that the formula of the prætor expressed in precise and strict terms the matter submitted to the judex, whose authority was thus confined within limits. In the actiones bona fidei, or ex fide bona,1 more latitude was given, either by the formula of the prætor, or was implied in the kind of action, such as the action ex empto, vendito, locato, &c., and the special circumstances of the case were to be taken into consideration by the judex. The actiones arbitraria were so called from the judex in such case being called an arbiter, probably, as Festus says, because the whole matter in dispute was submitted to his judgment; and he could decide according to the justice and equity of the case, without being fettered by the prætor's formula. It should be observed, also, that the judex properly could only condemn in a sum of money; but the arbiter might declare that any particular act should be done by either of the parties, which was called his arbitrium, and was followed by the condemnatio if it was not obeyed. The division of actions into perpetuæ and temporales had reference to the time within which an action might be brought, after the right of action had accrued. Originally those actions which were given by a lex, senatus consultum, or an imperial constitution, might be brought without any limitation as to time; but those which were granted by the prætor's authority were generally limited to the year of his office. A time of limitation was, however, fixed for all actions by the late imperial constitutions. The division of actions into actiones in jus and in factum is properly no division of actions, but has merely reference to the nature of the formula. In the formula in factum concepta, the prætor might direct the judex barely to inquire as to the fact which was the only matter in issue; and on finding the fact, to make the proper condemnatio: as in the case of a freedman bringing an action against his patronus. In the formula in jus the fact was not in issue, but the legal consequences of the fact were submitted to the discretion of the judex. The formula in factum commenced with the technical expression, Si paret, &c., " If it should appear," &c.; the formula in jus commenced, Quod A. A., &c., "Whereas A. Á. did so and so." The actions which had for their object the punishment of crimes were considered public, as opposed to those actions by which some particular person claimed a right or compensation, and which were therefore called privata. The former were properly called judicia publica; and the latter, as contrasted with them, were called judicia privata. (Vid. JUDICIUM.) The actions called noxales were when a filius familias (a son in the power of his father), or a slave, committed a theft, or did any injury to another. In either case the father or owner might give up the wrong-doer to the person injured, or else he must pay competent damages. These actions, it appears, take their name either from the injury committed, or because the wrong-doer was liable to be given up to punishment (noxa) to the person injured. Some of these actions were of legal origin, as that of theft, which was given by the Twelve Tables; that of damnum injuria, which was given by the Aquilia Lex; and that of injuri arum et vi bonorum raptorum, which was given by the edict, and therefore was of prætorian origin. This instance will serve to show that the Roman division and classification of actions varied according as the Roman writers contemplated the sources of rights of action, or the remedies and the modes of obtaining them. An action was commenced by the plaintiff summoning the defendant to appear before the prætor or other magistrate who had jurisdictio: this process was called in jus vocatio; and, according to the 1. (Cic,, Top,, 17,)-2, (Gaius, iv,, 46, 47.) laws of the Twelve Tables, was in effect a dragging of the defendant before the prætor if he refused to go quietly. This rude proceeding was modified in later times, and in many cases there could be no in jus vocatio at all, and in other cases it was necessary to obtain the prætor's permission under pain of a penalty. It was also established that a man could not be dragged from his own house; but if a man kept his house to avoid, as we should say, being served with a writ, he ran the risk of a kind of