Homer Hesiod Hymns Tragedy Remythologizing Tools Blackboard Info
Dictionary
 
MANUS 100.00%
in its wider sense, is the name given by the Romans to the power of the chief of a family over the whole of that family, especially the power of the husband over his wife, whose person and property were so completely his own, that he was legally responsible for her actions, but at the same time had the right to kill, punish, or sell her. As in this respect, so also with respect to the right of inheritance, the wife was placed on a level with the children, as she obtained the same share as they. For marriages without manus, see MARRIAGE.
 
MANUS INIECTIO 100.00%

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64
In the oldest Roman legal procedure a kind of execution levied on the person of one who had been condemned to pay a certain sum. If this was not done within thirty days of the condemnation, the plaintiff could seize the debtor and bring him before the praetor, who handed him over to the creditor with the word addico (I hand over), unless he paid there and then, or a vindex came forward to pay for him or to show there was no ground for complaint. The creditor kept the debtor in chains at his house for sixty days; if his claims had not been satisfied during this period, he might kill him or sell him as a slave in foreign parts. From the 4th century onwards a less severe arrangement was usual; the relation of the addictus to his creditor was that of a homo liber in mancipio. (See MANCIPIUM.)
 
ATILIUS FORTUNATIANUS 92.76%
A Latin grammarian who flourished in the first half of the 4th century A.D., and was the author of a school manual of prosody.
 
NOTITIA DIGNITATUM 60.70%
A list of the officers of the court, and the civil and military magistrates. This official manual belongs to the end of the 4th century B.C., which is of great value for the statistics of the Roman empire at that time. It contains also the insignia of each magistrate represented in drawings.
 
HEPHAESTION 55.59%
A Greek soldier, a native of Alexandria, who flourished about the middle of the 2nd Century A.D., and was tutor to the emperor Verus before his accession. He wrote a work on prosody, in forty-eight books, which he first abridged into eleven books, then into three, and finally into one. The final abridgment, called a manual (Encheiridion) has come down to us. It gives no more than a bare sketch of prosody, without any attempt at theoretical explanation of the facts; but it is, nevertheless, of immense value. It is the only complete treatise on Greek prosody which has survived from antiquity, and it quotes verses from the lost poets. Attached to it is a treatise on the different forms of poetry and composition, in two incomplete versions. The manual has a preface (Prolegomena) by Longinus, and two collections of scholia.
 
HANDICRAFT 34.35%

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64
Examples of handicraft applied to the ordinary needs of life occur in the mythical ages of Greece. Among the gods of Olympus, Hephaestus represents this kind of industry, and the oldest craftsmen are represented as divine beings appearing on earth, as in the instance of the Idaean Dactyli and the Telchines in Crete. In the Homeric poems, which are the production of an age fairly advanced in culture, the number of craftsmen properly so called is very small. (See DEMIURGI.) The only ones mentioned are builders, carpenters, potters, and workers in leather and metal. The development of the mechanical arts inGreece was immensely indebted, in ancient times, to foreign influence, especially that of the East; for Eastern civilization was far older than Hellenic. The greater part of the trade carried on in Greek waters was in the hands of the Phoenicians, and it was, consequently, Phoenician manufacture which the Hellenes took as a model for imitation, so soon as they thought of widening the sphere of their own industries, and bringing them to perfection. Since the 6th century B.C., or thereabouts, the definite impress of Asiatic manufacture disappears, and Greek trade, supported by a rapidly developing art, takes its own time. Not that it lost all contact with foreign work, for not only did the colonies keep up an active communication with the non-Hellenic world, but foreign craftsmen took up their permanent residence in Greek towns, such as Athens and Corinth. Manual labour, like every lucrative occupation, was generally held in low esteem among the Greeks, and especially among the Dorian tribes. But this state of opinion must have grown up comparatively late, as there is no trace of it in Homer or Hesiod. On the contrary, the Homeric princes do not think it beneath them to undertake the work of craftsmen. In later times we find the free citizens of many states entirely declining all manual labour. In Sparta, for instance, the handicrafts were only practised by the perioeci and helots, and mechanics were excluded from civic rights. At Athens all citizens were equal in the eyes of the law, and it was expressly forbidden to reproach a man for the character of his vocation, whatever it might be. The poorer citizens were compelled by law to practise some trade or other, and it was quite usual to engage in commerce. But still, in the opinion even of the wisest statesmen, mechanical labour was physically, intellectually, and morally prejudicial. The petty anxieties which it involved were held to be incompatible with the tone, and culture demanded by the active life of the citizen, with the qualities which would enable him to join in deliberation on great affairs of state, and conduct public business with hones and intelligence. It was thought, in fact, that all manual labour should be left to slaves and freedmen. Much of the mechanical industry of Athens was, accordingly, in the hands of slaves, freedmen, and resident aliens. The slaves worked sometimes on their own account, paying a certain amount of their earnings to their master; sometimes entirely for the profit of their masters, the latter taking no active part in the business; sometimes they acted as assistants to the citizens and resident aliens who carried on a business of their own. But in industrial cities the great mass of slaves was employed in factories, the owners of which left the superintendence of the work to a head man, usually himself a slave or freedman, reserving for themselves only the general management and the financial control of the business. The immense masses of slaves kept at Athens and Corinth, and in Aegina and Chios, show how numerous the factories were in industrial cities. The manufacture of metal wares, pottery, and other objects which could not be made at home, was the most extended of all. The division of labour kept pace with the development of trade and manufacture. This fact may partly explain how it is that, in spite of the comparative simplicity of their tools, the Greek craftsmen attained, especially in works of art, such admirable perfection of technical detail. In ancient Greece it would appear that there were no trade-guilds and corporations in the proper sense. But among the Romans these societies were an institution of old standing, the foundation of which was attributed to king Numa, like that of many others which had existed from time immemorial. The guilds of craftsmen (collegiaopificum), included flute-players, goldsmiths, coppersmiths, carpenters, fullers, dyers, potters, and shoemakers. There was originally a ninth collegium, which embraced all not included in the other eight; but in later times these, with the new industries that gradually arose, combined into special guilds. The object of the guilds undoubtedly was to maintain an unbroken tradition, and to watch over the common interest. But there seems to have been no compulsion exercised to make men join a guild. The Romans, like the Greeks, seem to have thought that there was something objectionable in mechanical labour; but it is uncertain whether the prejudice was of really old standing. It must be remembered that the Servian constitution threw the burden of military service entirely upon the landowners. Thus the craftsmen, who as a rule had no landed property, were practically, though not legally, excluded from the army. From this circumstance may have arisen the low estimation in which manual industry was consequently held. It was partly owing to this state of opinion that peasants, when they lost their land, were unwilling to win their bread as mechanics, and preferred to adopt the dependent position of clients livin on public alms and the bribes of candidates at elections. In Rome, as in Greece, the handicrafts tended more and more to pass into the hands of strangers, freedmen, and slaves. In wealthy houses most of the necessary manual work was done by slaves, whose talents were often, as in Greece, turned to account by their masters. They were often employed in manufactures, and specially in such branches of industry as could be combined with agriculture, tilemaking for instance, pottery, dying, tanning, felt-making, etc. No social stigma attached to manufacture in Rome any more than in Greece; indeed in the imperial age even the emperors and the members of the imperial household would, without scruple, invest their private capital in industrial undertakings of this sort. After the fall of the republic, and throughout the imperial age, Rome was the centre of the whole commercial activity of the ancient world, though the Romans made no special contribution to industrial progress. Having in former ages been dominated by Etruscan influence, Roman industry was in later times dependent on the art of the Eastern world, and especially of Greece.
 
