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 For most of what follows, consult the preface of van den Hout, ix–lxv.

³ Bischoff, B., ‘Der Fronto-Palimpsest der Mauriner’, SBAW, Phil. Hist. Kl. 1958, 2.Google Scholar

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 Haines 1, xiii–xiv.

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 Excepting the simple muddle of v.d.H. 114, 1–2, hardly due to the editor.

⁸ Ad M. Caes. IV, V; Ad Ant. Imp. 1, Ad Ant. Pium; Ad Am. I, II.

⁹ Thus, at Ad Am. 11, 7, 15, the m² note to v.d.H. 184, 7 ff. serves only to confuse,

¹⁰ Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1969), 124–26,Google Scholar with bibliography.

¹¹ PIR ² G 14.

¹² Mommsen, 486.

¹³ O.c. 124–25.

¹⁴ Chiron 2 (1972), 469–70Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Haines, 118; cf. 11, 111, n.1.

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 Commodus' first coins (BMC Cat. iv, Marcus Aurelius 625, 633 ff.) appear in 175, in the context of German victories.

¹⁸ PIR ² C 606 for the inscriptional evidence, and note HA Verus 4, 1.

¹⁹ ‘Antoninus’: Ad Ant. Imp. 1, 2, 2 and 4; II, 1, 1; Ad Ver. Imp. 11, 1, 5, 6.

²⁰ As observed by Birley, 473.

²¹ Bowersock, 124; Birley, 473.

²² See the list of ailments at Haines, 11, 333, col. 1.

²³ Syme, Tacitus 652.

²⁴ The phrase ‘memoria nostra’ need not (for Fronto) imply personal involvement, cf. Princ. Hist. 2, 4 on Trajan's Parthian War.

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 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 HA Hadr. 9, 4–5.

²⁸ ibid. 11, 3.

²⁹ ibid. 15, 7.

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 Gilliam, J. F. has collected the evidence, AJP 82 (1961), 227–44Google Scholar.

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 HA Marcus 2, 5.

³⁴ Noted at Birley, 473.

³⁵ ILS 1129.

³⁶ Mommsen, 473; Haines, 114; Hanslik, 22–28.

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 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 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 Haines, 1, 80 ff.; Hanslik, 21–22.

⁴¹ Or enquires which spa Fronto will attend. The passage is uncertain, cf. v.d.H. 2, 3–8, with app. crit.

⁴² ‘vigeo, valeo, exulto; quo vis veniam, quo vis curram’ i, 3, 3.

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 Hanslik, loc. cit., based on Brakman, 26. The imperial family at Baiae: HA Hadrian 25, 6, cf. Pius 5, 1.

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 cf. HA Marcus 7, 2–3.

⁴⁷ e.g. Ad M. Caes. IV, 7.

⁴⁸ Mommsen, 481; Hanslik, 22–23.

⁴⁹ Haines, 1, 155.

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 HA Pius 11, 2. A common duty of the landed magnate was to oversee the harvest, e.g. Pliny, , Epp. ix, 20Google Scholar.

⁵² Minucius Felix, Octavius 2, 3, and J. Beaujeu, ad loc. Hanslik, 27 overlooks this slight difficulty.

⁵³ ‘Die senatus huius magis hic futuri quam illuc venturi videmur.’

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 Hanslik, 28.

⁵⁶ GSRE 93–100.

⁵⁷ Opuscula Philologica 6 (1934), 25–34Google Scholar.

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 O.c. 99.

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 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 Haines, 115–16; 1, 32 ff.; Hanslik, 28.

⁶³ BMC Cat. iv, Antoninus Pius, 124–31. On the date, H.-G. Pflaum, BHAC 1963, 110 ff.

⁶⁴ Gellius xix, 8, 3. I am greatly indebted to Professor C. P. Jones for this suggestion.

⁶⁶ cf. Hanslik, 28–29.

⁶⁶ ibid. 29–30.

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 Haines, 116; vs. Hanslik, 31–32.

⁶⁹ Haines, 1, 2, n. 1.

