Brill's New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World (K-Lyc) [7] 3460001639, 9004122792

Citation preview

mnie H LIBRARY

3 4600 01639

4733

| Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World —

ee

ANTIQUITY

UNIVERSITY of NEW

HAMPSHIRE

LIBRARY

B

EDMUND G. MILLER

PELE

Bel

pe

LIBRARY

FUND

_

aa

]

wea

-—

a

a

ae

BD hes BO :

:

.

7

o

.

. oe

7

Brill’s New Pauly SUBJECT

EDITORS

Dr. Andreas Bendlin, Erfurt

History of Religion

Prof. Dr. Beat Naf, Zurich Tradition: Political Theory and Politics

Prof. Dr. Gerhard Binder, Bochum

Prof. Dr. Johannes Niehoff, Budapest

History of Civilization

Judaism, Eastern Christianity, Byzantine Civilization

Prof. Dr. Rudolf Brandle, Basle

Prof. Dr. Hans Jorg Nissen, Berlin Oriental Studies

Christianity

Prof. Dr. Hubert Cancik, Tiibingen Executive Editor

Prof. Dr. Vivian Nutton, London Medicine; Tradition: Medicine

Prof. Dr. Walter Eder, Bochum Ancient History

Prof. Dr. Eckart Olshausen, Stuttgart Historical Geography

Prof. Dr. Paolo Eleuteri, Venice

Prof. Dr. Filippo Ranieri, Saarbriicken

Textual Criticism, Palaeography and Codicology

European Legal History

Dr. Karl-Ludwig Elvers, Bochum

Prof. Dr. Johannes Renger, Berlin

Ancient History

Oriental Studies; Tradition: Ancient Orient

Prof. Dr. Burkhard Fehr, Hamburg Archaeology

Tradition: Education, Countries (II)

Prof. Dr. Bernhard Forssman, Erlangen Linguistics; Tradition: Linguistics

Prof. Dr. Jorg Rupke, Erfurt Latin Philology, Rhetoric

Prof. Dr. Fritz Graf, Columbus (Ohio)

Prof. Dr. Gottfried Schiemann, Tubingen

Religion and Mythology; Tradition: Religion

Law

PD Dr. Hans Christian Giinther, Freiburg

Prof. Dr. Helmuth Schneider, Kassel Executive Editor; Social and Economic History,

Textual Criticism

Prof. Dr. Max Haas, Basle Music; Tradition: Music Prof. Dr. Berthold Hinz, Kassel Tradition: Art and Architecture

Dr. Christoph Hocker, Zurich Archaeology

Prof. Dr. Christian Hiinemorder, Hamburg Natural Sciences Prof. Dr. Lutz Kappel, Kiel Mythology Dr. Margarita Kranz, Berlin Tradition: Philosophy Prof. Dr. André Laks, Lille Philosophy Prof. Dr. Manfred Landfester, Giessen Executive Editor: Classical Tradition; Tradition:

History of Classical Scholarship and History of Civilization

Prof. Dr. Maria Moog-Griinewald, Tiibingen Comparative Literature Prof. Dr. Dr. Glenn W. Most, Pisa

Greek Philology

Prof. Dr. Volker Riedel, Jena

Military Affairs, History of Classical Scholarship

Prof. Dr. Dietrich Willers, Bern Classical Archaeology (Material Culture and History of Art) Dr. Frieder Zaminer, Berlin Music

Prof Dr. Bernhard Zimmermann, Freiburg Tradition: Countries (I) ASSISTANT EDITORS

Brigitte Egger

Jochen Derlien Susanne Fischer

Dietrich Frauer Ingrid Hitzl Heike Kunz Vera Sauer

Christiane Schmidt Dorothea Sigel Anne-Maria Wittke

(GERMAN

EDITION)

Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World

New Pauly Edited by Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider

English Edition Managing Editor Christine F. Salazar Assistant Editors Simon Buck, Tina Chronopoulos, Susanne E. Hakenbeck, Tina Jerke, Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger, Sebastiaan R. van der Mie, Antonia Ruppel, Reinhard Selinger, Michael Sommer and Ernest Suyver

ANTIQUITY VOLUME 7

K-Lyc

EG, Ss) .

-

2?

¢

On

“UBL = LEIDEN Pa)

»

S

2005

- BOSTON

© Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands Koninklijke Brill Nv incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and vsp. Originally published in German as DER NEUE PAULY. Enzyklopadie der Antike. Herausgegeben von Hubert Cancik und Helmuth Schneider. Copyright © J.B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung und Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlag GmbH 1o996ff./rogoff. Stuttgart/Weimar Cover design: TopicA (Antoinette Hanekuyk) Front: Delphi, temple area Spine: Tabula Peutingeriana Translation by protext TRANSLATIONS

Data structuring and typesetting: pagina GmbH, Tubingen, Germany

The publication of this work was supported by a grant from the GOETHE-INSTITUT INTER NATIONES. ISBN (volume) 90 04 12279 2 ISBN (set) 90 04 12259 I All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,

Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

B.V. This book is printed on acid-free paper. PRINTED

IN THE

NETHERLANDS

Table of Contents Notes to the User .

List of Transliterations List of Abbreviations .

List of Illustrations and Maps List of Authors Entries

Digitized by the Internet Archive In 2022 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https ://archive.org/details/brillsnewpaulyen000/7unse

Notes to the User Arrangement of Entries

Abbreviations

The entries are arranged alphabetically and, if applicable, placed in chronological order. In the case of alternative forms or sub-entries, cross-references will lead to the respective main entry. Composite entries can be found in more than one place (e.g. a commentariis re-

All abbreviations can be found in the ‘List of Abbreviations’ in the first volume. Collections of inscriptions, coins and papyri are listed under their sigla.

fers to commentariis, a).

Bibliographies

Identical entries are differentiated by numbering. Identical Greek and Oriental names are arranged chronologically without consideration of people’s nicknames. Roman names are ordered alphabetically, first according to the gentilicium or nomen (family name), then the cognomen

(literally ‘additional

and finally the praenomen

name’

or nickname)

or ‘fore-name’

(e.g. M.

Aemilius Scaurus is found under Aemilius, not Scaurus). However, well-known classical authors are lemmatized

Most entries have bibliographies, consisting of numbered and/or alphabetically organized references. References within the text to the numbered bibliographic items are in square brackets (e.g. [ 1.5 n.23] refers to the first title of the bibliography, page 5, note 23). The abbreviations within the bibliographies follow the rules of the ‘List of Abbreviations’.

according to their conventional names in English; this group of persons is not found under the family name,

Maps

but under their cognomen (e.g. Cicero, not Tullius). In

large entries the Republic and the Imperial period are treated separately.

Texts and maps are closely linked and complementary, but some maps also treat problems outside the text. The authors of the maps are listed in the ‘List of Maps’.

Spelling of Entries

Cross-references

Greek words and names are as a rule latinized, follow-

ing the predominant practice of reference works in the English language, with the notable exception of technical terms. Institutions and places (cities, rivers, islands, countries etc.) often have their conventional English names (e.g. Rome not Roma). The latinized versions of Greek names and words are generally followed by the Greek and the literal transliteration in brackets, e.g. Aeschylus (Aioxbhoc; Aischylos). Oriental proper names are usually spelled according to the ‘Tiibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients’ (TAVO), but

again conventional names in English are also used. In the maps, the names of cities, rivers, islands, countries etc. follow ancient spelling and are transliterated fully to allow for differences in time, e.g. both Kanmadoxa and Cappadocia can be found. The transliteration of non-Latin scripts can be found in the ‘List of Transliterations’. Latin and transliterated Greek words are italicized in the article text. However, where Greek transliterations do not follow immediately upon a word written in Greek, they will generally appear in italics, but without accents or makra.

Articles are linked through a system of cross-references with an arrow — before the entry that is being referred to.

Cross-references to related entries are given at the end of an article, generally before the bibliographic notes. If reference is made to a homonymous entry, the respective number is also added. Cross-references to entries in the Classical Tradition volumes are added in small capitals. It can occur that in a cross-reference a name is spelled differently from the surrounding text: e.g., a cross-reference to Mark Antony has to be to Marcus + Antonius, as his name will be found in a list of other names containing the component ‘Antonius’.

;

. ni

7.

ak

en,

|

a

= _

rg

&

ei ol) & ay ww manning

vere —erkit Se at’ ok

aeh4

Ba aka! =

m0

:

rane wee:ayHit iety 10007 ul

a6

Ww

es! ine.

oh aay Cod extent9: ponte ty ame Vea hs Oy pe ‘emmeu! & didrachmon that corresponds with a Hebrew shekel (-> Siqlu). Aside from the NT, the kodrantes is encountered in the Didache and in the Talmud. SCHROTTER, S.v. Quadrans, 540.

GE.S.

KoénnensbewuStsein Modern term coined by the ancient historian Cu. MEIER [1. 435-439], which refines, in a democratic-pluralistic context, the technical-qualitative self-image of the artisan class in the classical

> Art, > Technique,

+ technitai, > Technology). Especially in the > building trade of the sth cent. BC, besides other artisan trades, a clearly more and more demonstratively understood trend is seen toward the mastery of complicated aspects of work as i.e. of > curvature or of > inclination in the construction of the elaborated work processes of a porticoed building (+ Optical Refinements), which were with some probability the subject of public debate; these processes expressed the technical competence, not only of the workers or small workshops individually taking part in the construction process, but also of the client, indeed, finally that of the entire community (and were in no way only technically motivated by it). On the other hand, artisans drew not only an assertively self-aware understanding of their own activities from this constantly striving to improve the ‘state of the art’, but at the same time also developed the foundation for their important social-political role as technitai resp. > thetai, at least in Attic democracy in the age of Pericles (5th cent. BC). 1 Cu. MEreR, Die Entstehung des Politischen bei den Griechen, 1980. A.BuRFORD,

Craftsmen

in Greek

and Roman

Society,

1972, 237-248; CH. H6ckEr, Planung und Konzeption der klass. Ringhallentempel von Agrigent, 1993, 154-165 and n. 795-802; CH. Hécxer, L. SCHNEIDER, Pericle e la costruzione dell’Acropoli, in: $.Sertis (ed.), I Greci I/2, 1997, 1239-1274; H.SCHNEIDER, Das griech. Technikverstandnis, 1989, 52-60; 132-135. CHO.

Koine (from f xowh duaextoc; hé koine didlektos, ‘the common language’). Term adopted into Greek linguistic history which refers primarily to a relatively uniform post-classical Greek based on Attic but interspersed with numerous Ionian influences said to have replaced the Ancient > Greek dialects and to be the ancestor of modern Greek. The sources consist of a number of no longer Attic but not yet Atticist prose authors in the Hellenistic and Imperial periods (such as Polybius, the NT, or Epictetus), also papyrus and inscriptions. One must, however, give special attention to a few different aspects. First of all, concerning the written language: In the course of Athens’ political rise to power in the 5th cent., > Attic established itself as a literary language rather late and with Ionian influences but was able to maintain its newly won prestige even in times of political decline, becoming the language of the Macedonian court chancellery under Philip Il, the father of Alexander the Great. In the wake of Alexander’s conquests, it reached the status of official language in the entire eastern Mediterranean realm, a development which led linguistically to the emergence of the Koine (Great Attic being an intermediate step). The Koine can therefore be described as a new linguistic standard on

79

80

an Attic basis with concessions to Ionic; specifically

practically all modern Greek dialects show certain developments that began already in the Koine (abandonment of the infinitive almost everywhere except at the periphery of the language area, disappearance of the dual and the optative, introduction of an analytic future

KOINE

Attic traits such as the so-called Attic declension (Koine vaoc/naos instead of Attic ved¢/neds) or extensive contractions (&déeto/edéeto for Attic édetto/edeito) were

abandoned in favour of mediating forms such as medoow/prasso (with Attic vocalism and Ionian consonantism); even progressive forms such as detxvbw/deiknyo, the aorist eixa/eipa or the pass. aorist amexgtOnv/ apekrithén instead of dxexowdunv/apekrinamen (cf. modern Greek amoxgiOnxa) were deemed acceptable.

This linguistic standard forms the basis of texts from the Hellenistic period (+ Hellenization) and the period following, although this is not to say that all texts from this period were linguistically homogeneous — stylistic differences, differences in language mastery etc. are always present. Written Koine is the language that gained acceptance in the non-Greek speaking areas conquered by Alexander up to the beginning of > Atticism (which is to blame for the fact that only few literary sources were transmitted and thus remained accessible). Written Koine replaced written local dialects as well (even if this process did not happen simultaneously or equally fast in the various regions), but this did not necessarily affect the survival of the old spoken dialects. This leads us to the second problem: Koine as spoken language. It is generally assumed that written Koine is largely identical with the ‘common colloquial language’. The ‘colonial equalizing language’ comes closest to a spoken Koine of relatively uniform character. The use of such a language can be assumed for the newly captured non-Greek regions. Colonization usually leads to the emergence of widely spoken koinai. This, however, must not simply be identified with the written Koine: The spoken language was in fact more similar to modern Greek than one would assume judging from the written Koine in literary and epigraphical sources. Evidence for this phenomenon can be found in writing errors or other mistakes on ‘vulgar’ papyri; however, these conclusions are based on indirect reconstruction.

The status of the spoken language in the Greekspeaking areas themselves obviously presents itself differently. Although the Koinization of the dialects can be traced in the epigraphical sources and one must certainly expect the new supra-regional written standard to yield a certain influence over spoken language in the sense of levelling out the different dialects, these tendencies still do not exclude the possibility that the local linguistic heritage was preserved. Depending on whether the Greek language spread at the expense ofunrelated idioms—suchas those of the indigenous languages of Egypt or Asia Minor — or in a give-and-take relationship with other Greek dialects (where interference and thus a preservation of dialectal characteristics were possible), differ-

ent consequences arose for linguistic history so that a completely uniform spoken language for the Greek language area in itself should not be taken for granted. Rather, the argument can be made that even during Koineization new dialects began to emerge. Although

tense, etc.) and even if none of the modern Greek dia-

lects can be regarded as a direct successor of Ancient Greek (the closest being > Tsakonian), one can still find

significant remnants of the old Doric substratum in the modern Greek dialects of Lower Italy, of -> Ionic in the Pontic dialect, and of Cypriot in the Cypriot dialect, and that is, not only in the vocabulary but also in phonetics and morphology. Finally, the relationship to modern Greek: Although it is true that many traits of written Koine anticipate modern Greek (an essential discovery by CHATZIDAKIS), One must not necessarily conclude that modern Greek and its dialects have nothing to contribute to the study of Greek before the Koine. R.BROWNING, Medieval and Modern Greek, *1983; G. CHATZIDAKIS, Einl. in die neugriech. Gramm., 1892 (repr. 1977); P. Costas, An Outline of the History of the

Greek Language with Particular Emphasis on the Koine and Subsequent Stages, 1936; A. DEBRUNNER, A. SCHE-

RER, Gesch. der griech. Sprache. 2: Grundfragen

und

Grundziige des nachklass. Griech., 1969; J. NIEHOFFPANAGIOTIDIS, Koine und Diglossie, 1994; H.PErERsMANN,

Zur Entstehung der hell. K., in: Philologus

1995, 3-14;

139,

A. THuMB, Die griech. Sprache im Zeitalter

des Hell., r90r.

VBI.

Koine Eirene (xowi) eloyvn; koine eirené). ‘Common peace’, multilateral peace concept of the 4th cent. BC. Characteristics are demands for the autonomy (— autonomia) of the polis as well as compulsoriness

for all, that [1. XVI]. In only rarely, 392/1), who

is, not only for the warring Greek states contemporary sources, the term is attested first in Andocides (3,17; 34, in the year advocated a x.¢. m&ot tots “EAAnot (‘Koine

Eirene for all Greeks’). One such Koine Eirene (KE) was

sworn to in the year 386 in Sparta after negotiations by + Antalcidas with the Persian King > Artaxerxes [2] and after the announcement ofthe royal edict (+ King’s Peace; Peace of Antalcidas) by the parties of the

+ Co-

rinthian War (Xen. Hell. 5,1,25; 30; 35; Plut. Artaxerxes 22,1f. [2. 7of.]). The treaty declares the autonomy of the Greek states (with the exception of the Athenian clerouchies Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros) to be the fundamental principle. The Great King was installed as the guarantor power; in return, he was confirmed in his rulership over the Near Eastern Greeks, Clazomenae, and + Cyprus (Xen. Hell. 5,1,31; Diod. Sic. 14, 110,2f.). There were no additional determinations regarding implementation, nor any supplements [3. 3942]. Sparta’s active ‘guard over the peace’ (prostasia tés eirénés) in the period following was therefore a result of its concrete advocacy for autonomy [4. 116-118]. The demand for autonomy was first articulated more precisely in the KE of 375 in a clause about terri-

81

82

tories and garrisons (Diod. Sic. 15,38,25 Isoc. Or. 8,16), then expanded in the treaty of 371 (in Sparta) by a demobilization clause (Xen. Hell. 6,3,18), and in the KE of the same year (in Athens) by the obligation to give

and Aetolian Leagues in the Hellenistic period (e.g. Syll.3 519; IG IX? x, 6).

automatic assistance (6,5,2). The prostasia was trans-

ferred temporarily to Athens [5. 47-49], although without the participation of Thebes, which worked towards a KE under its own control in the years 367— 365 (and with the help of the Great King) (Xen. Hell. 75153 3-40; Plut. Pelopidas 30; [6. 151-160]). The individual determinations of the KE of 362 (without Sparta) are unclear; it is claimed to have been created

along with a symmachy (Diod. Sic. 15,89,1f.; Plut. Agesilaus 35; cf. ToD 2,145; see, in contrast, [7. 511]).

A general peace was not passed again until the congress of Corinth in 337 BC ( Corinthian League). The control of autonomy (Dem. Or. 17,8), which, for the first time, included the Near Eastern Greeks, was assigned to a newly created > synhédrion (equal voting rights of all members). Their constitutions were placed under the protection of the peace (Top 2,177). The chairmanship, hegemony, and patronage were given to Philip Il (lust. 9,5,1-3), after 336 to Alexander [4] (Diod. Sic. 17,4,1-9), with the result that the KE acquired the stigma of a Macedonian instrument of power. The KE failed in its goal of promoting stability despite the fact that it received further structural development. The demands for autonomy amounted to an overly ambitious programme which in itself gave rise to new conflicts [3. 269-273].

1T.T.B. Ryper, K.E., 1965 2 G.L. CaAWKWELL, The King’s Peace, in: CQ 31, 1981, 69-83 3 M.JEHNE,K.E., 1994 4R.URBAN, Der KOnigsfrieden, r991 5 R.SEAGER, The King’s Peace and the Balance of Power in Greece, in: Athenaeum 52, 1974, 36-63 6 J. BUCKLER, The Theban Hegemony, 1980 7N.G.L. HamMonp, A History of Greece to 322 B.C., *1967. HA.BE.

Koinon (xow6dv; koinon). I. GENERAL

II. GREEK-HELLENISTIC

I. GENERAL In the Greek world, koinon may refer to any type of ‘community’. Asa political term, koinon is used, on the one hand, for small units (such as the interior divisions of a polis or of acommunity dependent on a polis) (e.g. Mycenae, referred to as a > komé of Argus, SEG 3,312; in Rhodes, demes or parts of demes may be called koind, e.g. IK RhodPer [IK, inscription of the Rhodian Peraea] 201; 1G XII 3,1270), and on the other hand, for extensive political units in non-urban regions as well as urban areas with poleis (e.g. Ozolian Locris, IG IX 1,267; Boeotia, SEG 27,60). A koinon comprised the entire region of Thessaly (cf. SEG 36,483), but local koind existed as well, such as the Magnesian koinon dependent on Demetrias [1]. The modern scientific use of the term usually relates the word koinon to larger types of organizations that refer to themselves as koinon, for instance the Achaean

KOINON

V. EHRENBERG, Der Staat der Griechen, *1965, 323ff.; J. A. O. Larsen, Representative Government in Greek and Roman History, 1955; Id., Greek Federal States, 1968; P.J. Ropes, Epigraphical Evidence, in: M.H. HANsEN (ed.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State, 1995, 91— 112; H. Beck, Polis und Koinon, 1997. PUR.

Il. GREEK-HELLENISTIC Beginning in the early 3rd cent. BC, the koina of the ~ Aetolians and the > Achaeans brought large areas of Greece under their control. Essential for the success of both koina was the integration of former enemies as members with equal rights — thereby overcoming the differences in ethnic origin even though these differences continued to be reflected in the names, for example, koinon ton Aitolén — as well as the strategy of forming alternating coalitions with Hellenistic kings, later with Rome. Rome’s expansion increasingly reduced the koina’s freedom of action, culminating in > the re-organization under Mummius’ in 146 BC, which resulted in the loss of autonomy altogether (Paus. 7,16,9 spuriously transmits that all koina were dissolved). As early as in 167, numerous smaller koina emerged, tolerated or supported by Rome, but these were lacking in political autonomy and created primarily for cultic purposes. The latter mark the transition from independent federal states to the provincial regional parliaments characteristic of the Imperial period, often to outlast the Augustan re-organization of Greece (27 BC.). The high degree of integration not only in the Achaean koinon is suggested by Polybius’ characterization of the latter as a single great polis (2,37,11). Citizenship of a koinon above and beyond that of the original polis entailed civil equality (> énktésis, > epigamia) as well as potential citizenship in each member polis ([5. XVIIIf.]; differing [8]; > sympoliteia). The institutions of the koinon resemble those of the polis in principle: regularly (several times a year) convening public assemblies (> ekklesia; damos; syllogos; koinoén), councils (> boulé; > synhbédrion), and officials elected on a yearly basis. Governmental activities were often performed by the koinon in conjunction with the member poleis, the decisions of the koinon being binding for all members. The minting of coins was under the authority of the koinon but was often delegated to the members; contributions from the poleis flowed into the federal funds. Troop contingents from the members were commanded by federal officers; the koinon of the + Boeotians governed military training in all member poleis by federal law [7]. Federal jurisdiction is attested for the koina of the Achaeans, the + Acarnanians, and the Cretes. Citizenship granted by any of the members resulted in citizenship of the federation, citizenship and privileges granted by the koinon (+ proxenia) were honoured in all the member poleis. The members could pursue foreign relations only with permission of the federal offices ([1]; cf. Pol. 2,48,6f.). The koina varied only in regard to sacred matters.

83

84

A special position among the 3rd-cent. koina was held by the koinon of the Nesiotai (> Islanders, League of the; Addenda) founded by the Antigonids, a koinon

tot.] Ath. Pol. 7,3) and are attested in the 5th cent. BC as officials who issued payments from the central state treasury. Since access to the treasury implied a particularly great danger of corruption, they did not serve for a full year but only for the duration of one prytany (IG P 73,224; also [3]; > Prytaneis). In or shortly before 411, the kolaketrai were abolished and their task transferred to an expanded committee of > hellénotamiai (IG P 375; also [1]). In the 4th cent., the establishment of special coffers rendered the kolaketrai unnecessary.

KOINON

;

which belonged to the Ptolemaic hegemony in c. 286261. The particular distribution of authority is not known in detail, but it is certain that the nesiarchos appointed by the King was the highest officer along with the Ptolemaic nauarchos. Of great importance was the ruler’s cult practised by all members with its centre on Delos (similar to the koinon of > Cyprus and possibly of > Lycia). The question to what extend Rome influenced the constitution of the Achaean koinon, claimed to have been ‘given to the Achaeans by the Romans’ (&0600elo toicg Ayatots bo Popaiwy, Syll.3 684; 139 BC), has not been entirely clarified. Beginning in the 2nd cent. BC, numerous koina seem to have experienced a strengthening of the council (now usually called synhédrion) at the expense of the ekklésia, at times even the abolition of the latter. Another contributing factor to the emergence of oligarchical federal constitutions may be found in the small size of the new confederations. Separate from the federal states were the alliances of Ptolemaic mercenaries esp. on Cyprus, attested on inscriptions as koina ton Lykion and similar names. 1 J. Bousquet, La stéle des Kyténiens au Lét6on de Xanthos, in: REG

1310-1575

ror, 1988, 12-53

2 BusoLt/SwoBopDa,

3P.FUuNKE, Unt. zur Gesch. und Struktur

des Aitol. Bundes, Ms.

1985

Kovwvov, RE Suppl. 4, 914-941 Federal States, 1968

4 E.KORNEMANN,

S.v.

1B.D.

Meritt,

Athenian

Financial Documents

of the

Fifth Century, 1932, 98-103 2P.J. RHopeEs, The Athenian Boule, 1972, 98—roz_ 3. A. WILHELM, Att. Urkunden, in: SAWW 217.5, 1939, 52-72 = Akademieschriften zur griech. Inschr.-Kunde, 1974, I, 572-592. PLR.

Kolias akra (Kamas dxou; Kolias dkra). Cape at the western coast of Attica [1] in the deme Halimus, mod-

ern Hagios Cosmas, with an Early Helladic settlement [3; 4]. This is where wreckage from the naval battle of Salamis (480 BC) was washed ashore (Hdt. 8,96). A sanctuary of Demeter Thesmophoros is attested by Plutarch (Solon 8,4), Pausanias (1,31,1), and Hesychius

(s.v. K.) [2. roo}. The cult of Aphrodite Colias is localized by Str. 9,1,21 incorrectly in > Anaphlystus. 1 J. Day, Cape Colias, Phalerum and the Phaleric Wall, in: AJA 36, 1932, 1-11 2 G.Karo, Arch. Funde, in: AA 1930, 88-167 3G.E. Mytonas, Aghios Kosmas, 1959

4 TRAVLOS, Attika, 6-14, fig. 8-18.

H.LO.

5 J.A.O. Larsen, Greek

6 D.G. Martin, Greek Leagues in

the Later Second and First Centuries B.C., 1975 7 P.Roescu, Une loi fédérale béotienne sur la préparation militaire, in: Acta of the Fifth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge 1967, 1971, 8188 8H.Swosopa, Zwei Kapitel aus dem griech. Bundesrecht, SAWW 199.2, 1924 9J.TouLOUMAKOs, Der Einflu& Roms auf die Staatsform der griech. Stadtstaaten des Festlandes und der Inseln im ersten und zweiten Jh.v.Chr., 1967. RA.B.

Koinonia

(xowovia; koindnia) is the general Greek term for any type of human community such as a state, association, commercial company, or community of

Kollema see > Scroll

Kollybos (xddAvBoc; Rdllybos). Greek for the corn of grain or pulse, then a weight between barleycorn and tetartemorion (Theophr. Lapides 46). From this, the name for a particularly small coin, attested in Athens from the 420s BC (Aristoph. Pax 1198; Eupolis 233; Callim. Fr. 85). Also two- and three-fold kollyboi are mentioned (Poll. 9,63.72). The tiny AE coins of the 2nd half of the 5th cent. BC are considered to be Attic kollybot. From the notion of it being the smallest coin, the kollybos (Latin collybus) assumed additional meanings [5]: change; the money-changer’s fee (Poll. 3,84; 7,170;

heirs or joint owners. Regarding associations, a law by

Cic. Verr. 2,3,181; Cic. Att. 12,6,1; Suet. Aug. 4) and

Solon is transmitted in Dig. 47,22,4, Gaius 4 ad legem XII tab. (= Solon fr. 76a RUSCHENBUSCH), while societies and communities are mentioned only occasionally in the Attic sources. In the papyri, Roinonia refers to the Roman societas as well as to communio.

agio of acoin in exchange for another (OGIS 484; 515). Hence xodduitew/kollybizein: ‘to change money’, xomrvpioris kollybistés, Latin collybista: ‘moneychanger’ (Poll. 7,33; Mt 21:12;Jo 2:15).

A.R.W. Harrison, The Law of Athens I, 1968, 240-242; A.Brscarpi,

Diritto greco antico, 1982, 157, 210; H.-

A.RuppreEcnrt, Einfiihrung in die Papyruskunde, 1209f.

1994, Cue

Kolakretai (xwhaxgéta; Rolakrétai). The etymological meaning of kolaketrai (from xwhdc and dyeetv) might be ‘thigh collector’ (for sacrificial purposes?). In Athens, kolaketrai were a group of ten financial officials. Kolaketrai existed already in > Solon’s time ([Aris-

1K. REGLING, s.v. K., RE 11, rog9f. 2E.S. G. RosinSON, Later Fifth Century Coinage of Athens, in: ANSMusN 9, 1960, 1-15 3SCHROTTER, 314 4I1.N.Svoronos, Oi Kollyboi, in: Journ. International d’Archéologie Numismatique 14, 1912, 123-160 5 M.N. Top, KOAAYBO%, in: NC 1945, ro8ff. DLK.

Kollyrion (xodAvguov; kollyrion, Lat. collyrium and Bahavoc/bdlanos: Caelius Aurelianus, De morbis acutis 2,83; De morbis chronicis 2,39). Pharmaceutical form for administering medicinal substances, in local appli-

85

86

cations. These were pulverished and made into a uniform paste with binders, as is evident from the etymology (kollyra: small, round bread roll without yeast [2.145], bread dough [1. 556]). The kollyrion’s two main types of use determine its form and function: a small cone was formed for insertion into anatomical or pathological orifices, thus applying a medicinal substance intended to take effect locally or generally. For application to the eyes, small rolls were produced, from which a piece was taken and applied like an ointment directly to the lid or the eye. These small sticks were labelled with seals bearing the name of the doctor, of the preparation or their indication etc. The purpose of this labelling was probably to identify the medicine and its application. [2]. The first type of kollyrion occurs only once in the Corpus Hippocraticum (De morbis mulierum 1,51) but was later used in several areas. Gynaecology: for introduction into the vagina as a vaginal suppository (as opposed to a pessary, with which it is often confused: with the latter, the medicinal substance is applied to a removable tampon of fabric or woollen threads) for the treatment of uterine pains or as a means of promoting menstruation or inducing abortion. Treatment of fistulae: (Cels. Med. 5,28,12): it was introduced into the fistula, which was doubtlessly lanced first; as an analgesic in parenteral application, together with substances such as henbane or hemlock. Treatment of disorders of the digestive and urinary tracts: it was introduced into the specific paths, in human medicine as in veterinary. The ophthalmological kollyrion was the form of treatment par excellence in complaints of the eyes and eyelids. The term kollyrion also denoted a kind of soil on the island of > Samos

(Dioscorides, De materia medica

551533 Plin. HN 35,191). Early Christian authors used the term to identify the Revelation as a medicine for the blindness that paganism represented in their eyes, and for unbelief in general. (e.g. Aug. Conf. 7,8,12). 1P.CHANTRAINE

2R.JAcKSON, Eye Medicine in the

Roman Empire, in: ANRW II 37.3, 2228-2251. E. Kinp, s.v. K., in: RE 21,

1100-1106.

KOLONOS

From the late Hellenistic period on, we also encounter the term komma (xOupa, Lat. incisum, caesum, particula, articulus), either as an element of the kolon (Quint. Inst. 9,4,22; 122) or, if it possesses sufficient

syntactic weight, as a short, self-contained kolon of two or three words (Longinus, Ars Rhetorica 309,20 SPENGEL; 4—6 syllables according to Anon. De figuris 113,17 Sp.). Cicero offers several examples (Orat. 213, 222225), such as (quoting Crassus): missos faciant patro0s; ipsi prodeant; cur clandestinis consiliis nos oppugnant? (two kémmata, with a kolon following). A.DuMESNIL,

zweihundertjahrigen

Kolon (x@dov; kélon, Lat. membrum). [1] A metrical phrase, - Metre (Greek) [2] In the theory of rhetoric, which goes back to + Thrasymachus (85 A 1 DK), a syntactical unit, such as a main or subordinate clause or a group of words ina sentence, which is usually regarded as part of a period. Aristotle (Rh. 3,9,1409b 17) is clearly of the opinion that two kola form a natural period (although he also recognized the periodos mono6kolos); others see the trikolon as the model (Rhet. Her. 4,26), yet others consider four kola best (Cic. Orat. 221; Quint. Inst. 9,4,125), whilst more than four attracted disapproval (Demetrius, De elocutione 16; Alexander, De figuris 28,19 SPENGEL). Every kolon can show a rhythmic clausula (Quint.

Inst.

9,4,123:

membrum

autem

est sensus

Jubildum

des ké6nigl.

Friedrichs-

BERG, 460-467; J. Martin, Ant. Rhet. (HdbA II 3), 1974, 317-320; R. VOLKMANN, Die Rhet. der Griechen und Romer, *1885, 505-509.

[3] Modern scholars, following E. FRAENKEL [23 3; 4], applied the term kolon to individual stressed units of sound that could be found in Greek and Latin sentences on the basis of criteria such as the position of enclitics or vocatives. So for example the position of mihi in Cic. Att. 1,10,1 Roma puer a sorore tua missus epistulam mihi abs te adlatam dedit marks the beginning of a new kolon with epistulam, since such unstressed words, in

agreement with an ancient Indo-European principle [6] usually occupy the second position in a word group. Occasionally, such conclusions are supported by the punctuation in ancient MSS [5] (+ Punctuation). These

observations of WACKERNAGEL and FRAENKEL were extended by ApAMs [r]. 1 J.N. Apams, Wackernagel’s Law and the Placement of the Copula esse in Classical Latin, 1994 2 E.FRAENKEL, Kolon und Satz, in: Nachr. der Gottinger Ges. 1932, 197213; 1933, 319-354 (= Id., Kleine Beitrage I, 73-130; Nachtrage ibid. 131-139) 3 Id., Noch einmal Kolon und Satz, SBAW 1965(2) 4 1d., Leseproben aus Reden Ciceros und Catos, 1968

A.TO.

der Rede:

Gymnasiums, Frankfurt a.O., 1894, 32-121; T.N. HasiNEK, The Colometry of Latin Prose, 1985, 21-41; Laus-

5 7T.N. HaBinek, The Colometry

of Latin Prose, 1985, 21-41

I-104.

numeris conclusus).

Begriff der drei Kunstformen

Komma, K., Periode, nach der Lehre der Alten, in: Zum

6J.WACKERNAGEL, KS 1,

MLW.

Kolonos (xohwvoc; Roldnés, ‘hill’) [1] Kolonos agoraios. (xohwvoc cyogaioc; kolonos agoraios, ‘at the agora’). Hill (68 m) to the west of the Agora in Athens, in the deme of Cerameis, with synhedrion [r. 112], arsenal [1. 188f.], temples to Athena and to Hephaestus (so-called Theseum) [1. 91; 5. 261273, fig. 335-350] and other cults [5. 79], as well as the neighbouring territory in the south (Aristoph. Av.

997f.). [2] Kolonos hippios. (xodwvoc inmtoc; kolonds hippios, ‘equestrian hill’), hill in the north-west of Athens (Thuc. 8,67), made famous by Sophocles (OC 54ff., 670ff., 886ff.), not far from Plato’s + Academy at today’s

Leophoros Ioanninon, with sanctuaries of Poseidon Hippios (Soph. OC 16, 37f., 54f.), Athena Hippia

87

88

(Paus. 1,30,4) [6] and other cults [3]. This cult centre of Athenian horsemanship was destroyed in 265 BC by

cent. AD and only reappears again from 247/248, replaces the komogrammateus again and is responsible again for all village matters, until at least 368: taxes, agriculture, chancery and accounting matters, and in addition, the police force. Because of the transformation into a liturgy, now two komarchai hold office simultaneously; they are almost always Egyptians, who were nominated by their predecessors. Importance of the village elders, who also undertook civil responsibilities in financial administration in Roman times.

KOLONOS

:

~ Antigonus [2] Gonatas (Paus. 1,30,4) [2].

Kolossos (xod0006c, kolossés; lat. colossus). Statues of

remarkable size were called kollossoi, originally in Greek literature with regard to their function as immoyable representatives. Since the kolossos of Rhodes (293 BC), kolossos became a technical term for statues witha measurement of roo feet (29 m) to as little as ro feet. Modern scholars consider a kolossos to be at least twice life-sized. Marble kolossot first appear in the rst half of the 6th cent. BC (kouroi in Samos, Delos, Naxos), influenced by large Egyptian sculpture. In the 5th cent. BC, kolossoi were produced mostly as > cult images. The kolossoi of - Phidias (Zeus in Olympia, Athena Promachos) became sculptural models, also in their size.

Acrolithian cult images in twice and three times life-size were common in the Hellenistic world and, from the

2nd cent. BC, in Rome. Few kolossoi reached 30 m like the Helios of > Chares [4] in Rhodes and the kolossos of Nero in Rome of > Zenodorus. Kolossoi as portrait statues are first known in the case of Attalus I. Before Constantine I, portraits of Roman rulers in more than life-size are rare. The largest kolossoi were in bronze and required complicated stabilizing measures, for which reason the technical daring involved was always admired, while the aesthetic value was considered negligible (Plin. HN

34,39-47). J. Ducat, Fonctions de la statue dans la Gréce archaique. Kouros et kolossos, in: BCH too, 1976, 239-251; P.KaRAKATSANIS, Stud. zu archa. Kolossalwerken, 1986; D. KREIKENBOM, Griech. und rom. Kolossalportrats bis zum spaten tr. Jh.n.Chr., 1992; M. BERGMANN, Der Kolof Neros, die Domus Aurea und der Mentalitatswandel im

Rom

der friihen Kaiserzeit, in: Trierer Winckelmann-

sprogramme 13, 1993, 1-37; M.W. Dickie, What Is a kolossos and How Were kolossoi Made in the Hellenistic Period?, in: GRBS 37, 1996, 237-257; H. KyRIeELEIs, Der grofse Kuros von Samos, 1996. RN.

Komarches (xoucoyxyncs; Romarchés). Expressive designation for an official of the Ptolemaic and Roman period in Egypt, who was responsible for all the concerns of village administration

(> komé), was subordinate to

the toparches and nomarches (the komarches was also active in > metropoleis, being responsible for city districts). In the Ptolemaic period, the office of the + dioikétés appointed him, and it was a (much) aspired post. The komarches came from the village for which he was responsible. The differentiation from the >» komogrammateus is difficult; he was at first subordinate to the komarches; but his superior from the end of the 2nd cent. BC. The komarches was from then on only responsible for gé basilike (‘crown land’) and the basilikoi georgoi (‘king’s farmers’). In the Roman period the komarches was transformed into a — liturgy and changed annually. The position disappears in the 2nd

E. van’t Dack, Recherches sur les institutions du village en Egypte ptolémaique, in: Studia Hellenistica 7, 1951, sf.; N.Lewis, in: Chronique d’Egypte 72, 1997, 346f.; H.Muissier, Der Komarch, diss. Marburg 1970; POxy. 3064 (with commentary); J.D. THomas, The Introduction of Dekaprotoi and Comarchs into Egypt in the 3rd Century A.D., in: ZPE 19, 1975,

111-119.

W.A.

Komarei

(Peripl. m. r. 58f.; Komaria, Ptol. 7,1,9). Southern Indian harbour town with a cape of the same name. Cf. modern Kanya Kumari on the southern tip of the Indian peninsula. K.K.

Komast cups Important group of Attic vases of the early black figure style, which are called after their favourite theme, the wildly dancing drinker; heyday: 585 to 570/560 BC. Models for the Komast cups (KC) are the Corinthian fat-bellied dancers in short padded dress with exaggerated buttocks. Among other borrowings from Corinthian ceramics is, above all, the shape of the komast cup, a bulbous cup with a narrow, off-set lip on a tapered base, the starting-point for the development of the Attic drinking cups. BEAZLEY has called the two leading painters of the KC ‘KX~’ and ‘KY’. The older and more talented painter KX is famous for, among other things, his small mythological scenes, which he has inserted into the animal frieze. The painter KY painted above all cups with komast scenes, and some column kraters. The komast cup with animal friezes stands in the tradition of the > Gorgo Painter. ~» Komos; ~ Corinthian vases; > Kylix BEAZLEY, ABV, 23-37, 680f.; BEAZLEY, Paralipomena, 14-17; BEazLey, Addenda’, 7-9; J.D. BEazLey, The Development of Attic Black-Figure, *1986, 18f.; H.A. G. BRIJDER, Siana Cups I and Komast Cups, 1983; M. STEINHART, Zu einem Kolonnettenkrater des KY-Malers, in: AA 1992,

486-512.

H.M.

Kome (xan; Rome, plural x@uc1; R6mai). A. GREECEINTHE 5THAND 4TH CENTS. BC B. PTOLEMAIC KINGDOM

C, SELEUCID KINGDOM

A. GREECE IN THE 5TH AND 4TH CENTS. BC With the meaning ‘village’, kome signified in the Greek world a small community. Thucydides regarded life in scattered, unfortified kémai as the older and more primitive form of communal living in a political unit (Thuc. 1,5,1; on Sparta: 1,10,1; on the Aetolians: 3,94,4). Under the Aristotelian model of polis forma-

89

90

tion, families first group together in a komé, and then the kémai group together in a > polis (Aristot. Pol. 1,1252b 15-28; cf. 3,1280b 40-1281a 1). Scattered liv-

ing in a kome is typical for an éthnos (‘tribal state’; Aristot. Pol. 2,1261a 27-29). Hesiod calls his home community of Ascra in Boeotia a kome (Hes. Op. 639f.). Herodotus mentions kémai primarily in the barbarian world, but is also familiar with kémai in Greece, near Thermopylae (Hdt. 7,176,5; 200,2) and to the north of Euboea (Hdt. 8,23,2). Thucydides speaks of k6mai on Greece’s northern border (Thuc. 2,80,8;

3594543 97513 LO1,2; 4,124,4), yet also regards Sparta as composed of kémai (Thuc. 1,10,r) and uses k6mé as a

term to describe Solygea near Corinth and Tripodiscus in Megara (Thuc. 4,43,1; 4,70,1). The political status of k6mai like Solygea and Tripodiscus is unknown to us. According to Aristotle, the Peloponnesians would call neighbouring communities (of > Perioikoi) Rémai; the Athenians, on the other hand, démoi, demes (Aristot.

Poet. 1448a 36-37). In fact, the Athenian démoi do not in any way correspond to the perioikic settlements, which were generally not termed kémai. Through the procedure of > synoikism6s, a community of k6mai could be united politically, sometimes even physically, and turned into a single polis. Through a dioikismos, such a polis could be dissolved back into its constituent parts, the kémai. Thus perhaps > Mantinea was united in around 470 BC (Str. 8,3,2; writes of démoi), dissolved in 385 (Xen. Hell. 5,2,7; Diod. Sic. 15,12,2) and re-united in 370 (Xen. Hell. 6,5,3). M.H. Hansen, Kome, in: Id., K. RAAFLAUB (ed.), Studies

in the Ancient Greek Polis, 1995, 45-81; E. Levy, Apparition en Gréce de lidée de village, in: Ktema 11, 1986, 117-127. PLR.

B. PTOLEMAIC KINGDOM Form of settlement and administrative unit in Ptolemaic Egypt, which country was subdivided into nomoi (> nomos), t6poi and kémai. Apart from the four poleis, all settlements, even the > metropoleis of the nomoi, were legally k6mai, on the fixed territories of which smaller settlements could exist. Their administration was appointed, sometimes for several kémai together, sometimes it operated only at village level (- Estate register). The komé was represented by the elders. The number of kémai, which were frequently built on the edge of fertile land, is said to have risen to 30,000 in the Ptolemaic period (Diod. Sic. 1,31,6f.). There were different forms of settlement: city-like settlements adjoined little villages, and even among the kémai there were hierarchies of settlement and dependencies. The residents were free and temporarily bound only through leasehold of royal lands. there also was craft and trade. In the late Ptolemaic Period, there developed a kind ofclient relationship [1. 233] between kométai and members of the upper class (hypo sképén among others), while at the same time the komé as a whole had to assume government tasks. If Greeks were living in the k6mai, there would generally be gymnasia

KOMMOS

and gymnasiarchs, as well as other forms of Greek culture, e.g. theatres, books. > Egypt E.; > Nomos 1 H. BRaunert, Die Binnenwanderung, 1964

2 D. CRAWFORD, Kerkeosiris, 1971 3 E. vAN’T Dack, Recherches sur les institutions du village en Egypte ptolémaique, in: Studia Hellenistica 7, r95x, 5ff. 4 F.DvuNAND, in: Egitto e societa antica, 1985, 211ff. 5 J.Lozacu, G. Hue, L’habitat rurale en Egypte, 1930 6 D.W. RaTHBONE, Villages, Land and Population in GrecoRoman Egypt, in: PCPhS 36, 1990, 103-142 7 A. TOMsin, Etudes sur les ngeoPbtegor xdune des villages de la ywoa egyptienne, 1952.

WA.

C. SELEUCID KINGDOM In the pre-Hellenistic as in the Hellenistic East, the small rural settlement, komé, was very common. For the most part its population was old-established. Surrounding arable land belonged administratively to the kome. A komé might come under direct royal control, but might also belong to a senior figure of the kingdom, to a sanctuary, to a Greek polis or an oriental city. As a unit of productivity and taxation, it owed services and goods to the owner or lord. Hence, citizens of a komé were legally bound to it, regardless of their actual place of residence. In the administrative division of the > Seleucid kingdom, the komé was the lowest and smallest unit. With > gerousia and komarchés (‘village chief’), it was selfadministering. Any settlement not recognized as + polis had the mere status of komé. Therefore, countless oriental settlements, even if they were cities in terms of their size, facilities and economic importance, were only kémai. A komé could be elevated to a polis by the king. That process constituted some of the city-foundings by Antiochus [6] IV. Soldier settlements were similar to the komé, although fiscally, socially and organizationally different (Ratoikia in the word’s modern usage; — kdtoikos). E. BIKERMAN, Institutions des Séleucides, 1938; P. BRIANT,

Villages et communautés villageoises d’Asie achéménide et hellénistique (1975), in: Id., Rois, tributs et paysans, 1982, 137-160; G.M. 1977-

CouEn, The Seleucid Colonies, A.ME,

Kommos [1] (Kounoc; Kémmos). Port on the southern coast of + Crete, situated near Matala and > Phaestus. In the

Minoan period K., which was founded around 2000 BC, probably served as the harbour for the palace of Phaestus, until its destruction around 1200 BC. After

being deserted for c. 200 years, it was resettled around 1000 BC, presumably the result of Phoenician stimuli, and was increasingly Hellenized until the 4th cent. BC. Archaeological excavations (since 1976 by the University of Toronto) have uncovered a Minoan residential quarter at the northern summit of the hill, and considerable remains of a Phoenician-Greek settlement in the plain, as well as the area of a sanctuary with a temple and altars.

KOMMOS

:

91

Pu.P. BerANCOURT, Kommos II: The Final Neolithic Through Middle Minoan III Pottery, 1990; LAUFFER,

Griechenland,

335, s.v. Kommos

(bibliography); J.W.

and M.C. SHAw (ed.), Kommos I 1: The Kommos Region, Ecology, and Minoan Industries, 1995; J:W. SHaw, Phoenicians in Southern Crete, in: AJA 93, 1989, 165183; Id., Der phoniz. Schrein auf Kreta (ca. 800 v.Chr.),

in: FS H.G. Niemeyer, 1998, 93-104 with pl. 4; L.V. Watrous, Kommos III: The Late Bronze Age Pottery, 1992.

C.HO.

[2] (6 xoundc; bo kommos).

Derived from kdptein

(xontewv), ‘to beat one’s breast wailing’, kommos first means any type of ecstatic lamentation. In the Poetica (12,1452b 18) Aristotle gives stage songs (~ Monodies) and kommoi, as special structural elements, which

do not occur in every tragedy. He defines them as songs of lamentation (— Threnos) (1452b 24f.), performed jointly by chorus and actors. As, however, it is by no means the case that all antiphonal singing in drama contains lamentation, we must assume that Aristotle used

per synecdochen a particularly striking form as a concept for all chorus-actor songs. In order to achieve clarity of terminology, it is therefore advisable to use ~ Amoibaion as the general term and kommos only for antiphonal songs in a plaintive note (e.g. Aesch. Pers. 908ff., Sept. 966ff., Choeph. 306ff.). R. KaNNICcHT, Untersuchungen zur Form und Funktion der Amoibaia in der att. Trag., thesis 1957; H. Popp, Das Amoibaion, in: W.JENs (ed.), Die Bauformen der griech. Trag., 1971, 221-275;

B. ZIMMERMANN, Untersuchungen

zur Form und dramatischen Technik der Aristophanischen Komodien I, 71985, 150-152. B.Z.

Komogrammateus (xwpoyeanmatets; Romogrammateus). Administrative official in Ptolemaic Egypt, although the position itself is doubtlessly older. Egypt was divided up into nomot, topoi and kémai, and cor-

responding to this sequence is, in order, basilikos grammateus, topogrammateus and komogrammateis (It is, however, not certain whether the topogrammateus was the superior of the komogrammateus; sometimes both posts were filled by the same person). The komogrammateus was responsible for an area, which usually encompassed one village, but sometimes also several villages (ROmai; > komé). In the early Ptolemaic period, the komogrammateus was subordinate to the + komarchés; he was responsible for financial, payment and tax matters. Knowledge of Demotic and Greek were useful to him, while literacy, at least in the Roman period, was not always a given (PPetaus. 121); almost always, (Hellenized) Egyptians were the officebearers. In the late 2nd cent. BC, the komogrammatets became the superior of the komdrchés. He kept his former duties, but the land register, with everything that came with it (overall view of land use and yield), was added, as well as policing responsibilities and (lower) magisterial activity (most important source: Men-

ches Archive). The komogrammateus was appointed by the + dioikétes; Menches was obliged to make a one-

92

time payment upon entering his post, also, he had to take on, for the length of his office, a piece of state land at a high lease rate (it is unknown whether this was

usual). Once a year, Menches appeared in Alexandria before the dioikétés; once a year, kémogrammateis gathered in the capital city of the nomds. Posts were accumulated, this, however, was not always viewed positively (PTebt. I 24). In the Roman period, the komogrammateus became a liturgical official, who held office for at least three, later five years (cf. [1; 2]). He kept tax records, and also the registry office, land register, etc. At least in the 2nd half of the 2nd cent. AD, a kRomogrammateus was no longer permitted to serve in his native village. The position was relieved in Arsinoites c. 219 by the amphodokomogrammateus; in 247-248, the komarchés took his place. In the 2nd half of the 4th cent., the komogrammateus was present again [3. 346f.]. —+ Kome; ~ Komos 1 H.C. Youtie, PU.G. 12; tomoyoapmatets xa xwUoyeauuateic, in: ZPE 24, 1977, 138f. 2R.HUBNER, in: ZPE

30, 1978, 199

3 N. Lewis, in: Chronique d’Egypte 72,

1997.

PP 1/8, 781-870; Z. BoRKOWSKI, D. HAGEDORN, in: FS C.

Préaux, 1975, 775f.; L.CriscuoLo, Ricerche sul Komogrammateus nell’ Egitto tolemaico, in: Aegyptus 48, 1978, 3ff.; H.MELAERTS, Studia Varia Bruxellensia II, 1990, 134f.; A. VERHOOGT, Menches, Komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris, 1998; S.P. VLEEMING, in: Atti XVII. Congr. Int.

Pap. Neapel 1984, 3, 1053ff.

W.A.

Komomisthotes (xapopioOd@ty¢; komomisthotes). Ptolemaic official, first attested in 259/258 BC in Palestine (PLond. VII 1948), who was responsible for leasing of state land to farmers within a village administrative district (cf. also PTebt. 183). D. CRAWFORD, Kerkeosiris, 1971, 103 A. 4; RosTOVTZ-

EFF, Hellenistic World 1, 344f.; 3, r4orf.

W.A.

Komos

(x@woc; Rémos, verb xwudtew; kOmdazein) is the term for the ritualized, exuberant Greek procession to the music of the cithara or, especially, the flute (Ath. 14,9,618c). In its earliest occurrences, the word is not

connected with Dionysus, but describes rites with musical accompaniment, probably also with singing and dancing. (In H. Hom. Merc. 481, Hermes gives Apollo the lyre for komoi; in Ps.-Hes. Aspis 281, komézusi young men in a marriage procession dance rapturously to the sound of the flute; Pind. Pyth. 5,22 calls the performance of his song a komos of men). Until the Imperial period, the komos, as an exuberant-ecstatic procession with corresponding musical instruments, was not limited to the cult of + Dionysus (marrital komoi Philostr. Imag. 1,2). But from the 6th cent. BC at the

latest, Dionysus is very closely linked with the komos (cf. also Pl. Leg. 1,637a), as vase paintings prove. Also the komos is an established part of the urban — Dionysia. Symptomatic is the ancient — false — derivation of

93

94

> comedy as being a Dionysian ritual of komos (protestation in Aristot. Poet. 3,1448a 37), as well as the use of the word komos as the name of a satyr.

K. is supposed to have acted as the spiritus rector during the compilation of these works. He is supposed to have compiled material for his anonymous contributors, and drafted form and content of the project. Also he always composed the proem and short sections in simpler language: 1) The work De administrando imperio [3], ad-

H. Laer, s.v. K., RE 11, 1286-1304; A. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 1968, rozf.

FG.

KONSTANTINOS

dressed to his son Romanos, an instruction manual for

Konche (xoyyn; Rénché; Lat. concha; ‘mussel, small bowl’); technical term for a minimum measure, used

mostly by doctors to specify a quantity of ointment. In this system, the ‘large konche’ (ueydAn xoyyn/megalé konche) is equivalent to an > oxybaphon and corresponds to c. 0.06 |, the ‘small konche’ (hdttmv xoyyn, elatton konche) equivalent to '/, > cyathus [2] and corresponds to c. 0.02 | [1. 636]. — Measures of volume 1F.Huxtrscu,

Griechische

*1882.

und

roémische

Metrologie, H.-].S.

Konistra Term used by Pollux (3,154 and 9,43), Athenaeus (12,518d) and other late sources for the open

courtyard, often strewn with sand, of the Greek > gymnasium; cf. also > Palaistra.

CHO.

international relations and diplomatic practice, a dossier about the empire’s contacts with various neighbouring peoples. 2) The compilation De thematibus [4], drawing from geographical lexica, dealing with the origin and history of the Byzantine provinces (themata) in east and west. 3) The text called De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae [5] (cf. also > Kletorologion) presents an encyclopaedia of great historical value on court ceremony and official hierarchy, compiled from the imperial archives. 4) Three treatises provide information on preparations by the emperor for martial expeditions in the east. Furthermore seven letters [7], liturgical compositions [8], as well as two speeches to the soldiers [9; ro] anda homily [11; 12] are extant and attributed to him. 1C.pE

Boor,

A.G. Roos

U.PH.

BotssEvaIn,

T.BUTTNER-WOBST,

(ed.), Excerpta historica iussu imperatoris

Konopion (16 xwvidmov; to kéndpion, Latin cono-

Constantini confecta I-IV, 1903-1910

pium, conopeum). Originally, the konopion was a sleeping net for the protection against mosquitos, flies, etc. (Anth. Pal. 9,764; Prop. 3,11,45). According to Hdt. 2,95, the Egyptians even used their fishing nets for this purpose. The term was later used in various ways for — litters and sofas (medieval canapeum developed into canapé). A > cradle was called conopeum as well.

Theophanes Continuatus ..., 1838, 211-353 3G.MoRAVCSIK, R.J. U. JENKINS (ed.), De administrando impe-

Bibliography: see > Kline.

RH.

Konstantinos (see also > Constantinus). {1] K. VIL Porphyrogennetos. (Byzantine emperor AD 905-959; sole ruler 945-959). Son of the Byzantine emperor > Leon VI (886-912) and of Zoe Karbonopsina; for K. as a politician see > Constantinus [9]. His liter-

ary activity was directed toward the preservation and codification of knowledge for practical purposes. Thus, the Excerpta [1], a historical and moral encyclopaedia which he inspired, are a gigantic, thematically structured compilation in 53 volumes. It consists of sections from several historians from antiquity and especially from the early Byzantine period (for some of these, it is the sole source); material is preserved from four areas of knowledge: Excerpta de legibus, De insidiis, De sententiis, De virtutibus et vitiis. In the Vita Basilii |2], the fifth book of a chronography composed under his auspices, known under the title of + Theophanes Continuatus, he offers a biographical encomium of his grandfather ~ Basilius [5] I (867-886). At the same time, this is a piece of ideological-political propaganda for the > Macedonian dynasty founded by this emperor.

21. BEKKER (ed.),

rio, *1967 4A.PERTus! (ed.), Constantino Porfirogenito, De thematibus, 1952 5 I.I. REISKE (ed.), Constantini Porphyrogeniti imperatoris De ceremoniis aulae

byzantinae libri duo, 2 vols., 1829f. 6J.F. HALDON (ed.), Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, 1990 7 J. DARROUZEs, Epistoliers byzantins du X° siécle, 1960, 317-332 8 PG 107, 300-308 9R.VaRI, in: ByzZ 17, 1908, 78-84 10 H. AHRWEILER, in: Traveaux et Mémoirs 2, 1967, 397—399 11 PG 113, 424-453 12 E.von DosscHutTz, Christusbilder, 1899, 39**-85**.

ODB 1, s5o02ff.; LMA 5, 1991, 1377f.; P. LEMERLE, Le premier humanisme byzantin, 1971, 309-346; A. TOYNBEE, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World, 1973; Huncer, Literatur 1, 360-367; A.MARKOPOULOS (ed.), Kavotavtivog Z’ 6 Tlogmueoyévvntog xai h émoxr tov,

1989; I. SevCENKO, Re-reading Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in: J. SHEPARD, S. FRANKLIN (ed.), Byzantine Diplomacy, 1992, 167-195; TH. PRatscH, C.SODE, P.SPECK, S. TakAcs, Poikila Byzantina. Varia 5, 1994. LV.

[2] K. of Rhodes. Byzantine poet from Lindus (c. 87080 until after 931), imperial dignitary in Constantinople under Leo VI the Wise, subsequently secretary of K. [x] Porphyrogennetos. 981 dodecasyllables of his uncompleted description of the Church of the Apostles are extant (v. 19-254 praise the seven wonders of Constantinople) [1]. Among his early works, apart from the satirical poems about Leon Choirosphaktes and the eunuch Theodoros of Paphlagonia [2], three epigrams are worthy of mention: Anth. Pal. 15,15 (not impeccable hexameters, composed between 908 and 912) and

95

96

15,16-17 (in iambic trimeters): the first two about a crucifix, which K. had erected on Lindus, the third on

1984, 107-119; W.L. PererseN, The Dependence of Romanos the Melodist upon the Syriac Ephrem; Its

KONSTANTINOS

;

the subject of a painting of the Virgin Mary. The anonymous poem Anth. Pal. 15,11 (= 1G XII 1, 783) could also be his work: five distiches which are still legible on the acropolis of Lindus and which recall a reforestation of the city by Aglochartus with olives trees (end of the 3rd cent. AD?). K. took part in the compilation of the 15 books of the Anthologia Palatina: it is conceivable that he can be considered to be one and the same with the scribe (J) who coordinated the editorial staff of the entire collection (c. 940). 1 E. LEGRAND, Description des ceuvres d’art et de l’Eglise des saints Ap6tres 4 Constantinople par Constantine le Rhodien, in: REG

9, 1896, 32-65

2 R. MATRANGA,

Anecdota Graeca vol. 2, 1850, 624-625, 625-632. AL. CAMERON, The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes, 1993, 300-328, gorf. M.G.A.

Importance for the Origin of the K., in: Vigiliae Christianae 39, 1985, 171ff.

K.SA.

Koran see > Qur'an Kordax (xooda&; kdrdax). Typical comedy dance (xouxt) Soynors; Romike orchésis; the word kordax appears first in Aristoph. Nub. 540). Usually connected with drunkenness, the kordax was a boisterous, burlesque, and rude dance. It was never described in detail, thus it cannot be identified clearly on vase paintings. The kordax also occurred outside of the theatre as a hyporchematic dance (Ath. 14,630e) or as a solo dance with instrumental accompaniment during banquets (Lucian Icaromenippus 27). K.Latre, De saltationibus Graecorum,

1913; P.SCHNA-

BEL, K., 1911.

[3] K. of Sicily. Byzantine poet, philosopher and grammarian, probably not to be equated with the K. who composed invectives against his teacher Leon the Philosopher [1], but rather with the editor of the Sylloge Crameriana from the period between the Anthology of Cephalas (c. 900) and the Anthologia Palatina (c. 940). A tetrachistic epigram of his (Anth. Pal. 15,13: K.’s chair spurns the uneducated, cf. the replica of > Theophanes in 15,14), and two anacreontic poems are extant, which place him among the best late poets of this genre [2]. 1M.D. Spaparo, Sulle composizioni di Costantino i] Filosofo del Vaticano 915, in: Siculorum Gymnasium 24, 1971, 198-202

2TH. BEeRGK (ed.), Poetae Lyrici Graeci

3*, 348-354. A.CAMERON, The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes, 1993, 245-252, passim. M.G.A.

Kontakion (xovtamiov, xovddniov; kontdkion, konda-

kion; from xovtoc, ‘parchment roll’). Name given in later times to a genre of Byzantine hymns documented first in the 6th cent. AD. The kontakion consists of 18 to 24 metrically equal stanzas (so-called ofkoi, oixou), preceded by the metrically differing prooemium (koukonlion, xovzobMov). The individual stanzas are connected by acrostichs ( Acrostich) and have a common refrain (the ephymnicn or akroteleution, épvvov, axootedevtuov). Kontakia are related to the Syrian — madrasa (+ Ephrem Syrus), have the character of sermons and are metrically structured. They often go back to famous prose sermons, some using previously known melodies. The most important author of kontakia is > Romanos Melodos, a deacon of Syrian origin, while the most famous, and, longest with its 24 stanzas, is the Akathistos Hymn (sung still today). In the 8th cent. AD, the kontakion is replaced by the > canon. —+ Hymn Cur. Hannick, Zur Metrik des K., in: W. HORANDNER et al. (ed.), Byzantios. Fs H. Hunger zum 70. Geburtstag,

F.Z.

Kore [1] see > Persephone [2] see > Statues, groups of statues; — Sculpture

Kore Kosmou Some extensive excerpts from the hermetic book with the title > Kore Kosmou are preserved through Stobaeus (excerpts 23-26 in [1]; > Hermetic writings). This name describes, probably in a deliberately puzzling way, the goddess — Isis, either as ‘Pupil of the Eye of the World’ [8] or as ‘Maiden of the World’ cf. the name > Poemandres). The author attempts to integrate the religion of Isis and Osiris into the hermetic tradition by representing both Egyptian gods as pupils of + Hermes Trismegistus. Isis passes on her hermetic knowledge to her son Horus. In the 23rd excerpt, she relates to him a myth about souls, with which she connects cosmogonic pronouncements. With clear reference to Plato’s Timaeus it is described how God created the substance of souls and the individual souls, which are to populate heaven and to create the animals. But because, contrary to God’s command, they leave the regions allotted to them, they are locked, as a punishment, into human bodies. The planets give the new creature, Man, good and bad gifts. In a long speech, God determines the laws of incarnation: the soul can return to the heavenly region or must descend into animal bodies. After the creation of human bodies by Hermes, ~ Momus criticizes the work: in their curiosity, human beings will bring about evil. Indeed, after their first incarnation, the souls commit serious acts of vio-

lence as a protest against their punishment; the four elements ask God to rectify things, which is achieved by Isis and Osiris. Their cultural and religious blessings, which, however, they owe to their teacher Hermes, are

recounted in hymnic form. The excerpts which follow deal in loose succession with problems arising from the psychogenesis described: the hierarchy of the souls and the corre-

Wy

98

sponding 60 regions of heaven below the moon (several times, this concerns the souls of kings destined for apotheosis), the relationship of the souls to the body (diseases can also have an effect on the soul) and the circumstances of incarnation, the dwelling-place of the soul determining its later existence. The composition of the body is explained as a mixture of the four elements, stoic and platonic topoi being appropriated, partly in simplified form. The theory of the earth as a large human being is interesting. Because Egypt occupies the place of the heart, the Egyptians are said to be more intelligent than other human beings. + Hermetic writings

3,81). For the well-known representation of the punching of the korykos on the Ficoronian Cista, see [t1. fig. Tr9|.

TEXT AND TRANSLATION:[TITEL TOEVOEGEN: B.P. COPENHAVER, HERMETICA, 1992] 1A.D. Nock, A.J. FESTUGIERE, Corpus Hermeticum IV, 1954, repr. 1983

2 J.HoLzHausEN,

Das Corpus Hermeticum Deutsch 2,

1997, 400-480 3M.M. MILter, K.K. — die Weltenjungfrau, in: M. FRENSCH (ed.), Lust an Erkenntnis, r991, 79-102 4B.P. CopENHAVER, Hermetica, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 5 H.D. Betz, Schépfung und Erlésung im hermet. Fragment K.K., in: Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche 63, 1966, 160-187 (= Id., Gesammelte Aufsatze I, 1990, 22-51) 6 W.Bousset, s.v. K.K., RE 11, 1386-1391 7P.A.Carozzi, Gnose et sotériologie dans la Koré Kosmou hermétique, in: J. Rres et al. (ed.), Gno-

sticisme & monde hellénistique, 1982, 61-78 8 H.JackSON, Isis, Pupil of the Eye of the World, in: Chronique dEgyte 61, 1986, 116-135 9 J.P. Mang, La création dans les Hermetica, in: Recherches augustiniennes 21, 1986, 3-53..

J-HO.

KOSMETES

1 R.Patrucco, Lo sport nella Grecia antica, 1972, 263265.

J. JUTHNER, s.v. K. (5), RE 11, 1452f.; Id., s.v. Kwouxouayia, RE 11, 1450f.; G.DOBLHOFER, P.MauriTscuH, U.SCHACHINGER, Boxen (Quellendokumentation zur Gymnastik und Agonistik im Alt. 4), 1995, 279, 307.

WD.

Korynephoroi

(xoguvnddeot;

korynéphoroi,

[1] Bodyguards who were to protect — Peisistratus against an alleged threat from his opponents. They were granted to him by the Athenian people. He used them to occupy the acropolis (Hdt. 1,59). Solon supposedly recognized this striving for tyranny and he was the only one to declare himself against the bodyguards ([Aristot.] Ath. Pol. 14,2; Plut. Solon 30). [2] According to a later tradition, bodyguards of the tyrant of Sicyon (Poll. 3,83; Steph. Byz. s.v. Xtos). H. BERVE, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 1967, 24, 32f., 47f., 69, 81; L. DE LiperRo, Die archa. Tyrannis, 1996, 58. BP.

[3] Police corps in Antioch [1], subordinate to the city senate, mentioned only by Libanius (Lib. Or. 48,9). J.H. W. G. Lizpescuuetz, Antioch, 1972, 122.

Korykion Antron (Koetxov dvtgov; Korykion antron). A grotto (Quaternary period) with two chambers, named after Apollo’s daughter Corycia (Paus. 10,6,3), on the northern side of — Parnassus (on a height of 1,360 m) above Delphi (today’s Sarandavli). The cavern, which Str. 9,3,1 and Paus. 10,32,2 regarded as most beautiful, was used by the neighbouring population as a place of refuge (in the Persian invasion of 480 BC, Hdt. 8,36,2), but primarily, as a cult site from as early as the end of the 8th cent. BC. Literary tradition (e.g. Paus. 10,32,7), as well as votive inscriptions in the interior and votive offerings [1. 419, no. 2], show that the grotto was later dedicated to Pan and the Nymphs. 1N.D. PAPACHATZIS, Mavoaviov “EAAddog Teoujynoics 5, 1981, 417-419.

P.AManpry, L’Antre Corycien II, in: BCH Suppl. 7, 1981; 9, 1984; C.Morean, Athletes and Oracles, 1990, 130ff., 148ff.; E.PIEsKE, s.v. Kwovxiov dvteov, RE ro, 1448-1450.

G.D.R.

Korykos (xdeuxoc; korykos, Lat. follis pugilatorius). A

‘mace-

bearers’).

W.P.

Korythale (xogv0ahn, xoQu0aric; Rorythdlé, korythalis, ‘leafy twig’ [1]). Doric variant type of the > Ezresione (Hsch. s.v. Kogu0ahta). Korythale is a fertility twig from the olive tree or laurel (Plut. Theseus 18), a harvest fetish or fertility fetish [2], which was placed in

front of the door at ephebic festivals and weddings (EM 531,53). At the festival of Tithenidia (= ‘wet-nurse festival’), which was celebrated with obscene dances performed by disguised actors [3], the Rorythale was presented to the goddess of fertility and wet-nurses, Artemis Korythalia (Hsch. s.v. xoguttoi). 1 P.CHANTRAINE, in: Mél. G. Glotz 1, 1932, 163ff. 2 O. SCHONBERGER, Griech. Heischelieder, 1980, 29f., 40 3 NILsson, Feste, 182ff. RE.ZI.

Kory(n)thos (Kégu(v)00c). Epithet of > Apollo at Corone in Messene. He was worshipped as a healing god, following an ancient tradition (Paus. 4,34,7). RA.ML Koskinomanteia see > Divination

hanging sack of sand (filling also: flour, fig seeds), used

by boxers (— Fist-fighting) and pancratists (+ Pankration) as a training aid (Phil. Peri gymnastikés 57). It was also used for physiotherapeutic purposes (Gal. De sanitate tuenda 2,8,1-2; 2,10,1; Hippoc. Peri diaités 2,64;

Kosmetes (xoountys; kosmeétes, ‘steward’).

[1] In Athens, the official responsible for the training of the ephebes after the reorganization of the > ephébeia around 335/334 BC. The kosmeétes was chosen by the

KOSMETES

5

99

people, presumably from those citizens over 40 years of age ({Aristot.] Ath. Pol. 42,2). During the two-year training period, a kosmétes was probably responsible for a contingent of ephebes for both years. He is named in many lists of ephebes from the 4th cent. BC to the 3rd cent. AD; cf. also the portrait herms from the Imperial period of Attic kosmeétai. Cu.

PéLéKrpis,

Histoire

de l’éphébie

attique,

1962;

E. Larranzi, I ritratti dei cosmeti nel Museo Nazionale di Atene, 1968; H. WreDe, Consecratio in formam deorum,

100

Koson Gold coins with the legend KOZQN, known since the Renaissance, found only in Transylvania (Romania); they elicit varying interpretations to the present day. Presumably they are to be attributed to a Geto-Dacian king Koson/Cotiso in the second half of the rst cent. BC (cf. Suet. Aug. 63,2; Flor. Epit. 2,28).

Some doubt the authenticity of the coins [2]. PIR* C

1536; 1544. 1 O.ILrescu, Sur les monnaies d’or a la legende KOZQN, in: Quaderni Ticinesi 19, 1990, 185-214

2C.PREDA,

Ein neuer Vorschlag zur Chronologie der K.-Miinzen, in: U. Perer (ed.), Stephanos nomismatikos, 1998, 555-561

1981.

[2] There were kosmétai in the same capacity in other Greek cities (e.g. ILS 8867: Nicaea) as well as, sporadically, in Ptolemaic Egypt. In Roman Egypt, the kosmeétes was a liturgical annual official in — Alexandria [1] and in the metropoles, responsible for the training of the ephebes and for donations to festivals, games, water supply, among other matters (IGRI 1974; 1097). Because of the financial burden, the post could be shared by several persons. F. OERTEL, Die Liturgie, 1917, 329ff.

[3] In Athens, a (lifelong) official who had to care of the adornment of the images of the deities (Rosmétes also means ‘he who adorns’) (documented in the 3rd cent. AD: IG IP 3683). A kosmetes appears in Delos in the

same capacity as early as the end of the 4th cent. BC (IG

XI 2, 144, 37).

3 RPCI, 312-313.

Kosymbe

(xoo(o)bupy,

U.P.

xoo(o)vpBoc;

kos(s)ymbe,

k6s(s)ymbos, also 90oavosg; thysanos, xQd000¢; krossos). Designation for the warp-threads remaining on

the edges of garments, from there also for fringe, fringed dress and fringed hairstyle (Poll. 2,30). The kosymbe was often manufactured separately to ornament the clothing. As early as Homer (Il. 14,181) it is used in connection with Hera’s belt, here designated as Ovoavoc/thysanos. In art it is often attached to dresses and cloth. The kosymbe gained symbolic meaning in the mystery cults; particularly, representations of > Isis show the kosymbe on her cloak. ~— Fimbriae E.J. WaLTeER, Attic Grave Reliefs that Represent Women in the Dress of Isis, 1988. RH.

J. Marcapgé, Au Musée de Délos, 1969, 98-101; PH. BRU-

NEAU, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos a |’€poque hellénistique et a l’€poque impériale, 1970. R.H.andP.J.R.

Kosmoi (xdop01; kdsmoi). [1] Name of the highest official in Cretan poleis, before

the 3rd cent. BC, also attested as ho késmos (singular) or hoi kosmiontes (plural). Kosmoi had political and military leadership functions in addition to their representative and judicial duties. The department of the kosmoi could include up to ro officials and a ‘leader’ (startagétas = strategos; later protokosmos). It made political decisions and was subject to the control of the people. If they performed their office well, the kosmoi could be elected to the council (Aristot. Pol. 1272a 7-13). Iteration was possible, in Drerus after ten years,

in Gortyn after three [1. no. 90 and 121]. 1K.Hatior

(ed.),

Inschr.

Gesetzestexte

der

friithen

griech. Polis. Aus dem Nachlafs von R. Koerner, 1993. H.-J. GEHRKE, Gewalt und Gesetz, in: Klio 79, 1997, 2368, esp. 56-58; ST. Link, Das griech. Kreta, 1994, 97-112. K.-W.WEL.

[2] Cult officials in the Delphinium of > Miletus. TH. WIEGAND, Didyma 2, 1958, 324.

H.VO.

Kothon see > Vessels, shapes and types of; > Pilgrim flasks Kottabos (xottafoc; kdttabos, verb: xottaPitew; kot-

tabizein). Greek party game, probably of Sicilian origin (schol. Aristoph. Pax 1244; Anac. fr. 41 D), played by women (hetaerae) and men during a symposium (+ Banquet). Kottabos is frequently mentioned in ancient literature (since Anac. fr.. 41 D = Ath. 10,4274) and has especially been captured in vase images from the end of the 6th cent. BC on. The goal was to strike a metal disk, resting on a construction similar to a lamp stand, with wine dregs, shot from a drinking cup witha hurling motion. When hit, the disk fell, with a loud noise, on a soundboard suspended from the middle of the construction (Ath.15,665d-668c). The drinking cup was moved by putting an index finger through one of the handles and performing a hurling, turning motion. The game was considered a > game of dexterity, but even more as a love oracle promising the favour of a boy ora hetaera (e.g. Ath. 15,668a-c; Pind. fr. 128), whose name was called out during the throw. Eggs or cakes were also played for in Plato Comicus 46 (= Ath. 15,666de) even kisses. In a variant of the kottabos game, it was attempted to sink a figure (thus in Nonnus Dion. 33,64-104) or flat vessels, floating in a bowl, by shooting wine dregs at it (xottaBoc év Aexdvy, en lekdnet; Nonnus. Dion. ibid.; Poll. 6,110; Ath. 15,666d);

Iol

102

possibly — fish-plates, whose shape is suited to floating, served as target.

Theog. 346ff., who also connects Apollo and the Oceanids with this transition). As later theophoric names show (of the form Asopo-dotos, ‘he who was given by Asopus’), the river gods, like many other deities, were regarded as givers of children [2]. The goddess of birth + Eileithyia attests to the close link with > birth (cf.

E.Csapa, M.C. Miier, The K.-toast and an Inscribed

Red-figured

Cup,

in: Hesperia

60,

1991,

367-382;

R. HuRSCHMANN, Symposienszenen auf unterital. Vasen, 1985; N.Kuniscn, Griech. Fischteller, 1989, 49-61;

W.Luppe, Das K.-Spiel mit den Essignapfchen (Kratinos fr. 124 K./A.), in: Nikephoros 5, 1992, 37-42; K. SCHNEIDER, s.v. K., RE 11, 1528-1541.

R.H.

KRATER

also, for example, Leto kourotrophos, Theoc. 18,50),

while + Hestia kourotrophos’ connection with the ritual of Amphidromia (EM s.v. Hestia kourotrophos) re-

According to HuLTscH, conversion is c. 0.27 | [r. 108, 703, table X], according to VIEDEBANTT c. 0.221

lates to the new-born’s reception into the household. Specific features of the cult cannot be identified. Veneration of a deity with the function of kourotrophos was integrated in other cult observance. No specific festivals existed. The nearest thing was the third day of the Athenian — Thesmophoria, which carried the name Kalligeneia (‘fine birth/offspring’). Whether every goddess carrying a child in her arms is a representation of a deity with a kourotrophos cult remains an unsettled question due to the almost total lack of accompanying

(2. 1547f.] with fairly large regional variations.

inscriptions.

Kotyle [1] see > Skyphos [2] (xotbAr/kotylé; Latin cotula, cotyla). Graeco-Latin

name for a > measure of volume for liquids equalling V4, > metretes or "/,, > chous [1], the equivalent of 4 oxybapha or 6 kyathoi. Also the name for a dry measure of a volume of '/,,, > medimnos or '/,, > hekteus.

1 F.Huxtrscu, Griech. und rém. Metrologie, 2 O. VIEDEBANTT, S.v. K. (2), RE 11, 1546-1548.

71882 H.-.S.

1TH. HADZISTELIOU PRICE, Kourotrophos. Cults and Representations of Greek Nursing Deities, 1978 2 E.Sitr1c, De Graecorum nominibus theophoris, 1911.

E.G.

Kouropalates (xovgomaidtns; kouropalates; from Lat.

cura palatii). Initially a term for an official responsible for palace business, used for the first time by — Justi-

Kraniomanteia see > Divination

nianus [1] I as a higher > court title for his successor

Krasis see > Sandhi

~ lustinus [4] IL. In the period following it was mainly reserved for members of the imperial family or for foreign princes.

Krater (6 xeatye/ho krater from xegdvvum,

ODB 2,1157; R. GUILLAND, Titres et fonctions de l’Empire byzantin, 1976, III. FT.

Kouros, Kouroi see > Sculpture; > Statues, groups of statues

kerdn-

nymi, ‘to mix’; Linear B: acc. ka-ra-te-ra). Wide-mout-

hed vessel for mixing water and wine, used at banquets (Hom. Od. 1,110), as well as in sacrificial rites (Hom. Il. 3,269) and religious festivals (Hdt. 1,51). Gyges, Alyattes and Croesus are supposed to have donated splendid large kraters of precious metal to Delphi. Their capacity was given in amphorae (Hadt. 1,51; 70; cf. Hom. Il. 23,741; > Amphora [2]), their value measured ac-

Kourotrophos (xoveotedpoc; kourotrophos, ‘child nourishing’) is, as the title of a function, the name or

epiclesis of numerous Greek gods and goddesses concerned with the growing up of the new generation and its introduction into the world of adults (lists in| 1. 189195|). The epiclesis is used of Artemis (Diod. Sic. 55735), Demeter (Hsch. s.v. kourotrophos), Eileithyia,

Ge (Hes. Theog. 479f.) and the nymphs. It is also attested for Hecate in Hes. Theog. 450-452 and, from Hom. Il. 19,142 onwards, for local river gods. A kourotrophos mentioned in an inscription might be a maior deity known locally in that function, but might equally be aa being specifically concerned with that function, as was almost certainly the case with the (plural) Kourotro-

phoi in Eretria (IG XII 9, 269). The kourotrophos’ responsibility covered the entire youth, from birth to adulthood, as is especially clear in the case of Artemis. Also, in the earliest texts, the ++ river gods were connected with the transition of young males into adulthood (- Initiation) and in that capacity receive their sacrifice of hair (Hom. l.c.; Hes.

cording to weight (Hdt. 1,14; cf. Plin. HN 33,15). Supports for kraters (bypokratéridia, hypostata) were fashioned separately (Hdt. 1,25). Kraters of clay, most of them large, placed on top of graves and serving as a receptacle for donations for the dead, are known from the 9th to 7th cent. BC. New shapes, clearly belonging to the symposium, developed around 600 BC (> Vessel shapes, fig. C 1-4; 9): the column krater or krater korinthiakos, derived from an older type of krater with hanging handles, the volute krater or krater lakonikos, and the cauldron without handles or feet, put on a high stand, probably the ancient krater argolikos (technical term dinos or deinos; > Lebes). Chalchidian

kraters kept the old shape of the high handle in the 6th cent. More recent Attic types of kraters are called calyx and bell kraters, after their general shape. The 1.65 m high, 1200 | bronze krater from Vix, a volute krater in form, and a burial object of a Celtic prince, gives an idea of ancient ornamental kraters. This type of krater was considered representative and was richly painted (in the case of ceramic kraters) (> Clitias, > Euphronius [2],

KRATER > Pronomus painter,

+ Apulian vases). Marble kraters

of this type were still highly appreciated in the Imperial period. I. ANGER, s.v. Mischkrug, RE 15, 2030-2040; R. LULLIES, Der Dinos des Berliner Malers, in: AK 14, 1971, 44-553 J.Baxtr, Der Kolonetten-K. in Korinth und Attika zw. 625 und 550 v.Chr., 1974; J. DE La GENIERE, Des usages du cratére, in: REA 89, 1987, 271-277; S. FRANK, Att. Kelch-K., 1990; H.E. SCHLEIFFENBAUM, Der griech. Voluten-K., 1991; D. GRASSINGER, R6m. Marmorkratere, 1991; I.McPHEE, Stemless Bell-Kraters from Ancient Corinth, in: Hesperia 66, 1997, 99-145; C.ISLER-KERENyI, Der Frangois-K. zw. Athen und Chiusi, in: J.H. Oak ey et al. (ed.), Athenian Potters and Painters, 1997,

523-39.

LS.

Kratesis (xedtnoic; krdtésis) denotes in Greek civil law

the actual power over an object, allowing physical access to it, comparable to ownership, but not understood technically in the sense of the Roman possessio (the Greeks knew neither possession by prescription (— usucapio) nor a special ownership protection by > interdictum). Kratesis was exercised, for example, by the creditor on the mortgaged object, even if this had remained with the debtor, and likewise by the tenant on a leased property. A person having the kratesis on an object was not allowed to dispose of it, e.g. sell or transfer it or lease it on his part. Only the > kyrios had the power of disposal. A. KRANZLEIN, Eigentum und Besitz im griech. Recht, 1963; H.-A.RupprecnT, Einfiihrung in die Papyruskunde, 1994, 132f. GT.

Kratos see > Bia

Kredemnon

104

103

(xohdenvov; kredemnon, Latin calautica,

also xdhuuval kdlymna, xodbaten/kalyptre). In general the top covering, also of a wine or storage vessel (Hom. Od. 3,392) or of a circular wall (Hom. Il. 16,100), but subsequently mostly a woman’s headscarf which coyered the shoulders and could be used to conceal the face (Hom. Il. 14,184; 16,470; Hom. Od. 1,334). In the 5th cent. BC the word continued to be used only in poetry (e.g. Eur. Phoen. 1490); the usual expressions for veils and especially for bridal veils were kalymna and kalyptré (cf. Aesch. Ag. 1178). The kredemnon was already part of a woman’s traditional dress on the monuments of the archaic period [1]. In the classical period the veil frequently appears on Attic representations of weddings and domestic scenes, and also on goddesses and heroines. 1 J. BoARDMAN et al., Greek Art, 1997, fig. 70.

H. Haaxu, Der Schleier der Penelope, in: Gymnasium 66, 1959, 374-380; D. ARMSTRONG, E. A. RATCHFORD, Iphigenia’s Veil. Aeschylus, Agamemnon 228-48, in: BICS 32, 1985, 1-12; D.L. Cairns, Veiling, aiSic, and a Red-Figured Amphora by Phintias, in: JHS 106, 1996, 152-158.

RH.

Krepis [1]

(xonmic/krépis,

xonmidmpo/krépiddma).

Ancient

term, documented frequently in building inscriptions, for the stepped base which served as the foundation for various edifices, but particularly for Greek colonnade construction (sources: EBERT 7-9). The krepis rests on the > euthynteria (the top layer of the foundation, the first to be precisely planed) and ends in the - stylobate, the surface on which the columns stand. The shaping of the initially one- or two-stepped krepis in the early 6th cent. BC is an important result of the coming into being of the Doric order in stone construction (+ Temple). In the early wooden constructions the columns predominantly rested on simple stone slabs. From the late 6th cent. BC, a krepis with three very pronounced steps becomes canonical; in the west (Sicily), a krepis can often be found with four steps interrupted by flights of smaller steps (> Scala) at the front (Agrigentum, so-called temple of Juno Lacinia). In keeping with the growing significance of the temple in the 6th and 5th cents. BC as architecture which was visually striking yet largely functionless in cult, the krepis increasingly developed into a pedestal, similar to the plinth of a statue, that sharply marked off the structure on top of it from the natural topography and elevated it to the status of a plastic work of art. This change is evidenced in particular by the > dipteroi of Ephesus and Didyma, rebuilt in the 4th cent., with their artistic shaping of individual steps and indeed of the whole stepped structure, which almost resembled a podium and had been fashioned for visual effect and aesthetic impact. > Curvature (cf. also ~ optical refinements) constituted a significant complication in the making of the krepis. The stone base, usually profiled, of > tumulus graves from the 7th cent. BC onward is also termed krepis (> Etruria, > Lydia). Cu. Hocxer, Architektur als Metapher, in: Hephaistos 14, 1996, 57-59; W. MULLER- WIENER, Griech. Bauwesen in der Ant., 1988, 217 s.v. K. C.HO.

[2] A sturdy leather shoe (Lat. crepida, crepidula), worn by both men and women, later also recorded as a stage shoe (vita Soph. 6, drawing on Istros) and a festival shoe (Theoc. 15,6). From about 200 BC, the krepis is part of Roman official dress. W.H. Gross, s.v. K., KIP 3, 1969, 337.

RH.

Kriobolion [1] (xevoBdorALov; kriobolion, Lat. criobolium; IG XIV 269 no. 1018,4 and to, 4th cent. AD). Sacrifice of a

ram, principally carried out in the Attis-Cybele-cult [1; 2]—not in March [3]-, on the evidence of Latin inscriptions (znd-—3rd cents.) [4; 5] together with the ~ taurobolium (bull sacrifice), 1 PH. BoRGEAUD, Taurobolion, in: F.Grar (ed.), Ansichten griech. Rituale, 1998, 183-185 2 W.BuRKERT, Ancient Mystery Cults, 1987,93 3 Nitsson, GGR 2, 651 4 M.J. VERMASEREN, Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque

105

106 (CCCA), 1996, 193, s.v. criobolium

5 E. LOMMATZSCH,

s.v. criobolium, ThIL 4, 1206.

[2] Competition of ephebes in Pergamum (OGIS II 5 14 with n. 36, 37, no. 764, 27, 135 BC), in which a ram was caught and sacrificed. W.-A.M. Kroiseios (Kgoiceioc otatio; Kroiseios statér). Coin of the Lydian king > Croesus (middle of the 6th cent. BC),

made of pure gold (99%) with confronting foreparts of a lion and a bull on the obverse and two indented squares (+ quadratum incusum) on the reverse, pro-

duced as a heavy and a light > stater, weighing 10.71 g or 8.055 g, subdivided into thirds, sixths or twelfths of a stater. Besides the gold coin, staters were minted in pure silver, weighing 10.70 g, and hemistaters, weighing 5.35 g. At a gold/silver value ratio of 1/13.33, twenty silver hemistaters are the equivalent of one light gold stater [1]. 1 P. Naster, The Weight-System of the Coinage of Croesus, in: Actes du 8° Congr. Intern. de Numismatique, New York-Washington 1973, 1976, 125-133. H. CHANTRAINE s.v. K., KIP 3, 352; SCHROTTER, s.v. K.,

Raz

GE.S.

Kronia see > Kronos

Kronos (Kodvoc; Kronos). A. BRIEF DESCRIPTION B.MyTH D. OTHER CULTS AND FESTIVALS RIFICES

SAC-

A. BRIEF DESCRIPTION In Greek theogonic myth, K. acts as leader of the + Titans, the pre-Olympian generation of gods who were defeated and overthrown by — Zeus and his siblings. He was worshipped only in periods of ritual licence. The reference myths of these carnivalesque festivals connected K.’s rule, on the one hand, with the notion of a pre-Olympian world characterized by patricide and infanticide, but on the other hand, with the idea of paradisical primeval times. He was identified, among other, with the West Semitic god El and with Roman

mordial parents Heaven and Earth by emasculating his father with a dentated sickle. He then frees his siblings from Earth’s body, into which Uranus had thrown the new-borns, and becomes the new king. With his sister ~ Rheia, he fathers the Olympic gods, but devours his children immediately after birth out of fear of a male successor. Rheia manages to save only her youngest son Zeus with a ruse. She gives K. to swallow not her child, but a stone wrapped in diapers and carries the child to Crete, where he grows up in secret. When Zeus reaches adulthood, he forces K. to spit out the stone, along with

his siblings, who have grown to adolescence inside their father’s body. With their help, he overpowers K. and the Titans in a war that lasts ten years. The defeated enemies are exiled to Tartarus, which is already mentioned in the Iliad as their place (8,478ff.; 14,200ff., 274; 15,225). With the kingship of Zeus, the patriarchal family is constituted as a basic unity, together with the tripartite structure of the world and the cycle of three seasons as the basis of the agricultural year. In contrast, the kingship of K. represents an anarchic past that knew neither hierarchical family structure nor agriculture. For the same reason, other myths identify the rulership of K. with the time of a golden race unburdened by agricultural work because the earth mother voluntarily gave away all nourishment; a race which did not yet procreate through marriage (Hes. Op. 1ooff.). It was imagined to be a vegetarian time where all food was procured by gathering only (Dikaiarchos, fr. 48 and 49 WEHRLI; > Period).

C. KRONIA E. HUMAN

KRONOS

Saturnus, and like the latter, with a > planet

[16. 20rof.]. Led by folk etymology, > Orphism allegorically interpreted K. as > Chronos, god of time. B. MyTH Leaving aside that K. was the predecessor of + Zeus, he did not occupy a fixed place in mythological genealogy. For instance, he was considered to be the son of Helius and Gaia (PDerveni, col. X, 2ff. [23. appendix p. 6]), of Oceanus and Tethys (OF, fr. 16), or of Uranus and Hestia (Euhemerus, FGrH 63 F 3). But in the oldest and most influential version by Hesiod, modelled after the Hittite > Kumarbi myth (Theog. 137ff.; cf. Apollod. 1,1-2), K. is a son of Uranus and Gaia. On the advice of his mother, Earth, he separates the two pri-

Ancient > comedy [9] presented the unburdened life under K. as a wishful utopian fantasy (in Ath. 6,267f ff.). Political propaganda glorified the tyranny of — Peisistratus as a return of the time of K. (Aristot. Ath. Pol.

16,7), anticipating the ideology of apocalyptic revolutionary movements and the panegyric of rulership which emerged in the Augustan period [8]. In contrast, actual political power was always legitimized by reference to Zeus and the world order he founded. Zeus guaranteed the norms of everyday life, while K., the interrex, represented their suspension in times of exception during certain festivals. Utopian fantasy perpetuated these desirable times by allowing K. to escape from the underworld. It placed him on a distant Isle of the Blessed, not accessible by normal transport, and made him king of the heroes transported there (Hes. Op. 173a-e; Pind. Ol. 2,68ff.). This fantasy developed further into the utopia of a people on the fringes of the world; K. being imagined asleep on an island beyond Britain (Plut. De facie 26; De def. or. 18). C. KRONIA Because K. used a sickle to emasculate Uranus, he was regarded in the past as a harvest god; the Kronia were interpreted accordingly as a harvest festival [6; 7; 14]. In the 2oth cent., many scholars rejected this paradigm [5; 10; 18; 20; 21], preferring a more formal explanation. They view the Kronia as part of a cycle of festivals, which prepare, in the period between two

KRONOS

107

108

calendar years, the renewed establishment of the social order through rituals of dissolution and reversal [5; 10; 18]. However, the denial of a link with agriculture leads (modern) scholarship to contradict the way the ancients conceived themselves. According to literary sources, the head of families provided their harvesters with food, in order to thank them for their work, in the country as well as in the cities. In Athens, the festival was thought to be founded by the first king Cecrops, as was an altar for K. and Rheia (Philochorus, FGrH 328 F 97; Accius in Macrob. Sat. 1,7,37). The temple of K. was located next to a sanctuary of Ge Olympia in the temenos of Zeus Olympios. Every year, wheat bread and honey were thrown into a crevice there, through which the water of the Deucalian flood (> Deucalion) was said to have flown off (Paus. 1,18,7) — probably the aition of an underground grain silo. The time of the festival in the first month of the new year Hekatombaion (Dem. Or. 24,26) corresponds to the time of year when the silos are filled: Although the cutting of barley in Attica was already completed around summer solstice, the harvest season itself did not end until the following month, after the threshing of the grain. K.’s sickle was interpreted in antiquity as a symbol of harvest (Macrob. Sat. 1,7,24; cf. Varro fr. 243 CARDAUNS). According to an aetiological myth, the island of Corcyra was once called Drepane, either after K.’s sickle, or after the sickle used by + Demeter for teaching the Titans to cut grain (Apoll. Rhod. 4,982ff.; Timaeus, FGrH 566 F 79). K. and the Titans can therefore be regarded as mythical prefigurations of harvesters. Just as K., the interrex, came to power with the aid of a sickle, the slaves likewise earned a temporary elevation in status through their harvest labour. Conversely, the landowner was particularly dependent on — and vulnerable to black-

seasonal transition, too, was associated with the change

mail from — his labourers during the harvest, thus being,

in a sense, bereft of his potency, just as Uranus was by K. He could only regain his status by laying on a feast in exchange for the grain, in the course of which he took on the role of a host waiting on his guests. In northern Europe, too, similar social antagonisms were balanced

out by comparable harvest customs prior to the introduction of combine harvesters [19]. This practice forms the basis of the Greek myth of paradise. The abundance of food and the freedom from cares enjoyed by the golden race was the imaginary reflection of the blessings of harvest consumed in an informal atmosphere. In Alexandria, special cakes were dedicated to K. and served to whoever desired them in the temple of the god (Ath. 3,11ob). The re-establishment of hierarchy at the end of the Kronia found its archetypal reflection in the overthrow of the festival’s godly representative by Zeus. In contrast to the harvest god, who brought back the riches of paradisical primeval times at the end of the agricultural year, the rain god — Zeus co-operated with the farmers during sowing. He opened the arduous ploughing season in the autumn, when the agricultural year began anew. This

of rulership between K. and Zeus. In the festival calendar of Magnesia, the month of sowing was called Kronion (Syll.3 589). Asa rule, however, the Ionian month by this name, which implies a festival of K. coincided with the Attic harvest month of Skirophorion [1]. Participation in the Kronia conveyed an essential social experience to the farmers’ adolescent sons. As long as they were still under-age, their social status corresponded to that of the labourers, but as future heirs,

they were called upon to identify themselves with their father’s interests. Thus; in their own life history, they repeated, in the transition through a reversed world, the paradigmatic process of Zeus growing into the role of father. In this context, an episode of the myth of Theseus is illuminating (Plut. Thes. 12). The dominant role of + Medea in this myth suggests that in the ritual anarchy of the festival not only the difference in status between master and servant was reversed, but also that between man and woman. Because women did not work on the fields, they did not participate in the harvest banquet layed on by the master for his servants. However, they evidently celebrated separately. In an anecdotal text by Machon, a hetaera stepped out of the temple of Aphrodite during the Athenian Kronia (Ath. 13,581a). The only known festival of Aphrodite of that month was also celebrated at the end of the harvest season: the Adonia. Although this was a festival exclusively for women, it suggests — in the form of the lamented ephebe > Adonis —a status reversal (or the symbolic death) of the male initiands. Kronia and Adonia were in accordance with each other in the staging of a

reversed world. Since men and women celebrated separately, the family as a unity was dissolved. While the initiation of the ephebes took place during the Kronia, during the Adonia girls learned the secret of sexual procreation through a ritual examination of seeds. In an aetiological myth, the main deities of both festivals

were linked in a telling way: > Aphrodite, the goddess with whom sexually initiated girls identified, emerged from the severed phallus of Uranus (Hes. Theog. 188ff.). According to Nonnus, Dion. 12,45ff., K. fathered her with the amputated ‘plough’ of his father. Aphrodite could therefore also be called K.’s daughter (Epimenides, FGrH 457 F 7). According to Philo of Byblus, Astarte (Aphrodite) was granted joint rulership by K. (= El) over the cities of Phoenicia (in Euseb. Praep. evang. 1,10,31 = FGrH 790 F 2).

D. OTHER CULTS AND FESTIVALS Asa

harvest god, K. was also included in Panhellenic

festivals of initiation which fell on the ‘dead period’ of the dog-days. -» Olympia was home to a temple for K., which according to cult legend, was built by the golden race (Paus. 5,7,6). According to myth, a wrestling bout took place there between K. and Zeus, a mythical precursor to the Olympic Games (Paus. 8,2,2). In > Delphi, an omphalos was regarded as the stone spat out by K. (Hes. Theog. 498ff.; Paus. 10,2.4,6). In one version of

109

IIo

Delphic mythology, the god was the original owner of the oracle (schol. Lycoph. 200). In this perspective, the Pythian Games in their ritual reminiscence of > Apollo, god of the ephebes, taking possession of the sanctuary, also repeat Zeus’ overthrow of K. On Crete, the preOlympic era returned in imaginary form at the festival of Zeus’ birthday. In ritual dances, the childhood and youth of + Zeus were re-enacted. They represented his persecution by K. and his coming of age inside a circle of dancing Curetes (Callim. H. 1,52£f.; Diod. Sic. 5,65,4)— a mythical aition of the pyrrhiche, a weapon dance performed by adolescents (Str. 10,3,11; Lucian De saltatione 8). The myth according to which K. transformed himself into a horse and fathered the centaur > Chiron with the Oceanid Philyra (Titanomachia F 9 Davies; Pherecydes of Athens, FGrH 3 F 50; Hyg. Fab. 138) may be an allusion toa Thessalian festival of Zeus. This festival was celebrated at the early rise of Sirius, was combined with the myth of K. and was held at Chiron’s cave on the summit of Pelion (Heraclides, Reisebilder 2,8, p. 88 PFISTER). That the festival of Pelion took one back into the imaginary era of K. is shown by another mythological reflection. For the wedding of Peleus and Thetis was located at the very same place, a wedding during which humans and gods were united again as they had been in the > Golden Age (Cypria F 3 Davies; Hes. fr. 209-211; Pind. Pyth. 3,87ff.; Apollod. 3,13,5). It is unclear why K. was worshipped in the spring as

E. HUMAN SACRIFICES In antiquity, the concept of a primeval god who murders his father and devours his children was connected to the idea of human sacrifice, which were, supposedly, adressed to K. While the Greeks dated such practices to the mythical prehistory of their culture which had long been overcome (Ister, FGrH 334 F 48), they attributed them wholesale to contemporary barbarians (Soph. fr. 126 RapT). This was primarily aimed at the customs of the > Phoenicians. The sacrifice of sons was generally regarded in antiquity as a Phoenician practice (Porph. De abstinentia 2,56). The Carthaginians in particular were purported to engage in it (PI. Min. 31 5b-c; Porph. ibid. 2,27). Varro detects a symbolic equivalence between the grain sacrificed to K. and human seed (Antiquitates rerum divinarum fr. 244 CARDAUNS). That points to a context of harvest festivals. Greek sources claim that the children of noble families who were the designated sacrifices were laid upon the extended arms of a statue of K., rolled into a brazen ‘barley pan’ and burned alive, a grin frozen on their faces (Cleitarchus, FGrH 137 F 9). The literary tradition concerning this custom goes back to the period of the Sicilian-Carthaginian wars of the 5th cent. BC (Theophr. fr. 586 FortENBAUGH = schol. Pind. Pyth. 2,2; Diod. Sic. 13,86,3;

well. In Athens, he received cakes as sacrifices in the month of Elaphebolion (LSCG 52,23). In Elis, K. re-

ceived sacrifices around the time of the vernal equinox on a mountain named after him (Paus. 6,20,1; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,34,3). Is it possible that grain stores were amongst the thesauroi (Paus. ibid.) there? Cer-

tainly, other mountain cults of K. can be explained most plausibly with the assumption of sacred silos. On Sicily, in Libya, and lower Italy, mountains everywhere were consecrated to K. The god was said to have built fortresses there at one time (Diod. Sic. 3,61,3). From there,

it was concluded that K. was a pre-Greek mountain god [15]. It is, however, more likely that the myth was an aetiology of the urban acropoleis, that is, of the cultic centres of the town, where grain was stored safe in case of siege. Hoarded food in abundance evoked the paradise of primordial times, and made the sacred mountain fortresses appear as topographical remnants of such a paradise. The fortress of K. mentioned by Pind. Ol. 2,70f. is one of these acropoleis projected onto the Isles of the Blessed. It is doubtlessly due to the same reason that the Theban acropolis, home to a temple of Demeter Thesmophoros, the goddess of storehouses (Paus. 9,16,5; cf. 9,12,3), was called the ‘Isle of the Blessed’ (Armenidas, FGrH 378 F 5). In Thebes, a festival of servants was called Kronia (Plut. Non posse 16), involy-

ing artistic competitions (Ps.-Plut. Vita Homeri 1,4).

KRONOS

Plut. De sera numinis vindicta 6). However, it was con-

tinued as a topos in later wars, for instance the siege of ~ Tyrus, the mother-city of Carthage, by Alexander the Great (Curt. 4,3,23), the siege of Carthage by Agathocles [2] (Diod. Sic. 20,14), and the Roman

> Punic

Wars (Porph. De abstinentia 2,57). This gives rise to the suspicion that we are dealing with mechanically reproduced propaganda against the enemy [13]. As late as in the Imperial period, when Punic inscriptions attest to the fact that animals were sacrificed instead of children,

Tertullian, blind to this fact, repeats the reproach of human sacrifices (Tert. Apol. 9). An isolated account of

a human sacrifice on Rhodos [3] seems equally implausible. All reports about human sacrifices performed in the cult of K. probably have one and the same background. During harvest festivals, Mediterranean societies used to dissolve their hierarchical structures before reorganising themselves through the symbolic killing of those members who advanced into new age groups. 1 H. BiscHoFF, s.v. Kalender, RE 20, 1568-1602, here

1592 2F.BOmeEr, Unters. tiber die Rel. der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom, 3rd part, 1961, 415ff. 3 P. BONNECHERE, Le sacrifice humain en Gréce ancienne,

1994, 292 4S.SH. Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in Their Mediterranean Context, 1986

5 W.BuRKERT,

Kronia-Feste und

ihr altoriental. Hintergrund, in: S$. D6pp (ed.), Karnevaleske Phanomene in ant. und nachant. Kulturen, 1993, 11-30 6L.DEUBNER, Att. Feste, 1932, repr. 1966, 152— 155 7 FARNELL, Cults, vol. 1, 23-34 8 B.Garz, Weltalter, Zeit und sinnverwandte Vorstellungen, 1967 9 G.M. Gayo; La edad de oro en Hesiodo y en la comedia antigua, in: Helmantica 28, 1977, 377-387 10 GRAF 11.M.Mayer, K., in: ML2, 1890/94, 1452-1573 12 A.MomMseNn, Feste der Stadt Athen im Alt., 1998,

32-45

13$.Moscatt, Il sacrificio punico dei fanciulli:

KRONOS

Realita o invenzione?, 1987

14 Nirsson, GGR, vol. 1,

510-516 15 M.POHLENZ, K. und die Titanen, in: Neue Jbb. fiir das klass. Alt. 37, 1916, 549-594 161d.,s.v.K., RE 11.2, 1982-2018

6.1, 142-147

Ii2

TEL

17E.D. SeRBETI, s.v. K., LIMC

18H.S. VeRSNEL, K. and the Cronia, in:

Id., Transition and Reversal in Myth and History, 1993,

89-135 191. WEBER-KELLERMANN, Erntebrauch in der landlichen Arbeitswelt des 19. Jh., 1965 20M.L. West (ed.), Hesiod Theogony, with Prolegomena and Commentary, 1966, 2osff. 21 U.v. WiLaMow1ITz-MOELLENporrF, K. und die Titanen, in: Id., KS V, 2, 1937, 157-183

22 A. Wypustek, The Problem of Human Sacrifices in Roman North Africa, in: Eos 81, 1993, 263-280 23 Der orphische Papyrus von Derveni, in: ZPE 47, 1982, Anhang 1-12. GB.

Krypteia (xounteia; krypteia). There are two different versions regarding the institution called krypteia in -» Sparta. According to Plato, the krypteia was a military training under the harshest conditions in the open field, with the soldiers supplied only with small amounts of equipment. The goal was to increase the courage of the Spartans and their capacity to bear pain (Pl. Leg. 633b-c; cf. P Lond. 187). Plutarch, on the other hand, reports that young Spartans, solely provided with a sword and little food, had the task of hiding by day and murdering — helots by night. Because of the very brutality of the krypteia, it is of importance to him to date its introduction only to the time after the great uprising of the helots before the middle of the sth cent. BC, and hence to deny a link with Lycurgus (Plut. Lycurgus 28 = Aristot. fr. 538 R). These two versions are by no means incompatible. Possibly, a test of toughness which was originally military later took on more extensive functions that were legitimized through the ephores’ annual declaration of war on the helots. It is a convincing hypothesis that the xovustot (kryptot) in the Classical period were specially chosen young Spartans shortly before the attainment of full citizenship, and that the krypteia should therefore be viewed as an initiation rite at which the > agogé was concluded through the killing of an enemy. In 222 BC the krypteia seems to have fought as a unit in Sellasia (Plut. Cleomenes 28). ~ Initiation 1 W.DEN Boer, Laconian Studies, 1954 2 P. CartLEDGE, Agesilaus and the Crisis of Sparta, 1987 3 J. Ducat, Crypties, in: Cahiers Glotz VIII, 1997, 9-38 4Id., Les Hilotes, r990

5 M.I. FINLey, Sparta, in:

K. Curist (ed.), Sparta, 1986, 327-350

6S.HODKIN-

SON, s.v. Krypteia, OCD, +1996, 808 7H.JEANMAIRE, La cryptie Lacedémonienne, in: REG 26, 1913, 121-150 8 N. KENNELL, The Gymnasium of Virtue: Education and Culture in Ancient Sparta, 1995 9 P. Vipat-Naquet, Le chasseur noir, 1981. P.C.

Ktisis Poems (xtiotc/ktisis, foundation’). As a variant

of the pleasure the Greeks took in determining a first discoverer (or inventor) (me@t0¢ eveetys, > protos heu-

retes), the tale about the origin of cities or colonies is a

very widespread aetiological motif in ancient Greek culture. City founders were either mythical figures or were accorded hero status after their death. (Usually a hero to whom an oracle intimated that he should leave his home, or a heroine abducted by a god and forced to settle in a wild region). In both cases cultic honours and festivals were dedicated to them (> Hero cult), which were periodically recurring occasions for the public recital of myths of foundation. The motif has been well attested since Hom. II 2,661-69 (settlement of Rhodes by Tlepolemus). It subsequently becomes a recurring historical-narrative element of elegiac and _ lyrical poetry (> Historical epic) or, particularly in the sth cent. BC,

an

historical-encomiastic

element

of the

praise of cities or founding kings within choral poetry. Examples: Pind. Pyth. 1,59-63 (Aetna); 5,55-61, 7281, 89-95 (Cyrene); Pind. Ol. 7;27-33 (Rhodes); Bacchyl. 11,64-72 (Tiryns). This motif (praise of Hiero [1]) is also the basis of the tragedy regarding the founding of Aetna (476/75), which Aeschylus [1] wrote during his visit to Syracuse (Aeschyl. fr. 6-11 R.; cf. already Solon’s gesture of homage to Philocyprus: fragment 11 GENTILI-PRATO).

In the Classical period (5th/4th cents. BC) ktisispoems (KP) were written only occasionally. > Ion of Chios for instance wrote about the founding of Chios (fr. 7-9 G.-P., although it is unknown whether this was in prose or elegiac distichs). Ktisis historiography in prose was cultivated in the 5th—4th cents. BC e.g. by Hellanicus, Lampsacus.

Xenomedes

of Ceos

and

Charon

of

Interest in KP was renewed in the Hellenistic period when the countless city foundations of Alexander and the Diadochi gave new topicality to this view of local history. — Callimachus wrote a prose treatise on foundations and changes of names of islands and cities, as well as an overview of the origins of Greek cities in the first book of the Aitia (fr. 50,1-83 MASSIMILLA). > Apollonius [2] of Rhodes integrated countless references to foundation legends into his Argonautikd (1,73 5ff.5 1,1321ff.; 2,746ff.; 4,1470ff.) and apparently also treated in more detail, perhaps in various short poems, the foundations of Alexandria, Caunus, Cnidos, Naucratis and Rhodes (CollAlex 4-12; the nature of the poem about Canobus is unclear). The Lyrkos of + Nicaenetus too dealt with the foundation of Caunus. Ktiseis are attributed to > Demosthenes [3] of Bithynia as well. Between the 4th and 5th cents. AD, the poetry of legendary foundations flourished again. During this period, various Pdtria (Méteua, i.e. works about the foundation of cities) were written by > Claudianus [3], + Christodorus of Coptus, + Hermias and > Horapollon (cf. also P Argentoratensis 481 = 24 HEITSCH); numerous ktistic elements are to be found in the Dionysiaka of > Nonnus. C.DouGHeErTy,

The

D.Greui-Prccarpi1,

Poetics

La

of Colonization,

‘Cosmogonia

1993;

di Strasburgo’,

1990; H. GruBER, Der Lobpreis von Stadten und Landern

113

I1l4

in der griech. Dichtung der alexandrinischen Zeit, thesis 1939; K.HartiGAN, The Poets and the Cities, 1979; E. Herrscu (ed.), Die griech. Dichterfr. der Kaiserzeit, 2.4;

S. Jackson, Apollonius of Rhodes, in: Quaderni Urbinati 78, 1995, 57-66; N.Krevans, On the Margins of Epic: the Ktisis-Poems of Apollonius, in: Hellenistica Groningana IV, 2000; P.B. ScHMID, Studien zu griech. Ktisissa-

gen, thesis 1944 (1947).

MFA.

Ktistes (xtiotys; ktistés). Ktistes (from Greek xtitew/ ktizein, ‘to make habitable, to settle’ or ‘to found, set up’) is (next to > archégétés and oikistés; Latin conditor) the term used in the Greek language area in preChristian times to describe founders of cities. In inscriptions from the Hellenistic period ktistes also often means founder of games or other public institutions (cf. e.g. CIG 2851). Christian authors use ktistes in the sense of Creator (God) (of the earth, flora, fauna etc.). Ktistes in the sense of city founder could be a god (particularly Apollo), one of the heroes (frequently + Hercules) or a human accorded the status of hero, but also a real human being (catalogue in [5. 360-3 86]). Whilst several cities were considered traditionally to have been founded by gods or heroes and also bore this origin in their name (Hermoupolis, Heliopolis, Heracleias Menander Rhetor 1,353 RussEL/WILsoN; + Eponymus), for others, particularly in the Roman Imperial period, a mythclogical origin was subsequently construed, even though the human kfistes was known (e.g. Paus. 3,21,7: ~ Gythium). In the tradition of the (city) founder’s cult that emerged for Alexander [4] the Great and the subsequent Hellenistic kings, who established for the first time, or re-established as second founders, numerous cities ([1. 156; 5. 202-312]; > Euergetes), Roman emperors too (especially > Hadrianus) were accorded the title ktistes as well as cultic vene-

ration (cf. Menander Rhetor 1,377 R/W). -» Apoikia; > Diomedes [1] 1 Cu. Hasicut, Gottmenschentum und griech. Stadte, 21970 ~=—-2 I. MALKIN, Rel. and Colonization in Ancient

Greece, 1987

3 Id., What’s ina Name? The Eponymous

Founders of Greek Colonies, in: Athenaeum 73, 1985, 114-130 4C.F. LEHMANN, Pausanias, Heros K. von Byzanz, in: Klio 17, 1921 5 W.LescHHORN, Grinder

der Stadt. Stud. zu einem polit.-rel. Phanomen der griech. Gesch., 1984

67.S. SCHEER, Myth. Vorvater: zur Bed.

griech. Heroenmythen Stadte, 1993.

im Selbstverstandnis

kleinasiat. C.F.and W.ED.

Kufa (al-Kiafa). Like Basra, founded in the early period

of Islamic conquests (AD 639). Garrison city south of what was later Baghdad, on the right bank of the Euphrates, near the capital city of the Lakhmids, al-Hira. K. soon became the new capital city of Iraq and superseded Sassanid + Ctesiphon, that from then on slowly declined. During the Caliphate (+ Caliph) of > Ali, K. rose for a short time to the status of overall capital city, and remained after Ali’s murder (AD 661) a centre of Shiite agitation (> Shiites). However, it lost in impor-

tance after the founding of Baghdad.

KUNSTPROSA

H. Dyjart, Al-Kuafa. Naissance d’une ville islamique, 1986; EI, s.v. al-Kufa; M. Morony, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest, 1984. LT.-N.

Kuh-e Khwaja (Kah-i Xvagah, Kah-i Hvagah). Basalt mountain on an island in Lake Hamin in > Drangiana/Iran. On its south-eastern slope is a site with ruins of impressive courtyards, gates, towers and rooms, at the earliest from the Parthian period but probably rather from the Sassanid and post-Sassanid period (Gaga Sahr). Numerous rooms were richly decorated with stucco ornaments and above all with colourful frescos showing Graeco-Roman, Iranian and Indian stylistic elements and representing religious and secular themes. K. is identified with a mountain Usa6a mentioned in the Younger Avesta (Yt 19.66). The latter is in its turn identified with the mons Victorialis mentioned in the Opus Imperfectum in Mattheum. K. was until long into the Islamic period the oldest and most important destination of Zoroastrian pilgrims, because the redeemer of the world (Saosyant) was expected to come from it (> Zoroaster). M. Boyce, F.GRENET, A History of Zoroastrianism 1991,

149-151;

A.HintzeE,

Der

Zamyad-Yast,

3,

1994,

40-45, 309; T.S. Kawamt, Kuh-e Khwaja, Iran and Its Wall Paintings. The Record of Ernst Herzfeld, in: The Metropolitan Mus. Journ. 22, 1987, 13-52.

JW.

Kumarbi Hurrite god whose name eludes interpretation; his cult site is the town of Urkes in the upper Habir region (Tell M6zan). A link between K., Father of the gods, and > Kronos arises primarily from the close parallels between a Hurrite succession myth, passed down in Hittite, and the Theogony of Hesiod. According to this myth, three world ages preceded the kingdom or rule of the weather god TesSub over the cosmos. These world ages were represented by the three divine kings Alalu, Anu (the god of the heavens) and K. Like Kronos, K. emasculates his predecessor Anu, thus depriving him of power. Ina hymn, K. is described as father and mother of Tessub of Halab (— Aleppo), as he, according to the succession myth, was made pregnant by devouring the genitals of Anu and he gave birth to the gods Tesub, Suwaliyatt- and Tigris (Aranzah). According to an incantation ritual, TesSub, when he takes control of the kingdom in the heavens, banishes K. together with his group of deities — the former gods — to the Underworld, and determines that their sacrificial animals will not be sheep and cattle, but only birds. Like Kronos, K. too is a god of sowing and harvesting, which is shown from the fact that in lists of sacrifices he is interchangeable with halki- (‘barley’). + Hesiodus; > Myth; > Period H.A. Horener,

Hittite Myths,

1990,

38-61

(transl.);

V.Haas, Gesch. der hethit. Rel., 1994, 82-90, 96-98, I13-II5.

Kunstprosa see > Prose-rhythm

V.H.

KUSAE, QUSAE

115

I16

Kusae, Qusae Capital city of the 14th region of Upper Egypt, on the western bank of the Nile, 50 km below Assiut. In the New Kingdom absorbed into Hermoupolis. No remains are preserved. A deity whose home was K. was later equated with Hathor, who was already compared with > Isis in the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom. The Greeks called her + Aphrodite Ourania

thrush (Monticola solitarius) a southern European song bird, described by Aristot. Hist. an. 8(9),21,617a 23-

Beitr.

zum

Hathorkult,

2 H. BEINLICH, s.v. Qusae, LA 5, 73f.

1963,

23ff.

3M.Munzer,

Unt. zur Gottin Isis, 1966, 123, 159f.

R.GR.

Kushan, Kushanians Eastern Iranian dynasty (1rst-4th cent. AD) whose territory stretched from the Ganges to Lake Aral. The dynasty evolved from nomadic tribes (part of the Yuezhi; > Indo-Scythians) who took Bactria (+ Bactria) from the Greeks. Heraios is attested as

their first ancestor, Kujula Kadphises as founder of the empire. His successors are Vima Kadphises, > Kanishka, Vasishka, Huvishka and Vasudeva (there may be several bearers of these names.). The dating is con-

tentious. The dominant religion was a syncretistic MahayanaBuddhism. The arts were greatly shaped by the GraecoBactrian inheritance (northern Bactrian style of Gandhara art; — Gandaritis). The Buddha for instance adopted traits from Greek deities. Iranian Hellenistic art was also widespread in eastern Turkestan and northern China in the wake of Buddhism. Its tradition, in modified forms, was spread as far as Japan. Official inscriptions were written in an expanded Greek alphabet. Control of the > Silk Road, and of the routes to India, ensured high trading profits. In the settlements from the Kushanian period, Roman coins and Mediterranean imports were found, for example in > CapisaBagram and Heirabad. From Greek and Latin sources, almost nothing can be gleaned about K. (It has been assumed that the Asiani of Pomp. Trog. 41 are an erroneous reading of Cusani). E.ERRINGTON

C.HU.

Kyathos see > Cyathus Kybisteter see > Entertainers

(Ael. NA 10,27). 1S.ALtLaM,

28.

> Precious stones

(ed.), The

Crossroads

of Asia,

1992;

R. GOBL, System und Chronologie der Miinzpragung des KuSanreiches, 1984. K.K.

KX painter see > Komast cups

Kyanopsia see — Pyanopsia Kyanos (xvavoc; kyanos) in Hom. Il. 11,24 (on the cuirass of Agamemnon) and in Hom. Od. 7,87 (on a wall

frieze at Alcinous’ palace), as well as in Hes. Sc. 143 (on the shield of Hercules) does not designate blueish steel, but the azure stone or > Lapis lazuli (Theophr. De lapi-

dibus 55), which was produced artificially especially in Egypt. In medicine, the kyanos that, according to Dioscorides 5,91 WELLMANN = 5,106 BERENDES, was mined on Cyprus was prescribed for ulcers. The blue colour also gave the name kyanos to the male of the blue rock

Kykloi (xixdor; kykloi, Latin cycli). The eleven celestial orbits (cf. Eudoxus fr. 62-69; Arat. 469-5 58; Geminus Astronomicus 5; Hyg. Poet. Astr. 4,1-10; Manil. 1,561-804; Achilles Astronomus, Isagoge 22-27), which are divided up according to various points of view. The only visible ‘orbit’ is the ‘oblique’ > Milky Way, all others are invisible and probably of mnemotechnical origin. Parallel to the celestial equator run the northern and southern tropic and polar orbit, respectively. These five parallel orbits are reflected on the earth and mark the boundaries of their five > zones. The ‘oblique’ zodiac (-> Ecliptic) cuts the equator at the equinoxes and its boundary is marked in the north and south by the tropics (> Seasons). Perpendicular to the zodiac stand the two colures (‘mutilated’, because the southern polar calotte was invisible), which link the

four equinoxes with the two poles: the equinoctial and the solstitial colure. The nine orbits thus far mentioned are fixed (immoti) on the celestial hollow sphere, which was considered to move, whilst the two others, the hori-

zon and the meridian, are mobile (volucres). Conversely, when viewed by the observer, or in the frame of the globe, the first nine are mobile (xtvovwevou; kinoumenoi), and the latter two immobile (Gxivntou; akinétot).

Great kykloi are those which have the centre of the cosmos, the earth, as their centre, and consequently fill up the complete expanse of the heavenly sphere. These are the seven kyk/oi apart from the tropics and polar orbits. A. REHM, s.v. K., RE 11,2321-2328.

W.H,

Kylix (i xbmM&; bé kylix). General ancient term for a wine goblet; mentioned in inscriptions are both goblets and > skyphoi as well as flat drinking bowls. As a technical term, kylix is today only used for the latter. As a bowl, made of clay, with high foot and two horizontal handles, the kylix originated in the 6th cent. BC, probably derived from Laconian examples. It could be handled particularly well when lying down; it is no coincidence that it follows Oriental banquet customs. Early forms from the 8th and 7th cents., with a low foot, are Attic late geometric bowls with animal friezes as well as eastern Jonian early archaic goblets and bird dishes. In Athens, in the earlier 6th cent., > komast cups and + Siana cups were developed. Later, as also in Ionia, the — Little-master cups, and after 5 50 BC, the types A, Band C with a flatter basin (> Vessel shapes fig. D 1-4) came into being. Type B developed into considerable size with rich pictorial decoration; it represents the flourishing of Attic red figure pottery (Cachrylion,

Tan,

118

> Euphronius [2], > Python, Hiero). The size of a kylix used in a symposium rarely exceeded a diameter of 25 cm. (Type C; more recent kylix on lower foot). In the 4th cent. BC, Athens exported red figure bowls to Etruria, apart from that they were gradually replaced by smaller drinking vessels. H. Bioescu, Formen att. Schalen von Exekias bis zum Ende des strengen Stils, 1940; F.BROMMER, K., in: AA 1967, 546; B.A. Sparkes, L.Tatcort, Black and Plain Pottery (Agora 12), 1970, 5-6, 88-105; B. BoRELL, Att. geometr. Schalen, 1978; K. VIERNEISEL, B. KAESER (ed.), Kunst der Schale — Kultur des Trinkens, 1990; H.A. G.

BriJDER, Attic Black Figure Drinking Cups. CVA Amsterdam 2, 1996. LS.

Kymation General term for an ornament (> Ornaments) shaped like a strip or a ribbon, which is encountered in all the plastic arts from antiquity, above all in relief sculpture or > architectural sculpture, > painting/vase painting, and — toreutics. Scholars distinguish the Doric kymation, consisting of a double band of orthogonal elements not dissimilar to the > maeander, the Ionian kymation, with its sequence of egg and

[LE :ZL I | Doric

IO

¢

Tr Kymation: frontal view of ornament and side-view.

darts (> Egg-and-dart moulding), as well as the Lesbian kymation with its heart-shaped leaves, separated by lance-like darts. Especially Ionian and Lesbian kymatia increasingly appear, from the late 5th cent. BC onward, as combined architectural ornaments, being layered on top of each other. H.v. HesBerG, Bauornament als kulturelle Leitform, in: W.TrILiMIcH (ed.), Stadtbild und Ideologie, 1990, 341362; W. MULLER-WIENER, Griech. Bauwesen in der Ant.,

1988, 217 s.v. K.; §.Purz, Unt. zur kaiserzeitl. Bauornamentik von Didyma, 35. Beih. MDAI(Ist), 1989; F. RUMSCHEID, Unt. zur kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hell., 1994. C.HO.

KYPROS

Kymbe see > Navigation Kyndalismos see > Games of dexterity Kypris see > Aphrodite Kypros (Cyprus) {1] l. NEoxviruic I (KHIROKITIA CULTURE, c. 7000-6000 BC) AND II (SOTIRA CULTURE, 4500-3900 BC) II. CHALCOLITHIC (c.

3900-2500 BC) III. BRonzzE AcE IRON AGE (c. 1050-750 BC)

IV. EARLy

I. NEOLITHIC I (KHIROKITIA CULTURE, c. 7000-6000 BC) AND II (SOTIRA CULTURE, 4500-3900 BC)

The settlement of K. (for the history see also — Cyprus II) began relatively late and differed signiticantly from that of the neighbouring regions Anatolia, Syria, and Palestine. While small groups of hunter-gatherers there gradually became settled farmers around 9000/8000 BC, the earliest inhabitants of the island of K. were, from the beginning, farmers, herders, hunters, and fishers, who immigrated about the beginning of the preceramic Neolithic I (c. 7000-6000 BC), probably from the Near East. Among the largest and most significant settlements of the early inhabitants are Khirokitia, Kalavassos-Tenta and Cape Andreas-Kastros in the south. The Neolithic II takes its name from SotiraTeppes, while other settlements include Agios Epiktitos-Vrysi, Philia-Drakos, and Kalavassos-Tenta. The settlements consisted of clusters of small, circular or elliptical huts, with stone foundations and plastered walls of clay bricks. Figurative > wall paintings have been preserved (Kalavassos-Tenta). One or two central posts supported what may have been a dome-shaped roof of reeds and clay. Besides the usual structures (Philia-Drakos, Sotira-Teppes), rectangular pit houses (Agios Epiktitos-Vrysi, Kalavassos-Tenta), which were sunk into the rock and had clay walls, have also been found. Their interiors were of wood and divided into smaller spaces. Influences from southern Palestine (‘Beersheba culture’) have been recognized in the sub-

terranean pit houses of Kalavassos A. The dead were buried individually in simple pit graves — inside the house, later also in the immediate vicinity or outside the settlement. Modest burial objects were necklaces or other objects of stone or shell. Among the outstanding artefacts from the early preceramic Neolithic I are elegant, thin-walled, polished bowls with spouts, decorated with grooves or reliefs (Khirokitia), violin-shaped idols in schematic human shape made of volcanic andesite, and the representation of a human head (both Khirokitia). The first attempts at pottery have been observed (Khirokitia), the flint industry was modest, metal work was still unknown. The ceramics of the Neolithic IJ (Khirokitia, Agios Epiktitos-Vrysi, Sotira-Teppes, Dhali-Agridhi, Philia-Drakos) are characterized by red-on-white ware (red painting

119

KYPROS

I20

oGE

-seaipuy

dey

sOuSey WOO0SL

IWO¥UFZ

&GOL

*

PiSyOOLe mnoysered epuls fie. 5

|

. ie

wu

solsy |

|

ened

onuaw Be

Gerunsesuy.ats pees

BISOHIN =

Sra Bid

"Ua (AV

O souawozos snyyewiy

:

ne

xD ~

reply

Tas’ *

te: nydioyy

of€

Oe

— =, le

ABad Onur)

one

_ yeu /uorept

=o

SO}PYIGZ SOISY .

(NUBIAY) 1OB}OQ

é

°

%voisipoiydy

obf

( SOUIBIYOUL}YO} xD @

ooo oo

ae (BIUUNY) RIBUK2>

oye dey cm

pisdojey eB

ZO

(0) OOL O02 00S oooL

NS Siete “

/seely Ge

KVTOPS SIWPES

sole/q Sols

epA0uN FEO ©

P1UEIN “He

121

TAR

with two-dimensional geometric and abstract motifs on a white ground). The rare combed ware (decorated with comb strokes) and dark-faced burnished ware are also found.

Important evidence for religious life can be found in clay models of sanctuaries with representations of either sacrificial scenes before a divine triad with bull masks and snakes (Vounous, Kotchati, Kalopsida) or the preparation of the funerary banquet, plank-shaped idols, decorated with carving, as imitations of wooden cult statuettes of women with children, and the use of religious symbols (bull heads, snakes) on ceramics.

Il. CHALCOLITHIC (c. 3900-2500 BC)

Despite radical destructions caused by natural catastrophes and clear cultural changes, the Chalcolithic era in K. was a phase of continuity. The number of settlements increased rapidly, Neolithic building forms were continued in their essential characteristics (ErimiBamboula, Lemba-Lakkous). Initial massive fortifications (Khirokitia, Kalavassos, Agios Epiktitos-Vrysi,

Philia-Drakos) clearly soon proved to be superfluous. Graves and ~ necropoleis are now more frequently attested: at first shaft graves without a > dromos (bottleshaped pits, Souskiou-Vathyrkakas), later with a small one (Agios Paraskevi, Philia-Vasiliko, Sotira-Kaminoudhia), and a chamber tomb (Philia-Drakos). As bur-

ial objects, necklaces, small figurines and ceramics. Figurative, schematized, cross-shaped human idols of both sexes (with indications of limbs and facial features), and depictions of animals were cut from easily worked steatite. Larger-format limestone statuettes represent naked squatting female figures (Lemba-Lakkous) and are the first indications of Cypriot religion (+ Cyprus IV). There was tremendous progress in the ceramics industry during the Chalcolithic era. Alongside Neolithic red lustrous ware there appeared Chalcolithic red-on-white ware (monochrome red painting with diverse geometric

KYPROS

B. MIDDLE BRONZE AGE (c. 1900-1650 BC)

Settlements on K. are again attested for the Middle Bronze Age: spacious rectangular living structures with several rooms, with erratic block foundations, clay brick walls and flat roof, some surrounding an open inner courtyard, some with two storeys, some with adjoining roads (Episkopi-Phaneromeni, Alambra-Moutes, Kalopsida). The remains of workshops and rich finds of tools (flint artefacts, grinding-stones) indicate considerable activities in crafts. In the north of the island, fortifications appeared, which above all provide evidence of local disputes (Dhikomo, Nitovikla, Agios Sozomenos, Krini).

Burial customs remained largely unchanged. Alongside rock chamber tombs with narrow dromos > tumulus graves are now found, as well as the first evidence of a funerary relief (Karmi-Palaealona). Ceramics are dominated by white painted ware. Regional differences in the linear (Kalopsida)

and geometric

(Lapithos)

decorative motifs applied with thick, shining, red pigment are just as characteristic as experimentation with

motifs on a white background; Erimi-Bamboula, Kis-

figurative human (ears, eyes, mouth, breasts, arms) and

sonerga-Mylouthkia, Kissonerga-Mosphilia, LembaLakkous). The first simple copper tools are recorded (chisels, hooks, spiral-shaped ornaments; Erimi-Bamboula, Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, Lemba-Lakkous, Souskiou-Vathyrkakas).

ity, which accompanied the increasing development of

animal-shaped appliqués. In addition, there were ceramics such as red-on-red, red-on-black (Karpas peninsula), red polished, black slip and red slip wares. In the south of K., a tradition, unbroken from the end of the Chalcolithic, of highly-developed, skilfully-made monochrome ceramics decorated with lines and reliefs can be recognized. It would be replaced by painted ware only in the Late Bronze Age. Groups of figures in scenes from everyday life and the plank-shaped idols, now gradually more realistic with arms and legs are further examples of production by skilled craftsmen. Models of ships should perhaps be understood as symbols of the vitality of the Cypriot export harbours. At the same time, the island’s raw copper was exploited to an increasing degree and exported to the Near East. A growing connection with eastern neighbours and the Aegean is pointed to by finds of imported

metal crafts (> Metallurgy II. A). However, indications

white painted ware

of > copper and its processing sites are not attested be-

giddo, > Ugarit) and in Cilicia and by occasional grave finds with imported Minoan ceramics.

III. BRoNzE AGE

A. EARLY BRONZE AGE (c. 2500-1900 BC) B. MIDDLE BRONZE AGE (c. 1900-1650 BC) C. LaTE BRONZE AGE (c. 1650-1050 BC) A. EARLY BRONZE AGE (c. 2500-1900

BC)

Knowledge of the Early Bronze Age in K. is based almost exclusively on the richly furnished graves of this period. Metal burial objects, primarily made in K. but in some cases imported, document a growing prosper-

fore the Middle

Bronze

Age (Ambelikou).

The first

simple rock chamber tombs with short dromos (Vounous) and wealthy burials are known. Among the ear-

on the Levantine

coast

(> Me-

liest ceramic evidence is the simple Philia ware; later,

C. LaTE BRONZE AGE (c. 1650-1050 BC) After initial troubled times, manifested in the rebu-

the hand-made red polished ware developed with considerable range of variation in form and decoration. Alongside this are also black polished ware (deep line decoration), black-slip-and-combed ware and black slip painted ware (red and white bands).

gomi, > Citium, Nikolidhes, Nitovikla) and corresponding destruction horizons, K. experienced an economic prosperity in the early Late Bronze Age (c. 1500 BC), which benefited not least from peaceful relations

ilding and new construction of fortifications (— En-

KYPROS

124

ms

with the greater and lesser powers in the eastern Mediterranean. The substantial use of stamp and cylinder seals (+ Seal) and > Cypro-Minoan script(s) on clay tablets and clay cylinders, as well as a royal exchange of letters with > Amarna and —> Ugarit (~ Amarna letters), document K.’s economic and diplomatic relation-

ships. Coastal cities founded about 1600 BC, such as Engomi, Maroni, Citium, Hala Sultan Tekke, Morphou, and Agia Irini, are the metropoleis which provide important insights into the building of fortifications in this period. Examples of sacred architecture are the sanctuaries of Agios lakovos, Myrtou-Pighades, Citium. Residential architecture with houses, baths and sanitary installations, waste water disposal, and generously laid out workshops for potteries and copper processing are recorded in Engomi, Citium, Apliki and Toumba tou Skourou. Burial complexes consisted of rock chamber tombs with dromoi and stoma (‘entryway’ between dromos and tomb chamber). In addition,

there are small —> tholos and tumulus graves (Engomi), shaft graves (Angastina, Akhera) and tombs built of sandstone blocks (Engomi), whose models are to be found in the Aegean and Levant (Megiddo). Late Bronze Age ceramic production developed two significant new wares, both still handmade: the hard fired white slip ware, with smooth surface, thick white

slip, and brownish-orange or bichromatic geometric decoration and the metallic-appearing, thin-walled base ring ware with shining surface and sculpted bases. Regional ceramic styles (white painted ware) were developed in the northwest (Morphou, Pendayia, Myrtou). The first eastern influences are shown, for exam-

ple, by the pots of the bichrome wheelmade ware, painted with birds and human figures, the imported Tell el-

Yahudiya ware and bottles of the red lustrous wheelmade ware. Exports of base ring ware to the Levantine coast and Egypt, as well as numerous finds (Engomi, Pyla, Hala Sultan Tekke, Maroni, Curium) of Mycenaean ceramics, also made locally on a grand scale by Greeks, from the 14th—13th cents. BC (e.g. Zeus crater with a scene from the Iliad) reflect K.’s intensive economic and cultural relationships (> Mycenaean Culture and Archaeology C.3). Tombs richly furnished with burial objects (Engomi, Citium, Agios lakovos, Maroni) held exotic luxury items of gold and silver, some imported, some manufactured in K. itself, carved stones and ivory, — faience, and alabaster. The flourishing exportation of Cypriot copper to the west is recorded by shipwrecks (cf. ~ Shipbuilding, > Shipwrecks) on the shipping routes along the Turkish coast with cargoes of ingots of this important raw material. K. did not escape the disturbances in the eastern Mediterranean during the late 13th and early 12th cent. BC (> Sea Peoples, migrations of; destruction horizons in Citium, Engomi and elsewhere on the island), but it recovered quickly and experienced a period of prosperity and wealth. The most significant urban centres of Citium, Engomi, Palaepaphos, Hala Sultan Tekke, and

Maa-Palaeokastro were fully renovated and fundamentally redesigned with the adoption of ashlar block construction ( Masonry B.3.) in sacred and secular architecture. Old sanctuaries and temples (Citium, Engomi) were expanded and new ones built (Palaepaphos, Myrtou-Pighades, Golgi). Cult statuettes of the ‘horned god’ and the ‘ingot god’ as protectors and the close spatial proximity of cult sites and artisans’ quarters in the sanctuaries (Citium) underscore the flourishing production of copper in K. Metalwork, ivory carv-

ing, and goldsmithing achieved a high standard unknown to that point (Citium, Palaepaphos). Without question, the Cypriot ceramics industry was overshadowed by imported and locally made Mycenaean wares, but it was by no means driven out. IV. Eary IRON AGE (c. 1050-750 BC) In about the middle of the rrth cent. BC, the major

Late Bronze Age cities of Engomi, Citium, and Hala Sultan Tekke were destroyed and abandoned, probably as the result of a natural catastrophe. The harbour city — Salamis [2] was refounded and took on the role of Engomi. Citium was partly rebuilt, partly relocated nearer to the coast. Curium, Lapithos and PalaepaphosSkales gained significance. The subsequent Cypro-Geometric period (c. 1025750 BC) was a time of growth and peaceful relations between K. and the Orient and the central and western Mediterranean, as Cypriot and oriental imports impressively illustrate. Cypriot-geometric pottery, painted with a wide variety of geometric motifs, was typical of this period. Its influence on western geometric ceramics was significant. High-quality metal finds indicate flourishing crafts, and knowledge of dagger and sword smithing may in fact have passed from K. to Greece. Phoenician influence manifested in K. in about the middle

of the

9thcent.

BC

(> Phoenicians,

Poeni

III. A). However, apart from a few locations (Agia Irini, Lapethus, Salamis, Amathus, Palaepaphos-Skales), and some in written sources (Citium), it is rather the material legacy and the influence on Cypriot crafts (ceramics, ivory) which point to a Levantine presence. It would be wrong to speak of a Phoenician settlement. In Citium, a Phoenician > Astarte temple rose up on the remains of the Late Bronze Age sanctuary. + Aegean Koine; - Amarna letters; -> Cypriot; ~ Cyprus; > Metallurgy II. A; > Mycenaean Culture and Archaeology; > Phoenicians, Poeni (with map); + Navigation; — Writing (with map); — Pottery; > Shipwrecks; > Cyprus 1 H.G. BUCHHOLZ, V. KARAGEORGHIS, Altagais und Altkypros,1971 2 H.W. Cattine, Cyprus in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods, in: CAH 1,1, 539-556 3 Id., Cyprus in the Middle Bronze Age, in: CAH 2,1, 165-175 4 E.GjeRSTAD et al., The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 19271931, vol. 1-3, 1934-1937 5 Id., The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods (The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, vol. 4.2), 1948

125

126

6 V. KARAGEORGHIS, Cyprus. From the Stone Age to the Romans, 1982 7 E. Lipski, s. v. Chypre, DCPP, 108-

112 8 F. Prayon, Kleinasien vom 12. bis 6. Jh. v. Chr. Siedlungen, Heiligtiimer, Funde (TAVO B IV 9), 1991 9 A.T. Reyes, Archaic Cyprus, 1994. CH. B.

{2] + Measure of volume corresponding to 10 choinikes or 2 modii, used in Asia Minor, predominantly in the Pontus region; a kypros equals c. 14.61 [1. 572575]. A stone reference standard found in Flaviopolis (Phrygia) contains seven holes representing standard measures; apart from the cyprus, other named measures are the + modius, + choenix, and ~ xestes. 1 F.Hurscu,

Griech.

und

rém.

Metrologie,

*1882.

H.-S.

KYRIOS

word anax is used only in epic and prayer language, despotes and déspoina are everyday terms for the head of the household, i.e. particularly for the master and mistress of slaves. Since the late Hellenistic period, this group of words becomes interchangeable, in religious language, with kyrios/kyria (Kuoia). This commences especially with Oriental deities like + Isis in Egypt, but soon encompasses a large number of deities of the Middle East and Anatolia, including the Thracian hero called the Horseman. Kyrios and despotes may be interchangeable in the same pagan text [4]; this also applies to Christian texts (cf. for instance [5]). Both groups of words are, like Latin dominus, also used in royal titles, not as an expression of the cult of the ruler, but because in both cases a superhuman power directly influenced the individual life in a powerful and often unforeseeable manner [6].

Kyrbeis (xvofeic; kyrbeis). In Athens, name of the medium on which the Laws of Dracon [2] and Solon were written. The word -» dxdnes, was also used. The

origin of the word is unknown. Contrary to the opinion that kyrbeis should be differentiated from the dx6nes, they are more probably only different descriptions of the same objects [1] (ML 86 =IG P’ 84; [Aristot.] Ath. Pol. 7,1; Plut. Solon 25,1f.). The assumption that a kyrbis was a > stele, pyramid-shaped and/or equipped with a cover, and the appropriate designation for a stele from Chios from the 6th cent. BC (ML 8; cf. [2]), is ill founded. The comedian Cratinus (fr. 274 KOCK = 300 KasseL/Austin) jokingly refers to the kyrbeis of Solon and Dracon. In the systematic recording of laws at the end of the sth cent. BC, the kyrbeis were quoted as the

1B. HEMBeERG,

men

Anax, Anassa und Anakes als Gétterna-

unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der att. Kulte

(Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis),

1955,

10

2 L.Ro-

BERT, Trois oracles de la Théosophie, in: CRAI 1968, 583 3 A.Henricus, Despoina Kybele. Ein Beitr. zur rel. Namenskunde, in: HSPh 80, 1976, 253-286 4L.RoBERT, BE 1940, 219 no. Ior 5 SEG 42, 1992, 1168 6 E. WILLIGER, s.v. K., RE 12, 176-183. F.G.

Kyrios (Kio.os; Kyrios, ‘lord’).

B. CHRISTIAN In the New Testament Kyrios is both a metonym for God (following the LXX, which reproduces the tetragram mm/ JHWH [1] as Kyrios) and for Christ. If Kyrios is the most important title in Paul for Christ besides Son of God, and if there is no author of the New Testament who uses it more often than Luke, who wrote for an educated, Greek-speaking audience (Gospel and Acts: 211 times), then this is the result of the fascination the term kyrios held within Hellenistic culture. Nonetheless, the title did not arise within Greek-speaking communities (cf. Bousset [2], according to whom it originates from pagan Syrian cults, with the result of a subsequent deification of Christ) but has its roots in the Aramic-speaking earliest community. This is shown by the prayer call maranatha, (= ‘Come, our Lord!’, 1 Cor 16:22; Didache 10,6; cf. Apc. 22:20), which could tie in with the address of Jesus with Ara-

I. RELIGION

maic mr’ (= xvoue/kyrie, Mk 7:28; Mt 8:8.21 etc.), a

decisive authority for sacrifices (Lys. 30,17; 18; 20; cf.

[3]). 1 A.ANDREWES, ®do0c: Tribute to B.D. Meritt, 1974, 21-28 2LSAG 52~-55,cf.336 3 W.S.Fercuson, The Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion, in: Hesperia 7, 1938, 1-74, no. 1,87. 4 E.RuscHENBUSCH, Solonos Nomoi, 1966 5R.S. Stroup, The Axones and K. of

Drakon and Solon, 1979.

Kyrieia (zvoteia; kyrieia) see

PIR.

> Kyrios II

II. Crv1L Law

I. RELIGION A. PAGAN

B. CHRISTIAN

A. PAGAN Addressing a deity felt to be powerful with ‘lord’ is widespread in Greek religious language. Since Homer, gods (especially Apollo and Zeus) can be addressed by the Mycenaean royal title anax ("Avaé), ‘king, lord’ [1]. A number of powerful goddesses (Cybele, Aphrodite, Artemis, Demeter and Persephone, Hecate, Isis) are since archaic times invoked as déspoina (Aéomovw a), ‘mistress’, and, somewhat more rarely, male gods as despotes (Aeonotns) [25 3]. Even though the archaic

secular word used for persons in authority. It is also shown by the christological interpretation of Ps rro:1 (The Lord said unto to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand...), the great age of which is revealed by the singular reading év de&1G (instead of the plural éx deEuv = ‘at the right hand’ in the LXX) in Rom 8:34; Acts 2:33; 5:31 [3]. The pre-Pauline acclamation ‘Lord (is) Jesus’ (Rom 10:9; cf. Acts 16:31 et passim), which expresses the elevation ofJesus to the throne of God at Eastern, is deepened in Phil 2:11, Kyrios becoming the Name above all Names, i.e. representing the tetragram [4]. As is shown by Ex 23:21b (My name is in him, i.e. in the angel of God), this concept is acceptable to Jewish thinking [5. 292-301], as it by no means implies an identi-

LABDA

132

131

Labda (Ad&BSa; Labda). Daughter of the Bacchiad Amphion of Corinth. According to Herodotus (5,92), L. was lame and therefore could not find a husband in the strictly endogamous circle of nobility of the > Bacchiadae. Therefore she was said to have married Eétion from the deme of Petra who did not belong this circle. As there had been a prophecy even before the birth of their son — Cypselus [2] that he would rule over Corinth, the Bacchiadae were said to have planned his murder. The tradition available to Herodotus says that L. succeeded in hiding the child in a kypsélé (‘chest’) thus saving him (cf. Nicolaus of Damascus, FGrH 90 F

57): —» Cypselus Chest H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 1967, 1, 15f.; 2,

522f.; J.B. SALMON, Wealthy Corinth, 1984, 186ff.

E.S-H.

Illyrian galley, inscription AABIATAN). Necropoleis in Gostilje (Vele Ledine). B.JuBani, Monnaies illyriennes a JVethnikon de AABIATAN découvertes a Kukés, in: Studia Albanica 9, 1972, 69-75; A. BENACE, O etnickim zajednicama starijeg zeljeznog doba u Jugoslaviji [Ethnic Communities of the Early Iron Age in Yugoslavia], in: Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 5, 1987, 789f. M.S.K.

Labeo Roman cognomen, derived from labea, ‘lip’, originally denoting ‘the thick-lipped one’ (Plin. HN r1, 159); in the Republican period cognomen in families of the Antistii ({I1 13]: the L. frequently mentioned in Cicero’s correspondence [II 3] is the famous law expert), Atinii ({I6 — 7]), Fabii ({I20]) and Segulii; widespread in the Imperial period, among others nickname of the writer Cornelius [II-19] L. KaJANTO, Cognomina, 118; 238; J.REICHMUTH, Die lat. Gentilizia, 1956, 70; WALDE/HOFMANN I, 738. K.-L.E.

Labdacids see > Labdacus

Labdacus (AdBdaxoc; Labdakos). Son of the Theban king Polydorus and Nicteis. Link in the line of descent from Cadmus, the father of Polydorus, to > Laius, the father of Oedipus. He is supposed to have waged a border war against > Pandion and was punished with death for scorning Dionysus (Hdt. 5,59; Eur. Phoen. 8;

Laberia L. Marcia Hostilia Crispina Moecia Cornelia. Daughter of Laberius [II 3] Maximus, cos. II AD 103, and second wife ot C. Bruttius [II 4] Praesens, cos. IJ in 139. L. accompanied her husband to Africa during his time as proconsul there (CIL VIII 110); her estates were

Apollod. 3,40; 193; Paus. 9,5,5). He neither had a cult

near Amiternum and Trebula Mutuesca CHARLIER, no. 478). PIR* L 15.

nor a known relationship to a particular place. In popular etymology, L. was known as ‘the limper’, based on the shape of the letter la(m)bda with its one shorter leg. This is Oedipus projected onto his ancestor [1].

Laberius Plebeian nomen gentile of Etruscan origin, more frequent references only towards the end of the Republic.

1

F.BecuTe1, Die Griech. Personennamen,

*7894, 403. RE.ZI.

SCHULZE 162; 315.

I. REPUBLICAN

Labdalum (AdBdahov; Labdalon). Site at the northern rim of the Epipolai-Plateau of Syracusae, where a fortress was built by the Athenians in 414 BC. This was taken from them by > Gylippus shortly after his arrival (Thuc. 6,97,5; 98,23 73,4). FABRICIUS located it east of Scala Greca, above the descent of the antique roadway Syracusae — Megara from the plateau. Before him, it was thought to lie more to the west. K.Fasricius, rof.; H.-D.

Das ant. Syrakus (Klio-Beih. 28), 1932, DROGEMULLER,

Syrakus, 1968, 15f., fig. sb. GLF.andE.O.

(RAEPSAETWE.

PERIOD

I. REPUBLICAN

IJ. IMPERIAL PERIOD

PERIOD

{1 1] L. Military tribune during the First Punic War, in

258 BChe secured the retreat of consul A. Atilius [I 14] Calatinus (Claudius Quadrigarius fr. 42 HRR) near Camarina. All 400 legionaries of L. were killed, he himself survived badly wounded, but nevertheless was celebrated as “The Leonidas of Rome’ (Gell. NA 3,7,21). Other war heroes mentioned are: Q. Caedicius [4]

(Cato Orig. 83 HRR) and M. Calpurnius [I 6] Flamma (Riv: Penai7:12:26o.10)

[I 2] L., M. In the final phase of the Republic an active land speculator, around 45 BC ina business connection Labeates Illyrian people (Liv. 43,19,33; 31,23 44,315,103 32,33 45,26,15: Labeatae; the region in Liv. 44,23,3: Labeatis; Pol. 29,3,5: AaBeGtis) near palus Labeatis/ lacus Labeatum (Liv. 44,31,3/10; modern Albanian Ligeni Shkodres, Serbian Skadarsko jezero); main towns Scodra and Meteon. Their territory was the core of the kingdom of > Genthius, the last independent II-

lyrian king and an ally of Perseus, who was defeated by the Romans in 168 BC. The Romans gave them autonomy and the right to issue coinage (bronze coins, reverse:

with Caesar (Cic. Fam. 13,8,2).

{I 3] L. Durus, Q. Military tribune in 54 BC; one of the first killed during Caesar’s second landing in Britain (Caes. B Gall. 5,15,5). TR. [1 4] L., D. Mimographer (+ Mimos) of the late Republic, born 106 and died 43 BC (Hier. chron. p.157 HELM). In 46 he took part in an improvised acting competition on the request of Caesar, even though he was an eques and risked losing his status. He faced his rival + Publilius Syrus; the audience decided against L. and

SS

134

for the better-trained actor Publilius, even though Caesar took L.’s side. (distorted in Macrob. Sat. 2,7,2-

At the beginning of his reign, Hadrian spared his life against the objections of his praetorian prefect. L.’s daughter > Laberia was the second wife of Hadrian’s close confidant Bruttius [II 4] Praesens. PIR* L 9.

19, but cf. Cic. Fam. 12,18,2). Caesar nevertheless rewarded L. with a honorarium and restoration of his rank. Already famous in his own time (Cic. Fam. 7,11,2, cf. also Macrob. Sat. 2,6,6), he was later considered the representative of the literary mimus per se; some 100 quotes from more than 40 plays have been preserved primarily by Gellius and Nonius. The titles bear witness how the tradition of higher (- Palliata, Togata) as well as lower types of comedies (> Atellana) was continued. The Archaists praise his careful choice of vocabulary (Fronto 4,3,2), his neologisms (Gell. NA 16,7), but also his vulgarisms (Gell. NA 19,13,3). The acute witticism of his multilevelled punch-lines (Sen. Controv. 7,3,9) did not omit the political sphere. FRAGMENTS: CRF 71873, 279-305; 31898, 339-3673 M.BonartA, Romani mimi, 1965, 5-9; 38-77; 103-130 (with commentary).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. ROMANO, Cicerone e Laberio, 1955; F. Giancott1, Mimo e gnome, 1967; R. TILL, L. und Caesar, in: Historia 24, 1975, 260-286; M.CariLLl, Artificiosita ed espressivita negli ’Hapax’ di Laberio, in: Studi e Ricerche dell’Istituto di Latino, Fac. Magistero Genua 3, 1980, 19-33; Id., Note ai frammenti di Laberio, in: Studi Noniani 7, 1982, 33-88. P.L.S.

Il. IMPERIAL PERIOD {11 1] Q.L. Iustus Cocceius Lepidus Senator, whose career is known up to his proconsulate of > Cyprus, probably in AD 1o00/rot. PIR? L 7; W. Eck, s.v. Laberius, RE Suppl. 14, 219.

[1 2] L.L. Maximus Eques; uncertain whether he came from Lanuvium or Trebula Mutuesca (cf. PIR* L 8 and AE 1964, 106; his granddaughter > Laberia is men-

tioned there). Financial procurator of Iudaea AD 70; in AD 80, he was involved as praefectus annonae in the expansion of the > Colosseum. Praef. Aegypti in 82/3; recalled to Rome, he became praef. praet. in about AD 84; the length of his term in office is unknown. Father of ais | SPIRA ess: {0 3] M.’ L. Maximus Son of L. [II 2]. His name contained some additional elements which can not be fully reconstructed. He probably was accepted into the Senate as a homo novus under the Flavians, most likely under Vespasianus, unless an adlectio into one of the ranks took place; this also may have occurred at a later date. In AD 89 suffect consul. Under Trajan he was legate of Moesia inferior, c. AD 100-102 [1. 334ff.]. At this time L. established the boundary lines of the town of Histria (Inscr. Scyth. Min. I 67; 68). During the first

Dacian war he conquered one of their fortresses and took a sister of > Decebalus prisoner; one of his own slaves was captured by Decebalus and given to the Parthian king (Plin. Ep. 10,74,1). For his military achievements L. was reappointed as cos. ordinarius II together with Trajan in AD 103. It is not known why L. later got into conflict with Trajan; he was banished to an island.

LABIENUS

1 W.Eck, in: Chiron 12, 1982.

W.E.

Labici City in Latium on the north-eastern slopes of the Alban Hills, modern Monte Compatri. Member of the ~ Latin League; in Roman wars against the > Aequi allied with the latter and destroyed by Q. Servilius Priscus (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5,61; 8,19); a Roman colony

from 418 BC (Liv. 4,47,493 [1. 394]). Municipium (Cic. Planc. 23). Caesar had a villa in the ager Labicanus, which was known for its wine (Suet. Iul. 83). 1 A. ALFOLDI, Early Rome and the Latins, 1963. G. TomasseEtT1, La campagna romana 3, 1926, 377-4593 M. ANpDREUSSI, s.v. L., EV 3, 82. G.U.

Labienus Nomen gentile of Etruscan origin; the family, which belonged to Rome’s equestrian class, came from northern Picenum (Cic. Rab. perd. 22; Caes. B Civ. Ty 552)

{1] L., Q. Uncle of L. [3], supported L. ~ Ap(p)uleius [I rr] Saturninus in too BC and was slain at his side in the Curia on the Forum Romanum (Cic. Rab. perd. 14; 18; 20-22; Oros. 5,17,9). [2] L. (Parthicus), Q. Son of L. [3]. At the end of 43 BC he undertook treaty negotiations at the behest of the murderers of Caesar with the Parthian king - Orodes [2] Il, at whose court L. also stayed after the disaster of Philippi (42; Vell. Pat. 2,78,1). Together with the Parthian prince Pacorus, L. ran a very successful campaign against the eastern armies of the Triumvirate. From 41 on he advanced via Syria, Cilicia and Caria to Phrygia, defeated and killed M. Antonius’ [I 9] governor L. Decidius [1] Saxa and allowed himself to be praised as Parthicus Imperator (Str.14,660). As early as 39, L.’s

power base in Asia Minor collapsed under the counteroffensive of Antony’s legate P. Ventidius Bassus; L. was executed in Cilicia (Plut. Antonius 30,2; 33,6; App. B Civ. 5,276; Cass. Dio 48,24-40). H. BUCHHEM, Die Orientpolitik des Triumvirn M. Antonius, 1960, 74-76.

T.FR.

[3] L., T. Born after 100 BC. As people’s tribune from 63 (MRR 2, 167f.) L. prosecuted senator C. + Rabirius

unsuccessfully for the murder of Ap(p)uleius [I 11] Saturninus. The motive (more than 36 years after the deed) was probably less of a personal — revenge for his uncle L. [1] — than of a political nature, i.e. an attempt of the popular opposition to bring up the question whether the Senatus consultum ultimum gave the magistrates the right to have Roman citizens put to death without a people’s judgement. A draft law by L. (filling the priests’ positions according to the lex Domitia by public vote) prepared the way for Caesar’s election as Pontifex Maximus (Cass. Dio 37,37,1), a second one

LABIENUS

136

E35

contained special honours for Pompey (Vell. Pat. 2,40,4). L.’s praetorship of 59 is likely (cf. MRR 3,116), but not attested. From 58 until 50 L. served as legatus pro praetore under Caesar in Gallia and in the battles with the Helvetii, Belgae, Nervii, Morini, Treveri and above all the Parisii (52) showed himself as his most important and reliable commander (Caes. B Gall. passim). In 50 he took over the public administration of the Gallia Cisalpina (Hirtius by Caes. B Gall. 8,52,2). Apparently Caesar wanted L. as consul (Hirtius l.c.), but immediately after the beginning of the Civil War in January 49 he switched to Pompey’s side. Cicero (Att. 7,13,1) then lauded L. as a hero (Cic. Att. 7,13,1: L. fwewa iudico). The change of sides was a surprise, and one can only speculate on the reasons. Local loyalties have been cited (Pompey also came from Picenum), but a more likely cause (in spite of Hirtius in Caes. 8,52,2)may have lain in a treatment by Caesar which he felt to be an affront. Fame and new wealth (Cic. Att. 7,7,6) may indeed have misled L., as Cassius Dio (41,4,4) claims, to a self-confident manner, which Caesar did not want to tolerate. The hatred that L. developed from 49 against his former patron (see Caes. B Civ. 3,19,8) at any rate betrays a deep resentment. In 48 the defector took part in the battle of Pharsalus (cf. Caes. B Civ. 3,87), commanded Pompeian troops in Africa in 47 and 46 and fled to Spain after the battle of Thapsus. L. fell on 17 March 45 at Munda, his head W.W. was brought to Caesar (App. B Civ. 2,435). [4] T.L. Legal orator (Pro Figulo in Pollionem, Quint. Inst. 1,5,8; Pro Urbiniae heredibus, also against Pollio, Quint. Inst. 4,1,11), declaimer and contemporary historian of the Augustan epoch, of whom Seneca paints (Controv. ro, praef. 4-8) a vivid image. Just as famous

system, which is continued in all > Indo-European languages, but does not remain unchanged in any of them. Originally, the labio-velars were retained in the + centum languages. In Greek they are preserved as such in the > Mycenaean of the 2nd millennium BC and, in part as special phonemes but phonetically changed, they survive into the sth cent. BC in > Arcadian and + Cypriot. Otherwise they concur in Greek with their corresponding dentals and labials (in part also with velars). In Latin they are continued as qu < *k” and gu after nasal < *g”or *g”, for the rest as v < *g” or *g” or f < *g (only initially). Latin qu is not stressed at a syllabic boundary, indicating that it was still considered to be one sound. Examples: 1) Proto-Indo-European *k“is, *k“id ‘who, what?’ > Latin quis, quid; Mycenaean -qi; Attic tis, ti, also Arca-

dian Vis, Cypriot sis.

2) Proto-Indo-European *g“erh, ‘swallow up’ in Boga, BiBewoxw or vorare. 3) Proto-Indo-European *snig’- wh_« ‘snow’ > Greek vid-o. (acc. singular), Latin mix/nik-s/ (loss of labiality before s) niv-is, also nasal present ni-n-gu-it.

+ Greek dialects; > Gutturals; ~ Phonetics; > Q (linguistics); > Satem languages M. MayrHorer,

Indogermanische

Gramm.

I,2, 1986,

ro8f.; LEUMANN, 146-153; G. MEISER, Histor. Laut- und Formenlehre der lat. Sprache, 1998, 97-105; SCHWYZER, Gramm., 293-297; Rix, HGG 85-88.

RP.

Labotas (AaBwtac; Labotas). Legendary Spartan king of the house of the > Agiads. During his (fictional)

mia, summum odium, |.c. § 4), L. refused to follow the

reign (traditionally 102 5/4-989/8 BC), Sparta is said to have fought against Argus for the first time (Apollod. FGrH 244 F 62; Hdt. 1,65; 7,204; Plut. Mor. 224¢; Pairs aa525ais)s K.-W.WEL.

zeitgeist in his private practice of declaiming, his oratory style and his political opinions (he was a follower of Pompey: Pompeiani spiritus, § 5); he was the first to pay for his libertas (Sen. Controv. 10,3,5; 15; 4,17£.; cf. 10,2,19 and 4,24f.), which earned him the nickname Rabienus, and the hate-filled recognition of his oppo-

Labraunda, Labranda (AdBoavvda, AdBoavda; Ldbraunda, Labranda). Locality and sanctuary of the Carian > Zeus Stratios (also Labrandos), situated on a southern spur of Mt Latmus. Connected by a sacred road to Mylasa, to which it belonged as komé together

as he was infamous (summa egestas erat, summa infa-

nents (Maecenas, l.c. § 8; Asinius Pollio, cf. Quint. Inst. 9,3,13; Cassius Severus, Sen. Controv. § 8), when the

Senate issued a decree banning his (history?) died as he lived, alone and apart, through entombing hiinself in his ancestral grave; but ecy made at a reading of his Historia (haec, seo, post mortem meam

books. He suicide by the prophquae tran-

legentur, |.c. § 8) came true in

its restitution by Caligula (Suet. Calig. 16,1). ScHANZ/Hostus

1938).

2, 344f.; SyME,

RP 1, 62 (1. Auflage

PLS.

Labiovelar (< Latin labium ‘Lip’ and velum ‘sail’). Stop simultaneously articulated with lips and velum. The labio-velars k” g” g””, along with the velars k g g’ and the palatals k g ¢’ form the group known as the > gutturals and belong to the proto-Indo-European phoneme

with the later settlement (Str. 14,2,23). Place name and

name of the god are pre-Greek. The double-headed axe (labrys) of L. was believed to have been taken over from the Amazons or the Lydian Heraclid kings (Plut. Quaest. Graec. 45). The cult statue (> xdanon) with the

shouldered labrys is depicted on coins of the 4th cent. BC. The shrine was the central meeting place of the old Carian league (Hdt. 5,119,2) with its annual panégyris. In the 3rd cent. BC a dispute broke out over right of ownership of L., which Ptolemy II decided in favour of the Chrysaoric League (> Stratoniceia) and Seleucus II and Philippus V in favour of Mylasa (> Cares, Caria). Until the 5th cent., the sanctuary (oldest findings around 600 BC) was probably the site of sacred rites in a grove of plane trees without a temple; its architectural design was undertaken in the middle of the 4th cent. under the patronage of the Hecatomnids (founder’s in-

E37

138

scription of Mausolus and Idrieus). Distinctive among the buildings are the andrénes (‘men’s quarters’, ritual dining halls) and the Zeus temple. Fish with gold ornamentation (fish oracles?) were found in the shrine (Plin. HN 32,16; Ael. NA 12,30). Additions and restoration are documented for the Imperial period.

with a depiction of the Temple in Jerusalem, an ampho-

K.JeppEsEN, A. WESTHOLM, P. HELLSTROM, T. THIEME et

R.GinouvEs, Balaneutiké, 1962; H.LOHMANN, Grabmaler auf unterital. Vasen, 1979, 133-138; W.HEINz, Rom. Thermen. Badewesen und Badeluxus, 1983;

ra-like vessel is designated as labrum [1]. ~ Baths; > Hygiene, personal; > Pottery, shapes and types of 1 P.R. Garruccl, Storia della Arte Christiana III, 1876,

pl. 126,2.

al., Labraunda 1,1-3; 2,2-4; 3,1-2, 1955-1983; T. THIEME, Metrology and Planning in Hekatomnid L., in: T.Lrnpers (ed.), Architecture and Society in Hekatomnid Caria (conference Uppsala 1987), 1989, 77-90; P. HELLSTROM, The Architectural Layout of Hekatomnid L., in: RA 1991, 297-308; H.ScHwasL, s.v. Zeus, RE

Suppl. 15, 1462f.

H.KA.

Labraundos, Labrandeus see ~ Zeus Labronios

(AaBedvioc, -ov; labronios, -on). Persian luxury vessel of precious metal and unknown form (large, flat, with large handles, Ath. 11,484c-f, 784a, 50oe). As it is named by Athenaeus /oc cit. in connection with > lakaina and lepaste (both types of vessels), the labronios is probably a type of drinking bowl. —R.H. Labrum (from lavabrum, diminutive labellum, Greek

houtierov/loutérion and rexdvn/lekdne). The labrum, a large shallow basin with a raised, thickened rim and

resting on a high pedestal, served various purposes. As materials used for the labrum, marble, porphyry, clay, stone and others are cited. In the Greek realm, the labrum is a washbasin where men and women cleansed

themselves with water; on vases in Lower Italy this often takes place in the presence of Eros, with waterfowl (swans or geese) sometimes cavorting in the water of the labrum. It also often appears in love or wedding scenes, further in depictions of funerary rites in which it indicates — corresponding to the Attic > loutrophoros — that the deceased is unmarried. The tradition of bathing can be studied particularly well in the Roman baths, where the labrum was placed for ablutions. Vitr. De arch. 5,10,4 gives precise instructions for the installation of the labrum. The washbasin in the laconicum (a part of the hot, dry bath, > baths, > thermal baths) of

the Forum thermae in > Pompeii is referred to in inscriptions as labrum. The labrum serves a corresponding purpose as washbasin in the Roman household (e.g. Petron. Sat. 73,4); according to a late literary source the tub for a child’s bath was called labrum (Isid. Orig. 20,6.8). In agriculture, the labrum serves as a utility basin; additionally, it was a rinsing tub and was used in the production of wine and oil and as a container for pulses and figs (Columella 12,15.3; Cato Agr. 10,4; 11,3). In addition, the labrum can be an ornamental fountain in gardens, streets or public squares; it is known in this function in Rome from the beginning of the 2nd cent. BC. In late antiquity, this term is also used to denote a coffin in the shape of a bathtub or trough (Ambr. Epist. 34). On a miniature of the 6th cent. AD

LABYNETUS

W.LeTZNER, Rom. Brunnen und Nymphaea in der westl. Reichshalfte, 1990, 92-96;J.StRoszECK, Wannen als Sarkophage, in: MDAI (R) ror, 1994, 218.

R.H.

Labrys (i \GBove; he labrys) refers to the double-head-

ed axe (Latin bipennis), which has two blades opposite each other; it is a tool as well as a ritual device and religious symbol. The expression, known in Greek only as a Lydian word in a gloss (Plut. Mor. 45,302a), was introduced into scholarly language in the late roth cent. to refer to the Minoan ritual symbol as well as to indicate its Anatolian origin. In Minoan but more especially in Greek ritual, there is good evidence for the doubleheaded axe as a device for killing [1; 2]; in Minoan ritual it is also an attribute of female deities [1. 226], and the name of the > labyrinth is linked with it (‘house of the double-headed axe)’, first recognized by [3]). It is also a ritual symbol and attribute in numerous Anato-

lian cults, including several Zeus figures (such as Jupiter Dolichenus or Zeus Labrandeus, whose name Plut. l.c. links with the labrys [4]). It is not clear whether this actually refers in each case to a lightning bolt weapon [5] or rather to a weapon of killing or even war, as with Mesopotamian demons. + Religion (Minoan); > Minoan culture and archaeol-

ogy 1 Nitsson, MMR, 226-235 2 F.T. VAN STRATEN, Hiera Kala, 1995, 103-109 3M.Mayer, Myk. Beitr. II, in:

JDAI 7, 1892, 191

4A.LAuMoNIER, Les cultes indigé-

nes en Carie, 1958, 85-95 5 A.B. Cook, Zeus 2, 1925, 585-602 6R.GaNSzyYNIEC, s.v. L., RE 12, 286-307.

E.G. Labynetus (AaBivytos; Labynétos; Hellenized form of Akkadian Nabii-na’id/Nabonid). The Hellenized form

of the name occurs only in» Herodotus [1]. By L., he is probably referring to the kings of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty (625-539 BC)in general. Two Neo-Babylonian kings play a part in Herodotus: + Nebuchadnezzar [2] II (604-562), together with a Cilician ruler (+ Syennesis), he negotiated the truce of 585 BC between the Lydians and the Medes (Hdt. 1,74). Nabonid (555-539), was a confederate of > Croesus of Lydia (Hdt. 1,77), who was besieged in Babylon and defeated by the Persian King > Cyrus [2] in 539 BC (Hdt. 1,188). P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon, 1989.

PE.HO.

LABYRINTH

139

Labyrinth (AaBveww8oc; labyrinthos, labyrinthus). A. THE CONCEPT B. THE LABYRINTH IN THE NARROW SENSE C. THE LABYRINTH IN THE BROAD SENSE D. THE LABYRINTH IN THE METAPHORICAL SENSE

A. THE CONCEPT The term ‘labyrinth’ denotes in current usage either the labyrinth in the narrow sense; or in the broad sense, any maze or confusing, large building (especially since the Hellenistic period as a motif in literature or in the pictorial arts); or else in a figurative sense, it is used as a metaphor or allegory for the vagaries and deceptions of human life. This last sense can increasingly be observed after the 3rd cent. AD.

B. THE LABYRINTH IN THE NARROW SENSE The labyrinth in the narrow sense is an architectural configuration (the Cretan Labyrinth), which can only be recognized as a labyrinth from a bird’s eye view. It is geometrical, with a round or square facade, and an opening in the outer wall. Walls define a convoluted path that, unlike a maze, has no intersections. This path inevitably leads to the centre. In the centre, it is necessary to reverse one’s direction of walking in if one wishes to reach the exit again. Along with the confusing course of the path, a further trap for one’s sense of orientation is the darkness of the labyrinth. For a distinction from meanders, spirals, and mazes, cf. [7. 13f., ch. 1]. The word, which is not of Greek origin remains undetermined. Labyrinth as the House of the Double Axe (+ Labrys) = Palace of > Knosos is untenable, for example from a linguistic point of view. The suffix -inthos might indicate a place. The earliest recorded appearance of ‘labyrinth’ is ona Linear B tablet (KN Gg 702; KN 10, 740), which mentions of a Lady of the labyrinth to whom a pot of honey is to be offered. This could be a reference to > Ariadne [6]. Perhaps ‘labyrinth’ was also a designation for a dancing-ground with labyrinthine pathways that traced out the complicated figures of the dance. Homer tells of such a dancing-floor that Daedalus is supposed to have devised for Ariadne (Hom. Il. 18,590). The earliest visual record for the labyrinth dance, in connection with the Game of Troy

[7. fig. 110], is found ona

pitcher from Tragliatella (7th

cent. BC).

In myth, the labyrinth is inextricably bound up with the hero > Theseus and the labyrinth ot king > Minos of Crete (Plut. Thes. 15-21). It is the locus of the shame of adultery incarnate, the Minotaur, who was the product of a liaison between > Pasiphae and a bull: > Daedalus[1], the ingenious architect (Verg. Aen. 6,27ff.),

built the labyrinth, where every year the Minotaur was offered a blood sacrifice of Athenian youths, among

whom, in the third year, was Theseus. With the help of the king’s beautiful daughter Ariadne, who provided him with the proverbial thread with which to find his way with, he succeeded in finding his way back to the

140

exit of the labyrinth, after defeating the half-man, halfbull. Later on Delos, Theseus inaugurated the geranos dance, which imitated the course of the path through the labyrinth (Plut. Thes. 21). All three forms of the labyrinth (literary, visual, and dance-related) are prob-

ably based on a still undetermined original form of the labyrinth which, according to various interpretations may represent parts of the human body, in particular the uterus, the Underworld (in connection with initiation rites), or the stylized plan of a city, or it might even be a depiction of the courses of heavenly bodies. C. THE LABYRINTH IN THE BROAD SENSE It may well be the case that the labyrinth was originally a Minoan-Mycenaean concept, but the concept in its earliest literary manifestations is already used in a broad sense to refer to a geometrical figure comprised of convoluted lines, or to a maze. In Callim. H. 4,311.,

‘labyrinth’ is used as a synonym for a maze (cf. Verg. Aen. 5,591ff.; Mela 1,9,56); in addition the labyrinth continued to exist as a distinct graphic figure (the earliest record of the actual use of ‘labyrinth’ as a name for the labyrinth form is a grafitto on a wall in Pompeii (CIL IV 2331): Labyrinthus hic habitat Minotaurus, ‘labyrinth: Here lives the Minotaur’, with corresponding drawing). Various authors of antiquity report actually existing labyrinth or labyrinth-type structures (however, because of the lack of architectural evidence, in many cases it must remain unclear whether the concept is being used in the narrow or the broad sense). Among the best-known cases are the Palace of — Knosos or the stone quarry of Gortyn [1], the labyrinth at Nauplia (Str. 8,369) or in Lemnos (Plin. HN 36,86.90), as well as the tomb of Porsenna at Clusium

(Plin. HN 36,91-93). Special mention must in this context be made of the Egyptian labyrinth near Lake Moeris [8], described by Herodotus (2,148). After the 2nd cent. BC, labyrinth patterns are found on many Roman mosaics, often in conjunction with depictions

of the Minotaur story [7. 112ff.; 9]. Especially noteworthy among these is a mosaic in Kato Paphos in Cyprus, in which a recumbent old man, according to the inscription, personifies the labyrinth (comparable to the iconography of the gods of rivers or springs) [4]. This could be evidence that ‘labyrinth’ was originally used to designate unfathomable grottoes or caves. Graphic representations of the labyrinth can be found up to modern times — whether in printed books, in architecture, or in the Baroque art of the garden (overview [7]).

D. THE LABYRINTH IN THE METAPHORICAL SENSE Overview: [7. 24f.]. Pl. Euthd. 29 rb uses a reference to a real labyrinth to explain an aporia, or logical dead end. [1]. After the 3rd cent. AD, ‘labyrinth’ is used as an image for entanglements in political and personal life (cf. the systematic work of Hyppolitus ‘The labyrinth of the Heresies’; Lactant. Ira 7,1; Aug. Civ. TS yusnetce).

I4I

142

Finally, following this tradition, the labyrinth becomes an allegory for deception, error, and aberrations in general (for example, in love or concerning sensory perception) [2], which leads to a mutual enrichment of literary and visual representations. Finding one’s way out of the labyrinth, in this context, refers to the human process of maturation [5].

Lacedaemonius (Aaxedamovioc; Lakedaimonios). Athenian, son of Cimon [2] and Isodice (Plut. Cimon 16). He served as hipparchos around 445 BC (IGP 511; [. 45-49]). In the summer of 433 L., as stratégos, was sent to Corcyra with ten ships to assist the allied island in its conflict with Corinth (Thuc. 1,45,2f.; Plut. Pericles 29; ML 61).

1 P. BorcEeaup, The Open Entrance to the Closed Palace of the King. The Greek L. in Context, in: History of Religions 14, 1974, I-27.

2 H.D. BruMBLE, s.v. L., in: Id.,

Classical Myths and Legends in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 1998

3 L.CenTI (ed.), Labyrinthos. Materiali

per una teoria della forma, 1994 4 W.A. Daszewskt, s.v. Labyrinthos, LIMC 6.1, 175f. 5 W. FITZGERALD, Aeneas, Daedalus and the L., in: Arethusa 17, 1984, 51-65 6 K. Kerényt, Die Herrin des L., in: Id., Auf den Spuren des Mythos, 71978, 266-270 7H.Kern, Labyrinthe, 1982 8 O.KIMBALL ARMAYoR, Herodotus’ Autopsy of the Fayoum: Lake Moeris and the L. of Egypt, 1985 9 J.Krart, The Cretan Wall and the Walls of Troy. An Analysis of Roman L. Designs, in: OpRom 15, 1985, 7985 10 P.REED-Doos, The Idea of the L. from Classical Antiquity through the Middle Ages, 1990 11A.B. Lioyp, The Egyptian L., in: JEA 56,1970, 81-100. C.W.

LACERTA

1 G.R. Bucu, The Horsemen of Athens, 1988.

Davies 8429, XIII; G.E.M. DE STE. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, 31989, 76f.; TRatLL, PAA 600810.

HA.BE.

Lacedas (Aaxtdac; Lakédas; Hdt. 6,127,3: Aewundnc;

Leokédés). Legendary king of Argus, by tradition the son of the historically debated > Pheidon [3]. L. was regarded as the father of Meltas, the last king of the Argives (Paus. 2,19,2) [1. 385; 2. 107ff.]. 1 P. Car ier, La royauté en Gréce avant Alexandre, 1984 2TH. Ketty, A History of Argos to 500 BC, 1976.

K.-W.WEL.

Laceria (Aaxéoeia; Lakéreia). Settlement on the north-

Lacapeni (Aaxannvot; Lakapénoi). Byzantine imperial family of Armenian origin. Romanus I Lacapenus took the regency in AD 919 for > Constantinus [9] VII. Por-

phyrogenetus, who was still a minor; he married the emperor to his daughter, had himself successively crowned co-emperor and emperor-in-chief in 920, forcing the emperor into the background by crowning his own sons Christophorus (ft 931), Stephanus and Con-

ern shore of Lake Boebe in Magnesia, only attested in archaic times (Pind. Pyth. 3,58f.); its location — like that of its neighbouring settlement Amyrus — has yet to be established. L. was said to be the home of Coronis, the mother of Asclepius. B. HELLY, Le ‘Dotion Pedion’, Lakereia et les origines de

Larisa, in: Journal des Savants 1987, 127ff.; F.STAHLIN, Das hellenische Thessalien, 1924, 58f. HE.KR.

stantinus co-emperors. In 944, Romanus I was deposed

by his surviving sons, but they were themselves deposed in 945 by Constantine VII.

Theophylactus, a younger son of Romanus, was Patriarch of Constantinople 933-956; the eunuch Basilius Lacapenus, an illegitimate son, played a leading role in the Byzantine Empire as a senior court official until after 976. S. RUNCIMAN, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign, 1929. AL.B.

Lacedaemon (Aaxedaiwmv; Lakedaimon). [1] Son of Zeus and Taygete (Apollod. 3,116), namegiver of the > Taygetus, mountain range; L. inherits the rule from the childless Eurotas (Paus. 3,1,1f.), gives his name to the region, and founds the city of > Sparta, which he names after his spouse Sparte. One of their sons, Amyclas, founds the city of > Amyclae [1] (Eust. AD Hom. Il. 295,14f.). One of their daughters, Eurydice, marries Acrisius, king of Argus, and becomes mother of - Danae (Pherecydes FHG 1, fr. 26; Paus. 3,13,8). L. enjoys ritual honours in a shrine near the Taygetus Mountains (Paus. 3,20,2) and in the official state cult of Zeus Lakedaimon, whose priesthood was restricted to the Spartan kings. AL.FR. [2] see > Sparta

Lacerna A fringed (schol. Pers. 1,54) open cloak, a special form of the > sagum, probably introduced in the rst cent. BC (first mention Cic. Phil. 2,30,76); used at first as a soldier’s coat which in poetry might also be worn by mythical kings and heroes (e.g. Ov. Fast. 2743-747; Prop. 4,3,18). The lacerna soon became an everyday garment and was popular in the rst cent. AD. Initially made of coarse wool, light fabrics were also used which were dyed purple or scarlet (Mart. 2,29,3; 4,61,4; 4,8,10; Juv. 1,27). The lacerna was worn over the — tunica, instead of the > toga, or over the toga as protection against inclement weather > (Juv. 9, 28-29, cf. Mart. 6,59,5 and Plin. HN 18,225 with clothes merchants raising the price of the lacerna at the approach of bad weather) especially for visits to the theatre or the amphitheatre (Mart. 14,135). To date, the lacerna cannot be reliably identified on monuments. F. Kors, Rom. Mantel, in: MDAI(R) 80, 1973,

137-140.

Lacerta see > Lizard; > Crocodile

116-135;

R.H.

LACETANI

Lacetani Iberian tribe (not to be confused with the laccetani; e.g. Ptol. 2,6,71; [1]), who settled the southern foothills of the eastern Pyrenees, west of Llobregat, east of Segre, south of Noya and Cervera (Liv. 21,61,8; 28,24,43 34,20,1; Plin. HN 3,21). They were one of the earliest tribes to be subjugated by the Romans (Plut. Cato Maior 11,2; cf. Cass. Dio 45,10; Sall. Hist. 2,98,5; [2. 5of.]). 1 HOLDER, s.v. iaccos Antiquae 3, 1935.

144

143

2 A.SCHULTEN, Fontes Hispaniae

TOVAR 3, 3 5ff.

P.B.

Lachares (Aaycons; Lachdres). [1] Athenian, demagogue and confidant of > Cassander. L. succeeded, with a mercenary force, in establishing a rulership in Athens, probably from early in 300 BC to early in 295 (Olympiad Chronicle FGrH 257a F 1-4; Plut. Demetrius 33; however, IG II* 646 indicates 294 BC), which is described in ancient sources as a tyrannis, although fundamental organs of democracy continued to operate. Following the death of Cassander (297), L. managed to hold out, but was forced to relinquish the Piraeus to his democratic opponents in 297/6 (Polyaenus, Strat. 4,7,5). A first attempt to depose L. probably failed in 296 (Paus. 1,29,10). When Demetrius [2] besieged Athens in 295, causing a severe famine (Plut. Demetrius 3 3,1-3 4,7; Demetrius II F 1 PCG), L.

defended his position with all means, even using the golden vestments of Athene and other temple treasures to pay his mercenaries (Paus. 1,25,7; 1,29,16; Plut. De

Is. et Os. 379C). He finally fled to Thebes (Polyaenus, Strat. 3,7,1; Paus. 1,25,8), then in 293 from there to Delphi, thereafter to Lysimachus, on whose side he fought at Sestus (Polyaenus, Strat. 3,7,2-3); L. was expelled from Cassandria in 278 (Polyaenus, Strat. 6,7,2) and was killed soon afterwards. PA 9005; HABICHT 90-95.

JE.

[2] Greek rhetor or sophist of the 5th cent. AD, taught at Athens. According to the Suda, L. was principally active during the reign of the Eastern Roman emperors Marcianus (450-457) and Leo [4] I. (457-474); Marinus, on the other hand (Vita Procli 11) has him debating

with the Neoplatonic philosophers Proclus and Syranus around the year 430. The two accounts are reconcilable if his year of birth is assumed to be no later than 410, and his time of greatest productivity and fame to be the last years of his life. According to the Suda, L. wrote dialéxeis (sophistical ceremonial speeches or philosophical treatises) and stylistic criticism, and pursued studies in — lexicography. Fragments are preserved only of a textbook on prose-rhythm and one on > Colometry (Peri kolou kai kémmatos kai periodou); in them, L. shows himself primarily influenced by > Dionysius [18] of Halicarnassus, although his use of > Dionysius [17] Thrax, > Longinus [1], > Hermogenes [7] and — Cornutus [4] can also be demonstrated. In theory, L. emphasizes the long-established quantitative

rhythm, but himself uses clauses determined by word accents, as dictated by the isochronous, expiratorily accented pronunciation of late Ancient Greek. Heraclion is said to have been L.’s teacher, among his pupils are named Asterius, Eustephius, Nicolaus of Myra and Superianus. A fragment of his funerary inscription is preserved (IG {I/II]* 11952). FRAGMENTS: W.STUDEMUND, Ps.-Castoris excerpta rhetorica, 1888; H. GRAEVEN, Ein Fr. des L., in: Hermes 30, 1895, 289-313.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: G.A. KENNEDY, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors, 1983, 167f.; PLRE 2, 652f. MLW.

Laches (Adync; Lachés). [1] Athenian stratégdés from a wealthy family, sent to Sicily in 427 BC with 20 warships to protect the cities allied to Leontini (Thuc. 3,86) against Syracuse, he suc-

cessfully led a number of campaigns out of Rhegium against the Aeolian Islands, Mylae, Inessa and the Locrians (Thuc. 3,88; 90; 99; 103; Diod. Sic. 12,54,4f.).

After his return in the winter of 426/5 (Thuc. 3,115), he was prosecuted without success by Cleon [1] (Aristoph. Vesp. 240-244 with schol.; 836-83 8; 894-1008). Early in 423, a one-year truce was agreed with Sparta at his request (Thuc. 4,118,11-14). Together with > Nicias, L. negotiated a peace agreement in Sparta, and early in 421, he was among the emissaries who swore an oath to uphold the Peace of Nicias and the Athenian-Spartan symmachia (Thue. 5,43,23; 19,2; 24,1). As stratégoi, L. and Nicostratus took an army to Argus and, together with the Argives and their allies, captured the Arcadian Orchomenus (Thue. 5,61); L. fell in August 418, at the battle of Mantinea (Thuc. 5,74,3). L. must have been regarded as extremely courageous, since Plato named his dialogue on this virtue after him. > Peloponnesian War D.Hamet, Athenian Generals, 1998, 143; Trattt, PAA 602280.

W.S.

[2] Athenian stratégos; during his attempt to outflank the Thebans with his fleet in 364 BC, he was forced to retreat by > Epaminondas, south of Euboea (Diod. Sic. 15,79,1). TRAILL, PAA 602275. Lachesis see > Moira

Lachmann’s law Discovered by the classical philologist and Germanist Karl LACHMANN

(1793-1851) in 1850, a ‘phonological rule’ in the Latin verbal system: significantly, verbs whose stem ends in a voiced occlusive -g or -d show a long vowel before -t-suffixes of the perfect passive participle and that of verbal derivations — along with the corresponding consonantal assimilation at the morpheme boundary. But this rule does not apply in quite a number ofcases. Vowel length is proven above all by epigraphical spellings with the apex (> Punctuation), through individual references by grammarians and the continuants in Romance languages.

145

146

Accordingly, actus (ACTVS, CIL XI 3805), actitare (Gell. NA 9,6) can be found opposite dgo; cdsus < cdssus opposite cdédo; léctus (LECTVS, CIL XI 1826),

léctor (LECTOR, CLE 1012) opposite légo; diréctus (-um > Italian diritto, > French droit) opposite dirigo

LACON

temple to + Hera Lacinia, since she was an enemy of Heracles’ (Serv. Aen. 3,552); or L. stole some cattle from Heracles, who killed L. along with his son-in-law, and Heracles built the temple himself (Serv. l.c.; Diod. Sic. 4,24,7). AL.ER.

(with arsis -é- > -7-).

How to explain the occurrences summarized in Lachmann’s law (LL) remains a controversy: a purely phonetic explanation (‘phonological rule’) is set against the opinion that LL should be understood within the framework of reclassification processes in the Latin verbal system (‘grammatical rule’). ~+ Prosody K.STruNK, Lachmanns Regel fiir das Lat., 1976; LEuMANN, 114; N.E. CoLuincE, The Laws of Indo-European, 1985, 105-114. CH.

Laciadae (Aaxiadai; Lakiddai). Attic deme, gave its name to the asty trittys of the phyle Oeneis (IG DP} 1120), with two (three) bouleutai; originally the name of an Attic family. Steph. Byz. s.v. A. transmits Aaxid as a

Lacius (Adxtoc; Lakios, ‘the ragged one’). [1] Attic hero, after whom the deme — Laciadae was named; his heroon was on the Sacred Road to Eleusis (Ratisten 30722)

[2] Rhodian from Lindus, mythical founder of the Lycian city of > Phaselis near the border with Pamphylia. When L. went to Delphi with his brother > Antiphemus, to question the oracle, he was sent east, his brother west. As a result he founded Phaselis, and his brother > Gela in Sicily (Aristaenetus FGrH 771 F 1). He paid the shepherd Cylabras in smoked fish for the land for the city (aition for the annual fish offering to the shepherd: Heropythos FGrH 448 F 1). In another version, L., an Argive, was sent to Phaselis by ~ Mopsus on the instructions of his mother > Manto (Ath. 7,297f). RA.ML

place name, with the demoticon Aaxtevc. Its location

on the Sacred Road east of the + Cephis(s)us [2] is confirmed by Paus. 1,37,2, who (ibid.) attests a temmenos of the eponymous hero Lacius, the grave of the kithara player Nicocles of Tarentum, an altar to Zephyrus anda

Laco Cognomen of Etruscan origin in the families of the Cornelii (Cornelius [20] and lulii and of P.> Graecinius L. A follower of M. Antonius [I 9] mentioned by Gicerolin 4458 Gi(Cics PhilmakroGs | Ciew Atty n6;103))

sanctuary to Demeter, Kore, Athena and Poseidon. The

bearing the name probably came from a family of the urban nobility of Anagnia, the Abbutii Lacones (ILS

sacred fig tree of Demeter grew here. Militiades and Cimon of the family of the Philaidae were demotes of L. (IG II* 1034, 1629, 2452, 6618; Plut. Alcibiades 22,3, Plut. Cimon 4,1; 10,2; Cic. Off. 2,64). According to the

Suda s.v. @ A. and Hsch. s.v. A., L. proverbial for the radishes used in raphanidosis (— Adultery; Aristoph. Nub. 1083). W.JupEIcH, Die Top. von Athen, *1931, 177, 411; TRAILL, Attica 49, 59, 68, 111 no. 82, table 6; J.S. TRAILL, Demos and Trittys, 1986, 93, 96, 98, 110, 133; WHITEHEAD, Index s.v. L.

Laciburgium northern

H.LO.

(AaxiPovoyiov; Lakibourgion).

Germania

magna,

Site in

west of the Oder (Ptol.

2,11,12), not yet localized. Possibly a misspelling of > Asciburgium (modern Moers-Asberg). A. FRANKE, s.v. L., RE 12, 344f.; G.CHR.

HANSEN,

in:

J. HERRMANN (ed.), Griech. und lat. Quellen zur Frithgesch. Mitteleuropas bis zur Mitte des r. Jt. u.Z., Teil 3, 1991, 581.

RA.WI.

6258). 1 SCHULZE, 81; 153; 316.

K.-L.E.

Lacobriga There were three towns of this Celtic [1] name. [1] In the territory of the Vaccaei, north of > Palantia in northern Spain ({2]; Plin. HN 3,26; Ptol. 2,6,49; It. Ant.

395513 449533 45451): [2] Lusitanian town (Plut. Sertorius 13,7; Ptol. 2,5,53 Mela 3,7). Many remains on the Monte de Figuerola near modern Lagos in the Algarve [3], possibly identical to the diocese Laniobrensis ecclesia, mentioned often in ecclesiastical documents [2. 134; 43 5; 6]. [3] Lusitanian coastal town south of Oporto (It. Ant. 421,7; Geogr. Rav. 4,45). 1 Hotper, s.v. L.

2R.Grosse

(ed.), Fontes Hispaniae

Antiquae 8, 1959, 134, 444f. 3 A.SCHULTEN, Forsch. in Spanien, in: AA 1933, 3/4, 530 4R.GRossE (ed.), Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae 9, 1947, 216, 354, 367 5 A.SCHULTEN, Sertorius, 1926, 71

Lacinius (Aaxivioc, Aaxivoc; Lakinios, Lakinos). lapygian king who ruled over the land of the Bruttii; eponym of the Lacinium Mountains near > Croton. L. took in Croton, who had been banished from Corcyra, and gave him his daughter Laure (or Laurete) in marriage (schol. Lycoph. 1007; schol. Theoc. 4,33b). When ~ Heracles [1] returned from his Geryon adventure, he came into conflict with L. Concerning the cause of this, there are two variant accounts: either L. refused hospitality to Heracles, chased him away and consecrated a

6Id., Fontes Hispa-

niae Antiquae 4, 1937, 173; 1959. TOVAR 2, 208.

P.B.

Lacon (Adxwv; Lakon). Otherwise unknown epigram-

matical poet (Sicilian origin has been suspected, cf. Theoc. Eidyllion 5), to whom a single votive poem (Anth. Pal. 6,203) is attributed; it may alternatively be the work of — Philippus [32] of Thessalonica, the author of the Garland: eleven iambic trimeters, describ-

ing the miraculous healing of an old, limping woman in

LACON

147

148

the hot springs of the river Symaethus on Etna. The woman dedicates her stick to the nymphs.

Lane was the first to recognize three main masters of LVP of the 6th cent. BC (> Arcesilas Painter, > Hunt Painter, Naucratis Painter), SriBBE then provided a detailed classification [3. 1-7], distinguishing between five important and several less significant painters. The paintings are designs of animal friezes, scenes of daily life — primarily symposiums — and numerous mythical images. Of the gods, Poseidon and Zeus appear frequently, the interior of the cup often depicts a > Gorgonium [1. 14-18]. Popular themes from the myth also include the deeds of Hercules [1. 1-13] and the legends of Thebes (+ Theban myths) and Troy (— Troy III. Mythology) [x. 25-34]. Laconian particularities are a rider with a volute twine growing out of his head [1. 76], or the representation of the nymph Cyrene [r. 36-37].

GA II 2, 369.

Laconian see > Doric/Northwest Greek; > Tsakonian

Laconian vase painting In > Sparta, painted ceramics were produced for export as early as the 7th cent. BC. Initially associated with > Cyrene, one of the first places where Laconian vase paintings (LVP) were found, the origin of LVP was secured with the excavation of the Artemis Orthia Sanctuary in Sparta. Dating for LVP, which is considered to have reached its peak c. between 575 and 525 BC, is primarily derived from groups of findings in + Tarentum and Tocra [3. 8-9]; the representation of Arcesilaus [2] Il, which was probably created during his reign [3. 195; 198] also serves as a chronological pointer. Significant sites of LVP findings are, in addition to Sparta, > Rhodes, > Samos, Cyrene and Tarentum, as well as the Etruscan necropoleis [2. 149-172].

The painted pieces of > pottery were thoroughly washed and usually covered with a cream-coloured coating. The most frequent vase form is the cup mounted ona tall foot, with a deep bowl. It is typically painted with ornamental designs on the outside — primarily chains of pomegranate — and a large figurative painting on the inside, where one segment is often separated from the rest and decorated with animals or ornaments [2. 11-18]. Other important vase forms are the > lakaina (high two-handled drinking vessel), the colonnette krater, the volute krater (— Krater), in antiquity called krater lakonikos, the - hydria, the > lebes as well as the > aryballos in its Laconian form. These vessels are also completely coated with lustrous clay finish or decorated with only very few ornaments [4. 199203]. The few known inscriptions are artists’ names.

Accessory colours (red, white) find extensive use and

increase the decorative effect of the mostly very meticulous, high-quality work, which characterizes one of the most significant types of Greek vases. -» Vessels, shapes and types of (with fig.); > Corinthian vases (with fig.) 1 M.Prpiri, Laconian Iconography of the Sixth Century BC, 1987 2F.Pompiti (ed.), Studi sulla ceramica Laconica, 1981 3C.M. Stippe, Lakon. Vasenmaler des

6. Jh.v.Chr.,

1972

4I1d., Das andere

Sparta,

185-188.

M.ST.

Laconica A. NaMeE

B. LANDSCAPE

AND TOPOGRAPHY

C. History

A. NAME

Lakonike gé (Aaxwvniy yf) or L. chora (A. yooa) is the customary appellation in prose literature for the national territory of > Sparta, especially in Thucydides, always in Polybius, also Herodotus (1,69; 6,58,1), Xenophon (Hell. 4,7,6; 4,8,8; 6,2,31; 6,5,21), Aristo-

Vessel shapes of Laconian pottery

Amphora

Hydria

ae Ss Lakaina

Cup with tall foot

Relative size of aryballoi: 2:1

1996

5 J.BOARDMAN, Early Greek Vase Painting, 1998, 108;

Volute krater

‘Chalcidian type’ krater

Lebes

SS Cup with short foot

Aryballos

Pointed aryballos

149

150

phanes (Vesp. 1162; Pax 245), Strabo (8,2,2; 4,93 5,4ff.), Pausanias (3,1,1; 21,6; 4,1,1; 16,8; 17,1) and Ptolemy (3,16,9), in Latin Laconica (Plin. HN 2,243; 4515 5,323; 6,214; 25,94). Epigraphically, this appella-

tion appears only in one proxeny list from Ceos in the 4th cent. BC (IG XII 5,542,22, partly supplemented) and in one Roman Latin-Greek honorific inscription in L. for C. Julius > Eurycles (SEG 11, 924). In contrast, the official name of the national territory is exclusively given as Lakedaimon, widely attested in literature; Latin Laconia occurs only very sporadically and probably only as a manuscript variant of Laconica. The name form ‘Laconia’, commonly used only in modern times, denotes the southern Peloponnese, i.e. the Eurotas valley together with its neighbouring regions, the Parnon range and peninsula, and the Taygetus peninsulas B. LANDSCAPE AND TOPOGRAPHY L. in the modern sense encompasses the Eurotas valley, which is divided into several steps by transverse ridges, and its mountainous borderlands to either side. The valleys of the > Eurotas and Kelephina (ancient ~ Oenus) were both important transport routes. Of the various steps of the Eurotas Valley, the most important is the plain of Sparta, an area of approx. 10 x 30 km, of which 5-6 x 18 km belong to the plain; the 18 km wide hilly country of the Vardunia separates it from the 4-6 km wide littoral plain. In archaic and classical times, L. consisted of the region of the perioikic towns (— perioikoi) and territory of the Spartiate citizens. The northern borderlands of Aigytis, Belminatis and Sciritis were perioikic, as were the slopes of the Parnon and Taygetus. The Spartiate territory comprised the actual Sparta basin, incorporating a strip of land which reached the coast on the northern shore of the Laconian Gulf (at Helus). Gytheion and the nearest settlements of the Vardunia, Aegiae and Croceae, were perioikic. The most important perioikic towns were: in the upper Eurotas Valley, Pellana; in the north-western Parnon, Caryae and Sellasia; on the eastern flanks of the Parnon and the Parnon peninsula, Prasiae, Cyphanta, Zarax,

Epidaurus

Limera,

Glympeis,

Marios,

Geronthrae,

Acreae, Cyparissia, Asopus, Cotyrta, Boiae, Etis [1; 2;

3]; on the Taygetus peninsula Gytheion, Las, Asine, Pyrrhichus, Teuthrone, Psammathus, Oetylus, Thalamae, Pephnus, Leuktron, Cardamyle and Gerenia [4; 5]. The perioikic towns were detached from Sparta in 195 BC; during the Imperial period they formed the league of the > Eleutherolakones. Other than Sparta, the only major settlement in the Spartan territory was Amyclae; otherwise there were Spartan farms and sanctuaries such as — in historical times — Therapne, opposite Sparta to the east, with the sanctuary of Helena (later the so-called Menelaion) and that of the Dioscuri; on the slopes of the Taygetus south-west of Sparta, Bryseae with its Dionysus sanctuary (Paus. 3,20,3) and, to the south of that, at Kalyvia Sochas, an Eleusinion ([6]; Paus. 3,20,5). Finally Pharis and, on the coast, Helus

LACONICA

(other sanctuaries in Paus.). On the boundary markers towards Messene, see IG V 1,1371f.; 1431.

The surface area of Laconia (Nomos Laconia and Cynuria province) amounts to approx. 5,000 km’, of which, however, only about 500 km? is cultivable Spartiate land. Nonetheless, the plain of Sparta is one of the most fertile regions of Greece (precipitation and irrigation). The proximity of the mountains and the landscape of the interior, however, account for abrupt weather changes and relatively cold winters.

C. History The region was already densely populated in prehistoric times [7], cf. the tholos tombs belonging to Pharis of the Mycenaean period at Vaphio, Amyclae and Therapne, the chamber tombs of Vaphio, Analepse, Kambos, Palaiochori and Pellana. A state of political and military equilibrium and intensive trading relations with Messene, Argolis, the Cyclades, Crete and Boeotia can be established for the Late Helladic I-II periods [8]. Around 1200 BC, a crisis arose in connection with the

arrival or dominance of a new social group, the Dorians, who gained considerably in strength between the rth and oth cents. BC. The open village settlement of Sparta itself, on the right bank of the Eurotas, was founded by these immigrating Dorians. Pre-Doric traces survived in the Laconian dialect. The Catalogue of ships (Hom. II. 2,581-587) mentions Pharis, Sparta, Messe,

Bryseae, Augeae, Amyclae, Helus, Las and Oetylus. Otherwise, the history of L. is the history of ~ Sparta, whose political and social structures come to influence the entire region both politically and culturally from the 8th/7th cents. BC. Around the end of the sth/early 4th cents. BC, a major defence system was constructed along the northern and eastern frontiers. For the Roman period, > Achaia. 1 A.J. B. Wace, F.W. Hastuck, South-Eastern Laconia,

in: ABSA 14, 1907/8, 161-182 2 Id., East-Central Laconia, in: ABSA 15, 1908/9, 158-176 3 L.Moscuou, Tonoyoeadina Mavyg, in: AAA 8, 1975, 160-177. 4E.S. ForsTER, South-Western Laconia, in: ABSA 10, 1903/4,

158-189 5SlId., A.M. Woopwarp, Gythium and the northwest Coast of the Laconian Gulf, in: ABSA 13, 1906/7 6C.M. Stipse, Das Eleusinion am Fufe des Taygetos in Lakonien, in: BABesch 68, 1993, 71-105 7 H. WATERHOUSE,

nia, in: ABSA

R.Hope-Srmpson,

55, 1960, 67-107;

Prehistoric Laco-

56, I961, 114-175

8 W. CAVANAGH, Development of the Mycenaean State in Laconia, in: Aegaeum 12, 1995, 81-87.

P. ARMSTRONG et al., Crossing the River: Observations on Routes and Bridges in Laconia from the Archaic to Byzantine Periods, in: ABSA 87, 1992, 293-310; P. CARTLEDGE, Sparta and Laconia. A Regional History 1300-362 BC, 1979; W.CAVANAGH et al., Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape, ABSA Suppl. 27, 1996; J. CHRISTIEN, Promenades en Laconie, in: DHA 15, 1989, 75105; F.SIRANO, s.v. Laconia, EAA? 3, 235-249. YObs

LACONICUM

of the Inst.): abridgement to '/, with new emphases and

Laconicum see > Baths; > Thermal baths

Lacrates Spartan during a skirmish who freed Athens konta) (Xen. Hell.

olympic champion; died in in Piraeus against resistance from the rule of the ‘Thirty’ 2,4,33).

403 BC fighters (> TriaK.-W.WEL.

Lacringi A Lugian (Vandalic) tribe (Adxeuyyou Lakringoi, Cass. Dio 71,12,2; Lacringes, SHA Aur. 22,1), who

fought against Rome in the Marcomannic Wars in AD 170. The L. were settled as — foederati in the north of Dacia, where they defeated the Asdingi. Both tribes later counted as Roman allies (cf. Cass. Dio 71,11,6). In later years the L. intermingled with other members of the Vandalic tribes. L.ScumipT,

52

151

H.Ze1ss,

Die Westgermanen,

1940,

165, 167, 169.

163, J.BU,

additions (Platonica). — De ira dei (‘On the Wrath of God’; late, after 315): God’s wrath is a correlate to his

grace, a necessary part of his potestas. - De mortibus persecutorum (‘On the Death of the Persecutors’; after 313, before 316): as a contemporary witness (1,8; 52,1)

L. portrays the persecutors of Christians and God’s vengeance on them. — The poem De ave Phoenice (‘On the Phoenix Bird’; probably shortly after 3.03): a cryptoChristian mythological elegy; the phoenix serves as a resurrection allegory (> Allegorical poetry). C. TEACHINGS AND INFLUENCE L. is a Chiliast and recognizes only two divine per-

sons. His view of the world and man is dualistic under a monistic umbrella: God tolerates malum, evil, as the antipode/antithesis of bonum so that man can prove his virtus (intensified in the Epit. and the revised version of the Inst.: God created malum

Lactantius

[1] A. LIFE

B. Works

C. TEACHINGS

AND

INFLU-

ENCE

A. LIFE L. Caelius Firmianus qui et L., Christian Latin writ-

er, born in Africa around 250, probably died in Gaul in 325. Diocletian summoned him to teach rhetoric at Nicomedia in Bithynia where he converted, and after the outbreak of the Great Persecution of Christians in 303 he became an apologist (+ Apologists). Around 315, Constantine [1] brought him to Gaul, probably to Trier, to be the teacher of his son Crispus. B. Works De opificio dei (‘On the Workmanship of God’; 303/4; disguised as a ‘supplement to Cicero’, 1,12-14; 20,1): man is the perfect creation of God and is dutybound to obedience (19,8—10). — Divinae institutiones (‘Divine Instructions’; first version 304/311; unfinished new version dedicated to Constantine in 324; the titles of the 7 books are by L.): bk.1 De falsa religione: proof for monotheism, critique of pagan cults; bk. 2 De origine erroris: demonology within the context of the doctrine of creation; bk. 3 De falsa sapientia: critique of Graeco-Roman philosophy, which he says has failed as to the summumni bonum (cf. bk. 7); bk. 4 De vera sapientia et religione: describes the Christian religion as true divine knowledge and worship as well as the mission and works of Christ; bk. 5 De iustitia: justice — restored by Christ, fought against by the persecutors — is not folly; a summons to Christians to be willing to suffer and to trust in God; bk. 6 De vero cultu: duties to God and to fellow men (the first Christian teaching of the divine offices in Latin); bk. 7 De vita beata: the goal of human

existence

(7,5,27; 7,6,1) is immortality

and

nearness to God; description of the apocalypse. — The short version of this same work as Epitome divinarum institutionum (around 320, prior to the second version

as well). L. combines Roman concepts of religion and God (God as pater familias and imperator) with Gnostic and Platonist influences (hermetics) from Africa. He represents Roman and Old Testament thinking on reward and retribution; his doctrine of duty combines the Bible and Cicero’s De offictis. As an apologist (Inst. 5,1.4; Opif. 20) he pursues ideas broached by > Minucius Felix and quotes copiously from pagan literature; in form and substance L. strives to reach his opponents at their level of education. He sees rhetoric as being in the service of revealed truth (Inst. 1,1,10; 5,1,14). L. quotes

> Cicero,

his literary model, often polemically but also appropriatingly (e.g. Inst. 6,8,6—9), likewise Vergil (e.g. Inst. 1,5,11-12), Lucretius (in Opif. 19,2 he has to proclaim creationism, in Inst. 7,27,6 the mission of Christ) and Seneca (Inst. 5,22,11 on theodicy). He uses the Oracula Sibyllina and similar works as witnesses. He cites the Bible only when necessary (Inst. 1,5,13 4,5,33 Cf. 5,4,6 against Cyprianus, to whom he is partially indebted for the text of the Bible; much is of Eastern origin, as e.g. the Odes of Solomon). L. does not reject poetry, but sees in allegory a task for the poet (Inst.

1,11,24;

this

explains, in all probability, Constantine’s crypto-Christian interpretation of Verg. Ecl. 4). The Phoenix is the first Christian poem in Latin in the classical traditional form. Rejected by the Church as a heretic, L. was seen during the Renaissance as Cicero Christianus: there are c. 300 MSS and many editions from 1465 (first book printed in Italy) to around 1750. De mortibus persecutorum was ‘continued’ in the 18th and roth cents. by the Catholic Church, lastly from 1873-4 until Napoleon IIL. EDITIONS:

S.BRANDT, CSEL 19; 27; Epitome: E. Heck,

A. WLOSOK, 1994; Ira: C.INGREMEAU, SChr 289, 1982; Mort. pers.: J.L. CREED, 1984 BipLioGRAPHY: E.HEck, Die dualist. Zusatze und die Kaiseranreden bei L., 1972; Id., L. und die Klassiker, in: Philologus 132, 1988, 160-179; Id., L. im Kulturkampf, in: FS L. Abramowski, 1993, 589-606; V.Lo1, L. nella

storia del linguaggio e del pensiero teologico preniceno,

154

153 1970; P. Monat, L. et la Bible, 2 vols., 1982; M. PERRIN, L’homme antique et chrétien, 1981; W. WiNGER, Personalitat durch Humanitat. Das ethikgesch. Profil christl. Handlungslehre bei L., 2 vols., 1999; A. WLosok, L. und die philos. Gnosis, 1960; Id., Zur Bed. der nichtcyprianischen Bibelzit. bei L., in: Studia Patristica 4, 1961, 234250 (= Res humanae, 1990 (s.u.), 201-216); Id., in: HLL, § 570; Id., Res humanae — res divinae, 1990, passim.

E.HE.

[2] L. Placidus Editor of a commentary on ~ Statius’ Thebais, probably active in Rome. The core of this work comprises a mass of > Scholia — conceived more as a commentary on subject and style (geography, mythology, rhetoric) than as a glossary — which, if used by Servius [5. 153ff.], probably dates from the late 4th cent. AD, and which has its nearest relative in the Virgil commentary by Ti. Claudius > Donatus [4]. Further sources are the Virgil commentary of Aelius > Donatus [3] and a purer version of the book of fables by > Hyginus. This core was expanded — in the sth cent.? — by L., who cites his name in connection with Theb. 6,364. He was probably a Christian [4. 4ff.], which agrees with the Neoplatonic tendency of some of his interpretations. The original lemma commentary was later transmitted as a marginal commentary and — probably in the Carolingian period — reinstated as an independent commentum. The closed transmission is better represented (cf. the stemma in [1. XXII]) by Miinchen, Clm 19482 (end of roth cent.) than by the oldest MS Valenciennes

394 (2nd half of the 9th cent.). Moreover, the commentary was used also by the ~ Mythographi Vaticani in the Middle Ages. His identification with the Church Father L. [1] (according to the interpolation in 6,364, but cf. [7]) as well as the humanistic attribution to him of the glosses on Placidus and the Narrationes fabularum Ovidianarum are out of the question. 1R.D.

Sweeney,

1997

(Bibliogr.

XXXVII[-LIII).

2 A. Kotz, Die Statiusscholien, in: ALLG 15, 1908, 485-

525 3 P. WessNER, s.v. L. (2), RE 12,1,356-360 4 F. BRETZIGHEIMER, Stud. zu L.P., 1937 5 P.v.D. WoeEsTIJNE, Les scolies a la ’Thébaide’ de Stace, in: AC 19, 1950, 149-163 6R.D. SweEENEY, Prolegomena to an Ed. of the Scholia to Statius, 1969 7 G.BRUGNOLI, Iden-

tikit di Lattanzio Placido, 1988 8 R.JaKosi, Versprengungen in den Statius-Schol., in: Hermes 120, 1992, 364374. P.L.S.

Lactodurum

Present-day

Towcester,

Northampton-

shire; It. Ant. 2; 6. Late Iron Age settlement; from the

mid rst cent. AD a Roman army station. The town was

protected in the 2nd cent. by the construction of a rampart and ditch; stone fortifications were added in the 3rd cent. A.L. F. Rivet, C.SmirH,

Britain, 1979, 382f.

The Place-Names

of Roman

M.TO.

LACTUCA

Lactora Suburb of a civitas in Aquitania, modern Lectoure (Département Gers), south of Aginnum (modern Agen). Other name evidence: Lacturatis, Notae Tironianae 87,77; Lactura, It. Ant. 462,5; Lactora, Tab. Peut. 2,2; Lacura, Geogr. Rav. 4,41; in provincia

Novempopulana ... civitas Lactoratium, Notitia Galliarum 14; ordo Lactor(atium), CIL XIII 51x.

Oldest historical evidence is a honorary inscription of AD ro5, mentioning a procurat(or) provinciarum Lugduniensis et Aquitanicae item Lactorae (CIL V 875 = ILS 1374). 22 altars testify to a > taurobolium in the 2nd and 3rd cents. AD (CIL XIII 504-525). Around AD

300, the upper town was refortified using materials from older stone monuments. L. was a diocesan town from no later than AD 506. Archaeology: late Iron Age oppidum above the valley of the Gers, many sacrificial pits. Lower town of the Imperial period in the flood plain of Pradoulin, destroyed in the late 3rd cent. AD, resettled in the 4th cent. Orthogonal street grid, evidence of pottery production and bone working. J. Larart, C. Petit, Carte Archéologique de la Gaule, vol. 32 Gers, 1993, 196-227. MLPO.

Lactuca [1] Lettuce (Oeida&/thridax, also OQv-, 8Qd8aE/thry-, throdax, Sewaxivy/thridakiné, Lactuca sativa L.), the

lettuce plant known in several varieties (Theophr. Hist. pl. 7,4,5 et passim), whose cultivation and protection against pests, as well as culinary and medical uses, are described by Theophrastus. Thus, according to Theophr. Hist. pl. 7,6,2, its juice is said to help against dropsy and eye sores. Lettuce has been cultivated in Europe, North Africa and Asia for a long time (first evidence in Alcm. 20) and formed a fixed component of the Greek menu (cf. Ath. 2,68f-70a; cf. also Hdt. 3,32). Ever since Varro, Ling. 5,154 (= Plin. HN 19,126; Pall. Agric. 2,14,4; Isid. Orig. 17,10,11), the derivation from lac (‘milk’) due to its milky sap has been widespread. In the Middle Ages, the Circa instans in a version of the 13th cent. [1. 68] knows lettuce as a producer of good blood. In prescriptions, its seeds are supposed to elicit good sleep and help against ‘warm sores’. Pliny (HN 19,125-128; 20,60-63), Columella (10,179-193; 11,3,25-27) and Palladius (Agric. 2,14,1-4 et passim) offer much information on the different varieties, their sowing, their transplantation and fertilizing, and their medical effects, such as calming the stomach, stimulating the appetite and strengthening milk production. Dioscorides (2,136 WELLMANN = 2,164f. BERENDES) ascribes an antiaphrodisiacal effect on men who drink the seeds of garden lettuce and opium lettuce (Lactuca virosa L.).

+ Vegetables 1H. WO Fe (ed.), Das Arzneidrogenbuch Circa instans, PhD thesis 1939.

R. STADLER, S.v. L., RE 12, 367ff.

C.HU.

155

156

[2] Roman cognomen (‘Lettuce’), in the early Republi-

2,71) in Trastevere. At Careiae (modern Santa Maria di Galeria) it reached the Aro, an outlet for the lacus Sabatinus (modern Lago Bracchiano), which added more water; an overflow channel was intended for irrigation. The aqueduct continued south at the foot of the > Ianiculum; the water was not potable. GU.

LACTUCA

can period an epithet of the consuls for 456 and 437 BC from the family of the Valerii; the name of Lactucinus (consular tribune in 398 BC), another member of this family, is also derived from it. K.-L.E. Lacunar Passed down in Vitruvius [1. s.v. I.], an archi-

tectural technical term, on many occasions there also designated as lacunaria (pl.), for the sunken panels that decorated the ceiling between wooden beams crossing one another (— Roofing), the Greek equivalent being phatnoma, gastér, kalathdsis [2. 45-52 with additional terms for details of the lacunar]. Lacunaria were as a rule three-dimensionally recessed and decorated with paintings or reliefs (mostly ornamental). In the temple or columned building, the place where they were first applied exclusively in Greek architecture, the panels of the cella ceiling consisted of wood while those above the external ptera (> Temple) from the 6th cent. BC onwards (marble temples in the Cyclades) were increas-

ingly made of stone. The size of the individual panels was determined by structural considerations; the panels on the > Parthenon for instance measured 3.43 x 1.26 m and weighed over 3.5 t. Roman architecture adopted the coffered ceiling in the construction of ~ vaults and arches (e.g. in the arched passage of numerous honorary and —> triumphal arches, as well as in thermal halls) and in the construction of domes (+ Dome, Construction of domes) (Hadrian’s > Pantheon). 1 H. Nout, Index Vitruvianus, 1876

2 EBERT.

W.HoEpPENER, Zum Problem griech. Holz- und Kassettendecken, in: A.HOFFMAN, Bautechnik der Ant. = DiskAB 5, 1991, 90-98; W.MULLER-WIENER, Griech. Bauwesen in der Ant., 1988, 94f.; K. TANCKE, Deckenkas-

setten in der griech. Baukunst, in: Ant. Welt 24-35; Id., Figuralkassetten griech. und rém. ken, 1989; W.F. Wyatt Jr., C.N. EDMONTON, ing of the Hephaisteion, in: AJA 88, 1984,

20, 1989, SteindekThe Ceil135-167. C.HO,

Lacus Avernus (Greek “Aogvoc, Aornos). Volcanic lake connected to the sea near Baiae (> Campi Phlegraei),

especially deep (Lycoph. 704; Diod. Sic. 4,22; Aristot. Mir. 102), sulphurous vapours (Verg. Aen. 6,242; Lucr. 6,744; Plin. HN 31,21; Serv. Aen. 3,442). The lacus Avernus (LA) owed its reputation above all to its connection with the > Underworld. The > Cimmerii were alleged to have lived here in deep holes (Str. 5,4,5); here Odysseus (Str. 5,4,5f.) and Aeneas (Verg. Aen. 3,442; 6,126; Ov. Met. 14,101ff.) entered the world of the dead, for which reason the LA was the Ianua Ditis (+ Dis Pater) for the Romans. Fresh water spring and oracle, in addition to the oracle at the cult site of deus Avernus (CIL X 3792). In 37 BC > Agrippa [1] in-

cluded the LA in the construction of the portus Iulius, connecting it to the > Lacus Lucrinus by means of a canal. NISSEN

1, 268; 2, 735; J.BELOCH,

Campanien,

*1890,

168-172; A. Marurt, I Campi Flegrei dal sepolcro di Virgilio all’antro di Cuma, 1963, 13 5ff.; A.M. Bisi INGRassta, Napoli e dintorni, 1981, 90-92; S.DE Caro, A.GrEcoO, Campania, 1981, 74-77; P.AMALFITANO, G.CamopeEca, M. Meprt, I Campi Flegrei, 1990. _ s.D.V.

Lacus Benacus Today Lago di Garda. Largest Alpine lake in the area of > Verona (Plin. HN 9,75), with a length of 500 stadia (along the eastern shore road; cf. Str. 4,6,12; Plin. HN 2,224; 3,131); the river > Mincius

flows through it. It was navigable despite severe storms (Verg. G. 2,160). The Benacenses (TIR L 32,33) lived on the western shore. TIR L 32,80;

A.Mosca,

Caratteri

della

navigazione

nell’area benacense in eta romana, in: Latomus 50, 1991, 269-284.

K.DI.

Lacus see > Wells; - Cistern

Lacus Albanus Lake in the largest of the volcanic craters of the > mons Albanus, where Alba Longa and various villas were located, e.g. those of Pompey and Domitian, as well as the Castra Albana of Septimius Severus. In 398 BC the water level was regulated through a drainage channel (Liv. 5,15; Cic. Div. 1,100). Famous wines grew on the slopes (Plin. HN 14,64;

25533) P. Curaruccl, Albano Laziale, 1988.

GU:

Lacus Alsietinus Lake in southern Etruria in a small volcanic crater, modern Lago di Martignano. Augustus had an aqueduct built from here, the aqua Augusta Alsietina, which provided water for the > nawmachia in Rome and the nemus Caesarum (Frontin. Aq. 1,113

Lacus Brigantinus Lake formed by the river Rhenus at the northern foot of the Alps (538.5 km’, greatest depth 252m), named after the Brigantii (> Brigantium) who lived there, modern Lake Constance. Mentioned by Str. 4,353 without a name of its own (cf. also Str. 4,4,9; 751553 5,1; Mela 3,24; Cass. Dio 54,22,4; first by Plin. HN 9,63: lacus Raetiae Brigantinus). Inhabitants of the region were the Vindelici, Helvetii and Raeti. Mela 3,24 differentiates between the upper lake (lacus Venetus) and the lower lake (lacus Acronus). Plin. HN 9,63 mentions a type of fish, mustela, in the lacus Brigantinus (LB); Amm.

Marc.

15,4,3 assumes the LB to be 460

stadia in length and almost the same in width. On the occasion of the subjugation of the Alpine foothills by Tiberius in 15 BC, an island in the LB (probably Mainau) was used as a base for a naval skirmish (Str. 7,1,5).

158

D7. W.SCHEFFKNECHT,

Der Beginn der rom. Herrschaft in

LACUS NEMORENSIS

1 G. Fricerioetal., L’antica via Regina, 1995

2 R.CHE-

Vorarlberg, in: E.ZACHERL (ed.), Die Romer in den Alpen,

VALLIER, La romanisation de la Celtique du P6, 1983

1989, 55-69.

3 R.DE Marinis, Liguri e Celto-Liguri, in: G. PUGLIESE CaRRATELLI (ed.), Italia omnium terrarum alumna, 1988.

H.GR.

Lacus Curtius Monument on the > Forum Romanum in Rome, which already in antiquity was associated with various myths of Rome’s early history (> Curtius [x]). Probably built in the Augustan period, the lacus

NISSEN 1, 180.

ASA.

Lacus Lemanus Largest of the Alpine lakes (581 km’), modern Lake Geneva. Documented by Caes. B Gall.

Curtius (LC) was among the monuments on the Roman

Ty 2es Hoss olgkyolla len

Forum that served as vivid, palpable manifestations of early Roman history and, as such, provided a means by which mythology could be given a role to play in the depiction of historical reality, which so far had been recorded primarily in the form of chronicles. The LC

257 AseOs bunk: HUN 2,224" 353358 btOl-e2,moxswAm me Marc. 15,11,16. It. Ant. 348,2: lacus Lausonius; Tab.

consists of an uneven, paved area

(10,15 X 8,95 m),

from which an enclosed altar or structure of other use arose; various excavations, completions or reconstructions and the generally destructive investigations since the middle of the 16th cent. have rendered present and even future attempts to clarify the topographical and chronological situation of the LC largely impossible. RICHARDSON, s.v. L.C., 229f.

16s6> 1 0s Wucamns oGMela

Peut. 3,2: lacus Losanenses. It was the border between Gallia Belgica or Germania superior and Gallia Narbonensis and thus separated the > Helvetii in the north from the > Allobroges in the south. In > Genava harbour installations have been established through dendrochronological methods for the year 121/120 BC [1]. + Lousonna was the northernmost point of the waterway Rhone-Lacus Lemanus. Both Geneva and Lousonna had a sailors’ corporation (nautae): [2. no. 92,

152, 154] =[3. no. 40, 52, 54].

C.HO.

1 Cu. BONNET, Les premiers ports de Genéve, in: Arch. der

Lacus Fucinus A lake that often overflows because it

Schweiz 12, 1989, 2-24 2E.Howatp, E. Meyer, Die rom. Schweiz, 1940 3 G. WaLsER, Rom. Inschr. in der Schweiz 1, 1979. F.SCH.

has no outlet (155 km’, 655 m above sea level) in the

area of the Marsi between Sulmona and the national park of Abruzzo. Caesar contemplated draining it (Suet. Jul. 44), Augustus prevented it (Suet. Claud. 20), Claudius realized it in part by laying a 5.65 km long drainage to the Liris (Suet. Claud. 2of.), under Nero the project was stopped (Plin. HN 36,124). According to CIL IX 3915, renewed flooding in AD 117 made it necessary to reclaim the bordering land. The tunnelling was resumed under Hadrian and finally abandoned (SHA Hadr. 22,12). It was not until 1852/1876 that the lake was finally drained on the instigation of Count Alessandro di Torlonia. This brought various building remains and also fragments of a relief to light, which probably portrays drainage work with a city, Alba Fucens (?), in the background. C.Lerra, I Marsi e il Fucino nell’ antichita, 1972; S.D’Amato, II primo prosciugamento del Fucino, 1980, 164-171; F. COARELLI, A. La Recina, Abruzzo e Molise, 1984, 52-59; BICGI 9, 272-285. A.BO. andE.O.

Lacus Larius Modern Lago Lario or Lago di Como. Formed by the Addua, which flows out again from the eastern arm (Plin. HN 2,224; Str. 4,6,12), it bisects the central foothills of the Alps. In antiquity, it stretched further towards the north (Cato fr. 38). The via Regina [x] runs parallel along the western shore from + Comum to the Alpine passes (Spliigen/Cuneus Aureus, Maloja, Julier) [2. 14]. In the pre-Roman period (— Golasecca culture) [3. 159] it was an important connection from the Po Plain to central Europe, in the Roman period a commercial and military base for central Europe (cf. Ennod. epist. 1,6; Comacenus lacus, Claud. bellum Geticum 319).

Lacus Lucrinus Brackish lagoon on the > Campi Phlegraei, separated from the sea by a sandbar, on which Hercules is supposed to have built the via Herculanea (Str. 5,4,5f.). The lake was known for its wealth of fish. The later Augustus and Agrippa had the lacus Lucrinus (LL), together with lacus Avernus, converted into the portus

Iulius (Plin. HN 36,125; Serv. Aen. 2,161). There were many famous villas on the LL (Cic. Att. 14,16), of which there are no remains due to volcanic eruptions and shifting shorelines (bradyseism); the lake, too, is now largely buried. A. Matort, I Campi Flegrei dal sepolcro di Virgilio all’antro di Cuma, 51963, 57ff.; A. M. Brsi INGRassIa, Napoli e dintorni, 1981, 92f.; S.DE Caro, A.GRECO, Campania,

1981, 74-77; 1990.

P.AMALFITANO

et al., I Campi

Flegrei,

S.D.V.

Lacus

Nemorensis

Crater

lake

in Latium

near

~+ Aricia in the Alban Hills (Plin. HN 19,141), modern Lago di Nemi. An underground drainage adit (Str.

5,313) was cut around the 4th cent. BC [1]. The forested slopes on its banks formed the nemus Dianae (grove of > Diana, with temple and high priest, rex Nemorensis, who — always a runaway slave — had to kill his predecessor in single combat [25 3; 4]). The nemus Dianae

led to the lake being called lacus Nemorensis (Prop. 3,22), but also speculum Dianae (‘Mirror of Diana’)

(Serv. Aen. 7,516). There was

a community of villas

(Cic. Att. 6,1545; 15,1,5) on the lake, where the emper-

ors Caligula and Vitellius (Tac. Hist. 3,36) spent their summers. Caesar also had a villa built here (Suet. Tul. 46).

LACUS NEMORENSIS

159

160

The two ships of Caligula (71x20m and 73 X 24m), which were recovered in 1927/1932 and destroyed in World War II [5; 6; 7], led to the establishment of the Museo delle Navi, where two models of ships are displayed today [8; 9].

was fed by the Bruna, which emptied into the mare Tyrrbenum at Castiglione della Pescaia (province of

1 V.Catot, V. CASTELLANI, Note on the Ancient Emissary

of the Lake N., 1990 2 F.PoutseN, Nemi Studies, in: AArch 12, 1941, 1-52 31.F.C. Brace, Mysteries of Diana, 1983 4 M. Mo ttesen, I Dianas hellige lund, 1997 5 G.UcELLI, Le navi di Nemi, *1950 6 L.Marianti, Le navi di Nemi nella bibliografia, 1942 7 G.CULTRERA, Ricordi di lavori per il ricupero delle navi di Nemie di altre singolari vicende, 1954 8 G. Moretti, Il museo delle navi di Nemi, 1940 9 G. Guint, II museo delle navi romane e II santuario di Diana di Nemi, 2 vols., 1988; 1992.

L. Morpurco, Nemus Aricinum, in: Memorie della classe

Grosseto).

NU

Lacus Regillus Crater lake (now dry) in agro Tusculano (Liv. 2,19ff.) near Frascati; modern Pantano Secco. In 499 or 496 BC, a battle between Romans and Latini took place there (Liv. l.c.; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6,353, with the rumour that the > Dioscuri had caused

the Roman victory). The > foedus Cassianum, which was agreed afterwards, regulated the return of Rome into the > Latin League. A. ALFOLDI, Early Rome and the Latins, 1965, 111-116; M. PALLOTTINO, Originie storia primitiva di Roma, 1993,

322-323.

SB.

di scienze morali e storiche dell’Accademia dei Lincei 13, 1903, 297-368; L.MonTEccuHt, Nemi, il suo lago, le sue

navi, 1929; G. GHINI, S.Gizz1, Il Lago di Nemi e il suo museo, 1996.

G.U.

Lacus Pelso (also L. Pelsois, L. Pelsodis). Lake in Pannonia (today 591 km*, 106 m above sea level, average depth 3 m), important as a shipping route with many overland connections, modern Balaton in western Hungary. Pliny (HN 3,146) has Lacus Pelso (LP) border on the territory of the Norici (~ Noricum) and the deserta Boiorum (> Boiohaemum), which commonly led to the

assumption that Lake Neusiedel was also called LP [1. 26f.; 25 3. 614]. While the area west of LP is supposed to have been dependent on the Norici in the early tstcent. AD [4. 15f.], the formulation in Plin. Lc. shows that LP was regarded as belonging to > Pannonia [5. 522-524]. It is also unlikely that two different lakes in the same region would have the same name. Galerius [5] regulated the drainage of LP into the Ister [2] (modern Danube) and thus won fertile agricultural land

(Aur. Vict. Caes.

40,9). In the 5thcent.

AD,

+ Ostrogoths under Thiudimer settled on LP (lord. Get. 268). King Hunimundus [1] of the Suebi was taken captive by Thiudimer at LP (lord. Get. 274). The large size of LP is also mentioned in Geogr. Rav. 4,19. 1 A.Grar, 1936

Ubersicht der ant. Geogr. von

Pannonien,

2A.Mocsy,s.v. L. P., RE Suppl. 11, 1049-1051

3 S.SopRoNI, Geography of Pannonia, in: A. LENGYEL, G.T.R. RADAN (ed.), The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia, 1980, 57-63 4 J. Firz, Die Verwaltung Pannoniens in der Romerzeit, vol. 1, 1993 5 H.GrassL, Die Grenzen der Prov. Noricum, in: E.OLsHausEN, H.SONNABEND

(ed.), Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur histor. Geogr. des Alt. 4, 1990 (Geographica Historica 7), 1994, 517-524.

E.H6rinG, Die geogr. Namen des ant. Pannonien, diss. Heidelberg 1950, 56 f.; TIR 34, 1968, 72. H. GR.

Lacus Trasumenus Lake between > Cortona [1] and + Perusia, modern Lago Trasimeno. It was here in 217

BC that > Hannibal [4] defeated the Romans under C. + Flaminius [1] (Pol. 3,80-85; App. Hann. 38-41; Liv. 22,4,1) in the Second Punic War. The site of the battle is

uncertain: between Montigeto and Montecolognola [1], between Borghetto and Montigeto [2. ro5—115] or between Borghetto and Tuoro [3. fig. 15]. 1 J. KRoMayeER, Die Schlacht am Trasimenischen See und die Methode der Schlachtfeldforsch., in: Neue Jbb. fiir das klass. Alt. 25, 1910, 185-200 2 G. DE SANCTIS, Storia dei Romani, 3,2,71968 3 G.Susint, Ricerche sulla battaglia di Trasimeno, in: Annuario dell’Accademia Etrusca di

Cortona 11, 1959/1960, 1-31. T.ScHmittT, Hannibals Siegeszug, 1991,

115-126.

SB.

Lacus Vadimonis Crater lake in southern Etruria between Orte and Bomarzo, modern Lago di Bassano (Plin. Ep. 8,20; Plin. HN 2,209; Sen. Q Nat. 3,25,8). The Romans under P. Cornelius [I 27] Dolabella defeated Etrusci and Galli there in 283 BC (Pol. 2,19,7— 20,6; 310 BC according to Liv. 9,39). A.N. SHERWIN-WHITE, The Letters of Pliny, 1966, 472-

473; M.ToreELLI, Storia degli Etruschi, 1981, 255; C. SayLOR, Overlooking Lake Vadimon: Pliny on Tourism (Epist. 8,20), in: CPh 77, 1982, 139-144.

S.B.

Lacus Velinus A lake formed by the rivers Avens, Himella and Tolenus in the territory of the Sabini in the plains below > Reate. It was partially drained in 272 BC by the consul > Curius [4], through the drainage system of the Cascata delle Marmore, which gave the waters of the Avens an artificial outlet. The lake drained into the Nar above > Interamna [1]. Q. Axius (Varro, Rust. 2,1,8) and Cicero (Att. 4,15) [1] had villas here. The drainage of Lacus Velinus caused quarrels between

Lacus Prelius Coastal lake in Etruria (Cic. Mil. 74;

Reate

Prile, Plin. HN 3,51) between > Vetulonia and > Rusellae (the remnants of which can still be seen in the

4,15,53 Cic. Scaur. 12,27; Tac. Ann. 1,79; palus Reatina, Plin. HN 2,106; 226). A remainder is formed

Padule di Raspollino), with a station ad lacum Aprilem of the via Aurelia (It. Ant. 229; 500; Tab. Peut. 4,3). It

today by the Lago di Piedilugo and smaller lakes further upriver (Lago di Ripa Sottile, Lago Lungo); for this

and

Interamna

(Varro,

Rust.

3,2,3;

Cic. Att.

161

162

reason possibly Plin. HN 3,108 and Tac. Ann. 1,79 use the plural Velini lacus. The tribus Velina [2. 275f.] and the goddess Velinia (Varro, Ling. 5,71) [3] were named after this region.

Ladon (Addwv; Ladon). [1] The dragon referred to in Apoll. Rhod. 4,1396, elsewhere referred to only as a ‘serpent’ (dphis, drakon), who guards the apples of the > Hesperides (as also

1 M.C. Spapont Cerront, La villa di Quinto Assio, in: Annali Perugia 16/7, 1978/9, 169-175 2L.Ross Tay-

LOR, Voting Districts of the Roman

Republic,

1960

3 E.C. Evans, Cults of the Sabine Territory, in: Memoirs

of the American Academy in Rome r1, 1939. E. Dupre THESEIDER, II lago V., 1939; N. HORSFALL, s.v. V., EV 5, 471f.; A.M. REGGIANTI, Rieti, 1990. GU.

Lacus Verban(n)us A lake formed by the Ticinus in the Alpine foothills, modern Lago Verbano or Lago Maggiore (Pol. 34,10,21 = Str. 4,6,12; Plin. HN 2,224; 3,131; 9,69); Verg. G. 2,159 possibly hints at the lacus Verban(n)us. Vicus Sebuinus, later called Angleria (modern Angera), is on the eastern shore. NIssEN, vol. 1, 181.

ASA.

Lacydes (Aaxvdn¢; Lakydés) of Cyrene. Academic philosopher of the 3rd cent. BC. Took over the leadership of the > Academy from > Arcesilaus [5], which he held, according to Diog. Laert. 4,60/61, for 26 years and handed over in his own lifetime to Evander and Telecles. How the information contained in Philod. Academicorum Index 27,1-7 is to be reconciled with this is disputed (details in [1. 831]). L. died most likely in the year 207 BC ([1. 830], differently [2. 50]). He lectured in a garden called the Lacydeum, which was presented to him by Attalus I. Soter of Pergamum. Of the writings (including one book Tegi pboewe/Peri physeds/‘On Nature’, cf. [2]) that L. supposedly produced according to the Suda (A 72 =T 1b Mette), nothing has been preserved. In his sceptical disposition L. goes beyond even Arcesilaus, inasmuch as he classifies memory as unreliable too. In the well-known anecdote about the slaves who plunder the larder of their master, L.’s philosophical conviction is playfully confronted by everyday experience (Euseb. Praep. evang. 14,7,1-13). Why L. in

particular was later regarded as the founder of a new Academy (Philod. ibid. 21,37-42; Diog. Laert. 4,59,1,

14 and 19) can no longer be resolved. 1 W.GoOrtER, L., GGPh* 4.2, 830-34 2H.J. MeTTE, Weitere Akademiker heute: Von L. bis zu Kleitomachos, in: Lustrum 27, 1985, 39-51. K.-H.S.

Ladas see > Olympic champions

LADON

mentioned on Probus in Verg. G. 1,244); he has a hun-

dred heads and many voices. Mythographers have him either be descended directly (as a chthonic beast) from + Gaia (as is > Typhon) or from related monsters (Phorcys and Ceto, the parents of > Echidna and grandparents of the Lernean Hydra in Hes. Theog. 3 3 3— 3353 Echidna and Typhon, Soph. Trach. 1100; Apollod. 2,113). Heracles wins the apples either by sending Atlas to get them (as on the archaic + Cypselus chest, Paus. 5,18,4) or else by killing the dragon (as in Panyassis,

Heraclea EpGF F to = PEGI F 11; and also Apoll. Rhod.) or putting it to sleep (Verg. Aen. 4,484; it is immortal, Apollod. 2,113); also according to depictions on vases Heracles does not use force. In Hellenistic star lore, L. is turned into the constellation of the Dragon by Hera, who made him the guardian of her Hesperid garden (Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 16). Heracles is seen in the neighbouring constellation Engonasin (Eratosth. Katasterismoi 1,3f.; Hyg. Poet. Astr. 2,3). — Chthonic deities G. KOKKOROU-ALEWRAS, s.v. Herakles and the Hesperides, LIMC 5.1, 100-111.

F.G.

[2] The approximately 70 km long right tributary of the ~ Alpheius, modern

Ladonas

or Rufias, arises in a

major karst spring fed from the Pheneus basin, at the foot of a rock face southwest of Lycuria in the area of > Cleitor (Paus. 8,20,1; 21,1; 25,2; [2. 6rf.]). After a few

kilometres, it is joined by the Aroanius, also considered to be a source of the Alpheius, coming from the area of Clitoria in the north, and by the Tragos from the south. Ancient settlements on the L. were: Oryx, Halus, Thaliades (Paus. 8,25,2; identification [2. 6off.]). In the lowest reaches of the upper course is the present-day Ladona reservoir, with a power plant further downstream. Breaking out to the south through a gorge near Tripotamia, the L. enters the Alpheius. A main tributary from the east is the Tuthoa, the present-day Langadia River. A main town on the middle course of the L. is Thelpousa (formerly Vanaena, now again Thelpousa). It is situated on the east bank, roughly 5 km south of the site at Onkai sacred to Demeter and Apollo. Further south on the right bank is an Asclepius sanctuary (Paus. 8,25,1-13; [2. 84ff.; 3. r1ff.]. Many legends surround the L., cf. [1. 384]. 1 E. Preske, s.v. L. (2), RE

12, 382-384

Peloponnesische Wanderungen, 1939

Lade (Addn; Ladé). Island originally off the coast of Miletus, length 3 km, height up to 98 m, today only a hilly ridge about 2 km from the coast because of the alluvial deposits of the Maeander. L. became known through the defeat of the Greeks in the Ionian Rebellion 496 BC: Hat. 6,7ff.; Thuc. 8,17,3; Arr. Anab. 1,18,4ff.; Sten i4et.75 Rausar.35.6: L. BURCHNER, s.v. L., RE 12, 381.

H.KAL.andE.MEY.

ponnesische

Wanderungen,

2 E. MEYER,

3 Id., Neue pelo-

1957.

[3] Left tributary of the Elian > Peneius (Paus. 6,22,5), arises near the southern foot of the present-day Lambia mountain chain, a continuation of the Erymanthus. The Elian town Pylos was situated at the confluence of the L. and Peneius rivers (the present-day Peneius Reservoir).

163

164

The ‘mountain road’ to Olympia ran through the valley

1922ff. 3l1d.,s.v.L.,RE 12,399 4A.Bavit, Colonia Julia Augusta Paterna Faventia Barcino, 1964, 37ff. 5 R. Grosse (ed.), Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae 8, 1959.

LADON

[1. 312, 3173 2. 336]. 1 A. PHitippson, Der Peloponnes, 1892 KIRSTEN 3.

2 PHILIPPSON/ E.MEY.andC.L.

([4] Tributary of the — Billaeus arising in the Abant Daglar1 in Bithynia (Gerede/Soganli/Yenice Cay), today known in Turkish as Biiyiiksu, also Bolu Cay, then Dirigene Deresi, then Devrek Cay. K.BeLtkxe,

Paphlagonien

und

Honorias,

1996,

246f.

K.ST.

Laeca Roman cognomen, perhaps of Etruscan origin, in the family of the Porcii. SCHULZE, 358.

K.-L.E.

TOVAR 3, 37.

P.B.

Laelaps (Acthay/Lailaps, ‘hurricane’). {1] The dog of + Cephalus, inescapable because of its swiftness. L. is turned to stone during the chase (Ov. Met. 7,771ff.; Hyg. Fab. 189; Serv. Aen. 6,445). [2] Dog of Actaeon that, together with the rest of a pack of hounds, attacks and kills his master who has been transformed into a stag by Artemis (Ov. Met. 3,211; Hyg. Fab. 181). AL-ER.

Laelia

Laecanius

[1] Elder daughter of C. > Laelius [I 2], born 160 BC, wife of Q. > Mucius Scaevola. One of her two daughters married the orator L. Licinius [I ro] Crassus, the

[1] C.L. Bassus Senator from Pola in Istria. Praetor

tutor of Cicero, who observed that L. had adopted the

urbanus in AD 32; cos. suff. AD 40. L. ran a sizeable pottery production on his property on the Istrian peninsula; his son carried it on [1. 230ff.]. PIR* L 30. [2] C.L. Bassus Son of L. [1]. Consul ordinarius AD 64. He died in the reign of Vespasian [1. 230ff.]; his adoptive son was L. [4] (cf. [2. r15f.]). PIR* L 31. [3] C.L. Bassus Caecina Paetus see > Caecina [II 6]. [4] C.L. Bassus Paccius Paelignus Proconsul of CreteCyrenae (SEG 32, 869). If, like L. [3], he was an adoptive son of L. [2] (cf. [2. 116]), his proconsulship probably occurred during the Flavian period. PIR* L 34;

speaking style of her father (Cic. Brut. 211). Cicero may have been encouraged to write of L.’s father (Laelius sive de amicitia) while in her house. [2] Younger sister of L. [1], born after 160 BC, wife of

[z. 261]. 1 F. Tassaux, in: MEFRA

2 O.Satomies,

ME.STR.

Laelianus Imperator Caesar Ulp(ius) Cor(nelius) Laelianus (RIC V 2, 373 no. 8; [1. 66 no. 6]). Probably

commander of the legio XXII Primigenia in Mogontiacum (Mainz) or governor of the province of Germania superior, rebelled early in AD 269 against > Postumus and was proclaimed Augustus. Shortly afterwards Postumus defeated and killed him (Aur. Vict. Caes. 33,8;

94, 1982, 227-269

Adoptive and Polyonymous

the annalist C. Fannius [I 1]

Nomencla-

ture in the Roman Empire, 1992.

W.E.

Laeceni (Actxnvoi/Laikénoi, Aamvot/Laiénoi, Aenvoi/ Leénoi, Ptol. 6,7,22). Tribe who settled to the east of the central Arabian mountain range of Zameés. Their name is not mentioned in any other ancient source and has to date not been satisfactorily interpreted. Perhaps the L. should be identified with the ashab al-Aika, the ‘people of the thicket’ or, rather, the ‘people of al-Aika’ mentioned in the Koran (15,78 et passim), a prehistoric people allegedly annihilated by the wrath of God. w.w.m.

Eutr. 9,9; incorrectly (SHA Tyr. Victorinus

lohannes Antiochenus fr. 152 FHG, here ‘Lollianus’); according to another tradition Trig. 4; 5; 6,3; 8,1), L. was murdered by or by his own soldiers.

1 H.Couen, Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’empire romain, 4, 71955. PIR V 546; PLRE 1, 492; Eck, 98f., no. 53; W.Eck, s.v. Ulpius, RE Suppl. 14, 936-939 (no. 32); KIENAST, 244f. TE.

Laelius Name of a family which probably came from Campania. The military successes of L. [I 1] in the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) and the connection to the

Laeetani Iberian tribe (/aiescon [1. 19]) on the Spanish east coast between Barcelona and Blanes; regarding the various spellings and misspellings of the name (Laietani, Leetani, Lacetani, Laletani, Lasetant) cf. [2. vol. 6, 2353 33 4]; Plin. HN 3,21; Str. 3,4,8; Ptol. 2,6,18; 72; ILS 2714a; CIL II Suppl. 6171. Wine of inferior quality was cultivated there in large amounts (Plin. HN 14,71; Mart: 1,263) [2evolea, 136, voli 35 5m, volii6, 2358; 5. vol. 8, 184, 195, 292]). > Viticulture 1 A.Htsner,

Monumenta

Linguae

2 A.SCHULTEN

(ed.), Fontes

Hispaniae

Ibericae, Antiquae

1893 1-8,

elder Scipio probably gained them Roman citizenship and the ascent into the nobility. A younger line (praenomen D.) became consuls under Augustus (L. [!I 1-3]. I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD II. IMPERIAL PERIOD I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD {I 1] L., C. Born around 235 BC, died around 160; L.

owed his political ascent to the close (and what has become a proverbial) connection to P. Cornelius [I 71] Scipio Africanus, his contemporary (Vell. Pat. 2,127,1;

Val. Max. 4,7,7). Before his death he shared his personal memories of Scipio Africanus, who died in 183, with

165

166

the historian > Polybius, which strongly influenced Scipio’s character in his work (Pol. 10,9,2). L. fought 209206 under Scipio in Spain, first as fleet prefect, then as legate. In 209 he was instrumental in the conquest of + Carthago Nova and brought the news of victory to Rome (MRR 1, 288). In 208 L. took part in the battle at Baecula. In 206 he sounded out an alliance in Africa with the Numidian King — Syphax against the Carthaginians and then accompanied Scipio to its signing. In 205 L. again commanded the fleet and in 204 led the crossing of the army from Sicily to Africa. In 203 he succeeded with — Massinissa in capturing the rebellious Syphax (Pol. 9, 14,4,2.; 9,2; Liv. 30,9,13 I11-12,4) and bringing him to Rome (Liv. 30,16,1). In 202 he was elected quaestor; in the battle of Zama he commanded the cavalry on the left flank (Pol. 15,9 8; Liv. 30,3 2,2) and was allowed yet again to bring the news of victory to Rome. In 197 L. was plebeian aedile, in 196 he administered Sicilia as praetor. After defeat in an election in 192, he became consul in 190 with Scipio’s brother L. Cornelius [I 72] Scipio Asiagenes. While the latter was able to secure the command for himself in the war against Antiochus [5] III. (Cic. Phil. 11,47; Liv. 38,1,7-10), L. acquired Italy as a province and as proconsul he settled people in upper Italy in 190 and 189 (Liv. 37,46,10; 47523 50,13). Only in 174 does L. appear again as the leader of an (unsuccessful) legation to king > Perseus of

an unattested tribunate?) and interpretation of this proposal are controversial [2. 307-310]. In 139 L. turned the defence of Roman tenant associations, which were involved in a spectacular murder trial, over to Ser. > Sulpicius Galba (Cic. Brut. 85-87). In 132 he belonged to the investigating committee of the consul against the followers of the murdered Ti. > Sempronius Gracchus. In 131 L. opposed along with Scipio the proposal of the people’s tribune C. Papirius Carbo that the tribunes should be allowed to become candidates for the same office in the year immediately following (Cic. Lael. 96; Char., GL 1,196). L. survived his friend Scipio, for whose grandson Q. Fabius [I 24] Maximus he wrote the eulogy in 129 on his uncle (schol. Bobiensia 118St.). L.’s oratorical style was exquisite (elegans) and restrained (Cic. Brut. 83; speech fragments: ORF 14, I1§—122). L. probably already had the nickname ‘the wise’ (sapiens or Greek sophos by Lucil. 1236M; Cic. Fam 2,24; Plut. Gracchus; Quint. Inst. 5,10,30) during his lifetime, which referred to his prudence and measured conservative politics. It was Cicero who also related the nickname to his literary and philosophical interests. He also significantly influenced the image of L.’s personality and would have liked to see himself as a ‘second L.’ when compared to Pompey (Cic. Fam. 5,7,3): L. is a dialogue partner in the De re publica, Cato Maior de senectute and — with his sons-in law Q. Mucius Scaevola and C. Fannius [I 1] — in Laelius. Individual biographical and personal details can no longer be distinguished in these dialogues. + Punic Wars

Macedonia (Liv. 41,22,3; 42,2,1). In 170 L. was envoy

to the Celtic tribes in the eastern Alps (Liv. 43,5,10). {I2] L., C. Son of L. [I 1], born around 190 BC, died after 129, elder contemporary of the (younger) P. Cornelius [I 70] Scipio Africanus. Their friendship was proverbial and immortalised in literature through Cicero’s dialogue Laelius de Amicitia. Known first for his philosophical and literary interests, L. only entered politics late, possibly with Scipio’s support. He is supposed to have supported the comic poet > Terentius Afer (Cic. Att. 7,3,10; Suet. Vita Terentii 2; [1. 198-200]) and

made the acquaintance of the satirist Lucilius (schol. Hor. Sat. 2,1,7). L. was a follower of the Stoa: in this way he became acquainted with the Stoic Diogenes [15], who was in Rome in 155 with the Athenian philosophers’ delegation (Cic. De or. 2,15 4f.; Fin. 2,245 Tusc. 4,5), and later with > Panaetius, the head of the Stoa (Cic. Rep. 1,34; Fin. 2,24; 4,23; Brut. ror).

In 147 L. was Scipio’s legate in the Third Punic War (MRR 1,147); in 145, as praetor (and probably also as augur), he opposed the motion by C. Licinius [I 9] Crassus, the people’s tribune, that the priests’ offices no longer be filled by cooption, but rather by popular elections (Cic. Lael. 96; Brut. 83; 295; Nat. D. 3,5), and

then administered Hispania Citerior. After losing an election L. became consul in 140 and stayed in Italy (MRR 1,479). According to Plutarch, L. proposed a law which would improve the economic condition of Italian farmers, but following the opposition of the ‘rich’ he withdrew the proposal (Plut. Gracchus 8,4f.). Historicity, dating (during his consulate, praetorship or

LAELIUS

1 E.S. GRUEN, Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome, 1992 2 A.E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, 1967.

K-LE.

[I 3] L., Dec. In 77/76 BC as legate for Pompey in Spain; after bad omina (Obseq. 58) killed in a battle against Sertorius near Lauro (Sall. Hist. 2,31M; Frontin. Str. 255,31). MRR 3,116f. [1 4] L., Dec. Son of L. [I 3]. Under Pompey in 62 BC in the Mithridatic Wars in Asia (Cic. Flac. 14). In 59 L. entered into a repetundae trial against the provincial governor L. Valerius Flaccus, but was defeated by the defender Cicero. People’s tribune in 54 (supported by Pompey’s follower A. Gabinius [I 2]); quaestor in Sicily (Quint. Inst. 6,3,39). In the Civil War Pompey entrusted him with the command of the fleet in the Aegean and Adriatic (blockade of Oricus and Brundisium; Caes. B Civ. 357,13 40,4; 100,rff.). After the defeat of Pharsalus (48) he went over to Caesar (Cic. Att. 11,7,2; 14,1). Itis

unclear whether this Dec. L. — assuming a new reorientation — fell in battle in 42 as quaestor pro praetore with Q. Cornificius, [3] in Africa vetus against the Caesarians (ILS 9367; App. B Civ. 4,229; 23 6ff.). TER. Il. IMPERIAL PERIOD {fl 1] D. L. Balbus Son of a senator. Consul ordinarius 6 BC, also member of the Collegium of the X Wri sacris

167

168

faciundis; L. [11 2] was presumably his grandson. PIR*

Laerces (Aatoxn¢/Laérkés, ‘where there is protection for warriors’). [1] A > Myrmidon, son of Haemon, father of > Alcimedon [2] (Hom. Il. 16,197; 17,467).

LAELIUS

rare {II 2] D. L. Balbus Probably the grandson of.L. [II 1].

Senator who was known for his rhetorical aggressiveness in trials. In the year AD 37 he prosecuted a woman called Acutia for maiestas, but was himself expelled from the Senate soon after and banned to an island. If the cos. suff. with the same name of the year 46 is identical to him, then L. must have been recalled by Claudius from his banishment and accepted into the Senate again. PIR* L 48; 49. {11 3] M. L. Maximus Aemilianus Consul ordinarius in

the year AD 227. He is a member of the family of the Laelii, which originates from northern Italy [1]. PIR* L 56. 1 G. ALFOLDY, in: EOS 2, 363.

W.E.

{II 4] L. Felix Lawyer from the time of Hadrian (Dig. 5,453), he wrote Ad O. Mucium (at least 2 bks.), an antiquarian and anecdotal [2] or juridical [3] comm. on the Ius civile of Q. > Mucius Scaevola Pontifex (Fr.

[1]). 1 O.LeENEL,

Palingenesia

iuris civilis

2 D.Norr, Pomponius, in: ANRW 3 D. Lress, in: HLL IV, r4of.

1, 1889, II 15,

1976,

557f. 547 Es

Laena A coat-like cloak made of thick wool (Greek:

(y)Aatva/(ch)laina). Cited in Rome as an article of clothing of the > Augures and > Flamines when offering sacrifice, as well as of the mythical kings, and found on

monuments; in the Imperial period it was part of men’s and women’s costume. The /aena was a special form of the > toga and was made by doubling the semicircularshaped cut of the toga praetexta to an almost circular cloth. By laying together the two circular segments, a toga-like garment was formed that was laid around the shoulders and covered both arms. The /aena was worn over other clothes for warmth (Mart. 14,136) and could be dyed various colours (Mart. 8,59,10; Juv.

3,283). Figure see > clothing. Tu. SCHAFER, in: JDAI 95, 1980, 351, n. 36; H.R. GOTTE,

Stud. zu r6m. Togadarstellungen, 1990.

R.H.

[2] A goldsmith from Pylos; he had to gild the horns of an ox that was destined to be sacrificed to Athena (Hom. Od. 3,425). RA.MI. Laertes (Aagetns; Laértés). Son of > Arcesius and of Chalcomedusa, husband of — Anticlea, father of > Odysseus (cf. the latter’s patronymic, Laertiddes, ‘son of L.’); in his various depictions, the last is the most

important function of L., who has little significance of his own. The image of him in the ‘Odyssey’ is the formative one it has shaped all later representations. Before the beginning of the Trojan War, for reasons of age, L. passes his power to Odysseus. Even when Odysseus does return to assume the throne, he maintains his dis-

tance from public life and continues to live on his country estate. There he submits willingly to a life of poverty and grieves over the continued absence of his son (the later proverbial ‘live the life of L.’: Plut. Cicero 40). Detractors of Odysseus have variously claimed, with disparaging intent, that, he was descended from the ‘arch liar’ + Sisyphus and not from L. (e.g. Aeschyl. TrGF III fr. 175; Soph. Phil. 1312; Eur. IA 524). Later sources heighten L.’s importance by having him take part in the Calydonian Hunt (~ Meleager; Hyg. Fab. 173) and in the voyage of the > Argonauts (Apollod. 1,9,16). What themes > Ion [2] of Chios dealt with in his tragedy ‘L.’ (TrGF I r9 fr. 14) is unclear. H.LaMer, s.v. L., RE 12, 424ff.; W. BECK, s.v. L., LFE; O.ToucHEFEU, s.v. L., LIMC 6.1, 181. RE.N.

Laestrygones (Aatotevyoves; Laistrygones). A mythic and fairy-tale-like people of man-eating giants, who raise cattle but do not engage in agriculture (cf. > Cyclopes). In the course of his wanderings, > Odysseus lands in their country, where the sun never sets. After an initial friendly greeting of his scouts by the king’s daughter, the mood shifts when they catch sight of the giant queen. The king, summoned by his wife, devours one of the Greeks, and the rest of the L. destroy the

Laenas Roman cognomen, derived by Cicero (Brut. 56) from /aena, the cloak of the > flamines, but in fact of

Etruscan origin and probably an ethnicon (cf. Asprenas, Maenas, etc.). In the Republican era it was the he-

reditary surname in the Popillius family (from cos. 359 BC on), in the Imperial period also in the Octavius and

Vipsanius families. KaJANTO,

Cognomina,

210;

SCHULZE,

83;

186;

530. K.-L.E.

Laenes (Aaivns; Lainés). Comic poet of the 2nd cent. BC, attested only in inscriptions; he won three victories at the Dionysia (1. test. 2), one of which is dated to 185 BCistests)s 1 PCG V, 1986, 609.

B.BA.

entire fleet. The very favourably situated harbour turns out to be a deadly trap. Only Odysseus’ ship, which was moored outside the harbour, escapes (Hom. Od. 10,8 1— 132; Ov. Met. 14,233-243). This episode contains a number of typical fairy-tale motifs (man-eating, stonethrowing giants; a girl who shows the new arrivals the way; the momentary absence of the king; flight upon his return [r]), and is therefore structurally pre-Homeric. In the Odyssey the significance of the L. adventure manifests itself against the background of the entire first half of the epic (‘Outer Homecoming’): Odysseus loses almost all his companions in one fell swoop. Attempts to localize the L. are old (at the latest, Hes. Cat. 150,25-27), numerous, and unsuccessful. They fail to recognize the mythic and fairy-tale-like character

169

170

of the setting in which the L. adventure and Odysseus’ wanderings in general take place.

time of Caesar or Augustus (Suet. Aug. 5,1; [2. 89f.]).

1D.L. Pace, Folktales in Homer’s Odyssey, 1972, 25-31. A. Heuseck,

A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. 2,

1989, 47-48; B. MapeR, s.v. L., LFE; G. DANEK, Epos und Zitat, 1998, 197-200.

RE.N.

LAEVIUS

Originally plebeian, the family was patrician from the 1SCHULZE

2 MUNZER.

[1] L., C. Curule aedile in 216 BC, propraetor in Gaul in

209, legate in Greece (?) in 205, in Upper Italy in 200, Triumvir at the foundation of the colony in > Croton in

194 (Liv. 34,45,4).

Laestrygoni campi see > Laestrygones; > Leontini

[2] L., P. Loyal follower of C. + Sempronius

Laeta [1] Second wife of the emperor > Gratianus [2], whom she married in AD 383. Following his death shortly afterwards, L. lived on as a widow at Rome, where she used her own funds to help alleviate the famine during

Gracchus. When the latter decided to commit suicide in the Temple of Minerva while a fugitive in 121 BC, L. and M. Pomponius prevented him. Both then concealed Gracchus’ flight over the Pons Sublicius to the left bank of the Tiber; like the legendary figure of > Horatius [I 4] Cocles, L. fell in the fight on the bridge (Plut.

~» Alaricus’ [2] siege in 409 (Zos. 5,39,4). PLRE 1,492 (osm): K.G.-A.

Gracchus 37,6; 38,1: there incorrectly named Licinius; Val. Max. 4,7,2; Vir. ill. 65,6; Vell. Pat. 2,6,6; Oros.

[1 rr]

5512,7). [2] Clarissima femina, daughter of one Albinus, wife of

Toxotius, daughter-in-law of the elder Paula, sister-inlaw of Eustochium, related to Gracchus, the praef. urbis Romae of AD 376/377. L. died before 419. She is familiar as the addressee of epist. 107 of > Hieronymus (Ad Laetam de institutione filiae, “To Laeta on the Instruction of her Daughter’). The daughter concerned was the younger Paula. Christin. PLRE 1, 492 (L. 2). K.G.-A. Laeti Etymologically (Etruscan, Celtic, Germanic, Latin?) disputed technical term for descendants of prisoners or > dediticii, predominantly of Germanic origin (Amm. Marc. 20,8,13), who settled in Gaul under state

supervision on barren, remote estates (terrae laeticae: Cod. Theod. 13,11,10). Laeti had limited rights, were bound to the soil, obliged to do military service, but were not ‘soldier-farmers’ [2]. The Notitia dignitatum records, under the magister peditum in Gallia, twelve praefecti laetorum (Not. Dign. Occ. 42,33-44) with details of nationality and location of the regular formations. The institution, which gave renewed strength to the economy and defensive capacity of the northwest of the late Roman Empire, is attested from AD 297 (Pan. Lat. 4,21,1; cf. 4,9,3) to the end of the 7th cent. [3.247]; its suggested adoption from Germania remains as unproven as its relationship to the so-called

row-graves found in France and Belgium [1. 44-51; 4. I-40). 1 E.James, The Franks, 1994

+2 C. Simpson, L. in the

Notitia dignitatum, in: RBPh 66, 1988, 80-85

3G.DE

[3] L. Mergus, C. or M. Military tribune in the 2nd or 3rd Samnite War (> Samnites; late 4th/early 3rd cent. BC); L. was accused of a sexual offence by the people’s tribune Cominius and, convicted, committed suicide (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 16,4; Val. Max. 6,1,11). [4] L. Plancianus, M. Colonel of the cavalry under the

dictator Q. Ogulnius Gallus in 257 BC, appointed for the celebrations of the Latin Festival (InscrIt 13,1,43).

K.-LE. Laetus Successful commander of > Septimius [II 7] Severus during the Parthian War of AD 195 and again in 198. L. was murdered because he was too popular with the army; Severus denied that this was on his orders; L. probably fell victim to the thirst for power of the praetorian prefect Fulvius [II ro] Plautianus. PIR* L 69. L.’s identification is disputed: according to [1. 116f.] he was identical to Iulius Laetus, who led the vanguard of Severus’ army on their march into Rome in 193, and who in 197, allegedly after much hesitation, won the victory for Severus against Albinus at Lugdunum (cf. URC) 1 A.R. BirLEY, Septimius Severus, *1988.

W.E.

Laevi Ligurian (Liv. 5,25,2; Plin. HN 3,124) or Celtic (Cato in Plin. l.c.; Adot, Pol. 2,17,4) tribe which founded the city of > Ticinum (modern Pavia), together with the Matrici; Ticinum later fell under the rule of the Insu-

bres (Ptol. 3,1,33). NISSEN 2, 179.

E.O.

STE. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, *1989 (repr. 1998), 243-249, 513-518 4 C. WHITTAKER, Frontiers of the Roman Empire, 1994.

P.KE.

Laevinus Roman cognomen for the Valerii in the Republican era, no longer attested in the Imperial period. KAJANTO, Cognomina, 243.

Laetorius Roman family name of Etruscan origin [1. 187; 200; 205]. The gens is attested firmly from the end of the 4th cent. BC; sth century bearers of the name are annalistic inventions (the people’s tribune 471 BC: Liv. 2,56, 6-15; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 9,46,1-48,5).

K.-L.E.

Laevius [1] L. (Baebius or Manius) Egerius [2] had the sanctuary of > Diana Nemorensis (Cato fr. 58 PETER) dedicated in his capacity as dictator Latinus.

LAEVIUS

C.AMPOLO,

Ricerche sulla lega latina, II. La dedica di

Egerius Baebius, in: PdP 212, 1983, 321-326.

[2] Probably the [8]) or early rst [2. 118]), and in the grammarian

FR.P.

first lyric love poet of Rome, 2nd (cf. cent. BC (for example, according to the latter case probably identical with L. Melissus in Suet. Gram. 3,5. His

main work Erotopaegnia (probably = Polymetra, fr. 30) in at least 6 bks. (fr. 5) was made up of a series of individual mythological titles (Adonis, Alcestis [7], Centauri,

i,

Lge

Helena,

Ino, Protesilaodamia

dried up) and belonged to the territory of > Cibyra. Part of the Roman province of Asia (Caria province from Diocletian on), plundered by Manlius Vulso during his campaign of 189 BC (Liv. 38,15,2). Epigraphical evidence attests a cult of Artemis Lagbene and the existence of a private estate. Cur. Naour, Tyriaion en Cabalide (Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia 20), 1980, 5-13. T.D.-B.

|6], Sireno-

circa); but contemporary and personal matters were also dealt with (fr. 23; 28). In the visual poem (— Tech-

Lagids see > Lagus [1]

nopaegnia) on the Phoenix (fr. 22), metric variation

Lagina (t& Adywa;

and an affected style show L. to be in the Hellenistic tradition as well as already very close to the Neoteric tradition (> Neoteric poets). While his influence on the following generation (Varro, Sat. Men., cf. fr. 3; Catullus) is difficult to evaluate, he was rediscovered by the Archaists of the 2nd cent. AD on account of his pretentious elegantia (cf. Gell. NA 19,7).

> Stratoniceia, of a sanctuary of the Carian + Hecate

FRAGMENTS:

1A.TRAGLIA

(ed.), Poetae novi, 71974,

49-61 2 CouRTNEY, 118-143 (both with commentary) 3 FPL3, 126-142 (bibliography 126-128). BIBLIOGRAPHY: 4F.LEO, Die rém. Poesie in der sullanischen Zeit, in: Hermes 49, 1914, 161-195, here 180-— 188 5 A.TRAGLIA, Polimetria e verba Laeviana, in: Studi classici e orientali 6, 1957, 82-108 6 P. FRASSINETTI, La Protesilaudamia di Levio, in: Poesia latina in frammenti,

1974, 315-326

7 G.PastTorE Porzonettt, L’Alcesti di

Levio, in: M.G. Branco (ed.), Disiecti membra poetae 2,

1985, 59-78 8A.M. Tempesti, Un commensale a sorpresa e due date in Levio, in: Civilta classica e cristiana 9, 1988,7-25 9 A.PERUTELLI, Spunti daila lirica di Levio, in: AION, Sezione filologico-letteraria 12, 1990, 257-268 10 V. TANDO, Scritti di filologia e di storia della cultura classica, vol. 1, 1992, 112-127. P.L.S.

ta Ldgina). Location,

(modern Leyna, near Turgut); annual Panegyris (Str.

