while his legate conquered Domitius and L. Manlius. Thoranius, a legate of Metellus, was likewise defeated. About this time Sertorius was joined by Perperna with the numerous remains of the Marian party, and Metellus Pius, who had the command in Baetica, was gradually driven to such extremities [METELLUS], that L. Lollius came to his assistance from Gaul, and the senate at Rome thought it necessary to send Pompey with a large force to support Metellus. [POMPEIUS.]

As soon as Sertorius bad firmly established himself in Spain, he formed the design of uniting the Romans and Spaniards in such a manner that the Spaniards should have all the advantages of Roman civilisation without losing their national character. At Osca, the modern Huesca in Catalonia, he established a kind of academy, into which he received the sons of distinguished Spaniards, and had them instructed in Greek and Roman literature. The admirable discipline of this establishment, the manner in which the youths were dressed, for he gave them the Roman 'bulla' and the 'prætexta' (which only the sons of noble Romans used to wear), the prizes which were distributed among them, and the promise that these young men should one day be Roman citizens and be invested with high honours-all these things were in the highest degree flattering to the parents of the youths, and could not fail to gain for Sertorius the affections of the nation. It was a custom of the young warriors among the Spaniards to gather around a favourite general, to accompany him everywhere, and to vow not to survive him. The number of men who became in this manner attached to Sertorius was greater than had ever been known before. (Plut., 'Sert.,' 14.) Sertorius also worked upon the imagination of the Spaniards: he had a tame white fawn which accompanied him everywhere, and which he said was the gift of Diana. The Spaniards thus looked up to him almost as a being of a higher order, who had intercourse with the gods. It may be that this was, as Plutarch thinks, a piece of imposition upon the credulous Spaniards, but we have no reason to suppose that Sertorius himself did not share the belief of the Spaniards on this subject. (Comp. 'Gellius,' xv. 22.) His object was to establish an independent power, or to raise a new Roman republic in Spain. For this purpose he formed a senate of 300 members, consisting partly of exiled Romans, and partly of distinguished Spaniards (Appian, 'Civ.,' i. 108; Plut., 'Sert.,' 22), and also appointed several officers analogous to those of Rome. Sertorius was with the Romans and Spaniards the object of love and admiration. Perperna had observed this state of things, ever since his arrival in Spain, with secret jealousy and envy. He would have liked to carry on the war against Metellus in his own name; but when the news came that Pompey was advancing, his own soldiers compelled him to join Sertorius, and to submit to him.

On the arrival of Pompey in Spain, many towns declared for him, and among others Lauron, though it was at the time besieged by Sertorius. Pompey hastened to its assistance, but could do nothing, and was obliged to look on while Sertorius razed the town to the ground. (Plut., 'Sert.,' 18; Appian, 'Civil.,' i. 109.) The first great battle with Pompey was near Sucro. Metellus here defeated that part of the army which was commanded by Perperna, and put him to flight; but Sertorius, who commanded another division of the army, wounded Pompey, and compelled him to retreat. A second battle was fought in the plains of Saguntum, in which Pompey was again defeated, and compelled to withdraw to the Pyrenees. It was in the summer of the year B.C. 74 that Mithridates sent ambassadors to Sertorius, to propose an alliance, and to offer money and ships, on condition that all the countries of Asia which he had been obliged to surrender should be restored to him. Sertorius concluded the alliance, and encouraged the king again to take up arms against Rome, but he scrupulously avoided doing his own country more harm than his own safety required. (Plut., 'Sert.,' 23; Appian, 'De Bell. Mithrid.,' 68.) This alliance, owing to the events which followed it, had few or no results. Pompey, in the meanwhile, was reinforced by two legions from Italy; and he and Metellus again advanced from the Pyrenees towards the Iberus. In this campaign, though many of the soldiers of Sertorius began to desert, no great advantages were gained by Pompey or Metellus, and the former was no more successful in the siege of Pallantia, than both together in that of Calaguris. Metellus, despairing of victory over Sertorius in an honourable way, offered to any Roman citizen who should kill Sertorius one hundred talents and 20,000 acres of land. If the murderer should be an exile, Metellus promised that he should be allowed to return to Rome. The whole summer of the year B.C. 73 passed without any great battle, though the Roman party seems to have gained some advantages.

The dishonourable conduct on the part of the Romans, and the increasing desertion in the army of Sertorius, as well as the manifest envy of others about his own person, produced a change in the conduct of Sertorius also; he lost his confidence in those who surrounded him, and punished severely wherever he found reason for suspicion. While he was in this state of mind, he committed one act which will ever be a stain on his otherwise blameless character: the young Spaniards assembled at Osca, who were in some measure his hostages, were one day partly put to death, and partly sold as slaves. The immediate cause of this is unknown, but the effect produced on the Spaniards may easily be conceived. In addition to all this, Perperna now found an opportunity of giving vent to his hostile feelings. He formed a

conspiracy of some Romans who served under Sertorius, and in order to gain associates among the Spaniards, and provoke them still more against Sertorius, the conspirators inflicted severe punishments for slight offences, and exacted heavy taxes, pretending that they were only executing the commands of Sertorius. Desertion and insurrec tion among the Spaniards were the natural results. According to Appian, several of the conspirators were discovered and put to death, but Plutarch does not mention this circumstance. Perperna at last, seeing no possibility of attacking Sertorius, as he never appeared without an armed body-guard, invited him to a repast, ostensibly given on account of some victory gained by one of his lieutenants. At this repast he was treacherously murdered by the conspirators (B.C. 72), and Perperna placed himself at the head of his army.