sequestration (actor in bona mittebatur), The object of these rules was to make the defendant appear before the competent jurisdiction; the device of entering an appearance for the defendant does not seem to have suggested itself to the Roman lawyers. If the defendant would not go quietly, the plaintiff called on any by-stander to witness (antestari) that he had been duly summoned, touched the ear of the witness, and dragged the defendant into court. The parties might settle their dispute on their way to the court, or the defendant might be bailed by a vindex. The vindex must not be confounded with the vades. This settlement of disputes on the way was called transactio in via, and serves to explain a passage in St. Matthew. When before the prætor, the parties were said jure agere. The plaintiff then prayed for an action, and if the prætor allowed it (dabat actionem), he then declared what action he intended to bring against the defendant, which was called edere actionem. This might be done in writing, or orally, or by the plaintiff taking the defendant to the album, and showing him which action he intended to rely on." As the formula comprehended, or were supposed to comprehend, every possible form of action that could be required by a plaintiff, it was presumed that he could find among all the formulæ some one which was adapted to his case, and he was accordingly supposed to be without excuse if he did not take pains to select the proper formula. If he took the wrong one, or if he claimed more than his due, he lost his cause; but the prætor sometimes gave him leave to amend his claim or intentio. If, for example, the contract between the parties was for something in genere, and the plaintiff claimed something in specie, he lost his action: thus the contract might be, that the defendant undertook to sell the plaintiff a quantity of dyestuff or a slave; if the plaintiff claimed Tyrian purple or a particular slave, his action was bad; therefore, says Gaius, according to the terms of the contract, so ought the claim of the intentio to be. It will be observed that, as the formulæ were so numerous and comprehensive, the plaintiff had only to select the formula which he supposed to be suitable to his case, and it would require no farther variation than the insertion of the names of the parties and of the thing claimed, or the subject-matter of the suit, with the amount of damages, &c., as the case might be. When the prætor had granted an action, the plaintiff required the defendant to give security for his appearance before the prætor (in jure) on a day named, commonly the day but one after the in jus vocatio, unless the matter in dispute was settled at once. The defendant, on finding a surety, was said vades dare, vadimonium promittere or facere; the surety, vas, was said spondere; the plaintiff, when satisfied with the surety, was said vadari reum, to let him go on his sureties, or to have sureties from him. When the defendant promised to appear in jure on the day named, without giving any surety, this was called vadimonium purum. In some cases recuperatores (vid. JUDEX) were named, who, in case 1. (Dig. 2, tit. 4.)-2. (Hor., Serm. I., ix., 75., seqq.-Plautus, Curcul., v., 2.)-3., (Cic., Top., 2.-Gaius, iv., 46.)—4. (v., 25.-It is not easy to state correctly the changes in procedure which took place after the abolition of the legitima actiones. Compare Gaius, iv., 25, 46.)-5. (Dig. 2, tit. 13.)-6. (Cic., pro Ros, Com., c. 8.)-7, (" Causa cadebat :" Cic., de Orat., i 36.)-8. (Gaius, iv., 53, seqq.)-9, (Hor., Serm, I., i., 11.) of the defendant making default, condemned him in If the defendant appeared on the day appointed, ACTIO. | If the defendant answered the replicatio, his answer was called duplicatio; and the parties might go on to the triplicatio and quadruplicatio, and even farther, if the matters in question were such that they could not otherwise be brought to an issue. It remains to speak of the præscriptio, so called from being written at the head or beginning of the formula, and which was adapted for the protection of the plaintiff in certain cases. For instance, if the defendant was bound to make to the plaintiff a certain fixed payment yearly or monthly, the plaintiff had a good cause of action for all the sums of money already due; but, in