Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
AULUS GE LLIU S
This page intentionally left blank
The Worlds of
Aulus Gellius
Edited by
LEOFRANC HOLFORD-STREVENS
and
AMIEL VARDI
1
Preface
The idea for this book originated during the preparations for the
colloquium on ‘Aulus Gellius and his Worlds’ held at Corpus
Christi College, Oxford, on 17 May 2003. That occasion was to
our knowledge the Wrst conference ever devoted to Gellius; like-
wise this volume, incorporating all the papers delivered at the
colloquium but conceived on a larger scale, is the Wrst collection,
in any language, of Gellian essays by various hands.
The plural ‘Worlds’ in the title of colloquium and collection was
and is intentional, for Gellius moved in his own day, and has
moved since, in several worlds. We see him amongst lawyers and
philosophers, the student learning from his elders, the scholar
correcting the ignorant, the loving friend of the polymath Favor-
inus, the zealous recorder of Fronto’s verbal precision. He hears
lawsuits and visits libraries: he is at home in the study, but mixes
without awkwardness in society. At one moment he deals in philo-
sophical speculation about the nature of instantaneity; at another
he is telling tales of dolphins who doted on boys, or retailing his
favourite love-poems. We see him in Rome, in villeggiatura, and by
the sea, but also in Greece, now inspecting a manuscript at Patrae,
now travelling to the Pythian Games at Delphi, the rest of the time
at Athens or in Attica. He improved his command of Greek, and
studied philosophy with Taurus the Platonist; at one moment he
was the tourist visiting Euripides’ cave, at another the scholar
discussing Latin in the Lyceum; he attended Herodes Atticus at
his mansion, and the Cynic Peregrinus at his hovel; a boat-trip on a
starry night Wnds him testing by observation an etymology for
septemtriones, a journey back from Eleusis makes us conjecture
initiation in the Mysteries—a mark of respectability, not religi-
osity. Immersed as he had been, and soon would be, in the Roman
world, it is this Greek world (and its Roman representative Favor-
inus) that gave him ingenii cultus and breadth of mind, and it is to
the winter nights in Attica, nights that though objectively shorter
than those further north in Rome seemed long to Gellius in the
quiet deme where he resided, those nights he whiled away, when
not participating in the amusements of Saturnalia, by writing up
his notes, that we owe his work, with all its charm and erudition.
vi Preface
Indeed, if Antonine Athens had left no other trace, and in all other
respects meant no more to us than the donkey-bearing Athens of
the Turcocratia, still it would claim and receive our thanks for the
Attic Nights.
The question whether and in what respects we should view
Gellius as reXecting contemporary Greek cultural phenomena
(such as linguistic Atticism and the so-called Second Sophistic)
on the one hand, or independent Roman traditions on the other,
occupied much Gellian scholarship of the twentieth century, and
continues to receive consideration in the present volume. But the
numerous worlds of Antonine Rome and Greece do not exhaust
those of Aulus Gellius. After his death, he became a resource for
pagan and Christian alike, read by Nonius, Ammianus, and
Macrobius, by Minucius Felix, Lactantius, and Augustine, some-
times for his words, sometimes for his matter. In the Middle Ages,
though often read in Xorilegia rather than the original, and sub-
jected to the false name of Agellius, he was not neglected by those
who had access to him: his works were sought out, and as many
pre-1400 copies now lost are attested as now survive. The Renais-
sance eagerly adopted him not only as a source of information, but
as a model for its elegant presentation; indeed, it was he, rather
than Cicero, who deWned the humanists’ humanitas.
The Enlightenment even elevated Gellius to the next world, as
described in the Vision of the amateur philosopher Abraham Tucker.
At Wrst he does not appear entirely to his advantage: as John Locke is
made to explain, ‘having a very moderate capacity he could produce
little of his own’, but being no more than ‘a diligent honest creature’
(for which reason indeed ‘we acknowledge him for one of our line’)
whose talents were ‘industry and exactness’, he is set to recording the
narrator’s adventures. Yet at the end we Wnd he may have been both
less and more: on the one hand, it is conceivable that his records were
inaccurate: ‘if there be anything in them not consonant to the truth of
facts it is his fault for misleading me’; on the other he was capable of
original comment: ‘It vexed me that I could not recover his interlin-
eations for by the imperfect notion I have of them I imagine they tend
to harmonize Reason with Religion . . . ’.
Tucker thus corrects the very prejudice that he anticipates; for a
period was to follow in which, Gellius’ information appearing to
have been mined, like other authors who had the misfortune to
survive he was disparaged as an inferior substitute for his lost
sources. But now that scholarship has come to terms with his
blurred distinction between fact and Wction, and understood that
he is no mere transcriber, but has notions of his own and a design
Preface vii
List of Illustrations xi
Abbreviations xiii
List of Contributors xv
Bibliography 343
Index Locorum Potiorum 375
Index Verborum de quibus A. Gellius disputat 379
Index Rerum et Nominum 380
List of Illustrations
Plates
Music example
L e o f r a n c H o l f o r d - S t r e v e n s is Consultant Scholar-
Editor at the Oxford University Press. He is the author of Aulus
Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement and (with Bonnie
J. Blackburn) of The Oxford Companion to the Year; also of nu-
merous articles on classical and other themes.
W y t s e K e u l e n is a postdoctoral researcher at the Rijks-
universiteit Groningen. His dissertation, entitled Apuleius
Madaurensis, Metamorphoses, Book I, 1–20: Introduction, Text,
Commentary (2003), will be published in the Groningen Commen-
taries on Apuleius.
V a l e r i a L o m a n t o is Associate Professor in the Diparti-
mento di Filologia, Linguistica, e Tradizione Classica ‘Augusto
Rostagni’ at the Università degli Studi di Torino. Her publications
include ‘Lessici latini e lessicograWa automatica’ (1980), Concor-
dantiae in Q. Aurelii Symmachi opera (1983), Index Grammaticus
(1990: with Nino Marinone), and ‘Cesare e la teoria dell’elo-
quenza’ (1994–5).
T e r e s a M o r g a n is Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History at
Oriel College, Oxford. She is the author of Literate Education in the
Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (1998).
A n d r e w J. S t e v e n s o n is Departmental Administrator in
the Department of Continuing Education at Lancaster University.
He is the author of a thesis entitled ‘Aulus Gellius and Roman
Antiquarian Writing’ (King’s College London, 1993).
Si m o n S w a i n is Professor of Classics and Ancient History at
the University of Warwick. His publications include Hellenism and
Empire (1996), Dio Chrysostom (2003), Bilingualism in Ancient
Society (2003; with J. N. Adams and Mark Janse), and Approach-
ing Late Antiquity (2004; with M. J. Edwards).
A m i e l V a r d i is Senior Lecturer in Classical Studies at the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of a dissertation
entitled ‘Aulus Gellius as Reader of Poetry’ (in Hebrew) and a
number of articles on Gellius and on Roman intellectual life in the
Wrst two centuries of our era.
I
CONTEXTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS
This page intentionally left blank
1
Bilingualism and Biculturalism
in Antonine Rome
Apuleius, Fronto, and Gellius
Si m on Sw a in
1
I accept the authenticity of this work, as J. G. F. Powell, ‘Cicero’s Transla-
tions’, 278 is inclined to do.
2
N. Petrochilos, Roman Attitudes, is a useful survey of Roman views.
Bilingualism and Biculturalism 5
3
H. Becker, Sprachanschlüsse.
4
As deWned by Adams and Swain in J. N. Adams, M. Janse, S. Swain,
Bilingualism, 2.
5
Swain, ‘Bilingualism in Cicero?’
6 Simon Swain
6
On this aspect cf. O. Wenskus, ‘Wie schreibt man?’
7
Ut cogitetis Latinam linguam facultatis non minus habere, licentiae minus.
Bilingualism and Biculturalism 7
powers of expression. But the last book, book 12, is the most
interesting for our purposes. Here Quintilian concentrates on the
intellectual and moral qualities and the general knowledge needed
to produce a perfect orator. The penultimate chapter (10) is a
fascinating commentary on Roman bilingualism. Praise of Cicero
(the revival of whose style and concept of oratory is Quintilian’s
constant goal) leads to a Ciceronian deWnition of what constitutes
the true Roman ‘Attic’ orator (10. 12–26). The self-appointed
Roman ‘Attici’ of the Late Republic had attacked Cicero but failed
to appreciate that the best Attic oratory was to be found in Cicero’s
model, Demosthenes. Quintilian does not record this as historical
information.8 The view he opposes, that Lysias represented the best
in Athenian oratory, is, he says, still held by Greeks (10. 21, 24, 27).9
He is evidently sensitive to the ‘Atticizing’ renaissance of Greek
literature that was now Wrmly under way in the Greek world. Per-
haps for this reason he now jumps to a general comparison of Greek
and Latin (10. 27–39). Latin, he aYrms, closely resembles Greek in
many departments of rhetoric, but is inferior in its sounds and
elocution. It shows ‘extreme poverty’ in word-building (a major
worry for Quintilian: 1. 5. 32, 5. 70, 6. 31; 8. 3. 30–3, 6. 31–3). But
the demerits of Latin are turned into a major triumph. For if
Romans are not as ‘graceful’, they must win on the intellectual
resources available to them, viz. inventiveness, strength, weight,
and fullness of expression (12. 10. 36–9). Styling the major Roman
orators uelut Attici Romanorum, he asks about them, ‘Who is dis-
satisWed by something that cannot be bettered?’ (10. 39).10
Quintilian’s pupil, Pliny the Younger, saw himself as to some
extent standing in Cicero’s shoes (cf. Letters 4. 8. 4–5), so it is not
surprising that he displays a recognizably Ciceronian attitude
towards Greeks. Contempt towards the moderns is combined
with a self-conscious admiration of the classics. Pliny’s views
naturally bend with circumstance. The last letter in book 8 to a
certain Maximus who is going to Greece as an imperial trouble-
shooter contains obvious echoes of Cicero’s famous public letter to
his brother during his propraetorship of Asia (Ad Quintum 1. 1)
and is the clearest example of a negative and patronizing
8
On the Republican debate see J. Wisse, ‘Greeks’; Swain, Hellenism, 21–7 (the
wider Greek picture).
9
Inst. 12. 10. 27 in hac . . . opinione perseuerantis Graecos. Cf. e.g. Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Lysias, and contemporary with Quintilian Plutarch’s ridicule of the
man who drinks only from Attic ware, has clothes of Attic wool, and ‘sits still and
inactive in the delicate, thin jacket of Lysias’ (De audiendo 42 d–e).
10
Cui porro non satis est quo nihil esse melius potest?
8 Simon Swain
11
8. 24. 2–5 ‘reverence (Greece’s) ancient glory and its present old age . . . It is
Athens you are approaching, Lacedaemon you are ruling . . . Remember the past of
each city, without despising it because it is this no more (non ut despicias quod esse
desierit)’. Cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny, ad loc.
12
Est plerisque Graecorum, ut illi, pro copia uolubilitas: tam longas tamque frigidas
perihodos uno spiritu quasi torrente contorquent.
13
Cf. Swain, ‘Bilingualism in Cicero?’, 148 for possible precedents in the char-
acterization of Pomponius Atticus.
Bilingualism and Biculturalism 9
14
Note Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny, 353 ‘Pliny is freer than most of his
contemporaries from the Roman dislike of Graeculi’.
15
For Lucretius (De rerum natura 1. 136–9, 832; 3. 260; cf. Seneca the Elder,
Contr. 7 pr. 3, Seneca the Younger, Letters 58. 1) see D. Sedley, ‘Lucretius’ Use of
Greek’. For a full survey of the evidence with attention to sociolinguistic categories,
see T. Fögen, Patrii sermonis egestas. Cf. S. M. Beall, below, p. 219.
16
Cicero: cf. De Wnibus 1. 10, 2. 13, 3. 15, 3. 51; De nat. deor. 1. 8; Disp. Tusc. 2.
35, 3. 11; Ad Atticum 12. 52. 3.
17
H. Halfmann, Die Senatoren, and ‘Die Senatoren aus den kleinasiatischen
Provinzen’; J. E. Packer, Forum of Trajan, esp. 174–200.
10 Simon Swain
18
A. Dihle, Greek and Latin Literature, 259. Plutarch, for example, oVers very
many explanations of Roman customs and institutions.
19
Ed. J. Taillardat, Sue´tone.
20
R. A. Kaster, edn. of Suetonius: De Grammaticis, p. xlv.
Bilingualism and Biculturalism 11
21
Philostratus’ overuse of the term in his Lives (where it is applied to those who
rejected it like Aelius Aristides and Dio Chrysostom) is also due to the appointment
of oYcial sophists on public salaries from the 180s onward.
22
Swain, Hellenism, 97–8.
23
The declamations of Calpurnius Flaccus and the Major Declamations (also
Ps.-Quintilian) are of uncertain date.
12 Simon Swain
24
T. D. Barnes, Tertullian, ch. 14 (whose point is stylistic). At Adv. Valentinia-
nos 5. 1 Tertullian refers positively to the apologist Miltiades as the ‘sophist of the
churches’; Miltiades may have been a sophist before converting and using his talents
for apologetic. Elsewhere he uses the term, if at all, with disapprobation (e.g. De
idololatria 9. 7 as part of a rejection of all traditional teaching). In his training and
inclination Tertullian was simply a rhetor Romanus (P. Steinmetz, Untersuchungen,
231).
25
J. L. Hilton in S. J. Harrison et al., Apuleius: Rhetorical Works, 123–33.
26
Thus I cannot agree with S. J. Harrison, Apuleius, that Apuleius should be styled
a ‘Latin sophist’. Harrison is relying on the loose modern—Bowersockian—interpret-
ation of a sophist as a ‘virtuoso rhetor’; but the sense of teaching should always be part
of the deWnition. It is signiWcant that Apuleius keeps the term sophist to refer to the very
diVerent sophists of classical Athens: Fl. 9. 15; 18. 18, 19, 28; De Platone 2. 9.
Bilingualism and Biculturalism 13
33
Dialogue on Orators 29. 1 at nunc natus infans delegatur Graeculae alicui ancil-
lae. For these Greek nurses cf. Soranus, Gynaecology 2. 19. 15: the wetnurse should
be ‘Greek so the infant nourished by her becomes accustomed to the fairest of
languages’.
34
Indigenam sermonem refers to Apuleius’ own Latin. For the antithesis ‘new-
comer’/’native speech’ (aduena studiorum Quiritium indigenam sermonem . . . exco-
lui), cf. Met. 11. 26. 3: Lucius is ‘a newcomer to the shrine (of Isis on the Campus
Martius) but a native of the cult’ ( fani quidem aduena, religionis autem indigena).
35
semper ab ineunte aeuo bonas artes sedulo colui, eamque existimationem [i.e. the
governor’s correct appreciation of Apuleius’] morum ac studiorum cum in prouincia
nostra tum etiam Romae penes amicos tuos quaesisse me . . . testis es.
36
There are obvious linguistic links between 1. 1. 4 studiorum Quiritium indigenam
sermonem aerumnabili labore . . . exotici ac forensis sermonis, 11. 28. 6 patrocinia sermo-
nis Romani, and 11. 30. 4 gloriosa in foro . . . patrocinia . . . studiorum meorum laboriosa
doctrina. At Fl. 18. 43 Romanae linguae is paired with atticissabit as speciWc forms
following the couplings Graeco et Latino (38) and Graecum et Latinum (39). In the Met.
contrasts between Latin and Greek are noted as such (4. 32. 6, 9. 39, 11. 17. 3) and
‘Greek’ is always a marked usage (3. 9. 1, 3. 29. 2, 10. 10. 4, 10. 29. 4), not a starting
point. J. N. Adams, ‘ ‘‘Romanitas’’ ’, 191–7 shows that the paradigmatic value of the
Latin of Rome was an idea that only really enjoyed currency in the 1st c. bc; in
the Empire ‘Roman’ in lingustic contexts has no connection with Rome (cf. further
Flobert, ‘Lingua Latina’, 206–8; J. Kramer’s wide-ranging but pertinent Sprachbe-
zeichnungen). But he notes that the Ciceronian passages that express it (Verr. 5. 167;
esp. De orat. 3. 42–4 cum sit quaedam certa uox Romani generis urbisque propria, etc.) are
the basis of Quintilian, Inst. 8. 1. 3 (et uerba omnia et uox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut
oratio Romana plane uideatur, non ciuitate donata). Apuleius like Quintilian is recalling
the Late Republican viewpoint (pace Adams). He has no technical concern with
dialect: it is a cultural-political assumption of the power of the centre that was, if one
wished to use it, as valid in Apuleius’ day as it had been in Cicero’s.
16 Simon Swain
2. c o r n e l i u s f ro n to
Apuleius’ bilingualism was theatrical: no Greek who spoke Latin
would have performed in both languages consecutively, as he
boasts of having done (Fl. 18. 38–43; ‘False Preface’ to De deo
Socratis, fr. 5). Yet the more he shows oV, the more he boasts,
the more worried he seems. Anyone who reads him will notice
immediately that he includes spectacular archaisms in his Latin,
especially in the comic Metamorphoses, but also in the excerpts of
the Florida.40 We know that this ‘goût archaı̈sant’ was shared,
though without anything approaching the contortions of Apuleius,
by Gellius and Fronto. Was Marache, who Wrst promoted the idea
of archaism, right to separate what was going on in Latin from the
classicizing and puristic Atticism of the Greek Second Sophistic?
From the literary point of view, the answer is ‘yes’.41 The pre-
Vergilian and pre-Ciceronian authors who were modish among the
archaizers (if I may use this term) did not enjoy the status of
canonical texts in a way comparable to the Greek classics. Vergil
and Cicero were certainly of huge importance too. Crucially, the
archaizers formed many more new words than they dredged up old
ones.42 So ‘archaism’ seems misleading. For what emerges from
Fronto and Gellius is the importance of knowing the whole of
Latin literature down to Vergil. We might do better to see these
second-century authors as linguistic nationalists whose aim was to
reinvigorate Latin as a language that was capable of change and
innovation but also rightly proud of its ancient pedigree.43 The
extension of this nationalism beyond literary circles is in doubt,
however, and it is diYcult to argue that we are dealing with a
‘movement’ as such. It looks much more like the personal tastes
40
See the studies of M. Bernhard, Stil; H. Koziol, Stil.
41
Marache, Critique litte´raire, 110–11. W. D. Lebek’s study of archaizing usages
in the literature of the Republican period is also important.
42
Marache, Mots nouveaux.
43
So F. Portalupi, Marco Cornelio Frontone, 21–38; cf. ead., Frontone, Gellio,
Apuleio; see too Steinmetz, Untersuchungen (on Fronto 171–87).
18 Simon Swain
44
Plautus’ use of atticissare (Menaechmi 12), albeit non-linguistic (but cf. PF 26.
7–8 L.), would have been a welcome precedent.
Bilingualism and Biculturalism 19
66
For the whole matter see W. Ameling, Herodes, i. 74–6; ii. 30–5; Champlin,
Fronto, 62–3; G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists, 92–100 in full Symean mode.
67
Note also that Herodes had plainly not yet become his teacher: ‘I do not forget
that he was educated in the house of my grandfather P. Calvisius, and I educated
with you’ (p. 36. 20–1).
68
He shows similar concern much later on when he Wnds out from Marcus that
Lucius Verus, who has requested some of his work and had been sent Pro Demo-
strato as Fronto’s own choice, is likely to be oVended by remarks he had made
about a certain Asclepiodotus. Since the speech had long been in public circulation,
there was nothing to do but promise that Asclepiodotus (perhaps a successful
imperial freedman: Champlin, Fronto, 172 n. 113) would in future be amicissimum
just as Herodes is ‘despite the speech’: Ep. Ant. imp. 3. 4. 1 (p. 102. 17–19), Ep.
Ver. imp. 1. 8. 1 (p. 113. 12–14).
69
De eloq. 2. 18 (p. 144. 22–3).
26 Simon Swain
70
Pliny, Ep. 10. 40. 2; Juvenal, Sat. 3. 78, 6. 186. Note that Graeculus is not in
itself pejorative, but takes its tone from the context: Dubuisson, ‘Graecus, Graecu-
lus, Graecari’.
71
Cf. Marcus’ impolite remarks about Polemon, with Fronto’s reply (Ep. M.
Caes. 2. 10. 1, pp. 29. 19–30. 6; 2. 2. 5, p. 20. 6–8), Marcus on the prouocantis Atticos
(Addit. epist. 7. 2, p. 249. 11), Fronto on the Atticists’ laboriousness(?) (Ep. Ant.
imp. 4. 2. 5, p. 106. 23–4).
72
Herodes’ grieving: cf. Gellius 19. 12. 2 ex morte pueri (with Philostr. VS
558–9).
73
a ƺºÆ ª Æ E PÆÆ ŒÆd
ı ÆŒæH † æÆ (p. 17. 14–15).
74
Plutarch, Cicero 24.
75
Chamberlain: cf. Ep. Ver. imp. 1. 7. 1 primum me intromitti in cubiculum iubebas
(p. 112. 2–3).
Bilingualism and Biculturalism 27
76
Van den Hout, Commentary, 285 notes that ‘Fronto cannot have a word with
Charilas himself: Charilas sends him a note (hortante eo).’
77
P. Gardner-Chloros, ‘Code-Switching’, 102.
78
Ad se ips. 1. 11.
28 Simon Swain
3. aulus gellius
Fronto shows key symptoms of what has been termed the ‘service
aristocracy’. The idea of a service aristocracy is in this context a
development of Norbert Elias’s classic work on the rise of the
mannered, courtly aristocracies of Europe in the late Middle
Ages.81 In the hands of Veyne and Foucault this was elaborated
into a thesis about the ‘privatization’ of aristocratic life in the High
Roman Empire and its disengagement from real power. As means
of public competition were removed from the nobility, manners
and conduct became increasingly important. Family life and the
aVective marriage relation assumed a crucial role in the noble-
man’s self-fashioning as the places where he must achieve
maximum control of himself. ‘Spiritual exercises’ were the par-
ticular route to ‘le souci de soi’. These exercises were for dedicated
Stoics like Seneca and of course Marcus Aurelius.82 But the cul-
ture of mutual and self-inspection was found among the elites of
East and West. I have argued elsewhere that the Veyne–Foucault
model does not work without modiWcation for the eastern, Greek-
speaking nobilities. For them we can certainly point to a clear
concern with internal and external evaluation of appearance, of
sexuality and marriage, of language; but the context of all this is
the still considerable local political power of their class in the great
79
Cf. the studies of R. Mougeon and E. Beniak, Linguistic Consequences.
80
Cf. Champlin, Fronto, 90.
81
N. Elias, Court Society and Civilizing Process.
82
P. Veyne, ‘La famille et l’amour’ and ‘The Roman Empire’; M. Foucault, Care
of the Self; P. Hadot, Inner Citadel.
Bilingualism and Biculturalism 29
99
e.g. 5. 15. 9.
100
Cf. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 128 [90]. Note 6. 15 for neutral infor-
mation on harsh early punishments (cf. Holford-Strevens, op. cit. 313–14); 6. 18 the
power of oaths in the Hannibalic War; further 7. 14, cf. 11. 18.
101
Cf. 3. 9. 9.
Bilingualism and Biculturalism 33
106
Cf. 19. 2. 5 (Aristotle), 16. 3. 7–8, 10 (Erasistratus), and the long 10. 22. 4–23
(Plato).
107
Cf. 5 ut uerbo ipsius utar, Æıææ
(NB a colloquialism), 23. Gellius
several times quotes snippets of Favorinus in Greek.
108
Am. 2. 14. 7 at 12. 1. 8, Met. 15. 218 at 12. 1. 9.
109
Cf. 16. 3 for Favorinus on Erasistratus’ idea of appetite (with Gellius’ own
quotation in Greek of Erasistratus, cf. above, n. 106). For the importance of medical
knowledge to humanitas see 18. 10. 8.
