Search Results

Fronto and Aurelius: Contubernium and Solitary Reader

William A. Johnson

in Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities

Fronto was the teacher and friend of Marcus Aurelius. Fronto’s Letters show a man intent on constructing literary culture within the context of the contubernium, an ideal of close connection and ... More

Fronto was the teacher and friend of Marcus Aurelius. Fronto’s Letters show a man intent on constructing literary culture within the context of the contubernium, an ideal of close connection and friendship. His pupil Aurelius, however, shows a strong inclination toward reading habits that privileged the solitary, a set of habits that his contemporaries judged idiosyncratic. The chapter also focuses on the use of excerpts and excerpting in imperial reading culture.Less

Correctors and Critics II

Alan Cameron

in The Last Pagans of Rome

This chapter argues that the hundreds of corrected literary papyri from Hellenistic and early imperial times without signed subscriptions suggest that it was not untill the 4th century that they ... More

This chapter argues that the hundreds of corrected literary papyri from Hellenistic and early imperial times without signed subscriptions suggest that it was not untill the 4th century that they first appeared. Subscriptions in Latin manuscripts earlier than this were surely likewise normally unsigned. With the exception of Statilius Maximus's edition of Cicero, the only Latin subscriptions that can be dated earlier than the 4th century document the work of professional calligraphers, not correctors. What mattered was not who corrected the manuscript, but simply the fact that the job had been done, and that could be discovered from a bare di (orthōthē) or emendavi.Less

Introduction: Cicero's Letters and Linguistic Politeness

Jon Hall

in Politeness and Politics in Cicero's Letters

This chapter discusses the social context of letter-writing during the Late Roman Republic, especially among the aristocracy and its concern with social manners. It also examines recent ... More

This chapter discusses the social context of letter-writing during the Late Roman Republic, especially among the aristocracy and its concern with social manners. It also examines recent sociolinguistic theories of politeness and facework (especially those of Erving Goffman and Brown and Levinson) and sets out the methodology to be applied to the letters of Cicero in the following chapters. In particular it identifies and defines three types of politeness regularly used in his correspondence: the politeness of respect, affiliative politeness, and redressive politeness. It is suggested that these forms of politeness derive in part from the Roman aristocrat's preoccupation with personal status (dignitas) and his need to form temporary political alliances with ambitious rivals. The relevance of these strategies of politeness to the correspondence of Pliny the Younger and Fronto is also addressed.Less

Back to Fronto: Doctor and Patient in his Correspondence with an Emperor *

Annelise Freisenbruch

in Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography

This chapter re-evaluates Fronto's letters within the traditions of epistolary scholarship and against the backdrop of a surge of interest in the epistolarity of the letter collections of antiquity. ... More

This chapter re-evaluates Fronto's letters within the traditions of epistolary scholarship and against the backdrop of a surge of interest in the epistolarity of the letter collections of antiquity. Because Fronto has a valuable role to play in the call for a reassessment of the Roman letter-writing voice and identity, his correspondence with his pupil, emperor-in-the-making Marcus Aurelius, is examined. The recurring narrative of sickness and health that features in over eighty of the extant letters between Fronto and Marcus Aurelius is examined, with a particular emphasis on the ailments of the former. This chapter explores the pressing question of whether Fronto and Marcus Aurelius' letters should be regarded as simply reflecting the trend of their age to open up about one's state of health, or whether there is something more pointed, more calculated about such an epistolary narrative.Less

Letters of Recommendation and the Rhetoric of Praise

Roger Rees

in Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography

This chapter examines letters of reference or recommendations written by Charlesworth, Cicero, Pliny, and Fronto, focusing on how the authors emphasize their own discretion in offering their ... More

This chapter examines letters of reference or recommendations written by Charlesworth, Cicero, Pliny, and Fronto, focusing on how the authors emphasize their own discretion in offering their evaluation of the subject and how their statements about the subject's merit can be interwoven with praise. The style confirms its vintage, with the formal pairing of substantives and adjectives, the fondness for abstractions and the contrastive ‘but’ and certain details of phrasing, such as ‘I am glad indeed’ or ‘standing in work or games’. It is easy to identify both continuities and changes. Alignment of interests and obligations through triangulation can be seen throughout surviving letters of recommendation and identify them as best textual evidence for the processes of Roman patronage in action.Less

