Scanned text contains errors.
but it also contains a long passage (p. 87—89, Goes.), which does not relate to the subject of Controversies, and may have been introduced by an accidental transposition of leaves from a treatise De Conditionibus Agrorum of Siculus Flaccus. Walter (Gescli. des Rom. Rechts, p. 784, n. 64) attempts to restore to order the confused commentary of Aggenus. The Idler Diazographus, in Goesius, p. 90 bears the following title, " Aggeni Urbici in Julium Frontinum Commentariorum liber secundus, qui Diazographus dicitur." It consists of a set of plates or drawings, which seem intended to illustrate the writings of Frontinus De Limitibus and De Controversiis.
4. Next follows (p.102—147, Goes.) a treatise, De Coloniis, which has been generally published under the name of Frontinus, but it is doubtful whether any part of it really, belongs to our author. It is compiled from various sources, as the Commentarius Claudii Caesaris, the Liber Balbi, the Mappa Al-banensium, and contains much curious information, topographical and historical. That, in its present state, it cannot have been compiled by Frontinus is evident from the mention which it makes of later emperors, as Antoninus and Commodus. Some notes on this work by Andreas Scottus were printed by P. Burmann in his edition of Velleius Paterculus, p. 632—640. (Lug. Bat. 1719.) The chaotic fragment, called in Goesius, p. 128, Julii Frontini Siculi Praefatio, is quite out of place, and resembles the end of the first part of the Commentary of Aggenus Urbicus (p. 64, Goes.). The name Siculus joined to Frontinus appears to have been given from an ignorant confusion of Frontinus with Siculus Flaccus. In consequence of works having been wrongly attributed to Frontinus, which clearly could not have been written by the author of the treatises on Stratagems and on Aqueducts, some scholars, following Polenus, have supposed the existence of two writers of the same name, and have maintained that the writer on Stratagems and the Frontinus, of whom we possess some genuine remains in the collection of Agrimensores, were different persons. (Fabric. Bibliotli. Lot. vol. iii. p. 311, ed. Ernesti.)
5. In Goesius, p. 215—219, is a fragment given without the name of any author, under the title Fragmentum Agrarium de Limitibus. In one mar nuscript it is ascribed to Hyginus, and in another to Julius Frontinus Siculus. Niebuhr attributes it to Frontinus. '(Hist, of Rome, vol. ii. p. 623. n. 9, and p. 626. n. 22.)
For detailed information relating to the Agri-mensores generally, and to the difficult subjects treated of by Frontinus, the reader is referred (in addition to the authors already cited) to Booking's Institutionen, vol. i. p. 325—331; Rudorff, in Sa-vigny's Zeitsclirift, vol. x. p. 344—437 ; the Memoirs ofZeiss,inZeitsc7i.furdieAltertk. Wissensch. Darmstadt, 1840; Schoell, Histoire de la Litterature Romaine, vol. ii. p. 454, vol. iii. p. 227 ; ^Giraud, Recherches sur le Droit de Propriety, vol. i. p. 97 ; Dureau de la Malle, E'conomie Politique des Ro-mains, vol. i. pp. 66,179.
The fragments of Frontinus connected with the Res Agraria are appended to Sichard's edition of the Codex Theodosianus, as it appears in the Bre-viarium Aniani, fol. Basil. 1528. They are given in the complete editions of the works of Frontinus, by P. Scriver, 4to. Lug. Bat. 1607, and R. Keu-chen. 8vo, Amst. 1661. They are also contained
in the following collections of Agrimensores:— 1. De Agrorum Conditionibus, &c., apud Turne- bum. 4to. Paris. 1555. 2. Auctores Finium Re- gundorum cum Nic. Rigaltii Observ. 4to. Lutet. 1614. 3. Rei Agrariae Auctores, cura Wilh. Goesii. 4to. Amst. 1674. Some of the remains are to be found in C. Giraud's Rei Agrariae Scriptorum nobiliores Reliquiae, Paris, 1843. The fragment De Controversiis, with the commentaries of Aggenus Urbicus, and of the Pseudo-Simplicius, were edited by Blume in theRhein. Museum fur Jurisp. vol. v. p. 329—384. Niebuhr considers the fragments of Frontinus as the only work among the Agrimen sores which can be counted a part of classical li terature, or which was composed with any real legal knowledge. This opinion comes with au thority from the great historian who, in his inves tigations concerning the Agrarian institutions, made frequent use of the Agrimensores, and was thence led on to a critical examination of the entire circuit of Roman history. In compliance with the recom mendation of Niebuhr (to whom the writings of the Agrimensores had always a peculiar charm), several scholars of eminence have recently devoted their attention to this obscure subject, and a new edition of the whole collection has been undertaken by Blume, Lachmann, and Rudorff, the appearance of which is anxiously desired. [J. T. G.]
FRONTO, M. AUFI'DIUS, was the grandson of Cornelius Fronto, the orator, by his only daughter, who married Aufidius Victorinus. Au- fidius Fronto was consul a. d. 199, and in 217 was nominated governor of Africa, but at the so licitation of the provincials was removed by Ma- crinus to Asia. This appointment also was cancelled by the emperor, who offered the usual pecuniary compensation, which was refused. A monument discovered at Pesaro, erected by this individual in memory of his son, bears the follow ing inscription:—M. aufidio frontoni prone- poti M. corneli frontonis oratoris consit- lis magistri imperatorum Luci et antonini nepotis aufidi victorini praefecti urbi bis consulis fronto consul filio dulcis- simo. (Dion Cass. Ixxviii. 22 ; Orelli, Inscrip. n. 1176.) [W. R.]
FRONTO, CA'TIUS, a contemporary of Ves pasian, who defended Bassus, and afterwards Va- renus. He seems to have been an orator of some eminence at the time. (Plin. Epist. iv. 9, vi. 13.) Niebuhr, in his life of Corn. Fronto (p. 37) is in clined to believe that he is the same as the Fronto spoken of by Juvenal, and who owned the house of the poet Horace. [L. S.].
FRONTO, M. CORNE'LIUS, who is generally styled The Orator by the writers of the third and fourth centuries, and whom his contemporaries regarded as inferior in eloquence only to Cicero himself, was by descent an Italian, but a native of Cirta, a Roman colony in Numidia, where, during the dictatorship of Caesar, a large body of the followers of P. Sittius had received allotments of land. He was in all probability born under Domi-tian, and in early life devoted but little attention to literature, since, although a pupil of Dionysius, surnamed the subtle (6 actttos), and of Athenodotus, he had scarcely commenced the study of the ancient authors at the age of twenty-two. Upon