14,2,25; 29), procession with the sacred key, mystery plays, penteteric agons. In 81 BC, it was established as Hekatesia Rhomaea, the right to grant asylum given by the Senate later confirmed by Caesar, Augustus and, in AD 22, Tiberius (Tac. Ann. 3,62,2). Archaeological findings: square, lined by Doric stoai, surrounding a pseudodipteros temple with 8 x 11 Corinthian columns

(znd half of the 2nd cent. BC);

frieze with mythological scenes of Hecate; seating steps for spectators on the southern side of the temenos. Of the propylon a portal, consisting of three monoliths, is preserved. G.E. BEAN, Kleinasien 3, 1974, 97-102 (Engl. Turkey Beyond the Maeander, 1971); U.JUNGHOLTER, Zur Komposition der L.-Friese und zur Deutung des Nordfrieses, 1989; A. LAUMONIER, Les cultes indigénes en Carie, 1958, 344-425; NILSSON, Feste, 400f.; M.C. SAHIN, Die Inschr. von Stratonikeia 2,1: L., Stratonikeia und Umgebung (IK 22,1), 1982; A. SCHOBER, Hekatetempel von L. (IstForsch 2), 1933; E. SIMON, Der L.-Fries und der Hekatemythos in

Hesiods Theogonie, in: AA 1993, 277-284.

Lafrenius, T. One of the twelve praetors of the insurgent Italians during the > Social War [3]. L. fell in 90 BC, in the battle against Ser. Sulpicius Galba (App. B Civ. 1,181; 204-206; ILLRP 1089).

K-LE.

Laganum see > Pastries Lagas Town and territorial state (capital Girsu) in southern Mesopotamia, with important inscriptions, architectural and artistic finds from the 25th—-21st cents. BC, which have been of great significance in reconstructing early Mesopotamian history and culture, as also for establishing a Sumerian Grammar (> Ancient oriental philology and history). J. Bauer, D.P. Hanson, s.v. L., RLA 6, 419-431; A. FAL-

KENSTEIN, Die Inschr. Gudeas von L. Introduction, 1966. JRE.

Lagbe (A&yBy; Lagbé). Town in north-east Lycia, near

modern Alifahrettin; it dominated the small, high plain north of Lake Cabalitis (the former Sogiit Gélii, today

north of

H.KA.

Lagni Celtiberian town near > Numantia; name possibly Iberian [1]. For coin evidence cf. [2; 3]. Allied to

Numantia, L. was conquered and destroyed by the consul Q. Pompeius in 141 BC (Diod. Sic. 33,17). L. may be identical to Malia (App. Hisp. 329); on the contradictory reports in the sources cf. [4]. 1 HoLper, s.v. L. 2A. Vives, La moneda hispanica 2, 1924, 64 3 A.HtBNER, Monumenta linguae Ibericae, s.v. lagne, 1893, 38

4H.Simon, Roms Kriege in Spa-

nien, 1962, 110.

TOVAR 3, 461.

P.B.

Lagodius Spanish relative, probably cousin, of the emperor > Honorius [3]; after the collapse of the resistance put up by his brothers Didymus and Verenianus against the usurper Constantinus [3] III in Spain in AD 408/9, he fled to the eastern part of the Empire (Zos. 6,4,4; Sozom. Hist. eccl. 9,12,1; cf. Oros. 7,40,5-8). PLRE 2,654; cf. 358, 1099, 1155.

K.P.J.

173

174

La(u)gona Name of the River Lahn, first attested in the

Lagynos (6/1 Acyuvos; ho/hé ldgynos). Wine bottle with handle, wide flat body, high narrow neck and sealable mouth (see > Vessels, shapes and types of, fig. B 10). A Hellenistic type of vessel prevalent up to and into the Imperial period. Every participant in the lagynophoria (Aayvvopogua), a Dionysiac street festival in Alexandria, brought along a lagynos for his share of wine (Ath. 7,276a-c).

6th cent. AD in Venantius Fortunatus c. 7,7,58 (also

Logona in manuscript). J.B. Keune, s.v. L., RE 12, 999; L. WeIsGERBER, Erlaute-

rung zur Karte der rémerzeitlich bezeugten rheinischen Namen, in: Rheinische Vierteljahresblatter 23, 1958, 15.

RA.WL.

Lagona s. > La(u)gona

LAIS

G. Leroux, L., 1913; F.v. LORENTZ, s.v. L., RE Suppl. 6, 216f.; R. PIEROBON, L. Funzione e forma, in: Riv. Studi

Lagopus (Aayinovuc/lagopous, ‘hare foot’) was the name for the ptarmigan, Lagopus mutus (Montin), due to its feathered legs. It was highly esteemed as game (Hor. Sat. 2,2,22: lagois; Plin. HN 10,133). In its brown summer plumage (Plin. HN 10,134) it was considered to be a different species. The plant of the same name (Plin. HN 26,53 = Ps.-Apul. de herbis 61,6: herba leporis pes) was said to cure diarrhoea when taken in wine

Laias (Aaiac, Aaiac; Laias, Laias). [1] Son of the Aegid Hyraeus. Together with his brothers, L. erected heroic sanctuaries in Sparta to Cadmus and Aegeus, among others, because the Aegids trace themselves to the Theban dynasty (Paus. 3,15,8; Hdt.

or (in cases of fever) water.

4,147).

H.STeter, s.v. L., RE 12,461.

C.HU.

Liguri 45, 1979, 27-50; S.I. RoTROFF, Hellenistic Pottery (Agora 29), 1997, 225-229. LS.

[2] Son of Oxylus, king of Elis, and Pieria. After the death of his older brother > Aetolus, L. takes over the kingdom from his father; L.’s children, however, do not

Lagoras (Aayoeac; Lagoras). As an officer of > Ptolemaios IV, L. of Crete tried in vain in 219 BC to occupy the narrow pass of Berytus before Antiochus [5] III. Later, he defected to Antiochus. In the latter’s war against + Achaeus [5], L. forced his way into the besieged city of Sardis at an unguarded position on the city wall and opened a gate to the besiegers (Pol. 5,61,9; 7,15-18). M.Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, 71987, 1163; H.H. Scumitt, Unt. zur Geschichte Antiochos’ d.Gr., 1964. A.ME.

receive the royal title (Paus. 5,4,4f.). According to Ephoros (FHG fr. 29), Aetolus did not die in Elis but settled in Aetolia instead. AL.FR. Lairbenos (AameBnvdc; Lairbénds) is the epiclesis of ~ Apollo in Phrygia, as attested to in numerous inscriptions. The missing Greek etymology as well as the variants point to the fact that this is the Greek — interpretatio of an indigenous name. Many confession inscriptions stem from his shrine in the region of modern Ortakoy. K.M. Miter, Apollo L., in: Numen

32, 1985, 46-70;

G.PeTzL, Die Beichtinschr. Westkleinasiens, 1994, 122-

Lago(o)s see - Constellations (add. vol. 4)

143.

E.G.

La Graufesenque ware see > terra sigillata Lagus (Adyos, Aayéc/Ldagos, Lagos; personal name not

from lagés, ‘hare’, but probably from /aoi, ‘people’). [1] Macedonian from > Eordaea or Orestis. His status is unknown; no definite conclusion about high nobility can be drawn from his marriage to Arsinoe [II 1]. Father of > Ptolemaios I and Menelaus. Ptolemy fostered the memory of L.: a hippodrome in Alexandria and a town in Arsinoe were called Lageion. The legend of Philippus II fathering PtolemyI is, therefore, probably of later origin. The Ptolemies called themselves ‘Lagids’, after Lagus. BeLocu, GG IV 2, 176f.

[2] Son of Ptolemy I and Thais, brother of Eirene [2] and Leontiscus, born after 323 BC. His team of horses won at the Lycaea in Arcadia (3.08/7?, with his father on the Peloponnese?), Syll.3 314 B 8f. H. Hausen, Het Vlootbevelhebberschap in de vroege Diadochentijd, 1975, 31 A. 2-4. W.A.

Lais (Aaic; Lais). The ‘general acquaintance’, from hads (‘people’) [1] or from the Semitic, ‘lioness’. Popular name for hetaerae, which makes identification difficult. 1 PapE/BENSELER, 762.

[1] Hetaera (> Hetaerae) from Corinth. L. is described as beautiful (Ath. 13,587d), quick-witted (in conversation with Euripides in Ath. 13,582cd; he quotes her

Eur. Med. 1346), discriminating and expensive; in old age, L. is said to have become impoverished and a dipsomaniac (Ath. 13,570cd). She died in 392 BC (schol. Aristoph. Plut. 179, [1. vol. 1, 491]), as a result of her way of life (Ath. 13, 587e; Philetaerus, Kynagida, |1. vol. 2, 23]). On her lifestyle cf. the Antilais of Epicrates (Ath. 13,570b, {1. vol. 2, 349f.]) and another Antilais, attributed to Lysias (Ath. 13,586d, [1 vol. 1, 911]). L. is also mentioned by the comic poets Anaxandrides (Ath. 13,5704, [1. vol. 2, 49]), Theopilus (Ath. 13,587f, [1. vol. 2, 575]) and Eriphus [1. vol. 2, 5orff.]. L.’s fame was proverbial: ou Korinthos oute Lais (Ath. 4,137).

LAIS

175

176

Her gravestone depicted a lioness devouring a ram

Cithaeron Mountains, where Corinthian shepherds find him (Soph. OT 1026-1035 and 1133-1145; Eur. Phoen. 24-31 and 1600-1607). Named > Oedipus, the boy grows up as the child of the Corinthian king Polybus and his wife Merope. A few years later L. goes to Delphi to learn about the fate of his exposed child (Soph. OT 114; Eur. Phoen. 35-37), while Oedipus goes to Delphi in order to find out about his real parents (Soph. OT 787-793; Eur. Phoen. 33-35). The two meet at a three-way junction; a quarrel ensues in the course of which Oedipus kills L. and his companions except for

(Paus. 2,2,4). 1 J.M. EpMonps (ed.), The Fragments of Attic Comedy, vol.1, 1957, vol. 2, 1959.

[2] Hetaera, born at Hykkara, Sicily in 422 BC (Steph. Byz. s.v. Kgaotoc; Ath. 13,589a, [1. 182]). Daughter of Timandra, the ‘companion’ of Alcibiades [3]. L. arrived at Corinth in 415 as a prisoner of war following the plundering of Hykkara (Plut. Alcibiades 39; Ath. 13,588c); she was described as beautiful (Ath. 13,588c), associated with — Aristippus [3] (the piece Pros Laida, “To Lais’, was his, as was the dictum écho,

ouk échomai, Diog. Laert. 2,75; Ath. 13,588e), who showered her with gifts, and with + Diogenes [14] of Sinope, from whom she is said to have taken no money (Ath. 13,588e). The tradition that L. in vain demanded ten thousand drachmas from Demosthenes [2] is chronologically doubtful (Gell. NA

1,8,6). L. accom-

panied a man from Thessaly to his homeland, and is said to have been murdered there in a temple of Aphrodite

by envious

women

(Plut.

Mor.

767F;

Ath.

13,589ab). Her grave was by the Peneius (Paus. 2,2,5). 1 J.M. EpMonps (ed.), The Fragments of the Attic Comedy, vol.1, 1957.

W.M. Extis, Alcibiades, 1987, 97.

ME.STR.

Laius (Adtoc; Ldios).

{1] Mythical Theban king, son of > Labdacus, grandson of —Polydorus [1] and great-grandson of ~ Cadmus [1] (Hdt. 5,59); his mother’s name is not mentioned. He lives four generations before the Trojan War (his great-great-grandson Tisamenus is a minor when the war begins: Paus. 9,5,13). He loses his father when he is one year old (Apollod. 3,40); Lycus, the brother of L.’s great-grandfather on his mother’s side, Nycteus (Paus. 9,5,5), becomes his guardian. The twins + Amphion [1] and Zethus kill Lycus and his wife Dirce because of the atrocity committed against their mother, > Antiope [1], (Apollod. 3,41-44) and drive L. out of Thebes (Apollod. 3,44; Hyg. Fab. 9). L. lives at the court of > Pelops [1], falls in love with the latter’s son Chrysippus and kidnaps him (Apollod. 3,44; Hypothesis Aesch. Sept. 7,24-27; Hypothesis Eur. Phoen. 393,25-32). Pelops curses L. with childlessness or death at the hands of his own son (Hypothesis Aesch. Sept. 7,1-2; Hypothesis Eur. Phoen. 394,1-2). After the death of Amphion (Apollod. 3,48) and Zethus (Paus. 9,5,9) L. becomes king of Thebes and marries > locaste or Epicaste (Hom. Od. 11,271; Nicolaus of Damascus, FGrH go F 8), the daughter of

one (Soph. OT 756). The site of the murder has been

variously localized, but for the Vulgata a Phocaean three-way junction is the meeting place (Soph. OT 73 3734; Eur. Phoen. 38; Paus. 10,5,3), possibly the place called Stavrodromi in the large basin east of the Parnassus, where the roads to Delphi, Daulis and Ambrysos (today Distomo) meet [1. 84]. L. is buried by Damasistratus, the king of Plataeae (Apollod. 3,52; Paus. 10,5,4), his grave was at precisely this (Phocaean) junction (Paus. 10,5,4). Of the many Greek adaptations of the material the Phoenician Women by Euripides, King Oedipus by Sophocles and Seven against Thebes by Aeschylus are extant; the other works of the Aeschylian Oedipodia (Laios fr. 121-122a RapT, Oedipus fr. 173 N* (=schol. Soph. OT 733), Sphinx fr. 235-237 RADT) as well as Chrysippus (fr. 839-844 N*) and Oedipus (fr. 540-557 N’, fr. 83-101 AusTIN) by Euripides, along with numerous other depictions in Attic tragedy and comedy, are lost. In Roman literature the Phoenissae and Oedipus by Seneca are preserved, but not Chrysippus and Phoenissae by Accius (v. 262-268 and 581-6or RIBBECK = 23-28 and 555-575 DANGEL). 1 C.Rosert, Oidipus, r915 ie

3 A. BERNABE

2H.LAmer, RE 12, 474-

(ed.), Poetae Epici Graeci, Pars 1,

1987, 17-19 4D.J. Masrronarbe Phoenissae, 1994.

(ed.), Euripides:

O. Lanewitz-SmitTH (ed.), Scholia Graeca in Aeschylem quae extant omnia II.2, 1982; E.ScHwartz (ed.), Scholia in Euripidem 1, 1887; A. NAucx (ed.), Euripidis Tragoediae, vol. 23, 1876 and later;

[2] At Antoninus Liberalis 19 a Cretan who was transformed into a thrush (Aatdc/laids) as a punishment for stealing honey together with Aigolios, > Celeus and ~» Cerberus from the cave where Zeus was born. [3] One of two boxers against whom Hercules fought

simultaneously — and lost. Hence the proverb ode “Hoaxdis moog dv0/oude Heraklés pros dyo (Zenob. 5,49 Leutscn, Paroemiographi Graeci I 140).

JO.s.

Menoeceus (Eur. Phoen. to). The marriage remains childless for a long time (Eur. Phoen. 12-14; Diod. Sic.

Lakaina (\éxawa; Iékaina). A drinking vessel listed as a cup in Ath. 11,484f.; the technical term is used in

4,64,1); an oracle of Apollo makes it clear to L. that his

archaeological research to describe a vessel with a goblet-like body and round-bellied lower part, with two horizontal handles. Produced predominantly in Sparta from the 8th cent. BC onwards, the L. became a model for + Laconian vasepainting of the 7th cent. BC.

own son will kill him (Apollod. 3,48; Soph. OT 711714; Eur. Phoen. 18-19). Drunk on wine (Eur. Phoen.

21-22; Apollod. 3,48) L. still fathers a son with locaste; he pierces the baby’s ankles and has him exposed in the

177

178

The design was discontinued after the middle of the 6th cent. BC. Its decoration was usually ornamental, but black- glazed examples do occur.

6,8,2; And. 1,11; Lys. 13,67). In Sicily, L. argued for a surprise attack on Syracuse. He died in the attack on the

C.M. Stipe, Lakon. Vasenmaler des sechsten Jh. v.Chr., 1972; I.MARGREIHER, Friihe lakon. Keramik der geom. bis archa. Zeit (10. bis 6. Jh. v.Chr.), 1988, 95-98.

RH.

LAMBAESIS

city’s lines of defense in 414 (Thuc. 6,40f.; 101,6; 103,13 Diod. Sic. 13,7f.; Plut. Nicias 18,1-3). The sources depict L. as poor and unassuming, but a brave campaigner and passionate soldier, with a tendency to

daredevilry and bellicosity (esp. Aristoph. Ach. 566625; ILO7I-1226).

Lake Van see + Thospitis Limne; > Urartu

— Peloponnesian War

Lakhmids (Arabic Bana Lahm). Kings of the Arabian tribal confederacy of the Tanith (2nd quarter of 3rd cent. — early 7th cent. AD). The seat of the L. was alHira, a caravan centre in south-western Iraq, south of ~ Kerbela. As vassals of the Persian + Sassanids, the L.

controlled the tribes of the Arabian peninsula, and joined the Sassanids’ war against Rome, later against Byzantium and her Syrian allies (> Palmyra, Ghassanids). Some L. were Nestorian Christians (> Nestoria-

nism); through their influence, Hira became a centre of Christianity in southern Mesopotamia; the city acquired many churches and monasteries. An-Nu‘man I (reigned rst quarter of sth cent.) is regarded as the

builder of the legendary al-Hawarnaq Castle; later L. were patrons of Arabic poets. The elimination of the L. by the Sassanids in the early 7th cent. critically weakened the southern flank of the Sassanid Empire. I. SHAHID, s.v. Lakhmids, EI 5, 632-634; G. ROTHSTEIN, Die Dynastie der Lachmiden in al-Hira, 1899. se,

Lakonikai (AKaxwvixai; lakonikat). Men’s shoes or boots, similar to the embas (+ Shoes). Originally a Lacedaemonian (Spartan) phenomenon (Aristoph. Vesp.

TraAILt,

PAA

601230;

1998.

D.HAmeL,

Athenian

Generals, WS.

Lamasba Significant Numidian road junction, c. 50 km north-west of > Lambaesis, modern Henchir Merouana (Lamasba, It. Ant. 3 5,23 5; 6; Lamasbua, Tab. Peut.

2,5; Lamasba oppidum, lulius Honorius, Cosmographia A 48). L. was probably a municipium from the time of Caracalla (AD 211-217) (CIL VIII Suppl. 3, 22511; cf. 22467). It was an episcopal see from as early as 256 (Cypr. sententiae episcoporum 75). Epigraphical evidence: CIL VIII Suppl. 3, 22427-22466. The text of an inscription of the Elagabalan period (AD 218-222) regulates the distribution of the waters of the aqua Claudiana by days and hours [1. 181-186; 2]. CIL VIII Suppl. 2, 18587 =ILS II 5793; cf. ILS II 2, p.185. 1H.Pavis D’Escurac, Irrigation et vie paysanne dans P Afrique du Nord antique, in: Ktema 5, 1980, 177-191 2 B.D. SHaw, L. An Ancient Irrigation Community, in: AntAfr 18, 1982, 61-103. AAA\g, sheet 27, no. 86.

W.HU,

Lamb see > Sheep

1158-1165), later also worn elsewhere (Aristoph. Eccl.

74; 269; 3453; 507, Aristoph. Thesm. 142); the elegant lakonikai were white (Ath. 215c) and red (Poll. 7,88). O.Lau, Schuster und Schusterhandwerk in der griech.rom. Lit. und Kunst, 1967, 126f.

R.H.

Lamache (Aaudayn; Lamdaché). Lemnian woman who conceives Leucophanes with the Argonaut > Euphemus. From Leucophanes is descended - Battus [1], who founds the city of Cyrene (schol. Pind. Pyth. 45 sb;

[1]). 1 L. MALTEN, Kyrene, 1911, 192.

Lamachus

AL.FR.

(Adpayoc; Lamachos). Athenian, carried out a successful expedition in c. 436/5 BC against the tyrant of Sinope (Plut. Pericles 20,1). As stratégds in 424, L. lost ten warships in a storm off Heraclea (Thuc. 4575,1f.; Diod. Sic. 12,72,4). In early 421, L. was one of the Athenian emissaries who swore to uphold the Peace of > Nicias [x] and the Athenian-Spartan symmachia (Thuc. 5,19,2; 24,1). In 416/5, Alcibiades [3], Nicias and L. were elected stratégoi autokratores (‘authorized military leaders’) of the Sicilian expedition (Thuc.

Lambaesis Camp and town in Numidia on the northern slope of Mons Aurasius (modern Aurés), modern

Tazoult-Lambése (on Lam- place-names of the immediate vicinity and beyond cf. [r. 539]). Documentary evidence: Ptol. 4,3,29 (AcuBooa; Lambaisa); It. Ant. 32,43 33,265 34,2; 40,6 (Lambese); Tab. Peut. 3,2 (Lambese); in inscriptions more frequently Lambaesis than Lambaese. L. was close to the beginning of the road leading through the gorge of Calceus Herculis (today probably El-Kantara) into the desert. Following the construction of two more modest predecessor buildings in the Flavian period, the great camp of the legio II] Augusta was established here, probably in AD 129. On 1 July of the preceding year, Q. Fabius Catullinus, the legatus legionis, had had his legion parade before Hadrian (CIL VIII Suppl. 2, 18042). From then on, L. was the military centre of the province of Africa (> Africa 3.. Under Septimius Severus (203?), the municipium L. became capital of the province of Numidia. Philippus Arabs elevated the municipium to the rank of colonia. The names of the ten curiae of the citizenry are known. There were many cults [2. 8of.]. Christianity too acquired considerable importance during the 3rd cent. There is evidence of a bishop for AD

LAMBAESIS

179

Domes

Excavations since 1847, but only sporadic and

poorly documented and published. The ancient site has been built over or used agriculturally.

on” L %

ee ITI OU, »

aod

4Ue va ¥sezoult nO creat> NN

i)

ane g) pe >

e Fa

XS

AX

es

Lambaesis: The three legionary camps and zones of urban construction (1st— 3rd cents. AD) 10

Road to Diana Veteranorum

Great Camp (AD 129)

h Lodgings for centurios

Camp Forum

i Latrines

West Camp

Basilica and scholae

Baths

Northern Necropolis

Groma

Southwestern Necropolis

Western Necropolis

Administrative building

Amphitheatre

Barracks of immunes

Arch of Septimius Severus and ‘Legate’s Baths’

Vicus belonging to Great Camp

Cisterns or buildings for

Agricultural buildings (?)

, Byzantine fortress

Oo BF DH ON WN = Via

Septimiana

1688-1691;

AE

1992,

East Camp (AD 81) with Asclepieum and Mithraeum

a Temple of Aesculapius b Principia © SRG d Septizoninum

Verecunda

e Capitol

camp supplies

Temple of Minerva (?)

f ‘Anonymous Temple’

Centuria barracks for legionaries

Spring of Ain Drinn and Temple of Neptune

g Chasseurs’ Baths

256 (Cypr. sententiae episcoporum 6). In the Byzantine period, L. was consolidated into a fortress. Many ruins provide evidence of the military and civilian life of the town. Epigraphical evidence: CIL VIII 1, 2527-4185; 2, 10763; Suppl. 2, 18039-18488; [1. 541]; AE 1981, 9033 904; 909; AE 1987, 1067; AE 1989, 822; 883; AE 1991,

17

1860-1876;

AE

1993,

1767-1769. 1H.Dessau, s.v. L., RE 12, 539-541

2 M.LE Gray,

Saturne Africain 2, 1966. AAAIlg, sheet 27, no. 222-224; M.JANON, Recherches a Lambése, in: AntAfr 7, 1973, 193-254; Id., Lambése et

occupation militaire de la Numidie méridionale, in: Stud. zu den Militargrenzen Roms 2 (BJ Beih. 38), 1977, 473485; Id., L., in: Antike Welt 8,2, 1977, 2-20; M.LE Gray, La vie religieuse a Lambése, in: AntAfr 5, 1971, 125-153; C. LEPELLEY, Les cités de l’Afrique romaine ... 2, 1981, 416-425; J. MARCILLET-JAUBERT, s.v. L., PE, 478f.

W.HU. Maps: M.JANon, L., in: Antike Welt 8,2, 1977, 2-20; S. RAVEN, Rome in Africa, 31993.

Lambafundi Settlement in -» Numidia between + Lambaesis and ~ Thamugadi, modern Henchir Touchine (CIL VIII 1, 2438 = Suppl. 2, 17941 [saltus? La|m|b\afundensium; Tab. Peut. 3,3: Lambafudi; Geogr. Rav. 39,40: Lambafudin). The following designations of origin may be attributable to the episcopal see of L.: Lampuensis (plebs) (Conciliam Carthaginiense anno 411, 1,133,292), lamfuensis (Not. episcoporum Numidiae 87*), Lamfuensis (Concilium Carthaginiense anno 525; [2.647]). In Procop. Aed. 6,7,10, a Numidian town newly fortified by Justinianus is named as Aaudovaoppé/Lamphouaombd. Large domains were found near L. The most important divinity in the area was Saturnus [1. 114-124]. 1 M.Le Gray, Saturne africain 2, 1966 2J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio VIII, Florenz 1762 (repr. Paris 1903), 647.

AAAIg, sheet 27, no. 247.

I8t

182

Lambagae According to Ptol. 7,1,42, a people of north-western India, in the east of modern Afghanistan; Old Indian Lampaka. Its name is preserved in the modern Lamghan; several fragments of Aramaic inscriptions of king > Asoka were discovered there. K.K. Lambdia Town in > Mauretania Caesariensis, c. too km _ south-south-west of —Icosium, modern Meédéa. Literary evidence: Ptol. 4,2,27 (AaBdia; Labdia); CIL VIII Suppl. 3, 22567 (Lambdienses); Concilia Carthaginiensia anno 411, 1,201,8 (Lambiensis); Notitla episcoporum Méauretaniae Caesariensis 46°

(Ambiensis). Epigraphical evidence: CIL VIII 2, 92399246; 10443. Sparse ruins are preserved. AAAlg, sheet 14, no. 48; H. Dessau, s.v. L., RE 12, 542.

W.HU.

Lambiridi Settlement in > Numidia between > Lambaesis and + Lamasba, modern Kherbet Ouled Arif. Literary evidence: Tab. Peut. 3,1 (Lambiridi); Tulius Honorius, Cosmographia A 44 (Lamuiridi oppidum); Concilia Carthaginiensia anno 411, 1,206,32 (episco-

pus Lambiriditanus); Not. episcoporum Numidiae 19

LAMIA

In general L. could be used as the name for any ugly and monstrous woman; in references from comedy, she

is depicted as an obscene hermaphrodite

(Aristoph.

Vesp. 1035; 11773 cf. [1. ch. 5], [4]). She was the focal

point of at least one satyr play and was also the speaker of the prologue in Euripides’ Bousiris (Crates fr. 20 PCG; Eur. fr. 922 TGF). A monster on three vases from the classical period can possibly be identified as L. [3. 189; 4]. In myth, L. is the daughter of Libya and Poseidon or Belus, the king of Libya. As the beloved of Zeus, she is the mother of various children whom Hera

kills out of jealousy (Diod. Sic. l.c.) or drives L. to kill (Duris l.c.). In one source, L. is the mother of > Scylla, and in another the mother of the Libyan > Sibyl (Stesich. fr. 43 PMG; Paus. ro,12,r). L. still plays a role in Byzantine and medieval sources (Michael Ephesius in Aristot. Eth. Nic. 124v, 3-9; 169r, 6ff.; Albertus Magnus, De animalibus 5,15; 22,112), and she gives her name to a mortal witch [5]. She also survives in modern Greek popular belief [3. 180-183]. L. is the theme of the eponymous poem by John KEats (1820).

-» Ahoros; > Demons

AD. Some ruins are preserved — including a grave witha

1 S.I. JoHNsTON, Restless Dead, 1999 ~=.2: C. STEWART, Demons and the Devil, 1991 3 J. BOARDMAN, s.v. L., LIMC 6.1 4M.HatLm-TissERAnrt, Folklore et supersti-

mosaic, opinions vary as to its interpretation [1. 464].

tion en Gréce classique: L. torturée, in: Kernos 2, 1989,

Epigraphical evidence: CIL VIII 1, 4413-4435; Suppl.

67-82 5 UrtricH Mo rirToris, Von den Unholden oder Hexen. De Lamis, 1489 (Latin and German).

(lamuiritanus). L. was a municipium in the 3rd cent.

2, 18564-18584.

F. SCHWENN, s.v. L., RE 12, 544ff.

1 M.Le Gray, s.v. L., KIP 3.

AAAIg, sheet 27, no. 120.

W.HU.

[2] (Aauia; Lamia, Thessalian town). I. DEVELOPMENT

Lambrus (modern Lambro). Left-bank tributary of the — Padus (Po), rises in the mountains at the lacus Larius,

forms the lacus Eupilis (Plin. HN 3,131; modern Lago di Pusiano), flows through the Brianza and joins the Padus east of Mediolanum. Name pre-Roman, possibly Mediterranean (*/ambrusca, ‘wild grapevine’) or Celtic (*Ambrones). Sources: Plin. HN 16,20; Sid. Apoll. Epist. 1; 5; Tab. Peut. 4,2 (river and station). NISSEN, vol. 2, 180.

S.J.

RIOD

UNTIL THE ROMAN

IJ. BYZANTINE

IMPERIAL PE-

PERIOD

I. DEVELOPMENT UNTIL THE ROMAN IMPERIAL

PERIOD Town on the southern slope of the Othrys Mountains, through which all important links between Thessaly and central Greece ran. L. took over the role of the main town of the > Malieis (fortress with polygonal wall structure) from Trachis in the 5th cent. BC. L. is mentioned for the first time in connection with an earthquake in 426 BC (Str. 1,3,20), and it is recorded as

Lamenting the dead see — Burial; + Nenia; + Threnos; > Death; > Dead, cult of the; > Mourning

Lamia [1] (Acuia; Lamia). A female spirit who specialized in attacking children (Duris, FGrH 76 F 17; Diod. Sic. 20,41,3—5; Str. 1,2,8; [1. ch. 5]). In this function, L. was often confused with > Gello, > Mormo and the Strix.

In later sources, L. also seduces and destroys attractive men (Philostr. VA 4,25; cf. Apul. Met. 1,17). Her name

is etymologically related to laimos (‘maw’), which is an expression of her all-consuming hunger (cf. Hor. Ars P. 340; Hom. Od. 10,81-117 on Lamus, the king of the cannibalistic > Laestrygones; lamia is also a designation for ‘shark’: Aristot. Hist. an. 540b 18; Plin. HN

9,78).

having made a contribution to the temple at Delphi for the year 359/8 (Syll.3 240); one of the Malian cult envoys at Delphi came from L. (Syll.3 3124/5; 444/5). In the > Lamian War, in 323 the rebelling Greeks eventually had to give up their siege of the fortress of L., which was held by the Macedonians under > Antipater [1] (Diod. Sic. 18,12, 4ff.). Like the rest of Malis, L. belonged to the Aetolian League from the 3rd until the beginning of the 2nd cent. (> Aetolians, with map) and experienced at that time a period of prosperity. In 208

Philip V laid siege to L. without success (Liv. 27,30,3). In the war with > Antiochus [5] III, who was allied with

the Aetolians against Rome, L. served as the king’s headquarters. It was first besieged by Philip V in r90 and was then conquered and plundered by the Roman

183

184

army under M. Acilius Glabrio (Liv. 36,25; 37,4,8f.). In the peace of 188, the Aetolians had to cede Malis and L.

Lamiggiga Town in -» Numidia between > Lambaesis

(Pol. 21,29; 21,32; Liv. 38,9,10; 38,11,9). Inscriptions

probably in the territory of Diana Veteranorum, but around AD 200 it had its own magistri and received an ordo decurionum. Legionaries and veterans of the legio III Augusta lived in the town. In 411, L. was predominantly on the side of the Donatists (> Donatus [r]; Concilia Carthaginiensia anno 411, 1,133,I-13; 187,98-100; 198,55f.). Some ruins — churches, baths and wine-presses — are preserved. L. was consolidated into a fortress in the Byzantine period. Epigraphical evidence: CIL VIII 1,4372-4412; Suppl. 2, 18553-18563.

LAMIA

and archaeological finds of the following cents. show the decline of L., overshadowed by its southern neighbour + Hypata. Under Hadrian (AD 117-138), the proconsul of Macedonia established the boundary between the two towns (ILS 59472). Y.BéQuiGNON,

La vallée du Spercheios,

1937, 263ff.;

A. JOANNIDOU-KareETSOU, in: AD 27 (chronology), 1972, 326ff.; 28 (chronology), 1973, 28off. (reports of finds);

PHILIPPSON/KIRSTEN 1, 245ff.; F.STAHLIN, Das hellenische Thessalien, 1924, 213ff.; Id., s.v. L., RE 12, 547ff. HE.KR.

and > Diana

Veteranorum,

modern

Sériana.

L. was

AAAlg, sheet 27, no. 73; H. Dessau, s.v. Lamiggig, RE 12, 560f.

W.HU.

II. BYZANTINE PERIOD In the Byzantine period, L. is mentioned in Hierocles, 642,6 and in Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos, De thematibus 88 PErTus1, but not in the Tab. Peut. The

Lamis (Adis; Lamis). From Megara, leader of a party of Megarian colonists who, probably together with set-

diocese and suffragan of + Larisa [3]; the presence of bishops can be documented for the councils of 431 and

There the Megarians separated from the Chalcidians, and, the latter already having occupied the most favour-

531 [1. passim]. The new name of the settlement, Zetounion (Zytovwov), which can be traced back to

able

869/870, indicates resettlement by Slavs [2. 105]. Expansion of the fortress, which had already been repaired in late antiquity, was carried out by the Templars after 1204, and later on under changing Greek, Frankish and Catalan masters, until the Turks took possession of the town in 1426 at the latest (until 1832). 1 C.Sttva-Tarouca (ed.), Coll. Thessalonicensis (Cod. Vat. Lat. 5751),1937 2M. VASMER, Die Slaven in Griechenland (Abh. der Preuss. Akad. der Wiss. 12) 1941. A.KazuHDpan,

s.v. L., ODB

2, 1171; J.KODER,

tlers from Chalcis [1], went to Sicily around 730 BC.

locations

(Naxos,

Catana,

Leontini),

founded

~ Trotilum. They accepted an invitation from Leontini to drive out the Sicels (> Siculi) and live in the polis, but they were soon driven out themselves, founding Thapsus (modern Magnisi), where L. died (there may be archaeological evidence for his grave, cf. [2. 76]). With the assistance of the Sicel prince Hyblon, the Megarians later founded — Megara Hyblaea (Thuc. 6,4; Polyaenus, Strat. 5,5,1). 1 J.BEéraRD,

La colonisation grecque,

2 R.P. LEGon, Megara, 1981, 71-77.

*1957,

109ff. M.MEI.

s.v. Zet-

union, TIB 1, 283f.; K. BRAUN, s.v. L., in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 36s5f. E.W.

Lamian War The Lamian (or ‘Hellenic’) War, named after the polis of > Lamia, was waged by the Athenians and Aetolians and their allies against Antipater [1]. Its causes were, specifically, > Alexander [4] the Great’s decree on the exiles, and generally, the hope that the Macedonian hegemony over Hellas could be undone in the wake of Alexander’s death (323 BC). After early successes under the leadership of > Leosthenes [2], the land war became bogged down at Lamia, where Antipater was besieged in the winter of 323/2. The decisive factor was the failure of the Athenian fleet to prevent the arrival of reinforcements for Antipater from Asia. The naval defeat at Amorgus thus determined the outcome strategically before the land battle at Crannon in Thessaly in 322. N.G. AsHTon, Aspects of the Lamian War, diss. 1980;

J. ENGELS, Studien zur polit. Biographie des Hypereides, *1993, 327-400; O. ScHMiITT, Der Lamische Krieg, 1992. JE.

Lamiscus (Aauioxoc; Lamiskos).

A Tarantine, member of the circle around > Archytas [1]; he led the legation that the friends of > Plato in Tarentum sent to Syracuse in 360 BC after the latter’s break with + Dionysius [2] I. L. succeeded in getting Dionysius to let Plato leave Syracuse (Pl. Ep. 7, 350a 7—b 4; derived from this are the mentions of L. in the two forged Archytas letters in Diog. Laert. 3,22 and 8,80). ~ Pythagorean School CRI

Lamp As containers for flammable oil and wick holders, lamps made of clay are a ubiquitous find from antiquity; less numerous are lamps made of bronze, marble and plaster. The basic shape of the lamp was the stone bowl, which was already used as a lamp early in the Stone Age. Early lamps of clay follow this basic form; they are shaped on a potter’s wheel and creased one or several times to accommodate the wick in the spout that is thereby created. These Phoenician lamps (also called ‘Punic’ lamps) were used from the 9th to the

4th cents. BC. In archaic Greece of the 7th cent. BC, this basic form was adopted but modified in such a way as to forma bridge over the spout and thus create a hole to accommodate the wick. Other lamps of this time have an opening in the middle of the bowl through which a

185

stick could be inserted for easier transport, and sometimes a small handle was added. In the classical period, the form of the lamp changed further, with the fillinghole becoming ever smaller, so that what was once an open bowl became a closed utensil with a small fillinghole for the oil. The closing of the body of the lamp had at least one advantage: not so much oil was spilled when it was carried in the dark. In the 4th cent. BC an eyelet at the shoulder was added through which a thread was inserted; to this was attached a wick trimmer and the stopper for the filling-hole. Beginning in the early 3rd cent. BC, workshops in Asia Minor and Alexandria began to make lamps from moulds. The upper and lower parts were formed individually; both halves were joined together while wet and then fired. In this form they resemble a lentil and have a spout that juts far out. These lamps exhibit rich ornamentation in relief on the upper part with plant and geometric ornaments or with bulges, nodules or scale patterns; relatively late figure motifs are also seen. Around the late rst cent. BC, this form of lamp is replaced by the Italian discus lamp. With this type of lamp, the entire rounding of the upper part is taken up by a large, indented surface ornamented in relief that is surrounded by one or two grooves or a raised rim. The filling-hole is placed in such a way as to not interrupt the figure motif; the spout is usually slightly curved at the side. The volute lamp of the Imperial period developed from this type with an angular spout and volute ornamentation. The motif richness of this last type is unusually great: it encompasses every aspect of everyday human life, mythological and religious themes, depictions of animals and plants. By contrast, the socalled Firmalampen (company lamps), the production of which lasted from the middle of the 1st cent. into the 3rd cent. AD, are quite simple. They are named after the manufacturer, whose name is stamped on the bottom; for the most part, these lamps are unadorned, of circular shape, and have a spout that extends far out in front. Beginning in the 5th cent. BC, the lantern also served the purpose of > lighting. It consisted of a round or rectangular frame of wood, metal, or clay, with scraped horn, animal bladders or thin animal hide, and oiled canvas serving as transparent lantern sides (glass was not used until late antiquity). The top could be taken off and a candle or lamp placed inside. Lanterns included cylindrical or prism-shaped storm lamps as well. > Lighting D. Barty, The Roman Terracotta Lamp Industry. Another View about Exports, in: T. Oz1oL, R. REBUFFAT (ed.), Les

lampes de terre cuite en Méditerranée des origines a Justinien, Table Ronde di C.N.R.S., Lyon, 7.-11.12. 1981, 1987, 59-63; M. BarBERA, Un gruppo di lucerne plastiche del Museo Nazionale Romano: Ipotesi sulle fabbriche e sulle ‘influenze’ alessandrini, in: ArchCl 45, 1993, 185231; W.V. Harris, Roman Terracotta Lamps. The Organization of an Industry, in: JRS 70, 1980, 126-145;

A. Karivieri, The Athenian Lamp Industry in Late Antiquity, Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at

186

LAMPADEDROMIA

Athens 5, 1996; A. MLasowsky, Die ant. Ton-L. im Kestner-Mus. Hannover, 1993; W. Rant, L. und Beleuchtung in der Ant., in: Antike Welt 17, 1986, H. 1, 40-58. RH.

Lampadarii (from the Greek lampds = torch, light; Greek lychnophoroi). Generally torch-bearer (Suet. Aug. 29,3); in late antiquity, the lampadarii in the Imperial Palace or high departments were collected into scholae (‘units’) and probably given prime responsibility for issues of ‘lighting’ (torches, candles, lamps etc.). The Codex Iustinianus (12,59,10) mentions lampadarii along with invitatores, admissionales, memoriales etc.

as auxiliary staff whose numbers had grown out of proportion (cf. also Not. Dign. Or. 11,12-17). R.J. Forses, Studies in Ancient Technology, 4, 1966, 122-196, esp. 15 1ff.; JONES, LRE, 582f.; A.NEUBURGER,

Technik des Altertums, 1925, 238-252.

ce

Lampadedromia —(Aaunadydeouia/lampadédromia, schol. Aristoph. Ran. 131; Ionian haunadndoein/lampadéphorié, Hdt. 8,98; more commonly Aaumdc/ lampds since Hdt. 6,105; Pl. Resp. 328a and inscriptions) is the cultic ago

(contest) of the torch race,

which was mostly performed as a relay race. In addition there were individual races, and in the cult of > Bendis at Athens, a spectacular horse race. The ritual goal of the lampadedromia was ultimately the renewal of the fire; for this reason it always began at important altars. In antiquity, this renewal was understood as cathartic, because fire that had been polluted through use or by the presence of enemies had to be replaced (Plut. Aristides 20,4,331b). Nonetheless, the

bringing of the new fire was part of the symbolism of any ritual new beginning. This has been explicitly connected with the lampadedromia on several occasions: the lampadedromia of the Attic Prometheia recalls the discovery of fire altogether, whereas as that of the Argive Lyrkeia memorialized Lynceus and Hypermestra, the founders of the royal dynasty (Paus. 2,25,4). The lampadedromia at the celebration of the battle of Marathon (Hdt. 6,13 5,3) memorialized the renewal of the freedom of the state after it was threatened by war; all of the fires of Boeotia were renewed after the victory of Plataeae by having a runner with a torch bring fire from the main altar at Delphi (Plut. l.c.).

The best-known are the lampadedromia at Athens; here they are documented not only for the Panathenaea, Hephaisteia and Prometheia (Harpocr. s.v. Aausds), but also for the Aianteia, Anthesteria, Epitaphia and Theseia. The starting-point in the Panathenaea, the Prometheia and probably the Hephaisteia as well was the altar of Prometheus outside the city near the Academy (Paus. 1,30,2), and the finishing-line was at an altar in the city, for example, that of the temple of Hephaestus on the Agora or that of Athena on the Acropolis, whose sacrificial fire was lit by the victor. Teams from the individual phyles ran separated according to age (boys, youths, men). Ina similar fashion, the main altars of the

187

188

various deities (Zeus in Olympia, Apollo in Delphi) were the finishing-line of the races everywhere. Thus in general, despite the expansion of the lampadedromia for representational purposes, the cultic connection remained firmly intact.

4,323 5,2; Clampeia, Tab. Peut. 7,1). Harbour town in Bruttium (> Bruttii) near modern Amantea. Conquered by the Romans in 204 BC, probably deserted since then.

LAMPADEDROMIA

N. WECKLEIN, Der Fackelwettlauf, in: Hermes 7, 1873, 437-452; A. BRELICH, Un mito prometeico, in: SMSR 29,

NISSEN 2, 928.

E.O.

E.G.

Lampetus (Adunetoc; Lampetos). Hero of Lesbos. In the epic AéoBov xtioid/Lésbou ktisis (‘The Founding of

Lampadius [1] Praef. urbis Romae for around two months early in AD 398; his task was to enforce the conscription of slaves as recruits for the conflict with > Gildo (Sym-

the island, slaying L. and the other heroes in the siege of Methymna (Anonymus FGrH 479 F 1; Parthenius 21). In later times a tomb is attributed to L. (Steph. Byz. s.v.

1958, 30-353; GRAF, 234f.

Leshos’), preserved in fragments,

AQUIETELOV).

> Achilles devastates

RAMI.

machus, Ep. 6,64; 8,63; 65); after the expulsion of Sym-

machus, L. restored order in Rome. Perhaps identical to Po AIE ORE oe acy (US 16). [2] Senator, protested in AD 408 against the agreement

concluded by > Stilicho with > Alaricus [2], whereby the latter would receive 4,000 pounds of gold for his help in Illyricum (Zos. 5,29); L. then fled into church asylum. Not very likely to be identical to the L. whom Alaric named praef. praet. at the end of 409 (Zos. 6,7),

but possibly to L. [1]. PLRE 2, 655 (L. 2).

Lampito (Aut;

Lampito). [1] Daughter of the Spartan king Leotychidas II, wife of king Archidamus [1] II, mother of the later king Agis [2] II (Hdt. 6,71; Plut. Agesilaus 1; Pl. Alc. 1,123c); Ari-

stophanes (Lys.) uses the name for a typical female representative of Sparta. [2] Samian woman, lover of Demetrius [4] (Ath. 13,593e-f; Diog. Laert. 5,76). K.-W.WEL.

K.G-A. Lampon (Adunwv; Lampon).

Lampas (Ao[u]mdc/La[m]pdas, ‘torch’) is documented as the name of a maenad in a vase inscription, as the name of a hetaera (Ath. 13,583e), and the name of one of the five dogs of Daphnis who perish over his grave (Ael. NA 11,13; cf. schol. Theoc. 1,65); L. can also bea person’s name [1]. 1 BECHTEL, HPN, 6oaf.

RE.ZI.

Lampeia (Aduzeva). Mountain range, up to 1,793 m high, south of the Erymanthus mountain range, in the north-east of the nomos Elis [1], modern Lambia (Apoll. Rhod. 1,127; Diod. Sic. 4,112,1; Str. 8,3,10; Paus. 8,24,4; Plin. HN 4,20; Stat. Theb. 4,290). E.MEY.andC.L.

Lampetia [1] (Aauxetin; Lampetie). Daughter of Helios and the nymph Neaera. As a girl she is taken, together with her sister Phaéthousa, to the island > Thrinacia to tend her father’s herds there (Hom. Od. 12,132f.). She tells Helios that the companions of Odysseus have slaughtered the god’s cattle (Hom. Od. 12,374f.; Apoll. Rhod. 4,973f.; Prop. 3,12,29). In Ovid’s Met. 2,349 and schol. Hom. Od. 17,208, L. is a sister of + Phaéton.

Together with the other Heliads, L. cries tears at his death that turn to amber (cf. also Hes. Cat. fr. 311). R.GANSCHINIETZ,

s.v. Lampetia,

RE

12,

579;

STOLL, s.v. Lampetia, ROSCHER 2, 1890-1897.

H.W.

body of > Mardonius be defiled just like the latter had dishonoured the body of > Leonidas [1] at Thermopylae (Hdt. 9,78f.). E.S.-H. [2] L. the Seer. He participated in the founding of Thurii (Diod. Sic. 12,10,3; schol. Aristoph. Nub. 332; Phot. s.v. Ooveioudvtis; Plut. Mor. 812d). By interpreting an omen (onuetov/sémeion: one-horned ram) in 444/43 BC as a victory by —> Pericles over > Thucydides (son of Melesias), L. gained influence (scientifically refuted by Anaxagoras; Plut. Pericles 6,2 = 59 A16 DK). Entrusted with a draft bill (423/22 BC) regarding the dxagyn/ aparche (‘first fruits sacrifice’) for the olive harvest (IG I 76 = LSCG 5, 47ff. = LGPN 2, 279 s.v. Adunwv/ Lampon). L. appeared in the‘Peace of Nicias’ (421 BC; — Peloponnesian War) (Thuc. 5,19,2 and 24,1) and was considered an authority in religious matters: thus for the ‘Mysteries of the > Soteira’ about which nothing more is known (Aristot. Rh. 3,18,1419a 2). L. was

honoured with meals in the Prytaneion (schol. Aristoph. Pax 1084), but nevertheless often mocked in comedy (Aristoph. Av. 521, 988; Nub. 332; Cratinus fr. 62 p. 152-153 PCGIV; Ath. 344e). F. Graf, Eleusis und die orph. Dichtung Athens in vorhell. Zeit, 1974, 180-181; S.HORNBLOWER, A Commentary on Thucydides 2, 1996, 487; H.-G. NEssSELRATH, Die att. Mittlere Komédie, 1990, 387. W.-A.M.

K.WA.

[2] (Pol. 13 in Steph. Byz. s.v. Aaunéteva/Lampéteia;

Aaunets/Lampétés, Lycoph. Alexandra 1068 [promontory, modern Capo Sivero]; Liv. 29,30,1; 30,19,10;

Plin. HN

[1] Son of Pytheas of Aegina; after the victory at Plataeae (479 BC), he suggested to > Pausanias that the

3,72; Clampetia, Mela 2,69; Geogr. Rav.

[3] Envoy of the Alexandrians, who, along with > Callimander, was supposed to offer the Egyptian kingdom to a Seleucid prince in 56 BC. W.A. [4] Alexandrian Greek, known to us primarily through Philo’s work In Flaccum. L. was a fierce opponent of

189

190

the Jewish population of Alexandria; thus the information in Philo could be biased. L. came from a leading family in the city. Under Tiberius he was accused of maiestas but acquitted after two years. In Alexandria L. held the office of gymnasiarch. L. abused his judicial power: together with — Isidorus [3], he incited the praef. Aegypti Avillius Flaccus against the Jews of Alexandria. Later, however, he himself brought accusations against Flaccus to Caligula. According to the Acta martyrum Alexandrinorum, L. was executed under Claudius [1]. PIR* L 78.

Lamprus (Adungos; Lampros). Musician, praised by Aristoxenus [1] as a master on a par with Pindar, Dionysius [39] of Thebes and Pratinas (Aristox. fr. 76

1 H. Musuritto (Ed.), Acta Alexandrinorum, 1961, 13;

55-

W.E.

LAMPSACUS

WEHRLI). Also considered a music teacher, similar to

Antiphon as teacher of rhetoric (Pl. Menex. 236a). The assumption that he may have been Sophocles’ dance and music teacher (Ath. 1,20e) is difficult to reconcile

chronologically with the testimony of the comedian Phrynichus (Ath. 2,44d). BZ. Lampsacus (Adupaxoc; Lampsakos). Town in the Troad (Str. 13,1,18f.; Ptol. 5,2,2), named after Lampsace, daughter of the Bebrycian king Mandron; modern Lapseki, entirely built over in modern times, so

Lamponius,

M.

Leader

of the Lucanians

in the

~ Social Wars [3] 90 BC, and one of the twelve praetors of the league (App. B Civ. 1,181). Under the command of > Pontius Telesinus, L. fought successfully against P. Licinius [[ 15] Crassus (App. B Civ. 1,184; cf. Frontin. Str. 2,4,16). L. continued the fight until 87 in Bruttium, and then allied himself with the Marians. In 82, he and others vainly attempted to free C. Marius (cos. 82), who had been surrounded in Praeneste by L. Cornelius [I 90]

Sulla (App. B Civ. 1,416); he was then defeated at the Porta Collina in the attack on Rome by Sulla on 1 November 82, and probably died trying to escape (Plut. Sulla 29,2; App. B Civ. 1,431). K.-LE.

Lampridius [1] see > Historia Augusta [2] Poet and teacher of rhetoric in Burdigala (Bordeaux), a friend of > Sidonius Apollinaris who is the

only source of information about him: Sid. Apoll. Epist. 8,9 is addressed to L. Around AD 460 he was invited to Arles by the emperor > Maiorianus (ibid. 9,13,4); he

was murdered soon after 475 (8,11,3). Bibliography: O.SEECK, s.v. L. (2), RE 12, 586; C.E. STE-

VENS, Sidonius Apollinaris and his Age, 1933, 5 8ff.; PLRE

2,65 6f.

J.GR.

Lamprocles (Aauxgoxhtjc; Lamproklés). Musician and poet of Athens, early 5th cent. BC. Among his pupils were Damon, the teacher of Pericles (DIELS/KRANZ 1, 382), and possibly Sophocles (Ath. 1,20e states that the latter’s teacher was Lamprus; perhaps a confusion with L. [z. 315]). Ath. r1,491c cites a dithyramb fragment. The only other preserved fragment comes from a hymn to Athena (schol. Aristoph. Nub. 967). To L. is attributed the observation that the Mixolydian mode does not relate to the other keys in the manner assumed until that time [2. 223-224]. 1D.A. CAMPBELL, Greek Lyric 3, 1991 Ancient Greek Music, 1992. PMG 735-736.

2M.L. West, ER,

that ancient remains are scarce. L. was founded (Eus. chronikoi kanones 95d) in 654/3 BC by Phocaeans [2. 107f.], not by Milesians (Str. 13,1,19). In 560 BC, a dispute broke out with the elder Militiades (Hdt. 6,37), followed by the tyrannical rule of Hippoclus and Aeantides (Hdt. 4,138; Thuc. 6,59). The town rose against the Persians in the > Ionian Revolt, but was retaken by Daurises (Hdt. 5,117); in 464 BC, Themistocles received L. as a fiefdom from Artaxerxes I. The town paid 12 talents to the > Delian League (Hdt. 2,1,19); it seceded from Athens in 411 BC, but was reconquered (Thuc. 8,62). After its capture by Lysander in 405 BC, L. remained under Spartan rule until the Peace of > Antalcidas of 386 BC. In 399 BC, Xenophon reached L. after the March of the Ten Thousand (Xen. An. 7,8,1). L. was probably under Persian suzerainty from 386 BC, until the Athenian commander Chares reconquered the town in 356 BC. From 342 BC to its capture by Alexander the Great in 334 BC, L. was probably once more under Persian rule. After 310 BC, L. belonged to the koinon of Athena Ilias, and concluded a pact of > sympoliteia with Ilium [2. 129f.]. In 302, during the Wars of the - Diadochi, L. switched from Antigonus [1] (Diod. Sic. 20,107,2; Polyaenus, Strat. 4,12) to Lysimachus, then to Demetrius [2] (Diod. Sic. 20,113,3; Plut. Demetrius 35; cf. [3. sof.]), and in 295/4 BC, once more to Lysimachus. After Lysimachus’ death, L. belonged for a long period to the Seleucid kingdom, until Attalus [4] I. won dominion over western Asia Minor in 227/6 BC, including Ilium,

Alexandria Troas and L., all of whom had fought on his side against Achaeus. In the war against Antiochus [5] III., L. was the first Greek city of Asia Minor to send emissaries to the Romans, in 196 BC (App. Syr. 5). After long disputes, Antiochus II] relinquished his claim to L. in 190 BC (Diod. Sic. 29,7; Pol. 21,13,3;

App. Syr. 29; 143). The Peace of Apamea of 188 BC confirmed L. as an autonomous city within the Attalid kingdom, which L. remained — possibly with a short interruption following the conquest by Perseus in 170 (Liv. 43,6) — until the establishment of the province of + Asia [2] in 129 BC. In 80/79 BC, Verres plundered the city (Cic. Verr. 2,1,63ff.). In the third Mithridatic War, L. was probably conquered in 73 BC by king Mithridates VI Eupa-

LAMPSACUS

tor. It is possible that Caesar may have placed a Roman colony at L. (on this problem cf. [2. 139]). Agrippa is said to have brought a statue of Lysippus from L. to Rome in 16 BC (Str. 13,1,19). L. was a flourishing city, minting coins up to Gallienus. Under Decius, persecutions of the Christians took place in L. [1. 140]. Various high officials are listed as coming from L. in records of Byzantine councils and synods [1. r4of.]. Elektron staters from L. are known to numismatics (- Lampsakenos)), as are gold coins, generally a strong minting tradition until Gallienus. The foundations of the city’s wealth were gold mines and seaborne trade [2. 142ff.]. Particular objects of cultic veneration were Priapus, Aphrodite and Poseidon, who were even named as eponyms of the city [2. 149ff.]. 1 W.Lear, Strabo on the Troad, 1923, 92-97 2 P. Friscu, Die Inschr. von L. (IK 6), 1979 L. BURCHNER, s.v. L., RE 12, 590-592.

Ancient

name

E.SCH.

for the > staters

of

— Lampsacus in Mysia. 1. yovoov otatiees

Aauwpaxnvol/ chrysou statéres Lampsakénoi on stele with Parthenon architectural inscriptions, Athens,

447/6-434 BC (IG I* 339-353 = IGP 436-451). The staters are of > elektron, obverse Pegasus protome facing to the left, reverse > quadratum incusum of four quarters. Three groups (525-500; 500-494; about 450 BC) can be differentiated. 2. otathiea Aawpaxnvov youootvw/statéra Lampsakénon chrysoun; xovoiw Aaupaxav@ otfateieas|/chrysio Lampsakano stlateiras] or similar on inscriptions from Thebes in Boeotia (IG VII 2418 Z.9, 21f.; 2425) as subsidies from Thebes to Byzantium in the 3rd Sacred War (355-346 BC). These staters are made of gold and with 8.4 g are equivalent to the dareikoi (> Dareikos); they belong to the period 390-330 BC. The image on the obverse varies greatly: 41 types are known, first full figures, then heads, among these copies of artworks and cther coins. The image on the reverse is the Pegasus protome. 1 A.Batpwin,

The

1914 (repr. 1979)

Electrum

Coinage

of Lampsakos,

2 Id., Lampsakos: The Gold Staters,

in: AJN 53/3, 1924, I-76.

SCHROTTER, 341.

the valley of Porto Lombardo (different in [1. 59ff.; 10. 38; r1]). The tomb of Cranaus in L. is attested by Paus. 1,31,1. Decree on demes: [12. 383 no. 73-75].

Rock inscriptions: [1. 63f.; 2; 3; 8. 58f.; 12. 29], numerous unpublished archaic rock inscriptions and a prehistoric military fortification on Keramoti. On settlement remains from the classical period cf. [15 2; 5]. 1 C.W. J. Etror, The Coastal Demes of Attica, 1962, 47-64 2H.R. Goette, Der Hiigel der Panagia Thiti bei Vari und seine Inschr., in: MDAI(A) 110, 1995, 235-246 3 H. Laurer, Zwei Horos-Inschr. bei Vari, in: AA 1982,

299-315 4 Id., Kiapha Thiti III 2, in: MarbWPr 1989, 5-15 5 Id., Att. Landgemeinden in klass. Zeit, in: MarbWPr 1991, 87-107 _ _—s6_—‘Id., Kiapha Thiti II 1, in: MarbWPr 1995 (1996) 7M.K. Lancpon, The Topography of Coastal Erechtheis, in: Chiron 18, 1988, 43-51 8 H.LOHMANN, Atene, 1993 9 J. MARAN, Kiapha Thiti II 2, in: MarbWPr 1990(1992)

3 W.ORTH,

Die Diadochenzeit im Spiegel der histor. Geogr., 1993.

Lampsakenos

192

191

DLK.

Lamptrae (Aaunteai; Lamptrai). Attic deme of the phyle Erechtheis, 307/6-201/0 BC of Antigonis, that consisted of the smaller mesogeia deme of ‘upper L.’ (A. xaOvmeodev) with five bouleutai and the larger coastal deme of ‘lower L.’ (A. taéveeGev or magddot, ‘on the coast’), with nine bouleutai (Harpocr. s.v. Aauntoetc; Hsch. s.v. Aaunted). Upper L. comprised Lambrika, which preserves the name, with the centre of the deme near Kitsi. Important early Mycenaean acropolis of Kiapha Thiti and Mycenaean necropoleis at this location [1. 54; 4; 6; 8. 118ff.; 9]. Lower L. was situated in

10 TRAILL, Attica 6,15,

38, 59, 63, 67, 86, 111 no. 83, 84, 125f., table 1, rz

11 J.S. TRaILL, Demos and Trittys, 1986, 126 12 WHITEHEAD, Index s.v. L.

H.LO.

Lampus (Aduoc/Lampos, also Aaumwv/Lampon). [1] Son of + Laomedon, brother of + Priamus; member

of the Trojan council of elders; father of Dolops who was killed by Menelaus (Hom. Il. 3,146; 15,526; 20,238; Apollod. 3,146). Christodorus (Anth. Pal. 2,251ff.) describes a statue of L. in the Zeuxippus thermal baths in Constantinople. [2] Name of a horse (i.a. Hom. Il. 8,185: horse of Hector; Hom. Od. 23,246: horse of Eos). P. MULLER, s.v. L., LIMC

6.1, 191; P. WATHELET, Dicti-

onnaire des Troyens de I’Iliade, 1988, no. 198.

Lampytus

(Adunvutoc; Lampytos).

MAST.

Poet of the New

Comedy, known only from an inscription; in 167 BC he took fourth place at the Dionysia (I. test.). 1 PCG V, 1986, 609.

Lamus (Aduoc/Lamos).

[1] Son of Poseidon, old king of the > Laestrygones and constructor of their stronghold at Telepylus (Hom. Od. 10,81ff.; Ov. Met. 14,233). On account of the identity of Telepylus and Formiae, Hor. Carm. 3,17 imagines his friend Aelius Lamia from Formiae to be L.’s offspring. [2] (also Lamius). Son of Hercules and Omphale, eponym of the Thessalian town Lamia (Diod. Sic. 4,31). He persecutes his half-brother Bargasus (Apollonius of Aphrodisias, Karika FGrH 740 F 2). [3] A Rutulian (Verg. Aen. 9,334). Cw. [4] Border river between Cilicia Pedias and Cilicia Trachea (Str. 14,5,6), today Limonlu Cayi (formerly Lamas). In the Middle Ages it was the border between Arab-occupied Cilicia and the Byzantine Empire. HILD/HELLENKEMPER, 330.

193

194

[5] Village (xapn/komé, Str. 14,5,6) at the estuary ofthe Lamus [4] with medieval castle; today Limonlu (formerly Lamas).

7,201; Gell. NA 15,30,7; Diod. Sic. 5,30,4; Festus 118,8), was, however, very effective against cavalry, elephants or poorly armoured enemies (Liv. 30,33,15;

HILD/HELLENKEMPER, 330f.

F.H.

[6] City in Cilicia Trachea (Hierocles 709,2), modern Adanda Kalesi, 16 km south-east of Selinus. In the Im-

perial period a polis, fortified with city walls under Gallienus (AD 260-268); diocese. HILD/HELLENKEMPER,

331f., s.v. L. (3), s.v. Lamotis.

ken

Lamynthius (Aaptv0wc; Lamynthios). Lyric poet from Miletus, dating uncertain. Phot. s.v. calls him a ‘poet of erotic poetry’ (mountis EewtixOv wehOv; poietes

erotikén mel6én); Ath. 13,596f-597a mentions two poets who write about hetaerae named Lyde: Antimachus [3] of Colophon, who composed his Lydé in elegi-

LANDED PROPERTY

Waewlslistess2%703))s

According to Vegetius, lancearii were occasionally mounted (Veg. Mil. 3,24; ILS 2791 = CIL VI 32965); their numbers in the infantry continually increased. Ac-

cording to Arr. expeditio contra Alanos 16-18, half of the legionaries under Hadrian already carried the lancea, only the first ranks were equipped with the pilum. Perhaps under Diocletianus a legio comitatensis of lancearii was set up, which was then made part of the + palatini by Constantinus I (ILS 2782 = CIL VI 32943; cf. ILS 2781 = CIL III 6194); they were organized into iuniores and seniores (ILS 2788 = CIL XII 673). 1 W.Bopprert, Mil. Grabdenkmaler aus Mainz und Umgebung (CSIR Deutschland, 2,5), 1992,92 2 HoFFMANN, 218ff., 328ff. Sit

ac meter, and L., who according to Clearchus com-

posed lyrical verse about a foreign (BaeBdeou/ barbdrou) girl of the same name in his Erotikd. He is named by Epicrates [4] in the Antilais (PCG v 4) as the author of love songs. Fragments have not been preserved. ER. Lanassa (Advacoa; Ldnassa). [1] Daughter of Cleodaeus, granddaughter of Hyllus,

great-granddaughter of > Hercules [1], ancestress of the Molossian dynasty of Epirus (Plut. Pyrrhus 1,2; Lysimachus, FGrH 382 F ro). > Neoptolemus abducts

her from the Zeus temple of Dodona, marries her and has eight children with her, among them — Pyrrhus (lusteic.3e4)) P. LEvEQUE, Pyrrhos, 1957, 643; M.SCHMIDT, s.v. L., RE 2, 617.

R.HA.

[2] Daughter of Agathocles [2], who married her to ~ Pyrrhus in 295 BC and gave her Corcyra as a dowry (Diod. Sic. 21,4; Plut. Pyrrhus 9). In 291 she separated from Pyrrhus, married Demetrius [2] Poliorcetes, and bequeathed Corcyra to him (Plut. Pyrrhus ro). In 279 Syracuse asked Pyrrhus, because of his claims to inheritance as a result of marriage to L., for help against the Carthaginians (Diod. Sic. 22,8,2). P. LevEQuE, Pyrrhos, 1957, 139ff.; K. MEISTER, CAH 7.1, 1984, 406ff. K.MEL.

Lancia [1] Town of the Astures near modern Mansilla de las Mulas, northern Spain, approximately 20 km from Leon (on the Celtic place name [1; 2], also [3; 4]). Conquered in 25 BC by P. Carisius, but spared (Cass. Dio 53525593 Flor. Epit. 2,33,37£.; Oros. 6,21,10; cf. also Plin. HN 3,28; Ptol. 2,6,28; It. Ant. 395,33 [5]). Substantial, almost exclusively Roman remains; Roman coins. 1 HOLDER, s.v. L. 2 A.SCHULTEN, Los Cantabros y 3 F.ABBAD Rios, F.JORDA Astures ..., 1943, 107, I5I CerDA, Informe sobre las excavaciones ... en la antigua ciudad de L. (Le6én), in: Boletin del Instituto de estudios Asturianos 12, 1958, 35-49 4 F.JORDA CERDA, L. Ser-

vicio nacional de excavationes arqueologicas (Excavaciones arquelogicas en Espana 1), 1962 5 A.SCHULTEN, Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae 5, 1940, 186, 196.

TOVAR 3, 335¢.

PB.

[2] L. Oppidana The town is known from the boundary stone CIL II 460. Its territory bordered on that of the Igaeditani (Egitan[i]a = modern Idanha a velha, north of the middle reaches of the Tagus [1. 1203]). In inscr. ILS 287a (AD ros) on the Tagus bridge near Alcantara, the communities of northern Lusitania involved in the construction include the Lancienses Oppidani. [3] L. Transcudana The town lay on the south bank of the Cuda, modern Coa, a tributary on the left side of the + Durius, in central Spain. In inscr. ILS 287a (AD 105)

Lancearii Soldiers equipped with the lancea; they served in the Roman army as elite troops (Jos. BI 3,120;

on the Tagus bridge near Alcantara, the communities of northern Lusitania involved in the construction include

5547), speculatores (scouts), and in the imperial bodyguard (Suet. Claud. 35,1; Suet. Galba 18,1). The lancea, also called > hasta [1] am(m)entata, was a long spear with a thong (ammentum) in the middle (Isid. Orig. 18,7,5); this increased the leverage of the arm and gave

the Lancienses

the /ancea additional spin, so that it flew quite far. Of less penetrating power than the > pilum, the lancea, for whose origin many different opinions existed (Plin. HN

Transcudant (cf. also the inscr. from

Emerita CIL II Suppl. 5262). 1

J.B. KEUNE, s.v. Igaeditani, RE Suppl. 3, 1202-1205.

TOVAR 2, 253.

Landed property see > Economy

P.B.

LANDLORDISM

196

195

Landlordism The term landlordism is not documented by contemporary sources; it is a term ofclassification of agrarian and social structure which first arose during the transition to the modern era and designates a conglomerate of rent-bearing powers of control over ‘land and people’ which is typical for the European Middle Ages and the Ancien Régime [7]. Therefore, all applications of this term to other circumstances — including Roman antiquity — are misleading at best. M. WEBER’S [10] clear differentiation of landlordism from ancient and modern plantation and manor rule in the framework of his ideal typology of manor property is still exemplary. The social and economic conditions of late antiquity contributed significantly to the rise of landlordism, so for example the ownership rights of the Church, the - colonatus (compounded by the continued existence of pre-Roman forms of rural dependence), the rural —> patrocinium of the senatorial owners of large estates towards those needing protection, and > emphyteusis. This was reinforced by the confiscation of imperial estates by the rulers of the Germanic regna, who otherwise changed little, rather reaching an accommodation with the Roman big landowners; they adopted the tax organization but preferred field slavery in the area of agricultural production. The formative phase of landlordism only began in the 7th cent. in Merovingian Gaul, where the Roman tax constitution had gradually lost its binding force fox the rulers. From a modern point of view, the Carolingian kingship together with the aristocracy, the bishops and Benedictine abbeys, switched to having the large manor estates in areas with light, fertile soils cultivated, not by slaves (mancipia), but through forced day labour by newly settled servi or the partial forced labour of integrated ingenui. A two-part organization (French domaine bipartite, English manor, German Fronhofsverfassung, Villikation) into manor land and fief land was preferred. The mansi or fiefs remained independent and liable to taxation. This ‘farm-based landlordism’ also spread due to systematic land clearance and the targeted local movement of settlements in the Carolingian heartland between the Loire and Rhine, and appears in the records as the definitive from the late 8th cent. onwards. However, this image is deceptive insofar as all large-scale landlordism represented a spatially loose conglomerate of large farms cultivated by slaves, bipartite domains, small farms only liabie to taxation or operated by serfs, and feudal associates. The extensive implementation of landlordism has thus remained a disputed phenomenon until today — the Mediterranean agrarian relationships are often interpreted as still an antique combination of field slavery and free farmers [1], those east of the Rhine as smallsized farms cultivated by slaves as preliminary stages of the bipartition or personal tribute rule [8]. The theory of the ‘Germanic’ origin of medieval landlordism can definitely be considered as outdated.

1P.Bonnassig£,

From Slavery to Feudalism

in South-

2 J.-P. Devroey, Etudes sur le grand domaine carolingien, 1993 3 R.KarsEr, Das rom. Erbe und das Merowingerreich, 1997 4L. KUCHENBUCH, Die Klostergrundherrschaft im Frihma., in: F. Prinz (ed.), Herrschaft und Kirche, 1988, 297-343 5 Id., Grundherrschaft im friuheren MA, 1991 6 J. PERCIVAL, Seigneurial Aspects of Late Roman Estate Management, in: English Historical Review 84, 1969, 449-473 7 K.SCHREINER, ‘Grundherrschaft’. Entstehung und Bedeutungswandel eines geschichtswiss. Ordnungsund Erklarungsbegriffs, in: H.Parze (ed.), Grundherrschaft im spaten MA, 2 vols., 1983, vol. 1, 11-75 8 A. VERHULST, Rural and Urban Aspects of Early Medieval Northwest Europe, 1992 ~—-9 Id. (ed.), Die Grundherrschaft im frihen MA, 1985 10M. Weer, Wirtschaftsgesch., 1923 11 C.R. Wuirraker, Rural Labour in Western Europe, 1991

Three Roman Provinces, in: P. GaRNSEY (ed.), Non-Slave

Labour in the Greek-Roman World, 1980, 73-99 12 id., Circe’s Pigs. From Slavery to Serfdom in the Later Roman World, in: M. L. FINLey (ed.), Classical Slavery, 1987, 88— L220.

LU.KU.

Land register One can only speak of a land register (LR) in the legal sense when a complete, comprehensive register of property — either of all inhabitants (personal property system) or of all plots of land ina precinct (real property system) — is generally acknowledged, thus guaranteeing the right of ownership of the registered purchaser. In antiquity, there were numerous simple property registers (— Estate register), which, however, mostly served as the basis for tax assessment (examples and literature [1]).

Institutions for the control of legal transactions regarding property (and also slaves) which could come close to the functions of a modern LR are known only from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt; however, they fulfilled those functions only in part. The xatayoaoy (katagraphé, registration) of the Ptolemaic era is the entry of documents regarding the sale of property, houses and slaves in a special register in order to record evidence for such transactions. The operation of the BiPAoOHxn éyxtmoewv (bibliotheké enktéseon, register of property assets) was only introduced in the Roman period, and reinforced by an edict of the praefectus Aegypti, M. Mettius Rufus, in AD 89. The properties and mortgages (> Hypotheke) belonging to one person were registered in a personal property record. Every purchaser had to submit his title deed tor &vayeady (anagraphé, registration) after the registrar (BiBAvopvAaé, bibliophylax) had examined the seller’s power of disposal based on his registry page. However, this formality was neither necessary for the effectiveness of the title acquisition, nor could a third party claim the accuracy ofthe entry. At any rate, this resulted in a high standard of security in property transactions. — Estate register 1 F.M. HEICHELHEIM, s.v. Grundbuch, KIP 2, 879.

WoLFF, 184-255; H.-A. RupPRECHT, Einfithrung in die Papyruskunde, 1994, 14of. Cp

197

198

Landscape (Scenery) From a historio-geographical perspective, the term landscape carries several basic

cism of such anthropogenic destructions of landscape did exist, although, due to the widespread belief in the divine quality of > nature, it was less motivated by eco-

implications and connotations. Generally speaking, it can designate a space where historically relevant events have taken place. It is then attributed the quality of a historical source, to be interpreted in a variety of ways. Of further interest is the reciprocal relationship between man and landscape in terms such as: how did man perceive, design, and change the landscape? And how, on the other hand, did the landscape affect political, economic, cultural and religious circumstances? It

is useful in this context to distinguish between the natural landscape (with elements such as > climate, bodies of water, geological formations) and the cultural landscape as the anthropogenically altered natural landscape (e.g. deserted settlements, clearings). Despite ancient concepts, modern terminology classifies the historical landscape as a subject of > HisTORICAL GEOGRAPHY, chorography and topography [1], the distinguishing element being the size of the space comprised and described by the respective terms. The modern geographical understanding of landscape as part of the earth’s surface, forming a unity of space based on its outer appearance and the interaction of its phenomena [2], is probably closest to the ancient ideas expressed in the terms ywea/chora (e.g. Hom. Od. 8,573) and regio

logical

LANDSCAPE

(+ Environment,

Environmental

PAINTING

behaviour)

than by religious considerations [4]. Accordingly, the countryside played an essential part in religion and cult, manifesting itself, for example, in the choice of sacred sites (e.g. caves and groves) or in the divine > personification of scenic elements (e.g. > River gods). + Climate, Environmental vironment; — Forest

change;

— Desert;

> En-

1 E. Kirsten, Moéglichkeiten und Aufgaben der Histor. Geogr. des Alt. in der Gegenwart, in: E. OLSHAUSEN (ed.), Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur histor. Geogr. des Alt. 1, 1980 (Geographica Historica 4), 1987, 34f. 2 HerderLexikon Geogr., '°1990, 136 3 P.GRIMAL, Les jardins romains, 1984

4H.SONNABEND, Ant. Einschatzungen

menschl. Eingriffe in die natirliche Bergwelt, in: E. OsHAUSEN, H.SONNABEND (ed.), Gebirgsland als Lebensraum (Geographica Historica 8), 1996, 15 1-160.

W.ELLIGER, Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griech. Dichtung, 1975; G. Marxer, Uber das Landschaftempfinden bei den Rémern, in: Jb. der Tochterschule der Stadt Ziirich 1953/4, 22-31; E. OLSHAUSEN, Einf. in die Histor. Geogr. der alten Welt, 1991, passim; H. SONNABEND (ed.), Mensch und Landschaft in der Ant., 1999; E. STARK, Kam-

panien als geistige Landschaft, 1995.

H. SO.

(e:2, Plins Eps 5,637).

An important source for the ancient perception of landscape are poetry and — painting. The writers of

Landscape painting

+ bucolics (+ Theocritus [2], > Vergilius, > Longus, ~ Calpurnius [III 3] Siculus, > Nemesianus [1]), for ex-

A. GREECE

ample, reflect the yearning for a simple country life, also interpreted as a reaction to civilization and urbanization. Mosaics and frescoes from the Roman Imperial period (such as the + Nile Mosaic from the Fortuna sanctuary at > Praeneste) also document the appreciation of landscape. The desire to subdue and tame nature finds its expression in the landscaped gardens and villas (> Gardens [2], > Villa) of Roman aristocrats (cf. Stat. Silv. 2,2,52-59) [3], for whom the integration of a ‘beautiful’ landscape was generally part of upscale liv-

A. GREECE The lack of material records for ancient Greek painting also creates difficulties when attempting a definition and evaluation of this genre. However, based on today’s knowledge of the monuments, it is fairly safe to assume that it cannot be equated with independent landscape painting (LP), as practised by the Dutch painters or during Romanticism, which forms the basis of the modern concept [4. 176]. Antiquity did not know a specific term for LP as we understand it [1. 190; 5. 80], and poetry illustrated nature as the sum of scenic phenomena [z. 1]. Scholarship, therefore, is primarily concerned with the question of how far and to what extent ancient painters perceived nature aesthetically and how they transformed it artistically in landscapethemed works. It is agreed today, that at least until Hellenistic times, LP merely had a descriptive significance for picture stories of any kind, in which human figures always dominated. Ancient representations of landscapes ultimately owe their origin and existence to the presence of man [7. 36]. Details of nature formed connecting elements, they served as a screen for the actual subject, but were not attributed individual value as painting motifs [3. 4 passim]. Since archaic times, scenic set pieces such as trees, plants, rocks or waterways could be found on vase paintings, simply to indicate the place for a scene out in nature, and secondary to the plot. Its particularly pic-

ing culture (Plin. Ep. 5,6). For the Greeks in particular,

the aesthetics of the landscape played a significant role in the topographical positioning of public buildings. The > theatre audience was to enjoy an event of artistic and societal as well as of scenic value. Thus, many theatres (> Epidaurus, > Tauromenium, > Pergamum) offered impressive views from the tiers onto the natural surroundings. Their aesthetic appreciation of the landscape did not prevent the ancients from interfering, sometimes drastically, with the natural surroundings for economic or military purposes. Especially clearings (PI. Criti. r11a-e on the mountain forests of Attica), but also the construction of canals, > roads (in Plut. C. Gracchus 7, remarkably, their evaluation is also based on aesthetical categories), bridges and water pipes (+ Roads and bridges, construction of; > Water supply) considerably changed the face of entire swathes of land. Ancient criti-

B. ETRURIA AND ROME

LANDSCAPE PAINTING

199

torial treatment (hatchings, thickened brush strokes,

contrasting textures), compared to the graphic treatment of the figurative motifs, suggests that these are adaptations of artistic achievements from contempo-

rary wall and panel paintings (> Painting, — Wall paintings). This tendency increased with the vase painting of the classical and post-classical periods, especially in the production of the south Italian regions. The few preserved records of monumental painting confirm the secondary role of landscape in the composition. Although the hunting fresco on the fagade of the Tomb of Philip at Vergina (c. 335 BC) develops a certain spatiality in front of the trees in the rocky highland, the indications remain relatively vague and formulistic. Likewise, the withered tree in the background of the Battle

200

Particularly numerous

are the sacral-idyllic land-

scape paintings, emerging since the mid rst cent. BC.

Popular in these genre-like paintings, which bear many resemblances among each other, are bucolic pasture and shepherd scenes, water- and river-courses with bridges, as well as various temples and rural sanctuaries in planted groves. The figures, sketched with fast brushstrokes, remain ornamental, but the landscape itself

also creates an unreal impression, enhanced by the dominant technique of the Fourth Style with its impressionistic effect; again, no realistic rendition of a specific location is intended. Also popular were garden paintings showing flowers, fruit trees or other plants before a dark background, which were supposed to evoke the view of an actual flower garden. Rather rare are animal

(- Alexander Mosaic), created shortly

representations on impassable terrain or images of very

thereafter, appears to merely symbolize a specific location and fails to evoke a rea! landscape. The most recent research pertaining to the ‘Odyssey

specific topographies, such as Nile landscapes, which were populated with animals and plants typical for the

frescoes’ (Rome, MV), to date the prime example of

1 R.Brertnc, Die Odysseefresken vom Esquilin, 1995 2 W.EtiicEer, Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griech. Dichtung, 1975 3 A.ROUVERET, Profilo della

of Alexander

ancient LP, has revealed a stereotypical, schematical image layout, composed of flat backdrops with few, extreme rock formations, shrubs and trees [1 passim]. No real landscape is aimed at, nor an indication of the place; the large-size elements serve as parenthesis for the figurative scenes and emphasize the credibility of such scenes with their emblematic character. The images, to this day considered a copy from the mid rst cent. BC of a Hellenistic original, were quite an independent creation of two Roman painters from the late rst cent. [1. 190]. However, the beginnings and precursors of such isolated landscape formations can probably be traced back to Hellenism. B. ETRURIA AND ROME > grave paintings, depictions of nature can be found relatively frequently. An example is the Tomba della Caccia e Pesca, which interlaces vivid seascapes with representations of the mainland [6. 301]. Plant frescos, the so-called groves [6 passim] and other phenomena from flora and fauna, also mirror this ‘will to nature’ [7. 35]. Modern scholarship now favours an eschatological interpretation [7. 42 and passim]. Still, only a few exceptions can be considered real LP. Grave paintings of this kind [7. 40, 349] and lost Hellenistic models are associated by scholars with the increase of scenic compositions in Roman-Campanian wall painting [4. 177]. Others tend to regard the genre, with its variety of forms and characteristics, as a genuine Roman invention, to be seen in the context of the specifically Roman villa culture (> Villa) and the landscaped — gardens |[5. 8rff. and passim]. The Roman painter Studius, mentioned in Plin. HN 35,116, who was active during the time of Augustus and who, according to the text, was a landscape painter as we understand the term, confirms this assumption. The preserved monuments also bear witness to the fact that LP now gained novel value as an independent art form. In Etruscan

region.

pittura parietale greca, in: G. PUGLIESE CARATELLI (ed.), I

Greci in Occidente,

1996, 99-108

4]. SCHEIBLER,

Griech. Malerei der Ant., 1994 5 K.SCHNEIDER, Villa und Natur, 1995 6S.STEINGRABER, Etr. Wandmalerei, 1985 71.ZaAnontI, Natur und Landschaftsdarstellungen in der etr. und unterital. Wandmalerei, 1998. W.Buscu, Landschaftsmalerei, 1997; M.CONAN, The Imagines of Philostratus, in: Word& Image 3, 1987, 162171; R.Linc, Roman Painting, 1991, esp. 142-149; A.ROUVERET, Histoire et imaginaire de la peinture

ancienne, 1989; E.STEINGRABER, Landschaftsmalerei, 1985.

2000

Jahre

europ. N.H.

Land transport A. INTRODUCTION

B. THE TECHNOLOGY OF LAND

TRANSPORT C. WAGONS AND WAGON CONSTRUCTION. THE WHEEL D. ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF GOODS TRANSPORT E. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION F. TRAVEL G. INFRASTRUC-

TURE AND TRANSPORTATION

COSTS

A. INTRODUCTION Investigation into land transport (LT) in antiquity is made difficult today because of the controversies and polemics that distinguishes much of the scholarship on the subject. The predominant viewpoint until about 1960 underestimated the significance of LT because of considerations of economic or technical histery. The dichotomous view of history in LEFEBVRE DES NOETTES [8] — who proposed the thesis that antiquity was not capable of economic development due to inadequate harness for draught animals, while the Middle Ages led the economic rise of Europe with the discovery of the horse-collar — first strengthened the primitivistic concept of Marxist-influenced 19th cent. historians, and later had an effect on the views of FINLEY and his school. Accordingly, the minor relevance of transport

201

202

was caused by the lack, for the most part, of long-distance

trade

(+ Commerce),

the

predominance

of

LAND

TRANSPORT

Harnessing in Roman times

+ subsistence farming and the consumption pattern of the cities. The primitive economic structure of antiquity, according to this view, generally reduced LT to an exchange between the urban centres and their immediate surrounding areas. A further problem is posed by the extremely difficult state of the sources; literary evidence is almost completely lacking, archaeological remains are rare, widely scattered, and often allow only indirect conclusions. The pictorial representations (vase images, grave reliefs, etc.) are informative, but require careful interpretation; the sources were often only very superficially analyzed and evaluated in the older literature, which applies especially to the observations of [8]. Archaeological finds (pieces of wagons or harness) and the cartography of trade goods of known origin (ceramic dishes, amphoras with tituli picti, marble pieces, etc.) have contributed most to the current state of knowledge, making it possible to reconstruct trade routes

based

on

these materials.

However,

care

is

needed in a quantifying analysis due to the coincidental nature of the finds. Transportation technology should, in any case — just as with the development state of agricultural and industrial production — be placed in larger historical contexts, and in the context of pre-industrial society.

B. THE TECHNOLOGY OF LAND TRANSPORT In contrast to the opinion of [8], the transport technology of the Graeco-Roman world cannot be

described as specific to antiquity; it is rather a matter of techniques which partially survived in Europe into the roth cent., and are even still used today in some places around the world. The energy sources used to move loads changed very little from the Neolithic to the invention of the steam engine. However, this prevented neither the development of different types of wagons and harness, nor other innovations, through which the transport system was adapted to the particular needs of various societies. From a point of view of universal history, animals with pack saddles or people as porters, just as much as draught animals harnessed to a wagon by a yoke — usually cattle or donkeys — must be seen as the characteristic means of transport in pre-industrial society. In poor mountainous regions, the carrying of burdens by a porter is still significant today. On winding and steeply sloping paths, the transport of burdens is only possible with the help of porters. Porters, whose capability is well recorded in ethnologic literature, were also used in agriculture, in harbours, or on construction sites: in Africa, a bearer carries 25 kg over 25 km on his head in one day. He can use a long staff or a yoke as an aide. With the help of a long pole or a pannier, the burden, such as a hunting kill, can also be carried by two people. In antiquity, the occupation of porter (poetnyoc/phortégos; in harbours saccarius) and vari-

2. Two-horse carriage. Arlon, Musée Luxembourgeois (Espérandieu, Rec. 4034)

3. Four-horse carriage. Langres Museum (Espérandieu,

Rec. 3245) Drawings based on reliefs.

ous forms of sacks (mhoa/peéra; Latin pera, mantica) or, for personal transportation, the — litter (/ectica), were all known. The use of pack animals and pack saddles was fundamental for the transport of cargo which could be divided up. In rural areas, the > donkey (Dem. Or. 42,7; Varro, Rust. 2,655; Verg. G. 1,273ff.; Columella 7,1,3), the mule (clitellis aptior mulus: Columella 6,37,11; ~ Mule) and, more rarely, the > horse transported, depending on the conditions of the terrain and climate, 100 to 200 kg of goods, as is still the case today in the mountains of Arcadia. There were different types of

203

204

pack saddle, for example the soft double sack (mantica), which was fastened to the shoulder or back, or elaborate wooden frames, which were covered with cloth. The team of two horses or mules (+ bigae) was generally considered the standard team in the Graeco-

telicon to Athens in the 5th cent. BC as it is for the marble quarries of Carrara in the early 20th cent. AD. In view of these blocks weighing 8-10 tons, the strength of the wagons was a greater problem than the use of draught animals. In the utilization of human and animal — energy, and with the use of the yoke as harness, ancient transport technology corresponded, to all intents and purposes, with the usual standard in pre-industrial society. Encouraged by the pax Romana and the opening of large interior sections in the Principate, there were considerable improvements in details of harness and wagon

LAND TRANSPORT

Roman world. The small cart with two wheels (GouG

bynua/harma ochéma; Latin biga), with a low body, shaft (OvpLdc/rhymods;

Latin temo) and double yoke (Guyov/zyg6n; Latin iugum) is well recorded by literary evidence and images; however, it played only a limited role in the transport of goods and was used more for military purposes or in competitions. Shaft and yoke were firmly bound together; the yoke was laid on the neck of the animal in front of the withers, and fixed

with straps (Hom. Il. 24,265-280). The negative assessment of the antique harness in [8] is based on an erroneous interpretation of the ancient images and the assumption that the neckstrap hindered the breathing of the horse, and that the yoke injured the withers, which strongly limited the pulling strength of the horses. New investigation of the ancient evidence, as well as the experiments undertaken by J.SpRuytre [19] in 1977, have, however, confuted the theses of [8], already modified by P. VIGNERON [21]. The animal’s drawing

power was not applied to the harness by the neck, but by the shoulders, thus providing an efficient use of the drawing power when pulling heavy loads. Two horses could pull a small, four-wheeled wagon with a cargo of more than 1 ton without difficulty. Additional trace horses

(saeroeos

oeioaddgoc/pareoros

seiraphoros;

construction,

without,

however,

making

any

real,

qualitative progress, which only became possible with the use of new energy sources (steam power, electricity, and the internal-combustion engine) in the rgth cent. AD.

C. WAGONS AND WAGON CONSTRUCTION. THE WHEEL The large number of wagon types reflects the different social, economic and geographic contexts of ancient transportation. In Greece, as in Rome, > war chariots,

racing chariots in the games, or wagons used for daily transport, were of relatively simple construction. There were no continuous advances in wagon construction, but from the early Principate onwards, travelling wagons in particular were clearly improved. In this, the Roman Empire profited from the Celtic technology, as the extensive Latin vocabulary for > wagons shows (benna; carpentum;

carruca;

currus;

pilentum;

petoritum;

carrus; cisium; covinus;

plaustrum;

sarracum;

Latin funalis) could be harnessed beside the two shaft

triga, etc.).

horses; teams of more than two horses, however, were —

It must be noted that different types of wagons were used at the same time; thus the beautiful wagon, whose large wheels had twelve spokes, found in the house of Menander, dates from the same time as the rustic wagon from the Villa Regina in Boscoreale, with disc wheels which were permanently fixed to the axle. The wagon, wagon body and shaft were made by carpenters, while the manufacture of the wheel was generally a specialized task and dependent on the particular local traditions. In the Graeco-Roman world a wide variety of wheel types existed, from primitive disc wheels to the wheel with twelve spokes and a wheel hoop made of metal. The wheel, well-documented for archaic Greece by vase paintings, consisted of four or six rim segments and a strut which cut through the centre of the wheel, reinforced by two cross-struts (strutted wheel). In the Ancient Orient and Egypt, the spoked wheel was already

with exceptions — of only limited importance for transportation. For the transportation of goods, only wagons pulled by two oxen, mules or donkeys played a role (Varro, Rust. 1,20,4: alii asellis, alii vaccis ac mulis utuntur; Varro, Rust. 2,8,5: bisce (= mulis) enim binis contunctis omnia vehicula in viis ducuntur; cf. on the donkey, Columella 7,2,1: non minima pondere vehicula trahat). The low onset of the donkey’s neck facilitated harnessing with the yoke, which was fastened in front of or behind the withers; the shoulder strap served

more for maintaining the position of the yoke than for drawing; the ox pulled the plough with its horns or neck. The advantages of the respective harnesses were as debated by the Roman agronomists as by those of the r9th cent. (cf. Columella 2,2,22: iugumque melius aptum cervicibus incidat. Hoc enim genus iuncturae

maxime probatum est. Nam illud, quod in quibusdam provinciis usurpatur, ut cornibus illigetur iugum fere repudiatum est ab omnibus as well as Pall. Agric. 2,3,1: boves melius collo quam capite iunguntur). The heavier the loads were, the more oxen were used as draught animals. Harnessed one behind the other, or next to one

another in a fan-formation, they drew carts with large blocks of stone intended for public construction. This is as true for the transportation of marble from Mt. Pen-

known

in the 2nd millennium

BC; it was later taken

over by the Romans. An important feature of ancient wheels is the size of the hub, which jutted out significantly. The question of whether the front axle could move in four-wheeled wagons, now appears finally to have been solved: the front part of the undercarriage could be rotated around a cone under the chassis. Fixed axles and those that turned with the wheels existed

205

206

LAND

TRANSPORT

Types of Roman carts (1st-2nd cents. AD)

1-3 Two-wheeled carts with shafts 1 Trier, Rheinisches Landesmuseum

J

Uy, WW

2 Arlon, Musée Luxembourgeois (Espérandieu, Rec. 4030) 3 Buzenol, Musée de Montauban 4 Four-wheeied cart for wine

transport (Espérandieu, Rec. 3232) 5 Four-wheeled cart for goods transport: relief from the base of the Igel Column

Drawings based on reliefs

Different types of cart-wheels

( dated meee Solid wheel

~ Spoke Hub 2

Wheel rim

-

Strut wheel

alongside one another: none of these two systems became predominant in the course of development. The type of wagon used depended on a variety of circumstances. As texts and pictorial representations show, two-wheeled carts (Gua&a/hadmaxa) were used in the narrow streets of Athens and the vineyards of Corinth, while the wagons for transporting ashlar blocks to Epidaurus or Eleusis were described as fourwheeled (tetoecxvxdos/ tetrakyklos). In Rome, the same problems occurred: two-wheeled carts at a construction site can be seen on a fresco from Boscoreale, while in Gaul heavy four-wheeled wagons were used for transporting goods; this is also true for wine transport, as the relief of Langres shows. Two- and four-wheeled carts and wagons of various sizes and equipment were available to travellers, particularly in the Principate. The use of forked shafts, which appeared in northern Italy and northern Gaul starting in the rst cent. AD, profoundly changed transportation. It was now possible to have a wagon drawn by a single animal, with the yoke still directly connected to the poles and the horse-

Spoked wheel

collar with draw ropes still unknown. Such one-horse vehicles, which are well-documented by pictorial representations, primarily on reliefs, appear to have been widespread, above all in the Gallic and Germanic proyinces. Newer investigations have shown that this form of harness must be considered quite efficient. D. ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF GOODS TRANSPORT In agriculture, at construction sites, in the harbours and in trade, LT was indispensable and appeared in the most diverse forms. The technology of LT developed simultaneously with the private and public economies, adapted itself to their requirements, and was thus able to complement shipping (> Navigation). The twowheeled cart drawn by animals was part of the farming equipment (Hes. Op. 455ff.). From the Archaic era onwards, heavy stone blocks weighing several tons were transported to many construction sites; in these cases the transport was more an organizational achievement than a technical one. The small carts in Athens

LAND TRANSPORT

207

208

transported everything: vegetables, amphoras filled with wine or oil, three or four people, a wedding or funeral procession. In Apulia, large donkey:caravans brought agricultural products to the coast (Varro, Rust. 2,6,5: e Brundisio aut Apulia asellis dossuariis conportant ad mare oleum aut vinum itemque frumentum aut quid aliud). As the Roman agronomists show, marketoriented > agriculture was dependent on good transportation resources; on the one hand the choice of an estate depended on the necessity of bringing the produce to market (Varro, Rust. 1,16,1: fructus nostros exportare) and, thus, on good traffic routes (ci. Cato

ed; among the two-wheeled carts, the light cisium and the tarpaulin-covered carpentum must be mentioned. Within the cities, litters were often used for transportation (cf., for example, Juv. 3239-243). The lex Oppia, a law which was supposed to limit expenditures by women, prohibited them from moving through Rome or any other city in a wagon drawn by animals (Liv. 34,1,3); a law of Claudius prohibited travellers from crossing cities in Italy other than on foot or in a litter (Suet. Claud. 25,2).

Agr. 1,3; Varro, Rust. 1,16,6: viae ... aut flumina; Columella 1,2,3; 1,3,33 Plin. HN 18,28), on the other hand,

COSTS A prerequisite for LT and, in particular, for the use of four-wheeled wagons was a good network of roads; although the Roman road network also served military purposes, it nevertheless also considerably facilitated the exchange of goods in the interior regions. Archaeological finds, particularly of — terra sigillata, have clearly shown that, besides the major trunk roads, loca] roads were also used for the transport of trade goods; according to the archaeological evidence there is hardly any difference in the trade contacts between places which lay on navigable rivers and those with road con-

however, heavy equipment such as oil presses had to be brought overland to the estates (Cato Agr. 22,3). The hiring out of wagons — with or without drivers and animals — at the city gates, in harbours or at the stationes (— statio) on the major roads was of considerable significance for private transport. Similar to the nautae (seamen), the carters also formed collegia (> colleginum; ILS 7293-7296; cf. 5382; 5384). There

were problems with urban traffic, which were partly dealt with by laws; the nocturnal traffic of heavy wagons and the transportation of building materials were felt to be troublesome or dangerous (Juv. 3,236ff.;

3,254ff.). E. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The ancient armies were important users of transportation, not so much in terms of the war chariots of the Homeric period, but rather of troop supply and

— logistics. Efficient transportation was also required for stationing and troop movements in times of peace, and particularly during battle. The Column of Trajan and the Aurelian Column

(+ Monumental

columns)

offer a comprehensive and vivid typology of Roman military transportation, also taking the transport ofcatapults and siege towers into consideration. Insofar as transportation served public purposes, it was organized in the framework of the > cursus publicus. Founded by Augustus, this rapid courier service was first expanded into a comprehensive transportation service with an infrastructure of stations for changing horses (> Postal services). At the same time, the

cursus publicus also met the requirements of the army. In late antiquity, the cargo weights for individual wagon types used in the cursus publicus were limited by imperial decrees; the maximum weight permitted for the raeda was 1,000 pounds (330 kg), for the twowheeled birota 200 pounds (66 kg), and for the angaria 1,500 pounds (492 kg; cf. Cod. Theod. 8,5,8; 8,5,17; 8,5,30).

F. TRAVEL In Rome, during the Principate, travelling wagons were developed to meet the various circumstances, needs and tastes — besides the rather rustic raeda, the comfortable and expensive carruca dormitoria is attest-

G. INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION

nections.

The relatively high transport costs speak in favour of the traditional theory of the limited economic significance of LT in antiquity. The figures in the price edict of Diocletian (— Edictum [3] Diocletiani) indeed show that LT in the Imperium Romanum was significantly more expensive on all routes than either inland or maritime navigation. However, this is true for pre-industrial societies in general: in England, the relationship of the costs for navigation : inland navigation : LT was 1:4.7:22.6 on average and, thus, close to that of antiquity. In view of these facts it is hardly still possible to describe ancient transportation as a barrier to economic development. > Cattle; — Infrastructure; — Inland navigation; ~ Traffic; > Travels, travelling; > Wagon 1

A.BurFORD, Heavy Transport in Ancient Greece, in:

Economic History Review 13,1960, 1-18

2 J.H.Crou-

WEL, Chariots and other Means of Land Transport in Bronze

Age Greece,

1981

3 A. FENTON

(ed.), Land

Transport in Europe, 1973 4 K. GREENE, The Archaeology of the Roman Economy, 1986 5 H. JANKUHN (ed.), Unt. zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frithgesch. Zeit in Mittel- und Nordeuropa, 5. Der Verkehr (AAWG 180),

1989

6 Hi. Kort, Die Wirtschaft der griech.-rém. Welt,

1992 7J.G. LANDELS, Engineering in the Ancient World, 1978, 170-185 8R.LEFEBVRE DES NO£TTES, L’attelage, le cheval de selle a travers les ages, 1931 9 H.Lorimer, The Country Cart of Ancient Greece, in:

JHS 23, 1903, 132-151 10M.Motn, La faiblesse de lattelage antique, in: Bulletin archéologique du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques 23/24, 1987/88, 38-84 11S.Picorr, The Earliest Wheeled Transport, 1983 12M. Polfer, Der Transport iiber den Landweg — ein Hemmschuh fiir die Wirtschaft der rom. Kaiserzeit?, in: Helinium 31,2, 1991, 273-295 13 G. RAEPSAET,

Archéologie et iconographie des attelages dans le monde

209

210 gréco-romain,

in:

T.HACKENS,

P.MarcHeETT1

(ed.),

Histoire économique de |’Antiquité, 1987, 29-48 14 Id., Attelages antiques dans le Nord de la Gaule, in: TZ 45, 1982,215-273 15 G.RaEpsaet, M.T. RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, M. TOLtey, Le diolkos de I’Isthme a Corinthe: son tracé, son fonctionnement, in: BCH 117, 1993, 233-261

16 Id., Transport de tambours de colonnes du Pentélique a Eleusis, in: AC 53, 1984, 101-136 17 G. RAEPSAET, C. ROMMELAERE (ed.), Brancards et transport attelé entre

Seine et Rhin de l’Antiquité 18 H. SCHNEIDER, Einfiihrung 1992 19 J.SpRUYTTE, Etudes lage, 1977. 20D. Timpe, Das der ant. Lit., in: H.JANKUHN

au Moyen Age, 1995 in die ant. Technikgesch., expérimentales sur |’attekelt. Handwerk im Lichte

(ed.), Das Handwerk in vorund frihgesch. Zeit (AAWG 122), 1981, 36-62, esp.

51ff.

21 P. ViGNeRon, Le cheval dans |’Antiquité gréco-

romaine, 1968

22 WuirTe, Technology, 127-140.

GR.

Langarus (Adyyagoc; Langaros). King of the > Agrianes, already a friend of > Alexander [4] during the lifetime of Philip II. In 335 BC, L. attacked the > Autariatae as Philip’s ally to plunder their land and cover Alexander’s rear in his campaign against Cleitus [8] and Glaucias [2]. Alexander rewarded him generously and offered him his half-sister > Cyn(n)ane as wife, but L. died before the wedding (Arr. Anab. 1,5,1-5). EB.

LANGUAGE

came the centre of the kingdom of the L. in upper and central Italy. In addition, the Langobardic duchies of Spoleto and Benevento were established. The Arian and anti-Roman attitude of the L. led to strong conflicts. The L. were Catholicized starting in the middle of the 7th cent. (ecclesiastic centre: Mediolanum/Milan).

In

the 8th cent. there were disputes with Constantinople [8]. The end of the rule of the L. in Italy was brought about in 774 by an alliance of the Papacy with the Francs. 1 H.RoGan, Paulus Diaconus — laudator temporis, 1992 2H.KeiLinc, Zur Frage der Besiedlung Westmecklenburgs durch Langobarden nach dem Kriegszug des Tiberius im Jahre 5 u.Z. in den unteren Elberaum, in: H.ScHEEL (ed.), SB der Akad. der Wiss. der DDR. Geisteswiss. 1982, H. 15, 1983, 45-51 3/J.JARNUT, Die

Frihgesch. der Langobarden, in: Studi medievali 24, 1983, 1-16 4J.Firz, Der Einbruch der Langobarden und Obier in 166/167 u.Z., in: Folia Archaeologica 11, 1959, 61-73 5 H.FROHLICH, Stud. zur langobardischen Thronfolge, PhD thesis Tubingen 1980 6 W.PoHL, The Empire and the Lombards, in: Id. (ed.), Kingdoms of the Empire, 1997, 75-134 7 N.CuristI£, Invasion or Invi-

tation? The Langobard

Occupation of Northern Italy

A.D. 568-569, in: Romanobarbarica

11, 1991, 79-108

8 K.P. Curistou, Byzanz und die Langobarden, 1991 9 R. NEDOMER, Der Name der Langobarden, in: Die Spra-

Langobardi (etym. Lang(a/o)-bardoz, ‘the long beards’

che 37, 1995, 99-104.

[9]). Germanic tribe which Tacitus (Germ. 40,1) and

TIR M

Ptolemy (2,11,9) count among the Suebi; according to tribal mythology [1], they wandered out of southern Sweden as the Winniler into territories south of the Baltic Sea around too BC and fused with other peoples. The L. are archaeologically confirmed on the lower course of the Elbe (in the Bardengau) from the rst cent. BC onwards. Briefly driven back to the east bank by Tiberius in AD 5 (Str. 7,1,290; Vell. Pat. 2,106,2; [2]), the L. were dependent on Maroboduus for some time, but seceded to the Cherusci in AD 17 (Tac. Ann. 2,4 5f.; 11,17; [3]). Together with the Obii, a 6,000-man horde invaded — Pannonia superior in c. 166/7 (Cass. Dio 71,3,1a; [4]). A larger part of the L. wandered into the Danube region no earlier than the end of the 3rd/beginning of the 4thcent., probably even only after 400 (Origo gentis Langobardum 2; Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum 1,13). Under king Tato (probably one of the first kings of the L. [5]) the L. occupied areas north of Noricum (Rugiland) soon after 488 and became dependent on the - Heruli, whom they defeated,

Leoni, G. VisMara, s.v. Langobarden, -reich, Langobar-

33,50; V.BIERBRAUER,

disch, Langobardische

Kunst,

G.TABACCcO,

F. ALBANO

Langobardisches

Recht,

LMA 5, 1688-1701; J.JARNUT, Geschichte der Langobarden, 1982; W.MENGHIN, Die Langobarden, 1985; V. BIERBRAUER, Langobarden, Bajuwaren und Romanen im mittleren Alpengebiet, 1994; N.Curist1E, The Lombards, 1995. K.DL

Language The term designates the primary medium of human communication and the ability to communicate by means of it, as well as the specific occurrences of this medium of communication as adopted by individual speech communities (i.e. individual languages). In the former definition, language was already an object of scientific consideration (— Linguistic theory) in antiquity, Plato’s dialogue ‘Cratylus’ being its most prominent product. Plato discusses, among other things, the question, if ‘names’ originated 0éoeV/thései (i.e. ‘by fixation’ or ‘agreement’ of the speakers) or voeVphysei (i.e. “from the nature’ of the ‘matter’ to be signified

however, around 508/9.

itself) (+ Grammarians). This question comes back to

The L., who were probably Christianized (Arianized; + Arianism) by east Germanic missionaries, extended their territory toward Pannonia superior in 526/7 (Paulus Diaconus, ibid. 2,7). Justinian gave the L., who were allied with the Franks for some time, a portion of Pannonia inferior in 5 46/7 [6]. After the victory over the > Gepidae, won together with the Avares in 567, king Alboin decided to march to Italy [7]. Strong groups of other tribes joined the L., as did the Pannonian-Norican provincials. Pavia (ancient Ticinum) be-

the fore in the distinction of ‘signifier’ (signifiant) and ‘signified’ (signifié) and their mutual relationship, at the end of the roth cent. in the newly emerging General Linguistics [7]. Based on the latter, and until today, language is considered an inventory of signs forming a closely linked semiotic system; individual languages are different occurrences of such a system, which in turn break down into various > language strata. The relationship between signifié and signifiant illustrates the fundamentally divergent approaches avail-

LANGUAGE

212

211

able to linguistics, namely the ‘onomasiological’, asking for the linguistic designation of a given non-linguistic object — such as an item, subject-matter, event, etc. —

have proven helpful, not only for the languages of classical antiquity, is the basic classification in ‘root-like’ elements, which represent — quasi as ‘greatest common

(and thus, among other things, for a formal occurrence

divisor’ — the core of entire word families, word formation affixes, which lead, in connection with the roots, to the formation of ‘stems’, and declension and

of functional categories in an individual language), and the ‘semasiological’ approach, which, conversely, asks for the ‘meaning’ of a given linguistic element — such as a word, word form, case or tense category, etc. (and thus, among other things, for the functional content of a formal category). The separation of both approaches is of particular significance on the level of the > lexicon, i.e. of vocabulary and its structuring. As for its second definition, language as individual language also was already a subject of study in antiquity. The occupation with their own language, Greek, led grammarians such as Dionysius [17] Thrax to a clear separation of different descriptive levels of linguistic structure as well as to the designation of essential structuring elements, applicable for the most part beyond individual languages. The technical terms created at the time, conveyed by Latin imitators such as > Donatus [3] or > Priscianus, are partially still in use today, on all levels of traditional language description. This concerns, for instance, the level of sound systems (> Phonetics), with its fundamental classification into vowels, consonants, stops (mmutae), liquids (liquidae)

etc., which still exists today, although an essential refinement of perspective has taken place, primarily under the influence of the ‘Prague School’ (especially [10]), which advanced the dichotomic separation of the concrete, expression- or realization-related ‘phonetic’ and the abstract, system- or structure-related ‘phonological’ level. The question of the concrete pronunciation of a Latin c in words such as Caesar, Cicero or capella is thus initially irrelevant from a phonological perspective, as long as there is evidence that the identical spelling is based on a common ‘phoneme’, i.e. structurally the identical sound; the tendencies that led to a differentiation of ‘allophones’, depending on the subsequent sound (‘palatal’ [ts] or [t/] versus ‘velar’ [k]), are to be assigned to the phonetic level, as ‘realization appearances’. Only when the allocation of palatal and velar ‘allophones’ is no longer automatically regulated by the subsequent sound, the division takes on phonological (phonematic) significance. Remaining strictly separate is also the level of sounds from the level of > writing as a system of letters, which merely represents a secondary sign system put over the sound system, and which represents those sounds more or less accurately (in terms of the relationship between phonemes and letter entities, i.e. “graphemes’). Also essentially refined, in comparison with ancient grammar and the traditional description of language that derived from it, are the methods employed in modern-day morphology, both derivational (i.e. regarding the construction of words by affixation or composition (+ Word formation) and inflectional (i.e. regarding the shaping of words by means of > inflection), mainly a consequence of linguistic structuralism. A system to

conjugation endings, which characterize the word form appearing in the actual sentence (- Inflection). Thus, the Latin augustus reflects, as marked by the ending -s, the nominative singular of an adjective derivation formed with the suffix -to- to the neut. -e/os-stem *augos ‘greatness’ (Sanskrit djab, Avestan aogo), no longer documented in Latin, which in turn derives from the root aug- < proto-Indo-Evropean *h,eug- ‘to increase (in size), to multiply’ as it exists in augére; due to the meaning of its original adjective form ‘with greatness, grand’ (semantics; > Lexicon I.), it was perfectly

suited as epithet of the emperor (~ Onomastics). The decisive factor in the determination of the morphological elements relevant for a language is their conjunction with functional characteristics; we are then dealing with ‘morphemes’, but need to distinguish between grammatical (case endings, personal endings, modus suffixes, etc.) and ‘lexical’ morphemes that carry the actual meaning. Similar to ‘allophones’ on the phonetic level, ‘allomorph’ refer to cases where formally different elements match in their functional content (i.e.

in the Latin endings -6 and -#, which both designate the abl. singular of masc. or neut. nouns). Above the level of derivational morphology is the level of > syntax, dealing with the sentence, its construction and its elements; among all sub-disciplines of linguistics, this is the one that has expanded more than any other since antiquity. Not a matter of great interest in classical antiquity was the diversity inherent in the different occurrences of a language (> Language strata; > Dialect), manifesting itself in the juxtaposition of different languages; however, initial stages of a historical-genealogical perspective in terms of > linguistic affinity that presuppose the > language change as conception of the historical dimension of language (‘diachrony’) are already apparent (e.g. in Philoxenus [8]). + Language, theory of; -» Semiotics; > Language, philosophy of; -> Linguistics 1 E. BENVENISTE, Probleme der allg. Sprachwiss., 1977 2 D. CHERUBIM, Gramm. Kategorien, 1975 3 H.GLUucKk (ed.), Metzler Lex. $.,*2000 4H.Happ, Grundfragen einer Dependenz-Gramm. des Lat., 1976 5-G. MEISER, Histor. Laut- und Formenlehre der lat. S., 1998, § ro-18 6 Rix,

HGG,

11-24,

1o1-116

7

F.DE SAUSSURE,

Grundfragen der allg. Sprachwiss., 1931 8 SCHWYZER, Gramm., 4-26 9 O.SZEMERENYI, Richtungen der mod. Sprachwiss., vols. 1-2, 1971-1982 10 N.S. TRUBETZKoy, Grundziige der Phonologie, 1939 (51971). NG.

2.13

214

Language change I. GENERAL

Thus, the Greek equivalent of Lat. qu in word forms

II. VARIATIONS

FERENT LANGUAGE

LANGUAGE CONTACT

LEVELS

OF CHANGE III. SOUND

ON DIELaws

I. GENERAL A universal tendency of human > language is perpetual change on all levels caused by external factors (e.g. > Language contact) as well as internal ones (e.g. ~ anomalies). Language change (LC) over a long period of time in any given language will first lead to dialectal diversification ( Language strata), then, esp. in cases of geographical separation, may result in a division into related yet independent languages. It is therefore reasonable to assume that not only language forms such as Ionic-Attic and Doric are dialectal derivations of one and the same ‘proto-Greek’ language, but that all ~ Greek dialects along with > Latin and the other ~ Indo-European languages have developed from a common ‘Proto-Indo-European’ base language (> Linguistic affinity).

Il. VARIATIONS OF CHANGE ON DIFFERENT LANGUAGE LEVELS The field of comparative historical linguistics proceeds from the assumption that LC does not occur at an equal pace on all language levels. Vocabulary probably undergoes the fasted changes since it is predestined to adopt ‘foreign’ material (> Loanword; > Lexicon/Vocabulary). Next are changes on the level of > syntax, where LC might affect the relationship between formal categories and their functional substance (> Syntax) as well as word order and other patterns in sentence structure. Changes in morphology and phonetics require longer periods of time, often influencing each other. Thus, the loss of the Proto-Indo-European instrumental case in Latin might in part be a result of the fact that its marker, the ending *-é, was shortened in certain con-

stellations (‘Iambic shortening’, > Phonetics) to -e, making it identical to the -e (earlier 7 ) that marked the

locative. Both cases then merged into the Latin abl. as a result of a continuing > syncretism, in which > analogies between different classes of declensions played a role. A direct relic of the instrumental might be the Latin adverb form ending in -é/e (e.g. longé, bene). III. SouND LAws Essential for methodological progress in the field of comparative historical linguistics was the insight, gained by the so-called Neogrammarians in the 2nd half of the roth cent., that LC on the phonetic level occurs according to regular laws, effecting that the same sound (or type of sound) in a given language (to be more precise: language phase) will always undergo the same development given the same (or a similar) phonetic context. Henceforth, the list of ‘sound laws’ applicable in each case and the correspondences constituted by them has become the required guide for determining relationships between different languages or language varieties and for reconstructing the shared preliminary phases.

such as quis ‘who’ or quo (abl.) ‘in what (manner)’ is either a dental t as in tic/tis ‘who’ or a labial x as in nc/ pds ‘how’; the qu in quattuor corresponds to t in téooagec/téssares, while the qu in (re-)linquo or sequor corresponds to a x in Aginw/leipo or éxouav/hépomai.

The underlying sound law states that in Greek, the original + labio-velar (k”) changed into a dental before front vowels (e, i) but into a labial before back vowels (a, o). In Latin, on the other hand, the labio-velar remained the same (as it did in > Mycenaean as a variety of Greek in the 2nd millennium BC). The fact that in Greek it is called AeineVletpei (instead of teiteV/leitei) and éxetavhépetai (instead of t&tetaW/hétetat) shows that an analogy was at work here which eliminated the anomaly of an inner-paradigmatic change in the stemfinal consonant. In contrast to the sound laws themselves, it is impossible to predict if and where these types of mechanisms will occur. Latin obviously endured and maintained the apparently anomalous parallel existence of nominative nix and genitive nivis (‘snow’) as well as the corresponding verb form ninguit ‘it is snowing’ which had evolved through the effect of various environmental changes subject to sound laws operating on the originally labio-velar plosive g”’ (k in x = ks in nix < *(s)nig””-s combined with s in final position, -w- in nivis < *(s)nig’-es positioned between vowels, -gu- in ninguit < *(s)ning“eti in the position after 1). The historical sequence of various phonetic changes can frequently be represented by means of a relative chronology; an absolute chronology would require written evidence. Tu. Bynon, Histor. Sprachwiss., 1981; E. CoOsERIU, Syn-

chronie, Diachronie und Geschichte, 1974; G. MEISER, Histor. Laut- und Formenlehre der lat. Spr., 1998, § 1922; H.Paut, Prinzipien der Sprachgesch., 91975; RIx, HGG, 15-23; E. Ticuy, Indogermanistisches Grundwis-

sen, 2000, 22-24.

Le

Language contact Language contact (LC) occurs when two or more > languages, usually geographical neighbours, collide through the mixing of the respective speaker communities, making communication across the language boundaries necessary or possible. A typical phenomenon of intensive LC is bilingualism, in which individual speakers have sufficient mastery of two (or more) languages and use them alternately (+ Multilingualism), not to be confused with > diglossia which refers to the change between different > language strata and is regarded as a separate subject of linguistics. Exterior characteristics of long-lasting LC can be found in a variety of so-called interferences, these being reciprocal influences affecting the two languages that are in language contact with each other. Such influences can manifest themselves to varying degrees in the different speech levels. While — lexicon (including means of word formation) and > syntax seem to be influenced most easily, the morphology of a language remains largely resistant; the adaptation of inflectional

LANGUAGE CONTACT

215

216

elements (— Inflection) such as case endings (in Lat., for

Language, philosophy and theory of (Signs, theory

instance, we find Greek proper names in the Greek accusative as in Socratén or Circén) occurs only rarely, with the adaptation of foreign forms to local patterns of inflection (Socratem, Circam) being more common. The type of influence observed often reveals that the languages involved in a given instance of LC are of unequal status. Thus, the numerous lexical influences of Greek on Latin (+ Loanword; > Hellenization II.) reveal the (culturally) higher status of Greek (so-called ‘superstrate’). The changes that Latin underwent in the development of the Romance languages, manifesting themselves, for instance, in strong changes in the phonetic system, are most likely to be attributed to the influence of languages of low status (‘substrate languages’), whose speakers first adopted Latin as the language of administration, only to give up their own languages later (e.g. Gaulish, Celtiberian; — Celtic languages) in favour of Latin. A > language switching of this kind can be expected as the final result of a long development esp. in cases of large discrepancies in social status between the languages involved, with the more prestigious language gaining prominence at the expense of the less prestigious one. Only in the case of equal status, a so-called language alliance can develop in which different languages increasingly assimilate in their structures (an example is the so-called Balkansprachbund comprising modern Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Albanian) without completely giving up their historical differences (inherited through — linguistic affinity). In these cases, one can observe the emergence of ‘mixed languages’ of varying degrees, whose individual components (inherited as opposed to loaned) are not always easy to distinguish, esp. if the languages involved are related to each other anyway (as in the case of Latin and its Italic sister language — Oscan-Umbrian). A prehistorical LC can often only be identified through these types of interference. This is true, for example, for the so-called Aegaean substrate languages which have provided the Greek language

of)

with lexical material (~ Loanword).

In ancient Italy,

~ Etruscan probably exerted a similar influence. J.BECHERT, W.WILDGEN, Einfuhrung in die Sprachforschung, 1991; U. WEINREICH, Sprachen in Kontakt, 1977; H.Paut, Prinzipien der Sprachgesch., 91975, ch. XXII f.; G. MeIser, Histor. Laut- und Formenlehre der lat. Spr., 1998, § 9; G. NEUMANN, J. UNTERMANN (ed.), Die Spr. im rom. Reich der Kaiserzeit, 1981; V.BINDER, S. und

Diglossie. Lat. Worter im Griech. als Quellen fir die lat. Sprachgesch. und das Vulgarlat., 2000. Gr

Language families see - Indo-European -» Semitic languages; > Linguistic affinity

languages;

I. AREA OF STUDY II. THEORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE III. THEORY OF SIGNS IV. FUSION OF LINGUISTIC THEORY AND THE THEORY OF SIGNS

I. AREA OF STUDY While today, linguistic theory (LT) is largely considered an integral part of a general theory of signs, in antiquity (before Augustine, about AD 400) the two theoretical fields, language and signs, were at first clearly distinguished from one another. The linguistic expression ‘sign’ (onpetov/sémeion) is mentioned occasionally and in passing (Pl. Soph. 262a 6; Aristot. De Interpretatio 1,16a 6). Yet ‘sign’ as defined and discussed by ancient philosophy is exclusively the indexical sign, i.e. the indication or token, which is different

from the spoken expression. Il. THEORY

AND PHILOSOPHY

A. CLASSICAL PERIOD

OF LANGUAGE

B. HELLENISM

A. CLASSICAL PERIOD A LT in the actual sense, which saw the various pho-

netic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects of > language as its actual subject, was first developed by ~ Stoicism. In older periods, deliberations on the philosophy of language were limited to the suitability of name and object [5]. > Democritus [1] of Abdera (68 B

26 DK) already appears to have advocated a conventionalist (@éoeV/thései, ‘through definition’) understand-

ing of language, as opposed to the old thesis of a natural (ovoeVphysei, ‘from nature’) relationship between a name and object [8]. The problem of the ‘correctness of names’ (GQ86tH¢

ovoudtwv/orthotés onomaton) is the central topic of ~» Plato’s [1] dialogue ‘Cratylus’, the oldest extant ancient work of LT. It asks if the connection between name and object rests on ‘contract and agreement’ (ouvOyxn xai Suoroyia/syntheké kai homologia) or if it is natural, as is supposed to be shown by an etymological return of the words to earliest and simplest names which describe the object in question by means of sounds (xeata dvouata/prota ondmata, ‘first names’).

The question of the origin of language which is raised at the same time remains ultimately unanswered in this dialogue. The results of the latter consist rather in the uncovering of the difference between word and object, as well as in the warning not to ‘give oneself and one’s soul into the care of words’ (Pl. Crat. 440c¢ 3-5). While Plato here already differentiates for the first time between the word classes of dévoua (6noma, ‘nomen’) and Ota. (rhéma, ‘verb’ or ‘predicate expression’) (PI. Crat.

421d-e; 424e; 43 1b-c), in the ‘Sophist’ he makes it clear that the essential function of language does not consist merely in giving names, and that only the combination of the two types of words leads to sentences that are expressive and true (PI. Soph. 261c—262c). This transfers the question of truth from words to sentences (> Truth).

2G,

218

~ Aristotle’s [6] work Tegi ouevetac (Peri hermeneias = De Interpretatione, ‘On the sentence’) can rightly be called the most influential text in the history of semantics [9. 3], even though it contains only short introductory remarks on the signification of linguistic expressions [16]. According to Aristotle (De Interpretatione 16a 3-8), linguistic expressions refer directly to intellectual terms and, through the latter’s mediation, to the object [19]. Thus, the model of the theory of meaning, which became widespread in the 2oth cent. under the name of ‘semantic’ or ‘semiotic triangle’ already exists here [10]. Linguistic expressions are significative ‘by agreement’ (xat& ovvOnxnv/katd synthekén).

thius falls back on them intensively in his commentary on the Aristotelian ‘organon’ [13] and thus passes Aristotelian LT in its Porphyrian version on to the Latin Middle Ages.

Truth is not a characteristic of words, rather it is estab-

mean something approximating ‘proof’ or ‘supporting argument’ [3]. > Aristotle [6] treats the sign (onuetov/ sémeion) as a special variant of the enthymematic syl-

lished on the level of the declarative statement or judgement (Aoyoo aopavtxdc/ld6gos apophantikos). Aristotle made detailed analyses of semantic relations of homonymy, synonymy, paronymy, etc. [1]. B. HELLENISM

The philosophical schools of the Hellenistic period devoted increased attention to LT. > Epicurus emphasized the impossibility of starting a language by one or more primal name givers. His conception of the natural origin of language is new and innovative in that it combines the previously conflicting views (@voe/physei, ‘by nature’ — Géoeu/thései, ‘by definition’) by considering the rise of languages as a historical process [12. 117]. According to the semantic theory of the > Epicurean School, linguistic expressions directly describe the observed object; while the referential relationship might necessarily presume the concept of an object, this however, unlike in Aristotle, is not designated itself (Diog. Waertero.33) als

In spite of the diverse preliminary works by earlier philosophers, especially Aristotle, ‘the credit for founding systematic grammar for the Occident’ was justly ascribed to > Stoicism [17.78]; for only here is language in its entirety the object of philosophical reflection. The systematic place of Stoic LT is > dialectics, the teaching of ‘signifier’ (onuatvov/sémainon) and ‘signified’ (tO onuwatvouevov/ sémaindmenon; Diog. Laert. 7,62). According to Stoic teaching, and in clear opposition to Epicurean and Aristotelian semantics, linguistic meaning refers to content of thought — which is differentiated from the external object as well as from the intellectual term — that is to the Aextov (lekton, ‘that which has been stated’) [7], a key term in Stoic — logic. Stoic LT, which > Diogenes [15] of Babylon (about 200 BC) summarized in his influential manual ‘On the voice’, had a broad reception even though its systematic coherence was later largely dissolved. Terentius + Varro [2] (De lingua latina) contains Stoic elements just as [2] > Apollonius [11] Dyscolus, > Donatus [3] or the early > Augustine do. Following — Porphyrius, the Neoplatonic — Aristotle commentators of the > Alexandrian School in the 5th to 6th cent. AD ( Neoplatonism) present a developed semantic theory on an Aristotelian base. > Boe-

LANGUAGE, PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY OF

III. THEORY OF SIGNS From the 5th cent. BC the term ‘sign’ (in poetry: onua/séma, in prose: onuetov/sémeion) no longer stands for Greek > ensigns, way signs, > weather signs, military signals (signa), etc., but rather — possibly through the influence of > Parmenides, who mentions onwata/semata in the sense of abstract characteristics (Parm. 28 B 8,2; 8,55; 10,2 DK) — increasingly comes to

logism, common in rhetorical reasoning. According to his definition, it is a ‘demonstrative proposition (medtacic anode rxtinn/protasis apodeiktiké), one that is necessary or generally approved. For anything such that when it is another thing is, or when it has come into being the other has come into being before or after, is a sign of the other’s being or having come into being’ (Aristot. An. pr. 2,27,70a 6-9). With great influence on later — logic, Aristotle subjected the conclusions on signs to a closer analysis for the first time and, in the process, adopted from > medicine [18. 43] the differentiation between certain (texpoua/tekmeria) and probable signs (onueto/sémeia; Aristot. An. pr. 2,27,70b 1-6; Rh. 1,2,1357b 10-21; > Probatio II.). While the teaching of signs itself only plays a marginal role in Aristotelian syllogistics, in the Hellenistic period it becomes the centre of logic. Towards the end of the 4th cent. BC, > Philo [4], as a member of the Dialectical School (— Dialectics) and proceeding from an Aristotelian understanding of signs, defined the sign as ‘an expression which forms the protasis of a true conditional statement and which is able to reveal the apodosis’ (Ps.-Gal. Historia philosophiae 9, p. 605,10-12 DIELs = 1027 HULSER). The Philonian concept of signs was taken over from the earlier Stoics with revisions of some — but in part significant — details and then adapted to Stoic logic by > Zeno [2] of Citium, > Cleanthes [2] and — Chrysippus [2] [4]. With the logical thematization of signs on the level of meaningfulness (Aexta/lekta), onuatvov/semainon (‘linguistic expression’) and onuetov/sémeion (‘sign’) and thereby semantics (as the theory of linguistic meaning) and semiotics (as the theory of drawing conclusions from signs) are clearly differentiated and at the same time inseparably bound to each other in the system of Stoic logic [15]. While there were, as the partially preserved work TleQi datvonévwv xal onuewdoewv (Peri phainoménon kai sémeioseon, ‘On appearances and conclusions from signs’: PHercul. 1065) by > Philodemus of Gadara documents, intensive disputes between the Epicureans and the Stoics on the methodological foundation of the conclusion from signs from the visible to the invisible, the possibility of such was fundamen-

LANGUAGE, PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY OF

219

tally denied by Pyrrhonian scepsis no later than the rst cent. AD (> Aenesidemus by Sext. Emp. Adv. math. 8,14xff.; Sext. Emp. P.H. 2,97 ff.; cf. + Sextus [2] Empiricus, > Scepticism) [6]. Along with its prominent position within the tradition of logic, the concept of the sign, understood as an indication, has a firm place in Greek (- Hermagoras [1] of Temnus, fr. 8 MATTHEs) and Latin rhetoric (Cic. Inv. 1,30,48; Quint. Inst. 5,9,116).

D.N. SEDLEY, Die hell. Philosophen, 2000 (= The Hellen-

istic Philosophers, 1987) 13 J. MAGEE, Boethius on Signification and Mind, 1989 14 S. MereR-OESER, Die Spur des Zeichens. Das Zeichen und seine Funktion in der Philos. des MA und der frithen Neuzeit, 1997, 1-34 15 Id., The Stoic Theory of Sign and Signification, in: H. NARANG (ed.), Semiotics of Language, Literature and Cinema, 2000, 13-24 16 E. MonTANARI, La sezione linguistica del peri hermeneias di Aristotele, 1984 17 M. POHLENZ,

Begriindung der abendlandischen Sprachlehre durch die

IV. FUSION OF LINGUISTIC THEORY AND THE THEORY OF SIGNS Various ancient influences converge in > Augustinus. While his early work De dialectica (‘On dialectics’) shows elements of Stoic grammar, albeit in a modified form, in De magistro (‘On the teacher’) he advocates the position, taken over from Sceptic tradition, that signs can serve not to acquire knowledge, but simply as a means to admonish (admonitio) and remember (rememoratio). In De doctrina christiana (1,4), however, Augustine revises this thesis and allocates a fundamental scientific function to signs by asserting that: ‘Every teaching deals with things or with signs, but things are learned by means of signs.’ (omnis doctrina vel rerum est vel signorum, sed res per signa discuntur). Of central importance for the later development of LT and the theory of signs, besides the classification of signs developed here, is in particular the definition of signs as ‘a thing, which along with the impression it makes on the senses, also lets something else come to mind by itself’ (signum ... est res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus, aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire: Aug. De doctrina christiana 2,1). For here for the first time a definition of signs has been given which equally comprises the natural and the conventional linguistic signs and which later leads to a fusion of the theories of language and of signs [14]. + Language; > Stoicism; — Philosophy of language/ Semiotics 1 W.Ax, Aristoteles, in: R. Posner et al. (ed.), Semiotik/ Semiotics, vol. 1/1, 1997, 244-259 2J.H. DAHLMANN,

Varro und die hell. Sprachtheorie, 1964

220

3 W.DETEL,

Zeichen bei Parmenides, in: Zschr. fiir Semiotik 4, 1982, 4 T. EBERT, The Origin of the Stoic Theory of 221-239 Signs in Sextus Empiricus, in: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 5, 1987, 83-126 5 D.FEHLING, Protagoras und die orthoepeia, in: RhM 108, 1965, 212-217 6 D. GLIDDEN, Skeptic Semiotics, in: Phronesis 28, 1983, 213-255 7K.HULsER, Expression and Content in Stoic Linguistic Theory, in: R. BAUERLE et al. (ed.), Semantics

from Different Points of View, 1979, 284-303 8 M. Kraus, Name und Sache. Ein Problem im frihgriech. Denken, 1987, 154-167 9 N.KRETZMANN, Aristotle on Spoken Sound Significant by Convention, in: J. CoRcoRAN (ed.), Ancient Logic and its Modern Interpretation,

1974,3-21 10H.H.Lrep, Das ‘semiotische Dreieck’ bei Ogden und Richards: Eine Neuformulierung des Z.modells von Aristoteles, in: H.GECKELER et al. (ed.), Logos semantikos, FS E. Coseriu, 1981, 137-155 il Teh Lone, Aisthesis, Prolepsis and Linguistic Theory in Epicurus, in: BICS 18, 1971, 114-133 12 A.A. Lone,

Stoa, in: Id., KS, 1965, ptome, systematisch und 1984, 37-45 19 H. semantischen Theorie

39-78 18 7T.S. SEBEOK, Symhistor., in: Zschr. fiir Semiotik 6, WEIDEMANN, Ansatze zu einer bei Aristoteles, in: Zschr. fir Semiotik 4, 1982, 241-257. W. Ax, Laut, Stimme und Sprache. Studien zu drei Grundbegriffen der ant. Sprachtheorie, 1986; T. BORSCHE, s. v.

Sprache I, HWdPh 9, 1437-1453; Id. (ed.), Klassiker der Sprachphilos., 1996; E.Cosertu, Die Geschichte der Sprachphilos. von der Ant. bis zur Gegenwart. 1, 1972; D.D1 Cesare, La semantica nella filosofia greca, 1980; S.EBBESEN (ed.), Sprachtheorie in Spatant. und MA (Geschichte der Sprache 3), 1995; A. GRAESER, Aristoteles, in: T. BorscuE (ed., see above), 1996, 33-47; Id., The Stoic Theory of Meaning, in: J.M. Rist (ed.), The Stoics, 1978, 77-100; K. HULsER, Stoa, in: T. BORSCHE (ed., see

above), 1996, 49-62; B. D. Jackson, The Theory of Signs in St. Augustine’s Doctrina Christiana, in: Rev. des Et. Augustiniennes 15, 1969, 9-49; M.Kraus, Platon, in: T. BorscueE (ed., see above), 1996, 15-32; L. LERscH, Die

Sprachphilos. der Alten, 3 vols., 1840/41; A.A. Lone, Language and Thought in Stoicism, in: Id. (ed.), Problems in Stoicism, 1971, 75-113; G.ManetrtI, Le teorie del segno nell’antichita classica, 1987; H.RueF, Augustin uber Semiotik und Sprache, 1981; H.STEINTHAL, Geschichte der Sprachwiss. bei den Griechen und R6mern mit esp. Riicksicht auf die Logik, 2 vols., *1890-1891 (repr. 1961); G. WELTRING, Das onueiov in der aristotelischen, stoischen, epikureischen und skeptischen Philos.,

1910.

ST. M.-OE.

Language strata I. OVERVIEW

II. PROBLEMS

I. OVERVIEW From a synchronic point of view, ‘language strata’ (LS) represents a cover term for the different forms that a given > language takes in its use by individual speakers (idiolect), by speaker groups defined hy their social position (sociolect) or by geographically determined speaker communities (— Dialect); from a diachronic point of view, LS refers to the various historical strata of a given language that can be identified on the lexical (inherited and loan vocabulary), grammatical (syntactic or morphological) and phonological levels. The existence of LS according to the first definition belongs to the universal characteristics of human language (> Diglossia); as a matter of fact, individual languages as objects of analysis and description are always, to a significant degree, the product of an idealizing perspective, abstracted from the different strata. Thus, a description of Latin ignoring the particularities of

221

palpa

LANGUAGE SWITCHING

‘vulgar Latin’ popular speech is strictly speaking incomplete, since it only takes into account the classic written language; likewise, a description of ancient Greek remains incomplete if it does not include the dialectal particularities of, for example, the Doric dialect. Specific sociolects of the classic language still tangible for us include religious language, the language of soldiers (sermo castrensis) and > technical terminology such as that of law, philosophy, or medicine, which are primarily characterized by lexical particularities. With a clear distinction lacking, strata-related characteristics are often assigned to the level of — style. LS according to the second definition must also be contained in all languages, since they result necessarily from the general tendency to > linguistic change as well as from the effects of > language contact, which each language can face time and again throughout its history; yet it may be impossible in most cases to isolate all historical language strata of a given language from each other and to trace them back to their source. In the case

monly preferred today. Their origin is explained by reference to different language varieties: diachronically (proto-Romance as Late Latin), diastratically (as low-

class Latin, sermo vulgaris) or diaphasically quial Latin, sermo cottidianus), especially as ness of different LS can be established for relevant are, for example, Cic. Acad. 1,2;

(as colloan aware-

antiquity; Cic. Fam.

9,21,1; Quint. Inst. 12,10,40.

+> Dialect; > Literacy; > Vulgar Latin 1 L.FLrypaL, Remarques

sur certains rapports entre le

style et ’€tat de langue, in: Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 16, 1952, 241-258 2P.Kocu, W.OESTERREICHER, Sprache der Nahe — Sprache der Distanz, in: Romanistisches Jb. 35, 1985, 15-43 3 E.Coseriu, Die Begriffe »Dialekt«, »Niveau« und »Sprachstil« und der eigentliche Sinn der Dialektologie, in: J.ALBRECHT et al. (ed.), Energeia und Ergon. FS E. Coseriu, 1988, vol. 1,

15-43 4 Id., Synchronie, Diachronie und Typologie, in: s. [3], 173-182 5 G.REICHENKRON, Historische lateinaltromanische Gramm., vol. 1, 1965. V. BI.

of Latin, for example, in addition to the layers of (a)

words inherited from proto-Indo-European (e.g. mater, ‘mother’), (b) words that were newly formed on this basis and with inherited means of word formation, but at different pre-historic times (proto-Italic, proto-Latin-Faliscan, proto-Latin, Early Latin) (e.g. mdternus,

‘motherly’), (c) loan words adopted from different varieties of Greek (e.g. machina, ‘machine’, > loan word), and (d) loan words stemming from other Italic languages (e.g. lupus, ‘wolf’), other, until now unidentified

layers must be assumed, which form the basis of words that cannot be construed etymologically. Similarly, Greek contains different strata, not all of which can be historically determined. G. Metser, Histor. Laut- und Formenlehre der lat. Spr.,

1998, § 7.

ne

II]. PROBLEMS The actual application of the instruments given by the differentiation of several LS — such as (according to [1; 3; 4]) diachronic, diatopic, diastratic and diaphasic speech varieties — quickly leads to complications. Crossclassifications can arise: Doric is, on the one hand, a Greek dialect (diatopic variety), on the other hand also

a language of genre (diaphasic variety). The important question of how to categorize written language within this concept has not yet been resolved; a classification as a diaphasic variety can no longer be maintained, since written language is considered today less as a secondary product of the spoken language than as a form of human language in its own right: ‘written language’ is a category not only in terms of medium (medial literacy), but follows its own rules of form and content (‘conceptual’ literacy, in [2]). It is particularly in regard to the origin of the Romance languages that the question of LS has become rather virulent (as ‘language level’ may be evoking a hierarchic concept, the term ‘language variety’ is com-

Language switching Language switching (LS) can occur on a social as well as on an individual level. In the first case, a demographic or functional minority gives up its language after a period of bilingualism, and adopts the language of the majority. Not the extinction of speakers, but LS is the most common cause of language death (> Language change and dialectal compensation are not considered LS). Typical attendant phenomena are interferences with the dominant language, non-adapted loan words, dismissal of native names (as visible, for example, in Etruscan when the same person is referred to as both Aule Harpni and Cn. Laberius), loss of productivity of word formation rules, loss of grammatical categories, reduction of stylistic diversity, loss of domain. The last residuum represent substrate words and toponyms, such as Celtic words ending in -dunum (cf. the hybrid toponym Augustodunum/Autun). Supporting factors are urbanization, geographical and social mobility, low prestige of the minority languages, geographical fragmentation, or language policies targeting LS. In the Roman empire, LS occurred on a very large scale — of the so-called substrate-languages, only Basque and Albanian (— Balkan peninsula, languages) survived. Frequently, a mere terminus post quem for the language shift can be extracted from comments of antique authors; such sources document the continued existence of a language long after written original documents ceased to be produced (Amm. Marc. 23,5,10 f. in regard to haruspices who were still able to read Etruscan ritual books in the 4th cent. AD).

The second case of LS concerns the shift within an actual utterance, the so-called code-switching in situations of social bilingualism (—» Multilingualism). Reasons can be the following: speech situation, interaction partner, social circumstances (cf. > Diglossia) or specific intentions, such as change of the speaker role (emphasis on professional competence by using tech-

LANGUAGE SWITCHING

nical terminology). Syntactic restrictions of codeswitching are especially of interest in regard to language universals. Code-switching into Greek is not rare in Latin documents; cf. for example the letter of Augustus to Maecenas

(Macrob. Sat. 2,4,12): vale mi ebenum

Medulliae ... carbunculum Hadriae, wa ovvtéuvo Tavta, Uahaywa moecharum (also some of Cicero’s letters).

The modern settlement is located on top of the ancient town; only the arx (‘castle’), surrounded by a tuff wall, on the hill of San Lorenzo to the north is not built

over; inside are the remains of a sanctuary with a temple in antis, possibly that of Juno Sospita (Cic. Fin. 2,63) [1; 2]; theatre. In the south lies the Republican temple of Hercules. 1 E.D. vAN Buren, Iuno Sospita of L., 1913

P. AcHARD, The Development of Language Empires, in: U.Ammon,

N.Ditrmar

et al. (ed.), Sociolinguistics/

Soziolinguistik, vol. 2, 1988, 1541-1551; J.BECHERT, W.WitpceEn, Einfithrung in die Sprachkontaktforsch., 1991; M.Dusuisson, Grecs et Romains: Le conflit linguistique, in: L’Histoire 50, 1982, 21-29; W. DRESSLER, Spracherhaltung — Sprachverfall — Sprachtod, in: Ibid., 1551-1563; G. NEUMANN, J. UNTERMANN (ed.), Die Spr. im Rom. Reich der Kaiserzeit, 1980; O. WENSKUs, Triggering und Einschaltung griech. Formen in lat. Prosa, in: IF 100, 1995, 172-192; Id., Markieren der Basissprache

in lat. Texten mit griech. Einschaltungen und Entlehnungen, in: IF ror, 1996, 233-257.

V. BI.

Lanice

(Aavixn/Laniké;

probably

a short form

of

“‘Ehvavinn, Hellaniké, Curt. 8,1,21). Sister of > Cleitus [6], wet-nurse of > Alexander [4], who allegedly

plaintively called on her after Cleitus’ death (Arr. Anab. 4,9,3f.5 Curt. 8,2,8f.). L.’s husband is unknown. Two of her sons fell at > Miletus, one — Proteas — became famous as a drinking-companion of Alexander (Ath. 4,129a; Ael. VH 12,26). BERVE, no. 462, cf. no. 664.

EB.

Lanista The /anista trained > gladiators (Suet. lul. 26,3; Sen. Ben. 6,12,2). Lanistae frequently owned fighters themselves, whom they rented or sold to holders of games; thus they had an important function particularly for the holding of games in the smaller country towns (ILS 5163 |. 9f.; 35; 37; 413 573 59). Successful lanistae could realize considerable incomes this way; however, their social status was low (Mart. 11,66), and they were not allowed to hold offices in the municipia (ILS 6085 |. 123). —+ Munus, Munera T.WiEDEMANN,

Emperors

and

Gladiators,

2 G. KASCHNITZ-WEINBERG, Das Kultbild der Sospita, in: G. Bruns (ed.), FS C.Weickert, 1955.

Tuno

G.B. CoLpurn, Civita Lavinia, 1914; E.ReIn, Die Schlangenhéhle von L., 1919; G.BENDINELLI, Monumenta Lanuvina, in: Memorie della classe di scienze

moralie storiche dell’ Accademia dei Lincei 27, 1921, 294370; A.E. Gorpon, The Cults of L., 193.8; P. CHIARUCCI, Leo 83

G.U.

Lanx A plate or flat Roman bowl of varying size, form (oval, rectangular or multiangular) and function; it was used in kitchen work (e.g. Petron. Sat. 28,8), but more often for the serving of dishes like fish, meat and poultry

(Mart. 7,48,3; 11,3 1,19); drinking-cups were served on it. It also found use in Roman legal relations. It is men-

Laniarium see > Meat, consumption of

1

224

223

1992.

BJ.O.

Lantern see > Lighting; > Lamp

Lanuvium Town in Latium in the southern foothills of the Alban hills, 18 miles from Rome on the via Appia, modern Lanuvio. Participated in the > foedus Cassianum of 493 BC. Loyal to Rome during the Latin War of 340 (— Latin League), L. received the civitas Romana; municipium (338 BC; Liv. 8,14,2), possibly tribus Maecia. Birth-place of the emperors Antoninus Pius and Commodus.

tioned further as a torture instrument, and the head of John the Baptist was presented on a /anx. In religious ritual, lanx generally designates the sacrificial vessel (e.g. Verg. G. 2,194; Verg. Aen. 213-214). Materials for the /anx included precious metals as preserved specimens from Roman hoard finds show, as well as clay and iron; poorer people used /ances made of wicker work. (Petron. Sat. 135,8 v. 7). H.F. Hirzic, s.v. Furtum, RE 7, 392f.; J.G. Wo tr, L. und Licium. Das Ritual der Haussuchung im altrém. Recht, in: D. Lress (ed.), Sympotica Franz Wieacker, 1970, 59-793 H.A. CaHn, A. KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN, Der spatr6m. Silberschatz von Kaiseraugst, 1984; L.PirRz1o STEFANELLI, L’argento dei Romani, 1991; F. Fess, Opferdiener

und Kultmusiker auf stadtrém. histor. Reliefs, 1995, rof. R.H.

Laocoon (Aaoxdwv; Laok66n, Latin Laocoon). [1] Trojan, son of + Capys [1]/Antenor, brother to

+ Anchises, priest of Apollo Thymbraeus (Euphorion, CollAlex 43 fr. 70 = Serv. Aen. 2,201) or Poseidon (schol. Lycoph. 347; Tzetz. Posth. 713-714). Father of Ethron and Melanthus (Serv. Aen. 2,211) or Antiphas

and Thymbraeus

(Hyg. Fab.

135) and husband

of

Antiope (Serv. Aen. 2,201). The earliest reference to L.

is in > Arctinus of Miletus (EpGF 62,11). Following the apparent withdrawal of the Greeks, the Trojans debated what to do about the wooden horse left behind (Hom. Od. 8,506—5 10) — whether to push it into the sea, burn it (Quint. Smyrn. 12,390ff.) or dedicate it to the gods (Apollod. 5,17); they opted for the latter and celebrated a festival of victory (EpGF 62,1-9). Shortly thereafter, serpents sent by Apollo killed L., or one or both of his sons (Apollod. 5,18; Arctinus, Ep>GF 62,1o-

11; Quint. Smyrn. 12,454ff.) before the eyes of their father (Soph. TrGF 4, fr. 370-377), or all three of them.

225

226

This + prodigium announced the fall of the city, and led to the flight of Anchises and > Aeneas [1]. Various reasons for the killing have been given: r. L. had stabbed the wooden horse in the side with a lance (Hom. Od. 8.507; Verg. Aen. 2,50-5 5and 229-231). 2. L. had had relations with his wife in the temple of Apollo (Euphorion ibid.). The Greek version of the L. myth is distinct from the Latin version of the Aeneid, since Apollo as destroyer of L. and of Troy did not correspond to the Augustan definition of the character. Virgil’s Greek model was > Euphorion [3], in whose version L., chosen by fate, makes sacrifices to > Poseidon/Neptunus. (The Trojans had stoned the priest of Poseidon to death, because he failed to prevent the Greeks from landing by making offerings to his god.) After the deed, the serpents conceal themselves under the shield of the statue of Athena on the citadel mount of Troy (Verg. Aen. 2,.227). L.’s pro-

Laocoon group A group of marble statues, found in 1506 in the area of the Baths of Trajan in Rome, highly regarded, widely received and academically controversial since its discovery (Rom, VM). It shows Laocoon and his two sons, entangled in sea snakes and nearing death. Its identity with a marble group praised by Pliny

nouncement, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, ‘I fear the

Danae, even when they bring gifts’ (Verg. Aen. 2,49), remains ineffective, and Apollo is absolved of all cruelty. The fate of L. is not a signal for departure to Aeneas, but he throws himself into the fight with the Achaeans. Neptunus, Juno, Minerva and Jupiter effect the destruction of Troy (Verg. Aen. 3,610-618), Apollo remaining

in the background;

for Virgil, there is no

Thymbraean sanctuary. Thymbraeus in Virgil is the name of Apollo of Delos, who receives the fleeing Aeneas, and who accepts the bull sacrifice for Neptunus and himself (Verg. Aen. 3,85 and 119). Figurative depictions of the sacrifice of L. are rare: 1. On south Italian vases of the 5th [1. 197 no. 1] and 4th cent. BC [1. 198 no. 2]: L. and Antiope attempt to save ason from the serpent in the sanctuary of Apollo. 2. On Pompeian murals in the casa del Menandro (I 10,4,153 4thstyle) [1. 198 no. 4; 2nd fig. 2; 3]: death of L. and his sons in the temple as sacrifices as in Virgil, and the casa di Laocoonte (VI 14, 28-31; Naples, MN 111210; 3rd style) [r. 198 no. 5; 4] with fragment of a similar scene preserved. 3. Text illustration of the Aeneid (Vat. Lat. 3225, f.18°; 5th cent) [1. 198-199 no. 6] in continual narrative style: L. performing the sacrifice and the arrival of the serpents, L. and his sons killed by the serpents at the altar [1. 198, 200]. 4. Marble group in the Vatican, see + Laocoon group. 1 E.Srmon, s.v. L., in: LIMC

6.1, 196-201

2 B. AN-

DREAE, Laokoon und die Griindung Roms, 31994, fig. 1, 13, 38-44, 55-57, 64 3F.P. BApont, R.J. LING, in: PPM 2.1, 1990, 284-285 no. 68, map p. 240; 241 bibliography 41. BRAGANTINI, in: PPM 5.2, 1994, 352-355 no. 15-17, map p. 341; 342 bibliography W.BurkERT, Homo necans, RGVV 32, 1972, 72, 178; R.ENGELMANN, s.v. L., in: ROSCHER 2.2, 1833 no. 1; 1833-1843 no. 2; B.MADER, s.v. L., LFE 2, 1632.

[2] Son of Parthaon/Partheus, brother to + Oeneus of Calydon (Hyg. Fab. 14, schol. Apoll. Rhod. 1,191). L. was sent by Oeneus to protect > Meleager on the voyage of the Argonauts (Apoll. Rhod. 1,191-196). W.-A.M.

LAOCOON GROUP

(HN 36,37: omnibus et picturae et statuariae artis prae-

ferendum) of the artists > Agesander, Athanodorus and Polydorus from Rhodes in the house of Titus, was recognized immediately. The first phase of reception stands under the influence of Virgil’s description of the myth and Pliny’s praise; in the midst of a literary discussion, the Laocoon group (LG) was considered a sensational discovery. It was imitated as an original work of the late rst cent. BC and as the best model for expressive body representation by artists from MICHELANGELO to RUBENS. Art critics interpreted the sculptural rendering of psychological moments. In 1754, a new phase of primarily art historical, literary reception began with WINCKELMANN. WINCKELMANN Saw in the LG the perfection of Greek sculpture in Hellenism, while LesstNG (‘Laocoon’, 1766) used the LG to exemplify his aesthetic theory of the relationship between pictura et poesis. Scholarly attention constituted the third phase of reception, producing, for the first time, with BRUNN in 1853 and KEKULE in 1883, a critical review of the high regard in which the LG had been held. The central problem in scholarship, to this day, is the chronological placement associated with the distinction between copy and original. A chronological concurrence between the poetry of Virgil (A. 2,201-233) and the names of the artists was meant to prove the original character of the LG. BLINKENBERG thus provided in 1905 an epigraphic reconstruction of the genealogy of the Rhodian family of artists. In 1957, however, the LG scholarship was set onto a new foundation. During a restoration, Maat affixed Laocoon’s right arm, which had been found in 1904, correcting its hitherto mistaken orientation, as well as the critical assessment;

in

Sperlonga, stylistically comparable marble groups were discovered that had been created by the same artists, according to a signature. The patronymicon given here rendered BLINCKENBERG’S genealogy and dating obsolete, and brought back the question as to which group represented the original. Scholarship since then, especially ANDREAE’S, has produced an abundance of new arguments, the conclusions of which, however, have not been accepted in general or in their entirety; the most diverse standpoints are presented when it comes to the art-historical classification. Based on concordant sculptural work, the LG and Sperlonga groups are both to be considered works of the sculptors named above. The way of affixing the stilts, the design of the signature on the Scylla group and the utilization of Lunensian marble on one part of the LG, all point to copies of bronze originals, according to ANDREAE; Pliny’s comment can be explained as praise of the marble copy visa-vis other representations.

LAOCOON GROUP

Ang

The dating of the work was first established by their mention in Pliny to be AD 70-79; it can be narrowed down further by the postulated connection between Tiberius and Sperlonga. For stylistic reasons, an original forming the basis of the work must stem from the 2nd cent. BC, as part of Pergamene art. ANDREAE proposes more exact dates of original and copy, based un historical references in the content of the work itself. C. Kunze, on the other hand, tried to establish an origin in early Augustan times, based on the findings at Sperlonga. HIMMELMANN, contravening ANDREAE, recognizes in the LG and the groups of Sperlonga new creations based on older motifs in Hellenistic miniature art. The myth around Laocoon, while recorded in various literary versions, was rarely depicted in ancient art. The LG goes back to a version initially told by Arctinus (6th cent. BC), where Laocoon is punished together with one of his sons because of the sacrilege of his intercourse in the temple of Apollo. By contrast, Virgil’s version involving the ominous death of all three within the myth of Troy, was adopted in Roman wall paintings. Current discussions are focused on the possibilities of deriving recognizable references from the form and content of ancient works of art regarding the historical environment of their origin and to examine the realization of political ideas in mythical allegories and the meaning of body language for psychological assessment. ~— Laocoon F.C. ALBERTSON, Pliny and the Vatican Laocoon, in: MDAI(R) roo, 1993, 133-140; B. ANDREAE, Laokoon und die Griindung Roms, 1988; Id., Laokoon und die Kunst von Pergamon, 1991; B. FEHR, The LG or the Po-

litical Exploitation of a Sacrilege, in: P. Hellstrom, B. Alroth (ed.), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World, 1996, 189-204; G. Harner, Die Laokoon-Gruppen, 1992; N.HIMMELMANN, Sperlonga, die homer. Gruppen und ihre Bildquellen, 1996; S$. KosTER, Streit um Laokoon, in: Gymnasium ror, 1994, 43-57; C. KUNZE, Zur Datier. des Laokoon und der Skyllagruppe aus Sperlonga, in: JDAI 111, 1996, 139-223; F.Maai, C. BERTELLI, in: EAA 4, 467-472; P. MorENO, Scultura ellenistica, 1994, 624-640; E. SIMON, s.v. Laokoon, LIMC 6.1, 196-201; R.R. R. SmitH, Hellenistic Sculpture, 1991, To8-1I0.

R.N.

Laocoosa (Aaoxdwoa; Laokddsa). Daughter of > Ocebalus and wife to her own half-brother -»> Aphareus [1]; mother of + Idas, + Lynceus (Theoc. 22.206) and Peisos (Apollod. 3.117). According to Apollodorus and Pherecydes (FGrH 3 F 127), her name was Arene (eponym of the homonymous Messenian town: Paus. 2,4,2), according to Peisander (FGrH 16 F 2) she was Polydora. RA.MI.

Laodamas (Aaodépuac; Laodamas, ‘subjugator of peoples’). [1] Son of > Eteocles [1]. In his youth, Creon [1] is his guardian; as soon as L. is of legal age he succeeds his father (Paus. 1,39,2). In the Battle at Glisas, he kills the

228

Epigone > Aegialeus [1], son of Adrastus, but is himself killed by + Alcmaeon (Apollod. 3,83). According to another version, he withdraws after a defeat, with some of his followers, to the Encheleans in Illyria, where his ancestor -» Cadmus once ruled (Hdt. 5,61; Paus. 9,5,13), another part conquers > Homole in Thessaly (Paus. 9,8,6).

[2] Trojan, son of > Antenor [1], is killed by Ajax [1]. [3] Favourite son of the Phaeacian king > Alcinous [r]. He vacates the place next to his father for Odysseus, who has arrived in the palace, and tries to cheer him up by challenging him to take his measure in a contest with one of the Phaeaces, which Odysseus declines to do, however, with reference to the rules of hospitality (Hom. Od. 7,170; 8,117-158). |

RA.MI.

Laodameia

(Aaoddaueia; Laoddmeia). Ep. feminine name (‘Ruler over the People’) of various mythological figures. [1] Daughter of > Bellerophontes and a daughter of the Lycian king Iobates, mother by Zeus of > Sarpedon (Hom. Il. 5,196-199; Apollod. 3,1,1; Serv. Aen. 1,100). According to Hom. Il. 5,205 she is killed by the enraged — Artemis. [2] Daughter of king Acastus of Iolcos, wife of > Protesilaus, who goes off immediately after the wedding to fight in the Trojan War, where he is killed by Hector. Hades allows Protesilaus to return to L. for a short time (Hyg. Fab. 103; Ov. Epist. 13,150-154; in the Cypria EpGF fr. 18 his wife’s name is Polydora). After renewed separation, L. follows Protesilaus into death (Hyg. Fab. 243; possibly Eur. Protesilaus TGF fr. 656). [3] Daughter of king Amyclas of Sparta and Diomede, wife of > Arcas, mother of Triphylus (Paus. 10,9,5). In Apollod. 3,9,1 she is called Leaneira and is the mother of Elatus and Aphidas. [4] Wet nurse of > Orestes (Stesich. PMG fr. 2148; Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 134), for whom other names have also been given (Cilissa: Aesch. Cho. 732; Arsinoe: Pind. Pyth. 11,17—18). (5] Daughter of Icarius and Asterodia, sister of > Pe-

nelope (schol. Hom. Od. 4,797; in the passage itself she is called Iphthime). A. Kossatz-DEISSMANN, S.v. L. (2), LIMC 6.1, 191-192; M.Hausmanw, Protesilaos und L., in: A&A 1, 1945, 182— 184; M.ScHMiIpT, s.v. L., RE 12, 698; H.W. STOLL, s.v. L., ROSCHER 2, 1826-1829. K.WA.

Laodice (Aaodixn; Laodiké). I. MyTHOLOGY

II. HisTORICAL PERSONS

I. MYTHOLOGY [11] Daughter of > Priamus and > Hecabe; her husbands are given as Helicaon (Hom. Il. 3,1r22-124;

6,252), through whom

she was spared enslavement

after the fall of Troy (Paus. 10,26,3), or > Acamas (Parthenius 16 MythGr), > Demophon [2] (Plut. Thes.

34,2) or > Telephus (Hyg. Fab. ror). According to Apollodorus (Epit. 5,25), after the fall of Troy she was

229

230

swallowed up by a cleft in the earth (cf. also Lycoph. 316f.; Tryphiodorus 66of.). {1 2] Daughter of ~ Agamemnon and — Clytaemnestra, who is mentioned in the early sources (Hom. II. 9,145) along with - Chrysothemis [2] and — Iphianassa [2].

killed Berenice and her young son before Ptolemy’s arrival; however, L. was unable to prevent the defection of Sophron in Ephesus and the march of Ptolemy III to Babylonia and further east later on. However, Ptolemy’s activities did not lead to the annexation of the Seleucid kingdom or large parts of it to Ptolemy’s king-

[I 3] Daughter of + Agapenor, who founded a temple

dom (OGIS 54; SEG 42,994; MITTEIS/WILCKEN I 2 no.

to Aphrodite of Paphos in Tegea (Paus. 8,5,2f.; 8,5 3,7).

1 = FGrH 160; Phylarchos l.c.; Just. 27,1; Porph. l.c.). The assassination of L. by Ptolemy III in the Laodicean War, just at the beginning of it (App. Syr. 65,346), is not historical. After her success in securing the rulership for Seleucus II, L. incited her youngest son Antiochus Hierax against the former (Plut. Mor. 184a; 489a; Euseb. Chronikoi Kanones 1,251 SCHOENE). There is no (further) mention of L. in the conferring of lands to Babylonian cities by Seleucus and Antiochus in 236 BC

N.IcarRD-GIANOLO,

s.v.

L.

(2),

LIMC

6.1,

192;

W.KROLL, s.v. L. (1)-(3), RE 12, 699f.; W. KULLMANN, Die Tochter Agamemnons in der Ilias, in: Gymnasium 72, 1965, 200-203; J. Roy, Paus. 8.5.2-3 and 8.53.7. L., Descendant of Agapenor, Tegea and Cyprus, in: AC 56, 1987, 192-200.

RHA.

Il. HISTORICAL PERSONS Name of Hellenistic queens, especially from the Seleucid family; see — Seleucids, with genealogical chart. [II 1] Wife of Antiochus, an officer of Philip II of Macedon, mother of + Seleucus I Nikator. The legitimation of the Seleucid rule through their descent from a god, Apollo, found expression in the tale of Seleucus being born to L. and Apollo, with miraculous circumstances accompanying and following the birth [r. 3ff., 96ff., 304f.]. Seleucus named several of the cities he founded after his mother L. [2. 165ff.] (IEry 205,74f.; Diod. Sic. 19,90; Str. 16,2,4; lust. 15,4,1-6; App. Syr. 56,28357,296; Steph. Byz. s.v. Aaodixeia). 1 A.MEHL, Seleukos Nikator 1, 1986

2 V.TsSCHERI-

KOWER, Die hell. Stadtegriindungen, 1927.

[II 2] Supposedly the daughter of Seleucus I and the sister of Antiochus [2] I (Steph. Byz. s.v. “Avtioyevo = Eust. 918 GGM 2,379). {fl 3] The daughter of Antiochus [2] I or, more likely, of Achaeus [4], was married to Antiochus [3] II. Their children were Seleucus II, Antiochus Hierax, Stratoni-

ce III (the wife of Ariarathes III of Cappadocia) as well as L. [II 4] (the wife of Mithridates II of Pontus) and possibly another daughter (cf. Pol. 5,79,12; Polyaenus, Strat. 8,50; Porph. FGrH 260 F 32,6) [1. r95ff.]. Antiochus gave L. and his sons land in Babylonia [2. 62]. After the 2nd > Syrian War of 253 BC, he separated from L. and married Ptolemy II’s daughter Berenice [2], who bore hima son. L. no longer held the title of queen, but was given anestate on the Propontis west of Cyzicus (WELLES, 18-20). Later Antiochus designated the eldest son of L., Seleucus, successor to the throne and disin-

herited Berenice and his son by her. After the death of her first husband roughly at the age of 40 in 246, L. was considered an insidious murderer and counterfeiter of wills (Phylarchus FGrH 81 F 24; Val. Max. 9,14 ext. 1; Plin. HN 7,53; App. Syr. 65,345; Polyaenus, Strat. 8,50; Porph. FGrH 260 F 43). L. waged war against Berenice and her brother Ptolemy III, who came to his sister’s and his nephew’s aid with a fleet and an army (the war was known as the ‘Laodicean War’: IPriene 37,134). Followers of L.’s

LAODICE

[2. 62]. 1 M.Ho

eaux, Etudes d’épigraphie et d’histoire grec-

ques 3,1942

2 R.VAN DER SPEEK, The Babylonian City,

in: A. KunRT, S.SHERWIN-WHITE (ed.), Hellenism in the East, 1987, 57-74.

[I 4] L. (name inferred from that of the mother and the daughter) was the daughter of Antiochus [3] II and of L. [JI 3]. As part of her dowry in 245 BC, L. brought her husband Mithridates II of Pontus the possession of Phrygia. She had two daughters: L. [II 6] and [II 7] (Iust. 38,5,3; Euseb. Chronikoi Kanones Tippy SCHOENE). {1 5] Daughter of Andromachus and sister of Achae-

us [5], as wife of Seleucus II (from 246 BC) she had two sons, Seleucus III and Antiochus [5] III., as well as two daughters, one of whom was Antiochis (Pol. 4,51,4; 8522.70).

{fl 6] Daughter of Mithridates II of Pontus and L. [II 4]. L. was married in 222 BC to her cousin Antiochus [5] III and made queen of Antioch [1] (Pol. 5,43). The marriage produced three sons (Antiochus, who died as crown prince in 193, Seleucus IV and Antiochus [6] IV), as well as four or five daughters. Her husband had the title of ‘sister queen’ conferred on L. in the kingdom’s ruler cult (probably created by him); in every satrapy L. received an archiereia (‘High Priestess’; WELLES, 36f.: 205/4; [1]). Nothing is known of L.’s position, temporarily unstable in 193, after Antiochus’ second marriage (191). In Seleucea on the Eulaeus (Susa) in

177/6, a ‘High Priestess’ was in charge of the cult of L. [II 8] and also that of her daughter (WELLES 36, see 159£.; SEG VII 2; [2. 26ff.]). 1 P. HERRMANN, Antiochos d.Gr. und Teos, in: Anadolu 9,1965,29-160 2L.RoBeErT, Inscriptions séleucides de Phrygie et d’Iran, in: Hellenica 7, 1949.

{Il 7] Daughter of Mithridates II of Pontus and L. [II 4], sister of L. [II 6]. After her education in the city of Selge, she was married in 220 BC to Achaeus [5]. Following his imprisonment and death, L. delivered herself and

the fortress of Sardes into the hands of the victor Antiochus [5] III (Pol. 5,74,5; 8,21,73; 22,11; 23,4 and 9).

LAODICE

232

231

{fl 8] Daughter of Antiochus [5] III. and L. [II 6], was married in 196 BC to her brother Antiochus, and in 193

{Il 13] According to Porph. FGrH 260 F 32,20, Anti-

became archiereia (‘High Priestess’) of the kingdom’s ruler cult of her mother. Their daughter Nysa was married in 172/1 to Pharnaces of Pontus (IG XI 4, 1056b 18; OGIS 771; App. Syr. 4,17). The same (?) L., after

ochus [9] VII is supposed to have had two daughters named L. (cf. L. [II 12]). {11 14] L. Thea Philadelphus Born c. 122-115 BC. Daughter of Antiochus [ro] VIII and Cleopatra [II 15] Tryphaina. L. was married to Mithridates I of Com-

the death of her brother Antiochus (193), became the

magene and, through their son > Antiochus [16] I, was

wife of Seleucus IV and by him the mother of the briefly reigning King Antiochus (in 175, immediately after the assassination of Seleucus IV), who then became co-

the dynastic mother of the subsequent rulers of > Com-

regent with his uncle Antiochus [6] IV (cf. [1]), until the latter assassinated him in 170. Antiochus IV married the same (?) L. and had a son with her, Antiochus [7] V (OGIS 252; SEG VII 15). L. is for us the first female Seleucid whose image appears on coinage (175, together with the son of Seleucus, Antiochus) {1]. On the ruler cult of L., cf. L. [II 6]. 1 G.Le Riper, L’enfant roi Antiochos et la reine Laodice,

in: BCH 110, 1986, 409-417.

{II 9] Daughter of Seleucus IV and L. [II 8], conducted across the sea to Macedon by the Rhodians in 178 BC for her wedding to King > Perseus. Both the marriage and the conduct by the Rhodians were denounced to the Romans as acts of hostility toward them by Eumenes [3] Il of Pergamum (Syll.3 639; Pol. 25,4,7—10; Liv. 42,12; App. Mac. 11,2). After Perseus’ death, her brother Demetrius [7]I tried to marry L. to Ariarathes V of Cappadocia; however, he refused (Diod. Sic.

31,28; lust. 35,1, 1f.). L.’s image now appeared on coins together with that of her brother, who had apparently married her, as well as on a clay seal (BMC, Gr Syria, 50,1-2 and pl. XV 1-2; [1. pl. LIX r]). In connection with Demetrius’ end, L. was killed by the imperial administrator Ammonius in 150 BC (Liv. Per. 50). 1 RostrovrzerF, Hellenistic World.

(11 10] L. Philadelphus Daughter of Mithridates II of Pontus, sister of Pharnaces and sister-spouse of Mithridates IV (169-150 BC). F.DurrBACH,

Choix d’inscriptions de Délos, 1921-22,

74 (repr. 1976); HN, sor.

{If 11] L., daughter of Antiochus [6] IV, and her putative brother Alexander [13] Balas were successfully introduced to the Roman Senate in 153 BC by Heraclides as claimants to the throne against Demetrius [7] I (Pol. 33,15,1; 18,6-13). L. was possibly married to Mithridates V of Pontus later on; in that case she was the mother of Mithridates VI Eupator and L. [II 16].

{fl 12] L. (name only conjectural), daughter of Demetrius [8] Il. In 129 BC during a campaign against the Parthians, led by her uncle Antiochus [9] VII, she fell into the hands of the Parthians and became the wife of the king of the Parthians, Phraates II (ust. 38,10,10). She can only be identified with either of the two L. [Il 13] if one presumes a confusion [1. 599f.] on the

part of Tustinus. 1 A.BoucHE-LECLERCQ, Histoire des Séleucides, 19 13f.

magene (cf. the lineage on the funerary monument

of

Antiochus [16] on Nemrud Dag, OGIS 383-404). [I 15] L. (2), according to OGIS 3 52,69f. and HN Nysa 751, became the wife of the Cappadocian king Ariarathes V. After his death in 130 BC, she allegedly poisoned five sons — the sixth is supposed to have been saved by relatives — and then assumed power herself. She was killed in a riot (lust. 37,1,3—5).

[II 16] Born in 140 BC; eldest daughter of the Pontian king Mithridates V. After her husband Ariarathes VI was murdered with the knowledge or the consent of her brother Mithridates VI of Pontus in 111, L. reigned in place of her son Ariarathes VII. During the conflict between Mithridates and Nicomedes III of Bithynia over Cappadocia, L. married the latter. After her son was also assassinated by Mithridates, L. was sent by Nicomedes to Rome with a boy who she claimed was the son of her former husband Ariarathes VI and thus the rightful heir to the throne (OGIS 345,6-8; lust. 38,1-2; Biel).

[If 17] The sister of L. [II 16], tried in ro5 BC to poison her brother and spouse Mithridates VI and was executed (Sall. Hist. 2 F 76 M; Just. 37,3,6-8). A daughter of L. was called Drypetine (Val. Max. 1,8 ext. 13). [Il 18] Princess of the Arabian Samenians (other names are also extant) for whom the Seleucid — Antiochus [12] X fought in 92 BC against the Parthians and possibly fell in battle (Jos. Ant. ud. 13,371). [Il 19] According to the undated funerary inscription of her son Avidius Antiochus in Arsamea, the wife of a Hieronymus

(OGIS

766).

Possible

descendant

of

L. [I] 14] and Mithridates I of Commagene. + Antiochus; — Seleucids E. BEVAN, The House of Seleucus, 1902; A. BoucHE-LECLERCQ, Histoire des Séleucides, 1913-14; G.H. Macurpy, Hellenistic Queens, 1932; Macie; H.H.

ScumiTT, Unt. zur Geschichte Antiochos’ d.Gr., 1964.

A.ME. {II 20] In the rst cent. BC, spouse of a Heliocles and

mother of the Indo-Greek king — Eucratides, only known through a memorial coin of her son. It has often been conjectured that she was a Seleucid princess. A.K. Narain, The Indo-Greeks, 1957, 5 5ff.

K.K.

Laodicea (Aaodixeta; Laodikeia). [1] (A. éat tH Sarkdoon; L. epi téi thaldsséi). Port in north-west Syria (now Latakia or al-Ladiqiya), not far from the Bronze Age - Ugarit (Ra’s Samra). Founded

by Seleucus I around 300 BC together with its sister towns of Antioch, Apamea and Seleucea (the so-called

233

234

North Syrian Tetrapolis) and equipped with an artificial harbour. The Hellenistic constitution of the polis possessed Macedonian traits (Council of the ‘Peliganes’). Thanks to its role as a sea port, and probably also as a naval base, L. quickly gained in importance, and had a large, fertile hinterland on the western flanks of the coastal mountains of Syria. Viticulture played a prominent role, with exports to Egypt, India, etc. The town became embroiled in the late Seleucid dynastic wars and the Roman civil wars (P. Cornelius [I 29] Dolabella had C. Cassius [I ro] lay siege to L. in 43 BC). Declared a civitas libera by M. Antonius [I 9]; significant mint in late Hellenistic and Imperial periods. In AD 194, L. sided against Pescennius Niger, the pretender supported by Antioch; the victorious Septimius Severus awarded it the title of colonia with Italic law, granting the town comprehensive financial support. L. retained its importance until the Arab conquest of the 7th cent., which took place against armed resistance by the inhab-

Encratites, etc.); from the beginning of the 4th cent. it was a diocese (suffragan of Antioch [5]) [2. 78f., 128f., 144f., 327f.]. Numerous inscriptions [3. passim].

itants. Thereafter, L. became a coastal fortress threat-

ened by the Byzantine fleet; reconquered in 970 by Nicephorus Phocas. Again an important harbour during the Crusades. Few ancient remains are to be found in the modern city, however, the orthogonal layout of the foundation period is still recognizable in the street network. — Ugarit J.D. Graincer, The Cities of Seleukid Syria, 1990; A.H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, *1971; P. ROUSSEL, Décret des Péliganes de Laodicée-surMer, in: Syria 23-24, 1942-1943, 21-32; J.SAUVAGET, Le plan de Laodicée-sur-Mer, in: Bulletin d’études orientales 4, 1934, 81-114; H. Seyric, Séleucus I et la fondation de la monarchie syrienne, in: Syria 47, 1970, 290-311; R. Z1eGLER, Antiochia, Laodicea und Sidon in der Politik der Severer, in: Chiron 8, 1978, 493-514. J6.Ge.

[2] Town on the upper Orontes (Syria). In ancient sources, it is given as either A. me0g Atpavw/L. pros Libdanoi (Str. 16,755) or as a Phoenician town (App.

Syr. 57). As with the other towns of the same name, it was probably newly founded by > Seleucus I. L. is first mentioned in Pol. 5,45,7; Aaodixnvi/ Laodikene refers to the countryside around L. (Ptol. 5,14,16), and its inhabitants are called Laodiceni (Plin. HN 5,82). The new Seleucid town of L. was constructed on the ruins of — Qadeé (Tell Nebi Mend), destroyed in 1200 BC. J.D. GratnceR,

The

Cities

of Seleukid

Syria,

LAODOCUS

1 H.v.

AuLockx,

2 BELKE/MeRSICH

Mz.

und Stadte Lykaoniens,

K.BE.

[4] Town in southern Phrygia (Str. 12,8,13; 16; Tab. Peut. ro,r), prone to earthquakes (AD 60: Tac. Ann.

14,27,1; AD 494: Marcellinus Comes, Chronica 94; Or. Sib. 4,106), 11 km south of > Hierapolis [1] between the Asopus (Giimiis Cay:) and the Caprus, where

they flow northwards into the Lycus, the left-bank tributary of the Maeander (‘L. on the Lycus’, Ptol. 55205))s

Founded on the site of an older settlement (Diospolis/Rhoas, Plin. HN 5,105) by > Antiochus [3] II between 261 and 253 BC and named after his sister-bride. Under Roman rule after belonging to the Attalid kingdom, it was the centre of the conventus Cibyra of the province of > Asia [2] (Cic. Fam. 15,4,2; Cic. Att. 5,21,9; lac. Ann. 14,27). In the early 4th cent., L. was

the metropolis of Phrygia Pacatiana. In the middle Byzantine period, the town belonged to the theme of Thrakesion. Paul attests a Christian community in L. (Col AglR HLTtal

There are archaeological remains on a hill between Eskihisar and Gongali, 6 km north of Denizli: two theatres, an odeum (?), a stadium, a gymnasium (?), a nymphaeum (3rd cent. AD; Isis statue), circular walls, sarcophagi on arterial roads, two aqueducts, sewage tanks, a water tower still stands 5 m tall. G.E. BEAN, Turkey beyond the Maeander, 1971, 247-2573 Id., s.v. L. ad Lycum, PE, 481f.; BELKE/MERSICH, 323326; J. DES GAGNIERS, Laodicée du Lycos, 1969.

[5] Place in Pontus, known only through pseudoautonomous minting under Mithridates VI, probably located at modern Ladik, thus below the castle complex of Ikizari (IxtCagu) on Lake Stiphane (Ztwhdvy Aiwvy), the modern Ladik Gélu, on whose shore Str. 12,3,38 also notes a palace (possibly in the area of modern Ladik; many ancient stones have been re-used for build-

ing there). OLSHAUSEN/BILLER/WAGNER, 2121-2127; W.H. WapDINGTON, E. BABELON, TH. REINACH, Recueil général des

monnaies

grecques

d’Asie

Mineure

1,1, *1925,

[3] L. Catacecaumene Town north-north-west of > Ico-

nium, Ladik. Hellenistic foundation [1. 45]; actually considered a part of Lycaonia (Str. 14,2,29), L. belonged to the large province of Galatia (Ptol. 5,4,8) and was incorporated into the province of Pisidia in the 4th cent. AD. The town was situated on important roads: from + Dorylaeum to the east and south east; its epithet Kataxexavyuévn (“The Burnt’) perhaps refers to the mining (cinnabar, copper) in the region. In the 4th cent., L. was the centre of various Christian sects (Novatians,

114f.

E.O.

1990.

TH.PO.

1976

3 MAMAtd, 7.

Laodiceans, letter to the see > New testament apocrypha Laodocus

(Aaddoxoc, Aaoddxoc,

Aewdoxoc;

Laddo-

kos, Laodokos, Leodokos, ‘Who receives the People’).

[1] Son of Apollo and Phthia, offers hospitality to ~ Aetolus, who fled to them in the country of the Curetes; > Aetolus slays L. along with his brothers Dorus and Polypoetes and renames the country ‘Aetolia’ (Apollod. 1,57).

235

236

[1] and Pero; native of Argos; together

B.Patme, Neues zum Agypt. Provinzialzensus, in: Protokolle zur Bibel 3, 1994, 1-7. Cr:

LAODOCUS [2] Son of > Bias with his brothers campaign of the Fl. 1,358; Orph.

Talaus and Arius he takes part in the Argonauts (Apoll. Rhod. 1,119; Val. A. 148f.).

[3] One of the > Seven against Thebes; winner of the

spear-throwing contest during the funeral games for Archemorus in Nemea (Apollod. 3,66). Some identity L. with L. [2] since according to mythological chronology the quest of the Argonauts matches up with the war of the Seven against Thebes; in Apollodorus (l.c.), however, there is nothing about this. [4] A Greek before Troy; friend and chariot ariver of + Antilochus, son of > Nestor (Hom. Il. 17,694ff.). [5] Trojan, son of > Antenor [1], who gave lodging to Odysseus and Menelaus. In his guise, Athena induces - Pandarus to shoot the fateful arrow that ends the truce between Trojans and Greeks (Hom. Il. 4,73ff.; Eust. Hom. Il. 447,23ff.). [6] Son of Priamus (Apollod. 3,152f.), killed by Agamemnon (Dictys 3,7). [7] A Hyperborean who, together with Hyperochus and Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles, defends the oracle of Delphi in 279 BC against the Celts (Paus. 1,4,4; 10,23,2). A parallel to the year 480 when two native heroes, Phylacus and Autonous, protected the sanctuary against the Persians (Hdt. 8,39). Pausanias also calls L. Amadocus

(1,4,4), since this name

sounds

more

Hyperborean than L.

AL.FR.

Laogonus (Aadyovoc/Ladgonos, ‘who grew out of the people’s army’). Descriptive name of two Trojan warriors in the Iliad (Hom. Il. 16,303 and 20,460). BG.

Laogoras (Aaoyégas; Laogoéras). Dryopian king who by holding a banquet in the manner of his people in the grove of Apollo offends against the god. L. supports the Lapith prince > Coronus in his attack on the Dorian king > Aegimius [1]. The latter calls Hercules for help, who then kills L. and Coronus (Apollod. 2,15 4f.; Diod. SIC Oya3): AL.ER.

Laoi (Aaoi/Iao?: plural word for Greek /ads ‘folk’, approximate meaning ‘people’). In the Hellenistic monarchies (cf. > Hellenistic states), especially in documentary sources (i.e. inscriptions, papyri), term for the indigenous subjects, in particular the rural population under the direct control of the royal administration. In the royal lands in the narrower sense, these were also called Iaoi basilikoi (‘the king’s people’). The term does not refer to any specific social or legally defined class but comprises, from the point of view of the royal administration, various groups among the population whose dependency and tributary status could differ greatly. F, PaPAZOGLOU, Laoi et Paroikoi. Recherches sur la struc-

ture de la société hellénistique, 1997.

JO. GE.

Laokritai

(Aaoxgitat; laokritai). Authorized by the king in Ptolemaic Egypt, consisting in each case of three judges of Egyptian ethnic origin taken from the priestly class, before whom the Egyptians (Aadc/lads, the people) could resolve their civil law disputes according to their hereditary law and in the Demotic language. A building (/aokrision) designated for the laokritai is attested from the Fayim (PTebtunis 79 5,9; 2nd cent. BC). An official of Greek nationality (> eisagogeus) appointed by the central administration acted as the chairman, as in the case of the Greek tribunals (— dikasté-

rion, > chrématistai). In

118 BC, Ptolemy VII Fuerge-

tes II defined the competencies of the laokritai and the chrématistai according to the language of the documents that were the basis of the proceedings and prohibited the latter from taking on law-suits between Egyptians (PTebtunis 5,207—20). E.BERNEKER, Zur Geschichte der Prozefeinleitung im ptolem. Recht, 1930; H.J. WoLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemaer, *1970; J.MoprzEyewsxi, Nochmals zum Justizwesen der Ptolemaer, in: ZRG 105, 1988, 165-179;

Laographia, Laographos (haoyeadia, Aaoyoddoc; laographia, laographos). From the Ptolemaic period onwards, censuses were conducted in Egypt (laographiai: the people were ‘written down’). These took place from Augustus onwards on a 7-year cycie, and from Tiberius onwards every 14 years. In the Roman period, laographia also referred to the list compiled in the process of those liable for poll tax and the poll tax itself (~ Taxes). Men between the ages of 14 and 60 were subject to it unless they were Roman citizens or citizens of privileged Greek poleis; for the other Greeks, reduced tax rates in comparison with the Egyptians applied. From the time of Augustus, the laograéphos was the local official responsible for the laographia. The office was held collegially. S.L. WaLLace,

RECHT,

Taxation

Einfiihrung

in Egypt,

1938;

in die Papyruskunde,

H.-A.Rupp-

1994,

75;

H.-A.Rupprecut, 1994,

143.

Einfihrung

in die

Papyruskunde, GT.

Laomedon (Aaouédmv; Laomédon, ‘Ruler of the Peo-

ple’). [1] Mythical king of Troy, son of — Ilus [1]. Sons: ~ Priamus, Hicetaon, > Clytius [14], > Lampus, > Ti-

thonus (Hom. Il. 20,236ff.), the illegitimate Bucolion (ibid. 6,23), and according to Ilias parva 29,4 PEG I +» Ganymede [1] as well. Daughters: > Antigone [4], ~ Astyoche [2], > Hesione [4], etc. The main sources

for his story (diverging in the details) are Homer (II. 5,640ff.; 7,452f.; 20,145ff.; 21,441ff.), Apollodorus (2,103f.; 134ff.) and Diodorus (4,32; 42; 49), condensed versions by Ovid (Met. 11,199ff.) and Hyginus (Fab. 89): Apollo and Poseidon enter into L.’s service for one year, either at Zeus’ command as punishment for an attempted revolt (Hom. Il. 21,444 with schol. T.

2:37,

238

ad loc.) or willingly in order to test L. (Apollod. 2,103). According to Hom. Il. 21,441ff., Poseidon builds the city walls of Troy while Apollo guards L.’s cattle; most of the sources (Hom. Il. 7,452f. as well) report only on the building of the wall, in which, according to Pindar (Pind. Ol. 8,3xff.), the mortal hero + Aeacus also participates (the divine wall cannot fall; only that segment erected by Aeacus can be breached). L. refuses to grant the gods the wages agreed upon and drives them away in disgrace. Whereupon Poseidon sends a man-eating sea monster, to whom L., following an oracle, must sacrifice his daughter > Hesione. Hercules, just passing through Troy at this time, declares he is willing to save her, and as a reward L. promises him the immortal horses that Zeus gave his grandfather Tros as compensation for the abducted > Ganymede. Hercules vanquishes the monster (according to Hellanicus [FGrH 4 F 2; cf. Lycoph. 34ff. with Tzetzes ad loc.] by letting it devour him, then slitting its belly open from inside in three days of hard work.) L. now cheats Hercules out of his reward as well, whereupon the latter, with either only six (Hom. Il. 5,640ff.) or 18 (Apollod. 2,134) warships, sets sail for Troy (a generation later, Agamemnon requires more than 1,000: Hom. Il. 2,484ff.). Hercules kills L. and conquers the city (depicted on the east tympanum of the Temple of Aphaia on Aegina). L.’s rule passes to Priamus.

‘The Wills’); in fragment 2 (without a play title) an adulterer speaks.

J. BoaRDMaAN, s.v. L., LIMC 6.1, 201-203; P. WATHELET, Dictionnaire des Troyens de I’Iliade, 1988, no. 206; M.J.

ANDERSON, The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and Art, 1997, 92-97. MA.ST.

[2] Son of Larichus of Mytilene, who with his brother — Erigyius (or perhaps already with his father) resettled in Amphipolis. Banished in 337 BC together with Erigyius and other friends of > Alexander [4] after the + Pixodarus affair (Arr. Anab. 3,6,5; in Plut. Alexander 10,5 L. is missing), L. was received, after Alex-

ander’s ascension to the throne, among the — hetairoi and, because he was ‘bilingual’ (i.e. able to speak Aramaic), named overseer in 334 of non-Greek prisoners of war (Arr. Anab. 3,6,6), a position that probably involved intelligence-gathering duties. In 326, L. was a trierarch of the Hydaspes fleet. L.’s participation in battles is not attested to. Satrap of Syria after Alexander’s death (in 323) and confirmed there by Antipater [x], L. was taken prisoner during the invasion of the troops of + Ptolemaeus I (Diod. Sic. 18,43,2), escaped

and fled to Alcetas [4] (App. Syr. 52,264; false App. Mith. 9,27); from here on there are no further references to him. The early Seleucid officer Larichus (OGIS 215), honoured in > Priene, must be L.’s son. BERVE 2, no. 464.

EB.

Laon (Adwv; Laon). Writer of the New Comedy. As he is quoted by Heraclides [18], it is safe to assume he belongs in the 3rd cent. BC. Two fragments are extant, of which fragment 1 is froma play AuaOfjxau (Diathékai,

LAPETHUS

1 PCGV 610.

B.BA,

Laonome (Aaovoun; Laondme).

{1] Daughter of Guneus, wife of names are also mentioned), mother (Paus. 8,14,2; Apollod. 2,50). [2] Daughter of > Amphitryon and ter of > Heracles [1], wife of the son phemus (schol. Pind. Pyth. 4,79). In 4 F 13) she is associated with the god Hodoedocus.

Alcaeus [1] (other of > Amphitryon

of > Alcmene, sisof Poseidon > EuHellanicus (FGrH of the Underworld

K. MEULI, s.v. L. (1)-(2), RE 12, 758.

R.HA.

Laothoe (Aao06n; Laothdé). [1] Daughter of Thespius, by > Heracles [1] mother of Antiphus (Apollod. 2,163). [2] Lover of > Apollo, by whom she bears Thestor, grandmother of > Calchas (Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 108). [3] Concubine of — Priamus, by whom she bears — Lycaon and > Polydorus (Hom. Il. 21,34f., 85-96; 22,46-48). O.SCHERLING, s.v. L. (1)-(3), RE 12, 761.

Lapathus

(Aanxa8otc;

Lapathots).

R.HA.

Small fortress in

southern + Olympus [1] above the Tempe valley near Condylum, near modern Hagios Elias, also called Charax. L. is mentioned because of the Roman troop movements in 169 BC (Liv. 44,2,11). F.STAHLIN,

Das

hellenische

Thessalien,

1924,

1of.

HE.KR.

Lapethus (Adxn90c; Lapéthos). Port on the northern coast of - Cyprus [1]. According to Str. 14,6,3, it was founded by Lacones under Praxander (AdmaQog, Str. l.c.; AdrnOic Bowixwy, Scyl. 103). Phoenicians are attested epigraphically and through coins of king Sidqimelek (c. 440-420 BC) [1]. The last king, Praxippus, was on the side of Antigonus [1] and was deposed by Ptolemy I in 312 BC (Diod. Sic. 19,59,1; 62,6; 79,4). In the Hellenistic period, there is evidence for a local era of time-reckoning. It was here that Ptolemy VI took his brother Ptolemy Euergetes Physkon captive in c. 158 BC (Pol. 39,7,6). The town was settled from the late Bronze Age onwards. Remains of harbour structures, fortifications and necropoleis near modern Lambusa. Additional public buildings are only evidenced in inscriptions. As an episcopal see, L. was presented at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). 1 BMC, Gr, Cyprus LII-LIV, 29-31.

A.CauBeT, M. Yon, Un culte populaire de la Grande Déesse a Lapithos, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1988, 1-16; E. HERRSCHER, New Light from Lapithos, in: N. ROBERTSON (ed.), The Archaeology

LAPETHUS

239

240

Laphria see > Artemis

oath was broken, Jupiter or Diespiter would throw the oath taker out of the city in the same way (Pol. 3,25,6 on the occasion of the third treaty with Carthage in 278 BC; Plut. Sulla 10.7 on the oath of Sulla and Cinna in 88 BC; generally Fest. 102,11 L.). c) A simple oath could also be sworn to Iuppiter L., ‘which was the holiest oath

Laphyron see > War booty

of all’ (Gell. NA 1,21,4, cf. Cic. Fam. 7,12,2). [2] The lapis manalis (‘flowing-stone’) was a stone (per-

of Cyprus, Recent Developments, 1975, 39-60; E. GJERSTAD, Lapithos, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition 1, 1934, 13-276; 4,2, 1948, 534; MASSON, HUMMER, s.v. L., RE 12, 763-766.

267-268;

E. OBERR.SE.

Laphystios see - Zeus Lapidation As a form of lynch law, lapidation was probably very widespread in antiquity. It occurred not only to vent the rage of the people (tumultuary lapidation), but also as punishment after proper proceedings. In this way, primarily among the Jews, lapidation was quite simply capital punishment (— Stephanus [4]). But unlike the Romans, the Greeks also appear to have used lapidation especially in the case of offences against the community and against religion. It is incontestable that legally ordered lapidation developed from tumultuary lapidation with the original purpose of expulsion from the community (not: killing). Lapidation can therefore be understood as symbolic defence and ritual atonement by the community (summary of this argument [3]). More recent explanations of lapidation have been based on behavioural research, emphasizing its origins in instinctive behaviour [1]. The political aspect of lapidation for Greece has also been emphasized [2]: as a

response by the people to the institution of tyranny, it represented an important instrument in the incipient process of democratization. + Capital punishment; > Violence 1 D. FEHLING, Ethologische Uberlegungen auf dem Gebiet der Altertumskunde. Phallische Demonstration — Fernsicht— Steinigung (Zetemata 61),1974 2M.Gras, Cité grecque et lapidation, in: Du chatiment dans la cité (Collection de l’école frangaise de Rome 79), 1984, 75-89 3 K.LarTeE, s. v. Steinigung, RE 3 A, 1929, 2294 f. R. H1rze£L, Die Strafe der Steinigung (Abh. der Sachs. Ges. der Wiss. 27), 1909 (repr. 1967); E. CANTARELLA, | supplizi capitali in Grecia e a Roma, 1991, 73-87, 326-329.

A. VO.

haps cylindrical: Fulg., Sermones antiquarii p. 112,14 HeEwMet) which was kept outside the Porta Capena at Rome, and borne through the city in a rain ritual during droughts (Fest. 115,8 L., cf. [2]). [3] The lapis scriptus (‘inscribed stone’) was used in an Italic ritual (of divination?) whose exact nature can no longer be ascertained (Antistius Labeo in Fest. 474,19 es)? 1 C.FaRAoNngE, Molten Wax, Spilt Wine and Mutilated

Animals. Sympathetic Magic in Near Eastern and Early Greek Oath Ceremonies, in: JHS 113, 1993, 60-80 2 G. Wissowa, Rel. und Kultus der Romer, *1912, 121.

F.G.

Lapis lazuli (Sumerian iagin > Akkadian uqnii > Greek uvavocd/kyanos > Lat. cyanus; Egyptian bsbd). The blue rock is a complicated silicate related to the artificial ultramarine. It is characterized by its more or less deep blue colour, often with golden specks of iron pyrite. Lapis lazuli (LL) was extracted in what is present-day Afghanistan/province of Badahsan and in the AfghanPakistani borderland (Quetta), brought from there to the Near East and to Egypt via the Sinai. It was traded raw, separated from the calcite matrix enclosing the stone. The esteem in which the oftentimes intensely blue LL was held, even in mere raw form, was inferior only to that of gold and silver. LL played an important role in cult and magic, as well as in the international diplomatic gift exchange, and it was coveted as booty and tribute. Due to its high value, LL objects were amassed (hoard finds) and reworked if needed. Objects of LL were already known sporadically in Egypt and the Near East in prehistoric times. From the 3rd millennium BC onwards, LL was used in those regions primarily for the creation of + jewellery, seals, amulets, incrustation parts (> Intarsia) for statues, statuettes and furniture; less frequent are larger-size objects (vessels, votive objects). From the 2nd half of

Lapis (stone) denotes various stones used for ritual purposes in Roman cult worship. {1] A silex which was kept in the sanctuary of Iuppiter

the 2nd millennium BC, LL was imitated, sources of

~ Feretrius on the Capitol (Fest. 81,18 L.) was of par-

cuneiform writing distinguish between ‘LL from the

ticular significance in some ancient oath ceremonies, which ran according to the principle, common in the swearing of oaths, of analogy in action [1]: a) The — Fetiales concluded international treaties by killing a pig with the silex from the sanctuary of Iuppiter Feretrius, thereby calling down the same death upon themselves and the state if the oath were to be breached (Liv. 1,24,7-9). The very ancientness of the instrument of killing would have added to the gravity of the oath. b) Similarly, a solemn oath could be sworn with the silex by throwing it to the ground while swearing that if the

furnace’, i.e. > ‘glass’, versus the (real) ‘LL from the mountains’.

From Egypt, LL was brought to Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece. Texts by Theophrastus (De lapidibus 8; 23; 37) and Pliny (HN 33,68; 33,1613 37,1109f.) have revealed [1] that the speckled or ‘female’ LL was called oaneooc/sappheiros, or Lat. sapp(h)irus, the rarer blue or ‘male’ variety xbavoc (> kyanos), or Lat.

cyanos. It is fairly certain that the latter is not identical with the semi-precious stone today referred to as > sapphire, which is also blue. In pulverized form, the

241

242

‘Scythian’ caeruleum was used in Rome as blue pigment (Plin. HN 33,161). LL was mostly a jewellery or amulet stone in classical antiquity, rarely a ring. > Precious stones 1 E.R. Carey, Stones, 1956.

J.F. C. RicHarps,

Theophrastus

on

A.Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 41962; G. HERRMANN, L.: The Early Phases of its Trade, in: Iraq 30, 1968, 21-57; M.Tosi, M.Pirerno, Lithic

LAPPIUS

VERSNEL, IUN]iei. A New Conjecture in the Satricum Inscription, in: MededRom 56, 1997, 179-200 4C.M.

ST1BBE, L. S. Archaeological, Epigraphical, Linguistic and Historical Aspects of the New Inscription from Satricum, 1980 5D.J. WaaRSENBURG, Satricum, de tempels en de Lapis, in: [4], 27-45. H.GA.

potamian Materials and Industries. The Archaeological Evidence, 1994, 85-92. R.W.andC.HU.

Lapithae (Aani®avLapithai, Latin Lapithae). Mythical Thessalian tribe (Hom. Il. 2,73 8ff.; Str. 9,43 9ff.), particularly known for their battle with the > Centaurs. According to a late version, they were descendants of an eponymous ancestor Lapithes or Lapithas, who was himself descended either from Apollo and a daughter of

Lapis niger Block of black marble found at Rome in

the river god Peneius (Stilbe) or from Ixion and the slave Dia (Diod. Sic. 4,63,2; 5,58,5; Paus. 5,10,8; schol.

Technology Behind the Ancient L. Trade, in: Expedition 16,1,

1973,

15-23;

P.R.

S. Moorey,

Ancient

Meso-

1899 during excavations in the Forum Romanum

in

front of the Curia Iulia. It is probably the niger lapis in comitio from Fest. 184 L. The upper section of the stone is damaged; on five sides it bears a fragmentary inscription, difficult to read and dating from the (early?) 6th cent. BC (probably the lex sacra of the Volcanal, the surrounding sacred precinct), which mentions a ‘king’ (recei), his ‘herald’ (calator) and iouxmenta (draught

animals? carts?). This may be the inscription which Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. 2,45,2) believed contained the account of the deeds of Romulus. Contrary to earlier opinions, according to which rex here referred to the Republican rex sacrorum |1; 2], the word is today

generally regarded as a reference to one of the Etruscan kings [3]. Editions: CIL I* 1 = ILLRP 3.

Apoll. Rhod. 1,40). Descent from > Ixion would make the L. entirely human and more benign and chivalrous half-brothers of the Centaurs, and their conflict a fraternal feud. The L. appear both as a group and as notable individual personalities. Alongside Elatus [2], Ixion, Phlegyas, Phorbas, Triopas, the gigantic > Caeneus and -» Mopsus, above all the king of the L. and friend of Theseus, — Peirithous, must be mentioned, at whose wedding to Hippodamia the conflict with the Centaurs erupted. Hercules waged war against them in the name of Aegimius [1]. Various L. took part in the Calydonian Hunt, the Voyage of the Argonauts andthe Trojan War. A.Kossatz-DEISSMANN,

s.v. Lapithas, LIMC

1 E. Meyer, Einfiihrung in die lat. Epigraphik, +1991, 47 2 R.E. A. Parmer, The King and the Comitium, 1969, 51 3 F.CoareE.u, Il Foro Romano I, 1983, 178-188 4 WACHTER, 66-69.

H.GA.

Lapis Satricanus Stone inscription, slightly damaged, of the 2nd half of the 6th cent. BC, discovered in 1977 at Satricum

(Latium)

beneath

the Temple

of Mater

Matuta, which was constructed around 500 BC. The inscription, one of the earliest in the Latin language, is readily legible: ——- -iei steterai Popliosio Valesiosio/ suodales Mamartei (‘dedicated by the companions of Publius Valerius to Mars’). The incomplete beginning is probably to be read as [med h]ei (‘me here’), the object thus addressing the reader (see [1]; less likely SalJiei, see [2], or IunJei, see [3]). The inscription may have been a

votive offering, possibly a war booty. The historical issues surrounding the inscription are also a matter of controversy: is P. Valerius identical to the first consul of the Republic, or his namesake son, or does the inscription refer to a citizen of Satricum of the same name? What social structures lie behind the concept of suodales? A kind of retinue? What is the historical context of the consecration? However, cf. [5]. Editions) Gllole ya 83 2a) 1 A.Prospociml,

Sull’iscrizione di Satricum, in: Gior-

nale Italiano di Filologia 15, 1984, 183-230

2J.DE

WAELE, Salii, Satricum en de chronologie van de tempels van Mater Matuta, in: Lampas 29,1996, 10-26 3 H.S.

6.1, 204. Cw.

Lapithes Mythological ancestral father of the > Lapithae Lappa (Adana; Lappa). Town

in western Crete (Str.

10,4,3) near the modern village of Argyropolis. Involved in the internal Cretan conflicts of the Lyttian War in 220 BC (Pol. 4,53-55). L. concluded an alliance with + Gortyn around 200 BC, acknowledging the supremacy of its eastern neighbour [1. no. 31, p. 265267]. In 183 BC, L. was one of the 30 Cretan towns to unite in a coalition with Eumenes II [2. 179]. In 67 BC, L. was destroyed by the Romans. Under Augustus, L. received the privileged status of a civitas libera. Later, the town was a bishop’s see. Continuous settlement has led to few remains surviving from ancient times. 1 A.Cuantotis, Die Vertrage zw. kret. Poleis in der hell. Zeit, 1996 IV, 1950.

2M.Guarnuccl

(ed.), Inscriptiones Creticae

R.SCHEER, s.v. L., in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 367; I.F. SANDERS, Roman Crete, 1982, 163.

H.SO.

Lappius A. Bucius L. Maximus. Senator. Legate of the legio VIII Augusta at Argentorate around AD 77/78; Proconsul of Pontus-Bithynia under Domitian [1]. Suf-

fect consul in 86, then consular legate in Germania infe-

LAPPIUS

244

243

rior. When Antonius Saturninus revolted against Domitian at Mainz in late 88/early 89, L. put down the rebellion with his provincial troops; L. is described on his wife’s funerary inscription (CIL VI 1347 = 37049 =ILS 1006) as confector belli Germanici, indicating acceptance of the official propaganda according to which the uprising was in reality a conflict with the Chatti. L. probably received dona militaria from Domitian. According to Cassius Dio (67,11,1), he burned the correspondence of Saturninus; it may have contained evidence that compromised him. He is attested as consular legate of Syria in May 91 (RMD I 4; 5). L. became consul suffectus iterum in 95, the only example of a consul appointed for the second time under Domitian after the year 90, and another indication of his high standing. PIR* L 84; Eck, 14off. W.E. Lapsi The Latin term /apsi, ‘lapsed’, refers to Christians who, in contrast to the ‘steadfast’ (stantes) and the martyrs (martyres), renounced their faith during the persecutions, esp. in the 3rd cent. Distinctions were drawn between the sacrificati, who had ‘sacrificed’ to the gods, the turificati, who had thrown incense (tus) into the

flames, and the /ibellatici: they had a certificate (libellus) made attesting an alleged sacrifice. If their report was accepted, they were called acta facientes (acta

for instance, traditional

for the Catilinarians (Sall. Catil. 55). This type of execution (according to Tac. Ann. 14,48 it disappeared under the first emperors) was for cases in which a public execution was inopportune; women were regularly (Liv. 39,16,8) handed over to their relatives after sentencing so that it could be carried out privately. Suicide by means of laqueus was not considered dishonourable (Tac. Ann. 15,57: Epicharis; SHA Max. Balb. 1, SHA Gord. 16: Gordian) E. CANTARELLA, I supplizi capitali in Grecia ea Roma, 1991, 140ff., 213ff.; MOMMSEN, Strafrecht, 930. CE.

Laran Etruscan god of war, most often depicted as a youth and identified by name. From the 5th cent. BC represented on Etruscan mirrors, frequently in the context with other deities, especially with > Turan/Aphrodite; to a large extent equivalent to Greek Ares and Roman Mars, not identical with Etruscan > Maris. L. also occurs on vessels and as free-standing sculpture (monumental: ‘Mars of Todi’), but not on the bronze liver of Piacenza (> Divination VII). I.KrauskopF, s.v. L., Dizionario della civilta etrusca, 1985, 147f.; E.SIMON, s.v. L., LIMC 2.1, 498-505. FPR.

facere = ‘to have documents drawn up’); in Greek texts

Laranda

they were also called cheirographésantes if they ‘signed by hand’. The traditores formed a distinct group, having really or apparently ‘given up’ sacred books or paraphernalia. Alongside the threats to the > Church from within the 2nd-cent. development of — Gnosticism and the rampant schisms of the 3rd cent. — the large number of those willing to recant and sacrifice out of fear or opportunism was a third, external threat: anyone who recanted their faith was excommunicated. The easing of penance practice cleverly negotiated between Rome and Carthage offered erstwhile apostates the chance to prove themselves anew as Christians.

southern Lycaonia, modern Karaman, became part of Galatia in 25 BC and under Antoninus Pius belonged to the treis eparchiai. Member of the koinén Lykaonias with the honorary title of (Sebasté) Métropolis (coins) [1. 25-32, 43f.]. Under Diocletianus annexed to the province of Isauria, around 370 to Lycaonia. Bishops known from the 3rd cent., from about 370 suffragan of + Iconium [2. 197f.].

SouRCcES: Cyprianus, De Lapsis, CSEL Cyprianus, epist. 55, CCL IIIB, 25 6ff.;

III 1,23 5ff.;

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. ALFOLDI, Studien zur Geschichte der

Weltkrise des 3. Jh.n.Chr., 1967, 285ff.; A.HARNACK, s.v. L., Realencyklopadie fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche 11, 283-287; J.KnipFING, The Libelli of the Decian Persecution, in: Harvard Theological Review 16, 1923, 345-390; J.MOLTHAGEN, Der rom. Staat und die

Christen im 2. und 3. Jh. (Hypomnemata

28), 1970. UWI.

Laquearius see > Munus, Munera

1 H.v. 2 BELKE.

(Adoavéa;

Ldranda).

AuLtockx, Mz.

Hellenistic

und Stadte

city in

Lykaoniens,

1976 K.BE.

Lararium Private family sanctuary or cult memorial — most commonly situated in the > atrium, sometimes also in the kitchen, peristyle or garden of the Roman house — for the lares familiares (— Lares; > Personification), either in the form of a niche, a small temple (— Aedicula) or even in the form of a wall painting creating an architectural illusion. Lararia were originally decorated with statuettes and additional votive offerings, depending on wealth, and served a vital purpose within the larger context of social interaction as each family’s representative focal point. Numerous Jararia are preserved in the towns around Vesuvius (> Herculaneum; > Pompeii). Often, the /Jararium in the Roman

Laqueus ‘Rope’, Roman punishment of hanging. In the Republican period, however, it was not used for public execution; the suspensum Cereri necari of the Laws of Twelve Tables against the wilful destruction of crops (Plin. HN 18,3,12) does not mean hanging but tying up for whipping. On the other hand, strangulation in prison under the supervision of the — tresviri capitales is,

house was also the place for keeping the portraits of the ancestors (> imagines maiorum) and worshipping other domestic protective spirits (+ Penates). However, archaeologists do not regard as lararia the public shrines at crossroads, etc., that likewise belonged to the lares cult and that were maintained by the collegia compitalia (> collegium [1]).

245

246 Tu. FROHLICH, Lararien- und Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstadten, MDAI(R) 32. Ergh., 1991; D.G. Orr, Learning from Lararia. Notes on the Household Shrines of Pompei, in: R.I. Curtis (ed.), Studia Pompeiana et

Classica in Honor of W.E. Jashemski I, 1988, 293-299; E.B. THomas, Laren und Lararien aus Pannonien, in: Antike Welt 6/IV, 1975, 29-40. C.HO.

Larch This conifer, Larix europaea or Larix decidua Mill., which loses its needles in autumn, does not occur

in Greece but was imported by the Romans from the Alps and the Carpathians as larix and cultivated in upper Italy. The larch did not reach western central Europe until the 18th cent. Vitr. 2,9,14 mentions for the first time its wood for being resistant to rotting and fire (cf. Pall. Agric. 12,15,1), after that Plin. HN 16,43 and 45. Its solid, resin-rich, reddish wood was used for housebuilding and shipbuilding. R. STADLER, s.v. L., RE 12, 422f.

C.HU.

Larcius Name of a patrician gens, of Etruscan origin, which brought forth two figures of significance in the early Republican period. Only in the rst cent. BC does evidence appear for further bearers of the name. I. REPUBLICAN

ERA

II. IMPERIAL ERA

J. REPUBLICAN ERA {1 1] L. (Flavus or Rufus ?), T. Consul in sor and 498 BC (InscrIt 131,88; 3 50-53). The written record, up to Festus (216 L.), names L. as the first > dictator of Rome

(MRR I 9f.; r1f.), but it is divided on whether L. occupied the office during his rst (Liv. 2,18,4-7 with a reference to the ambiguous tradition) or his 2nd consulate (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5,61-77,6; esp. 72). According to Macrobius (Sat. 1,8,1), L. consecrated the Temple of Saturn while dictator. However, this information is just

as doubtful as his presence, reported by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, at other occasions, e.g. as one of the em-

issaries to the plebs during the rst Secession of 494 (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6,81,2; > secessio). [I 2] L. (Flavus ?), Sp. Consul in 506 and 490 BC. L.’s

identity, drawn from Chron. min. 1, p. 50 and Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7,68,1, is not entirely certain. In 498, he is said to have aided —> Horatius [4] Cocles (Liv. 2,10,6f.; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5,23,2-24,1; Plut. Poblicola 16,6), and to have been commander in a war against the Etruscans (Liv. 2,11,7—10) and an emissary to acquire grain from Campania (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5,26,3), in 488 one of the five consular emissaries sent to > Coriolanus (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 8,22,4). 482 — interrex (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 8,90,5). C.MU. II]. IMPERIAL ERA

{11 1] A. L. Crispinus His nomen gentile can probably be reconstructed as A[déo]xtog in IEph. 2, 517. Possibly an equestrian. Promagister for the '/,% duty and the

LARCIUS

5 % manumission tax in Asia (cf. IEph. 7, 3045). L. may have been the son of L. [II 3] and brother to L. [II 4] [1]. 1 W.Eck, in: L’ordre équestre, 1999, 5-29.

{II 2] A. L. Lepidus Sulpicianus L. was probably the first of his family to enter the Senate. His career path is preserved in CIL X 6659 = ILS 987. Quaestor of the province of Creta-Cyrenae, which was said to be the homeland of his mother. During the siege of Jerusalem, in AD 69-70, while of quaestorian rank, he commanded the legio X Fretensis in the battle against the insurgent Jews, for which he was honoured by Vespasian with dona militaria. After a term as people’s tribune, L. became legate of the proconsul of Pontus-Bithynia. He died before reaching the praetorship. PIR’ L 94. [fl 3] A. L. Lydus Former slave, perhaps of L. [II 2]. As a freedman, L. offered Nero a million sesterces on the latter’s return from Greece, if he would perform in Rome asa

singer (Cass. Dio 62,21,2). Father of L. [II 4]

and probably of L. [II 1] [1. 245ff.]. PIR* L 96. 1 W.Eck, in: ZPE 42, 1981.

[ii 4] A. L. Macedo Son of L. [II 3], father of L. [II 5]. L.’s was one of the few known cases where a son of a freedman became a senator. He entered the Senate, perhaps under Domitian, and achieved the rank of praetor. He was murdered by some of his slaves on account of his cruelty. The aversion to him which was prevalent in many senatorial circles can be sensed in Pliny (Ep. Besteri)}s LAIR IU, Cy.

[II 5] A. L. Macedo Senator, son of L. [II 4]. Praetorian governor of Galatia AD 120-122; cos. suff. in 124 with P. Ducen[ius] Verus (CIL VI 2081 and unpublished military diploma). L. or his father appears to have been one of the first senators to have owned a house on the Aventine [1]. PIR* L 98. 1 W.Eck, in: Scripta Classica Israelica 16, 1997, 182.

[II 6] M. L. Magnus Pompeius Silo Cos. suff. in September/October AD 82 [1. 54]. PIR* L too. 1 W.Eck, in: ZPE 37, 1980.

{Il 7] L. Memor Equestrian; praefectus Aegypti in AD 191 and 192 [I. 303; 2. 84]; POxy. 3339. 1 G.BASTIANINI, in: ZPE 17,1975

2 Id., in: ZPE 38,

1980.

[Il 8] A. L. Priscus Probably a descendant of L. [II 2]. Senator whose career began under Domitian. L.; as extraordinary legionary legate, he took part in the suppression of the attempted uprising of Cornelius [II 36] Nigrinus in Syria in AD 97. After a relatively long praetorian career, he became legate of the legio III Augusta in Africa, and proconsul of the Narbonensis; the sequence of the two offices is uncertain. Cos. suff. in 110. THomasson, Fasti Africani, 141f.; BIRLEY, 23 5ff.; PIRSITO3" WEE.

LARENTIA,

LARENTALIA

Larentia, Larentalia see Lares {1] (Lar, Lares). A. NATURE OF THE lares

THE lares publici

248

247

> Acca Larentia

B. MyTHS

C. CULT OF

D. CULT OF THE Jares privati

A. NATURE OF THE Jares The lares (Old Latin Lases [1]; cf. Etruscan Lasa = Nympha) are Roman spirits, which were worshipped in houses, on streets and at crossroads (= Manes: Arnob. 3,41; Serv. Aen. 3,302; = daimones: Cic. Tim. 38; CGL 2M ile 71265 502)= heroes: Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4,2; Plut. Mor. 316f; CGL 2,121,14; 3,290,56); they were

equated with the deified souls of the dead (e.g. Paul Fest. 273). Servius (Aen. 6,152) has the worship of the

lares come from primeval household burials. The ares are male and capable of procreation; their female counterparts are the virae (virae querquetulanae: Fest. 314; cf. the lares querquetulani: Varro, Ling. 5,49), or, in Cisalpina, the > matronae (CIL V 2, 7228; AE 1964, ODT) s

B. MyTHs According to tradition, king Servius Tullius was fathered by the Jar of the hearth in the > Regia of the Tarquinii (Dion. Hal. I.c.; Plin. HN 36,204; Plut. l.c.) and was the founder of the Jares cult (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4,14; Plin. l.c.). In Ovid (Fast. 2,583-616; cf. Lac-

compitales (Hor. Carm. 4,5,34f.; Ov. Fast. 5,145f.). The public feasts of the Jares were important for the social organization of the ancient cities and their territories. They took place at the end of the agricultural year (schol. Pers. 4,28): work was forbidden on these days, and slaves were free from service. As in the Demeter sanctuaries, old and unusable yokes were dedicated at the compita (schol. Pers. 4,28);

the /ares were given the weapons of soldiers who had completed their service (Ov. Tr. 4,8,21f.).

The /ares were the guardians of houses (Plaut. Aul. 3-9; Ov. Fast. 1,139; Juv. 13,2333 lib. 1,10,15ff.), city

quarters, villages (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4,15,3; Tib. 1,1,19f.; CIL VI 1, 455), roads (lares viales and semitales; Plaut. Merc. 865; CIL VIII 2, 9755; XII 4320, etc.), military expeditions at sea (lares permarini, who were connected with the Aeneas legend, and whose temple was dedicated in 179 BC: Liv. 40,52,4; Macrob. Sat. 1,10,10) and also on land (lares militares: CIL III 1, 3460; 3463; cf. Paul Fest. 90). In Rome, two lares praestites were worshipped as guardians of the city on May 1st near the Vesta temple (Ov. Fast. 5,129-146; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 51). They were represented with a dog and a dogskin on their head (Plut. Mor. 3 16f). In Lavinium and Rome, the lares grundiles, who were identified with the 30 piglets seen by Aeneas or Romulus (Non. 164), were worshipped. Aeneas himself was worshipped as a lar in > Lavinium [2], as was —> Hercules, because both were heroes with a cult.

tant. Div. inst. 1,20,35), the two lares praestites were

sons of the nymph Lara (> Larunda) and Mercurius. C. CULT OF THE Jares publici In the towns of central Italy, the > Compitalia were the festival of the lares publici; in the villages, the festival was called paganalia. Both festivals were founded by Servius Tullius and renewed by the first consul, Brutus (Macrob. Sat. 1,7,3 4f.; cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5,2,2). [he Compitalia were a movable feast, announ-

ced by the praetor (Gell. NA 10,24,3). They lasted three days (Paul Fest. 304) and took place in early January at the crossroads near the lares sanctuary. Every family hung as many woollen dolls and balls on the compita, ‘crossroads’ (according to Macrob. Sat. 1,7,34f. also on the doors of the houses) as there were free persons and slaves living in the house (Paul Fest. 273). Cakes (Dion.

Hal. Ant. Rom. 4,14,3), garlic and poppy seed capsules (Macrob. Sat. 1,7,34) were sacrificed to the lares. Four magistri vici led the festival (Ascon. in Cic. Pis. 7 CL.). Every quarter of the city organized ludi compitalicii, in which boxing matches (Suet. Aug. 45; Hor. Epist. 1,1,49) and simple dramatic presentations (Varro in Non. 288; Suet. Aug. 43; GL 1, 488; cf. Tib. 2,1,5 1-58) took place. Ample amounts of wine were poured out for all free persons and slaves (Cato Agr. 57; Pers. 4,2 5ff. with schol.). This custom could explain the iconography of the lares, who are represented as dancers with drinking-horn and bowl. From 7 BC, the genius Augusti was worshipped besides and together with the lares

D. CULT OF THE lares privati We know of lares Volusiani (CIL VI 2, 10266f.) and perhaps lares Hostilii (cf. Paul Fest. 90), but as a rule the

lares had no definite personality, and therefore they were not gods of the aristocracy (cf. Acro on Hor. Sat. 1,5,65), who worshipped certain ancestors in their houses. In the atrium or tablinum of Roman houses, there was an altar for the Jares, with statuettes and paintings, which represented the /ares and, often, a snake-shaped ~ genius. The lares were also guardians of the door, but their original seat was the hearth, at which the family sat for meals (e.g. Ov. Fast. 6,305f.; Plin. HN 28,267; Columella

11,1,19; Petron. Sat. 60), and where the

chunks which had fallen to the ground were burned as piatio. In particular, slaves were occupied with the cult of the lares (e.g. Cato Agr. 5,3; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4,251; 4,14,3; Columella |.c.). On the hearth or in the lararia, where the emperor was also worshipped, cakes (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4,2,1; Tib. 1,10,22f.), garlands (Plaut. Aul. 25; 385; Cato Agr. 143,2; Tib. 2,1,59f.; Plin. HN 21,11), incense (Plaut. Aul. 24; Hor. Carm.

3,23,3f.; Tib. 1,3,34; Juv. 9,137; 12,89f.), spelt (Juv. 9,138), honeycombs (Tib. 1,10,24), grapes (Tib. I,10,21), wine (Plaut. Aul. 24; Ov. Fast. 2,636-638;

Petron. Sat. 60,8), and fruit (Hor. Carm. 3,23,4) were

sacrificed. Sometimes animals were also sacrificed to the ares: piglets or lambs (Plaut. Rud. 1207f.; Tib. 1,10,26; Hor. Carm. 3,23,4).

249

250

The Jar or lares were worshipped in the most important moments of life: after every birth, a lamb or pig was sacrificed to the Jares (Plaut. l.c.); freed slaves dedicated their chains to the /ares (Ps.-Acro on Hor. Sat. 1,5,65); and after a death, a wether was offered (Cic. Leg. 2,55). Sacrifices were dedicated to the lares to protect the sick against deadly dangers (Juv. 13,2209ff.). The lares also played a significant role in rites of initiation: during the Liberalia, youths dedicated their bullae; and then donned the toga pura (Acro and Ps.-Acro on Hor. Sat. I,5,653 Pers. 5,31; cf. Petron. Sat. 60: lares bullati). Asa sign of the end of their pueritia (‘childhood’), brides dedicated their dolls (schol. Pers. 2,70; Ps.-Acro l.c.), balls, hairnet and breast bindings (Varro in Non. 863) to them, and when they came to the house of their husband, they sacrificed a coin: assis ... in foco Larium familiarium, and another at the compitum vicinale (Varro in Non. 852).

Largitio see > Liberalitas

1 ILLRP 4: Carmen Arvale 2M.Guarpucct, Cippo latino arcaico con dedica ad Enea, in: BCAR 58, 1956-58, appendix 3ff. A.De Marcui, Il culto privato di Roma antica, 1-2, 1896-1903; E.SAMTER, Familienfeste der Griechen und Romer, 1901; M.Burarp, La rel. domestique dans la colonie italienne de Délos d’aprés les peintures murales et les autels historiés, 1926; U. BEZERRA DE MENESES, H. SaRIAN, Etudes déliennes, in: Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 1973, 77ff.; J.-M. FLAMBARD, in: MEFRA 89, 1977, 115-153; A. MASTROCINQUE, Lucio Giunio Bruto, 1988; M.Hano, A lorigine du culte impeérial..., in:

LARISA

Largius Designatianus Medical writer, 4th cent. AD, author of a Latin paraphrase of a Greek letter to (an undefined) king Antigonus that is passed down under the name of > Hippocrates [6] and that contained a dietetic plan and advice on treating diseases of the head, chest, belly and kidneys. This paraphrase is extant in the introduction to a medical treatise of > Marcellus Empiricus, where it is preceded by a letter of L. to his sons. Both texts probably belonged to the introduction to a medical work by L. that is lost today. VN. Largus Epic poet of the Augustan period, mentioned by Ov. Pont. 4,16,17f. who praises him: as a counterpart of the Aeneis, his epic dealt with the settlement of the Trojan > Antenor [1] in northern Italy. The identification with Valerius Largus, the prosecutor of the elegist Gallus, cannot be attested. BARDON, 2,66f.

P.L.S.

Larice Indian region in Gujarat, bordering on IndoScythia in the west, with the capital + Ozene (Ptol. 7,1,62f., see also Peripl. m.r. 41 (Ariake) and Prtol. 7,1,4f.). The name is obviously related to Old Indian Lata, South Gujarat. In this country the famous har-

bour town of > Barygaza was situated. O. WECKER, s.v. L., RE 12, 837f.

K.K.

ANRW II 16.3, 2333-2381; T. FROHLICH, Lararien- und Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstadten, in: MDAI(R) Ergh.

32, 1991, 21-37; IL 1-129; 249-306.

A.MAS.

[2] City in the province of Africa Proconsularis between Carthage and Theveste, modern Lorbeus. Evidence: Ptol. 4,3,28 (Acons; Larés); It. Ant. 26,3 (Laribus colonia); Tab. Peut. 5,1 (Larabus); Procop. Vand. 2,22,14 (AdowBoc; Laribos), 2,28,48 (Adepou, Lariboi). L.

played a part in the Jugurthine War (> Jugurtha) (oppidum Laris, Sall. Jug. 90,2). In the 2nd cent. AD, L. became a colonia (CIL VIII 1,1779). During the reign of Justinian (AD 527-565) L. was fortified (Corippus, Iohannis 7,143; Procop. Vand. 2,22,14; 18). Inscriptions: CIL VIII 1,1776-1792; Suppl. 1,163 1418-16329. Today L. is an extensive ruin site. AATun roo, sheet 29, no. 70; H. Dessau, s.v. L. (2), RE TOS.

W.HU.

Large estates see > Latifundia Larginus Proculus (IlgdxAoc; Proklos) is said, according to Cass. Dio 67,16,2, to have foretold the death of Domitian in Germania; he was condemned in Rome but saved after Domitian had actually been murdered on the predicted day, and was richly rewarded by Nerva. W. and H.G.Gunpe1, Astrologumena, A. STEIN, s.v. L., RE 12, 834f.

1966,

177; W.H.

Larinum (Adewwa; Larina). Town of the Dauni (Steph. Byz. s.v. A.), afterwards of the Frentani (Ptol. 3,1,65) in Samnium on Monte Arone (475 m) to the right of the Tifernus (modern Biferno), south of Cigno, surrounded

by a tributary of the Tifernus;

1 km east of modern

Larino. Municipium, tribus Clustumina, regio II (Plin. HN 3,105; Mela 2,66). From the middle of the 3rd cent. BC, Greek (Campanian) and Latin (Apulian) bronze coins (HN 28f.). Considerable remains: city wall, baths, amphitheatre, mosaics. > Cluentius [2], whom Cicero defended in 66 BC (Cic. Clu.), came from L. NISSEN 2, 783f.; G. COLONNA, s.v. L., PE, 484.

E.O.

Larisa (Adeioa; Adewooa; Larisa, Larissa). Name of numerous

locations

in Greece

and

Asia

Minor,

cf.

Steph. Byz. s.v. A. [1] The 289-m high acropolis of Argos with Mycenaean remains (not precisely identified) [1]. The temple of Zeus Larisaios and Athena Polias under the large Venetian castle has been excavated. References: Str. 8,6,7; Paus. 2,24,1; 3f.; Steph. Byz. s.v. Adeuoat mOdEtc. 1 N. VassiLaTos, Larissa. The Acropolis of Argos, 1994.

vate [2] Important city in Achaea Phthiotis on the south slope of Othrys, on a steep hill; c. 3.5 km from the coast, also called Larisa Kremaste (xoewaotn, ‘hovering

251

2S.

over the sea’); first mentioned in literature from the

with a cavalry unit in 431 (Thuc. 2,22,3; Aristot. Pol.

5th cent. BC: in 426, an earthquake damaged the city

1275b 26ff.). In the battles for Thessalian supremacy starting at the end of the 5th cent., L. and the Aleuadae could only hold on with foreign help; thus in 404, with the help of the mercenaries of Cyrus against Pherae (Xen. Hell. 2,3,4; Xen. An. 1,1,10); in c. 400, those of

LARISA

(Str. 1,3,20). In the 4th cent., one of the two cultic

envoys of the Phthiotic Achaeans in Delphi came from L. (Syll.3 444/5; 636,9). The fortress of L. has been fought over many times from the Hellenistic period: in 302, captured by > Demetrius [2] Poliorcetes (Diod. Sic. 20,110,2); afterwards, Aetolian several times (Syll.3 492,36; 498); after 217, conquered by Philip V

(Liv. 31,31,4); this was frequently contested by the

Archelaus [1] (Thrasymachus, 85,2 DK); in 395, those of the Boeotians against Pharsalus (Dicd. Sic. 14,82,5).

After 378, > Iason [2] subjugated all of Thessalia, including L. (Xen. Hell. 6,1,15; 4,28). In 369, > Alex-

quest by the Romans in 200 BC had no consequences

ander [3], who had been summoned for help, occupied L.; Pelopidas intervened against him with the Boeotian

(Liv. 31,46,12). Starting in 185, L. formed a Macedo-

army (Diod. Sic. 15,61,3ff.; 67,4; 80,4; Plut. Pel. 26). A

nian exclave together with Alope, Pteleum, and Antron; visited by Perseus in 174 (Liv. 42,42,1). In 171, L. was once again taken by the Romans (Liv. 42,56,7; 67,10f.). Inscriptions and finds provide evidence for its continued existence into the Imperial period. The Roman Senate had to resolve a dispute with neighbouring Pteleum (IG IX 2,520). In the course of the Slavic immigrations, L. declined, but flourished again as the Byzantine episcopal see Gardikion. Archaeology: well-preserved wall courses north of the modern Pelasgia (according to Str. 9,5,13 and 19 an epithet of L.), earlier Gardiki.

little later, L. called Philip II for help against Pherae. He made himself lord of all Thessalia from 3 52 (Diod. Sic. 16,14,2; 37,3). During the following c. 150 years of

Aetolians (Pol. 19,3; 19,8; 19,38; Liv. 32,33ff.). Its con-

F. STAHLIN, Das hellenische Thessalien, 1924, 182ff.; Id., s.v. L. Kremaste, RE 12, 84off.; PHILIPPSON/KIRSTEN 1, 208f.; TIB 1, 1976, 161. HE.KR.

[3] (Adetoa, A. Mekaoyic; Larisa, L. Pelasgis). Capital of the Thessalian tetras Pelasgiotis on the south bank of the > Peneius on an important river crossing. I. DEVELOPMENT op

TO THE ROMAN

II. BYZANTINE

ERA

IMPERIAL

PERI-

III. ARCHAEOLOGICAL

FINDS

I. DEVELOPMENT TO THE ROMAN IMPERIAL PE-

RIOD Towering above the fertile plain, the hill (26 m above the river) with the acropolis was already settled at the beginning of the Neolithic (c. 6000 BC). Not named in the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad despite its great age, L. was first founded by the > Thessalians, who immigrated starting in the 8th cent. L. was secondarily included in the older cycle of legends (e.g. > Iolcus, return of the Aleuadae, > Lapithae). Thessalian proper are the legends of the nymph L. (daughter of Pelasgus) or of ~ Acrisius, whose grave lay under the main temple of L. Beginning in the 6th cent. BC, the fate of L. was determined by the > Aleuadae. They mostly provided the Panthessalian -> tagos, took part in the rst Sacred War (> Sacred Wars), and were considered the donors of the oldest votive offering in Delphi (Paus. 10,16,8). In the

5th cent., they pursued a pro-Persian policy, minted coins according to the Persian standard (HN 297ff.) and were on the side of the Persians in the > Persian Wars (Hdt. 7,6). The Spartan punitive expedition after 479 was disposed of through bribery (Hdt. 6,72; Paus. 3,7,9). In the > Peloponnesian War, L. provided Athens

Macedonian rule over Thessalia and L., numerous citi-

zens of the city are encountered at the Macedonian court and in its politics. In 217 and 215, Philip V arranged citizenship for at least 200 foreigners living in L. (IG IX 2, 517). In the wars beginning in 200, L. frequently served him as a staging-point (Pol. 18,2,3; Liv. 28,5535 36,6,3).

From 196 BC, L. was the capital of the newly founded Thessalian Confederacy and seat of the confederacy’s institutions. The majority of the higher functionaries, which were elected annually into the 3rd cent. AD, came from L. Numerous inscriptions, including countless manumission documents — a distinctive Thessalian feature into the 2nd cent. AD — testify to the prosperity of the city. In the Roman Civil War, L. was a staging point for Pompey in 48 BC and, after the defeat at Pharsalus, his first refuge (Caes. B Civ. 3,81,2; 96,3). Even in the Imperial period, L. remained the capital of the Thessalian League, which had been expanded from Augustus. The territory of the civitas L. spread to the north of Thessalia. HE.KR. I]. BYZANTINE ERA Under Diocletianus, L. became the metropolis of the newly created province Thessalia and can also be proven in this position in Hierocles (642,2) and Constantinus Porphyrogennetus (De thematibus 88 Perrusti). Correspondingly, the bishop also exercised Metropolitan rights for the Thessalian diocese (cf. especially [1; 2]). Bishops of L. are recorded in late antiquity at the Councils of 325 (Claudianus), 431 (Basilius), 449 and 451 (Vigilantius), 53 1 (Stephanus; also mentioned is his late predecessor Proclus) [1. passim], 536 (Stephanus), furthermore in the Constitutum de tribus capitulis 5 53 (Meletius) [3. 300, 11] and in the letters of Gregorius (Greg. Epist. 3,6,4f.5 3,7,15 §,62,63f.5 8,10,5; 9,157,3f. Norserc: Iohannes, mentioned in the years 593-599). According to Procop. Aed. 4,3,9f., Justinian had the walls, which had been destroyed by the Goths, rebuilt. In the 9th and roth cent., L. suffered under the Bulgar invasions, during which in 986 even the relics of St. Achilleios were taken away to Prespa. Also in the r1th cent., L. was several times the location of military

254

253

clashes (see, among

others, Anna

Komnene

5,5-7

REINSCH). After 1204, L. first fell under Lombard rule

and was, in the following decades, disputed between the Greek despots. In 1393, the Turks conquered L. Eww.

LARISA

1 L. BURCHNER, s.v. L. (7), RE 12,871 2 J.M. Cook, The Troad, 1973, 216-221 3 A.G. AKALiNn, Asia Minor Studien 3, 1991, 63-68 4L.RoBERT, Et. numismatiques

grecques, 1951. W. Lear, Strabo on the Troad, 1923, 225f.

Ill. ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS As a result of uninterrupted building activity, in modern L., there are almost no ancient remains above ground. In 1940, air raids and an earthquake destroyed the old cityscape. Emergency excavations resulting from modern building activity have recently found evi-

E.SCH.

[6] Pelasgian city (Hom. Il. 2,841; 17,301) of southern Aeolis, north of the lower Hermus, conquered by ~ Aeolians [1] (Str. 13,3,2—-4); renamed Phrikonis (Str. 955515). In the archaic period, member of the Aeolian League of Eleven Cities (Hdt. 1,149); in the sth cent.,

ancient constructions, at least in

part of the Delian League (or in the Ionian taxation

their location (agora, two theatres, hippodrome, the temple of Athena Polias on the acropolis). Other temples are suspected under churches and former mosques (among others, for Apollo Kerdoios with the city archive, for Zeus Eleutherios with the archive of the Thessalian League). HE.KR.

district L. [7]?); in 399, besieged in vain by Thibron as ‘Egyptian’ L. (Xen. Hell. 3,1,7; Xen. Cyr. 7,1,45); taken in 398 by Dercylidas (Xen. Hell. 3,1,16).

dence for numerous

1 C.Sitva-Tarouca

(ed.), Coll. Thessalonicensis

(Cod.

Vat. Lat. 5751), 1937 2 E.Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums 2, 1933, 207f. 3 O. GUNTHER (ed.), CSEL 35. Acts of the rt Historical and Archaeological Symposium ‘L., Past and Future’, 1985; T.AXENIDIS, H Medaoyic Ade.oa, 1949; K. GALLIs, in: AD 38 (chron.), 1983, r99f. (excavation report); Id., L., in: Das Altertum 40, 1994, 47ff.; C.Hapicut, Epigraphische Zeugnisse zur Geschichte Thessaliens unter der maked. Herrschaft, in: Ancient Macedonia 1, 1970, 273ff.; F. HILb, s.v. L., TIB 1, 1976, 198f.; Id., s.v. L., in: LauFFER, Griechenland, 369; A.KAZHDAN, s.v. L., ODB, 1180; J.KODER, s.v. L.,

LMA 5, 1718 (bibliography to 1991); H. KRAMOLISCH, Die Strategen des Thessal. Bundes, 1978; K. RAKATSANIS, A. TZIAPHALIAS, Adtoles xa eQa OTNS Aoyaia Oecoahia

I, 1997, 13¢f.; F.STAHLIN, s.v. L., RE 12, 845ff. (sources); D.THEocHARIS,

in: AD

20 (chron.),

(chron.), 1966, 254 (excavation reports).

1965, 316f.; 21 HE.KR.

[4] City in south-eastern Crete, connected by synoikismos with > Hierapytna (Str. 9,5,19) [1. 437]. 1 A.Cuanrotis, Die Vertrage zw. kret. Poleis in der hell. Zeit, 1996.

K.Ruiassy, Notes sur la Créte hellénistique, in: REG 99, 1966, 357-359.

H.SO.

[5] City in the south-western Troad (Hom. Il. 2,841; 17,301; Str. 9,5,193; 13,3,2), probably at or on the

Limantepe [3. 65]. According to the evidence of ceramic finds [x. 219; 2. 67], this was the site of an Aeolian colony in the 8th/7th cents. [2. 219], which may have

belonged to the Peraea of Tenedus. In 425/4 BC, part of the Delian League. Conquered about 400 BC by the female satrap > Mania (Xen. Hell. 3,1,10). After her death, it surrendered to the Spartan Dercylidas (Xen. Hell. 3,1,16). After 310 BC, the city was absorbed in synoikismos with Alexandria Troas (Str. 13,1,47). Since L. is named in the theorodokoi lists of Delphi for 200 BC and a corresponding coin has been found there, [4. 34f.] believes in a new foundation in the 3rd cent. BC under the name Ptolemais.

The identification of L. with the ancient city near Buruncuk (palace, megaron complex from the 6th cent. on the acropolis, temple, defensive walls, a palace with four megara from c. 330 BC) is disputed, but possible (or near Yanikk6y? Neonteichus is also suspected there). According to literary evidence, L., like the city near Buruncuk, was also already little more than a village in the Hellenistic age (cf. Aristid. 51,4). G.E. Bran, Kleinasien 1, 1969, 96-102; J. BOEHLAU, K.SCHEFOLD et al. (ed.), L. am Hermos, 1-3, 1940-42;

W.M.

CaLper, G.E. BEAN, A Classical Map of Asia

Minor, 1958; J.M. Cook, in: 63, 1968, 33f.; W.KoENiIcs, H. Lauter, Die beiden alteren Hermos, in: Bonner Jbb. 175,

ABSA 53/54, 1958/59, 20; Westtiirkei, r991, 89ff.; Tyrannenpalaste in L. am 1975, 33-57.

[7] Town on the left bank of the Caystrus, on the Ephesus-Sardeis road, c. 5 km north-west of modern Teire (marble blocks, inscription on the north foot of a hill with ring wall). Foundation of the old Ionian internal colonization (temple of Apollo Larisenos on coins, 3rd/2nd cents.); possibly in the Delian League. From the Hellenistic age, kome of Ephesus (Ephesia L.: Str.

9555193 135352). W.M. Carper, G.E. Bean, A Classical Map of Asia Minor, 1958; K.Burescn, Aus Lydien, 1898, 188, 213f. with map. H.KA.

[8] Location mentioned only by Xen. An. 3,4,7 on the occasion of the retreat of the Greek mercenaries of Cyrus the Younger and described as goin (ereme, ‘desert’), in the northern Tigris region. The conspicuous choice of name and the detailed account by Xenophon should not lead to the assumption that the knowledge of the ancient names vanished with the fall of the Assyrian empire; Str. 16,1,1 certainly knows

(> Assyria)

and

~— Calachene,

i.e.

the

both Aturia

district

of

— Kalhu. S.Da.iey, Nineveh after 612 BC, in: Altoriental. Forsch. 20, 1993, 134-147, esp. 144; A.KuurT, The Assyrian Heartland in the Achaemenid Period, in: P. BRIANT (ed.),

Dans les pas des Dix-Mille, 1995, 239-254, esp. 243. JW.

255

256

Larisus (Adeiooc; Ldrisos). Border river between + Elis [1] and Achaea (+ Achaeans), modern Mana (also Riolitiko), which rises in the north-western foothills of the Skollis (Str. 8,7,5; Paus. 6,26,10; 7,17,53

Lars Latin form of the common Etruscan praenomen lar and its variants (references: [4. 205-208]; the Latin form Lar is only uncertainly documented, Liber de

Ousaligs iva

king of > Clusium 508 BC; L. + Herminius Coritinesanus (?), cos. 448 BC, and L. > Tolumnius, king of — Veii (2nd half 5th cent. BC).

LARISUS

ss ulsely)»

B.MEY.andC.L.

Lark Classical antiquity knew only one species each from two genera of the Alaudidae family: the crested lark (Galerida cristata I.), t xoQvd0c/k6rydos, xoevdahoc/ korydalos; Latin corydalus (Marcellus, De

praenominibus 4; [2]). Known bearers: L. > Porsenna,

1 H.Rrx, Das etr. Cognomen, 1963, 273, 348 2 O.SALO-

MIES, Die rom. Vornamen, 1986, 31f. 4 Thesaurus linguae Etruscae 1, 1978.

3 SCHULZE, 84 icles

medicamentis 29,30), galerita (Plin. HN 10,137), cassita (Gell. NA 2,29,3), Celtic alauda (Plin. HN 11,121; Marcellus, ibid. 28,50), is distinguished from the skylark (Alauda arvensis L.), which appears in Greece only

Larunda, Mater Larum The identity of the Roman goddess L. is not easily identifiable. L., also called Lara,

as a winter visitor, by the feather crest according to

was understood as the mother of the > /ares (Lactant.

Aristot. Hist. an. 8(9),25,617b 19-23. The crested lark is the size of the greenfinch (yAweic/chloris; Aristot.

Div. inst. 1,20,35) and equated with + Mania (Varro, Ling. 11,61). An aetiological myth says that she was also equated with > Tacita Muta (‘mute’) (Ov. Fast. 2,583-616). It is disputed whether L./M.L. is the same goddess as > Acca Larentia. According to Varro (Ling. 5,74), L. comes from the Sabine country; Titus Tatius dedicated an altar to her. According to an uncertain reconstruction of a passage in Tacitus (Ann. 12,24), a sacellum of L. may have been located in the Forum [1. 26rff.]. The Mater Larum receives a sacrifice during the rite performed by the ~ Arvales fratres for Dea Dia [2. 594]: they throw an offering for her on the ground. This special form of sacrifice — offerings for Under-

Hist. an. 8(9),13,615b 32f.), nests on the ground (Aristot. Hist. an. 6,1,559a 1f.), rests in the midday heat (Theoc. 7,23) and conceals itself in the winter (Aristot.

Hist. an. 7(8),16,600a rof.). The sweet-sounding song of the skylark is mentioned only by Marcellus (ibid. 29,30), who lived in Gaul, and then again only by Alexander Neckam, Nat. rer. 1,68 [1. 115] at the beginning of the 13thcent. The meat of the crested lark was praised (Epicharmus p. 237 L.) and, according to Plin. HN 30,62 (cf. Dioscorides 2,54 WELLMANN = 2,59 BERENDES), recommended roasted against intestinal colic. In the fable (Aesop. 210 H., cf. Babr. 88; Avianus 21, cited in Gell. NA 2,29; cf. Aristoph. Av. 471ff.), the

mother lark evacuates her young, who still cannot fly, from the nest in the cornfield only when the farmer, abandoned by his friends, begins to mow himself. The Greek proverb (Simon. fr. 68 B) ‘No lark without a crest’? means the same as ‘No rose without a thorn’ (Anth. Pal. 5,306; 9,280; 11,195). 1TH. WricuT (ed.), Alexander rerum, 1863, repr. 1967.

Neckam,

De

naturis

KELLER, vol. 2, 85f.; H. GossEn, H. STEIER, s.v. L., RE 12,

208 2ff.

C.HU.

Laronia Female critic of sexual moral hypocrisy in Juv. 2,36-65; if this is meant to be a historical person (thus [2]), she could be identical with the L. characterized asa rich widow in Mart. 2,32,5f. (also not definitely historical).

has contributed to the interpretation of the Mater Larum as a chthonic goddess. The interpretation of her sons, the lares, as demons by some ancient authois has also strongly influenced the idea of L. as an Underworld goddess. New views of the cultic context of the Arval brotherhood, however, lead to the assumption that the Mater Larum was worshipped as goddess of the ground or soil [2]. An inscription in which L. is named alongside Mars appears to further confirm her function as protectress of the land [3]. An additional proof of this could ultimately be represented by the custom of the ~ compitalia, in which Mania was worshipped with figures hung up at crossroads [2]. 1 F.Coarettt, I] foro Romano, 1, 1992 +2 J.SCHEID, Romulus et ses fréres, 1990, 578-598 3 H.Lavacne, Une

inscription métrique de Castra Regina (Ratisbonne) a la déesse L., in: CRAI 1996, 1252-1268.

1PIR* Lrr3 +=2S.Mortron Braunp, Juvenal. Satires Book 1, 1996, 129. JR.

Laronius, Q. From Bruttium; in 36 BC, sent to Sicily with three legions by M. Vipsanius Agrippa [1] during the fighting against Sex. Pompeius to support Octavian, and afterwards acclaimed as imperator (CIL X 8041,18). Suffect consul in 33 with L. Vicinius (CIL I? p. 66 = Fasti Venusini).

world gods were thrown on the ground (-» Lemures) —

TER.

E. TABELLING, M.L., 1932.

Larvae In the Roman sphere, Jarvae are spirits which cause madness (Plaut. Capt. 598; Plaut. Aul. 642): one who has lost his wits is called /arvatus (Plaut. Men. 890; Paul Fest. 106 L.). The larvae are regarded as ghosts, who are considered equal to the — lemures (Gloss. 5,656,14) and can thus be considered as the addressees of the lemuria (Paul Fest. 77, 25 L.). In the interpretations of Roman authors, the larvae are equated with both the maniae (> Mania) and the dii > manes when

257

258

these return to Earth from the Underworld (Paul Fest. 114 L.). Furthermore, they are also identified with the

Laryngeals are defined and differentiated by their effects on neighbouring sounds. Already within PIE, two laryngeals immediately preceding or following e would ‘colour’ the latter (ie. its quality was modified: h,e > h,a, b,e > h,o etc.); in IE languages, all three are lost before consonants and after vowels, mostly with lengthening of the vowel (i.e. its quality was modified: ah,C > aC etc.). The laryngeals produced anomalies in the > ablaut patterns regular in pre-PIE. Laryngeals as consonants were lost during the prehistoric development of most Indo-European languages. Only the + Anatolian languages preserved h, (Hittite haster-za < *h, stér ‘star’) as a tectal (> Gutturals) fricative (Hittite h = /x/). Constitutive for Graeco-Armenian is, among other things, the change of laryngeals to vowels wordinitially before consonants. Here it is a characteristic feature of the Greek language that h,, h,, b, appear

~ lares (+ Lares; Varro in Arnob. 3,41); according to Apuleius (De deo Socratis 152-153), larvae represent the dangerous, lares, however, the peaceful, spirits. It was believed that the power of the larvae could harm both the living (Amm. Marc. 14,11,17) and the dead (Sen. Apocol. 9,3; Plin. HN praef. 31). The word larvae also denotes a mask which shows the features of a ghost (Hor. Sat. 1,5,64), and is used as a swear-word as well (Plaut. Cas. 592; Plaut. Merc. 983). G. THANIEL, Lemures und 1., in: AJPh 94, 1973, 182-187; J.M.C. ToynBeEE, Death and Burial in the Roman World,

1996, 33-39;

G. Wissowa, Rel. und Kultus der Romer,

*1912, 235-236.

FR.P.

Larymna (Adeuuva; Larymna). Harbour town in eastern Locris, on the Gulf of > Euboea [1]. Remains of fortifications near modern L., from Mycenaean, archa-

ic and classical times as well as the Roman Imperial period, testify to the continuity of settlement and reconstruction after the destruction by Sulla (86 BC: Plut. Sulla 26,4). On the ancient road between L. and Baza-

raki, near the church of Agios Nikolaos, are the ruins of an early Christian basilica. The ancient settlement was located on the hill of Bazaraki c. 2.5 km in the hinterland (A. tis Aoxeidos &vw or 6 tomog “Ayyxon, Str. 9,2,18; [1. 27-32; 2. 158]). The harbour of L. was struck by a tsunami in 229/227 BC (Pol. 20,5,2). Inscr.:

IG IX 1, 234-255. 1J.M. Fossty, The Ancient Topography of Opuntian Lokris, 1990, 22-32

2N.D. Papacuatzis, Tavoaviov

“Edd ddo0c¢ Teguyynots 5, 1981.

LASA

differentiated as ¢, a, o (formerly ‘prothetic vowels’):

goto ‘star’ (Armenian astt : Lat. stélla). Greek thus plays a central role in the laryngeal theory. It allows the corroboration of etymologies (Greek &uov, Lat. pirum

‘pear’ < PIE *h,pisom) and offers a direct explanation of phenomena such as the ‘Attic reduplication’ (in éyonyooa ‘am awake’ < *a,g(r)égora < *h,ge-h,gor h,a, perfect tense to the root *h,ger-). ~ Indo-European languages; > Phonetics Rix, HGG, 36-39, passim; R.S. P. BEEKEs, The Development of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Greek, 1969; W.CowGILL, M. MayrHor er, Idg. Gramm. I 1/2, 1986, 121-150; A. BAMMESBERGER (ed.), Die L.-Theorie

und die Rekonstruktion des idg. Laut- und Formensystems, 1988; P.SCHRIJVER, The Reflexes of the ProtoIndo-European Laryngeals in Latin, 1991; F.O. LinDEMAN, Introduction to the ‘Laryngeal Theory’, 1997.

S.V. MAMALOUKOS, ‘O vaodc tot ‘Ay. NuxoAdov tov véou xOvTe OFO Iaedmt tij¢ Bowwtiac, in: EEBM 1a, 1988, 491542; PRITCHETT 6, 1989, 114f.; KODER/HILD, tog.

G.D.R.

Laryngeal Technical term in modern linguistics (hybrid Lat. derivation from Greek larynx ‘larynx’) for a class of consonants. In current Indo-European (IE) linguistics, it refers to (three) phonemes postulated in the reconstruction of the proto-language. Despite doubts as to their nature as sounds actually produced in the larynx, the term is still in use as the phonetic determination of said sounds remains controversial. Provisionally, they are designated by indices: h,, (2,_,). These three consonants complete the Neogrammarian system of phonemes, which in their place only knew the ‘shwa (indogermanicum)’ (= /o/(Proto-Indo-European (PIE) *dat6s ‘given’). In this system, shwa was represented in Indo-Iranian as i, otherwise as a, but in Greek as /a, e, o/ respectively. In current IE linguistics, it is split into o,_, (Sanskrit ditd-, Lat. datus, Greek d5ot0¢ < *da, tds, from the PIE root *doh,- ‘to give’), where 9,_, represent allophone syllabic realisations of h,_, (9,_,) that alternated,

for example, within a paradigm (PIE *d’ugh,té(r) > *d’uktér > Gaulic duytir ‘daughter’, dative *d'uga,tr-éi > Ovyato-l, hence nominative Ovydtng).

D.ST.

Las ( Adc; bé Las). Spartan town of > perioikoi on the

west coast of the Laconian Gulf. Remains of the ancient city (ancient and classical acropolis?) near modern Passava, covered by the Hellenistic and Roman towns. The harbour of L. (Thuc. 8,91; Str. 8,5,4) lay c. 3 km away (modern Bay of Vathy). Indefinite Mycenaean remains. Evidence: Hom. Il. 2,585 (Adac; Laas); Scyl. 46; Paus. Aig

AP WAR Olle Woes ueiels MAMA, Say ICME,

Iho

scriptions: IG V 1,1214—1217. Coins: HN, 436. E.S. Forster, Gythium and the North-West Coast of the Laconian Gulf, in: ABSA 13, 1906/7, 232-234; C.LE Roy, s.v. L., PE, 485f.; H.WATERHOUSE, R.HopPE Simpson, Prehistoric Laconia, in: ABSA 56, 1961, 118.

Yate

Lasa Young Etruscan goddess or demon mostly represented as winged; on Hellenistic mirrors she appears together with goddesses, heroes or nymphs. Her name appears frequently with epithets that indicate different functions that are still not clarified in detail. It is also not clear how she is distinguished from Etruscan —» Vanth.

LASA

259

I. Krauskopr, s.v. L., Dizionario della civilta etrusca, 1985, 148; R.LAMBRECHTS, s.v. L., LIMC 6, 217-225. F.PR.

Lasanum see > Chamber pot

Lasimus Krater A volute krater much cited from the late 18th to the early 2oth cent. because of its inscription which mentions another lower Italian vase painter (Paris, LV, Inv. K 66 [N 3147], [1]). Research at that

time discussed the written form of the letters and the artistic classification of the supposed vase painter Lasimus. Only recent research proved the inscription to be a recent addition. Peintures de vases antiques recueillés par

Millin (1813) et Millingen (1813), 1891, 64-67; S.Fa-

vieER, A propos de deux vases italiotes au Musée du Louvre, in: Revue du Louvre 22, 1972, 4-6.

R.H.

Lasion (Aaoubv; Lasion). City at the edge of the Pholoe tableland in the Elian mountainous country, in the upper valley of the Ladon [3], remains near modern Kumani. L. was disputed between Elis and Arcadia. Evidence: Xen. Hell. 3,2,30; 4,2,16; 7,4,12f.; Diod. Sic. 14,17,83 15,77,1—4; Str. 8,3,5; 7,5- Inscription: SEG rr,

Teepe PRITCHETT 6, 1989.

vale

Lasthenes (Aao0évyeg; Lasthénés). {1] L. of Olynthus, hipparchos (‘cavalry commander’) of the Chalcidians; in 348 BC L. with > Euthycrates [1] betrayed his home town to Philip II (Dem. Or. 8,40; 9,66; 19,265; Diod. Sic. 16,53,2).

[2] Cretan mercenary leader, from 147 BC onwards influential adviser at the court of + Demetrius [8] II (syngenes, pater; > Court titles B.3.); possibly stratégds of — Coele Syria (Jos. Ant. Iud. 13,86; 126f.; 1 Macc Tol} Wits Cia Diods o1en3\354.1)s [3] L. of Cnossus (?), son of Sosamenos (?) (cf. SEG 1983, 724), Cretan leader and pirate hostile to Rome; unsuccessfully fought in 72 BC by M. > Antonius [I 8], and successfully fought in 69 by Q. > Caecilius [I 23] Metellus; after being pursued and fleeing, L. surrendered im’ 67 (Diode Sic. 40,1,3; Vell: Pat. 2.34.1; Flor. 1,42,6; App. Sic. 6,4-7; Cass. Dio 36,19,3).

the other hand, he introduced dithyrambic contests. The credit is, at any rate, usually given to Arion (cf. schol. Pind. Ol. 13,26b, DRACHMANN 1,361f.). The Marmor Parium names the date of the first performance of dithyrambs as 509-508 BC; therefore, L. probably introduced dithyrambic competitions in Athens under the tyrants, and the Marmor Parium gives the date of the first victory in the democracy. Aristoph. Vesp. 1411 mentions that L. appeared in a choral contest (probably in dithyrambs) against Simonides. Of his poctry, only the fragment of a hymn to Demeter of Hermione has survived (7oz PMG); this work does not use the letter o at all and was later famous for this asigmatism (Ath. 10,455c). Besides this, the Suda names

1 TRENDALL/CAMBITOGLOU, 914, NO. 36.

S.REINACH,

260

L.-M.G.

Lasus (Adooc; Ldsos). [1] L. of Hermione in the Argolis (incorrectly in the Suda: Achaia). The Suda places his date of birth in the

58th Oympiad. (548-544 BC). Like > Anacreon and + Simonides, this Greek poet was under the patronage of > Hipparchus in Athens. According to Hat. 7,6, ~+ Onomacritus was expelled by Hipparchus when L. caught him forging oracles of Musaeus. The Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1403 quotes authorities who consider L. the first organizer of dithyrambic choruses positioned in a circle, rather than > Arion; according to the Suda, on

a

work on music, and L.’s views were certainly quoted and criticized by later authors. Like Simonides, he hada reputation as a proto-sophist because of his fondness for wordplay and his outstanding ability in debates, and some included him among the Seven Sages. + Chamaeleon wrote about him, but his work appears not to have been published by the Alexandrians. PMG 702-706; PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE/WEBSTER, 13-15; G. A. PRiviTERA, Laso di Ermione, 1965; M.L. West, An-

cient Greek Music, 1992.

ER.

[2] L. of Magnesia Early Alexandrian astronomer, author of ®awdueva/Phainomena (Achilleus Astronomus 79,3; [1]), in which he also measured the distances between the constellations: schol. to Basilius, Homiliae in hexaémeron p. 196, 26f. PASQUALI (probably also after Achilleus). ~ Aratus 1 E. Maass, Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae, 1898.

G.PASQUALI, Doxographica aus Basiliusscholien, Nachr. von der Ges. der Wiss. in Gottingen, philol.-histor. Klasse, 1910, 194-228; A. REHM, s.v. L., RE 12, 888.

W.H.

Latage According to Ael. NA 16,10, an Indian town in

the land of the > Prasii, where the Greek Megasthenes was ambassador to the king. O. WECKER, s.v. L. (2), RE 12, 892.

JRE.

Late antiquity I. THE HISTORICAL

PERIOD

II. ARCHAEOLOGY

AND ART

I. THE HISTORICAL PERIOD In modern historical research, Late Antiquity (LA) is the period following the crisis of the Roman Empire in the 3rd cent. AD from the reigns of Diocletian (284305) and Constantine [1] (307-337) to the end of the Empire in the West (deposition of > Romulus [2] Augustulus 476) or the dissolution of the Western Empire into several Germanic successor states during the sth cent. or even to Justinian’s [1] (527-565) standardization of Roman law and failed attempt to restore the Roman Empire’s unity by military force (on the history of LA, cf. + Rome I. E. 3.c).

261

262

There is no consensus regarding the beginning and especially the end of LA (— Periods, division into B. 4.;

regarding the final dates suggested in the literature, see + Epochs, concept of I. A.; cf. [1]). An acceptable assessment of the character of LA has been difficult because from the Renaissance it was generally considered as an age of decadence, which is evident in words such as ‘late’ (‘Spdtantike’, LA) and ‘low’ (Bas Empire, Basso

Impero). Only in the early 2oth cent. opinions began to change in historical research and recently in the assessment of late-antique literature — originating from art history, which postulated a new intention in art rather than an ‘inability to live up to earlier standards’. As a result, an unprejudiced interpretation of this tradition (+ Period terminology II. B. 5.; III. B. 5.) became possible. A unified perspective is hindered by the fact that the period from the 4th to the 8th cents. is the research subject of three disciplines (Ancient, Medieval and Byzantine history), whose perspectives make this phase either the last (LA) or the first (Early Middle Ages, Early Byzantine period) and also delimits the time-frame differently in the process (s. [2; 3]; cf. II.), depending on the emphasis placed on the phenomena characterizing LA: the victory of > Christianity (papacy, schisms), autocratization, centralization and bureaucratization of the Empire (— Bureaucracy, > Notitia dignitatum), the Germanic invasions into the Roman Empire (— Foederati; > Migrations of peoples; > Tribal laws) and into high offices of the Imperial administration (+ Magister militum) as well as the advance of Islam (breaking down of the homogeneity of the Mediterranean region). On the literature of LA, cf. > Literature V. H. and VI. 1 K.CuHrist, Der Untergang des rom. Reiches in ant. und mod. Sicht, in: Id. (ed.), Der Untergang des rom. Reiches, 1970, 1-31

2P.E. Hipincer

(ed.), Kulturbruch oder

LATE ANTIQUITY

There have been many attempts to establish the characteristics of ‘Christian’ archaeology and to delimit it against ‘Classical’, “Early Medieval ’ and ‘Byzantine archaeology’ to prove its independence as an academic discipline. The still prevailing restriction to Christian monuments in the relatively short period from about AD 200 to 600 has lost its justification. By contrast, late antique archaeology as part of Byzantine archaeology and art history ( Byzantium III.) studies the entire artistic tradition and material culture of LA — its traditional pagan branch and its forms characterized by Christianity and other religions (e.g. Judaism) as well as philosophical-religious currents (+ Neoplatonism), furthermore its direct effects on neighbouring cultures such as the early > Umayyads. Finding and securing monumental sources through fieldwork on the one hand and contextual interpretation of monuments (style, iconography, iconology) on the other hand are an indivisible unit in which written sources have a special significance. A fundamental problem is the temporal delimitation of ‘LA’ as a term in historical periodization for which history as a discipline can only make suggestions ({1. 470-492], cf. I.). The convenient formula according to which LA is the transitional period between antiquity and the Middle Ages blurs the complex transformation process in all areas of culture. In contrast to general and political history, its beginning has on occasion been identified with the end of the Severi (AD 217), the rule of the soldier emperors (235), the onset of the general crisis of the Roman Empire, Diocletian’s coming into power (284) or even with Constantine [1] the

Great becoming sole ruler (324). The development of late antique art cannot be causally linked to any of these dates. If the Christian branch alone is considered, it cannot be doubted any longer that it began about 200. By this time, features are evident also in non-Christian

Kulturkontinuitat im Ubergang von der Ant. zum MA,

Roman

1968 31d. (ed.), Zur Frage der Periodengrenze zw. Alt. und MA, 1969.

umn, after 180) that may be considered as typically ‘late antique’, such as the abstraction of the human form. It is also undisputed that the Christian branch as an integral part of late Roman art is unthinkable without the latter’s development. In Byzantine architecture and art history, the late antique phase of art is, despite all breaks and regional differences, largely identical with the ‘Early Byzantine’ period because of the temporal and spatial overlap of late Roman pagan, Jewish, Christian and early Islamic monuments. As for the terminus ad quem, in ‘Christian architecture’ either the age of Justinian [1] I (527-565), the onset of the so-called Dark Ages (c. 580) or the death of Gregory [3] the Great (604) have been named as the final date of LA and thus its responsibility. All these events fall into the Early Byzantine period, the end of which is marked by the outbreak of the iconoclastic controversy in Byzantium (726; > Syrian dynasty). Important for an assessment of late antique art and culture is the observation of the differentiation process that was heralded already in the late Imperial period

A. DemManptT, Der Fall Roms, 1984; F.G. Mater, Die Verwandlung der Mittelmeerwelt, 1968; J. MARTIN, Spatant. und Vélkerwanderung, 1987; A.H.M. Jones, The Later

Roman Empire 284-602, 3 vols., 1964; G.OsTROGorsky, Geschichte des byz. Staates (HdbA 12.1.2), 31963.

W. ED.

Il. ARCHAEOLOGY AND ART A. DEFINITION, SUBJECT AND METHODS B. STYLE AND ICONOGRAPHY C. ARCHITECTURE D. PAINTING AND MOSAICS E. SCULPTURE F. ARTS AND

CRAFTS

A. DEFINITION, SUBJECT AND METHODS In Germany, the archaeology of LA is classified under the traditional term ‘Christian archaeology’ (‘Byzantine archaeology’). At universities the field is still mostly moored in the theological faculties even though

its practitioners

are

mostly

archaeologists.

art (~ Marcus Aurelius;

> Monumental

col-

263

264

and eventually resulted in a division of the Imperium Romanum into a Latin West and a Greek East. It finally caused also the division of Christianity into a western Catholic and an eastern Orthodox Church. This gradual separation was initiated with the Imperial reforms of Diocletian (293), but by this time Roman art including its Christian component had long since reached its late ancient form. With the founding of the new capital of ~ Constantinople (324-330), a new political and cultural centre was created in the east of the Empire but the Christian branch of art had already been able to unfold uninhibited and innovatively from the end of the persecutions in the west in 313 (‘Edict of Tolerance’ of Milan’). Nor did the dominant role that Christianity played in the further development of art change its late ancient character, especially since in all branches of art the traditional pagan substrate was preserved. The socalled Theodosian division of the Empire (395) promoted the differentiation of east and west but also did not result in a change of the artistic processes. Only the deposition of the last western Roman emperor (Romu-

Characteristic of the multitude of stylistic means in late antique art is the general desire to abandon natural forms for the sake of a meaning that emphasizes the transcendental and the symbolic. In the representation of the human form, a frontal face expressing spiritual formulas dominates while the body clothed in traditional or rank-specific clothing is neglected and never becomes — as with classical statues — the actual reason for artistic endeavour. The hostility to the body, which is often attributed to Christianity, is an essential trait of late antique creations, though it merged with Christian attitudes and eventually was adequately expressed in the Christian icon. This representation of the human figure goes hand in hand with a more or less pronounced abstraction of other elements of the icon (background landscape; gold background). In almost all areas of practical art and daily life in LA, the traditional mythological, bucolic and culticreligious themes with their associated ethical, allegorical, didactic and paraenetic meanings continued. Only in rare cases they were the expression of a deliberate pagan reaction. Late antique art experienced an essential enrichment after about 200 with the formation of a Christian iconography based on OT, NT and apocryphal sources, e.g. with catacomb murals (— Catacombs B.) and sarcophagus reliefs (> Sarcophagi IV), through which the Christian branch of Roman art emerged. Furthermore, there was an independent visual Jewish art, which is suspected to have produced illustrated MSS (> Pentateuch; non-canonical Jewish literature), and is tangible in the synagogue of > Dura Europus (destroyed in 256). It probably influenced the formation of Christian iconography. Because of the persistent persecutions, Christian iconography was initially only able to develop in a private and sepulchral context but was not absent from churches (house churches, e.g.

LATE ANTIQUITY

lus [2] Augustulus, 476) constituted a break in the western empire because Germanic peoples subsequently seized power over large parts of the empire (except fora brief interruption by Justinian’s attempt to reunify the Empire, 540-568). Only the loss of important eastern provinces (636 Syria; 649 Egypt) in the confrontations with the Arabs reduced the Byzantine Empire to Asia Minor, Greece, parts of lower Italy and Sicily, while certain parts of Italy (Rome, Ravenna) remained under direct Byzantine influence for an extended period though not under a stable Byzantine government. Nevertheless, during the Justinianic period ‘typical Byzantine’ art had developed as the result of a long transformation process, but it is justified to establish a period boundary, such as the beginning of the Byzantine MA, here. B. STYLE AND [ICONOGRAPHY

All attempts to postulate specific stylistic phases or stylistic developments according to specific inherent rules for LA are considered to have failed. Rather, a

co-existences of stylistic modes through deliberate selection or determined by temporal trends with frequent reversion to classical designs is characteristic. A detailed analysis also demonstrates the typical late antique character of this classicism: formal characteristics of classical models are adopted but with an unmistakable independent expression (‘Theodosian Classicism’). In the process, essential details in the models may be greatly misunderstood. The ivory carvings initiated by the non-Christian senatorial aristocracy (Diptych of the Symmachi and the Nicomachi, about 388-401), which has an exceptional ranking among late antique works because of the mastery of the classical canon of forms, essentially owe their form to a decidedly conservative stance in which the choice of stylistic devices was determined by ideology.

in Dura Europus).

With the conversion of Constantine [1] to Christianity (after 312) for political reasons, the late Roman official ideology was gradually Christianized, i.e., the divine legitimation of the earthly empire was now derived from Christ. This resulted in traits of the Imperial image and the courtly ceremonial being transferred to images of Christ and his ‘heavenly court’. Because of their incorporation into monumental decorative imagery during the unrestrained flowering of church construction, Christian visual themes acquired a normative effect on other artistic genres including arts and crafts. In sepulchral art (+ Sarcophagi), Christian visual pro-

grammes were used to express private concepts of salvation. Objects of daily life, even a tooth pick (hoard of Kaiseraugst, > Silver treasures), were decorated with Christian symbols, which indicates a certain thoughtlessness in handling these and should warn against overemphasizing the spiritual seriousness of lived Christianity in all cases.

