The Chronology of Fronto | The Journal of Roman Studies | Cambridge Core Skip to main content Accessibility help We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings. Login Alert Cancel Log in × × Home Only search content I have access to Home Log in Register Browse subjects What we publish Services About Cambridge Core Cart Cart Institution login Register Log in Cart Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-fkkrz Total loading time: 0.245 Render date: 2021-06-14T16:47:07.292Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true } Home >Journals >The Journal of Roman Studies >Volume 64 >The Chronology of Fronto EnglishFrançais The Journal of Roman Studies Article contents Extract References The Chronology of Fronto Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012 Edward Champlin Show author details Edward Champlin Affiliation: The Queen's College, Oxford Article Metrics Article contents Extract References Get access Share Cite Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window] Extract A reconsideration of the chronological data for Fronto's extant works is desirable on several counts, not least in providing a firmer base for the investigation of Antonine history. Various systems have been devised, but there is great room for improvement even in the little that is known. It is now almost forty years since the last full attempt, and much knowledge has accrued, notably from the Ostian fasti. Also, unfortunately, a ‘date’ has too often been engendered by simple horror vacui. More serious are the many misinterpretations, often quite small but some of wider significance, which have become lodged in print and then used by others as a firm base for other researches. Conflicting views on matters of some import, notably the year of Fronto's death (the main estimates vary by a decade), require examination. Most misleading of all, some investigators have wreaked Procrustean violence on the corpus by discerning and ruthlessly applying an alleged underlying editorial principle. On that account, an agnostic method of considering each piece on its own merit will be used here, letting that editorial principle emerge if it will. The evidence, where available, for each work will be set down in the manuscript order, preceded by a discussion of the date of Fronto's demise and followed by some remarks on the original edition of the corpus and a section tabulating the results. Type Research Article Information The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 64 , November 1974 , pp. 136 - 159 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/299265[Opens in a new window] Copyright Copyright © Edward Champlin 1974. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Access options Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. References 1 1 Notably by Mommsen, T., Hermes 8 (1874), 198–216Google Scholar = Gesammelte Schriften 4 (1906), 469–86;Google Scholar by Haines, C. R., CQ 8 (1914), 112–20,CrossRefGoogle Scholar developed in his Loeb Classical Library edition (1919–20); and by Hanslik, R., Commentationes Vindobonenses 1 (1935), 21–47Google Scholar. Also the remarks of Brakman, C., Frontoniana ii (Utrecht, 1902), 24–42,Google Scholar and of certain editors: A. Mai (1815, 1823, 1846), B. G. Niebuhr (1816, important introduction), S. Naber(1867). References to Haines followed by 1 or 11 are to the Loeb edition, otherwise to his article. References to the letters follow the edition of M. P. J. van den Hout (Leiden, 1954). 2 2 For most of what follows, consult the preface of van den Hout, ix–lxv. 3 3 Bischoff, B., ‘Der Fronto-Palimpsest der Mauriner’, SBAW, Phil. Hist. Kl. 1958, 2.Google Scholar 4 4 Compare Willis, J., JRS 45 (1955), 235:Google Scholar ‘The history of Fronto's letters is little more than a record of the crimes, the follies, and the misfortunes of his editors’ etc. 5 5 Haines 1, xiii–xiv. 6 6 Subscriptions: Ad M. Caes. II, IV, V; Ad Ant. Imp. II; Ad Ver. I; de Orat.; Ad Ant. Pium; Ad Am. I, 11; Princ. Hist.; Bell. Parth.; Fer. Als.; de Nep. Am.; Arion. 