quamvis Scaevola apud Marcellum dubitans notat, and Marcellus lib. xiii. Dig. scribit, ubi Scaevola

notat?

These difficulties have induced some legal biographers (Ménage, Amoen. Jur. c. 43; Otto, Thes. Jur. Rom. 1614-5; Guil. Grotius, De Vitis Jurisc. ii. 4. § 4) to suppose that the word apud is used inconstantly, sometimes governing the name of the commentator, and sometimes the name of the writer who is the subject of commentary. In the present case, we believe that Urseius Ferox was junior to Cassius and Proculus, and that he commented upon them in independent works of his own, which were not considered as their works with his commentaries. We think it unlikely that Cassius, his senior, cited Ferox, and therefore are disposed to adopt the altered reading of Dig. 44. tit. 5. s. 1. § 10, which we have already mentioned, and which was first suggested by Guil. Grotius, although we do not regard the alteration as absolutely necessary. The only general conclusion we are able to arrive at, from a comparison of the passages we have cited, is, that from such an expression as apud Ferocem Proculus ait, it is impossible to draw any certain inference as to the relative date of Ferox and Proculus. We think, nevertheless, that the word apud in such connection is used constantly in the same sense,-that the writer whose name it governs is in conception the principal, and the other the subordinate. Thus Proculus apud Ferocem ait means that the saying of Proculus was contained in the work of Ferox ;— whether the saying were contained in the text or in the notes;-if in the text,-whether it were in the original text, or in the received text as altered by some subsequent editor;-if contained in the notes,-whether those notes were expressly written upon the text, or were composed of illustrative extracts from prior or subsequent authors appended to the text. In general, apud seems to govern the name of a writer whose work has been illustrated by notes. In the majority of cases, as in the case of Aristo apud Cassium, the notes seem to have been expressly written upon the work of the author whose name is governed by apud; but sometimes, as in the case of Servius apud Melam, it seems that extracts from the writings of a preceding author are either contained in the original text, or have been appended as notes by a subsequent editor. While, then, Servius apud Melam means Servius in Mela, in like manner, Aristo apud Cassium is a citation of Aristo from a work, which, though it contain matter in addition to the text of Cassius, would, upon the whole, be thought of as the work of Cassius. Our supposition that apud governs the name of the author who is in conception the principal, is confirmed by an instance where it may be doubted which author is the principal, and where, accordingly, a variety of expressions occurs. Julianus composed a treatise which was compiled from certain books of Minicius, with observations of his own, as we learn from the inscription of the extract in Dig. 6. tit. 1. s. 59, which is headed Julianus, lib. 6. ex Minicio. This may be compared with the fuller expression of Gaius (ii. 188), in his libris, quos ex Q. Mucio fecimus. The work so compiled might easily be thought of, either as the work of Julianus, or as the work of Minicius. In the first case it might be cited, as in Dig. 2. tit. 14. s. 56, where we read Julianus lib. 6 ad Minicium; in the second case. Julianus might

be cited as from Minicius, as in Dig. 19. tit. 1. s. 11. 15, where we find Julianus lib. 10 apud Minicium ait.

The foregoing explanation, which is believed to be new, appears to remove some difficulties which have hitherto perplexed legal biographers. [J.T.G.] FESTI'VUS, AURELIA'NUS, a freedman of the emperor Aurelian, wrote a history of the emperor Firmus, in which he detailed at great length all the silly and extravagant doings of the latter. (Vopisc. Firm. 6.)

FESTUS, a favourite freedman aud remembrancer (τῆς βασιλείας μνήμης προεστώς) of Caracalla, by whom he was buried in the Troad, with all the ceremonies observed at the obsequies of Patroclus. According to Herodian, a report was current that he had been poisoned by the Emperor, who, being seized with the fancy of imitating Achilles, and being at a loss for a dead friend whose fate he might mourn, after the fashion of the hero, had recourse to this method of supplying the deficiency. Festus, the chamberlain of Caracalla, must have been a different personage, since he is represented by Dion Cassius as alive under Macrinus, and as taking an active part in the proceedings for setting up Elagabalus. (Herodian. iv. 14; Dion Cass. lxxviii. 33.) [W. R.]