265

C. ARCHITECTURE Apart from the special case of the imperial foundation of > Constantinople and other late ancient residential buildings, studies in historical topography and archaeology can demonstrate the profound structural change that > towns underwent in LA. The pagan sanctuaries were closed and the temples rededicated as churches (e.g. the > Partheneion) or torn down. In their

place, churches including episcopal palaces and parochial institutions were created and came to dominate the urban profile. The original town areas were significantly reduced due to the decline of the economy and the population beginning in the 6th cent. and hastily refortified with walls made of pillaged material (+ Spoils) from torn-down Roman buildings. LA achieved its greatest innovations in architecture, which adapted traditional Roman spatial and building forms to new purposes in imperial and ecclesiastical representation: e.g. Diocletian’s palace in Split (> Spalatum), the Baths of Diocletian in Rome and the Basilica of Constantine

(> Basilica Constantiniana) on the Forum Romanum, which was begun by Maxentius and completed by Constantine [1] about 313 with major structural changes. The — basilica as a profane or imperial spatial type experienced its most decisive transformation through adaptation for Christian worship. The critical step towards the longitudinal basilica was taken with the building of the Constantinian Lateran Basilica in Rome (313-317). In the church dedication speech by Eusebius [7] of Caesarea (Euseb. Hist. eccl. 10,4) in 317, this type of church is described in detail and simultaneously its parts are allegorically interpreted. From then on, the longitudinal basilica with three or five naves and a broad, elevated central nave, window galleries, with light roof construction, — atrium (peristyle) at one end and apse with synthronon, seats for the clergy and sanctuarium (— Altar) at the other, usually eastern end, and splendid interior decoration (mosaics, murals, incrustations) contrasted by undecorated exterior brickwork was the basic form of all episcopal and parochial churches in the Empire. Also, special and mixed forms of the basilica and the rotunda or octagon (Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre; Bethlehem, Church of the Nativity), cross-shaped buildings (Constantinople, Church of the Apostles), central-plan buildings (Milan, San Lorenzo; Ravenna, San Vitale) and new function-oriented Christian forms such as octagonal, round on square, free-standing on integrated > baptisteria were created as determined by particular cultic requirements. However, the unsurpassed climax of late antique and Early Byzantine architecture is the ~ Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, which was built in 532-537 under Justinian [1] I: the longitudinal basilica with multiple naves merges with a domed central building, in which a complicated system of interrelated spatial and building elements skilfully hides construction requirements such as the load-bearing components of the huge > dome and makes possible the grand spatial effect that creates an impression of dematerialization and weightlessness.

266

LATE ANTIQUITY

D. PAINTING AND MOSAICS

In LA, the subgenres of painting and mosaics are still encountered in different milieus though there are significant shifts in focus: court or official mural painting (decoration of palaces and imperial cult rooms, thermal baths); private painting (decoration of private homes and villas with murals and floor mosaics); private tomb paintings (pagan mausoleums; Christian and Jewish + catacombs of c. 220 to 388/90); miniature painting and > book illustration, with texts including all genres of pagan and large parts of Christian literature. With the building of the Christian basilicas, mosaic technique (+ Mosaic) was preferred for decorating apses, triumphal arches and walls with theological visual programmes and floors with pictorial and ornamental compositions. Panel painting, which was common in private use and in the cult of the dead (> Mummy portraits) was the basis for icon painting, which unfolded from the 6th cent. E. SCULPTURE The decline of free-standing sculpture is a characteristic of late antique art (public honorary monuments, portrait statues; > Statues). Written sources and preserved inscriptions attest to a large though gradually declining stock of late antique imperial statues [2]. Equestrian statues are documented for Constantinople (Theodosius I, Arcadius, Iustinian [1]). For occasional dedications (Phocas Column in the Forum Romanum, 607) older statues were obviously reused. Private portraits are also documented up to the 6th cent. with declining frequency but they appear to have remained more common in the East [3]. Relief art replaced freestanding sculpture. The flourishing production of — sarcophagi of the 3rd/4th cents., which was transformed into an equally rich Christian production in the 4th cent. in Rome, experienced a regional differentiation in the following centuries. The new capital Constantinople was initially decorated with plundered older images. Only during the Theodosian period (379-395) did works of imperial (~ Monumental column; base of the Theodosius obelisk) and private or quasi-official relief sculpture (— Sarcophagi, honorary bases) become more frequent there. Production appears to have increasingly shifted towards the eastern part of the Empire. The main branches of sculpting were — apart from architectural components (capitals; — Column with fig.) — church furnishings decorated with figured and ornamental reliefs, such as the ambo, cabinets, templons (the precursors of the iconostasis), ciboria (the fixed canopies over altars and baptismal fonts), etc. An export-oriented production of architectural sculpture from Constantinople from the 4th to the 6th cents. was located on the island > Proconnesus. In the Justinianic period, completely new capital types and decorative systems that broke with the classical canon developed.

LATE ANTIQUITY

268

267

F. ARTS AND CRAFTS Overall, the products of court, ecclesiastical and private arts and crafts are the richest legacy of monuments from LA. Decorated with pagan or Christian imagery, symbols (Christograms) and ornaments, they most densely represent the material culture of everyday life in late ancient society. The artistically most advanced groups of materials include: (1.) Toreutic silver work such as imperial presenta-

G.Kocu, Friihchristl. Sarkophage, 2000; R. KRAUTHEIMER, Early and Christian Architecture, 41986; W.F. VoL-

BACH, J. LAFONTAINE-DoSoOGNE, Byzanz und der christl. Osten, 1968.

Late Hittite art see

ALE.

> Asia Minor III C 2

L’Atelier des Petites Estampilles see + Stamped ware

tion vessels (e.g. the Missorium of Theodosius, 388);

table services (display and serving plates, large and small bowls, plates, spoons, strainers, ladles) and cosmetic services (boxes, washing-sets, perfume-contain-

ers) with pagan, Christian or Christian-allegorical relief scenes; liturgical equipment (tables, crucifixes, fans, book covers) and vessels (diskoi, goblets, incense vessels, relics containers) as well as ecclesiastical lighting (candelabra, polycandelas, chandeliers). Among the

silver work, about 160 items bear control stamps from Constantinople of the period from about 491 to 668 and, as a result, can be dated relatively precisely. (2.) Bronze work such as statuettes and figuratively shaped equipment (reins racks, weights); utility vessels (washing sets, buckets, strainers); liturgical equipment (procession crosses) and vessels (incense vessels); lighting equipment (oil lamps, candelabra, polycandela); scales and weights; stamps; hammered or cast boxes and furniture fittings. (3.) Gold and silver jewellery (fibulas, neck ornaments; ear, arm and finger rings; amulet capsules, pectoral crosses, pendants, belt ornamentation). (4.) Ivory carvings such as thrones (cathedra of Maximianus, about 548), five-part diptychs, consular diptychs and private diptychs with profane, mythical, Christian and allegorical scenes; pyxes with Christian and profane images; combs and furniture inlays. (5.) Cut stones (intaglio and cameo work, vessels made of crystal and semiprecious stones). (6.) Gold cups and cut-glass vessels. (7.) Wood carvings (sculptures, doors, furniture, combs, weaving equipment). (8.) Textiles

(drapery, clothing, pillows, blankets). (9.) Clay objects (figurettes, vessels and dishes, lamps, ampoules, stamp dies for bread and goods, amulets and badges). Some items of craft work havea special purpose such as pilgrimage mementoes (— Pilgrim flasks), which are usually decorated with images of particular holy sites (Palestine) or persons (e.g. Menas [4]).

— Byzantium; — Christianity; me I. E. 3.; > Sarcophagi

— Catacombs;

> Ro-

1 A.DEMANDT, Die S.: Rom. Geschichte von Diocletian

bis Justinian 284-565 n. Chr., 1989 Die

rém.

Kaiserstatue

am

2R.H.W. STICHEL,

Ausgang

der Ant.,

3 J.INAN, E. ALFOLDI-ROSENBAUM, R6m. Portratplastik aus der Tirkei, 1979.

1982

und frihbyz.

ByzZ (annual, with bibl. for archaeology and art history); B. BRENK (ed.), S. und friihes Christentum (PropKg, Suppl. vol. 1), 1977; F.W. DeIcHMANN, Einfiihrung in die christl. Arch., 1983; A. EFFENBERGER, Frihchristl. Kunst und Kultur. Von den Anf. bis zum 7.Jh., 1986; W.E. KLEINBAUER, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture:

an Annotated Bibliography and Historiography,

1992;

La Tene Culture Named after the archaeological site La Téne (field name) at Thielle on Lake Neuchatel, Neuchatel Canton, Switzerland. Soon after the discovery in the mid 19th cent., the La Téne Culture (LTC)/La

Téne Period was recognized as typical of the later Iron Age in much of Central Europe and neighbouring areas. The site itself is, however, not particularly typical of the LTC, firstly because it offers a cross-section of finds (above all weapons and iron implements, wooden parts, etc.) that is limited to the mid-La Téne period, and secondly because, being a lakeside station (bridge,

sacrificial place or similar), it will most likely have occupied a special place within the LTC. Even in the rgth cent., LTC was already equated with the culture of the > Celts described by ancient authors. LTC (or the ‘La Téne period’ in a general sense) is divided into three eras in the Celtic archaeology of Central Europe west of the Rhine (Early, Middle and Late LTC); to the east of the Rhine, four divisions are usually made (A-D), each with

further schematic subdivisions. Mediterranean imports and scientific data have helped in dating the LTC back to the 5th cent. BC; with regional variations, it lasted until + Romanization (e.g. in Gaul, around the mid rst cent. BC) or — e.g. in the non-Roman region to the east of the Rhine — no later than the birth of Christ. In comparison to the preceding > Hallstatt culture, burial grounds with flat graves, and certain distinct shapes such as those, for instance, of the fibula (> Needle) — which also serve as indicators of the individual eras within the LTC -, weaponry including - sword, shield and lance, clay vessels (> pottery) thrown on the > potter’s wheel, the typical La Téne style of ornamentation (esp. botanical patterns based on Mediterranean models) etc., are considered to be among the most widely and uniformly distributed characteristics of the LTC. Particularly for the older LTC, regional groups can be established according to method of burial, grave goods and their composition, ceramic forms etc., e.g. the > Hunsriick-Eifel culture, the > Marne culture or the Rhine-Danube basin. Following late Hallstatt culture, the onset of LTC first involved the taking over, mostly in new locations and distributed predominantly along the northern periphery of the core Celtic territory from Champagne to Bohemia, of the traditions of > prince’s tombs and seats with monumental mounds, splendid burials with — gold and imports from the south (above all clay and bronze vessels) as well as objects displaying great wealth (e.g. twowheeled > war chariots) and — fortifications, as, for

269

270

instance, at + Glauberg or > Diirrnberg. From the 4th cent. BC, such graves disappear; there is greater uniformity in grave decoration up to the late La Téne cremation fields, e.g. > Bad Nauheim. Distribution, find groups, graves, settlements and their development within LTC are analyzed by Celtic archaeology, and are an important factor in forming a general picture of the Celts. ~ Burial; > Celtic archaeology (with map); > Funerary architecture

Laterculus Veronensis List — named after a badly corrupted MS from Verona of the 7th cent. AD — of the Roman provinces classified according to dioceses directly in accordance with the new order of > Dio-

J. Fixir, Die kelt. Zivilisation und ihr Erbe, r961; O.H. Frey, s.v. Chronologie — Vorrém. Eisenzeit, RGA 4, 648-653; H. LoRENz, Totenbrauchtum und Tracht. Unt.

zur regionalen Gliederung in der friihen Laténezeit, in: BRGK 59, 1978, 1-380; S. Moscati (ed.), I Celti, 1991, esp. 366-371; P. REINECKE, Mainzer Aufsatze zur Chronologie der Bronze- und Eisenzeit, 1965, 60-144; H.Scuwas, Neue Ergebnisse zur Topographie von La Tene, in: Germania 52, 1974, 348-367; P. VouGca, La Nene. 923)

V.P.

LATIFUNDIA/LARGE ESTATES

cletianus (with map; c. AD 313) as well as (§ 13) of the

‘barbarian’ peoples on the northern Roman empire.

border of the

T.D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, 1982, 202f. (ed.). B.BL.

Laterensis Cognomen in the family of the Iuventii, > Iuventius [I 3 and I 4]. KaJANTO, Cognomina, 309.

Keer:

Laterium Villa in the region of > Arpinum west of the Liris near Cereatae (Cic. Att. 4,7,3; 10,1,1; Cic. Ad Q.

Fr. 255543 351543 351). NISSEN 2, 674.

GU.

Later see > Bricks

Laterculum Attested in the general sense of ‘list’ from

Lathe There is indirect evidence through rotary tracks of the lathe in the early Celtic period (6th/5th cents. BC), in the > Hallstatt Culture, in bronze knobs, amber beads, rings made of — sapropelite, etc. On the > Heuneburg works waste from a turner’s workshop is preserved. In the 6th cent. BC, turned wooden vessels are also known (lathe works). The lathe itself can only be inferred from ancient or medieval representations and sources; it probably came over the Alps from the Greek-Etruscan region earlier than the — potter’s

> Tertullianus (Ad nat. 1,13), common as a technical

wheel. In the Germanic cultural area, too, blanks and

term for the list of all civil and military office bearers from the 4th cent. AD. In the > notitia dignitatum, among the insignia of the primicerius notariorum a codex-like object (probably a container for loose sheets) with the supplement laterculum maius (Not. Dign. Or. 18,2; Not. Dign. Occ. 16,3) is to be found. It was the list of the high imperial offices, presumably kept by the most senior notary from the time of Constantinus [1] I, as it is available in a version from the late 4th and early sth cents. in the notitia dignitatum. Aside from the laterculum maius, according to which the higher officials were appointed, there was, probably from the time of > Theodosius I, in the east also the

products indicate a knowledge of the lathe in the centuries around the birth of Christ. + Amber; > Crafts, Trade

Lateranus Roman cognomen (originally ‘the one on the hill’); in the Republican period occurring in L. Sextius L. (cos. in 366 BC), in the imperial period also in the families of the Claudii, Magii, Plautii and Sextii. KajANTO, Cognomina, 309.

K.-L.E.

H.DrescHer, Bemerkungen zur Metallverarbeitung auf der Heuneburg und zu einigen bes. Fundstiicken, in: S. StEveRS, Die Kleinfunde der Heuneburg. R6m.-German. Forsch. 42, 1984, 95ff., esp. 115-126; T.CAPELLE et al., s.v. D. und Drechslerei, RGA 6, 1986, 154-158.

V.P.

Latifundia/Large estates I. Overview II. GreEcE III. Rome IV. SussisTENCE ECONOMY AND MARKET ORIENTATION V. ADMINISTRATION AND WORK FORCE

laterculum minus, from which officers (like e.g. cohort

prefects) received their employment decrees (cf. Not. Dign. Or. 28,23; 31,42; 38,20; 40,44). This laterculum minus was under the authority of the quaestor sacri palatii, who also made use of the scrinium memoriae (— Scrinium) (Cod. Theod. 1,8,1f.; Cod. lust. 1,30,1f.). At times the magistri militum tried to take charge of the awarding of officers’ commissions (Cod. Theod. 1,8,1-3). In the 6th cent., for the management of both latercula, there was also the office of the laterculenses (Gods lustar2.33 553411 25.09,035 beg-move 3155.0)< EDITIONS: O.SEECK, 1876. BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. CLEMENTE, La ‘Notitia Dignitatum’, 1968; JONES, LRE, 574-78. K.P.J.

I. OVERVIEW Only limited reliable information exists regarding the extent of large estates (LE) in antiquity. Most statements about estates of rich Greeks and Romans are of anecdotal or rhetorical nature and therefore hardly credible. Very few documents give information about the size or the value of the majority of estates in a specific region. Archaeology can verify farm buildings, but seldom estate borders. Still, with a few exceptions a long-term tendency towards latifundia expansion and estate extension appears to have existed in ancient agriculture, often in parallel with an increase of the territory of cities and kingdoms.

LATIFUNDIA/LARGE ESTATES

272

27

Il. GREECE Despite some references to the legendary riches of tyrants and aristocrats, such as Cimon, in earlier epochs, more accurate data on Greek poleis stem solely from Athens and refer to the time of the late 5th and 4th cents. BC. Of some 20,000 to 30,000 adult male citizens of Athens, 1,200 appear to have owned property (in most cases land), of a value greater than one > talent, and about 300 citizens, who were recruited for the > liturgies, property worth three to four talents. 300 pléthra of land (about 30 ha) had a market value of five talents in about 392 (Lys. 19,29; 19,42), which can be considered a standard for the size of estates. Only very few Athenians owned property worth 100 or more talents. It is assumed that LE were mostly composed of several smaller estates, each considerably smaller than 300 pléthra. The predominant notion, that the citizenship of a polis should primarily consist of estate owners, as well as the restriction of property ownership to the citizens of their polis, limited the expansion of LE owned by aristocratic families. Owing to the hegemonial position of Athens in the > Symmachia, Athenians in the 5th cent. BC were able to acquire land in the allied cities as well. When in the 4th cent. BC oligarchic forms of government began to take a stronger hold, larger estates developed both in Athens and in Sparta. The description of such an estate in Attica can be found ina forensic speech of the 4th cent. BC: on the property of Phaenippus near Cytherus barley and wine were cultivated and wocd was sold, which was transported by 6 donkeys, apparently making a profit of 12 drachmai a day. There were two threshing floors. The boundaries of these estates are said to have been more than 40 stadia long. Information regarding the crop yield — 1000 > médimnoi (c. 40,000 kg) of grain and 800 metrétai (c. 32,000 |) of wine — also suggests extensive lands (Dem. Or. 42,5-73 42,20). In the Hellenistic kingdoms, factors hindering the expansion of LE disappeared, and the immeasurable new territories enabled the kings to entrust huge areas to their favourites for development and cultivation. Examples include the 5,500 or more pléthra of land (at least 550 ha) in the satrapy of Hellespontus, given to Aristodikides by Antiochus I (OGIS 221), as well as the 10,000 drourai (2500 ha) in Fayum in Egypt, given to Apollonius by Ptolemy II. These estates, however, were revocable presents, not genuine private property. Ill. ROME The earliest reference to the extent of LE in Rome can be found in the law of 367 BC, which limited the

size of individual estates on the ager publicus, the annexed but not yet divided territory, to 500 iugera (125 ha), probably a rather generous limitation for the rich owners of LE, as they also owned LE on private land. Despite the traditionally often-repeated idea of poverty of the Romans in the early years, the Roman aristocrats of the time were already wealthier than Greek nobles. When Ti. Gracchus again enforced the limitation to 500

iugera in 133 BC, he met with strong resistance from the Senate, because the increase in wealth and slaves result-

ing from the conquest of Italy and overseas expansion had favoured the development both of extensive animal husbandry and of LE — though at the expense of the settlement of citizens in — coloniae. The Sullan proscriptions further expedited the formation of farm complexes comprising entire landscapes - a process documented for M. Licinius Crassus (Plut. Crassus 2; 6)

and C. Quinctius Valgus (Cic. Leg. agr. 3,3; 3,13f.). What magnitude the estates of individual senators had reached is revealed by the fact that during civil war L. Domitius Ahenobarbus was in a position to promise each of his soldiers 4 iugera from his own estates (Caes. B Give i,17,4)A. Iraty

B. THE PROVINCES

C. IMPERIAL PERI-

OD AND LATE ANTIQUITY

A. ITALY The villa economy, which remained typical for large parts of Italy until the 2nd cent. AD, is well known to us thanks to many testimonies. Roman agrarian writers discussed and described villae: Cato addresses exemplarily the location of a manor, its farm buildings and important equipment such as wine and oil presses (Cato Agr. 1; 3f.; 12-15; 18-22); the inventories of wine and oil producing farms are especially illuminating (Cato Agr. rof.). In a rather long letter, Pliny describes his estate in Etruria, emphasizing not only the fertility of the soil but also the mildness of the climate and the beauty of the landscape (regionis forma pulcherrima; Plin. Ep. 5,6,2-13). Numerous manors and farm buildings have been excavated (of particular interest is Settefinestre near Cosa), and two alimentary tables from the early 2nd cent. AD are an important document of LE in the territory of the two Italian cities Veleia and Ligures Baebiani. Individual estates were only of moderate size (about 25-100 ha), but rich Romans usually owned several such villas. Based on rough estimate, one or two such properties could qualify a Roman citizen to become a member of the city council, while four or more were enough for the status of eques (cf. Cic. Rosc. Am. 20). In the middle of the rst cent. BC, Cicero claimed that he was able to save on his senatorial income of 100,000 HS (about 25 Roman pounds in gold) a year, but that 600,000 HS did not suffice to live a luxurious lifestyle (Cic. Parad. 49). Assuming that the average value of land was 500 HS a iugerum and the annual vield 5%, this implies estates of to0o or 6000 hectares. In the early Principate a senator with average means probably owned real estate worth ro to 20 million HS, corresponding approximately to 5000 to 10000 hectares. Many equites and members of other social classes, exemplified by the classic though fictional character Trimalchio in > Petronius’ novel, owned as much or more.

273

274

B. THE PROVINCES Romans who bought up land in the provinces, or provincials following the Roman model, introduced the large villa into the Latin-speaking northwestern provinces. The Romans, depending on the loyalties of local elites, also provoked an increase of LE in the East; the family of Herod Atticus, for example, which owned property in Greece, Egypt, and Italy itself, was extremely successful. The senatorial, equestrian and provincial elites of an empire numbering about so million inhabitants were recruited from about 20,000 families, forming an extremely rich class of LE owners unknown to the Mediterranean world until then. The richest of them all was the Princeps himself, outshining even the Hellenistic kings. The Imperium Romanum permitted the Roman citizens to own land in any province, the income from political activity providing the elite with the wealth necessary for investment. Overall, the LE were still composed of medium-sized individual estates, sometimes with vast pastures and forest areas, reflecting the random nature of acquisitions and redistributions of the estates by divisions of inheritance, marriage contracts and legacies outside of the family.

IV. SUBSISTENCE ECONOMY AND MARKET ORIENTATION There is no doubt that rich landowners invested considerable amounts of money in their estates, because there were few alternatives, because land ownership was considered safe and because it conferred status. It is likely that some LE owners were not very involved with the administration of their property but interested only in the revenue. Many land owners used the products of their estates to provide for their household and retinue, and the slaves working on the estates also had to be supplied with food, which was usually not purchased, but produced on the estates (Cato Agr. 56). Next to self-supply, production for city markets also played a critical role in the economic consideration of the estate owners. An aristocratic lifestyle — particularly competing for appointment or holding an office, building activity and ostentatiously luxurious consumption — entailed great expense, which could only be covered by regular income. It is therefore typical that in antiquity documents would list the value or yield of individual estates, but not their area. Pliny described in a letter detailed arguments for the purchase of an estate: opportunities to save in the administration of properties, the quality of the soil and the low purchase. The debts of the colon, however, would speak against the purchase (Plin. Ep. 3,19). Although LE were the economic basis of the Roman upper class, its expansion was sharply criticized for political, economic, or moral considerations, frequently connected with the praise of small estate owners, and cited as cause for the decline of Italy (Columella 1,3,8-12; Sen. Ep. 89,20; Plin. HN 18,35).

C. IMPERIAL PERIOD AND LATE ANTIQUITY Until the 4th cent. AD, a modest estate was still common for the upper classes: Ausonius (3,1,21ff.) says

he inherited only 250 ha near Burdigala, two thirds of which consisted of woodland (though he acquired other estates later on), and the lists of estates in the Hermopolis Magna in Egypt reveal predominantly mediumsize properties. Some estate owners however, such as Quinctius Valgus and Herod Atticus (or even Trimalchio) acquired and managed entire landscapes. This trend, which can also be observed in the LE of the Princeps in North Africa as well as in the palace-like construction of the 2nd cent. AD in Montmaurin in Gaul, intensified further in late antiquity. In AD 404, the young > Melania and her husband earned an annual income of 1670 Roman pounds in gold from their estates throughout Italy, Sicily, Spain and Britain, which, according to Olympiodorus, was about average for a Roman senator (fr. 44). One of their estates near Rome supposedly consisted of 62 hamlets, each of which would probably have been worked by 400 slaves. The ostentatious buildings in Piazza Armerina in Sicily and the North African mosaics are impressive archaeological testimonies of this kind of farm complex. The development of such gigantic estates in the West may mirror the decline in numbers of the senatorial upper class, as well as the declining control of the emperor; it was in fact the Roman Church that, with the Patrimo-

nium Petri during the 4th to 6th cents., replaced the emperor as the greatest single owner of land in the West. Although larger farm complexes were initially less common in the East, estates comparable to those of the West arose especially in Egypt during the 6th and 7th cents. AD. The best known is the estate of the Flavii Apiones in Oxyrhynchus, which was probably more than 30,000 hectares.

LATIFUNDIA/LARGE ESTATES

V. ADMINISTRATION AND WORK FORCE Daily administrative tasks inevitably had to be delegated, and larger estates developed complex administrative hierarchies. Some estate owners, however, dedicated themselves to involvement in administration of their estates and were prepared to test new agricultural techniques, which were in part based on Persian and Carthaginian models. Progress in e.g. > viticulture and in wine production in Roman Italy has been verified. The openness to innovations in agriculture is well documented both in the Hellenistic and in the Roman worlds, and an extensive literature about the administration of country estates developed. The thesis of the alleged primitivism of ancient accounting has been questioned in a new study of Egyptian country estates in the 3rd cent. AD. How income from agricultural investments was calculated, is exemplarily shown in Columella’s explanations of the profitability of wine-growing (Columella 3,3). Since production and labour methods on the LE reacted to the changes of external conditions, intensive viticulture bloomed during the late Republic in central Italy and in Egypt during the 3rd cent. AD asa result of the Roman conquest of Gaul and the rise of the cities, whereas extensive pastoral farming and cultivation of grain were preferred on estates in Italy and Britain within the context of a rather stagnating economy in the 4th cent. AD.

275

276

Since the classic polis had developed views of the role of the citizen that excluded to a great extent the employment of free people on country estates, it was mainly imported slaves that were used as the work force on LE in Hellenistic and Roman times. It is their significance for the estate which led to the strong interest of agrarian writers in the question of how to treat slaves and moti-

Italy (2nd millennium BC?), proto-Italic separated into of — Venetic, Sabellic (-» OscanUmbrian) and Latin. To prehistorical Latin belong, for instance, the syncretism of aorist and perfect, the formation of the perfect inflection and of infinitives, as well as the system of demonstrative pronouns. At the beginning of recorded history (8th cent. BC), Latin was spoken in Latium (> Latini) (hence lingua Latina), i.e. from the lower Tiber to the > Liris [1. 923]. Before the Etruscans, coming inland from the coast, separated off the later > Faliscan at the end of the 2nd millennium, the area in which Latin was spoken reached up to the north over the Tiber. Around 500 BC, the Sabellic + Volsci occupied large parts of Latium. Latin as official language was thus limited to Rome. The Latin sound structure changed significantly in early Latin (7th-4th cents.) and again in Old Latin (3rd/and cents.): as a consequence of the regular accentuation of the initial syllable, many short vowels in

LATIFUNDIA/LARGE ESTATES

vate them to work (Xen. Oec. 20,16ff.; 21; Varro, Rust. 1,17f.; Columella 1,8). The estates needed additional

workers during harvest time and hired columns of free workers, usually in return for part of the harvest (Cato Agr. 136; 144; Suet. Vesp. 1,4; CIL VIII 11824 = ILS 7457). In the non-Greek areas of the East as also in the Gaulish West, however, the traditional forms of dependent work (‘between freedom and slavery’) were never abolished. In the time of the Principate, when

Rome no longer needed the free small farmers as soldiers or voters, leasehold began to spread throughout Italy. From the 4th cent. AD, most LE employed partly slaves, partly dependent tenants. It was then that the principes began, under the pressure of LE owners, to establish for the whole Imperium a legal status for dependent tenants, known as > colonatus. — Agrarian writers; > Agriculture; > Alimenta 1 R.S. BAGNALL, Landholding in Late Roman Egypt: The Distribution of Wealth, in: JRS 92, 1992, 128-149 2 A. CARANDINI (ed.), Settefinestre. Una villa schiavistica nell’Etruria romana, 1985 3Davies 4J.K. Davies, Wealth and the Power of Wealth in Classical Athens, 1981 5 DUNCAN-JONES, Economy, *1982 6 FINLEY, Property 7FLacH 8 E.G. Harpy, The Large Estates of Byzantine Egypt, 1931 9Jones, LRE, 767-808 10U.KanrSTEDT, Das wirtschaftliche Gesicht Griechenlands in der Kaiserzeit,1954 11 J.PERcIvAL, The Roman Villa, 1976 12 D.W. RATHBONE, Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century A.D. Egypt, 1991 13 M.I.

Rostovizerr, A Large Estate in Egypt in the Third Century B.C., 1922 14 A. TCHERNIA, Le vin de I’Italie romaine, 1986 15 K.D. Wuire, Latifundia, in: BICS 14, 1967, 62-79 16C.R. WHITTAKER, P.GaRNSEY, Rural life in the Later Roman Empire, in: CAH XIII, *1998, 277aniate D.R.

Latin A. History

B. LINGUISTIC CONTACTS

C. STRUC-

TURAL TRAITS

A. History Latin is an -> Indo-European language: like Greek or the Germanic languages, it derived from Proto-IndoEuropean (PIE; 4th/3rd millennia BC), which can be accessed by means of linguistic reconstruction, via specific changes. In the 3rd millennium BC, the mostly reconstructable proto-Italic separated from the westPIE dialect continuum (in the Danube region?). The specific traits of Latin formed at that time include the ~ syncretism of ablative and instrumentals, the stem

groups and categories of the present stem, or the meaning ‘to do’ from ‘to put’ (thus in PIE, cf. Greek ti®nut) in the case of facere. During the successive immigration to

the sub-branches

medial syllables were lost (syncope; > Phonetics), those

remaining were modified, many diphthongs became monophthongs, and consonant groups were simplified (*akso-la > *aksla > ala). In the oldest inscriptions (7th/6th cents.), Latin still sounds very alien (Satricum, before 500 [2]): Juiei steterai popliosio ualesiosio suodales mamartei, i.e. ‘in ? steterunt Publi Ualeri sodales Mart’. Simultaneous to the political expansion of Rome from c. 350 BC, Latin expanded as well, first with the foundation of > coloniae, then with the voluntary language shift of the dependent communities (Cumanis eo anno [180 BC] petentibus (‘upon request’| permissum, ut publice Latine loquerentur, Liv. 40,42,13), as well as

of the > socii, who became Roman citizens in 90 BC; by AD 70, all pre-Roman languages, except for Greek, had disappeared from Italy. With the establishment of the first provinces around 250 BC, Latin also gained ground outside of Italy, again due to immigration (civil servants, soldiers, merchants) and language shift. Latin

prevailed in the western half of the empire as well as on the Balkans; it remained the military and administrative language in the Greek east. The Romance languages that emerged from Latin during the Middle Ages are spoken today in south western Europe and Romania, further in Quebec, Central and South America, on the Philippines, as well as in many other parts of the world as lingue franche. From the 3rd cent. BC, the upper class of the city of Rome began to consciously shape their Latin: lexical and morphological doublets were eliminated (grandis, faxit; instead: magnus, fécerit), sound changes were dis-

continued (monophthongization, see below C.), syntax was regulated (e.g. the use of subjunctive). Thus originated the dialect- and sociolect-free classical Latin (sermo urbanus), which was cultivated in the schools and, in the provinces, geared to Rome. In colloquial

speech and poetry, the speaker was able to take certain liberties, for instance in pronunciation and diction. Lacking command of the rules of classical Latin (nubs

277

278

instead nubés) is what defines > Vulgar Latin (sermo vulgaris, rusticus), the source of the Romance lan-

‘enemy’; ag- ‘lead’) and in verbs additionally contains a suffix for the > aspect and another one for tense and mood (-e- for the infect, -ré- for subjunctive and imperfect). The five declinations of the Latin noun only origi-

guages. The deviations often follow certain tendencies (repression of the neuter and of the case forms), which then became regular in the Romance languages. B. LINGUISTIC CONTACTS Prehistorically, proto-Italic and proto-Celtic were in contact (common superlative suffix -isyzmo- > Lat. -issimus etc.). Contact of Early Latin with Sabellic and Etruscan led to the development of a common system of names (— gentile) and to a limited exchange of loan words (Lat. bos < Sabellic b6s*; Lat. satelles < Etruscan zatlae; Lat. magister > Etruscan macstre). Even older,

but uncontrollable is the borrowing of words pertaining to nature and civilization from the Mediterranean substrate (~ Mediterranean languages; buxus ~ Greek mv&oc/pyxos, gubernare ~ Greek xuBeovav/kybernan). The large number of loanwords from technology (machina < Greek Doric wdyavé/machana), culture (philosophia) and religion (loan translation cOnscientia < ovveidnou/syneidésis) attests to the strong influence of the Greek language on Latin, from prehistory until late antiquity. On the other hand, the contact of Latin with Celtic, Germanic and, for instance, Albanian, also supplied a large amount of loan words (Old Iranian oroit < Oratid, Old High German ziagala ‘brick’ < Lat. tégula). C. STRUCTURAL TRAITS 1. Phonemic inventory: the difference in length is distinctive for vowels and consonants; it can carry word and form differences on its own, cf. malum ‘evil’ : malum ‘apple’, anus ‘aged woman’: annus ‘year’, terra (nominative) : terra (ablative). Classical Latin only knows few diphthongs (caedere, aurum, coepi; Plaut. coépi), Vulgar Latin not even those (céd(e)re, Orum, cépi). The quality of short vowels in open inner syllables is determined by their environment, unless it is restored (advoc6 after voco); cf. e before r in peperi cineris : pario cinis; u before v and | (exception li), cf. dénuo [°nuvo] Siculus : novos Greek 2ixehdc/Sikelos (but Sicilia); u/i, [y] (similar to German /ii/) before m, b, f: optumus (archaic)/optimus, otherwise i, cf. Iuppiter contineo ilico : pater teneo locus. Intervocalically s appears as r (gero : gestum); h is prosodically irrelevant and not articulated in Vulgar Latin; medial fis borrowed (rufus < Umbrian rofu) or analogous (im-fero ‘carry [fero] inside’ > in-feri the Latin

2nd declination) had a certain number of special endings (instrumental plural -dis > Lat. -is instead of -b"i (cf. Lat. -bus]). The four conjugations only concern the present-tense stems, which were reorganized in proto-Italic (see above A.). The perfect partially continues aorist, partially perfect stems (dixi ~ Greek é5e1Ea/ édiexa: steti~ Greek totm-ual/hésté-ka); the -v/u- perfect is a Latin innovation. 3. Syntax: Latin word order is free within the syntagm (for poets occasionally beyond). The normal order is subject — object — verb. Communicatively significant and especially long syntagms tend to stand in focal positions (beginning or end of the sentence). Due to the extensive use of subordinate clauses and nominal constructions (accusativus cum infinitivo, ablative absolute, supine, gerundive), classical Latin was able to

linguistically express diverse factual relationships between

different events (‘Ciceronian periods’). Most unique is the possibility to designate the temporal relationship between two circumstances not only toward the speaker (for instance: past tense), but also to each other (for instance: simultaneity), a possibility contained in all Romance and Germanic languages. It appears that the constellations used for this purpose were results of the syncretism of aorist and perfect (see above A.). The possibility was then particularly utilized in the subjunctive, the new mood of syntactic dependence (consecutio temporum). + Dog Latin; > Medieval Latin; > Neo-Latin; > Romance Languages; > Pronunciation; > Vulgar Latin 1 M.CrisToranl, Due testi dell’Italia preromana, 1996, 9-23 2C.M. Sripseet al., Lapis Satricanus, 1980. INSCRIPTIONS:

CIL;

ILLRP;

WacuTer;

G.DEvoTo,

Storia della lingua di Roma, 71983 ; ERNOUT/MEILLET; HOFMANN/SZANTYR; LEUMANN; G. MEISER, Histor. Lau-

tund Formenlehre der lat. Sprache, 1998; L. PALMER, The Latin language, 1954; O.PANAGL, TH. Kriscu (ed.), L. und Idg., 1992; A.L. StHLER, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and L., 1995; SOMMER; SOMMER/PFISTER; K.STRUNK (ed.), Probleme der lat. Grammatik, 1973; V.VAANANEN, Introduction au latin vulgaire, 31981; E. Vinets, Latino, in: A.GIACOLONE Ramat, P.RAMAT (ed.), Le lingue indoeuropee, 1993, 289-348; WALDE/ HOFMANN. H.R.

Latini, Latium A. DEFINITION

C. CULTURAL

B. ETYMOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY DEVELOPMENT D. POLITICAL DE-

VELOPMENT

A. DEFINITION Latini is the name of the inhabitants of the region between the Tiber in the north, montes Corniculani, Praenestini, Lepini in the east, Garigliano and the

LATINI, LATIUM

279

280

southern sector of the Sacco and Liris valleys in the south, and the Tyrrhenian Sea in the west (Plin. HN 3,56ff.), Latium that of the region.

henian Sea as well as the roads linking the Tiber valley and Etruria on the one hand and Campania on the other; this system of transit routes in response to the morphological and hydrological conditions of the regions also determined the nature of the earliest settle-

B. ETYMOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY If the name Latium (Enn. Ann. 466), from which Latini originates, is derived from latus, ‘wide’, it could

ments [7. 106}.

cradle of all tribes in Latium (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom.

Plin. HN 3,69 records a list of 30 tribes of the Albenses allegedly taking part in the ritual distribution of sacrificial meat at the annual celebration of the > feriae Latinae on mons Albanus. The list which neither names Rome nor any other towns of importance in historical times, reflects a pre-urban state of settlement in Latium,

5512,3).

with numerous

In antiquity, a distinction was made between the area between the Tiber and the Circaeum foothills (Latium vetus, inhabited by Latin tribes in the actual sense, at whose core might have been the Prisci Latini) [6. 118] and Latium novum or adiectum, adjacent to the south, which in historical times came to Latium after the victory of the Romans over the Volsci, Hernici, and Aurunci. It is a region abounding in water with drainage problems in the plains; its rich forestation is evident in its mythology (the ancient silva Laurentina — modern Castel Porziano — as the seat of the earliest kings of the > Aborigines: Picus, Faunus, and Latinus) and its toponomastic (mons Querquetulanus; Fagutal). The region, open to the sea, boasted soil suitable for agriculture, cattle breeding, and pasture farming. In prehistoric times, only grain (emmer, barley), leguminous plants, and vegetables (field beans, peas, root crops grew here). During the 7th cent. BC, farming became intensified with the introduction of fertilization and crop rotation. Subsequently, wheat, grapes, and olive, pear and apple trees were introduced. Salt was an important natural resource; it was taken from the Tiber delta to the Sabini along the via Salaria.

tively a system of independent settlements, spreading across the Alban range and the Tiber plain, with Alba Longa as their centre. During the last quarter of the 8th cent. BC, Latium’s cultural appearance changed profoundly; bodies were buried in Fossa graves, and the increasing wealth of grave gifts (weapons, chariots, jewellery, and goods imported from Greece) is evidence of a growing production of agricultural products and decorative arts and proves the rise of social elites. The Alban centres lost in importance, whereas the Latin communities in the plain and along the coast experi-

be taken as a reference to the plain at the foot of the Alban Hills, the centre of the region with > Alba Longa; in accordance with the anachronistic model of colonization in the ancient tradition, it was seen as the

C. CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT According to tradition, the Latini can be traced back to the union of the aborigines, who had long settled in this region under — Latinus, their eponymous king (Hes.

Theog.

tori-1o16),

with

Aeneas’

Trojans

(> Aeneas [1]), who had been preceded by other Greek immigrants — the Arcadians under > Evander [1], and also Hercules and the Eleians [7. 53]. Archaeological

evidence shows that the formation of the tribe of the Latini was the result of a long process, which took place exclusively in Latium; indeed, the prehistory of Latium shows a cultural continuity and continuity of settlement between periods of the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, which is also found in the neighbouring regions (Apennine, sub-Apennine, and Protovillanova; > Villanova

Culture) [2. 426]. Around the roth cent. BC, a culture

with very characteristic features (cultura laziale) blossomed in Latium, characterized particularly by its funeral rites; this culture developed in four steps from the roth to the early 6th cent. BC. From the Bronze Age onwards, the territory was traversed by the > transhumance routes between the Apennines and the Tyrr-

autonomous

communities

or respec-

enced prosperity (Tibur, Praeneste, Ardea, Lanuvium, Pometia, Satricum, Antium). The final transition to an

urban society took place between the middle of the 7th cent. and the early decades of the 6th cent. This is also where Rome’s formation fits in. The language of the gentes in Latium, i.e. > Latin, is a clearly defined entity within the framework of Indo-European languages in Italy, its formation dating back to a first spread of IndoEuropean speaking gentes in the period prior to the 2nd millennium BC [4. 48]. D. POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT From the earliest time, the Latini were organized in religious (possibly also political) leagues around central

sanctuaries. The most well-known and one of the oldest of these had developed around the temple of — Jupiter Latiaris

on

mons

Albanus

(Monte

Cavo).

Another

centre were the springs of the goddess Ferentina, for whose veneration the representatives of the tribes appeared in weapons. In this context, Diana’s role as a deity also seems to have been of importance (in Corne near Tusculum, in Nemi: Cato fr. 58; on the Aventine: Liv. 1,45,2ff.). On the backdrop of the political relations between Rome and Latium at the end of the Monarchy (— rex), it is a matter of debate whether the sanc-

tuaries in Nemi or those in Rome had been founded first

[1. 47]. Already in the time of the Monarchy, Rome expanded its sphere of influence by taking ina number of Latin tribes. Sources attribute the destruction of — Alba Longa to Tullus > Hostilius

former

hegemony

over

[4]; as a result, Alba’s

Latium

was

transferred

to

+ Rome. Other cities (Politorium, Medullia, and Ficana) were to suffer a similar fate, coupled with mass

deportations and integration into the Roman citizenry.

281

282

LATINI, LATIUM

Lacus Sabatinus

ot US ntl¥ee

Tibur Elim). ~ eee

Pedum E].

‘

Em.

499 or 496 BC &

Praeneste

e Frascati Tusculum la).

¢

La

abn) son a

t Lavinium » Mi] if

e

s Alb

hu,

Aricia

eC | : ‘

mE] oo Lanuvium

Mare a

Ve let

henum

Satricum-Pometia [ii]. rf V

¢0

Latin Leagues (up to the 4th cent. BC) BH

Early period, up to the late 6th cent.

(cult associations)

Aequi

Tribe

Latium [s] City belonging to the 5th-cent. BC Latin League of cities (presided over by a dictator Latinus)

;

or Latium) of (386?) 358-338 BC

(presided over by 2 praetors)

@

central sanctuary on mons Albanus (early period)

;

Pometia

El City belonging to the Latin League (nomen Latinum

Lake/sea/region Latin name

; Frascati

Modern name

500

1000

1500

2000m

or near Aricia (from the 5th cent. BC) o%& Battle / destruction

20°

25km

ered

LATINI, LATIUM

According

to historical tradition, Servius

instituted a federal Diana

cult on mons

283

284

— Tullius

P. CATALANO, Linee del sistema sovrannazionale romano

Aventinus,

+ Tarquinius Superbus established control over the League of Ferentinum (Liv. 1,52,3-5), and a treaty of > isopoliteia was signed with the > Gabii (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4,58,3f.). Rome’s rule in Latium under the last kings was confirmed in the first treaty with Carthage of 509 BC [3. 210-214]. After the expulsion of the Tarquinii, differences between Rome and the Latin tribes resulted in 496 BC in the battle at lacus Regillus, in which the Romans were unable to achieve a resounding victory. As a consequence, the > foedus Cassianum (- Latin League) was founded in 493 BC; this treaty, whose historicity is now seen as assured, sets out the rights and duties of Romans and Latini (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6,95,1) as well as the

obligation to a common defence policy in view of the constant threat posed by the Veientes (- Veii), + Volsci, > Aequi, and > Sabini; in the course of the 5th and 4th cents. BC, Latin > coloniae were set up [3. 301-304]. The alliance finally broke apart in 341 BC, when Latini and Campani turned against Rome and the Samnites. After the Roman victory, the Latin League was dissolved, and the fate of the individual Latin cities was decided by the Roman Senate; some (Lanuvium, Aricia, Nomentum, Pedum) were granted Roman citizenship (> ius D.), as earlier Tusculum in 381 BC (municipium optimo iure); Lavinium maintained close and contracted (Liv. 8,11,15) religious connections to Rome; how-

ever, it remains uncertain whether it was then or only later that Lavinium became a municipium [5. 180182]. Other towns had to accept reductions in their territories, a Roman citizen colony was founded in Antium; Tibur, Praeneste, and Cora remained allies, whereas all other Latin tribes were isolated by Rome denying them the right to mutual commerce, marriages, and alliances (Liv. 8,14,10) and instating itself as their only partner. After 338 BC, the nomen Latinum comprised few autonomous towns and numerous > Latin law colonies, obliged to provide troups to Rome; with the exception of the rebellion by twelve of the Latin colonies in 209 BC, exhausted by Roman demands for military contributions, the majority of the socii nominis Latini, who had the ius Latii, retained their loyalty to Rome in the war against Hannibal (+ Punic Wars), and nor did they take part in the > Social War [3] (90 BC); as a result, the lex Iulia granted them Roman citizenship.

1, 1965; R.Ross Ho.ttoway, The Archeology of Early Rome and Latium, 1994.

Latinianus see + Cornelius [II 21-22] Latini Iuniani Roman — freedmen, whose > manumission (+ Manumissio) was deficient. For this reason

the freedman did not receive citizenship and in general had an inferior legal status compared to other freedinen. The term Latini Iuniani (LI) is derived from a lex Iunia (Norbana?), probably of AD 1g. It legally equated certain groups of freedmen with Latini coloniarii (holders of citizenship in a Latin colony). Therefore, they had no political rights (especially no voting rights) but were able to take part in legal transactions with Roman citizens because they had the — commercium due to their status. The lex Iunia probably concerned three groups of freedmen: the most important group probably consisted of slaves whose master had freed them but did not adhere to the forms of the Roman ius civile (> Manumission C.) in the process. These freedmen were probably already protected before the lex Iunia by the praetor from attempts by their former master to return them to slavery by means of the > vindicatio. The same applied to the second group: those freed by masters who were not owners according to the ius civile. According to the lex Aelia Sentia (> Freedmen II. B.) of AD 4, the manumission of persons under 30 was normally ineffective but according to the lex Iunia resulted in a status as LI. LI were able to achieve the status of persons manumitted according to the ius civile including Roman citizenship if the master repeated the manumission (iteratio) — this time formally. LI also acquired this rank when they married a Latin or Roman woman and had a son with her who survived the first year. The LI were less well off in particular with respect to property law: they were not able to dispose of their wealth by testament when they died, nor was it given to their relatives, but only to the manumitting party. The lex Iunia contained the fiction that LI were to be treated upon their death as if they had never been manumitted. As a result, the assets of LI became a special property (— peculium) of the manumitting party. + Latin law; > Praetor

1A.ALFOLDY, 2 G.Cotonna,

Early Rome and the Latins, 1965 I Latini e gli altri popoli del Lazio, in:

1 C. Mast Dorta, Bona Informal Manumission 1981, 247-276 31d., Informal Manumission

A.M.

BIANCHI

211-292

Cuieco

(ed.), Italia omnium

terrarum

libertorum, 1996 2 A.J.B. Srrks, and the Lex Iunia, in: RIDA 28, The Lex Iunia and the Effects of and Iteration, in: RIDA 30, 1983,

4A.STEINWENTER, s.v. L.I., RE 12, 910-924.

alumna, 1988, 409-528 3 7T.J. CORNELL, The Beginnings of Rome, 1995 4 G.DeEvoro, Gli antichi Italici, 195t 5 M.Humpert, Municipium et civitas sine suffragio, 1978 6 M.PALLoTTINo, Origini e storia primitiva di Roma, 1993 7 L. QuiLici, Roma primitiva e le origini della civilta laziale, 1979. A. BERNARDI, Nomen Latinum, 1973; G. COLONNa (ed.),

Civilta del Lazio Primitivo, exhibition catalogue, 1976;

GAL.

GS.

Latinitas see > Virtutes dicendi

Latinius Roman family name (Etruscan Latini), a derivation from the ethnicon Latinus. SCHULZE, 5226.

285

286

I. REPUBLICAN

PERIOD

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD {I 1] L., T. According to Livy (2,36,2-8), who sets the

legend that was originally probably not fixed in time in 491 BC, Jupiter told L. ina dream during the Latin War that he should instruct the consuls to have the /udi Romani (+ ludi) repeated; L. finally obeyed these instructions after initially ignoring them twice and twice being punished (cf. Val. Max. 1,7,4; Aug. Civ. 4,26; without naming a name i.a. Cic. Div. 1,55; other

names 1.a. in Lactant. Div. inst. 2,7,20; Macrob. Sat.

I,11,3, where the incident is dated to 279).

C.MU.

Il. IMPERIAL PERIOD {Il 1] L.L. Latiaris see > Lucanius

{112] L. Martinianus Equestrian. Military tribune under Probus in AD 282; procurator of Alpes Graiae under Carus between the autumn of 282 and December 283 [1. no. 15-18]. PIR* L 124. {II 3] L. Pandusa Legatus pro praetore in Moesia under the command of Poppaeus Sabinus; he died just before ADErosrelated tol. [Mai sPIR=Wwir2s. {i 4] Ti. L. Pandusa Young member of the senatorial class, perhaps hailing from Aricia, related to L. [II 3], but not identical with him. CIL XIV 2166 is associated with his tomb. L. died after holding office as quattuorvir viarum curandarum. PIR* L 126. 1 B. Rémy, Inscriptions Latines des Alpes I, 1998.

W.E.

Latinization Latinization is understood as the influencing of other languages by > Latin as a result of language contact. Since the historical circumstances varied for each > language contact, Latinization occurred ina number of different ways. The most drastic result of language contact is the complete eradication of languages and dialects; thus, Latin replaced related Italic dialects and languages at an early time (- Italy, languages), the most prominent victim being Etruscan. However, the Romans did not engage in restrictive language politics and the extinction of said languages was not a planned process. Only few remnants of dialects related to Latin merged into Latin in the form of socalled substratum words (such as bos or rufus). Their non-Latin origin is recognizable in the Indo-European voiced > labiovelar and the Indo-European media aspirata, neither being representative of Latin phonetics. Other languages to die out in the course of Roman expansion were Celtic (— Celtic languages) in Gallia and on the Iberian peninsula (where, however, the ancestor of > Basque was able to survive in certain remote regions), —> Punic in Northern Africa, Dacian, Thracian, and Illyrian on the Balkan peninsula (+ Balkans,

languages; it is contested whether > Albanian should be regarded as Neo-Thracian, Neo-IIlyrian or neither). The end of inscriptional records in an epichoric language, however, does not necessarily coincide with the disappearance of that language; occasionally, the sur-

LATINIZATION

vival of a language is attested in literature, as is the case for Punic (in Aug.) or Celtic in Asia Minor (Jer.). The question whether peculiarities in the modern Romanic languages of various regions can be explained by the effect of substrata is contested but is usually answered in the negative today for most of the phonetic developments in question. Germanic populations were not permanently Lati-

nized, although German, for instance, contains a large number of Latin > loan-words (esp. in the vocabulary of the church, of viticulture and horticulture, of commerce as well as architecture and town planning), which must be old because they have obviously been adopted prior to the second sound shift (e.g. Pfund < Lat. pondus). The situation is different in the Greek-speaking east. Latin was not able to maintain its dominance permanently and indigenous languages such as > Lycian and > Phrygian were replaced by Greek instead. On the other hand, Greek itself adopted Latin influences (vocabulary) and transferred these into other languages such as Coptic, Syrian or Arabic. This is clearly the case for large numbers of words that refer to law, administration, and the military, such as utvooc/census,

uevtveiwv/centurio

(xevtoveiwv

as

well), Aeyuov/legio (all three are in the NT), also for the vocabulary of material culture found only in texts of lower aspirations as they were not deemed worthy of High Greek. Regarding Latin and Greek on the whole, the reciprocal influences between the two languages and their parallel development is so pronounced that one could refer to the two as allied languages. ~» Romance languages E. BANFI, Linguistica balcanica, 1985; R.J. BONNER, Conflict of Languages in the Ancient World, in: CJ 25, 1929/39, 579-592; A.BuDINSzky, Die Ausbreitung der lateinische Sprache uber Italien und die Provinzen des romischen Reiches, 1881 (repr. 1973); M. DuBUISSON, Y a-t-il une politique linguistique romaine?, in: Ktema 7, 1982, 187-210; G. NEUMANN, J. UNTERMANN (ed.), Die Sprachen im rémischen Reich der Kaiserzeit (Kolloquium vom 8.-10. April 1974, Koln-Bonn), 1981; K. HoLt, Das

Fortleben der Volkssprachen in Kleinasien in nachchristlicher Zeit, in: Hermes 43, 1908, 240-254; J. Karm1o, The Romans and the Greek Language, 1978; R. KaTicic, Ancient Languages of the Balkans, 1976; J. KRAMER, Der kaiserzeitliche griechisch-lateinische Sprachbund, in: N. REITER (ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beitrage zur Tagung vom 2.-6. Marz 1981 in Berlin, 1983, 115— 131; G. Narr (ed.), Griechisch und Romanisch, 1971; E.Po.tomg, The Linguistic Situation in the Western Proyinces, in: ANRW II 29.1, 509-553; C. TAGLIAVINI, Einfiihrung in die romanische Philologie, 1973. V.BI.

LATIN LAW

Latin law (ius Latii). I. BEFORE THE DISSOLUTION

LEAGUE

288

287

OF THE LATIN

II. AS A LEGAL STATUS

IN THE IMPERIUM

ROMANUM

they did not receive full citizenship. Perhaps an all too sudden change in the electorate of the committees was feared. If this is true, the LL was interpreted as being Roman citizenship without voting rights for the first time.

I. BEFORE THE DISSOLUTION OF THE LATIN

LEAGUE Because of their common language and culture, Romans and Latins possessed largely identical legal systems. This fact was given precision in the > foedus Cassianum. It included > commercium and > conubium,

the right to the spoils in joint wars as well as the right to settle in other states of the Latin federation and to become citizens (basis of the + exilium). This legal status was also granted to newly founded Latin > coloniae. II. AS A LEGAL STATUS IN THE IMPERIUM ROMANUM A. TO THE SOCIAL WaR B.1STCENT. BC C. LATE

REPUBLICAN AND IMPERIAL PERIODS

A. To THE SOCIAL WAR After the dissolution of the > Latin league in 338 BC, some Latin and Hernician communities continued to exist, the prisci Latini. However, the main bearers of Latin law (LL) were the Latin colonies founded by Rome alone. The civil rights of the Latini coloniarii continued to rest on the foedus Cassianum, but also the

founding laws of the individual colonies, which might have differed significantly from each other. Cicero mentions (Caecin. 102) a ius Ariminensium whose inherit-

ance law apparently differed from that of other Latin colonies. In the 2nd cent. BC the right of relocation was made dependent on permission from the native community (fundus fieri). When the Latins acquired the restricted voting right is unknown but it is first attested in 212 BC (App. B Civ. 1,99, cf. Liv. 25,3,16).

From the late 3rd cent. BC, Latin colonies were also founded outside Italy proper, the first in 218 being Cremona and Placentia in the > Gallia Cisalpina, and then in 171 —> Carteia in Spain. The ius civitatem per honores adipiscendi was introduced before 89 BC for their elites, and Roman citizenship granted to the magistrates of these colonies and their families (> civitas). No later than 122 BC, the magistrates of the Latin colonies and the other socii in Italy had the choice between citizenship or a number of privileges in their homeland (provocatio; choice of a court in Rome; immunitas omnium rerum; Lex Acilia repetundarum, in: [12. no. 1,1. 76ff.] and [1. 93ff.]; otherwise in [12. no. 1, p. 111]). B. 1ST CENT. BC In the > Social War [3] (91-87 BC), the Latins up to

the River Po received Roman citizenship while the communities of Gallia Transpadana received Latin colonial law in 89 from Pompeius Strabo. This was the first time that the ius Latii was granted over a large area and without deduction (settlement) of new colonists (Ascon. in Pisonem 3 C), but it is still uncertain why

C. LATE REPUBLICAN AND IMPERIAL PERIOD Under Caesar and Augustus further individual and collective grants occurred in Gallia Narbonensis, Sicily, Africa and Spain, and under Claudius also in Noricum. -» Vespasian finally ‘granted LL to all of Spain’ (universae Hispaniae... Latium tribuit; Plin. HN 3,30; cf. [2. 37ff.]). It is disputed if in the rst cent. AD the civitates of the Tres Galliae received LL (cf. [3]; the thesis of [4], according to which munictpia with LL existed only from Vespasian, must be rejected). LL only had currency in the western part of the empire; there were no communities with this law in the Greek east. Under Caesar the new Latin communities carried the title colonia; from Augustus they were almost always called municipium — correctly, because none of them were based on deduction. In the form of their organization, their epithets and the personal names of their citizens they were identical to the towns of Roman citizens (with the exception of those in Gallia, cf. [5]). Their private law was also largely adapted to Roman iaw: according to the new — lex Irnitana — unless this law decreed otherwise — Roman law was to be applied (§ 93: quo cives Romani inter se iure civili agunt agent.

Under Hadrian a Latium maius was introduced along with the old law, which was now called minus. The new law granted the citizenship also to the decurions (> decurio, decuriones [1]; Gai. Inst. 1,96; ILS

6781). With the — constitutio Antoniniana, which granted Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire in AD 212, the law of the Latini coloniarii ceased to exist. ~ Constitutio Antoniana; > Ius D.; > Latini Iuniani; + Lex Irnitana 1 H. GALsTeRER, Herrschaft und Verwaltung im rom. It., 1976 2Id., Unt. zum rém. Stadtewesen auf der iber. Halbinsel, 1971 3 A.CHASTAGNOL, La Gaule romaine et le droit latin, 1995 4 P.Le Roux, Municipe et droit latin

en Hispania, in: Revue Historique de droit Frangais et Etranger 64, 1986, 325-350 5 E.OrTIz DE URBINA, Die rom. municipale Ordnung, in: BJ 195, 1995, 39-66 6 A.STEINWENTER, s.v. Latini Iuniani, RE 12, 910-924 7P.R.C. Weaver, Where Have All the Iunian Latins Gone?, in: Chiron 20, 1990, 275-305 8 A.N. SHERWINWaite, The Roman Citizenship, *1973, 9 H. GALSTERER,

Bemerkungen zu rom. Namensrecht und ro6m. Namenspraxis, in: F. HEIDERMANNS (ed.), Sprachen und Schriften des ant. Mittelmeerraumes (FS J.Untermann), 1993, 87— 96 10 E. OrTIz DE URBINA,J.SANTOs (ed.), Teoria y practica del ordenamiento municipal en Hispania, 1996

11 F. VittincHorr, Rom. Kolonisation und Biirgerrechtspolitik unter Caesar und Augustus, 1950 12 M.H. CRAWFORD (ed.), Roman Statutes, 1996.

H.GA.

289

290

Latin League A federation of towns (populi) in Latium Vetus that was organized around the sanctuary ofJupiter Latiaris on > mons Albanus, but in part also around that of Diana of > Aricia. The rights of members were regulated in the > foedus Cassianum. The federation came increasingly under Roman control, first during the time of the Tarquinian kings and then in the 4th cent. BC. In 338 the majority of its members was annexed and the remainder became the prisci Latini. > Latini, Latium (with map)

Latini

T.J. CORNELL, H. GALSTERER, 1976, 84-100; zenship, 71973,

The Beginnings of Rome, 1995, 293ff.; Herrschaft und Verwaltung im rom. It., A.N. SHERWIN-WHITE, The Roman Citi3-37. H.GA.

Mapes: A.ALFOLDI, Das friihe Rom und die Latiner, 1977; I.J. CORNELL, The Beginnings of Rome, 1995; R.R. Hottoway, The Archaeology of Early Rome and Latium, 1994; F.KoLzB, Rom. Die Geschichte der Stadt in der Ant., 1995.

Latinus [1] (Greek Aativoc; Latinos). Mythical eponymous an-

cestor L. and and — of the

of the > Latini. According to the Greek version, his brother Agrius are the sons of > Odysseus Circe and kings of the > Tyrrheni on the Island Blessed (Hes. Theog. rorrff.). Servius (Aen.

12,164), who refers to a no longer identifiable Greek

author, takes up this origin of L., but identifies him as the founder of the city of Rome, which was named for Rhome, the sister of L. According to a second version, L. is the son of > Hercules and a woman of the Hyperboreans whom he took to Latium as his wife, and who

married Faunus after his departure (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,43,1). According to Pompeius Trogus (in lust. 43,1), the mother of L. is the daughter of Faunus. The third version, which reflects pre-Virgilian Roman sources [1] and is widely known through Virgil, places L. ina Roman context: he is described as the son of > Faunus and > Marica (Verg. Aen. 7,47). In the Aeneid, L. appears as the old king ofa peaceful country. When Aeneas and the Trojans arrive in Latium, L. receives them in the palace of his grandfather > Picus (Verg. Aen. 7,191ff.). During this friendly meeting, L. realizes that Aeneas is the future son-in-law from abroad, who was prophesied to him by prodigies and the oracle of Faunus. He therefore decides to give Aeneas his daughter > Lavinia as wife. > Turnus, the ruler of the Rutuli, to whom Lavinia was earlier promised as wife, leads the Italic people in a war against the Trojans. In the Virgilian version, L. opposes the war and retires to his palace, while according to an earlier variant, he takes part in the battle and dies on the battlefield (Cato Orig. 9 in Serv. Aen. 1,267 CHASSIGNET). Virgil emphasizes how L. unsuccessfully tries to restore peace and prevent the duel between Turnus and Aeneas for Lavinia until the end. L. must also experience the suicide of his wife, » Amata, who took the side of Turnus (Verg. Aen. 12,595ff.). When Aeneas decides the battle

in his favour, the two peoples are united and called

LATIN WARS in accordance

with

the will of Juno

(ibid.

12,821ff.). 1 V.J. Rosivacn, s.v. L., EV 3, 131-134. Cu. BaLk, Die Gestalt des L. in Vergils Aeneis, thesis Hei-

delberg, 1968.

[2] L. Silvius Son of Aeneas Silvius, father of Alba Silvius and fourth king of the city of Alba (Liv. 1,3,7; Diod. Sic. 7,5,9). According to Ovid (Met. 14,610;

Fast. 4,43), however, he is the son of > Postumius Silvius and, thus, of the third Roman king. The founding of several cities is ascribed to him. G. BRUGNOLI, s.v. Albani, re, EV 1; F. Cassora, Le origini

di Roma

e l’eta regia in Diodoro, in : E.GALVAGNO,

C.Mo.Lé VenturA, Mito Storia Tradizione. Diodoro Siculo e la storiografia classica, 1991, 273-324. FR.P.

[3] > Archimimus towards the end of the rst cent. AD, member of the guild of the parasiti Apollinis (Mart. 9,28,9) [1]. He was a darling of the public and made the most serious people laugh; he was closely identified (Juv. 6,44) with his role as the lover who hides in a chest from the cuckolded husband [2] (the buffoon who is slapped around, stupidus, was played alongside him by the mimus Panniculus: Mart. 2,72,3f.). The content of his plays was immoral, but not his way of life (Mart. 3,86 and 9,28,5-10). As a favourite of the emperor Domitian (Suet. Dom.

15,3), he was feared as an in-

former (Juv. 1,3 5f. and schol. to 4,53). —+ Mime 1 H.Leppin, Histrionen, 1992, 93-95 2M.BONARIA (ed.), Romani Mimi, 1965, App. II: Fasti Mimici, no. 258.

E. DigHL, E. Lrgsen, s.v. L. (3), RE 12, 937-938; H. LepPIN, Histrionen, 1992, 2536. H.-D.B.

[4] (Aattvoc; Latinos). Greek grammarian, probably

from the beginning of the Imperial period, but before Porphyrius (3rd cent. AD). The name itself is well documented in Greek inscriptions and suggests this dating. L. studied the subject of literary plagiarism in antiquity [2; 4]: Porphyrius (Phildlogos akréasis B. 1, in Euseb. Praep. evang. 10,3,12) mentions a work ‘On Menander’s Appropriations’ (Ilegi tév ox idtwv Mevavdeou (Men. T 81 K.-A.) immediately after a quote from the work of Aristophanes [4] of Byzantium on the plagiarism of Menander (fr. 376 SLATER = Men. T 76 K.-A.). 1 A.GUDEMAN,

s.v. L. (4), RE 12, 938

2

E.STEMP-

LINGER, Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur, 1912, 35-36, 51-52 3F.SuSEMIHL, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, 1891-1892, vol. 1,253 4K.Zrecter,s.v. Plagiat, RE 20, 1920. P.M.

Latin Wars is the term for the military conflicts between Rome and the > Latin League (— Latini D.) — of which Rome was not a member — and between Rome and individual Latin towns that sporadically occurred from the beginning of the Republic (about 510 BC) to the dissolution of the League by Rome in 338 BC.

LATIN WARS

292

291

The first Latin War can be considered as an attempt of the Latins to end Rome’s dominant position. Rome had become the dominant power among the Latins under its kings Servius Tullius {I 4] and Tarquinius [12] Superbus (cf. Liv. 1,52) and made it clear immediately after expelling the kings with the First Carthaginian Treaty (509; Pol. 3,22). The beginning of the war is uncertain but the Latin cities, who were promoting the return of Tarquinius together with Aristodemus [5] of Cyme, appear to have continued the war after the battle of Aricia (c. 505 BC), which led to the retreat of Lars + Porsenna from Rome. The war ended in 496 with the Roman victory at > Lacus Regillus (Liv. 2,21,3 f.), but

Rome was not able to maintain its dominant position: in the > foedus Cassianum (493) Rome appeared as an equal partner of the Latins (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6,95;

[2. 299-301]). The new constellation proved itself up to the 4th cent. in the battles against the mountainous tribes (+ Aequi; > Volsci) that had penetrated into the Latin plain and in the foundation of joint > coloniae during which Rome was able to strengthen its position. By 396 it had acquired as much territory as all the Latin towns together (> ager Romanus, s. Addenda). After the sack of Rome by the Gauls (387/6; Pol. 1,6,1), these tensions resulted in wars with the Latin towns and colonies [2. 318-326], were only partially alleviated by renewing the foedus Cassianum 358 (Pol. 2,18,5; Liv. 7,12,7 f.) and finally resulted in the last Latin War (3 41338) [2. 347-352]. This was closely related to Rome’s involvement in the Campania as a result of the first Roman war against the > Samnites (343-341) with whom Rome surprisingly formed an alliance. The Latins, who now feared coming between two fronts, allied themselves with the Volsci and the Campanians against Rome and were only defeated with the utmost exertion (cf. Liv. 8,9,1-8: > devotio of the Roman general). The political reorganization of Latium and of neighbouring areas in 338 BC with the objective of dissolving political and private relationships among the defeated and binding individual towns with treaties to Rome alone was the foundation of the later Roman > socii (Roman confederation) (with map). The Latin League was dissolved (Liv. 8,14), some towns were incorporated into the Roman state as > municipia on the ager Romanus (Aricia, Lanuvium, Nomentum, Pedum),

others remained independent but had to cede territory (Tibur, Praeneste) and also lost the right to trade and intermarry (commercium and connubium) among themselves. Towns outside of Latium (Capua, Suessula, Cumae, Fundi, Formiae) received Roman citizenship

without voting rights (civitas sine suffragio; > Civitas B.) and thus bore military burdens without having political rights. The Latin citizenship (> Latin law) survived as an artificial construct and after 334 (> Cales) was granted to colonzae in Italy and the later provinces. + Socii (Roman confederation) (with map); — Latini, Latium (with map)

1 E.T. SaLmon, The Making of Roman Italy, 1982, 40-56 2 T.J. CoRNELL, The Beginnings of Rome, 1995, 293-352

3 A. ALFOLDI, Das friihe Rom und die Latiner, 1977, 35 1—365.

W. ED.

Latium see > Latini

Latmus (Adtuoc; Latmos). [1] A gneiss and granite mountain range in Caria on the

northern and eastern banks of former Latmikos Kolpos (modern Bafa Golii), modern Besparmak Daglari. First mentioned by Hecat. FGrH 1 F 239. Archaeologically the earliest traces of human settlement go back to prehistory. The L. was one of the sacred mountains of Asia Minor. On the Tekerlekdag (1,375 m high), the CarianAnatolian weather and rain god was worshipped in the pre-Greek period, who was then replaced by Zeus Akraios and Zeus Labrandeus (> Labranda). The western part of L. with its highest elevations in ancient times formed the territory of the Hellenistic city of > Heraclea [5] or the precursor settlement L. [2], also named after the mountain range (Diod. Sic. 5,51,3). The local hero of L. was -» Endymion whose name probably points to a pre-Greek mountain god. The place of his erotic

encounter

with

— Selene

(earliest

mention:

Sappho fr. 134) was a cave in the mountains where people also showed his adyton (Paus. 5,1,4; > Abaton) and his grave (Str. 14,1,8). Tu. WIEGAND, Der L. Milet 3.1, 1913; L.BURCHNER, s.v. L. (1), RE 12, 964-966; U.PESCHLOw, s.v. L., RBK 5, 651-716; A.PESCHLOW-BINDOKaT, Der Latmos. Eine

unbekannte Gebirgslandschaft an der tiirk. Westkiiste (Antike Welt Sonderheft), 1996.

[2] Carian city, precursor settlement of the Hellenistic

city of > Heraclea [5]. Presumably founded at the time of the Ionian > colonization by > Carians (Str. 14,1,8); attested in literature and inscriptions from archaic times (Hecat. FGrH 1 F 239; [Didyma 12), in the 5th

cent. BC member of the — Delian League (ATL 1,128ff.), in the 4th cent. BC part of the satrapy of Caria; conflicts with the Hecatomnides (Polyaenus, Strat. 7,23,33; 53,43 > Hecatomnus). L. was abandoned at the end of the 4th cent. BC at the instigation of Pleistarchus and re-established a short distance away to the west. Its area became part of the necropolis of Heraclea [5] and with the exception of the centre was spared being built over later. Of the old town — that to a large extent was pulled down and cleared away when it was abandoned — remains of the fortifications and the interior layout are preserved (agora, palace, several cult districts, above all numerous houses). K.LyNCKER,

Herakleia

in: F.KRISCHEN,

am

Latmos.

Milet

Die

3.2,

Befestigungen

1922

von

(city map);

L. BURCHNER, s.v. L. (2), RE 12, 966; A. PESCHLOW-BIN-

DOKAT, Der Latmos. Eine unbekannte Gebirgslandschaft an der tiirk. Westkiiste (Antike Welt Sonderheft), 1996, 23ff. (with additional literature). ALPE.

293

294

Lato (Aati; Lato). City in the east of Crete, situated in

Latobrigi In 58 BC the > Helvetii persuaded three smaller Celtic neighbouring tribes to participate in their tribal emigration: Rauraci, Tulingi and L. (Caes. B Gall. 1,5,4)3 only with regard to the first do we know (cf. the future Colonia Augusta [4] Raurica) the original dwelling site east of the bend of the Rhine at Basle. After the battle of Bibracte the L., like the others, were sent back by Caesar to their old homeland that is not described in greater detail. [1] considers the Helvetian campaign to be a Celtic mercenary enterprise against > Ariovistus; in paid-soldier campaigns of this kind, the participation of mercenaries from various tribes was common.

an isolated mountain area at a height of c. 400 m, witha good view of the coast, 15 km away from modern Agios Nikolaos. Already settled in the Minoan period but then deserted by the inhabitants. In the 8th cent. BC, Doric re-establishment and then in the ancient and classical period one of the most prominent towns on the island. Numerous inscriptions document the engagement of L. in international politics during the Hellenistic period, with the foreign-policy radius of action however remaining limited to Crete. In the late 3rd cent. BC there is evidence of a sympolity with the harbour town of > Kamara [1] [z. no. 72]. At the end of the 2nd cent. BC there were border conflicts with — Olus [z. no. 54-56] — for which there is ample epigraphical evidence — that were settled by Knosos and as a result were acknowledged by Rome. From about the same time come alliance treaties with Lyttus [1. no. 58] and + Hierapytna [1. no. 59]. According to these, the core of the settlement moved to Camara, and probably only a few people continued to live in L. The site, which was laid out in a terrace-shaped manner and has been researched by French archaeologists since 1901 (with interruptions), offers impressive and ancient remains — that are to some extent unique for Doric Crete — from the ancient to the Hellenistic epoch: stoa, exedra, prytaneion, stairs possibly going back to the Minoan models, a temple to the main goddess — Eileithyia, shops (of a miller with a stone hand mill; bakery) as well as private dwellings. 1 A. CHANIOTIS, Die Vertrage zw. kret. Poleis in der hell. Zeit, 1996.

P. Faure, Aux frontiéres de l’état de L.: 50 toponymes, in: W.C. Brice (ed.), Europa. FS E. Grumach, 1967, 94-112;

F.GscHNITZzER, Abhangige Orte im griech. Alt., 1958, 49-51; H. BUHMANN, s.v. L., in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 371f.; I.F. SANDERS, Roman Crete, 1982, 142; H.vAN EFFENTERRE, M.Boucrat, Les frontiéres de L., in: Kretika Chronika 21, 1969, 9-53; P. DucRay, O. PICARD, s.v. L., PE, 487.

H.SO.

Latobici (Aatofixoi; Latébikoi, Ptol. 2,14,2; Latovici, Plin. HN 3,148; Latobici, inscription). A probably Celtic tribe in > Pannonia superior near Noricum. In the Augustan period a city-like settlement (municipium Latobicorum, tribus Quirina, CIL Il, 3925) arose as a centre of the tribal area that was given the ius Latii (> Latin law) and was called Neviodunum from the time of Vespanian (AD 69-79). A duovir iure dicundo, a patronus municipii and a praeceptor Graecus (CIL III, 3925; 10804; 10805) are attested. There are votive inscriptions to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Silvanus

LATOMIAI

1 G. WatserR, Bellum Helveticum ten 118), 1998.

(Historia EinzelschrifGW.

Latomiai (Aatopia/Latomiai, AvWotouta; Lithotomiai, Latin Lautumiae). The quarries on the southern

slope of the limestone terrace of Epipolae north of Syracusae that were obviously already in operation from the early period of Syracusae and that were later used as a prison. Xenophanes (123 A 33 DK) mentions the fish fossils found in them. The three largest latomiae (from which a total of 2.4 million m3 of rocks were quarried), with walls 25-35 m high, a length of up to 250 manda width of 40-170 m (in Ael. VH 12,44: 1 stadium long, 2 plethra wide), are from west to east: the Latomia del Paradiso with the lateral cavities of the so-called Orecchio di Dionisio and the Grotta di Cordari, nearby Latomia di Santa Venera into the walls of which were set cult niches, and close to the coast the Latomia dei Capuccini. In autumn 413 BC, Syracusae locked up in the latomiae over 7,000 Athenians together with allies who had been declared to be state prisoners (Thuc. 7,86,2; 87; Plut. Nicias 28,2; 29,1; Diod. Sic. 13,19,4; 33,1; + Peloponnesian War). Under DionysiusI (around

430-367 BC) Philoxenus of Cythera was held prisoner here (Diod. Sic.

15,6,3; Lucian. Adversus indoctum 15;

Ael. l.c.; Suda s.v. “Amayé we and s.v. Eig Aatouiac; cf. Ath. 1,6f.); the latomiae are also mentioned as a prison under Dionysius II (Pl. Ep. 2,314e). At the time of

Cicero the latomiae were considered on the one hand to be a sight and on the other hand the safest state prison which was also used by the other Sicilian cities (Cic. Verr. 5,68; 143; 148). On the higher terrace there are remains of a Bronze Age settlement and necropoleis from the late archaic and classical periods. B.Lupus, Die Stadt Syrakus im Alt., 1887, 32ff., 95f., 297ff.; K. FIEHN, s.v. L., RE 3 A, 2252f.; G. Voza, Attivita

archeologica della Soprintendenza di Siracusa e Ragusa,

Augustus, Luna Augusta and Hercules Augustus (CIL

in: Kokalos 39/40, Il.2, 1993/4, 1288f.; H.-P. DROGEMUL-

Ill, 78786; 10788; 10798f.; 3920; 3923).

LER, Syrakus: zur Top. und Geschichte einer griech. Stadt. Mit einem Anhang zu Thuk. 6,96ff und Liv. 24.25, 1969;

M.F uss,

s.v. L., RE 12, 966f.;

A.Mocsy, Die Bevolke-

rung von Pannonien bis zu den Markomannenkriegen, 1959, 21ff.

J.BU.

B. CARNABUCI, CH. HOcKER, H.LEHMKUHL, Sizilien: Insel zw. Orient und Okzident, 31996. H.-P.DRO. andGLF.

295

296

Latona (or Lato; ‘woman (?)’). Latin rendition of the Doric form of the name of > Leto (Etruscan /etun,

gang (> rapina). The lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis

Lycian Jada), with uncertain etymology, goddess of the night (?) of Asia Minor. Daughter of > Coeus and

and stipulates capital punishment (Paulus, Sent. 5,23; Coll. 1,2,3, cf. also Dig. 48,19,28,15). Legislation in late antiquity testifies to a never-ending battle against latrocinium: prohibition on having horses (Cod. Theod. 9,30,2), admissibility even of taking the law

LATONA

~ Phoebe, mother of > Apollo and — Diana

(Varro,

Ling. 7,16). L. with her children was promised a temple in 433 BC and in Rome it was built in 431 BC (CIL I’ p. 252), the triad itself is Greek. A > lectisternium (‘feast

for the gods’), prescribed in 399 BC by the Sibylline Books (Liv. 5,13,6), was held jointly for L. and Apollo (for the last time in 326 BC, Liv. 8,25,1). L. and Apollo were worshipped in 212 BC according to the Greek rite (Liv. 25,12,13). A statue to L. also stood in the Apollo temple on the Field of Mars (Plin. HN 36,5,34). L. was replaced by Diana in 217 BC (Liv. 22,10,9). The representation of L. in the battle with > Tityus is uncertain. W.BEcK, s.v. Antw, LFE 2, 1688; G.BERGER-DOER, T. GANSCHow, s.v. L., LIMC 6.1, 267-272; R. MuTH,

(81 BC) also includes the latrocinium as a public crime

into one’s own hands (Cod. Theod. 9,14,2 = Cod. lust. 3,27,1,1 and 2), acceleration of proceedings (Cod. Theod. 2,8,21 = Cod. Iust. 3,2,8), severe punishment

for being an accessory after the fact (Cod. Just. 9,39,1; already in Dig. 47,16), absolute obligation of property owners and administrators to hand over thieves who had been caught, where necessary with the help of the military (Cod. Iust. 9,39,2). > Brigands, bands of G.HumBerT, CH. Lecrivain, MommMssn, Strafrecht, 629f.

s.v.

L., DS

3.2, 991f.; CE.

Einfiihrung in die griech. und rém. Rel., 1988, 265-266, 267 with n. 679; J.B. KEUNE, s.v. L. (2), RE 12, 970-971 (location). W.-A.M.

Latopolis see > Esna Latrines The first toilet facilities connected with — sewers in the Graeco-Roman cultural area are to be found in Minoan Crete (sit-down latrines in the palace of > Knosos), then not again until the Hellenistic period; in archaic and classical Greece, latrines that consi-

sted of a seat over a transportable vessel were predominant. This comparably primitive principle is also further encountered in Roman culture (for instance in the multi-storey tenement blocks in the large cities), whilst from the late Republican period public latrine facilities richly equipped with marble and decoration (freestanding sculptures, reliefs, paintings, incrustations) connected with the sewerage network became of great importance as places of municipal representation and also social communication. Public latrines were to be found, among other places, close to the Forum, in thermal baths, at the gymnasium and in additional buildings and areas accessible to the public. Latrines consisted of unseparated seats placed beside each other with outlets for the excrements; well-preserved examples (Ostia, Sabratha) have more than 20 seats arranged cornerwise or in an apsidial semicircle. R. NEUDECKER, Die Pracht der L., 1994.

C.HO.

Latrunculorum ludus The game in which it was a matter of defeating all the stones of the opponent by clever placement of one’s own, takes its name from Latin latro (‘mercenary’, later also ‘bandit’); the winner was given the title Imperator (cf. SHA Proculus 13,2). The course of the game has not been fully clarified, but from the literary sources (Varro, Ling. 10,22; Ov. Ars am. 3,357f., cf. 2,207; Sen. De tranquillitate animi 14,7; Laus Pisonis 190-208) we have an approximate picture: the latrunculorum ludus was played by two partners on a chess-board-like playing board that normally had 8 x 8 fields but it could also have 9 x 9 or 11 x 14 fields. On the lines of the field, the players placed their (probably) 20 stones (latrones: Mart. 7,72,8; latrunculi or milites: Mart. 14,18; Laus Pisonis 193; Oy. Tr. 2,477), and tried to enclose the stone of an opponent between two of their own — in this case the stone was considered to have been defeated; it was possible to move both forwards and backwards as well as sideways, but not diagonally. Different variations on the game are possible. ~ Board games; > Duodecim scripta; > Games; > Tabula R. MERKELBACH, Ephesische Parerga 12. Eine tabula lusoria fur den ‘ludus latrunculorum’, in: ZPE 28, 1978, 48-50; J.RicHMOND, The ludus latrunculorum and Laus Pisonis 190-208, in: MH

51, 1994, 164-179; J. VATER-

LEIN, Roma ludens. Kinder und Erwachsene beim Spiel im ant. Rom, 1976, 57-59, 67-68.

R.H.

Latrocinium In Roman law, armed street robbery, frequently on a level with bellum (‘war’, Pomp. Dig.

Lattabus (Adttafoc; Lattabos). Aetolian who jointly

50,16,118). The legal sources equate incursus latronum and hostium (‘robber and enemy raid’) as cases of vis

with Nicostratus (and > Dorimachus) attacked the Boeotians in 220 BC at their confederate festival (Pol.

maior

9,34,11; cf. 4,3,5), probably identical with the epigraphically attested Naupactian (?) L., son of Strombichus and brother of a Nicostratus; not identical with

(‘force majeure’)

(Dig.

17,1,26,6;

17,2,52,33

Cod. lust. 4,65,12; 6,46,6). For private prosecution be-

fore the rst cent. BC, the application of lawsuits based on > furtum and/or > iniuria is controversial in modern literature. The edict of Lucullus (76 BC) contained a

special lawsuit for robbery and theft committed by a

the strategds 53951).

Lattamus,

son

of Bucatieus

(s. Syll.3 L.-M.G.

297

298

Laudatio

FUNEBRIS

B. DEVELOPMENT

[1] The eulogy, attributed to the — epideixis in Latin rhetorical systematics; + panegyrics; > laudatio funebris. [2] History of law: 1. In the criminal procedure the oral or written statement regarding the character and merits of the accused, likewise in political processes (Cic. Cael. 2,5; Cic. Balb. 18). Augustus already intervened against the misused practice of acquiring for oneself laudationes ‘as a precaution’ (Cass. Dio 56,25).

A SC of AD 62 (Tac. Ann. 15,20.21) made this prohibition stricter. 2. In civil law laudatio auctoris is the naming of the seller as an informant for assistance in the case of an ownership dispute — here the auctor was obligated, for instance in the case of a > mancipatio. MomMsEeN, Strafrecht, 411, 441f.

CE.

Laudatio funebris A. GENERAL

B. DEVELOPMENT

C. FUNCTION

A. GENERAL According to Roman linguistic usage, laudatio funebris (LF; Quint. Inst. 3,7,2; Gell. NA 13,20,17; mostly just laudatio: Cic. Mil. 33; Liv. 27,27,13; Tac. Ann. 13,3,1; explanatory laudatio pro rostris: Tac. Ann. 3,76,2 et passim) means the eulogy for the deceased, held in. connection with the > burial (funus). At upper class funerals, the funeral procession stopped (probably from the end of the 4th cent. BC) at the forum, where a son or other close relative gave the speech from the > rostrum

LAUDATIO

(pro rostris: Sen. Dial. 6,15,3; Tac. Ann.

355,1 et passim), which praised his — ancestors 54,1-2). Inexperienced SChiptn (€:2a1 Glew Deore

along with the deceased also (fundamental Pol. 6,53,1-3; orators spoke from another’s 253 AL @icwA CKO MEI I3.655

Watt). This solemn form of the LF extended to women

of the senatorial aristocracy starting c. 100 BC (first by Q. > Lutatius Catulus for his mother Popilia: Cic. De or. 2,44). At state funerals (+ funus publicum) for privati, the

orators were appointed by the Senate; the LF for members of the Imperial house was always held by members of the Imperial family, often the emperor himself; sometimes even two speeches were given [1. 46of.]. According to a widely held view [2. p. LXXIX; 3. 131], along with the laudatio pro rostris, a simpler form of the LF was held at the funeral pyre or grave; the most probable example is the Laudatio Murdiae (ILS 8394: early Imperial period). Private speeches were kept by the families (Cic. Brut. 62); some were apparently published (e.g. Laelius’ speech for P. > Cornelius [I 70] Scipio Aemilianus), or made available to interested parties (speech for M. — Claudius [I rr] Marcellus: Liv. 27,27,13; speech of Q. > Fabius [I 30] Maximus: Cic. Cato 12). Sometimes speeches were used by historians as sources (Liv. 27,27,13). Epigraphical records (> Laudatio Turiae; ILS 8394; CIL 14,3579) were probably the exception.

Over the course of time, the LF changed a great deal (differently [2. p. XXXV-XLIII]); three phases of development can be discerned. 1. In the first phase (approximately to the middle of the 2nd cent. BC), the orators were still completely uninfluenced by rhetorical theory, as is shown by the composition and language of the LF. The composition is ‘additive’, primarily because the praise of the ancestors is simply appended to the current eulogy (Pol. 6,54,1). The language does not yet use the standardized rhetorical ornamentation (> ornatus), but rather the well-tried (in prayers and magic spells) means of Italic verse (assonances; word repetition; rhythm). Consolatory passages are missing [4. 83-85], because they would contradict the aim of the orator to make clear to the listeners the extent of their loss. 2. In the second phase (from the 2nd half of the 2nd cent. BC to the 3rd cent. AD), the LF continues to be characterized by the combination of praise and lament (without consolatory elements), but comes increasingly under the influence of rhetorical composition. Besides the stylistic ‘modernization’ (first recognizable in the speech of C. > Laelius from 129 BC) this essentially means the adaptation of the eulogy to the rhetorical rules for composition: through the inclusion of new aspects (e.g. education and way of life of the deceased: Cass. Dio 44,36,1), but primarily through the integration of praise topoi into the quasi-biographical pattern of the encomium. The ancestors move to the beginning of the speech (Tac. Ann. 13,3,1), deeds are associated with offices or subsumed under main topics (per species; per virtutes). 3. The LF of Christian late antiquity, accessible for us through two speeches of — Ambrosius (Exc. Sat. 1; Obit. Valent.: on this particularly [5]), has apparently absorbed the guidelines of the imperial era manuals for Greek eulogies (> epitdphios |2] logos; paramythétikos logos) and — out of the Christian religious certainty in continued life after death — given broad space for solace. Thus, themes from ancient consolatory literature (~ Consolatio as a literary genre) are merged with Biblical and Christian thought. Traditional topics of eulogy (ancestry; education; offices) were disregarded for philosophical reasons (cf. Jer. Ep. 60,8; 108,3), the virtutes reinterpreted in terms of content.

C. FUNCTION The fundamental intent of the pagan LF is to include the listeners in the process of remembrance and lamentation through praise of the deceased and his family (Pol. 6,53,3; on the reaction of the listeners cf. in particular Cass. Dio 75,5,1; Jer. Ep. 60,1). In senatorial

families, this was connected with the effort to emphasize the political significance and leadership claim of the gens, or even increase them through exaggeration (Cic. Brut. 62; Liv. 8,40,4-5). In special cases, the LF is apologetic (speech for Marcellus, 208 BC: [4. 108]) or serves as a weapon in the daily political strife (speech for Caesar, 44 BC: [4. 151-153]). The more personal

299

300

tone of the > Laudatio Turiae may be related to the fact that it was not held pro rostris. The changed power relationships of the Imperial period may have repressed the gentilic competitiveness; it certainly did not play a role in the LF at state funerals for privati, which were not given by relatives. In contrast, the speeches for deceased emperors served the dynastic legitimization of the successor. Completely different are the speeches of Ambrosius, who (among other things, with pastoral intent) sought to show that the deceased had achieved a high degree of spiritual perfection and offset the lamentation with solace and the certainty of salvation. Lists of recorded funeral orations: [4. 137-149]; another LF, reconstructed from Gell. NA 13,20, of M. Cato Nepos for his father remains hypothetical. ~ Burial

Laura (Aavea/Latira, ‘lane’). Originally a Christian monastic settlement of hermits under the leadership of a common superior. Around AD 330, Chariton (Xagitwv) founded near Pharan, Douka and Souka in

LAUDATIO FUNEBRIS

1

F.VoLiMerR,

Laudationum

funebrium

Romanorum

Palestine the first /asirai with cells (xedAta; kellia) and

caves that were connected by a lane. In the centre of the facilities were the church, the bakery, storerooms as well as the home of the superior. The hermits only gathered for the service with the Eucharist. This type of monastery became definitive for Byzantine Christianity and was later an honorary title for important monasteries. + Athos; > Euthymius Y.HirscHFELD, The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period, 1992. K.SA.

historia et reliquiarum editio, in: Jbb. fiir class. Philol. Suppl. 18, 1892, 445-528 2M.Durry, Eloge funébre

Laureas (Aavoéac; Lauréas). Epigrammatist, probably identifiable with Cicero’s freedman M. Tullius L.,

d’une matrone Romaine, 1950 3 H.I. FLower, Ancestral Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, 1996,128-158 4W.KreRpDoRF,L.f.,1980 5 M.BrerMANN, Die Leichenreden des Ambrosius von Mailand,

od (at the latest 9 BC: [2. 42]); it presents the text of the

author of five elegant distichs in Latin about a Cymaean mineral spring (FPL 80). The Anthologia Palatina ascribes three poems to him: the funerary epigrams 7,17 (fictitiously to Sappho) and 7,294 (to a fisherman, in the style of > Leonidas) which are preceded by the gentilicium Tyllios, and the paederastic epigram 12,24, whose authenticity, however, is doubtful (cf. Anth. Pal. 12,2 527 of Statilius > Flaccus [1] whose gentilicium Statyllios may have caused attribution errors). L. does not appear to be represented in alphabetical sequences (cf. — Anthology D.), and the Tullius of the ‘Garland’ of Philippus (Anth. Pal. 4,2,9) was more probably — Ge-

funerary oration for a woman of the Roman upper class

minus [2].

1995.

W.K.

Laudatio Murdiae see > Laudatio funebris

Laudatio Turiae is the term (since [1]) given to the extensive remains (CIL VI 1527; V1 37053; AE 1951, 2)

of a municipal Roman epitaph from the Augustan peri-

who — because of similarities to Val. Max. 6,7,2 — was

hypothetically identified with Turia, the wife of Q.

GA II 1, 434-437; 2, 461-463.

M.G.A.

— Lucretius Vespillo (cos. in 19 BC). The eulogizer,

who masters at least the basics of rhetoric [2. 124; 3], praises (consistently in the address ‘you’) the merits and achievements of his wife: first before their marriage,

then (from | 27) during the period of their marriage, the latter arranged according to content in detail, esp. her good deeds (beneficia) for her husband (among other things, the rescue from the proscription of 43 BC, her efforts for his return and her offer of a divorce because of childlessness). At the end (from II 51) there are

laments and the promise to respect the last will of the deceased. The text is of great importance for the form of the > laudatio funebris, for questions of Roman family law and the law of — succession and for conditions of life and behavioural standards (cf. [4]) of the period of transition between the Republic and the Imperial period. M. Durry, Eloge funébre d’une matrone Romaine, 1950;

E. WisTRAND, The so-called L.T., 1976; D.FLacu, Die sog. L.T., 1991 (with important introduction). 1 MOMMSEN, Schriften vol. I, 1905, 393-428 2 W.KIERDORF, Laudatio Funebris, 1980, esp. 33-48 3 P. CuTOLO, Sugli aspetti letterari, poetici e culturali della cosiddetta L.T., in: Annali della Faculta di Lettere e Filosofia dell’ Universita di Napoli 26, 1983/4, 33-65 4B.v. HESBERG-ITONN, Coniunx carissima, 1983, 218-237.

W.K.

Laurel (8aovn/daphne, Lat. laurus, from which ‘laurel’), Laurus nobilis L., from the mostly tropica! family of the Lauraceae. Through cultivation, the bush (demonstrated by fossils since the Tertiary) developed into an evergreen forest tree in the Mediterranean region. In Homer (Od. 9,183), laurel formed a roof over the cave of the Cyclops. Theophrastus (Hist. pl. 1,9,3) distinguishes the cultivated laurel (fweQoc/hémeros) in many varieties (1,14,4; cf. the types distinguished by name in Plin. HN 15,127-130) from the wild (a&yoia/agria) species, erroneously assumed to be the oleander (Nerium oleander). Furthermore, he mentions the thick, bran-

ched (1,6,4) roots of unequal lengths (1,6,3 = Plin. HN 16,127), the thin bark (1,5,2) on the stem with few nodes (1,8,1), and the propagation through seeds (sowing in March: Columella 11,2,30) or scions (2,1,3), as well as cuttings (4,13,3 = Plin. HN 16,241 and 17,65). The reddish or black berries, with the seeds enclosed in the pulp (1,11,3), are said to taste a bit like olive oil (1,12,1). The leaves of the laurel are compared to several other plants (e.g. 3,13,5 to > elder). The medium

hard wood is characterized 5,3,3—4 as light and warm. It was used for hiking staves (5,7,7), as a fireboard for starting fires (5,9,7) and for support stakes in viticulture (Columella 4,26,r).

301

302

According to Dioscorides (1,78 WELLMANN = 1,106 BERENDES) and Pliny (HN 23,152-158), laurel was

the Middle Ages by Isid. Orig. 17,7,2. Augustus emphasized the relationship of the laurel to Jupiter (Plin. HN 15,13 6f.). Pictorial representations of the laurel, e.g. on coins (tree [r. pl. 9,38]; branch [1. pl. 4,33; 9,3 6f. et passim]) and gems (tree [1. pl. 25,4]; branch [r. pl. 21,12 et passim]), are not uncommon as an attribute of, for example, Apollo. On vase paintings and reliefs, it symbolized festal joy. In early Christian art, laurel wreaths were adopted with the chi-rho as a victory sign, for example on sarcophagi, from the 4th cent. AD [2]. The laurel tree also appears frequently in the botanical ornamentation of Gothic cathedrals [3. 70-80].

used medicinally in a variety of ways; for example, the leaves were applied to snake bites, chewed as a cough medicine, and drunk in a potion to induce vomiting. When taken with wine, the berries were supposed, above all, to loosen mucus in the chest; rubbing in the juice was supposed to repel poisonous animals. Laurel oil — produced by boiling overripe berries and leaves in water (preparation in Dioscorides 1,40 WELLMANN = 1,49 BERENDES; Plin. HN 15,26; Pall. Agric. 2,19) — was not only recommended because of its warming and softening effect as a component in salves or dripped into the ear for middle ear infections, but also as an embrocation with arum (Plin. HN 24,148) for chasing away snakes. Laurel wine, prepared using laurel wood preserved in must (Dioscorides 5,36 WELLMANN = 5,45 BERENDES; cf. Plin. HN 14,112), was considered warming, diuretic and astringent. In mythology, the laurel is frequently connected with Apollo and Artemis, e.g. in the legend of > Daphne; ~ Apollo cleansed and purified himself with laurel after killing the + Python snake, and > Orestes after his matricide. Thus, laurel was ascribed a cathartic power, even against spiritual stains. In the Apollo cult, laurel played an important role as a sacred tree: according to H. Hom. 3,396, Apollo pronounced his oracles from laurel (éx Sahvy¢); laurel groves primarily surrounded Apollo sanctuaries. The > Pythia in Delphi gained her mantic ability to pronounce oracles by chewing laurel leaves before mounting the laurel-wreathed tripod. In the Pythian Games, a laurel branch was the prize of victory (Plin. HN 15,127). The servants and protégés of

Apollo, such as singers and poets, used the laurel as an emblem. Hesiod was consecrated as a poet by the Muses, who are always connected with Apollo, by being presented with a staff of laurel (Hes. Theog. 30f.). Thus, Horace (Carm. 3,30,15f.) also wishes to be crowned with a wreath of Delphic laurel by Melpomene. In Thebes, the festival of the > Daphnephoria was celebrated for Apollo. Besides > ivy, the laurel was also sacred to > Dionysus. In Phigalia, the image of the god was surrounded by both plants (Paus. 8,39,6); Eur. fr. 480 calls Dionysus the ‘laurel friend’ (tAdSadvos). A laurel grove in Pharae in Achaea was dedicated to the > Dioscuri (Ravisng.2255))2

For the Romans, the laurus Delphica (Cato Agr. 8,2 and 133,2), with its dark green leaves and large berries, was the sign of peace, which was used to decorate written messages of victory (Plin. HN 15,133f.; cf. Liv. 5,28,13: litterae laureatae), the victorious weapons, and the fasces (— lictores) of the commander. The laurel branch was then laid in the lap of > Iuppiter Optimus Maximus by the commander. Plin. HN 15,134 gives a historical explanation for this practice with the relationship of Rome to the Delphic oracle of Apollo and the assertion that the laurel is never struck by lightning (also Plin. HN 2,146), a theme spread in

LAURIACUM

1 F.IMHoor-BLuMe_rR, O.KELLER, Tier- und Pflanzenbil-

der auf Mz. und Gemmen des klass. Alt., 1889, repr. 1972 2 LCI3, 106f. 3 L. BEHLING, Die Pflanzenwelt der ma. Kathedralen, 1964. A.STEIER, s.v. Laurus, RE 13, 1431-1442; V. HEHN, Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere (ed. O. SCHRADER), 8th edition 1911 (repr. 1963), 223-240; D.B. THompson, Garden

Lore of Ancient Athens, 1963; L. WENIGER, Altgriech. Baumkultus, 1919.

C.HU.

Lauriacum Settlement and legionary camp in Noricum, modern Enns-Lorch in Upper Austria. The region at the confluence of the rivers Enns and Danube was touched by all of the important communication routes in Noricum. Iron from Noricum was traded through the Enns valley, and salt along the river Traun; the Aist valley led to the Bohemian Moldau region. The existence of an oppidum, postulated (with little justification) from the supposedly Celtic name, could not be verified. The assumption of the existence of an auxiliary camp from the mid rst cent. AD has been largely discarded. In the course of the Marcomannic Wars, the legio II Italica, formed in around AD 165, was initially stationed in Albing east of the Enns, but soon after, under Com-

modus or Septimius Severus, moved to the terrace to the north of the town hill of Enns, probably because of the risk of flooding. The rhombus-shaped camp with an area of c. 20.8 ha has been largely excavated. The flourishing civilian settlement to its west (forum venale, meeting house, bath house, horrea, artisan workshops,

various temples, i.a. Dolichenum) with important grave fields (field sector Steinpafs, Espelmayrfeld and Ziegelfeld [1]) has been partially investigated. It is likely that the settlement was granted a town charter by > Caracalla [2]. From the 3rd cent. to the invasions of the Huns in the sth cent., L. and its camp were repeatedly destroyed because of their exposed location, but rebuilt each time; even emperors visited L. (such as Constantius II on 24 June 341: Cod. Theod. 8,2,1; cf. 12,1,315 Gratian: Amm. Marc. 31,10,20).

In late antiquity, L. was the base not only of a praefectus legionis (Not. Dign. Occ. 34,39), but also of the Lauriacensis scutaria (ibid. 9,21) and a commander of the fleet (ibid. 34,43; the lanciarii Lauriacenses were part of the army in the field: ibid. 5,259 = 5,109; 7,58).

In the course

of the military reorganization

under

LAURIACUM

304

303 ye

Valentinianus I, milites auxiliares Lauriacenses (‘aux-

Amphitrope ? :

iliary soldiers from L.’) built a watchtower in Ad Iuvense in AD 370 (CIL III 56702). In the history of Christianity. L. is recorded as the location of the martyrdom of St. Florian in 304 (Passio S. Floriani 2f.; 11) [3]. The existence of early Christian basilicas has been established in the valetudinarium (‘sick bay’) of the legionary camp and on the site of the church of St. Laurentius with its unbroken cultic continuity. In the 5th cent., the military camp, probably reduced in size, also served to house the civilian population. L. became a bishop’s seat; after the evacuation of the upper Danube region, it became a shelter for refugees, but Severinus was forced to retreat with the Romani to Favianae (Eugippius, Vita Severini 18; 27f.; 30f.). However, the location continued to be inhabited even after the partial evacuation of Noricum Ripense in 488 [4. 78f.].

~ Phrearrhioi

HOoS Thorikos

O Anaphlystos

ae

". == Anavysso

& a O a e 4 s

Lavrion

ot (h]«Bertseko pon ¢

Puntazeza

RgIsp.

1 G. Wiacn, Die Graberfelder von L., in: Mitt. des Mus.-

Vereins L. 28,1990,7-20 2H. VetrTers, Das Stadtrecht von L., in: Jb. des oberésterreichischen Musealvereines 136, 1991, 53-57. 3E.BosHor, H. Wo rr (ed.), Das Christentum im bairischen Raum, 1994, 14f., 133-136, 171-191 4H.UBL, Die arch. Erforschung der Severinsorte, in: Land Oberdosterreich (ed.), Severin. Zwischen Romerzeit und Vélkerwanderung, 1982, 71-97.

TIR M 33, sof.; H. Vetrers, L., in: ANRW II 6.1, 1977, 355-379; G. WINKLER, Lorch zur ROmerzeit, in: Land Ober6sterreich (ed.), Severin. Zw. Romerzeit und Volkerwanderung, 1982, 135-146; K. GENSER, Der Osterreichische Donaulimes in der R6merzeit, 1986, 126-179.

The ancient ore mining district of Laurium, esp. in the 5th/4th cents. BC (Area settled from the Neolithic; evidence for mining from the 3rd millenium BC) O ©@ Besa

«=== ©

Settlement (fortified) /Fortress

THRASYMOS.

District (ergasterion/

Legrena

Ancient name

Lavrion

Modern name

Demos

Deme borders (as far as attested)

mine)

'mportant sanctuary (intra muros)

wk

Harbour

if]

Kiln (kaminos)

Altitude (in metres) 100

K.DL

Laurium (Aavgeiov, Aave.ov; Lauvreion, Latrion). A. GENERAL B. LOCATION, GEOLOGY, HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHY C. History D. TECHNIQUES,

ORGANIZATION, INFRASTRUCTURE

A. GENERAL L. refers to the Attic mining district in south-east Attica as a whole as well as to a specific mining complex within that district. As L. can be etymologically linked with Aavea/laira (Hom. Od. 22,128; 22,137) from the Mycenaean ra-u-ra-ta, it seems that from very early on the region owed its name to the mine. The most important mining district of Greek antiquity, L. with its mines, ore-washeries, furnaces, settlements, graves and sanctuaries is a cultural monument of global importance. Severely damaged by the renewed processing of ancient spoils after 1864 and the resumption of mining operations between 1874 and 1970, the destruction of the L. district continues, esp. after 1980 as a result of reforestation, the building of summer homes, and large-scale industrial projects. Due to the lack of archaeometallurgical and mining-archaeological investigations, the knowledge about L. is still scant, despite of extensive literature [1; 8; 12].

B. LOCATION, GEOLOGY,

HISTORICAL

TOPOGRA-

PHY The L. region comprised an area of around 80 sq km, extending from Sunium in the south to Mt. Plaka near Keratea in the north, and from the Legrena fault in the west to Thoricus in the east. The highest elevations of this highly structured region are Mt. Plaka (359 m) and Megalo Rimbari (373 m) [17. 822ff.]. The genesis of its ore deposits is controversial (hydrothermal-metasomatic or volcano-sedimentary?).

The mineralization,

found in marbles predominantly in contact with mica slate, consists mainly of zinc blende, iron pyrite, galena, and — as a subsidiary — chalcopyrite [16. 657]. Ancient mining in L. was for silver. Mining in L. affected six demes (Amphitrope, Anaphlystus, Resa, Phrearrhii, Sunium, and Thoricus; > démos [2]). Some stretches of their boundaries are identifiable from hodros inscriptions (+ horoi) [11. 54ff., 109 fig. 12]. The primary purpose of the fortifications of Thoricus and Sunium (in 413/2 or respectively 409/8) was not the protection of the mining district. C. History According to sporadic finds, mining in L. dates back to the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age [19]. The importance of the deposits for the early Aegean metallurgy is controversial [12. 524; 16. 68o0ff., 68o9f.], and

3025)

306

uncertain for the Mycenaean period [14]. For the middle Bronze Age, there is evidence in Thoricus supporting the use of cupellation for the extraction of + silver from — lead [15. 23]. It is assumed that mining intensified under Peisistratus [8. 99ff.]. As there are no archaeological findings from the 7th/é6th cents., the only evidence of the importance of archaic silver mining is provided by the emission of Attic shield and owl coins (— Owls (coins)), the emission dates of which are, however, controversial. The development of the Maronea field in 483, perhaps by reaching the 3rd contact (following the introduction of shaft mining), allowed the implementation of + Themistocles’ ship building programme (Hdt. 7,144; Aristot. Ath. Pol. 22,7; Plut. Themistocles 4) and thus made possible the naval victory at Salamis in 480 BC (> Persian War). The flight of 20,000 slaves in 413 BC (Thuc. 7,27,5) and the drafting of all slaves into naval service in 406 BC (Xen. Hell.

12. 528], the coexistence of mining and agriculture, and also settlements in form of farm towers (some with threshing floors and graves). However, the deforested landscape was dominated by heaps of spoil and slag and the numerous ergasteria with their large cisterns.

1,6,24) were pivotal events in the history of L. However, according to archaeological finds, the 4th cent.

BC, so often described as a period of decline, represents the zenith of Attic silver mining; the exhaustion of minable ores began only towards the end of that century (Str. 9,1,23; [12. 525f.]). The emission of new style tetradrachmas in the rst half of the 2nd cent. BC was based on the reprocessing of older dross and slag, as confirmed by Strabo, rather than the resumption of mining itself [11. 244ff.; 12. 525]; that was only resumed on a small scale in the early Byzantine period [11. 260 with n. 18 ro].

D. TECHNIQUES, ORGANIZATION, INFRASTRUCTURE Just as the legal regulations, mining technology itself was highly developed in the classical period. Rectangular travelling/ hoisting shafts (contrary to common figures less than 1,000) to a depth of 150 m allowed access to the seamlike contact zones of > marble and gneiss. The weathering of the mines with ventilation shafts was excellent, and no wooden props were necessary because of the quality of the cover. The wet processing of ore was peculiar to L., a technique of unknown origin. Ores were processed in large building complexes operated by slaves (ergastéria, ~ ergasterion). Much rarer were furnaces (Bertseko, Puntazeza, Megala Pevka), in which cupellation was used to extract the silver. In the classical period, Athens held the mining rights for L., and through the office of the > polétaz leased mining concessions to citizens, who then operated the mines with the aid of thousands of (loan) slaves (Xen. Poroi r4f.). The purchase of slaves, recommended by Xenophon for this purpose, was seemingly never put into practice (Xen. Poroi 4,13ff.). The mining lease documents, displayed on the Athenian agora, constitute the most important source for the organization and prosopography of mining and L.’s historical topography. L. was characterized by a tight and well-developed network of main and subsidiary roads [11. 235f.;

LAURO

+ Mining 1K.ConopHacos,

Le

Laurium

antique,

1980

2 M. Crossy, Greek Inscriptions, in: Hesperia 10, 1941,

15-27 3Id., More Fragments of Mining Leases from the Athenian Agora, in: Hesperia 26, 1957, 1-23 4Id., The Leases of the Laurion Mines, in: Hesperia 19, 1950, 189292

5 P.N. DouKELuis,

L.G. MENDONI

tures Rurales et Sociétés Antiques, 1994 The Laurion

Mines:

1968, 293-326

(ed.), Struc-

6R.J. Hopper,

A Reconsideration,

in: ABSA

63,

7Id., Trade and Industry in Classical

Greece, 1979, 164-189

Silberbergbau, 1982 in: Agorar9,1991

8H.Katcyk, Unters. zum att.

9M.Lancpon, Poletai Records, 10LAuFFER,BL

11 H.LOHMANN,

Atene, 1993 12Id., Die Chora Athens im 4. Jh.v.Chr., in: EDER, Demokratie, 515-548 13 H.F. Musscue, Holzwege im Laurion, in: Id. (ed.), Studies in South Attica 2,1994, 76-96 141d., J. BINGEN, J.DE GEyTER, Thorikos 1964. Rapport préliminaire sur la deuxiéme campagne de fouilles, 1967 15 H.F. Musscue, J. BINGEN, J.Servats, Thorikos 1965. Rapport préliminaire sur la troisiéme campagne de fouilles, 1967 16 E. PERNICKA, Erzlagerstatten in der Agdis und ihre Ausbeutung im Altertum, in: JRGZ 34, 1987, 607-714 17 PHILIPPSON/ Kirsten, vol. 1 18 E.PHoTos-JONES, J.E. JONES, The Building and Industrial Remains at Agrileza, Laurion (Fourth Century B.C.) and Their Contribution to the Workings at the Site, in: ABSA 89, 1994, 307-358 19 P.SprTaELs, The Early Helladic Period in Mine No. 3, in: Thorikos 8, 1984, 151-174 20J. YOUNG, Studies in South Attica, Country Estates at Sounion, in: Hesperia 25, 1956, 122-146.

Maps:

H.LO.

R.J. ForBes, Bergbau, Steinbruchtatigkeit und

Hiittenwesen, in: ArchHom II, ch. K, 1967, with fig. 6;

J.F. Hearty, Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World, 1978; R.J. Hopper, Handel und Industrie im klass. Griechenland, 1982, esp. 194-223 and n. 259263; H.Katcyk, Der Silberbergbau von L. in Attika, Antike Welt 1983, 12-29; K.E. KonopHacos, Le Laurium antique et la technique grecque de la production de

Pargent, 1980; S.LauFFER, Der ant. Bergbau von Laureion in Attika, in: Journ. fiir Geschichte 2, 1980; H. LonMANN, Atene, 1993; TRAVLOS, Attika, 203-209, esp. 206.

Lauro [1] Iberian [1] city between Saguntum and Valentia on the hill of La Pedrera [2; 3]; the settlement from the

Roman period lies somewhat to its west on the site of modern Puig. L. was destroyed in the battles between Pompey and Sertorius (Plut. Sertorius 18, Plut. Pompey 18; App.

B Civ.

1,109;

Frontin.

Str. 2,5,31;

Oros.

5,23,6f.). Mentioned by Plin. HN 14,71 because of its excellent wine. Coins [4], inscription CIL II 3875, XV

45776.

.

> Viticulture 1 HOLDER 2, 163 2 C.KonraD, Plutarch’s Sertorius. A Historical Commentary, 1994, 156ff. 3 A.SCHULTEN, Sertorius, 1926, 92f., rorff. 4 A.HUBNER, Monumenta linguae Ibericae, 1893, 42.

LAURO

A.SCHULTEN (ed.), Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae, vol. 4, 1937, 193ff., 197; H.Grosse (ed.), Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae, vol. 8, 1959, 184, 244, 292, 300; TOVAR 2,

EA 2h, 462.

PB,

[2] Iberian city of unknown location. Cn. Pompeius died here in 45 BC (Flor. Epit. 2,10; 13). Probably not identical with Olaura (modern Lora de Estepa, Prov. Sevilla: CIL I] 1446-1448) [1; 2]. 1 A.SCHULTEN, Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae 5, 1940, 151 ONG Svensson Ons. TOVAR 2, 126, 132.

P.B.

Laur(i)um Station in the territory of the Batavi (Tab. Peut. 2,3) on one of two reads between Ulpia Noviomagus and Lugdunum Batavorum (modern Katwijk), modern Woerden. Roman finds from about 50 to the 3rd cent. AD, a fort only from the Flavian period onwards (AD 69-96). Initially garrison of the cohors XV_ voluntariorum, after the middle of the 2nd cent. AD of the cohors III Breucorum. H. SCHONBERGER, Die rém. Truppenlager der friihen und mittleren Kaiserzeit zw. Nordsee und Inn, in: BRGK

66,

1985, 439 B 6; J.K. HaacesBos, Ausgrabungen in Woerden (1975-1982), in: Stud. zu den Militargrenzen Roms 3. 13. Limeskongref§ Aalen 1983, 1986, 169-174; J.E. Bocaers, Sol Elagabalus und die Cohors III Breucorum in Woerden, in: Oudheidkundige Mededelingen 74, 1994, 153-161.

RA.WI.

Laurus see > Laurel

Laus [1] (Aaoc; Laos). The colony, localized on the hill of San Bartolo di Marcellina, along the river Lao in the bay of Scalea, was founded by survivors from > Sybaris after the destruction of the city in 510 BC. Nearby was the heroon of Dracon, a companion of Odysseus (Str. 6,1,1). At the end of the 5th cent. BC L. was conquered

by the > Lucani. Here the bloody battle between the Italiot League and the Lucani took place in 389 BC. A city with remains of buildings and graves surrounded by a wall is from the 4th cent. BC. No traces of the archaic period. P.G. Guzzo, E.Greco, Santa Maria del Cedro ..., in: NSA ser. VIII,32, 1978, 429-459; E.Greco et al., Laos 1. Scavi a Marcellina 1973-1985, 1989; E.GRECO, P.G. Guzzo, Laos 2. La tomba a camera di Marcellina, 1992; E. Greco, Archeologia della Magna Grecia, 1992, 91-93, 249, 257-258.

308

307

A.MU.

[2] see > Ilipula [1] Magna

nius [III 3] Siculus (last [2. 71-76]) or Lucanus (most

recently [r. 13 9ff.]) cannot be taken into consideration. In 26x carefully constructed hexameters the author engagingly expresses his intention to be received into the circle of the addressee. As the parallels with later poetry show, the poem was still quotable particularly in the Neronian era. The tradition is based on a complete MS known to the editio princeps (1527) and quotations in the medieval — florilegia. 2 J.AMAT 1 A.SEEL, 1969 (text, transl., commentary) (ed.), Calpurnius Siculus, 1991, 69-97, Lag 3Os 3 E. CHAMPLIN, The Life and Times of Calpurnius Piso, in: MH 46, 1989, 101-124 4 H.Leppin, Die L.P. als Zeugnis senatorischer Mentalitat, in: Klio 74, 1992, 221-236. P.LS.

Laus

Pompeia

Transpadanian

city south-east

of

Mediolanum (Milan), between the Lambrus and Addua

rivers, modern Lodi Vecchio [1]. Probably of Gallic origin (Boii, Plin. HN 3,124), named after Cn. Pompeius Strabo (cos. in 89 BC). Municipium, tribus Pupinia (Ascon. in Cic. Pis. 1). Few archaeological remains;

aerial photographs clarify the ancient urban structure and location as an important road junction. Nearby probably a sanctuary of Hercules. Ambrosius installed Bassianus as the first bishop of L.P. 1 M. Harari, P. Tozzi, s.v. Lodi Vecchio, EAA, 2. Suppl., Jaane A.Bassret al., Lodi 1, 1990.

A.SA.

Lausus Son of the Etruscan king — Mezentius on whose side he fought against the Trojans (Verg. Aen. 7,649—-6 54); unlike his father, he is represented in a very positive manner. He is an extremely good-looking, strong young man who risks his life to save his father in the battle against Aeneas (> Aeneas [1]) and loses it in the process. His premature death causes great sorrow among his relatives and with Aeneas (Verg. Aen. 10,789-8 56). In the tradition of the annals, L. died in battle against the Trojans and Latins (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,65,3—5). A.La PENNA, s.v. L., EV 3, 147.

HE.KA.

Lautulae Strategically important narrow pass (saltus) above Tarracina (in Latium) between the mountain range and a steep headland above the sea (Liv. 7,39,7; 22,15,11). Lhe Romans were defeated there in 315 BC by the > Samnites (Liv. 9,23,4; Diod. Sic. 19,72). From 312 onwards the steep via Appia led over it. Trajan had 128 feet of the height — measured from the base of the cliff -chopped off and the road built in the plain along the sea; modern Piscomontano.

Laus Pisonis Panegyricus (— Panegyrics) by an unknown author probably around AD 39/40 [3], to C. > Calpurnius [II 13] Piso (Caesoninus) who then in 65 became a figurehead in the conspiracy against the emperor - Nero. Therefore an attribution to > Calpur-

NISSEN 2, 642.

GU.

309

310

Laverna Roman goddess. An inscription (CIL XI 6708,7) ona clay bow] from the 3rd cent. BC represents the first evidence of her name known today. In literature, L. is considered on the one hand as the protector of thieves, the laverniones (Plaut. Aul. 445; Hor. Epist. 1,16,60) who found a hiding-place in her grove (Paul. Fest. 104 L.), and on the other hand as a goddess of the

place of exile of Tarquinius Collatinus [2] and the location of the sanctuary of the > Latin League of which L. was a member. L. was a municipium and always played an important religious role in the cult of the Penates

Underworld (Septimius Serenus fr. 6 BLANSDORE). An

Sat. 1,15,18), Minerva [6; 7; 8] and Venus (Str. 5,3,53

altar was dedicated to her on the Aventine near the

[9]).

Porta Lavernalis that was named after her (Varro, Ling.

Iron Age settlement, surrounded by graves, castle; enlargement of the city in the 6th cent. BC (cults and votive inscriptions). L. was settled until the 4th cent. AD. A forum with a temple was situated on the western side and an Augusteum on the southern side. Main sanctuary outside L. to the south near the early Christian church of Santa Maria delle Vigne with 13 altars

5,163f.). According to later information (Ps.-Acro ad Hor. Epist. 1,16,60), her grove was situated far away

from her altar — at the via Salaria 1). 1 F. COARELLI, s.v. Mura Repubblicane: Porta Lavernalis, LTUR 3, 329. LaTrTE, 139; G. Wissowa, s.v. L., Roscher 2, 1917f.

FRP.

Lavinia (Greek Aatvo/Latina). Name of two female characters who are linked with the Aeneas myth (> Aeneas).

[1] Daughter of Anius — the priest king of Delos at the time of the > Trojan War (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,59,3) - who marries Aeneas (Ps.-Orig. 9,2,5) and later as a seer accompanies him on his wanderings. L. dies on the site where Lavinium is built (Isid. Orig. 15,1,52). [2] Daughter of > Latinus and of Amata who after the death of her brother is the sole heir to the throne (Verg. Aen. 7,50ff.). In the battle for her and for rulership, Aeneas is victorious over > Turnus, to whom L. had originally been promised (Liv. 1,1f.). Aeneas calls the newly established city > Lavinium (Verg. Aen. 12,194). In Ovid (Fast. 3,633-648) the otherwise rather exemplary and colourless L. becomes a jealous wife who ruthlessly persecutes Dido’s sister Anna. According to annalistic tradition, L., by Aeneas, is the mother of (Postumus) Silvius (cf. Verg. Aen. 6,763) to whom she gives birth in the forests after the death of Aeneas while fleeing from his son Ascanius/— Iulus (Cato, fr. 5 P. = Serv. Aen. 1,6; fr. 9-10; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,70,1-3). Later L. is reconciled with Ascanius who lets her have Laurolavinium and himself founds Alba Longa (other versions: Liv. 1,3,2; Fest. 329,15-20 L.).

According to Plut. Romulus 2, L. is the mother of Aemi-

LAw [1]

(Varro, Ling. 5,144). Other cults: Vesta, Ceres [3], Jupi-

ter Indigenes [4], Liber, Anna Perenna, Iuturna, Dioscuri [5], Lares Grundiles, Juno Kalendaris (Macrob.

(dated to the 6th to 2nd cent. BC) and Greek finds; a tumulus (7th cent. BC) further east, transformed into a

heroon in the 4th cent., was probably grave of Aeneas (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. east outside L. lay a Minerva sanctuary terracotta statues, among these a 2 m Minerva (6th-3rd cents.).

held to be the 1,64,5). In the with numerous high statue of

1 G.Moyaers, Enée et Lavinium, in: RBPh 55, 1977, 21-50 2 A.DuBouRDIER, L’exil de Tarquin, in: Latomus 43, 1984, 733-750

3M.Guarpuccti,

Nuove osserva-

zioni sulla lamina bronzea, in: Mél. J. Heurgon 1976, 411425 4R.ScHILLING, Le culte d’Indiges a L., in: REL 57, 1979, 49-68 5 F.CASTAGNOLI, L’introduzione del culto dei Dioscuri, in: Studi Romani 31, 1983, 1-12 _6Id., Il culto di Minerva, 1979 7 Id., Ancora sul culto di Minerva aL., in: BCAR 90, 1985, 7-12

in: Scienze

dell’Antichita

3/4,

8 M.FENELLI, Cultia L.,

1989/1990,

487-505

9 A.DuBOURDIER, Le sanctuaire de Vénus a L., in: REL 59, 1981, 83-101. F.CasTAGNOLI,

L. 1-2, 1972-1975;

P.SOMMELLA,

He-

roon di Enea a L., in: RPAA 44, 1971/1972, 47-743 F.CasTAGNOLI et al., L., in: PdP 32, 1977, 340-372; M.TorELLI, L. e Roma, 1984; F. CASTAGNOLI, s.v. L., EV

3; BTCGI 8, 461-518; 1995, 310-314.

M. FENELLI, L., EAA, 2. suppl., 3, GU.

Lavinius Roman grammarian, probably of the 2nd cent. AD, whose De verbis sordidis (‘On Vulgar Expressions’) is cited appreciatively by Gell. NA 20,11. P.Ls.

lia, the mother of Romulus and Remus. A.Borcuini,

Elementi di denominazione

matrilaterale

alle origine di Roma. Logica di una tradizione, in: Studi Urbinati 57, 1984, 43-61; R.O.A. M. Lyne, L.’s Blush, in: Greece & Rome 30, 1983, 55-63; D.C. WooDWORTH, L.: An Interpretation, in: TAPhA 61, 1930, 175-194.

Law [1] In contrast to its modern meaning, which also includes natural law (Greek dvéyxn/andnkeé), ‘law’ (vonoc/ndmos, Oeoudc/thesmos; Latin lex) was the

founded by > Aeneas [1] according to the Augustan form of the myth and named after his wife > Lavinia, the daughter of Latinus. L. is mentioned in the first

Greek term for the rules of the polis (Heraclitus and the Stoics are exceptions; the special meaning of nomos in music is also omitted here). In political philosophy the term only becomes tangible with the antithesis of law (n6mos: merely human law or belief; without obligation) and nature (pvouc/physis: the normative order of nature) [1]. By contrast, Plato transferred the normative character of nature to the law to overcome this antithesis. Defined as ‘distribution by reason’ (Leg. 4,713e7144), law shares in the normative obligation of reason

treaty between Rome and Carthage (Pol. 3,22), was the

[2].

CW.

Lavinium City in Latium (> Latini) on the Numicus, 4 km from the coast, modern Pratica di Mare. In order to create a new home for the Penates of Troy [1], L. was

LAw [1]

Sid

ge

Plato’s interpretation of law as an expression of reason is shared by Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 10,r180a 2122), who adds a coercive aspect because the power of the polis stands behind the reasonable rules of the law (ibid.) [3]. Both elements flow into the Stoic definition of the némos, which explains the term as ‘reasonable rules of nature that indicate what must and what must not be done’ (SVF III, 79, |. 40). The interpretation of the cosmos as a megalopolis (‘great polis’) ruled by the + légos eliminates the pre-Stoic differentiation between human law and natural causality. At the same time, the natural order is understood in sociomorphic terms as both order under the law (SVFI, 121, 1. 35) and as a chain of coercive causality (eigudc¢ aitudv/heirmos aitiOn; SVF Il, 265, l. 36) [4]. This equation prevented the development of a philosophy that attempted to describe the special nature of human law in a theory of law up to late antique Neoplatonism. (It continued later in Christian thought because the Christian God was the creator of nature and moral legislator applying the lex aeterna —these two terms only became clearly separated in Kant’s philosophy). The after-effect of this equation is still evident in the double meaning of ‘Jaw’ in modern languages.

Quite apart from its historical significance in its own right, ancient law is a particularly fruitful area of study in that it is in the law that the small and large problems of human intercourse are most clearly reflected. Moreover, in all societies with a comparatively high density of population (esp. urban societies), the settlement and avoidance of conflict demand the making of permanent, i.e. written records (cf. > Law, codification of; > Literacy; ~ Codification). Thus evidence of legal matters stands a good chance of surviving the millennia. There still in fact exists an extremely rich, by no means fully evaluated fund of ancient stelae, clay tablets, papyri and other media documenting private legal transactions, administrative acts and settlements of disputes. Legislation is moreover an esp. important part of the

— Justice;

CODIFICATION; > Ju-

the ‘laws’ contained in the cuneiform legal texts (> Cu-

1 F.HEINIMANN, Nomos und Physis, 1945, repr. 1987, 110,162 2A.NESCHKE, Platonisme politique et théorie de droit naturel, vol. 1, 1995, 149-164 3 P.AUBENQUE, La loi selon Aristote. Archives de philos. du droit 25, 1980, 147-157. 4M.ForscHNer, Die stoische Ethik,

neiform, legal texts in) had any contemporary legal validity, and ascribe them the character of propaganda literature (cf. [1. 51]). However this may be, the great legal texts of Mesopotamia are informative as to the conceptions and legal principles that guided not only the rulers as supreme judges, but also the administration of justice and the practice of law.

STICE;

> Lex;

> Nomos; >

> NATURAL Law

1981, esp. 9O-104.

state’s affairs and of the self-esteem of state authorities,

above all that of rulers. Thus laws in particular attested, e.g. the > Corpus iuris of emperor > nus [1] I (6th cent. AD, > Digests), but also so-called codices of Ancient Mesopotamia,

are well [ustiniae.g. the among which the law-‘book’ of > Hammurapi (18th cent. BC) is the best-known, but by no means the oldest (> Law, codification of I.). Some authorities, however, deny that

J.Romitty, La loi dans la pensée grecque des origines a Aristote, 1971.

A.NE.

Law [2] I. GENERAL II. THE HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ORIGINS OF LAW III. AREAS OF LAW IV. THEMES OF A HISTORY OF ANCIENT LAW

I. GENERAL The most important foundations of later European conceptions of law were laid in OT > Judaic law, in Greek law as practical counterpart to the beginnings of philosophical reflection on > justice (> Pre-Socratics; — Justice), and above all in Roman law as the defining authority for the development of secular European jurisprudence since the late Middle Ages (— Reception). Law always comprises regulation on the part of a sizeable community for the settlement of conflicts between its members by means of particular institutions fitted to that purpose, and acting in accordance with an ‘objective’ model above the level of the individual. In Judaic law, this model remains subject to divine (or prophetic; + Prophets) directives, whereas in Greece and Rome law takes ona secular character — whether subject to the statutes of the Greek > polis or in the form of Roman + ius, with its foundations in the statute law of the > civitas (civic community) and the legislative activities

of the > praetor and his advisers.

Il. THE HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ORIGINS OF LAW Theories of an original ‘Mother law’ [Mutterrecht; 2], and of law’s developing froma self-help situation no longer hold (fundamental [3]). Both theories, however, relate to important basic facts regarding the emergence of law: the theoretical construct of a > matriarchy rests on the conception that law has to do i.a. with private hegemony prior to and alongside the state, that one of its central concerns is the make-up of the family, and that freedom and property historically speaking are closely bound to modes of development of the family (see below IV. C.). The self-help theory connects with the observation, valid at least for Greece and Rome, that all archaic initiatives with regard to law began in formalized dispute among members of the society: law in its origins is thus > procedural law. Judaic law, the cuneiform legal texts and ancient Egyptian law, almost from the beginning of the written record, also show another motif: to protect the weak in face of the strong. Thus king Urukagina of Lagaé in the 24th cent. BC boasts of having protected widows and orphans from being robbed by the rich [4], and the extant prologues of the legal records from Mesopotamia return to this topic without exception [1]. In Egypt the principle of the > Ma’at comprises care of the needy

2aNS,

314

alongside equal treatment as the central component of religion and law. Finally, the ‘social’ side of Judaic law through the prohibition on the charging of interest (Ex 22:24) made a mark on the western Middle Ages that lasts even to this day. Thus law must not merely embody order, but in an altogether social sense must also be ‘just’. Thoroughly imbued though Greek philosophy of law may be by the concept of material justice, there was scarcely a trace of it to be detected in practical legal affairs in Greece: law was the embodiment of positive

koine) and variety (> Legal pluralism). Even the 5th cent. BC Greek polis and small state display a more or less pronounced degree of legal distinctiveness; owing to the paucity of sources, however, only the differences between > Athenian law and the city law of > Gortyn are more readily comprehensible. Accordingly, the only modern overall treatment of

statutes (> nomos I.). From these the courts were not

empowered to deviate on the grounds of — fairness [5. 2517]; they lacked the intellectual prerequisite of an art of interpretation, such as, for example, Roman law developed for the future Europe (+ interpretatio 1.; > Rhetoric, legal). In Athens, for instance, jurors even swore an additional oath to apply the laws to the letter (> Athenian law B.). But even the Roman conception of law differs fundamentally from ancient oriental concepts of justice. The material values of honesty (— fides) and equal treatment conditioned by fairness (—> aequitas) did indeed hold sway over Roman jurisprudence (> iuris prudentia), practical as it was, and uncompromisingly directed at deciding legal cases; but we are not dealing here with those legal values that add a ‘drop of social oil’ to the law (in the sense of the celebrated critic GIERKE on the draft of the German BGB (civil law book)). Law to the Romans was the guarantor of freedom (— ius A.1.); thus thoughts as to the content of the

law served the ethic of freedom rather than that of social responsibility. III. AREAS OF LAW As is usual in present-day comparative legal studies, the law of the Mediterranean region and Mesopotamia in ancient times may be represented in terms of areas of law. The delimitation of such areas is of course difficult, and in individual cases often follows arbitrary lines. Thus one might in essentially standard terms speak of a ‘Greek area of law’, which would then embrace the legal history of classical Greece, as well as Hellenistic legal texts in Greek, above all the Graeco-Egyptian papyri. If it were only a matter of language, Byzantine law would also belong under the same heading, but to include it in the Greek area of law would be erroneous, as it almost entirely follows the model of Roman law of the Imperial period. If this already shows the shortcomings of language in terms of definition, doubts as to the existence of a unified Greek area of law only increase if one compares the extensive degree of ‘nationalization’ of the law and e.g. the fundamental alteration of the law of the family in the Ptolemaic kingdom (disappearance of the > otkos with > ékdosis and > engyésis as its associated forms of marriage; discontinuation of the institution of the inheriting daughter, the > epkléros) with the circumstances in Athens in the 5th cent. BC. The legal culture of the Hellenistic period is in fact simultaneously characterized by elements of unity (— Legal

Law [2|

ancient law in the Mediterranean area [6] chooses the

path of first differentiating according to geographical regions (such as Greece, Egypt, the Ancient Orient in the sense of the Middle East or southern Arabia), and then in part giving separate consideration to cross-sections cutting through the regions (on ‘Hellenism and Law’), or sections differentiated on the basis of religiocultural considerations (on Judaism and the Christian Orient).

Among the most important areas of law in the ancient Mediterranean and Middle East prior to the Graeco-Roman culture are: > Egyptian law, > demotic law, > Hittite law, > Judaic law and the cuneiform legal texts (> Cuneiform, legal texts in). Of these, demotic law is usually treated in combination with Egyptian law, Hittite law in combination with the legal texts in cuneiform. The legal history of the Byzantine empire is so to speak a 900-year epilogue to the history of Roman law. More than anywhere else, the > Corpus iuris (— Digests) of Iustinianus [1] from the 6th cent. AD in Byzantium (> Byzantium, I.B.3) formed the basis of practical law up until the end of the empire in 1453. The most important source text for Byzantine legal practice, the Basilikd (c. AD 900), were a Greek paraphrase of the most important parts of the Corpus iuris (> Digesta and > Codex Iustinianus). Some of the commentaries written on these over the following centuries (until the 13th cent.) in the form of scholia (notes) refer back to

pre-Justinian Roman texts that had not been taken up in the Digesta [7]. Islamic law no longer belongs to the history of ancient law; like Western European law, however, it is profoundly shaped by its ancient precursors. Thus it is scarcely fortuitous that it has in common with Judaic law an origin in revelation by God and his prophet (here + Muhammad, there > Moses). Like the Romans, and

under the influence of > Byzantium [6. 48], the Muslims of the Middle Ages developed a professional science of legal interpretation, and the conflict of schools, which developed in the 8th cent. AD under the leadership of Malik ibn Anas (hence: Malikites) in Medina and of Abu Hanifa (hence: Hanafites) in Baghdad, and operates in Islamic law down to the present day, has almost the effect of a renaissance of Roman traditions of the rst cent. AD (> Law schools). IV. THEMES OF A HISTORY OF ANCIENT LAW

Comparison of individual themes going beyond the areas of ancient law has not yet made wide progress. Potential fields for research are:

315

316

C. THE

slave’s change of status by virtue of manumission in the temple in Greece [10] (+ Manumission).

LAW [2] A. LAW AND RELIGION

B. LAW AND STATE

FAMILY AND PRIVATE HEGEMONY

D. THELAWS

OF

THE MARKET AND TRADE IN GOODS B. LAW AND STATE

A. LAW AND RELIGION One of the fundamental themes of all archaic law is the relationship between law and > religion. Both spheres share the same cultural function: to establish and preserve tranquillity in a community of some size. Offences against order in a community may equally be sins or infringements of taboo or criminal acts. The maintenance of > justice is consequently a religious as well as a legal precept. Owing to its relationship to justice, religion has a central function in society, and through this coincidence with religion law may be legitimized. Justice is consequently personified as a divinity: for the Egyptians as > Ma’at (daughter of the sun god), for the Greeks > Dike and > Themis; the Mesopotamian ‘supreme god’ - Enlil and later > Marduk, in embodying the order of the cosmos, also serve as a model for order in human society. The Mesopotamian city prince is consequently at the same time chief ~ priest of his state, the Egyptian > pharaoh god’s representative; both — rulers are thus legitimized not only for > rulership, but also for the administration of justice and the maintenance of just order. Another original link between law and religion forms the basis of the binding nature of legal acts carried out by individual members of the legal community: agreements become valid — once again, already in the Ancient Orient — by means of a ‘promissory’ > oath, court transactions or statements become worthy of belief by means of an ‘assertory’ oath. By virtue of these inseparable connections between law and religion, priests in antiquity are in many places the appointed promulgators and administrators of the law (> Priests). An additional implication of this circumstance is that legal acts require a ritual form (either written or otherwise), and only the priests are in a position to impart such forms to interested parties. Even in Rome, in spite of the early differentiation between the secular — ius and the divine > fas, this expert status with regard to the law distinguishes the priests (— pontifex), who thereby became the precursors of the Roman jurists [8]. In Mesopotamia, where from the early 3rd millennium the mediation of disputes, court procedures and the administration of agreements lay in the hands of professional scribes or judges without priestly status, the priests moreover as bearers of the - temple economy were the most important ‘players’ (to a greater or lesser extent next to the princes), so that they themselves were also interested in the development of stable economic and thus also legal relationships [9]. Conversely, where a secular class of > scribes and literate officials had developed (as in Egypt, Mesopotamia and then above all in the Hellenistic world), the law was ‘secularized’. But, even if the form of the law had passed to secular authorities, certain important legal acts retained in part their religious ties: e.g. a

1. THE FORMATION OF LAW WITHOUT THE STATE 2. PRIVATEAND PUBLIC CRIMINALLAW 3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND CITIZENSHIP 4. INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. THE FORMATION OF LAW WITHOUT THE STATE Already in antiquity, law is closely bound to the state. Among the most important sources for our knowledge of the law in antiquity is information about legal transactions, i.e. > marriage-contracts, > manumissions, —> purchases, —> loans, — leaseholds, or -» pledges and other laws regarding securities. Evidently, these types of transaction developed to a large extent in the realm of practice; they preserved recognized forms for the confirmation of legal intent, and made wide use of models offered by a priest or by scribes versed in the law. Practice in the Ancient Orxient already follows well-tried formulae [11], as does that described in the Graeco-Egyptian papyri [12], but above all, the > mancipatio (transfer of ownership and liability) and — stipulatio (stipulatory promise) of Roman law. Thus by no means all law is state law. 2. PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CRIMINAL LAW This was true in antiquity even for the sphere where the modern state intervened most strongly in the legal affairs of the individual: > criminal law. The ancient state claimed no monopoly with regard to criminal law. As far as the family was concerned, it refrained from interfering in the household court and, for example, the jurisdiction of the Roman — pater familias, even to the extent of the original ‘right of decision over life and death’ (ius vitae necisque). In the case of thefts, robberies and even assaults and killings by someone outside the confines of the family, the reaction in antiquity was largely to recognize a private right of retribution on the part of the injured party or his relatives. The state initially had a monopoly only over infringements against the common good, such as offences against religion (e.g. in Greece > asébeia and > hierosylia) or high treason or betrayal of country (in Rome e.g. -» perduellio). But punishment for ‘private’ > homicide {see also > Killing, crimes involving) in Roman law of the 5th cent. BC did not involve execution by the state, but, in line with the principle of talio (> Talio), was a private matter for the aggrieved party himself [13]. Already in the 3rd millennium BC in Mesopotamia, on the other hand, the same offence was punished by public execution, whereas in both legal cultures punishment for simple assault or theft was a private matter (e.g. damages of double or more the value of the stolen property) [14. 69, 90, rorf.]. 3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND CITIZENSHIP On the other hand, we find in antiquity the first attempts to make the state itself with its organization and prerogatives the protagonist in legal regulation.

317

318

Most pronounced is the conception of a state > ‘constitution’ in the ancient republics, as represented in partly idealized fashion by > Aristotle [6] for Athens and — Polybius [2] and > Cicero for Rome. But even in the government systems of Mesopotamia and Egypt legal rules existed for the inner sphere of the state. There limits are imposed on the actions of the state and its rulers by means of norms of ‘right and necessity’ (Mesopotamia) or by > Ma’at (Egypt) [15], and the bestknown document in > Egyptian law, the 15th-cent. BC ‘Instructions to the vizier’ is i.a. a decree of jurisdictions within the state, and a kind of political ‘guideline’ [16]. A peculiarity of the attribution of the law to a state in antiquity is that we frequently find that citizens and subjects have a double obligation of loyalty. Thus in Ptolemaic Egypt (3rd-1st cent. BC) we observe a + legal pluralism, as courts and reporters take account of the highly varied legal traditions of the inhabitants [5. 2531f.]. In an even earlier period in the poleis of the eastern Mediterranean world there were frequent instances of ‘double citizenship’, when an immigrant from another polis settled permanently (> isopoliteia, — Citizenship). And the Elephantine papyri show for Egypt itself that, in an Egyptian environment under Per-

power. On the contrary, the state was even of service to bearers of power from the previous system; by accepting and defining their legal status it gave it security and longevity. Such an original area of hegemony in antiquity henceforward established in law was the > family. Its stubborn resistance to the encroachment of the state rested to a great extent on its persistence over generations, both religiously based and legally secured by the law of succession (> Succession, law of). To this end, the law took measures to legitimate family descent, and to create the possibility of > adoption where there were no legitimate sons. Fully valid wills, however, developed only in Roman law (> testamentum; > Succession, law of). The status of > women under the law varied greatly in ancient jurisdictions. At best in Mesopotamian and Egyptian ruling families she is recognized in the status of regent. Otherwise, the family in antiquity is — to various degrees in particular cases — patriarchal, and descent accordingly patrilinear. Family headship is closely linked with > property: the needs of the family and its productive potential depend on the attribution of incontestable legal status to objects. If such objects fall as entitlement to the family or its head, the family as an economic unit is to some extent autonomous, as from the point of view of internal hierarchy no fundamental distinction has to be made as to whether the property belongs exclusively to the ‘father’ (as in Roman law, > dominium) or can be regarded as being family property. As long as the property is not to be disposed of ‘externally’, the prerogative within the family can be implemented without recourse to title of ownership. On the other hand, we see a substantial restriction of family hegemony when the family has first to create its economic basis by agreement with outside parties: leasing arrangements are among the most significant social phenomena in antiquity; in consequence, > leasehold and indentures of lease (— Lease, indentures of; see also > misthosis, > locatio conductio) have a substantial place in all ancient legal systems, esp. in states with extensive or hierarchically disposed state property (Mesopotamia, Egypt). Owing to the critical significance of property for the family, the dowry also plays a central role in antiquity: > marriage contracts had to govern what the wife or her family should bring into the new family, and in what way. Property and personal hegemony by private law coincide particularly clearly in the case of slave ownership. > Slavery existed in all ancient legal systems. Slaves were not everywhere treated legally as chattels, in the same way as a tool or a donkey, as they were in Rome. But already in Mesopotamia they could be sold and given as pledges. For the most part, the slave-owner retained the prerogatives of a right of control and private use even after > manumission, e.g. through the liabilities of freedmen and freedwomen to render sery-

sian rule, Jews lived according to their own system of Judaic law [17]. These examples attest that in antiquity the territorial principle did not yet strictly apply as regards the application of state law. In this regard, the state restricted its claim to jurisdiction with respect to the traditional rights of individual communities. In the Roman empire this led to the general granting of Roman citizenship (AD 212 by the constitutio Antoniniana), and further in part to the juxtaposition of ‘imperial law’ (Reichsrecht, the law applying to Roman citizens) and ‘popular law’ (Volksrecht, fundamental in this regard [18]); but, as again shown by Egyptian documents, when the need arose the latter was also chosen by Roman citizens and applied to them [r2. 136f., 26rf.].

4. INTERNATIONAL LAW Even early on in antiquity, the legislative power of contracts when drawn up in the appropriate form made it possible to establish binding external relations. We can thus state without reservation that we have an international treaty from the middle of the 3rd millennium between the Mesopotamian city of > Ebla and a city (presumably) in the Habur triangle. Its binding character derives from the closing invocation to the gods who have the law in their keeping (cf. [19. 15]). This earliest example follows the same pattern as the famous Egyptian-Hittite treaty of 1270 BC (TUAT 2, 135-153; + Qade§; cf. [20]). The Greeks and Romans adopted from ancient Oriental tradition the instrument of the ~ international treaty made binding by the exchange of oaths (cf. [19. 26]).

C. THE FAMILY AND PRIVATE HEGEMONY The development of the state did not lead to the complete overturn of previously existing relationships of

ice (> paramone, + operae libertorum).

LAW [2|

LAW [2]

320

319

D. THE LAWS OF THE MARKET AND TRADE IN GOODS The mutual obligations of parties to an exchange of goods are likewise not necessarily dependent on the existence of a state law. For the most part, and to avoid disputes, ancient law attempted to frame the ~> purchase of goods as a cash transaction. This, however, required an effective > market. Besides, even in the case of market purchase there remained the problem of the supply of bad or even harmful goods to be settled. The ancient state accordingly took on the responsibility of establishing the legal framework for both problems, unless it itself organised financial affairs on a central basis, as in > Egypt (B.) and to some extent Mesopotamia (> oikos economy). Instruments for the establishment of a market included edicts on prices (e.g. > edictum [3] Diocletiani), but especially rules for the legal protection of foreigners, and legal protection against foreigners, whose presence as traders was wide-

lokrer, 1978 11 R.Haase, Einfithrung in das Studium keilschriftlicher R.quellen, 1965 12 WoLFF 13 W.KuNKEL, Unt. zur Entwicklung des rém. Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit (ABAW 1961), 97-100, 132f. 14 V.KoroSec, Keilschriftrecht, in: HbdOr, Supplement 3, 1964, 49-219 15 J. RENGER, Noch einmal: Was war

der ‘Codex Hammurapi’ ...?, in: H.J. GeHRxKE, Rechtskodifizierung und soziale Normen im interkulturellen Vergleich, 1994, 27-59 16 G. VAN DEN Boorn, The Duties of the Vezier, 1988 17 R. YARON, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri, 1961 18 L. Mirrets,

Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den éstlichen Provinzen des rom.

Kaiserreichs,

1891

rechtsgesch., 1994

vertrage. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wirkung, 1931

21 P.KoscHakeER,

Babylonisch-assyrisches

39.5), 1928.

Law, codification of

quality and the legal security of the purchase against third-party claims (esp. those of the true owner in the case of the sale of foreign goods) were at first usually a matter of practical agreement. Thus guarantees scarcely figure in the Mesopotamian law-lists, but they do very much so in surviving invoices of sale. Later on, the market police took on responsibility for the problem

I. ANCIENT ORIENT

Early on, the practice of documentation (esp. in Mesopotamia) extended opportunities for market trading by the introduction of credit and securities for credit (> Loans): future services become the subject of an independent liability, no longer merely derived from the law of ‘tort’; it might be through the medium of a personal > surety, or by means of a > pledge as security in kind. The Babylonian records of the rst half of the 2nd millennium BC already contain rich documentation of this [21; 22]. State and/or religious law frequently looked after debtors by means of remission of debts (see also > Debt) or sabbaticals (Dt 15:1-3), which of course could provide no lasting protection against bond-slavery and exploitatisii by usurers (— Interest).

+ Athenian

+ Cuneiform, ~ Iuris

law;

~ Common Law; > Corpus iuris; legal texts in; — Digests; + Gortyn;

prudentia;

— lus; — Judaic

law;

— Justice;

+ Law, codification of; + Legal koine; > Legal pluralism; — Lex; — Nomos;

> JUSTICE;

> ROMAN

LAW;

>» ROMANISTICS 1 G. Ries, Prolog und Epilog in Gesetzen des Alt., 1983 2 J.J. BACHOFEN, Das Mutterrecht, 1861 3 R.VON JHERING, Geist des rom. R. auf den verschiedenen Stufen seiner Entwicklung, vol. 1, 1852, 118-167 4R.Haasg, Die keilschriftlichen R.sammlungen in dt. Fassung, >1979,3 5H.J. Woxrr,s. v. R. I(Griech. Recht), LAW 3,

2516-2532 6 W.SELB, Ant. Rechte im Mittelmerraum, 1993 7 DULCKEIT/SCHWARZ/WALDSTEIN, 321f. 8 WIEACKER, RRG, 310-340 9 A.SCHNEIDER, Die

Anfange der Kulturwirtschaft: Die sumerische Tempelstadt, 1920

10K.D.

ALBRECHT, R.probleme in den

Freilassungen der Bootier, Phoker, Dorier, Ost- und West-

Biirgschafts-

recht, r9r1 22 Id., neue keilschriftliche Rechtsurkunden aus der E] Amarna-Zeit (Abh. Sachs. Akad. der Wiss.

ly desired (> Aliens, the position of). Guarantees of

(> agoranomoi, — aediles).

19 K.-H. ZIEGLER, VOlker-

20 V.KoroSec, Hethitische Staats-

GS.

II. ANCIENT GREECE AND

ROME

I. ANCIENT ORIENT Codification of law, in the sense of the comprehensive and conclusive regulation of a major and more or less finite subject area, must be discounted for pre- and extra-Roman cultures, regardless of all ancient pronouncements (Egypt: Diod. Sic. 1,95,4f.; Greece: Aristot. Ath. Pol. 2,1273a 35 —1274b 25) and modern discussions (‘Law of > Hammurapi’: [11; 13]; Achaemenid empire: [4; 14; 16]) (see the articles in [5]; also [6; 13]). The collection, systematization or unification of legal regulations was not a priority [7]. A sole exception may be admitted, owing to the particular character of the Torah (> Pentateuch), for > Judaic law. Naturally, in all these cultures, laws were laid down in the form of individual acts (e.g. rulers’ decrees; plebiscite verdicts), some of these being very extensive. Of particular importance in the growth of knowledge that brought about the genesis of codification of law is lawmaking in the Greek poleis, since laws were here generally written down and published for the first time [2; 3; 8; 9; 10; 15]. This was probably due to the need for legitimation, which was bestowed from above upon > rulers who were divinely appointed, but which in the democratic poleis had to be specifically established (cf. [6. 246; 8]). 1 J. ASsMANN, Zur Verschriftung rechtlicher und sozialer Normen im Alten Agypten, in: [5], 61-85 2G.Camassa, Verschriftung und Veranderung der Gesetze, in:[5],97-111 3 H.and M.van Ex¥FENTERRE, Ecrire sur les murs, in:[5],87-95 4 P. FREt, Die persische Reichsautorisation. Ein Uberblick, in: Zschr. fiir Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgesch. 1, 1995, 1~35

5 H.-J.GEHRKE (ed.), Rechtskodifizierung und soziale Normen im interkulturellen Vergleich, 1994 6 J. HENGSTL, Juristische Literaturiibersicht 1993 — 1995 (with addenda to the preceding) part 2, in: Journ. of Juristic Papyrology 28, 1998, 219-291 (245-247) 7 Id., Zur Frage von Rechtsvereinheitlichung im friihaltbabyloni-

321

BRA schen Mesopotamien und im griech.-rom. Ag. — eine rechtsvergleichende Skizze, in: RIDA 40, 1993, 27-55 8 K.-J. HOLKEsKAmpP,

(In-)Schrift und Monument.

Zum

Begriff des Gesetzes im archa. und klass. Griechenland, in: ZPE 132, 2000, 73-96 9 Id., Schiedsrichter, Gesetzgeber und Gesetzgebung im archa. Griechenland, 1999 10 Id., Tempel, Agora und Alphabet. Die Entstehungsbedingungen von Gesetzgebung in der archa. Polis, in: [5], 135-164 11 8B.Kienast, Die altorientalischen Codices zw. Miindlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit, in: [5], 13-26 12 E. Lévy (ed.), La codification des lois dans l’antiquité. Actes du Golloque de Strasbourg 1997, 2000 13 J. RENGER, Noch einmal: Was war der ‘Kodex’ Hammurapi-—ein erlassenes Gesetz oder ein Rechtsbuch?, in: [5], 27-59 14 U. RUTERSWORDEN, Die pers. Reichsautorisation der Thora: Fact or Fiction?, in: Zschr. fiir Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgesch. 1, 1995, 47-61 15 R. THOMAS, Written in the Stone? Liberty, Equality, Orality and the Codification of Law, in: BICS 40, 1995, 59-74 16 J.WIESEHOFER, ‘Reichsgesetz’ oder ‘Einzelfallgerechtigkeit’?, in: Zschr.

fir Altorientalische

Rechtsgesch. 1, 1995, 36-61.

und Biblische

JO.HE.

I]. ANCIENT GREECE AND ROME

Although the expression ‘codification of law’ (i.e. ‘making of a > codex’) is itself drawn from the culture of Roman law, the concept scarcely appears in antiquity. It was first provided with modern meaning at the beginning of the r9th cent. by BENTHAM (> CoDIFICATION). This development had become possible, in terms of intellectual history, thanks to the considerations of the legal rationalists of the 17th and 18th cents. leading towards a systematic and rational form of legislation. However, even at this time, the comprehensive legal corpus of Justinian [1] from the 6th cent. AD (= corpus iuris) was still regarded as a model thanks to its almost exhaustive content. The Corpus iuris, however, for its part stands at the end of the development of ancient Roman law, and is without ancient precedent. Among the afore-mentioned (I.) legal corpora of the Greek poleis, that of > Gortyn (III.) from the sth cent. BC is the most completely preserved. It shows, however, that the legal issues presumably relevant at the time were in no way completely listed. Even illustrious Greek legislators such as > Lycurgus [4] in Sparta, + Solon in Athens and > Charondas and > Zaleucus (probably c. 8th-6th cents. BC) in Greek Lower Italy and Sicily apparently wrote no codifications of law, but only sequences of urgent individual measures of legal reform. It is highly probable that there was a Greek influence, these works of the ‘legislators’ thus serving as models, upon the > decemviri [1] as they composed the Laws of the Twelve Tables (> tabulae duodecim) in Rome around the mid sth cent. BC. The Twelve Tables were the only such comprehensive Roman legislative corpus until late antiquity, with the Codex Theodosianus (AD 438; > codex II.). However,

they lack the

inner coherence of codification of law. Their great prestige in later Latin literature depended above all on their venerability, not on their quality of content or even con-

LAWAGETAS

tinuing actual validity. Rather, the Laws of the Twelve Tables were progressively overlaid through time by praetorian law (— Ius). Not even the conclusive collection and edition of magistrative (praetorian and aedilian) edicts of judicial practice by Iulianus [1] (c. AD 130) can be classified as codification of law, since it,

too, comprised only excerpts of legal proceedings as practically carried out; at the time of its compilation, praetorian law was already being overlaid by the Imperial law applied in the processes of the > cognitio. Furthermore, the interpretation of edict formulae by scientific jurisprudence (> iuris prudentia) had attained an importance at least equal to that of the edict text: Roman law was essentially a law of jurists. The Codex Theodosianus was thus also only a partial codification, since it collected exclusively imperial laws, whereas in practical legal life, the law of jurists continued to be of central importance, in spite of the decline of productive jurisprudence from the 3rd cent. AD. For this very reason, the Corpus turis of Justinian is seen as the real prefiguration of codification of law, although it obviously did not arise from an original intent to create a coherent work. However, once the new collection of imperial law in the Codex Iustinianus (first edition) had been quickly and_ successfully achieved, the — Digesta, a collection of the law of jurists indispensable for the practice and transmission of a full picture of surviving Roman law, was added to it, and it was amplified with the > Institutiones, an introductory textbook of legal institutions with legal authority. Thus, within just a few years (529-534), the hitherto most important and momentous codification of law in history had been created. The — Novellae, subsequently published by Justinian over the years, only began to be regarded as part of a coherent Corpus iuris handed down together with the three other aforementioned elements from the late Middle Ages onwards. A.BURGE, R6m. Privatrecht, 1999, 63-65, 95-98; DULCKEIT/SCHWARZ/WALDSTEIN, 303-313; F.PRINGSHEIM, Some Causes of Codification, in: Id., Gesammelte Abh., vol. 2, 1961, 107-113; P. STEIN, Rom. Recht und Europa, 1996, 61-67; A. WATSON, Rome of the XII Ta-

bles. Persons and Property, 1975, 185f.; WIEACKER, RRG, 295-307. GS.

Lawagetas In the > Linear B texts, the second highest dignitary after the king in the Mycenaean palace state. He had a share in the royal lands (témenos), was involved in state campaigns, had his own staff (ra-wa-kesi-jo) and commanded his own team (ra-wa-ke-ja). The

interpretation of Linear B ra-wa-ke-ta as a combination of lads (‘people’) and dgein (‘to lead’) or lads and

hégeisthai (‘to lead’) is supported

by Doric lagétas

(Pind. Ol. 1,89; Pind. Pyth. 4,107) and the Old Phry-

gian dative lavagtaei so that the role of the lawegetas is mostly interpreted as that of an army commander. F. AurA-JoRRO, Diccionario micénico, vol. 2, 1993, 229231; J.CHapwick, Die myk. Welt, 1979; ST. HILLER,

LAWAGETAS

324

Dae

O.PANAGL, Die friithgriech. Texte aus myk. Zeit, *1987;

Law schools

M.VENTRIS,

I. PRINCIPAL CONSIDERATIONS

J.CHADWICK,

Documents

in Mycenaean

Greek, *1973.

$.D.-J.

REPUBLIC AND PRINCIPATE

IJ. ROMAN III. THE LATE IM-

PERIAL PERIOD

Lawcourt The institution of the law court (LC) has

existed from the beginning of state control in antiquity. It is no longer possible to deduce whether and where a phase of > arbitration preceded it. In the documents of the Ancient Orient LCs are attested on many occasions [1; 2; 3]. The respective city prince or king was probably

also the master of the court although in Mesopotamia there was also local jurisdiction (i.e. within certain groups) [2]. The > scribes were suited for work as judges on the basis of their education because they not only mastered the types of business but also > procedural law. Especially in Egypt and later again in the proceedings before imperial office bearers in the Roman Empire, the function of the LC was not always separate from general administrative work. The LC (— dikastérion) in Athens, above all during the 5th and 4th cents. BC, was in most cases a genuine people’s LC made up of jurymen (— dikastés) who were chosen by lot (— Lot, election by). In addition the public assembly (> ekklésia) and the council (> boule) occasionally acted as a LC. Only the laws of the > polis in their most literal interpretation possible were applied, without recourse to an extralegal or supralegal — justice. However, the laws had to be presented and substantiated by the plaintiffs themselves (> Attic law B.). Only little is known about the LCs and their procedures in other Greek states. In any case we should not generalize about the circumstances in Athens. In Latin the > iudicium is equivalent to the LC. Characteristic of Roman > procedural law (IV. C.) until long into the Imperial period is, however, a ‘preliminary stage’ in which the LC was first > provided for the plaintiff by the court magistracy — mostly the ‘praetor’ (iudicium dare). In this stage the procedural programme (the > legis actio, i.e. suit according to the law, or the > formula) was precisely determined. The judges in the second stage only had to rule whether the facts of the case had been proven. In public criminal trials (> quaestio) this was at the same time a matter of the guilt of the perpetrator. By AD 342, this type of procedure was superseded more and more by the ~ cognitio (the examination of a judicial case by a magistrate) and hence became a matter solely for the > ruler and his officials (> magistratus). — Procedural law 1 A. FALKENSTEIN,

Die

neusumerischen

Gerichtsurkun-

den, 3 vols., 1956-1957. 2E.DomBrapi, Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrags in den altbabylonischen Prozefurkunden, 1996 tokolle, 1967.

1A.L.

BoEGEHOLD,

2M.Kaser, *1996.

3 R. WERNER, Hethitische Gerichtspro-

The Lawcourts

K.Hacxt,

Das

rom.

of Athens,

1995

Zivilprozefrecht, Gs.

I. PRINCIPAL CONSIDERATIONS Schools of law, in the two senses of the training of future legal practitioners and the adherence to particular legal trains of thought can only exist in cultures that have given rise to a legal profession. In antiquity, this is true only of the Roman world. Only for Rome, theretore, as in the post-antique period for the Byzantine empire and the culture of Islam, can the phenomenon of law schools (LS) be discussed sensibly. If. ROMAN REPUBLIC AND PRINCIPATE A properly institutionalized system of legal education was unknown in Republican Rome. The public instruction in law begun by Tiberius > Coruncanius in the mid 3rd cent. BC (Dig. 1,2,2,35: profiteri) offered only the opportunity for an audience to listen to the — responsa (legal opinions) of an experienced jurist and then to discuss them among themselves (Dig. 1,2,2,5: disputatio fori). Systematic instruction in the law (Dig. 1,2,2,43: instruere) probably did not begin until the rst half of the rst cent. BC [3. 564f.j. At the end of the Republic, large audiences (auditores) assembled around Q. - Mucius [I 9] Scaevola Pontifex (Dig. I,2,2,42) and Servius - Sulpicius Rufus (Dig. 1,2,2,44), and out of those audiences emerged notable

jurists [3. 615]. As the elite continued to monopolize legal knowledge, elementary instruction (docere) based on schools at first remained an object of scorn (Cic. Or. 144; cf. [1. 69; 7]). Instruction was by practice, legal opinions (responsa) being given in front of students (Cic. Brut. 306: respondendo docere). But in the rst cent. BC the aristocratic monopoly over the practice of law was broken by the equestrian order (equites Romani) [3. 595 f.], already the origin of the important jurist C. > Aquillius [I 12] Gallus (praetor 66 BC); a degree of institutionalization of legal instruction ensued in the early Principate. The reign of emperor Tiberius in the rst cent. AD saw the rise of the Sabinian or Cassian and the Proculian LS, referred to as schola (Plin. Ep. 7,24,8) or secta (Dig. 1,2,2,47) [5. 56-75]: the first named after Masurius + Sabinus [II 15] and his pupil > Cassius [II 14] Longinus, the last after — Proculus [1]. Pomponius (Dig. 1,2,2,47), however, traces these schools back to

the Augustan jurists + Ateius [6] Capito (precursor of Sabinus) and > Antistius [II 3] Labeo (precursor of Proculus) [5. 25-55]. Despite a degree of organization attested by the succession (Dig. 1,2,2,48 and 51 ff.: successio) of heads of school, neither school was a public educational institution. It was rather the case that, following the Republican tradition, listeners gathered around those jurists in possession of the imperial ius respondendi (-> ius) [7]. It is improbable that the Cassians and Proculians were sections of the Senate

325

326

[4. 286-311]. Instruction remained free of charge; exceptionally, the impecunious Sabinus was supported by

tutio of Leo [4] I dating from 460 (Cod. Iust. 2,7,11,2), graduation was a prerequisite for admittance to legal practice [1. 343 f.; 7. 245 f.]. There were much more modest schools in the west, directed towards rhetoric rather than legal instruction, and only in Rome and supposedly in Carthage [1. 344f.; 8. 514]. While this elementary form of teaching in the west glossed over the acute terminological distinctions of Roman law, the legal professors of the east were able to accurately hand down and reorganize the inheritance of the jurisprudence of the Principate: a prerequisite for the compilation of the > Digesta of emperor — [ustinianus [1] [3. 50, 171-173]. Once this compilation was completed, in December 533 (Const. Omnem § 7) the emperor forbade the smaller LS of Alexandria, Antioch and Caesarea from continuing to teach, on account of their low standard and their propagation of ‘false teaching’ (doctrina adulterina). On the basis of the compilation, he also modified the plan of studies for the remaining recognised schools of Rome, Constantinople and Berytus: here the Institutiones Iustiniani were studied in the rst year, the Digesta in the 2nd and 3rd years and in private study in the 4th year, and the Codex Iustinianus in the 5th year (Const.

his auditores (Dig. 1,2,2,50), but the law teachers could

neither sue for fees (Dig. 50,13,1,5) nor did they enjoy immunity from the public munera (obligations to the community; > munus, munera; Vat. 150; cf. [1. 3.48; 2. 239-242]). The many controversies (Dig. 1,2,2,48: dissensiones) between the schools concerned isolated questions of interpretation with regard to the law, and not fundamental legal concepts or problems of the philosophy of law [2. 243-282]. In terms of method, however, the Proculians tended to be more rational and systematic, the Sabinians more traditional and _ casuistical [2. 279ff.; 6. 1544 ff.]. There is evidence that law was taught and legal opinions given in a public context into the beginning of the 2nd cent. AD (stationes ius publice docentium aut respondentium, Gell. NA 13,13,1).

The sectae in jurisprudence died out under ~ Hadrianus, whose legal reforms elevated the — rescriptum principis (‘written imperial response’) at the cost of the responsum as the major vehicle for the administration of justice. Pomponius (Dig. 1,2,53) ends his list of school members with > Iuventius [II 2] Cel-

LAYOUT

sus, the last head of the Proculian school, and Salvius — Julianus [1], that of the Sabinians. When, after this time, didactic legal literature came into its own c. AD 160, it was disassociated from legal practice, which had become concentrated in the imperial offices (ab > epistulis, a> libellis). The prime exemplar ofthe genre, the textbook written by > Gaius [2], the Imstitutiones, inclines toward the Sabinian tradition, devoting much space to the now somewhat defunct dispute between the schools, with frequent comparisons between nostri praeceptores (‘our teachers’) and diversae scholae auctores (‘representatives of the opposing school’) [2. 2o1203].

Omnem $f 2-5). ~ Juris prudentia;

Ill. THE LATE IMPERIAL PERIOD In late antiquity, both legal education and the legal profession were put under state control. The free jurisprudence of the Principate finally split into the imperial bureaucracy on the one hand and academic faculty studies on the other: the academics trained the state functionaries [7. 240f.]. In the east, the status of public LS (with paid professors and legal standing for students) passed to the school of Berytus, which existed from the 3rd cent., and, after Theodosius II in 425 had forbidden legal education ‘within private walls’ (Cod. Theod. 14,9,3 pr.), to the school of Constantinople [1. 145, 347, 352]. Students studied there for five years (Const. Imperatoriam § 3; Const. Omnem § r), and were taught in Greek by the method of textual exegesis,

Layout An English term (French mise en page, without satisfactory parallels in other languages) that describes the following in MSS studies: 1. The sequence of activities with which the pages of a book are designed and prepared for inscription through — ruling (including

the texts used being the Imstitutiones of Gaius (1st year),

the commentary on edicts by > Ulpianus (2nd year) and the responsa of ~ Papinianus (3rd year). The 4th year was devoted to private study of the responsa of — Julius [IV 16] Paulus, the 5th year to that of the imperial constitutiones [7.244 f.; 8. 525 ff.]. By a consti-

~ Responsa

1ScHuLz 20D.Lreps, R. und Rechtsunterricht im Prinzipat, in: ANRW II 15, 1976, 197-286 3 WIEACKER, RRG 4J.W. TELLEGEN, Gaius Cassius and the Schola Cassiana, in: ZRG 105, 1988, 263-311 SR.A. BauMAN, Lawyers and Politics of the Early Roman Empire, 1989 6 P. STEIN, Interpretation and Legal Reasoning in Roman Law, in: Chicago-Kent Law Review 70, 1995, 1539-1556 7H.HUtsner, Rechtsdogmatik und Rechtsgesch., 1997, 231-246 8H. WIELING, Rechtsstudium in der Spatant., in: O.M. PéTER (ed.), A bonis bona discere. FS J. Zlinszky, 1998, 513-531. T.G.

holes for marking); 2. The manner in which the text is

subsequently distributed by the copyist on the page and provided with all required reading aids (> Punctuation).

The following main elements are distinguished in layout (analogously mise en colonnes for rolls) and usually made visible by lining: the page area, the text layout, the margins, the line spacing and possibly the spacing between two columns (inter-columnation). Layout includes three main aspects: 1. the design, the preliminary decisions on the overall furnishings of the book (folio size and number) and the specific delimitation of the blank and inscripted areas of the page, 2. the structure, which requires the use of specific calculations and appropriate tools, 3. the activity of the copyist who inserts the text into the restricted areas. The page design

LAYOUT

determines the appearance of the finished volume: the proportional area and position of the text layout compared to the overall page area; the number of lines and text density of the page; finally the distribution of the text over one, two or rarely even more columns. It is unknown whether there were books in antiquity with formal requirements for page division: explicit ancient statements are not evident and only three medieval examples of the 9th, 15th and 16th cents. are preserved [43 5; 6]. The evidence for the existence of such rules, which concentrate especially on fixing the four margins (top, bottom, left and right) and permit highly different variants, is made more difficult by imprecisions in workmanship and clipping of the margins with rebinding. Also, the environment and dating of the applications of certain rules as well as the standardization in texts available in the present are only described with difficulties. The mostly unprovable hypothesis that layout was based on geometric proportions [3] has been doubted for good reason [2]. Research has focussed on the interaction between the text, structural and decorative elements on the one hand (title lines, initials, decorative elements, illustrations) and marginalia and glos-

ses on the other. Since the required extensive data is rarely contained in MSS catalogues, much remains uncertain. The monograph by E. G. TuRNER [7], which attempts to use page format and layout for dating in script analysis, deserves mention for Late Antiquity. His focus is on the page dimensions and their proportions. He derives the relationship between certain measures, the writing material and chronology: there are characteristic differences between a codex and a papyrus on the one hand (the latter are from trade-related scrolls and are usually tightly inscribed in only one column) and parchment on the other (broader script and rather in two columns). TURNER shows a similar extent of both. The work of C.Bozzo.o, E.OrnaTo [1] and others, who concentrate on Latin MSS of French origin, have examined the relationship between layout and book function, defined new parameters of analysis and applied statistical methods, especially with respect to the amount of text on a page and its division into one or two columns to improve readability. 1 C.BozzoLo,

E.OrNnaTOo,

manuscrit au Moyen quantitative, *1983

Pour

une

histoire du livre

Age. Trois essais de codicologie

2C.Bozzo to etal., L’artisan médié-

val et la page: peut-on déceler des procédés géometriques de mise en page?, in: X. BARRAL y ALYET (ed.), Artistes, artisans et production artistique au Moyen Age, vol. 3: Fabrication et consommation de l’ceuvre, 1990, 295-304

3 L. GILIssEN, Prolégoménes a la codicologie. Recherches sur la construction des cahiers et la mise en page des manuscrits médiévaux, 1977. 4M.Maniact, Ricette di costruzione della pagina nei manoscritti greci e latini, in: Scriptorium

328

327

49,

1995,

16-41

5 G.Monteccut,

Le

dimensioni del libro secondo la teoria e pratica di Sigismondo Fanti, in: Id., Il libro nel Rinascimento. Saggi di bibliologia, 1994, 93-107 6 D.MuzeERELLE, Normes et recettes de mise en page dans le codex pré-carolingien, in: A. BLANCHARD (ed.), Les débuts du codex, 1989, 125-156 7 E.G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex, 1977.

C.Bozzo1o et al., Noir et blanc. Premiers résultats d’une

enquéte sur la mise en page dans le livre médiéval, in: C. Questa, R.RAFFAELLI (ed.), Il libro e il testo, 1984, 197-221; J.IR1GoIN, La mise en page des ceuvres poéti-

ques de l’antiquité a la fin du XI* siécle, in: J. LEMAIRE (ed.), Calames et cahiers. Mélanges de codicologie et de

paléographie

L. Gilissen,

1985, 79-87;

H.-J. Martin,

J. VEzIN, mise en page et mise en texte du livre manuscrit,

1990.

MA.MA.

Lazi (AG@Co1, Adtou; Lazai, Lazo). People of the Caucasus mountains who migrated into > Colchis about 100-75 BC, initially settled on the river > Phasis (modern Rioni; Plin. HN 6,12; Ptol. 5,10,5) and later spread widely. About AD 300, they founded the Lazic state in the belief they were the true descendants of the Colchi. Colchis then became known as the Lazica (Aatixn/ Laziké; in Old Georgian sources also Egrisi). In the Byzantine period the Lazi were the cause of battles between imperial and Persian troops because of the important trade routes across the Caucasus. H. BRAKMANN,

O.LORDKIPANIDSE,

gia), RAC 17, 7off.;

s.v. Iberia II (Geor-

A.HERRMANN, s.v. L., RE 12, ro42f. I.v.B. and K.SA.

Lazica, Lazice (Procop. Pers. 1,1,28 i.a., Agathias 2,18,4, ia: Aatixh; Lazike). Term for > Colchis in

early Byzantine sources after the Kartvelian tribe of the Lazae, who were located in the interior south of the river > Phasis in the rst cent. AD and in the 4th cent. acquired the hegemony over Colchis and the tribes of the Abasci, Apsilae, Misimiani, Scymni and Svani. The capital was Archaeopolis (Procop. Pers. 2,29,18), which is identified with the ruined town near modern Nokalakevi on the Techuri (Glaucus?) in western Georgia. Lazica was a Byzantine vassal. In the late 5th/early 6th cents. Lazica fluctuated between Byzantium and Persia, in 522 Byzantine suzerainty was re-established. In 541-557, Lazica was the site of the Byzantine-Persian wars for predominance in this strategically important region; little is known about the late 6th cent. In 626/27 the army of Heraclius wintered in Lazica during the Persian campaign. In the early 8th cent. Arab pressure increased, but they were never able to gain a strong hold in this remote area. In the 8th cent. the rise of the Abchasian kingdom began. N.Lomourl, History of the Kingdom of Egrissi (L.), in: BediKartlisa 26, 1969, 211-216; O. LORDKIPANIDZE, Das alte Georgien, 1996, 107-109; B. MartiNn-Hisarb, Con-

tinuite et changement dans le bassin oriental du Pont euxin, in: V. VAVRINEK (ed.), From Late Antiquity to Early Byzantium, 1985, 143-147; P.ZAKaRAaIA (ed.), Nokala-

kevi-Archaeopolis. Arch. Excavations I, Tbilisi r981; IL, 1987; B. RuBIn, Das Zeitalter Justinians, 1960, 245-374;

W.Seipt, Westgeorgien (Egrisi, L.) in frihchristl. Zeit, in: R.PILLINGER et al. (ed.), Die Schwarzmeerkiiste in der Ant. und im frihen MA, 1992, 137-144; D.BRAUND, Georgia in Antiquity, 1996, 238-314. AP.-L.

330

329

Lead Metal

of low hardness, high specific weight

(11.34) and low melting point (327°C); the most impor-

tant lead-ore to be found in nature is galena (galenite; PbS), due to its silver content of up to 1% of greater economic significance in antiquity, mainly for the extraction of silver. The silver of > Laurium, for instance, was extracted by mining and smelting galena. Important deposits outside of Attica were located mainly in Spain, Sardinia and Britain. In antiquity, lead and tin were considered two types of one metal; in Latin, lead was called plumbum nigrum, tin plumbum candidum; due to this inexact terminology, it often remains unclear if the word plumbum refers to lead or tin. Galena is in fact the ancient term galena. Pliny dedicates lengthy explanations to lead (HN 34,156-178); in the paragraph regarding silver, he also mentions the extraction of the noble metal by melting galena (HN 33,95). While the mining of galena in classical Greece was primarily aimed at extracting silver, and lead only played a minor role in economic life (cf., however, Aristot. Oec. 1353a 15ff. regarding the request of Pythocles), this metal became a material for a wide variety of

uses in Roman times. Pliny’s (HN 34,159) description of the production of lead is brief and lacks clarity: According to Pliny, first stagnum, then argentum flows from the furnace; the galena remaining in the furnace is melted again and results, at a loss of two ninths, in nigrum plumbum. Stagnum probably refers in this con-

LEAD POISONING

a total of approximately 35,000 to 40,000 tons of lead was needed for such pressure lines, as for the water pipes of Lugdunum (Lyons). In daily life, lead was further used as writing material (lead tablets) or as ma-

terial for tesserae, the tokens for grain distribution. In Britain, numerous vessels of tin and lead alloy have been found. In medicine, lead was used in a variety of ways; according to Pliny, it served, for example, in the therapy of ulcers; the applying of lead tablets to loins and kidneys was supposed to prevent nocturnal emissions. Vitruvius 8,6,11 considered (as did later Plin. HN 34,167) the vapours developing during the melting and pouring of the lead harmful to health. The older thesis, according to which the Roman population suffered excessively from lead poisoning due to the use of lead pipes, lacks foundation and is generally dismissed today. 1 BLUMNER, Techn. 4, 88-91 2 BRUUN, 116-139 3 O.Davies, Roman Mines in Europe, 1935 4 DE-

MANDT, 365f. 5 J.F. HEALy, Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World, 1978 6 HopaGes, 307-315 7 A. T. Hopeg, Vitruvius, Lead Pipes and Lead Poisoning,

in: AJA 85, 1981, 486-491 (ed.), Plinius

der Altere

8 Projektgruppe Plinius

tiber Blei

und

Zinn,

1989

9J.RreDERER, Arch. und Chemie, 1987, 131-138 10 G.C. Wurttick, The Casting Techniques of RomanoBritish Lead Ingots, in: JRS 51, 1961, 105-111.

H.SCHN.

text'to crude lead (lead with impurities, including silver)

and argentum to lead containing silver; galena must then be understood as raw lead, from which the pure lead was finally extracted. Lead ingots, some weighing over 80 kg, were produced in Roman times by continuously pouring the liquid lead into large forms. The ingots, which were found in different provinces and oftentimes transported far distances, show inscriptions that allow us to determine date and origin of the metal; revealing that lead extraction in Britain began immediately after the conquest by Claudius (AD 43) (cf. Plin. HN 34,164). During the times of the Principate, the lead mines were part of the public property or property of the princeps and run by tenants. Pliny indicates the amount of 7 denarii as the price for one pound (327g) of lead (Plin. HN 34,161). The need for lead was exceedingly high in the Roman empire. In the building trade, lead was used for the grouting of ashlars; it is estimated that approximately 7 tons of lead were used for constructions such as the Porta Nigra in Trier. In shipbuilding, lead served as hull lining to protect the wooden planks from vermin, a method already known in Hellenism (Ath. 207b). Lead was of eminent significance for the water supply, since pipes in Roman times were produced primarily from lead sheets. Although the large water pipes were gravity sewers laid in brick, the inner-city distribution network consisted primarily of lead pipes, as in Pompeii; lead pipes were also used for pressure lines crossing deep valleys, with up to twelve pipes running parallel (Plin. HN 31,57). According to latest estimates,

Lead poisoning Even though the analysis of skeletons has shown that lead played a larger role in the classical period than in prehistoric times, the measured values are lower than expected in view of the considerable rise in lead production between 600 BC and AD 500 and its use in the manufacture of household goods and water pipes [1; 2; 3]. As the symptoms of lead poisoning (LP) are very similar to other diseases, there are hardly any descriptions which can be taken as referring to it unambiguously. The earliest report, which suggests suspected LP, is provided by Nicander (Alexipharmaka

1, 600),

dating from the 2nd cent. BC. Only Paul of Aegina allows the conclusion that this was a wide-spread affliction (3,43; c. AD 620). All mines were considered perilous because of their harmful vapours, but the real danger was not associated with the mining operation itself, but the smelting process. Vitruvius (8,3) warned against the consumption of water within the vicinity of a lead mine and condemned the use of lead in the production of water pipes (8,6, 10—11), a condemnation which Augustus supported, but was largely unable to implement. However, it is hardly probable that open water courses — water pipes were rare — were contaminated with lead. It is also likely that deposits within the pipes, such as of lime scale, reduced the risk presented by lead pipes. A much greater damage to health may have been caused by the practice of boiling up fruit juice in leadlined cooking vessels in order to prepare sapa. Many cookery books or respectively books on rural life re-

LEAD POISONING

331

33”

commended this method of preparation to improve the taste. Modern tests of sapa, prepared according to Columella’s recipe, showed a lead content of 800 mg/l, a value exceeding by a factor of 16,000 the modern maximum permissible value for drinking water. Even

a —~ klerouchoi campaign to Enneahodoi. L. fell when his campaign suffered an annihilating defeat at the hands of the Thracians near Drabescus (Hdt. 9,75;

though consumers of the social elite were more at risk of

poisoning as a result of sapa consumption, any claims that LP provides a plausible explanation for the behaviour of some emperors and for the population decline in the Roman empire are vastly exaggerated. 1 H. A. Watpron, C. WELLS, Exposure to Lead in Ancient Populations, in: Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 1979, 102-115

2K.F. Kip.e,

The Cambridge World History of Human Disease, 1993,

820-827

3 J. Nriacu, Lead and Lead Poisoning in Anti-

quity, 1983.

A.E. RauBITscHEK, Leagros, in: Hesperia 8, 1939, 15 5164; DAVIES, 3027.

[3] From Athens, son of Glaucon, grandson of L. [2]. L. was mocked as dumb and useless by the comedian + Plato in his ‘Laius’, around 390 BC (F 64, I 618 Kock). Andocides (1,117-121) reports that he supported L. when he fought with Callias, around 400, over the hand of an > eptkléros, a daughter of Epilycus. DAVIES, 3027.

E.S.-H.

VN.

Lead seals see > Toll Lead tablets see > Defixio Leaena (Aéawwa; Léaina).

[1] Legendary hetaera of > Aristogeiton [1]. After the murder of > Hipparchus [1], - Hippias [1] allegedly raped and killed her (Paus. 1,23,1f.; Plut. Mor. 505E; Ath. 596f; Cic. fr. 8,12 MERGUET). In another version, she bit off her tongue while being tortured by Hippias so she would not betray her lover (Polyaenus, Strat. 8,45). A bronze lioness was supposedly erected to commemorate her. The name of the heroine (‘Lioness’) and the moralizing tyrant theme suggest an aetiological legend formation associated with the monument in a later period. BP. [2] Hetaera from Corinth and lover of Demetrius [2] Poliorcetes (Suda s.v. étateat KogivOuat). The Athenians dedicated a temple to her as the embodiment of Aphrodite and > Lamia to flatter Demetrius (between 307 and 301 BC, Demochares FGrH 75 F 1; cf. Ath.

13,577D). Hasicut, 86f.

Paus. 1,29,4f.).

BO.D.

Leagrus (Aéaygoc; Léagros).

[1] Together with Ergiaeus, a descendent of Diomedes, who robbed the Trojan - Palladion together with Odysseus, L. steals the Argivean palladion (Paus. 2,23,5). He later took the statue to Lacedaemon (Sparta), where he places it under Odysseus’ protection near the sanctuary of the Leucippides and erxects a heroon. (Plut. Quaest. Graec. 48). According to Callimachus, Eumedes, a descendent of Diomedes, brings the Argive palladion into the mountains to keep it safe (Callim. H. 5,37ff.). RE.ZL {2] Born around 525 BC as son of Glaucon from Athens. In the sanctuary of the Twelve Gods in ~ Athens (plan of Agora), the base of a statue carrying his name was found from before 480. It is possible that L. dedicated the monument on the occasion of a victory in Olympia (SEG 10,319). In 465/4 L. led, as stratégés,

Leagrus group Last significant group of Attic blackfigured vases, around 520-500 BC, titled after the name of a favourite (> Kalos-inscriptions) on five hydriae (> Hydria). The painters of the Leagrus group (LG) preferred large vessels, the vast surfaces allowing a concise view of their dramatic compositions. Approximately half of the over 400 allocated vases are hydriae or neck amphoras, further types include belly amphoras, kraters, and lekythoi (> Vessel forms). The group originated in close workshop connection with the red-figured pioneers (+ Euphronius [2], > Phintias, > Euthymides and others), which show the name of the same

favourite. The artistic movement of the period also affected the LG: its figures extensively liberate themselves from the conventions of black-figure pottery, with ground-covering movements, turns of the body and expressive gestures. The additional colours and scratched ornaments are reduced, but due to the clear and generous scratching, even dense, overlapping compositions remain concise. The figurative frieze under the images of the hydriae is replaced by a band of encircled palmettes, as common in red-figure pottery. Favourite themes are Hercules adventures and scenes from the Trojan War, but there is also a strong interest in scenes of daily life. Also characteristic are horse and chariot, partially disappearing behind the image margin. Despite the passionate movement of the large figures, the representations are most meticulously staged. Among the painters isolated by BEAZLEY within the LG, the

Achelous Painter attracts particular attention due to the humorous touch inherent in his pictures. BEAZLEY, ABV, 354-391, 695f., 715; BEAZLEY, Paralipomena, 160-172; BrazLey, Addenda’, 95-103; J.D. BEAZLEY, The Development of Attic Black-figure, *1986, 74-80; E.T. VERMEULE, The Vengeance of Achilles, in: Bull. of the Boston MFA, 63, 1965, 34-52. HM.

League

of cities see

~ States, confederacies

- Amphiktyonia;

— Koinon;

of; — International

treaties;

~» Symmachia; > Twelve cities, league of; > Federation

(CT)

33335,

334

Leandr(i)us (Ae&vSe(t)o¢; Ledndr(i)os). L. of Miletus, author of Milesiakd in at least 2 books that were repeatedly used by — Callimachus [3]. Often, the name Leandr(i)us is considered a corruption and equated to + Maeandrius of Miletus (also attested in inscriptions: Syll.3 599 and IPriene 37ff.), the author of the Historiai.

were agreed for periods of between ro and 50 years, sometimes even in perpetuity. There were generally buildings on the leased estates, and some leases show that the land supported the cultivation not only of orchard fruits (figs and olives) but also wine and grain; pasture was seldom part of the leased estates. It was often required of the lessee that he should leave the land fallow every other year, and some leases specified the alternation of grain cultivation with the cultivation of pulses. There are also clauses concerning the felling of timber, the removal of topsoil and manuring; even the

Epit1ons: FGrH 491 and 492 with commentary

—_K.MEI.

Leanitae (Aeavitou; Leanitai, Ptol. 6,7,18). People on the north-east coast of Arabia between Gerrha and the Shatt al-‘Arab, after whom the Leanitian Bay (Aeavitys Osmo) is named. The territory of the L. included the town Mallada (variant Mallaba; perhaps Ras at-Tanaqib or Ras Munifa), the Chers6nésos promontory (probably Ras al-Ard), the port Itamés (probably the modern city of Kuwait) and the Adarou pOlis (probably opposite the island of Qurain). The L. (Plin. HN 6,156) on the Leanitian or Aelanitian Gulf are the Lihyan in north-west Arabia on the Gulf of Eilat. H.v. WIssMANN,

Zur Kenntnis von Ostarabien, beson-

ders al-Qatif, im Altertum, in: Muséon 80, 1967, 489Gia. W.W.M.

Learchus (Aéagyoc; Léarchos). Son of Callimachus, Athenian. L. was at the court of — Sitalces in 430 BC when Peloponnesian envoys arrived who were meant to persuade the Thracian king to break with Athens. Through Prince Sadocus, who had been given Attic citizenship shortly before this, L. managed to have them arrested, and they were deported to Athens and executed (Thuc. 2,67). DEVELIN, 1778; TRAILL, PAA, 602725;

S.HORNBLOWER,

A Commentary on Thucydides, 1, 1991, 3 50f.

HA.BE.

Lease, indenture of The contractually regulated leasing of land used in the agricultural economy was probably widespread in the Greek poleis; the designation éxthogot (> hektemoroi) indicates that even in archaic times, farmers were working land which did not belong to them. Leasing was forbidden to the > klérouichoi on Salamis by a people’s decree of 510/500 BC (IG I 1 = Syll.3 13; cf. for Lesbos Thuc. 3,50) — an indication that the leasing of land was entirely commonplace at this time. As well as agriculture, indenture of lease existed in connection with —> mining; the leasing of property ownership was also known. The oldest piece of evidence of lease is from Olympia (sth cent. BC): the agreement deals with the leasing without time-limit of around 1.8 hectares of graingrowing land; the lease was paid for once annually in kind (IvOl 18). Many leases of the 4th cent. BC are preserved epigraphically; they are from Attica or the Aegean islands, and often contain precise instructions on cultivation methods and land use. In most cases, the land was leased out by a > polis, a > phratria, a deme ( démos) or a cultic community. Indentures of lease

LEASE, INDENTURE OF

planting of trees and irrigation were sometimes regu-

lated. Lease terms are relatively well-known for Hellenistic ~ Delos (IDélos 503). Here, the entire temple land was leased out all at once, on each occasion for a term of ro years; upon renewal, a lessee could extend his indenture of lease, however, he would have to pay 110% of his former lease. If a lessee reneged on his payment obligations, the land concerned would be leased to someone else. The inventories of the leased farms list the number of trees and buildings. Buildings were also leased on Delos, apparently for terms of 5 years. The indentures of lease from — Thespiae, which also date from the Hellenistic period, show greater diversity than those of Delos. Variable lease terms were allowed (between 6 and 40 years); the leased land was in the ownership of various religious or political bodies. Unlike 4th-cent. leases, these contain no specifications concerning cultivation methods or land use, and most leased land seems to have been simple agricultural land; there were no buildings, with the exception of primitive shelters for livestock. One of the inscriptions makes it possible to calculate the relationship between the lease and the value of the leased object: an animal shelter was leased for 12.25% of its value, a piece of land for 9.2%. The purpose of the Greek leases was to collect pecuniary income from land ownership without major investment. It is not surprising that some organizations tended to prefer to lease their land to their own members. The epigraphical evidence shows considerable variations: in Thespiae, it was far more common for the same piece of land to be leased successively to members of a single family than it was on Delos. Private landowners probably granted short-term leases more often

(Lys. 7,45 7,9-11). The only evidence of Greek indentures of lease from the Roman period comes from Egypt; however, it was probably not always usual to lay down the terms of the agreement in detail. Such indentures generally stated what crops were to be cultivated; if the contract was to last for more than one year, crop rotation was required. The lease was usually paid in kind, normally at a rate determined in advance, but occasionally as a percentage of the harvest. Indentures of lease from the rst cent. BC, like those of the late 3rd cent. BC, customarily had a term of validity of only one year, those of the 2nd cent. of between two and six years. + Colonatus; > Locatio conductio; > Misthosis

LEASE, INDENTURE OF

3a15

336

1 D. BEHREND, Attische Pachturkunden, 1970 2 A. BurFORD, Land and Labor in the Greek World, 1993

other third parties in case of damage to outside plots of land due to negligence (Codex Ur-Namma § 31 (TUAT r, 23); Codex Hammurapi §§ 55f. (TUAT 1,51)) [6. rof.]. When the harvest was lost due to an act of God, like storm or rain, the liability of the person using the field was limited [5. 186-189]. The Neo-/LateBabylonian tradition on leasehold comes above all from the Chaldaean and Achaemenid epoch (7th—4th cent. BC), while only one textual witness is extant from the Hellenistic period from the 3rd cent. BC [7. 180-182]. Along with leasehold contracts with promises of rent, leasehold arrangements in return for a payment (imittu) in kind have been attested. The amounts are not fixed in the leasehold contract, but determined annually by the lessor or someone he appoints or by a special commission on the basis of an estimate of the harvest. The estimate was made just before the harvest, that is while still on the tree (for dates), or on the stalk or after being cut (for grain) [8]. In Egypt at the time of the New Kingdom (2nd half of the 2nd millennium BC) the large sanctuaries functioned as lessors of fields. Private field leasehold is documented above all by Demotic documents of the Ptolemaic period. The length of the leasehold was generally one year. A tax had to be paid to the king before the rent was paid after the harvest.

3 L. FoxHa, The Dependent Tenant: Land Leasing and Labour in Italy and Greece, in: JRS 80, 1990, 97-114 4D.HeENNiG, Unt. zur Bodenpacht im ptolem.-rém.

Agypten, 1967 5 OsBorNnz (synopsis ofthe indentures of lease: 42f.) 6R.OsBoRNE, Social and Economic Implications of the Leasing of Land and Property in Classical and Hellenistic Greece, in: Chiron 18, 1988, 279-323 7 J.RowLaNDsoN, Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt, 1996. R.O.

Leasehold I. MESOPOTAMIA, EGypT

IJ. GRAECO-ROMAN AN-

TIQUITY I. MESOPOTAMIA,

EGYPT

Leasehold in the sense of the limited taking over of the use of land used for agricultural or gardening purposes against payment of a rent, was attested in Mesopotamia from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. Both institutional households (— Palace;

+ Temple) as

well as private individuals could function as lessors. The rent was set either at an absolute value in kind or silver, or as a part of the harvest. The one third leasehold, which meant that the lessor received '/, of the harvest and the leaseholder received */,, was typical above all for the early Babylonian period (zoth— 16th cent. BC) as a private field leasehold, and was at-

1K. VOLK, Zum Alter der Drittelpacht, in: Nouvelles assyriologiques bréves et utilitaires 1994, no. 25 2B. KiE-

tested already in the early Akkadian period (24th— 22th cent. BC) [1] and Ur III period (21st cent. BC). In

Teil, 1978

3H.NeEuMANN, Grundpfandbestellung und

addition, the one half and one fourth leasehold are at-

Feldabgabe

unter

tested as early Babylonian. The leaseholder received */, of the harvest in the leasehold of date palm plantations, while */, went to the lessor (Codex > Hammurapi § 64 (TUAT 1, 52); > Cuneiform, legal texts in), probably because the leaseholder had less work than would be the case witha field. Normally fields were leased for one year; when a field was first made arable, for three years (attested from Ur III period). With newly planted date palms the leasehold went for four years; in the fifth year the harvest was divided (here with equal shares) between the lessor and leaseholder (Codex Hammurapi § 60 (TUAT 1, §2)). Both for the Ur III period and the early Babylonian, the combination of a field leasehold and a loan in the sense of an indirect mortgage (> Pledge, law of) have been attested: that is the creditor leased from the debtor in order to have security for his loan [2. 8of.; 3]. Similar circumstances can be found in Neo-Assyrian leasehold contracts (rst half of the 1st millennium BC), which probably had to do with antichretic mortgage contracts [4. 29-32]. The leasing of agricultural plots of land ‘in community’, which is attested for the early Babylonian period, made association between the contracting parties necessary. Laws regulated damage payments of the leaseholder to the lessor in case the leaseholder did not meet his obligation to work the land (Codex UrNamma § 32 (TUAT 1, 23); Codex Hammurapi §§ 4244 (TUAT 1, 4o9f.)) [5. 191-193] as well as payments to

Aspekt, in: H. KLENGEL, J. RENGER (ed.), Landwirtschaft im Alten Orient, 1999,137-148 4 J.N.PostTGareE, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents, 1976 5 H.PETscHow,

NAST, Die altbabylon. Briefe und Urkunden aus Kisurra, I.

rechts-

und _ sozialvergleichendem

Die §§ 45 und 46 des Codex Hammurapi. Ein Beitrag zum altbabylon. Bodenpachtrecht und zum Problem: Was ist der Codex Hammurapi, in: ZA 74, 1984, 181-212 6H.PetscHuow, Neufunde zu keilschriftlichen Rechtssammlungen, in: ZRG 85, 1968, 1-29 7R.J.VAN DER

Spek, Land Ownership in Babylonian Cuneiform Documents, in: M. J. GELLER, H. MAEHLER (ed.), Legal Documents of the Hell. World, 1995, 173-245 8 H. PerSCHOW, S.v. imittu, RLA 5, 68-73. W.CHECHIRE,

s.v.

Verpachtung,

LA

6,

ror2—-1014;

H. FELBER, Demotische Ackerpachtvertrage der Ptolemaerzeit, 1997; K. MAEKAWA, The Rent of the Tenant Field (gan-APIN.LAL) in Lagash, in: Zinbun 14, 1977, 1-54; G. Mauer, Das Formular der altbabylon. Bodenpachtvertrage, 1980; H.NEUMANN, Zum Problem der privaten Feld-P. in neusumerischer

Zeit, in: J.ZaBEOcKa,

S.Za-

WADZKI (ed.), Everyday Life in Ancient Near East (Sulmu 4), 1993, 223-233; G.RiEs, Die neubabylon. Bodenpachtformulare, 1976. H.N.

Il. GRAECO-ROMAN

ANTIQUITY

Greek and Roman law did not develop a legal profile that clearly differentiated private leasehold from other contractual legal obligations. Rather, permission to make use of something (today: tenancy) or to raise produce, e.g. to harvest crops from the land, against remu-

537

338

neration (today: leasehold) both fell under the comprehensive term of the Greek > misthdsis and the Roman + locatio conductio (more details at these terms). Gs.

in the sources: > lotus tree-bark, madder, murex (> Snails), atramentum sutorium (copper vitriol), and

Leather (Bvgoa, déoua; byrsa, dérma; Lat. corium, pellis). A. OVERVIEW B. CONDITIONS AND REASONS FOR LEATHER PROCESSING C. TANNING AND DYEING D. PossIBLE USES E. LEATHER PROCESSING PROFESSIONS F. OFFICIAL PREROGATIVES G. LEATHER IN THE RELIGIOUS REALM

A. OVERVIEW From earliest times, flayed animal rawhide represented one of the most versatile materials. The actual leather must be distinguished from the rawhide, which was used in antiquity in certain areas due to its particular characteristics, and despite its inconsistency under the effects of permanent humidity, as well as from parchment, dried under tension and processed to achieve the right thickness, since both remain untanned. Pelts differ clearly (because of the coat of hair being preserved) from leather, but when it comes to terminology, the dividing line is less clear.

B. CONDITIONS AND REASONS FOR LEATHER PROCESSING Depending on availability and (later) purpose, skins and furs from domestic (especially from cattle, calves, sheep and goats) and hunted (Edictum Diocletianus 8;

CIL VIII 4508) animals were used for leather processing. Oxhide, 4—4.5 mm thick, measures circa 4 square meters, goatskin, max. 1 mm thick, measures 1 square meter. The raw material accumulated naturally on farms (Cato Agr. 2,7 recommends its sale), in connection with the cattle trade from the meat supply of Rome (CIL VI 1770), but also from the numerous private (PFay. 121) and public sacrifices ([16. 41], cf. [15. 66, 69ff.]) as well as from the venationes in the amphitheatre (> munera).

C. TANNING AND DYEING The separation of the epidermis (with urine, mul-

berry leaves, red bryony) and the subcutaneous connective tissue (with mechanical aids) from the rawhide was

followed by the chemical conversion of the corium into temperature- and water-resistant, smooth leather via the tanning process. Depending on the availability of the substances, the following processing methods could be applied (in ascending order, according to effectiveness): curing, fat tanning with fish oil/other oils, mineral tanning with > alum, especially vegetable tanning with tannin-rich tree barks (spruce), plant leaves (sumach),

fruits (— Acacia),

rinds

(+ Pomegranate),

galls as well as combinations of said methods. Apart from the fact that some tanning materials already exhibit colouring characteristics, an additional currying method to be mentioned is the dyeing of leather with vegetable, animal, or other substances, which contrib-

LEATHER

uted to the extensive leather colour chart documented

others. The identification of tanning or dyeing substances in leather finds is difficult, due to the contaminants permeating the soil during storage time. Even the archaeological verification of tanneries, preferably situated near (flowing) bodies of water, and, because of the odour, on the outskirts of residential areas, remains

unsure without supporting leads (inscriptions, tools [5. 63ff.,120ff.; 6]), since they could be confused with other commercial facilities. For an overview of tanning and dyeing, see [1; 11]. D. POSSIBLE USES

The significance of leather results from the many possibilities of its use. In the civil sector, the wide variety of footwear is to be named first among clothing articles [12. rogff.], but also trousers, aprons, caps, belts, straps, and the like. Leather served technical purposes, when used for saddle and bridle, as cover ma-

terial, for straps/belts of any kind, as container of liquids, for dinghies, pouches, valve flaps etc. Within a military context, leather was used for shield covers, tents, armours, slings, etc. The wear and tear, and thus the need for the material, was considerable: based on a

recent calculation, the tent equipment for a legion required leather from about 28,800 calves or 70,080 goats [10. 67; cf. 4]; cf. Tabulae Vindolanenses 2,3 43. E. LEATHER PROCESSING PROFESSIONS

Among the leather craftsmen, often affiliated in collegia (> collegium [1]), general occupational titles have been

documented, such as_ leather-worker/tanner (Bueoetc/ byrseus, Bugoodéwns/byrsodépsés; Lat. coriarius) or leather-worker/cobbler (oxvtevs/skyteus, oxvutotouoc/ skytotémos; Lat. sutor), next to terms for specialized cobbler, saddler, lorimer, and others [13. 124; 14. 132f.]. The variety of names alone, however, does not necessarily entail a job specialization (possibly a focus point), and the division of labour in the cobbler trade as described in Xen. Cyr. 8,2,5 must also be considered a scholarly construct. Inscriptions in leather with manufacturing marks name, among other things, the artisans involved [3]. F, OFFICIAL PREROGATIVES

The following prerogatives of officials regarding skins/leather have been documented: Sale of sacrificial animal skins (dermatik6n; IG II* 1496 [15. 48ff.]), allocation of tax or monopoly tenancy concessions (dermatéra; cf. [17. § 149] and POxy. 47,3363), tributes/requisitions (Tac. Ann. 4,72; PGrenf. 2,51; BGU 2,655; PSI 5,465; [8.97 no. 42ff.]), ratings (CIL VII

4508; Edict. Diocl. 8; cf. POxy. 60,4081). Demand, on the one hand, as well as an affluence of animals in individual regions on the other hand, promoted a skin/leather trade beyond regional borders from the Black Sea region (Demosth. 34,10; 35,343 [8. 96 no. 33,

339

340

34]), Sicily [7. to1-103] and others. Even some leather types marked with a regional epithet (which obtained their name primarily, but not exclusively, because of

L. bordered on > Orchomenus (Aristot. Hist. an. 606a 1; Paus. 9,39,1) and in the north on > Chaeronea.

LEATHER

external features) have been recorded as merchandise [9]. Customs/import regulation: Dig. 39,4,16,7; for

Palmyra: OGIS 2,629, BCH Suppl. 8, no. 85.

52f.; Thessalonica:

FEISSEL,

G. LEATHER IN THE RELIGIOUS REALM The significance of leather in superstition (Plin. HN 28,222f.; Marcellus Empiricus, De medicamentis 25,8)

and magic (Plin. HN 28,93; 29,68; PGM 2, p. 9, 174),

as well as leather as a religious taboo (LSCG 65,23; 124,17; Varro, Ling. 7,84) can only be hinted at. No modern summarization of the complex exists. > Crafts 1 BLUMNER, Techn., 260-292 2G.A. Bravo, J. TRUPKE, 100 ooo Jahre Leder, 1970 3 C.vAN DrRIEL-MuRRAY, Stamped Leatherwork from Zammerdam, in: B.L. vAN BEEK (ed.), Ex Horreo (Cingula 4), 1977, 151-164 41d.,

The Production and Supply of Military Leatherwork in the First and Second Centuries A.D.: A Review of the Archaeological Evidence, in: M.C. BisHop (ed.), The Pro-

duction and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment, 1985, 43-81 1980

5 W.Gairzscu, Eiserne rom. Werkzeuge,

6Id., Gerbereisen aus Pompei, in: Pompei, Hercu-

laneum, Stabiae. Boll. dell’ Associazione internazionale Amici di Pompei 1, 1983, 119-126 7 W. HABERMANN, IG

B 386/387, sizilische Haute und die athenisch-sizilischen Handelsbeziehungen im 5. Jh.v.Chr., in: MBAH 6.1, 1987, 89-113 8 Id., Lexikalische und semantische Unters. am griech. Begriff Bieoa, in: Glotta 66, 1988, 93-99 91d., Ag. und karthagisches Leder als ant. Sortenbezeichnungen, in: RhM 133, 1990, 138-143 10P. Herz, Der Aufstand des Julius Sacrovir, in: Laverna 3, 1992, 42-93 11 TH. KOrNeER, Geschichte der Gerberei, in: W.GRASSMANN (ed.), Hdb. der Gerbereichemie und

Lederfabrikation I.1, 1944, 1-89 12 0.Lau, Schuster und Schusterhandwerk in der griech.-rém. Lit. und Kunst, thesis Bonn 1967 13 H. von Perrixovits, Die Spezialisierung des rom. Handwerks, in: H. JANKUHN et al. (ed.), Das Handwerk in vor- und frihgesch. Zeit I(AAWG 122), 1981, 63-132 147TH. REIL, Beitrage zur Kenntnis des Gewerbes im hell. Ag., Leipzig 1913 15 V.J. Rosivacu,

The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century Athens, 1994 16P.STENGEL, Die griech. Kultusaltertiimer (Hdb. der klass. Alt.-Wiss. V 3),31920 17 U. WILCKEN, Griech.

Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien, 1899 (repr. 1970) 18 ZIMMER, Kat. no. 47-55. WO.HA.

Lebadea (AcBadeia, Aenddeva; Lebddeia, Lepddeia). Boeotian city on the south-west end of a bay in a plain which spreads out towards the north-east to the western shore of the former Lake > Copais and which encroaches on the northern side of the > Helicon [r]. L. lay immediately at the exit of a narrow rock canyon from which the river Hercyna emerges, which is fed by additional rich springs, some of them warm, near L. In the south-east the modern Granitsa (ancient Laphystion), the foothills of the Helicon, constituted the border to > Coronea (SEG 23, 297); in the north-east

The ancient city can no longer be localized exactly; it was on the eastern shore of the Hercyna and is covered up by the modern city of Livadhia, where several building remains (a metroon, parts of a stoa), which were

built over by the Romans later, from the 4th/3rd cents. BC were excavated; the ancient finds on the hill Tripeolithari c. 2 km north of the modern city probably come from a necropolis. At the mouth of the Hercyna gorge, on the west side of the river L. immediately opposite a cave with a spring and on the riverbank, there were several cult sites (among others for Hercyna, Demeter, Zeus Hyetios) as well as a grove and temple of > Trophonius, to which the still extant niches and chambers appear to belong, which were carved into the foot of the steep rock, now crowned with ‘a medieval fortress (Paus. 9,39,2-4). The oracle site of Trophonius, which was known throughout the ancient world, was found above this site near the temple of Zeus Basileus, whose remains were excavated on the hill Prophitis Ilias, which is connected to the fortress rock to the west; the construction of the temple financed by Antiochus IV between 175 and 172 was not completed (Syll.’ 972 with SEG 22, 440; SEG 44,413). The identification of the underground chamber found west of this temple with the entrance of the oracle remains questionable (site description and a detailed representation of the rite of consulting the oracle at Paus. 9,39,5-14; Philostr. VA 8,19; cf. Str. 9,2,38; Dionysius Calliphon 97f.; Plut. Mor. 411F). This oracle, which was already consulted by the Lydian king — Croesus (Hdt. 1,46,2), still existed in the 3rd cent. AD (Tert. De anima 46,11; Max. Tyr. Dialexeis 8,2).

The claim that L.’s original name was Midea (Paus. 9,39,1) goes back to efforts to connect L. with Homeric tradition (Hom. Il. 2,507); archaeological finds worth

mentioning from pre-archaic times have not (yet) been found. From c. 446 BC L. together with the neighbouring cities of Coronea and > Haliartus formed one of the II precincts of the newly constituted Boeotian federal state (~ Boeotia) and supplied a > Boeotarch in rotation with them (Hell. Oxy. 19,3,392-394); in 395 at the beginning of the > Corinthian War it was destroyed by Lysander (Plut. Lysander 28,449b). After the dissolution of the league in 386 it was independent at first and then L. was (possibly in the form of a restored federal district) under Theban control from c. 374 to 335; after the victory at Leuctra, the Pan-Boeotian Festival of the Basileia was inaugurated in 371 (Diod. Sic. 15,53,4); independent minting of coins c. 386-374 and c. 335315 (HN 346). Afterwards member of the renewed Boeotian League until its dissolution in 146; from c. 217-206 member ofthe Aetolian League ([r. 317-321]; + Aetolians, with map). In the 3rd Macedonian War 172-168 on Rome’s side (Pol. 27,1,4; Liv. 45,27,8); in 86 it was plundered by Mithridates VI’s troops (Plut. Sulla 16,462b). In the Roman Imperial period L. was among the richest of the Greek cities (Paus. 9,39,2); the

341

342

most important inscriptions are collected by [2. 346f.]; SEG 44, 414. PF. Even though it is still mentioned by Hierocles 644,5, the statue base of the hiera Lebadé6n polis (igo Aebadéwv moc) for > Constantius [1] I Chlorus [3. 246f.] found in Hosios Lukas must be considered to be the last certain witness of the ancient city, since L. is not documented as a diocese. But the name stills remains attached to the site (continuity of settlement?): L. was both the name of the fortress built in the early 13th cent. ([4. 191-206] with map) as well as a settlement, which was important in the 14th cent., and in which Franks and Catalonians lived together with Greeks and Alba-

for + Gortyn, L. became a religious centre from the 4th cent. BC onwards because of its sanctuary of Asclepius founded at a healing spring (the visible remains of the temple as well as the stoa and nymphaeum date from the 2nd cent. AD), and a much-visited health resort right through to Roman times (as an offshoot of the

nians.

E.W.

1 R. FLACELIERE, Les Aitoliens a Delphes, 1937 2 Fossey, 343-349 3C.VaTIN, in: BCH 90, 1966, 240-247 4 A. Bon, in: BCH 61, 1937, 136-208.

J. M. Fossey, The Cities of the Kopais in the Roman Period, in: ANRW II 7.1, 1979, 571-575; P. W. Haiper, s.v. L., in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 373-376; M.H. Hansen, An Inventory of Boiotian Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods, in: Id., Introduction to an Inventory of Poleis, 1996, 91f.; J. KODER, s.v. L., TIB 1, 200f.; H.G. LotLING, Reisenotizen aus Griechenland (1876 und 1877),

1989, 609-614; MULLER, 520-523 (with plan of site); N.D. ParacHaTzis, Tavoaviov EAkédoc Meeuyynois 5, *1981, 244-260; P.RoEscH, s.v. L., PE, 492; E. VALLAS, N. PHARAKLAS, [legi tov pavteiou tov Teodwviou ev AgBatdeia, in: AAA 2, 1969, 228-232; PHILIPPSON/KIRSTEN I,2, 445-449; SCHACHTER 3, 66-89, 109-119; P. W. WaL-

LACE, Strabo’s Description of Boiotia, 1979, 149-152. PF, and E.W.

Lebanon see > Libanus

Lebedus (AéSedoc; Lébedos). A harbour town founded by Ionians in the area settled by Carians (Paus. 7,3,2;5 formerly “Aguc/Artis, Str. 14,1,3 Hecat. FGrH 1 F 219; Hdt. 1,142), member of the > Delian League, surrendered by Lysimachus in favour of Ephesus (Paus. 1,9,7),

refounded in 266 BC by Ptolemy II as Ptolemais; but the name L. was soon revived again. In the 2nd cent. BC, seat of the Artists of Dionysus (— technitai), who were originally located in Teos. If—on the basis of Hor. Epist. I,I1,6 — we assume that the town was depopulated, this is obviously based on an error, cf. e.g. the minting of coins (until the middle of the 2nd cent. AD). Significant remains over the entire peninsula of Kisik (formerly Xingi), 36 km north-west of Ephesus: city wall with gates and towers, foundations of buildings, baths (near Karakog). G.E. Bran, s.v. L., PE, 492f.; Id., Aegean Turkey, 1966,

149-153.

E.O.

Lebena (Aefiwva; Lebena). City on the southern coast of Crete (Str. 10,4,12; Plin. HN 4,59) near the modern

village of Lendas. Older form of the name: AeBiyv/ Lebén. There is evidence that it was already settled in the Minoan period. Initially important as the harbour

LEBINTHOS

Asclepeum of Balagrae/Cyrenaea, Paus. 2,26,9). In the

Lyttian War (219 BC), the harbour of L. was occupied by a party in the civil war that had been expelled from Gortyn (Pol. 4,55,6). Continuity of settlement after antiquity is documented by an important early Christian basilica (9th cent.) and Byzantine chapels. §. ALEXIOU, Ein friihmin. Grab bei Lebene auf Kreta, in: AA 1958, 2-10; R.SCHEER, s.v. L., in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 376; J.W. Myers, E.E. Myers, G. CADOGAN, Aerial Atlas of Ancient Greece, 1992, 160-163; L. PERNIER, L. BantTI, Guida degli scavi italiani in Creta, 1947, 67ff.; I.F. SANDERS, Roman Crete, 1982, 80-83, 159; K. BRANIGAN, s.v. L., PE, 493. H.SO.

Lebes (6 AéBg; ho lébés). [1] Large cauldron, a bronze vessel used from the Mycenaean period to heat water and cook meals, in Homer aside from the phiale and trivet a popular prize (— Prizes (games)) (Hom. Il. 9,122; 23,267; 613; 762),

also made of precious metal. The addition dpyros (&mveos) describes either new /ébétes or those used as + kraters. Bronze kettles decorated with protomes from the 7th—6th cents. BC that can be removed from the stand go back to Oriental models (Griffin cauldron). Aside from these splendid cauldrons, a smaller smooth form arises, called also dinos (> Vessel shapes fig. C 9), for which there is evidence in representations as kraters on many occasions, also attested in a secondary manner as a prize in games and as cinerary urns. F.v. LORENTZ, s.v. L., RE Suppl. 6, 218-221; N. VALENZA

Me tg, Da Micene ad Omero: dalla phiale al lebete, in: AION 4, 1982, 97-133; A.BLAIR BROWNLEE, Antimenean Dinoi, in: J. H. OAKLEY et al. (ed.), Athenian Potters and Painters, 1997, 509-522.

[2] Lebes gamikos Cauldron with dropped neck, upright looped handles and a lid, mostly on a high stand (— Vessel shapes fig. C 7). Its role in the wedding rite (+ Wedding customs, overview) is illustrated by vase paintings from the 6th—4th cents. BC, its content is unknown. Morphological, perhaps also functional precursors are preserved in early Greek large covered vessels. N.F. Harw-SCHALter, L.G., in: JOAI 50, M.Scourou, Lebetes (ed.), Athenian Potters

Zur Entstehung und Bed. des att. 1972-1975, Beiblatt 151-170; gamikoi, in: J.H. Oakey et al. and Painters, 1997, 71-83. LS.

Lebinthos (Aéftv00c; Lébinthos). Island of the Sporades east of Amorgos, modern Lévitha, length 7 km, 15 km? in size, several bays, surrounded by a series of small islands, uninhabited today. Evidence: Str. 10,5,12; Plin. HN 4,70; Mela 2,111; Stadiasmus maris

LEBINTHOS

344

343

magni 282; Geogr. Rav. 5,21; Ov. Met. 8,222, Ars am. Piepoilbe

PHILIPPSON/KIRSTEN 4, 15 5f.

H.KAL.

competence to regulate membership of the Senate and of the senatorial rank (through legislation or in the individual case) becomes a constitutional practice, even if the Senate’s own decision is generally respected (Cod. ust]

Lechaeum (Aéyatov; Léchaion). Harbour of > Corinth [x] on the Corinthian Gulf, 3 km north of the city, connected with it by a double wall in the classical period (c. 450 BC) [1]. The inner harbour basin, which is silted up today to a large extent, is stil! recognizable, also an outer harbour, few other remains, e.g. a large early Christian basilica [2]. Xen. Hell. 4,4,12 mentions ship sheds, and sanctuaries of Poseidon (Paus. 2,2,3; Callim. H. 4,271) and of Aphrodite (Plut. Mor. 146d; SEG 23, 170) [3. 94-97] are attested. Evidence: Str. 8,6,22; Ptol.

JE S33 1 A.W. Parsons, The Long Walls to the Gulf, in: R. Car-

PENTER,

A.Bon

(ed.),

Corinth

3,2,

1936,

84-125

2 D.PALLAs, Avaoxay tic xaharoyauotiavinis Baoiixt|c tov Asyaiov, in: Praktika 1958, 119-134 3 V.PIRENNE-

DELFORGE, L’Aphrodite grecque, 1994. R.Rornaus, L., Western Port of Corinth, in: Oxford Journ. of Archaeology 14, 1995, 293-306; R.STROUD, Sivas REWA93. Wak.

20)

— Senatus Jones, LRE, 530-532; E. Meyer, Rom. Staat und Staatsgedanke, *1948, 203f.; MoMMsEN, Staatsrecht 2, 418— 424; 3, 854-866.

Lectisternium (Etym.: Lat. lectum sternere, ‘to prepare a couch’). To serve the gods, food for the gods: a very old form of sacrifice in which a meal was laid out on a table for the god who was lying on a feasting couch in the temple (cf. > Iovis epulum). This practice was based on the idea that the gods received their share at every meal, suggesting their actual presence. The term lectisternium is only used in a sacred context. First and foremost, the lectisternium was a part of the Graecus ritus, thus a widely common form of sacrifice in Greek worship. In Rome, on the other hand, it was known only from the early 4th cent. on. The sofas and the temple were consecrated at the same time with a lectisternium (e.g. Cic. Dom.

Lectica see > Kline

Lectio senatus

(‘selection for the Senate’). The pre-

requisite for admission to the Roman Senate from time immemorial was that the contender had rendered outstanding political services in a high public office (Cic. Verr. 2,49; Sall. Iug. 4,4; Liv. 23,23), there were no objections to him based on criminal law or regarding his status and — later — that he had a certain minimum level of assets (under Augustus about a million sesterces: Suet. Aug. 41). If one of the prerequisites ceased to apply, a senator could be removed from office (senatu movere, eicere: Cic. Clu. 42; Sall. Catil. 23.; Liv. 39,425 40, 51; 42,10; 43,15). For the period of the Monarchy, the election by the curiae (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2,12; 47) and the appointment by the king have been passed down to us (Liv. 1,8; 49; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4,42). In

the Republic a consul originally undertook the monitoring and admission

(Cic. Dom.

31,82; Liv. 23,23;

43,15), after the lex Ovinia of 312 BC this was also done by a censor (Fest. 290,12 L) and only as an excep-

tion also by a dictator or holder of extraordinary authority, for instance in the case of Cornelius [I 90] Sulla. In the Imperial period the empeior becomes increasingly responsible for the composition of the Senate. Augustus already undertakes a lectio senatus three times. From the time of Tiberius onwards, it becomes

common with the election of the magistrates by the Senate (Tac. Ann. 1,15) to make also the Senate responsible

for the admission of new members through co-optation (> cooptatio). The > commendatio and extraordinary censure measures, however, ensure that the emperor influences the composition (Suet. Dom. 8; Cass. Dio

67,13). In the later Roman Imperial period, the imperial

CG.

136),

indicating that they were closely connected. Before the consecration, the placement of the couch was chosen in a special act (fanum sistere, Fest. 476 lectisternium; — fanum). On the day of the sanctuary’s founding and on its anniversary, an image of the deity was placed on the couch and the sacrificial meal was layed out in front of it. Furthermore, a /ectisternium was usually ordered after bad omens. According to an instruction in the Sibylline Books (— Sibyls) from the year 399 BC — the year when the /ectisternium was introduced at the occasion of a plague on Roman territory (in Etruria, it was attested as early as in the 5th cent.) — the images of pairs of deities were supposed to be placed on beds in front of tables for seven (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 12,9) or eight

days in a row. The participants were Apollo and Latona, Hercules and Diana as well as Mercury and Neptune (Liv. 5,13,8). Apparently the lectisternium was performed in times ofcrisis: after the defeat at Lake Trasimene in 217 BC (the last attested lectisternium; Liv. 22,10,9) or during the 2nd Punic War, when it was attempted to assuage the wrath of the gods through various acts of penance. During this time, numerous lectisternia were performed on the Capitol (Macrob. Sat. 1,6,13), at the temple of Juno Regina (Liv. 22,1,18) and of Saturnus (Liv. 22,1,19), and outside of Rome as well (Caere: Liv. 21,62,8). Aside from official and public lectisternia, the rite was carried out in the private realm as well, for instance at burial celebrations (CIL V* 5272,14). Although the ancient sources often use other terms for lectisternium, they all refer to the practice of offering food to the gods in the sense of lectisternium: lectisternium habere is expressed by pulvinar suscipere (Liv. 555256) or cenae ad pulvinaria (Plin. HN 32,20); the

345

346

Greek

equivalent is klinén stronnynai or stromneé. A.y.S.

Lecton (Aextov, Aextoc; Lektén, Lektés, Cape Lecton). Western foothills of the Trojan Ida, stretching to

the Aegean sea (Hom. Il. 14,283; Hdt. 9,114; Thuc. 8,101; mainly Str. in book 13). The sources merely indicate that Cape L. or a town L. was situated near modern Babakale; no further details can be determined. Close by there was an archaeologically unverifiable altar for the > Twelve (Olympian) Gods (Str. 13,1,48), which was erected by Agamemnon according to the legend. W. Lear, Strabo on the Troad, 1923, 227; L. BURCHNER, s.v. L., RE 12, 1889; J.M. Cook, The Troad, 1973, 228,

23 6ff.

E.SCH.

Lector (‘reader’). Especially the letters of Pliny the Younger illustrate the custom ofculturally enriching the mealtimes with — next to comoedi and lyristae (Plin. Ep. I,15,23 9,17,33 36,4) — lectores (Nep. Att. 14,1; Gell.

LEEK

~ Nemesis. On her flight from Zeus, Nemesis transforms herself into different animals, at last into a goose, which is impregnated by Zeus in the guise of a swan. L. finds the egg born to Nemesis and raises Helen, who hatches out of the egg, as her own child (Apollod. 10,6-7; Sappho fr. 166 VoicT). According to Apollod. 3,10,7, she receives the egg from a shepherd, according to Hyg. Poet. Astr. 2,8, from Hermes (cf. also Herodorus, FGrH 31 F 21, Plut. Symp. 2,3,6372). The version in which L. herself is impregnated by Zeus in the guise of a swan, is first documented in Eur. Hel. 16-22 and IA 794-800 (cf. Eur. Or. 1385-1387). The encounter of Zeus and L. takes place on the shores of the Eurotas, according to Anth. Pal. 5,307. Later stories tell that also the Dioscuri (Serv. Aen. 3,328; Hor. Ars P. 147), or only Pollux and Helene (Hyg. Fab. 77), were born from an egg, or that L. produces two eggs (Mythographus primus Vaticanus 3,64 ZORZETTI). The egg of L. was on display in the sanctuary of the > Leucippids in Sparta (Paus. 3,16,1). The person of Nemesis only continued to be of importance in the Attic Rhamnus, where one temple was dedicated to her alone and

NA 3,19,1: servus assistens mensae eius — sc. Favorini—

another one to her together with Themis (Paus. 1,33,7;

legere inceptabat ‘a slave, who stood by his — Favorinus’ — table, began to read’), and its exceptional use as preparation for excerption, as in the case of Pliny the Older in Plin. Ep. 3,5,11f. (super hanc — sc. cenam —

Plin. HN 36,17). In Attic vase painting, the discovery of the egg by Nemesis was depicted from the 5th cent. In sculpture, the motif of the erotic encounter of L. with Zeus as swan enjoyed great popularity. It appears also on numerous cameos, lamps, sarcophagi and wall paintings from the Imperial period.

liber legebatur, adnotabatur ‘a book was read at the

table, Pliny took notes’); further (l.c. 3,5,14) during the preparation of the bath, or as a way to bypass insomnia (Suet. Aug. 78,2: lectoribus aut fabulatoribus arcessitis ‘readers or storytellers were called’). In analogy to the Greek anagnosteés (Nep. |.c.), the lector as slave assumes the role that the author may claim for himself as recitator (> Recitations) of his own works, or (if distrusting his own elocution) which he may delegate (Plin. Ep. 9,34; Suet. Claud. 41,2: recitavit per lectorem). Inscriptions also document lectrices (anagnostrices), ‘female readers’. ~ Book P.LS.

Lectus see > Kline

Leda (Anda; Léda). Daughter of the Aetolian king + Thestius and of Eurythemis (Apollod. 1,7,10), sister

of > 23a, king dren:

Althaea [x] and > Hypermestra [1] (Hes. Cat. fr. 3-5; Apollod. ibid.), wife of the Lacedaemonian — Tyndareus. She is credited with different chilTimandra, > Clytaemnestra, Phylonoe (Hes. Cat.

fr. 23a, 7-10; Apollod. 3,10,6), Phoebe (Eur. [A 49-51),

especially > Helene [1] and the > Dioscuri Castor and Polydeuces. According to Homer, these are the sons of Tyndareus (Hom. Od. 11,298-304), Helen is a daughter of Zeus (Hom. Il. 3,426, Od. 4,84), in the Homeric Hymns 17 and 33, however, the Dioscuri are also sons of Zeus. According to Apollod. 3,10,6, Polydeuces and Helene are children of Zeus, Castor and Clytaemnestra children of Tyndareus (cf. Pind. Nem. 10,79-82). The Cypria (EpGF fr. 7) tell us that Helen is the daughter of

S.EITREM, L.Biocu,

s.v. L., RE 12, 1116-1125; O.HOFER, s.v. L., Roscher 2, 1922-1932; L.KanHn,

N.IcarRD-GIANOLIO, s.v. L., LIMC 6.1, 231-246 (with bibliography). K.WA.

Leek and other Alliaceae I. MESOPOTAMIA, EGypT, ASIA MINOR I]. GREECE AND ROME I. MESOPOTAMIA,

EGypT, ASIA MINOR

The numerous Sumerian and Akkadian expressions for Alliaceae, not all of which can be definitely botanically identified, partly refer only to the subspecies leek, shallot, onion or garlic [1. 301]. Leek in its various forms — Sumerian *karas, Akkadian kar(a)sSu, Hebrew kares, Aramaic karratta, Arabic kurratu — is a word of Oriental culture. Garlic is in Sumerian, sum, Akkadian

Samu, otherwise in Semitic languages tum; the onion is in Akkadian Samaskilli, in Aramaic smégl (also as an ideogram in Pahlavi); the Egyptian forms dw (onion) and tin bdw (garlic), Coptic segen have other semantic origins. Alliaceae were important > spices and > vegetables throughout the Near East, which were cultivated (in Mesopotamia) both in gardens (+ Horticulture) and in fields in large quantities ([5. 74"'']: several hundred thousand bales cited in harvest statistics), and which were eaten raw or cooked. Onion plants are mentioned in connection with the royal table (Mesopotamia, 9th cent. BC; CyrusI [5. 62]). On the other hand, both

LEEK

347

348

Mesopotamian [5. 68] and Egyptian [3. 66r1f.] texts mention onion and garlic in connection with food taboos. In Mesopotamia, shallots and garlic were included in offerings to the dead [1. 300]; onion was found in the bandages of Egyptian mummies, in their axillae and eye sockets, and wooden models of onions were found in graves. Leek, onion and garlic served medical purposes in Mesopotamia (e.g. against eye and ear afflictions) and in Egypt.

is recorded in the botanical (Theophr. Hist. pl. 7,1 ff.) and agricultural literature (alium: Cato Agr. 48,3 and 70,1; Pall. Agric. 2,14,5 et passim; porrum: Columella 11,3,17f.; all species: Plin. HN 19, too—116) concerning their antibacterial qualities [1. 85f], their varieties and cultivation. Chives (A. schoenoprasum L.) are also encountered in Cato (Agr. 70,1; 71), Columella (6,4,2; 11,3,15f.; 11,3,20-23), Palladius (Agric. 2,14,5) and elsewhere as ulpicum or alium Punicum (&pQoo0xdedov/ aphroskordon). In contrast to the high regard in which garlic was held in Egypt (esp. in the Pyramid period, cf. Hdt. 2,125), its strong odour led to its rejection by the Hellenistic elite as food for the lower classes [1. 54], in Italy

1 Chicago Assyrian Dictionary S/1, 1989, s.v. Samaskillu, 298-301 2 Chicago Assyrian Dictionary §/3, 1992, S.V. Sumu, 298-300 3 W.J. Darsy et al. (ed.), Food: The

Gift of Osiris, 1977, 656-663

4H.A. Horener, Ali-

menta Hethaeorum, 1974, 108-110 5 M.STOL, Garlic, Onion, Leek, in: Bull. of Sumerian Agriculture 3, 1987, 57-80 (with bibliography). JRE.

esp. from Varro (cf. Men. Fr. 69) onwards (Hor. Epod.

3,3: edit cicutis alium nocentius). Dioscorides recommends all species (2,149-153 WELLMANN = 2,178-182

Il. GREECE AND ROME In classical antiquity, three species of leek belonging to the family of the Liliaceae and originating from Central Asia were distinguished: garlic (oxdQ0do0v/ sk6rodon, Latin al(l)ium, Allium sativum L.), leek (meaoov/prason, Latin porrum, A. porrum L.) and onion (xedupvov/ kr6mmyon, Latin cepa, cepulla, A. cepa L.). Onions had been known to the Greeks at least from Homer (Il. 11,630 and Od. 19,233) as favourite cooking herbs grown only from bulbs. Onions from Megara (bulbi Megarici) were regarded as good aphrodisiacs (Plin. HN 20,105; Ov. Ars am. 2,422 et passim). Much

North Room

Sy

West Corridor

BERENDES), esp. for the cleansing of the body and of wounds. In Columella (6,4,2 and 6,6,5), one example

of the use of leek is as a feed additive to preserve the health of cattle. Open wounds, e.g. on their tongues (Columella 6,8,1), should be disinfected with an application of a solution of salt and garlic. —» Spices 1 G.E. THtry, J.WALTHER, Condimenta, 1997. R. STADLER, s.v. L., RE 12,986-991.

Lefkandi A Bronze and Iron Age settlement with necropoleis located north of the modern settlement of Lefkandi on the southwest coast of + Euboea [1]. The settlement mound with the modern name of Xeropolis is located halfway between > Eretria [1] and > Chalcis [1] at the edge of the Lelantine Plain and was almost continuously settled from the early Bronze Age (Early Helladic II) to the roth/9th cents. BC (late Protogeo-

Central Room Pits

.

(for storage vessels)

YU }

Horse burials

South Room be

Verandah Double burial

0) 10m (as ==— bee — be

Lefkandi, tripartite apsidal building (‘'Heroon'), 1000-950 BC;

isometric top view.

C.HU.

SS=

East Room

349

350

metric) with a flowering period in the + ‘Dark Ages’ [x]. The excavations of the British School at Athens from 1964 to 1970 uncovered, i.a. the remains of apse houses. The oldest settlement phase (Lefkandi I) exhibits strong cultural influences from the eastern Aegean and western Asia Minor. In the environs of this settlement six separate necropoleis ranging from the sub-Mycenaean to the late Protogeometric period have been found. The most important are Skoubris, Palia Perivolia and Toumba with mostly unrobbed cist and shaft graves as well as pyres (cremation sites). Rich grave inventories with imports from Cyprus, Phoenicia and Egypt indicate far-flung

spontaneous merging of various Greek legal concepts, especially in Ptolemaic Egypt. Institutions of different poleis (— Polis) blended there in the legal world through the mingling of elements of the Greek population among each other [4. 140] without the authorities working towards unity (in this way also in[3. 5of.]). As examples of this we can cite here the technique of authentication (+ Documents) or in matrimonial property law the transition from the > proix to the > pherne (dowry) and > sibling marriage, the existence of which can be established right through to Roman times (in Athens marriage between step-siblings who had the same father was allowed, and in Sparta between those who had the same mother [4. 140]). On the relationship between Greek and local Egyptian legal practice (> Demotic law) cf. > legal pluralism. LK should not be confused with the question of the ‘unity of Greek law’. In the same way as the Greek dialects that should be regarded as strongly separate from each other can be traced back in historical linguistics to common basic structures, the legal regulations of the individual poleis that are also very different in their detail are more or less closely related as well. As a reaction to this theory supported by L. Mitrets [3. 72] and likewise labelled LK |5. 3 (= 60); 1. 13.52], strong opposition arose from the perspective of ancient history (documented [4. 140; 1.1351f.], see further [6. 2022]). If need be, in trade in the Mediterranean area, it is possible on the basis of state-encompassing, private contractual forms to speak of a LK that of course runs from the classical poleis to the Roman period and presumably also includes non-Greek elements [2. 27-35].

trade contacts, while an absence of bone remains is

characteristic of most graves. Excavations from 1980 to 1994 on the Toumba mound yielded a middle Protogeometric (c. 1000-950 BC) tripartite apse house (x0 X 47 m) with a surrounding outer row of posts, which has been interpreted as a heroon (— Funerary architecture). In the central room, the rich double grave of a warrior (?) (cremation in a bronze urn) and a wom-

an as well as a separate burial of four horses were found. After infilling the house and raising a mound, a cemetery with rows of graves, which still related to the ‘heroon’ in the late Protogeometric period, was established on the eastern side. About 700 BC the settlement traces end, probably because of the conflicts between Eretria and Chalcis (+ Lelantine War). — Apse A. BRAUNING, Unt. zur Darstellung und Ausstattung des Kriegers im Grabbrauch Griechenlands zw. dem ro. und 8. Jh.v.Chr., 1995, esp. 38-45; J.MARAN, Kulturwandel auf dem griech. Festland und auf den Kykladen im spaten 3. Jt. v-Chr., 1998, esp. 97-100; M.R. PopHaMetal., L. I.

The Iron Age. The Settlement. The Cemeteries (ABSA Suppl. rr), 1979; Id. et al., The Hero of L., in: Antiquity 56, 1982, 169-174; Id. et al., Further Excavation of the Toumba Cemetery at L., 1984 and 1986, in: Archaeological Reports 36, 1988-89, 117-129; Id. et al., L. II, 1. The Protogeometric Building at Toumba. The Pottery (ABSA Suppl. 23), 1990; Id. et al., L. Il, 2. The Protogeometric

Building at Toumba. The Excavation, Architecture and Finds (ABSA Suppl. 23), 1993; Id., I.S. Lemos, L. Ill. The Excavations

29), 1996.

1981, 1984, 1986-92,

1994 (ABSA Suppl. KJA.

Legacy The technical term legacy in modern law is a literal translation of the Roman > legatum. In the testamentary settlement of the succession of property rights after death, Roman law differentiated between the appointment of the fully valid legal successor as heir (heres, for this see > Succession, law of III.) — or several heirs — and the allocation of individual objects as legacies. Other ancient laws contain no comparable construction. ~» Fideicommissum; — Testament [2] IV. Gis:

Legal koine As with the > koine in Greek historical linguistics, legal koine (LK) refers to a phenomenon of Hellenism analyzed by legal history after the event: the

LEGAL

PLURALISM

1 E. BERNEKER, Ss. v. Recht (A. Griech.), KIP 4, 13 50-1353 2 E. Jaxas, Praedicere und cavere beim Marktkauf, 1997 3Mitreis 4J.MoprzejJEwSsKI, La régle de droit dans lVEgypte Ptolémaique, in: Essays in Honor of C. B. Welles (American Studies in Papyrology 1), 1966, 125-173

5 F.PRINGSHEIM,

Ausbreitung und Einfluf$ des griech.

Rechts (SHAW 1952/1), 1-19 (repr. in: E. BERNEKER (ed.),

Zur griech. Rechtsgesch., 1968, 58-76) 6H.J. WoLrr, Juristische Grazistik, in: Id. (ed.), Symposion 1971, 1975,

I-22.

Gils

Legal pluralism After the conquest of Egypt by Alexander [4] the Great (331 BC), the native population continued to live with its traditional legal concepts as they are preserved in documents (~ Demotic law) and perhaps laws (> Codex Hermopolis). The elite of Ptolemaic Egypt, which originated from Greek mercenaries and immigrants, regulated its private affairs according to its own concepts that had merged into a + legal koine. Only the Greek towns of > Naucratis, + Alexandria [1] and — Ptolemais [3] had sets of laws equivalent to those of a > polis. That of Alexandria is partially preserved (PHalensis 1, Dikaiomata). There was also the law established by the Ptolemaic kings, which was also based on Greek concepts. It intervened only ina few areas, especially in finances [1]; itis known that there was a general standard of judicial matters

LEGAL PLURALISM

351

though it is not preserved (the ‘Great Justice Diagramma’). Since the + Ptolemies made no effort to bring the population groups together politically, a peculiar legal pluralism resulted as long as separate courts existed (- laokritai, Ten-Men Court: + dikastérion B., > chrématistai) [4; 6; 3]. Jurisdiction

and the applicable law were not determined by the person but by the language of the document on which the dispute was based (PTebtunis 5, 207-220, 118 BC) [5. 87-89]. Therefore, Egyptians created Greek documents to be able to call on a Greek court in case of a dispute and, according to the principle of the lex fori (‘law of the court petitioned’), were judged according to Greek law. One could also think of the legal situation in the Imperium Romanum as legal pluralism, though in modern legal history it is not considered under this term but according to the familiar formula of Mrrrets [2] as the problem of the ‘law of the empire (Reichsrecht) and customary laws (Volksrecht) (see — Legal koine; ~+ Law). 1 M. Tu. LENGER (ed.), Corpus des Ordonnances des Pto-

lémées (COrdPtol), *1980 (Bilan des additions et corrections, 1990)

2 Mirrers

3 H.A. RupprecHT, Kleine Ein-

filhrung in die Papyruskunde, 1994, 95, 98f. 4H.J. Wo LEFF, Plurality of Laws in Ptolemaic Egypt, in: RIDA? 7,

1960, 191-223

5lId., Das Justizwesen der Ptolemaer,

*1970 61d., The Political Background of the Plurality of Laws in Ptolemaic Egypt, in: R: BAGNAL (ed.), Proc. of the 16" International Congr. of Papyrology, 1981, 313-318.

Gare

Legal texts in cuneiform see > Cuneiform, legal texts in

Legatio The activity of a > legatus. t) In international law, a government-ordered, occa-

sional delegation of usually three or more /egati — as messengers or provided with full authority — who acted as official representatives of Rome and reported to the Senate (legationem renuntiare: Liv. 39,33,1). Legatio-

nes presented, for example, the demand for satisfaction (rerum repetitio) required for a bellum iustum (> International law), the declaration of war (indictio belli),

instructions to > socii, explored the ground, arbitrated and concluded treaties. After the climax of the Roman delegation policy (Bibliography: [9. 99, n. 207]) in the 3rd/ 2nd cents. BC, the expansion of Roman power resulted in the dissolution of the Roman-Hellenistic international! law system and the decline of the role of the legatio. The Excerpta de legationibus (ed. BoIssEVAIN), which were prepared for Constantine [9] in the roth cent. AD, still exhibit the imbalance between /egatio gentium ad Romanos and legatio Romanorum ad gentes. Only the foreign-policy constellation of late antiquity made it necessary for Rome to increase activity (cases: [3. 346ff.; 8. 458ff.]). However, strict instructions from the court narrowed the scope of open and secret negotiations. nouncements

of

Subjects were, ascensions,

for example, an-

declarations

of

war,

a

recruitment of allies, Roman

tribute and subversive

goals such as assassinations and ambushes [3. 330ff.]. 2) The Roman technical term for a delegation of foreign peoples (externae gentes) no matter of what cultural stage [1; 5] who approached a senior official in Rome and were either dealt with or referred to the Senate. The ius legationis, which is a part of > international law (ius gentium: Gai. Inst. 1,1), ensured the inviolability of the legatio {t0. 73] in war and peace alike; but Rome did not criminally prosecute all violations (Dig. 50,7,18) or demand extradition (Liv. 38,42,7)[2; 5]. The legatio of

an enemy might receive a military escort, be immediately rejected or be expelled with an ultimatum after completing its business (Liv. 23,6,7; 42,36,7). The legati of a people maintaining a legationum commercium (‘exchange of delegates’; R. Gest. div. Aug. 32) with Rome enjoyed the hospitium publicum (9. 86; 100]: they were provisioned, housed and given gifts according to an established schedule at state expense (munera ex formula) [6], if necessary this even included a funeral [7. 5 48ff.]. Special honours were a sacrifice on the Capitol or a special seat in the theatre. From the times of Augustus, legationes went directly to the emperor with the legatio of remote peoples being considered as an accolade to Rome’s ‘might’ (maiestas; R. Gest. div. Aug. 26; 3 1-33) or being judged in the terms of Rome’s ideology of world government [4. 279ff.]. In wars, legationes asked, for example, for > indutiae or > pax or offered ~ deditio or > societas. In peace they asked for arbitration of disputes, treaty modifications, military aid [4. 452£f.], imposition or recognition of rulers [4. 349ff.], settlement territory [4. 330ff., 486ff.] or money. Later, the latter could also be an ultimatum [5; oy Acyornial 3) A legatio libera was granted by decree of the Senate to senators to be able to claim delegate rights during private business in the provinces; in the late Republic attempts were made to legally restrict its frequent abuse. 4) In the Imperial period a non-technical type without ius legationis predominated with the legatio being sent to the emperor by the provinces and the empire’s civitates (— civitas) for the purpose of conveying congratulations, gratitude and requests [11]. 1 M. Arrortunati, Ambasciatori germanici in Italia, in:

B. und P.ScarpiG.i (ed.), Germani in Italia, 1994, 105t15 2 1.BROUGHTON, Mistreatment of Foreign Legates and the Fetial Priests, in: Phoenix 41, 1987, 50-62 3 R. HELM, Unt. uber den auswartigen diplomat. Verkehr des Rom. Reiches im Zeitalter der Spatant., in: E. OLsHAUSEN (ed.), Ant. Diplomatie, 1979, 321-408 4 P. KEHNE, Formen rom. AufSenpolitik in der Kaiserzeit, thesis Hannover 1989 5 Id.,s.v. Gesandtschaft, RGA rr, 457-461 6l1d., s.v. Geschenke (2), RGA 11, 470-474 7 D.KIENAST, s.v. Presbeia, RE Suppl. 13, 499-628 8 T. LounGuis, Les ambassades byzantines en Occident, 1980 9K.-H.ZieGiER, Das Volkerrecht der rom. Republik, in: ANRW I 2, 1972, 68-114 10Id., Volkerrechts-

gesch., 1994 11 G.ZIETHEN, Gesandte vor Kaiser und Senat, 1994 12 F. CANALI DE Rosst, Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in eta repubblicana, 1997. P.KE.

35,

354

Legatum In Roman law, the legacy (from legare: ‘to pronounce a binding declaration of will’, > lex). The possibility of bequeathing someone property through testamentary disposition (> Will) to the detriment of the heir was acknowledged in the XII Tables (5,3). There were two main types: 1) By legatum per vindicationem (arranged by: Titio hominem Stichum do lego, ‘to Titius I give and bequeathe the slave Stichus’) the legatee acquired the ownership of the bequeathed object directly with the succession and was able to claim this object from the heir with the action of the owner against the possessor (+ vindicatio); sub-types were the ‘legacy under a prior claim’ (legatum per praeceptionem: Titius hominem Stichum praecipito, ‘Titius shall take the slave Stichus beforehand’) that gave the legatee the right already to set aside the object before the division of the inheritance, and the ‘alternate legacy’ (optio legata: Titius hominem optato, ‘Titius may select a slave’), that gave the legatee the choice among several objects. 2) By legatum per damnationem (heres meus Titio centum dare damnas esto, ‘my heir shall be obliged to give Titius 100’) the legatee acquired a claim against the heir for transfer of ownership of the bequeathed object

three quarters of the estate. The /ex Papia (AD 9) meant that legacies to unmarried or childless people were for-

that he could assert with a contractual action (actio ex testamento); sub-types were the ‘acquiescence legacy’ (legatum sinendi modo: heres meus damnas esto sinere Titium hominem Stichum sumere sibique habere, *... to

acquiesce that Titius accepts and keeps the slave Stichus’) that obligated the heir to tolerate the acquisition by the legatee, and the division legacy (partitio legata: heres meus cum Titio hereditatem partito, ‘my heir shall divide the estate with Titius’) that obligated the heir to divide the estate with the legatee [2]. The division legacy was probably developed as a reaction to the > lex Voconia (169 BC) that forbad the appointment of women as heirs and bequeathing someone more than half the estate; through partitio (‘division’) a woman could be given the greatest possible amount [3. ro4of.]. By assignment of ownership legacy (1) only objects could be given by legacy that at the time of the succession were in the Quirite ownership of the testator, whilst the damnatio legacy (2) could encompass objects of all kinds, above all sums of money. In order to ensure the effectiveness of an assignment of ownership legacy in each case, the damnatio formula was frequently added; the SC Neronianum (around AD 6o) maintained an

assignment of ownership legacy — that was in itself ineffective — for a third-party object as a damnatio legacy, even if the damnatio formula was lacking [1. 745f.]. As the types of legacy were now mixed in practice, Justinian finally revoked the differences (Cod. lust. 6,43,1). Legacies could by revoked by > ademptio legati (‘ademption of a legacy’). From the middle Republic, laws prevented the excessive abatement of heirs with legacies: the lex Furia (around 200 BC) allowed only legacies up to the value of 1,000 as, the + lex Voconia (169 BC) only up to half the estate, and the lex Falcidia (41 BC [2. 16]) up to

LEGATUS

feited (> caducum, > Lex Iulia et Papia).

From the middle of the rst cent. AD the types of legacies merged with the > fideicommissum that from the time of Vespasian onwards was subject to the legacy restrictions; Justinian revoked the distinction that was still only formal (Cod. Tust. 6,43,2).

As a medium of almost unlimited open-handedness to the detriment of the surviving dependants, the legatum played an important role in Roman society. Considered for legacies were above all the marital partner (who only had a lower-priority intestate right of inheritance, > intestatus) as well as relatives and friends; only Roman citizens (in favour of non-citizens, entailed

estates were possible) and slaves of Roman

masters

(those acquired for their master) could be bequeathed

legacies. The objects of a legatum could be the testator’s own property as well as foreign items, groups of assets (country estates, household equipment), rights to claims and releases from debt, dowries and other things. A large part of the legal texts by jurists is concerned with legacy law, especially as the diversity of the types and objects of legacy offered an attractive field of activity for those intent on pursuing their interpretative skills. -» Fideicommissum; > Succession, law of II] G 1 Kaser, RPR 1, 742ff., rooff.; 2, 549ff. Das

senatus

consultum

Pegasianum,

2U.MANTHE, 1989,

80,

82

3 H.STIEGLER, s.v. Partitio, RE Suppl. 9, 1033-1049. G. Grosso, I legati nel diritto romano, 71962; HONSELL/ Mayer-Maty/SELB, 484ff.; P.Voct, Diritto ereditario romano 2, *1963, 223ff.; A.WATSON, The Law of Succes-

sion in the Later Roman Republic, 1971, 122ff.

U.M.

Legatus (‘sent on the basis of a law’ [6. r1]}). t) Envoy in international relations of Rome, outside of Italy with the functions of — fetiales within the framework of a — legatio [3. 1133-1135; 2. vol. 2, 675-690]. Benefits included, among others, + apparitores [1. t10ff.], travel funds (viaticum) and the right to free transportation (evectio), for which the golden ring handed over by the Senate was the legitimation (Plin. HN 33,11) [2. vol. 1, 301]. On the basis of ius gentium (> International Law) he was held sanctus inviolatusque (‘sacred and inviolable’; Caes. B Gall. 35953; Liv. 30,25,10); Rome considered unattoned attacks a cause for war [3. 1135]. 2) ‘Auxiliary envoy’. From the end of the 3rd cent. BC, he was assigned by the Senate to an envoy with imperial power active outside of Italy for the full period in office with the consent of the latter. Duties included military or political advice, other support as instructed

(Varro,

Ling.

5,87)

[2. vol.

2, 696-701;

4.110ff.; 6.12ff.; 1.270ff., 300f.]. 3) Member of a Senate-appointed ad hoc ‘Commission of Ten’ (decem legati) whose consilium was binding for the commander when making peace and for the lex provinciae. [4.9-100; 1.303f.].

LEGATUS 4) Permanent

representative of the promagistrate.

This type is seen only in the late years of the Republic in the /eges on extraordinary imperii. Pompey and Caesar had ten or more senatorial /egati for military or administrative duties with - imperium pro praetore [3.1143f.; 4.196ff.; 6.17ff., 22ff.]. During the Empire, a legatus Augusti pro praetore of consular or praetorial rank, standing in for the emperor equipped with imperium proconsulare, administered the latter’s provinces or conducted war [3.1144-7; 6.26ff.]. In senatorial provinces, the proconsul! with praetorial rank was assisted by a legatus. If he had consular rank, he was assisted by three appointed legati pro praetore or legati proconsulis who were confirmed by the emperor [6.5 5ff.]. 5) Legatus legionis. In the later years of the Republic, a change from > tribunus militum via the auxiliary organ of envoys with imperial power (see above, 2) to the regular officer’s rank of /egatus legionis took place in the military [4.1orff., 2orff.; 3.1147f.]. From the Flavian era (2nd half of the rst cent. AD), the emperor himself made these mostly praetorial legion command appointments [6. 54, 98ff.]. 6) Legatus iuridicus. In imperial provinces, they supported the governor in legal and administrative matters. They also performed additional duties, such as those of — correctores and censitores [3.11493 6.7696].

~ Legatio; > Magistratus; > Provincia 1 W.KUNKEL, Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der rom. Republik 2, 1995 2MOMMSEN, Staatsrecht 3 A.v. PREMERSTEIN, s.v. legatus, RE 12, 1133-49 4B.

SCHLEUSSNER,

Die Legaten der rom. Republik,

5 THOMASSON

6B.E. THOMASSON, L., 1991.

1978 P.KE.

Legend see > Myth

Leges Barbarorum see - Volksrecht Leges Homeritarum ‘The law of the (rather: for the) (Latin Homeritae,

~ Adulis;

— Arabia;

— Ancient

Southern

Arabic;

+ Axum, Axomis 1 PG 86,1, 1860

2 Martyrium Sancti Arethae et socio-

rum, in: Acta Sanctorum, vol. ro, ro (Octobris X), 1861, 721-760 3 A.A. VASILIEV, Zitie sv. Grigentija, in: Vizan-

tijskij-Vremennik 14, 1907, 23-67. N.PIGULEWSKAJA, Byzanz auf den Wegen nach Indien, 1969, esp. 197-210; I. SHAHID, Byzantium in South Arabia, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 33, 1979, 23-94. L.T--N.

Leges regiae see > Lex, Leges

Leges sacrae see - Ecclesiastical/Religious law Legio A. RepuBLic

B. PRINCIPATE

‘C. THE INDIVIDUAL

LEGIONS

A. REPUBLIC In early times, the Roman military contingent prob-

ably consisted of 3,000 soldiers in total, each of the three > tribus of the royal era providing 1,000 men (Varro, Ling. 5,89) — a military force described as ‘the

levy’ (legio). The division of the Roman people into six classes of wealth, ascribed by historiographical tradition to Servius > Tullius (Liv. 1,42,4-43,13; Dion. Hal.

Ant. Rom. 4,15-18) also had a military purpose: a citizen’s assets dictated with which weapons he was to equip himself. Those without property (capite censi) were excluded from military service; service in the Roman army was thus seen as a privilege as well as a duty of citizenship. The Roman army at first fought as a Greek > phalanx; by the late 4th cent. BC, however, the Romans had created a more flexible army structure with smaller units, or maniples (+ manipulus), which

Leges agrariae see > Lex, leges

Himyarites’

356

355

an Arab tribe ruling

Yemen between the 3rd and 6th cent. AD), a collection falsely attributed to bishop Gregentius of Zafar. However, it is not a genuine southern Arabian law code but a

Byzantine literary work of the 6th cent. AD reflecting the administration and urban life of the empire under consideration of certain peculiarities of Himyar [1. 567-620]. Together with the ‘Martyrium of Arethas’ [2], the Vita of Gregentius [3] and the ‘Dispute with the Jew Herban’ (Sancti Gregentii disputatio cum Herbano Iudaeo [1. 621-78 4}),it is one of the writings that were created in the context of Byzantium’s ecclesiastical and commercial interests in South Arabia. The historical background is the struggle of the Jewish king Du Nuwas of South Arabia against the Christian town of Nagran and the restoration of Ethiopian power with Byzantine support.

were able to operate independently. The word legio (legion) now described a unit of troops generally consisting of around 6,000 men, equipped with an oval shield and a throwing spear (> pilus) or a lance (> hasta [1]). Polybius offers the best description of the Roman legio in the time following the Second > Punic War (Pol. 6,19-25). At this time, a legio amounted to between 4,200 and 5,000 men, in thirty maniples. Behind the first, lightly-armed rank of troops (> velites), the legio took up its positions in three rows: the hastati (spear bearers) formed the first battle rank, followed by the principes (leading men) and finally the > triarii (men of the third row), who had the greatest battle experience. Each battle rank consisted of ten maniples, between each of which was left a gap. The second rank covered the gaps of the first battle rank, the third those of the second. The hastati and principes were armed with an oval shield, a throwing-spear (pilum) and a double-edged ‘Spanish sword’, while the triarii were similarly equipped, except that instead of the pilum they carried a lance (hasta). The construction of a legionary camp (> castra) followed a precise, established

357

358

plan; camp duty was regulated to the smallest detail (Pol. 6,27-36). The terms for the three battle ranks reflected the earlier composition of the legion and were probably retained out of a sense of tradition. Each legio had 300 cavalry, drawn from Rome’s Italic allies. The soldiers of the legiones were Roman citizens of age fit for service (17-46 years), often farmers, and originally served in the army only for the duration of individual campaigns. From the > Punic Wars onward, they were required to perform up to six years of uninterrupted military service, and to fight in the Roman army for a total of 16 years. The typical career of a Roman soldier is described impressively in Liv. 42,34. When Roman expansion began to require a permanent military presence in the provinces, the /egiones were no longer recruited simply for the duration of individual campaigns, but increasingly became standing units of soldiers; since the soldiers were now paid (2 oboli daily for soldiers, 4 for centurions; Pol. 6,39), they could afford a longer period of service. The senior officers of a legion were six military tribunes from the ordo equester; their qualification

well as a unique standard, were stationed for fixed terms in particular provinces (cf. the index of legions ILS 2288; late 2nd cent. AD). A legio consisted of around’5,000 men together with 120 cavalry serving as body-guards and messengers, and it was commanded by a senator of praetorian rank (legatus legionis); there were also six military tribunes, one of senatorial rank (tribunus laticlavius; ILS 1078; 1087; 1093; 1102; 1118; 1126; 1196) and five from the ranks of the equi-

was a minimum

of 5 years of service in the Roman

army. The consuls usually had supreme command. When C. Marius (cos. 107 BC) needed recruits for the war against Jugurtha in Africa, he accepted men without property, too, as volunteers (Sall. Iug. 86,2ff.). Replacing the maniple probably in Marius’ time, the ~— cohors (cohort) became the legions’ most important unit. Each legion had ten cohorts with 480 men each; the cohort was further divided into six centuries (> centuria), each with a > centurio as officer in command. Although the maniple remained in existence as a unit, probably for administrative reasons, the cohort had become the sole fighting unit of the Roman army by the time of Caesar. The legion still formed up in three battle ranks, with four cohorts in the front and three in each of the two ranks to the rear; all soldiers were now equipped with pilum and sword. Under Marius, the eagle (aquila) became the most important > ensign, symbolizing the enduring identity of a legion. B. PRINCIPATE Augustus reorganized the Roman army, while retaining its traditional structure and equipment. At colossal expense, he turned it into a professional force, whose soldiers served for long careers, and which was equal to all military challenges without the need for special conscription. The legiones, which declared their loyalty to him and his family, not only protected the Imperium Romanum against attack from outside, but also guarded the power of the princeps. To provide the recompense (praemia) granted to soldiers after their twenty-year term of service, the — aerarium militare was established (R. Gest. div. Aug. 16f.). An overview

of Augustus’ legiones is provided by Cass. Dio 55,23. Until AD 14, there were 25 legiones in service; thereafter there were 33 until the early 3rd cent. The legiones, each of which had its own name and a number, as

tes (tribuni angusticlavii;

LEGIO

> equites Romani).

In the 1st and 2nd cents. AD, the legiones were recruited by levying, although there were always volunteers. The soldiers had to be Roman citizens, but increasingly came from the provinces rather than from

Italy; from the early 2nd cent. AD, it was usual for recruitment to take place in the surroundings of the legionary camp. The Roman army of the Principate is comprehensively described by Flavius Josephus; even the marching order of the legiones was precisely laid down (Jos. BI 3,70-109; 3,115—126).

The military structure created by Augustus survived for almost as long as Roman power in the west. Under Diocletian (284-305), however, the number of legiones was raised to at least 67, while the number of soldiers in a legion was reduced, probably at the same time. It is likely that, by the time of Constantine (306-337), a legion comprised only 1,000 men. There was by now an important distinction between an army in the field (> comitatenses), which was no longer assigned to a particular province, and the territorial troops (> limitanei), who continued to be stationed in a particular location permanently.

C. THE INDIVIDUAL LEGIONS Legio I. Probably raised in 48 BC by Caesar or 43 BC by C. Vibius Pansa, this /egio was stationed in Spain after the battle of Actium (30 —c. 16 BC), then in Germania inferior, from AD 9 at Ara Ubiorum (modern Cologne), later in Bonna (modern Bonn). Part of the legio took part in Vitellius’ march on Rome. In AD 70, the /egio was disbanded due to its behaviour during the ~» Batavian revolt (Tac. Hist. 4,19f.; 4,25ff.), some soldiers probably being adopted into the Iegio VII Gemina. This legio appears with the title Germanica (ILS 2342).

Legio I Adiutrix (‘the Auxiliary’). Marines from Misenum, recruited by Nero, were formed into the legio in AD 68 by Galba; it fought for Otho at Bedriacum (Tac. Hist. 2,43,1); thereafter it was sent to Spain by Vitellius (Tac. Hist. 3,44) and fought under Petillius Cerialis against Iulius Civilis before being stationed at Mogontiacum (Germania superior; modern Mainz) and probably ordered to Pannonia by Domitian in AD 86 to take part in the war on the Dacians in 87. From AD 97, it was stationed at Brigetio (Pannonia; modern Szony). Trajan honoured it with the title Pia Fidelis (‘the Loyal and Faithful’) (ILS 1029; 1061, etc.); after taking part in Trajan’s Dacian Wars and the campaign against the Parthians, the /egio returned to Brigetio (Pannonia superior) under Hadrian.

e

Vv

Japun

Suiysuew des/

BDUIAOI

é

\

eTUPULIED;Joussuy | snSPUO|AoN® Wwndaeieg

//

»,

a

taro,

Y :

f

>

g ve

ee

——

—

aPUInUeYy

erptifnn C

a /aysanay

¢

a sodry_} | —«-PPUTUD0g

>

1X

iA

,

ty)

3

eae

Bipnels

os

sueuyjody.

\

OOE |

002

OSr

Lae |

009

eyaID ja

WwHOSL

\

«

y

a(e)uaIAD

Cece ge OR S

eo1uopasey) “oy

WNUNNLLeTT AI PUM Fann

Bere spo

euedsix

Seneared

A,

=A uniing seipney>

a

° eraouue, \,“{ ax

ee ‘ res

lumunuseS” Jenna,

Tape WATAYE ¢ x]

d1Aoja { d

pred \

/

eteuoug 4

“a

ie: ee

a&

gaol

eyses Pulsay oes

BUILD

SS of

snadag {

ses I

Ae

ss

pee |

I11X

aa

DFie

(aouapina

snuaqi)

1

‘ StsvouogIeN, sodry\ aPy}OD t

>~ yp

Jajuim dures

snisnsny pue

uewoy aidwy 2) GV (VL

veruopasey BWEN JO

os 2

P

'

%:

2 Pee

aS.

ze

q

SUOIZa] U! 94}

jea1Zojoaeyz pur J0/ e Aresayl|

peuoseas

uolsa]

i

biuany® RUIWID ASS Ah“ete

PIISIOD

----------9 |elIAoig Japsog

)

aweN Jo

uolsaq (Ss)

uewoy audwy ‘2) dv (PL

—-eIsNSny

|

=y

Og

ieae bess ee

IAX----— PMNED fo

AIX

Se stsuoy,

Boluepaseyy ~~~ XUPIAIA

Je

p>

S-sepnejy

I

BIJUPLUDD y

BHa|eA eaisiA By BION, BIySe> Ne, LUNISAeAON WRUOIQN PV alia ee wy ~. s— vo winsenuosoyy \ eatBreg \ yl Basnsny

ALS

o0€

aly

/el\aIPUeXa|Yy A

Be)

oe

yo

set

|

Ss

u

re

PAS sn

WViowianu

uojkgeg

ys

i720

\PRPIED)

OV

\

4H

AL VVV

es

eSLqoln|

20

UONqUAS Jo a4}IG (GZ)

inuoney

| i \&

o

ee



e--N

0b

LEGIO

359 360

OE

aS

A

=

Oo

See g

(002

ps

2)

PIUOps0De aweN EW| jo

a2ulAoid

______ jeauinoigJapsog

Juaueuiag dues /

uewoy auidwy Gv (00¢

wmunuse>

UOIZa|

Areuoi$aq dues

P21UOpase; aWeNY JO

&

Sma

ae

Eee

x

SUOISa] U! 94}

as

gem

x

sadry eLEIN SE

eqey

O12aN

)

ee

UBWOY

gy

i snueisedsay,

(2|NFiyeD) = fy

||

i Z

SManas

sniwiydas

snoeyw

snueies{

%

BoIYUed

snuenIWog

suol3a|

=

sme

SEON ot II

Bo

a

2 ~

0

n

S

A

Waa

ees

OSL

no

y

oOo€

i H+

c

Ix

2 aN

Poeye

OSr

009

OGL W>

Parje 0)

S

\

athe

(e)a(e)uartdd

er

9)

Per

y ? eis 2

a

wurden wwrindy c

ae

“WNUNWED j

eo1uopsde B5S/E}0q w

\

“STIs cs Bae eae, J eaijeydenon Vs0rredng

Roe

‘.dununpiSu us! rs 280

5\

JOU,

eld

>.

ra Sa

xouledng { a

XUIMIBY Ne

gue \

uinzuinby 7 od

wm

BUOGOPUIA

PUIWIAaD BUEW XUPIA

BUIWAD

xUINIpyCuemlg

‘\ 4%¢ e : e

uinueg|y

o

a

eisnany eT 5159041

Prurprles

! POISIOD

‘)

~>.

oO;

snjsnsny

snren

MoD

2

*L YX

HM22HNET | -z ‘AIX BUISay

umenuosoy

“a ABloaa Wess’ iy ere eoifey BASES

;

geiussiWid

PSED.BII}A/

RysnSny

eon

Bos Fe eesodtyeurusog

y gen

stsuauoqien Soa)ae

y

pe,2 )

erejoOMLy Ne sisuetresae5 ees 1

oe

oO

f

eaa)

\. Ke erueyynb

T

~ de

eedas (

en

ee

EES es ;| A

(quaueuuad) sadiouug Japun WOYM ay} aia :paysijqejsa

egg

She

a

OO#aas

Paysed

UOINGIys $O ay} SIG (EE)

os

See 7

asidwy ‘2) GV

.

:

01337 Bs efiuien ame Sie

1

ee

TER :

S

Z

;

WA’

i

Re

eothl \ xag

BAIOUIWeuuog

‘e XXX PIdIN.

G

ps | s—— Bi XX

(> oes

/

jy

7 X

snidAp

|

ey

/


Augustus), the legio was permanently stationed in Africa from 30 BC, firstly at Ammaedara, then, under Vespasian, at Theveste. By AD 98 it was at Lambaesis. For supporting Capellianus,

LEGIO

the east; it was stationed at Lugdunum (modern Lyons)

in 68, fighting for Vitellius in the second battle of Bedriacum (Tac. Hist. 3,14; 3,18,1; 3,22,2), and was

sent to Moesia by Vespasian in c. 69-70, probably to counter the threat of the Sarmates; it was stationed at Novae (Moesia). Its title refers to its recruitment in

Italy. Legio I Macriana Liberatrix (‘Macer’s Liberator’).

The legio was levied in AD 68 by L. Clodius Macer, when as governor of Africa he revolted against Nero but would not join Galba. It was disbanded shortly afterwards by Galba (Tac. Hist. 2,97,2).