7 7 Excepting the simple muddle of v.d.H. 114, 1–2, hardly due to the editor. 8 8 Ad M. Caes. IV, V; Ad Ant. Imp. 1, Ad Ant. Pium; Ad Am. I, II. 9 9 Thus, at Ad Am. 11, 7, 15, the m2 note to v.d.H. 184, 7 ff. serves only to confuse, 10 10 Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1969), 124–26,Google Scholar with bibliography. 11 11 PIR 2 G 14. 12 12 Mommsen, 486. 13 13 O.c. 124–25. 14 14 Chiron 2 (1972), 469–70Google Scholar. 15 15 Haines, 118; cf. 11, 111, n.1. 16 16 O.C., quoting HA Marcus 7, 8 and 11,2. Another of Birley's arguments is based on a faulty passage at Galen XIV, 651 K: cf. Nutton, V., Chiron 3 (1973), 429Google Scholar ff. 17 17 Commodus' first coins (BMC Cat. iv, Marcus Aurelius 625, 633 ff.) appear in 175, in the context of German victories. 18 18 PIR 2 C 606 for the inscriptional evidence, and note HA Verus 4, 1. 19 19 ‘Antoninus’: Ad Ant. Imp. 1, 2, 2 and 4; II, 1, 1; Ad Ver. Imp. 11, 1, 5, 6. 20 20 As observed by Birley, 473. 21 21 Bowersock, 124; Birley, 473. 22 22 See the list of ailments at Haines, 11, 333, col. 1. 23 23 Syme, Tacitus 652. 24 24 The phrase ‘memoria nostra’ need not (for Fronto) imply personal involvement, cf. Princ. Hist. 2, 4 on Trajan's Parthian War. 25 25 Euphrates: Dio lxix, 8, 3. Dio: based on the last possible date of Pliny's second year in the East. (Dio is last mentioned at Pliny, , Epp. x, 81–82Google Scholar.) It was the opinion of von Arnim, H., Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa (Berlin, 1898), 574,Google Scholar that Dio could not have survived Pliny (a much younger man) by much. Athenodotus: M. Aurelius, Med. 1, 13. 26 26 PIR 2 C 259. If Dio lxviii, 16, 2 be pressed to imply Trajan's presence in Rome, 113 is the latest possible year for Crassus' exploits. 27 27 HA Hadr. 9, 4–5. 28 28 ibid. 11, 3. 29 29 ibid. 15, 7. 30 30 I hesitate to exploit a fragmentary stone from Lepcis Magna (PBSR 10 (1955), 132Google Scholar = IRT 624), dedicated to one … us Fronto, pontifex of the colony and granted the broad stripe, (apparently) by the divine Trajan Parthicus (i.e., A.D. 116 or 117). That would entail lengthy analysis of the African contribution to the Roman senate before the Antonine period. However, the possibility that this is the Fronto should not be rejected out of hand. 31 31 Gilliam, J. F. has collected the evidence, AJP 82 (1961), 227–44Google Scholar. 32 32 The evidence for Marcus' statues is assembled by Gordon, A. E., Quintus Veranius, consul A.D. 49 (Univ. of California Publ. in Class. Archaeol. ii, 5), 325–26Google Scholar. 33 33 HA Marcus 2, 5. 34 34 Noted at Birley, 473. 35 35 ILS 1129. 36 36 Mommsen, 473; Haines, 114; Hanslik, 22–28. 37 37 Marcus was born 26th April, 121: HA Marcus 1, 5. The phrase used by Fronto is ‘duos et viginti annos natum’. Strictly this should mean 22 years completed. However, ancient writers are notoriously free in their use of such chronological terms (cf. Reinhold, M., CW 26 (1932/1933), 172–75)Google Scholar, so the meaning ‘in the 22nd year’ can not be excluded, and Fronto's consulship might have been held in 142. A similar caution applies to IV, 13. 38 38 By Haines, 1, 108. Rightly denied by Hanslik, 24–26. The place of delivery cannot be deduced from 9, 2, but it need not even be the senate. 39 39 One would expect Marcus to attend his master's greatest hour in person. Fronto certainly did: ‘Ceterum quidem in idus Augustas tibi expectandum est ut quid vis, quale vis audias’ (11, 1, 2). Compare Pliny's apologies (Epp. ix, 37, 1) for not attending the installation of a familiaris as consul. 40 40 Haines, 1, 80 ff.; Hanslik, 21–22. 41 41 Or enquires which spa Fronto will attend. The passage is uncertain, cf. v.d.H. 2, 3–8, with app. crit. 42 42 ‘vigeo, valeo, exulto; quo vis veniam, quo vis curram’ i, 3, 3. 