ページの画像
PDF
ePub

reader can fill up by references to the work just inhabitants in each regio, and of their property, mentioned. The two main objects of the consti- for purposes of taxation, and for levying the troops tution of Servius were to give the plebs political for the armies. Further, each country tribe or independence, and to assign to property that in-regio was divided into a certain number of Pagi, fluence in the state which had previously belonged a name which had been given to the divisions of to birth exclusively; and it cannot be questioned the Roman territory as early as the reign of Numa that the military and financial objects, which he (Dionys. ii. 76); and each Pagus also formed an secured by the changes he introduced, were re- organised body, with a Magister Pagi at its head, garded by him as of secondary importance. In who kept a register of the names and of the proorder to carry his purpose into effect Servius made perty of all persons in the pagus, raised the taxes, a two-fold division of the Roman people, one ter- and summoned the people, when necessary, to war. ritorial, and the other according to property. He Each pagus had its own sacred rites and common first divided the whole Roman territory into Re- sanctuary, connected with which was a yearly fesgiones, and the inhabitants into Tribus, the people tival called Paganalia, at which all the Pagani took of each region forming a tribe. The city was part. Dionysius says that the Pagi were fortified divided into four regions or tribes, and the country places, established by Servius Tullius, to which the around into twenty-six regions or tribes, so that country people might retreat in case of an hostile inthe entire number of Tribus Urbanae and Tribus road; but this is scarcely correct, for even if Servius Rusticae, as they were respectively called, amounted Tullius established such fortified places, it is evident to thirty. (Liv. i. 43; Dionys. iv. 14, 15.) Livy that the word was used to indicate a local division, does not mention the number of the country tribes and must have been given to the country adjoining in his account of the Servian constitution, and we the fortified place as well as to the fortified place are indebted to Fabius Pictor, the oldest of the itself. (Dionys. iv. 15; Varr. L. L. vi. 24, 26; Roman annalists (Dionys. l. c.), and to Varro (ap. Macrob. Saturn. i. 16; Ov. Fast. i. 669; Dict. of Non. p. 43), for the number of twenty-six. More- Antiq. s. v. Pagi.) As the country tribes were over Livy, when he speaks of the whole number of divided into Pagi, so were the city tribes divided the tribes in B. C. 495, says that they were made into Vici, with a Magister Vici at the head of each, twenty-one in that year. (Liv. ii. 2); comp. Dionys. who performed duties analogous to those of the vii. 64.) Hence the statements of Fabius Pictor Magister Pagi. The Vici in like manner had their and Varro might appear to be doubtful. But in own religious rites and sanctuaries, which were the first place their account has the greatest in- erected at spots where two or more ways met (in ternal probability, since the number thirty plays compitis); and consequently their festival, corsuch an important part in the Roman constitution, responding to the Paganalia, was called Compitalia. and the thirty tribes would thus correspond to the (Dionys. iv. 14; Dict. of Antiq. s. vv. Vicus and thirty curiae; and in the second place Niebuhr Compitalia.) has called attention to the fact that in the war with Porsena, Rome lost a considerable part of her territory, and thus the number of her tribes would naturally be reduced. When, however, Niebuhr proceeds to say that the tribes were reduced in the war with Porsena from thirty to twenty, because it was the ancient practice in Italy to deprive a conquered nation of a third part of its territory, he seems to have forgotten, as Becker has remarked, that the four city tribes could not have been taken into account in such a forfeiture, and that consequently a third part of the territory would not have been ten tribes. Into this question, however, it is unnecessary further to enter. The conquest of Porsena had undoubtedly broken up the whole Servian system; and thus it was all the easier to form a new tribe in B. c. 504, when the gens Claudia migrated to Rome. (Liv. ii. 16.) It would appear that an entirely new distribution of the tribes became necessary, and this was probably carried into effect in B. c. 495, soon after the battle of the lake of Regillus. In fact the words of Livy (ii. 21) already referred to state as much, for he does not say that before this year there were twenty tribes, or that the twenty-first was then added for the first time, but simply that twentyone tribes were then formed (Romae tribus una et viginti factae). The subsequent increase in the number of the tribes, till they reached that of thirty-five, is related in the Dictionary of Antiquities (s. v. Tribus). But to return from this digression to the Servian constitution. Each tribe was an organised body, with a magistrate at its head, called v Adpxos by Dionysius (iv. 14), and Curator Tribus by Varro (L. L. vi. 86), whose principal duty appears to have consisted in keeping a register of the