110
Cf. Valerius Probus’ criticism at 9. 9. 12–17.
Bilingualism and Biculturalism 35
111
Here antiquior means any one before Julius Caesar, whose De analogia is the
point of departure.
112
Cf. 6. 13; 16. 10 for Gellius’ interest in these terms.
113
Proletario sermone nunc quidem, hospes, utere.
114
See e.g. 2. 2 (fathers and sons), 2. 7 (children), 5. 13 (precedence of obliga-
tions), 12. 4 (Ennius on behaviour of inferiors).
36 Simon Swain
115
See 16. 7. 10; cf. A. Garcea and V. Lomanto, below, Ch. 2, esp. 50---2.
116
O. Wenskus, ‘Markieren’, 234–6. On citizenship and Latin cf. Adams,
‘ ‘‘Romanitas’’ ’, 185–8.
117
Cf. §5 for the hierarchy of the grammarians.
118
Nam Laeuius inplicata et Hortensius inuenusta et Cinna inlepida et Memmius
dura ac deinceps omnes rudia fecerunt atque absona. On the attitudes here cf.
B. Rochette, Le Latin, 267–9, Fögen, Patrii sermonis egestas, 212–16.
119
Reading pressius; see A. D. Vardi, ‘Brevity’.
120
He sometimes claims to have ‘noted down the very words at the time’:
20. 6. 15. But at 12. 13. 17 he congratulates himself on a quotation he prepared
‘before coming to you (i.e. Sulpicius Apollinaris)’.
Bilingualism and Biculturalism 37
the sense ranges from ‘obsolete’ to ‘indulging in oral sex’: see J. N. Adams,
‘An Epigram’, 100, 109 on the genital alphabet of Ep. 87.
131
Other good examples of Gellius confronting the experts: 6. 3, 6. 17, 13. 31, 14.
6, 15. 9.
132
Steinmetz, Untersuchungen, 231, 374.
40 Simon Swain
1
See the description of the behaviour of the I cæ KæøØŒ towards the ÆE in
Plato, Rep. 474 d 7–475 a 2 and Ovid’s imitation, Ars 2. 657–62; other examples of
Xattering terms applied to unattractive characteristics are found in the Hellenistic
handbook —æd Iæ
Øø by Philaenis (P. Oxy. 2891 fr. 3. 5–9); Theocr. 10. 26–37;
Hor. Serm. 1. 3. 38–67; Asclepiades, AP 5. 210. See R. Verdière, ‘L’euphémisme
amoureux’.
Loanwords and Literary Models 43
2. the categories of l a t i n v s g r a e c v s
barbarvs ( gellius 19. 1 3 . 3 a )
In his answer to Fronto, Apollinaris admits that the word nanus
belongs to the sermo uulgaris. Yet he speciWes that it is not a
2
See the commentary by A. Pennacini, La funzione dell’arcaismo, 109–11 (mis-
interpreted by M. P. J. van den Hout, Commentary, 350–1) and P. Soverini, ‘Aspetti
e problemi’, 936–7. Fronto also proposes a quadripartite division of the genera
dicendi (gracilis, aridus, sublimis, mediocris), where Lucretius is deWned as sublimis
(De eloq. 1. 2, p. 133. 12 v:d:H:2 ). On the evaluation of Lucretius by Fronto, see
R. Poignault, ‘Lucrèce’, 179–83.
3
On the theoretical problem of archaism from Caes. Anal. fr. 2 Funaioli to Gell.
1. 10 (the source of this fragment), see V. Lomanto, ‘Cesare e la teoria del-
l’eloquenza’, 57–64; on Fronto, see also Soverini, ‘Aspetti e problemi’, 955–63.
44 Alessandro Garcea, Valeria Lomanto
11
See E. Gabba, ‘Il latino come dialetto greco’, 190: ‘È abbastanza chiaro in
primo luogo che la teoria del latino come dialetto eolico è collegata alla partizione
linguistica delle stirpi greche, riferita da Strabone ma certamente derivata dall’in-
dagine dialettologica dell’età alessandrina; in secondo luogo che essa è stata origi-
nariamente elaborata non sulla base di una qualsiasi indagine linguistica, ma come
conseguenza e riXesso di una teoria ‘‘storica’’ largamente accettata, vale a dire
dell’origine ‘‘arcadica’’ di Roma.’ On the role of Evander in the transmission of
the Greek alphabet to the Romans, see A. Garcea, ‘César et l’alphabet’, 159–60.
12
See M. Dubuisson, ‘Vtraque lingua’; Desbordes, ‘Latinitas’, 37. L. A. Hol-
ford-Strevens, ‘Vtraque lingua doctus’ gives a great number of important examples
of Greek knowledge of Latin as well as Roman knowledge of Greek.
13
According to Quintilian, Etruscan, Sabine, and Praenestine words can be
considered as Roman ones. Some Gaulish words, such as raeda ‘four-wheeled
travelling-carriage’, used by Cicero (cf. Mil. 28–9; Phil. 2. 58; Att. 5. 17. 1; 6. 1.
25) and petorritum ‘open four-wheeled carriage’, used by Horace (cf. Serm. 1. 6. 104;
Ep. 2. 1. 192), are also well established. Quintilian also mentions the Punic mappa
‘table-napkin’ and the Hispanic gurdus ‘blockhead, dolt’ (see infra, §4 and n. 55). On
this passage, see B. Rochette, ‘Latinitas—peregrinitas’, 104–5 and R. Müller,
Sprachbewußtsein, 44; on petorritum, see Gell. 15. 30, who quotes Varro’s Antiqui-
tates rerum diuinarum (§7: fr. 203 Cardauns ¼ 133, p. 236 Funaioli) in support of the
Gaulish origin of the term.
Loanwords and Literary Models 47
14
See M. Baratin, La Naissance de la syntaxe, 350–8.
15
See e.g. Cic. Fin. 2. 49 a quo [sc. Epicuro] non solum Graecia et Italia, sed etiam
omnis barbaria commota est; Diu. 1. 84 si Graeci, si barbari, si maiores etiam nostri;
Juvenal 10. 138 Romanus Graiusque et barbarus induperator; Quint. Inst. 5. 10. 24 nec
idem [sc. mos] in barbaro, Romano, Graeco.
16
See J. Collart, Varron grammairien, 73–5.
17
See also Diomedes, GL i. 433. 31–4; [Prisc.] Acc., GL iii. 520. 23–5; Donatus,
Mai. 610. 9–10 Holtz; Cledonius, GL v. 33. 18–20; Jul. Tol. 172. 60–4 Maestre
Yenes.
48 Alessandro Garcea, Valeria Lomanto
18
Barbara nomina ending in -al: Adherbal, (H)Annibal, (H)Asdrubal, Hamil-
car, Hiempsal, Mastanabal (Charis. 24. 24–6, 29–32, 44. 6–8 Barwick; Anon. Bob.
14. 8–12 De Nonno; Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 2. 147. 7–8, 214. 8–10, 312. 14–16; [Prisc.]
Acc., GL iii. 523. 8–9; [Probus] Cath., GL iv. 8. 27–9; Phocas, 9. 1, p. 35. 2–3
Casaceli; Sacerdos, GL vi. 473. 24–6; Martyr. GL vii. 187. 11–16); in -ar: Arar,
Aspar, Bostar, Hamilcar (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 149. 14–150. 6; 222. 1–4; 313. 12–14); in
-co: Sic(c)o, Franco ([Probus], Cath., GL iv. 9. 37–10. 1; Sacerdos, GL vi. 475. 8–9);
in -ēl : Michael, Gabriel, Abel, Nechamel, Daniel, Samuel, Isdrahel (Prisc. Inst., GL
ii. 147. 11–12; 214. 15; 312. 19–20; Sacerdos, GL vi. 473. 27–9); in -es: Tigranes,
Mithridates, Ariobarzanes (Prisc. Nom. 5. 10–13); in -on: Rubicon, Saxon ([Probus],
Cath., GL iv. 9. 12–18; Sacerdos, GL vi. 474. 18–19); in -ul: Suthul, Muthul (Charis.
30. 22, 44. 6–8 Barwick; Anon. Bob. 19. 14–15 De Nonno; Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 147.
18–148. 3; [Probus], Cath., GL iv. 8. 29–30; Sacerdos, GL vi. 473. 26–7); other
forms: Abodlas (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 42. 15–16); Abraham (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148.
7–12); Aizi (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 205. 6–7); Artabazes ([Probus] Cath., GL iv. 31.
17–18; Sacerdos, GL vi. 481. 25–6); Atax (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 164. 6–7; 166. 24–167.
2); Balac (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148. 10); Berzobim (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 205. 6–7);
Bocchus (Martyr. GL vii. 172. 6–8); Bogud (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 146. 18–19; 213.
14–214. 2); Brixo ([Probus] Cath., GL iv. 11. 10–11); David (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148.
10); Heriul ([Prisc.] Acc., GL iii. 523. 14); Iacob (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148. 9); Iliturgi
(Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 205. 5–6); Ioachim (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148. 9); Loth (Prisc. Inst.,
GL ii. 148. 9); Massiua (Martyr. GL vii. 172. 8–11, 4–10); Muluccha (Prisc. Inst.,
GL ii. 201. 15–17; Phocas 5. 2, p. 32. 20–1 Casaceli); Ormizas ([Probus] Cath., GL
iv. 31. 16–17; Sacerdos, GL vi. 481. 23–4); Pharnax (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 279. 5–8);
Ruth (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148. 9); Tanaquil (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 214. 16); Tharros
([Probus] Cath., GL iv. 22. 25–7); Turia (Cledon., GL v. 41. 24; Phocas 5. 2, p. 32.
20–1 Casaceli); Volux (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 166. 24–167. 2, 279. 5–6); Zidar ([Probus],
Cath., GL iv. 13. 24). Outside the few examples of barbarolexis, the only ‘barbarian’
common noun quoted in the corpus of grammatici Latini is nap(h)t(h)a(s) ([Probus]
Cath., GL iv. 22. 21–2, 29. 4–6, 30. 15–17; Sacerdos, GL vi. 480. 3–5, 481. 19–21).
Loanwords and Literary Models 49
19
See Desbordes, ‘Latinitas’, 39.
20
See R. Vainio, Latinitas and Barbarisms, 25–6, 87–8, 131.
21
See Donatus, Mai. 653. 2–4 Holtz; Pompeius, GL v. 284. 20–8; Jul. Tol. 179.
13–18 Maestre Yenes; Consentius, Barb. 2. 6–10, 19. 9–16 Niedermann. Holtz, edn.
of Donatus, 150 comments upon these passages: ‘ce n’est pas n’importe quels mots
barbares qui sont cités, mais uniquement des termes qui ont pour eux l’auctori-
tas . . . Ces exemples sont classiques depuis longtemps . . . ’. See also the deWni-
tions of barbarolexis in Cominianus quoted by Charis. 350. 4–6 Barwick; Diom. GL
i. 451. 30–2; Serv. Mai., GL iv. 444. 7–8; Audax, GL vii. 361. 19–21; Isid. Etym. 1.
32. 2. The Wrst occurrence of the term barbarolexis (cf. TLL ii. 1735. 14–23) is found
in the 3rd-c. grammar attributed to Sacerdos (GL vi. 451. 4–15): according to this
text, ‘if a word—either a Latin or a Greek one—was corrupted by an element from
another language, this was a barbarolexis, a barbarous way of writing the word’
(Vainio, Latinitas and Barbarisms, 91). From Charisius on the term barbarolexis no
longer refers to Greek words. Holtz, edn. of Donatus, 137 rightly observes: ‘Il est
vraisemblable que le sens premier de ÆæÆæØ [i.e. language where foreign words
have penetrated] survit dans barbarolexis ( æÆæ
ºØ), terme qui lui-même
suppose la linguistique stoı̈cienne.’
22
As R. Coleman (‘Quintilian 1. 6’, 917) rightly observes, ‘Hellēnismós embraced
certain dialects outside Attic that enjoyed considerable and long established cultural
and political prestige [ . . . ], Latinitas by contrast was identiWed expressly with
Roman Latin.’ This is also the reason why Latin grammarians do not take into
consideration ‘regional’ loanwords, i.e. ‘the transfer of local terms belonging to
other languages into the Latin’ of diVerent areas of the Empire (see J. N. Adams,
Bilingualism, 443).
23
This word also occurs in a list of peregrina uerba by Consentius (Ars, GL
v. 364. 8–15): Gallic mannus, Persian acinacis and gaza, Punic tubur.
50 Alessandro Garcea, Valeria Lomanto
24
See D. Lippi, ‘Magalia’.
25
On the parameters of Latinitas in Varro and Quintilian, see V. Lomanto, ‘Il
sistema del sermo Latinus’ and Coleman, ‘Quintilian 1. 6’; on their reception by
Gellius, see F. Cavazza, ‘Gellio e i canoni (varroniani?)’ and A. Garcea, ‘Gellio e la
dialettica’, 189–94.
Loanwords and Literary Models 51
26
Vulgo: see Müller, Sprachbewußtsein, 133: ‘Daß Gellius mit vulgus und vulgo
die Ausdrucksebenen der untadeligen consuetudo sermonis meinen kann, zeigen
mehrere Rechtfertigungen von Wortwendungen . . . ’.
27
These lines probably belong to a poem in Phalaecian hendecasyllables written
during a journey and perhaps to a verse letter (see K. Deichgräber, ‘Überlegungen’,
67; E. Courtney, The Fragmentary Latin Poets, 220). The syntagm Genumana per
salicta, which has been interpreted by some scholars as an allusion to the Cisalpine
origin of Cinna (see A. Traglia, Poetae noui, 142; T. P. Wiseman, Cinna the Poet,
46–7; L. C. Watson, ‘Cinna and Euphorion’, 100; Courtney, op. cit. 220–1; contra
G. V. Sumner, review of Wiseman, op. cit., 394; G. E. Manzoni, ‘Elvio Cinna’,
18–19), recalls both the salicta of Enn. Ann. 39–40 Vahlen2 ¼ 38–9 Skutsch and
Euphorion’s use of personal and place-names. The Gaulish paroxytone pronuntia-
tion of Cenomă´ni is adapted into Latin Cenomā´ni or Cenómăni: the prosody Gĕnŭ-
mānă may be deemed a licence on Cinna’s part (see A. Grilli, ‘Sul nome’).
52 Alessandro Garcea, Valeria Lomanto
4. laberius ’ lexicon
Gellius acknowledges Laberius’ narrative and descriptive skills. In
10. 17. 2, after reporting that Democritus deliberately blinded
himself to be able to concentrate better on his meditations, Gellius
praises Laberius’ retelling of this episode (72–9 R. ¼ 90–7 B.) for
its reWned construction and its detailed descriptiveness:
Id factum eius [sc. Democriti] modumque ipsum, quo caecitatem facile
sollertia subtilissima consciuit, Laberius poeta in mimo, quem scripsit
Restionem, uersibus quidem satis munde atque graphice factis descripsit.
In general our mimographer’s language is considered to be au-
thoritative on the morphological and syntactical level. In 6. 9
Gellius discusses the vocalism of the reduplicative perfect and
notes that the reduplicative syllable sometimes features the timbre
/ĕ/ as in Greek, e.g. tetuli, while at others the timbre of the root
vowel, e.g. cucurri. Even in this latter type, however, the correct-
ness of non-assimilated forms is vouched for by both archaic and
late Republican authors. Among these, Gellius includes Laberius:
in §§3–4 he quotes two fragments, one from Galli (49–50 R. ¼ 63–4
B.) de integro patrimonio meo centum milia j nummum memordi, and
Loanwords and Literary Models 53
the other from Colorator (27–8 R. ¼ 40–1 B.) itaque leni pruna
percoctus simul sub dentes mulieris j ueni, bis, ter memordit.28 In 1. 7.
12 a line from Gemelli (51 R. ¼ 65 B.) non putaui hoc eam facturum
is inserted among quotations from Plautus, Gaius Gracchus,
Claudius Quadrigarius, and Valerius Antias to justify the invari-
able form of future inWnitive in Cicero, Verr. 2. 5. 167: hanc sibi rem
praesidio sperant futurum.29 When relating a discussion with Sul-
picius Apollinaris on the alternative forms of the genitive of per-
sonal pronouns in 20. 6, Gellius quotes a line from Necyomantia
(62 R. ¼ 81 B.) dum diutius detinetur, nostri oblitus est to show the
correctness of the type nostri uestri as opposed to the type nostrum
uestrum.30
Gellius also approves of a number of Laberius’ word-choices.31
In 16. 9. 4 the line from Compitalia (29 R. ¼ 43 B.) nunc tu lentu’s,
nunc tu susque deque fers shows that the Latin syntagm susque deque
ferre is equivalent to the Greek IØÆ
æE .32 In 3. 18 Gellius ques-
tions the meaning of the formula pedarii senatores by contrasting the
interpretation given by Gavius Bassus (fr. 7, p. 490 Funaioli)33 with
that given by Varro (Men. 220 Astbury).34 In §9, he quotes a line
28
This fragment from Galli is also quoted by Nonius (205 L. ¼ 124. 24–5 M.).
On the reduplicative perfect, see LHSz i. 586–7; for a more detailed discussion, see
F. Bader, ‘Vocalisme et redoublement’, 167–75.
29
On the invariable future inWnitive, see LHSz i. 618–19, ii. 342–3. For a more
detailed discussion, see V. Bulhart, ‘InWnitiv auf -urum’; M. Leumann, ‘InWnitiv auf
-turum esse’.
30
On the genitive of personal pronouns, see LHSz i. 464–5.
31
In our discussion of the words used by Laberius, we shall point out only the
parallel passages drawn from literary texts predating Gellius.
32
On this syntagm, see LHSz ii. 263; see also A. Otto, Sprichwörter, n. 1723. The
nexus susque deque also occurs in Plautus, Amph. 886 atque id me susque deque esse
habituram putat; Lucilius 110–11 Marx ¼ 3 fr. 8 Charpin uerum haec ludus ibi, susque
omnia deque fuerunt, j susque et deque fuere, inquam, omnia ludus iocusque; Varro, Log.
fr. 65 Bolisani quod si non horum omnium similia essent principia ac postprincipia,
susque deque esset; Cicero, Att. 14. 6. 1 de Octauio susque deque. PF 371. 4 glosses
susque deque as plus minusue.
33
Gell. 3. 18. 4 Senatores [ . . . ] dicit [sc. Gauius Bassus] in ueterum aetate, qui
curulem magistratum gessissent, curru solitos honoris gratia in curiam uehi, in quo curru
sella esset, super quam considerent, quae ob eam causam ‘curulis’ appellaretur; sed eos
senatores, qui magistratum curulem nondum ceperant, pedibus itauisse in curiam; pro-
pterea senatores nondum maioribus honoribus ‘pedarios’ nominatos.
34
Ibid. §§5–6 M. autem Varro in satira Menippea, quae l
ο inscripta est,
equites quosdam dicit pedarios appellatos uideturque eos signiWcare, qui nondum a
censoribus in senatum lecti senatores quidem non erant, sed, quia honoribus populi usi
erant, in senatum ueniebant et sententiae ius habebant. Nam et curulibus magistratibus
functi, si nondum a censoribus in senatum lecti erant, senatores non erant et, quia in
postremis scripti erant, non rogabantur sententias, sed, quas principes dixerant, in eas
discedebant.
54 Alessandro Garcea, Valeria Lomanto
35
On the competition between the two suYxes -ārius and -āneus, see W. A.
Baehrens, Appendix Probi, who discusses the following pairs: extraneus/extrarius,
praecidaneus/praecidarius, praesentaneus/praesentarius, proletaneus/proletarius, ripa-
neus/riparius, subitaneus/subitarius, temporaneus/temporarius. In his gloss on pedarius
Festus 232. 6–10 reports the mocking comment by Lucilius (1102 Marx ¼ H fr. 103
Charpin): pedarium senatorem*signiWcat Lucilius*‘agi pes uocem mittere coepit’; qui ita
appellatur, quia tacitus transeundo ad eum, cuius sententiam probat, quid sentiat,
indicat. Pedaneus also occurs in Cic. Att. 1. 19. 9, 1. 20. 4 and Tac. Ann. 3. 65. 2.
On the technical meaning of pedaneus, see A. O’Brien Moore, Senatus, 680–1.
36
Although Gellius claims that the ueteres usually employed arra, i.e. the apoco-
pated form of the Graecism arrabo (cf. Varro, LL 7. 175 hoc uerbum item a Graeco
IææÆ ), in fact arra became widespread in the language of jurists and of the Church
only after Pliny (NH 29. 21, 33. 28). A. Ernout and A. Meillet (Dictionnaire, s.v.
arra) put down the apocope of arrabo to the frequency of this Graecism—perhaps
mediated by Etruscan—in the language of trade, and especially of procurers: arra
would then be an example of a vulgarism turning into a technical term. On the two
forms, see LHSz i. 382 and E. P. Hamp, ‘arr(h)a’.
37
Laberius’ line is also quoted by Nonius (254 L. ¼ 172. 26–7 M.). Cinna’s line is
also quoted by Gellius at the end of his analysis (9. 12. 7–12) of the twofold meaning,
both active and passive, of adjectives ending in -ōsus. In addition to the two lines by
Laberius and Cinna, somniculosus also occurs in Fronto, Ep. M. Caes. 4. 12. 4, p. 66.
13–14 v:d:H:2 : hoc unum ex Annalibus sumptum amoris mei argumentum poeticum et
sane somniculosum: see van den Hout, Commentary, 182. somniculosus is attested
much more often with the meaning of ‘sleepy, drowsy’: e.g. Cic. Sen. 36; Sen.
Nat. 5. 11. 1; Mart. 3. 58. 36; Suet. Claud. 39. 1.
Loanwords and Literary Models 55
38
To the suYx -ōsus Gellius also devotes ch. 4. 9, where he contests Nigidius’
hypothesis (fr. 4, p. 162 Funaioli) that this suYx has a pejorative meaning, and from
adjectives, such as formosus, ingeniosus, oYciosus, he infers that -ōsus indicates the
abundance of a not necessarily negative quality or tendency. On this point, see
LHSz i. 341–2, and A. Ernout, Les Adjectifs; also F. Cavazza, below, Ch. 3, §3.5.
39
On the Gellian passage, see L. Dalmasso, ‘Aulo Gellio’, 204; M. Carilli,
‘ArtiWciosità’, 22 n. 15; Cavazza, below, Ch. 3, §3.13. On this formation, see
LHSz i. 332, and for a close analysis P. Langlois, ‘Les formations en -bundus’,
and E. Pianezzola, Gli aggettivi verbali in -bundus.
40
On this chapter, see Dalmasso, ‘Aulo Gellio’, 208–14, 480–4, with abundant
references to glossaries. On the composite character of Laberius’ lexicon, see Carilli,
‘ArtiWciosità’, 24–6, 32–3.
41
Gellius makes a partially identical distinction in 11. 7. 1, where he Wrst makes a
general condemnation (par . . . delictum) of both neologisms and trite terms, but
then, as if to rectify his strong censure (sed), distinguishes between the two categor-
ies, judging neologisms—by which he means both new coinages and terms which
have long been dismissed (cf. §3)—as more disagreeable and reprehensible (mole-
stius . . . culpatiusque): Verbis uti aut nimis obsoletis exculcatisque aut insolentibus
nouitatisque durae et inlepidae par esse delictum uidetur. Sed molestius equidem culpa-
tiusque esse arbitror uerba noua, incognita, inaudita dicere quam inuolgata et sordentia.
