asses were made. The sum of 1000 _sestertii_ was called _sestertium_. This was also denoted by the symbol HS, the obvious explanation of which is “IIS (2½ millia).” The _sestertium_ was always a sum of money, never a _coin_; the _coin_ used in the payment of large sums was the denarius. According to the value we have assigned to the DENARIUS, up to the time of Augustus, we have--

_£. s. d. farth._
the sestertius = 0 0 2 ·5
the sestertium = 8 17 1
After the reign of Augustus--
the sestertius = 0 0 1 3·5
the sestertium = 7 16 3

The sestertius was the denomination of money almost always used in reckoning considerable amounts. There are a very few examples of the use of the denarius for this purpose. The mode of reckoning was as follows:--_Sestertius_ = _sestertius nummus_ = _nummus_. Sums below 1000 _sestertii_ were expressed by the numeral adjectives joined with either of these forms. The sum of 1000 sestertii = _mille sestertii_ = M _sestertium_ (for _sestertiorum_) = M _nummi_ = M _nummum_ (for _nummorum_) = M _sestertii nummi_ = M _sestertium nummum_ = _sestertium_. These forms are used with the numeral adjectives below 1000: sometimes _millia_ is used instead of _sestertia_: sometimes both words are omitted: sometimes _nummum_ or _sestertium_ is added. For example, 600,000 sestertii = _sescenta sestertia_ = _sescenta millia_ = _sescenta_ = _sescenta sestertia nummum_. For sums of a thousand _sestertia_ (_i.e._ a million _sestertii_) and upwards, the numeral adverbs in _ies_ (_decies, undecies, vicies, &c._) are used, with which the words _centena millia_ (a hundred thousand) must be understood. With these adverbs the neuter singular _sestertium_ is joined in the case required by the construction. Thus, _decies sestertium_ = _decies centena millia sestertium_ = _ten times a hundred thousand sestertii_ = 1,000,000 sestertii = 1000 _sestertia_: _millies_ HS = _millies centena millia sestertium_ = a thousand times one hundred thousand sestertii = 100,000,000 _sestertii_ = 100,000 _sestertia_. When the numbers are written in cypher, it is often difficult to know whether _sestertii_ or _sestertia_ are meant. A distinction is sometimes made by a line placed over the numeral when _sestertia_ are intended, or in other words, when the numeral is an adverb in _ies_. Thus

HS. M.C. = 1100 sestertii, but
HS. M̄.C̄. = HS millies centies
= 110,000 sestertia
= 110,000,000 sestertii.

_Sesterce_ is sometimes used as an English word. If so, it ought to be used only as the translation of _sestertius_, never of _sestertium_.

SĒVIR. [EQUITES.]

SEX SUFFRĀGĬA. [EQUITES.]

SEXTANS. [AS.]

SEXTĀRĬUS, a Roman dry and liquid measure. It was one-sixth of the congius, and hence its name. It was divided, in the same manner as the As, into parts named _uncia, sextans, quadrans, triens, quincunx, semissis, &c._ The uncia, or twelfth part of the sextarius, was the CYATHUS; its _sextans_ was therefore two cyathi, its _quadrans_ three, its _triens_ four, its _quincunx_ five, &c. (See Tables.)

SĬBYLLĪNI LIBRI. These books are said to have been obtained in the reign of Tarquinius Priscus, or according to other accounts in that of Tarquinius Superbus, when a Sibyl (Σίβυλλα), or prophetic woman, presented herself before the king, and offered nine books for sale. Upon the king refusing to purchase them, she went and burnt three, and then returned and demanded the same price for the remaining six as she had done for the nine. The king again refused to purchase them, whereupon she burnt three more, and demanded the same sum for the remaining three as she had done at first for the nine; the king’s curiosity now became excited, so that he purchased the books, and then the Sibyl vanished. These books were probably written in Greek, as the later ones undoubtedly were. They were kept in a stone chest under ground in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, under the custody of certain officers, at first only two in number, but afterwards increased successively to ten and fifteen, of whom an account is given under DECEMVIRI. The public were not allowed to inspect the books, and they were only consulted by the officers, who had the charge of them, at the special command of the senate. They were not consulted, as the Greek oracles were, for the purpose of getting light concerning future events; but to learn what worship was required by the gods, when they had manifested their wrath by national calamities or prodigies. Accordingly we find that the instruction they give is in the same spirit; prescribing what honour was to be paid to the deities already recognised, or what new ones were to be imported from abroad. When the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was burnt in B.C. 82, the Sibylline books perished in the fire; and in order to restore them, ambassadors were sent to various towns in Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor, to make fresh collections, which on the rebuilding of the temple were deposited in the same place that the former had occupied. The Sibylline books were also called _Fata Sibyllina_ and _Libri Fatales_. Along with the Sibylline books were preserved, under the guard of the same officers, the books of the two prophetic brothers, the Marcii, the Etruscan prophecies of the nymph Bygoe, and those of Albuna or Albunea of Tibur. Those of the Marcii, which had not been placed there at the time of the battle of Cannae, were written in Latin.