Such was the end of one of the noblest characters that appear in the pages of Roman history during the last century of the republic. The war which he had carried on in Spain was not directed against his country, but only against a party who wished to annihilate him. How little he was actuated by any hostile feeling towards the republic itself may be seen from the statement of Plutarch ('Sert.,' 22), that after every victory which Sertorius gained, he sent to Metellus and Pompey, offering to lay down his arms, if they would but allow him to return to Rome, and to live there in peace and retirement, declaring that he would rather be the obscurest person at home than a monarch in exile. As long as his mother lived, it was principally in order to comfort her old age that he wished to return to Italy; but she died a few years before her son, to his great grief. If we regard Sertorius as a general, it was surely no vulgar flattery that his contemporaries compared him with Hannibal. The details of his wars in Spain are very little known, for the account of Appian (Civil.,' i. 108-114) is excessively meagre and incoherent; and Plutarch, in writing the life of Sertorius, had other objects in view than to present to his readers a clear description of his military operations. Appian says that the war in Spain lasted eight years, which is incorrect, whether we date the commencement of the war from the time when Sertorius left Italy in the consulship of Scipio and Norbanus (B.C. 83), or from the time that he was invited by the Lusitanians to take the command (B.C. 78). SERVANDO'NI, JEAN JE'RÔME, was born at Florence in 1695, but he may be reckoned among the artists and architects of France, as he established himself in that country, where he signalised himself by his extraordinary talents. His first instructor in painting was Panini, under whom he became an expert artist in landscape and architectural scenery, and many of his productions of that period are preserved in various collections. He afterwards applied himself to architecture under De Rossi. After passing some time at Lisbon, where he was employed as scene-painter and in getting up the performances of the Italian opera, he proceeded to Paris in 1724, and was engaged in a similar capacity. He had now opportunities of exercising his talents on the most extensive and even prodigal scale, and he not merely improved the former system of theatrical decoration, but produced an entirely new species of it, in which the scenic illusion and effect were aided by machinery, and heightened by every possible artifice. The fame of his achievements of this class is now of course merely traditional, but if we may believe the testimony of contemporaries, they must have been most extraordinary. Among the most celebrated of them was the representation of the fable of Pandora (at the Tuileries in 1738), and of the Descent of Æneas into the Infernal Regions.' These and other scenic exhibitions, as they may properly be denominated, were received with enthusiasm by the public, nor were they least of all admired by those who were capable of appreciating the poetical invention, the just taste, and the profound classical study displayed by the artist.

As may be supposed, his talents were greatly in request upon all extraordinary public festivities, and he directed those which took place at Paris, in 1739, in honour of the marriage of Philip V. of Spain with the Princess Elizabeth. Unfortunately such triumphs are so exceedingly fugitive and ephemeral, that however much they may contribute to an artist's fame, they are attended with no benefit to art itself. It would have been more to the advantage of art, if Servandoni had been afforded the opportunity of realising some of his projects for the improvement or embellishment of various parts of the capital, including one for an extensive place or amphitheatre for public festivals, surrounded with arcades and galleries capable of containing twenty-five thousand persons. The chief structure executed by him is the façade which he added to the church of St. Sulpice at Paris, erected by Oppenord. Although not altogether unexceptionable, this work, begun about 1732, is superior to almost every other of its kind of the same period. The arrangement of the loggia formed by the Doric order below, where the columns are coupled, not in front, but one behind the other, is good, and combines lightness with solidity; but this merit is in a great measure counteracted by the inter-columns of the second order being filled in with arcades and piers, whereby that portion is rendered more solid and heavier in appearance than the one below.

Servandoni died at Paris in 1766, leaving, instead of a splendid fortune, as was expected, scarcely any property at all behind him; for though he might easily have amassed wealth, he was too great a votary of pleasure to put any restraint upon his habits of profusion.

SERVETUS, MICHAEL (whose family name was Reves), was born at Villanueva in Aragon, in the year 1509. He was the son of a notary, who sent him while young to the university of Toulouse in order to study the law, instead of which however he appears to have devoted his attention principally to theology during the three years which he spent in that city.

In his twenty-first year he quitted Toulouse, and journeying into Italy in the suite of Quintana, confessor to the Emperor Charles V., was present at the coronation of that monarch at Bologna, in Febru ary 1530. The death of Quintana soon left him at liberty to travel into Switzerland and Germany, where he became acquainted with many of the reformers. In the course of 1530 he took up his residence at Basel, and there he first broached those opinions which after wards drew down upon him the persecution of Calvin. He probably met with few persons who were disposed to embrace his notions, for, in the course of the same year, or early in 1531, he left Basel and went to Strasbourg. His stay in Strasbourg however was short, since he lived at Haguenau in Alsace during the printing of his treatise on the doctrine of the Trinity. This, his first work, was published by a bookseller of Basel in 1531, but the opinions which it contained were so contrary to those usually received, that the man feared to print it at Basel, and procured its publication at Haguenau, the name of which place appears on the title page. In the following year Servetus wrote a second treatise, in the form of dialogues, on the same subject; in which he corrected some errors in his former work, but without retracting any of the opinions.

We are unacquainted with the exact time when Servetus quitted Haguenau, but we next find him at Lyon, where he remained three years, occupying himself principally with the study of medicine. It is probable that during this time he supported himself by correcting the press, and by other literary labours, among which was the publication of an improved edition of Pirkheimer's translation of Ptolemy's Geography, which appeared in the year 1535. On leaving Lyon he visited Paris, where he took the degree of M. A., and afterwards of Doctor of Medicine. He was likewise admitted a professor of the university, and delivered lectures on the mathematics. He was in Paris in 1537, in which year he published an essay on syrups, the only medical work that he wrote, but his ungovernable temper involved him in disputes with the medical faculty, which compelled him to leave the city. It is most likely that he again returned to Lyon, for in 1540 we find mention of him as practising medicine, in the immediate neighbourhood, at the village of Charlieu. His attempt to obtain practice there seems to have been unsuccessful, and taking up his abode once more in Lyon, he supported himself by correcting the press for the Frellons, the printers. He likewise superintended a new edition of the Bible, which was published in 1542, and the notes which he added afforded materials to strengthen the charge of heresy afterwards brought against him.

