/
frontoCorrespondence_1.xml
executable file
·9767 lines (9255 loc) · 765 KB
/
frontoCorrespondence_1.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-model href="http://www.stoa.org/epidoc/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title>The Correspondence Of Marcus Cornelius Fronto</title>
<sponsor>University of Leipzig</sponsor>
<funder>European Social Fund Saxony</funder>
<principal>Gregory Crane</principal>
<respStmt>
<persName>Greta Franzini</persName>
<resp>Project Manager (University of Leipzig)</resp>
</respStmt>
<respStmt>
<persName>Simona Stoyanova</persName>
<resp>Project Assistant (University of Leipzig)</resp>
</respStmt>
<respStmt>
<persName>Peter Sprenger</persName>
<resp>Encoder (University of Leipzig)</resp>
</respStmt>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority>University of Leipzig</authority>
<idno type="filename">frontoCorrespondence_1.xml</idno>
<availability>
<licence target="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">Available
under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
License</licence>
</availability>
<date>2014</date>
<publisher>University of Leipzig</publisher>
<pubPlace>Germany</pubPlace>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<listBibl xml:lang="la">
<biblStruct>
<monogr>
<editor>
<persName>
<name xml:lang="la">C. R. Haines</name>
</persName>
</editor>
<author ref="http://data.perseus.org/catalog/urn:cts:latinLit:phi1248">Marcus Cornelius Fronto</author>
<title>The Correspondence Of Marcus Cornelius Fronto</title>
<imprint>
<publisher>William Heinemann; G. P. Putnam's Sons</publisher>
<pubPlace>London, United Kingdom</pubPlace>
<pubPlace>New York, USA</pubPlace>
<date>1919</date>
</imprint>
<biblScope unit="volume">1</biblScope>
</monogr>
<ref
target="http://archive.org/stream/correspondenceof01fronuoft#page/n9/mode/2up"
>Internet Archive</ref>
</biblStruct>
</listBibl>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<p>The following text is encoded in accordance with EpiDoc standards and with the CTS/CITE Architecture.</p>
</encodingDesc>
<profileDesc>
<langUsage>
<language ident="la">Latin</language>
</langUsage>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<text>
<body>
<div type="bibliography" subtype="table_of_contents">
<pb n="vii"/>
<head>CONTENTS</head>
<ab>
<list>
<head>PAGE</head>
<item>PREFACE................ v</item>
<item>INTRODUCTION ................. ix</item>
<item>FRONTO, THE ORATOR AND THE MAN........ xxiii</item>
<item>BIBLIOGRAPHY................. xliii</item>
<item>CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.............lii</item>
<item>SIGLA...................... lv</item>
<item>THE CORRESPONDENCE............... l</item>
</list>
</ab>
</div>
<!-- Preface missing -->
<div type="commentary" subtype="introduction">
<pb n="ix"/>
<head>INTRODUCTION</head>
<p> TIME has not dealt kindly with Fronto. For more than a millennium and a half his
name stood high in the lists of fame. On the strength of ancient testimony he
was looked upon as the Cicero of his age; if not indeed his equal, yet as an
Isocrates to a Demosthenes. Eumenius,<note type="footnote" n="1">1 Paneg. Const.
14: Romanae eloquentiae non secundum sed alteram decus.</note> writing late
in the third century, described him as "not the second but the alternative glory
of Roman eloquence." A century or more later he is singled out by Macrobius<note
type="footnote" n="2">2 Saturnalia, v. 1. He says tenuis quidam et siccus et
sobrius amat quandam dicendi frugalitatem, and he ascribes the siccum genus
to Fronto, as an orator, no doubt. This was the style of Lysias.</note> as
the representative of the plain, precise, matter-of-fact style, contrasted with
the copious, in which Cicero is supreme, the laconic, which is the province of
Sallust, and the rich and florid, in which Pliny the Younger I and Symmachus
luxuriate. Jerome<note type="footnote" n="3">3 Epist. 12: gravitatem
Frontonis.</note> about the same time, speaks of the subtleties of
Quintilian, the fluency of Cicero, the serious dignity of Fronto, and the smooth
periods of Pliny. A little later Claudius Mamertus<note type="footnote" n="4">4
Ep. ad Sepandum.</note> recommends Plautus for elegance, Cato for gravitas,
Gracchus </p>
<pb n="x"/>
<p> for pungency, Chrysippus for dialectical skill, Cicero for eloquence, and Fronto
for splendour (pompa). Sidonius Apollinaris<note type="footnote" n="1">1 Epist.
iv. 3.</note> attributes gravitas to Fronto and pondus to Apuleius. Though
Fronto's reputation stood so high for 300 years after his death, scarcely a line
of his works had survived, as it seemed, to modern times, until in 1815 Cardinal
Mai discovered in the Imperial Library at Milan a palimpsest MS. containing many
of his letters, the existence of which in classical times had indeed been
occasionally intimated, though little was known of their contents. When
deciphered the work proved to consist mostly of his educational correspondence
with his royal pupils, afterwards the joint Emperors Marcus Antoninus and Lucius
Verus. There were included, however, one or two letters between Fronto and their
adoptive father, the Emperor Pius, and some, chiefly commendatory, letters to
the orator's friends, of whom the only one whose answer is preserved was the
historian Appian. Some of the letters are in Greek. In judging this
correspondence it should not be forgotten that Fronto disclaims the habit of
letter-writing, and declares that no one could be a worse correspondent than
himself.<note type="footnote" n="2">2 Ad Amicos, i. 18.</note> It would,
therefore, not be fair to estimate Fronto's eminence as an orator from these
letters alone, though, of course, they throw light on his </p>
<pb n="xi"/>
<p> mind and powers in general, and his theory of rhetorical art in particular. They
labour under the limitation of having been mostly written to pupils, and chiefly
in connexion with their studies. They are of a private, domestic, and
professional nature, and coloured by the relationship between a courtly master
and his royal scholars. The early editors of the book, who were disappointed
with the nature and contents of the work, had no good word to say for it or its
author, but their indignation and contempt were certainly not justified.<note
type="footnote" n="1">1 See Hauler, Wien. Stud. (1912), 24. p. 259; Fröhner,
Phil. v. 1889; and Brock, Studies in Fronto, p. 5, for a much more
favourable view.</note> The volume was well worth recovering, and is here
presented to the English reader for the first time. On discovering the MS. in
1815, Mai, the librarian of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, lost no time in
producing his first edition of it. But the work was done too hastily and
carelessly. He also seems to have injured the MS. by a too free use of reagents
to bring out the faded characters.<note type="footnote" n="2">2 Hauler, Wien.
