[1] By this is meant that the supreme power, though not monarchical,
was confined to one family.
[Illustration: Arch of Tiryns. (Gell’s Itinerary, pl. 16.)]
ARCUS (also fornix), an arch. A true arch is formed of a series
of wedge-like stones, or of bricks, supporting each other, and
all bound firmly together by their mutual pressure. It would seem
that the arch, as thus defined, and as used by the Romans, was not
known to the Greeks in the early periods of their history. But they
made use of a contrivance, even in the heroic age, by which they
were enabled to gain all the advantages of our archway in making
corridors, or hollow galleries, and which in appearance resembled
the pointed arch, such as is now termed Gothic. This was effected
by cutting away the superincumbent stones in the manner already
described, at an angle of about 45° with the horizon. The mode of
construction and appearance of such arches is represented in the
annexed drawing of the walls of Tiryns. The gate of Signia (_Segni_)
in Latium exhibits a similar example. The principle of the true arch
seems to have been known to the Romans from the earliest period;
it is used in the _Cloaca Maxima_. It is most probably an Etruscan
invention. The use of it constitutes one leading distinction between
Greek and Roman architecture, for by its application the Romans were
enabled to execute works of far bolder construction than those of
the Greeks. The Romans, however, never used any other form of arch
than the semicircle. The arcus triumphalis, triumphal arch, was a
structure peculiar to the Romans, erected in honour of an individual,
or in commemoration of a conquest. Triumphal arches were built
across the principal streets of Rome, and, according to the space
of their respective localities, consisted of a single archway, or
a central one for carriages, and two smaller ones on each side for
foot-passengers. Those actually made use of on the occasion of a
triumphal entry and procession were merely temporary and hastily
erected; and, having served their purpose, were taken down again, and
sometimes replaced by others of more durable materials. Stertinius
is the first upon record who erected anything of the kind. He built
an arch in the Forum Boarium, about B.C. 196, and another in the
Circus Maximus, each of which was surmounted by gilt statues. There
are twenty-one arches recorded by different writers, as having been
erected in the city of Rome, five of which now remain:--1. _Arcus
Drusi_, which was erected to the honour of Claudius Drusus on the
Appian way. 2. _Arcus Titi_, at the foot of the Palatine, which
was erected to the honour of Titus, after his conquest of Judaea;
the bas-reliefs of this arch represent the spoils from the temple
of Jerusalem carried in triumphal procession. 3. _Arcus Septimii
Severi_, which was erected by the senate (A.D. 207) at the end of
the Via Sacra, in honour of that emperor and his two sons, Caracalla
and Geta, on account of his conquest of the Parthians and Arabians.
4. _Arcus Gallieni_, erected to the honour of Gallienus by a private
individual, M. Aurelius Victor. 5. _Arcus Constantini_, which was
larger than the arch of Titus. As a specimen of the triumphal arches,
a drawing of the arch of Drusus is given in the preceding page.
[Illustration: Arch of Drusus at Rome]
ARCUS (βιός, τόξον), the bow used for shooting arrows, is one of the
most ancient of all weapons, but is characteristic of Asia rather
than of Europe. In the Roman armies it was scarcely ever employed
except by auxiliaries; and these auxiliaries, called _sagittarii_,
were chiefly Cretes and Arabians. The upper of the two figures below
shows the Scythian or Parthian bow unstrung; the lower one represents
the usual form of the Grecian bow, which had a double curvature,
consisting of two circular portions united by the handle. When not
used, the bow was put into a case (τοξοθήκη, γωρυτός, _corytus_),
which was made of leather, and sometimes ornamented. It frequently
held the arrows as well as the bow, and on this account is often
confounded with the _pharetra_ or quiver.
[Illustration: Arcus, Bow. (From paintings on vases.)
Corytus, Bow-case. (From a Relief in the Vatican, Visconti, iv.
tav. 43.)]
ĀRĔA (ἅλως, or ἁλωά), the threshing-floor, was a raised place in the
field, open on all sides to the wind. Great pains were taken to make
this floor hard; it was sometimes paved with flint stones, but more
usually covered with clay and smoothed with a roller.
