<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:F.fonteius_5</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:F.fonteius_5</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:base="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><body xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><div type="textpart" subtype="alphabetic_letter" n="F"><div type="textpart" subtype="entry" xml:id="fonteius-bio-5" n="fonteius_5"><head><persName xml:lang="la"><surname full="yes">Fonteius</surname></persName></head><p>5. <persName xml:lang="la"><forename full="yes">M.</forename><surname full="yes">Fonteius</surname></persName>, son of the preceding. The praenomens of both these
      Fonteii are very doubtful. (Orelli, <hi rend="ital">Onom. Tull. s. v. Fonteius.</hi>) Cicero
      enumerates the offices borne by M. or M'. Fonteius in the following order. He was a triumvir,
      but <pb n="180"/> whether for apportioning land, conducting a colony, or of the public
      treasury, is unknown. He was quaestor between <date when-custom="-86">B. C. 86</date>-<date when-custom="-83">83</date>. In <date when-custom="-83">B. C. 83</date> he was legatus, with the title of
      Pro-quaestor in Further Spain, and afterwards legatus in Macedonia, when he repressed the
      incursions of the Thracian tribes into the Roman province. The date of his praetorship is
      uncertain, but he governed, as his praetorian province, Narbonnese Gaul, between <date when-custom="-76">B. C. 76</date>-<date when-custom="-73">73</date>, since he remained three years in his
      government, and in 75 sent provisions, military stores, and recruits to Metellus Pius and Cn.
      Pompey, who were then occupied with the Sertorian war in Spain. His exactions for this purpose
      formed one of the charges brought against him by the provincials. He returned to Rome in <date when-custom="-73">B. C. 73</date>-<date when-custom="-2">2</date>, but he was not prosecuted for
      extortion and misgovernment until <date when-custom="-69">B. C. 69</date>. M. Plaetorius was the
      conductor, M. Fabius subscriptor of the prosecution. With few exceptions, the principal
      inhabitants of Narbonne appeared at Rome as witnesses against Fonteius, but the most
      distinguished among them was Induciomarus, a chief of the Allobroges. The trial was in many
      respects important; but our knowledge of the cause, as well as of the history of M. Fonteius
      himself, is limited to the partial and fragmentary speech of his advocate, Cicero. The
      prosecution was an experiment of the new law--Lex Aurelia de Judiciis--which had been passed
      at the close of <date when-custom="-70">B. C. 70</date>, and which took away the judicia from the
      senate alone, and enacted that the judices be chosen equally from the senators, the equites,
      and the tribuni aerarii. It was also the year of Cicero's aedileship, and the prosecutor of
      Verres now came forward to defend a humbler but a similar criminal. Fonteius procured from
      every province which he had governed witnesses to his official character -- from Spain and
      Macedonia, from Narbo Martius and Marseille, from the camp of Pompey, and from the companies
      of revenue-farmers and merchants whom he had protected or connived at during his
      administration. He was charged, as far as we can infer from Cicero's speech (<hi rend="ital">Pro Fonteio</hi>), with defrauding his creditors while quaestor; with imposing an exorbitant
      tax on the wines of Narbonne; and with selling exemptions from the repair of the roads of the
      province, so that both were the roads impassable, and those who could not afford to buy
      exemptions were burdened with the duty of the exempted. Cicero denies the charge of fraud, but
      of the complaints respecting the wine-tax and the roads, he says that they were grave, if
      true; and that they were true, and that Fonteius was really guilty, are probable from the
      vague declamation in which his advocate indulges throughout his defence. Whether Fonteius were
      acquitted is not known; but, as he would have been fined or exiled if pronounced guilty, and
      as we read of his purchasing, after his trial, a sumptuous house--the <hi rend="ital">domus
       Rabiriana</hi> (<bibl n="Cic. Att. 1.6">Cic. Att. 1.6</bibl>.), at Naples, <date when-custom="_68">B. C. 68</date>, it is more probable that the sentence of the judices was favorable. (Cic.
       <hi rend="ital">pro Font.</hi>; Julius Victor, <hi rend="ital">in Font. Fragm.</hi>; Drumann,
       <hi rend="ital">Gesch. Rom</hi> vol. v. pp. 329-334, by whom an analysis of Cicero's speech
      is given. The fragments we possess belong to the second speech for the defence. Each party
      spoke twice, land Cicero each time in reply. (<bibl n="Cic. Font. 13">Cic. Font. 13</bibl>.)
      Quintilian (6.3 § 51) cites <hi rend="ital">pro Font.</hi> 3.7, as an example of
      enigmatic allusion.)</p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>