NONIUS MARCELLUS 31.67%
A Latin scholar, born at Thubursicum in Africa, who composed in the beginning of the 4th century A.D. a manual of miscellaneous information on points of lexicography, grammar, and antiquities, bearing the title of De Compendiosa Doctrina. It consisted originally of twenty books, one of which is lost. It is evidently founded on the works of earlier scholars, and in some parts exhibits verbal coincidences with Aulus Gellius. Though not showing the least genius or critical acumen, the work is of great importance owing to its numerous quotations from lost authors, especially of the archaic period. [See Prof. Nettleship's Lectures and Essays, pp. 277-331.]
 
DONATUS 30.43%
A Roman scholar and rhetorician of about the middle of the 4th century [smallCaps>A.D., and tutor of Jerome. He was the author of a Latin grammar (Ars Grammatica) in three books. This was much commented on by Servius, Pompeius, and others. His Ars Minor,, or short catechism on the eight parts of speech, survived long after the Middle Ages as the chief manual for elementary instruction. These works survive in their original form. He also wrote a valuable commentary on Terence, which we possess in an imperfect shape, the notes on the Heauton Timorumenos being lost, and not in its original form. [He was also the author of a lost commentary on Vergil, which is often alluded to contemptuously by Servius.]
 
CATO 28.57%
The earliest important representative of Latin prose, and an ardent champion of Roman national feeling in life as in literature. He was born 234 B.C., at Tusculum, and passed his youth in a laborious life in the country. At the age of seventeen he entered the army, and fought with distinction in the Haunibalic war in Italy, Sicily and Africa. He was elected quaestor in 204, aedile in 199, and praetor in 198 B.C., when he administered the province of Sardinia. He attained the consulship in B.C. 195. As proconsul he was so successful in the measures he adopted for the subjugation of the province of Spain, that he was honoured with a triumph on his return. Four years later, in the capacity of legatus, he dealt the decisive stroke which gave the Romans the victory over the troops of king Antiochus at Thermopylae. In 184 he was elected censor, and administered his office with such strictness that he received the cognomen of Censorius. He was the enemy of all innovations, especially of the Greek influence which was making itself felt at Rome. Everything which he thought endangered the ancient Roman discipline, he met with unwearied opposition, regardless of any unpopularity he might incur. He is said to have been prosecuted forty-four times, and to have been always acquitted. The occasions on which he himself appeared as prosecutor were even more numerous. Even in extreme old age he retained the vigour of his intellect, and was as active as before in politics and literature. He is said to have been an old man when he made his first acquaintance with Greek literature. He died 149 B.C., in his eighty-sixth year. [See Livy xxxix 40.] Cato was the first writer who composed a history of Rome in Latin, and who published any considerable number of his own speeches. His chief work was the Origines, or seven books of Italian and Roman history. The title Origines, or "Early History," applied properly only to the first three books, which contained the story of the kings, and traced the rise of the various cities of Italy. But it was afterwards extended to the whole work, which included the history of Rome down to B.C. 151. In the narrative of his own achievements he inserted his own speeches. From early manhood he displayed great energy as an orator. More than 150 of his speeches were known to Cicero, who speaks with respect of his oratorical performances. The titles, and some fragments of eighty of his orations have survived. In the form of maxims addressed to his son (Praecepta ad Filium) he drew a comprehensive sketch of everything which, in his opinion, was useful for a young man to know if he was to be a vir bonus. He also put together in verse some rules for every-day conduct (Carmen De Moribus). The only work of Cato which has come clown to us in anything like completeness is his treatise on agriculture (De Re Rustica), though even this we do not possess in its original shape. This was intended as a manual for the private use of one Manlius, and had reference to a particular estate belonging to him. One part is written sysmatically, the other is a miscellaneous collection of various rules. There is also a collection of 146 proverbs, each in a couple of hexameters, which bears the name of Cato. But this belongs to the later Empire, though it is probably not later than the end of the 4th century A.D. This little book was a well known manual all through the Middle Ages, and was widely circulated in translations.
 