56 Alessandro Garcea, Valeria Lomanto
1. Laberius in mimis, quos scriptitauit, oppido quam uerba Wnxit praeli-
center. 2. Nam et ‘mendicimonium’ dicit et ‘moechimonium’ et ‘adulte-
rionem’ ‘adulteritatem’que pro ‘adulterio’ et ‘depudicauit’ pro ‘stuprauit’
et ‘abluuium’ pro ‘diluuio’ et, quod in mimo ponit, quem Cophinum
inscripsit, ‘manuatus est’ pro ‘furatus est’. 3. Et item in Fullone furem
‘manuarium’ appellat:
‘manuari’ inquit ‘pudorem perdidisti’,
multaque alia huiuscemodi nouat.
In the hapax legomena mendicimonium (150 R. ¼ 137 B.) and
moechimonium (150 R. ¼ 138 B.) the suYx -mōnium, which is
used to derive abstract nouns from nomina personalia designating
social or juridical condition, e.g. matrimonium, testimonium, is
joined to the native word mendicus and to the Graecism moechus
to deWne the condition of the beggar and the adulterer respect-
ively.42 Likewise, adulterio and adulteritas are both derived from
adulter, by means of the unprecedented attachment of two very
productive inXections, -iōn- (150 R. ¼ 122 B.) and -tāt- (150 R. ¼
123 B.) respectively, to the stem.43 In depudicare (150 R. ¼ 128 B.),
a verb derived from pudicus, the preWx de- retains the concrete
privative meaning shown in the likely models or parallels for
depudicare, Plautus’ deartuare (Capt. 641, 672) and Varro’s deuir-
ginare (Men. 409 Astbury).44Abluuium (150 R. ¼ 120 B.) is attested
only in the technical jargon of land-surveyors with the meaning of
‘Xood’ and features a mismatched preWx. Fronto had warned
against the selection of inappropriate preWxes, especially as far as
the compounds of luere and verbs derived from the same root are
concerned (Ad M. Caes. 4. 3. 4, p. 58. 5–13 v:d:H:2 ). With his
reWned linguistic sensitivity, Fronto considers colluere to be Wtting
to mean the act of rinsing one’s mouth, pelluere that of washing the
Xoor, lauere that of wetting one’s cheeks with tears, lauare that of
washing clothes, abluere that of wiping oV dust or one’s sweat,
eluere and elauere that of washing away a stain whether slight or
very stubborn, diluere that of diluting honeyed wine, proluere that
of gargling, subluere that of scraping the hooves of a beast of
burden.45 While manuari (39 R. ¼ 53 B.) occurs uniquely in
42
The two words are also quoted by Non. 205 L. ¼ 140. 32–3 M. On the suYx
-mōnium, see LHSz i. 297. On the possible parody of juridical language, see Carilli,
‘ArtiWciosità’, 27.
43
Adulterio is also quoted by Non. 97 L. ¼ 70. 3 M. On the two suYxes, see
LHSz i. 365–6, 272–4.
44
On the preWx de-, see LHSz ii. 263–4.
45
Nolim igitur te ignorare syllabae unius discrimen quantum referat. Os ‘colluere’
dicam, pauimentum autem in balneis ‘pelluere’, non ‘colluere’; lacrimis uero genas
Loanwords and Literary Models 57
‘lauere’ dicam, non ‘pelluere’ neque ‘colluere’; uestimenta autem ‘lauare’, non ‘lauere’;
sudorem porro et puluerem ‘abluere’, non ‘lauare’; sed maculam elegantius ‘eluere’ quam
‘abluere’. si quid uero magis haeserit nec sine aliquo detrimento exigi possit, Plautino
uerbo ‘elauere’ dicam. tum praeterea mulsum ‘diluere’, fauces ‘proluere’, ungulam
iumento ‘subluere’. On this passage, see van den Hout, Commentary, 157–8.
46
This neologism is also quoted by Non. 205 L. ¼ 141. 1–2 M. On manuari and
manuarius, see Carilli, ‘ArtiWciosità, 27–8.
47
Plautus . . . propter annonae diYcultatem ad molas manuarias pistori se
locauerat. On the alternative suYxes -ālis (-āris) and -ārius, see LHSz i. 351; see
also Pliny (fr. 17, p. 249 Mazzarino ¼ Dub. serm. fr. 44 Della Casa): aqualium an
potius aquarium dici debeat quaerit Plinius Secundus et putat, ut laterale laterarium,
scutale scutarium, et manuale saxum, manuarium uas, proin aqualis aquarium dici.
48
Translators and dictionaries assign to the adjective as it occurs in this passage
the meaning of ‘won in a game of dice, at gambling’, which they infer from the
context in which Gellius compares exchanging riddles to playing dice, a kind of
entertainment typical of Saturnalia. But quasi suggests that by means of this com-
parison Gellius intends to associate the money collected through an erudite pastime
with that won by lucky gamesters.
49
For the numerous emendations proposed to Laberius’ text, see the apparatus
in Bonaria’s edn.
58 Alessandro Garcea, Valeria Lomanto
expresses his fear that Caesar, once returned from his victory at
Munda, would avenge himself on those who had shown sympathy
to Cato, now dead by suicide in Utica, just as a schoolmaster would
cane his undisciplined pupils: magister adest citius quam putaramus:
uereor ne in catomum Catonianos.50 Also the derivative verb cato-
midiare occurs in an informal context in Petronius, 132. 2, where it
means the punishment inXicted on Encolpius by a lady from
Croton: matrona . . . me iubet catomidiari.
The list of words of which Gellius disapproves goes on cadenced
by the anaphora of item in §§5–9, where isolated forms are found
together with quotations of entire lines:
5. Et ‘elutriare lintea’ et ‘lauandaria’ dicit, quae ad lauandum sint data, et
‘coicior’ inquit ‘in fullonicam’,
et
quid properas? ecquid praecurris Calidoniam?
6. Item in Restione ‘talabarriunculos’ dicit, quos uulgus talabarriones;
7. item in Compitalibus:
malas malaxaui;
8. item in Cacomnemone:
‘hic est’ inquit
‘ille gurdus, quem ego me abhinc menses duos ex Africa
uenientem excepisse tibi narraui.’
9. Item in mimo, qui inscribitur Natalicius, ‘cippum’ dicit et ‘obbam’ et
‘camellam’ et ‘pittacium’ et ‘capitium’:
‘induis’ inquit ‘capitium tunicae pittacium’.
The reasons for Gellius’ censure are not always clear. It can be
pointed out that many of the words he lists are either hapax
legomena or terms attested, in the age before Marcus Aurelius,
only in texts with technical content. Elutriare, which in Laberius
occurs with lintea as its object (150 R. ¼ 130 B.), is used by
Pliny with the same meaning of ‘to wash, to rinse’ in NH 9. 133,
where elutriare is said of the wool to be dyed purple. In NH 14.
114, elutriare refers to the ingredients of the oxymeli, a mixture
consisting mainly of honey and vinegar, and means perhaps ‘to
Wlter, to purify’. Lauandaria (150 R. ¼ 133 B.), in which the
gerundive suYx is joined to the suYx -ārius, is not attested
elsewhere as a neuter plural noun. The other occurrences of
50
A scrupulous exegesis of both Cicero and Laberius is provided by R. Y. Tyrrell
and L. C. Purser, v. 192, on Epist. 668 ¼ Fam. 7. 25.
Loanwords and Literary Models 59
51
On fullonica, see LHSz i. 338.
52
Rolfe retains caldonia, which he relates to cal(i)dus and interprets as a vocative
addressed to either an attendant at the public baths or a ‘quick, hasty’ woman. Julien
accepts the emendation Calidoniam and suggests the translation ‘la chauVeuse’. Our
ignorance of the plot prevents our understanding the word.
53
J. Knobloch (‘Talabarriunculus’) recognizes in this neologism the juxtapos-
ition of two elements that he relates to barrire and to the Wrst element of the
onomatopoeic taratantara (Enn. Ann. 140 Vahlen2 ¼ 451 Skutsch), dissimilated
as tala. He speculates that the term could be assigned the meaning of ‘kleiner
Schreihals’.
54
The Latin verb is modelled on the Greek sigmatic aorist: see LHSz i. 552.
55
On Quintilian’s testimony, which has long been debated by both literary and
linguistic scholars, see e.g. F. Schöll, ‘Wortforschung’, 313–17, and J. Cousin,
‘Problèmes’, 63–4: both scholars acknowledge the vulgar connotation of gurdus,
but while the former allows its Spanish origin, the latter doubts it.
60 Alessandro Garcea, Valeria Lomanto
60
In Republican Latin, capitium designated a jacket or shawl that adhered to the
tunic so as to become an appendix to the tunic itself. Eventually, in late and
especially in ecclesiastical Latin, it came to mean the neck-opening of the tunic or
a hood: on the change in meaning, see Dalmasso, ‘Aulo Gellio’, 211–12.
61
See A. D’Ors, ‘ØŒØ
’.
62
See G. Gundermann, ‘Gubernius, gubernus’.
62 Alessandro Garcea, Valeria Lomanto
5. conclusion
Among the vulgarisms mentioned in 16. 7 the most important term
in the light of 19. 13 is nanus, which in the former is only brieXy
criticized, while in the latter it is discussed in detail as to its origin
and use. Gellius’ perspective in the two chapters is not contradict-
ory: nanus is not a uerbum barbarum but a Graecism, it occurs in
Aristophanes and Cinna and therefore has the status of a literary
66
On this phenomenon, see LHSz i. 453–9.
64 Alessandro Garcea, Valeria Lomanto
67
R. Marache, Critique litte´raire, 158, 232–3 attributes to Fronto and Gellius an
equal admiration for Laberius; by contrast, Müller, Sprachbewußtsein, 149 n. 40
hints at a diVerent evaluation by the two.
68
On a similar discrepancy between Gellius and Fronto with regard to Vergil,
see A. Garcea, ‘Gellio, il bilinguismo greco-latino’, 194–5. For a recent evaluation of
the archaist movement, see U. Schindel, ‘Archaismus als EpochenbegriV’.
Addendum. Although this chapter is the fruit of joint research, §§1–3 are
attributable to Alessandro Garcea, §§ 4–5 to Valeria Lomanto.
3
Gellius the Etymologist
Gellius’ Etymologies and Modern Etymology
Fr a nc o Ca v az za
1. introduction
1.1. Students of grammar and etymology have always known
that in antiquity these two disciplines fared unequally. Grammar,
which lent itself more both to theorizing and to direct analysis,
became so systematic that its study depends even now in part on
the ancients; etymology, not an independent science till the nine-
teenth century, was by its nature too technical, too dependent on a
scientiWc rigour unattainable in antiquity, to achieve successes and
stable results and to leave an inheritance for posterity. In conse-
quence, although the Stoics, unjustiWably conWdent in their
methods, proclaimed that there was no word whose etymology
could not be stated (Varro fr. 130 Goetz–Schöll ¼ 265. 125–7,
pp. 281–2 Funaioli), such etymologists as Plato and Varro have
bequeathed us only a few intuitions and guesses, not all without
merit. Quintilian’s substantial mistrust of etymology (Inst. 1. 6.
28–38) is expressed in words that betray the ancient linguists’
discomfort and uncertainty, despite the claim by many etymolo-
gists (whether or not they acknowledged the name) that etymology
discharged the special function of revealing the ueritas of a word
used for example in law or public institutions or religious ritual,
even at times of accounting for sociolinguistic phenomena.
1.2. That, in substance, is the spirit of Varronian etymology (the
most familiar to us), devised by the student of national IæÆØ
º
ªÆ
in order to investigate primitive Rome and her original institutions.
Clear and well known too is the connection of etymology with
philosophy, not only in the systematic structure of the etymological
chapters in De lingua Latina, but also in the search for the uerum of
things and the relation between the human mind and reality, for
which the etymological studies of Aristotle may serve as symbol.
1
I cite Gellius by P. K. Marshall’s edn., but use my own text of books 1–13.
2
See F. Cavazza, ‘Gellio grammatico’, 259–60 ¼ 85–6 and passim, esp. 273–74 ¼
99–100.
3
Gellian source-criticism attracted most interest in the second half of the 19th c.;
I know of no more recent exhaustive or important works in the Weld. Amongst the
chief exponents (cited by Hosius in his edn.) are L. Mercklin, ‘Citiermethode’,
J. Kretzschmer, De Gellii fontibus, and L. L. Ruske, De A. Gellii fontibus (who was
concerned only with part of Gellius’ work), cited below as ‘M.’, ‘K.’, and ‘R.’
respectively.
Gellius the Etymologist 67
C. Valgius Rufus (K. 68), Velius Longus (K. 93), who is named in only one passage,
passed on by a doctus amicus, though K. 93 envisages direct use.
8
Quispiam (2. 21. 6–7), amicus (7. 15. 2–5), (erat) qui (diceret) (12. 14. 3), (fuit) qui
(diceret), homo in libris atque in litteris adsiduus (12. 14. 6), homo (15. 30. 2–3), nebulo
(16. 6. 12), cf. uulgus grammaticorum (2. 21. 6–7), turba grammaticorum nouicia (11.
1. 5), nouicii semidocti (16. 7. 13), commentarii ad ius pontiWcum (16. 6. 13).
9
This Wgure retains validity despite a degree of approximation. Etymologies of
related words, or words structurally associated by a common derivational mor-
pheme (e.g. -osus, -mentum, -ulentus), are open-ended as covering words not ex-
pressly mentioned. Sometimes no etymology as such is proposed for discussion, but
one is implicit in the discussion itself (e.g. of humanitas in 13. 17). Nevertheless, the
count attests Gellius’ undoubted interest in etymology: relative to his 398 chapters
it shows a ratio of 0.9 etymologies per chapter, which, allowing for miscounts, leads
to the rather high average for a miscellany of one etymology per chapter, proving
Gellius’ interest beyond doubt. The calculation comes from a study I have not had
time to prepare for publication; the list of etymologies, not reproduced here for
reasons of relevance and above all space, is available—though in need of revision and
possible corrections—for any interested party by email from <fcavazza@ipazia.
economia.unibo.it> or <franco.cavazza@unibo.it>.
Gellius the Etymologist 69
3. gellius ’ etymologies
3.1. This said, we may now examine certain interesting passages
capable of attribution to Gellius and therefore useful in revealing
him to us as an etymologist in the ancient tradition; granted that he
shows no innovations in method, certain interesting observations,
certain correct proposals, or at least certain good intuitions conWrm
his grammatical competence.10
3.2. In 1. 18. 5, having noted that Varro challenged false ety-
mologies made by L. Aelius Stilo on Stoic principles,11 preferring
in accordance with common Latin practice12 to derive Latin words
from Greek when the sound seemed to match, Gellius remarks that
Varro made a like error in deriving Latin fur from furuus and not
from æ:13
Nonne sic uidetur Varro de fure, tamquam L. Aelius de lepore? Nam quod
a Graecis nunc Œº dicitur, antiquiore Graeca lingua æ dictus est.
Hinc per adWnitatem litterarum, qui æ Graece, est Latine ‘fur’.
3.2.1. The source is unknown. Hosius (edn. i, p. xxiv) denies
Gellius the credit for discovering Varro’s error. Since the passage
seems to be of legal interest, the source may be a jurist;14 but
although Hosius writes ‘Gellius videtur sua mutuatus esse a iuris-
consulto aliquo’, he may also have used an etymological, that is
to say grammatical source.15 Doubt is unavoidable. However,
10
See Cavazza, ‘Gellio grammatico’, esp. 269 ¼ 95, on Gellius the etymologist.
11
SpeciWcally the interpretation of lepus as le(ui)-pes, with false division. Plainly,
too, the ancients paid no attention to the consonantism of their etymologies or even
the vowel-quantities, audible as they still were.
12
Obviously the Latins could not imagine a common IE origin for Greek and
Latin, but only suppose the more prestigious language to be a superstrate over
another whose literature had a later historical origin, being thus superior both
absolutely and in age.
13
Varro . . . ‘furem’ dicit ex eo dictum, quod ueteres Romani ‘furuum’ atrum
appellauerint et fures per noctem, quae atra sit, facilius furentur (Gell. 1. 18. 3–4).
14
So Hosius (edn. i, p. xxiv); but the texts he cites with the Greek etymology are
from late Latinity: cf. D. 47. 2. 1. pr.; the author cited is Paul, who Xourished in the
early 3rd c. ad, hence later than Gellius. In this passage several etymologies are
cited, showing that uncertainty persisted in Paul’s day (from fraus, according to
Masurius Sabinus; from ferre or from Greek, according to others); cf. also J. 4. 1. 2,
which adds to the etymologies mentioned that of Varro cited above from Gellius.
Behind all this there will have been a long etymological tradition whose origin is lost
to us.
15
Hosius (ibid.) does not consider Cloatius Verus as Gellius’ source because
Gellius does not trust him (NA 16. 12). Indeed he does not; but some correct Greek
etymologies may still have reached him through Cloatius, of whom indeed he
admits (ibid. cap.) that, amidst his errors and absurdities, there were words he
satis commode . . . ad origines linguae Graecae redigit.
70 Franco Cavazza
since some jurists relate furtum to furuum (cf. Labeo, fr. 14, p. 561
Funaioli), others to æ with Gellius, there is no bar on supposing
a juristic source. Unfortunately Masurius Sabinus, whose De furtis
Gellius knows and quotes, does not help us resolve the problem, so
that this conjecture is only a partial solution. But other attestations
of a Greek etymology for fūr, albeit post-Gellian, may be of value
as coming from grammarians,16 and might tell against dependence
on a purely legal source. The grammarians are unlikely to depend
on Gellius; at best he and they have a common source, so that it is
legitimate to think of Probus,17 whether or not (in Gellius’ case)
transmitted through Sulpicius Apollinaris, even in respect of the
phonetic correspondence.18 Be the source legal or grammatical,
such reasoning is admissible only if Gellius is to be denied even a
modicum of authority; moreover, had he depended on a respected
source, he would not assert with his typical modesty (cf. 14. 1. 32,
14. 2. 25) that Varro might be right and that he dare not express a
view in the face of so great an authority.
There is no reason why Gellius’ contacts with the Greek world
should not have enabled him to detect similarities between Greek
and Latin words, and therefore to derive the latter from the
former. If so, he found conWrmation in other authors of a conjec-
ture he had made suo Marte.19 Although Gellius sometimes pre-
sents matter from the same source or on similar subjects in two
successive chapters, no such assistance is available in the present
case.
3.2.2. Gellius’ etymology is correct within the limits of the
ancient perspective: the connection between æ and fūr seems
beyond doubt. J. Pokorny, IEW 128–32 (esp. 129–30) derives
both words from the root *bher-, whose Greek (æø) and Latin
(ferō) descendants are Indo-Europeanist classics; the consonants
are regular, but the vowels require explanation. In the Greek word
16
Cf. Serv. on Georg. 3. 407, Aen. 2. 18, 9. 348, derived (not very convincingly)
by Hosius from Gellius (cited in Serv. Aen. 5. 738). Cf. too Prisc. GL ii. 11. 19–21.
17
For Servius’ and Priscian’s dependence on Probus cf. Nettleship, ‘The Noctes
Atticae’, 391 ¼ 248.
18
Festus, who cites various derivatives of furuus (PF 74. 11–12: Furuum nigrum,
uel atrum. Hinc dicta furnus, Furiae, funus, fuligo, fulgus, fumus), does not help us
here: fur is absent, but silence does not disprove its presence in Verrius, who appears
to be the source for the other passage presenting a phonetic relation between Greek
and Latin (13. 9, esp. §5). Unhelpful too is Val. Max. 2. 4. 5 (furuus ¼ niger); he
shares sources with Gellius, but only for history (cf. Nettleship, ‘The Noctes
Atticae’, 402–3 ¼ 261–2).
19
On fur and its etymological complex see R. Maltby, Lexicon, 248, whose
account, albeit incomplete, conWrms that Varro’s is the oldest attested.
Gellius the Etymologist 71
26
M. Alinei, Origini, i. 365–488 and ii, passim: the Indo-Europeans were Cro-
Magnons, the Wrst, or amongst the Wrst, inhabitants of the Mediterranean, while
other peoples (the Basques and the Etruscans) may be considered bearers of adstrate
languages—not necessarily superstrate, since they did not conquer and settle (let
alone as pioneers) large areas of the Mediterranean.
27
Cf. Sihler, New Comparative Grammar, 49.
28
That is, the theory, not proved beyond refutation, that IE long vowels may be
due to a lost laryngeal; thus ō in an IE language may derive from PIE *ō, *oH, or *eH3 .
29
Oscan and Umbrian too lacked o, or rather their alphabets lacked the sign for o
(whether for graphic or for phonetic reasons, the o sound being closed to the point of
confusion with u), which is u in Old Oscan and Old Umbrian and ú in Late Oscan:
cf. Bottiglioni, Manuale, 13–14, 30–1.
Gellius the Etymologist 73
45
Their remote origin, as adjectives denoting abundance, in competition with
forms in -ulentus, was studied by A. Ernout, Adjectifs, 5–9, following M. Leumann
in F. Stolz et al., Lateinische Grammatik, i. 231, cf. 228–9, LHSz i. 341–2. On this
chapter see too A. Garcea and V. Lomanto, above, 54–5.
46
Cf. Aistermann 118–19, who compares NA 4. 7. M. 675–81 (following H. E.
Dirksen, ‘Die Auszüge’, 37–49 ¼ 28–38), supposes that all Gellius’ oral sources,
chief of whom are Favorinus and Sulpicius Apollinaris, are in fact quoted from a
written text, so that the scenes described by Gellius result from artiWce. In my
opinion this may be true in certain cases but not as an absolute rule.
47
Cf. e.g. M. Niedermann, Phone´tique, 18–36.
Gellius the Etymologist 79
Gellius’ own addition. The chapter is thus in two parts; the ques-
tion is whether the second begins at §6, with other compounds in
which the long vowel of the second syllable tells against Wxed
accentuation on initial intensive ad, or consists solely of §12. Un-
certain as the source of §§6–11 may be,48 I am inclined to think that
the reference to práemodum, not envisaged in the previous quota-
tions, is Gellius’ own; to be sure the word is said to match admodum
in sense, but on the one hand the equation of prae with praeter may
echo Verrius,49 on the other when the adprime of 6. 7. 7 reappears
in 17. 2. 14 amongst words and phrases from book 1 of Claudius
Quadrigarius, Gellius expressly states that his notes are the result
of his studies and his memory (§§1–2), which may be plausibly said
of this passage too.
3.6.2. Gellius’ etymology is either an apparent parahaplology, so
to speak, or a case of syncope, if praemodum be understood as from
práe[tĕr]mŏdum, or else asserts homosemy of ad, prae, and
praeter¼supra. Since in ancient etymologists dictum quasi normally
indicates derivation, his quasi ‘praeter modum’ points to the former.
The homorrhizy of prae and prae-ter, comparable with in and in-
ter, prope and prop(e)-ter, sub and sub-ter, suggests that Gellius’
etymology (whether or not he understood the concept) is correct,
particularly as the sense is acceptable.
3.7. To explain how in ordinary speech nequitia was given an
incorrect sense Gellius has methodically correct recourse to ety-
mology; in 6. 11. 8 he cites from Varro (LL 10. 81, with a slightly
diVerent text) the words:
Vt ex ‘non’ et ex ‘uolo’ inquit ‘nolo’, sic ex ‘ne’ et ‘quicquam’ media syllaba
extrita compositum est ‘nequam’.
3.7.1. That is to say, the etymology of nequam, ‘worthless’, be-
stows a purely negative connotation on nequitia, such as ‘insigniW-
cance’, in contrast to the sense of ‘skilfulness’ and ‘cunning’ that it
had in Gellius’ own day. On the basis of the preceding chs. 7, 9,
and 10, Josef Aistermann took 6. 11 to be mediated through
Probus; his arguments have varying force.50 In any case, the
48
If a second source is suggested, it is not by any reWnement in the linguistic
judgement, but only by the new word-class.
49
Cf. Fest. 224. 6 praepetes aues quidam dici aiunt, quia secundum auspicium
faciant praeteruolantes and cf. Gellius 7. 6 and the equivalence of praepetere with
anteire at Fest. 286. 14–16. Intermediation through Sulpicius Apollinaris is
possible, not that that matters here.