Legio I Minervia (‘Minerva’s’). The legio was raised by Domitian in AD 83, probably for the war against the Chatti; it was stationed at Bonna (modern Bonn; Ger-

mania inferior). Its loyalty during the revolt of L. Antonius Saturninus, the governor of Germania superior, earned it the title Pia Fidelis Domitiana (‘the Loyal and Faithful Domitianic’; ILS 2279) in AD 89. It fought under Trajan against the Dacians (ILS 308) and under Lucius Verus against the Parthians (162-66); afterwards it was stationed at Bonna. Legio I Parthica (‘the Parthian’). It was raised before AD 197 by Septimius Severus, and was named following his campaign against the Parthians; it was stationed at Singara in the newly-acquired province of Mesopotamia. Legio II Adiutrix (‘the Auxiliary’). Marines, recruited at Ravenna in AD 69 during the Flavian advance on Italy (Tac. Hist. 3,50,3), were officially formed into the legio by Vespasian before 7 March 70; at this time, it bore the supplementary title Pia Fidelis (‘the Loyal and Faithful’; ILS 308; 1989). It fought against the Batavians, then, in 71, accompanied Petillius Cerialis to Britannia, where it was stationed first at Lindum (modern Lincoln), then, in the time of Agricola, at Deva (modern Chester). It was transferred to the Danube around 87. After taking part in Trajan’s Dacian Wars, it was stationed at Aquincum (modern Budapest; Pannonia inferior); it fought under Lucius Verus against the Parthians (AD 162-166). Legio II Augusta (‘the Augustan’). Probably raised by C. Vibius Pansa in 43 BC, and stationed in Spain from 30 BC, the Jegio was transferred to the Rhine around AD 9 or earlier; from 17 it was stationed at Argentorate (modern Strasbourg) in Germania superior. It participated in the invasion of Britannia in the year 43, under the command of Vespasian (Tac. Hist. 3,44) and in 74-75, it constructed its legionary camp at Isca (modern Caerleon, near Newport, Wales). Its title refers to a victory or a re-organization under Augustus. Legio II Italica (‘the Italian’). Raised by Marcus Aurelius in Italy in AD 165 or 166, the legio was transferred to Noricum around 171, and stationed at Lau-

riacum still under emperor Commodus. It bore the title Pia (‘the Loyal’) from its foundation; between 192-200 it was granted the title Fidelis (‘the Faithful’; ILS 24194).

the governor of Numidia, against Gordianus I and I,

the legio was disbanded in 238 by Gordianus III; Valerianus restored it in 253. Its title (ILS 6285) refers to a victory or a re-organization under Augustus. Legio III Cyrenaica (‘the Cyrenaic’). Raised before 30 BC, perhaps by M. Aemilius Lepidus in Africa or by Antonius, the /egio was stationed in Egypt from 30 BC; however, in AD 106 it was the first legio to be transferred to the new province of Arabia, taking part in Trajan’s Parthian War; the /egio returned briefly to Egypt and was then permanently stationed at Bostra (Arabia) (LS 1071 T]2)):

Legio III Gallica (‘the Gaulish’). Probably raised in 48 BC by Caesar, the legio then served under Mark Antony, but was taken over after the battle of Actium by Caesar (C. Octavius, > Augustus) and stationed in Syria; it fought under Corbulo against the Parthians (Tac. Ann. 13,40,2; ILS 232). In AD 67/68, Nero trans-

ferred it to Moesia; it fought at Bedriacum for Vespasian (Tac. Hist. 3,21,2; 3,24,2); returning to the east, it

may have been stationed in northern Syria. It probably helped in the suppression of the Jewish uprising under Bar Kochba (132-135). After Septimius Severus divided Syria, it was stationed in Syria Phoenice. The legio was disbanded in 218/219 by Elagabalus, before being restored by Severus Alexander and stationed at Danaba on the road from Damascus to Palmyra. Legio III Italica (‘the Italian’). The legio was raised in Italy in AD 165 or 166 by Marcus Aurelius, and was stationed in Raetia (Castra Regina; modern Regensburg); at first it bore the title Concors (‘Concordant’). Legio III Parthica (‘the Parthian’). Raised by Septimius Severus before AD 197 and named following his campaign against the Parthians, the /egio was stationed in Mesopotamia, probably at Rhesaena. Legio IV Flavia Felix (‘Flavian Fortunate’): the former legio IV Macedonica was re-established as the IV Flavia Felix (ILS 2084; 2085) in AD 70 by Vespasian; the legio was stationed firstly at Burnum (Dal-

365

366

matia), before being transferred to Moesia superior inc. 85, where its garrison was probably Singidunum (modern Belgrade) until 101/2. The /egio took part in Trajan’s Dacian Wars, and was for a short time stationed at Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Dacia), before returning to Singidunum under Hadrian. Legio IV Macedonica (‘the Macedonian’). Raised in 48 BC by Caesar, the legio served in Macedonia (47-44 BC) and was stationed in Spain after Actium (until around AD 43); in 43 the legio was stationed in Ger-

Actium

mania superior (Mogontiacum; modern Mainz). Units

of the legio fought for Vitellius in the second battle of Bedriacum (Tac. Hist. 3,22,2); the remaining units sur-

rendered to Iulius Civilis, as a result of which Vespasian disbanded the legio. Legio IV Scythica (‘the Scythian’). Raised before 30 BC, probably by Mark Antony, the legio was in Macedonia from 30 BC, then in Moesia from AD 9; it was transferred to Syria; it comprised part of the forces of Corbulo (Tac. Ann. 15,7,1; ILS toos) and was stationed at Zeugma from 66. Its title may indicate a victory over the Scythians (29-27 BC) under M. Licinius Crassus (cos. 30 BC). Legio V Alaudae (‘of the Larks’). Recruited in 52 BC by Caesar in Gallia Transalpina, the /egio was re-established by Mark Antony and taken over after Actium by Caesar (C. Octavius). Following its stationing in Spain (around 30-19 BC), it was transferred to the Rhine, losing its eagle standard in 17 BC in Gaul, in battle against Germanic tribes (Vell. Pat. 2,97,1). Some units took part in Vitellius’ campaign march on Italy, others surrendered to Julius Civilis; the /egio was probably disbanded by Vespasian in 70 on account of this, or it may have been annihilated on the Danube in 8586(2). Its title refers to the Celtic custom of wearing the crest or feathers of a bird on the helmet (Plin. HN Tit 2 7),

Legio V Macedonica (‘the Macedonian’). The legio may be identical to the legio V Urbana, which had been raised either in 43 BC by C. Vibius Pansa or in 41-40 by Caesar (i.e. C. Octavius). From 30 BC to AD 6, it was stationed in Macedonia, and was then transferred to Moesia, where its camp was at Oescus (modern Gigen).

In 61/62, the /egio was transferred to Armenia, serving under Vespasian in the Jewish War (Tac. Hist. 5,1,2),

before returning to Oescus in 71; when the province was divided in 86, it was among the forces stationed in Moesia inferior. After taking part in Trajan’s Dacian Wars, its garrison was at Troesmis. It participated in the Parthian War under Lucius Verus (162-166), and in 167 or 168 it was transferred to Potaessa (modern Turda) in Dacia. When the territory of Dacia north of the Danube was relinquished in 274/75, the legio withdrew to Oescus in the newly created province of Dacia ripensis. Legio VI Ferrata (‘Ironclad’). Raised in 52 BC by Caesar in Gallia Cisalpina, and put back into service by M. Aemilius Lepidus in 44 BC, the Jegio first served under Mark Antony before being taken over after

LEGIO

by Caesar (C. Octavius); it was stationed in

Syria from 30 BC (perhaps at Raphaneae). It fought for Vespasian in Italy, but soon returned to the east and was probably stationed at Raphaneae or Samosata; it was transferred to Arabia no later than r1g, then to Judaea around 123 (Caparcotna). Its support of Septimius Severus against C. Pescennius Niger earned it the title of Fidelis Constans (‘the Faithful and Constant’; ILS 2103).

Legio VI Victrix (‘the Victorious’). Probably raised by Caesar (C. Octavius) around 40 BC, the legio was stationed in Spain from after Actium to AD 69; it proclaimed Galba princeps. Its original title of Hispaniensis refers to its service in Spain; the title Victrix is first attested in the time of Nero (ILS 233). In 69/70, it fought under Cerialis against the Batavians. Its legionary camp was at Novaesium (modern Neuss; Germania inferior); its loyalty during the revolt of L. Antonius Saturninus in 89 earned it the title of Pia Fidelis (‘the Loyal and Faithful’; ILS 1047). It was transferred to Vetera (modern Xanten) before ro5, then to Britannia (ILS 1100), probably in 122, where its garrison was at Eburacum (modern York). Legio VII. Raised in 59 BC or earlier, and restored by Caesar (C. Octavius) in 44 BC, after Actium the legio may have been in Galatia, then, from AD 9, it was stationed in Dalmatia (Tilurium). After being transferred to Moesia in 56/57, its camp was at Viminacium (modern Kostolac) from at least the Flavian period; in 69, it supported Vespasian and took part in the battle of Bedriacum (Tac. Hist. 3,21,2). At first, the legio took the title Paterna, which was derived from the honorific title pater patriae, later its title was Macedonica; lastly, in AD 42, it was awarded the title of Claudia Pia Fidelis (‘the Claudian Loyal and Faithful’; ILS 2461) to reward its loyalty to Claudius during the revolt of L. Arruntius Scribonianus in Dalmatia. Legio VII Hispana (‘the Spanish’). Raised in AD 68 by Ser. Sulpicius Galba in Spain, the /egio accompanied Galba to Rome, but was soon transferred to Carnuntum in Pannonia. In 69, it fought for Vespasian (Tac. Hist. 3,10,1; 3,21,2; the term Galbiana was probably not an Official title) and was reformed as the legio VII Gemina (‘the Twin’), probably also employing soldiers of the disbanded legio I. It returned to Pannonia, finally receiving the title of Felix (‘the Joyful’; ILS 1076), perhaps for exemplary service in Germania superior. It returned to Spain at the end of 74, where its legionary camp was probably at Legio (modern Leon). Evidence from the reign of Septimius Severus shows it as Gemina Pia Felix (‘the Loyal and Joyful Twin’; ILS 1155). Legio VIII Augusta. Raised in 59 BC or earlier, and restored by Caesar (C. Octavius) in 44, the legio was stationed in the Balkans after Actium; from AD 4g its camp was at Poetovio (modern Ptuj) in Pannonia, and

after around 45 it was at Novae (Moesia). The legio supported

Vespasian

in 69 (Tac. Hist.

3,21,2)

and

fought under Cerialis against the Batavians; afterwards it was stationed at Argentorate (modern Strasbourg).

367

368

Its original title of Gallica refers to its service under Caesar in Gallia; the title of Augusta (ILS 967; 1076)

disch; Germania superior). It was transferred to Brige-

suggests a victory won under Augustus. Legio IX Hispana (‘the Spanish’). Probably Caesar’s

Durostorum in Moesia inferior. Legio XII Fulminata (‘Casting Thunderbolts’). Probably the legio XII recruited by Caesar in 58 BC, which was reformed in 44-43 and then served under Mark Antony. After Actium it was taken over by Caesar (C. Octavius) and stationed in Egypt; it was transferred to Syria before AD 14; later its garrison was at Raphaneae. The legio was among the troops of L. Caesennius Paetus, who ‘shamefully capitulated’ in battle against the Parthians (Tac. Ann. 15,10-16). In 66, the legio took part in the failed assault by the governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus, on Jerusalem (Jos. BI 2,499555) and, under the command of Titus, in the siege of

LEGIO

legio IX; Caesar (C. Octavius) raised a new legio in 41/40 BC, which was stationed in Spain from after the battle of Actium until c. 19 BC. It was transferred to Pannonia (AD 9-43); in AD 20-24 it fought in Africa against Numidian tribes under Tacfarinas (Tac. Ann. 4,23,2). In 43, the legio took part in the conquest of Britannia, where it was then stationed at Lindum (mod-

ern Lincoln), suffering severe losses during the rebellion of Boudicca under Cerialis, and being transferred to Eburacum (modern York) in 71. The /egio is last known to have been in Britannia in 107/8; it was probably transferred to another province, remaining until perhaps around 125. In the early Principate, it held the title Macedonica, later it was known as Hispana (ILS 940;

1025; 9485). Legio X Fretensis (‘of the Strait’). Raised by Caesar (C. Octavius) in 41-40 BC (?) and stationed in Mace-

donia after Actium, the /egio was transferred to Syria no later than AD 14; around 17-18 its camp was at Cyrrhus. In 66, the /egio fought in the Jewish War (Tac. Hist. 5,1,2), taking part in the sieges of Jerusalem and Masada; thereafter it was stationed at Jerusalem. In the late 3rd cent., it was transferred to Aela on the Red Sea. Its title of Fretensis (ILS 987; 1057) refers to sea battles in the Strait of Sicily (Fretum Siculum). Legio X Gemina (‘the Twin’). Raised in 59 BC or before, and reformed by M. Aemilius Lepidus in 44, the legio then served under Mark Antony, and was taken over by Caesar (C. Octavius) after Actium. Afterwards the /egio was stationed in Spain (at Petavonium; modern Rosinos de Vidriales). Around AD 63 it was transferred to Carnuntum (Pannonia); shortly thereafter it returned to Spain and then fought under Cerialis against the Batavians

(Tac. Hist. 5,19,1); it was sta-

tioned at Noviomagus (modern Nijmegen) in Germania inferior. Its loyalty during the revolt of L. Antonius Saturninus earned it the title of Pia Fidelis (‘the Loyal and Faithful’; ILS 13 52). It was transferred to Pannonia around 103, where it was stationed at Aquincum (modern Budapest) and thereafter at Vindobona (modern Vienna). Its title was originally Equestris (‘the Equestrian’); the title Gemina, first bestowed under Augustus (CIL II 1176), refers to its adopting troops from another legion. Legio XI. The origin of this /egio is uncertain; it may have been the legio XI founded by Caesar in 58 BC, alternatively it may have been raised in 41-40 by Caesar (C. Octavius). After Actium, the /egio was stationed in the Balkans until AD 9, then in Dalmatia (Burnum). Its loyalty in AD 42 during the revolt of L. Arruntius Scribonianus in Dalmatia earned it the title of Claudia Pia Fidelis (‘the Claudian Loyal and Faithful’; ILS 1026; 1054). It fought for Vespasian in 69 (Tac. Hist. 4,68,4) and then took part in the campaign against the Batavians; it was stationed at Vindonissa (modern Win-

tio (modern Szény) in Pannonia around rot, later to

Jerusalem (Tac. Hist. 5,1,2); thereafter Vespasian trans-

ferred it to Cappadocia, where it was stationed at Melitene. Its loyalty during the revolt of Avidius Cassius in 175 earned it the title of Certa Constans (‘the Decisive and Steadfast’; ILS 2748) from Marcus Aurelius. Its original title was Paterna, which derived from Caesar’s honorific title of pater patriae. Legio XII Gemina (‘the Twin’). The origin of this legio is uncertain; it may be the legio XIII founded by Caesar in 57 BC; alternatively it may have been raised by Caesar (C. Octavius) as late as 41-40 BC. After Actium, it was stationed in Illyricum; after AD 9 it was

transferred to the Rhine, and finally stationed at Vindonissa (modern Windisch; Germania superior). Under Claudius, it went to Pannonia, its garrison at Poetovio

(modern Ptuj; Tac. Hist. 3,1,1); it took part in the cam-

paign against lulius Civilis, before returning to Pannonia; Domitian transferred it to Vindobona (modern Vienna); after possibly participating in Trajan’s first Dacian War, and certainly in his second, it remained in the new province of Dacia, where it was stationed at Apulum. After the withdrawal from Dacia in 274/275, it was transferred to Ratiaria in the new province of Dacia ripensis. Its title (ILS 996; 1002) may refer to a

inerger of troops after Actium. Legio XIV Gemina (‘the Twin’). The origin of this legio is uncertain; it may be identical with the legio XIV raised by Caesar in 54, or may have been a legio newly raised by Caesar (C. Octavius) in 41/40. After Actium,

it was stationed in Illyricum; it was transferred to Mogontiacum (modern Mainz) in AD 9. It took part in the conquest of Britannia in 43, and was then garrisoned at Viroconium (modern Wroxeter). For its victory over Boudicca, it was awarded the title of Martia Victrix (‘the Martial Victorious’; Tac. Ann.

14,34,1; ILS

1061). It was withdrawn from Britannia in 66 for the campaign Nero planned in the east, returning there

briefly in 69 before being sent to Germania in 70 to fight the Batavians (Tac. Hist. 4,68,4); stationed at Mogon-

tiacum, it supported the uprising of L. Antonius Saturninus in 89. In 92/93 it was transferred to Pannonia; its

garrison may have been at Mursa (modern Osijek), later Vindobona (modern Vienna). It took part in Trajan’s Dacian Wars; it was stationed at Carnuntum (Pannonia superior) from 114 at the latest.

369

370

Legio XV Apollinaris (‘of Apollo’). Perhaps raised by Caesar (C. Octavius) in 41-40 BC, the legio was stationed in Illyricum after Actium, then from AD 9 in Pannonia, possibly at Emona. From AD 14 its garrison was probably at Carnuntum. It was transferred to Syria in 62/63; it later fought in the Jewish War (66-70; Tac.

is perhaps to be interpreted as ‘the Courageous Victorious’; it probably refers to the victory over Boudicca

Hist. 5,1,2); thereafter it returned to the Danube. Divi-

then after AD 9 in Germania inferior (Vetera, modern Xanten). Around 46, it was transferred to Vindonissa

sions of the /egio fought in Trajan’s Dacian Wars, before the entire /egio was transferred to the east for the Parthian War; finally it was stationed in Cappadocia (Satala). Its title (ILS 1072) indicates that it was conse-

crated to Apollo, Augustus’ patron deity. Legio XV Primigenia (‘the Firstborn’). Probably raised by Gaius in AD 39 for his planned campaigns against the Germans and in Britannia. The legio was at first stationed at Mogontiacum (modern Mainz; Germania superior), later in Germania inferior (Bonna, modern Bonn; then Vetera, modern Xanten) (ILS

2275). Part of the /egio took part in Vitellius’ march on Italy, the remaining troops surrendering to Iulius Civilis at Vetera, whereupon the /egio was disbanded. Its title suggests that it was the first of a new group of legiones. Legio XVI. Perhaps raised by Caesar (C. Octavius) in 41-40 BC. The legio served on the Rhine after Actium;

it was stationed at Mogontiacum (modern Mainz) from AD 9; Claudius transferred it to Novaesium (modern Neuss; Germania inferior) (Tac. Hist. 1,552). Units of the legio marched under Vitellius to

Italy, while the remaining troops surrendered to Iulius Civilis (Tac. Hist. 4,26,3). In AD 70, Vespasian disbanded the legio, but it was reformed as the legio XVI Flavia Firma (ILS 1066; 2655). Its original title of Gallica (ILS 2034) indicates service in Gaul. Legio XVI Flavia Firma (‘the Flavian Steadfast’). Its title (ILS 1066; 2655) refers to its connection with the Flavian dynasty. It was sent to the east in 70, serving in Syria in 75; later it was stationed in Cappadocia (Satala) and, after Trajan’s Parthian War, in Syria (Samosata). Legiones XVII, XVIII, XIX. The legiones, which may have been raised by Caesar (C. Octavius) in 41-40 BC, were garrisoned on the Rhine after Actium. In AD 9, under P. Quinctilius Varus, they were annihilated in free Germania by Arminius (Vell. Pat. 2,118f.; Cass. Dio 56,18—22; Tac. Ann. 1,60-62). These legion num-

bers were never used again. Legio XX Valeria Victrix. Raised by Caesar (C. Octavius) in 41-40 BC or perhaps not until after Actium, the /egio was stationed in Spain from 30-20(?) BC, then in Illyricum (Burnum); in AD 9 it was trans-

ferred to the Rhine, where its first garrison was at Ara Ubiorum

(modern Cologne), and its second — under

Tiberius — Novaesium (modern Neuss). The /egio took part in the conquest of Britannia in 43; it was stationed firstly at Camulodunum (modern Colchester), then near Glevum (modern Gloucester), later at Viroconium

(modern Wroxeter). It played a leading part in the campaigns of Iulius Agricola; it may have helped construct the fortress at Inchtuthil in northern Scotland; later its base was at Deva (modern Chester). Its title (ILS 2764)

LEGIO

(AD 61; Tac. Ann. 14,34,1).

Legio XXI

Rapax

(‘the Rapacious’).

Raised

by

Caesar (C. Octavius) in 41-40 BC or perhaps not until

after Actium, the legio was stationed first in Raetia,

(modern Windisch; Germania superior). It took part in Vitellius’ invasion of Italy (Tac. Hist. 1,61,2; 2,43,1; 2,100,1; 3,18,1), and shortly afterwards fought the Batavians (Tac. Hist. 4,68,4; 4,70,2); its garrison was Bonna (modern Bonn). In 83, it was transferred to Mogontiacum (modern Mainz; Germania superior). It

took part in the revolt of L. Antonius Saturninus in 89. Domitian sent it to the Danube; it was probably annihilated in the war against the Sarmates around 92. Its title (ILS 1038; 2705) recalls a bird of prey. Legio XXII Deiotariana (‘the Deiotarian’). Formed by 25 BC by the transfer of troops from the kingdom of Galatia, and stationed in Egypt (Nicopolis). Its later history remains unclear; the last evidence for the legio is in Egypt in rrg. Its title (ILS 1434) recalls king Deiotarus of Galatia, who had died in 40 BC. Legio XXII Primigenia (‘the Firstborn’). Probably raised by Gaius in AD 39 for his planned campaigns against the Germans and in Britannia, the legio was stationed at Mogontiacum (modern Mainz; Germania superior); it was among the troops of Vitellius in 69 (Tac. Hist. 2,100,1). Briefly stationed at Carnuntum, its

garrison from AD 71 at the latest was Vetera (Germania inferior). Its loyalty during the revolt of L. Antonius Saturninus in 89 earned it the title of Pia Fidelis Domitiana (‘the Loyal and Faithful Domitianic’; ILS 419; 428; 3914). It was transferred once more to Mogontiacum in 92/93. Legio XXX

Ulpia Victrix (‘Ulpia, the Victorious’). Probably raised around AD ro5 by Trajan and named after him, its numbering indicates that it was at this time the 30th legion of the Roman army. The /egio was first stationed at Brigetio (modern Szony; Pannonia superior); units of the /egio took part in Trajan’s Second Dacian War; the legio was probably transferred to

Vetera (modern Xanten; Germania inferior) in 122. 1 G.Fornt, Il reclutamento delle legioni da Augusto a Diocleziano, 1953 2 A.K. Gotpswortuy, The Roman Army at War too BC - AD 200, 1996 3J.HARMAND, L’Armée et le soldat 4dRome de 107 a 50 avant notre ére, 1967. 4D.L. Kennepy, L. VI Ferrata, in: HSPh 84, 1980, 283-309 5 L.Keppre, The Making of the Roman Army, 1984 6 Y.LE Bouec, La III* Légion Auguste, 1989

7J.C. Mann, Legionary Recruitment and Veteran

Settlement During the Principate, 1983

8 E. RITTER-

LING, s.v. L., RE 12, 1186-1829 9 P.SOUTHERN, K.R. Dixon, The Late Roman Army, 1996 10 G. WEBSTER,

The Roman Imperial Army, +1985.

J.CA.

Maps: Distribution of the 25 legions in the Roman Empire (around AD 14): B. CAMPBELL, The Roman Army, 31 BC-AD 337: A Sourcebook, 1994; M. JUNKELMANN, Die

LEGIO

371

Legionen des Augustus, 1986; L. Keppre, The Making of the Roman Army, 1984, 205-215. Distribution of the 33 legions in the Roman Empire (around AD 200): B. CAMpBELL, The Roman Army, 31 BC— AD 337: A Sourcebook, 1994; CIL VI 3492 = ILS 2288 (2nd cent. AD); J. KroMAYER, G. VEITH, Heerwesen und Kriegsfiihrung der Griechen und Rémer, 1928 (HdbA); J.C. MANN, Legion-

ary Recruitment and Veteran Settlement During the Principate, 1983.

Legis actio The legis actio (LA) was the earliest form of

Roman civil procedure and, therefore, characterized by considerable formality. It owed its name to a law from which the suit received its immutability but which Gaius (Inst. 4,11) was already at a loss to explain entirely. The formalities that had to be observed in this type of proceeding, which was reserved for Roman citizens and included precise repetition of certain formulas as well as correctly performing the required actions (Gai. Inst. 4530), exhibit parallels to the activities of the > augures and their venerable rituals. The replacement of this type of proceeding by the formulary procedure (> formula) was not abrupt but extended over centuries. The more recent procedure was probably already practiced in the 4th or 3rd cents. BC — probably because of the increased importance of foreigners and the praetor peregrinus, who was responsible for them. Eventually, a lex Aebutia of the 2nd cent. BC as well as two additional leges Tuliae (iudiciorum privatorum, publicorum) of 17 BC restricted the applicability of the LA considerably. The LA-procedure was already divided into two stages at the time of the Law of the Twelve Tables (5th cent. BC): in the first stage (im iure) the parties deter-

mined the dispute programme before the court’s magistrate (consul, after 367 BC the praetor) and chose the judge. The defendant was required to follow the private request of the plaintiff to appear at this date (Tab. 1,1). In the second stage (apud iudicem) the facts were examined before the agreed-upon judge who was a private person (— index). The oldest action, which Gaius (Inst. 4,13) described

as ‘general’, is the legis actio sacramento. It was not used to settle the actual dispute but to justify (iustum) the cause submitted by both parties with an oath (sacramentum). Through orientation towards the sacramentum any factual process could underlie the trial. The judgement in this process was merely a determination regarding a preliminary question. Other legis actiones were the legis actio per indicis arbitrive postulationem (with petition [for appointing] a — iudex or — arbiter) — it was especially used for actions following from a > stipulatio or inheritance

Be

stated in the condictio but not the underlying legal cause, it could be used for a wide range of claims. The legis actio per manus iniectionem (‘for putting on hands’) was used to enforce a judgement (Gai. Inst. 4,21ff.); the laying on of the hands by the successful plaintiff could, according to the Twelve Tables, Tab. III, be a preliminary to killing the debtor sued (which is often doubted without justification), debt servitude or sale trans Tiberim (Gell. NA 20,1,46f.). The legis actio per pignoris capionem (for pawning) was also an enforcement suit but only provided for very narrowly detined special cases (claims under public — military — or sacral law; Gai. Inst. 4,26ff.). M. Kaser, K. HAckKt, Das rom. Zivilprozefrecht, 25-148; O. BEHRENDS, Die r6m. Geschworenenverfassung, 1970; U. ManTue, Stilistische Gemeinsamkeiten in den Fach-

sprachen der Juristen und Augurén der R6m. Republik, in: K. ZIMMERMANN (ed.), Der Stilbegriff in den Altertumswiss., 1993, 69ff. C.PA.

Legislation in antiquity is both the subject of pragmatic politics (+ Law, codification) and theoretical reflection

(political science and legal philosophy). The latter was first discussed by the Greeks (as nomothesia) and immediately reached an intellectual high point, especially in —» Plato’s [1] late work on laws (Nomoi). Plato’s opinion of lawgiving, as is also related by > Cicero in his theory of lawgiving (De legibus), had a sustained effect on Roman Imperial lawgiving and, therefore, on European legal science after the reception of Roman law beginning in the late Middle Ages. Consequently, legislation was not simply supposed to result from the resolution of a majority of the public assembly or a decision of a king or > princeps (II.), but also the result of reasoned reflection (‘what wise men have discussed and de-

cided’, virorum prudentium consultum:

Papin. Dig.

1,3,1) and by derivation a means to instructing reflec-

tive and prudent behaviour. Roman law with its unique history of reception did not depend on legislation in this sense but on the > ius with regard to content. As a result, it largely derived from customary and official law, formally the + Corpus iuris. It did not aim for legislation based on reasoned considerations of justice (‘philosophy’), but to collect and safeguard the ius. -» Justice; > Lex; > Nomos [1]; > Nomothetai; > Nomographos 1 J. BLEICKEN, Lex Publica, 1975 2 O. BEHRENDS, W. SELLERT (ed.), Nomos und Gesetz, 1995 3 H.GORGEMANNS, Beitr.

zur

Interpretation

von

Platons

Nomoi,

1960

4G.Rurs, Prolog und Epilog in Gesetzen des Alt., 1983 5 WIEACKER, RRG, 277-309; 388-428.

Gs.

division suits, Gai. Inst. 4,147a; a direct decision as op-

posed to an indirect decision on the dispute was made.

Legumes see -> Nutrition, Leguminous plants

The legis actio per condictionem (‘on announcement’)

was also used to bring about a direct statement by a judge on a legal consequence — the payment of certa pecunia (money of a certain amount, by means of a lex Silia) or another certa res (a certain matter, by means of a lex Calpurnia); because only the legal consequence is

Leguminous

plants

(pulses)

(ervum,

Columella

2,10,34 et passim, Plin. HN 18,57; 18, 139 et passim; ervilia, Plin. HN 18,58 et passim; Columella 2,13,1; deofoc/drobos, related to éeéPwOoc/erébinthos > ‘peas’). Collective name for small-seed legumes.

DAS

374

These belong to the following genera: a) Vicia with the subgenus Ervum L. (among these V. ervilia (L.) Willd., the bitter vetch, cf. Columella 8,8,6); b) lens, lentil (Jens,

tion, and after every five lines, the number of lines is shown in superscript: /°.

Cato Agr. 35,1; 116; 132,2; 158,1; Columella 2,10,15

et passim; Plin. HN 18,57 et passim; lenticula, Plin. HN 18,123; Columella 2,7,1; 11,10; 8,8,6; daxdc/phakos, Hebrew ‘adasah); c) lathyrus latifolius, everlasting pea (AdOve0c/Ilathyros, xdbusov/klimeon, wyxoo0c/6chros). The bitter vetch was already cultivated in Asia Minor before the Mycenaean Age and in southern Europe from the Neolithic Age onwards. From the 3rd millennium onwards the lentil (Lens esculenta Moench) has been a popular filling food in the Middle East, Egypt and southern Europe despite the fact that it is hard to digest (Dioscorides 2,107,1 [1.181] and 2,129 [2. 210}) [cf. the meal of Esau in Gn 25:29-3 4). According to Plin. HN 18,123 and Columella 2, ro,r5, it grows in infertile soil in a dry climate. It is sown in spring (Columella 2,10,15) and autumn (Theophr. Hist. pl. 8,1,4; Verg. G. 1,227; Columella l.c.). Medical use of legumes (Plin. HN 22,15 1-153) and lentils (Plin. HN

20,71;

22,142-145;

Dioscorides

2,107,2-3

[z. 181rf.] and 2,129 [2. 210f.]) was common. 1 WELLMANN

1

2 BERENDES.

C.HU.

Leibethra (Acife0Qa; Leibethra). Macedonian city between > Dion [II 2] and > Heracleon [2] near modern Leptokarya (cf. Str. 7, fr. 18); its territorium bordered on > Gonni [1. no. 2]. In the 3rd cent. BC, L. was considered to be autonomous as it received Delphian the6roi (‘envoys’) [2.17 |. 52], but it obviously became merged with the Roman colony of Dion [II 2] (CIL Il 591). According to Str. 9,2,25, L. was sacred to the Muses; Pausanias heard in Larisa the story that > Orpheus had been buried in L. but after a severe flood his bones had been taken to Dion (Paus. 9,30,9-11). According to Plut. Alexander 14,5, there was a portrait of Orpheus carved out of cypress wood in L. 1 B. HELLy, Gonnoi 2, 1973

2 A.PLassart, Inscriptions

LEISURE

H.Krummrey,

J. HEuURGON, Un legatus a Volsinii, in: MEFRA 286.

MA.ER.

Leipsydrium (Asuptdeuov; Leipsydrion). Town on the — Parnes in the Attic deme of Paeonidae [2], fortified by the > Alcmaeonidae shortly before [3] or after the murder of Hipparchus in 514 BC in the battles with the — Peisistratidae. Identification uncertain. The fortress near modern Karagufolesa supposed to be L. dates to the 4th/3rd cents. BC [1]. Sources: Hdt. 5,62,2; Aristoph. Lys. 665 with schol.; Aristot. Ath. Pol. 19,3. 1J.R. McCrepre, Fortified Military Camps in Attica (Hesperia Suppl. rr), 1966, 58ff. fig. rz pl. r2d 2 P.J. Ruopes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Ath. Pol., 1981, 235

3K.-W.Wetwel,

Athen,

1992,

249, 256. H.LO.

II. GREECE

III. ROME

IV. BIBLI-

CAL-CHRISTIAN

I. DEFINITION The terms

Leiden System Agreement of 1931 regarding the use of text-critical symbols in the apparatus of editions of Greek and Latin texts, papyri, inscriptions, etc. The most important of these are square brackets [] for marking the supplementation of no longer extant letters, round brackets ( ) for resolving ancient abbreviations, and curving brackets { } so that letters incorrectly placed by the scribe can be eliminated and double brakkets [[ ]] to mark symbols that were deliberately erased in ancient times. Dots under letters —a b- mean that the reading is uncertain, and dots in square brackets |... 6 ...| signify the number of letters to be supplemented in the gap. An oblique stroke, /, means line separa-

F.PR.

Leiodes (Andy, Aeuvdyc; Léddés, Leiddés). The son of Oenops, priest. He is one of > Penelope’s suitors, whom he loathes, however, keeping to himself. L. is the first suitor to try his luck in the archery contest and is then reproached by > Antinous [1] for his supposedly defeatist advice (Hom. Od. 21,144 ff.). When > Odysseus slays the suitors, L. points out his detached relationship to the others in vain (ibid. 22,310-329). REN.

I. DEFINITION

113f.

86, 1974,

707-721; S. STEINGRABER (ed.), Etr. Wandmalerei, 1985,

Leisure

1988,

H.GA.

Leinie Etruscan nomen gentile from — Volsinii/Orvieto, passed down epigraphically and pictorially over several generations in the Tomba GoliniI (4th cent. BC) there.

1-85.

Les villes de Macédoine,

Criteri di edizione e segni

Leimone. Daugther of > Hippomenes [2]

de Delphes. La liste des theodoroques, in: BCH 45, 1921, F.Papazoc.ou,

S.PANcIERA,

diacritici, in: Tituli 2, 1980, 205-215.

oyoAy (scholé; Lat. schola, scola) and

otium, which had equivalent meanings in Greek and Latin, have a wide spectrum of meaning; they could indicate any form of free time not used for labour or other occupations, but also the time dedicated to people or certain activities. From a sociological point of view, the term provides clear insights into essential elements of the Graeco-Roman social order and of social norms, precisely because of the possibility of comparing differing mentalities. II. GREECE In the narrower sense, the Greek scholeé indicated the

freedom of a person who did not himself have to work

LEISURE

375

for his livelihood, thus — in the meaning from Max WEBER — who was ‘unoccupied’ and was not directly under the immediate necessity of earning a living (PI. Plt: 272be; Pl; Vit 18b; Pl) Leg. o6nb; Isocy Or: 7,26; DENIEe Aristot. Pol. 2,9,1269a 34ff.; Ae AAA AsGst292 0 2 5itet 729.1328b a7ke 7 W 2all34wars Olt. Ch. Eur. HF 725). Leisure in this sense is a sign of — freedom (Aristot. Pol. 7,5,1326 b3of.; Aristot. Rh. 1,9,1367a 30ff.), which is clarified by the proverb ‘Slaves have no leisure.’ (ob oxoA} SovAoic, Aristot. Pol. 7,15, 1334a 20f.). The basis for such scholé was + wealth, and above all, land ownership (Xen. Oec. 4,2£f.; 6,9f.). As early as in Homer’s time, wealth was directly associated with social esteem (Hom. Od. 11,35 5ff.); the existence as a dependent worker was considered the most miserable of lives (Hom. Od. 11,488ff.). When a ~ nobility began to form in Greece from the 8th cent. BC, the members of the elite accentuated exactly the lifestyle of the wealthy man of leisure as the expression of their status; they thus formed a ‘leisure class’ (VEB-

LEN) resp. a ‘Lebensfiihrungsstand’ (‘life-style class’) (Max WEBER). Since then, leisure was an essential sign of the life of the nobility. The ability to lead a life corresponding to the aristocratic norms (> aristokratia) was made visible to others by the wearing of jewellery and valuable clothing, further, by a demonstrative care of the body, most importantly of one’s hair-style (Xenoph. DrELs/KRANZ 2133; Hippias, FGrH 421 F 1; Asius fr. 13 K.); in addition, by the ostentatious presentation of wealthy gifts at wedding celebrations (Hdt. 6,126-132) and funerals; this behaviour also found expression in generous hospitality to friends and guests (Thgn. 467ff.; 757ff.; 789ff.; Pind. Pyth. 6,46ff.; Pind. Nem. 1,19ff.; Pind. Ol. 4,10ff.; 8,52ff.; + Hospitality), in the exchange ofgifts and in extravagant expenditures for the community (> Euergetism). It was habitual behaviour in the sense of P. BouRDIEUS. To be sure, scholé by no means meant complete lack of occupation, rather, there were many ‘free-time activities’, which were supposed to demonstrate particularly that one belonged to the leisure class, in that such activities had no connection to earning a living, but were ‘useless’ (cf. Xenoph. fr. 3,1 DrELs/KRANZ 21B3,1) or without purpose. Precisely these ‘leisure activities’ are especially characteristic for Greek culture, even if they indeed were — corresponding to their economic opportunities — also performed by members of other classes of society, which caused the notables and nobles, again, to increase their displays of splendour. This can be most clearly recognized in sports and in agonistics, which were considered prime examples of purposeless activity (Xenoph. fr. DrELs/KRANZ 21B2.; Tyrateus fr. 9 D.= 12 W.); insofar as simple people also engaged in sport and frequented > gymnasia, the gentility took part in expensive hippic sport, since the breeding and keeping of -» horses was an expression of aristocratic status in any case. In addition, there was the hunt (~ Hunting) and

376

specific forms of sociability, above all the community + banquet and the drinking-spree (Xenoph. fr. 1 Dievs/KRANZ 21B1; Xen. Symp.). The symposium was also the venue for literary-artistic offerings, for music and dance. Intellectual activity, especially the pure discussion of philosophical problems, also counted among ‘leisure activities’ (Pl. Tht. 172cd; 175de; Pl. Plt. 272be; cf. Isoc. Or. 1,18), and the word scholé narrowed its meaning increasingly in this direction (see also > schol). Political involvement also belongs in this context (Isoc. Or. 7,26) and was certainly only one option among others in Greece. Ill. ROME The orientation of the Roman nobility to leisure differed fundamentally from the Greek concept. Seen from the perspective of economics, their position was also based on agrarian wealth, which was correspondingly emphasized in normative fashion (Cic. Off. 1,150f.). Therefore, although the Roman aristocrats were also ‘unoccupied’, they did not understand the time which was thus at their disposal as leisure (otium), but primarily as its opposite, as > negotium. In their ‘serviceoriented leadership ethic’ they viewed involvement in the > res publica as an essential duty, at the same time as a decisive means for gaining prestige and fame; otium as freedom from political and forensic activity can therefore directly signify the opposite concept of a lifestyle dedicated to political activities (Cic. Att. 1,17,5;

Cie) Sest: 13.9; Cie) Off. 3jnth; Sallf lugeas4; Sall> Gatul: 52,5). In as far as otium as freedom from service for the res publica served recreational purposes, it was certainly accepted (Cic. Off. 3,1f.). Turning to otium under Greek influence also was seen as turning to an expensive and morally doubtful, Greek-Hellenistic

lifestyle

and viewed negatively as a rejection of the old, now idealized values of the forefathers (see > m0s maiorum) (Vell. Pat. 2,1,1; see also > /uxus). Private inclination to Greek culture and education, which emerged especially in the villeggiatura of the Roman senators, became an

important element of social life. Not only expensive banquets, but also the characteristic furnishing of villas with libraries (Vitr. De arch. 6,5,2) and works of art,

which created ‘cultural landscapes’ out of the country houses and their gardens, are evidence of this.

At the start ofhis consulate, Cicero places otium ona par with pax (‘peace’) and concordia (‘harmony’) and

considers it a politically desirable state (Cic. Leg. agr. 1,23f.); otium cum dignitate (‘leisure with dignity’) becomes an important goal of Optimate politics with Cicero: id quod est praestantissimum maximeque optabile omnibus sanis et bonis et beatis (‘It is by far the best and most desirable for all reasonable, good and content citizens and for those living in happy circumstances’, Cic. Sest. 98); at the same time, the difference is clearly marked between the common people and the political leading class (Cic. Sest. ro4; cf. Cic. Fam. 1,9,21). Toward the end of the Republic, one increas-

oie

378

ingly hears the complaint, however, that the poor political conditions no longer allowed anything other than a life in otium (Sall. lug. 4,4). Cicero repeatedly writes as well, that during the dictatorship of Caesar he is kept ‘from the res publica and the forensic negotia, by means of despicable weapons and violence’ and that only otium remains to him (Off. 3,1, in addition Fam. 9,8,2; Off. 2,2f.; Orat. 148; Div. 2,6f.; Tusc. 3,83). This is essentially dedicated to literary-philosophical activity for Cicero, corresponding to the development of the

Leitourgia see > Liturgy

meaning of the Greek term schole; this activity could be

positively evaluated as similar to the historiography of Sallust, since it treats especially ethical questions and absolutely served political goals. Under the changed circumstances of the Principate, such studiosum otium

LEKYTHOS

Leitus (Ayjitoc; Léitos). Son of > Alector [4], a Boeotian hero; he has a tomb and cult in Plataeae (Paus. 9,4,3). He is integrated into several Panhellenic narrative cycles: he is one of the leaders of the Boeotians

outside Troy, distinguishes himself occasionally and is wounded slightly — in the battle for the corpse of > Patroclus — by > Hector, returns to his homeland; he

wooes > Helene [1] and takes part in the expedition of the > Argonauts (Hom. Il. 2,494; 17,601; Eur. IA 259; Catalogues: Apollod. 1,113; 3,130). W.KULLMANN, Die Quellen der Ilias, 1960, 120.

F.G.

(Sen. De otio; Plin. Ep. 1,22,11; cf. 5,6,45) as well as

Lekane, Lekanis see + Pottery, shapes and types of

other forms of (purposeless) leisure, was considered equal to the negotia in the senatorial canon of values. —+ Work > Recreation; > Schole

Lekanomanteia see > Divination

1 J.-M. Anpré, Les loisirs en Gréce et adRome, 1984 2 Id., Lotium dans la vie morale et intellectuelle romaine, des origines a l’€poque augustéenne, 1966 3 P.BouRDIEU, Méditations pascaliennes, 1997 4 J.H.D’ARMs, Romans

on the Bay of Naples, 1970 6 J]. HaAsEBROEK,

5 FINLEY, Ancient Economy

Griechische

Wirtschafts-

und

Gesell-

schaftsgeschichte bis zur Perserzeit, 1931 7 K.J. HOLKEsKAMP, Die Entstehung der Nobilitat, 1987 8 CH. MANN, Krieg, Sport und Adelskultur. Zur Entstehung des griech. Gymnasions, in: Klio 80,1, 1998, 7-21 9 K.SCHNEIDER, Villa und Natur, 1995 10 E.STEIN-HOLKEsKaAMpP, Adelskultur und Polisgesellschaft, 1989 11 H.STRASBURGER,

Ciceros philosophisches Spatwerk als Aufruf gegen die Herrschaft Caesars, 1990

12 TH. VEBLEN, The Theory of

the Leisure Class, 1934 13 P. VEYNE, Vie de Trimalcion, in: Annales ESC 16, 1961, 213-247 14M. WeBer, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 1972 15 E.CH. WELSKOPE, Probleme der MufSe im alten Hellas, 1962

16 P. ZANKER, Die

Villa als Vorbild des spaten pompejanischen Wohngeschmacks, in: JDAI 94, 1979, 460-523. H.-J.G.

IV. BIBLICAL-CHRISTIAN The Greek term oyodt/scholé appears only three times in the LXX (negatively evaluated as idleness: Prov. 28:19, positively as the freedom from labour necessary for contemplation: Sir 38:24; cf. also Le 10:3 841), once in the New Testament (as a designation for the lecture hall of Tyrannus in Acts 19:9). Western > monasticism combines manual labour and agriculture with the leisure of contemplation in the tradition of Roman country life (villeggiatura, see above Ill.), which is understood as a foretaste of heavenly bliss. > Augustinus (Civ. 19,19) examines the pagan distinction between the three kinds of life — life in leisure, in worldly activity or ina mixed form (vitae genus otiosum, actuosum, ex utroque compositum) — and adheres to the idea

Lekythos [1] (f Ajxv0oc; hé lekythos). Greek generic term for ointment and oil vessels of various shapes and sizes with a narrow opening, also comprising the — alabastron and > aryballos; based on schol. Pl. Hp. mi. 368C, today in particular a term for Attic funerary vessels from the 6th and sth cents. BC that contained aromatic oil donations and were a popular gift for the dead (— Vessel, shapes and types of fig. E 3). As the whiteground lekythoi grew bigger, small insets for saving oil became common in the 5th cent. Around 400 BC, a group of Attic monumental clay lekythoi obviously formed the preliminary phase of the solid marble lekythoi on tombs that were widespread in the 4th cent. Pictorial representations as well! as owners’ graffiti on smaller specimens attest to secular use of clay lekythoi; a toilette vessel for women common in the classical period was especially the belly lekythos (— Vessels, shapes and types of, fig. E 4). The history of the shape of the lekythos starts in the 9th cent. BC on Cyprus under Phoenician influence with small spherical vessels that assume egg and pear shapes in the proto-Corinthian ceramics of the 7th cent. BC (fig. E 1). In Attica there arises a higher sack-shape with a cut-off funnel-shaped opening (called Deianira type, fig. E 2)in the early 6th cent., a little later, borrowing from the eastern Ionian lekythos, the Attic standard type with a flat shoulder and cylindrical body that initially had black-figured decoration, then red-figured and white-grounded decoration (called shoulder lekythos, fig. E 3). A late special form is the ‘acorn lekythos’. In the red-figured style of 4th-cent. Magna Graecia, the belly lekythos survives, cf. also large alabastra with a foot. H. Nacuop, s.v. L., RE Suppl. 5, 1931, 546-548; C.H.E. HaspEs, Attic Black-Figured Lekythoi, 1936; B. A. SPAR-

that leisure must not serve idleness, but rather the pur-

Kes, L.Tatcott,

suit of truth, and may neither forget love of neighbour, nor lose itself in worldly activities. M.HE.

1970, 7, 150-155; B.SCHMALTZ, Unt. zu den att. Marmor-L., 1970; W.W. Rupo pH, Die Bauch-L., 1971; D.C. Kurtz, Athenian White Lekythoi, 1975; A. GREIFENHAGEN, ‘Eichellekythen’, in: RA 1982, 151-162;J.DE

Black and Plain Pottery (Agora

12),

La GENIERE, »Parfumés comme Crésus«;. De l’origine du

LEKYTHOS

380

379

lécythe attique, in: BCH 108, 1984, 91-98; I. WEHGARTNER, CVA Berlin 8, 1991 (Attic red-figured and western Greek lekythoi); K. Gex, Eretria IX: Rotfigurige und westgriechische Keramik, 1993, 51-62. TGs

[2] (Ajxv00c¢; Lekythos). In 423 BC the Spartan commander Brasidas conquered the fort of L. — mentioned only in Thuc. 4,113-116 — in the area of the town of ~ Torone on the Chalcidic peninsula. MZ.

Lelante (An\avin; Leélante). Wife of the mythological Molossian king > Munichus and mother of Alcander among others. When the god-fearing family is attacked by robbers and their house is set alight, they are transformed into birds by Zeus so they can be saved (Antoninus Liberalis 14). ALR. Lelantine War Modern term for a military dispute between the Euboean cities of > Chalcis [1] and > Eretria [1] over the Lelantine Plain (> Lélantion pedion)

situated between their respective territories. Today the conflict is generally dated to the period around 700 BC. The Lelantine War (LW) obviously dragged out over several decades. The surrender of the city of > Lefkandi on the eastern edge of the plain that is dated to c. 700 on the basis of archaeological findings was probably a consequence of the war. The LW is first mentioned in ~ Archilochus. There he states that the masters of ~» Euboea, ‘famous for their spears’, did not use bows and slingshots in the battle but swords (fr. 3 WEsT; cf. Str. 10,1,11f.). From the point of view of battle method, the LW therefore obviously still belongs to an early stage in the development of the hoplites’ phalanx (— hoplitai; > Phalanx). One of the leaders of the Chalcidians in these battles was probably the Amphidamas [5] in whose honour the funeral games were then organized at which > Hesiodus was a participant (Hes. Op. 654-6; cf. Plut. Mor. 153F). The authors of the sth cent. then saw in the LW far more than a local conflict about a fertile piece of land. In this way the LW is for Thucydides the only great dispute between the Trojan War (> Troy) and the + Persian War: the whole of Hellas took sides in this war (Thuc. 1,15). Herodotus’ mention of a war a very long time ago at which Miletus gave support to Eretria relates to the LW (Hdt. 5,99,1). Plutarch ultimately traces the victory of the Chalcidians back to the intervention of Cleomachus of Pharsalus and the Thessalian cavalry (Mor. 760E-761B). Taking these testimonials as the starting-point, scholarship has frequently interpreted the LW as a war in which involving the whole of Greece two complex alliance systems wrestled with each other to assert their economic and colonial political interests. This interpretation has, however, recently been rejected as an anachronistic projection of constellations of the sth cent. back on the 8th/7th cents. For foreign help in local conflicts of such kind usually resulted in this epoch from informal aristocratic pan-Hellenistic friendship relationships between individual leading personalities.

J.BoarpMan,

in: CAH

3,1, 1982, 760-63; V.PARKER,

Unt. zum Lelantischen Krieg und verwandten Problemen der griech. Geschichte, 1997; K. TAuseND, Der Lelantische Krieg — ein Mythos?, in: Klio 69, 1987, 499-514. E.S.-H.

Lelantion pedion (Aéiavtov, Andavtov or AnAdvtou mediov; Lélanton, Lélantion or Lélantou pedion). Fer-

tile plain between Chalcis and Eretria, the possession of which was the object of the > ‘Lelantine War’ at the beginning of the 7th cent. BC between these two cities and their allies. Str. 1,3,16; 10,1,9; 3,6; 10,3,6; H. Hom. 2,220; Callim. H. 4,289; Plut. Mor. 153f; Theophr. Hist. pl. 8,8,5; 8,10,4; Ael. VH 6,1; SEG XIII, 178; 312. In the Middle Ages the Lelantion pedion was still called Lilanto. H.KAL. and E.MEY. Leleges (Aéieyes; Léleges). Name of a non-Greek people in the early history of Greece and Asia Minor, attested from Homer, Hesiod and Alcaeus, primarily, however, in the historical and mythological literature from the classical period. At the beginning there were memories of a historical people with certain settlement areas; Greek scholars then shifted the people, because they were non-Greek (= pre-Greek), to the distant past beyond all the traditions so that the L. and their appellation Lelex were incorporated into the most varied of tribes and local histories. We must disregard these secondary constructs if we wish to understand the historiGali: The L, who according to Hom. Il. 20,89ff.; 21,86f. settled in the southern Troad around Pedasus and Lyrnessus, are certainly historical; Alc. fr. 337 LOBEL-PAGE adds Antandrus, EM 221,26ff. (s.v. Pagyagos) ancient Gargara. L. were probably once also located in western central Greece. According to an early attested tradition, the Locri were previously called L. (Hes. Cat. fr. 234 MERKELBACH- WEST; Aristot. fr. 473 R.; Scymn. 59o0f.; Dionysius Kalliphontos GGM 1, 240,70f.; Dion., Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,17,3; Steph. Byz. s.v. Bwoxoc). Scattered, late details about L. in other parts of central Greece from Leucas to Euboea, Boeotia and Megara should perhaps be added here. Furthermore L. were considered to be the pre-population of Caria (Pherecydes of Athens FGrH 3 F 155; Philippus of Theangela FGrH 741 F 3; Str. 7,7,2; 13,1,58f.; Steph. Byz. s.v. Nwon and Meyaan moAtc; cf. Hdt. 1,171); prehistoric settlements, fortifications and graves were attributed to them (Str. ad loc.) and the unfree peasants in Caria were called L. (Philippus of Theangela FGrH 741 F 2; Plut. Quaest. Graec. 46). L. were also said to have lived in neighbouring areas (Ionia, Aegean islands, Pisidia).

This exhausts the historically usable testimonials. If we follow them, we are led to believe that the L. were

most likely a people of Balkan origin who probably in the course of the last great migrations around the turning of the 2nd to the rst millennium were on the one hand driven to the Troad and south-western Asia

381

382

Minor, and on the other hand Greece.

to western

central

A. Aty, Karer und L.; in: Philologus 68, 1909, 428-444; F. Geyer, s.v. Leleger, RE 12, 1925, 1890-1893.

F.GSCH.

Lembus see > Navigation Lemnian A non-Greek language is attested on ~» Lemnos in the north-eastern Aegean from the period before Attic > colonization (500 BC) (two texts — of 32 words — on a funerary stele, nine texts/fragments on vessels). Lemnian is similar to > Etruscan in its sound

system, morphology and syntax (e.g. in the dating formula: Lemnian holaie-s-i pokias-ial-e serona-i ‘ during the S. office of H. Ph.’ like Etruscan laré-ial-e hulynies-i munsl-e ‘ during the M. office of L.H.’, with the locative to the genitive form; Lemnian and Etruscan -m

LEMNOS

Pind. Nem. hypothesis b): After discovering and killing Thoas, the women sell H. as a slave to > Lycurgus in Nemea, where she looks after his son -» Opheltes, who is killed by a snake while H. is showing a spring to the commanders constituting as the > Seven against Thebes; in honour of the child named Archemorus, the Seven organize the first Nemean Games [7. 384ff.]. Euripides’ ‘Hypsipyle’ attaches here: H., threatened with death by the parents, is freed by > Amphiaraus and her sons Thoas and Euneus, whom Jason had taken with him to Colchis, > Orpheus to Thrace and her grandfather Thoas — rescued by Dionysus — had fetched to Lemnos from where they had gone in search of their mother. H. in art: [8. 51; 9]. 1U.v. (71962)

Witamowitz,

Hell.

Dichtung,

vol.

2, 1924

2G.DumEziL, Le Crime des Lemniennes, 1924

3 W.BuRKERT, Jason, Hypsipyle, and New Fire at Lemnos, in: CQ 20, 1970, 1-16 4P.DRAGER, Argo pasi-

‘but’), however it is not identical to it (e.g. Lemnian avis

melousa, 1, 1993

oialyis # Etruscan avils oealyls ‘annorum LX’). Both languages (also > Raetic) obviously came from a protoTyrrhenian language at the end of the 2nd millennium BC; the historical background has still not been clarified.

ipyle, 1963 6 W.E.H. Cockte (ed.), Euripides, Hypsipyle, 1987 7 W1LamowiTz, vol.1 8 M. Vojatz1, Friihe

H. Rix, Eine morphosynt. Ubereinstimmung zw. Etr. und L.: die Datierungsformel, in:

5 G.W. Bonp (ed.), Euripides, Hyps-

Argonautenbilder, 1982 9 Cu. BouLotis, s.v. Hypsipyle (1), LIMC 8.1, 645-650. P.D.

Lemniscus see > Critical signs

M. MAYRHOFER (ed.), Stud.

zur Sprachwiss. und Kulturkunde. GS W.Brandenstein,

Lemnos (Ajjuvoc; Lémnos).

1968, 213-222; L. AGOSTINIANI, Sull’etrusco della stele di Lemno e su alcuni aspetti del consonantismo etrusco, in: Archivio Glottologico Italiano 71, 1986, 15-46; C.DE

A. LocATION B.MyYTHIC TRADITION RY D. SANCTUARIES

SmmongE, I Tirreni a Lemnos. Evidenza linguistica e tradizioni storiche, 1996. H.R.

A. LOCATION Fertile L., which is, however, today almost treeless, is — at 477 km’ — one of the larger Aegean islands. Mainly consisting of slate with volcanic rock deposited in it, the low hill country reaches its highest elevation with the Skopia at 470 m. The rugged coast has bays that cut in deeply. The ancient capital cities were Myrina on the west coast (remains of a classical fortification, archaic and classical necropoleis, inscriptions: sanctuary of Artemis) and Hephaestia in the north-east of the island.

Lemnian women, Hypsipyle (‘Yyivdn, -deva; Hypsipylé, —leia). The myth that was originally perhaps autonomous [1. 235f.] and was then interwoven with the journey of the > Argonautae and the Theban group of legends is as follows, according to Apollod. 1,114f. (cf. Apoll. Rhod. 1,609ff.; Ov. Pont. 6; Val. Fl. 2,82ff.; Stat. Theb. 5,28ff.; schol. Pind. Nem. hypothesis b): Because of the neglect of her cult, Aphrodite afflicts the Lemnian women (LW) with a bad odour [2; 3] so that the men of > Lemnos live with captured Thracian women. Therefore the LW kill all the men and set up a women’s state, which Hypsipyle, the daughter of the son of Dionysus and king of Lemnos, -> Thoas, rules; the only man spared by her is her father, by hiding him in a crate and sending him across the sea. The Argonauts experience the love of the LW; through > Iason [1] H. becomes the mother of > Euneus [1] (Hom. Il. 7,468; 23,747) and Nebrophonus (+ Thoas). H. organizes games with the involvement of the Argonauts: Simon. fr. 547 PMG; Pind. Ol. 4,19-27; Pyth. 4,252256 (where Lemnos lies on the return journey, so that because of - Medea the relationship between Jason and H. becomes impossible [4. 246ff.]). Continuation of the myth (according to the > “Thebais’) Apollod. 3,65f. (cf. Eur. Hypsipyle [5; 6]; Hyg. Fab. 74; Stat. Theb. 4,646ff.; 716ff.; 5,486ff.; schol.

C. HIsTo-

B. MYTHIC TRADITION The mythic tradition for L. is rich. In the myth cycles of the voyage of the Argonauts (> Argonautae, with map) and of the Trojan War (> Homerus, > Troy) L. plays an important role. L. was considered to be the preferred place of residence of + Hephaestus who, hurled from Olympus by Zeus, took up his landed here and whose forge was localized on the hill of Mosychlus. There the ‘Lemnian earth’ that was considered to be especially medicinal was mined and exported right through to modern times.

C. History As early as in the prehistoric period L. was densely settled; this is attested particularly by the excavations near > Poliochni on the east coast and near Hephaestia on the north coast. In Homer (Hom. Il. 1,594; Hom.

383

384

Od. 8,294), the Thracian Sinties are considered to be

BELEW, Zur Geschichte von L., in: Klio 2, 1902, 36-44; C. DE SIMONE, I Tirreni a L., 1996. H.KAL. and E.MEY.

LEMNOS

early residents but the poet also knows L. as a Greek island (Hom. Il. 7,467f.; 21,40f.; 23,753). In authors of the 5th cent. BC, Pelasgoior Tyrsenoi are mentioned as inhabitants who inflicted on the Greeks the proverbial Léemnia kakd (‘Lemnian evils’) (Hdt. 6,137ff.; Aesch. Cho. 63 1ff.; cf. the tombstone in a language related to Etruscan, IG XII 8,1). After 510 BC, Miltiades conquered the strategically important island for Athens (Hdt. 6,137ff.), in whose possession it remained with interruptions until AD 200. L. secured not only corn imports from the northern Aegean but was also itself considered to be a grain supplier. In the ~ Delian League, L. was initially assessed with 9 talents, after the settlement of Attic cleruchs around 450 BC the two cities were assessed with Hephaestia with 3 and Myrina with 1 ‘/, talents [1]. In AD 267 Goti and Heruli ravaged the island (Syncellus, Chronographia 382 D). In the 4th cent. AD, Hephaestia was an episcopal see.

Lemon see > Citrus

Lemonum (Limonum). Celtic oppidum of the Pictones or Pictavi (Caes. B Gall. 8,26) at the confluence of Clain

and Boivre at the crossing of the roads Bordeaux —— Tours and Nantes — Lyons (It. Ant. 459), modern Poitiers. From the time of Augustus the main city of the civitas Pictonum [1] with an orthogonal town plan [2], Forum, baths, aqueducts and amphitheatre [3]. Possibly L. superseded Mediolanum Santonum (modern Saintes) in the 2nd cent. AD as the capital of > Aquitania II. The first attested bishop in L. was > Hilarius [1] (around AD 350). 1 D.Barraup et al., Origine et développement topographique des agglomérations, in: 6e suppl. Aquitania 1992, 199-209 2H.Gatinié (ed.), Actes du colloque international d’archéologie urbaine de Tours, 1982, s.v. Poitiers,

D. SANCTUARIES L. was considered to be a main cult centre for Hephaestus [2; 3]; the sanctuary probably adjoined the often mentioned earth fire on the hill of Mosychlus about 4 km south of Hephaestia. About 3 km north of Hephaestia, near modern Chloi lay the Kabeirion with remains of buildings and a particularly large number of inscriptions from the 5th cent. BC to the 3rd cent. AD [4. 160ff.]. Evidence: Scyl. 67; Str. 5,2,43 7,331 fr. 46; Ptol. 3,13,47; Plin. HN 4,73; Mela 2,106; Hierocles, Synekdemos 649,1; Val. Fl. 2,82ff. Inscriptions: IG XII,8, no. 1-44; Suppl. no. 337-343; SEG 12, 3993 13, 4563 16, 504-5173 [53 6; 7; 8]. Coins: HN, 262. + Cabiri (C.4.); > Lemnian

623-633 3 G.Cu. PicarD, La république des Pictons, in: CRAI 1981, 532-559. J.-M.DE.

Lemovices Celtic people in central Gaul [1], a region rich in gold, tin and iron (Str. 4,2,2). Sedullus, a leader of the L., fell in battle at > Alesia (Caes. B Gall. 7,88,4). After incorporation into the province of > Aquitania,

— Augustoritum was the capital of the civitas Lemovicum [2], and still in the rst cent. AD it was administered

by the so-called > vergobretus [3] and later by duumviri. Brive [4], Blotomago and Carovicus are well known as vici (‘villages’). Under Diocletian, the L. were annexed to Aquitania I [5]. Around AD 300, Martialis,

the bishop of Limoges, converted the L. to Christianity.

1 ATL 1, 330, 280f., 348f., 447; 3, 289ff. und 199 2 L. MALTEN, s.v. Hephaistos, in: RE 8, 325f. 3K. FRED-

1 J.-M.Desporpes,

RICH, s.v. L., RE

Gaule, La Haute Vienne 87, 1989 3 J.PERRIER, Un vergobret a Limoges sous le Haut-Empire romain, in: Travaux d’Archéologie Limousine 10, 1990, 27-32 4 G.Lintz, Carte archéologique de la Gaule, La Corréze 19,1992 5 A.CHASTAGNOL, Le diocése civil d’ Aquitaine

12, 1928-1930

48B.HEMBERG,

Die

Kabiren, 1950, 160ff. 5 P. LEMERLE, Chronique des fouilles 1938, in: BCH 62, 1938, 478f. 6 B.D. Meritt, Excavations in the Athenian Agora. The Inscriptions, in: Hesperia 3, 1934, 67f. no. 62 7J.H. OLtver-St. Dow, Greek Inscriptions, in: Hesperia 4, 1935, 57 no. 19 8B.D. Meritt, Two Third-Century Inscriptions, in:

1983, 37-48

Les limites des L., in: Aguitania 1,

2J.PERRIER, Carte archéologique de la

au Bas-Empire, in: Bull. de la Soc. nationale des antiquaires de France 1970, 272-290. J.M.DE.

Hesperia 10, 1941, 338f. L. BERNABO Brea, Poliochni, Citta preistorica nell’isola di L., 2 vols., 1964; L.Brscut, II Telesterio ellenistico del santuario dei Cabiri a L., in: Dt. Arch. Inst. (ed.), Akten 13. Intern. Kongress fiir Klass. Arch. Berlin 1988, 1990, 555ff.;5 C.FREDRICH, L., in: MDAI(A) 31, 1906, 6off., 241ff.; F.W. Hastuck, Terra Lemnia, in: ABSA 16,

1909/1910, 220ff.; B.HEMMERDINGER, Thucydide IV 109,4 et les inscriptions étrusques de L., in: Bollettino dei classici 16, 1995, 13-16; R. HENNIG, Altgriech. Sagengestalten als Personifikation von Erdfeuern und vulkani-

Lemovii Tribe on the Baltic Sea between the Oder and the Vistula (Tac. Germ. 44,1), neighbouring the Rugii. The version of the name is uncertain, and identification with other tribal names, passed down to us, for instance in Ptolemy, is hypothetical. A. FRANKE, s.v. L., RE Suppl. 5, 549; G. PERL, in: J. HERRMANN (ed.), Griech. und lat. Quellen zur Friihgesch. Mitteleuropas bis zur Mitte des 1. Jt. u.Z., Teil 2, 1990, 249. RA.WI.

schen Vorgangen, in: JDAI 54, 1939, 230f.; W. GUNTHER,

s.v. L., in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 377-380; D.MuSTILLI, L’occupazione ateniese di L. e gli scavi di Hephaistia. Stud. di antichita classiche a E. Ciaceri, 1940, 149ff.; D. MustiLu1, La necropoli tirrena di Efestia, in: ASAA 15/6, 1932/3 (1942), rff.; C. NEUMANN, J. PARTsCH, Phy-

sikalische Geogr. von Griechenland, 1885, 314ff.; S. SHE-

Lemures, Lemuria Lemures is a Roman term that describes the ghosts that appear during the night (Hor. Epist. 2,2,209; Non. 1, 197 L.). The lemures are equated with the dii + manes (Ov. Fast. 5,422;3 schol. in Pers. 8,185) or the > larvae (Varro in Non. 1, 197 L.).

385

386

LENDING

Later commentators interpret them as souls of the deceased who died early (Porph. ad Hor. Epist. 2,2,209)

S. PEIRCE, Visual Language and Concepts of Cult on the ‘Lenaia Vases’, in: Classical Antiquity 17, 1998, 59-95.

or through violence (Acro ad Hor. Epist. 2,2,209). The festival of the lemuria (or lemuralia) on 9, 11 and 13

FG.

May was dedicated to them. On these days — people believed — the lemures would return to the earth during the night and enter the houses. The > pater familias performs a ritual — he throws beans behind his back onto the floor and speaks in the process a farewell phrase — with which he pushes the lemures out of the house (Ov. Fast. 5,431-444). The existence of two festivals dedicated to the deceased, the lemuria and the ~» parentalia, in the Roman calendar has been interpreted in various ways [1; 2]. Although the difference is not completely clear, the meaning of the lemuria seems to be to release the family from the revenge of evil spirits. The rite can be understood as a meal that the living offer to these spectres. In the process the person performing it takes care to ensure that no contact is made with those addressed [3. 13 5f.]. 1 R. SCHILLING, Ovide interpréte de la rel. romaine, in: REL 46, 1969, 222-235 2].R. Danka, De Feralium et Lemuriorum consimili natura, in: EOS 64, 1976, 257-268 3 J.ScHEID, Contraria Facere: renversements et déplacements dans les rites funéraires, in: AION 6, 1984, 117138.

G. THANIEL, L. und larvae, in: AJPh 94, 1973, 182-187; G. Wissowa, Rel. und Kultus der Romer, *1912, 235236. FR.P.

Lenaea

[1] (Anvatoc; Lénaios). L. came

from > Coele Syria,

was probably a Ptolemaic — dioikétés and after the death of Cleopatra [II 4] I acted together with Eulaeus [2] as regent for Ptolemy VI (from 176 to 169 BC). When the attempt at a reconquest of Syria had failed in the 6th Syrian War (+ Syrian Wars), the regents were held responsible for the disaster, which is why their image is distorted in literature in such a way that they are just about unrecognizable (Diod. Sic. 30,15f.). F. WALBANK, A Historical Commentary on Polybius III,

1979, 355f.

W.A.

[2] L. Pompeius Suet. Gram. 15 reports, aside from several romantic and improbable occurrences from the life of the young L., that he was a freedman of > Pompeius Magnus, accompanied him on almost all his campaigns and after his death and the death of his sons (the last one died in 35 BC) earned his living as a school teacher in Rome. He remained so faithful to Pompey that he reacted to criticism of him in — Sallustius’ Historiae with an acerbissima satura, an extremely stinging satire, calling Sallust a monster both in his life and in his works and an ignorant plagiarist of Cato’s archaic style of language. A string of insulting epithets in Lucilian style from this work was reconstructed with some un-

of a festival of

certainty as hexameters; Suetonius (Gram. 2,2) reports

Dionysus that according to the name of the month associated with it — Lenaion — must have been widespread over the whole of Ionia. However, we have more precise knowledge only of the festival from Athens, where the Lenaea together with the > Anthesteria and the two + Dionysia were part of the winter festival cycle for ~+ Dionysus. They took place in the month of Gamelion (January/February) and in the texts were called Dionysia ‘on the Lenaion’ (éai Anvaiw), a place in the lower part of the Athenian Agora. They comprised a pompé (procession) and (from the 5th cent. onwards) agons of + tragedies and > comedies (law in Dem. Or. 21,10). The involvement of the Eleusinian dadouchos (- Mysteria), who leads an invocation of > Iakchos (schol. Aristoph. Ran. 479) is striking. The name of the festival is derived, contrary to earlier opinions, not from the wine press (Anvoc/lénds) but

on L.’s assertion (probably from that work) that he had studied — Lucilius [I 6] with the grammarian Laelius Archelaus. All this indicates a lifespan from about 95 to 25 BC. Plin. HN 25,5-7 (probably the source of Gell. NA 17,16) reports that Pompey ordered P.L. to translate into Latin the writings about the medical use of plants that were among Mithridates’ documents and quotes this work several times.

from

(Ajvaia, the Lenaea). Name

Lenaeus

the > Maenads

(also called dfvav/lénai,

Hsch.

s.v.). That is why a series of red-figured vase paintings representing women in front of a mask of Dionysus — which is hung on a stake — performing ecstatic dance and offering wine, was related to the Lenaea (‘Lenaean vases’); but because related images appear on choes pitchers, the matter remains contentious and is unlikely to be resolved. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE/GOULD/LEWIs, 25-42; A.FRIKKENHAUS, Lendenvasen, 1912; F. FRontis1-Ducroux, Le

dieu-masque. Une figure du Dionysos d’Athénes, 1991;

CourRTNEY, 145; R.A. KasTer, Suetonius, De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus, 1995, 176-182, 339-341. ED.C.

Lending Handing an object to someone for use free of charge probably occurs in all societies every day. Legal conflicts hardly ever result from it. Many legal systems therefore manage without special regulations for these circumstances. It was probably generally the same in antiquity. Roman law, however, equally contains two institutions for the social phenomenon of the loan: the + precarium (loan at request) and the commodatum, a binding contract by which the lender is obligated to hand over the object until the end of its usage or until the expiry of the agreed period of time. The borrower of precarium is protected for this by — interdictum from third parties who interfere with his possession or take away the item from him, whilst the borrower in the commodatum in the legal sense has absolutely no possession but is only detentor (holder of actual custody).

387

388

The legal recording of the commodatum in the edict

Lentia Principal town of the Traun plain, favourably situated from the point of view of communications at the point where the Danube intersects with the salt road to Bohemia, with probably an originally Celtic name (perhaps ‘the bend, the meander’), modern Linz on the Danube. With the wood-earth camp that originates at the earliest in the Tiberian period (0.66 ha, ala I Thracum?), Noricum joined the Claudian series of forts in Raetia west of Oberstimm (in between only small forts); extended before AD 160 into a much bigger stone fort (ala I Pannoniorum Tampiana Victrix, around 200), in late antiquity L. accommodated part of the legio IT Italica (Not. Dign. Occ. 34,38 praefectus ... partis inferioris) and some mounted archers (Not. Dign. Occ. 34,32 equites sagittarii). L. was destroyed in the Marcomanni Wars and restructured in the 3rd cent., under Valentinian I; in the vita Severini of Eugippius, L. is no longer mentioned. The camps included a rich civilian settlement, among other things with a Gallo-Roman peripteral temple in the old part of the city (Hahnengasse) and a Mithraeum (> Mithras), also a large funeral urnfield rich with burial gifts in the south (modern Wurmstrafe).

LENDING

of the > praetor (Dig. 13,6,1 pr.) may be related to the fact that the Romans had a marked interest in the legal

liability of ‘friendly’ relationships (— amicitia), as is expressed even more clearly in the differentiated treatment of the unpaid mandate (- mandatum) which a person undertakes for another [3]. The most important suit arising from the loan, the actio commodati of the lender, if the borrower did not return the object in good time, presumably contained, in keeping with this correlation, the addition ex fide bona (according to faith and belief) in the praetor’s form, (— fides). This action was initially directed at the value of the object and the advantages arising from its use, and in the later period (from the 2nd cent. AD) it was also oriented towards compensation for damages. The liability standard for the borrower was strict: he not only had to assume liability for negligence ( culpa) but also for supervision and custody (- custodia). The lender who intentionally placed a defective item at the disposal of a borrower was obligated to the borrower through an actio commodati contraria for expenses and compensation fer damages. + Loan 1 HONSELL/MaAYER-MALY/SELB, 300f. 2 KaseER, RPRI, Seite 3 D.NOrr, Mandatum, fides, amicitia, in: D.Norr, S. NisHIMuRA (ed.), Mandatum und Verwand-

tes, 1993, 13-37.

TIR M 33, 52; E.M. RuPRECHTSBERGER, Zum romerzeit-

lichen Graberfeld von L.-Linz, 1983; K.GENSER, Der Osterreichische Donaulimes in der ROmerzeit, 1986, 99-

125.

K.DI.

GS.

Length see > Measures Lenocinium Ulpian (Dig. 3,2,4,2) defines lenocinium

as the procuring of female slaves and freedwomen for commercial gain, also as a side job while working as a

Lentienses Sub-tribe (pagus) of the > Alamanni north of Lake Constance (cf. the later Linzgau). Directed against them in AD 355 was punitive action of the magister equitum Arbetio and a victorious campaign of Gratianus in 378 (Amm. Marc. 15,4; 31,10,I-17).

balneator (bath attendant), caupo (innkeeper) and in

R.ROLLINGER, Zum Alamannenfeldzug Constantius’ II. an Bodensee und Rhein im J. 355 n.Chr., in: Klio 80,

other occupations,

1998, 163-194.

and stresses

that women

often

worked as lenae (procurers) (Dig. 23,2,43,9). Lenocinium initially causes only > infamia and comes under the Augustan marriage prohibitions (Ulp. 13,1 and 2). The lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis standardizes leno-

cinium as a criminal offence (Dig. 48,5,2,2) that comprises, among other things, the procuring of the wife, the holding of the wife caught in the act of ~ adulterium (adultery), the non-lifting or dropping of the charge for adulterium and also (re-)marriage with the condemned woman. Later laws confirm the regulations and make them stricter; prostitution of one’s own children and slaves (Cod. Theod.

15,8,2; Cod. Iust.

11,41,6,1) is punished particularly harshly. Justinian stipulates capital punishment for every form of action as an accomplice to the adultery (Nov. 134,10; AD 556), but does allow the adultress to be taken in again by her husband within two years. > Adulterium; > Prostitution; > Divorce; > Stuprum A.M. Ricessy, L.: Scope and Consequences, in: ZRG 112, 1995, 423-427; G. R1zzeELtt, Il crimen lenocinii, in: Archivio Giuridico 210, 1990, 457-495. CE.

K.DI.

Lentils (derived from Latin lens, lentis or lenticula; Greek paxdc/phakos), Ervum lens L., a pulse cultivated

for millennia, especially in Egypt (two species in Plin. HN £8,123). For their mush (daxt/phaké) Esau sacrificed his right as the firstborn (Gn 25:34). Among the Greeks, Solon fr. 26,3 and Hdt. 4,17 (cultivation among the Scythes) are the first to mention lentils. In Atistoph. (e.g. Equ. 1002 and Vesp. 811) as well as in Ath. 4,158a-d the lentils dish is the meal of the poor. Theophrastus (Hist. pl. 2,4,2 and 8,5,rff.), Cato (Agr. 35,1 and 116), Columella (2,10,15f., cf. Pall. Agric. 3,4) and Pliny (HN 18,198 et passim) describe the sowing and storage of the fruit. Medically, lentils — judged by Dioscorides (2,107 WELLMANN = 2,129 BERENDES)

to be hard to digest — were recommended among other things for diarrhoea (cf. in detail Gal. De alimentorum facultatibus 1,18). + Nutrition; > Leguminous plants H.Gossen, s.v. L., RE Suppl. 8, 263; V. HEHN, Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere, ed. O.SCHRADER, *r1grx (repr. 1963), 212.

C.HU.

389

390

Lentiscus see > Mastic

send 3 representatives to the annual Roman provincial synod on 29 September; the appointment of an apostolic vicar for the eastern regions. In the Christological controversy (~ Monophysitism) with > Eutyches [3], L. addressed his reply to Patriarch Flavianus of Constantinople in the tomus of 13 June 449: ‘one person in two natures’. After the failure of the > synod in Ephesus in 449 (L.: ‘Robber Synod’, latrocinium), the Council of Chalcedon in 451 agreed to the Roman dogma as set out in L.’s epistle. In 453, L. recognized the council’s decisions with the exception of canon 28 (Constantinople’s rank in the Church equal to Rome’s). The resistance of a minority led to riots in Palestine in 4 52/3, and in 457 to unrest in Alexandria, prompting L. to write further epistles. As a leader who saw the Church as the heir to the Imperium Romanum, L. also appeared on the political stage: in 440, he was elected bishop of Rome while on a legation to > Aetius [2] in Gaul; in 452 at Mantua, he succeeded in his negotiations with > Attila regarding the withdrawal of the Huns out of Italy; he was able to prevent arson and murder when the Vandals pillaged Rome in 455 (— Geisericus). The central part of L.’s reasoning was the human incarnation of Christ; he set new accents in the understanding of the Holy See. On the whole, he preserved and continued the process started by his predecessors. Literary works: 97 sermons (seminal text-critical edition [2]; German translation [7]); 173 (extant) letters on ecclesiastical dogma (30 of which addressed to him), on discipline, and on organization (text editions [35 45 55 6]; there is no complete critical edition as yet; German translation [8]); the authorship of individual liturgical texts is contentious. L.’s works were edited in an artificial Latin (cursus leoninus) by the papal chancery under — Prosper Tiro.

Lentulus Roman cognomen, derived in folk etymology from lens, ‘lentil’ (Plin. HN 18,10), actually the diminutive form of lentus, ‘lethargic’ [1. 249] with a friendlymocking meaning; non-Etruscan origin [as in 2. 313; 3. 783]; occurs only in the family of the Cornelii: Cornelius [I 31-56]; [I] 24-33]. 1 KaJANTO, Cognomina

2 SCHULZE

3 WaLpeE/ Hor-

MANN, I.

KLE.

[1] The mimographus L. should be dated to the early Imperial period; he was the author of the lost > mime of Catinenses (Tert. De pallio 4,1). Tert. Apol. 15,1 puts L. and the mimographer Hostilius together and attributes to them a series of droll mimes about gods. It has to remain open whether the mimographer is identical with the L. mentioned in Juv. 8,187f. who appeared in the popular Laureolus mime and had himself crucified mimically. L.’s mimes were still popular at the time of Jerome (Jer. Ep. 147,33; Hier. Adversus Rufinum 2,20). M.Bonartia, Romani mimi, 1965, 82f., 137; SCHANZ/ Hostus, vol. 3, 45-47. LO.BE.

Leo [1] Praefectus urbi under Elagabalus; see > Domitius [II 17] Leo. W.E. [2] Leo Narbonensis High-ranking Gaulish senator (vir spectabilis), a descendant of Fronto [6]; poet, orator, and jurist. As consiliarius (‘adviser’) to the kings > Euricus and > Alaricus [3] Il, L. was between c. AD 475 and 484 (asa Roman) the most important official within the Visigoth kingdom. He wrote Euricus’ speeches and received envoys on his behalf (such as in 474/475 the legation of bishop Epiphanius [2]); he was involved in the codification of Visigothic law, as well as in nearly all of the affairs of the kingdom. In 477, it was at his instigation that Euricus permitted his friend > Sidonius Apollinaris to return from exile; he suggested that the latter should write a historical work. L.’s position was equivalent to that of > Cassiodorus in the Ostrogoth kingdom. Main sources: Sid. Apoll. Epist. 4,22; 8,3; Sid. Apoll. Carm. 23,446-454; Ennod. Vita Epiphanii 85. PLRE 2, 662f.; P.HEATHER, Goths and Romans,

1991,

LEO

1PL 54 2A.CuavassE (ed.) Sancti Leonis ... tractatus septem et nonaginta (CCL 138/138A), 1973 3 E. ScHWARTZ, 1932-1937

Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum 2,1-4, 4C.StLva-TAROUCA, Textus et documenta,

ser. theol. 9; 15; 20; 23, 1932-37 5 O. GUENTHER, CSEL 35, 1895-98 (repr. 1979) 6 W.GUNDLACH, MGH, Epp. 3,1892 7 TH. STEEGER, L.sd. Gr. samtl. Predigten, 2 vols. (BKV 54-55), 1927 8S. WeENzLOwsky, Die Briefe der Papste, vol. 4-5 (BKV 51,53), 1878 9 H.AreEns, Die chri-

stolog. Sprache L.s d. Gr., 1982 (with bibliography) 10 F.D1 Capua, Il ritmo prosaico nelle lettere dei papi, vol. I, 1937, 3-204 11H.R. Dropner, Lehrbuch der Patro-

64f.; H. WoLFRAM, Die Goten, 71990, 1993; 224; 445 n. 9 (bibliography). M.MEI.

logie, 1994, 384-395 12 Cur. FratsseE-Coug, s.v. Leon ter, in: PH. LEVILLAIN et al. (ed.), Dictionnaire historique de la papauté, ro14-1020 13 H.-J.S1eBEN, L. der Gr.

[3] L. I (The Great) Pope from 29 September 440 to 10

uber Konzilien und Lehrprimat des rém. Stuhles, in: Theologie und Philos. 47, 1972, 358-401 14 TH. STEEGER, Die Klauseltechnik L.s des Gr. in seinen Sermonen, 1908 15 B.Stuper, s.v. L.I., TRE 20, 737-741 (bibliography). HAR.

November 461. Of Tuscan descent. As archdeacon in 430, he instructed - Cassianus to refute + Nestorius and supported Rome’s anti-Pelagian position. As pope, he was mainly concerned with the purity of faith — against Pelagian, Arian, Manichaean (443 in Rome) and Priscillianist (477 in Spain) tendencies — and the ecclesiastical order in the empire as a whole: the restoration of the hierarchical order in Mauretania and Gaul (Arles, Vienne); the invitation to the Sicilian bishops to

[4] Leo IEast Roman emperor (AD 457-474), born inc.

400 in the Illyrian Dacia,

a member of the Thracian

+ Bessi tribe, married to > Verina (Bygivn), died on 18

January 474. Asa

lower-ranking officer in the service of

Aspar (> Ardabur [2]), the magister militum and leader

LEO

392

391

of the Ostrogothic confederates, L. was proclaimed emperor on 7 February 457 at Aspar’s behest. Aspar, as an Arian (> Arianism) barred from becoming emperor himself, hoped that by championing L., a follower of the ‘orthodox’ Chalcedon doctrine, he could secure lasting political influence for himself. L.’s coronation as emperor was the first to be performed by a Patriarch of

father on 18 January 474, L. became sole emperor. On 9 February, his father Zeno had L. crown him co-emperor; he succeeded his son as sole emperor later that same year following L.’s early death.

Constantinople (Anatolius).

peror (AD 717-741), born in Germanicaea/Syria in around 685, founder of the dynasty of > Isaurian emperors, died on 18 June 741. Having entered Byzantine service as an officer under —> Iustinianus [3] II, L. initially fought against the Abchasians. Under > Anastasius [2] II, he became stratégds, and on 25 March 717 acceded to the Byzantine throne as usurper against ~» Theodosius III. In the same year, he was victorious in defending Constantinople against an Arab fleet. L. is seen as the first of the iconoclast emperors (> Syrian dynasty), but in the view of recent historians, his official actions (from 730) against the veneration of cultic images appear rather moderate and only the policies of his son and successor > Constantinus [7] V as consistently iconoclastic. Perhaps it was L. who removed the Illyricum (Byzantine territories on the western Balkan peninsula and in southern Italy) from the authority of the Pope and placed them under that of the church of Constantinople. At any rate, there — as elsewhere in the empire — he levied high taxes in order to finance the war against the Arabs and the extension of the walls of Constantinople. In 740, L. achieved a further decisive victory against the Arabs at Acroinium in Phrygia. L. further extended the administrative system of thémata (military provinces; > théma), which had originated in the 7th cent., and in 741 published the Ecloga, a legal code reflecting the needs of his time (Greek: > Ekloge). + Byzantium (with map)

However, L. soon tried to free himself from Aspar’s patronization. In 459, he reduced the pay of the Ostrogothic confederates under Aspar’s command; however, this provoked their armed resistance, and in the end, L. was forced to assent to their pay demands. In subsequent years, too, this mighty force in arms remained a source of unrest. Under Aspar’s protection, the influence of Monophysite circles (+ Monophysitism) in Egypt and Syria also grew considerably. However, L. finally succeeded in breaking Aspar’s power with the aid of the Isaurians and their leader > Zeno Tarasikodissa. In c. 467, L. gave to Zeno the hand of his daughter Ariadne, who until then had been married to Aspar’s son Patricius; furthermore, in 469 he also made the Isaurian consul and magister militum. In 471, L. had Aspar and his son Ardaburius murdered, resulting in his epithet Makéllés (‘butcher’). Even very early on in his reign, L. attempted to expand his power to the western part of the Roman empire, which had been weakened by internal unrest. He made — Ricimer, as magister militum a powerful man in the west, patricius; in agreement with him, L.

accomplished > Maiorianus’ elevation to emperor in April 457, followed by Anthemius [2] in 467. In foreign policy, L. had some success. The Huns, who had repeatedly raided the dioecesis of Thrace, were beaten in 468. The emperor exploited the internal weakness of the Sassanid empire to cease the annual payment of tributes to the Persians, which had last been agreed in 442, and also to enter into a > foedus with the Arabs in the border region: He made Amrulkais, an Arab prince from the Red Sea island of Jotabe, phylarchos (i.e. ruler over several Arab tribes) — thus removing

them from the Persian sphere of influence. However, a major naval campaign in 468 against the Vandal king — Geisericus under the command of > Basiliscus, a brother of L.’s wife Verina, ended in total failure. L.

tried in vain to rehabilitate public finance — ruined not least by the exorbitant costs of naval warfare — by raising taxes and also by introducing new laws against tax evasion under the mantle of patronage (Cod. lust. 11,54,1 and 11,56). ODB 2,1206f.; PLRE 2,663f. (L. 6); STEIN, Spatrém. R. 1, 524-5353 F. TINNEFELD, Die friihbyz. Ges., 1977.

[S] Leo If East Roman emperor (AD 474), son of the

Isaurian + Zeno and Ariadne, the daughter of Leo I, born in 467, died in November 474. In October 473, he was made Caesar (> Court titles) by his grandfather Leo [4] L, who had no son of his own, and Augustus in

the following January. After the death of his grand-

ODB 2, 1207f.; PLRE 2, 664f. (L. 7).

[6] Leo Il (Baptismal name: Conon?), Byzantine em-

ODB 2,1208f.; D.SteIn, Der Beginn des byz. Bilderstreites, 1980.

[7] Leo IV Byzantine emperor (AD 775-780.; > Isaurian emperors), born on 25 January 750, son of > Con-

stantinus [7] V and his Khazar wife Irene; he was co-emperor from 6 June 751, and on 17 December 769 married the Athenian > Irene. When he died, the son from this marriage, Constantinus [8] VI, was still a minor. L.’s short rule was characterized by armed conflict and

negotiations with the Arab caliphate of Baghdad. I. RocHow, Leon IV., in: R.-J. Litre, Byzanz unter Eirene

und Konstantin VI., 1996, I-34.

[8] Leo V Byzantine emperor (AD 813-820), died on 25 December 820, of Armenian descent; he became a Byz-

antine officer under — Nicephorus I, and stratégds under > Michael I, who ceded the throne to him on 11 July 813 after his defeat against the Bulgars. With a synod in Constantinople’s > Hagia Sophia in 815, L. ushered in the second phase of Byzantine iconoclasm (> Syrian dynasty). A capable military leader, he fought successfully against Bulgars and Arabs. He supported his former comrade-in-arms + Michael II;

3e)3)

394

however, the latter did not thank him for this favour, but had him assassinated, and as his successor founded the > Amorian dynasty. ODB 2, 12009f. [9] Leo VI Byzantine emperor (AD 886-912), born on

Halicarnassus; there he created also the colossal acro-

19 September 866, co-emperor from 870, died on 11 May 912. As second son (descent unknown) of > Basilius [5] I, he became his successor following the prema-

ture death of his elder brother Constantinus. Because of his erudition, he was given the epithet ‘the Wise’. Amongst L.’s works are religious and secular poems (hymns and epigrams), sermons and a handbook on strategy. However, his main achievement was his substantial involvement in the compilation of statute books: e.g. the revised edition of the Basilikd, a legal code by his father based on Justinian law; a comprehensive collection of supplementary bills with corrections to the Novellae of > lustinianus I — according to recent scholars both completed by December 888; and also the Procheiron (amore concise legal handbook dating from 907). As L.’s first three wives died without giving birth to a son, he went against canonic law in 906 and married the woman who had already given birth in 905 to his son > Constantinus [9] VII. This fourth marriage was the cause of a protracted ecclesiastical dispute (tetragamy controversy). As a ruler, L. was rather luckless. In domestic politics, he was too lenient in his dealings with powerful minions, and in foreign politics unable to prevent major military successes of the Arabs, who even devastated the important city of Thessalonica in 904, and the Bulgars. LMA 5, 1891; ODB 2,1210f.; J.H.A. Loxin et al. (ed.), Subseciva Groningana 3, Proceedings Symposium Groningen, 1989 (important for the emperor’s legislation: M.THu. FOGEN, 23-36 and A.SCHMINCK, 79-94). FT.

[10] see > Lion; > Constellations

Leobotes [1] see > Labotas [2] (AemBawtyc; Leobotés). Athenian of the > Alcmaeonid family; around 467/6 BC he issued an eisangelia against the already banished > Themistocles (+ Eis-

angelia) because of high treason and achieved his conviction (Plut. Themistocles 23; Plut. Mor. 605E; Craterus FGrH 342 F 11). Davies 9688,XII.

HA.BE.

Leochares (Aewycoyc; Ledcharés). Greek sculptor; his surviving works date from the mid 4th cent. BC to 320 BC; the period of main activity given by Pliny, 372-369 BC, is therefore too early. L.’s reputation rested on idols and portraiture, and led to a corruption of the evidence. Among the literary inventions are a statue of Apollo attributed to the still young L., which Plato is said to have sent to Dionysius II (around 365 BC). In 354 BC at the latest (death of work’s commissioner Timotheus),

L. created a bronze statue of Isocrates at Eleusis. Around 352-349 BC he was working with > Bryaxis, ~» Scopas and > Timotheus on the + Maussolleum at

LEOCRATES

lith of Ares, which was also assigned to Timotheus. In 338-336 BC, his family group of Philip II in gold and ivory at Olympia was created. Together with > Lysippus, he was still working in 320 BC on the bronze group of a hunt of Alexander, which Craterus dedicated at Delphi. Nine preserved base inscriptions from Athens date from the mid to the late 4th cent. BC, such as a family group created together with > Sthennis. Among L.’s statues of gods are listed: a Zeus that was later displayed at Rome as Jupiter Tonans, another on the Acropolis, an Apollo Anadoumenos from the Agora, and a Zeus and Demos at Piraeus. The evidence for a statue of the pancratiast Autolycus, who had already been executed in 404 BC, is problematic; a posthumous dedication or a confusion of the portrait are both possible. It has also been suggested that the name of the sculptor should be corrected to > Lycius or Lyciscus, since Pliny mentions as a work of L. the Lyciscum mangonem puerum, otherwise known as the portrait of a slave named Mango. The only work of L. recognizable in reworkings is his Ganymede as described by Pliny (Vatican type). The attribution of the Amazon frieze from the Maussolleum to the west side worked on by L. is not certain. L.’s style thus remains largely unknown, and attributions of other masterpieces (Apollo Belvedere, Artemis Louvre, Alexander Rondanini) are speculative. OVERBECK

no.

508;

1177;

1178;

1301-1313;

1491;

LoEwy no. 77-83; 320-321; 505; LIPPOLD 257; 268-272;

G.RIcHTER, The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks, 1950, 284-286; P. ARIAS, EAA 4, 565f. no. 1; K. JEPPESEN, The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos, 2, 1986; STEWART 282-284; B.S. RipGway, Hellenistic Sculpture, 1, 1990, 93-95; 113-114; L. Top1sco, Scultura greca del IV secolo, 1993, 103-107; 123-125; ellenistica, 1994, 713 743 86; 117f.

P. MORENO,

Scultura RN.

Leocrates (Aewxoedtycs; Leokrateés). [1] Son of Stroebus, one of the Athenian stratégoiin the battle of Plataea in 479 BC, is said to have prevented the conflict between the Athenians and Spartans over the erection of the > tropaion (Plut. Aristides 20,1). Afterwards he dedicated a votive offering at Athens (epigram of Simonides [1. no. 3142]; IG TP? 983). Again elected stratégos in 459/8, L. defeated the Aeginetes in a naval battle, establishing a blockade around the island (Thuc. 1,105,2-3; Diod. Sic. 11,78,3—4) [2]. 1 P.A. Hansen, Carmina Epigraphica Graeca, 1983 2T.Ficugira, Athens and Aigina, 1991, 106-109 3 DEVELIN 1785. HA.BE.

[2] Wealthy Athenian (owner of a smithy; took part in tax leases), immediately after the defeat of the Greeks

against Philip Il at Chaeronea in 338 BC he fled to Rhodes; there he told of the alleged siege of Piraeus and the impending Macedonian conquest of Athens. Thereafter, he traded grain for several years at Megara, then returned to Athens, only to be accused there by > Ly-

LEOCRATES

395

396

curgus with an > eisangelia for treason in 331/30 on the basis of the emergency decrees of 338 (Lycurg. 19 and 78; Plut. Mor. 843E). He was only acquitted thanks to a parity of votes among the judges (Aeschin. In Ctes. 252). The speech of L. is an important piece of evidence for the fanatical patriotism of Lycurgus.

Aristoph. Nub. 109). L. was mocked by Aristophanes [3] because of his debauched and profligate way of life. In 426/5 BC he led a legation to the Macedonian king Perdiccas II (IG I} 61, |. 51; [1. 30; 2. rf.]). In 415, L. successfully used a > paranomon graphe to clear himself from the charge of having been involved in the pro-

PA 9083; Davies 9173, p. 344; LGPN 2, s.v. Leokrates

(3).

JE.

Leocritus (Andxoutos, Aeubxeutoc; Lédkritos, Leiokritos).

[1] Son of Arisbas, participates in the Trojan War on the Greek side and is killed by + Aeneas [1] (Hom. II.

17,344). [2] A suitor of > Penelope. He opposes Mentor, who speaks for Telemachus, in the public assembly, sarcastically approves his travel plans and doubts that the return of Odysseus would constitute a danger to the suitors (Hom. Od. 2,242ff.). He is killed by Telemachus during the slaying of the suitors (ibid. 22,294). REN. Leodamas (Aewddac; Leoddmas). [1] The Athenian L. of Acharnae, a skilful orator (Aristot. Rh. 2,23,25 1400a 31-35), was rejected at his -» dokimasia of 382 BC to assess his candidacy for the eponymous archonship (- Archontes) because of his political role prior to 403 (Lys. 26,13f.). PA 9076; DAVIES 13921, p. 523; LGPN 2, s.v. Leodamas (2); TRAILL, PAA 605085.

fanation of the Mysteries (And. 1,17). Andocides later

refuted the accusation that he had denounced his own father (And. 1,19-24). Diocleides denounced and arrested L. for the mutilation of the herms (— Herms, mutilation of the), but he was released after Andocides’ confession (And. 1,41; 47; 68) [23 3. 537-5503 4. 66-68]. 1 Davies 2 D.M. MacDoweE Lt, Andocides. On the Mysteries, 1962 3 M.Ostrwa.p, From Popular Sovereignty

to the Sovereignty of Law, 1986 kides and the Herms, 1996.

4 W.D.Furvey, AndoWS.

[2] L. of Syracuse. Greek grammarian of the 2nd cent. BC. A questionable account (in the grammatical excerpt of the so-called Anecdotum Parisinum |x; 3. 280]; cf. Isid. Orig. 1,21,14) reports that L. was the

first to use the critical sign of > diple in order to distinguish the Homeric verses, in which Olympos referred to heaven as the seat of the gods, from those referring to the mountain. If that was true, L., an older contemporary of Aristarchus [4], would have made an important

personal contribution to However, in reality this starchus and the author the problem, and may

the system of — critical signs. may refer to a student of Ariof a special investigation into thus have given rise to the

account [1].

[2] Son of Erasistratus of Acharnae, outstanding Athenian rhetor, student of > Isocrates (Plut. Mor. 837D) of a wealthy family; envoy to Thebes in 378/7 or 371 (Aeschin. In Ctes. 138f.) and a follower of a pro-The-

ban party (Aeschin. In Tim. 69; 111). L. opposed in vain the resolutions to honour > Chabrias after his victory

1 A.GUDEMAN, s.v. Kritische Zeichen, RE 11, 1919 2 Id., L. (3), RE 12, 2000 ©=—3. A. Naucx (ed.), Lexicon Vindobonense, 1867 4H.UsENER, L. von Syrakus, in:

RhM 20, 1865, 131-133.

F.M.

Leokorion see > Athens [1]

at Naxos in 376 (Dem. Or. 20,146); in 366/5 he was

one of the prosecutors of Callistratus and Chabrias (Aristot. Rh. 1,7,13 1364a 19-20). In 355, L. was a

-» syndikos in the dispute over the law of > Leptines and opposed Demosthenes (Dem. Or. 20,146). PA 9077; DAVIES 13921, p. 523; DEVELIN 1781; LGPN 2, s.v. Leodamas (3). JE.

[3] L. of Thasos Contemporary of Plato. He is said (according to Diog. Laert. 3,24 and Proclus in Euc. 1,211,19-23) to have learned the analytical method from — Plato, and by applying it to have proved many new mathematical propositions. T.L. Heatu, History of Greek Mathematics, 1921, vol. 1, 213, 291; K. VON FRITZ, s.v. L. (3), RE, suppl. 7, 371-373.

MF.

Leogoras (Aewyoeac; Leogoras).

[1] Father of the orator > Andocides [1], member of an old Athenian noble family, tracing its roots back to Telemachus and Hermes and linked by marriage to the +» Alcmaeonids (Hellanicus FGrH 323a F 24a-c; schol.

Leon (Aéwv; Lé6n). Cf. also > Leo.

Byzantine emperor > Leo [4-9]. Sicilian place name Tes [ares

[1] Spartan king, Agiad (— Agiads), grandfather of ~» Cleomenes [3] I (Hdt. 5,39); is said to have been successful in war together with his fellow king Agasicles in the early 6th cent. BC, but to have been defeated by Tegea (Hdt. 1,65). Sparta is said to have already achieved eunomia 45ff.]. 1

M.Meter,

(‘good order’) before his time [tr. Aristokraten

und

Damoden,

1998. K.-W.WEL.

[2] Tyrant of > Phleius. All records of him originate with Heraclides Ponticus (fr. 87 WEHRLI = Diog. Laert. 1,12; fr.88 = Cic. Tusc. 5,3f./8f.; Sosicrates fr.r7 FHG 4,503 = Diog. Laert. 8,8). Pythagoras is said to have been the first to define himself with the word ‘philosopher’ during a conversation with the aristocratic (princeps: ibid.) L., tyrant of Sicyon or Phleius (Diog. Laert.), on the way from Samos to Croton in 532 BC (Cic. Rep.

397

398

2,28). The origin of the Platonically influenced legend is surely the Pythagorean community which Diogenes Laertius (8,46; cf. Pl. Phd. 57a) and Iamblichus (Iambl. VP 251) attest for Phleius [1. 5 53f.]. — Tyrannis

lip II of Macedonia. When the latter besieged Byzantium in 340 BC, L. took Phocion and the Athenian fleet into the town and led the resistance successfully. Philip took revenge by spreading the slander that L. had taken Phocion into the town because he had offered more money than he himself. At this, the mob thronged to L.’s house, and L. hanged himself for fear of being stoned to death (Suda l.c.). Since his death must have occurred by 336, the writings mentioned in the Suda as being by L. and dealing with the sacred war (> Sacred wars) and the histories of Philip and Alexander [4] the Great must be attributed to another historian of the

1 O.GIGoN, Cicero. Tusculanae Disputationes, *1970. H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 1967, 35, 53 6f.; L. DE LiBERO, Die archa. Tyrannis, 1996,219, 407. J.CO.

(3] Spartiate, father of > Antalcidas (Plut. Artaxerxes 21) and > Pedaritus (Thuc. 8,28,5); founder (oikistés) of the city of Heraclea [1] Trachinia, together with Alcidas and Damagon (Thuc. 3,92,5); together with

~ Endius and Philocharidas, while a Spartan envoy to Athens in 420 BC, he was tricked and affronted by Alcibiades [3], with considerable political consequences (Thuc. 5,44-46); 419/8 eponymous ephor (Xen. Hell. K.-W.WEL. [4] Athenian, one of the envoys who swore the Peace of Nicias and the Athenian-Spartan symmachia in Sparta in 422/1 BC (Thue. 5,19,2; 24,1). As stratégos in 412/1 L. led operations against Lesbos, Chios and Rhodes, together with > Diomedon [2] (Thuc. 8,23f.; 54f.). In 411 both supported the Samians in the restoration of democracy (Thuc. 8,73,4f.). Nevertheless, L. was deposed by the Athenians on Samos with the other stratégoi following the oligarchical coup at Athens in 411 (Thuc. 8,76,2), but was evidently stratégés again after the restoration of democracy (Lys. 20,29). In 406 L. again as stratégos was encircled with > Conon [1] by the Peloponnesian fleet under — Callicratidas in the harbour of Mytilene (Xen. Hell. 1,5,16; 6,16). During the blockade, L. appears to have fallen or to have been taken into captivity (cf. Xen. Hell. 1,6,29f.; 7,1f.). TRAILL, PAA 605445. WS. — Peloponnesian War [5] In 367 BC L. was an Athenian envoy to king > Artaxerxes [1] I, together with Timagoras, whom he, on returning to Athens from Susa, successfully accused of corruption and treason (Xen. Hell. 7,1,33-38; Dem. Or. 19,191 and schol. Dem. Or. 19,137 = 297 DILTS; TOD 139,1-4).

LEON

same name, a student of Aristotle, who was confused with L. FGrH 132 with commentary [1. 235, 468] doubts the suicide of L. and thus identifies L. with the author of the historical writings; so also [2. 97-100]. 1 BERVE2 2K.TRAMPEDACH, Platon, die Akademie und die zeitgenéss. Politik, 1994. W.ED.andH.VO.

2,3,10; > ephoroi).

PA 9ro1; TRAILL, PAA 605430; J. HOFSTETTER, Die Griechen in Persien, 1978, no. 193. J.B.

[6] Greek mathematician, around 400 BC. Like > Hippocrates [5] of Chios, he anticipated + Euclides [3] in writing ‘Elements’ (=tovyeta/Stoicheia) of mathematics (Proclus in Euc. 1,66,18—67,1). T.L. Heatu, The Thirteen Books of Euclid’s Elements, 1925, vol. 1, 116. M.-F.

[8] L. of Pella (2). Greek author of a work on the Egyptian gods in the form of an apocryphal letter of Alexander the Great to his mother Olympias: according to this, the gods were originally humans and bringers of culture, Hephaestus, however, the first king of the original inhabitants of Egypt; after him, the dynasties of the gods were formed. Chronologically, L. belongs after ~ Hecataeus [4] and > Euhemerus, probably in the 3rd or even the 2nd cent. BC. Nothing is known of his life, but he certainly was not an Egyptian priest. Fragments: FGrH 659. J.S. RusTEN, Pellaeus Leo, in: AJPh ror, 1980, 197-201.

HE.K.

[9] Low-ranking official in Ptolemaic service, whose career can be followed through various papyri of a personal archive from 251/48 to 232/29 BC; his final position was as toparch at Philadelphia, and he is mentioned several times in the Zeno

Archive

(> Zenon

Papyri). L. may also be identical to a follower of Zeno in Palestine (259). PPI rr10/VIII 556 a; VI 16424. P. W. Pestman, A Guide to the Zenon Archive, 1981, 72.

W.A.

[10] Byzantine philosopher, mathematician and astronomer, 9th cent. AD, re-founder of Madaura University (Constantinople, 85 5/6). We owe him a review of Platonic texts and important MSS of > Euclides [3] and — Archimedes [1]. Lecture notes made by his student > Arethas are also preserved. L. used letters as variables for numbers. Identification with the iatrosophist L. is disputed. H. Gericke, Mathematik im Abendland, 1990, 55f., 3333 HuncGEeR, Literatur 1, 18f.; 2, 237-239, passim.

[7] Son of Leon, from Byzantium, a student of > Plato at Athens, friend of > Phocion, famous as a sophistés because of his quick-wittedness (Plut. Nicias 22,3; Plut. Phocion 14,7.; Philostr. VS 1,2; Suda s.v. L.). He had a

leading position at Byzantium and went to Athens as an envoy, to affirm its league with Byzantium against Phi-

H.A.G.

[11] L. Diakonos Historian and deacon at the imperial palace of Constantinople, lived from c. AD 950 until after 992. His historical work describes the events of the years 959-976, with occasional excursions into later times. The work is written in archaizing Greek, and

399

400

exalts in particular the deeds of emperor + Nicephorus II Phocas.

The battle and death of L. and his 300 Spartiates attained a kind of life of their own in posterity, a life which ranged from rapturous apotheosis to sharp criticism. The most scandalous abuse so far of the funerary epigram, written by > Simonides (‘Go and tell the Spartans, stranger passing by...’; Hdt. 7,228; Cic. Tusc. 1,101), occurred in a radio broadcast of 30 January 1943 by GORING concerning the defeat of the German 6th Army (‘... you have seen that here in Stalingrad we

LEON

C.B. Hass (ed.), Leonis Diaconi Caloénsis Historiae libri X, 1829; F.Loretrro, Nikephoros Phokas, ‘Der bleiche Tod der Sarazenen’, 1961. ALB.

[12] L. Grammatikos see > Symeon Logothetes [13] Settlement on the eastern coast of Sicily, to the

north of Syracusae, ‘6 or 7 stadia from Epipolae’ (Thuc. 6,97,1; [1. 827f. map]) or ‘5 miles from the Hexapylum’ (Liv. 24,39,13 [1. 833f. map]). Thuc. reports the landing of the Athenians at L. in 414 BC (> Pelopon-

here)

— Persian Wars; > Sparta N.G. L. HAMMOND, Sparta at Thermopylae, in: Historia

nesian War); according to Livy, Marcellus pitched his

45, 1996, 1-20; J.F. LAzENBy, The Defence of Greece

winter camp here in 214. Since the two surviving descriptions of distances are contradictory, identification of L. with Casa delle Finanze [2. 385f.] is only conceivable on the assumption that one of these source texts contains an error or is corrupted.

490-479 B.C., 1993, 117-150; G.B. Puiiipp, Wie das Gesetz es befahl?, in: Gymnasium 75, 1968, 1-45; G.J. SZEMLER, W.J. CHERF, J.C. Krart, Thermopylai, 1996.

1 H.-P.DROGEMULLER, s.v. Syrakusai, RE Suppl. 13, 815-836 2 A.Hoim, Geschichte Siziliens 2, 1874.

E.O.

Leonidas (Aewvidac; Lednidas). Cf. also > Leonides. [1] Spartan king, Agiad (> Agiads), son of Anaxandridas, around 490/89 BC he succeeded his stepbrother Cleomenes [3] I. In 480, after the evacuation of the positions in the Vale of Tempe, L. was given the task of defending the gates of > Thermopylae against the army of > Xerxes, while the Greek fleet was to thwart the advance of the Persian squadrons at > Artemisium (Northern Euboea) (Hdt. 7,175). At best, L. had 8,000

men at his disposal (among them 1,000 > perioikoi and 300 Spartiates), but there was faith in the blockade set up by L., and it was believed that he could prevent the defection of Greek communities to the Persians along their march route until reinforcements arrived (Hdt. 7,206). At first, L. succeeded in holding his position, but could not sufficiently defend the Anopeia Pass. During the night before the third day of battle, the Persians slipped past L.’s position; the greater part of his battle forces were able to withdraw, but the Thebans in L.’s army capitulated, 300 — Spartiatai and around 700 Thespians fought back, but were wiped out by longrange weaponry (mass find of arrow heads). The report of Herodotus (7,205-239) leaves many

questions unanswered, but no accusation of incompetence can be made against L., neither can it be said that L. made a sensible self-sacrifice to save the Greek fleet, since the fleet had not yet withdrawn when all resistance at Thermopylae was extinguished. Significant strategic errors had already been made in the Greek high command, which had ensured neither sufficient logistical support nor reserve intervention forces. The glorification of L. only began after the Greek victories at Salamis and Plataea. Some 40 years later, L.’s bones were taken to Sparta, where cultic honours were established, with annual agons and epitaphios (Paus. 3,14,1; IG V 1,660).

[2] L. I Spartan king, Agiad (> Agiads), father of Cleomenes [6] III, after his return from the Seleucid court in

c. 262 BC guardian of his grandnephew Areus [2] land regent, king c. 254. As an opponent of the reform plans of Agis [4] IV, L. was forced to flee to Tegea in 243, but in 241 he was called back by the > ephoroi and the enemies of Agis, whom L. had executed. L. died in 235 (Pol. 4,3 5,11; Plut. Agis 3; 11; r6ff.; Paus. 3,6,7-9). P.CaRTLEDGE,

A.SPAWFORTH,

Sparta, 1989, 44ff.

Hellenistic

and Roman

K.-W.WEL.

(3] L. of Tarentum Main productive period between the end of the 4th cent. and mid 3rd cent. BC [1]. Important epigrammatic poet of the ‘Garland’ of Meleager (cf. Anth. Pal. 4,1,15), most important representative of the Peloponnesian School (— Epigram). More than too poems are preserved, at least 92 securely attributed (one is preserved on papyrus, POxy. 662); they also contain some biographical information. His poems on the weapons that were taken from the Lucanians refer to the poet’s hometown (Anth. Pal. 6,129 and 131; cf. also 7,715), while the connection with Epirus, to which L. made his way before Tarentum’s conquest by Rome (272 BC), is documented in the epigrams in praise of Neoptolemus (6,334), the co-regent of Pyrrhus (who had him killed in 295), and of > Pyrrhus himself (6,130 celebrates his victory of 273 over Antigonus Gonatas). In the subsequent period, L. probably moved about on the Peloponnese (Arcadia, Sparta), and then went to Athens, Thespiae, Cos and Asia Minor: this seems to be alluded to in the epigram that encourages a nomadic soul to cease his constant wanderings and content himself with a simple hut and a piece of bread (7,736). Cynical thoughts manifest here as one of L.’s leitmotifs: the glorification of frugality and the simple life, which appears to represent the only fixed point ina pessimistic world view, which rejects the temptations of metaphysics and dismisses all science as useless (7,472). The works of L., largely funerary and votive epigrams (only one solitary erotic epigram: 5,188, but cf. 9,563), demonstrate great variety and originality of theme, which contributes to explaining his great influ-

401

402

ence on later epigrammatic poetry and his reputation in the Latin world (numerous recapitulations esp. in Propertius, Ovid and Cicero; one of his epigrams is even reproduced on a wall at Pompeii: 6,13 = EpGr 1104). His fondness for the adventurous (7,504 etc.) and for surprising situations, with even macabre moments (7,4723 4785 506 etc.), is striking. Jocular accents also enter the ensemble (6,302: an encouragement to the mice to seek better accommodation than his) as do openly satirical (6,293; 298; 3053 7,455; 648 etc.), priapic (10,1; 16,236; 261) and symposiastic (7,452) notes; in addition, there are motifs of landscape and bucolic themes (6,334; 7,657; 9,326 etc.), poems on animals (6,120; 7,198), but above all, epitymbia on poets of the past (from Homer to Aratus). Typical of L. are esp. the dedications of everyday objects by poor people, whose problems and whose abject conditions he is the first to place in the foreground. A strange counterpoint to this tendency of portraying the lower social classes — which is paralleled in the figurative arts of contemporaries such as > Apelles and > Lysippus -, is formed by the ostentatiously baroque style (rich in intricate plays on assonance, rhyme and antitheses, in ingenious composita, neologisms and hapax legomena), by means of which the ‘learned poet’ seeks to invest simple subjects with literary value. A heartfelt affection for the world of ordinary people emerges, which distinguishes his ‘realism’ to a certain extent from the consciously ironic and clever realism of some of his contemporaries.

Olympia (IvOl 5, no. 651), the builder and benefactor of the Leonodeion, first referred to by that name in Paus. (5,15,2). It was a spacious guest-house outside the

1 M.GrcantTE, L’edera di Leonida, 1971, 37-42.

P. LEVEQUE, Pyrrhos, 1957, 566f., 675£.; GAIL 1, 107-139; 2,307-398.

M.G.A.

[4] Relative of > Olympias, a man of strict character, who until the appointment of > Aristoteles [6] supervised the education of the young > Alexander [4]. Alexander is said to have sent splendid gifts to him from Asia. BERVE, no. 469.

[5] Officer of > Antigonus [1], whom he helped in 319 BC to settle peacefully a mutiny by Macedonian soldiers (Polyaenus, Strat. 4,6,6). L. may be identical to an officer of Alexander [4] the Great, for whom evidence exists from around 330 (Curt. 7,2,35)E.B. [6] L. of Sparta. Banished from the Achaean League c.173/2 BC owing to his unpopular contacts with ~ Perseus, L. led a band of 500 Greek soldiers in the 3rd Macedonian War (171) on the side of the king (Liv. Agasie ss J. DetninGER, Der polit. Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland, 1971, 145, n. 16. L.-M.G.

[7] L. of Alexandria (poet) > Leonides [3]; (physician) — Leonides [4]. FGE 503, n. 3-

[8] The architect from Naxos, also referred to as Leonides, was, according to an inscription discovered at

LEONIDES

Altis of the sanctuary; according to Pausanias, at the

time of his description of the buildings, they contained the headquarters of the Roman governor and the representative apartments of Roman officials. A statue honouring L. is said to have stood near the building. ~ Olympia; > Assembly buildings H.Svenson-Evers,

Die griech. Architekten der archa.

und klass. Zeit, 1996, 380-387 (sources and secondary literature). C.HO.

Leonides (Aewvidyc; Lednides). Cf. also > Leonidas. [1] General of Ptolemy I, stratégos in Cilicia in 3 10/309 BC (Diod. Sic. 20,19,4). L. probably consecrated a helmet at Delos in 309/308 (IG XI 2, 161 B77), and in 308 he was appointed by Ptolemy as commander of his Greek possessions. In 307/306, L. fulfilled the function of stratégos in Sicyon and Corinth; after 301, together with —> Philocles (?), he commanded Ptolemaic mercenaries in Pamphylia (SEG 17, 639; Aspendus). It is unclear whether he can be identified with BERVE, vol. 2, no. 470. R. BAGNALL, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt, 1976, rr1f.; H. HAuBEN, Het Vloot-

bevelhebberschap in de vroege Diadochentijd, 1975, 5 rff. no. 19.

[2] Son of Philotas, Macedonian, t6n proton philon and gymnasiarch at Alexandria, probably in 88/87 BC, honoured by his son L., also tén proton philon and gymnasiarch (— Court titles B. 2.). L.Mooren,

The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt,

1975, 183, NO. 0339.

W.A.

[3] (or Leonidas), late rst cent. AD, Greek physician in

Alexandria. tio (14,684 It is unclear represented thought of

The author of a pseudo-Galenic IntroducK.), described himself as an ‘Episynthetic’. whether this was intended to mean that L. an approach that united the schools of a variety of medical trends, including the Methodist and the Pneumaticist, or whether he was following the example of another Episynthetic by the name of > Agathinus (cf. Ps.-Gal, Definitiones medicae, 19,353 K.), which thus explains his epithet ‘Episynthetic’. Some ofhis surgical procedures in cranial operations were recommended for emulation, e.g. by the ophthalmologist Severus, working in the late rst cent. AD, by Aetius [3] (De medicina or Libri medicinales 7,93) and by Paul of Aegina (De medicina 6,8). The same applies to his recommendations on dealing with complex conditions such as the development of fistulae and cancers. > Caelius [II 11] Aurelianus (De morbis acutis 2,1,7), while accepting his definition of lethargy, rejected his explanation that the condition resulted from the blockage of canals within the brain. ~+ Methodists, Pneumatists VN.

LEONIDES

[4] L. of Alexandria Author of at least three books of epigrams, originally an astronomer (cf. Anth. Pal. 9,344), active in Rome in the rst cent. AD. 42 magnificent poems are preserved, almost all of them isopsephic (i.e. the number of letters in each distich or in each of the verses of a couplet is identical). L. augmented the traditional range of occasions which the epigram addressed by conceiving its role as a birthday gift: the addressees are for the most part members of the imperial family (from Agrippina to Poppaea, from Nero to Vespasian). FGE 503-541.

The contract drawn up with 17 chieftains and the two leaders has been handed down by Memnon of Heraclea (FGrH 434 F 11,2 = Stv 3, no. 469). It guaranteed the Celts in particular land, in exchange for their permanent loyalty to the alliance. After crossing into Asia Minor in 278, the Celts defeated the rebellious brother of Nicomedes, > Zipoetes, in 277. They were then deployed against Antiochus [2] I, proceeding on autonomous operations under L.’s supreme command

southwards through the Ionian littoral. On concluding their campaign, from 274-271 they occupied the land awarded to them by Nicomedes in northern Phrygia (Memnon

Leonnatus (Agévvatoc; Lednnatos). L., who was born

around 356 BC to the royal house of Lyncestis (~ Lyncus), may have been the son of a certain Anteas. In 336 he took part in the prosecution of the murderer of -» Philippus II. As one of his > hetairoi, L. was sent by Alexander [4] the Great with a message of solace to the family of + Darius [3] (Arr. Anab. 2,12,5; also Curt.; Diod. Sic.). Appointed to the — somatophylakes (‘bodyguards’) (Arr. Anab. 3,5,5), L. took part in the coup against > Philotas (Curt. 6,8,17) and attempted to prevent the killing of > Cleitus [6]. L. confounded the plan to introduce > proskynesis to the court by laughing (Arr. Anab. 4,12,2). This insulted the king, who then entrusted him only with minor and never independent assignments in eastern Iran and India. Among the > Malli, L. and > Peucestas saved Alexander’s life (Curt. 9,10,19; Arr. Anab. 6,10), and then commanded the land troops at > Patala. L. fought successfully against the > Oreitae and founded a colony there (Arr. Anab. 6,22,3). At the victory celebration at Susa, L. was highly honoured by the king (Arr. Ind. 23,5). After Alexander’s death (323), L. supported + Perdiccas, who rewarded him with the satrapy of + Dascylium [2] (Arr. Succ. 6; Curt. 10,10,2). How-

ever, when > Cleopatra [II 3] offered him her hand in marriage, L. began to covet the throne (Plut. Eumenes 3), surrounding himself with Persian luxury (Arr. Succ. 12) and allying himself with the enemies of Perdiccas. In 322 he succeeded in displacing Antipater [1] at the battle of + Lamia, but he fell in the battle (Diod. Sic. 18,14f.). — Alexander [4] HECKEL, 91-106.

404

403

E.B.

Leonnorius (Aewvvietoc/Leonnorios; Aeawvvdo.oc/ Leonnorios; Latin Lonorius). Galatian tribal prince; his

name is Celtic. As leader of the > Tolistobogii along with > Lutarius, L. led a nomadic group of c. 20,000

people, who had broken away from the army of Brennus [2] in 279/278 and moved through Thrace and the + Propontis and pressed + Byzantium. The Celts were able to force many of the cities of the Propontis and the Thracian Chersonesus [1] to pay tributes, but were then

taken on as mercenaries by > Nicomedes I of Bithynia.

FGrH 434 F 11,1-4; Liv. 38,16,1-15; Str.

12,5,1). There is one more subsequent epigraphic reference to L., in a decree from Erythrae of c. 271 (?) (Syll.3 410).

~» Galatia;

> Celts (with map)

K.STROBEL, Die Galater, 1, 1996, 236-257.

W.SP.

Leonteus (Agovtevc; Leonteus, ‘lion’). [1] Son of + Coronus. With > Polypoetes he leads the

contingent of the > Lapithae at Troy. Together, they also defend the Greek camp and participate in the funerary games for Patroclus (Hom. Il. 2,745ff.; T2402 Sti12 35837.) s H.W. STOLL, s.v. L., ROSCHER 2, 1944-1945.

RA.MI.

[2] L. of Lampsacus, one of the most important students of > Epicurus. L. and his wife > Themista got to know Epicurus during the latter’s stay in Lampsacus. Extant are fragments of letters, written to L. by Epicurus after his return to Athens (307/6 BC). We know almost nothing about L.’s life or his thinking. Further details about L. could be gained if one were to accept the hypothesis of [1], that a substantial section of Philodemus’ Pragmateiai (PHercul. 1418, col. VII-X VIII) contains rem-

nants of a biography of L. (contrary [2]). Probably L. did not substantially differ from his master’s teaching. 1 A. ANGELI, Verso un’ edizione dei frammenti di Leonteo di Lampsaco, in: M. Capasso, G. Messer, R. PINTAUDI (ed.), Miscellanea Papyrologica, 1990, 59-69 2 C.MILITELLO (ed.), Memorie epicuree (PHerc. 1418 e 310),

1997, 47-49.

TD.

Leontiades (Acovtiady¢; Leontiddeés). [1] Theban, leader of the contingent which, on the order of > Leonidas [r], had to take part in the battle about the > Thermopylae (480 BC). The Thebans were suspected of pro-Persian sympathies, and during the battle they did indeed defect to the Persians (Hdt. 7,205; 233). E.S-H. [2] (Plut.: Aewvtidys/Leontidés), Theban politician, leader of a party of pro-Spartan property owners (Hell. Oxy. 15 BARTOLETTI; Xen. Hell. 5,2,25f.). During the Decelean War (— Decelea), L. had considerable influence (Hell. Oxy. 15), but lost it gradually in 404 BC to ~ Ismenias [1]. L. disposed of his rivals through betrayal, by enabling Sparta to occupy the Cadmeia (> Phoe-

405

406

bidas) and instigating Ismenias’ execution (Xen. Hell. 552,25-36; cf. Plut. Agesilaus 23; Plut. Pel. 5; Plut. Mor. 575F; Diod. Sic. 15,20). L. was killed during the liberation of Thebes in 379 (Xen. Hell. 5,4,2-12 and 19; cf. Plut. Agesilaus 24; Plut. Pel. 11; Plut. Mor. 575F; 597D-F; 1099; see also Diod. Sic. 15,25). P. Funke, Homonoia und Arche, 1980, 46f.; S. PERLMAN, The Causes and the Outbreak of the Corinthian War, in: CQ 14, 1964, 64-81, esp. 65f. BO.D.

Leontichus see > Rhadine Leontini (Agovtivol/Leontinoi, Latin Leontini). Greek town in eastern Sicily (Agdvtiov/Ledntion, Ptol. 354,13), modern Lentini. Xuthus, a son of Aeolus, is

said to have been king of > Xuthia, which surrounded L. (Diod. Sic. 5,8,2). Hercules is said to have crossed the ‘Leontine plain’, home of the > Laestrygones (Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 225a) (Diod. Sic. 4,24,1). It extend-

ed as far as the > Symaethus (Thuc. 6,65,1). The town was founded in 729 BC by Chalcidian colonists from Naxos, led by Theocles (Thuc. 6,3,3); after displacing the Siculi (Thuc. 6,3,3), they occupied the hill of Metapiccola (Polyaenus, Strat. 5,5,1), 20 stadia from the sea (Ps.-Scyl. 13) on the Teiras (Diod. Sic. 14,14,3), modern S. Leonardo. The topography of the town as described in Pol. 7,6 was confirmed with regard to essential details by excavations (wall from the 6th/5th cents. BC, “Syracusan Gate’, the northern gate at the mouth of the valley of S. Mauro, a house designed in a terrace formation from the early Hellenistic period, remains of two temples on the heights at the agora, votive gifts from the hill of Metapiccola, necropolis [1; 2; 3; 4]). Diod. Sic. (16,72,2) mentions a part of the town which was called Nedpolis. According to Str. 10,1,15, Euboea [2] (= Licodia Eubea? Monte S. Mauro?) was founded from L. The oligarchy was overthrown by the tyrant Panaetius in the 6th cent. BC (Aristot. Pol. 13 10b,29; 13 16a,37; Polyaenus, Strat. 5,47). In the early 5th cent. BC, Aenesidemus became tyrant of L. under > Hippocrates [4] of Gela (Hdt. 7,154). L. flourished during the final years of the + Deinomenids and following their fall; ample minting of coins (damareteion |5; 6], some tetradrachma series [7]). An alliance between L. and Athens was renewed in 433/2 BC (Stv 2, 163; [8]). The Leontinians requested Athenian help in a dispute with > Syracusae in 427 BC, sending a legation under the leadership of + Gorgias [2] (Thuc. 3,86,3; Pl. Hp. mai. 282b; Diod. Sic. 12,53). Following the Congress of Gela in 424 BC, L. became a Syracusan fortress (eove.ov/phrourion, Thuc. 5,4,3; Diod. Sic. 12,54,7). From 415-413 BC the Athenians undertook a military expedition to Sicily (> Peloponnesian War; cf. Thuc. 6,8,2; 6,50,4; Plut. Nicias 14,5), in the course of which they besieged Syracusae, but the siege failed. L. remained under the control of Syracusae, and in 406/405 BC it took in refugees from — Acragas, > Gela and > Camarina (Diod. Sic. 13,89,4; 113,4). L. became independent for a few years

LEONTIS

in 403 BC; > Dionysius [1] I then resettled its population at Syracusae. In view of the danger of war with Carthage and the Siculi, he fortified L. around 396 BC, settling it with mercenaries (Diod. Sic. 14,58,1; 78,2).

At the uprising of > Dion [I 1], L. turned away from + Dionysius [2] II (Diod. Sic. 16,20,1; Plut. Dion 39f.; 42). After the tyrant’s deposition, > Timoleon resettled the population of L. at Syracusae (Diod. Sic. 16,82,7). In 311 BC ~ Agathocles [2] suppressed an uprising against Syracusae (Polyaenus, Strat. 5,3,2). Under the tyrant Heracleidas, L. was a military base of > Pyrrhus in 278 BC (Diod. Sic. 22,8,5; Plut. Pyrrhus 22). In 214 BC, L. was conquered by the Romans (Liv. 24,30,1ff.;

Plut. Marcellus 14,1f.). Part of the region of L. was designated ager publicus. As a civitas decumana (Cic. Verr. 2,3,104), L. became involved in the — slave revolts (Diod. Sic. 36,7,1 on the year 104 BC). Str. 6,2,6 describes the declining town. It became an episcopal see in the 7th cent. AD. It was conquered by the Arabs in AD 846/7. = Sicily 1 G.Rizza, Leontini. Campagne di Scavi ..., in: NSA 1955, 281-376 2 Id., Stipe votiva sul colle di Metapiccola a Leontini, in: Bollettino d’Arte 48, 1963, 342-347 3 Id., Leontini nell’ VIII e nel VI secolo a.C., in: Cronache

di Archeologia 17, 1980, 26ff. 4 Id., Lentini, in: EAA Suppl. 1971-1994, 332ff. 5 G.MANGANARO, La caduta dei Dinomenidi, in: Annali dell’Istituto Italiano di Numis-

matica 21-22, 1974/5, 28ff.

6 Id., Dall’obolo alla litra e

il problema del ‘Damareteion’, in: Mél. G. Le Rider, 1999,

15ff.

7CH. BOHRINGER, Zur Miinzgesch. von L., in:

R. AsHTON

(ed.), Stud. in Memory of M.J. Price, 1998,

43ff. 8 E.RuUSCHENBUSCH, Die Vertrage Athens mit L. und Rhegion vom J. 433/2 v.Chr., in: ZPE 19, 1975, 225ff. P.Ors1, in: Atti e Memorie della Societa Magna Grecia, 1930, 7ff.; M. Frasca, La necropoli di Cugno Carrubbe in territorio di Carlenlini, in: Cronache di Archeologia (=

CdA) 21, 1982, 11ff.; Id., Leontini. Necropoli di Piscitello, in: CdA 21, 1982, 37ff.; D.PALERMO, Leontini. Scavi nella necropoli di Pozzanghera, in: CdA 21,

1982, 67ff.; M.FRAscA, F.SGALAMBRO, Un trentennio di indagini nel territorio di L. antica, 1987; L.Grasso et al.,

Caracausi. Un insediamento rupestre nel territorio di Lentini, in: CdA 28, 1989, 1-174; PH. BRUNEAU, Recherches

sur les cultes de Délos a l’@poque hellénistique et a l’époque impériale, 1970, 112.

S.D.SP.

Leontis

(Aemvtic; Leontis, epigraphically Agovtic; Leontis). Since the reform of phyles of Cleisthenes in 508/7 BC, the fourth of ten > phyles of Attica (IG II*

417, 478, 1742,

1744, 1752, 1926, 2409, 2818);

eponymous hero Leos (Aewc; Leos) in Paus. Ey

See

the 4th cent. BC the L. comprised 20 demes, of which seven were in the asty-trittys Scambonidae, four in the paralia-trittys Phrearrhii and nine in the mesogaia-trittys Hecale(?). Five demes changed over from 307/6 to 201/20 BC to the Macedonian phyles of Antigonis and Demetrias. In 224/3 BC, Hecale was added to Ptolemais, in 201/o BC Sunium to Attalis and in AD 126/7

LEONTIS

408

407

Scambonidae to Hadrianis. The bouleutai quotas of the demes changed accordingly. — L. in Priene: [1].

1J.M. Rust, Epicurus, 1972 2 N.W.pe and His Philosophy, *1964, 90; 95.

Wirt, Epicurus ME. STR.

— Attica (with map) 1 IPriene, t50 no. 248.

TRAILL, Attica sf., 8, r8f., 23 no. 7, 43ff., 55, 57, 71, 102, 105, table 4; J.S. Trattt, Demos and Trittys, 1986, 14f., 67ff., 81f., 90, 107, 130ff. H.LO.

Leontiscus (Agcovtioxoc; Leontiskos). [1] of Messana (Sicily). Two times Olympic winner in

wrestling (456, 452 BC) [1]. He won his fights (in a similar manner to the pancratiast Sostratus) by breaking fingers (Paus. 6,4,3). His victor’s statue in Olympia is by Pythagoras of Rhegium [2]. 1 L.MorettTi, Olympionikai, 1957, no. 271, 285 2H.V. HERRMANN, Die Siegerstatuen von Olympia, in: Nikephoros 1, 1988, 154, no. 40. W.D.

[2] Son of Ptolemy I and Thais, brother of Lagus [2] and Eirene [2]; in 306 BC he was captured by Demetrius [2] at the battle of Salamis on Cyprus but released to Egypt. H. Hausen, Het Vlootbevelhebberschap in de vroege Diadochentijd, 1975, 55f. no. 20. W.A.

Leontium [1] (Aeovtiov; Ledntion). City in the interior of Achaea

on the Peloponnesus, controlled the passage between Olonus (Erymanthus) and the Kalliphoni mountains as well as the west-east road through the Peiros valley between the Achaean coast south of Patra and Kalavrita (ancient Cynaetha). Presumably not identifiable with Agios Andreas near Gurzumitsa (modern L.) [1], but with modern Kastritsi near Agios Vlassis [2] at 750800 m above sea level. Remains of a ring wall and theatre from the 4th and 3rd cents. BC. According to Str. 8,7,5, resettled by > Antigonus [2] Gonatas. Evidence: Pol. 2,41,83 594,43 24,8. 1 N.Kyparissis,

“Avaoxahat év Tovefovutont,

in: Prak-

tika 1931, 71-73; 1932, 57-61 2F.BO6.TE, L. in Achaia, in: MDAI(A) 50, 1925, 71-76. 3N. YALouRIS, s.v. L., PE, 498. Nal

[2] (Aeovtov;

Ledéntion; diminutive:

neuter

noun

as

name ofa female slave/hetaera, ‘small lioness’). Hetaera (— hetairai) from Athens (Plut. Mor. to98b, 1129b), 342/1-270 BC, well-educated and beautiful student in the group around > Epicurus (Ath. 13,588b; portraits of L. mentioned in Plin. HN 35,99; 144). She wrote a

work against > Theophrastus in a fine Attic style (Cic. Nat. D. 1,33,93) and was politically active (disputed in [x. 9; 2]). Whether she was the wife of Metrodorus [3] (Sen. fr. 45 Haase) or his concubine (Diog. Laert. 10,5; 23) is uncertain. Her courage is said to have been passed on to their daughter Danaé, who saved the life of Sophron, the commander of Ephesus, by uncovering a conspiracy (Ath. 13, 593b-d; Phylarchos, FHG 336, fr. 2B)

» Women philosophers

Leontius (Aeévttoc; Leontios). {1] Ptolemaic commander of ~ Seleucea Pieria; in 219 BC, he surrendered the city to Antiochus [5] II

after initial resistance in a hopeless position. WA, [2] Macedonian, named general of peltasts by > Antigonus [3] Doson in his will. Together with > Megaleas, L. opposed the pro-Achaean politics of > Philippus V and his mentor > Aratus [2]; after inciting the elite troops against the king, L. was executed without trial as a co-conspirator of — Apelles [1] in 218 BC (Pol. 4,87,83 5,14,10-12; 16,6—-9; 25-27). ERRINGTON 170.

[3] Eastern Roman

L.-M.G.

usurper (AD 484-488), Isaurian,

magister militum, elevated to emperor in 484 in Tarsus at the instigation of > Illus against > Zeno. Defeated by Zeno in 484, L. escaped to the Isaurian fortress Papyrios. In 488, he was taken prisoner by treachery and executed. PLRE 2, 67of. BT, [4] The L. mentioned in the introductory law to the > Digesta (Const. Tanta § 9) as the son of Eudoxius and father of -» Anatolius [3] was professor of law in Berytus from the eighties of the 5th cent. AD on. PLRE

II, 672 (Leontius

20); A.BERGER,

One

or Two

Leontii, Legal Scholars in Beirut?, in: Boll. dell’ Istituto di diritto romano, 55-56, 1951, 270f.

[5] Professor of law in the 6th cent. AD, probably in Berytus, son of > Patricius; he was praetorian prefect and member of the commission for compiling the Codex vetus (Const. Haec § 1; Const. Summa § 2). PLRE II, 673f. (Leontius 23); A. BERGER, One or Two Leontii, Legal Scholars in Beirut?, in: Boll. dell’ Istituto di diritto romano, 55-56, 1951, 271ff. We

[6] L. of Byzantium Pro-Chalcedonian (Council of + Calchedon, AD 451) theologian from the time of the

emperor ~ lustinianus ({ about 543). He is usually identified with the Origenistic monk who appeared in Palestine about 520. Beginning in the summer of 531, the latter formed the core of the Origenistic-Chalcedonian party in Constantinople (probably participated in the religious discussion of 532 and the synod of 536). To defend the faith of Chalcedon, L. wrote several works between 531-543, including the collection Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos (CPG 6813: PG 86, 1268-1396), divided into three separate treatises, each followed by a longer florilegium (+ Nestorianism; Eutyches [3]). Influenced by the Cappadocians (Gregorius [2] and [3], as well as Basilius [x]) and the Neoplatonists + Porphyrius and > Nemesius of Emesa, L. describes the relationship of the Logos to the Father using the soul-body analogy (for the frequently misinterpreted enhypostasia cf. [6. 204—208]). EDITIONS:

6813-6820

1 PG 86, 1268-1396; 1901-1976

3 CPG Suppl. 6813f.

2CPG

409

410 BIBLIOGRAPHY:

4B.E. Datey, A Richer Union: L. and

the Relationship of Human

and Divine in Christ, in:

Studia Patristica 24, 1993, 239-265

5 D.B. EvANs,s.v.

L., TRE 21, 5-10. |=6. A. GRILLMEIER, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/2, 1989, 194-241. RL.

[7] L. Scholasticus Epigrammatic poet of the ‘Kyklos’ of Agathias, nicknamed ‘Minotaurus’, who flourished in

the Justinian era, cf. Anth. Plan. 32 (on a painting representing the praef. urbi of AD 543, Gabriel [z]), as well as ibid. 33 (after 554) and 37 (after 556). The surviving poems are brief and show great care in technique: one erotic poem (Anth. Pal. 5,295, cf. Meleager, ibid. 5,171), six funeral poems (probably genuine inscriptions: 7,573; 5753 579 = GVI 110; 640; 821; however 7,149f., on the suicide of Ajax, is of a literary character) and seventeen epideictic poems, which consist of descriptions of works of art (especially encomiastic portraits of contemporaries) or public buildings (baths, thermal baths, even an inn, cf. Anth. Pal. 9,650). B.BaLpwin,

Leontius Scholasticus and His Poetry, in:

Byzantinoslavica 40, 1979, 1-12; I.G. GALLI CALDERINI,

Un epigrammista del ‘Ciclo’ di Agazia: Leonzio Scolastico, in: Tadhagioxoc. Studia Graeca Antonio Garzya ...

oblata, 1987, 253-281.

M.G.A.

[8] L. of Neapolis, Cyprus (c. AD 590 — c. AD 650), bishop. A close friend of the Alexandrian patriarch Iohannes [32] Eleemon ("EXenuov), he wrote the latter’s life, which is considered his chief work and is of particu-

LEOPARD

rose to praef. praet. Orientis (ILS 1234). He is definitely documented in this office from 11 October 340 (Cod. Theod. 7,9,2 = Cod. lust. 12,41,1) to 6 July 344 (Cod. Theod. 13,4,3 = Cod. lust. 10,66,2). L., whose administration was praised by > Libanius (Lib. Ep. 353), held the consulate in the final year of his praetorian prefecture.

BAGNALL, 222f.; W.ENsSLIN, s.v. L. (6), RE Suppl. 8, 935f.; J.-R. PALANQUE, Essai sur la préfecture du prétoire du Bas-Empire, 1933, r9f.; PLRE 1, 502 (L. 20). A.G.

Leontopolis [1] City in the eastern Nile delta, east of the Damiette arm of the Nile, Egyptian T}-rmw, modern Tell Moqdam; one of the largest hills of ruins in the delta. L. is documented from the Middle Kingdom, but the majority of finds and mentions come from the period after the New Kingdom. L. was of great significance in the 3rd intermediate period (1080-714 BC), when it was the residence of a local king. In the Ptolemaic era, L. was the capital of the 11th Lower Egyptian district. At least from the Late Period, the lion god Miysis (M3-hs?) was the chief god of L. J. Yoytre, La ville de “‘Taremou’, in: BIAO 52, 1953, 17992; F.GomaA, s.v. Tell el-Moqdam, LA 6, 352-3.

lar cultural-historical interest. In this work, L. wanted to expand on the lives written by > Johannes [29]

[2] Town on the south-east edge of the Nile delta, in the district of + Heliopolis [1], modern Tell el-Jahudija, Egyptian N3/(-)-#, Assyrian Nathu, Greek Nd0o, in Jos. also AcovtomoAtg (108 “Hiooditov)/‘Lion City’, although there are only a few indications of a lion cult in

Moschus and > Sophronius ofJerusalem. With the Life of Symeon of Edessa (+ Symeon Stylites), he founded the hagiographic tradition of this ascetic type. His Adyos xatt Iovdaimy (‘Speech against the Jews’) has only been fragmentarily preserved. The assignment of his homiletic work is not certain.

L. L. was significant from the late Middle Kingdom and 2nd intermediate period (1785-1551 BC) on; a large rampart, which was earlier interpreted as a fortress of the + Hyksos, stems from this epoch. From the New Kingdom, there are indications of significant temple facilities and a palace of Ramses III. In the Assyrian peri-

V. DEROCHE, L’apologie contre les juifs de L. de Néapolis, in: Travaux et Mémoires 12, 1994, 45-104; Id., Etudes sur L. de Néapolis, 1995.

K.SA.

od, a prince (Sarru) of L. is mentioned [2. 36]. About

160 BC, Ptolemy VI allowed the Jewish high priest ~ Onias IV to settle in L. with his followers, and to

erect a fortress and a > Yahweh temple there (Jos. Ant. lud. 12,387; 13,65-68; 70f.), which was closed only in

[9] Byzantine emperor (AD 695-698), died 706. Isaurian, fought against the Arabs as stratégds under ~ Justinianus [3] II, but was temporarily incarcerated by him, probably as punishment for a defeat. After his release, he was won over to a revolt against his unpopular lord, which brought him the empire, and exile to the latter. In 697, L. sent a fleet to recapture Carthage from the Arabs. However, he was soon overthrown on his part by > Tiberius II (III). When Iustinianus II regained the imperial power in 705, he had L. executed. ODBEsiz2& FT.

[10] (Flavius Domitius L.). > Praefectus praetorio Orientis 340-344, consul AD 344. L. was probably born in ~» Berytus (Phoenicia). After a long career, which probably included a vicariate in 338 (Cod. Theod. 9,1,7), L.

AD 71 by the Roman governor of Alexandria (Jos. BI 7,421-36).

1 A.-P. Zivig, s.v. Tell el-Jahudija, LA 6, 331-335 2H. U.Onascu, Die assyr. Eroberung Agyptens, 1994 3 G. HOLBL, Geschichte des Ptolemderreiches, 1994, 167.

KJ-W. Leopard (xdodac/pardalis or n6Qdah1c/pordalis; Lat. panthera). This large cat is found not only in Africa, but also in Asia. Thirty leopards (parddleis) and cheetahs (panthéroi) were \ed in the procession of Ptolemy II (3rd cent. BC; Ath. 5,201c). Plin. HN 8,62f. describes the eye-like spots of the panthera and claims that they lure other quadrupeds as prey with their pleasant odour. He claimed the second name for the male animals was pardus (cf. Luc. 6,183). Out of zoological ig-

LEOPARD

norance, Isid. Orig. 12,2,r1 has the leopardus spring from the crossing of a lioness and a pardus. The kinship to the > lion is clear from the retraction of the claws while running (Plin. HN 8,41). According to Aristot. Hist. an. 8(9),608a 33-35 and Plin. HN 11,263, female leopards are stronger than the males. The import of leopards to Rome from Africa was forbidden by an old decree of the Senate (Plin. HN 8,64); however, Gn. Aufidius obtained a counterresolution by the people in 170 BC. According to Ambr. Hexaemeron 6,4,28, rubbing garlic (allium) between the hands drives away a raging leopard. Furthermore, Ambr. ibid. 6,4,26 claims that a

sick leopard will heal itself by drinking the blood of a wild goat. Among other things, a leopard is the mount of + Dionysus on a mosaic from Zliten, Tripolitania [1. fig. 26]. A wall painting from the so-called Hunting Baths in Leptis Magna shows hunters with long spears attacking leopards [r. fig. 27]. The capture of leopards with bait in transport cages is among the things represented in the ‘great hunt’ of the > Piazza Armerina in Sicily [1.70]. The cheetah (Acinomyx jubatus) was often confused with the leopard. In the 13th cent., Thomas of Cantimpré [2] treated the leopardus (4,55), pardus (4,86) and panthera (4,87) each in its own chapter. Representations on coins and gems are quite frequent [3].

— Panther 1 ToyNBEE 2H.Boess (ed.), Thomas Cantimpratensis, Liber de natura rerum, 1973 3 F.IMHOOF-BLUMER,

O. KELLER, Tier- und Pflanzenbilder auf Gemmen des klass. Alt., 1889, repr. 1972.

412

All

Mz.

prepared the Athenian military resistance against the decree of exile before Alexander’s [4] death through secret negotiations with mercenaries at Cape Taenarum (Paus. 1,25,5; 8,52,5; Diod. Sic. 17,11,2f.; 18,9,1) as well as with the Aetolians, Locrians, and Phocians (Diod. Sic. 18,9,5 and 18,11,1); afterwards together with + Hypereides and against the advice of + Phocion (Plut. Phocion 23,1-4; Plut. Timoleon 6,5), he openly pressed for an Athenian decision for war against Macedon, with the goal of a new anti-Macedonian Hellenic league. In the subsequent > Lamian War in 323/2, L. was the commander of the Athenian land troops and the entire land forces of the league; after initial successes, he succumbed to an injury outside Lamia in the winter of 323/2 while besieging > Antipater [1] (Diod. Sic? 18553 5-53 Oth. 9,5, LOsballs-e3,65L5 Lustena 54>) PA 9142 = 9144; Davis S. 342-344; DEVELIN no. 1802;

J. ENGELS, Studien zur polit. Biographie des Hypereides, *1993, 257-384; LGPN 2, s.v. Leosthenes (6); O. W. REIN-

MUTH, The Ephebic Inscriptions of the Fourth Century BG ero7r

LE. Leotrophides (Aemteodidns; Ledtrophidés). Athenian stratégos, who together with Timarchus defeated the Megarans at Mount Cerata on the Attic-Megaran border in 409 BC (Diod. Sic. 13,65,1f.); probably identical with the > chorégés L. mocked for his leanness in Aristophanes (Av. 1406), Theopomp. Com. fr. 25 and Hermippus fr. 36 PCG. TRaILt, PAA 607065. WS.

und

F. WorkE, s.v. Panther, RE 18, 747-767; KELLER vol. 1, 62-64 and 86f. C.HU.

Leosthenes (Aewoévyc; Ledsthénés). {1] Outstanding Athenian rhetor from the Cephale deme (Aeschin. Leg. 124), father of Leosthenes [2]. Sent as stratégos against Alexander [15] of Pherae in 362/1 or 361/60 BC, L. was prosecuted in Athens for treason and condemned to death after Peparethus and Panormus had fallen to Alexander and the Piraeus was threatened (Polyaenus, Strat. 6,2,1f.). L. went into exile at the Macedonian court, where he was held in high standing by Philippus II (Diod. Sic. 15,95,2f.; Aeschin. Leg. 124; Hyp. 3,1 JENSEN). PA 9141; DAVIES, 342-344; DEVELIN no. 1801; LGPN 2,

s.v. Leosthenes (5); TRAILL, PAA 606780.

[2] Son of Leosthenes [1], opponent of Macedon, influential Athenian rhetor, triérarchos in 325/4 BC (IG IP 1631d 500, 606e, 682); in 324/3, Athenian stratégos

epi téi chordi (‘stratégos for the land territory’, Diod. Sic. 17,111,2f.; 18,9,1-5; [5 no. 15]) and renewed as hoplite stratégos in 323/2 (Hyp. 6,1of. J; Diod. Sic. 18,9,1-5; 18,11,3—5; 18,12,4; Plut. Demosthenes 27,1; Plut. Pyrrhus 1,6f.; Plut. Mor. 486D; 546A; 849F; Arrianus FGrH 156 F 1,9; Paus. 1,1,3). L. had already

Leotychidas (Aewtvyidac; Ledtychidas). {1] Eurypontid (Hdt. 8,131; > Eurypontidae), considered to be the ancestor of L. [2]. [2] Eurypontid; became king in Sparta after > Damaratus was deposed; in 491 BC, he participated in the actions of + Cleomenes [3] I in Aegina (Hdt. 6,73), and for that reason was almost delivered up to the Aeginetans (Hdt. 6,85f.). In 479, L. commanded the Hellenic fleet, followed a request for help by the Samians, probably with the agreement of his war council (Hdt. 9,90f.), advanced as far as the mainland of Asia Minor, and defeated Persian land and sea forces at Mycale (Hdt. 9,97-106,1) [1. 5 5ff.]. At the following conference in Samos, L. tolerated the suggestion by the commanders of the Peloponnesian contingent to evacuate the Ionians to Greece; however, this plan failed due to Athenian resistance (Hdt. 9,106; Diod. Sic. 11,37,1-4

with an incorrect representation of the Athenian attitude) [2. 431f.]. Chians, Lesbians, and Samians were accepted into the ‘Hellenic League’ of 481 (— Persian Wars). Afterwards, L. advanced with his fleet, now strengthened by the Ionians, to the Hellespont, but withdrew with the Peloponnesian contingents and left the siege of Sestus to the Athenians (Hdt. 9,114). A few years later, L. was supposed to remove the pro-Persian ~ Aleuadae of Larisa from power, but was unsuccessful. Accused of corruption [3. 143f.], L. fled to Tegea (Hdt. 6,72; Diod. Sic. 11,48,2; Plut. Mor. 859D; Paus.

357598.)

413

414 1 J.Hetricus, Ionien nach PETZOLD, Die Griindung des Historia 42, 1993, 418-443 chung, in: Historia 36, 1987,

Salamis, 1989 2.K.-E. Delisch-Att. Seebundes, in: 3 K.L. Nogruticus, Beste129-170.

[3] Eurypontid (+ Eurypontids), only acknowledged by Agis [2] I as his son, born to his wife Timaea, shortly before his death; she had allegedly been seduced by the Athenian Alcibiades [3]. L., who was considered to be the latter’s son, was excluded from the royal succession in 400 BC in favour of Agesilaus [2] II (Duris FGrH 76 F 69; Plut. Lysander 22; Plut. Agesilaus 3; Plut. Alcibiades 23,6—-9; Plut. Mor. 467F; Xen. Hell. 3,3,1-3; Xen. Ages. 1,5). K.-W.WEL.

Leowigild Visigoth king, AD 568-86. Elevated to king of the territories in Spain in 569 after the death of Athanagild (568) by the latter’s successor, his brother Liuwa. L. married Athanagild’s widow Goisuntha in his second marriage. After the crisis, which had prevailed since c. 550, he united the majority of Spain under Gothic rule by 579. After Liuwa’s death in 573 [3. 40], L. reigned alone and established his sons from his first marriage, Hermenegild and Reccared, as co-

regents. In 579, L. married Hermenegild to Ingundis (daughter of Childebert II). Still in the same year, Hermenegild (under Ingundis’ influence?) withdrew from the sovereignty of L. and in 582 converted from > Arianism to the Catholic Church [3. 46ff.]. Only in 583/4, supported by the allied Suebian king Miro (+ 583), did L. move against his son and defeated him in 584. In 585, L. added the territory of the Suebi to his kingdom. As the first Visigoth king, L. introduced the throne [z. 61]. L. died in 586; his successor was Reccared. — West Goths 1 PLRE 3, 782-785 2 D.Craupe, Adel, Kirche und K6nigtum im Westgotenreich, 1971 3 R.CoL.ins, Early Medieval Spain, 1983, 41-58 4 Id., Merida and Toledo: 550-585, in: E. JaMEs (ed.), Visigothic Spain, 1980, 189— 219.

WE.LU.

Lepcis Magna see > Leptis Magna Lepidoptera (4 wuyn/psyché, literally ‘soul’ e.g. in Aristot. Hist. an. 5,19,551a 14; voudy/nymphe, literally ‘young girl’ in Aristot. Gen. an. 3,9,758b 33; Lat. papilio and papiliunculus in Tert. De anima 32). Butterflies and moths is the collective term for the insect order of the Lepidoptera. Despite their certainly large spread in the Mediterranean region, they were not often recorded in scientific treatises in antiquity. Aristot. Hist. an. 55551a 13-27 (cf. Aristot. Gen. an. 1,18,723b sf. and 2,1,733b 13-16) correctly assigns them to the insects (vtoua/éntoma, cf. > Insects) with a complete metamorphosis (1. egg, 2. larva/caterpillar: xousn/kampée, Lat. eruca or uruca; 3. pupa: yovoahric/ chrysallis, Lat. chrysallis; 4. imago, i.e. butterfly or moth). He describes their conspicuous feelers (xegaiaV/keraiai) in Hist. an. 4,7,532a 26. With the exception of the moth species

LEPIDOPTERA

inec/ipes (probably Tinea vastella L.) in Homer (Od.

21,395), butterflies and moths are mentioned only by Theophrastus (Hist. pl. 2,4,4 et passim) and Nicander (Ther. 87 f.). In the Roman Imperial period, the fight against caterpillars which damaged plants was important to the authors (e.g. Plin. HN 17,266 and 18,78; Columella 11,3,63: collecting the urucae or preventing the attack by previously softening the turnip seeds with sedum; Dioscorides 2,60 WELLMANN = 2,64 BERENDES and 2,70,5 WELLMANN = 2,77 BERENDES; Gp. 12,8). The identification of 86 species in [3. 572-585] is based almost solely on ancient depictions (cf. [2. 18]),and is therefore not literarily relevant. However, nine species are definitely provable: 1. Large cabbage white (Pieris brassicae L.), xoauBic/krambis, Lat. uruca in Ael. NA 9,39, of which only the caterpillar, which eats cabbage leaves, is mentioned (Aristot. Hist. an. 5,19,551a 13-17, Theophr. Hist. pl. 7,5,4; Plin. HN 17,266 and 19,156; Gp. 12,8). Based on > Democritus [1], Columella 11,3,64 reports on magical procedures in vegetable patches infested with caterpillars. 2. Eastern pine processionary (Thaumetopoea pinivora Treitschke), mtvoxdunn/pityokampé, whose caterpillar eats the needles of spruces and pines: Dioscorides 2,61,1 WELLMANN = 2,66 BERENDES and Plin. HN 23,62. Roasted, they were said to help against eczema and cancer. 3. Eastern Mediterranean silkworm moth (Pachypasa otus Dr.), BouBvE/bombyx, described by Aristotele (Hist. an. 5,19,551b 9-16; somewhat altered Plin. HN 11,76-78). Pamphile, the daughter of Plates, is supposed to have invented on the island of Cos the spinning of silk threads from the cocoon into transparent robes (+ Coae vestes; cf. Alci. 4,14,4; Prop. 2,3,15; Mart. 8,33,16 and 68,7; Apul. Met. 8,27). 4. Chinese silkworm moth (silkworm, Bombyx mori L.). The Greeks became acquainted with — silk (serica) on Alexander [4] the Great’s expedition to India. Nearchus (in Str. 15,1,20) did not know the cocoon precisely, and Paus. 6,26,6 ff. believes it was created by spiders. Only in AD 551 did monks smuggle live caterpillars to Constantinople (Procop. Goth. 4,17,1-8, cf. Zon. 14,9). Previously, they had been considered identical to the caterpillars in no. 3. 5. The woolly case-bearer (Epichnopterix pulla Esq.), a species of the moth-like Psychidae which winters in a sack covered with small pieces of wood, is precisely described as a larva under the name EvdAoddgoc/ xylophoros by Aristot. Hist. an. 5,32,557b 12-25 (cf. Plin. HN 11,117). However, he is not familiar with the mature moth. 6. The greater wax moth (Galleria mellonella L.), the so-called honeycomb moth, which lives from the honeycombs

of bees (Aristot. Hist. an. 9(8),40,625a

ro f., cf. Plin. HN

11,65 f.), or the lesser wax moth (Achoria grisella F.), Greek mvgavoti/pyraustes, but in Aristot. Hist. an. 9(8), 27,605b

16-18

teendmv/

teredon. Fumigation had already in antiquity been dis-

LEPIDOPTERA

covered to combat them (Verg. G. 4,246; Columella 9,755; cf. Ael. NA 1,58). 7. The leaf roller from the family Tortricidae, whose caterpillar called (E/ix, Lat. convolvulus/ involvulus is a dangerous parasite of grape vines (Alcman fr. 93 P.; Cato Agr. 95; Plin. HN 17,229 and 264). Methods of combating it are found in Gp. 5,30 and 48,6. 8. The goat moth (Cossus cossus L.) from the family of the carpenter moths (Cossidae) is clearly described as xegdotnc/ kerdstés by Theophr. Hist. pl. 5,4,4 (= Plin. HN 16,220 cerastes).

9. The common

416

415

clothes moth (Tineola bisseliella

Hummel), Greek onc/sés, Lat. tinea, was feared as an almost proverbial (Pind. Fr. 222; Mt 6:19) eater of

woollen cloth (e.g. Aristoph. Lys. 730; Varro, Sat. Men. DLT INitcy Derarchwn5.02,751Sid. Orig T2.5.nu. Hired

vestimentorum). Aristot. Hist. an. 5,32,557b 1-6 (= Plin. HN 11,117) explained, naturally incorrectly, its

origin from dusty wool frem which a spider has sucked out all of the moisture. How they were controlled can be learned from Theophr. Hist. pl. 9,11,11, Cato Agr. 98 and Plin. HN 20,195. Unidentifiable butterflies and moths are found on coins [2. pl. 7,26-29] and on gems [2nd pl. 21,26; 23,19-28 and 32; 25,21-22].

not yet been clarified due to the limited number of texts; the differentiation from Cisalpine Gaulish is just as poorly defined [7]. There are contacts with the Roman and Greek cultures, as can be seen, for example, from the inscription on a vase used as a burial object (find spot: Ornavasso): Latumarui Sapsutai-pe uinom nasom, i.e. ‘for Latumaros and Sapsuta: wine from Naxos’ (winom is a Latin loan word).

+ Celtic languages (with map) 1J.Esxa, D.E. Evans, Continental Celtic, in: M.BALt, J. Fire (ed.), The Celtic Languages, 1993, 43-63 2J.DE Hoz, Lepontic, Celt-Iberian, Gaulish and the Archaeo-

logical Evidence, in: Et. Celtiques 29, 1992, 223-240 3 W.Krmmic, Die griech. Kolonisation im westl. Mittelmeergebiet und ihre Wirkung auf die Landschaften des westl. Mitteleuropa, in: JRGZ 30, 1983, 5-78 4M.LeyEuNE, Lepontica, 1971 5 Id., RIG 2,1, 1988 6 F.Morra, Vues présentes sur le Celtique Cisalpin, in: Et. Celtiques 29, 1992, 311-318 7M.G. TrBILetTI BRUNO, Le iscrizioni celtiche d’Italia, in: E.CAMPANILE

Celti d’Italia, 1981, 157-204.

(ed.), I

S.Z1.

Tier- und Pflanzenbilder auf Mz. und Gemmen des klass. Alt., 1889 (repr. 1972) 3H.GossEn,s. v. Sch., RE 2 A,

Lepontii A Celtic tribe in the Central Alps where, according to Caes. B Gall. 4,10,3, the source of the Rhine is located. Most consider this passage to be a late interpolation because knowledge of the Central Alps only came with Augustus’ Alpine War (between 25 and 15

569-585.

C. HU.

BC): inscription of La Turbie ([1. 8off.]; later Str. 4,6,6;

Lepidotonpolis (Aemdotwv mdi; Lepiddton polis). Town in upper Egypt, modern Nag‘ el-Mescheich opposite Girga, Egyptian probably Bhdt-jtt, with remains of a temple of Ramesses II and the rock tomb of a high priest. The chief god was the lioness M/jt; but the lepidotus fish was also worshipped here (cf. Hdt. 2,72; Str. 17,812; confirmed by the find of a naos filled with fish bronzes).

tions of the course of the Rhine [2. 303, 440]. Many placenames in the Swiss cantons Ticino, the Grisons

1 KELLER 2,435-446

2 F.IMHOOF-BLUMER, O. KELLER,

8; Plin. HN 3,134; 136f.). Regarding mistaken descrip-

F. GomaA, s.v. Mescheich, LA 4, 107; H. Kees, s.v. L., RE 12, 2066f. KJ-W,

and Valais are attributed to the Lepontii, e.g. Valle Leventina (the Levantina Valley, i.e., Upper Ticino between Airolo and Biasca), Lugnez (mountain valley draining from the south towards Illanz on the upper Rhine in the Grisons), Lionza (village near the town of Borgnone, in the uppermost part of Centovalli, Ticino). The personal names of the Lepontii are Celtic but also contain Ligurian and Etruscan components, cf. > Lepontic.

Lepidus Roman cognomen, recorded in the Republican period for the Aemilii [I 7-17; II 7-9] and other families. DEGRASSI, FC, 256.

K.-L.E.

1E.Meyer,

E.Howatp,

Die

2 F.KRANER, W.DITTENBERGER

rom.

Schweiz,

1940

et al. (ed.), C.Iulii Cae-

saris Commentarii de bello Gallico 1, *°1964. F.STAEHELIN, Die Schweiz in rém. Zeit, 31948, 35ff.; E. Howa.p, E. Meyer, Die rom. Schweiz, 1940, 183ff.

G.W.

Lepontic Lepontic, also called > Ligurian by some [1. 43], is a > Celtic language documented in a small area around Lago Maggiore and Lago di Como. It has been connected with the > Golasecca culture [2. 22.4; 3.30; 6.312]. The c. 60 known Lepontic linguistic monuments [1. 44f.; 4; 5] are written in the northern Etruscan alphabet (> Italy, alphabetical scripts) and come from a period from the 6th/5th to about the 3rd— rst cent. BC. They are primarily funerary inscriptions, as well as a few dedicatory inscriptions and coin legends. The linguistic assignment as either an independent Celtic language or a dialect of Gaulish [1. 43] has

Leporarium see > Zoos Lepreum (Aéngeov; Lépreon). The most significant, southerly city of > Triphylia. Preserved remains of the acropolis in the north of modern L. (formerly Strovitsi) with parts of a ring wall and other building remains: a small Doric temple (Demeter? [1]) of the 4th cent. BC and an altar; in the territory of L. on the road from Perivolia to Bassae a Doric temple of the 4th/3rd cents. BC [2]; in the southwest, near modern Prasidaki, a Doric temple of the Hellenic period. Minyan foundation after the expulsion of the > Caucones (Hd. 4,148;

417

418

Str. 8,3,19), therefore ‘Cauconic’ in Callim. H. 1,39 (cf. Str. 8,3,11; 16). Participated in the battle of Plataeae (479 BC; Hdt. 9,28,4; Paus. 5,23,2; Syll.3 31; 34). In

active around us (De morbis dist + Caelius 4,13) describe

459 BC transfer of triphylic Pylos to L. by Elis (Str. 8,3,30). Quarrels with Elis made L. politically dependent (Thuc. 5,31; 345 49,1; Aristoph. Av. 149; Xen. Hell. 352525) [3. 241-247]. In the war with Elis in 402-400, L. was liberated and annexed by Sparta (Xen. l.c. and 6,5,141). After the battle of Leuctra in 371 BC, affiliation with the Arcadian League. L. only became part of Elis again in 245 BC with Aetolian support but in 219/18 it was joined to Philip V and became Macedonian (Pol. 4,77,10; 80). In 196 BC assigned to the Achaean League (Pol. 18,47, 10; Liv. 33,34,9) and after 146 BC permanently part of Elis (Str. 8,3,30). In ruins in Pausanias’ time. References: Scyl. 44; Str. 8,3,18; 21; Paus. 5,5,3—6; Plin. HN 4,14; Ptol. 3,16,18. 1 H.KNELL, L. Der Tempel der Demeter, in: MDAI(A) 98, 1983, 113-147. 2N.YALOURIS, Kikaoowmds vadc sic meouoynv Aemgéov, in: AAA 4, 1971, 245-251 3 Z.BULTRIGHINI, Pausania e le tradizioni democratiche, 1990. F.CarIncl, s.v. Elide (1), EAA*, 450f.; PRITCHETT 6, 1989, 58-60; F.E. WINTER, s.v. L., PE, 498f. vale

LEPTINES

250 BC, mentions the disease; > Aretaechronicis, CMG 2,168f.) and the Metho[II 11] Aurelianus (De morbis chronicis it in detail, however, all authors stress its rarity. The appalling disfigurement of many skin dis-

eases caused revulsion, and attempts were made to exclude the sufferers from society. This seemed legitimized by the conviction, encountered primarily in Jewish sources, that leprosy was the outward sign of divine punishment. Incidentally, in Egyptian and Greek papyri, — epilepsy was classified in a similar way. The topic of the healing of lepers, as described in the Gospels, was very popular in the literature of the Church Fathers. According to the legend of Zotikos and the leprous daughter of > Constantinus [2] II, the first leprosorium (‘hospital for lepers’) was set up c. AD 335. Clear evidence for such an institution however dates to 200 years later. — Disease 1 T.DzIERZYKRAY-ROGALSKI, Palaeopathology of the Ptolemaic Inhabitants of Dakleh Oasis (Egypt), in: Journal of Human Evolution, 1980, 71-74 2 F.KuDLIEN, L. in der Ant., in: J.H. WotF (ed.), Aussatz, L., HansenKrankheit, 1986, 39-44. A.M. CarRMICHAEL, Leprosy, in: K.F. KrpLe (ed.), The

Lepreus

(Aemeéoc, Aemoetc;

Lepréos, Lepreus). The

son of Pyrgeus or + Caucon. He is the founder and eponym of > Lepreum (> Triphylia). His grave lay allegedly in > Phigalia (this is a reflection of Lepreum’s claim to Arcadian). L. advised > Augeias to imprison ~ Heracles but Heracles was reconciled with him. He entered into an athletic competition with Heracles (e.g. about who could eat a bull faster) but lost and was

killed in the subsequent armed fight. This local legend, the source of which was, amongst other things, the familiar motif of Heracles’ gluttony, was told by Zenodotus (in Ath. 10,412ab and Ael. VH 1,24) and in a different version by Paus. 5,5,4f. F.G. Leprosy also ‘Hansen’s Disease’. A chronic disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae affecting the peripheral nerves, and often also the skin. Palaeopathological finds prove its existence in the Mediterranean area only for the Hellenistic period [1], but texts from Babylon, Egypt and Israel from c. 800 BC onwards describe disfiguring skin diseases, among which could be included leprosy, even though the descriptions probably refer to psoriasis. The biblical name of the disease sara‘at, in the Middle Ages wrongly translated as leprosy, referred to a disease which not only affected human skin but could also affect walls of houses, and which was primarily characterized by the formation of flakes (a mycotic infection?). ‘Leprosy’ (Aéxoa/lépra, lonian héenon/lépre) in the sense of a scaly disease, is mentioned in the Hippocratic writings. A treatise on ‘elephantiasis’ — the name of a disease which emphasizes the lumpiness of the changes to skin and bone in leprosy — is ascribed to + Democritus [1] (fr. 300,10f. = 2,215f. DK), but is probably of Hellenistic date [2]. Straton, a physician

Cambridge World History of Human Disease, 1993, 83 4839; H.M. KoExsine (ed.), Beitr. zur Geschichte der L., 1972; J.H. WotrF (ed.), Aussatz, L., Hansen-Krankheit, 1986.

V.N.

Lepta see ~ Paconius Leptines (Aentivns; Leptinés). {1] Athenian politician, suggested an alliance with Sparta in 369 BC. In 356, L. carried through a law according to which all exemptions from > liturgies which

had been granted were to be lifted, and no more were to be granted in the future (Dem. Or. 20 hypoth. 2,2; 20,18). Bathippus brought an action against it on the grounds of illegality, but died shortly thereafter (Dem. Or. 20,144f.). In 355, a new action was brought against the law, for which Demosthenes

[2] wrote his 20th speech. In 374, L. had to pay back taxes (Dem. Or. 22,60). In 363/2, he handed over valuable objects to the treasurers of the other gods in Eleusis (IG II* 1541). The executor of his will (xAneovouoc; klérondémos) is mentioned in 3 42/1 (IGII* 1622, |. 361; 375). TRAILL, PAA 603480; 603485.

WS.

[2] Brother of the tyrant > Dionysius [1] I of Syracuse; he was active as the latter’s admiral and commander: in 397 BC, L. laid siege to » Motya as nauarch (fleet commander); in 396, he did not prevent Himilkon [1] from landing in Panormus and was defeated in the same year outside of Catana by > Mago. Beleaguered in Syracuse, he carried out a successful sortie with the fleet (Diod. Sic. 14,48,4-72,1). L. was also praised along with Dionysius and Thearidas in an Athenian decree of 393 (Syll.3 128). Sent to help the Lucanians (- Lucani) against the Greek cities of lower Italy in 390, L. negoti-

419

420

ated the peace with the defeated Italiot League on his own authority (Diod. Sic. 14,102,2f.) and was exiled by Dionysius to Thurii c. 386, but was soon recalled to Syracuse (Diod. Sic. 15,7,3). L. took part in the new war with Carthage (beginning c. 382) and fell in the battle of Cronion (Diod. Sic. 15,17,1) about 375. In his second marriage, L. was married to his brother’s daughter (Diod. Sic. 15,7,4).

links, which reached far into the interior of Africa.

LEPTINES

H.Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 1967, 230ff.; B. M. Caven, Dionysius I, 1990;

D. M. Lewis, in: CAH 6,

*1994, ch. 5; CH. SABATTINI, Leptine di Siracusa, in: Rivista Storica dell’ Antichita 19, 1989, 7-65.

[3] In 351 BC, together with Callippus [1] L. freed ~ Rhegium from the rule of Dionysius [2] II. After the murder of Callippus, L. became tyrant of Engyum and Apollonia [4], but > Timoleon expelled him c. 344 and exiled him to Corinth (Diod. Sic. 16,45,9; 72,3—53 Plut. Dion 58,6).

[4] Commander of Agathocles [2] who won two victories over Xenodicus of Acragas in 307 BC (Diod. Sic. 20,56,23 62,3-5).

+ Carthage obliged the city to pay direct taxation ([2. 46813]; Liv. 34,62,3). Sometime in the middle of the 60s of the 2nd cent. BC > Massinissa attacked cities and districts on the little Syrte as well as the Emporia (‘trading posts’) and LM was among these. Rome eventually decided in favour of LM ([2. 431]; Pol. 31,21). In r11 BC the city received the amicitia societasque populi Romani and in 108 BC the protection of a garrison (Sall. lug. 77). During the dispute between the Pompeians and Caesareans (> Caesar) LM was on the side of the Pompeians (Caes. B Civ. 2,38?; Bell. Afr. 97,3; Luc. 9,948f.). Trajan made it a colonia, Septimius Severus,

who was born here, gave it the ius Italicum ([5. no. 284, 353]); Dig. 50,15,8,11. The period of the Severan dynasty was the heyday of LM. Under Diocletianus LM became the capital of the new province of Africa Tripolitana (> Africa with map). In 455 LM fell to the Vandals. After the reconquest of the city Justinian appointed a dux limitis Tripolitanae provinciae (Cod. lust. 1,27,21). The city retained its Punic culture for a long period. Inscriptions: [5. no. 263-847]; AE 1969-1970, 633; AE 1985, 850; AE 1986, 700; 708; SEG XXXVII

K. MEISTER, in: CAH 7.1, *1984, 402f.

[5] Influential Syracusan whose daughter Philistis was married to > Hieron [2] II from c. 270 BC on (Syll.3 429; Pol. 1,9,2); perhaps the son of L. [4]. G.DE SENSI SEsTITO, Gerone II, 1977, 183; 185; 188.

K.MEI.

[6] In 163/162 BC, when a delegation of the Roman Senate the Seleucid navy had burned and the war elephants maimed in accordance with the Peace of

1463; [35 4]. 1 P. ROMANELLI, in: Id. (ed.), In Africae a Roma, 1981 (on the name) 2Huss © 3 Iscrizioni puniche della Tripolitana, 9-75; 84;91-96 4 W.Huss, in: Gnomon 61, 1989,

300-304 5J.M. ReyNoxps (ed.), The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, 1952. R. BIANCHI BANDINELLI et al., L.M., 1964; E.DE Miro,

G. FrorENTINI, L.M. La necropoli greco-punica sotto il teatro, in: Quaderni di Archeologia della Libia 9, 1977,

Apamea (188 BC), L. murdered their leader Cn. Octa-

5-75; M.FrLoriani

vius in Laodicea. L., who wished to justify his action before the Senate, went to Rome with a legation of Demetrius [7] I. The Romans did not punish L. out of

PELLEY, Les cités de l’Afrique romaine 2, 1981, 335-368;

political calculations

(Pol. 32,2(6)-3(7);

Diod.

Sic.

31,29; App. Syr. 46,239-47,243). WILL 2, 306ff.

A.ME.

SQUARCIAPINO,

L.M., 1966; C.LE-

R.REBUFFAT, s.v. L.M., DCPP, 257f.; P. ROMANELLI, L.M., 1925; E.SALZA PrinaA Rico7it, Le ville marittime di Silin (L.M.), in: RPAA 43, 1970/1, 135-163; M. TORELLI, Le Curiae di L.M., in: Quaderni di Archeologia della Libia 6, 1971, 105-111; J.B. WARD-PERKINS, A. Di Vita, Town Planning in North Africa, in: MDAI(R) Ergh. 25, 1982,

28-49 and pl. 12 (L.M. and Sabratha).

W.HU.

Leptis Magna (Aéntis peycdy, Léptis megalé, Punic

Lpqj) ({1. 39-48]). A. History

B. ARCHAEOLOGY

A. History

Originally settled by Phoenicians, the modern Lebda in Libya ([2. 36f., 74]; Sall. lug. 78,1; 4; Sil. Pun. 3,256;

Plin. HN 5,76?). Frequently given the epithet Megdlé/ Magna (‘great’), to differentiate it from Leptis Minor (Plin. HN 5,27; Ptol. 4,3,13; Stadiasmus maris magni 93; Sol. 27,8; Tab. Peut. 7,4; Procop. Aed. 6,4; Procop. Vand. 2,21,2; 13; 15; [5. no. 284]). Several Greek and

Roman authors call it Neapolis (Ps.-Scyl. roof.; Str. 17,3,18; Plin. HN 5,27; Dionys. Per. 205; Ptol. 4,3,13). So perhaps it was originally called Orthdst (‘NewTown’).

Leptis Magna (LM) developed into the most important city in Tripolitania, not least because of its trading

B. ARCHAEOLOGY Whilst only a few traces of Phoenician and PunicCarthaginian settlement are so far known [x], much survives of the almost extravagant structural layout of the city from the period of the Roman Empire. The port constructions (see fig. column 79/80) were extended under — Septimius Severus.

The magnificent ensemble of the Forum, > Basilica (fig.), the street of columns with triumphal arch and the Nymphaeum (see area map No.15, 14, 26, 27, 25),

which was extended under Septimus Severus, is entirely in the tradition of the Roman imperial Forum and is one of the highlights of Roman imperial architecture. In order to cope with the ambitious programme, workshops from Asia Minor (amongst others + Aphrodisias) were engaged, who ran their own schools in LM and significantly influenced the later imperial style of

421

422

LEPTIS

Mediterranean

REGIO TL

A

Ue Va

MAGNA

Sea

yf

REGIO

D

Mediterranean

Sea

ed AK 4

Leptis Magna

10°

ZS

see map above

Leptis Magna . Old Forum No =

Temple on the Old Forum (dedicated to Hercules?) Temple of Roma and Augustus Temple of Liber Pater Tripartita porticus

Byzantine basilica (church) Baptisterium

Curia

Ww ©ON A Basilica AD

. Neronian colonnade

21. Arch of Tiberius

. Pre-Severan lighthouse

. Byzantine wall

22. Arch of Trajan

. Suburban buildings

. Byzantine gate

23. Palaestra

. Hunting Baths

. Severan basilica

24. Hadrianic Baths

. Arch of Marcus Aurelius

. Severan Forum

25. Nymphaeum

. Late Roman wall

. Market

26. Severan Arch

. West gate

. Honorary Arch

27. Colonnaded Street

. Cisterns

. Porticus and Temple of the Dei Augusti

vetus

. Temple of Flavius

28. Temple of luppiter Dolichenus

. Tombs

29, Lighthouse

. Villa of the Nile

31. Temple of Serapis

. Circus/Amphitheatre

193 Theatre 20. Chalcidicum

32. Christian church

LEPTIS

424

MAGNA

West Mole

East Mole

South Mole

Leptis Magna, harbour (2nd —-3 rd cents. AD) 8 Colonnade 9 Remains of Temple of luppiter Dolichenus 10 Byzantine wall

4 Remains of temple 5 Lighthouse 6 Semaphore (tower)

1 Storehouses 2 ‘Neronian' colonnade

3 Pre-Severan lighthouse

7 Doric temple (with altar)

monumental architecture (acanthus capitals, foliage friezes, etc.). Characteristics of style and principles of figurative representation in late antiquity are succinctly realized for the first time in the attic reliefs on the arcus quadrifrons of Severus [2]. 1 T.H. Carter, Western Phoenicians at Lepcis Magna, in: AJA 69, 1965, 123-132 2V.M.Srrocka, Beobachtun-

gen an den Attikareliefs des severischen Quadrifrons yon Lepcis Magna, in: AntAfr 6, 1972, 147-172.

R. BartoccinI, Il porto romano di L.M., 1958; M. FLoRIANI SQUARCIAPINO, L.M., 1966; J.B. WARD-PERKINS et

al., The Severan Buildings of Lepcis Magna. An Architectural Survey, 1993; A. D1 Vira, L.M. Die Heimatstadt des Septimius Severus in Nordafrika, in: Antike Welt 27, 1996, 173-190.

Maps:

H.G.N.

M.FLoriaAni

S.RAVEN, Rome

SQUARCIAPINO,

L.M., 1966, 138F,;

in Africa, 31993; J.B. WARD-PERKINS,

A.D Vira, Town Planning in North Africa, in: MDAI(R) Ergh. 25, 1982, 29-49 with pl. 12.

Leptis

Minor

(Punic

Lpqj;

[1]). Founded

by the

Phoenicians on the east coast of Tunisia, the modern Lamta (Leptis, Sall. lug. 19,1; Leptis, Mela 1,34, Plin. HN 5,25; 763; Aéstic wixod, Ptol. 4,3,10; Aémtic fh wixod, Stadiasmus maris magni 113; Lepti minus civitas, Itin. Anton. 58,6; Lepteminus, Tab. Peut. 6,3; Leptis minus,

Geogr. Rav. 37,45; Tempu minus, Geogr. Rav. 88,44; Lepti minus, Guido 132,72; Lepti minus, CIL III Suppl. py Weahtstsy2)),

In the Libyan War (241-238 BC) the rebel > Mathus lost a battle at Leptis Minor (LM) (Pol. 1,87,7). > Hannibal [4] landed there in the year 203 BC (Liv. 30,25,11f.). In the Third > Punic War (149-146 BC)

LM went over to the side of the Romans ‘in good time’

425

426

(App. Lib. 94,446) and is thus counted among the populi leiberi in the lex agraria of 111 (1.79). During the dispute between > Caesar and the Pompeians (cf. Caes. Bell. Afr. 7; 9; 10; 293 61; 62; 63; 67) the city’s harbour played a significant role (ibid. 62,5; 63,1). On account of its partisanship for Caesar LM was also among the oppida libera during the Imperial period (Plin. HN 5,25). A procurator resident in LM was the head of a large regional administration. Archaeological remains exist from the Punic, late Punic, Roman and Byzantine periods. Inscriptions: CIL VIII 1,58; Suppl. 1,r1105; IIII4—-11132; 16543; Suppl. 1970, 633; AE 1989, 882.

4,22898-22905;

AE

1 P. ROMANELLI, in: Id. (ed.), In Africa e a Roma. Scripta

minora selecta, 1981, 39-48 (on the name). AATun 050, sheet 66, no. 7; N. BEN Lazrec, D.J. MartTINGLY, Leptiminus (Lamta). Report no. 1, 1992; H. DEsSAU, s.v. L.M., RE 12, 2076f. W.HU.

Lepton along with the adjective Aextéc/leptos signifies “peeled, thin, small’, a small coin or small nominal [1]. The lepton may possibly be identified with the ~ kodrantes known from the NT, or the prutot [2], the small coin of the Roman procurators of the Julio-Claudian period in Judaea, bearing the name of the emperor or governor, but without his image. Later metrologists equated the lepton to '/,...6000 of a talent = 1 > solidus. 1 LSJ s.v. Aextéc 6; II] 2 2 B.OverBeEck, Das Heilige Land. Antike Minzen und Siegel aus einem Jahrtausend jud. Geschichte, 1993, 89; no. 207-240. 3 SCHROTTER, Savalas 5 Ob: GE.S.

Lepus see > Hare; > Constellations Lerna (Aéevyn; Lérné, modern Myli). Settlement 40 stadia (c. 7 km) south of Argus with a sacred grove,

bordered by the rivers Pontinos in the north and Amymone in the south, with about a dozen rich springs, which are personified in the legend of the Lernaean — Hydra [1]. The lake to the west of the Argive Plain (the ‘Halcyonian Pool’, which was considered to be bottomless and the entrance to Underworld) has existed

since the Neolithic; it expanded in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, but became marshy. There is evidence for an important settlement on a hill south of the marsh since the Neolithic (fortification from the Early Helladic period), with a large palace-like building. This strip of coastline was in direct contact with the more developed cultures of the Cyclades and Minoan Crete. Sanctuary of Demeter Prosymna and Dionysus Saotes with the mystery cult of the > Lernaia, according to Apoll. Rhod. 3,1241f., also cult of Poseidon. References: Paus. 2515553 24523 366-3756; 8,1 5,93 Str. 8,6,2; 8; Plin. HN

4,17; Ptol. 3,16,22; Plut. Cleomenes 15,2; Aratus 39,2. Inscriptions: IG II* 3674; IV, 664-667; SEG 38, 312f.;

395 3533 41, 293bis; 42, 238; 286. G.Casapio,

Storia

del culto di Dionisio

in Argolide,

1994, 223-325; S. Dietz, The Argolid at the Transition to

LERNAEA

the Mycenaean Age, 1991, 285f.; A. FoLey, The Argolid 800-600 B.C., 1988, 44, 65, 185f.; N.-G. GEJVALL et al., L. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid I-III, 1969-1995; C. ZERNER, The Beginning of the Middle Helladic Period at L., 1986. Nae

Lernaea (Agovaia; Lernaia). A celebration of the mysteries of > Demeter and > Dionysus Bugenes in Argive ~— Lerna, where both deities were honoured in a cult community (Paus. 2,36,7; 37,1), documented in litera-

ture and inscriptions [2. 290]. The mythical founder of the Lernaea was Philammon (Paus. 2,37,2). At the festival, an > epiphany of tauromorphic Dionysus took place from the lake next to the sacred grove; it was triggered by trumpet signals and the drowning sacrifice of a lamb for the god of the underworld, who was here called Pylaochos. The trumpets were hidden in thyrsus bundles (Plut. De Is. et Os. 35; Mor. 364f). Since the celebration evoked the myth of the Titans and the death by dismembering of — Osiris (ibid.), Dionysus was probably earlier sacrificed in the form of a bull. According to an aetiological myth, > Perseus killed Dionysus and threw him into the lake of Lerna

(Schol. Il. T.

14,319). The Argives fetched the sacrificial fire for the Lernaia from the sanctuary of > Artemis Pyronia on Mount Krathis in Achaia (Paus. 8,15,9). The epiphany of the bull god rising from the lake with > Semele (schol. Lycoph. 212) was obviously staged by masked initiates, who symbolically died in a ritual submersion in the lake and then painted their faces with gypsum. Round dances around the altars by masked festival participants of both sexes are described by Nonnus, who records the aetiological myth of this custom (Nonnus, Dion. 47,732¢f.). The Demeter worshipped in Lerna bore the epithet Prosymnia (Paus. 2,37,1). The epithet recurs in the figure of the hero Prosymnus (or Polymnus), who showed Dionysus the way into the underworld, when the latter descended to the Hades through the Alcyonian lake in order to lead his mother Semele back up (Paus. 2,37,5). In the myth, the god vowed to submit himself sexually to the Prosymnus on his return, but only fulfilled his promise symbolically with the bough ofa fig tree (Clem. Al. Protreptikos 34,3-4; cf. schol. Lycoph. 212). This can be interpreted as the reflection of a ritualized paederastic act: after their bath in the lake, youths performed an imaginary sexual change in the role of Dionysus, then copulated with an artificial phallus and after this symbolic self-humiliation achieved adult status. The simultaneous sacrifice of the Dionysus bull was a representative act, which granted the baptism and the change in social status of the initiates the symbolic validity of death. In addition, the rite was prefigured in the mythological prehistory of the cult centre by the collective beheading of the fifty sons of Aegyptus, whose heads were flung into Lake Lerna by Danaus (— Danaus, Danaids) (Zenob. Cent. 4,86; Apost. Cent. 10,57; Apollod. 2,1,5). Their mythological reinterpretation were the heads of the > Hydra (Str. 8,6,8), which lived

427

428

in the lake, that > Hercules had struck off (Diod. Sic. 4,11,5; Apollod. 2,5,2; Paus. 2,37,4). According to Paus. 2,24,2, only the headless bodies of the Aegyptids are buried in Lerne. In the cultic context of the Lernaia, the role of Kore

cient main settlement lay near the modern Kastro on the eastern side of the island, where building remains, graves and an aqueduct are preserved near Agia Marina. A third site of ruins is in the south near Xirokambos, where a tower from the 4th cent. BC was probably used by the Milesians to monitor the sea traffic. L. remained settled in the Byzantine period. To the west of L. lies the small island of Kinaros, a place of

LERNAEA

returning from the underworld was transferred to Semele [2. 287], which represented the girls becoming adults ( Persephone), for the abduction of Kore to the —» Hades was located nearby (Paus. 2,36,7). From this it can be concluded that the initiation of the ephebes at the Lernaia was ritually linked to a change in status of the adolescent girls at the same time. Their mythic projection were the fifty daughters of Danaus (> Danaus, Danaids), to whom the Argives ascribed the introduc-

tion of the mystery rites of Demeter Thesmophoros (Hdt. 2,171). Poseidon showed the Danaid > Amymone

the sources of Lake Lerna (Aesch. Amymone,

TrGF 3, p. 131 RapT). This foundation aition assumes a dry period in summer

(Paus. 2,15,5). Therefore, the

common festival of Demeter and Dionysus probably did not take place in the fall, but in high summer, i.e. at the early rising of Sirius, when the season of the grain

exile in Roman

times. References: Str. 10,5,12; Plin.

HN 5,133; Stadiasmus maris magni 273ff.; Eust. in Dionys. Per. 530; Inscription: SEG 4,750-752. MAMI

es Ole Sinn

ai

G.E. BEAN,J.M. Cook, The Carian Coast 3, in: ABSA 52, 1957, 58-146, esp. 134f.;J.L. BENson, Ancient L. (GRBS Monographs 3), 1963; L. BURCHNER, Die Insel L., 1898; Id., s.v. L., RE 12, 2094-2098; G. GEROLA, Monumenta medioevali delle tredici Sporadi, in: ASAA 2, 1916, 6rff.; R. Hope Simpson, J.F. LazenBy, Notes from the Dodecanese, in: ABSA 65, 1970, 47-77; H. KALETSCH, s.v. L.,

in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 383-385; PHILIPPSON/ KirSTEN 4, 28o0ff.; TH. WIEGAND

et al., Milet 2,1, 1921,

224ff.

H.KAL. and E.MEY.

harvest, represented by Demeter, ended and the advent

of Dionysus occurred with the beginning opora. + Argolis; + Mysteries 1K.MEutl, s.v. L., RE 24, 2089-2093 2 NILsson, Feste, 287-290 3 M.Piérart, La mort de Dionysos a Argos, in: R. HAGe (ed.), The Role of Rel. in the Early

Greek Polis, 1996, 141-51.

GB.

Lernus (Aéovoc; Lérnos). [1] Aetolian, father of Palaemonius

the Argonaut, whose real father was considered to be Hephaestus (Apoll. Rhod. 1,202ff.). [2] Argive, son of Proetus, father of Naubolus, Argonaut (Apoll. Rhod. 1,135). [3] In

a

euhemeristic

interpretation

of Heracles’

~ Hydra adventure king in the region of Lerna, whose castle ‘Hydra’ was set on fire by the hero (Palaephatus 38).

Lesbonax (Acofdvak; Lesbénax). [1] Greek grammarian, dates uncertain (perhaps before the end of the 2nd cent. AD). Author of a work on rhetorical figures (Iegi oynuatwy; Peri schématon) that is extant in two different excerpts (there is no basis for equating him with the orator L. of Mytilene). In it, L. describes a series of grammatical peculiarities (schemata, ‘figures’), i.e. changes in the normal form of speech, which are demonstrated with examples primarily from Homer. There is no Atticist influence at all: the principal sources are certainly ancient Homer commentaries. In fact, frequent parallels to the scholia that have been preserved can be shown. EpiT1ons:

D.L. BLank,

in: SGLG

7, 1988,

129-216

(with bibliography).; BIBLIOGRAPHY: 2104.

K. AULITZKY, s.v. L. (2), RE 12, 2103F.M.

CW.

Leros (Aéooc; Léros). Island of the Dodecanese, off the coast of Asia Minor, between Patmos and Kalymnos, 53,5 km7in extent. Its coast has several bays and coastal plains that extend deep into the interior of the island. According to Str. 10,5,19, L. and its neighbour > Calymna were included in the Kalydnai nésoi (Hom. Il. 2,677). The island, which has kept its ancient name until today, was already settled in the early Bronze Age (potsherds near Parthenium). There is a Mycenaean fortress in the north on the Kastro above the bay of Alinda. From the beginning of the 5th cent. BC at the latest, L. was Milesian, a demos of Miletus (Str. 14,1,6; Hdt. 5,125). The ‘Milesians of Leros’ belonged to the + Delian League with a tribute of 3 talents [x]. There are minimal remains of a sanctuary probably of Artemis Parthenos near Parthenium in the north of L. The an-

[2] Rhetor from Mytilene, 2nd cent. AD (?), probably descended from the Augustan philosopher Lesbonax, father of + Potamon, hardly the addressee of + Apollonitus [14] of Tyana’s letters 22 and 6r. L.’s 16 ‘Political Speeches’ (Logoi politikoi), read by Photius (Cod. 74, 52a 22-23, incomplete), may have included the three speeches preserved from the 13th cent. in the Crippsianus codex (BM Burneianus 95). One of them can be dated to the sth cent. BC (413?) from its context, another can be dated to the 4th cent. BC because of the imitation of the language of Isocrates Platatk6s (Isoc. Or. 14). Arethas (schol. Lucian. De saltatione 69) still knew of love letters (Erotikai epistolat) F.KreHr, Lesbonactis sophistae quae supersunt, 1907; E.RicnTsteic, Bericht uber die Lit. zur sog. Zweiten Sophistik ... aus den Jahren 1915-1925, in: Bursians Jb. 211, 1927, 48. E.BO.

429

430

[3] Philosopher from Mytilene (rst cent. BC) whose school of thought is unknown. Father of the rhetor + Potamon. Author of numerous (lost) philosophical works (Suda A 307; 3,252,17 and m 2127; 4,181,295 cf. [1]). Both were honoured on Lesbos in inscriptions and on coins. 1K. AvuLitzkys's. v. Ea(«), RE o2.2m02 f,

T.D.

Lesbos (Aéofoc; Lésbos, Lat. Lesbus; Hittite Lazba). A. GEOGRAPHY

B. ARCHAIC

PERIOD

C. CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC PERIODS D. ROMAN IMPERIAL PERIOD E. CULTURAL NIFICANCE

SIG-

A. GEOGRAPHY Island in the north-eastern Aegean, with an area extent of 1,630 km’ the third-largest Greek island after Crete and Euboea. Characteristic topographical features are two bays that extend deep into the interior of the island: in the south the Gulf of Hiero (modern Yera), in the west the Gulf of Pyrrha (modern Kalloni). The highest elevations are Lepetymnos (838 m) in the north, Ordymnos (646 m) in the north-west, Olympos (968 m) in the south-west. The south-east of the island is rich in water and fertile, the north and west are volcanic and bare. Agricultural production was mainly of olives, along with wine and grain, even today olive trees are a Salient feature of the island’s scenery. B. ARCHAIC PERIOD In the r4th—-13th cents. BC, L. (Lazba) belonged to the Luwian state — Séha, which included the Caicus and Hermus valleys. Numerous settlement sites are attested for the Early Bronze Age. The most important one is Thermi on the eastern coast near Mytilene with five settlement sites dating from c. 3000 BC until the 13th cent. BC. During this time L. came more and more under the influence of Aeolian settlers, who had probably come from central Greece (Thessalia, Boeotia). L. is mentioned several times in the Homeric epics (as in Hom. Il. 9,129; 271; 664f.: women from L.; Hom. Il. 2.4,543ff.: L. belongs to the kingdom of Priamus). The Aeolian settlers founded a number of cities: > Antissa, + Eresus, > Pyrrha as well as > Mytilene and > Methymna. The latter two played a leading role among the Lesbian cities and at the same time were rivals. Mytilene and Methymna also took part in the colonization in the Troad (Sigeum) and the Thracian Chersoneus (Aenus). Mytilene also participated in the installation of the Hellenion in Naucratis in Egypt (Hdt. 2,178). On the whole of L. the 7th and early 6th cents. BC appear to have been marked by social tensions and internal conflicts between rivalling groups of nobility. Detailed information however, is only available for Mytilene (mainly about the tyrannis of — Pittacus; cf. Alc. fr. 20; 215 32;

374A; 37B; 493 80ff.; 92).

LESBOS

C. CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC PERIODS Temporarily under — Polycrates of Samos

(Hdt.

353954), L. was under Persian control after about 545

BC, from which it unsuccessfully tried to liberate itself by taking part in the > Ionian Revolt (Hdt. 6,8; 31,1). After the end of the > Persian Wars, L. was a member of the + Delian League with the privilege of being allowed to supply ships instead of paying tribute (Thuc. 1,19; 259553 56523 755755). Lhe > Peloponnesian War marked the beginning of a period of changing alliances for the Lesbian cities. In 428 BC, Mytilene initiated a revolt against Athens, in which all Lesbian cities took part apart from Methymna and which Athens punished severely (loss of autonomy, settlement of Attic + klerotichoi; Thuc. 3,2,1ff.; 5,1; 18,1f.; 3,50,2£.). In

412 BC there was another attempt to secede (Thuc. 8,5,2; 22,1ff.). In 405 BC it joined Sparta; in 389 BC ~+ Thrasybulus successfully pushed for L. to become Athenian again (Xen. Hell. 4,8,28ff.) and it also became a member of the second > Athenian League (IG II* 40; 42). From about 350 BC, many Lesbian cities were governed by tyrants well disposed towards the Persians. In 334 BC these were disposed of by Alexander the Great and after a renewed Persian intermezzo (Mem-

non) their rule was finally ended through Macedonian intervention (Arr. Anab. 2,1,1ff.; 13,3; 3,2,4ff.). During the wars of the > Diadochi, L. belonged first to the kingdom of > Antigonus [1], then to > Lysimachus

and from 221 BC at the latest to the Ptolemies. After 200 BC, the Lesbian cities, especially Mytilene, supported the Roman expansion eastwards (Liv. 37,12,5). This led to the foundation of a Lesbian ~ koinon with a centre of cult worship in Messon, which lasted until the Imperial period. Antissa’s support for — Perseus in the third > Macedonian War led to the destruction of the city in 167 BC and the resettlement of the inhabitants to Methymna (Liv. 45,31,14; Plin. HN 5,139). Rome responded to the co-operation with > Mithridates VI (88 BC, Diod. Sic. 37,37; Vell. Pat. 2,18,3; App. Mith. 52) with the conquest of Mytilene (79 BC, Liv. Per. 89; Suet. Iul. 2). Because of his friendship with Theophanes of Mytilene, Pompey managed to regain the city its freedom in 62 BC (Plut. Pompey 42,4; Vell. Pat. 2,18,3; Str. 13,2,3). The alli-

ance formed afterwards was renewed by Caesar in 45 BE D. ROMAN IMPERIAL PERIOD

In the Imperial period, L. was a popular residence of well-known Romans. As insula nobilis et amoena, Tacitus considered it to be too comfortable (Ann. 6,3,3) for a place of exile. Around AD 160 destruction by an earthquake (Aristid. 49,3 8ff.). Bishops resided in Mytilene, Methymna and Eresus from the 5th cent. AD.

E. CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE The impulses that went out from L. were important for ancient intellectual life: from — Sappho and —> Al-

431

432

caeus [4] for lyric poetry, from — Hellanicus [1] and

6 F.BECHTEL, Die histor. PN des Griech. bis zur Kaiserzeit, 1917 7 A.Rzacu, s.v. Kyklos, RE 11, 2410-2422

LESBOS

> Phaenias for historiography, from > Theophrastus, student of Aristotle, for philosophy. Literary fame was also attained by > Longus with his romantic novel ‘Daphnis and Chloe’ (— Novel), also an important source for the topography of L. during the Imperial period. There are only a few ancient remains on the entire island. — Aeolian P. Brun, Les Lagides a L., in: ZPE 85, 1991, 99-113; H.G. BucHHoLz, Methymna, 1975; P.M. Green, L. and the Cities of Asia Minor, 1984; R. KoLDEWEY, Die ant. Bau-

reste der Insel L., 1890; W. GUNTHER, s.v. L., in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 385-388; $. MAZZARINO, Per la storia di L. nel VI secolo a.C., in: Athenaeum 21, 1943, 38ff.; H.P1sTORIUS, Beitrage zur Geschichte von L. im 4. Jh., 1913; C. and W. WititaMs, Excavations at Mytilene 1990, in: Echos du monde classique 35, 1991, 175-191. H.SO.

Lesche (Aéoxn; /ésché). An architectural structure, be-

longing to the category of Greek > assembly buildings, where citizens met for negotiations, transactions and discussions (the term /esche is derived from the Greek

Neya/légo, ‘to speak/to talk’); usually located in the vicinity of the > agora or — as a consecrated building — in sanctuaries, and, especially in the latter location, occasionally serving as a hostel. The lesche of the Cnidians at Delphi (> Delphi), described in Paus. ro,15ff., a long, rectangular hall structure with eight internal columns, was celebrated for the panel paintings by — Polygnotus (> Painting) located there; these have now disappeared, but survive through Pausanias’ description, at least thematically and in their artistic structure. M. Maass, Das ant. Delphi, 1993, 178-180.

C.HO.

8 WEHRLI, Schule 9, fr. 33 9 U.Sinn, Die Homer. Becher, in: MDAI(A), 7. suppl., 1979 10 M. Davies, Proiegomena and Paralegomena to a New Ed. (with Commentary) of the Fragments of Early Greek Epic, in: Nachr. der Akad. der Wiss. in Gottingen, Philol.-histor. Klasse, 2,

1986, 91-111. Further lit. under > Epic Cycle.

fee,

Leschides (Agoyidnc; Leschidés). Hellenistic epic poet who participated in the campaigns of king > Eumenes [3] Il Soter (197-159 BC) and may have praised his Galatian war. L. was a ‘very well-known’ poet and a contemporary of the painter Pythias and the physician Menander (Suda III, 254, 4-5 = SH 503). K. ZIEGLER, Das hell. Epos, *1966, 17-18.

S.FO.

Lessa (Afjooa; Léssa). Village on the Argolian Acte on the border to Epidaurus, presumably near modern Ligurio, with Athena sanctuary. Literary evidence: Paus.

2,25,10;

26,1. Inscriptions:

IG IV, 906-912;

1611. A.FRICKENHAUS, W.MUtier, Aus der Argolis, in: MDAI(A) 36, 1911, 30; R.L. SCRANTON, The Pottery

from the Pyramids, in: Hesperia 7, 1938, 537.

AL.

Lesura Left-hand tributary of the Moselle (Auson. Mos. 365), which flows into the Moselle near Bernkastel, modern Lieser. L. or Lesora is the name of a moun-

tain in the Cevennes, modern Lozére (Sid. Apoll. Carm. 24,44; cf. Plin. HN 11, 240), Lesuros (Hecat. FGrH 1 F 48) a river on the east coast of Spain. There is also a Lieser in Carinthia (Austria). F. CRAMER, s.v. L., RE 12, 2138; L. WEISGERBER, Erlau-

Lesches (Agoync; Léschés in Paus. also Agoyews; Lés-

cheos: probably an individual error [5. 31"]). Aristotle’s student > Phaenias of Eresus [8. 18 fr. 33] introduced the name of this early epic poet, supposedly from Pyrrha (Lesbos), who lived before > Terpander and is purported to have confronted — Arctinus in a poetry agon. First named as the author of the > Ilids mikrd on Homeric goblets ([9. MB 27 and 31]; 3rd/2nd cents. BC) and thereafter frequently by scholiasts and mythographers (by Paus. as author of the > Ilfou Pérsis): passages in [7. 2420f.]. The name was not necessarily derived from — lésche (htoyn/lésché, ‘community hall’) [3.254f.] - a short form (such as Aéoyoc/Léschos, Agoxeds/Lescheds, etc. for Aeoxayooac; Leschagoras [6. 277f.], for example) is also possible —, but there have been grave doubts about the historical existence of L. since WILAMOWITZ [4. 344-51] (cf. Davies, > Epic cycle). 1PEGI 2EpGr. 3F.G. Wetcxer, Der ep. Cyclus, *I, 1865 4U.v. WiLtamMowitz-MOELLENDORFF, Homer.

Unt. (Der epische Cyclus), 1884, 328-380. 5 J. WACKERNAGEL, Beitrage zur Lehre vom Griech. Akzent, 1893

terungen zur Karte der rémerzeitlich bezeugten rheinischen Namen, in: Rheinische Vierteljahresblatter 23, 1958, 15.

RA.WI.

Lete (Ant); Lété). Strategically located city in > Macedonia/Mygdonia near modern Liti, minted coins already before the city became Macedonian in the 5th cent. BC [1. 67-72]. In the 4th cent. BC recognized as a city within Macedonia (SEG 36,3311. 19), L. kepta cult site for Demeter [2. 44 no. 123]. Asan autonomous Macedonian city L. received Delphian theodroi (‘envoys’) in the 3rd cent. [3. 18 l. 73], as part of the Roman province Macedonia, L. honoured the quaestor M. Annius in 117 BC because of his aid against marauding Celts (Syll.3 700), but was obviously still threatened in the rst cent. BC (Sall. Hist. 1, fr. 133; fr. 13.4). In the Roman Imperial period (Plin. HN 4,36; Prtol. 3,12,33) L. enjoyed enough prosperity to be able to afford a new city gate [4. no. 678] and a gymnasium with ephebeia (SEG 1, 276). 1 H. Gaesier, Die ant. Mz. Nordgriechenlands 3,2, 1935 2M.B.

Hatzopoutos,

Cultes et rites de passage

en

434

515), Macédoine, 1994, 51sf. 3 A. PLassartT, La liste des théorodoques, in: BCH 45,1921 4M.G. Drmirsas, ‘H Maxedovia

év AiWois POeyyopévots xal uvypeiors ombope-

votc, 1896.

F.PapazocLou,

Les villes de Macédoine,

1988, 213f. MA.ER.

Lethaeus (An@atoc; Léthaios). [1] Left-hand tributary of the > Peneius in north-west Thessalia, flows through - Tricca (Paus. 14,139), modern Trikkalinos. F.STAHLIN,

Das

hellenische

Thessalien,

1924,

121.

HE.KR. [2] River in southern Crete, which flows through + Gortyn from north to south (Str. 10,4,11), modern

Mitropolianos. H.SO. [3] Right-hand tributary of the > Maeander (river god: coins of Magnesia), originates on the Pactyes by Ephesus, flows past Magnesia (Str. 12,3,27; 14,1,39; Ath.

15,683c [Nicander]), as the Derbeni cay: it partially flooded the archaeological excavations (agora with Zeus-Sosigenes temple among others). J. Ket, s.v. Paktyes (1), RE 18, 2440; Magnesia am Maander, 1904, sheet I.

Lethe see

C. HUMANN et al., H.KA.

> Underworld

Lethus (Af@0c; Léthos). Pelasgian, son of Teutamus, father of - Hippothous [2] (Hom. Il. 17,288) and

Pylaeus. Both sons were commanders of Pelasgian troops from Larisa (Hom. Il. 2,840ff.). Since the name L. is reminiscent of the underground place of Lethe, it is reasonable to assume that there was a connection between this mythical person and the Underworld. 1 P. WATHELET, Dictionnaire des Troyens de I’Iliade, vol. 1, 1988, no. 170 and 207. FR.P.

Leto (Anta; Léto). Daughter of the Titans > Coeus and

-» Phoebe (Hes. Theog. 405). She gives birth to Zeus’ twins > Apollo and > Artemis and appears closely connected to them from Homer (Il. 5,447; 20,39f.). However, the birth of Apollo is closely linked to > Delos, while that of Artemis is also linked to + Ephesus. In both cases, the myth speaks of Hera’s hostility which forces L. to make a long journey and delays the birth. On Delos, the floating island, where L. is finally accepted after she promises to moor the island, palm and olive trees are shown to which the goddess clung during labour (Hom. h. Apoll. 25-126; Callim. H. 4). Moreover, in Ephesus, the newborns are said to have been protected by the dancing — Curetes (Str. 14,1,20). After Xanthus in Lycia had become an important centre of cult worship with a Letoon (L. sanctuary), it became part of this complex of myths through the legend that L. had fled there with the newborns (Antoninus Liberalis 35; Ov. Met. 6,337f.). L.’s other myths also connect her

LETO

to her children: When the giant — Tityus tries to violate her on the way to Delphi, he is killed by the siblings (Pind. Pyth. 4,90; Apollod. 1,23) and punished by Zeus in the Underworld (Hom. Od. 11,576-581). The myth was localized on Euboea for etiological reasons (Str. 9,3,14). L.’s children also take revenge on > Niobe, who feels superior to L. as the mother of two times seven children; the myth that is the aition of a rock formation at > Sipylus is (secondarily?) connected with Thebes (since Hom. Il. 24,602-617, extensively Ov. Met. 6,148-312). The close bond with the children is attested by the cult. L. is usually present in the sanctuaries of Apollo and Artemis (beginning with Hom. Il. 5,445-447; the fact that L. appears unusually as a healing goddess here probably goes hand in hand with her characterization as ‘mild’, meilichos, and ‘gentle’, épios, agandtatos, in Hes. Theog. 408). The bond is represented pictorially as early as the sphyrelata (> Sphyrelaton) from the Apollo sanctuary on Drerus [1] from the 7th cent. BC. L. appears to have been more important in archaic Greece than later on. In Homeric texts, she stands besides — Zeus almost as a principal wife (Hom. h. Apoll. 204206; cf. Hom. Il. 21,498; Od. 11,580), and on Delos the Letoon of the pre-classical period stands out as an impressive sacred district set apart by a processional street lined with archaic temples and lions [2; 3]. L.’s own cults connect her with the initiation of young men (L. Phytia in Phaestus: Antoninus Liberalis 17 [4]) or young girls (agon on Chios [5]). Correspondingly, she is — Kourotrophos and can be called upon in the wedding song for the couple to become blessed with children (Theoc. 18,50). L. is of greater individual significance in Asia Minor, where she represents the > Interpretatio Graeca of several Anatolian goddesses. As such, she frequently carries the epiclesis Meter (‘mother’) in Lydia and Phrygia. A centre of cult worship is > Caunus in Caria, where she is closely linked to the cult of Roma and > the ruler cult; this points to her political significance [6]. Of central importance, however, is the Letoon in > Xanthus in Lycia. Here, the indigenous goddess is simply named ‘mistress/mother of this precinct’, according to the epichoric inscriptions. In the late 6th cent. BC she is superseded by L. As federal sanctuary of the Lycians and, in the Imperial period, also the centre of the ruler cult, the Letoon is the political and religious centre of Lycia (> Lycii). Correspondingly, L. gave her name to the people because she was guided by wolves (Greek lykos) to Xanthus (Antoninus Liberalis 3 5). Her transfiguration into a she-wolf, however, is also linked to Delphi (Aristot. Hist. an. 6,3 5,580a 18; Ael. NA 10,26)

and is related to Apollo’s epiclesis Lycius [7; 8]. In Rome, L. is as > Latona closely connected to Apollo and Diana as early as in the 4th cent. BC: this triad opens the first > lectisternium of 399 BC (Liv. 5,13,6) and is cultically present in the oldest temple of Apollo near the Marcellus theatre as well as in the Augustan temple on the Palatine [9]. Frequently Latona

435

436

also stands besides Apollo on her own; thus, she re-

the name is found on inscriptions and in Xen. Hell.

ceives her sacrifice at the first Iudi Apollinares (Liv. 25,12,13) [10]. The form of the name with vocalism and Italic suffix indicates the early adaptation of L. from the Doric region of southern Italy, while the Etruscan form Letun goes back to the Attic-Ionian name.

4,2,16 in MSS Agégivot (Ledrinoi).

LETO

1 V.LAMBRINOUDAKIS, s.v. Apollon, LIMC 2.1, 265, no.

658

2H.GALLET DE SANTERRE, La terrasse des lions, le

Létdon et le monument

de granit a Délos (Exploration

archéologique de Délos 24) 1959, 37-72 3 PH. BRUNEAU, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos a l’@poque hellénistique et al’époque impériale, 1970, 208-210

4 D.Ler1rao, The

Perils of Leucippus. Initiatory Transvestism and Male Gender Ideology in the Ekdysia at Phaistos, in: Classical Antiquity 14, 1995, 130-163

5 GRAF, 60-62

6L.Ro-

BERT, Etudes archéologiques et épigraphiques, 1966, 116 7H. Metzeer et al., La stéle trilingue du Lét6on (Fouilles de Xanthos 6), 1979 8T.R. Pryce, The Arrival of the Goddess L. in Lycia, in: Historia 32, 1983, I-13 9 G. Wissowa, Rel. und Kultus der Romer, *1912, 294f. 10 J. Gac£, Apollon Romain, 1955, 161f.

F. WenRLI,

s.v.

L., RE

N.IcARD-GIANOLIO,

Suppl.

s.v.

L.,

5, 55-576; LIMC

6.1,

L. Kant, 256-264;

I. KRausKopF, s.v. Letun, LIMC 6.1, 264-267; G. BERGER-DokR, s.v. Latona, LIMC 6.1, 267-272. E.G.

Letopolis (Antots mohc; Létots polis). City at the south-western tip of the Nile delta, Egyptian (S)hm, modern Ausim (north-west of Kairo), main city of the 2nd Lower Egyptian district. The main god of L. was the falcon-shaped god of heaven (M)hntj-jrtj, who loses and regains his eyes at sunrise and sunset (sun and moon) and thereby symbolizes the daily cycle of the sun. Later he was identified with Haroeris. The sacred animals of the God of L. were mainly the > ichneumon and the > shrew-mouse (numerous bronze figures are extant, cf. Hdt. 2,141). Furthermore, a cult form of the goddess Hathor was worshipped who was also regarded as the eye of the sun and was therefore equated with the snake crown (uraeus) and the snake-shaped crown goddess Uto (Greek > Leto). The significance of L. appeared to have always been more religious than administrative or economic. Despite its frequent mention in religious texts, there are very few archaeological finds; all of them from the late Egyptian period (after 713 BC). In Christian times, L. was an episcopal see. The occasional identification of L. with > Papremis (Hdt. 2,59; 63; 713 3,12) is highly doubtful. F. GomaA, s.v. L., LA 3, roo9—11; H. Kegs, s.v. L., RE 12, 2146f.; A.B. Ltoyp, Herodotus, Book II, vol. 2: Commentary 1-98, 1976, 270-2.

K.J.-W.

Letrini (Aetetvou; Letrinoi). Village on the road from Elis to Olympia with a sanctuary of Artemis Alpheiaia, to the north of > Alpheius [1], localized near modern Pirgos or further west, near the village of Agios Joannis. In Pausanias’ time it only consisted of few remaining houses. References: Paus. 6,22,8-11; Xen. Hell. 3,2,25; 303 4,2,16; Lycophr. Alexandra 54. The local form of

F. CarIncl, s.v. Elide 1, EAA’, 447f.; E.MEYER, s.v. L.,

RE Suppl. 11, 876.

ras,

Letter A. TYPES OF LETTER B. THE LETTER AS A MEDIUM OF COMMUNICATION C. MATERIAL AND FORM D. HisTORY OF LETTER-WRITING

A. TYPES OF LETTER In addition to the few texts on letter theory and letter writers (> Epistolography), the ancient genre of ‘letters’ comprises the following: 1. official letters (edicts) comparable to laws, 2. everyday official correspondence, 3. ‘open’ letters akin to oratory a) with one or several senders and multiple addressees (e.g. letters to the Christian community) or b) letters sent to a specific addressee that had a potentially broad public, and finally 4. letters of a private nature between individuals. In principle, such private correspondence should be distinguished a priori from letters meant for literary publication, such as 5. didactic letters, 6. literary letters in prose (Pliny and his followers) or verse (Horace, Ovid’s exile poetry) and 7. a) model letters (rhetorical prosopopoeia) surviving as pseudoepigrapha, particularly b) when the author is not identical with the sender (Ovid’s

Heroides). A special case is presented by 8. introductory letters of dedication. Category 6 is related to 4, being on a par with the educated stylized private letter. In this case again, after the pattern of Cicero and Pliny [1. 391395], one can assume that letters were composed for later, as a rule posthumous, publication, for instance as

a model of style. The ancient literary letter remains a precarious genre in antiquity [2. 34, 44f.], indiscreet (in reference to the addressee) and immodest (in reference to the sender). In accordance with the pre-eminence of the ‘true’ private letter, the letter does not figure in the ancient system of genres. In any case, the still widely held concept of a dichotomy between the (true) letter and the (artificial) epistle should be avoided. This idea exaggerates the different level of expression and style, as well as the potential intent of publishing the letter, as a difference in category, in group 4 (important: [3. 1— To]). B. THE LETTER AS A MEDIUM OF

COMMUNICATION A) As understood by modern sociology, the letter counts among the ‘genres of everyday communication’, ‘actions, in which actors orient themselves as early as at the draft stage toward to an overall pattern, ... overall patterns ... (that) have become integral to the social reservoir of knowledge’ [5. zo1f., cf. 203]. The letter is propagated as written word, not only in imitation of everyday patterns, but seems to have been taught at the various levels of instruction since approximately the rst cent. BC [6. 6f.]: on an elementary level for the guid-

437

438

ance of letter-writers [cf. 7], on a higher level, as concerns ‘philophronetic’ stylizing (cf. Demetrius, De elocutione 231). The functional categorizing of the types of letter as a series which is neither completely closed nor infinite — the letter-writer’s guide of Ps.-Demetrius counts 21 — ensues both from the condicio humana and from social development [cf. 8. 1327-1329; 9; I. 395— 400; 10. 1, 9-15]. According to the ‘types of letters’ [4. 68-75, 95-102], the following literary intentions

Private letters were sent by messenger or were entrusted to acquaintances who happened to be travelling on. Delivery risks were a pertinent issue, and important messages were therefore generally entrusted to the messenger orally. For the imperial state postal service (> cursus publicus, Postal services) cf. [14], for storage of the originals as documents or for possible later publication [2. 139-145]. — Letter; > Epistle

can be assigned; 1. to describe, or better, convey infor-

mation, 2. to assess, 3. to request, and 4. to make contact: 1. the function of narrare or absentes certiores facere (for Cicero’s genera usitata epistularum cf. e.g. [3. 27-38]), business letters, receipts, etc., 2. praise and criticism, congratulations, accusation, defence and selfjustification, 3. contracts and orders (mandare), warn-

ing, counsel and invitation, and finally, letters of recommendation (litterae commendaticiae), 4. letters to friends and family. B) If the formula (address, introduction and complimentary close) corresponds to social and intellectualhistorical development in its progression from simple to more complicated, including Christianized, forms [11; 12. 28-74], from communication among equals to the ceremonial of late antiquity, then certain forms of thematic expression [1. 400-405] develop for the body of the letter. Such forms are formulas, topoi and stylistic rules [8. 1328-1332; 10.1, 20-25; for specifically Christian letters 12. 77-125], the more so for the literary private letter (a. 4.). The latter, decidedly not considered as belonging to the public arena, is succinctly understood as conversation between absent parties, insofar as it is an expression of the personality of the sender and is at the same time appropriate to the situation and especially to the addressee. The digressions about epistolatory style in Ps.-Demetrius and > Iulius Victor, cf. also [2. 27-41, 43-72; 9. 186; 6. 12-14; 1. 383-390, 417f.] are a move in this direction. Brevity and clarity are expected, the style should maintain a balance between elevated language and a down-toearth conversational tone. Lengthy sentences, artistic figures of speech, unusual words and inappropriate learnedness should be avoided, weaving proverbs and quotes into the text is recommended, for example, the goal being unostentatious elegance. C. MATERIAL AND FORM Correspondence was usually written on wooden tablets (> Writing tablets, SéAtoc/déltos, tabella), which could be returned with the reply (Prop. 3,23), later on papyrus (BtBAov/biblion, charta), also on clay fragments (> Ostrakon), cf. [10. 1, 69-74]. The date was found at the end, i.e. on the inside of the scroll, the address on the outside. In the case of authors like Cicero, who valued preservation, the rough draft was transcribed in clear copy by scribe-slaves, in multiple copies to ensure its survival. Copying in one’s own hand meant a special value was placed on it. During the Imperial period, composition by dictation also increased.

LETTER

NOTES

AND

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

see D.2

PES:

D. HIsTORY OF LETTER-WRITING 1. NEAR EASTAND EGYPT 2. GREECE AND ROME

1. NEAR EAST AND EGyPT The letter as means of communication is attested in cuneiform from the 3rd millennium BC until into the 6th—sth cents. BC. The letters were sent most commonly by messenger in the form of clay tablets and illustrate more or less variable modes of address and greeting typical of the particular period and region [8]. These letters are 1. (short) instructions in the area of state administration and economic organization [7. 393; 2],

2. official correspondence on political or economic administration and 3. private writings, frequently dealing with business matters. Correspondence between states is attested, for example, by the ancient Babylonian letters from — Mari, the Hittite letters from > Hattusa and the > Amarna letters (14th cent. BC.) [7. n. 5, 6]. Letters from Nineveh (8th-7th cents. BC) tell of prob-

lems at the Assyrian court and matters of internal and external politics [7. n. 5]. The composition of letters belonged to the school curriculum [5]. Royal correspondence of the end of the 3rd and early 2nd millennia BC has been handed down in literature [7. n. 10], as has

the genre of the Sumerian and Akkadian letters to deities [7. n. 7] and other fictitious letters. In Egypt, letters of official, private and literary character with the corresponding salutation formulas have been attested from about 2300 BC (on papyrus and ostraca). There are collections of model letters from the domain of education and letters to the dead, especially on clay pots found in tombs [3]. The OT (Book of — Ezra) gives examples of the chancellery correspondence of the Achaemenids. The Aramaic letters of the satrap > Arsames sent from Babylon, or Susa to Egypt, between 410 and 407 BC, deal with the administration of his property in

Egypt. [4. 297-3273; ro]. 1 R.A. Caminos, s.v. Brief, LA 1, 855-864

2J. Mac-

Ginnis, Letter Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the Ebabbara in the Late-Babylonian Period, 1995

3 R. GRIESHAMMER, s.v. Briefe an Tote, LA 1, 864-870 4P.GrRILLoT, Documents araméens d’Egypte, 1972 5F.R. Kraus, Brief-Schreibibungen im altbabylon. Schulunterricht, in: Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 16, 1964, 16-39 6A.L. OPPENHEIM, Letters from Mesopotamia,

1967 7 W.SALLABERGER, Zur friihen mesopotamischen Briefliteratur, in: OLZ 91, 1996, 389-407. 8 E.SALONEN, Die Gruf- und H6flichkeitsformeln in babylon.-

LETTER

assyr. Briefen, 1967 9 O.SCHROEDER, s.v. Brief, RLA 2, 62-68 10H.Z. SzuBtn, B.PorRTEN, in: JNES 46, 1987, 39-48 11 K.R. VEENHOF, Brieven uit het oude Meso-

potamié, in: Phoenix 39, 1993, 168-184.

H.N.

2. GREECE AND ROME Greece of the classical period until the 4th cent. BC is represented by political open letters and edicts in the letters of the Persian kings. The correspondence of Aristotle is frequently cited as the first published private correspondence. The eras of Hellenism and the Roman Republic come down to us in the East in Hellenistic letters from rulers, but from the 2nd cent. BC, also in the letters of Roman magistrates in Egyptian letters on papyrus. In the West, it is represented from the time of the Gracchi in the open letters containing debates on domestic policy and on the other hand, in Cicero’s private correspondence fully edited posthumously. The latter, (according to the letters to Atticus) are read as stories or as typological examples. During the Imperial period, most of the letters from rulers, extant in inscription, also in Greek, and rescripts — the responses of Trajan to Pliny the Younger may also be considered as such — form a recognizable contrast to the continually flowing stream of letters on papyrus, while the correspondence of Fronto, centred on the education of princes and stylistic theory, forms a middle ground, so to speak [cf. 2. 187-284]. In the tradition of the genuine or attributed pastoral letters of Paul and other Apostles, the early Christian Church achieves a sustainable and genre-influencing instrument for the homogenizing of Christendom in proselytizing and teaching, edification and Church discipline. From the time of Cyprian, the Christian yet stylistically fastidious private letters (authors in [14. 847-853]) of authorities such as the Cappadocians, Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome, are overwhelmingly understood as open letters or kept in collections for later publication. On the pagan side, the letters of the emperor Julian and of Libanius as well as the official letters of Cassiodorus’ Variae are worth noting. At the same time, in the society letters of late antiquity (Symmachus) a tendency emerges to empty the letter of content [16. 141-143] as a social convention, but it must be kept in mind that an orally transmitted message accompanied the letter. Finally, parallel to the development of official and state churches, papal letters develop from the fraternally edifying private letters to decretals (in the form of imperial constitutions)

after Siricus and to the responsa of Church law after Innocent I. ~ Libellus; > Communications; > Writing materials 1 P. Cucusi, L’epistolografia, in: G.CavALLo et al. (ed.),

Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 2, 1989, 379-419 2 P. Cucust, Evoluzione e forme dell’epistolografia latina,

1983

3 K.THRAEDE,

Topik, 1970

Grundziige griech.-rém. Brief-

4K.ERMERT, Briefsorten, 1979

5 T.Luck-

MANN, Grundformen der ges. Vermittlung des Wissens: Kommunikative

Zschr.

440

439

Gattungen, in: Kultur und Ges. Kélner

fiir Soziologie,

6 A.J. MALHERBE

Sonderh.

(ed.), Ancient

27,

1986,

Epistolary

191-211 Theorists,

1988 7 W.D. Lepex, Neues uber Epistolographie und Grammatikunterricht, in: ZPE 60, 1985, 53-61 8 K.Bercer, Hell. Gattungen im NT, ANRW II 25.2, 1984, 1326-1363 9S.K. Srowers, Letter and Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 1986 10 P.Cucusi1, Corpus epistularum Latinarum, vol. 1/2, 1992

11 A. DIHLE,

Ant. Hoflichkeit und christl. Demut, in: SIFC 26, 1952, 169-190 12G.TrstLeTTI, Le lettere private nei papiri

greci del Ile IVs. d.C., 1979

13 P.SrorFEL, Uber die

Staatspost, 1994 14 P.Cucust, Epistolografi, in: Diz. degli scrittori greci e latini 2, 1987, 821-853 15 A. GaRzyA, L’epistolografia letteraria tardoantica, in: Id., [I] man-

darino e il quotidiano,. 1983, 113-148. R. Buzon, Die Briefe der Ptolemaerzeit, 1984; H.M. CorTON, Greek and Latin Epistolary Formulae, in: AJPh 105,

1984, 409-425; P.Cucusi, Aspetti letterari della tarda epistolografia greco-latina, in: Annali della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Universita di Cagliari, N.S. 6, 1985, 115-139; Id., Epistolographi Latini minores 1,1/2; 2,1/2, 1970/1979; with index in: Annali della Facolta di Magi-

stero dell’Universita di Cagliari, N.S., 1977/78, 37-63; Id., Studi sull’epistolografia latina 1/2, Annali della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Universita di Cagliari 33,1, 1970, 5-1123 35, 1972, 5-167; W.G. Dory, Letters

in Primitive Christianity, 1973; F.X. J. ExLer, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter, 1923; M.v.p. Hout, Studies in Early Greek Letter-Writing, in: Mnemosyne 4, vol. 2, 1949, 19-41; C.-H. Kim, Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation, 1972; H.KosKENNIEMI, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griech. Briefes, 1956; C.D. LANHAM, Salutatio Formulas in Latin Letters to

1200, 1975; OLIVER; H. PETER, Der Brief in der

rom. Lit., 1901; J.SCHNEIDER, s.v. Brief, RAC 2, 1954, 564-585; F.SCHNIDER, W.STENGER, Studien zum nt. Brief-Formular, 1987; SHERK, 185-364; H. A. STEEN, Les clichés épistolaires dans les lettres sur papyrus grecques, in: CeM 1, 1938, 119-176; J.SYKUTRIS, s.v. Epistolographie, RE Suppl. 5, 185-220; WELLEs; J.L. Wuire, Light from Ancient Letters, 1986; Id., NT Epistolary Literature in the Framework of Ancient Epistolography, ANRW II 25.2, 1984, 1730-1756; Id., The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, 1972; Id., The Form and Structure of the Official Petition, 1972; H. ZILLIACUS, s.v. Anredeformen, RAC Suppl. 3/4, 474-497. Pela:

Letters of Socrates and of the Socratics Transmitted in nine MSS from the period 1269/70 to the beginning of the 17th cent. are seven letters of Socrates [2] and 20 of the > Socratics in various arrangements, some complete, some in selections (epist. 1-27, numbering according to KOHLER [5]), and in addition six letters from and to > Speusippus (epist. 28; 30-34), a letter from Plato to the Macedonian king Philippus [4] II. (epist. 29), and a final letter written in the Doric dialect riddled with corruptions, with unknown sender and addressee (epist. 35). From BENTLEY onwards (1699), agreement that the letters originated in the Imperial period has prevailed. Only the 28th letter (Speusippus to the Macedonian king Philippus) is considered almost unanimously as genuine from [1] on. The 3 5th letter appears to have been added later.

441

442

The scope and character of the letters are very different. Alongside long epistles such as the rst letter (in which Socrates explains to the Macedonian king Archelaus [1] why he cannot accept the latter’s invitation to his court), the 6th letter (in which Socrates gives the reasons for his frugality and explains why friends are

rio, quod insula fuit, ‘the city L. on the promontory, which was once an island’; Ps.-Scyl. 98: Leucae cum portubus, ‘L. with [two] harbours’), founded by the Egyptian Tachus, an Achaemenid admiral, in the war of the great king against > Evagoras [1] in 383 BC (Diod. Sic. 15,18,1: Aevun/Leuke; 19,1: AetualLetkai). L. supported Eumenes [4] III. against Rome in 133 BC (Str. 14,1,38: at Aetxar modyviow/hai Letikai polichnion). L. was deserted in the rst cent. AD (Mela 1,85,4: litus Leuca). Remains of the city wall from the Classical period on the Ug Tepeler, now away from the sea because it silted up.

more important than wealth), and the rath letter (in

which one of the Socratics, probably Euclides [2], reports to Xenophon, who is staying far from Athens in Sparta, on the trial, conviction, and death of Socrates) we have short notes and queries. In the 21st letter, Aeschines [x] comforts Xanthippe; the 27th letter is a kind of testament from the terminally ill Aristippus [3], addressed to his daughter Arete [2]. In addition, a number of topics are discussed which are developed from the works of Plato and Xenophon, as well as biographical notices in later authors such as Plutarchus [2], or in manuals. [7] was convinced he had demonstrated that the letter collection was assembled at a later stage from the two partial collections, the one consisting of the seven Socrates letters, written in the rst cent. AD,

the other of the remaining letters, written in the 3rd cent. This was contradicted by [3. 38-47]: an adequate analysis of the narrative structure of the entire corpus clearly shows that it is an > epistolary novel, written by a single author about AD 200 or later. In letters 1-7, Socrates sets out the principles that determined his actions; letters 8-34 reflect how students of Socrates and their students followed those principles in the practice of their lives. 1 E.BICKERMANN,

J.SyKuTRIS

(ed.), Speusipps

Br.

an

Konig Philipp (Ber. uber die Verhandlungen der Sachs. Akad.

der Wiss., Philol.-histor. Kl. 80/3), 1928 (with

German transl.)

2 J.-F. BorKowskKI (ed.), Socratis quae

feruntur epistolae, 1997 (with German transl. and commentary) 3N.Ho.LzBeErG, Der griech. Briefroman, in: Id. (ed.), Der griech. Briefroman, 1994, 1-52. 4 M.ImHOF, Sokrates und Archelaos. Zum 1. Sokratesbrief, in: MH 39, 1982, 71-81; MH 41,1984, 1-14 5 L.KOHLER (ed.), Die Br. des Sokrates und der Sokratiker (Philologus

Suppl. 20,2), 1928 (with German transl. and commentary) 6A.J. MALHERBE, The Cynic Epistles. A Study Ed., 1977

(repr. 1986),

217-307

(with Engl. transl.)

7 J.SyKutTris, Die Briefe des Sokrates und der Sokratiker, 1933 (repr. 1968). K.D. Lettuce see > Lactuca

Leucae (Actua; Lewkai). [1] Perioikoi town (— perioikot) on the east coast of the Laconian Gulf, neighbouring Acriae (Pol. 5,19,8; Liv.

3552753), probably on the north-eastern edge of the plain of Leuce mentioned by Str. 8,5,2. PRITCHETT 7, 1991, 143-146; 8, 1992, 157-159; A.J.B. Wace, F.W. Hastuck, South-Eastern Laconia, in: ABSA

14, 1907/8, 162f.

aie

[2] City in Ionia, on the northern shore of the Gulf of Smyrna on a raised promontory with two harbour basins (Plin. HN 5,119: oppidum Leuce in promuntu-

LEUCAS, LEUCADIA

G.E. BEAN, s.v. L., PE, sosf.; Id., Aegean Turkey, 1966,

125-127.

E.O.

Leucarion see > Deucalion

Leucas, Leucadia (Aevxdc, Aevnadia; Leukds, Leukadia; Lat. Leucas, Leucadia). A. GEOGRAPHY

B. History

C. ARCHAEOLOGY

A. GEOGRAPHY One of the central Jonian islands with a city of the same name, separated from the Acarnanian coast by only a shallow strait, with an extent of c. 295 km* and 31 km long (> Acarnanians, Acarnania, map). The interior of L. consists of a central mountain massif (Stavrotas is the highest peak, 1182 m). There are fertile plateaux (Livadi, Englouri) at different altitudes and cauldron-shaped valleys. The western coast consists of a steep cliff while plains and bays characterize the landscape in the east (Vlicho Bay with Nidri Plain) and south (Vasiliki). The coastal region facing the mainland, which has been changed since antiquity by the higher sea levels and neogene sedimentation, consists of shallow swamps and lagoons. At the modern main town Lefkada (formerly Amaxikhi) and the Venetian fortress St. Maura, the island is connected to the mainland by a bridge. In the south the island ends with the brilliant white Cape Leucates (modern Dukato), which gave the island its name and was feared by sailors in antiquity. On it is a sanctuary of Apollo; criminals were punished by being thrown from the cliff (Str. 10,2,8f.; possibly indication of earlier human sacrifices [6]) or — according to myth — unhappy lovers found release from their love (> Sappho, cf. Ov. Epist. 15; Stat. Silv. 5,3,154f.; Lucian Dial. mort. 9,2). Today L. is joined with the island of Meganisi further east in a separate administrative district (zomds). The entire area is greatly at risk from earthquakes. B. HisToRY It is due to DORPFELD’s excavations [3] in the Nidri Plain that we have information on Early Helladic and Middle Helladic tumulus graves (3rd—znd millennia). The excavator mistakenly assigned them to the ‘Achaean’ period in order to justify his identification of L. with Homeric > Ithaca, a theory which is rejected

443

444

unanimously today. Mycenaean, Geometrical or Early Archaic finds are rare, in spite of intensive surveys. Hom. Od. 24,11 apparently mentions Cape Leucates as

C. ARCHAEOLOGY The main settlement lay in the north-east of the

LEUCAS, LEUCADIA

island, 2 km south of modern Lefkada between Kali-

ponnesian War, L., with its ships, took active part on

goni and Karyotes on the narrowest part of the straits. At the southern entrance to the strait by Agios Georgios the quay walls of the harbour were localized c. 3 m under sea levei [7]. Little research has been done on the ancient city [4. 161-163]; the acropolis was situated on the northern hill of the city, the theatre on the northern slopes of the southern hill of the city [3. 156, 267]. Walls of 3,5 km length ran to Fleva Bay north-west of the city. Excavations in the city confirm settlement from the Archaic period until the end of the rst cent. BC. From the Classical period [5] the city had an orthogonal street system. In the north and south of the city extensive cemeteries were discovered. L. was connected with the > Peraea on the Acarnanian mainland (Thuc. 3,94; modern Plagia Peninsula) by a stone bridge (Str.

the side of Corinth and served as an important harbour for the opponents of Athens (Thuc. passim). In 394 BC,

tile plains as well as further villages and partly loosely

L. was in the Anti-Spartan League (Diod. Sic. 14,82,3),

scattered

but by 373 at the latest L. supported Sparta (Xen. Hell.

Georgios), Ellomenon (Thuc. 3,94; in the Nidri Plain?)

6,2,3). L. was not in the 2nd > Athenian League (the

and Phara (Scyl. 34, near Vasiliki?) [4. 158-160]. Individual (tower-)farmsteads were researched in American-Greek surveys [2; 4. 161, 168]. The city and league coins need yet to be studied [1]. Inscription: [11. 240-

the entrance to the Underworld, but does not refer to L.

by name, so that it has been discussed since antiquity whether the poet includes L. with the mainland (axti iteiqow/dkte épeiroio, Od. 24,378) or sings about it under a different name (Doulichion or Ithaca). The first mention of L. reports on the founding of the Corinthian colony by Cypselus c. 630 BC [8. 209-216]. According to ancient tradition the colonists broke the link to Acarnania (Str. 10,2,8; Posidon. FGrH 87 F 87,

18) [4. 159] and thus made navigation along the eastern coast of L. through this newly-created channel (Dioryktos) in the south-east possible. L. participated at Salamis and Plataeae in the Persian Wars (Hdt. 8,45; 9,28,5;

31,4). In the conflict over Epidamnus and in the > Pelo-

significance of the contract made c. 368 with Athens is unclear: IG IJ-III* 104; Stv 2, 278); but in 342-340 Demosthenes (Or. 18,237) persuaded L. into the league against Philip II. In the > Lamian War in 323, L. fought against the Macedonians (Diod. Sic. 18,11,1), but made peace with them at the end of the war (Diod. Sic. 17,17).

Turbulent times followed with changing rulers for L.: Cassander and Lysander, Agathocles (?), Pyrrhus, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Cleonymus (?). In the treaty of

the Aetolians and Acarnanians of 263, L. made up one of the seven treaty groups of the Acarnanian > Koinon (IG IX 1? 1, 3 Al. 24; Stv 3,480), so that it must have joined several years earlier. During the partition of Acarnania, L. belonged to Epirus and became its capital after the restoration of the Koinon (230). After the Acarnanians’ refusal to join the amicitia of Rome, L. was conquered by Flamininus [2] in 197 (Liv. 33,17). L. served Rome from then on as a base for their fleet (e.g. 34,26,11) and in 167 it had to leave the Koinon as civitas libera (Liv. 45,31,12). The looting of the sanctuary of Apollo by pirates in the rst cent. BC (Plut. Pompey 24), a visit by Cicero in 50 BC (Cic. Fam. 16,3-5) and the conquest by Agrippa before the battle of Actium in 31 BC (Cass. Dio 50,13,3) are recorded. When — Nicopolis was founded the inhabitants of L. were resettled and the city as a communality was dissolved (Str. r0,2,2; Anth. Pal. 9,553) [53 9. 15 6f., 308—

315]. L. then initially belonged to > Achaia, then to the province of Epirus (founded under Trajan?) [10. 201204]. In late antiquity there was a way station, Perdioricto, next to the channel (Tab. Peut. 7,3). There is no information from the early Byzantine period, and L. is only attested as a diocese in AD 879 [9].

1,3,18). Numerous settlement clusters grew in the ferhamlets:

Nericus

(Thuc.

3,7,

near

Agios

244]. 1 BMC, Gr (Thess.-Aetolia), 174-187; Gr (Corinth), 113; 125-137 2 A.Dousouc1, S.Morris, Ancient Towers on L., in: P. N. DouKELLIs et al. (ed.), Structures rurales et sociétés antiques, 1994, 215-225 3 W.DORPFELD, Alt-

Ithaka I.I], 1927 P.BERKTOLD

4 M.Frepier, Zur Top. der Polis L., in:

et al. (ed.), Akarnanien,

1996,

157-168

5 Id., Wohn- und Alltagskultur in einer nordwestgriech. Stadt, in: W. HOEPENER (ed.), Geschichte des Wohnens r,

1999, 412-426

6 D.D. Hucues, Human Sacrifice in An-

cient Greece, 1991, 160-163 7 W.M. Murray, The Ancient Harbour Mole at L., in: A.RaBAN, Archaeology of Coastal Changes, 1988, ror—-118 8 J.B. SaLmMon, Wealthy Corinth, 1986 9 SousTAL, Nikopolis, r95f., 216 i0 D.Srraucu, Rom. Politik und griech. Trad., 1996 11 Id., Aus der Arbeit am Inschr.-Corpus der Ion. Inseln, in: Chiron 27, 1997, 209-254.

E. OBERHUMMER, Akarnanien, Ambrakia, Amphilochien, L. im Alt., 1887; J.PARTscH, Die Insel L. (Petermanns Mitt. Ergh. 95), 1889; PHILIPPSON/KIRSTEN 2, 460-490.

DS. Leucaspis (Aevxaomc; Lekaspis, ‘the one with the

white shield’). Repeatedly used name of Greek heroes. L. especially refers to one of the five commanders of the Sicani, who are killed by Heracles and who are honoured cultically (Diod. Sic. 4,23,5); he is portrayed on Syracusan coins from the 5th cent. onwards [1]. The cult of a hero L. is also attested for the Attic deme of Erchia [2], while Virgil uses the name for a drowned Trojan (Verg. Aen. 6,334). 1HN175

2LSCG 18G 50.

E.G.

445

446

Leucetius (Loucetius, ‘refulgent’, ‘lustrous’). Celtic god, equated with - Mars by the interpretatio Romana. The six inscriptions to Mars L. concentrated in the region of Mainz, in Worms and Wiesbaden, imply that this was probably a god worshipped by the Aresaces branch of the Treveri [6]. Mars L., who was venerated together with Victoria or Nemetona, is probably also the deity referred to as Mars (without the epithet) who is found alongside Nemetona on votive objects from Trier and Altrip. It was mostly civilians who worshipped L.; his character as a tribal god must therefore have transcended his warlike aspects. 1 G.BaucHHENSs, s.v. Ares/Mars, LIMC 2.1, 573 2 G. BEHRENS, Mars-Weihungen im Mainzer Gebiet, in: Mainzer Zschr. 36, 1941, 14ff. 3 J. DeVries, Kelt. Rel., 1961, 58-60 4F.DREXEL, Gotterverehrung im r6m. Germanien,

in: Ber. der R6m.-German.

Komission

14,

EO22 aarti ED AUG s.va le eRe anzae TSO 6 H.Kiumsacu, Aresaces, in: Limes-Studien 14, 1959, 69ff. 7 E.THEVENOT, Sur les traces des Mars celtiques 1955, 122f. M.E.

Leuci People in Gallia Belgica between Matrona and Mosella, north-west of the > Sequani, south-west of the > Mediomatrici; their territory extended in the east and the south-east up to the Vosges (Caes. B Gall. 2,14; Tac. Hist.

1,64; Ptol. 2,9,13;

Plin. HN

4,106; Luc.

1,242); civitas/capital was Tullum. A spring and healing

LEUCIPPUS

Leucippe and Cleitophon see > Achilles Tatius [1] Leucippids (Aevxutmidec; Leukippides). In the Laco-

nian cult the daughters of Leucippus (the son of Perieres or rarely also of Apollo (Cypria fr. rx PEG I)), Hilaeira and Phoebe (or Eriphyle on a vase by Meidias) are referred to as L. The myth centres around their abduction by the > Dioscuri. According to one version, they are taken after already having been betrothed to their cousins, the sons of + Aphareus [1] (Theoc. 22,137-151; Ov. Fast. 5,699-720). This is the cause of the famous battle between the Apharetides and the Dioscuri. The myth served as a prototype for the initiation of Spartan girls before their wedding, which was often staged as an abduction in Spartan myth and ritual (e.g. Paus. 4,16,9). The cultic scenery in some pictorial representations of the abduction on red-figured vases from the 5th/4th cents. BC suggests the same. In Sparta the L. were worshipped as goddesses with their own temple (Paus. 3,16,1). Their priestesses called themselves L. as well as péloi (foals) (Hsch. s.v. m@)oc; polos), and participated in the Spartan cult of Dionysus Kolonatas (Paus. 3,13,7). For the 2nd cent. a priest of the L. and the Tyndarides is attested (IG V 1, 305). The

origins of the L. are obscure: it has been assumed that they were either a Spartan innovation or, as part of Indo-European heritage, the female analogies to the

cult has been attested with the L. — either in the form of Apollo worship (Graux, Malaincourt) or the Celtic

twin horsemen, but records indicate that the L. first

Apollo > Grannus (Tullum, Nasium, Grand) [1] or a

—> Arsinoe [I 1]

nameless deity (Laneuveville) [2]. According to Claudius

Marius

Victor,

Alethia

3,204-209

(5th cent.),

— Apollo is supposed to have found a new home with the L. when he was driven out of Delphi; trans-regional religious centre was > Grand. 1 P.-M.DuvaLt, Un texte du V° siécle relatif au sanctuaire apollinien des L., in: J. Bisauw (ed.), Hommage a M. RENARD, 2,1969,256-261 2 J.-M.DEMARELLE, D’Hygie a

Saint Valdrée, in: Caesarodunum

26, 1992, 425-437. F.SCH.

Leucimme

(Aevxiupn/Leukimmeé, Dorian Aevxinpa/ Leukimma). A low promontory (‘white cape’) protruding to the north, on the south-east coast of Corcyra, modern Lefkimi. Thuc. 1,30,1; 4,475,253 51543 3579535 Sits Geog IKON, Boatige tte A.W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides 1, 1945, 183; PHILIPPSON/KIRSTEN, vol. 2, 445f. DS.

Leucippe (Aevxinan; Leukippé, ‘the one with the white

horse’), as a counterpart to > Leucippus with his noble associations, is a typical and almost arbitrarily used heroine’s name. Thus it is given to a companion of + Persephone (H. Hom. Cer. 418), the mother (Hyg. Fab. 250) or wife of + Laomedon (Apollod. 3,146), or to one of the > Minyades (Antoninus Liberalis ro),

whom Ov. Met. 4,168 calls Leuconoe.

E.G.

appeared as local figures independent of the Dioscuri. C. CALAME, Les choeurs des jeunes filles, 1977, 1, 323333; J.Larson, WIDE, 326-332.

Greek

Heroine

Cults,

1995,

64-69; D.LE.

Leucippus (Aevximoc; Lewkippos) is the name of at least 12 different persons of myth, linked in particular to stories about colonization and coming-of-age. The most important among them are the following: [1] Son of + Lamprus. Although he was born as a girl, the pubescent L. is transformed into a man by > Leto. In memory thereof, young men in Phaestus underwent a ritual of changing their clothing during the Ekdysia, when they probably wore women’s clothes instead of their male armour. Brides (and bridegrooms?) lay down next to a statue of L. (Antoninus Liberalis 17; cf. Ov. Met. 9,666ff.). [2] Son of Oenomaus who falls in love with the virgin + Daphne [2] and disguises himself as a girl in order to sneak into her group ofgirls. When L. refuses to undress and to participate in a communal bath in the river Ladon, the women undress him forcefully and kill him, when they discover that he is a man (Parthenius 15; Paus. 8,20).

[3] Son of Xanthius, descendant of > Bellerophontes. This Lycian (or Carian) L. founds Magnesia on the Maeander (IMagn. 17) along with a group of relatives, the Thessalian Magnesians. According to one version,

447

448

the daughter of the king betrayed the new state (Par-

collection, and transmitted as such’ [1. 86} with the Manichaeans (+ Mani) Probably originating with the Acts of John and transferred on to the entire collection [1. 92], the name L. is connected to it as the author of individual acts or the entire corpus. The double name that appears in Photius is possibly connected to L. and Carinus, the sons of the aged Symeon, who are mentioned in the Latin version of Christ’s trip to hell in the second part of the Acts of Pilate. Another tradition knows of a disciple of John named L. (among others Epiphanios of Salamis, Panarion 51,6). ~ Apocryphal literature; > New Testament apocrypha

LEUCIPPUS

thenius 5; 6). Prior to this, L. had fallen in love with his

sister and had killed his father by accident (Parthenius 51-5).

[4] Mythical Achaean founder of Metapontium who

fraudulently obtains the country from the Tarentines (Str. 6,1,15; cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 19,3). D. Nixitas, Zur Leukipposgesch., in: Hellenika 33, 1981, 19-24; K. Dowpen, Death and the Maiden, 1989, 58-67;

D.Lerrao, The Perils of L., in: Classical Antiquity 14, 1995, 130-163.

D.LE.

[5] L. from Miletus, Elea or from Abdera (all possibilities are presented in Diog. Laert. 9,30 = 67 A 1 Dk),

5th cent. BC, the elusive founder of > Atomism and teacher of > Democritus [1]. His existence is question-

ed by > Epicurus. All the three birth-places are claimed to attest L.’s connection to certain schools of philosophy (this does not rule out that one of them may actually be his place oforigin): asa Milesian, he would stand for the continuity of Ionian > natural philosophy, as an Eleate (and student of Zeno, 67 A 1 DK), he would combine Eleatic metaphysics and atomism, as an Abderite, he could easily have been the teacher and colleague of Democritus (also from Abdera), who was also hardly

known among his contemporaries. Aristotle clearly regards L. as the founder of atomist philosophy (Gen. 325a 2ff.). Elsewhere, the sources often mention L. and Democritus together without drawing any distinctions between their theories — the only exception being the theory of heat (cf. 67 A 17 DK; 68 A 135 DK). According to the common suppositions of modern interpretation, L. is responsible for the main ideas of atomism (perhaps in the ‘Great World Order’, attributed to Democritus by Thrasyllus’ list of work titles). Democritus is assumed to then have developed the material further. An ancient edition of L.’s works is unknown, according to the common opinion of scholars, at least some of them had been integrated into Democritus’ works. FRAGMENTS:

DreELs/KRANZ,

vol. 2, 81-230;

S.LuRIA,

Demokrit, 1970.; BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. BAILEY, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus, 1928; H.Diers, Uber Leukipp und Demokrit, in: Id., KS zur Geschichte der ant. Philos., 1969, 185-198. LB.

Leucius (Aevxtoc; Lezkios). [1] L. (= Lucius), son of Gaius, Roman, Ptolemaic phrourarchos on Itanus (between 221-209 BC), thus

the first Roman known to have had a higher rank in the Ptolemaic army. PP VI 15117. W.A. [2] L. Charinus Ostensible author of apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. As such L. appears once with a double name in the middle of the 9th cent. in > Photius (Bibl. cod. 114), who ascribes to him the authorship of the five great ancient apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Acts

1

E.HENNECKE, W.SCHNEEMELCHER

(ed.), Nt. Apokry-

phen in dt. Ubers., 51987, 81-93 (K. Schaferdiek) 2 E.Junop, J.-D.Kagstii, L’histoire des Actes apocryphes des apotres du III* au IX® siécle: Le cas des Actes du Jean, 1982, 133-145, esp. 137-143 (5 hypotheses) 3 O. WERMELINGER, S.v. L., LThK?3 6, 1997, 86rf. JRL

Leucoma s. > Writing materials Leucon (Aevxwv; Levkon).

[1] Boeotian hero, son of > Athamas and Themisto, daughter of the Lapith king Hypseus (Apollod. 1,9,2). His daughter Euippe marries Andreus of Orchomenus (Paus. 9,34,6f.). Eponym of Lake Leuconis (= Copais) (Steph. Byz.). Cw. [2] Author of Old Comedy who competed in the Lenaea of 422 BC with the play IMoéoBets (‘Legates’) against Aristophanes’ ‘Wasps’, and in the Dionysia of 421 with the play ®edteges against the latter’s ‘Peace’, coming third each time (1. test. 3a-b). Extant are seven fragments and three titles; the 6vocg Goxopdgos (“The Wines-

kin-carrying Donkey’) is not dated; a victory in the Dionysia (1. test. 2) occurred no earlier than 4ro. L. attacked the politician > Hyperbolus and the tragedian — Melanthius. 1 PCG V, 1986, 611-614.

B.BA.

[3] Archon

of Bosporus [2] (IOSPE 2,343), 389349 BC; successor of > Satyrus I. King of the Bosporan kingdom. Using Hoplites and Scythian cavalry, L. captured > Theodosia, from where L. is said to have sent

400,000 medimna of wheat a year to Athens (Dem. Or. 20,32) and as much as 2,100,000 medimna at the time

of the grain shortage (Str. 7,4,6). L. fought against ~> Heraclea [7] (Polyaenus, Strat. 6,9,4) and integrated the - Sindi into the Bosporan empire (cf. Str. 7,4,5f.). L. carried the title of ‘Archon of Bosporus and Theodosia and King of the Sindi, Toreteans, Dandarians, and Psessians’ (CIRB 6). L. signed several contracts with Athens and had Athenian citizenship (Dem. Or. 20,29-

of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas and Paul). Already at

32). He received honorary decrees from Arcadia and Mytilene (Syll.> 212; CIRB 37). Under L.’s reign, the + Regnum Bosporanum experienced an economical and cultural revival. Greek literature presents L. several times as a Cunning commander and financial expert but also as a clever statesman (Str. 7,4,4; Polyaenus, Strat.

the end of the 3rd cent. these formed ‘a firmly outlined

6,9,3; 5,44 et al.).

449

450

V.F. Garbuxevic, Das Bosporan. Reich, 1971, 70-75, 82f.

[4] Bosporan king c. 240-220 BC, second son of — Paerisades II, is said to have killed his brother > Spartocus (schol. Ov. Ib. 309f.). He oversaw the first Bosporan minting in the king’s name. L. is identical to the priest Leucon. Even before his reign, he was an Apollonian priest in > Panticapaeum (CIRB 25; the avers of his silver coins shows the image of the god’s head), dedication of a statue (IOSPE 2,15). The economy experienced a revival under L.’s reign. V.F. GarpuKeEvié, Das Bosporan. Reich, 1971, 90, 96

with n. 90.

Leucophrys (Aevxddevc; Leukdphrys). Polis in ~ lonia with a sanctuary to Artemis Leukophryene and a fresh-water lake (Xen. Hell. 3,2,19; 4,8,17). Probably not the same as the newly founded Magnesia [2] near modern Ortaklar (otherwise [1]). Around 400 BC, Thibron [1] moved the old settlement Magnesia [2] on the Maeander [2] to the Thorax (modern Giimiis Dagi; Diod. Sic. 14,36). [2] identified a fortified ancient settlement with orthogonal street layout on its eastern heights as L. 1 L. BURCHNER, s. v. L., RE 12, 2288 2 A.PHILIPPSON, Milet III/s5: Das siidl. Ionien, 1936, addition of map (K. Lyncker). H. LO.

Ly.B.

Leuconoe [1] (Aevxovon; Leukonoé). Daughter of > Phosphoros. With Apollo the father, she is the mother of Philammon (Hyg. Fab. 161) whose mother is otherwise said to be ~» Chione [2] or Philonis (Hyg. Fab. 200; Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 120; Conon FGrH 26 F 1,7). M.C. VAN DER KOLF, s.v. Philonis, RE 20, 74-75.

LEUCOSYRI

RA-MIL.

[2] (Aevxovon, Phot. s.v.). Records of the name: Suda s.v. Aevxoviov, Harpocr. s.v. Aevxovotov/[éy A]evxo-

voio (500/480 BC) [3]. The demotica in the 4th cent. BC always say Aevxovoetcs or Aevxovotets.

In the catalogue of prytaneis IGII* 1742, three bouleutai are named as Aevxovouis, the nominative must therefore be Aevxovon. Attic asty deme of the phyle > Leontis, with three bouleutai. The location (near Peristeri?) is contested [1; 2; 4. 130]. The Aevxdovov IG II? 1582, lL. 134, isa hollow ora sanctuary near Anaphlystus [1. 78; Mee Toye] 1 H. LOHMANN, Atene, 1993, 78 n. 594 2E.Maas, Die Lage des Demos L., in: MDAI(A) 35, 1910, 335-337 3 A. RAUBITSCHEK, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis, 1949, 116no.112 4 J.S. TratLL, Demos and Trit-

Leucosia (Aevxwoia; Leukosia). [1] One of the three post-Homeric — Sirens, who no longer — as with Homer — appear in a group but as

individuals: L. reaches south-west Italy through colonization. Consequently her suicide (she plunges into the sea) is localized on an island south-west of Paestum, where her grave is venerated (Lycoph. 715 with schol.; 728; Str. 6,1,1). When the Odysseus myth was supplanted by the Aeneas legend, L. became a niece of > Aeneas (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,53). AL.FR. [2] Commonly used place name for the ancient city of Ledrae from the 4thcent. AD (cf. around AD 370: TotbbAdov tov Agdea@v émtoxomov, Sozom. Hist. eccl. 1,11,8), modern Nicosia on Cyprus. Settled area from

the Neolithic period; there is a Bronze Age necropolis at Hagia Paraskevi. Individual finds attest to continuity of settlement from the Geometrical to early Christian times. S.F. KRomuHotz, The Bronze Age Necropolis at Ayia Paraskevi (Nicosia) (Stud. in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature, Pocket books 17), 1982; MASSON, 229232; E.OBERHUMMER, s.v. Ledroi, RE 12, 1125-1127.

RSE. [3] Island on the Lucanian coast (Mela 2,7,121; Plin.

tys, 1986, 15, 55, 67, 69, 77, 89, 130 mit n. 22.

HN 3,83: Leucothea) on the Punta della Licosa, mod-

Tu. Kock, s.v. L., RE 12, 2284; TRAILL, Attica 18, 44, 59,

ern Isola Piana.

63, 111 no. 85, 134, table 4; WHITEHEAD, Index s.v. Leukonoion. H.LO.

G. BRUGNOLI, s.v. L., EV 3, 1987, 196f.; BT'CGI 9, 1991,

5314, 1996, sos.

GU.

Leuconotus see > Libs; > Winds Leucosyri (Aevxdovgot; Leukosyroi, “White Syrians’, Leucopetra (Aevxdnetoa; Leukopetra, ‘white rock’).

meaning and origin of the term are unclear). Indigenous

Promontory on the Adriatic coast south of + Rhegium (Str. 5,1,3; 6,1,7), modern Capo dell’Armi near Motta S. Giovanni. Together with other ‘white rocks’ (Capo Leucata, Phalaron Akron, Leucopetrae Tarentinorum) it marks the sea route from Greece to lower Italy and Sicily. The light-coloured rocks helped the sailors navigate.

inhabitants (App. Mith. 292; SvevovSyrioi, Hdt. 1,6,1; 2,104; Acove.ol/Assyrioi, Dionys. Per. 975) considered

C. TuRANO, Leucopetra, in: Calabria antica, 1977, 34-443 BTCGI 4, 420f.; M.GIANGIULIO, Tra mare e terra, in: F. PRONTERA (ed.), La Magna Grecia e il mare, 1996, 261263.

A.MU.

by the Greeks as an ethnic entity of the Anatolian northern part of the region Assyria (Aevxooveia/Leukosyria, schol. vetera ad Apoll. Rhod. 196,9; 198,10; 201,6; Aevxoovoiaxt/Leukosyriaké, 200,1; Aevxoovownt/Leukosyriké, 198,3). According to Ps.-Scyl. 89, the area where they lived extended from the river Thermodon (modern Terme Cay) in the east to the landing place Armene (modern Ak Liman, 40 stadia west of + Sinope, Str. 12,3,10f.), and to Tetracis (not localized, but east of Stephane Limen (modern Gemiciler), and

LEUCOSYRI

also included the cities Themiscyra (modern Terme), Lycastus (somewhere on the Merd Irmagi), Carusa (modern Gerze), Sinope (modern Sinop) and Cerasus (modern Karakoy?), as well as the rivers Lycastus (modern Merd Irmagi), Halys (modern Kizil Irmak) and Ocherenos (modern Carasu?). But not only this coastal strip was ascribed to the L.; Ptol. 5,6,2 takes the whole Iris region (- Iris [3]) from the sources to the mouth, including the harbour city Ankon (not localized), as the territory settled by the L., Str. 12,3,9 the land of the Amazons including the > Themiscyra. And not only Cappadocia on the sea (Pontus), but also central Cappadocia was counted as territory settled by the L. (Hdt. 1,72; 7,72; Str. 12,3,5; 93 Plin. HN 6,9; Steph. Byz. s.v. DEO: xowov Svouwa WOALaV EOVOv, ‘common name of many peoples’). W.RucgE, s.v. L., RE 12, 2291-2293; D.R. Witson, The

Historical

Geography

of Bithynia,

Pontus in the Greek and Roman Oxford 1960 (typescript), 43 1ff.

Paphlagonia,

and

Periods, D.B. Thesis, E.O.

Leucothea (Aevx08éa; Leukothéa). A deity connected

with — initiation and rites of reversal. She appears as early as in Homer (Od. 5,333.) where she is combined with > Ino. Both, however, also appear independently in myth and in cult (the Leukathea of L.). L. was wor-

shipped ‘in all of Greece’ (Cic. Nat. D. 3,39), but it is difficult to gain a clear impression of her festivals which often seem to have contained traits of social dissolution [1. 179; 2. 405-407]: her sanctuary in Delos was connected with a phallagogy [1.71], and in Chaeronea slaves and Aetolians were excluded (Plut. Mor. 267d). In Teos, the ephebes became adults during the Leukatheon — the first month of the year there [2. 406]. This initiatory aspect, perhaps still visible in the ‘Odyssey’ [3. 87], probably led to an identification of L. with Ino, also connected with initiation: L. endows Miletus with a boys’ agon (Conon, FGrH 26 F 1,33) and raises Dio-

nysus in Euboea “as a girl’ ina manner typical for initiations (Apollod. 3,28). This connection with coming-ofage might have motivated Aristotle to attribute the famous temple in Pyrgi to L. (Aristot. Oec. 1349); differing: Str. 5,2,8, who attributes it to > Eileithyia). 1

452

451

W.BurkEerRT,

Homo

necans,

1972

2 GRAF

3 J. BREMMER, Why Did Medea Kill Her Brother Apsyrtus?, in: J.CiAuss, S.I. JOHNSTON 83-100.

(ed.), Medea,

1987,

S. E1TREM, s.v. L., RE 12, 2293-2293; A. NERCESSIAN, S.V.

Ino, LIMC, 5.1.

j.B.

Leucothoe (Aevx006n; Leucothde). Daughter of the Persian king Orchamus and of Eurynome. She is raped by Sol, an act which his jealous mistress > Clytia reveals to L.’s father, who then buries her alive. The grieving god transforms her into an incense tree (Ov. Met. 4,190-25 5). Occasionally confused with > Leucothea. L.C. Curran, Rape and Rape Victims in the Metamorphoses, in: Arethusa 11, 1978, 213-241. A.A.

Leucrocota This composite creature (+ Monsters) (size of a donkey, legs of a deer, badger head with a gaping snout up to the ears and a single bone in place of teeth, similarity to a lion in the neck, chest and tail, cloven hooves, ability to imitate the human voice) in Ethiopia in Plin. HN 8,72f. and Solin. 52,34 should possibly be interpreted as the brown hyaena (Hyaena brunnea) [1. 154]. However, it is probably a mythical animal that was passed on through the sources mentioned and Honorius Augustodunensis 1,12 (Ceucocrota) [2. 54] and Jacob of Vitry, Historia orientalis c. 88 [3. r81f.] to Thomas of Cantimpré 4,62 [4. 146] and Albertus Magnus, De animalibus 22,112 [5. 1409]. 1 Lerrner 2.1. J. Frint (ed.), Honorius Augustodunensis, Imago mundi, 1983 (Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen age, vol. 49) 3 Fr. Moscuus (ed.), Jacobus de Vitriaco, Historia orientalis et occidentalis, 1597. 4H.Bogss (ed.), Thomas Cantimpratensis, Liber de natura rerum, 1973 5 H. STADLER (ed.), Albertus Magnus, De animalibus, vol. 2, 1920. C.HU.

Leuctra (Aetxtoa; Leiiktra). Town (tomo, Str. 9,2,39, cf. Plut. Mor. 773b) and plain (ta Aedxtea) in Boeotia in the area of Thespiae. The exact localization near Leuktra (formerly Parapodgia) is uncertain. L. became famous through the battle of 371 BC, in which the Boeotians under the leadership of > Epaminondas defeated Sparta [3. 49-59]. Remains of a tropaion [1] from the 3rd cent. BC are preserved (rebuilt today [2. 98—-ror]). Evidence: Xen. Hell. 6,4,3-5; Dem. Or. 9,23; Diod. Sic. 15,5352; Plut. Pelopias 20; Plut. Mor. 1ro98a-b; Paus. 4,32,5; Harpocr. s.v. A.; Suda s.v. A.; IG VII 1724; 2462.

1 H.Betster,

Ein thebanisches

Tropaion

bereits vor

Beginn der Schlacht bei L., in: Chiron 3, 1973, 65-84 2.N.D. Papacuatzis, Ilavoaviov EAAddocg Meoujynots 5, *7981 3 PRITCHETT 1. FOSSEY, 154-157.

KF.

Leucus [1] (Aetxoc; Letkos). Companion of > Odysseus, killed by Antiphus, son of Priamus (Hom. Il. 4,491). [2] (Aetxoc; Letkos). Son of > Talos, steadfast guard of Crete. > Idomeneus [1] is L.’s foster father. When he joins the Trojan campaign, he entrusts L. with his house and rulership. L. lets Nauplius entice him to seduce Meda, Idomeneus’ wife. Then he kills her along with his bride Cleisithera and Idomeneus’ two sons Iphiclus and Lycus. L. separates ten cities from Idomeneus’ realm and installs himself as their king. After his return home, Idomeneus blinds L. (Apollod. epit. 6,10; Lycoph. Alexandra 12144-1224; schol. Lycoph. 1218). RE.ZI.

Leuga Gallo-Roman unit of measurement of Celtic origin for measuring and displaying distances on roads in + Aquitania from the 2nd cent. AD and in the other Gaulish as well the two German provinces from the beginning of the 3rd cent. One leuga is equivalent to 1.5

aS

454

Roman miles and corresponds to c. 2,200 m. Whilst in the rst and 2nd cents. in these provinces the distance indications on the miliaria (> Milestones) were provided exclusively in Roman miles (abbreviation M P = milia passuum), the measures generally appeared in

Leuke Kome (Aevxi} x@un; Leuke home).

leugae (abbreviation L) from the time of Septimius Severus, with the measurement in Roman miles in parallel use up to the beginning of the 4th cent. The earliest evidence from Aquitania dates to the Trajanic-Hadrianic period [2. 343, 378, 439, 426, 441]; in the GaulishGerman provinces a /euga stone from the major road between Cologne and Trier was found near Ziilpich [2. 558], as well as two stones from the area around Avenches [2. 672f.]; based on the inscriptions, these can all be dated to the year 202. The latest pieces are distance stones from the major road to Lyons that come from the years 317 to 337 [2. 338, 528]. By far the largest part of the stones found in Roman Germania was found on the major road to Mainz on the left bank of the Rhine [2. 593a—-622] as well as in the Agri Decumates on the right bank of the Rhine [2. 623-656]. Leugae and Roman miles are also mentioned side by side in the Itinerarium provinciarum Antonini Augusti in the sections about the Gaulish and German provyinces. CHEVALLIER [1] assumes not just the Roman leuga of 2,200 m but also the existence of a Gaulish leuga that measured 2,400 m and was in use in the less Romanized areas. ~» Measures 1 R.CHEVALLIER, Les voies romaines, 1972 2. ©; CunrTzZ, Itineraria Romana 1, 1929, 54ff. 3 A. GRENIER, Manuel d’archéologie gallo-romain II: L’archéologie du sol, 1934 4G.Watser, Meilen und Leugen, in: Epi-

graphica 31, 1969, 84-103

5 Id., Miliaria Imperii

Romani Pars Secunda: Miliaria Provinciarum Narbonensis, Galliarum, Germaniarum (CIL XVII), 1986.

H-J.S.

Leuka (Ore) (Aevxd den; Leuka 6ré). The ‘white mountains’ in western Crete, up to 2,482 m high (Str. 10,4,4). Uncultivated and inaccessible with a remarkable stand of cypress trees (Plin. HN 16,142; cf. Theophr. Hist. pl. 4,1,3), in Plin. HN 31,43 also mentioned in connection with the search for sources. J. Bowman, Kreta, 1965, 271ff.; P. FAURE, Noms de mon-

tagnes crétoises, in: L’Association G. Budé. Lettres d’humanités 24, 1965, 426-446.

LEUTHARI

[1] Phoenician village on the coast between Sidon and

Berytus, where Mark Antony and Cleopatra met after the Parthian campaign (Plut. Antonius 51,2f.). [2] Harbour town on the Arabian shore of the Red Sea and a Nabataean border post. It was from here that Aelius Gallus set out by land for the Sabaean capital of Marib (Maryab) in 25 BC (Str. 16,780f). Under the

Nabataean king Malichus II (AD 40-70), a Nabataean centurio was stationed at Leuke Kome (LK), to monitor

Arab customs (Periplus Maris Erythraei 19; Cosmas Indikopleustes 2,143). The most southern possible location is Yanbu‘ (> Iambia), the harbour of Medina, suggested by Strabo’s comment that LK was located opposite > Berenice [9]. Place-name tradition favours al-Haura, ‘the white poplar’, c. 100 km further north on the same shore. H.v. WIsSMANN, s.v. Mada, RE Suppl. 12, 540-543; G.W. BoweErsock, Roman Arabia, 1983, 70f. and n. 39. E.AK.

