It is no longer admitted by modern scholars that second century AD was, as it appeared to Gibbon, the happiest time for the human race, and not only for the Roman Empire. There were economic and political problems in the form of inflation and rebellions, barbarian peoples invaded Italy, and a plague wasted the Mediterranean countries.
Nevertheless, the rich élite, free of the terror that especially senators had known under Domitian, basked in the afternoon sun of ancient culture; if enjoyment predominated over achievement, and synthesis over discovery, yet intellectuals received public honour, the private law grew more humane, and the future was not suspected … the second century was anything but the age of anxiety [the famous definition of second and third century by E.R. Dodds] the twentieth, judging by itself, would see in it.
(Holford-Strevens 2003, 1–2)
One of those intellectuals was Fronto.
Fronto was born at Cirta in Numidia, probably in 95 AD (Minucius Felix, Oct. 9.6, calls him Cirtensis). He was a pupil of the philosopher Athenodotus and the rhetorician Dionysius. His career probably began at the court of Hadrian; after Hadrian’s death (138 AD), Antoninus Pius appointed him tutor of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. Therefore, Fronto was a man from the provinces who completed the cursus honorum and reached the highest positions in Roman society.
The only certain date of his life is 142 AD when he was consul suffectus; he subsequently obtained the proconsulship of Asia, but chose not to move to the province because of health problems. Ausonius (Grat. act. 7.32) mentions the case of the office briefly held by Fronto as consul suffectus as an absolutely insufficient reward for his merits. A few years earlier, Fronto and Herodes Atticus had confronted each other in a lawsuit, and Marcus Aurelius had defended Herodes Atticus, so that their later reconciliation should have been merely formal. Fronto, nevertheless, sent a consolatory letter to Herodes for his son’s death.
Minucius Felix attributes to Fronto a speech, possibly in writing, against the Christians. We also have fragmentary information regarding speeches that he wrote about his political experiences. The Pro Carthaginiensibus had a manuscript tradition independent from that of his letters (preserved in the Vaticanus Palatinus 24, a palimpsest of the sixth–seventh centuries; see van den Hout, 1988), and probably dating from the last years of Hadrian’s reign; other speeches are mentioned in Fronto’s letters: De testamentis transmarinis, Gratiarum actio (for obtaining the consulship), Pro Demonstrato and Pro Bithynis, which belong to the time of the Parthian war (see Astarita 1997). As a teacher, he had a great reputation and a good number of followers: Sidonius Apollinaris (Epist.1.1.2) mentions the frontoniani. Fronto was considered by the panegyrist of Constantius Chlorus (Paneg. Lat. 8.14.2) to be Romanae eloquentiae non secundum, sed alterum decus. The harsh criticism of Niebuhr against him after the rediscovery of the palimpsest preserving Fronto’s letters was due to his disappointment after the exaggerated praise of late antiquity. Nowadays, Fronto’s figure as a human being appears to be more likeable (see Holford-Strevens 2003, 133; Fleury 2006, 7–8).
Fronto had six daughters, five of whom died before he did, as did his wife, Cratia, and the grandchild of his surviving daughter, who married Gaius Aufidius Victorinus, governor of Hispania Citerior and Baetica (Victorinus had two more children: Marcus Aufidius Fronto, cos. 199, and Gaius Aufidius Victorinus cos. 200). Fronto died about 167 AD, probably during the plague of 167–169 AD (some scholars propose a year around 175 AD); perhaps it was Victorinus who published his letters, which may not have been revised by the author.
A friendly relationship developed between Fronto and his pupils Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, as the Letters testify, though Marcus Aurelius (1.13) does not mention Fronto with any particular gratefulness when he created a list of all those to whom he was indebted. It seems that Marcus Aurelius praised with much greater enthusiasm the Stoic philosopher Iunius Rusticus (1.7), who, according to some, succeeded Fronto as his intellectual and spiritual guide.
The Letters are the only extant work of Fronto, although they appear to be in a fragmentary state. They were originally included in a palimpsest from Bobbio, which was divided into two parts: one is now in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana of Milan (E 147 sup.), which was discovered and published by Angelo Mai in 1815; the other is in the Biblioteca Vaticana (Lat. 5750), where the same scholar discovered it and published the rest of the letters in 1819 (see van den Hout 1988, viii–lxxx). The corpus of the Letters consists of five books to Marcus Aurelius before he came to the throne (ad Marcum Caesarem), four to the same after he had become emperor (ad Marcum Augustum), two to Lucius Verus, a short correspondence with Antoninus Pius, and two books ad amicos. In addition, there are fragments of a correspondence, again with Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, concerning different topics that the palimpsest indicates with distinct titles: De orationibus, Principia Historiae, Laudes fumi et pulveris, Laudes neglegentiae, De Bello Parthico, De feriis Alsiensibus, De nepote amisso, De eloquentia—the last title was supplied by Niebuhr. For this reason, it is also necessary to rely on the testimonies of Aulus Gellius, even though he was an occasional auditor, not an actual student; Gellius might have come to know Fronto when he was a student in Rome before going to Athens (Bernardi Perini 1998, 52–53; Holford-Strevens 2003, 136–138). Fronto is at home, bedridden by gout (NA 2.26.1 and 19.10.1), so that many men of letters call on him. In NA 2.26, Favorinus, philosopher and rhetor, is introduced; in NA 19.10, Fronto is visited by a pupil, Iulius Celsinus Numida, who was dear to him even because he was from Africa like him. On two different occasions (NA 13.29 and 19.8), Gellius does not mention the name of the callers; on the other hand, in 19.13, a conversation between Fronto, Postumius Festus, and Sulpicius Apollinaris occurs about Latin words that indicate colors. Favorinus congratulates Fronto on his ability to defeat a scarcity of words traditionally ascribed to the Latin language. The fact that Fronto is able to evaluate the phrase multi mortales that Claudius Quadrigarius used, instead of the more common multi homines, suggests to Gellius that Fronto examined words of this kind with great attention. On the basis of the plural harenae, which Julius Caesar had already considered to be incorrect, Gellius introduces a discussion on the morphologic category of the pluralia tantum and the singularia tantum in order that rariora verba may be found (NA 19.8.16). The vulgarism praeterpropter, pronounced by a friend, is considered to be acceptable because of its archaic character (NA 13.10.10–11); the word nani, of vulgar use, is of Greek origin, so that Fronto might receive it—with his authority—into the Latin lexicon (NA 19.13.3). From Gellius’ description, it seems that Fronto talked as if in a seminar with pupils and friends, and took advantage of occasions, however banal, to show his knowledge. There is even a dispute against an ignorant grammarian, who is finally forced to retreat (NA 19.10.14). One last testimony on the relationship between Fronto, by now an old man, and Gellius is provided by Fronto’s letter to Claudius Iulianus, governor of Germania inferior, written about 160 AD (Amic. 1.19): Fronto informs us that Gellius is planning to publish some of his writings, but he is not interested because of his old age and poor health (Holford-Strevens 2003, 138–139).