The main object which Servius had in view in the institution of the tribes was to give an organisation to the plebeians, of which they had been entirely destitute before; but whether the patricians were included in the tribes or not, is a subject of great difficulty, and has given rise to great difference of opinion among modern scholars, some regarding the division into tribes as a local division of the whole Roman people, and consequently of patricians and their clients as well as of plebeians, while others look upon it as simply an organisation of the second order. The undoubted object of Servius Tullius in the institution of the tribes led Niebuhr to maintain that the patricians could not possibly have belonged to the tribes originally; but as we find them in the tribes at a later period (Liv. iv. 24, v. 30, 32), he supposed that they were admitted into them by the legislation of the decemvirs. But probable as this might appear, all the evidence we possess goes the other way, and tends to show that the tribes were a local division of the whole Roman people. In the first place, if Servius had created thirty local tribes for the plebs alone, from which the patricians were excluded, it is not easy to see why the three ancient tribes of the Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres, should not have continued in existence. This we know was not the case; for it is certain, that the three ancient tribes disappear from the time of the Servian constitution, and that their names alone were retained by the Equites, and that henceforward we read only of the division of the patricians into thirty curiae: indeed it is expressly said that the pural yevikal were abolished by Servius, and that the puλal roĦIKal were established in their place. (Dionys. iv. 14) Secondly, it is certain that all the tribes of the

:

He had

year B. C. 495, with the exception of the Crustu- | 100,000 asses: the second class those who had at mina, take their names from patrician gentes. | least 75,000 asses: the third those who had at Thirdly, the establishment of the Claudian tribe, least 50,000 asses: the fourth those who had at consisting as it did mainly of the patrician Claudia least 25,000 asses: and the fifth those who had gens, is almost of itself sufficient to prove that at least 10,000 asses, according to Böckh's propatricians were included in the Servian tribes. bable conjecture, for Dionysius makes the sum Niebuhr lays great stress upon the fact that in no necessary for admission to this class 12,500 asses instance do we find the patricians voting in the (12 minae) and Livy 11,000 asses, It must be Comitia Tributa before the time of the decemvirs; recollected, however, that these numbers are not but as Becker very justly remarks, this does not the ancient ones, when the as was a pound weight prove any thing, as we have no reason for supposing of copper, but those of the sixth century of the that the Comitia Tributa were established by city. The original numbers were probably 20,000, Servius along with the tribes. Such an assembly 15,000, 10,000, 5000, and 2000 asses respectively, would have had no meaning in the Servian consti- which were increased fivefold, when the as was tution, and would have been opposed to its first coined so much lighter. (Böckh, Metrologische principles. The Comitia Tributa were called into Untersuchungen, c. xxix.) Further, for military existence, when the plebs began to struggle after purposes each of the five classes was divided into independence, and had tribunes of their own at elder (Seniores) and younger (Juniores) men: the their head; and it is certainly improbable that former consisting of men from the age of 46 to 60, patricians should have been allowed to vote in the latter of men from the age of 17 to 45. It assemblies summoned by plebeian magistrates to was from the Juniores that the armies of the state promote the interests of the plebs. The Comitia were levied the Seniores were not obliged to serve Tributa must not therefore be regarded as assem- in the field, and could only be called upon to blies of the tribes, as Becker has justly remarked, defend the city. Moreover, all the soldiers had to but as assemblies of the plebeians, who voted find their own arms and armour; but it was so according to tribes, as their natural divisions. arranged that the expense of the equipment should Hence as the same writer observes, we see the be in proportion to the wealth of each class. full force of the expression in the Leges Valeria Servius however did not make this arrangement Horatia, Publilia and Hortensia: "quod tributim of the people for military purposes alone. plebes jussisset." another and more important object in view, namely, the creation of a new national assembly, which was to possess the powers formerly exercised by the Comitia curiata, and thus become the sovereign assembly in the state. For this purpose he divided each classis into a certain number of centuriae, each of which counted as one vote. But in accordance with the great principle of his constitution, which, as has been several times remarked, was to give the preponderance of power to wealth, a century was not made of a fixed number of men; but the first or richest class contained a far greater number of centuries than any of the other classes, although they must at the same time have contained a much smaller number of men. Thus the first class contained 80 centuries, the second 20, the third 20, the fourth 20, and the fifth 30, in all 170. One half of the centuries consisted of Seniores, and the other half of Juniores; by which an advantage was given to age and experience over youth and rashness, for the Seniores, though possessing an equal number of votes, must of course have been very inferior in number to the Juniores. Besides these 170 centuries of the classes, Servius formed five other centuries, admission into which did not depend upon the census. Of these the smiths and carpenters (fabri) formed two centuries, and the horn-blowers and trumpeters (cornicines and tubicines) two other centuries: these four centuries voted with the classes, but Livy and Dionysius give a different statement as to which of the classes they voted with. The other century not belonging to the classes, and erroneously called the sixth class by Dionysius, comprised all those persons whose property did not amount to that of the fifth class. This century, however, consisted of three subdivisions according to the amount of their property, called respectively the accensi relati, the proletarii and capite censi: the accensi velati were those whose property was at least 1500 asses, or originally 300 asses, and they served as supernumeraries in the army without arms, but ready to