43 43 1, 1, 2: ‘Vale Caesar, et ride et omnem vitam laetare et parentibus optimis et eximio ingenio tuo fruere.’ 1, 3, 13: ‘Vale Caesar, cum tuis parentibus et ingenium tuum excole.’ 44 44 Hanslik, loc. cit., based on Brakman, 26. The imperial family at Baiae: HA Hadrian 25, 6, cf. Pius 5, 1. 45 45 The phrase ‘apud Baias agimus in hoc diuturno Ulixi labyrintho’ is said to lend support to the theory. Haines, 1, 92, n. 1 makes it refer to Ulysses being driven backwards forwards along the coast, followed by D'Arms, J. H., Romans on the Bay of Naples (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), 106Google Scholar. Other interpretations are possible, and the use of ‘labyrinth’ is unusual. T. D. Barnes suggests (by letter) an allusion to the sojourn with Circe or to the visit to the Underworld. 46 46 cf. HA Marcus 7, 2–3. 47 47 e.g. Ad M. Caes. IV, 7. 48 48 Mommsen, 481; Hanslik, 22–23. 49 49 Haines, 1, 155. 50 50 Barnes, T. D., Latomus 27 (1968), 581–86,Google Scholar is indispensable on Herodes' family. However, certain points must be stressed. The date of the marriage of Herodes and Regilla is quite unknown and cannot be deduced, and the precise date of 143, accepted by Barnes for 1, 6–8, is invalid. Barnes satisfactorily establishes the birth of Elpinice as probably pre-145, but further precision is impossible. Up to three children remain unaccounted for: Lucian, Demonax 25; Philostratus, VS 555; MDAI(A) 67 (1942). 136–39Google Scholar. The value of Marcellus' account of Herodes' children (IGRR 1, 194, A. 14–18) is thus reduced for our purposes. Barnes demonstrates what can be known about those who survived, but precision is impossible as to the birthdates of those shadowy infants of whom the boy in 1, 6 is one. 51 51 HA Pius 11, 2. A common duty of the landed magnate was to oversee the harvest, e.g. Pliny, , Epp. ix, 20Google Scholar. 52 52 Minucius Felix, Octavius 2, 3, and J. Beaujeu, ad loc. Hanslik, 27 overlooks this slight difficulty. 53 53 ‘Die senatus huius magis hic futuri quam illuc venturi videmur.’ 54 54 It is here taken for granted that the letters printed by Naber (pp. 37, 10–39, 17) as the last two in this book were in fact the last two in the second book Ad Ant. Imp. Cf. Mommsen, 470 for the correct reconstruction of the manuscript. 55 55 Hanslik, 28. 56 56 GSRE 93–100. 57 57 Opuscula Philologica 6 (1934), 25–34Google Scholar. 58 58 i.e., that Herodes' wife Regilla was related to the Annii Veri of Baetica (HA Marcus 1, 4); in fact she descends from the Etruscan Annii Galli (cf. Torelli, M., Dial. Arch. 3 (1969), 301–02)Google Scholar. 59 59 O.c. 99. 60 60 Note however the Latin litterator of Commodus, Antistius Capella (HA Comm. 1, 6). One might suspect error in the HA or humour in Fronto, and conflate Capella with Capreolus; if so, some very slight support for the later date. 61 61 PIR 2 1, 340. There are no other Marciani available, and the Cirtan connection should render identity most probable. (I hope to investigate elsewhere Fronto's close and considerable circle of Cirtan friends.) Marcianus was in Pannonia as legate of legio X Gemina at the time of Pius' death (7th March 161), therefore 161 and 160 are probably ruled out as dates for the trial. 62 62 Haines, 115–16; 1, 32 ff.; Hanslik, 28. 63 63 BMC Cat. iv, Antoninus Pius, 124–31. On the date, H.-G. Pflaum, BHAC 1963, 110 ff. 64 64 Gellius xix, 8, 3. I am greatly indebted to Professor C. P. Jones for this suggestion. 66 66 cf. Hanslik, 28–29. 66 66 ibid. 29–30. 67 67 Reinmuth, O., BASP 4 (1967), 98Google Scholar. The name Iulianus is of little help, but a thought should go to the future emperor M. Didius Iulianus. The invalid in question is Marcus' friend, Fronto's visit ‘mea maxime gratia’. Didius had especially close relations with the Caesar. He was brought up at the house of Domitia Lucilla, who secured for him the vigintivirate, and Marcus favoured his career throughout, commending him for the aedileship, the praetorship and the consulship (HA Did. Iul. 1, 3–2, 3). He was born in either 133 or 137 (Dio lxxiv, 17, 5 vs. HA 9, 3); if he is the man of Ad M. Caes. IV, 2, 3, another indication of the late 150s. 68 68 Haines, 116; vs. Hanslik, 31–32. 