Bilingualism and Biculturalism in Antonine Rome *: Apuleius, Fronto, and Gellius

Simon Swain

in The Worlds of Aulus Gellius

Having considered the Romans' relationship with Greek culture from Cicero by way of the Elder Seneca, Quintilian, the Younger Pliny, and Suetonius down to Apuleius, in particular, the implications of ... More

Having considered the Romans' relationship with Greek culture from Cicero by way of the Elder Seneca, Quintilian, the Younger Pliny, and Suetonius down to Apuleius, in particular, the implications of code-switching and the linguistic annexation that made Greek a resource for the improvement of Latin and a mark of superior Roman education, the chapter turns to the specific cases of Fronto, in whom Greek negotiates social complications (as in the correspondence with Marcus, does the language of love), particularly between superior and inferior, and of Gellius, who is far more relaxed about Greek discourse and ready to admit that Latin cannot always compete, but brings out cases where it does. Moreover, he expects a Roman to be master of the latter, his own language, as well as Greek. Finally, these authors' practice in respect of Greek is compared with those of Tertullian, Aelian, and Ulpian.Less

Gellius and Fronto on Loanwords and Literary Models *: Their Evaluation of Laberius

Alessandro Garcea and Valeria Lomanto

in The Worlds of Aulus Gellius

This chapter considers the linguistic categories ‘Latin’, ‘Greek’, and ‘barbarian’, with particular reference to the debate in Gellius 19.13 over the status in Latin of the word, nanus (dwarf), ... More

This chapter considers the linguistic categories ‘Latin’, ‘Greek’, and ‘barbarian’, with particular reference to the debate in Gellius 19.13 over the status in Latin of the word, nanus (dwarf), thought barbarian by Fronto but proved Greek by Sulpicius Apollinaris. As such, it is admissible in Latin (where indeed it had been used by Helvius Cinna in relation to ponies); but even if not, use by Fronto would have conferred on it a higher standing than the vulgarisms introduced by Laberius enjoyed. It is demonstrated that grammatical tradition treats Latin as a form of Aeolic Greek, so that Greek loanwords are not intruders as barbarian words are. The chapter also considers the difference between the historical Fronto's approval for Laberius' word-choices and Gellius' own, on the whole unfavourable judgement on them.Less

Concordance

in Marcus Aurelius in Love

This concordance serves two sets. The general reader may wish to find the letters in this collection in C. R. Haines's Loeb translation, where they can be seen in the context of Marcus Cornelius ... More

This concordance serves two sets. The general reader may wish to find the letters in this collection in C. R. Haines's Loeb translation, where they can be seen in the context of Marcus Cornelius Fronto's letter collection as a whole. Classicists will want to see the original text, but not every library will own all the main editions of Fronto, and unfortunately they all use different numbering systems, while Edward Champlin's biography of Fronto uses yet another. The concordance should enable readers to find at least one version to compare with this one. The Haines Loeb contains the only complete translation of all the Fronto letters into English. The book/item numbers follow the convention of the ancient edition as transmitted in the manuscripts, in that the collection is divided up into “books” with separate titles, with each item in the book numbered consecutively.Less

Greek: Language, Poets, Orators

Leofranc Holford-Strevens

in Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement

Gellius freely admits Greek words, phrases, and quotations to his text, but generally in relation to Latin. He has much to say about translation from Greek into Latin, and the limits to its ... More

Gellius freely admits Greek words, phrases, and quotations to his text, but generally in relation to Latin. He has much to say about translation from Greek into Latin, and the limits to its possibility; he also sometimes employs unacknowledged calques of Greek words. A survey of his reading demonstrates the expected knowledge of Homer, and direct acquaintance with Aristophanes' Frogs, Menander's Plocion, Aeschines' In Timarchum, and Demosthenes' De corona; he is also the first author to quote any of the Anacreontea. Knowledge of other poems and speeches may be second-hand. The chapter compares Gellius's Greek reading and interests with those of Fronto, Marcus Aurelius, and Apuleius.Less

Language and Style

Leofranc Holford-Strevens

in Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement

When a word or construction used by Gellius attracts our notice, it may be either pre- or post-classical, the latter including false archaisms; although in certain matters he returns to pre-Augustan ... More