SĪCA, _dim._ SĪCĪLA, whence the English _sickle_, a curved dagger, adapted by its form to be concealed under the clothes, and therefore carried by robbers and murderers. _Sica_ may be translated _a scimitar_, to distinguish it from PUGIO, which denoted a dagger of the common kind. _Sicarius_, though properly meaning one who murdered with the sica, was applied to murderers in general. Hence the forms _de sicariis_ and _inter sicarios_ were used in the criminal courts in reference to murder. Thus _judicium inter sicarios_, “a trial for murder;” _defendere inter sicarios_, “to defend against a charge of murder.”

SĬGILLĀRĬA. [SATURNALIA.]

SIGNA MĪLĬTĀRĬA (σημεῖα, σημαίαι), military ensigns or standards. The most ancient standard employed by the Romans is said to have been a handful of straw fixed to the top of a spear or pole. Hence the company of soldiers belonging to it was called _Manipulus_. The bundle of hay or fern was soon succeeded by the figures of animals, viz. the eagle, the wolf, the minotaur, the horse, and the boar. These appear to have corresponded to the five divisions of the Roman army as shown on p. 165. The eagle (_aquila_) was carried by the _aquilifer_ in the midst of the _hastati_, and we may suppose the wolf to have been carried among the _principes_, and so on. In the second consulship of Marius, B.C. 104, the four quadrupeds were entirely laid aside as standards, the eagle being alone retained. It was made of silver, or bronze, and with expanded wings, but was probably of a small size, since a standard-bearer (_signifer_) under Julius Caesar is said in circumstances of danger to have wrenched the eagle from its staff, and concealed it in the folds of his girdle. Under the later emperors the eagle was carried, as it had been for many centuries, with the legion, a legion being on that account sometimes called _aquila_, and at the same time each cohort had for its own ensign the serpent or dragon (_draco_, δράκων), which was woven on a square piece of cloth, elevated on a gilt staff, to which a cross-bar was adapted for the purpose, and carried by the _draconarius_. Another figure used in the standards was a ball (_pila_), supposed to have been emblematic of the dominion of Rome over the world; and for the same reason a bronze figure of Victory was sometimes fixed at the top of the staff. Under the eagle or other emblem was often placed a head of the reigning emperor, which was to the army the object of idolatrous adoration. The minor divisions of a cohort, called _centuries_, had also each an ensign, inscribed with the number both of the cohort and of the century. By this provision every soldier was enabled with the greatest ease to take his place. The standard of the cavalry, properly called _vexillum_, was a square piece of cloth expanded upon a cross in the manner already indicated, and perhaps surmounted by some figure. The following cut, containing several standards, represents the performance of the sacrifice called _suovetaurilia_. The imperial standard from the time of Constantine was called _labarum_; on it a figure or emblem of Christ was woven in gold upon purple cloth, and this was substituted for the head of the emperor. Since the movements of a body of troops and of every portion of it were regulated by the standards, all the evolutions, acts, and incidents of the Roman army were expressed by phrases derived from this circumstance. Thus _signa inferre_ meant to advance, _referre_ to retreat, and _convertere_ to face about; _efferre_, or _castris vellere_, to march out of the camp; _ad signa convenire_, to re-assemble. Notwithstanding some obscurity in the use of terms, it appears that, whilst the standard of the legion was properly called _aquila_, those of the cohorts were in a special sense of the term called _signa_, their bearers being _signiferi_, and that those of the manipuli or smaller divisions of the cohort were denominated _vexilla_, their bearers being _vexillarii_. In time of peace the standards were kept in the AERARIUM, under the care of the QUAESTOR.