GRAMMATICA 25.35%
Greece. The term grammatica, in the scientific sense, included, in antiquity, all the philological disciplines, grammar proper, lexicography, prosody, the lower and higher criticism, antiquities, everything, in short, necessary to the understanding and explanation of grammata, or the treasures of literature, whether their form or their matter be in question. It was first developed into a special science during the Alexandrian age, in Alexandria and Pergamon, where the great libraries gave ample opportunity for philological studies on the scale above indicated. It was the restoration of the text of the Homeric poems, and the explanation of their words and contents, that primarily exercised the wits of the scholars. Hesiod, the lyric poets, the dramatists, and certain prose writers next engaged their attention. The progress and development of philology is marked by the names of Zenodotus (about 280 B.C.), Aristophanes of Byzantium (260-183), and Aristarchus (about 170), the three chief representatives of the Alexandrian school. To these must be added Crates (about 160), the head of the school of Pergamon, and the opponent of the Alexandrians. The name of Aristarchus represents the highest point of philological learning and criticism in antiquity. He was the founder of the celebrated school of the Aristarcheans, which continued to exist and to maintain an uninterrupted tradition, down to the first century of the imperial age. His disciple Dionysius Thrax wrote the oldest manual of grammar that we possess. By far the most celebrated of the later Aristarcheans was Didymus, born about 63 B.C. His writings are the chief foundation of the Byzantine collections of scholia. The science of grammatica gradually narrowed its scope till it confined itself to grammar in the restricted sense of the word, namely, accidence and syntax, combined with lexical researches into the dialects, and into the usages of special periods of literature, and special groups of authors. The most eminent scholars of the Empire are Apollonius Dyscolus (about 150 A.D.), who endeavoured to reduce the whole of empirical grammar to a system, and his son, Aelius Herodianus, a still more important personage. The writings of the latter form one of the chief authorities of the later grammarians, such as Arcadius. The lexical writings of the earlier scholars were often very comprehensive, and have only survived in fragments, or in later extracts, such as that of Hesychius. They had consisted mainly in collections of glosses, or strange and antiquated expressions. But in the 2nd Century A.D. the influence of the reviving sophistic literature and education turned the attention of lexicographers to the usage of the Attic writers. This tendency is represented in the surviving works of Pollux, Harpocration, and others. To the same period belongs Hephaestion's manual of prosody, which is the only complete treatise on this subject. Athenaeus, at the beginning of the 3rd century, wrote a work (the Deipnosophistoe) of inestimable value to the student of antiquities. Longinus, who died 273 A.D., may be regarded as the last considerable scholar of the ancient world. The later grammarians restricted themselves to compiling extracts from the works of earlier ages.
 
EMANCIPATIO 23.07%

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64
The formal liberation of a son from the control (manus) of his father. If the son were sold three times over, all the rights of his father came to an end. If then a father wished to make a son his own master (sui iuris), he made him over three times by mancipatio or a fictitious sale to a third person. The third person emancipated him the first and second time, so that he came again into the control of his father. After purchasing him a third time he either emancipated him himself, and thus became his patronus, or he sold him back to his father, to whom he now stood, not in the relation of a son, but in mancipio, so that the father could liberate him without more ado. In this case the father remained patronus of the son. The emancipated son did not, as in the case of adoption (see ADOPTION), Pass into the patria potestas of another, and therefore retained his father's family name. But he lost his right to inherit in default of a will.
 
MANCIPATIO 21.05%

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64
A formal mode of purchase among the Romans, which seems to go back to a time when the price of purchase was weighed out in bars of copper. In the presence of six Roman citizens of the age of puberty, one of whom, called the libripens (weigher), held a copper balance, the purchaser took hold of the thing and uttered certain prescribed words. He then struck the balance (libra) with a small piece of copper (oes or raudusculum), which he gave to the seller as symbol of the price. This mode of purchase per oes et libram was employed in the case of res mancipi, i.e. estates in Italy or provinces with Italian law, in the country or in towns, slaves, and domestic animals and beasts of burden needed for agricultural purposes; also in a certain kind of testaments, in the form of marriage called coemptio, and in transferring one's power over a person (manus) to another. (See ADOPTION, EMANCIPATIO, and MANCIPIUM.)
 
