ARSINOE

arsinoe, the name of four egyptian princesses of the ptolemaic dynasty. the name was introduced into the ptolemaic dynasty by the mother of ptolemy i. this arsinoe was originally a mistress of philip ii. of macedon, who presented her to a macedonian soldier loqus shortly before ptolemy was born. it was, therefore, assumed by the macedonians that the ptolemaic house was really descended from philip (see ptolemies). 1. daughter of lysimachus, king of thrace, first wife of ptolemy ii. philadelphus (285-247 b.c.). accused of conspiring against her husband, who perhaps already contemplated marriage with his sister, also named arsinoe, she was banished to coptos, in upper egypt. her son ptolemy was afterwards king under the title of euergetes. it is supposed by some (e.g. niebuhr, _kleine schriften_; cf. ehrlichs, _de callimachi hymnis_) that she is to be identified with the arsinoe who became wife of magas, king of cyrene, and that she married him after her exile to coptos. but this hypothesis is apparently without foundation. magas before his death had betrothed his daughter berenice to the son of his brother ptolemy ii. philadelphus, but arsinoe, disliking the projected alliance, induced demetrius the fair, son of demetrius poliorcetes, to accept the throne of cyrene as husband of berenice. she herself, however, fell in love with the young prince, and berenice in revenge formed a conspiracy, and, having slain demetrius, married ptolemy's son (see berenice, 3). 2. daughter of ptolemy i. soter and berenice. born about 316 b.c., she married lysimachus, king of thrace, who made over to her the territories of his divorced wife, amastris. to secure the succession for her own children she brought about the murder of her stepson agathocles. lysandra, the wife of agathocles, took refuge with seleucus, king of syria, who made war upon lysimachus and defeated him (281). after her husband's death arsinoe fled to ephesus and afterwards to cassandreia in macedonia. seleucus, who had seized lysimachus's kingdom, was murdered in 281 by ptolemy ceraunus (half-brother of arsinoe), who thus became master of thrace and macedonia. to obtain possession of cassandreia, he offered his hand in marriage to arsinoe, and being admitted into the town, killed her two younger sons and banished her to samothrace. escaping to egypt, she became the wife of her full brother ptolemy ii., the first instance of the practice (afterwards common) of the greek kings of egypt marrying their sisters. she was a woman of a masterful character and won great influence. her husband, though she bore him no children, was devoted to her and paid her all possible honour after her death in 271. he gave her name to a number of cities, and also to a district (nome) of egypt.[1] it is related that he ordered the architect dinochares to build a temple in her honour in alexandria; in order that her statue, made of iron, might appear to be suspended in the air, the roof was to consist of an arch of loadstones (pliny, _hist. nat._ xxxiv. 42). coins were also struck, showing her crowned and veiled on the obverse, with a double cornucopia on the reverse. she was worshipped as a goddess under the title of [greek: thea philadelphos], and she and her husband as [greek: theoi adelphoi] (justin xxiv. 2, 3; pausanias i. 7). see von prott, _rhein. mus._ liii. (1898), pp. 460 f. 3. daughter of ptolemy iii. euergetes, sister and wife of ptolemy iv. philopator. she seems to be erroneously called eurydice by justin (xxx. 2), and cleopatra by livy (xxvii. 4). her presence greatly encouraged the troops at the battle of raphia (217), in which antiochus the great was defeated. her husband put her to death to please his mistress agathocleia, a samian dancer (between 210 and 205). she was worshipped as [greek: thea philopator]; she and her husband as [greek: theoi philopatores] (polybius v. 83, 84, xv. 25-33). 4. youngest daughter of ptolemy xiii. auletes, and sister of the famous cleopatra. during the siege of alexandria by julius caesar (48) she was recognized as queen by the inhabitants, her brother, the young ptolemy, being then held captive by caesar. caesar took her with him to rome as a precaution. after caesar's triumph she was allowed to return to alexandria. after the battle of philippi she was put to death at miletus (or in the temple of artemis at ephesus) by order of mark antony, at the request of her sister cleopatra (dio cassius xlii. 39; caesar, _bell. civ._ iii. 112; appian, _bell. civ._ v. 9). authorities.