Scanned text contains errors.
be dangerous for an enemy to know. The intention of Lycurgus, more probably, was to preserve the national character of his countrymen, and prevent their being corrupted by foreign manners and vices (as Xenophon says), o'ttws /utj pqfiiovpyias oi TroATrca ttTro twz/ |eVcoi/ e'/ATrtTTActii/ro. (De Rep. Laced, xiv. 4 ; compare Plut. Lycurg. 27.) With-the same view the Spartans were themselves forbidden to go abroad without leave of the magistrate. Both these rules, as well as the feelings of the people on the subject, were much relaxed in later times when foreign rule and supremacy became the ob ject of Spartan amb.^on. Even at an earlier period we find that the Spartans knew how to ob serve the laws of hospitality upon fit and proper occasions, such as public festivals, the reception of ambassadors, &c. (Xenoph. Mem. i. 2. § 61.) They worshipped a Zevs ^ivios and yhQava %evia. (Pausan. iii. 1. §111.) The connection, called by the Greeks Trpo^ez/m, was cultivated at Sparta both by the state and by individuals ; of which their connection with the Peisistratidae is an ex ample ; and also that of a Spartan family with the family of Alcibiades. (Thucyd. v. 43, vi. 89, viii. 6 ; Herod, v. 91 ; compare vi. 57.) [Hospi- tium.] Many illustrious men are reported to have resided at Sparta with honour, as Terpander, Theognis, and others. (Schomann, Ant.jur. Pull. Gr. p. 142.) Xenophon was highly esteemed by the nation, and made Spartan irpo^vos. (See further on the subject of the £ej/7]Aacria, Thucyd. i. 144. with Goeller's notes ; Aristoph. Aves, 1013 ; Harpocr. s.v. Kal yap to juijSeVa.) [C. R. K.]
XENIAS GRAPHE (|e*fe ypa<f>-f]). This was a prosecution at Athens for unlawfully usurping the rights of citizenship. As no man could be an Athenian citizen, except by birth or creation (7eVei or 7roi77trei), if one, having neither of those titles, assumed to act as a citizen, either bjr taking part in the popular assembly, or by serving any office, judicial or magisterial, or by attending certain festivals, or doing any other act which none but a citizen was privileged to do, he was liable to a y petty}) ^vivls, which any citizen might institute against him. (Demosth. c. Timoth. 1204.) Or he might be proceeded against by elcrayyeXia. (Schomann, de Oomit. p. 187.) If condemned, his property and person were forfeited to the state, and he was forthwith to be sold for a slave. (Demosth. Epist. i. 1481.) The judgment however was arrested, if he brought a 5i/oj ^>ev^ojj.aprvpi&v against the witnesses who had procured his conviction, and convicted them of giving false testimony. During such proceeding he was kept in safe custody to abicL the event. [martyria.] When a person tried on this charge was acquitted by means of fraudulent collusion with the prosecutor or witnesses, or by any species of bribery, he was liable to be indicted afresh by a ypatyy §copo£ez>ias, the proceedings in which, and the penalty, were the same as in the ypaty-f] ^evicts. The jurisdiction in these matters belonged, in the time of Demosthenes, to the Thesmothetae, but anciently, at least in the time of Lysias, to the Nautodicae. (Harpocr. s. v. Aojpo|e^ia, Hapaffracris^ NavroSiKai; Hesych. and Suidas, s. e. fizvias Si'/cr/, NawroSiKai ; Pollux, viii. 40. 126; Meier,^#. Proc. pp. 83, 347,761.)
In order to prevent fraudulent enrolment in the register of the S^iot, or X^iapx^v ypafj.pare'iov, which was important evidence of citizenship, the themselves were at liberty to revise their
register, and expunge the names of those who had been improperly admitted. From their decision there was an appeal to a court of justice, upon which the question to be tried was much the same as in the ypatyfi £ei>fas, and the appellant, if he obtained a verdict, was restored to the register ; but if judgment was given against him, was sold for a slave. [demus.] (Harpocr. s. v. Aia^tyiffis : Schomann, de Comit. p. 3.81.) For an example of this see the speech of Demosthenes against Eu- bulides. ^ [C.R. K.]
XENI (£eVoj), mercenaries. [mercenaril]
XENUS, XENIA (|eW, frla). [Hosri-
XESTES (£ecn-7js), a Greekmeasure of capacity, both fluid and solid, which contained 12 cyathi or 2 cotylae, and was equal to l-6th of the x°^ l-48th of the Roman amphora quadrantal^ and l-72nd of the Attic amphora metretes ; or, viewing it as a dry measure, it was half the clioenioe and 1-9 6th of the medimnus. It contained very nearly a pint English.
It is thought desirable to add here a few words to the remarks made under mensura, pondera, and quadrantal, respecting the connection between the Greek and Roman measures of weight and capacity, according to the views of Bockh.
At this point the Roman and Attic systems of measures coincide ; for, though the ^crrirjs may perhaps have varied in different states of Greece, there is no doubt that the Attic £e<m]s was identical, both in name and in value, with the Roman sextarius: in fact the word ^eVr^s seems to be only an Hellenic form of seortarius. Also the Attic xqvs was equal to the Roman congius^ for the ^ecrrys was the sixth of the former, and the sex-tarius the sixth of the latter. Further, the Attic metretes or amphora contained 12 x°*si an(i the Roman amphora contained 8 concjii; giving for the ratio of the former to the latter 3 : 2 or 11 : 1. Again, the Attic medimnus was the double of the Roman amphora, and was to the metretes in the ratio of 4 : 3 : and the Roman modius was the sixth of the Attic medimnus, and the third of the Roman amphora. Hence the two systems are connected by the numbers 2 and 3 and their multiples.
How and when did this relation arise ? It cannot be accidental, nor can we suppose that the Greek system was modelled upon the Roman, since the former existed long before the Roman conquest of Greece. We must therefore suppose that the Roman system was in some way adapted to the Greek. It is a remarkable circumstance that the uncial system of division, which characterised the Roman weights and measures [As ; un-cia], is not found in the genuine Roman measures of capacity (for the use of the cyathus as the undo, of the sextarius appears to have originated with the Greek physicians in later times) : and this is the more remarkable, as it is adopted in the Greek system ; the Greek amphora being divided into 12 %oes, and the Roman into 8 congii, instead of 12. In the Roman foot again, besides the uncial division, we have the division into 4 palmi and 16 digiti, which seems clearly to have been borrowed from the Greek division into 4 TraXaio-ral and 16 odicrvXoL. It seems therefore highly probable that the Greek system of measures had a considerable influence on that of the Romans.
To find the origin of this connection, we must
4 i 4