ĂREIOPĂGUS (ὁ Ἄρειος πάγος, or hill of Ares) was a rocky eminence,
lying to the west of, and not far from the Acropolis at Athens. It
was the place of meeting of the council (Ἡ ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ βουλή),
which was sometimes called _The Upper Council_ (Ἡ ἄνω βουλή), to
distinguish it from the senate of Five-hundred, which sat in the
Cerameicus within the city. It was a body of very remote antiquity,
acting as a criminal tribunal, and existed long before the time
of Solon, but he so far modified its constitution and sphere of
duty, that he may almost be called its founder. What that original
constitution was, must in some degree be left to conjecture, though
there is every reason to suppose that it was aristocratical, the
members being taken, like the ephetae, from the noble patrician
families. [EPHETAE.] By the legislation of Solon the Areiopagus was
composed of the ex-archons, who, after an unexceptionable discharge
of their duties, “went up” to the Areiopagus, and became members
of it for life, unless expelled for misconduct. As Solon made the
qualification for the office of archon to depend not on birth but
on property, the council after his time ceased to be aristocratic
in constitution; but, as we learn from Attic writers, continued so
in spirit. In fact, Solon is said to have formed the two councils,
the senate and the Areiopagus, to be a check upon the democracy;
that, as he himself expressed it, “the state riding upon them as
anchors might be less tossed by storms.” Nay, even after the archons
were no longer elected by suffrage, but by lot, and the office was
thrown open by Aristides to all the Athenian citizens, the “upper
council” still retained its former tone of feeling. Moreover, besides
these changes in its constitution, Solon altered and extended its
functions. Before his time it was only a criminal court, trying cases
of “wilful murder and wounding, of arson and poisoning,” whereas he
gave it extensive powers of a censorial and political nature. Thus
we learn that he made the council an “overseer of everything, and
the guardian of the laws,” empowering it to inquire how any one got
his living and to punish the idle; and we are also told that the
Areiopagites were “superintendents of good order and decency,” terms
as unlimited and undefined as Solon not improbably wished to leave
their authority. When heinous crimes had notoriously been committed,
but the guilty parties were not known, or no accuser appeared, the
Areiopagus inquired into the subject, and reported to the demus. The
report or information was called _apophasis_. This was a duty which
they sometimes undertook on their own responsibility, and in the
exercise of an old established right, and sometimes on the order of
the demus. Nay, to such an extent did they carry their power, that
on one occasion they apprehended an individual (Antiphon), who had
been acquitted by the general assembly, and again brought him to a
trial, which ended in his condemnation and death. Again, we find them
revoking an appointment whereby Aeschines was made the advocate of
Athens before the Amphictyonic council, and substituting Hyperides
in his room. They also had duties connected with religion, one of
which was to superintend the sacred olives growing about Athens, and
try those who were charged with destroying them; and in general it
was their office to punish the impious and irreligious. Independent,
then, of its jurisdiction as a criminal court in cases of wilful
murder, which Solon continued to the Areiopagus, its influence must
have been sufficiently great to have been a considerable obstacle
to the aggrandisement of the democracy at the expense of the other
parties in the state. Accordingly, we find that Pericles, who was
opposed to the aristocracy, resolved to diminish its power and
circumscribe its sphere of action. His coadjutor in this work was
Ephialtes, a statesman of inflexible integrity, and also a military
commander. They experienced much opposition in their attempts, not
only in the assembly, but also on the stage, where Aeschylus produced
his tragedy of the Eumenides, the object of which was to impress upon
the Athenians the dignity, sacredness, and constitutional worth of
the institution which Pericles and Ephialtes wished to reform. Still
the opposition failed: a decree was carried by which, as Aristotle
says, the Areiopagus was “mutilated,” and many of its hereditary
rights abolished, though it is difficult to ascertain the precise
nature of the alterations which Pericles effected. The jurisdiction
of the Areiopagus in cases of murder was still left to them. In such
cases the process was as follows:--The king archon brought the case
into court, and sat as one of the judges, who were assembled in
the open air, probably to guard against any contamination from the
criminal. The accuser first came forwards to make a solemn oath that
his accusation was true, standing over the slaughtered victims, and
imprecating extirpation upon himself and his whole family were it
not so. The accused then denied the charge with the same solemnity
and form of oath. Each party then stated his case with all possible
plainness, keeping strictly to the subject, and not being allowed
to appeal in any way to the feelings or passions of the judges.
After the first speech, a criminal accused of murder might remove
from Athens, and thus avoid the capital punishment fixed by Draco’s
_Thesmi_, which on this point were still in force. Except in cases
of parricide, neither the accuser nor the court had power to prevent
this; but the party who thus evaded the extreme punishment was not
allowed to return home, and when any decree was passed at Athens to
legalize the return of exiles, an exception was always made against
those who had thus left their country. The Areiopagus continued
to exist, in name at least, till a very late period. Thus we find
Cicero mentioning the council in his letters; and an individual is
spoken of as an Areiopagite under the emperors Gratian and Theodosius
(A.D. 380). The case of St. Paul is generally quoted as an instance
of the authority of the Areiopagus in religious matters; but the
words of the sacred historian do not necessarily imply that he was
brought before the council. It may, however, be remarked, that the
Areiopagites certainly took cognizance of the introduction of new
and unauthorised forms of religious worship, called ἐπίθετα ἱερά, in
contradistinction to the πάτρια or older rites of the state.