N. 6 – 2007 – Tradizione
Romana
in
The Intellectual Background of Aulus Gellius
Noctes Atticae is an adeptly
conceived compilation of miscellany stories. In those stories, be they
fictitious or not, Aulus Gellius tells us of his friends and teachers and other
persons he happened to know[1].
Besides important information covering various branches of learning, the book
abounds in anecdotes and trivia that are usually contemporaneous to Aulus but
can at times go far back in time. Needless to say the Attic Nights constitutes a major source in all research on
Roman history and culture[2]. The prevailing opinion has it that the Attic Nights epitomizes that particular
epoch where the Greek and Roman culture would finally blend to produce the
homogenous product of cultural perfection. Despite laborious research, however,
its author remains mysterious and enigmatic. There is no certainty as to
Aulus’ origins, his place and date of birth or death[3].
Where and when the book was written is a matter of conjectures[4].
According to his own testimonies, Aulus was born into a rich equestrian family.
In his early days, he studied grammar and rhetoric in
Aulus’ school days were marked by diversity as
he mentions in numerous instances. He was taught by a number of people of
varied backgrounds but who nonetheless recruited from the elites. It is fair to
say that elementary education was the responsibility of Aulus’ father.
When he came of age, however, the father was no longer there. For all we know
he either deceased or simply deemed Aulus sufficiently mature to make his own
decisions as to his further education and his teachers. Indeed, Gellius
accounts for this himself as he mentions the tradition which had it that adulescentuli enjoyed in
The first teacher Aulus thus worked with was Sulpicius
Apollinaris. This excellent grammarian came from
At another time Sulpicius Apollinaris engaged in a
discussion with his students in the library of Tiberius at the
We note other exchanges and influences. One day, Aulus
asked his teacher if it was more correct to say habeo cura vestri or habeo
cura vestrum. Sulpicius Apollinaris admitted that the question was
tantalizing him too. He explained the principles of declination of personal
pronouns against the backdrop of the paradigms of the Greek as well as multiple
examples drawn from the literature in Latin[11].
Gellius mentions also that in his adulescentulus
years he witnessed Sulpicius Apollinaris writing a letter to Sextus Erucius
Clarus[12].
The latter was in the office of praefectus
urbi et bis consul and wanted to know the meaning of the phrase inter os atque offam multa intervenire posse
that he found in the speech De aedilibus
vitio creatis by Cato[13].
In his response, the grammarian referred to the well-known Greek saying: poll¦ metaxÝ pšlei kÚlikoj kai ce…leoj ¥krou[14]. When, as an adult, Gellius engages in a
polemic with Iulius Hyginus in his Attic
Nights[15],
he refers to his first teacher. As Iulius Hyginus seems to claim that Virgil was
wrong in using the expression pennis
praepetibus[16], Gellius mentions that in his young
days [adulescens] in Rome he
witnessed the same discussion de iure
augurio between his first teacher of grammar (Sulpicius Apollinarius) and
Erucius Clarus, who was praefectus urbi
at the time[17].
Whenever Gellius mentions Sulpicius Apollinaris, it is
always in the highest terms and with the most unequivocal admiration and
respect. The grammarian took great interest in legal questions in his
philological analyses. It is hardly surprising that Gellius should turn to him
for help when he was appointed to judge a case or a controversy and had difficulty
with the expression intra Kalendas, which concerned the time-limit to
pronounce his judgment[18].
Gellius thus testifies to the gradual deepening of the
companionship with his teacher. This also shows how he gradually developed his
expertise in Latin literature and his capacity to interpret it using
corresponding expressions in Greek literature.
Besides grammar, Gellius studied rhetoric. Antonius
Iulianus was an outstanding rhetorician originating from
Another orator and teacher, Titius Castricius enjoyed
fame and authority that he had consolidated already in the times of the Caesar
Hadrian[30].
He was notorious for condemning senators who dressed inappropriately[31].