69 69 Haines, 1, 2, n. 1. 70 70 Victorinus' consulship: CIL vi, 2086, 23. For the date of the marriage (c. 158) see below. 71 71 FO XXVIII. The subject of these letters is unlikely to be Domitia Faustina, known only from her epitaph (ILS 385, before A.D. 161). ‘Faustina’ would be the prerogative of the elder. Haines, 1, 203 confuses the two. 72 72 But cf. n. 37 above. 73 73 e.g. by Birley, A. R., Marcus Aurelius (London, 1966), 120CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I know of no divergence from the communis opinio. 74 74 Diog. Laert. vii, 160–64. 75 75 Gell. xi, 18, 16. Works: PW Suppl.-Bd. viii 857 ff. (Titius 27a), cf. ix, 1395 ff. Fragments: Lenel, O., Palingenesia iuris civilis (Leipzig 1888) 59–70Google Scholar. 76 76 Pliny, , Epp. i, 22, 1–7Google Scholar. It is singular that Pliny's letter is addressed to Marcus' kinsman, Catilius Severus, whose name he bore for a time. The relationship is unclear: Syme, Tactitus 793. 77 77 Haines, 114. Cf. PIR 2 D 183 for the date. 78 78 FO XXVII. 79 79 FO XXIX. 80 80 On the date of Lucilla's birth, Birley, 139, n. 2. 81 81 cf. n. 71 above. 82 82 For Fronto's birthday see below, on Ad Ant. Imp. 1, 1–2. 83 83 See below, on Ad Pium 8. 84 84 Mommsen, 483. 85 85 Hanslik, 35. 85 85 HA Comm. 1, 2. Cf. Hanslik, 36–38 for a discussion of the date, quite wrong in joining it with Ad Ver. 1, 3 (q.v.). 86 86 Suet., DA 35. Imperial attendance at the senate is by no means to be assumed. However, the HA outlines in some detail Marcus' respect for and interest in that body, HA Marcus 10, 1–9, especially 7: ‘Semper autem, cum potuit, interfuit senatui, etiamsi nihil esset referendum, si Romae fuit; sivero aliquid referre voluit, etiam de Campania ipse venit.’ 87 87 Bowersock, G. W., HSCP 72 (1967), 289–94,Google Scholar especially 291–92. 88 88 ILS 7190 (A.D. 139) displays three generations of the family interested in Cyzicene affairs. 89 89 ‘Feci prorsus conpendium itineris Lorium usque, conpendium viae lubricae, conpendium clivorum arduorum …’ 1, 3, 1. 90 90 E.g. Haines, 11, 118; Hanslik, 38. 91 91 For the confused problem of Fronto's grand-children, mentioned here, see the discussion below of De Nepote Amisso. 92 92 For these dates, see the relevant discussions below. 93 93 HA Verus 8, 10. Haines, 117; Hanslik, 39. 94 94 Mommsen, 483–84, followed by Barnes, T. D., JRS 57 (1967), 72Google Scholar. 95 95 On the two Apolausti: Weaver, P. R. C., Familia Caesaris (Cambridge, 1972), 27–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 96 96 HA Comm. 7, 2; ILS 5191. 97 97 Mommsen, 483. 98 98 Haines, 1, 297, n. 1; Brakman, 35; Hanslik, 36–37. 99 99 cf. n. 71 above. 100 100 HA Marcus 7, 5–8; 21, 3–5. Compare the austerity of Tiberius: Dio lvii, 14, 6 and 22, 3; Tac, ., Ann. iii, 6Google Scholar. 101 101 V.d.H. on 110, 13. Mommsen correctly assumed that the correspondence with Commodus Caesar (sic) has perished (p. 471). 102 102 cf. Syme, R., Historia 9 (1960), 379, n. 80Google Scholar. 103 103 Haines, 11, 128, n. 2; Hanslik, 39; Mommsen, 484. For the text of 11, 1 the article cited in n. 3 above must be consulted. 104 104 BMC Cat. IV, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus 261 ff. Cf. Dodd, C. H., NC 11 (1911), 221–22Google Scholar. 105 105 BMC Cat. 300 ff. 106 106 ibid. 233 ff. Dodd, 216–17 for the date. He calculated that the victory leading to Lucius' ‘Armeniacus’ and ‘Imp. II’ occurred about September. 107 107 HA Verus 6, 7–9. 