order to avoid making his demand for the future payments not yet due, it was necessary to use a præscription of the following form: Ea res agatur cujus rei dies fuit. A person might maintain or defend an action by his cognitor or procurator, or, as we should say, by his attorney. The plaintiff and defendant used a certain form of words in appointing a cognitor, and it would appear that the appointment was made in the presence of both parties. The cognitor needed not to be present, and his appointment was complete when by his acts he had signified his assent." No form of words was necessary for appointing a procurator, and he might be appointed without the knowledge of the opposite party. The defendant might either deny the plaintiff's claim, or he might reply to it by a plea, exceptio. If he simply denied the plaintiff's claim, the cause was at issue, and a judex might be demanded. The forms of the exceptio also were contained in the prætor's edict, or, upon hearing the facts, the prætor adapted the plea to the case. The exceptio was the defendant's defence, and was often merely an equitable answer or plea to the plaintiff's legal demand. The plaintiff might claim a thing upon his contract with the defendant, and the defendant might not deny the contract, but might put in a plea of fraud (dolus malus), or that he had been constrained to come to such agreement. The exceptio was in effect something which negatived the plaintiff's demand, and it was expressed by a negative clause: thus, if the defendant should assert that the plaintiff fraudu- In many cases both plaintiff and defendant might lently claimed a sum of money which he had not be required to give security (satisdare); for instance, given to the defendant, the exceptio would run thus: in the case of an actio in rem, the defendant who Se in ea re nihil dolo malo Auli Ágerii factum sit neque was in possession was required to give security, in fat. Though the exceptio proceeded from the de-order that, if he lost his cause and did not restore fendant, it was expressed in this form, in order to be the thing, nor pay its estimated value, the plaintiff adapted for insertion in the formula, and to render might have an action against him or his sureties. the condemnatio subject to the condition. When the actio in rem was prosecuted by the formula Exceptions were peremptoria or dilatoria. Per- petitoria, that stipulatio was made which was called emptory exceptions were a complete and perpetual judicatum solvi. As to its prosecution by the sponsio, answer to the plaintiff's demand, such as an excep- see SPONSIO and CENTUMVIRI. If the plaintiff sued tio of dolus malus or of res judicata. Dilatory ex- in his own name, he gave no security; nor was any ceptions were, as the name imports, merely calcu- security required if a cognitor sued for him, either lated to delay the plaintiff's demand; as, for in- from the cognitor or the plaintiff himself, for the stance, by showing that the debt or duty claimed cognitor actually represented the plaintiff, and was Was not yet due. Gaius considers the exceptio personally liable. But if a procurator acted for litis dividue and rei residue as belonging to this him, he was obliged to give security that the plainclass. If a plaintiff prosecuted his action after a tiff would adopt his acts; for the plaintiff was not dilatory exception, he lost altogether his right of prevented from bringing another action when a proaction. There might be dilatory exceptions, also, curator acted for him. Tutors and curators generto the person of the plaintiff, of which class is the ally gave security, like procurators. In the case of exceptio cognitoria, by which the defendant objects an actio in personam, the same rules applied to the either that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue by a plaintiff as in the actio in rem. If the defendant apcognitor, or that the cognitor whom he had named peared by a cognitor, the defendant had to give sewas not qualified to act as a cognitor. If the ex-curity; if by a procurator, the procurator had to ception was allowed, the plaintiff could either sue give security. When the cause was brought to an issue, a judex tage of a peremptory exceptio, the prætor might af- named or appointed a judex, and delivered to him might be. If a