The topics included in Fronto’s letters—for example, consolation, historiography, sophistic encomium—are treated according to the rules of the literary genre to which they belong. For instance, the letters include seven consolations: two by Marcus Aurelius to Fronto to console him for the death of his grandson, and, on the same topic, two consolations by Fronto to himself. A consolation was sent to Herodes Atticus for the death of his son, which had occurred on the same day of his birth, and another to Sardius Saturninus, whose son had been one of Fronto’s pupils. The last is by Lucius Verus. The first of the two letters is not an actual letter of consolation, but a reply to that by Marcus Aurelius in the form of a self-consolation with the description of his own life and the presence of different philosophical motifs. According to Fleury (2006, 97–99), this structure shows the influence of Latin funerary poetry.
The letters of a historical nature, which have been the object of intense study, are known under the title De Bello Parthico and Principia Historiae. They refer to the war (161–166 AD), which was initially disastrous for the Romans, but later was won by Lucius Verus. The two works include historical data presented in a non-historical form: De Bello Parthico, in fact, is considered by some a consolatio; according to others, it is similar to the De imperio Gnaei Pompei by Cicero. Champlin (1980, 55) supposes that both writings are letters concerning a proposal that Fronto received to write a historical work; it cannot be known if Fronto assented, though according to Cova (1993) he did not. In fact, the De Bello Parthico and Principia Historiae could be a recusatio. The uncertainty was compounded by the fact that we do not know Fronto’s opinion about writing historical works. His admiration for Sallust was limited to lexical and stylistic aspects. We do know that the two works do not contain a continuous narrative, but some historical narratives in an epistolary context (Fleury 2006, 176). The praises for Lucius Verus find their justification in an encomiastic historical work, and Fronto appears to follow Plutarch’s biographies, though his emphasis is on Roman history.
Fronto himself ponders praise or encomium in the Laudes fumi et pulveris 1–6 (Fleury 2006, 231–235). By using the sophistic encomium, the author was able to underline again the importance of rhetoric, criticizing the behavior of Marcus Aurelius and philosophy, proposing the concept of fortune—nature and the exhortation to observe its laws (Fleury 2006, 281). The Eroticos has been thoroughly studied by both Fleury (2006, 283–323) and Swain (2004, 20–22). It is in the form of lusus, similar to the Erotikoi by Pseudo-Demosthenes and Plutarch, the Erotes by Pseudo-Lucian, and the Dialexeis by Maximus of Tyre. Fronto takes a stance similar to that of Lysias in Plato’s Phaedrus, suggesting that it is preferable for a youth to let himself be loved by somebody who does not love him rather than by somebody who loves him; according to Fleury, this work also contains some criticism against philosophy.
From the testimony of Gellius, however, Fronto does not seem to have enjoyed, notwithstanding his tutorship at the court, a particular recognition in comparison with the great personalities of the Second Sophistic: if Favorinus visits him (and only once), no contact appears with any of the other great personalities of Sophistic. The discussion with Favorinus itself ends with an argument against Greek language and its traditional complex of superiority toward the Latin language, which reflects a more general feeling of a revenge of the Greek world against Roman dominators. Fronto shows poor knowledge of Greek language, which is partly a literary pretense, but may also reflect an actual distance from the Greek language and culture and the philhellenism of the imperial court, which existed since the reign of Hadrian. Fronto was a friend of some African writers, such as Iulius Celsinus, Postumius Festus, and Sulpicius Apollinaris; perhaps a sort of circle of African intellectuals existed in Rome, mostly of Latin culture to be sure, which seems to have succeeded the Spaniards of the previous century. In general, Fronto appears to share the same literary ideals and social considerations of the Greek Sophists, but in a Latin environment: first of all, the predominant interest in rhetoric, and the belief that it may ensure a high social position. The importance of rhetoric should be appreciated by the emperor in the first place (ad Marcum Antoninum, De eloquentia 2.6, p. 138.4–11 van den Hout):
Nam Caesarum est in senatu quae e re sunt suadere, populum de plerisque negotiis in contione appellare, ius iniustum corrigere, per orbem terrae litteras missitare, reges exterarum gentium compellare, sociorum culpas edictis coercere, bene facta laudare, seditiosos compescere, feroces territare. Omnia ista profecto verbis sunt ac litteris agenda. Non excoles igitur id quod tibi totiens tantisque in rebus videas magno usui futurum? An nihil referre arbitraris qualibus verbis agas quae non nisi verbis agi possunt? (For it falls to a Caesar to carry by persuasion necessary measures in the Senate, to address the people in a harangue on many important matters, to correct the iniquities of the law, to dispatch rescripts throughout the world, to take foreign kings to task, to repress by edicts disorders among the allies, to praise their services, to crush the rebellious, and to cow the proud. All this must assuredly be done by speech and writing. Will you not then cultivate an art, which you see must be of great use to you so often and in matters of such moment? Or do you imagine that it makes no difference with what words you bring about what can be brought about by words? [translation from Haines 1930])
Not even the severe Crysippus abstains from rhetorical artifices (ad Marcum Antoninum, De eloquentia 2.13–14, p. 141.10–142.1 van den Hout):
tum si studium philosophiae in rebus esset solis occupatum, minus mirarer quod tantopere verba contemneres. Discere te autem ceratinas et soritas et pseudomenus, verba contorta et fidicularia, neglegere vero cultum orationis et gravitatem et maiestatem et gratiam et nitorem hoc indicat loqui te quam eloqui malle, murmurare potius et friguttire quam clangere. […] adtende quid cupiat ipse Chrysippus. Num contentus est docere, rem ostendere, definire, explanare? non est contentus, verum auget in quantum potest… (Again, if the study of philosophy were concerned with practice alone, I should wonder less at your despising words so much. That you should, however, learn horn-dilemmas, heap-fallacies, liar-syllogisms, verbal quibbles, and entanglements, while neglecting the cultivation of oratory, its dignity and majesty and charms and splendor, this shows that you prefer mere speaking to real speaking, a whisper and a mumble to a trumpet-note […] Wake up and hear what Chrysippus himself prefers. Is he content to teach, to disclose the subject, to define, to explain? He is not content: but he amplifies as much as he can… [translation from Haines 1930])
From these words, it can be gathered that Fronto had scarce consideration for philosophy, even inferior to that of the Sophists of his age, though we should consider the traditional Roman pragmatism and the usual subordination of knowledge to eloquence. However, “Fronto’s notorious aversion to philosophy will need to be reexamined” (Champlin 1980, 31).