FESTUS, ANI'CIUS, was entrusted by Macrinus with the command of Asia, after the disgrace of Asper. Festus had been, on former occasions, passed over by Severus in the allotment of provinces. (Dion Cass. lxxxviii. 22.) [W.R.]

FESTUS, PESCE'NNIUS, a senator, put to death without trial by the emperor Severus, A. D. 196-7, after his victory over Albinus. (Spartian. Severus, 13; comp. Dion Cass. lxxv. 8; Herodian. iii. p. 115.) An historian of this name is mentioned by Lactantius (Instit. i. 21), in speaking of the human sacrifices practised at Carthage. Lactantius calls the history of Festus Satura, i. e. a miscellany. [W. B. D.]

FESTUS, SEXT. POMPEIUS, a lexicographer of uncertain date. He certainly lived after Martial, whom he quoted (s. v. Vespae), and before Macrobius, who refers to him more than once (Sat. iii. 3, 5, comp. 8.). From his remarks upon the word supparus we conclude that he must have belonged to an epoch when the ceremonies of the Christian religion were familiar to ordinary readers, but Saxe has no authority for fixing him down to the close of the fourth century (Onomast. A.D. 398). The name of Festus is attached to a dictionary or glossary of remarkable Latin words and phrases, which is divided into twenty books, and commonly bears the title Sexti Pompeii Festi de Verborum Significatione. This is a compilation of the highest value, containing a rich treasure of learning upon many obscure points, connected with antiquities, mythology, and grammar; but before we can make use of it with safety it is necessary that we should understand the history of the work, and be made acquainted with the various constituents of which it is composed.

M. Verrius Flaccus, a celebrated grammarian, in the reign of Augustus [FLACCUS VERRIUS], was the author of a very voluminous treatise, De Significatu Verborum. This was compressed into a much smaller compass by Festus, who made a few alterations (e. g. s. v. monstrum) and criticisms (e.g. Pictor Zeuris) of his own, inserted numerous extracts from other writings of Verrius, such as the De Obscuria

Catonis; De Plauti Calculis; De Jure Sacro et Augurali, and others; but altogether omitted those words which had fallen into disuse (intermortua et sepulta), intending to make these the subject of a separate volume Priscorum Verborum cum Exemplis (see s. v. porriciam). Finally, towards the end of the eighth century, Paul, son of Warnefrid, better known as Paulus Diaconus, from having officiated as a deacon of the church at Aquileia, abridged the abridgment of Festus, dedicating his production to Charlemagne, after that prince had dethroned Desiderius, the last king of the Lombards, whom Paul had served as chancellor.

The original work of Verrius Flaccus has altogether perished with the exception of one or two inconsiderable fragments. Of the abstract by Festus one imperfect MS. only has come down to us. It was brought, we are told, from Illyria, and fell into the hands of Pomponius Laetus, a celebrated scholar of the fifteenth century, who for some reason now unknown kept possession of a few leaves when he transferred the remainder to a certain Manilius Rallus, in whose hands they were seen in 1485 by Politian, who copied the whole together with the pages retained by Pomponius Laetus. This MS. of Rallus found its way eventually into the Farnese library at Parma, whence it was conveyed, in 1736, to Naples, where it still exists. The portion which remained in the custody of Laetus was repeatedly transcribed, but it is known that the archetype was lost before 1581, when Ursinus published his edition. The original codex written upon parchment, probably in the eleventh or twelfth century, appears to have consisted, when entire, of 128 leaves, or 256 pages,. each page containing two columns; but at the period when it was first examined by the learned, fifty-eight leaves at the beginning were wanting, comprehending all the letters before M; three gaps, extending in all to ten leaves, occurred in different places, and the last leaf had been torn off, so that only fifty-nine leaves were left, of which eighteen were separated from the rest by Laetus and have disappeared, while forty-one are still found in the Farnese MS. In addition to the deficiencies described above, and to the ravages made by dirt, damp, and vermin, the volume had suffered severely from fire, so that while in each page the inside column was in tolerable preservation, only a few words of the outside column were legible, and in some instances the whole were destroyed. These blanks have been ingeniously filled up by Scaliger and Ursinus, partly from conjecture and partly from the corresponding paragraphs of Paulus, whose performance appears in a complete form in many MSS. This epitomizer, however, notwithstanding his boast that he had passed over what was superfluous and illustrated what was obscure, was evidently ill qualified for his task; for whenever we have an opportunity of comparing him with Festus we per ceive that he omitted much that was important, that he slavishly copied clerical blunders, and that when any expression appeared perplexing to his imperfect scholarship he quietly dropped it altogether. He added a little, but very little, of his own, as, for example, the allusion to his namesake, the apostle (s. v. barbari), and a few observations under secus, sacrima, signare, posimerium, porcas, &c. It is evident from what has been said that the book, as commonly exhibited, consists of four distinct parts:

1. The fragments of Festus contained in the Farnese MS. now deposited in the Royal library at Naples.

2. The fragments of Festus retained by Pomponius Laetus, the archetype of which, although lost before the end of the sixteenth century, had previously been frequently transcribed.

These two sets of fragments, as far as they go, are probably a tolerably correct though meagre representation of the commentaries of Verrius Flaccus. 3. The epitome of Paulus Diaconus, consisting of inaccurate excerpts from Festus, a mere shadow of a shade, but even these imperfect outlines are very precious.

4. The interpolations of Scaliger and Ursinus, foisted in for the purpose of filling up the blanks in the outside columns of the MS. of Festus. These are of course almost worthless, since they must be regarded merely as specimens of ingenuity.

Although it is manifest how much the four parts differ from each other in value, yet all are in most editions mixed up into one discordant whole, so that it is impossible, without much labour and research, to analyse the mass and resolve it into its elements. Hence we not unfrequently find in the essays of even distinguished scholars quotations professedly from Festus, which upon examination turn out to be the barbarous blunders of Paulus, or even simply the lucubrations of Ursinus. We have now, however, been happily relieved from all such embarrassments by the labours of Müller, whose admirable edition is described more particularly below.

The principle upon which the words are classified is at first sight by no means obvious or intelligible. The arrangement is so far alphabetical that all words commencing with the same letter are placed together. But the words ranked under each letter are, as it were, divided into two parts. In the first part the words are grouped, according not only to the initial, but also to the second and even the third and fourth letters; the groups, however, succeed each other not as in an ordinary dictionary but irregularly. Thus we find at the beginning of R, not the words in Ra, but those in Ru, next those in Ro, next those in Rum, next those in Rh, next those in Re and Ri mixed, next those in Ra, and again Re and Ri mixed. In the second part regard is paid to the initial letter alone without reference to those which follow it, but the words placed together have in most instances some bond of connection. Thus in the second part of P we find the series Palatualis, Portenta, Postularia, Pestifera, Peremp talia, Pullus, all of which belong to sacred rites, and especially to auspices. Again, Propius Sobrino, Possessio, Praefecturae, Parret, Postum, Patrocinia, Posticam lineam, terms relating to civil law; Pomp tina, Papiria, Pupinnia, Pupillia, names of tribes, and so on. The same word is frequently explained both in the first and in the second part, and sometimes the two explanations are at variance; thus, Reus, Ritus, Rustica Vinalia, occur in both the first and second parts of R, while the remarks on Obsidium, Obsidionem, in the first part of O are inconsistent with what is said upon the same words in the second part. The same word is never repeated twice in the first part, but this sometimes happens in the second, when it falls to be interpreted under two heads, as in the case of Praebia. The first part in some letters is headed by a few words altogether out of their order, which seem placed in a conspi

cuous position on account of their importance or | from some superstitious feeling. Thus M is ushered in by Magnos Ludos, Meltom, Matrem Matutam, while the first fifteen articles in P are almost all derived from the most ancient memorials of the Latin tongue. These facts, taken in combination with the authorities quoted here and there, would lead us to infer that the words in the first part of each letter were taken directly from the De Significatu Verborum of Verrius, while those in the second constitute a sort of supplement, collected by Festus from the other writings of the same author. We might also surmise, from the singular order, or rather want of order, discernible in the first part, that Verrius wrote down his observations upon certain sets of words upon separate sheets, and that these sheets were bound up without regard to any circumstance except the initial letter. An elaborate discussion upon these points will be found in the preface to the edition of Müller.