RHETORIC 18.00%
Among the Greeks, rhetorike comprised the practical as well as the theoretical art of speaking, and rhetor denoted an orator no less than a teacher of oratory. Among the Romans, it denoted only the latter, the actual speaker being called orator. The first men, who reduced oratory to a system capable of being taught, appeared among the Sicilian Greeks, who, according to the (testimony of the ancients, were distinguished for the keenness of their understanding and their love of disputation [Cicero, Brutus 46]. The Syracusan CORAX (ciro. 500 B.C.) is said to have been the first who elaborated systematic rules for forensic speeches, and laid them down in writing in a manual on the art of rhetoric (techne). His pupil TISIAS (born circ. 480), and after him the Leontine GORGIAS, further cultivated the art, and from about 427 carried it to Greece itself, and in particular to Athens. In the judicial proceedings and the assemblies of the people, the practice of oratory had long been familiar at Athens, though it had not been reduced to technical rules, and oratory had had a conspicuous representative in PERICLES. At Athens the theory of oratory was further cultivated by the SOPHISTS (Gr. Sophistai, "men who professed knowledge or wisdom "). Their instruction in style and rhetoric was enjoyed by numerous Athenians, who desired by the aid of study and practice to attain to expertness in speaking. The first Athenian, who, besides imparting instruction in the new art, applied it practically to speaking in the assemblies of the people and before courts, and who published speeches as patterns for study, was ANTIPHON (died B.C. 411), the earliest of the "Ten Attic Orators." In his extant speeches the oratorical art is shown still in its beginnings. These, with the speeches interwoven in the historical work of his great pupil Thucydides, give, an idea of the crude and harsh style of the technical oratory of the time; while the speeches of ANDOCIDES (died about 399), the second of the Ten Orators, display a style that is still uninfluenced by the rhetorical teaching of the age. The first really classical orator is LYSIAS (died about 360), who, while in possession of all the technical rules of the time, handles with perfect mastery the common language of every-day life. ISOCRATES (436-338) is reckoned as the father of artistic oratory properly so called ; he is a master in the careful choice of words, in the rounding off and rhythmical formation of periods, in the apt employment of figures of speech, and in everything which lends charm to language. By his mastery of style he has exercised the most far-reaching influence upon the oratorical diction of all succeeding time. Of the three kinds of speeches which were distinguished by the ancients, political (or deliberative), forensic, and showspeeches (or declamations), he specially cultivated the last. Among his numerous pupils is ISAeUS (about 400-350), who in his general method of oratory closely follows Lysias, though he shows a more matured skill in the controversial use of oratorical resources. The highest point was attained by his pupil DEMOSTHENES, the greatest orator of antiquity (384-322); next to him comes his political opponent AeSCHINES (389-314). The number of the Ten Orators is completed by their contemporaries HYPERIDES, LYCURGUS, and DINARCHUS. In the last of these the beginning of the decline of oratorical art is already clearly apparent. To the time of Demosthenes belongs the oldest manual of rhetoric which has been preserved to us, that of ANAXIMENES of Lampsacus. This is founded on the practice of oratory, and, being intended for immediate practical use, shows no trace of any philosophical groundwork or philosophical research. Greek rhetoric owes to ARISTOTLE its proper reduction into a scientific system. In contrast to Isocrates, who aims at perfection of form and style, Aristotle, in his Rhetoric, lays special stress on subject-matter, and mainly devotes himself to setting forth the means of producing conviction. When Athens had lost her liberty, practical oratory was more and more reduced to silence; the productions of the last orators, such as DEMETRIUS of nus (q.v.), the god of the river, made her his wife. According to an older tradition, the mother of the founders of Rome was Ilia, daughter of Aeneas (q.v.) and Lavinia.
 
FAMILIA 16.87%

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64
The Latin name for a household community, consisting of the master of the house (pater familias,) his wife (mater familias,) his sons and unmarried daughters (filii and filioe familias,) the wives, sons, and unmarried daughters of the sons, and the slaves. All the other members of the family were subject to the authority of the pater familias. (For the power of the husband over his wife, see MANUS.) In virtue of his paternal authority (patria potestas), the pater familias had absolute authority over his children. He might, if he liked, expose them, sell them, or kill them. These rights, as manners were gradually softened, were more and more rarely enforced; but they legally came to an end only when the father died, lost his citizenship, or of his own will freed his son from his authority. (See EMANCIPATIO.) They could, however, be transferred to another person if the son were adopted, or the daughter married. A son, if of full age, was not in any way interfered with by the patria potestas in the exercise of his civil rights. But in the exercise of his legal rights as an individual, he was dependent always on his father. He could, for instance, own no property, but all that he acquired was, in the eye of the law, at the exclusive disposal of his father. The pater familias alone had the right of making dispositions of the family property by mortgage, sale, or testament.
 
ARRIANUS 15.09%
A Greek author, who wrote chiefly on philosophy and history, born at Nicomedae in Bithynia towards the end of the 1st century A.D., and a pupil of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus. He lived under the emperors Hadrian, Antoninus Plus and Marcus Aurelius, enjoying a high reputation for culture and ability, which procured him the citizenship of Rome and Athens, and high offices of state, such as the governorship of Cappadocia under Hadrian, A.D. 136, and the consulship under Antoninus. His last years were spent in his native town, where he filled the office of priest to Demeter, and died at an advanced age. From the likeness of his character to that of the famous Athenian, he was nicknamed "Xenophon Junior." Of his philosophical works we have still the first half (four books) of the Discourses of Epictetus, a leading authority for the tenets of that philosopher and the Stoical ethics; and the hand-book called the Encheiridion of Epictetus, a short manual of morality, which on account of its pithy and practical precepts became a great favourite with Pagans and Christians, bad a commentary written on it by Simplicius in the 6th century, and after the revival of learning was long used as a schoolbook. Of his numerous historical writings we possess the chief one, the Anabasis of Alexander in seven book. This is a complete history of that conqueror from his accession to his death, drawn from the best sources, especially Ptolemy and Aristobulus, and modelled on Xenophon, of whom we are reminded by the very title and the number of books, though it has none of Xenophon's charm. It is the best work on Alexander that has survived from antiquity. To this we should add the Indica, a short work on India, written in the Ionic dialect, and especially valuable for its abstract of Nearchus' report of his voyage from the mouth of the Indus to the Persian Gulf; also the description of another coasting voyage, the Periplus Ponti Euxini, and a trifling treatise on hunting, the Cynegeticus. A work on tactics wrongly ascribed to him is probably from the hand of Aelian the Tactician. Of his other Histories, e.g. of the Successors of Alexander, of Trajan's battles with the Parthians, of his own native country till its absorption in the Empire, and the campaign against the Alani during his command in Cappadocia, we have only abstracts or fragments.
 