SĬLĬCERNĬUM. [FUNUS.]

SIMPŬLUM or SIMPŬVĬUM, the name of a small cup used in sacrifices, by which libations of wine were offered to the gods. It is represented on the coin figured under SECESPITA. There was a proverbial expression _excitare fluctus in simpulo_, “to make much ado about nothing.”

SĪPĂRĬUM, a piece of tapestry stretched on a frame, which rose before the stage of the theatre, and consequently answered the purpose of the drop-scene with us, although, contrary to our practice, it was depressed when the play began, so as to go below the level of the stage (_aulaea premuntur_), and was raised again when the performance was concluded (_tolluntur_). It appears that human figures were represented upon it, whose feet seemed to rest upon the stage when this screen was drawn up. These figures were sometimes those of Britons woven in the canvass, and raising their arms in the attitude of lifting up a purple curtain, so as to be introduced in the same manner as Atlantes, Persae, and Caryatides. [CARYATIDES.] In a more general sense, _siparium_ denoted any piece of cloth or canvass stretched upon a frame.

SISTRUM (σεῖστρον), a mystical instrument of music, used by the ancient Egyptians in their ceremonies, and especially in the worship of Isis. It was held in the right hand (see cut), and shaken, from which circumstance it derived its name. The introduction of the worship of Isis into Italy shortly before the commencement of the Christian aera made the Romans familiar with this instrument.

SĬTELLA. [SITULA.]

SĪTŎPHỸLĂCES (σιτοφύλακες), a board of officers, chosen by lot, at Athens. They were at first three, afterwards increased to fifteen, of whom ten were for the city, five for the Peiraeus. Their business was partly to watch the arrival of the corn ships, take account of the quantity imported, and see that the import laws were duly observed; partly to watch the sales of corn in the market, and take care that the prices were fair and reasonable, and none but legal weights and measures used by the factors; in which respect their duties were much the same as those of the Agoranomi and Metronomi with regard to other saleable articles.

SĪTOS (σῖτος), corn. The soil of Attica, though favourable to the production of figs, olives, and grapes, was not so favourable for corn; and accordingly a large quantity of corn was annually imported. Exportation was entirely prohibited, nor was any Athenian or resident alien allowed to carry corn to any other place than Athens. Whoever did so, was punishable with death. Of the corn brought into the Athenian port two-thirds was to be brought into the city and sold there. No one might lend money on a ship that did not sail with an express condition to bring a return cargo, part of it corn, to Athens. Strict regulations were made with respect to the sale of corn in the market. Conspiracies among the corn-dealers (σιτοπῶλαι) to buy up the corn (συνωνεῖσθαι), or raise the price (συνιστάναι τὰς τιμὰς), were punished with death. The sale of corn was placed under the supervision of a special board of officers called _Sitophylaces_ (σιτοφύλακες), while that of all other marketable commodities was superintended by the agoranomi. It was their business to see that meal and bread were of the proper quality, and sold at the legal weight and price. Notwithstanding these careful provisions, scarcities (σιτοδεῖαι) frequently occurred at Athens. The state then made great efforts to supply the wants of the people by importing large quantities of corn, and selling it at a low price. Public granaries were kept in the Odeum, Pompeum, Long Porch, and naval storehouse near the sea. _Sitonae_ (σιτῶναι) were appointed to get in the supply and manage the sale. Persons called _apodectae_ (ἀποδέκται) received the corn, measured it out, and distributed it in certain quantities.

SĪTOU DĬCĒ (σίτου δίκη). If anything happened to sever a marriage contract, the husband or his representative was bound to repay the marriage portion (προῖξ); or, if he failed to do so, he was liable to pay interest upon it at the rate of eighteen per cent. per annum. A woman’s fortune was usually secured by a mortgage of the husband’s property; but whether this was so or not, her guardian might bring an action against the party who unjustly withheld it; δίκη προικὸς, to recover the principal, δίκη σίτου, for the interest. The interest was called σῖτος (alimony or maintenance), because it was the income out of which the woman had to be maintained. The word σῖτος is often used generally for provisions, just as we use the word _bread_.

