Scanned text contains errors.
EMANCIPATIO.
town itself was at tlie same time declared sacred and inviolable, as long as its citizens offered the annual sacrifices which were then instituted on behalf of Greece. Every fifth year these solemnities were celebrated with contests (wy<bv ruv ‘Etevdepicw} in which the victors were rewarded with chaplets (ay&v jv^lk^s crre^avirris^ Strab. ix. p. 412). The annual solemnity at Plataeae, which continued to be observed down to the time of Plutarch (Aristid. 10,21; Pans. ix. 2. § 4), was as follows: — On the sixteenth of the month of Maimacterion, a procession, led by a trumpeter, who blew the signal for battle, marched at daybreak through the middle of the town. It was followed by waggons loaded with myrtle boughs and chaplets, by a black bull, and by free youths who carried the vessels containing the libations for the dead. No slave was permitted to minister on this occasion. At the end of this procession followed the archon of Plataeae, who was not allowed at any other time, during his office, to touch a weapon, or to wear any other but white garments, now wearing a purple tunic, and with a sword in his hand, and also bearing an urn, kept for this solemnity in the public archive (ypa^.L-/.ta^uAa/aoy). When the procession came to the place where the Greeks, who had fallen at Plataeae, were buried, the archon first washed and anointed the tombstones, and then led the bull to a pyre and sacrificed it, praying to Zeus and Hermes Chthonios, and inviting the brave men who had fallen in the defence of their country, to take part in the banquet prepared for them. This account of Plutarch (Aristid, 19 and 21) agrees with that of Thucydides (iii. 58). The latter, however, expressly states that dresses formed a part of the offerings, which were probably consumed on the pyre with the victim. This part of the ceremony seems to have no longer existed in the days of Plutarch, who does not mention it, and if so, the Pla-taeans had probably been compelled by poverty to drop it. (See Thirl wall’s Hist, of Greece, ii. p. 353, &c. ; Bockh, Expl. Pind. p. 208, and ad Corp. Inscript. i. p. 904.)
Eleutheria was also the name of a festival cele brated in Samos, in honour of Eros. (A then. xiii. p. 562.) [L. S.]
ELLIMENION (e’AAijueW). [pente-
COSTE.]
ELLOTIA or HELLOTIA (eAAc6rm or e’A-Aoma), a festival with a torch race celebrated at Corinth in honour of Athena as a goddess of fire, (Scho.1. Find. Ol. xiii. 56 ; Athen. xv. p. 678 ; Etymol. s. v. ‘EAAoms).
A festival of the same name was celebrated in Crete, in honour of Europe. The word eAAcurfc, from which the festival derived its name, was, according to Seleucus (ap. Athen. I.e.), a myrtle garland twenty yards in circumference, which was carried about in the procession at the festival of the Ellotia. (Compare Hesych. and Etymol. Magn. s. v. ‘EAA&ma.) [L.S.]
ELLYCHNIUM [lucerna.]
EMANCIPATIO was an act by which the patria potestas was dissolved in the lifetime of the parent, and it was so called because it was in the form of a sale (mancipatio). By the Twelve Tables it was necessary that a son should be sold three times in order to be released from the paternal power, or to be suijuris. In the case of daughters and grandchildren, one sale was sufficient. The father transferred the son by the form of a sale to
465
EMANCIPATIO.
another’person who manumitted him, upon which he returned into the power of the father. This was repeated, and with the like result. After.a third sale, the paternal power was extinguished, but the son was resold to the parent, who then manumitted him, and so acquired the rights of a patron over his emancipated son, which would otherwise have belonged to the purchaser who gave him his final manumission.
The following view of emancipatio is given by a German writer: — " The patria potestas could not be dissolved immediately by manumissio, because the patria potestas must be viewed as an imperium, and not as a right of property like the power of a master over his slave. Now it was a fundamental principle that the patria potestas was extinguished by exercising once or thrice (as the case might be) the right which the pater familias possessed of selling or rather pledging his child. Conformably to this fundamental principle, the release, of a child from the patria potestas was clothed with the form of a mancipatio, effected once or three times. The patria potestas was indeed thus dissolved, though the child was not yet free, but came into the condition of a nexus. Consequently a manumissio was necessarily connected with the mancipatio, in order that the proper object of the emancipatio might be attained. This manumissio must take place once or thrice, according to circumstances. In the case when the manumissio was not followed by a return into the patria potestas, the manumissio was attended with important consequences to the manu-missor, which consequences ought to apply to the emancipating party. Accordingly, it was necessary to provide that the decisive manumission should be made by the emancipating party ; and for that reason a remancipatio, which preceded the final manumissio, was a part of the form of emancipatio." (Unterholzner, ZeitscJirift, vol. ii. p. 139 ; Vonden formen der Manumissio per Vindictam und der Emancipatio.’)
The legal effect of emancipation was to make the emancipated person become sui juris: and all the previously existing relations of agnatio between the parent’s familia and the emancipated child ceased at once. But a relation analogous to that of patron and freedman was formed between the person who gave the final emancipation and the child, so that if the child died without children or legal heirs, or if he required a tutor or curator, the rights which would have belonged to the father, if he had not emancipated the child, were secured to him as a kind of patronal right, in case he had taken the precaution to secure to himself the final manumission of the child. Accordingly, the father would always stipulate for a remancipatio from the purchaser : this stipulation was the pactuin fiduciae.
The emancipated child could not take any part of his parent’s property as heres, in case the parent died intestate. This rigor of the civil law (juris iniquitates, Gains, iii. 25) was modified by the praetor‘s edict, which placed emancipated children, and those who were in the parent’s power at the time of his death, on the same footing as to succeeding to the intestate parent’s property.
The emperor Anastasius introduced the practice of effecting emancipation by an imperial rescript^ when the parties were not present. (Cod. 8. tit. 49. s. 5.) Justinian enacted that emancipation could be effected before a magistrate. But he still allowed, what was probably the old law, a father to
G G 4