He explained the meaning of particular words and phrases used by Caius Gracchus
in his speech In Publium Popilium
Laenatem pro rostris[32].
Otherwise, he compared the speeches by Sallustius and Demostenes[33]
and analyzed the speech Oratio ad populum
de ducendis uxoribus pronounced by the censor Metellus Numidicus[34].
Whilst Metellus’ arguments to the effect of encouraging to use more the
institution of matrimony were to the point, Titius deemed them inefficient. He
also took the opportunity to make the point that the censor was wrong in his
choice of argumentation that is characteristic of rhetoric and should thus be
restrained to rhetoricians whilst public officials should use more appropriate means
of expression[35].
Such education introduced those young men into the
difficult profession of a rhetorician. The direct style of Antonius Iulianus
complemented the teaching of Titius Castricius, who in his turn preferred to
use many examples drawn from the greatest of orators. Thus Gellius acquired the
fundamentals of knowledge of rhetoric. One has to concede, however, that Marcus
Cornelius Fronto was to have by far the greatest influence on Gellius[36].
Already during his student years in
According to Gellius the problems addressed by Fronto
were essentially simplistic but nonetheless very helpful in as much as the
Latin is concerned. It was not rare for Fronto to use somebody’s
maladroit language as the canvass on which to build a discussion on of
particular points of grammar. Gellius gives an account of one such situation.
One of the participants happened to be a close acquaintance of Fronto and a
person of great learning and background. He claimed publicly to have healed his
swelling [morbo aquae intercutis] by
applying hot sands (harenis calentibus).
Fronto burst out laughing at this very moment to say that his friend healed his
disease but not his language problems. For this was the occasion to use De analogia by Caius Caesar[40]
and to lecture in all seriousness on the problem of nouns that have but one
form, be it singular (e.g. harena) or
plural (e.g. quadriga)[41].
He concluded encouraging his audience to go back and consecrate their leisure
to reading literature in search of examples of the use of the word quadriga in the singular or harena in the plural. The advantage of
such an exercise lied in training the mind to read and spot words that are rarely
used. Gellius admits not to be very successful at that. Of all the words he
only found the word quadriga used in
the singular in Ecdemeticus, a piece
included in Saturae[42]
by Marcus Varro[43].
He never found an instance where the word harena
would be used in the plural besides the said work by Caesar[44].
It was also common for one of the participant to read
out a text by an ancient author. Gellius mentions reading collectively the Annales by Claudius Quadrigarius. Fronto
would explain for example the meaning and the intention in using the doubtfully
worded expression mortalibus multis
instead of the less clumsy formulation hominibus
multis[45].
Fronto’s explanations could not but convince the
audience. They also induced respective collective admiration. Their function,
however, was to teach the correct use of the forms of the language.
The Fronto’s discussions that Gellius witnessed
were not only discussions with anonymous though close followers of Fronto.
Quite to the contrary, it was not rare to witness discussions of Fronto with
outstanding philosophers and grammarians[46].
For example, the philosopher Favorinus of Arelate[47]
discussed with Fronto inter alia on
the colors and their relative designations in Greek and Latin[48].
Though the discussion was purely philological, Gellius listened attentively and
deemed it highly instructive.
Another discussion in
area Palatina had this educational function, too. Marcus Cornelius Fronto,
Sulpicius Apollinaris and Postumius Festus engaged in a debate de litterarum disciplinis. Judging by
the context of Gellius’ account, the main protagonist of this
conversation was his former teacher Sulpicius Apollinaris. Fronto questioned
the grammarian on the etymology of the word nanus.
Postumius Festus also addressed him in the dialogue. The authority of
Fronto was nonetheless unconditional; Apollinaris attests to this in his choice
of words when responding[49].
It is fair to say, by the way Gellius describes his meetings
with Fronto, that he never developed close and direct acquaintance with as had
been the case with Sulpicius Apollinaris or Iulianus Antonius. They always met
in public places[50].
