there are several passages in his prefaces, which show that he neither inherited great wealth, nor succeeded in acquiring it. The patronage of the emperor, to whom his work is dedicated, had early placed him beyond the reach of want for the remainder of his life (Lib. i. Praef.), and he was able to look with contentment, though not without indignation, upon the greater success of his rivals in obtaining the substantial rewards of their profession. His allusions to this subject are couched in that tone of semi-querulous contentment and half dissatisfied moderation, which judges of human character will interpret according to the bias of their own dispositions. He had no great advantages of person, being of low stature, and, at the time when he wrote his work, suffering from old age and bad health. He appears to have begun his course in public life as a military engineer. He tells us that he served in Africa; and it is important to quote his own words, as introducing the question of the time at which he lived: "C. Julius, Masinthae (or Masinissae) filius, cujus erant totius oppidi agrorum possessiones, cum patre Caesare militavit. Is hospitio meo est usus; ita quotidiano convictu, &c. &c." (viii. 4. s. 3. § 25, ed. Schneider). Again, in the dedication of his work to the reigning emperor, he uses this language:—“Ideo quod primum parenti tuo [de eo] fueram notus, et ejus virtutis studiosus; quum autem concilium coelestium in sedibus immortalium eum dedicavisset, et imperium parentis in tuam potestatem transtulisset, idem studium meum in ejus memoria permanens in te contulit favorem." (The last words, by the way, are no bad specimen of the obscurity of his style.) He then goes on to say that he was appointed, with M. Aurelius and P. Numisius and Cn. Cornelius, to the office of superintending and improving the military engines (ad apparationem balistarum et scorpionum reliquorumque tormentorum perfectionem fui praesto), with a pecuniary provision (commoda); and that the emperor, through his sister's recommendation, continued his patronage to Vitruvius, after he had conferred upon him these favours. This emperor, we further learn from the dedication, was one who "had obtained possession of the empire of the world, and by his unconquered valour had overthrown all his enemies, while the citizens gloried in his triumph, and all the nations subdued under him waited on his nod, and the Roman people and senate, delivered from fear, were governed by his deliberations and counsels; and who, so soon as he had brought into a settled state those things which related to the public welfare and social life, devoted especial attention to public buildings, with which he adorned the empire, which he had augmented by new provinces." We have set forth this passage at length, that the reader may judge for himself whether the emperor thus addressed can be any other than Augustus, when it is remembered that, by the confession of all scholars, the time at which Vitruvius wrote is confined between the limits of the reigns of Augustus on the one hand, and of Titus on the other. Of course no proof is needed that he wrote after the death of Julius Caesar, whom he also expressly mentions as dead (divi Julii, iii. 2); and that he did not live after Titus is proved, apart from the mention of him by Pliny already referred to, by his silence respecting the Coliseum, and most irrefragably by his allusion to Vesuvius and the surrounding country, the vol canic nature of which he takes pains to prove, one of his arguments being a tradition that there had been eruptions of the mountain in ancient times (ii. 6). We think it unnecessary to pursue the discussion through all its details. The judgment of scholars is now quite decided in favour of considering Augustus to be the emperor to whom the treatise of Vitruvius is dedicated; and abundant confirmatory evidence of that position has been derived from other passages of the work. The other opinion, that that emperor was Titus, is elaborately maintained by Newton, in the Observations on the Life of Vitruvius prefixed to his translation of the work. Some of Newton's arguments are ingenious, but unsound; many are weak, and even puerile; some are at direct variance with the evidence, and some inconsistent with one another; and the best of them, which are intended to prove that Vitruvius wrote after the time of Augustus, only prove, allowing them their utmost force, that he wrote somewhat late in that emperor's