In a letter to Marcus Aurelius, Fronto introduces lists of Latin authors. In them, the first place is held by those among the veteres who have demonstrated particular care in difficult lexical choices (Ad M. Caesarem 4.3.2); the greatest was Cato, in the first place, followed by his follower Sallust and Caelius Antipatrus (Cicero is aside: he undoubtedly is the most famous among Roman orators, but disappointing in finding “unexpected words”: insperata atque inopinata verba). Among poets, Fronto praises especially Plautus, then Ennius, Naevius, Caecilius Statius, Accius, Lucretius, and Laberius; in addition, but only for some specific sections of language, Novius and Pomponius, Atta, Lucilius, and Sisenna. The reason for this list and for the criticism of Cicero for not seeking “surprising” words is owing to the importance that lexical choices have according to Fronto; Virgil himself, who could not be missing among Fronto’s readings, occupies a secondary position: he is quoted only once during his debate with Favorinus. The list of quoted authors does not extend beyond the age of Caesar, and is openly oriented in favor of the archaic or archaizing, considering also some particular authors (Laberius) or, in any case, Atticists or anti-Ciceronians; for Calvus, who is almost unknown to us as an orator, we have the title of imitator Atticorum given to him by Quintilian (Bernardi Perini 1998, 56–57). The ancient texts, therefore, can provide the rhetorician with insperata atque inopinata verba, that is, words that are unexpected in comparison with a current usage. It is necessary, however, that the search for an unexpected word may not be detrimental in terms of clarity: if the rare word makes the sense incomprehensible, it is preferable to stick to everyday vocabulary. As a consequence, if the lexicon of ancient authors is the main source in the search for the most appropriate words, it is not, anyway, the only one, because expressiveness and clarity can also be obtained through everyday language fittingly used, without abstaining, when necessary, from vulgarisms and neologisms taken from colloquial Latin. All this mitigates Fronto’s archaism and demonstrates that he does not deserve the criticism that he usually receives.
According to some, Fronto announces his literary criticism with the expression elocutio novella, which is found in a passage in which Fronto judges an oratory essay by Marcus Aurelius in this way (ad Marcum Antoninum, De eloquentia 5.1, p. 151.1–3 van den Hout):
Pleraque in oratione recenti tua, quod ad sententias attinet, animadverto egregia esse; pauca admodum uno tenus verbo corrigenda, nonnihil interdum elocutione novella parum signatum. (Most things in your late speech, as far as the thoughts go, I consider were excellent, very few required alteration to the extent of a single word; some parts here and there were not sufficiently marked with novelty of expression. [translation from Haines 1930])
It has been assumed that the meaning might be the following: “I notice that, in terms of thoughts, your latest oration is for the most part excellent; there is little to be corrected, and only in the case of one word; occasionally some parts do not conform much with our novel way of speaking.” However, it is probable that the meaning is different (Bernardi Perini 1998, 58; Holford-Strevens 2003, 134–135, 354). Parum signatum is a technicality that indicates a defective implementation, and novella has a negative meaning: elocutio novella is a benevolently ironic expression and does not define the Frontonian ideal but precisely Marcus Aurelius’ essay, which had been defective from the lexical point of view. Therefore: “something, here and there, is defective because of your peculiar way of expression.”
If some criticize, in him as well as in Marcus Aurelius, certain tedious sentimentalities, they are mostly due to the unctuous formulas of epistolary style, which are also found in Cicero’s letters. The sophistic lusus, for which Fronto is lampooned, are short examples of style sent to his pupil, which are not worse nor different from similar exercises of the Greek sophists. In De feriis Alsiensibus, Fronto invents a fable on Sleep, which is parallel to that on Arion written by Gellius.
On the whole, in an age that was extraordinarily fascinated by rhetoric, the reputation of excellence that Fronto enjoyed is not undeserved. His style has been correctly defined as “manneristic” (Holford-Strevens 2003).
The communis opinio on the relationship between Marcus Aurelius and Fronto is that Fronto, a strenuous supporter of rhetoric, started teaching the future emperor in 138 AD when the latter was aged 17, but from 146 AD Marcus Aurelius devoted himself to philosophy, to the extreme dismay of his teacher (ad Front. 4. 13.2, p. 68 van den Hout; it should be noted that Kasulke 2005 has criticized this interpretation). It is usually thought that Marcus Aurelius’ rejection of rhetoric and the impulse to the philosophical conversion derived from his friendship with Iunius Rusticus and from the works of the Stoics Epictetus and Aristo of Chios. On the other hand, a profound need for ethical values and the condemnation of rhetoric as an expression of injustice, vacuous formalism, and instrument of adulation have also been postulated. However, it is evident that Marcus Aurelius, as a future emperor, that is, as a man with many duties as a public figure, could not abandon rhetoric completely, though he devoted himself to philosophy at the same time. In fact, in Fronto’s correspondence, there are clear testimonies not only of a renewed practice of rhetoric, but also of a reevaluation of it on the part of Marcus Aurelius after 161 AD (cf. Front. ad M. Ant. 1.2.6, p. 89; Marcus Aurelius ad Front. 4.1; and p. 1059 van den Hout). Champlin (1980, 121–122) has also opposed the general idea that Marcus Aurelius suddenly and completely abandoned rhetoric.
Even after his accession to the throne, Marcus Aurelius devoted himself to the study of philosophy (especially Stoic philosophy), but never manifestly converted to philosophy or abandoned rhetoric. Dio Cassius (71.2; 71.36.6) and the Historia Augusta do not mention any detachment of Marcus Aurelius from rhetoric, though they underscore his interest in philosophy. The testimonies of Aurelius Victor (Caes. 16) and Eutropius (8.11ff.) are similar.
Marcus Aurelius’ attitude toward rhetoric in the years after 146 AD is not different from that which he shows during the years of his reign. Rhetoric is used as an instrument of his normal practice of government. This is demonstrated by Fronto’s letter Ad Marcum Antoninum 1.2, p. 86–91 of autumn 161. The accession to the throne should have meant for the prince a necessary revival of the rhetorical practice, because of all the official and non-official occasions on which it could be used. In the first years after 161 AD, Fronto appears again in the role of teacher of rhetoric and advisor for the public speeches of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. In Marcus Aurelius’ letter, Ad Front. 3.7, p. 103, the prince asks his teacher to send him an anthology of Cicero’s letters ad facultatem sermonis fovendam. In conclusion, Marcus Aurelius did not only resume his normal practice of rhetoric, but also continued, until his last years, his stylistic–literary activity in a broad sense, and this does not agree with the hypothesis of a complete rejection of rhetoric on his part, or with the idea of his exclusively practicing a kind of pragmatic and concrete rhetoric.
The letters de eloquentia are not crucial for choosing either philosophy or rhetoric. On the one side, Marcus Aurelius left to rhetoric all its rights in the practice: at the beginning, he might have contemplated the rejection of it, but Fronto’s remarks led him to abandon that plan. On the other side, Fronto never took into consideration a justification of philosophy. He recommends the emperor to make philosophy the topic of his speeches, as long as the correct linguistic form is guaranteed. Even his attacks against Stoicism are not due to a Weltanschuung, but to purely aesthetic and linguistic observations against Stoic dialectic and logic.
Aulus Gellius was famous, especially in the Middle Ages (when his name was adapted into Agellius) and in the Renaissance; but already in Late Antiquity his Noctes Atticae had provided compilers such as Nonius and Macrobius with abundant material. Information on Gellius’ life is even scarcer than what survives on Fronto: only Gellius’ work reveals that he was a contemporary of men and events that place him in the second century AD. He was born between 120 AD and 130 AD and died about 180 AD, and was probably of African origin: in fact, in his work, he is often in the company of learned Africans, such as Fronto and his friends, whom we have already discussed earlier. There are epigraphic testimonies on the existence in Africa of a gens Gellia; his work is related to one by the African Apuleius (De Mundo); only Gellius (NA 19.9.11–14) and Apuleius (De magia 9) know the erotic epigrams by Valerius Aedituus, Porcius Licinus, and Lutatius Catulus. According to Holford-Strevens, Gellius and Apuleius were in contact with each other, as is also attested by linguistic similarities in their works, and exchanged information concerning literary history (Holford-Strevens 2003, 22–26). Perhaps Gellius knew the Punic language, to which the lemma of NA 8.13 seems to testify.