⁷⁰ Victorinus' consulship: CIL vi, 2086, 23. For the date of the marriage (c. 158) see below.

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 But cf. n. 37 above.

⁷³ e.g. by Birley, A. R., Marcus Aurelius (London, 1966), 120CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I know of no divergence from the communis opinio.

⁷⁴ Diog. Laert. vii, 160–64.

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 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 Haines, 114. Cf. PIR ² D 183 for the date.

⁷⁸ FO XXVII.

⁷⁹ FO XXIX.

⁸⁰ On the date of Lucilla's birth, Birley, 139, n. 2.

⁸¹ cf. n. 71 above.

⁸² For Fronto's birthday see below, on Ad Ant. Imp. 1, 1–2.

⁸³ See below, on Ad Pium 8.

⁸⁴ Mommsen, 483.

⁸⁵ Hanslik, 35.

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 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 Bowersock, G. W., HSCP 72 (1967), 289–94,Google Scholar especially 291–92.

⁸⁸ ILS 7190 (A.D. 139) displays three generations of the family interested in Cyzicene affairs.

⁸⁹ ‘Feci prorsus conpendium itineris Lorium usque, conpendium viae lubricae, conpendium clivorum arduorum …’ 1, 3, 1.

⁹⁰ E.g. Haines, 11, 118; Hanslik, 38.

⁹¹ For the confused problem of Fronto's grand-children, mentioned here, see the discussion below of De Nepote Amisso.

⁹² For these dates, see the relevant discussions below.

⁹³ HA Verus 8, 10. Haines, 117; Hanslik, 39.

⁹⁴ Mommsen, 483–84, followed by Barnes, T. D., JRS 57 (1967), 72Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ On the two Apolausti: Weaver, P. R. C., Familia Caesaris (Cambridge, 1972), 27–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁶ HA Comm. 7, 2; ILS 5191.

⁹⁷ Mommsen, 483.

⁹⁸ Haines, 1, 297, n. 1; Brakman, 35; Hanslik, 36–37.

⁹⁹ cf. n. 71 above.

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 V.d.H. on 110, 13. Mommsen correctly assumed that the correspondence with Commodus Caesar (sic) has perished (p. 471).

¹⁰² cf. Syme, R., Historia 9 (1960), 379, n. 80Google Scholar.

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 BMC Cat. IV, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus 261 ff. Cf. Dodd, C. H., NC 11 (1911), 221–22Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ BMC Cat. 300 ff.

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 HA Verus 6, 7–9.

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 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 Jones, C. P., GRBS 13 (1972), 484–85Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ CIL iii, 129 (Dmeir) does not prove his presence in Syria before 10th December, 162, contra Dodd, 215, n. 16.

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 McDowell, R. H., Coins from Seleucia on the Tigris (Ann Arbor, 1935), 234CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Haines, n, 85; Hanslik, 39–40.

¹¹⁵ HA Verus 6, 7; Marcus 8, 11; BMC Cat. 198, 208 (by implication).

¹¹⁶ Mommsen, 485–86, misinterpreted by Barnes, 70 to say that the letter must be 166 or later.

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 Haines, 11, 46 ff. No one else has been so foolhardy.

¹¹⁹ cf. v.d.H. 156, 14 ff., and the note at 162, 37 ff.

¹²⁰ Hanslik, 41–42.

¹²¹ Mommsen, 481; Haines, 114; Hanslik, 41.

¹²² Pan. Lat. viii (v), 14, 2.

¹²³ Compare the correct opening of Fronto's letter, ‘Imp. Antonino Pio Augusto Fronto’.

¹²⁴ HA Pius 8, 6–7.

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 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 On the normal interval between consulship and proconsulship in this age see Syme, R., REA 61 (1959), 310–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁸ Reuss, F., RhM 54 (1899), 464–65Google Scholar for the calculation.

¹²⁹ Haines, 1, 263; Hanslik, 42.

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 Haines, 1, 283; Hanslik, 43; Bowersock, 125–126.