50
Aistermann 136. Whereas the case for attributing 6. 10 to Probus seems sound,
that for ch. 11 is more doubtful: although Aistermann adduces some repetitions and
80 Franco Cavazza
textual resemblances between this and other chapters, it is typical of the entire
Noctes Atticae for particular theses to be expressed with speciWc stylemes, whereas
individuals’ utterances are often linked to stereotypical formulae or generic citations
(as already noted by M. 656–8, 696–8).
51
Nolo, of course, comes from nĕ (not nōn) þuŏlō, which yields *nŏuŏlō (standing
to it as nouos to =
) >nōlō. Nēquam is as Verrius saw a compound of nē þ quam, but
the quam is not the comparative conjunction but the indeWnite quam of quis-quam (in
fact quis underlies both elements), which partly rehabilitates Varro’s etymology.
Gellius the Etymologist 81
52
However, in order to bestow coherence on Gellius’ exposition it is necessary to
mistranslate Plaut. Stichus 497, cited in §4; cf. my edn. iii. 215 n. 6.
82 Franco Cavazza
Gellius gives the respective etymologies of proletarii and adsiduus, both stated orally
by Julius Paulus, though of the two interpretations of adsiduus one (ab aere dando)
goes back to Aelius Stilo (fr. 6, p. 59 Funaioli) and had been taken up by others.
63
The MSS are divided between eupsones (read by Hertz, Hosius, and Rolfe) and
cupsones, for which see P. K. Marshall, ‘Four Lexicographical Notes’, 273, followed
by Marache (edn. ii. 111) and me (edn. iii. 279–80). G. Bernardi Perini also sides
with Marshall (as always except as noted in edn. i. 45–76).
64
In Numidia . . . muscarium uix inuenitur, in cupsonibus habitant. Here too the
reading is not entirely secure.
65
Cf. P. Monceaux, Les Africains, 250. The suggestion has never met with much
approval (cf. next n.). It arises not so much from this very weak, not to say irrelevant
evidence, as from the fact that the chief cultural Wgures of the age, Apuleius, Fronto,
and Sulpicius Apollinaris, with the last two of whom Gellius was in close contact,
were of African origin. On Apollinaris’ Carthaginian origin see Beck, Sulpicius
Apollinaris, 3. See too L. A. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 14–15, 83–4 [11–12,
61–2].
66
Studies in A. Gell. 6 (though he reads eupsones); so already A. Milazzo, Àulo
Ge`llio, 9–17 ¼ 256–62, locating Gellius’ patria in Rome; Marache, edn. i, p. viii.
67
A slight indication that Probus is the source is the likelihood that the preceding
chapter, 8. 12, is derived from him (cf. Donatus on Ter. Andr. 55: so Aistermann
139), but although, living in Berytus, he might have acquired some Phoenician, the
argument is very weak, weaker even than that for Favorinus, who is at least named
in 8. 14. cap. As might be expected, Punic words have very little presence in Gellius;
apart from any discussed in 8. 2, the prosody of Hannibāl, Hasdrubāl, and Hamilcār
is treated in 4. 7, expressly taken from Probus’ Epistula ad Marcellum.
Gellius the Etymologist 87
68
TLL s.v., col. 1438. 50–1 oVers no explanation; Latin etymological dictionar-
ies say nothing of the word at all.
69
‘Dopo aver fatto un’indagine su quelle che appaiono etimologie ‘‘gelliane’’
autonome ci pare di poter aVermare che l’etimologia qui proposta non è mediata da
altri o almeno che Gellio scrive qui dopo una meditazione e una ricerca personale;
e coglie nel segno.’
70
Ernout–Meillet, Dictionnaire, 25: ‘Comme le remarque déjà Aulu-Gelle, 10, 5,
3, la formation rappelle celle de auārus à côté de aueō; elle n’est pas répresentée
autrement.’
71
See n. 59; they include locuples (GL vii. 525. 4–5), another word presumed to
result from compositio, which Gellius discusses in this chapter without raising any
objection, and auarus auidus (which recurs in Non. 710 L. ¼ 442. 9–16 M.).
88 Franco Cavazza
72
See O. Gradenwitz, Laterculi, 511–12. The few relevant adjectives are dis-
cussed in the text.
73
The Sanskrit forms listed by Pokorny, IEW 515, are unconvincing: where the
initial consonant is not k- but c-, the Collitz–Saussure palatal law requires not -ā- in
the root but -ē-.
74
Amārus has been discussed by various scholars; against the comparison with
Sanskrit see W. F. Wyatt, Indo-European /a/ 20–1, who sees diYculties in the
uncertainty of the Sanskrit accent, in the -ā- of the Latin word (which needs to be
explained in all these words, not necessarily in the same way; alternation between
long vowel and shwa will be invoked, or laryngeal suYxes by adherents of laryngeal
theory), and also in the initial vowel (Pokorny, IEW 777–8 cites only *om-, which
Wts other languages but not Latin, which requires *am-; Wyatt prefers *om(a)-ro-
as starting-point for IE languages). Gellius’ acuity is further demonstrated by the
contrast with A. Zimmermann, ‘Zu auārus’.
Gellius the Etymologist 89
79
This appears to be a corollary of Lachmann’s much-debated Law, which can
no longer be accepted as a universal principle, but remains a sound observation of
certain facts: see K. Lachmann, In T. Lucr. De rerum nat. libros, 54–5, also my edn.
iv. 185–9 on NA 9. 6, vi. 120–7 on 12. 3. The bibliography is endless; I have taken
account of most of it in the 70-odd pages I devote to the topic in the forthcoming
vol. iii/2 of my Lezioni di indoeuropeistica, §6. 3 V.
80
This is one of the few certainties in the debate over Lachmann’s Law. Note too
pıstor from pınso, with secondary lengthening before /ns/.
92 Franco Cavazza
derived from o instead of oØ .81 Gellius denies that they had
mistaken the etymology, and credits them for noticing what
appeared to have escaped Tiro, that Greek !- corresponds to
Latin su-; hence ! was Wrst Latinized as syades, then adapted
to give suculae. He would seem to have this etymology from Ver-
rius: see Fest. 394. 13–15 (super) uerum ponitur etiam pro de,
Graeca consuetudine, ut illi dicunt !æ and above all 390. 11–19
(where Tiro’s explanation is probably faulted); cf. 370. 20–4 sup-
pum antiqui dicebant, quem nunc supinum dicimus ex Graeco, uidelicet
pro aspiratione ponentes <s> litteram. Over suculae < !82 (cf.
Fest. 390. 17) there seems to be no real disagreement between Tiro
and Verrius, since the two relationships o sues and !
suculae are set side by side; at most Tiro’s only explanation for
the initial s of suculae may seem to be the false semantic—not
phonetic—association with sues, whereas Gellius’ source clearly
demonstrates that in the words listed Greek !- corresponds to
Latin su-. The phonetic relations are correct, but having no con-
ception of diachronic comparison, the Romans, including Gellius,
had to envisage the Latin words as straightforwardly derived from
Greek. However, the surviving parallel accounts do not include
subulcus and somnus; they might well have been in Gellius’ source,
but it seems better to suppose them his own additions.
3.15.2. Even phonetically these etymologies are correct within
ancient limitations, some formal inaccuracies apart, given that
forms with a common root do not always correspond. As regards
the two ‘Gellian’ words, I repeat my comments in edn. vii. 130–1:
sŭbulcus is derived from sūs, with short stem-vowel in alternation
with the long (cf. sŭ-cerda) on the pattern of bŭbulcus,83 derived
from bōs, where -bulcus/-fulcus may correspond to ıºÆŒ, even
though caution is needed.84Subulcus and !
æ85 are not an exact
match, but remain valid as regards the Wrst syllable, which is
precisely Gellius’ point here. Inexact, but basically correct, is the
81
In fact this last is a folk-etymology, whereas !, formed like ºØ, does
indeed seem related to y, ‘sow’; Lat. suculae will be either a semantic calque or an
independent word.
82
Cf. Cic. ND 2. 111, Arat. fr. 28 Soubiran, Plin. NH. 2. 106. The etymology of
suculae (and !) is taken up by Isid. Etym. 3. 71. 12.
83
A dialectal variant, with internal -f-, was bufulcus, which remains in Italian
bifolco<*bofolco.
84
So O. Lagercrantz, ‘Lat. worterklärungen’, 177–81; but see Ernout–Meillet,
Dictionnaire, 74 (s.v. bōs, Wn.), Walde–Hofmann, LEW i. 119, and Chantraine,
Dictionnaire, 1232 (s.v. ºÆ).
85
From the !- of y þ
æ, from the root of
æ, ‘fodder, pasture’, and
æø, ‘I feed’.
Gellius the Etymologist 93
link between o
and sŏmnus: sypnus is unattested and has every
appearance of being invented by Gellius for the sake of his argu-
ment. The root is *swep-/*sup- (cf. Pokorny, IEW 1048), which in
its verbal form does not survive in Latin (cf. dormio in contrast to
the causative sōpio), but does in *swop-no-, with the normal o-grade
and the suYx -no-,86 while Greek presents the zero grade
*(s)up-no. Immediately after etymologizing somnus, in which he
posits a parallel evolution, Gellius states the etymology that gives
rise to the chapter, suculae<syades< !, a calque (probably
understood as phonetic rather than semantic) or a loan, even if
apparently by a diVerent process from somnus. But Gellius, as we
have already seen, is content here, as the ancients often were, with
Wrst-syllable correspondence, hastening past the false association
of -culae and -.
3.16. In 15. 3. 4–8, on autumo and the preverb au-, Gellius
combines factual observation and criticism of another scholar’s
opinion with an etymological proposal:
Inuenimus . . . in conmentario Nigidiano uerbum ‘autumo’ compositum
ex ‘ab’ praepositione et uerbo ‘aestumo’ dictumque intercise ‘autumo’ quasi
‘abaestumo’, quod signiWcaret ‘totum aestumo’ tamquam ‘abnumero’. Sed,
quod sit cum honore multo dictum P. Nigidii, hominis eruditissimi, auda-
cius hoc argutiusque esse uidetur quam uerius. ‘Autumo’ enim non id
solum signiWcat ‘aestumo’, sed et ‘dico’ et ‘opinor’ et ‘censeo’, cum quibus
uerbis praepositio ista neque cohaerentia uocis neque signiWcatione senten-
tiae conuenit. Praeterea uir acerrimae in studio litterarum diligentiae M.
Tullius non sola esse haec duo uerba [sc. ‘aufugio’ et ‘aufero’] dixisset, si
reperiri posset ullum tertium. Sed illud magis inspici quaerique dignum
est, uersane sit et mutata ‘ab’ praepositio in ‘au’ syllabam propter lenitatem
uocis, an potius ‘au’ particula sua sit propria origine et proinde, ut pleraeque
aliae praepositiones a Graecis, ita haec quoque inde accepta sit.
3.16.1. The passage is preceded by one from Cicero’s Orator
(158) asserting that aufugio and aufero are compounds with the
preposition ab, transformed into au to soften the pronunciation,
and that there are no other instances. Cicero’s ostensibly correct
etymology—I call it so because it has its own logic and (albeit
invented) phonetic principle—does not exceed the limits of his
observation, but also serves, indirectly, to refute Nigidius’ deriv-
ation of autumo from ab(aes)tumo by deminutio of a syllable. Gel-
lius in his justiWed objection makes good use of Cicero’s statement
and also appeals to the meanings of the words discussed. There
86
The process is *swep-no-, *swop-no-> *sop-no-> som-no-, with regressive
assimilation (cf. O. Szemerényi, Einführung, 41).
94 Franco Cavazza
88
Gellius’ failure to cite Velius outside the passage quoted does not mean he did
not use him elsewhere.
96 Franco Cavazza
89
F. Metzger, ‘Latin uxor’, 171, exploits this diVerence to propose another
etymology for a much-vexed word: ‘we may . . . explain uxor as IE *u-k-sor, in
which u belongs with IE *au(e) ‘‘away’’ (Latin aufero, Skt. avabharati, Latin
aufugio, Got. auþeis, etc.)’.
90
Walde–Hofmann, LEW i. 79 (cf. 485; less clearly 556), LHSz i. 61, citing Gk.
ÆPØ , ‘retire, retreat’ ¼ I ÆøæE , I ÆŁÆØ (Hesych.), and Pokorny, IEW
72–3, on the root *au-, *aue-, *uē˘-, ‘down, away from’, with congeners in at least
nine Indo-European phyla.Ð Ð
91
See too Maltby, Lexicon, 1–2, cf. 65, on the (casus) ablatiuus: Sergius (or
Seruius), Explan. in Don., GL iv. 534. 31–535. 1–2 ablatiuus, quod per eum auferre
nos ab aliquo aliquid signiWcemus, ut ‘ab hoc magistro’, 544. 14 ablatiuus ab auferendo
dictus, ‘aufer ab eo’ (cf. Isid. Orig. 1. 7. 32). All this established a tradition and leaves
Gellius in splendid isolation.
92
Cf. Garcea–Lomanto, above, 62.
Gellius the Etymologist 97
93
Cf. e.g. 2. 17 and obnoxius (6. 17: above, §3.8), deprecor (7. 16), proXigo (15. 5),
and further obesus (19. 7; see below. §3.19). For the two senses, ‘placed under’ and
‘supported’, and for other nuances cf. CGL ii. 465. 45 $
subnixus; v. 42. 11
(Plac.) subnixus est instructus aliquo auxilio. item subnixus suVultus ex omni parte ¼
100. 17 and 155. 10 and cf. iv. 288. 10; iv. 394. 24 subnixus submisus humilis; 177. 35
subnixus humilis uel subpositus aut incumbens; iv. 177. 26 ¼ 287. 41 ¼ 570. 9 subnexa
(subnixa) subiecta (uel) supposita (subp.) and cf. v. 153. 26 subnexa. subiecta sub-
posita. set melius. suVultam uel subWrmata; v. 419. 22 ¼ 427. 55 subnixis subiunctis.
94
Sublımis (explained at PF 401. 5–6 with a play on superior and supra) comes
from sub þ lımis (¼lımus, ‘oblique’) and means etymologically ‘rising aslant’, then
generally ‘which raises itself’.
98 Franco Cavazza
95
Cf.Walde–Hofmann, LEW ii. 171, who rely on Gellius’ quotation from Quad-
rigarius for the Wrst attestation of subnixus.
96
The etymology of fruor, inseparable from frux, poses the problem that -g- is
absent from the present stem; the IE root is *bhrūg-, with congeners in Germanic
(Pokorny, IEW 173, proposes that *frūgor, whence *frūg-nıscor > frūnıscor, was
supplanted by *frūguor).
Ð
Gellius the Etymologist 99
follows Gellius and his quotation, but the opposite sense of obesus
appears in PF 207. 8 L.: obesus pinguis, quasi ob edendum factus, an
etymology that casts light on its grammatical and semantic devel-
opment, ob taking on the causal sense. In fact, Laevius’ oddity (a
semantic hapax) apart, the past participle of obĕdo has passed, like
pōtus and prānsus, from passive, ‘gnawn away’, to active, ‘one who
has eaten much, too much’. And that is the sense preserved, albeit
at learned level, in Romance.
3.19.2. It follows that in this case too Gellius has (indirectly)
stated a correct and semantically well-justiWed etymology.
3.20. In 19. 7. 4–5, again concerning a passage of Laevius,
presented as a Xouter of normal usage, we read:
Notauimus . . . quod hostis, qui foedera frangerent, ‘foedifragos’, non
‘foederifragos’ dixit.
3.20.1. Notauimus and our comments on obesus bring us back to
Gellius, Julius Celsinus, and Julius Paulus. Granted that the
etymology is obvious, we may note how Gellius, strangely, com-
ments on a word not only used in classical authors whom he might
have called ueteres,97 as authorities for good language, but on the
evidence considerably commoner than the alternative he lays
before the reader, which indeed is a hapax known from him
alone. The evidence is the Italian fedifrago, found in educated
usage (and in literature from Machiavelli onwards) but not rare
even now, which suggests a tradition behind it.98 It may be less
relevant or noteworthy that he takes a dogmatic position on the
admissibility, in compositio, of syllabic syncope (foed[er]i-), which
ancient etymologists sometimes allowed with a freedom due to the
very methods of ancient etymologizing. Certainly we cannot doubt
that Gellius perceived the word to have been put together by
licensed exception in what I have taken to be the ordinary way
from foed(us) and -fragus, rather than using the rhotacized genitive
stem, with the composition vowel -i- and -fragus, as he would
(rightly) prefer. Ernout–Meillet, Dictionnaire, 243, write: ‘dans le
composé archaı̈que et poétique [but also classical, see above] foedi-
fragus, le thème *bhoido- survit peut-être; mais, en composition, le
latin a souvent des formes de ce genre en face du thème en -es-:
97
Cic. De oV. 1. 38; deleted by Weidner and some editors, but accepted by
Winterbottom, who takes the word for Ennian, and by the OLD s.v.
98
To be sure there is a paraetymology from fede, but the association already
existed in antiquity (Varro, LL 5. 86). At all events the formation satisWes a native
speaker’s Sprachgefühl.
Gellius the Etymologist 101
4. conclusions
4.1. This study has added nothing to what was known of ancient
etymology; rather, it conWrms the Wndings of ‘Gellio grammatico’
concerning certain characteristics of Gellius as an exponent of the
ars grammatica,100 which make him, within antiquity, a scholar
fully worthy of respect. He shows certain indisputable pecularities
of technique and method, which emerge even from a limited study
such as this, conWned as it is to etymologies for which Gellius
appears to be reponsible, not to all those found within his work;
they are:
(a) dexterity in applying the etymological techniques of his times,
and therefore
(b) good knowledge of the ‘etymological categories’ employed by
ancient grammarians: etymologies Ø (cf. 10. 4, a passage of
Nigidius outside our scope), Graecisms, barbarisms, phenom-
ena of compositio, of declinatio per similitudinem, ή
I æÆØ ,
paronomasia, and declinatio in the general sense of ‘derivation’;
(c) ability to advance etymologies apparently his own, not merely
to depend on others;101
99
On this -i- see esp. F. Bader, Formation, 13–30, ‘Apophonie’, esp. 238–41; F.
Cavazza, ‘Gli aggettivi in -ı-tımus’, 581–6. É. Benveniste, Origines, 77 points out
that ‘-i- en Wn de composé peut aussi bien reposer sur *-o-’ (cf. agri-cola).
100
Gellius’ studies are not conWned to Latin; even in the etymologies attributed
to him there is considerable reference to Greek. That is no surprise, but simply
demonstrates a fair acquaintance with the language. Gellius, the pupil of Favorinus
and Herodes Atticus, was probably in Greece more than once (cf. my edn. i. 17–18;
he attended the Pythian Games of ad 143 or 151) and stayed there for extended
periods (cf. ibid.). This lasting relationship with Greece is symbolized by his very
title, otherwise inexplicable.
101
Cf. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 183–4 [134–5].
102 Franco Cavazza
102
Owing to this limitation, and to the omission (besides a lost passage discussed
in the text) of etymologies not stated clearly, those left in doubt without a suggestion
(except for au-, a genuine personal intuition), and those relating to verbal or
nominal categories of which only one example is cited, the number of etymologies
does not reach 50, but only 25.
Gellius the Etymologist 103
103
The technical meaning of declinatio varies (see F. Cavazza, ‘Come si forma’,
138–41, ‘Due note’, 212–14, ‘L’etimologia classica’, 22–7) from ‘declension’ to
‘derivation’, which is more frequent in ancient etymology, so that in theory a
declinatio may also be a borrowing from the Greek; the term is subjected here to a
useful diVerentiation.
104 Franco Cavazza
the Wrst place. In Gellius we cannot always say ‘the tale’s the thing’
or ‘it’s how you tell it’; often he may be just as interested in
whatever nugget he can attach to it.
7
Text pp. 241–2 v:d:H:2 . On the relationship, E. Champlin, Antonine Rome,
46–50; Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 131–9 [93–9]. There is valuable and
detailed discussion of the Fronto version in Y. Julien, ‘Histoire d’Arion’, 323–38;
and (succinctly and independently) in M. van den Hout, Commentary, 543–50.
8
[Resemblances are interpreted by Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 135 n. 26
[96 n. 19] as evidence for Gellius’ use of Fronto; others have argued that Fronto
used Gellius.]
9
So van den Hout, Commentary, 544 (pace Julien 326), reminding us that it is not
actually a letter at all.
Aulus Gellius as a Storyteller 109
10
For the diYculties of assessing the phenomenon, L. P. Wilkinson, Golden
Latin Artistry, 25–8.
110 Graham Anderson
to take his lyre and sing a song that would console him for his condition
(16. 19. 12).
Gellius does not produce ornament at every opportunity, but he
is not averse to it either.
Fronto is best at the sense of occasion, with Arion on the poop
and the crew scattered over the ship, in what amounts to a sophistic
performance, complete with his gold-embroidered robe, in con-
trast to Herodotus’ simple AÆ c Œı . Gellius interestingly
retains Herodotus’ detail that Arion sang the carmen, quod
‘orthium’ dicitur (16. 19. 14), which Fronto leaves out: for our
author this is again valuable antiquarian detail. He misses out,
however, on the climactic farewell, with only a uoce sublatissima,
though when the dolphin arrives he does give us a little extra:
Sed nouum et mirum et pium facinus contigit.
But an unexpected, amazing, and dutiful act chanced to take place
(16. 19. 16).
Come the dolphin, Fronto comes into his own:
delphinus excipit, sublimem auehit, naui praeuortit, Taenaro exponit,
a dolphin caught him, carried him aloft, swam ahead of the ship, and put
him ashore at Taenarus (p. 241. 16–17);11
and the brachylogy continues with
Arion inde Corinthum proWciscitur: et homo et uestis et cithara ac uox
incolumis.
from there Arion made his way to Corinth; his voice, his robes, his lyre,
and his voice were all intact (§2, p. 241. 19–20).
By contrast Gellius has a rather feeble incolumique . . . corpore et
ornatu (§16).
So far honours even perhaps: but when we Wnd ourselves back
with Periander, Herodotus is very terse: Periander !
IØÆ has
Arion shut away and awaits the arrival of the sailors. All this
amounts to is that Periander Wnds the matter suYciently unusual
to conduct an independent investigation, where of course the
sailors will condemn themselves out of their own mouths. Fronto
gets this exactly right:
rex homini credere, miraculo addubitare:
he believed the man, but was sceptical about the amazing event (p. 241. 22);
11
To say with van den Hout (547) that ‘here Fronto cuts the story short’ rather
misses the artistic point of the tetracolon.
Aulus Gellius as a Storyteller 111
12
Fronto, Arion 2 (Julien 330–3); Gell. 16. 19. 18–23.
13
Amongst many others, Nicolaus, Progymn. 2. 7 (Rhetores Graeci, i. 271 Walz);
ps.-Liban. Progymn., narr. 29 (viii. 52 Förster).
14
Not always evident in printed texts: Julien (327) restores possiet on rhythmical
grounds at Arion 1.
15
Commentary, 544.
16
I am less convinced than van den Hout (545) that Fronto’s literary ambitions
were very limited, on the strength of a gesture of literary modesty; he himself
eVectively contrasts the rhetorical panache of Fronto’s other excursions into
belles-lettres with the Arion (544).