Stud. 12 and 31 (p. 267), and Naber, Proleg. viii., xiv. But Stud. Epist. ad
Klussm. p. 6, seems to differ on this point.</note> Becoming librarian of
the Vatican library a few years later, Mai found a second volume containing more
leaves of the original Fronto Codex. These he (published with the previous
portion in 1823. The Vatican leaves being in better condition than the </p>
<pb n="xii"/>
<p> Ambrosian ones, and the editor besides being now more skilful in deciphering the
palimpsest, and having taken more pains with his work, the result was more
satisfactory. Moreover, the older portion was somewhat improved through a fresh
inspection of the MS. by Peter Mazuchelli at Milan, and also because Mai availed
himself freely of the critical labours of Niebuhr, Heindorf, and Buttmann on the
moiety already published. In their edition of 1816 they had sometimes divined,
without seeing the MS., the correct reading, which Mai had missed with it under
his eyes. The old Codex of Fronto must have been dismembered and its leaves
mixed with others of the same kind before being used for a second writing upon
them. For the two volumes of the Acta Concilii of the first Council of
Chaleedon, in 451 A.D., in which the Fronto fragments are found, contain besides
the Fronto leaves, which are the most numerous, parts of seven speeches of
Symmachus, a portion of Pliny's Panegyric, some scholia on Cicero, Moeso-Gothic
notes on St. John's Gospel, fragments of a tract on the Arian Controversy, and a
single page apiece of Juvenal and Persius. The monks in using the leaves for a
second script have generally turned them upside down. When this is not the ease,
the writing is more difficult to read. On the first page of both volumes is
found the inscription, Liber S. Columbani e Bobio. Bobbio lies in </p>
<pb n="xiii"/>
<p> a secluded valley of the Pennine Alps, near the [scene of the battle of the
Trebia, where Saint Columban founded a monastery at the beginning of the seventh
century, and formed a good library containing not only Latin works in Saxon
characters but [many classical authors in their own script, such as Cicero,
Juvenal, Persius, and Fronto. The Fronto Codex was, we may suppose, purchased by
Columban in Italy. In the same library there was another book of Fronto's,
entitled Cornelii Frontonis Elegantiae Latinae, which was extant as late as
1494.<note type="footnote" n="1">1 See Raphael Maffaeus Volaterranus, Geogr.
iv. ad finem.</note> It was lexicographically arranged. Possibly it was one
of the works of Fronto mentioned below. The Vatican volume (No. 5750), contains
a Latin version of the Acta of the Council of Chalcedon to [nearly the end of
the first session, written about the [tenth century. The volume contained 292
leaves of 'which two are missing at the beginning and four at the end. The
Ambrosian volume (E. 147) is larger and had 480 pages of which are now wanting
twelve at the opening and sixteen at the close. There must have been a third
volume of the Acta, somewhat smaller than the others, possibly of about 230
pages, the whole work thus comprising with the other two volumes about 1000
leaves. The Fronto part of the Vatican volume, as we have it, is 106 leaves, of
the Ambrosian, 282. The thirty- </p>
<pb n="xiv"/>
<p> four pages missing from these two volumes would probably have contained about
twenty Fronto leaves. As the Fronto leaves are more numerous in the Ambrosian
volume than in the Vatican according to the proportion 106/286:282/452, it is
likely that in the third volume there would have been a corresponding increase
of them. The whole might therefore have contained about 580 Fronto leaves. But
the quaternion marks, still visible in the margin of the MS., show that there
were at least 42½ quaternions or 680 pages, in the original Fronto Codex.<note
type="footnote" n="1">1 The speeches of Fronto must have been in a separate
Codex, if in the Bobbio library at all.</note> Even if the third volume were
forthcoming, we should still be about one-seventh part short of the Fronto
Codex. What we have, contains something like four-sevenths of the whole work,
but some part of this has not been deciphered, and not a little is obliterated
for ever. Dr. Hauler, of Vienna, has been engaged upon the study of the MS. for
more than twenty years, and we must wait for the final word on our author until
his edition is published. It will certainly revolutionize the text. He has been
given unusual facilities by the Italian authorities in his work, and the leaves
of the Vatican MS. have been especially washed, cleaned and pressed for the
purpose of photographing it in facsimile. As far as possible the new readings
which Dr. Hauler has made public in various periodicals have been incorporated
in this work, together with </p>
<pb n="xv"/>
<p> the important, if rather hastily compiled, notes of a fresh collation of the MS.
by the Dutch scholar. Professor Brakman. In spite of Dr. Hauler's keen eyesight
and prodigious industry, certain of his restorations do not command complete
confidence, especially in cases where we find the other inspectors of the Codex,
Mai, du Rieu, and Brakman supporting an entirely different reading. The original
Fronto Codex has two columns of writing to each page, each column containing
twenty-four lines of fifteen to twenty-one letters each.<note type="footnote"
n="1">1 The Fronto leaves in the Vat. volume are numbered 1-4, 13-16, 29,
30, 79-128, 131, 132, 137, 138, 141-160, 165, 168, 173, 180, 185-190, 227,
228, 241, 242; in the Ambrosian, 55-76, 81-110, 133-138, 143-152, 155-158,
161-163, 179, 182, 195-198, 213-262, 287-308, 311-314, 319-356,
373-408,411414, 417-436, 443-446.</note> As the Greek in the Codex is
written without accents, the MS. must have been produced before the seventh
century, and probably in the sixth. The alterations made by the reviser of the
copy show that the copyist was a careless one; nor did the corrector notice all
the errors. Some letters are given twice over,<note type="footnote" n="2">2 e.g.
Epist. Graec. 1 is found in Ambr. 56, Vat. 166, 165, and Ambr. 157, 158,
163, 164.</note> as if a second exemplar had been used. A few of the Fronto
leaves seem themselves to have had a previous writing on them,<note
type="footnote" n="3">3 See Hauler, Vers. d. deut. Phil. 41, 1895, p. 85. He
thinks a speech of Hadrian's underlay a page of the Principia Historiae in
the Fronto Codex.</note> and these must themselves have been palimpsests
before being </p>
<pb n="xvi"/>
<p> used for the Acta Concilii. Moreover, our Codex of Fronto was revised and
annotated by a certain Caecilius. Besides correcting mistakes, and adding
various readings from at least two other exemplars,<note type="footnote" n="1">1
There are over forty of these variae factiones.</note> he gives explanatory
glosses and occasionally suggests emendations.<note type="footnote" n="2">2 The
corrector did not revise the Greek letters, but there is a remarkable gloss
at the beginning of Ep. Grace. 1.</note> Further, to our manifest advantage,
he used the margins, which are free from the second writing, for setting down
numerous words or passages, that struck him, sometimes verbatim, sometimes in an
abbreviated or paraphrased form. The writing of the text and the corrections are
in uncial letters, the marginal additions in sloping cursive. Caecilius endorsed
each separate section of the work except the Epistulae Graecae and (apparently
by inadvertence) Ad Verum Imp. i. Indices were probably prefixed to all the
separate books of letters, of which are extant only those to Ad ill. Caes. iv.,
v; Ad Anton. Imp. i.; Ad Pium; Ad Amicos i., ii. They are valuable as supplying
the opening words of letters that are lost, but they do not in all cases seem to
correspond with the succeeding letters. From Fronto to Marcus as Caesar there
arc fifty- I six letters or parts of letters, and nine to him as Emperor,
besides the four De Eloquentia. From Marcus seventy-one and seven respectively.
To Verus as Emperor eight, and six from him, and six to Pius </p>
<pb n="xvii"/>
<p> with two answers. There are forty letters to friends, two being in Greek, and
one answer (from Appian); two in Greek to the mother of Marcus; the set piece on
Arion; the two specimens of nugalia, the De Bello Parthico, the Principia
Historiae, and the Greek λόγος ἐρωτικός. There are few traces of Fronto's
letters in such Subsequent writers as have descended to us. It is certain that
Minucius Felix, who was probably a fellow-countryman of Fronto's, knew something
of him, for in his Octavius he quotes his declamation against the Christians,
and calls him Cirtensis noster.<note type="footnote" n="1">1 Mai, Pref. to ed.