Leukophryene (Aevxodeurivn; Leukophryene). Epiclesis of Artemis of > Magnesia on the Maeander, the chief goddess of the city; after an epiphany in the mid 2nd cent. BC, an impressive temple was built for her (Vitr. De arch. 3,2,6), a new cult statue was solemnly erected [1], a trans-regional festival with agon was inaugurated [2] and the sanctuary was given the right to give asylum (Tac. Ann. 3,62,1). At the same time L. is the name of the heroine (thus derived), who (as is often the case) is buried in the sanctuary of her goddess (Clem. Al. Protreptikos 3,4 5,3); she is supposed to have (a popular narrative motif [3]) betrayed her home town out of love for the commander of the besiegers (Parthenius 5). 1 LSAM 33. ©=2 Nitsson, Feste, 248-251 3 A.KRAPPE, Die Sage von Tarpeia, in: RhM 78, 1929, 249-267. FG.

Leukos (Aevx6c/Leukos, ‘the white’). Boeotian epithet of + Hermes. The cult of Hermes L. was established due to an oracle which held that the Tanagraeans must sacrifice a boy and a girl in order to persist in the war against the Eretrians (schol. Lycoph. 680). RA.MI.

H.SO.

Leukos Limen (Aevxdc Aut; Lewkos limén; only in Ptol. 4,5,8). Harbour

Leuke Akte (Aevxh dxt; Leuke the Libyan coast of Egypt, near mus, modern Ras al-Abja (on 60 km east of Marsa Matruh),

akte). ‘White cape’ on the small + Catabaththe Ras al-Kanais, c. mentioned in e.g. Str.

10,489; 17,799; Ptol. 4,5,3. According to POxy. XI,1380,45, > Isis was venerated at Leuke Akte as Aphrodite, Muchis and Eseremphis. There was also an oracle sanctuary of Apollo ( Horus). H. Kees; s.v. LA., RE 12, 2267.

K.J.-W.

on the Red Sea at the eastern

mouth of Wadi Hammamat opposite Coptus, modern Marsa Koseir el-qadim. Leukos Limen (LL) was the starting-point for trips to Punt (coast of Eritrea). From the Ptolemaic period the harbours + Myos Hormos and — Berenice [9] supplanted LL. Hardly any ancient remains are extant. JO.QU. Leuthari Alemannian, brother of > Butilinus. L. marched with him to Italy in AD 553 presumably on behalf of the king of the Franks > Theodebald I. He parted from Butilinus, and after plundering expeditions in

LEUTHARI

456

455

southern Italy went back north alone; after an attack by Byzantine troops he lost his booty again. L. and a large part of his army died of an epidemic in 5 54 near Ceneta in Venetia (Agathias 1,6; 22,13). 2 D. Gevenicu, Geschichte der Ale1 PERE 35 7891. WE.LU. mannen, 1997, 93f..

Levaci In Caes. B Gall. 5,39, a people of Gallia Belgica — mentioned in the context of the events of the winter of 54/53 BC — who were immediate neighbours of the + Nervii, with whom they had a relationship of dependence; cannot be localized more precisely. F.SCH.

also Ez 40:46b). In the Priestly Work, where the auxiliary services of the Levites are related to the desert sanctuary, they become servants of > Aaron and are excluded from priestly service under threat of death (Nm 3:5-10). This downgrading of the Levites, which can be ascertained from the period of the Exile (587-538 BC) could have occurred in the context of Josiah’s reform in which the country priests were denied to serve at the central sanctuary (2 Kg 23:9). G.ScumitT, Der Ursprung des Levitums, in: ZATW 94, 1982, 575-599; H.SEEBASS, s.v. Levi/L., TRE 21, 36-40; H. Gesg, in: Id., Vom Sinai zum Zion. At. Beitr. zur biblischen Theologie

(Beitr. zur

31990, 147-158.

Levana Roman goddess of — indigitamenta, unequivocally thus only at Aug. Civ. 4,11. Her name is mentioned there in conjunction with the protection and care of newborn children whom she ‘lifts up’ from the earth (terra) (probably with a perfect tense meaning of the suffix -na, s. [1]). Varro in Non. 848 L. also suggests that L. took up her abode directly after the — birth, i.e. she is interpreted as a divine midwife who is the first carer of newborn infants.

evangelischen

Theol.

64), B.E.

Levy I. GREECE

II. ROME

the Levites — clearly distinguished from the priests — form a type of clerus minor who are entrusted with the supervision of the Temple courtyards, provision rooms with cult equipment, sacrifices and offerings as well as being active as singers, musicians and gatekeepers and assisting the priests in the sacrificial service. Various genealogies document internal disputes and rivalries. The details of the history of the Levites can be clarified only with difficulty and only to a limited extent. In the older texts Levi is mentioned who belongs to the Leah group within the list of the twelve tribes, on the one hand as a tribe that attempted to settle in central Palestine but was dispersed (Gn 34; 49:5-7; see also Nm

I. GREECE In geometrical and early archaic Greece, mainly nobles and their dependents took part in wars. With the rise of the > phalanx in the 7th cent. BC, the Greek polity also levied free farmers, who could provide their weapons themselves. However, details about conscription are first known from the Classical period, especially from Athens and Sparta. In Athens, all citizens — probably with the exception of the > thetai until the middle of the 4th cent. BC — were liable for military service between their 18th and 59th year; of these, the first two years, perhaps already from the 5th cent. BC., completed the > ephebeia. After a declaration of war by the public assembly, the > strategos named by them, was responsible for conscription, by which all those liable for military service were gathered, either according to age (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 53,4; 53,7) or év tots wégeotv/ en tois méresin, probably according to phyles (Aeschin. Leg. 168; > phyle [1]). A centrally kept registry (xataNoyoc/— katalogos) made supervision and a balanced (admittedly not always secured) supply possible (Aristoph. Equ. 1369 ff.; Aristoph. Pax 1179 ff.; Aristoph.

1:49; 3:6; 17:23 et passim). On the other hand, the term

Lys. 9).

Levi— mostly in the plural — is used to describe a group within the priesthood that because of its zeal for ~» Yahwe dissolved its kinship ties (Ex 32:29; Dt 33:9) and dispensed with the ownership of land (Dt 10:9). They are therefore citizens under protection with an inferior status of social rights (Judg. 17f.; r9f.; see also Dt 12:12 and 18; 14:27 and 29; 16:11 and 14 et passim), but are also legitimized for the priesthood: according to Dt 33:8ff., the duty of the Levite is to handle the oracle by lot, offer sacrifices and teach the Torah. Dt (18:1-8; cf. the so-called identity formula of the levitical priest Dt 17:9 and 18; 24:8; Jos 3:3 et passim) firmly indicates the equation of priests and Levites, whereas in the later texts there is a strict division between priests

The larger powers (Athens, Boeotia) had a potential of about 10,000 hoplites (> Hoplitai) at their disposal. Athens’ levy consisted of 13,000 men in 431 BC (Thuc. 2,31,2); the Boeotian League could recruit 10,000 hoplites and 1,100 mounted soldiers in the early 4th

1 RADKE, 174.

HE.K.

Levites According to the Chronistic History (— Bible),

and Levites. Ez 44:10-14

reproaches the Levites for

their involvement in idolatry and downgrades them to gatekeepers, butchers and henchmen in the sacrificial service (for a differentiation between priests and L. cf.

cent. BC (Hell. Oxy. 16,3 f.); at the battle ot Leuctra in 371 BC, however, only 6,000 Boeotian soldiers took part (Diod. Sic. 15,52,2). In emergencies metics were

called to military service in addition to citizens in Athens: (Thuc.. 2,133,737 2y313) ch. enw Vecen 2:25; + metoikos); the fleet (cf. — Navies) was chiefly

manned by paid thetai on a voluntary basis, also by allies and, from the > Peloponnesian War, also by foreign rowers. The Athenian > cavalry, which from the middle of the sth cent. BC, consisted of 1,000 and, including the — hippotoxotai, of 1,200 riders, was manned by landowners (Thuc. 2,13,8; on the drawing up of the list of mounted soldiers, cf. Lys. 14-15).

457

458

- Mercenaries were certainly recruited from the late 5th cent. BC onwards (Thuc. 7,27,1 f.; 7,29,1). At the battle of Plataeae (479 BC), — Sparta led 5,000 hoplites from the Spartiate class (> Spartiatae) and also from the > periozkoi onto the battlefield (Hdt. 9,10 f.; 9,28). Until the battle at Leuctra, in which only 700 Spartiates took part (Xen. Hell. 6,4,15), their num-

bers dropped continually; Sparta was thus obliged to base the waging of its wars increasingly on social groups with a low legal status, such as perioikoi, + helots or neodamodai (> neodamodeis) as well as, finally, on mercenaries. After the public assembly declared war, the ephors (+ ephorot) were responsible for conscription (Thuc. 1,87 f.; Xen. Hell. 6,4,17), and recruitment took place according to age groups (Xen. Lac. 11,2); military duty lasted for 40 years &@’ *Pnc/ aph’ hébés (Xen. Hell. 5,4,143); accordingly, the Spartiates could be recruited probably for 40 years, after the start of their military service at the age of about 20. Sparta’s allies in the League usually filled their contingents at the behest of the ephors, who likewise determined the troop commandants. Philippus [4] Ifand Alexander [4] the Great of Macedonia led armies arranged in units according to territories and kinds of weapons, in which the heavy infantry and a part of the cavalry were recruited in Macedonia, while the rest of the troops were made up of allies or mercenaries. These kings, just like their Hellenistic successors, were responsible for the declaration of war as well as for the levy. Under Alexander and the > Diadochi the size of the army reached its zenith in Greek history: at Gaugamela (331 BC), Alexander’s army consisted of 40,000 heavy and light infantry and 7,000 cavalry (Arr. Anab. 3,12,5); in 301 BC at Ipsus, Antigonus {1] Monophtalmus and Demetrius [2] Poliorcetes had more than 70,000 infantry, 10,000 cavalry and 75 + elephants, their opponents more than 64,000 infantry, 10,500 cavalry, 420 elephants and 120 war chariots (> War chariot) (Plut. Demetrius 28). The Seleucid

army had a strength of 62,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry at > Raphia in 217 BC; Ptolemy [7] [V mustered 70,000 infantry, 5,000 cavalry and 73 elephants for this battle (Pol. 5,79). The Hellenistic kings often relied on Greek or Macedonian immigrants and veterans and their sons, often settled in genuine military colonies; at the same time they mobilized more and more natives; furthermore, they enlisted mercenaries, who were recruited outside their own governmental region by agents (cf. Diod. Sic. 18,61,4 f.; 19,60,1). — Armies

(II.); > Hoplitai;

- Mercenaries;

— Wea-

pons (1.) 1 B. Bar-Kocuva, The Seleucid Army, 1976 2 L. BuRCKHARDT, Birger und Soldaten, 1996 3 G.T. GRIFFITH,

The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, 1935 4D.Hamet, Athenian Generals, 1998 5 HM, vol. 3 6 M.H. Hansen, Democracy and Demography, 1986 7 KROMAYER/VEITH 8 M.LAuney, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, 1949/50 9/J.F. Lazensy, The Spartan Army, 1985 10H.W. Parke, Greek Mercenary Soldiers, 1933 11 F.Prost (ed.), Armées et sociétes de la

LEVY

Gréce classique, 1999

Greece, 1996

13 M.SaAGE, Warfare in Ancient

14D.WHITEHEAD, The Ideology of the

Athenian Metic, 1977, 82-86.

LE. BU.

Il. ROME

Although all citizens were obliged to serve as soldiers from early Roman times, Roman military service was a privilege. The early legion (> legio) consisted of 1,000 soldiers, who were recruited from the three > tribus; the > cavalry (equites) was made up of the > patricii. According to the ancient historians, Servius Tullius [I 4] is supposed to have carried out the first > census of Roman citizens and classified them according to their wealth into classes. This classification also served military purposes, insofar as service in a certain troop unit was in each case connected with belonging to a particular classis. Outside the classes stood the > capite censi, who had no large possessions at their disposal and were not admitted to armed military service (Liv. 1,42,443,8). During the Italian expansion Rome required its allies (> socii) to provide soldiers for the Roman army. As can be seen from the list of Roman and Italian troops who fought against the Celts in 225 BC, the allies supplied significantly more soldiers than Rome as early as the 3rd cent. BC (Pol. 2,24). In the Second > Punic War, more than 20 Roman legions were deployed between 214 and 203 BC. After the defeat of Cannae in 216 BC, capite censi and even slaves were actually recruited to military service, in order to thus even out the losses "(live 225575 7-123) 23 50452—4-0 anaes: 24,16,9; on the fleet cf. Liv. 24,11,7—9; 26,3 5,5). Polybius gives a thorough description of conscription in his depiction of the Roman army for the period around 21 BC (dilectus; Pol. 6,19-21); it remains unclear, however, which information he evaluated for this section: in the dilectus the men at the age of liability for military service were called to Rome from their homes and there assigned to legions; date and place of the disposition of the legions were determined accordingly. This system was clearly based on compulsory service and recruiting, although voluntarii (volunteers) were also accepted into the legions. Exemptions from service were possible, but heavy fines fell upon those who sought to avoid military service; the > iuniores were registered in lists (tabulae) (Liv. 24,18,7-9).

According to Polybius, the cavalry had a compulsory service period of ten campaigns, the infantry of sixteen. Initially, campaigns lasted probably at the most six months, the entire military time a total of seven or eight years. The wars outside Italy, however, resulted in a prolongation of military service; thus Livy mentioned a > centurio, who had served 22 years as a soldier in the early 2nd cent. BC (Liv. 42,34). The situation became more acute especially during the wars in Spain; therefore, resistance against the conscriptions grew from the middle of the 2nd cent. BC (Pol. 35,4; Liv. Per. 48; 55; App. Hisp. 49; 65). Simultaneously, the wealth qualification for soldiers was reduced, in order to raise the number of recruits (cf. Liv. 1,43,8; Pol. 6,19,2; Cic.

LEVY

459

460

Rep. 2,40); with these measures, the gradual impover-

7,13,7); individual regulations regarded age and body

ishment of the Roman soldiers began. Under these circumstances, the acceptance of voluniarti from the class of the capite censi into the legions of > Marius [I 1] was no revolutionary innovation (Sall. lug. 86,24); also after Marius, recruiting remained the most important method of maintaining the strength of the legions. Although conscriptions were usually the duty of local officeholders, Roman magistrates could also send conquisitores to the levy. The soldiers also came from agricultural regions and were mostly small farmers with low social status; entrance into the army gave them the chance to improve their social situation by means of a military career. During this period, it gradually became standard practice to accept soldiers who were not Roman citizens; thus Caesar’s legio V Alaudae was recruited in Transalpine Gaul in this way (Suet. Tul. 24,2; cf. Caes. B Gall. 7,65,1; Gallia Cisalpina: Caes. B Gall. 2,2,1). Special auxiliary troops

size (Cod. Theod. 7,13,1; 7,13,3). As several edicts

(> Auxilia) such as cavalry and archers came

from

regions outside Italy (cavalry: Sall. lug. 7,2; archers: Caes. B Gall. 2,7,1). In the Late Republic, the com-

manders often promised the voluntarii + war spoils and rewards (Sall. lug. 84,4 f.; 87,1; 91,6 £5 92,2; cf.

Plut. Lucullus 17; Plut. Pompey 45; Plut. Caesar 17; cf. Caes. B Gall. 6,3,2). During the Civil Wars, the soldiers, no longer regularly recruited, fought less for their homeland than they did for their commanders (App. B Civassi7)s + Augustus created a standing professional army with long periods of service (ultimately 25 years). In Italy, levies no longer took place, with the exception of the crisis years of AD 6 and 9, but Roman citizens could still be recruited in the provinces. Augustus integrated closed units of peoples on the periphery of the empire as — auxilia into the army. In the early Principate, soldiers were recruited for the legions especially in Spain and in Gallia Narbonensis in the west, in the more strongly Hellenized regions of Syria and Asia Minor in the east, and in Africa; at the same time the number of Italian soldiers in the legions dropped. From Hadrian, only the ~ praetorians were still recruited in Italy. In addition, there was a tendency to influence the sons of soldiers to enter the legions by means of the offer of Roman citizenship (— civitas). During the entire period of the Principate, Roman soldiers came chiefly from agricultural regions and low social classes; military service offered the provincials the opportunity to gain Roman citizenship upon leaving military service. In the 3rd cent. Diocletian (284-305) returned to the levy after a phase of civil wars and enemy invasions; it was also required that the sons of > veterans became soldiers. (Cod) Theod= 7,22,0 f:3 7322.43) 7322,.7—10). The cities and the big landowners now had to provide recruits corresponding to the size of their territory or their land. This form of the levy was so unpopular that the provision of recruits was increasingly replaced by monetary payments. In the year 375, an imperial edict regulated the provision of recruits (Cod. Theod.

show, many young men attempted to avoid military service by self-mutilation; this form of resistance was supposed to be broken by the threat of severe penalties (Cod. Theod. 7,13,4 f.; 7,13,10). Longer discourses on the levy and the selection of eligible recruits, are found in > Vegetius (Veg. Mil. 1,2-8). From the late 4th cent. onwards, members of foreign populations were also accepted into the legions; the army of Iulianus [11] consisted in part of barbarians, who served as volunteers (Amm. Marc. 20,4,4); the percentage of soldiers of Germanic origin seems to have risen significantly especially after the battle of Hadrianopolis [3] in 378. + Armies (III.);

+ Auxilia;

> Conscientious objection;

— Legio; > Mercenaries; > Veterans 1P.A. Brunt, The Army and the Land in the Roman Revolution, in: Id., The Fall of theRoman Republic, 1988,

240-280 2 Id., Conscription and Volunteering in the Roman Imperial Army, in: Id., Roman Imperial Themes, 1990, 188-214 3 BRUNT, 391-415; 625-638 4H.ELTON, Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350-425, 1996, 128-154 5 E.GaABBA, Republican Rome. The Army and the Allies, 1976,1-19 6 JONES, LRE, 614-623

7 L.Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army, *1998 8 E.Rawson, The Literary Sources for the Pre-Marian Army, in: PBSR 39, 1971, 13-31.

J.CA.

Lewis Painter Attic red-figured vase painter working between 470/460 and 450/440 BC; specialized in the painting of skyphoi (> Skyphos; > Vessels, shapes and types of fig. D.): with the exception of a kantharos from the Athenian Agora, the c. 45 vases known by him are vessels with this shape, most of which belong to type A, but some also to the Corinthian type. Many of the images show themes rarely presented, with gods and pursuit scenes among his preferred subjects. BEAZLEY named the Lewis Painter after the original owner of the skyphos in Cambridge; however, later two vases attributable to him with a signature (Polygnotus) were discovered. However, the old provisional name was kept in order to avoid confusion with the other, younger + Polygnotus. Among his successors, the Penelope Painter in particular specialized in the painting of skyphoi in similar fashion. BEAZLEY, ARV*, 972-976, 1676; BEAZLEY, Paralipomena, 435f.; D.M. Rosinson, S.E. FREEMAN, The Lewis Painter = Polygnotos Il, in: AJA 40, 1936, 215-227; H.R. W. Smitu, Der L.-M., 1939.

TO:

Lex, leges A. Concert B. Types C. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROMAN LAW-GIVING D. THE SUBJECTS OF IMPORTANT LEGES

A. CONCEPT Lex (‘law’, pl. leges) in Roman law denotes stipulation by a private individual, an office-bearer or a legislative body. The etymology is obscure. A derivation

461

462

LEX, LEGES

from legere (‘to read out’), referring to the method of

(‘royal laws’; also: ius Papirianum, > ius). From the

stipulation by way of a ceremonial formula (cf. B. below on nuncupatio) remains speculative. Crucial to the /ex is its mandatory character. On the other hand, in the original use of the term it lacks the ‘abstract’ (claiming general validity) and ‘general’ (directed at a large number of people) character of modern laws. This explains the variety of uses of this prescriptive instrument in Roman law: these include on the one hand e.g. the contractual agreement concerning the expiry of a security (> lex commissoria), on the other hand the establishment of fundamental norms for Roman society in the early Republic by the XII Tables (c. 450 BC; > Tabulae Duodecim). The term /ex or (particularly) leges on its own in the Roman sources refers precisely to the Law of the XII Tables. They thus constitute not merely a particularly important statute, but in Roman understanding the very exemplar of lex (lex publica, ‘state

time when popular assemblies began to participate in law-giving in general, and in the case of the lex de imperio (transfer of office) in particular (see also > lex de imperio Vespasiani), leges datae were either applicable only to legal arrangements beyond the scope of the law

statute’).

B. Tyres The Romans made distinctions within the wide range covered by lex: lex dicta (in Ulp. Dig. 8,4,13 pr. also: lex privata) is a particular term, or also the entire content, of a private legal agreement (lex contractus) or of any other private legal instrument, e.g. a will. In formal per aes et libram (‘by copper and scale’) transactions, the most important of which is the — mancipatio, this private legal affirmation, formulated by one party, but in transactions involving two parties tacitly accepted by the other party, is incorporated into the formula to be pronounced (— nuncupatio; hence lex dicta in mancipio or lex mancipio dicta: ‘the affirmation spoken when enacting mancipatio’). The XII Tables (Tab. 6,1) contain the stipulation for it (Fest. 176, 5-6): cum nexum faciet mancipiumque, uti lingua nuncupassit, ita ius esto (‘if anyone enters into a formal transaction of liability, or performs mancipatio, let that which he has formally declared have force of law’). Models for these private leges might be found in sacral law, and especially in transactions by the state when transferring state assets or Claims (e.g. taxes to tax collectors, > publicani) or in covering administrative requirements (e.g. equipping an army). Many documents survive covering such state transactions with private legal content. Another model to be considered for such contractual ‘declarations’ is the prerogative of the > pater familias to regulate his household, just as the symbolic claim to slaves, cattle and land in the verbal form of the mancipatio (meum esse aio: ‘I declare that it is mine’) indicates the prerogatives of authority and ownership proper to the head of a family. The lex publica in its original form, like the private lex dicta, is a ‘situation-related’ injunction. It was probably first promulgated by an office-bearer (hence lex data, ‘issued lex’). Later tradition would also call the leges datae of the pontifex maximus (high priest) from the time before the founding of the Republic leges regiae

relating to Roman citizens (> ius), or they required further authorization as to their content ([1. 65f.]; differing in part [2. 125f.]). At the centre of academic theory as regards the

sources of Roman law stands the lex rogata (‘law by request’). This is the result of a legal proposal introduced by a magistrate or people’s tribune (and as a rule named after him), and decided upon by a popular assembly. From the time of the lex Hortensia (287 BC),

a plebiscite of the plebeian assemblies (— plebiscita) was the most common method of legislation. Only a year later one of the most celebrated and momentous of Roman private statutes, the > lex Aquilia, was enacted in the form of a plebiscite. Besides the request (— rogatio) and the ballot in the people’s or plebeian assembly, a prerequisite for proper legislative procedure was that the ballot concerning a request had to be announced by a herald (renuntiatio), and the law decid-

ed upon promulgated on boards or tables (publicatio). C. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROMAN LAW-GIVING

According to the tradition, the most comprehensive Roman legislative work of the Republic, the XII Tables (> Tabulae duodecim), fits neither of the two legislative models: the ‘ten men’ (> decemviri) charged with the

codification of these laws were evidently appointed as extraordinary magistrates specially for the purpose of the legislative project. This suggests a lex data. According to Liv. 3,34,6, however, the first ro tables were accepted immediately by the comitia centuriata, which is more in keeping with a lex rogata. In consequence, the credibility of accounts of the procedure is disputed. The content of the XII-Table legislative project is no longer situation-related, but ‘normative’, thus making a claim to general validity. It was also understood in this way in the ensuing period, and regarded as the most important source of ius civile (‘the law of Roman citizens’, -> ius). The ius civile was now increasingly identified with the law as laid down in statutes, as distin-

guished from the law as promulgated by office-holders, especially the praetors. In the Republican period and at the beginning of the Principate, the —> edicta of the magistrates had no legal status. While a series of laws under Augustus were still enacted as people’s laws or by plebiscite, from that period onwards this method was increasingly supplanted by senatorial decrees (> senatus consultum). After initial doubts, these were granted the validity of laws (Gai. Inst. 1,4), but*not expressly described as such. The decrees of the emperor were evaluated in just the same way from the 2nd cent. AD onwards, and soon these became the sole decrees to carry any authority (> constitutiones, cf. Gai. Inst. 1,5). Although by their

463

464

origin they corresponded more to the law promulgated by office-holders, which had traditionally been distinguished from the law of the leges, in late antiquity it was these very laws of the emperor that were described as leges. This state of affairs may be traced back to the lex data of the magistrates in the 2nd cent. AD, and the justification of the power of the imperial office through the conception of a lex de imperio, i.e. an enabling law. The imperial laws from now on stood in contradistinc-

centuries of the Republic concerned constitutional law, the law, comparatively limited in scope, applying to those offences that were subject to state prosecution, including the procedure to be followed, and the civil action. Thus Roman tradition traced the inviolability of the people’s tribunes back to the supposed leges Valeriae Horatiae, said to have been adopted as early as 449

LEX, LEGES

tion to the law of the jurists (+ ius). The latter was

finally brought together in the 6th cent. AD in the ~» Digesta, while the imperial leges were codified in the ~ Codex. The municipal laws issued by the emperor were also leges datae in the senses described: constitutions for cities and communities, some of which have survived in inscriptions. A lex Iulia municipalis (45 BC) may have contained a kind of model constitution. The most important /eges of this kind come from Spain: hence the — lex Ursonensis for Urso (modern Osuna), the > lex Malacitana for Malaca (modern Malaga), the > lex

Salpensana for a city in southern Spain, and the -+ lex Irnitana for Irni; this last having been discovered only in 1981.

D. THE SUBJECTS OF IMPORTANT

LEGES

1. SANCTIONS 2. REGULATION OF POLITICAL LIFE AND THE COURTS 3. PROVISIONS AGAINST EXTRAVAGANCE AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS 4. OVERALL CHARACTER

1. SANCTIONS Apart from the relatively comprehensive legislation of the XII Tables, the /eges known to us are as a rule quite discrete arrangements. Furthermore, if they prohibited objectionable behaviour sanctions were for a long time either absent or imperfect. As a consequence, from the 2nd cent. AD onwards jurisprudence made a distinction: only ‘complete’ leges perfectae also include a full-blown legal consequence: e.g. the invalidity of legal transactions that were contrary to statute. In the case of ‘incomplete’ leges imperfectae, this legal consequence, or, for example, the granting of an exception for defence implying the right to refuse a service (> exceptio), was left to be settled by the praetor. The ‘not quite complete’ leges minus quam perfectae provided only for indirect sanctions, e.g. a private punishment. This lack of regulatory stringency may be attributable to a mindset that regarded the validity of older > ius as immutable when set against newer leges. Not until the Imperial period was this mindset fully overcome, so that from then on the newer law had precedence over the older. From the time of the late Republic too, the effectiveness of the Jeges had been protected by the prohibition of fraus legi facta (‘evasion of the law’).

2. REGULATION OF POLITICAL LIFE AND THE COURTS Most of the statutes that we know of from the first

BC (> Tribunus). The previously mentioned lex Hor-

tensia of 287 BC determined the legal status of the plebiscite. The assent of senators of the patrician order to the > rogatio of a lex had been established by the lex Publilia Philonis (probably 339 BC). All of these constitutional leges reflect compromises in the struggle between patricians and plebeians, as does the lex Ogulnia (3c0 BC), which obtained access for plebeians to the priestly offices, or the historically unconfirmed leges Liciniae Sextiae of 367 BC, which determined the procedure for filling the leading offices of the Republic in such a way as to provide plebeians with an appropriate share (i.a. one of the two consuls was always to be a plebeian). Other examples of such laws of basically constitutional import are the lex Villia annalis of 180 BC, probably establishing the career sequence of offices, and certainly the required minimum age for each (> cursus honorum), and the lex Ovinia of 312 BC concerning the selection of senators (— lectio senatus) by the censor (> censores). Another important step in

establishing equality of civil status between plebeians and patricians, and therefore of constitutional importance, was the lex Canuleia, c. 445 BC, permitting intermarriage between members of the two classes. The leges agrariae (> Agrarian laws) possibly had an even greater effect on the constitutional basis of economic and social order. Legislation, also closely linked with constitutional matters, led to the introduction of large jury courts for the prosecution of offences endangering the state (> quaestio): e.g. the lex Calpurnia de repetundis of 149 BC against blackmail committed by office-bearers, and the legislation of Sulla, the dictator of the years 82-79 BC, to the same purpose (lex Cornelia repetundarum). It was Sulla, who promulgated further leges Corneliae (e.g. de vi publica, violence directed against the interests of the state, and de sicariis et veneficiis,

against murder by poison and by treachery) against crimes of violence and insurrection. There are numerous statutes providing for the prosecution of the crimen laesae maiestatis against bearers of state office (> crimen; e.g. lex Varia, 103 BC; lex Cornelia, 81 BC; lex Iulia, 46 BC). The oldest actions basic to the civil action (+ legis actiones) are already assumed in the XII Tables. Later actions of the ius civile (see — ius) relied on the legal authorization of the praetor, until the lex Aebutia (mid 2nd cent. BC) introduced the formulary procedure for the > condictio ( formula), also giving the city praetor general authorization to develop new written formulae for the civil action. From the time of the lex Cornelia de iurisdictione (67 BC), the praetors were of

465

466

course also bound to their own edicts (> edictum [2]) in doing so.

3. PROVISIONS AGAINST EXTRAVAGANCE AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS Other objects of Republican legislation were numerous prohibitions of luxury and conspicuous consumption on the part of aristocrats and the nouveaux-riches. They concerned for example women’s expenditure on clothing and cosmetics, the number of guests and courses at dinners, and gambling. The lex Cincia (204 BC), prohibiting gifts (e.g. for the corruption of voters) exceeding a maximum (unknown) value, is probably linked in its intentions to such leges sumptuariae. At the same time, this law was probably intended to restrict the more or less oppressive demands made by the powerful on their clients for financial rewards in return for protection and advice, i.a. in legal matters. The intention of the lex Claudia de nave senatorum (on the equipment of ships by senators, 218 BC), prohibiting senators and their sons from involvement in the risky business of shipping finance beyond a certain level, is also supposed to have been the preservation of a suitable way of life for the aristocracy (Liv. 21,63,3—4). Another focus of legislation, finally, were measures of relief for debtors and others in need of protection. Thus the lex Poetelia appears to have placed restrictions on debt-slavery as early as 326 BC. Whether a lex Genucia of about the same time (342 BC?) imposed a general prohibition on interest cannot be said with certainty. Subsequently, at any rate, maximum rates of interest and reliefs for debtors were still being legislated for. Closely linked to this theme are the many laws govyerning sureties: in the 4th or 3rd cent. BC, for example, the lex Publilia stipulated that a citizen who had paid off a creditor had to wait for six months to elapse before having recourse to the chief debtor for whom he had stood surety. Other laws governing sureties were intended rather to protect the guarantor himself, e.g. by sharing liability among several co-guarantors, or by a duty of information on the part of the creditor as to the chief debt and the number of guarantors. Minors were protected by the /ex Laetoria (also erroneously referred to as: Plaetoria), probably in 193 BC (— minores). -~ CODIFICATION

4. OVERALL CHARACTER Any systematic and consistent policy is as difficult to detect in these and other Roman legislative measures as is, at the time of the XII Tables, any intention of regulating statutes or even any category of statute. As a whole, the quality of Roman legislation as regards form and content is pitifully poor. The reputation and influence of Roman law depend least of all on /eges. it may rather be said that the formation of law by the praetor and the jurists behind him was able to develop all the more freely, precisely because of the fragmentary and in part seemingly arbitrary character of legislation. 1 J. BLeEIcKEN, Lex publica. Gesetz und Recht in der rom. Republik, 1978

2 Mommsen, Staatsrecht, vol. 2.

LEX AQUILIA

RoOTONDI; WENGER, 372ff.; WIEACKER, RRG, 411-428 (with references). GS:

Lex Aquilia ‘Law proposed by Aquilius’. The lex Aquilia de damno iniuria dato (‘on unlawfully inflicted damage’) was a > plebiscitum which according to ancient tradition had to be dated from 286 BC, but according to modern economic historical analyses is from around the turn of the 3rd and 2nd cents. BC. The designation + lex was consistent with the fact that plebiscites had the effect of laws. The lex Aquilia had three chapters. The first and third regulated delictual compensation (cf. Dig. 9,2); the second (which soon passed out of use) gave a claim for damages against an — adstipulator (secondary creditor), who had arranged an —> acceptilatio (official remission of debt) to the detriment of the main creditor (Gai. Inst. 3,215). In the event of the killing (occidere) of another’s

slave or a quadruped gregarious animal of the class of cattle (quadrupes pecus), the first chapter provided for compensation at the maximum value the slave/animal killed had attained during the preceding year. Occidere was interpreted narrowly and limited to cases in which the perpetrator had actively, violently and directly acted upon the body of the victim (Iulianus Dig. 9,2,51 pr.). In the event of an indirect cause of death (mortis

causam factum

praestare) the praetor allowed actiones in (actions geared to the facts of the case,

Cels./Ulp. Dig. 9,2,7,6), which followed the model of the actio legis Aquiliae. According to the third chapter, the perpetrator was liable for damage to property by direct burning, breaking or forcing (urere, frangere, rampere). In the event of only indirect damage, actiones in factum intervened. The amount of compensation was proportionate to the > interesse of the injured party (Paul. Dig. 9,2,33 pr.; Ulp. Dig. 9,2,41 pr.). The precondition for any liability was the existence of > iniuria. There was no iniuria if the action was justified, e.g. by self-defence (Alfenus Varus Dig. 9,2,52,1) or emergency (Cels./Ulp. Dig. 9,2,49,1), or if no blame was attributable to the perpetrator (> dolus or + culpa), e.g. in the event of mental derangement (Pegasus/Ulp. Dig. 9,2,5,2) or contributory negligence on the part of the injured party (Ulp. Dig. 9,2,11 pr.). The actio legis Aquiliae was both a petitory (i.e. oriented towards compensation) and a penal actio mixta (‘mixed action’, Gai. Inst. 4,6; 9). It could therefore be added to delictual, though not to petitory actions (e.g. contractual claims). In the event of unsuccessful contestation, the defendant was liable for double the amount (Gai. Inst. 4,9). The owner was granted the right of action; praetorial actiones utiles (‘actions in equity’) were granted to persons entitled in rem, or a pater familias in the event of negligent injury to a free son of the household (Ulp. Dig. 9,2,5,3). — Actio; > Damnum; > Delictum H.HausMANINGER, 51996.

Das

Schadenersatzrecht

der

|.A., R.GA.

467

468

Lex commissoria A Roman forfeiture or cancellation

The law refers to Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius, thus passes over the proscribed emperors. The question is contested whether such a packaged conferral of official powers was already enacted for Tiberius, or began with Caligula.

LEX AQUILIA

agreement,

it was

usually a unilateral (hence: — lex)

clause inserted in conditions of sale (see > emptio venditio D), or a pledge (— fiducia, — pignus). Upon purchase the clause granted the vendor a right of rescission if the purchaser did not pay the purchase price — for instance, in the event of an agreement for payment in instalments or a date of payment. If the vendor exercised the right of rescission, he could request the return of the sold property by means of the actio venditi (according to the Sabinians) or by means of an actio in factum (according to the Proculians). Without the clause, he had only the possibility of obtaining a fine (+ condemnatio) from the purchaser, which probably afforded him little financial satisfaction. In the event of a pledge, the lex commissoria at least enabled the creditor to keep the pledged property if the debtor did not pay his debt (‘forfeiture of lien’). Constantinus prohibited the use of the lex commiussoria for pledges in order to control improper use of unjustified pledges (Cod.

Just. 8,34,3). + Right of purchase; > Pledge, law of HOoNSELL, MAYER-MALY,

SELB, 198f., 320f.; F. PETERS,

Die Ricktrittsvorbehalte

des ré6m.

Kaufrechts,

1973. Gs:

Lex curiata see > Curiata lex

Lex de imperio Vespasiani A bronze plaque in the Capitoline Museum in Rome contains the end of the lex de imperio Vespasiani, the so-called enabling law for -» Vespasianus, with which the Senate decreed at the end of AD 69 — after the death of > Vitellius — to Vespasian cuncta principibus solita (‘all that is usual for emperors’, Tac. Hist. 4,3,3), and which was put before the

comitia at the beginning of 70 [1. 1o4f.]. The inscription (from the Lateran?), which no-one could read at the time because of its classical capital letters, served COLA DiI RIENZO in 1347 for the foundation of his theory of the sovereignty of the Roman people. CoLa was certainly familiar with a more complete text than that known to us. Since the complete panel extant begins in mid-sentence, at least one further panel, lost today, must have existed. [2]. The extant text includes eight paragraphs, which begin in each case with utique, and the > sanctio. In part, individual authorities are given, as for the expansion of the > pomerium (§5), partly also very complete regulations, as, e.g., the ‘discretionary clause’ in §6, which allowed the emperor to do ‘what he believes, in the interests of the State ... that he should do’ (doubts about the scope in [3. 549f.]). The document is kept in the form of a > senatus consultum (censuerunt uti...), but has the sanctio of a

law and also calls itself a lex. Presumably, the s.c. of the end of December 69 was passed on a few weeks later as a law to the comitia tribunicia, which gave the tribunicia potestas.

1 P. Brunt, Lex de imperio Vespasiani, in: JRS 67, 1977,

95-116 2M.Sorp1, Cola di Rienzo e le clausole mancanti della lex de imperio Vespasiani, in: Studi E. Volterra 2, 1971, 303-311 3 M.H.Crawrorp, Roman Statutes, 1996 4F.Hur ert, La lex de imperio Vespasiani et la légitimité augustéenne, in: Latomus 52, 1993, 261-280. Epitions: CIL VI 930; M.H. Crawrorp, Roman Statutes, 1996, no. 39; H. Frets, Histor. Inschr. zur rom. Kaiserzeit, 1984, no.49 (German translation); L.SCHUMA-

CHER, ROm. Inschr., 1988, nv.20.

H.GA.

Lexicography I. GREEK

IJ. LATIN

I. GREEK A. ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD B. IMPERIAL PERIOD C. BYZANTINE LEXICOGRAPHY D. STRUCTURES OF

LEXICOGRAPHY

A. ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD Greek lexicography begins in the Alexandrian period (3rd cent. BC) as a further development of > glossography. The Alexandrian period in particular is the time at which collections of ‘glosses’ (difficult words) are compiled, such as the “Ataxto. yA@ooat (Ataktoi glossai) by Philitas, the [h@o0o0a (Gldssai) by Simias of Rhodes, and one by Zenodotus of Ephesus (all of them 3rd cent. BC). These collections presuppose the intention to explain special expressions in local dialects or words that are no longer in common use, words that are ‘strange’ or are typical for poetic language. Parallel to the interest in glosses, an interest in AéEeic (léxeis)

emerged; this generic term referred to words of strange form or meaning, regardless of their frequency. Thus, the first ‘lexicographical’ aids were created, first organized according to semantic fields, later alphabetically. Some of them listed ethnographical glosses (e.g. Callimachus, Ethnikai onomasiai; Dionysius [15] lambos, Peri dialékton, 3rd cent. BC) or pertaining to specific dialectal contexts: a collection of Phrygian glosses by Neoptolemus of Parium, of Aeolian by Antigonus [7] of Carystus, of Attic by Philemon of Aexone (all of them 3rd cent. BC), of Cretan by Hermonax [2], of Rhodian by Moschus (2nd cent. BC), and of Macedonian by Amerias. Other collections focused on the lexicon of individual authors, using material from the commentaries that was organized in an increasingly independent way, for instance in the collections on Homer (Anti-

dorus of Cyme, Neoptolemus of Parium). The collections on Hippocrates [6] became esp. important in the disputes between the different schools of medicine (Philinus of Cos, Xenocritus of Cos, Bacchius of Tanagra, Euphorion of Chalcis, the empiricist Glaucias). The development of lexicography was particularly furthered

469

470

by the Léxeis by > Aristophanes [4] of Byzantium (3rd cent. BC) which were organized into several parts (the

nus, and by Cyrillus [6] (probably sth cent.). A lost Synagoge which is closely tied to the latter is the starting point for the lexica of the centuries to follow. Of these, we have two compendia (Sa, Sb) as well as adaptations in the subsequent lexica by Photius and the Suda. A specifically geographical lexicon by — Stephanus of Byzantium was written in the 6th cent. The period of Renaissance, which was introduced by > Photius, produced a lexicographical work besides the first of the great — etymologica (the so-called Etymologicum Genuinum). In the following centuries, lexicography is characterized mainly by its encyclopaedic character (comparable to the etymologica) (see > Encyclopaedia). The most important work of this kind is the + Suda (roth cent.). A few later lexica such as (Ps.)> Zonaras (13th cent.) and the Lexicon Vindobonense by Andreas Lopadiotes (13th-14th cents.) also belong to this category. Along with the other genres of Byzantine scholarship, lexicography becomes a tradition in western humanism as well: examples are the Dictionarium and the Eclogae by Favorinus of Camers (the first, from 1523, largely adopts the Lexicon Vindobonense) and the ‘false’ lexica by Philemon, also the Violarium of Eudocia, which were written shortly after 1543 by Jacob Diassorinos and Constantine Palaiokappas.

first part: Tlegi tov bxontevonévov

wi} eiofoOa toic

madaotc: “On words that were probably not spoken by the old’): rather than dealing with one specific author or one specific dialect, this work reached further and was characterized by greater complexity, but it was still organized according to semantic fields. B. IMPERIAL PERIOD The beginning of the Imperial period (a fundamental epoch of lexicography) saw the emergence of a large number of scholarly works that aimed at incorporating the entire material of the past into encyclopaedic works (+ Encyclopaedia). Esp. the works by Dorothéus [3] and by Pamphilus must be placed in this context. The large encyclopaedia by Pamphilus was later epitomized by lulius > Vestinus and Diogenianus [2] (2nd cent. AD), the lexicon of the latter often in turn abridged into compendia. With the exception of the Onomastikon by Julius [[V 17] Pollux, an alphabetic organization prevailed at that time: each lemma was followed by one or more explanations, the glosses were listed more or less strictly alphabetically. On the other hand, the history of lexicography is closely tied to > Atticism. The first Atticist lexica (by

LEXICOGRAPHY

Aelius Dionysius [21] and Pausanias, rst—-znd cent. AD)

are descriptive, but from the period of Commodus (late 2nd cent. AD) and after the Eklogé and the Sophistike Paraskeué by Phrynichus the material often takes on a prescriptive authority with purist intentions: lexica no longer functioned only as aids for reading the classics (> Canon) and as ‘archives’ of beautiful words, but were intended also to teach the correct writing of Greek. Markedly Atticist is the lexicon by Moeris (2nd3rd cents.) and the Philétairos by > Herodianus, while the lexicon by Oros (5th cent.) reveals a more moderate Atticism and the Antiattikistés clearly rejects purist rigour. Furthermore,

there is the tradition

of lexica

on

authors, reaching from collections on Homer (esp. Apion and Apollonius [12] Sophistes, both rst cent. AD) to dictionaries on Hippocrates (Erotianus: Ist cent. AD; Dioscorides [9] and Galen: 2nd cent. AD). Another important lexicographical tradition exists on Plato (aside from a small work that was falsely attributed to Didymus [1] of Alexandria, the lists by Harpocration [1] of Argos, 2nd cent. AD, by Clemens and by Boethus; preserved is the dictionary by > Timaeus Sophistes, 4th cent. AD). A third tradition focussed on the canonical Attic orators ( Canon; esp. valuable is Harpocration [2] of Alexandria: 2nd cent. AD).

C. BYZANTINE LEXICOGRAPHY The most extensive and most important preserved lexica stem from the Byzantine period. Beyond the classical material, they contain Biblical material as well. The oldest were compiled by > Hesychius [4] (5th6th cents.), who continued the tradition of Diogenia-

D. STRUCTURES OF LEXICOGRAPHY Lexicography usually deals with difficult words which are explained through more common synonyms. However, not all glosses can be interpreted in this way. Occasionally, the explanations only make sense in a specific context (literal and conceptual improvization, pairs of similar words), are derived from a common

word

combination

in a hendiadyoin

pair), point to a syntactical connection

(hendiadyadic (syntactical-

contextual), resemble an onomastic sequence, or highlight grammatical or etymological peculiarities. A separate type aims at exposing semantic differences between synonyms or phonetically similar words. The Alexandrian work by Simaristos might already have been of this latter type. In the rst/2znd cents. AD, the lexica by + Herennius Philon, > Ptolemaeus of Ascalon, and (Ps.) Ammonius were to follow [4]. Glosses of this type can then be found in all lexica and etymologica. II. LATIN

see > Glossography. ~ Encyclopaedia; > Lexicography I. BEKKER, Anecdota Graeca, J-II], 1814-1821; L. BacH-

MANN, Anecdota Graeca e codd. ms. bibl. Reg. Parisin. 1-2, 1828; E. DEGANI, La lessicografia, in: G.CAMBIANO et al. (ed.), Lo Spazio letterario della Grecia antica, 2, 1995, 505-528; R. PFEIFFER, History of Classical Scholarship, 1968;R. Tost, in: Entretiens Hardt, 40, 1993, 143209; Id., Studi sulla tradizione indiretta dei classici greci, 1988

H.Ersse, Unt. zu den attizistischen Lexika, 1950; K. ALPERS, Das attizistische Lexikon des Oros, 1981; A. KLEIN-

LOGEL, in: GGA 234, 1991, 185-204; A. Guipa, II Dictio-

LEXICOGRAPHY

narium di Favorino e il Lexicon Vindobonense, in: Prometheus 8, 1982, 264-288; K. NicKau (ed.), Ammonii qui

dicitur liber De adfinium vocabulorum differentia, 1966. RT.

Lexicon / Vocabulary (of a language). I. GENERAL

II. Scope

472

471

III. COMPOSITION AND DE-

VELOPMENT

I. GENERAL The lexicon includes the total amount of the words in a language which can be used by its speakers/writers. It can be ordered and examined by language areas (e.g. general, technical, professional language; colloquial, literary, poetic language), by word origin (etymology;

also within a language by formation of word families with common etymological roots), by grammatical parts of speech, or by meaning of words. In this one can take the real world, i.e. its facts and terms, as a starting point (onomasiological approach), or examine the semantic properties and development of the individual linguistic elements (semasiologic approach). Both approaches play a role in the structuring of the lexicon by word fields (synonyms). The diachronic development within the language occurs, above all, through word formation (with suffixes, prefixes, through compounding) and exchange between language areas (e.g. dialect — written language), the dying out of words and their replacement, as well as through contact with other languages (foreign words, loanwords; loan-meanings, loan-translations/calques). The driving forces include a change in civilization and culture, styles and linguistic fashions (archaizing; short-lived ad-hoc formations). II. Score While, according to the material of the ThIL, Latin

would come to a good 50,000 lemmata (not counting e.g. the feminine forms of nouns, adverbs from adjectives, or adjectivized participles as independent lemmata), more than twice as many are found for Greek in LSJ and Lampe [1]. This difference, which was known to the Romans (patrii sermonis egestas, Lucr. 1,832), is

based primarily on the fact that dialect played almost no role in Latin and that far fewer compound words were formed. Thus, for example, lignum (‘wood’) has only 5 compounds, while EbAov/xylon has more than 70 (with secondary formations). The Greek lexicon is also significantly smaller than that of modern European languages; yet we do not know how much has been lost through gaps in the tradition (one symptom: the newly discovered portion of the Diocletian price edict (> Edictum [3] Diocletiani) alone contains approximately 50 previously undocumented Latin lexemes [2]). As for the frequency of the individual lexemes: in the Latin lexicon, only c. 10% are documented more than a hundred times; in Greek, the percentage probably is even smaller.

III. COMPOSITION A. GREEK

AND DEVELOPMENT

B. LATIN

A. GREEK Since the decipherment of > Linear B, we know a part of the ‘normal’ Greek of the period around 1200 BC, whose lexicon has many correspondences with later Greek, but also shows remarkable differences [3. 139f.]. Cultural words borrowed from other languages already occur here (a-sa-mi-to/ dodiv0oc/ asdminthos ‘bathtub’ with the ‘Aegaean’ suffix -w00c/— inthos; ku-ru-solygvodc/chrysoés, Akkadian hurasu ‘gold’; ki-to/ ywdv/chiton, Phoenician ktn ‘chiton’ [3. 139]). In addition to the inherited Indo-European basic stock and the many derivations from it, such loanwords from Mediterranean and Oriental languages form a fundamental extension of the lexicon. From the period between the 8th and the 5th cents. BC, almost only poetic texts have been handed down, with a rich vocabulary, particularly in Homeric epic (~ Homeric language), which contains numerous artificial, and partly obscure, formations[4]; yet it omits some ‘prosaic’ areas which later partly appear in lyric poets such as ~ Archilochus or in iambic poetry (> Iambographers). Furthermore, it is characteristic of Greek that the standard languages for the individual genres of poetry developed under the influence of different dialects, which promoted the spread of dialect words and forms across many regions (-> Greek literary languages). On the other hand, epic language influenced all genres, particularly in the area of the lexicon; many Homeric words became elements of a general poetic language. New compound words were continually formed in imitation of Homer, especially in choral lyrics, with their first culmination in — Pindarus, a second in > Aeschylus. In the 5th cent. BC, literary prose developed, which can be observed not only in the historians, but above all in the Corpus Hippocraticum (> Hippocrates [6]) with its rich scientific terminology. Attic prose of the 4th cent., on the other hand, demonstrates a tendency to limit the vocabulary (more strongly, for example, in Isocrates than in Demosthenes). In the Hellenistic period (— Hellenization II. Language), the lexicon was expanded tremendously by the diverse technical terminologies of the sciences and the use of Greek as the language of public administration and trade, and as a lingua franca in the empire of > Alexander [4] (with map; development of the > Koine). From the 2nd cent. BC on, Latin loan words entered the language [5], above all terms from the military, public administration, law; yet their share remained small (c. 1.5 % of the lexicon). The increase was much larger in Christian literature, less through loan words from Hebrew than through new word formations. LAMPE [1] records some 11,000 previously unattested lexemes. B. LATIN With the exception of the article, Latin has the same parts of speech as Greek. Its core, too, was formed by

473

474

the lexemes inherited from Indo-European and the formations derived from it; in e.g. Cicero’s prose work they make up about two-thirds of all lexemes used [6]. Joining them are borrowings from the Mediterranean substrates (directly or communicated through Greek, as

in El Saucejo in the south of the modern province of Seville in southern Spain in 1981, and purchased by the authorities for the National Museum of Archaeology in Seville (initial publication: [2], with English translation; authoritative text: [4]). Of the original ten bronze

in oleum, oliva), especially in flora, fauna, or maritime vocabulary [7. 17ff.], furthermore adoptions from Etruscan [8], Gaulish (cartwrighting, horse breeding, weapons, clothing), Semitic languages (Punic; others mostly through Greek transmission) and the neighbouring Oscan-Umbrian languages. Much stronger is the influence of Greek, already perceptible in the Twelve Table Laws (e.g. poena) and slowly penetrating almost all areas of the language in several waves, very clearly, for example, in Plautus and Ennius,’ while Terence, or later Cicero, are more restrained. The development of the poetic language, the various technical terminologies (medicine, grammar, rhetoric, architecture, philosophy), and subsequently Christianity brought additional stages so that eventually more than 10% of the Latin lexicon consist of Greek loan- and foreign words. It is characteristic for the further internal development that the new formation of compound words (often following Greek models) which was still widespread in Old Latin becomes much more rare in Classical Latin: Caesar explicitly rejects neologisms (Gell. NA 1,10,4); outside of his letters, Cicero is very sparing with them, so that the written Latin language of the time in ‘its highest stylistic perfection’ (NORDEN) was at its poorest in vocabulary [9. 189]. The later era was less restrictive, with the numerous new formations of e.g. Christianity being more important for the development of the lexicon than the individual tendencies of individuals (e.g. Apuleius). Together, Greek and Latin form an essential foundation of the vocabulary of European civilization, not only through the lexemes extant in them, but far more as a reservoir of elements for internationally used neologisms. ~+ MEDIAEVAL AND NEO-LATIN PHILOLOGY

tablets (H 58 cm, B 91 cm), six (III, V, VII-X) are almost

1 G.W.

H. Lamps,

A Patristic Greek Lexicon,

1961

2 J. ANDRE, Nouveautés lexicales dans le texte de l’édit de Dioclétien, in: RPh 50, 1976, 198-205

3K.STRUNK,

Geschichte der griech. Sprache: Vom Myk. bis zum klass. Griech., in: H.-G. NEsSELRATH, Einl. in die griech. Philol., 1997, 135-155 4M.Leumann, Homer. Worter, 1950

5 H.Hormann, Die lat. Worter im Griech. bis 600 n. Chr., 1989 6 J.SAFAREWICZ, Note sur le vocabulaire de Cicéron, in: Studia ... A. Pagliaro oblata 3, 1969, 193-216 7 A.ERNoutT, Aspects du vocabulaire latin, 1954 8 G. BREYER, Etr. Sprachgut im Lat., 1993 9 NORDEN, Kunstprosa. L.R.

PaLmer,

SzANTYR,

Die griech. Sprache,

Allg. Teil, esp. 31*-50*;

1986;

HOFMANN/

LSJ; ThGL; ThlL P.EL.

Lex Irnitana Only Latin city law extant in large sections, for a Latin municipium from the time of Domitian (end rst cent. AD); found during illegal excavations

LEX IULIA ET PAPIA

completely extant, if also partially in pieces. We thus possess c. 70% of the entire text, taken together with some fragments of the lost tablets and the parallel text in the > lex Malacitana and the > lex Salpensana. Further fragments from other, identical laws (so far from approx. 15 communities, cf. [r]) and the fact that the laws differ only in place names, in local regulations — such as the number of decurions (§31; — decurio [1]) — and in obvious writing variants (numbering of the rubricae/‘rubrics’ or not), led a number of researchers to assume a hypothetical lex Flavia municipalis as a draft for all individual laws [2]. Against this argument there is the fact that a law in the technical sense of Domitianus’ time would have been highly unusual, and that the similarity can also be explained in other ways

[3]. The lex Irnitana (LI) consists of 97 chs., of which 19-31 and 51-97 are extant, as well as twelve others, unnumbered, between these two blocks. In the lost initial portion of the law, there were presumably, after a short introduction, determinations on cult regulations (priests, etc.) and on the definition of citizenship. In ensuing chapters, city officials and their duties, the council (ordo decurionum) and the public assembly, i.e. election, are treated individually in approx. 15 chs. Regulations on city finances, general administration and jurisdiction complete the law. On the basis of the LI, it was possible for the first time to create a picture of the content and meaning of — Latin law during the Imperial period. 1 A.CABALLOS, Testimonios recientes con referencia a municipios, in: E.OrT1Iz DE Ursina, J.SANTOs (ed.),

Teoria y practica del ordenamiento municipal, 1996, 175210 2J.GONZALEZ, M.CrRAwForD, The l.I., in: JRS 76, 1986, 147-243 3 H.GALSTERER, La loi municipale des Romains, in: Revue d’ Histoire du Droit, 65, 1987, 181-

203 Hera,

4 F. FERNANDEZ GOMEZ, M.DEL AMO Y DE LA La 1.1. y su contexto arqueologico, 1990 5 F. LAMBERTI, ‘Tabulae Irnitanae’, 1993 (with extensive commentary) 6 H.GALSTERER, Municipium Flavium Irnitanum: A Latin Town in Spain, in: JRS 78, 1988, 7890. H.GA.

Lex Julia et Papia To improve conjugal morals and to combat childlessness, Augustus, through the lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus (18 BC), forbade marriages

outside one’s class and ordered through the lex Papia Poppaea (AD 9) that citizens of a marriageable age had a duty to marry, with unmarried people penalized by the forfeiture (> caducum) of assets gifted to them in wills, and childless married people with the forfeiture of half of this; on the other hand, anyone who had children was accorded numerous privileges (ius liberorum, ‘chil-

LEX IULIA ET PAPIA

dren’s privilege’). Which regulations should be classified as belonging to which of the two laws was already no longer known with certainty in antiquity; they therefore merged with each other to such an extent that they were often uniformly termed lex Iulia et Papia (Gai. Inst. 1,145; lex Iulia miscella: Cod. lust. 6,40,2; Nov. lust. 22,43). The laws missed their purpose (a fact already acknowledged by Augustus: Tac. Ann. 3,25), but were not finally revoked until AD 531/534 (Cod. Iust. 6,40,2.33 6,51).

— Caducum; — Succession, law of R. Asrouri, La lex I. et P., 31995; HONSELL/ MayeErMALy/SELB, 390ff.; KaseR, RPR1i, 318ff., 723ff.;

A.METTE-DITrMANN, 1991.

476

475

Die

Ehegesetze

des

Augustus, ULM.

Lex Iulia Genetiva see > Lex Ursonensis

Lex Malacitana Municipal law from the time of Domitian (end of the rst cent. AD) for the Latin municipium

Flavium Malacitanum, modern Malaga in southern Spain, of which a bronze tablet was found in 1861 with chs. 51-69 together with the > lex Salpensana (today in the Archaeological National Museum of Madrid). The text of chs. 59-69 is identical, with several differences, to that of the corresponding chs. in the — lex Irnitana; this would probably also apply to the rest of the law. CIL II 1964; ILS 6089; H. Frets, Histor. Inschr. zur r6m. Kaiserzeit, 1984, no. 60 (German translation); TH. SpiTzL, Lex municipii Malacitani, 1984 (Text, transl., commentary). H.GA.

Lex Ursonensis Flavian copy of the municipal law of the Caesarean colonia Iulia Genetiva in Urso, of which

four almost complete tablets were found in 1870/71, and an additional 12 fragments were found in and near Osuna (province of Seville) in Southern Spain (today in the Archaeological National Museum of Madrid) in 1925. Originally the law probably comprised nine tablets with three or five columns of text each and just over 140 sections (rubricae), of which 61-82, 91-106 and 123-134 are almost entirely extant and several others are preserved in fragments. The charter of the colony was brought before the comitia as an individual law (perhaps by Mark Anthony after Caesar’s death, cf. §104); it therefore regulates the details of the city administration in much greater detail than the Flavian municipal laws (— lex Irnitana) that were applicable in many cities. The structure of the charter is not clear and various matters, e.g. the patronage of the city, are treated in different passages (§§ 107, 130f.); post-Caesarean insertions are obvious (§§ 109, 122). M.H. CrawForp, Roman Statutes, 1996, no.25 (with text, Engl. transl. and commentary); H.FReis, Histor. Inschr. zur rom. Kaiserzeit, 1984, no. 42 (German translation); J. GONZALEz (ed.), Estudios sobre Urso: La colonia Julia Genetiva, 1989. H.GA.

Lex Voconia A law introduced by the people’s tribune Q. Voconius Saxa in 169 BC, which barred testators of the rst census class (minimum assets of 100,000 as, Gai.

Inst. 2,274) from naming a female heir in their will; this

did not affect the intestate law of succession of women Lexovii Tribe on the western bank of the lower Sequana in the Gallia Celtica, \ater in the Gallia Lugdunensis. In Caesar’s time they were part of the civitates Aremoricae. Main settlement: Noviomagus, modern Lisieux. Attestation: Caes. B Gall. 3,9; 7,75; Str. 4,1,143 3,53 Plin. HN 4,107; Ptol. 2,8,2; 5. Inscr.: CIL III 31773182. C.LEMAITRE, Noviomagus Lexoviorum, in: R.BEDON (ed.), Les villes de la Gaule lyonnaise (Caesarodunum 30), 1996, 133-166. ele

Lex Romana Burgundionum s. > Volksrecht

Lex Romana Visigothorum s. — Volksrecht Lex Salpensana Municipal law from the time of Domitian (end of the rst cent. AD) for the Latin municipium Flavium Salpensanum, modern Facialcazar near Utrera (province of Seville) in southern Spain, of which a

bronze tablet with chs. 21-29 was found together with the > lex Malacitana (today in the Archaeological National Museum

of Madrid) in 1861. The text is, with

some differences, identical to the corresponding chs. in the — lex Irnitana. CIL II 1963; ILS 6088; H. Frets, Histor. Inschr. zur r6m. Kaiserzeit, 1984, no. 59 (German translation). H.GA.

but following the law (Voconiana ratione) women also

had the intestate law of succession withdrawn from them from the 3rd degree of kinship (Paulus, Sent. 4,8,20). At the same time, the lex Voconia (LV) limited the maximum amount of legacies to half the inheritance

(Gai. Inst. 2,226). In practice, developments probably occurred here in the division of the legacy, by which women in particular could be given a legacy of half the estate (> legatum), in this way still just meeting the re-

quirements of the LV. It is mostly considered that the purpose of the LV was to limit ‘women’s luxury’ and this is supported by Cato’s [1] approval of the law with precisely this argument (Gell. NA 17,6) [4. 2426]; the restriction of the role of women in the cult of the dead (to which the heirs were obligated), could also have played a part [2]. The limit on the legacy through the LV was amended through the lex Falcidia (41 BC, > legatum); it is controversial whether the naming prohibition still applied in the rst cent. AD (Plin. Pan. 42,1) [1. 684; 3. 125ff.; 4. 2428], but in the 2nd cent. AD at the latest the law became obsolete (Gell. NA 20,1,23). ~ Succession, law of III D; > Intestatus; > Legatum 1 Kaser, RPR 1, 684,756

2U.MAnrTHE, in: Gnomon

66, 1994, 532f. 3J.A.J.M. vAN DER MErgR, Made for Men, 1996 4 A.STEINWENTER, s.v. L.V., RE 12, 24182430.

DTe/

478

HONSELL/MAYER-MaALty/SELB, 458, 495; A. WATSON, The Law of Succession in the Later Roman Republic, 1971, 35ff., 167ff.; A. WeIsHauPT, Die |.V., 1999. U.M.

Libanius A. LIFE B. Worxks RECEPTION

C. CHARACTERISTICS

AND

A. LIFE

L. from Antioch/Syria, AD 314-393, is the most outstanding Greek rhetor of the late Imperial period. The most useful biographical data are contained in L.’s work itself, especially in his letters, but also in his speeches with autobiographical topics, esp. or. r and 2. Furthermore, there are references in contemporary writings (among others by = Iulianus [11] and => Iohannes [4] Chrysostomos), a Vita by Eunapius and the Byzantine tradition, probably largely based on the latter (Zosimus, Zonaras, Suda et al.). L. was born in 314 as the son of a highly respected family, belonging to the decuriones (that is, the urban office-holding nobility) in Antioch [1]. It appears that his father, whose name is not known, died early. L. spent his childhood in his mother’s care, probably mostly on the country estate of the family. On his own initiative, at age 15 he turned to an unusually intensive study of the Greek classics whose works he memorized to a large extent. He completed his education by 5 years of study in Athens (336-340), where he was offered a professorship in Rhetorics at the incredibly youthful age of 25 -a remarkable achievement, especially since it appears that his teachers (Ulpianus of Ascalon, Zenobius of Elusa in Antioch; Diophantus in Athens) did not offer him much support. After leaving Athens, L. first taught in Constantinople until 344, then, after a brief interval in Nicaea/Bithynia, in the Bithynian capital Nicomedia (3 44/5—-3 48/9). He later described this periodas the best of his life. By imperial order he then had to move his teaching to the capital from where he could return home in 354, after turning down an offer from Athens. He taught in his home town until his death. A climax at the beginning of the 360s, which otherwise were darkened by the death of close friends, his uncle and his mother, was the sojourn of the emperor + Julianus [11] in Antioch (July 362—March 363). He had known him since his time in Nicomedia and shared convictions and a deep friendship with him. The emperor’s death in the Persian Wars (June 363) was a bitter blow all the more. Under Valens (364-378), L. encountered difficulties due to his unshakeable rejection of Christianity. On the other hand, Theodosius (emperor 379-395) had no reservations against the rhetor, he probably offered him the honorary title of praefectus praetorio (which L. refused) and showed sympathy for causes supported by L. (e.g. the revolt in Antioch provoked by tax increase in 387). In his last letter (epist. 1097), L. states that he expects to live but a few more days. He had been in poor health throughout his life, and was very ill in his later years. He probably died in the same year, 393.

LIBANIUS

B. Works L.’s extensive literary bequest can be organized in 6 groups: 1. Orationes: 64 pieces are compiled in the group of ‘speeches’. They include real speeches, i.e., those intended to be presented by the author at special occasions, as well as envoy letters and letters of recommendation, political memoranda, petitions to imperial civil servants or even to the emperor himself etc. The MSS of this collection, which was only published after L.’s death, were not organized chronologically or by subject matter, but some groups may by isolated, such as or. 1-5 (references to himself), or. 12-18 and 24 (emperor Julian) and or. 19-23 (revolt in Antioch, see above). Besides the ethical > diatribe (6-8; 25) there are also orations of lament (e.g. 60 on the fire of the temple of Apollon in October 362 in the Antiochian suburb of Daphne; 61 on the earthquake of Nicomedia in August 358), orations of passionate appeal (e.g. 30 against the destruction of non-Christian sanctuaries by fanaticized monks, 53 against amoral excesses during feasts), orations of praise (e.g. 59 on Constantius [2] II. and Constans [1], probably delivered in 344/5 and thus the earliest surviving speech). Of special value as a source is or. 11 (Antiochikos), which, due to its detailed though encomiastic description of the Syrian metropolis Antiochia can be used as a reliable guide at excavations. 2. Declamationes (melétai): they are to be distinguished from the orations by the fact that they pursue no other specific purpose than the demonstration of rhetorical mastery. The corpus comprises 51 pieces, but many are forgeries from later periods. The declamations, too, were collected only posthumously, and the MSS vary as to their order. Two groups may be distinguished by topic, first those with a mythical-historical subject (usually from the > Epic cycle or Attic history), second, characterological studies (ways of speaking of certain human types in specific situations). The most famous piece of the collection is ‘Socrates’ Defence’ in response to the accusation of Polycrates (declamatio 1). 3. The Progymndsmata comprise all forms of presentation to be trained in the school of rhetorics, e.g. narration, description, proof, refutation, praise, deni-

gration, etc. This part also contains quite a few pieces

not authored by L. 4. The Hypothéseis to the orations of Demosthenes incompletely handed down, were written by L. in 352 together with a vita of the orator at the request of the proconsul Montius. 5. More than 1,500 letters have come down from L., more than from any other author of antiquity. They are exclusively from the period between the beginning of the 350s and 366, as well as from 387 and 393. The addressees include famous contemporaries (e.g. the emperors Julian and Theodosius, Themistius, Ammianus; also Christian bishops) as well as unknown people, frequently admirers of L. who asked for a letter from the hand of the master. The letters provide authentic information on personal and general circumstances of his life

LIBANIUS

480

479

and the times. It cannot be determined whether the letters were written with a view to later publication; in any case, L. did not publish them himself Also this corpus contains some inauthentic pieces, e.g. a correspondence with Basil. 6. The work entitled Epistolimaioi charakteres, a set of instructions on how to write letters, is not genuine. The number of works lost, as far as we know, is very extensive and probably equals the number of surviving works.

came known in the West. The Humanists collected MSS of his texts, but did not create a complete collected edition. The latter was produced on a textual criticism base only at the beginning of the 2zoth cent. In spite of the growing interest during the past decades, L. remains one of the least explored authors of antiquity.

C. CHARACTERISTICS AND RECEPTION L. is a man of letters and a classicist through and through. The extent and thoroughness of his knowledge of classical Greek literature surpasses that of all of his contemporaries. + Demosthenes [2] is his primary role-model, yet his style bespeaks an intimate knowledge of Isocrates, Plato and Herodotus as well as of the masters of Imperial classicism, of which he admired Aelius Aristides [3] the most. L. also shows himself as

1988 (or. 2-10); B.SCHOULER, 1973 (or. 6-8; 25); U. CriscuoLo, 1996 (or. 13); Id., 1995 (or. 24); R.RoMANO, 1982 (or. 30); G.Farouros, T.KRISCHER, 1980 (selected letters). TRANSLATIONS, COMMENTARIES: Id., 1992 (or. 11); L.Martrera, in: Atti dell’Accademia Pontaniana 41, 1992, 129-143 (or. 17); E.BLIEMBACH, 1976 (or. 18); R. ANASTASI, in: La poesia tardoantica (Atti ... Centro di

an expert of archaic and classical literature (Homer,

(progymn. 8). CONCORDANCE:

Hesiod, Pindar; Aristophanes, the tragedians, esp. Euripides), it appears however that he hardly read Hellenistic and later poetry. His fixation of language and thought on Athens in the 5th and 4th cents. BC is combined with a cool rejection of everything Roman and Latin. The latter he knew not at all, or just insufficiently. He detests institutions competing with the rhetoric idea of education, such as the law school of Berytus. Advancing Christianity, supported by the emperors (with the exception of Julian), means nothing to L. who keeps his ties to his Greek past also with regard to religion. However, he meets the new faith with a degree of tolerance which differentiates L. positively from the protagonists on the Christian side. In connection with his pronounced sense of justice, this trait makes his personality rather endearing. His familiarity with Christian thought is shown by L.’s tendency to adopt Christian terminology (e.g. chdris, sotéria) and his reinterpretation of terms in a Christian sense (e.g. — tyché as a kind of divine providence) L. combines his roots in the classical heritage with an openness for and active participation in his own time. He partly admires some of its protagonists, without flattering them (Julian), or takes a more distant stance (Themistius), or openly rejects them (Himerius, because

EDITIONS: R. FOERSTER, E. RICHTSTEIG, 12 vols., 1903-

27 (repr. 1963); Selection: A. F. NORMANN, 3 vols. (so far I, 1969;

2, 1977);

Individual

editions,

partly

with

transl./comm.: J.Martin, P.PETiT, 1979 (or. 1); A.F. NorMANN, 1992 (or. 1 and selected letters); J.MARTIN,

cultura scientifica ‘E. Majorana’),

1984 (or. 51); R.M.

RATZAN, G.B. FERNGREN, in: JHM 48, 1993, 157-170 G.Fatouros,

T.KriscHEeR,

D.Na-

JOCK, 1987.

BiBLIOGRAPHY: P.Petit, L. et la vie municipale a Antioche au IVS siécle aprés J.-C., 1955, 8-14; G. FATOUROS, T.KriscHER, L., 1983, 275-280 (bibliography until 1981).

MORE RECENT BIBLIOGRAPHY: M.L. BENEDETTI, Studi

sulla guerra Persiana nell’ orazione funebre per Giuliano di L., 1990; U. CriscuoLo, L’ orazione 13 (Foerster) di L. per Giuliano, in: Koinonia 18/2, 1994, 117-140; P.N. DoukKELLIs, L. et la terre, 1995; G. FATOuROS, Julian und

Christus. Gegenapologetik bei L.?, in: Historia 45, 1996, 114-122; P.GAINZARAIN, La lengua de L., in: Veleia 4, 1987, 229-253; B.D. HERBERT, Arch. commentary zu

den Ekphraseis des L. und Nikolaos, 1983; A.LOPEz Eire, Reflexiones sobre los discursos de L. al emperador Teodosio, in: Fortunatae 1, 1991, 27-66;

W. PORTMANN,

Die 59. Rede des L. und das Datum der Schlacht von Singara, in: ByzZ 82, 1989, 1-18; R.SCHOLL, Histor. Beitr.

zu den julianischen Reden des L., 1994; B.SCHOULER, La tradition hellénique chez L., 1984; H.-U. Wiemer, L. und

Julian, 1995;

G. Wour LE, L.’ Religion, in: Etudes Classi-

ques 7, 1995, 71-89.

M.W.

Libanomanteia see -> Divination Libanos see > Incense

of his ‘modernistic’ diction), however, in any case he

personally knew them, without exception. He was not only the most famous language master of his time, but also a successful teacher. His students almost certainly include the great Christian authors Johannes [4] Chrysostomos and Basilius [1], probably also Theodorus of Mopsuestia and Ammianus. His usage of the often strained Atticist prose art, which sometimes is obtuse and overused mannerisms (e.g. extensive use of the dual, the figura ethymologica) but technically perfect (— Atticism). His prose made him a stylistic role-model and into one of the most-read authors in Byzantine schools. Almost 1,000 years elapsed before L. also be-

Libanotris see — Incense

Libanus (Aifavoc/Libanos, Lat. Libanus). Mountain range in northern Syria between the Mediterranean coast and the > Antilibanos in the interior. The name (Hebrew /‘banon, Ugaritic Lbnm, Akkadian Labnana, Arabic Lubnan) derives from the Semitic root */bn ‘white’, i.e. the ‘white mountain’. The tale of L.’ descent from a giant in Philo of Byblus (Euseb. Praep. evang. I,r0,9) is mythological. The earliest information is found in OT and Assyrian sources.

481

482

The Lebanon extends for about 160 km almost parallel to the coast. Its highest elevation with 3126 m is Gebel Makmal. The Lebanon and Antilebanon enclose the northern continuation of the Jordan (which is part of the Syrian rift valley), the valley of > Coele Syria (the modern Beqa‘ plain). The Leontis river (Nahr Litani) originates in the north of the valley. As the Nabr elKasimije it flows into the Mediterranean north of > Tyrus. The northern border of the Lebanon is the Eleuthereus (Nahr el-Kebir). The climate during the rainy season is characterized by heavy rainfall, which settles as snow above 2,800 m. The west of the Lebanon was in the hands of the Phoenicians during the early rst millennium BC, the east as the biblical Aram-Zoba was part of Syria’(Ptol. 5,14,6). The Lebanon was renowned for its wealth of game and wood, especially cedars (Is. 2:13; 40:16; 2 Kg 14:9; Ps. 72,16 et al.). In Graeco-Roman

sources the

Lebanon is recorded as a source of wood for temples and ships (Curt. 4,2,8; 24; 10,1,19; Pol. 5,45,9). Descriptions of the Lebanon are found in Plin. HN 5,77; Waer lista 5, 6,25jotrol7550 M.J. MuLp_r, s.v. I*banén, ThWAT 4, 1984, 461-471.

TH.PO.

LIBATION

II]. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

Greek oxovdi/sponde, yor/choé, dorBi/loibé or Aay/ lits (inf. onévdew/spéndein, yetv/chein, reiPeww/ letbein); Lat. libatio (inf. libare; but also: [vinum, libationem] fundere); Umbr. vestikaom = libare [6. 748 f.]; the ritual pouring out of liquids (esp. > wine, but also honey, milk, oil, water).

The modern

metalinguistic concept of ‘libation’

made its way into German in a Christian context; in

LUTHER’S translation of the NT (first printing 1522) it stands for the Lat. libatio/libamen of the Vulgate (instead of ‘offer’, or sacrifice, in the Bibles prior to Luther) [2]. The concept of ‘libation’ does not correspond to the objectified linguistic concepts in Greek and Latin, since the latter do not include the semantics of drinking, but refer to various ways of pouring. These are distinguished in scholarly literature [1; 3; 4]: spondé is the most general term. The recipients of a choé are frequently seen as connected with the + Underworld, and are in particular individuals who have died (cf. Hesych. s. v. yods’ tac onovdac tv vexodv/chods: tas spondas ton nekron, ‘choai: offerings for the dead’; cf. also Aesch. Cho.; > Dead, cult of the); the material used is often a honey mixture (Greek wedixeatov/

melikraton; Lat. mulsum: Apul. Met. 3,18; Act. Arv. [7. no. 114 II 31]); > wine, otherwise a common liba-

Libarna Ligurian town in regio IX located on the via Postumia (nobile oppidum, Plin. HN 3,49), modern Serravalle Scrivia. Municipium, later probably colonia (CIL V 7428), tribus Maecia. Possibly renewed by Constantinus

[3] in AD

410

([1] on Sozom.

9,12,4). Remains: theatre, amphitheatre, baths, forum, aqueduct, graves. 1 G.Cur.

Hist. eccl.

insulae,

HAnsEN, in: J. Brmpez (ed.), Sozomenus, Kir-

chengesch. (GCS N.F. 4), *1995, 545: G.Forni

(ed.), Fontes Ligurum

et Liguriae antiquae,

1976, s.v. L.; S. Finoccui (ed.), L., 1996.

E.S.G.

Libation I. ANCIENT ORIENT AND EGypT

II. CLASSICAL AN-

TIQUITY

I. ANCIENT ORIENT AND EGyPT Since - sacrifices were primarily intended to ensure that the daily needs of the gods were met, not only victuals but also beverages (generally water, beer, wine) were an essential component of regular sacrifices to the gods, as well as of sacrifices offered to the dead. Both in Egypt and in Mesopotamia, libation and terms used for libation stand as pars pro toto for sacrifice. This may have stemmed originally from the fact that for people living at a subsistence level the libation of water constituted their only opportunity to offer a sacrifice. In addition to its role in sacrifice, libation also had the function of a ritual cleansing, for example in pouring

out water. 1J.F. Borcuouts,

s.v. Libation, LA 3, 1013-1015

2 W. Hermpez et al., s. v. Opfer, RLA 7, 1-12.

J. RE.

tion material, may be explicitly excluded from this type of pouring (yoat/Ovoiat GowoUchoai/thysiai doinoi, Aesch. Eum. 107; Poll. 6,26; > Nephalia). Holes drilled in altars or > urns or in > sarcophagias well as pipes of impermeable material such as lead (example: [5. 64, 75-80, 90; 8. 189 f.5 9. 51 f.]) made it possible to pour the liquids directly into the grave or ground (boAeiPeuv/ hypoleibein in the lex sacra of Selinus [4], cf. [3. 30 f., 70-73]). The primarily poetic AoiBt/loibe includes the semantics of dripping; pitchers with a narrow neck (cf. [8. 32-36]) may have been used for this type of libation. However, expressions such as omovéuc Aeipeww/spondas

leibein; yous omévdew/choas spéndein (e.g. Aesch. Supp. 981 f.; Eur. Or. 1322) demonstrate that the semantic distinction is fundamentally unclear. There is frequent evidence of libations in the context of various actions such as (animal) > sacrifice, > banquets, entering into > contracts, and the departure and arrival of individuals: they offered the opportunity to express a wish or appreciation at any given time, without requiring a large number of specialists or a great deal of equipment or materials, and they did not necessarily need to be part of a complicated series of actions. Greek and Roman depictions show how the contents of a bowl are poured into the altar fire (cf. Act. Arv. [7. no. 551 19]) (cf. e.g. [ro. fig. 147; 8. pl. 3a]). In addition to pitchers and bowls or cups, specialized ritual containers and instruments for libation include ladles, sieves, mixing vessels (> Krater; > Phiale; cf. > Sacrifice IV. with fig.: > Patera; > Simpuvium; [8. 31-95]). Libation and prayer frequently complement each other in complex ritual processes (e.g. > Tabulae Iguvinae Vla 22; VIb 6 et passim); it is also common to combine them with

LIBATION

484

483

certain materials such as > mola salsa or — incense (Act. Arv.: ture et vino facere [7. no. 55 Il 29; no. 100 b

Jones,

9] et passim).

838ff., 980ff.; WENGER, 427ff.

HIRSCHFELD, 327ff.; Jones, LRE, 504, 575ff., 392f., 3973 RGL,.

69ff., 167ff.; MomMsEN,

Staatsrecht

2,

CG.

-» Sacrifice; > Meal offerings 1 J.CasaBona,

Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacri-

Libellus

fices en grec, 1966, 231-297. 2 J.GrIMM, W.GRIMM, s. v. T., Dt. Worterbuch 21, 1935,1230f. 3M.H. JaMeESON et al., A lex sacra from Selinous, 1993, esp. 70-73 41.Matkin, s. v. Libations, OCD3, 854 (bibliography)

A. LIBELLUS

5 PFIFFIG

A. LIBELLUS IN CIVIL ACTIONS Libellus (‘small document’) was, from around the mid sth cent. AD, the technical term for the complaint in a Roman civil action, which by this time was less ponderously arranged than in the formerly customary procedures of the > litis denuntiatio. The libellus contained the facts upon which the complaint was based, without detailed explanatory statements, and a motion to summon the respondent (— postulatio). The judge firstly addressed the legitimacy of the summons request

6PROSDOCIM!

7 J.SCHEID (ed.), Commen-

tarii Fratrum Arvalium qui supersunt, 1998 8 A.V. SiEBERT, Instrumenta sacra, 1999 9 J.M. C. ToynBEE, Death and Burial in the Roman World, 1971 ~—10 F. T. VAN STRATEN, Hierd kald, 1995. M. HAA.

Libel Libel was prosecuted as serious injury to the character in both Greek (Attic) and Roman law. In Athens, libel may have come under — kakégoria (cf. also

~ loidoria) and have led to a fine in a private suit. In

IN CIVIL ACTIONS

B. LIBELLUS TO

THE EMPEROR AND OTHERS IN PUBLIC LAW C. LIBELLUS IN CRIMINAL CASES

Roman law, libel was likewise a civil offence as a form

(‘conclusiveness test’), reaching a — sententia

of > iniuria (a wrongful act). Possibly related to libel was the > carmen famosum (‘defamatory poem’) of the Twelve Tables (> tabulae duodecim). An aggravated form of libel was the Roman —> calumnia (false accusation), which could lead to harsh punishments. G.s.

rim] decree’), which led either to the delivery of the

(‘[inte-

official summons to the respondent by an officer of the court, the exsecutor, or to the dismissal of the complaint as inadmissible. Under Justinian (Nov. Iust. 96 pr., 1), a further requirement was introduced for the

plaintiff to offer security before the /ibellus could be delivered. The model for the summons, which in com-

Libella Diminutive of > libra, ‘little pound’. Like the Sicilian > litra, it denotes a tenth of a silver unit, from

the early 2nd cent. BC the — as as a tenth of the > denarius and then of the > sestertius. The term libella was only used in small-change calculations. Libella was used for any small coin or, in the phrase heres ex libella (Cic. Att. 7,2,3), the heir of a tenth share. M.CRAWFORD,

Coinage and Money under the Roman

Republic. Italy and the Mediterranean Economy,

147f.; SCHROTTER, s.v. L., 352.

1985,

GE.S.

Libellis, a The offices of the imperial court included an office primarily responsible for law-related complaints. This office dealt with judicial complaints addressed specially to the emperor as an instance of appeal, whereas working on imperial decisions on petitions as well as rescripts principally was a matter of other offices (> epistulis, ab). Its purview also included suits which were decided at the imperial court as the primary instance, if the emperor assumed jurisdiction, such as proceedings of crimen laesae maiestatis (lése majesté) or maledictio Caesaris (‘slander of the Caesar’; Cod. Iust. 9,8,4; 9,7,1). Probably from the time of Nero (Tac. Ann. 15,35), this office became a public office and was no longer an internal one of the imperial court and is always referred to as a libellis. It prepared proceedings directly presided over by the emperor, the court activities in the consilium (later consistorium) and other specially appointed imperial law-courts. It also published the latter’s adjudications (decreta). > Libellus; > Magistratus

parison to the litis denuntatio was considerably simplified, may have been official summonses in regard to criminal trials. The delivery of the libellus to the respondent triggered the legal consequences of the > itis contestatio, which had survived the extinction of the legal process itself, esp. tightening of liability, obligation to pay interest, interruption of the period of limitation. The respondent was obliged within a term specified by the plaintiff —again by means of the /ibellus — to present his intention of defending and pay bail to the exsecutor for his presence at the legal proceedings. If bail was not forthcoming, the exsecutor arrested the respondent. After its commencement by /ibellus, the civil action was termed as libellus action from the 5th cent. on; it was a development in late antiquity of the classical > cognitio. B. LIBELLUS TO THE EMPEROR AND OTHERS IN

PUBLIC LAW In the Imperial period, libelli were petitions from private individuals to the emperor himself, or to authorities. They might concern legal and administrative matters of any kind. Those petitions directed at the emperor were processed in a special office a > libellis, whose director around AD 200 was > Papinianus, and thereafter + Ulpianus. The petitioner received no personal response. Rather, a note (subscriptio) on the petition gave the decision, which was then made known by public notice (propositio). The libellus, alongside the decision made in its regard, was archived under the name of the emperor and the petitioner, with the date of the decision or its publication. A distinction must be

485

486

drawn between the libellus and the petition of an official, the epistula (> epistulis, ab). Especial importance was attached to the /ibelli of litigants to the emperor. In the process of the classical cognitio, the libellus (appellatorius) was already the customary form of appeal against a verdict (see > appellatio). As with the libellus of the later libellus actions, it was not necessary to specify the grounds for appeal. Even where no verdict had yet been reached, those seeking justice could turn to the emperor with a request for a legal decision by delivering a libellus (principi datus) to him. The response here came in the form of a rescriptum (> Rescript procedure), which was binding upon the instances whose legal case was to be decided, on condition that the facts of the case were true as presented.

Tac. Ann. 2,49). Its sanctuary on the Aventine [1] then

C. LIBELLUS IN CRIMINAL CASES Libellus (also liber) famosus was the Roman expression for a lampoon or libel. The Laws of the Twelve Tables (pl. 8,1) already contained a threat of private action against a > carmen famosum (lampoon), which,

however, probably also contained magical elements (curses). In the Imperial period, the libellus famosus constituted a legal instance of offence. Not only was the author prosecuted, but also anyone distributing such a piece of writing. Admittedly, there was in late antiquity a kind of ‘defence through the perception of reasonable interests’: a law of the emperors Valentinian I and Valens from AD 365 (Cod. lust. 9,36,2,2) promised praise and recognition to anyone openly bringing public nuisances to light. However, the same law (§ 1) threatens the death penalty for the libellus famosus — evidently against the emperor and thus a manifestation of the

-crimen

(C)

laesae

maiestatis

(see

also

~ maiestas). Generally, the offence of the libellus famosus was regarded as a private insult, and was thus also prosecuted only privately as an > iniuria. The offended party could then demand a penance. Further, public penalties in the Imperial period included being deprived of the competence to bear witness (Ulp. Dig. 47,10,5,9), and banishment (— deportatio) to an island (Paulus, Sent. 5,4,15). 1 M.Kaser, K.Hacxet, Das rom. Zivilprozefsrecht, 71996, 570-576, 634-636 2 DuULCKEIT, SCHWARZ, WALDSTEIN, 242. GS.

Liber, Liberalia Liber Pater is an Italic-Roman god of nature, fertility, and wine. L. is attested archaeologically first on the inscriptions of the Praenestine cistae from the 4th cent. BC (CIL I 2, 563), then on a cippus from Pisaurium from the 3rd—2nd cents. BC (CIL I 2, 381). The historians report that L. was introduced from Greece into Rome in the year 496, when the Sibylline Books had recommended to transfer the triad of Demeter, Kore, and Iacchus — who correspond to the Roman deities Ceres, > Libera, and Liber — from Eleusis and to dedicate a cult to it (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6,17,3-4;

LIBERA

became the centre of the plebeian cult, the festival for which are the ludi Ceriales (> Ceres B.1.). We can conclude from the Fasti Farnesiani that another sanctuary of L. existed on the Roman Capitol which, however, is not known in any detail [3. 426]. The other festival connected to L. is the Liberalia, which falls on 17 March

along with the Agonium Martiale [2]. On this day, old women crowned with wreaths of ivy and claiming to be priestesses offer cake with honey (/iba) to the passers-by on the street who pay for the sacrifice (Varro, Ling. 6,14; Ov. Fast. 3,725 ff.). At this festival, seventeen-

year-old boys take off the toga praetexta typical for boyhood and put on the toga virilis (or toga pura) of adults, also called toga libera (Cic. Att. 6,1,12). The Italic rite which was transmitted by Varro through Augustine (Civ. 7,21) and which offends the Christian author due to its shamelessness focuses on the fertility aspect of L.: a phallus is transported on a wagon through the country and in the city to be crowned by a matron. L. also receives sacrifices during other wine festivals [4]. L. is identified with Dionysus due to his connection to wine and is characterized by the latter’s epiclesis > Bacchus and common attributes (> Thyrsus and garlands of ivy [5. 541]). The name L. is explained by words such as loibe (libation) and Jleibein (‘to offer libations’) which point to the sacrifice of wine (Paul Fest. ro8 L.; Plut. Mor. 289a), or is understood in relation to liberare (‘to liber-

ate’), since those who drink wine speak more freely (Paul Fest. 103 L.; Plut. Mor. 289a). According to another explanation, the names L. and Libera are interpreted in relation to > Ceres, the latter representing the mother and the other two gods her children (Lat. liberi) (Cic. Nat. D. 2,62). The idea that L. had developed from Jupiter L. is rejected today: the sanctuary ofJupiter L. on the Aventine must be equated with that of Jupiter > Libertas [4. 247; 6. 122ff.]. 1M.Anpreuss!I,

s.v. Aventinus

2 SCULLARD, 91-92

Mons,

LTUR

1, 149

3 InscrIt 13,2: Fasti et elogia, 1963

4 O. DE CAZANOVE, Jupiter, L. et le vin latin, in: RHR 205, 1988, 245-265 5 C.GASPARRI, s.v. Dionysos/Bacchus,

LIMC 3.1, 540-566

6 R.SCHILLING, La rel. Romaine de

Venus, 1982.

A.BRUuHL, L. Pater. Origine et expansion du culte dionysiaque a Rome et dans le monde romain, 19 53; J.-M. PaiLLER, Bacchanalia. La répression de 186 av. J.-C. a Rome et en Italie, 1988; Id., Bacchus. Figures et pouvoirs, 1995; G. Wissowa, Rel. und Kultus der Romer, *1912, 297304. ERP.

Libera The consort of > Liber; as he is the god of male fertility, so she is the goddess of female fertility (Aug. Civ. 6,9). She belongs to the Aventine triad of Ceres, Liber and L. (Fast. Caeretani, CIL I 1, 212) and is ven-

erated together with Liber, at the Liberalia and at wine festivals [1. 256ff.]. In accordance with the identification of Liber with > Dionysius L. is equated with + Ariadne (Ov. Fast. 3,512). For bibliography see Liber.

487

488

1 O. DE CAZANOVE, Jupiter, Liber et le vin latin, in: RHR

though the connotation of corrupt behaviour remained for la., for example in the petition of the coloni of the saltus Burunitanus addressed to the emperor Commodus; they cannot compete with the gifts of the conductor in securing the favour of the procurator of the princeps (CIL VIII 10570 = 14464 = ILS 6870 col. 3). On inscriptions from Italy the word /a. — often in connection with /i. — appears not until relatively late (towards the end of the 2nd cent. AD) and infrequently; here /a. no longer has a pejorative meaning and refers, as does

LIBERA

205, 1988, 245-265.

FR.P.

Liberalitas, largitio A. ETYMOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MEANING B. INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPATE PERIOD C. Coins D. POLITICAL

WORD’S

THOUGHT IN THE LATE REPUBLIC AND IN THE PRINCIPATE PERIOD

A. ETYMOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORD’S MEANING The term J/iberalitas (= li.) denotes, on an abstract

level, an attribute (cf. Sen. Dial. 7,24,3:... quia a libero animo proficiscitur, ita nominata est), in a particular

case an act of generosity. The term Jargitio (= la.) belongs to the area of gifts, as does /i.; derived from the adjective largus (in the original sense of a freely flowing spring, Cic. Off. 2,52) /a. usually signifies the distribution of gifts. In the political vocabulary of the late Republic /a., seen as a gift by means of which a particular purpose is to be accomplished, is opposed to li. as a gesture of disinterested generosity (Cic. Off. 2,52-55; Cic. Mur. 77). The negative connotation of /a. is particularly obvious when it appears in connection with > ambitus (bribing of voters); thus /a. is used by Cicero, and even

more so by Seneca and Tacitus in the sense of ‘corruptionw(Cics Devors 210 ssmoeny pas 7s4us Lace bist: 1,17,2). The Latin grammarians too differentiate be-

tween largitas, which is motivated by humanitarian reasons (humanitas), and la., which is identified with the desire for popularity (ambitio); largitas refers to a quality and Ja. to a quantity (GL 1,101; 7,123; 7,278;

75304). B. INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPATE PERIOD Li. (generosity) is first and foremost the behaviour expected from a friend, from a > patronus or from a socially senior person; it may, therefore, become a central feature of power. From this positive evaluation the gifts of the > princeps are derived. The term /i. is mostly used for monetary gifts (> donativum, maintenance allowances, > alimenta) or a reduction of taxes and outstanding taxes; in the 2nd cent. AD, /i. begins to replace the term > congiarium for the distribution of money to the > plebs urbana. This semantic change came to be interpreted as emphasizing the giver. On the other hand, the formula ex liberalitate (CIL XI 59563; 5395; similarly CIL VI 1492: secundum liberalitatem eius) becomes more widely used from the time of Trajan; this applies also to the form ex indulgentia, which denotes a generous decision of the princeps. The same vocabulary appears both for the generosity of the princeps and for the generosity of other persons, whether they be senators or members of the municipial upper classes. In the Principate period, /i. and la. (in the sense of gift, mostly in the plural) tended to be used together in literary texts as well as on inscriptions;

li., to a generous gift from a benefactor (CIL V ror2 = ILS 6686; CIL V 3342 = ILS 1148; CIL V 5128 = ILS 6726; CIL X 482 = ILS 6449; CIL X 5968 = ILS 6272;

CIL XI 6356; CIL XI 6357 =ILS 5057: ob eximias liberalitates et abundantissimas in exemplum largitiones). The same applies for Africa, where the word Ia. is, however, seldom used: thus the > curiales of the municipium Cincaritanum indicate that the largitio matris has made possible the erection of a statue (CIL VIII 14769). The semantic development of language led to the terms Ja. and largitas being used more and more frequently in literary texts, particularly in Christian literature and in imperial edicts; esp. for the gifts of the princeps, who is a benefactor par excellence, and for monetary gifts or expensive objects. Thus a silver missorium given by Valentinian II, found near Geneva, carries the inscription:

largitas

d(omini)

n/(ostri)

Valentiniani

Augusti (CIL XII 5697,5 = ILS 767). The imperial exchequer itself was denoted by the technical term Jargitiones in late antiquity, with a distinction being made between Jargitiones sacrae and largitiones privatae (synonym for res privata). The imperial finances were administrated by the comes sacrarum largitionum (CSL) and the comes rei privatae or rerum privatarum (CRP). The > Notitia dignitatum in its entries on both offices emphasized its role in the distribution of imperial gifts. C. Coins On the coins of Nero the allegorical figure (> Personification) of Li. appears together with Minerva in the background of the distribution of a > congiarium (BMCRE 1, Nero 138, pl. 42, 1; 308, pl. 45, 20). In the

period from Hadrian to Commodus the legend CONGIARIVM was increasingly replaced by the legend LIBERALITAS AVG, in which the allegorical figure of Li. received greater and greater importance; the legend LIBERALITAS AVG is found on the reverse sides with the scene of the distribution (congiarium) and with a portrayal of Li. From Hadrianic times, Li. is often represented as a woman in a long robe standing upright, holding a cornucopia in her left hand and a counting board in her right. The coins thus allude to the distribution of money to the citizens of Rome. The distributions by a princeps are even counted on coins: LIBERALITAS AVG III (Hadrian). This practice was retained by the following principes, indeed both for the legend LIBERALITAS AVG as for the legend CONG AVG. The latest evidence for the legend LIBERALITAS on

489

490

coins comes from the solidi of Constantine I, which

were minted in AD 316/7 in Ticinum and show the legend LIBERALITAS XI IMP IIII COS PPP with the traditional personification (RIC VII, p. 368, no. 53; pl. ro, no. 53). No image exists for la. The legend LARGITIO merely appears on the reverse side of a bronze medallion of Constantius II and of Magnentius, who here draws on a type of coin already used by Constantius: the emperor is represented with a diadem and a mappa (cloth) in the left hand, presenting a gift to a half-kneeling woman who wears a crown (personification of Constantinople or the res publica); to his left stands a goddess with a helmet, who is leaning on a hasta (RIC VIII, Rome, p. 290, no 404-405, pl. 12, no. 404). The connection of these mintings with the distributions in Rome remains uncertain. MI.CO. D. POLITICAL THOUGHT IN THE LATE REPUBLIC

AND IN THE PRINCIPATE PERIOD In > Cicero’s social philosophy /i. and Ja. are clearly evaluated; the prerequisite of beneficentia (charity) is that neither the recipient of a good deed nor any other person shall be harmed. According to Cicero, nothing should be taken from one person and given to another (Cic. Off. 1,43: qui eripiunt aliis, quod aliis largiantur). It is part of the nature of /i. that it benefits and does not harm anyone; it is, therefore, bound by the law (Cic.

Off. 1, 43: nihil est enim liberale, quod non idem iustum). The danger of material generosity is to be seen in the fact that its own preconditions are cancelled out, which is especially true of la, because donating gifts from one’s own possessions can exhaust the source of the charity: ita benignitate benignitas tollitur (“Thus charity is neutralized by charity’, Cic. Off. 2, 525 cf. 2, 54). Iwo patterns of behaviour are differentiated: alteri prodigi, alteri liberales (‘some being extravagant, the others generous’; Cic. Off. 2, 55); according to Cicero money is wasted on short-lived entertainments such as feasts, games and hunting, whilst generosity supports the buying of a friend’s freedom from slavery or a daughter’s wedding; indirectly thus, benignitas also benefits the community (Cic. Off. 2,63). Under these conditions the lex frumentaria of C. > Sempronius Gracchus in the section on the beneficia, which are granted to the res publica, could critically be named magna largitio, because they exhausted the public finances (Cic. Off. 2,72; cf. Cic. Tusc. 3,48: largitiones maximas).

In the Principate period, /i. belonged to the most important virtues of a good princeps; the understanding of the principate, therefore, followed the older Greek concepts, which found expression with Xenophon, among others; thus, in his Kyroupaideia, which was being read in Rome (Suet. Iul. 87), the generosity of Cyrus [2] is praised (Xen. Cyr. 8,2,15ff.; 8,4,32ff.). Caesar already mentions /i. as the basic principle of his philosophy in his letters to Oppius and Cornelius Balbus at the beginning of 49 BC (Cic. Att. 9,7¢, 1), and

LIBER

ANTIQUITATUM

BIBLICARUM

Pliny praisingly stresses the /i. of Trajan in connection with donations to soldiers and citizens (Plin. Pan. 25,3; 25,5). Lack of li., on the other hand, is noted critically, for instance in the case of Tiberius (Suet. Tib. 48,2). A conduct in accordance with the /i. of the princeps is also expected of the municipial upper classes; in this context the traditional elements of Cicero’s social philosophy were complemented by the commitment to the education of children and the upkeep of libraries (Plin. Ep. 1,8,9). + Euergetism;

> Munificentia;

> Ruler;

> Princeps

H.SCHN. 1 P. BastrEeN, Remploi et retouches de coins sous les régnes de Constance II, Magnence et Décene, in: Bulletin du Cercle d’études numismatiques 15, 1978, 48-57 2 D.vAN

BERCHEM, Les distributions de blé et d’argent a la plébe romaine sous |’Empire, 1939 3 A.BLANCHET, s.v. liberalitas, DS 3, 1192 4R.DeExMarre, Largesses sacrées et res privata. L’aerarium impérial et son administration du IV‘ au VI‘ siécle, 1989

5 ERNOUT/MEILLET

6 E.FoRBIS,

Liberalitas et Largitio, Terms From Private Munificence in Italian Honorary Inscriptions, in: Athenaeum 81, 1993, 483-498 7 Id., Municipal Virtues in the Roman Empire. The Evidence of Italian Inscriptions, 1996 8 R.GoopBURN, PH. BARTHOLOMEW (ed.), Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum, 1976 9 J. HELLEGOUARC’H, Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République, 1963, 215-221 10H.KLOFT, Liberalitas principis, 1970 11 R.Mac MuLtien, The Emperor’s Largesses, in: Latomus 21, 1962, 159-166 12ThIL 13 G.SamoNATI, S.v. largitio, RUGGIERO 4, 408-409 14 Id.,s.v. liberalitas, RUGGIERO 4, 838-886 15 A.U. StyLow, Libertas

und Liberalitas. Unt. zur innenpolit. Romer, 1972

Propaganda

der

16 H. THEDENAT, s.v. Largitio, DS 3, 949f.

17 P. VeyNE, Le pain et le cirque, 1976 18R.VOLLOMMEeR, s.V. liberalitas, LIMC VI.1, 274-278; V1.2, 141-

143 19 G.WescuH-KteEtn, Liberalitas in rem publicam, 1990 20 A. YAKOBSON, Petitio et largitio: Popular Participation in the Centuriate Assembly of the Late Republic, in: JRS 82, 1992, 32-52.

MI.CO.

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB or Ps.-Philo). Jewish work, probably originated between AD 70 and 132 in Palestine. The position of the author is clearly shaped by the loss of the Second Temple after its destruction by the later emperor Titus. The text is only preserved in a Latin translation (before the 5th cent.) that is based on a Greek text; the original was in Hebrew. The LAB is an interpretative retelling of biblical history (‘rewritten Bible’) from the Creation to Saul’s death after which the text ends. Presumably it was conceived to extend to the destruction of the First Temple in 587 BC. The author’s representation is committed to the Deuteronomistic view of history: obedience and disobedience to God’s commands determine the fate of the people of Israel, with the law moving into the centre of his interest. Relations exist to 4 Ezra and syrBar. Some edifying traditions that ornate the biblical text turn up again in the later Jewish midrashim; the Hebrew Chronicle of Jerachmeel translated back some passages in the 12th cent. The LAB tradition is only evident in

LIBER ANTIQUITATUM BIBLICARUM

492

491

the Latin West where Christian theologians received it:

in an interpretative manner (‘rewritten Bible’). Only an

it is first attested in Rabanus Maurus (8th/gth cents.);

Ethiopian translation is preserved complete, which is derived from a Greek text (as are some Syriac ana Latin fragments); the original Hebrew version is attested in fragments from > Qumran. A frame story stylizes the text as a divine revelatory speech to Moses, in the main part mediated by angels. Its content is determined by revelations of history. Although Moses appears as the central figure, the history of the Patriarchs (Gn 11-50) occupies the largest space and is adapted to the author’s time with identity-generating paradigms directed against the Hellenistic threat: e.g. Abraham appears as the type of the pious who turns away from pagan worship of the stars and finds the path to the true worship of God. Altogether, delimitation against other peoples dominates this book, which was probably handed down in the circles of the > Levites. Apart from the chronological system, a peculiar 364-day calendar shared with the astronomy of Enoch and the Qumran texts is significant. Its use already indicates the significance of cultic practices, particularly the strict observance of the Sabbath. Its affinity to the Qumran texts (especially the Damascus Document) and the Enoch texts is remarkable as well. Legal and edifying special traditions are again encountered in later Jewish works. Greek quotations are found in > Epiphanius [1] and some chronographers (Syncellus, Cedrenus, Zonaras, Glykas). In the Ethiopian church the book still enjoys a canonical validity.

Rupert of Deutz and Petrus Comestor also used it. D.J. HARRINGTON et al. (ed.), Pseudo-Philon. Les Antiquités Bibliques, 2 vols. (SChr 229f.), 71979; C. DieTz-

FELBINGER,

Pseudo-Philo:

Antiquitates

Biblicae

(Jiid.

Schriften aus hell.-rom. Zeit II/2), *1979, 87-271; E. REINMUTH, Pseudo-Philo und Lukas. Stud. zum Liber

Antiquitatum Biblicarum und seiner Bedeutung fiir die Interpretation des lukanischen Doppelwerkes (WUNT 74), 1994. CHR.B.

Liber glossarum Modern term for an alphabetical Latin + encyclopaedia from the late 8th cent. covering Linguistic notes to explanations of terms, the most comprehensive and most important educational aid of the Carolingian epoch; prototypes are the MSS Parisinus Lat. 11529/30 and Cambrai 693 (both late 8th cent.; cf. [4]). Concerning the origin of the glossary (> Glossography) in the surroundings of Corby, in Tours, and in the Carolingian court library, and concerning Alcuin as terminus post quem, cf. [8. 270ff.]. The assumption by [3. 66f.] (Spain as the origin) is thereby rendered obsolete, even if the common naming after the Gothic bishop Ansileubus seems to have derived from the Spanish use of the work [3. 64]. Sources of the grammatical, glossematical, theological and geographical/scientific entries are grammarians and church fathers, from the contemporary period or from late antiquity, and especially ~ Isidorus’ [9] Origines. The widespread and long-lasting popularity of the encyclopaedia, reaching as late as Papias and the Catholicon by Johannes Balbi of Genoa (13th cent) [7. 128f.], was promoted in Corby, also in Tours in an improved version (BM 850), as well as in Lorsch (Vat. Pal. Lat. 1773), both 9th cent. A short

version (BL Harl. 2735, 9th cent.) is glossed 1.a. by Heiric of Auxerre [6]. EpITIONs: G. Goetz, CGL 5, 1894, 159-255 (excerpts); W.Linpsay et al., Glossaria Latina 1, 1926.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1 G.GoeTZ, Derl.g.,in:Abh. Kg. Sachsische Ges. der Wiss. 13, 1891, 211-289 21d., CGL 1,

1923,104-117 3l1d.,s.v.L.g.,RE13,1,63-67 4T.A. M. BisHop, The Prototype of the L.g., in: M.B. PARKES et al. (ed.), Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts and Libraries. FS N.R. Ker, 1978, 69-86 5 G.BARBERO, Contributi allo

studio del L.g., in: Aevum 64, 1990, 151-174 6D. Ganz, Heiric d’Auxerre, glossateur du L.g., in: D. loGNnaPrat et al. (ed.), L’ecole carolingienne d’Auxerre, 1991,

297-305

7I1d., The L.g., in: P.L. Burzer, Science in

Western and Eastern Civilization in Carolingian Times,

1993, 127-135 8 G.BarBERO, Per lo studio delle fonti del L.g., in: Aevum 67, 1993, 253-278. P.LS.

Liber Iubilaeorum (usually called the ‘Book of Jubilees’ [Jub], sometimes also the Leptogenesis, ‘Little Genesis’). Jewish work, originated in the 2nd cent. BC in Palestine. The book owes its name to the peculiar division of history into Jubilee periods (49 years each according to Lv 25), on the other hand to the fact that

biblical history from Gn 1 to Ex 20 is essentially retold

J.C. VanDERKaM, The Book of Jubilees, 2 vols. (CSCO, Scriptores Aethiopici 87f.), 1989; K. BERGER, Das Buch

der Jubilaen (Jiid. Schriften aus hell.-rém. Zeit II/3), r981, 271-575; M.ALBANI, J. FREY, A. LANGE (ed.), Studies in the Book ofJubilees (Texte und Stud. zum ant. Judentum

65), 1997; F. SCHUBERT, Trad. und Erneuerung. Stud. zum Jubilaenbuch und seinem Tragerkreis, 1998. CHR.B.

Liberius [1] Roman pope 352-366. L.’s pontificate was burdened by the difficult dispute over > Arianism. Emperor Constantius II banished L. to Beroea in 3 55, because he would not recant in Milan his support for the condemned bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, who was hostile to Arianism, whereupon Felix had himself appointed and ordained counter-bishop (— Felix [5] II.). The anguish of exile, reflected by the four letters of the spring of 3 57 recorded by Hilarius of Poitiers led to L.’s submission and return to Rome in 358. It was not until the reign of the emperor Julian (361-63) that L. resumed his former position of advocating the Council of Nicaea (325). He instigated the construction of the Basilica Liberiana in Rome; during his pontificate the ~» Chronographer of 354 was created. EDITIONS: JAFFE, 1, 32-36; 2, 691; L. DUCHESNE

(ed.),

Liber Pontificalis 1, 1886, 207-211; PL 8, 1331-1410; CSELi65: BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums 1, 1933, 166-195, 588-592; T.D. BARNEs, The Capitulation of L. and Hilary of Poitiers, in: Id., From Eusebius to Augustinus, 1994, 256-265. MA.HE.

494

493

[2] Petrus Marcellinus Felix L. Roman official of unknown origin, born c. AD 465, died c. 554. Initially in the service of > Odoacer, L. was made praef. praet. Italiae by + Theodorus in 493 after the former’s murder. In 500 he was made patricius and in 510 was proclaimed praef. praet. Galliarum. As praef. praesentalis at the court of the king of the Goths > Athalaricus (from 533), L. journeyed to Constantinople as the king’s envoy in 534, where he, from then on, remained in the service of the emperor > Justinianus [1] I. C. 538 he was sent by the latter as praef. augustalis to Alexandria and was brought before the court in 542 on account of an intrigue against a colleague and fell into temporary disgrace. In 550 he led a naval campaign against the Ostrogoths in Sicily and fought the Visigoths in Spain in 552. L. died at the age of 89 in Ariminum and was buried there. PLRE 2,677-681. FT.

LIBERTI, LIBERTINI

into a stereotypical structure (name of pope, origin,

duration of pontificate, legal acts, buildings, ordinations, important contemporary events, death, funeral, sedisvacancy) and thus to emphasize the transpersonal and institutional character of the cathedra S. Petri

[6]. 1TH. MomMsen, MGH 2 L.DucHEsngE, C.VoceEL,

Gesta pontificum 1, 1898 Le L.P., 3 vols., *1955~-57.

3 A. BRACKMANN, Der L.p., in: Id., Gesammelte Aufsatze,

*1967, 382-396 40O.BERTOLINI, Il ‘L.p.’, in: La storiografia altomedievale (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 17) 1970, 387-455 5 H.ZIMMERMANN, Das Papsttum im MA, 1981 6 G.MELVILLE, De gestis sive statutis Romanorum, in: Archivium Historiae Pontificiae 9, 1971, 377-400.

G.MEL.

Libertas Liber linteus Etruscan book type in the form of a written linen cloth folded according to a fixed pattern. The so-called ‘Mummy-wrapping of Agram’ (liber linteus Zagrabiensis) is preserved in the original with c. 40 cm height and 340 cm preserved length containing a ritual text in calendric form (— Calendar; no earlier than the

3rd cent. BC). There are also pictorial and sculpted copies of libri lintei in Etruscan graves, on sarcophagi and urns. + Divination F. RONCALLI (ed.), Scrivere etrusco. Exhibition catalogue Perugia, 1985. F.PR.

Liber Pontificalis A serially compiled collection of summarized biographies of popes, prefaced by a fictional correspondence between > Damasus and > Hieronymus. The at times semi-official character of this preface led to its wide distribution (usually under the title Gesta or Chronica pontificum) [3]. Although the earliest MSS (7th/8th cents.) contain the chain of popes up to Conon I (died 687), the oldest part ended most likely with Felix III (IV) (died 530). The latter was based on chronographical models such as the so-called Index and the Catalogus Liberianus (MGH AA 9,73-76). It filled out the skeletal data with materials from several sources (among them Jer. Vir. ill., and the so-called

~ Symmachian Forgeries) and transmitted especially the early history of dotations and of papal buildings in a rather reliable manner. The subsequent chain of vitae reaches into the 9th cent. and consists of parts produced in groups or individually, the contemporary authors of which belonged to the Curia (partially perhaps to the papal vestiarium). After the supplements broke off in the roth cent., revisions and continuations are taken up again in the 12th cent. and — often interspersed with passages from other chronicles — reach up to Martin V (died in 1431). As early as in the parts from late antiquity one can discern an effort to convey the impression of a uniform papal administration and of an unbroken succession by means of organizing the different parts

[1] (Religion) Roman goddess of freedom; she is the embodiment of the personal > freedom of citizens (Cic. Nat. D. 2,61). Her temple was located on the Aventine

and was designated as aedes Libertatis (Liv. 24,16,19) or as aedes lIovis Libertatis (R. Gest. div. Aug. 19) [1. 870; 2. 107, 227]. It was founded by Ti. > Sempronius Gracchus in AD 238 out of funds provided from fines. His son had a painting hung up there after his victory over the Carthaginians at Beneventum in the year 214, on which the Roman slaves freed after the battle were depicted; they wear the > pilleus (the ‘felt cap’, understood to be a Phrygian cap in post-ancient times), the attribute of L., and celebrate the victory (Liv. 24,16,19). The anniversary of the temple is 13 April. Ovid (Ov. Fast. 4,623) gives this date, probably erroneously, as the anniversary of the Atrium Libertatis [3. 138°], which was the local office of the > censores close to the Forum (Liv. 34,44,5; 43,16,13). After Cicero was banished in the year 58 BC and his fortune had been forfeited, + Clodius [I 4] had his house demolished and wanted to build a new temple to L. ona part of the site. Following Cicero’s return in 57 BC, the parts of the building that had been started were demolished (Cic. Dom., passim) [4. 5]. 1J.R. Fears, The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology, in: ANRW II 17.2, 869-875 2A.MERLIN, L’aventin dans l’antiquité, 1906 3 G. Wissowa, Rel. und Kultus der Romer, 71912, 138-139 4 G.PicaRD, L’aedes de Clodius au Palatin, in: REL 43, 1965, 229-237 5 E. Part, s.v. L. (1), LTUR 3, 188-189.

DuMEZIL, 201; TH. Kock, s.v. L., RE 13, to1—103; H.H. SCULLARD, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman

Republic, 1985, 198; R. VOLLKOMMER, s.v. L., LIMC 6.1, 287-294.

EL.STO.

[2] (Politics) see > Freedom Liberti, Libertini see (Rome)

— Freedmen;

— Manumission

495

496

Libethria, -um (AeiPiPouov, AiBiOguov; Leibethrion, Libéthrion). Boeotian mountain range with a cult cave and spring sanctuary of the Muses and ‘L(e)ibethridian’ nymphs c. 7 km from > Coronea; either the part of

L. as the result of sexual love — must belong to the domain of a single divinity. In L.’s grove (lucus Libitinae), probably located on the Esquiline, there was a temple of Venus Lubentina [2]. According to the decree of Servius Tullius, after every death a fee was to be paid into L.’s coffers so that the exact number of the deceased could be counted (Piso at Dion Hal. Ant. Rom. 4,15,5). In the grove, in which the implements for interments were kept, the — /ibitinarii (funeral directors) also had their headquarters (schol. Hor. Sat. 2,6,19).

LIBETHRIA, -UM

Helicon situated in the south-west between the mountains Megali Lutsa (1,548m) and Paliovuna (1,747 m) or the mountain range stretching from modern Coronea east to modern Petra. Sources: Paus. 9534543 Str. 9,2,25; 10,3,17; Verg. Ecl. 7,21 with Serv. Eele7som C. Bursran, Geogr. von Griechenland 1, 1862, 236; N.D. PAPACHATZIS, [lavoaviov Ehkdddoc eouyyecic 5, *1981, 219; PHILIPPSON/KIRSTEN 1,2, 450f.; SCHACHTER 3, 146,

187f.; P.W. WALLACE, Strabo’s Description of Boiotia, 1979, 105. PF.

1 R.ScuILLinG, La religion romaine de Vénus, 1982, 202— 206 2 F.CoarRELLI, s.v. L., LTUR 3, 189-190. G. FREYBURGER, Libitine et les funérailles, in: F. HINARD,

La mort au quotidien dans le monde romain, 1995, 213222; LATTE, 138; 185 n. 2; RADKE, 183-184; G. RADKE,

Zur Entwicklung der Gottesvorstellung und der Gottesverehrung in Rom, 1987, 184-186.

FR.P.

Libias (AiBidc; Libids, Latin Livias, also Iulias). Town in the eastern Jordan valley, the Aramaic name of which is bet ramta, and which, according to Jewish tradition, is to be identified with the biblical bet haran (or haram; Nm 32:36; Jos 13:27) (jTalmud Shevi 9,2 [38d]). The

Libitinarii was the name the Romans gave to undertakers because of their seat in the sacred grove of > Libitina (qui libitinam faciunt, ILS 6085,94). On behalf of

Christian

On.

the affected families (or the state: Sen. Dial. 9,11,10),

48,13 ff.; ByOeau0d, Bethramphtha) follow this. Even if this identification is not certain, bet ramta is undoubtedly identical with the town mentioned by Jos. (BI 17,10,6) Béthardmata (BySaecuata), where > Herodes [1] the Great owned a palace. Under > Herodes [4] Antipas the town was renovated and fortified and named Livias after Augustus’ wife (after Augustus’ death: Iulias) (Jos. Ant. Iud. 18,2,1, BI 2,9,1) [2]. From AD 54 it belonged to the territory of Herodes [8] Agrippa II. In AD 68 during the Judaeo-Roman War, it was captured by Placidus, a general under Vespasianus (Jos.

they organized the > burials and supplied the necessary implements as well as the personnel (partly slaves: Ulp. Dig. 14,3,5,8), e.g. > pollinctores, bearers, musicians

traditions

of Hier.

and

Eus.

(Euseb.

(cf. Petron. Sat. 78,6), corpses (ustores).

specialists

for burning

the

BI 4,7,6; 8,2). Whether L. possessed the rights of an

The funeral practices in the Roman cities of Italy were apparently similarly organized (ILS 6726 attests a burial fee for Bergamo, /ucar Libitinae; the burial regulations of Puteoli mention a lucus Libitinae, AE 1971, 88 II 3). The libitinarii were often freedmen and quite wealthy (e.g. Habinnas in the Cena of C. > Petronius), but the profession was considered to be of low rank

independent polis is uncertain [4. 93f., 182]. Descriptions from the Byzantine period can be found in Theodosius (CSEL 39, 145) and Gregory of Tours (De gloria

(like that of the > praeco), so that free libitinarit, as long as they worked as undertakers, were excluded from local offices and the decurionate (ILS 6085,94-

martyrum 1,18).

96).

1 ABEL 2,273 2 H.W. HOoOEHNER, Herod Antipas, 1972, 87-91 3 SCHURER 2, 85-97, 176-178, 182. LWA.

BLUMNER, PrAlt., 489f.; G. FREYBURGER, Libitine et les funérailles, in: F. Hinarp (ed.), La mort au quotidien dans

le monde romain, 1995, 213-222; L. WIcKERT, s.v. L., RE 13, 114.

Libici Celto-Ligurian people on the left bank of the ~ Padus (Po), who, along with others (Ligurian Salluvii: Liv. 5,3 5,2, or Sallii: Plin. HN 3,124), founded Vercellae (Pol. 2,17,4; Plin. HN 21,38,73 33537,6: Libui). NISSEN, vol. 2, 174.

475; Ptol. 351,36; Liv. ASA.

Libitina Roman goddess who supervises the fulfilment of funeral duties (Plut. Numa 12,1). The name L., the etymology of which is disputed [1], therefore denotes metaphorically death in poetry (Hor. Carm. 3,30,7 L.). L. was equated with > Venus Lubentina (Varro Ling. 6,47). Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. 269b; Numa 12,1) based this identification on the fact that two conflicting phenomena such as death and birth — the latter is related to

W.K.

Libius Severus (emperor 461-465) see > Severus

Libo Roman cognomen, in the Republican period in the families of the Tulii, Livii, Poetelii and Scribonii, in the Imperial period in the Anni, Flavii, Livii, Scribonii. K-LE. Libon Greek > architect of the early Classical period from Elis. According to Paus. 5,10,3, he built the Zeus temple in + Olympia, which was begun in 472 BC and completed before 456 BC. With a stylobate of 27.68 m x 64.12 manda height of about 20 m, it was the largest temple of Greece at that time. The circular hall with 6 x 13 columns and a regular intercolumniation encloses the well-balanced > cella, which is linked to the circu-

497

498

lar hall through fronts. The design concentrated on the regular rapport in the triglyph (> Angle triglyph problem) and from there transfers the other design measures to the building. A rational and correctly calculated disposition determines the plan and the profile, so that the canonization of the Doric building order may be considered a special achievement of L. (+ Temple). Rich architectural sculpture decorated the Zeus temple. In particular, the pediment compositions show that they were clearly integrated into his architectural rhythm and, therefore, were designed together with L.’s design. It was not until about 25-30 years after the construction work that - Phidias created the monumental gold and ivory statue of Zeus, which was later considered one of the seven > Wonders of the World. W.DOrPFELD, Olympia. Ergebnisse II, 1892, 4-22; G.GRUBEN, Die Tempel der Griechen, 31980, 55-61; A. MaLtwitz, Olympia und seine Bauten, 1972, 211-23 4;

H. RrEMANN, Hauptphasen in der Plangestaltung des dor. Peripteraltempels, in: G.E. Mytonas (ed.), Studies Pres-

ented to D. M. Robinson 1, 1951, 295-308; H. SVENSONEvers, Die griech. Architekten archa. und klass. Zeit, 1996, 373-379 (sources).

H.KN.

Libra [1] (also pondus, ‘pound’, metonymic ‘what has been weighted’; Greek equivalent: \tea/litra). Terminus technicus for the unit of weight of 327,45 g of the Roman measuring system; a libra corresponds to the

~» as, which in the duodecimal system was divided into 12 unciae of 27,28g [2.706 fig. XIII]. The standard very likely remained unchanged until early Byzantine times, as evidenced by weighing coins of precious metals and silver implements. [3. 222]. As weights, we find librae of bronze and of lead, also of stone. They are to be differentiated from the local market /itrai very common in Asia Minor; its unit of weight was normally based on regional mina standards.[5. 371]; occasionally, these are referred to as Aeitoa itakxn (leitra italiké) (4. 132 no. 1]. + Weights, Rome 1 H. CHaAntTRAINE, H.-J. SCHULZK1, Bemerkungen zur kritischen Neuaufnahme ant. MafSe und Gewichte, in: Saalburg-Jahrb. 48, 1995, 129-138 2 F.Hutrscu, Griech.

und

rém.

Metrologie,

*1882

3M. Martin,

Zum

Gewicht des rom. Pfundes, in: F. BARATTE (ed.), Argente-

rie Romaine et Byzantine — Actes de la Table Ronde Paris 1983, 1988, 211-225 4P.pe PALot, Ponderales y exagia romanobizantinos en Espafia, in: Ampurias 11, 1949, 128-150 5 P. Werss, Kaiser und Statthalter auf

griech. Marktgewichten,

in: R.GUNTHER,

S. REBENICH

(ed.), E fontibus haurire — Beitr. zur rom. Geschichte und zur ihren Hilfswissenschaften, 1994, 353-389. H.-J.S.

LIBRARY

Library I. LIBRARY

BUILDINGS

II. LIBRARIES

I. LIBRARY BUILDINGS A. DEFINITION

B. GREECE

C. ROME

A. DEFINITION A library is a depository or building for books of all kinds. Libraries could be part of private houses, royal palaces, public and religious buildings (> Gymnasium, + Forum, > Thermal baths), sanctuaries, or be independent buildings. Only few libraries have been secured or preserved, because most of their constituent elements, including bookcases (armaria) and furnishings, were made of wood. B. GREECE Book collections have been known in the Greek cultural area since the 6th cent. BC (see below II.B.r.). Their inclusion in the palaces of tyrants may have been borrowed from the Orient. Even in the Hellenistic period the most famous libraries belonged to the royal palaces, and were reserved for scholars. The most famous was the library in Alexandria (see below II.B.r.c), which was founded by Ptolemy I. It was located in the palace, next to the Mouseion, which contained a peripatos (stoa) and an > exedra for studying, and a large oikos as a dining-room for the scholars (Str. 17,1,8). A subsidiary library in the Serapeion (2nd half of the 3rd cent. BC) was probably located behind the south portico opposite the courtyard. The library founded by Attalus I in the 2nd half of the 3rd cent. BC in Pergamum was also part of the palace (cf. fig. 1); it was located on the first floor of the porticus that enclosed the sanctuary of Athena. This oldest extant Greek library consisted of a large hall (16 x 13.50 m), with a podium on three sides, placed o.50 m from the wall, and three smaller rooms (13.40 X 7.10 or 13 m), probably used as stores. A copy of the Athena Parthenos (Berlin, PM) stood in front of the back wall of the hall, which may have had the same function as the oikos in Alexandria. The podium may have carried statues. The location of the library of the Macedonian kings in Pella, whose books Aemilius Paullus had brought to Rome after the battle of Pydna in 168 BC (Plut. Aem. Paullus 28,6), has not been ascertained. From the late Classical period onwards books were also kept in gymnasia. Due to the poor state of preservation of the gymnasia, however, no library rooms have been identified. Aristotle was the first to construct a systematic library in the Lykeion (Str. 13,1,54). A portion of the contents was later trans-

ferred to Sulla’s villa at Cumae.

Librarius see ~ Lybrary (Rome); > Scriba; > Scribes

C. ROME The first libraries in Italy were private. Completely preserved is the library in the Villa dei Papiri at > Herculaneum, which has, however, been covered up again.

Ill b

The small room with wooden bookcases (with numer-

{2] see > Scales [3] see > Constellations

ous papyrus scrolls im situ), facing a peristyle, was only

LIBRARY

500

499

Ephesus. Library of Celsus, 1st half 2nd cent. AD (front elevation).

Pergamon. Library in the sanctuary of Athena (ground-plan) as of the Ist half of the 2nd cent. BC. I Library hall with book-cases Banquetting hall 3 Side rooms, presumably storerooms

501

502

a store-room. The peristyle was the actual place of study as was usual also in Greece. Two additional private libraries were found in the Casa del Menandro

central niche for a statue — here of Minerva, whose head

(Pompei I 10,4) and in Pompeii VI 17,41. Similar to

Alexandria, the store-rooms with a room for studying (exedra or cubiculum) and a triclinium formed a contiguous complex. In Palestine, a private library of ~ Herodes the Great may perhaps be identified in the northern palace of > Masada (placed on the second terrace behind the rotunda), The building consisted of an exedra (5.10 X 2.40 m) with five niches at a height of 0.60 m above the floor. The Roman emperors also had private libraries in their palaces. Two rooms in the palace of Augustus on the Palatine have been interpreted as libraries. Hadrian had the square room PI 48 in his villa in Tivoli converted into a private library (8.30m x 8.20 m), by adding steps and niches. The first public library in Rome was planned by Caesar, but only realized by Asinius Pollio in 39 BC in the Atrium Libertatis. Nothing is preserved, but we know that it was the first library with separate sections for Greek and Latin literature (see below II B.2.b), a characteristic of public libraries in Rome (but also demonstrable elsewhere in private libraries, cf. Petron. Sat. 48,4). In 28 BC Augustus built a library open to the public next to his palace and the temple of Apollo on the Palatine (opposite the porticus of the Danaids). Its two long apsidal halls (each 17.50 x 19.50 m) are probably mirrored in the extant Domitianic building phase. There were niches for bookcases in the walls, a large niche for a statue in the back wall, and a podium with steps to reach the scrolls; this scheme which was to become canonical for Roman libraries. The library of Vespasian on his Forum Pacis may have been located in a room south of the temple (in the modern church of SS Cosma e Damiano), although no niches have been found. Trajan had the Bibliotheca Ulpia, a double library, added to his forum in AD 113. Of the two long halls that flanked a small square with the famous column in the form of a scroll, the southern has been partially preserved (27 x 17m). The podium along the three walls had steps to reach the niches. One niche took up the centre of the back wall. Columns supported one or two upper storeys, which were accessible by staircases behind the library. In the Trajanic period, this elongated plan was used in Nimes, France, for a building (14.52 X 9.55 m) which has frequently been described as a library; however, there was no podium to reach the niches at a height of 1.70 m. However, Roman libraries in this period did not always have only long rectangular floor plans; > Apollodorus [14] of Damascus integrated semicircular libraries into the perimeter wall of the monumental Baths of Trajan on the Mons Oppius (width 28.70 m; depth 16.30 m). A large central niche was flanked by niches for armaria, which in turn were accessible by a stepped podium; a gallery with niches for armaria was found here as well. In the Trajanic colony of Timgad, the same ground-plan was used by Rogatianus in the 3rd cent. AD for his well-pre-

LIBRARY

served library (width r5 m; depth 10 m), also with a was found nearby — and empty spaces for armaria. The hall was flanked by two store-rooms. Also from the Trajanic period is the poorly preserved library of Pantaenus on the Agora of > Athens, consisting of a peristyle court with a large hall (9.80 x 9 m) and two smaller exedras facing it. The library of Celsus in Ephesus also comes from this time; this library was a transverse rectangle (16.72 xX 10.20 m) with a richly structured (rebuilt) fagade and a large apse, which served also as the tomb of Celsus (cf. fig. below). The niches were located above a stepped podium, and there were also two galleries. The well-preserved Hadrianic library in the Asclepieum of Pergamum is almost square (18.50 X 16.52 m).

The base and fragments of a statue of Hadrian have been found in a central apse. The niches for the armaria were 1.75 m above the floor, but without a preserved podium, which might well have been made of wood. The Hadrianic library in Athens, which the emperor had built as the centre of a ‘university’ in his favourite city, had the form of a transverse rectangle (32.20 x 15.75 m) facing a porticus. The inner room contained a podium and niches in three storeys. The same roomform was used in the double library in the perimeter wall of the Baths of Caracalla in Rome. The western hall (36.30 x 21.90 m) with an apsidial main niche and a stepped podium can still be seen today. The modest library in the Roman agora in Philippi consisted of a room with a podium (9 x ro m) and three further rooms facing a stoa. Although from the 2nd cent. AD, it resembles the library in Pergamum rather than the Roman examples. The Roman library shows a great variety with regard to form, size, location, and furnishings; it was normally furnished with a stepped podium, niches for bookcases and a central niche for a statue. The number of niches, as well as their dimensions, could vary greatly, their average size being c. 3.20 m in height, 1.50 m in width and 60 cm in depth. Due to their height, ladders were indispensable. The dimension, material and placement of the podia were quite variable; there could be a gallery or several storeys, or they could be absent. Even if there does not seem to have been a distinctive ‘library building type’ in the standardized Roman > architecture, a functionally-based building interior developed which remained valid in the Roman world. C.E. Boyp, Public Libraries and Literature in Ancient Rome, 1915; CHR. Catimer, Antike Bibliotheken, in: Opuscula Atheniensia 3, 1944, 145-193; M. DE FRANCEscHINI, Villa Adriana. Mosaici-Pavimenti-Edifici, 1991, 469-476; W. HOEPENER, Zu griech. B. und Biicherschran-

ken, in: AA 1996, 25-36; L.L. JoHNSON, The Hellenistic and Roman Library, 1991; V.M. Srrocka, Rom. B., in: Gymnasium 88, 1981, 298-329; Id., Pompeji VI 17,41: Ein Haus mit Privat-B., in: MDAI

(R) 100, 1993, 321-

351; J. TONSBERG, Offentlige Biblioteker 1 Romerriget i det 2. arhundrede e. Chr., 1976; H. WOLTER-VON DEM KNESEBECK, Zur Ausstattung und Funktion des Haupt-

503

504

saales der B. von Pergamon, in: Boreas 18, 1995, 45-563 F. YEGUL, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity 1992,

overview. As a rule, the name of the owner (> Colophon) was given on library tablets, and there was often a curse on theft. In neo-Babylonian libraries, ‘tending’ to specialists was known. The loan period was between one day and several months.

LIBRARY

178-179.

LN.

II. LIBRARIES A. EGYPT AND MESOPOTAMIA CHRISTIAN LIBRARIES A. EGYPT AND 1. EGypt

B. GREECE, ROME,

1 S.J. LrgBERMAN, in: FS Moran 1990, 305ff. 2S.M. Maut, in: BaF 18, r59ff. 3S.ParPora, in: JNES 42, 1983, 1ff. 4 O.PEDERSEN, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur, 1986 5 K.R. VEENHOF (ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Libraries, 1986. S.M.

MESOPOTAMIA

2. MESOPOTAMIA

1. EGYPT Libraries are documented in Egypt since the 3rd millennium BC. One must distinguish primarily between: 1. the ‘house of books’, a handbook library for the temple cult, and 2. the library of the temple-affiliated ‘house of life’, the actual universal library. Here, theological, scientific (e.g. medical) and probably also literary texts were written, copied and archived. A ‘house of books’ is preserved in the temple of Edfu (completed 116 BC), ‘houses of life’ are mostly attested only by papyrus finds (+ Elephantine, temple remains of the Graeco-Roman period in the Fayyum). The library of — Alexandria was a purely Greek institution. G. BurKarD, B. im Alten Agypten, in: Bibliothek 4, 1980, 79-115; A.GARDINER, The House of Life, in: JEA 24, 1938, 157-179; U.JocHuM, Kleine B.-Gesch., 1993. G.BU.

B. GREECE, ROME, CHRISTIAN 1. TERM 2. HISTORY

LIBRARIES

1. TERM In antiquity the term library denoted both a larger stock of books and the premises (Fest. p. 31). Collections

of

records

(— Archive)

and

bookcases

(Dig.

30,41,93 32,52,7) were also called library. BiBMoOyxy (bibliothéké) is Attic (for Biupoc/byblos, + Book) and only prevailed against BuBkoO}xn/bybliotheké (Ionic) in the Imperial period. The linguistic form was clear: nam pipdiwv librorum @nxn repositio interpretatur (Isid. Orig. 6,3,1).

2. History Private libraries: the first information about Greek libraries refers to the 6th cent., to Peisistratus in Athens

and Polycrates on Samos [37. no. 1-27, 121]. These libraries, unlike those of Hellenistic rulers (see below),

2. MESOPOTAMIA ~ Archives have been known in Mesopotamia since the invention of writing (c. 3200 BC). The first libraries were probably collections of clay tablets in schools. From the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, libraries were created where hymns to the gods, songs, prayers, but also literary (epics, myths) and lexical texts were copied and archived. In the Mesopotamian centres of the rst millennium BC, there were libraries compiled by

can probably not be called public (despite Gell. NA 7,17,1), but rather belonged in the private sphere. More

logy), readers of entrails, interpreters of omens (> Divi-

and more libraries of private people are documented from the later 5th cent. (Ath. 1,3a; Xen. Mem. 4,2,8). Libraries in schools of philosophy: it is likely that Plato furnished his school with a library. This is certainly true for Aristotle, who was probably the first to compile a library with the goal of completeness (Str. 13,1,54; Ath. 1,3a; 5,214d-e; Plut. Sulla 26); we are able to trace its fate over several cents. [27. 109-33; 30. 165-743 32.16-71]. Less is known about the Athe-

nation), singers and > scribes, essentially for their own

nian libraries of Epicurus and Zeno (Diog. Laert. 10,21,

professional use. Comparable collections probably already existed in the 2nd millennium. Libraries were often set up in the temples of > Nabi, the god of wisdom, and the clay tablets were dedicated to the god for the well-being of the donor. Medical texts were kept in the temples of the healing goddess Gula. Royal palace libraries already existed in the 2nd millennium BC. King > Assurbanipal had the complete literature of his time (several thousand tablets) collected in his palace library in Nineveh, and even had clay tablets confiscated for this purpose. Although well-educated, he probably did this less out of aesthetic interests than with the intention of using the knowledge to maintain power. Clay tablets in libraries were stored in wooden shelves, brick compartments or containers (ceramic jars, baskets), arranged by subject. Catalogues and clay labels on shelves or jars allowed the user to gain a quick

7,36). Their libraries were also organized (cf. Diog. Laert.) in accordance with the private character of their schools (> Associations). Public libraries: the following three types of libraries have in common a (varying) connection to the public. a.) Libraries in Hellenistic palaces: the successors of Alexander endeavoured to promote Greek culture, not least for reasons of legitimation. Ptolemy I (d. 283/282 BC) fell back on the Greek model of a community of scholars dedicated to the Muses and on Aristotle’s library concept (the mediator was Demetrius of Phalerum, see Ps.-Aristeas 9), in order to create a sanctuary of the Muses (~ Mouseion) with a library in Alexandria [13 25 35 27. 140-69]. In the course of this first known institutional patronage of a scholarly community under Ptolemy and his successors books were bought from everywhere with the goal of collecting, and perhaps having translated, Greek and the most important for-

conjurers, doctors (+ Medicine), astrologers (— Astro-

S25

eign-language

506

literature (Ps.-Aristeas 9f.; Ath.

LIBRARY

1,3a;

exact status is not clear). All of these libraries were

Epiphany, PG 43, col. 252; Plin. HN 30,4). On the one hand, research at the Mouseion was thus to be promoted, and on the other hand, the superiority of Greek culture proved and transformed it into that of the king.

public (perhaps with the exception of the one mentioned last), not in the sense of ‘freely accessible’, but primarily because of their public impact. This consisted of written records being collected, edited and reproduced in the name of the king. His residence was thus intended to appear as the centre of paideia (+ Educa-

Under Ptolemy II (d. 246 BC), some 500,000 scrolls are

supposed to have been accumulated in this way (Ps.Aristeas 10; Tzetzes, CGF p. 19; Gell. NA 7,17,3: 700,000); the author, work and origin of the scrolls

were noted on labels. The library (not a separate building, but stacks rooms) was located in the palace district and was used primarily by the members of the Mouseion. Its heads, who were frequently also the royal tutors, are for the most part known to us through POxy. 1241 and the Suda; Callimachus was probably’ not among them (cf. the discussion in [27. 179-91; 38. 28— 30; 40. 70-75]). Whether the library really burned down in 47 BC during the Alexandrian War (thus, for example, Plut. Caesar 49), is questionable, because Sen. Dial. 9,9,5 in connection with Cass. Dio 42,38 speaks more for a fire in the harbour stores, and neither con-

temporaries nor later visitors know of damage to the palace quarter [30. 130-40]. With the promotion of the Mouseion, the Roman emperors also took on that of the library and expanded it (Suet. Claud. 42). It was destroyed only in AD 272 (Amm. Marc. 22,16,15), but the Mouseion continued to exist (Suda, s.v. Theon of

Alexandria), probably with the help of the library in the Serapeion. This [34. 62-7] was founded by Ptolemy II or III (Aphthonius, progymn. 12, p. 40 RABE) and, according to Tzetzes (CGF p. 19), furnished with 42,800 scrolls; as a subsidiary library, it consisted in part of duplicates from the Mouseion library. According to Aphthonius, it was accessible to the scholarly public. The library of Alexandria was an incentive for other Hellenistic rulers: in Pergamum [26. 146-149], Attalus I (d. 197 BC) may have already founded a library; the partially preserved building was erected during his son’s reign. However, there was probably no institution comparable to the Mouseion, and the circle of users was more open (Vitr. De arch. 7 praef. 4). The focus was on philology and poetry. As in Alexandria, critical editions and catalogues were created (for book production + Parchment). The only leader we know by name is Athenodorus (Diog. Laert. 7,34). The rivalry between Alexandria and Pergamum was notorious [37. no. 144— 48]. We know little about the library of the Macedonian kings (in Pella; cf. SH no. 85) and that of Mithridates (probably in Sinope), which Aemilius Paullus or Lucullus brought to Italy [37. no. 98f.]. A room in the palace of Eucratides in Ai Khanoun (Afghanistan) can be interpreted as a library, also based on papyrus finds [4]. Antiochus the Great (d. 188/187 BC) founded a palace library in Antioch (Suda, s.v. Euphorion), which may have been transferred to the library of the Mouseion, built approximately roo years later [37. no. 167]. This was endowed by a private individual, and it is possible that it was also the city library (the library of Antiochus is also described as 8. Snuooia (b. démosia), although its

tion / Culture).

6) Libraries in gymnasia: the existence of libraries in Hellenistic gymnasia is attested by inscriptions of the 2nd and rst cents. BC from the so-called Ptolemaeum in Athens [28. 82-87; 36.30-33]. There are also inscriptions in Rhodes and Pergamum, which probably refer to the organization and furnishing of the library of a gymnasium [36. 34f., 39f.]. For the libraries documented in Piraeus, Corinth, Delphi, Prusa, Smyrna, Teos, Nysa, Mylasa, Cos, Halicarnassus, Tarsus and Tauromenium, on the other hand, the frequently claimed con-

nection to gymnasia remains hypothetical [36]. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that libraries were part of the usual furnishings. The contents originated from donations (in Athens, former students were so obligated) and were, in part, recorded in inscriptions. Unlike libraries in private associations, they belonged to the public sphere and were probably also accessible to the public. y) Municipal libraries: the existence of municipal libraries as early as the Hellenistic era is shown by Pol. 12,27. The majority of evidence, however, comes from the Imperial period. The following can be added to the alleged gymnasium libraries already named: the libraries in Dyrrhachium (CILII 607), Philippi [3 4. 4143], Patras (Gell. NA 18,9,5), Knosos (AA 1936, 161),

Soli (IGRom 3, 930) and perhaps Side [35. 69-74], furthermore the library of Pantaenus, the library endowed by emperor Hadrian in Athens, and the library of Celsus in Ephesus (TRAVLosS, Athen 244-251, 432-

438; [5.370-377;

28. 313-334;

39. 322-329]).

Li-

braries in sanctuaries also had a public character: the Asclepieia of Cos (AA 1903, 193f.), Epidaurus (IG IV* 1,456) and Pergamum [39. 320-322], the Serapeion (see above) and Sebasteion in Alexandria (Phil. Legatio

151) and the temple of Trajan in Antioch (Suda, s.v. Iovianos). Mostly it was private donors (in the two last named instances, however, Augustus and Julian, respectively) who paid for the building and the contents, and at times also for the personnel (for the activity of copyists see SEG 2, 1925, 584). Lending was not intended, as documented by an inscription from the library of Pantaenus

(see above). From this, we also

learn something about the opening hours: the first six hours after sunrise. It was considered a great honour when contemporary works were included in a public library; ‘the ancients’ dominated (MAMA VIII, 1962, 418) a) Private libraries: the first private libraries were in the possession of writers; they only became of interest to the upper class in the course of the Hellenization of their lifestyle. At first, they were spoils of war: in 168 BC, Aemilius Paullus gave the library of Perseus to his sons. The (primarily Punic) book collections of Car-

LIBRARY

Dio

thage, on the other hand, were distributed among the reguli of Africa in 146 BC (Plin. HN 18,22) |6. 653-68]. In 84 BC, Sulla transferred the library of Apellicon (which traced back to Aristotle) to his villa in Cumae; in 70 BC, Lucullus brought the library of Mithridates to his Tusculanum; other nobiles had to buy their libraries piece by piece (we know the most about Cicero’s) [32. 16-190]. From the time of Cicero, libraries were a part of the usual furnishings in distinguished households, particularly in country estates (Dig. 33,7,12,34);

indeed, they became a status symbol, independent of the education of the owner (Sen. Dial. 9,9,4-7; Petron. Sat. 48,4). The remains of private libraries are located in Herculaneum [7; 8], in the imperial villa in Antium (CIL X 6638), perhaps also in the villa in Centumcellae, in the Villa Tiburtina and in Pompeii [9. 341-351; 39. 313-315]. There were specialists and specialized literature for the purchase and cataloguing of books (Ath. 12,515¢€; 15,694a-c; Suda s.v. Damophilos, Herennius Philo and Telephus; GRF no. 53-54). Libraries were run by servi litterati or freedmen: they created copies (as librarii), glued and restored scrolls (as glutinatores) and were responsible for the small title plates, which made it possible to locate the scrolls stacked in cabinets or shelves with the cut to the front |ro. 203-5; II; 41. 64-92] (on this P. FEDELI in [31. 42-5]). Only in Herculaneum

(see above), remains of the contents

have been preserved: Epicurean works, particularly by Philodemus, who obviously had his working library here. This ‘Villa dei Papiri’ probably belonged to L. Calpurnius Piso (consul 58 BC), his friend and patron. B) Public libraries in Rome and Constantinople: although Caesar’s project to have Varro set up the most complete possible, bilingual public library in Rome (Suet. Iul. 44,2), was influenced by the model of Hellenistic rulers, but neither he nor his successors planned large palace libraries. The place of their foundations was always a public building. This is also true of the library which Asinius Pollio (perhaps taking up Caesar’s plans) set up soon after 39 BC in the Atrium Libertatis (Plin. HN

7,115;

Isid. Orig. 6,5,2). Augustus

founded a library in the porticus of the temple of Apollo on the Palatine [33. 62-4]. A Latin section was set opposite the Greek contents (as already planned by Caesar and then became standard in every imperial library in Rome). This was also a matter of cultural self-assertion [x2]. One focus of the Latin section was, therefore, Augustan poetry (Hor. Epist. 2,1,214-218), alongside

the legal literature. The library was only finally destroyed by the fire of AD 363 (Amm. Marc. 23,3,3). Under Augustus an additional library was founded in the Porticus Octaviae [33. 64f.]. A library near the temple of Augustus on the Palatine harks back to Tiberius; its relationship to the so-called b. domus Tiberianae is unclear [33. 67f.]. In AD 75 Vespasian dedicated a library near the Templum Pacis (Gell. NA 5,21,9; 16,8,2; SHA Tyr. Trig. 31,10), and the Bibliotheca Ulpia in the Forum of Trajan [13. 60-74] soon became the most significant library in Rome. Alexander Severus

508

had a library set up near the Pantheon by the Christian Iulius Africanus (POxy. 412), and there was also a library on the Capitol (Jer. Chron. 2204). Thermal bath libraries (Sen. Dial. 9,9,7) were found in the Baths of Trajan and Caracalla ([39.311, 315f.5 34-111-124]; for the Baths of Diocletian see SHA Probus 2,1). The mention of 28 or 29 public libraries in two descriptions of Rome from the 4th cent. [14] certainly seems exaggerated (perhaps archives were included), however, it proves continuity. It cannot be gathered from Amm. Marc, 14,6,18 that this continuity broke off as early as around AD 380, because he probably refers to private libraries [15]. The Bibliotheca Ulpia still existed in AD 455 (Sid. Apoll. Epist. 9,16,3,25-28). We can only deduce the scope of the contents, which were sometimes influenced by the emperor [12. 6of.], from the size of the cabinet space. With a scroll width of 8-11 cm [7. 14-16], 1 m* corresponds to c. 80 to rso scrolls. The Bibliotheca Ulpia had 72 cabinets with c. 288 m* of usable space. The operation was characterized by the special feature (also taken over in the east since Hadrian) that the books were not placed in stores, but in niches in a representatively designed reading room, where cultural events also took place (Apul. Flor. 18,3; cf. also Suet. Aug. 29,3; CIL X 4760: meetings). Lending was not common [16]. The titles, a catalogue (Quint. Inst. 10,1,57) and the numbering of the cabinets (SHA Tac. 8,1) served to locate the books. Gell. NA 11,17,1 and 13,20,1 show that the books were searched for by the personnel. Almost exclusively slaves, they were recruited for imperial libraries from the familia Caesaris (CIL VI 5188-5191; 5884 for the library Apollinis); in the library in porticu Octaviae, they were servi publici (CIL VI 2349; 5192 among others). They were called a bibliotheca, mostly assigned to either the Greek or Latin sections, and also worked as copyists and restorers. From Claudius there was a central administration of the imperial libraries under a procurator bibliothecarum (a bybliothecis) Aug. (in the 2nd cent. of the equestrian class) for the overall financial supervision and management; in the 2nd cent., the salary came to 200,000 HS; later — perhaps as a result of a division of the post — it was 60,000 HS [17]. The scholarly head of the individual libraries (bibliothecarius) was a slave or freedman. The position of the vilicus a bibliotheca (e.g. CIL VI 2347) remains unclear. Gifts and donations were usual for supplementing the collection. Generally, copying was relied on more than the book-trade (cf. Suet. Dom. 20). Of the administration of Rome’s libraries in late antiquity we know only that the praefectus urbi was responsible (SHA Aurel. 1,7). Who endowed the first imperial library in Constantinople is disputed [41. 46-63]. In any case, in AD 356 Constantius established a scriptorium there, where the works of Greek philosophers, poets, orators and grammarians were restored, or copied (probably on parchment) (Them. Or. 4,59b-60d). An imperial library can be assumed by this time at the latest. Emperor Julian donated to it his private library and rooms in AD 362

510

509 (Zos.

3,11,3;

MULLER-WIENER

283).

In AD

372,

Valens ordered the city prefects to make guards and seven antiquarti available for the production and restoration of codices, four for Greek, three for Latin (Cod. Theod. 14,9,2). In AD 475, the library encompassed 120,000 volumes (Zon. 14,2).

Public libraries in Italy and the western provinces: unlike in Rome, where the emperor mostly took on responsibility for public libraries, the initiative in Italy and the provinces (also in the east, see above) lay with private individuals. Pliny gave his hometown Comum a library and 100,000 sesterces in tutelam (Plin. Ep. 1,8,2; CIL V 5262). Matidia, Trajan’s niece, endowed a

library in Suessa Aurunca (CIL X 4760). An endowment is also documented in Volsinii (CIL XI 2704). From Gell. NA 9,14,33 19,5,4 we hear of the city library in Tibur; the existence of a library in Pompeii is debated [18]. That the clarissimos scriptores could be consulted in Africa in bibliothecis publicis is shown by Apul. Apol. 91,1, and Flor. 18,1-4 documents a public library in Carthage, which was probably on the forum [19. 181-83]. In Thamugadi (Algeria), the remains of a testamentarily endowed (ILS 9362: 400,000 MS) library from the 3rd cent. [20; 34. 31-40] were found. Public libraries are not documented in Spain, in Gaul only in Nimes [21; 29.177f.]. The spread of city libraries depended entirely on private benefactors and was probably rather limited, because the relevant traditions — unlike in the east — were often lacking. Also, neither the general public (access was free, but in fact limited to the educated; cf. Tert. test. 1,6) nor the education of the upper class were aimed at; libraries had no significance for schools. Even for literary work, other than private libraries, they hardly played a role [22]. They were primarily a crystallization point for the cultural prestige of the cities and a classical object of euergeteia. It can be assumed from their works that Christian writers occasionally had large private libraries. However, in the individual communities the books of the OT and NT formed the nucleus. They alone were sometimes called libraries here (cf. Jer. Vir. ill. 75; Isid. Orig. 6,3,2). In addition, there were liturgical and catechistic books, lists of bishops, acts of martyrs, synodal decisions, etc. centered with the respective bishop; there was thus no clear separation from the ~ archive. Iulius Africanus called the ecclesiastical library in Jerusalem doyetov (archeion); it was created by bishop Alexander around AD 212 and also included profane literature (POxy. 412; Euseb. Hist. eccl. 6,20). This is also true for the ecclesiastical library of Alexandria, where a Christian school existed (-> Origenes),

where secular education also played a role. When Origen was banished to Caesarea in 23 1/2, he founded a similar school and library there [31. 65-78]. Ultimately — supervised by Pamphilius from the end of the 3rd cent. — it held 30,000 books (Isid. Orig. 6,6,1). It was famous for its scriptorium (Euseb. Vita Constantini 4,36f.). We do not know how many libraries were destroyed in the Diocletianic persecution (Euseb. Hist.

LIBRARY

eccl. 8,2,4). In Rome, the bishop’s library was probably located in the Lateran from the 4th cent. How it was related to the double (Greek-Latin?) library established by Pope Hilarus (AD 461-468). at S. Lorenzo fra le

mura is disputed [23; 24]. Bishops’ libraries, such as Augustine’s in Hippo Regius [25. 61-85], were — unlike simple church libraries (see Paul Nol. epist. 32,16, in Nola) — not freely accessible. Besides church libraries, monastery libraries, from which books for the lectio divina were given out, appeared in the 4th cent. [41. 184-92]. At times, such as in Cassiodorus’ monas-

tery in Vivarium, there was also an obligation to copy (Cassiod. Inst. 1). 1 P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria I, 1972, 305-335 2 D. Dexia, From Romance to Rhetoric: ..., in: AHR 97,

1992, 1449-1467 3 A.ERSKINE, Culture and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt: .... in: G&R 42, 1995, 38-48 4 C. Rapin, Fouilles d’Ai Khanoum VIII, 1992, 115-130 5 T.L. SHear, Athens: ... in: Hesperia 50, 1981, 356-377 6 V.Krincs, Les lettres grecques ...., Phoinikeia Grammata. Actes du Coll. de Liége, 1991, 649-668 7G.CaVALLO, Libri, scritture, scribi a Ercolano, 8 T. DoraAnpDI, La ‘Villa dei Papiri’ ..., in: CPh 90, 168-182 9V.M. Strocka, Pompeji VI 17,41: MDAI(R) roo, 1993, 321-351 10 W.BINSFELD,

1983 1995, ..., in: Lesepulte aus Neumagner Reliefs, in: BJ 173, 1973, 201-206 11 M.Séve, Sur la taille des rayonnages ..., in: RPh 64, 1990, 173-179 12 N.HorsFALL, Empty Shelves on the Palatine, in: G&R 40, 1993, 58-67 13S.SETTIS, La Colonna Traiana, 1988 14 A. Norbu, Libellus de Regionibus Vrbis Romae, 1949, 97 15 G.W. Houston, A Revisionary Note on Amm. 14,6,18:..., in: The Library Quaterly 58, 1988, 258-264 16 L. PIACENTE, Utentie prestito di libri ..., in: Studi lat. e ital. 2, 1988, 49-64 17L.D. Bruce, The Procurator Bibliothecarum ..., in: Journal of Library Hist. 18, 1983, 143-162 18 R.LinG, The Architecture of Pompeji, in: JRA 4, 1991, 250-253 19K. V6sSING, Die Offentlichen B. in Africa, in: Atti X convegno Africa Romana, 1994, 169-183 20H.A. PFEIFFER, The Roman Library in Timgad, in: Mem. Americ. Acad. Rome 9,1931,157-165 21 C.A. Hanson, Were there Libraries in Roman Spain? in: Libraries and Culture 24, 1989, 198216 22 A.J. MarsHALL, Library Resources ..., in: Phoenix 30, 1976, 352-364 23 G.Sca.ia, Gli ‘archiva’ di papa Damaso ..., in: Studi medievali 18, 1977, 39-63 24 C.CALLMER, Die Altesten christl. B. ..., in: Eranos 83, 1985, 48-60 25 J.SCHEELE, in: B. und Wiss. 12, 1978, 14-114 26H.BiancK, Das Buch in der Ant., 1992

27 R. Bum, Kallimachos und die Lit.verzeichnung bei den Griechen, in: Archiv fiir Geschichte der Buchwiss. 18, 1977, 1-360 28 M.BurzacHeEcui, Ricerche epigrafiche sulle antiche bibliotheche del mondo greco, in: RAL 18, 1963, 75-96; 39, 1984, 307-338 29 CHR. CALLMER,

Ant. B., in: OA 3, 1944, 145-193

30 L.CANForRA, Die

verschwundene B., 1988 31 G.CAvaALLo (ed.), theche nel mondo antico e medievale, 1988 Drx, Private and Public Libraries at Rome in the tury B.C., 1986 33 K.FEHLE, Das B.s-Wesen

Rom, 1986 °34L.L. Roman Library, 1984

Le biblio32 TH.K. First Cenim alten

JoHNson, The Hellenistic and 35 E.Maxow1ecka, The Origin

and Evolution of Architectural Form of Roman

Library,

1978 36R.Nicotat, Le bibliotheche dei ginnasi, in: Nuovi Annali di Scuola Spec. per Archivisti e Biblioth. 1, 1987,17-48 37 J. PLAtrHy, Sources on the Earliest Greek

LIBRARY Libraries with the Testimonia,

1968

38 E.POHLMANN,

Einfithrung in die Uberlieferungsgesch. und in die Textkritik der ant. Lit. I: Alt., 1994 39 V.M. Srrocka, Rom. B., in: Gymnasium 88, 1981, 298-329 40 C. WENDEL,

W.G6seErR, Das griech.-rém. Alt., in: Hdb. der B.s-Wiss. Ill,*1955, 51-145 41 C. WenDeEL, KS zum ant. Buch- und B.s-Wesen, 1974.

KV,

Librator Libratores were Roman soldiers who went into battle with long-range weapons and are mentioned in Tacitus aside from the — funditores (Tac. Ann. 2,20,2; 13,39,3; cf. Sil. 1,317); sling-bullets made of lead (glandes) were used as missiles. As can be seen from the inscriptions CIL VIII 2728 (=ILS 5795; cf. CIL VIII 2934 = ILS 2422), engineers from the legions (like Nonius Datus) were also called librator; in Frontinus the term /ibrator is used for line engineers (Frontin. Aq. 105).

Sie

Libri censuales see > Censuales; > Tabulae censoriae

Libripens ‘Scale-holder’. Several formal acts of older Roman law (— Mancipatio, + Nexum, solutio per aes et libram) and legal transactions modelled on them (> Coemptio,

> Emancipatio, testamentum per aes et

libram etc.) required the involvement of a libripens and five witnesses if they were to be valid. These had to be Roman citizens who were of age. Originally the libripens probably actually weighed the unminted copper (— aes rude) that served as a means of payment in the cash purchase transaction (mancipatio). Later the weighing became symbolic and ultimately was reduced to touching the scales with a small piece of copper (raudusculum) or a coin (mancipatio nummo uno); the libripens functioned only as a witness to the business transaction. + Emptio venditio; > Will A.CorsBino,

512

5I1

Il formalismo

negoziale

nell’esperienza

romana, 1994, 20-28; KASER, RPR 1, 32-45.

R.GA.

Libri Sibyllini see > Sibyllini libri Libs (Ainp/Lips). The west-south-west wind that on the twelve-point compass card of Aristotle blew from the setting point of the sun to the winter solstice (Aristot. Mete. 2,6,363b rof.; [1. 23.47, fig. 11]) and that Aristotle (De ventis 973b r1f.) and the Romans associated etymologically with Libya and therefore called Africus (Plin. HN 2,119f. and 18,336). It was considered damp and was set against the Aquilo (Plin. HN 2,125f.), it brought rain and storms, and through its blazing heat it destroyed the shoots of the vine [2]. On the compass card of + Timosthenes this Libdnotos (Aristot. Mund.

4, 394 b 34) or Leukonotos (Aristot. De ventis 973b rof.; [4] is located between the Libs-Africus and the simple - Notus (cf. Aristot. Mund. 64 a 15f.). In Vitr. De arch. 1,6,10 the Libonotus is also its neighbour in the south. —» Winds

1 R. BOKER, s.v. Winde, RE 8A, 2347

2 A.REHM, s.v. L.,

RE 13, 142 3 J.F. MAsseELink, De grieks-romeinse Windroos, 1956 4 A.REHM, s.v. Leukonotos, RE i2, 2285. 5 K. NIELSEN, Les noms grecs et latins des vents, in: CeM 7, 1945, I-113.

C.HU.

Libum (-us; Greek omovtityc/spontités etc.; small libum: libacunculus). (Honey) pastry, a kind of placenta (sacrificial cake; Serv. Aen. 7,109). Types: [x];

+ strues (Fest. 407 L.) among others; cf. Umbr. strusla (+ Tabulae Iguvinae: [2]). Recipe: Cato Agr. 75. Introduced by > Numa according to Enn. Ann. fr. 121 V. Production and sale by bakers of cakes, libarii: Sen. Ep. 56,2; CIL IV 1768, > fictores: Varro, Ling. 7,44. Pictorial representations are not classifiable with certainty [3]. The libum is a cult element: combination with liquid (#zerum, lac: wine, milk; libum from libare ‘to offer a libation’: Varro ibid.; [4]) and solid sacrificial materials (puls, primitiae; tus: cereal porridge, first fruits, incense, among others); not with meat. Actions: sprinkling with grain (Non. 114,17) etc.; ferre; secespita secare (to offer; to cut with a special sacrificial

knife: Fest. 202; 437 L.); those performing: sacerdotes. Addressees: Priapus, Janus and in particular the Genius on the — birthday, etc. The libum as a sacrificial material is also attested for the celebration of the ~> saeculum. > Sacrifice 1 J.ANDRE, Essen und Trinken im alten Rom, 1998, 181-

184 2A.L. Prospocimi, L’Umbro, in: Id., Popoli e civilta dell’Italia antica 6, 1978, esp. 782-787 3 F.FLEss, Opferdiener und Kultmusiker in stadtrém. histor. Reliefs, 1995, 21f. with n. 59 4 WALDE/HOFMANN, +1965, 796f.

M.HAA.

Liburna Towards the end of the Roman Republic the liburna was the pirate ship of the Illyrian people of the Liburnians (— Liburni, Liburnia; cf. App. B Civ. 2,39; App. Ill. 3; cf. Veg. Mil. 4,33,4). Pompey [I 3] appears to have been the first who, in the course of his battles against the pirates, mobilized these vessels in 67 BC in the interests of Rome; Appianus characterized them as light and fast sailing long-boats. The liburna already played an important part in the Civil War against Caesar (Caes. B Civ. 3,5,33; 3,9,13 Plut. Pompey 64,1; Plut. Cato Minor 54,5) and then particularly in the battle of C. Octavius (the later Augustus) against M. Antonius [I 9] (Prop. 3,11,44; Plut. Antonius 67,2-4;

Prudent. Contra Symmachum 2,530 f.; Veg. Mil. 4,33,2). In the period following, the liburna advanced to become the standard ship of the Roman provincial fleets and — equal in status to the quadrireme — the most important type of ship after the > trireme in the central squadrons of Misenum and Ravenna. The liburna of this period, however, now no longer appears to have been a monoreme without a continuous deck (where applicable with two prorae, i.e. prows added to the bow and stern), but as a rule a bireme. The contemporary authors describe it as being built light and low and

513

514

equipped with two rows of oars on each side of the ship (App. Ill. 3; Tac. Hist. 2,35,1 f.). It was still very manoeuvrable and known for its speed (Sil. 13,240; Luc. 355343 App. Ill. 3). According to the pictorial sources, above all the reliefs of Trajan’s Column, the concaveconvex shaped, fort-like bow with the long-stretched, tusk-shaped bent ram was characteristic of the liburna (cf. also Plin. HN 9,13; 10,63; re > Rigging cf. Tac.

in Plin. HN 3,110). Their naval supremacy probably ended in 384 BC (Diod. Sic. 15,14, rf.) when they were defeated by > Dionysus [1] I. during their attempt to destroy the new Greek settlement on Pharus. The L. came gradually under Roman domination; their > Romanization was advanced by the foundation of Aquileia in 181 BC. At Caesar’s time there existed a conventus civium Romanorum in — fader. In the battle of > Actium in 31 BC, the liburnae played an important role. The most important Liburnian towns on the mainland were Iader, Scardona, Tarsatica, Senia, Aenona,

Hist. 5,23,1). Between the liburnae of the Roman river

fleets and the Mediterranean liburnae there was a difference in size occasioned by the special conditions of use on the Rhine and the Danube. Thus, the liburnae of the river fleets appear to have been only about 25 m long and to have been manned with only 64-68 rowers. In late antiquity the meaning of the word liburna was extended to denote the naval battleship per se — regardless of whether it was a light or heavy fighting unit (Veg. Mil. 4,37). ~ Navigation; > Shipbuilding; > Piracy 1 O. H6ckMann, The Liburnian. Some Observations and

Insights, in: The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 26, 1997, 192-216

2H.KONEN, Classis Germa-

nica. Die rom. Rheinflotte im 1.-3. Jh. n. Chr., 2000 3 S.PANCIERA, Liburna, in: Epigraphica 18, 1956, 130156

4M.Reppé£, Mare Nostrum, 1986.

H. KON.

Liburni, Liburnia People in northern Dalmatia between the Istrian Arsia (modern Ra§a) and the Titius

(modern Krka; Plin HN 3,139) including the islands off the coast and the town of Promona claimed by the ~ Dalmatae on the other bank of the Titius (App Ill. 34; cf. Ps.-Scymn. 21). The mountain ranges of Ucka, Gorski Kotar and Velebit in the eastern hinterland separate L. from the > Iapodes. In the 3rd cent. BC, the latter gained access to the Adriatic at the Bay of Kvran at the expense of the L. The L., whose ethnogenesis possibly dates back to the Bronze Age, can only be counted among the Illyrii inasmuch as they later administratively belonged to — Illyricum. They were considered experienced sailors and pirates (Liv. 10,2,40); their type of ship, the liburna, was later adopted by the Roman fleet (App. Ill. 3,7). Onomastics, religious and social structure of the L. are reflected in inscriptions from the Roman period. Their economy included: small lifestock breeding (esp. sheep: Ps.-Scymn. 379; Varro Rust. 2,10), cheese production (Expositio totius mundi 53), wool (praise of Liburnian wool, Plin. HN 8,191), the Liburnian hooded cloak, Mart. 14,139, fishery and hunting, also growing grain. Liburnian society was under the aegis of women (Ps.Scyl. 21; cf. Nicolaus of Damascus, FGrH go F 103 d; Flor. Epit. 1,21). Their divinities were: Latra, Sentona, Ica, Anzotica (Venus), Medaurus. For the 8th cent. BC, the Liburnian thalassocracy in the Adriatic is attested (Hecat. FGrH 1 F 93; Str. 6,2,4). Greeks could never settle in L. The L. had connections to the opposite Italian coast, mainly with Apulia, Daunia and Picenum where some Liburnian groups probably settled permanently: Truentum Liburnorum

LIBYCI MONTES

Argyruntum,

Nedinum,

Asseria,

Burnum,

Varvaria,

and on the islands Fulfinum and Curicum on Curictae (modern Krk), Crexi and Apsorus on Crepsa (modern Cres), Arba and Cissa on the homonymous islands (modern Rab and Pag; cf. Plin. HN 3,130; 139f.).

L., from the time of the Flavian emperors (AD 6996) mostly a part of the province Dalmatia, possibly had an independent status among the provinces and was more closely linked to Italy, a fact is attested by the existence of an ara Aug(usti) Lib(urniae/Liburnorum) in Scardona (ILS 7157), the seat of the conventus of the region, and also in Senia. Civitates Liburniae also show up in a dedication to Nero in Scardona. 1 A.Sasex (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMXL et MCMLX repertae et editae sunt, 1963.

§.Batovié, Liburnska grupa, in: Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 6, 1987, 339-390; J.MEDINI, Provincija Liburnija, in: Diadora 9, 1980, 363-441; M. ZANINOVIC, Liburnia militaris, in: Opuscula archaeologica 13, 1988, 43-67; M.FLuss, s.v. L., RE Suppl. 5, 582-593. MS.

Libyan war see > Mercenaries’ war Libyarches (AiBudexns; Libyarchés). Title of the Ptolemaic governor of > Cyrenaica, supplemented in inscriptions for PP VI 15064 (240/221 BC), PP VI 15776

(217/204), PP VI 15771 (under Ptolemy IV). Around 203/202 Polybius (15,25,12) shows a knowledge of the libyarchés ton kata Kyréneén topon (‘for the areas near Cyrene’; PP VI 15082), which certainly does not mean the supervision of the Chora, but of the country with the cities. In the 2nd cent. the libyarchés is replaced by a stratégos. — The libyarchai mentioned in PRevenue Laws, c. 37, 5 are part of the financial administration or the ‘police’ of certain areas of Egypt west of the Nile (the ‘Libyan’ district?). A.LARONDE, Cyréne et la Libye hellénistique, 1987, 406, 417f., 420; K.ZIMMERMANN, 168-171; 195.

Libyen,

1999,

160-163; KL.ZI.

Libyci montes (Plin. HN 3,3; AiBuxdv deoc; libykon 6ros, Hdt. 2,8; Apuxd don; libyka 6ré, Ptol. 4,5,10, Str. 17,819). Name of the mountains bordering the Nile

valley on the west in contrast to the ‘Arabian’ mountain range of the east bank. According to the ancient geographers, the Nile valley often forms the border between

LIBYCI MONTES

515

Libya and Arabia and consequently between Africa and Asia. H.KEEs, s.v. L.m., RE 13, 148.

K.J.-W.

516

~ Massyli;

> Musulamii; Numidia; > Psylli

+ Nasamones; > Numidae,

1 K. ZIMMERMANN, Libyen, 1999 2 Id., Zum Personennamen Aifuc/AiBuvooa, in: Chiron 26, 1996, 349-371

3 L. Lorero, La grande insurrezione libica contro Cartagine del 241-237 a.C., 1995.

Libyes, Libye (Aifvec; Libyes, AiBtn; Libyé, Latin Libya). However liberally the Greeks treated the term

J. Dfésances, Cat. des tribus africaines de l’antiquité clas-

Libyé in the course of the centuries [1], they were just as

sique a l’ouest du Nil, 1962, 172f. et passim.

unconcerned in their use of the corresponding ethnicon as well. Indeed this is — in contrast to the toponym — not yet attested in the Homeric epics but the Greeks were familiar with the name as a description for their indigenous neighbours at the latest from the settlement of ‘Libya’ by colonists (+ Colonization) from Thera in the 7th cent. BC (SEG IX, 3 = ML 5-9, no.5). Already in Hecataeus (FGrH 1 F 346; 357), however, we also encounter L. as inhabitants of North African regions other than of the > Cyrenaica; Herodotus takes as his

basis Hecataeus when he subdivides the L. in their entirety into ‘meat-eating and milk-drinking nomads’ (vouddes xecopayot te xal yakaxtomdtat) east (Hdt. 4,186,1) and ‘tillers of the soil’ (4gotiges) west of Lake

~ Trito to beyond the ‘Columns of Hercules’ (Gibraltar) (Hdt. 4,191,1-3). At the end of the ‘Libyan Logos’ Hdt. 4,197,2 distinguishes between two population groups that migrated there — the Phoenicians and the Greeks — and two indigenous population groups of Libya — the L. in the north and the Ethiopians in the south of the country. The toponym and the ethnicon have separated from each other regarding their spectrum of meaning: L. is used here and in the subsequent cents. primarily as a collective term for the indigenous population of North Africa as far as they differed clearly through their lighter skin and other features from the negroid Ethiopians. Aside from this primary meaning, the sources occasionally use L. also purely geographically: Soph. El. 7orf. (cf. 727) describes two charioteers from the Greek cities of Cyrenaea as L., whilst Paus. 6,19,10 speaks of a treasure house of the ‘L. in Cyrene’ in Olympia, and often mere associations appear to have sufficed for giving the name or epithet Libys [2]. Representations of the > Punic Wars mostly use the name as a term for the indigenous allies of the Carthaginians (aside from the innumerable literary evidence, cf. particularly the coins minted with the legend AIBYQN from the > Mercenaries’ War (241-238 BC) [3. 97-99] that seems to imply the common usage of the name by the rebels — mercenaries as well as indigenous people); but soon we encounter these themselves — for instance Hannibal — as L. (Str. 1,1,17; Plut. Marcellus 31,8f.; App. Hisp. 73; Arr. Ind. 43,11; Zon. 8,12), just as finally even the Roman emperor Septimius Severus could be called Libys because of his origin in > Leptis Magna (Hdn. BedOs6)e

On the continent see > Africa [1]; on the provinces see + Cyrenaica, ~ Creta et Cyrenae, > Africa [3]; on

the languages see — Berber, > Punic. +> Gaetuli; -» Garamantes; — Macae;

— Masaesyli;

KL.ZI.

Libyon type Coins of Numidian and Libyan mercenaries rebelling against Carthage 241-238 BC (> ‘Mercenaries’ War’, Pol. 1,65—88), mostly minted over pieces of Carthaginian type. Treasure finds (Inv. of Greek Coin Hoards 2213, Sicily; 2281-82, Tunisia) confirm the classification. Reverse legend AIBYQN, types: 1. double shekel, obverse head of Zeus, reverse butting bull; 2. shekel (> Siqlu); 3. half shekel, obverse head of Hercules with the coat of a lion, reverse pacing lion; 4. bronze Hercules and bull. These coins were probably preceded by a minting of the rebels of the Carthaginian type (in > Elektron, > Billon, bronze). 1E.S.G. Ropinson, The Coinage of the Libyans and Kindred Sardinian Issues, in: NC 1943, 1-13. 21d., A Hoard of Coins of the Libyans, in: NC 1953, 27-32 3 Id., The Libyan Hoard, in: NC 1956, 9-14. 4 W.Huss, Die Libyer Mathos und Zarzas und der Kelte Autaritos als Prageherrn, in: SM 38, 1988, 30-33 5 A. TUsA CUTRONI, I Libii e la Sicilia, in: Sicilia Archeologica 9, 32, 1976,

33-41.

DLK.

Libys {1] One of the Tyrrhenian pirates who, together with them abducts > Dionysius who is disguised as a drunken boy. Asa punishment all pirates are transformed into dolphins by the wine god, except the helmsman Acoetes (> Acoetes [1]) who wants to keep them from the outrage (Ov. Met. 3,605-691; Hyg. Fab. 134). AL.PR. [2] Brother of > Lysander, as Spartan nauarch he blok-

kaded Piraeus in 403 BC in order to combat the revolt of > Thrasybulus and his supporters against the Thirty (Xen. Hell. 2,4,28; Diod. Sic. 14,13,6).

K.-W.WEL.

Libyssa (Aifvooa; Libyssa, also t4 Bovtiov; ta Boutiou). Town on the north coast of the Gulf of Izmit on the river Libyssus (AiBvoooc; Libyssos, modern Tavsancil Deresi); nearby was the monument of Hannibal (Arr. FGrH 156 F 28; Plin. HN 5,148; Tzetz. Chil. 1,803 ff.). TH.

WreGanp,

Zur

Lage

des

Hannibalgrabes,

in:

MDAI(A) 27, 1902, 321-326; W. Ruck, s.v. L./Libyssos, RE 13, 203. K.ST.

Licates (Atxattuoi; Likdttioi, Str. 4,6,8; Aatioy, Likdtioi, Ptol. 2,12,4; Plin. HN 3,137). Vindelician tribe

that probably settled on the upper course of the Lech (> Licca). The main town was Damasia. L. were still serving as auxiliary soldiers [1] in the Roman army around AD 160.

517

518 1 RMD, 119, 170.

TIR L 32, 84f.; H. WoxFr, Einige Probleme der Raumordnung im Imperium Romanum, in: Ostbairische Grenzmarken 28, 1986, 152-177, esp. 166. K.DI.

LICINIA

Spartan L. is identical to the archon L. attested in Thasos for 397 is disputed [1; 2. 324 *3]. 1 J. PourLLoux, F. Satviat, Lichas, in: CRAI 1983, 376403 2B.BLECKMANN, Athens Weg in die Niederlage, 1998.

Licca

(Atxiac;

Likias).

Righthand

K.-W.WEL.

tributary of the

[4] Son of Pyrrhus, Acarnanian, mentioned as epony-

Danube (Ptol. 2,12,1; 4; Venantius Fortunatus Carm.

mous officer of cavalry units from 238 to 234 BC and later twice deployed as stratégds for elephant hunting which included the command over the surrounding areas [1. 193ff., no. 77; 244, no. 84]. Strabo still knows of a hunting post named after him, further an altar and a stele (Str. 16,4,14f.). The second expedition took place after 215/4, thus perhaps as a result of the battle of Raphia 217 BC PP II/VIII 1938; 4422.

praef. 4, Vita Martini 4,642), modern Lech.

K.DI.

Licentius from Thagaste, son of Romanianus, a patron

of + Augustinus, probably accompanied him to Carthage and Rome. He is involved in the debate in the latter’s dialogue Contra Academicos. A poem in 154 hexameters is extant in which L. asks Augustine for sending his work De musica, since he expects to get help for reading Varro’s Disciplinae. After AD 395 there are no longer any records about him. EpiT1ons: A. GOLDBACHER, CSEL 34,1, 89-95.; BIBLIOGRAPHY: F.W. Levy, s.v. L., RE 13, 204-210. JGR.

Lichas (Aiyac; Lichas). [1] Herald of > Hercules [1]; he brings Hercules the garment which > Deianira, jealous of > Iole, had painted with the blood of the centaur > Nessus (Hes. Cat. fr. 25,20-25 M-W; Soph. Trach.; Bacchyl. 16; for possible precursors and variants, see [1]). The supposed love charm causes the death of Hercules, who, in his agony, smashes the innocent L. against a rock in the sea (Soph. Trach. 772ff.; Apollod. 2,7,7? corrupt text). Later sources (Ov. Met. 9,2 19ff.; Ps.-Sen. Hercules Oetaeus 822) tell how L. changed into a rock as he was flying through the air. Aeschylus (TrGF 3 F 25e) locates L.’s grave at the north-western tip of Euboea, and according to Strabo (9,4,4) the offshore ‘Lichades’ archipelago is named after L. 1 M. Davies, Sophocles’ Trachiniae, 1991, xxii-xxxvii. R. VOLLKOMMER, s.v. L., LIMC 6.1, 287-288.

RE.N.

[2] Spartan. In the middle of the 6th cent. BC, L. supposedly brought > Orestes’ bones from Tegea to Sparta (islteers Gries Pauses eanSite): [3] Spartan, son of Arcesilaus, 421 BC. Spartan envoy in Argus (Thuc. 5,22). L. won the quadriga race at Olympia in 420 but was maltreated at the crowning of his charioteer because at that time Spartans were prohibited from participating in the games (Thuc. 5,50; Xen. Hell. 3,2,21). In 4148 he negotiated a 50-year peace between Sparta and Argus (Thuc. 5,76-79). In the autumn/winter of 412/1, L. and 11 other Spartans were sent to Asia Minor as advisors to the naviarchos Astyochus (Thuc. 8,39), there he opposed the first two Spartan-Persian treaties (Thuc. 8,43; 52), and in the spring 411 he succeeded in concluding a third treaty, yet it still recognized the Great King’s claim for Ionia (Thuc. 8,58; Stv II} 202). Thucydides (8,84,5) mentions L.’s death in Miletus without giving a date. Whether the

1 A. BERNAND, Pan du Désert, 1977. P. FRASER, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1972, vol. 2, 308 A. 370f.; J.P. MAHaFFy, J.G. Smyty (ed.), The Flinders Petrie Papyri, 1891, p. 109. W.A.

Licinia [1] Woman of noble descent; by marrying her in 192 or 191 BC, M. Porcius > Cato [1] rose into the aristocracy [1. 54] (Plut. Cato 20,1). Her son was M. > Porcius

Cato Licinianus. She probably died in 155. 1 A. AsTIN, Cato the Censor, 1978, 67; 105; 263.

(2] In 153 BC ([1. 12]: 154 BC), she and another wom-

an named Publicia were accused of poisoning their husbands; strangled by family members following the verdict of a family court (Liv. Per. 48,25-28 WEISSENBORN/MULLER; Val. Max. 6,3,8). 1J.F. GARDNER,

Women

in Roman

Law and Society,

1986.

[3] Younger daughter of P. Licinius [I 19] Crassus Dives Mucianus, from before 133 BC wife of C. - Sempronius Gracchus (Plut. Tib. Gracchus 21,1), whom she wanted to prevent from leaving the house on the day of his death (Plut. C. Gracchus 15,2). After his death (Plut. C. Gracchus 17,6) her dowry was to be taken away from her, but her uncle Q. Mucius Scaevola intervened (Dig. 24,3,66 pr.).

CAH 9, *1994, 555[4] Daughter of C. Licinius [I 9] Crassus (Cic. Dom.

130f.), Vestal. In

123 BC she was not allowed to conse-

crate a sanctuary of > Bona Dea on the Aventine that she had dedicated (Cic. Dom. 13 6f.; Liv. Per. 63).

[5] Elder daughter of the orator L. Licinius [I ro] Crassus, wife of P. Cornelius [I 82] Scipio Nasica. Her son of

the same name was adopted by Q. Caecilius [I 31] Metellus, her other son was adopted into the family of Licinii Crassi (Cic. Brut. 211).

[6] Younger daughter of the orator L. Licinius [I ro] Crassus, married the younger C. Marius [I 2] in 95 BC (or 94/3, discussion: [1. 150]). Like her sister L. [5] she had rhetorical talents (Cic. Brut. 211). 1R.J. Evans, G. Marius, 1994, 150-152.

519

520

[7] Vestal, prosecuted because of illicit relations with M. Licinius [I rr] Crassus, to whom she sold an estate

the family in the early period. Its rise began at the end of the 3rd cent. BC. At first, the most important branch of the family were the Crassi (L. [I 8-20]; see stemma,

LICINIA

at a low price; acquitted in 73 BC (Plut. Crassus 1,4ff.). In 64 she stood out at a banquet with priests (Macrob. Sat. 3,13,11), in 63 she left her seat at the gladiatorial

games to her relative Murena in order to support him in the elections (Cic. Mur. 73). [8] see > Eudoxia [2] [9] L. Magna Daughter of M. Licinius [II 9] Crassus

Frugi (cos. AD 27) and Scribonia, wife of L. Calpurnius [II] 21] Piso. A daughter married Calpurnius Galerianus (Tac. Hist. 4,49; ILS 956). PIR* L 269; RAEPSAET-CHARLIER,

494; VOGEL-WEIDE-

MANN, 124.

[10] L. Praetextata Vestal, daughter of M. Licinius [II ro] Crassus Frugi (cos. AD 64) and Sulpicia Praetextata (ILS 4924). PIR* L 275; RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, 495.

ME.STR.

Licinianus [1] [---] L. Senator, whose funerary inscription has been preserved in CIL VI 1441 = XIV 2927 = VI Suppl. VII Add. ad 1441. After commanding a legion and holding another office he became governor of Aquitania and consul suffectus under Antoninus Pius, between c. AD 149 and 160.

details uncertain; on the cognomen see > Crassus); the

other cognomen of Dives (‘the rich’) was only borne by their older line (not, therefore, the triumvir L. [I r1]), which was, however, politically irrelevant in the rst cent. BC. The Luculli (L. [I 23—29]) appeared in the 2nd cent. BC, and in the rst cent. the Murenae (L. [I 32-3 5]). — L. was an element of the names of the emperors + Valerianus and — Gallienus. A kind of olive, olea Liciniana (Cato Agr. 6,2), and a road station, the Forum Licinii near the modern Como, were both named after the L. [I ro]. Most important bearers of the name: L. L. [I ro] Crassus (cos. 95), the orator; M. L. [I 11] Crassus (cos.

70, 55), the triumvir; L. L. [I 26] Lucullus (cos. 74); CLL. [I 30] Macer, the historian; C. L. [I 43] Stolo (Licinian-Sextian laws); Licinius [II 4], emperor AD 308-

324. 1 SCHULZE.

I]. REPUBLICAN

K.-L.E.

ERA

II. IMPERIAL ERA

[3] Tulius Valens L. Possibly a son of Ti. Iulius Licinianus, senator in AD 223. He was made counter-emperor to > Decius in the second halfof 250 in Rome [II 1], but

I. REPUBLICAN ERA {1 1] L., S. C People’s tribune in 138 BC. Together with his colleague C. Curiatus, he had the consuls imprisoned because of forced recruitments (Liv. p. Oxyrhynchiars5sch. @iexkegn3,20): P.N. {I 2] Before 63 BC author of a lex Licinia, which excluded the petitioner, his colleagues, close relatives and confidants from all functions in the formation of extraordinary commissions; amplified by a lex Aebutia (GiesMegeAgraztarGics Doms 1): {I 3] Slave, originally from Greece, freed after 121 BC, secretary of C. > Sempronius Gracchus, behind whom he also allegedly stood during the latter’s public speeches, blowing gently on a flute whenever Gracchus deviated from a moderate tone (Cic. Orat. 3,225; Plut. Ti.

murdered soon afterwards (Aur. Vict. Caes. 29,3; Aur.

Gracchus 2,6).

Wictsepits Gaess 29,5).

[I 4] As brother of the Vestal Licinia [4] he was involved in her incest trial in 114 BC (Cass. Dio 26, fr. 87,4; [1]).

ALFOLDY, Konsulat, 193; PIR? L 169.

[2] Lucius (Valerius) L. From Bilbilis, like his friend, the poet Martial; a friend of Licinius [II 25] Sura as well. He was a writer, and probably also a rhetor. Yet he returned to Bilbilis (Mart. 1,49; 613 4,55). SyME, RP 4, 93; 109; PIR* L 170.

WE.

PIR? I 610; G.BarBiert, L’Albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino, 1952, 406f.; app. 19. K.G.-A.

1 ALEXANDER, 20.

TR.

PN.

[15] L., Sp. According to Livy (2,43,3), L., during his

Licinius Name of probably the most important Roman plebeian family. The similarity to the Etruscan name lecne and the links between the gens and Etruria in historical times (L. [I 7]) suggest an origin in that region [1. 108, n. 3]; the name may, however, also be of Latin origin (— Licinus). The spelling with a double ‘n’ occurs not only in the Greek form Aimivviog (Likinnios), but also in Latin inscriptions [1. 108, n. 1]. In the annalistic historical records dealing with the early Republic, members of the family appear among the earliest people’s tribunes, reaching their political zenith in 367 BC with the initiator of the LicinianSextian laws, L. [I 43]; the late Republican annalist L. [1 30] Macer probably emphasized the importance of

term as people’s tribune in 481 BC, incited the plebs to refuse military service in order to implement an agricultural law. Perhaps L. [II 30] Macer, who acted simi-

larly while he was the people’s tribune in 73, introduced L. into the tradition. {1 6] L. Calvus, C. Grandson of L. [I 7]. Consular tribune in 378 BC (Diod. Sic. 15,57,7; different Liv. 6,3 1,1, followed by MRR

1, 107, which mentions a Licinus

Menenius Lanatus). In 368, L. was the first plebeian > magister equitum (MRR 1,112f.); he held the consulship in 364 (InscrIt 13,1,400f.; in Liv. 7,9,1; 3-5 dated to 361 due to confusion with C. L. {I 43] Stolo). In that year, the first Etruscan stage plays were performed (Liv. 75253-5), which matches with the Etruscan origins of the gens Licinia.

(D4

BluclUYy [g] OO ‘uD

sr

“$09) dv (Z8

isns4

SNiuINdyeD OSIq snueiuloly

SNSSEID

snssesdIsm44

~

7

TW1] [LL

BIIID9VD [6]

[ZL

IH] snsse1y

sock

=

‘xas

CO

OSid ISN

|

eiadwog Busey

[Zp

[81]

eBIDnw

CO “Zz

S9qUaD

[91

BIUIDIT[6]

----=

“uD

eijausod |] [v7 CO “Lb Td 1]

Ll

uondopy ][ =

eusew CO|

ssaquiny

Sulpsoooe 0} dNg

sniuindjey I] [LZ OSld

(SS'0Z

elu[9] CO ‘D> snuew '09) (Z8

*so9)GV (ZS

sniadwog snusey “s09)

snsseiD (€S+)

snljausod |] [78 O1dINS POISE

5

snijis9e@> 1] [ZE snyjajayw snig aiding S09) (ZG

“O

snUeIUIDIT

snulo!T =

“Sad (Z6

[OL snsseld CoO

snssei>

snssel>

BUI][g] CO g

“sOD)!G6

171]

“77

‘So9) (891

1D

‘yaesd)(g0@

smen

[971] sea

‘$09) (9€Z

sniuindye> 11] [vz

sniadwog snusew

L 1D

Td 1] Le

sniadwogsnusew

snssely

BIUOGIIS

*s00)‘OZ (GG

‘uD

Biulty [py] (syeIS9

SNUBIUOGHIS “4

sniuoquas Ogi] CO

snsses>

BIAIOW

snssel>

snssedD

“so9)av (9L

[LL

-y

TW1] [EL S09) (O€

CO

BINA!

‘ys9enb) (pS

TW1]

CO

*S09)‘OZ (GS

)

(Spl

1d 1] [GL snssesD °soD)‘26 “SUD (68

[61]

SNSSEID

sniuloty

42) ‘jd

Sj

“7D

‘yorsd) (é97L

Ww

SNSSeID

[7b

‘S02) (LZL

“Vd1]

“Td

|

522

“>

ea

[OL

‘s0) dy (v9

snsselDISNJ4CO

BIUOGUIS

‘EZL (ZZL

sniuoiduias snudo.eI5

_--!8m4

sniaduod snusey TWI]

°$09) Gv (ZZ

snipne|> TWI] [6

“S09) |VL

TWII] [8

snssesD

ISMJ4

snidngOSIg ‘yoersd) (pr

“;w

Isn4

9) “1d

Bus]Le] co “>

‘jw snidng OSiq “so3) (L9

|

Jo1ad

(Zgyee1d)

PIPO|

SUO}}D9UUOD

|

SNSSEIDSOAIG

snssesDSaAiq

AjiWeY

PJOAIEIS

snuenyy CO

r SE

wy

“Td

(é'd)

194}

"3499 (AV

snIOnw

*SO9) (GZ

snsses>sariq

SNSses>SANG

[6L

SNSSEID)

*s09) (LEL

Td 1]

“Tq

‘g

snssesDSenid

co ‘> smisiding

J

“J

[8L

suas) ‘607 “S09 (G0Z

“Td1]

3S}

HUIDI] IssesDpue

pig) “jJUadDg 0}

=

eqeo

J

Blur

YL 521 LICINIUS

[eS

LICINIUS

Gan

{I 7] L. Calvus Esquilinus, P. Consular tribune in 400 and 396 BC (MRR 1, 84f.; 87f.), but not the first ple-

beian to hold this office (according to Liv. 5,142,142; 6,37,8). That the incumbent of 396 was not L. but his son is probably based on L. [I 30] Macer’s portrayal, as is L.’s appearance in the distribution of the spoils following the victory over Veii (Liv. 5,20,4-10). He may have been a member of a delegation sent to Delphi in 3.98 (Plut. Camillus 4,4). CMU. {1 8] L. Crassus, C. Brother of L. [Il 14]. As praetor urbanus in 172 BC, he delayed the investigation into the alleged illegal activities of M. Popillius Laenas (cos. 173) (MRR 1, 411). In 171 he was his brother’s legate in the war against > Perseus (Liv. 42,58,12). Consul in 168 with L. Aemilius [I 32] Paullus. Received Italy as a province for the levying of troops, but dismissed them after the victory over Macedonia (MRR 1, 427). Proconsul in Gallia in 167, thereafter member of the decemviral commission for the reorganization of Macedonia (MRR 1, 434). — Macedonian Wars {I 9] L. Crassus, C. Beginning with L.’s term as people’s tribune in 145 BC, it became a custom for the speaker on the rostra to face the forum, i.e. the people. His proposal to fill priestly offices by popular vote instead of +> cooptatio failed (Cic. Lael. 96; MRR 1, 469f.). PN. {I 10] L. Crassus, L. 140-20 September 91 BC. Roman politician and orator (Cic. De or., esp. 1,393 1,473 2583

AGG APOIO Bysitiniee Ces MAb, IOP TG IINS actin) L.’s teachers included — Coelius [I 1] Antipater and ~ Charmadas. He soon appeared as an orator at court (e.g. for the Vestal Licinia [4] c. 114: Plut. Quaest. Rom. 83), but he rose to fame in 119 with the political trial of

C. > Papirius Carbo. As IIvir coloniae deducendae L. founded Narbo in 118; quaestor in Asia c. 109, thereafter journeys to study at Athens. His tribunate of 107 was uneventful. L. probably changed into the optimate camp with his epoch-making plea on behalf of the lex iudicaria of Q. > Servilius Caepio in 106 (cf. his defence of 91 in the speech Pro Planco: Cic. Clu. 140ff.); he was aedile around roo (on the splendid games, see Plin. HN 17,6), praetor around 98; member of the Augurs’ college. Consul in 95 with Q. > Mucius Scaevola (lex Licinia Mucia de civibus redigendis); proconsul of both provinces of Gallia in 94 (Val. Max. 3,7,6); opposed Scaevola in the causa Curiana in 93. As censor (in 92 with Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, who accused him of luxuria: Val. Max. 9,1,4) he issued an edict against the Rhetores Latini (Suet. de rhetoribus 25; [1]). L. died of exhaustion shortly after his brilliant invective against L. > Marcius [I 13] Philippus. He had two daughters from his marriage to Mucia, daughter of Q. Mucius Scaevola Augur and Laelia (sons-in-law P. ~» Cornelius [I 82] Scipio Nasica and > Marius minor). Alongside M. > Antonius [I 7], L. was the best orator

524 1P.L. Scumipt, Die Anf. der institutionellen Rhet. in Rom, in: E. LEFEvre (ed.), Monumentum Chiloniense, FS E.Burck, 1975, 183-216 2 N.HAPKE, s.v. L. (55), RE 13, 252-257. CW.

[1 11] L. Crassus, M. Born in r15 BC, son of L. [I 15].

First military experience in the — Social War [3] (9189). After L. Cornelius [I 18] Cinna’s assumption of power, L. Crassus (hereafter C.) fled to Spain in 85 — one brother had already been killed, his father had committed suicide (Liv. p. 80; but Plut. Crassus 4: Execution). There he formed a private army, crossed to Africa, and in 83 he joined L. Cornelius [I 90] Sulla, whom he saved from a precarious situation in the battle at the Porta Collina (1 November 82) (Plut. Crassus 6).

His subsequent > proscriptions laid the foundation of his proverbially (Cic. Att. 1,4,3) great wealth, according to Plut. Crassus 2, (he turned an inheritance of 300 talents into 7,100 talents = 42,600,000 denarii; according to Plin. HN 33,134, his property alone was worth 50 million denarii). He enriched himself so shamelessly (for example, proscribing in Bruttium on his own account, cf. Cic. Att. 1,16,5; on the allusion see [1; 2]),

and in spite of the special allowances granted him by Sulla (Sall. Hist. 1,55,18f. M.), that the dictator himself

let him down. C. achieved high rental incomes by havying new tenement blocks built by his own labour force on the sites of burnt-out houses in Rome which he had purchased at the lowest price. C. amassed his fortune ‘by fire and war’, according to Plutarch (Crassus 2). He succeeded in working his way out of political isolation through patronage as he manoeuvred between the optimates and the populares (Sall. Hist. 3,48,8 M.: factio media); between 77 and 73 he held the quaestorship, aedilate and praetorship. In 72 he received a proconsular imperium to suppress the slave revolt which had broken out in 73 (> Slave revolts). He succeeded in

defeating > Spartacus in Lucania in the spring of 71; 6,000 slaves were crucified along the via Appia (Plut. Crassus 8-11; [3]). The difficult victory brought C. an + ovatio and, in 70 alongside Pompey, the consulship (re-establishment of the people’s tribunate, reappointment of the equites into the courts). He was unable to prevail against his colleagues, and in spite of his appointment as censor in 65 he remained without great influence. He made overtures to Caesar in whom he obviously soon recognized the coming man; he got involved in the so-called First Catilinarian Conspiracy in 65, and, together with Caesar, he supported + Catilina (against Cicero) in the elections of 64 [4]. The compromising of both after the failure of the conspiracy in 62 intensified C.’s friendship of convenience with the highly indebted Caesar, whom he also needed as an ally against Pompey and therefore supported with money and sureties.

of the age. Excerpts from his speeches, which were in-

Late in 60 or early in 59 (cf. Cic. Att. 2,9,2), Pompey,

debted to the Asianic style (+ Asianism), and which he

Caesar and C. joined in a secret league, later erroneously known as the ‘(first) triumvirate’, in order to have their conflicting interests prevail over the Senate

only reluctantly published (Cic. Orat. 132), were still in circulation at the time of Tacitus (Dial. 34).

525

526

LICINIUS

majority (Suet. Iul. 19,2). In this, C. attempted to distin-

may have been quaestor pro praetore of Cyrene (> Cy-

guish himself as the intercessor of the > equites, and in particular of the > publicani. A law passed with the help of the consul Caesar (lex Iulia de publicanis) granted a rent reduction of one third to those of them who had miscalculated at the auction of the Asiatic rent [5. rooff.], ensuring for C. not only great prestige with his clientele, but also enormous profits, since he owned numerous (‘non-voting’) shares (partes) in the rental companies (societates). By 58, the old dispute between Pompey and C. (and Clodius [I 4]) had flared up once more; only in 56 could Caesar successfully mediate [6. 330ff.; 7. 115ff.]. At Luca, the ‘three-headed monster’ (App. B Civ. 2,33) agreed on a renewal of the league, dividing amongst themselves offices and provinces. Through electoral manipulation, Pompey and C. took possession of the consulship of the year 55; the latter received the province of Syria for five years. To enhance his status (dignitas) and assert himself against the other triumvirs, C. planned a campaign against the Parthians (authorization for the declaration of war through the lex Trebonia). He set off for the east in the winter of 55/4, built up arms in Syria in 54, crossed the Euphrates with seven legions in April 53, and was defeated by the Parthians south of Carrhae [8] in May. The victors got hold of C., who had initially fled, and cut off his head and hands. The judgement of later generations on Crassus as soldier, politician and man has been similarly devastating.

renaica; MRR 2,397), but was never praetor (Cass. Dio

51,4,3). He ran over to Octavian before the battle of Actium (31); his reward was the consulship in 30 (InscrIt 13,1,170f. et passim), thereafter the proconsulship of Macedonia and Achaia, which L. used for spectacular campaigns in 29 and 28. He fought the Dacians, annihilated a large part of the > Bastarnae, killing their king Deldo with his own hands, he subjugated Moesia, carried out punitive raids in Thrace and defeated the Geti, winning back some of the standards (Cass. Dio 51,23-27). The Senate decided on > supplicationes and a triumph for L. and Octavian (Cass. Dio 51,25,2)

as early as the winter of 29/28; however, the princeps rejected the honour and was absent from L.’s triumph ex Thraecia et Geteis on 4 July 27 (InscrIt 13,1,344f.). L.’s title of imperator was supposedly not recognized (Cass. Dio 51,25,2, but cf. ILS 8810; AE 1928,44 and

[z. 38-41]), his victory over the Dacians was played down [3]; Octavian prevented the offer of the spolia opima (see > War booty III) for the death of Deldos. In this he was supported by a historical forgery (reflected in Liv. 4,20,5—-11; [4; 5]) — due to the objection that L. had not been in possession of a full > imperium (Cass. Dio 51,24,4). Thereafter, L. was forced back into private life. PIR* L.186. + Augustus 1 SyME, RP 3, 1984, 1220-1225

Theories’

and

the

Beginning

2E.BapIAn,

‘Crisis

of the Principate,

in:

Athenaeum n.s. 42, 1964, 42-51 2R.Y. HATHORN, ‘Calvum ex Nanneianis’, in: CJ 50, 1954/1955, 33¢.

G. WirTH (ed.), Romanitas — Christianitas. FS J. Straub, 1982, 18-41 3 A.Mocsy, Der vertuschte Dakerkrieg des M. Licinius Crassus, in: Historia 15, 1966, 511-514

3 B.A. MARSHALL,

4H. Dessau,

1 I. TRENCSENYI-WALDAPFEL, ‘Calvus ex Nanneianis’, in:

Crassus and the Command

against

Spartacus, in: Athenaeum n.s. 51, 1973, 109-121 4F.L. Jones, Crassus, Caesar and Catiline, in: CW 29, 1936, 89-93. 5 E.BADIAN, Publicans and Sinners, 1972 6 Cu. MeigR, Caesar, 1982 7 W.WILL, Caesar, 1992 8 D.Timpe, Die Bed. der Schlacht von Carrhae, in: MH 19, 1962, 104-129.

B.A. MarsHALL, Crassus. A Political Biography, 1976; A.M. Warp, Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic, 1977.

[I 12] L. Crassus, M. Elder son of L. [I 11, the consul in 70 BC. In 54 he held the quaestorship and probably took part in Caesar’s Britannic campaign. In 53, he led an army corps in the battle against the Menapians (Caes. B Gall. 6,1,1), and in April 49 he was put in command of Gallia Cisalpina (App. B Civ. 2,165) — apparently his last office. The reliefs on his wife + Caecilia [9] Metella’s (Caeciliae/ Q. Cretici f./Metellae Crassi; ILS 881) tomb on the via Appia recall L.’s achievements in Gallia. SYME, RP 4, 1220-1225.

[1 13] L. Crassus, M. Son of L. [I 12] and Caecilia Metella, born c. 60 BC [1. 1224f.]. Cos. ord. in 30. tially a follower of Sex. Pompeius, L. moved over to camp of Antony probably in 36 (Cass. Dio 51,4,3).

WwW.

[9] Inithe He

Livius und Augustus, in: Hermes 41, 1906,

142-151

5 J.W. Ricu, Augustus and the spolia opima, in: Chiron 26, 1996, 85 — 127. JOR.

{1 14] L. Crassus, P. For religious reasons L. rejected the governorship of Hispania citerior during his praetorship in 176 BC. He was consul in 171 together with C. Cassius [I 6] Longinus (the second time both consuls were plebeian); he was allocated Macedonia and the supreme command against > Perseus (Liv. 42,32,1-5). At the Callinicus, L. suffered a costly defeat, yet still demanded the unconditional surrender of the king (Pol. 27,8,7-10; Liv. 42,62,8-12). As proconsul in 170, he tolerated incursions on several Greek towns as well as enslavements (Liv. Per. 43), for which the Senate fined him (Zon. 9,22). In 167 as an envoy he mediated between Pergamum and the Galatians (Liv. 45,34,10-14). P.N. [115] L. Crassus, P. Author of a law limiting the ex-

penses at banquets probably before 103 BC (Gell. NA 2,24,7-10; Macrob. Sat. 3,17,9), aedile in 102 (?). As

consul in 97, L. went to Hispania ulterior, which he administered as proconsul until 93 (triumph over the Lusitanians: InscrIt 13,1,85). As legate of L. Julius [I 5] Caesar in the Social War [3], he was defeated by L. — Lamponius in Lucania in 90 (MRR 2, 29). In 89 L. was censor together with Caesar and was put in charge

527

528

of granting the Roman citizenship to the league allies

came pontifex maximus in 132 as successor to his oppo-

(Cic. Arch.

nent P. Cornelius [I 84] Scipio Nasica. As consul in 131 he sought to attain the command against > Aristonicus [4], although as pontifex maximus he was forbidden to leave Italy. Therefore, he forbade his colleague L.

LICINIUS

rr). Asan opponent of C. > Marius [I 1], L.

became one of the most prominent victims of the Civil War when he committed suicide in 87 as the Marians captured Rome and after his older son had been killed (Liv. Per. 80; Cic. Sest. 48; Cic. Scaur. rf.); only his third son, MLL. [I rr], later consul in 70 and 5 5, managed to

escape. K.-L.E. {I 16] L. Crassus, P. Younger son of L. [I 11] (cf. MRR 3,119). Praefectus equitum in 58 BC under Caesar in the battle against > Ariovistus (Caes. B Gall. 1,52,7), defeated the Veneti and other tribes of Normandy and Brittany in 57 (as legatus?) (Caes. B Gall. 2,34) and the Sotiates in Aquitania in 56 (Caes. B Gall. 3, 21). In 55 he

was again in Rome, where he was elected quaestor (? MRR 2,217; 3,119) and married Cornelia, the daughter of Q. Caecilius [I 32] Metellus Scipio. Late in 54 he

followed his father with reinforcements to Syria and fell in the battle against the Parthians on 9 June 53 (Plut. Crassus 23-29). Pompey married his widow and Cicero took his place in the college of augurs (Plut. Cicero 36,1).

{1 17] L. Crassus Damasippus, L. Land speculator, art dealer and bankrupt, with an affinity to the Stoa. Appears in three of Cicero’s letters from 46 and 45 BC

Valerius Flaccus, who was flamen Martialis, to leave the

city of Rome until L. was authorized by popular acclaim to go to war (Cic. Phil. 11,18; MRR 1, 500). In 130, however, he was defeated by Aristonicus at Leucae, was taken prisoner and provoked his own killing in order to escape enslavement (MRR 1, 503). L. was also a notable orator and jurist (Cic. De or. I, 170, 216, 240).

P.N.

{I 20] L. Crassus Iunianus, P. Member of the gens Iunia adopted by a P. Crassus of uncertain identity. People’s

tribune in 53 BC (Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 3,6,4); legate of Pompey in Caria during the Civil War. After 48 in Africa, where he survived the debacle of Thapsus. In 47/46 (as legatus pro praetore) L. was the last Roman in the entourage of M. Porcius Cato (Plut. Cato Min. 70,3; coins: RRC 460); identical with the L. Crassus Dama-

sippus who died soon afterwards at Hippo Regius (Bell. Afr. 96,1f.). MRR

3,119; D.R. SHACKLETON

BaILey, Two Studies in

Roman Nomenclature, *1991, 29f.

T.FR.

(Fam. 7,23,2£.; Att. 12,29,3; 33,1); still caricatured in

33 by Horace (Sat. 2,3). D.R. SHACKLETON BAILEY, Onomasticon to Cicero’s Let-

ters, 1995, 45 (on his identity).

WW.

[I 18] L. Crassus Dives, P. (first to bear the cognomen Dives). L. was known for his wealth and his connecti-

{I 21] L. Geta, L. Consul in 116 BC; in the following year the censors excluded him from the Senate. Nevertheless, he became censor himself in 108 (MRR 1,548).

P.N. {1 22] L. Imbrex Probably a contemporary of Plautus (vetus

comoediarum

scriptor,

Gell.

NA

13,23,16;

ons to the family of the Cornelii Scipiones. Pontifex in 216 BC, aedilis curulis in 212. Still in the same year he was the third plebeian to be elected pontifex maximus (Liv. 25,5,2-4, longest known holding of office). In 210 L. was chosen by plebiscite (> Plebiscitum) to be > magister equitum of the > dictator Q. Fulvius [I ro]

Festus Paulus p. 109 M.); > Volcacius Sedigitus (FPL fr. 1) ranked him fourth after Caecilius [IJ] 6], Plautus and Naevius in the canon of Roman comedians. He wrote comedies, of which only the Neaera (CRF 39) is known;

Flaccus; he was then censor with L. Veturius Philo (MRR 1, 278). In 209 he was praetor peregrinus, in 205

tress to the wife of the god of war. Like Plautus, L.

consul with P. Cornelius [I 71] Scipio. Since as pontifex maximus he was not allowed to leave Italy, he was allotted Bruttium as a province (Liv. 28,38,12), where he remained until 203. No precise information survives of his military achievements there. He died in 183 and got a particularly splendid funeral ceremony (Liv. 39,46,1-4).

{I 19] L. Crassus Dives Mucianus, P. Natural son of P.

Mucius Scaevola (cos. 175 BC), adopted by a son of L. [1 18]; quaestor in 152, aedilis curulis around 142 (MRR 1, 475), praetor no later than 134. In 133, he and his brother, the consul P. Mucius Scaevola, supported the people’s tribune Ti. > Sempronius Gracchus, acting partly as ideologist of the reforms (Cic. Rep: 1.323 Cic. Ac., praef. 2,13; Plut. Gracchus 21,1); his daughter Licinia [3] was already married to the brother of Ti. Gracchus, C. Gracchus. After the death of Ti. Gracchus, L. was elected to the agrarian commission in his place (frontier stones: ILLRP 467-475). He be-

the same comedy title is already mentioned in Timocles and Philemon. In it, a boastful soldier compares his misalludes to Roman matters in the context of the > palliata. Despite their synonymous cognomina, L. must be distinguished from L. [I 45] Tegula, the author of a procession song for Juno Regina (200 BC, Liv. 31,12,9) (cf. [4; 6]); the cognomina of both are unconvincingly explained by [6] as referring to applause (imbrices, Suet. Nero 20,3). 1 E. Drew, s.v. L. (92), RE 13,371

2 SCHANZ/Hostus, 1,

124f. 3 BARDON, 1,35f. 4 A.TRarNa (ed.), Comoedia, 31966, 150 5 G.Monaco, P.L. Tegula-Imbrex, in: Studi di poesia Latina in onore di A. Traglia, 1979, 93-97 6 A.DupourpiEu, PH. Moreau, Imbrex et Tegula, in: Latomus 45, 1986, 717-730.

JU.BL.

[I 23] L. Lucullus, C. As people’s tribune in 196 BC, L. introduced a law creating the tresviri epulones (see ~ septemviri) to relieve the pontifices and was himself one of the first to belong to this collegium (Liv. 33,42,1). In r91 he consecrated the temple of > Iuventus (-as) in the Circus Maximus (Liv. 36,36,5).

529

530

{I 24] L. Lucullus, L. By attaining the consulship in 151 BC he elevated his family to the nobility. He recruited troops for the war in Spain and received the province of Hispania citerior (MRR 1, 454f.). Although the conflict there had been ended by his predecessor, L. resumed the battle, motivated by greed and thirst for glory, conducted a cruel campaign against the > Vaccaei (App. Hisp. 215; 226) and attacked the Lusitanians in the following year with the agreement of the governor of Hispania ulterior (App. Hisp. 247-259), thus causing the war in Spain to flare up anew (the young P. Cornelius [I 70] Scipio Aemilianus served under him). In Rome L. erected a temple to Felicitas in the > Velabrum (consecrated 142), which he decorated with Greek statues from the Greek spoils of L. > Mummius (Cass. Dio fr.

Asia in 70, had prevented the collapse of the cities through a moderate debt policy (e.g. decrease and annulment of interests) (Plut. Lucullus 20; [3. 13 1f.]). In 69 Asia was taken from him, then Cilicia in 68. His promagistracy in Bithynia and Pontus ended in 67 Valerius Triarius suffered a crushing defeat against Mithridates (Liv. Per. 98, Plut. Lucullus 3 5); the unrest in the Roman legions continued. Early in 66, Pompey was given supreme command in the east by the lex Manilia, and he replaced L. (MRR 2,153). Back in Rome, L. was still on the defensive. The people’s tribune Memmius attempted (in agreement with Pompey) to prevent L.’s triumphal procession, which finally took place in 63 after long disputes. Politically

76,2; Str. 8,6,23).

the consular was now

H.Srmon, Roms Kriege in Spanien, 1962, 46-58.

[I 25] L. Lucullus, L. Son of L. [I 24], father of L. [I 26], married to Caecilia [6] Metella. Praetor urbanus in 104; the following year, while propraetor in Sicily, he achieved only partial success with his great army against the second —> Slave Revolt (Diod. Sic. 36,8,1-5). Accused of embezzlement by the augur Servilius in 102. Found guilty, he went into exile. ALEXANDER, 3 5f.

PN,

{I 26] L. Lucullus, L. Born in 117 BC, son of L. [I 25], elder brother of L. [I 27]. From the start of his career he was a follower of L. Cornelius [I 90] Sulla, to whose success he owed his own career. He served under him already during the — Social War [3] (91-89) (Plut.

Lucullus 2,1); as quaestor of the year 88 he was the only one of Sulla’s officers to participate in the march on Rome (App. B Civ. 1,253; [1. 153, 220]), and as proquaestor (87-80) in Greece and Asia he took over various diplomatic, organizing and military tasks on behalf of the dictator (MRR 2,55; 58; 81; 3,121). In 79 L. became aedile (with lavish games), in 78 praetor, in

77-76 he went to Africa as propraetor, before taking over the consulship in 74 (with M. > Aurelius [I rz] Cotta) (MRR 2,101). He received the provinces of Cili-

cia and Asia and was entrusted with supreme command in the war against the Pontic king — Mithridates VI (74-67: 3rd Mithridatic War). In 73/2, L. liberated the besieged Cyzicus (on the dating, cf. [2. 463]) and forced back Mithridates , who fled to king Tigranes in Armenia. In 70, L. captured Sinope, the Pontic capital, initiated the war against Armenia in 69, after Tigranes had refused the extradition of (his father-in-law) Mithridates, and took Tigranocerta (MRR 2,129; 133). The attack on Artaxata in the Armenian highlands brought a final success to L. in 68, but the exhausted troops started to rebel, while in Rome his opponents were closing ranks; L.’s position of power was dismantled step by step. Opposition originated in particular from the > publicani. They could count on the support of the senators, who like them had been forced to endure severe financial losses since L., when reorganizing

LICINIUS

(MRR 2,133; 139f.; 146). In the same year, L.’s legate

allied with Cato and Cicero,

whom he also supported in the ‘Catilinarian Conspiracy’ (Cic. Att. 12,21,1). At the Bona Dea trial of 61, he testified against his former brother-in-law P. Clodius [I 4] Pulcher, who had stirred up the troops against him in 68 while spending the winter at Nisibis (tendentious: Plut. Lucullus 34), and attempted to force Clodius’ conviction by telling gossip stories (allegations of incest; Cic. Mil. 73). He took revenge on Pompey in 60 BC by fighting against the confirmation of his decrees in the east (Plut. Pompeius 46). His politics of obstruction against the consul Caesar in 59 failed miserably (Suet. Tul. 20,4). L. withdrew and died, deranged, around 57/56.

His decline after 70 was connected with that of the Sullan system, but was also due to L.’s lack of psychological skills in dealing with subordinates and in communicating with those of equal rank. L.’s merit remains his moderate policy towards the Asian provincials. He was regarded almost ‘the richest man in Rome’ (Diod. Sic. 4,21,4), notable as a generous commissioner

buildings and reputation in gant lifestyle taste’. From would spread HN 15,102). TOLT BRECHT (oom on

of

a collector of works of art and books. His later generations rests on a his extravawhich, however, did not violate ‘good Pontus, L. imported the cherry which as far as Britannia within 120 years (Plin. In modern literature it is especially BERwho makes use of material from the life

1 E.Bapran, Studies in Greek and Roman History, 1964 2 W.H. BENNETT, The Death ofSertorius and the Coin, in: Historia ro, 1961, 459-469 3 E.BanpiAN, Publicans and Sinners, 1972. A. KEAvENEY, Lucullus. A Life, 1992; G.ScHUTz, L. Lici-

nius Lucullus (117-75 v. Chr.), thesis Regensburg 1994.

ww. [127] L. Lucullus, M. Born 116 BC, son of L. [125] Lucullus, slightly younger brother of L. [I 26]; adopted by one of the Terentii, therefore officially: M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (L. later wished his early leaving of his gens to be overlooked). In too BC, L. and his brother

instigated the trial of the augur C. Servilius Vatia, in revenge for the latter’s accusation against their father

532

23/4

(Cic. Off. 2,50; Plut. Lucullus 1,2); in 99 he spoke out for the return of his exiled uncle Q. Caecilius [I 30] Metellus Numidicus. In 82 he was Sulla’s legate in the Cispadana (spectacular victory over Cn. Papirius Carbo’s legate Quinctius at Fidentia, Plut. Sulla 27,7; App.

comprehensively with early Rome, but probably not beyond the 3rd cent. BC (cited by > Livius [III 2] in vols. 4-10, but not in the 3rd decade). It contains speeches (fr. 20; 22; the criticism in Cic. Leg. 1,7 is aimed at this), presents a rationalistic reinterpretation of myth [4. 150-165] and shows an antiquarian interest. L. used the comprehensive annals of Cn. > Gellius [2] as a source and for the chronology of the early magistrates referred to the libri lintei, magistrate lists on linen cloth in the temple of + Iuno Moneta, whose evaluation is disputed (up-to-date overview: [4.75-85]). Livy

LICINIUS

B Civ. 1,424; Vell. Pat. 2,28); in 79 curule aedile (with

his brother; venationes, with elephants and bulls set upon each other, for the first time in Rome, Plin. HN 8,19); in 76 he was praetor peregrinus (decree against the activities of slave gangs); consul in 73 (lex Terentia et Cassia frumentaria, Cic. Verr. 2,3,163; 5,52). From

72 he was

proconsul

in Macedonia

(campaigns

in

Thrace and Moesia as far as the Black Sea, Oros. 6,3,4),

triumphal procession in Rome in 71 (magnificent art among the spoils, Plin. HN 34,36; 34,39). In 67 he was decemvir in the commission for the reorganization of Pontus (Cic. Att. 13,6,4); tried and acquitted in 66 of involvement in Sulla’s power structure (Plut. Lucullus 37,1). L. supported Cicero’s struggle against Catiline in 63 (Cic. Att. 12,21,1), and Cicero’s defence of L.’s longtime friend, the poet A. Licinius > Archias [7] in 62 (Cic. Arch. 5; 26; 31); he also supported Cicero in 58/7 in the controversy surrounding his banishment and the building of his house. L. died around 56, soon after his brother L. {1 26], during whose insanity he was his guardian (Plut. Lucullus 43,2f.). Though he was close to this better-known Lucullus with regard to his age and fame, and also the time of his death (Plut. ibid.), he could not equal his brother’s success in fish breeding (Varro, Rust. 3,17,8f.). {I 28] L. Lucullus, M. Son of L. [I 26] Lucullus from his second marriage, born c. 64 BC; a substantial inheritance and provision in his father’s will allowed L. a wellprotected life as a ward (Cic. Att. 13,6,2; Cic. Fin. 3,8f.), and his guardian M. Porcius Cato evacuated him to Rhodes on the outbreak of the Civil War. In 44 he joined the murderers of Caesar, who received L. on their private estate (the island of Nisida in the Gulf of Puteoli, Cic. Att. 14,20,1). He died at Philippi in 42 (Vell. Pat. 2,71,2). TER. {I 29] L. Lucullus, L. People’s tribune in 110 BC, attempted in vain to get through his re-election in tog (Sall. Tug. 37,2). K.-L.E. {I 30] L. Macer, C. Roman senator and historian froma noble plebeian family, born around 110 BC; he was triumvir moneialis in 84 (RRC 354). As people’s tribune in 73 he made himself known through popular speeches (e.g. against C. > Rabirius); Sallust (Hist. 3,48 M.) gives an exemplary impression. Probably praetor in 68, L. was convicted, as a result of irregularities in his subsequent provincial administration of 66, of repetundae in a trial under the chairmanship of Cicero, and died soon afterwards (Plut. Cicero 9,2; Cic. Att. 1,4,2; different Val. Max. 9,12,7). L. was considered a > patronus of unusual conscientiousness, especially competent in civil cases; Cicero, however, criticized his style and his speaking technique (Cic. Brut. 238). L. wrote a work of history (Annales; |4. 119], however, is sceptical) in at least 16 vols. (fr. 22), which dealt

(7,9,5) criticized L.’s favouritism towards the gens Licinia; L. probably also projected popular themes into Rome’s older history. L.’s work was used by Q. Aelius {I 17] Tubero, Dionysius [18] of Halicarnassus and Livy [III 2]; verbatim quotes are only preserved in the grammarians. Fragments: HRR 1,298—307; more complete [4. 196-210]. + Annalists 1 BARDON 1, 258-260 2FRIER, PontMax, 153-159 3R.M. Oaitvie, A Commentary on Livy: Books 1-5, 1965,7-12 4S. WALT, Der Historiker C. L. Macer, 1997.

{I 31] L. Macer Calvus, C. Roman orator and poet of the late Republic, son of the homonymous historian L. [I 30]. Born in 82 BC (Plin. HN 7,165), from early on he stood out as a legal orator (Quint. Inst. 12,6,1). The attested speeches, which were still read in an edition of 21 vols. in the 2nd cent. AD (Tac. Dial. 21,1), occurred during the years 56-54; his speeches against Vatinius were still famous in late antiquity (Tac. Dial. 21,2; 34,7; cf. also Catull. 14,1-5; 53). The sudden silence of contemporary witnesses suggests that L. died shortly after 54 (cf. Cic. Brut. 279f.; Quint. Inst. 10,1,115). L. was regarded a younger rival to > Cicero (Sen. Controv. 7,4,6, cf. also Tac. Dial. 17,1; 18,1 et passim),

whom he often encountered as an opposing party. In rhetorical theory, too, he, as a main representative of so-called + Atticism was one of his antipodes (cf. Cic. Brut. 283f.); he also argued with Cicero in a correspondence (at least 2 vols.; Tac. Dial. 18,5), without having a negative effect on their mutual personal esteem eal L. was no less famous as a lyric poet; particularly as a friend and comrade in arts of > Catullus, who dedicated Carm. 14, 50 and 96 to him, he forms a pair with him in reception (Hor. Sat. 1,10,19; Ov. Ain. 3,9,6rf. et passim). Like Catullus, his collection of poems contains satirical verses (choliambs, Phalaeceans, distichs) on Pompey, Caesar (Suet. Iul. 73) and their favourites (e.g M. Tigellius, Cic. Fam. 7,24,1f.), at least one epithalamium and an ~ epicedium on his beloved Quintilia (Prop. 2,34,89f.), as well as other love poems (Ov. Tr. 2,431f.). The > epyllion Io may have been published and circulated independently; the work De aquae frigidae usu (Mart. 14,196) is difficult to classify generically. Augustan poetry refers directly or indirectly to L. Macer on a number of occasions [3; 4]; the Younger Pliny probably prompted by Suetonius’ De viris illus-

Des)

534

tribus (Plin. Ep. 5,3,5), received him as an orator (ibid. 1,2,2) and poet (ibid. 4,27,4; cf. 1,16,5), and even in

he passed a lex Licinia Iunia (on the promulgation of legal motions; Cic. Phil. 5,8; Cic. Sest. 135). Nothing more is known of his later life.

Greek culture L. seems to have gained recognition (Gell. NA 19,9,7).

J. Adamietz

FRAGMENTS: Speeches: ORF 1, 31967, 492-500

LICINIUS

(ed.), Cicero, Pro Murena,

MRR 3,123f.

1989,

16-20;

T.FR.

Correspondence with Cicero: W.S. Watt, M. Tulli Ciceronis epistulae, vol. 3, 1958, 167-170

[I 36] L. Nerva People’s tribune in 178 BC, wanted proconsul A. Manlius Vulso to be charged because of his

Carmina: FPL? (BLANSDORF), 206-216 (with bibliogra-

actions in Istria (Liv. 41,6,1-3; 7,4-10).

phy); A. TRAGLIA, Poetae novi, *1974, 17f.; 73-78; 142-

[137] L. Nerva Praetor in 143 and propraetor in 142 BC in Macedonia, where his quaestor L. Tremel-

147; COURTNEY, 201-211. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1E.S. GRUEN, Cicero and L.C., in: HSPh 71, 1966, 215-233 2G.W. Bowersock, in: Tu. GELZER (ed.), Le classicisme a Rome, 1979, 59-65 3 R.F. THomas, Cinna, Calvus and the Ciris, in: CQ 31,

PN.

lius Scrofa put down the insurgency of Pseudophilippus, whereupon L. took on the title of imperator (Varr.

4L.ALFons1, Virgilio e Calvo, in: PdP

Rust. 2,4,1f.; MRR 1,472). K-LE. [1 38] L. Nerva, A. L. was on Crete in 171 BC with a

5 L. LANDOLFI, I lusus simposiali di

Senate commission, and in Macedonia in 169, probably

Catullo e Calvo o dell’improvvisazione conviviale neoterica, in: Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica 53, 1986,

as praetor in Hispania ulterior in 167 (Liv. 45,44,2).

1981, 371-374 37, 1982, 108-113

77-89

6P.DEL Prete, Analecta critica, 1990, 27-41.

P.LS.

{I 32] L. Murena, C. Legate of his elder brother L. [I 3 5] in Gallia Transalpina from 64 BC, representing him there also as governor from 62; he suppressed the machinations of the Catilinarians in Narbonensis (Cic. Mur. 89; Sall. Catil. 42,3). During his aedileship (59?) L. had wooden-framed frescoes (opus tectorium) brought from Sparta to Rome to decorate the comitium (Vitr. De arch. 2,8,9; Plin. HN 35,173). MRR 3,123. T.FR. {1 33] L. Murena, L. Progenitor of the Murenae. Mint master c. 169-158 BC (RRC 186). Praetor before 146. Member of the commission for the establishment of the province of Achaia 146/5 (MRR 1, 467f.). PN, {1 34] L. Murena, L. Perhaps praetor in 88 BC, then legate of P. Cornelius [I 90] Sulla in 87 in Greece, where he led the left flank in the battle of Chaeronea (86). Governor of Asia 84-81, probably with propraetorial imperium. L. waged war unsuccessfully against Mithridates VI from 83, until Sulla forbade him to continue; however, he was permitted a triumph in 81 (Cic. Mur. 15; MRR 2, 61; 64; 77).

K-L.E.

{I 35] L. Murena, L. Consul 62 BC (one of his unsuc-

cessful fellow applicants being Catilina). Previously took part, from 83-81, in the 2nd Mithridatic War together with his father L. [I 34]; quaestor in 75; from 73 legate of L. [126] Lucullus in the great campaign against the Pontic kingdom (72 encirclement of Amisus, 69 siege in Armenia: Plut. Lucullus 15,1; 19,8; 25,6; 27,2); 67 decemvir for the reorganization of the con-

quered lands (Cic. Att. 13,6,4); praetor urbanus in 65 (lavish organization of the ludi Apollinares: Cic. Mur. 35-37; Plin. HN 33,53); propraetor in Gallia Transalpina in 64. While consul-designate in 63, he was accused by M. Porcius Cato and the failed rival candidate Ser. Sulpicius Rufus of obtaining office by devious means, but L. was acquitted, with Cicero as the most prominent defender (speech Pro Murena). L. approved of the harsh line against the Catilinarians (Cic. Att. 12,21,1). While consul, with Dec. Iunius [I 30] Silanus,

P.N. [I 39] L. Nerva, C. People’s tribune c. 120 BC, perhaps expelled from the Senate in 115 (Cic. Brut. 123; MRR

3, 124).

K.-L.E.

[I 40] L. Nerva, P. Praetor in 105 BC (?); as propraetor

in Sicilia in 104, he triggered the 2nd — Slave Revolt (Cass. Dio fr. 93,1-3; MRR 1, 559 n. 3). Probably identical to the homonymous mint master of 113 or 112 (RRC 292; MRR 3,124).

PN.

[141] L. Sacerdos, C. An irreproachable functionary while praetor urbanus in 75 BC and propraetor of Sicilia in the following year; this judgement arose especially in contradistinction to his successor in both offices, C. — Verres (Cic. Verr. 2, 119; 3, 119 et passim). From 69

legate of Q. Caecilius [I 23] Metellus on Crete (Cic. Planc. 27). L.’s attempt to advance to consul as a homo novus in 64 BC failed. [1 42] L. Squillus, L. One of the unsuccessful conspirators against the supporter of Caesar and propraetor of Hispania ulterior, Q. Cassius [I 16] Longinus, in 48 BC

(Bell. Alex. 52,4; 55,4f.). T.ER. {I 43] L. Stolo, C. Consul in 361 BC (Fast. Capitolini; 364 BC: Liv. 7,2,1). L.’s name is linked to the leges Liciniae Sextiae, whose genesis Livy (6,3 4,5-42) explains in detail: they were first introduced by L. as people’s tribune in 376, together with his colleague L. Sextius Lateranus (both re-elected annually up to 367), and only passed in 367 after long opposition from the patricians; they comprised a law for the repayment of debts (deduction of tributes already paid from the loan sum, repayment of remaining debt within three years), a law limiting occupation of land from the > ager publicus to 500 iugera (c. 125 ha) and a law according to which in future only consuls should be elected, among them one plebeian respectively. In turn only the patricians were granted to fill the newly created offices of praetor and curule aedile. The historical veracity of this account is thrown into doubt both by general considerations — only the lex Hortensia of 287 BC (-> Hortensius [I 4]) granted legal force of the plebiscites brought about by a people’s tribune for the entire population — and issues of content: the

LICINIUS

535

536

upper limit of 500 iugera, although ascribed to this law

II. IMPERIAL ERA {Il 1] L. L. [...] Senator; member of the > quindecimviri sacris faciundis; perhaps admitted to the patricians by Claudius; related to L. [II 2], probably his son. CIL VI TEAAD PATO.O: b UKs lett, {Il 2] L. L. C.f...] Related to L. [II 1], perhaps his father. Senator of the Augustan-Tiberian period. Comes of Caius Iulius [II 32] Caesar in the east c. AD 1; his cursus included terms as proconsul of Pontus-Bithynia and legate of an imperial province while Augustus still reigned. GIDWViltAder=Ame70) PIR] baa: [I 3] M. L. Celer Nepos Consul suffectus from May to August AD 127; attested as frater Arvalis [1. 336ff.]; PIRQE 222.

by other sources (e.g. Varro, Rust. 1,2,9; Val. Max. 8,6,3; Columella 1,3,11; Plut. Camillus 39,5-6), is

often estimated as too high for this time, and is therefore referred to a law first mentioned by Cato (Gell. NA 6,3,37 = ORF‘ no. 8, fr. 167) in 167 BC and probably passed shortly before, which is probably identical to the lex mentioned by Appian (B Civ. 1,33) without precise date and which contained further regulations. The ruling on the occupation of the senior magistracy is also dubious, since it is attested that the consulship was occupied by solely patrician pairs until at least 343. However, the Livian account reflects both the developments which led to the admission of plebeians to the consulship and the administrative reforms of those times, by which other, functionally distinct magistracies appeared alongside the consulship following the abolition of the consular tribunate (> tribunus). According to annalistic tradition, L. was convicted of a violation of

his own agrarian law in 357 BC (Liv. 7,16,9). + Struggle of the orders K.BRINGMANN, Das °Licinisch-Sextische’ Ackergesetz und die gracchische Agrarreform, in: J. BLEICKEN (ed.), Symposion fir A. Heuss, 1986, 51-66; T.J. CORNELL, The Beginnings of Rome, 1995, 327-340; D. FLacu, Die Gesetze der friihen rém. Republik, 1994, 280-297;

B. Forsin, Lex Licinia Sextia de modo agrorum - Fiction or Reality?, 1991;

K. von Fritz, The Reorganisation of

the Roman Government in 366 B.C. and the So-called Licinio-Sextian Laws, in: Historia 1, 1950, 1-44.

C.MU.

{1 44] L. Stolo, C. One of the spokesmen in Varro’s

didactic dialogue Res rusticae. Since the branch of the Licinii Stolones ended with the famous L. [I 43], the appearance of a younger L. Stolo in Varro as an expert in the cultivation of trees may be connected with the botanical meaning of the cognomen (stolo, ‘wild shoot’, which the wise plantsman eradicates, Varro, Rust. 1229s Eline EN era). TER. [1 45] L. Tegula, P. Probably a client of L. [1 18], who composed the text for a hymn of expiation in 200 BC (Liv. 31, 12, 10); distinct from L. [1 22] Imbrex. k-Lr. [I 46] L. Varus, C. Consul in 236 BC. Together with his colleague P. Cornelius [I 46] Lentulus Caudinus he was sent to Ariminum to fend off the Gauls. Soon afterwards, he fought in Corsica (MRR 1, 222). With him began a new upsurge in the fortunes of his gens after an interruption of more than a century. P.N. [1 47] L. Varus, P. Son of L. [I 46]. In 210 BC he organized the > ludi Romani as curule aedile (Liv. 27,6,19). While he was praetor urbanus in 208 during an epidemic, he brought about a law establishing the annual festival of the ludi Apollinares (Liv. 27,23,7; allusions to this on the coins of the mint master A. L. Nerva, c. 47 BC, RRC 454). In 207 he was among the envoys who announced the victory over Hasdrubal [5] to Rome (Liv. 27,51,1-6).

C.MU.

1 W.Ecx,

E.Paunov,

in: Chiron

27, 1997,

335-353-

W.E.

{II 4] Valerius Licinianus L. Roman emperor AD 308324, born c. 250 [1. 92f.]. L. came from the Illyrian province of Dacia Nova and served as an officer in the staff of > Galerius [5] (Lactant. De mort. pers. 20,3). On rr November 308, at the Carnuntum Conference, L. was elevated to emperor by > Diocletianus on the initiative of Galerius and admitted to the fictitious family of the Iovii (> Tetrarchy) [2]. As the new Augustus of the west he was to take the place of Fl. > Valerius Severus and drive > Maxentius out of Italy (Lactant. De mort. pers. 29,2; Anon. Vales. 13). Galerius granted him western Illyricum until this aim would be accomplished, but of his part of the kingdom he took possession of only Istria and Raetia. L. was only able to expand his power base upon the death of Galerius in May 311, when he took the entire territory of the Balkans, while he was forced to relinquish Asia Minor to + Maximinus [1] Daia. However, this dispute over the succession to Galerius left L.’s hands tied when > Constantinus [1] took Italy at the end of 312. Constantine, however, assured him of his support against Maximinus at a meeting at Milan early in 313, and gave him his sister Constantia’s hand in marriage. Here too, Constantinus and L. established the new principles of a tolerant, benevolent Christian politics. After L.’s victory, supposedly achieved with divine help (Lactant. De mort. pers. 46,1— 47,6), over Maximinus Daia at Tzirallum (30.4.313), L. took over the eastern provinces and issued the agreements reached at Milan as an edict there {the so-called Edict of Tolerance or Edict of Milan). This leads [3] to detect in L. the motor of the new Christian politics, but this is certainly wrong, since at this time L. was stil! acting as the subordinate partner of Constantine. However, L. was soon no longer prepared to accept this role. In 316 disagreements arose about the reorganization of the co-regency made necessary by the elimination of Maximinus, in particular with regard to the rule over Italy. Constantine thwarted a compromise envisaging the participation of Caesares in government by executing — Bassianus [3], who was to be Caesar of Italy. When L. refused to extradite Senecio, who had taken

DoT,

538

part in the supposed coup of Bassianus, to Constantine, the first war broke out between Constantine and L., in which L. raised — Valens to be his co-regent. After defeats at Cibalae and Campus Ardiensis, L. could claim a partial victory at Beroea [2]. His continued status as Augustus was due to this success, rather than being the brother-in-law of Constantine, although he had to leave the Balkans except the Thracian diocese and (from 1 March 317), with only one Caesar, his son Licinianus L. [II 5], was accorded a markedly less prestigious rank than Constantine (with two Caesares) in the new co-regency arrangement. L. thereafter ruled the east practically without contact with Constantine; the last vestige of concord, the common recognition of the consulship, ceased in 321. i That L. became a persecutor of Christians at this time is a legend, as is suggested by the emperor’s close contacts with the bishop of his residence Nicomedia, Eusebius [8] (Socr. 1,6; [4. no. 27,9]). However, L. un-

doubtedly favoured forms of the Jupiter cult and of polytheism (RIC VII, no. 18; ILS 8940; Suda s.v. Avé&évtos), which legitimized him as Jovius in the sense

intended by the religious ideals of the Tetrarchy. Consequently, the second war against L., which broke out over differences in policy with regard to the barbarians on the Danube frontier in the summer of 324, is characterized in Constantinian propaganda as a religious war. It was decided by the battles of Hadrianopolis [3] (3 July 324) and Chrysopolis (18 September 324). L., who had raised > Martinianus to be his co-regent, was surrounded in Nicomedia and forced to capitulate, while his life was spared by the intercession of Constantia

(Zos.

2,28,2;

[Aur. Vict.] Epit. Caes.

41,7;

Anon. Vales. 28; Zon. 13,1,23). L. was killed in Thessalonica in 325, allegedly because he had initiated

highly treasonable

contacts

with the Goths

LICINIUS

A. CHASTAGNOL, Quelques mises au point autour de l’empereur L., in: F. Fusco, G. BONAMENTE (ed.), Costantino il

Grande dall’ antichita all’ umanesimo,

1992, 317-323. B.BL.

[II 6] P. L. Cornelius Saloninus Valerianus Second son of > Gallienus and > Salonina, grandson of the emperor ~ Valerianus (SHA Gall. 21,3; CIL III 184; XI 826; XII 57). In AD 258 he was elevated to the rank of Caesar and princeps iuventutis ([Aur. Vict.] Epit. Caes. 32,2; [1. CXII]]), and received the title of Augustus in the autumn of AD 260 (he appears as Aug(ustus) even earlier on coins): RIC V 1, pp. 123ff.; [2. 5 16ff.; 3. vol. 1, 202f., vol. 2, 152ff.]; CIL VII 8473). During the rebellion of + Postumus (AD 260), L. was at Cologne, from where he was extradited and executed; later consecrated (SHA Tyr. Trig. 3,3; [Aur. Vict.] epit. Caes.

32,3). 1 G. HarTEL, Cyprianus (CSEL 3, 3), 1871

2 H.CoHEN,

Description historique des monnaies frappées sous |’empire romain, vol. 5, *1955 3J.VocrT, Die alexandrin. Miunzen, 1924.

PIR* L 183; KIENAST, 221; M. PEACHIN, Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, 1990, 38f. T.F.

[II 7] see > Valerianus

[Il 8] M.L. Crassus Frugi Perhaps adopted by M. L. [I 13] Crassus, cos. in 30 BC, the natural son of a certain Piso Frugi [1. 276f.] Consul ordinarius in 14 BC; legate of Hispania citerior in 10 BC; proconsul of Africa in 9/8 BC; augur (IRT 319; CIL VI 41052: honoured by the populus Damascenorum; cf. [2.77ff.5 3.233]). PIR* L 189. 1 Syme, AA 2G. ALFOLDY, Studi sull’ epigrafia augustea e tiberiana di Roma, 1992 3 W.Ecxk, s.v. L. (59), RE Suppl. 14, 233.

(Socr.

1,454). 11.KOnIG, Origo Constantini: Anonymus Valesianus, vol. 1,1987 2H.CHANTRAINE, Die Erhebung des L. zum Augustus, in: Hermes 110, 1982, 477-487 3 H. Grécorre, La ‘conversion’ de Constantin, in: Revue de université de Bruxelles 36, 1930/31, 231-272 4H.G. Opitz, Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites 318-328, 1934.

R.ANDREOTTI, s.v. L., Dizionario epigrafico 4, 1959, 979-1041; T.D. BARNES, The New Empire of Diocletianus and Constantine, 1982; B. BLECKMANN, Konstantin der Gro&e, 1996; H. Fen, Der Kaiser L., thesis Saarbriikken 1960; KIENAST, 290f.

{II 5] Valerius Licinianus L. Son of L. [II 4] and Con-

[II 9] M. L. Crassus Frugi Son of L. [II 8]. L. married Scribonia, who was descended from Pompey the Great. Member of the collegium of the curatores operum locorumque publicorum; praetor urbanus in AD 24 (InscrlIt 13,1,298). Consul ordinarius in 27. Perhaps sent to Mauretania by Caligula, certainly Claudius’ legate there (CIL VI 31721); awarded the ornamenta trium-

phalia on account of his successes there. Honoured again with the triumphal decoration at Claudius’ Britannic triumph, having accompanied him as comes. M. had many children, including L. and Cn. Pompeius Magnus, who married the daughter of the emperor Claudius, only to be murdered together with his parents at the instigation of Messalina. On the family’s property, see [r. 320ff.; 2. 277f.]. PIR* L 190.

stantia (Eutr. 10,6,3), born in July 315 (Zos. 2,20,2; [Aur. Vict.] Epit. Caes. 41,4), Caesar from 1

1 A. ANDERMAHR, Totus in praediis, 1998; SyME, AA.

March 317 until AD 324. The notion, based on the Codex Theodosianus (4,6,2 and 3), that L. was the product of a liaison of L. [II 4] with a slave-girl, is without foundation. Constantinus [1] had L., his nephew, killed in 326, along with his own son Crispus (Eutr.

{1 10] M. L. Crassus Frugi Son of L. [II 9]. It is not known how he escaped the catastrophe that befell his family under Claudius. Cos. ordinarius in AD 64. Convicted and executed by Aquilius [II 5] Regulus at the end of Nero’s reign. He had four children by a certain Sulpicia Praetexta. PIR* L ror.

10, 6,3).

539

540

[Ml 11] (L.) Crassus Scribonianus Son of L. [II 9], brother to L. [II 10] and Calpurnius [II 24] Piso, whom Galba adopted. CIL VI 1268 attests an arbitral award of the future emperor Vespasian between L. and one Calpurnius Piso. Antonius Primus is said to have tried to persuade him to proclaim himself emperor in AD 69; however, he denied this (Tac. Hist. 4,39,3). Nonetheless, he was later killed, probably on the orders of L. [II 14] Mucianus. CIL VI 31755 = 41114 does not refer to him. PIRS ro. {If 12] T. L. Hierocles Knight, who had a long military and procuratorial career in the rst third of the 3rd cent. AD; governor of Mauretania Caesariensis in 227 [1. 214f.]. In 229 he was praefectus classis Misenatis. RMDill1335 PIRSL 2022

ria. He also compiled collections of speeches and published three volumes of epistulae.

LICINIUS

1 THomasson, Fasti Africani.

{1113] Q.L. Modestinus S. Attius Labeo Senator, whose career is known from his vigintivirate to the consulship of AD 146; before his consulship he was praefectus aerarti [militaris] and proconsul of Achaea (CIL XIV 2405 = AE 1967, 72). W._ Eck, s.v. L., RE Suppl. 14523 3;/PIR2 L 273.

{fl 14] C. L. Mucianus Senator. Probably came from the Iberian peninsula [1. 785; 791]; became a member

of the Senate probably under — Claudius [III 1]; but relations with the emperor became difficult, and L. therefore withdrew to Asia. Possibly legionary legate under Cn. > Domitius [II 11] Corbulo in the east, governor of Lycia-Pamphylia under — Nero, probably early in the 60s; cos. suff. perhaps in AD 64. He was sent to Syria still by Nero, whose troops he swore to the loyal service successively of Galba, Otho and Vitellius. However, after long negotiations in the summer of 69, he reached a political agreement with Vespasian to fight for the latter’s imperial ambitions against > Vitellius. L. became > Vespasianus’ most decisive and important helper. With the Syrian troops he went through Asia Minor and fought an invasion of the Dacians in the Danube area on the way. However, he could not prevent > Antonius [II 13] Primus from fighting the Vitellians in Italy before him. After the Flavians had captured Rome in December 69, L. united all power in Rome in his hands until the arrival of Vespasian; the young Domitian played only a demonstrative role as the son of the as yet absent emperor. He secured Vespasian’s reign by having eliminated those who were supposed to be politically dangerous. His importance to the Flavian party is shown by his ornamenta triumphalia, which he in fact received on account of the Civil War (Tac. Hist. 4,4,1f.), and by his

second and third consulships in AD 70 and 72. Tacitus describes his character as ambivalent: ambitious and yet too hedonistic to aspire to total power. He died shortly after 75. He wrote a number of works in his last years, especially memoirs from the east of the empire, on which >» Plinius the Elder often draws in his Naturalis histo-

1 SyME, Tacitus, vol. 2.

CABALLOS, vol. 2, 401f.; PIR? L 216; K.SALLMANN, Die

Geogr. des alteren Plinius, 1971, 45ff.; SCHANZ/HosIus 2, 783; SYME, RP 3, 998ff.

{tl 15] T. L. Mucianus Senator. Governor of Galatia c. AD 174-177. Consul suffectus c.177/8. Came from -» Side in Pamphylia, where L. had established competitions. PIR? L 217; H. HALFMANN, in: EOS 2, 643.

[II 16] L. Nepos Senator. Praetor in AD 1o5; he gained a reputation as a strict judge (Plin. Ep. 4,29,2f.5 5,43 9);

took part in the trial of Varenus Rufus (Plin. Ep. 6,5; 13); his son was L. [II 3]. PIR* L 220. [II 17] Q. L. Nepos Son or grandson of L. [II 3]. Attested as a member of the fratres Arvales in AD 183, 186 and 193. Suffect consul; proconsul of Asia from 198 to 212, perhaps 204/5 [1. 323ff.]. 1S.DEMouGIN,

Proconsuls d’Asie sous Septime Sévére,

in: Bulletin de la Societé nationale des antiquaires de France 1994, 323-333. PIR? L 223; SCHEID, Collége, 99.

[1118] A. L. Nerva Silianus Natural son of P. Silius Nerva, cos. 20 BC; L. bore the name of A.L. Nerva,

triumvir monetalis under Augustus; probably adopted by him. Cos. ord. in AD 7. Friend of Augustus, he died before him. PIR* L 224. [If 19] A. L. Nerva Silianus Cos. ord. in AD 65, initially with M. Vestinus Atticus, after his death with P. Pasidienus Firmus ([1. 461ff.] = RMD II 79). Probably grandson of L. [II 18]. PIR* L 225. 1S.DuSanic, A Military Diploma of A.D. 55, in: Germania 56, 1978, 461-475.

[II 20] L. Priscus Praetorian imperial governor of LyciaPamphylia in AD 178. CIL XVI 128; [1. 4209ff.]. 1 W.Eck, in: Chiron 2, 1972, 429-436.

{1 21] L. Proculus Friend of > Otho, who made him praetorian prefect after the murder of Galba. Although Tacitus considered him militarily incompetent, L. was entrusted with the command against > Vitellius. L. was spared by Vitellius after the defeat at Bedriacum when he pretended to have deliberately brought about the defeat of Otho. PIR* L 233. [II 22] M. Cn. L. Rufinus Knight from > Thyatera in Asia. L.’s equestrian career, which began under Septimius Severus, included the following functions according to a new inscription from Thyatera: consiliarius of the emperor, ab epistulis Graecis, a studiis, a rationibus, a responsis or a libellis; thereafter he entered the Senate, his rank is uncertain since the text from Thyatera mentions him as praetor, which would be very un-

usual given his mature age; thereafter praetorian governor of Noricum; cos. suff. or adlectus inter consulares.

541

542

Finally one of the twenty men to whom was entrusted the fight against > Maximinus [2] Thrax in AD 238. TAM V 2, 984-988.

to one of his ancestors [3. 15 8ff.; 4. 183-193]. PIR* L DE.

P. HERRMANN, Die Karriere eines prominenten Juristen aus Thyateira, in: Tyche 12, 1997, 111-123; F. MILLAR,

romains de Catalogne, 1984 2Eck 3 G.ALFOLDy, Der rom. Bogen iiber der Via Augusta bei Tarraco, in: Klio 78, 1996, 158-170 4 CABALLOS, vol. 1. W.E.

in: JRS 89, 1999.

WE.

L. Rufinus was a student of the jurist > Iulius [IV 16] Paulus (Dig. 40,13,4). Following his teacher, he

wrote 12 or 13 books of regulae [2], of which Justinian’s Digests contain 17 fragments [1]. 1 O. LENEL, Palingenesia iuris civilis 1, 559ff. 2D.Lress, in: HLL vol. 4, 2o5f. TG,

{fl 23] Q. L. Silvanus Granianus Senator from > Tar-

raco. Connected with L. Minicius Natalis, who came from Barcino. He was suffect consul with him from June to August AD 106. As proconsul of Asia in 121/2, L. asked Hadrian how Christians were to be treated at

trial; Hadrian’s reply only reached L.’s successor, Minicius Fundanus (Justin. Apol. 1,68). His son was Q.L. Silvanus Granianus Quadronius Proculus (PIR* L 249). CABALLOS, vol. 1, r8o0ff.; PIR? L 247.

{I 24] P. L. Stolo Triumvir monetalis under Augustus probably in 18/17 BC. His son, of the same name, was a member of the curatores locorum publicorum iudicandorum ex s.c. under Tiberius. PIR* L 251; 252.

LICIUM

1G.Fasre,

M.Mayer,

J.RopA

(ed.),

Inscriptions

{If 26] (L.) Valerianus Son of the emperor > Valerianus and brother to > Gallienus (SHA Gall. 12,1; 14,9). PIRSats7 DlUNEer rosin (laa) TF. {fl 27] see > Valerianus

Licinus Originally a rare praenomen, either of Etruscan origin or derived from the Latin adjective licinus (‘curved backwards’, Serv. Georg. 3,55); hence the gentile name > Licinius. Later, it occurs as a cognomen,

possibly with the meaning ‘hair combed backwards’ [1. 2365 2. 33], in the Republican period in the families of the Fabii and Porcii, in Imperial times with the Clodii (C. [II 6]), Larcii and Passieni. Also documented as a name for slaves, the most prominent of which is Caesar’s freedman (C. Iulius) L., who into the time of Augustus directed the fiscal administration of Gaul and who probably served as the model for the figure of Trimalchio in — Petronius (Cass. Dio 54,21,2—-8; schol. Juv. 1,109). PIR* I 38r. 1 KayANTO, Cognomina namen, 1987.

2 O.SALOMIES, Die rom. VorK.-LE.

{fl 25] L. L. Sura Senator of the Flavian-Trajanic peri-

od. Most important political advisor to > Traianus. His family came from the province of Hispania Tarraconensis, perhaps from Celsa; but L. Sura also had close connections to Barcino, where his important freedman Licinius Secundus was honoured with at least 22 statues after AD 107 [1. Vol. 4, 83-104; cf. Vol. 1, 125]. Under Domitian, L. is attested as a patron of > Martialis [1]; he himself was also a writer. Little is known of his senatorial career. He was probably suffect consul under Domitian, perhaps in 93, but 97 is not entirely out of the question. L. served in Germania inferior either as a legionary legate or as governor (AE 1923, 33). But in early 98 he can hardly have been leading the province (so recently [2. 15 sf.]), since a new military diploma placed the provincial army directly under Trajan in February 98. However, L. indubitably gave powerful support to the adoption and rise to power of Trajan. For this reason too, he was made cos. II in 102, cos. III in 107. He was Trajan’s

comes in the Dacian Wars; negotiated with > Decebalus; often depicted by Trajan’s side on Trajan’s Column (+ Monumental column). Trajan trusted L. entirely. L. is said to have decisively influenced Hadrian’s relationship with Trajan. In Rome he owned a house on the Aventine, where Trajan also erected the balneum Surae in his honour (cf. LTUR II 129f.). L. died around 108; he received a state funeral and was honoured by Trajan with a statue in Rome. The arch of Bara near Tarraco was erected ex testamento L. Licini L. f. Serg. Surae (CIL II 4282 = Roman Inscr. Tarraco 930); it may refer

Licitatio The Latin term Jicitatio, signifying a price offered during a sale, generally refers only to auctions; accordingly, the bidder is called licitator. Bidding took place by raising a finger (digito licitus sit: Cic. Verr. 2,327; cf. 2,1,141). Beyond that, licitatio can generally denote the sale at auctions. In a figurative sense the word licitatio denotes illegal trade or corrupt behaviour (Cic. Verr. 2,2,133; Suet. Nero 26,2). — Auctiones; > Purchase 1 M.TALAMANCA, Contributi allo studio delle vendite all’asta nel mondo antico, in: Memorie dell’Academia dei Lincei 8,6, 1954, 35-251.

J.A.

Licium (literally ‘thread’, ‘string’, ‘ribbon’). In Roman

cultic and magical use, the functions of the licium are twofold: it connects or binds, and it encircles or closes something or someone. In its connecting or binding function it is used primarily in love spells (cf. Verg. Ecl. 8,73ff.). The licium also serves to enclose the voting area at convocations of the people (Varro, Ling. 6,8688, 93 and 95; Paul Fest. roo,11

more common

L.). However,

it is

or more important in its encircling or

closing function, in which it has an apotropaic character (amulet): by binding or encircling, it wards off evil influences from without (e.g. Ov. Fast. 571-582). The licium is better known through an action carried out under ancient Roman law, as recorded in the laws of the Twelve Tables (Tabula 8,15 FIRBruns = 1,20

LICIUM

CRAWFORD).

{n connection with a house search (qua-

estio lance et licio), in which the individual searching

the house (generally the victim of a theft) enters the house of the suspected thief with the licium and a lanx (dish, bowl), but probably not naked, wearing only the licium (licio cinctus: Gai. Inst. 3,191-193; Paul. Fest. 104 L.). There are differing interpretations of the significance of the licium in this context, but they have not gained general acceptance: /anx (used for removing the stolen object) and licium (used for tying up the thief) as symbols of actual implements; /icium as an actual fetter carried by the house searcher, lanx as a sacrificial bowl; licium as a rope used to lead away the stolen animal, lanx for carrying away other movable objects; lanx and lictum for measuring the quantity and size of the stolen goods (different hypotheses reported in: [1]). According to [1] the lictum was more likely the ritual head bandage with a function similar to that of the filum of the > flamines. 1 J.G. Wotr, Lanx und I., in: D. Liess (ed.), Sympotica F. Wieacker, 1970, 61. M.H.

544

543

Crawrorp

(ed.), Roman

out seizures and arrests (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 10,31; Liv. 2,29; Tac. Ann. 6,40.; Gell. NA 13,12), execute

punishments and mainly whippings (Cic. Verr. 5,54; Liv. 2,5,8; Val. Max. 3,8,1; Sen. Controv. 9,2,22).

3) The lictores curiati appointed to cult services already in early times.summon the -> comitia curiata chaired by the > pontifex maximus (Gell. NA 15,27). They assist at the sacrifices (CIL VI 1846; 1847; 1852; 1885-1892; XIV 296) and are servants of the — flamines (Plut. Mor. 291b; Ov. Fast. 2,2 rff.; CIL XU 6038), and also the Vestals (—. Vesta; Plut. Numa Sen. Controv. 1,2; 6,8; Cass. Dio 47,19).

ro;

1 P.Grimat, Rom. Kulturgesch., 1961, fig. 38 (of .on the Ara Pietatis Augustae).

Momsen, Staatsrecht, 1, 355, 374-392; U.von LUstow, Das rém. Volk, 1955, 193. Ge

Statutes, vol. 2, 1996,

615-617; D.FLacn, Die Gesetze der friihen R6m. Republik, 1994, 176-178.

also when visiting a free city (Tac. Ann. 2,53: Germanicus enters Athens with only one lictor). Whoever organizes festivals or funerals is also entitled to have a lictor. 2) On behalf of the magistrate, lictores have to carry

AVS.

Lictor The lictores (from ligare = to bind; Greek rhabdouchos, rhabdophoros = carrier of the rods) were

Roman bailiffs (~- apparitores) of the higher magistrates and of some priests (Liv. 1,8.; Lucr. 3,996; 5,1234). They signify the latter’s power by carrying the fasces (bundles of rods with the executioner’s axe). They are

appointed for the term of office of the magistrate or permanently. Their number is determined by the rank of the official (consul 12, praetor 6, more in the Im-

perial period). Lictores are free-born or freedmen, slaves cannot hold the office (Liv. 2,55). In Rome, they form a corporation with decuriae (of 24 men each: CIL II 1878; 32294). They receive an annual salary, in early Imperial times 600 sesterces. In town, a lictor is dressed in a toga (Plut. Romulus 26), in the military camp with the war cloak (Cic. Pis. 23; Varro Ling. 7,37; Liv. 31,143 41,103 45,39). During periods of public mourning, they wear black and carry their fasces upside down (Hor. Epist. 1,7,6; Tac. Ann. 3,2) [x].

The lictores have the following duties: 1) They accompany the magistrate (-> Magistratus) on official errands, in order to make room for him in public (plebem summovere: Liv. 3,45; Mart. 8,66; Plut. Pom-

peius 22; App. B Civ. 1,78; App. Mithr. 20; Plin. Pan. 23,3), to stand at his side during speeches (Liv. 23,23; Cic. Cluent. 53), to knock before he enters a house (Liv. 6,34; Plin. HN 7,112; Petron. 65); they also accompany him on private errands (Juv. 3,128), e.g. to the bath (Liv. 25,17), to the theatre (Suet. Iul. 80) and to the temple (App. B Civ. 4,134). The magistrate is never seen without lictores (Liv. 39,12; 32). However, he has to enter into the house of a higher official without them (Liv. 22,141; Cic. Plane. 41; Plut. Fabius Maximus 4),

Licymnius (Atbuvioc; Likymnios).

[1] Son of > Electryon, half-brother of Alcmene, husband of Perimede, father of > Argeius [1], Melas and Oeonus or, according to a new source [2], of Perimedes, Oeonus and Pero. After first seeking refuge together with the > Heraclidae, with Ceyx in Trachis, he is killed by > Tlepolemus in Argus (Hom. Il. 2,661-663; Pind. Ol. 7,27-31). As eponym of Licymna, the acropolis of Tiryns (Str. 8,6,11) — his name, like that of his mother

Midea, indicates that he belongs to the pre-Greek period - L. is probably only secondarily linked to the complex of myths surrounding > Heracles and his descendants. There is evidence of tragedies about L. by Euripides (fr. 473-479 Naucx’; cf. Aristoph. Av. 1242 with schol., [1]) and Xenocles (TrGF 33 F 2). 1 N.Dunpar (ed.), Aristophanes, Birds, 1995, 625-626 2 C.Harrauer, L. und seine Familie in P.Vindob. G 23058, in: WS tor, 1988, 97-126.

T.H.

{2] Dithyrambic poet and rhetorician from Chios, main creative period c. 420 BC. Dion. Hal. reports that he, like > Polus, came from the school of > Gorgias [2] (Lys. 3,458; cf. Thuc. 24,869), although schol. Pl. Phdr. 267c describes him as a teacher of Polus. Aristot. Rh. 1413b 14 lists him along with the tragedian Chaeremon [x] among those whose style is ‘suitable for reading aloud’ (+ Anagnostikoi) and criticizes his invention of ‘ridiculous’ speech subsections (Rh. 1414b 17). The few extant fragments (PMG 769-771) in dactylo-epitrites

cannot be attributed with certainty to a work: an apostrophe to Hygieia (769) and a description of Hypnos, who puts Endymion to sleep without closing the latter’s eyes. PMG 768-773; RADERMACHER, I17-I19.

E.R.

545

546

Lien see — Pledge, laws of

Census declarations from the Roman province of Egypt also offer a great deal of information about the ages of the people recorded, including women and children. The evaluation of these papyri produced a LE of 22.5 years (for women at birth) or 22.5-25 years (for

Life expectancy The term life expectancy (LE) is used in historical demography and population sociology to indicate how many years a person of a certain age has left to live under the mortality conditions in a specific society. It must be noted that this term in no way indicates the average age of death, and that the LE of a person changes significantly over the course of his or her life. In societies before the demographic transition (transition to a low birth and mortality rate), due to high mortality, particularly infant mortality, it is relatively low for newborns, increases until the 5th year, and then again slowly decreases. Preindustrial societies show generally high birth and death rates, including a low LE for newborns; this can also be assumed for the ancient population. Various sources are available for modern demographic research into antiquity. For Archaic and Classical Greece, the sources are, however, significantly poorer than for the Imperium Romanum. Investigations here primarily refer to palaeodemographic material; evaluation of skeletal finds (from the years 650350 BC) produced a LE at birth of 24.4 years for men. However, the statistical and methodological inadequacy of the mortality schedule were pointed out at the same time. Numerous Roman grave inscriptions from different centuries and regions give the age of the deceased; thus, an attempt could be made to formulate statements about LE in antiquity by evaluating inscriptions. Increasingly, researchers were using model mortality schedules and computer-supported model calculations to interpret the epigraphic material, thus trying to determine the significance of the results from the ancient materials; furthermore, attempts have been made to refine the estimates postulated using mortality schedules (average LE at birth of the population of the Imperium Romanum: 20-30 years) and to make differentiations based on region, time and gender. Besides inscriptions, the information given by — UIpianus (praef. praet. 222) plays an important role in LE research; probably in order to be able to calculate the amount of the annual financial contributions that would be given out as legacies, Ulpianus provides the LE for various age groups, beginning with an age of 20 (Ulp. ap. Aemilius Macer, Dig. 35,2,68). This produces the following table:

LIFTING DEVICES

men at birth). The list of the councillors of Canusium (CIL IX 338 =ILS 6121) was also used to determine the

LE of a municipal upper class. The demographic evaluation of these sources raises numerous complex problems, which are extensively discussed among researchers. No numeric material is provided with the inscriptions that would be comparable, for example, with the church records of the early modern period: culturally determined patterns of behaviour for memorials, the lack of information about ages, the fact that many people were hardly in the material position to have a gravestone erected for the deceased, and the coincidental nature of the records make it impossible to view the age information in inscriptions as representative numeric material suitable for statistical evaluation. The mortality table in Ulpianus can hardly be based on a statistical evaluation of deaths by the Roman administration and thus provides no more than a clue to the ancient estimate of the LE for specific age groups. For Egypt, in turn, it is known that the knowledge of people’s age was only rudimentary; with the census declarations, moreover, absence due to regional mobility must also always be taken into account. For these reasons, it is hardly possible to make general statements sufficiently precise. Therefore, the most recent investigations focus on specific questions, such as the LE of Roman soldiers and determining the causes of seasonal variations in the death rates. — Age(s) 1 R.S. BAGNALL, B. W. FriER, The Demography of Roman Egypt, 1994 2A.J. Coarse, P.G. DemMeENy, Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations, *1983 3 R.DuNCAN-JONEsS, Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy, 1990, 79-104 4B.W. Frier, Roman Life Expectancy: Ulpian’s Evidence, in: HSPh 86, 1982, 213-

251 5F.Hrnarp (ed.), La mort, les morts, et l’au-dela dans le monde romain, 1987 6 K. Hopkins, On the Prob-

able Age Structure of the Roman Population, in: Population Stud. 20, 1966, 245-264 7 C. NEWELL, Methods and Models in Demography, 1988 8 T.G. PARKIN, Demography and Roman Society, 1992 9 R.SALLARES, The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World, 1991 10R.P. SALLER, Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family, 1994 11 W.SCHEIDEL, Libitina’s Bitter Gains. Seasonal

Mortality and Endemic Disease in the Ancient City of

Age (x)

Life expectancy in years at age x

20-24

28

25-29

25

30-34 35-39

22 20

40-49

Difference between x and 60 -1

50-54

9

orale

7

60 or older

5

Rome, in: Ancient Society 25, 1994,

Measuring

Sex, Age and Death

151-175

in the Empire,

121d.,

1996

13 B.D. SHAw, Seasons of Death. Aspects of Mortality in Imperial Rome, in: JRS 86, 1996, 100-138.

JW.

Life stages see > Age(s)

Lifting devices Ever since large > temples were built of stone in Greece (early 6th cent. BC), architects have

been faced with the problem of lifting heavy blocks of

LIFTING DEVICES

547

548

stone, for the walls or the architrave, and column drums

from the lower weight of the blocks and the inclusion of rope channels on the stone blocks, which made it possible to attach ropes. The fundamental instrument for all LD in antiquity was the pulley, whose effect was already described in the Mechanika of Aristotle; however, running a rope over a pulley in no way saves strength, but the direction in which the strength must work has changed so that the work is made easier. It was already known to Aristotle that heavy loads can be lifted with comparably lower strength using a combination of two pulleys (Aristot. Mechanika 852a; 853a-b). It was then one of the significant tasks of later > mechanics to design the most efficient LD possible from a combination of various mechanical instruments, and also to record their action precisely. > Heron finally explains that using a larger number of pulleys, on the one hand, requires correspondingly less power in order to raise a specific weight, but, on the other hand, causes a delaying effect in the work (Heron, Mechanika 2,23). LD with one, two, three or four vertical supports and with one pulley ora combination of pulleys (block and tackle) have been

as far as the building plan demanded. In doing so, loads of significant weight often had to be dealt with, because stone, after all, weighs approximately 2.25 t/m?, and marble c. 2.75 t/m?. In the Archaic age, blocks for the architrave weighed between ro and 4ot. At first, the stones were put into place via a ramp, as is recorded for the construction of the temple of Artemis in Ephesus (Plin. HN 36,95). After about 525 BC, there was a transition to the use of lifting devices (LD); this resulted

described (Heron, Mechanika 3,2-5).

The cranes used on Roman construction sites are described in — Vitruvius: these are two diagonally erected poles, joined together at their tips, which were held in position by guy ropes. The supporting cable was led over three pulleys, the upper two of which were fixed in a block attached to the tips of the poles. The lower pulley sat on the block to which were attached the lifting tongs used to lift the load. Corresponding to the use of three pulleys, this crane was described as trispastos (*3—pulley’), when five pulleys were used as pentaspastos (‘5—pulley’). It is noteworthy that the rope was fixed to a windlass that was turned with long leverage poles. Along with the pulley, the lever was also used as a strength-saving mechanical principle. For lifting heavy loads, Vitruvius recommends using a large drum wheel, turned by men walking, instead of the windlass. According to Vitruvius, a crane which consisted of only a single mast was more mobile, but also demanded experienced workers to operate it. The Greek terminology used by Vitruvius shows that the Romans adopted the crane and the block and tackle from the Greeks (Vitr. De arch. 10,2,1-10; cf. Lucr. 4,905f.). These types of

LD are depicted several times on Roman reliefs; the best-known is the relief on the tomb of the Haterii (Rome, MV; cf. also the relief in Capua (cf. [1. 48]).