The tribes therefore were an organisation of the whole Roman people, patricians as well as plebeians, according to their local divisions; but they were instituted, as we have already remarked, for the benefit of the plebeians, who had not, like the patricians, possessed previously any political organisation. At the same time, though the institution of the tribes gave the plebeians a political organisation, it conferred upon them no political power, no right to take any part in the management of public affairs or in the elections. These rights, however, were bestowed upon them by another institution of Servius Tullius, which was entirely distinct from and had no connection with the thirty tribes. He made a new division of the whole Roman people into Classes according to the amount of their property, and he so arranged these classes that the wealthiest persons, whether patricians or plebeians, should possess the chief power and influence. In order to ascertain the property of each citizen, he instituted the Census, which was a register of Roman citizens and their property, and enacted that it should be taken anew from time to time. Under the republic it was taken afresh, as is well known, every five years, Lists of the citizens were made out by the curator tribus or magistrate of each tribe, and each citizen had to state upon oath the amount and value of his property. According to the returns thus obtained a division of the citizens was made, which determined the tax (tributum), which each citizen was to pay, the kind of military service he was to perform, and the position he was to occupy in the popular assembly. The whole arrangement was of a military character. The people assembled in the Campus as an army (exercitus, or, according to the more ancient expression, classis), and was therefore divided into two parts, the cavalry (equites), and | infantry (pedites). The infantry was divided into five Classes. The first class contained all those persons whose property amounted at least to

take the arms and places of such as might fall in battle: the proletarii were those who had at least 375 asses, or originally 75 asses, and they were sometimes armed in pressing danger at the public expense: while the capite censi were all those whose property was less than the sum last mentioned, and they were never called upon to serve till the time of Marius. Thus the infantry or Pedites contained in all 175 centuries.