Gellius’ teachers in Rome were the grammarian Sulpicius Apollinaris and the rhetors Antoninus Iulianus and Titus Castricius, and he was associated with Fronto’s circle. He went to Athens in order to perfect his studies, as was usual (Apuleius also went to Greece and to Athens). In Greece, Gellius was a pupil of the middle-platonic philosopher Calvisius (or Calvenus) Taurus and the sophist Herodes Atticus. From his noctes of study in Athens (which he certainly idealized) originates his work, entitled Noctes Atticae, in 20 books. He also knew in Rome or in Athens the sophist Favorinus of Arles, the poets Iulius Paulus and Annianus, grammarians and scholars.
Aulus Gellius is the chronicler of the culture of his time; he provides a lively portrait, which is detailed and even more fascinating in its disjointedness, of the world in which he lived. The Noctes Atticae do not constitute an organic work, but appear to be a collection of notes, or commentarii, which follow one another without a deliberate plan (praef. 3), but on the basis of the different occurring opportunities to relate facts, people, or readings. Gellius writes an erudite miscellany, also rich in mirabilia, which intends to supply materials for a further elaboration or suggest inspiration for a development of the arguments by enriching and making the reader’s otium pleasant, especially that of his children (praef. 1). Gellius is a scholar in the best sense of the word, and has care to distinguish his miscellany from analogous ones by Greek and Latin authors, whom he accuses of accumulating materials of different origin without any selection, for the sake of quantity only. He aims at quality, though many chapters of the Noctes Atticae appear to be a collection of erudite reports, and shallowness and generic knowledge of facts are not always avoided. Naturally, the best fields of his competence are those of poetry, grammar, language (what we may define as “textual criticism”).
Gellius should not be reduced to a mere spokesman of other people more famous than him: he assumes the attitude of the pupil and follower of people that he admires, but he states his personal views. He expresses his own opinion on the archaist obsession of his times by attributing to Favorinus a harsh reprimand addressed to a young man, who tried to embellish his language with words so obsolete that they were incomprehensible. Favorinus exhorts him in this way (NA 1.10.2):
Vive ergo moribus praeteritis, loquere verbis praesentibus atque id quod a C. Caesare, excellentis ingenii ac prudentiae viro, in primo de analogia libro scriptum est, habe semper in memoria atque in pectore ut “tamquam scopulum sic fugias inauditum atque insolens verbum.” (Live by all means according to the manners of the past, but speak in the language of the present and always remember and take to heart what Gaius Caesar, a man of surpassing talent and wisdom, wrote in the first book of his treatise On Analogy: “Avoid, as you would a rock, a strange and unfamiliar word” [translation from Rolfe 1961])
Therefore, Gellius’ attitude is similar to that of Fronto’s: if the archaic words, which a writer uses, are not intelligible, the surprising effects falls short, so that it is better to replace them with everyday words. Gellius is even less archaizing than Fronto: words that are not in use any longer must be abolished; Caesar’s precept to keep away from inauditum atque insolens verbum is polemical toward archaism too. In NA 11.7, a lexical obsession similar to that of the young archaist we have just seen is considered to be the result of a makeshift and false culture, according to which obsolete words are extraneous to usage not less than new words, because both are inaudita.
In conclusion, Gellius’ archaism, with its need to follow usage, fits in with Fronto’s moderation, who asserted the fundamental requirement of the clarity of expression. With a similar attitude, Gellius does not hesitate to criticize renowned teachers such as Sulpicius Apollinaris (NA 12.13) or Favorinus (NA 2.22.27), or the great learned men of the past, from Nigidius Figulus to Varro (NA 2.20.9; 3.14), whereas, even though he agreed with the stylistic trends of his time in the criticism against Seneca, he does not exclude in him the presence of certain artistic qualities (NA 12.2.1–13).
Augustine (De civ. Dei 9.4) considers Gellius to be vir elegantissimi eloquii, besides being a man of great culture in every genre. In accordance with his literary rules, his style is not made heavier by archaisms: some certainly exist, but they cohabitate effortlessly with neologisms in a pleasant and balanced prose. Gellius’ best qualities are especially evident in narratives (e.g. the narrative of the myth of Arion, on which see Anderson 2004).
The structure of the work excludes originality a priori, but Gellius wants to relate things belonging to others through his direct reading or personal hearing or private conversations, so the Noctes Atticae are a work of great variety. Informal notes can be found in it, as well as notes richer in details and more or less thorough and analytical discussions. This variety is due to the need, expressed by Gellius, of the ordo fortuitus (praef. 2) and disparilitas (praef. 3), that is, of casualness and heterogeneity applied to the forms as well as the contents, in order to avoid the danger of monotonousness.
Gellius’ merit, which ensured his survival in the Middle Ages and his success in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, has been that of being, as he said, “like a buttery of cultural foods” (praef. 2). Without Gellius and his toils, which constitute the priceless treasure of the Noctes Atticae, our vision of Latin civilization would be much more limited (Bernardi Perini 1996). However, this is not all: he is seen by a sympathetic scholar such as Holford-Strevens almost as a precursor of the modern man of letters, without his apprehensions or intellectual or moralistic pretensions, and Astarita (1993) thinks that Gellius followed the ideal of an ample and non-specific culture, which was able to include technical knowledge as well.
Apuleius can be considered to be the greatest writer and man of letters of the second century. Other contributors in this collection discuss his Metamorphoses; here, I am concerned with his other works.
Apuleius was born in Madaura, on the border between Numidia and Getulia (Apol. 24) in about 120 AD and died sometime during the decade 170–180 AD (see Harrison 2000, 1–3). The only certain date of his life is the trial that he faced after being accused of practicing magic, in which he defended himself in Sabratha before the proconsul Claudius Maximus (158 AD); on this basis and the fact that he should have arrived in Carthage 3 years earlier, we gather that he got to know Pudentilla in winter 156–157 AD, and his consequent marriage—the reason for the accusation of magic—occurred a few months later. Of all this and his origin, his social status, and his education, first in Carthage and then in Athens and in Greece, Apuleius himself reveals in the Apologia and Florida; according to Coarelli’s hypothesis, he was in Ostia between 140 and 150 AD, taking the name Marcellus, in honor of his patronus Q. Asinius Marcellus, who is mentioned as priest of Osiris in the Metamorphoses (11.27). Such a hypothesis, though attractive, seems speculative. On the other hand, information on the last years of his life is extremely scanty.
Apuleius wrote a large number of works, the majority of which is now lost: poems (Ludicra), novels (besides the Metamorphoseon libri XI, an Hermagoras), an Eroticus, dialogues, scientific works on mathematics, astronomy, music, and medicine (for more on these works, see Harrison 2000, 14–38).