112 Graham Anderson
But Gellius does have a narrative trump card here: he describes the
lion itself in very great detail in the arena scene itself, and this he
places Wrst: then he has Androclus tell the whole story in Wrst-
person Xashback: altogether much more of a storyteller’s presenta-
tion than the simple curiosity of animal memory we are oVered in
Aelian.20
Unfortunately we are less well served by a further Gellian doub-
let. The fable of the Lark and her young can be inferred to come
from a tetrameter account in Ennius’ Saturae, of which the Wnal
moral is actually quoted (2. 29).21 Comparison with the versions in
both Babrius 88 and Avianus 21 show that Gellius is following an
expansive and prolix version, which feels the need to explain why
the bird needs to move her family: normally such a bird times her
nest-building so that her brood will be able to Xy by harvest; but
this year she built it in a Weld sown rather early and so has to have
the Xedgelings alert to when the harvest is to take place. We then
have reported speech of the farmer and the Xedglings on each of the
three occasions, rather than just the concluding speech on the part
of the lark to underline the moral to trust oneself rather than
friends or family. In this version too the father plausibly teams
up with his son, rather than operate single-handed: a plausible
interlocutor is thus made available.
20
Cf. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 80 n. 57 [58 n. 48].
21
[See, however, M. J. Luzzatto, ‘Note su Aviano’, 82–4; L. Del Vecchio and
A. M. Fiore, ‘Fabula in satura’, 59–67.]
114 Graham Anderson
23
e.g. C. P. Jones, Culture and Society, 31–2, though as usual he emphasizes
experience against literary stereotype.
116 Graham Anderson
24
Cf. L. A. Holford-Strevens, ‘Fact and Fiction’; id., Aulus Gellius, 64–72 [47–51].
25
On which A. N. Sherwin-White, Letters, 11–20.
26
See Morgan, below, Ch. 7.
Aulus Gellius as a Storyteller 117
27
On the Florida, see now S. Harrison, Apuleius, 89–135; on this aspect of
Valerius, C. J. Carter, ‘Valerius’, 42–5.
5
Gellius and the Roman Antiquarian Tradition
A n d r e w J. S te v en so n
1
Notable contributions have been H. Peter’s chapter on ‘Die antiquarischen
Studien und die Curiositas’ (Die geschichtliche Litteratur, i. 108–58), the essays by
A. D. Momigliano on ‘Ancient History and the Antiquarian’ and E. Rawson on
‘Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian’, together with the chapter on
antiquarianism in ead., Intellectual Life and A. Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius. Wallace-
Hadrill rightly stresses the antiquarian background to Suetonius’ biographies, while
Rawson’s Intellectual Life is probably the Wrst work, in English at least, to see
antiquarianism as an intellectual discipline in its own right, which would repay
modern study. In my unpublished thesis (A. J. Stevenson, ‘Gellius’) I attempt to
identify the antiquarian scholars of Rome and those works which contain antiquar-
ian material and which can tell us something of the antiquarian tradition at Rome,
and I develop at greater length the themes introduced here.
2
E. Rawson, ‘Logical Organisation’, 12 ¼ 324–5 rightly notes that the systematic
organization found in Varro and other scholarly writers of the late Republic repre-
sents a signiWcant intellectual advance on the chronological organization of material.
The Roman Antiquarian Tradition 119
3
On the chief representatives of Roman antiquarian verse writing, cf. J. F. Miller,
‘Callimachus’. Varro wrote a work entitled Aetia, but it is unclear whether this was
in verse or prose (or both).
120 Andrew J. Stevenson
4
Indeed it seems likely that further research would show a continuous tradition
of antiquarian studies from Varro through to the antiquaries of the Renaissance and
later. G. Maslakov, ‘Roman Antiquarian Tradition’, looks brieXy at Ausonius’ and
Augustine’s relation to especially Varro.
122 Andrew J. Stevenson
8
For a fuller account see the chapter on ‘The Methods and Characteristics of
Roman Antiquarian Writing’ in Stevenson, ‘Gellius’, 127–85.
9
Sen. Ep. 108. 30–1; Cic. Rep. 1. 38.
The Roman Antiquarian Tradition 125
10
Gell. pr. 4; Varro, RR 1. 1. 7 (the list follows); Col. 1. 1. 4–15 also lists those
works the reader should consult before involving himself with agriculture.
126 Andrew J. Stevenson
11
Plin. NH pr. 18; Gell. pr. 4, 10, cf. §§12, 19; 9. 4. 5, 13. 31. 10, 15. 7. 3. Cf.
T. Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces, 97–8, 147–8. Cf. also Cic. Fin. 5. 48.
12
RR 1. 1. 11. Somewhat later, Priscian shows himself aware of previous writing
on the ars grammatica, in order to distance himself from those earlier works (ep. ded.
1–4: GL ii. 1–2).
13
Plin. NH pr. 24; Gell. pr. 4–9.
14
NA 9. 4. 3, though some of the miracula and fabulae he also found in Pliny’s
NH. On Gellius’ view of Pliny, cf. Holford-Strevens, Gellius, 165–6 [121–2].
15
NA pr. 10; NH pr. 26. Of course, the rhetoric of prefaces is in play here: cf.
Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces, 98–100, 124–41, 145–9. Gellius’ title belongs precisely
among the festiuitates inscriptionum, and indeed has a better claim to be included
there than some, such as Naturalis historia, Antiquae lectiones, and Epistulae morales,
which give a far better idea of the content of these works and which are present in
Gellius’ list.
16
Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius, 70.
The Roman Antiquarian Tradition 127
take the decision to diverge from it. Given that Macrobius also
diverges from the mainstream of the tradition (by using a continu-
ous dialogue format), it is worth noting here that the preface of the
Saturnalia contains much that is similar to, if not indeed repro-
duced from that of the Noctes Atticae.17
17
Cf. e.g. NA pr. 2–3, 11 Sat. 1. pr. 2–3, 10 respectively.
18
On this topic and that of §3.3 cf. R. Friderici, De librorum divisione, which
seeks, generally convincingly, to establish the authenticity and the origin of the
division of ancient works into capita, of the provision of lemmata for these capita,
and of the compilation of capitum indices or summaria. See A. D. Vardi, below,
174–8.
19
Gell. pr. 25 ut iam statim declaretur quid quo in libro quaeri inuenirique possit;
Plin. NH pr. 33 ut quisque desiderabit aliquid id tantum quaerat, et sciat quo loco
inueniat; Friderici, De librorum divisione, 52–3.
20
NH pr. 33; Varro, LL 7. 31, 65, 10. 70; id. ap. NA 2. 10. 3, Serv. Aen. 1. 277.
Columella’s index comes at the end of the eleventh book (bk. 12 being added later):
omnium librorum meorum argumenta subieci, ut cum res exegisset, facile reperiri possit,
quid in quoque quaerendum et qualiter quidque faciendum sit.
128 Andrew J. Stevenson
21
Friderici, De librorum divisione, 56: on p. 55 he suggests that Gellius’ index
should be seen as a separate libellus. We should believe Pliny: he was very interested
in the Wrst appearance or discovery of things. For his use of Columella see NH
19. 68 Col. 11. 3. 53.
22
H. J. Rose, Hygini Fabulae, p. viii: mihi quidem non ita ueri dissimile uidetur
Hyginum nostrum Antoninorum fere aetate scripsisse. One suspects that the work of
Gellius’ (anonymous) familiaris, which was lent to Gellius and which he charac-
terizes as full of mera miracula, may have had more than a little in common with this
work of Hyginus: NA 14. 6.
23
C. L. Roth, edn., p. lvii; A. ReiVerscheid, edn. 370. R. P. Robinson, however,
argued (edn. 1 ad loc.) that the index was composed ‘longe post Suetoni aetatem’.
Cf. R. A. Kaster, edn. 41–2: ‘That the lists are authentically Suetonian is
unlikely . . . Yet even if the lists are not Suet.’s work, they are probably
ancient’, giving reasons to suppose them older than Jerome; also Wallace-Hadrill,
Suetonius, 51.
The Roman Antiquarian Tradition 129
disguises his use of this method by only placing at the end of the
article whatever was the stimulus for the point which he has just
made.38
The use of this method is by no means unique to Gellius. The
Wrst sentence of Book 10 of Varro’s De lingua Latina, for instance,
ends with the words multi quaesierunt and there are numerous
traces of the question-and-answer process to be found in his
works: Boissier noted that in his works of literary criticism Varro
proceeded by deWnitions and categories.39 There is, however, no
evidence that he broke up his text with separate sub-headings,
though as we have seen he did divide his books into various
sections: how that division was indicated remains unknown.40
In Macrobius’ Saturnalia, despite the dialogue form, it is very
easy to identify where headings might have been placed, had
Macrobius so wished, and indeed several editors have inserted
appropriate rubrics.41 Similarly, it would not be diYcult to supply
suitable lemmata for Pliny’s Naturalis historia. It is, however,
improbable that rubrics would have been removed at some stage
in the transmission of the texts of Macrobius and Pliny; rather one
would expect the medieval copyists to have inserted them. Instead,
this should be seen as a conscious eVort on the part of Pliny and
Macrobius to write continuous prose uninterrupted by headings.
Unlike those of Plutarch, Gellius’ rubrics rarely take the form of a
question, but usually give an abstract of the information presented.
Possibly Gellius was making a related eVort (at least to vary the
style of his articles): one could easily supply a question for many of
his articles (that is where he himself does not), to which he then
provides an answer. Yet the presence of the lemmata in the Noctes
Atticae might suggest that Gellius wrote more ‘traditionally’.42
Wallace-Hadrill has shown how all Suetonius’ works were
dominated by rubrics: these exist in the fragments of the lexico-
graphical works (and here one may compare Verrius Flaccus), but
38
Typical of examples too numerous to cite in full are NA 2. 19, 3. 18, 13. 3, 22.
H. Berthold, Aulus Gellius, 23 notes that ‘allenthalben wird der Leser einbezogen in
das Fragen und Wissenwollen, in das Suchen . . . und Finden’; he produces lists of
such recurrent phrases (ibid. 73–4, 87–94).
39
Boissier, Varron, 158.
40
On the various methods of division available, cf. Friderici, De librorum divi-
sione, 21, 24–5, 27–33, 43.
41
Cf. e.g. the Dring and Harper edn. of 1694 and the Nisard edn. of 1850. Of
course the dialogue form itself leads to progression by question and answer: the
procedure is at its clearest in Sat. 7. 8–13. Cf. also 7. 16. 1–12.
42
E. Tuerk, ‘Macrobe’, sees Macrobius as aiming to create a homogenous work,
in terms of both style and content, in contrast to the lack of organization in the NA.
134 Andrew J. Stevenson
47
Edited by T. Mommsen in GL iv. 267–76. For other lists of abbreviations,
apparently from late antiquity and the Middle Ages cf. ibid. 277–352.
48
Gell. 17. 9. Suetonius also refers to Julius Caesar’s use of cipher (Jul. 56. 6).
Cf. Mommsen, GL iv. 267.
49
On Suetonius cf. p. 281 Roth; Festus explains RR ( ¼ rationum relatarum) at
340. 27–30 L. s.v. R duobus; QRCF ( ¼ Quando Rex Comitiauit Fas) and QSDF ( ¼
Quando Stercus Delatum Fas) 310. 11–25 s.vv.
50
Plin. Ep. 3. 5. 10, 17; cf. Plin. NH pr. 17.
136 Andrew J. Stevenson
51
Skydsgaard, Varro, 101–16 (he is mainly concerned with the meaning of
commentarii and !
ÆÆ); R. Marache, edn. i, p. xv; Fronto, Ep. M. Caes. 4.
6. 1 (p. 62. 10–11 v:d:H:2 ); W. M. Lindsay, Nonius, 3. 7–10.
52
R. Reitzenstein, Verrianische Forschungen, 73 n.3.
53
W. Strzelecki, Quaestiones Verrianae, 80, 93–103; F. Bona, Contributo, 165–8,
esp. 167.z
54
Cf. Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius, 15: ‘Sometimes we get the impression of a
large card-index system at work.’
55
Cf. NA 9. 4. 5, 12. On the form of these ‘literary stores’ cf. Skydsgaard, Varro,
102–15.
The Roman Antiquarian Tradition 137
56
Libraries: NA 9. 14. 3, 11. 17, 13. 20, 16. 8. 2, 19. 5. 4; cf. 7. 17. Bookshops:
NA 5. 4, 13. 31, 18. 4. Cf. J. E. G. Zetzel, Latin Textual Criticism, 59–65.
57
For Pliny’s reworking of his notes, cf. Isager, Pliny, 168, 187.
138 Andrew J. Stevenson
58
Ibid. 82, 139, and esp. 160–8.
59
Plin. NH 33. 26–8; Varro, RR 2. 11. 10; Gell. 3. 4; Suet. Aug. 7. 1.
60
Cf. A. Stein, Römische Inschriften. Note also the ancient literary ‘falsiWcations’
of inscriptions collected at CIL vi/5. 1*. Some of this alleged autopsy was no doubt
found in pre-existing literary sources: but again we must remember that somebody
must originally have made these observations.
61
Note that Seneca’s main criticism of antiquarianism (Ep. 108. 30–1) was its
detailed approach in contrast to the wider view of the philosopher.
The Roman Antiquarian Tradition 139
explanations); Fest. 152. 28–33 maximum praetorem, 154. 4–5 maiorem consulem;
Macr. Sat. 1. 7. 18–28, 32–3 (both give three alternatives).
73
Cf. e.g. Macr. Sat. 1. 15. 14–17; also 1. 10. 18, 1. 11. 50.
74
Cf. Varro, LL 7. 74 (which has only the Wrst explanation!).
75
Russell, Plutarch, 45. Cf. Prop. 4. 2, 4. 10. 45–8 and, in general, Miller,
‘Callimachus’, 391–2, 411–12. At NA 6. 4 Gellius says the Wrst (of two explanations)
is better.
142 Andrew J. Stevenson
76
It is perhaps not irrelevant that the library of the Warburg Institute in London
shelves the Noctes Atticae of Aulus Gellius and some works by and on Varro under
encyclopaedias. The dilettantism of Roman scholars was stressed by H. Dahlmann,
‘Der römische Gelehrte’, passim, but esp. 186 ¼ 2.
77
OED s.v. ‘institution’, deWnitions 6a and 1a.
78
Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius, 139 (and cf. his index s.v. ‘institutions’); Rawson,
‘Cicero’, 37 ¼ 65.
The Roman Antiquarian Tradition 143
79
Riposati, De uita populi Romani.
80
Varro, LL 5. 80–94; Gell. 13. 12. 5–6, 13. 13. 4–6.
144 Andrew J. Stevenson
when he digresses on the tribunate, and such is also the case for
Tacitus, for example in his digression on the urban prefecture.81
Besides the magistracies, we can still detect an antiquarian inter-
est in Rome’s other political institutions. The senate was an insti-
tution closely connected to the magistracies, and the apparent
emphasis in the fragments on the senators themselves, rather
than seeing the senate as an institution per se, combined with the
interest in the magistracies suggests that antiquarian writing
reXects much of the interests of the senatorial elite. Suetonius
appears particularly concerned with the maintenance of senatoria
dignitas and similarly the section of the Digest which is de senato-
ribus concentrates on the status and rank of senators and their
families.82 The interest in the privileges and duties of senators
extends to certain aspects of their dress, particularly their foot-
wear: this also reXects the antiquarians’ interest in costume.83
The emphasis on the interests of the senatorial elite is largely
substantiated by antiquarian writing on religion which tends to
concentrate on the priestly colleges, the members of which were
largely drawn from that elite. Yet it may also be merely the acci-
dent of transmission, and indeed Gellius has one article (14. 7)
which presents a range of information about the senate, drawing
(ultimately and indirectly) on Varro’s ¯NƪøªØŒ ad Cn. Pom-
peium: it is interesting to consider that Gellius was not a senator,
and that the ¯NƪøªØŒ was written as an introduction to the
senate and its procedures for one (Pompey) who had never entered
the curia. In what remains of antiquarian writing on the senate
there is also a marked interest in the locations where meetings of the
senate could be held: a similar interest recurs in other areas of
antiquarian interest, such as religious institutions (where temples,
shrines, and similar receive much attention), and points towards a
periegetic tendency of much antiquarian scholarship.84
It is also unclear what Varro meant by loci in the Res humanae: in
the ¯NƪøªØŒ and Res diuinae these are the places where the
senate met and temples, shrines, and other religious places. Pre-
sumably Varro presented what would now be seen as a study of the
81
Zon. 7. 15 (from Dio bk. 4); Tac. Ann. 6. 11. On antiquarian writing on the
magistracies, cf. Stevenson, ‘Gellius’, 220–81.
82
Cf. e.g. Suet. Jul. 4. 11, 76. 3; Aug. 35; Nero 15. 2, 37. 3; Vesp. 9. 2; D. 1. 9.
83
Plin. NH 9. 65 (citing Fenestella); Plut. Quaest. Rom. 76 (282 a–b); Gell. 13.
22; Fest. 128. 3–11 mulleos; Serv. Aen. 8. 458; Lydus, Mag. 1. 7, 17.
84
Cf. e.g. Gell. 14. 7. 7; Fest. 358. 1–6 religioni; 470. 5–13 senacula; PF 43. 1–4
curia; Varro, De uita populi Romani fr. 70 Rip.; LL 5. 13, 155–6, 6. 46, 7. 10; Serv.
Aen. 1. 446, 7. 153, 11. 235.
The Roman Antiquarian Tradition 145
85
LL 5. 41–56, 145–65.
86
Cf. e.g. Varro, LL 5. 87–91, 115–17, 7. 52, 56–8; Gell. 1. 11, 1. 25 (from RH de
bello et pace), 5. 6, 10. 8–9, 10. 25, 16. 4, etc. Cf. Rawson, Intellectual Life, 240–1;
Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius, 129–31.
87
On Suetonius cf. Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius, 77–8, 127, 130 n. 12, 139.
146 Andrew J. Stevenson
88
Maslakov, ‘Roman Antiquarian Tradition’, 101–2 overemphasizes the reli-
gious studies of Roman antiquarianism; he does not note the role played by the
interests of the Christian writers. Moralizing probably should not receive the
emphasis given it by Maslakov either.
89
CD 6. 3. On the Indigitamenta, libri rituales, libri haruspicum, and libri fulgu-
rales as merely prescribing formulae and rituals cf. Boissier, Varron, 202–3 and
Agahd, edn. of RD 130–4.
90
Cf. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 286–9 [212–14].
91
LL 5. 57–74.
92
Pliny’s thoughts are essentially that it is all nonsense. Cf. NH 2. 14, 17, 143–4,
11. 273, 28. 17, 22–9. See also T. Köves-Zulauf, ‘Plinius’, 193–9. Macrobius (Sat. 1.
17–23) discusses a number of gods, listing their attributes and the origins of their
names: by the 5th c. ad such matters may largely have become the province of
antiquarian research alone. Macrobius’ main purpose, however, is to show that all
The Roman Antiquarian Tradition 147
Only twice does Gellius discuss a god per se (5. 12, 13. 23) and in
one of these articles he is as much concerned with the pronunci-
ation and declension of the name as he is with the attributes of
the god. Furthermore, both articles start from the presence of
the gods’ names in prayers. Another article (2. 28) illustrates
the uncertainty at Rome as to which god sacriWce should be oVered
when there is an earthquake: Gellius’ main point is the procedure
of the sacriWce. Gellius’ three other references to gods (all of which
also mention Varro) all present information for which the names
of the gods merely provide supporting evidence.93 It is interest-
ing that in the fragments of the De uita populi Romani Varro
discusses religious matters only in the Wrst book, that on the regal
period; and furthermore the relevant fragments relate to the cult of
the gods. If we were to see gods as having a place in the antiquarian
tradition, then we might expect antiquarian interest to focus on the
early period and more particularly on the attitudes of the ueteres to
the gods and so on the development of their cult.
An interest in games is widespread among the antiquarian
writers, much of this no doubt originating in Books 9 and 10 of
the Res diuinae, which were de ludis circensibus and de ludis scaenicis
respectively, though Suetonius’ Ludicra historia was no doubt
also important for later writers.94 It is unclear how far the anti-
quarians regarded games as religious institutions: they were aware
of their religious origins, but few of the fragments suggests any
deep interest in their religious character, which was by the late
Republic in any case subsumed beneath their value as spectacle.
Certainly, Suetonius in his Caesares is most interested in games as
spectacle.
There was also considerable antiquarian interest in the calendar,
which again had religious origins and retained religious connota-
tions: the existing fragments concentrate on the explanation of dies
atri, dies fasti, dies nefasti, nundinae and so on, and the division of
time, particularly of the day. It is worth noting that these matters
these gods should be seen merely as individual manifestations of one god, Sol.
Outside the section in which he presents these views, it is signiWcant that gods
appear only as the objects of the rites he discusses.
93
NA 3. 16. 9–11 (on the length of pregnancy), 16. 16. 4 (on the origin of the
name Agrippa), 16. 17. 2 (on the origin of the name of the ager Vaticanus).
94
We also know of lost works by Varro De actionibus scaenicis, De scaenicis
originibus, De actibus scaenicis, and the Theatrales libri, if this is not a general title
for the previous three, which may in any case represent an epitome or republication
of RD 10. Augustine is again an important source (cf. e.g. CD 6. 7, 7. 21), as is
Tertullian, De Spectaculis.
148 Andrew J. Stevenson
are those which would probably most aVect the elite in practical
terms in that, for example, they governed the working hours of
the senate.95
The problems of the (non-)survival of texts make it diYcult to
be certain, though the indications are that there was less interest in
other institutions. Such is the case for the development of the
equestrian order, most interest being shown by the elder Pliny.
Suetonius documents the reforms of the equestrian order or career
structure introduced by the emperors, as well as the recognitiones
equitum, which are Gellius’ main concern regarding the equestrian
order, and Verrius Flaccus explained a few relevant terms.96
A similar level of interest is evident in the popular assemblies,
most interest being shown by Gellius and Verrius Flaccus, though
the latter referred to Varro’s discussion of praerogatiuae centuriae
in Book 6 of the Res humanae, which would suggest that Varro
dealt with the various comitia and concilia, presumably as exhaust-
ively as he seems to have done other institutions.97 Rawson noted
the antiquarian interest in military institutions, concluding that
‘here the antiquarian tradition is revealed as better than the annal-
istic’: it is interesting and characteristic for antiquarian writing
that military tactics and tales of heroism appear very rarely, and
95
Varro, LL 6. 3–34 (at 6. 18 he refers the reader to the Antiquitates for further
details: RH 14–19 were de temporibus); De uita populi Romani fr. 18 Rip.; Plut.
Quaest. Rom. 19 (267 f–268 d), 24 (268 b–d), 25 (269 e–270 d), 84 (284 c–f); Suet.
Jul. 40; Aug. 31; Gaius 15, 16. 4, 17. 2; Claud. 11. 3; Nero 55; Dom. 13. 3; Gell. 4. 9.
5, 5. 17, 7. 7. 6–7, 8. 1, 10. 24, 20. 1. 42; also Fest. 186. 23–9 Nonarum, nundinas; PF
33. 26–7 concilium, 28 conciliabulum, 34. 1–3 contio, 12–13 comitiales dies, 36. 21–7
conuentus, 44. 7–8 cum populo agere, 76. 17–19 ferias, 78. 4–5 fastorum libri, 83. 7–8
fastis diebus, 251. 25–6 procalare, 311. 1–5 quandoc rex comitiauit fas, quandoc stercus
delatum fas; Macr. Sat. 1. 14–16, 3. 2. 14. Note also Ovid’s Fasti and L. Cincius’ De
fastis (cited by Macr. Sat. 1. 12). Division of year, month, day: Plin. NH 2. 187–8, 7.
212–15; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 19 (267 f–268 d), 84 (284 c–f); Gell. 3. 2 (citing the book
de diebus in RH); Censorinus, Nat. 20. 2–12 (citing Fenestella, Junius Gracchanus,
Varro, Suetonius, et al.); Macr. Sat. 1. 3, 1. 4. 17–19, 1. 12–13.
96
Plin. NH 33. 29, 32–6; Suet. Aug. 38–40; Gaius 30. 2; Claud. 6. 1; 25; Vesp. 9.