108 108 Dodd, 215; Schwendemann, J., Der historische Wert der Vita Marci bei den Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Heidelberg, 1923), 143;Google ScholarLambrechts, P., AC 3 (1934), 194;Google Scholar CAH xi, 346; Birley, 167–68; etc. 109 109 The Greater Mysteries were celebrated from the 15th to the 23rd Boedromion, September/early October: Mylonas, G. E., Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (Princeton, 1961), 243Google Scholar ff. 110 110 Jones, C. P., GRBS 13 (1972), 484–85Google Scholar. 111 111 CIL iii, 129 (Dmeir) does not prove his presence in Syria before 10th December, 162, contra Dodd, 215, n. 16. 112 112 The triumph was celebrated 12th October (HA Marcus 12, 8 with Comm. 11, 13). That Lucius was in Rome late August is suggested at Barnes, 72, relying on ILS 366 (not quite secure). The Misenine fleet was still in the East 24th May: FIRA 2 iii, 132. 113 113 McDowell, R. H., Coins from Seleucia on the Tigris (Ann Arbor, 1935), 234CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 114 114 Haines, n, 85; Hanslik, 39–40. 115 115 HA Verus 6, 7; Marcus 8, 11; BMC Cat. 198, 208 (by implication). 116 116 Mommsen, 485–86, misinterpreted by Barnes, 70 to say that the letter must be 166 or later. 117 117 Haines, 11, 239; Birley, 197: ‘This is the last surviving letter of Fronto to either of his imperial pupils, and he must have died soon after this.’ 118 118 Haines, 11, 46 ff. No one else has been so foolhardy. 119 119 cf. v.d.H. 156, 14 ff., and the note at 162, 37 ff. 120 120 Hanslik, 41–42. 121 121 Mommsen, 481; Haines, 114; Hanslik, 41. 122 122 Pan. Lat. viii (v), 14, 2. 123 123 Compare the correct opening of Fronto's letter, ‘Imp. Antonino Pio Augusto Fronto’. 124 124 HA Pius 8, 6–7. 125 125 Note the full discussion of his career by Zevi, F., RAL 26 (1971), 449–63,Google Scholar combining for the first time CIL xiv, 191 and 4471 (Ostia). If we accept the HA, Maximus did not ‘give up’ his office; contra Birley, 148. 126 126 FO XXVII. In the same sentence, Fronto refers to another old friend of Niger, Marcius Turbo, ‘primarius equestris ordinis’, obviously Hadrian's celebrated guard prefect, the date of whose demise is unknown. However, Hanslik (41) identified him with the Marcius Turbo attested as legate of Moesia Inferior in 155 (CIL iii, 7749), thereby affording himself an illusory terminus post quem. He failed to notice that this person must have been a senator. On these people and their family: Syme, R., JRS 52 (1962), 87–96Google Scholar. 127 127 On the normal interval between consulship and proconsulship in this age see Syme, R., REA 61 (1959), 310–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 128 128 Reuss, F., RhM 54 (1899), 464–65Google Scholar for the calculation. 129 129 Haines, 1, 263; Hanslik, 42. 130 130 PIR 2 C 1027 and Pflaum, H.-G., ‘Les correspondants de l'orateur M. Cornelius Fronto de Cirta’, Hommages à Jean Bayet (Bruxelles, 1964), 547–48,Google Scholar prefer the father; for the son see n. 131. 131 131 Haines, 1, 283; Hanslik, 43; Bowersock, 125–126. 132 132 cf. Birley, A. R., Chiron 2 (1972), 472–73Google Scholar. The urban prefecture is quite conjectural. 133 133 On whom see Bowersock, 54–55. 134 134 Guey, J., REL 29 (1951), 307Google Scholar ff.; Syme, R., REA 61 (1959). 316CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 135 135 cf. PIR 2 I 169; Zevi, F., MEFR 82 (1970), 309–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 136 136 cf.CIL Proculus: CIL viii, 1625 and HA Marcus 2, 3, A. R. Birley, BHAC 1966/67, 39–40. Papirianus: viii, 1641. Repentinus: exploiting an argument of Alföldy, G., Fasti Hispanienses (Wiesbaden, 1969), 143–45,Google Scholar which would identify his grandson on an acephalous stone from Sicca (viii, 15869). Note that ILS 6898, recording Marcus and Commodus as ‘sanctissimi imp.’ is very relevant to Alföldy's argument (q.v.). 137 137 CIL viii, 15872, 27572. On all this see Jarrett, M. G., Epig. St. 9 (1972), 186Google Scholar. 138 138 On his literary connections, Bowersock, 78–79. 139 139 ILS 2907 (Bonn). 140 140 PSI X, 1105. On father and son see H.