Scanned text contains errors.
1537; by Coin, de Trino, 8vo. Venet. 1541 j by Alov. de Tortis, 8vo. Venet. 1543; by Ant. Gan-dino, 4to. Venet. 1574: into Spanish by Didac. Guillen. de Avila, 4to. Salamanca, 1516; a list which forcibly indicates the interest excited by such topics in the sixteenth century.
The Editio Princeps of the De Aquaeductibus, in folio, is without date, but is known to have been printed at Rome, by Herolt, about 1490. The best edition is that of Poleims, 4to. Patav. 17*22, to which we may add the translation by Rondelet, 4to. Paris, 1820.
The collected works were edited with the notes of the earlier commentators, by Keuchen, 8vo. Amst. 1661.
The Strategematica will be found in the various collections of the .*' Veteres de Re Militari Scripto-of which the most complete is that published
by Scriverius, 4to. Lug. Bat. 1607.
The De Aquaeductibus is included in the " Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum" of Graevius, where it is accompanied by the voluminous dissertations of Fabretti.
(Tac. Hist. iv. 38, Agric. 17 ; Plin. Epist. iv. 8 ; x. 8 ; Mart. Epigr. x. 4, 8, but we cannot be certain that he alludes to our Frontinus ; Aelian,
—Tact. 1 ; Veget. ii. 3.) [W, R.]
In the collection of-tla.eAgrimensores or ReiAgra-riae Auctores are preserved some treatises usually ascribed to Sex. Julius Frontinus. The collection consists of fragments connected with the art of measuring land and ascertaining boundaries, It was put together without skill, pages of different works being mixed up together, and the writings of one author being sometimes attributed to another. For an account of the collection we must refer to Niebuhr (Hist. of Rome, voLii. p. 634—644), and to Blume (RJiei-nisches Museum fur Jurisprudent vol. vii. p. 1.73
—248). 1. In the edition of this collection by Goesius • (Amst. 1674) there is a fragment (p. 28
—37) attributed to Frontinus, which gives an account of measures of length and geometric forms. In Goesius it is erroneously headed, De Agro-rum Qualitate—& title which properly belongs to the following fragment. The writer states that, after having been diverted from his studies, by entering on a military life, his attention was again turned to the measurement of distances (as the height of mountains and the breadth of rivers), from the connection of the subject with his profession. Mention is made in this fragment of the Dacian victory, by which is probably meant the conquest of Dacia under Trajan, in a. d. 104. This fragment is wrongly attributed to Frontinus. Although some of the circumstances of the author's history seem to fit Hyginus (compare Hygin. De Limit. Constit. p. 209, ed... Goes.), it is more likely that the author was Balbus, who wrote a treatise, De Asse, which is inserted in the collections of Antejustinian Law. In the principal manuscript (codex Arcerianus) of the Agrimensores, the fragment is entitled Balhi Liber ad Cekum.
2. In p. 38—39, Goes, is an interesting fragment of Frontinus De Agrorum Qualitate, in which are explained the distinctions between ager assig-natus, .ager mensura comprekensus, and ager arcifinius. These are the three principal distinctions as to quality, but there is also an explanation of other terms, as ager subsecivus, ager extradusus (Niebuhr, Hist, of Rome, vol. ii. app. i.). Professor C. Giraud, in his Rei Agrariae Scriptorum no-
biliores Reliquiae, Paris, 1843, p. 7, n. 2, doubts whether the fragment De Agrorum Qualitate is properly attributed to Frontinus, and seems inclined to refer it to Balbus. In support of this doubt he cites the Prolegomena of Polenus, p. 16, prefixed to the edition by Polenus of Frontinus, De Aquaeduct. 4to. Patav. 1722. It should be observed that the fragment to which these doubts apply is not (as Giraud seems to suppose) the fragment De Agrorum Qualitate (p. 38, Goes., p. 1*2, Giraud), but the fragment which we have already treated of in the preceding paragraph, addressed to Celsus, and wrongly headed in Goesius, p. 28.
3. Next follows (p. 39) the fragment headed De Controversies, which consists of short and mutilated extracts from the beginnings of chapters in the work of Frontinus on the same subject. The Controversiae Agrorum, which were fifteen in number, were disputes connected with land, most of which were decided not jure ordinario, but by agri-mensores9 who gave judgment according to the rules of their art. In other cases, or, perhaps, in earlier times three arbitrij appointed under a law of the Twelve Tables, or a single arbiter, appointed under the Lex Mamilia (Cic. deLeg. i. 21), pronounced a decision, after having received a report from agrimensores. Some account of these controversiae may be found in Walter, Gescli. des Rom. Rechts.^p. 784—8, ed. 1840. In natural arrangement, the treatise De Controversiis follows the treatise De Qualitate, because upon the quality of the land depend the rules for deciding disputes. The fragments De Controversiis are followed by commentaries (p. 44—89, Goes.) bearing the name's of Aggenus Urbicus and Simplicius. The former seems to 'have been a Christian, who lived about the middle of the fifth century, and the so-called Liber Simplici owes its name to the absurd mistake of some hasty reader, who met with the following remark at the end of the first part of the commentary of Aggenus:—" Satis, ut puto, dilucide genera controversiarum exposui: nam et simplicius enar-rare conditiones earum existimavi, quo facilius ad intellectum pertinerent."—(p. 62, 63, Goes.) The Liber Simplici, then, as some of the manuscripts import, is probably a work of Aggenus, and, from some expressions which it contains, seems to have been delivered orally as a lecture. A portion of it, never before published, was given to the world by Blume, in Rkein. Museum fur Jurisp. vol. v. p. 369—73. These commentaries upon Frontinus are exceedingly confused and ill-written, the author having been a mere compiler, without any practical knowledge of the subject he was writing upon. Their chief value consists in the original passages of Frontinus and Hyginus which they preserve, for Hyginus, like Frontinus, wrote a treatise Dt Controversiis (which was first published by Blume. in RJiein. Museum, fur Jurisp. vol. vii. 138—172) and Aggenus, in making up his commentary or Frontinus, plagiarises the text of Hyginus. It i< exceedingly difficult to determine precisely all th< passages which belong textually to Frontinus ii the commentary of Aggenus. The chief clue i the superiority of sense and diction in the origina writer ; and there can be no doubt that the epithe praestantissimus applied to such a monster as Do mitian (p. 68, Goes.), must have proceeded from ; contemporary of the emperor. The Liber Simplic contains remarks on the status and transcendent™, c Controversiae, which probably belong to Frontinus