reign, a fact which he himself states in the Dedication, where he says that he formed the design of his work at the beginning of the new reign, but that he feared to incur the emperor's displeasure by intruding upon him when he was fully occupied with public affairs; but that, when he saw the care which his patron bestowed upon buildings, both public and private, and that he both had erected and was erecting many edifices, he hastened to execute his design, and to present the emperor with a set treatise, explaining the exact rules and limits of the art, as a standard by which to test the merits of the buildings he had already erected, or was intending to erect. (Conscripsi praescriptiones terminatas, ut eas attendens et antefacta et futura qualia sint opera per te, nota posses habere.) Before noticing the further light which this somewhat remarkable language throws on the design of the treatise, it is necessary to observe the more exact limits within which the time of the author may now, with great prohability, be defined. We may assume him to be a young man when he served under Julius Caesar, in the African war, B. c. 46, and he was old, nay broken down with age (see above) when he composed his work, at a period considerably subsequent to the complete settlement of the empire under Augustus, and after the erection of several of that emperor's public buildings. Moreover, that his book was written some time after the name of Augustus had been conferred upon the emperor (B. C. 27) is evident from the passage (v. 1) in which he speaks of the basilica at Fanum, of which he himself was the architect, as erected subsequently to the temple of Augustus at that place. Again, from the way in which he mentions the emperor's sister in his dedication, it appears probable, though, it must be confessed, not certain, that she was still alive. Now Octavia, the favourite sister of Augustus, died in B. C. 11. Hence the date of the composition of the work lies probably between B. C. 20 and B. c. 11. At the former date, Vitruvius would be about 56, if we assume him to have been about thirty when he was in Africa with Caesar. This date is confirmed by the way in which he speaks of Lucretius, Cicero, and Varro, as quite recent authors. The object of his work appears to have had reference to himself, as well as to his subject. We have seen that he professes his intention to furnish the emperor with a standard by which to judge of the buildings he had already erected, as well as of those which he might afterwards erect; which can have no meaning, unless he wished to protest against the style of architecture which prevailed in the buildings already erected. That this was really his intention appears from several other arguments, and especially from his frequent references to the unworthy means by which architects obtained wealth and favour, with which he contrasts his own moderation and contentment in his more obscure position. The same thing appears from his praise of the pure Greek models and his complaints of the corruptions which were growing up; and also from his general silence about those of the great buildings of the age of Augustus, which, if the date assigned to him be correct, must have been erected before he wrote. This silence is perfectly intelligible if we understand those to be the very buildings, which he wished the emperor and his other readers to compare with his precepts, while he himself was content to furnish the means for the comparison, without incurring the odium of actually making it. In a word, comparatively unsuccessful as an architect, for we have no building of his mentioned except the basilica at Fanum, he attempted, like other artists in the same predicament, to establish his reputation as a writer upon the theory of his art; | and in this he has been tolerably successful. His work is a valuable compendium of those written by numerous Greek architects, whom he mentions chiefly in the preface to his seventh book, and by some Roman writers on architecture. Its chief defects are its brevity, of which Vitruvius himself boasts, and which he often carries so far as to be unintelligible, and the obscurity of the style, arising in part from the natural difficulty of technical language, but in part also from the author's want of skill in writing, and sometimes from his imperfect comprehension of his Greek authorities. the subject; and these prefaces are the source of most of our information about the author. The work of Vitruvius was first published, with that of Frontinus de Aquaeductibus, by Jo. Sulpitins, at Rome, without a date, but about A. D. 1486, fol.; then at Florence, 1496, fol. ; at Venice, 1497, fol., reprinted from the Florentine edition, which was more accurate than the Editio Princeps; these three editions all follow the MSS. closely. A more critical recension was attempted by Jucundus of Verona, Venet. 