INHERITANCE 13.80%

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64
Roman. If a man died intestate leaving a wife and children of his body or adopted, they were his heirs (sui heredes). But this did not apply to married daughters who had passed into the manus of their husbands, or the children who had been freed by emancipation from the potestas of their father. If the man left no wife or children, the agnati, or relations in the male line, inherited, according to the degree of their kinship. If there were no agnati, and the man was a patrician, the property went to his gens. The cognati, or relations in the female line, were originally not entitled to inherit by the civil law. But, as time went on, their claim was gradually recognised more and more to the exclusion of the agnati, until at last Justinian entirely abolished the privilege of the latter, and substituted the principle of blood-relationships for that of the civil law. Vestal Virgins were regarded as entirely cut off from the family union, and therefore could not inherit from an intestate, nor, in case of their dying intestate, did the property go to their family, but to the state. But, unlike other women, they had unlimited right of testamentary disposition. If a freedman died intestate and childless, the patronus and his wife had the first claim to inherit, then their children, then their agnati, and (if the patronus was a patrician) then his gens. In later times, even if a freedman, dying childless, left a will, the patronus and his sons had claim to half the property. Augustus made a number of provisions in the matter of freedmen's inheritance. The civil law made it compulsory on a man's sui heredes to accept an inheritance whether left by will or not. But as the debts were taken over with the property, the edictum of the praetor allowed the heirs to decline it. A fortiori, no other persons named in the will could be compelled to accept the legacy. (See WILL.)
 
GRAMMATICA 12.64%
Rome. After the middle of the 2nd century B.C., a lively interest in the history of literature and the study of language arose in Rome. It had been excited by the lectures on Greek authors given by Crates during his sojourn in Rome as ambassador (B.C. 159). Not only writers of repute, such as Accius and Lucilius, but men like Aelius Stilo, a member of the equestrian order, who was actively engaged in public life, took up these studies with eagerness. What was afterwards known of the primitive Latin language we owe mainly to Aelius Stilo. He was the master of the great encyclopaedist Marcus Terentius Varro, Cicero's contemporary. This great scholar left his mark on every department of philological research, and his writings were the storehouse from which the following generations mainly drew their information. Besides Varro, other men of mark occupied themselves with grammatical study in the Ciceronian age, notably Nigidius Figulus. Julius Caesar was the author of a treatise on accidence. There were numerous scholars in the Augustan age, among whom Verrius Flaccus and Hyginus deserve especial notice. In the 1st century A.D. we have Remmius Palaemon, Asconius Pedianus, Valerius Probus, and the elder Pliny. It was Remmius Palaemon who is mainly responsible for having made Vergil the Centre of scholastic instruction for the Latin world, as Homer was for the Greek. During the 2nd century, under Hadrian and the Antonines, we notice a revived interest in the older literature. This period is distinguished by the names of Suetonius, Terentitis Scaurus, and Aulus Gellius. Suetonius aspired to the many sided learning of Varro, and, like Varro, was much quoted by later writers. After this time the grammarians tend more and more to confine their studies to points of language, to abandon independent research, and to depend on the labours of their predecessors. The chief value of their writings consists in the fact that they have preserved some fragments of ancient learning. Their extracts are usually made for school purposes, and put together in artes, or manuals of accidence, orthography, prosody, and metre. Such are the books of Marius Victorinus, Donatus, Servius, Charisius, Diomedes, who are all assigned to the 4th Century A.D. Nonius Marcellus belongs to the same period. He is the author of a work (De Compendiosa Doctrina) which, though dreary and uncritical, is invaluable for the stores of old Latin which it has preserved. The 6th century is marked by the name of Priscian. We may further notice Terentianus Maurus, the author of a versified treatise on metre in the 3rd century; Macrobius, who in the 6th century composed a miscellany of antiquities called Saturnalia; and Isidore, Bishop of Seville, in the 7th century, whose Origines is the last work founded on a real study of ancient authorities.
 