The cavalry or Equites were divided by Servius -Tullius into 18 centuries, which did not comprise Seniores or Juniores, but consisted only of men below the age of forty-six. The early history and arrangement of the Equites have given rise to much discussion among modern scholars, into which we cannot enter here. (See Dict. of Antiq. s. v. Equites.) It is sufficient for our present purpose to state that Tarquinius Priscus had divided each of the three ancient centuries of equites into two troops, called respectively the first (priores) and second (posteriores) Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres. These three double centuries Servius Tullius formed into six new centuries, usually called the sex suffragia and as they were merely a new organisation of the old body, they must have consisted exclusively of patricians. Besides these six centuries, Servius formed twelve others, taken from the richest and most distinguished families in the state, plebeian as well as patrician. There can be little question that a certain amount of property was necessary for admission to all the equestrian centuries, as well in consequence of the timocratic principle of this part of the Servian constitution, as on account of the express statement of Dionysius (iv. 18) that the equites were chosen by Servius out of the richest and most illustrious families, and of Cicero (de Rep. ii. 22) that they were of the highest census (censu maximo). Neither of these writers nor Livy mentions the property which was necessary to entitle a person to a place among the

EQUITES.-Centuriae

LIVY.

I. CLASSIS.-Census 100,000 asses.
Centuriae Seniorum

equites; but as we know that the equestrian census in the later times of the republic was four times the amount of that of the first class, it is probable that the same census was established by Servius Tullius. Niebuhr indeed supposed that the sex suffragia comprised all the patricians, independent of the property they possessed; but this supposition is, independent of other considerations, disproved by the fact, that we have express mention of a patrician, L. Tarquitius, who was compelled on account of his poverty to serve on foot.

The 175 centuries of pedites and the 18 of Of equites thus made a total of 193 centuries. these, 97 formed a majority of votes in the assembly. Although all the Roman citizens had a vote in this assembly, which was called the Comitia Centuriata, from the voting by centuries, it will be seen at once that the poorer classes had not much influence in the assembly; for the 18 centuries of the equites and the 80 centuries of the first class, voted first; and if they could come to an agreement upon any measure, they possessed at once a majority, and there was no occasion to call upon the centuries of the other classes to vote at all. This was the great object of the institution, which was to give the power to wealth, and not either to birth or to numbers.

The preceding account of the centuries has been taken from Livy (i. 43) and Dionysius (iv. 16, The foll.), who agree in all the main points. account of Cicero (de Re Publ. ii. 22) cannot be reconciled with that of Livy and Dionysius, and owing to the corruptions of the text it is hopeless to make the attempt. The few discrepancies between Livy and Dionysius will be seen by the following table, taken from Becker, by which the reader will also perceive more clearly the census of each class, the number of centuries or votes which each contained, and the order in which they voted.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Centuriae Juniorum

Centuriae Fabrum

Centuriae Seniorum

Centuriae Juniorum

Centuriae Seniorum

40

Centuriae Juniorum

2

[blocks in formation]

CLASSIS.-Census 75 minae.

[blocks in formation]

10

10

Centuriae Fabrum

III. CLASSIS.-Census 50,000 asses.

Centuriae Juniorum

IV. CLASSIS.-Census 25,000 asses.

Centuriae Seniorum

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

10
10

Centuriae Seniorum

Centuriae Juniorum

Centuriae cornic, et tubic.

[ocr errors]

10

V. CLASSIS.-Census 11,000 asses.

Centuriae Seniorum

V.

CLASSIS.-Census 12 minae.

15

Centuriae Seniorum

15

[blocks in formation]

There can be little doubt that the number in Dionysius is the correct one. According to Livy's number cases might have arisen in which it was impossible to obtain a majority, as ninety-seven might have voted for a measure and ninety-seven against it. Moreover, Cicero (de Rep. ii. 22) describes ninety-six as the minority. The other discrepancies between Livy and Dionysius are of no great importance, and need not be discussed further in this place.

The Assembly of the Centuries, or Comitia Centuriata, was made by Servius, as we have already remarked, the sovereign assembly of the nation, and it accordingly stept into the place formerly occupied by the Comitia Curiata. Servius transferred to it from the latter assembly the right of electing kings and the higher magistrates, of enacting and repealing laws, and of deciding upon war, and jurisdiction in cases of appeal from the sentence of a judge. He did not, however, abolish the Comitia Curiata, but on the contrary he allowed them very great power and influence in the state. He not only permitted them to retain the exercise of such rights as affected their own corporations, but he enacted that no vote of the Comitia Centuriata should be valid till it had received the sanction of the Comitia Curiata. This sanction of the Curiae is often expressed by the words patrum auctoritas or patres auctores facti, in which phrase patres mean the patricii. In course of time the sanction of the Curiae was abolished, or at least became a mere matter of form; but the successive steps by which this was accomplished do not belong to the present inquiry, and are related elsewhere. (Dict. of Antiq. s. vv. Auctor, Comitia, p. 333, a, Plebs, 2d ed.)