SĬTŬLA, _dim._ SĬTELLA (ὑδρία), was probably a bucket or pail for drawing and carrying water, but was more usually applied to the vessel from which lots were drawn. The diminutive _sitella_, however, was more commonly used in this signification. It appears that the vessel was filled with water (as among the Greeks, whence the word ὑδρία), and that the lots (_sortes_) were made of wood; and as, though increasing in size below, it had a narrow neck, only one lot could come to the top of the water at the same time, when it was shaken. The vessel used for drawing lots was also called _urna_ or _orca_ as well as _Situla_ or _Sitella_. It is important to understand the difference in meaning, between Sitella and Cista, in their use in the comitia and courts of justice, since they have been frequently confounded. The _Sitella_ was the urn, from which the names of the tribes or centuries were drawn out by lot, so that each might have its proper place in voting, and the _Cista_ was the ballot-box into which the tabellae were cast in voting. The Cista seems to have been made of wicker or similar work.

SOCCUS, _dim._ SOCCŬLUS, was nearly if not altogether equivalent in meaning to CREPIDA, and denoted a slipper or low shoe, which did not fit closely, and was not fastened by any tie. The Soccus was worn by comic actors, and was in this respect opposed to the COTHURNUS.

SŎCĬI (σύμμαχοι). In the early times, when Rome formed equal alliances with any of the surrounding nations, these nations were called _Socii_. After the dissolution of the Latin league, when the name _Latini_, or _Nomen Latinum_, was artificially applied to a great number of Italians, only a few of whom were real inhabitants of the old Latin towns, and the majority of whom had been made Latins by the will and the law of Rome, there necessarily arose a difference between these Latins and the Socii, and the expression _Socii Nomen Latinum_ is one of the old asyndeta, instead of _Socii et Nomen Latinum_. The Italian allies again must be distinguished from foreign allies. The Italian allies consisted, for the most part, of such nations as had either been conquered by the Romans, or had come under their dominion through other circumstances. When such nations formed an alliance with Rome, they generally retained their own laws; or if they were not allowed this privilege at first, they usually obtained it subsequently. The condition of the Italian allies varied, and mainly depended upon the manner in which they had come under the Roman dominion; but in reality they were always dependent upon Rome. The following are the principal duties which the Italian Socii had to perform towards Rome: they had to send subsidies in troops, money, corn, ships, and other things, whenever Rome demanded them. The number of troops requisite for completing or increasing the Roman armies was decreed every year by the senate, and the consuls fixed the amount which each allied nation had to send; in proportion to its population capable of bearing arms, of which each nation was obliged to draw up accurate lists, called _formulae_. The consul also appointed the place and time at which the troops of the socii, each part under its own leader, had to meet him and his legions. The infantry of the allies in a consular army was usually equal in numbers to that of the Romans; the cavalry was generally three times the number of the Romans: but these numerical proportions were not always observed. The consuls appointed twelve praefects as commanders of the socii, and their power answered to that of the twelve military tribunes in the consular legions. These praefects, who were probably taken from the allies themselves, and not from the Romans, selected a third of the cavalry, and a fifth of the infantry of the socii, who formed a select detachment for extraordinary cases, and who were called the _extraordinarii_. The remaining body of the socii was then divided into two parts, called the right and the left wing. The infantry of the wings was, as usual, divided into cohorts, and the cavalry into turmae. In some cases also legions were formed of the socii. Pay and clothing were given to the allied troops by the states or towns to which they belonged, and which appointed quaestors or paymasters for this purpose: but Rome furnished them with provisions at the expense of the republic: the infantry received the same as the Roman infantry, but the cavalry only received two-thirds of what was given to the Roman cavalry. In the distribution of the spoil and of conquered lands they frequently received the same share as the Romans. They were never allowed to take up arms of their own accord, and disputes among them were settled by the senate. Notwithstanding all this, the socii fell gradually under the arbitrary rule of the senate and the magistrates of Rome; and after the year B.C. 173, it even became customary for magistrates, when they travelled through Italy, to demand of the authorities of allied towns to pay homage to them, to provide them with a residence, and to furnish them with beasts of burden when they continued their journey. The only way for the allies to obtain any protection against such arbitrary proceedings, was to enter into a kind of clientela with some influential and powerful Roman. Socii who revolted against Rome were frequently punished with the loss of their freedom, or of the honour of serving in the Roman armies. Such punishments however varied according to circumstances. After the civitas had been granted to all the Italians by the Lex Julia de Civitate (B.C. 90), the relation of the Italian socii to Rome ceased. But Rome had long before this event applied the name Socii to foreign nations also which were allied with Rome, though the meaning of the word in this case differed from that of the Socii Italici. There were two principal kinds of alliances with foreign nations: 1. _foedus aequum_, such as might be concluded either after a war in which neither party had gained a decisive victory, or with a nation with which Rome had never been at war; 2. a _foedus iniquum_, when a foreign nation conquered by the Romans was obliged to form the alliance on any terms proposed by the conquerors. In the latter case the foreign nation was to some extent subject to Rome, and obliged to comply with anything that Rome might demand. But all foreign socii, whether they had an equal or unequal alliance, were obliged to send subsidies in troops when Rome demanded them; these troops, however, did not, like those of the Italian socii, serve in the line, but were employed as light-armed soldiers, and were called _milites auxiliares_, _auxiliarii_, _auxilia_, or sometimes _auxilia externa_. Towards the end of the republic all the Roman allies, whether they were nations or kings, sank down to the condition of mere subjects or vassals of Rome, whose freedom and independence consisted in nothing but a name. [Compare FOEDERATAE CIVITATES.]