¹³² cf. Birley, A. R., Chiron 2 (1972), 472–73Google Scholar. The urban prefecture is quite conjectural.

¹³³ On whom see Bowersock, 54–55.

¹³⁴ Guey, J., REL 29 (1951), 307Google Scholar ff.; Syme, R., REA 61 (1959). 316CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁵ cf. PIR ² I 169; Zevi, F., MEFR 82 (1970), 309–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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 CIL viii, 15872, 27572. On all this see Jarrett, M. G., Epig. St. 9 (1972), 186Google Scholar.

¹³⁸ On his literary connections, Bowersock, 78–79.

¹³⁹ ILS 2907 (Bonn).

¹⁴⁰ PSI X, 1105. On father and son see H.-G. Pflaum Carrières, nos. 177 (with page 981); 166.

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 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 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 cf. viii, 26528 a, b; 26606.

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 CIL viii, 2736, 18067 (Lambaesis).

¹⁴⁷ Pflaum, 555 collects the evidence.

¹⁴⁸ Pflaum, 547; Bowersock, 125; Birley (1972), 471, n. 27. Cf. the aged Gavius Maximus.

¹⁴⁹ On whom see Lambrechts, P., AC 5 (1936), 187–89Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ Hanslik, 44; CIL iii, 77, cf. 44.

¹⁵¹ Pflaum, 549–50; Bowersock, 125, dependent partially on his dating of 1, 9 (q.v.).

¹⁵² Hauler never published his fuller reading of the Ms, cf. WS 47 (1928), 181Google Scholar.

¹⁵³ ILS 9200, cf. Plaum, Carrèires no. 50; HA Comm. 4, 10.

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 Thus it was deciphered by Hauler, E., WS 46 (1928), 244–46Google Scholar.

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 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 Haines, 11, 245.

¹⁵⁹ Date: Barnes, T. D., JTS 21 (1970), 407,Google Scholar on OGIS 512.

¹⁶⁰ Pflaum (1964), 552–53.

¹⁶¹ PIR ² G 98.

¹⁶² Lucian, Demonax 30.

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 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 Gell. i, 6, 4–6, ii, 27, 3–5; xi, 13, 1 ff; xiii 22, 1 ff.

¹⁶⁶ ILS 1118.

¹⁶⁷ V.d.H. 189, 15–17.

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 Haines, 1, 39.

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 Haines, II, 28, n.1.

¹⁷² P-W ii A, 1009–10; Sedatius 1.

¹⁷³ Birley, 169.

¹⁷⁴ Brakman, 36; Hanslik, 46, n. 85.

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 As does, e.g., Birley, 177.

¹⁷⁷ This information emerges from the combination of De Nep. Am. 2, 6 and 4, with Ad Ver. Imp. II, 9, 1.

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 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 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 He was comes of the emperors in expeditione Germanica (AE 1957, 121), A.D. 168/169, having held one other legateship before that.

¹⁸² Haines, 1, 55, n. 5.

¹⁸³ cf. Haines, 1, 21, 19, and above on Ad M. Caes. III, 9.

¹⁸⁴ Mommsen, 472; Hanslik, 42.

¹⁸⁴ Peter, H., Der Brief in der römischen Literature (Leipzig, 1901), 128Google Scholar ff.

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 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 O. Seeck, ed. (Berlin, 1888), xxii ff.

¹⁸⁹ Haines, 119, cf. 1, xxi.

¹⁹⁰ T. D. Barnes, by letter.

¹⁹¹ Marcus' lenience: Dio lxxi, 27–28; HA Marcus 26, 2.

¹⁹² HA Cassius 13, 6, borne out by other evidence, cf. Jameson, S., AS 16 (1966), 126–27Google Scholar.

¹⁹³ e.g., Petronius Victorinus c.i. and his son Petronius Aufidius Victorinus, flourishing in 256 (ILS 7218, Pisaurum).

¹⁹⁴ CIL vi, 1416, 1418.

¹⁹⁵ PIR ² I 604.