Although Servius gave the plebeians political rights and recognised them as the second order of the Roman people, it must not be supposed that he placed them on a footing of equality with the patricians. From the time of Servius they were cives, they had the jus civitatis, but not in its full extent. The jus civitatis included both the jus publicum and the jus privatum; but of each of these rights they possessed only a portion. Of the jus publicum Servius gave to them only the jus suffragii, or right of voting in the comitia centuriata, but not the jus honorum, or eligibility to the public offices of the state. Of the jus privatum Servius conferred upon them only the commercium, by virtue of which they could become owners of land and could appear before the courts without the mediation of a patronus, but he did not grant to them the connubium, or right of marriage with the patricians. Moreover, they had no claim to the use of the public land, the possessio of which continued to be confined to the patricians, although the conquered lands were won by the blood of the second order as well as of the first; but, as some compensation for this injustice, Servius is said to have given to the poor plebeians small portions of the public land in full ownership. (Dionys. iv. 9, 10, 13; Liv. i. 46; Zonar. vii. 9.)

The laws of Servius Tullius are said to have been committed to writing, and were known under the name of the Commentari Servii Tullii. Dionysius says (iv. 13) that he regulated the commercium between the two orders by about fifty laws; but the commentaries of Servius Tullius, which are cited by later writers, such as Verrius Flaccus, can only have contained the substance of

the laws ascribed to him; since the original laws, if they were ever committed to writing, must long since have perished. (Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 249.)

The principal modern writers who have treated of the Servian constitution are: Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 398, foll.; Göttling, Geschichte der Römischen Staatsverfassung, p. 230, foll.; Gerlach, Die Verfassung d. Servius in ihrer Entwickelung, Basel, 1837; Huschke, Die Verfassung d. Kon. Serv. Tull., Heidelberg, 1838; Peter, Epochen d. Verfassungsgesch. der Römisch. Republ., Leigzig, 1841; Walter, Gesch. d. Römisch. Rechts, p. 31, foll., 2nd ed.; Becker, Handbuch d. Römisch. Alterthümer, vol. ii. pt. i. p. 164, foll.

TULLIUS TIRO. [TIRO.]

TU'LLIUS VALENTINUS. [VALENTINUS.] TULLUS, ATTIUS. [TULLIUS, ATTIUS.] TULLUS, CALVI'SIUS. 1. C., consul with A. Cornelius Palma in A. D. 109 (Fasti). 2. P., consul suffectus in A. D. 110. TULLUS, CLOE'LIUS or CLUI'LIUS. [CLOELIUS TULLUS.]

TULLUS HOSTILIUS. [HOSTILIUS.] TULLUS, M. MAECI'LIUS, a triumvir of the mint under Augustus, known only from coins, a specimen of which is annexed. On the obverse is the head of Augustus with CAESAR AVGVST. PONT. MAX. TRIBVNIC. POT, and on the reverse M. MAECILIVS TVLLVS (Eckhel, vol. v. p. 240.)

[subsumed][ocr errors]

HIIVIR A. A. A. F. F.

[graphic]

COIN OF M. MAECILIUS TULLUS.