2; Titus 6. 1; Gell. 4. 12. 2, 4. 20. 11, 6. 22; PF 36. 16–17 conscripti, 71. 18 equestre
aes, 91. 10 hordiarium aes; Fest. 266. 11–15 priuato sumtu.
97
Gell. 5. 19, 18. 7 (citing Verrius Flaccus), 15. 27 (drawing on juristic sources).
Fest. 290. 27–34 praerogatiuae centuriae, cf. 184. 8–12 niquis sciuit, 264. 17–22
populi, 268. 13–22 prohibere comitia, 326. 17–24 rogatio, 368. 11–18 respici, 372.
20–2 scita plebei, 442. 28–444. 1 scitum populi, 450. 23–452. 22 sexagenarios, 452.
32–5 sex suVragia; PF 33. 26–7 concilium, 34. 1–3 contio, 43. 9 curiata comitia, 47. 3–4
centuriata comitia, 58. 5 contio, 100. 20 in conuentione. Cf. Fest. 277. 2–3 patricios,
citing a work De comitiis by L. Cincius.
The Roman Antiquarian Tradition 149
then only if they help explain the name or origin of some custom
or institution of the army.98
But antiquarian scholarship was not limited to public life. There
was also much antiquarian writing on institutions of private life,
such as marriage, funerary practice, shaving, the drinking of wine,
sitting or reclining at table, the use of foodstuVs and domestic
utensils. Again it is the institutions that were central to their inter-
est, rather than any attempt to write a social history of Rome.
Subjects which had no place in Roman historiography, such as
the origins and history of foodstuVs and domestic equipment, also
recur in antiquarian writing. ‘Private life’ happens, however, to be
less well represented in the surviving fragments of the antiquarian
tradition than are such subjects as religious and political institu-
tions, costume, the calendar (which was also a political and religious
institution), coinage, the institutions of the Roman army, and
games of all types, including the theatre.99 We cannot simply dis-
count that the elite of Rome found these aspects of their past
interesting, as many today Wnd their own past interesting. Possibly
antiquarian writing on such private institutions could also serve as
something approaching a handbook of etiquette. It is also possible
that, having produced systematic histories of political and religious
institutions, the antiquarian writers turned their attention to the
institutions of private life, in a spirit of intellectual inquiry: to see
whether, and to what extent the methods which they had developed
(or at least adopted) for political and religious institutions could
also be applied to other areas. The subject of political institutions of
course overlaps considerably with juristic interests in public law;
and the jurists’ lost works on public law must have had much in
common with many antiquarian works.
One further institution which governed life in ancient Rome and
which was of interest to antiquarian scholarship was the civil and
98
Rawson, Intellectual Life, 240–1; Varro, LL 5. 87–91, 115–17, 7. 56–8; De uita
populi Romani frr. 87–8 Rip.; Gell. 1. 11, 1. 25, 2. 11, 5. 6, 6. 4, 10. 8–9, 10. 25, 11. 1.
6, 16. 10; Fest. 202. 14–204. 19 opima spolia, 294. 3–9 procincta classis, 484. 9–14
turmam; PF 17. 1–2 accensi, 41. 11–12 caduceatores, 67. 15–18 endo procinctu, 96.
28–9 in procinctu, 251. 19–21 procincta classis, 506. 23–8 uelati.
99
Rawson, Intellectual Life, 240–2, recognized the Roman army and Roman
coinage as ‘a couple of subjects of antiquarian investigation’; Wallace-Hadrill
rightly stresses games, comprehending spectacula, board games, party games, and
children’s games (Suetonius, 126–8, 44) and notes (p. 16) that Suetonius is con-
cerned not with wars and battles fought by his subjects, but with military insti-
tutions. Similarly, Della Corte, Svetonio, 158 sees as characteristic of
antiquarianism, works ‘on the laws’, ‘on the customs of Rome’, ‘on the Roman
calendar’, and ‘on habits’.
150 Andrew J. Stevenson
criminal law. This was, of course, the province of the jurists, but
there were many points of contact between legal and antiquarian
literature, and a considerable proportion of what is today known of
Roman law, particularly its development, comes from antiquarian
writers: as Wieacker notes,
Die rechtshistorisch ergiebigsten erhaltenen Werke sind Varros libri de
lingua latina, A. Gellius’ Noctes Atticae, der Verrius-Auszug des Sex.
Pompeius Festus und dessen Epitomierung durch den Langobarden Pau-
lus Diaconus und die Notae (Siglen) des großen Grammatikers Valerius
Probus, die Compendiosa doctrina des Grammatikers Nonius Marcel-
lus . . . sowie die Vergilkommentare des Grammatikers Servius . . . 100
Gellius refers to reading juristic works (NA 14. 2. 1, 20. 10. 6),
and it is unlikely that such reading would have come as a particu-
larly unpleasant task for him: the scholarly nature of much legal
writing is well known, and it often recorded antiquarian details.
Cicero, in the De oratore, makes Crassus speak of one of the results
of occupation with the ius ciuile being an interest in the antiquitates
(1. 193, cf. Brutus 81); Tacitus has the jurist C. Cassius Longinus
speak of the amor antiqui moris of some of his colleagues (Ann. 14.
43); and the Younger Pliny says of Aristo, quantum antiquitatis
tenet! (Ep. 1. 22. 2; cf. NA 11. 18. 16). Similarly the Digest (and
in particular title 50. 16, de uerborum signiWcatione) contains many
examples of the jurists’ use of etymology to understand the origin
and hence explain the meaning of matters under discussion: we
may compare Quintilian’s reference to jurists quorum summus circa
uerborum proprietatem labor est (Inst. 5. 14. 34). Furthermore, it is
perhaps not insigniWcant that one of the earliest known works of
Roman jurisprudence is Q. Mucius Scaevola’s liber ‹æø , a ‘book of
deWnitions’, the few surviving fragments of which suggest that it
deWned concepts and institutions of law.101
Another aspect of Roman antiquarianism is that it is distinctly
‘Roman’, in that it is remarkably Romanocentric: very little inter-
est is shown in anything outside the city of Rome, and when such
an interest is shown, there is usually some connection with Rome.
This is evident in, for example, Varro’s Antiquitates, as well as his
satires. When Varro mentions in the De lingua Latina some other
towns of Latium, it is only in so far as they were connected with the
stirps Romana (5. 144). This Romanocentricity is perhaps at its
100
F. Wieacker, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, 101.
101
Schanz–Hosius ii. 240. Note also the De signiWcatione uerborum quae ad ius
ciuile pertinent of Aelius Gallus (ibid. 597; 2 frr. in O. Lenel, Palingenesia iuris
civilis, i. 1).
The Roman Antiquarian Tradition 151
106
NA 11. 18. 6–15; Gaius, Inst. 3. 184–202. Similarly, on the legis actio sacra-
mento in rem cf. NA 20. 10. 7, 9 Gaius Inst. 4. 5, 17 respectively.
The Roman Antiquarian Tradition 155
Am i el V ar di
1. generic indicators
To help the reader identify the genre of a work from the outset,
generic indications are often embodied in titles and prefaces.2 As
I have suggested elsewhere, whether or not it was in Athens that
Gellius embarked on the making of his book, the title Noctes Atticae
is primarily meant to convey erudition (by evoking Hellenic
1
A. Fowler, Kinds, 38, 46; also J. Culler, Structuralist Poetics, 145–8.
2
Fowler, Kinds, 88–105.
160 Amiel Vardi
3
A. D. Vardi, ‘Why Attic Nights?’, 300–1.
4
For the reading, see L. A. Holford-Strevens, ‘Analecta Gelliana’, 292–3.
5
Cf. Plin. NH pr. 24–5; Clem. Str. 6. 2. 1. For the works listed by Gellius, see
P. Faider, ‘Praefatio’, 203–8; Vardi, ‘Why Attic Nights?’, 299–300; for those in
Clement’s list, A. Méhat, Études sur les ‘Stromates’, 99–106. For Gellius’ preface,
see also A. Maréchal, ‘Préface’.
6
See L. A. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 27–8 [20–1]; Vardi, ‘Why Attic
Nights?’ Note that Pliny, clearly in Gellius’ mind when composing his list of titles,
chose a title that really is as sterilis as his material.
Genre, Conventions, Cultural Programme 161
7
For the difficulty of classifying the Noctes Atticae in ancient generic terms, see
N. Horsfall, ‘Generic Composition’, 130; M. L. Astarita, Cultura, 14, 19–23.
8
‘Miscellany’, under which Gellius’ book normally goes nowadays, is of course
not an ancient term, and seems to have been first used as a title by Poliziano; see
R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, ii. 45.
9
Cf. 9. 16. 3 on Pliny’s Libri studiosorum.
162 Amiel Vardi
—Æ
Æc Ø
æÆ,10 we can take this anecdote to indicate that
doctrina and variety constituted two key notions of the expectations
Gellius’ contemporaries would have had of the type of work he was
writing. What Gellius’ friend did not take into account is a criter-
ion of discrimination by which Gellius wants to dissociates himself
from other miscellanists—his collection, he maintains, avoids mere
polymathy and includes only what is either useful or entertaining
(pr. 11–12, 4. 6. cap., 5).11
Gellius normally refers to his work collectively as commentarii,
using the singular for individual chapters.12 The term clearly
bears generic overtones, but it is by no means unequivocal. By
Gellius’ day it could carry the traditional Latin meanings of
‘oYcial records’, ‘a private journal’, and ‘a collection of notes
for private use’ (or a published book posing as such), but also
the variety of meanings of the Greek term !
ÆÆ (and occa-
sionally also of I
ÆÆ13), with which it has become
associated. It could thus denote ‘a scholarly treatise or textbook’,
‘a commentary’, ‘private memoirs or a collection of private notes
or excerpta’ and hence also ‘a collection of memorable things’.14
In the NA Gellius uses the term to refer to exegetical commen-
taries on both Latin15 and Greek works,16 as well as for scholarly
treatises dedicated to various speciWc issues. In some of these the
word commentarius clearly formed part of the original title of
10
For a summary of this debate, see Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 116–18
[82–3]. —Æ
Æc ƒ
æÆ features in Gellius’ list of fanciful titles (pr. 8), as also
does
`ƺŁÆ ŒæÆ (pr. 6) which might be hinted at in the words tamquam . . .
copiae cornum further on in the chapter (14. 6. 2). Though at 1. 8. 1–2 he suggests
Cornum copiae as a Latin equivalent to Sotion’s
`ƺŁÆ ŒæÆ, Gellius need not
have had a specific work in mind when referring to this title here or in pr. 6 (cf. Plin.
HN pr. 24), since the title might have been an old and common one (see below,
n. 26).
11
Cf. 9. 4. 11–12, 10. 12. 4; and see Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 36–44
[27–33]; S. M. Beall, ‘Homo fandi dulcissimus’, 89–90.
12
Notably five times in the preface (3, 13, 20, 22, 25), but also 1. 23. 2, 1. 24. 1, 9.
4. 5, 13. 7. 6, 18. 4. 11; for the distinction between the finished commentarii or
commentationes, and annotationes, the rudimentary notes taken while compiling the
material, see R. Marache, edn. i, pp. xv f.
13
See below, n. 18.
14
F. Bömer, ‘Commentarius’, 210–50, Méhat, Études sur les ‘Stromates’, 106–12.
For commentarii as a private collection of excerpta, see Plin. Ep. 3. 5. 10, 17; further
J. E. Skydsgaard, Varro the Scholar, 102–15.
15
e.g. Hyginus’ commentary on Vergil, which Gellius often mentions, and
Labeo’s on the XII Tables (1. 12. 18).
16
e.g. Taurus’ on Plato’s Gorgias (7. 14. 5 cf. 1. 26. 3), and Plutarch’s on Hesiod
(20. 8. 7).
Genre, Conventions, Cultural Programme 163
17
Cf. Gellius’ references to Masurius Sabinus’ commentarii ‘quos de indigenis
composuit’ (4. 9. 8; Bremer, Iurisprudentia ii/1, p. 364), Velius Longus’ commenta-
rius ‘quod fecisset de usu antiquae lectionis’ (18. 9. 4), Aelius Stilo’s commentarius de
proloquiis (16. 8. 2; Funaioli p. 54. 19), and book 8 of Ateius Capito’s Coniectanea
‘qui inscriptus est de iudiciis publicis’ according to 4. 14. 1, but is cited as commen-
tarius de iudiciis publicis in 10. 6. 4 (Bremer ii/1, p. 283).
18
This form of Xenophon’s title is attested by Ps. DH Rh. 9. 11, but Eustathius
on Il. 13. 126 has !
ÆÆ; see R. Hirzel, Dialog 1. 144 n. 3. For the affinity
between the forms in !
-and in I
-, cf. the title of Persaeus’ doxographic miscel-
lany cited as $
ÆÆ ı
، in DL 7. 1, but (probably) as
`
ÆÆ
in the list of his works at DL 7. 36.
19
I have no explanation for the fact that only in rendering Pamphile’s title does
Gellius use the singular commentarius instead of the plural that is consistent with the
Greek forms.
164 Amiel Vardi
20
e.g. Clem. Str. 1. 182. 3, 3. 110. 3, 5. 141. 4, 6. 1. 1; see further Méhat, Études
sur les ‘Stromates’, 96, 106–12; F. Montanari, DNP s.v. Hypomnema; P. Steinmetz,
Untersuchungen, 278–81.
21
For this meaning of the Latin commentarii, see TLL s.v. commentarius I. B:
Collectio, congestio rerum locorum uerborum ad memoriam siue scientiam firmandam
augendam facta. For the association of commentarius with memory cf. Vitruv. 1. 1. 4,
and with the notion of ‘collection’ or ‘piling up’, Quint. Inst. 3. 6. 59.
22
For memoria in Gellius, see S. M. Beall, Civilis Eruditio, 69–72, and below,
215–17. The notion of ‘memory’, etymologically associated with both the Greek and
the Latin term, also finds expression in his presentation of the process of excerpting
and taking notes as a subsidium memoriae (pr. 2). For this notion of the collection as
an aide-me´moire, cf. Clem. Str. 1. 11. 1, 1. 14. 2, 6. 2. 2, and see Marache, edn., i, p.
xv; Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 31 [23].
23
See e.g. H. Fuchs, RAC s.v. Enzyklopädie; H. Chadwick (tr. J. Engermann),
RAC s.v. Florilegium; S. Fornaro and K. Sallmann, DNP s.v. Enzyklopädie;
H. Krasser, DNP s.v. Buntschriftstellerei.
Genre, Conventions, Cultural Programme 165
2. selectivity
We can Wrst note that in his list Gellius couples miscellanies
together with what in modern terms would be called encyclopaedic
works. I call ‘encyclopaedic’ works that purport to oVer a system-
atic and comprehensive account of the state of knowledge in a
166 Amiel Vardi
24
Note that the attempt to organize the body of knowledge into a series of
systematic and comprehensive wholes is taken by E. Rawson (‘Logical Organisa-
tion’) as a major development in Roman intellectual history. For a survey of such
works, see M. Fuhrmann, Das systematische Lehrbuch.
25
Gellius makes no mention of Celsus, but is familiar with Varro’s Disciplinae.
26
e.g. Hippias’ &ı ƪøª, D–K 86 B 4; R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholar-
ship, i. 51–4. Note that Clement quotes Hippias (without specifying a work) as
an authority on the legitimacy of compilatory miscellanies (Str. 6. 15. 1–2; D–K
86 B6). For the Horae of Prodicus, D–K 84 B 1–2; Pfeiffer, op. cit. i. 30–1. Among
the titles of Democritus’ works, Diogenes Laertius lists
`ƺŁ ŒæÆ and
$
ÆÆ MŁØŒ under ethical works,
`
æÆÆ under physical works, and an
`
ØÆØ ØŒ
Ø (DL 9. 46–7; no fragments are explicitly referred to any of these). In
the 4th c.: Alcidamas’ Museion; see J. V. Muir (ed.), Alcidamas: The Works and
Fragments (London, 2001), pp. xix f.; L. Radermacher, Artium scriptores (Vienna,
1951), fr. 13 p. 134; Pfeiffer, op. cit. i. 50–1. The earliest works figuring in Gellius’
list are Aristotle’s Peplos, and the Problemata, which probably refers to the Ps.-
Aristotelian collection which he often cites and takes to be genuine (e.g. 19. 4.
1 Problemata physica, 20. 4. 3 —æ
ºÆÆ KªŒŒºØÆ, and passim).
Genre, Conventions, Cultural Programme 167
3. range of fields
The Noctes Atticae should also be distinguished from another class
of works mentioned in Gellius’ list, such as the Epistulae morales of
Seneca, the Antiquae lectiones of the grammarian Caeselius Vindex,
and the Coniectanea, a title reserved, it seems, to works dealing with
law.29 Though such compositions lay no claim to oVer an inclusive
and systematic account of a branch of knowledge, they are never-
theless dedicated to a speciWc Weld, be it law, grammar, rhetoric, or
philosophy. We also know of similar compilations of uniform
material that does not appertain to one of the traditional disciplines,
such as collections of mirabilia or stories concerning animal behav-
iour, as in Aelian’s medley. Sympotic miscellanies, such as those
of Plutarch and Athenaeus, often centre around issues which
are somehow connected to food and sympotic customs. But since
they also purport to illustrate the kind of topics appropriate for
dinner-table conversation, they tend to encompass a large variety
27
e.g. Cic. De Or. 1. 81; Val. Max. 1 pr.; Sen. Ep. 88. 37; Tranq. 9. 5; Quint. Inst.
1. 8. 18–21, 10. 1. 37–42; Frontin. Strat. pr. 3; see further D. A. Russell, Plutarch,
42; Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 29 [21]; G. Sandy, Apuleius, 73–91.
28
e.g. Vitruv. 1. pr. 1, 5. pr. 2–3, 5; Val. Max. 1. pr., 3. 8. ext. 1, 4. 1. 12, 6. 4. pr.;
Plut. Coniug. praec. 138 c; Reg. et imper. apoptheg. 172 e; Frontin. Strat. pr. 1–2;
Polyaenus, Strat. 1. pr. 13, 2. pr. See T. Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces, 152–5;
C. Skidmore, Practical Ethics, 31–4, and for this topos in addresses to the emperor
cf. Hor. Epist. 2. 1. 1–4.
29
Possibly connected with the technical term coniectio causae. Gellius is our
only source for the title, which he ascribes to books by Ateius Capito and Alfenus
Varus.
168 Amiel Vardi
30
Cf. e.g. Plut. Quaest. conv. 2 pr. (629 c–d); see J. Martin, Symposion, 171,
179–80; A. Lukinovich, ‘Play of Reflections’, 265.
31
For the range of fields covered in this work, see E. Mensching, Favorin, 29–35;
L. A. Holford-Strevens, ‘Favorinus’, 205–6; Beall, ‘Homo fandi dulcissimus’, 88–92;
M.-L. Lakmann, ‘Favorinus’, 235; cf. his description in the Suda as
ºıÆŁc ŒÆa
AÆ ÆØÆ . For Gellius’ familiarity with the works of Favorinus, see Holford-
Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 115–16 [81–2].
32
For the range of fields covered in the NA, see H. Nettleship, ‘Noctes Atticae’;
T. Vogel, ‘De Noctium Atticarum compositione’; Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius,
157–328 [115–235]; Astarita, Cultura, 35–171. For Gellius and the antiquarian
tradition see A. F. Stevenson, above, Ch. 5.
33
Ibid. 31, 203.
34
For experts censured for the narrowness of their specialization, see esp. 4. 1.
13–14, 16. 6. 11, 16. 10. 4, 20. 10. 2; praised for their wide learning, e.g. 4. 1. 18, 13.
10. 1, 20. 1. 20; cf. Ath. 1. 1 c. See further Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 297–8
[221]; Astarita, Cultura, 117, 149–51, 171, 203; A. D. Vardi, ‘Gellius against the
Professors’, 45–7; V. Binder, ‘Vir elegantissimi eloquii’, 111–12.
35
For possible social overtones of this struggle, see R. A. Kaster, Guardians of
Language, 50–60; Vardi, ‘Gellius against the Professors’, 46–50, 53–4.
Genre, Conventions, Cultural Programme 169
4. o r d o r e r v m f o r t v i t v s
Whereas diversity of subject-matter characterizes ancient miscel-
lanies from a very early date, works of this kind nevertheless tend
to gather it into more or less homogeneous thematic groups.
Among extant miscellanies we can note this tendency, for instance,
in Athenaeus and Macrobius.37 Even in Plutarch’s &ı
ØÆŒa
æ
ºÆÆ, which is not as neatly organized,38 book 9 centres
around issues relating to the Muses (9 pr., 736 c) and topics
involving, e.g., hunger and thirst are grouped in successive chap-
ters (6. 1–3; cf. 2. 8–9, 6. 4–6, 9. 8–9). Thematic organization may
36
e.g. N. Horsfall, JRS 80 (1990), 217; Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 8 [6].
37
For Athenaeus, see Martin, Symposion, 279–80; J. Wilkins, ‘Dialogue and
Comedy’; C. Jacob, ‘Athenaeus the Librarian’, 103–4. Macrobius’ is the most
schematically disposed sympotic miscellany we possess, and deliberately so, as is
made manifest in his polemic allusion to Gellius’ preface (Sat. 1 pr. 2–3); see
E. Tuerk, ‘Macrobe’, 382–3; Astarita, Cultura, 27–8.
38
Plut. Quaes. conv. 2 pr. (629 d) &
æ
I ƪªæÆÆØ ŒÆd
P ØÆŒŒæØ ø.
See Martin, Symposion, 177–9.
170 Amiel Vardi
39
Clem. Str. 6. 2. 1
E
‰ ı Kd KºŁ
FØ ŒÆd B§ Ø B§
æØ ØÆŒŒÆŁÆæ
Ø, ØÆæ
Ø b K I Æ, H &æøÆø E
!
øØ ºØH
Œ
ŒØºÆØ; Solin. pr. 3–4 Quorum meminisse ita uisum
est, ut inclitos terrarum situs et insignes tractus maris, seruata orbis distinctione, suo
quaeque ordine redderemus. Inseruimus et pleraque differenter congruentia, ut si nihil
aliud, saltem uarietas ipsa legentium fastidio mederetur. For the organization of
Clement’s work, see Méhat, Études sur les ‘Stromates’, 223–46.
40
Skidmore, Practical Ethics, 35–42.
41
For the arrangement of Meleager’s anthology, see A. Cameron, The Greek
Anthology, 26–33; K. J. Gutzwiller, Poetic Garlands, 281–322. We now have even
earlier evidence for a thematically homogeneous arrangement of poetry books in the
New Posidippus, which is divided into groups of epigrams devoted to a single theme
separated by titles such as ºØŁØŒ,
Nø
Œ
ØŒ, ƒØŒ, and so on; see Epigrammi, ed.
G. Bastianini and C. Gallazzi, 24–7.
42
Maréchal, ‘préface’; Marache, edn. i, pp. xvi f.; Holford-Strevens, Aulus
Gellius, 31–6 [24–7]; G. Bernardi-Perini, edn. i. 14. This is one feature of Gellius’
work that his humanist followers did not appreciate; see A. Grafton below, 326.
43
Gell. 15. 17. 3, 15. 23. 2. See FHG iii 520–2; O. Regenbogen, RE xviii/2
(1949), s.v. Pamphila 1, who considers her influence on Plutarch, Favorinus, Aelian,
Athenaeus, and Sopatros (ibid. 318–26).
Genre, Conventions, Cultural Programme 171
44
Photius, Bibl. 175, 119b 27–33 TÆFÆ b Æ, ‹Æ ºª
ı ŒÆd ÆPB § ¼ØÆ
Kί, N !
ÆÆ ıتB ŒÆd
P æe a NÆ !