When a word or construction used by Gellius attracts our notice, it may be either pre- or post-classical, the latter including false archaisms; although in certain matters he returns to pre-Augustan usage, he is not consistent in refusing recent developments, although his colloquialisms come from Plautus rather than the street. He likes joining synonyms, and is fond of variation; for these purposes he sometimes combines archaic, classical, and new expressions. Although a conscious artist who when translating or adapting Greek takes pains to match his style to his source, he rarely writes for declamatory delivery as Fronto and Apuleius do, but shows that he can do so when contrasting Cicero with Gaius Gracchus.Less

Honoured Orators

Leofranc Holford-Strevens

in Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement

This chapter considers Gellius's relations with the leading Roman orator of his age, Marcus Cornelius Fronto, and his Greek counterpart Herodes Atticus. Fronto, who appears in five chapters, is ... More

This chapter considers Gellius's relations with the leading Roman orator of his age, Marcus Cornelius Fronto, and his Greek counterpart Herodes Atticus. Fronto, who appears in five chapters, is represented as rather closer to Gellius in his literary concerns than his preserved writings suggest, in particular more interested in linguistic purism; he is also made to cite Vergil, which the real Fronto never does, and to admire Claudius Quadrigarius, enthusiasm for whom was in fact Gellius's own. Although Herodes' pre-eminence in Greek oratory is acknowledged, Gellius concentrates on matter rather than matter, recording his defence of grief that a Stoic (not alone) had called immoderate and his contemptuous dismissal of sham philosophers; overall he represents him more favourably than other writers do.Less

Introduction

in Marcus Aurelius in Love

In 1815 Angelo Mai found a long-lost treasure of the classical world in the Ambrosian Library in Milan: a palimpsest codex containing, among other works, many of the letters of Marcus Cornelius ... More

In 1815 Angelo Mai found a long-lost treasure of the classical world in the Ambrosian Library in Milan: a palimpsest codex containing, among other works, many of the letters of Marcus Cornelius Fronto and his correspondents, who included the emperor Marcus Aurelius. The events of Marcus's life are known mostly through much later sources, of which the best are the Historia Augusta biographies of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus and a very late condensed version of book 70 of Cassius Dio's history. The letters between Marcus and Fronto from 139 to 145 provide what appears to be direct evidence of a living relationship of some kind. The future emperor, revered as a sort of saint from antiquity onward, is exuberant, slangy, sometimes impudent, and (as he says himself in letter 37) bubbling over with love for Fronto. Were Marcus and Fronto in love? Were they lovers? This book presents only a selection of letters: all the letters from the years 139–48 that testify to the feelings of the correspondents.Less

Letters

in Marcus Aurelius in Love

This chapter presents an exchange of letters between Marcus Aurelius and Marcus Cornelius Fronto. The first letter, written by Marcus to Fronto, indicates that Marcus is longing for Fronto. Marcus ... More

This chapter presents an exchange of letters between Marcus Aurelius and Marcus Cornelius Fronto. The first letter, written by Marcus to Fronto, indicates that Marcus is longing for Fronto. Marcus also says: “Should I not burn with love of you when you've written this to me?” In his reply, Fronto makes a proposal to go for a walk down by the river Illyssus. Both letters are dated December 139 CE.Less

Warehousing and Complementary Cargoes on the Alexandria Grain Run

André Tchernia

in The Romans and Trade

Three case studies that shed light on the conditions in which trade was conducted on the Alexandria grain run form the subject of this chapter. Two are based on the Murecine tablets and the other on ... More

Three case studies that shed light on the conditions in which trade was conducted on the Alexandria grain run form the subject of this chapter. Two are based on the Murecine tablets and the other on a passage from a text by Fronto. If we bear in mind the conditions for transporting goods, market laws do not of themselves explain the sale of Egyptian chickpeas in Pozzuoli and of Baetican oil in Athens and Alexandria, or the fact that Cretan wines were among those most commonly consumed in Rome. The circulation of these goods was a side effect of the huge trade in grain from Alexandria and the shipping it generated between Italy and the eastern Mediterranean. It can be classified as a marginal but far from negligible economic activity, brought into being by the need to organize the supply of the vast and anomalous mega-city that was Rome.Less