AGRICULTURE 12.12%

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64
In Italy. In Italy also the existence of the community was regarded as based upon agriculture. This is proved by the practice of marking the site of the future walls of a new town by a furrow drawn with the plough. At Rome especially, the body of irremovable peasantry long formed the core of the commonwealth. In political life the free peasant was the only factor held in account, and accordingly in war the object was to increase the number of free peasants by planting them out on as much of borderland as could be wrested from the enemy. In early times agriculture was thought the only respectable calling in which a Roman citizen could engage; and manual labour on the land was held in unqualified esteem and as bringing no disgrace even upon persons in high place. Husbandry was mainly directed to the raising of grain, the ordinary cereal being at first spelt, till, in the 5th century B.C., wheat began to take a place beside it. They also cultivated barley, millet, and leguminous plants, as well as turnips, greens, and herbs for fodder. On irrigation and drainage the Italians bestowed much pains. They had no lack of grass-lands, either for pasture or haymaking; and from an early time these were artificially watered. The cultivation of the vine and olive extended as that of grains declined (see below); so did the growth of orchard-fruit, which, under the late Republic and the early Empire, received a vast expansion both from the improvement of native kinds and the introduction and naturalization of many foreign fruits. In earlier times the prime favourite among fruit trees had been, as in Greece, the nutritious fig. Agriculture proper was ruined by the acquisition of the first extra-Italian possessions, Sicily and Sardinia; for the corn supplied by the provincials as tribute in kind began to be used, not only in provisioning the armies, but in feeding the urban population. (See ANNONA.) As the State, to humour the rabble of Rome, sold this corn at the lowest possible prices, sometimes even below its value, the growth of cereals ceased to be profitable; farmers kept it down to a minimum, and took to cattle-breeding or raising wine and oil. These branches of industry not only flourished in the face of competition, but with judicious management were highly remunerative. The death-blow was given to the Italian peasantry by the increasing employment of slaves and the absorption of small farms in large estates (see LATIFUNDIUM). On these, besides the growth of wine, oil, and fruit, the breeding of birds, game, and cattle was carried on, as well as woodcraft, and special industries, pottery, charcoal-burning, and others. Farming implements, in addition to the plough (q.v.) usually drawn by oxen, which was much the same among Greeks and Romans, and always very imperfect, included a great variety of spades, hoes, and mattocks, and among Romans the harrow, the use of which among the Greeks is doubted. The season for sowing all cereals was usually autumn. At harvest the stalks were cut with the sickle about half-way down, and the rest left standing as stubble, to be either burnt or utilized for manure. The process of threshing (q.v.) was very defective. (For ancient works on husbandry, see GEOPONICI.)
 