defendant neglected to take advan- or judices might be demanded of the prætor who it; whether he could do the same in the case of a judices were said dari or addici. So far the proterward give him permission to avail himself of the formula which contained his instructions. The dilatory, was a doubtful question." The plaintiff might reply to the defendant's excep- the actio before the judex requires a separate dis ceedings were said to be in jure: the prosecution of The following is an example of a formula taken when inserted in the formula, would be of this shape: tio, for the defendant, by putting in his plea, became cussion. be good, and a complete answer to the plaintiff's from Gaius: Judex esto. Si paret Aulum Agerium an actor. (Vid. ACTOR.) The defendant's plea might thing that would be an answer to the plea. Thus, suisse eamque dolo malo Numerii Negidii Aulo Agerio demand, and yet the plaintiff might allege some- apud Numerium Negidium mensam argenteam depoauction, the defendant might put in a plea, which, si non paret, absolvito. (argentarius) claimed the price of a thing sold by judex Numerium Negidium Aulo Agerio condemnato: The nature of the formula, however, will be bet Ut ita demum emptor damnetur, si ei res quam emeritter understood from the following analysis of it by tradita sit; and this would be in form a good plea, Gaius: It consisted of four parts, the demonstratio, But if the conditions of sale were that the article intentio, adjudicatio, condemnatio. The demonstratio should not be handed to the purchaser before the is that part of the formula which explains what the emptori res traderetur quam si pretium emptor solverit. run thus: Quod Aulus Agerius Numerio Negidio homplicatio in this shape: Nisi prædictum est ne aliter | subject-matter be a slave sold, the demonstratio would money was paid, the argentarius might put in a re- subject-matter of the action is. For instance, if the (Hor, Serm. 1, it., 36, segg.-Cic., pro P. Quinctio, c. 6.) 1. (Gaius, iv., 130, seqq.-Cic., de Orat., i., 37.)-2. (Cic,, pro Q. Roscio, c. 2.-Hor., Serm. I., v., 35.)-3. (iv., 47.) inem vendidit. The intentio contains the claim or demand of the plaintiff': Si paret hominem ex jure Quiritium Auli Agerii esse. The adjudicatio is that part of the formula which gives the judex authority to adjudicate the thing which is the subject of dispute to one or other of the litigant parties. If the action be among partners for dividing that which belongs to them all, the adjudication would run thus: Quantum adjudicari oportet judex Titio adjudicato. The condemnatio is that part of the formula which gives the judex authority to condemn the defendant in a sum of money, or to acquit him: for example, Judex Numerium Negidium Aulo Agerio sestertium milia condemna: si non paret, absolve. Sometimes the intentio alone was requisite, as in the formula called præjudiciales (which some modern writers make a class of actions), in which the matter for inquiry was, whether a certain person was a freedman, what was the amount of a dos, and other similar questions, when a fact solely was the thing to be ascertained. Whenever the formula contained the condemnatio, it was framed with the view to pecuniary damages; and, accordingly, even when the plaintiff claimed a particular thing, the judex did not adjudge the defendant to give the thing, as was the ancient practice at Rome, but condemned him in a sum of money equivalent to the value of the thing. The formula might either name a fixed sum, or leave the estimation of the value of the thing to the judex, who in all cases, however, was bound to name a definite sum in the condemnation. The formula then contained the pleadings, or the statements and counter-statements, of the plaintiff and the defendant; for the intentio, as we have seen, was the plaintiff's declaration; and if this was met by a plea, it was necessary that this also should be inserted in the formula. The formula also contained the directions for the judex, and gave him the power to act. The resemblance between the English and Roman procedure is pointed out in a note in Starkie's Law of Evidence.1 The following are the principal actions which we read of in the Roman writers, and which are briefly described under their several heads: Actio-Aqua wished to bring an