In the year 1543 Pierre Palmier, archbishop of Vienne in Dauphiné, meeting with Servetus at Lyon, induced him to return with him to his Bee. Servetus devoted himself to the practice of medicine in this place, where he remained until his trial for heresy ten years afterwards. Theology however was still a favourite pursuit with him, and for many years he carried on a controversial correspondence with Calvin, in the course of which he sent him a portion of a manuscript containing many of the opinions which subsequently appeared in his 'Christianismi Restitutio.' Their private correspondence, never very friendly, degenerated by degrees into quarrelling, and at length into scurrility; and Servetus having replied to a violent letter of Calvin concerning his own opinions, by sending a list of what he called errors and absurdities in Calvin's Institutes,' the latter angrily broke off all communication with him. In the same year, 1546, Calvin wrote to Farel and Viret, saying that, if ever Servetus came to Geneva, he would take care that he should not escape in safety. He is stated by Bolsec even to have denounced Servetus to Cardinal Tournon as a heretic, and the same authority adds that the cardinal laughed heartily at one heretic accusing another.

Servetus, in a letter to one of his friends, had expressed the presentiment that he should suffer death for his opinions; and he did not publish the Christianismi Restitutio' without taking every precaution to conceal the fact of his being the author. He had endeavoured to get the work published at Basel, but no bookseller would undertake the dangerous engagement; and he eventually had it printed at Vienne in 1553, but without his own name or that of the printer, or even the date or name of the place.

The work caused a great sensation; but the author would have remained unknown, had not Calvin recognised in the style, and in the abuse of himself, the hand of Servetus. He immediately procured one William Trie, a citizen of Lyon, but a recent convert to the reformed religion, and then resident at Geneva, to write letters to the authorities of the former city, containing many serious imputations against Servetus, and charging him with having written the 'Christianismi Restitutio.' The Archbishop of Lyon, Cardinal Tournon, whose diocese, from its proximity to Geneva, was peculiarly exposed to the influence of heresy, no sooner received this intelligence than he wrote to the governor-general of Dauphiné, acquainting him with what he had heard concerning Servetus. In consequence of the suspicion thus thrown upon him, Servetus was arrested and imprisoned; but he would

in all probability have been acquitted for want of evidence against him, had not Calvin, through the medium of Trie, forwarded to the Inquisition at Vienne a portion of manuscript and several private letters which he had received from Servetus. By some writers, who would extenuate the guilt of the reformer, it has been doubted or denied that these letters were produced on the trial; but in the condemnation of Servetus by the Inquisition of Vienne, "letters and writings addressed to Mr. J. Calvin" are especially mentioned.

Servetus escaped from prison, where he had not been strictly guarded, but was burnt in effigy at Vienne on June 17, 1553. He fled to Geneva, in which town he kept himself closely concealed, but was arrested, through Calvin's influence, on the day before that on which he was about to start for Zürich on his way to Italy. He was arrested contrary to law, the city of Geneva having no authority over him, who was merely journeying through it: when in prison he was treated with the greatest cruelty, and he was denied the assistance of counsel. His private papers, and a volume of Calvin's Institutes,' in which he had made some notes with his own hand, were brought in evidence against him. Calvin's own servant, one La Fontaine, appeared as the accuser, Calvin not caring to submit to the 'lex talionis' of Geneva, which imprisoned the accuser as well as the accused; though, in direct opposition to this law, La Fontaine was released after being only one day in prison. Servetus was brought to trial on August 14, 1553; and on that day, and on several days following, he was examined publicly before his judges. Calvin drew up the articles of accusation, in which the calumnies against himself are alleged as part of the crime of Servetus; and further, he reserved to himself the office of disputant upon theological subjects with the prisoner. Many of the charges against him were frivolous and vexatious in the extreme, but it is certain that he did not anticipate so severe a sentence as was passed upon him; for when, on August 26, the vice-bailiff of Vienne, having come to Geneva, requested that Servetus might be given up to him in order to undergo the sentence passed upon him by the Inquisition, he threw himself at the feet of his judges, begging that they would rather try him, and pass on him whatever sentence they might think fit.

On September 1 Servetus was called before his judges, and ordered to be ready to reply in writing to a set of written charges which Calvin was instructed to draw up. On September 15 he wrote a touching letter, complaining of the harsh treatment he had undergone, begging that his case might speedily be decided, since he had been already detained five weeks in prison, and appealing from the private hatred of Calvin to the decision of the council of two hundred. This appeal however was rejected, and Servetus was furnished with a copy of the charges against him drawn up by Calvin. To these he sent in a brief written answer, and it does not appear that after September 15 he defended himself in open court, where he was much inferior to Calvin as a disputant. Calvin's refutation of Servetus's reply greatly exasperated him; he did not attempt any regular answer to it, but contented himself with adding a few notes in the margin grossly abusive of Calvin.

It was now secretly determined in the council of Geneva to put Servetus to death: but the matter being one of great importance, and Servetus having appealed to the judgment of others, it was thought advisable to send copies of his works and of the evidence against him to the clergy of the four Protestant cantons of Zürich, Basel, Berne, and Schaffhausen, and to ask their opinion concerning his guilt. These letters were despatched about the end of September: the reply from Zürich was received on October 2; that from Basel and from Schaffhausen on October 18; and the date of the arrival of the answer from Berne is not stated. They all concurred in condemning the writings of Servetus, but did not recommend that the author should be put to death, though Calvin chose to put that construction on their replies. As soon as these answers had arrived the council was once more convened, and sentenced Servetus to be burned to death by a slow fire. Servetus had one friend in the council, Amadeus Gorrius by name, who in vain endeavoured to obtain a pardon for him, or at least that his case should be brought before the council of two hundred; but the violence of Calvin and his party prevailed. Calvin however did attempt to obtain for him the favour of a less painful death, though without success. Accordingly, on October 27, 1553, Servetus was brought to the stake, and his sufferings are stated to have been unusually severe and protracted. No act of barbarity perpetrated by the Roman Catholics ever surpassed the burning of Servetus, in which Calvin appears to have been actuated by private hatred almost as much as by religious fanaticism, and in which he filled all the parts of informer, prosecutor, and judge.