ŁØ ØÆŒŒæØ
ή
غE , Iºº
oø Ø
ŒB
§ ŒÆd ‰ ŒÆ
KBºŁ I ƪæłÆØ, ‰
Pd ƺe
ıÆ, ,
e ή
r
ÆPa غE , KØææ
b ŒÆd ÆæØæ
e I Æت
ήd c
،غÆ
F
Ø
F
ıÆ.
45
Ael. NA, epil. fiH
ØŒºfiø B I ƪ ø e K
ºŒe ŁæH ŒÆd c KŒ H ›
ø
ºıªÆ I
ØæŒø ,
Ø
d ºØH Ø Æ j Æ
侮E
Œ
B
ºıæ
Æ, ‰
I Łæø H fiø ø H
ººH , T fi Ł E !A Æ ŒÆd ØƺÆØ c ıªªæÆ ;
Clem. Str. 6. 2. 1
¯ b
s fiH ºØH Ø a ¼ Ł
ØŒºø I Ł
F Æ ŒI fiH ÆæÆfiø
H Iξ
æø ıÆ
P ήa r
ή
ŒæØÆØ H Iºº
ª H (w § ŒÆd ¸ØH
Ø ŒÆd ¯ºØŒH Æ ŒÆd ˚æÆ ŒÆd —º
ı ı ƪøªa غ
ÆŁE
ØŒºø KÆ ŁØ
Ø
ı ªæłÆ
); cf. ibid. 4. 4. 1, 7. 111. 1–3, Méhat, Études sur les ‘Stromates’, 339–43.
46
Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces, 80–3; Vardi, ‘Why Attic Nights?’, 299.
47
Gutzwiller, Poetic Garlands, 227–36.
48
Steinmetz, Untersuchungen, 239–95, esp. 275–6; Lukinovich, ‘Play of Reflec-
tions’, 267–8; L. Romeri, ‘¸
ªØ
’; J. Davidson, ‘Pleasure and Pedantry’; A. D.
Vardi, ‘Book of Verse’, 93.
172 Amiel Vardi
49
Cf. Plin. Ep. 8. 21. 4 (also 2. 5. 7–8, 4. 14. 3, where the argument is that variety
ensures every reader may find something he likes). See further Janson, Latin Prose
Prefaces, 154; Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 31–6 [21–6]; S. M. Beall, ‘Aulus
Gellius 17. 8’, 56.
Genre, Conventions, Cultural Programme 173
50
Similarly Plut. Quaest. conu. 2 pr.
æ
I ƪªæÆÆØ ŒÆd
P ØÆŒŒæØ ø
Iºº
‰ ŒÆ
N qºŁ (629 d).
51
See A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny, 21–3, 42–51 (with bibliog-
raphy).
52
Taken at face value e.g. in Skydsgaard, Varro the Scholar, 103; J. P. Small,
Wax Tablets, 179; contrast J. C. Rolfe’s and Marache’s translations with those of
F. Cavazza and Bernardi-Perini.
53
See also Astarita, Cultura, 31. Athenaeus too wants his Larensis, the Roman
amateur, committed to learning though burdened with imperial responsibilities, to
serve as a model for his readers (Ath. 1. 2 b ff.; cf. 9. 398 e–939 a); see D. Braund,
‘Learning, Luxury and Empire’, 5–10; but contra T. Whitmarsh, ‘Parasitism’, 308.
174 Amiel Vardi
54
Thus also Astarita, Cultura, 31.
55
Gellius reports to have bought there books by Aristeas of Proconnesus, Isigo-
nus of Nicaea, Ctesias, Onesicritus, Polystephanus (sic!), and Hegesias. This list
seems to be adapted from Plin. 7. 9–26 and the list of sources to that book, where
Philostephanus’ name is cited properly; see L. A. Holford-Strevens, ‘Fact and
Fiction’, 65–6; Aulus Gellius, 69–71 [50–1]. But the fact that this story is a clear
example of Gellius’ fictionality takes nothing from the validity of this evidence,
since it is the manner in which he would read a miscellany that concerns us.
56
See Fowler, Kinds, 62–4 for the basic distinction by size of literary kinds which
require more than a single reading session, those whose size corresponds more or
less to one reading session, and those of which one can read several in one session.
Genre, Conventions, Cultural Programme 175
57
See Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 27 [20].
58
For ancient ‘tables of contents’, see H. Mutschmann, ‘Inhaltsangabe’;
R. Friderici, De librorum divisione, 43–58; P. Petitmengin, ‘Capitula’; Stevenson,
above, Ch. 5, §3.2; some interesting ideas also in R. Pearse, ‘Capituli: Some Notes
on Summaries, Chapter Divisions and Chapter Titles in Ancient and Medieval
Manuscripts’, a ‘work in progress’ offered at <http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/
manuscripts/chapter_titles.htm>.
59
For the title, see Friderici, De librorum divisione, 56–7; K.-E. Henriksson,
Büchertitel, 176–7.
60
i.e. in what looks like the original end of the work before he decided to add
book 12, which deals with the duties of the bailiff’s wife and the preparation and
storage of agricultural products.
61
Schanz–Hosius ii. 589 n. 1. Our MS traditions sometimes have a table of
contents at the beginning of books in technical and historical works (e.g. Apicius,
Mela, Florus, Josephus AJ; for Latin authors see Petitmengin, ‘Capitula’, 491 n. 3),
but the authenticity of these is not certain.
62
Val. Max. is listed in Pliny’s bibl. to books 7, 33; Columella in that to books 8,
11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and cited passim. Val. Max. is also known to Gellius (9. 11).
63
e.g. Polyb. 3. 1. 5; Diod. Sic. 1. 4. 6 ff.; DH Ant. Rom. 1. 7–8; Joseph. BJ pr.
7–12 (1. 19–31); App. Praef. 14–15; and the precepts of Lucian, Hist. conscr. 53. See
D. Earl, ‘Prologue-form’, 842–4; J. Irigoin, ‘Titres et sommaires’ 130–1.
176 Amiel Vardi
64
See a discussion of these æ
ªæÆÆ in Polyb. 11. 1a, with F. W. Walbank,
Commentary, ii. 266.
65
Polyb. 39. 3. 3; see Walbank, Commentary, iii. 743. Polybius is also among
Pliny’s sources (bibl. to books 4, 5, 6, 8, 31), but Gellius shows no first-hand
knowledge of him (6. 14. 10 probably through Varro; Holford-Strevens, Aulus
Gellius, 247 [182]).
66
The authenticity of this table of contents, which opens the work, is evidenced
in pr. 7. Aelianus might have adopted the device directly from Frontinus, whom he
knew.
67
Polyb. 11. 1a. 2 æe b
Ø A e
"
ø Ø !æE Øa
ı;
Scrib. Comp. epist. dedic. 4 quo facilius quod quaeretur inueniatur; Col. 11. 3. 65 ut
cum res exegisset, facile reperiri possit, quid in quoque quaerendum; Ael. Strat. pr. 7 Øa
Ø a I
ºÆ æ
ªæÆłÆ a ŒºÆØÆ H I
ØŒ ı ø , ¥ Æ æe B I ƪ ø
F غ
ı e KªªºÆ
F ıªªæÆ
Ø
Oºªø ŒÆÆ
fi ήd
Rs i KØfi
I ƪ øŁB ÆØ
ı Þfi Æø !æŒø
f æ
ı c æfi; Prisc. Inst. pr. 5 (GL ii. 3.
3–4) quo facilius, quicquid ex his quaeratur, discretis possit locis inueniri. See Petit-
mengin, ‘Capitula’, 504–5.
68
Ael. Strat. pr. 7; cf. Vitruv. 5. pr. 5.
69
Pace Small, Wax Tablets, 35; Jacob, ‘Athenaeus the Librarian’, 107–8.
Genre, Conventions, Cultural Programme 177
70
See Petitmengin, ‘Capitula’, 500, 503–4. It is tempting to assume a connection
between these ‘tables of contents’ and the definition of divisions and subdivisions
characteristic of the prefaces of systematic and logically organized works; see
Rawson, ‘Logical Organisation’, 12 ¼ 324.
71
This might explain another Gellian departure from Pliny: whereas the latter’s
table of contents consists of the headings of the issues he discusses, Gellius provides
short summaries of the chapters, of the ‹Ø=‰ type found e.g. in Joseph. BJ pr. 7–12
(1. 19–30) and Ael. Strat. (cf. Columella’s use of the term argumenta to introduce his
table of contents (11. 3. 65); see Mutschmann, ‘Inhaltsangabe’, 102. For the sug-
gestion that Gellius’ collection was intended for the reading of single chapters at
random, see also V. D’Agostino, ‘Aulo Gellio’, 26; cf. Skidmore, Practical Ethics,
48–50; Cavazza, edn. i. 21 n. 11.
178 Amiel Vardi
72
For Gellius’ ambivalent attitude to Pliny the Elder, see Holford-Strevens,
Aulus Gellius, 41, 165–6 [30–1, 121–2]; W. H. Keulen, below, Ch. 9, §3.1.
73
Contrast e.g. Cic. De orat. 1. 187–8 Omnia fere, quae sunt conclusa nunc artibus,
dispersa et dissipata quondam fuerunt; ut in musicis numeri et uoces et modi; in
geometria lineamenta, formae, interualla, magnitudines; in astrologia caeli conuersio,
ortus, obitus motusque siderum; in grammaticis poetarum pertractatio, historiarum
cognitio, uerborum interpretatio, pronuntiandi quidam sonus; in hac denique ipsa
ratione dicendi excogitare, ornare, disponere, meminisse, agere—ignota quondam omni-
bus et diffusa late uidebantur. Adhibita est igitur ars quaedam extrinsecus ex alio genere
quodam, quod sibi totum philosophi adsumunt, quae rem dissolutam diuulsamque con-
glutinaret et ratione quadam constringeret. See Rawson, ‘Logical Organisation’. It is
characteristic of Gellius that even when he reads Cicero’s De iure ciuili in artem
redigendo, a work which seems to have dealt directly with the process of reducing a
body of knowledge into a system, what interests him is a special usage of superesse (1.
22. 7). Post-Enlightenment science is nowadays claimed no longer to uphold this
view of a systematic body of knowledge, for which see e.g. A. MacIntyre, Three
Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry.
74
Jacob, ‘Athenaeus the Librarian’, 103–4.
Genre, Conventions, Cultural Programme 179
79
For mise en sce`ne as a generic feature, see Fowler, Kinds, 68.
80
¯
r b a H IæÆØ
æø I
ıÆ ºªØ,
،غæ
ÆPB
§ ŒÆd
P ŒÆŁ
£ r
ªŒØÆØ › ºª
.
81
But in that case it is surprising that Photius should detect more stylistic variety
in what she says in propria persona than in things she puts in the mouths of her
interlocutors.
82
If Gellius were known only from quotations, what should we know about the
nature of his work beyond its containing at least one personal reminiscence (19.
1 cited by Augustine, CD 9. 4)? On the basis of its title, E. Bowie (‘Hadrian,
Genre, Conventions, Cultural Programme 181
Favorinus, and Plutarch’, 5–6) assumes that there were some reminiscences of an
autobiographical nature in Favorinus’
`
ÆÆ; see also Mensching,
Favorin, 56 n. 44.
83
See esp. Amic. 4; Att. 13. 12. 3, 13. 16. 1, 13. 19 .5; Q. fr. 3. 5. 1. For formal
aspects of Cicero’s dialogues, R. E. Jones, ‘Characterization’; P. Levine, ‘Cicero and
the Literary Dialogue’; G. Zoll, Cicero Platonis aemulus, 73–124.
84
See Holford-Strevens, ‘Fact and Fiction’.
85
For a ‘narratological’ approach to Gellius’ characters and scenes, see, e.g. L. A.
Holford-Strevens, ‘Portraitist’ (Dr Holford-Strevens kindly permitted me to quote
his reaction to the mention of his article in this list: ‘I no more knew that I was being
narratological than M. Jourdain knew he was speaking prose!’); Beall, ‘Aulus
Gellius 17. 8’; Vardi, ‘Gellius against the Professors’. For a similar approach to
Athenaeus, Braund, ‘Learning, Luxury and Empire’; Wilkins, ‘Dialogue and
Comedy’, 24–5.
86
See A. Gaos Schmidt, ‘El plan rector’, esp. 123 ¼ edn. i, p. xxviii.
87
Beall, Civilis Eruditio, 34–9.
182 Amiel Vardi
Yet the Greek attitude to leisure was very diVerent from that of the
Romans, who had to accommodate it with an ideology that privil-
eges oYcium and hence also negotium (cf. Gell. 11. 16. 7). There-
fore the fact that the appropriate use of otium forms part of the
conversation in some of Cicero’s dialogues and is addressed in
propria persona in his speeches Pro Archia and Pro Sestio,88
makes it clear that his choice of these occasions as a dramatic
setting for his dialogues is designed to present learned conversa-
tion as a model for the occupation appropriate for a gentleman’s
otium.89 The same is certainly also true of Gellius, who declares
that a primary aim of his book is to entice homines aliis iam uitae
negotiis occupatos to dedicate whatever spare time they have to the
pursuit of learning. And again Gellius sets his own life as a model
for this, stating he devoted to study every spare hour he could steal
from his daily business (pr. 12) and promising to continue doing so
for the rest of his life (pr. 23).
We can also note how careful Gellius is to represent the activities
of an otium litteratum, such as private reading or educated conver-
sation, not only as digniWed and worthwhile, but also as an enjoy-
able occupation for one’s leisure. Consider, for instance, his setting
for a conversation between two philosophers: ‘when we were all
with Favorinus at Ostia. And we were walking along the shore in
springtime, just as evening was falling’ (18. 1. 2; cf. 1. 2. 2, 19. 7. 2).
Even traditional generic settings such as the locus amoenus or the
pleasures of the symposium are thus invoked by Gellius to suit one
of the professed goals of his book: to make his readers’ spare-time
pleasures more suitable for a gentleman.
But compared with other dialogue literature and sympotic mis-
cellanies, the independent settings of Gellius’ chapters allow him
to present his learned discussions as taking place on a large variety
of occasions, at dinners, in public libraries and book-shops, at the
bed-side of a sick friend, while waiting for the salutatio in the
vestibule of the imperial palace, on board ship, in classrooms and
theatres, or simply while taking a stroll. By now we can surmise
that these settings are there not only for ornament or to entertain
the reader, nor merely to recall the conventions of the Platonic
dialogue, but also to illustrate the variety of opportunities that the
busy people to whom his book is addressed can nevertheless take
advantage of to engage in intellectual pursuits. Furthermore,
whereas Cicero sets his dialogues on occasions of otium aVorded
88
Sest. 138–9; Arch. 16; cf. Off. 2. 4, 3. 1-4; De orat. 2. 22–4; Hort. fr. 6–7 Grilli.
89
For otium litteratum in Cicero, J.-M. André, L’Otium, 279–334.
Genre, Conventions, Cultural Programme 183
94
Cf. MacIntyre, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, 149–50.
95
See G. Anderson, Philostratus, 44–53.
96
For Lucian’s presentation of paideia as a career, cf. Rhet. praec., Merc. cond.;
and see further G. Anderson, Lucian, 165; S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire, 308–12.
186 Amiel Vardi
97
G. Anderson, ‘Athenaeus’, 2183–4.
98
Swain, Hellenism and Empire, esp. 139–45, 308–29.
7
Educational Values
T er es a M o r g a n
The idea that the aim of Noctes Atticae is either education or ethics
has often been raised and almost as often dismissed. Miscellanists,
it has been pointed out, nearly always claim that their works are
useful, but in comparison with bona Wde educational writers, Gel-
lius is sketchy and unsystematic, having little or nothing to say
about the process or its precise content. As a work of ethics, Noctes
Atticae has crippling defects: ‘we miss Wrm guidance on ethical
choices likely to confront the reader’, says Holford-Strevens; in the
middle of a philosophical discussion, Gellius wanders oV into
antiquarianism; he raises questions he cannot answer, and: ‘If we
take Gellius’ protestations seriously, we shall be dismayed by the
yawning gulf between them and his practice.’1
In the terms in which it has been expressed, this is true enough.
Gellius does not oVer a full or systematic discussion of either ethics
or education. But in what follows I shall argue that there is room
for a broader deWnition of both subjects and that on this deWnition,
Noctes Atticae is both an educational and an ethical work.
It is safe to assume that most ethics in Gellius’ world was not
done in the style of high philosophy: theoretical, systematic,
exhaustive, and exact. (Not much of what philosophers wrote can
claim all those qualities, either.) People doubtless learnt, as they
still learn, ethical precepts, questions, and ways of thinking from
family, friends, and acquaintances, from the forum, the theatre,
the palace, and the barracks. And from literature, including plays,
mimes, epics, histories—anything that could be heard or read in
public or private. Like language, ethics could be picked up anyhow
1
L. A. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 1st edn. 31–3 (reconsidered in 2nd edn.
41–6) with useful bibliography at n. 75. R. Marache, Critique litte´raire, argues
that Favorinus regarded the liberal arts as adornment of the human spirit (255–7)
and practically good, but says he cannot see the moral point of most of the work
(261–3, 265); G. Maselli, Lingua, 81 points out the miscellaneous nature of Gellius’
grammar.
188 Teresa Morgan
and sorted out later. Like language, it is unlikely that most people
felt the need for a theoretical grasp of ethics before practising it,
and most people probably never did grasp it as a system, even
supposing it was one. Ethics, in most people’s everyday lives, was
(and is) an incorrigibly unsystematic aVair. (This is not to say that
it has no logic at all: I think most people’s ethics do have some logic
to them, and I shall try to show that Gellius’ have.)
Teaching ethics was not the main aim of much of the literature
which found itself being read that way.2 But some works do clearly
have an ethical agenda. Didactic poetry, fables, collections of
gnomic quotations, works like the Book of Proverbs, the Sermon
on the Mount, and the Instruction of Ankhsheshonq are explicitly
ethical. They are also typically unsystematic, anecdotal, and any-
thing but exhaustive, to the point where it seems plausible to
suggest that the typical form of ancient Greek, Roman, and Near
Eastern ethical literature outside the realms of serious philosophy
was miscellaneous. This complements the unsystematic nature of
everyday ethical education I sketched above. To those of us who
have been educated in ethics as a branch of philosophy it still seems
very odd, but in the second half of the chapter I shall come back to
why it might in fact be highly functional. For now, we can say that
being a miscellany does not debar Noctes Atticae from being a work
of ethics. That does not prove it is one, but I shall try to show that
its content is also ethical.
Since even works of ethical theory by philosophers cannot be
divorced from the teaching of ethics themselves,3 ethical works are
by deWnition educational works of a kind. Miscellanies, too, usu-
ally claim to be educational in the broadest sense that they are
useful.4 (Not always, however, which makes it more likely that
we can trust Gellius when he does say so.) So it should not be
controversial to say that in a broad sense, Gellius is writing educa-
tionally. But in that broad a sense, so are many ancient authors.
Can we say that Noctes Atticae is meant to be educational in any
more precise and interesting sense?5
2
T. Morgan, Literate Education, chs. 3–4; cf. R. Lamberton, Homer, 22–31,
S. F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome, 240–4.
3
Attempts to do this have been discredited in recent years (so B. Williams,
Ethics, 72–4).
4
Plin. NH. pr. 12–16, Val. Max. 1 pr., Clem. Strom. 6. 2. 2 are among those who
claim to be useful; Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists and Plutarch’s miscellanies among
those that do not.
5
Given his wealth and devotion to the cultured life, it is surprising how few
authors Gellius cites (fewer than Quintilian recommends that children should read
Educational Values 189
8
Cf. Ps.-Plut. De lib. educ. 3 c.
9
NA 5. 3; cf. Quint. Inst. 1 pr. 26, 1. 3. 1, Ps.-Plut. De lib. educ. 9 e, and for
the importance of memory in the NA S. M. Beall, below, 215---17.
10
At 7. 10 he reports Taurus as complaining, formulaically, that young men are
less keen on education than they used to be.
11
By not specifying that he expects his readers to be political rulers, Gellius
avoids Quintilian’s problem that he is, in theory, educating an entire class of orators
to rule, in a state where only one person rules at a time.
12
Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 40–1 [30].
Educational Values 191
topic for discussion. Stories like these show that for Gellius (as
nowadays), belonging to a group is one of the prime rewards of
education, all the better when the group can have fun at the
expense of people less learned, wise, or virtuous than themselves.
Grammar teaches other things too. It explains oddities of lan-
guage, and shows how Latin has changed since the time of the
earliest widely read authors—important to know in a culture
where to speak and write correctly is so important. Gellius tells
several stories about people who made themselves look foolish by
misunderstanding or misusing the language.13 But Gellius does not
by any means approve of all grammarians and their works. On
several occasions he defends favourite authors against critics who
accuse them of misusing language.14 This is an unusual attitude to
take in an educational context, perhaps because most of what we
hear about grammar comes from the pens of professionals. It im-
plies, though, a shrewd observation about the relationship between
education and culture. Grammarians were among the chief pre-
servers of the texts and status of canonical authors. But by anato-
mizing and criticizing them, they must have made them less
palatable to many readers, especially children—just as great poetry
is made less attractive to schoolchildren nowadays by being treated
with literary criticism. Worse, grammarians undermine the author-
ity of great authors by suggesting that they can make mistakes.
Highly as he values grammar, Gellius never forgets that it is
poets, orators, philosophers, and historians who make his cultural
world the rich one that it is, and that enjoying them is the main
point of education.
Still, grammar has its uses, and even beyond the literary sphere.
It can help to elucidate laws (11. 17) and explain religious practices
(5. 12). It can rule that to be religiosus is not a ‘great’ or absolute
virtue, on the basis of the grammatical formation of the word.15
Last but not least, Gellius is interested in the comparison of Greek
and Latin words and the relationships between them. He occasion-
ally records Greek origins for Latin words, and notes that both
languages contain barbarisms (8. 2, 13. 6). He talks about the
diYculties of translation, and compares Greek and Latin words
13
NA 1. 10, 6. 17, 8. 10, 11. 7. 3–6.
14
Cicero, 1. 7, 12. 2; Ennius, 12. 2; Quadrigarius and Lucilius, 1. 16; Vergil, 2. 6,
2. 16, 7. 6, 9. 10; Catullus, 7. 16.
15
NA 4. 9; Gellius raises the interesting question whether there are any ambigu-
ous words, but in two chapters where he discusses it (11. 12, 12. 9) comes to
diVerent conclusions; cf. 5. 12. 9–10, 9. 12, 16. 5. 6–7, 19. 7. 3.
Educational Values 193
17
Gellius approves of people taking their share of responsibility for the state and
cites Solon’s law about it at 2. 12.
196 Teresa Morgan
18
Cf. A. D. Vardi, above, 179.
19
Williams, Ethics, 197, 201; S. Benhabib, Situating the Self, 3–5; P. Singer,
Practical Ethics, 2–4, 314–35.
Educational Values 197
decisions are aVected by the way we see ourselves and our environ-
ment, and becoming an ethical actor is a process of growth based
on intuitions interacting with the world around us.20 Benhabib
sees women, living mostly outside the mainstream of Western
intellectual history, as having a stronger sense of this kind of
identity than men. For the same reason, women are more attuned
than men to stories and examples as ways of explaining the nature
of the world and how we should live.21 ‘How one should live’ is not
for women a metaphysical question with an answer which theoret-
ically works for everyone, or even a whole class of people. It is a
practical, individual, context-dependent question, with no rules,
but with a wealth of stories and examples of how other people have
lived, to give us ideas and guidance.
I suspect that this way of approaching ethics is not so much
distinctive to women as true of most people outside philosophical
elites, and it may explain why stories, histories, chreiai, and collec-
tions of often mutually contradictory maxims are all widespread
forms of ethical text. Most people probably do not look for advice
to a system of ideas that coheres in the abstract, and they do not
expect detailed instructions for every moment they live. On the
other hand, it is certainly not true that every human experience and
situation is totally diVerent from anything that ever happened
before. A collection of stories of behaviours and attitudes that
worked well in particular situations gives a reader a repertoire of
ideas to add to other kinds of advice and experience: examples,
analogies, and horrible warnings, things to bear in mind, cast aside
as irrelevant, adapt to one’s own situation, or take over wholesale.