~» Deus ex machina 1J.P. ADAM, La construction romaine, 1984, 44-53 2 BLUMNER, Techn. 3, 111-129 3 J.J. CouLron, Ancient

Greek Architects at Work, 1977

41d., Lifting in Early

Greek Architecture, in: JHS 94, 1974, 1-19

5 J.G. Lan-

DELS, Engineering in the Ancient World, 1978, 84-98 6 W.MULLER-WIENER, Crane from the Tomb of the Haterii; Vatican Museums, Museo Gregoriano Profano (Inv. 9998), AD 120

(drawing based on relief, with additions).

1988

Griech.

Bauwesen

7 Wuire, Technology, 78-82.

in der Ant.,

H.SCHN.

549

55O

Ligarius Roman gens, originally from the Sabine area, from which only a few individuals can be identified, all of those in the troubles of the Civil War.

Gall. 3,9; 7,53 553 593; Plin. HN 4,107; Ptol. 2,8,1; 6; t1f; 14; Cass. Dio 39,40; 44,42 (Atyeos; Ligros); Auson. Mos. 461.

SCHULZE, 359; SYME, RP vol. 2, 596.

G. WaLsER, Der ProzefS gegen Q. L. imJahre 46 v. Chr., in: Historia 8, 1959, 90-96.

[3] L., T. As quaestor urbanus around 54 BC he was

close to Caesar (Cic. Lig. 3 5f.); even though he attempted to remain neutral during the Civil War, the partisanship of his brother Q.L. [2] led to his downfall. Together with a third brother (C.?) he was killed during the proscription phase. T.FR.

Ligature A graphic symbol, already attested in the earliest Greek papyri (> Papyrus) written in > cursive (3rd cent. BC). It connects the last stroke of a letter with the first one of the following letter, sometimes combining the two, even changing the shape of the letters. Its usage is exclusively limited to cursive writing (rarely with semi-cursives), in which several letters combined by ligature can produce a single joined chain. The end of this chain is written exclusively as determined by graphic criteria and may not necessarily coincide with the end of syllables or words. A. BATAILLE, Pour une terminologie en paléographie grecque, 1954, 19-25; P. DEGNI, La scrittura corsiva greca nel

papiri e negli ostraca greco-egizi (IV secolo a.C.-III d.C.),

Liger River in Gaul, modern

Loire; rises on

METAPHYSICS

OF

Carte archéologique de la Gaule 42, 1998 (Loire: M.-

[1] L., P. Partisan of Pompey. Taken prisoner in 49 BC near Ilerda as an officer in the army of L. Afranius [1] and pardoned when he promised future neutrality. Again among Caesar’s adversaries in Thessalia and Africa: Caesar had him, who had broken his word, executed after the battle of Thapsus (46) (Bell. Afr. 64,1). MRR 3,125. [2] L., Q. In North Africa after 50 BC, first as legate, then for a short time as deputy of the propraetor C. Considius [I 3] Longus; since L. did not play an important role among the Pompeians in the province, he was pardoned by Caesar soon after the battle of Thapsus (46), but still banished from Rome (Bell. Afr. 89,2). Permission for L. to return was granted by Caesar (end of 46; Plut. Cicero 39,6f.) in spite of a charge of high treason by Q. Aelius [I 17] Tubero, thanks to Cicero’s engagement (speech Pro O. Ligario). In Rome L. then had close contact with Brutus and the conspirators (App. B Civ. 2,474; Plut. Brutus rr), with whom he finally found his end in the East.

in: Scrittura e Civilta 20, 1996, 21-88.

LIGHT,

G.M.

the

> Cebenna mons. Strabo (4,1,1; 143 4,2,1-33 3543 4533

5,2) erroneously assumes its course as parallel to that of the Garumna, Ptolemy (2,2) describes it more correctly.

Authors of antiquity assert that the river is open to shipping for about 2,000 stadia (about 370 km, more today) and that it served as a trade route between Britannia, Massilia and Italy. Further sources: Caes. B

O.LAVENDHOMME); 43, 1994 (Haute-Loire: Id., B.REMy); 63/1-2, 1994 (Clermont-Ferrand; Puy-deDéme: M.O. LAavENDHOMME, C.JOUANNET); 71/3-4, 1994 (Sa6ne-et-Loire: A.REBOURG); M. Provost, Le val

de Loire dans l’antiquité (Gallia Suppl. 52), 1993; P. ViGIER (ed.), Histoire de la Loire, 1986.

ae

Light, metaphysics of The metaphysics of light regards the essence of being (see > Metaphysics) itself as light. Beings are therefore considered light-like and intelligible, the light perceived by the senses, on the other hand, only an image of this true light. The foundation of the metaphysics of light goes back to Plato, who in his allegory of the sun (Resp. 6,508a— 509b) compares the idea of the good (- Ideas, theory of) with the sun: just as the sun casts light on the world of the senses, the idea of the good is the cause of ideas and the reason for their perceptibility. In — Plotinus, the One is the source and centre of the light, surrounded by the emanating (> Emanation) spirit as radiant circle, which in turn is surrounded by a second circle, the world soul, also created by emanation. The world of the senses, lacking its own light and thus in need of brightness from another source, is illuminated by the soul (Plot. Enneades 4,3,17,13f.). The light perceived by the senses, itself immaterial (ibid. 1,6,3,18), originates from the true light. For > Augustinus, God is uncreated spiritual light that shines and illuminates everything (Aug. Soliloq. 1,1,3), remaining one despite the trinity of the persons. He strongly emphasizes the difference between created and uncreated light, as well as between sensual and intelligible light (Aug. contra Faustum 20,7). Ps.-Dionysius [54] Areopagites connects the philosophy of Proclus with statements of the NT (1 Tim 6:16; Jac 1:17): the divine light is experienced as darkness (Ps.Dionysius, Epist. 5). In accordance with the trinity of pausing, emerging and returning, it remains immovable in itself, comes forward and returns, while leading whoever it encounters back to oneness with the origin (Ps.Dionysius, De caelesti hierarchia 1,1). On this basis, as well as that of Arabian and Jewish sources, ROBERT GROSSETESTE, ROGER BACON, WITELO and BONAVEN-

TURA reintroduced the metaphysics of light in the 13th cent. 1 C.BAEUMKER, Witelo, 1908, 358-422 2 W.BEIERWALTES, Lux intelligibilis, 1957 3 Id., Plotins Metaphysik des Lichtes, in: C. ZINTZEN (ed.), Die Philos. des Neuplatonismus, 1977, 75-117. 4H.BLUMENBERG, Licht als Metapher der Wahrheit, in: Studium Generale 10, 1957, 432-447 5 D.BREMER, Hinweise zum griech. Ursprung und zur europ. Geschichte der L., in: ABG 17, 1973, 7-35

6 Id., Licht als universales Darstellungsmedium, in: ABG 18, 1974, 185-206 (bibliogr.) 7 C.Co.re, Von der Lichtdeutung im Alten Orient zur Lichtontologie im ma. Europa, in: G. SFAMENI GAsparRRo (ed.), Agathe elpis. FS U.Bianchi, 1994, 79-102.

S.M.-S.

LIGHTHOUSES

551

34

Lighthouses This architecturally designed sea mark, Greek deoc/phdaros, Lat. pharus, had its precursors in the open fires mentioned as early as Homer (Od. 10,30 et passim). These were raised on pillars or struts, and

H.G. FriscHer, s.v. Lampe, LA 3, 1980, 913-9173 G. Hany, s.v. Fenster, LA 2, 1977, 168f.; E. HEINRICH,

marked the entrances of harbours (Piraeus, 5th cent. BC; > Harbours, docks) or (rarely) dangerous coastal

features (at the same time, misleading coastal fires had been a means used by pirates from time immemorial to cause ships to be stranded, with the aim of plundering them; > Navigation; > Piracy). The oldest architecturally designed lighthouse, the lighthouse of — Alexandria, regarded as one of the » Wonders of the World, was built by > Sostratus between 299 and 279 BC on the island of Pharus off Alexandria (after which the entire genre came to be named); it probably first operated exclusively as an unlit daytime sea mark, but then was lit (open brushwood fire) in the rst cent. BC, and remained functional down to the r2th cent. The tower, of

four terraced stories, finally collapsed in an earthquake in 1326; its ruins have been detected by various underwater expeditions. It probably was over roo m high, and, due to its fire being visible over a great distance, was regarded as the most important navigational reference point in the eastern Mediterranean. Other well-attested lighthouses stood near Ostia, at Messina and at the harbour of Constantinople; the more than 40 m high Roman lighthouse at La Coruna (north-west Spain) is still operated. The function of some surviving Roman towers is not entirely certain; the towers at the villas of Tiberius on Capri should supposedly be seen as forming part of an extensive signalling and communications system, not as lighthouses in the sense of sea marks. P. A. Cayton, The Pharos at Alexandria, in: P. A. CLayTON (ed.), The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, 1988, 138-157; S. Hutter, Der ant. L. von La Corufa, in: Ant. Welt 9, 1978/no. 2, 33-48; T.G. RADAN, Angaben zur

Frage der sog. ‘Leuchttiirme’, in: Alba Regia 13, 1972, 149-157.

C.HO.

Lighting I. NEAR EAST AND EGyrpt

I]. GREECE AND ROME

I. NEAR East AND EcyPT Near East: the lighting in the rooms was generally dim; exterior walls usually only contained windows high up, as documented primarily by architectural drawings, rarely by the original building. Light coming in through the doors probably sufficed for rooms adjacent to courtyards. Interior rooms, in particular larger architectural complexes, required special lighting by means of different roof levels and wall openings close to the ceiling, or by closable skylights. Other sources of light next to daylight were permanently installed or movable fireplaces as well as lamps, which could be placed in alcoves. Egypt: similar to the Near East, lighting was achieved by slit windows located high up in the wall and scuttles, clerestories, torches and lamps. + Lamps; > Window

Die Tempel und Heiligtiimer im alten Mesopotamien, 2 vols. (DAA 14), 1982; E. HEINRICH, Palaste im alten Mes-

opotamien, 2 vols. (DAA 15), 1984.

U.S.

I]. GREECE AND ROME The primary source for the lighting of interior rooms was daylight, shining in through doors and > windows. Windows are already documented for Minoan-Mycenaean culture (Thera/Akrothiri; faience tiles with house facades from Knossos) and on the geometrical houses of Zagora/Andros, further also on the temples (— Parthenon in Athens, the temple of Asclepius in > Epidaurus). The advantage of a window as source of light and its best possible installation is. explained by Vitruvius (6,6,6; cf. 6,4,1-2). The introduction of the glass window in the rst cent. AD (specular, Sen. Epist. 90,25; Plin. Ep. 2,147,113 17,22, cf. Plin. HN 36,160f.) contributed decisively to the significance of the window as source of light. An opening in the roof of the house (> Opaeum,

Hdt.

8,137;

— Pantheon

in

Rome;

+ Dome), as a smoke outlet for the hearth fire, may

have also served for lighting. For the lighting of the interior, thinly cut marble slabs (sanctuary of Sangri/ Naxos) were utilized as well. More complex, however, is the artificial illumina-

tion of interior rooms, from time immemorial provided by the hearth fire (Hom. Il. 9,205f.; Hom. Od. 6,305f.), further by faggots, chips of pinewood and torches, which were held by boys (cf. the later Roman lychnophoroi or lychnotichoi [2]) in Homer (Od. 7,10off.). Homer (Od. 19, 63f.) also mentions braziers; their ap-

pearance, however, remains unknown. The most important lighting device was the > lamp, whose lighting power was produced by oil or tallow. Another source of light was the wax candle (candela), for which a special candleholder (candelabrum; funale) was designed to mount the candles. The candelabra, already known from archaic Etruria, had a stand of three connected animal claws with a figure on top, out of which rose a differently ornamented shaft ending in the actual candleholder. To provide greater stability, a disc was placed on the three animal claws. In many cases, upward-pointing hooks permitted the hanging of household items [3]. The preserved candelabra are made of bronze, rarely of iron or silver; some are richly decorated marble candelabra [1]. The wax torch (cereus) emerged in the 2nd cent. BC (Plaut. Curc. 90) and was predominantly used for nightly outings. For the protection of the light from draught and wind, lanterns were used from the Classical period (Aristoph. Pax 840), and small candle houses from Hellenism. The only sources of light in the > streets by night were torches (cf. representations of komasts on Attic vases), or lanterns that one had to carry. Only late antiquity knows of installed public street lighting (a boulevard, the ‘Arcadiane’, in Ephesus; Byzantium; possibly Antiochia).

554

2)5)3) 1 H.-U.Catn,

HILier, KEMPER Mahdia, KOWSKI,

Rém.

Marmorkandelaber,

1985

2M.

Zwei bronzene Figurenlampen, in: G. HELLENSALIES et al., Das Wrack. Der ant. Schiffsfund von exhibition Bonn 1994, 515-530 3 B.RurtGriech. Kandelaber, in: MDAI (A) 94, 1979,

174-222.

K. Kirtan, Ein myk. Beleuchtungsgerat, in: Philia epé. FS G.E. Mylonas, 1, 1986, 152-166; W.D. HEILMEYER (ed.), Licht und Architektur, conference Tiibingen 1990, passim; D.Baatz, Fensterglas, Glasfenster und Architektur, in: A.HOFFMANN et al., Bautechnik der Ant., DiskAB 5, 1990, 4-13; R.C. A. ROTTLANDER, Der Brennstoff rom. Beleuchtungskorper, in: JberAugst 13, 1992, 225-229; F.Baratre, Les Candélabres, in: G.HELLENKEMPER Sauigs et al., Das Wrack. Der ant. Schiffsfund von Mahdia, exhibition Bonn 1994, 607-628. R.H.

Lightning see > Abaton; > Bidental; > Etrusci III D Light reading I. DEFINITION

OF THE TERM

LIGHT READING

II. OCCASIONAL

III. AFFECTIVE

FORMS

OF

RECEPTION

I. DEFINITION OF THE TERM According to Horace [7], the task of literature is — besides

instruction

— entertainment

(Lat. delectatio;

Hor. Ars P. 333-346). Ultimately, this goes back to Aristotle’s [6] theory of rhetoric and was already used in the Peripatos for the view of literature. The entertaining character (téowic/térpsis) of literature as a horizon of reception, however, is already apparent in Homeric ~ epic and is also reflected in the debate over the utility and cognitive function of poetry (> Hesiodus, Solon [1], Gorgias [2], Aristophanes [3], Plato [1]). Besides this general definition of function, antiquity developed no explicit term for light reading (LR) asa literary genre or type of text. Moreover, because a social differentiation of classes of readers according to status and educational level is only possible in individual cases, two methods of approach offer themselves as a basis for defining the term in the sense of a specific literary type: (x) classification of literature in occasional contexts aimed at entertainment, (2) observation of literary strategies and forms of reception which target the affective participation of the reader.

common, above all, in the Imperial period (Plutarchus [2], Aelianus [2], Gellius [6], Athenaeus [3] of Naucratis). The blend of > education and entertainment

also characterizes the performative appearances of Imperial period orators and philosophers (such as Aelius Aristides [3]; Apuleius/Ap(p)uleius [III]; Dion [I 3] Chrysostomos;

The oldest and most prominent institutions are the ovpmdotov

(symposion)/Lat. convivium (+ Banquet) and the forms of literary entertainment at table connected with it (recitation of epic; sympotic lyrics; scolia; epigrams; riddles; dinner conversation). The conditions of reception of the symposium are also instrumentalized by Martialis [1] for characterizing his epigrams as entertaining texts (parallel to references to > Saturnalia and — Floralia as frames of reference). Based on the first forms of — symposium literature (Plato, Xenophon), conversational literature originates in this area as a special form of ancient ‘edutainment’, which was

-> Libanius;

-> Peregrinos

Proteus;

Apollonius [14] of Tyana; cf. > Second Sophistic). The desire for entertainment is also met by literary and subliterary genres of drama, especially > comedy, > satyr plays, > phlyaces farces, and, in the Roman world, Atellana (> Atellana fabula) and Mimus (> MimosII.). II]. AFFECTIVE FORMS OF RECEPTION Remarks on the categories of effect in — historiography — which operate with categories such as voluptas, delectatio (pleasure, delight), dramatic enhancement, tension or fascination through miraculous objects — can serve as a theoretical starting-point (Cic. Fam. 5,125 Cic. Fin. 5,51-52; Vitr. De arch. praef. 5,1). The background is Hellenistic historiography (so-called tragic writing of history; > Ctesias; historiography around the figure of Alexander [4]: Callisthenes [1], Nearchus [2], Cleitophon, > Onesicritus; cf. > Alexander Romance), which, on the one hand, dramatizes and personalizes events, and, on the other hand, enriches them with miraculous and fantastic elements. To varying degrees, these elements also appear in the socalled early > annalists, in Livy [III 2] and, above all, in the historiography of the high Imperial period (> Appianus; Herodianus [2]; Cassius [III 1] Dio) as well as in

biographical literature (Plutarchus [2]; Suetonius [2]; Historia Augusta) and in the imaginary, mythico-historical eyewitness reports of Dares [3] and Dictys Cretensis (> Troy, romance of). Comparable tendencies can also be seen in Christian literature — particularly in the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (cf. ~ Thomas, Gospel of; > Peter, Acts of; > New Testament apocrypha) and in hagiography (— Acta Sanctorum), which

demonstrate, in part, virtually novelistic features. Related reader interests are also served by Hellenistic and Imperial-period > travel literature, which operates with the mirabile, the ‘miracle’, as an impulse to travel and read, independent of the degree of fictionalization, ranging from the fantastic journey (+ Euhemerus;

II. OCCASIONAL LIGHT READING

LIGHT READING

> Jambulus; Antonius [3] Diogenes; Lucianus [1])

to the travel report (Licinius [II 14] Mucianus) and socalled periegetic literature (Pausanias [8]; cf. > Periegetes). The special disposition of the traveller to the corresponding reading is illustrated by Gellius 9,4. The same is systematically offered by the > paradoxographi (Antigonus [7] of Carystus; > Phlegon of Tralleis). Tension, fear, dramatic form, emotional excess, the attraction of exotic locations and erotic fascination, as well as the affective involvement of the reader are also constitutive features of the ancient > novel (> Chariton; Xenophon of Ephesus; — Longus; — Achilles Tatius [1]; Heliodorus [8]; Petronius [5]; Ap(p)uleius

LIGHT READING

555

[III]; + Historia Apollonii regis Tyrii, among others). This style of reception, determined by the elements of amazement, curiositas (curiosity), compassion for the

acting characters and delight in the plot, is implicitly (e.g. Heliodorus 1,1-6) or explicitly (e.g. Apul. Met. 1,1; 2,3) provided by the authors. The typified plot (above all, in the erotic novels from Chariton to Heliodorus) and the critical remarks on ancient novels (SHA Alb. 12,12; Macrob. In Somn. 1,2,7) also help to make

this kind of text appear as LR par excellence. > Banquet III. B. 6.; > Buntschriftstellerei; > Deliciae;

+ Gastronomical poetry; - New Testament apocrypha; - Novel; > Novella; > Paradoxographi; > Riddles; > Recreation C.; > Travel literature; - Symposium literature; > Testamentum Porcelli 1

E.Bowrr, The Ancient Readers of Greek Novel, in:

G.SCHMELING (ed.), The Novel in the Ancient World (Mnemosyne Suppl. 159), 1996, 87-106 2TH. HAGG,

The Novel in Antiquity, 1983

3 J. HAHN, Der Philosoph

und die Ges., 1989 4 N.Hotzpera, Novel-like Works of Extended Prose Fiction IJ, in: s. [1], 619-653 5 G. HuBERREBENICH, Hagiographic Fiction as Entertainment, in: H.HormMann (ed.), Latin Fiction, 1999, 187-212

6 R. KANNICHT, Der alte Streit zw. Philos. und Dichtung, in: AU 23.6, 1980, 6-36 7 M.Korenyjak, Publikum und Redner (Zetemata 104), 2000

8 S. MERKLE, News from

the Past: Dictys and Dares on the Trojan War, in: s. [5], 155-166 9K.SALLMANN, Erzahlendes in der Apologia des Apuleius, oder: Argumentation als Unterhaltung, in: Groningen Colloquia on the Novel 6, 1995, 137-157 10 TH. ScHMItTz,

Bildung

und

Macht

(Zetemata

97),

1997 11 R.STONEMAN, The Alexander Romance: From History to Fiction, in: J.R. MorGan, R. STONEMAN (ed.), Greek Fiction. The Greek Novel in Context, 1994, 117-

129 12 M.ZIMMERMANN, Enkomion und Historiographie: Entwicklungslinien der kaiserzeitlichen Historiographie,

in: Id.

(ed.),

Gesch.-Schreibung

und _ polit.

Wandel im 3. Jh. n. Chr. (Historia ES 127), 1999, 17-56.

H. KR.

Ligo see > Hoe

Ligula see

Crockery

556 the pre-Roman necropoleis of Chiavari and Genoa); in

the hinterland primitive and militant, bound to nomadism by > transhumance, agriculture with pastures and forests, robbery (remains: rock drawings of Monte Bego, ruins of fortifications, e.g. Monte Bignone, Castellaro di Vezzola, Monte Castellaro di Zignago). Greek tradition (mythical, géo-ethnographic) takes a favourable view of the L., emphasizing their virtues and physical strength (Poseid. FGrH 87 F 58a); the Roman tradition speaks of both negative (falseness, mendacity: Cato Orig. fr. 31 HRR) and positive sides (Verg. Aen. 10,185-197). Confrontations between the

Romans and the L. occurred in the intervals 238-230, 201-154 and 125-122 BC. L. served as mercenaries with the Carthaginians (Pol. 1,17,4; 7,9,5). Following an initial victory (in 236: InscrIt 13,1,549), the Romans

defeated the Apuani (233), the Celeiates, the Cerdiciates and the Ilvates (197: Liv. 32,29,7), the Apuani and the Friniates (187: Liv. 39,2,1), the Ingauni (18: InscrIt 13,1,5 54), the Apuani (180), who were deported in large numbers (first 40,000, then 7,000) to Samnium

(Liv. 40,38,1-5; 41,3f.), the Statielli (173), whose oppidum Carystum was destroyed (Liv. 42,7,3-10), the Oxybi and the Deciates (154: Pol. 33,9,9), the Salluvii and the Vocontii (125-122: InserIt 13,1,559f.); in 117 BC the final triumph over the L. (Stoeni) was celebrated (InscrIt 13,1,560); subjugation was completed with the

victory over the Capillati or Comati in the Alpes Maritimae (14 BC: Cass. Dio 44,24,3). In order to Romanize the area, the Romans

built

extensive roads: via Postumia (in 148: Str. 5,1,11), via

Fulvia (125: Tab. Peut. 3,4f.), via Aemilia Scauri(115 or 109: Vir. ill. 72,8), via Iulia Augusta (13/2: CIL V, 953). The communities (oppida, conciliabula, fora, vici), i.e.

old settlements of the indigenous people and Roman foundations, were granted the > ius Latii (89 BC), the status of civitas Romana

(49 BC) or of municipium

(possibly not Dertona, if this town actually was a colonia), under IJ viri or III viri, in the tribus Pollia, Camilia, Publilia, Pomptina, Maecia, Tromentina, Galeria. After the Augustan administrative reform, L. was regio IX with the following centres: Album Intimilium,

Ligures, Liguria (Aiyvec; Ligyes). Pre-Indo-European

Album Ingaunum, Vada Sabatia, Genua, Libarna, Der-

tribe, intermarried with Indo-European > Celts, possibly immigrated from northern Europe (Plut. Marius 19,3—5) to northern Italy. Originally widespread in the

tona, Iria, Vardacates, Industria, Pollentia, Carrea or Potentia, Forum Fulvii, Augusta Bagiennorum, Alba Pompeia, Hasta, Aquae Statiellae (Plin. HN 3,5,48f.).

western Mediterranean (Iberia, Gaul, northern Italy to

Early in the 4th cent. AD, the region was conjoined with the Aemilia to the dioecesis Italiciana or Italia annonaria as Liguria et Aemilia (Ambr. Epist. 63,1). In the 6th cent. AD it was also referred to as > Alpes Cottiae; in AD 570 there was a severe outbreak of the plague in the area (Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum yA)

Latium, Sicily), the L. were driven back by population shifts into the area between the Alps and the Padus (Po):

remains of Old Stone Age cultures (e.g. the caves of

Balzi Rossi, Arene Candide); Lepontic inscriptions; terminology, onomastic and toponomastic traces of their non-Indo-European language, intermixed with the Celtic language. The ethnikon Atyuc (Ligys, Lat. Ligus), of unclear etymology (possibly from the Indo-European stem */ig, ‘mud’), encompassed many tribes with different names (Plin. HN 3,5,47) and living conditions: along the coastlines affluent, progressive, open to urban forms of living, navigation, trade and piracy (remains:

A.M. PINELLI, s.v. L., in: Dizionario epigrafico di antichita romane 4, 1959, 1055-1067; G. Forni (ed.), Fontes Ligurum et Liguriae antiquae, 1976; E.SALOMONE GaG-

GERO et al., Bibliografia ligure, in: Quaderni franzoniani I-15, 1988-1995. M.G.A.B.

Dow

558

Liguri, Ligurians see > Ligures, Liguria

Late Helladic age and continuity of settlement is certain until the Byzantine period (fortifications, ring wall, tower from the Hellenistic-Roman period). Destroyed by Philip II, rebuilt after 338 BC, attacked by Philip V

Ligurian Language of the > Ligures (Greek Aiyvec;

Ligyes) who are regarded by ancient authors as the original population of the northern Mediterranean coast between the Pyrenees and Etruria. The name Liguria, which refers to the furthest south-west of upper Italy, provides a definite link with the name of the people. We know next to nothing about the pre-Roman language of this region, and there are no extant texts; typical of personal names on Latin inscriptions, which are attested only in Liguria, are the suffixes -anius and -elius; the same area is perhaps the core territory of the place and river names based on -asca, -usco- and similar names that are widespread in the western Alps; all suffixes and preceding elements continue to lack a clear connection with other languages. — Lepontic J. UNTERMANN, in: Sybaris. FS ligure, lingua Riv. di Studi

Zu einigen PN auf lat. Inschr. in Ligurien, H. Krahe, 1958, 177-188; U. SCHMOLL, II] mediterranea o dialetto indoeuropeo, in: Liguri 25, 1959, 132-138; M.LeyEUNE,

Lepontica, 1971, 133-144; F. VILLAR, Los indoeuropeos y los origenes de Europa, *1996, 384-389. JU.

Ligurius Uncommon gentilicium name that is unlikely to be related to the tribe of the > Ligures and that is epigraphically attested during the Republic in Rome (CIL I* 1092) and Praeneste (CIL I* 1449). SCHULZE 523, Nn. 4.

{1] L., A. Friend of Caesar and the brothers of Cicero (Cic. Att. 11,9,2), died during the Civil War in 47 BC (Cic. Fam. 16,18,3f.). [2] L., Cn. Fellin 197 BC as military tribune in the battle

against the Ligurians in Gallia Cisalpina (Liv. 33,22,8). TER. Ligus Roman cognomen (‘Ligurian’), in the Republican period in the families of the Aelii (Aelius [I 5 and 6]), Octavii and other (unknown) families. KajANTO, Cognomina, 196; D.R. SHACKLETON Onomasticon to Cicero’s Letters, 1995, 63.

BAILEY, K.-L.E.

Liknites see > Dionysus

Liknon see > Threshing Lilaea (Aiiata; Lilaia, Ptol. 3,14,4; Athavov; Lilaion, schol. Pind. Pyth. 1,121). City in Phocis at the Cephisus sources (Hom. II. 2,523; Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 385; Str. 9,2,10; Paus. 10,3 5,5); named after the daughter of the river god Cephisus (Paus. 10,33,4); cf. the coins of L. [x. 17f.]; HN 3393 343). L. lies on the north-eastern slope of the > Parnassus in a strategically favourable position on the traffic axis between the upper Cephisus valley and the Pleistus valley, c. 33 km from Delphi (Paus. 10,33,2). Finds come from the prehistoric to the

LILYBAEUM

ING) 200)D

Gi(Pauisan0,350715 353)

1R.T. Witiiams, The Silver Coinage of the Phokians, 1972. Pu.

NTasios,

Luupody

otmv tomoyeahia

tic “Aoyatas

®wxidac, in: Phokika Chronika 4, 1992, 12f.; PHILIPPSON/KIRSTEN 1, Toff., 258ff.; W.K. PrircHeTT, Stud. in Ancient Greek Topography, 4, 1982, 218; F.SCHOBER,

Phokis, 1924, 35f.; L.B. T1LLarpD, The Fortifications of Phokis, in: ABSA 17, 1910/1, 6off.; F.E. WInTER, Greek

Fortifications, 1971, 141; TIB 1, 202.

G.D.R.

Lily The lily, which was already used as a decorative flower in Cretan-Mycenaean art, deiguov/leirion — from this Latin lilium — or xeivov/krinon (Dioscorides; Theophr.) and xgwovia/krinonia (Theophr. Hist. pl. 2,2,1). The adjective heiowerc/leirideis

(‘lily-like’ or ‘tender’) is used by Homer II. 13,830 ironically for the skin of Ajax and 3,152 for the song of the cicadas, as well as Hes. Theog. 41 for that of the Muses. Persephone picks a lily (H. Hom. 2,427). Hdt. 2,92, however, calls the Egyptian > Lotus krinon. In Plin. HN 21,22-26 (according to Theophr. 6,6,8—9), the reddish lily that in view of its fame as well as its ointment and the oil extracted from it (lirinum; cf. Plin. HN 13,11;

oleum liliacium: Pall. Agric. 6,14) is very close to the + rose is called crinon (Plin. HN 21,24) but the purpurea lilia (ibid. 21,25) is supposed to be a narcissus, perhaps the Narcissus poeticus L. (witha purple calyx). There are details about the vegetative reproduction of the lily (through implanting of its stalks (Theophr. Hist. pl. 2,2,1) and its tubercules from the leaf axils (ibid. 6,6,8); as well as laying its bulbi (bulbs) in February (Pall. Agric. 3,21,3). The white lily, which according to Columella 9,4,4 was popular with bees as a garden plant, is said to have originated from Hera’s milk when she was feeding Hercules (Gp. 11,19). The leaves, sap, seed and root helped with the healing of wounds (Dioscorides 3,102 WELLMANN = 3,106 BERENDES). Aphrodite is supposed to have hated it because of its purity and to have implanted a pistil similar to the phallus of a donkey. For the Christians it was a symbol of purity and innocence as well as a symbol of Mary [1]. 1 M.PFISTER-BURKHALTER, s.v. L., LCI 3,r00—102.

F.OLckK, s.v. Gartenbau, RE 7, 792-794; V. HEHN, Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere, ed. O. SCHRADER, *1911, repr. 1963, 251-263.

C.HU.

Lilybaeum (AubBaov/Lilybaion, AUvpy/Lilybeé; Latin Lilybaeum, -on). Foothills (modern Capo Boeo) and

town (modern Marsala) in the most western part of Sicily, c. 140 km from > Carthage; founded by the Carthaginians and heavily fortified after the Punic base ~ Motya had been destroyed in 397 BC by Dionysius I. The fortress defied repeated attacks by the Greeks (in

LILYBAEUM

559

368 under Dionysius, in 277/76 under Pyrrhus) and Romans, to whom it fell only through the peace treaty of 241 BC. In spite of its minor legal status as a civitas censoria in the province of Sicily, L. remained one of the richest cities on the island because of the flourishing maritime trade (Cic. Verr. 2,5,10) and was therefore also the residence of one of the two quaestors of the province. Greatly exploited by — Verres (Cic. Verr. 2,4,32ff.). From Augustus a municipium, from Pertinax

a colonia Helvia Augusta. L. had a regular city plan with various building phases (investigation made more difficult because it has been built over in modern times), and was protected on two sides by the sea, in the north-west, north-east and south-east by a ring wall and moat; harbour basin in the north, north-west and south-west. North-east of the settlement there was a necropolis [1] with rich finds attested from the 4th to the rst cents. BC. 1B.BEcHTOLD,

La necropoli di Lilybaeum

(Marsala),

1999.

B. GAROZZO, s.v. L., EAA?, 3, 363-366; V. Tusa, s.v. L.,

PE soof.

GLF.andE.O.

Lima see > Tools

Limbus Ribbon, braid or trimming with a wide variety of meanings. Limbus describes the head band and the belt and even more so the edging and hem on garments (Ov. Met. 6, 127; Verg. Aen. 4,137) that could also be colourful or made of gold (Ov. Met. 5, 51). The band that runs across the celestial globe and contains the zodiac was also called the limbus (Varro, Rust. 2,3,7, — Zodiac). Limbi were also the cords on the nets of hunters and fishermen. RH.

Lime The technique used by the Greeks, of binding the individual blocks in quarried-stone walls by means of variously formed metal clamps, was adopted by the Romans for their monumental architecture. Besides that, they early on used mortar made of lime and sand as a bounding agent in house building. Thus, lime, which in Greece had been used primarily for the roughcast of buildings, acquired greater importance as a building material in the Roman period. Lime is obtained from limestone by burning at temperatures of some 1000°C; the calcium carbonate (CO,Ca) turns into calcium oxide (CaO; unslaked lime), which by reaction with water becomes calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH),; slaked lime). Lime (calx) is already mentioned by Cato (rst half of

the 2nd cent. BC) in directions for building a > villa or courtyard walls; the required lime had to be provided by the builder-owner, and was possibly burned on the estate. Cato gives a comprehensive description of a lime kiln (fornax calcaria) with a width of ro feet and a height of 20 feet, and recommends white limestone for burning (Cato Agr. 14-16; 38). A further early reference to the use of lime is the lex operum Puteolana (105

560 BC; ILS 5317). Vitruvius (rst cent. BC), who in his

survey of building materials devotes an entire chapter to lime, is of the opinion that lime obtained from hard stone is suitable for masonry, and that obtained from porous stone for roughcasting. For making mortar, three parts of pit sand or two parts of river or beach sand should be added to one part of lime. According to Vitruvius, lime gave strength to a structure by binding first with the sand and then with the stone (Vitr. De arch. 2,5). For use as ~ stucco, the lime had to be carefully slaked, otherwise cracks would occur in the roughcast (Vitr. De arch. 7,2); for sealing water pipes, on the other hand, unslaked lime was needed (calx viva; Vitr. De arch. 8,6,8). Pliny, who repeats the statements of Cato and Vitruvius, ascribes the frequent collapses of houses in Rome to the fact that too little lime was added to the mortar (Plin. HN 36,174-177; for the use in medicine cf. 36,180). In late antiquity, the burning of limestone and the supply of lime belonged among the munera sordida (+ Munus); privileged groups were expressly relieved of this obligation (Cod. Theod. 6,23,3-4; 11,16,15; 11,16,18). It was regulated that 3,000 wagon loads of lime had to be brought to Rome annually, half of which were destined for water pipes and repairing buildings (Cod. Theod. 14,6,3 from AD 365; cf. Nov. Valentiniani 5,1,4 from 440). In 349 the demolition of funerary monuments to obtain stone for burning was strictly forbidden (Cod. Theod. 9,17,2). A large complex of six lime kilns was excavated at Iversheim (near Bad Minstereifel) in the Rhineland; in

1969 one of the kilns was successfully restored to operation and 25 t of stone were burned; the experiment showed that some 9-10 days were required for a burning. A large number of inscriptions show that this complex was under the control of the legions stationed on the Rhine. + Construction technique; > Opus caementicium 1 ADAM, 69-76 2 G.ALFOLDY, Inschr. aus den K.-Brennereien der niedergerman. Legionen bei Iversheim (Kr. Euskirchen), in: Epigraphische Studien 5, 1968, 17-27 3 T. BECHERT, ROm. Germanien zw. Rhein und Maas, 1982, 189ff. 4 W.SOLTER, Rom. Kalkbrenner im Rheinland, 1970. H.SCHN.

Limenia (Awevia; Limenia). City on the north coast of + Cyprus [1]. L. also appears under the names Limen and Limnitis in early Christian texts, from which the existence of a harbour is apparent (discussed in [1. 17— 20]); this speaks against the inland location suggested by Str. 14,6,3. Remains near the modern Limniti show a short-term settlement as early as the Neolithic [2]. At the mouth of the river is a sanctuary with finds from the Archaic to Hellenistic periods [3]. 1 A. WesTHOLM, The Temples of Soloi, 1936 2 E. GyErRSTAD, Petra tou Limniti, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition I, 1934,1-12 3H.A. Tupss, Excavations at Limniti, in: JHS 11, 1890, 82-99.

561

562

Masson, 371, 404; E.OBERHUMMER,

5708.

s.v. L. (2), RE ip

RSE.

Limenius [1] (Aumioc; Liménios) from Athens. Choral lyric poet, composer of a paean to Apollo (127 BC), which

is preserved in an inscription on the treasury of the Athenians at Delphi. Besides the text itself, the notes of the tune for the kithara accompaniment are also provided: Paeonic-Cretan rhythm, the word accent taken up by the melody, highest variability in the use of keys. — Metre; > Athenaeus [7] E. PoHLManN, Denkmialer altgriech. Musik, 1970, 68-76; M.L. West, Ancient Greek Music, 1992, 293-301; L. KAprEL, Paian, 1992, 389-391.

Tike

[2] Ulpius L. was proconsul of Constantinople in AD 342. According to > Libanius, he brought about the latter’s removal from the city (Lib. Or. 1,45-47). In 347-349 he was simultaneously praef. praet. Italiae and praef. urbis Romae (Chron. min. 1,68 MOMMSEN; Cod. Theod. 9,21,6; 9,17,2). In 349 L. held the consulate. PLRE 1,510 (Ulpius L. 2). WP. Limes I. GENERAL IJ. BRITANNIA III. GERMANIA IV. RwAETIA V.DANUBE VI. NORTHERN NEAR East VII. SOUTHERN NEAR East VIII. AFRICAN PROVINCES I. GENERAL In the religious and administrative theory of the land surveyors, the Latin word limes denoted the path marking the boundary between two pieces of land, while in military and political usage (Tac. Ann. 1,50; Frontin. Str. 1,3,10) it meant the border between Roman and non-Roman territory (SHA Hadr. 12). Over recent years, research has led the military connotation of the term limes, which has been used almost exclusively from the roth cent., to be expanded to comprehend also the historico-geographical and socio-economic fields. Where the /imites were originally seen as imperial boundaries which were designed to be impervious, they are today understood more as a comprehensive imperial border control system, whose design differed according to the prevailing circumstances of landscape, strategy, history, politics and economics. Beginning with the limes in Britain, the system continued through the Rhine and Danube provinces and extended as far as the constituent provinces of Anatolia, Syria, Arabia and Africa. It was succeeded in the 3rd cent. AD by various concepts in response to changed political and military conditions. The material traces, however, left behind in the landscape by the Roman Empire’s frontier system draw the observing eye to the military aspects of the limes; for this reason such aspects are also emphasized here. + Auxilia; > Burgus; —> Castellum [I 1]; — Castra; + Legio (with map); > Limitanei; > Vallum E.O.

LIMES

Il. BRITANNIA The establishment of a fortified northern frontier in ~ Britannia began during Trajan’s reign, from AD 103 onwards. The course of the /imes ran across the isthmus between the mouth of the Tyne and the Solway Firth, following the course of a road laid according to strategic criteria, the ‘Stanegate’ [1]. Along this line a series of camps, fortlets and turrets was built to support patrols in the north. Five years after the accession of Hadrian, in AD 122 or later, the construction of a permanent frontier fortification just north of the Stanegate was ordered [2]. According to the original plan, the limes from the Tyne to the Solway — more precisely the River Irthing —- was to have had a stone rampart for long stretches. In fact, however, to the west of the Irthing, this rampart was initially built of turf, probably owing to a lack of lime mortar. A ditch ran in front of the rampart, whether or not the landscape rendered it superfluous. According to the original plan, individual fortlets (milecastles) were to lie along the rampart each at a distance of one Roman mile apart; two turrets were to stand equidistant, in pairs between every two milecastles. The garrison was to be stationed in forts (> Castellum) behind the limes. However, during construction, it was decided to build the forts directly into the rampart. There were twelve such forts and two on the Solway shore. Later, two more were added to the rampart. A final element was a broad ditch with two ramparts, the vallum, behind the frontier fortification, designed to prevent unauthorized access. In the west, there were a number of outpost forts in front of the border, to protect the exposed flank. The purpose of this limes was, in the words of the emperor Hadrian’s biographer, ‘to separate Romans from Barbarians’ (SHA Hadr. 12,6). Hadrian’s Wall was scarcely completed when a new fortified frontier was established. After campaigns against the northern tribes in AD 140, the governor Q. ~ Lollius [II 4] Urbicus built a straight rampart of turf and earth across the central Scottish isthmus [3]. The purpose of this new limes is unclear (SHA Antoninus Pius 5,4). Hadrian’s Wall probably had no more contact with the arch-enemies of Rome; it is also conceivable that, after twenty years of peace, military interests were seeking a new outlet for expansion at the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius. Although shorter than Hadrian’s Wall (40 Roman miles as against 80), the Antonine Wall followed the same pattern. A predominantly tactical boundary, it ran directly from the Firth of Forth to the Firth of Clyde. Fortlets similar to the milecastles of Hadrian’s Wall stood short distances apart. A total of 16 forts stood on the limes. A broad ditch ran in front of the rampart, but nothing to correspond with the vallum was provided behind. A few outpost forts covered the eastern flank of the frontier towards the north. The Antonine Wall was only in use for a short time. It was temporarily evacuated around AD 163, apparently under pressure from the northern tribes, only to be retaken in AD 165/6 and then finally

2S

wn

/ fas

ad

sTSUELIPSEPD BrURINeY]

ee

y

eoIsIo-)

cid

ieer

Ces

o/siSuLy

eupy iy

PrUPJaNL|\]

porjeegr

“

NJOA

=


/

aoeUOJJa

rouea

aPAON.

Jeaepny ye

JeINUIAGIgJapsog

Es Fr

tL Crouating oe iS *

y

ANAS tr;

PIaJUSIPDy ZN

/” /

Ses

y

uewoy auidwgGY)

\

Ber 5,

nwoy/eew ,

}

(SLL

3

ie eo i

: aa ¥

sapun uefesGY) aduaniul

se

ne

Ja1}UOI4 JNOYY!M asayds jo Jo yewoy ay} JanUo.y 40 L___}

ow2

ae

ey €|ae . maison =ePan

be

ie "

asVv

_______=

:

pale

_aemod 3

ears GE

aacody

stTsudUOqIEN eo: sedi

Warne

—.

a

‘SUOIPEDIJIPOJ

ae

anakce sedty._} fenseny Ohi doyeneg, Saas 1

eS

adedrsegs PO

ny

j

é

=

euewiy /

oy

Nee

jevexours3!

5A

(Aqujesezns__

Jepun)~ C—uRwoy

poyjo

/,

;

eHowede

(GV ‘Ua puz) asidwiy uewoy ay} jo ssalzUO’ 9YL

¥

Oe

>

as

OW:

wera

Balpsae>

tees | an es iin sisuauodeie

5

N.

eNO

s

mang

ae 4

7

DES

©

PN

eyAydureg

Se,

oseypyey4

{ Wmopos0ing © LA y

.

a

O,

2

wert

ease euay2 \ Tone agePO or yay bI° SD

| easoO

ee

yetids

5

‘BIUO|OD

roAtto

ee

gpa \Poveydedqy

o

ee v

uiddusy’

BIaysoUuy

‘

4

sisuatbag

\

T1IV Ome Sica \

8

\o \

\ OV

Sa FRY Ss

ae

ae “o

{ og way )

\

= uoydisayy} i|

oe,

%

oA

=a Buus>; \wimreiodose yt ae ‘ ewishez

P x

eyesowwes pe, Le

.

eo

ie {

Y

. ouapbunnos It si

M4

ste OSES MA

ee,

iN

SA

‘Bny / winoaAan: ih

" eudssy

\ :

un

.0P

w

+

pe

LIMES

See

ty

ono /eWA|OSOJ2IH,

feujoyded

e1jsO0g

eiay

wajesmiap~

| @/ewAjososaiH

f@PHed

= ? eIqely

PIOJPUPXa|Y

2

jo PID

\

565

566

@

|

LIMES

Porta Decumana

Ditch

a

Intervallum

Retentura r) io)

® ° = = 3) 5

Via Quintana

SUBRINSeS IA,

SUBINSeS PIA

Porta Principalis Dextra

1:

Via Principalis

(aa

UUM |

PUOJEld PIA Praetentura

Porta

Principalis

Sinistra.

Main buildings in an oy.

ae

aUxiliary fort:

1 Headquarters (principia) 2 Commander's accomodation (praetorium) 3 Grain stores (horrea) 4 Barracks

(centuriae with 10 contubernia each) 5 Stores or stables Latrines

Ovens built against the defensive wall Porta Praetoria

abandoned before AD 168 [4]. The reason for its being

relinquished is unclear. The frontier was pulled back to Hadrian’s Wall, which, apart from a brief period in the early 3rd cent., when Septimius Severus attempted to reconquer eastern Scotland, remained the northern frontier of Britannia until the end of Roman provincial administration in the early 5th cent. Forts on Hadrian’s Wall (from east to west): Segedunum (modern Wallsend), Pons Aelius (modern Newcastle), Condercum (modern Benwell), Vindobala (modern Rudchester), Onnum (modern Halton Chesters), Cilurnum (modern Chesters), Brocolitia (modern Carrawburgh), Vercovicium (modern Housesteads), Aesica (modern Great Chesters), Magnae (modern Carvoran), Banna (modern Birdoswald), Camboglanna (modern Castlesteads), Uxelodunum (modern Stanwix), Aballava (modern Burgh-bySands), Congavata (modern Drumburgh), Maia (mod-

ern Bowness-on-Solway). Forts on the Antonine Wall (from east to west): Veluniate (modern Carriden); the ancient names of the following forts are unknown: Inveravon, Mumrills, Fal-

kirk, Watling Lodge, Rough Castle, Castlecary, Westerwood, Croy Hill, Bar Hill, Auchendavy, Kirkintilloch,

Glasgow Bridge, Cadder, Wilderness Plantation, Balmuildy, Summerston,

Bearsden, Castlehill, Cleddans,

Duntocher, Old Kilpatrick.

1D.J. Breeze, B. Dosson, Hadrian’s Wall, 1987, 19-24 2 D.J. BREEZE, The Northern Frontiers of Roman Britain, 1982, 87. 3 W.Hanson, G. MAxwELL, Rome’s NorthWest Frontier, 1989 45S.S. FRERE, Britannia, 1987, 13 5-

I4I. E. Birvey, Research on Hadrian’s Wall, 1961;J.COLLINGwoop Bruce, Handbook to the Roman Wall, 1979,; G.MacDonaLp, The Roman Wall in Scotland, 1934; Ordnance Survey. Hadrian’s Wall, 1964; Ordnance Survey. The Antonine Wall, 1969; G.MAXWELL, The Romans in Scotland, 1989; C.E. Stevens, The Building of Hadrian’s Wall, 1966. M.TO. Maps: A.JOHNSON, Rom. Kastelle, 1987; R.J. A. TatBERT (ed.), Atlas of Classical History, 1985 (repr. 1994),

BBin

II]. GERMANIA In view of the changes that took place in military conceptions, hence also in the course and structure of lines of fortification over the centuries, the Germanic limes can in no way be seen as a single, cohesive system. Accordingly, the frontier zones will be distinguished by their course as limites, where limes serves as the designation merely of a system of fortification facilities, without further conceptual differentiation. With his conquest of > Gallia, Caesar had established the Rhine (> Rhenus) as the frontier line with the Germanic Barbaricum. In the course of the conquest of the Alpine

568

567

LIMES

vallum Antonini ‘.

Drumquhassle

A

-

ca

:

Carron

Mycenaean. As in the case of the older + Linear A, the character signs of this writing system consist of lines (+ Greece, writing systems).

Translation b. A (war)chariot, from Phaestus,

equipped with wheels, with wooden harness, purple-red,

oe equipped with reins, with leather blinkers,

with a horn snaffle.

Time (period, duration)

Late LM II (c. 1420-1400) Late LM III A (c. 1375-

Find spots (hands, texts) KN (hand ‘124’) KN (remaining texts); PY

1350)

(hand 91); vases (KN Z

The concentration in three regions (a) Crete (Knossos = KN [1; 2; 7], Khania = KH [5; 6; 7], Armenoi = AR, Mallia = MA, Mamelouko = MAM [7]), (b) Pelo-

Early LM IIIB (c. 1280)

TH (all texts); MY (majority of the texts); KH (all

ponnese with Argolid (Mycenae = MY [4; 7], Tiryns = TI [4; 7], Midea = MI) and with Messenia (Pylos = PY [3]) as well as (c) central Greece with Attica (Eleusis = EL [7]) and Boeotia (Thebes = TH [4; 7], Creusis = KR [7], Orchomenus = OR [7]) corresponds largely with the expansion of Mycenaean culture in the Late Bronze

Late LM III B (c. 1220—-

PY (remaining texts); MY

1180)

(Oi 701-706, 708; X 707; Fu 711); vases (remaining texts), IL (2)

B. FIND sPoTS

Age (see map).

1715)

texts)

The use of Linear B in Crete reveals that the island had been under Greek rule since at least the mid 15th cent. BC; vases (all of Cretan origin) further attest the

C. WRITING MATERIALS

use of Linear B after the decline of the centres of power

Clay is the sole writing material: (a) Tablets in palm

KN and KH, simultaneously with the use on the main-

leaf or page format, (b) vases (stirrup-jars) [7] and (c)

land. Two writing periods can now be established for

pellets with short texts — mostly tables of content — used

each KN [8], PY and MY.

as seals on woven (labels) or wooden (nodules) contain-

ers. The characters are scratched into tablets and pellets, but superficially applied to the vases with brushes and paint. Other writing materials such as papyrus are not extant, but conceivable. D. DATING Newer research shows that the Linear B texts known

today originated during the course of over 200 years. The oldest testimonies are from KN (Late Minoan [= LM] II), the youngest (LM III B) from the mainland [9. 15-18]:

E. WRITING SYSTEM Linear B is a syllabic script, consisting of about 90 characters for pure vowels and open syllabies of simple (e.g. pa, te, mo) and complex form (e.g. pte, two, nwa; further ai, au). Some rarer characters have not yet been deciphered (with certainty). Ideograms [18], characters indicating measures and weights as well as numbers (always at the closing of an entry, never within a text as in the Near East) can also be found. A small vertical line serves to separate words. Due to its conception, apparently already established in Linear A, the writing system is only conditionally suited for the phonetic rendition of Greek. Undesignated are vowel quantity, the opposition of /r/ : /I/(cf. pu-ro/Pulos/), geminates, the aspirate (exception /ha/), accent location and intonation, further the type of articulation in most cases of stops

on

618

Linear B: numerals

Linear B: deciphered syllabic characters

| =

a

>

=

1

=

10

LINEAR B

Example: 13758

= 100

-a

© 6; _@> OO0C0

6;

GOR

— Ill

ate ||

= 1000

Monophthong | ‘11 08

Diphthong a
Deci-

aed

tine

Bical lassi| alibsAislabyeal, ween

Numbers according to Bennett

— Script;

ees

Ge

Linear B, undeciphered syllabic characters

- Mycenaean;

50

aerhie

F, TEXTS AND SCRIBES Exclusively administrative texts, mostly in note form, are composed in Linear B, i.e. instructions, inventories, deliveries and allocations of persons, animals, and goods, furthermore receivables and deficits of the accounting year in which the respective residence was destroyed by fire. Most of the texts stem from archives or locations that reveal utilization by a specific craft or trade. Although purely pragmatic texts, they indirectly shed light on different areas of Mycenaean culture, administration and economy. Particularities in the characteristic writing style allow the distinction between different scribes. The large number of scribes in individual locations (KN: 75-100 [14]; PY: 40 [15]; MY: 12), often with minor writing activity, suggests that those working in administrative positions kept account in their respective areas of operation themselves. Koine;

A

noe:

t

eeu

|

25

pa

(e.g. /pa, ba, p’a/ with the exception of /tal : /da/). Consonant groups are, insofar as no special characters such as dwe exist, written defectively (omission of an element, cf. pa-i-to/P’aistos/, especially within a word) or plene (with ‘mute’ vowel., cf. ko-noso /Knos(s)os/, especially at the beginning of a syllable). Simple consonants at the end of a word are not considered in Linear B —a great shortcoming for an inflecting language. Its organization shows that Linear B was an original creation, conceived in close familiarity with Linear A and the — hieroglyphic script of Crete: almost half of the characters of B appear in the inventory of A as well

A 10

are az

aS:

=e

Numbers according to Bennett

si simian alt y 82

83

84

86

foeea a a

88

89

pherment Epns.: 1 J.T. KILwen, J.-P. OLtvier, The KN Tablets. A Transliteration, 51989 2 J.CHADwick, L.Goparretal., Corpus of Mycenaean Inscriptions from KN, vol. 1, 1986;

2, 19903 3, 19973 4, 1998. PY:

3E.L. BENNETT Jr., J.-P. Oxivier, The PY Tablets

Transcribed, vol. 1, 1973; 2, 1976. 4J.L. MELENA, J.P. Oxrvier, TITHEMY. The Tablets and Nodules from TI, TH and MY. A Revised Transliteration, 1991

5 E. HALLAGER, M. ViaAsakis et al., The First L.B Tablet(s) from KH, in: Kadmos 29, 1990, 24-34 6 Id., New L.B

Tablets from KH, in: Kadmos 31, 1992, 61-87. Vases: 7 A.SACCONI, Corpus delle iscrizioni vascolari in lineare B, 1974. 8 J.DriEssEN, An Early Destruction in the Mycenaean Palace atKN, 1990 91. HayNat, Sprach-

schichten des myk. Griech., 1997. 10 A. HEuBECK, Aus der Welt der frihgriech. Lineartafeln, 1966 11 HEvBECK, 23-54 12 St. HILER, O.PANAGL, Die frithgriech.

LINEAR B

Texte aus myk. Zeit,*1986 13 J.T. Hooker, Linear B: An Introduction, 1980 14 J.-P. OLtviER, Les scribes de Cnossos, 1967. 15 TH. G. Patarma, The Scribes of PY, 1988 16 L.R. PALMER, The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts, 1963 17 A.SAccONI, Introduzione ad un corso di filologia micenea, 1990 ~—-18 F. VANDEN-

ABEELE, J.-P. OLtIviEeR, Les ideogrammes archéologiques du linéaire B, 1979 19 VENTRIS/CHADWICK. Maps: A.Morpurco

Davies,

Y. DuHOvx

1984 Survey, 1988, 12.

(ed.), L.B: A

RP.

Linen, flax I. GENERAL II. ANCIENT NEAR East CIENT CULTIVATION AND PROCESSING OF USE IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

III. ANIV. TYPES

I. GENERAL Linen (Atvov/linon, Lat. linum) or flax belongs to the

family of Geraniaceae. Linum angustifolium is considered the original form of cultivated flax. The use of this wild, perennial plant is archaeologically proven for the Neolithic period in Europe. Common

620

619

flax (Linum

usitatissimum),

an annual

plant, has a delicate stalk with oblong, sessile leaves, and reaches a height of 60-90 cm. The stalks form the raw material from which the most important spinning material, after wool, can be extracted. The valuable

fibres lie in bundles around a core of wood and pith under the epidermis of the stalk. All of these components are tightiy bound together by pectin. Oil, foodstuffs, luxury consumables and medicines could be manufactured from the seeds. Pliny reported extensively on the cultivation and processing of flax (Plin. HN 19,2-25), which is documented for Egypt, Gaul, Italy and Spain (Plin. HN

19,7—11; for Gaul cf. Str. 4,2,2).

AP.-G.

1 Chicago Assyrian Dictionary K, 1972, s.v. kit, 473475 2 Chicago Assyrian Dictionary $/1, 1989, s.v. SamasSammu, 306f. 3 H.WAETZOLDT, s.v. L., RLA 6,

583-94

4 W.GUGLIELMI, s.v. L., LA 3, 999.

JRE.

III]. ANCIENT CULTIVATION AND PROCESSING Flax requires nutrient-rich soil, should be thickly sown, and harvested before the seeds are mature. With the harvest began a series of laborious and time-consuming tasks, which required a great deal of experience and manual skill. The aim was to separate the fibres from the remaining parts of the plant with as little damage as possible. According to Pliny, flax was sown in spring and harvested in summer, before the seeds were swollen and the plant became yellow. The stalks were pulled up, i.e. torn out of the ground with the roots, and the stems bound together in manageable bundles. For drying, they remained in the fields for several days (Plin. HN 19,7; 19,16). Freed (rippled) from the seed capsules and leaves, the flax was then retted. The stalk bundles were

submerged in water (retting) and weighted down. During the retting, a fermentation process takes place, which breaks down the pectin and loosens the layer of fibres from the bark and the woody core. The method and duration of the retting influences the quality, colour and lustre of the linen. Once the stalks were dried (dehydrated), the flax was bleached. The stalks, which

had become stiff through drying, were broken with a wooden hammer (stupparius malleus) on hard ground until the woody parts became detached from the fibres. Then followed the hackling with an iron comb (xteic/ kteis, Lat. ferreus hamus). In this process, handfuls were combed until the unusable fibres were removed and the shorter fibres were separated from the longer (Plin. HN 19,17). The waste which resulted, the tow (ovbs/stypé, Lat. stuppa), was used for manufacturing

Il. ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Flax is archaeologically proven as a textile raw material from the Neolithic (6th/sth millennia) in Egypt, Anatolia and northern Syria, and documented in texts from the 3rd millennium in Mesopotamia and Egypt, and in the znd millennium BC in Asia Minor. In Egypt, garments were almost exclusively made of linen, to a lesser extent in Mesopotamia (c. 90% of wool). The manufacture of linen (retting, bleaching, breaking, hackling) is depicted in Egypt from the 3rd millennium. To manufacture a linen cloth of 6 x 2 m, 375 bundles (that can each be held in one hand) of flax are needed (Mesopot., cf. [1. 473]). The quality of linen cloth ranges from coarse to silky texture (Egypt, archaeologically proven). Linen cloth played an important role in Egypt and Mesopotamia, above all in worship (clothing of priests, gods’ robes) and as a mummification material in Egypt. Linseed was used in Mesopotamia for medical purposes (crushed, ground, roasted) and as incense. It is controversially debated whether the Samassammu used in Mesopotamia chiefly for manufacturing > oil denotes linseed or sesame [3. 588; 2. 306f.|

coarse fabric, for upholstery, and for ropes and twine. The spun fibres were beaten on rocks in the water (polire), and the woven linen beaten with sticks. These

processes improved the quality of the cloth. IV. TYPES OF USE IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

There was a great variety of linen qualities, from coarse to extremely fine. There are numerous literary references to the production of linen cloths and their use for clothing. Its special properties — light, cool, dirt and even louse resistant — predestined the material for the production of textiles. Linen cloth has been found in tombs from Eretria (late Geometric) and Eleusis (mid

5th cent. BC). Even breastplates were made from this material (Hom. Il. 2,529; 2,830; Hdt. 3,47; for the armour of Amasis cf. Plin. HN 19,12). Navigation re-

quired linen for sailmaking; it also proved to be wellsuited for hunting- and fishing-nets (Xen. Cyn. 2,4; Plin. HN

19,r1of.). At Roman

theatre

productions,

awnings (velum) acted as protection against the sun (Plin. HN 19,23f.). Linen was also used as a medium for images in painting (Plin. HN 35,51), and in the manufacture of books (— liber linteus).

621

622

Some cities, such as Tarsus (Dion. Chrys. 34,21ff.), Panopolis in Egypt (Str. 17,1,41) and Colchis on the Black Sea (Str. 11,2,17), were famous for their linen weaving. Price regulations for flax seeds and linen cloth

languages has permitted a reconstruction of the common ancestor all the way down to the details of the system of verbal forms. For example, Latin est and sunt

are handed down in the > Edictum Diocletiani (1,22;

26,1ff.); the most important places of production in antiquity are also named there. ~ Cotton; > Textiles, production of 1 E.J. W. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles, 1991 2 BLUMNER, Techn. 1, 191-199 3 R.J. ForBES, Studies in Ancient Technology 4, 1964, 27-43 4 V. Henn, Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere, t911 5 G. LosFELD, Essai sur le costume grec, 1991 6 J.P. WiLp, Textile Manufacture in the Northern Roman Provinces, 1970, 13-15. AP.-G.

Lingones Celtic people on the border between Gallia Lugdunensis and Gallia > Belgica, between the — Senones and the — Sequani (Str. 4,1,113; 3,43 6,11: Atyyovec/Lingones; Ptol. 2,9,9: Adyyovec/Longones).

The L. did not participate in the battles of the Gauls against Caesar (Caes. B Gall. 1,26,53 40,11; 7,9,43 63,73

Plut. Caesar 26,6; Cass. Dio 40,38; 66,3). Already foe-

derati at the time (Plin. HN 4,31), they gained Roman citizenship at the end of the rst cent. AD (Tac. Hist. 1,78,1). After AD 250, they belonged to the provincia Lugdunensis. Their capital was Andematu(n)num (modern Langres). E. FREZOULS (ed.), Les villes antiques de la France II. Germanie supérieure. 1: Besancon, Dijon, Langres, Mandeure, 1988. yeu

Linguistic affinity The realization that various > languages are genealogically related originated in antiquity. The works of Greek > grammarians already show that Latin was not only known to them as a language different from their own but that they also reflected upon the mutual relationship of the two. In fact, the conclusion of Philoxenus [8] — that Latin was descended ‘from the Aeolic dialect of Greek because neither possessed a dual’ (Philoxenus in Hdn., GG 3,2, p. 791, |. 28-30) — was somewhat akin to a first historically tangible result of a scientific perspective on linguistic affinity (LA) (cf. Tyrannion in Suda t 1185). Linguistics only developed as an independent science in the early 19th cent. when, based on research into Sanskrit, the agreement between it, the languages of European antiquity and other languages was shown to be systematic and to be historically explained with a common ‘origin’. The family of + Indo-European languages, which includes the classical languages of + Greek and — Latin as well as the > Celtic, > Germanic, — Iranian and various > Anatolian languages (e.g. > Hittite, > Lydian), was established then. It is the best-researched group of related languages derived from a common though no longer extant ‘predecessor’ (‘Proto-Indo-European’). Only the > Semitic languages permit comparable insights into their common prehistory. In fact, the comparison of attested Indo-European

LINUS

together with Greek éoti(v)/esti(n) and eioi(v)/eisi(n) (< Proto-Greek *ehenti) can be derived from Proto-Indo-

European *h_ésti and *h,sénti, which is also the base for Sanskrit dsti and sdnti, Old Avestian asti and honti, Hittite eszi and asanzi as well as German ist and sind. Modern German has preserved the original > ablaut of the 3rd person pl. (with -i- < -e-) better than Latin or Hittite, whose forms presume a substitution of -e- by -obased on — analogy [2]; the initial > laryngeal h, is only evident in Greek and Hittite as an indirect (vocalic) reflex. The ‘division’ of the ‘Proto-Indo-European mother language’ into the attested individual languages is best represented by a ‘family tree’. The individual languages are perceived as ‘branches’ that have developed from a common ‘trunk’ due to a universal tendency of human languages to continuously change at all levels (> Language change); the development of independent languages is preceded by dialect varieties (+ Language strata), with differentiation generally being favoured by geographical separation. Intermediate base languages must often be assumed between the attested individual languages and the common base language (e.g. ProtoGreek as the precursor of all Greek dialects or, not undisputed, Proto-Italic as the common ancestor of Latin and its Italic relatives). Mutual influence of different languages and varieties through > language contact results in typological, not genealogical LA. G. Meiser, Histor. Laut- und Formenlehre der lat. Spr., 1998, § 23-26; M.MerER-BRUGGER, Idg. Sprachwiss., 72000, 39-59; E. Ticuy, Indogermanistisches Grundwissen,

2000,

19-21.

EG;

Linguistic history see - Language change theory of Linguistic theory see > Language, philosophy and Lintearius see — Linen, flax Linter [1] see > Inland navigation; [2] see

> Wine

Linum see > Linen, flax Linus (Aivoc; Linos) presumably is the personification of the ritual

(Oriental?)

cry ailinon

(Phoenician

ai

lanu?), the refrain of the so-called L. song (Hom. Il.

18,569-570; Hes. fr. 305-306 M.-W.,; Pind. fr. 128c 6). According to this tradition, L. is the son of Apollo anda

Muse (Urania, Calliope, Terpsichore or Euterpe [1. 14; 2. 55]); the link with the - Muses is reflected in a cult on the + Helicon [1] (Paus. 9,29,5—6) and in Epidaurus (SEG 33, 3033 44, 332A). Argive women and maidens in an annual fesival lamented the death of L., who was torn apart as a young boy by his maternal grandfather’s hunting dogs (Callim. Fr. 26-31) [3. to8-113]. L. won the first prize for song (Hyg. Fab. 273, rof.) at the

LINUS

Argive funeral games for Pelias. Thebes reclaimed L. as a native hero and made him music teacher to > Hercules, who killed him in an attack of rage. This scene is often depicted on Attic red-figured vases of the early 5th cent. [4] and is the subject of various comedies (Alexis, fr. 140 K.-A.; Anaxandrides, fr. 16 K.-A.) and a satyr play (Achaeus, TGF 20 F 26). Prior to the end of the 3rd cent. BC, L. was counted among the > Seven Sages, and

a cosmological poem that is preserved only in fragments [5. 56-67] was attributed to him. Later sources increasingly broaden his significance for the field of music and even consider him the father of Eros (SEG 26, 486). — Aelinus 1 A.HENrRICHS, Philodems ‘de pietate’ als mythograph. Quelle, in: CE 5, 1975, 5-38 2 Id., Ein neues Likymniosfragment bei Philodem, in: ZPE 57, 1984, 53-57 3 U.v.

624

623

WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF,

108-113 Problemi

KS

5.2,

1937,

4M.Scumipt, Lino, Eracle ed altri ragazzi. di lettura, in: Modi e funzioni del racconto

mitico nella ceramica greca, italiota ed etrusca dal VI al IV secolo a.C. (Atti convegno 29/31.5.1994), 1995, 13-25

5 M.L. West, The Orphic Poems, 1983. GREVE, s.v. Linos, in: ROSCHER 2, 2053-2063; W.KROLL,

ousness ofthe lion, but at the same time also function as maternal divinities; in the Mesopotamian region the lion was associated symbolically with the goddess Inanna/-— Ishtar. The desire to harness the dangerousness of the lion led to depictions of lions with an apotropaic character: gate lions and > monsters with the body parts of lions were erected at the entrances of Mesopotamian temples and palaces, and lion figures were buried beneath the thresholds of private houses. In Egypt, besides lions, sphinxes (+ Sphinx) too were significant in this function. The ambivalent attitude towards lions is attested by the fact that > demons too were depicted as composite creatures with the body parts of lions (e.g. the lion head of Lamastu). 1 E.Cassin, Le roiet le lion, in: RHR 198, 1981, 3 55-401 2 W. Herre, A. UNAL, E. A. BRAUN-HOLZINGER, S.V. L.,

RLA 7, 80-94

—

Uberlegungen

35S.M.Maut, Das ‘dreifache K6nigtum’

zu

einer

Sonderform

des

neuassyr.

Konigssiegels, in: U. FINKBEINER et al. (ed.), Beitr. zur Kulturgesch. Vorderasiens (FS R.M. Boehmer), 1995, 395402 4U.ROssLER-KOHLER, s.v. L., L.-K6pfe, L.-Statuen, LA 3, 1080-1090 «5 C.pE Wi, Le réle et le sens du lion dans Egypte ancienne, *1980. SU.FI.

s.v. Linos, RE 13, 715-717; J.BOARDMAN, s.v. L., LIMC 6.1., 290.

J.B.

II. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

Greek Aéwv/léon, fem. Méawa/léaina; etymologically Lion I. ANCIENT ORIENT AND EGypT TIQUITY

II. CLASSICAL AN-

I. ANCIENT ORIENT AND EGYPT The incidence of lions (Sumerian ur-mah, ur-gula, pirig; Akkadian nésu, labbu; Egyptian rw, mJ) is first attested for Mesopotamia in the Ur III period (21122004 BC). Sources subsequently only rarely mention their occurrence in Babylonia; on the other hand, there are many references from the middle Euphrates region and from Assyria (letters from — Mari, hunting accounts of Neo-Assyrian kings). In Egypt lions were depicted from the prehistoric period and are attested well beyond the New Kingdom (15 50-1070). In Egypt as well as in Mesopotamia, the lion was particularly associated with the person of the > ruler; + hunting (e.g. by the Ur III ruler Sulgi or Assyrian kings) and keeping lions (attested i.a. in administrative texts from Drehem and inscriptions of Middle and New Assyrian kings [2. 81]) was a royal duty or a royal privilege. Thus e.g., the official seal of the Assyrian kings showed the ruler in single combat with a lion —a representation of the ‘good shepherd’ defending the world order against the danger of chaos [3. 399f.]. Although lions were experienced as a real danger, they were looked upon not only with fear, but also with admiration. Glorification of their strength led to the king being compared metaphorically with a lion [1] or in Egypt being depicted figuratively as a lion. In Egypt, various, predominantly female divinities with the form of lions are attested (e.g. Bastet, Sachmet), which on the one hand incorporate the danger-

obscure [1. 1,785]; in poetry since Hom. Il. 17,109 and 18,318 Atc, Atc/lis. lis, but also f AMewv/he léon; Lat. leo

and fem. leaena, poet. lea; young lions oxvpvou skymnoi and heovtdetc/ leontideis, Ael. NA 7,47. In Europe they do not occur except in Macedonia between the Nestus (Nessus: Aristot. Hist. an. 6,31,579b 6f.; Mestus: Plin. HN 8,45) and Achelous at the time of Xerxes (Hdt. 7,125). Antiquity knew of great numbers from North Africa including Egypt, from Ethiopia, the Middle East including Arabia, Persia, Bactria and India. In the frequent mentions in Graeco-Roman literature and in artistic representations oriental influence is visible. A. ZOOLOGICAL

B. LITERATURE

C. RELIGION

A. ZOOLOGICAL A distinction was made between a stocky form with curly mane (Barbary lion, Leo persicus?) and a more gracile, straight-maned form (lion of Gujarat, Leo goojratensis? [2. 152]; Aristot. Hist. an. 8(9),44,629b 33-35; Plin. HN 8,46). Aristotle gives an excellent description of the lion as a four-footed and many-toed (Hist. an. 2,1,499b 8), carnivorous (ibid. 7(8),5,594b 17), brave and noble (ibid. 1,1,488b 17) beast of prey with carnassial teeth (xagyaeodoucd/karcharodous, ibid. 2,1,501a 16) and retractable (cf. Plin. HN 8,41), curved (Aristot. Hist. an. 3,9,517b r) claws. It has a file-like, rough tongue (Plin. HN 11,172), supposedly a nail under the tassel of its tail, a short digestive tract and striking genitalia. It urinates to the rear (ibid. 2,1,5;00b 15f.), supposedly copulates with its coccyx presented forwards (xuyndov/

625

626

pygédon; ibid. 5,2,539b 22; Plin. HN 10,173), moves carefully in its terrain and yields only reluctantly to the

Following ancient oriental models, the lions above the Lion Gate of Mycenae have apotropaic significance. In the foundation myth of Sardeis the lion is an attribute of the protecting divinity; conquest under the Persian king Cyrus was possible only from the barely accessible position around which the lion supposedly born of a concubine of king Meles had not been carried (Hdt. 1,84). In the kingdom of Lydia, golden lion figurines served as weights or money. The lion occurs on coins from Miletus [9. pl. 1,12] and e.g. from Leontium in Sicily [9. pl. 1,4] as an attribute of the sun god Apollo. It is also due to these associations that it owes its place in Greek sculpture and vase painting [1o. 42]. It was depicted as the hunting-animal of kings on Mycenaean daggers and on the seal of Darius [11. 1,36]. This tradition was adopted by Hellenistic rulers. Hunting methods are comprehensively described in Opp. Kyn. 4,77-212 (cf. Plin. HN 8,54). The keeping of domesticated lions by oriental kings was imitated by

hunter’s superior strength (Aristot. Hist. an. 8(9),44,

629b 12-15; cf. Plin. HN 8,50). The development of the young was well known (ibid. 6,31,579b 7f.). Attacks on herds and individual animals such as Xerxes’ camels (see above) and oncattle (Hom. Il. 5,161f.; 11,172-176; 17,61-65 and 18,579-583) are comprehensively described. On the other hand, myths persisted stubbornly into the Middle Ages: e.g. the supposed peculiar hardness of the bones (Aristot. Hist. an. 3,7,516b 9-11; Plin. HN 11,214), the two teats of the female (ibid. 2,1,500a 28f.; Plin. HN 11,233), the loss of the womb with the first litter (Hdt. 3,108; described as a myth in Aristot. Hist. an. 6,31,579b 2-4; taken up in Plin. HN 8,44) and the annual decrease in the number of young from 6 or 5 to one (ibid. 579b 8-11, only in Syria). The remark in Aristot. Hist. an. 2,1,497b 16-18 that the internal organs resemble those of a dog may probably be attributed to a dissection (probably not carried out by Aristotle?). It is not true that the lion likes to hunt alone, and that it hates the > jackal as a competitor for food (Aristot. Hist. an. 8(9),1,610a 13f.). Its habit of miscegenation with other animals such as leopards, attributed to its particularly lecherous nature (cf. Plin. HN 8,42) is pure invention (though there are hybrids with tigers, called ligers). Just as false is the claim that the lion is afraid of the crowing of a cock (Plin. HN 8,52). Only the fear of fire (Hom. Il. 11,553 and 17,663; cited in Aristot. Hist. an. 8(9),44,620b 21-23; Plin. HN 8,52) is

well founded. B. LITERATURE

The size and proud bearing of the lion made it a symbol for strength, bravery and courage, so that it occurs in this sense in many ancient proverbs and sayings (the fox, the hare and the deer signify the opposite). In fable, the lion, ‘king of the animals’ (cf. Babr. fab. 95), on the contrary appears as awkward, timid or foolish as well as brutal. In Homer’s ‘Iliad’ it is described in all situations that are similar to that of a warrior (e.g. 5,782) [3. s9ff.], subsequently also in the ‘Odyssey’ (e.g. 6,130-134) and by later writers such as Aeschylus [4] and Virgil (Georg. 2,15 1f.). The motif of the lioness robbed of her young (Hom. Il. 18,3 18-322) was taken up in Soph. Aj. 987 and in Latin works such as Verg. G. 3,245f.; Hor. Carm. 3,20,2 and Ov. Met. 13,547f. But the lion plays no part in lyric and bucolic poetry or satire.

C. RELIGION In religion and myth, too, the lion occurs frequently. It is e.g. the attribute or mount of > Bacchus and > Cybele and is therefore also attributed to Hera [5] and Athena [6. 99ff.]. It is also associated with Apollo as sun god of eastern origin [7]. It figures in the cult of + Mithras as a symbol of the sun. It is to be found among other animals in the triumphal train of + Dionysus. + Heracles overcame the Nemean lion [8].

LIPARA

Mark Antony (Plin. HN

8,55), Domitian, Caracalla and Heliogabalus. From 186 BC (Liv. 39,22), they are used as fighting animals in the > circus, at first against other animals, and then from the time of Sulla (cf. Plin. HN 8,53) against gladiators. Hanno of Carthage was a celebrated breeder of lions and lion tamer (Plin. HN 8,55). The fat of lions was used i.a. cosmetically (Plin. HN 28,89; preparation: ibid. 28,144). Lion skins were a literary requisite for heroes (> Hercules). In the Im-

perial period they were also traded. 1 WALDE/HOFMANN

2 LEITNER

3 H. FRANKEL, Die

homer. Gleichnisse,*1977. 4 A.SIDERAS, Homerismen in der Sprache des Aischylos, thesis Gottingen, 1967 5 P.LEVEQuE, Héra et le lion d’aprés les statuettes de Délos, in: BCH 73, 1949, 125ff. 6 N. YaLouris, Athena als Herrin der Pferde, in: MH 7, 1950, 19-101 7 H.A. Cann, Die Lowen des Apollo, in: MH 7, 1950, 185-199 8 O.GruppeE, s.v. Herakles, RE Suppl. 3, 1028-1033 9 F.IMHOOF-BLUMER,

O.KELLER,

Tier-

und

Pflanzen-

bilder auf Mz. und Gemmen des klass. Alt., 1889, repr. 1972 10P.JACOBSTHAL, Ornamente griech. Vasen, 1927 11 KELLER, vol. 1, 24-61. S.H. LonsDALE, Creatures of Speech. Lion, Herding, and Hunting Similes in the Iliad, 1990; M. MerTENS-Horn, Stud. zu griech. Lowen-Bildern, in: MDAI(R) 93, 1986, 1-61; P. MULLER, Lowen und Mischwesen in der archa. griech. Kunst, 1978; A. STEIER, s.v. L., RE 13, 968-990; K. Usener, Zur Existenz des Lowen in Griechenland in

der Ant., in: Symbolae Osloenses 69, 1994, 5-33.

C.HU.

Lipara (Aindea; Lipdra, Lat. Liparae). Largest of the + Aeoli Insulae, the modern Lipari. Excavations in 1948 allow us to reconstruct the cultural rise of L. from the first settlements (middle Neolithic period, 2nd half of the 5th millennium BC, obsidian mining and export). L. was one of the most populous regions in the western Mediterranean during the late Neolithic period (2nd half of the 4th millennium). Following a severe recession in the 3rd millennium, L. experienced a renaissance in the Bronze Age, when settlers of continental Greek origin arrived on it and the neighbouring islands during

LIPARA

627

628

the first cents. of the 2nd millennium. From the 16th

stroyed by the Arabs; the island remained practically uninhabited until its re-establishment under the Nor-

cent. BC, L. had trading relations with the Aegean (ce-

ramic sherds of Mycenaean origin; the domed baths of San Calogero date from this period?). Then followed the migration of tribes from Sicily (late 15th until mid 13th cent.), then of those from Italy (the > Ausones of

the legends, from the 13th until the roth cent). The import of Aegean ceramics began in the middle of the 11th cent., in addition to Sardinian ceramics or painted pottery from the Italian peninsula. The densely populated settlement of the castle was destroyed around 900 BC. L. was almost without inhabitants when a group of Greek settlers from — Cnidus established themselves there, encountering significant resistance from the +> Tyrrheni. L. began a naval war with them, which lasted until 473 (Battle of Cyme) with varying success. The > Tyrrheni conquered L., but were soon driven out again. L. dedicated rich gifts to the Delphic Oracle. In alliance with Syracusae, L. withstood the attacks of Athens and Rhegium (427 and 426 BC). The navy of L. dominated the southern Tyrrhenian Sea in the 5th/4th cents. BC. The attack of > Agathloces [2] (304 BC) caused a change of alliance from Syracuse to Carthage. Thus L. became the preferred Carthaginian base in the First > Punic War and was, as a consequence, destroyed by the Romans in 252/251 BC. The excavations give evidence to the progressive extensions of the urban area — from the acropolis, seat of the Cnidian settlement, to the valley lying at its feet — and enable us to identify the walls of the city (one of which dates to around 500 BC in opus polygonale, the other to the first half of the 4th cent. BC in opus quadratum; — Masonry). The excavation of the necropolis has shown that L. experienced its prime in the 4th cent. and the first half of the 3rd cent. From this period stem Siceliot and Campanian kraters decorated with figures. However, local ceramic production also developed, leading to the polychrome ceramics of the ‘Painter of L.’ and his school in the 1st half of the 3rd cent. BC. Another flourishing craft was the production of theatrical masks, which in an initial phase (1st half of the 4th cent. BC), created > masks for the protagonists in the most famous tragedies (Soph. and Eur.) and the comedies of Aristoph. Slightly later countless comic statuettes appeared. In the rst half of the 3rd cent. masks or portraitstatuettes of famous characters are numerous (Homer, Socrates, Lysias, Sophocles, Euripides, Menander). The

destruction of L. by the Romans in 252/251 BC put an end to this cultural flowering. In the 2nd cent. BC a new development of the acropolis began. Cicero calls L. a

mans in 1038. L. BERNABO Brea, M. Cavatier, Meligunis L. 1, 19573 2,

19653 4, 1980; 5, 1991; 7, 1995; 9; Id., La ceramica poltcroma liparese, 1986; L. BERNABO Brea, Menandro e il

teatro nelle greco terracotte liparesi, 1980; Id., Ceramica figurata del IV sec. a.C. nelle necropoli liparesi, 1995; Id., Le isole Eolie

A.BRUGNONE, necropoli

dal tardo

antico

M.Cava.ierR,

ai normanni,

1988;

| bolli delle tegole delle

di Lipari, in: Kokalos

32,

1986,

181-280;

G. MANGANARO, Tra epigrafia e numismatica, in: Chiron 22, 1992, 385-410; BTCGI 9, 1991, 81-185.

L.B.B.

Lipomartyriou dike (Autonagtugiou dixn; lipomartyriou diké). Law suit on account of failure to provide a witness statement. The procedural testimony (+ martyria) consisted in the Greek poleis of a statement pre-formulated by the plaintiff or the defendant that was pronounced to the witness in the procedure and which the latter confirmed by his very appearance before the court. When a witness was summoned privately by a procedural party (xaAetv, kalein, Pl. Leg. 9374, PHalensis 1,222f., IPArk 17,12; meooxaretv, proskalein, Dem. Or. 49,19), he had two options: either he

refused to testify and gave an oath extrajudicially ‘that he knew nothing of the matter’ (> exdmosia), or he assumed the duty of supporting the party summoning

the witness before the court. If the witness did not comply with this duty, he was threatened with sanctions. In Athens the party summoning the witness could have the witness called by the herald (&xxdnteveuv, ekkleteuein); if the witness failed to appear he had to pay a fine of 1,000 drachmai to the state. As an alternative to this, the party summoning the witness could initiate the lipomartyriou dike (LD), a civil action (Dem. Or. 49,19). If the witness was sentenced in this regard, he had to compensate the party summoning the witness for the damage suffered. Whether the main proceeding was adjourned in the case of the initiation of a LD or whether this could only be initiated after the principal matter was decided is unclear, as is the relationship between the LD and the > blabés diké. According to the treaty between Stymphalus and Sicyon for the mutual granting of rights (IPArk 17, ro-14), a witness who failed to appear was sentenced to compensating the plaintiff for the entire amount in controversy. This settled the main proceeding. A.R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens 2, 1971, 140144; IPArk, 239f. G.T.

civitas decumana (‘taxable city’).

During the Imperial period, L. often served as a place of exile (e.g. of Plautilla, wife of Caracalla). L. was an

episcopal see at least from the 4th cent. AD. A subterranean burial ground supports the existence of a Jewish community from the 4th cent. AD. In the Christian period, the relics of St. Bartholomew made L. an important destination of pilgrimages. In AD 838, L. was de-

Lipotaxiou graphe (Autotakiov yeadn; lipotaxiou graphe) in Attic law wasa legal action for leaving the line of battle without authorization. The crime was punished like other military offences with > atimia (Dem. Or. 15,325 cf. for Sparta Isoc. Or. 8,143). Aeschines attributes the corresponding law to Solon (Aeschin. In Ctes. 175f.), which however remains uncertain. According to

629

630

Andocides (And. 1,74; cf. Lys. 14,5—7), the prosecution of military offences like the graphe astrateias (failure to obey a call-up), the > deilias graphé (legal action for cowardice) and the graphe toi apobeblékénai ten aspida (throwing away the shield) was regulated in a single law: they are therefore also hard to differentiate.

Liquet In contrast to the right to have recourse to a court that is guaranteed by modern constitutional law, the judge in (Classical) Roman antiquity was allowed to declare that he considered himself unable to come to a decision: rem sibi non liquere (Gell. NA 14,2,25) when he could not condemn or acquit according to procedural formula (— formula). If he swore an oath to this effect, the parties could have the same legal dispute heard by another judge. The same applied to an ~ arbiter (Dig. 4,8,13,3) appointed by a private arbitration agreement and to courts composed of several

1 D.M. MacDoweE Lt, The Law in Classical Athens, 1978, t59ff. 2E.RuUsCcHENBUSCH, SOAQNOE NOMOI, 1966, 25, 82f. LE.BU.

Lippitudo An eye disease characterized by exudation, covering a variety of specific diseases like trachoma and conjunctivitis. A dry variety of lippitudo, xerophthalmia, in which the purulent eyes become stuck shut over night is also described (Celsus, De medicina 6,6,29).

LISSA

judges (Dig. 42,1,36), but only as long as the majority

of judges necessary for making a judgement was not available and able to reach a decision (sibi liquere). P. KRAFFT, Ein tbersehenes Zeugnis zur Mutatio iudicis, in: ZRG 97, 1980, 266-272. CPA.

+ Celsus [7] (ibid. 6,6,2) reports a large number of

ointments and other agents against lippitudo, an extremely common condition; this is confirmed by many ‘oculists’ stamps’ for eye ointments (— Kollyrion) with the inscriptions ‘against lippitudo’ and by the large

Liquorice see > Glykyrrhiza Liris

River

in

central

Italy

(168km),

modern

Garigliano. It has its source in the Colles Simbruini near — Lacus Fucinus, flows through Sora, takes up the Fib-

number of manufacturers of such ointments, whose names are given on the stamps and in recipe-literature [{z]. A report from Vindolanda from the early 1st

renus below Arpinum (Cic. Leg. agr. 2,3) and forms a

cent. AD [2] on the auxiliary troops’ ability to serve shows that ro out of 31 men in the First Cohort of Tungri suffered from lippitudo; 15 suffered from other diseases and 6 were wounded. > Opthalmology; > Pharmacology

Trerus (Sacco), then the Melfis (Melfa). Upstream of its mouth lies the Lucus Maricae, a holy grove of > Marica with a cult centre sacred to the Romans. To the right of the mouth lies > Minturnae. GU.

1 H.Nievsen, Ancient Ophthalmological Agents, 1974,

waterfall here; near > Fregellae is the confluence of the

74, 91 2 A.K. Bowman, J.D. THomas, A Military Strength Report from Vindolanda, in: JRS 8, 1991, 69.

Lisht (al-List). Modern Arabic name for the town that under the name iti-t3.wi (‘who seizes the two lands’) was

VN.

the capital city of > Egypt (C.) in the Middle Kingdom [3. 53-59]. The pyramids of Amenemhet I and = Sesostris I were situated there, the latter surrounded by smaller pyramids of the royal family [1]. An officials’ cemetery continued to be used until the 17th dynasty. As an archetypal residence the place name was later used as a cryptographic symbol for the word ‘internal’, ‘residence’.

Liquamen Liquamen or garum (Greek yagov; garon) was a type of fish sauce (> Fish dishes) that was used as

a spice in a great many ancient dishes, among other things, because of its high salt content (cf. the recipes collected under the name > Caelius [II 10] Apicius [1]). To produce it, small fish were salted and dried in the sun; the liquid strained off from the remains produced the liquamen (in detail in Gp. 20,46; cf. also Plin. HN

31,93-95)1 J.ANpDrR®£, Apicius. L’art culinaire, texte, traduction et

commentaire, 1974.

JA.AND. and JU.HEN.

Liquentia River in — Venetia (Plin. HN 3,126; cf. Licenna, Tab. Peut. 4,4; Liquetia, Serv. Aen. 9,679; Liguentia, Geogr. Rav. 4,36; 115 km), modern

Livenza. It has its source in the Alpes Carnicae, is crossed by the viae Postumia and Annia, and flowed into the Adriatic Sea at a mouth that today carries only a little water. This antique mouth is near Portus Liquentiae west of the modern mouth near Caorle (ancient Caprulae).

1 D. ARNOLD, The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I, 1992 2 J.-E. Gautier, G.JEQuiER, Mémoire sur les fouilles de

Licht, 1902 3 W.K. Simpson, Stud. in the Twelfth Egyptian Dyn. F-II, in: Journ. of the American Research Center in Egypt 2, 1963, 53-63.

JO. QU.

Lisinius Q.L. Sabinus. Equestrian; procurator of the province of Noricum between AD 135 and 138. RMD II 93; PIR? L 285.

W.E.

Lissa [1] Island off the Dalmatian coast opposite Iader (Plin. HN 3,152), modern Ugljan. J.J. Wirxes, Dalmatia, 1969, 206, 208f.

DS.

G.U.

[2] (Atooa; Lissa). Town attested epigraphically on the south-west coast of Lycia in Asia Minor. Not identical with the place where the inscriptions [3; 6] were found,

631

632

Kizilagag on Kargin 45; 5. 74]), but pos(Str. 14,2,2) [5. 74f. [4. 164, 365].

1 F.Prenp1, K.ZHeEKu, La ville illyrienne de L. ..., in: Iliria 2, 1972, 239-268 2 F.PREND1, Deux inscriptions de construction de la ville illyrienne de L., in: Iliria 11,2, 1981, 153-163. PICA.

LISSA

a Hellenistic tower farmstead in Goliu (different in [1. 520; 2. 39, sibly with the supposed ‘Letoon’ fig. 25f.]; cf. also Plin. HN 5,101?

1 G.E. BEAN, s.v. L., PE, 520f. 2 Id., Kleinasien 4, 1980 3 E.L. Hicks, Decrees from Lisse or Lissae in Lycia, in:

JHS 9, 1888, 88f. 4 RoseErt, Villes, r61ff. 5 P.Roos, Topographical and Other Notes on South-Eastern Caria, in: OpAth 9, 1969, 59-93 6 TAM 2,1, 51 no. 158-161. H.LO.

Lissen (Atoory; Lissén). Locality on Crete with uncer-

tain geographical position primarily because of unclear information from the scholiasts ad Hom.

Od. 3,293,

probably modern Cape Lithinos. Affiliation with Phaestus in Str. 10,4,4 (only by conjecture) and Steph. Byz. S.V. Patotoc. P. Faure, La Créte aux cents villes, in: Kretika Chronika 13, 1959, 190.

H.SO.

Lissenius L. Proculus. Equestrian, represented the prefect of Egypt (POxy. 3050) in AD 252/3 [1. 313; 2. 87;

3. 514]. 1 G. BASTIANINI, in: ZPE 17, 1975, 263-328 2 Id., in: ZPE 38, 1980,75-89 3 Id., Il prefetto d’Egitto (30a.C.— 297 d.C.): Addenda (1973-1985), in: ANRW II xo.1, 1988, 503-517.

W.E.

Lists A. DEFINITION

A. DEFINITION Lists are a graphic-linguistic technique for representing facts and concepts of varying complexity. They asyntactically and enumeratively present facts removed from their written or oral (narrative/descriptive) context. Lists may be exhaustive — with a claim to completeness — or open. In addition to simple lists (compilations of terms and/or numbersin a column or line or row), there are binary lists, in which terms (words) are opposed in two columns. In a matrix, terms are linked on various levels in multiple columns and lines [2. 274]. Goopy [2] describes lists as a characteristic of early literate culture on the interface between orality and literacy and includes references to early Indian literature [z. 115], to the lists of gods in Hesiod’s “Theogony’ [2.99] and to contemporary West African cultures Big aoe J.RE. B. ANCIENT ORIENT Almost simultaneously with the invention of > writing (c.

Lissus (A.oodc; Lissos, Latin Lissus). City with a har-

bour near modern Lezhé in Albania on the left bank of the Drin, which flows into the sea through a lagoon area above the ancient city. When Diod. Sic. 15,13,4 mentions that L. was founded by Dionysius [1] I in 385 BC, he obviously confuses L. with > Issa. This is proven by Albanian excavations that show a defensive position of L. not directed towards the sea but towards the land. According to F. PRENDI, the city goes back to the end of the 4th/beginning of the 3rd cent. BC, with Acrolissus (the acropolis of L.) fortified first. According to Pol. 2,12,3 Or 4,16,6 and App. Ill. 7, in the Roman-Illyrian treaty of 228 (Stv 3, 193, no. 500) L. designated the border over which no more than two unarmed Illyrian ships were allowed to sail southwards. According to Pol. 8,13f. Philip V occupied L. in 2143/2 but the Illyrian kings Skerdilaidas and Pleuratus already reconquered L. and their acropolis in 209 and cut off the Macedonian king completely from the Adriatic. In L. king Genthius received a Macedonian delegation in 169 (Pol. 28,8), although Skodra was actually the city of his official residence. After the 3rd > Macedonian War L. was under Roman rule. In the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, Caesar’s fleet was stationed in L. (Caes. B Civ. 326,43 3,28). L. was the location of the conventus set

up by the Romans (ibid. 3,29). In 48, Caesar rebuilt the city wall, which had probably been destroyed in 168, with numerous towers and added a dividing wall between the lower and the upper city. In 33 BC a colonia was founded (CIL III 1704; augur, II virt quinquennales, decurio).

B. ANCIENT ORIENT

3100 BC), lists appeared in Mesopotamia as an

independent textual genre. Over the course of the development of the practice of writing, the genre of lists grew in scope. In the 3rd millennium, the most important genre was that of thematic lists, so-called ‘object lists’ (such as lists of professions, trees, objects made of wood, toponyms, etc.) Lists made up solely of symbols (i.e. handbooks that provide all possible Sumerian readings of a symbol, socalled ‘vocabularies’) were developed relatively late in Babylonian schools (beginning of the 2nd millennium BC). Since the 2nd millennium, lists that included words that are difficult to classify thematically were also developed. Fundamentally, the vocabularies are organized either according to graphic (e.g. words that begin with the same symbol) or according to semantic (synonyms, antonyms) principles. Lists, along with myth, were the format in which theoretical or theological concepts and worldviews were represented. However, lists themselves provided only the framework based on terins/words; interpretation and exegesis were part of orally transmitted scholarship. For that reason, genealogies as well as lists of gods, kings and eponyms (> Kings’ lists; + Eponyms in chronology) also belong to this genre. In some lists, the text was preserved almost unchanged for centuries; for example, a list of professions, the precursor to which dated from the end of the 4th millennium, was still studied in 1800; one list of gods was in use from c. 2000 until c. 700 BC. In addition, new lists adapted to contemporary use were also created for purposes of study.

634

633

LITERACY/ORALITY

In Mesopotamia, at least two languages were in use for a long time: Sumerian and Akkadian. However, only Sumerian was taught. Sumerian lists remained untranslated for a long time; they were commonly re-

1J.R. COLBERT DE BEAULIEU, Les monnaies gauloises au nom des chefs mentionnés dans les Commentaires de César, in: M. RENARD (ed.), Hommage A. Grenier, vol. 1,

served for oral instruction.

B. Kremer, Das Bild der Kelten bis in augusteische Zeit,

At first, lists in > Ebla

(northern Syria, c. 2400 BC) were accompanied

by

translations into the local language (> Eblaite); in Mesopotamia, from the 2nd millennium onwards, they

were accompanied by Akkadian translations. The Akkadian translations demonstrate — apparently beyond their practical purpose — the intellectual engagement on the part of Akkadian writers and scholars with Sumerian and the intellectual world it represented. The vocabularies of the rst millennium are laid out in three or, if the name of the symbol is given, four columns: i (pronunciation) : Z (: ia’u) : Samnum, that is,

‘i is the Sumerian reading: of the written symbol Z : (called) ia’u : and is Samnum (oil) in Akkadian’. The vocabularies and object lists were maintained as long as ~ cuneiform script itself. They were still studied at the end of the rst millennium and occasionally still transcribed with Greek letters in the rst/2nd cents. AD (— Graeco-Babyloniaca). — Catalogue; > Fasti; > Lexicography; > Science 1 A.CAVIGNEAUX, s.v. L., RLA 6, 609-41

2J.Goopy,

The Interface between the Written and the Oral, 1987 3 W.von

SopDEN, Leistungen

babylon. Wiss., *1965

und Grenzen

sumer.

4 Id., Sprache, Denken

Begriffsbildung im Alten Orient, 1974.

und

und

AN.CA.

Lisus, Lissus (Atooc; Lisos in inscriptions, Avo(o)dc; Lis(s)és in literature; cf. Atooa; Lissa, Scyl. 47; Ptol. 3515,3; Lab. Peut. 8,5). City on the south-western coast

of Crete, to the west of modern Sougia, in a position protected by mountains and only open to the sea. From the late 4th cent. BC, L. with Elyrus, Hyrtacina and Tarrha formed the > koinon of the oreioi (‘mountain

dwellers’). The city was occupied from the Classical to the Byzantine periods. Of supraregional importance was the Asclepium with the medicinal spring. Remains of public (theatre, thermal baths, wells, a basilica from the Byzantine period) and private buildings (on the western slope) are preserved. H. vAN EFFENTERRE, La Créte et le monde grec de Platon a Polybe, 1948, 120-128; J. W.Myers et al., Aerial Atlas of Ancient Crete, 1992, 168-171; I.F. SANDERS, Roman Crete, 1982.

H.SO.

Litaviccus Celtic name of a young nobleman of the + Haedui [2. 360-362] who was persuaded by the ~ vergobretus Convictolitavis in 52 BC to desert Caesar. Through lies, L. then got a contingent of 10,000 men under his command to join the > Arverni. However, Caesar pre-empted L.’s military campaign with four legions and cavalry and was able to drive the rebels back to the Roman camp. L. then fled to + Gergovia (Caes. B Gall. 7,37-403 54,1; 55543 67,7; Cass. Dio

40,37,1-3). Coins [1. 436-437].

1962

2EvANs.

1994.

W.SP.

Literacy/Orality I. Or1cins

II. ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PERIOD AND THE IMPERIAL PERIOD V. HIsTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

II]. HELLENISM

IV.RoOME

I. ORIGINS Greek writing culture is the result of the adoption of the Phoenician > alphabet, which took place in the rst half of the 8th cent. BC — according to the assumption common today, which is supported by various evidence. As a reflex of the adoption the Ionic preserves the term ®oww*a (Phoinikéia) for characters, which Herodotus (5,58) evaluates for a fundamentally correct reconstruction of the process. In the Orient a leather scroll was used for longer texts. The fact that it was adopted by the Greeks together with > writing can be seen in that the Ionians used the expression d1p0éea/ diphthéra (‘leather’) for books (Hdt. |.c.) even when the papyrus scroll (Bipdoc/biblos, Bipiov/biblion) had long asserted itself (probably from the late 7th cent. BC). Papyrus was the central medium of the Greek written culture in the following centuries. It was only replaced by the parchment codex in post-Christian times (+ Book; > Codex; > Papyrus; — Scroll). The legacy of oral tradition remained in effect throughout antiquity in so far as texts were read aloud. Thus, the reader produced a situation of oral communication for himself. Although this fact is often ignored, the practice of reading silently existed as well, which grew with the advancement of literalization and which began in the 5th cent. BC at the latest [1]. From about the 3rd cent. BC, reading was furthered by adding accents, breathing and punctuation marks to the texts, which divided up the usual scriptio continua (> Punctuation).

II]. ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PERIOD The development in ancient Greece is marked by the great dynamism with which the new accomplishment, i.e. writing in an alphabetic script, permeated the heretofore oral culture. By every rights this has been called a cultural ‘revolution’ [2]. From the beginning the ability to read spread beyond an inner circle of experts: the earliest > inscriptions have an altogether private character. From the 7th cent. there is a broader use of writing by craftsmen attested by explanatory writings on vases and the signatures of potters and painters. Public inscriptions are only added secondarily in the 2nd half of the 7th cent., beginning with a legal inscription from Drerus, just as the recording of the law was one of the important early functions of writing [3. 273-280].

635

636

Above all the transmission of Greek poetry began in all respects with the 7th cent. BC. There are respectable reasons for the assumption that the ‘Iliad’ only belongs in this cent. ([4]: between 670 and 640 witha preference for 660-650; cf. » Homer II. A., with a somewhat earlier dating: around 700). It was imperative that writing also changed the poetical creative process fundamentally. A poetical text no longer had to be created by extemporization. It could now be created in an act of composition separate from its performance, whose speed was decided by the poet himself. But elements oforality were preserved in spite of the refinement that written composition made possible: e.g. the epic ‘formulae’ (> Epic II. B. 1.) or addressing one or more persons in > lyric poetry and > didactic poetry. The purpose of oral poetry for oral presentation also remained unchallenged for the time being (— Literature III. B.). Probably only in the late 5th and then in the ath cent. did individual reading gradually replace collective listening as the normal form of reception. Aristotle [6] summarizes this development in a pointed way when he, even with regard to dramatic poetry, holds the opinion that a tragedy has its effect in the act of reading even without a performance

I. C.). An institution that competed with Alexandria was started in > Pergamum. But the blossoming of scholarship was in no way limited to the area of philology. A very rich, specialized literature developed in the sciences and in > medicine, and for > philosophy and ~» historiography (just to name also these two branches) a corresponding expansion of the literature can be noticed. The process continued in the Imperial period, in which the commentary (+ hypémnéma) also became the main text genre of philosophy (an impression can be

LITERACY/ORALITY

(Aristot. Poet. 26, 1462a 11-13).

An especially forward-looking product of literarization was the prose work. Prose writings arose in the 2nd half of the 6th cent. BC in the context of pre-Socratic theory; the 5th cent. brought an explosive expansion. Sophist treatises and specialized writings, e.g. with medical content (> Technical literature) are to be mentioned; also the emergence of — historiography was connected with the prose book. In the 2nd half of the 5th cent. an organized book trade developed. The development of Greek writing culture was furthered by the spelling reform of 403/2, when Athens adopted the Ionian form of the alphabet [5. ro8—110]. This became the alphabet of the Greek common language, the ~» koine which in turn had developed from Attic. II]. HELLENISM AND THE IMPERIAL PERIOD

An academy based on literacy was founded in the late 4th cent. BC by Aristotle [6] and his school. Thus

the last phase in the process of literalization began, in which the ability of writing to accumulate knowledge and thus to set the progress of knowledge in motion, was realized to a great extent. > Alexandria [1] became the centre of Hellenistic scholarship, where Ptolemy [1] I, with the support of Aristotle’s student Demetrius [4] of Phalerum and Straton [2] of Lampsacus, built a research centre, the Mouseion, with a > library connected to it that was expanded extravagantly in the period following |6; 7]. The new institution aimed at comprehensively collecting and analyzing the literary tradition of Greece. The methodological foundation as well as the necessary processes and techniques for this end had to be developed: critical editions and commentaries, catalogization and —> lexicography; in addition a rich spectrum of secondary literature on history of the culture, literature and language developed (> Philology

gained from [8]). The massive oeuvre of the physician

+ Galen (he himself counted 153 works in more than 500 bks.; the last complete edition, dating from the 19th cent., comprises 19, even 21 impressive volumes of text, to be exact [9]) illuminates the state of the Greek writing culture in the 2nd and early 3rd cents. AD. In the times following the evolutionary dynamism inherent to the process of literarization decreased. After the Platonic > Academy was closed by Justinian [1] in 529, Greek writing culture gradually became Byzantine. IV. ROME The Roman or Latin writing culture [10] grew out of

the Greek in two respects. On the one hand, the Latin alphabet developed via the Etruscans as an intermediate link from the Greek alphabet (the adoption is to be dated to the 7th cent. (> Italy, alphabetical scripts C.). On the other hand, Roman literature, which began with the

expansion of Rome in the Mediterranean around the middle of the 3rd cent. BC, oriented itself significantly on the Greek model. It is to be noted that in early Roman history writing did not develop a dynamism comparable to the development in Greece. Its use was largely limited to state administration, religion and above all law. This changed from the 3rd cent. BC, when writing increasingly permeated private life. > Cicero’s expansive correspondence documents this change that was completed in the rst cent. BC. In the period that followed the development of Roman literature happened on the level of literalization of Greek (> Literature V.). > Plinius the Elder [1] is representative of both the Roman level of development in the rst cent. AD and its connection to the Greek writing culture [x1]; his encyclopaedic Naturalis historia, according to the author’s own remarks in the preface (§ 17), treats 20,000 facts from c. 2,000 bks. by 100 selected authors. The contents that fill the 1st bk. even mention 146 Roman and 327 Greek authors as sources; this is illustrated by the picture which Pliny [2] the Younger draws of his uncle’s way of working as a restless reader and excerptor (Plin. Ep. 3,5).

V. HisTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP F.A. Wo.r, with his Prolegomena ad Homerum, turned against the prevailing tendency to view Homer, Callimachus, Virgil, Nonnus

and Milton in a homo-

genous way as ‘literature’ (ch. 12). This led to the goal of reconstructing the significance of orality for the gen-

637

638

esis and transmission of the Homeric epics. The bitter controversies that grew out of this approach resulted in the fact that the problem of orality and the > Homeric question were closely joined together for a long time. Only two works which appeared in 1963 had the sustained effect that the issue became broader and that the status of orality in the culture of archaic Greece as a whole was made an object of investigation [12; 13]. The respective emphases, however, were quite different. HAVELOCK (see also [2; 14]) established the ‘tribal encyclopaedia’ as the primary function of early Greek poetry, in which the relevant knowledge and the value system of archaic society is set down in a memorizable way. This mechanism of oral transmission of tradition remained in effect well into the 5th cent. BC. He saw Plato’s [1] poetical criticism in the ‘Republic’ as a closing word to this epoch (whose representation could therefore pointedly be called Preface to Plato). It was Goopy’s and WaTrT’s concern to investigate in contrast to this the consequences of the spread of writing (for them ancient Greece was a model case, to which they turned as cultural anthropologists): while a society without writing is characterized by (so the metaphor used by Goopy and Watt) a ‘homeostatic organization of the cultural tradition’ , writing causes an accumulation of traditions which necessarily contain discrepancies and contradictions. In Greece a new attitude towards the past developed out ofthe critical analysis of this fact; as a result historiography and (pre-Socratic) philosophy arose, both clearly in the spirit of that criticism of tradition (Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Hecataeus) that would not have been possible without writing (Goopy later modified this outline of the development, which is impressive not last through its chronological unity, under the impression of a problematic early dating of the Greek alphabet [15], which is regrettable). The resonance of the work of Goopy and WarTrT as well as HavELOCK in connection with the Homeric research of M.Parry and A.Lorp had two effects: r) The transition from orality to literacy in ancient Greece established itself as the central paradigm of interdisciplinary history and theory of media. W. ONc should be mentioned, who developed a general theory of the relationship between orality and literacy with reference to the above mentioned [16]. Today, in the context of the new term ‘mediality’, the Greek alphabet with its consequences appears, alongside the invention of the printing of books and the present electronic revolution, as one of the three great media revolutions of western civilization. 2) In the course of this scholarly reorientation Greek research was inspired to manifold new insights and interpretations. At first lyric poetry profited, namely, since the late 60s, through the work of B. GENTILI (a bibliography until 1992 in [17. XXXI-XLVII]), who explicitly acknowledged the impulse that [13] had meant for him [18]. Other areas of research have long since joined in, e.g. Herodotus (status of the historical work in the history of the book, relationship to Thucydides), Plato (function of the dialogue, criticism of

writing) or the early history of rhetoric. Also an increased interest on the side of Latin studies in aspects of orality in Roman literature (e.g. [19] and further volumes of the series Script-Oralia) can be attributed to these impulses. ~ Alphabet; — Communication; ~ Encyclopaedia;

LITERARY ACTIVITY

> Scribe; > Writing materials; > Writing 1 A.K. GavriLov, Techniques of Reading in Classical An-

tiquity, in: CQ 47, 1997, 56-73 2 E.A. HAvELock, The Literate Revolution in Greece and Its Cultural Consequences,

1982

3 K.-J. HOLKEsKAmMpP,

Schiedsrichter,

Gesetzgeber und Gesetzgebung im archa. Griechenland, 1999

4M.L. West, The Date of the Iliad, in: MH

1995, 203-219

52,

5 W.ROsLER, Kulturelle Revolutionen

in Ant. und Gegenwart, in: Gymnasium 108, 2001, 97— 13 ty 6 G. ARGOUD, J.-Y.GUILLAUMIN (ed.), Sciences

exactes

et sciences

appliquées

a Alexandrie,

1998

7 B.SEIDENSTICKER, Alexandria, in: A.DEMANDT (ed.), Statten des Geistes, 1999, 15-37 8 Commentaria in

Aristotelem Graeca, ed. Koniglich PreufSische Akad. der Wiss., 23 vols., 1882-1909 9C.G. KUHN (ed.), Galenus, Opera omnia, 19 vols., 1821-30 (17 and 18 in 2 semi-vols. respectively) 10 G. Voct-Sprra, Die lat. Schriftkultur der Ant., in: H.GUNTHER, O. Lupwic (ed.),

Schrift und Sch., vol. 1, 1994, 517-524 11 O.NikrTINSKI, Plinius der Altere, in: W.KULLMANN et al. (ed.), Gattungen wissenschaftlicher Lit. in der Ant., 1998, 341359 12J.Goopy, I. Watt, The Consequences of Literacy, in: Comparative Stud. in Soc. and History 5, 1963,

304-345 (=J. Goopy (ed.), Literacy in Traditional Societies, 1968, 27-68

1963

13 E.A. HaveLock, Preface to Plato,

14 Id., The

Muse

Learns

to Write,

1986

15 J.Goopy, Literacy and Achievement in the Ancient World, in: F. Coutmas, K. EHLICH (ed.), Writing in Focus,

1983, 83-97 (revised in: J. Goopy, The Interface Between the Written and the Oral, 1987, 59-77) 16 W.ONnG, Orality and Literacy, 1982 17 R.PRETAGOSTINI (ed.), Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all’eta ellenistica. FS B. Gentili, 1993 18 B. GENTILI, Remarks at the American Academy in Rome, February 12, 1994, in: L.EpmMuNpDs, R.W. Wattace (ed.), Poet, Public, and Performance in Ancient Greece, 1997, 124-127 19G. Voct-Srira (ed.), Stud. zur vorlit. Periode im friihen Rom, 1989.

O.Maza.,

Griech.-rom. Ant. (Geschichte der Buchkul-

tur, vol. 1), 1999; E. POHLMANN, Einfiihrung in die Uberl.Geschichte und in die Textkritik der ant. Lit., vol. 1: Alt.,

1994; K.Ross, Literacy and Paideia in Ancient Greece, 1994; W.ROsLER, Die griech. Schriftkultur der Ant., in: H. GUNTHER, O. Lupwic (s. [1o0]), 511-517;

R.THOMaAs,

Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece, 1992.

W.RO.

Literary activity I. GREECE II. ROME I. GREECE A. DEFINITION

AND

GENERAL

REMARKS

BB. His-

TORICAL DEVELOPMENT

A. DEFINITION AND GENERAL REMARKS

Literary activity (LA) is defined as any form of interaction between authors or interpreters of their work

639

640

(e.g. > Rhapsodes, actors) and others participating in their processes of production or reception (e.g. patrons, audience, readers). Three types of occasions are characteristic of LA from the Homeric period (late 8th cent. BC) to the last phase of the Hellenistic period (rst cent. BC): symposia (> Banquet II. C., for an audience of invited guests, limited in numbers), — festivals (for an invited audience or the general public) and theatre performances (public). The respective context was mostly constitutive for the literary production, i.e. authors wrote for specific occasions.

cated with their sponsors as equals [7. 77]. The example of Arion (Hdt. 1,24) [4. 64f.] proves that poets could gain some prosperity through LA. 2. CLASSICAL POLIS In the democratic poleis of the 5th and 4th cents. BC, commissioned poetry did not exist; the dominant form of LA were dramatized stage performances in front of an unlimited audience. (For more details, see > Competitions, artistic) In addition, public recitations provided authors with an important chance to make their works public. Herodotus recited parts of his Historiai at festivals in Athens (Lucian, Her. 1); the epic poet Antimachus read from his works in front of invited guests (Cic. Brut. 191); on the comic poet Antiphanes, cf, Ath. 13555 5a: While the Macedonian court of the late 5th and 4th cents. BC and until Philip II saw the establishment of LA similar to that at the tyrant courts (Euripides wrote his last tragedies in 407/406 as a guest of king Archelaus in Pella (Pl. Resp. 568a; Aristot. Pol. 3 11b), including an ‘Archelaus’, whose fragmentary state of preservation does not, however, allow any safe assertion of encomi-

LITERARY ACTIVITY

B. HisTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 1. ARCHAIC PERIOD 2. CLASSICALPOLIS

3. HEL-

LENISM 1. ARCHAIC PERIOD The epics of the Homeric period were performed before a circle of nobles at festivals for their entertainment (Hom. Od. 8,43-45) [1.9f.] and self-affirmation [2. 64] by professional singers who either travelled around or lived permanently at a court (> Aoidoi or ~ Rhapsodes), and who may sometimes have been the authors themselves. Their social prestige was high (Hom.

Od. 8,479-481; 13,28) [3. 36-38 against 1. 11f.], since they contributed to the fame of their hosts; the chief source are the appearances of Demodocus in Homer (Od. 8,62-82; 261-367; 477-521)

[3. 37]. Lyric poetry of the 7th and 6th cents. too served primarily as sophisticated entertainment literature. Monodic lyric poetry was presented at the symposium or other similar occasions, in the case of its two most famous exponents, Alcaeus and Sappho, by the authors themselves, for a public belonging to their own social group (on the hetairia of Alcaeus, see [4. 33-45], on Sappho [4. 72-75]). More accessible are choral lyrics, which were commissioned by a prince (generally the tyrant of a polis) and composed for a festive occasion such as a sporting victory on the part of the patron, the audience being the court society (e.g. Pind. Pyth. 4) or the general public (e.g. Pind. Pyth. 5) [3. 40f.]. The court of Syracusae had particular appeal, hosting Simonides, Bacchylides, Pindar and Aeschylus [3. 52]. However, in Greek LA there was never a tradition of promoting literature as in the Roman system of patronage (see LA II. Rome). Nevertheless, poets enhanced the fame of their princely sponsors in return for fees and support (Bacchyl. Epinikion 3,97f.), yet without sacrificing their artistic autonomy. Poets such as Ibycus, who was active on behalf of the tyrant Polycrates of Samos, or Pindar and Bacchylides, whose epinikia (songs of victory) for various patrons form our most important source for LA in the early 5th cent. BC, are not to be seen as panegyric court writers (they themselves refer to the natural limits of praise (Pind. Pyth. 2,49-56) [5. 86-92; 6. 139-142]), but as self-assured artists (Ibycus 151 PMGF, Pind. Ol. 1,116f.; Pind. Pyth. 3, 111-1153 4,299) [5. 1176.5 3. 41,50], who communi-

astic

contents

|8. 43f.]),

Alexander

the

Great

put

authors such as the historian > Callisthenes in the service of his glorification: LA here served purposes of propaganda, which had a crippling effect on its poetic quality [3. 69]. 3. HELLENISM The Hellenistic Diadochi kings, however, continued the tradition of the tyrants; LA in 3rd cent. BC Alexandria is exemplary: the Ptolemies attempted to attach the elite of Greek writers to their court, so that real literary circles were formed [9. 9]. Authors such as Callimachus, Theocritus and Apollonius [2] belonged in court society for many years, which formed the primarily intended audience [9. 14]. A prime example of establishing consent between an author and his like-minded audience of literary sophisticates is provided by the Ejidyllia of Theocritus [10. 17-29]. A general public became acquainted with poetical works at festivals (Theoc. 15). The authors enjoyed considerable social prestige and had autonomous control over the content of their works. The king, as patron, was the focal point of LA; praise was offered to him and his kin within the framework of certain encomiastic topoi (Theoc. 14,6164, Callim. Fr. 228; Herodas 1,26-35) [9. 199-243]; however, there is as little evidence for the exploitation of LA for purposes of propaganda as there is for any dissident position disguised under the cloak of irony (against [r1. 67—81]): the content of poetry was primarily determined by poetic criteria [9. 16f.]. The tradition of public poetry readings (Hor. Ars P. 451f.) was continued in library auditoria (> Library II. B.) (Vitr. De arch. 7 praef. 4-7). > Literary criticism

1 H. FRANKEL, Dichtung und Philos. des friihen Griechentums, 41993 2J.Laracz, Homer, 1985 3G. WeBeER, Poesie und Poeten an den H6fen vorhell. Monarchen, in: Klio 74, 1992, 25-77 4 W.ROsLER, Dichter und

641

642 Gruppe, 1980 5 G.W. Most, The Measures of Praise, 1985 6S.GOLDHILL, The Poet’s Voice, 1991

7 H.MaeHter, Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frihen Griechentum bis zur Zeit Pindars, 1963 8 J.M. BREMER, Poets and their Patrons, in: H. HOFMANN, A.HarDER (ed.), Fragmenta Dramatica, 1991, 39-60 9 G. WEBER, héfische Dichtung und Ges., 1993 10 B. ErFe, G. BINDER, Die ant. Bukolik, 1989 11 E.R. SCHWINGE, Kiinstlichkeit von Kunst, 1986. TH.P.

II. ROME A. CONCEPT AND

HISTORICAL

DIVISION

B. PHASES

A. CONCEPT AND HISTORICAL DIVISION The rather vague concept of ‘LA’ can be differentiated from other concepts of literary history — e.g. in the order author, history, LA; (see [3 5]) it can be described on the basis of dichotomies — such as oral/written, private/public, pragmatic-administrative/aesthetic texture — and finally be defined in terms of content in view of the concrete realities of modern cultural activity, which can be applied to antiquity to various degrees (cultural politics and literary patronage; author and associations of writers; theatre; publishing, book-trade and library, cf. [35. table of contents]). B. PHASES In Roman literary history too, the time-lag prevalent in changes to political, social and cultural systems suggests not conflating the boundaries of problem areas with the boundaries of political or epochal breaks in systems — e.g. Republican/Imperial period or antiquity/late antiquity. The best system for reflecting the complexity of cultural activity, then, would seem to bea subdivision into (1) (middle and late) Republic, (2) disintegrating Republic and early Augustan period, (3) early Imperial period, (4) epoch of the adoptive emperors to the post-Constantinian generation (early 2nd cent. to mid—4th cent. AD) and finally (5) the Christiansecular cultural mixture to the end of late antiquity. 1. (MIDDLE AND LATE) REPUBLIC

2. LATE

REPUBLIC AND EARLY AUGUSTAN PERIOD 3. EARLY IMPERIAL PERIOD 4. EPOCH OF THE ADOPTIVE EMPERORS TO THE POST-CONSTANTINIAN GENERATION (EARLY 2ND CENT. TO MID

4TH CENT. AD) 5. THE CHRISTIAN-SECULAR MIXED CULTURE TO THE END OF LATE ANTIQUITY 1. (MIDDLE AND LATE) REPUBLIC

... ut appareret, quam ab sano initio res in hanc vix

opulentis regnis tolerabilem insaniam venerit (Liv. 7,2,13: ‘to show how matters have developed from healthy beginnings into such madness as even wealthy kingdoms are scarcely able to bear’); Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit (Hor. Epist. 2,1,156: ‘conquered Greece vanquished the savage victor’): both the Livian, and probably Varronian [29], i.e. late Republican cul-

LITERARY ACTIVITY

tural-critical view of extravagance on the stage, and the self-assured position of the Augustan Horace, with his attention directed at his own literary achievement (cf. esp. Epist. 2,1,160-176), emphasize the process of adopting the Greek literary system, focusing on the epoch-making date of 240 BC, not coincidentally using the example of drama as the leading medium of this age. To both, the older traditions of dance, song and drama, dedicated to the gods in the context of the > ludi from 361 and not meant specifically to be read, are of a bygone age and obsolete, although naturally the Italian texts of the private realm, partly already formed or reformed after the Greek (monodic table songs [41], Fescennine jocular dialogues performed at weddings, ~ Fescennini versus) and religious texts (processional hymns) [28] — including the > Atellana fabula, marginalized in the context of the theatre, — may have continued to have their impact [29; 41]. In the literary system developing after the rst, and more strongly after the 2nd > Punic War, under increasing Greek cultural influence, > epics (Naevius, Ennius) and personal poetry (Lucilius) waned in importance in the canon compared to > tragedy and > comedy, while, however, historiography and rhetoric were established as political genres in the prose works of the older > Cato [1]. The involvement of the Roman ruling elite, directly apparent in the fields of oratory and the writing of history, could also gain a recognizable profile in the popular medium of the theatre [16. 183-222] or had to be held back for that same reason. Within the context of the increasing number of /udi scaenici from the 2nd Punic War — ludi plebeii from 220, the Ceriales from about the same date, the Apollinares from 208, the Megalenses from 194 (> ludi; |4. 157-206]) — the officials directing festivals, as aediles or praetors (i.e. of the penultimate or ultimate rank before the consulship) were able to invest their own funds, above and beyond basic state funding, in popular theatre troupes and their poets, or — parallel to the development of theatre building — in extravagance on the stage; however, no Roman

theatre was built of stone until the construction of the Theatre of Pompey from 55 BC. On the other hand, to be named — whether in a positive or negative spirit — on the stage was scorned in the interests of aristocratic equality (Cic. Rep. 4,10,2), a restriction from which + Naevius suffered; even — praetextae celebrating the military successes of contemporaries appear (despite [x0. 177-179]) only to have been performed at funeral games. For professional dramatic poets (who were mostly non-citizens, freedmen or free men from the lower classes), this interest displayed by the elite led to a form of social acceptance which was institutionalized through membership of the collegium scribarum histrionumque on the Aventine (later the > collegium poetarum in the Templum Herculis Musarum), and a kind of literary co-operation (however achieved) with certain members of the elite (xobiles) is even hinted at and acknowledged by Terence (Ter. Ad., Prologue 15-21).

The protection of the association implied also problems

LITERARY ACTIVITY

644

643

of jealousy and competition, as in the case of > Luscius Lanuvinus and Terence. With the conquest of the East from the early 2nd cent. BC, the example of the Hellenistic princes seems to have gained influence in the circles of the Hellenophile nobility (> Fulvius Nobilior [I 15], the elder > Scipio and Ennius; in the case of Terence probably L. > Aemilius Paullus [I 32] and his sons; later the circle of the younger Scipio), leading towards a system of patronage favouring Greek cults and culture, education (> Libraries, historiography, philosophy) and literature. This led to tensions with the rising middle class, as represented by the elder Cato, who, though himself from a educational background that included Greek [16. 5283], knew how to achieve political success by criticizing Hellenic culture. Only after the Gracchi’s failed attempts at reform, towards the end of the 2nd cent., it appears that this battle for political acceptability was taken into the field of literature with the didactic poetry of > Volcacius Sedigitus firmly opposing the nobility. Nor was it unlikely after 200 BC that literature, once performed, presented at specific occasions or (for instance at the symposium) recited or intended to be read, would be preserved, despite faults in organizational systems. Dramas remained in the collections of theatre

(Gram. 5) dates teaching in Latin in ‘grammar schools’ back to Sevius Nicanor (primus ad famam ... docendo pervenit; early 1st cent. BC); the surprising success of a ‘Latin’ school of rhetoric (> Plotius Gallus) after 95 BC could only be stopped when the censors exercised their authority [27]. A sign of the changing times was the incipient historicization of the linguistic and literary past by > Aelius [II 20] Stilo (Suet. Gram. 3) and later his student > Varro, who, for his own part — alongside antiquarian collections and studies — made literary history accessible (history of the theatre, authenticity of the comedies supposedly by Plautus, lives of the poets) also by using antiquarian sources (for example, the acta of the officials directing festivals). Later, with Cornelius + Nepos (De viris illustribus 13-15), historians, orators and grammarians first qualify as subjects of literary history. Alongside the private distribution of books through friends, such as those of Cicero through Pomponius Atticus, from the 20s booksellers of Greek origin (> Book C.; the Sosii, Hor. Epist. 1,20,2; Hor.

Ars P. 345; Dorus, Sen. Ben. 7,6) made a name

for

themselves, a step into the public domain which was only emulated in the field of the construction of public

Afer) may

— libraries after the plans of Varro by C. > Asinius [I 4] Pollio (after 39 BC at the temple of > Libertas) and Augustus (at the temple of Apollo on the Palatine).

have experienced the contamination in Naevius, Plau-

Records of schools and libraries of this epoch e.g. in

tus and Ennius (Ter. An., Prologue 18-27), which later

GRF IX-XXV; XXV-XXX

entrepreneurs,

and Terence

(— Terentius

happened to his own pieces, either while studying such copies or even at reproductions of older ‘classics’; in any case, he articulated his aesthetic principles with a view to posterity — an expectation that shaped also the proems of the epics of Naevius and Ennius. Influenced by the philological lectures of the Greek scholar — Crates [5] of Mallus in Rome in 168 BC, > Octavius Lampadio actually edited Naevius’ Bellum Punicum in 7 bks., as > Vargunteius later did for the Avnales of Ennius, which he performed before a large audience at an occasion he organized himself. Later still, Laelius Archelaus and > Vettius Philocomus edited the satires of their friend Lucilius (Suet. Gram. 2). Authors of historical works published them themselves, and > Cato included his own speeches. However, the reliability of literary-historical notes, which were only collected from the end of the 2nd cent., was inferior.

2. LATE REPUBLIC AND EARLY AUGUSTAN PERIOD The position of literature shows decisive, though not radical change from the beginning of the rst cent. BC, a process of something more than mere stabilization as against the preceding epoch. The cultural Hellenization in the systems of the institutions concerned with the promotion and preservation of literature — from + schools to scholarly activity and = libraries, from circles of authors to the protection of authors by patronage — was largely completed: alongside private education given by Greeks in Greek (for instance in rhetoric and philosophy), Roman institutions of secondary and tertiary education became established: Suetonius

(=> Library II. B. 2.b). The literary system of the period was characterized by the completion of the existing spectrum of forms (e.g. contemporary history as a supplement to the no longer sufficiently political > annalists) and the transcription of the comic sub-genres, hitherto only improvized in performance, of the > atellana and > mimus, undermining the importance in drama of the ‘serious’ genres (> Tragedy, — palliata). The most important gain, however, can be seen in the rise and recognition of

persona! — lyric poetry (from the ‘pre-neoteric’ Laevius to Catullus and his friends (+ Neoteric poets) and the ~ elegy and Horatian epodes/odes). The more general recognition of poetic individuality, due to the higher social status of the poets [38], was also demonstrated in the semi-private poetic contest of the > collegium poetarum (Hor. Sat. 1,10,38; Hor. Epist. 2,2,90-101; Hor.

Ars P. 386f.). The quality of poetry benefited from groups of friends who were competent and willing to criticize, such as the so-called Neoterics and the literary > circles

around — Maecenas [2] and —> Messalla, while > Asinius [I 4] Pollio also sought a wider public with his > recitals advocatis hominibus (Sen. Controv.

4, pr. 2). The increasing professionalization of poetic competence — Ovid, for instance, consciously opted for such a role (Ov. Tr. 4,10,36—58)— now posed the problem of livelihood for professional poets (beyond the theatrical poets), in cases where there were no private means (e.g. lost in the Civil Wars) and no other, remu-

nerative profession was carried out (Horace as + scriba). The name of > Maecenas, in any case still stands for the fulfilment of expectations of that kind.

645

646

3. EARLY IMPERIAL PERIOD From the final establishment of the — Principate around r5 BC, there ensued a period until the reign of Trajan (98-117) in which both the socio-political and cultural fields were defined by a blend of old and new, not without tension, but also stimulating: the anachronism of synchronism, as it were, is exemplarily demonstrated. At first, collective memory, in the form of libraries, schools and philological scholarship (Verrius Flaccus, the work on the Dubius sermo by the elder Pliny, Suetonius’ De viris illustribus, cf. [32]) preserved older canonized texts back to the beginning of Roman literary history (to Naevius, not to Livius [III 1] Andronicus!), a historicization of previous phases which kept them available for literary explorations and enabled recollection of the oldest texts to continue as late as Nonius Marcellus’ Compendiosa disctplina (around

times past, such as Agamemnon in Petronius’ Satyrica

400). Imitatio

(- Intertextuality C) could thus take

place in Quint. Inst. 10,1,85—131 as in Tacitus’ Dialogus concerning the triad of ‘archaism’ (referring to the 2nd cent. BC: evident from Sallust, but also in the preference for Lucilius over Horace, Quint. Inst. 10,1,93),

‘classicism’ (referring to the Ciceronic-Augustan period) and ‘modernism’. Issues of the > canon thus became increasingly important [34]. Alongside the Greek frame of reference, which was still influential — especially for current literary forms (epigram, reductive dramatic forms, declamations), Roman models became increasingly powerful (Virgil, Horace, Catullus, Sallust, less so at the time Cicero). At the same time, however, the literary system indicates a developing dichotomy of taste, manifest on the one hand in the continuity of late Republican traditions (revival of the > epic from Virgil and Ovid to Lucan and the Flavian epic; — satire, personal poetry as > epigram; contemporary history), and on the other hand in further decline of the ‘serious’ drama (with the exception of the tragedies of the younger > Seneca, which were performed at least privately or partially) in favour of stage

entertainments

(—~ mimus,

pantomimus

=

fabula saltata, sung tragic scenes as fabula cantata [30]); that there was a brutalization of audience tastes under the influence of the gladiatorial contests now featuring regularly in festival programmes is unmistakable. Generally, literature becomes increasingly public: in poetry contests under Nero and Domitian [21. 169176; 30. 152-163] (~ Competitions, artistic), in the recitation of all genres as ‘pre-publications’ [31] and in the declamations (— controversiae and > suasoriae) of the school of rhetoric, whose sole attraction for an increasing number of its adepts henceforth was cultural, a tendency consistent with the decline or extinction of the genus iudiciale and genus deliberativum (+ genera causarum) in public speaking. The presentation of poetry refined by rhetoric and of speeches based in literature and poetry, in which fictitious problems of jurisprudence, novelistic material and situations of political decisions were presented as psychographical portrayals of historical heroic figures, was criticized by admirers of

LITERARY ACTIVITY

(1-5) and Messalla in the Dialogus (Tac. Dial. 31), without offering a real alternative; even Juvenal (Sat. r)

only wanted the theme changed. Despite the quantitatively impressive literary revival, which in Rome remained relatively impervious to crisis, despite the year of the four emperors in 68, the lives of poets in particular remained otherwise precarious. A deliberate misunderstanding of tragic material or competition with the princeps (e.g. that of Lucan with Nero) could be fatal. Dependence on the literary interest of the individual ruler, e.g. of Nero (for Lucan) and Domitian (for Statius), was as desirable as it was risky. In actual terms, the construction of an auditorium for recitations was expensive (Juv. 7,36-47; Tac. Dial. 9,3). A poet’s social status and role were secure, but this in no way guaranteed their livelihood; the claim of friendship (— amicitia) with ‘Maecenas’ and the appeal (demand and criticism) to them became a leitmotif (‘begging poetry’) in the work of professional poets such as Martial and Juvenal. 4. EPOCH OF THE ADOPTIVE EMPERORS TO THE POST-CONSTANTINIAN GENERATION (EARLY 2ND CENT. TO MID 4TH CENT. AD) In this context, the period from Hadrian to Julian (117-363) can, diverging from the usual division into ~ periods be seen as a unity in it, Imperial Roman literature as a primarily apolitical textual production based on scholarly education — a process which continued even after the crisis of the empire of the 3rd cent., albeit at a lower level — came to completion. During this phase, there developed a polycentrism, partly due to the crisis of the empire that took its particular toll on Italy and Gaul. Alongside the capital Rome, centres such as Milan, Trier and others in Gaul emerged (Bordeaux, Autun), Africa (Carthage) and, more modest ones, in

Spain. Finally, the period was also characterized in the West from the late 2nd cent. by the hostile co-existence of Christian and pagan cultures, until the two made peace in the late 4th cent. As foci of cultural activity, the imperial court and (grammar) school now came to increasingly exist side by side with the theatre, which remained important and continued the traditional forms of the text-accompanied pantomimus (fabula saltata), the individual dramatic scene (fabula cantata) and the mimus. As rhetoric

did

in the early Imperial

period,

now

grammar

(+ Grammarians) shaped the cultural climate. Accord-

ing to Juvenal’s 7th satire, where all the hopes of the intellectual professions (poet and historian, judicial orator and teacher of rhetoric, grammarian) lie with Hadrian, the Emperor now acted increasingly as the (also financial) guarantor of cultural tradition — expectations that at first were not disappointed in the successive emperors Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Admittedly, in the case of the first, the support of teachers of all arts was overshadowed by the Emperor’s increased literary ambitions and — in parallel with the Greek + Second Sophistic — marked preference for

LITERARY ACTIVITY

647

648

archaic literature: Cato over Cicero, Ennius in stead of Virgil and Coelius [I 1] Antipater even in stead of the archaist Sallust (SHA Hadr. 15,10-16,7). Henceforth, the contemporary stylistic ideals of Greek literature were more binding than ever as direct models in what was practically a bilingual culture, and Latin — ar-

5. THE CHRISTIAN-SECULAR MIXED CULTURE TO THE END OF LATE ANTIQUITY

chaism, based on the erudite cult of the individual word

and in parallel with Greek — Atticism, particularly supported the responsible institutions and occasions — from the grammar school to the conversations of the Noctes Atticae by Gellius, which, while broadly educated, have an antiquarian focus. By the late 4th cent., as a compromise between the conservative tendencies of the school and such modernizing postulates, an uncontested — canon emerged, embracing Virgil and probably still Horace, and now Terence (before Plautus), Sallust (before Livy) and Cicero. Scholarly commentaries on this core canon ranged from Q. Terentius Scaurus, Aemilius Asper and Helenius Acron to Aelius Donatus [3] in the 4th cent. [33], and the collections of evidence for archaic vocabulary and semantics by Flavius [II 14] Caper, Iulius [IV 19] Romanus and Festus [6] up to Charisius [3] and Diomedes [4] function similarly as conditions of the possibility of literary productivity. The corresponding grammatical and rhetorical education offered authors (such as Ausonius or the authors of the preserved corpus of Gaulish panegyrics, see below) the opportunity to rise into the highest ranks of the imperial administration. Republican genres such as tragedy, satire and contemporary history now vanished entirely. On the other hand, continuity into the 4th cent. was provided, by the small-scale, polymetrically playful poetry of Alexandrine character from the so-called poetae novelli (Annianus, Alfius Avitus, Septimius Serenus: 2nd/3rd cents.) to the carmina figurata of Optatianus Porphyrius and the school poetry of Ausonius. Historiography after Tacitus and before Aurelius Victor and Ammianus Marcellinus provided only educational material and therefore contented itself with excerpts from Florius to the 4th cent.; contemporary history from Suetonius via Marius [II 10] Maximus and the > Kaisergeschichte to the — Historia Augusta consisted of imperial biography. The prose panegyric [22; 14], into which the Gaulish corpus allows us an insight from the late 3rd to the late 4th cent., acquired a typical structure for various occasions of imperial ceremonial, beginning with the speech of thanks (gratiarum actio) at the accession to the consulship. Finally, Latin Christianity, in the form of acts of martyrdom (> Martyrdom, literature of) and a first episcopal biography (Pontius’ of Cyprian), in apologetic and later also anti-heretical treatises (— Apologists; -» Heresy) and parish letters, contributed types of texts that only began to take ecumenical effect after Constantine, even more after Theodosius’ suppression of pluralism.

It ought, therefore, to be tenable to insert a further historical caesura into the development of the literary system and the LA that gave rise to it with the generation of the emperor Theodosius (379-395): a period which (1) was forced to allow a growing role in the empire and imperial politics to the > Germani after the defeat of 378, and which (2), on the other hand, after the persecutions of Iulianus [11] the ‘Apostate’ (355— 363) allowed for a final religious stabilization with the establishment of the Christian faith and Church as the state religion. (1) This foreshadowed the physical dissolution of the empire (Germanic kingdoms, division of Eastern and Western Roman Empires); knowledge of Greek faded in the West, with a proliferation of translations from the Greek, while conversely in the East, Latinity survived until the 6th cent. in the framework of the court, the judicial administration and the military, served by appropriate educational provision (Priscianus and other grammarians). (2) It prefigured a finally decisive reconciliation of secular and Christian culture,

accompanied by a radicalization of asceticism and which could — as in the case of Ausonius and his student Paulinus — bring about the choice of divergent ways of life (also within literature). From now on, there arose a

Christianization and theologization of traditional genres [12] such as occasional poetry (Paulinus of Nola), lyric poetry, didactic poetry (Prudentius) and panegyrics [22. 60-72]. Alongside traditional historiography, pagan in spirit (Ammianus Marcellinus, Historia Augusta), there now emerged > Church History as world chronicle and Christian literary history (Jerome), a literarization of conventional forms such as the hymn (Hilarius, Ambrosius) became possible (Prudentius),

and

older

Christian

genres

such

as

the

~ sermon (-> Diatribe; [26]) and theological expert literature grew in quantity and importance.

This happened against the background of a secular culture and LA that at first remained unaltered. In the field of book production, though, liturgical necessities (e.g. Bibles for the service) inspired the domination of the (parchment) > codex over the older (papyrus) scroll, and consequently the transcription of older, ‘classical’ texts and their compilation into sets of volumes each representing around 5—r0 scrolls; these texts were thus largely preserved for the future — not without losses, but without ideologically motivated losses. Book production and distribution remained largely in the private sphere, as is attested in particular by the important + subscriptions of this period to authors mostly of the Imperial age (Livy, Martial, Juvenal, Apuleius, declamations), privileging editions of works designated as ex libris in the context of the schools of rhetoric [23], which themselves formed an important strand of tradition with the private libraries of their owners. On the other hand, around 28 public libraries (Libellus de regionibus urbis Romae, p. 97,9 NORDH) speak for themselves; under the changed conditions, it is possible

649

650

that Greek and Latin pagans and Christians were regularly present there (as in Sid. Apoll. Epist. 2,9,4f.) under the same roof. At least in the teaching of grammar, the efforts of the emperor Julian had failed to keep Christian teachers of literature at a distance from the pagan classics. Conversely, postulates (Jerome, Augustine) had not succeeded in wooing away the Christianized Italian senatorial aristocracy from the class privileges of its (secular) education, although the construct of an explicitly pagan intellectual ‘reaction’ in the circle of Symmachus proved to be a phantom of modern origin. An expansion of the canon by the addition of authors of the Imperial period is nonetheless characteristic of this time (alongside the aforementioned, also e.g. Lucanus and Statius, Persius and the tragedies of Seneca, the letters of Pliny the Younger). The locations of public literary production remained or increased: a) noble houses and especially the imperial court, where festival speeches and eulogies, panegyrics and encomia in verse form had been presented from the time of Claudianus [2], b) auditoria in public buildings, c) the theatre, for as long as public taste was tolerated [1. 193-198], and increasingly d) the church (liturgy and sermon). This cycle of literary production, presentation and conservation remained stable in the western provinces, though also sclerotic and slowly crumbling, insofar and for as long as the traditional urban culture and isolated villas survived. In Africa, though shaken by the Vandal invasion and the Byzantine reconquest, it endured until the Saracen attack; in Spain it lasted through the migrations until the conquest by —> Islam, while in the Germanic kingdoms of England, Gaul and Italy it continued to survive precariously. After all, the partial acculturation of the Vandals and Visigoths, the Franks and Lombards left more than mere traces beyond their Christianization thanks entirely to the Carolingian educational reform, with its fostering of monastic schools and libraries. + Canon; — Circles, literary; > Library; — Literary genre; > Literature; > School 1 R.C. BEAcHAM, The Roman Theatre and its Audience,

1991 1991

2M.Bearp et al., Literacy in the Roman World, 3 F.BELLANDI, L’immagine di Mecenate protet-

tore delle lettere nella poesia fra I e II sec. d.C., in: AXR 40,1995, 78-101 4 F. BERNSTEIN, Ludi publici, 1998 5 A. CAMERON, Poetae novelli, in: HSPh 84, 1980, 127175 6G.CAVALLO, in: Id. (ed.), Libri, editori e pubblico nel mondo antico, 1975, 81-132, 149-162 7 G.CuPalUOLO, Crisi istituzionale e cultura della periferia, 1995 8 L.J. ENGELs, H.HOFMANN, Lit. und Ges. in der Spatant., in: Id. (ed.), Spatant. (NHL, vol. 4), 1997, 29-88 9 E.FANTHAM, Roman Literary Culture from Cicero to

Apuleius, 1996

10H.I. FLower, Fabulae praetextae in

Context, in: CQ 45, 1995, 170-190 11 FRIEDLANDER, vol. 2, 1-265 (dramas, music, belles lettres) 12 M.FUHRMANN (ed.), Christianisme et formes littéraires de |’antiquité tardive en Occident, 1977. 13 Cu. GarTON, Personal Aspects of the Roman Theatre, 1972 14 A. GIARpinA, M.SILVESTRINI, Il principe e il testo, in: [42] 2,

1989, 579-613

15 B.K. GoLp (ed.), Literary and Artis-

tic Patronage in Ancient Rome, 1982

16 E.S. GRUEN,

LITERARY CRITICISM

Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome, 1992 17 R. HERzOG, in: HLL 5, 11-33 18 H.JURGENs, Pompa diaboli, 1972 19R.KasrTeR, Guardians of Language, 1988 20 E. LEFEvre (ed.), Das rom. Drama, 1978 21 H.Leppin, Histrionen, 1992 22 S.MacCoRMACK, Latin Prose Panegyrics, in: Revue des études augustiniennes 22, 1976, 29-77. 23 O.PECERE, La tradizione dei testi latini tra IV e V secolo attraverso i libri sottoscritti, in: A. GtarpDINA (ed.), Tradizione dei classici, trasformazione della cultura, 1986, 19-81, 210-246 24E.Rawson, Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic, 1985 25 N.SAVARESE, Teatri romani. Gli spettacoli nell’antica Roma,1996 26 CHR. SCHAUBLIN, Zum paganen Umfeld der christl. Predigt, in: G. BINDER, K. EHLICH (ed.), Kom-

munikation in polit. und kult. Gemeinschaften — Statten und Formen der Kommunikation im Altertum V (Bochumer Alt.wiss. Colloquium, vol. 24), 1996, 167-192

27 P.L. ScumipT, Die Anfange der institutionellen Rhet. in Rom, in: E. LEFEVRE (ed.), Monumentum Chiloniense.

FS E.Burck, 1975, 183-216

28 Id., Horaz’ Sakularge-

dicht — ein Prozessionslied?, in: AU 28, 1985, 42-53

29 Id., Postquam ludus in artem paulatim verterat. Varro und die Friihgesch. des rém. Theaters, in: G. VoGT-SPIRA (ed.), Studien zur vorlit. Periode im friihen Rom, 1989, 77-132 30 Id., Nero und das Theater, in: BLANSDORF,

149-163

31 Id., Die Appellstruktur der taciteischen

Historien, in: G. Voct-Spira (ed.), Beitr. zur miindlichen Kultur der Romer, 1993, 177-193 32 Id., Sueton, Lite-

raturhistor. Schriften, in: HLL 4, 27-40

33 Id., Gram-

matik, in: HLL 4, 218-261; Grammatik und Rhetorik, in:

HLL 5, ror-158 34 Id., s.v. Klassizismus, Klassik, HWadR 4, 982f. 35 R.SCHNELL, Die Lit. der Bundesrepublik. Autoren, Geschichte, L., 1986 36 W.J. SLATER (ed.), Roman Theater and Society, 1996 37 P. STEINMETZ, Unt. zur rom. Lit. des 2. Jh.n.Chr., 1982 38L.R. TAYLOR, Republican and Augustan Writers Enrolled in the Equestrian Centuries, in: TAPhA 99, 1968, 469-486 39 G. VocT-Spira (ed.), Strukturen der Miindlichkeit in der rom. Lit., 1990 40 G. WILLIAMs, Change and Decline. Roman Literature in the Early Empire, 1978 41 N. Zorzetti, The Carmina convivalia, in: O.MURRAY (ed.), Sympotica, 1990, 289-307. 42 G.CAVALLo (ed.),

Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica 1 (La produzione del testo); 2 (La ricezione del testo), 1989/90.

P.L.S.

Literary criticism Literary criticism (LC) (from Greek krinein) refers, in antiquity, to the process of ‘differentiating’ between and ‘evaluating’ different kinds of language — literary and non-literary — and their positive effects and respective benefit for the societies in which both types of texts are produced or received (for the view that classical LC forms the basis of modern LC, see [2. 5,273 3]; differently [12. 111; 9. 84f.]). LC thus controls primarily those discourses which may potentially be dangerous for society, and consequently favouring the speech used by the state and ruling authorities [13]. Roman LC, in its social and political functions, continues the Greek debate over the role of literature, which included, among other things, Plato’s banishment of literature from the ideal polis. In the Roman Republic the Laws of the Twelve Tables had already banned harmful language (malum carmen, excantatio) and calumny; the penalty was death (see Lex XII tab.

LITERARY CRITICISM

L, tbs Sab; Rhets Hem 4,451-1452534,3'55 Gic. Repy4, 125 Aug. Civ. 2,9). In the Imperial period, LC, as a regulating and self-regulating discourse, is channelled through poetry. > Horatius [7], for instance, argues for the literary standards of the elite (in particular of the exclusive circles of literati; Hor. Sat. 1,10,76; cf. Hor. Epist. 2,1,19; 2,1,84f.) and distinguishes them from the excesses of Greek Old Comedy (Sat. 1,4,1-5), of Fescennines (Epist. 2,1,14 5-15 5; > Fescennini versus) and of > Lucillius [I 6]. He says the poet must be, among other things, utilis urbi, ‘useful to the polis’ (Hor. Epist. 2,1,124); he is a judge, teacher and moralist who teaches by his example (ibid. 128-131); he teaches about marriage and religion (ibid. 132-144), turns the public away from obscene speech (ibid. 126f.) and opposes things inappropriate for the stage (Medea’s infanticide, Atreus’ feast, Procne’s and Cadmos’ metamorphoses; ibid. 179-188). Horace sets moral decorum (‘propriety’) as the norm, putting into effect Aristotle’s prépon (Hor. Epist. 2,1,42-45, cf. [14; 17. 423-434]). But in the later Imperial period, libertas (‘freedom’) becomes the main catchword in the debate over literature. ~ Tacitus describes Rome as an inhospitable place for authors and free speech, blaming Augustus for this (Tac. Ann. 1,1; cf. 1,33; Liv. 2,1,7; 3,38,2 et passim).

Writers

offending

the emperor

are

charged

with

— maiestas; their books are burned (— Censorship) — a

new development, as the case of + Cremutius Cordus indicates (Tac. Ann. 4,34f.; cf. Tac. Agr. 2,2). Tacitus’ Dialogus begins with a warning to Maternus not to publish his tragedy Cato because otherwise he would appear to be criticizing the state and the ruler (2,3). But Maternus thinks that literature is more suited to his times than eloquence, since the latter usually goes along with sedition (41,5; cf. Ps.-Longinus, Peri hypsous 44,1). Roman LC also teaches how language accommodates social pressures (on the figure of the muzzled intellectual see [6; 18]). For Tacitus, libertas (‘freedom’)

can only be realized in combination with —> virtus; this shows that LC must never !ose sight of the common good [16. 3424f.]. > Demetrius [41], the theorist of style, demonstrates how one is to address and criticize tyrants and those in power (Peri hermeneias 289; 294; [11]), whereas > Quintilianus indicates possible ways of dealing even with hostile authorities by means of figurative speech (Quint. Inst. 9,2,66f.). This subversive quality of Roman LC is most pronounced in the treatise Peri hypsous (‘On the Sublime’, see > Ps.-Longinus),

which sees the elevated style as the means to free texts and their audiences from the constraints of their situation [4]. > Literary

activity;

652

651

— Literary

history;

— Literary

theory 1J.W. Arkins, Literary Criticism in Antiquity, 2 vols., 1934 2 R. WeLLex, A History of Modern Criticism, 1750-1950, vol.1,1955 3 W.K. Wimsatt, C. BROOoKs, Literary Criticism, 1957 4C.P. SEGAL, YWOX and the Problem of Cultural Decline in the De Sublimitate, in:

HSPh 64, 1959, 121-146

5 G.M. A. Grube, The Greek

and Roman Critics, 1965 the Roman Order, 1966

6 R. MACMULLEN, Enemies of 7R.Harrrotrt, Poetry and

Criticism before Plato, 1969 8 D.A. RusseLi, M. WINTERBOTTOM, Ancient Literary Criticism, 1972 9M.McCa_t, Review of [8], in: AJPh 96, 1975, 84f. 10 D. A. RussELt, Criticism in Antiquity, 1981 11F.M. Aut, The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome, in:

AJPh 105, 1984, 174-208 12 D.LA Capra, History and Criticism, 1985 13 P. Bové, Genealogy of Critical Humanism, 1986 and Epistle to

14N.Rupp, Horace, Epistles Book II the Pisones (‘Ars Poetica’), 31989

15 G. Kennepy (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, vol. 1, 1989

16 M.Morrorp, How Tacitus

Defined Liberty, in: ANRW 17 I.RUTHERFORD,

II 33.5, 1991, 3420-3450

s.v. Decorum,

HWdR

vol. 2, 1994,

423-434 18 Y.L. Too, Educating Nero, in: J. ELSNER (ed.), Reflections of Nero, 1994, 211-224 19 Id., The Idea of Ancient Literary Criticism, 1998 vege

Literary genre (Greek eidoc/eidos or yévoc/génos; Lat. genus). I. Concept

IJ. GreeK

III. LATIN

I. CONCEPT Literary genres are the result of literature being divided into groups. Poetry and/or prose are classified by a culture or its interpreters, based on the principle of similarity — the occasion on which they are presented, audience, topic, musical style, etc. The concept of ‘genre’ has been culturally determined since the dawn of history, because the meaning of a work depends not least on the extent to which the audience perceives it as similar to or different from earlier works. Within a given culture, different groupings may be preferred at different times. Moreover, genre categories that may appear logical to modern-day scholars may not necessarily correspond to those of ancient times. II. GREEK A. Poetry

B. PROSE

C. GENERAL

COMMENTS

A. POETRY Evidence of ancient Greek literary genres is found in the names poets gave to their own poems, the intertextual links

between

individual

poems,

references

to

poetry in contemporary prose works and comments by Hellenistic and later scholars (primarily in the scholia); of particular importance in this context is the summary of Proclus’ Chréstomathia (preserved in Photius, Bibl. 239). In the Archaic and Classical periods, hexameter poetry on every topic as well as > elegies were called (e.g. Theognis 20,22) ‘epics’ (énn/épé; > Epic). Also ta éheyeia (ta elegeia) is used; tauBoc (fambos) originally referred to several verse types, often defamatory poems, but soon came to refer to the metrical form (+ Iambographers). Although Aristotle (Poet. 1447b 9-23) and Callimachus (fr. 203,30-3 PFEIFFER) questioned it for a variety of reasons, the metrical criterion remained a

fundamental tool for classifying spoken and recitative verses and the majority of ‘personal’ — lyric poetry.

653

654

Most of + Sappho’s poems, for example, were organized by metre in the Alexandrian edition. This was more than a purely formalistic differentiation, since different metres also carried different moral and social connotations and served as a means for poets to express affiliation and/or provocative innovation. Linked to the metrical criterion were lists compiled of exemplary authors in each genre, the so-called > canon. For choral lyrics, in contrast, classification was based on the occasion, the function and often on the one to be honoured. Accordingly, hymns (+ Hymn) were sung for the gods, dithyrambs particularly for Dionysus, paeans for Apollo, threnoi for the dead, etc. (cf.

with the historical development of genre and analyzes the nature of tragedy, with respect to the tragic plot as well as the psychology of the audience.

Pind. Fr. 128c MAEHLER; Pl. Leg. 3,700a-b; > Hymn; ~ Dithyramb; > Paean; > Threnos). Hellenistic schol-

ars adopted this principle and used it to create a classification system which, according to Proclus, was ‘very diverse (xokvpegeotatn/polymerestaté) and divided into many subgroups’, and which frequently lacked a consensus (cf. POxy. 2368 = SH 293). The poetry of ~ Pindarus, for example, was divided into hymns, paeans, dithyrambs, prosodies (+ Prosodion), partheneia (> Partheneion), > hyporchemata, enkomia (> Encomium), threnoi and epinikia (— Epinikion; Schol. Pind. vol. I p. 3; 6-9 DRACHMANN = Vita Ambrosiana). The organization that has been preserved shows the usual classification into songs ‘for the gods’ and ‘for human beings’ (cf. Theoc. 16, 1-4). The disappearance of the original cultural context and the separation from the practice of musical performance — the poems were now read as texts — reinforced the consciousness of clear genre differences. Obsolete or increasingly rare genres could be perpetuated through literary revivals (cf. Theoc. 18, an epithalamium in hexameters; Callimachus, SH 254-68, fr. 384 PFEIFFER, an epinikion in elegiac verses).

The two most important Greek genre theorists were Plato and Aristotle. In Pl. Resp. 3,392 d—394¢ 6, Socrates proposes subdividing poetry into diegetic, ‘pure narrative’ (Sujynouc/dihegésis or anayyehia/apangelia), e.g. dithyramb, and mimetic, ‘imitation’ (1inotc/mimesis, + Mimesis), e.g. drama, in which a character rather

than the poet speaks. Epic poetry represents a mixed form. This general distinction between ‘mimetic’ and ‘non-mimetic’ (with or without the ‘mixed’ category) influenced practically the entire later discussion of poetry genres (for example, > Proclus and the so-called Tractatus Coislinianus). Aristotle’s ‘Poetics’ begins with a clear awareness of genre classifications: ‘of the art of poetry itself and its genres (eidé), what effect each has ...’, but it soon develops into an unusual analysis without a model: ‘> epic, > tragedy, > comedy, -> dithyramb and the majority of flute and lute playing, i.e. citharodic and auletic poetry, are by and large imitations (mimeéseis). They differ in three ways from one another: in their means of imitation, the objects of imitation and the type of imitation.’ The analysis that follows is probably the most astute treatise on literary genre that has been passed on to us from antiquity: it deals

LITERARY GENRE

B. PROSE There are numerous pieces of evidence from the 4th cent. BC indicating a clear awareness of genre, which can be traced back to, among other things, the > Sophists and the rise of formal rhetoric. Prose encomia (éyxduwa/enkOmia or émawovépainoi) were so common

that they were parodied (Pl. Symp. 177b; Isoc. Or. 10,12 = Helenae encomium); Plato’s Menéxenos pre-

supposes the genre of the funerary oration. The usual criteria of occasion and purpose were applied to the classification of public speeches. ‘There are three types (yévn/géné) of public speeches: the political speech (Snunyooxov/démégorikon), the ceremonial speech (énvderntixdv/epideiktikon) and the courtroom speech (Stxavixdv/dikanikon). This can be further subdivided into seven categories (ei6n/eidé): the persuasive, the dissuasive, the laudatory speech, the speech of censure, and speeches of accusation, defence and examination’ (Aristot. Rh. Al. 1; cf. Aristot. Rh. 1,3, where the political speech is called yévog ovpBovdevtindv/génos symbouleutik6n; > Rhetoric; > genera causarum). The rhetoric of the late Imperial period (cf. Menander [12] rhetor) undertook a subdivision according to topics, based on the specific needs of bureaucracy: speeches to bid farewell to an archont (ovvtaxtixdc/ syntaktik6s), speeches welcoming one newly arriving (émPathvoc/epibatérios), praise of a city, etc.

C. GENERAL COMMENTS The attention given to genre issues and classifications reflects the purposes and fears of those who were doing the classification. It may represent a kind of promotion. In contrast to later historians, who adopted Thucydides’ famous claim of a special quality of his work (1,20-z) in order to assert their belonging to the genre of — historiography, Thucydides dissociated himself in both spatial and qualitative terms from earlier authors. Isocrates defends the importance of his ‘Helena’ against that of the ‘Gorgias’ by distinguishing the > enkomion (laudatory speech) from the apologia (speech of defence) (Isoc. Or. t0,14-15). In particular, rhetorical classifications conformed to the specific requirements of Athenian democracy. As with the - Sophists, classification can represent a claim to power with respect to knowledge and education; thus an interest in genre issues is characteristic of the world of scholars and its rhetoric as well as of the institutionalization of culture in libraries (> Library) like the one in Alexandria. As a learned elite, scholars concerned themselves with elitist texts and largely ignored popular genres such as the > novel. Perhaps the clearest example of concern for proper genre classification that reflects a specific intellectual programme is that of Plato. Differentiation according to genre supports the assertion that poets did not com-

LITERARY GENRE

655

pose their works according to art or knowledge (PI. Ion 534c). The disappearance of this differentiation was seen as analogous to the decline of power, if people only did what gives them pleasure (PI. Leg. 3,700a-7orb). Repeated insistence on the difference between tragedy and comedy (PI. Resp. 3,395a-b, cf. Pl. Symp. 223d) supports the ideology that characterizes Plato’s Politeia, holding that one can only do one thing well at a time. Similarly, the distinction between ‘mimetic’ and ‘non-mimetic’ poetry confirms his thesis that mimesis has destructive effects. Thus Plato offers a vivid example demonstrating that the crucial questions about any kind of genre classification are: who does the classifying? and why? + Metre; > Lyric poetry; > Mimesis; — Rhetoric; > Literary genre G.B. Conte, Genres and Readers, 1994; H. FARBER, Die Lyrik in der Kunsttheorie der Ant., 1936; M. FANTuzzr, Il sistema letterario della poesia alessandrina nel III. sec. a.C., in: G.CAMBIANO, L. CaNnrora, D.LANza (ed.), Lo

spazio letterario della Grecia antica Iz, 1993, 31-73; A.E. Harvey, The Classification of Greek Lyric Poetry, in: CQ 5, 1955, 157-175; L.KAppPEL, Paian, 1992; S.KosTER, Ant. Epostheorien, 1970; PFEIFFER, KP I; T.G. RosEn-

MEYER, Ancient Literary Genres: A Mirage?, in: Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature 34, 1985, 74-84; L.E. Rossi, I generi letterari e le loro leggi scritte e non scritte,

in:

BICS

18,

1971,

69-94;

E.-R.SCHWINGE,

Griech. Poesie und die Lehre von der Gattungstrinitat in der Moderne, in: AXA

27, 1981, 130-162; M.L. West,

Studies in Greek Elegy and Jambus, 1974.

R.HU.

III. LATIN A. THE GENRES OF GREEK LITERATURE IN ROME B. SELF-DEFINITION AND EXPERIMENTATION IN ROMAN LITERATURE

A. THE GENRES OF GREEK LITERATURE IN ROME At least from the end of the 3rd cent. BC, Rome’s system of literary genres (Lat. genera) was determined by Greek models. By the time these models were exported to Rome, Hellenistic literary scholars had already established a classification of Greek literature in genres. In Rome, scholarly interest in poetic genres was expressed at least by the time of the Didascalia of ~ Accius (quam varia sint genera poematorum, Baebi

nosce, fr. 8 FUNAIOLI); > Horatius [7] outlines in the Ars poetica (Ars P. 73-85) the traditional characteris-

tics of the most important literary genres (— Epic, + Elegy, iambus, + Comedy, — Tragedy, —> Lyric poetry) according to metre and content; > Quintilianus compiles for the future orator a comparative listing of the genera lectionum (‘reading genres’) in Greek (Quint. Inst. 10,1,46-84) and Latin (ibid. 10,1,85131). The Greek organization of the rhetoric genres is reproduced in manuals starting with the > Rhetorica ad Herennium (1,2); Cicero (Cic. Orat. 61-8) defines the relationship of the orator to the four other types of writers: the philosopher, the sophist, the historian and the poet.

656

B. SELF-DEFINITION AND EXPERIMENTATION IN ROMAN LITERATURE Partly owing to the consciousness of working within an adopted genre system, Latin literature tends to emphasize its own genre boundaries more strongly than| those of Greek genres — as well as the choice one makes when writing in a specific genre. The result is, on the one hand, a high degree of clarity and consistency of genre characteristics, and on the other hand an increased interest in experimentation both within and beyond genre boundaries. Hellenistic scholars and poets linked the definition of genres with literary history by identifying the first representatives of the poetic genres and metres (cf. Hor. Ars P. 73-79). Latin poets frequently signalled their choice of genre by alluding to its Greek ‘inventor’ or to the main representative of the genre. > Ennius [1] inaugurates the tradition of Latin hexameter poetry by declaring in a dream at the beginning of his ‘Annales’ that he is a reincarnation of Homer; > Virgil describes his ‘Eclogues’ as “Syracusan’ (i.e. Theocritean) verses (Verg. Ecl. 6,1) and the ‘Georgica’ as an Ascraeum carmen (i.e. Hesiodic song) (Verg. G. 2,176); Horace describes himself in his ‘Epodes’ as a successor to > Archilochus (Hor. Epist. 1,19,23-5) and in his ‘Odes’ as a successor to the Aeolian poets > Alcaeus [4] and > Sappho (3,30,13). The poets of the late Republic and the Augustan Imperial period exhibit a particularly keen consciousness of genre affiliation and often dramatize their choice of genre through the device of > recusatio, in which a representative of the ‘lower’ genres (pastoral poetry, erotic or symposiastic lyric poetry, love elegy) refuses to write in a ‘higher’ genre (epic or tragedy): cf. e.g. Verg. Ecl. 6,1-12; Hor. Carm. 1,6; Prop. 2,1 (the earliest extant case of the examples so common in elegy). In the Aitia (fr. 1), Callimachus defended his choice of genre in the form of a literary debate with his critics. The Latin recusatio, in contrast, presents this choice as one of a certain lifestyle or as the expression of a political and ideological preference. This brings back into play the link between literary genre and the extra-literary sphere, which, from the origin of the Greek genres, had long seemed to have disappeared in certain religious and social contexts. The Augustan poets in particular make use of attention to genre affiliation in order to delineate their position in the new power structures of the Augustan Principate. A heightened sensorium for genre characteristics encourages Roman poets to experiment with genre boundaries. This leads them to develop further an interest in the ‘mixing of genres’ that the Hellenistic poets had already cultivated. At the beginning of the fourth Eclogue, for example, Virgil indicates that he wants to expand the boundaries of pastoral poetry (> Bucolics) to bring it closer to the high tone of the epic; the tenth Eclogue makes use of pastoral poetry’s dramatic dialogue form to illustrate the connection between it and the > elegy in their treatment of the theme of love. This kind of playful treatment of genres is most highly devel-

657

658

oped in + Ovidius. By using certain key words and other types of references, he carries it to the point that in the ‘Metamorphoses’ and the ‘Fasti’ there is an almost constant sense of genre-specific instability and the reader is confused by the lack of specific, unambiguous genre characteristics. Roman poets also play with reader expectations with respect to the link between certain audiences and types of discourse and established or gen-

LH. It can be ascertained that ancient perspectives on history existed; however, the entirety of ‘speaking about literature’ reveals that history only played a relatively secondary role compared to other interests such as linguistic peculiarities or factual connections. For this reason, Graeco-Roman antiquity did not bring forth a model discipline of LH which simply could have been modernized through the application of historicist methods. Instead, the actual predecessor of modern LH must be found in > literary criticism, which, in its close reciprocity to the process of literary imitatio (- Mime-

re-specific

situations

(genre

in the

sense

of

[1])

(+ Hymn or > prayer; farewell poem/> propemptikon; serenade/komos or > paraklausithyron, etc.). The normative system of genre division did not prevent the development of new genres or sub-genres in Rome. Quintilian claims > satire as a genuine Roman genre, although Horace — for reasons of local, contextrelated interest - emphasizes that its ‘inventor’ > Lucilius [I 6] orientated himself on the models of the Old Attic Comedy (Hor. Sat. 1,4,1-7). The group of the four Roman love elegists attain in their poetry the semicanonical status of a form of > elegy without a Greek model (Ov. Tr. 4,10,51-4). Horace and Ovid test the possibilities of autobiographical speech in the verse epistle. The elitist genre system of high literature that had been adopted from the Greeks offered no categories for including texts from popular or sub-literary traditions, such as the ‘Lives of the Twelve Caesars’ by — Suetonius or the innovative experiments with the form of the > novel undertaken by > Petronius and — Apuleius [III]. — Literary genre 1 F.Carrns, Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry,1972

2 G.B. Conte, Genres and Readers, 1994

3 S.Hinps, The Metamorphosis

of Persephone,

1987

4Id., Reconsidering Ovid’s Fasti, in: Arethusa 25, 1992, 81-153 5 W.KROLL, Studien zum Verstandnis der r6m. Lit, 1924 (ch. 9: Die Kreuzung der Gattungen)

6 P. STEINMETZ, G. und Epochen der griech. Lit. in der Sicht Quintilians, in: Hermes 92, 1964, 454-466. P.R.H.

Literary history A. EXISTENCE

B. TypoLoGy

C. GREEK

D. LATIN

LITERARY HISTORY

sis), served as a model for LH up to the 18th cent. (on

the change in the discipline [3. 29f.]). Ancient and medieval LH within the frame of reference described above remains uncharted territory (LH as a subject is just now being discovered: [4; 5]). In the English-speaking world, phenomena of LH are usually subsumed under the category of ‘literary criticism’ [6]. B. TYPOLOGY Since LH had not evolved as a homogenous genre in antiquity, it can be found either as an independent species or as one component within other forms. The following types can be distinguished: 1) The primary forms are chronology and biography, both occupying a fixed place in ancient > philology. If an author or a text serves as the point of reference, the historiographical interest focuses more on the collection of data than on general questions. Here, transitions exist to the (non-historiographical) literary genre of > biography. 2) This sub-discipline enarratio poetarum within grammar is also called historice (Quint. Inst. 1,9,1) in the sense of a factual explanation which, however, does not primarily contain data of literary history (too far-reaching: [7. 43 5]; on the systematical position: [8. 52ff.]). 3) The subject of historiography in the sense of an evolutionary inquiry are questions of genre, in correspondence to the focus on genre in the ancient system of literature (— Literary genre). Such interest exists esp. for > drama and > rhetoric. 4) Occasionally, theories of natural or cultural developments (such as cycle theories, decadence theories, etc.)

A. EXISTENCE The question whether literary history (LH) was known in antiquity depends on how LH is conceived and defined. Common opinion regards it as a type of historical understanding which, however, did not emerge as the dominant paradigm until the 18th cent. Judged from this point of view, ‘LH’ did not exist in antiquity as an independent subject of historical hermeneutics. The existence of LH in antiquity is therefore either rejected altogether or only accepted in the sense of a preliminary phase [1. 49; 2. 322]. Instead of using such an evolutionary model of modern LG, it would be more reasonable to apply a less narrow concept of history and to analyze the forms, the importance and the functions of time as a parameter within the reflections on literature in antiquity. In this approach, not everything that deals with past literature is considered to be

are applied to the realm of literature as well [9. 6off.], but usually only as one paradigm within a larger context and not for the sake of LH. 5) Aside from rudimentary attempts, no divisions into epochs have been established. The division into periods familiar to us today is a product of the Renaissance [10]. However, the dichotomy of ‘old-new’ as the simplest temporal division played a large role and, in turn, allowed internal distinctions [7. 256ff.]. Furthermore, the constitution of a Classical period has the effect of an implicitly created structure (— Classicism, ~ Literature, Augustan). In so far as the latter reveals a

certain temporal homogeneity, as was the case in Rome, one can discern a rising trend from the beginnings to the peak authors, a trend which was very important for Latin LH. 6) In literary criticism, which always proceeds normatively and ahistorically due to its agenda,

LITERARY HISTORY

659

no temporal differentiation can be found in the ideal models. Age and origin of a model text are irrelevant as long as it is suitable for imitatio. For this reason, Homer and Virgil were judged according to the same standards (this was not deemed historically inappropriate until modernity [3]). However, mixed forms evolved, the more precise evaluation of which required that aspects of LH be taken into consideration. C. GREEK The early interest for the vitae of famous authors like Homer can be regarded as the beginning of LH. In the narrow sense, however, LH did not begin until the 4th cent. BC. The archegetes is > Aristoteles [6], the first to turn literature into a scholarly subject, raising not only poetological questions and questions about literary criticism, but questions of LH as well. The works Didascaliae, De tragoediis and Dionysiacae victoriae, which published the material for the dramatic performances in Athens, formed the basis for a chronology of Attic drama. These beginnings of an evolutionary explanation of Greek LH were continued only partially in that the principle of teleology was applied to the sequence of genres and to their internal development (Aristot. Poet. 4-5). The later Peripatos primarily cultivated the genre of the author’s biography (— Biogra-

phy). The establishment of a canon of classics (> Canon) in Alexandrian philology further limited the possibilities of LH. A classicism that stretched over half a mil lennium, marked by the two peaks of ~ Homer and — Menander, is not conducive to evolutionary interpretations. The work in LH done by the Alexandrians belongs to another area. The Pinakes by > Callimachus [3], which lists the biographical data and works for each author’s name, are the basis for a chronological

organization of Greek literature, which was later systematized by > Eratosthenes [2], the founder of critical chronology [11]. The circle around > Aristophanes [4] of Byzantium and > Aristarchus [4] was the source of Quintilian’s list of Greek authors (Quint. Inst. 10,1,4684). However,

it did not amount to a ‘summary of

Greek LH’ [12.455]. LH received a fresh impulse through > Atticism, which can be interpreted as a classicist period according to the evolutionary three-step scheme that posits a period of renewal and rise after a period of decadence; an early example can be found in ~ Dionysius [18] of Halicarnassus’ De oratoribus veteribus praefatio, where this phenomenon is claimed to occur in oration and is attributed to Rome’s beneficial influence [9. 122ff.]. At the same time, the group of works on literary theory by Dionysius reveal the low status held by elements of LH. This also applies to the remaining Imperial period. The main form was the genre of — biography, into which the existing material was moulded, some of it to be adopted by the > Suda, the last place where ancient knowledge was collected and thus preserved.

660

D. LaTIN In Rome, the function of LH is more complex as was the situation surrounding the reception of Roman literature. On the one hand, efforts were directed at organizing and archiving, but at the same time, two frames of reference emerged in the context of the cultural dialogue with Greece. The distance to Greece was interpreted as a merely temporal one — a distance that could be closed -, an interpretation supportive of the view that Roman literature was evolving towards the same height of literary standards. LH was therefore a stronger presence in the late Republican period up to the Augustan period when Romans were convinced of their own literature’s equivalency to that of the Greeks. This view remained also formative for the period that followed. Nevertheless, one can detect efforts directed at LH already in the early phase, not least in the translation of Alexandrian and Peripatetic LH. Very influential is > Accius, who in particular discusses questions of theatre history in his Didascalica and Pragmatica and who undertakes the dating of works (often mentioned later). It is highly likely that studies in LH took place in the context of the lively disputes about literary criticism in the 2nd half of the 2nd cent. BC, but these can no longer be reconstructed. A key figure of the rst cent. BC as well as an authority for all subsequent Latin literature is > Varro Reatinus, the most important Roman scholar. Among his countless texts on literature (at least 15 in more than 40 bks.), many are devoted to questions of LH in the narrow sense, although the boundaries are fluid due to

the system in place at the time. Among them are chronological and biographical works and works about the history of genres. Special attention is paid to the history of theatre; one example is a presentation of the prehistory and the early history of Roman drama, preserved in Liv. 7,2 (typical for the complicated history of transmission: [13. 106ff.]). A further testimony to the broad interest of Romans in their own literature can be found in C. > Nepos’ De viris illustribus, which contained also sections on historici and poetae. The best-preserved model of ancient LH is found in + Cicero’s Brutus, a history of eloquence from the Greek beginnings up to Cicero’s own time, presented as a continuous rise within the Roman period. Nonetheless, even this work was guided less by an interest in historical hermeneutics than by the author’s desire to legitimize his oratory ideal and must therefore be regarded as a historically arguing companion volume to the systematically conceived Orator. A similar function is fulfilled by the short evolutionary history of the artes in Cic. Tusc. 1,3ff., written as a justification of the author’s own work as a translator of philosophy. These examples also show how a historical perspective can find its place within a broader context of functions. It is no coincidence that > Horatius [7], the most reflective of the Roman poets, often reverts to arguments from LH in order to defend himself against traditionalists upholding ancient Roman forms. The desire to prove

661

early literature as antiquated activates a pattern of evolutionary arguments yielding sophisticated judgements based ona consideration of the historical possibilities of each text (Hor. Sat. 2,1; on Lucil. 1,4; 10; 2,1). Altogether, the literary manifestations beginning with Cicero reveal a pattern of progress which was of utmost importance for the self-understanding and the perception of the Latin Classical period and which was to leave a universal imprint [14. 30]. In the Imperial period, philological research focused on the extension and completion of the Varronian material. An important mediating role was played by ~ Suetonius’ Catalogus virorum illustrium, the most comprehensive literary-historical collection of vitae of Roman authors up to the end of the rst cent. [15. 27ff.]. Among evolutionary theories, the decadence model prevailed, standing in a certain opposition to the doctrine of imitatio/aemulatio (> Intertextuality) which was guiding literary practice and which contained an implicit concept of progress. The topos of decadence concerns esp. rhetoric (the earliest witness being Sen. Controv. 1, praef.; satirical reflection in Petron. Sat. rff.); the most sophisticated contribution is > Tacitus’ Dialogus, which endows LH with a new level of analytical quality through its connections to political history [9. 294ff.; 16]. Parallel to these, we find different evolutionary models such as a cyclical model in the excursuses dealing with literature in > Velleius Pater-

662

LITERARY THEORY

1 M. FUHRMANN, Geschichte der L., in: B. CERQUIGLINI et al. (ed.), Der Diskurs der Lit.- und Sprachhistorie, 1983, 49-72 2 F. Leo, Die griech.-r6ém. Biographie, 1901 3 G. VoctT-Spira, Ars oder Ingenium?, in: Lit.-wiss. Jb. 35, 1994,9-31 4P.GopMaN, L. im lat. MA, in: W. HArMs et al. (ed.), FS Worstbrock, 1997, 177-197 Sak. SCHWINDT, Prolegomena zu einer ‘Phanomenologie’ der rom. L., Gottingen 2000

aetates, in: Hermes

pat und Kultur, 1995, 210-228.

of this can be found in the ‘Saturnalia’ by > Macrobius,

which became an essential point of reference for the Middle Ages [7. 441].

G.V.-S.

Literary language see > Language strata

Literary sponsorship see > Literary activity; > Circles, literary

I. GREEK

little importance in the treatment of ancient literature, which by then had become classical. A typical example

11R.BLUM,

taciteischen Dialogus, in: B.KUHNERT et al. (ed.), Prinzi-

Literary theory

accessus). Functionally, historical distinctions received

124, 1996, 220-240

SprraA (ed.), Stud. zur vorlit. Periode im friihen Rom, 1989, 77-134 14 G.Vocrt-SpiRA, Lit. Imitatio und kulturelle Identitat, in: Id., B. ROMMEL (ed.), Rezeption und Identitat, 1999, 22-36 15 P.L. ScHmipt, in: HLL, vol. 4,§ 404 16S.D6pp, »Zeitverhaltnisse und Kultur«; im

the model authors, and, while not aiming directly at historical insights, it presented them within a temporal framework which did allow a historical perspective. The most elaborate example can be found in Quintilian’s reading list (> Canon [1] IV.), which, however, should not be regarded as a LH despite its historical details [x2], but rather as belonging to the genre of literary criticism. The question of how important issues of LH were in the literary context may be answered by ~ Buntschriftstelleret, for instance the Noctes Atticae by — Gellius. These texts shed light on an educated conversational culture where the topic of literature occupied much space, although they were dominated by questions of linguistics, criticism and of factual issues. Late antiquity failed to give rise to a new type of LH, but the existent topics were expanded through the antagonism between pagan and Christian literature. In this way, > Hieronymus transfers the scheme in Suehomonymous work functioned as the ‘first Christian LH’. The focus in this ‘era of the > grammaticus’, however, is on the production of a > commentary, with historical material being integrated into the introductions to each author and work (later referred to as

(ed.), The

Kallimachos und die Lit.-Verzeichnung bei den Griechen, 1977. 12 P.STEINMETZ, Griech. Lit. in der Sicht Quintilians, in: Hermes 92, 1964, 454-466 13 P.L. ScHMrpT, Postquam ludus in artem paulatim verterat, in: G. VoctT-

culus (1,16ff.; 2,9; 36). Education in > rhetoric taught

tonius’ De viris illustribus onto Christian authors; the

~=—6. G.A. KENNEDY

Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, vol. 1, 1989 7 CurtTius 8H.JAUMANN, Critica, 1995 9 K.HELDMANN, Ant. Theorien tber Entwicklung und Verfall der Redekunst, 1982 10 W.Ax, Quattuor linguae latinae

II. LATIN

I. GREEK A. AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE AND DISCURSIVE PRAC-

TICE B. FORMALISM C. MATERIALISM D. MoRALITY E. HERMENEUTICS F, ANCIENT AND MODERN LT COMPARED

A. AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE AND DISCURSIVE PRACTICE In Graeco-Roman antiquity, literary theory (LT) is the realm of poets, their best-kept secret and a supplement to other disciplines. It is expressed implicitly rather than explicitly even by the literary critics and readers of antiquity. Since LT does not appear as an autonomous field with a claim to universality until the 2oth cent., we can find (or at least sense) what we today

consider the LT of antiquity in various contiguous discourses, e.g. in philosophy, rhetorical and grammatical manuals or discussions of music and the visual arts (painting, sculpture, architecture). “LT in antiquity’ is thus, to a certain degree, an erroneous description. One of the reasons for this lies in the fact that the subject of the literary critical discourse of antiquity — of speaking about literature — is aesthetic experience, in a broad sense of the term, rather than literary form. In addition, literary discourse takes place in a thoroughly polemic (agonal) arena. Finally, Greek LT, having its roots in Greek culture, is a fluid practice that is subject to transformation and shaped by special interests, primarily by

LITERARY THEORY

663

local ideologies of a moral and political nature, and, increasingly, by questions of the Greeks’ national identity and its preservation.

The first traditional subject of Greek LT is implicitly hellénismos (&nviopos), the question of the ‘pure Greek’, according to which poetics (f xowmtxt/hé poiétike [sc. véyvy/téchné] is equivalent to the construction of sentences, meanings, styles and aesthetic qualities within the framework of acceptable structures of the Greek language, whereas = literary criticism (which is only much later called kritiké/xeutit) consists

of the analysis of poetics. The second traditional subject of poetic theory, usually addressed first and explicitly, is the normative evaluation of texts. These two types of investigation are closely linked together from the very beginning. The instruments of the Greeks’ literary critical discourse may seem to be disappointingly awkward and dull, and thus not particularly well suited for capturing the finer points of classical texts. However, the actual goals of the literary critical discourse of antiquity are often veiled. Our contemporary views on the LT of antiquity suffer from the narrowness of our definition of terms,

664

tegic step taken by both philosophers is the isolation and abstraction of the sensual aspect of literature. It is no longer form and content that are contrasted, but rather form and material. Plato singles out the expressive elements of verbal works of art (rhythm, harmony and movement) in order to place limits on them (PI. Resp. 397b-400 Aristoteles [6] responds, in his ‘Poetics’, that all that matters in tragedy (for him the highest literary genre) is its rational

form, i.e. the plot of the piece (mythos) as it is developed in its inner logical unity and coherence. Here literature is newly evaluated according to the criteria of ‘prosody itself’, which is regarded ‘in and of itself’. A work of art must be judged for itself (abtosg xa’ abtd xeivat) and not with regard to external criteria, namely its performance (mo0c¢ Ta DEaTeEG).

Together, Plato and Aristotle set up a weighty argument in favour of formalism that neither of them can entirely control. Plato, in his singling out of formal literary

techniques

like

— mimésis

(imitation)

and

dihégésis (narration) — even if he does so only to denigrate their value — prepares the way for independent analysis of such techniques. Another important stra-

tetic influence is most evident in philological circles, thanks to its dissemination by > Theophrastus (fr. 78 FHG) and the Alexandrian - Mouseion, which took

maxim “Ouneov é& “Ouneov (‘understanding Homer in

and of himself’; > Aristarchus [4]) and the justification of literary criticism as a clarification of poetic intent (oagnvitew/saphénizein) are actually attempts to reveal the formal characteristics that create unity in a work and to do so in the same way in which the work itself allegedly reveals (or exemplifies) those characteristics. Here formalism can be seen to be a forerunner of the modern sense of literary unity and coherence.

C. MATERIALISM — Materialism as a category is difficult to define, in part because the term, despite ongoing (or even fascinated) interest in the materiality of art objects in newer representations of ancient history, is not one that has been well established. Nevertheless, attention to works of art as phenomenal and material objects — as palpable and sensual objects to be experienced ~ is, despite Plato’s and Aristotle’s prejudices, a thread that runs through ancient Greek (and Roman) art, literary and rhetorical theorizing. We must bear in mind that literature was created in order to be produced and seen, sung and heard. The phenomenalistic and materialistic thinking of the 5th cent. BC had a particularly great influence on the formulation of these dimensions of literary experience. + Democritus |r], ~ Gorgias [2], > Prodicus, ~ Hippias [5] of Elis, + Thrasymachus and their students (e.g. > Licymnius and > Alcidamas) all investigated the acoustical characteristics of literature. With

665

666

literal ‘analyses’ they drew attention to the synthetic (that is, the compositional and systematic) nature of language and of linguistic products (ovvOéoetc/synthéseis) as well as to their epiphenomenal and often illusory effects. Analogies to music, to the rhythm of the body and the visual arts were ways of promoting deeper insights into the phenomenon of language (but also of emphasizing the difficulties of such an attempt). In any case they point to a more fundamental and more comprehensive, or simply culturally shaped and shared, framework for expectations of aesthetic experience. Investigation of the physical processes, at times intense, that accompanied the reception of literature was also in fashion at that time. These were described using medi-

rather the substance of literature, the material carrier of

an experience that is, so to speak, direct and sensual. The pleasure one has from that experience is neither rational, as in Aristotle, nor discursive, as in > Eratosthenes’ [2] defence of psychological seduction or entertainment (psychagdgia, according to which poetic pleasure arises from the suspension of our conditions for truth), but rather somatic and inaccessible to the spirit, which cannot comprehend the sensual aspects of poems. The body supplies the dlogon kritérion (‘irrational criterion’) for poetic value. Poetic materialism can be found in much of Greek LT and literary criticism; however, it has essentially no parallels in this extremely reductionist form. Ch. 40 of the work ‘On the Sublime’

cal and

by Pseudo-Longinus

mystical

terms

(éxotaoc/ékstasis,

évOovot-

aowoc/enthousiasmos) without approval necessarily being thereby implied. Here LT, at times in the form of naturalism, becomes cultural description and eventually cultural criticism. In the 5th cent. BC, discourses on art and aesthetics blossomed. Critical and descriptive vocabularies were shared, and analogies among art forms suggested themselves (hence the broad applicability of such consistent fundamental terms as evevOuia/eurythmia, ovupetoia/ symmetria and davtaoia/phantasia). These overlappings have so far not been sufficiently analyzed, which is incomprehensible, since LT grew out of this cross-fertilization and never allowed its connections to its sister disciplines to be severed. We find a clear example of this in the field of music: > Aristoxenus [1] continued a tradition of interaction between musical theory (— Music) and LT represented by the so-called harmonikoi of the late 5th cent. BC (cf. Pl. Resp. 53 1a-b; Aristot. An. post. 78b; Aristox. Harm. 1,1), but having its roots in the preceding century (> Lasus [1] of Hermione, > Pindarus, > Pratinas). This same tradition appears again in + Dionysius [18] of Halicarnassus and his Hellenistic forerunners (especially the euphonic literary theorists, the so-called kritikoi, whose teachings have been preserved by > Crates [5] of Mallus in Philodemus) and even earlier in > Heraclides [16] Ponticus and > Hieronymus [7] of Rhodus, who transmitted and expanded it. This tradition seeks to describe and investigate by means of analysis the ‘music’ of language from pitch (epitasis) to complex rhythmical structures. This strand of LT, concerned with language in a phenomenal sense and with the sound of literature (in contrast to its meaning), tended to be materialistic and decidedly un-Platonic and un-Aristotelian. The conceptual differentiations that were introduced here prepared the way for freer investigation of the complex characteristics of word compositions, which were considered to be analyzable ‘in and of themselves’ (16 mona xa00 mONWa, cf. Philod. De poematis 5, col. 25, |. 30f. MANGony). In the Hellenistic era there was a veritable flowering of interest in this approach, possibly along with the miniaturism and pointillism of ~ Callimachus [3] and his students. From that point on, it is no longer so much the plot that is singled out but

LITERARY THEORY

(Ilegi “Ypous,

> Ps.-Longinus)

represents a rare and brief exception. D. MorRALITYy Considered superficially, the history of LT in antiquity is the history of attempts to determine or dispute the actual value of literature. One extreme is represented by the complete rejection of LT and literary production by the > Epicurean School, justified by the claim that both are a waste of time, which we know by means of general insight (meddnwic/prolépsis) (Colotes in Pl. Ly.; Philod. De poematis 5). But the philosophers in general look down on literature and its value, from the —> Pre-Socratics (Xenophanes, Pythagoras, Heraclitus [1]) to Socrates (who was accused by Polycrates, the teacher of Zoilus, of “Ouneoucowé/Homéromastix, of a misinterpretation of Homer) and the Epicureans and Stoics (— Stoicism). These discussions should not be taken at face value. What is really at stake is the discursive legitimacy of general cultural practices, of which literature is the one with the greatest symbolic content and hegemonic claim. Yet this practice has its origins within the literary circles themselves, which disputed each others’ claims to truth. All of this is a fundamental way of proceeding that forms part of the agonal dimension of the Greeks’ literary culture. LT and literary criticism arose from the sense that literature is problematic. The long tradition of ‘problems and solutions’ that found its way via Plato (PI. Leg. 719C) to the > Peripatos and then into the work of the Mouseion covers almost exactly the same period of time as the history of reflection on literature itself. Moral reflection inevitably represents a central portion of these traditions. Even Aristotle’s aesthetic functionalism is linked with a morally exculpating purpose. The theory behind Peripatetic and Alexandrian criticism tends to accept Aristotle’s position and thus to excuse, as far as possible, literary errors of fact or the representation of moral imperfections and instead to promote an attitude toward the literary (tO mountinov/to poietikon) that is relatively immune to moralistic reductions. Questions of morality, however, cannot be so easily washed away. We find them integrated into theories of the appropriate (t6 mgémov/t6 prépon), of the representation of character or of the rational coherence of liter-

667

668

ary unity, not to mention attitudes toward poetic pleasure and utility. The latter pair of concepts appears from

sought in part to ‘defend’ Homer by taking recourse to his subtextual meaning (i6voua/bypénoia) and in part to make him accessible to contemporary minds. Philosophers provoked this reaction, but they too must have taken recourse to the ‘deeper meaning’. Along with other interpretative techniques, allegorical interpretation thus flourished throughout antiquity up until + Neoplatonism, its last proponent. Behind all these questions lies the unsettling and still unsolved problem of what an unproblematic category of the ‘literary’ could actually be.

LITERARY THEORY

the very beginning (Hom. Od. 12,188) as a fundamen-

tal element in literature’s self-consciousness and as a source ofits ambivalence and enters the foreground as a critical formula in Hellenistic times. > Neoptolemus of Parium prepares the way for Horace (> Horatius [7];

dulce et utile, ‘pleasing and useful’, see below II.C.) with his pronounced aspectual separation of mdnotg (pdesis, prosody) and xontys (poetes, poet) from aonua (poéma, poetic work, his preferred category, but also a rebellion against the concept of moral utility. Whereas in > Stoicism literature is a preparatory teaching tool for philosophy (cf. Plut. Mor. r4e ff.), one can also find diverging opinions on the matter. The Greek theorists of harmonious sound (evavia/euphonia), whom ~» Philodemus contradicted, emphasize that poetic value neutralizes moral value. The boundaries ofgenre, the appropriateness of thoughts and expression, moral utility, the concept of originality (which is here made over into a concept of poetic specificity — ‘this sound here’) and even the relevance of meaning are sacrificed. This extreme position from antiquity reminds us how controversial literary subject matter has always been, to what a great extent it has revealed ideologies and how many other concerns are hidden behind the discussions themselves. The theory of euphdonia seems here to serve a greater polemical purpose, for nothing less than the conventions of literary critical discourse themselves are at stake. E. HERMENEUTICS The drive to interpret is as old as literature self, which anticipates being read and at times protohermeneutically displays that anticipation. Interpretative strategies that represent explicitly or implicitly competing models of thought and understanding and that seek confirmation in literary texts first arose from the poets’ practice and then independently of it. No thought was safe from appropriation, whether this was done through argumentation, allegorization or more drastic measures, including text emendation (> Emendation of texts). Ancient interpretative approaches cover a broad spectrum from the rhetorical analysis of style, tropes, figures and genres to the treatment of probability (degree of reality and fantasy), the formalistic breakdown of sentences and meaning, the search for religious and philosophical truths (as one finds particularly in étyma, etymological components) to, more rarely, contextualization by means of historical and cultural reference points and apologetic allegorization. As interpretative traditions accumulate, free syncretism and a general dissolution of principle-bound literary criticism become the rule (e.g. Ps.-Plut. Vita Homeri), although the treatise ‘On the Sublime’ (> Ps.-Longinus) represents a rare point of crystallization of prior LT. It is hardly surprising that the first preserved record of literary criticism was a forerunner of — allegoresis (> Theagenes of Rhegium, late 6th cent. BC) which

F. ANCIENT AND MODERN LT COMPARED Greek literature’s flaws seem most obvious in the realm of interpretation. Ancient literary criticism and LT rarely attain the level of the literature as a whole, even though LT historically begins with the premise of just that: literature’s consistency with itself. Here theory and criticism part ways; the organic nature of literary unity that had been recognized from Plato had no counterpart in criticism, as the scholia to Homer, which are typical for applied literary criticism as a whole, show. Criticism is generally lemmatic and microscopic, focused on sentences or scenes, rather than holistic and comprehensive (the ‘sublime ’ [bypsos] in Ps.-Longinus elevates this narrow focus to a virtue — and to a fetish). Allegoresis, on the other hand,

suffers from the limitations of conventional LT. > Porphyrius’ text De antro nympharum represents a partial exception, as does the moody tour de force of > Metrodorus of Lampsacus (61 A 3-4 DK), which brings the problem of describing literary unity to an absurd head. Crates [5] of Mallus may be another exception, albeit of an entirely different kind. His theory of the sphere (omatexog AOyos/sphairikos logos), carried forward by ~ Asclepiades [8] of Myrleia, seems to feel its way toward thematic criticism, even though it does so on behalf of a more complex thematic agenda. Likewise, ancient LT catalogues and deciphers figures of speech and thought, yet an overarching theory of language, which would have helped with the organization of these studies, never arose. An interesting exception may be found in > Antisthenes [1] (Porph. ad Hom. Od. 1,1 modvteosoc/polytropos). Much later we learn from the

position of a minority of thinkers that there is no such thing as ‘non-figurative speech’ (Aoyos Goynudtiotos/ logos aschématistos) (SPENGEL vol. III 11,18ff.; cf. Ps.-

Dion. Hal. Rhet. 9). This thesis anticipates modern views on the essentially metaphoric nature of language that have predominated from NiIETzscHE but gives them a slant characteristic of the material psychology of the Greeks. The Stoics’ permissiveness toward > metaphor has, as a literary counterpart, the granting of poetic freedom (&0vola/exousia), a vague rule to which one can resort when all else fails. ~ Fantasy as a category of LT in which we can recognize ourselves today was not developed either in Greek antiquity. The categories of author, reader, text and literary language - commonplaces of LT since German

669

670

Romanticism — thus have no fully formed counterparts. On the other hand we find, in addition to explicit theo-

LT. Independently of this, in the Imperial period the boundaries become porous. > Rhetoric covers the entire realm of prose and poetry, and poetic rules come to be applicable for artistic prose. 2) There are systematic and historical approaches to be found in LT. Whereas the latter can be categorized as — literary history, the former is subdivided into ars poetica and ars rhetorica in the narrower sense (oriented toward structure, purpose, construction, principles, etc.) as well as evaluation-oriented — literary criticism. In practice, however, the methods become mixed up: principal works of literary theory like — Aristoteles’ [6] ‘Poetics’, > Cicero’s Rhetorica or > Quintilianus’ Institutio oratoria contain all three approaches. 3) Latin LT can be found within as well as outside of — technical literature. This includes, among the disciplines that have to do with language and literature, grammar (which may include a metrics and poetics section as aconclusion), rhetoric and monographic literary research. There is no representative of the genre ars poetica (in the sense of Aristotle’s ‘Poetics’ or later those of the Renaissance) in Latin (see below on Horace). Significant contributions to Roman LT are found outside of specialized books, stimulated by discussions that urged thinkers to represent and justify their own activities. This self-reflective characteristic applies to all epochs. 4) A significant difference from the modern scope of the concept of LT is the fact that Roman LT is not oriented toward meaning but is rather pragmatic and technical, and therefore its principal works do not address hermeneutic questions (+ Hermeneutics). The goal is the justification or transmission of literary practice, which in turn fits within the context of securing

ries of literature, the theories that were embedded in the

aesthetic practice of antiquity (of the critic, the reader and the artist) and that both reflected and helped shape the cultural and ideological discussions within Greek society in their historical development. For the most part, the comparison with Romantically influenced modern LT has tended to be disadvantageous to its Greek counterpart. If we discard those guidelines, however, there is still much to discover in ancient LT. + Aesthetics; — Art, theory of; — Literature

(III.

Greek); > Literary genre; > Philology; > Scholia > C.O. Brink, Horace on Poetry, vol. 1-2, 1963-1971; F. BurFiere, Les Mythes d’Homére et la pensée grecque, 1956; T. EAGLETON, The Ideology of the Aesthetic, 1991 ; D. FEENEY, The Gods in Epic, 1991, ch. 1; S. HALLIWELL,

Aristotle’s Poetics, 1986; W.KROLL, Randbemerkungen, in: RhM 62, 1907, 86-101; R. LAMBERTON, Homer the Theologian, 1986; J.J. KEANEY (ed.), Homer’s Ancient Readers, 1992; G.Lanata (ed.), Poetica Pre-platonica, 1963; G.E. R. Ltoyp, Demystifying Mentalities, 1990; R. MEIERING, Literary and Rhetorical Theories in Greek Scholia, 1987; G.W. Most, Cornutus and Stoic Allegoresis, in: ANRW II 36.3, 1989, 2014-2065; D. OBBINK (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry, 1995; PFEIFFER, History of Classical Scholarship, 1968; J.J. Potiitr, The Ancient View of Greek Art, 1974; F.QUADLBAUER, Die genera dicendi bis Plinius d.J., in: WS 71, 1958, 55-111; D.A. RussELL, Criticism in Antiquity, 1981; M.ScumiprT, Die

Erklarungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias, 1976. J-LP.

Il. LATIN

A. DEFINITION

B. PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVES

C. BASIC CONCEPTS

A. DEFINITION It is characteristic of Roman literature as a literature of reception that literary practice was accompanied by reflection from the very beginning. Yet there is no genre that would correspond to the synthesizing category of

LITERARY THEORY

literary standards (at times, as in Sen. Ep. 108,23 ff., this

is condemned as being a merely grammatical interest rather than a philosophical one). Questions of interpretation, which have a tradition especially in — allegoresis, do not take on weight in Latin LT until late antiquity, when they become especially important due to Christianity’s interest in interpretation rather than production of texts.

LT. Instead, theoretical statements about literature are

found in pragmatic-functional contexts. Thus the forms of LT vary as muchas the places where it is found. There has been no attempt to describe Roman literature in its entirety and create a functionally-pragmatically differentiated typology. The most comprehensive is the Anglo-Saxon approach of subsuming the phenomena under literary criticism [1]. This, however, elevates a species that has long served as a guiding principle to a generic term and thus brings about a lack of clarity. Only the most influential excerpt from the field of poetics addresses [2]. In order to define Latin LT, a series of clarifications is first necessary. 1) The distinction between prose rhythm and metre is central to all ancient LT. For poetry there is ‘poetics’ (broadly understood). For prose, which is not considered to be a unified object, speech and historiography in particular become the subject of

B. PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVES From the perspective of modern reception history, ~ Horatius’ [7] Epistula ad Pisones, Cicero’s Rhetorica and Quintilian’s Imstitutio can be considered the principal works. Horace’s work is first mentioned in Quintilian (Inst. Praef. 2 and 8,3,60) under the title Ars poetica. Once the construct of Latin classicism has been set up, that work takes on the role, previously unfilled, of a manual of literary technique; it is not a systematic treatise but rather an epistle in verse ‘in which poetological theories and problems are loosely and urbanely represented in an accessible way while consciously making no claim to be exhaustive’ [3. 338]. However, all attempts that have since been made to translate it into a consistent theory have failed [2. 12 5ff.]. Cicero’s rhetorical works pursue the project of broadly representing the entire field of rhetoric in a

LITERARY THEORY

671

672

technical, historical and anthropologically grounded manner; in this sense, they are LT for the genre of speech just as poetics is for literature. Following Aristotelian example, Cicero regards the field that he defines as ‘guidance for speaking’ as part of philosophy (Cic. Div. 2,4). In fact, however, the rules for text production are also accompanied by the requirements placed on the producer of the text, and are thus LT with an educational ideal; therefore, we musi speak of a unity of philosophy, politics and rhetoric [ 4. 1016]. Cicero’s principal literary-theoretical work is De oratore, which is much more than a textbook; selected points are worked out further in his late work Orator. + Quintilianus’ Institutio in 12 books, finally, contains the most comprehensive representation of rhetorical theory in antiquity. On the one hand, knowledge is systematized and didactically shaped into a course — Institutio thus belongs in the field of pedagogy as well as that of LT -, but at the same time the rhetorical system of theories begins to loosen itself from its original purpose and to develop further into a theory of rhythmic prose. The work is thus a paradigm for the transformation of the function of rhetoric ‘from forensic technique to higher literary education’ [5. 71]. These monuments of Latin LT are imbedded in a broad context of literary reflection. Decisive stages include literary-theoretical discussions during the final

The purpose of literature is another subject of Latin LT. The scope of this subject is delimited by the extremes of aesthetic pleasure and didactic utility. Horace attempts a reconciliation (Ars P. 333f.) [3. 339f.], while the moment of personality formation gains importance in rhetorical pedagogy. Finally, a guiding antithesis is found in the pair of the terms ars and ingenium, which contrasts artistic education and inborn talent, with ars being privileged [9]. The original Callimachean standard of formal strictness, introduced into Roman LT by the Neoteric poets and understood as ‘complete shaping of the work of art down to the last detail of language and verse’ [3. 339], is found in condensed form in the Horatian formula of ‘working with the file’ (Ars P. 291). The fundamental orientation of Roman LT toward textual production on the basis of a group of earlier texts is related to that notion. One guiding question thus addresses the type of connection and the use of tradition. The theoretical elaboration of this is found in the doctrine of literary imitatio, whose classical version for the Latin realm is represented by Quint. Inst. 10,2. Due to its conceptualization of the specific situation of reception of Roman literature, which must be understood as an extension of the concept of imitation [ro. 213f.], Roman LT in turn later becomes the reference point for all literature that regards itself as recep-

period of Archaic literature [6] and the > Neoteric

> Intertextuality; > Literary criticism; > Literary history; ~ Literature (V.F. Augustan era); > ; > Poetics

poets, who built onto Alexandrian theory, as well as the abundant literary reflection that runs through all of Augustan literature including the entire oeuvre of Horace

[2. r11ff.]. The LT of > Varro, who devotes

over 40 bks. to the field of literature, also was highly influential. These works, however,

are known only from other works that respond to Varro’s writings. One such work is the section De poematibus in the Ars grammatica by > Diomedes [4] (GL 1,482,13K), the most exhaustive system of genre classification of Latin LT apart from Quintilian [7. 134]. One ‘compendium of the poetics of late antiquity’ that was influential! until far into the Middle Ages were -> Macrobius’ Saturnalia

tive in nature. (> Mimesis; > Intertextuality).

1 G.A. KENNEDY (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, vol. 1, 1989 2 M.FUHRMANN, Dichtungs-

theorie der Ant.,*1992 3 A.WLosoK, Die rom. Klassik, in: W. VossKAmp (ed.), Klassik im Vergleich, 1993, 331347. 4G.Gawtick, W.GOrRLER, Cicero, in: H. FLASHAR (ed.), Die Philos. der Ant., vol. 4/2, 1994, 991-1168 5 M.FUHRMANN, Die ant. Rhet., 1984 6 W.KRENKEL, Zur lit. Kritik bei Lucilius, in: D. KoRZENIEWSKI (ed.), Die rom. Satire, 1970, 161-266 7P.L. SCHMIDT, in: HLL,

vol. 5,§ 524 8Curtius 9G.VoctT-Sprra, Ars oder Ingenium?, in: Lit.-wiss. Jb. 35,1994,9-31 10H. FLasHAR, Die klassizistische Theorie der Mimesis, in: Id., Eidola, 1989, 201-219.

GVes:

[8. 441; 9]. C. BASIC CONCEPTS Roman LT developed a series of basic concepts that can be considered a theoretical complement to literary classicism and were to some extent taken up by Greek LT, so that we can speak of a joint Hellenistic-Imperial period theory of art. This body of theory, in turn, hada substantial influence on the modern age in that it prescribed benchmarks for literary practice as well as literary-theoretical debates. The demand for adherence to reality (imitatio naturae), which is valid as a universal norm for visual arts as well (Plin. HN 35), belongs to

this category. The category of the appropriate (vacillating between aesthetic and ethical connotations with the two terms aptum and decorum), which applies to the reference to objects, especially when representing persons, as well as to linguistic-stylistic formation, takes on central significance.

Literature I, GENERAL IJ. ANCIENT ORIENT III. GREEK IV. JEwIsH-HELLENISTIC V.ROMAN VI. CHRISTIAN VII. BYZANTINE

I. GENERAL Literary communication is communication by means of texts — stabilized, coherent and substantia! statements. These may be written or eventually put down in writing, but they may also remain oral (— Literacy). Since for earlier societies as a rule only written texts can be studied, the term ‘literature’ focusses on such sedimented media of literary communication. Nevertheless, particularly for ancient societies the mainly oral character of literary communication must be emphasized; here literacy often has only an auxiliary

673

674

(preparatory, documentary) function, to be defined for each case. Prior to the Gutenberg revolution of printing with moveable types, however, writing things down also represented only a temporary fixation and saving of texts: the individual copying of texts on > papyrus or ~ parchment (— Book) jeopardizes the integrity of the text; only sufficiently frequent copying secures the text in its entirety. Therefore, for preserved texts not only the original functional context is important, but also the continual, or at least sporadic, interest of later recipients and reproducers. Alternatives are offered only by durable media (bronze, wood, marble, wall paint-

based on genre-constitutive characteristics and subcategorical determinants. Above all, language and text layout distinguish literary texts from texts for primarily pragmatic purposes, but also from technical literature. Besides this, gradable qualities such as fictionality, intertextuality and aesthetics of reception must be applied as additional hermeneutic criteria for defining ancient Oriental literature [11]. Knowledge of the literaricity of texts becomes especially clear with secondarily literarized text types (e.g. > autobiographies, reports, — letters), literarily formed representation texts (e.g. ruler > inscriptions, treaties) [6] and, finally, the integration of primarily non-literary forms such as letters, — lists and dialogues in literary texts. The literature of the Mesopotamian cuneiform script cultures is characterized by latent bilingualism (> Sumerian/> Akkadian; -> Multilingualism). The oldest literary texts in the Sumerian language come from the 27th cent. BC [14], in the Akkadian language primarily from the 2nd millennium; however, individual texts in Fara and Ebla already document a literature in a Semitic language around the middle of the 3rd millennium [13]. The Sumerian literary tradition survived into the late 1st millennium as a component of the transmitted literature [4. 5]. Parallel versions and the adaptation of subjects and forms are proof of an intensive reception of Sumerian literature in Akkadian (— Bilingual inscriptions). This transposition activity (> Translations) determines and enables, among other things, areas such as archiving and philology. The transmitted literature offers only a selection of Mesopotamian literature, because the writing of the literary work is already the result of a canonization process. The extent to which an extant oral literature could influence the genesis of the text is unclear [8]. The transmission history of individual texts attests to manipulative techniques in the treatment of literature: rearrangement, omission and addition, from individual words to whole passages, as well as the recombination of already known texts. The communicative and social functions of literature become visible in the adaptation to changed horizons of presentation and expectation. For all periods, literature functions explicitly and implicitly as a medium of the reflection of political and historical situations, as a place for criticism and opinion-forming [9]. Based on its monumentalizing properties, literary work appears independently alongside other forms of preservation (e.g. architecture). The cultural embedding of literature is also expressed in its intertextuality. Conscious references in the choice of the subject or the form, elaborate allusions and citations to the point of extreme composite texts (e.g. the story of the Flood in > Atrahasis, > Enama élis and the > Gilgamesh Epic) demonstrate the creative treatment of literature. The impact of literature in primarily non-literary areas, and thus a part of the aesthetics of reception, can be perceived in citations in letters or in prophetic sayings [2]. The relationship between

ings; > Inscriptions), which, however, for the most part

restrict the communication to one place, the site of installation. A limitation of the content of ancient literature according to modern literary terms, which work, for example, with the criteria of aestheticization or the fictionality of the text, does not do justice to the ancient understanding of literature, which can be perceived indirectly in the form of > intertextuality or directly in ancient > literary theory: expository texts may be written in poetic form (> Didactic poetry); Graeco-Roman

~ historiography is subject to — literary criticism and thus becomes the subject of > literary history. The development of (professionalized) — literary activity is so limited in chronology and scope of genre that it is not suitable as a differentiation criterion for literature. Regardless of this, broad areas of ancient text production remain outside of literary self-reflection (e.g. the + novel, broad areas of specialized literature, > sermons). In this respect, ‘literature’ in the sense used here remains an analytical construct without a parallel in the object language. The various ancient Mediterranean ‘literatures’ are distinguished by historical and — also from pragmatic points of view — linguistic contexts. In the expansionist societies of antiquity, which resulted in overlaps, however, > multilingualism is widespread and must be taken into consideration regarding its relationship to literary communication contexts.

JR.

I]. ANCIENT ORIENT A. MesopotTaMiaA

B.EGypt

C. HITTITES

D. Syr1A/PALESTINE

A. MESOPOTAMIA

While there is consensus on the existence of literature in the > cuneiform script cultures of Mesopotamia, the divergent use of the term ‘literature’ in ancient Oriental studies (between the extremes of ‘everything written’ and belles-lettres) reflects the methodological difficulty of defining the type, scope and function(s) of literature [1]. A conceptual equivalent to or systematic theories of literature are not known from the ancient Orient; the system of designating texts (cf. e.g. +» Songs), compilation tablets or library catalogues is unclear. The existence of distinct forms allows the texts to be differentiated according to (modern) genre terms

LITERATURE

675

676

literature and certain forms of the fine arts, e.g. representations on -> seals, has hardly been studied up to

entations; love songs and banquet poetry ( Songs); the status of > hymns and > prayers, for example, is uncertain. Some texts cross genre boundaries by integrating formal and stylistic elements into a framework, e.g. + Sinuhe (biography, in which, among other things, royal hymns, letters and decrees are incorporated) and the legend of Tefnut (> Tefnut, legend of; myth with incorporated > fables, wisdom discourse and hymns to the gods). Wisdom teaching and prophecies are ascribed to a concrete author, otherwise Egyptian literature is almost always anonymous. Only a small elite, which can be seen as the main addressee of literature, knew how to read; in the Late Period (from 713 BC) this included primarily priests, but earlier also administrative officials and senior craftsmen. Attempts to connect literature specifically to schools and education are too narrow in their approach. Entertaining tales are probably the most common

LITERATURE

now [12].

Information on the situation of individual literary work, its horizon of origin and its primary context of communication, the conditions of the author or patron, and its secondary applications is only available to a limited degree. The composition and copying of literary texts were components of the education of —> scribes (— School). The centres of the upper class, the court, the temple and the associated schools are considered to be the places of origin of literature. Authors are known only in rare cases (e.g. the Gilgamesh epic); ruler inscriptions and royal hymns were probably commissioned by the king. Literary texts were found in temple, palace and private — libraries. The written form initially limits its audience to the literate; besides reading, however, oral presentation is also recorded. Knowledge of cuneiform script throughout the entire Near East favoured the circulation of Mesopotamian literature, which was also translated into other languages such as > Ugaritic and > Hittite (see below II.C). For the knowledge and reception of Mesopotamian literature in the Mediterranean, the transmission

in particular through Aramaic and, to a limited extent, Greek sources is of importance [ro]. ~ Colophon; > Epic; > Fable; > Folk-tales; > Historiography; — Keret; — Metre; — Myth; ~ Origin myths; — Proverbs; — Ugarit; > Wisdom literature; + World, creation of the 1 NHL vol. 1

2 A.Finet, Allusions et reminiscences

comme source d’information sur la diffusion de la littérature, in: [3], 13-18 3 K. HECKER, W.SOMMERFELD (ed.), Keilschriftl. Literaturen, 1986 4 J. KRECHER,

Sumer. L., in: [1], ro1-15o0-—5S E. REINER, Die akkad. L., in [1], 151-210 6 G. STEINER, Die Inschr. der ‘Geierstele’ als lit. Text, in: [3], 33-44 7M.E. VOGELZANG, H.L.J. VaNstipHout (ed.), Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian, 1996 8 Id., Mesopotamian Epic Literature: Oral or Aural?, 1992 9 C.Witcke, Politik im Spiegel der L., in: K.RAAFLAUB

(ed.), Anfange polit. Denkens in der Ant., 1993, 29-75 10D.L. West, The East Face of Helicon, 1996 11 A.LopriENo,

Defining Egyptian Literature: Ancient

Texts and Modern

Literary Theory, in: J.S. Cooper,

G.M. ScHwartz (ed.), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the 21st Century, 1996, 209-232 12 P.MarTHIAE, Figurative Themes and Literary Texts, in: P. FRONZAROLI (ed.), Literature and Literary Language at Ebla (Quaderni di Semitistica 18), 1992, 219-241 13 P. STEINKELLER, Early Semitic Literature, in: s.o. [12], 243-284 14 C.Witcke, Die Inschr. der ‘Figure aux Plumes’ — ein frithes Werk sumer. Dichtkunst, in: U. FINKBEINER et al. (ed.), Beitr. zur Kulturgesch. Vorderasiens. FS

R.M. Boehmer, 1995, 669-674.

E.C-K.

B. EGyrt

Literary genres can best be constituted through the characteristic Egyptian terms [5]; in Egypt, literature in the narrower sense includes at least narrations and

> folk-tales;

wisdom literature; prophecies and lam-

literary text group in settlement contexts. Private book

collections combine mostly belles-lettres with religious and magical texts. Temple libraries are only attested in the Late Period (Elephantine, Tebtynis, Soknopaiou Nesos).

The transmission of literary texts begins in the early 2nd millennium; the existence of older compositions is disputed. Middle Egyptian literature is handed down as ‘classical’ until at least the middle of the rst millennium; in addition, in the New Kingdom New Egyptian and in the Late Period Demotic literary texts appear. The latter are by far the most numerous to be preserved, but they are still inadequately studied [6]. Egyptian educational texts influenced the biblical Proverbs. The teaching of > Ahigqar, which also influenced Egyptian educational texts [3], was translated from Aramaic into + Demotic; remnants of the tale of Hor, son of Pwe-

nesh, are preserved in Demotic and Aramaic. Late Egyptian tales are reflected in Greek authors (Pheros; ~ Sesostris), translation from Egyptian has been proven for some Greek texts (the dream of > Nectanebus; the legend of Tefnut) or assumed (Potter’s Oracle; portions of the > Alexander Romance, see [1]). Demotic tales are seen as important models for Greek and Roman novels. The Book of Thot is a link to the Greek Hermetics (+ Hermetic writings). The intertwining of stories is an important forerunner of a narrative technique which later appears in the Arabian Nights, for example. The medium of transmission is mostly > papyrus, partly also ceramic and stone fragments (+ Ostrakon). 1 R. JAsNow, The Greek Alexander Romance and Demotic Egyptian Literature, in: JNES 56, 1997, 95-103 2M.LicuTHEImm, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3 vols.,

1973-1980 3 Id., Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context, 1983 4 A.LopRIENO (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 1996 5 $.ScHoTT, Biicher und Bibliotheken im alten Ag., 1990 6 G. VITTMANN,

Tradition und Neuerung in der demot. L., in: ZAS 125, 1998, 62-77.

JO.QU.

677

678

C. HiTTITEs Hittite literature is, on the one hand, strongly influenced by Mesopotamian and > Hurrian models; on the other hand, it demonstrates an independent Anatolian development with influences from the earlier > Hattic population, the Palans and Luwians. The following is to be regarded as literature in the narrower sense: 1. myths, epics, legends; 2. hymns and prayers (+ Songs); 3. historiography. The mythic-epic literature fixed in writing by the Hittites is partly of Anatolian, partly of Akkadian, Hurrian and Canaanite origin; traces of an Indo-European legacy are not yet provable. Copies and translations from Akkadian (e.g. the > Gilgamesh Epic) and Canaanite (e.g. the Baal cycle) follow their models closely. The original Hurrian myths about the god > Kumarbi (described in their colophons as ‘songs’) show greater independence. The motif used here of the battle for the kingship in heaven is found again in Hesiod’s Theogony

Syria/Palestine was always especially an intermediary and recipient of diverse cultures. This raises the question of genuine Syrian/Palestinian literature, on the one hand, and the type and scope of the influence of the immediately neighbouring cultures of Egypt, Anatolia, Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean on the other hand [x]. In principle, literature in Syria/Palestine was probably subject to conditions similar to those in Mesopotamia, for example; however, so far it is scarcely possible to estimate the specific effects of political heterogeneity and discontinuity on literature and literary ac-

(> Hesiodus); it is not clear whether this is based on the

Hittite text, or if both versions have a common origin. The Anatolian myths (probably of Hattic origin) are only preserved within ritual texts. Unlike the original Hurrian myths, they appear to exist in prose form. Very well documented is the Anatolian myth of the vanished deity who must be pacified. Epic and narrative literature again depends on Akkadian and Hurrian models; thus, the tale of > Sargon, the Hurrian-Hittite Song of Manumission [3] and the song of the hunter Kessi. Hittite hymns are strongly influenced by Akkadian; the — prayers, mostly pleas of the king to the gods, show a greater independence. They are distinguished by a personal tone and sophisticated, rhetorically polished language. Their historical excursuses are also significant, because the king is often more honest in prayer than in historical reports (e.g. the Plague Prayers of Mursili I).

Literary independence is greatest in Hittite > historiography. In terms of literary history, the conscious handling of the textual structure and the use of literary figures of speech are of interest here. The representation of complicated facts, the tendency towards objectivity (but see above) and the study of sources must be emphasized from the historiographic point of view. The Old Hittite, but not the later historical texts often use legendary material. Under Mursili II (c.13 18-1290), the genre reached its height (Ten-Year Annals and Extensive Annals; Deeds of Suppiluliuma). 1 H.G. Gurersock, Hethit. L., in: NHL, vol. 1, 211-253

LITERATURE

tivity.

Among the oldest written documents, the cuneiform script texts from — Ebla (24th cent. BC), are literary

texts in Sumerian and archaic Akkadian, which belong to the Mesopotamian tradition. These may have originated in the context of the education of — scribes in Ebla [2]. The texts from the archives of the coastal cities > Ugarit and Appu/Ra’s Ibn Han? (15th-13th cents. BC; [3]) document knowledge and use of Mesopotamian literature (W.VAN SOLDT [1. esp. 176ff.]) and toa significantly lesser degree also Hittite literature (E. NEU [1. 226f.]). Narrative literature in the Ugaritic language, particularly the epics about Aqhat and > Keret, the hymns of Nikkal and the > Baal cycle, document the independence of Canaanite literature in form and content ([4; 5. 255ff.; 6; 11; 12]; > Canaanite; > Pal-

aestina). Remnants of a Phoenician literary tradition are found in Philo of Byblus (+ Herennius Philon), who

refers to > Sanchuniathon. An intermediate position is held by the literary texts from Emar on the Euphrates (16th-13th cents. BC); they are indebted to both the Canaanite traditions and those of the Hittite kingdom

and Mesopotamia. Only a few substantial texts of a representative character, basically monumental inscriptions of literary quality, have been preserved, for example, an autobiography of Idrimi of — Alalah (15th cent. BC) in Akkadian; rst millennium tomb inscriptions on the sarcophagi of Phoenician rulers, e.g. + Ahiram [7]; the Moabite victory stela of MeSa (+ Moab); the Phoenician, Sam’alian and Aramaic inscriptions from Zincirli/Sam/’al [8], or the Bileam inscription from Dair ‘Alla [9]. Here, too, Canaanite forms combine to varying degrees with influences from neighbouring ancient Oriental cultures. The most significant literary evidence in Hebrew are the texts of the Hebrew > Bible. They also draw form, content, story motif and style from the literature of Syria/Palestine se2zaitteonol:

2 W.W. Hatio, K.L. YouNGER, The Context of Scrip-

1 M.Dretricn, O.Loretz

(ed.), Ugarit. Ein ostmediter-

ture, 1997, 149-160, 181-204 3E.Neu, Das hurrit. Epos der Freilassung (StBoT 32), 1996 4 E.voN ScHu-

ranes

Alten

Orient,

Mesopotamian

Myths

LER, s.v. L. bei den Hethitern, RLA 7, 66-75 I/5, 1985; I/6, r991; IIl/4, 1994.

5 TUAT JO.HA.

2 M.KREBERNIK,

im

vol.

at

1, 1995

Ebla,

in:

P. FRONZAROLI (ed.), Literature and Literary Language at Ebla, 1992, 63ff. 3D.Younc, Ugarit in Retrospect,

1981

D. SyRiA/PALESTINE The material basis for studying the literature of this region is small in comparison to other cultures of the ancient Orient. Because of its geopolitical situation,

Kulturzentrum

4 TUAT 3/4,1997.

5 NHL vol.1

6D.ParpeEz,

Ras Shamra-Ougarit IV. Les textes paramythologiques, 1988 7 KAI _ 8J.TRoppeER, Die Inschr. von Zincirli, 1993 9J.HoFTIJZER, G. VAN DER Koo], Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla, 1976 10 W.G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 1984

11 Id., N. Wyatt, Handbook of

679

680

12 S.PaRKER, Ugaritic E.C.-K.

tant areas of Greek poetry are formed: a tradition of epic, which is thematically oriented on the centres of the collapsed Mycenaean-Minoan culture and belongs in

LITERATURE Ugaritic Studies, 1999, 193-286 Narrative Poetry, 1997.

III. GREEK A. SUPPORTING GROUP SYSTEM

D.Erocus

the context of the aristocratic festival culture; furtherB. MEDIALITY

C. GENRE

E. FUNCTIONS AND CHANGE

IN FUNCTION F. CANONIZATION PROCESSES AND MECHANISMS OF FORGETTING G. AS AN INSTANCE OF RECEPTION AND COMMUNICATION

A. SUPPORTING GROUP The supporting group of Greek literature are, as producers, those authors who used the Greek language (for this, see B.), and, as recipients, those who were able to

understand the Greek literary products. While the supporting group can be regarded as principally identical with the Greek ethnos until the end of the Classical period at the end of the 4th cent. BC, it went beyond this from the Hellenistic era. The elite now began to make use of Greek — which had risen to become the most important common language of the eastern Mediterranean — particularly in the > Diadochi kingdoms; literary production is thus also subject to acculturation (> Hellenization). At the same time, the Greek lan-

guage as a medium makes it possible to reach out to a kind of world public (for example, in historiography, which supports the Roman or Carthaginian side in the 2nd — Punic War). With the increasing influence of Rome on the Greek-speaking Mediterranean world — which finally, after the battle of > Actium in 31 BC, led to the formation of a uniform territory, initially Roman in character — the relevance of the world public decreased. At the same time, Greek gained significance as the language of the educated classes, even in the West, which formed the basis of the bilingual, i.e. GraecoRoman, culture of the Imperial period. However, Roman literature had only limited significance in the Greek region; knowledge of Latin could be assumed in the upper class in the East from the late 1st cent. AD. The crisis of the 3rd cent. AD divided the bilingual area of culture, because the West and its cultural potential was significantly more strongly affected. Knowledge of Greek here declined continuously until the end of Late Antiquity, so that the use of Greek began to be limited to the eastern Mediterranean and thus remained constant into the Byzantine era (> Greek).

B. MEDIALITY (On this generally [1; 2]). In the central phases of its history, Greek literature is not based on a book culture.

Rather, it developed as a primarily literary phenomenon only from the late 5th cent. BC. This was preceded by c. 300 years in which a reception situation characterized by orality was decisive (> Oral poetry); the dynamically developing written culture, increasingly used for the production of texts, entered into a productive relationship of tension with orality (> Literacy). This period is, in turn, preceded by a nonetheless significant preliterate phase of Greek literature, in which impor-

more, certain lyric forms which are part of cults or customs. While in the preliterate phase epic and lyric poetry occur side by side, after the Greek adaptation of the Phoenician script (middle of the 8th cent. BC), > epic

was fixed in the new medium earlier than lyric poetry, which gave rise to the intellectual misinterpretation that lyric poetry replaced epic. The literarization first had an impact on the aesthetic level of production. In epic, it allowed the separation of creation and performance, and enabled the poet to draft and retain larger and more highly organized works by relieving him from extemporaneous narrative. The Homeric epics (~ Homerus

[x]) embody the transition, because they demonstrate elements and narrative forms of oral songs of heroes, on the one hand, and demand the use of writing in their

composition because of their scope and degree of organization in their macro- and microstructures, on the other hand. It was different in > lyric poetry, which was defined by its reception situation (‘Sitz im Leben’ or sociological setting); the poet stil! had to consider the occasions of the performances. Pragmatic aspects, such as addressing certain listeners in a specific situation, remained defining characteristics of lyric poetry. Here, literarization allowed songs to be preserved or circulated beyond the occasion of the performance; whether this possibility first led to the stronger accentuation of those moments in a song which transcend the concrete situation (for example, reflections on the condicio humana) can no longer be resolved. Certainly, however, the prospect of a poem lasting and being circulated contributed to the development of an auctorial consciousness, in which an author’s pride of his own creative abilities, interpreted as a gift of the > Muses, took an important place [3]. How, in individual cases of epic and lyric poetry, literarization resulted, for example, in texts flowing together in Alexandria, can only be speculated on; in the case of epic poetry, rhapsodists’ guilds such as the + Homeridai on Chios, who preserved the epics performed at festivals by their members in text form, may have played an important role. The literary-historical tradition suggests that the Homeric epics were edited in Athens under the Peisistratids (late 6th cent. BC), which either represented the model for the state copy of the tragedian text in the 4th cent. BC, or was extrapolated after the later event. Furthermore, the early beginning of local cultivation of the memory of a poet (the Archilocheion on Paros for Archilochus, the Mimnermeion in Smyrna for Mimnermus, the sanctuary of the Muses for Hesiod on the Helicon) may have been important for the collection and transmission of texts; and finally, poets themselves (or the circles for which they wrote) could collect and preserve their texts.

681

682

What steps led to the rise of the prose book, which is attested from the 2nd half of the 6th cent. BC, remains

unknown. Since this sort of books are particularly associated with pre-Socratic theory (-> Pre-Socratics), they can obviously be connected with the schools of the developing scholarship: the extant titles from the work of + Alcmaeon [4] of Croton (24 bks. x DK), in which he addresses two persons by name, points to lectures being written down; consequently, the knowledge gained thereby could be handed down independent of the addressee. This created the basis for the — controversial — discussion, for example, of the pre-Socratic philosophers (for this general, see in [4], further [5]; on Pythagoras, cf. [6]). In the course of the 5th cent., the prose book adopted a variety of functions, which at the same time supported the development of the prose genres. From the > hypomnema, notes for one’s own recollection that served as the basis for lectures, the path led to the large historiographic texts (— Herodotus [r], ~ Thucydides), which, handed down independent of the author, would also reach future readers [7]; public speeches were recorded and used as a model in - rhetoric instruction; highly specialized disciplines set down their knowledge in book form (for example, the Hippocratic medical school on Cos; > Technical literature).

Criticism of this development is rarely found (see the criticism of writing in Pl. Phdr. 274b-277 Publication). The establishment of the book culture had far-reaching consequences. It changed the system of genres and the mechanisms through which cultural memory processed literature, as well as the position of literature within the culture. In comparison, the changes within the book culture until the end of antiquity were of lesser significance: the replacement ofthe scroll by the parchment or papyrus codex, which took place from the 2nd to the 5th cents. AD (> Codex), was of (albeit significant) relevance for the process of selection and the history of transmission within the book culture. C. GENRE SYSTEM (see also > Literary genres). Until the 5th cent. BC, the Sitz im Leben is the central factor in the system of genres [8]. A text had to meet the expectations of its recipients on a specific occasion, that is to satisfy the requirements of the occasion. Furthermore, a dynamic element is characteristic, because the text is part of either a direct > contest (agon) with other texts presented at the same occasion, or an indirect contest when it

stands against a background of texts performed at

LITERATURE

earlier instances of the same occasion. This synchronous or diachronous agon produced a pressure to innovate, which caused rapid developments within the genres. This mechanism is recognizable in tragedy, whose genre history from 472 (Aeschylus’ ‘Persians’) to the end of the 5th cent. is traceable [9]. To the extent that the occasion became an essential constituent of literature, the diversification of these occasions indirectly also led to the differentiation or changes in the genre system. This ties the development of literature to history (cf. [10]). Both in the phase before the establishment of the book culture and, to a considerable degree, under the conditions of this book culture, the basic principle is that the prosperity of state bodies, the ‘festival culture’ built on them and literature are linked together. In detail, this means: the early Greek epic, particularly Homeric epic, flourished in the Greek colonial region of Asia Minor in the 8th/7th cents.; its location was the banquet of the aristocracy [11]. The transformation of this banquet through Oriental influences to the symposium of a smaller community (hetairia), which was united by common political goals or common cult practice, was the setting for the poetry of > Archilochus and — Alcaeus [4]; the institution of the symposium [12] allowed the creation of poems for a well-educated and, with regard to its horizon of understanding, known audience, in which preliterate forms are taken up and transformed into poetry of the highest aesthetic level (> Symposium literature). The poems are characterized by erotic-sympotic as well as political and ethical themes and defamation/invective. Closely associated with — initiation and cult were the songs that > Sappho wrote for the girls of her cult community (thiasos), in which she accompanied the life of the thiasos through, for example, farewell- or wedding songs. Along with the symposium and the thiasos, the festival of the gods was also an occasion — here also at first in the eastern Greek region, such as through the Delia on Delos, which were dedicated to Apollo and were of great significance to the Ionians; on the one hand, these were highly important for the cult song to Apollo, the —> paean; on the other hand, they had evidentiary value for the transposition of the epic to a new occasion. In the Greek heartland, the expansion of Sparta into Messenia in the 7th cent. BC involved the institution and development of a variety of festivals that offered occasions for lyric poetry. A kind of development aid for the establishment of a corresponding song culture was provided by artists from the eastern Greek area (> Terpander, > Alcman). The next significant stage of festival culture grows out of the so-called cultural politics of various Greek tyrants (> Tyrannis), for example, in Corinth and Athens, through which the > dithyramb [13] and — at least to some extent — the dramatic genres gain room to develop. It is noteworthy that the Homeric epic (performance at the > Panathenaea in Athens) can now be added in another context for the third time. The developments inaugurated here are (merely) continued by

683

684

the democratic poleis — particularly in Athens under the economic prosperity made possible by the -» Delian League — and thereby create the point of reference for the dramatic genres in their political function. Even for the prose forms, the Sitz im Leben is the deciding factor

ces for philosophical literature (still perceptible in the

by Christianity which appear from the 3rd cent. AD in competition with or contrast to [20. 383] the traditional, pagan forms (see below, VI.A. Literature, Christian, Greek). Moreover, with them the significance of the Sitz im Leben was renewed as a genre constituent ([21] cf. also [22]): liturgy, biblical exegesis, instruction/edification, among others, determine the development of

extant esoteric works of Aristotle), and for the forms of rhetoric the context, that is the areas of court, political

mon, the lives of the saints (> Vitae Sanctorum), which

LITERATURE

at first; thus, for example, the educational circumstan-

discussion, and festival assembly, which were already distinguished in ancient rhetorical theory. The emancipation from the Sitz im Leben can be observed in > historiography: Herodotus, the ‘father of historiography’, historicized his position as author [7]; Thucydides expected his work to have an impact beyond the period in which it was written through the postulate that his insights are a ‘possession for eternity’. With the establishment of the book- and reading-culture, the text with its characteristics is added as a criterion for the allocation to a genre; the more independent a text becomes from the Sitz im Leben — be it through chronological distance, be it through the detachment of the production from the Sitz im Leben — the more important become the characteristics inherent in the text. Greek — literary theory, which developed from the 5th cent. BC [14], concentrates increasingly on such characteristics in genre questions (see, for example, Aristotle’s ‘Poetics’: treatment of the parts of tragedy, ch. to-12). Furthermore, the lessened relevance of the Sitz im Leben, decreased by the book culture, and also the repercussions of literary theory on the production form the prerequisites for the phenomena — emerging strikingly (for precursors: [15]) from the Hellenistic era — of the crossing of genres [16], which give rise to new — literarily defined — genres (e.g. - bucolics and > novels) [17]. The courts of the Diadochi kingdoms, which were

important for literary activity in the Hellenistic era, in comparison instituted fewer innovations than revitalized archaic literary forms in new perspectives (thus in the areas of > epic and > epinikion; see also — Hellenistic poetry). Now also forms are visible which were hitherto more strongly associated with the oral narrative tradition and are inadequately covered by the modern term ‘chapbook’; among them are, for example, miracle stories, which establish the genre, among which the Gospels of the NT can later be counted, though they also include elements of historiography alongside oral narrative forms (summarizing this [18]). With the literary activity and the education system of the late Hellenistic era, the genre system became firmly established, now (cf. for example the remarks of Quint. Inst. ro,r)

no longer defined by the Sitz im Leben, although literary theory does not completely cover the spectrum of genres: thus, for example, the novel [19] and the form of the > epistolary novel, which derived from the prosopoeial exercises of the schools, are missing here. A powerful impulse is effected by the literary forms moulded

new genres such as the Christian > hymn, the > ser-

can only in part be interpreted as the further development of older forms. D. EPocHS Ancient Greek literature and = literary criticism did not develop their own differentiated model for periodization. Although the antithesis ‘old — new’ can be found in a variety of contexts [23] it is mostly (with different connotations) used normatively; instead of literary-historical concepts, selection lists, canons (> Canon), are

used, which disregard historical contexts. The division into epochs (- Periods, division into)

coined by art history, archaeology and ancient history (for this [24; 25]) suggests a total of five periods (Archaic, Classic, Hellenistic, Imperial period, Late Antiquity) which makes sense for literary history as well. Literary history admittedly has no analogy to the features of style and political structures found in art history and political history, respectively, that are used as criteria for assigning an item to a particular epoch. However, it seems possible to base a division into literary epochs on the institutions central to literature. In accordance with this, Greek literature is at first marked by the aristocratic festivals (> Festivals) (c. 750-500 BC = archaic), and

later appears in the context of the democratic > polis (500-300 BC = Classic). The rise of the > Diadochi kingdoms decreases the political and cultural significance of the polis; the (Diadochi) court inspires literary

production (300-30 BC = Hellenistic). With the destruction of the Greek political centres by Rome, the Greek school gained literary-historical significance: from the middle of the rst cent. AD, it influenced and controlled the reception and production of literature (from about 50 BC to about AD 50, literature was marked by transition) and formed its point of reference, e.g. also for the > Second Sophistic, because essential fields (rhetorical literature in the broader sense, philosophical literature) were associated with it. Whether Greek literature of the Imperial period — analogous to Roman literature — can be meaningfully separated from an epoch ‘Late Antiquity’ (from c. AD 300), or whether a break only occurs with the 6th cent. AD, still needs clarification: although Christianization also implied a change for Greek literature because it was accompanied by a reevaluation of pagan literature, the — now Christian-oriented — school remained the point of crystallization (see, for example, > Libanius, school of Gaza) and the break in tradition which characterizes Latin literature in the 3rd cent. AD is missing (on this [26]).

685

686

E. FUNCTIONS AND CHANGE IN FUNCTION In ancient literary theory, the function of literature — in proximity to the task description of rhetoric (docere, movere, delectare; ‘teach, move, delight’) — concentrates mainly on the aspects of benefit and the aesthetic enjoyment of poetry (Hor. Ars P. 333). Allocations of a specific political meaning (cf. Aristoph. Ran. 1009f.) or of special functions such as > katharsis (Aristot. Poet., ch. 6) are exceptions. On the other hand, the effect of literature and music as instruments of education is frequently discussed in the context of philosophical-pedagogic reflections, thus, for example, by Aristophanes (Ranae), Plato (esp. Res publica [27]), Plutarch (De audiendis poetis) to Basilius the Great (Ad iuvenes). A hallmark of this discussion is the isolation or absolutization of individual statements in texts and the application of an occasionally problematic (because it ignores the fictional status) standard of truth. This discussion is historically significant, because it accompanies and supports a long-term process at the end of which in the Imperial period knowledge of literature, defined as > paideia, is a prerequisite for rhetoric and thus for those so educated the basis for an elevated social status in their city [28]. At the beginning, of course, literature has other functions. Insofar as it contains a > myth, it principally serves as a means of thinking through the problems of people and their position in the community in the medium of the myth; the problems discussed can be an indicator of the fields considered worthy of discussion in the respective historical locations. This general function of literature can be defined more precisely according to genres and epochs. Until the 8th cent. BC, the + epic is the medium which reflects the aristocratic society and confirms its value system [30; 31]. The breakdown of this society leads to a greater functional openness of the form. The epic can be restricted to the

ers, such as the promotion of identity through the fusion of the myth referred to in the song and the presence of the festival [36. 10-13]. Here, as with the lyric forms of the symposium, the function grows out of the

role of entertainment: thus, for example, in the Homer-

ic epic from the Odyssee to the Classic epoch (Panyassis, Antimachus [3]) down to the epic poetry of the Hellenistic period (> Epyllion, Apollonius [2] of Rhodes); in reception the Homeric epics are regarded as at the same time didactic (e.g. Pl. Resp. 606e) and as establish-

ing a common Greek identity. Furthermore, from the Hellenistic era down to Late Antiquity, the epic also represents panegyrics of the rulers, particularly in the form of the historical epic [32; 33]. At the same time, it can be an element of the educational system (> Quintus of Smyrna) or even an instrument of pagan opposition

to Christianity (Nonnus, Dionysiakd) [33]. From Hesiod, the epic form as didactic poetry also gains the function of explanation and instruction, which remains a constant into the high Imperial period (+ Oppianus; medical didactic poetry) [34]. Choral lyrics (> Lyric poetry) are an integral (occasionally agonal) element of cults; text, music and dance unite chorus and audience into a cultic community [3 5], in which special functions, such as in the area of initiation ( Aleman, > Sappho) are possible alongside oth-

LITERATURE

occasion (see above); a new facet in the spectrum of

functions arises as a result of the professionalization of poets in the 6th cent. BC through the development of decidedly panegyric lyrical forms for courts (> Simonides) or as epinikia for victories in Panhellenic games (+ Pindarus, + Bacchylides). Here, too, the spectrum of functions is expanded, especially since the aesthetic dimension dominates, in the representation in other contexts, and political or cultural meanings develop into a generally pedagogic statement (cf. Aristoph. Nub. 135 5f.). A literary renaissance of certain lyric forms began in the Hellenistic era (epic: > Callimachus [3], choliambs: -» Herodas, among others), which, along with the panegyric aspects (Callimachus), is an expression of the innovative retrospective of literature in this epoch; the obvious tendency of previous literature being received with new emphases (erudition, new image of the hero) shows the desire to protect a Greek cultural identity in an expanding Greek — oikoumene (cf., for example, the role of the Alexandrian and Pergamene > libraries). Drama and > dithyramb — at first in the service of the — tyrannis aiming at the stability of their own rule (Corinth, Athens) — also gains political significance for the democratic polis in the 5th cent., > comedy explicitly, > tragedy implicitly as a medium for developing and expanding concepts and forms of political discourse [373 38; 39]. From the 4th cent. BC, the role of the dramatic genres in Athens changes: comedy loses its political thrust; as a result of the reintroduction of old pieces after 386, tragedy also becomes, along with being an aesthetic experience and a cultural heritage, an instance of invoking the sth cent. polis that is interpreted as a model, and, thus, preserves a — transformed — political potential. The expansion of the theatre into the Greek world ultimately transfers drama to the school system of the Hellenistic and Imperial periods, where the pedagogic function becomes central. From the beginning, the functions of prose genres are closely tied to their subjects. At first, explanation of the world is characteristic of the philosophical treatises, then ethical instruction (following the precursor Sophists from Socrates/Plato), finally, from the 4th cent., explanation and propagation of the particular school concepts. > Technical literature in the narrower sense, i.e. medicine (from the Corpus Hippocraticum on), periegesis/geography, rhetoric, etc., is predominated by the function of communicating the corresponding discipline. Adding, for example, aesthetic dimensions or personal interests of the author (e.g. - Galen) is possible, as is greater functionalization of a subject for the promotion/construction of identity in the recipients (Pausanias |40]). Historiography, whose basic meaning is the communication of an orientation in time through the pres-

687

688

ervation or reconstruction of the past, demonstrates an oscillating spectrum of meanings: entertainment (> Herodotus [1], > Ctesias, exotism?, tragic historiography, > Alexander historians), instruction (~ Thucydides, > Polybius), propaganda (> Callisthenes [r]), reinterpretation of history from the viewpoint of the particular present (> Appianus, > Cassius [III 1] Dio). Christian historiography means a new approach, insofar as it is based on a uniform — salvation-historical — model of interpretation (cf. [41]) and consciously seeks a starting point in the NT (> Eusebius [7] and, taking him up, —> Socrates, Sozomenus, - Theodoretus). The objective thus opened up (edification, propaganda and polemics) extends the functions of the genre, both in internal Christian discourse (e.g. > Philostorgius) and beyond it (> Historia Augusta) [42]. On the other

the other hand, texts such as Aleman’s parthenion

LITERATURE

hand, the function of the novel — leaving aside the (dis-

puted) cultic-initiatory facets [43] — appears only to be the entertainment of the reader; female recipients are possibly addressed in particular [44]. A class-specific effect seems not to exist, but rather a general popularity of the genre suggested by the adoption of the narrative pattern in Christian prose (— Acts of the Apostles, > Pseudo-Clementines

Literature) which were meant

to reach as wide an audience as possible.

(PMGEF 1), which is characterized by extreme ties to the situation, were handed down, this is only conceivable as

an ‘archive text’, for example for the noble families whose members are named in the song [48]. Such texts, however, at first had no significance for cultural memory. The role of the addressee or patron (particularly in the -> epinikion) for the processes of transmission and, thus, the processes of canonization of lyric poetry still requires research. The texts of the dramatic genres in Athens, also first solely perpetuated through public success — or given over to oblivion (cf. — Phrynichus’ Milétou Hdlosis/‘The Fall of Miletus’) — appear to offer an early example of the emancipation of preservation from public success by the book. Thus, for example, the works of + Euripides [1] — despite their failure in the agon — could survive, indeed, as allusions in comedy show, even become reference texts.

With the book trade, literary criticism (at first probably inaugurated or deepened by the > Sophists) also appears as a form of canonization; the categories it developed (which have a tradition which reaches far back,

+ Xenophanes),

with

its insistence

on

truth

and/or the moral valence of literature at first signify a reduction, but ensure on a theoretical plane the use of literature in school. It is, of course, significant that the

F. CANONIZATION

PROCESSES AND

MECHANISMS OF FORGETTING Only with the possibility of preserving texts opened up by literacy the question becomes relevant which texts for which reasons are a) preserved or b) given the status of reference texts [45]. Leaving aside the normal processes in the literary part of the cultural memory of a society through which (old) texts classified as obsolete/irrelevant are permanently eliminated or replaced by new texts, the following can, in principle, be found in Greek literature: a) a phase in which the stock of literature increases in the cultural memory (Archaic and Classical periods), b) a phase in which the stock is systematized and edited in terms of literary studies (Hellenistic period), c) a phase of reorientation in which, under a certain aspect (> Atticism), new hierarchizations or

selections take place (early and high Imperial period), and d) a phase of reduction or replacement (Late Antiquity), in which the previous literary production again undergoes assessment under a new point of view (Christianity). For the Archaic and Classical periods, only a few explicit indications of the processes of canonization and forgetting are available. The Homeric epics quickly receive canonical status — a consequence of their aesthetic weight or/and the fact that they were the first and, therefore sensational, large texts [46]? Hesiod and Archilochus were also accepted into the repertoire of the > rhapsodes at agons |47], i.e. they proved themselves constantly in front of an audience and thus remained — under oral conditions — in the cultural memory. It can be supposed that parallel to this numerous texts and authors that no longer found success with the audience vanished without a trace. If, on

occasional massive condemnation of authors according to such criteria (such as of Homer by Plato or Zoilus, or,

in comic refraction, of Euripides by Aristophanes) did not harm them. An important role for canonization processes is represented by the forms of the lessons (— Education; the Sophists are also significant here |49]), through which, besides Homer, poets with strikingly gnomic passages (Hesiod, Theognis, Phocylides), on the one hand, and also lyric poets (Sappho, Simonides) on the other hand, remain part of the cultural memory [50]. The massive, also theoretically based, use of literature for educational purposes (Isocrates) in the 4th cent. BC and the development of a theatre repertoire form two fundamental columns in the process of preservation — as well as complementary prerequisites for the eclipsing or forgetting of texts not taken into consideration here. Other mechanisms can be observed for prose: because it is possible to separate form and content in prose — particularly in technical writing — the complete preservation of prose texts generally only occurs when a special status is attached to the wording for a) aesthetic reasons, which occurs particularly in the context of schools which stress stylistic models, b) religious or ideological reasons, if a text is categorized as sacred or defined as central for the identity of a community. While texts preserved for aesthetic reasons (such as the Ten Orators, Herodotus, Thucydides), are not endangered in their canonical status as long as aesthetic views remain constant, but are endangered only by reductions in the material foundations of the society, which also lead to limitations in the educational system (thus, for example, at the beginning of the Middle Ages), reli-

689

690

giously or ideologically based texts (such as the texts of the philosophers’ schools) are subject to the risk of ~ censorship and forgetting when a paradigm change in the society occurs or within the group which preserves them (as in the case of heretical Christian literature). ‘Unprotected’ texts, on the other hand, become superfluous, i.e. they are no longer circulated through copying and possibly only survive as ‘archive texts’, which can easily be lost. Only in exceptional cases — with renewed interest in them — do they come back into literary discourse (cf. for example the fate of the esoteric works of - Aristoteles [6], perhaps similarly — Pausanias), when a) they enter further discussion through (positive or negative) report (thus, in particular with the preSocratics: Aristotle’s Metaphysics, the Greek doxographers, similarly with numerous historians whose works are eclipsed by chronologically more comprehensive works, see for this, for example, the Catalogue of Evagrius, Historia Ecclesiastica 5,24; similarly, in particular, in purely technical writing), or when b) an abridged version (+ Epitome) or excerpt (eklogé) is made which can replace them. These mechanisms are already in effect in the 5th and 4th cents. BC. At the same time, here are the beginnings of an (at first private) library system, through which large numbers of texts become accumulable and available that redefine the cultural memory. From the specialized libraries (such as that of the — Peripatos), the path leads to the comprehensive text storehouses of the Hellenistic courts in Pergamum and, especially, Alexandria. The systemization work performed there not only reconstitutes the genre system (see above), it also leads to lists of authors/works considered as belonging together, which at first only docu-

firmation in the Vitae sophistarum — presents us with the remarkable phenomenon of self-canonization, which reflects the cultural significance of these Sophists for the Greek world and their resulting self-confidence. Complementary to the constitution of the reference texts, two phases of selection occur in the Imperial period: first, a formally determined phase with > Atticism, then a quantitatively significantly smaller phase, determined by Christianity. Atticism led to the disappearance of large parts of Hellenistic prose and poetry — classified as not stylistically imitable — from the educa-

ment the stock, but at the same time form the basis and

~ Heresiology; particularly in the case of Gnostic or Arian orientation; for a summary see [58]) [593 60].

starting point for selection and hierarchization by literary criticism. How and when the selection took place in detail is difficult to determine. The similarities between Dion. Hal. De imitatione and Quint. Inst., bk. 10 suggest that the school system played a decisive role in this [51; 52]. Alexandrian > philology seems not (or only a little) to have included contemporary literature in the lists (Quint. Inst. 10,1,54). This position was never fundamentally revised, so that mostly a retrospective orientation of the educational system and culture is associated with the canonical texts, which supports the function of literature in the Imperial period (see above). Exceptions are rare, thus, for example, the attempt in the late Hellenistic era to stylize the seven Alexandrian tragedians, the > Pleias, as a kind of canon. On the other hand, the quasi-canonization of epigrammatists in garlands from the end of the rst cent. AD (> Epigram) proved to have a stronger impact. While, in these processes, philology and literary criticism can be presumed as canonizing instances, the attempt by the representatives of the Second Sophistic to constitute a new canon of the Ten Orators from their own numbers (Suda s.v. Nicostratus, v 404, cf. [53]) - for which, for example, Philostratus provides a literary-historical con-

LITERATURE

tional system (here, for example, is the cause for the loss of > Menander [4]). Christianity, in the position of be-

ing able to determine the conditions for canonization from the 4th cent., continued the traditional educational system, despite individual dissenting voices (summarized [543 55]). Restrictions occurred merely against explicit anti-Christian literature (such as Porphyrius); polemics (although not censorship) was expounded against incompatible concepts of God in traditional philosophy, e.g. by Clemens [3] of Alexandria against Epicurus (Clem. Al. strom. 6,8,67,2; [56; 57]) or by ~ Origenes [56]. Systematic efforts to create Christian

literature as a replacement for pagan Greek literature remained an inconsequential episode under the reign of Tulianus [11]. Within Christian literature, two canonization processes in particular are significant. The first leads to the fixation of the writings of the NT at the end of the 2nd cent., the second to a canon of the > Church Fathers at the end of the 6thcent. A central role was played by the results of theological controversies established at councils and the associated classification of certain

works

and

authors

as heretical

(— Heresy,

G. AS AN INSTANCE OF RECEPTION AND COMMUNICATION That Archaic Greek literature is not an independent, indigenous phenomenon ~ as it has been regarded since the Enlightenment [61] — but rather was influenced by the Orient in many different ways can be considered as accepted for some 20 years [62; 63]. Commerce, but also travelling craftsmen, priests, and doctors can be considered as the means of mediation in the 8th and 7th cents. BC. Through them, for example, the parallels between the + Gilgamesh Epic and the Homeric epics, between individual motifs (succession myth, etc.) in Hesiod (see > Kumarbi) and in Oriental traditions may

be interpreted as products of reception (whose genesis can hardly be clarified in detail). In addition, in the

colonial region of Asia Minor influences (not yet systematically

studied), of the Lydian high culture (> Lydia; > Asia Minor III.C.1.d) [64]), which are reflected in Aeolian lyric poetry, can be found. The narrative patterns, motifs and concepts received from the East can only be considered as a production-aesthetic phenomenon; an intertextually oriented reception was

691

692

not at all requested of the audience intended by the authors. The same is true for the use of these motifs by later Greek authors, particularly since here the assumption that they were called upon as already a part of Greek literature appears to be methodologically justified. During the Classical era of the 5th/4th cents. BC, no literary reception worth mentioning took place. Instead, nourished by the messages of periegetic-geographical literature and the developing historiography

[2], authors then appear in Latin literature who come from the Greek region), particularly as Latin gains great significance in the Greek East as the language of the legal system. The canonical status of the > Bible, which is connected with the victory of Christianity, brings additional oriental motifs and concepts into literary discourse in the 4th cent. > Philology

LITERATURE

(+ Herodotus

[1],

Ctesias, > Xenophon),

there is

the beginning of the construction of a literary Persian or barbarian image (— Barbarians), which serves self-interpretation [65]. In the Hellenistic period, on the other hand, two tendencies must be distinguished: a) indigenous authors write (mostly historical) works in Greek,

which are meant to familiarize the Greek audience with the traditions, religion and history of a particular country, as, for example, in the 3rd cent. BC > Manetho (Egyptian history), > Berosus (Babylonian history) and from — Iosephus [4] (Antiquitates Iudaicae) to > Herennius Philo (Phoenician history [67]) in the 2nd cent. AD (the early Roman historians can also be assigned here); b) acculturated intellectuals amalgamated Greek literary forms and concepts with indigenous thought patterns, as, for example, > Ezechiel [2], > Theodotus and the pseudepigraphic works under the names of Phocylides, + Orpheus, etc. The intent of such literature lay, for example, in maintaining a connection to the traditions of Judaism for the Jewish-Hellenistic circles in Alexandria, which had been caught up in the powerful wake of Greek culture, by presenting the fundamental content (exagoge), or their ennoblement through the so-called proof of age in a synthesis with Greek forms, advertising these traditions and their content among the Greeks, and creating a convergence between Jewish ideas and traditional Greek ethics (Ps.Phocylides) [68]. Through these texts, which stand in the context of acculturation, which

also include the

Graeco-Jewish literature of > Philo of Alexandria, Jewish concepts gained entrance to Greek literature (the direct impact of the translated Septuaginta, in comparison, is slight; the anonymous Peri hypsous/De sublimitate 9,9 is an exception; > Ps.-Longinus). This was at

first problem-free, as Greek philosophers tried to use non-Greek wisdom teachings as elements in an effort to regain a universal truth (material on the concept of the barbaros philosophia in [69] and, esp. for Philo, |70}). Furthermore, the synthesis of Platonism and the OT, found particularly in Philo, exerted an influence on the idea of God in the NT and, through the NT and Christian theology (Origenes), which was formed from the 3rd cent., gains new significance in literary discourse (on this [70]). Greek literature proved to have a strong influence on the developing Roman literature. A reciprocal effect of Roman literature on Greek literature is difficult to be proven methodologically (attempts in [71; 72]) and is certain only in the 4th cent. (significantly, with > Ammianus Marcellinus and > Claudianus

1 E.P6HLMANN, Einfiihrung in die Uberlieferungsgesch. und die Textkritik der ant. Lit. 1, 1994 2 W.ROSLER, Die griech. Schriftkultur der Ant., in: H.GUNTHER, O.Lupwie (ed.), Schrift und Schriftlichkeit 1/1, 1994, 511-517 3 E.Srein, Autorbewufstsein in der friihen griech. Lit., 1990 4 M.L. West, Early Greek Philosophy, in: J.BOARDMAN et al., The Oxford History of the Classical World, 1986, 114 5 G.F..NIEDDU, Neue Wissensformen, Kommunikationstechniken und schriftliche Aus-

drucksformen in Griechenland im sechsten und fiinften Jahrhundert v.Chr. ..., in: W.KULLMANN, J. ALTHOFF (ed.), Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen in der griech. Kultur, 1993, 151-165

6 CH. RIEDWEG, Pytha-

goras hinterliess keine einzige Schrift — ein Irrtum?, in: MH 54, 1997, 65-92 7 W.ROsLER, Die Selbsthistorisierung des Autors, in: Philologus 135, 1991, 215-220 8 L.KApPEL,

Paian,

1992

9 B.SEIDENSTICKER,

Die

griech. Trag. als lit. Wettbewerb, in: Abh. der Berlin-Brandenburg. Akad. der Wiss. 2, 1996, 9-35 10 E.KOHLER, Gattungssystem und Gesellschaftssystem, in: Romanistische Zschr. fir Literaturgesch. 1, 1977, 7-22. 11 J. Latacz, Homer. Der erste Dichter des Abendlandes, +1997

12 Id., Die Funktion des Symposions fiir die entstehende griech. Lit., in: Id., Die ErschliefSung der Ant., 1994, 357395 13 B.ZIMMERMANN, Dithyrambos, 1992 14 M.POHLENZ, Die Anfange der griech. Poetik, in: Id., KS 2, 1965, 436-472 (first publ. 1920) 15 B. Z1MMERMANN, Gattungsmischung, Manierismus, Archaismus, in: Lexis 3, 1989, 25-36 16 W.KROLL, Die Kreuzung der Gattungen, in: Id., Studien zum Verstandnis der rém. Lit., 1924 (repr. 1964 etal.), 202-224 17R.R. Nauta, Gattungsgesch. als Rezeptionsgesch. am Beispiel der Entstehung der Bukolik, in: AXA 36, 1990, 116-137 18 D. DoRMEYER, Das NT im Rahmen der ant. Literaturgesch., 1993 19 K.BaRwicK, Die Gliederung der Nar-

ratio in der rhet. Theorie und ihre Bed. fiir die Geschichte des

ant.

Romans,

in:

Hermes

63,

1928,

261-287

20 R. HERZOG, Probleme der heidnisch-christl. Gattungskontinuitat am Beispiel des Paulinus v. Nola, in: A. CAMERON (ed.), Christianisme et formes littéraires de |’Antiquite Tardive en Occident, 1977, 373-423 21 W.

Kirscu, Die Umstrukturierung des lat. Literatursystems im Zeichen der Krise des 3. Jhdts., in: Philologus 132, 1988, 2-18 22 U.TReEvU, Formen und Gattungen in der frihchristl. Lit., in: C.Covpe et al., Spatant. und Christentum, 1992, 125-139 23 P. WEITMANN, Die Problematik des Klass. als Norm und Stilbegriff, in: A&A 35, 1989, 150-186 24G.W. Most, Zur Archdologie der Archaik, in: AXA

35, 1989, 1-23

25 A.HeEuss, Die

archa. Zeit Griechenlands als gesch. Epoche, in: A&A 2, 1946, 26-62 26 R.HeERzOG, in: HLL vol. 5, § 500/501 27 P. Murray (ed.), Plato on Poetry, 1996

28 P.BRown,

Macht und Rhet. in der Spatant., r995 29 T.Scumitz, Bildung und Macht, 1997 30 J. Laracz, Hauptfunktionen des ant. Epos in Ant. und Moderne, in: Id., Erschlie-

Sung der Ant., 1994, 257-279 31 Id., Achilleus. Wandlungen eines europ. Heldenbildes, 1995 32 W.KRo1,

693

694

Das histor. Epos, in: Sokrates 4, 1916, r-14 33 A.CaMERON, Wandering Poets: A Literary Movement in Byzantine Egypt, in: Historia 14, 1965, 470-509 34 B.EFFE, Dichtung und Lehre, 1977 35 C. CALAME, Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece, 1997 36 B. SNELL, Das Bruchstiick eines Paians von Bakchylides, in: Hermes 67, 1932, 1-13. 37 Cur. Meter, Die polit. Kunst der griech. Trag., 1988 (review by E.-R. Schwinge, in: Gnomon 62, 1990, 678-686) 38 B. ZIMMERMANN, Die griech. Trag., *1992 39 E.-R.SCHWINGE, Griech. Trag. und zeitgendssische Rezeption, 1997 40E.L. Bowie, Past and Present in Pausanias, in: J. BINGEN (ed.), Pausanias historien (Entretiens 41, 1994), 1996, 207-239

41 H.v. CAMPENHAUSEN, Die Entstehung der Heilsgesch., in: Id., Urchristliches und Altkirchliches, 1979, 20-62 42 A. MoMIGLIANO, Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D., in: Id., The Conflict between

Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, 1963, 79-99

43 R.MERKELBACH,

der Ant., 1962 Novels

Roman und Mysterium in

44 E.Bowre, The Readership of Greek

in the Ancient

World,

in: J. Tarum

(ed.), The

Search for the Ancient Novel, 1994, 435-459 45 G.W. Most, Canon Fathers: Literacy, Mortality, Power, in:

Arion 1, 1990, 35-60 46R.Kannicut, Thalia. Uber den Zusammenhang zw. Fest und Poesie bei den Griechen, in: L.KAppEL (ed.), Paradeigmata, 1996, 68-99 47 F.KraFFt, Vergleichende Untersuchungen zu Homer und Hesiod, 1963, 21 48 J.HERINGTON, Poetry into Drama, 1985, 174 49B.Tsrrimzas, Die Stellung der Sophistik zur Poesie im V. und IV. Jh. bis zu Isokrates, thesis Munich 1936 50 PFEIFFER, KPI, 46 51 L.RaDERMACHER, s.v. Kanon, RE ro, 1873-1878 521.RuTHERFORD, Inverting the Canon: Hermogenes on Literature, in: HSPh 94, 1992, 355-378 53 U.DUuBIELZIG, s.v. Kanon, KWdH 71993, 327. 54 A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 1964, 1005-1007 55 H. Fucus, Die

friihe christl. Kirche und die ant. Bildung, in: Die Ant. 5, 1929,107-119

56M.L.W. LatstTNer, Christianity and

Pagan Culture in the Later Roman

Empire, 1951, 61

57 H. Jones, The Epicurean Tradition, 1989, 94-116 58 ALTANER/STUIBER 59 P.T. R. Gray, ‘The Select Fa-

thers’: Canonizing the Patristic Past, in: Studia Patristica 23, 1989, 21-36 60H. Y.GAmBLE, Books and Readers in the Early Church, 1995 61 W.BuRKERT, Homerstudien und Orient, in: J. Latacz (ed.), Zweihundert Jahre Homerforsch., 1991, 155-181 62 Id., The Orientalizing Revolution, 1992 63 M.L. West, The East Face of

Helicon, 1997 64 A.DrHLE, Die Griechen und die Fremden, 1994 65 E.HA tt, Inventing the Barbarian, 1981 66 Id., Drowning by Nomes, in: H.A. Kuan (ed.), The

Birth of the European Identity, 1994, 44-80 67 J. EBACH, Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos, 1979 68 N. WALTER, Pseudepigraphische jiid. Dichtung, in: W.G. KuemMeEz (ed.), Jiid. Schriften aus hell.-rom. Zeit 4/3, 1983, 173, 276; 176-181 69 A.DiHe, Indische Philosophen bei Clemens Alexandrinus, in: Antike und Orient, 1984, 78-88 (first publ. 1964) 70H.G. THUMMEL, Logos und Hypostasis, in: D. Wyrrwa (ed.), FS U. Wickert, 1997, 347-398 71 M.Hoss, Die rom. Liebeselegie und die griech. Lit., in: Philologus 138, 1994, 67-82 72 Id., Fiktionalitat und Luge, in: Poetica 28, 1996, 257-274.

MA.HO.

LITERATURE

IV. JEwisH-HELLENISTIC A. DEFINITION

B. PREREQUISITES

C. OVERVIEW

OF LITERATURE

A. DEFINITION Jewish-Hellenistic literature originated in the Hellenistic era, when Greek culture and language conquered the eastern and western Mediterranean (— Hellenization) and thus reached Jews living in both Palestine and in the various countries of the > Diaspora. Over the course of three cents. (c. 200 BC —c. AD 100), Jews created a literature — extremely varied in form, style and content — whose primary common characteristic is the Greek language, through which they participated in the intellectual discourse of the time and were able to reach not only Jews, but also a quasi-international audience living in Athens or Rome, Antioch or Alexandria, Jerusalem or the > Dekapolis. Not only the works originally written in Greek count as Hellenistic literature, but also translations into Greek. On the other hand, an intermediate position not considered here is taken by the large range of literature written in Hebrew or Aramaic which reflects Hellenistic influences with regard to content or genre [20. 453-463; Z2avOlenei tale B. PREREQUISITES

The linguistic prerequisites were, of course, met in

the Diaspora, but also in Palestine: Greek became the native language of the Jewish population in most countries (34. 347ff.; 32. vol. 3, 3-86]; for Greek as the language of the synagogue service [18. 159]), but was also widespread among the Jewish population of Palestine ([20. to8—120; 30]; for the rabbinic epoch [25. 1567]); an example of this is the Letter of > Aristeas (c. 100 BC), the legendary depiction of the translation of the Hebrew - Bible into Greek (Septuaginta) by Greek-speeking scholars of Palestine. Moreover, Greek culture must also have been appropriated, which made the adaptation of Greek literary forms and styles possible. How far this Hellenization reached and whether, for example, it changed the nature of the religion (possibly visible, for example, in the genre of apocalyptic literature) [7], is disputed in scholarship [32. vol. 3, 471]; the juxtaposition of Hellenistic Diaspora and Palestinian Judaism, Greek education and faithfulness to the Torah [44; 10; 18] is no longer advocated today, rather the term ‘Hellenistic Judaism’ is used generally [4. 2f.5 20. 191-1953 36. 259f.; 32. vol. 2, 29-84]. Politically and geographically favourable for an extensive acculturation of the Jewish population of Palestine were, on the one hand, the peaceful rule of the Ptolemies (3rd cent. BC), and, on the other hand, the contacts with the Hellenic cities which encircled Palestine like a wreath [33. 537; 32. vol. 2, 85-183]. In the 3rd cent., the relations with Egypt and the largest Jewish Diaspora community of Alexandria, the intellectual centre of the Hellenic world, come first. While almost no Jewish literature from the 3rd cent. is preserved — the first

695

696

Hellenistic-Jewish author is > Demetrius [29], with his work on the kings of the Jews (Peri tén en téi Iudaiai basilé6n, between 222-205 BC) — it is nevertheless generally recognized that the roots for the later development were laid then [20. 128ff.]. The end of the JewishHellenistic epoch was sealed by the continuing tensions between the Jewish population of Palaestine and Rome or Herod the Great, by the Jewish-Roman War, and the rebellions in the Diaspora (AD 115-117).

Testaments of Abraham and the Twelve Patriarchs (> Testament, as literary genre; for the works whose Jewish or Christian provenance is not clear cf. [32. vol.

LITERATURE

C. OVERVIEW

OF LITERATURE

1. BIBLE TRANSLATIONS 2. TRANSLATIONS OF OTHER WORKS 3. ORIGINAL GREEK WORKS 4. HISTORIOGRAPHY 5. NOVEL AND PARAENESIS 6. EPIC AND DRAMA 7. PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

t. BIBLE TRANSLATIONS All common representations of Hellenistic-Jewish literature begin, for chronological, linguistic and religious-historical reasons, with the first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (— Septuagint = LXX; c. middle of the 3rd cent. to middle of the 2nd cent. BC),

which is of heterogeneous origin, but probably produced in Alexandria [16]. Its language as well as its, in part very characteristic, theological ideas had great influence on the subsequent Graeco-Jewish literature (and the NT), particularly since the Septuagint text was regarded as divinely inspired and equal to the original Hebrew text [32. vol. 3, 142ff., 479f.]. In addition to the Hebrew text several works — partly original works, partly translations from Hebrew — were included in the

Septuagint (apocrypha and pseudepigrapha; > Apocryphal literature). With the decline of the Jewish community in Alexandria at the beginning of the 2nd cent. AD, the Septuaginta also lost influence and, parallel to its acceptance in the Christian communities, was replaced in the Greek-speaking Jewish Diaspora communities, by the translation of > Aquila [3] (Onkelos), which was syntactically and lexically more strongly oriented on the Hebrew original (1st half of the Ist cent.).