The works of Servetus have had an adventitious value imparted to them by their extreme rarity. With the exception of the short essay on 'Syrups,' published while Servetus was at Paris, they are theological and metaphysical treatises on the most abstruse subjects, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. Mr. Hallam is of opinion that the notions of Servetus concerning the Trinity were not Arian, but rather what are called Sabellian. The 'Christianismi Restitutio' contains a passage which has led some to say that Servetus well nigh discovered the circulation of the blood, and that consequently the merits of our illustrious countryman Harvey are small. Such however is by no means the case. Servetus knew that the septum of the heart is not

4:7

SERVIUS, MAURUS HONORATUS. perforated, but that the blood in the right ventricle communicates with that in the left through the medium of the pulmonary artery, and the circulation through the lungs. But though he formed a perfectly correct conception of the pulmonary circulation, he was quite ignorant of the greater circulation, or of the existence of any means by which blood from the left ventricle is returned to the right; nor does he appear to have seen the necessity for any such provision.

SERVIUS, MAU'RUS HONORA'TUS, a Roman grammarian. The time at which he lived is not quite certain, for some writers place him in the reign of Valentinian, and others in that of Hadrian; but it is almost beyond doubt that he lived towards the close of the 4th century, perhaps in the reign of Theodosius I. (Macrob., 'Sat.,' i. 2.) The principal works of Servius are his Commentaries on the Eneid, the Georgics, and the Eclogues of Virgil. These commentaries are not only useful for a correct understanding of the poems of Virgil, but they are rendered still more valuable to us by the vast stores of learning which their author possessed; they contain information on a variety of subjects connected with the history, antiquities, and religion of the Romans, and of which we should otherwise be totally ignorant. Many valuable fragments of other writings, whose works are now lost, are preserved in the commentaries of Servius. It is however to be lamented that these commentaries have come down to us in a very interpolated condition, so that they cannot be used without great caution. Besides these commentaries, we possess of Servius three smaller grammatical works: In Secundam Donati Editionem Interpretatio, De Ratione Ultimarum Syllabarum Liber ad Aquilinum,' and Ars de Pedibus Versuum, sive de Centum Metris.' The commentaries on Virgil are printed in several of the early editions of this poet; but the best modern editions are that of Burmann, in his edition of Virgil, and a separate one by H. A. Lion, under the title 'Servii Mauri Commentarii in Virgilium; ad fidem cod. guelferbyt. aliorumque recens. et potior. var. lect. indicibusque copiosiss. instruxit, &c.;' 2 vols. 8vo, Göttingen, 1825-26. Compare Burmann, 'Præfat. ad Virg.,' p. ******; Heyne, ‘De Antiquis Virg. Interpret.,' p. 536, &c.; Fabricius, 'Biblioth. Lat.,' i. p. 319. The three smaller works of Servius are printed in Putschii Grammatici Latini.' SERVIUS SULPICIUS RUFUS. [SULPICIUS.] SERVIUS TU'LLIUS, the sixth king of Rome, reigned from B.C. 578 to 534. The history of his birth was handed down by tradition in three different ways. The most marvellous and probably the most ancient legend represents him as the son of Ocrisia, a slave of Queen Tanaquil, and of a god, who according to some was Vulcan, but according to others, one of the household gods of the royal family. (Ovid, 'Fast.,' vi. 625, &c.; Dionys., iv. p. 207; Sylburg.) A second legend describes his mother as a slave of the Etruscan town of Tarquinii, and his father as a client of Tarquinius Priscus; and Servius himself, according to the same account, was in his youth a slave. (Cic., De Republ.,' ii. 21.) The third account, which however seems to be merely an arbitrary interpretation of the second, made with the intention of giving to the story a somewhat more probable appearance, represents Servius Tullius as the son of a man of the same name, who was of royal descent, lived at Corniculum, one of the Latin towns, and was slain when his native place was taken by the Romans. His wife Ocrisia, then in a state of pregnancy, was conveyed to Rome and assigned to Queen Tanaquil, who, considering her rank, soon restored her to liberty and treated her with great regard. (Liv., i. 39; Dionys., iv. p. 206.) Ocrisia was delivered of a son, whom she called Servius Tullius, after the name of her husband. One day, continues the story, when the boy was asleep, his head was seen surrounded with flames. The queen, being informed of the wondrous sight, said that the child was destined to do great things, and forbade the flames to be extinguished; when the child awoke the flame disappeared. He was henceforth brought up and educated as the king's own child. If in the course of his education he became, as Cicero supposes, acquainted with the affairs of Greece, this would in some measure account for the analogy between the constitution of Solon and that which Servius afterwards gave to the Romans. Fortune, who had so signally favoured Servius in his childhood, continued her partiality for him, raised him to the highest honours that man can attain, and even made him the object of her love. (Ovid., 'Fast.,' vi. 570, &c.) He made a grateful return by dedicating to her a temple outside of the city. (Varro, 'De Ling. Lat.,' v., p. 56, ed Bipont.)

When Servius Tullius had grown up to manhood, he distinguished himself in several battles against the Etruscans and Sabines, and he was also a useful counsellor in the affairs of the administration. The king not only rewarded his services with the hand of one of his daughters, but in his old age frequently entrusted him with the management of his private as well as public affairs, and in the discharge of these duties Servius evinced such wisdom and justice that he soon became the favourite of the people. When the king was murdered by the sons of Ancus Marcius, and Tanaquil concealed his death from the people, they willingly submitted to the regency of Servius, whom the king was said to have appointed to govern in his stead until his recovery, which probably means that he was appointed custos urbis (præfectus urbi), in which capacity he had a right to hold the comitia for a new election, as he afterwards did (populum consuluit de se). When the death of the king became known, Servius was, as Livy (i. 41) says, made king by the senate, but without a decree of

BIOG. DIV. VOL. V.

the populus; but, according to Cicero and Dionysius (iv., p. 218), he found his chief support in the populus, who gave him the imperium by a lex curiata. The sons of Ancus Marcius, seeing their hopes frustrated, went into exile, and Servius Tullius, to prevent any hostile feeling on the part of Lucius and Aruns Tarquinius, the sons of his predecessor, gave them his two daughters in marriage. The inconsistency of this part of the legend with chronology has been pointed out by Niebuhr.