The edition published at Milan, by Zarotus, on the 3rd of August, 1471, and inscribed, Sext. Pompeius Festus de Verborum Significatione, that of Joannes de Colonia and Joannes Manthen de Gherrezen, 4to. Venet. 1784, a very ancient impression, perhaps older than either of the above, and probably printed at Rome by G. Lauer, together with several others, merely reprints of the preceding, and all belonging to the fifteenth century, present us with nothing except Paulus Diaconus. A volume appeared at Milan, in 1510, containing Nonius Marcellus, Festus, Paulus, and Varro. This work was commenced by Jo. Bapt. Pius, who revised the Nonius, and was carried on by a certain Conagus, who was acquainted with both portions of the MS. of Festus, which he incorporated with Paulus, thus giving rise to that confusion which afterwards prevailed so extensively. The above grammarians were reprinted, in the same form, at Paris in 1511 and 1519, at Venice by Aldus Manutius, in 1513, and very frequently afterwards, in different parts of Europe. More valuable than any of those already mentioned is the edition of Antonius Augustinus, archbishop of Tarragona, 8vo. Venet. 1559-1560, in which we find not only a correct collation of the Farnese MS., but a separation of Festus from Paulus. Augustinus was closely followed by Joseph Scaliger, 8vo. 1565, who displayed great skill in his conjectural emendations and supplements, and by Fulvius Ursinus, Rom. 1581, who again collated and gave a faithful representation of the Farnese MS., and, following out the labours of Scaliger, illed up the blanks. The edition of Dacier "In usum Delphini," Paris, 1681, has been often reprinted, but possesses no particular value. Lindemann, in his Corpus Grammaticorum Latinorum, vol. ii. Lips. 1832, has placed Paulus and Festus completely apart from each other, has revised the text of each with great care, and added a large body of notes, original and selected; but far superior to all others is the edition of K. O. Müller, Lips. 4to. 1839, in which we find,

1. A preface, with a critical account of the MSS. of Festus and Paulus, their history, and a most ingenious and laborious investigation of the plan followed in the arrangement of the words.

2. The text of Paulus in its best form, from the most trustworthy MSS.

3. The text of Festus, from the Farnese MS., carefully collated, in 1833, expressly for this edi

tion, by Arndts. The fragments are printed exactly as they occur in the MS., in double columns, and placed face to face with the corresponding portions of Paulus, so as to admit of easy comparison. The most plausible of the conjectural supplements by Scaliger and Ursinus are inserted in a different type.

4. The text of the Pomponian sheets, printed also in double columns, the contents of each page having been determined by accurate calculation. 5. A collection of the most useful commentaries.

[W. R.]

FESTUS, PO'RCIUS, succeeded Antonius Felix as procurator of Judaea in A. D. 62, and vigorously repressed the robbers and assassins (sicarii), by whom the province was infested. It was he who bore testimony to the innocence of St. Paul, when he defended himself before him in the same year. Festus died not long after his appointment as procurator, and was succeeded by ALBINUS. (Joseph. Ant. xx. 8. §§ 9—11. 9, § 1, Beli. Jud. ii. 14. § 1; Acts, xxiv. 27, xxv. xxvi.) [E. E.]

FESTUS, VALE'RIUS, legatus in Africa, A. D. 69, and an active, though secret, partisan of Vespasian in his war with Vitellius. He was one of the supplementary consuls for the year A. D. 71. (Tac. Hist. ii. 98; Fasti.) [W. B. D.]

FIDEʼNAS, a surname of the Sergia and Servilia Gentes, derived from Fidenae, a town about five miles from Rome, and which frequently occurs in the early history of the republic. The first Sergius, who bore this surname, was L. Sergius, who is said to have obtained it because he was elected consul in the year (B. c. 437) after the revolt of Fidenae; but as Fidenae was a Roman colony, he may have been a native of the town. This surname was used by his descendants as their family name. [See below.]