1511, fol., with rude wood-cuts; and another edition by the same editor, and with the same wood-cuts, but smaller and ruder, was printed by Giunta, Florent. 1513, 8vo., and reprinted in 1522 and 1523; the conjectural emendations in these editions are extremely rash. Of the numerous subsequent editions, a full account of which (up to 1801) will be found in Ernesti's edition of Fabric. Bibl. Lat. vol. i. c. 17 (also prefixed to the Bipont edition), the most important are those of J. de Laet, Amst. 1640, fol. ; of A. Bode, in 2 vols. Berol. 1800, 4to., with a volume of plates, Berol. 1801; the Bipont, 1807, 8vo.; that of J. G. Schneider, in 3 vols. Lips. 1807, 1808, 8vo, a most valuable critical edition, with a new and more rational arrangement of the chapters of each book, but without plates; of Stratico, in 4 vols., Udine, 1825-30, with plates and a Lericon Vitruvianum; and of Marini, in 4 vols., Rom. 1836, fol. The work has been translated into Italian by the Marquess Galiani, with the Latin text, Neapol. 1758, fol., and by Viviani, Udine, 1830; into German, by D. Gualtherus and H. Rivius, Nürn berg, 1548, fol., Basel, 1575, fol. and 1614, fol.; and by August Bode, in 2 vols. Leipzig, 1796, 4to. ; into French, by Perrault, Paris, 1673, fol. ; 2d ed. 1684, fol.; abridged 1674, 1681, fol.; and into English (besides the translation of Perrault's abridgement, Lond. 1692, 8vo., often reprinted), by Robert Castell, with notes by Inigo Jones and others, 2 vols. Lond. 1730, fol.; by W. Newton, with notes and plates, 2 vols., Lond. 1771, 1791, fol. ; by W. Wilkins, R. A., Lond. 1812, containing only the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth books, and those not complete; and by Joseph Gwilt, 1826, 4to. There are several other translations of less importance, especially into Italian. (Bernard. Baldus, and Fabricius, as above quoted; Schneider, Prolegomena and notes to Vitruvius; Genelli, Exegetische Briefe über Vitrue. Baukunst, Braunschweig and Berlin, 1801-4, 4to.; Stieglitz, Archäol. Unterhaltungen, Lips. 1820; Hirt, Geschichte d. Baukunst bei den Alten, vol. ii. pp. 308, foll.) [P.S] His work is entitled De Architectura Libri X. In the First Book, after the dedication to the emperor, and a general description of the science of architecture, and an account of the proper education of an architect, in which he includes most branches of science and literature, he treats of the choice of a proper site for a city, the disposition of its plan, its fortifications, and the several buildings within it. The Second Book is on the materials used in building, to his account of which he prefixes some remarks on the primeval condition of man and the invention and progress of the art of building, and on the views of the philosophers respecting the origin of matter. The Third and Fourth Books are devoted to temples and the four orders of architecture employed in them, namely, the Ionic, Corinthian, Doric, and Tuscan. The Fifth Book relates to public buildings, the Siath to private houses, and the Seventh to interior decorations. The Eighth is on the subject of water; the mode of finding it; its different kinds; hotsprings, mineral waters, fountains, rivers, lakes, and the curious properties ascribed to certain waters; the use of water in levelling; and the various modes of conveying it for the supply of cities. The Ninth Book treats of various kinds of sun-dials and other instruments for measuring time; and the Tenth of the machines used in building, VITULUS, MAMILIUS. 1. L. MAXIand of military engines. Each book has a pre- LIUS Q. F. M. N. VITULUS, consul B. C. 265 with face, upon some matter more or less connected with | Q. Fabius Maximus Gurges, the year before the VITULUS, the name of a family of the Mamilia and Voconia gentes. Niebuhr supposes that Vitulus is merely another form of Italus, and remarks that we find in the same manner in the Mamilia gens a surname Turrinus, that is, Tyrrhenus. "It was customary, as is proved by the oldest Roman Fasti, for the great houses to take distinguishing surnames from a people with whom they were connected by blood, or by the ties of public hospitality." (Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 14.) The ancients, however, as we see from the coin figured below, connected the surname Vitulus with the word signifying a calf. breaking out of the first Punic war. (Zonar. viii. 7.) 