After Servius had thus established himself on the throne, he made a successful war against the Veientines and some other Etruscan towns, which Dionysius represents as a war with all Etruria. This is the only war which is said to have occurred during his reign, which, like that of Numa Pompilius, was a reign of peace. The most memorable events of the reign of Servius Tullius are his fortification and extension of the city, and the new constitution which he is said to have given to the Roman state. Several of the Latin towns already belonged to Rome, and had grown up with it into one nation, and this nation was leagued with the other independent Latins. Servius effected a federal union among these nations, and induced the Latins, who had hitherto held their general meetings at the fountain of Ferentina, to build at Rome, on the Aventine, a temple of Diana, as the common property of the Latins and Romans. The Latins agreed, and this was on their part a tacit acknowledgment of the supremacy of Rome. (Liv., i. 45; Dionys., iv., p. 230.) The Sabines appear to have likewise been included in this confederacy, and to have joined the Latins and Romans in the worship at the common sanctuary of Diana; for the story is, that a Sabine attempted to gain the supremacy for his own nation: he possessed among his cattle a cow of extraordinary size, and the soothsayers declared that the government should belong to that nation whose citizen should sacrifice this cow to Diana on the Aventine. He therefore took the animal at an opportune time to Rome. But the Roman priest, who had been informed of the prophecy, reprimanded the Sabine for attempting to sacrifice with unclean hands, and bade him go down to the Tiber and wash them. The Sabine obeyed, and the Roman in the meanwhile sacrificed the cow to Diana. According to Livy it was not until this time that the populus unanimously declared Servius their king.

But although Servius was a favourite of the people, a storm was gathering over his head, which ultimately terminated his life in the tragic manner so inimitably described by Livy (i. 47). Lucius Tarquinius, the son of Tarquinius Priscus, had never given up the hope of occupying the throne of his father; and stimulated by Tullia, the wife of his brother Aruns, he agreed with her to murder his wife and his brother, and to unite himself with her, that thus they might be able the more energetically to prosecute their ambitious and criminal designs. Lucius, now urged on by his unnatural wife, one day appeared in the senate with the badges of royalty. As soon as the aged king heard of the rebellious act, he hastened to the curia, and rebuked the traitor, but he was thrown down the stone steps of the curia, and on his way home he was murdered by the servants of his son-in-law. His body was left lying in its blood. Tullia, the wife of Lucius, anxious to learn the issue of his undertaking, rode in her chariot to the curia; but her more than brutal joy at his success induced even Tarquin to send her home. On her way thither she found the corpse of her father, and ordered her servant to drive over it. The place where this took place was ever after termed the Vicus Sceleratus. (Ovid., 'Fast.,' vi. 598; Dionys., iv. p. 242; Varro, 'De Ling. Lat.,' iv., p. 44.)

Such are the legends which were current among the Romans about Servius Tullius; and although they may be based on some historical groundwork, yet in the form in which they are handed down they are little more than fiction. The existence of a king, Servius Tullius, cannot however be denied. The Etruscan traditions, as we learn from an ancient inscription (ap. Gruter, p. DII.) which contained a speech of the Emperor Claudius, stated that Servius, originally called by the Etruscan name of Mastarna, was a follower of Cæles Vivenna; and that after being overwhelmed by disasters, he quitted Etruria with the remains of the army of Cales, and went to Rome, where he occupied the Cælian hill, and afterwards obtained the kingly power, (See Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome,' i. p. 381, &c.) But it is not improbable that this version of the story merely arose from the circumstance of Servius being received at Rome among the Luceres or Etruscans (Göttling, Gesch. d. Röm. Staats,' p. 231), for two other legends describe him as a Latin; and the whole spirit of his legisla tion seems to warrant the conclusion that the man who devised the constitution ascribed to him could not have been an Entruscan, but must have been a Latin. How much of the tragic story of his death may be historical cannot be decided, nor is it of great importance. This however seems to be clear, that at the end of the career of Servius a counter-revolution took place, which frustrated all the beneficial workings of his new constitution, and showed its fruits in the tyrannical rule of his successor.

The constitution of Servius Tullius was always looked upon by the Romans as the basis of their civil and political institutions, and there is no doubt that in subsequent ages much more was attributed to him than he actually did, and that the plebeians in particular considered him as the great protector of their order, who had granted them almost all the rights which they afterwards regained one by one in