action against their tutor, the prætor named a tutor for the purpose.1 Peregrini, or aliens, originally brought their action through their patronus; but afterward in their own name, by a fiction of law, that they were Roman citizens, A Roman citizen might also generally bring his action by means of a cognitor or procurator. (Vid. ACTIO.) A universitas, or corporate body, sued and was sued by their actor or syndicus. Actor has also the sense of an agent or manager of another's business generally. The actor publicus was an officer who had the superintendence or care of slaves and property belonging to the state." ACTOR. Vid. HISTRIO.) ACTUA RII, short-hand writers, who took down the speeches in the senate and the public assemblies.* In the debate in the Roman senate upon the punishment of those who had been concerned in the conspiracy of Catiline, we find the first mention of short-hand writers, who were employed by Cicero to take down the speech of Cato. The ACTUARII MILITIÆ, under the Roman emperors, were officers whose duty it was to keep the accounts of the army, to see that the contractors supplied the soldiers with provisions according to agreement, &c. 7 "Actus ACTUS, a Roman measure of length. vocabatur, in quo boves agerentur cum arat ro, uno impetu justo. Hic erat cxx pedum; duplicatusque in longitudinem jugerum faciebat." This act us is called by Columella actus quadratus; he says, "Actus quadratus undique finitur pedibus cxx. Hoc duplicatum facit jugerum, et ab eo, quod erat junctum, ju geri nomen usurpavit; sed hunc actum provincia Batica rustici acnuam (or acnam) vocant." VarroR says, "Actus quadratus qui et latus est pedes cxx, et longus totidem, is modus acnua Latine appellatur." The actus quadratus was therefore equal to half a jugerum, or 14,400 square Roman feet. The actus minimus or simplex9 was 120 feet long and four broad, and therefore equal to 480 square Roman feet. ACTUS. (Vid. SERVITUTES.) ACUS, dim. ACICULA (βελόνη, βελονίς, ῥαφίς), a needle, a pin. tion. We may translate acus a needle, when we suppose pluvia arcenda; Bonorum vi raptorum; Certi et In-it to have had at one end a hole or eye10 for the certi; Commodati; Communi dividundo; Confessoria; passage of thread; and a pin, when, instead of a Damni injuria dati; Dejecti vel effusi; Depensi; De-hole, we suppose it to have had a knob, a small positi; De dolo malo; Emti et venditi; Exercitoria; globe, or any other enlarged or ornamental terminaAd Exhibendum; Familiæ erciscunda; Fiduciaria; Finium regundorum; Furti; Hypothecaria; Injuri arum; Institoria; Judicati; Quod jussu; Legis Aquilia; Locali et conducti; Mandati mutui; Negativa; Negotiorum gestorum; Noxalis; De pauperie; De peculio; Pignoraticia or Pignoratitia; Publiciana; Quanti minoris; Rationibus distrahendis; De recepto; Redhibitoria; Rei uxoria or Dotis; Restitutoria and Rescissoria; Rutiliana; Serviana; Pro socio; Tribu toria; Tutela. ACTOR signified generally a plaintiff. In a civil or private action, the plaintiff was often called petitor; in a public action (causa publica) he was called accusator. The defendant was called reus, both in private and public causes: this term, however, according to Cicero, might signify either party, as indeed we might conclude from the word itself. In a private action the defendant was often called adversarius, but either party might be called adversarius with respect to the other. Originally, no person who was not sui juris could maintain an action; a filius familias, therefore, and a slave, could not maintain an action; but in course of time certain actions were allowed to a filius familias in the absence of his parent or his procurator, and also in case the parent was incompetent to act from madness or other like cause. Wards brought their actions by their guardian or tutor; and in case they 1. (i., p. 4.)-2. (Cic, ad Att., i., 16,)-3, (De Orat., fi., 43,) 4. (Dig. 47, tit. 10, s. 17,) The annexed figures of needles and pins, chiefly taken from originals in bronze, vary in length from an inch and a half to about eight inches. Pins were made not only of metal, but also of wood, bone, and ivory. Their principal use was to assist in fastening the garments, and more particu larly in dressing the hair. The mode of platting the hair, and then fastening it with a pin or needle, 1. (Gaius, i., 184.)