Both for the variety of his interests and his prevalent practice of epideictic oratory, Apuleius is defined as “a Latin Sophist” by Harrison and others (contra Swain 2004, 12). The most important speech, and the only one of judicial character, is the Apologia or De Magia,1 in which he defended himself against the accusation of practicing magic. Apuleius, also in accordance with his interests as a sophist, gave his judicial speech the quality of epideictic oratory, of conference, so that Apologia is similar, in many respects, to the other speeches by Apuleius (e.g. the Florida) or the contemporary Sophists. Apuleius knows philosophy, natural science, rhetoric, and poetry, that is, the culture that constituted the objects of his exploits as a sophist. Loci communes of rhetoric and ekphraseis (digressions), such as the praise of tooth powder, to which he dedicates a well-crafted poem, and of the mirror, are not different from those by Fronto. In addition, with erudite explanations destined to receive the applause of the listeners, Apuleius boasts that he knows the sciences too, that is, botany, physics, and medicine.
However, the foundation of Apuleius’ defense is constituted by literature and philosophy. Besides a knowledge of magic, Apuleius exhibits the entire philosophical erudition of a rhetorician of the second century: Aristotle’s works on physics (known through the use of manuals and not directly), the biographies and apophthegms of philosophers, chreiai on the value of poverty and the negative aspects of wealth, and quotations from the most famous works by Plato, such as Phaedrus and Timaeus. In addition to philosophy, he shows a command of Roman and Greek history, known in detail and in the exempla, that is, the characters most renowned for their morality, such as Phocion and Solon, Cato and Scipio. As a man of letters, Apuleius knows grammatical and erudite details, such as the actual names of women loved by famous poets (the Lesbia of Catullus was Clodia, the Cynthia of Propertius was called Hostia, the Delia of Tibullus was Plania). As a poetry critic, Apuleius is competent; like Fronto and Gellius, he is a follower of archaism, so that he knows and quotes especially poets of the pre-ciceronian age: Plautus, Terence, Caecilius Statius, Afranius, the pre-neoterics (Ticidas and Laevius), and the neoterics (Valerius Edituus and Catullus). Apuleius’ knowledge of poetry, just like Fronto’s and Gellius’, seems to stop with Virgil, who seems to have been quoted because of his fame rather than because he was esteemed and known in detail. Undoubtedly, Apuleius’ preference goes to the neoteric poets, in whose style he composes a series of erotic poems in elegiac distiches. In them, Apuleius appears to be a versifier of great elegance and grace.
The Apologia was certainly submitted to a revision after the trial, so that it might be destined to publication and reading: only in this way its length can be justified, and this was a normal procedure. The revision allowed Apuleius to underline the learned and erudite character of his speech and give it that tone of assurance, which is typical of one who knows he has already won, and could appear only after the end of the trial; the verdict had to be favorable to him, otherwise it would have been difficult for Apuleius to publish his speech and continue his career as an orator. Since the Apologia was a judicial speech, it is natural that Apuleius took into consideration Cicero as a model: some think that the Pro Caelio was the most similar speech to that by Apuleius because of its lively and brilliant style, its irony, and its exhibited culture. However, Apuleius’ eloquence shows affinity to that which is examined in the Dialogus de oratoribus: an oratory which, on a Ciceronian basis, inserts many embellishments and flosculi derived from rhetorical schools. The language of the De Magia is, therefore, typical of “modern” oratory, according to the division that we know through the Dialogus de oratoribus; the lexicon is often poetical, exhibits neo-formations, rare and obsolete words, and a moderate predilection for rhythmic structures, which will be intensified both in the Metamorphoses and in the Florida.
Just being accused of practicing magic, despite his acquittal, meant that Apuleius probably could not prevent his reputation as a magician from spreading, although he obtained public honors as a rhetorician. More than two centuries after his death, he was still famous as a magician in Africa. The last, stubborn supporters of paganism refer to Apuleius, and oppose Jesus’ miracles with those of Apuleius magus. This is an interesting moment in the history of popular religiosity of the late empire, an episode in the clash between the old and the new religions: Augustine mentions those pagans who opposed Christ with Apuleius (epist. 102.32; 136.1; 136.18; 137.13), and in the De civitate Dei (Books 8 and 9) he destroys the reputation of Apuleius, the symbol of African paganism.
The title Florida can be translated as “anthology” (Harrison 2000, 90–94), since the work consists of a series of excerpts taken during Late Antiquity,2 from a collection probably compiled by Apuleius himself of his conferences. This material is gathered in four books, which modern editors have divided into 23 excerpta on the basis of their topics. To the excerpts of the Florida, five must be added, which were transmitted, and usually published, as a prologue to De deo Socratis, but have nothing to do with it. The length of these excerpts varies from few lines to some pages; they probably functioned as progymnasmata, that is, as preparatory exercises for the orator.
Some of these orations are later than the Apologia, but we cannot exclude the hypothesis that others were earlier. Their contents are various and occasional: ekphraseis, encomia, exhibitions of culture, and artistic skills. Apuleius follows the rules of epideictic oratory of the second century with a large and variegated system of rhetorical devices: poetical language, assonances, and internal rhymes. In the Florida, however, Apuleius expounds his philosophy and proclaims himself philosophus Platonicus.
Among the treatises of Apuleius, one has been transmitted in its entirety. It is entitled De deo Socratis, and its purpose is to explain to a Latin audience who the demon was that accompanied Socrates and, as Plato relates, admonished him and dissuaded him from doing something, but never pushed him to a certain action. Such a theme was part of what German scholars call “Popularphilosophie,” and expounds the middle-platonic demonology that Apuleius followed. Also, the contemporary Maximus of Tyre had pronounced a dialexis (n. 9), entitled “Who was the daemon of Socrates”: probably both Apuleius and Maximus follow the same source, that is, the tradition of middle-Platonism. To this tradition belongs Plutarch, who wrote De genio Socratis and was another philosopher much considered by Apuleius and mentioned in the Metamorphoses (1.2; 2.3). In this work, Apuleius discusses other moral topics besides pondering the demon of Socrates. Probably, De deo Socratis belongs to the last years of Apuleius’ life.
As a platonic philosopher, Apuleius made a translation of the Phaedo (now lost), and wrote two philosophical works, De Platone et eius dogmate and De mundo. De Platone focuses on Plato’s biography and doctrine; the philosophical content is taken from manuals of the platonic tradition. Apuleius presents in this work a notable attempt at making Platonism the constant paradigm of his activity as a man of letters. For many centuries, during the Middle Ages, before Plato’s original works were rediscovered, Plato’s doctrines were known largely thanks to Apuleius’ De Platone. The exposition of platonic doctrine shows us how Apuleius fits in perfectly with the philosophical trends of the second century. Scholars often emphasize the fact, however, that he does not bring to contemporary Platonism any contribution of particular originality; these scholars do not consider that the historical significance of a philosopher need not always be measured by the criterion of originality; nor do they consider that Apuleius’ innovation consisted in his being both a platonic philosopher and the author of De Magia and Metamorphoses.
De Platone is in two books: the first concerns the exposition of platonic physics, and the second of ethics; a third book, which should have discussed logic (and was announced in 1.4.189), was not composed or is not extant: perhaps it was lost like the final section of the second book of De Platone.3 The work shows a strong resemblance to Didaskalikos by the otherwise unknown Alkinoos; it was once thought that both Apuleius and Alkinoos were pupils of the middle-platonic philosopher Gaius.