There is not doubt, however, that Gellius was highly receptive to Fronto’s
teaching. At his suggestion he searched in the literature for rarely used words
and went to great lengths to establish the origin of their meaning[51].
Gellius mastered the fundamentals of grammar and
rhetoric in
At another instance, Gellius mentions that Taurus
criticized all those who proceeded to study philosophy after rhetoric. The
example concerns a young man. Taurus scorned the youngster for having abandoned
his search for eloquence to pursue philosophy; this he deemed highly immoral.
When the adolescent tried to explain himself that he was only following the
example of his predecessors, the Platonic could not but escalate his scorn. In
reference to Demostenes[56],
Taurus emphasized that it takes a stupid person of no value whatsoever ignore
the basic teachings of philosophy and engage in following bad examples
nonetheless. On the other hand, it was even worse to use the conduct of others
as the foundation on which to justify one’s own mistakes and
responsibility therefor[57].
On the other hand, Taurus was very encouraging and
friendly in respect of those students who desired nothing else but pursue
philosophy, this determination he supported by good examples. One of his models
was Euclid of Megara, who had become a follower of Socrates well before the
Athenians decided they hated their neighbors of
Calvisius Taurus held courses daily[59].
His teaching concentrated on reading and clarifying philosophical treatises[60].
When courses were formally over, he would eagerly stay behind to talk to his
students, respond to their questions or indulge in less formalized
philosophical investigations[61].
Gellius admits having asked his master if a sage could
succumb to his anger. The philosopher responded with a comprehensive survey of
the malady or passions of anger. He treated various commentaries by the authors
of antiquity, including a commentary of his own. As was the method at the time,
he also surveyed the Greek and Latin terms that can be used to describe the
whole range of forms of anger[62].
Another story concerning Taurus shows the principles
of moral philosophy in action. Whilst Taurus was engaging in a lively and
informal after-school discussion with his students in front of his house, he
received highly dignified guests: the governor of the
Gellius skillfully illustrates the case
by paraphrasing a relevant passage from the fourth book of Annales by Quadrigarius[64].
The fragment treats the following circumstances and events: as the new consuls
were elected Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus for the second time and Fabius
Maximus whose father had been consul of the preceding year. One day the father
of the latter – proconsul – refused to unmount the
horse when he met his son. The lictors who accompanied him were well aware of
the harmony that reigned between the father and the son; they would not dare to
make the father pay respects to the consul. As the father approached the son,
the consul asked his father: quid postea?
Now, as the civil servants detained imperium
and the lictors interpreted the question as an order to descend the horse,
which they immediately proceeded to execute. The father, on the other hand,
could not but praise the son for having enforced the respect due to
representatives of the populus[65].
Taurus made explicit yet another
essential aspect of philosophical propedeutics. He exposed the teaching method
introduced by Pythagoras and used by his followers. The students who were eager
to learn were called ™fusiogwmÒnei. This
Greek word means coming to know the nature and character of man, that is the
totality of what determines human body and human personality. Once this mission
accomplished, the young man would be subject to the test of silence for quite
some time. The time period of the test could not be established in abstracto, but rather required
decisions to be made on a case by case basis. Whoever was thus forbidden to
speak was also under the obligation to listen to what others had to say. They
were forbidden, however, to ask for clarification or examples when they could
not understand. Their silence would never last however less than two years.
During this time they were the ¢koustiko…. The silence they had to practice, on
the other hand, was to teach them what was termed ™cemuq…a, which meant
‘reticence’ or ‘verbal temperance’. Once they succeeded
in this difficult test, they were encouraged to speak, ask questions, take
notes and formulate their own opinions. Those who succeeded the first stage of
philosophical education proceeded to learn and exercise. Thereafter they would
be called maqhmatiko…. In ancient
Needless to say this challenging method
of preparing to become a philosopher was nothing but nostalgic musings of
Taurus. At the same time he could not but grumble that his students were
ill-prepared to pursue philosophical investigations. The fact that his students
wanted to pick and chose teaching methods was his anathema. If some said they
wanted to learn something and others would say they wanted to learn something
entirely different. Some wanted the course to begin with the Plato’s Symposium whilst preferred Phaedrus. One could also find those who
wanted to read Plato not because they were eager to learn to live a better life
but rather were impatient to master the language, and this not in order to be
able to formulate balanced opinions but simply so their language could become
smoother[67].