-G. Pflaum Carrières, nos. 177 (with page 981); 166. 141 141 Avidius did not assume the Syrian command until 164 (P-W ii, 2379–80). Dodd, 234–48 argued that the Parthian campaign did not commence until 165, with the first important victory c. August/September, but the capture of Dausara and Nice-phorium were surely contemporary with or before the afterglow of Armenian successes, i.e. 164. Cf. the comments on Ad Ver. Imp. 11, 1, above. 142 142 Philostratus, VS 591. Identity is denied by Nutton, V., Latomus 29 (1970), 726–27,Google Scholar n. 4, but he assumes that the province is Germany and overlooks Aquila's oriental origin. On various other possibilities, Birley, A. R. in Britain and Rome (Kendal, 1966), 58–60Google Scholar. The essay of Orth, E., Phil. Woch. 53 (1933). 364–67Google Scholar is worthless. 143 143 P-W Passienus 6, 7; Thomasson, B. E., Die Statthalter der römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diocletianus (Lund, 1960), ii, 17–18;Google Scholar cf. Pflaum (1964), 554. 144 144 cf. viii, 26528 a, b; 26606. 145 145 Service of that legion in the Parthian War is quite unattested (P-W xii, 1707–08) but surely probable: it was stationed at Melitene in Cappadocia on the Armenian frontier, and an inscription from Pessinus (IGRR iii, 230) offers a laticlave tribune of either this legion or III Cyrenaica awarded dona militaria by two Augusti. 146 146 CIL viii, 2736, 18067 (Lambaesis). 147 147 Pflaum, 555 collects the evidence. 148 148 Pflaum, 547; Bowersock, 125; Birley (1972), 471, n. 27. Cf. the aged Gavius Maximus. 149 149 On whom see Lambrechts, P., AC 5 (1936), 187–89Google Scholar. 150 150 Hanslik, 44; CIL iii, 77, cf. 44. 151 151 Pflaum, 549–50; Bowersock, 125, dependent partially on his dating of 1, 9 (q.v.). 152 152 Hauler never published his fuller reading of the Ms, cf. WS 47 (1928), 181Google Scholar. 153 153 ILS 9200, cf. Plaum, Carrèires no. 50; HA Comm. 4, 10. 154 154 Med. xii, 27; CIL iii, 14387e(Baalbek): D. Velio Fido leg. Aug. pr. pr. prov …; vi, 2120, Velius Fidus as pontifex. The two are perhaps identical. The P-W article of R. Hanslik (Velius 4) is confused and erroneous. He argues that the Syrian command should in fact be that of Syria Palestina (formerly Iudaea), making Fidus the recipient of PSI ix, 1026. That man is in fact Vilius Kadus, a known governor of Palestine. Hence Hanslik's dates of cos. c. 144 and ‘legatus Augustis pro praetore provinciae Iudaeae’ 149/150 are invalid. The editor of IGLS 2777 is confused. 155 155 Thus it was deciphered by Hauler, E., WS 46 (1928), 244–46Google Scholar. 156 156 cf. most recently the Budé edition of R. Marache (Paris, 1967) 1, ix-xii. He insists on a date prior to 158, the year in which he supposes Apuleius to have delivered his Apology. There is an undoubted echo between Apol. 9 and NA 19, 9, but a common source is by no means excluded, nor the precedence of the Apologia. 165 might seem preferable, the year of Peregrinus Proteus' self-immolation, of which there is no sign at NA 8, 3 and 12, 11. 157 157 PIR 2 F 520; Pflaum, H.-G., Let procurateurs équestres sous le haut-empire romain (Paris, 1950), 69–71,Google Scholar but retracted by reason of uncertainty at Pflaum (1964), 556–57. 158 158 Haines, 11, 245. 159 159 Date: Barnes, T. D., JTS 21 (1970), 407,Google Scholar on OGIS 512. 160 160 Pflaum (1964), 552–53. 161 161 PIR 2 G 98. 162 162 Lucian, Demonax 30. 163 163 The consul of 150, Squilla Gallicanus, married Pompeia Agrippina, daughter of a long line of senators from Miletus and descendant of the historian Theophanes. (On the family see R. Syme, Tacitus 748–49, and for the Antonine period Vogliano, A. and Cumont, F., AJA 37 (1933), 215–63)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It happens that the delightful estate of a certain Orfitus is praised in a Greek verse inscription from Lesbos, where the Pompeii were held in high honour (IG xii, 2, 129, see now Ant. J. 51 (1971), 263–66)Google Scholar. The owner should be M. Gavius Orfitus (cos. 165), who will have inherited that estate from his mother. 