-2. (Dig. 3, tit. 4.)-3. (Tacit., Ann., ii., 30; iii., 67.-Lips., Excurs. ad Tacit., Ann., ii., 30.)—4. (Suet. tit, 37, s. 5, 16; xii., tit. 49.)-6, (Plin., H. N., xvii., 3.)—7. Jul., 55.-Seneca, Ep. 33.)-5. (Ammian., xx., 5.-Cod. xii., (v., 1.)-8. (De Re Rust., i., 10.)-9. (Colum., v., 1.-Varro, De Ling. Lat., iv. 4.)-10. (τρύπημα, τρυμαλία.) ADAMAS. is shown in the annexed figure of a female head, taken from a marble group which was found at Apt, in the south of France.1 This fashion has been continued to our own times by the females of Italy. Martial alludes to it in the following epigram, in which he supposes the hair to be anointed with perfumes and decorated with ribands: 112 "Tenuia ne madidi violent bombycina crines, Figat acus tortas, sustineatque comas." The acus was employed as an instrument of torture, being inserted under the nails. Honesty was enjoined upon children by telling them that it was wrong even to steal a pin. ADLECTOR. precisely that of a crystal of quartz, in which the *ADAR KES (adapкns). Matthiolus admits his ignorance of what this substance is, and Matthias Faber was in error when he referred it to the Lapis Spongites. From the description of it given by Dioscorides and Paulus Ægineta, it was evidently nothing but the efflorescence which gathers about reeds in certain salt lakes." ADDICTI. (Vid. NEXI.) ADDIX, ADDIXIS (úððığ, úðdığıç), a Greek meas *ADIANTON, a plant. There can be no doubt that it is the Adiantum Capillus, or "Maiden-hair." Both Nicander and Theophrastus say of it, that it derives its name from the circumstance of its not being wet by rain (á, neg., and diaivo, "to wet"). Apuleius mentions Callitrichon, Polytrichon, and Asplenon as synonymes of it.10 false promises, into acts of injustice, or into measures injurious to the interests of Athens. If an individual was found guilty, he was punished with death. The law relating to these offences is preserved by Demosthenes.11 Μηδὲ βελόνης ἔναμμ' ἐπιθυμῆς, πάμφιλε, Ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς βλέπει σε πλησίον παρών. *AD'AMAS (ádáμaç), a name given by the ancients to several hard substances, and among the rest, probably to the Diamond. Psellus describes the gem adamas as follows: xpoiàv pèv éxei veλílovGav kai σTiλ#viv, " its colour resembles crystal, and is splendid.""It is probable," observes Dr. Moore, "that Pliny, when speaking of the gem called adamas, had in view, among other things, the diamond; but it is plain, from the fables he relates of ΑΔΙΚΙΑΣ πρὸς τὸν δῆμον γραφή, and ἀπατήσεως it, that this substance of highest value, not only rov dnμov yрaon, were actions brought in the Atheamong gems, but all human things, and for a long nian courts against persons who were considered to time known to kings only, and to very few of them,' have misled the people, the courts of justice, or the was unknown to him. He has evidently confound-senate of Five Hundred, by misrepresentations or ed in his description several widely different minerals; to which, from their hardness, or their, in some respect or other, indomitable nature, the Greeks gave the name údúas, adamant.' Thus steel was very frequently so called; and those grains of native gold, which, when the gangue containing them was reduced to powder a mortar, resisted the pestle and could not be comminuted by it, were called adamas Something of this sort Pollux meant by that 'flower of gold, or choicest gold, which he calls adamas and Plato, too, by the branch or knot of gold," which, from its density, very hard and deep coloured, was called adamas. It was, no doubt, this native gold that was spoken of in the authors from whom Pliny drew, when he wrote that adamas is found in gold mines; that it accompanies gold; that it seems to occur nowhere but in gold; that it in colour. Of the six kinds he mentions, that de-appellabant lectos. is not larger than a cucumber seed, nor unlike to it scribed as occurring in India, not in gold, but bearing some resemblance to crystal, may have been inces in the time of the Roman emperors.1 ADLEC TOR, a collector of taxes in the provthe diamond; though even here it is probable that he, and those from whom he copies, mistook fine crystals of quartz for diamonds, or, rather, call 318.)--3. (papuai povra: Id. ib., 1119.)