2. TRANSLATIONS OF OTHER WORKS Other works were also translated from Hebrew into Greek and today are only partly preserved in their Greek version. Among these are De Bello Iudaico by > Tosephus [4] Flavius, the Book of Jubilees (— Liber Tubilaeorum), the Letter of Jeremiah, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, r Macc (LXX), the proverbs and poems ofJesus ben Sira (LXX) and the Psalms of Solomon (LXX). Like

the Septuagint and almost all other Jewish-Hellenistic works, they were also handed down in Christian circles or through excerpts in Christian authors (among others, in > Clemens [3] of Alexandria, > Origines, > Eusebius [7] of Caesarea; the most important pagan source: > Alexander [23] Polyhistor, rst cent. AD). For a large number of texts it cannot be definitely determined whether the original was written in Hebrew or Greek; thus, among others, 3 Ezra, 1 and 2 Baruch, 2 Enoch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh and the

3, 705-786, 787-804]). 3. ORIGINAL GREEK WORKS The works originally written in Greek are more strongly oriented on the models and genres of the Greek literary canon than the translated literature. Along with works of historiography, there are also belletristic and philosophical prose works, as well as poetry (epic, tragedy, small forms). Despite the diversification of this literature in content and genre, its apologetic character as well as its intent to prove the superiority of the Jewish revelation and wisdom and to proselytize [10; 13; 15; 33] are emphasized as common features. However, the interest in the history and religion of the Jewish people on which all texts are based clearly distinguishes it from the literature of other Hellenized peoples (comparable, however, > Manetho and > Berosus). In fact, by far the largest part of the works was probably addressed to Greek-speaking Jews [2. vol. 1, 197f.] and only secondarily to a pagan readership [32. vol. 3, 471]. However, the works of Aristobulus Philo (among others, Apologia hypér Iudaion) and losephus [4] Flavius (Contra Apionem) are to be judged differently; their apologetic historiography and philosophy deliberately addresses a non-Jewish readership [37.27ff.; 32. vol. 3, 58rf. 20.130f.]. 4. HISTORIOGRAPHY

An apologetic interest — even if it is not always primary — is common to all historical works of Jewish literature. Beginning with Demetrius (end of the 3rd cent. BC), to Eupolemus (middle of the 2nd cent.), Artapanus (after 250, Septuagint), Aristeas, the Exegete (after

250; probably not identical with the author of the Letter to Philocrates), Philo the elder, Cleodemus (or Malchus), Ps.-Eupolemus (Samaritan) and Ps.-Hecata-

eus and down to Philo (De specialibus legibus, De vita Mosis) and losephus Flavius (Antiquitates Iudaicae),

their common theme is the history of Israel as well as the venerability and superiority of its religious tradition. According to Artapanus, Egyptian wisdom and scholarship are dependent on Jewish wisdom, according to Ps.-Eupolemus it is Greek wisdom and science. More strongly obliged to the criteria of classical Greek historiography, however, are the primarily contemporarily oriented works, e.g. De Bello Iudaico by losephus Flavius, the lost works of Justus of Tiberias and Philo’s In Flaccum and De legatione ad Gaium. Also to be counted among them is the lost five-volume work of > Iason [3] of Cyrene (middle of the 2nd cent. BC), which presented a history of the Maccabaean revolt. A rhetorical, probably highly changed, summary of his work is represented by 2 Macc (‘emotional historiography’ [20. 176-183]).

5. NOVEL AND PARAENESIS The tale of Joseph and Aseneth (between c. 100 BC and AD roo) and the Letter of Aristeas (> Aristeas) belong to the genre of the Hellenistic > novel; at their

697

698

side can be placed several paraenetic works: 3 Macc (between c. too BC and AD 70) [17], the Testament of Job (between 100 BC and AD 200) [33], the tales of Tobit and Judith, which were included in the Septuagint, and the Greek additions to Daniel and Esther. 6. EPIC AND DRAMA Epic and dramatic poems have been preserved of only three authors (fragments in Alexander Polyhistor, preserved in Euseb. Praep. evang.), and it is questionable whether there were other poets besides these (critical [35]). Based on the adaptation of biblical history, both the epic poems (hexameter) on Jerusalem (Philo the Elder) and Sichem (Theodotus) and the dramatic adaptation of the Exodus from Egypt (Exagoge) by Ezechiel (between 240-100 BC) are close to the historical works. The style of Philo the Elder is pompous and obscure, that of Theodotus Homeric [40] and Ezechiel is obliged to Euripides. Furthermore, there are pseudepigraphic verses of Jewish origin, ascribed to Greek poets, which are supposed to prove the correspondence of Greek and Jewish traditions (internal Jewish apologetics) [32. vol. 3, 656-671; 41]. 7. PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS All philosophical works of Hellenistic-Jewish literature belong to the area of practical philosophy (ethics) and deal primarily with questions of faith, Torah piety and proper mode of life as topics. Thus, both the Wisdom ofSolomon (probably rst cent. BC) and Jesus ben Sira (2nd cent. BC; both LXX) stand in the tradition of the ancient Hebrew ~ wisdom literature [20. 275-318]. While Jesus ben Sira is stylistically still rooted in the biblical tradition [28], the Wisdom of Solomon offers a synthesis of Hebrew and Greek forms (didactic poetry — rhetoric). On the other hand, 4 Macc (rst cent. AD) is a diatribe, which eclectically uses a variety of philosophical movements (esp. Middle Platonism and Stoicism), in order to promote a proper religious life determined by reason [5]. Similar to the tendency of the historical works to prove the greater age of the Israelite revelation and the dependence of Greek philosophy on Jewish wisdom are the efforts of Aristobulus (rst half of the 2nd cent. BC) to establish Moses as the father of Greek philosophy [37; 22. vol. 3]. His allegorical method of interpreting the Torah [37. 124-149] reappears c. 200 years later in the Alexandrian philosopher > Philo, the most significant representative of a Jewish-Hellenistic synthesis [31]. The chief work of his extensive writings handed down in Christian circles is considered to be De legum allegoria, an allegorical commentary on Genesis in the form of Midrash (> Rabbinical literature).

LITERATURE

Testament Pseudepigrapha. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, 1983; 2: Expansions of the ‘Old Testament’ and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, tic Works, against its BASO 220,

and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenis1985 7J.J. CoLLins, Jewish Apocalyptic Hellenistic Near Eastern Environment, in: 1975, 27-36 8 Id., Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistc Diaspora, 1986 9H.CoNzELMANN, Heiden — Juden — Christen. Auseinandersetzungen in der L. der hell.-rém. Zeit, 1981 10 P.DALBERT, Die Theologie der hell.-jiid. Missions-L.

unter Ausschluf von Philo und Josephus, 1954 11 R.Doran, The Jewish Hellenistic Historians Before Josephus, in: ANRW II 20/1, 1987, 246-297

12 J. FREU-

DENTHAL, Hell. Studien. Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erh. Reste juddischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke, 1875 13 M.FRIEDLANDER, Gesch. der jud. Apologetik, 1903 141.M. Garni, A. OPPENHEIMER, D.R. SCHWaRTz (ed.), The Jews in the HellenisticRoman World. Stud. in Memory of Menahem Stern, 1996 15 H. Gratz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. 3/1, 1905 (repr. 1998) 16 Y.GuTMAN, The Beginnings of Jewish Hellenistic Literature (Hebr.), 2 vols., 1958-1963 17M. Hapas, III Maccabees and Greek Romance, in: Rev. of Religion 13,1949, 155-162 18 M.HENGEL, Proseuche und Synagoge, in: J.JEREMIAS et al. (ed.), Tradition und Glaube, 1971, 157-184 19 Id., Anonymitat, Pseudepigraphie und ‘literarische Falschung’ in der jiid.-hell. L., in: Entretiens 18, 1972, 231-307 20 Id., Judentum und Hellenismus. Stud. zu ihrer Begegnung unter bes. Beriicksichtigung Palastinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.v.Chr., *1973 21 Id., Juden, Griechen und Barbaren. Aspekte der Hel-

lenisierung des Judentums in vorchristl. Zeit, 1976 22 C.R. Hottapay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. 1: Historians, 1983; 2: Poets. The Epic Poets Theodotus and Philo and Ezekiel the Tragedian, 1989; 3: Aristobulos, 1995; 4: Orphica, 1995 23 E.KaurTzscu, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, 2 vols., 1900 (repr. 1975) Geschichte der griech. L., 31971, 894-902

24 A. LEsxy, 25 S. LIEBERMAN, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 1942 26 Id., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 1950 2 27 R.Marcus, Divine Names and Attributes in Hellenistic Jewish Literature, in: Proc. of the American Acad. for Jewish Research 3,

1931/2, 43-120 28 T.MIDDENTORP, Die Stellung Jesu ben Siras zw. Judentum und Hellenismus, 1973 29 A.MomIGLIANO, Alien Wisdom: the Limits of Hellenization, 1975 30 G.Musstes, Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora, in: $.SAFRAI, M.STERN (ed.), Compendia

Rerum Judiacarum ad Novum Testamentum 2, 1974, 1040-1064 31 V.NIKIPROWETzKyY, Le Commentaire de PEcriture, 1977, 12-49 32SCHURER 33 O.STAHLIN, Die hell.-jiid. Litteratur, in: W.v. Curist, Griech. Litteraturgesch., 2/1, ©1920, 535-658 34 V.A. TCHERIKOver, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 1961 35 G. VERMES,

M. GoopMan,

La littérature juive interte-

stamentaire a la lumiére d’un siécle de recherches et de

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1G.DELLING (ed.), Bibliogr. zur jiid.hell. und intertestamentarischen L., 1900-1970, *1975. 2S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, vols. 1-2: Ancient Times, *1952 3 E.BICKERMAN, The Jews in the Greek Age, 1988 4 W.Bousset, H. GREssMANN, Die Rel. des Judentums im spathell. Zeitalter, 1926 (repr. 1966) 5 U. BREITENSTEIN, Beobachtungen zu

découvertes, in: R.KUNTZMANN, J.SCHLOSSER (ed.), Et.

Sprache, Stil und Gedankengut des Vierten Makkabaer-

40 Id., Fragmente

buches, 1976

1977

6J.H. CHARLESworTH

(ed.), The Old

sur judaisme hellénistique, 1984, 30-39 36 N. WacuOLDER, Eupolemus. A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature, 1974 37N.WattTeR, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos: Unt. zu seinen Fr. und zu pseudepigraphischen Resten der jiid.-hell. L., 1964 38 Id., Fragmente jiid.-hell. Exegeten, 1975 39 Id., Fragmente jiid.-hell. Historiker, 1976 jiid.-hell. Epik: Philon, Theodotos,

41 Id., Pseudepigraphische jiid.-hell. Dichtung:

LITERATURE

Pseudo-Phokylides, Pseudo-Orpheus, gefalschte Verse auf Namen griech. Dichter, 1983 42 Id., Jiid.-hell. L. vor Philon von Alexandrien (unter Ausschlufs der Historiker), in: ANRW II 20/1, 1987, 67-120 43 Id., Jewish-Greek Literature of the Greek Period, in: W.D. Davies, L. FinKELSTEIN (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. II:

The Hellenistic Age, 1989, 385-408, 684-686 44H.A. WoLFson, Philo, 1947 45 Jiid. Schriften aus hell.-rom. Zeit (series).

700

699

LWA.

V. ROMAN A. LANGUAGE AND DISCOURSE B. AREAS OF COMMUNICATION AND FUNCTIONS C. GENRE SYSTEM D. DIVISION INTO PERIODS E. REPUBLIC F. AUGUSTAN ERA G. PRINCIPATE H. LATE ANTIQUITY

A. LANGUAGE AND DISCOURSE Roman literature is at first the literature of the citystate of Rome, then literature in the Latin language of the expanding political entity Rome: the choice of Latin over local (Italian, Celtic, African, etc.) languages serves as an indicator of the intended communication context. This separation becomes blurred at the edges when Latin is reduced to a special military or legal language (e.g. in the late antique legal corpora created in Constantinople) or when Roman, Latin-speaking citizens test Roman literary standards in poems in foreign languages (for example, a Getic poem is ascribed to Ovid). The bilingualism of the centre, which only declined in Late Antiquity, and that of the upper class who promoted literature is unproblematic for the differentiation as long as the communication context of a work can be clearly reconstructed: the historical work by > Fabius [I 3 5] Pictor, written in Greek fora Roman audience, belongs to Roman literature; the work of > Dionysius [18] of Halicarnassus, written in Rome for Greeks, to Greek literature. Greater blurring occurs in the rhetorical area: the first Latin rhetoric, the > Rhetorica ad Herennium, not only wants to translate a Greek handbook, but also continue (Greek) rhetoric as a discipline; the Roman oration of Aelius > Aristides [3] is held not only for Romans, but also judged by them according to the standard of a Graeco-Roman discipline. Here the linguistic allocation of the literature in question takes on a primarily pragmatic character. A certain imbalance is shown in that Latin texts (outside of the public administration in the broadest sense) do not intervene in Greek influenced discourses; despite their significance, for example, for the philosophy of the > Academy, Cicero’s philosophical text production is directed at Latin-speaking Romans; — translations from Latin into Greek are much more rare than the other way round ~a signal for communications barriers on the other side. Latin literature very quickly developed a uniform written language, whose distance from the spoken +> language of Rome, Italy and the provinces can only be determined with difficulty, but is certainly already

considerable in the Principate. Above all, it is Christian Latin literature, beginning in the late 2nd cent., which is significant from a literary perspective for the reconvergence with the spoken language which led to middle Latin. It is also Christian literature which communicated (mostly through Greek intermediaries) Semitic literary elements of language, style and content to Roman literature. Literary influences from African literature are minimal, those from the oral European cultures imperceptible. The influence of Italian literature cannot be measured in view of its degree of preservation; where it is perceptible (beginning with the > alphabet probably communicated by the Etruscans), it is frequently a matter of the transfer of Greek elements: until Late Antiquity Roman literature developed as a cultural system on the periphery of Greek culture. With regard to western European cultural history, however, beginning in the sth/6th cent. AD Roman literature for its part takes on the role of mediator for ancient (Greek, Jewish, Christian-Greek) literature and cuiture.

B. AREAS OF COMMUNICATION AND FUNCTIONS Where it is a matter of written texts, the participants in literary communication are essentially the members of the upper class, even if elementary knowledge of reading and writing was, as the soldiers’ letters from Vindolanda and tens of thousands of tomb inscriptions show, relatively widespread for a premodern society, at least in the Imperial period. A broad spectrum of + songs (carmina) for a variety of occasions, which

were only written down and preserved through chance (e.g. satirical songs in biographical or historical literature), may have determined literary communication in the above-defined (see I.) sense in the lower classes and offered forms for formulating and communicating individual and collective emotional states. The mythological and historical narrative worlds, with their own orientation function (- Myth), have not been preserved as texts; their transmission (and modification),

however, occurred not only in the medium of orality, but was also certainly connected with the pictorial world present in private everyday life and in the public space (architecture, fine arts, topographical systems of symbols). Literary communication between the leading political class and the broader classes below was limited to certain institutions (and essentially to Rome): the political speeches in the more or less formal people’s assemblies (comtitia, contiones), the funeral orations for deceased > nobiles, the theatre. Here, too, the text cannot be separated from its visualization: in the + laudatio funebris, masked persons represented the ancestors praised in the public speech; in the theatre, actors performed — the increasing dominance of the (panto-) + mimus from the Late Republic shows here even the clear decline of transmitted texts. Beyond its undisputed entertaining function, dramatic literature here has eminently political functions through creating a broad public in a ritual framework — as is shown by respective

JO

702

incidents in the theatre (+ Tragedy). The theatre was often adopted as an institution of this function in provincial Roman society (and in Constantinople). In the context of upper-class culture, banquets offer the most important location of literary communication (which is reflected in the > Symposium literature): as dinner entertainment or also in a circle of appropriately disposed listeners in concentrated form. Here, too, the functions of entertainment and information (delectare and docere, cf. e.g. Hor. Ars P. 333) reflected in ancient theory apply of course; however, they cover only the relationship of the text to each individual addressee. In relation to the totality of those present, the texts may have normative functions (more frequently with epics, lyric poetry, philosophical literature), but also often formative functions when they unite the audience through the intensification or rejection of the values of society as a whole (down to textual communities, e.g. Jewish and Christian groups). Unlike other forms of entertainment, literature can demonstrate the host’s degree of education and thus contribute to his prestige. Recitations (> Literary activity) and declamations (— controversiae /— suasoriae) as a formalized place of literary communication only appear from the Augustan age (Asinius Pollio); they are frequently set in > libraries; particularly with declamations, literature gains an agonistic character, which, with seems to disregard content, concentrating mainly on technique, but at the same time joins the participants together in a mythicohistorical and normatively firmly characterized textual world through the contents. From the Neronian period, the middle of the rst cent., the spectrum of the institutions is further enriched by proper literary contests (~ Competitions, artistic). Political oration, particularly in the Senate as the consensus and decision committee of the nobility, has a fixed place in upper-class communication. From no lat-

poet, orator or through actors, private readings (or having works read (- lector)) occur. Here, non-fiction texts and > historiography (in Roman literature probably the first genre intended solely for reading) dominate, as well as letters. Dedicatory copies of the authors, personal copies, or (from the end of the Roman Republic) products of the book trade may have expanded this spectrum of genres, but were also intended for renewed oralization (e.g. at a banquet). Private readings had their places and times: the library room (only rarely thought worth mentioning) and the peristyle, particularly of the country villa; time for reading in Rome was primarily in the early morning [3. 46-73].

LITERATURE

torical instruction. Writing a speech down (and learning it by heart) increased the power of its presentation, but also its circulation: important speeches transmitted as literature were never made (e.g. Cicero’s Verrine Orations; in part, the Philippica). With the increasing shift of decision-making to the emperor, their discursive function gave way to the epideictic and panegyric

C. GENRE SYSTEM As was already the case in Greek literature [see above III.C.], specific Latin text types found their primary audience in specific places (Sitz im Leben); however, these places frequently possessed a range of alternatives in the choice of genre: a variety of dramatic genres complemented and then superseded each other in the theatre (+ Comedy; — Tragedy; > Atellana fabula; - Mime); > epic, > lyric poetry, > elegy and — epigram competed in the banquet situation. After initial—and frequently failed — attempts already by Ennius to introduce new genres to Roman literature, the spectrum of genres had expanded so greatly towards the end of the Republic (— Literary genre) that the choice of genre (members of the leading political class tending toward prose; specialists tending towards poetry) could itself become a carrier of meaning (see below F.). With the reception of archaic Greek lyric poetry, Horace fictionalized the communicative situations; the Augustan > poetry book demonstrated the significance of reading — independent of a situation — as a reception form of literature. Genres are constituted in series of texts by dense intertextual relationships and comparable linguistic form, not by their attachment to a concrete social location. Correspondingly, the spectrum of genres of an epoch is determined not only by social developments; dominances or breaks in text series also contribute: the dominance of Virgil for the historicomythic — epic, the exhaustion of the possibilities of variation in > lyric poetry and > elegy by Horace and Ovid characterize the particular areas in the postAugustan era. With the arbitrariness of the selection of genre, the significance of a text’s genre for its commu-

(+ genera dicendi), which increased the formative func-

nicative function declines at the same time. However, it

tion along with the representative function (of emphasizing the speaker’s loyalty): the audience is united in the preformulated reaction to the achievements of the person praised (> Panegyrics). The value of the > hymn — formally addressed to gods and performed in a ritual context — in literary communication cannot be determined for non-Christian Rome; performers and recipients belonged to the upper class as a rule. Alongside the various literary public appearances in which the > authors recited their texts themselves as

is then primarily the extension and conversion of institutions in the Imperial period which moves and expands the genre system: practical speeches (+ decla-

er than the end of the 2nd cent. BC, it was under pressure by the Greek standard (— Rhetoric), perceptible in

the (at first controversial) efforts to establish Latin rhe-

mationes),

(late antique)

lists and breviaries

in the

school system, > panegyrics for the courts, hymns, sermons (> Diatribe), theological > dialogues (— Polemics) and monastic rules in the Christian institutions

establishing themselves.

LITERATURE

D. DivIsION INTO PERIODS The coincidence of the periods of political upheaval in the Augustan era with an extraordinarily rich literary production and the coincidence of the time of crisis of the soldier emperors with a distinctive gap in the preserved, or at least known, non-Christian Latin literature (between > Censorinus [4], 238, and > Nemesianus, 284) allows a close connection of the division of

literary history into periods to the formation of ancient historical epochs. After a long period which knew the use of writing (> lapis niger; law of the Twelve Tables, + tabulae duodecim), but did not use it to record ‘literary’ texts, an intensive process of writing down Latin

literature and of reception of Greek literature began in the 3rd cent. BC (‘Republican literature’, see below E.), which led, in the middle of the rst cent. BC (Cicero, Catullus, Lucretius), in constant expansion of the genre system to reception-historically successful, qualitatively distinguished texts (and the standardization of the language to classical > Latin), and which, in the Augustan era (see below F.), reached a certain completion; at the same time, however, a reorientation to the changed

political conditions of the emerging Principate also took place. This development often resulted in the repression of the production of older literature — a repression, however, which was restrained by the renewed interest in the > Archaism of the 2nd cent. AD (see below G.). The expansion process of Roman literature (with centres in the provinces of Africa, Hispania and Gaul) experienced a reversal in Late Antiquity (see below H.) with the shrinking of the political entity of the Imperium Romanum. The contraction occurred regionally in different ways; a thin net of communication continued to exist independently of the political structures (supported, however, by the attempts at reconquest until Justinian I, +565) into the 6th cent., even longer in a few Spanish centres (and, under special circumstances, as exported literature in Ireland) — the isolation of the literary system oriented on Antiquity can be emphasized by the term ‘subantiquity’. The Islamic expansion in the African south and the Hispanic west of the Latin-speaking world in the 7th cent. and the Carolingian Renaissance at the turn of the 9thcent. mark, directly and indirectly, the end of (Late) Antiquity. Christian literature (see below VI.) — first in Greek, from the end of the 2nd cent. also increasingly in Latin (in addition, also in Syriac, Coptic and in other near eastern languages) — as the literature of a special religious group, eludes political-historical periodization until the Carolingian Renaissance (in that respect, comparable to Jewish-Hellenistic and the much smaller Mandaean literature). Internal attempts at periodization — Revelation/New

704

703

Testament,

Church

Fathers/

Patrology — also include chronological criteria, but they primarily pursue canonization processes determined by content. The opposing concept of ‘early Christian literature’ already excludes Latin texts for chronological reasons; for the period following, internal Christian dis-

putes (accusations of > heresy) determine at first the survival of what is handed down, later what is to become a subject of literary history. For Latin, Christian institutions form the decisive framework of medieval literature ( Middle Latin literature); particularly monasteries and monastery libraries reproduce (and thus hand down) Latin litera-

ture and create new texts. In contrast, beginning with the > Renaissance,

Neo-Latin literature is character-

ized by new institutional production and reception centres (courts, universities), even if frequent contacts remain (e.g. theological faculties, Jesuit schools). ~ Middle Latin; > Neo-Latin. LITERARY

HISTORY

IN

GENERAL:

HLL;

ALBRECHT;

CHCL-L; Barpon; NHL vol. 3: Rom. L., 1974; DIHLE; Pu. VIELHAUER, Geschichte der urchristl. L., 1975; NHL vol. 4: Spatant., 1997. ON SPECIFIC PROBLEMS: 1 A. and J.AssMANN, C. HaRDMEIER (ed.), Beitrage zur Arch. der lit. Kommunikation, 1983ff. 2M.Bearp etal. (ed.), Literacy in the Roman World, 1991 3 G.BILFINGER, Die ant. Stundenangaben, 1888 4 G.CAVALLO, P.FEDELI, A. GIARDINA (ed.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, 5 vols., 19891991 5 E. FANTHAM, Roman Literary Culture, 1996 6 M.G1esEcKe, Der Buchdruck in der friihen Neuzeit.

Eine histor. Fallstudie iber die Durchsetzung neuer Informationsund Kommunikationstechnologien, 1991 7 J. GRIFFIN, Latin Poets and Roman Life, 1985 8 W.V. Harris, Ancient Literacy, 1989 9J.B. HOFMANN, Lat. Umgangssprache,*1936 10L.R. PALMER, Die lat. Sprache, 1990 ~=—-11 F. Pina PoLo, Contra arma verbis. Der Redner vor dem Volk in der spaten rém. Republik, 1996 12 K. Quinn, Texts and Contexts, 1979 13H. VoLLRATH, Das MA in der Typik oraler Gesellschaften, in: HZ

233, 1981, 571-594.

j.R.

E. REPUBLIC

In its text forms handed down in writing, the Latin literature of the Republic is essentially characterized by the adoption of Greek models; however, in the functionalization of these forms, in the selection of the — lite-

rary genres and in the social location of text production and text reception they show a strongly altered profile in comparison to Greek literature — a profile that often escaped ‘classical’ philology, which isolates the texts: from such a perspective, the history of Latin literature is represented as the history of the adoption of Greek genres, whose Latin versions do not meet the quality of their models; with the completion of the Greek spectrum of genres in the Augustan era, the productive phase of Latin literature ends (thus Ep. NorDEN). From

an internal Roman perspective, on the other hand, the tentative acceptance of Greek text genres (and other Greek ‘media’: architecture, sculpture, numismatics, etc.) from the 3rd cent. BC appears as a drastic expansion of upper-class internal and external communication. The carriers are, particularly in the area of the poetic genres (drama expanding rapidly, epic tentatively), professional poets (Livy [III 1] Andronicus, Naevius,

7°5

706

Ennius). Historiography also appears alongside the historical epic at the end of the 3rd cent. BC: with regard to language, it enters the discourse initiated by Greek historiography on Rome (e.g. Timaeus), but in terms of content as prose epic it meets the requirements of the leading political class for legitimation through the past, for examples, as well as for the glorification of recent activities. Well into the rst cent. BC, the authors on these topics are Roman senators. The explosion in the range of historical works in the 2nd cent. BC (now in Latin) indicates the extensive fictionalization of the past (also taking into account dramatic models) and the expansion of the horizon of legitimation to Italy (> Cato [x]) and the entire Mediterranean. At the same time, the increase in written communication becomes clear in the strong textual series of > historiography: the upper class begins to read, certainly also the result of their economic relief. On the other hand, members of the upper class only appear as producers of poetic texts with — Lucilius [16] and from the middle of the rst cent. BC this is increasingly stylized as an alternative to the > cursus honorum. The cultural area which

The strongly oral component of Republican literature implies that Roman literature in this period is the literature of the city of Rome, even if the origin of the text producers extends beyond Rome, or even Italy (e.g. L. ~ Ateius [5] Philologus). However, an extended villa culture, which shows written communication (- letters as well as more lavish forms: speeches, > autobiographies, philosophical > dialogues) as an integral part (+ Cicero), develops increasingly in the surrounding central Italian region. Knowledge of Greek and Greek rhetorical training gained in the East belong to the upper-class lifestyle (but probably well into the equestrian class establishing itself), as does the contact with educated Greeks in Rome and in the villas. Nevertheless, Cicero’s complaints suggest that authentic knowledge of Greek specialist literature (such as in philosophy) is limited (in teaching, Homer, the tragedians, and orators are rather the focus of attention); Greek works of great interest are translated again and again. At any rate, Rome and its environs are already the centre for Greek philosophical schools towards the end of the Republic: this is true for Epicureanism (Philodemus) and Academic Scepsis (Cicero) and is to shape the Principate. The Latin literature of the Republic has only been handed down in fragments: apart from Cicero’s large body of work and other texts from the 50s and 40s BC

arises here, however, is not autonomous,

but rather

rigourously subordinated to (hardly separable) social and political interests: education with Greek materials (removed from their institutional context) has demonstrative character, original further developments of Greek specializations are missing (> Encyclopaedia) or

are prevented (expulsion of philosophers, ban on Latin rhetoric schools). The fully altered habits of reception and interests also explain why numerous Hellenistic genres, which particularly + Ennius [1] first presented in Latin, are not taken up. Philosophical reflection becomes productive in Latin only with > Lucretius [II] 1] and > Cicero; in poetry, > elegy, > epigram and probably also mythological > epic are only part of the late Republican or early Augustan spectrum of genres, here often antithetical to the prevailing value system (> Catullus [1]; love elegy, ‘personal’ poetry). In contrast, antiquarian literature

(— Antiquarians)

gains a foothold;

in

terms of content, there is some overlap with the > annalists (> Gellius [2]). Grammar as literary self-reflection only begins later and, at first, remains a matter for Greek authors; literary historiography is already pursued by > Accius. Within the established context of literary communication, > satire becomes possible as shown by > Lucilius [I 6]: as a form of upper-class selfcriticism outside of face-to-face situations. Because upper-class culture normally has a leading function, general literacy and the reading public may have grown under their influence. However, recitation remained a matter of salons; the context for a wider public is formed primarily by religious festivals: the number of days with ludi scaenici (+ Competitions, artistic), which increased enormously between 240 and 173 BC, opened wide scope for dramatic performances; festivals were also opportunities for commissioning hymnal poetry (carmina; - Commissioned poetry).

LITERATURE

(Lucretius, Catullus, Caesar), only the Late Republican collections of the comedies of Plautus and Terence, the

agricultural works of Cato and Varro, and more or less large fragments of the rest remain. Both in its criticism of the preceding literature and in the political and social developments, the end of the Republic exhibits the constellations that form the foundation of Augustan literature. H.Cancik,

Die republikanische

Trag., in: E. LEFEVRE

(ed.), Das rom. Drama, 1978, 308-347; E.FLaic, Entscheidung und Konsens, in: M. JEHNE (ed.), Demokratie in Rom?, 1995, 77-127; M. FUHRMANN, Die rom. Fach-L.,

in: Id. (ed.), Rom. L.-Gesch., 1974, 181-194; E.S. GRUEN,

Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome, 1992; R.KAsTER,

Suetonius,

De

grammaticis,

1995;

F.LEo,

Geschichte der r6m. Lit. 1, 1913; E.NoRDEN, Die r6m. Lit., 71998; E.Rawson, Intellectual Life in the Later Roman Republic, 1985; J.RUpKE, Ant. Epik, 1998; W.SuERBAUM, Unt. zur Selbstdarstellung alterer rém. Dichter, 1968; T.P. WisEMAN, The Origins of Roman Historiography, in: Id., Historiography and Imagination, 1994, I-22; 119-124. JR.

F. AUGUSTAN ERA

Augustan literature is the literary production of Rome from the first political appearance of Caesar’s heir Octavian (44 BC) until the death of the Princeps + Augustus (AD 14) and forms an independent epoch in literary history. The constitutive characteristics of Augustan literature are, at the same time, historical cri-

teria for this specific epochal definition. Augustan literature is — as a synthetic eclecticism of the works, themes and styles of previous epochs of

LITERATURE

OT

Greek and Roman literature —a creative restoration. Its prerequisite and consequence is the semanticization of epochal and genre styles [1] to elements of a.view of the world and oneself, that draws on the sum of past experiences. The synthesis proceeds partly more additively (e.g. > Horatius [7], Epodes [2]), partly more integratively (e.g. > Vergilius, Ecloge 2: essence of bucolic love poetry and Graeco-Roman erotic literature; the Jupiter of the Aeneid as a unity of the Iliadic, Odyssean and philosophical Zeus, as well as the Roman Jupiter Optimus Maximus), and finally encyclopaedically (> Ovidius, Metamorphoses). Like the Triumvirate and the Principate of Augustus, Augustan literature is a transitional phenomenon, to be understood as a system in motion. Allocation problems in the boundary regions (- Sallustius, -» Manilius {III 1]) are not an indication of an unsuccessful epochal definition, but rather are a given with the dialectic of continuity and discontinuity of the historical, as with any division into epochs. The development process from Republican to Imperial mentality, for its part, cannot be seen as a break within the Augustan literary epoch. Augustan literature is its time in a literary form. Reflection of the present with new historical consciousness and self-image of both Roman and individual identity is characteristic for it. The poetry is characterized by high demand (— vates concept) and intensive reflection on composition (poetological poetry), both particularly at the beginning (Virgil’s Bucolics; Hor. Epod. 16).

Augustan literature, a unity of shared topics, begins with the diagnosis of the catastrophe (Hor. Epod. 7; 16) and the hope of deliverance (Verg. Ecl. 4). The idea of a turning-point in history develops into teleological-historical interpretation (historical theology). The teleological-historical interpretation of the present and the restorative representation of reality are expressed particularly in setting aetiological relationships in poetry and historiography. The hermeneutic figure of historical aetiology and prehistorical fiction as variable projections of the present are ultimately identical forms of interpretation of the present. For Augustan poetry, the tension between apolitical privacy and political engagement is typical, not only in the ceuvre of Horace (cf. [3]) or the so-called recusatio poem [4], but generally. The continuation and transformation of neoteric love poetry (> Neoteric poets) in Augustan > elegy does not turn the apolitical concept of life against the Augustan state, rather it uses its room to manoeuvre for making privacy meaningful which prepares the way for the Imperial period. Augustan poetry deals with its problems in such a way that they become metaphors and synecdoches for questions of general validity. Guided by the demand, which also works through the synthesis of earlier works, it aims at universalization and the world poem [5]. The linguistic art aims at the ideal of lively symmetry and clarity and at the same time brevity and density.

708

Alexandrian slenderness also remains part of the great style. Compositio, juncture, has priority over electio

and word choice, synecdoche, over metaphor. For the decline of prose — with the major exception of the historical work of + Livius [III 2] — with regard to oration, the explanatory model in Tacitus’ Dialogus suggests itself, i.e. the causal nexus of Republican freedom (in political power games) and rhetoric [6]. With regard to philosophy, the impact of Cicero’s greatness may be presumed. The contemporary Greek literature is, in comparison, almost exclusively available in prose works: > Dionysius [18] of Halicarnassus, > Strabo, -» Caecilius [III 5] of Cale Acte, > Timagenes. The unity and particular nature of Augustan literature as an epoch of its own of literary history eludes the categories Classical and > Classicism. The thesis of a Roman Classic combines the Ciceronian and Augustan ages [7. 14-21]; it fails in that the concept of a classical epoch does not have a historically-specific physiognomy and is not necessarily accompanied by pre- and post-classical epochs, which alter the understanding of other epochs and prevent their classification. The term Classicism, which is dropped for the fine arts of the Augustan era [1. 13f., 36; 8. 248-255], likewise includes a historical three-phase scheme: the canonized classical epoch, an intermediate period (‘middle age’) of decline, and the rebirth through orientation on the classical epoch. The point of the historical peculiarity of Augustan literature is, however, its free disposal of the

works of all epochs of Greek and Roman literature, particularly without dismissing the immediately preceding. The lack of a sudden break with pre-Augustan literature can be explained, not as forming an epochal unity with it, but rather as using it in the sense of the transformative adoption of its achievements. ~ Augustus 1 T.HOLscHER, Rom. Bildsprache als semantisches System, 1987 2E.A. Scumuipt, Offentliches und privates Ich, in: G. Most (ed.), Philanthropia kai eusebeia, FS A. Dihle, 1993, 454-467 3 V.POscHL, Horaz und die Politik, *1963 4 W.WIMMEL, Kallimachos in Rom, 1960 5 E.Z1nn, Die Dichter des alten Rom und die Anf. des

Weltgedichts, in: AXA 5,1956,7-26 6K.HELDMANN, Ant. Theorien uber Entwicklung und Verfall der Redekunst, 1982 7M.FUHRMANN, Die rom. Lit., in: Id. (ed.), Rom, Lit.,1974 8 P.ZANKER, Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, 1987.

ALBRECHT, 511-524 (bibliography: 523f.); G.BINDER (ed.), Saeculum Augustum, 3 vols., 1987-1991 (each with bibliography); TH. GELZzER (ed.), Le Classicisme 4 Rome (Entretiens 25), 1979; Id., Klassik und Klassizismus, in: Gymnasium 82, 1975, 147-173; V.POscHL, Grundziige der augusteischen Klassik (1970), in: Id., Kunst und Wirk-

lichkeitserfahrung in der Dichtung. KS I, 1979, 21-34; L.P. Wirxinson, Golden Latin Artistry, 1963; A. WLosOK, Die rom. Klassik, in: W. VossKamp (ed.), Klassik im Vergleich, 1993, 331-347, 433-435EAS.

709

710

G. PRINCIPATE The post-Augustan literature of the Principate, from AD 14 into the 3rd cent. AD, is only handed down in fragments and erratic blocks. At best these give a profile to the Neronian and Flavian periods (2nd half of the st cent.). - Historiography in particular contributes to this, since it — due to its limited transmission — offers nothing for the period after Tacitus and the Imperial biographies of Suetonius that could be compared with them (Dio is fragmentary; the Historia Augusta and Herodian limited in their expressiveness). The value judgements of > literary history (Seneca the Elder; Tac.

For poetry, the evidence already comes largely to an end in the 2nd cent.; the lyric poets, later incorrectly united as > poetae novelli, are only fragmentarily preserved; the production of drama already breaks off with Seneca’s tragedies — here, however, it is not a matter of losses, but the result of a development in which > mime has forced tragedy out of the theatre into recitation. In prose, the broad spectrum of genres continues to be

Dial.; Quint. Inst.), however, can hardly be examined

even for the rst cent. due to the lack of texts. In the post-Augustan era, literature is at first characterized by a process of adaptation: the attempt to bring the constantly precarious system of the Principate into balance with public, literary expression of opinion. Censorship and persecution are the extreme means to achieve this (e.g. -» Cremutius

Cordus). > Rhetoric,

which has lost political significance, has become the basis of upper-class education; since it produces the most polished theories on the production and effect of texts, it influences literary production far beyond the genre of oration, and, at the same time, forms a professional basis for writers. Professionalization is an important tendency at the end of the rst cent. AD, even if it is rather a model than a social reality. With P. Papinius + Statius and his father, who taught in Naples, we first see the type of the bilingual and therefore (at least potentially) empire-wide active professional poet, who has such major significance for Late Antiquity as a wandering poet (Claudius > Claudianus [2]). — Ap(p)uleius [III] of Madaura demonstrates for the 2nd cent. the chances and risks (accusations of magic) of free-floating intellectuals. For this freedom of movement, civic autonomy plays just a large a role as the development of Imperial courts. As the most powerful representative of patronage (— Literary activity), the

emperor plays an important role, however this is probably exaggerated by the self-stylization of poets (> Martialis [1]) and the dedications (— Velleius Paterculus) as well as by the biographically-oriented historical tradition. Roman literature remains political, from the fable (> Phaedrus) to the satire (> Persius, > Iuvenalis). The intensive awareness of one’s own time and literature takes place against the background of a normatively highly ranked Augustan or even Republican period; epic, for example, which dominates the poetic texts of this time with a dense series of texts (Lucan, Statius, Silius Italicus), concerns itself with Virgil, and also possibly distances itself from him. Literary activity no longer represents a pronounced countermodel to a political career, rather it is a legitimate and respected activity for members of the Senatorial class in closely regulated career breaks or as a sideline (Pliny the Elder and the Younger; Tacitus; or for an equestrian, Suetonius).

used and

LITERATURE

is enriched

by the — novel

(> Petronius,

> Ap(p)uleius [III]). With extant texts, we can also perceive a broad production of > technical literature in a variety of areas, as well as grammarians and antiquar-

ians, who found a popular form in the > Buntschriftstellerei; education is imparted as entertainment and not pursued as research with scholarly interest. However, the cultural-historical

interest demonstrates

a

closeness to the archaizing tendencies in the artistic prose of the 2nd cent., which is particularly represented by M. Cornelius > Fronto [6] (> Archaism). In terms

of the effect of history, the products of the epoch (Suetonius, but also already Pliny the Elder’s ‘Natural History’) have a large part in the image of the everyday culture of Antiquity, Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Of even greater significance with regard to the effect of history, however, is legal literature, culminating in the law schools of the Severan period: the commentaries of > Julius [[V 16] Paulus and Domitius + Ulpianus, the collections of problems of Aemilius ~ Papinianus, as well as the textbooks of > Gaius [2]

and even of - Modestinus Herennius decisively characterize late antique (and thus early modern) collections of texts and their view of classical Roman law. G. W. BowErsock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire, 1969; E. CHAMPLIN, Fronto and Antonine Rome, 1980; DULCKEIT/SCHWARZ/WALDSTEIN; FRIEDLANDER; A. Har-

DIE, Statius and the Silvae. Poets, Patrons and Epideixis in the Graeco-Roman World, 1983; L. HOLFORD-STREVENS, Aulus Gellius, 1988; R.A. KastTer, Guardians of Language, 1988; E. LEFEvrE, Die Lit. der claudischen Zeit — Umbruch oder Episode?, in: V.M. Strocka (ed.), Die

Regierungszeit

des Kaisers

Claudius,

1994,

107-117;

Norpben, Kunstprosa; P.STEINMETZ, Unt. zur rom. Lit. des 2. Jh.n.Chr., 1982. JR.

H. Late ANTIQUITY

Only in recent decades literary history has begun to pay increased scholarly attention to the epoch of > Late Antiquity as an entity of its own between Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Instead of condemning it as a period of decline or decay as in the past, efforts are now made to analyse the mechanisms of the transition (the progressive disintegration of the political unity of the Roman Empire into the Latin West and Greek East, as well as the increasing regionalization within both halves of the Empire) as a relationship of tension between tradition and renewal. This process of reorganization and particularization was accompanied by profound mutual intellectual-cultural influences between West and East, Greek and Roman, pagan and Christian,

LITERATURE

Gpsie

7m

as well as Imperial and regional traditions. Generally, this transitional period can best be described as a phase of politico-historical and intellectual reorganization which made the continued existence and the continued dynamic impact of the ancient culture and particularly of literature possible. Late Antiquity can be roughly fixed to the period between the end of the 3rdcent. (284, Diocletians accession to the throne; 330, foundation of Constantinople) and the end of the 7th/early 8th cent. (630, Arab invasion; 735, death of Bede). In the West, the decades before and after these benchmark dates are characterized by an extensive lack of literary productivity, particularly on the non-Christian side. Furthermore, late antique intellectual life (especially in the West) can be divided into three phases: a phase of restoration and regeneration (284-350), a phase of flourishing (3 50430) and a phase of epigonism (430-735) [3. 46f.]. Typical for late antique literature in general is the lack of a predominant way of writing or uniformity of style. All stylistic principles of the past, which were previously characteristic of a specific period, are available. In addition, the established literary genres are creatively taken up and further developed (> Technical literature, — Commentary, > Technopaegnia) or combined (biblical epic, > Biblical poetry; poetic hagiography, > Biography). Other genres nearly die out (> Tragedy, > Comedy, — Eidyllion, > Satire, > Elegy, long — Epic). New genres also appear, especially on the Christian side (Prudentius: liturgical and martyrological — hymns, + Allegorical poetry; Augustinus: + Autobiography, historical philosophy). The intellectual predominant conflict until the rst half of the 5th cent., between the established polytheism and Christianity, which was struggling for its political and cultural recognition, was from the beginning primarily characterized by a use [4] of non-Christian literature; Christianity created alternative literature only toa limited extent (see the poetic genres of > Commodianus and > Damasus). Such an attitude, strongly oriented on the past regarded as normative, is characteristic of Late Antiquity in general. It can be explained by the intensive feeling of discontinuity in this epoch; therefore, the civil and intellectual identity is expressed by a conscious connection to the ancient intellectual tradition. Consequently, the literary production is strongly shaped by the grammatical-rhetorical school system [5. 32]: new edition and annotation of school authors regarded as canonical such as Virgil and Cicero (— Servius, + Macrobius); Classicistic poetry (> Ausonius, > Rutilius Namatianus; extreme form of the

— Cento); collection and systematization of knowledge (development of the > artes liberales), which is used for text interpretation (~ Nonius, > Martianus Capella). These tendencies are also perceptible in Christian literature, e.g. in the annotation of biblical books (> Ambro-

siaster and many others), in the transfer of allegorical interpretation from Homer to the Bible (from the Jew + Philo of Alexandria; Origenes), in the Christiani-

zation of many pagan genres, such as the dialogue of philosophers (- Minucius Felix, + Gregorius [2] of Nyssa), didactic poetry (+ Prosper of Aquitania) and laudation (> Ambrosius, > Gregorius [3] of Nazianz; -» Panegyrics). In Late Antiquity, the ability of Classical literature to expound a liberating and renewing effect under changed circumstances by maintaining an unaltered ideal standard in its adaptation was demonstrated for the first time. Every possibility of dealing with Classical literature is already demonstrated here, from preserving transmission to annotation and imitation to competing contrafactum. It is precisely in this period of transition that Christianity experienced a tremendous upswing, and the great Church Fathers fixed the foundations of the Christian faith which are still valid today (translation of the Vulgate; dogmatic and antiheretical treatises; > liturgies). In particular, the > sermon allowed the opening of Latin (to a lesser degree, also Greek) to vulgarisms, and the terminological spectrum of the standard language was also expanded, which set the course for the development of the Romance languages from the 6th cent. (+ Latin;

> Vulgar Latin). From the

end of the s5thcent., pagan and Christian traditions could stand alongside each other without conflict (+ Dracontius [3]; — Boethius). In Late Antiquity, Christianity developed from a subculture to the actual protector of the ancient legacy (Irish-Scottish monks; Cassiodorus; Isidore). ~ Latin philology; — Middle Latin 1 H.-G. Beck, Das byz. Jt.,1978 2 A.DrH Le, Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire, 1994 (German orig. 1989) 3 M.FUHRMANN, Rom in der Spatant., 1994 4 Cu. GnILka, Chresis. Die Methode der Kirchenyater im Umgang mit der ant. Kultur, 1984 5 R.HERzOG, in: HLL, § 500 (fundamentally) 6 H.Huncer, Aspekte der griech. Rhet. von Gorgias bis zum Untergang von Byzanz, 1972

7 ALBRECHT (Engl. 1997).

K.P.

VI. CHRISTIAN A. GREEK

B. LATIN

A. GREEK 1. PROSE WORKS

2. POETRY

1. PROSE WORKS

A) HAGIOGRAPHIC AND BIOGRAPHIC LITERATURE The reports of the sufferings of Christians persevering under persecution are the nucleus of the rich hagiographic literature. Either the course of the trial was reported in the so-called acta (Acta Iustini) or the last

days before the execution are told in event narratives (Martyrium Polycarpi; Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis; Greek translation of the Latin original; each 2nd/3rd cent.; —» Passiones, -» Acta Martyrum). The early beginning of the veneration of saints (+ Saints, veneration of saints) called for a richer development of this

713

714

tradition starting in the 4th cent. — with an increase of legendary and miraculous elements — as well as for hagiographic collections (Apophthegmata Patrum, Sayings of the Fathers; > Vitae Sanctorum). The bishop’s > biography, popular in the Latin West, found hardly any successors in the East (Palladius, Vita lohannis Chrysostomi, beginning of the sth cent.).

stomos the classical model for the Christian rhetor, who combined the knowledge of the philologist with the judgement of the philosopher (see also > sermon).

B) APOLOGIA

Starting in the 2nd cent., apologiae (> Apologists) written by theologians (Justin [6], Tatianus: Diatessaron, Theopilus of Antioch, etc.) occur; they were ad-

dressed to the emperor, in order to solicit legal > tolerance for Christianity. At the same time, they represent a defence of Christianity against accusations by educated non-Christians, such as those of the middle Platonic philosopher > Celsus at the end of the 2nd cent. (Origenes, Contra Celsum) or of the Neoplatonist — Porphyrius (3rd cent.). Cc) ANTIHERETICAL AND DOGMATIC WORKS The increasing expansion and establishment of Christianity during the course of the 3rd/4th cents. called for a systematic representation of Christian theological principles, which, after the beginnings in > Eirenaeus’ [2] Adversus haereses, was first done by Origenes ({ 253/4) in De principiis. The theology of the Trinity was formulated in the 4th cent. against the Alexandrian presbyter > Arius [3], above all by the three great Cappadocians — Basilius [1] of Caesarea, Gregorius [3] of Nazianz, and Gregorius [2] of Nyssa. The Nestorian conflict (+ Nestorius, Nestorianism)

dealt

with the determination of the natures and the person of Christ (Cyrillus [2] of Alexandria, Proclus of Constantinople against Eutherius, Theodoretos of Cyrrhus; middle of the sth cent.). D) ETHICAL-MORAL AND ASCETIC LITERATURE Clemens [3] of Alexandria (beginning of the 3rd cent.) propagated Christ as the true teacher and Christianity as the true philosophy (Protreptikoés; Paidagogos; Stromateis); Methodius of Olympus (beginning of the 4th cent.) praised virginity as the Christian ideal in his Sympésion oriented on Plato. The monastic and ascetic movements were shaped by the Vita Antoni of > Athanasius (middle of the 4th cent.), which was also known in the West through the Latin translation of Evagrius [2]. The ideals of asceticism were further propagated in the Historia Lausiaca of — Palladius (c. 420) in 71 descriptions of the lives of holy men and women. E) SERMON

In contrast to pagan religious ceremonies, Christian-

ity (following the model of Hellenistic Judaism) integrated oral instruction into the religious service from the beginning. Here both the genre scheme of pagan rhetoric (festive, funeral, and consolation sermons) and the popular philosophical - diatribe (e.g. De non iterando coniugio, ‘On the Uniqueness of the Marriage Ceremony’ by Iohannes [4] Chrysostomos, t 407, who is considered the greatest preacher of the East) are influential. > Synesius of Cyrene saw in Dion [I 3] Chryso-

LITERATURE

F) LETTER

The writing of letters played a major role in rhetorical exercises (ethopoiia). Different types of letters with models were set down in textbooks of rhetoric (> Rhetoric textbooks (Iulius [[V 24] Victor, 4th cent.; Ps.Proclus, 4th—6th cents.). For Christianity, the NT let-

ters to the communities were also a normative model. The double function of the letter, to cultivate personal relationships and to impart information, allowed the later publication of letters (in part, intended right from the beginning; fictional letters), e.g. in Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianz, Synesius of Cyrene. These frequently represent important historical sources. G) MONASTIC WORKS

+ Pachomius (ft 346), founder of coenobitic — monasticism, wrote the first monastic rule in Coptic,

which is only preserved in the Latin translation of the Greek by Jerome (404). Among others, it influenced the rule of Basilius, which mainly represents a catechism of the teachings on duties and virtues in the form of questions and answers. Jerome also translated the monastic rules of Orsiesius and Theodorus (> Horsiesi). H) EXEGETICAL WORKS

Apart from the Gnostic commentators Basileides [2] and Heracleon, > Origenes must be considered as the actual founder of Hellenistic-Christian exegesis. By adopting the methods of ancient philology, he explained the whole Scripture in exegetical homilies, more succinct glosses or scholarly commentaries (many works have been lost). In De principiis 4, he lay the theoretical foundation of the multiple meaning of scripture. Particularly popular were Genesis (model of the Jew Philo; Basilius, Hexaémeron; Didymus [5] of Alexandria), Psalms (Diodorus [20] of Tarsus, Theodorus of

Mopsuestia) and the Song of Songs (Gregorius of Nyssa), as well as the letters of Paul beginning at the end of the 4th cent. (Iohannes [4] Chrysostomos; [Ps.?]Iohannes [33] of Damascus). J) CHRONICLES AND HISTORIOGRAPHY The models for the chronicle (series temporum) were

created in the East by Eratosthenes [2] and Apollodorus [7]. The first Christian annalist is > Malchus [4] of Philadelphia, then Candidus [4] of Isauria (both 5th/6th cents.). The universal-historical world chronicle was popular with Christians; history was divided into several ages of the world (from the creation of the world to the Last Judgement): e.g. > Sextus Iulius Africanus (beginning of the 3rd cent.), > Hippolytus [2] (middle of the 3rd cent.), who also calculated the oldest Easter cycle; he was followed by > Eusebius [7] of Caesarea (¢ 339) and > Dionysius [55] Exiguus (about 525); later works have been lost (Philippus of Side, ~ Heliconius; both sth cent.). Eusebius’ Vita of Constantine is contemporarily oriented.

LITERATURE K) VARIA

B. LATIN

Christian — novel literature developed from the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (> New Testament apocrypha). The second part of the > Pseudo-Clementine Literature, probably written in the 3rd cent., also belongs to this genre; it legendarily describes the experiences of Clemens [1], allegedly later the bishop of Rome, as companion of Saint Paul on his wanderings in the Mediterranean. The numerous synodal texts are often extant in Greek and Latin, which is indicative of the generally lively translation activity. 2. POETRY A) BIBLICAL POETRY

Nonnus of Panopolis (middle of the 5th cent.?) wrote an extensive hexametric paraphrase of the Gospel of John. The poetic paraphrases of the Bible by Apollinarius [2] of Laodicea and his homonymous son A. [3] (4th cent.) are lost; a paraphrase of the Psalms under their name

716

Ti§

(sth cent.) is still extant (see also

— Biblical poetry). B) HYMNS

Following the models of the OT and NT, hymnal poetry serves two needs: liturgy and the disputation of dogmatic questions. Very few have been handed down for the beginnings of Christianity (papyrus fragments); Clement of Alexandria wrote a hymn to Christ the Sayiour (end of the Paidagogos). Synesius of Cyrene (4th/5th cents.) attempted a synthesis of Christianity and Neoplatonism in his hymns. The high point in the East is > Romanos Melodos (kontdkia) (see also ~+ Hymn). Cc) DOGMATIC AND ALLEGORICAL-DIDACTIC POETRY In various metres and in different lengths, Gregory of Nazianz presented Christian positions on the Trinity, on Providence, proper lifestyle, etc. In contrast to the contemporary flourishing in the Latin cultural region, the East produced no other significant Christian poet. D) VARIA

Empress Eudocia [1] (middle of the 5th cent.) wrote Homeric centos (-» Cento) on episodes from the OT

and NT and 3 bks. of epics on St. Cyprian of Antioch in Pisidia, of which 2 bks. are preserved. Gregory of Nazianz wrote three autobiographical poems (2,1,1; 2,1,11; 2,1,45), epigrams and numerous occasional

poems. The Euripides cento of Christus Patiens is probably Byzantine (12th/13th cents.). > Biblical poetry H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische L. im byz. Reich, *1977; H.DeELeHaye, Les légendes hagiographiques, 41973; M.GEERARD (ed.), Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 5 vols., 1979-1988; S. Dopp, W. GEERLINGS (ed.), Lex. ant. christl. L., 1998; NHL, vol. 4: Spatant., 1997; C. MARKscHies, Arbeitsbuch Kirchengesch., 1995; H.-G. NESSEL-

RATH (ed.), Einl. in die griech. Philol., 1997.

K.P.

1. PROSE WORKS

2. POETRY

1. PROSE WORKS

A) HAGIOGRAPHIC AND BIOGRAPHIC LITERATURE While Greek serves as the language of the mission for the Christian literature of the 1st and 2nd cents., even when it is written in the West, Latin spreads as the medium of the western Church in the Romanized provinces in the subsequent period. Loan translations from Hebrew and Greek influence this ‘Latin of the Christians’, while the syntax cannot be separated from the general development of the language under the influence of colloquial language. The first Latin Christian text appears with the Passio Scillitanorum martyrum, datable to AD 180. In the form of court records (acta) or reports of a martyrdom (> passio; » Martyrdom, literature of), the texts also

serve as encyclicals to strengthen the faith of the communities. From the 4th cent., the first Latin lives of the saints appear, which often unhistorically embellish the events with visions, miracle stories (> Gregorius [4] of Tours, De gloria martyrum; > Gregorius [3] the Great, Dialogues) and rhetorically polished speeches (+ Vitae Sanctorum). The model is the widespread Vita Antonii

by — Athanasius, which was translated into Latin about 370 by — Evagrius [2]. Biographies (— Biography) in the narrower sense include: the encomiastic Vita Cypriani of > Pontius (about 260); the Vita Ambrosii of > Paulinus of Milan, which is more oriented on the Vitae of monks; the Vita Augustini of > Possidius; and Eugippius’ Vita of > Severinus. > Sulpicius Severus stylistically follows classical models (Sallust, Tacitus) in the Vita Martini. The form of the > autobiography gains a new dimension through > Augustine’s Con/essiones; alongside psychological self-analysis, it contains philosophical and exegetical reflections. -» Hieronymus draws on the classical serial biography in the form of De viris illustribus (Nepos, Suetonius) with his first Latin Christian literary history of the same title, with material from > Eusebius [7]; > Gennadius takes this subject matter up again at the end of the sth cent. The > Liber Pontificalis offers a collection of biographies of Popes in schematic form. B) APOLOGIA

Also following Greek predecessors, Latin apologetic literature (> Apologists) begins in 197 with > Tertullianus’ Apologeticum (see Ad nationes, De testimonio animae, Ad Scapulam), which today is ascribed chronological priority over > Minucius Felix. While Tertullian exposes the state system of injustice and contrasts it with the behaviour of Christians in the form of a court speech before the governor, Minucius Felix, drawing particularly on Latin sources, chooses the form of the philosophical dialogue following the model of Cicero, with which he wants to lead educated people to the true faith without dogmatic narrowness (the name of Christ

717

718

is not used, biblical citations are missing). Despite his

Following Cicero’s De officiis in theme and structure, Ambrosius wrote one of the first summaries of Christian ethics.

mastery of the Latin language and rhetoric, Tertullian rejects the traditional classical education which influences the form and content in Minucius. Other representatives of apologetics also come from the African provinces, such as > Arnobius [1] (Adversus nationes; extensive criticism of pagan religion) with a very individual non-classical style, and > Lactantius [1], who — oriented on the language of Cicero — combined apology and introduction to the basic teachings of Christianity in the Divinae institutiones. Latin apologism finds its peak and conclusion in Augustine’s De civitate Dei. Cc) ANTIHERETICAL AND DOGMATIC WORKS For the dispute with > Marcion and the > Gnostics, as well as with - Montanism, Tertullian composed works with which he founded the text type of the Latin theological polemical works, which are well represented, particularly in the post-Constantinian period, in discussions of Church politics and dogrna with the followers of > Arianism (+ Marius Victorinus, > Hilarius [1] of Poitiers, > Ambrosius, Augustinus, > Vigilius, > Fulgentius [2] of Ruspe), > Donatists (> Optatus, Augustinus), — Manichaeans (Acta Archelai,

Augustine),

—- Monophysites

thius, > Rusticus),

Pelagians

(Arnobius

[2], > Boe-

(Hieronymus,

Augusti-

nus, > Marius Mercator; see > Pelagius), Semipelagians (Fulgentius [2] of Ruspe) and other heretics ( Heresy): Philosophical-dogmatic works serve the separation from the pagan world and its philosophical teachings (Tertullian, De anima; Arnobius [1]; Lactantius), or pose the question of true happiness, rejecting the new academic scepticism, with discussion of the problems of > theodicy (early dialogues of Augustine), which is also the central question of — Salvianus, who was so important for the migrations of peoples; he attempted to control the misery of the time with ideal communistic concepts in De ecclesia. The discussion of the nature of the soul is taken up again by > Claudianus [4] Mamertus and — Cassiodorus. On the other hand, internal Church positions and positions of Church politics are determined by these works: Augustine’s De trinitate signifies a milestone in the patristic discussion of this problem; the dogmatic treatises of Boethius (with strong impact on the Middle Ages) originate in connection with the so-called Scythian controversy; Facundus of Hermiane fought against the Church policies of > Tustinianus [1]. D) ETHICAL-MORAL AND ASCETIC LITERATURE A large part of the works of Tertullian is devoted to the Christian lifestyle in a still primarily pagan environment. The question of behaviour under persecution (De fuga in persecutione) remains topical to the end of the period of persecution; important information about it is provided, above all, by the pastoral-theological works of + Cyprianus [2]. Rhetorically polished, but without taking into account pagan literature, they partly follow Tertullian closely. The discussion of wedding and marriage also plays an important role in ascetic literature, as do questions connected with catechesis and baptism.

LITERATURE

E) SERMON

The sermon (6uthia/homilia, Lat. sermo) is, from the beginning, an essential component of the liturgy; as an

interpretation of a specific Scripture text and its significance for Christian life, the homily reached its zenith in the 4th cent. Besides > Zeno, a trained rhetor, > Gaudentius [5] and > Gregorius [2] of Elvira, Ambrosius (apart from sermons, funeral orations for his brother

Satyrus and the emperors Valentinian and Theodosius) and, above all, Augustinus must be named; the form and content of the latter’s sermons gained the character of a model for the Middle Ages. In Aug. Doctr. christ. 4, he gives a homily in the form of a synthesis of ancient — oriented on the ideal of Cicero — and Christian education. Among other extant collections of sermons are those by > Leo [3] the Great, Petrus Chrysologus, —+ Maximus [14] of Turin, > Faustus [3] Reiensis, — Alcimus Avitus [2], > Caesarius [4] of Arles, Fulgentius [2] of Ruspe and Gregory the Great, whose sermons served the Middle Ages models of the popular sermon. F) LETTER

Already in early Christianity (NT), the letter played an important role in the communication between the communities. A fixed pattern of form can be found in the Greek letters of > Paulus. Latin Christian epistolary literature begins with > Novatianus and Cyprianus; more or less extensive collections are handed down from, among others, > Eusebius [12] of Vercellae, Ambrosius, Hieronymus, Augustinus, > Paulinus of Nola, — Sidonius, Faustus [3] Reiensis, — Ruricius, Alcimus Avitus [2], Caesarius [4] of Arles, > Ennodius

and — Ferrandus. The style, particularly of the later authors, is strongly influenced by the fashions of their times. Papal letters (litterae apostolicae or pontificiae) are preserved from Liberius. Probably in the 2nd half of the 4th cent., the fictional exchange of letters between Paulus and Seneca came into being. A collection of Papal and Imperial letters between 367 and 5 53 is presented by the > Collectio Avellana. G) MONASTIC

WORKS

Based on the formation of monastic communities in West from the middle of the 4th cent. (+ Monasticism),

the first monastic rules and monastic literature emerged in the sth cent. Around 415, > Cassianus founded a monastery for men and women in Marseilles. In De institutis coenobiorum, he dealt with the institution and the rules of the monasteries in Egypt and Palestine with which he had himself become acquainted. Among the fictional texts are the 24 Collationes patrum, conversations with Egyptian anchorites. Caesarius [4] of Arles wrote monastic rules for nuns and monks. The Regula of > Benedict of Nursia summarized these developments. — Cassiodorus extended the principle of the duty to work by hand to the postulate of cultivating scholarship in his Istitutiones, and thus preserved the still extant stock of pagan Latin literature for the Middle Ages.

LITERATURE

720

719

H) EXEGETICAL WORKS

The first Latin Bible commentaries (— Victorinus of Pettau, Reticius of Autun, > Hilarius [1] of Poitiers)

originated from 300. Following — Philo of Alexandria and also + Origenes, Ambrosius interpreted the bibli-

in the East was promoted in the West by the text group of pilgrim works (Itinerarium Burdigalense; the > Peregrinatio ad loca sancta, which is also important for vulgar Latin, etc.; > Pilgrimage). 2. POETRY

cal text according to the triple meaning of scripture (+ Allegorism). The > Ambrosiaster, a commentary on

13 letters of Paul, was produced under > Damasus. From the OT, — Hieronymus annotated the Psalms, Ecclesiastes and the Prophets, from the NT four letters of Paul and the Gospel of Matthew. Augustine’s commentaries on the Heptateuch, the Psalms (compiled by Prosper, In psalmos, influencing Cassiodorus), the Gospels and the Pauline letters are extensive. Tyrannius > Rufinus of Aquileia interpreted the blessing of Jacob allegorically (De benedictionibus patriarcharum); > Aponius interpreted allegorically the Song of Songs and Arnobius [2] the Younger the Psalms. Rufinus also translated homilies of Origenes on the OT. 1) CHRONICLES, HISTORIOGRAPHY The synchronistic tables of the Chronicle of Eusebius [7] were translated by Jerome; he and others continued them until 468; they were influential for the chronology of the Middle Ages. > Marcellinus Comes dealt with the years 379-534 from the eastern Roman perspective. The brief Chronicon of — Isidorus [9] extended to 615. After Lactantius had produced an important contemporary document with De mortibus persecutorum, Rufinus wrote the first Latin > Church history using the Greek Church histories of Eusebius and Gelasius. Cassiodorus, who also wrote a chronicle

of the world and a history of the Goths following Iordanes, followed him. A history of the Visigoths until 625 comes from - Isidorus [9]. At the instigation of Cassiodorus, > Epiphanius [3] Scholasticus translated

A) BIBLICAL POETRY Christian Latin poetry begins relatively late. Around 330, > Iuvencus portrays the life of Jesus according to the Gospels in the style of the classical epic (Virgil) and thus founds (the dating of > Commodianus is disputed) the effective genre of — biblical poetry. Latin > cento poetry also appropriated this material (+ Proba). B) HyMNS

During his exile, Hilarius [1] became acquainted with eastern church songs and attempted to introduce

this genre in classical metres to the West. The hymnic poems of > Ausonius and > Claudianus [2] are unique in their ceuvres. Ambrosius must be considered as the actual founder of the Latin hymn; his form (iambic dimeter) was further developed by > Prudentius through the use of Horatian metres.

C) DOGMATIC AND ALLEGORICAL-DIDACTIC POETRY Lactantius’ Phoenix does not yet offer a clearly Christian reference. The allegorical poetry in Prudentius (Psychomachia, hymns) proves to be fully developed, and the classical form of — didactic poetry also appears in his work (Apotheosis, Hamartigenia); the apologetic poetry (Contra Symmachum) is an innovation. Didactic poetry is taken up by > Prosper Tiro and + Orientius. D) VARIA

With regard to the history of their development, the text types mentioned above can often be traced back to Greek models. This influence increased throughout the period through numerous translations, while, on the other hand, translations into Greek are rather an exception. Jerome translated works of Origenes and monas-

Still under Constantinus [1] I, > Publilius Optatianus Porfyrius fashioned his artificial Christian ~ technopaegnia, thus introducing this Hellenistic text type to the West. Christian > bucolics were written by - Endelechius. > Paulinus of Nola opened Christian Latin poetry to a whole series of traditional text types (+ Propemptikon; Epithalamium see -» Hymenaeus [2]; > Elegy). Prudentius’ Peristephanon introduces the legend of the martyr into poetry. The life of Martin by Sulpicius undergoes poetic arrangement by > Paulinus of Périgeux and > Venantius Fortunatus. The Eucharistikos of + Paulinus of Pella is autobiographical. Epigrams are first used by Damasus in inscriptions for tombs of martyrs in Rome. Prudentius’ tituli (Dittochaeon) probably served as picture captions. In the sth and 6th cents., Christian > epigrams flourished (Pros-

tic rules; commissioned by Damasus, he revised the Lat-

per, Ennodius, Venantius Fortunatus).

in Bible text, partly with new translations. Rufinus likewise translated works of Origenes, the Church histories of Eusebius and Gelasius, the novelistic Acts of the Apostles of the > Pseudo-Clementine Literature (> Novel), and others. With his translation, > Dionysius [55] Exiguus influenced the theopaschitic discussion in the context of Christological conflicts. As a rule, the numerous Greek synodal texts are also available in Latin translation. Knowledge of the holy places

— Patristics

the Church histories of + Socrates, > Sozomenus, and ~ Theodoretus (Historia tripartita), which became an

important aid for the Middle Ages. Complementing Augustine’s De civitate Dei, > Orosius wrote his universal history with an apologetic purpose. The persecution of Catholics under Geiserich is described by > Victor of Vita. J) VARIA

CPL; HLL, vol. 5; NHL, vol. 4: Spatant., 1997; $. Dorp, W. GEERLINGS, Lex. der ant. christl. Lit., 1998. J.GR.

720

722

VII. BYZANTINE A. LINGUISTIC SITUATION B.PoETRY LAR PROSE LITERATURE AND RELATED

LOGICAL PROSE LITERATURE ERATURE

C. SECUD. THEO-

E. TECHNICAL LIT-

A. LINGUISTIC SITUATION The language of literature and the lingua franca of the Byzantine empire was, from the beginning, mostly Greek. As a language of public administration and the military, Latin lasted until the loss of the Romanized regions on the Balkan peninsula (> Balkans, languages) and in North Africa in the 6th/7th cents.; however,

apart from specialized legal texts, Latin literature is very rare in the East; an example are the works of ~ Corippus, who lived in Constantinople. Greek literature, which was solely cultivated afterwards, is strongly characterized by the phenomenon of the — diglossia, which already occurred in antiquity, i.e. the gap between spoken and written language which became ever wider over the centuries. Diglossia led to the appearance of texts on all possible linguistic and stylistic levels. B. POETRY As a result of changed pronunciation, the ancient metres (+ Prosody) were given up in secular poetry or they were transformed by determining the number of syllables and the accent; their allocation to individual literary genres disappeared. Hexameter poetry ended with the 6th cent.; instead, even epic poems and epigrams were written mostly in twelve syllable lines (iambic trimeter) from — Georgius [6] Pisides. The + epigram developed into the most important genre of Byzantine secular poetry, while dramatic poetry is almost completely missing. The fifteen syllable line (> Metre IV.), common from the roth cent., also became common for genres formerly reserved for prose, such as > chronicles, etc., above all in colloquial works. As a form of Church > hymns, the > kontakion, which became famous through the works of + Romanos Melodos, emerged in the 6th cent. under Syrian influence, followed in the 7th cent. by the > canon — both forms are based on strophes built in rhythmic parallels and suitable for singing.

C. SECULAR PROSE LITERATURE AND RELATED In secular prose, above all historiography was cultivated, in which a clear distinction must be made between the main genres of chronology and historiography proper. While the chronicles frequently incline towards a popular form of language, the image of the historiographic works is primarily determined by linguistic and stylistic imitation of ancient models. The lack of concrete dates and the tendency to render the names of peoples and sometimes even persons by their supposed or actual ancient equivalents makes their use as historical sources difficult. Examples of standard language historiography of the 6th cent. are the works

LITERATURE

of > Procopius, > Agathias, > Paulus Silentiarios and + Theophylactus of Simocatta, which are contrasted, for example, by the colloquial chronicle of > Iohannes [18] Malalas. After a decline of literary activity in the 7th/8th cents., middle Byzantine historiography began anew with the chronicle of > Theophanes and the history of the patriarch -> Nikephoros around 800 and was cultivated continually almost until the end of the empire. The demands on the linguistic level of historiography continually increased into the late Byzantine era; besides ancient historians, epic and dramatic poetry were also used as stylistic models. Other important genres in Byzantine secular literature are rhetoric and epistolography. > Novels following ancient patterns of content, but mostly in verse form, only reappear in the 12th cent. In the middle Byzantine period, the gap between colloquial and standard language grew so much that the majority of extant literature became inaccessible to the slowly growing literate class, who however did not have any special education. From the 12th cent. the first works in a linguistic form that would lead to modern Greek emerge, above all satirical poetry, novels and chronicles in fifteen syllable lines. However, most literary genres continued to use the standard language; diglossia continued throughout the Byzantine era and beyond, almost into the present. D. THEOLOGICAL PROSE LITERATURE Theological prose literature in the Byzantine empire includes Church history, sermons, dogmatic and hagiographic works. Church history as a genre of its own, in contrast to secular historiography, ended because of the increasing integration of Church and state in the 6th cent. Hagiographic literature emerged from the authentic acts of the martyrs (+ Acta sanctorum; + Martyrdom, literature of, > Martyrs) of the last Christian persecutions, but later frequently took on a strongly legendary character. Many genres, otherwise hardly cultivated in the middle Byzantine era, such as folk-tales, the novel and epic, are preserved in the form of saints’ lives (> Vitae sanctorum); on the other hand, Oriental material, such as the novel of > Barlaam and Iosaphat, entered Byzantine literature through hagiography. Linguistically, this spiritual entertainment literature is oriented partly on the standard language, partly more on the vernacular. Hagiographic authors of the 7th cent. like > Iohannes [29] Moschus and > Leontius of Neapolis are an important source for the development of Greek colloquial language. In the middle Byzantine period, most older hagiographic works were stylistically revised, while maintaining their content, because their simple linguistic form was perceived as unsatisfactory, especially in the roth cent. by + Symeon Metaphrastes. E. TECHNICAL LITERATURE In technical literature, legal and medical works are particularly significant. At the time that the Corpus

LITERATURE

724

ae

iuris was edited under — Iustinianus [1] I (527-565), the language of legal literature was still completely Latin; soon thereafter, however, new laws were increasingly issued in Greek, the older literature was translated into Greek and recodified many times with additions in the 8th—-roth cents. + Byzantium

Dinporg, cf. Petron. Sat. 88; [1. vol. 1, 128-130]). Presumably, Democritus was also author of the work Teg

H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische L. im byz. Reich, 1959; Id., Geschichte der byz. Volks-L., 1971; HUNGER,

oupnabeiwv xai aviabetwv/ Peri sympatheion kai antipatheion of Bolus of Mendes, which included the stones as well (all fragments in [2. vol. 2, 210-220]). The following lithika are extant: a) purely mineralogical: 1) Theophrastus, De lapidibus {3}; b) magical-medical: 2) Plin. HN Bk. 37. 3) Damigeron Latinus [4. 161-195; 5. 230-288], the

Literatur; KRUMBACHER.

translation of a Greek book on stones (Ps.-Zoroast-

AL.B.

Liternius C. L. Fronto. His correct name nius Fronto. Equestrian who was one of officers of Titus in the siege of Jerusalem. volved in the sentencing of prisoners.

is C. Aeterthe leading He was inPraefectus

Aegypti in AD 78/9; [1. 276; 2. 480, 506]; PIR* L 287. 1 G. BASTIANINI, in: ZPE 17, 1975, 263-328

2 P.BureETH, Le préfet d’Egypte (30 ayv.J.-C.-297 ap.J.-C.): Etat présent de la documentation en 1973, in: ANRW II ro.1, 1988, 472-502. W.E.

Liternum Settlement in Campania, c. 8 km north-west of + Cyme [2] in a swampy, malaria-infested region (Str. 6,3,5), modern Literno. The mention made of a fossa Graeca (Liv. 28,46), a canal dug for drainage and the reclaiming of land, supports the view that Cyme was probably very influential (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7,3). From 215 BC a Roman praefectura (Fest. 262,10), in

194 a colonia (Liv. 32,29,3; 34,45,1), and ultimately a municipium of regio I (Plin. HN 3,61; Ptol. 3,1,6). Here + Cornelius [I 71] Scipio Africanus spent the last years

of his life (Liv. 38,53,8; Sen. Ep. 86,4). Construction of the via Domitiana at the end of the rst cent. AD. Despite this link to the Italian road network, L. was gradually abandoned by the 8th cent. AD because of its unfavourable climate. Archaeological finds: a one-nave basilica, rectangular forum, theatre, amphitheatre (2nd cent. AD). J.Berarp,

La Magna

Grecia,

1963,

60; A.Maruri,

I

campi Flegrei, 1958; S.DE Caro, A.GrEcO, Campania, 1981, 9of. A.BO.

Lithika (Ad/lithikd, Lat. lapidaria from lithos or lapis, ‘stone’). Books composed of mineralogical information as well as of special magical-medical effects attributed to precious stones. They are part of the physika-literature that began its expansion in the 2nd cent. BC, and were influenced by Oriental ideas, describing the magical powers of organic and inorganic nature affecting man in terms of sympathy and antipathy. The generally apocryphal collected works appeared under the names of legendary magicians such as > Ostanes (Damigeron 34) and > Zoroastres. To the latter’s book Tlegi MOwv tyiwv/Peri lithon timion (‘About the precious stones’) attests the Suda (s.v.); Plin. HN Bk. 37

uses him [r. vol. 1, 188-191]. The lithika of Democritus [1] have been attested as well (Georgius Syncellus 1,471

res?), also used by Plin. HN 37,139-185. The alleged author Damigeron is mentioned by Apul. Apol. 90 and Arnob. 1,42 [6; 7. 42f.]. 4) The same sources as Damigeron (Zoroastres and Ostanes) were used by the only ancient hexametric lapidarium, that of Ps.-Orpheus (4th cent. AD) in 774 verses, intending to explain to man the magical powers of the stones by order of — Hermes [4. 15-38; 5. 82-123]. A late Greek prose paraphrase is preserved [4. 138-153; 5. 146-177]. 5) The Greek Koiranides of the alleged Hermes in originally 6 books (rst cent. AD) also account, next to animals and plants, for stones and their medical effects (bk. 1 and bk. 6, only the first 9 chapters preserved; [8]). The Latin translation of bks. 1-4 of the 12th cent. offers stones only in bk. 1 [9]. 6) > Pedanius Dioscorides also includes the medical effects of some metals, minerals and stones in his pharmaceutical handbook (5,74-162 WELLMANN = 5,84-182 BERENDES). 7) The disquisition of bishop > Epiphanius [1] of Salamis (4th —5th cent. AD) on the 12 precious stones on the breast-plate of the high priest is preserved in Greek only in fragments [ro. vol. 2, 193ff.], but a complete Georgian version is extant. Latin prose texts of the Middle Ages often refer to this text. 8) From the 6th cent., we know the stone book of the Syrian Christian Aetius [ro. vol. 2, 131]. 9) The Arabian [r1. 93-125] and Latin [11. 183-208] versions of the Liber de lapidibus, attributed to Aristotle, originate as Syrian counterfeit from the 6th cent. as well [11]. In the 11th cent., MARBOD OF RENNES published a didactic poem in 732 verses [12], and Michael PsELLos a treatise Iegi MOwv Suvauewv/Peri lithon dyndmeon (‘On the powers of stones’) [r. vol. 2, 201-204]. In the High Middle Ages, encyclopaedias on natural history such as the work of THOMAS OF Cantimpre (bk. 14, 68 ch. [13]), used the information on precious stones in the traditional sense as well as cut antique gems to predict the future of the individual wearing them (Thomas of Cantimpré 14,69-70).

+ Orphism 1 J. Bripez, PF. Cumonr, Les mages hellénisés, 2 vols., 1938 2 Diets/KRANZ 3 D.E. EtcHHo1z (ed.), Theophrastus De lapidibus, 1965 4 E.ABeEt (ed.), Orphei lithica. Acc-

edit

Damigeron

de

lapidibus,

1881,

repr.

1971

5 R.HALLEUX, J.ScHamp, Les lapidaires grecs, 1985 6 V.RosE, in: Hermes 9, 1875, 471-491 7K.W. WirBELAUER, Ant. Lapidarien, 1937 8 D.Kaimakis (ed.),

Die Kyraniden, 1976 9 L.Devatre (ed.), Textes latins et vieux frangais relatifs aux Cyranides, 1942 10 F.DE Méty (ed.), Les lapidaires grecs, 3 vols., 1898 11 J.RusKA (ed.), Das Steinbuch des Aristoteles, 1912

12 J. M.

725

726

RIDDLE (ed.), Marbode of Rennes (1035-1123), De lapidibus, 1977 13 H.Boerss (ed.), Thomas Cantimpratensis, Liber de natura rerum, 1973. 2 TH. HOPENER, s.v. L., RE 13, 747-769. C.HU.

LITIS DENUNTIATIO

to modern procedural motions. LC also had two crucial implications for the legis actio procedure: the dispute was focused on the LC stage of the proceedings. This consequently ruled out other litigation (e.g. through self-help). Moreover, the actual underlying relationship

Lithobolos see — Siegecraft

between the parties was ‘consumed’ (consumitur) so to

Lithomanteia see > Divination

speak by virtue of LC. Consequently, it was not possible to initiate court proceedings on the same matter a second time.

Lithostroton There are repeated references in Roman written sources (Varro, Rust. 3,1,10; Plin. HN 36,184,

among others) to the decorative floor covering made from irregular variously coloured small marble stones found in buildings. It must be distinguished from — mosaic (cf. > Pavimentum). W.MULLER-WIENER,

Griech.

Bauwesen

1986, 109-10.

in der Ant., C.HO.

Litis actic see > Actio Litis contestatio A. TERM

B. LEGIS ACTIO PROCEDURE

C. FORMU-

LARY PROCEDURE AND LATER PERIOD

A. TERM In Roman legal language, lis is the expression for a dispute, in particular when it is taken to court. Litis contestatio (LC) thus refers to the ‘witnessing’ of such a dispute (Fest. p. 34,50 L.). The instigation of a claim (action) and defence (repudiation of action) in front of witnesses determined the course of a (civil) law suit. Until the predominance of the imperial > cognitio procedure around AD 300, LC was the crucial point [1. 77] in the entire proceedings. B. LEGIS ACTIO PROCEDURE The necessity of summoning witnesses for the statements made by the parties indicates the origin of the LC in oral legal culture. It thus probably originated from the — legis actio procedure, which was applied in Rome until the formulary procedure (> formula) was enforced towards the end of the Republic. With the LC, the hearing, conducted informally before the — praetor until LC was declared, became a clearly delineated and binding framework for further proceedings before the + iudex (‘judge’) who was basically only responsible for hearing and considering the evidence. The interpretation of the LC is one of the most controversial questions in the science of Roman law. For a long time, LC was understood as a private agreement between the parties, and was generally deemed to be older than state jurisdiction [2]. However, it is more probable that the subsequent statements which involved the parties proclaiming cause of action and defence, in particular an oral formula in the legis actio procedure, combined with submission to the — iudicium determined by the praetor and the verdict reached by the ivdex presumably had a similar function

C. FORMULARY PROCEDURE AND LATER PERIOD Because of the written form that prevailed henceforth in the fully fledged formulary procedure, the necessity of determining the further course of proceedings apud iudicem by means of LC got lost. But one function remained: it was not until LC that the appointment of the judge by the praetor, combined with the procedural course laid down in the formula, became binding on the parties. In other words, it was not until LC that the proceedings came ‘under judicial determination’. LC thus concluded the proceedings im iure (— ius) and paved the way for the iudicium. Summoning witnesses made no real sense from that point on. Perhaps the term as (acceptance of) the dispute in accordance with the formula ‘among witnesses’ was thus merely a historical reminiscence [1. 289]. Subjection of the parties to the court was induced by the praetor by indirect force if necessary, e.g. by the threat of immediate compulsory execution against the defendant who did not enter into the procedure. LC lost its central role as a result of the rapid emergence of the cognitio procedure during the Imperial era. LC continued to be used as a way of determining the date of the pendency of a claim with consequences such as increased liability and obligation to pay interest. LC was thenceforth invoked in the event of a denial of the claim sued for by the defendant before the judiciary. 1M.Kaser,

H.Hackxi,

Das

*1996, 69-81, 285-301, 490f.

rém.

Zivilprozefrecht

2M. W rassak, Die Litis-

kontestation im Formularprozefs, 1889. A.Biscarpbi,

La |. c. nell’ordo

diritto romano,

iudiciorum.

Lezioni

di

1953; G.JAHR, L. c., 1960; G.SACCONI,

Studi sulla l. c. nel processo formulare, 1982; J.G. WoLF, Die I.c. im rom. Zivilprozefs, 1968. Gs

Litis denuntiatio (‘Dispute announcement’) is a form

of the Roman procedural opening that was in use for a relatively short time (essentially in the 4th cent. AD) but then stopped being practised because of its ponderousness. Its characteristic feature is that the litis denuntiatio (LD) addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant in

written form is served upon the latter not directly and immediately but on the basis of a statement of claim application (postulatio simplex) with the permission or even with the help of the court. This form of opening therefore represents a transition to the subsequent socalled > libellus proceeding.

727

728

With the serving of the LD, a four-month period begins, within which the parties have to appear before the judge. If they do not do so, they are in default in the technical sense so that they face the corresponding legal consequences (— contumacia). For the plaintiff in default this meant loss of the proceeding if he did not achieve a reinstatement in the form of reparatio denuntiationis by providing adequate reasons to excuse himself. The delay options connected with these periods were obviously used to the fullest so that the transition to the stricter libellus proceeding appears inevitable. Moreover there were already in the 4th cent. a large number of exemption factors for the LD that still increased constantly (Cod. Theod. 2,4,6: AD 406).

(Din. 1,36); in Hellenism it is a luxury item (Ath. 5 E95 21 2c; Diod: Sic. 3 158,12):

LITIS DENUNTIATIO

M.Kaser, K. Hack, Das rém. ZivilprozefSrecht, *1997, 566ff.; TH. Kipp, Die Litisdenuntiation als Prozefseinleitungsform, 1887; N.Lewis, A.A. SCHILLER, Another ‘Narratio’ Document, in: A. WATSON (ed.), Daube Noster, 1974, 187-200; U. VINCENTI, La ‘denuntiatio litis’ e la “‘causae continentia’ nel Codice Teodosiano, 1992. C.PA.

Litorius + Comes and alongside — Aetius [2], influential + magister militum in Gaul, fought from AD 435 with Hunnic troops primarily against the Visigoths. L. subjugated Aremorica, laid waste to the land of the Arvernians, liberated Narbo from the Gothic siege and in 439 was captured near Tolosa and killed by the Goths (Chron. min. 1,475f.; 2,23 MOMMsEN; Sid. Apoll. Carm. 7,246-50, 300-303; Salv. Gub. 7,10). PLRE 2, 684f.;

A.DEMANDT,

Suppl. 12, 553-790, esp. 666f.

s.v. magister militum, RE

K.P.J.

Litra (Aitea; litra, ‘pound’). In Sicily and Lower Italy weight and coin of 109.15 g, corresponding to a third of the Roman > libra, like the latter divided up into 12 unciae. Only in Lipara minted with this weight as an Z coin (bronze coin), also divided into hemilitron, > tetras, > hexas and > uncia with 6, 4, 2 and x ball(s) indicating the coin’s value [1; 2. 356], otherwise only in a reduced form. More important was the minting in silver with a weight of 0.87 g, a fifth of the > drachma. There were various multiple face values, in Syracuse among others 4, 5, 8 and 16 litrai [3]. In the Roman Imperial period, L. stands for Roman libra. From the 3rd cent. AD, fines were also set according to the weight in L., mostly in gold [4; 5]. 1 SNG Miinchen 1678ff. (3rd cent. BC) 2 SCHROTTER, s.v. L., 355f. 3 SNG Munchen 13 59ff. (3rd cent. BC) 4D.FetssEL, Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de Macédoine du Ile au Vle siécle, 1983, 197 no. 232 5 L.Rosert, Hellenica 3, 1946, 106f. GE.S.

We cannot determine when the litter was introduced to the Roman empire but it was in general use from the 2nd cent. BC (cf. Liv. 43,7,5; Gell. NA 10,3,51); its excessive utilization in Rome already compelled Caesar to limit its use in the city so that only certain age groups (particularly > matrons [1]) were allowed to use it at set times (Suet. Jul. 43,1). This, however, was some-

times bypassed and disregarded (Ov. Ars am. 1,488; Hor. Sat. 1,2,98). Litters were therefore unusual in the

rst cent. AD in the streetscape of Rome and only rich people could afford this luxury (Juv. 1,325; 3,239-241). Emperors naturally had themselves carried in litters (Suet. Nero 9; 28,2; Cass. Dio 61,3,2).

People had themselves carried about in litters, they could read, write or sleep in them (Juv. 3,239-241). In

addition the litter was the means of conveyance ordered by edict for travellers in Italy (Suet. Claud. 25,2). Sick people (Suet. Tib. 30) were also transported in it; moralists in the Flavian period expressed their disapproval that children were spoilt by the litter (Quint. Inst. 1,2,7). There also appear to have been litters for hire

(Juv. 6,353). Litters were made of wood; furnishings were of bronze or precious metal. There were two forms: the carrier sedan chair (sella gestatoria/portatoria) and the actual litter arranged for lying down (lectica). The sella was frequently so roomy that even two people had sufficient space in it. It often had a canopy with or without curtains. It was used by women and men on journeys and in the city and could serve as a comfortable seat after the removal of the carrier rods. The lectica took the form of a bed and was equipped like a bed with head rests, cushions and pillows as well as straps for carrying. Its fittings corresponded to those of the sella, and there was also enough space for two people (Suet. Nero 9). The lectica was likewise borne on carrier rods that could be removed where necessary; the porters (lecticarit) carried them with their hands, on belts laid across their shoulders or directly on their shoulders. The number of porters could vary from two to eight; they were particularly strong young men, often foreign servants who were strikingly attired (cf. Mart. 9,22). In the 3rd cent. the basterna appeared as a special form of the lectica (SHA Heliogab. 21,7). It was carried

by animals, commonly mules. Preserved remains of litters are rare; the same applies to the depiction of people in a litter. In late antiquity the sella retained its popularity whilst the lectica had mostly disappeared from the street scene. HELBIG, vol. 2, no. 1584; G.A. MANSUELLI, s. v. Lettiga, EAA, vol. 4, 1961, 598-600; G. PISANI SARTORIO, Mezzi

di trasporto e traffico (Vita e costumi dei Romani antichi 6), 1988, 31-36.

RH.

Litter, Sedan chair (ogetov/phoreion; Latin lectica,

sella sc. gestatoria, portatoria). The litter as a means of conveyance has been known in the Orient since earliest times; in Greece it is first mentioned in the 4th cent. BC

Litterarum obligatio In Roman law a liability that has arisen through a written document (litteris). According to Gai. Inst. 3,128ff., this includes the nomina tran-

729

730

scripticia (transfer claims) through registration of a payment (expensum ferre), as on the basis of authorization (+ iussum, Cic. Q. Rose. 1,2) of the debtor (mostly by letter) with a certain date a sum was recorded by the creditor as paid to the debtor without this amount actually having been paid. The entry was made in the house book — described as codex accepti et expensi or tabulae — of the Roman house father (— pater familias), in which income, expenditure, receivables and debts were entered chronologically, or in certain other periodic records (rationes). Through transfer (transcriptio), an existing liability was changed in the process (> novatio), so that e.g. in place of a liability from purchase, rent or a partnership contract there was one from the litteral contract (tran-

names of over 30 potters. Outstanding among them are Tleson, Hermogenes and Xenocles who specialized in cups; but in other pottery works too LC were made as e.g. the autographs of Amasis and Taleides prove. One of the most famous LC is signed by two potters, Archicles and Glaucytes. In the development of the LC from the > Siana cups and the miniature painting style, + Ergotimus and > Clitias played a decisive part. In the case of the various, clearly articulated types of LC, the figure images, the ornaments and the inscriptions have their traditional places, but these were not always occupied. The primarily clay-based coloured rim cups commonly bear a small image in the centre (three figures at the most) of the offset opening rim. Their handle zone is the set place for decorative inscriptions — a toast or the potter’s autograph — that were often framed by palmettes on the handle join. The band cups are primarily black-varnished except for a clay-base coloured band in the handle zone where frieze-like figure decoration is favoured. Variants of these two main types are primarily the Kassel cups and the Droop cups that were mainly decorated in an ornamental manner. — Amasis painter; > Taleides painter

scriptio a re in personam, Gai. Inst. 3,129), or however

a change in the person of the debtor was made (transcriptio a persona in personam, Gai. Inst. 3,130). An

account receivable could also arise among absent persons (Gai. Inst. 3,138) and people could sue for it with the > condictio (actio certae creditae pecuniae) (Cic. Q. Rosc. 4,133 5,14).

The entry of a loan payout (— mutuum) in the house book did not justify any litterarum obligatio (LO) but only had the function of proof (Gai. Inst. 3,131). The repayment obligation arising from such nomina arcaria (cash receivables) depended on the payment of the loan

LITURGICAL MANUSCRIPTS

J.D. BEAZLEY, Little-master Cups, in: JHS 52, 1932, 167204; K. VIERNEISEL, B. KAESER (ed.), Kunst der Schale —

Kultur des Trinkens, 1990.

H.M.

(numeratio pecuniae).

Gai. Inst. 3,134 mentions as further types of LO the bonds common among non-Romans in the form of a chirographum signed by the debtor in his own hand or double executed and signed syngraphae (> Syngraphe). Romans probably used instead the regularly authenticated — stipulatio. Justinian only mentions that the LO died out (Inst. Just. 3,21). If someone is sued as a result of a written loan agreement without his having received the loan, he can only in any case raise the objection that the money was not paid to him (exceptio non numeratae pecuniae), for which however a period of limitation existed (not passed down).

~ Mutuum; - Obligatio Kaser, RPR I, 543ff.; I, 382f.; R.M. THiLo, Der Codex accepti et expensi im Rom. Recht, 1980; P. GROSCHLER,

Die tabellae-Urkunden aus den pompejanischen und herkulanensischen Urkundenfunden, 1997, 71ff.; H.L. W. NELSON, U. MANTHE, Studia Gaiana, vol. 8: Die Litteralkontrakte III, 128-134, 1999. F.ME.

Litterator see > School II] Rome

Little-master cups Type of Attic black-figured cup, flourished around the middle and in the 3rd quarter of the 6th cent. BC (— Pottery, fig. D 1). The delicate

painting for which the little-master cups (LC) are known emphasizes the elegant cup shapes. The thinwalled drinking cups, whose structured basin rests on a slim handle, are masterpieces of pottery. They were frequently signed by their potter so that we know the

Liturgical manuscripts A. TypoLtocy

B. AFTERLIFE AND SIGNIFICANCE

A. TYPOLOGY

Liturgical manuscripts (LM) are the codices used as aids, sources and bearers of tradition for the Christian

church service in its differentiated forms. The most important types are:

1. Collections of prayers for the > liturgy, especially the celebration of the Eucharist. While the Christians of the earliest period were conversant with the improvized prayer of the presider with fixed structures and themes, written formulas become available from the 3rd cent. that lead from the North African councils of the 4th/5th cents. to texts authorized by church authorities. From initial /ibelli (individual sheets, small booklets) with in-

dividual

prayer

formulas,

libelli collections

arose

(oldest extant example: so-called [Sacramentarium] Veronense, also Leonianum: 2nd third of the 6th cent.),

and in the Roman liturgy from the 7th cent. the more systematic sacramentaries of the Gelasian and Gregorian type. 2. Codices for the liturgical reading: a) Bible MSS for Scripture reading (Psalms often in the separate Psalterium) with details of the pericopes (reading segments set for particular church services) with the help of marginal comments or attached lists of pericopes (capitula(re) lectionum evangeliorum; oldest witnesses: 6th cent.). In addition, from the end of the 5th/beginning of the 6th cent. lectionaries and gospel books in the proper sense are attested; they contain only the biblical passages reci-

LITURGICAL MANUSCRIPTS

Foyt

732

ted in the church service. b) MSS with martyrs’ acts

sibility to endow the performers and the > celebrations themselves, and the > trierarchia with the task of fitting out a ship for the fleet. To the first form belong the + choregia (see also + Choregos), the leading and equipping of a torch-race (lampadarchia), the feeding of the members of the phyles (+ Phyle) at great festivals (hestiasis), the provisioning of a festival deputation (architheoria; - Theoria), providing for a > gymnasium (- Gymnasiarchy) and the keeping of a horse for war service (hippotrophia). Perhaps after the 60s of the 4th cent. BC the richest members of the symmoria (‘tax communities’; > Symmoria) formed for the purpose of paying the > eisphora also had to take over the liturgy of the > proeisphora, i.e. the advance payment of the amount due from the whole symmoria. Presumably the obligation for liturgy fell to the richest citizens, who could not claim any exemption. Archonts and council members of the respective year of service were exempted from the liturgy; also public benefactors (> Euergetes) could receive the privilege of ex-

(+ Martyrdom,

literature of) that were

read out on

their day of remembrance (known for North Africa, possibly 3rd, certainly end of the 4th cent., without surviving for a long time). c) MSS for non-biblical reading in the divine office (officium; especially vigilia): readings of the fathers (called homiliary or sermonary from the 9th cent.), monastic rules, hagiographic readings (Gaul: 6th cent.; later called passionary, or legendary in Rome).

3. MSS for liturgical singing (antiphonary, gradual, only early Medieval; > Music). 4. Descriptions of the course (ordines) of a partly normative, partly didactic nature from the end of late antiquity. B. AFTERLIFE AND SIGNIFICANCE From the early Middle Ages, primarily in the context

of the reform of monastic life according to the model of ~ Benedict of Nursia under Charlemagne, LM undergo considerable development; new types arise (e.g. pontificals and in the High Middle Ages missals) and partly supersede the older ones. All LM are unique documents adapted to their environment that as primary sources provide authentic testimony to the Christian church service in its various regional forms. According to the axiom ‘The norm of prayer is the norm of belief? (lex orandi lex credendi; Prosperus of Aquitaine), they are outstanding sources of theology and document well any changes in liturgy, piety, mentality and culture. > Bible; —> Liturgy; — Martyrdom, literature of; — Prayer M. ANpRIEU, Les Ordines Romani du haut Moyen Age, 5 vols., 1931-1961; K.GAMBER, Codices liturgici Latini antiquiores, 2 vols., *1968; suppl., 1988; L. BRINKHOFF et al. (ed.), Liturgisch Woordenboek, 2 vols., 1958-1968;

A.-G. Martimort, Les ‘ordines’, les ordinaires et les cérémoniaux, 1991; Id., Les lectures liturgiques et leur livres, 1992; M.Metzcer, Les sacramentaires, 1994; E.Pa-

LAZZO, Histoire des livres liturgiques: Le Moyen Age, 1993; C. VOGEL, Medieval Liturgy, 1986. M.KLO.

Liturgy (Aetoveyia; Leitourgia). I. PotiticaL II. CHRISTIAN I. POLITICAL

A. DEFINITION TIC-ROMAN

B. ATHENS

C. HELLENIS-

EAST

A. DEFINITION In the ancient Greek world leitourgia signified a ‘benefit/service for the people’, especially a benefit for the state or a part of the state, which was provided by rich citizens from their own means. B. ATHENS The two main forms of liturgy in Athens were the ‘encyclical’, recurring festive liturgy with the respon-

emption. The demands were limited by law (only one

festive liturgy within two years, only one trierarchia within three years). [f a man requested to provide the liturgy believed that a richer fellow citizen had been passed over, he could call upon the latter to provide the liturgy, or to exchange properties with him (> Antidosis). However, in Athens the spirit of competition prompted more and increasingly expensive liturgies to be provided than were legally required. In the 4th cent. BC it became difficult to find enough people who were capable of bearing the burden of a liturgy: repeated attempts were made to apportion the expenses for the trierarchia more fairly. Leptines [1] introduced a law, which was opposed in vain by Demosthenes (Or. 20), to abolish many personal exemptions from the festive liturgy. C. 316/5 Demetrius [4] of Phalerum abolished the liturgies and transferred the provision of festivals to special officials (~ Agonothetes). During the Hellenistic period, however, there was once again a return to private financing, as it became usual for these officials to use their own resources in addition to, or in place of, those provided by the state. (For liturgies in Greek states other than Athens, see [1. 1875—1878]]). C. HELLENISTIC-ROMAN East In Hellenistic Egypt the liturgy became a compulsory service to the state. Whilst under the Ptolemies hardly any compulsion was employed, under Roman rule a highly developed system arose that committed even fairly poor people to the official liturgy in local offices. In the east of the Roman Empire a theoretical differentiation was made in general between — archai (Lat. honores), which were seen as a privilege, and liturgy (Lat. munera), which was perceived as a burden, and the exemption from it a privilege. However, in practice this difference gradually disappeared, as the use of private means was increasingly expected of the holders of the archai as part of the fulfilment of their tasks.

733

734

LITURGY

Types of liturgy in Christian antiquity —— ----

Dependence Influence

porate (7)

es its

Conjectured influence

EastSyrian

:

In the province of Persis: Pahlavi Psalter (5th cent.)

S

: / ' ‘Nestorian’ ian! Rite Ri yro-Mesopotamian ‘Liturgy of the Apostles Addai and Mari’ (probably originally without

the words of institution); alongside formulae showing Greek influence «---------- :

(Liturgy of Nestorius / Theodorus); codification of the liturgy by Patriarch Ishé’yahb III in the 7th cent.

;

Old Georgian Rite Initially related to the Armenian Liturgy

Antioch/ Edessa

Armenian Rite Translation of the older version of the Liturgy of Basil

Mauretania 1 H.G. Niemeyer, Die Phonizier und die Mittelmeerwelt im Zeitalter Homers, in: JRGZ 31, 1984, 5f.,29f. 2Id.,

Das archa. Lixus: Bemerkungen zum aktuellen Forschungsstand, in: Hamburger Beitr. zur Arch. 15/17, 1988/90 (1992), 189-208. H.G.N.

[2] River of Mauretania, modern Loukkos on which the city of L. [1] was situated (Ps.-Scyl. 112; Str. 2,3,4; Mela 3,107; Plin. HN 5,4; Ptol. 4,1,2; Iulius Honorius, Cosmographia B 47). H.Dessau, s.v. L., RE 13, 928f.

lost when touched was well known (Aristot. Hist. an.

2,17,508b 7f.; Plin. HN 9,87 and 11,264). Ael. NA 2,23 and 5,47 exaggerates, extending the regeneration ability to animals cut in two. In 5,47 Ael. even maintains that he himself saw how a blind, locked up green lizard had got its sight back after nine days by means of an iron ring with a lizard engraved in a jet. In the Greek Physiologus (ch. 2) that was widely distributed in the Latin and vernacular translations, the oavea jtaxn/ satira héliaké that had grown old is said to receive back its eyesight by staring at the rising sun from a hollow in a wall. Through Isid. Orig. 12,4,37 this motif was passed on to the Middle Ages (among others to Thomas of Cantimpré, 8,34 De scaura, [4. 287f.]). Because of the hibernation asserted by Aristot. Hist. an. 8,15,599a 31 with regard to the lizard (applies only to no. 1), itisa symbol for the sleep of death and later resurrection particularly on Roman tombstones [5. 2,272, cf. 6. 214]. In Greece it is both a symbol of the sun god (Paus. 6,21,3) and an attribute of Hermes [7. 441]. On coins from Rhodes and Thasos the sun god (Hercules Tyrius) kills it. In the Roman Republic it is depicted on coins for the goddess Salus. As a dream apparition (Artem. 4,56) it signifies a contemptible mind. On Egyptian hieroglyphs it means ‘infinitely many’. 1 WaLDE-HOFMANN

2 LEITNER

3 H. Gossen,

[3] River mentioned in the travel report of > Hanno

A.STEIER, s.v. Krokodile und Eidechsen, RE 22, 1960-

[1], probably identical to the Oued Dra (Morocco) (Hanno, Periplus 7 [GGM I 6]).

de natura rerum, 1973

Huss, 79f.

W.HU.

Lixa see > Logistics

1962 7 F.G.

4H.Boess (ed.), Thomas Cantimpratensis, Liber WELCKER,

5 KELLER

Griech.

6 TOYNBEE, Tierwelt

Gotterlehre,

vol.

2, 1860.

C.HU. Loan I. ANCIENT ORIENT

II. GreEcE

III. ROME

Lizard (cavea/saura or cateoc/sauros, Latin lacerta

and lacertus, possibly connected with ‘upper arm’, cf. [1. 1,743]). Genus name for various species of reptiles native to the Mediterranean: 1. the common wall lizard (Lacerta muralis), 2. the green lizard (L. viridis, yhogoocavea/chlorosaura), 3. the ocellated lizard that

occurs especially in south-western Europe and North Africa (Lacerta lepida; perhaps mentioned for the first time by Hdt. 4,183), 4. probably the monitor lizard (Varanus) that is more than 20 cm long and is mentioned by Plin. HN 8,141 (lacertus Arabiae cubitalis, following Aristot. Hist. an. 8,28,606b 5). Only in Pliny (HN 29,129f. et passim; [2. 148]) is the green lizard expressly named as an object of magical supernatural healing power (the individual provisions in [3]). Aristotle mentions many details of the physical

I. ANCIENT ORIENT As a contractual service, in which the recipient of money or other negotiable items undertakes to return them and/or provide a service in recompence, lending is attested in Mesopotamia [4. 189-203] from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC [1. 141-145] into the Hellenistic period [2. 43-45; 3. 119]. As well as private individuals, (representatives of) institutions (temple, palace) are recorded as creditors. The loans involved comprised for the most part silver and barley, along with other metals and/or goods or products. Lending, which for the most part comprised consumer lending, might be against interest or interest-free. In the case of barley, the interest rate was as a rule 33'/,%, in that of silver 20% (in Babylonia; in Assyria the rates were often high-

LOE

758

er [5. 40-43]). In the event of non-repayment by the due date (frequently at harvest time), interest on arrears or services to be provided by way of penalty might be agreed upon. Agreements were secured by means of ~ surety and pledge. There is evidence of antichresis in the form of services, as well as datio in solutum [6]. Agreements in kind dominated in Mesopotamia; only in the context of legal and business transactions in the Ancient Assyrian (r9th/18th cents. BC) and New and Late Babylonian (7th—4th cent. BC) periods did the credit note dominate as (abstract) token of debt [7. 924]. Texts from Iran [8. 129f.] and Egypt [9. 18, 3o0f.] attest to lending in these regions too.

are attested. Asa rule, the provider of the loan demanded surety or a pledge as security. Besides literary sources, more than 200 surviving hdroi provide evidence of securities provided in relation to loans and dowries. Loans were taken up for the financing of => liturgies, dowries and funerals, the acquisition and operation of business undertakings or mines, and the purchase or improvement of agricultural land. According to Fintey and MILierr, by far the majority of lending with the exception of maritime loans — is consumer lending. According to THoMpsoN [20] and STANLEY [19] on the other hand, in the few cases where the purpose is known, production lending predominates. Maritime loans form a special category; these were taken up by éumogoi (> émporoi) and vabxdrneot (+ naukléroi) for the purchase of trade goods (Demosth. 3 4,6f.; 3 5,10-13; 35,51). As the cargo or the ship served as security, in the event of shipwreck or loss of the cargo the provider of the loan lost the sum represented by the loan. Owing to the high degree of risk, interest was charged at above the usual rate. From the

1 P.STEINKELLER, The Renting of Fields in Early Mesopotamia and the Development of the Concept of ‘Interest’ in Sumerian, in: Journ. of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 24, 1981, 113-145 2U.LEWENTON, Stud. zur keilschriftlichen Rechtspraxis Babyloniens in hell. Zeit, 1970 3 J. OELSNER, Recht im hell. Babylonien: Tempel-Sklaven-Schuldrecht, in: M.J. GELLER H. MAEHLER (ed.), Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World, 1995,106-148 4J.RENGER, On Economic Structures in Ancient Mesopotamia, in: Orientalia 63, 1995, 157-208 5 J.N. Postearte, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents, 1976 6H.PEtTscHow, Die datio in solutum in der keilschriftlichen Rechtsiiberlieferung, in: ZRG 99, 1982, 278-

296 7Id., Neubabylon. Pfandrecht, 1956 8 M.SAN NicoLo,s.v.D.,RLA2 9E.SeErD1, Altagypt. Recht, in: HbdOr Erg.-Bd. 3, 1964, 1-48.

W.HELCK, s.v. Darlehen, LA 1, 1975, 993; H. LUTZMANN, Die neusumer. Schuldurkunden, 1976; M.SAN NICOLO, s.v. D., RLA 2, 1938, 123-131; A.SkarsT, The Old Babylonian Loan Contract, 1994.

H.N.

II. GREECE (also > ddneion). In the subsistence economy of the archaic period, farmers provided loans in kind by way of aid to neighbours (Hes. Op. 349-351). In around 600 BC in Athens a debt crisis led to social unrest. Debt stones (— hodroi) in fields were a visible token of the mortgage charge. Inability to pay led to loss of the field or seizure ofthe person of the debtor, who could be sold into slavery. Called upon as a mediator, Solon cancelled all debts (+ seisdchtheia) and prohibited by law the seizure of the person of the debtor (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 6). There was no legal restriction on the level of interest. The Athenian tyrant Peisistratus is supposed to have given loans to needy farmers (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 16,2-3). In other cities, the right to seize the person of the debtor persisted; there were demands for the cancellation of interest or debt. The loan trade grew with the arrival of coinage. As well as private individuals, cities, temples, banks, associations and foundations provided loans. Loans could be provided by word of mouth and in writing by means of a debt certificate (ovyyoadt/sungraphe; later also xeiooyoadov/cheirographon). In both cases it was usual for witnesses to be present. A rate of interest of 12% was frequently demanded, but lower and higher rates

LOAN

5th cent. BC, éeavog (> éranos) signifies an interest-

free loan provided by contributions from relations, friends or members of associations, for which no secu-

rity was demanded. In the Hellenistic age the various forms of lending persisted: lending secured by surety; lending entailing transfer of an item by way of security; lending where the whole of the debtor’s property was at stake, and upon non-repayment was subject to enforcement by the creditor; and maritime and éranos lending. The temple treasury at Delos provided time-unlimited loans at a rate of 10%, but their purpose is for the most part unknown. In other Greek cities, loans were granted by endowed foundations, the interest being used to finance the distribution of grain and for sacrificial feasts (IDidyma 488; Syll.3 976). Papyri from Hellenistic and Roman Egypt provide evidence of ddavetov (daneion) as a form of loan, and as surety naga0hxn (paratheké), a formula that was also used for credit purposes. In only a few cases is the end purpose of the loan known. III]. ROME In early Rome too, the creditor had right of seizure over the insolvent debtor (> nexum). The latter, under the Twelve-Table Law (3,2-5), was subject to > manus iniectio: if he could find no surety for the debt, the creditor could put him in chains, and, if the debt was not redeemed, kill him or sell him as a slave. In other cases debtors gave themselves over to the creditor by nexum, and provided him with their labour. The lex Poetelia (probably 326 BC) prohibited seizure of the person of the insolvent debtor (Liv. 8,28,8f.; Varro, Ling. 7,105). The Twelve-Table Law (8,18) imposed a limit on the rate of interest (fenus unciarium), and this was subsequently lowered further (Liv. 7,27,3: fenus semunciarium). Liv. 6,35,43 7,42,1 and Tac. Ann. 6,16 report occasions during the early Republic when interest was cancelled or prohibited absolutely. Alongside the

759

760

formal nexum, the informal mutuum evolved as a cas-

Private Property and Private Loans on Independant Delos

ual form of lending between friends, in the course of time replacing nexum and giving rise to a general loan contract. The Roman Republic did not normally have recourse to loans to cover its expenditure. Besides private individuals, banks too provided loans. Roman senators at first held back from production lending on account of the risk and the ethos attached to their rank. The participation of Cato the Elder in maritime lending

(314-167 B.C.), 15 RHopES,'r981

LOAN

was atypical (Plut. Cato 21,6).

During the late Roman Republic, moneylenders provided an enormous amount in loans to the nobility for the financing of political careers and the funding of political campaigns. Appointment as a promagistrate in a

province allowed the loan to be repaid. Rich senators such as M. Licinius Crassus and C. Iulius Caesar obliged politicians to their cause by providing loans, sometimes free of interest, or by settling debts. Equites and senators made large profits from lending to provincial cities and client kings for the payment of their taxes and duties. The tribute of 20,000 talents imposed by

Sulla on the province of Asia forced the provincials to take out large loans, which could not be repaid until the measures

of Lucullus to restrict interest rates (Plut.

Lucullus 20). Owing to high levels of indebtedness, there were demands during the rst cent. BC for the cancellation of debts (> tabulae novae), as promised in 63 BC by Catilina (Sall. Catil. 21,2). In order to dispel the fear of a general cancellation of debts, Caesar undertook measures confirming debts, but also reducing them (Caes. B Civ. 3,1,2-3; Suet. Iul. 42,2). When in

AD 33 lenders were accused of infringements against the law, they simultaneously demanded the repayment of all debts. Debtors ran the danger of losing their land to the usurers. In order to preserve debtors’ dignitas and fama, the emperor Tiberius provided roo million HS by way of interest-free loans (Tac. Ann. 6,16f.; Suet. Tib. 48,1).

The specific category of maritime lending (fenus nauticum; pecunia traiecticia), adopted from the Greeks, is also attested in the Roman Imperial period (Dig. 45,1,122,1); high rates of interest were justified on the basis of the risk. Justinian established maximum interest rates for maritime, commercial and private loans. ~ Lending;

> Nexum; > Tabulae novae

1 J.ANDREAU, La vie financiére dans le monde romain, 1987 2Id., Modernité économique et statut des manieurs d’argent, in: MEFRA 97, 1985, 373-410 3 D’ARMS, 20-47 4R.DuNcAN-JONES, Money and Government in the Roman Empire, 1994 5 FINLEY, An-

cient Economy 6 Id., Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens (s00-200 B.C.), *1985 7E.M. Harris, Women and Lending in Athenian Society, in: Phoenix 46, 1992, 309-321

RPR1i

8 JONES, Economy, 118f.

9 KasEr,

10H.KUHNERT, Zum Kreditgeschaft in den hell.

Papyri Agyptens bis Diokletian, 1965 WG, 166-176

12MuiLietr-

11 Marrino,

13 1d., Maritime Loans

and the Structure of Credit in Fourth-Century Athens, in: GaRNSEY/HopkIns/ WHITTAKER, 36-52

14 G.REGER,

in: Phoenix 46, 1992, 322-341 16 H.A. RUPPRECHT, Unt. zum Dar-

lehen im Recht der graeco-aegypt. Papyri der Ptolemaerzeit, 1967

1974, 205-241

17 H.SCHNEIDER,

Wirtschaft und Politik,

181.SHATZMAN, Senatorial Wealth and

Roman Politics, 1975, 75-83; 135-142 19 PH. LEY, The Purpose of Loans in Ancient Athens: amination, in: MBAH 9,2, 1990, 57-73 THompson, The Athenian Entrepreneur, in:

V.STANA Reex20 W.E. AC 51,

1982, 53-85 21C.ViAL, Délos indépendante, 1984 22 K.-W. WELWEI, Athen, 1992. WS.

Loan-word A linguistic term for words which have been borrowed from one language by another (‘borrowing’) one. The term overlaps with that of a general foreign word, with the differentiation usually made being that a loanword shows extensive adaptation to the system of the borrowing language, which normally goes hand in hand with long-term usage. The existence of loanwords presupposes a certain degree of — linguistic contact between the source and the borrowing language. The process may be triggered by the exposure to new realia, whose names then also are used; such a pro-

cess may have occurred e.g. with the loanwords from an Aegaean substrate language (which cannot be specified any more) for Greek terms of the type haBUeuv0oc/ labyrinthos ‘labyrinth’ (which in turn moved on to modern European languages). It is also seen in Lat. ampulla, which exists as a diminutive next to amphora ultimately based on Greek Gudoeet Albanian, where borrowed components may amount to about 90% (from Greek, Latin, Slavonic languages and Turkish).

Loanwords as the result of an influence from another language can be encountered in the languages of classical antiquity in sizeable numbers. In Greek, there first are the already-mentioned ‘Aegaeisms’, then primarily loanwords from Anatolian and Semitic languages with which Greek speakers came into contact as early as the 2nd millennium BC. As Roman hegemony developed, there was an increasing influence of Latin, which in turn had been influenced by Greek considerably since the very beginning of its tradition. The affected areas of meaning are extensive, with examples from food items such as oliua ‘olive’ or placenta ‘cake’, through crafts terms such as machina ‘tool, machine’, up to the term glaucuma for ‘cataract’ (as an eye disease). Layers of Greek items in Latin can be identified first with respect to their dialectal provenance within the Greek language. Thus, older Greek loanwords such as mdchina, because of the long a, can be determined as Doric (ueyava/machana), as opposed to classical Greek

761

762

inxavy), oliua, too, probably is a Doric form, displaying with its intervocalic -u- a Doric form with surviving > digamma (*é\aiFa/elaiua) instead of classical aia). On the other hand, a loanword such as balineum ‘bathroom’ (from Greek Bakavetov/balaneion) does not permit such an assignment. There also are differences in the degree of adaptation of loanwords which can be seen at the phonological (sound) as well as the morphological (form-related) level. This is the case in e.g. the divergence between the Greek and Latin consonant systems: Latin, which does not have any aspirated plosives (kh, th, ph) first substituted the nearest stops (k, t, p; cf. ampulla), before the‘learned’ spellings sch, th, ph (cf. amphora, machina) were used, which then also became available for subsequent borrowings, e.g. philosophus. On the other hand, older Greek loanwords in Latin were subject to processes of > language change specific to Latin which effected e.g. the change in vocalism of oliua (< *elaiud). A morphological adaptation is observed in e.g. glauciima, which is neutrum in Greek (yAavxwua/glaukoma), but integrated into Latin as a feminine because of its ending in a-, or in placenta, whose Latin (fem.) nominative apparently is based on the Greek (masc.) accusative miaxotdvta (< *niax0evta). In some cases, intermediary languages may have left traces in loanwords (thus possibly in lacrima ‘tear’, if it is borrowed from Greek Sdxoitua via a Sabellic dialect, > Oscan-Umbrian). Under similar conditions as those for loanwords, Latin also acquired numerous loan-formations (also called ’calques’) based on Greek models, i.e. words which imitate Greek patterns using Latin means of word-formation. This holds true for grammatical terms such as accentus (based on Greek meo0-wdia/pros-didia, from*ad-canere ‘add-by-song’); Latin cdsus in its grammatical sense, on the other hand, is a ‘semantic loanword’ (based on Greek at@ouc/ptosis). Yet another calque can be found in con-scientia, which imitates Greek ovv-etdnoic/syn-eidésis (and which in turn was imitated in the German word Ge-wissen). While loanwords from other languages (Etruscan, Italian dialects, Celtic languages, other Mediterranean languages) are not numerous in Latin, the latter has had a strong influence on all Western and Central European languages, and thereby effectively passed on Greek loanwords. The influence of Greek as originating language was not limited to Latin, but also affected the languages of Eastern Europe and the Near East to a large extent, which is partially due to the spread of the Christianity of the Eastern Church (after the 2nd cent. AD).

Lobon (Adfwv; L6b6n) of Argos. Biographer of the 3rd cent. BC, author of a work Ilegi xoutav (‘On Poets’). It is mentioned by Diog. Laert. 1,34-35 and 112 and in the Vita of Sophocles and was a polemical work in comparison with the Pinakes of Callimachus: [1] gathered 27 fragments but their number is probably greater. This work must have contained biographical details regard-

+ Loanword F. BrviLie, Les emprunts du latin au grec. Approche phonétique, 2 vols., 1990, 1995; G. Devoro, Geschichte der Sprache Roms, 1968, 76-90; A.ERNouT, Aspects du vocabulaire latin, 1954, 17-92; R. HierscuHeE, Grundziige der griech. Sprachgesch., 1970, 33-38; H. HOFMANN, Die lat. Worter im Griech. bis 600 n. Chr., thesis Erlangen 1989; HOFMANN/SZANTYR, 31*-39*; SCHWYZER, Gramm., 38-41.

Gs

LOCAL CHRONICLES, LOCAL HISTORY

ing ancient verse writers (of every kind: epic poets, lyri-

cists, tragedians, philosophers, etc. right through to the legendary Seven Sages) as well as extracts from their works. Another characteristic trait was that a whole range of information was based on conclusions that L. drew high-handedly from allusions by famous poets. Among the sources that L. drew upon not without occasional misuse was Heraclides Ponticus in particular. 1 W. CRONERT, Charites F. Leo, 1911, 123 2 W.KROLL, s.v. L., RE 13, 931-933 3 O.Vox, Lobone di Argo ed Eraclide Pontico, in: Giornale Italiana di Filologia 23, 1981, 83-90.

R.T.

Lobster This superior species of crab (Homarus vulgaris) belonged, according to Aristotle (Hist. an. 1,6,490b 12), under the name Gotaxdc/astakos (according to Frisk ‘provided with bones’) to the softshelled species (uahkaxdoteaxa/malakostraka), but according to Aelianus (NA 9,6) it was one of the crustaceans (doteaxddeQua/ostrakoderma). Its precise description (black speckles on a white background, eight feet, large claws with teeth on them, a tail composed of various parts) in Aristot. Hist. an. 4,2,526a r1—-b 18 facilitates identification. The lobster is found in shallow sea water at the Hellespont, near Thasos and Alexandria (Ath. 1,7b) and the Liparian Islands (549b 14). Diocles of Carystus (in Ath. 3,105b = fr. 134 WELLMANN) praises its delicious taste. Ath. 3,104f-1osd makes further mention of it. The Romans had a lesser regard for its flesh apart from Heliogabalus, who invented a mayonnaise made of it (SHA Heliogab. 19,6), and Apicius 2,37, who knows of a kind of hash. Varro (Rust. 3,11,3) names the cammarus (after x4unaeos) only as duck feed. In Mart. 2,43, 11f. and Juv. 5,84f. itis a dish for the poor. KELLER 2,490f.

CHU.

Local chronicles, local history Historical or antiquarian works on particular areas or localities, often dated

according to eponymous officials. According to [r], Greek local chronicles and local historiography grew out of official lists and indices (officials, priests, victors in competitions) in which notes on all sorts of events were scattered. From these preliterary town chronicles, local chronicles and histories supposedly developed in the 6th/sth cents. BC, with the Horoi (Annual Books) of Samos being the earliest; later the > Atthis followed. This opinion, which postulates an analogous origin of Greek local chronicles and histories to the Roman Annales, which grew out of the > Annales maximi, is no longer held today. Rather, since [2], it is assumed

LOCAL CHRONICLES, LOCAL HISTORY

764

763

that local chronicles and histories are not the oldest historical genre but were themselves stimulated by the grand historiography with which they often competed, which they corrected and supplemented: it was + Herodotus [1], who essentially relied on oral tradition, that provided the impulse for a specialized historical literature (> Charon [3] of Lampsacus, Dionysius of Miletus, > Hellanicus [1] of Lesbos, but their chronological relationship to Herodotus is not entirely certain). In fact, the existence of preliterary chronicles

in archaic Greece is not proven even though local lists and indices extend far back in time, e.g., that of the

Locatio conductio A. GENERAL B. LOCATIO CONDUCTIO REI C. LOCATIO CONDUCTIO OPERARUM D.LOCATIO

CONDUCTIO

OPERIS

A. GENERAL The locatio conductio (‘hire’) is a fully developed mutual contract in Roman law that comes about through a (mere) consensus (— consensus) regarding essential contract components. Several modern contract types are included in the term, especially hire, iease, service and work agreements. For these different life

Hera priestesses of Argos, the Olympic champions (to 776 BC), the Spartan ephors (to 754/3), the Athenian

situations there was only one actio locati (‘lessee suit’)

archonts (to 683/2); it remains uncertain if the earliest

sical Roman jurists differentiated with respect to risk bearing and liability, therefore the demonstratio (description of the facts in the > formula) varied. The loca-

parts of these lists and indices are authentic or were reconstructed later. Epics, genealogies and elegies already contained local history materials. Ktiseis (founding histories) in prose were written from the 5th cent. BC (Charon [3], Ion [2], Hellanicus [1]). Local chronicles and histories are found relatively early in Asia Minor and on the Aegaean

islands, e.g., Samos,

Ceos, Crete, Cyzicus,

Ephesus, Colophon and Miletus. Hellanicus apparently wrote the first local histories of the Greek mainland and stands at the beginning of Atthidography. Sicilian and West Greek historiography covered larger geographical areas from the beginning (> Magna Graecia) and, therefore, cannot be considered local historiography in the strict sense. From the 4th cent., local histories and chronicles were written in almost all poleis of the mainland, the islands, Asia Minor and the colonies. In Hellenism that kind of literature became a veritable flood and even in the Roman imperial period there was a significant late flowering. A characteristic example is Memnon’s history of Heraclea on the Pontus (FGrH 434), whose books 9-16 are known from a detailed discussion by Photius (Phot. Bibl. 224). Greek local chronicles and histories are a single ruin field with not a single work being completely preserved. Rather, only fragments of this type of work by more than 300 known authors are extant (cf. FGrH IIIB, no. 297-607). Political, military, art historical, biographical, geographical, ethnographical, periegetic, mythical, cultic, antiquarian, thaumdsia (‘marvels’) and much other material receives differing assessments and weight (> Historiography). > Chronicle 1U.von WitamowitTz, Aristoteles und Athen, 1893 2 F. Jacosy, Atthis, 1949 (*1973) 3 K.von Fritz, Die

griech. Geschichtsschreibung, vol. 1, 1967, ch. 4 4H.STRASBURGER, Die Wesensbestimmung der Geschichte durch die ant. Geschichtsschreibung, +1975 5 K.MetsTER, Die griech. Geschichtsschreibung, 1990 (bibliography) 6 O.LeNnpD LE, Einfithrung in die griech. Geschichtsschreibung, 1992 (bibliography). Ep1Tions: FGrH III B no. 297-607: ‘Autoren tiber einzelne Stadte (Lander)’, with commentary K.MEI.

and an actio conducti (‘lessor suit’). However, the clas-

tor ‘makes available’, i.e., is the lessor, contractor or

service recipient, and the conductor is the lessee, work provider or service provider who ‘takes’ the payment of the service recipient.

The locatio conductio is by its nature remunerated (otherwise, depending on the circumstances, a commodatum (> loan), a > depositum or a > mandatum was present); the remuneration (merces) always consi-

sted (exception: share cropping) of a fixed sum of money. In the locatio conductio rei (‘lease’), the locator must

make available the object and maintain its usefulness (Dig. 19,2,15,1), in the locatio conductio operis (‘work agreement’) the remuneration and possibly making an object available on which the work is to be performed; in the locatio conductio operarum (‘service agreement’)

the payment for the work. In return, the conductor has to pay the rental in the locatio conductio rei and must see to the maintenance of the object; in the locatio conductio operis he must perform the work and in the /ocatio conductio operarum pay the wage. Design in the context of bona > fides includes in many cases parallels to the assessment of the > emptio venditio. The work provision agreement in which an object is made from the materials supplied by the work contractor was generally considered a sales contract by the classical jurists (Pompon. Dig. 18,1,20; Gai. Inst.

3,147). However, construction contracts were always considered work contracts.

B. LOcCATIO CONDUCTIO REI In the focatio conductio rei, the leaseholder must properly manage the object, which became particularly important with a growing tendency towards > rural exodus. On the other hand, he had a claim to reduced interest (remissio mercedis), if natural occurrences unu-

sually reduced the yield. However, the locator was able to demand a return of the reduction in years with normal yields. The conductor owed — custodia (apart from liability also ‘care and supervision’). In cases of violation, he had to pay the locator compensation and interest. If the

765

766

conductor cannot use the object due to force majeure he did not have to pay rental (Dig. 19,2,15,2), except in production-related risks (e.g. worm infestations, weed growth).

LOCK, KEY

A. Wacke, Faktische Arbeitsverhaltnisse im ROm. Recht? Zur sogenannten ‘notwendigen Entgeltlichkeit’, bes. bei Arbeitsleistungen vermeintlicher Sklaven, in: ZRG 108, 1991, 123-154; R.ZIMMERMANN, The Law of Obligations, 1990, 338-412.

C. LOCATIO CONDUCTIO OPERARUM Locatio conductio operarum is a contract to provide work. The service provider has a claim to his wages even if the service is not provided due to no fault of his own (si per eum non stetit, quo minus Operas praestet, Dig. 19,2,19,9; 38 pr.). He is — similar to the lessee — almost unprotected against social hardship: the (unlimited) contract can be terminated at any time by either party due to a lack of alternative agreements. The practical significance of the locatio conductio operarum was far less than at present because of the work of slaves (> Slavery) and — freedmen. Wealthy Romans were more likely to be active in an (unpaid) > mandatum. However, in terms of social history, it was significant by making work the subject of agreements (rather than the result of status). In late antiquity ‘taking into service’ conferred again status in terms of personal law (Paulus, Sent. 2,18,1, cf. > colonatus). D. LOCATIO CONDUCTIO OPERIS Locatio conductio operis is present when the performance of a work or a specific result is owed. The work contractor may resort to enforcement aids to achieve the result owed (Dig. 19,2,25,73 45,1,38,21; 46,3,31). A lack of appropriate knowledge (imperitia) was considered a — culpa. In cases of damage to the locator’s work object, he is liable for the — dolus, ~> culpa and — custodia. The risk of accidental impossibility probably developed from a strict periculum conductoris (contractor risk) to a consideration of risk according to spheres of effect (Dig. 19,2,62). After approval (adprobatio) of the work object by the locator, the latter bears the risk of accidental loss (periculum locatoris). > Inquilinus

NF.

Lochos (A606; /6chos). The lochos is attested in many Greek armies as a military unit of varying size; in gen-

eral the commanders of the /ochoi were the lochagoi. 7 lochoi that probably each had 512 men fought on the Spartan side at Mantinea in 418 BC (Thuc. 5,68,3; cf. Hdt. 9,53,2f.5 9,57,1f.); in the 4th cent. BC, Sparta had twelve lochoi (Xen. Hell. 7,5,10). The Boeotian infantry, the taxeis (> taxis) of the Athenians and mercenary armies were also divided up into lochoi (Thuc. 4,91; Xen. Hell. 6,4,13; Xen. An. 1,2,25; 4,8,15; Plut. Dion

45,6). The smallest unit of the Attic ephebes was led by lochagoi. According to Asclepiodotus, a lochos was the basic unit of Hellenistic armies (2,rf.). 1J.F.

Lazensy,

2 KROMAYER/VEITH,

The

Spartan

Army,

1985,

4rf.

LE.BU.

128.

Lochus Son of Callimedes; syngenés of Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra [II 6] III. in 127 BC (> Court titles B. 2.). L. acted as a benefactor for Roman merchants in the conquest of Alexandria by Ptolemy (IDélos 1526; cf. IDélos 1536?) and was perhaps even the commanding general on this occasion (then in Diod. Sic. 34/5,20 L. should likewise be read instead of + Hegelochus [2]). Between 128/7 and 118 L. was the stratégos autokrator (‘Commander in chief’) of the Thebaid, an office that

cannot have differed very greatly from that of epistratégos (UPZ II 187; [1. 19]; [2. 5xf.]); between 124 and 113 he is attested as the eponymous officer, and before February 117 he was promoted to hypomnématographos. PP I/VIII 10; 195; I/VIUI 1940; 2088. 1 A.BERNAND, Les inscriptions greques (et latines) de Philae 1, 1969 2M.-TuH. LENGER, Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolémées, *1980.

A. BURGE, Der mercennarius und die Lohnarbeit, in: ZRG 107, 1990, 80-136; W.Ernst, Das Nutzungsrisiko bei

L.Mooren, The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt, 1975, 92ff. no. 055; 172 no. 0276; J.D. THomas, The

der Pacht in der Entwicklung seit Servius, in: ZRG ros,

Epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman

1988, 541-591; B. FrieR, Law, Economics and Disasters down on the Farm: remissio mercedis Revisited, in: Bul-

risf.

Egypt 1, 1975,

W.A.

letino dell’ Ist. di Diritto Romano 92/93 (3° serie 31/32), 1989/1990, 237-270; Id., Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome, 1980; Id., Law, Technology, and Social

Change: The Equipping of Italian Farm Tenancies, in: ZRG 96, 1979, 204-228; TH. Mayer-Maty, Locatio Conductio. Eine Unt. zum klass. rém. Recht, 1956; C.MO LER, Freiheit und Schutz im Arbeitsrecht. Das

Fortwirken des rom. Rechts in der Rechtsprechung des Reichsgerichts,

1990;

I. MOLNAR,

Verantwortung

und

Gefahrtragung bei der I.c. zur Zeit des Prinzipats, in: ANRW II 14, 1982, 583-680; P. W. DE NEEVE, Remissio Mercedis, in: ZRG 100, 1983, 296-339; J.M. RAINER,

Zur l.c.: der Bauvertrag, in: ZRG 109, 1992, 505-525; Id., Humanitat und Arbeit im rom. Recht, in: ZRG ros,

1988, 745-770; W.SCHEIDEL, Grundpacht und Lohnarbeit in der Landwirtschaft des rom. Italien, 1994;

Lock, Key I. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY MANIC WORLD

IJ. THE CELTIC-GER-

I. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

(Lock: xAei®eov/kleithron or xhetoteov/kleistron, Bakavayoa/balanagra; cf. Lat. claustrum/claustra; bolt: woxyA.0c/mochlos; key: uretc/kleis, xAedtov/kleidion; Lat.

clavis). Apart from the bolting of a door or gate by means of a beam, a system was employed in Greek/ Roman antiquity that had already been described in Hom. Od. 21,6f.; 46-50 and was still in use in Roman

times: a bolt provided with projections was drawn into

LOCK,

KEY

its locked position from the outside by means of a cord; if one wished to open the door, one had to insert a crank-shaped key into a hole in the door and push back the bolt by pushing against the projections (cf. fig. 1). Keys of this type were — as representations reveal — large and unwieldy [r. pl. 468-471]. A simplification was the Spartan balanos key that appeared in the sth cent. BC

Greek and Roman locks

alternatively: mechanism with three protuberances

Fig. 1: Homeric lock

Balanos (‘acorn’) eel

768

767

(cf. fig. 2), and was used for gates, house and room doors (Aristoph. Thesm. 421-423): the key, with one or more prongs (yOudioc/gomphios), lifts up the small wooden blocks (BédavoW/bdlanoi; Lat. pessuli; ‘acorns’), pushes them to the side and so releases the bolt. In the Roman world the balanos key was adopted and the system further developed, whereby the small wooden blocks were retained by a spring; the key was turned to open and the small wooden blocks thus raised (cf. fig. 3). Because of the greater resistance of the blocks, wooden locks and keys were no longer suitable-— and they were henceforth made from iron. In contrast to modern keys with vertical bits, these Roman keys were fixed to the handle horizontally. One of the earliest surviving keys is that of the Temple of Artemis in + Lusi (6th cent. BC) [2]; keys, key handles or padlocks are particularly recorded in the Roman period. Keys serve as attributes of various divinities, such as + Hades, > Hecate, > Hera, > Ianus, > Persephone, — Portunus; > Aeacus carries a bunch of keys. Priests and priestesses carry large, bulky keys as symbols of their dignity. In Christian tradition and iconography ~ Peter [1] holds the keys to heaven. The representation of keys or men with keys is very common in Greek and Roman art, however, the act of unlocking a door has very seldom been depicted. — Kleidouchos 1L.Kant1, s. v. Iphigeneia, LIMC

5, 714f. no. 18-25

2 M.Comstock, C.VERMEULE, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, 1971,

Fig. 2: Greek balanos lock

435 Cat. no. 638.

A. NeEuBuRGER, Die Technik des Alt., 41977, 338-342; G.SCHAUERTE, A. STEINER, Das spatrém. Vorhange-Sch., in: BJ 184, 1984, 371-378; N. FRANKEN, Die ant. Bronzen im Rom.-German. Museum Koln, in: Kélner Jb 29, 1996, 42-49, 129; J. HEIDEN, Eine archa. Tiir aus Sybaris, in: MDAI(R) 106, 1999, 237-247; A.G. Mantes, TloopAjpwata tng etxovoyeadiac Twv lEQELv xaL TOV LEQ~LWV OTHY aoxata eddnveny teyvn (AD 42), 1990. R.H.

Fig. 3: Roman balanos lock

Il. THe Certic-GeERMANIC WORLD In the Celtic and less commonly in the Germanic world locks and keys are well represented in archaeological finds. Above all iron keys have survived, less commonly those of bronze. Locks or parts of locks (bolts, guides) consisted almost exclusively of wood, therefore it is mostly only the metal key-hole fittings that are found. The many finds from settlements of the late Celtic + oppida show that the locks and keys mostly come from doors and gates, whilst smaller specimens from graves belonged formerly to boxes or chests.

769

770

With the help of the key forms three lock systems can be reconstructed, which were in use among the Celts

broad plain of > Opus (modern Atalanti), enclosed by the foothills of Cnemis to the north and Chlomo to the south-west, overlooking the gulf of the same name; it continues as far as the bay of > Larymna, on the border of Boeotian Copais. Eastern L. lies in a still active seismological zone.

and, to some extent, also among the ancient Germans.

One is the ‘push-bolt lock’ with simple hook key, like those already recorded from Homeric Greece (see fig.: ‘Homeric locks’). From there they reached southern central Europe, possibly via Italy, in the late Bronze Age (9th/8th cents. BC — e.g. in the Swiss lakeside settlements) and were used in the > Hallstatt culture of the Celts in the 6th/sth cents. BC (e.g. » Heuneburg) and the late Celtic oppida of the 2nd/1st cents. BC from France to Hungary (e.g. - Manching). The most common type of lock used by the Celts in the 5th — rst cents. BC was the ‘drop-bolt lock’ also common in Greece from the 5th cent. (see fig.: balanos lock), of which numerous typical key forms were found, especially in the oppida. The third type of locking system, the ‘spring lock’ — built to have two keys — is a Celtic invention and was also known among the ancient Germans in the Imperial period. It was evidently used by the late Celts of the 2nd/rst cents. BC and the German population of the rst/znd cents. AD for boxes and chests in burial objects. A cultic significance of locks is not supported either by the evidence of — Celtic archaeology or that of — Germanic archaeology. + Door G.Jacosi, Werkzeug und Gerat aus dem Oppidum von Manching (Die Ausgrabungen in Manching vol. 5), 1974, 153-174; S.SIEVERS, Die Kleinfunde der Heuneburg, in: Rom.-German. Forsch. 42, 1984, 68-69.

V.P.

Locri, Locris (Aoxeoi, Aoxeic; Lokroi, Lokris).

[1] A. GEOGRAPHY B. CONDITIONS OF LIFE C. POPuLATION D. INSTITUTIONS AND HISTORY

A. GEOGRAPHY Locris comprised two regions in central Greece, separated from one another by two mountain ranges (> Parnassus, — Callidromus and the valley of the > Cephis(s)us): 1) Western L. with the plain south of the Gavia Pass from Amphissa to the Gulf of Corinth, bordered by the slopes of Parnassus and Corax; it extended to the west in a narrow coastal strip across the promontory Antirrhium and bordered on Aetolia, Doris, Phocis, Delphi and the hiera chéra of the Apollo sanctuary. 2) Eastern L. comprised the strip of land bordered to the north by Callidromus and separated from the Phocian and Boeotian hinterland by the mountain range with the peaks of Cnemis and Chlomo, opposite the Malian Gulf and the Gulf of Euboea, with a coast rich in bays and natural harbours. Geographically, the region is made up of a succession of plains of varying sizes at the foot of mountain ranges, linked at the coast and into the hinterland by valleys and intersecting passes. From north to south: the narrow plain of + Thronium and > Alpenus (at the exit of Thermopylae); the plain of > Daphnus (modern Longus); the

LOCRI, LOCRIS

Literary sources and inscriptions attest to earthquakes causing extensive destruction in 426 BC (Thuc. 3,89,1-5; Diod. Sic. 12,59,1f.; Demetrius of Callatis FGrH 85 F 6; Oros. 2,18,7); 229-227 BC (Pol. 20,5,2;

SEG 38, 1476); c. AD 105 (Eus. Chronikon 194d); AD

551 (Procop. Goth. 4,25,16-23); archaeological evidence indicates far more frequent quakes. Western L. and Eastern L. lie at the crossing point of a road system that represented a super-regional axis of communication for ancient Greece; it served as a trade route and as a corridor for mass migrations, resettlements and military campaigns. B. CONDITIONS OF LIFE

Environmental conditions and geographical location dictated land use and settlement as well as conditions of life in L. Forestry and pastural farming predominated in the extensive mountainous zones, com-

plemented by arable farming on the few areas of level ground. The inhabitants were said to react with hostility towards strangers. Banditry and piracy led to the hoarding of foodstuffs (Western L.: Hell. Oxy. 13,3; Eastern L.: Hell. Oxy. 2,32); the people’s widespread habit of bearing arms is to be seen in this context (Thuc. 1,533 finds of iron weapons in graves from the end of the 5th and the 4th cents. BC) [1]. The Locrians are to be counted among the ‘herdsman-warriors’ of northcentral Greece, and were regarded as good archers (Hom.

Il. 13,713; cf. Str. 10,1,13). Even the name

probably stems from Lokrémachoi (AoxQgduayou, ‘warrior-bowmen’) [2. 1157; 3]. Thuc. I,5,3 counts the West Locrians among the culturally backward peoples of his period. Paus. 10,38,3 describes their uncouth clothing in early times. The poverty and barrenness of the soil caused local and inter-regional conflicts, involving appropriation of land at the expense of neighbouring settlements, the illegal exploitation of territory set aside for plantation (the plain of Crisa), land usage (pasture/cultivation) and border disputes (395 BC the dispute between West Locrians and Phocians [4. 96ff.]; Hell. Oxy. 13,3; Xen. Hell. 3,5,3; Paus. 3,9,9). This explains the existence of armed garrisons (the korophylakéontes of the — sympoliteia Myania/Hypnia, FdD 3,4,352; the ‘defensive’ farmercolonists (settlers) on the plain of Hyle and at Lyskaria, [11. 13]); on the other hand attempts were made to arrive at peaceful solutions, to avoid border disputes, to regulate pasture land, cultivated areas and land-leasing arrangements (Western L.: Myania/Hypnia, Oeanthea/ Tritea, Amphissa-Myania/Delphi-Anticyra-Ambryssos amphictyonic council, FdD 3,4,352; IG IX, I’ 739; [r2. no. 12]; Eastern L.: Thronium/Scarphea, [13. no. 1 3a0)|\)) Locrians

77%

77%

Settlement of L. developed in east and west from prehistoric times (considerably intensified during the

guishing between the Lokroi Epiknémidioi (on the slopes of Cnemis) and the Lokroi Hypoknémidioi (below Cnemis; cf. EM 360,32 s.v. Emtxvnpidvou). After the emergence of the metropolis of > Opus the latter

LOCRI, LOCRIS

Late Helladic in Western L.), flourishing in the classical

period, followed by a gradual decline from the Imperial to the Byzantine periods, accompanied by a steady decline in population. Urbanization in the region remained limited; for Western L., Thuc. 1,5,1 describes a form of settlement xata xdpac/kata komas (‘in villa-

ges’) persisting in the 2nd half of the sth cent. BC; archaeological evidence reveals aspects of greater continuity and stability in the vicinity of major traffic routes. At > Naupactus traces remain of the 5th cent. BC outer walls, but the fortifications of the other main centres

(e.g. + Amphissa, > Oeanthea) are not from the preHellenistic period; they follow immediately upon the events that made central Greece an arena for military operations on account of its strategic position. In the east, there is archaeological evidence for two phases of fortification, at the end of the 6th and in the late 4th cent. BC. On the other hand, towers erected in the vicinity of coastal urban centres and to protect some mountain passes (for which there is archaeological [4. 74ff.; 5. ro9ff.] and historical evidence (cf. also Demetrius of Callatis FGrH 85 F 6 = Str. 1,3,20; FdD 3,4,352,2525)), must have fulfilled some protective function for

economic activities, possibly including the control of the collection of road tolls (cf. Aeschin. In Ctes. 113), even before they were incorporated into the defensive military system of their particular territories. C. POPULATION The inhabitants of Western L. and Eastern L. formed two geographically separated but ethnically and culturally similar entities. The settlement statute of Naupactus [11. 20] reveals contacts still in place between the two L. in the mid 5th cent. BC. Linguistic characteristics link the indigenous Locrians with peoples speaking a similar language who migrated via the Pindus to central Greece, according to some theories driven southwards [2. 1156ff.] by mass migratory movements at the end of the Mycenaean period, primarily under Dorian pressure [6]. Since the thesis of a colonization of Western L. by the Eastern Locrians, offered in [7. sff.] following Str. 9,4,10 has been refuted, the view now generally held is that the expansion of the Phocians in the valley of the Cephissus drove the Eastern Locrians into the mountains and the territories below Callidromus and Cnemis, and in the west into the plain of Amphissa. During the subsequent process of expansion [4. 91; 8. 74ff.5 9. 55; 10. 41, 49] the Phocians in the plain of Crisa forced them to turn to the narrow spit of land further to the west. The first literary evidence in Homer’s catalogue of ships (Hom. Il. 2,535) speaks of the ‘Locrians’ as one entity, ‘living opposite sacred Euboea’. The Western Locrians were called Lokroi Hespérioi or Lokroi Ozolai. (A. “Eonéouot or A. "OCdAat; Thuc. I,5533 Str. 9,4,1; Paus. 10,38,1). In the east the Cnemis

represented the natural point of reference for distin-

were also called Lokroi Opuntioi (A. "Oxovvtot, Str. 9,451; cf. 9,2,42). The term Lokroi Epiknémidioi often

appears in the literature as a general name for the Eastern Locrians (Str. 9,3,1; Paus. 10,13,4; Apollod. 2,154; Plin. HN 4,7,27; Hypokneémidioi in Paus. 10,1,2; 8,25 20,2); EM 360,34, Ptol. 3,15,9-11 and Str. 9,3,17 distinguish between Lokroi Epiknémidioi and Lokroi Hypoknemidioi. Especially by the historians of the sth and 4th cent. BC, the Eastern Locrians as a whole were referred to as Lokroi Opountioi (cf. Hdt. 7,203,8; Xen. Hell. 4,2,17; Scymn. 316; Paus. 1,23,4). Epigraphic evi-

dence indicates the use of various terms in official documents: Hypoknémidioi or Opountioi in the oldest inscriptions; Epiknémidioi from the 3rd cent. BC, and the term A. oi "HoioWL. hoi Eoioi for the > koinon still in existence after 167 BC; cf. [11. 20] (c. 459 BC), Syll.? p. 314f., 444f. (4th cent. BC), Syll.3 p. 482f. (c. 236 or 235 BG)ia[a3.no-.azo](endicents BE) IG aici. 267 (znd cent. BC), Syll.? 692 (130 BC), 826 (117/6 BC),

653. This is confirmed by numismatic evidence (HN 336). Phocian occupation of the area around Daphnus brought an end to territorial unity (Str. 9,3,1; 3,77).

D. INSTITUTIONS AND HISTORY Western and Eastern L. had their own forms of state organization and a separate political history. In the classical period, Western L. was a tribal state with a mixed form of government comprising éthné (Thuc. 3,101,2) and poleis. Central authority was weak, with the poleis enjoying a high degree of autonomy. They had political/administrative and judical systems with legislative functions, regulating relations between neighbours by the use of a mutual system of legal advisers (Chaleion/ Oeanthea legal assistance agreement, IG 1X,1,3* 717). There were regulations for the protection of local resources and for governing the manner of agricultural exploitation (see above B.). These encouraged local efforts toward political and territorial union (> sympoliteia of Myania/Hypnia, FdD 3,4,352) and were accompanied by settlement programmes in which the legal status, obligations and rights of the affected social groups were established (Naupactus [11. 20]; Hyle and Lyskaria [r1. 13]) and autonomy at the level of interstate relations was preserved (conferment of proxeny, Chaleion, IG IX,I? 330). Popular assemblies (Chaleion, Oeanthea, Tolphon, Physcus), boulé/‘council’ (Amphissa, Myania, Hypnia) and magistrates Oeagoc/theards (Naupactus), vowoyedovnomographoi (Amphissa), tapiac/ tamias (Physcus) and dapogyoi/damiorgoi (Chaleion, Oeanthea) were active in the poleis; cf. FdD 3,3,149; SEG III 432; IG IX, 1069. Participation in the expedition of Demosthenes {1] with the entire army (Thuc. 3,101,2) suggests a common decision by the Locrians.

’

773

In the east, the nature of the terrain threw up various state units at different historical periods. In about the mid sth cent. BC, Eastern L. had an advanced political structure following a federal pattern, with Opus as its centre and a central government whose competence extended to the communities included in the koindén; there

were administrative and judiciary systems at the local level, as well as dual local and federal civil law. The supreme federal organ was the ‘assembly of the thousand’, the highest office the archos. During the archaic period, Locrians participated in the colonization movement (> Colonization) to the west. Western and Eastern L. were, together or independently, involved in the important political and military events of the 5th and 4th cent. BC (East Locrian contingent at — Thermopylae: Hdt. 7,203,207; Diod. Sic. 11,4,6ff.; Str. 9,4,2; Paus. 10,20,2; in the > Peloponnesian War on both fronts: Thuc. 2,9,2; 3,95,3; 101,13

Diod. Sic. 12,42,4; Western L. in the > Peloponnesian League after the King’s Peace: Diod. Sic. 15,31,1); both entities fought in the 3rd and 4th > Sacred War. After ~ Chaeronea (338 BC) they joined the > Corinthian League, where they had three votes (cf. IG II* 236). In the Hellenistic period there followed in Western and Eastern L. a long period of Aetolian rule (292-167 BC), interrupted in the east by phases of Macedonian overlordship and territorial annexation by the Boeotians (esp. in the south; cf. Pol. 18,47,9; 20,5,2f.; Liv. 28,7,123 32,36,93 33,34,8)- In 167 BC both entities regained their autonomy. The East Locrian federation emerged and gradually split into the koinon of the Lokroi Hypoknamidioi (xowov tv A. tHv “Yroxvatdi@v, IG IX,1, 267) and that of the Lokroi Epiknamidioi (xowov tOv A. tov “Enxvaudiov [13.n0. 130]. With the exception of Amphissa and Chaleion, Western L. united in a koinon with its capital at > Physcus. In the Imperial period Western L., with the exception of Amphissa, was included in the regional > Synoikismos of Patrae (Paus. 10,38,9). After a phase of economic decline and depopulation, the revival of civic and judicial administration (Syll.3 827; ILS 5947; CIL Ill 7359) at the time of Trajan and Hadrian (2nd cent. AD) appears to have coincided with a period of prosperity elicited by an expansion of the road network between the Thermaean Gulf and the Gulf of Corinth. The invasions of the Goti increased the importance of Eastern L. as a military frontier; in the Byzantine period the fortresses on the passes were extended; nevertheless the Hunni succeeded in penetrating beyond Thermopylae (AD 539/540; Procop. Pers. 2,2,10). The evidence of place names (e.g. Gravia, Vynianni) appears to indicate Slav settlements in the mountainous regions of L. for the period from the 6th cent. AD, even after the restoration of Byzantine rule. The first evidence for the spread of Christianity in L. appears at the end of the 2nd cent. In 197 Naupactus was a diocese and in the 4th cent. Opus and Skarphia also received episcopal sees. 1 Pu. Daxoronta, Lokrika 1, in: AD 34, 1979 [1986], 56-61 2 W.A. OLDFATHER, s.v. Lokris (1), RE 13,

774

LOCRI, LOCRIS

1135-1288 3E.Meyer, s.v. Lokris, in: KIP 3, 718 4G. J. SZEMLER, in: E. W. Kase et al., The Great Isthmus Corridor Route. Explorations of the Phokis-Doris Expedition 1, 1991 5J.M. Fossey, The Development of some Defensive Networks in Eastern Central Greece dur-

ing the Classical Period, in: $. VAN DE Mae te, J.M. Fossey (ed.), Fortificationes Antiquae, 1992, 109-132 6 PHILIPPSON/ KIRSTEN 1,657 de Ouest, 2 vols., 1952 Geschichte von Ost-L., in:

7 L.L&éRat, Les Locriens 8 G. KLAFFENBACH, Zur Klio 20, 1926, 68-88

9 F.SCHOBER, Phokis, 1924

10J.A. O. Larsen, Greek

Federal States,1968 11M.N. Top, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions 1, 71946 12 G.DAvertIo RocCHI, Frontiera e confini nella Grecia antica, 1988

13 H.Pomtow, Delphische 1920, 109-177. LITERATURE:

Neufunde

4, in: Klio

16,

G.DAveERIO Roccuti, Gli insediamenti in

villaggi nella Grecia del V e del IV sec. a.C., in: Memorie dell’ Istituto Lombardo 36, 1981, 325-386; J.M. Fossey, The Ancient Topography of Opountian L., 1990; J.KoDER, Zur Frage der slawischen Siedlungsgebiete im ma. Griechenland, in: ByzZ 71, 1978, 315-331; PRITCHETT 5; S.C. Strros, PH. Dakoronia, Ruolo storico e identificazione di antichi terremoti nei siti della Grecia, in: E. GutDOBONI (ed.), I terremoti prima del Mille nell’area mediterranea, 1989, 422-438. INSCRIPTIONS: W.DITTENBERGER,

IG

IX,1;

W.A.

OLDFATHER, Inscriptions from L., in: AJA 19, 1915, 320339; G. KLAFFENBACH, IG IX I?,3, Inscriptiones Locridis occidentalis, 1968; F.SatviaT, C. VaTIN, Inscriptions de Gréce centrale, 1971; G.J. SZEMLER, N.C. WILKIE, Two

Inscriptions from West L. and Doris, in: The Ancient History Bull. 6, 1992, 127-136; M.C. J. MILLER, Two Inscriptions from West L. and Doris. A Reconsideration, in: Boeotia Antiqua 4, 1994, 175-182; SEG XXXII, 1982, 554-558; XXXVIII, 1988, 421-427. G.D.R.

[2] Locri Epizephyrii (Aoxeol ’Emtedveo; Lokroi Epi-

zephyrioi, Lat. Locri, ethnic group Locrenses). A. LOCATION B. PREHISTORIC PERIOD C. FOUNDATION, ARCHAIC PERIOD D. CLASSICAL PERIOD E. CONSTITUTION F. ROMAN PERIOD G. EXCAVATIONS

A. LOCATION Locrian colony on the coast of the Ionian sea of lower Italy (city and ethnikon: Aoxgoi’Emtedveio/ Lokroi

Epizephyrioi, the latter also A. Zepveuo/Zephyrioi; city and region: Aoxeic/Lokris), bounded by the Fiumara di Portigliola and di Gerace, c. 4 km south-west of modern Locri. Boundaries of the ancient city: the lowest slopes of the Sila mountains, and, towards Caulonia,

probably the Sagra river (Plin. HN 3,95; Str. 6,1,10: perhaps the modern Fiumara di Allaro), towards Rhe-

gium the river Halex (Eust. ad Dionys. Per. 364; Str. 6,26M: the modern Fiumara di Melito or di Galati near Capo Spartivento, the ancient Heracleum) or the river Caecinus (Paus. 6,6: perhaps the modern Fiumara di Amendolea, but some sources, esp. Philistus FGrH 577 F 2, suggest that the Caecinus was nearer to L., com-

LOCRI, LOCRIS

TTS

776

pared to the Halex; Ael. NA. 5,9 attests to a certain variability in the border with Rhegium)); cf. [7].

BC, as are the occupation of the Zanclian > Mataurus on the Tyrrhenian Sea and the battle on the Sagra against Croton, in which men from Rhegium (Str. 6,1,10) and probably from Medma and Hipponium fought on the side of L. Also dated from the mid 6th cent. BC is an important building outside the walls at Centocamere, called the ‘Stoa ad U’ (ceramic fr. with dedications to Aphrodite). This has been connected with the tradition of ‘sacred prostitution’ in L. (cf. lust. 21,3,2ff., Clearchus in Ath. 12,515ff. [13]).

B. PREHISTORIC PERIOD

Settlements from the Neolithic (in the region of Prestarona near Canolo) and the Eneolithic (in the vicinity of Merici di Locri and Leto di Gerace). Evidence from the Iron Age (9th and 8th cents. BC), esp. in the necro-

poleis of Canale, Janchina and Paterriti (ceramics similar to contemporary Euboean pottery probably indicate contacts

between

locals and Greeks).

Use of these

necropoleis ceases towards the end of the 8th cent. BC, whereas others survive far longer (Stefanelli di Gerace, S. Stefano di Grotteria).

C. FOUNDATION, ARCHAIC PERIOD According to Eus. Chronikon Ol. 25,1, L. was founded in 679/8 BC (or 673/2, Ol. 26,4), according to

Str. 6,1,7 ‘little later’ than the foundation of > Syracusae (733) and > Croton. The first Greek settlement near Capo Zefirio (Capo Bruzzano; Epizephyrioi probably derives from the name of this promontory and corresponds to the Locrian form Epicnemidii [15]) remained there for three or four years (affair of the false oath, Pol. 12,6; Polyaenus, Strat. 6,20); the colonists then moved to the Eo@stc/Esopis hill (perhaps the plateau of Cusemi). Origin of the colonists: from Eastern (Ephor. FGrH 70 F 138) or Western (Str. 6,1,7, perhaps from Antiochus or Timaeus) L. [1]. But the persistence of a unified tribe of the Locrian éthnos until at least the 4th century BC suggests that the foundation was a shared undertaking by Ozolian and Opuntic Locrians, with those from the Opuntic metropolis (Str. 9,4,2) predominating. Esp. the trio of magistrates, the ‘assembly of the thousand’ and the ‘hundred houses’ are either a common Locrian heritage or specifically Opuntic. Social status of the colonists: according to Aristotle (in Pol. 12,5ff.) L. was founded by Locrian slaves from Greece in collaboration with women from the highest nobility during the 1st + Messenian War, whereas Timaeus FGrH 566 F 12 (Pol. 12,5ff., cf. Ath. 6,264 c-d) does not believe in a mixed origin for the first colonists. Aristotle’s version appears compatible with the social and organizational structures of the L. of Greece. The considerable archaeological material goes back to the 6th cent. BC [19]. But the constitutional code of aristocratic pattern, attributed to — Zaleucus, probably dates from the 7th cent. BC (at the latest to the beginning of the 6th cent. BC, Dem. Or. 24,141). The constitution of L. was regarded by the Greeks as the oldest fixed in writing (Str. 6,1,8), which had remained unchanged for centuries. It is celebrated for its ‘stern justice’ (Atgéxeva; atrékeia, Pind. Ol. 10,13) and ‘good legal structure’ (evvouia; eznomia, Pl. Leg. 1,63 8b; Pl. Ti. 20a; Procl. on Timaeus 20a), although doubt persisted as to the historicity of Zaleucus (Timaeus FGrH 566 F 130). The two sub-colonies of + Medma (Rosarno) and Hipponium (> Vibo Valentia) are dated to the 6th cent.

D. CLASSICAL PERIOD Use of the ‘Stoa ad U’ probably ceased around the middle of the 4th cent. BC. In the 5th cent. BC an imposing Ionic temple, probably dedicated to Aphrodite, was built in the vicinity of Marasa on foundations from the archaic period. This temple is probably the original home of the Ludovisi Throne, which would have ador-

ned the central bdthros (pit) [10] or the altar of the temple [11]; it portrays the birth of the goddess from the sea, and, on its two narrow faces, a naked female musi-

cian and a clothed woman: perhaps two different forms of the cult service, depending on social background. In the sth cent. BC good neighbourly relations with Rhegium took a turn for the worse. During the first Athenian expedition to Sicily (+ Peloponnesian War), L. was allied with Syracusae (Thuc. 3,86,2) against Athens and Rhegium. In 425 BC L. supported the Syracusans ‘out of enmity towards Rhegium’ (Thuc. 4,1,2f.);in 424 BC an > epoikia was sent to Messana (Thuc. 5,5,1). During the second expedition to Sicily (415-413 BC) L. refused the Athenian fleet permission to anchor (Thuc. 6,44,2), having given it to Gylippus (Thuc. 7,1,1f.) and the Syracusans (Thuc. 7,25,3). In 398 BC the alliance with Syracusae, reinforced by the marriage of > Dionysius [1] I to Doris the daughter of Xen(ae)netus, from one of the most distinguished Locrian families, brought about the extension of Locrian territory to include Caulonia, Scylletium, Hipponium and possibly Terina and Temesa. It was, however, this very relationship with Dionysius that brought ruin to the city (Aristot. Pol. 5,4307a 37-40). In 356 (or 3 52) > Dionysius [2] II was banished from Syracusae, and fled to L. as heir to his mother Doris. However his reign very soon became hostile to the aristocracy. After the flight of Dionysius II (346 BC) his family was put to death. A moderate form of democracy was put in place. E. CONSTITUTION The new constitutional order is attested by 37 inscriptions (the so-called Locrian Tablets) [3; 4; 6; 16]: lists of economic transactions between L. and the sanctuary of Zeus Olympius (the Doric Temple of Casa Marafioti). State institutions were the bold and damos. By archontes is probably meant the totality of the city magistrates. Besides the eponymous officials there are the proboloi (proarchontes), the prodikoi and the hiaromnamones

(for the administration of finances and

grain). Others mentioned are polémarchoi, logistéres,

WT.

778

LOCRI, LOCRIS

episkeuastéres, toichopoioi and epistdtai. Besides the tamiai (treasurers of the sanctuary or of the phatarchion) there are the phdtarchoi, a college of magistrates with twelve members in monthly rotation. There was a priest bearing the title theukdlos. The most important and problematic concept is that of the basiletis, who carried out syntéleia (‘the raising of taxes’). Various

the genius municipii, and perhaps Attis or Mithras. Christianity must have spread very quickly in L. (diocese as early as AD 330). The city and territory were sparsely populated during the Imperial period: a villa at Salice di Ardore (marble sarcophagus from the 4th cent.

forms of taxation are mentioned: in cash, in foodstuffs,

AD),

a rental charge on land ownership. By basiletis could have been meant a foreign king or a city magistrate; text and language date the Locrian Tablets to the period from the mid 4th to the mid 3rd cent. BC; so the king to whom L. was paying ‘taxes’ could have been Pyrrhus or Agathocles [2] (cf. Aristot. Pol. 3,1287a 1-8 [143 15; 16]). With the introduction of democracy are also associated the construction of the theatre (perhaps used as an ekklesiastérion) and possibly the beginning of coinage, which was organized according to the Syracusan system (silver litra of 0.87 g, pegasot, Italian staters).

3rd/4th cent. AD), at Palazzi di Casignana (ist— 4th cent. AD) anda theatre at Marina di Gioiosa Ionica

F. ROMAN PERIOD This period saw attacks by the Bruttii (cf. Nossi, Anth. Pal. 6,132), even though L. continued to cultivate links with Hipponium in c.280 BC (FdD 3,1,176). In 282 BC L. received a Roman garrison; but in 280 BC, after the battle of Heraclea, the Locrians handed the Roman occupying force over to — Pyrrhus (lust. 18,1,9). In 278 BC, when Pyrrhus crossed to Sicily, he left his son Alexander [10] in L. (Diod. Sic. 22,8,2; Iust. 18,2,12). In 277 BC, after the fall of Croton, the Locrians re-allied themselves with Rome. In 276 BC,

upon his return from Sicily, Pyrrhus reconquered L. and plundered the sanctuary of Persephone (Zon. 8,6; App. Sam. 12,3-6; Diod. Sic. 27,4,3). The Persephoneum outside the city (Liv. 29,18,16; Diod. Sic. 27,4,2) is identified with the sanctuary on the slopes of the hill of Mannella: votive tablets (pinakes) with scenes from the myth of Persephone and cult activities (c. 490-450 BC). In 272 BC the Locrians concluded a — foedus with Rome (socii navales) and regularly provided two ships (Pol. 1,20,14; 12,5,2; Liv. 42,48,7). It was perhaps at this period that they minted the coins showing Roma crowned by Pistis. During the 2nd > Punic War L. again fell away from Rome: final reconciliation (Liv. 29,19-21) followed the plundering of the Persephoneum by Q. Pleminius (205 BC). During the 3rd and 2nd cents. BC the Roman city appears to have become concentrated along the street axis of the Dromos. The two largest complexes from the Roman period are found there (Casino Macri, Petrara). Economic prosperity is reflected in the refurbishment of the theatre. In 89 BC L. became a municipium (III viri aedilicia potestate, IIII viri iure dicundo). The onomatology of Latin inscriptions of the Imperial period perhaps suggests the immigration of gentes from southern and central Italy. Civic society comprised the three classes of decuriones, seviri Augustales (or Augustales) and populus. Seviri Augustales and flamines made up the priestly colleges of the > Ruler cult. There is evidence

for cults of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the dei et deae immortales, Roma Aeterna, Juno, Serapis, Cybele and

at

Naniglio

di

Gioiosa

Ionica

(1st/2nd—

(3rd—4th cent. AD). New architectural structures did not appear until the 5th cent. AD. The latest known building (at Tribona, 7th cent. AD) belongs to a small coastal settlement of the Byzantine period. From the 8th cent. AD onwards the inhabitants gradually abandoned L. in favour of the modern Gerace. G. EXCAVATIONS

Outer walls, c. 7.5 km; settlement at Centocamere; ‘Stoa ad U’, end of the 7th cent. BC; Doric temple at Casa Marafioti, end of the 6th/early sth cent. BC; Ionic temple at Marasa, 5th cent. BC (on foundations from the end of the 7th/mid 6th cent. BC); theatre, 4th—3rd cents. BC; temple of Athena, 6th cent. BC; Persephoneum, mid 7th cent. BC; Greek and Roman necropoleis; buildings from late antiquity at Quote S. Francesco, inscriptions from the 5th—7th cents. AD.: IG XIV 630-632; CIL X 16-37; [23 33 4; 6]; coins: HN rorff.; 407. 1 BITCGI

9, 191-249

Locrensium, 1976 Epizefiri, 1992

2 F.CosTasBiLe,

Municipium

3 Id., Polis ed Olympieion a Locri 4A.De FRANCISCIS, Stato e societa in

Locri Epizefiri, 1972 5 J. DE LA GENTERE, De la Phrygie a Locres Epizéphyrienne: les chemins de Cybéle, in: MEFRA 97, 1985, 693-718 6 L.Det Monaco, Le tavole di Locri soni 37, in: RFIC 125, 1997, 129-149 7H.P. DROGEMULLER, Shige lees KUPS 35 7275 8 F.Guinattt, Ancora sulla storia della Magna Grecia, in: Sileno 20, 1994, 35-74 9 Id., Cronologia e rotazione dei fatarchi nelle tabelle di Locri Epizefiri, in: Minima Epigraphica et Papyrologica 1, 1998, 55-77. 10 M.Guarpucct, Due pezzi insigni del Museo Nazionale Romano: il ‘Trono Ludovisi’ e l’‘Acrolito Ludovisi’, in: BA 70, 1985,

11 G. GuLiint, II trono Ludovisi, in: Aaagyat 1, I-20 305-318 12U.KAuHRSTEDT, Die wirtschaftliche Lage GrofSgriechenlands in der Kaiserzeit, 1960 13 M.Marl, Tributo a Ilio e prostituzione sacra, in: Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale 39, 1997, 131-177. 14 D.MustT1, Citta e santuario a Locri Epizefiri, in: PdP 29, 1974, 5-21 15 Id., Problemi della storia di Locri Epizefirii (Atti XVI Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 1976), 1977, 23-147 16 Id. (ed.), Le tavole di Locri, 1979 17 F.Nrutta, Le fonti letterarie ed epigrafiche, in: Locri

Epizefiri 1, 1977, 253-355 18 W.A. OLDFATHER, s.v. L. (1), RE 13, 1289-1363 19 E.LaAtTrTanzi et al., Santuari

della Magna Grecia in Calabria, in: I Greci in Occidente, 1996 20C.AnrTonetTI, Le tavole di Locri, in: Ostraka 4,2, 1995, 351-363.

DO.MU. andL.D.MO.

LOCRUS

Locrus (Aoxedc; Lokrés). [1] Mythical ancestor (ktistés) of the Locrian tribe, son of Physcus (Hdn. 2,947), grandson of ~ Amphictyon [2] (the oldest sacred site of the Delphian Amphiktyonia was located in Anthela/East Locris). -- Cabye or Protogeneia (schol. Pind. Ol. 9,86) is his wife. The > Leleges, who were led by L. (Hes. fr. 234,1 M.-W.), named themselves Locrians after him (Str. 7,7,2).

[2] Son of Zeus and the Argive king’s daughter > Maera, helps» Amphion [1] and > Zethus build the wall around

Thebes

(Eust. on Hom.

Od.

1688,64).

Myth indicates a close relationship in early times between Locris and Boeotia; in wars during historical times, Boeotians and Locrians were always allied (Hell. Oxy. 13,4). [3] Son of Phaeax from Scheria (Corcyra), brother of + Alcinous [1]. He moves to Italy with Phaeacians and lives there with > Lacinius. L. marries Lacinius’ daughter Laurine. During an argument with Hercules, Lacinius kills his son-in-law. Upon Hercules’ orders, a city is founded at L.’s grave (FGrH 26 F 1,3). RE.ZL Loculi (also lucellus). Loculi refer to boxes of different size that are divided into several compartments, such as caskets, cabinets, coffers etc. The /oculi were used to hold the counting stones (calculi) of students for class as well as to store jewellery or money (Hor. Sat. 1,3,17; 2,3,146; Frontin. Aq. 118); for the latter use, one could even carry them around as a purse (Juv. 11,38; Mart. 14,12f., cf. Petron. Sat. 140); holding spaces for any kind of animal in agriculture could also be referred to as loculi, as could the urns for voting. In the funerary practices, loculus designated a bier or the coffin (Plin. HN 7,75, cf. Plin. HN 7,20) and as modern technical term, the loculus cover stands for the seal of the niche-like burial places in > catacombs. Late antiquity mentions the loculus Archimedius (ostomachion), a children’s game for memory training ( Children’s games). + Arca; > Purse; Money boxes J. VATERLEIN,

Roma

ludens,

1976,

16f.;

U.LANGE,

R.SoOrrrES, Die Procla-Platte, in: Antike Welt 21, 1990,

no. 1, 45-56; Pompeji wiederentdeckt, burg 1993, 168f., no. 55.

Ausstell. HamRH.

Locuples The Romans were aware of the fact that the term locuples was derived from the word locus, ‘place, area’. They believed that in the early Roman period the adjective always denoted citizens who possessed a lot of land. Thus Gellius reflects the view of P. Nigidius with the following words: item ‘locupletem’ dictum ait ex compositis vocibus, qui pleraque loca, hoc est qui multas possessiones teneret (‘Just as, he says, locuples is composed of various words, to describe someone who has much property or land, i.e. has many possessions at his disposal’; Gell. NA 10,5,2; cf. Cic. Rep. 2,16; Plin. HN

780

TIED

18,11; Ov. Fast. 5,280-281). However, in the ar-

chaic period the word locus was not used for great property, but for land parcels by lot, to which every > adsiduus was entitled: the > heredium comprising

two iugera (— Iugerum). Indeed, some texts contrast

the locupletes to the proletarians or landless peasants. In the opinion of Cicero, Lycurgus had transferred the lands of the locupletes in Sparta to the > plebs for cultivation; elsewhere Cicero equates the /ocuples to the adsiduus (Cic. Rep. 3,16; Cic. Top. ro).

Towards the end of the Republic the terms dives and locuples were no longer interchangeable. Dives denoted, in contrast to a poor, generally a rich person, or one who had grown rich, whilst locuples referred to a particular type of wealth. The expression locuples was used, if the person concerned possessed estates, houses, valuable property and slaves, i.e. had at his disposal a fortune comparable to that of members of the elite. The word locuples occurs in Cicero and Sallustius also particularly in connection with the endangering of wealth as a result of > proscriptions and expropriations from the time of Sulla to that of M. Antonius (Cic. Att. 7,7,73

Cic. Phil. 5,22; 13,23, where the reliqui boni et locupletes are named besides the Senate; Sall. Cat. 21,2).

The word does not always refer to the proper Roman elite of senators and equites; the wealthy in provincial cities as well as those outside the Roman empire could also be named locupletes. Horace describes how the king of Cappadocia possessed many slaves (mancipits locuples), yet he had no money (Hor. Epist. 1,6,39). In the orations of Cicero against Verres, Apollonius from Panhormus (modern Palermo) is called homo pecuniosus, homo dives and homo locupletissimus. His fortune comprised slaves, cattle, estates and manors, as well as loans (familia, pecus, villae, creditae pecuniae). This

wealth was the reason why Verres had Apollonius thrown into prison for 18 months as a result of a false accusation (Cic. Verr. 2,5,16-24). A locuples could certainly be indebted, as with a group of Catilinarians that Cicero expressly describes as locupletes (Cic. Cat. 2,18). Finally, the word could be used for a city or region. (Cic. Leg. Man. 67).

In the period of the Principate the word locuples generally became less frequently used, tending to lose its specific meaning; in some cases locuples still retained its original sense, e.g. if the word is applied to a wealthy woman who was about to marry. The word was used thus by Apuleius of Pudentilla, whose dowry was rather modest (Apul. Apol. 92,3; cf. Sen. Controv. 1,6,7). 1 J. HELLEGOUARC’H, Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République, *1972, 470-472 2 S.MRATSCHEK-HALFMANN,

Divites

et

praepotentes:

Reichtum und soziale Stellung in der Lit. der Prinzipatszeit, 1993 3 M.RASKOLNIKOFF, La richesse et les riches chez Cicéron, in: Ktema, 2, 1977, 357-372. J.A.

Locus [1] The mostly undeveloped part of a country estate

(+ fundus). The estate itself forms an economic unit (integrum aliquid, Dig. 50,16,60 pr.). The classification as a fundus or locus depends on the — dividing or linking — designation (opinio, constitutio or similar) by the owner, be it by naming (appellatio), by changing in the

781

Goo

relationship of the previous nomenclature (Dig. 31,86,15 33,7,20,7) or by changing in the bookkeeping (Dig. 32,91,3,), be it — for linking — in the course of an additional acquisition (Plin. Ep. 3,19). The locus can be situated in the country or in the city (Dig. 50,16,60,r). The boundaries of the fundus are set whilst those of the locus are at least determinable (Dig. 50,16,60,2). If they are set (locus certus ex fundo), the locus can be possessed (> possessio) and acquired by positive prescrip-

and place, and the modern estimates vary from 0.64 | to 0.29 |.

tion (+ usucapio) (Dig. 41,2,26). The possession of the

locus (as with that of the fundus) is protected by the interdictum uti possidetis (Dig. 43,17,1,7), furthermore by the power interdicts with their two types of reasons (see more precisely > interdictum). An interdictum ne

quid in loco publico vel itinere fiat can be issued against a plan to build on a public locus (Dig. 43,8,2 pr.). A building that has already been erected does however not have to be pulled down — i.a. ‘so that the city is not marred by ruins’ (Ulp. Dig. 43,8,2,17) —, incontrast toa building in a locus sacer or religiosus (‘sacred place’) on the basis of the interdictum ne quid in loco sacro ... fiat (Dig. 39,1,1,1; 43,8,2,19). Only a few jurists of the

LOGIC

H. CHANTRAINE, s.v. L., RE 9A, 2123f.

Logariastes

(Aoyaouaotis,

Aoyaeaotevwv,

HE.C.

AOYLOTHS;

logariastés, logariastetion, logistés). From the 11th cent. AD the financial official responsible for the control of public expenditure in several departments of the central and provincial administration of the Byzantine empire. Alexios I (1081-1118) introduced a mégas logariastes as the top supervisor of the state expenses who initially acted with the > sakellarios and later acted in his place. ODB 2, 1244f.; R. GUILLAND, Titres et fonctions de l’Em-

pire byzantin, 1976, XXI (1969).

ET.

Logic A. DEFINITION B. ARISTOTLE C. THEOPHRASTUS D.HELLENISTIC TIMES E. IMPERIAL PERIOD

Republic considered that a theft (— furtum) of fundus and locus was possible (Inst. Iust. 2,6,7). Occasionally (Flor. Dig. 50,146,211) locus denotes, in contrast to the

fundus, only the ‘property without a dwelling’ [1]. A locus becomes res sacra by being dedicated to supernatural beings (diis superis) (Gai. Inst. 2,4; Dig. 1,8,9 pr.). This with the involvement of the priests (pontifices) is done by a magistrate on the basis of a people’s law or a senatorial decree (Gai. Inst. 2,5), later by the princeps or with his authorization (Dig. 1,8,9,1). A

locus becomes res religiosa by being left to the Manes (diis Manibus,

> Manes) on the basis of the authorized burial of a dead person there (Gai. Inst. 2,6). In both cases the locus as res divint iuris (matter of divine law) does not belong to anyone (Gai. Inst. 2,9). Surveyors and legal sources contrast the controversia de loco (dispute over possession or ownership) with the controversia de fine (over the course of the boundary, > finis). 1 A.STEINWENTER, Fundus cum instrumento. Eine agrarund rechtsgesch. Studie, 1942, 10-24, 9of. Kaser, RPR 1 377-380; B. KUBLER, s.v. Locus, RE 13, 957-964; Latre, 199f.; J.MARQuaRDT, G.Wissowa, Rom. Staatsverwaltung 3, *1885 repr. 1957, 145-169, 269-275; P. W. DE NEEVE, Fundus as Economic Unit, in: TRG 52, 1984, 3-19; A.SCHULTEN, s.v. Fundus, RE 7, 296-301.

[2] see

> Memoria;

D.SCH.

> Topics

Locusta see > Lucusta

Locutius see > Aius Locutius

Log Hebrew measure of volume for liquids; '/, kabos; translated by LXX as > kotylé, rendered in the Vulgate as > sextarius. The content differed depending on time

A. DEFINITION The theory of valid conclusions, developed by Greek philosophers as a result of their interest in all kinds of argumentation, not only in philosophy but also in mathematics and politics and before the courts. The first technical term for what we today call logic, the word ‘dialectics’ (SiaAextixi sc. téyvn; dialektiké sc. téchné), was used by > Aristotle [6]. The term logic in the sense of ‘theory of correct argumentation’ is first encountered in antiquity in the Aristotelian commentator > Alexander [26] of Aphrodisias (Alex. Aphr. in Aristot. An. pr. 1,4 WALLIES). B. ARISTOTLE Traditionally Aristotle is considered the founder of logic. At the end of his Sophistical Refutations he himself proclaims with some pride that he is the first to conceive of a treatise on the correct drawing of conclusions and to formulate the pertinent rules (Aristot. Soph. el. 34,183b 34-36). Aristotle, however, was certainly not the first to concern himself with sound reasoning; philosophers had known how to argue before him, and they had taught others this ability for the purpose of supplying proof in defence of claims or refutation of those of opponents. In addition, they knew of, and used certain abstract reasoning schemes that guaranteed the validity of demonstrations constructed in accordance with those rules. We see clearly from the sources that > Zeno of Elea (c. 500-440 BC) used patterns of argumentation like reduction ad impossible in his Parddoxa. Similarly, + Plato, evidently influenced by Zeno, in the second part of his dialogue ‘Parmenides’, developed a refined chain of argumentation that follows a complicated formal scheme which, as is explicitly stated, is applicable to any other subject of philosophical discussion

LOGIC

784

783

(Pl. Prm. 137¢ ff.). Though Plato was not in favour of investigating logical reasoning for its own sake, the dialogues in general do offer demonstrations that are systematically set up in such a way that their validity is evident. They also provide impetus for reflection on their conclusiveness rather than only on the truth-value of their premises and conclusions. In this regard, Plato appears to have followed Socrates’ procedure for testing (tAeyyos, elenchos) and refuting arguments. Some passages in Platonic dialogues such as the Euthydemus turn our attention to the fact that there are general principles on the basis of which one can clarify the soundness of (or flaws in) argumentation. In light of the interest of Plato and his successors in, for example, the method of division (Suaigeoc, dihairesis), it can easily be seen how one can arrive at the formulation of general principles such as ‘if A is a kind of B and B is a kind of C, then A is a genus of C’. In his dialogues, Plato uses these principles as a matter of course, which implies that those in Plato’s > Academy who did exercises in formal dialectics in order to learn how one can defend or attack any given philosophical thesis must have done so as well. The development of such a system of generally valid principles, however, is still not the same thing as the formal representation of a process for drawing valid conclusions that clearly determines exactly what constitutes the validity of those conclusions. It is entirely correct to say that the principle ‘if A is a kind of Band B is a kind of C, then A is a kind of C’ justifies the conclusion ‘A is included in every B; B is included in every C; therefore A is included in every C’, where A, B and C are genres or types, but this gives no clear justification of why this conclusion is valid. The decisive point is rather, at least from Aristotle’s point of view, that A must be included in everything that includes B, for example C. On the basis of considerations of this type, Aristotle developed a purely formal presentation of the validity of at least a large family of demonstrations which he called ‘syllogisms’ (ovAAoyion6c; syllogismés) and which he preferred to deal with because he was convinced that every realization is, strictly speaking, the realization of the truth of propositions of the form ‘A is B’. Aristotle’s writings on logic later became known under the collective title of Organon, or ‘tool’, for philosophy, because they were seen as the works to be studied first, as it was through logic that one obtained the knowledge of reality and human behaviour that constituted philosophy. But not all six treatises of the Organon address logic in the modern sense. The first of these works, called Categories (> Categories), classifies the various types of predicates and is therefore more often considered a metaphysical or dialectical than a logical treatise. The editors that included it in the Organon did so on the basis of the fact that it deals with the terms in propositions of the type ‘A is B’. In the Topics dialectical lines of reasoning are discussed as they were applied in the exercises that made up an important part of the

philosophical curriculum in Plato’s Academy. The text Sophistical Refutations is an appendix to the Topics and considers logical fallacies. Posterior Analytics investigates the special requirements that scientifically conclusive lines of reasoning must meet in addition to formal validity. Aristotle’s main contributions to the discipline of logic in the modern sense can be found on the one hand in the short treatise On Interpretation, which presents his theory on the structure of propositions, the conditions under which they are true and the logical relationships between them, esp. contradiction and contrary opposition, and on the other hand in Prior Analytics, in which Aristotle develops his theory of syllogism by investigating various types of argumentation with regard to their form. It is worth mentioning that in his logical writings Aristotle was the first to use letters (‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’), which take the place of terms (‘white’, ‘living beings’, ‘person’). This Aristotelean innovation is considered by modern logicians to be a decisive step in the history of logic because it implies a conscious differentiation between form and content of logical proof and also entails a significant simplification in the formal presentation of argumentation. In Aristotle’s On Interpretation four types of propositions are more precisely differentiated: universal affirmative propositions of the type ‘A belongs to all B’ (for example ‘All people are white’), universal negative propositions of the type ‘A belongs to no B’ (e.g. ‘No people are white’), particular affirmative propositions of the type ‘A belongs to some B’ (e.g. ‘Some people are white’), and particular negative propositions of the type ‘A does not belong to all B’ (e.g. ‘Some people are not white’). In accordance with a convention reaching back to the Middle Ages each of the four types of proposition is identified with a vowel and can be abbreviated as ‘Aa B’, ‘Ae B’, ‘Ai B’, ‘A o B’ (respectively). If one disregards deviant cases such as those of indefinite propositions, then, in general, propositions are in contradictory opposition to each other if they cannot at the same time both be true or both be false, whereas they are in contrary opposition if they cannot both be true at the same time but can both be false. That means that universal affirmation behaves contrarily to universal negation and in a contradictory fashion to particular negation, whereas particular affirmation behaves contrarily to particular negation and contradictorily to universal negation.

Next, Aristotle presents in Prior Analytics his theory of syllogism (= s.), without a doubt one of the greatest

achievements in the history of logic. He begins with the standard definition of s., which makes clear that this

Greek word here does not mean argumentation in general, but rather has a narrower meaning. An Aristotelean s. is a manner of argumentation in which, when certain facts are postulated, something other than the postulated facts follows of necessity from their being so (Aristot. An. pr. 1,24b 18-20). For that reason, every s.

contains three different propositions (two premises and

785

786

a conclusion) which must be related to one another in

Aristotle’s student, is alleged to have focused primarily on the development of particular aspects of Aristotelean logic. Unfortunately, none of his logical writings are extant. We learn from later authors that he developed an area of logic mentioned only briefly by Aristotle, namely s.s taking an assumption as their starting point. This refers to s.s in which at least the first premise is a ‘hypothetical’ proposition, i.e. a negated conjunction, a disjunction or a conditional. In the works of Aristotle commentators, s.s with such premises are called ‘hypothetical’ s.s and contrasted with the Aristotelean standard s.s, which are called ‘categorical’. Apparently, however, Theophrastus’ representation of hypothetical s.s never took the form of a fully worked out systematic theory of logic like that later developed by the Stoics. Theophrastus also described s.s consisting of three hypothetical propositions, i.e. arguments of the form ‘if A then B, if B then C, it follows from this: if A

an appropriate manner to be more closely specified. First, the two premises must have a term, the ‘middle term’, in common, and the two terms of the conclusion, that is the ‘extreme terms’, must each appear in one of the premises: r. A is a part of B, and B of C; 2. Bisa part ofA and of C; and 3. A isa part of B, and C is of B. These three structures determine the three figures of Aristotelian syllogistics; a s. belongs to the first figure if its premises show structure 1, to the second figure if its premises show structure 2, and to the third figure if its premises show structure 3. In later times the various forms in which s.s can be constructed within the framework of the figures were called moods. Aristotle differentiates among 14 valid moods, which are today generally known by their mediaeval terms. The first valid mood of the first figure, for example, is called ‘Barbara’ and works as follows: ‘A belongs to every B, B belongs to every C, therefore A belongs to every C’. A typical Aristotelean example for this mood would then be: ‘All living beings are mortal, all people are living beings, therefore all people are mortal’. All valid moods of the first figure are called ‘perfect’ because their validity is directly evident.The s.s in the other figures are ‘imperfect’, but they can become perfect, i.e. their validity can, according to Aristotle, be made evident to the extent that they can be reduced to syllogisms in the first figure, whose validity is directly evident. Aristotle uses three methods for making perfect or for reducing, i.e. three types of proof that a given syllogistic form is valid: conversion through reversal (4vtotgodh, antistrophe), reductio ad impossibile (avaywyh sis 10 Gddvatovy, anagoge

eis to adynaton)

and

exposition

(éxOeotc,

ékthesis). In this way he presents his syllogistics as a system of deductive reasoning in which the 14 valid moods of the syllogisms in the first, second and third figures can be reduced to the four moods of the first figure. For this reason these four syllogistic moods form the axioms of the system. The axiomatic character of Aristotelean syllogistics bears clear signs of influence by developments in the mathematical sciences of his time. Their originality and elegance are often praised. Aristotle is also the first representative of ‘modal’ logic, that is, the investigation of propositions that contain modal operators such as ‘necessary’ or ‘possible’. He often showed that what cannot be otherwise is necessary and differentiated between two meanings of the possible. First, what is neither impossible nor necessary is possible and second, what is not necessarily impossible is possible. The differentiation between the two meanings of ‘possible’, however, causes great difficulties for Aristotle’s modal syllogistics, and his treatment of modal logic in Prior Analytics appears to be unsatisfactory and, in the final analysis, incoherent. C. THEOPHRASTUS Some Peripatetics (> Peripatos) pursued Aristotle’s logical interest further and sought to flesh out his logical theorems. Especially -» Theophrastus, having been

then C’ (e.g. Alex. Aphr.

LOGIC

in Aristot.

An. pr. 1,29

Pp. 326,20-328,5 WALLIES). He took the view that these ‘entirely hypothetical’ s.s can to a certain extent be reduced to ‘Barbara’ (see above) and ‘Celarent’, but we have not discovered his method of reduction. Finally, tradition ascribes to him a simplification of the Aristotelean modal theory, which however still leaves some of its primary difficulties unresolved. D. HELLENISTIC TIMES To a great extent independently of Aristotelean term logic, in Hellenistic times propositional logic, primarily hypothetical syllogistics as opposed to categorical syllogistics, was taken to its highest level. Its beginnings can be traced back to philosophers like > Diodorus [4] Cronus and > Philo of Megara, who not only concerned themselves with the investigation of logical riddles or paradoxes (such as sorités and the Liar Paradox)

but also set up independent theories about logical modalities and the truth values of conditional propositions. According to Philo of Megara, a conditional sentence is true if it does not begin with a truth and end with an untruth, whereas it is true according to Diodorus [4] if it neither was nor is possible for it to begin with a truth and end with an untruth. In order to support his understanding of the modalities, Diodorus also constructed the ‘master argument’ (xvetevov sc. AOyoOs, kyrieuon sc. logos), which was that nothing is possible if it is not or will not be true. Propositional logic, however, was finally brought into a system by the Stoics (> Stoicism), who boasted a logician of the highest rank in > Chrysippus [2]. His numerous works are almost all lost and we have to reconstruct Stoic logic out of relatively few and not always reliable fragments. Stoic propositional logic is based on the conjunctions ‘if... then’ for conditional sentences, ‘either ... or’ for exclusive disjunctions, ‘both ... and’ for conjunctions and on the prefixed negation ‘it is not the case that’. The Stoics used ordinal numbers (‘first’, ‘second’, ‘a’, ‘b’) not as placeholders for terms but rather for simple propositions. Their hypothetical

LOGIC

788

787

syllogistics was, like Aristotelean syllogistics, developed as an axiomatic system. It is based on five types of ‘unprovable’ lines of reasoning, simple s.s, whose validity need not be proved because it is directly evident, and four rules, the ‘themata’. By applying them, all other s.s are reduced to the unprovable ones. As a consequence, these rules make it possible to prove the formal validity of non-unprovable arguments by ‘splitting’ them into one or more unprovable arguments in one or more steps. The form of the five patterns for unprovable arguments was expressed as follows: 1. ‘If the first then the second, now the first therefore the second’. 2. ‘If the

first then the second, now not the second therefore not the first’. 3. ‘The first and the second not at the same time, now the first therefore not the second’. 4. ‘Either the first or the second, now the first therefore not the second’. 5. ‘Either the first or the second, now not the first therefore the second’; i.e. a typically Stoic example of the first unprovable arguments would be: ‘If it is day there is light, since it is day there is light’ (e.g. Diog. Laert. 7,80—81; Sext. Emp. PH 2,157-158).

E. IMPERIAL PERIOD Both logical systems, term logic and propositional logic, were regarded by the Peripatetics and the Stoics as competing with rather than complementing each other as each supposedly covered all formal arguments. With regard to the nature of logic, later authors even portrayed Peripatetics and Stoics as representatives of opposing views. Of Aristotle and his successors it was said that they had conceived of logic as a tool of philosophy, whereas of the Stoics it was claimed that they regarded logic as an integral component of philosophy. Of some Platonists it was said that they interpreted Plato as the representative of a compromise, that logic is both an area and a tool of philosophy. Later, however, we find the attempt to combine the two traditions of categorical and hypothetical syllogistics inte one logical system. The commentators of Aristotle’s logical writings, such as Alexander [26] of Aphrodisias, > Ammonius [12] and Iohannes > Philoponus, integrated many Stoic elements into their works, including a doctrine of hypothetical syllogisms. The same process is found in Latin texts such as > Ap(p)uleius [III]? Peri hermeneias and

Boethius’ De syllogismo categorico and De syllogismo hypothetico. Most of the Latin works on logic followed Aristotle, but at the same time preserved some elements of the Stoic tradition. Thus we find in > Cicero (Cic. Top. 57), who coined the Latin terms for logical concepts, in — Martianus Capella (4,419-420) and in > Boethius (In Ciceronis Topica 358) a list of the Stoic unprovable propositions, expanded to seven fundamental arguments. Boethius also took many of his ideas from Peripatetic logic. These remarks on the three forms of syllogism (si est A est B, si est B est C, ergo si est A est C) presumably come from Theophrastus. He wrote Latin translations of Aristotle’s Categories and De interpre-

tatione based on Marius [II 21] Victorinus’ versions. These two texts, in Boethius’ Latin version, were the

only works of the Aristotelean corpus that were available to the philosophers of the early Middle Ages. Galen had more success in attempting to synthesize the two systems in his ‘Introduction to Logic’, in which he also addresses relational logic, which is satisfactorily explained neither by Aristotle nor by the Stoics. This includes arguments like ‘A is greater than B, B is greater than C, therefore, A is greater than C’. In general, however, the logicians of the Imperial Period did not make any substantial logical discoveries, although some terminological innovations can be found in their writings. For the most part, they thoroughly expounded on that which Aristotle had expressed briefly and elliptically. On the other hand, works on logic preserve priceless historical information. Finally, the views of those Greek philosophers who rejected logic should be named: philosophers such as + Epicurus, the Sceptics (+ Scepticism) and the empiricists denied the usefulness or possibility of logic and recommended neglecting it entirely. Some Stoic philosophers, from Zeno of Citium and Ariston [7] of Chios to Epictetus [2], also made critical remarks, in a more moderate vein, about those who tended to split hairs with regard to logic and so forget the true goal of philosophy. > Logic J. Barnes, Logic and the Imperial Stoa, 1997; S. BOBZIEN, Stoic Syllogistics, in: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 14, 1996, 133-192; I.M. BocHENskKI, La logique de Théophraste, 1947; Id., Ancient Formal Logic, 1951 (= German: Formale Logik, +1978); J.BRUNSCHWIG (ed.), Les Stoiciens et leur logique, 1978; J.CORCORAN (ed.), Ancient Logic and its Modern Interpretations, 1974; K. DorING, Tu. EBERT (ed.), Dialektiker und Stoiker. Zur

Logik der Stoa und ihrer Vorlaufer, 1993; TH. EBERT, Dialektiker und frithe Stoiker bei Sextus Empiricus. Unt. zur Entstehung der Aussagenlogik (Hypomnemata 95), 1991; K. FLANNERY, Ways into the Logic of Alexander of Aphrodisias, 1995; M. FREDE, Die stoische Logik, 1974; Id., Stoic vs. Aristotelian Syllogistic, in: Id., Essays in Ancient Philosophy, 1987, 99-124; R. Gaskin, The Sea Battle and the Master Argument. Aristotle and Diodorus Cronus on the

Metaphysics of the Future (Quellen und Studien zur Philos. 40), 1995; W. and K.KNEALE, The Development of Logic, 31969; T.-S.LEE, Die griech. Trad. der aristotelischen Syllogistik in der Spatant., 1984; J. LUKASIEWICZ,

Aristotle’s Syllogistic from the Standpoint of View of Modern

Formal

Logic, *1957;

B.MarteEs,

Stoic Logic,

1953; A. MENNE, N. OFFENBERGER (ed.), Zur mod. Deutung der aristotelischen L., vol. 1,

1982£.; U. NoRTMANN,

Modale Syllogismen, mégliche Welten, Essentialismus. Eine Analyse der aristotelischen Modallogik, 1996; G.Parzic, Die aristotelische Syllogistik, 31969; O.PRiMAVESI, Die aristotelische Topik. Ein Interpretationsmodell und seine Erprobung am Beispiel von Topik B (Zetemata 94), 1996.

KA.HL

789

790

Logistai (Aoyvotai/logistai, ‘calculators’, tax officials). In sth cent. BC. Athens, a collegium of 30 logistai is mentioned in the first three tribute lists of the > Delian League (IG I 259-261) and the first financial decree of Callias (ML 58 = IG I? 52, A. 7-9). It is presumably identical with the collegium which appears (without membership numbers) in the list of loans from the Sacred Money (ML 72 = IGP 369) and in a document

of campaigns

from > Eleusis (IG P 32,22-28). In the 4th cent. the authorities had an interim account (Lys. 30,5; [Aristot.]

Ath. pol. 48,3) presented to the council-appointed committee of logistai in each prytany (> prytaneia)) and, at the end of its year of office, a final account to a committee of ten /ogistai from the citizenry. Should the finance procedures seem suspicious to these logistai, a court would sit under their authority ([{Aristot.] Ath. Pol. 54,2). Logistai acted also in single demes (IG II? 1183,13—16: Myrrhinus). Similar officials are also attested to in various other Greek states [1. vol. 1, 472f.]. + Euthynae 1 BusoLt/SwOBODA 2 M.PrérarT, Les euthynoi athéniens, in: AC 40, 1971, 526-573. PLR.

Logistics I. GREECE

IJ. ROMANREPUBLIC

III. PRINCIPATE

I. GREECE The problem of logistics for large armies was recognized as early as the 5th cent. BC: Herodotus describes not only the position of the Greeks, who had to supply the Persian army with food in 480 BC (Hdt. 7,118f.), but also calculates its daily requirement as 110,340 medimnes in total (c. 4,400 t; Hdt. 7,187; cf. 9,41,2); Thucydides assumes that the Greeks at Troy fed themselves by piracy and cultivating corn for want of having brought sufficient provisions with them (Thuc. 1,11; cf. Hom. Il. 1,125; 7,466ff.). The introduction of the + phalanx brought with it a systematizing of logistics: provision of equipment and self-catering — in Athens for three days — became an obligation (IG I 1 = Syll.> 13; Aristoph. Ach. 197; Vesp. 243; Pax 312; 1181ff.). On long campaigns soldiers were provided with food by the poleis, which, however, had to be paid. Often provisions were delivered to the army in large convoys (Hdt. 9,39; Diod. 11,80,3f.). The — trierarchia in Athens perhaps also included catering for oarsmen (Thuc. 6,3 1,3; Plut. Mor. 349a). In 415 BC 30 supply ships for grain belonged to the Athenian fleet, as well as commercial vessels (Thuc. 6,44). Plunder and the stripping of fields in enemy lands were common methods of logistics. (Xen. Cyr. 3,3,16: Ooepoueda éx thc moAemtas).

The mercenaries often used after the 4th cent. BC had to equip and cater for themselves. It was customary for soldiers to provide for their needs at local markets or from tradesmen, who followed in the wake of the army (Xen. An. 1,5,6; 1,5,103 3,2,20f.5 4,8,233; Cyr. 6,2,38;

cf. Aristot. Oec. 2,23). Xenophon attaches crucial significance to the provisioning of soldiers for the success

LOGISTICS (Xen. Cyr. 1,6,9f.; 6,2,25-39).

What

problems had to be overcome are clear from the example of Alexander the Great’s army: for 65,000 men, 6,100 horses and c. 2,420 draught and pack animals apparently more than root of grain were required daily.

Il. ROMAN REPUBLIC The original principle of Roman logistics was formulated concisely by Cato: Bellum se ipsum alet (‘the

war feeds itself’, Liv. 34,9,12; 195 BC). Army supply should as far as possible be borne by the enemy, subjugated peoples and allies by means of plunder, requisitioning, tributes and quartering of troops. The acquisition of green fodder for the animals was the daily responsibility of the pabulatores (cf. Frontin. Str. 2,5,3 13 2,13,6). Legions fighting in the provinces, and the fleet, were from 215 BC partly supplied with clothing and grain by the societates (redemptores; > societas) from Italy (Liv. 23,48,4-23,49,33 cf. 34,9,12). The costs of

the clothing and grain were deducted from the soldiers’ pay (Pol. 6,39); from C. > Sempronius Gracchus (2nd half of the 2nd cent. BC), however, they received the

clothing without such a deduction (Plut. C. Gracchus 5). Grain would often be supplied by allies; in the 2nd cent. BC the Numidians sent large quantities of grain to the legions in Macedonia, and the army of Pompey was allocated supplies from Gaul during the war against Sertoniisin (EivemeAAasG nhie-eed Sea att. aeoallemmdists 2,98,9). Caesar made good logistic preparations for his

campaigns in Gaul and repeatedly approached Gaulish tribes for grain supplies, which caused several conflicts (@acsteBm Gall or2nGiakc cite aeo Ox aaa en anos: 7,10,3). In addition, the acquisition of ships’ equipment or the buying of horses in Spain and Italy is mentioned (GacsnBiGall 5an4-0755 552). III. PRINCIPATE

Simultaneous with the stationing of legions on the frontiers, in the Augustan period systematic logistics was also instituted. Thus troops in Germania were supplied with oil from Baetica using revenue from the civil annona (> cura annonae). Logistics belonged to the responsibilities of the princeps’ governor and the procurators (Str. 3,4,20). In the legions the logistical material was carefully recorded by the administration (Veg. Mil. 2,19). Fundamental to logistics were the taxes from the provinces, from which produce or money was demanded according to need and capability (Str. 4,5,3; Tac. Hist. 4,74,1; Tac. Agr. 19,4; BGU 1564; Dig. 50,16,27: tributum). Even in the Principate period board, lodging and clothing were deducted from the account with soldiers’ pay (PGen.Lat. 1 [1]). The expenditure on the legions and the purchasing power of the soldiers encouraged the formation of canabae and vici (> vicus) in the vicinity of legionaries’ and auxiliaries’ camps and, therefore had an influence upon the economic development of the border provinces. These canabae were settlements of tradesmen and were under the control of the

LOGISTICS

791

military authorities; thus e.g. a magister canabensium is attested (cf. CIL II] 6166 =ILS 2474; CIL I 7474 =ILS 2475). As they were also abandoned when a camp was moved, no lasting settlement could arise from these canabae. The territorium legionis had only a minor significance for logistics. The prata legionum and cohortium served as grazing land for the army’s mounts and pack animals. The fabricae (— fabrica) in the camps were workshops for the repair and maintenance work. For the initial fitting out of a legion 38 t of pig iron for weapons and 54,000 calf skins for the tents were required. For the total of 300,000 soldiers c. 1 million tonnes of wheat per year (4 modii per month = c. 316 kgs per soldier per year) had to be available. No less was the demand for fodder (and barley) for the horses and pack animals. In the light of such quantities the conclusion of Vegetius (around AD 400) is understandable, that too large armies were to be avoided on account of logistical difficulties. It is Vegetius’ firm view that armies have more often been destroyed by hunger than in battle, and that, for that reason, it is necessary to have the required stocks in good time (Veg. Mil. 3,1;

353). Under the Severans the annona militaris was set up for the administration of those taxes paid in kind that were intended for the army. Moreover, the office of the actuarius (— actarius) was created, which administrated these resources in the Roman army (Amm. Marc. 25,10,7; Aur. Vict. Caes. 33,13); the actuarii often mis-

used this position for their own interests, for which reason in the late antique period the attempt was undertaken to subject them to efficient controls (Cod. Theod. 8,1,14). Weapons and armour were produced from the 4th cent. AD in the fabricae, which were answerable initially to the > praefectus praetorio and later to the magister officiorum. Soldiers’ rations in the 4th cent. AD comprised meat, bread and wine; the converting of supplies into cash payments was not permitted (Cod. Theod. 7,4,6; 7,4,18; 7,4,20). The imperial edicts on army supply are compiled in the Cod. Theod. 7,4 and 7,6 (clothing). 1 J.Nicote, C. Moret (ed.), Archives militaires du r* sié-

cle. Texte inédit du papyrus latin de Genéve No. 1, 1900 (repr. 1985).

J.P. Apams, Logistics of the Roman Imperial Army: Major Campaigns on the Eastern Front in the First Three

792 Das Problem der militarischen Territorien im Donauraum, in: Acta Antiqua 20, 1972, 133-168; W.K. Prir-

CHETT, The Greek State at War I, 1971; J.REMESAL RoDRIGUEZ, Heeresversorgung und die wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen zwischen der Baetica und Germanien, 1997; L. WierscHowsk1, Heer und Wirtschaft. Das rom. Heer

der Prinzipatszeit als Wirtschaftsfaktor, 1984.

L.WI.

Logographos (Aoyoyeddos; logographos). Writer of Greek court speeches. The ten classical Attic rhetors were called logographoi. The word was, however, also frequently used in a derogatory sense (e.g. Aeschin. 1,94; 3,173). As in principle the parties in the proceedings in Athens had to represent the matter themselves before the court, the ‘orator’, if he was not appearing on his own matter, remained undetected in the background: he was not a representative of a party or an attorney (+ syndikos), but a ‘speech writer’ (which is how logographos should be literally translated). He wrote for his clients final ‘tailor-made’ speeches which they rehearsed and gave. If need be, the logographos stood by his client as a > synégoros. In this system a logographos did not emphasize the legal aspect but that of rhetoric [2. 217-222]. Among the first orators whose works are extant, Andocides [1] wrote only for his own use, and > Antiphon [4] already wrote for clients, just like the other ‘Attic orators’, apart from — Aeschines [2]. > Isocrates wrote at the beginning of the 4th cent. BC speeches for clients before turning to orator training and the writing of political pamphlets in speech form. — Isaeus [1] specialized in inheritance proceedings. Some of the logographoi (— Lysias, ~ Deinarchus and perhaps Isaeus) working in Athens were not Athenian citizens. 1H.J. Wo.rr, Demosthenes als Advokat, 1968 2 E.DeGaNnI, Griech. Lit. bis 300 v. Chr., in: H.-G. NEsSELRATH (ed.), Einleitung in die griech. Philol., 1997. P.J.R.andG.T.

Logos [1] Philosophical A. TERM B. PRE-SocRATICS C. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE D.StToa E. PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA F. PLOTINUS G. CHRISTIANITY

BERCHEM, L’annone mili-

A. TERM The Greek noun /6gos (Oyos) is derived from the

taire de l’imperium Romanum, in: Mémoires de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France, Ser. 8, vol. 10, 1937, 117-202; R.W. Davies, The Supply of Animals to the

verb légein, ‘say’. Greek philosophers made extensive use of it in a wide range of meanings: what has been said, word, assertion, definition, interpretation, expla-

Centuries A.D., 1979; D.vAN

Roman Army and the Remount System, in: Latomus 28,

1969, 429-459; D. W. ENGELS, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian

Army,

1978; P.ERp-

KAMP, The Corn Supply of the Roman Armies during the Third and Second Century B.C., in: Historia 44, 1995, 168-191; W.Hansson, L. Keprre (ed.), Roman Frontier

Studies, 1980; JoNEs, LRE, 623-630; TH.D. KIssEL, Untersuchungen zur Logistik des rm. Heeres in den Provinzen des griech. Ostens (27 v. Chr. — 235 n. Chr.), 1995; A.LasiscH, Frumentum commeatusque. Die Nahrungsmittelversorgung der Heere Caesars, 1975; A.Mocsy,

nation, reason, criterion, proportion,

relation, argu-

ment, rational discourse.

B. PRE-SOCRATICS Attempts to trace the use of the word in detail have proved to be unsuccessful. It is, however, evident that

logos was already being used by the > Pre-Socratics, chiefly in relation to their own legitimate assertions and interpretations and also for their reason-based ap-

723

proach to cosmological questions. Indeed it is this very trust in arguments and explanations which modern scholars consider to be a significant characteristic of the thinking of the early Greek philosophers. Although the contrast between > mythos and logos was not as distinct in this early stage as is frequently claimed, there is no doubt that most Greek philosophers interpreted the logos as the expression or reflection of human rationality in speech and thought. In the history of Greek philosophy we find different philosophers who accepted or postulated that the world (kdsmos) was intelligible and had a rational structure, either due to its inherent rationality or to a divine mind (nous) which is responsible for the rational structure. We find the term Jogos for the first time in the fragments of > Heraclitus [1], not only as a designation for his own understanding and interpretation of things, but also as the only unifying formula for the arrangement of things in the world, since, although seemingly diverse and completely distinct from each other, they did in fact exist in a coherent interdependence, of which mankind itself was a part. Heraclitus was of the view that the world was orderly (Rdsmos), and the logos was the general plan according to which everything happened, or rather the model for the harmony and balance between the diverse opposing forces in the universe. It was both the rational structure of the world and the source of this structure, that is, the rational dominant > principle which governed all events and always was, is, and will be. Here Jogos was an immanent principle which was omnipresent in things. In this it is different from the divine nous (mind) of Anaxagoras [2], also a principle of the perceptible order in the universe, but not combined with other things. Heraclitus’ Jogos also appeared

794

LOGOS

Similarly, in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (B. 12) the unmoved mover, a transcendent divine intelligence, was

the source of cosmic order and intelligibility. It was also called nous (and not logos). On the other hand, in De Anima as well as in his works on biology, Aristotle used the term Jogos in a characteristic fashion. In this context, Jogos was understood as the inherent formula determining the nature, life and activity of a body, i.e. logos was the driving force behind the body and was transmitted by semen and its movement. This meaning of logos, in conjunction with the tenets of Heraclitus, probably played a major role in the Stoic idea of a cosmic logos, which was without doubt the most elaborate and influential ancient conception of this kind.

D. STOA The Stoics (> Stoicism) also believed in an ordered

world, and the Jogos was the active principle within the world which influenced the passive matter, creating the rational structure of the world. The Jogos was thus omnipresent in the universe and formed the source of all activity, rationality and intelligibility. It was the dominant principle (Gyt/arché) of the entire world in the form of a rational living being which was both intelligible and intelligent, i.e. god (theds) or nature (physis).

In the plural form, as lé6goi spermatikoi (‘seminal reasons’), this principle acted as the first creative reason in nature, which explained not only the existence and formal structure of all individual things, but also all movement. Following Aristotle’s theory of reproduction, the Stoic physicists explained the logoi spermatikoi as formulas or principles contained in the semen of each individual being, which determined what it was

to have a material embodiment, as it was a material

and how it would behave. In addition, the movements

force, related in a sense to the primordial element — fire. Yet Heraclitus seemingly considered neither the logos to be conscious nor intelligent (i.e. capable of thought). However, the human Jogos was in principle in a position to comprehend that Jogos, since humans, and human reason (/ogos) in particular, were part of the universal Jogos. Besides, Heraclitus considered personal inquiry to be necessary since it helped the Jogos of the human soul to understand and to unite with the universal logos, thus making the world order accessible to human reason.

of the soul were accomplished in accordance with the spermatikoi légot. Since the Stoics limited existence to corporeal beings, the logos was also considered to be physical, more specifically as a particular form of ~ fire, the > pneuma, which lent its form and life to the entire world and to all things. Thus the Jogos had two interrelated functions within the ordering of the world. Since it permeated everything it lent an inner cohesion to individual bodies, uniting the entire world into a single coherent body. Furthermore, the Jogos ensured that the world with its structures was intelligible to humans since the human soul was endowed with reason and was itself moreover a part of the cosmic Jogos and so could in principle comprehend the logos of the universe. The Stoics firmly believed that humans were only happy when they were living in harmony with nature, i.e. in harmony with the logos of their own soul as well as with the universal logos

C. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE The universe was also endowed with reason in Plato’s Timaeus although its organization was not the product of an immanent logos, but of the + Demiourgos [3]. The rational activity of the world soul created by the Demiurge was referred to as logos. Its reasoning was inspired by the contact of the soul with apprehensible things or with ideas. When the logos concentrated on apprehensible things it produced views and hypotheses, but when it reflected upon ideas, mind (nous) and knowledge (gnosis) were the result.

E. PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA

+ Philo of Alexandria, presumably influenced by the Stoics and Plato, also understood Jogos as the living, rational force which held the world and the order of

LOGOS

795

796

being together. In an attempt to bring his monotheism into line with that of the Greek philosophers, he declared that the supreme god is too distant to enter into direct contact with the world, and the logos was the model for and agent of its creation, but also the archetype of human reason (hence Christ subsequently as logos). This creative logos was produced from nothing, solely as the result of the divine will, although even before this act of creation there was a logos which had existed together with god as a quality of his being from time immemorial. The question thus arose whether it was a being that was separate from the god, and Philo himself appeared to be unsure whether to regard it as a separate > hypostasis [2]. He usually, but not invariably, considered this Jogos to be separate from the god solely in the imagination. On a lower plane of being Philo accepted the divine ]6goi which were equated with angels, a view that was subsequently adopted by the Christian Platonists of Alexandria (+ Clemens [3], ~ Origenes). As a being, man was related to the god through the Jogos of his soul.

logos. However, the logos was now understood by the Evangelists as a person, unlike Philo’s impersonal logos, and the logos stood in personal relationship to God as well as to humans and had a place in history through its incarnation in Jesus. Christian apologists such as ~ Iustinus [6] developed this idea further and asserted that all those who in the period before him had thought and acted rationally and rightly, such as Socrates and Abraham, were earlier manifestations of Christ, the universal logos. This idea became a useful tool enabling Justinian to reconcile Christianity with Greek philosophy: each philosopher had only a part of the truth, whereas Christ was the whole of which they possessed only fragments. > Origenes likewise said that the logos was the high priest and intermediary halfway between the creator and the created. The second person in the + Trinity was thus subordinate to God the Father. The identification of the logos with God ended with > Arianism since the function of the Jogos was regarded as being incompatible with the necessary immutability of God.

F. PLOTINUS In > Plotinus’ Enneads, the logos also played the role of an organizing principle or a force which, al-

griech. Philos. und der christl. Lit., 2 vols., 1896-1899; D.Haum, The Origins of Stoic Cosmology, 1977; M.HE1NzE, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griech. Philos.,

though separated from the divine mind (nous), never-

1872; C.H. KAHN, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus,

theless retained a strong connection with it. Nature was governed by a real objective being inseparable from —» matter but also immaterial in the sense that it was not inherent in matter like a quality in a substrate. Rather it was the unmoving rational principle responsible for the form in matter, namely the substance or the soul. Since there was a creative principle in a human handicraft, it followed that there was also a similar force in nature whose actions were not based on plans or reasons, but simply by being what it was. Presumably influenced by the Stoics, Plotinus asserted that from this first logos a series of subordinate /égoi, which represented the forces of creation on subordinate levels, emanated as a creative and organizing force. The apprehensible char-

1979; W.KELBER, Die Logoslehre von Heraklit bis Origenes, 1958; D.Runta, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 1993; F.E. Watton, Development of the LogosDoctrine in Greek and Hebrew Thought, rgrtr. KA.HL

acteristics were inferior manitestations of this. Hence,

the development of things in the world could be expressed as the work of a multitude of such principles or l6goi, which were the intermediate stages between the divine intellect and forms in matter. G. CHRISTIANITY The identification of the Jogos and Christ in the Gospel of John, which we also find among many early Church Fathers, including — Augustinus, was partly a reworking and recombination of older ideas in a new context. But there is fierce controversy over whether the decisive impulse for the Christian concept historically came from Greek or Jewish sources. In this context logos was the word (verbum, e.g. Mar. Victorin. De generatione verbi 29; Aug. De vera religione 66) and wisdom of God, the reason inherent in all things, the intermediary and agent between God and the world since God could be apprehended in and through his

A. AALL, Der Logos Geschichte seiner Entwicklung in der

[2] Magical The term Jogos was used in the > magic papyri and related texts in two ways. Firstly, in the spoken parts of a Graeco-Egyptian ritual magical practice (PGM IV 577, 742, 1865; VII 382; XXXVI 137, etc.), in the form of an address (prayer) to one or several deities, and in a wider sense as a formula to be written out (ibid. II 711), or evena single word [1. 32,1. 6]. The

word logos was then occasionally wrongly copied into activated texts (AE 1931, 84; [2. 161-170]). Secondly,

for those invocatory formulas recorded in theory, mainly of Egyptian origin, which the practitioners considered to be authentic names and epithets, and which belonged to the category of > magic spells. The term was subsequently extended to a third way, namely shorter, mainly oral formulas used in the context of healing and damaging magic. A. RiruaL ADDRESS C. INCANTATIONS

B. INVOCATORY

FORMULAS

A. RiruaLt ADDRESS The basis for the /égoi in Graeco-Egyptian magical texts was the invocatory practice of the hry-tp, ‘bearer of the ritual book’ in dynastic Egypt. They therefore revealed the typical priestly values of esoteric scholarship and enigmatic intimations [7]. There was a distinct hierarchy of texts: those with the greatest prestige were divinatory. This hierarchy corresponded to the distinc-

T7,

798

tion between high and low magic (Apul. Apol. 26; Heliodoros, Aithiopika 3,16,3f.; lambl. De myst. 3,26). The overriding intention of the logos was the accumulation of sufficient rhetorical weight to lend the requisite authority to an expression when involvingf the divine or demonic world. The /ogoi mainly consisted of two components: a) assurance of the authority of the practitioner and b) presentation of the request. a) The most important means of emphasizing authority was the knowledge of the names and epithets of the relevant deities and references to enigmatic mythical events and places, either in a human language (Greek, Demotic, Coptic) or in a divine one (spells). This theological knowledge was chiefly presented in the form of lists (PGM III 98-124, IV 1115-1165, 1345-

(PGM II 125f.), and eonxio6n-/erékisithphé, about 31 letters (ibid. IV 1999, [2. 38.1, 259.10f.]). In many cases, there is good reason to suppose that they are of Egyptian origin, several others may be Hebraic [13]. Care was taken to preserve individual words unaltered [14]. In theory, their immutability testified to their origin at the dawn of time (Iambl. De myst. 7,5; Orig. Contra Celsum 1,24, 5,45). This view was based on the idea that the deities took delight in listening to the ldgoz. There were also alternative assertions, e.g. that they contained an immanent, coercive force: enérgeia [6. 16.2]. It is likely that individual practitioners adapted to their invocatory practice certain /dgoi, which were by then incomprehensible.

1375, 1748-1896, VIII 1-50; [3. xiv 161-169]), but

also as a story (-> historiola; PGM IV 1471-1475, XIII 161-205, XXXVI

4f., 141-144; [8]), in more or less

elaborated local, temporal or cosmological schemata (ibid. II] 499-535; VII 605-609, 899-907, XXXV 1-13, [4. 38, lines r-4]), or in drawings or illustrations. In other procedures the practitioner adopted the role of a deity or a demon (ibid. V 108-160), used threats and coercive spells (ibid. Il 45-55, IV 870-875, [4. 45. 14f.]), diabolai (fictitious insults of a deity; PGM IV 2241-2358, 2471-2486), repetitions [3. xi 56-60], scholarly rare, otherwise unattested, Greek words, and

sacred and unpronounceable symbols (charaktéres). A subcategory of /égoi solely applied to Jewish elements [9]. The simple paratactical nature of these texts must thus be viewed as a generic specificity and not as an indication of the level of education of their authors [ro]. Metrical invocations (‘hymns’) were a declaration of an affiliation to advanced Greek culture [11]. b) The parts of the /ogos used to pronounce requests were very different. They frequently used rhetorical figures of insistence, in particular repetitions (ibid. IV 2957-2966, XXXVI 315-318, [4. 42]), and narratives and lists as a method of organization. Both were predominantly oral techniques. The most noteworthy lists contained parts of bodies intended to be drawn on in black magic or in love magic ([4. 40.16f.; 2. 42b, 135, 190]; CIL I? 2520): the body was dissected linguistically, organ after organ was exposed to the onslaught [5123]. B. INVOCATORY FORMULAS

In his lost Index XI to PGM, PREISENDANZ listed 62 I6goi as more or less consistent formulas in the papyri and magical gemstones. The most frequent ones were the easy to remember APA avadavaApa Axoappayapcer (Ablanathanalba Akrammachamari) and the Maoxedu Maoxediw/—> Maskelli Maskello formulas, but many longer ones, such as oogo0g pEeQdpeoyag pwaePadeL ovioyé/soroor merphergar marbaphri ouirnx (PGM IV 1567f., [5. 86 ‘]), appeared repeatedly. Half a dozen palindromes (Index XIII) could be added, in particular aBeoauevOmou-/aberamenthoou, about 41 letters

LOGOS

C. INCANTATIONS The Greek and Roman incantations familiar to us, which were predominantly, but not exclusively, used

for medical purposes, have been collected by HrEIM [15]. They were primarily an oral procedure. The knowledge necessary to compose them was part of the general knowledge of their cultural milieu [16]. They used adages (Marcellus Empiricus, De medicamentis 8,191) and a repertoire of current metonymical and metaphorical relationships (ibid. 21,33; Apul. Met. 1,13). They were closely related to local pharmacological knowledge (Plin. HN 27,131). — Defixio; > Magic; > Magic papyri; > Magic spells SouRCcES:

1R.KorTansky, Greek Magical Amulets, 1

(Papyrologica Coloniensis 22.1), 1994 2 A. AUDOLLENT, Defixionum Tabellae, 1904 3 Papyri Demoticae Magicae (transl. J.H. Johnson), in: H.D. Betz (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, 1992 4 R.W DaniEL, F.Mattomini, Supplementum Magicum (Pap.Colon

16.1-2),

1990-1992

5S.F.

BONNER,

Studies in Magical Amulets, Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian, 1952 6 A.-J. FESTUGIERE, A.D. Nock (ed.), Corpus Hermeticum 1-4, 1945-1954. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 7R.K. RiTNER, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, 1993, 220-233 8 J.P.

SORENSON, The Argument in Ancient Egyptian Magical Formulae, in: Acta Orientalia 45, 1985, 5-19 9 N.F. Marcos, Motivos judios en los papiros magicos griegos, in: Religion, supersticion y magia en el mundo romano, 10 D. FRANKFURTER, Religion in Roman 1985, LOI-127 Egypt, 1998, 198-237 11E.He1Tscu, Zu den Zauberhymnen, in: Philologus 103, 1959, 215-236 12R.L. Gorbon, What’s in a List?, in: D.R. JORDAN et al. (ed.),

Magic in the Ancient World, 1999 Greek Magical Papyri, in: ANRW 3603

13 W.BRASHEAR, The II 18.5, 1995, 3576-

14 W.FauTuH, Helios Megistos,

1995, 34-120

15 R. HEM, Incantamenta magica graeca latina, class. Philol., Supplementary volume 10, 1892, 16 A. ONNERFORS, Zauberspriiche in Texten der friihma. Medizin, in: G. SABBAH (ed.), Etudes de romaine, 1988, 113-156.

in: Jb. fiir 465-575 rém. und médecine R.GOR.

[3] Historiography In Greek historiography, logos (AOyos, pl. AGyou; l6goi) refers generally to a representation which is true and verifiable and therefore based on facts as opposed to > mythos (+ Myth) = mostly fictitious history in poetic form.

LOGOS

+ Herodotus [1], the ‘father of historiography’, understands by Jogos neither a cohesive tradition nor individual pieces of information (as scholars sometimes assume), but rather uses Jogos with the general and indeterminate meaning of ‘report’, ‘presentation’, and ‘narrative of or about something’ [1]. He uses the word logos to refer both to his entire works (e.g. 2,123,1; 6519533 7515253) —logos is also widespread from the sth cent. BC designating a work — and to individual major or minor parts of the work (in the sense of ‘chapter’ or ‘section’ in modern terminology; cf. e.g. 1,75,1; 106,25 23'S, 2585522515 053.950).

Excursus-like units of composition (cf. -» Excursus) also appear as /6goi in Herodotus. These depict individual peoples in the chronological account of the expansion of the Persian empire, e.g. the Persians (1,131140), the Babylonians

(1,178-200), Egyptians (2,2-

182), Ethiopians (3,20-24), Scythians (4,5-82), Cyre-

nians (4,145-199) and the Thracians (5,3-10). These légoi are mostly divided into four parts: nature and situation of the country, morals and customs of the inhabitants, thaumdsia (‘wonders’, i.e. anything particularly remarkable), and political history. These /ogoi in particular have played a significant role in modern discussion about the origin of this historical work (cf. [2] and — Herodotus [1]). The diversity of meanings makes it appear futile to attempt, like [3], to identify the exact number of Herodotus’ /6goi, especially as Herodotus also uses the term here and there with the meaning of argument’,

“reasons’

(e:8. 1,132,353

2533523

45127535

6,124,2; 7,41,1: 6 Adyos aigel ; ho logos haire? , ‘the argumentation convinces ’).

— Thucydides [2] in his so-called methodological chapter (1,22,1) separates the problem of presentation of facts and events from his method of proceeding with respect to a logos which he understands as direct ‘speech’ (as well as speech co-created by him) (cf. [4] and ~» Thucydides [2] II. B.). While Xoyomows (logopoids) refers quite generally to the ‘prose writer’ (cf. e.g. Hdt. 2,134,3

800

Too

on Aesopus;

5,36,1 on Hecataeus),

the ten

Classical Attic orators (cf. > Rhetoric VI. A.2.) are called logographoi (+ Logographos): logos appears here with the meaning of ‘speech (in court)’. 1 F. Jacosy, s. v. Herodotos (7), RE Suppl. 2, 205-520 = Id., Griech. Historiker, 1956, 281-333 2 K. MEISTER, Die griech. Geschichtsschreibung, 1990, 32-35 3 S. CAGNAZZI, Tavola dei 28 logoi di Erodoto, in: Hermes 103, 1975, 385-423

4S.HoRNBLOWER,

A Commen-

tary on Thucydides, vol.1, 1991, 59 f.

K. MEL.

Logos spermatikos see > Logos [1]

Logothete chronicle see - Symeon Logothetes Logothetes (AoyoOétn¢; logothétes). Byzantine term for

an office attested from the 6th cent. AD, initially for more lowly finance officers (tax collectors in the province or pay administrators in the army), and from the 7th/8th cents. for the following high offices: 1) logo-

thetes genikou (‘general logothetes’, i.e. logothetes of the state treasury), initially still subordinate to the ~ sakellarios but soon the highest finance officer in the empire corresponding to the earlier comes sacrarum largitionum (> comes), 2) logothetes idikou, successor of the comes rerum privatarum, administrator of the private finances and goods of the emperor, 3) logothetes tou drémou, instead of the curiosus cursus publici, at first responsible for the post (démdsios dromos), but soon also for court ceremony and foreign policy, 4) logothetes ton agelon, like at one time the praepositus gregum et stabulorum, responsible for the imperial herds (horses, mules and donkeys) on the large pastures of Asia Minor and for equipping the cavalry, 5) logothetes stratidtikou (of the army treasury), like the procurator castrensis at first responsible for the pay for the imperial guard, then for that of the entire army. Emperor Alexios IComnenos (AD 1081-1118) established the office of a logothetes ton sekréton who was supposed to co-ordinate the whole imperial administration. In the late r2th cent. the term mégas logothétés (‘great logothete’) that is more frequently attested after 1260 appears sporadically for this highest ranking official of the emperor. ODB 2, 1247f.;

R. GUILLAND, Les logothétes, in: REByz

29, 1971, 31-70.

FT.

Loidoria (AotSogia; loidoria). Greek ‘invective’, originally perhaps ‘blasphemy’ (Pind. Ol. 9,37). Solon al-

ready made ‘speaking badly’ a punishable offence (fr. 32f. RUSCHENBUSCH); in the 4th cent. BC this element of an offence included insult through the use of certain enumeratively listed words (> kakégoria). R.W. Wattace, The Athenian Law against Slander, in: G. THUR (ed.), Symposion 1993, 1994, 109-124. eum

Lollia {1] L. Paulina Probably the granddaughter of Lollius [II r], cos. of 21 BC. Married to P. Memmius [II 4] Regulus, governor of Achaea, Macedonia and Moesia. ~ Caligula took her away from her husband in AD 38 and married her shortly after the death of his sister Drusilla. He, however, disowned her again the following year and ordered that she was never again to have sexual relations with a man. In 48 the freedman Callistus suggested her to > Claudius [III 1] as his wife but he married > Agrippina [3]. This forced Claudius to banish her as a competitor. Soon after that L. was killed in 49. She had inherited from her grandfather her wealth and her jewellery that are described by Pliny (HN 9,117). PIR* L 328; RAEPSAET-CHARLIER no. 504.

[2] L. Saturnina Probably the sister of L. [1]. Probably married to D. Valerius Asiaticus, cos. in AD 35 and 46. Forced by Caligula to commit adultery (Sen. Dial. 2,18,2). In Puteoli she owned large storehouses that

801

802

were presumably one of the sources of her great wealth. PIR’ L 329. G. CAMODECA, in: Puteoli 6, 1982, r9f.; RAEPSAET-CHARLIER no. 506.

W.E.

Lollianus (Aodtavoc; Lollianos) I. GREEK

II. ROMAN

I. GREEK {1] Author of a novel in several books titled ‘Phoenician stories’ (Bowvxixd, Phoinikikd), known to us from a fragment of a Papyrus codex, dating from the end of the 2nd cent. AD (PColoniensis inv. 3328; the authorship is certain). There are good reasons to attribute to the novel of L. also the remainders of a prose text, written no later than the mid 3rd cent. AD on the verso of POxy. 1368 (= PACK* 2620). The preserved fragments reveal different episodes: a dancing scene, probably during the celebrations honouring Adonis; the first sexual experience of one of the characters with a woman named Persis (PColonensis inv. 3328, A. 1-2", from the end of the rst or the beginning of the 2nd book); the sacrifice of a nats (pais, a boy, a slave or someone’s young lover), whose heart is eaten by a group of mystes; a revelry (attended by a certain Androtimus), subsequent to which the guests plunder some corpses and go outdoors dressed partly in black, partly in white (B. 1, to be placed after A); the encounter of Glaucetes with the phantom of a killed boy (POxy. 1368, its position among the other fragments is impossible to establish). The discovery of the fragments of L. represents a turning point in the history of the exploration of antique narrative literature, since they suggest a Greek novel completely different from the traditional ‘ideal’ type of the MSS. The few preserved fragments, which contain plenty of sex and violence (while still leaving room for the supernatural), indicate that the key to this work lies in the craving for sensation. It is therefore not surprising that points of contact have been found with the Latin novels of > Petronius and > Appuleius [III], which are more open to the ‘lower’ elements, as well as with > Achilles Tatius’ [1] ‘Leucippe and Cleitophon’, the Greek novel furthest from the serious tone of the idealizing love novel. — Novel A.Henricus (ed. and commentary), Die Phoinikika des L. Fragmente eines neuen griech. Romans, 1972; S. A. STEPHENS, J.J. WINKLER (ed.), Ancient Greek Novels. The Fragments, 1995, 314-357: M.FU. andL.G.

II. ROMAN [2] P. Hordeonius L., sophist from Ephesus, where his daughter was honoured with a statue (IK XIII 984). A pupil of > Isaeus [2], perhaps in Athens, where he was otoatnyos éni TOV SmAwY (stratégos epi ton hoplon, here in the sense of: ‘minister for alimentation’) and by AD 142/43 [1] a priest, L. began to teach as well (his pupils included + Theodotus and > Philagrus; Philostr. VS

LOLLIANUS

2,2 and 8), being the first to hold the city chair of rhetoric (in the 40s of the 2nd cent. AD?), and was honoured by two statues (Philostr. VS 1,23; 526-27). The text on the base of one of the statues [2] praises his declamation

and forensic speeches. Philostratus praises L.’s political authority and direct style citing two examples of his rhetorical ‘fireworks’. Lucianus mocks his volubility in an epigram (Anth. Pal. 11,274) and > Phrynichus his false atticisms. The possibility that he is identical to L. [x], the author of Phoinikia [3], is unlikely given the style of the latter’s novel fragment dating from the late 2nd cent. AD. Of L.’s numerous writings (Suda 4 670), his handbooks (Téchnai), which touched on stasis theory (— Status), were still used in the sth cent. AD. ~» Philostratus; + Second Sophistic 1IGI/UP 1764B 92IGIMIP 4211 =EpGr877 35S.A. STEPHENS, J.J. WINKLER (ed.), Ancient Greek Novels. The

Fragments, 1995, 314-357. O.ScHISSEL, L. aus Ephesos, in: Philologus 82, 1927, 181— 201; PIR* H 203; D.Matrues, Hermagoras v. Temnos

1904-1955, in: Lustrum 3, 1958, 76f., 1236.

E.BO.

[2] addendum to the family name Hedius. [3] Q. Hedius L. Plautius Avitus For the form of the name, in which Gentianus is also recorded once, cf. [1. 232f.]. Patrician, brother of the virgo Vestalis maxima Terentia Flavola; son of L. [8]. L.’s career up to the consulate is known from CIL VI 32412 =ILS 1155. It is conspicuous that as patrician between the praetor-

ship and office of consul, he was also iuridicus Asturicae et Callaeciae as well as legate of the legio VII Gemina, both in Hispania citerior. Cos. ord. in AD 209 (the belief that he would have been cos. IJ in this year, as an inscription from Styberra states, is based on a stonemason’s error [1. 233]). L. may be identical to the proconsul of Asia in IEph IV 1109; 1111-1113 (probably around 224). PIR* H 36. 1 W.Ecx,

Miscellanea

Prosopographica,

in: ZPE

42,

1981. G. ALFOLDY, in: EOS 2, 326.

[4] Hedius L. Terentius Gentianus Brother of L. [3]. Praetor tutelaris, cos. ord. in AD 211. PIR* H 37. [5] L. (Hedius Rufus) L. Avitus Suffect consul in AD 114. Proconsul of Asia c. 128-9 (IPerg VIII 3,22). PIR* H 39. W.Eck, in: Chiron 13, 1983, 165.

[6] L. Hedius Rufus L. Avitus Son of L. [5]. Cos. ord. in AD 144; curator operum publicorum in £46; proconsul of Africa probably in 157-8 [1. 62f.]. Finally he became consular legate of Pontus-Bithynia, where his presence probably is recorded in 159, not first in 165 (IGR III 84) [2. 146ff.; 3. 83ff.]. Literary activity. PIR* H 4o. 1 THOMASSON,

Fasti Africani,

1996

2 CHR. MAREK,

Katalog der Inschr. von Amasra, in: EA 6, 1985

3l1d.,

Das Datum einer Statthalterschaft in Pontos-Bithynia. L. Hedius Rufus Lollianus, in: EA 23, 1994.

LOLLIANUS

804

803

[7] L. Hedius Rufus L. Avitus Son of L. [6]. Salius Palatinus (> Salii). IGRIV 1414 = [1] refers probably not to him, but to L. [3]. After that, no further office is record-

ed for him. PIR* H 41. 1 G.PeETZzL1, Die Inschr. von Smyrna, vol. 2,1, 1987, 713.

[8] Q. Hedius [6]. Patrician. became legate Suffect consul

Rufus L. Gentianus Probably son of L. Having been quaestor and praetor, he of the legio XXII Primigenia in Mainz. under Commodus. In Rome in AD

lus Nepos,

> Damascus (Jos. Ant. 1,127). He is presumably the L. to from Spain in 56 (Cic. Fam. 5,3,2); juror L.L., recorded at the end of (Cic. Fam. 8,8,3). [3] L., M. Censor

Iud. 14,29f.; Jos. BI whom Nepos wrote identification with a 51, is less plausible

of Ferentinum

JOR. in the Hernician

region with A. Hirtius in c. 80 BC. They built the fortification walls there, still partly extant (ILS 5342-45). K.-LE, [14] L., M. Younger son of L. [I 6], whom he repre-

(HA Pert. 7,7),

sented as a witness in 70 BC (Cic. Verr. 2,3,63). He is

whose patron he had been. Consular legate of Hispania citerior, the time period is controversial (see bibl. at [1. 200ff.; 2. 75ff.]); comes of Septimius Severus and ~ Caracalla; censitor in the Lugdunensis; proconsul of Asia 201/2. PIR* H 42.

possibly the seriously ill quaestor L. of the year 65 (Plut. Cato minor 16,9). JOR. [I 5] L., M. Freeborn from Campania [1. 348] or freedman of the gens Lollia {2. 116]; worked at the beginning of the 50s BC asa party man of the people’s tribune P. — Clodius [I 4]. As such (Cic. Dom. 89: dux tabernariorum), he organized the latter’s followers in the plebs urbana by polling (e.g. concerning the banishment of Cicero) and with protest actions against grain shortages and high prices in the summer of 57 [3. 162]. The information about L. is based exclusively on biased statements of - Cicero (Dom. passim), who was the target of various activities of L., and is not sufficient as a basis for the negative image, which is often found in modern literature.

193; accusations

against > Pertinax

1 A. GuIDANTE, L’aristocrazia norditalica tra Antonini e

Severi: gli Hedii di Pollantia, in: Simplos 1, 1995 2 M.CurisTot, La carriére de Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, in: REA 83, 1981.

G. ALFOLDY, in: EOS 2, 326 no. 5; M.Curistor, Drew-Bgak, in: Anatolia Antica 3, 1995, 92ff.

TH. W.E.

[9] Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius L. (signo Mavortius). Member of the senatorial aristocracy of the 4th cent. AD, who rose in his career, temporarily interrupted by the rule of + Constantinus [2] Ul, (ILS 1223; 1224a,b,c; 1225; 1232; 8943; Firm. Mat. 1 pr. 1-8) to praefectus urbi (342) and after a further interruption, finally to consul ordinarius (355) and to praefectus praetorio Galliarum (354) and then Italiae, Illyrici, Africae (355-356). Firmicus Maternus dedicated his Mathésis (Firm. Mat. 1 pr. 1-8) to the pagan L. Ammianus (Amm.

Marc.

16,8,5) praises his sense of justice.

PLRE 1, 512-514.

B.BL.

[10] [---]ius L. Equestrian procurator, probably in the time of Septimius Severus, finally procurator annonae in Ostia. PIR* L 308. [11] [ — - — Jtilius LolflianJus CIL II] 335 = 6991 = 14188,1. PIR* L 309. cf. > Catilius [1] Longus. = we.

Lollius Name of a Roman plebeian family. Bearers of the name, recorded from the 3rd cent. BC, not of urban Roman origin, emerged as business people from the 2nd cent. (ILLRP 723b; 747; 1025) and received Roman citizenship perhaps only after the Social War [3]. 1 SCHULZE,

519

2

T.P. WisEMAN, New Men in the

Roman Senate: 139 B.C. — A.D. 14, 1971, 237f.

I. REPUBLICAN

PERIOD

1

E.Rawson, More

on the Clientelae of the Patrician

Claudii, in: Historia 26, 1977, 340-357 2K.-J. Nowak, Der Einsatz privater Garden in der spaten r6m. Republik, 1973 3H.BENNER, Die Politik des P. Clodius Pulcher, 1987.

Ww.W.

{1 6] L., Q. Roman equestrian with land holdings on Sicily, bested by Q. Apronius in 73-71 BC; in 70, because he was almost ninety years old, he let himself be represented in the > Verres trial by his older son, who was murdered in the same year on a trip through Sicily while gathering incriminating material against C. Verres (Cic. Verr. 2,3,61-63).

JOR.

{I 7] L. Maximus Young friend of the poet Horace, who dedicated two epistles in verse to him (Hor. Epist. 1,2; 1,18). Participant in Augustus’ campaign in Spain in 26-5 BC (Hor. Epist. 1,18,55). Probably a relative of M. Lollius [II 1], perhaps even his son (rejected by [1]; accepted by [2]). PIR* L 317. 1 Syme, AA, 396

2 R. Mayer

(ed.), Horace, Epistles.

Book I, 1994, 8f.

W.K.

K.-L.E.

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD

[1 1] L., L. Read his name on one of Sulla’s lists of proscribed persons in 82 BC and was thereupon immediately killed on leaving the Forum (Oros. 5,21,4f.). [I 2] L., L. Pompey’s legate against the pirates in 67 BC,

commanded the Aegean Sea and the western coast of Asia Minor as far as Rhodes (App. Mithr. 436). In 65, L. conquered, together with Q. Caecilius [I 29] Metel-

[I 8] (L.) Palicanus Mint master under Caesar in 48 or 47 BC (MRR 2, 444; [1]). Perhaps identical with L. L. who appears on coins from Creta et Cyrenae c. 35-34 (as governor?) (MRR 2, 408), but probably not with M. [--- ] Ilon. Maddaxetvos, senator in 39 BC (SHERK 27, 1. rt; MRR 2,498). 1B. MANNSPERGER,

Libertas

—- Honos

— Felicitas,

in:

Chiron 4, 1974, 327-342. [I 9] L. Palicanus, M. From a simple family in Picenum. As people’s tribune in 71 BC (MRR 2,122) he demand-

805

ed the return of the rights of his office abolished by Sulla and helped + Pompeius to the post of consul for 70. In 67 he competed in the consular elections, but gave up, because consul C. Calpurnius [I ro] Piso threatened, as revenge for his actions of 71-70, that he would never declare L. as elected (Val. Max. 3,8,3). A renewed candidacy for 65 is uncertain (Cic. Att. 1,1,1). L. was politically unimportant after this and is mentioned for the last time in 60 (Cic. Att. 1,18,5). He was known as a stirring, but unskilful speaker (Sall. Hist. 4,43M). JOR. Il. IMPERIAL PERIOD [Ii 1] M. Lollius Senator of the Augustan period. L.’s

origin is contested, but he will most likely have been a homo novus. He was certainly already connected with Octavian during the period of the triumvirate. The first concrete information we have on him is as Augustus’ legate, who transformed the Galatian kingdom after the latter’s death into a praetorian province (> Galatia). It was probably he, who transformed the Galatian troops into the legio XXII Deiotariana; presumable also by him veteran colonies (> Veterans) were laid out in this territory [1. 963f.]. Augustus’ trust in L. became clear, when he was elected as consul in 21 BC, first alone, since the people also wanted Augustus as consul, who was absent on Sicily. When the latter refused, Q. Aemilius Lepidus became his colleague (Hor. Epist. 1,20,28). Both had the Pons Fabricius in Rome renovated (CIL VI 1305 = ILS 5892). In r9-8, L. fought in Thrace against the Bersi, whom he conquered. In 17BC, he took part as + quindecimvir in the secular games (— saeculum). Consulship and priesthood attest to the great influence which he possessed in Roman politics under Augustus. Probably in 17 BC, he went as legate to Gaul, where he suffered a defeat with the legio V against the > Usipetes, the > Tencteri, and the > Sugambri in 17 or 16; the eagle of the legion was lost. The clades (‘ defeat’) Lolliana, which is mentioned by numerous authors, probably won its broad meaning first through the later defeat of > Quintilius Varus in AD 9, and the negative view of L. among others in the circles around > Tiberius. The immediate result of this was that Augustus went to Gaul and developed the intention of fighting the Germanic tribes on the right side of the Rhine. However, L. by no means lost the trust of Augustus in the long run. In x BC, Augustus appointed L. as adiutor and rector of the young Gaius Tulius [II 32] Caesar, who was sent to the east on a special mission. He was supposed to advise and guide him politically. His dominating position is visible in the fact that embassies from the cities were directed to him. He is said to have influenced Gaius into treating Tiberius, who was on Rhodes in voluntary exile, in an insulting manner (Vell. Pat. 2,102;

Suet. Tib. 12,2). In the east he is supposed to have tried to dominate Gaius; he is supposed to have been bribed by the princes of the east, an accusation which has later

806

LOMENTUM

also been made against Calpurnius [II 16] Piso. A break with C. Caesar occurred, who terminated the friendship; a short time later, L. died in the province. His

reputation was presumably systematically destroyed by C. Caesar’s adherents, in order to protect the latter. Long after his death in AD 21, Tiberius blamed L. as well for having caused the discord with Gaius. However, Augustus trusted him and also Horace (Carm. 4,9)

speaks in the highest terms of his moral and political virtues (virtutes). It is precisely his incorruptibility for which he is famed there. Nothing is known of a son of L.; his granddaughter —> Lollia [1] Paulina played an important role for a short time under Gaius and — Claudius [III 1]. PIR* L 311. 1 R.K. SHERK, Roman Galatia: The Governors from 25 B.C. to A.D. 114, in: ANRW II 7.2, 1980, 954-1052. E. Groaa, s.v. L. (11), RE 13, 1377/f.; SyME, RR, 398;

428ff.

{fl 2] M. Lollius Son of the consul L. [II 1] of 2x BC. It can hardly be determined from Tac. Ann. 12,1,2 that he was consul; the passage is rather to be connected with his grandfather. Father of Lollia [1] and [2]. [fl 3] Q.L. Mamercianus Senator, governor of the province of Arabia, probably in the rst half of the 3rd cent. AD. SEG 39, 1648. {fl 4] Q.L. Urbicus Homo novus from Tiddis in Africa, where he erected a representative tomb to his entire family (CIL VIII 6705 = ILAlg II 1, 3563). His senatorial career began in the last years of Trajan or in the first years of Hadrian, by whom he was helped in attaining the people’s tribunate and the praetorship. Legate of the legio X Gemina in Pannonia superior, which he perhaps also commanded in the war against > Bar Kochba resulting in his being honoured by Hadrian. Consul probably in 135 or 136. Governor of Germania inferior c. 137-139, finally of Britain, where he is recorded from 139-142. There he triumphed against the Britons, for which Pius accepted an imperial acclamation. Probably praefectus urbi from 146. His period in office is unknown, perhaps until 160. As prefect of the city, he led the trial against the Christian Iustinus [6] Martys. PIRG Ls 27 BirLEY, 112ff.; Eck, Statthalter, 168.

W.E.

Lomentum [1] Cosmetic (- Cosmetics) created from bean flour (Plin. HN 18,117), used by Roman women to cover up and reduce wrinkles (Mart. 3,42; 14,60), with the addition of sun-dried, crushed snails (Plin. HN 30,127), lomentum rendered the skin soft and white. It further served as a remedy for ulcers, burns or tumours (Plin. HN 20,127; 22,141). [2] Two types of blue pigment gained from ‘sky blue’ (caeruleum, cf. {x]) (Plin. HN 33,162f.), one representing the more expensive (10 denarii per pound) the other one the lesser kind (lomentum tritum, 5 asses per pound). Lomentum lent itself to > encaustic and tempera painting, but not to fresco painting.

LOMENTUM 1 Pompeji wiederentdeckt, Ausstellung Hamburg 155, no. 16-24.

807

808

1993,

A mithraeum (> Mithras) [4. 92-117] with beautiful sculptures lay east of the Walbrook from the late 2nd cent. until its destruction early in the 4th cent. A large basilica — recently found on Tower Hill —- was probably a Christian church from the late 4th cent. Late ancient L. leaves us with many enigmas. Large buildings, among these an arch and at least two temples, were built in the 3rd cent. south-west of the city; in other places big areas had obviously been abandoned. However L. continued to play an important administra-

R.H.

Londinium (modern London). The Roman city of L. the name possibly contains the Celtic personal name Londinos — lay, probably without pre-Roman precursors, at the most suitable crossing point of the Tamesis (Thames), which drew the attention of the Romans at the time of the invasion in AD 43. The early settlement was on hills on both sides of the swampy valley of the Walbrook that flows from the north into the Tamesis. Neither an early Roman bridge nor a military fort close to the crossing of the Tamesis (early military equipment suggests such an assumption) has been found here. The early significance of L. lay in the trading links to the continent. According to Tac. Ann. 14,33, countless negotiatores (‘traders’) stayed in L. in AD 60 and there is archaeological evidence for this from the port area. At the time of the Boudicca uprising in AD 60/1 (> Boudicca) the city was flourishing to such an extent that it enraged the rebels; L. was totally destroyed, the legatus Augusti pro praetore C. Suetonius Paullinus could not hold L. The level of destruction from this catastrophe forms a well defined archaeological horizon [1]. The procurator Augusti C. lulius Alpinus Classicianus (Tac. Ann. 14,38) was buried in L. [2]. In the Flavian period (AD 69-96) important public buildings west of the Walbrook were built, including the praetorium, the forum and thermal baths. Around AD roo the

forum was completely remodelled and a huge basilica was added — the largest in the north-western provinces [3]. The building of a 4 ha fort north-west ofthe city, as well as an amphitheatre very close by, is also viewed in connection with the officium of the governor [4. 1540]. Despite this and in spite of the obvious significance of the city, the exact legal status of L. remains unclear to us: L. was neither a > colonia nor a local > civitas. In the Flavian period L. was probably accorded the status of a > municipium. The growing importance of L. as a trading centre becomes clear through the building of the embankment facilities out of enormous oak beams along the bank of the Tamesis — over a length of more than 550 m— from AD too onwards. Through this river port, goods from Gaul, Germania, Hispania and Italia came into the country. The resultant prosperity lasted right through to the late 2nd cent. and after that it probably stagnated for a cent. or longer [5]. In the 3rd cent. great attention

had to be paid to the city fortifications: between AD 190 and 220 the city wall was renovated in the east, west and north, and at the end of the cent. was extended to the river. The Tamesis was secured by means of a signal tower system downstream.

The population of L. was a more colourful mix than in other cities in Britannia — in keeping with the role of the city in trade and administration. Imperial officials, soldiers and merchants left their traces on inscriptions. [6]. This is also demonstrated by the cults of L. In the rst cent. there was an Isis Temple renovated after AD 250.

tive role. Called Augusta (Amm. Marc. 27,8) from AD

368, L. in the late 4th cent. was the seat of the praepositus thesaurorum Augustensium. From AD 400 onwards came the decline and the centre of the settlement shifted from the walled area of L. to the west where Saxon Ludenwic was found. 1R.MERRIFIELD, London, 1983 2R.G. COLLIncwoop, R.P. Wicut, The Roman Inscriptions of Britainr, 1965,12 3P.R.V.MARSDEN, The Roman Forum Site in London, 1987 4 W.F. Grimes, The Excavations of Roman and Medieval London, 1968 5 G.MuILNE, The

Port of Roman London, 1985 6R.G. CoLLINGwooD, R.P. WriGHTt, The Roman Inscriptions of Britain 1-20, 1965ff. T. Dyson, The Roman Quay at St. Magnus House, 1986; C. Hitt et al., The Roman Riverside Wall and Monumental Arch in London, 1980; P.R. V. MARSDEN, Roman London, 1980; J. Morris, L., 1982; D. PERRING, Roman London, 1991. M.TO.

Longina see > Domitia [6] Longina Longinianus Flavius Macrobius L., in AD 399 comes sacrarum largitionum (-> comes, comites), as praefec-

tus urbi had the walls and gates of Rome restored in 401-402 because of the threat of the Goths (ILS 797). In 406 L. became praef. praet. italiae, as a friend of ~ Stilicho, when he was overthrown, L. was assassinated on 13 August 408 (Zos. 5,32,7; cf. Sozom. Hist. eccl. 9,4,7). + Symmachus wrote to him epist. 7,93— LO

PLRE 2,686f.; A. CHASTAGNOL, Fastes de la préfecture de Rome, 1962, 255-257; V. HAEHLING 3 11-313.

K.P.J.

Longinus Roman cognomen (greek Aoyyivos; Longinos), derived from longus (‘tall’), in the Republican period in the family of the Cassii (Cassius [I 6-17; II r4— 16]), in the Imperial period attested in numerous other families. KajJANTO, Cognomina, 230.

K.-L.E.

{1] Cassius Longinus. A. Lire B. Works A. LIFE A Greek grammarian, rhetor and Platonic philosopher (c. AD 210-272/3), who was an outstanding representative of the education and culture of his time and

809

810

was therefore called a ‘living library and walking university’ (fr. 3a [1]). Nothing is known about L.’s father; his mother was the sister of Phronton of Emesa, to whom L. probably owed much of his rhetorical educa-

tinus, a middle Platonist. As a philosopher and literary

tion (fr. 1b). Phronton made him heir to his fortune. In

his childhood, L. took extensive voyages together with his parents, during which he got to know all the well known philosophers of his time, and later he would study with some of them. He spent the most time with + Ammonius [9] Saccas and his student, the Neoplatonist + Origenes (fr. 2) [2. 324; 3. 8ff., r4off.]. After his education, L. founded his own school in Athens in which grammar, rhetoric and philosophy were taught [z. 5216, 5221]. Here he gained the reputation of being the most important literary critic of his time, comparable to > Dionysius [18] of Halicarnassus (fr. 2; 3.4; 5) [4. 1405f.]. In his school Plato’s birthday was lavishly celebrated every year. It became evident that the school was a meeting place for the most significant scientists and philosophers of the era (fr. 4) [1. 5223ff.]. From c. 253 to 263 —> Porphyrius studied with L. prior to going to — Plotinus in Rome [1. 5221]. The relationship between L. and Porphyrius remained very cordial throughout their lives. It was L. who gave Porphyrius, originally called Malchus (fr. 3ab), his name. In about

267 L. left Athens in order to make his way to the court of Queen > Zenobia, becoming her teacher and counsellor [1. 5227f.]. After her revolt against the Romans was put down, L. was executed along with others of her counsellors in late 272 or early 273. He bore his gruesome death with philosophical steadfastness [1. 5230].

LONGINUS

scholar, he felt more indebted to Plato’s exact words

than did Plotinus, so that there were vigourous disagreements between the two schools [1. 5265f.; 3. 282f.]. Whereas Plotinus granted L. legitimacy as a ‘literary critic’, though not as a ‘philosopher’, L. apparently always felt the greatest respect towards Plotinus and his school (fr. 2; 5) [1. 5255, 52613 3. 149f., 294f.]. Nevertheless, L. stuck with his basic middle Platonic stance. He certainly rejected Plotinus’ theory of the One and the Good over the Being and the Demiurge [2. 327ff.; 6. 518f.] and advocated instead the middle Platonic theory that the Demiurge is the highest deity and identical with the idea of the Good [1. 5271f.]. Like ~ Atticus he taught that ideas are subordinate to and outside divine reason (fr. 7abc) [3. 76ff., 294f.; 7. 26, 6off., 251ff., 320f. 8]. In opposition to the Stoa (— Stoicism), he represented the unity of the soul, which nevertheless possessed many powers (fr. gab) [1. 5257, 52763 9. 82, 330f.], and in opposition to Epicurius and the Stoics the immateriality and immortality of the soul (fr. 8) [1. 5273 ff.] Plotinus, with his succinct evaluation, passed on L. the judgement that all Neoplatonists would de facto endorse: as a philosopher, L. was antiquated, as a literary critic he continued to be recognized. As a result his philosophical works were soon lost, while his works of literary criticism were used into Byzantine times but, with the exception of a few fragments, were then lost as well [4. 1405]. ~ Middle Platonism

B. Works

1 L. Brisson, M.PaTILLon, Longinus Platonicus Philosophus et Philologus: I.Longinus Philosophus, in: ANRW

L. left a large number of works, in all fields in which

Il 36.7, 1994, 5214-5299

2M.BatTes,s.v. Ammonios

he worked, most of which have been lost. In the field of

Sakkas, RAC

philosophy the works included [1. 5254ff.; 3. 78, 90,

BALTES 3, 1993

282f., 294, 300, 302, 330, 343, 344, 346, 348]: mono-

1415 5 G.KENNEDY, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 1972 6 ZELLER 3.2, 517-519 7 DOrRIE/

graphs and didactic correspondence (‘On Principles’, ‘On the Ultimate Goal’, ‘On Impulse’, ‘On Life in Accordance with Nature’, ‘Polemic against the Stoics’ Theory of the Soul’, polemics against Plotinus and his school) and possibly commentaries on some of Plato’s works [1. 5261ff.; 3. 32, 52, 191, 218f.]. In the field of rhetoric and literary criticism he wrote [3. 253, 347, 349] basic texts (‘Rhetorical Technique’ [5. 637ff.], ‘Philological Lectures’) and specialized texts on lexicography (‘Edition of Attic Words’, ‘Dictionary of Antimachus’, ‘Heracleon’s Dictionary’?), on metre (titles not preserved), on history (‘False Interpretations

of

Unhistorical Passages by Grammarians’, ‘Chronicle’?), on ethnography (‘On the Characteristics of the Peoples’?), on Homer

(‘Questions on Homer’,

‘Homeric

Problems’, ‘Is Homer a Philosopher?’, ‘On Ambiguous Words in Homer’) and a commentary on ‘Hephaestion’s Handbook’ [4. 1406ff.]. In addition, he wrote a speech for -» Odaenathus [1. 5227, 5229, who was murdered in the year 267. Even though L. was a student of Ammonius Saccas, he remained, like his teacher Origenes but unlike Plo-

Suppl. 3, 1985, 323-332

3 DorRIE/

4K.AutiTzky, s.v. L., RE 13, 1401-

BALTES 5, 1998 8 M.FREDE, La teoria de las ideas de Longino, in: Méthexis 3, 1990, 183-190 9 DoOrRIE/ BALTES 2, 1990 FRAGMENTS

IN FR. TRANSL.:

L. BRISSON,

M. PATILLON

(see above). EDITIONS:

M.BA. Téyvn Ontogim), in: SPENGEL, 1, 297-320 =

L.SPENGEL, C.HAMMER, Rhetores Graeci 1.2, 179ff.; A.O. PickarD, L., Téxvy OnOoguan, *1929.

EXxCERPTA

&% tv

Aoyyivov:

SPENGEL

1894,

I, 325-328

=

SPENGEL, HAMMER, 213ff.

FRAGMENTS: J. Tour, Dionysii Longini quae supersunt Graece et Latine, Oxford 1778, 107-108; 120-131; M.Conssprucu, Hephaestionis Enchiridion cum commentariis veteribus, 1906 (repr. 1971), 81-89. BIBLIOGRAPHY: C.M. Mazzuccui, Longino in Gio-

vanni di Sicilia, con un inedito di storia, epigrafia e toponomastica di Cosma Manasse dal Cod. Laurenziano LVII.5, in: Aevum 64, 1990, 183-190; E. ORTH, De Longino Platonico, in: Helmantica 6, 1955, 363-371; J.M. RENAITOUR, Un auteur oublié, Longin, in: Bull. de l’Association G. Budé 24, 1965, 502-515; SCHMID/STAHLIN II, 889-891. F.M.

LONGINUS

812

811

[2] Author of Iegi” Yous; Peri Hypsous (‘On the Sublime’); see > Pseudo-Longinus. [3] > Praefectus urbi Constantinopolitanae (émagyos mohews; Eparchos poleds) under — Lustinianus [1] I, at-

naia, in: E. OLSHAUSEN, H. SONNABEND (ed.), Grenze und

Grenzland. 4. Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Histor. Geogr. (1990), 1994.

GILMA.

tested in the office from AD 537 to 541/2, L. was on many occasions the Imperial envoy in the area of the eastern border of Asia Minor (Anth. Pal. 16,39), especially in 535/6 because of a legal dispute regarding a monetary claim of the church of Emesa. PLRE 3,795.

Longula (Aoyyoka; Longola). Town near Antium and Corioli whose inhabitants were known as Long(ul)ani. In ancient times in the territory of the Latini, later of the Volsci, and in 493 BC conquered by Consul Postumus

(lier

Rom. 6,91; 8,36; 85).

ET.

Long jump (Greek Gua; balma; Lat. saltus). In Egypta type of high long jump was known as a children’s game already in the Old Kingdom [t1. 619 f.]. In GraecoRoman antiquity there is evidence of the long jump (LJ) as an individual competition only in myth (e.g. Hom. Od.

8,128).

In actual athletic practice, however,

it

always occurs (presumably as the second discipline) in the context of the > péntathlon. According to [2. 5760], this is a continuous quintuple jump (cf. Them. in Aristot. Ph. 5,3) from standing. It was often performed to the accompaniment of flutes (Paus. 5,7,103 5,175,103 Philostr. gymnastikos 55), as is frequently shown in images [3. pl. LVb, LX]. The jump was take from a spring board (Patio, batér) into a 50-foot-long pit (oxdupa; skamma) with loosened earth in the > stadium. The expression ‘beyond the loosened up area’ (vméQ to toxauueva, hyper ta eskamména: ‘further than allowed’, Pl. Crat. 413b) became a figure of speech [4. 2330]. Jumping-weights (GAtijgec, altéres) made of lead, bronze [5] or stone (between 1.072 and 4.629 kg), which can perhaps be interpreted as relics of the hoplite’s lance and shield (> hoplitai), were used and it was required that exact footprints be recognizable. Accounts of achieved lengths such as 55 feet (— pous) for Phayllus of Croton (Eust. ad Hom. Od. 8,197) or 52 feet for Chionis of Sparta (Sextus Iulius Africanus, Olympionicarum fasti 30) are rare. The LJ was also a component of Etruscan athletic culture [6. 287-294]. — Sports; > Sports festivals 1 W.Decxer, M.Hers, Bildatlas zum Sport im Alten Agypten, 1994 2J.EBErT, Zum Pentathlon der Ant., 1963 3J.JUTHNER, F.BrREIN, Die athletischen Leibestibungen der Griechen, vol. 2.1, 1968 4 F.Garcia

RoMERO, El deporte en los proverbios griegos antiguos,

2001

5 D. KNOEPFLER, Haltére de bronze dédié a Apollon

Hékabolos dans la collection G. Ortiz (Genéve), in: CRAI

1994, 334-337 6J.-P. THUILLIER, Les jeux athlétiques dans la civilisation étrusque, 1985. I. WEILER (ed.), Weitsprung, 1992.

Longon (Aoyyav; Longon). Coastal river near + Catana in Sicily, probably identical to modern San Paolo. Italion, a Catanian fortress, which was attacked in 247 BC by > Hamilcar [3] Barcas (Diod. Sic. 24,6,1; [£. 1333 2. 127-174, especially 156, pl. 9]), was situated close to the source. 1 E. MANNnI, Geografia fisica e politica della Sicilia antica, 1981

2 G.MANGANARO, Per una storia della chora Kata-

+ Cominius

[I 3] (Liv. 2,33,4; 39,3; Dion. Hal. Ant.

NISSEN 2, 556, 631; M. PALLoTTINO, Le origini di Roma,

in: ArchCl 12, 1960, 27; A. ALFOLDI, Early Rome and the Latins, 1963, 13, 368.

GU.

Longus [1] (Adyyoc; Léngos). We have no information about the person who wrote the most famous Greek novel, ‘Daphnis and Chloe’: the name L. in the MSS is typically Roman and frequently attested on Lesbos, the island where the action of the novel takes place, but Roman names were very common

among

Greeks in the Im-

perial period. Also as far as the dating of the work is concerned, we only have few indications which leave room for doubt. The refinement of the tale conjures up a mature phase of the — novel genre, so it probably dates from the turn of the 2nd to the 3rd cent. AD. L. contaminates the love story with the tradition of bucolic poetry (+ Bucolics), the model of which was established by > Theocritus. From this a radical transformation of the typical pattern results. The adventures of the protagonists, a couple separated in time and space, which form the central frame of the Greek story (primarily in its first phase) are almost absent here, or reduced to short allusions and miniaturized episodes. In the first of the four books, Daphnis becomes the victim of abduction by Phoenician pirates, which is, however, foiled by Chloe’s flute. In the second book, in contrast, Chloe is abducted by young men from Methymna and suddenly rescued by the god Pan. There is a war episode, but it is rather short and limited. Also the typical pursuits by the rivals (here by the shepherd Dorcon, who wants to marry Chloe, and of Gnathon, friend of

the son of the estate owner who tries to seduce Daphnis) are marginal, a far cry from the standard persecutions by analogous figures in > Xenophon of Ephesos or by Arsace in > Heliodorus [8], which have a definitive influence on the action. L. therefore changes the main motif of a journey from an external to an internal one, from a journey through space to one through time [tr]. The whole novel turns on the way the two protagonists gradually become conscious oftheir love (a motif which replaces, as with > Achilleus Tatius, the typical ‘love at first sight’) and, above all, how their sexual identities

develop step by step. Throughout, the narrator ironically and pleasurably stresses the naivety of the two young shepherds, pursuing their reactions to their erotic desire (beginning with the bath of the naked Daphnis in the first volume)

813

814

and their failing attempts at sexual intercourse. Earlier, this voyeurism by the author, which the reader cannot escape, was branded perverse or downright pornographic [2]. Today, L.’s novel is seen, following the interpretation of J. WINKLER [3] rather as a significant example of sexuality always being the result of cultural moulding. A central theme is the dialectic of nature and

the Aminta by Tasso). Even when influence of the Greek novel had reached a nadir, L. still was successful, mainly because of GOETHE’Ss enthusiastic opinion and later in S. DIAGHILEV’s ballet to the music of M. RAVEL

culture, beside other dichotomies such as town/coun-

try, mythos/logos. The mediation of culture by external intervention is clearly seen in the education of the two protagonists in love: Old Philetas (a name referring back to the love elegy) narrates in the second volume that he had encountered in his garden a child (an image taken from the Platonic dialogue Phaidros) who was even older than Kronos, i.e. the god Eros, who recommended as the only medicine for love to kiss and embrace naked in the grass. In the third volume, a woman from town, Lykainion, introduces Daphnis to sexual

love and explains to him that the first time for Chloe would unavoidably be painful. This last episode clearly shows the tension of contradictions — a Freudian ‘compromise’ — which runs through the whole novel: bucolic idealization of country life on one hand, on the other the urban background of irony and voyeurism. [4]. The end also shows a clear tension: it is divided into a preview of the happy future of the two protagonists (who in fact discover that they are the children of rich estate owners from the town, but nevertheless decide to remain in the country and for fun allow their children to

repeat their experience) and the last scene of their wedding night (in which the narrator with a witticism emphasizes the sexual violence which Chloe has to undergo [5]). The motif of violence, connected with the

LOPODUNUM

(1912). — Novel; > > Nove. 1B. REARDON, The Greek Novel, in: Phoenix 23, 1969, 301 2R.HELM, Der ant. Roman, *1956, 51 3 J. WINKLER, The Constraints of Desire, 1990, 101-126

4 B.EFFE,

L.: Zur Funktionsgesch. der Bukolik in der rom. Kaiserzeit, in: Hermes 110, 1982, 65-84 5 M.FustLtto, How Novels End, in: D. RoBERTs et al. (ed.), Classical Closure, 1997, 218-219 6D.TESKE, Der Roman des L. als Werk der Kunst, 1991.

R.L. Hunter, A Study of Daphnis and Chloe, 1983; B.D. MacQueen, Myth, Rhetoric and Fiction: A Reading of L.’ Daphnis and Chloe, 1990; R. MERKELBACH, Die Hirten des Dionysos, 1988; F.ZEITLIN, The Poetics of Eros, in: D.HAacrerin, J. WINKLER, F. ZEITLIN (ed.), Before Sexuality, 1990, 417-464. M.FU.