164 164 Die römischen Reichsbeamten von Achaia bis auf Diokletian (Wien, 1939), 150,Google Scholar n. 623. The procurator is now known to be a Caelius Quadratus: Birley, E., Latomus 31 (1972), 916,Google Scholar for facts and conjectures. 165 165 Gell. i, 6, 4–6, ii, 27, 3–5; xi, 13, 1 ff; xiii 22, 1 ff. 166 166 ILS 1118. 167 167 V.d.H. 189, 15–17. 168 168 Montanus' eloquence, Ad Am. 1, 3, 2; Fronto's, 1. 3, 3 note (v.d.H. 166, 27); Lollianus', 1, 3, 4 note v.d.H. 166, 32), cf. Apuleius, Apol. 95. 169 169 Haines, 1, 39. 170 170 ‘Favorinus noster’ in 3 need not be alive; in any event the date of his death is not closely ascertainable. Cf. with this passage Gell. ii, 26, where Fronto ‘consularis’ and Favorinus are also discussing colour. 171 171 Haines, II, 28, n.1. 172 172 P-W ii A, 1009–10; Sedatius 1. 173 173 Birley, 169. 174 174 Brakman, 36; Hanslik, 46, n. 85. 175 175 Ad Ant. Imp. 1, 2, 10; Ad Ver. Imp. 11, 7, 4; De Eloq. 3, 2; Ad Am. 1, 15, 2; H, 1, 3. 176 176 As does, e.g., Birley, 177. 177 177 This information emerges from the combination of De Nep. Am. 2, 6 and 4, with Ad Ver. Imp. II, 9, 1. 178 178 Dio lxxii, 11, 3 and CIL xiii, 11808 offer on clue. The cursus of L. Dasumius Tullius Tuscus (xi, 3365) included the governance of Germania Superior and Pannonia Superior. The latter is independently witnessed (iii, 4117) as held under the two emperors, therefore it is assumed (by Ritterling, E., Fasti des römischen Deutschlands unter dem Prinzipat (Wien, 1932) 31)Google Scholar that the former was held c. 160/161, immediately before Victorinus. In fact, it may well have been earlier, for only one post (a curatorship) was held between the consulship (152) and the German command. 179 179 Ritterling 32; Pflaum, H.-G., ‘Les Sodales Antoniniani de l'époque de Marc-Aurèle (Mem. Acad. Inscr. 15, 2 (1966), 181Google Scholar ff.), dates it from 163 on the authority of CIL vi, 1546, the relevance of which is quite dubious. 180 180 Mommsen, 470–80 wrongly assigned the death to a date 166/169, after Lucius' return from the East. It is clear from the letters he cites (Ad. Ver. Imp. 11, 9–10) that Lucius is absent. Also, the child died in Germany, obviously during his father's stay there. 181 181 He was comes of the emperors in expeditione Germanica (AE 1957, 121), A.D. 168/169, having held one other legateship before that. 182 182 Haines, 1, 55, n. 5. 183 183 cf. Haines, 1, 21, 19, and above on Ad M. Caes. III, 9. 184 184 Mommsen, 472; Hanslik, 42. 184 184 Peter, H., Der Brief in der römischen Literature (Leipzig, 1901), 128Google Scholar ff. 185 185 Pan. Lat. viii (v), 14, 1–2; and Felix, Minucius, Octavius 9, 6–7,Google Scholar the so-called ‘In Christianos’ fragment which should rather (I think) be identified as a speech ‘In Pelopem’ recorded by Sidonius Apollinaris, Epp. viii, 10, 3, and which has little to do with Christianity. (I hope to discuss this matter elsewhere.) 187 187 cf. the fragments i–iv (all from Charisius) at v.d.H., 240. Fr. vi (also Charisius) is perhaps from one of Ad Am. 1, 12, 13, 14, or 18 (all to Victorinus). It might be argued that Pan. Lat. viii (v) 14, 1–2 (‘Romanae eloquentiae non secundum sed alterum decus’) betrays in A.D. 297 a knowledge of Ad M. Caes. 11, 3, 2 (‘Igitur vale, decus eloquentiae Romanae …’). 188 188 O. Seeck, ed. (Berlin, 1888), xxii ff. 189 189 Haines, 119, cf. 1, xxi. 190 190 T. D. Barnes, by letter. 191 191 Marcus' lenience: Dio lxxi, 27–28; HA Marcus 26, 2. 192 192 HA Cassius 13, 6, borne out by other evidence, cf. Jameson, S., AS 16 (1966), 126–27Google Scholar. 193 193 e.g., Petronius Victorinus c.i. and his son Petronius Aufidius Victorinus, flourishing in 256 (ILS 7218, Pisaurum). 194 194 CIL vi, 1416, 1418. 195 195 PIR 2 I 604. 