1823, p. xxxiii., and Schanz, Rhein. Mus. 1895, p. 133, adduce certain
supposed parallelisms. If there is anything in them, the Octavius could not
have been written before 166 at least.</note> Capitolinus,<note
type="footnote" n="2">2 Vit. Mar. xv. and xxii. 5; see below, p. 206.</note>
or his authority Marius Maximus, probably had an eye on what Fronto says, when
he mentions the habit that Marcus had of reading in the theatre, and where he
calls him durus. How-lever that may be, it can hardly be doubted that
Nazarius<note type="footnote" n="3">3 He speaks of Antoninus, but he means
Lucius Verus.</note> in his Panegyric on Constantine recalls, though in a
confused way, what Fronto says about the Parthian king and Verus in his
Principia Historiae. Symmachus too, another orator of the same century, shews
some signs of being acquainted with Fronto. Augustine, himself an African, is
supposed in a letter to the Cirtenses to refer to the mention of Polemo by
Fronto.<note type="footnote" n="4">4 Epist. 144: et nos ex illis litteris
recordamur.</note>
<!-- On the bottom marge of the page: "b" -->
</p>
<pb n="xviii"/>
<p> Servius, the fifth-century commentator on Vergil, quotes Fronto for one or two
usages, but his quotations cannot be identified with any passages in our extant
letters. A contemporary grammarian, Charisius,<note type="footnote" n="1">1 See
Index. He also quotes from Fronto's speech, Pro, Ptolemaeensibus.</note>
however, undoubtedly quotes from Fronto's letters as we have them. P.
Consentius, another grammarian of the same period, quotes a sentence referring
to Rheims, which may very possibly come from a lost letter to Vietorinus.
Niebuhr thought that Sidonius Apollinaris, a learned and eloquent bishop of the
fifth century, imitated Fronto here and there. The last author to refer to
Fronto was John of Salisbury in the twelfth century. He quotes an obscure remark
of his concerning Seneca, that " he was so successful in abolishing error that
he seemed almost to create again an age of gold and call down the Gods from
heaven to live among men." But Fronto, as we know him, has no word of praise for
Seneca. We cannot tell who made and published this collection of letters, but it
is impossible to subscribe to the view of Mominsen that it was Fronto
himself.<note type="footnote" n="2">2 Hermes, viii. p. 201.</note> Several
letters are misplaced: one that was certainly to the Emperor with his answer
appears under the heading Ad M. Caesarem; and some that are related to one
another are widely separated. </p>
<pb n="xix"/>
<p> Mommsen considered that the letters were in the main arranged chronologically,
but this can only be allowed with large deductions. For instance, some of the
earliest letters come quite at the end of the book. The correspondence with Pius
is put after ¦that with his successors. But there is obviously some attempt at
systematic arrangement. The Betters that belong to the year of Fronto's
consulship 'are grouped together and placed first. In more than one case several
letters bearing on a single subject are found placed in juxtaposition in their
proper order, as with the letters relating to Herodes.<note type="footnote"
n="1">1 See pp. 58 f.</note> In the separate books the letters are arranged,
with I obvious exceptions however, in some chronological order; but the letters
of a second book, for instance, do not follow those of the first, but begin a
new series. The various ailments, also, of Marcus and Fronto are a guide in some
cases. Some letters can be dated by means of the speeches of Marcus alluded Ito
in them. As for instance the mention of his Caesar speech by Marcus in Ep.
Graec. 6 (p. 18) dates this letter as written in 139-140. The speech referred to
in Ad M. Caes. iii. 7 (p. 34) is probably a speech of thanks for his first
consulship in 140, and the one in v. 1, 2, that for his second consulship in 145
or for the Trib. Potestas in 147.<note type="footnote" n="2">2 For further
discussion of this subject, see article by C. R Haines, " On the Chronology
of the Fronto Correspondence," in the Classical Quarterly for April, 1914,
vol. viii., pp.113 ff.</note>
<!-- On the bottom marge of the page: "b 2" -->
</p>
<pb n="xx"/>
<p> The only letters which can be dated to a precise, year, except those which
mention Fronto's consulship, are Ad M. Cues. i. 8, written when Mareus was
twenty-two, and Ad M. Caes. iv. 13,<note type="footnote" n="1">1 See pp. 37,
217.</note> written when he was twenty-four. The latter forms a sort of
turning point, not only in the correspondence but also in the life of Marcus. To
Fronto's infinite chagrin he broke with rhetoric and betook himself wholly to
philosophy, at about the time (147 A.D.) when he became in reality, though not
in name, co-emperor. At all events, whether from a slight coolness in their
relations or owing to increasing ill-health on the part of Fronto and increasing
duties on that of Marcus, the character of the correspondence changes with Book
V. Most of the letters are short, some being mere messages, and many of a quite
trivial, character. The illnesses and ailments of master and pupil figure
largely in them. Fronto's rheumatism, for it was this and not gout, had become
chronic by that time. On the accession of Marcus and Lucius the correspondence
resumes some of its former character. There are no letters to Lucius earlier
than 161, when he became Emperor, but Fronto must have written to him often
enough before. But only the later ones were preserved, as the main object of the
publication seems to have been to shew Fronto's intimate relations with the
Court. We could wish </p>
<pb n="xxi"/>
<p> for more correspondence with Pius, but two of Fronto's letters to him are among
the best of the series. Fronto became tutor to Marcus after his adoption by
Hadrian in 138. None of the letters we have can be dated before 139, when Marcus
became Caesar. The marriage of Marcus, which took place most probably in 145,
and the various births of his children enable us to give approximate dates to
many of the Betters in Book V. The letters Ad Amicos can only be dated with
reference to the proconsulships or other governorships of the recipients, many
of them being letters commendatory, recommending friends to the notice of the
governor of a province. The more important oratorical and historical pieces,
with the letters on the Alsian holiday and the death of Fronto's grandson, a
characteristic and interesting .piece, fall between 161 and 166, in which year
or the next Fronto probably died. Excluding Fronto himself, who could have
collected and published the correspondence? The only person in a position to do
this seems to be Aufidius Victorinus, the life-long friend of Marcus and
Fronto's son-in-law. We have evidence that Fronto kept copies of some of his
letters, and Victorinus, as Fronto's heir and one of the leading men in the
reign of Commodus, was in a specially favourable position for acting as his
father-in-law's literary executor. The object of the compilation was not only to
bring into prominence the position of Fronto as </p>
<pb n="xxii"/>
<p> Magister and Amicus to the Imperial Brothers, but' also to put on record his
views on oratorical and literary style, in fact his whole theory of rhetoric,
which there is no reason to think he ever formulated in any special treatise.