The first member of the Servilia gens who received this surname was Q. Servilius Priscus, who took Fidenae in his dictatorship, B. c. 435; and it continued to be used by his descendants as an agnomen, in addition to their regular family name of Priscus. [PRISCUS.]

1. L. SERGIUS C. F. C. N. FIDENAS, held the consulship twice, and the consular tribunate three times; but nothing of importance is recorded of him. He was consul for the first time in B. c. 437 (Liv. iv. 17; Diod. xii. 43); consular tribune for the first time in 433 (Liv. iv. 25; Diod. xii. 58); consul for the second time in 429 (Liv. iv. 30; Diod. xii. 73); consular tribune for the second time in 424 (Liv. iv. 35; Diod. xii. 82); and consular tribune for the third time in 418. (Liv. iv. 45; Diod. xiii. 2.)

2. M'. SERGIUS L. F. L. N. FIDENAS, consular tribune in B. c. 404 (Liv. iv. 61; Diod. xiv. 19), and again in B.C. 402 (Liv. v. 8, &c.; Diod. xiv. 38). His bad conduct in the latter year, in which he allowed himself to be defeated by the enemy, and his punishment, in consequence, by the people, are related under ESQUILINUS, No. 4.

3. L. SERGIUS M'. F. L. N. FIDENAS, Son of No. 2, consular tribune in B. c. 397. (Liv. v. 16; Diod. xiv. 85.)

4. C. SERGIUS FIDENAS, consular tribune three times, first in B. C. 387 (Liv. vi. 5), a second time in B. C. 385 (Liv. vi. 11), and a third time in B. C. 380. (Liv. vi. 27.)

FIDES, the personification of fidelity or faith

11

1

severe wound, Fimbria made preparations to bring an accusation against him before the people. When asked what he had to say against' so excellent a man, he replied, nothing, except that he had not allowed the deadly weapon to penetrate far enough into his body. After the death of C. Marius, in B. c. 86, Cinna assumed L. Valerius Flaccus as his colleague in the consulship, in the place of Marius, and sent him into Asia to oppose Sulla and bring the war against Mithridates to a close; but as Valerius Flaccus was inexperienced iin military affairs, Fimbria accompanied him as his legate or commander of the horse (not as quaestor, as Strabo, xiii. p. 596, states). Flaccus drew upon himself the hatred of the soldiers by his avarice i and cruelty, and Fimbria took advantage of it in endeavouring to win the favour of the army. While staying at Byzantium, Fimbria became involved in a quarrel with the quaestor of Valerius Flaccus, and the latter decided the dispute in favour of the quaestor, for which he was assailed by Fimbria in insulting terms. Fimbria was deprived of his office in consequence, and Val. Flaccus sailed to Chalcedon. Fimbria, who remained at Byzantium, created a mutiny among the soldiers who were left there. Flaccus returned to Byzantium, but was obliged to quit the place, and took to flight. Fimbria pursued him to Chalcedon, and thence to Nicomedeia, where he killed him, in B. C. 85. He forthwith undertook the command of the army. He gained several not unimportant victories over the generals of Mithridates, and when the king himself took to flight, Fimbria followed him to Pergamus, and chased him from thence to Pintana. Here he might have made the king his prisoner, if Lucullus, who had the command of the fleet, had condescended to co-operate with the usurper, and not allowed the king to escape. Having thus got rid of one enemy, Fimbria began a most cruel war against the Asiatics who had fought in the ranks of Mithridates, or declared in favour of Sulla. Among the places of the latter class was Ilium, which was treacherously taken, and wantonly and cruelly destroyed. He raged in Asia, without restraint, like an insane person, and succeeded in subduing a great part of the country. But in B. c. 84, Sulla crossed over from Greece into Asia, and, after having concluded peace with Mithridates, he attacked Fimbria in his camp near the town of Thyateira. As Fimbria was unable to make his men fight against Sulla, he tried to get rid of his enemy by assassination, and, as this attempt failed, he endeavoured to negotiate; but when Sulla refused, and demanded absolute submission, Fimbria fled from his camp to Pergamus, and having retired into a temple of Aesculapius, he tried to kill himself with his own sword; but as the wound did not cause his death, he commanded one of his slaves to give him the final blow. Such was the miserable end of a short career, which had begun with treachery. Cicero (Brut. 66) describes his public speaking just as we might expect of a man of his temperament: it was of a furious and most vehement kind, and like the raving of a madman. (Liv. Epit. 82; Plut. Sull. 2, 23, 25; Lucull. 3; Appian, Mithrid. 51-60; Vell. Pat. ii. 24: Dion Cass. Fragm. Peireso. 127-130, Reimar.; Aur. Vict. de Vir. Ill. 70; Oros. vi. 2 ; Val. Max. ix. 11. §2; Frontin. Strat. iii. 17. § 5; J. Obsequ. 116.)