RHETORIC 7.81%

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /www/www-ccat/data/classics/myth/php/tools/dictionary.php on line 64
Among the Greeks, rhetorike comprised the practical as well as the theoretical art of speaking, and rhetor denoted an orator no less than a teacher of oratory. Among the Romans, it denoted only the latter, the actual speaker being called orator. The first men, who reduced oratory to a system capable of being taught, appeared among the Sicilian Greeks, who, according to the (testimony of the ancients, were distinguished for the keenness of their understanding and their love of disputation [Cicero, Brutus 46]. The Syracusan CORAX (circ. 500 B.C.) is said to have been the first who elaborated systematic rules for forensic speeches, and laid them down in writing in a manual on the art of rhetoric (techne). His pupil TISIAS (born circ. 480), and after him the Leontine GORGIAS, further cultivated the art, and from about 427 carried it to Greece itself, and in particular to Athens. In the judicial proceedings and the assemblies of the people, the practice of oratory had long been familiar at Athens, though it had not been reduced to technical rules, and oratory had had a conspicuous representative in PERICLES. At Athens the theory of oratory was further cultivated by the SOPHISTS (Gr. Sophistai, " men who professed knowledge or wisdom "). Their instruction in style and rhetoric was enjoyed by numerous Athenians, who desired by the aid of study and practice to attain to expertness in speaking. The first Athenian, who, besides imparting instruction in the new art, applied it practically to speaking in the assemblies of the people and before courts, and who published speeches as patterns for study, was ANTIPHON (died B.C. 411), the earliest of the " Ten Attic Orators." In his extant speeches the oratorical art is shown still in its beginnings. These, with the speeches interwoven in the historical work of his great pupil Thucydides, give, an idea of the crude and harsh style of the technical oratory of the time; while the speeches of ANDOCIDES (died about 399), the second of the Ten Orators, display a style that is still uninfluenced by the rhetorical teaching of the age. The first really classical orator is LYSIAS (died about 360), who, while in possession of all the technical rules of the time, handles with perfect mastery the common language of every-day life. ISOCRATES (436-338) is reckoned as the father of artistic oratory properly so called ; he is a master in the careful choice of words, in the rounding off and rhythmical formation of periods, in the apt employment of figures of speech, and in everything which lends charm to language. By his mastery of style he has exercised the most far-reaching influence upon the oratorical diction of all succeeding time. Of the three kinds of speeches which were distinguished by the ancients, political (or deliberative), forensic, and showspeeches (or declamations), he specially cultivated the last. Among his numerous pupils is ISAeUS (about 400-350), who in his general method of oratory closely follows Lysias, though he shows a more matured skill in the controversial use of oratorical resources. The highest point was attained by his pupil DEMOSTHENES, the greatest orator of antiquity (384-322); next to him comes his political opponent AeSCHINES (389-314). The number of the Ten Orators is completed by their contemporaries HYPERIDES, LYCURGUS, and DINARCHUS. In the last of these the beginning of the decline of oratorical art is already clearly apparent. To the time of Demosthenes belongs the oldest manual of rhetoric which has been preserved to us, that of ANAXIMENES Of Lampsacus. This is founded on the practice of oratory, and, being intended for immediate practical use, shows no trace of any philosophical groundwork or philosophical research. Greek rhetoric owes to ARISTOTLE its proper reduction into a scientific system. In contrast to Isocrates, who aims at perfection of form and style, Aristotle, in his Rhetoric, lays special stress on subject-matter, and mainly devotes himself to setting forth the means of producing conviction. When Athens had lost her liberty, practical oratory was more and more reduced to silence; the productions of the last orators, such as DEMETRIUS of Phalerum, were only a feeble echo of the past. Demetrius is said to have been the first to give to oratorical expression a tendency towards an elegant luxuriance. He was also the first to introduce the custom of making speeches upon imaginary subjects by way of practice for deliberative and forensic speaking. In later times the home of oratory was transferred to the free Hellenic or hellenized communities of the coasts and islands of Asia Minor, especially Rhodes. On the soil of Asia a new style was developed, called the Asiatic. Its originator is said to have been HEGESIAS of Magnesia near Mount Sipylus. He flourished in the latter half of the 3rd century. In avowed opposition to the method of Demosthenes, who spoke in artistically formed periods, Hegesias not only went back to the simpler constructions of Lysias, but even endeavoured to outvie the latter in simplicity, breaking up all that he had to say into short sentences, and carefully avoiding periods of any length [Cic., Orator 226]. On the other hand, he sought to give a certain vividness to his speeches by an elaborately arranged order of words, and by a far-fetched and often turgid phraseology. This was the prevailing fashion until the middle of the 1st century B.C. Even in Rome it had numerous followers, especially Hortensius, until by the influence of Cicero it was so utterly crushed out, that Hegesias was soon forgotten, even among the Greeks. A peculiar kind of oratory prevailed in Rhodes, where a closer approach was again made to the Attic models, and particularly to the representatives of the simple style, such as Hyperides. Conspicuous orators of this school were APOLLONIUS and MOLON, both of Alabanda in Caria, in the first half of the 1st century B.C. [These two orators are expressly distinguished from one another by Strabo, p. 655; they are confounded even by Quintilian, who erroneously speaks of Apollonius Molon, iii 1, 16; xii 6, 7.] The theory of oratory remained until about the end of the 2nd century B.C. exclusively in the hands of the philosophers, and was little regarded by the Asiatic orators, After that time the orators and practical teachers of the art again applied themselves with eagerness to theoretical studies; the theorists adopted an eclectical method, seeking to combine the philosophical and more scientific proceeding of Aristotle with that of Isocrates, which addressed itself rather to the turns of phrase and the outward forms of oratory. The most noteworthy system was introduced by HERMAGORAS of Temnos (about 120 B.C.), whose writings, which are no longer extant, supplied the chief foundation for the theoretical studies of the Romans at the beginning of the 1st century B.C. The system of rhetoric elaborated by him was afterwards further worked out and improved in detail. In the time of the Empire the rhetorical schools in general flourished, and we poossess an extensive rhetorical literature that age reaching as far as the 5th century A.D. It includes the works of authors who mainly treated of the literary and aesthetic side of rhetoric, especially those of DIONYSIUS of Halicarnassus, the champion of Atticism and of refined taste, and the unknown author of the able treatise On the Sublime (See LONGINUS); also those of technical writers, such as HERMOGENES, the most noteworthy representative of the scholastic rhetoric of the age, APSINES, MENANDER, THEON, APHTHONIUS, and others. On the revival of Greek oratory, after the end of the 1st century, and particularly in the 2nd century, See SOPHISTS. (II) Roman. As among the Athenians, so also among the Romans, the institutions of the State early gave occasion for the practice of political and forensic oratory. Until the end of the 3rd century B.C., this oratory was wholly spontaneous. The speech of the aged APPIUS CLAUDIUS CAeCUS, delivered in 280 against the peace with Pyrrhus, and afterwards published, was long preserved as the earliest written monument of Roman oratory. Numerous political speeches were published by the well-known MARCUS PORCIUS CATO, the most note-worthy orator during the first half of the 2nd century. After the second Punic War, in spite of all the opposition of a Cato and of those who thought with him, Greek culture forced its way irresistibly into Rome, and the Romans became eager to conform to the Greek theory of oratory also. SERVIUS SULPICIUS GALBA (Circ. 144 B.C.) is spoken of as the first man who compose his speeches in accordance with the rules of Greek art, and not long afterwards the younger GRACCHUS (died 121) proved himself a consummate orator through the combination of natural gifts and art. Even at this time the publication of orations after delivery was a general custom, and men were already to be met with who actually wrote speeches for others. At the beginning of the 1st century B.C., the most noteworthy orators were Marcus ANTONIUS and Lucius Licinius CRASSUS. Rhetorical instruction was originally imparted by Greeks. In the first decade of the 1st century the freedman Plotius Gallus came forward as a teacher of rhetoric, and other Latin teachers followed him. These found a large number of hearers, but the censors interfered to stop the practice, as an innovation on the custom of their forefathers. It is true that this attempt to oppose the current, which bad already set in, was in vain. Still it was only by freedmen that rhetorical instruction in Latin was given until the time of Augustus, when the Roman knight Blandus was the first free-born man who came forward as a public teacher of rhetoric. Even the Latin rhetoricians derived their theory exclusively from Greek sources, especially from Hermagoras, to whose influence the two earliest extant rhetorical writings of the Roman school are to be referred; these are the work of CORNIFICIUS, and the youthful production of CICERO, the De Inventione. Cicero, the greatest orator of Rome, and the only orator of the Republic of whom any complete speeches are extant, composed in his later years several other valuable writings upon rhetorical subjects, founded on his practice as an orator; viz. the De Oratore, the Brutus, and the Orator. Besides Cicero, the last age of the Republic possessed a series of other conspicuous orators, such as HORTENSIUS, CAeLIUS, BRUTUS, and, above all, CAeSAR. A few more representatives of the oratory of the Republic survived to the time of Augustus. The most important of these is Asinius POLLIO. But, with the old constitution, the occasions and materials for oratory also disappeared under the Monarchy, and the hindrances and limitations to its public exercise increased in the same proportion. Practice was gradually superseded bytheory, orators by rhetoricians, speeches by declamations. The exercises of the rhetorical schools, which now became one of the chief centres of intellectual life, paid almost exclusive attention to the form, and dealt with imaginary subjects of political and forensic oratory, called suasorioe and controversioe, which were as far as possible removed from the practice of life. A vivid picture of these exercises is preserved by the reminiscences of the rhetorician SENECA, the father of the well-known philosopher. The manner of speaking contracted in the schools was adopted on the few occasions on which practical oratory could still be exercised, and these occas:ons were accordingly turned into exhibitions of theatrical declamation. It was in vain that men like QUINTILIAN, in his work on the training of an orator (Institutio Oratoria), and TACITUS, in his Dialogue on Orators, pointed to the true classical patterns, and combated the fashion of their time, from which even they were not entirely free. Like these, the younger PLINY belongs to the end of the 1st century A.D.; his Panegyric, addressed to Trajan, the only monument of Roman oratory after Cicero preserved in a complete form, became the model for the later panegyrists. In the 2nd century A.D., FRONTO, and the school named after him, sought to revive the old Roman spirit by a tasteless imitation of archaic expressions and forms of speech. The same style is practised, though with more ability, by the African Apuleius. After the end of the 3rd century, the oratorical art had its chief seat in the towns of Gaul, especially in Treves (Treviri) and Bordeaux (Burdigala). Here a style of oratory was matured which possessed a certain smoothness and copiousnessin words, but showed great lack of ideas. Upon the representatives of this style, the " Panegyrists," See PANEGYRICUS.
 