SŎDĀLĬTĬUM. [AMBITUS.]

SŌLĀRIUM. [HOROLOGIUM.]

SŎLĔA was the simplest kind of sandal [SANDALIUM], consisting of a sole with little more to fasten it to the foot than a strap across the instep.

SŎLĬDUS. [AURUM.]

SOLĬTAURĪLĬA. [SACRIFICIUM; LUSTRATIO; and woodcut on p. 343.]

SOPHRŌNISTAE. [GYMNASIUM.]

SORTES, lots. It was a frequent practice among the Italian nations to endeavour to ascertain a knowledge of future events by drawing lots (_sortes_): in many of the ancient Italian temples the will of the gods was consulted in this way, as at Praeneste, Caere, &c. These sortes or lots were usually little tablets or counters, made of wood or other materials, and were commonly thrown into a sitella or urn, filled with water, as is explained under SITULA. The lots were sometimes thrown like dice. The name of sortes was in fact given to anything used to determine chances, and was also applied to any verbal response of an oracle. Various things were written upon the lots according to circumstances, as for instance the names of the persons using them, &c.: it seems to have been a favourite practice in later times to write the verses of illustrious poets upon little tablets, and to draw them out of the urn like other lots, the verses which a person thus obtained being supposed to be applicable to him.

SPĔCŬLĀRĬA. [DOMUS.]

SPĔCŬLĀTŌRES, or EXPLŌRĀTŌRES, were scouts or spies sent before an army, to reconnoitre the ground and observe the movements of the enemy. Under the emperors there was a body of troops called Speculatores, who formed part of the praetorian cohorts, and had the especial care of the emperor’s person.

SPĔCŬLUM (κάτοπτρον, ἔσοπτρον, ἔνοπτρον), a mirror, a looking-glass. The looking-glasses of the ancients were usually made of metal, at first of a composition of tin and copper, but afterwards more frequently of silver. The ancients seem to have had glass mirrors also like ours, consisting of a glass plate covered at the back with a thin leaf of metal. They were manufactured as early as the time of Pliny at the celebrated glass-houses of Sidon, but they must have been inferior to those of metal, since they never came into general use, and are never mentioned by ancient writers among costly pieces of furniture, whereas metal mirrors frequently are. Looking-glasses were generally small, and such as could be carried in the hand. Instead of their being fixed so as to be hung against the wall or to stand upon the table or floor, they were generally held by female slaves before their mistresses when dressing.

SPĔCUS. [AQUAE DUCTUS.]

SPHAERISTĒRIUM. [GYMNASIUM.]

SPĪCŬLUM. [HASTA.]