-4. (Salmas., Exercit. Plin., such crystals adamas, The description given is P. 773, seq.-Jamieson, Mineral., i., 41.)-5. (Salmas., Exercit. ADITIO HEREDITATIS. (Vid. HEREDITAS.) mitted to the privileges and honours of the prætor- 15 1. (Plin., H. N., xxxvii., 15.)—2. (ñaμpavówvra: Dion. Perieg., Plin., p. 774.-Moore's Ancient Mineralogy, p. 143, seq.)-6. 1. (Montfaucon, Ant. Erp. Suppl., iii., 3.)-2. (Lib. xiv., Epig. Med.)-7. (Adains, Append., s. v.)-8. (Plut., Pericl., c. 31.)(Dioscor., v., 137.-Paul. Egin., vii.-Mangeti, Bibl. Scrip. 24)-3. (Menan, et Philem.. Reliq. a Meineke, p. 306.)-4. 9. (Demosth., c. Timocr., 12, p. 715.-Plut., Phoc., c. 26.)-10. (H. N., xxxvii., 15.)-5. ('Acápas, yévos cidńpov. Hesych.- (Theophrast., H. P., vii., 14.-Nicand., Ther., 846.)-11. (c. Stanley, in Esch,, c. Fun- P. 757.)-7. (xpusoò àvboc.)-8. (vii., 99.)-9. (Xpvoor 1204.-Dinarch., c. Philoc., c. 1. p. 93.)-12. (Capitolin, Pertin., 05.)-10. (Tim., v., 7, p. 57, ed. Tauchn.) c. 6.)-13. (ii, 1.)-14. (Cod. Theod., xii., tit. vi., &. 12.) ADMISSIONA'LES were chamberlains at the imperial court, who introduced persons to the presence of the emperor. They were divided into four classes; the chief officer of each class was called proximus admissionum; and the proximi were under the magister admissionum. The admissionales were usually freedmen.* the adopted person; she still continued his mother after the act of adoption. The next of kin of an Athenian citizen were entitled to his property if he made no disposition of it by will, or made no valid adoption during his lifetime; they were, therefore, interested in preventing fraudulent adoptions. The whole community were Friends appear to have been called amici admis- also interested in preventing the introduction into sionis prima, secundæ, or tertiæ. According to their body of a person who was not an Athenian some writers, they were so called in consequence citizen. To protect the rights of the next of kin of the order in which they were admitted; accord- against unjust claims by persons who alleged theming to others, because the atrium was divided into selves to be adopted sons, it was required that the different parts, separated from one another by hang- father should enter his son, whether born of his ings, into which persons were admitted according body or adopted, in the register of his phratria to the different degrees of favour in which they were (opaтpikov ypaμμaтεiov) at a certain time, the Tharheld." gelia,' with the privity of his kinsmen and phratores ADONIA (áðúvia), a festival celebrated in hon-(yevvñται, oрáтopes). Subsequently to this, it was our of Aphrodite and Adonis in most of the Grecian necessary to enter him in the register of the adoptive cities. It lasted two days, and was celebrated by father's demus (λniapxikov ypaμμatεiov), without women exclusively. On the first.day they brought which registration it appears that he did not possess into the streets statues of Adonis, which were laid the full rights of citizenship as a member of his new out as corpses; and they observed all the rites cus- demus. tomary at funerals, beating themselves and uttering lamentations. The second day was spent in merriment and feasting, because Adonis was allowed to return to life, and spend half of the year with Aphrodite. *ADO'NIS (üdwvic, or ¿§úkolтos), the Flying-fish, or Exocatus volitans, L. ADOPTION (GREEK). Adoption was called by the Athenians eionoinois, or sometimes simply noinois or véois. The adoptive father was said ποιεῖσθαι, εἰσποιεῖσθαι, or sometimes ποιεῖν; and the father or mother (for a mother after the death of her husband could consent to her son being adopted) was said EKTOLεiv: the son was said ExTOLciobal, with reference to the family which he left; and elonoiεiobal with reference to the family into which he was received. The son, when adopted, was called Tontós, eloñointós, or verós, in opposition to the legitimate son born of the body of the father, who was called γνήσιος. A man might adopt a son either in his lifetime or by his testament, provided he had no male offspring and was of sound mind. He might also, by testament, name a person to take his property, in case his son or sons should die under age. If he had male offspring, he could not dispose of his property. This rule of law was closely