2. Q. MAMILIUS Q. F. M. N. VITULUS, brother of the preceding, was consul B. C. 262 with L. Postumius Magellus, the third year of the second Punic war. In conjunction with his colleague Vitulus took Agrigentum. (Polyb. i. 17-20; Zonar. viii. 10, who erroneously calls him Q. Aemilius.) 3. C. MAMILIUS VITULUS, was elected maximus curio in B. c. 209, being the first plebeian who had held that office. He was praetor in B. C. 208 with Sicily as his province, and was one of the ambassadors sent to Philip, king of Macedonia, in B. C. 203. He died in B. c. 174 of the pestilence which visited Rome in that year. (Liv. xxvii. 8, 35, 36, 38, xxx. 26, xli. 26.) VITULUS, Q. VOCO'NIUS, is only mentioned on coins, a specimen of which is given below, from which it appears that he was triumvir of the mint under Julius Caesar, and was quaestor designatus at the time the coin was struck. The obverse represents the head of Julius Caesar; the reverse a vitulus, or calf with Q. VOCONIVS VITVLVS Q DESIGN. s. c. (Eckhel, vol. v. p. 344.) QVOCONIVS VITVLVSa DESICH COIN OF Q. VOCONIUS VITULUS. VIVIA'NUS, a Roman jurist of uncertain time, who is often cited by Ulpian and Paulus. It appears that he referred to the authority of Sabinus, Cassius, and Proculus, and must therefore have been junior to them. (Dig. 29. tit. 7. s. 14.) Pomponius appears to have annotated Vivianus, and therefore wrote after him (Dig. 13. tit. 6. s. 17. § 4). Vivianus may accordingly have lived under Hadrian and Trajan. [G. L.] VIVIA'NUS, A'NNIUS, the son-in-law of Corbulo, served under the latter in the East in the reign of Nero. (Tac. Ann. xv. 28.) ULPIA'NUS, DOMITIUS, derived his origin from Tyrus in Phoenicia, as he states himself, "unde mihi origo." (Dig. 50. tit. 1. s. 1.) These words do not prove that he was a native of Tyre, as some have supposed; they rather prove that he was not, and that his ancestors were of that city. The time of Ulpian's birth is unknown. Some of his juristical works may have been written during the joint reign of Septimius Severus and Antoninus Caracalla (A. D. 211), but the greater part were written during the sole reign of Caracalla, especially the two great works Ad Edictum and the Libri ad Sabinum. He was banished or deprived of his functions under Elagabalus (Lamprid. Heliog. c. 16), who became emperor A. D. 217; but on the accession of Alexander Severus A. D. 222, he became the emperor's chief adviser, who is said to have followed Ulpian's counsel in his administration. (Lamprid. Alex. Sever. 51.) The emperor once designed to assign a peculiar dress to every office and rank, so that the condition of persons might be known from their attire; and he also proposed to give slaves a peculiar dress that they might be recognised among the people, and that slaves and ingenui might not mingle together. Ulpianus and Paulus dissuaded the emperor from this measure by good reasons. (Lamprid. Alex. Severus, c. 27.) As a proof of his confidence the emperor never saw any one of his friends alone, except the Praefectus Praetorio and Ulpian; and whenever he saw the praefect, he invited Ulpian. The emperor conferred on Ulpian the office of Scriniorum magister, and made him a consiliarius: he also held the office of Praefectus Annonae, as we see from a constitution of Alexander in which he entitles him "Domitius Ulpianus praefectus annonae jurisconsultus amicus meus." (Cod. 8. tit. 38. s. 4.) He also was made Praefectus Praetorio, but it is doubtful whether he first held this post under Elagabalus or under Alexander Severus. The epitomator of Dion says that Ulpian prepared the way for his promotion to the place of Praefectus Praetorio by causing his two predecessors, Flavianus and Chrestus, to be put to death. But there is no other evidence than this. (Dion Cass. Ixxx. 2.) Zosimus (i. 11) says that Ulpian was made a kind of associate, with Flavianus and Chrestus in their office, by Mamaea, the mother of Alexander, and that the soldiers hereupon conspired against Ulpian, but their designs were anticipated by Mamaea, who took off their instigators, by whom, we must suppose, he means Flavianus and Chrestus; and Ulpianus was made sole