--for general authorities see article ptolemies. the article "arsinoe" in pauly-wissowa's _realencyclopadie_ contains a full list of those who bore the name, and also of the numerous towns which were called after the various princesses. footnote: [1] the appendix to pt. ii. of the tebtunis series of papyri (grenfell, hunt and goodspeed, 1907) contains a lengthy account of the topography of the arsinoite nome. arsinoitherium (so called from the egyptian queen arsinoe), a gigantic horned mammal from the middle eocene beds of the fayum, egypt, representing a sub-order of ungulata, called barypoda. the skull is remarkable for carrying a huge pair of horn-cores above the muzzle, which seem to be the enlarged nasal bones, and a rudimentary pair farther back; the front horn-cores, like the rest of the skull, consist of a mere shell of bone, and were probably clothed in life with horny sheaths. the teeth form a continuous even series, the small canines being crowded between the incisors and premolars; the crowns of the cheek-series are tall (hypsodont), with a distinctive pattern of their own. although the brain is relatively larger, the bones of the limbs, especially the short, five-toed feet, approximate to those of the amblypoda and proboscidea; but in the articulation of the astragalus with both the navicular and cuboid _arsinoitherium_ is nearer the former than the latter group. it is probable, however, that these resemblances are mainly due to parallelism in development, and are in all three cases adaptations necessary to support the enormous weight of the body. on the other hand, the marked resemblance of the structure of the tarsus is probably indicative of descent from nearly allied condylarthrous ancestors (see phenacodus). no importance can be attached to the presence of horns as an indication of affinity between _arsinoitherium_ and the amblypoda; and there are important differences in the structure of the skulls of the two, notably in the external auditory meatus, the occiput, the premaxillae, the palatal foramina and the lower jaw. from the proboscidea _arsinoitherium_ differs broadly in skull structure, in the form of the cheek-teeth, and in the persistence of the complete dental series of forty-four without gaps or enlargement of particular teeth. whether there is any relationship with the hyracoidea cannot be determined until we are acquainted with the forerunners of _arsinoitherium_, which is evidently a highly specialized type. it may be added that as the name barypoda has been used at an earlier date for another group of animals, the alternative title embrithopoda has been suggested in case the former should be considered barred. see c.w. andrews, _descriptive catalogue of the tertiary vertebrata of the fayum, british museum_ (1906). (r. l.*) arson (from lat. _ardere_, to burn), a crime which has been described as the malicious and voluntary burning of the house of another (3 co. _inst._ 66). at common law in england it is an offence of the degree of felony. in the roman civil law arson was punishable by death. it appears early in the history of english law, being known in ancient laws by the term of _boernet_. it is mentioned by cnut as one of the bootless crimes, and under the saxon laws was punishable by death. the sentence of death for arson was, says stephen (_commentaries_, iv. 89), in the reign of edward i. executed by a kind of _lex talionis_, for the incendiaries were burnt to death; a punishment which was inflicted also under the gothic institutions. death continued to be the penalty at least down to the reign of king john, according to a reported case (gloucester pleas, pl. 216), but in course of time the penalty became that of other common-law felonies, death by the gallows. it is one of the earliest crimes in which the _mens rea_, or criminal intent, was taken special notice of. bracton deals at length with the _mala conscientia_, which he says is necessary for this crime, and contrasts it with _negligentia_ (f. 146 b), while in many early indictments malice aforethought (_malitia praecogitata_) appears. arson was deprived of "benefit of clergy" under the tudors, while an act of 8 henry vi. c. 6 (1429) made the wilful burning of houses, under particular circumstances, high treason, but acts of 1 ed. vi. c. 12 (1547) and 1 mary (1553) reduced it to an ordinary felony. the english law concerning arson was consolidated by 7 & 8 geo. iv. c. 30, which was repealed and re-enacted by the malicious damage act 1861. the common-law offence of arson (which has been greatly enlarged by the act of 1861) required some part of the house to be actually burnt; neither a bare intention nor even an actual attempt by putting fire in or towards it will constitute the offence, if no part was actually burnt, but the burning of any part, however trifling, is sufficient, and the offence is complete even if the fire is put out or goes out of itself. the burning must be malicious and wilful, otherwise it is only a trespass. if a man by wilfully setting fire to his own house burn the house of his neighbour also, it will be a felony, even though the primary intention of the party was to burn his own house only. the word _house_, in the definition of the offence at common law, extends not only to dwelling-houses, "but to all out-houses which are parcel thereof, though not adjoining thereto." barns with corn and hay in them, though distant from a house, are within the definition. the different varieties of the offence are specified in the malicious damage act 1861. the following crimes are thereby made felonies: (1) setting fire to any church, chapel, meeting-house or other place of divine worship; (2) setting fire to a dwelling-house, any person being therein; (3) setting fire to a house, out-house, manufactory, farm-building, &c., with intent to impose and defraud any person; (4) setting fire to buildings appertaining to any railway, port, dock or harbour; or (5) setting fire to any public building. in these cases the act provides that the person convicted shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than three years (altered to _five_ years by the penal servitude acts amendment act 1864), or to be imprisoned for any time not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, and, if a male under sixteen years of age, with or without whipping. setting fire to other buildings, and setting fire to goods in buildings under such circumstances that, if the building were thereby set fire to, the offence would amount to felony, are subject to the punishments last enumerated, with this exception that the period of penal servitude is limited to fourteen years. the attempt to set fire to any building, or any matter or thing not enumerated above, is punishable as a felony. russell says (_crimes_, p. 1781) that the term building is no doubt very indefinite, but it was used in 9 & 10 vict. c. 25, s. 2; and it was thought much better to adopt this term and leave it to be interpreted as each case might arise, than to attempt to define; as any such attempt would probably have failed in producing any expression more certain than the term "building" itself. in _r._ v. _manning_, 1872 (l.r. 1 c.c.r. 338), it was held that an unfinished house was a building within the meaning of the act. the setting fire to crops of hay, grass, corn, &c., is punishable by penal servitude for any period not exceeding fourteen years, but setting fire to stacks of the same, or any cultivated vegetable produce, or to peat, coals, &c., is regarded as a more serious offence, and the penal servitude may be for life. for the attempt to commit the last two offences penal servitude is limited to seven years. setting fire to mines of coal, anthracite or other mineral fuel is visited with the full measure of penalty, and in the case of an attempt the penal servitude is limited to fourteen years. by the dockyards, &c., protection act 1772 it is a felony punishable by death wilfully and maliciously to set fire to any of his majesty's ships or vessels of war, or any of his majesty's arsenals, magazines, dockyards, rope-yards, victualling offices or buildings therein, or any timber, material, stores or ammunition of war therein or in any part of his majesty's dominions. if the person guilty of the offence is a person subject to naval discipline, he is triable by court-martial, and if found guilty, a sentence of capital punishment may be passed. the malicious damage act 1861, s. 43, also includes as a felony the setting fire to any ship or vessel, with intent to prejudice any owner or part owner of the vessel, or of any goods on the same, or any person who has underwritten any policy of insurance on the vessel, or upon any goods on board the same. in scotland the offence equivalent to arson in england is known by the more expressive name of fire-raising. the crime was punishable capitally by old consuetudinary law, but it is now no longer capital, and may be tried in the sheriff court (50 & 51 vict. c. 35, s. 56). formerly the public prosecutor had the privilege of declining to demand capital punishment, and he invariably did so. _wilful fire-raising_, which is the most heinous form of the crime, requires the raising of fire, without any lawful object, but with the deliberate intention of destroying certain premises or things, whether directly by the application of fire thereto, or indirectly by its application to something contained in or forming part of or communicating with them; also the intention to destroy premises or things of a certain description (much as mentioned above); and such premises or things must be the property of another than the accused. _wicked, culpable and reckless fire-raising_ differs from wilful fire-raising in that the fire is raised _without_ the deliberate intention of destroying premises or things, but while the accused was engaged in some unlawful act, or while he was in such a state of passion, excitement or recklessness as not to care what results might follow from his acts. _united states._--the same general principles apply to this crime in american law. in some states by statute the intent to injure or defraud must be shown, e.g. when the property is insured. in new york one who wilfully burns property (including a vessel or its cargo) with intent to defraud or prejudice the insurer thereof, though the offence of arson is not committed, is punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years (n.y. pen. code, ss. 575, 578). there must be an intent to destroy the building (_ibid._ s. 490; california code, s. 447). an agreement to commit arson is conspiracy (_ibid._ s. 171). killing a person in committing the crime of arson is murder in the first degree (_ibid._ s. 183); this is so in california, even where the crime is merely an attempt to commit arson (cal. pen. code, s. 189). explosion of a house by gunpowder or dynamite is arson (texas pen. code, art. 761), but a charge of arson by "burning" will not be sustained by proof of exploding by dynamite, even though part of the building is burnt by the explosion (_landers_ v. _state_ [tex.], 47 s.w. 1008). authorities.--w.s. holdsworth, _history of english law_, vol. iii.; pollock and maitland, _history of english law_; stephen, _history of criminal law_, vol. iii.; stephen, _commentaries_; russell on _crimes_.