Indeed, comparing his contemporaneous
adepts of philosophy to the Pythagorean old school, those remarks seem bitter.
Nonetheless, they come natural. Taurus emphasized the fact that Pythagoreans
started their philosophical quest transferring all their property to the
community, which was very similar in its principles to the ancient Roman consortium ercto non cito[68].
Taurus thus insisted on passing onto his students the way the Pythagorean
teaching worked.
Gellius, on the other hand, gives us an
account of how he learned dialectics[69].
He started off with what was indeed introductory exercises – e„sagwg£j. It was imperative to be familiar with the
terminology called the axioms – perˆaxiwm£twn. Marcus Varro would
call them profata or proloquia depending on whim[70]. Eager to get to the root of the
matter, Gellius studied thoroughly the Commentarium
de proloquiis by L. Aelius[71],
the teacher of Marcus Varro. Unfortunately he was not to find anything that could
help him clarify the problem. He thus entertained the conjecture under which
Aelius wrote those books for his own pleasure, and that his reader’s
craving for knowledge was none of his concerns[72].
Thus he had no
choice but to resort to researching Greek books. Greek authors described ¢x…wma as lektÕn aÙtotelšj ¢pÒfanton Óson
™f’aØtù – that is as an
unqualified and self-evident statement[73].
Gellius, however, refused to translate this definition into Latin. He
maintained that any attempt at such a translation into Latin would require him
to use neologisms as none of the terms existed in Latin. Those, on the other
hand, could not be pleasant to the ear. He thus resolved to use the definition
he found in book 24 of De lingua
Such terminological diversity was
legion in antiquity. Another example would be what was called a hypothetical
syllogism[77]
(sunhmmšnon ¢x…wma), would go by the
name of adiunctum or connexum in
Further on Gellius contends that
the Greek concept of sumpeplegmšnon is equivalent to the
notion of coniunctum or completum[80]
in
After this short introduction into dialectics, Gellius
mentions that at the very beginning dialectics seems trivial and useless at
best. Having acquired a certain level of expertise, however, it is most likely
that the dialectics will monopolize the mind. If one does not take this
observation seriously, one runs the risk of wasting one’s life away in
the meanders of dialectics, engaging in petty exercises of subtle
differentiations[82].
Students were all to pleased to work out
new sophisms[83].
This obviously was not part of their official curricula, though the times of
leisure in the bathroom were one of many occasions. Every young men was to
literally throw a sophism at his peers as if the sophism was an arrow or a die.
The first to solve the sophism was awarded one sesterce. Whoever failed to
solve a sophism was to pay the same amount. The first to collect one dennar was
the winner of the particular round. The spirit of conviviality and friendliness
was preserved as the winner would later invite his competitors to a feast he
would finance with his prize. The sophisms came in many kinds and varieties.
One of them ran as follows: «What snow is, hail is not. Snow is white, so
hail is not white». Another example concerns the man: «what man is,
the horse cannot be, the man is a being, co the horse is not a being».
Under the rules of the game, the task was to guess in which part of the
statement or in which word there was a fallacy, or what should not be admitted.
Gellius complains that translating such sophisms into Latin robs them of most
of their finesse and charm[84].
He also mentions Diogenes the sophist who indulged in sophistry. One
dialectician originating form Plato’s school wanted to ridicule him and
addressed him with the following question: «is it true that what I am you
are not?». Diogenes responded in the affirmative; the dialectician went
on to say he himself was a human. Diogenes did not protest against this
affirmation which thus led the dialectician to announce that Diogenes thus was
not a human. Diogenes would not go away without a skillful riposte: «your
conclusion is just; since you now know who I am, try the came starting with
me!»[85].