2 E

their unwearied struggles with the patricians. What Servius actually did for the Romans has been the subject of much discussion among the continental scholars ever since the time that Niebuhr's work appeared. We shall only give a sketch of the constitution of Servius, and refer our readers to the best modern works on the subject. Servius is said to have commenced his legislation by dividing the public land which was taken from the Latins among those citizens (of course plebeians) who, owing to their poverty, were compelled to work for wages; and by sanctioning, through the Comitia Curiata, about fifty laws relating to contracts and injuries, (Dionys., iv. p. 218.), which were probably intended to regulate the relations between the two estates. He divided the city, with the exclusion of the Capitoline and Aventine, into four regions, three of which answered to the three original townships or tribes of which Rome consisted. All the plebeians who dwelled in any of these regions formed a tribus; so that all the plebeians of the city were divided into four local tribes (tribus urbana). Their names were Tribus Suburana, Palatina, Esquilina, and Collina; and these tribes continued to the time of Augustus. The plebeians who inhabited the country around and subject to Rome, were divided into twenty-six local tribes (tribus rustica), which are sometimes also called regions. This division of the country plebeians is not mentioned by Livy at all; and Dionysius found different and contradictory accounts of it, but he preferred the statement of Fabius Pictor, who mentioned the twenty-six rustic tribes. The subject how ever might still seem to be involved in difficulties, inasmuch as Livy (ii. 16) states that, in the year B.C. 495, the whole number of tribes was only twenty-one. This difficulty however is removed by the plausible conjecture of Niebuhr (i. p. 416, &c.), that in the war against Porsenna Rome lost a third of its territory-that is, ten regions or tribes; so that there remained only twenty, to which, after the immigration of the gens Claudia with its numerous clients, the twentyfirst tribe (tribus Claudia, afterwards tribus Crustumina) was added. The names of the sixteen rustic tribes which continued to exist after the war with Porsenna are: tribus Emilia, Camilia, Cluentia, Cornelia, Fabia, Galeria, Horatia, Lemonia, Menenia, Papiria, Pollia or Publilia, Pupinia, Romilia, Sergia, Veturia, and Voltinia. (Niebuhr, i. p. 419; Göttling, p. 238.) To these were added, in B.C. 387, the tribus Stellatina, Tromentina, Sabatina, and Arniensis; in B.C. 357, the tribus Scaptia; in B.C. 318, the tribus Ufentina and Falerina; in B.C. 301, the tribus Terentina and Aniensis; and lastly, in B.C. 241, the tribus Velina and Quirina. The number of tribes thus amounted to thirtyfive, and it was never increased. The number of thirty tribes instituted by Servius Tullus was equal to that of the patrician curiæ; both divisions however existed independent of each other, the one comprehending only the patricians, and the other the plebeians. The clients were probably not contained in the Servian tribes. (Niebuhr, i. p. 241; Walter, 'Gesch. d. Röm. Rechts,' p. 30. note 5.) Göttling (p. 236) assures the contrary, but his arguments are not convincing. The division of the plebeians into a number of local tribes was nothing beyond a regular organisation of the body of the plebes, of which they had indeed been in need; but it did not confer any other rights upon them than what they possessed before. At the head of each tribe, in the city as well as in the country, was a tribune (puλapxos), who was appointed by the members of his tribe. He had to keep a register of all his tribesmen, and he levied the troops and taxes in his tribe. The plebeians now held their own meetings according to their tribes, as the patricians held theirs according to their curia. The tribes had also their common festivals: those of the city were called the Compitalia, and those of the country the Paganalia.

The first step by which Servius promoted the liberty of the people was the institution of judices for private actions, which had formerly been part of the jurisdiction of the kings. (Dionys., iv. p. 228, &c.) These judices were, according to the supposition of Niebuhr (i. p. 428; comp. Göttling, p. 241, &c.), the court of the Centumviri, for which three members were chosen from every tribe. The number of the court however would then be only ninety. But see 'Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiq., Centumviri,' by Prof. Long.

But the chief part of the Servian constitution was his census, according to which he divided the whole body of Roman citizens, both the patricians, with their clients, and the plebeians, into five classes. The first class comprised those whose property amounted to at least 100,000, or, according to others, at least to 110,000, 120,000, or 125,000 asses. (Liv., i. 43; Dionys., iv., p. 221; Plin., Hist. Nat.,' xxxiii. 13; Gellius, vii. 13; Cic., De Republ.,' ii. 22.) The second class included those who had at least 75,000 asses; the third, those who had at least 50,000; the fourth class, those who had at least 25,000; and the fifth class, those who had at least 12,500 or, according to Livy, 11,000 asses. The members of each of these classes were divided into juniores, or men from seventeen to fortyfive years old; and seniores, or men from forty-five to sixty years. The latter, though they had still to perform military service, remained at Rome for the protection of the city; while the former went out into the field, and served in the regular armies. All had, according to their higher or lower census, to equip themselves with a more or less complete suit of armour. All public burdens for the maintenance of the state and the armies were distributed among these classes, in such a manner that the heaviest duties fell upon the wealthiest, who bad at the same time practically the greatest influence in public affairs.

All Romans whose property did not come up to that of the fifth class were kept apart from the classes. Dionysius indeed says that they were formed into a separate class. They were however subdivided into capite censi and proletarii; among the former were reckoned all those who possessed no more than 375 asses, and among the latter those who possessed from 375 to 1500 asses. These two divisions were exempt from the tributum, and, with few exceptions, also from service in the army; but they had to pay a head-tax. It is a very ingenious supposition of Niebuhr, that all those who possessed more than 1500 asses, but less than the census of the fifth class, formed the accensi and velati in the Roman army, that is, a class of reserves who went into the field without arms, and stepped into the places of those who had fallen, whose armour they also took. All the citizens who were comprised in the classes were called assidui or locupletes, in contradistinction to the rest. (Cic., 'De Republ.,' ii. 22; Gellius, xvi. 10.)

After the taxation and the military duties of the Romans were thus regulated by the census, Servius proceeded to determine their rights by the same standard. For this purpose he subdivided each of the five classes into centuries, each of which was to have a vote (suffragium) in the great national assembly which they were to form (comitia centuriata, or comitiatus maximus). The number of centuries however was not the same in all classes: the first class, though the smallest in numbers, received the greatest number of centuries or suffrages, in order that those who had to bear the heaviest burdens might also have the greatest influence in public affairs. The first class was thus divided into eighty centuries; the second, third, and fourth classes into twenty centuries each; and the fifth class into thirty centuries. The whole number of centuries thus amounted to one hundred and seventy. This division was made with a view to form the Roman army, and the whole number of centuries represented the Roman citizens as a military body. Hence half the number of centuries in each class consisted of the seniores, and half of the juniores. The seniores, though fewer in numbers, had thus equal influence with the juniores, so that all political power was distributed with a due regard to age as well as to property. (Gellius, xv. 27.) But to these one hundred and seventy centuries, five others were added, independent of the census, partly to give them a compensation for the active part which their members took in the army; partly, perhaps, that they might be the means of forming a majority in cases where opinions were equally divided between the seniores and juniores. The first two additional centuries were the centuriae fabrorum, which Livy describes as being assigned to the eighty centuries of the first class, and Dionysius as belonging to those of the second class. Cicero assigns the fabri to the first class, but only as one century. The difficulty arising from these different accounts may be removed by the supposition that of the two centuries of the fabri, one was assigned to each of the first two classes; and if this supposition be correct, it is highly probably that the three other additional centuries, viz., those of the accensi, cornicines, and liticines or tubicines, were likewise assigned one to each of the three last classes. Dionysius says that the five additional centuries were, like the one hundred and seventy others, divided into seniores and juniores.