TULLUS, VOLCA'TIUS. 1. L. VOLCATIUS TULLUS, consul B. c. 66 with M'. Aemilius Lepidus. He is mentioned by Cicero in his oration for Plancius (c. 21) as one of those distinguished men who had failed when a candidate for the aedileship, but who afterwards obtained the highest honours of the state. Volcatius did not take a prominent part in public affairs, and appears to have been a man of moderate opinions, and fond of quiet. He approved of Cicero's proceedings in his consulship, and spoke in the debate in the senate on the punishment of the Catilinarian conspirators. In the discussion in B. c. 56, respecting the restoration of Ptolemy Auletes to his kingdom, he was in favour of intrusting this important commission to Pompey, who had lately returned from the East. In B. c. 54 he was one of the consulars who supported M. Scaurus, when he was brought to trial in this year. On the breaking out of the civil war, in B. c. 49, he resolved to take no part in the struggle, but remained quietly in Italy all the time. He is spoken of by Cicero in B. c. 46 as an enemy of M. Marcellus, when the latter was pardoned by Caesar. (Cic. in Cat. i. 6, ad Att. xi. 21, Philipp. ii. 5, ad Fam. i. 1, 2, 4, ad Q. Fr. ii.

[ocr errors]

1; Ascon. in Scaur. p. 28, ed. Orelli; Cic. ad Att. | § 51; Baehr, Geschichte der Röm. Litterat. Suppl. vii. 3, 8, 9, viii. 15, ix. 10, 19, x. 3, ad Fam. iv. Band. 2te Abtheil. § 167.) 4. § 4.)

2. C. VOLCATIUS TULLUS, probably a son of No. 1, since Cicero says that L. Tullus and Serv. Sulpicius had sent their sons to fight against Pompey. (Cic. ad Att. x. 3.) C. Tullus fought under Caesar in the Gallic war, and likewise distinguished himself at the siege of Dyrrhachium in B. C. 48. (Caes. B. G. vi. 29, B. C. iii. 52.)

[W. R.] TU'RIUS. 1. L. TURIUS, was accused by Cn. Gellius and defended by Cato the Censor. (Gell. xiv. 2.) As nothing is known respecting either this L. Turius or Cn. Gellius, a wide field is opened for learned trifling. The different conjectures started are given by Meyer. (Orator. Roman. Fragm. p. 140, foll., 2nd ed.)

2. L. TURIUS, characterized by Cicero as an orator 3. L. VOLCATIUS TULLUS, son of No. 1, was of small talent but great diligence, failed in obpraetor urbanus in B. c. 46, and consul with Octa-taining the consulship only by a few centuries. vian in B. c. 33. (Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 41; Dion Cass. xlix. 43; Appian, Illyr. 27.)

TURA'NIUS. [TURRANIUS.]

TURBO, a gladiator of small stature but great courage. (Hor. Sat. ii. 3. 310. with the Schol.) TU'RCIUS RUFUS APRONIA'NUS ASTE'RIUS. [ASTERIUS.]

TURBO, MA'RCIUS LIVIA'NUS, a distinguished general under Trajan and Hadrian. He was sent by the former emperor in A. D. 115 to Egypt to suppress the insurrection of the Jews at Cyrene, which he effected without much difficulty. On the accession of Hadrian (A. D. 117), with whom he had lived on intimate terms during the life-time of Trajan, he was raised to offices of higher honour and trust. He was first sent into Mauritania to quiet the disturbances in that province which were supposed to have been excited by Q. Lusius Quietus [QUIETUS], and he was afterwards appointed to the government of Pannonia and Dacia with the title of Egyptian Praefect, that he might possess greater weight and influence. Subsequently he was summoned to Rome, and raised to the important dignity of Praefectus Praetorio in place of Attianus. In the discharge of the duties of this office, he was most assiduous; but nevertheless, like all the other friends of Hadrian, was at length treated with ingratitude by the emperor. Turbo was fifty years of age at the time of his death, as we learn from an inscription on his tomb. (Euseb. H. E. iv. 2; Spart. Hadr. 4-9, 15; Dion Cass. lxix. 18; Gruter, p. 437. 1.)

TURDUS, C. PAPI'RIUS, tribune of the plebs, B. C. 178. (Liv. xli. 6.) This is the only person of this family mentioned. Cicero speaks of the Turdi as a plebeian family of the Papiria gens (ad Fam. ix. 21. § 3).