Student life obviously had its
extracurricular sides. For example, Saturnalia were celebrated with all prowess
and thus were the occasion for meetings and discussions. At those times –
according to Gellius – students who originated form
Gellius furnished a detailed description
of what this social game was all about. At one feast, there were seven
questions involved. The first one concerned explaining those verses of the Saturae by Quintus Ennius that contained
one and the same word but in many meanings[87].
The second was about interpreting Plato’s opinion according to which in his
ideal country all citizens would have koin¦j t¦j
guna‹kaj, i.e. communal women. The interpretation
was necessary because at another instance Plato mused that the bravest of men
and the most fearless of warriors would be rewarded by kissing girls and boys[88].
The third question was about the sophistry woven into the following sentences:
you have what you have not lost; and if you have not lost your horns, so you
have horns; if you are not what I am, and I am a man, so you are not a man. The
fourth questio demanded answer to the
following question: when I am lying and I am saying that I am lying, am I lying
or am I telling the truth? The fifth riddle required the feasters to explain
why patricians would mutually invite one another for the celebrations of Megalensia[89],
and why the plebeians would do the same at Cerealia[90]
as well as guess which of the poets of antiquity had used the word verant in the meaning vera dicunt. The sixth required
answering what sort of a plant was asphodelum
that Hesiod mentions[91],
and moreover explaining what he meant when he said the half was bigger than the
whole[92].
The last one required the competitors to establish in what tenses the verbs scripserim, legerim, venerim, can go: only in praeteritum, only in futurum, or in both[93].
All
questions were addressed in the very same order. Finally, all participants
were awarded books and laurels as each of them had resolved the problem
proposed in the question that concerned them. The only exception was the origin
of the word verant, as no one remembered
that it could be found in book 13 of Annales
by Ennius, and more precisely in
the poem: satin
vates verant aetate in agenda?[94].
The laurel wreath was therefore attributed to Saturn, who was the deity of this
feast[95].
Another extracurricular occasion for
philosophical discussion Taurus’ invitation of his closest students to
keep him company during the evening meal in his house. No one would obviously
dare come without gifts, as a barehanded parasite. Everyone would try and
supplement the modest food not with culinary but rather with philosophical
delights. Everyone arrived with whatever was preoccupying him and thus was
prepared to ask questions. The debates commenced after the meal. It is
important to know that there was a hygienic principle in play in the evening.
Nothing serious could ever be the object of the evening discussion; the object
was thus limited to ™nqumhm£tia, that is droll and witty trivia that
were capable to amuse the mind under the influence of wine. The subject matter
of such evening discussion that night was the problem of the moment of death.
Is the dying person dead when he is embraced by death or maybe even earlier?
Another question was the moment of standing up: when a person is standing up,
when is he standing up? When he is effectively standing up or maybe when he is
still sitting and when it is not pointless to stand up? The question is easily
transposed onto artists: one becomes and artist when one is an artist or well
before, when one is not an artist but is learning to be one. Choosing one of
the alternatives – as shows Gellius – is
always absurd and funny, though it would be absurd beyond understanding to
argue that both answers or none of them are correct[96].
One is anxious to add that this is not to
say that Taurus considered these discussion as mere base entertainment. Quite
to the contrary, even when the discussion was all about trivial sophistry
Taurus was saw beyond the entertainment and sought to familiarize students with
problem solving strategies. The trivial problems did not command unanimity.
Some maintained that a man who is dying is so only in the very moment of death,
but only in as much as he is still alive. Others, however, contested that view
and maintained that a man is dying only then when there is no life left in him.
Other questions followed the same distribution of opinions within the feasters.
Taurus would thus have the opportunity to refer to many philosophers. Thus, for
example, he would present the way Plato understood and analyzed those problems
in Parmenides[97].
According to Plato, the moment of death does not lie with life or death at all.