The letters are valuable not only for what they tell us of Fronto and the light
they shed on the literary tendencies of the age, but also for their picture of
the young Marcus, whose character and rule will always have an interest for
mankind. As Pater has said, these letters recall for us " the long buried
fragrance of a famous friendship of the ancient world." We find here a young man
and an older one, with a genuine affection for one another, exchanging kindly
thoughts on their children, their health, the art of rhetoric, and the ancient
writers of their country, while here and there we get a glimpse into the
penetralia of the imperial court, or read a page from country life at Lorium or
a visit to the seaside.<note type="footnote" n="1">1 For some interesting and
attractive items, see pp. 58—66, 150, 174-184, the De. Fer. Als., the De
Nepote Amisso, etc.</note> A hundred years ago Mai<note type="footnote"
n="2">2 Pref. to ed. of 1823, p. xviii.</note> expressed a confident
expectation that one day the letters would be arranged in their approximate
chronological order. A first attempt has here been made to do this.<note
type="footnote" n="3">3 For various views on the chronology, sec Mommsen in
Herm. viii. pp. 198 ff.; Brakman in Frontoniana, ii. pp. 24-42;
Pauly-Wissowa under " Fronto"; Naber, Proleg. xx.-xxxi.</note>
</p>
</div>
<div type="commentary" subtype="about_fronto">
<pb n="xxiii"/>
<head>FRONTO, THE ORATOR AND THE MAN</head>
<p> ALMOST all that we know of Fronto is drawn from the book before us. The probable
date of his birth is 100 A.D., and in any case before 113 A.D. He was born at
Cirta, now Constantine, in Numidia. This was a Roman colony, and his name being
Cornelius, he was doubtless of Roman descent, though he jestingly calls himself
" a Libyan of the nomad Libyans." His brother, who is mentioned i several times
in the Letters, was named Quadratus.<note type="footnote" n="1">1 See
inscription (C.I.L. xv. 7438) on conduit pipes from the Esquiline hill,
where his Horti Maecenatiani (see Index) were situated.</note> Of his youth
we are told nothing, but he no doubt studied at Alexandria, for at a later time
he had numerous friends there. Fie mentions as his parens and magister the
philosopher Athenodotus, but it was not philosophy, which he disliked, that he
learnt from him, but an inordinate fondness for similes, or as he calls them,
εἰκόνες.<note type="footnote" n="2">2 See Index and pp. 131 ff.</note>
Another master named by him is Dionysius the rhetor, whose fable on The Vine and
the Holm-Oak he quotes. He tells us that he took late to the study of Latin
literature, in which he afterwards came to be such an adept. </p>
<pb n="xxiv"/>
<p> An inscription found at Calamae (Guelma) in Numidia,<note type="footnote" n="1"
>1 Corp. Inser. Lat. viii. 5350.</note> of which city, as of Cirta, he was a
patronus, gives us the earlier part of his cursus honorum, from which we learn
his father's name Titus, the name of his tribe Quirina, and that he was
successively triumvir capitalis, quaestor in Sicily, plebeian aedile, and
praetor. The office of quaestor gave him a place in the Senate. In 143, under
Pius, he became consul suffectus for July and August, the consul ordinarius for
which year was Herodes the eminent Athenian rhetorician, himself like Fronto a
tutor to the young princes. Fronto's lesser honour gave occasion for the jesting
allusion of Ausonius<note type="footnote" n="2">2 " Unica mihi amplectenda est
Frontonis imitatio: quem tamen Augusti magistrum sic consulatus ornavit, ut
praefectura non cingeret. Sed consulatus ille cuiusmodi? Ordinario
suffectus, bimestri spatio interpositus, in sexta anni parte consumptus,
quaerendum ut reliquerit tantus orator, quibus consulibus gesserit
consulatum." In Gratiarum Actione, ad med.</note> to the consuls in whose
consulship Fronto was consul. From his place in the Senate he tells us that he
extolled Hadrian studio impenso et propenso in speeches that were still read
many years later.<note type="footnote" n="3">3 See p. 110.</note> But he
confesses that in this he courted rather than loved him. His great
reputation,<note type="footnote" n="4">4 Dio, lxix. 8; Lucian, De Conscr.
Hist. 21,ἀοίδιμος ἐπὶ λόγων δύναμει.</note> but no doubt his character also,
induced Pius on his accession to choose him as the instructor of his adopted
sons in Latin and oratory. </p>
<pb n="xxv"/>
<p> He remained for the rest of his life on the most intimate and affectionate terms
with the court, and there is no evidence that he abused his position in any way.
He was not, however, above flattering his royal pupils on occasion, for he could
scarcely have believed himself, when he attributed to Marcus the abilities of
the great Julius or to Lucius the military genius of a Marius or a Vespasian.
Still at times he could tell Marcus some home truths, and at all events
impressed both his charges with his sincerity and love of truth.<note
type="footnote" n="1">1 Ad M. Caes. iii. 12, Ad Verum, ii. 2 (verique
amorem).</note> It was more excusable in Marcus to overrate, as he did,
Fronto's oratorical gifts, and to set him beside Cato, Gracchus, Sallust, and
Cicero, asserting that he alone of present-day orators talked Latin.<note
type="footnote" n="2">2 Ad M. Caes. ii. 13; Ad Ant. i. 4.</note> When the
time came for Fronto to receive a provincial appointment, the lot gave him Asia.
He made preparations to take up his duties there, but a more than usually
serious attack of illness supervened, and he was obliged to beg off his
appointment. His political life being now ended, Fronto devoted his remaining
years to his profession of eloquence and to literature. Aulus Gellius<note
type="footnote" n="3">3 Noctes Atticae, ii. 26, xiii. 23, xix. 8, 10,
13.</note> gives us a picture of him as one of the recognized leaders in the
intellectual salons of the time, where questions of literature and archaeology
were habitually discussed. He is there seen surrounded by all the great authors </p>
<pb n="xxvi"/>
<p> and critics of Rome, and regarded as an oracle on linguistic and grammatical
questions, and in his letters we find him always inculcating a careful precision
in the use of words and a deference to the authority of older writers. How far
was his great reputation as orator and pleader justified? Unfortunately we have
no specimen, even approximately complete, of his oratory, whether forensic or
epideictic, on which to base a verdict. The longest extract extant is from a
speech respecting oversea wills, possibly delivered before the Emperor's Court
of Appeal. There is besides the well-known fragment of an indictment of the
Christians,<note type="footnote" n="1">1 Octavius, ix. It .seems probable
that the section immediately preceding this, and describing the "Thyestean
feasts" attributed to the Christians, also comes from the same speech. Some
think the whole of the anti-Christian polemic of the Octavius is drawn from
a Frontonian source. See Sehanz, Rhein. Mus. 1895, 114-36.</note> preserved
by Minucius Felix in his Octavius, which reads like a set declamation, or an
episode in a speech on behalf of some client. But we do not know how far the
writer has given Fronto's words verbatim. The interesting and important letter
to Arrius Antoninus on behalf of Volumnius Quadratus<note type="footnote" n="2"
>2 Ad Amicos, ii. 7.</note> is an example of legal causidicatio. There
remain besides a few sentences quoted by the orator himself<note type="footnote"
n="3">3 Ad M. Cues. i. 8, pp. 118 ff.</note> from his speech of thanks to
Pius in 143, and a simile, perhaps from the same speech, quoted by Eumenius, </p>
<pb n="xxvii"/>
<p> where the success of the Roman arms in Britain is preferred to.<note
type="footnote" n="1">1 See below. He made many speeches in praise of
Pius.</note> Moreover we have, preserved on a palimpsest in the Palatine
Library, a few concluding words of a speech of thanks for the Carthaginians,
some years later.<note type="footnote" n="2">2 On the occasion of Pius's
liberality to the city after a great fire. See Capit. Fit. Pii, ix.</note>
It was evidently one of his pompaticae orationes. Of other speeches we have a
mere mention: the Pro Ptolemaeensibus, from which Charisius preserves a single
grammatical form; a speech against Herodes in 142, of which we do not know the