praefectus praetorio. Ulpian perished by the hands of the soldiers, who forced their way into the palace at night, and killed him in the presence of the emperor and his mother, A. D. 228. As this happened so early in the reign of Alexander, the remark of Lampridius that the emperor chiefly availed himself of the advice of Ulpian in his administration, is only a proof of the carelessness of this writer. His promotion to the office of praefectus praetorio was probably an unpopular mea. sure. A contest is mentioned between the Romans and the praetorian guards, which lasted three days, and was attended with great slaughter. The meagre epitome of Dion only leaves us to guess that Ulpian's promotion may have been connected with it. A great part of the numerous writings of Ulpian were still extant in the time of Justinian, and a much greater quantity is excerpted from him by the compilers of the Digest than from any other jurist. The number of excerpts from Ulpian is said to be 2462; and many of the excerpts are of great length, and altogether they form about one-third of the whole body of the Digest. It is said that there are more excerpts from his single work Ad Edictum than from all the works of any single jurist. The excerpts from Paulus and Ulpian together make about one half of the Digest. Those of Ulpian compose the third volume of the Palingenesia of Hommelius. The following are the works of Ulpian which are mentioned in the Florentine Index, and excerpted in the Digest. The great work Ad Edictum was in 83 libri; and there were 51 books of the work entitled Libri ad Sabinum [SABINUS MASSURIUS]. He also wrote 20 libri ad Leges Juliam et Papiam; 10 de omnibus Tribunalibus; 3 de Officio Consulis; 10 de Officio Proconsulis; 4 de Appellationibus; 6 Fideicommissorum; 2 libri Institutionum; 10 Disputationum; 6 de Censibus ; a work de Adulteriis; libri singulares de Officio Praefecti urbi; de Officio Curatoris Reipublicae ; | fold division, for Jus Naturale and Jus Gentium in de Officio Praetoris Tutelaris. All these works were probably written in the time of Caracalla. The work of which we still possess a fragment, under the title "Domitii Ulpiani Fragmenta," was, perhaps, written under Caracalla (xvii. 2); and it generally supposed to be taken from the liber singularis Regularum. There are also excerpts from Regularum Libri septem, which some suppose to have been a second edition of the Regularum liber singularis; but it may have been a work on a different plan. Ulpian wrote also libri duo Responsorum; libri singulares de Sponsalibus; de Officio Praefecti Vigilum, de Officio Quaestoris; and libri sex Opinionum. The time when these works were written is uncertain. The Index mentions Пavdékтov Bieλia déкa, but there is no excerpt from the work in the Digest; yet there are two excerpts (12. tit. 1. s. 24; 40. tit. 12. § 34), from a liber singularis Pandectarum. Accordingly the emendation of Grotius, &v for déka, in the title in the Florentine Index may be accepted. The Florentine Index omits the libri duo ad Edictum Aedilium Curulium, the libri ad legem Aeliam Sentiam, of which there were at least four, and the libri singulares de Officio Consularium and Excusationum; and also the notae ad Marcellum (Dig. 9. tit. 2. s. 41) and ad Papinianum (Dig. 3. tit. 5. s. 31. § 2) from which there are no excerpts. We learn from the Vaticana Fragmenta (§ 9093) that he also wrote a work De Interdictis in four books at least, and a liber singularis de Officio Praetoris Tutelaris (Vat. Fr. § 232). Ulpian's style is perspicuous, and presents fewer difficulties than that of many of the Roman jurists who are excerpted in the Digest. Compared with his contemporary, Paulus, he is somewhat diffuse, but this is rather an advantage for us, who have to read the Roman jurists in fragments. The easy expression of Ulpian, and the length of many of the extracts from his works, render the study of his fragments a much easier task than that of such a writer as Papinian. The great legal knowledge, the good sense, and the industry of Ulpian place him among the first of the Roman jurists; and he has exercised a great influence on the jurisprudence of modern Europe, through the copious extracts from his writings which have been preserved by the compilers of Justinian's Digest. Gaius and those other writers are equivalent. Savigny (System, &c. vol. i. Beylage i) has explained the meaning of Ulpian's threefold division. The authors of the Institutiones of