3. FLAVIUS FIMBRIA, a brother of No. 2, was legate of C. Norbanus, in the war against Sulla, B. C. 82. He and other officers of the party of Carbo were invited to a banquet by Albinovanus, and then treacherously murdered. (Appian, B. C. i. 91.) [L. S.]

FIRMA'NUS, GA'VIUS. [GAVIUS.] FIRMAʼNUS, TARU'TIUS, a mathematician and astrologer, contemporary with M. Varro and Cicero, and an intimate friend of them both. At Varro's request Firmanus took the horoscope of Romulus, and from the circumstances of the life and death of the founder determined the era of Rome. According to the scheme of Firmanus, Romulus was born on the 23d day of September, in the 2d year of the 2d Olympiad B. c. 771, and Rome was founded on the 9th of April, between the second and third hour of the day. (Plut. Rom. 12; Cic. de Divin. ii. 47.) Plutarch does not say in what year Firmanus placed the foundation of Rome, but the day is earlier than the Palilia (April 21st), the usual point from which the years of Rome are reckoned. The name, Firmanus, denotes a native of Firmum, in Picenum, the modern town of Fermo, in the Marca d'Ancona, but Tarutius is an Etruscan appellation (Plut. Rom. 5, Quaest. Rom. 35; Licinius Macer, ap. Macrob. Saturn. i. 10; Augustin. de Civ. Dei, vi. 7), and from his Etruscan ancestors he may have inherited his taste for mathematical studies. [W. B. D.]

FIRMIA'NUS SYMPO'SIUS, CAE'LIUS, (also written Symphosius, or Simphosius, not to mention various evident corruptions,) is the name prefixed in MSS. to a series of a hundred insipid riddles, each comprised in three hexameter lines, collected, as we are told in the prologue, for the purpose of promoting the festivities of the Saturnalia. To the same author apparently belong two short odes; one entitled De Fortuna, in fifteen Choriambic Tetrameters, ascribed in some copies to an Asclepias or Asclepadius, a mistake which arose from confounding the poet with the metre which he employed; the other, De Livore, in twenty-five Hendecasyllabics, attributed occasionally to a Vomanus or an Euphorbus, while both pieces are frequently included among the Catalecta of Virgil. We know nothing regarding the personal history of this writer, nor the period when he flourished; but from certain peculiarities of expression it has been conjectured that he was an African. His diction and versification, although by no means models of purity and correctness, are far removed from barbarism, and the enigmas contain allusions to various usages which had ceased to prevail long before the downfall of the empire. The only reference, however, in any ancient writer to these compositions is to be found in Aldhelm, who died at the beginning of the eighth century.

The words with which the prologue commences, "Haec quoque Symposius de carmine lusit inepto, Sic tu, Sexte, doces, sic te deliro magistro," which point distinctly to some former efforts, have been made the basis of an extravagant conjecture by Heumann. Assuming that the reading as it now stands is faulty, he proposes, as an emendation,

"Hoc quoque Symposium lusi de carmine inepto. Sic me Sicca docet, Sicca deliro magistro," and endeavours to prove that the true title of the work is Symposium, that no such person as Sym