The same analysis would structure other questions under discussion. Taurus
would thus emphasize that in the presence of two concepts which are antonymic,
one cannot oppose them mutually if one of the concept axes on the idea of being
and the other axes on coming into being. It is therefore unacceptable to oppose
the notion of the life to the notion of the beginning of death, as they are mutually
exclusive. This is what led Plato to coin a new term to denote the concept of
what is between life and death, which is the moment of immediate rupture – t¾n ™xa…fnej fÚsin. All those questions constituted what Gellius refers
to as appetizers. Taurus himself would term them traghm£tia[98].
One would be wrong, however, to say that
those dinners where extravagant in any way. They were scheduled for evenings at
the time of supper. The fundamentals of such supper would not go beyond a bowl
of Egyptian lentil with pieces of pumpkin. It once happened for such a bowl to
be positioned in front of the students who were all to ready to eat. Taurus
advised one of the boys to add a bit of olive oil. The boy in question originated
from
As can be seen, the adepts of philosophy would not be
confined within the limits of sophistry and analysis of moral issues. They were
also trained in physics and medicine. Taurus, on the other hand, would seize
any moment and opportunity to share all important piece of information with his
students. This was also the case when he brought his students to meet Gellius,
who was ill at the time. When they arrived, the doctor started lecturing them
on what sort of malady beheld Gellius. He told them the how the disease can be
diagnosed, in that there was a rhythm of fever rush. He did not omit to add that
Gellius was getting better, as could be inferred from ™¦n
¤yh aÙtoà tÁj flebÒj which would
be si attingeris venam illius in
Latin. That the physician should use
the word vena instead of arteria struck the students as outrageous.
They could not hide their disappointment in him. Taurus at this instance
affirmed kindly that all the fuss was vain because the physician in all
certainty understood the difference between vena
and arteria. Just to be on the
safe side, however, he proceeded to explain the difference as follows: vena allows the blood to flow, arteria , on the other hand, pulsates
and thus is characteristic of the fever. Even if the physician had committed a
tremendous blunder, Taurus also said he hoped that the physician would
nonetheless prove his worth in medicine. He also sought to justify the
physician by saying that the professional would have used a colloquial term.
After all professionals tend to simplify all matters that are not essential to
their jobs. This disquieting mark professionalism should, on the other hand, be
a good sign. Taurus said he hoped the physician would prove his professional
acumen to absolve himself of the linguistic blunder. He thus hoped that gods
would be favourable to his efforts and that Gellius would soon come to good
health[100].
This was a clear criticism of the physician, though
Taurus chose to give it a form that was all pleasant. This is how Gellius came
to understand that everybody should know the terminology of the human body.
That is how he came about reading works in the medical field and – in
them – found the explanation of the difference between vena and arteria.
The students took interest not only in the terminology
of human parts, but also in terms concerning celestial bodies. When they took a
boat trip between Aegina and
It goes without saying that Taurus’
method was hinged at showing the opinions of different schools of thought. He
was not reluctant to show his student s the personalities of the scholarly
world in person. This can be seen when Taurus set off together with his
students to take part in the Pythian Games in
It can thus be seen that the Platonist
Taurus taught not only the doctrine of the school of his own but also the
doctrines of other schools, and in particular the doctrine of the Stoics. He
would also never forbid his students listen to philosophers of other schools.