[2] Widespread Roman cognomen, originally probably describing a physical peculiarity (longus, ‘tall’; Quint. inStaets4qn25e1653'0))s 1 Decrassi, FCIR, 146

2 Kajanto, Cognomina,

230. K.-L.E.

Long walls see — Fortifications I; > Athens [1] II.7

Lopodunum modern Ladenburg in the lower reaches of the > Nicer (Neckar). The Celtic place name, earlier

also interpreted as ‘stronghold of Lo(u)pos’, means something like ‘swamp fortress’ [1].

erotic desire of the man, occurs in crescendo in a series

Few archaeological traces of the former Celtic population are preserved. From about the Tiberian period

of three internal narratives in 1,27 (metamorphosis of a girl into a bird), 2,34 (Syrinx), 3,23 (Echo).

settled in the region of the lower river. It is assumed that

L.’s language is typical for the Greek — Koine. It is characterized by a simplicity, suitable for the theme of the narrative, the syntax is strictly oriented towards symmetry, which on a thematic level corresponds to the clear parallelism of the two protagonists. In his foreword, the narrator states that he has chosen a middle ‘agreeable’ register of style, which indeed is typical for the bucolic tradition, yet it is not free from propaedeutic intention, as his reference to the prooemium of Thucydides shows. There are also recognizable echoes of theoretical reflections on the relationship between the visual arts and literature in the 2nd cent. AD as visible in the Eikones of Philostratus and Callistratus [6]: the story of the two shepherds seems to be painted as a picture which the narrator builds into a narrative by means of an ‘exegete’ [6]. From Amyot’s famous translation into French (Paris, 1559) and then the editio princeps (Florence, 1598) on, ‘Daphnis and Chloe’ enjoyed an unusual reception as the antique paradigm of the bucolic novel, a genre which was fashionable during the Renaissance and Baroque periods (e.g. Arcadia by SANNAZZARO, the Pastor Fido by Guarini, the Arcadia by SYDNEY and

(AD

14-37), > Suebi from the Germanic

Elbe area

the Romans themselves settled them, or at least toler-

ated their settlement, in order to secure the territory on the east bank of the Rhine. As early as the rst half of the rst cent. AD the population had adopted Roman habits through close contacts with the inhabitants of the west bank of the Rhine and the Roman troops stationed there. No military facilities in L. are known to us until the early Flavian period. Until the end of the rst cent. the ala I Cannanefatium was here, as well as infantry at least at times. Under Trajan (98-117) the fort was abandoned and the vicus Lopodunum, which had flourished so quickly, became a suburb of the civitas Ulpia Sueborum Nicrensium. The theatre, basilica, temples and other buildings prove that a central function was intended for L. in Germania east of the Rhine. L. flourished in the 2nd and early 3rd cent. when L. expanded greatly. High-quality sculptures, some of which were worked on site, document economic power as well as > Romanization. At the turn of the 3rd cent. a city wall was built, not least for reasons of prestige. Drastic crises loom after 233/4 and particularly after 259/260 (fall of the - Limes), although a certain conti-

nuity was stayed on.

preserved

because a residual population

815

816

Ausonius (Mos. 421f.) reports of a victory at L. in 369 by Valentinian over the Alamanni. At that time a ~ burgus was laid out directly on the Neckar, which remained occupied probably until about 400. It has been possible to uncover considerable remains of this river port.

bour of L. was also a constant port of call for naval forces (Thuc. 8,43,1; Diod. Sic. 14,83,4; 20,82,4; Liv.

LOPODUNUM

37517583 45,10,43; App. B Civ. 4,9,72). G.E. BEAN, Kleinasien 3, 1974, 169ff.; W.BLUMEL, Die Inschr. der rhodischen Peraia (IK 38), 1991; L. BURCHNER, s.v. L. (1), RE 13, 1450; MILLER, 706. H.KA.

1 H.Prosst, Der Ortsname Ladenburg und seine Aussa-

gekraft fiir die Kontinuitatsfrage, in: Mannheimer Gesch.Blatter N.F. 3, 1996, 57-67. D.Baatz, L. — Ladenburg a.N. Die Grabungen im Frih-

Lot, election by (Greek xAfjeoc/—> kléros, Lat. sors). I. PotiticaL

IJ. RELIGIOUS

jahr 1960, 1962; B. HEUKEMES, Der spatrom. Burgus von

L. — Ladenburg am Neckar, in: Fundber. Baden-Wirttemberg 6, 1981, 433-473;

H.Kaiser,

C.S. SOMMER,

in:

Arch. Ausgrabungen Baden-Wirttemberg 1981 (and further issues); B.HEUKEMES, L., Civitas Ulpia Sueborum Nicretum. Arch. Plan des rom. Ladenburg, 1986; B. HEuKEMES, H. Kaiser, Ladenburg, in: PH. FILTZINGER, et al. (ed.), Die R6mer in Baden-Wiurttemberg, *1986, 383-396;

H. Kaiser, C.S. SomMMER, grabungen an der Kellerei 1990, 1994; H.Propsst Jahren Stadtgesch., 1998; Kultdenkmaler aus dem

L.I. Die rom. Befunde der Ausin Ladenburg 1981-1985 and (ed.), Ladenburg. Aus 1900 R. WiecEts, L. II. Inschr. und rém. Ladenburg am Neckar,

1999.

RA.WL

Lorarius see > Leather

Loretum (also Lauretum, from laureus, ‘bay-tree’). Place on the Aventine Hill in Rome (> Roma) where

bay-trees grow. According to legend the burial place of Titus Tatius (Festus 496 L.). Already at the time of Varro (Varro, Ling. 5,152) the site could no longer be located with certainty. The possibility that L. was divided into two parts (L. minor and L. maior) is a matter for discussion because of two corresponding street names in Regio XIII (cf. CIL 6,975). RICHARDSON, 23 4f.

Lorica see

C.HO.

> Armour

Lorium Station on the via Aurelia, 12 miles outside Rome (It. Ant. 290; Tab. Peut. 5,5), modern La Bottac-

cia near Castel di Guido. Antoninus Pius died here in his villa (SHA Antoninus Pius 1,8; 12,6). Marcus [2] Aurelius also stayed here (Fronto, Ad Marcum 2,15; 3,20; 5,7). An episcopal see in the sth cent. F. CASTAGNOLI (ed.), La via Aurelia, 1968.

Gu:

Loryma (Aweupa; Loryma). Town on the south coast of Caria (Hecat. FGrH 1 F 247), east of the southern tip

of Boz Burun in the heart of the peraea of > Rhodes, belonged to Kasara (modern Asardibi), modern Bozuk Kale (‘castle ruin’). On the headland (Str. 14,2,4; 2,14; Larumna, Mela 1,84; Plin. HN 5,104; Ptol. 5,2,8;

I. POLITICAL A. GREECE B. PTOLEMAIC

AND

ROMAN

A. GREECE The lot was used especially in democracies, but not only in such, as a means to distribute office among those who were equally eligible, rather than appointing the best candidate under the circumstances. For

Athens,

the Aristotelian

Athenaion

Politeia

states that > Solon introduced the selection of the archons by lot from a short list of pre-selected candidates ([{Aristot.] Ath. pol. 8,1; but differing: Aristot. Pol. 2,1273b 35-1274a 33 1274a 16-17; 3,1281b 2534). In the Peisistratid tyranny the procedure probably was abandoned, but reintroduced in 487/6 BC ([Aristot.] Ath. pol. 22,5) and later replaced by a lottery system on both levels. The Council of 500 (+ boulé) was certainly selected by lot no later than 411 BC (Thuc. 8,69,4; [Aristot.] Ath. pol. 32,1), but perhaps no later than in the fifties of the sth cent. (e.g. the Athenian decision on Erythrae, ML 40 =IGI3 14,8-9), but it may have been elected earlier. In the 4th and probably already at the end of the 5th cent., almost all civilian office holders were selected by lot, the military ones, on the other hand, were appointed by election. Also jurors in the courts were selected by lot involving increasingly complicated procedures: the judges had tablets (pinakia), which were placed in lot machines (kléréteria; cf. [Aristot.] Ath. pol. 63-66) [15 2; 3; 4]. The latter system also was used for public offices and also was in use, among other methods, to determine the sequence of the > prytaneis for the various phyles in the council. For the distribution of land by lot see > kleros. 1 J.D. Bishop, The Cleroterium, in: JHS 90, 1970, 1-14 2 S.Dow, Prytaneis, 1937, 198-215 3 Id., Aristotle, the

Kleroteria and the Courts, in: HSPh 50, 1939, 1-34 4 Id., s.v. Kleroterion, RE Suppl. 7, 322-328 5T.W. HEADLAM(-Mor ey), Election by Lot at Athens, *1933 6 J.H. Kroxt, Athenian Bronze Allotment Plates, 1972 7 E.S. STAVELEY, Greek and Roman Voting and Elections,

1972.

PLR.

Steph. Byz. s.v. A.) over the approach to the bay lie the

B. PrOLEMAIC AND ROMAN

ruins of a Rhodian fortress (3rd/2nd cent. BC); on the

[1] Procedure for the assignment > klérotichot (II.) (cf. [1. 8]).

southeastern side, rock inscriptions for Rhodian Zeus Atabyrios. Situated directly opposite Rhodes, the har-

EGYPT

C. ROME

EGypt

of land

1 E. vAN’T Dack, Ptolemaica Selecta, 1988.

lots to

817

818

[2] Procedure for the division of inheritance.

2. COURTS Judges in civil proceedings (> index) could be selected by lot in Rome [3.59f.] and in the provinces (Cic. Verr. 2,2,423 ILS 6286: [3. 170]). Thus, the > recupera-

[3] Procedure documented from the beginning of the 2nd to the middle of the 3rd cent. AD to distribute + liturgies, munera (> munus), and the distributions of enforced leases. It does not have Egyptian or Ptolemaic roots but is totally Roman. Up to this point, it is documented for: amphodogrammateus, archéphodos, bibliophylax, enktése6n, grammatets poleds, diérasis, — komarchés, + komogrammatets, plerotes, + praktor, presbyteros, sitélogos, hypérétés. The accidental nature of the election by lot was severely limited by a preselection in the village or town. In the beginning, the epistratégds (see -> Court titles B. 2.) was officially sent a list, which normally contained twice as many names as there were offices to be distributed. Asa representative of the praef. Aegypti he made his selection by an unknown system (lot?). No later than the end of the 2nd cent. the expression > kléros had become a mere formula meaning no more than ’selection.’ There is no further documentation since that more candidates were nominated than there were offices. If the procedure had not been finished when the period in office began, all nominees had to perform the duties together. Use of the lot probably ended with the restructuring of the Egyptian administration under > Philippus Arabs (244-249); a single incident in AD 353 cannot hide the effective discontinuance, especially since lots during the noticeable municipalization of the offices in the 4th cent. really no longer had any place. N.Lewis, The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt, 1997, 84f.; 115; Id., in: Chronique d’Egypte 72,

1997, 345f.

W.A.

C. ROME Many questions in the political life of Rome were decided by lot, probably not for religious reasons (in spite of interpretations such as Cic. Phil. 3,26; Liv. 27,11,11), but rather because many competing or concurring situations thus would be defused or avoided in a non-partisan manner. [6]. There are examples from many areas. 1. PEOPLE’S ASSEMBLY 2. COURTS 3. PRIESTS, MAGISTRATES 4. VARIA 1. PEOPLE’S ASSEMBLY In the comitia centuriata (> comitia) from the 3rd

cent. BC — perhaps only for elections — the > praerogativa centuria was selected by lot from the First Class [7. 91-93]. In the comitia tributa (perhaps also the

LOT, ELECTION

BY

tores (also in municipiae: cf. > lex Irnitana X A 8-9) were normally selected by lot [3. 198f.], also senatorial judges of the senatus consultum Calvisianum (SEG IX 8,107-120). The jurors of the quaestiones perpetuae (> quaestio) were assigned by lot to the annual lists of the courts from the time of Cornelius [I 90] Sulla. By another lot, a selection was made for the individual proceedings [5. 277-292; 4. 751-755]. The judges for provincial penal processes also were determined by lot (SEG IX 8,24-28).

3. PRIESTS, MAGISTRATES Installation of regular magistrates by lot is unknown in Rome (Cic. Planc. 53 states there is decision by lot if there is a voting draw; cf. lex Malacitana 56). On the basis of the lex Papia the Vestals were selected by lot from a list of 20 candidates (Gell. NA 1,12,11), also —

when the collegium was founded — the regular members of the > sodales Augustales (Tac. Ann. 1,54,1). Senatorial messengers (legati; see — legatus) during the Republic and in the Imperial period were sometimes determined by lot (Cic. Att. 1,19,2f.; Tac. Hist. 4,8,5). At first, several imperial offices were filled by lot (Cass.

Dio 55,25,2: praefecti aerarii militaris,

> praefectus;

54,17,1: curatores frumenti; 57,14,8 curatores riparum, —> curatores), later by imperial appointment. The

consuls came to verbal agreements (comparatio) or by lot how to handle single duties (Liv. 2,8,6; 4,26,11; 35,20,2; also the censors: Varro Ling. 6,87) and they agreed on their areas (see > provincia) or, resp. from ~ Cornelius [I 90] Sulla, on the proconsular provinces (differences see [6. 52-56]). The praetors always distributed their competencies by lot (Liv. 25,3,1f.), from

Sulla first the jurisdiction, then the propraetorial governorships. After the high officials, the > quaestors (Cic. Verr. 2,1,34; Cic. Fam. 2,19,1: [8. 339-345]) and the > scribae (Cic. Catil. 4,15; Plin. Ep. 4,12,2) were also

selected by lot. 4. VARIA

In 169/8 BC a > tribus urbana was determined by lot, to which freedmen were assigned (Liv. 45,15,5f.); also the 17 tribus who elected the > pontifex maximus were always determined by lot (Cic. Leg. agr. 2,17f.). Agricultural laws prescribed the distribution of land parcels by lot (lex agraria 3: |9]). In September and October, Augustus convoked a partial Senate, determined by lot (Suet. Aug. 35,3), and he discussed the measures

comitia curiata: Liv. 9,38,15; [2- 274]), a voting group

(it is not known since what date) with a probouleutic

was selected by lot as a principium to open successive voting [2. 275-8]. In the late Republic, the sequence of the > renuntiatio during elections was drawn by lot (Varro, Rust. 3,17,1; [7. 80f.]). The municipal system of elections in the > lex Malacitana corresponds to this procedure (ILS 6089) 57.

gremium of magistrates being in charge and senators determined by lot (Cass. Dio 53,21,4). 1 V. EHRENBERG,

s.v. Losung (3), RE 13, 1493-1504

2 U. HALL, Voting Procedure in Roman Assemblies, in: Historia 13, 1964, 267-306 3 KaseR,RZ* 4 W.KunKEL, s.v. Quaestio (1), RE 24,720-786

5 J. LENGLE, Die

Auswahl der Richter im rom. Quastionsprozef, in: ZRG 53, 1933, 275-296 6N.ROSENSTEIN, Sorting out the Lot in Republican Rome, in: AJPh 116, 1995, 43-75

LOT, ELECTION BY

819

820

7 L.R. TayLor, Roman Voting Assemblies, 1966 8 L.A. THompson, The Relationship between Provincial Quaes-

galoi (> astragalos) were very popular. Here, certain

tors and their Commanders-in-Chief, in: Historia 11, 1962, 339-355 9M.H. Crawrorp (ed.), Roman Statutes (BICS Suppl. 64), vol. 2 10 A. Dosi, Cosi votavano i Romani, 2004. W.K.

I]. RELIGIOUS A. DEFINITION

B. LOCATIONS

AND PROCEDURES

C. JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN

A. DEFINITION

A decision by lot is understood as being a decision via a mechanical procedure which excludes all rational influences. In order to prevent any manipulation of a lot decision, sometimes lot machines were used (see above I.A.) or the lots were drawn or thrown by children [1; 2. 151]. In most cases, the decision by lot was linked

with fate, or the influence of a divine power (gods, demons): the lot gave a hint of one’s ‘lot’ (in the sense of fate). This holds true, in a limited way, also for decisi-

ons involving the distribution of land, or offices and functions (sors divisoria; see above I.). In difficult per-

sonal situations, but also in everyday problems, divine instructions or help with decisions (sors consultatoria) and predictions (sors divinatoria) were solicited with various lot procedures (Greek xAnjewous/klerdsis, Lat.

sortitio) — involving both drawing and casting lots —

numerical sequences were determined corresponding to hexametric, also iambic, rarely prose, dicta (astragal oracles). The dicta were on tables (pinakes); frequently they had been chiselled into all four sides of a rectangular block of stone. So-called letter oracles were also common in the Imperial period, they consisted only of 24 verses, each beginning with a letter of the Greek alphabet. It is not clear whether the verses of the letter oracles were drawn by throwing astragaloi, or multifacetted dice with the letters of the alphabet, or by drawing lots with the letters. Lot oracles were considered ‘low mantics’ and were under the protection of > Hermes [9]. Already in antiquity, the practice of lot oracles came under criticism (Artem. 2,69).

+ Divination; > Magic; > Oracles 1 F.JmMHoor-Biume_r, Beitr. zur Erklarung griech. Miinztypen IV. Knéchelspiel vor Kultbildern, in: Nomisma 6, I9II,

4-7

2 ROBERT,

OMS

6, 1989,

137-168

3 F. BoEHM, s.v. L., losen/Losbiicher, HDA 5, 1351-1401 4H.W. Parke, The Oracles of Zeus. Dodona, Olympia, Ammon, 1967, 84ff. 5 J.CHAMPEAUX, Sors Oraculi: les oracles en Italie sous la République et |’Empire, in: MEFRA 102, 1990, 271-302

6 Id., ‘Sorts’ et divination

inspirée. Pour une préhistoire des oracles italiques, in: MEFRA

102, 1990, 801-828

7P.AMANDRY, La man-

tique apollinienne 4 Delphes, 1950, 25-36 8 G.Roux, Delphes. Son oracles et ses dieux, 1976, 151-164 9J.DE

(cleromantia). Decision by lot occurred both in the pro-

LA GENIERE, Le sanctuaire d’Apollon a Claros: nouvelles

fane (private and public) areas, as well as in sacred ones

découvertes, in: REG

[3].

VETTER, Wirfel- und Buchstabenorakel in Griechenland

B. LOCATIONS AND PROCEDURES

Many of the major oracular > sanctuaries of the Graeco-Roman world gave prophecies by lot oracles, especially Dodona [4], Praeneste, Patavium and Caere [5; 6]. For other sites, it appears likely that lot procedures were used before or parallel with mantics by inspiration, thus at Delphi [7; 8], Clarus and Didyma [9]. Also, many of the smaller sanctuaries probably offered oracles, such as Bura in Achaea (Paus. 7,25,10). Outside of the sanctuaries, lot oracles (astragal and letter oracles) were installed in public sites (public squares, city gates) in the Greek East (Greece, Thrace, Asia Minor and Cyprus) during the Roman Imperial period [1o; r1]. Letter oracles also occur in the private sector, at gravesites where there seems to have been a belief of a magic influence of the persons interred [10; rr]. Travelling priests and mountebanks met a high demand for help in living by lot oracles, as well as for entertainment and excitement. During the late Imperial period, but mainly in late antiquity, there were lot books, such as the Sortes Vergilianae |12], the ‘Oracles of Homer’ [13], the Egyptian Sortes Astrampsychi (> Astra(m)psychus) or the Sortes Sangallenses [14].

The actual selection by lot involved drawing of lots; usually they were wooden sticks with markings (rhabdomantia), more rarely leaves, beans or small stones.

Oracles which were cast with the aid of dice or astra-

103, 1990, 106f.

und Kleinasien, thesis Breslau 1912

10 F. HEINE-

11 J.NoLLé, Siid-

kleinasiat. Losorakel in der rom. Kaiserzeit, in: Ant. Welt 18,1987, 41-49 12 Y.DEKiscH, Les sortes Vergilianae dans l’Histoire Auguste, in: MEFRA 82, 1970, 321-362 13 F.Matromini, P.Lond. 121 (= PGM VII), 1-221: Homeromanteion, in: ZPE 106, 1995, 107-122

14 A. DEMANDT, Die Sortes Sangallenses. Eine Quelle zur spatant. Sozialgesch., in: Atti dell’Accademia romanistica constantiniana 8, 1990, 635-650. A. BouCHE-LECLERCQ, Histoire de la divination dans |’an-

tiquité, 1879-1882 (still fundamental).

JO.NO.

C. JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN Lots were used in Israel to determine the divine will

(Prov 16:33) in the oldest period for distribution of land, goods and duties as well as jurisdiction, later in

the cultic area (scapegoat: Lv 16; priesthood: Lk 1:9). Since the priestly lots Urim and Tummim only gave yesor no-answers, no true oracle system resulted. Based on the election of the apostle Matthew by lot, the Christian Church designed its office holders as kléros (Acts 1:1 5-26; cf. also 1 Petr 5:3; the term clerus in the modern sense dates back to Tertullian) but strictly rejected their election by lot. With the adaptation of Graeco-Roman and Germanic traditions into Christianity, the lot was used increasingly. The book oracle of antiquity (mainly from Homer and Virgil) was transferred to the Bible (random opening; cf. Aug. Conf.

821

822

8,12,29; Greg. Tur. Franc. 4,16; 5,14). The practise was

Lot oracle see > Divination; > Oracles

criticized (Aug. Epist. 55) or outlawed (Council of Vannes 465 i.a.) as a use of the Bible for mundane matters, also the assistance of priests in such affairs. Systematic-theological reflections on lots took place only in the 13th cent. with Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae II/2, quaestio 956 art. 8). The German term Losung is still used for the ‘quote of the day’, developed by Count ZINZENDORF in 1728 (selected passages drawn by lot from the Bible or the hymn book, or such items). W.DOMMERSHAUSEN,

s.v. goral, ThWAT

1, 991-998;

W. FOERSTER, J.HERRMANN, S.v. xAfjooc, ThWB 3, 757786; D. HARMENING, Superstitio, 1979.

M.HE.

Lotis Character in two short stories by Ovid (sources unknown): 1) Ov. Met. 9,347-3 48: L. is turned into the + Lotus (Serv. Georg. 2,84: faba Syriaca) when she flees from an attempted rape by > Priapus (motif parallels: e.g. Daphne, Ov. Met. 1,452-567; Syrinx, Ov. Met. 1,689-712); 2) Ov. Fast. 1,393-440: L. is warned

by the donkey of > Silenus and escapes from Priapus without metamorphosis (double in Ov. Fast. 6,3 19348: Vesta instead of L.). In contrast to the question of priority that can barely be decided, nowadays Ovid’s art of variation is rightly emphasized. E. FANTHAM, Sexual Comedy in Ovid’s Fasti: Sources and Motivation, in: HSPh 87, 1983, 185-216; P.M.C. ForBeEs IRvING, Metamorphosis in Greek Myth, 1990, 267; E. LEFEvRE, Die Lehre von der Entstehung der Tier-

opfer in Ovids Fasten 1,335-456, in: RhM 119, 1976, 39-64; G.WILLIAMS, Vocal Variations and Narrative Complexity in Ovid’s Vestalia: Fasti 6.249-468, in: Ramus 20, 1991, 183-204.

LH.

Lotophagi (Awtodéyou, Lotophdgoi, ‘lotus-eaters’). Peaceful, mythical fairytale people, living exclusively on the magical plant lotos. The country of the L. is the second stop on > Odysseus’ journey; their scouts give Odysseus and his companions a warm welcome and invite them in good faith to eat from the /otos. In doing so, they entirely forget their previously strong urge to return home and have to be brought back to the ship against their will (Hom. Od. 9,82-104). In its core, the L. story corresponds to a widespread fairytale motif [1]. In antiquity and modern times, a lot of energy was spent on the identification of the plant and the localization of the L. (e.g. Hdt. 4,176ff.). Both approaches miss the point. The sea storm of no less than nine days, occurring immediately before the L. adventure, signals the ultimate transition of the ‘Odyssey’ tale into a fairytale world [2], with plants that make humans even forget their natural desire to return home. 1D.L. Pace, Folktales in Homer’s Odyssey, 1972, 3-21 2 U. Hdlscher, Die Odyssee. Epos zwischen Marchen und Roman, #1990, 142.

A.Hevuseck, 1989, 17-18.

A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. 2, REN.

LOTUS

Lotus (hwtdc/l6tds, Lat. lotos, -us). The plant name,

which is also attested in Semitic, refers among the Greeks of Asia Minor from the 8th cent. BC to several species from the families of the water lilies (Nymphaeaceae) and the crowfoot plants (Ranunculaceae) with

round leaves, radial symmetrical individual blossoms and storage roots rich in starch. The identification of the Homeric forage plant lotus (Hom. Il. 2,776; 12,283; 14,348; 21,351; Od. 4,603) with species of clover, which [1.1530] rightly criticized already in 1927, probably goes back to speculations by early interpreters of Homer. This identification exerted an influence from antiquity — /otds and melilotos refer to species of clover from the families Trigonella L. and Melilotus Mill. that smell like coumarin, cf. Theophr. Hist. pl. 7,15,3 (7,13,5 alludes to the typical fractionated germination; for the aromatic plant /6tds 9,7,3 Plin. HN 15,30 has melilotos) — right through to modern nomenclature (genus Lotus L., bird-foot trefoil). However, at best the pilewort (Ranunculus ficaria L.) with its eastern Mediterranean forms with big blossoms [2. 263-268] is in keeping with the lotus in the epic. In the case of the lotus of the + Lotophagi (Hom. Od. 9,83-104) we might think of water lily plants and the diverse use of all parts of the plant as human food; because the rivers had more water, we can assume a wider distribution in North Africa at that time ([{2. 270f.]; on relict modern occurrences of Nuphar and Nymphaea, see [3. 11-17]). For Egypt, under the name /dtds two of the most important plants both for the nutrition of many social classes and for religious and cultural life have been described from Herodotus 2,92,2f. (following him especially Theophr. Hist. pl. 4,8,9-11, in this regard [4. 2,267-269]): the white-flowering Nymphaea lotus L. and the blue-flowering N. caerulea Sav. - Nymphaeacea whose tuberous roots and fruits are still eaten in East Africa today [1. 1522-1526; 5. 37-393 9. passim]. On the other hand, the ‘Indian lotus’, Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn., likewise a Nymphaeacea with edible tuberous roots and seeds, was probably not introduced to Egypt until the 6th cent. BC by the Persians (cf. [5. 40; 9. 34]; according to [4. 2,268] already around 1100 BC) (extinct there from the Middle Ages). It was first described by Herodotus 2,92,4 as a ‘rose-like lily’ because of its magnificent red flowers in the flood regions of the Nile, from Theophr. Hist. pl. 4,8,7f. as ‘Egyptian bean’ (6 Aiytstiog xbapocs) because of the shape of its roots (in this regard [4. 2,266f.]; very precisely also Dioscorides 2,106 WELLMANN = 2,128 BERENDES). The sources of Theophrastus on the Euphrates erroneously regard the ‘Indian lotus’ as a lotus (4,8,10, in this regard [4. 2,268]), and later call its flower expressly lotds (Ath. 3,73a; 15,677d). Strabo 17,1,15 vividly describes a boat trip in the Nelumbo thicket of the Egyptian swamps — in keeping, for instance, with the Nile Mosaic of Praeneste.

LOTUS

The woody lotus that grows in North Africa, the ‘Cyrenaean lotus’ in the description of Herodotus (2,96; 4,117; cf. Pol. 12,2; in detail in Theophr. Hist. pl. 4,3,1—-4, in this regard [4. 2,213-216]), is the Christ’s

thorn, Zizyphus spina christi (L.) Willd. and Z. lotus (L.) Lam. from the family of the buckthorn plants (Rhamnaceae), with date-like fruits, from which wine was also made; from the dark wood wind instruments

were made, among others (fig. and description of the types in[5. 114f.; 6. 344f.]). The wood and fruits of the nettle tree, Celtis australis L. (Ulmaceae), which was also native to Greece, were similarly used. Therefore, it was also called lotus (see Theophr. Hist. pl. 1,5,3, cf. [4. 1,82]; Plin. HN 16,123f. and 235f.; Verg. G. 2,84, cf. [7. 348f.]). The fruits both of the Christ’s thorn and of the nettle tree were gathered for the nutrition of humans from the Neolithic Age onwards [8. 198f.]. 1 A.SrerER, s.v. L., RE 13,1515-1532

2 B. HERZHOFF, L.

Botanische Beobachtungen zu einem homer. Pflanzennamen, in: Hermes 112, 1984, 257-271 3 R. Marre, P. QuézEL, Flore de l’Afrique du Nord, vol. 11, 1964

4S.AmicuEs, Theophrast — Recherches sur les plantes, vol. 1, 1988; vol. 2, 1989 5 R.GERMER, Flora des pharaonischen Agypten, 1985 6 V.TACKHOLM, Students’

Flora of Egypt, 71974 7 G.MaccIvttl, Incipiant silvae cum primum surgere. Mondo vegetale e nomenclatura della flora di Virgilio, 1995 8 D.ZoHary, M.Hopr, Domestication of Plants in the Old World, *1994 9S. WeIpDNER, L. im alten Agypten. Vorarbeiten zu einer Kultur-

gesch. von Nymphaea lotus, Nymphaea coerulea und Nelumbo nucifera in der dynastischen Zeit, 1985. _B.HE.

Louse Insect; b0eie/phtheir, Latin pediculus, late Latin also tinea (Isid. Orig. 12, 5,11: vestimentorum vermis). Of the supposedly 53 species [1], only three parasites of humans are important. 1. The crab louse, Phirus pubis (L.), (@0eie &youoc/phtheir agrios: Aristot. Hist. an. 5531,557a 4-10; cf. Hdt. 2,37 on the shaving of body hair among the Egyptian priests), which is said to be responsible for 0eigiacis BAedaewv/phtheiriasis blephdaron (louse-infestation of the eyelids) (Cels. 6,6,15). 2. The clothes louse, Pediculus humanus, which likes to sit in sheep’s wool (Aristot. Hist. an. 7(8),10,596b 8f., cf. Plin. HN 11,115), is referred to in the riddle of the louse-squashing boys presented to Homer (Heracl. B 56 DK). 3. The head louse, P. capitis De Geer, which was obviously so widespread among the Romans that Plin. HN 20,53 and 239; 23,18 and 94 as well as 15.4; 24,18 and 72 as well as 79 recommends various agents to combat them and their eggs. Numerous people, for instance Aleman and Sulla, are said to have died of the diseases carried by the clothes and head louse (ire POs 2fe|9 1 H. GosseEn, s.v. L., RE 12, 1030ff.

Lousonna

824

823

C.HU.

Celtic oppidum on the site of Lausanne

(Switzerland, canton of Vaud) on the northern bank of

the > lacus Lemanus. Nearby large Roman harbour fabasilica, temple, sailors’

cilities (vicus) with forum,

schola, harbour quay and warehouses on the site of modern Vidy. The place name L. corresponds with Celtic names for bodies of water (cf. Sauconna = Sa6ne). The vicus of L. was of commercial significance as a trading centre of the main roads Great St. Bernard — Geneva — Rhéne and Aventicum — Augusta Raurica — Rhine. Of the Roman officials in the seaport of L., a curator civium Romanorum is known because of a votive inscription (photography [1. no. 51]; on this [2]). 1 G. WALSER, Rom. Inschr. in der Schweiz, 1979, 108-122

2 Id., in: Orbis Terrarum 5, 1999, 193-194. E. Howa.p, E. Meyer, Die rom. Schweiz, 1940, 242-246; F. STAEHELIN, Die Schweiz in rom. Zeit, 31948, 23.4, 616618; W. Drack, R. FELLMANN, Die Romer in der Schweiz, 1988, 422-426; Id., Die Schweiz zur ROmerzeit, 1991, 156-160.

G.W.

Louterion see > Labrum

Loutrophoros (i ovteodde0¢; hé loutrophoros). Container for, or carrier of, bathing water. Mentioned by Dem. Or. 44,18 as a structure on top of a tomb showing the unmarried status ofthe deceased. Only late ancient and Medieval authors go into details about the loutrophoros as a wedding vessel and about the antique custom of erecting a monument (#meéma) in the form of a loutrophoros for the unmarried deceased (dgamoi). This was apparently intended as a symbolic reconstruction of the bridal bath and wedding (— Wedding customs and rituals). The loutrophoros is described on the one hand as a vessel (Hsch. s.v.; Eust. re Hom.

Il.

23,14), and on the other hand as a girl or boy with a water container (Poll. 8,66; Harpocration s.v.; Suda s.v.). As corresponding statues do not belong to the repertoire of Classical funerary sculpture, the loutrophoros mentioned by Demosthenes was identified as a Greek type of vessel that is frequently attested in late Classical Athens as a marble structure on top of a tomb and as a pictorial motif on funerary steles. Typical are a slim body and a narrow, high neck; hydria loutrophoroi are characterized by three handles, whilst amphora loutrophoroi have two handles (— Pottery, shapes and types of, fig. A 12). Painted clay loutrophoroi first appear in Athens around 700 BC; a mass find of blackfigure loutrophoroi came to light in the sanctuary of the nymphs of the acropolis. Red-figure specimens frequently show wedding rites where the vessel is carried along and appears to represent the container for the bridal bathwater fetched from the Athenian spring Kallirrhoe. Black-figure and red-figure images of the dirge on several loutrophoroi, representations of burial mounds with loutrophoroi on top of the grave, broken bases to receive gifts for the dead and finds from tombs indicate functions in the cult of the dead. According to their images, in both the wedding cult and the cult of the dead, the amphora loutrophoroi were associated with the husband and the hydria loutrophoroi with the wife. + Burial; > Dead, cult of the

825

826

H.Nacuop,

s.v.

L., RE

Marmorlutrophoren

13,

2098-2101;

(MDAI(A),

1o.

G.KoxuLa,

Beih.),

1984;

G. Napouitano, L’iconografia sulle lutrophoroi attiche a figure rosse, in: AION 14, 1992, 277-281; J.BERGEMANN, Die sog. L.: Grabmal fiir unverheiratete Tote?, in: MDAI(A)

111,

1996,

149-191;

CH. PAPADOPOULOU-

KANELLOPOULOU, Hiero tes Nymphes (AD, 60. Suppl.), 1997. LS.

Loxias (Aotiac; Loxias). Epiclesis of the god > Apollo (Pind. Pyth. 3,28; Pind. Isthm. 7,49; Hdt. 1,913 4,163;

Aesch. Sept. 618; Soph. OT 853). It is striking that the combination Apollo L. does not occur; the reference to Apollo as a Delphian oracle god, however, is clear (cf. lic.). If the name L. is derived from loxds ‘bent’, ‘crooked’, then it refers to Apollo’s dark and confusing oracles (Lucian. Jupp. trag. 28; Plut. Mor. 511rb). According to the schol. to Callimachus, Apollo is named L. because he is said to have been brought up by + Loxo, a Hyperborean maiden on Delos (schol. Callim. H. 3,204; Callim. H. 4,292; Nonnus, Dion. 5,489; 48,334). AL.ER. Loxo (AoE; Loxo). Hyperborean woman

(> Hyper-

borei); mentioned in Callim. H. 4,292 as the third daughter of Boreas, aside from Upis (— Opis) and — Hecaerge [4], who brought gifts to Delos and are buried there (accordingly Nonnus, Dion. 5,489; 48,334). The name connects her with Apollo > Loxias. AA. Lua Goddess probably of Italian (Sabin.: [4. 166, 186]) origin. In 167 BC, after the victory over Perseus of Macedonia, L. Aemilius [I-32] Paullus burnt the weapons of the enemies for her and other deities (Liv. 45,33,1f.: L. mater; 8,1,6, L. mater as the addressee of a weapon-burning in 341 BC is presumably an annalistic fiction). The choice of the goddess may be explained by the derivation of her name from Latin /uere: the weapon-burning after a successfully concluded battle marks the phase of demilitarization as a rite de passage; it symbolizes not only the ‘destruction’ of the potential of the enemy for aggression [6. 199f.], but also marks ‘liberation’ froma state of war and ‘purification’ for acts committed under these conditions. The combination L. Saturni (Varro, Ling. 8,36; Gell. NA 13,23,2) goes back to the libri sacerdotum (> Indigitamenta). The existence of personalized combinations of gods (+ Myth) in Roman religion has long been disputed in research: L. Saturni was therefore not interpreted as an independent goddess but as a functional classification of the sphere of activity of + Saturnus [2. 481-485; 3. 55f.] and from Latin lues, ‘epidemic’, defined as the characteristic of the god to destroy the seed ([7] with reference to Serv. Auct. Aen. 3,139) or to foster its growth ([1. 109]; cf. Serv. Auct. Aen. 4,58). The functional interpretation certainly has an ancient equivalent (Gell. NA 13,23), but it reduces L. — independent as L. mater (see above) — to a mere cipher. More appealing is the assumption that

LUCANI, LUCANIA

L. was active as a goddess in the sphere of activity of Saturn [4. 31-33, 186], and we should reject the view [5] that L. represents an ancient Roman religious connection between war and agriculture. It is more probable that an originally non-Roman goddess became associated through scholarly etymology with a Roman aspect of the father of the gods Saturnus/> Kronos and was called L. mater in a process of mythologization. 1 A.v. Domaszewskt, Abh. zur rém. Rel., 1909 2 W.W. Fow er, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, IgII 3 LatrE 4RapDkE 5H.J. Rose, L. Mater: Fire, Rust and War in Early Roman Cult, in: CR 36, 1922,

15-18

6J.RUPKE, Domi militiae, 1990

7 G.Wissowa,

s.v. L., ROSCHER 2, 2146.

A.BEN.

Luca City on the fossilized (that is, practically dried-up) tributary of the > Auser (modern Serchio), which in ancient times flowed into the Arno at Pisa, today Lucca; last colonia of Latin law, founded in 180 BC by Rome on the territory of the Pisani (Liv. 40,43,1); from 89 BC municipium of the tribus Fabia. Important road junction (It. Ant. 283ff.; Tab. Peut. 4,1); in 56 BC the socalled — triumvirate between Caesar, Pompey and Crassus was renewed in L. (Plut. Pompeius 51; Plut. Caesar 21; Plut. Crassus 14; Suet. Iul. 24,1). Under Augustus it was a colonia of the 7th region (Etruria; Plin. HN 3,50; Ptol. 3,1,47). From the time of Diocletian the swords for the army were produced here. Military base in the Gothic War. The plan of the colonia within a right-angled wall has been preserved; > cardo and > decumanus maximus intersect on the forum (modern Piazza di San Michele in Foro). Remains of the theatre can be found in the north (Santa Maria di Corte) as well as of the

amphitheatre (Piazza del Mercato). P.SOMMELLA, C.F. GruLiANt, La pianta di L. romana, 1974; P.Mencacci, M.ZEcCHINI, L. romana, 1982.

GU.

Lucan see > Lucanus [1] Lucani, Lucania (Aevxavoi/Leukanot, Aevxavia/ Leukania). Italian people and region in southern Italy (modern Basilicata), who descended from the > Samnites (Str. 5,3,1; 6,1,2f.) and in the sth cent. BC (after

their migration under the mythological king Lamiscus, cf. Heraclides, Peri ton en toi Helladi poleon |= Poleis} 20) mixed with the > Oenotri (Hecat. FGrH 1 F 64-71; Hdt. 1,167; Antiochus FGrH 555 F 1-3) in the area south of the Silaris (modern Sele), where the latter had settled [6; 10; 16; 18]. Around 440 BC, battles with the Thurii

(Polyaenus,

Strat.

2,10,2;

4;

Frontin.

Str.

253,12), before 400 they captured Posidonia and Laos (Str. 6,1,33; Diod. Sic. 14,101). Allied with Dionysius I,

the L. defeated the Thurii at Laos in 3.90 (Diod. Sic. l.c.). Defeated by Dionysius II in the year 366, they had to accept the secession of the Bruttii in 357 (Diod. Sic. 16,15; Str. 6,1,53 lust. 23,1,3-12). In the 4th cent. the L. fought against the Italiots and their Greek support-

LUCANI, LUCANIA

ers, > Archidamus [2] (Diod. Sic. 16,62; 88: 342-338 BC), > Alexander [6] (Liv. 8,17,9; 8,24; Str. 6,3,4; lust.

12,2,14:

333-331

BC) and Cleonymus

(Diod. Sic.

20,104: 303 BC). Around 330 the L. tried to enter into an alliance with

Rome (Liv. 8,19,1), which they accomplished in 326 (Liv. 8,25,3; 27,2). But in 317 the alliance broke up (Liv. 9,20,9), in 298 L. was subjugated by Scipio Barbatus (CIL I? 7 = ILLRP 309). In 294 a cohort of L. fought in the Roman army (Liv. 10,33,1). In 281/278 the L. were allied with > Pyrrhus (Plut. Pyrrhus 13; lust. 18,1,1; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 19,13; 20, 1ff.); for

the years 278-275, 273, 272 Roman triumphs de Lucaneis are attested [19]; in the year 273 the Roman colonia Paestum (Vell. Pat. 1,14,7) was established. In the

2nd —> Punic War the L. were in part on the Roman side (Liv. 27,15), and in part on the Carthaginian side (Liv. 24,15). From

828

827

206 the L. were subject to Rome

(Liv.

28,11). After 201 there were forced expropriations by Rome; in 194 a Roman citizen’s colony was founded in Buxentum (Vell. Pat. 1,15,3) and in 193 the Latin colonia Thurii-Copia (Liv. 34,53,1). In the 2nd half of the

2nd cent. BC the praetor Annius and the consul Popilius built roads leading to Rhegium (ILLRP 454; 4542). L. took part in the > Social War [3] against Rome (App. B Civ. 1,39); afterwards the L. were counted among the tribus Pomptina and from Augustus to the regio III (Plin. HN 3,71 with a list of Lucanian communities; cf. Ptol. 3,3; according to Str. 6,1,2 Lucanian poleis were for the most part deserted). The L. were known for their hospitality (Ael. VH 4,1), austerity (Nicolaus of Damascus FGrH 90 F 103b), strict upbringing (ust. 23,1,7) and as followers of the > Pythagorean School (Aristox. fr. 17 W.; lambl. VP 241; Diog. Laert. 8,14). The L. were subject to kings in times of war, otherwise they were organized democratically according to Str. 6,1,3 [6]. Only from the rst half of the 4th cent. BC (Scyl. 12.) the Leukanoi (Aevxavoi) and Leukania (Aevnavia; ac-

cording to Str. 6,3,1-3 from Silaris to Laos and into the hinterland of the Tarentinian Gulf)are attested. There are coins of the 3rd cent. with the legend LOYKANOM and LYKIAN@N, which led to the erroneous derivation of the name from Abxosg (lykos, Heraclides, Poleis 10), Lucilius (Fest. 106,18 L.), Lucius (Plin. HN 3,71).

Native inscriptions come from the 4th-2nd cents. [3. 180ff.; 9. 108-135]. L. are attested for the 4th/3rd cents. BC in some cities (Paiston, Laos and the settlements of Roccagloriosa and Serra di Vaglio). Terrain walls which served as local places of refuge and sanctuaries with strong Greek influences are extant [10; 12; 17; 18]. From the 3rd cent., in the wake of > Romanization, new cities were founded (later municipia, e.g. Bantia, Grumentum, Potentia, Volcei [7. 1894ff.]) and numerous villae rusticae (e.g. Buccino, Tolve) were built in the heavily forested (Sen. Dial. 9,2,13), game-rich (Hor. Sat. 1,3,234; 8,6; Varro, Rust. 1,1; 5,700) as well as fertile (wine: Cato Agr. 6,4; Plin. HN 14,69) Luc.

country [13; 15; 17]. Also in the Imperial period and in

late antiquity mostly large villae, which supported themselves through farming and animal husbandry [7; 11; 17], have been attested in Lucania, from Diocletian in the provincia Lucania et Bruttii |7]. 1 NISSEN

2, 888f.

1947, 79ff.

2R.THOMSEN,

3 VETTER

The Italic Regions,

4F.CoRDANO,

latine per la storia dei L. e dei Brettii, 1971

Fonti greche e 5 D. ADAME-

STEANU, La Basilicata antica, 1974 6 E. Lepore, La tradizione antica sui L. e l’origine dell’entita regionale, in: F.BorrARo (ed.), Antiche civilta) Lucane, 1975 7 E.Lepore, A. Russi, s.v. Lucania, in: RUGGIERO 4,3 8 R. CATALANO, La Lucania antica, 1979 9 P. POccETTI, Nuovi documenti italici, 1979 10 A.PONTRANDOLEFO, I L., 1982 11M.Guattiert, Lo scavo di S$. Giovanni di

Ruoti ed il periodo tardoantico in Basilicata, 1983 12 A.Borrint et al., Popoli e civilta dell’Italia antica 8, 1986 13 M.SaLvaTor: (ed.), Basilicata (Atti Convegno Venosa), 1990 14 A.MeE tg, I popoli italici, in: G. GELasso, R.ROMEO (ed.), Storia del Mezzogiorno, 1,1, 1991, 265ff. 15 Da Leukania a Lucania (exhibition catalogue), Rome 1992 16 A. PONTRANDOLFO, Etnogenesi e

emergenza politica di una comunita italica: I L., in: $. SerTis (ed.), Storia della Calabria antica 2, 1994, 139-193 17 A. Botrint, s.v. Lucania, in: EAA II Suppl., 1995, 433438 18S.BrANco et al. (ed.), Greci, Enotri e L. nella

Basilicata Meridionale, 1996 XVII.

19 DEGRAssiI, FCap. XVIMLL.

Lucanian vases The production of red-figure Lucanian vases (LV) begins around 430 BC with the Pisticci Painter, named after a place where his vases were discovered. He is still wholly within the Attic tradition, which is

visible in the stylistic treatment of his figures, the ornaments and forms of the vessels. He prefers bell craters, which he ornaments with scenes of pursuit and of everyday life or with Dionysiac images. His successors, the Amycus and the Cyclops Painters, apparently settled in Metapontium and founded a workshop here, which was in operation until c. 380-370 BC. The = nestoris as a new type of vase is painted for the first time in red-figure technique ( Messapian pottery); mythological images (the blinding of Polyphemus, the punishment of Amycus, Athena-Poseidon) and images that arose under the influence of the theatre become more frequent. This is true, e.g. for the Choephoroi Painter, who ornamented some of his vases with a scene from the drama by Aeschylus of the same name. At the same time, the influence of the > Apulian vases becomes noticeable, especially with the Dolon and Brooklyn-Budapest Painters, in the growing intensity of added colour and in vegetation decor. Around the mid 4th cent., the quality of painting and the thematic variety clearly decline. The last significant representative of the LV is the Primato Painter, whose work is influenced by the + Lycurgus Painter, as seen in his adopting naiskos (+ Naiskos vases) and plant ornamentation, spatial grouping of the figures and in stylistic equivalents. The production of LV ends in the beginning of the last quarter of the 4th cent. BC with a decline in style and motifs. + South Italian vases

829

830

TRENDALL, Lucania, 3-186; A.D. TRENDALL, The Red Figure Vases of South Italy and Sicily, 1989, 18-23, 55-73; N.R. Jircix, The Pisticci and Amykos Painters. The Beginning of Red-Figured Vase Painting in Ancient Lucania, 1991;

R.HURSCHMANN,

Die unterital.

Vasen

des

Winckelmann-Instituts der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, 1996, 22-30.

R.H.

Lucanius Roman family name, from the frequent place name Luca. SCHULZE, 532.

I. REPUBLICAN

PERIOD

I. REPUBLICAN

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

PERIOD

{I 1] L., M. Young companion of Pompeius Strabo before Asculum in 89 BC (ILLRP 515, I. 10; > Social Wars [3]), perhaps son of the legate Lucanus, named in Livy for the same year (Liv. Per. 75). {I 2] L., Q. Centurion of Caesar, fell in 54 BC as primus pilus in Aduatuca (Caes. B. Gall. 5,35,7). JOR. I]. IMPERIAL PERIOD {11 1] L.L. Latiaris The L. L. Latiaris mentioned

on bricks is in all probability identical with the Latinius Latiaris

in Tac. Ann.

4,68,2

[1.13].

Senator,

who

achieved the praetorship. In order to advance his career

A. Lire

LUCANUS

B. Work

C. HisToRyY OF RECEPTION

A. LIFE L. was born on 3 November AD 39 in > Corduba as son of a family often described as Spanish, but more probably descended from Italic colonists. He came to Rome in AD 4o. His father, M. (?) Annaeus [II 3] Mela, was the youngest son of L. > Seneca ‘the Elder’. Mela’s brothers were L. Novatus (after a later adoption L. ~ Iunius [II 15] Gallio) and L. > Seneca ‘the Younger’. Accordingly, L. was affluent by birth, and a civil career and educational opportunities in literature and philosophy were open to him. During the period of Nero’s first principate, his uncle Seneca had significant influence at court. After an educational trip to Athens, L. was, as expected, accepted into the privileged circle around the young emperor and held both the office of quaestor and that of augur. Literary work was still his great passion. He won a prize for a panegyric on > Nero at the Neronia in 60, but Nero is supposed to have become jealous of his talents, which overshadowed his own, and attempted to suppress L.’s work (Vacca, Vita Lucani). A break occurred between them, perhaps in connection with Seneca’s downfall in AD 62. L. joined the unsuccessful Pisonian conspiracy and was forced to commit suicide on 30 April 65 (like his father and Seneca). The suggestion that he attempted to involve his mother (Suet. Vita Lucani; cf. Tac. Ann. 15,56), may only bea reflection of opinions inimical to the Annaei.

through Seianus (+ Aelius [II 19]), he together with

others prompted the equestrian Titius Sabinus, to utter threats against Tiberius in AD 27. In the following year he accused Sebinus. After the fall of Seianus in 32 he was himself indicted and executed. PIR* L 346. 1 R.SyME, Personal Names in Annals I-VI, in: JRS 39, 1949 (=Id., Ten Studies in Tacitus, 1970, 70).

{1 2] Q. L. Latinus Praetor aerarii Saturni in AD 19, probably related to L. [II 1]. PIR* L 347. [I 3] Q. L. Proculus Senator, perhaps father of L. [II 2]. Proconsul of Creta-Cyrenae, not before 12 BC, since Augustus pontifex maximus is named in one of the inscriptions that mention him (AE 1934, 256; 1968, 539).

PIR’ L 348. W.Eck, s.v. L., RE Suppl. 14, 235.

W.E.

Lucanus Italic surname, > Lucanius [1. 532]; better known as a Roman cognomen, probably originally an ethnicon from the place name Luca [r. 532; 2. 193]. In the fasti of the Imperial period in the family of the Claudii, Curvii, Domitii, Titii [3. 257]. 1 SCHULZE

2 KaJANTO,

Cognomina

3 DEGRASSI,

FCIR.

[1] M. Annaeus L. The Roman epic poet Lucan.

K.-LE.

B. WorK P. Papinius — Statius lists L.’s voluminous and varied poetic work in a poem at the latter’s death, written for the widow Polla (Stat. Silv. 2,7,54-74; another list in the — unsatisfactory — Vita is attributed to + Vacca). Only the Pharsalia are extant (Ph.; also known as Bellum civile/‘Civil War’), which break off, probably unfinished, at 10,546 —in spite of other newer interpretations. How many books L. wanted to write and with which historical period he wished to end his portrayal remains controversial: tetradic structures of 12 or 16 books have been postulated, but also the theory that the epic is complete as is [1-3]. The theme of the Ph. is the conflict between C. Iulius > Caesar and the Senate, for which Cn. > Pompeius Magnus, Caesar’s former son-in-law, serves as military leader — a conflict which culminated in the defeat of the senatorial party at > Pharsalus (48 BC). With the selection of a historical theme, L. reaches back to pre-Virgilian tradition (up to Ennius), yet -» Vergilius (as does > Homer) serves as an important structural model. Even more important, however, are L.’s innovations in their compound structure: thus the theme itself, the at once sententious and pathetic style, the philosophizing and the relinquishing of the ‘machinery’ of the gods — these deliver the (seriously intended?) critical points and cause of the character Eumolpus, the contemporary of > Petronius, to create an alternative Bellum civile (Petron.

119-124). Also, wher-

831

832

ever L. keeps the epic conventions (e.g. the Pompeian catalogue of troops, 3,169-297, the storm at sea, 5597-677, the necyomancy, 6,419-830, the battle of Pharsalus, 7,385—-646), he inverts their order. According to Mart. 14,194 some argue whether L. is a poet —as does Quintilian (Inst. 10,90) who numbers L. with all his passion and epigrammatic force more among the orators. In the debate about whether L. was a writer of history or a poet, this framework for the argumentation was perpetuated; supposed content was placed above the dispute with linguistic form. L. pillories tyranny with unbridled severity, but at all

necyomancy in 6,419-830 (a dark parallel to Verg. Aen. 6). The narrator delivers a rich commentary, speculating, occasionally laudatory, but most often reproving fate, the gods and human crime in equal degree. The extant text ends with Caesar’s recent struggles in Egypt, a land which in L.’s eyes is to be cursed for the betrayal and murder of Pompey, and thus for the extinction of libertas.

LUCANUS

events as an aristocratic conservative (with a touch of

~ Stoicism), who accepts historical development (if reluctantly, however). He is no apostle of freedom as later eras wanted to regard him: while L. was considered inappropriate for the library of the Dauphins in the 17th cent. because of his anti-monarchial tirades, he found favour with the radicals even before VOLTAIRE, as an advocate of libertas (> Freedom). The Ph. is dedicated to Nero (1,33-66), and indeed

in such a fawning tone, if also one of long practice, that some consider an ironic understanding (probably wrongly) as possible [4; 5]. The shriller tones in the later books arise from the topic of the potential catastrophe of the senatorial party; they do not reflect a growing distancing from Nero. Caesar, obviously the dominating figure in an epic without heroes, in every way is clothed in all the trappings of a tyrant (basic characterization: 1,143-157; see also 5,381-3993 7,545-596) —

perhaps a rejection of his own comments on the civil war, with which L. was familiar. Pompey, on the other hand, admittedly a shadow of his former greatness (1,135), is little more than a mannequin without depth and colour. His apotheosis (— Deification) at the begin-

ning of the 9th book seems to be more a case of demonstrative partisanship on L.’s part than of his own merit, in spite of L.’s attempts to improve the original which he found in his sources (see below). Although Cato (> Porcius) Uticensis achieves a heroic status in his march through Africa in the 9th book, he is hardly able to arouse sympathy. His severe stoic virtus (> Virtue) is monochromatic, although it emphasizes Caesar’s insanity by contrast. L. tends to exaggeration, even to the grotesque, but reveals only the characteristics of the civil war by doing so. L.’s extremism is due more to his choice of words and figurative speech than to philosophical ox political conviction. Even L.’s enmity towards Caesar is nuanced [1]. L. may have used the (lost) report of his grandfather, Seneca the Elder, about the civil war and been familiar with the account by — Livius. Original research for such a well-known period was hardly necessary. In general, L. switches between the conflicting sides until the battle of Pharsalus in the 7th book, dramatizing the events and gilding the account with speeches or addresses. Material from earlier epics is inserted from time to time: i.e. the listing of the armed forces of Caesar and of the Senate (1,392-465; 3,169-297) or the Thessalian

C. HisTORY OF RECEPTION L. was read continually, but with varying degrees of approval. As a school text in the Middle Ages, the Ph. survived in c. 300 codices, including five complete and one incomplete copy from the 9th cent. alone. The contaminated text, which already preserved ancient variants, forces editors to a selection rather than make conjectures [6]. The editio princeps was already printed in Rome in 1469. A commentary by VERULANUS SULPI-

TIus (Giovanni Sulpizio) appeared as early as 1493 in an Aldine edition (Venice), further editions by LAMBERTUS HoRTENSIUS in 1578 and G. BERSMANN in 1589. A complete modern commentary does not exist.

Apart from political ideologists, L. did not have many admirers after the Renaissance. His reputation shrank because of Neo-Aristotelianism in France and the Romantic movement in Germany and England from the 18th to the 2oth cent. The enthusiasm of BREBEUF,

whose free translation (1665) was widely read in the 17th cent., is far removed from the reserved evaluation of MARMONTEL, who transferred L. in 1777 into elegant prose. D. NIisARD’s completely negative criticism in the 2nd vol. of the ‘Etudes ... sur les poétes latins de la décadence’ (1835) had a lasting influence in a period that eschewed everything that looked like empty rhetoric, unstructured and monotonous in style. Beginning in the 2nd half of the 2oth cent., and then above all among philologists, L.’s achievements were increasingly recognized and the merits of his innovative radicalism appreciated. pics ee PIG 1 O.SCHONBERGER, Zur Komposition des L., in: Hermes

85, 1957, 251-254 2B.M. Marti, La structure de la Pharsale, in: B. Marti (ed.), Lucain (= Entretiens rs), 1970, 3-38 3H.Harrrer, Dem schwanken Ziinglein lauschend wachte Casar dort, in: MH 14, 1957, 116-126 4E. Cizex, Neron, 1982, 244f. 5 E.PARATORE, in: J.M. CROISILLE, P. M. FAUCHERE (ed.), Neronia, 1977, 83-101

6 H.C. GororF, The Transmission of the Text of Lucan in the Ninth Century, 1971 EpIT1ons:

E.Courtney, The Fragmentary Latin Poets,

1993, 352-356 (Fr.); D.R. SHACKLETON BAILEY, *1997; R. BADALI, 1992

SCHOLIA: K.F. WEBER, 1828/9, vol. 3. COMMENTARY: H.USENER, 1869 (Commenta Bernensia); J. ENDT, 1909 (repr. 1969; Suppl.: G. A.CavaJont, 3 vols., 1979-1990: Annotationes super Lucanum). BIBLIOGRAPHY: R.PicHON, Les sources de Lucain,

1912; H.P. Synpikus, Lucans Gedicht vom Biirgerkrieg, 1958; U.PIACENTINI, Osservazioni sulla tecnica epica di Lucano, 1963; J. BrisseT, Les idées politiques de Lucain, 1964; D.GaGLiarpDI, Lucano, *1970; F.AHL, Lucan,

833

834

1976; W.D. Lepex, Lucans Pharsalia. Dichtungsstruktur und Zeitbezug, 1976; E.Narbuccli, La prowvidenza crudele. Lucano e la distruzione dei miti augustei, 1979; E.BERTOLI, Poesia e poetica in Lucano,

1980; P.Espo-

s1To, Il racconto della strage, 1987; P. SCHRIJVERS, Crise poétique et poésie de la crise. La réception de Lucain aux XIXe et XXe siécles, 1990; J.MASTERS, Poetry and Civil War in Lucan’s Bellum civile, 1992; E. PARATORE, Lucano, 1992; M.LerGcn, Lucan, 1997; SH. Bartscu, Ideology in

Cold Blood, 1997; P. Esposito, L. Nicastrl, Interpretare Lucano: miscellanea di studi, 1999; J.-C. TeRNAUx, Lucain et la littérature de l’Age baroque en France: citation, imitation et création, 2000;

E. NarDuccl, Lucano:

un’epica contra l’imperio. Interpretazione della ‘Pharsalia’, 2002; R. SKLENAR, The Taste for nothingness: a study of virtus and related themes in Lucan’s Bellum Civile,

2003

D.T.V.

Lucaria According to Paul Fest. 106 L., on r9 and 21 July (InscrIt 13,2 p. 485), the Romans celebrated ‘the L. in a very large grove between the via Salaria and the

Tiber’ north of the > Campus Martius outside of the ancient city. The explanation in Paul Fest. creates a link to the chronologically preceding dies Alliensis: after the (mythological) defeat by the Gauls at the > Allia, the surviving Romans are said to have hidden in this grove. The festival acts out a dissolution of the urban hierarchy typical for harvest festivals, a dissolution that already contains the seed of its re-foundation. ~» Grove O.DE CAZANOVE, J.SCHEID (ed.), Les bois sacrés, 1993.

D.B.

Lucas (Luke) [1] The author of the third > Gospel (Lk), traditionally referred to as L., must remain anonymous. It is improbable that he was the homonymous companion of + Paulus (Phm 24). Localizing him is uncertain as well (Antioch? Rome?). But his literary and theological profile can be discerned in his complete works (including the Acts). L.’s genre and linguistic quality indicate not only an advanced Graeco-Roman but also a (!) Jewish education. It is disputed whether he was a gentile Christian (‘a God-fearer’, that is, a sympathizer with Judaism) or a Jewish Christian. The origin of Lk is dated after AD 70 for good reasons (usually the 80/g9o0s). This dating is suggested by conflicts of Christians before magistrates (Lk 12:11; cf. Acts 16:19ff.; 17:5ff.), in which e.g. representatives of the synagogue instituted the legal proceedings (+ Delator). These conflicts reflect the situation under + Domitianus [1]. The urban background of Lk (even Nazareth is referred to as polis: 1:26) presupposes nonJewish Christians in cities of the Roman empire as addressees. The situation of the sources is generally clear: models were Mk and the so-called Logia Source (Q), in addition a considerable amount of material unique to Lk (such as parables: Lk 15:11ff.; 18:9ff.) the origin of which is contested with regard to certain details (edi-

LUCAS

torial?). Lk does not call his work evayyédov/euangélion (as does Mk 1:1) but ‘story/report’ (Suyyyotc/ dihégésis: 1:1) instead. His genre should be classified as ancient > historiography (not biography) as is indicated in the prooemium (1:1~—4) and by other historiographic elements (genealogy, banquet scenes as an opportunity for teaching, travel report, speeches, dramatic episodes [e.g. 4:16-30]). The pragmatics of the work aims at ‘reassurance’ (dodheo/asphdleia: 1,4) of Christians during an identity crisis (destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, separation from Judaism) by means of a detailed representation of the genesis (Lk) and the history (Acts) of their path of faith (‘way of salvation’: Acts 16:17). This purpose is served by a concept of salvation history which presents the activity and the destiny (passion, resurrection and ascension) of ~ Jesus and (in Acts) the witness of the Apostles as divine ‘choreography’ and as the work of the Holy Spirit. It is structured by the scheme of fulfilment and promise: Jesus is the promised > Messiah (yovotd¢/christés) and the saviour (owthe/sdter) of Israel (Lk 2:11; 4:21; et passim), in whose person (17:21), that is, in whose

preaching (6:20f.; 16:1ff.) and in whose practice of healing benefitting the poor (7:22) (xtwyoi/ptdchoi), the kingdom of God is partially present (11:20). Besides the poor, all those who repent have a part in the kingdom of God. John the Baptist spreads the knowledge that Israel’s salvation is granted through the forgiveness of sins (1:77), Jesus calls (especially) sinners in Israel to

repent (5:325 13:3; 5), the Apostles are to proclaim in the name of Christ repentance and the forgiveness of all sins to all peoples (24:47). Israel’s eschatological destiny remains open. The catastrophe of AD 70 — the conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans — is not a judgement caused by the wrath of God but a consequence of Israel’s failure to recognize the > kairos of Jesus’ time (peace) (19:41-44). However, the rulership of the ‘peoples’ (éthné) is limited (21:24) and the ‘establishment of David’s hut’ is a requirement for the gentile mission (Acts 15:17ff.). > Bible; -> Gospels; — Matthaeus

-—Iohannes

[1];

— Marcus;

F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach L., 3 vols., 1989, 1996, 2001; J.B. GREEN, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke, 1995; J.A. Firzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, 2 vols., 1981, 1985; K. LONING, Das Geschichtswerk des L., vol. 1, 1997; W. RaDL, Das L.-Evangelium, 1988; W.STEGEMANN, Zw. Synagoge und Obrigkeit, 1991. W.STE.

[2] (Greek Lukuas, Aovxovac/Loukouas). According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4,2,3-234), leader of the rebellious Jews in AD 115 in the > Cyrenaica, from where he

penetrated into the Thebaid in Egypt; allegedly proclaimed king. In the Christian tradition he generally bears the name Lucas; probably the Andreas mentioned in Cassius Dio (68,32,1) is identical with him. The rebellion was finally suppressed by Q. Marcius [II 14] Turbo. PIR* L 351.

835

836

M.Puccrt, La rivolta ebraica al tempo di Traiano, 1981,

{Il 3] M. L. Felix Financial procurator of Dacia under Severus Alexander (AE 1983, 834-840).

LUCAS

4rf.

W.E.

Lucceius Italian family name, expanded from Lucius. Many bearers of the name are known [1. 359; 426], among them also prominent figures from the rst cent. BC onwards. I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD II. IMPERIAL PERIOD I, REPUBLICAN PERIOD {1 1] L., Cn. Visited M. Tunius [I 10] Brutus often in

I. Piso, Inschr. der Prokuratoren aus Sarmizegetusa (II), in: ZPE 120, 1998, 259-264; PIR* L 357.

{Ul 4] M. L. Torquatus Bassianus Senator. Proconsular

legate in Asia; legatus Augusti pro praetore of the legio III Augusta in Africa from AD 167 to 169. Consul in 169 or 170. L.’s name was erased when Commodus had him executed in 190/t. PIR? L 363; THOMASSON, Fasti Africani, 15 6ff.

W.E.

Puteoli during the summer of 44 BC (Cic. Art. 16,5,3);

probably came from an aristocratic family in Cumae (CIL X 3685-3690). [I 2] L., L. Senator with business interests in Italy and Cilicia (Cic. Att. 5,21,13). It is controversial which source references refer to him, L. L. (Marci filium), and which refer to his homonymous nephew L. L. (Quinti filium) [1 3]. According to [2], the role of an intimate of Pompey would first and foremost fall to the latter. [I 3] L., L. Close friend of Cicero, good-humoured, talented and rich. In 67 BC praetor urbanus (cf. Cass. Dio 36,41,1f.). In 64 he unsuccessfully accused > Catilina, in 63 he probably supported Cicero against him (cf. Cic. Fam. 5,13,4). He allied with his rival Caesar for the election of the consul in the year 60, but failed (Suet. Tul. 19,1) and gave up politics. Until 56 he was writing a historical work, which, however, remained unfinished; a monograph by L. about Cicero, which the latter eagerly prompted him to write, never materialized. In 49/8 he was among Pompey’s most important advisors in the war (Caes. B Civ. 3,18,3f.), he was later pardoned by Caesar and returned to Rome, where he consoled Cicero, who was mourning his daughter (Cic. Fam. 5,13-15). If L. did not die before 43, the wealthy Pompeian must have fallen victim to the proscriptions (cf. App. B. Civ. 4,109). On the confusion with [I 2] see there. {1 4] L., Q. Banker in Rhegium, in 70 BC witness for Cicero in the > Verres trial (Cic. Verr. 2,5,165). 1 SCHULZE 2 W.C. McDermott, Hermes 97, 1976, 233-246.

De

Lucceiis,

in: JO.F.

Luceres see > Ramnes

Luceria

(Aovxeoia/Loukeria,

Diod. Sic.19,72,8; Str.

6,1,14; Aovxaed/Loukard, Pol. 3,88,5; 3,100,1; Novxeoia “AnovaA@dv/Noukeria Apoulon, Ptol. 3,1,72;

Luceria, Cic. Clu. passim; Cic. Att. passim; Hor. Carm. 315,14; Vell. Pat. 1,14,4; Plin. HN. 3,104; Luceriae, Luc. 2,473; Luceria Apula, Vir. ill. 30,2). Daunian town (Str. 6,3,9) in the modern province of Foggia, 200 stadia from Gerunium (Pol. 3,100,3). Sources refer to a

temple of Athena Ilias and votive gifts of Diomedes (Str. 6,1,14; 6,3,9). According to Diod. Sic. 19,72,8, L. was

the most significant town of the region. It became a Roman

colony in 314 BC (Diod. Sic. 19,72,8; Liv. 9,26,1—-5 or in 326 BC according to Vell. Pat. 1,14,4). An issue of libral aes grave coins (3 14-250 BC) and two series of bronze triens and sextans coins (250-217 BC) can be ascribed to L.; between 212 and 207 BC victo-

riati appear. Remains of a neolithic settlement, bronze figures, thermal baths, mosaics, necropoleis with funerary gifts from the 4th cent. BC, remains of the centuriation; amphitheatre. Inscr.: CIL TX 782-944; in addition [issih ~ Daunia 1 M.Batice, Iscrizioni latine di L., in: Archivio Storico Pugliese 34, 1981, 67-84 2C.CartetmTI, L. paleocristiana: la documentazione epigrafica, in: Vetera Christianorum

20,

1983,

427-441.

G. Votrr, La Daunia nell’eta della romanizzazione, 1990; BTCGI 9, 1991, 261-269; E.M. DE Jutits, Magna Gre-

cia, 1996, 197ff.; F.G. Lo Porro, s.v. Lukeria, PE 531f.

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD [II 1] L. Albinus Equestrian officeholder in Iudaea from

AD 62 to 64, either as praefectus under the control of the governor of Syria or already as independent presidial procurator. Since L. came from Egypt to Judea, he could have already been active in office there. According to Josephus, he was responsible for massive mismanagement in Judaea. Probably from 66, procurator of Mauretania Caesariensis, under Galba also of Mau-

retania Tingitana. Allied with Otho, but was killed by troops of Cluvius Rufus, quaestor of Baetica. PIR* L

BR.G. Lucerna see > Lamp Lucerne see > Clover

Lucianus (Aovxiavoc; Loukianos). [1] L. of Samosata Important Greek rhetorical-satirical writer of the Roman Imperial period. A. LIFE AND CAREER B. WorxKs C. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LUCIAN’S WORK D. AFTERLIFE

354. {iI 2] Cn. L. Albinus Probably son of L. [II 1]. Senator,

who was appreciated by Pliny for his oratorical skills. PURE

e552

A. LIFE AND CAREER L. was born between AD r15 and 125 [4. 8] in Samosata on the Euphrates, on the eastern edge of

837

838

Roman Syria. Hegi tot évunviov jrot Biog Aovxiavotd (‘The Dream, or Lucian’s Life’, Somn.) portrays vividly

cynical treatises Tegi mévOouc (‘Funerals’, Luct.) and

(but not necessarily truthfully) L.’s decision for an education modelled on the example of the great classical authors (paideia). Upon completion of his rhetorical training in Ionia (cf. Bis Acc. 27), he began travelling as a public speaker, visiting places as far as Italy and Gaul (cf. ibid., further Apol. 15). In 163 or 164, he used some of his writings (Salt.; Im.; Pro Im.) to court the favour of the emperor Lucius Verus in the Syrian city of Antioch; soon thereafter he clashed with the prophet of the oracle, Alexander [27], in Paphlagonian Abonuteichos (Alex. 55f.). In 165, he witnessed the self-immolation by burning of > Peregrinus in Olympia. In the 160s and 1708, he probably spent a considerable length of time in Athens (cf. Demon. 1), where several of his works are

L. opened his public lectures at different times (for details cf. [8]) with altogether eight ‘prologues’ (prolaliai): “Hgddoto¢g i “Aetiwv (‘Herodotus, or Aetion’,

set (Demon.; Iupp. Trag.; Vit. Auct.; Pisc.; Bis Acc.;

Nav.; Anach.; Eun.). The prank with the invented maxims of Heraclitus may have also occurred at that time, a practical joke L. played on a contemporary philosopher according to Galen’s testimony (Gal. ad Hippocratis Epidemias 2,6,29) [4. 19]. As he advanced in years, he took on a higher (?) post in the provincial bureaucracy of Egypt (Apol. 12 [4. 2o0f.]), but may have resumed his rhetorical lectures (cf. Herc. and Bacch.); he died in the late 180s or in the early 190s.

B. Works Only few of his writings can be arranged in chronological order: from the period in Antioch (163/4, cf. above) come Salt., Im., Pro Im., Hist. Conscr. probably from mid-166 [4. 60]; Peregr., Fug. and Ind. must have originated after 165 (death of Peregrinos), Demon. after 174 (death of the foster son of Herod Atticus: Demon. 24 and 33), Eun. some years after the foundation of the imperial chairs of philosophy in Athens in 176. Alex. was published after the divinization of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (i.e. after AD 180) (Alex. 48). L. appears as an elderly man in the prolaliai Herc. and Bacch. as well as in the autobiographical essays ‘A Slip Of The Tongue in Greeting’ (Laps.) and ‘Apology’ (Apol.). Given the lack of further evidence, a systematic overview of his work seems advisable, whereas its diversity limits any attempt of categorization. 1. RHETORICS

2. DIALOGUES

WRITINGS 4. NARRATIVE WORKS ON CONTEMPORARY PHENOMENA

3. MENIPPEAN 5. PAMPHLETS

LUCIANUS

Tlegi 9voiwv (‘On Sacrifices’, Sacr.).

Herod.), ‘Aguoviéns (‘Harmonides’, Harm.), =xv0y¢ (‘The Scythian, or The Consul’, Scyth.), Meol Supadov (‘The Dipsads’, Dips.), Negi tot HAéxteou (‘Amber, or The Swans’, Electrum, Electr.), Zev&c i “Avtioxoc (‘Zeuxis, or Antiochus’, Zeux.), ‘HoaxAfjs (‘Heracles’, Herc.), Atovuoog (‘Dionysus’, Bacch.). He also wrote a

number of witty, paradoxical literary ‘gimmicks’. The tyrant Phalaris is stylized into an honorary ruler in ®dagtc (‘Phalaris’, Phal.) A and B, the fly into a meaningful creature

in Mviag éyx@mtov (‘The Fly’, Musc.

Enc.). His ‘Praise of a Disreputable Subject Matter’ as well as Ilegi nagaoitov St téyvyn fh maoaoitimn (“The Parasites: Sponging is an Art!’, Par.) are shaped as Platonic dialogues (cf. below). The Aixy ovpdavoy (“The Consonants at Law’, lud. Voc.) isa humorous commen-

tary on the arguments about (hyper-) Attic forms of speech. The ‘Pytogwv diddoxadrog (‘A Professor of Public Speaking’, Rh. Pr.) deals with (negative) trends in rhetoric. 2. DIALOGUES As in Par. (cf. above), the > dialogue in the Eixovec (‘Essays in Portraiture’, Im.) and in the following treatise “YntQ tov Eixovov (‘Essays in Portraiture Defended’, Pro Im.) serves as an encomium, in this case on Lucius Verus’ mistress (cf. above), in Hegi dexhoews

(‘On Dancing’, Salt.) it forms the framework for a praise of Pantomimos; in these three works, L. appears

himself under the pseudonym Lycinus. Ntyetvog (‘Nigrinus’, Nigr.) also consists of a dialogue as framework with a monologue at its centre (the ‘lecture’ of the philosopher Nigrinus, primarily an encomium of Athens and a rebuke (psdégos) of Rome; the exact relationship between the different parts and the intention of the work as a whole remain controversial until today).

The philosophers and their shortcomings are the theme of three of his writings, in which L. reappears as Lycinus: in “Equotwmos 7 meQt aieéoewv (‘Hermotimus, or Concerning the Sects’, Herm.), he proves to an age-

ing Stoic student the superiority of Scepticism over the ‘dogmatic’ philosopher schools. In Zupmdctov 7 AasiOau (“The Carousel (Symposium), or The Lapiths’, Symp.) he unmasks the philosophers (as well as a grammarian and a teacher of rhetoric) as being egotistical and cantankerous

1. RHETORICS

Declamations typical for the > ‘Second Sophistic’ are the fictional legal pleadings Tugavvoxtovos (“The Tyrannicide’, Tyr.) and “Amoxnouttouevos (“Disowned’, Abd.; cf. hereto Sen. Controv. 4,5), further the > ekphrasis of a house (Ilegi tot oixov, Dom.) and a public bath (‘Inmias i) Badavetov, ‘Hippias’, Hipp.). Moralizing disquisitions (dialéxeis) are Hegi tod wh egdiws motevev SiaBorq (‘Slander’, Cal.), Mateidoc éyxmpuwov (‘My Native Land’, Patr. Enc.) as well as the slightly

ruffians; Evvotyoc (“The Eunuch’, Eun.) portrays the dishonourable argument over a Pertpatetic teaching chair (cf. above). This form of dialogue also serves to transport an imaginative narrative: L. combines his mockery of philosophy and delight of making up stories in Piowevdets (“The Lover of Lies’, Philops.), where seemingly serious philosophers tell increasingly wilder horror stories until the only ‘voice of reason’ (Tychiades as L.’ mouthpiece) finally leaves the round in disgust. In TAotov 7] etyat (“The Ship, or The Wishes’, Nav.) L.’s persona Lycinus hears (and criticizes) successively the fantasies of three friends.

840

839

LUCIANUS

Lucian’s works (selection)

Abbreviation Alex. Anach. Apol. [Asin.] Bis Acc. Cat.

Cont. D.Deor. D.Mar. D.Meretr. D.Mort.

Dear. lud.

Latin title Alexander Anacharsis Apologia Asinus Bis Accusatus

Cataplus Contemplantes Dialogi Deorum Dialogi Marini Dialogi Meretricii Dialogi Mortuorum

Herc.

Dearum ludicium Deorum Concilium Eunuchus Fugitivi Gallus Hercules

Herm.

Hermotimus

Hist. Conscr.

Quomodo historia conscribenda sit Icaromenippus Imagines Adversus Indoctum

Deor. Conc. Eun. Fug. Gall.

Icar. Im.

Ind.

Tud. Voc. Iupp.Conf.(JConf.) Iupp. Trag.(JTr.) Laps. Dex: Luct.

Merc. Cond. Muse. Enc.

Par. Peregr.

Phal. Philops. ise: Pro Im. (Pr.Im.) Prom. Prom. Es

Pseudol. Rh.Pr. Sacr. Salt. Sat. Somn.

Symp. Syr.D. VH Vit. Auct.

Tudicium Vocalium Iuppiter Confutatus Iuppiter Tragoedus Pro Lapsu inter

Salutandum Lexiphanes De Luctu De Mercede Conductis Muscae Encomium Navigium Necyomantia De Parasito De Morte Peregrini Phalaris Philopseudes Piscator Pro Imaginibus Prometheus Prometheus es in verbis Pseudologista Rhetorum praeceptor De Sacrificiis De Saltatione Saturnalia Somnium [sive Vita Luciani] Symposium De Syria Dea Verae Historiae Vitarum Auctio

Greek title Aléxandros [é Pseudémantis] Andcharsis Apologia Lotikios é 6nos Dis kategorotimenos Kataplous Charon [é Episkopountes] Theon didlogoi Endlioi didlogoi Hetairikoi didlogoi Nekrikoi didlogoi Theon krisis Theon ekklesia Eunotichos Drapétai Oneiros é Alektryon Herakles Hermotimos P6s dei historian syngraphein

English title Alexander the False Prophet Anacharsis or Athletics Apologia Lucius or The Ass The Double Indictment The Downward Journey Charon or The Inspector Dialogues of the Gods Dialogues of the Sea-Gods Dialogues of the Courtesans Dialogues of the Dead The Judgement of the Goddesses

Ikaroménippos Eikones Pros ton apaideuton kai polla biblia 6noumenon Diké symphonon Zeus elenchomenos Zeus tragoidos Hyper tou en téi prosagoreusei

Icaromenippus or The Sky-Man

The Parliament of the Gods The Eunuch

The Runaways The Dream or The Cock Heracles Hermotimus

How to Write History

Essays in Portraiture The Ignorant Book Collector The Consonants at Law Zeus Catechized Zeus Rants

A Slip of the Tongue in Greeting

ptaismatos

Lexiphanés Peri pénthous Peri ton epi misth6éi synénton Myias enkémion Ploion [é euchai] Ménippos [é Nekyomanteia] Peri parasitou Peri tés Peregrinou teleutés

Phdlaris Philopseudeis Anabiountes [é Haliezis] Hyper ton eikonon Prométheus Pros ton eiponta Prométheus ei en tois légois Pseudologistés Rhétoron didaskalos Peri thysion Peri orchéseds Ta pros Kronon Peri tou enbypniou étoi Bios Loukianon Symp osion Peri tés Syriés theon Alethe diégemata Bion prasis

Lexiphanes On Funerals On Salaried Posts in Great Houses

The Fly The Ship or The Wishes The Descent into Hades The Parasite

The Passing of Peregrinus Phalaris The Lover of Lies The Dead Come to Life or The Fisherman

Essays in Portraiture Defended Prometheus The One Who Said, ‘You’re a Prometheus in Words’ The Mistaken Critic

A Professor of Public Speaking On Sacrifices The Dance Saturnalia The Dreamer or Lucian’s Career

The Carousal The Syrian Goddess A True Story I & Il Philosophies for Sale

841

On the other hand the satirical, mocking component is lacking in ToEagtc 7 ptAia (‘Toxaris, or Friendship’,

Tox.): the Scythian Toxaris and the Greek Mnesippus rival with novella cycles centred around the theme of friendship. “Avayagots i) meQi yuuvaoiwv (‘Anacharsis, or Athletics’, Anach.) also use the form of the Platonic

dialogue, exploring the sense and nonsense of Greek sports, as does AgeEupavng (‘Lexiphanes’, Lex.), where

the hyper-Atticist Lexiphanes presents a ‘counterpiece’, bristling with obsolete and falsely used words, to Plato’s ‘Symposium’ to then be brutally cured by Lycinus of his false Atticism; a side piece to this is Wevdoootots 7 GoAovmtotys¢ (“The Sham Sophist, or The Sole-

cist’, Sol.). L. refers several times to Eupolis and Aristophanes (Pisc. 25; Bis Acc. 33; cf. Ind. 27), but he is also well acquainted with the later comedy (cf. the Alexis and Philemon quotations in Laps., the Menandrian god of the prologue Elenchos in Pseudol. 4). Tiv@v 7 wtoavOemsoc (“Timon, or The Misanthrope’, Tim.) recalls Aristophanes in its scene sequence, most

notably his ‘Plutus’; a string of homogenous comedic scenes show the Biwyv medots (‘Philosophers for Sale’, Vit. Auct.). The basic idea probably goes back to Menippus’ Atoyévoug meaots (‘Sale of Diogenes’; cf. below). The opening scene of ‘AvaBtotvtec 7 ‘Adtetc (‘The Dead Come to Life, or the Fisherman’, Pisc.), which follows thematically, combines an idea of Aristophanes (the attack of the chorus in the ‘Archanians’) with one of Eupolis (the idea of the ‘Demes’ to allow all the great dead to return to earth): the great Greek philosophers emerge from Hades to take revenge on L.’s persona Parrhesiades for literary defamation, but the latter manages the threat as confidently as an Aristophanic hero, to then on his part ‘catch’ pseudo-philosophers like a fisherman and unmask them (also a comedy motif?). In Aig xatnyogobuevoc (“The Twice Accused’, Bis Acc.), the title and court scenes are comedic tradi-

tions; the rhetoric accusing its ‘Syrian’ protégé of disloyalty recalls the neglected ‘Ms Comedy’ in Kratinos’ “Pytine’.

Strongly influenced by the New Comedy are the ‘Etaioimol dudhoyou (‘Dialogues of the Courtesans’, D.Mer.) featuring hetaeras, their female servants and other comedic characters (lovers and soldiers). Dialogue series of similar kind (but probably not based on comedies) are the “EvdiAtou didAoyou (‘Dialogues of the Sea Gods’, D.Mar.) and the Oe@v didAoyou (‘Dialogues of the Gods’, D.Deor.), which also include Tlooundevs (Prometheus) and Ordv xoiorg (‘The Judgement of the Goddesses’, Dear. Iud.); as for the “Dialo-

gues of the Dead’ cf. below. 3. MENIPPEAN WRITINGS L. himself suggests (Bis. Acc. 33, Pisc. 26) that he may have enriched his dialogues with ingredients from + Menippus [4] of Gadara, and incorporates him as main character into two of his works: in Ixagopevitso¢ i) tbmeovéperog (‘Icoaromenippus or The Sky-man’, Icar.), Menippus flies all the way to heaven in his search to understand the workings of the world, in Mévimxoc 7}

842

LUCIANUS

Nexvouavteia (“Menippus, or the Descent into Hades’, Nec.) he descends into Hades to question Teiresias about the best possible life. These fantastic journeys, which are most likely to be traced back to Menippus, were probably composed by L. as a background dialogue. All the other treatises that make up the ‘Menippean’ part of L.’s ceuvre do not consist of a background dialogue in form of a first-person narrative by Menippus, as do Icar. and Nec., but maintain their dialogue

form throughout (except for the in part epistolary ‘Saturnalia’, cf. below). To what extent L. uses real motifs

of Menippus or merely picks up such motifs in a ‘Menippeanizing’ manner remains to be determined in the individual cases. A ‘Menippean’ prosimetric beginning (as in Nec. and Pisc.) can be found in Zevs teayw60g (‘Zeus Rants’, Iupp. Trag.), where the father of the gods must experience, together with his Olympians, how a god-denying Epicurean prevails over a dull Stoic. In Zebc theyyouevoc (‘Zeus Catechized’, upp. Conf.),

the same Zeus comes off worst when a Cynic perseveres in his inquiry about the compatibility of divine omnipotence with the concept of fate; and in the Oe@v éxxdnoia (‘Parliament of the Gods’, Deor. Conc.), Zeus’ attempt to convince the assembled gods to a decision against the foreign infiltration by non-Greek deities, also remains unsuccessful. In “Ovetgocg i} “Adkextovdv (‘The Dream, or The Cock’, Gall.), the poor shoemaker Micyllus receives a lesson from a cock (who used to be Pythagoras!) on the proper (Cynic) perspective on wealth and poverty. A similar theme reappears in the work Ta medg Kedvov (‘The Best of Days’, ‘Saturnalia’, Sat.), which consists of several heterogeneous parts. In the Agamétau (“The Runaways’, Fug.), the philosopher complains to Zeus about the growing number of charlatan philosophers, whereupon the latter orders an exemplary punishment of three such characters (who are really runaway slaves). Katamdoug 7} Tbgavvos (‘The Downward Journey, or The Tyrant’, Cat.) takes place in the Menippean Underworld: an unruly tyrant, a tough Cynic and the shoemaker Micyllus are presented before the court of the dead. The 30 Nexetxol AtddAoyot (‘Dialogues of the Dead’, D.Mort.) are set against the same background, forming multiple groups according to their themes and characters: in 11 of those, Menippus himself takes centre stage (with parallels in content to Nec. and Cat.); in another five dialogues other Cynics take the lead; further constellations include historical and mythical personalities, gods and dead legacy hunters. The satirical Underworld of Menippus also echoes in the dialogue Xdewv i)Emoxonotvtes (‘Charon, or the Inspectors’), where the ferryman of the dead learns about the often paradoxical business of humans on earth. 4. NARRATIVE WORKS The narrative talent of L. shines — next to Philops. and ‘Toxaris’ (cf. above) — especially in “AAnOq dSinynwata (‘A True Story’, VH), where a first person narrator portrays a Minchhausen-like journey to fantastic places; the target here is mainly the utopian and adven-

843

844

turous travel novel (lambulus, Antonius [3] Diogenes)

[x1], by Claudianus [12] as well as by the author of the letter collection of Aristaenetus. In Byzantium, L. was angrily attacked for his mockery of Christians in Peregr. (Arethas’ Scholia; Suda s.v. L.), but due to his clear and agreeable style (cf. Photius’ judgement in Bibl. 128) his works were always read and imitated as well. In connection with such imitation practices stand a number of forged writings, certain in some cases and likely in others, that entered the Corpus Lucianum: Maxeodptot

LUCIANUS

and tale-spinning historiography (Ctesias). 5. PAMPHLETS ON CONTEMPORARY PHENOMENA Il@c¢ det totogiav ovyyeadew (‘How To Write Histo-

ry’, Hist. Conscr.) attacks the encomiastic historiography of the Parthian war being waged at the time. Some treatises are aimed at specific persons, such as I1@0¢ tov A&aiSevtov xa TOAAG PiprAia @vobpevov (“The Ignorant Book Collector’, Ind.), Wevdoroyiotns 7} meQi tis dmopeddoc (‘The Mistaken Critic’, Pseudol.: at a rival, who had accused L. of a linguistic error), AheEavdeog 7 Wevddouavtec (‘Alexander, or The False Prophet’, Alex.: the ‘biography of a scoundrel’ of the founder of a new oracle), and Hegi tis Megeyotvov terevrijs (“The Passing of Peregrinos’, Peregr.: the self-immolation by burning of the Pythagorean Cynic Peregrinos in Olympia 165). Tegi tHv éxi wio8 ovvdvtwv (‘On Salaried Posts in Great Houses’, Merc. Cond.) describes the dishonourable existence of Greek philosophers in the residences of

rich

Romans.

Anpmvaxtos

fiog

(‘Demonax’,

Demon.), on the other hand, portrays with sympathy the figure of a contemporary Athenian philosopher, and Ilegi tijg Lveing Geot (‘The Goddess of Syria’, Syr.D.), in Herodotean manner and Ionic dialect, the sanctuary of Atargatis (> Syria Dea) in Syrian Hier-

apolis [4. 41-43]. C. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LUCIAN’S WORK L. shows great linguistic sensitivity (cf. Laps. and Pseudol.; due to his origin from a multilingual area?). Greek paideia was for him condicio sine qua non in order to belong to the cultivated world (cf. Pisc. 19). Within his environment, which cultivated almost exclusively traditional literary forms, he created something new by skilfully combining these forms. In Ied¢ tov einovta Tooundevec et év totic Adyouc ( To One Who Said: You’re a Prometheus in Words!’, Prom. Es), he names as constituents of this new form the philosophical dialogue and comedy (5-7), further in Bis Acc. 33 the Archilochean iamb, and especially Menippean > satire (cf. also Pisc. 25f.). Because the Bis Acc. primarily deals with L.’s position between rhetoric and philosophical dialogue, it used to frequently be considered (next to Nigr., cf. Pisc. 29) as the main witness for a ‘conversion’ of L. from rhetoric to philosophy. Rhetoric, however, always remained the foundation of L.’s work; but he recognized at some point the literary potential inherent in its combination with other forms. The full use of this potential guaranteed L. his long literary afterlife.

(‘Macrobii’, Macr.), Aovxtog 7) é6vog (‘Lucius, or The Ass’, Asin.), Meo tij¢ Goteodoying ? (‘Astrology’, Ast.),

*Eowtec (‘Amores, or Affairs of the Heart’, Am.), AnuooVévove éyxduwov (‘Demosthenes’, Dem. Enc.), Avahoyog moog “Hoiodov? (‘A Conversation with Hesiod’, Hes.), Modayea ? (“Tragic Gout’), ‘Adxvav 7

THeoi petapoepdmoewv mations’), ‘Qxbmous

(‘The Kingfisher, or Transfor(‘Swift-Foot’,

Ocyp.), Kuvixds ?

(‘The Cynic’, Cyn.). Especially two Nec.-inspired Byzantine journeys into the Underworld deserve mention, the ‘Timarion’ (12th cent.) and ‘Mazaris’ Journey to Hades’ (1416/17). As soonas L.-MSS became available in the European West (at the beginning of the 15th cent.), L. quotations and allusions entered the works of the Italian Humanists, with Latin translations close to follow. ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM was a great admirer of L. He translated (partly together with THoMas More) a number of L.’s writings into Latin and proves himself to be strongly influenced by L. in ‘Praise of Folly’ and the ‘Colloquia familiaria’. Due to L.’s use by disputatious Humanists (in Germany PIRCKHEIMER, HUTTEN; in France B. DES

PERIERS, ‘Cymbalum Mundi’; in Spain the ‘Crétalon’

Anonymus) in their criticism of religion and church, his works were added to the ‘Index of prohibited books’, but this did not harm his continuing afterlife. In the 16th, 17th and r8th cents., ‘A True Story’ proved to be of great influence (in RABELAIS, CYRANO DE BERGERAC, JONATHAN SwirT, LuDvic HOLBERG), in the 17th and 18th cents. the ‘Dialogues of the Dead’ (in BorLEau, FONTENELLE, FENELON, FIELDING, VOLTAIRE, WIE-

LAND). The cult of L. in Germany reached a peak with WIELAND and his translation (which originated in 1781-1789), lasting until the rst half of the roth cent. Before Wieland, however, PlERRE BAYLE (as formerly Photius) credited L. only with nihilistic sarcasm, a trend that further increased in German classical philology, and by the end of the roth cent. L. was merely considered a shallow ‘journalist’ (WILAMOWITZ). In 1906, R. HELM [1] even denied him any literary originality. Today the judgement has regained its balance [3. 389—-

3943 4. 155-159]. D. AFTERLIFE Except for the Galen passage mentioned above, no testimonies of L. by others exist from his time; only in the 4th cent. AD

do — Lactantius

(Inst. 1,9,8) and

Eunapius (VS 2,1,9 p. 454) write brief notes dedicated to him. It is very likely that his works were read even before then: probably by > Alciphron, by some of the Christian authors [1. 42-44]), by the emperor Tulianus

M.D.

Macreop,

Luciani

review: H.-G. NESSELRATH,

Opera,

1-4

(1972-1987;

in: Gnomon 56, 1984, 577-

609 and 62, 1990, 498-511).

MACLEOD

i991.

Alex.

(MATTEUZZI, 1988; VicToR, 1997); Anach. (BERNARDINI, 1995); Bis Acc. (BRAUN, 1994); lupp. Trag. (COENEN 1977); Lex. (WEISSENBERGER, 1996); Luct. (ANDO, 1984); Nec. (FERRETTO, 1988); Par. (NESSELRATH, 1985), VH (GeorciaDou, LaRMouR, 1998). 1 R. HELM, Lucian

und Menipp,

1906

2 J.Bomparre,

Lucien Ecrivain,

845

846

1958 3]J.HALL, Lucian’s Satire, 1981 4 C.P. Jongs, Culture and Society in Lucian, 1986 5 R.B. BRANHAM, Unruly Eloquence: Lucian and the Comedy of Traditions, 1989 6M.D. Macteop, Lucianic Studies since 1930, with an Appendix: Recent Work (1930-1990) on Some Byzantine Imitations of Lucian (by B.BaLpwin), in: ANRW II 34.2, 1994, 1362-1421 75S.Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism and Power in the Greek World A.D. 50-250, 1996, 299-329 8 H.G. NESSELRATH, Lucian’s Introductions, in: D.A. RusSELL (ed.), Antonine Literature, 1990, 111-140 9 Id.,

Kaiserzeitlicher Skeptizismus in platonischem Gewand: Lukians ‘Hermotimos’, in: ANRW II 36.5, 1992, 34513482 10 A.GeorciAbou, D.H.J. LarmMour, Lucian and Historiography: ‘De historia conscribenda’ and “Verae historiae’, in: ANRW II 34.2, 1994, 1448-1509 11 C.Ropinson, Lucian and His Influence in Europe,

1979 12 H.-G. NEssELRATH, Menippeisches in der Spatant.: Von Lukian zu Julians ‘Caesares’ und zu Claudians ‘In Rufinum’, in: MH 51, 1994, 30-44. H.-G.NE.

[2] L. of Antioch According to later hagiographic documentation in Simeon Metaphrastes (cf. [1]) L. came from > Samosata, was educated in > Edessa, and later director of a school as Antiochene presbyter. He was executed in 312 under > Maximinus [1] Daia in Nicomedia (cf. Euseb. Hist. eccl. 8,13,2 and 9,6) and buried

in Drepanon (Helenopolis), the birth-place of > Helena [2], where particularly > Constantinus [1] promoted his cult (Euseb. Vita Const. 4,61,1). Of L.’s works (cf. Jer. Vir. ill. 77,2), only a brief letter fragment (CPG 1,1721) and a fragment from a sermon in a Homoiousian Job-commentary are preserved (CPG I,1722: [2]). The text presented as profession of faith before Maximinus in > Rufinus is not authentic (CPG 1720: Rufin. Hist. eccl. 9,6,3). The ecthesis of the synod

of Antioch in Encaeniis 341 (‘Second Antiochene Formula’ {3]), which later became the official creed of the Homoiousians, was attributed to L. after the year 367 (Sozom. Hist. eccl. 6,12,4), but is unlikely to be traced back to the Antiochene presbyter. ~ Hieronymus is the first to accredit L. with recensions of both parts of the Greek Bible (among others, Prol. in libro paralipomenon, p. 546,9 WEBER). Especially since the rgth cent., there have been attempts with varying success to reconstruct such ‘Lucianian’ recensions (current research and

bibliography for the Septuagint [4], for the NT [5]). The question of the authorship ofL., however, remains to be considered, independently from these efforts. Due to the lack of documentation, one should refrain from postulating L. as the founder of the > Antiochene School, or as ‘Arius before Arius’ (still in HARNACK); it is almost impossible to shed any further light on the kind of implications and consequences that the theological school of L. entailed for the 4th. cent. theological argument on the trinity. It is certain is only that + Arius [3] mentions this school to the bishop > Eusebius [8] of Nicomedia (ovAkovxtaviotijs, [6th document I,5 p- 3,7]) and that he himself is considered part of this tradition by his local bishop Alexander [6th document 14,36 p. 25,13]. In the 4th cent., however, other theological factions also referred to the revered martyr.

LUCIFER

1J.Bipez, F. WINKELMANN, Philostorgius, Kirchengeschichte (GCS), 31981, 184-201 (= Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca 997) 2 D.Haceporn (ed.), Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian (Patristische Texte und Stud. 14), 1973, 30, 21-33,15 3 Acsandy Gee. Hann, A.v. Harnack, Bibl. der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der Alten Kirche, 31897 (repr. 1962), §154, p. 184186 4G.DortivaL, M.Hart, O.Munnicn, La bible grecque des Septante du judaisme hellénistique au christianisme ancien, 1988, 168-171 5 K. and B. ALAND, Der Text des Neuen Testaments, *1989, 75-77. 6 H.G.Opitz, Athanasius, Werke. 3: Urkunden zur

Geschichte des arianischen Streites, 1934, 318-333. Sources:

CPG

1, 1720-1722;

R. WeBER

(ed.), Biblia

Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, *1975. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

G. Barby, Recherches sur saint Lucien

d’Antioche et son école, 1936; H.CH. BRENNECKE, S.v. Lucian von Antiochien, TRE 21, 474-479; Id., Lukian von Antiochien in der Geschichte des arianischen Streites, in: Id., E.L. GrasmUck, CH. MARKSCHIES, Logos. FS L.

Abramowski (Beihefte zur Zschr. fur die Nt. Wiss. 67), 1993, 170-192. C.M.

[3] Son of the praetorian prefect Florentius [1], in AD 388 consularis Syriae, opponent of > Tatianus; gave

offence in various ways which lead to his dismissal from office. In 393 he was comes Syriae thanks to Rufinus, but is said to have been killed in 3.93 or 395 at the behest of the same Rufinus because of a conflict with the uncle of Theodosius I, Eucherius. Lib. Or. 56 is directed at him; Christ. PLRE 1,5 16f.

HLL.

Lucienus Rare Italian surname, known through the senator Q. L., friend of T. > Pomponius Atticus. Varro depicts L., who owned herds of cattle and above all large stud farms in Epirus, as a horse expert (Varro, Rust. 2,7,1-16); L. was also famous for his witty and complicated humour (Varro, Rust. 2,5,1). His mention in Cic. Att. 7,5,3 is doubtful. JOR.

Lucifer [1] In Latin antiquity, L. refers primarily to the morning star (Greek dwoddeoc/phosphoéros or Ewopdeosc/ hedsphoros; - Venus; > Planets), and in a secondary sense L. also characterizes divine figures. Roman mythology

interprets L. as the star of deified Caesar. In Christianity, L. loses the positive connotation: although entirely with reference to 2 Cor 4:6, 2 Petr 1:19 and Apc. 2:28, L. is compared to Christ and therefore at times used as a baptismal name, as a translation of Is. 14:12 (the fallen morning star — hedsphoros: LXX, lucifer: Vulgate), an oracle about the fall of the king of Babylon, he becomes a symbol of the opponent of Israel. In linking Is. 14:12 to Le 10:18, L. is equated with > Satan from the 4th cent. onwards, which led to the decisive characterization of L. as the figure of Satan in the Middle Ages. N.ForsytH, The Old Enemy, 1987; L.JUNG, Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian and Mohammedan Literature, 1974; M.S.

SmitH, The Early History of God,

1990.

LUK.KU.

847

848

[2] Bishop of Calaris (modern Cagliari). Worked with pope > Liberius [1] from 353, was banished together with the latter and other bishops in 355 when in Milan he did not revoke his support for the faith of Nicaea (325) and for the bishop > Athanasius of Alexandria who had been condemned by the emperor Constantine II. During his exile, which lasted until 362 (in Syria, Palestine and the Thebaid, among other places), L. wrote five polemical treatises and defamatory pamphlets directed against Constantine that represent important witnesses to contemporary vernacular Latin and to the Old Latin translation of the Bible, but that are theologically of no importance. He declined to participate in the unification synod in Alexandria summoned by Athanasius in 362. Before he set out for Sardinia, L. ordained Paulinus, the rigourous advocate of the Nicaenum, bishop in Antioch [1].

(1 4] L. Balbus, Q. Acquaintance of Cicero’s; like his

LUCIFER

CCL 8, 1978; K.S. FRANK, s.v. L. von Cagliari, LMA 5, 2162; C. KANNENGIESSER, S.v. L., LThK? 6, 1083f. (bibli-

ography).

MA.HE.

[3] see > Planets, see Hesperius

Lucilia [1] Daughter of Manlius Lucilius, niece of the poet C. Lucilius [I 6], wife of Cn. Pompey Strabo (cos. in 89 BC), from a senatorial family. She was the mother of

Cn. > Pompeius Magnus and of a daughter (Vell. Pat. 2521052).

ME.STR.

[2] Probably the sister of L. [1], mother of M. Attius [I x] Balbus. His daughter Atia [1] was the mother of — Augustus (Suet. Aug. 4,1).

ME.STR.

Lucilius Name of a Roman plebeian family, derived from the first name > Lucius [II], widespread from the 2nd cent. BC onwards. The satirical poet L. is the bestknown of them. [I 6]. K-LE. I, REPUBLICAN ERA

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

I. REPUBLICAN ERA [I 1] A friend of M. Tunius [I ro] Brutus, who wanted to

protect the latter in 42 BC at Philippi by pretending to be him (App. B Civ. 4,542-545). After that he followed M. Antonius [I 9] with similar loyalty until they both died in the year 30. JOF. {I 2] L., Sex. People’s tribune 87 BC, thrown from the Tarpeian rock because he was an opponent of C. Marius [I 1] by his successor P. Popilius Laenas (Vell. Pat. 2,24,2; cf. Liv. p. 80; Plut. Marius 45,3). {I 3] L. Balbus, L. Probably the brother of L. [I 4], Stoic (Cic. De or. 3,78), as legal scholar a student of the

prominent jurist Q. - Mucius Scaevola (‘Pontifex’) and for his part teacher of Ser. > Sulpicius Rufus (Pomponius Dig. 1,2,2,42f.), therefore probably active primarily in the roth decade BC. In the year 81 he was assessor in the trial against P. Quinctius (Cic. Quinct. 53f.). Even though L. himself had not written anything, Cicero respected his specialized knowledge (Cic. Brut. 154).

brother or brother-in-law L. [I 3] a disciple of the Stoa (Cic. De or. 3,78; fictitious date 91 BC), representative

of the Stoic teachings in the second book of Cicero’s dialogue De natura deorum (fictitious date 77/75). He himself knew the head of the Stoa, > Posidonius (Cic. Nat. D. 2,88); the academician Antiochus [20] of Ascalon dedicated a book to him (Cic. Nat. D. 1,16). K-LE. [15] L. Hirrus, C. Great-nephew and — indirectly, via his father, — primary heir of the poet > L. [I 6]; son-inlaw (marriage prior to 67 BC) of the cattle breeder L. Cossinius [I 2]. Like the latter, L. had large herds of cattle, specifically in Bruttium (Varro, Rust. 2,1,2). He

came belatedly to politics and supported, as people’s tribune of 53 (MRR 2,228), > Pompeius [I 3], to whom he was related, but had little luck in his actions. In Cicero’s and Caelius’ [I 4] (preserved in Cic. Fam.) letters from the years 52 and 51 he appears as an unsuccessful candidate — first for a position in the college of —> augures (competitor: Cicero), and also for an aedileship (competitor: M. Caelius [I 4] Rufus). Cicero treats him with friendly disregard in his correspondence and makes fun of his speech impediments (Cic. Fam. 2,10,1: Hillus instead of Hirrus). In the civil war, L. recruited troops for Pompey in Picenum and fled with them before the advancing Caesar to Corfinium (MRR 2,268). In 48 he went as a legate to the Parthians (Caes. B Civ. 3,82,4); the defeat of > Pharsalus cost him the position as praetor that had already been promised to him. L. was among the majority of aristocrats whose political convictions were limited to protecting their property in the turmoil of civil war, and so after Caesar’s victory he switched to the latter’s side, to whom he, now as a successful fish breeder as well, delivered 6,000 morays for the festivities of the triumph (Plin. HN 9,171). In late 43 the triumvirs placed him, presumably more for economic than political reasons, on the proscription list; his villa and fish ponds were auctioned off, but L. escaped to Sicily where he successfully supported Sex. Pompeius (App. B Civ. 4,354: there Hirtius). W.W. [I 6] C. L. Roman satirical poet A. Lire B. Works C. INFLUENCE A. LIFE The birth and death dates of the ‘inventor’ (inventor, Hor.

Sat. 1,10,48) of Roman

verse satire (> Satire)

remain disputed. There are records of 148/7 —inconsistent with other dates from his life — as the year of his birth and of 103/2 BC as the year of his death (Jer. Chron. 143e, 148e H.). Up until the present time there has also been discussion of 180 as perhaps being the year of his birth (confusion of consul names) [4. 118 5— 1195; 14. 94-97; 7.71-74] as well as 168 (age not XLVI, but rather LXVI years) [8. 9f.; 2. rof.]. For the following description, the assumption of a younger poet, born perhaps in 158 BC, is made [5. 63-67]. L. was a member of the equestrian class and a property-holder. L. Hirrus, a member of the senatorial class

849

850

(Varro, Rust. 2,5,5), was probably his brother, and the grandmother of Pompey the Great was probably his sister; Pompey the Greats’ mother was also a Lucilia. His family owned estates in Apulia, Bruttium, Sicily and Sardinia in addition to Suessa Aurunca, where he was born. He owned a house in Rome (Ascon. on Cic. Pis. p. 13,16 CL.) and probably also in Naples (honoured with a public burial, publicum funus — Jer. |.c.). The dedication of a text by the academician > Cleitomachus [1] to him (Cic. Acad. 2,102) and fragments of a philosophers’ symposium (Lucil. B. 28) provide evidence of an educational voyage to Greece (prior to 134). As part of the entourage of his friend > Cornelius [I 70] Scipio Aemilianus he experienced the conquest of Numantia in 134/3; after that he shared Scipio’s friendships and enmities in Rome. As the first Roman equestrian to consider writing poetry as suitable for his class, he added, with intellectual independence and social critical intent, satirical bite to the satura created by > Ennius. He seems to have carried on a political as well as literary feud with > Accius and the > collegium poetarum [12].

justification was not the sole topic of a satire, then it belongs to an epilogue of the collection in which L. gratefully recalls the literary recognition he has received and praises a commander [3. 141-195; 9. 93-1013 10; 7-77-79]. The register, partly intimate and partly high epic, can probably be explained by the fact that L. wanted to create a memorial to his friend Scipio who died in 129 BC. From among the collection of books 1-20, the following deserve emphasis: the council meeting of the gods (Deorum concilium, book 1) on the death of L. ~ Cornelius [I 51] Lentulus Lupus (cf. > Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis), the Iter Siculum (‘Journey to Sicily’; book 3, cf. Hor. Sat. 1,5) and the treatment of orthographic, grammatical, literary-aesthetic and poetic questions (book 9). Among the fragments that cannot be assigned with certainty, the Virtus-fragment (fragment 13 42-54

B. Works A collection of 30 bks. was in circulation. The first collection, probably published in 128 BC [15; 5. 70] (with the title Sermones? [5. 67—-69]), made up books

16-30. The satires that were first published individually (perhaps also in partial collections) in books 1-20/21 may have been published posthumously; the non-satirical poems in books 21/2225 (for example, epigrams to slaves of his familia) were summarized, and the older, already known collection was attached [5. 71-73]. L.

first experimented with trochaic heptameter, iambic trimeter and dactylic hexameter. Book 30 includes only poems in the hexameter that became canonical for verse satire from then on. Of the works as a whole, barely 1400 vv. have been preserved in fragments, most of them in — Nonius, whose uniform manner of citation is useful for the reconstruction of thematic relationships (‘lex Lindsay’)

[5- 74-773 93 105 11]. Books 26-30 are the best documented. The collection opens with an introductory satire, either a ~ recusatio of epic poetry (cf. Hor. Sat. 2,1) or a consideration by the poet of the tax-farming transactions of his class (fragment 656f. M) [3. 24-25, 72-1023 16; 6]. Tragedy — which seems to be linked with the enmity of Accius, especially if vetus historia (fragment 612 M) does not mean ‘old history’ but rather ‘old myth’ (presumably with erotic content) [3. 25-27; 173 I1. 143147; 7. 74-76] — is the target of his polemics, as is the matrimonial legislation of Q. > Caecilius [I 27] Metellus Macedonicus. Bks. 27-29 cover themes including the following: hetaeras, parasites, topics in current affairs, philosophers’ banquet, storming a house and kidnapping women, friendship and love, tragedy and comedy, choosing a lover (cf. Hor. Sat. 1,2). Book 30 includes, among other items, Spanish war anecdotes, a fable (lion and fox) and a justification of satire. If this

LUCILIUS

M) summarizes Roman and Greek (Stoic) views on the

new model of the good and wise man (vir bonus et sapiens).

L. knew Hellenistic literature and learned from it. His successors did not achieve the same thematic diversity and were not able to carry on his frank critiques of high-ranking individuals. C. INFLUENCE Especially + Horatius [7] owes his predecessor perhaps more in terms of ideas than can be discerned today. From the position of an immensely higher claim to artistic merit, he criticized (Hor. Sat. 1,4,10; 2,1), his predecessor’s colourful language, which was undeniably unerring in its aim and rich in terms of register, in part due to its inclusion of smatterings of Greek. Philological interest in Lucilius’ estate began immediately after his death (Suet. Gram. 2,4). Until the late rst cent. AD, L. was highly respected; only then were his works forgotten, except for archaistic interest (especially on the part of Nonius) (on details: [2. 28-30; 5. 116-120]). — Satire; > Satire 1 F. Marx, 1904 (ed.), 1905 (commentary), repr. 1963 2 W. KRENKEL (Latin-German), 1970. 3 J. CHRISTES, Der frihe L., 1971 4 Id., L. (Research report), in: ANRW L.2, 1972, 1182-1239 5 Id., L., in: J.ADAmreTz (ed.),

Die rom. Satire, 1986, 57-122

6 Id., Der friihe L. und

Horaz, in: Hermes 117, 1989, 321-326

vetus historia — Epilog zu 1998, 71-79

1964

7 Id.,L.senex—

XX VI-XXX, in: Philologus 142,

8 C.CicHortus, Unt. zu L., 1908, repr.

9 G.GARBUGINO, Sul XXX

Studi Noniani 6, 1980, 83-101

libro di Lucilio, in:

10 Id., Il XXX libro di

Lucilio, in: Studi Noniani 10, 1985, 45-173 11 Id., Il XXVI libro di Lucilio, in: Studi Noniani 13, 1990, 129236 12 W.KRENKEL, Zur lit. Kritik bei L. (1957f.), in: D. KoRZENIEWSKI (ed.), Die rom. Satire, 1970, 161-266

13 Id., Zur Biographie des L., in: ANRW L.2, 1972, 12401259. 14 Id., Zwei Anm. zu L., in: R. FABER, B. SEIDENSTIKKER (ed.), FS B.Kytzler, 1996, 89-97 15 W.J.

RascuHke, The Chronology of the Early Books of L., in: JRS 69, 1979,78-89 16U.W.ScHo1z, Der frithe L. und Horaz, in: Hermes 114, 1986, 335-365 17 Id., L. 612 M = 672 Kr, in: C. Ktopt (ed.), FS W.A. Krenkel, 1996,

29-35.

ie

851

852

Il. IMPERIAL PERIOD {il 1] L. Africanus Senator from Africa, to whom the

[II 6] L. L. Priscilianus Son of L. [II 5]. Accepted into the Senate through Caracalla and named proconsul of Achaea. Sent to an island in AD 217 because of his activity as delator; later accepted into the Senate again; IEph III 697 can be identified as being about him or a brother (L. Luciliu{s ———]anus; cf. IEph III 696a about the father Pansa: pater senatorum. PIR* L 392.

LUCILIUS

senate granted year 138; the year 159 was [onl MCT

market rights to an estate in Africa in the eponymous proconsul of Baetica in the presumably his son (AE 1993, 1003b = Sere):

1 W. Eck, Die Verwaltung des rom. Reiches in der Kaiserzeit, vol. 2, 1998, 347ff. 2 PIR* L378.

{II 2] S. L. Bassus Member of the equestrian class. First, commander of an ala under > Vitellius; then commander of the fleet of Misenum and Ravenna under

Vitellius in the year AD 69; he switched sides to > Vespasianus, who appointed him again as prefect of the fleet after his victory; it is attested that he remained in this function until early 71 [1. 247ff.]. Shortly thereafter, admission into the Senate; he was made legate of

ludaea probably midyear in 71 at the latest. He conquered the fortresses Herodium and > Machairus. He probably died in the province in 73. 1 M.Roxan, An Emperor Rewards His Supporters: The Earliest Extant Diploma Issued by Vespasian, in: Journal

{fl 7] P. L. Successor Equestrian, procurator August,

probably came from > Comum. AE 1991, 857.

WE.

Lucilla Annia Aurelia Galeria L., born on 7 March AD 148/9 (IGR 1, 1509), daughter of > Marcus [2] Aurelius and > Faustina [3] (SHA Aur. 7,7; 20,6f.; SHA Lucius Verus 2,4; 10,1), sister of > Commodus. In 161

engaged to be married to L. ->-Verus, marriage (SHA Lucius Verus 7,7) and elevation to the rank of Augusta in 164 (SHA Aur. 20,7); in 166 birth of a daughter. In 169, L. was married against her will to Ti. Claudius [II 54] (Cass. Dio 72,4,4) and in 170 or later she gave birth to a son Claudius Pompeianus (SHA Carac. 3,8; Hdn. 4,6,3). As the wife of Commodus was favoured over her, L. was involved in a (failed) assassination

of Roman Archaeology 9, 1996 2EPIRG Ty 3:79 3 W.Eck, S.L.Bassus, der Eroberer von Herodium, in einer Bauinschr. von Abu Gosh, in: Scripta Classica Israelica 18, 1999, 1ooff.

attempt against Commodus (Cass. Dio 72,4f.; Hdn. 1,8,4f.). In 182, L. was exiled to Capri and executed

[II 3] L. Capito Patrimonial procurator in the province of Asia under Tiberius; tried and convicted before the

H. TemporinI, Die Frauen am Hofe Trajans, 1978, Index

(Hdn. 1,8,8; SHA Comm. 4,1; 4,4; 5,7; 8,3). A.BrrLrey, Marcus Aurelius, 71987, Index s.v.; KIENAST, 71996, 145; PIR* A 707; RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, 54;

s.v.

ME.STR.

Senate for overstepping his jurisdiction. W.Eck, in: ZPE 106, 1995, 251ff. (= AE 1995, 1439); PURGE aes

W.E.

{II 4] L. Iunior Friend of > Seneca the Younger, known to us from the writings of the latter; he came from a modest background, perhaps from Campania, but — owing to his powerful friends — he rose quickly to the equestrian class; he passed through the three-stage trajectory of an equestrian (— tres militiae). He was given posts as procurator, perhaps through mediation by Seneca; only the one in Sicily (c. AD 63/4; PIR* L 388) is known directly. While he held that post, Seneca dedicated his Epistulae morales to him, as well as the Naturales quaestiones and the De Providentia. L. wrote philosophical prose and poems, including one about Sicily, but it is very unlikely that he wrote the > Aetna (Sen. epist. 79,5). EDITIONS: COURTNEY, 348f.;

BIBLIOGRAPHY: L.PETERSEN, PIR* L 388; L.Duret, Dans l’ombre des plus grands (II.), in: ANRW II 32.5, 1986, 3181-3186.

W.E.andJ.A.R.

{ff 5] L. L. Pansa Priscilianus Equestrian under > Commodus and Septimius Severus; procurator in Cilicia and Pannonia inferior, then procurator aquarum in Rome, then procurator of Lusitania et Vettonia, finally in Asia (IEph III 696a; VII 1, 3053). L. was married to Cornelia Marullina, the daughter of a senator; at least two of his sons became senators; cf. L. [II 6]. PIR? L 391.

Lucillianus [1] Father-in-law of the emperor > Iovianus (Amm. Marc. 25,8,9). In AD 350 L., probably as comes rei militaris, was successful against the Persians in the third siege of > Nisibis (Zos. 2,45,2; 3,8,2). In 354 he was comes domesticorum of Constantius [5] Gallus (Amm. Marc. 14,11,14). In 361, as magister equitum, he unsuccessfully fought back Iulianus’ advance [11] to Constantinople in Illyria (Amm. Marc. 21,9,5-10). lovianus elevated him to the rank of magister equitum et peditum in 363 (Amm. Marc. 25,8,9). In 364 L. was killed in Gaul during a military uprising (Amm. Marc. 25500; 6f.10803531552) aNE ra gieia ib. 3)e [2] In AD 363 comes rei militaris, fleet commander for lulianus’ [11] Persian campaign (Amm. Marc. 23,3,93 Die

LOe, Seno ag

ALINE, it, Ging (Ute).

WP.

[3] L. Maximus Senator. Consular governor of Syria Palaestina in AD 160. (AE 1994, 1914). Identical to the curator aedium sacrarum et operum publicorum in CIL VI 857 (AD 159); he was therefore suffect consul between c. 156 and 158. W.Ecx, Ein Militardiplom fiir die Auxiliareinheiten von Syria Palaestina aus dem J. 160 n.Chr., in: K6lner Jbb. 26,

1993, 451-454.

WE.

Lucillius (Aovxiddvoc; Loukillios). Epigrammatist, lived in Rome under the patronage of Nero, to whom he dedicated the second book of his epigrams in gratitude

853

854

for his financial support (Anth. Pal. 9,572). The identifications with the grammarian > Lucillus of Tarrha and — Lucilius [II 4], Seneca’s friend, are baseless. About 120 epigrams are extant (also probably a good part of the 52 poems attributed to ‘Lucianus’; cf. [r]). These are of an often remarkable quality and are almost all satirical (serious tones are extremely rare, cf. Anth. Pal. r1,388-90). With L. the scoptic epigram that was previously only sporadically cultivated (+ Epigram) reached its high point. It is characterized by its succinctness, the simple, smooth style, the language that approximates to the spoken word and the ending with its unmistakably barbed punch line. Mocked by L. are — almost always by name (6vouaoti; onomasti) — on the one hand people with physical or moral defects, and on the other hand bad representatives of their professions (e.g. pedantic grammarians, cf. Anth. Pal. 11,140,3). The humour is enlivened through word coinings, word plays and hyperboles; entire literary genres are parodied at times: the votive epigram (11,194), the funerary

[2] Roman wall painter of late antiquity from the end of the 4th cent. AD. He decorated the house of the aristocratic orator and philosopher Q. Aurelius > Symmachus, which the latter mentioned with praise in various letters (Symmachus, Ep. 2,2; 8,21; 9,50b). The nature and appearance of this painting may have resembled that of contemporary > catacombs or mosaics from late Imperial villas.

epigram (11,80; 312), the agonistic epigram (11,81;

83f., etc.) and the victor’s inscription (11,75-78). L.’ s

effect on subsequent Greek (from Nicarchus to Palladas) and Latin (Martial) scoptic epigrammatic writing was significant. 1 B.Batpwin, The Epigrams of Lucian, in: Phoenix 29, 1975, 311-335.

J. GEFFCKEN,

s.v.

L., RE

13,

1777-1785;

F.BRECHT,

Motiv- und Typengesch. des griech. Spottepigramms, 1930; V.LoNGo, L’epigramma scoptico greco, 1967, Omel.«

M.G.A,

Lucillus [1] (Aovuxidioc; Loukillos) of Tarrha. Greek grammarian from Crete; lived in the middle of the rst cent. AD. His most important works [1. 604 s.v. TaQea| included the grammatical treatise Technikd (Teyvina) with a chapter on the history of the Greek alphabet (Iegi yoappdatwv; Peri grammaton) as well as a book of proverbs (Ilegi magouuav/Peri paroimion; > Paroimiogra-

phi) that along with that of his predecessor > Didymus [x] later also served as a source for > Zenobius (cf. Suda, s.v. ZyvoBios). The work Iegi Oecoadovixys/ Peri Thessalonikés [1. 311f. s.v. Oeooadovixn] is also attributed to him. As a commentator of Apollonius [2]

Rhodius he is known from the subscriptio of the scholia to the 4th bk. of the Argonautica and from several quotations in the scholia to the rst book [2; 3]. Against the erroneous identification with the epigrammatist Lucillius (in [4]) cf. [5]. 1 A. MEINEKE, Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum quae super-

sunt, vol. 1, 1849

2A. Gudeman, s.v. L., RE 13, 1785—

1791 3 C. WENDEL, Die Uberlieferung der Schol. zu Apollonius von Rhodos, 1932, 108ff. 4 A. LINNENKUGEL, De Lucillo Tarrhaeo epigrammatum poeta, grammatico, rhetore, 1926

5 J.MarTIN, review, in: Gnomon

5, 1929,

124-26.

Bibliogr. cf. > Paroimiographi.

MB.

LUCIUS

L. GUERRINI, s.v. L., EAA 4, 721; S.RODA, Commento

Storico al Libro 9 dell’Epistolario di Q. Aurelio Simmaco, 1981, 178f. NH.

[3] Contemporary of Rutilius Namatianus, comes sacrarum largitionum (> comes) in the west before AD 417, who is said to have distinguished himself through incorruptible administration and as the author of satires with old Roman censorial harshness (Rut. Namat.

1,601-614), perhaps the addressee of > Symmachus (Symmachus. Ep. 8,21) and praetor triumphalis of CIL VI 1738, cf. XV 1700. His son Decius was governor of Etruria in 417 (Rut. Namat. 1,597-600). PLRE 1, 349 (Decius); 691 (Lucillus). J. VESSEREAU (ed.), Rutilius Claudius Namatianus, 1904, 248-252.

P.L.S.

Lucina Epithet of > Juno in her role as the goddess of birth. In antiquity the name is derived either from Latin lucus, ‘grove’, or Latin lux, ‘light’. The latter emphasizes the role of the goddess as midwife (Varro, Ling. 5,69; Varro antiquitates rerum divinarum fr. 100 CARDAUNS; Ov. Fast. 2,449f.; Plin. HN 16,235). The Kalendae, the days which mark the return of the cycle of the moon, are dedicated to Juno L. (Varro, Ling. 5,69; [1]). Her temple on the Esquiline in Rome was presumably consecrated in 375 BC by the Matrons (Plin. HN 16,235; InscrIt 13,2,120f.; [23 3]), its birthday was celebrated by the Matrons on the rst of March (+ Matronalia). On this occasion the women said a prayer to the midwife (Ov. Fast. 3,25 5f.). — Birth; > Calendar; > Matrona [1]; > Mena 1 DuMEéziL, 302f. 3 A.Zio_tKowski,

2J.Gac£, Matronalia, 1963, 70-78 The Temples of Mid-Republican

Rome, 1992, 67-71. D.Sappatuccl, La religione di Roma antica, 1988, 92f.

FR.P.

Lucius [I] (Aobxtoc; Lovkios)

[1] L. Kathegetes Author of pharmacological texts, active in the middle to the end of the rst cent. AD. > Galen (De compositione medicamentum secundum genera 13,295 K.), quoting from + Andromachus [5] the Younger,’ records a remedy against diarrhoea by L. of Tarsus, a city with a long pharmacological tradition (cf, also 13,292 K., where the name of the city is not mentioned). He is almost certainly to be identified with the more famous L. Kathegetes, the teacher of — Asclepiades [9] Pharmacion and of = Statilius Criton [1].

LUCIUS

855

856

The quotations in Galen show that Asclepiades, Criton and their contemporaries — Archigenes and Andromachus the Younger cited L. for a variety of remedies, including some for earache (12,623 K.), headache (13,648 K.), dysentery (13,295 K.), skin diseases (12,828 K.) and haemorrhage (13,857 K.). L. used a whole range of plant (13,746 K.) and mineral (13,524 K.) ingredients in his remedies. Although his remedies were clearly familiar to the pharmacological writers at the end of the rst cent. AD, none of L.’s writings were cited directly by Galen in the following cent.

the window of opportunity under emperor — Valens [2] to regain the episcopal see of Alexandria. His Nicene competitor Petrus II fled to Rome. L. proceeded rigourously against opponents of Arianism. After the return of Petrus in 378, however, he had to flee to Constantinople and in 380 accompanied into exile the Arian Demophilus deposed by Theodosius [2] I (Theod. Hist.

1 C. Fasricius, Galens Exzerpte, 1972, 191.

[2] Follower of the Roman

V.N.

feast letters and other works (cf. Jer. Vir. ill. A.LippoLp,

s.v.

Lucius

O. Hense (ed.), C. Musonius Rufus: Reliquiae, 1905, IXXXI; W.CAPELLE, s.v. L. (2), RE 13, 1797; M. POHLENZ,

Die Stoa, 1955, vol. 2, 145.

B.L.

[3] Platonic philosopher of the 2nd cent. AD, known only from eight references in Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories (CAG 8). He wrote a work in which he raised rigorous objections to almost all the teachings in the Categories of - Aristoteles [6], and > Nicostratus with whom he is often mentioned together and who had recourse to his works [1. 66, 258]; a distinction between their works is almost impossible [2. 530]. The aporias of L. and of Nicostratus greatly influenced later philosophers like Plotinus, Porphyrius and Jamblichus. 2 MORAUX 2, 1984.

K. PRAECHTER, Nikostratos der Platoniker, in: Hermes 57, 1922, 481-517 = Id., KS, 1973, 101-137; H.B. Gorr-

SCHALK, Aristotelian Philosophy in the Roman World, in: ANRW II 36.2, 1987, r1s5of. M.BA. and M.-L.L.

[4] L. of Patrae Mentioned by Photius (Cod. 129) as the author of several books of Metamorphoseis (‘Transformations’) in the Greek language (it could, however, also be only the name of the protagonist). Photius emphasizes an extraordinary similarity between the work attributed to > Lucianus [r] - ‘Donkey’ (Onos) and the first two books of Metamorphoseis of L. that, however, had a wider scope; a certain affinity must also have existed between L. and the homonymous work by Apuleius (> Ap(p)uleius [III]). The relative chronology of the three works and their reciprocal relationships are still the subject of discussion in modern research. —+ Novel H.vaNn THIEL, Der Eselsroman, vol. 1, 1971; G. BIANCO,

La fonte greca delle Metamorfosi di Apuleio, 1971; H.]J. Mason, Greek and Latin Versions of the Ass-Story, in: ANRW II 34.2, 1994, 1665-1707. M.FU. and L.G.

[5] L. of Alexandria Arian (> Arianism) who, after the death of Georgius [1] (AD 361), attempted to assert himself as bishop of Alexandria [1] against > Athanasius; however, he had to leave Egypt in 367. Only after the death of Athanasius in 373 did he return and used

(5a), RE

118).

Suppl. 10,

380 f.;

B. WinDAU, s. v. Lucius von Alexandrien,

$. D6pp (ed.)

Lexikon

32002,

der ant.

christlichen

Stoic ~ Musonius Rufus

and perhaps the author of a collection that represents the source of his excerpts passed down in > Stobaeus.

1 DorrI1E/BALTES 3, 1993

eccl. 4,21-23; Sozom. Hist. eccl. 6,19 f.; 6,38 f.5 7,53 Socr. 4,20-22; 4,24 and 36f.; 5,7). L. wrote Easter

Literatur,

465. M. MEI.

Lucius [II] (Old Latin Loucios, Greek Aebxtoc/Leukios or Aotxtoc/Lovikios, abbreviation L., in the east of the empire also Lu.). Roman praenomen. Etymologically related to lux (‘light’) [4. 823], according to ancient derivation ‘the one born at first daylight’ (Varro, Ling. 5,60; Fest. 106; Liber de praenominibus 5). A late invention is the derivation of L. as ‘descendant of the Etruscan Lucumones’ (Liber de praen. op.cit.) to explain the first name of the Roman king L. > Tarquinius Priscus, who was originally called > Lucumo. L. is the most widespread Roman first name, prominent especially in the family of the Aemilians, but avoided among the Claudians (Suet. Tib. 1,2); it also appears rarely as a family name (ILS 5324) and a cognomen [eZ On uh 2 eLOm| 1 KayJANTO, Cognomina 2 J.REICHMUTH, Die lat. Gentilicia, 1956 3SALOMIES, 34 4 WALDE/HOFMANN, vol. 1. K.-L.E.

[1] L. Verus see > Verus

[2] P. L. Cosconianus Suffect consul in AD 125 ({1] and an unpublished diploma [2]). His name also appears in Ephemeris epigraphica 9,220 from El Gandul in Baetica, from where he probably came. After the consulate he became curator operum publicorum (CIL VI 1472). 1 M.Roxan, W.Eck, A Diploma of Moesia Inferior: 125 Iun. 1, in: ZPE 116, 1997, 193-203 2 W.Ecxetal., Neue Militardiplome mit neuen Konsulndaten, in: Chiron 32, 2002, 401-426.

W.E.

Lucrativarum causarum concursus The coinciding of two lucrative, i.e. money-making bases (> causa) for a

transaction that are free of charge, e.g. by legacy (+ legatum) and gift, for the same object with a creditor. If one causa is fulfilled, the other one lapses; debtors are freed of their liabilities (Dig. 44,7,17; Inst. Iust. 2,20,6). If on the other hand one causa is lucrative and the other one is onerous (for remuneration), the claim by the creditor from the lucrative causa is maintained; in this way the buyer of a slave who is also willed to him by legacy can claim the slave on the basis of the legacy and demand back the purchase price with the actio

857

858

emptt (Dig. 44,7,19; Dig. 30,84,5; Dig. 21,2,9). If the creditor has first bought an object from the non-owner and later from the owner (competition between two onerous causae, cf. Dig. 21,2,20 pr.), the first causa lapses, so that the first vendor loses his claim arising from the — actio venditi and the purchaser has the > actio empti against him for repayment of the purchase price [4. 104-106]. ~ Emptio venditio 1 H.ANnxkum, Concursus causarum, in: Seminarios Com-

plutenses de derecho romano 8, 1996, 57-98 2W. ERNST, Rechtsmangelhaftung, 1995, 30ff. 3 KASER, RPR I, 643f.; Il, 448 4D.Mepicus, Id quod interest, 1962, rooff. 5 J.MiIcHEL, Gratuité en droit romain, 1962, 4o4ff. V.T.H.

Lucretia [1] Wife of > Numa Pompilius, mother of Pompilia, grandmother of Ancus > Marcius [I 3] (Plut. Numa 2st)

[2] Wife of Collatinus. Raped by the Roman prince Sex. + Tarquinius, she commits her husband with L. ~ Iunius [1 4] Brutus and P. Valerius to revenge and kills herself. This incident initiates the expulsion of the Tarquinians from Rome and with it the fall of rule by kings (Liv. 1,57—60 [1]; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4,64,467,4; Ov. Fast. 2,721-852; Val. Max. 6,1,1). Livy’s ver-

sion is of a political act in conjunction with the expulsion of the kings from Rome. L. here is the virtuous matron. Ovid represents her as a victim of her beauty. The character inspired numerous artists in the Middle Ages and in modern times: in Boccaccio, De claris mulieribus (1356-64) L. is the personification of chastity, and PETRARCH praises her in his epic Africa (in c. 1341). Further reception in H. Sacus (1527), W. SHAKESPEARE (1594) and many others. 1R.M. Ocitvie,

A Commentary on Livy 1-5, 1965, 218-

DB. H. Gauinsky, Der L.-Stoff in der Weltlit., thesis Breslau 1932; I.DoNALDSON, The Rapes of L. A Myth and its Transformations, 1982; A.G. LEE, Ovid’s ‘L.’, in: Greece and Rome 22, 1953, 107-118. L.K.

Lucretilis Mons amoenus (‘a delightful mountain’) in the territory of the Sabines, mentioned by Hor. Carm. 1,17 as close to his villa near Digentia (Licenza), possibly Monte Gennaro, which is visible from Rome. A. De ANGELIS, P. LaNzaARA, Monti Lucretili, 1980; E. A. SCHMIDT, Sabinum, 1997. GU.

Lucretius Italian surname (on its Etruscan connection

cf. [1. 182f.]). In the 5th and 4th cents. BC we encounter the patrician family of the Lucretii Tricipitini (among others with the rare praenomen — Hostus) which later died out; from the 3rd cent. BC onwards several plebeian families are known (Gallus, Ofella, Trio, Vespillo). The most important bearers of the name

LUCRETIUS

are — Lucretia [2] from early Roman history and the poet L. [III r]. 1 SCHULZE.

I. REPUBLICAN Il. Porr

K-L.E.

PERIOD

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD [11] L. In 54 BC he prosecuted M. Livius Drusus [I 5] Claudianus together with others (Cic. Att. 4,16,5). Pos-

sibly identical to L. [II 5]. JOR. [12] L., M. Brother of L. [I 8]. As people’s tribune in 172 BC, he obtained the lease of the > Ager Campanus (MRR 1, 411). In 171 legate under his brother in the 3rd > Macedonian War. PN. {I 3] L., P. The manuscript tradition of Livy 2,15,1 lists L. with various variants of the name as cos. in 506 BC. Presumably confused here with Sp. Larcius [J 2] (InscrIt 13, I, 348f.; cf. MRR 1, 6f.). C.MU. [I 4] L., Sp. Plebeian aedile in 206 BC. As praetor in 205 he was stationed in upper Italy in the 2nd > Punic War and was the first to engage with the enemy force led by ~ Mago [5] who had landed in Liguria; he then united his army with that of the proconsul M. Livius [I 13] Salinator (Liv. 28,46,12; 29,5,9). In 204 L. had an extended + imperium, and in 203 he was charged with rebuilding Genoa which had been destroyed by war (Liv. 30,1,9f.). In 200 he went to Carthage as an envoy, probably in order to demand the recall of Hamilcar [4] K.-L.E. from upper Italy (31,11,4-18). [1 5] L., Sp. Son of L. [I 4], in 172 BC praetor in Hispa-

nia ulterior. In the 3rd > Macedonian War he occupied the Tempe valley in 169 (Pol. 31,29-14; 8,48; Liv. 44,751; 12) in his function as legate. In 164 he was in the East with a delegation under Cn. Octavius (MRR 1, 441). PN. [I 6] L. Afella, C. Supporter of L. Cornelius [I 90] Sulla, on whose orders he successfully besieged C. Marius [I 2] in Praeneste during the civil war in 82 BC (Liv. Per. 88; Plut. Sulla 29,8; Vell. Pat. 2,27,6; App. B Civ. 1,401f.). Although he had not held an office, he applied for the consulate in 81; Sulla then had him killed by L. Bellienus [3] (Liv. Per. 89; Ascon. 91 C.; Plut. Sulla Bane te) K.-LE. [I 7] L. Flavus Tricipitinus, L. As cos. suff. for 393 BC (InscrIt 13, 1,100; 386f.) he waged war against the + Aequi and proposed the partitioning of the conquered territory of + Veii (Liv. 5,29,5; 30,8; cf. Diod. Sic. 14,102,4). In the subsequent period (in 391, 388, 383, 381) he was consular tribune four times (MRR 1, C.MU. 93; 98f.; 103f.), a clear sign of his status. {I 8] L. Gallus, C. Duumvir navalis in 181 BC to secure the Italian coasts. Praetor in 171 and commander of the fleet in the 3rd — Macedonian War. L. conquered > Haliartus and accepted the handover of > Thisbe (SHERK 2, |. 22-24), but in both places he mistreated the local population (Liv. 42,63,125; 43,7,5-11); for this he was prosecuted in Rome in 170 by Greeks and sentenced to a heavy fine by the Senate (Liv. 43,8,1-9).

LUCRETIUS W.EpeEr, Das vorsullan. Repetundenverfahren, thesis Munich 1969, 43-46.

PhD P.N.

The cognomen Tricipitinus is characteristic of the patrician gens Lucretia; variously explained as relating to the origin of the gens from * Tricipitium (‘triple head’) [z. 51] or a three-headed deity worshipped particularly in this gens [2. 176]. 1 J.ReEtcHMuTH, Die lat. Gentilicia, 1956 Dreiheit, in: RhM 58, 1903, 161-208.

860

859

2H.USENER,

[1 9] L. Tricipitinus, Hostus Roman consul in 429 BC

(MRR 1,65). L.’s praenomen, wrongly passed down to us in Livy (4,30,4) as Hostius [1. 30f., 135], is explained in the Liber de praenominibus (4) by the fact that L. was born ‘at the place of a guest friend’ (apud hospitem). 1 SALOMIES.

{1 10] L. Tricipitinus, L. As cos. in 462 BC (MRR

1,

3 5f.) he triumphed, according to Liv. 3,8,4-11; 10,1-4 and Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 9,69,2-71,7 over the > Aequi and the -> Volsci. Both authors believe that L. was also embroiled in the internal fights of the time as a protector of K. > Quinctius (Liv. 3,12,5-7; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 10,7,5), as praef. urbi in 459 who takes action against the agitation of the people’s tribunes (Liv. 3,24,2), and as an opponent of the > decemviri [1] (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 11,15,5). {1 11] L. Tricipitinus, Sp. Father of > Lucretia [2]. The later tradition attempted to enhance the status of L. who initially appeared as a very pale figure — by attributing to him several offices in the transition period to the Republic: praef. urbi under > Tarquinius Superbus, ~ interrex for the holding of the first consular elections, cos. suff. in 509 BC (MRR 1, 2f.). ({112] L. Tricipitinus, T. Consul in 508 and 504 BC, both times with P. > Valerius Poplicola (MRR 1,5; 7); compared with the latter, L.’s role as the leader in the battle against > Porsenna in 508 pales in the literary tradition (Liv. 2,11,8—10; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5,22,523,1) as does his role as the triumphant victor conquering the Sabines in 504 (Liv. 2,16,2; 16,6; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5,41-43). C.MU. {1 13] L. Vespilio In 133 BC plebeian aedile, had the corpse of Ti. > Sempronius Gracchus thrown into the Tiber which led to his being given the epithet ‘Corpse bearer’ which became hereditary (Val. Max. 1,4,2; Vir. ill. 64,8). K-LE. Il. IMPERIAL PERIOD [fl 1] L. L. Annianus Equestrian, prefect of Egypt, attested in May AD 239 (PMich. XV 675; cf. [1]). It is extremely uncertain whether Codex Iustinianus 7,5 5,2 refers to him (as in PIR* A 624). 1 G. BAsTIANINI, II prefetto d’Egitto (30 a.C.-297 d.C.): Addenda (1973-1985), in: ANRW II ro.1, 1988, 514.

[I 2] M. L. Iulianus Equestrian, probably from Baetica. According to AE 1972, 250, he was procurator XX her-

editatium in Baetica et Lusitania, procurator kalendarii Vegetiani in Baetica, and ultimately patrimonial procurator ibid. between AD 209 and 211; such concentration of procuratorial offices in one single region is exceptional (cf. [1]). 1 W.Ecx, M.L. Iulianus, procurator Augustorum. Zur Funktion und sozialen Wertschatzung von Provinzialprokuratoren, in: ZPE 100, 1994, 559-576.

{11 3] C. L. Rufus Probably proconsul of the province of Cyprus under Tiberius. PIR* L 411. {1 4] L.L. Servilius Gallus Sempronianus Senator, probably from Tarraconensis, lived in the 3rd cent. AD

(AE 1977, 449 = [1]). 1G. ALFOLpy, Ein Ziegelstempel mit dem Namen eines Senators aus Villajoyosa in der Hispania Citerior, in: ZPE 27, 1977, 217-221

2CaBattLos

(Senadores)

1, 196.

W.E. [I 5] Q. L. Vespillo Son of a senator proscribed by P. Cornelius [I 90] Sulla. He was a senator himself as early as 49 BC when he tried in vain to hold Sulmo against Caesar’s troops in the civil war (Caes. B Civ. 1,18,1-3;

Cic. Att. 8,4,3); in 48 he commanded a naval fleet for — Pompeius [I 3] on the coast of Epirus (Caes. B Civ.

35751; App. B Civ. 2,54,225). In 43 L. was proscribed by the triumvirs but hidden by his wife > Turia until he was pardoned (Val. Max. 6,7,2; App. B Civ. 4,189192). L. only became consul at a late stage in 19 BC at the wish of Augustus (R. Gest. div. Aug. 6; 11; coarser account

in Cass. Dio 54,10,2). Whether

L. was the

author of the so-called > Laudatio Turiae is uncertain (recently sceptical [1]). 1 D.Fiacu, Die sog. Laudatio Turiae, 1991, 1-8 Ear,

2 PIR* W.K.

III. Poer

[Ii 1] L. Carus, T., the Roman poet Lucretius. A. Lire B. DERERUM NATURA C. HISTORY OF RECEPTION A. LIFE

The ancient details regarding the exact time when the Roman didactic poet of Epicurean physics, T.L. Carus, lived are inconsistent [5]: (1) according to Jer. Chron. p. 194 H =a. Abr. 1923 (variant: 1921) he was

born in 94 or 96 (rather 98/7) BC, and died at the age of 44. (2) According to Don. vita Vergilii 6, he died on 15 October 55 when Virgil put on the toga virilis. Both pieces of information (which probably go back to Suetonius) not only involve the uncertainty of the transmission of numbers but also additional problems so that we are left with the relatively certain testimonial of (3) Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 2,9,3 of Feb. 54: Cicero evaluates the writings (poemata) of the (recently deceased?) L. multis luminibus ingenii, multae tamen artis (‘with many inspired and splendid passages that are also extremely skilful’). His only work with a title rich in allusions, ‘The Nature of Things’ (De rerum natura = d.r.n.) in 6

861

862

bks. is dated furthermore through the dedication to C. Memmius

[I 3] L.f. (about 98 to before 46 BC) who,

however, never showed any Epicurean ambitions and, although himself a Neoteric poet, did not acknowledge L.’s hommage [30]. Jerome reports that L. had become mad through a love potion, had committed suicide and had written his works between the bouts of illness is presumably Christian polemic against the atheist L., using L.’s own invective against the furor amoris (Lucr. 4,1141-1191). — Early textual witnesses have been found recently in Herculaneum [29]: the poetic reception does not start until Virgil’s Eclogues (from 42 BC)

which is why people like to regard Cicero as the ed. of L. even though this cannot be proven (emendavit in Jer.); however, L. is never mentioned

or used in Cicero’s

philosophical works. B. DE RERUM NATURA 1. STRUCTURE 2. GENESIS

3. POETOLOGY

4. PHI-

LOSOPHY 1. STRUCTURE L. claims (despite the Epicurean prose treatises in circulation at that time) to present for the first time in a valid Latin form the physics of + Epicurus, with poetry (rejected in a sweeping manner by the latter) serving as the publicity medium for the doctrine of salvation advocated with an almost religious pathos. The first pair of books teaches the fundamentals of atoms (bk 1: atom and emptiness as the only elements; bk. 2: atom movement and structure of matter), the second, the atomi-

stics of man’s soul (bk. 3: mortality of the soul and refutation of the fear of death; bk. 4: the theory of perception and the emotions, the philosophy of the sexual drive [3]), the third, evolution and the phenomena of the world (bk. 5: the theory of cosmology and culture; bk. 6: the natural, i.e. non-divine origin of atmospheric and terrestrial phenomena). After the great opening hymn to Venus as an expression of the power of nature (1,1-61), the external prooemia (bks. 1; 3; 5 hymnic) and (shorter) internal prooemia (bks. 2; 4; 6) [9] are followed by a syllabus with a

recapitulatio (not bks. 1 and 2) and propositio (a backwardand a foreward-looking synopsis); there are also classifying internal prooemia and interim syllabi. Less significant and more serious incongruities between the catalogues of themes and their executions as well as illogicalities and duplications in the tractatio (technical treatment) have led to partly serious philological interventions to smooth out the now disjointed, now associative train of thought in the didactic poem that otherwise follows the laws of the genre. Theorems are proposed with subsequent chains of evidence, and the author likes to do so in the form of unreal falsifications or (especially in bk. 6) of multiple explanation (pollache aitia) that is satisfied with the proof of explicability in order to exclude divine influence without wishing to establish the actual cause [20]. Enthymematic enthusiasm for conversion, perhaps following + Empedocles

LUCRETIUS

[x] (laudes, Lucr. 1,716ff.), is sometimes palpable even in passages of strict logic as well and allows the actual didactic goal, the propagation of the Epicurean lifestyle (far from politics and actionism) and ethics (voluptas as a goal of human action through the eradication of the fear of death and of the gods [19]), to come to the fore. A marked anticyclic movement of the ascendance of culture and decadence in human development (bk. 5) [17] leads to the exposition on the dispensability of divine powers (fight against religio) in the explanation of nature (naturae species ratioque; bk. 6) [2; 10; 27]; the

catastrophe of the Athenian plague of 430 BC (after Thuc. 2,47—52) subjects the student to a hardship test of Epicurean quies (‘calmness’, Greek yadyvn/galéné, Lucr. 6,1137-1286 ‘finale’). 2. GENESIS The textual duplicate of the 4th proem (4,1-25 = 1,924-950) and the double syllabus of bk. 4 (recapitulatio 4,26-44 refers to bk. 3, 4,45-53 to bk. 2) brought MEWALDT [18] to propose the theory of L. adopting a change in concept in actu whilst older interpreters assumed rather an interpolation or transmission-related textual adjustment (“Lucretian question’). There are also the exceptional book lengths (between 1094 and 1457 hexameters), the absence of the theology announced in 5,73ff., the abrupt conclusion to the didactic poem etc. as indications of the lack of completion of the whole work or improper interventions by ancient editors (Cicero? Tiro? Probus?). However, as nothing significant is absent in terms of content, much that is offen-

sive can be attributed to the intentional archaism of the style. 3. POETOLOGY

The austere appeal of the neoteric ‘pre-Classical’ poetry of L. [13] (> Neoteric poets) is caused by the deliberate imitation of the ancient language and hexameter technique of Q. > Ennius (laudes Lucr. 1,117ff.)

that is meant to give venerable authority to the doctrine supported. The didactic parts that are curiously probing and insistent upon the ‘truth’ are permeated by such surprisingly colourful and lyrical images, comparisons and small scenes, and even myths (e.g. sacrifice of Iphigenia) that the apparent incompatibility of philosophical discourse and poetic imagery [31] has been both rejected as a break with the style of L. who laboured under the difficult task (‘Antilucretius in Lucretius’) or

celebrated as the brilliant overcoming of the boundaries of the genre (e.g. by GOETHE). A third element are the diatribic laments about the distortion of the world, the blindness of humans and their fear of death and the gods (‘pessimism of L.’). The rejection of different Roman ideals (turning away from politics, the amorverdict against the elegiac poets, gods-free self-determination [11] against the state cult) hardly brought him acceptance from his contemporaries [23]. 4. PHILOSOPHY

The Epicurean physics presented by L. is traced back directly to Epicurus’ (lost) major work Ilegi pboews (Peri physeos) or to the latter’s Meyadn éxttopy (Megale

LUCRETIUS

864

863

epitome), especially as clear differences exist in relation to Epicurus’ didactic letter Ad Herodotum (there the parenclisis doctrine is absent; different gradation of the origin of language etc.) [7]. In the apologetics against other Hellenistic schools, more recent Epicureans may also have been taken into account (e.g. in the refutation of the Stoic Pronoia theory) [26]. The Epicurean evolution of matter is turned by the poet L. into a formidable spectacle of nature [25], for which humanity in its increasing anxiety and ‘darkness’ is no longer a match and therefore urgently needs ‘to see the light’ by way of Epicurus’ enlightenment in order to live. C. HisTORY OF RECEPTION The reception of L. among the Augustans (see Verg. G. 2,490ff.) is primarily on the poetic and imagery level but also concerns cosmogonic ideas and the theory of the finite nature of our world [12]. L. papyri in Herculaneum (— Herculanean papyri) [16] attest to the philosophical attention paid to him in Epicurean Campania. The Flavian and post-Flavian authors know ot L., Probus undertakes a critical edition around 70 and Suetonius writes his biography. The church fathers, especially Lactantius and Augustinus, polemicize against the atheist and his teaching of the contingency of nature but L.’s works assert their position throughout the entire Middle Ages after being taken in the 8th cent. from Italy to central and northern Europe and copied there

in: PCPhS 40, 1993/4, 1-17 natura, voluptas, 1989

10 F.GrancorrTl, Religio,

11 N.GuLtey, L. on Free Will,

in: Symbolae Osloenses 65, 1990, 37-52 12 G.D. Hapszits, L. and His Influence, 1963 13 J.K. Kine, L. and the Neoterics, in: W. CALDER (ed.), Hypatia, Essays H.E. Barnes, 1985, 27-43 14 B. Kreuz, Naturae species ratio-

que, in: Wiener humanistische Blatter 36, 1994, 102-122 15 H.Lupwic, Naturgesetz bei L., in: Philosophia naturalis 16, 1977, 459-479 16K.Kteve, L. in Herculaneum, in: Bollettino del Centro Internazionale per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi, Napoli 19, 1989, 5-27 17 B.Manuwa.Lp, Der Aufbau der lukrezischen Kulturentstehungslehre (AAWM), 1980, 3 18 J.MEWALDT, Eine Dublette in B. 4 des L., in: Hermes 43, 1908, 286-295 19 Id., Der Kampf des Dichters L. gegen die Rel., 1935 20 G. MILANESE, Osservazioni sulla tecnica argomenta-

tiva di L., in: T.ManTeERo (ed.), Analysis I — Didascalica, 1987, 43-92 21J.D. MinyarD, Mode and Value in d.r.n.,1978 22 A.MUHL, Die Frage der Entstehung von L.’ Lehrgedicht, in: Helikon 8, 1968, 477-484 23 K. SALLMANN,

L.’ Herausforderung

an seine Zeitgenossen,

in:

Gymnasium 92, 1985, 435-464 24 Id., Modernita del pensiero scientifico di L., in: Helikon 33/34, 1993/4, 4172 25 A.SCHIESARO, The Palingenesis of d.r.n., in: PCPhS 40, 1993/94, 81-107 26 J.ScHMIDT, L., der Kepos und die Stoiker, 1990 ©=27 P.H. Scurijvers, Horror ac divina voluptas,1970 28 A.STUCKELBERGER, L. reviviscens, in: AKG 54, 1972, I-25 29 W.SuERBAUM, Herculanensische L.-Papyri, in: ZPE 104, 1994, 1-21 30 G.B. TOWNEND, The Fading of Memmius, in: CQ 28, 1978,

267-283

31D.West, The Imagery and Poetry in L.,

1969 (repr. 1994).

[4]. The text discovered in 1414 by Pocero at the monastery of Murbach (Alsace) became the starting-point for the editions of the humanists (ed. princeps 1473 Brescia; pioneering D. LAMBIN in 1563 and 1570/73). Major textual witnesses are the Vossiani Leidenses O (Oblongus, related to the lost Poccrio text) and O

EprIrTions: J. MarTIN, 1934 (51963); C. MULLER, 1975.

COMMENTARY: C.BAILEY, 3 vols., 1947; F. GIANCOTTI, 71996; B. 3: R. HEINZE, 1897; E.J. KENNEY, 1971. CONCORDANCE: M. WACHT, 1991.; BIBLIOGRAPHY: C.GORDON, 1962; P.H. SCHRIJVERS,

in: Lampadion 7/1, 1966/68, 5-32.

KL.SA.

(Quadratus), both 9th cent., and another five MSS. The

influence of L. from the 16th cent. onwards is enormous: in poetry he influenced the poets ofthe Pléiade, in philosophy M.E. MontTAIcNne (ethics), P.GAssENDI (mechanistic world view), G.BRUNOo (plurality of worlds), J.DALTON (atomism), A.R. LesaGE (‘Lucréce

Luctus see > Mourning

newtonien’), J.LOCKE (empiricism), C. DARWIN (evolutionism), E. HAECKEL (pantheism), K. MARx (atheism).

tested [2. 128]. The combination of Lucius and L. ap-

The reaction of Christian theology was the Antilucretius sive de Deo et natura in to bks. by Cardinal MEtCHIOR DE POLIGNAC — printed posthumously in 1747. In the roth cent. L. was highly regarded by German Classicism [14] (L.v.KNEBEL completed in 1821 a metric translation on the advice of GOETHE),

and soon

afterwards by English Romanticism (A. TENNYSONn’s EIegy on the Death of L. appeared in 1865). ~» Epicurus; > Technical literature; + Didactic poetry; + Epicurean School; > Didactic poetry 1L. ALFANO Carancl, II] mondo animato di L., 1988 2 M.Bottack, La raison de L., 1978 3R.D. Brown, L.

on Love and Sex, 1987 4 F.BRUNHOLZL, Zur Uberl. des L., in: Hermes 90, 1962,97-104 5 L.CANFORA, Vita di L.,1993 6C.J. CLASSEN (ed.), Probleme der L.-Forsch., 199t 7D.Ctay, L. and Epicurus, 1983 8 I. Dionta1, L.,1988 9M.GaLg, L. 4,1-25 and the Proems ofd.r.n.,

Lucullus Roman cognomen, very rarely also a surname [1.289]. Probably a diminutive of the forename — Lucius [1. 177, 461]. The form Luciolus is also atpears in about 200 BC in the family of the Licinians: ~ Licinius [I 23-29] (the commander with a proverbially luxurious lifestyle [I 26]). The epithet L. then passes from there by adoption to M. Terentius Varro (cos. 73)

[2. 39]. 1SCHULZE

2 KajJANTO, Cognomina.

JO.E.

Lucumo (Latinized form of the Etruscan lauyume and similar [1. 827]). A. OFFICIAL TITLE

B. NAME

A. OFFICIAL TITLE Lucumones were the kings (Serv. Aen. 2,278; 8,475) who, in archaic times, ruled over the twelve Etruscan

populi and exercized the highest power as commanders, judges, and priests [4. 296-299]; one of them is said to

865

866

have acted as chairman in the Etruscan league of towns. With the end of the kingship, the title probably designated the bearer of a high priestly office in the manner of the > rex sacrorum [2. 64; 4. 297]; cf. [5. 145f.]. In — Mantua, the heads of the twelve curiae are said to have been called Lucumones (Serv. Aen. 10,202).

LUDI

previously been sentenced for murder by poisoning, she was now set free. In 68 Nero also used poison prepared

by her for his suicide. Galba had her executed. PIR? L 414.

W.E.

Ludi I. PREFACE AND GENERAL REMARKS

B. NAME

EGORIES OF ROMAN

a) Eponym of the Luceres (Cic. Rep. 2,14; Varro,

GAMES

Ling. 5,55), allegedly an Etruscan prince who supported Romulus in the battle against the Sabines (Serv. Aen. 5,560; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2,37; 2,42f.); b) original name of the later king > Tarquinius Priscus (Liv. 1,34; Macrob. Sat. 1,6,8): probably only a false aetiology for his praenomen Lucius [3.143]; c) aristocratic youth from — Clusium; he seduced the wife of his guardian ~ Arruns [3], who thereupon summoned the Celts to

Italy in order to avenge himself (Liv. 5,33,2—-4; Plut. Camillus 15,4-6); d) cognomen in Latin inscriptions (CIL II 984; V 428; 6522; VI 36756). 1 WaLpE/HoFMaNNn, vol. 1 2 J.HEURGON, Die Etrusker, 1971 3R.M. Ocirvie, A Commentary on Livy, 1965 4M.Pa.LLoTrino, Etruscologia, 71984 5 E. Vetrer, Etr. Wortdeutungen, in: Glotta 13, 1924, 138-149.

W.K.

Lucus Feroniae [1] Southern Etruscan sanctuary in the region of Capena (Liv. 1,30) on the Tiber below — Soracte in a forest sacred to > Feronia. The cult is said to have been

founded at the initiative of (Cato fr. 48 P). According wool market was held here Tullus Hostilius onwards.

Propertius, the king of Veii to Liv. 1,30,5, a sheep and every year from the time of Hannibal plundered the

treasure of the sanctuary in 211 BC (Liv. 26,11,8). In the time of Strabo it was still being visited (Str. 5,2,9). Caesar founded the Colonia Iulia Felix Lucus Feroniae (LF) here (CIL XI 3938; Plin. HN 3,51; Ptol. 3,1,47).

From the time of Augustus LF belonged to Regio VII. The town lies today at the exit to Fiano Romano from the Autostrada del Sole. Forum, amphitheatre, thermal baths, aqueduct, Villa of the Volusii Saturnini are preserved.. [2] A sanctuary of the same name was located at a spring on the via Appia near Tarracina (Verg. Aen. 7,800) [4. 5off.]. 1 A. Moretti, L.F., in: Civilta arcaica dei Sabini 2, 1974, 22ff. 2 M. and A.M. Moretti, La villa dei Volusii a EAP REO7. 3 M. TALIAFERRO BOATWRIGHT, | Volusii Saturnini, 1982 4 G.LUGLI, Circeii, 1928 5 G.SIMONcint, Il foro di L.F., in: Quaderni di Istituto Storico

dell’Architettura 52-53, 1962, 1-7 6 L. SENSI, Le iscrizioni di L.F., in: Annali Perugia 28, 1985-1986, 279ff. 7 M. MorettI, C. RENpDINA, L.F., 1997.

GU.

Lucusta Dealer in poisons, probably from Gaul, who, according to tradition, supplied the poison to Agrippina [3] to kill Claudius in AD 54, and in the following year to Nero to eliminate Britannicus. Although L. had

IN ROME

GAMES

II. MAIN CAT-

III. MOST IMPORTANT

IV. FINAL COMMENT

I. PREFACE AND GENERAL REMARKS The Roman /udi (ludus: ‘game’) were festivals with a more or less strongly defined religious character. In so far as they were public, they were held on the occasion of celebrations of the Roman people, and the entire citizenry was invited to them (Cic. Har. resp. 26). Aside from the public games, there were private ones (organized by private persons), especially the ludi Funebres (funeral games), which were held in honour of a deceased person of importance, either immediately after his death or later as a memorial celebration. This article offers an overview, primarily of the public games (cf. [1; 2; 3] with bibliography, especially of the practical aspects of the course of the games and their organization), common characteristics and categories of the Roman /udi and, finally, the individual features of the most important games known to us. In spite of their diversity, the individual /udi also possessed common traits, in their form as well as in their religious and socio-political ends. A. CONTENT

B. HISTORY AND

DEVELOPMENT

C. GROWTH IN NUMBER OF THE LUDI, EXTENSION OF THE FESTIVAL PERIODS

A. CONTENT The word /udus, in ancient inscriptions /oidos or loedos, is perhaps of Etruscan origin: Livy connects the ludi of the year 364 BC with the Ludiones, ‘actors’ who were ‘brought from Etruria’ (7,2,4). The games consisted primarily of sports (horse or chariot races, wrestling and boxing matches, athletic competitions of all kinds) and artistic activities (+ Mimos, music and general theatre). However, these did not represent the most important component: various religious rites (> Sacri-

fice, > Procession, > Prayer) were initially a part of them and lent them their true meaning. The religious character of a priori profane activities is amazing froma modern standpoint and represents a genuinely Roman characteristic of the ludi [4]. B. HisTORY AND DEVELOPMENT Rome’s oldest games were — circus games and are

known to us in two different forms. The first type (cf. II. A.) had religious rites as content and took place annually, in connection with important moments in the course of the year. The others were held irregularly to keep a vow — ludi Votivi, e.g. the ludi Magni (Liv. 5,19,6; 31,2) held in 392 BC by M. > Furius [I 13]

867

868

Camillus after the conquest of Veii, in accordance with a vow made in 396 BC. In the period that followed the practice of having games like these held each year as well spread more and more. This was probably true in

celebrated twice a year in the > Circus Maximus, where there was an altar to the god > Consus, not only horses, but also mules were raced. In addition, the beasts of burden used on farms were allowed to romp about and were crowned with wreaths. This is the way people wished to honour Consus, the god of the stored grain and the completed harvest.

LUDI

an early age for the ludi Romani (cf. Il. B.), certainly, however, for the ludi Apollinares (cf. Il. C. and III. A.).

Using the example of the latter, Livy demonstrates well the process of firmly establishing votive games: initially, the vow was made to hold the /udi Apollinares once and then from year to year repeatedly vowed and held, until finally it was vowed to celebrate them in perpetuity (Liv. 27,23,5-7). The ludi scaenici broke with the Roman tradition: Livy (7,2,3) disapproves of them and represents them as an innovation (mova res), ‘since up to

this point, one only knew the circus spectacles’ (nam circi modo spectaculum fuerat).

C. GROWTH IN NUMBER OF THE LUDI, EXTENSION OF THE FESTIVAL PERIODS The tendency to make the votive games annual events resulted in their number growing in time. In addition, their duration increased (thus the /udi Apol-

linares grew from one day to nine; for more details see ~+ Augustalia, > Decennalia, > Iuvenalia, > Sebastea and — Severia). By the end of the Roman Republic the number of days devoted to the /udi numbered 76 (cf. [1. 1372]), and Livy writes that in the time of Augustus their length had become ‘an insanity hardly affordable even for wealthy kingdoms’ (Liv. 7,2,13). The phenomenon became considerably worse in the Imperial period: not only did games in memory of important events become ever more numerous, but the emperors also wanted to celebrate events which concerned them personally (cf. Il. D.), and they offered the population the spectacular gladiatorial games which were a particular success (cf. II. D., > Munera). According to the calendar of Philocalus (> Chronographer of 354) 175 days in that year were devoted to the games (CIL I’ p. 300).

II. MAIN CATEGORIES OF ROMAN GAMES In accordance with G. Wissowa [5], six categories of public games can be distinguished, chiefly by their religious content. A. SACRED AND PRIESTLY GAMES ROMANI TIVEGAMES

C.Lup1ScaEnic1 E. AGONES

B. LuDI

D. COMMEMORA-

F. GLADIATORIAL GAMES

A. SACRED AND PRIESTLY GAMES

These oldest of Roman games had a decidedly religious character and were led by priests, e.g. the festival of the > Equus October, celebrated annually on 15 October [6. 117—125]). At the Equirria, held on 27 February and especially on 14 March on the Field of Mars, in which teams of horses competed against each other, the winning horse was not sacrificed, but here as well, the goal was to honour Mars: Ovid (Fast. 2,860) tell us that

‘the god watches this race’ (quae deus in Campo prospicit ipse suo). At the > Consualia, which were also

B. Lup1 ROMANI These games, also known as /udi magni, were organized by magistrates and showed a less religious character than those previously mentioned: they have Etruscan traits; Th. MOMMSEN [7. 42-57] and G. Wissowa [5.453] correctly assume (aifferently A. PIGANIOL [8. 75-91]) that these games initially represented the obligatory lengthening of a > triumph. Originally, they probably took place irregularly. They were then heid on the basis of a votum made to > Iuppiter Optimus Maximus and held in his honour after the successful granting of the request. Livy (1,35,9) writes that they had already become an annual event at the time of Tarquinius Priscus (end of the 7th/beginning of the 6th cent.). It is very likely, nevertheless, that this happened only later, perhaps, according to Th. MomMseEn’s hypothesis [7. 53], from the introduction in the 4th cent. BC of the + Curulian Aediles, the Curatores Ludorum

Sollem-

nium. The ludi Romani consisted chiefly of horse and chariot races, wrestling and dancing. They began witha solemn > procession, the Pompa, of which Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7,72-73) gives a description, taken from the work of Fabius Pictor: the procession from the Capitol through the Forum to the Circus Maximus was led by the highest magistrates of Rome, followed by the youth of Rome on foot or horseback. After them came all the other participants: chariot drivers, riders, wrestlers, musicians. At the end of the procession came images of the gods carried by men on their shoulders. After the procession, the priests and consuls sacrificed cattle, before the actual games finally began. This procession of divine images and the sacrifices which followed show (just as the > Iovis Epulum and the Instauratio, cf. I. F. and G.) that the ludi Romani kept their religious character in spite of everything: they were held in September in honour of Jupiter (in honorem lovis, Fest. 109 L.) and stood in close zelation with the anniversary of the dedication of the Temple ofJupiter on the Capitol on the Ides of the same month. They should be interpreted as ceremonies of thanksgiving, as a lengthening of a triumph and as public celebration of the power ofJupiter. C. Lupi SCAENICI The ludi scaenici were never autonomous games. From 364 BC they were a part (Liv. 7,2,3) of the ludi Romani. However, at this point in time they meant an innovation (cf. I. B.), which was introduced at the high point of a plague to induce its passing — which Livy ascribes to superstitio. Meanwhile the scenic games

869

870

gained ever-growing success in the following period. They became the main part of the games such as the ludi Apollinares, introduced in 212 BC, the ludi Megalenses, founded in 204 BC, or the ludi Florales, which had become a permanent fixture in 173 BC. Originally of Etruscan origin and undoubtedly popular, they took on a fixed literary form from 240 BC. In this year for the first time the Senate permitted the performance of a Greek play in Latin translation (Varro in Gell. 17,21,42f.). On these occasions the comedies of + Plautus and > Terentius were performed. The /udi scaenici certainly no longer had a distinctly religious character by the time of these authors (end of the 3rd, beginning of the 2nd cent.) — in contrast to previously: originally held because of the plague in 364 BC, they were supposed to propitiate the angry gods (Liv. 752,53: inter alia caelestis irae placamina). On the other hand, Augustinus states that the ‘heathen gods’ themselves had demanded the introduction of scenic games in their honour (Aug. Civ. 2,8). Other indications confirm this, particularly the direct proximity of such games to the temple of the deity being honoured (Liv. 40,51,3; Cic. Har. resp. 24). This is explained by differing influences, primarily

F. GLADIATORIAL GAMES The gladiatorial games (+ munera [gladiatoria], gladiatoria, also gladiatores) emerged in Rome for the first time in 264 BC (Val. Max. 2,4,7). It was not, however, a matter of official ceremonies, but of private presentations, which were initially offered on the occasion of funeral solemnities. Gladiatorial games seem to have been adopted by the Romans from the Etruscans. This points to their great antiquity and it is supposed that originally they probably offered a bloody sacrifice to the deceased or to deities of the dead, especially Phersu. It should be noted, however, that the first image of gladiators is in a grave in Paestum, which dates only from 390 BC [9. 149-150; ro. 6f.]. For further infor-

Etruscan (see I. A.) and Greek (religious origin of the

theatre). The Roman tradition demonstrated an openness to these influences. Cicero attests that the scenic games were regarded as a sign of honour (honos) to the gods, the more so as they were enriched through dance and song (Cic. Leg. 2,22: loedis publicis ... popularem laetitiam et cantu et fidibus et tibiis moderanto eamque cum divom honore iungunto; cf. Censorinus, DN. 12,2;

also [5. 463; 9. 138-139]). — Competitions, artistic

D. COMMEMORATIVE GAMES Commemorative games appear from the time of the civil wars: some commemorated a distinct event (thus perhaps the /udi Divi Augusti et Fortunae Reducis for the return of Augustus from the Orient, ~ Augustalia), others celebrated the birthday of the reigning emperor or those of deceased and deified emperors (CIL I p. 302ff. as well as Tert. de spectaculis 6,2). They clearly retained only a weakly religious character. E. AGONES The same holds for the agones of the Greek type,

which were composed of physical exercises, of artistic and equestrian parts with horse and chariot races (> Sport festivals; > Competitions, artistic). The bestknown agon of Rome was the Neronia (Suet. Nero 12,7), first held in 60 BC: the part dedicated to sport took place in the > Saepta of the Field of Mars, the artistic part in the Theatre of Pompey, and the part dedicated to horses probably in the Circus of Caligula lefeasar46'5)|:

LUDI

mation see > Munera, > Gladiator. III. MosT IMPORTANT A. Lup1 APOLLINARES C.Lupi FLorRALES E. Lupi PALATINI

RoMAN!I

GAMES IN ROME B. LupDI CERIALES

D.LuDI MEGALENSES _F. Lup1 PLEBEI G. LuDI

H.LuDISEviIRALES

J. LupI TAuURII

K. Lup1 TERENTINI

A. Lup1 APOLLINARES The ludi Apollinares were established in 212 BC, after inspection of a collection of prophecies that had

come into the hands of the praetor a short time before, the Carmina Marciana. The Games’ establishment came about as a result of fears during the second — Punic War (Liv. 25,12; Macrob.

The Sibylline Books

Sat. 1,17,27-30).

(— Sibyls), also consulted, con-

firmed the advice. Remarkably, the prediction stated that the people should honour Diana and Latona according to Greek ritual, and that each person should contribute to the costs of the Judi according to their means (Liv. 25,12,13-14). In this way, religious solidarity and, in the spirit of the Lectisternia (> Lectisternium), an atmosphere of brotherly cordiality were created [11. 280-281]. The games were held in Circo Maximo (Liv. 25,12,14) and accordingly included activities from the field of equestrian sports, but they also included stage performances: Ennius (239-169 BC) had his Thyestes performed as part of this festival (Cic. Brut. 78). In general, the /udi Scaenici in Rome seem to have developed under the auspices of > Apollo, since the first theatrum, whose construction was planned in 179 BC, is supposed to be situated in the vicinity of the Temple of Apollo (Liv. 40,51,3) [11. 395]. From 208 BC on, the ludi Apollinares kept the 13th ofJuly as their fixed date (Liv. 27,23,7 [corrected according to 37,4,4]: .. ut ut ludi in perpetuum in statam diem voverentur. ipse primus (sc. praetor urbanus) ita vovit fecitque ante diem tertium nonas Quinctiles; is dies deinde sollemnis

servatus). However, days, and references Alex. Sev. 37,6; SHA dar of Philocalus ( their longevity.

they soon extended over several in the Historia Augusta (SHA Max. Balb. 1,1) and in the CalenChronographer of 354) attest to

871

872

B. Lupi CERIALES The ludi Ceriales are attested for the first time for the

by > Plautus was performed in 191 BC at these games, the Andria by > Terentius in 166 BC and his Hecyra in 165 BC. The ludi Megalenses were led at first by the curule aediles (Liv. 34,54,3), from 22 BC by the praetors (Cass. Dio 54,2,3). They lasted from 4 April (Liv. 29,14,14 with the correction pridie Nonas instead of Idus Apriles, cf. [14. 117'**]) to 10 April (Liv. 36,36,3;

LUDI

year 202 BC (Liv. 30,39,8), with the remark that they were carried out by the dictator and the commander of the cavalry, clearly because of the dismissal of the Plebeian Aediles, who were normally responsible for the organization of these games. G. WissowA [12. 1980] and E. HaBEL [2. 624] date the regular holding of the games to the end of the 3rd cent., according to LE BonNIEC [13. 315-319], they must, as circus games, go back at least to the beginning of the 5th cent. BC. In his view, these /udi had done nothing more than continue the ancient tradition of letting foxes loose in the Circus on the occasion of the > Ceres celebrations, whereas the regular celebration of scenic games was newer, probably beginning around 175 BC [13. 323]. The date of the ludi Ceriales was 19 April, the anniversary of the founding of the Temple of Ceres (Aedes Cereris) at the Circus Maximus. The Circus Games are mentioned primarily in Ovid (Ov. Fast. 4,681-712). C. Lup1i FLORALES We know the /udi Florales chiefly from Ovid. We learn from him that they contained a venatio (‘animal baiting’) of goats and hares, comparable to the releasing of foxes in the Circus at the Cerialia (Ov. Fast. 5,372; cf. Mart. 8,67,4 and Suet. Galba 6,1). In 238 BC, games (Ov. Fast. 5,292; Plin. HN 18,286) were dedicated to

the goddess > Flora, in 173 BC they became a permanent fixture on the 28th of April (Ov. Fast. 5,229-230). At first their organization probably lay in the hands of the people’s aediles (Cic. Verr. 2,5,36), from the early Imperial period in the hands of the praetors (Suet. Galba 6,1). These ludi were specifically scaenici: ‘stage games’ (Oy. Fast. 4,946), be it that, as Ovid says, they offered ‘light entertainment’ (scaena levis, ibid. 5,347); ‘a crowd of courtesans performs these games’ (ibid. 5,349) — indeed, on this occasion they danced and undressed in public (schol. ad Iuv. 6,249; Val. Max. 2,10,8). Lactantius vehemently condemns the immor-

[2. 627]).

E. Lup1 PALATINI We have little evidence on the ludi Palatini. From Cassius Dio we know only that they were introduced by ~ Livia [2] at the death of Augustus to honour his memory, and that they were held on the Palatine (> Mons Palatinus) (Cass. Dio 56,46,5). They certainly took place throughout the Imperial period, as they appear again in the Calendar of Philocalus (AD 3 54) for the period from 17 to 22 January. Emperor Caligula was assassinated during the Idi Palatini of AD 41 (Suet. Cal. 56,4).

F. Lup1 PLEBEI The ludi Plebei are attested as annual games for the first time in 215 BC (Liv. 23,30,17). Since they were held in the > Circus Flaminius (Val. Max. 1,7,4), how-

ever, it is generally assumed (cf. [2. 621]) that their origin goes back at least to when this edifice was built in 220 BC (Liv. Per. 20); on the other hand, since Livy is completely silent about them in his entire first decad, they must be more recent than the end of the period described therein, i.e. must have originated after 293 BC [1. 1378]. They were organized by the people’s aediles (Liv. 23,30,17) at the end of the Roman Republic and lasted from 4 to 17 November (CIL F p. 299). They consisted of equine and theatrical competitions: a didaskalion records that the Stichus of Plautus was played in 200 BC on the occasion of the ludi Plebei. These games had a marked religious character and appear repeatedly in parallel with the Judi Romani; like these, they included a ‘holy meal in honour of Jupiter’

ality of the ludi Florales (Lactant. Div. inst. 1,20,10).

(> lovis epulum: Liv. 30,39,8), besides a ‘review of the

But the rites can be explained in that Flora was the goddess of ‘universal blossoming’ (cf. [14. 13 53%]).

horses’ (equorum probatio: CIL P p. 300), and had to be reinstituted on several occasions

(instaurati: Liv.

23,30,17; 28,10,7; 39,7,10): as we know, an instaura-

D. Lup1 MEGALENSES The ludi Megalenses were established in 204 BC, at

the time of the introduction of the cult of + Cybele. The goddess came to Rome in the symbolic form of a black stone from the Phrygian Pessinus. Cybele was called ~ Mater Magna (‘Great Mother’), and the Greek word

for magna, megalé, led to the term Megalensis. Livy (29,14,13-14) relates that the founding of her temple was celebrated with a — lectisternium and games. These were at first ludi circenses with a procession at which images of deities were displayed (Ov. Fast. 4,377 and 391), but at an early date they also became scaenici: Livy tells of such games to have been held in 194 BC (34,5453; Valerius Antias in 191 BC: Liv. 36,36,4; cf. [15. 993°]). The Didascalia declare that the Pseudolus

tio was called for when religious obligations had been disregarded. G. Wissowa [5. 423] rightly emphasized the Iovis epulum: Jupiter was undoubtedly the main addressee of the Iudi Plebei. G. Lup1 RoMaNl At the time of Augustus the ludi Romani lasted from 4 to 19 September (CIL I’ p. 299). They were circenses (> Circus II. Games) and scaenici (see II. C.); regarding

the theatrical aspect it can be noted that the Phormio of Terence was performed on the occasion of the ludi Romani of 161 BC. The lovis epulum (see e.g. Cass. Dio 48,52,2) is attested for them as is the instauratio (Cic. Div. 1,55 should be added to the above quoted passages for the ludi Plebei).

873

874

H. LupI sEVIRALES The ludi sevirales were organized annually by the seviri (turmis) equitum Romanorum, a collegium of the

leaders of the six old cavalry units (SHA Marcus Antoninus 6,3). Their existence is attested from 2 BC by Cassius Dio: it was their responsibility to organize the games for the dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor and later those in commemoration of this dedication, during which each of the seviri probably had to lead one of the six squadrons (turmae) (Cass. Dio 55,10,4, Zon. 10,35). The honorary post is attested until the 3rd cent. and was held chiefly by members of the Imperial house. For the most important source texts see [16. 523-525;

Al, J. Lup1 Tauri

The ludi Taurii were established (according to Fest. 478 L.) in honour of the deities of the underworld; they are supposed to date from the time of Tarquinius Superbus (6th cent. BC) and originally to have had the goal of averting a serious disease which befell pregnant women and whose origin was ascribed to the meat of bulls offered for sale (bull = taurus). Serv. Aen. 2,140 mentions two other explanations for the Judi Taurii: an infertile woman was called taurea, or a public disgrace was deflected through this ritual onto the bulls slaughtered as propitiatory sacrifices. In any case, the celebration of the ludi Taurii is attested by Livy (for 186 BC with a duration of two days: 39,22,1) as well as by a fragment of the Fasti Ostienses (CIL XIV, Suppl. 4541), which perhaps concerns the year AD 99 [18]. Furthermore, Varro (Ling. 5,154) mentions these games with the remark that they consisted of horse races in the Circus Flaminius on the Field of Mars. The clearly propitiatory character of the ludi Taurii is chiefly suggested by their mention in the libri fatales, which are supposed to have called for their establishment (Serv. Aen. 2,140), and by

the ‘religious sense of duty’ (religio), which being held in 186 BC (Liv. 39,22,1). F. assumption ([{19. 2543]; cf. [11. 81]), that and killing of the bull’ took place remains thetical.

led to their ALTHEIM’S a ‘hunting

very hypo-

K. Lup1 TERENTINI The ludi Terentini or Tarentini are well attested for 249 BC. Censorinus quotes Varro with the statement that in that year the Sibylline Books (> Sibyls) were consulted upon the appearance of serious omens; it became clear from these omens that Tarentine games were to be held on the Field of Mars in honour of > Dis Pater and of > Proserpina (ut Diti Patri et Proserpinae ludi Tarentini in campo Martio fierent), namely for three days, during which black sacrificial animals were to be slaughtered; the rite was to be repeated every hundred years (Censorinus, DN, 17,8). A scholion by PseudoAcro to Hor. Carm. saec. 8 with a quote from Verrius Flaccus confirms this. Liv. Per. 49,6 demonstrates that such games actually took place roo years later, i.e. in 149 BC or, which is more probable, in 146 BC (cf. Cas-

LUDI

sius Hemina, quoted in Cens. 17,11). The subsequent games could probably not be held on account of the Civil Wars, but they were held again in AD 47 (Tac. Ann. 11,11,1; Suet. Claud. 21,2-4). On this date they coincided with the 8ooth anniversary of the founding of Rome, and from then the rhythm of this festival commemorated the founding of the city. Moreover, Censorinus reports that games with a timing of every 100 years already existed before the Tarentine games of 249 BC: in 346 BC and even earlier, at an interval of more than 100 years, in 509 BC (see [20. 91-94]). The scholion with the quote from Verrius Flaccus informs us that the ceremony of 249 BC included above all a carmen saeculare and a sacrifice. The song (comparable in function to the Carmen Saeculare of Horace) was supposed to entreat the gods to grant Rome an auspicious fate for the beginning century. The origin of the games is discussed generally, based on the two variants (ludi) Tarentini or Terentini: the first spelling indi-

cates a Greek origin through its reminiscence to Tarent [21. 1705-1706]; the second, through its reminiscence to Terentum (an area bordering the banks of the Tiber on the western end of the Field of Mars, close to the modern Victor-Emmanuel bridge), indicates a Roman origin in connection with cults of the deities of the underworld (cf. [22. 32ff.; 23]). For further information on the /udi saeculares see > saeculum, [20. 93ff.; Aurel| IV. FINAL COMMENT During the Imperial period, games were not only countless in number, but also occupied an important position in the > recreation of the Romans. Juvenal’s comment that the people demand only two things, panem et circenses, ‘bread and (circus) games’ (Juv. 10,80-81) is well-known, and Pliny the Younger laments that thousands of people passionately follow banal horse races (Plin. Ep. 9,6). The /udi also played a large role in the context of the duties of the aristocrats (Cass. Dio 53,1-2): they were enormously expensive

and were partially a burden on the magistrates, who were responsible for their organization. The emperors supported the games, since in the /udi they had an effective means at their disposal for securing their power: the unanimity of the people at the games appeared to be a consent by all individual groups to imperial authority (cf. [24. 116f.]). + Leisure; > Religion (Rome); > Saeculum; — Specta-

cles 1J.Tourain, s.v. L. publici, DS Ilf.2, 1362-1378 2E.HaBet, s.v. |. publici, RE Suppl. 5, 608-630 3 J. REGNER, s.v. |. circenses, RE Suppl. 7, 1626-1664 4 G. FREYBuRGER, De la valeur religieuse des jeux 4 Rome, in: J.-M. ANpRE, J. DANGEL, P. DEMonr (ed.), Les loisirset

Vhéritage de la culture classique (Collection Latomus 230), 1996, 340-348 5 G. Wissowa, Rel. und Kultus der Romer, *1912, 449-467 6 U.SCHOLZ, Stud. zum altital. und altrom. Marskult und Marsmythos, 1970, 103-167 7TH.

Mommsen,

Rom.

Forschunger,

vol.

2, 1879

8 A.PIGANIOL, Recherches sur les jeux romains, 1923

LUDI

9 J.-M. Anpr®, Griech. Feste, rom. Spiele. Die Freizeitkultur der Ant., 1994 10 G. Vite, La gladiature en Occident des origines a la mort de Domitien, 1981 11 J. GacE, Apollon romain. Essai sur le culte d’ Apollon et le développement du ‘ritus Graecus’ a Roine des origines a Auguste, 1955 12 G. Wissowa, s.v. Cerialia, RE 3, 1980f. 13H.Le Bonniec, Le culte de Cérés 4 Rome, 1958 14R.ScHILLING (ed.), Ovide. Les Fastes vol. 2,

1993 15 PH. BorGEAuD, La mére des dieux, de Cybele a la Vierge Marie, 1996 16 Momsen, Staatsrecht 3, "1887, 523-525

17 A.KLotTz, s.v. Seviri, RE 2 A.2,

2018 18 L. Wickert, Vorbemerkungen zu einem Suppl. Ostiense des CIL, in: SPrAW, 1928, 53f. 19 F. ALTHEIM, s.v. Tauriil., RE 4 A.2, 2542-2544 20 G.FREYBURGER, Jeux et chronologie 4a Rome, in: Ktema 18, 1993, 91-101 21 M.P. Nitsson, s.v. saeculares |., RE 1 A.2, 1696-1720 22 G. MarcHETTI-LONGHI, II culto ed i tempii di Apollo in Roma prima di Augusto, in: MDAI(R) 58, 1943, 27-47 23 R. MERKELBACH, Aeneas in Cumae, in: MH

83-99

24 M. CLAVEL-LEVEQUE,

L’empire

18, 1961,

en

jeux.

Espace symbolique et pratique sociale dans le monde romain, 1984.

J.BLAnsporF, Codex

876

875

Der ant. Staat und die Schauspiele im

Theodosianus,

in: BLANSDORF,

261-274;

D.P.

Harmon, The Religious Significance of Games in the

R.Bepon (ed.), Les villes de la Gaule lyonnaise (Caesarodunum 30), 1996; F.B&RaRD, Y.LE BouEc (ed.), In-

scriptions latines de Gaule lyonnaise, 1992; M. RENZETTI, s.v. Provincie romane, EAA’, 1996, 522-530; P. WuILLEUMIER, L’administration de la Lyonnaise sous le HautEmpire, 1948. Yiu

Lugdunum, Lugudunum (modern Lyons). A. NAME B. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT C. ECONOMY AND CULTURE

A. NAME Oldest, purely Celtic form on a silver coin from 42 BC. Lugudunon, Latin Lugudunum; Ptol. 2,8,17: Aovydovuvov/Lougdounon. Cass. Dio 46,50,5 mentions Aovyovdouvov/Lougoudounon as the oldest form and AovydSovvov as the usual form in his time. The meaning of the first part of the word is controversial [1. 30, 38]: from Lug, the name of a Celtic deity or from Aotyos/ lotigos, according to Cleitophon FGrH 293 F 3 Celtic for ‘raven’, therefore ‘raven fortress’ (dunon, Celtic ‘mountain, fortress’). L. could also mean ‘shining mountain’ (mons lucidus).

Roman Age, in: W.J. RASCHKE (ed.), Archaeology of the

Olympics and other Festivals in Antiquity, 1988, 236255; G.B. Picui, De ludis saecularibus populi Romani, 21965;

K.SALLMANN,

Christen

vor

dem

Theater,

in:

BLANSDORF, 214-223; P.VEYNE, Le pain et le cirque. Sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique, 1976. G.F.

Ludi scaenici see > Ludi II. C.; > Theatre;

> Compe-

titions, artistic

Ludus litterarius see > School III B 2

Lug(us) see > Teutates Lugdunensis Roman province, result of the partitioning of Gallia Comata into three provinces (Tres Galliae: > Belgica, L., > Aquitania) by Augustus between 27 and 13 BC. Gallia L. comprised the tribes of Armorica, the Veliocasses and the Caletes. Several Celtic

tribes of the southern Loire region belonged to Aquitania. Through the incorporation of the Lingones, Sequani, Raurici and Helvetii in the province of Belgica (in ro or 8 BC), the L. no longer had access to the Rhine (Str. 4,3,1; Plin. HN 4,106). Gallia L. therefore united the remaining kingdom of the Haedui with the areas of the peoples between the Liger and the Sequana and those by the sea. The provincia was led by a legatus Augusti pro praetore with his seat in > Lugdunum (Lyons). The reorganization of the Gaulish imperial administration under Diocletian led to the creation of four provinces: Gallia L. I (capital at Lugdunum), IT (Rotomagus), [JJ (Caesarodunum) and IV (Agendicum) (> Diocletian, with map). In the 4th cent. AD, annexed

to the dioecesis of the 10 provinces. + Gallia (with map);

> Lugdunum

B. HisTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Initially there were two Celtic settlements from the pre-Caesarean time, the first on the hill of Fourviére on the right bank of the Arar (Sa6ne) with an oppidum, and the second, later, one on the point of land between the rivers Rhodanus (Rh6ne) and Arar (Str. 4,1,11). Str.

lic. calls them Iddtg Leyoouavav/Pélis Segosianén, Plin. HN 4,107 colonia in agro Segusiavorum. This Celtic settlement is however not certain (the oldest ruins date only from the rst cent. BC) [2]. The first Roman settlement was in 61 BC, when Roman merchants living in Vienna were expelled in conjunction with the uprising of > Catugnatus. The settlement was at the foot of the hill (éxtopévov bd LOO; ektisménon hypo lophoi, Str. 4,3,2). It was founded properly as a city and elevated to the status of a colonia in 43 BC by the praetor of Gallia Transalpina, L. Munatius Plancus: Colonia Copia Claudia Augusta Lug(u)dunum (tribu Galeria). According to Tac. Hist. 1,65,2, the settlers were veterans. In AD 197, after Severus’ battle against Clodius Albinus, L. was partly destroyed by fire. At the end of the 3rd cent. AD the temporary imperial residence of L. was moved to > Augusta [6] Treverorum (Trier). In AD

470, the Burgundians occupied L., and in AD 725 L. was plundered by the Saracens.

C. ECONOMY AND CULTURE L. was the centre of the administration and economy of the Tres Galliae (> Gallia). In 12 BC the cult of

Roma and Augustus was established in Condate (joint sanctuary of the Tres Galliae, with an altar (ara dei Caesaris ad confluentem Araris et Rhodani dedicata, Liv. Per. 139), temple and amphitheatre on the slopes of the confluence of the Sadne and the Rhéne near modern Croix-Rousse (Str. 4,3,2) [35 4. 532-540]. On 1 August

877

878

every year about 60 civitates celebrated a festival of consecration at the altar of Roma and Augustus there. From the time of Tiberius, L. was also the seat of the municipal cult of Roma and of Augustus (municipal sanctuary with temple, court bordered by a colonnade, cryptoporticus and altar) [5]. The city was an important road junction from the time of Agrippa (died in 12 BC) and seat of the administration of the province of Gallia + Lugdunensis. L. quickly flourished in the rst cent. AD. Augustus held court there on many occasions [6]. There Caligula formulated his plan to conduct rhetorical competitions and games at the federal altar. He had king Ptolemy of Mauretania murdered there (Suet. Calig. 17,3; 35,2). Emperor Claudius was born in L. (Suet. Claud. 2,1) [7]. Sen. Ep. 91,10=14 calls L. maxima and ornamentum trium provinciarum (‘great-

est’ and ‘jewel of the three provinces’). In AD 65 L. was devastated by a fire (Tac. Ann. 16,13,3), but the city

achieved new prosperity despite the civil war turmoil of AD 68/9. Under Hadrian, the Restitutor Galliae, there was lively building activity. The trading quarter was situated on the two waterways and on the peninsula (canabae). Rapid Christianization [8], associated with the names of Pothinus and Irenaeus (> Eirenaeus [2]) and the martyrs of AD 177 [9]. Several important monuments are preserved: in Fourviére [10] a theatre, odeum, temple to Cybele (?) [11]. In La Croix-Rousse

an amphitheatre [12; 13], thermal baths, water pipes [14] and numerous tombs. — Gallia 1 P.Y. LAMBERT, La langue gauloise, 1995 2 A.PELLETIER, Pour une nouvelle histoire des origines de L., in: R.BEDON (ed.), Les villes de la Gaule lyonnaise (Caesarodunum 30), 1996, 167-178 3R.TuRCAN, L’autel de

LUGOTORIX

Giay, s.v. L., PE, 528-531; A.PELLETIER, Lugdunum. Lyon, 1999; J.-F. REYNAUD, L. Christianum, 1998; S. RINALDI TuFI, s.v. Lione, EAA’, 1995, 380-383. Y.L.andM.LE.

Lugii The Germanic ‘great people’ (uéya #@voc; méga éthnos, Str. 7,1,3), the L. (Lugiorum

prised many

tribes, the most

nomen), com-

powerful

being the

— Harii, the > Helvecones, the Manimi, the Helisii and

the Naha(na)rvali. Among the last, the cult community

had its sacred grove (Tac. Germ. 43,2). Ptolemy differentiates L. Oma(n)noi, Didotinoi and Bodtiroi (A. "Ouavvoi/Onavoi;, Adodvor, Botoot, Ptol. 2,11,18;

20). As neighbours of the Suebi and the Goti, the L. settled in Silesia on the Oder and in the bordering regions along the Amber Road (+ Amber). Under —+ Maroboduus allied with the — Marcomanni (Str. 75153), in about AD 5 they, together with some > Hermunduri, destroyed the Regnum Vannianum, which was supported by Rome (Tac. Ann. 12,29f.; > Vannius). In view of the continuing hostility with ‘certain Suebi’ (Cass. Dio 67,5,2), the great alliance, which probably existed again under Probus (Zos. 1,67,3), in-

creasingly disintegrated. From then on, the Romans concentrated on the individual peoples (especially the Vandali). TIR M 33,53f.; B. Lursevut, Storia culturale dei rapporti tra mondo romano e mondo germanico, 1992 (Index). K.DI.

Lugio (Aovyimvov; Lougionon, Ptol. 2,15,3; Lugione, It. Ant. 244; Tab. Peut. 6,1; Lucione, Cod. Iust. 9,20, 1of.). Roman auxiliary fort in Pannonia inferior,

pement de L. a l’€poque augustéenne, in: CHR. GOuUDINEAU, A. ReBourc (ed.), Les villes augustéennes de Gaule, 1991,79-97 7 C.J. Simpson, The Birth of Claudius and

modern Dunaszekcs6 (in the Hungarian county of Baranya), in the post-Diocletian period Florentia. The camp was probably established under Domitian to protect the crossing of the Danube and the road junction situated in L. The first garrison was made up of the cohors II Asturum et Callaecorum and the cohors VII Breucorum. After the withdrawal of the cohors II Astu-

the Date of Dedication of the Altar ‘Romae et Augusto’ at

rum

L., in: Latomus 46, 1987, 586-592

moved into L. and is attested here until Gordianus III. In the 4th cent. the equites Dalmatae formed the garrison of L. or Florentia (Not. Dign. Occ. 33,53; 58). Under Diocletian Burgus contra Florentiam (modern Dunafalva) was established on the eastern bank of the Danube.

Rome et d’Auguste ‘Ad Confluentem’, in: ANRW II 12.1, 1982, 607-644 4D. and Y.Roman, Histoire de la Gaule, 1997 5 J.LAsFarGuEs, M.LE Gray, Découverte

d’un sanctuaire municipal du culte impérial a L., in: CRAI 1980, 394-414 6A.DesBatT, B.Manpy, Le dévelop-

8 J.F. ReyNaAup, L.

aux premiers temps chrétiens (Guides archéologiques de la France 10), 1986 9 Les martyrs de Lyon. Colloque international du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique no. 575, 1977. 10 P. WuILLEuMIER, Fouilles de Fourviére a L. (Gallia Suppl. 4), 1951 11 A. Aubin, Dossier des fouilles du sanctuaire lyonnais de Cybele et de ses abords, in: Gallia 43, 1985, 81-126 12 Id., L’amphitheatre des Trois Gaules a L., in: Gallia 37, 1979, 85-100 13 L. TRANoy, G. AYALA, Les pentes de la Croix-Rousse a

L. dans l’Antiquité, in: Gallia 51, 1994, 171-189 14 J. JEANCOLAS, Les aqueducs antiques de L., 1986. A. Aupw, L., miroir de Rome dans les Gaules, 1965; Id., Gens de L., 1986; R. CHEVALLIER, A propos des sources

écrites concernant les villes gallo-romaines, in: R. BEDON (ed.), Les villes de la Gaule lyonnaise (Caesarodunum 30), 1996, 19-34; A.DessaT et al., Les productions des atel-

iers de potiers antiques de L., in: Gallia 53, 1996, 1-249; Cur. GoupDINEAU et al., Aux origines de L., 1989; M. Le

(under

Commodus),

the cohors

I Noricorum

J. Fitz, s.v. L., RE Suppl. 9, 391-394; TIR L 34 Budapest, 1968, 75; S.SopRONI, Die letzten Jahrzehnte des pannonischen Limes, 1985, 75f., 79; ZS. Visy, Der pannonische Limes in Ungarn, 1988, 122-124, 140. J.BU.

Lugotoritx

(Lucotorix). Celtic compound name [z. 98f.]. British prince, who was taken captive in an attack on the Roman ship camp in Kent in 54 BC (Caes. B Gall. 5,22,1-2). 1 EVANS.

879

880

Luguvallium The Roman military facilities and the city

L. was no unified state but was fragmented into numerous small, probably without exception oligarchically constituted (oldest government [4. 225]) ‘states’ (Hittite utné), of which e.g. Tlawa (< Lycian Tla*/Tlau-*; Greek Ta@c/Tlés) and Hinduwa (Greek Kivéva/Kindya) come to the fore particularly at the end of the r5th cent. In the 13th cent., the following states, among others, are also attested: Winuwanda/Wijana-

LUGUVALLIUM

of L., modern Carlisle, form one of the most important

complexes on the northern border of Britannia. Most phases in the history of L. are poorly documented, and the findings of many of the most recent excavations have not yet been published. The earliest Roman site is a fort at the crossing of the river Eden (probably AD 78/9) [1; 5]. This was demolished shortly after AD too and rebuilt at another location (until AD 160). A series of

stone forts followed (until the 3rd cent.). Hadrian’s Wall ran 1.2 km north of L., and the closest fort was

Stanwix with the ala Petriana. The function of the forts of L. is unknown. They may have been used for supplies (cf. Corbridge [2]). From the 2nd cent. AD onwards, the civilian settlement developed (cf. the inscriptions [3]). L. was probably the urban centre of the civitas of the Carvetii stretching south in the valley of the Eden [4]. When Saint Cuthbert came here in AD 685 he encountered wall remains and a functioning well as well as an official whom he addressed as praepositus, probably because he held an office dating from the late Roman period (Vita Sancti Cuthberti 14). — Limes 1 M.R. McCartny, A Roman, Anglian and Medieval Site

at Blackfriars Street, 1990 Forts at Corbridge, 1990

2J.N. Dore, The Roman 3R.P. Wricut, I.A. RicH-

MOND, Roman Inscribed and Sculptured Stones in Carlisle Museum, 1975 4N.HicHaM, B.Jones, The Carvetii, 1985 5R.S.O. ToMLIn, The Twentieth Legion at Wroxeter and Carlisle in the First Century, in: Britannia 23, 1992, 141-158.

P.Satway, The Frontier People of Roman Britain, 1965. M.TO.

Luke (Evangelist) see > Lucas [1]

Lukka Hittite name attested in the r4th—13th cents. BC (Lu-uk-kalka,-a- [Lukka-], with a stem ending of prolonged grade and certainly accented. Akkadian Lukki, Egyptian Rk [Luka/iJ) for the area encompassing southwestern Asia Minor, western Pamphylia/ western Pisidia, Lycia and southern Caria, which stretched in the east to the Cestrus (Hittite Kastraja), in the north to + Arzawa (or > Mira) and bordered on Mycenaean settled Millawa(n)da (+ Miletus) (> Hattusa II with

map). It should be understood only in the political and geographical senses, especially as the ethnic terms ‘people’ and ‘tribe’ are completely foreign to Anatolian Asia Minor (— Anatolian languages), while the term ‘the Lukka’, often encountered in the secondary literature and evoking a tribal concept, has no grounds and furthermore is a linguistic mistake, as the inhabitants of L. should clearly be designated as ‘Lukkans’. Like the whole of western

and southern Asia Minor, L. was

Luwian-speaking, but by the 2nd millennium the Luwian dialect (+ Luwian) may have been limited to the peninsula of Lycia or even to the valley of the ~ Xanthus.

wanda (Greek Oivodvéa/Oinodnda), Awarna (Lycian *Aurna-, in the rst millennium: > Arfna-; Greek Eav00c/Xdnthos), Pinala (rst millennium: Pinale-, Greek [ivaia/Pinala) as well as, west of the Cestrus;

Parha (Greek Téoyn/Pérgé) and Kuwalabassa (Greek Kodpaoa/Kélbasa, not to be confused with Lycian Kuwalabassa [2. 139%], in the rst millennium > Telebehe(li)-, Greek Ted(e)uecodc/Tel(e)messos!) [6. 450'°; 3. 54-55]. The inhabitants, those probably particularly of the Mediterranean coast, were known as pirates and their radius of activity stretched as far as Egypt by the r4th cent. Although L. never belonged to the Great Hittite Empire (> Hattusa II), it, and here

especially the valley of the Xanthus as well as the region adjoining to the northwest as far as Millawanda, was an area of direct Hittite interest and influence from the end of the 15th cent. In this respect, it was also on many occasions the target of Hittite campaigns, the last one under Suppiluliuma II (in about 1200) with naval! support from the vassal state of > Ugarit [3. 6r]. The name L. is hardly indigenous but may originally have been used in Arzawa/Mira for the directly neighbouring region including the valley of the Xanthus and was extended only by the Hittites to the whole southwestern Asia Minor area with the same political structure (no kingdoms!). This has a parallel in the Hittite extension of the name ‘Arzawa’ to create a comprehensive term for the political alliance between the Arzawian vassal states of Mira, Haballa, > Séha and > Wilusa. It is also supported by its continuation in Greek Avxia/Lykia (as opposed to the native Lycian Trmmis-, < nominative *Tymint-s), which for -- Homerus [1] (end of the 8th cent.) was essentially identical to the valley of the Xanthus (e.g. Hom. Il. 2,877; 5,479). Archaeologically the 2nd millennium and the early rst millennium has still barely been researched for the entire Hittite area designated as L. [5. 37-41]. ~> Asia Minor Ill C.; > Lycii, Lycia 1T.R. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, 1998 2 O.R. Gurney, The Annals of Hattusilis I], in: AS 47, 1997, 127-139 3J.D. Hawkins, The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa, 1995

4H.KLENGEL, Die Rolle der ‘Altesten’ ... im Kleinasien der Hethiterzeit, in: ZA 57, 1965, 223-236 5 M.J. MeLLINK, Homer, Lycia, and L., in: J.B. CARTER, S. P. Morris

(ed.), The Ages of Homer. FS E.T. Vermeule, 1995, 33-43 6F.SrarkeE, Troia im Kontext des histor.-polit. und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2.Jt., in: Studia Troica 7, 1997, 447-487.

Lukuas see > Lucas [2]

FS.

881

882

Luna [1] Latin for > moon.

literary ‘Triad’ found in the texts of the early Principate, in which L. serves as link between > Diana/Artemis and + Hecate owing to their overlapping functions [1. 116— 150], has no counterpart in votive inscriptions; in these, L. is occasionally connected with Diana and sometimes even identified with her. The most common literary epithets of L. are Phoebe, Trivia, Lucina, Cynthia and Dic-

A. OVERVIEW

B. PUBLIC CULT AND TEMPLE

C. LUNA OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC CULT

A. OVERVIEW Deity as well as celestial body, L. was considered the subordinate (female) counterpart to > Sol, the sun. In Roman etymology, the name derives from the Latin lucére, ‘to shine’ (Varro, Ling. 5,68; Cic. Nat. D. 2,68), in modern etymology from the feminine form of the corresponding adjective *louqsna (connected to ~» Lucina, cf. losna in Praeneste, CIL I? 549). B. PUBLIC CULT AND TEMPLE The Roman antiquarians believed that the cult of L. was introduced to Rome, together with those of Sol, Saturn, Ops and other deities, by T. > Tatius, the Sabinian co-ruler of Romulus (Varro, Ling. 5,74; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2,50,3). There is, however, very little evidence for an original indigenous Italian cult of the moon. It is most likely that an original Latin cult was influenced at an early stage by the Greek — Artemis/— Selene. Roman coin representations after the late 3rd cent. BC (RRC 39/4) show Sol in connection with the crescent moon. From the r90s BC (RRC 133/3), L. appears as young woman in a two-horse chariot (biga). This representation is certainly based on Greek models (cf. Plaut. Bacch. 255). L.’s most important temple, on the Aventine Clivus Publicius, and mentioned for the first time in 182 BC (Liv. 40,2,2), is said to have been

founded by Servius > Tullius (+ Natalis Templi on 31 March: Ov. Fast. 3,883f.; InscrIt 13,2 p. 433). It stood in the immediate neighbourhood of the sanctuaries of Diana and Ceres, and burned down in AD 64 (Tac. Ann. 15,41). Another temple, for L. Noctiluca, ‘night-shiner’, on the Palatine (Varro, Ling. 5,68) was probably also destroyed in AD 64. According to the > Fasti Pinciani (rst cent. AD, InscrIt 13,2, p. 502), sacrifices were

made to L. on 24 August in Graecost(-], i.e. probably at the Greek stadium of Rome’s Regio VIII. The public cult of L. appears to have been of minor significance during the Republic. Only few announcements of portents refer to it (Liv. 22,1,9f.; Obseq. 51). The reactions of ordinary people to lunar eclipses, however, reveal that the it did play a role in popular belief and cult (Liv. 44,37,5—-9; Plin. HN 28,77). Under the Principate, L. is encountered most commonly in association with Sol (e.g. on the Ara Augusta of L. Lucretius Zethus: CIL VI 30975, AD 1). This connection is verifiable in the late Republic (RRC 303/1: 109/8 BC; RRC 474/5: 45 BC; Varro, Rust. 1,1,5), but possibly even older (coin representations of Sol and lunar crescent: see above). From Augustan times, it met with the geocentrically cosmological needs of Imperial theology (CIL VI 3720; ILS 3094; AE 1991, 1184). Empresses played the part of L. in analogy to the representation of the Emperor as Helios/— Sol, and the divine order was mirrored in the normative political order. The complex

LUNA

tynna.

C. LUNA OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC CULT Scholarly speculations sometimes make use of popular belief about the > moon. L.’s most important roles in popular piety have to do with the agricultural (Varro, Rust. 1,1,5; Verg. G. 1,276ff.; 427-435; Plin. HN 17,108) and birth cycles (Cic. Nat. D. 2,119) according to the calendar (Hor. Carm. 4,6,39f.; Plut. Quaest.

Rom. 77, 282c). Another important role attributed to L. in literature, as witness and promoter of magical acts

[r. 215-233] (> Magic), is modelled after the Greek ~ Hecate in her role as queen of the Underworld. L. becomes here, as night luminary, a metaphor for the relationship between the magic and the publicly authorized religious cult. L. never appears in this role in the ~ defixiones (curse tablets), but is referred to in the rules for the collecting of various iatromagic remedies (Plin. HN 24,12) and ‘moon foam’ (Luc. 6,500-506) [2. 92-103]. — Magic; > Moon; > Selene 1S.Lunats, Recherches sur la Lune 1 (EPRO 72), 1979 2 A.-M. TureT, La magie dans la poésie latine, 1976.

F. Gury, s.v. Selene/L., LIMC 7.1, 706-715.

[2] The crescent-shaped ivory decoration on the straps of shoes worn by Roman senators, particularly patricians (see > Calceus patricius), also called lunula (cf. Stat. Silv. 5,2,28; Juv. 7,192 with schol.; Isid. Orig. 19,34,4). Also a neck ornament worn by women (Greek R.GOR. meniskos). (3] Harbour town, 17 km to the northwest of modern Carrara, on the left bank of the Magra (Str. 5,2,5),

modern Luni, in an area originally populated by Etrusci and Ligures, from the beginning of the 2nd cent. BC (Portus Lunae, Enn. Ann. 16) attested as Roman military basis (Liv. 34,8,4; AE 1993, 643), colonia of the Tribus Galeria under duoviri (AD 177: Liv. 41,13,4). Rich in natural resources (marble quarries, modern Carrara Marble), L. was connected in AD 115-109 by the via Aemilia Scauri to the Roman road network (Str. 5,1,11). Possibly refounded by Augustus with a veteran colony (Liber coloniarum 223, 14) and assigned to the Seventh Region (Plin. HN 3,5,50). Remains: an amphitheatre, a ‘Great Temple’, possibly dedicated to L. [1], Jupiter Temple, forum, theatre, residences, early Christian basilica, terracotta pediments, inscriptions and coins. Decline after the 3rd cent. AD (earthquake at the beginning of the 4th cent.). From the 2nd half of the 5th cent. Christian diocese. In Byzantine times centre of Italia Maritima, seat of a magister militum. Later con-

883

884

quered by Goths, recaptured by Narses (552), destroyed by Rothari, the Duke of Brescia, (643) attacked by the Saracens (849 and 1o16) and the Normans (860). Damaged by the sanding up of the harbour, malaria and the migration of its population, L. lost its episcopal see (1204).

Lupercalia A social ritual celebrated in Rome on 15

LUNA

L.BaAnTI, Luni, 1937; A.FRovA

(ed.), Scavi di Luni 1,

1973; 2, 1977; M.G. ANGELI BERTINELLI, Storia della citta, in: A. Frova (ed.), Luni. Guida archeologica, 1985,

9-18; A. Frova, s.v. L., PE, 532¢.

M.G.A.B.

Lunaria A Latin textual genre attested by numerous mediaeval MSS. Lunaria provide compilations of prescriptions and prognoses for all the days of a lunar month. In content they follow ancient astrological rules (Cato Agr.; Verg. G.; Plin. HN), but the tradition can not be reconstructed without a discontinuity [2. 18].

They correspond to the selenodromia of Greek literature, which certainly do trace back to the ancient prognostica [3; 4]. In this form the /unaria can be classified into the (mostly astrologically based) hemerological calendars, which range from Egyptian texts [5] to the printed blood-letting ‘calendars’ [6] of the early modern period. + Divination; > Calendar 1

E.SVENBERG, De latiniska L., 1936.

2E.WmIsTRAND,

L.-Stud., 1942 3 A.REHM, Kalender und Witterungskunde im Alt., in: Neue Jbb. fiir Ant. und dt. Bildung 15, 1941, 225-242 4 Id., Parapegmastud., 1941 5 C. Leitz, Tagewahlerei, 1994 6 Kalender im Wandel der Zeiten. Ausstellungskatalog Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe, 1982.

JR.

Luni sul Mignone Place of settlement in early history in the northern foothills of the > Tolfa mountains c. 80 km northwest of Rome. Ona 560 by 150 metre tuff plateau with steeply dropping edges bounded in the north and south by valleys. Swedish excavations (19601963) were able to reveal three phases of settlement. The Bronze Age settlement (14th-11th cents. BC) belongs to the Apennine culture. In three adjacent long houses, fragments of Mycenaean ceramics were found. The settlement from the Protovillanova and Villanova period (roth—8th cents. BC, > Villanova period) is dis-

tinguished by smaller oval and rectangular huts. In the western part of the plateau, however, there is a larger site partly hewn out of rock (perhaps a sanctuary), which continued to exist until the Etruscan phase. From the later 6th until into the 4th cents. BC there was a small Etruscan settlement of the Tarquinian territory fortified by a wall and ditches. Southeast of the settlement plateau in a depression surrounded on three sides by cliffs (Tre Erici) there are remains of a settlement from the Neolithic and Villanova periods. ~ Tarquinii 1 C.E. OsTENBERG, L. s. M. e problemi della preistoria d'Italia, 1967 2 F.D1 GeNNarRo,s.y. L.s.M., EAA Suppl. 2 1971-1994, vol. 3, 1995, 478-481.

M.M.

February

(InscrIt 13,2, p. 409) (+ Lustratio:

Varro,

Ling. 6,34; Ov. Fast. 2,31f.; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,80,1). It began with the sacrifice of a goat at the foot

of > Mons Palatinus. In honour of the god > Faunus (Ov. Fast. 2,267f.), the cult centre was called Lupercal (Varro, Ling. 5,85; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,32,3-5).

According to Plutarch (Romulus 21,6), two young men were touched on the forehead with the bloody slaughtering knife and the blood was wiped off them again with milk-soaked wool; then they had to laugh. The sacrifice supplied the equipment for the subsequent run by the Luperci, named after their official clothing (they were naked apart from a pelt loincloth) and the goatskin straps, with-which they hit the bystanders, particularly the women (Paul. Fest. 75f. L. s.v. Februarius; Ov. Fast. 2,283-380). The Luperci appeared in two groups (Lupercalia Quinctiales and Lupercalia Fabiani). Their path went from the Luperca! through the Forum and the Via Sacra around the Palatine, at least that was the intention. The wild chase was considered cathartic (Paul. Fest.

75f. L.; Ov. Fast. 2,31f.) and fertility-promoting (Ov. Fast. 2,425-452); it had carnival-like characteristics (Varro in Tert. de spectaculis 5,3; Cic. Cael. 26; Liv. 1,5,2). The Lupercalia are among those festivals that survived for the longest time the ban on practising nonChristian religion (‘Gelasius ?, Adv. Andromachum contra L., CSEL 35).

The mythology pertaining to the ritual linked the Lupercalia with the founding king > Romulus, and this is why Caesar wanted to exploit the festival as a political instrument in 44 BC. The Lupercal was considered to be the place where Romulus and Remus had been suckled by the wolf. The festival ‘remembered’ the youthful shepherd period of the brothers and transported the population taking part in it back to the ‘wild’ time before the foundation of the city and its social institutions (Liv. 1,5; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom.

1,79,8—

80,4). As representatives of the pastoral god Faunus (Ov. Fast. 2,283-3 58) and at the same time of the shepherds, on whose work the land-owners and city residents were dependent, the Luperci were understood as promoting fertilization. This role had fallen to them according to mythology when the raped Sabine women proved to be infertile (Ov. Fast. 2,429-452). Newly married women therefore hoped that by being touched with the amiculum Iunonis, i.e. the goat-skin straps (Paul. Fest. 76 L.), they would obtain help with their change of status from nupta (‘bride’) to mater (‘mother’) (Ov. Fast. 2,425-448). Obvious equivalents with the > Pan cult of Arcadia and the Lykaia celebrated there (including its werewolf symbolism: Varro in Aug. Civ. 18,17) had the Lupercalia appear as an endowment of the Arcadian founding king > Evander [1] (Liv. 1,5; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,79,8-14; Ov. Fast. 2,267-282; Plut. Romulus 21,3-5). ~ Arcadians, Arcadia; > Juno;

> Lycaeum

885

886

G. BINDER, Kommunikative Elemente im rém. Staatskult

am Ende der Republik: Das Beispiel der L. des J. 44, in: Id., K. EHLIcH (ed.), Rel. Kommunikation. Formen und Praxis vor der Neuzeit, 1997, 225-241; J. RUPKE, Kalender

und Offentlichkeit, 1995, see Register; CHR. SCHAUBLIN, L. und Lichtmef, in: Hermes 123, 1995, 117-125; U.W. ScHoiz, Zur Erforschung der rom. Opfer (Beispiel: die L.), in: O. REVERDIN, J. RUDHARDT (ed.), Le sacrifice dans Pantiquité, 1981, 289-340; CHR. ULF, Das rém. Lupercalienfest, 1982; T.P. WIsEMAN, The God of the Lupercal, in: JRS 85, 1995, 1-22. D.B.

Lupercus (AovxeQxoc; Louiperkos). Grammarian from

Berytus who lived around the reign of Emperor Claudius Gothicus (AD 268-270). Of his works nothing is extant; the Suda (A 691) mentions eight titles, among which are works on the use of particles and accents (Ilegi tot Gv, Megi tov tawc), an investigation on the

quantity of the iota in xagic (Iegi tis xaeidoc) and a work regarding PI. Phd. r18a (Iegi tot nage MAdtwve éAextevovoc). Further writings were the ‘Attixai AgEetc, a Kttouc tod év Aiyistm “Agotwortov (vonot) [1] anda Téxvyn yoaupatixy, among which must also be counted

the script on grammatical genders probably wrongly cited in the Suda with 13 books (Ilegi yev@v Goegevix@v xal Ondvxdv xat ovdetéewv) [2]. This work at least could have been known up to the 13th cent. when the 6th book is mentioned in a scholium to Plut. Mor. 91e

[3]. 1 A.v. GuTscHMID, KS (edited by Fr. RUHL), 1, 1889, 150f. 2 A.GUDEMAN, s.v. Aotsmeqxoc, RE 13, 18391841 3 W.R. Paton, Simonides, Fr. 68, and a Fr. of Lupercus, in: CR 26, 1912, 9.

R.A. Kaster, Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity, 1988, 305. M.B.

the Romans (the interpretation of Vell. Pat. 2,105,3 is controversial; not very convincingly [r]). The camp of Oberaden (11-8/7 BC) and the bank fort Beckinghausen are the earliest military sites. The most important base after that was evidently Haltern whose construction in the rst decade BC is uncertain. It was destroyed probably in AD 9. During the Augustan campaigns the marching camp of Dorsten-Holsterhausen was used only for a short time. Further to the east of Haltern, Anreppen was a legionary camp which also accommodated auxiliary troops. An interim camp assumed to have existed between Haltern and Anreppen has not yet been discovered. 1 W. Harrxe, Das Winterlager des Tiberius in Germanien ad caput Lupiae, in: Philologus 128, 1984, 111-118. S.v. SCHNURBEIN, Unt. zur Geschichte der rom. Militarlager an der Lippe, in: BRGK 62, 1981, 3-101; H. SCHON-

BERGER, Die rom. Truppenlager der frithen und mittleren Kaiserzeit zw. Nordsee und Inn, in: BRGK 66, 1985, 321497; J.-S. KUHLBORN

(ed.), Germaniam pacavi ... , 1995

(with bibliography).

RA.WL.

Lupiae Messapian-Roman city in Calabria between Brundisium and Hydruntum (It. Ant. 118,3; Luppia, Tab. Peut. 7,1) with a harbour on the Adriatic built under the emperor Hadrian (Paus. 6,19,9; Ptol. 3,1,12; Mela 2,4; Str. 6,3,6). Roman municipium in the 2nd Augustan region (Plin. HN 3,101); modern Lecce. Mes-

sapian and Latin inscriptions.

Remains:

walls and

tombs (4th—2nd cents. BC), Roman theatre and amphitheatre (cf. Guido, Cosmographia 28). 1 BTCGI

8, 1990, 520-522

2L.GrIARDINO, Per una

definizione delle trasformazioni urbanistiche di un centro antico: il caso di L., in: Studi di antichita 7, 1994, 137-203 3 F.D’AnpriIA, s.v. Lecce, EAA II Suppl., 1995, 323-325; J.-L. LAMBOLEY, 158-170.

Lupia A. GEOGRAPHY AND TRADITION

LUPINE

Recherches

sur les Messapiens,

1996, MLL.

B. ROMAN FORTS

Lupicinus A. GEOGRAPHY AND TRADITION Righthand tributary flowing into the Rhine a little above — Vetera (Str. 7,1,3), modern Lippe. For Mela 3,30, Moenus (Main) and L. are the best-known tributaries of the Rhine (> Rhenus), and these names were used for the most important Roman invasion routes into Germania Magna. Mentioned on several occasions in the course of the Roman offensives into the area east of the Rhine from 12 BC to AD 15/6 (Cass. Dio 54533,1-4; lac. Ann. 1,60,3; 2,7,1). In AD 70 the captured flagship of the Roman Rhine fleet is transferred over the L. to the Germanic seer — Veleda as a gift (Tac. FAISE5,2253)): B. ROMAN FORTS Asa base line for Roman campaigns into the north of Germania Magna and for military control of conquered regions, L. was secured by forts and military bases. The only fort known in the literature (Tac. Ann. 2,7,1) is one on the L. in AD 16 which was besieged and relieved by

[1] Assigned to > lulianus [11] as Magister Equitum

per Gallias, L. fought against the Alamanni in AD 359 and against the Scots and Picts in 360. L. was imprisoned by Julian as a potential opponent. > Iovianus made him mag. equitum per Orientem in 363. In 365/6 in this office he was involved in the suppression of the usurpation of > Procopius against > Valens. In 367 Consul. Christ. PLRE 1520f. [2] Product of the schola gentilium, in AD 377 comes rei militaris per Thracias. L. drove the Goths, who had penetrated across the Danube, to famine, contrary to the promises of > Valens, and so triggered an uprising. Beaten at Marcianupolis by Visigoths he had provoked, he saved himself by fleeing. PLRE 1, 51o9f. HL. Lupine (0éQuo¢/thérmos, of unknown etymology, Latin Lupinus or -um, from lupus, ‘wolf’, for an unknown reason) is the pulse (Leguminosae) lupin. In Greece and Italy in antiquity there were many wild varieties, of which several were cultivated as food for people of the

887

888

poorer classes and for livestock. The bitter taste (eliminated only in the 2oth cent. by breeding) was moderated by soaking it for a long time in warm water (Plin. HN 18,136 and 22,154), cooking and mashing. There were precise regulations regarding cultivation (e.g. Theophr. Hist. pl. 8,1,3 on sowing immediately after threshing and indeed on unploughed land 8,11,8; ger-

J.G. SziLAGy1, Remarks to the Recently Discovered Verse Inscription from Szentendre, in: Archaeologiai ertesit6

LUPINE

mination 8,2,1 etc.), the harvest (after rainfall Theophr. Hist. pl. 8,11,4; Plin. HN 18,133) and storage (e.g. in

smoke to prevent worms

from eating it: Plin. HN

18,136), also in Roman authors on agriculture particu-

larly Pliny (HN 18,133-136; 185; 187; 252; 257) etc. Its significance (fixing nitrogen to the nodule bacteria of the root) as a green manure (see especially Columella 2,15,5f.) to be worked

in before sowing (Plin. HN

17,54, cf. Cato Agr. 37,2; Varro, Rust. 1,23,3; Columella 11,2,81 et passim; Pall. Agric. 9,2.) was just as well known as its undemanding nature regarding on the soil (Cato Agr. 34,2; Plin. HN 18,134). Medical use was made both of the cultivated and the wild lupine (e.g. Plin. HN 22,154-157; Dioscorides 2,109 WELLMANN = 2,132f. BERENDES) for humans and animals of the roots, leaves and seeds (e.g. in the form of small

dumplings made from cooked lupine seeds against diarrhoea caused by infestation with round-worm in calves, Columella 6,25) and oil. Cosmetics also used lupines (Ov. Medic. 69). +> Beans; > Fertilizer; > Peas A. STEIER, s.v. L., RE 13, 1845-1850.

C.HU.

Lupinus Latin term for the lupin (Lupinus albus; > Lupin), which was used instead of coins in > board games as a counter. As a small weight it was equal to a '/, — scripulum, about 0.28 grammes or 1/100 of an ounce. H.-S. Lupus [1] Rare Roman proper name (‘Wolf’) [3. 115], quite common as a cognomen, in the Republican period of L. Cornelius [I 51] Lentulus L. (cos. in 16 BC) and more widespread among the Rutilii in the Imperial period. 1 Decrassi, FCIR, 257 3 SCHULZE.

2 KaJANTO, Cognomina, 327

K-LE.

1960, 1963, 189-194.

JAR.

[4] see > Siegecraft

Luristan Mountain province of central Iranian Zagrus settled from the 6th millennium. L. is especially well known because of the large number of bronze weapons and artefacts from extensive (plundered) cemeteries, particularly from the rst millennium BC, now in numerous museums. F. Hote

(ed.), The Archaeology of Western Iran, 1987;

L. VANDEN BERGHE, La nécropole de Mir Khair au Pusht-i Kuh, L., in: Iranica Antiqua 14, 1979, I-37.

H.J.N.

Lurius Varus Consular representative who in AD 57 through mediation on the part of Otho was re-admitted to the Senate by Nero after he had been expelled from the committee for extortion (PIR* L 428). According to SyME [1. 366ff.], he could have been consular legate in Pannonia or Dalmatia. 1 Syme, RP, vol. 4.

WE.

Luscinia see > Nightingale Luscinus Roman cognomen (‘one-eyed’, Plin. HN 11,150), in the Republican period in the Fabricii family (Fabricius [I 3 and 4]). K.-LE. Luscius Rare Italic surname, derived from luscus, ‘oneeyed, squinting’ (early examples: CIL I? 182-184; AE 1992, 586).

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

1. REPUBLICAN PERIOD {I 1] L., L. Centurion under Sulla, enriched himself during the Proscriptions in 82 BC and was condemned in 64 for triple murder (Ascon. 90 C). jOF. {I 2] L. Lanuvinus As a writer of > palliata, a rival of + Terentius (Donat. Andria 7), author of a Phasma (‘The Ghost’; according to Menander) and of a Thesaurus (“The Treasure’; content in Donatus op. cit.). The

[2] Is named by Ovid (Pont. 4,16,26) as the author of a

poem about the return of > Menelaus [1] and > Helene [1] from Troy. It may be that L. is identical with the orator P. — Rutilius Lupus or there is an allusion to Verg. Ecl. 7,52 [1]. No fragments are extant. 1 R. Verprere, in: Id., H. BARDON (ed.), Vergiliana, 1971, 380-382.

[3] In 1939 and 1962 two copies were published of a small conventional funerary inscription in hexameters containing a popularized version of Epicurean thought, from the surrounding area of Aquincum (c. AD 230). The author is revealed in an acrostic: Lupus fecit.

aesthetic principles of L. (predilection for plays with an eventful outward plot) are in tension with his insistence on the most exact rendition possible of the Greek originals, which led to criticism of Terence’s freer adaptations that were closer to the Roman audience and as a result more realistic. Certainly any influence his works may have had on others was denied him; in the grading of the writers of palliata by > Volcacius Sedigitus (FPL BLANSDORE, torf.), surpassed only by Ennius, he occupies ninth place. FRAGMENTS: CRF 71873, 83f., 31898, 96-98.; BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Mart, Terenz 1909-1959, in: Lustrum 8, 1963, 15-18; Cu. GarTON, Personal Aspects of the Roman Theatre, 1972, 41-139; K.Dér, Terence and

889

890

L.L., in: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 32, 1989, 283-297. PALS.

{I 3] L. Ocrea, C. Elderly senator, in 76 BC a witness in the proceedings against Q. Roscius (Cic. Q. Rosc. 43-

47).

JOR.

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD {II 1] L. L. Ocrea Senator whose family had been mem-

bers of the Senate in the Republic. Admitted by Vespasian and Titus in AD 73/4 presumably among the Praetorians, certainly among the Patricians. In 73/75 or 74/76 Praetorian legate of Lycia-Pamphylia, cos. suff. perhaps in 77, finally probably proconsul of Asia in 90/1. Married to Iulia Severina. A.BALLAND, Inscriptions d’époche impériale du Let6on

LUSITANI,

LUSITANIA

62, 1993, Beibl. 13-26; Id., in: Ost. Jahreshefte 53, r9811982, Beibl., 24; 63, 1994, Beibl., 40-44 (excavation report). vat

Lusia (Aovota; Lousia). Attic deme of the asty trittys of

the phyle Oineis and its eponymous heroine (Steph. Byz. s.v. A.) [1], one bouleutés. Presumably located in the Kephissos valley west of Athens. Funerary inscriptions of a ‘Lousieus’ in Hag. Theodoroi in Nea Liossia (IG IP 6756); earth for the building of the Eleusinion of Athens came from L. (IG II’ 1672 |. 195). 1 WHITEHEAD, 210.

TRAILL, Attica, 49, 69, 111 no. 86 table 6; J.S. TRAILL, Demos and Trittys, 1986, 133; P.SIEWERT, Die Trittyen Attikas und die Heeresreform des Kleisthenes, 1982, 4of.,

97.

H.LO.

(Fouilles de Xanthos 7), 1981, 129ff.; W.Eck, Die Lega-

ten von Lykien und Pamphylien unter Vespasian, in: ZPE 6, 1970, 72ff.; PIR? L 431. W.E.

Luscus Roman cognomen (‘one-eyed’), in the Republican period in the families of the Annii, Atilii, Fabii,

Furri and Postumii, disappeared by the Imperial period. KajANTO, Cognomina, 238.

K.-L.E.

Lusi. (Aovooi/Lousoi; ethnicon inscription Aovoidtac/

Lousidtas; literary also Aovotebs, Aovoets probably after the Attic demoticon). Town in northern Arcadia between Cynaetha and Cleitor near modern Chamakou (at a height of about 1,000 m), sanctuary of Artemis

Hemera, foothills Kato-L. remains

Hemerasia games. The sanctuary lies in the of Chelmos southwest of modern Ano-L. and above a small plain in the south. Building only from the 4th-3rd cents. BC (propylaea,

bouleuterion, Doric temple), but rich cult material as

early as the 8th cent. BC. After 234 BC, L. was a member

of the Achaean

League (coins; > Achaeans,

with map). Apart from dedications to Artemis, the inscriptions particularly contain the granting of proxenies. In 220/219 the sanctuary was plundered a second time by the Aetolians (Pol. 4,18,9ff.; 25,4; 9,34,9). L.

later belonged to Cleitor, and was possibly a yweiov/ chorion by the 1st cent. BC. In Pausanias’ (8,18,7f.) time the town lay in ruins. Further evidence: Bacchyl. I1,95-112; Steph. Byz. s.v. A.; inscriptions: IG V 2,

387-410; SEG 36, 374f.; 37, 3375 38, 3495 40, 3705 41, 382; coins: HN’, 418. J. BINGEN, Inscription agonistique, in: BCH

77, 1953,

628-636; JOST, 46-51; V. MirsopouLos-LEon, The Statue of Artemis at L., in: O.PaLacia, W.COoUuLSON (ed.),

Sculpture

from

W.ReICHEL,

Arcadia

A. WILHELM,

and

Laconia,

1993,

33-393

Das Heiligthum der Artemis

zu L., in: Ost. Jahreshefte 4, 1901, 1-89; U.SINN, Ein Fundkomplex aus dem Artemis-Heiligtum von L. im Badischen Landesmus., in: Jb. der Kunstsammlungen von Baden-Wiirttemberg 17, 1980, 25-40; Id., The Sacred Herd of Artemis at L., in: R. HAGc (ed.), The Iconography of Greek Cult (Kernos Suppl. 1), 1992, 177-187; K. TausEND, Zur Bed. von L. in archa. Zeit, in: Ost. Jahreshefte

Lusitani, Lusitania Name Iberian [1], similarly the people with a marked Celtic element which is evaluated in various ways [2]. Originally the L. settled between the > Durius and the > Tagus (cf. [3]) and advanced to the > Anas (App. Hisp. 239). The later Roman province of L. set up by Augustus corresponds approximately to modern Portugal and therefore comprises a much bigger region than the original settlement area. The country encompasses only a few towns [4] which presumably, as with the > Celtiberi, originally served as refuges. Especially in the north there are numerous castros, i.e. ring walls of this kind ([5; 6], CIL II Suppl. p. 896, Citania). Most pre-Roman coins come from Salacia (modern Alcacer do Sal) [7]. Str. 3,3,6 counted 30 (Ptol. 2,5; 50 in Plin. HN 4,3 5) tribes, which however are never mentioned as a cohesive unit. All the sources [8] agree that the L. were similar to the betterknown Celtiberians: they were considered brave and freedom-loving but they did not discover the path to stable forms of political organization. The L. put up bitter resistance to Roman rule. The battles began in 194 BC [9] and only ended under ~» Caesar. They reached their high point under the leadership of > Viriatus (vir duxque magnus, Liv. Per. 54; [xo]) and —> Sertorius (cf. [11]). The L. waged guerilla warfare and made great difficulties for the Romans [12]. In 27 BC Lusitania finally became an imperial province under a legatus ({13]; CIL I Suppl. LXXXVII). It had three conventus iuridici: Augusta [2] Emerita, Pax Augusta and Scallabis (Plin. HN 4,117). In the Imperial period (cf. [14]), L. was an important

supplier of raw materials because of its wealth of metals. Thus the metallum Vipascense was a large copper and silver mine near modern Aljustel [15]. After the collapse of Roman rule, Lusitania, after brief subjuga-

tion by the > Alani, came under the rule of the > Visigoths and formed part of their kingdom until AD 712 [16]. + Hispania (with maps); > Pyrenean peninsula (archaeology)

LUSITANI, LUSITANIA

891

1 Hoxper, s.v. Lusitania 2 H.BrrKHan, Kelten, 1997, 152ff. 3 A.SCHULTEN (ed.), Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae 6,1952,202

4A.GarciA BELLIDO, Las colonias Roma-

nas de la provincia de L., in: Arqueologia e Historia 8, 1958/9, 13-23

5 A.SCHULTEN, s.v. L., RE 13, 1867—

1872. 6M.Carvozo, Alguns elementos para a localizacao e estudo dos ‘castros’ do norte de Portugal, in: Archivo espanol de arqueologia 20, 1947, 249-264 7 A.Vives y EsupERO, La moneda hispanica 3, 1924, 24ff. 8 A.SCHULTEN (ed.), Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae 1-9, 1925ff., see indexes 9 Id., Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae 3, 1935, 195 10H.Stmon, Roms Kriege in Spanien, 1962 11 C.F. KoNRaD, Plutarchs Sertorius, 1994 12 A.SCHULTEN (ed.), Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae 3-5,

1935-1940, see indexes

13 Id. (ed.), Fontes Hispaniae

Antiquae 5, 1940, 184, 202f. 14 Id.,s.v. Hispania, RE 8, 2036-2046 15 SCHULTEN, Landeskunde 2, 504f. 16 F.J. VELozo, A Lusitania Suévico-Bizantina, in: Bra-

cara Augusta 2, 1950,

185-154, 241-256, 389-402.

J.F. Esxa, D.E. Evans, Continental Celtic, in: A.T. E. Martonls, D.F. MELIA (ed.), Celtic Language, Celtic Cul-

ture, 1990; SCHULTEN, Landeskunde

1, 480, 489, 493,

504; A.Tovar, The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula, in: K.H. ScumiptT, R. KODDERITESCH (ed.), Geschichte und

Kultur der Kelten, 1986, 68ff., 77, 85; TOVAR 2, 187-191, 196-201.

P.B.

Lusius [I] (Aovowoc; Lozsios). This northern tributary of the — Alpheius [1], whose source is associated with the legend of the birth of Zeus, rises near Dimitsana. According to Paus. 8,28,2f., in its lower reaches it was called Gortynius; cf. Pol. 16,17,7. Modern Dimitsana. F. BOLTE, s.v. L., RE 13, 1867.

Gm.

892

[I 2] L. Quietus According to Cassius Dio (68,32,4), L.

was a Moor by birth, and the significance of this is extremely controversial (cf. PIR* L 439). Probably under Domitian, he was leader of a mounted unit of members

of his tribe but he was dishonourably (?) discharged from the army. Under ~ Traianus he was in the army again; participation in both Dacian Wars, where he distinguished himself because of his daring. His status in the army is uncertain. Also participation in Trajan’s Parthian War where he evidently held an independent command, but members of his Moorish tribe also be-

longed to it; conquest of > Singara and other cities in the Parthian kingdom. In AD 116 he was ordered to fight against the insurgent Jews in Mesopotamia. Because of his military successes, L. was admitted to the Senate under the Praetorians (it is uncertain when), made suffect consul and given the leadership of the province of Judaea, probably as consular representative only in 117, if Cassius Dio (68,32,5) can be regarded as precise. In Jewish sources, L. is portrayed as a cruel

exterminator of Jews. Immediately after August 117, Hadrian must have had him replaced in Judaea. Allegedly involved in a conspiracy against Hadrian, for which he was executed by the praetorian prefect Acilius [I] 1] Attianus at the order of the Senate during a journey at the beginning of 138. An uprising in Mauretania may have been the consequence. A.R. Brrvey, Hadrian, 1997, 87f.; PIR* L 439; K.STRoBEL, Unters. zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans, 1984, 68ff.

[iI 3] C. L. Sparsus Suffect consul with Cn. Canusius Praenestinus at the end of AD 156 or 157. PIR* L 443. W.E.

Lusius [II] Italic personal name [1. 184, 359].

Lustratio A ritual model that comprised a circular pro-

1 SCHULZE.

cession with the animals to be sacrificed later (often I. REPUBLICAN

PERIOD

I. REPUBLICAN

II. IMPERIAL

PERIOD

PERION

[I 1] Son of the sister of C. Marius [I r], military tribune in the Cimbrian War in Gaul. When attempting to rape a young soldier, he was stabbed by the latter, but the perpetrator was acquitted by the military tribunal because he had been defending himself (Cic. Mil. 9 with Schol. Bobiensia 114 STANGL; Val. Max. 6,1,12; Plut. Marius 14,4-9). This acquittal was a popular theme in Roman rhetoric instruction (Cic. Inv. 2,124; Quint. Inst. 3,11,14 et passim). K-LE. Il. IMPERIAL PERIOD [11 1] L. L. Geta Equestrian. Praetorian prefect under Claudius in AD 48. He was replaced at the insistence of Agrippina [3] in 51, presumably because he was a follower of > Messalina and her son Britannicus. In 5 4 he held the position of praefectus Aegypti. G. BASTIANINI, Lista dei prefetti d’Egitto dal 30 al 299, in:

ZPE 17, 1975, 273; PIR* L 435.

~ suovetaurilia) and possibly other cult objects (piamina), which was used in many circumstances. We owe Cato (Agr. 141) the detailed ritual instructions. His definitive information is confirmed by other authors, for instance Non. 539,25f. or 408,29f. who equates lustrare with circumire or circumferre (‘go’/‘take round’) (cf. among others Varro, Ling. 6,22 re armilustrium). Depending on the occasion, the gods addressed (frequently > Mars) and the individual ritual elements change and the disaster-averting, beneficent and purifying intentions connected with the procession become evident to varying degrees. Accompanying prayers (Cato Agr. 141) and myths (Tib. 2,1) create the reference to the current cult situation, where applicable also to the cosmogonic framework. Even where lustrare is used in the sense of ‘purify’ or outside a religious context (e.g. for movements of heavenly bodies), the image of ritual procession is always in the background. The ritual involved going around (possibly only pars pro toto or symbolically) e.g. an individual estate (lustratio agri: Cato Agr. 141; Tib. 2,1; Verg. Ecl. 5,74£.; cf. > Ambarvalia), Roman farmland in the Dea

893

894

Dia ritual of the > Arvales fratres, the pagus (Paganalia and Feriae Sementivae: Ov. Fast. 1,669), sheep stalls (> Parilia: Calp. Ecl. 5,27f.), the city of Rome (Amburbium, Lustratio Urbis: Serv. Ecl. 3,77) or the Palatine (+ Lupercalia). The object of the ritual act was always not only the respective territory and its cultural products but also the human community living there. The ritual was employed accordingly to establish new social units. Army or naval lustration (lustratio exercitus or lustratio classis: App. B Civ. 5,96,[401f.]) took place on the occasion of the assumption of command by a new officer or on the amalgamation of separate units. A procession with suovetaurilia sealed the censorial > lustrum (Liv. 1,42,4-44,2; Dion. Hal. Ant.’ Rom. 4,22). The alliance between the Latin city states was similarly strengthened by a lustratio (Cic. Div. 1,17f., + Feriae Latinae). A change in status of individuals could also be handled in the form of lustratio. Thus people ritually circled around the newborn on the occasion of their naming (Paul. Fest. 107f. L. s.v. Lustrici dies) or the dead on funeral pyres (decursio: Quint. Decl. 329). In times of crisis the exceptional repetition of a lustratio as procuratio could restore lost stability (e.g. SHA Aurel. 18,4-6). Apart from the /ustrationes of the official religion in regard to the state or family, there are numerous applications of the ritual in magical practices, e.g. as healing magic or for combating pests (examples in [1. 2037-2039]; > Magic). Parallels with the various forms of the ritual are found in many other cultures (especially interesting are the — Tabulae Iguvinae [2. 52-76] and numerous Greek equivalents as well as folkloric material). The wide distribution suggests an anthropological origin in the area of local behaviour. It facilitates integration of the various aspects of meaning.

exceptional cases to a four-year period [2. 1884], the latter presumably in consequence of merging with the Olympiad after the introduction of the Julian > Calendar with its four-year period and the Sullan abolition of the censorship [4], which was never made completely retrospective.

1 F. BoEHM, s.v. L., RE 13, 2029-2039 2U.W.ScHOLZ, Stud. zum altital. und altrom. Marskult und Marsmythos,

1970. D.Baupy, R6m. Umgangsriten (RGVV 43), 1998; D.P. Harmon, The Family Festivals of Rome, in: ANRW II 16.2,

1978,

1592-1603;

H.PETERSMANN,

Zu

einem

altrom. Opferritual (Cato de agricultura c. 141), in: RhM I16, 1973, 238-255; U.W. ScHotz, Suovetaurilia und Solitaurilia, in: Philologus 117, 1973, 3-28; H.S. VeERsNEL, Apollo and Mars one Hundred Years After Roscher, in: Id., Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Rel. 2, 1993, 289-334.

Lustrum A. GENERAL

D.B.

B. FUNCTION

C. LUSTRUM

AS A PE-

LUSTRUM

B. FUNCTION

The census was completed with a lustrum as purification of the citizens’ army (pictorial representation: Paris, Louvre MA 975 [7. 138f.]). A lustrum is therefore the conclusion of a rite of passage (of the census)

that periodically in its interaction rituals and hierarchies constituted the populus Romanus as a whole. This is why the /ustrum took place at the > Campus Martius, i.e. outside the > Pomerium in the (temporary) liminality. It was determined by lot (Varro, Ling. 6,87)

which of the two censors should perform the lustrum and in this way be responsible for the success of the subsequent period (Cato or. fr. 99 SBLENDORIO CucusI; Cic. De Or. 2,268; Liv. 40,46,9). > Suove-

taurilia were driven in a clockwise circle by victimarii with names signifying luck (Cic. Div. 1,102; Plin. HN 28,22) around the citizens’ army (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4,22; Liv. 1,44). The circuit can be regarded as a defensive ritual. The animals were then sacrificed to Mars and the entrails (lustralia exta) were laid on the altar undivided, rather than divided as was usual. The sacri-

fice was followed by the votum of a new sacrifice at the next /ustrum as a service in return for divine protection

(Suet. Aug. 97) so that a chain of gifts and return gifts arose. The prayer said by the censor for the increase of the Roman community is said to have been changed by Scipio Africanus (> Cornelius [I 70]) in 142 BC to one for its preservation (Val. Max. 4,1,10).

Roman identity and Roman citizenship were not based on extraction but on political integration including diverse admission to the citizens’ army. The periodic reconstitution of the army served to bring up to date the sense of identity and the relationships between the ranks in a changed social order. By the territorial expansion of citizenship as well as the professionalization of military service and the development of a patronage, the lustrum had lost its original function before the Sullan abolition of the censorship because the traditional social hierarchy had already been questioned, especially since the generation of the Gracchi. After that the word lustrum (first used in Varro, Ling. 6,11) came to mean a five-year period [2. 1882-1884] which also was considered as standard for indentures of leases concluded after the abolition of the censorship by the consuls.

RIOD OF TIME

A. GENERAL The etymology of the word is uncertain [2. 1880; 6]. Lustrum refers both to the special purification conducted by the > censores after the > census in Rome and to the five-year interval between two censuses. More generally /ustrum refers to any five-year period, in very few

C. LUSTRUM AS A PERIOD OF TIME The /ustrum formed the largest nameable regular period of time in the life of the populus Romanus and therefore a basic unit of historical temporal experience: for the very reason that it initially was so important for the representation of the lost past of Rome, its five-year duration (and any regular duration at all) was called

LUSTRUM

into question in later historiography. In this way, the political meaning-giving function of the chronological patterns in older historical reconstruction was said to be replaced by another one, which instead of a temporal continuum emphasized more strongly the potential for political conflict of the Roman Republic. An older tradition based on a five- or ten-year period with 40-year generations respectively can be traced back to > Fabius [1 35] Pictor. Its later deformation which contradicts such regularity of the censorship adopting 3 3-year generations and fractions is due to - Cincius [2] Alimentus. This kind of historical deformation applied again in the Augustan edition of the > Fasti [3. 20-55, 145]. In fact the five-year duration of the lustrum and the censorship for the period between 209 and 154 BC is well attested but can also be reconstructed with only a few minor irregularities [3. 143-155] for the entire history of the censorship after the leges Liciniae Sextiae (whether the censorship was older is dubious) or at least for the period from 3 10 to 115 BC (i.e. for the period for which we have available a tradition that can almost be trusted). + Lustratio; > Expiatory rites 1D. Baupy, Rom. Umgangsriten (RGVV 43), 1998, 223-

261 2S.CLAVADETSCHER, S.v.1., ThIL VII 2, 1880-1885 3 F. Mora, Fastie schemi cronologici, 1999 4 F.Mora, La presunta censura del 61 a.C., in: Historia 52, 2003

5R.M. Oairvig, L. condere, in: JRS 51, 1961, 31-39 6 H.PETERSMANN, L. Etym. und Volksbrauch, in: WJA N.F. 9, 1983, 209-230

896

895

7 SIMON, GR.

F.MO.

Lusus Troiae see > Troiae lusus Lutarius (Aovtéetoc; Loutdrios also Aovtove.oc; Loutourios). Galatian tribal prince with a Celtic name, as

the leader of the > Trocmi he was co-commander with ~ Leonnorius. At the Hellespont the two princes parted. Leonnorius moved back to Byzantium and L. crossed over to Asia Minor with the aid of captured ships. ~ Nicomedes I of Bithynia’s offer then led to the reunification of the two Celtic groups (Liv. 38,16,5-9). -» Galatia K.STROBEL, Die Galater, vol. 1, 1996, 236-257.

W.SP.

[1] L. Catulus, C. Elder brother of L. [5]. Was the first in his family to attain the consulate in 242 BC. Since his patrician colleague, the flamen dialis A. Postumius Albinus, was forbidden by the pontifex maximus L. Caecilius [I rr] Metellus to leave Rome, L., along with the praetor Q. Valerius Falto took over command of the newly built fleet (200 quinqueremes) (Pol. 1,59,1-8). Seriously wounded at the siege of Drepanum in Sicily, L. triumphed over Hanno on the roth of March 241 in the naval battle of the Aegates Islands [5] (Pol. 1,60-62; Liv. 23,13,4) and with that ended the rst > Punic War. His pre-agreement with Hamilcar [3] Barcas was later tightened up by a Roman decemvirate. Naval triumph de Poenis ex Sicilia in the year 241 (MRR 1, 219f. Coins of his descendant Q. L. Cerco: RRC 305) and dedication of the temple of > Iuturna on the Field of Mars (Serv. Auct. Aeneis 12,139).

[2] L. Catulus, C. Son of L. [x]. As consul he and L. Veturius subjugated the Celts in Upper Italy 220 BC (Zon. 8,20). L. was taken prisoner by the Celts in 218 at the head of a commission of three for the founding of Placentia and Cremona (MRR 1, 240), and was freed only in 203 (Liv. 30,19,6-8). P.N. [3] L. Catulus, Q. Born c. 150 BC as the son of a father of the same name and one Popillia, stepbrother of L. Julius [I 5] Caesar and of C. Iulius [J 11] Caesar Strabo. L. probably administered Sicily as praetor in 109 (MRR 1, 545), but attained the consulate in 102 only after three unsuccessful attempts (in 106, 105, 104: Cic. Planc. 12) (MRR 1, 567). His attempt to stop the — Cimbri in the Adige valley north of Verona was in vain; but he was at least able, through great personal effort, to lead his troops to a new position south of the Po (on the topographical details: [3]). As proconsul he united his army with that of C. + Marius [I r| in rox and played a decisive role in the victory over the Cimbri at > Vercellae (30.6.10r). L. celebrated the triumph together with Marius (Plut. Marius 27,10; Val. Max. 9,12,4), but quarrelled with him since both claimed the largest part of the glory. L. built a magnificent home on the Palatine from the spoils and a public collonade (porticus Catuli: {5]) and built the temple of > Fortuna on the Field of Mars that he had vowed in the battle (Plut. Marius 26,3).

Lutatia Daughter of Q. Lutatius [3] Catulus (cos. in 102 BC) and Servilia, sister of Q. Lutatius [4] Catulus (cos. in 78), she was the first wife of the orator Q. Hortensius [7] Hortalus to whom she remained married until her death in about 55 BC (Cic. De Or. 3,228f.).

ME.STR. Lutatius Name of a plebeian lineage, originally probably not from the city of Rome, which was raised to the nobility in the 3rd cent. BC with the brothers L. [1] and [5] (Families: Catuli and Cercones). The gens was very wealthy (Suet. Gram. 3) and owned a family grave on the right bank of the Tiber (Oros. 5,21,7; Val. Max. O21)

K.-L.E.

Subsequently L. was one of the prominent members of the moderate senatorial aristocracy: in 100 he took part in the resistance against the revolutionary people’s tribune L. > Appuleius [I 11] Saturninus (Cic. Rab. perd. 21; 26; Cic. Phil. 8,15), but also in 91 in the resistance against the reactionary consul L. > Marcius [I 13]

Philippus (cf. Cic. De or. 2,220). In 87 he supported Cn. + Octavius against Cornelius [I 18] Cinna and killed himself after Marius’ conquest of Rome in order to avoid certain execution (Cic. De or. 3,9; Vell. Pat. 2,22,4; Val. Max. 9,12,4). L. was married to one Servilia in 121 at the latest and with her the father of Q. Lutatius [4] Catulus and > Lutatia, the wife of the orator Q. > Hortensius [7].

897

898

L. was valued not only for his character (e.g. Cic. Mur. 36; Cic. De or. 3,9), but also for his unusually high

49,2; Vell. Pat. 2,43,3; Plut. Caesar 7,1), whereupon he

education (Cic. Brut. 132; Cic. De or. 2,28). He was

especially known as an expert in Greek philosophy (Cic. De or. 3,187 et passim), was a friend of the poet + Archias [7] (Cic. Arch. 6), the epigrammatist > Antipater [8] of Sidon (Cic. De or. 3,194) and the epic poet ~ Furius [17]. L. himself was an orator (Cic. Brut. 132~-4; the funeral oration for his mother was the first for a Roman ~ matrona: Cic. De or. 2,44). In about 100 he published a book De consulatu et de rebus gestis suis (Cic. Brut. 132), obviously with the intention of putting his own deeds into the proper perspective. He is also mentioned as the author of occasional poetry (Plin. Ep. 5,3,5)3 only two epigrams in Hellenistic manner are preserved (FPL}, p. 94-96; further [2; 4]). It is debatable whether the Communis Historia, a collection of mainly mythological content in at least 4 books, can be ascribed to this L. (not so [1. 121f.; 6. 207]). 1 BARDON 1, 115-132 2CourRTNEY, 75f. 3R.G. Lewis, Catulus and the Cimbri, in: Hermes 102, 1974, go-109 4 A.PERUTELLI, Lutazio Catulo poeta, in: RFIC 118, 1990, 257-277 5 RICHARDSON, 312 6 SCHANZ/ Hostus 1, 166f. W.K.

[4] L. Catulus, Q. Son of L. [3], lived c. 121-61/60 BC, served under his father, in the war against the > Cimbri. Unlike his father, L. managed to flee from the followers of > Marius [I r] out of Rome in 87; when he returned in 82 under L. Cornelius [I 90] Sulla, he took revenge on his father’s murderer C. Marius [I 7] Gra-

tidianus, but opposed the excesses of Sulla’s rulership. In 81 he was praetor, in 78 (with support from Sulla) consul. He opposed his colleague M. Aemilius [I 11] Lepidus, who tried to bring down the Sullan order violently (law against violence, Cic. Cael. 70; Sulla’s solemn burial; charged with restoring the Capitoline temple of Jupiter, which had been destroyed by fire, and dedicated it with great pomp in 69, ILLRP 368; AE 1971, 61; Cic. Verr. 2,4,69f.; 82; Liv. Per. 98; Plin. HN £9323). When Lepidus attacked Rome in 77, L. as proconsul was able to defeat him (Liv. Per. 90; Plut. Pompeius 16f.). After this victory, L. was considered to be the leader of the moderate Optimates but could not prevent the rise of Cn. > Pompeius. In 70 he accepted the suspension of Sullan laws, in 67 he unsuccessfully opposed the lex Gabinia, which secured Pompey’s command in the war against the pirates (Cic. Leg. Man. 59; Vell. Pat. 2,32,1; Cass. Dio 36,30,4-36,4). In 66 he, together with his brother-in-law Q. Hortensius [7], opposed giving supreme command in the > Mithridatic War to Pompey (Cic. Leg. Man. 51; 59f.; Plut. Pompey 30,4) just as unsuccessfully. As censor in 65, L. hindered the plan of his colleague M. Licinius [I 11] Crassus to give Roman citizenship to the residents of Gallia Transpadana and to make Egypt a Roman province. Pontifex for some time, he was sensationally defeated by Caesar in 63 in the election to the chief pontificate (Sall. Catil.

LUTIA

accused the latter of taking part in the conspiracy of + Catilina. In 62 Caesar accused him in return of alleged embezzlement during the restoration of the Capitol (Cic. Att. 2,24,3; Suet. Iul. 15). After that Catulus was politically insignificant. Cicero did not value him highly as an orator (Cic. Brut. 133; 222), but made him a participant in his dialogues Hortensius and interlocutor in book 1 of the Academica priora (Cic. Att. TBn2955))e

KLE.

[5] L. Cerco, Q. Younger brother of L. [1]. Consul in 241 BC. He triumphed over the —> Falisci, then established Sicily as the first Roman province (MRR 1, 219). He died in office as censor in 236 (MRR 1, 222). PN. [6] L. Daphnis Grammarian of non-free origins, bought by Q.L. [3] Catulus (by M. Aemilius [I 37] Scaurus?: cf. Plin. HN 7,128) for a large amount of money, but soon freed (Suet. Gram. 3; cf. especially [2]). Presumably author of the Communis Historia ascribed to a L. [1]. 1 BARDON 1, 121f. 2J.CHRisTES, Sklaven und Freigelassene als Grammatiker und Philologen im ant. Rom, 1979, 12-15. WK.

Lutecia Parisiorum (Caes. B Gall. 6,3,4; 7,57£.5 Aovxotoxia; Loukotokia, Str. 4,3,5; Maguiwv Aovxotexia; Parision Loukotekia, Ptol. 2,8,13; Luticia, It. Ant. 366,5f.; Luteci, Tab. Peut. 2,4). Settlement founded in c. 250-200 BC on an island in the Sequana (Seine),

where a north-south trading route crosses the river, modern Paris. The river afforded natural protection while the nearby hill of Sainte-Geneviéve enabled direct surveillance of the surroundings. At the time of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, L. was at its peak (gold coins of the Parisii). In 52 BC the city was burnt to the ground (Caes. B Gall. 7,58). In the early Imperial period, an unfortified dual city was founded (on the island and on the left bank; forum, 3 thermal baths, theatre, amphitheatre, temple, aqueducts); wharf (nautae Parisiaci).

After Germanic invasions (in c. 250 AD) the part of the city on the island (see excavations of the ‘Crypte Archéologique’) and the forum were fortified. The left bank was resettled in the late Imperial period. Later, L. adopted the name of the tribe (apud Parisiam civitatem, council report of AD 360; Ilagtovov, Zos. 3,9). R. BEDON

(ed.), Les villes de la Gaule lyonnaise (Caesa-

rodunum 30), 1996, 225-262; P.-M.DuvaL, Les inscrip-

tions antiques de Paris, 1960; Id., Nouvelle histoire de Paris, 1993; M.Fieury, s.v. L., PE, 53.4f.; Id., s.v. Parigi,

EAA’, 1996, 254-256; Id., Naissance de Paris, 1997; Id., V.Kruta, La Crypte archéologique du parvis de NotreDame, 1990; P. VeLAy, De L. a Paris, 1993.

Vales

Lutia Possibly:modern Cantalucia near Osma in the Spanish province of Soria [1]. The name is presumably Iberian [2]. When in 134/3 BC the position of the fortress > Numantia was besieged by the Romans and became untenable, the youth of L. was inclined to provide help to the Numantians who were in dire straits. But the

899

900

elders betrayed this to Scipio, who hurried there and as punishment had the hands of 400 young men cut off

rock, stele, and orthostate inscriptions) and thematic variety of its corpus. The oldest testimonies, next to seal inscriptions, are the inscriptions of the Ankara silver bowl (15th cent., origin unsure) [2]. Due to their volume and historical content, the inscriptions of YALBURT and EmirGazi (Lycaia) as well as BoGazKOy 21Siidburg, all discussed in [3] are of particular interest among the approximately 40 inscriptions of the 13th cent. The majority of the corpus (around 220 inscriptions from southern/south-eastern Asia Minor and northern Syria, including two Phoenician/HL bilingual inscriptions: KARATEPE, I.Ivriz; see [4; 5]) originate from the 12th to 8th/early 7th cent. (for a map illustrating the spread of the language, see > Asia Minor Ill. C.). They are, without exception, inscriptions of (high) kings, subkings and their surroundings, of mostly historical-autobiographical content with references to subjects including building activity, military campaigns, inner-dynastic disputes, education of princes, acquisition of foreign languages (— Jariri), but also bills of sale for land purchases (KARKAMIs A 4a, CEKKE), an indenture (KARABURUN) as well as consecration and grave inscriptions. On lead strips (next to wooden tablets probably the main writing material of HL in the rst millennium), only few letters and economic texts are preserved [4]. The HL linguistic material of the rst millennium is complemented by personal names from various indirect traditions in and outside of Asia

LUTIA

(App. Hisp. 409-411). L. is mentioned on the bronze tablet of Luzaga as a member of an Arevacian league of cities and on coins (lutaqs). 1 A.SCHULTEN (ed.), Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae 4, 1937, 80

2HOLpeER,s.v. L.

TOVAR 3, 404.

P.B,

Luwian A. DOCUMENTED

PERIOD, LANGUAGE AREA B. THE LUWIAN DIALECTS (SOURCES) C. LUWIAN AS AN ANATOLIAN LANGUAGE D. CHARACTERISTICS AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE DIALECTS E. CONTACTS

A. DOCUMENTED Derived

from

PERIOD, LANGUAGE AREA

the

Hittite

designation

Luuili-,

Luwian is the term for the most widespread representative of the > Anatolian languages in Asia Minor. It is attested in two dialects, both recorded in different writing systems. Cuneiform Luwian (CL, 16th to 13th cent. BC) and Hieroglyphic Luwian (HL, rsth to early 7th cent. BC), as well as in its late successors Pisidian (Pis., 3rd cent. AD), Lycian (5th to 4th cent. BC) and Milyan (Mil., sth/4th cents. BC), and spans, if including its oldest and latest indirect traditions from the 18th cent. BC and the 5th/6th cents. AD, an (even if fragmentary) Minor: Aramaic, Phoenician inscriptions/seals (ZINperiod of approximately 2,300 years. CIRLI, Cilicia; cf. [6; 7]); Neo-Assyrian, Urartian, NeoAs revealed by relevant evidence in the Hittite traBabylonian texts. dition (> Hittite) and the circulation of the HL inscripWhile the hieroglyphic tradition of HL ends with the tions from the 13th to the rrth cent. (see map [1. 449]), Assyrian conquest of the Hittite successor states at the the Luwian language area in the second millennium end of the 8th/beginning of the 7th cent., Pisidian covered the entire southeast (to the west of the Eu- ‘(3rd cent. AD), recorded in Greek alphabet script, can phrates), south and west of Asia Minor (cf. > Arzawa; be considered its late successor. The designation (after > Kizzuwatna; > Lukka; > Mira; > Séha; > TarhunTliovdix, yA@tta, Str. 13,4,17) is conventional and tassa; > Wilusa). In the course of the formation of the based on the location where the inscription was found Hittite empire (late 14th cent. BC, > Hattusa II.), (modern Sofular, between Lakes Beysehir and Egridir) Luwian (HL) spread to Northern Syria, where it was the in East Pisidia. 21 very short grave inscriptions are prelanguage of the political ruling classes in the Hittite sucserved (summarized in [8], for a linguistic analysis see cessor states until the 9th/8th cents. (+ Asia Minor III. also [9. 256-259]), which only contain personal names C.). During the rst millennium, it was continuously in nominative, (patronymic) genitive and dative. pushed back by > Phrygian, the related > Lydian and ‘Lycaonian’, however, which according to Acts 14:11 especially Greek, while it was able to survive in the area (Avxaovioti A€yovtes), was spoken during the rst cent. of Taurus (particularly Isauria and adjacent regions) AD only 100 km away in Lystra, must be assigned to the until the Roman Imperial period and early Byzantine same dialect. Likewise, all Luwian personal names in times. the Greek inscriptions (stemming from the native population) from Cilicia, Lycaonia and Isauria (1st to B. THE LUWIAN DIALECTS (SOURCES) 5th/6th cents. AD) are to be added hereto. In and 1. HIEROGLYPHIC

FORM LuWIAN

LUWIAN, PISIDIAN

3.LYCIAN

t. HIEROGLYPHIC

2. CUNEI-

4. MILYAN

LUWIAN, PISIDIAN

HL, which was passed down in its own Luwian ~ hieroglyphic script, was probably spoken in the entire language area designated above, with exception of the Lycian peninsula, and presents itself as the most significant dialect, also in regards to volume (about 260

around

Isauria,

which

was

under

constant

Roman

occupation, they often appeared as cognomina, e.g. Avg. Ovavantc ([uana-li-] ‘feminine’), occasionally also with Latin patronymic suffix -ianus/-iana as in Avo. Migaontiavy Neva ({Mira-sita-] ‘Man from Mira’) (cf. [10; 11]; misjudgement of the mono-/disyllabic HL personal names in [12] which ought to be seen as abbreviated compounds or affectionate forms). Sources relating to Church history suggest that these dialects were

901

902

still alive in Isauria and Lycaonia in the 6th cent. [13. 242-246]. 2. CUNEIFORM LUWIAN CL is recorded in Babylonian — cuneiform script and exists, with the exception of two letter fragments, in form of cult chants/recitations as well as magic/ritual incantations (partially also containing mythologemes), which represent an integrative part of the festival descriptions and cathartic rituals of the 16th and, respectively, the 15th cent. (and their copies from the 14th to 13th cent. BC), otherwise composed in Hittite. All texts (summarized in [14]) stem from the Hittite capital (> Hattusa Luwian). The Luwian authors of the rituals, however, also originate from west and southeast

tion of events from the period of the + Peloponnesian war (including the military campaign of Melesander).

Kas, 9 |.). The dialect designation (according to [21. 324]) is conventional and noncommittal, but preferable to the alternative ‘Lycian B’ insofar as Milyan shows no particularly close genetic relationship to Lycian, but appears to be related more strongly to HL and CL (see below D.). Given that the inscriptions were found in Lycian-speaking areas, the exact location and expansion of the Milyan dialect area remain unclear.

Asia Minor (Arzawa, Kizzuwatna). This implies that

To be considered, however, are middle and eastern

the language area of CL is identical with the area of HL, and the relationship of both dialects must thus be established as a relationship of sociolects, particularly since

with the Xanthus valley in Homer (Hom. Il. 2,877; 5479; 6,172; 12,313), and that, on the other hand,

the differences between the two are minor (see below

D.). Accordingly, difficulties in dialect attribution arise for the oldest indirect traditions of Luwian, for personal names and for appellatives in Old Syrian texts from — Kanes (18th cent.) that conventionally are attributed to CL. This also applies to the Luwian personal names attested in Hittite, as well as to the numerous nouns and verbs, appearing increasingly as loan words in Hittite texts since the 16th cent., in the 14th/13th cents. also in Luwian expressions, since a HL influence is very likely at least in some cases (e.g. aphairesis in /attri-: allattri‘fruitcake’). CL is no longer manifest after 1,200; it cannot have been continued in Pisidian, which still has

the singular genitive abandoned in CL. 3. LYCIAN Limited to Lycia (— Lycii), the epigraphical tradition of Lycian (main finding-spots: Telmessus, Tlos, Pinara, Xanthus, Myra, Limyra; furthest to the north: Kizilca near Elmali), written in its own alphabet script (+ Asia Minor VI.), essentially begins at the end of the 5th cent. BC and ends soon after Alexander the Great’s conquest of Lycia (in 3 3.4/3); yet Lycian may have been spoken into the Roman Imperial period (cf. [15. 151]). The Lycian corpus comprises stone inscriptions, among them eight Lycian-Greek bilingual inscriptions and one Lycian-Greek-Aramaic trilingual inscription, as well as several brief vessel inscriptions (from around 500 on) and graffiti (summarizing ed. [16; 17; 18]; selection of translated inscriptions in [19]). There further exist approximately 180 coin legends (c. 485-360) [20] with often abbreviated personal names, place names, and/or ethnic names (e.g. Xeriga Wehntezi ‘X. of Wehiiti/Phellus’). Apart from approximately 20 consecration inscriptions and two decrees of the Carian Satrap > Pixodarus ([16. no. 45]; trilingual inscription), the inscriptions stem from the grave monuments of the dynasts and their relatives. They provide insight into burial customs and social circumstances, but also into military conflicts. The most extensive Lycian inscription [16.no. 44] (Xanthus) offers an in-depth representa-

LUWIAN

4. MILYAN Only two inscriptions

(5th/4th cents.) in Lycian

alphabet script are preserved: the last part of [16. no. 44] (Xanthus, 105 |.) and [16. no. 55] (Antiphellus/

Lycia, since the fact that the name Lykia is still identical

Hdt. 1,173 regards the Solymians as the original population of Lycia (erroneously taking the Lycians for immigrants) indicates that the eastward spread of Lycian (certainly to be understood as a political process) did not occur until relatively late. C. LUWIAN AS AN ANATOLIAN LANGUAGE

Luwian

belongs, together with Lydian, — Palaic

(Pal.), > Carian, and —> Sidetan, to the west Anatolian

branch, being genetically closer to the three latter languages than to Lydian. Given the attestation of Luwian lexical material for as early as the 18th cent., the individual language formation of proto-Luwian must have occurred in the late 3rd/early 2nd millennium at the latest. Specific innovations of this prehistoric level consist in the (conditioned) loss of proto-Anatolian *g, as

in CL and HL udna-/una-* ‘woman’

(uana-): Lydian kana-