TU'RIA, the wife of Q. Lucretius Vespillo, concealed her husband when he was proscribed by the triumvirs in B. c. 43. (Val. Max. vi. 7. § 2; Appian, B. C. iv. 44.) [VESPILLO.]

TURI'BIUS, a Spanish bishop, a bitter enemy and persecutor of the Priscillianists. About the year A. D. 447, before he was elevated to the episcopal dignity, he published a letter still extant, entitled Epistola de non recipiendis in auctoritatem Fidei apocryphis Scripturis, et de secta Priscillianistarum, addressed to his friends Idacius and Ceponius. A letter to Pope Leo the Great, and various tracts connected with the controversy, have perished.

The Epistle to Idacius and Ceponius was first printed by Ambrosius de Morales, in his Historia Hispaniae, lib. xi. 26, and will be found in the editions of the works of Leo by Quesnell and by the brothers Ballerini, inserted immediately after the letter of Leo to Turibius, which is numbered (Schoenemann, Biblioth. Patrum Latt. vol. ii.

XV.

|

(Cic. Brut. 67.) This Turius can hardly be the same person as the preceding, as he is mentioned by Cicero with M. Piso, P. Murena, C. Censorinus, C. Macer, C. Piso, and L. Torquatus, all of whom were the contemporaries of Cicero.

3. Q. TURIUS, a negotiator or money-lender in the province of Africa, where he died. Cicero wrote to Q. Cornificius in B. c. 44, begging him to support the validity of the will of Turius against the attempts of his freedman Turius Eros. (Cic. ad Fam. xii. 26.)

4. TURIUS, a corrupt judge in the time of Horace. (Hor. Sat. ii. 1. 49.)

TURNUS (Túpvos), a son of Daunus and Venilia, and king of the Rutulians at the time of the arrival of Aeneas in Italy. (Virg. Aen. x. 76, 616.) He was a brother of Juturna and related to Amata, the wife of king Latinus. (xii. 138.) Alecto, by the command of Hera, stirred him up to fight against Aeneas after his landing in Italy. (vii. 408, &c.) He appears in the Aeneid as a brave warrior, but in the end he fell by the hand of the victorious Aeneas (xii. 926, &c.). Livy (i. 2) and Dionysius also mention him as king of the Rutulians, who allied himself with the Etruscans against the Latins, consisting of Aborigenes and Trojans. The Rutulians according to their account indeed were defeated, but Aeneas fell. (Comp. AENEAS.) [L. S.]

TURNUS, a Roman satyric poet. According to the old scholiast upon Juvenal, who quotes two lines from one of his pieces, he was a native of Aurunca, of servile extraction (libertini generis), the brother of Scaeva Memor the tragedian, and rose to honour and power at court under the Flavian dynasty. He is mentioned in terms of high praise by Martial, by Rutilius, and by Sidonius Apollinaris. We possess thirty hexameters, forming a portion of, apparently, a long satyric poem, the subject being an enumeration of the crimes and abominations which characterised the reign of Nero. This fragment was first published from a MS. by J. L. G. de Balzac in his "Entretiens " (12mo. Amst. 1663), was copied by Burmann into his "Anthologia Latina" (vi. 94, or No. 190, ed. Meyer), and by Wernsdorf, into his Poetae Latini Minores (vol. iii. p. lvii. p. 77). The latter employs some arguments which, to a certain extent, bear out his conjecture that the piece ought to be ascribed to Turnus; but the evidence is of a very indirect and uncertain description. (Vet. Schol. in Juv. i. 20, 71; Martial, vii. 97, xi. 10; Rutil. Numat. i. 599; Sidon. Apollin. Curm. ix. 267; F. A. Wolf, Vorlesungen über Röm. Litt. p. 231; Zumpt, ad Rutil. Numat. l. c.) [W. R.]

TURNUS (Toûpvos), a statuary, known only by the single passage in which Tatian mentions his statue of the courtezan Laïs. (Orat. ad Grace. 55, p. 121, ed. Worth: Aats ¿móprevare, Kai &

« 前へ次へ »