Peregrinus, the Cynic also known as Proteus of Parium in
It was in
There is no doubt that Gellius was under
great influence of Herodes who would invite Athenian students of Roman origin
to his house in Cephisia. His villa offered many comforts. The trees sheltered
form the burning sun, the gardens were great for promenades and the streams and
birds were the ultimate white noise that would refresh the mind. One day, an adulescens who – according to his
own assumption – studied Stoic philosophy found his way there. During
discussions at the table, he would take much time to present his lengthy and
boring arguments. He was proud of his knowledge of the Greek and considered
anyone who spoke Latin as ignorant and uneducated. He had a penchant for difficult notions and
complex sophisms and – as if it were not enough – he would let no
one else speak. He would tell everyone how he had arrived to know the nature of
man as well as the nature of human mind. He would then tell everyone how he had
arrived to know the nature and origin of virtue as well as the obligations that
follow it. He would lecture about eÙdaimonia (happiness or flourishing)
and how he was successfully striving for it. He also
lectured on how no suffering and no pain can remove the grin from the face of a
true Stoic. When his audience was all disgusted and wanted nothing more than
for him to stop, Herodes took the floor and addressed the “greatest of
philosophers”. He said that since no one in the audience was allowed to
respond as being part of the common folk in his view, maybe the Stoic would
want to hear the opinion of Epictetus, the greatest of all Stoics. Herodes did
not want to engage in a discussion and ordered someone to fetch the first book Dissertationes Epicteti, a volume
collected by Arrian of Nicomedia. The comment of Epictetus was all about
vanity. In the passage, an old man criticizes a young man who purports to be a
Stoic and does nothing remotely interesting or useful besides that[113].
The congregation thus proceeded to read the passage in which Epictetus
construes the difference between a real Stoic and others. The real Stoic is
always unharmed – ¢kèlutoj,
imperturbable – ¢nan£gkastoj, independent – ¢parapÒdistoj, free – ™leÚferoj, rich – eÙporîn and happy – eÙdaimonîn. The
great number of others, on the other hand, simply affirm to be stoics whilst in
reality they do nothing else but injudiciously profane the name of the most
sacred of doctrines. When they heard those words, the students were convinced
they were not the words pronounced by Epictetus in the times long gone, but
were actually the very own words of Herodes[114].
Gellius gives us also an account of how Herodes was
once approached by someone who wore a Greek coat and a long beard. He was
asking for money to buy bread – e„s ¥rtouj.
Herodes asked him who he was. The individual responded he was a philosopher,
with an angry grimace on his face and resentful voice. He added that he was
confused by the question as if it was not self-evident that he was a
philosopher. «I can see the beard and the coat – said Herodes – but I
cannot see the philosopher». «Tell us – he continued –
how can we tell you are a philosopher?». Someone in the vicinity then
said that the person was a vagabond with no profession and that he was a habitué of the local taverns.
Herodes did not change his mind because of those new circumstances. He wanted
to give the money not because the vagabond was a human by because he himself
was human. He complained, however, that this kind of mucky and unclean creatures
should call themselves philosophers. Doing so was an offence to the sacred name
of philosophy, which such people have no title to dishonor and disgrace[115].
Gellius never met outstanding jurists who would
actually teach law. In any case we have no record of any close relationship
with such figures. This is true not only of his study period in
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Gellius
should make Favorinus the main protagonist of those parts of Noctes Atticae that treat the problems
of philosophy[116],
of law [117]
and of grammar[118].
If he never met Favorinus at school, he nonetheless was his companion in
journey[119]
and at the table[120].
He also accompanied him to pay a visit to a sick friend[121]
or a women who has given birth[122].
He also witnessed many different discussions between the philosopher and
numerous important people; he attentively listened and diligently took notes of
what his master had said[123].
Amongst all the people that Gellius met in company of Favorinus, one should
also note the outstanding jurist Sextus Caecilius. It was with Sextus that the
author of Noctes Atticae would
discuss legal matters in area Palatina.
The discussion concerned among other things the problem of interpretation of
law. It concerned the question if the law is still binding in a changed
socio-political setting still binding as well as the problem of the function of
severity of criminal sanctions. Under Gellius’ account, the philosopher
and the jurist discussed not only the content of the law of XII tables but also
their interpretations, as those varied across the social and intellectual
elites.
The foregoing cross-section of
problems that young Romans treated during their education shows that educators
focused on the ability to formulate problems and to search their solutions.
Gellius used well the research skills thus developed. We are made aware of this
reading his work that he completed in