title; one Pro Demostrato Petitiano; several in behalf of Saenius Pompeianus and
other friends;<note type="footnote" n="3">3 See pp. 232, 238.</note> and
speeches on behalf of the Cilicians and Bithynians, the latter in its revised
form giving details of his past life, the loss of which is to be regretted.<note
type="footnote" n="4">4 For the mention of these, see Index.</note> His most
famous effort, according to Sidonins Apollinaris, was the speech against Pelops,
probably a physician of Pergamus, mentioned by Galen. It will be seen from this
short summary that we have really no material for judging Fronto's capacity
either as advocate in the courts or as orator in the Senate. Dirksen<note
type="footnote" n="5">5 Opp. 1, pp. 243 ff. and 277 ff.</note> denies his
juristic competence, but few will believe that he was not perfectly conversant
with Roman Law. How otherwise could he have gained his commanding position at
the bar in an age which produced such eminent jurists and was </p>
<pb n="xxviii"/>
<p> almost the heyday of Roman Law. Not hut that Fronto was, first and foremost, an
orator, whose object is not justice but persuasion. It cannot be denied that in
the extract from the speech on wills he indulges in fancy pictures and ignores
obvious and material facts. Still his presentment of the case is certainly not
without point and vigour, though it is over-elaborated and smacks too much of
the art of rhetoric. The letters on Matidia's will and the Falcidian Law are in
their mutilated condition too ambiguous to assist us in our enquiry as to
Fronto's legal attainments. Fronto's ideals in oratory were high. The most
difficult test of an orator seemed to him to be that he should please without
sacrificing the true principles of eloquence. Smooth phrases for tickling the
ears of the hearers must not be such as are offensive to good taste, a
feebleness in form being preferable to a coarseness of thought.<note
type="footnote" n="1">1 P. 37.</note> In spite of his insistence on style
and the choice of words, Fronto knows well enough and affirms that noble
thoughts are the essential thing in oratory, for the want of which no verbal
dexterity or artistic taste will compensate. It was his deficiency in "high
thought's invention" that forced Fronto to concentrate his attention on the form
and eke out the matter with the manner. Needless to say he has at his fingers'
ends all the tropes and </p>
<pb n="xxix"/>
<p> figures and devices of the art of rhetoric, and his knowledge of the Roman
language and literature was profound. It has too hastily been assumed that he
slighted the great writers of the best age, except Cicero and Sallust, and
totally ignored the silver age authors except Lucan and Seneca. But he
constantly imitates Terence, recognizes the literary eminence of Caesar and
quotes him with approval,<note type="footnote" n="1">1 Aul. Gell. xix. 8.</note>
calls Lucretius sublime, quotes him, and ranks him with his prime favourites,
quotes Horace, whom he calls memorabilis, more than once, shows an intimate
knowledge of Vergil,<note type="footnote" n="2">2 Aul. Gell. ii. 26.</note> and
borrows from Livy. He also shows some acquaintance with Quintilian, Tacitus and
Juvenal. Fronto has been repeatedly called a pedant, but he was a true lover of
his own language and guarded it jealously from unauthorized innovations and
ignorant solecisms, His aim seemed to have been to shake the national speech out
of the groove into which the excessive and pedantic purism of Cicero, Caesar and
their followers had confined it. To do this effectually it was necessary to call
in the aid of the great writers of an earlier age, such as Plautus and Ennius
and Cato. But this sort of archaism was nothing novel. Thucydides was a thorough
archaist, and so was Vergil, and Sallust was eminently one.<note type="footnote"
n="3">3 Bacon "spangled his speech with unusual words," and Ben Jonson says
that Spenser "in affecting the ancients writ no language."</note> As the
cramping </p>
<pb n="xxx"/>
<p> effects of the Ciceronian tradition tended more and more to squeeze the life out
of the language, the ingrained feeling that "the old is better" gradually spread
among the leaders of literary thought. An immense impetus was given to this
tendency by the versatile littérateur Hadrian, who openly preferred Ennius to
Vergil and Cato to Cicero. But Fronto, fond as he was of old words and ancient
locutions, insisted that such must be not only old but more expressive and
appropriate than modern ones, or they must not be preferred. He himself
confesses that he used only ordinary and commonplace words. No one in his
opinion has a right to invent expressions—he calls such words counterfeit coin.
He availed himself of old and established words, that were genuine Latin and had
all the charm of novelty without being unintelligible, drawing largely on the
vocabulary and idiom of Plautus, Ennius, Cato, and Gracchus, and interspersing
his familiar letters with quotations from Naevius, Accius, Pacuvius, and
Laberius. But this was not an affected or repellent archaism, such as Seneca and
Lucian mock at.<note type="footnote" n="1">1 Seneca, lip. 114; Lucian, Demonax,
26.</note> Fronto's attitude somewhat resembled that of Rossetti, who
declares that " he has been reading early English ballads in search of stunning
old words."<note type="footnote" n="2">2 See Brock, Studies in Fronto, p.
103n.</note> It is of such words that Fronto is thinking when he speaks of
words that must be hunted out with toil and care and watchfulness and </p>
<pb n="xxxi"/>
<p> by the treasuring up of old poems in the memory.<note type="footnote" n="1">1 P.
7.</note> He explains that he has in mind the " inevitable " word, for
which, if withdrawn, no substitute equally good could be found. Some old words
would certainly have no modern equivalent, as for instance in English the word
"hansel." "The best words in the best places" would be Fronto's definition of
oratory, as it was Coleridge's of poetry. It is a prevalent but mistaken idea
that Fronto disparages or underrates Cicero. He may personally prefer Cato or
Sallust, but he recognizes the preeminence of Cicero's genius. It is quite
possible that if we had the works of the older writers, we also should prefer
their simple dignity and natural vigour even to the incomparable finish and
opulence of Tully. However that may be, Fronto credits Cicero with almost every
conceivable excellence except the due ¦search for the. precise word.<note
type="footnote" n="2">2 P. 4.</note> He calls him the greatest mouthpiece of
the Roman language, the head and source of Roman eloquence, master on all
occasions of the most beautiful language, and deficient only in unlocked for
words.<note type="footnote" n="3">3 Ad Amicos, i. 14.</note> He candidly
confesses his own inferiority.<note type="footnote" n="4">4 When he bids
Victorinus compare his Pro Bithynis with Cicero's Pro Sulla. Ad Amicos, i.
14.</note> Of his letters he says " nothing can be more perfect." He calls
them iullianae. and remissiores, and seems to envy their careless ease.<note
type="footnote" n="5">5 See p. 122.</note> But in practice he disavows the
structure of the Ciceronian sentence and the arrangement of its </p>
<pb n="xxxii"/>
<p> words. He breaks up the flowing periods of Ciceronian prose and introduces new
and abrupter rhythms. For older cadences he substitutes cadences of his own,
though he occasionally prides himself on imitating the Tullian mannerisms.<note
type="footnote" n="1">1 Brock, Studies in Fronto, p. 141, and Droz, De
Frontonis institutione oratoria, p. 64; and see p. 110 below, and Ad Anton,
i. 2.</note> Where he affects the staccato style, and the historic present,
as in Avion, the result is as unpleasing as it is in modern English. In some
cases, for forensic speeches, he recommends a deliberate roughness and studied
negligence at the end of sentences; but in epideictic displays everything must
be neatly and smoothly finished off.<note type="footnote" n="2">2 P. 40.</note>
Circumlocution and inversions he utterly condemns.<note type="footnote" n="3">3
De Orationibus, ad fin.</note> Next to the choice of words their natural and
perspicuous arrangement counts most with him. This makes his work easy reading.