FREEDMEN 7.47%
The emancipation of slaves was tolerably common, both among Greeks and Romans. The Greeks had no special legal form for the process, and consequently no legal differences in the status of freedmen. At Athens they took the position of resident aliens, and lay under certain obligations to their liberators as patrons. They could be called to legal account for any injury done to their patrons, and if condemned could be given back to them as slaves, or sold by the state. In the latter case the price was paid to their liberators. Among the Romans emancipation (manumissio) was a lucrative proceeding for the State, as a tax of 5 per cent. on the value of the slave was paid on his being set free. Emancipation was either formal or informal. (1) Of formal emancipation there were three kinds: (a) the manumissio vindicta, in which the owner appeared with the slave before an official with judicial authority, who in later times would generally be the praetor or governor of the province. A Roman citizen, usually one of the magistrates' lictors, laid a staff (vindicta) on the slave's head and declared him free. The master, who was holding the slave with his hand, thereupon signified his consent, and let him go, as a symbol of liberation (manu misit). This formality was in later times restricted to the simple declaration of the master in the presence of the magistrate. (b) The manumissio censu, in which the master enrolled the slave's name in the list of citizens. (c) The manumissio testamento, or manumission by will. Here the master declared his slave free in his will, or bound his heir to emancipate him. The heir might adopt the formal or informal process. Constantine added a new form, the manumissio in ecclesia, or emancipation in the church in presence of the congregation. (2) Informal emancipation took place in virtue of an oral declaration on the part of the master, in presence of friends (inter amicos), or by letter (per epistulam), or by inviting the slaves to the master's table. The freedmen were called liberti in relation to the liberator (e.g. libertus Coesaris) and libertini in their legal relation to the State. After formal emancipation they at once became Roman citizens, and members of the urban tribes and of the lowest classes in the centurioe, with full right of voting. But, not being free born, they were not eligible to office, and were excluded from military service. The latter was, however, the case only till the 1st century B.C. They obtained the right to be enrolled in the country tribes several times in the republican period, but not permanently till the imperial age. Their descendants, however, were, as being free-born (ingenui), admitted into all the tribes, and in the second, or at least in the third generation, eligible to office. Informal emancipation conferred only practical freedom without civic rights. It was not until 17 A.D., under Tiberius, that freedmen of this kind won the commercium, or the right of acquiring and transferring property. Even then they had no power of testamentary bequest, and their property, at their death, went to their liberators. It was permissible, however, to pronounce a formal emancipation after their death. To obviate abuses, and to check the excessive increase in the number of freedmen, the right of manumission was limited in several directions under Augustus. Among other things, if a slave under thirty years of age was to be manumitted vindicta, a proof of sufficient reason was required; and, in case of testamentary manumission, the number was limited to a certain proportion of the whole number of slaves, and never allowed to exceed 100. A mutual obligation continued to exist between the freedman and his liberator, based on the fact that the freedman belonged to the family of his patron. This is seen in the circumstance that the freedman assumed the nomen and the proenomen of his patron. In and after the 1st century B.C. we generally find a Greek cognomen added. A well-known freedman of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, for instance, was called Lucius Cornelius Epicadus. The patronus was bound on his side to care for his libertus, and in consequence either retained him altogether in his home and service, or supplied him with a farm and capital to start it; buried him in the family tomb after his death, and took charge of his children if not grown up. On the other side the freedman was bound to support his patronus, in case of need, out of his own resources, and if he was reduced to poverty, to maintain him. If he died childless, his patron inherited his property ut the rights of the patron in respect of his freedman did not pass to the patron's heirs. If the freedman neglected his duties, he was liable to severe punishment. In special cases, at least under the Empire, he might be sold for his patron's profit, or given back to him as a slave.
 
Query:
Type: Standard
SoundEx
Results:
  
gutter splint
gutter splint
PLACE HOLDER FOR COUNTER
gutter splint