Justinian have introduced great confusion by first giving Ulpian's threefold division, which they apply to the case of slavery, and then taking the passages of Gaius, Marcianus and Florentinus, in which the twofold division is either expressed or clearly implied. (Inst. 1. tit. 1. § 4; tit. 2. pr.; tit. 5. pr.) The con fusion is completed by their taking a passage of Gaius in which the twofold division occurs, and by the addition of the remark that the Jus Naturale (sicut diximus) is the same as the Jus Gentium. (Inst. 2. tit. 1. § 11.) It is generally assumed that Ulpian the Tyrian, who is named in the argument to the Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus, is the jurist, because he is called the Tyrian; but the jurist was not a Tyrian. Athenaeus (p. 686, ed. Casaub.) speaks of the happy death of his Ulpian; but the jurist died a wretched death; he was murdered by infuriated soldiers. Athenaeus does not call his Ulpian a jurist, and it is clear that he did not consider him one. This as sumption leads to a great deal of confusion, and is totally unfounded. See the article Athenaeus, "Biographical Dictionary of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge." Some attempt has been made to prove both that Ulpian and Paulus were very hostile to the Christians. The charge is founded on a passage of Lactantius (Div. Inst. v. 11); but it is not certain that the Domitius whom he mentions is Domitius Ulpianus. And if the passage refers to Ulpian, it proves nothing against him. If among the imperial rescripts directed to proconsuls, there were some which imposed penalties on the Christians, a writer de Officio Proconsulis could not omit a part of the law which regulated a proconsul's office, even if the law was severe and cruel. A collection of the statute law of England on religion would not have been complete a few years ago, if it omitted those statutes which contained severe penalties against certain classes of religious persons. (Puchta, Instit. i. p. 457; Zimmern, Geschichte des Röm. Privatrechts, i. p. 370; Grotius, Vitae Jurisconsultorum.) [G. L.] ULPIA'NUS (Ovλniavós), the name of three persons mentioned by Suidas. matics which he taught at Athens. He lived at the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian aera. Suidas does not mention any works as written by this Ulpianus. 2. Of EMESA, a sophist, wrote several works, of which an Art of Rhetoric was one. 1. Of GAZA, the brother of Isidorus of PeluThe fragments entitled " Domitii Ulpiani Frag-sium, was celebrated for his knowledge of mathe menta," or as they are entitled in the Vatican MS. "Tituli ex corpore Ulpiani," consist of twenty-nine titles, and are a valuable source for the history of the Roman law. They were first published by Jo. Tilius (du Tillet) Paris, 1549, 8vo. ; and they are printed in the Jurisprudentia, &c. of Schulting. The edition of Hugo, Berlin, 1834, 8vo., contains a fac-simile of the Vatican MS. The edition of the Fragmenta, by E. Böcking, Bonn, 1836, 12mo. contains also the fragments of the first book of the Institutiones of Ulpian, which were discovered by Endlicher in 1835 in the Imperial Library at Vienna; but they are too meagre to enable us to determine the plan of this Institutional work. There occurs in Ulpian (Dig. 1. tit. 1. s. 1. § 2, 3, 4. s. 4. s. 6) and in Tryphoninus and Hermogenianus a threefold division of law, viewed with respect to its origin --Jus Naturale, Gentium, Civile. In Gaius and other writers there is only a two 3. Of ANTIOCH, a sophist, lived in the time of Constantine the Great, and wrote several rhetorical works which are enumerated by Suidas. The name of Ulpianus is prefixed to extant Commentaries in Greek, on eighteen of the orations of Demosthenes; and it is usually stated that they were written by Ulpianus of Antioch. But Suidas does not mention these Commentaries at all; and it is evident that in their present form they are of much later origin. The Commentaries may originally have been written by one of the sophists of the name, either of Emesa or Antioch, but they have received numerous additions cess, but neglected to follow up his advantage, in and interpolations from some grammarian of a very late period. This is the opinion of Fr. A. Wolf, who remarks that there are scarcely twenty passages in Demosthenes in which the writer throws light upon difficulties, which could not be equally well explained without his aid. These Commentaries were printed for the first