Such difficulties as we find are chiefly due to the mutilated condition of the
text in our copy. We have often not only to interpret but to divine what was
written. It has been supposed that Fronto set himself purposely to renovate and
remodel the language by recalling old words and obsolete idioms,<note
type="footnote" n="4">4 cp. Horace, Ars Poet. 70.</note> and by transferring
into the literary language colloquialisms from the common speech. But the
novella eloculio of which he speaks seems rather to mean a fresher, more
vivacious diction, and a more individual form of expression: in fact originality
of style. The </p>
<pb n="xxxiii"/>
<p> patina of antiquity which he wished to give his work need not necessarily be
thought to disfigure it; and his minute accuracy in the use of words is surely
more deserving of praise than of blame. He prided himself on distinguishing the
nice shades of meaning in allied words, and insisted that his pupil should be
exact in his use of words, knowing well that clearness of thought is dependent
on definiteness of expression. The extracts from Aulus Gellius given at the end
of the book show us the care with which Fronto distinguished the meaning of
Words, of which there is further evidence in the De Differentiis
Vocabulorum,<note type="footnote" n="1">1 Printed in Mai's edition of
Fronto, with another work attributed to Fronto, the Exempla Elocutionum.
This consists We phrases from Terence, Vergil, Cicero, and Sallust. We know
that he made extracts from Cicero, Ad Anton, ii. 5.</note> if that work is
his, as it may well be. It was possibly written for the use of his pupils, that
they might not misuse words apparently synonymous, such as the various terms for
sight and perception. In this connexion it may be noted that Fronto set great
store by the careful use of synonyms, and they abound in his correspondence, but
are seldom so colourless as, for instance, our "tied and bound," "let and
hinder," many a time and oft" or so run to death as " by leaps and bounds " or "
in any shape or form." Eloquence was to Fronto the only thing that mattered in
the universe. It was the real sovereign of the human race. Philosophy he
disliked and even </p>
<pb n="xxxiv"/>
<p> despised, though he admitted that it inspired great thoughts, which it was for
eloquence to clothe.<note type="footnote" n="1">1 De Eloqu. i. ad finem.</note>
Philosophy and rhetoric contended for the soul of Marcus in the persons of the
austere Rusticus,<note type="footnote" n="2">2 Under him as Praef. Urbi, about
163, Justin Martyr and his companions were condemned.</note> the domestic
chaplain of Marcus in the Stoic creed, and the courtly Fronto. But the result
was a foregone conclusion. Marcus before he was twelve had already made his
choice;<note type="footnote" n="3">3 Capit. Vit. Mar. ii. 6.</note> and
though he tried loyally to please his master and learn all the tricks of
rhetoric, yet his heart was always far from the wind-flowers of eloquence.<note
type="footnote" n="4">4 Thoughts, i. 7; i. 17, § 4.</note> He aroused his
master's ire by asserting that, when he had said something more than usually
brilliant, he felt pleased, and therefore shunned eloquence. Fronto pertinently
rejoined, " You feel pleasure, when eloquent; then, chastise yourself, why
chastise eloquence? " Again when Marcus in his ultra-conscientiousness avows a
distaste for the obliquities and insincerities of oratory, Fronto is clearly
nettled, and counters smartly with a reference to the irony of Socrates. In
spite of all Fronto's efforts Marcus in his twenty-fourth year finally declared
his decision. He could no longer consent to argue on both sides of a question,
as the art of oratory would have him do. There is no doubt that his master was
bitterly </p>
<pb n="xxxv"/>
<p> disappointed, as he honestly believed he could make a consummate orator of
Marcus. A few words require to be said now as to Fronto's method of instruction.
He began by taking his pupil through a course of old farces, comedies, ancient
orators and poets, and Marcus was encouraged to make extracts from the authors
that were read. Cato, Gracchus, Ennius, Sallust, and Cicero were especially
studied. The first was Marcus's favourite, but Fronto preferred Sallust before
all. In letter-writing Cicero was recognized as supreme, and the " tullian "
style of his more familiar letters was looked upon as worthy of imitation.
Verse-making was regularly practised as an aid towards oratory. Only hexameters
are mentioned in this connexion, and Vergil, who is both archaistic and
intensely rhetorical, was no doubt the model. Horace was apparently read but
Marcus took a dislike to him.<note type="footnote" n="1">1 P. 140.</note>
Similes, or εἰκόνες, formed an important part of Fronto's oratorical armoury. He
always had numbers at command on every conceivable subject, some appropriate,
and many ingenious, but others far-fetched and out of place. He clearly regarded
them as indispensable, and gives elaborate instructions as to their use.<note
type="footnote" n="2">2 P. 36.</note> They could scarcely have been of much
use in his forensic speeches, one would think. The next step was to use the
Commonplaces of </p>
<pb n="xxxvi"/>
<p> Theodorus for the manufacture of maxims or -γνῶμαι. One aphorism a day was the
allotted task. The object was to strike out some neat epigrammatic sententia,
such as are characteristic of Sallust, and to turn the same thought freely and
boldly in various ways, often from one language to another. Truth to say, Fronto
is himself extraordinarily deficient in sayings of pith and moment. He imitates
the panem et Circenses of Juvenal and perhaps the cupido gloriae novissima
exuitur<note type="footnote" n="1">1 Tac. Hist. iv. 6, and De Eloqu. i. ad
med. below.</note> of Tacitus, but the most striking of his own maxims are
noticeable chiefly for their rhythm,s such as pleraque propria venustate
carentia gratiam sibimet alienam extrinsecus mutuantur, and longeque praestat
secundo gentium rumore iniuriam neglegere quam adverso vindicare. We do not know
which maxim of Marcus it was that Fronto declared worthy of Sallust,<note
type="footnote" n="2">2 P. 12.</note> but this is a not unsuccessful one:
turpe, alioqui fuerit diutius vitium corporis quam animi studium ad reciperandam
sanitatem posse durare.<note type="footnote" n="3">3 Ad M. Caes. iv 8</note>
Translation from one language to another forms part of the curriculum. Original
composition in history was also recommended by Fronto, and Marcus himself seems
to have had some aspirations in that direction. Too much stress was laid upon
the outward trappings of rhetoric, such as alliteration, oxymoron, antithesis,
paronomasia, paraleipsis, and every variety of trope or figure. And in the use
of these </p>
<pb n="xxxvii"/>
<p> for his rhetorical flights Fronto is ever urging Marcus to "be bold; be bold,
and evermore be bold."<note type="footnote" n="1">1 Ennius, see p. 10.</note>
Finally came the writing of themes and controversiae, in which the pros and cons
of any question, historical or fictitious, are discussed as by a forensic
speaker. Whether after all this study Marcus became a really accomplished
speaker is not known. We have too little to judge by. But at all events he had
mastered thoroughly the principles of the art,<note type="footnote" n="2">2 Dio,
lxxi. 35, § 1. He shows his skill in rhetoric even in the Greek of the
Meditations.</note> and that he was straightforward, sensible, and practical
in his official orations is certain. The Senate, the soldiers, and the people
alike heard him with eagerness.<note type="footnote" n="3">3 Ad Anton, i.
2.</note> There are several passages in this work where Fronto tries his
hand at descriptive narrative, and two in which he essays the role of historian.
But his view of history, and how it should be written, was thoroughly mistaken.