These one hundred and seventy-five centuries formed the whole body of infantry in the Roman army. The cavalry was likewise represented by a number of centuries. Twelve centuries of equites existed before the time of Servius, and to these he added six new ones. Dionysius speaks as if Servius had created eighteen new centuries of equites; and Livy (provided the reading in i. 43, be correct), forgetting the six centuries of equites made by Tarquinius Priscus, states that Servius made twelve new centuries in addition to the existing six. The twelve centuries of equites which existed previous to the legisla tion of Servius, belonged to the patricians, and had their dignity as equites independent of the census, though they naturally belonged to the wealthiest class. The six new centuries of Servius were formed of the wealthiest plebeians of the first class, and were called the sex suffragia, as they had six votes in the assembly of the centuries. (Göttling, p. 253, &c.) Cicero reckons all the eighteen centuries of equites as belonging to the class which had the highest census, whereas Dionysius seems to distinguish between those equites who belonged to the first class, and the patrician equites. The only distinction between these two classes of equites in the comitia centuriata was that the patricians gave their vote before the plebeian equites. We do not know whether there were any other distinctions. They were however in so far placed on a footing of equality, that all of them received a horse from the state (equus publicus), or money to purchase one, together with an annual sum for its support, which sum was raised by a tax on the unmarried women, widows, and orphans (æs hordearium).

The whole body of the Roman people who performed service in the army, and had a right to vote in the great assembly, was thus contained in one hundred and ninety-three centuries, of which one hundred and eighty-one had been newly created. The eighty centuries of the first class, together with the six suffragia of plebeian equites and one century of fabri, formed a decided majority in the comitia centuriata, for they amounted to eighty seven centuries; whereas all the other classes together had only eighty-four centuries. The votes in the great comitia, which were always held in the Campus Martius, were

first given by the twelve centuries of patrician equites; next came the six suffragia of plebeian equites; and then the centuries of the several classes, beginning with those of the first class. If therefore the equites and the centuries of the first class agreed among themselves in the comitia, a question was decided at once, without being put to the vote of the remaining centuries. The centuries of the last classes thus had in theory equal rights in their comitia with those of the first class; but practically they seldom exercised these rights, as in most cases the majority was manifest, before a question came to be put to their vote. The comitia of the centuries now received the rights which, until then, had been the exclusive possession of the curiae, that is, to decide on peace and war, to elect the kings, and subsequently the chief magistrates of the republic; and to pass new laws or abolish old ones. (Dionysius, iv., p. 224.) But the assemblies of the curiæ still existed. New laws were not often brought before the centuries, on account of the firm adherence to ancient usages; and whenever they were brought before them, it could only be done after they had obtained the sanction of the senate. The election of a king was confined to those candidates who were proposed by the senate through an interrex; and such an event could not happen frequently, as the office of the king was for life. It was a further check upon the comitia centuriata, that when a question was decided by them, it still required the sanction of the comitia curiata; so that in point of fact the patricians, in the senate and their comitia curiata, possessed a very great preponderance over the commonalty. The only advantage therefore which Servius had given to the plebeians was, that the wealthy members of their order had an opportunity of meeting the patricians on a footing of equality, and the way to this honour was of course open to every plebeian. As we are not informed that Servius Tullius admitted any of the plebeians into the senate, it seems to have been his intention to exclude them from all the offices which were in the exclusive possession of the patricians. This shows at the same time the improbability of the story according to which Servius intended to resign his royal dignity, and to appoint two consuls, one of whom should be a plebeian. Niebuhr is inclined to think that almost all the rights which the plebeians acquired in the course of time, had been originally granted to them by the constitution of Servius Tullius, and that they had been deprived of them during the reign of Tarquinius Superbus. But this theory seems to be supported rather by the stories which in subsequent ages became current of the good King Servius, than by what must be considered as historically established in regard to his constitution. Nothing is more natural than that the benefits which Servius actually conferred upon the plebeians should in after-times, when they were abolished, have been greatly magnified, as if he had placed the plebes on a footing of perfect equality with the patricians. Respecting the reign and constitution of Servius Tullius, the reader may, besides the work of Niebuhr, consult Huschke, 'Die Verfassung des Königs Servius Tullius, als Grundlage zu einer Römischen Verfas sungsgeschichte entwickelt,' Heidelberg, 8vo, 1838, a work which is more based on speculation than on an accurate examination of the ancient authorities; Zumpt, Ueber Abstimmung des Römischen Volkes in Centuriat Comitien,' Berlin, 4to, 1837; Göttling, 'Geschichte der Römischen Staatsv.,' pp. 230-267; Walter, 'Gesch. d. Röm. Rechts,' pp. 29.37; Rubino, Ueber den Entwickelungsgang der Römisch. Verf. bis zum Höhepunkt der Republik,' vol. i., Marburg, 8vo, 1839; Hüllmann, Römische Grundverfassung,' Bonn, 8vo, 1832; and, by the same author, 'Ursprünge der Römischen Verfassung durch Vergleichungen erlaütert,' Bonn, 8vo, 1837. SESO'STRIS (Diodorus calls him SESOOSIS, sometimes he is called RAMSES THE GREAT), the greatest of the early kings of Egypt. He is the third king of the twelfth dynasty of Manetho, and, according to Herodotus (ii. 102), the successor of Moeris; but Diodorus (i. 53) places him seven generations after Moeris. The exact time of his reign is uncertain, but the most common opinion is that it was about the year B.C. 1500. What has been handed down to us as the history of Sesostris, contains such exaggerated accounts of his military exploits, that we must suppose the achievements of several kings, who perhaps bore the same name, to be ascribed to one. There is however no reason to doubt his personal existence, and as his history serves to explain many of the remains of Egyptian art and architecture, it will be necessary to relate the ancient traditions.