time along with the lexicon of Harpocration by Aldus Manutius, Venice, 1503, fol., and are likewise printed in the 10th volume of Dobson's edition of the Attic orators, London, 1828, as well as in other editions of the Attic orators. (Comp. Wolf, In Demosthenis Leptineam, p. 210; Westermann, Geschichte dersion of Magontiacum. In the revolt of Treviri, Griechischen Beredtsamkeit. § 104, note 13.) U'LPIUS CRINITUS, a general in the reign of Valerian, claimed descent from the emperor Trajan. He had the command of Illyricum and Thrace, where Aurelian, afterwards emperor, was his legatus. The latter distinguished himself so much that Ulpius adopted him as his son in the presence of Valerian. (Vopisc. Aurel. 10—15.) Uipius was consul suffectus along with his son-inlaw Valerian in A. D. 257. [AURELIANUS, P. 436, b.] ULPIUS JULIA'NUS, was employed to take the census under Caracalla, and was praefectus praetorio under Macrinus. He was sent to Antioch to put down the rebellion of Elagabalus, but was slain by his own troops, A. D. 218. (Dion Cass. lxxviii. 4, 15; Herodian. v. 4. § 5; Capitol. Macrin. 10.) U'LPIUS MARCELLUS. [MARCELLUS.] U'LPIUS TRAJA'NUS. [TRAJANUS.] ULTOR," the avenger," a surname of Mars, to whom Augustus built a temple at Rome in the forum, after taking vengeance upon the murderers of his great-uncle, Julius Caesar. (Sueton. Aug. 21, 29, Calig. 24; Ov. Fast. v. 577.) [L. S.] ULYSSES, ULYXES, ULIXES. SEUS.] UMBO'NIUS SI'LIO. [SILIO.] [ODYS P. UMBRE/NUS, one of Catiline's crew, had formerly carried on business in Gaul as a moneylender (negotiator, see Dict. of Ant. s. v. 2d ed.), and was therefore employed by Lentulus to persuade the ambassadors of the Allobroges to take part in the conspiracy, B. c. 63. (Sall. Cat. 40; Cic. Cat. iii. 6.) UMBRICIUS, an haruspex, predicted to Galba sacrificing shortly before his death, that a plot threatened him. (Tac. Hist. i. 27.) UMMIDIA QUADRATILLA. [QUADRATILLA.] UMMI'DIUS QUADRATUS. TUS.] VOCO'NIUS NASO. [NASO.] [QUADRA | VOCO'NIUS ROMANUS. [ROMANUS.] VOCO NIUS SAXA. [SAXA.] VOCO NIUS VITULUS. [VITULUS.] VO'CULA, DI'LLIUS, legate of the 18th legion of the Roman army on the Rhine, at the time of the Batavian revolt (A. D. 69). On account of the firmness with which he opposed a mutiny against Hordeonius Flaccus, he was made commander-in-chief by the soldiers in place of that general. Not venturing to attack Civilis in the field, he fixed his camp at Gelduba, and shortly afterwards quelled another mutiny, which had broken out during his absence on an incursion against the Gugerni. [HERENNIUS GALLUS.] He afterwards carried on the war with some suc VOL. III. VOLACI NUS, an architect, known by the inscription on a monument erected to his memory by his wife Selene. (Fabretti, Inser. p. 176, No. 353; Muratori, Thes. vol. ii. p. cmlxxvi. 4; Sillig, Catal. Artif. Append. s. v. ; R. Rochette, Lettre à M. Schorn, p. 426, 2d. ed.) [P.S.] VOLCA TIA or VULCATIA GENS, is not mentioned till the latter end of the republic. The first member of it who obtained the consulship was L. Volcatius Tullus in B. c. 66. TULLUS is the only cognomen borne by the Volcatii in the time of the republic, but under the empire we meet with other surnames, a list of which is given below. VOLCATIUS, a Roman eques, one of the agents of Verres in oppressing the Sicilians. (Cic. Verr. ii. 9, 23, iii. 73.) VOLCA TIUS GALLICA'NUS. CANUS.] VOLCATIUS GURGES. [GALLI [GURGES.] VOLCA TIUS MOSCHUS. [MOSCHUS.] VOLCATIUS TULLI'NUS. [TULLINUS.] VO'LERO PUBLILIUS. [PUBLILIUS.] VO'LNIUS, not VOLUMNIUS, wrote some Tuscan tragedies, and is quoted by Varro for the statement that the names of the three ancient Roman tribes, Ramnes, Titienses, and Luceres, were Etruscan. (Varr. L. L. v. 55, ed. Müller ; Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. i. note 415.) VOLOGESES, the name of five kings of Parthia. [ARSACES XXIII., XXVII., XXVIII., XXIX., XXX.] M. VO'LSCIUS FICTOR, who had been previously tribune of the plebs, came forward in B. C. 461 to bear witness against K. Quintius, the son of L. Cincinnatus, and declared that soon after the plague he and his elder brother fell in with a party of patrician youths who came rushing through the Subura, when their leader Kaeso knocked down his brother, who was still feeble from the sickness he had just got over, and injured him so much that he died shortly afterwards. Dionysius makes Volscius tribune of the plebs in this year. consequence of this testimony Kaeso was con In |