connected with the rule as to adoption; for if he could have adopted a son when he had male children, such son would have shared his property with the rest of his male children, and to that extent the father would have exercised a power of disposition which the law de nied him. Only Athenian citizens could be adopted; but females could be adopted (by testament at least) as well as males. The adopted child was transferred from his own family and demus into those of the adoptive father; he inherited his property, and maintained the sacra of his adoptive father. It was not necessary for him to take his new father's name, but he was registered as his son. The adopted son might return to his former family, in case he left a child to represent the family of his adoptive father: unless he so returned, he lost all right which he Imight have had on his father's side if he had not been adopted; but he retained all rights which he might have on his mother's side, for the act of adoption had no effect so far as concerned the mother of If the adoption was by testament, registration was also required, which we may presume that the person himself might procure to be done if he was of age, or if not, his guardian or next friend. If a dispute arose as to the property of the deceased (Kanpov diadikaria) between the son adopted by testament and the next of kin, there could properly be no registration of the adopted son until the testament was established. If a man died childless and intestate, his next of kin, according to the Athenian rules of succession, took his property by the right of blood (ayɣiοTɛía Katù yévos). Though registration might in this case also be required, there was no adoption properly so called, as some modern writers suppose; for the next of kin necessarily belonged to the family of the intestate. The rules as to adoption among the Athenians are not quite free from difficulty, and it is not easy to avoid all error in stating them. The general doctrines may be mainly deduced from the orations of Isæus, and those of Demosthenes against Macartatus and Leochares. ADOPTION (ROMAN). The Roman relation of parent and child arose either from a lawful marriage or from adoption. Adoptio was the general name which comprehended the two species, adoptio and adrogatio; and as the adopted person passed from his own familia into that of the person adopting, adoptio caused a capitis diminutio, and the lowest of the three kinds. Adoption, in its specific sense, was the ceremony by which a person who was in the power of his parent (in potestate parentium), whether a child or grandchild, male or female, was transferred to the power of the person adopting him. It was effected under the authority of a magistrate (magistratus), the prætor, for instance, at Rome, or a governor (præses) in the provinces. The person to be adopted was emancipated (vid. MANCIPATIO) by his natural father before the competent authority, and surrendered to the adoptive father by the legal form called in jure cessio.3 When a person was sui juris, i. e., not in the power of his parent, the ceremony of adoption was called adrogatio. Originally it could only be effected at Rome, and only by a vote of the populus (populi auctoritate) in the comitia curiata (lege curiata); the reason of this being that the caput or status of a Roman citizen could not, according to the laws of the Twelve Tables, be affected except 1. (Lamprid., Sever., c. 4.-" Officium admissionis." Suet., Vesp., c. 14.)-2. (Ammian., xxii., 7.)-3. (Ammian., xv., 5. by a vote of the populus in the comitia curiata. Vop., Aurel., c. 12.)-4. (Cod. Theod., vi., tit. 2, s. 12; tit. 9, Clodius, the enemy of Cicero, was adrogated into a s. 2; tit. 35, s. 3.)-5. (Sen., de Benef., vi., 33, seq.-Clem., i, plebeian family in order to qualify himself to be 10.)-6. (Aristoph., Pax, 412.-Schol. in loc.)-7. (Plutarch, elected a tribunus plebis. Females could not be Alc., c. 18.-Nic., c. 13.)-8. (For a fuller account, consult Anthon's Classical Dictionary, s. v.)-9. (Elian, ix., 36.-Plin., 1. (Ismus, περὶ τοῦ ̓Απολλοδώρ. Κλήρου, 3, 5.)-2. (Demosth., H. N., ix., 19.)-10. (Demosth., kard Eтepávov Yevd., 13.)-11.pos Acwx., c. 6.)-3. (A. Gell., v., c. 19.-Suet., Aug., c. 64.)— (Ismus, περὶ τοῦ ̔Αγνίου Κλήρου.) 4. (Cic. ad Att., ii., 7.-Id., pro Dom.) |