De mundo is a translation of a treatise (Peri kosmou) attributed to Aristotle, which some scholars consider to be genuine. Peri kosmou had been written between the first century BC and the first century AD, when some Aristotelian doctrines could fit into teleology. The Greek work explained the different manifestations of the sensible world, and their seeming contradictions, by attributing the variety of the contingent to the transcendent god. Such interpretations could be accepted by Apuleius’ philosophy. His translation is actually an adaptation in Latin with numerous additions by Apuleius himself, who, for instance, speaks in a passage (17.327) of a volcanic phenomenon that he had witnessed in Hierapolis in Phrygia. Another addition by Apuleius is that of De mundo 13.318–14.321, which he presents as a reworking from a tractate of Favorinus on winds, while it heavily depends (some scholars have used the word “plagiarism”) on Gellius 2.22.
Both De Platone and De mundo show an idiosyncrasy: the use of the so-called cursus mixtus (i.e. a combination of the tonic accent with the usual Latin prosody) in the clausulae, and the so-called “Scheinprosodie,” so that the final syllable, usually a long one, is shortened in order to make the clausula; both phenomena date from late antiquity, which puts their genuineness into question. A possible solution to this radical conclusion has been proposed by Harrison, who hypothesized that the two works by Apuleius might be written at the beginning of the change from clausulae based on syllabic quantity to the clausulae based on accents, a procedure that is already found frequently in Cyprian, who wrote about 80 years after Apuleius and was from Africa as well (see Harrison 2000, 178–179). On this basis, therefore, it must be supposed that the two philosophical works belong to the last years of Apuleius’ life.
As the negative sense of the Frontonian expression elocutio novella was misunderstood, as if it indicated Fronto’s “new style” that had influenced, thanks to his authority, the prose of his age, so at the end of the nineteenth century a new misunderstanding occurred on the basis of some passages by Terentianus Maurus (another African), grammarian and poet, who wrote a treatise in verse between the second and third century on phonetics, prosody, and metrics, and by Diomedes (a grammarian of the fourth century). Since they discuss poets and poems with the addition of adjectives such as novellus or neotericus, it was thought that an actual school of poetae novelli or neoterici existed during the age of Fronto. However, neither Terentianus nor Diomedes ever used those expressions in a technical sense, nor did they intend to identify with those adjectives a specific school or poetical trend; they simply wanted to indicate that a certain poet examined by them was “more recent” than others. In fact, Terentianus defines as novelli the authors of the Greek New Comedy in comparison with those of older comedy. In the same way, there is no reason to suppose that the poets contemporary to Fronto and the Frontonians formed a school and were called novelli; finally, chronology itself contradicts such hypothesis, since some of them (and almost certainly one of the most significant, Septimius Serenus) might at least belong to the age of the Severi.
These poets, nevertheless, though they cannot be grouped into a structured and formalized movement, have in common certain essential characters of language, style, content, and form, which can be attributed to the mannerism that not only relates them to Frontonian archaism, but also finds its antecedents in the age of Trajan and extends to the age of the Severi. It is therefore useful to continue to use the term poetae novelli because these second-century poets carry out an actual imitation of the poetae novi, including the so-called “pre-neoteric,” since the formal experimentalism is of the highest importance for the novelli, and the neoteric themselves did not constitute any real poetical school; finally, the tag of novi or neoteroi was drawn later from ironic contexts, which did not intend to propose a technical term.
Pliny the Younger celebrates certain poets, now unknown, who imitated Catullus and Calvus: Pompeius Saturninus (Epist. 1.16.5) and Sentius Augurinus wrote poemata. The latter is described by Pliny with terms that already preannounce the poetry of second century: multa tenuiter, multa sublimiter, multa venuste, multa tenere, multa dulciter, multa cum bile (Epist. 4.27.1); then Pliny quotes some verses by Sentius Augurinus, in which he claims to imitate Catullus, Calvus, and the veteres (4.27.4). Pliny himself states (Epist. 7.4) that, in his youth, he wrote poems in different meters, but finally arrived at the hendecasyllabi. It is evident, therefore, that both Pliny and his contemporaries tended to a poetical style that did not stop at the Augustan models, but went back to the first century BC. As a consequence, in the age of the Antonini, as a parallel to neosophistic Atticism, archaism, and Frontonian mannerism, within the context of the rules valid for prose, a kind of poetry with characteristics similar to those of the age of Trajan developed.
The emperor Hadrian is among the first poetae novelli who came after Pliny’s time. For him and all the poets of his circle, poetry was a parallel and secondary activity, a lusus in the style of the neoteric, which assumes, in some cases, the aspect of an exercise in futility. A dozen of the verses by Hadrian, perhaps belonging to the collection entitled Catachanna, are extant: the title is a strong Grecism—indicating a plant with multiple grafts, it wants to symbolize the multiplicity of forms and contents. The lusus can also be picked in the famous thrust and parry (two quatrains of anacreontics, the typical verse of the pre-neoteric Laevius) between Hadrian and the poet Florus, who had made fun of his passion for traveling. A greater profundity is shown by the brief poem consisting of five short verses (iambic dimeters) in which the emperor wants to express, in a sentimental tone, his departure from life: the accumulation of diminutives, irrationally distributed on the adjectives besides the noun to which, logically, they should be applied, creates an accumulation of short syllables (nine out of ten in the first verse) (fr. 3 Morel):
Animula, vagula, blandula,
Hospes, comesque, corporis;
Quae nunc abibis in loca,
Pallidula, rigida, nudula?
(Soul sweet and shifting, guest and companion to my body, now you will depart for places pale, harsh, and barren, and you will not make sport as before. [translation from Fantham 1996])
Florus may be identified with the historian who wrote the Epitome (Abridgement) of Livy’s History or with the rhetorician who wrote Whether Virgil was an orator or poet. These verses ironically address Hadrian:
“I don’t want to be Caesar, please,
to tramp round the Britons, weak at the knees,
[one line lost]
in the Scythian frosts to freeze.”
And the emperor answered him:
“I don’t want to be Florus, please,
to tramp round pubs, into bars to squeeze,
to lurk about eating pies and peas,
to get myself infested with fleas.”
(translation from Birley 1997)
In addition, Florus wrote 26 trochaic tetrameters, which are preserved in the Anthologia Latina and are divided into eight compositions under the title De qualitate vitae. Another composition is in five hexameters (that of a versus longus appears to be a quite unusual choice), and celebrates the rose and its short life. These themes are not grandiose, and are expressed with tones tending to sentimentalism, similar to that characterizing Hadrian and, before him, the poets of the age of Trajan. All these poets prefer short verses, especially the trochaic dimeter; sometimes the trochaic tetrameter, of Graecizing use, is transformed into a septenary, of Roman use, in order to create a mix of learned and popular styles.
