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 in 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 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. Peiresc. 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.)
FIRMA'NUS, GA'VIUS. [Gavius.]
FIRMA'NUS, 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.
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-
