Few ancient authors have a textual history as interesting as Fronto. The discovery of the fifth-century palimpsest preserving his Correspondence by Cardinal Angelo Mai goes back to the early nineteenth century. The leaves in Uncial script from Fronto's codex and from a manuscript preserving the so-called Scholia Bobiensia in Ciceronem were overwritten with the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon in the seventh century, presumably in the monastery of Bobbio. This rewritten codex was later split into two halves: one is now in Milan (Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana, E 147 sup.) and the other in Vatican City (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 5750). Mai notoriously used chemical reagents – primarily gallic acid – to enhance the legibility of the lower script and, in so doing, he permanently damaged the leaves, which were progressively corroded by the acid. Some of them became so dry that they broke into pieces or turned black and are now completely illegible. Mai's transcriptions and editorial work, culminating in his editio princeps (1815, 18232, which included the information gathered from the Vatican half of the palimpsest, 18463), are valuable, but contemporary scholars already recognised many flaws and inaccuracies. The latest critical text of the whole Correspondence, M. van den Hout's Teubner (1988), is not based on an inspection of the manuscripts (two more fragments of Fronto's writings survive in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 24, and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 12161). Indeed, its limits have been noted by reviewers; see especially S. Timpanaro, RFIC 117 (1989) and L. Holford-Strevens, CR 41 (1991).
Recent editorial work on Fronto has focused on selections of his writings: in 2004 A. Peri edited afresh Fronto's Arion and De feriis Alsiensibus, and now C. gives us a critical edition of seven letters in Greek by Fronto (indicated as T 1–7) as well as the Greek phrases with which his Latin letters are interspersed (T 8–28). It does not include the letter to Fronto by Appian (Ep. Var. 4, abbreviations here follow E. Champlin, Fronto and Antonine Rome [1980], pp. 131–6; chapters and paragraphs after van den Hout's Teubner) or the quotations from Homer and Callimachus in Marcus Aurelius’ epistle to Fronto (M. Caes. 1.4).
The volume is divided into three main sections: the first is an introduction to the critical edition, providing detailed palaeographical and codicological information about the palimpsest. C.'s examination of the lower script and recurring corruptions in the Greek enables her to reach two important conclusions: the exemplar was in capitals, and the fifth-century scribe had a limited knowledge of Greek. C. discusses the possible order of the Greek epistles before the codex had been dismembered for palimpsesting and then in earlier editions. She also explains her editorial principles, which are fairly conservative and tend to avoid cosmetic emendation. The critical text of each letter is preceded by an overview of the historical and socio-cultural background, which expands on van den Hout's commentary (1999), and by a discussion of the state of conservation of the leaves transmitting the Greek text. In her critical text C. offers helpful information about the letters and the lines that are illegible, insofar as this can be ascertained. To avoid the same confusing accumulation of readings as in van den Hout's Teubner, C. divides her positive apparatus into three parts: the first gives citations or allusions to other writings, while the following two sections report manuscript readings and, more selectively, conjectures. In the critical text I noticed the following misprints: T 2.20 ἐῷη for ἐῴη; T 2.36 γρᾶψαι for γράψαι; T 2.41 ἀθάνατου for ἀθανάτου; T 5.7 ῥήτωρι for ῥήτορι; T 6.19 οἰκόθεν for οἴκοθεν; T 6.21 τοῦτοις for τούτοις; T 6.99 δεκα‹τ›ον for δέκα‹τ›ον; T 7.29 πονερῷ for πονηρῷ; T 7.84 ἐρῶς for ἔρως; T 7.95 παραλαμβόμενον for παραλαμβανόμενον; T 10i συμβεβηκοτων for συμβεβηκότων; T 13d and f ἀδρόν and ἀδρῶς for ἁδρόν and ἁδρῶς; T 14 ἀκριβὲς for ἀκριβές. C.'s careful inspection of the palimpsest allows her to propose sound emendations, often in places where van den Hout and others indicated a lacuna, see, for example, T 1.4 (= M. Caes. 2.1.1) ἀπρεπὲς ἀνδρὶ παιδείας ‹ἐπιμελου›μένῳ, which would refer to Pl. Lg. 953d τοῦ τῆς παιδείας ἐπιμελουμένου; T 2.41 (= M. Caes. 2.3.4) ἐκείνου μὲν οὕτω παῖς ὥσπερ ‹τοῦ› ἀθανάτου Διός, where Mai (Ἀθηνᾶ τοῦ Διὸς [sic]) and van den Hout (Ἀθάνα τοῦ Διός) misread the palimpsest; T 6.21–2 (= Ep. Var. 5.2) οὐκέτι χαρισαίμην ἂν τούτοις εἰς ἀ‹π›όδειξιν ἐπιτρέπειν χρῆσθαι. The text is followed by an Italian translation and notes on textual and palaeographical matters, in which C. justifies her editorial choices.
The second section is perhaps the most insightful examination of Fronto's Greek available to date. In Fronto's time, Greek not only was the language favoured by the imperial court, but it was also the language with which all second sophistic pepaideumenoi were expected to be conversant. C. delves into Fronto's bilingualism and his research into Greek and Latin vocabulary. Despite the stylistic dryness of his Greek, which is often accentuated by the difficulty of blending the Greek Kunstprosa of that period and the colloquial tone of some letters, C. recognises that repetitions serve a pedagogical aim and should not be regarded as evidence of Fronto's dullness. C. also examines the insertion of citations from Greek authors, especially Plato, as well as technical terms that come from rhetoric. These feature abundantly in Fronto's letters to his main addressee, the young Marcus Aurelius, whom Fronto taught rhetoric. C. considers the relationship between the two: despite Marcus’ warmth and enthusiasm, his awareness of Fronto's inferior social status can easily be glimpsed in their correspondence.
The third and final section explores the story of Mai's discovery of Fronto's Correspondence and the publication of the editio princeps. Much attention is paid to Mai's own annotations (preserved in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 9580), to his epistolary exchange with the poet and scholar Giacomo Leopardi, as well as to the intellectual and scholarly debate that sparked off following the publication of his editio princeps. This section is followed by a brief appendix on two epigrams from the Palatine Anthology ascribed to a certain Fronto (AP 12.174; 12.233), whose precise identity cannot be determined. The volume ends with a bibliography and three indexes: the first lists the manuscripts and documents cited, while the second and the third are an index nominum and locorum, respectively.
Overall, there is much to praise in the book. As C. remarks in the preface, she did not resort to multispectral imaging or infrared reflectography consistently, but made use of digital reproductions under natural, infrared and UV lights and inspected the Ambrosian and Vatican halves of the Fronto palimpsest in situ with the aid of a UV light. Following A. Németh in: A. Rita (ed.), La Biblioteca Vaticana dall'occupazione francese all'ultimo Papa Re (1797–1878) (2020), p. 203, C. recognises (p. xiii n. 23) that more sophisticated digitisation techniques yield uneven results with palimpsests in such a poor state of conservation. However, she acknowledges that future technological developments may afford a better understanding of the lower script. And so, while a full edition of Fronto's Correspondence that benefits from these technological advances remains a desideratum, we should be grateful to C. for her work and the acumen with which she examined and, where possible, emended vexed passages. The attention she devoted to the palimpsest and earlier editorial activity will serve as a model for future textual critics working on Fronto.