SPĪRA (σπεῖρα), _dim._ SPĪRŬLA, the base of a column. This member did not exist in the Doric order of Greek architecture, but was always present in the Ionic and Corinthian, and, besides the bases properly belonging to those orders, there was one called the Attic, which may be regarded as a variety of the Ionic [ATTICURGES]. In the Ionic and Attic the base commonly consisted of two tori (_torus superior_ and _torus inferior_) divided by a _scotia_ (τρόχιλος), and in the Corinthian of two tori divided by two scotiae. The upper torus was often fluted (ῥαβδωτός), and surmounted by an astragal [ASTRAGALUS], as in the left-hand figure of the annexed woodcut, which shows the form of the base in the Ionic temple of Panops on the Ilissus. The right-hand figure in the same woodcut shows the corresponding part in the temple of Minerva Polias at Athens. In this the upper torus is wrought with a plaited ornament, perhaps designed to represent a rope or cable. In these two temples the spira rests not upon a plinth (_plinthus_, πλίνθος), but on a podium.

SPŎLĬA. Four words are commonly employed to denote booty taken in war, _Praeda, anubiae_, _Exuviae_, _Spolia_. Of these _Praeda_ bears the most comprehensive meaning, being used for plunder of every description. _Manubiae_ would seem strictly to signify that portion of the spoil which fell to the share of the commander-in-chief, the proceeds of which were frequently applied to the erection of some public building. _Exuviae_ indicates anything stripped from the person of a foe, while _Spolia_, properly speaking, ought to be confined to armour and weapons, although both words are applied loosely to trophies, such as chariots, standards, beaks of ships and the like, which might be preserved and displayed. Spoils collected on the battlefield after an engagement, or found in a captured town, were employed to decorate the temples of the gods, triumphal arches, porticoes, and other places of public resort, and sometimes in the hour of extreme need served to arm the people; but those which were gained by individual prowess were considered the undoubted property of the successful combatant, and were exhibited in the most conspicuous part of his dwelling, being hung up in the atrium, suspended from the door-posts, or arranged in the vestibulum, with appropriate inscriptions. They were regarded as peculiarly sacred, so that even if the house was sold the new possessor was not permitted to remove them. But while on the one hand it was unlawful to remove spoils, so it was forbidden to _replace_ or _repair_ them when they had fallen down or become decayed through age; the object of this regulation being doubtless to guard against the frauds of false pretenders. Of all spoils the most important were the _spolia opima_, a term applied to those only which the commander-in-chief of a Roman army stripped in a field of battle from the leader of the foe. Plutarch expressly asserts that Roman history up to his own time afforded but three examples of the _spolia opima_. The first were said to have been won by Romulus from Acro, king of the Caeninenses, the second by Aulus Cornelius Cossus from Lar Tolumnius, king of the Veientes, the third by M. Claudius Marcellus from Viridomarus, king of the Gaesatae. In all these cases, in accordance with the original institution, the spoils were dedicated to Jupiter Feretrius.

SPONSA, SPONSUS, SPONSĀLĬA. [MATRIMONIUM.]

SPORTŬLA. In the days of Roman freedom, clients were in the habit of testifying respect for their patron by thronging his atrium at an early hour, and escorting him to places of public resort when he went abroad. As an acknowledgment of these courtesies, some of the number were usually invited to partake of the evening meal. After the extinction of liberty, the presence of such guests, who had now lost all political importance, was soon regarded as an irksome restraint, while at the same time many of the noble and wealthy were unwilling to sacrifice the pompous display of a numerous body of retainers. Hence the practice was introduced under the empire of bestowing on each client, when he presented himself for his morning visit, a certain portion of food as a substitute and compensation for the occasional invitation to a regular supper (_coena recta_), and this dole, being carried off in a little basket provided for the purpose, received the name of _sportula_. For the sake of convenience it soon became common to give an equivalent in money, the sum established by general usage being a hundred quadrantes. The donation in money, however, did not entirely supersede the sportula given in kind, for we find in Juvenal a lively description of a great man’s vestibule crowded with dependents, each attended by a slave bearing a portable kitchen to receive the viands and keep them hot while they were carried home. Under the empire great numbers of the lower orders derived their whole sustenance, and the funds for ordinary expenditure, exclusively from this source, while even the highborn did not scruple to increase their incomes by taking advantage of the ostentatious profusion of the rich and vain.