10 Cited by Cited by Loading... Cited by 10 Crossref Citations This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef. Bowman, Alan K. Garnsey, Peter and Rathbone, Dominic 2000. The Cambridge Ancient History. CrossRef Google Scholar Birley, A. R. 2000. The Cambridge Ancient History. p. 132. CrossRef Google Scholar Griffin, Miriam 2000. The Cambridge Ancient History. p. 1. CrossRef Google Scholar Griffin, Miriam 2000. The Cambridge Ancient History. p. 84. CrossRef Google Scholar 2011. Die Philosophie Marc Aurels. CrossRef Google Scholar Gibson, Roy 2012. On the Nature of Ancient Letter Collections. Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 102, Issue. , p. 56. CrossRef Google Scholar Fleury, Pascale 2012. A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. p. 62. CrossRef Google Scholar Mullen, Alex 2015. ‘In both our languages’: Greek–Latin code-switching in Roman literature. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics, Vol. 24, Issue. 3, p. 213. CrossRef Google Scholar Fleury, Pascale 2016. Fabrique de la déclamation antique. p. 411. CrossRef Google Scholar Elder, Olivia and Mullen, Alex 2019. The Language of Roman Letters. CrossRef Google Scholar Google Scholar Citations View all Google Scholar citations for this article. × Librarians Authors Publishing partners Agents Corporates Additional Information Accessibility Our blog News Contact and help Cambridge Core legal notices Feedback Sitemap Join us online Legal Information Rights & Permissions Copyright Privacy Notice Terms of use Cookies Policy © Cambridge University Press 2021 Back to top © Cambridge University Press 2021 Back to top Cancel Confirm × Send article to Kindle To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply. Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service. The Chronology of Fronto Volume 64 Edward Champlin (a1) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/299265 Your Kindle email address Please provide your Kindle email. @free.kindle.com @kindle.com (service fees apply) Available formats PDF Please select a format to send. By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services. Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Send × Send article to Dropbox To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox. The Chronology of Fronto Volume 64 Edward Champlin (a1) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/299265 Available formats PDF Please select a format to send. By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services. Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Send × Send article to Google Drive To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive. The Chronology of Fronto Volume 64 Edward Champlin (a1) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/299265 Available formats PDF Please select a format to send. By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services. Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Send × × Reply to: Submit a response Title * Please enter a title for your response. Contents * - No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted Please enter your response. Your details First name * Please enter your first name. Last name * Please enter your last name. Email * Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly. Please enter a valid email address. Occupation Please enter your occupation. Affiliation Please enter any affiliation. Conflicting interests Do you have any conflicting interests? * Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners. Yes No More information * Please enter details of the conflict of interest or select 'No'.   Please tick the box to confirm you agree to our Terms of use. * Please accept terms of use.   Please tick the box to confirm you agree that your name, comment and conflicts of interest (if accepted) will be visible on the website and your comment may be printed in the journal at the Editor’s discretion. * Please confirm you agree that your details will be displayed.