The father of Sesostris had all the male children who were born in Egypt on the same day with Sesostris educated with his son, and gave them a regular military training, that they might become attached to their king and be enabled to endure with him all the hardships to which they might be exposed during his career as a conqueror. (Diod., i. 53.) His first expedition was during the lifetime of his father, into Arabia, which he conquered. Hereupon, though still a young man, he was sent by his father into the countries west of Egypt, and made himself master of the greater part of Libya. After the death of his father, when he came to the throne, he determined to realise a prophecy according to which he was to become master of the whole inhabited earth. But before he set out, he endeavoured to secure the good will of the Egyptians, for he is represented as king of all Egypt. He divided the country into 36 districts (vouoí), each under the government of a nomarch. He then raised an army of 600,000 foot, 24,000 horse, and 27,000 beasts of burden, giving the command of its

numerous subdivisions to those warriors who had been educated with him, and whose number was above 1700. To these men he also assigned the best portions of the land (Diod., i. 54), for he is said to have divided the whole country into equal parts, and to have assigned one to every Egyptian. (Herod., ii. 109.) His first attack was directed against the Athiopians, who were subdued, and compelled to pay annual tribute, consisting of ebony, gold, and ivory. He then sent out a large fleet of 400 long ships, the first that were built in Egypt. This fleet sailed down the Red Sea, and round the whole coast of Asia as far as India, and all the nations on the coasts were conquered. Sesostris in the meanwhile traversed Asia with an army, and penetrated as far as the eastern bank of the Ganges, nay, even to the coasts of the eastern ocean. (Comp. Plin., Hist. Nat.,' vi. 34.) When all Asia was thus rendered subject to him, he returned in a north-western direction, and reached Scythia on the banks of the Tanais. Traces of the conquests of Egyptian kings in India are still visible on some Egyptian monuments. Prosecuting his plan, the king crossed the Tanais, and marched through Thrace, where however he met with great difficulties, partly from want of provisions and partly from the difficult nature of the country, and he therefore ceased carrying his conquests any farther. In all countries where he had conquered he is said to have erected columns with Egyptian inscriptions recording his conquests; in some places he erected his own statue, four cubits and one foot high, for such was his own natural stature. The columns erected in Palestine, and two figures of the king cut into the rocks in Ionia, were seen by Herodotus (ii. 106) himself, and in Ethiopia they appear to have been known in the days of Strabo (xvii, c. 1, p. 420; xvi, p. 386, ed. Tauchnitz).

This vast campaign had lasted nine years, and the king, after having settled the tributes to be paid to him, collected his prisoners and spoils, and returned to Egypt, On his arrival at Pelusium he was nearly burned in his tent with his wife and children, through the treachery of his brother, whom he had intrust d with the regency of Egypt during his absence. The happy escape of the king and four of his children, for two were burnt, was ascribed to Hephaestus, the great god of Memphis, and the king afterwards dedicated in the temple of that city statues of his wife and himself, each 30 cubits high, and statues of his children, each 20 cubits high; and each of these statues was made of one solid block of stone. (Herod., ii., 107 and 110; Diod., i. 57.) After he had punished his brother, he adorned the temples of the gods with magnificent presents, and rewarded his warriors according to their desert. At this time Egypt was in a state of the highest prosperity, and the inhabitants enjoyed a kind of golden age. The king himself however continued in his restless activity. In each town of Egypt he raised a temple to the greatest local divinity. But in the execution of these, as well as his other great works, he did not employ his Egyptians, but the prisoners of war whom he had brought with him to Egypt. The Babylonian captives, unable to endure the hardships imposed upon them, gathered together and took possession of a fortified place on the Nile, from whence they carried on a war with the Egyptians: at last however the Babylonians were not only pardoned, but received the place which they occupied as their settlement, and henceforth they called it Babylon. Sesostris surrounded many cities of his kingdom with high mounds to protect them against the inundations of the Nile, and many traces of such mounds are still visible; he also intersected Egypt north of Memphis with numerous canals, which carried off the superfluous water of the Nile, facilitated the intercouse of his subjects, and were a protection against foreign invaders. Another protection of Egypt, especially against the Syrians and Arabs was a wall, 1500 stadia in length (according to Diodor., i. 57), which extended from Pelusium to Heliopolis; but the actual distance is only about seventy-five geographical miles in a straight line, and modern travellers have found that the wall runs past Heliopolis. To the principal divinity of the city of Thebes Sesostris dedicated a magnificent ship of cedar-wood, 280 yards long. The last of his great works were two obelisks of hard stone, each 120 cubits high, on which he recorded the greatness of his power, the amount of tribue which he received, and the number of conquered nations. In the reign of Augustus an obelisk 116 feet high, and said to have been erected under Sesostris, was conveyed to Rome and set up in the Campus Martius. (Plin., 'Hist. Nat.,' xxxvi. 14.)

All the subject kings and princes appeared every year at stated times in Egypt before Sesostris with presents, and he travelled with them in a sort of triumph through his country. On all other occasions he treated them with great respect, but when they approached a temple or a city, he made them, four at a time, draw his chariot. (Diod., i. 58; Plin., 'Hist. Nat.,' xxxiii. 15.) After Sesostris had reigned thirtythree years, or, according to Manetho, sixty-six years, he was seized with blindness, and put an end to his life. (Compare Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,' i., p. 63, &c. and 99, &c., who places the epoch of Sesostris about the year B.C. 1355.

SESTI NI, DOMENICO, was born at Florence about 1750. He studied classical literature, and applied himself chiefly to archæology. About 1774 he went to Sicily, where the Prince of Biscari retained him for his librarian and keeper of his rich cabinet of antiquities at Catania. In 1778 Sestini proceeded to Constantinople, where he became tutor to the sons of Count Ludolfi, the Neapolitan ambassador at the Porte. He made several journeys with his pupils through various provinces of