A contemporary of Fronto is the poet Annianus, whose name is mentioned by his friend Gellius. Gellius provides some more information, which allows us to attribute to this Annianus the very few verses that Terentianus Maurus attributes to an anonymous Faliscus poet; also, Ausonius mentions Annianus as the author of fescennini, and Marius Victorinus ascribes to him a Faliscum carmen. Gellius refers to him three times (6.7; 9.10; 20.8); he was a poeta doctus because, according to Gellius, he had enormous knowledge of ancient literature and linguistic rules (6.7.1), and had possibly been a pupil of Valerius Probus (who lived until the first decade of the second century); Gellius presents him in the act of speaking about grammar, literary criticism, and natural science. In the Noctes Atticae, we have no information about his poetical works; he is depicted while harvesting grapes in an estate that he owned in agro Falisco (20.8.1), so that the poet Annianus mentioned by Gellius was identified with the anonymous Faliscan poet mentioned by Terentianus Maurus. Very few verses by Annianus are extant, thanks to Terentianus and Marius Victorinus. They are extremely refined. They should have been taken from a work that is usually entitled Carmina Falisca, and seems to be dedicated to country life and vintage, in accordance (more or less justified) with the scene of grape-gathering described by Gellius.
Gellius is a precious source for the knowledge of other poets of this age. Iulius Paulus was famous for his grammatical and linguistic doctrine, and his knowledge of Roman antiquary (19.7). An unknown poet and a friend of Gellius is mentioned (19.11) as a good poet and author of 17 iambic dimeters, which are the reworking of a Greek distich attributed to Plato. It is a question of an erotic theme expounded in a jocular way (erotopaegnion), with an affected and sentimental tone and a language full of neoterisms and archaisms. It has been hypothesized that Apuleius might be the author of this poem, but there is no certain proof.
Alfius Avitus wrote a Liber excellentium (virorum or rerum), mentioned by Terentianus Maurus, Priscianus, and Marius Victorinus, perhaps an anthology in verses of Roman history; 11 verses (iambic dimeters) are extant. The fragments refer to the rape of the Sabine women and the episode of the Faliscan schoolteacher, both related by Livy (1.13 and 5.27). These are heroic themes expressed in verses that are extraneous to heroic topics.
Septimius Serenus was probably African and lived between the second and third century AD (according to others, he lived in the third century); to be sure, he was later than Alfius Avitus, because this is the succession fixed by Terentianus Maurus. About 30 fragments from his poems and some testimonies about him have been transmitted to us: this means that he was a poet of some renown; unfortunately, the fragments are quite short. They are grouped under a common title, Opuscula ruralia; Servius seems to define Serenus as a successor of the “Faliscan” poetry of Annianus (cf. GLK 4.465.6), but it is difficult to say what this ruralis poetry actually consisted of, considering the variety of contents found in the fragments. Septimius Serenus appears to be different from the other poets for his notable variety of meters: some are ancient and rare, others, on the other hand, new and created through changes made on the dactylic meter. It can be said, therefore, that this poet devoted a particular attention to metric experimentation.
The most famous poem composed in the second century is the Pervigilium Veneris, which is also preserved in the Anthologia Latina. It consists of 93 trochaic tetrameters, grouped into ten strophes; 11 verses are constituted by a refrain: cras amet qui numquam amavit quique amavit cras amet.
The date of this short poem is uncertain: second, third, or fourth century. The attribution to the second century, which I accept, is the traditional one; Alan Cameron (1984 and 1980) supposed that the poem might be attributed to Tiberianus, a poet of the Constantinian age. In support of the second century as the date for the poem, it has been observed that it shows many affinities with the poetry of that century: lexical preciosities and use of Grecisms, rare terms, interest in an unusual meter (in this case, the trochaic tetrameter is never treated as a septenary). The poet is a poeta doctus; knows well Lucretius, Catullus, Virgil, and Statius too; and is also interested in aspects of popular culture, both in the lexicon and the syntax, and in his depiction of the festival.
The Pervigilium Veneris describes the eve of a religious festival in honor of Venus Iblaea, which takes place in Sicily during three days and three nights. Venus is the goddess of love, and the event of the festival coincides with the coming of spring, which is the season of love. The poem describes the birth of Venus and her procession, and celebrates the goddess and the deities who accompany her (Cupid and the nymphs). Venus is celebrated because she is a cosmic goddess, protects Rome, the countryside, and cattle; she is present not only in human beings but also in animals.
I end this look at Latin authors of the second century with brief mentions of lesser-known authors. A friend of Fronto was Gnaeus Claudius Severus Arabianus, ordinary consul in 146 AD; he was an expert in peripatetic philosophy, and tutored Marcus Aurelius when he was still Caesar. He was interested in history and political doctrines, as we learn from Marcus Aurelius himself (1.14.1) and Historia Augusta (Marcus 3.3).
Lollianus Avitus was ordinary consul in 144 AD and proconsul of Africa in 157–158 AD. He was the personification of the classical ideal and an expert in eloquence. His letters to Fronto show a particular appeal and culture, and a careful work of selection in the lexicon. Apuleius speaks of him in enthusiastic tones in the Apologia, asserting that Avitus collected together all the qualities of the best orators (Apol. 24), and reads one of his letters in the course of the trial (Apol. 94–95), underlining the pleasantness of his style.
Claudius Maximus was the successor of Lollianus Avitus (158–159 AD) in Africa, and his friend. We know him especially in the trial against Apuleius, which was held in Sabratha. He was a philosopher and a friend of Apuleius himself, who celebrates his virtues, erudition, and common interest in philosophy. Maximus is able to recognize Apuleius’ allusions to Plato, Aristotle, and all the ancient philosophers. He is the example of the union of philosophy and action: tam austerae sectae tamque diutinae militiae (Apol. 81.2): in fact, Claudius Maximus was a soldier who had already distinguished himself in Trajan’s Parthian campaign, a teacher of Stoic philosophy, and a friend of Marcus Aurelius, who especially praised his humanity (1.15). “The gulf between rhetoric and philosophy tends to be exaggerated by polemic, not least in the writing of Fronto himself, but even he could on occasion display an interest in philosophy” (Champlin 1980, 33).
Fronto’s letter Ad amicos 1.4 presents Iulius Aquilinus as a philosopher and sophist. Aquilinus is erudite and elegant at the same time, and a concrete example of this union of intellectual endowments is given by his discussions on Plato. Erudition and elegantia are, to Fronto, the distinctive mark of eloquence, that is, an enviable deployment of words and a great reserve of sententiae. Also, Iulius Aquilinus was a respectable member of African society (of Sicca Veneria), which was characterized by wealth, culture, and faithfulness to the Empire. The philosopher had fulfilled his duties in life as judge and prefect of a cohort.
1 The title Apologia is of humanistic origin, while De Magia is found in the manuscripts, where it seems, however, to have been suggested by the fact that it was useful to give that name to the work: in fact, the title in the manuscripts is De Magia liber, and certainly liber had not been given by the author; cf. Harrison 2000, 42–43 and 39–88, for an analysis of this work.
2 A possible hypothesis is that these excerpts were prepared by Crispus Sallustius, the editor of the Metamorphoses and Apologia.
3 De interpretatione is attributed to Apuleius by manuscript tradition (probably to fill the gap caused by the absence of a tractate on logic, announced by Apuleius in De Platone 1.4.189, but not composed), but is from much later, and probably comes from the circle of Marius Victorinus.
Bernardi Perini, G. 1996. Aulo Gellio, Le notti attiche. Introduzione, traduzione e note. Torino: UTET.