His eyes are not on the facts, but on the best way to show his rhetorical skill
in commonplace or panegyric. His efforts therefore in this direction are useless
as history and of no account as literature. The descriptive passages are more
successful, the best being the apologue on sleep, translated by Pater in his
Marius the Epicurean. A favourable specimen is the mutilated passage referring
to Orpheus at the beginning of Ad Marcum, iv. Arion </p>
<pb n="xxxviii"/>
<p> is technically skilful but lacks distinction, and the Ring of Polycrates is
decidedly tame. The Praises of Smoke and Dust and Negligence are mere tours de
force, but they throw light on his theory of rhetoric. After so long and close
an intimacy as these letters reveal we are surprised to find so meagre a mention
of Fronto in the gallery of Worthies, from whom he learnt enduring lessons,
which Marcus sets at the head of his Thoughts. It is nothing but this: "From
Fronto, to note the envy, the subtlety, and the dissimulation, which are
habitual to a tyrant; and that as a general rule those amongst us who rank as
patricians are somewhat wanting in natural affection."<note type="footnote"
n="1">1 Thoughts, i. 11.</note> We find no trace in these letters of the
former part of this obligation but there are references to Φιλοστοργία, in which
Fronto says that the patricians are wholly deficient.<note type="footnote" n="2"
>2 Ad Verum, ii. 7.</note> He was himself a notable exception. Marcus calls
him philostorgus.<note type="footnote" n="3">3 Be Fer. Als. 4.</note> His de
votion to his wife and daughter, and to Victorinus, her husband, and their
children, shows him to us in a very amiable light. He was very fond of children,
and his love for Marcus and Lucius was deep and abiding. We cannot help liking
the old man for his honest, kindly disposition, and his loyalty to a high ideal
of friendship.<note type="footnote" n="4">4 See his letter to Pius about his
friend Censorius and the letter to Appian.</note> He always showed the
greatest affection </p>
<pb n="xxxix"/>
<p> for the young pupils who from time to time lived under his roof, and readiness
to help them in their careers. He was the centre of a large literary coterie,
and his personal friends were devoted to him, while his services as advocate had
attached to him many influential friends in the provinces, especially in Cilicia
and Africa. Though not really wealthy compared with many other patricians of his
time, and very far behind his rival Herodes in this respect, he had by his
profession and by taking pupils and also through good management, aided by
legacies, gathered a competence sufficient not only for his own wants but for
the helping of his friends. He owned one or more villas near Rome and probably
estates in Africa. His Horti Maecenatiani on the Esquiline could have been no
mean residence, and he was able on one occasion to spend as much as £3000 on new
baths there.<note type="footnote" n="1">1 Aul. Gell. xix. 10.</note> The family
life of Fronto was a singularly happy one in the mutual affection of its
surviving members, though death deprived him of five out of his six children
(all daughters) in their infancy. The sole surviving daughter, Gratia, married
Aufidius Victorinus, one of the best and most capable men of his age, who
afterwards committed suicide under Commodus. One child of this union died, aged
three, in Germany, where Victorinus was governor, about </p>
<pb n="xl"/>
<p> 165 A.D. One son certainly, and possibly a second, survived to manhood. The
former, M. Aufidius Victorinus Fronto, was brought up in Fronto's house and
lived to be consul in 199, and in an inscription<note type="footnote" n="1">1
Corp. Lisa: Lat. xi. 6334.</note> to his son at Pisaurum recalled his
grandfather as " orator, consul, and master of Marcus and Lucius." We hear of an
eloquent descendant of Fronto's, Leo by name, in the fifth century at
Toulouse.<note type="footnote" n="2">2 Sidon. Apoll. Ep. iv. 21.</note>
Mommsen and others have supposed that Fronto lived till the year 175 at least,
and possibly longer, because in the De Orationibus he mentions coins of
Commodus, but it is necessary to explain the allusion in some other way than as
implying the date of Commodus's participation in the Empire. For it is certain
that no letter in this correspondence, as we have it, can be dated later than
166, and we find Fronto's health getting worse and worse, and the loss of his
wife and grandchild in 165 also affected him greatly. There can be little doubt
that he predeceased Verus and died in 166 or 167. His grateful pupil Marcus
rewarded his love and fidelity with equal affection, and on his death obtained
permission from the Senate to set up his statue in the Senate-house and kept his
bust among his household gods.<note type="footnote" n="3">3 Capit. Vit. Mar. ii.
§ 5.</note> No representation of him has come down to us. He founded a
school of disciples who imitated his methods in oratory and language, and he
playfully alludes to his secta.<note type="footnote" n="4">4 Ad Anton, i.
2.</note> The Frontonian tradition had </p>
<pb n="xli"/>
<p> a vogue of a least 300 years, as Sidonius Apollinaris mentions the Frontoniani
in an obscure passage.<note type="footnote" n="1">1 Ep. i. 1. " Nor did Jul.
Titianus picture Cicero's whole epistolary style in a worthy image (by means
of a series of fictitious letters) under the names of noble women. On this
account all the Frontonians, as rivals of their fellow-disciple, because he
followed the languid (Ciceronian) style of speaking, called him the orators'
ape." Here the style of Cicero's letters, which Fronto calls remissior, easy
or careless, seems to be disparaged. See Barth, Advers, xlvii. 9, and Nieb.,
Introd. to his ed. of Fronto, p. xxiii. The word used by Sidonius is
veternosus. How Cicero's style could be called languid or senile
(veternosus) is incomprehensible.</note> The great service that Fronto did
to his countrymen was to leave their language a freer and more plastic
instrument of speech than he found it, by reinforcing it with those elements
which were in danger of atrophy for want of use, or were being wasted by being
left outside the pale of good literature. Moreover by minute accuracy in the use
of words and careful definition of their meaning, he gave precision and clarity
to the language, which was a work well worth doing, and deserving of credit. To
the reader his style is easy and perspicuous, and far less abnormal and
fantastic than that of his fellow African Apuleius. Unfortunately Fronto lacked
originality of thought, and his humour is rather heavy, but his fatal foible lay
not in his leanings to archaism but in his faith in εἰκόνες, which disfigure
even the real pathos of his dirge over the loss of his grandson, and lessen the
force of his special pleading for Volumnius of Concordia, though in his </p>
<pb n="xlii"/>
<p> criticism of Seneca they find an effective place. He never grasped the fact that
comparatio is not ratio. Whether he was proof against the seductive powers of
the simile in the speeches which earned for him the epithets gravis and siccus
we do not know, but the fragment on overseas wills is not free from this
favourite device. One thing seems highly probable, that, if the bulk of Fronto's
speeches should ever be recovered, we should form a much higher opinion of his
abilities. As it is we can say of him, and this is surely much, that he was vir
bonus dicendi peritus. </p>
</div>
<div type="bibliography">
<pb n="xliii"/>
<head>BIBLIOGRAPHY</head>
<ab>
<list>
<item>1. M. Cornelii Frontonis Opera inedita cum Epistulis item ineditis
Antonini Pii, M. Aurelii, L. Veri, et Appiani, necnon aliorum
fragmentis. Invenit et commentario praevia notisque illustravit Angelus
Maius. Pars prior. Pars altera, cui adduntur seu edita seu cognita
eiusdem Frontonis opera: Mediolani, regiis typis, 1815, 4to.<note
type="footnote" n="1">1 One of three copies only on thick bluish
paper, is in the Cambridge University Library. It contains Mai's
autograph.</note> This first edition only contained the Fronto
leaves from the Ambrosian Codex with a facsimile page of the MS.,
followed by the two works previously attributed to Fronto, viz. De
Differentias Vocabulorum and Exempla Eloeul ionum, together with the
passages in Aulus Gellius where Fronto is mentioned.</item>
<item>2. M. Cornelii Frontonis Reliquiae ab Angelo Maio primum editae:
meliorem in ordinem digestas suisque et Ph. Buttmanni, L. F. Heindorfii
ac select is a Maii animadversionibus instructas Uterum edidit, B. G.
