Scanned text contains errors.
in order to repose upon his elbow. (Sat, ii. 4. 39.)
We find the relative positions of two -persons who lay next to one another, commonly expressed by the prepositions super or supra and infra. A passage of Livy (xxxix. 43), in which he relates the cruel conduct of the consul L. Quintius Flami-liimis, shows that infra aliquem cubare was the same as in'sinu alicujus cubare, and consequently that each person was considered as below him to whose breast his own head approached. On this principle we are enabled to explain the denominations both of the three couches, and of the three places on each couch.
* i— i
Supposing the annexed arrangement to represent the plan of a Triclinium, it is evident that, as each guest reclined on his left side, the countenances of all when in this position were directed, first, from No ] towards No 3, then from No. 4 towards No. 6, .and lastly, from No 7 towards No. 9 ; that the guest No. 1 lay, in the sense explained, above No. 2, No. 3 below No. 2, and so of the rest; and that, going in the same direction, the couch to the right hand was above the others, and the couch to the left hand beloiv the others. Accordingly the fol lowing fragment of Sallust (ap. Serv. in Virg. Aen. i. 698) contains the denominations of the couches as shown on the plan: " Igitur discu- buere: Sertorius (i. e. No. 6) inferior in medio ; super eum L. Fabius Hispaniensis senator ex pro- scriptis ( No. 5) : in summo Antonius (No. 1) ; et infra scriba Sertorii Versius (No. 2) : et alter scri- ba Maecenas (No. 8) in imo, medius inter Tarqui- nium (No. 7) et dominum Perpernam (No. 9)." On the same principle, No. 1 was the highest place (Locus summus) on the highest couch •, No. 3 was Locus imus in lecto summo ; No. 2 Locus medius in lecto summo ; and so on. It will be found that in the following passage (Hor. Sat. ii. 8. 20—23) the guests are enumerated in the order of their ac- cubation—an order exhibited in the annexed dia gram. _______
Fundanius, one of the guests, who was at the top relatively to all the others, says,
" Summus ego, et prope me Viscus Thurinus, et
Si memini, Varius: cum Servilio Balatrone Vibidius, quos Maecenas adduxerat umbras. Nomentanus erat super ipsum, Porcius infra."
It is possible that Maecenas ought to be in tho place No. 4 instead of No 5, since the entertainment was given more especially in honour of him, and No. 4 was an honourable place. The host himself, Nasidienus, occupies the place No. 8, which was usually taken by the master of the feast, and was a convenient situation forgiving directions and superintending the entertainment. Unless there be an exception in the instance of No. 4, it is to be observed that at each table the most honourable was the middle place. (Virg. Aen. i. 698.)
The general superintendence of the dining-room in a great house was intrusted to a slave called iri-cliniarcha, who, through the instrumentality of other slaves of inferior rank, took care that every thing was kept and proceeded in proper order. [ J. Y.]
TRIERARCHIA (r^/sapx''"). This was one of the extraordinary war services or liturgies [leiturgia] at Athens, the object of which was to provide for the equipment and maintenance of the ships of war belonging to the state. The persons who were charged with it were called Tprfpap-X°l> or Trierarchs, as being the captains of Triremes, though the name was also applied to persons who bore the same charge in other vessels. It existed from very early times in connection with the forty-eight naucraries of Solon, and the fifty of Cleisthenes: each of which corporations appears to have been obliged to equip and man a vessel. (Comp. naucraria : Lex Rliet. p. 283.) Under the constitution of Cleisthenes the ten tribes were at first severally charged with five vessels. This charge was of course superseded by the later forms of the Trierarchy, explained in the course of this article.
I. The services to wJdeli the Trierarclis were liable. What these were previously to 358 b. c. there can be no doubt; the vessel was furnished by the state, though sometimes a wealthy and patriotic individual served in his own ship. Cleinias, for instance, did so at Artemisium (Herod, viii. 17), but as itia particularly recorded that this ship was his own, we may infer, that he supplied at his own cost what the state was bound to provide. The same custom prevailed during the Peloponnesian war also. The 100 ships prepared and reserved at the beginning of the war, for any critical emergency, were supplied by the state. (Thucyd. ii. 24.) In the expedition against Sicily (Id. vi. 31) the state furnished the hull of the vessel (vavv Keycap), and the pay of the crews, a drachma per day for each man: but the equipment of the ships was at the cost of the Trierarchs, who also gave *Tri<j)opa.i (Pollux, in. 94), or additional pay to secure the best men. The same conclusions are also deduci-ble from the credit which a Trierarch takes to himself for saving his vessel, when the city lost her ships at Aegospotami (Isocr. c. Callim. 382): and from the further statement that he paid the sailors out of his own pocket. From the threat of Cleon (Aristoph. Equit. 916) that he would (as SrpaTTj'yos) make an adversary a Trier-arch, and^ give him an old ship with a rotten mast (loriov <rcnrpoi/), it appears that the state furnished the hull and mast also, but that the Trier-arch was bound to keep and return them in good repair: an obligation expressed in the inscriptions quoted by Bockh (Urkunden iiber das Seewesen des Attischen Staates, p. 19 7), by the phrase, 5e?