Birley, A. 1997. Hadrian: The Restless Emperor. London: Routledge.
Blänsdorf, J. 1995. Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner.
Butler, H.E. and A.S. Owen. 1914. Apuleius Apologia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cavazza, F. 1985. Aulo Gellio, Le notti attiche. Introduzione, traduzione e note. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Di Giovine, C. 1988. Flori Carmina. Bologna: Patron.
Haines, C.R. 1957–1962. The Correspondence of Marcus Cornelius Fronto with Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Lucius Verus, Antoninus Pius, and Various Friends. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harrison, S.J., J.L. Hilton, and V. Hunink, eds. 2001. Apuleius, Rhetorical Works. Oxford: University Press.
Helm, R. 1905. Apulei, Apologia. Leipzig: Teubner.
Helm, R. 1910. Apulei, Florida. Leipzig: Teubner.
Hunink, V. 1997. Apuleius: Pro se de magia. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.
Hunink, V. 2001. Apuleius, Florida. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.
Julien, Y. 1998. Aulu-Gelle, Les Nuits attiques IV. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Marache, R. 1967; 1978; 1989. Aulu-Gelle, Les Nuits attiques I. II. III. Paris, Les Belles Lettres.
Marshall, P.K., 1990. Auli Gelli, Noctes Atticae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mattiacci, S. 1982. I frammenti dei Poetae Novelli. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo.
Moreschini, C. 1990. Apuleio, La magia: Introduzione, traduzione e note. Milan: Rizzoli.
Moreschini, C. 1991. Apuleius De philosophia libri. Stuttgart: Teubner.
Portalupi, F. 1997. Frontone, Opere. Testo, introduzione, traduzione e note. Turin: UTET.
Rolfe, J.C. 1961. The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
van den Hout, M.P.J. 1988. M. Cornelii Frontonis, Epistulae. Leipzig: Teubner.
van den Hout, M.P.J. 1999. A Commentary on the Letters of Marcus Cornelius Fronto. Leiden: Brill.
Anderson, G. 2004. “Aulus Gellius as a storyteller.” In The Worlds of Aulus Gellius, edited by L. Holford-Strevens and A. Vardi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–117.
Astarita, M.L. 1993. La cultura nelle «Noctes Atticae». Catania: Università di Catania.
Astarita, M.L. 1997. Frontone oratore. Catania: Università di Catania.
Bernardi Perini, G. 1998. “Frontone, Gellio e i ‘Poetae novelli.’” In Storia della civiltà letteraria greca e latina, 3 vols., edited by I. Lana and E.V. Maltese. Turin: UTET, pp. 50–76. A sound and well-informed synthesis of second-century Latin literature (with the exclusion of Apuleius).
Cameron, A. 1980. “Poetae Novelli.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 84: 127–185. A deep research into the Latin poetry of the times of Apuleius. Old problems and new proposals of solution. A brilliant essay by a specialist of late antique poetry.
Cameron, A. 1984. “The Pervigilium Veneris.” In La poesia tardoantica: tra retorica, teologia e politica. Messina: Centro di Studi Umanistici, pp. 209–234.
Champlin, E. 1980. Fronto and Antonine Rome. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. A study on Antonine Rome, mostly from a historical point of view, but still valid.
Cova, P.V. 1993. “Marco Cornelio Frontone.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.34.1: 873–918.
Fantham, E. 1996. Roman Literary Culture: From Cicero to Apuleius. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fleury, P. 2006. Lectures de Fronton: Un rhéteur latin à l’époque de la Seconde Sophistique Paris: Les Belles Lettres. A new, updated study on the master of Latin archaism in the second century.
Haines, C.R. 1930. The Communings with Himself of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Emperor of Rome: Together with His Speeches and Sayings. London: W. Heinemann.
Harrison, S.J. 2000. Apuleius. A Latin Sophist. Oxford: University Press.
Holford-Strevens, L. 2003. Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and His Achievement, revised edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A masterpiece of philological, literary, and historical research. Essential not only for studying Aulus Gellius, but also for his period. The best book on Roman literature and culture of the second century.
Kasulke, C.T. 2005. Fronto, Marc Aurel und kein Konflikt zwischen Rhetorik und Philosophie im 2. Jh. n. Chr. Munich and Leipzig: Saur.
Swain, S. 2004. “Bilingualism and biculturalism in Antonine Rome: Apuleius, Fronto, and Gellius.” In The Worlds of Aulus Gellius, edited by L. Holford-Strevens and A. Vardi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–40.
Anderson, G. 1994. “Aulus Gellius: A miscellanist and his world.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.34.2: 1834–1862.
Beall, S.M. 2004. “Gellian humanism revisited.” In The Worlds of Aulus Gellius, edited by L. Holford-Strevens and A. Vardi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 206–222.
Bessone, L. 1993. “Floro: un retore storico e poeta.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.34.1: 80–117.
Gamberale, L. 1996. “Confronti e incontri di cultura nell’età degli Antonini.” Filellenismo e tradizionalismo a Roma. Rome: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, pp. 57–84.
Hijmans, B.L. 1994. “Apuleius Orator: ‘Pro se de magia’ and ‘Florida.’” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.34.2: 1708–1784.
Holford-Strevens, L. 2004. “Recht as een Palmen-Bohn and other facets of Gellius’ medieval and humanistic reception.” In The Worlds of Aulus Gellius, edited by L. Holford-Strevens and A. Vardi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 249–282.
Holford-Strevens, L. and A. Vardi, eds. 2004. The Worlds of Aulus Gellius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mattiacci, Silvia. 1985. “Apuleio Poeta Novello.” In Disiecti membra poetae, edited by V. Tandoi. Foggia: Atlantica, pp. 235–277.
Mattiacci, S. 1987. “Apuleio e i poeti latini arcaici.” In Munus Amicitiae: Scritti in memoria di Alessandro Ronconi, vol. 1. Florence: F. Le Monnier, pp. 159–200.
Michel, A. 1993. “Rhétorique et philosophie au second siècle après J.C.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.34.1: 3–78.
Russell, D.A. 1990. Antonine Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soverini, P. 1993. “Aspetti e problemi delle teorie frontoniane.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.34.2: 919–1004.
Steinmetz, P. 1982. Untersuchungen zur römischen Literatur des zweiten Jahrhunderts nach Christi Geburt. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz. A good synthesis of the literature of that period. Interesting, because it also takes into account early Christian literature.
Steinmetz, P. 1989. “Lyrische Dichtung im 2. Jahrhundert n. Ch.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.33.1: 259–302.
Tommasi Moreschini, C.O. 2009. “An interesting (and unedited) document of the presence and the interests into rhetoric of the 2nd century by one of the greatest Italian poets.” Rhetores. Giacomo Leopardi. Testo critico, introduzione e commento. Pisa and Rome: Fabrizio Serra.
Vardi, A. 2004. “Genre, conventions, and cultural programme in Gellius’ Noctes Atticae.” In The Worlds of Aulus Gellius, edited by L. Holford-Strevens and A. Vardi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 159–186.
Vessey, D.W.T. 1994. “Aulus Gellius and the cult of the past.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II. 33.1: 1863–1917.