Niebnhrius, C. F. Accedunt Liber de Differentiis Vocabulorum et ab eodem
a Maio primum edita Q. Aurelii Symmachi octo orationum fragmenta:
Berolini, MDCCCXVI. This was a great advance on Mai's edition, many of
his erroneous readings being corrected, the text itself emended in
various places, the dislocated fragments better arranged, and valuable
notes added.</item>
<item>3. M. Cornelii Frontonis et M. Aurelii Imperatoris Epistulae: L. Veri
et Antonini Pii et Appiani Epistularum reliquiae: Fragmenta Frontonis et
Scripta Grammatica. Editio prima Romana plus centum epistulis aucta ex
codice rescripto bibliothecae pontificiae Vatieanae, rurante Angelo
Maio: Romae, MDCCCXXIII.</item>
</list>
</ab>
<pb n="xliv"/>
<ab>
<list>
<item>This, besides the same facsimile and supplements as the] Milan
edition, has a second facsimile page of the Vatican MS., the Caecilius
signature, and a few lines of the Palatine palimpsest, containing part
of Fronto's Actio Gratiarum pro Carthaginiensibus, the whole of which
fragment, as far as it is decipherable, is given at the end of the
volume.</item>
<item>4. Lettres inédites de Marc Aarèle et de Fronton retrouvées sur les
palimpscstes de Milan et de Rome: traduites avec le texte latin en
regard et des notes par M. Armand Cassan: 2 vols., Paris, 1830. This is
a most disappointing edition.<note type="footnote" n="1">1 A. Pierson,
in his edition of Marcus Aurelius, 1843, has reproduced seventy of
these letters, with trifling alterations.</note> No improvements are
made in the text and the translation evades or omits all the
difficulties. But the notes, with their numerous illustrative passages
from the older Roman writers, are useful.</item>
<item>5. In 1832 the Vatican portion of Mai's Roman edition was published at
Zell by Schultz. It had no new features.</item>
<item>6. In 1867 S. A. Naber brought out the serviceable edition,' from
which everyone has since derived his knowledge of Fronto. Its title was:
M. Cornelii Frontonis et M. Aurelii Imperatoris Epistulae: L. Veri et T.
Antonini Pii et Appiani Epistularum Reliquiae: post Angelum Maium cum
codicibus Ambrosiano et Vatieano iterum contulit G. N. du Rieu:
recensuit Samuel Adrianus Naber: Lipsiae, 1867. This was a great
improvement on previous editions, the text being based on a fresh
inspection of the MS. by du Rieu in 1858. But it left a great deal still
to be desired. Owing to certain perverse ideas, especially about the
date of Marcus's marriage, the editor went far astray in his chronology
of the correspondence. The main indices, taken almost entirely from Mai,
are totally inadequate.</item>
</list>
</ab>
<p>The following translations of selected letters from the correspondence have
appeared in English:—</p>
<ab><list>
<item>(a) Selections from Fronto's Letters, translated into English: Rome,
1824. By J. McQuige. This contains paraphrases rather than translations
of some twenty-three of the letters.</item>
</list>
</ab>
<pb n="xlv"/>
<ab>
<list>
<item>(b) Dr. W. H. D. Rouse, in an Appendix to his edition of Meric
Casaubon's translation of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, published
in 1900, has given us an excellent version of some entire letters and
parts of many others.</item>
<item>(c) Miss M. D. Brock, Litt. D. Dubl., in her Studies in Fronto and his
Age, published in 1911, has translated more than thirty letters, mostly
in full, with the text opposite. Her rendering gives a very good idea of
the original, and the whole book is most helpful to the student of
Fronto and his literary claims.</item>
</list>
</ab>
<p>Besides the above, P. B. Watson, in his Life of Marcus Aurelius, London, 1884,
gives versions of several passages from the Correspondence, but he is an unsafe
guide as to Fronto's meaning, his knowledge of Latin being inadequate. A more
scholarly contribution to the same subject is that of Hastings Crossley in his
Fourth Book of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, London, 1882, an appendix to
which contains a number of select passages from the letters admirably Englished
with a running comment. Finally, Robinson Ellis published at Oxford in 1904 a
lecture on The Correspondence of Fronto and Marcus Aurelius. It translates a
considerable number of passages from various parts of the work with connecting
comments.</p>
<p>The more important contributions to the study of Fronto beside the above are as
follows:—</p>
<ab>
<list>
<item>Alan, H., Coniceturae et Animadversiones: Dublin, 1841. Observationes
in Frontonem: Dublin, 1863, 1867.</item>
<item>Anon., Index Phil. Leutschianus, i. 60 ff.</item>
<item>Bährens, E., Fleckh. Jahrbueh, 105, pp. 632-4 (1872).</item>
<item>Beck, J .W., De Different. Script. Latinis (on the De Nominum
Verborumque Differentiis of Fronto (?)); Mnem. x. 9: review of Brakman's
work.</item>
<item>Becker, G., Jenaer Lit. Ztg. 1874, p. 631.</item>
<item>Beer, Rud., Anz.d. philos.-hist.Kl. der k. Akad.d. Wiss.: Vienna,
1911, nr. xi. " Über den aeltesten Handschriftenbestand des Klosters
Bobbio."</item>
<item>Beltrami, Ach., Le tendenze letteraric negli scritti di Frontone:
Milan, 1907. "II 'numerus' e Frontone," in Riv. di fil 36, 1906. See
also Berl. Phil. Woch. xxx. 1; Bibl. Phil. Mass. 1908, p. 61; Classici e
Neolatini, v. 1.</item>
</list>
</ab>
<pb n="xlvi"/>
<ab>
<list>
<item>Blase, H., Archiv f. latein. Lexicographic (Wölfflin), 9, p. 491
(1896).</item>
<item>Boissonade, Biographic Universelle, xvi. 121 ff.: article " Fronton."
See also Cassan's translation of Fronto, ii p. 382.</item>
<item>Brakman, C., Frontoniana, Series i., ii.: Utrecht, 1902.</item>
<item>Bursian-Miller, Jahresbericht über die Forlschritle der Klass.
Alterthumswissenschaft. Berlin, 1873: 2, 1320; 7, 172; 18, 172; 27, 8;
40, 232; 55, 238-240; 84, 189, 192,1 196-203.</item>
<item>Cobet, C. G., Mnem. 3, p. 305 (1875) and 5, p. 232: see also
Bursian-Miller, Jahresber. 2, 1320.</item>
<item>Cornelissen, J. J., Mnem., N.S. 1, pp. 91-6 (1873); 13, pp. 115 ff.
(1885).</item>
<item>Crossley, H., Hermathena, 5, p. 67. See also above.</item>
<item>Crutwell, C. T., History of Roman Literature, pp. 463-5, Lond.
1887.</item>
<item>Daunon, Journ. d. Sav. Sept. 1816, pp. 27 ff.: review of Mai's edition
(1815).</item>
<item>Dareste, A. C, De rhclore Ael. Aristide, 1843.</item>
<item>Desrousseaux, A. M., Rer. de Phil. 10, pp. 149 ff. (1886).</item>
<item>Dircksen, H. E., Opp. 1, pp. 243-253, 276-280.</item>