It is as easy to imagine many of Gellius’ stories working like that,
as it is hard to imagine them adding up to a philosophical theory.
And if it sounds like a recipe for social chaos, it is not, because in
practice, in ethics as in most other things, most people are not
radical individualists, and tend to follow the example of those
around them, modifying it only marginally to suit their own cir-
cumstances. A society coheres by being made up of many overlap-
ping ethical communities whose individuals have much, if not
everything, in common in the way they interpret precedents and
the way they behave.
In Natural Goodness, Philippa Foot pursues another idea which
may also be helpful here. She argues that moral evil is ‘a kind of
natural defect’ and that what makes a human being good, like a
plant or an animal, is doing or being what one is meant to do or be;
20 21
Benhabib, Situating the Self, 5–8. Ibid. 14.
198 Teresa Morgan
of what ethical texts do. Some radical and anti-social texts, and
groups, certainly aim to change things (one thinks of the Essenes or
some early Christians). More probably aim to teach people to
function in the world as it is, and present themselves as uncontro-
versial. Presenting oneself as uncontroversial might also be a rhet-
orical ploy, of course, to cover a degree of innovation. Either way,
the fact that Gellius does not claim to be saying anything original,
and may well not be, does not mean this is not an ethical text.
What, then, can we say about Gellius’ ethics? We can tell a good
deal about the kind of people with whose good life he is concerned,
by the stories he tells. Emperors appear in them only rarely, but
aristocrats and the well-to-do down to Gellius’ own relatively
modest level are everywhere. Women and slaves make occasional
appearances. Educated men from east and west belong to the same
group, but there is also a strong sense of the boundary between
Romans and foreigners, even if it is mainly expressed through
stories of past wars. Male, free, Roman, educated, wealthy, not
necessarily high-born but a touch snobbish: this Wts what we know
of Gellius’ own background and it would make sense if it were also
his target audience.
For such people, the good life is not lived in isolation. They
belong, principally and simultaneously, to three types of group:
the Roman state, friendship groups, and families. In this Gellius
diVers, for instance, from Epictetus, who claims the whole world
for his context, or early Christians, who are mainly interested in
their immediate social context and the Kingdom of Heaven.25
Noctes Atticae abounds in stories which show the importance of
the state. A favourite type is the story of great men who sank their
political diVerences for the common good, like Aemilius Lepidus
and Fulvius Flaccus, when they were elected censors together
(12. 8. 5–6), or Ti. Sempronius Gracchus when he had an oppor-
tunity to imprison L. Scipio Asiaticus (6. 19), or Gaius Fabricius
when Cornelius RuWnus was a candidate for the consulship (4. 8).
Then there are the stories of heroic military exploits in the state’s
defence: Horatius Cocles and T. Manlius Torquatus are here,
along with L. Sicinius Dentatus the ‘Roman Achilles’, Atilius
Regulus, Valerius Corvinus, Q. Caedicius, and highlights of the
careers of such as P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Q. Caecilius
Metellus Numidicus. Famous generals like Africanus or
C. Fabricius are remembered for embodying Romanitas oV the
battleWeld too, as on the occasion when a group of grateful
25
Epict. 1. 9. 1–7, 2. 10. 3–4, 3. 24. 9–10; W. A. Meeks, Origins, ch. 3.
200 Teresa Morgan
26
NA 2. 2. At 1. 23, the emphasis is on the fact that father and son share a public
life which is closed to the wife and mother; at 2. 7, interestingly, sons are not obliged
to obey their fathers just because they are their fathers.
Educational Values 201
27
Few women, unsurprisingly, appear in their own right: notably Acca Larentia,
Gaia Taracia (7. 7), and Artemisia (10. 18); also Roman women as a group (11. 6).
Cf. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 308–13.
202 Teresa Morgan
28
Marache, Critique litte´raire, 273–80 identiWes frugality, loyalty, and dignity as
paradigmatic of ancient Romans; dignity is not often praised in so many words
(though often implied); bravery is.
Educational Values 203
29
Aelius Aristides, To Rome, 61; cf. Dio, Or. 1. 42.
8
Gellian Humanism Revisited
S t e p he n M . B ea ll
1
H. Nettleship, ‘Noctes Atticae’, 414–15 ¼ 276; cf. R. Ohl, ‘Literateur’, 99 and
passim. E. Yoder, ‘Classical Scholar’, 293–4, is somewhat more generous. On
Gellius’ more positive reception in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, see L. A.
Holford-Strevens, below, Ch. 10, A. Grafton, below, Ch. 12, H. Baron, ‘Aulus
Gellius in the Renaissance’, and S. Beall, Civilis eruditio, 209–37.
2
For an overview of this strand of Gellian scholarship, see L. A. Holford-
Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 42 n. 75 [33 n. 75]. Its chief exponent, after R. Marache
(discussed below), was H. Berthold; see e.g. his ‘Interpretationsprobleme’, esp.
13–14.
3
See the appreciation by M. L. Astarita, ‘Un evoluzione’, 173–5.
Gellian Humanism Revisited 207
about the ‘good life’ and the kind of learning most conducive to it.4
The key to Gellius’ programme, as Marache described it, is the
motto
ºıÆŁ
P ØŒØ, quoted from Heracleitus in pr.
12.5 This implies a rejection of all so-called knowledge that appeals
to one’s curiosity, but has no ‘use’ in the conduct of life. Thus
puriWed, Gellian erudition is the very antithesis of pedantry and
aVectation of learning; what counts is to know how to live and to
live accordingly. Marache added that this equation of ‘true’ know-
ledge with ‘the wisdom of life’ can be traced, by way of popular
philosophy, back to Socrates;6 it resonates as well with the golden
age of Roman antiquity, which Gellius so much admired.7 In Wne,
Gellius’ ideal is fundamentally ‘humanist’ because man, or human
moral agency, is the measure of all things.8
Recent critics, however, have not found Marache’s arguments for
the ‘doctrine of limitation’ and the ‘primacy of morality’ altogether
convincing. Leofranc Holford-Strevens put the problem most
succinctly: if we take Marache’s Gellian loci at face value, ‘we
shall be dismayed by the yawning gulf between them and his prac-
tice.’9 At times, Gellius himself seems aware of self-contradiction.
In one chapter, for example, he introduces a list of miracula with a
curious disclaimer: haec inuiti meminimus, quia pertaesum est (10. 12.
1; cf. 9. 4. 12).10 Perhaps we can make allowance for a few such
‘involuntary’ digressions, but the Nights contain many other things
that have little to do with the conduct of life. This prompts us to
ask, again with Holford-Strevens, whether Gellius’ professions of
utility were ‘conventional clichés that took away the need to devise
a guiding principle, and whose mechanical repetition dulled the
perception of conXict or neglect’.11
While this view remains attractive, two elements of Marache’s
thesis cannot, in my opinion, be entirely dismissed. The Wrst is the
4 5
Marache, Critique litte´raire, 249. Edn. i, p. xxiv.
6
Ibid., pp. xxvii f., ‘Mise en scène’, 85, Critique litte´raire, 261–2.
7
Edn. i, pp. xxx f., Critique litte´raire, 249, 273–86.
8
Critique litte´raire, 256; edn. i, p. xxiv. Marache’s understanding of ‘humanism’
is somewhat broader than Gellius’ deWnition of humanitas (13. 17), although the
latter also has an ethical component; cf. R. Kaster, ‘ ‘‘Humanitas’’ and Roman
Education’, esp. 6–7.
9
Aulus Gellius, 1st edn. 32. Marache himself seems to have been conscious of
this diYculty: ‘en dépit de lui-même il [Gellius] reste un érudit qui dit du mal de
l’érudition, et tomberait sous le coup de sa propre théorie, si la foi en la vertu
rédemptrice de l’antiquité ne le sauvait’ (edn. i, p. xxxvi, cf. Critique litte´raire,
265–6).
10
I use the corrected OCT text of P. K. Marshall (Oxford, 1990).
11
Aulus Gellius, 42 [32].
208 Stephen M. Beall
2. sympotic philosophy
We may begin, then, with the Wrst of Marache’s intuitions, and
follow the ‘Socratic’ thread in the Attic Nights. If Marache himself
eventually lost this thread, it is because he focused his later work
on popular philosophy or ‘diatribe’ (la diatribe), in which Cynic
and Stoic themes predominate.13 The error is understandable; in
several chapters, Gellius evinces an interest in Stoic ethics and
cosmology (1. 2, 7. 1, 7. 2, 12. 5, 17. 19, 19. 1), and he claims to
have paid frequent visits to the famous Cynic Peregrinus ‘Proteus’
(12. 11. 1; cf. 8. 3. cap.). Nevertheless, it stands to reason that his
primary allegiance was not to the Stoa, but to the ‘Academy’.14 He
was, after all, a pupil of L. Calvenus Taurus, himself a disciple of
Plutarch (1. 26. 4). While in Athens, Gellius studied the Platonic
dialogues in some detail, and (as H. A. S. Tarrant has shown) some-
times reXects the subtle commentaries of his teacher.15 Gellius also
presents himself as a sectator and intimate of the philosopher-
orator Favorinus of Arles (14. 2. 11). Favorinus evidently
regarded himself as an ‘Academic’ in the sceptical tradition of the
school (cf. 20. 1. 9),16 and made the life and character of Socrates a
particular object of study (2. 1. 3).17 These two Wgures, then,
12
Critique litte´raire, 258–66.
13
Marache’s concept of ‘diatribe’ was inXuenced by A. Oltramare, Les Origines
de la diatribe romaine (Lausanne, 1926); see ‘Mise en scène’, 89 n. 20, and edn. i,
pp. xxvii–xxx.
14
That is, to the Academici of his day, especially in the line of Plutarch; the
school itself had evidently ‘disintegrated’. See D. N. Sedley, OCD3 , s.v. Academy.
15
‘Platonic Interpretation’, esp. 177–87.
16
See A. M. Ioppolo, ‘The Academic Position of Favorinus’, esp. 188–96, and
Holford-Strevens, ‘Favorinus’, 207–17, esp. 213–17 on the disagreements between
Academics and Pyrrhonians.
17
Ioppolo, ‘Academic Position of Favorinus’, 212 n. 110; see also J. Opsomer,
‘Favorinus versus Epictetus’, esp. 28–9.
Gellian Humanism Revisited 209
18
Edn. i, pp. xxxi–xxxvi; ‘Mise en scène’, 86–8.
19
Edn. i, xxxii f.; ‘Mise en scène’, 85.
20
See Beall, ‘Aulus Gellius 17. 8’, 58–9; Marache, ‘Mise en scène’, 85. Gellius
himself hints at the connection at 7. 13. cap. with the expression quaestiunculae
sympoticae.
21
[Editorial note: This is US English for E
Ie ı
ºH . There seems to
be no British equivalent; ‘to take pot luck’ is to have whatever one’s hosts are
preparing for themselves. When in 1967 a translation was needed for Ter. Eun.
540 in Eduard Fraenkel’s Oxford seminar, an Australian participant volunteered
‘Dutch shout’. L.A.H.-S.]
210 Stephen M. Beall
22
In D. Popescu’s translation, p. lxix n. 2.
23
Compare also Favorinus’ table discourse on winds (2. 22) and a conversation
about oysters hosted by ‘the poet Annianus’ (20. 8). At 19. 9. 9–10, the rhetor
Antonius Julianus assumes the veil of Socrates to defend Latin elegy.
Gellian Humanism Revisited 211
24
Critique litte´raire, 253–7.
25
‘Mise en scène’, 88; cf. NA 16. 6. 1–12. Gellius is somewhat more peevish, but
no less ironic at 15. 9. 7. A Socratic persona is also attributed to Sulpicius Apollin-
aris (18. 4. 1).
26
Compare also the uerecunda mediocritas of an unnamed friend (7. 15. 5) and the
placidity of Favorinus towards the irascible Domitius (18. 7. 4). In praise of this
virtue, Gellius invokes the authority of Q. Metellus Numidicus (7. 11).
27
Beall, ‘Favorinus’, 101–4.
28
‘Rhétorique et philosophie’, 40–3.
29
It is noteworthy that Favorinus, while giving Gellius some direction on the
point at issue, incidentally proposed several other questions about which ‘there is
disagreement’ (§§12–19).
212 Stephen M. Beall
37
See also T. Morgan, above, Ch. 7.
38
P. Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy?, 145.
39
A Gellian allusion (cf. NA 13. 17), and something of our author’s moral
temper, is found in Bacon’s essay ‘Of Goodness, and Goodness of Nature’ (13);
see B. Vickers, Oxford World’s Classics edn. 167. On Montaigne’s aYnity with
Gellius, see C. Magnien-Simonin, ‘Montaigne et Aulu-Gelle’, esp. 15–18, and
M. J. Heath, below, 308–17. For Charron, see De la Sagesse 3. 14. 4, citing with
approval Gellius’ (or rather Favorinus’) dissertation on mother’s milk (NA 12. 1);
another Gellian echo occurs in 3. 4. 12 (on taking part in public divisions; cf. NA 2.
12). Moral sentiments similar to Gellius’ are also audible in e.g. 3. 39–40 (on food,
drink, and clothing); on the other hand, Charron’s estimate of memory (1. 17 ¼
Lennard 1. 15; cf. 1. 15. 6–9, not translated) is rather diVerent from Gellius’
(NA 13. 8).
214 Stephen M. Beall
4. h o n es t a e r v d i ti o
Taurus and Favorinus, then, indicate two ways in which Gellius
could ‘formally’ identify with the Socratic philosophical tradition,
as mediated by the Academy. The Plutarchan symposium became
a model of relaxed scholarly investigation, while the Socratic irony,
questioning, and suspension of judgement exempliWed by Favor-
inus may have inXuenced his general investigative method. It
appears, after all, that the currents of philosophy run deep in
Gellius—though not as much, perhaps, from the Cynic and Stoic
sources emphasized by Marache.
It remains to be seen, however, whether there is also some truth in
Marache’s contention that a ‘humanistic’ principle informed the
content of the Attic Nights: speciWcally, that the work was designed
to be ‘useful’ for the conduct of life. His argument is based mainly
on scattered remarks in Gellius about the sort of thing one should
not study: ‘amazing’ people, places, and events (14. 6. 3, 9. 4. 7–12),
racy historical anecdotes (7. 8. 4), minutiae of the physical sciences
(5. 15, 5. 16), and even the Wner points of speculative philosophy (10.
22. 24).40 These incidental remarks resonate with Gellius’ claim in
the preface (§12) that he has conWned himself ‘to those (items)
which, by furnishing a quick and easy short cut, might lead active
and alert minds to a desire for respectable learning (honesta eruditio)
and the contemplation of the useful arts (utilium artium contempla-
tio)’.41 Here Gellius seems indeed to be a polymath with a diVer-
ence.
As we have seen, however, critics have been reluctant to accept
these statements at face value; they appear both conventional and
insincere, given the actual contents of the collection. On the other
hand, Gellius insists rather strongly upon the ‘utility’ of his
work, to which he adverts at various points throughout the Nights
(pr. 2, 11–13; 14. 6. 5; cf. 1. 4. 1, 9. 4. 12). Could his ancient readers
have been so hypnotized by these clichés that they did not hold
him, to some degree, accountable for them? Perhaps we can escape
this impasse by shifting our focus from the idea of ‘useless’ know-
ledge and by looking instead at the things Gellius regards as
important. We might also begin with one of our author’s more
candid moments, in pr. 16:
40
Marache, Critique litte´raire, 259–62; edn. i, pp. xxiv f.
41
Here, as elsewhere, slightly adapted from the Loeb translation of J. C. Rolfe
(Cambridge, Mass., 1946).
Gellian Humanism Revisited 215
Quae porro noua sibi ignotaque oVenderint, aequum esse puto, ut sine
uano obtrectatu considerent, an minutae istae admonitiones et pauxillulae
nequaquam tamen sint uel ad alendum studium uescae uel ad oblectan-
dum fouendumque animum frigidae, sed eius seminis generisque sint, ex
quo facile adolescant aut ingenia hominum uegetiora aut memoria admi-
niculatior aut oratio sollertior aut sermo incorruptior aut delectatio in otio
atque in ludo liberalior.
Here Gellius seems almost to admit that his work does, in many
places, resemble other miscellanies in all their ‘frigidity’. Thus he
dispenses with Greek tag lines, and oVers a more comprehensive
and speciWc statement of his values. This statement has two
themes. The Wrst is the ‘cultivation’ of the intellect (ad fouendum
animum), later speciWed as the development of one’s ability to
think, remember, and communicate (ingenia uegetiora, memoria
adminiculatior, oratio sollertior, sermo incorruptior). The second
theme is that mental culture should be pleasurable (ad oblectandum
animum); among all the diversions available to a well-born Roman,
this kind of delectatio is more becoming to a ‘free man’ (delectatio in
otio atque in ludo liberalior). As we shall see, these themes can be
understood as two sides of the same coin: a man enjoys his own
being more honourably and more ‘freely’ to the extent that he takes
the trouble to ‘cultivate’ himself, especially in those capacities
which deWne him as a man and citizen.
5. memoria adminicvlatior
This, then, is the notion of scholarly worth or value to which
Gellius commits himself at the outset of his work. But do we Wnd
it elsewhere in the Nights? To answer this question, we may
concentrate Wrst on the sub-theme of a ‘better-stocked’ or ‘more
serviceable’ memory (memoria adminiculatior). This could well be
a cliché, since memory-training was important at all levels of
Roman education.42 Gellius, however, represents it as a lifelong
occupation, appropriate even for the gentleman at leisure. It can be
practised in a solitary carriage ride (10. 25. 1), or after dinner, in
friendly company; thus Gellius and his comrade Julius Celsinus
Numida would stroll together and rack their brains for ‘rhetorical
Wgures or some new, striking use of words’ for ‘future use by
ourselves’ (19. 7. 2). Moreover, Gellius insists that the Nights
originated as a subsidium memoriae (pr. 2), consisting of things he
42
See T. Morgan, Literate Education, 250–1.
216 Stephen M. Beall
45
On Gellius’ claim to a kind of moral superiority for himself and other students
of the artes liberales, cf. Kaster, ‘ ‘‘Humanitas’’ and Roman Education’, esp. 8–9.
218 Stephen M. Beall
48
See Beall, ‘Aulus Gellius 17. 8’, 62–3; on aemulatio Graecorum in translation,
see id., ‘Translation’, esp. 217–19.
49
On the ‘poverty’ of Latin as a literary topos, see T. Fögen, Patrii sermonis
egestas, esp. 180–220; cf. S. Swain, above, p. 9.
220 Stephen M. Beall
50
Cf. Gellius’ emphasis on cura and disciplina in connection with authentic
humanitas; see Kaster, ‘ ‘‘Humanitas’’ and Roman Education’, 7.
51
Agricultural metaphors are common in the educational literature of antiquity;
see Morgan, Literate Education, 255–9.
52
G. Pfohl, Griechische Inschriften, 161.
Gellian Humanism Revisited 221
Six hours of toil are quite enough;
those that come after spell LIVE!
Gellius ‘lived’ in his scholarly leisure, and so prayed that his body
would not outlast the work of ‘writing and note-taking’ he had
begun as a young man in Athens (pr. 24).
If, then, we are looking for a single formula that captures the
‘humanism’ of the Attic Nights, we probably come closest to the
truth with delectatio in otio atque in ludo liberalior. As Gellius saw
it, a ‘free man’ is deWned by his pleasures—nil cum Wdibus graculost,
nihil cum amaracino sui (pr. 19). In his leisure time, moreover, a
man lives and acts for himself, and becomes an end in himself.
This, as Irving Babbitt maintained, distinguishes authentic ‘hu-
manism’ from its ‘humanitarian’ counterfeits, both ancient and
modern.53 Finally, if Renaissance humanism was predicated
upon man’s potential for communion with the divine, Gellius
anticipated even this idea in a programmatic quotation from Aris-
tophanes (pr. 21, from Ra. 354–6, 369–71):
PE æc ŒIÆŁÆØ
E æ
ØØ
æ
EØ
‹Ø ÆØæ
ØH ºªø j ª fi c ŒÆŁÆæØ
j ª Æø ZæªØÆ
ıH
r
Kæı . . .
!E
I ªæ
ºc
ŒÆd Æ ıÆ a æÆ, ÆQ B § æ
ıØ "
æB
§ .
All evil thought and profane be still; far hence, far hence from our choirs
depart,
Who knows not well what the Mystics tell, or is not holy and pure of heart;
Who ne’er has the noble revelry learned, or danced the dance of the Muses
high . . .
. . . But ye, my comrades, awake the song,
The night-long revels of joy and mirth, which ever of right to our feast
belong.54
The motif of nocturnal ‘revels’ seems a bit exotic, given our
author’s insistence on order and temperance. But it does express
the momentary exaltation we all experience, perhaps during our
own solitary lucubrations, when ‘some knotty or troublesome
topic’ (pr. 13) is suddenly resolved, and the true shape of antiquity
is disclosed.
To conclude this assessment of Marache’s humanisme gellien,
I shall borrow a page from Isaiah Berlin’s famous essay on Tolstoy,
The Hedgehog and the Fox (3–4). A fragment from the work of
Archilochus reads, ‘The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog
53
I. Babbitt, Literature and the American College, 5–12.
54
B. B. Rogers, edn. 57; cited in J. C. Rolfe’s Loeb edn.
222 Stephen M. Beall
1
For Apuleius’ claim to a literary reputation in Rome cf. Flor. 17. 4, with
V. Hunink, Florida, 173–4 ad loc.; on Apuleius’ ‘Roman period’ see K. Dowden,
‘Apuleius’ Roman Audience’, 424–5; S. J. Harrison, Apuleius, 6 n. 22.
2
Cf. Apul. Apol. 24. 1, 94. 3, 95. 6; see E. Champlin, Fronto, 31–2.
3
L. A. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 22–3 [16–17]; Dowden, ‘Apuleius’
Roman Audience’, 429; G. Sandy, ‘West meets East’.
4
Gell. pr. 12; Apul. Flor. 18, 20; see A. Vardi, ‘Why Attic Nights?’, 301.
5
See Vardi, ‘An Anthology’, on the much-debated issue of the relationship
between Gellius’ list and that of Apuleius.
6
See H. Dahlmann, Ein Gedicht des Apuleius?; S. J. Harrison, ‘Apuleius Eroti-
cus’, 88–9; Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 23 n. 59 [17 n. 57]; Vardi, ‘An Anthol-
ogy’, 148 n. 5.
Satire on the Intellectual 225
the opening of the Phaedrus, one of the most famous Platonic dialogues in Apuleius’
time (1. 18. 8, 1. 19. 7–8).
17
Similarly D.L. 3. 52; see H. A. S. Tarrant, ‘Platonic Interpretation’, 178–86.
18
For Lucius as an ambiguous Wgure, being both the target of the hidden
author’s satire and the mouthpiece for his ideas on Wction, see Keulen, ‘Sword-
play—Wordplay’, 169–70.
19
Cf. Met. 1. 2. 5 tam absurda tamque immania; 1. 3. 2 crassis auribus . . . respuis;
1. 20. 1 respuebat. For the rhetorical-stylistic terminology cf. Fronto, Ep. M. Caes.
3. 16. 1 (p. 47. 21–2 v:d:H:2 ); De eloqu. 4. 8 (p. 150. 10–11 v:d:H:2 ); De orat. 14
(p. 159. 15–16 v.d. H:2 ); Gell. 11. 16. 4, 15. 25. 1 (absurdus), 15. 9. 3 (immanis), 13.
21. 12 (respuent . . . aures).
20
For the irony in the reversal of roles in Gell. 18. 7 see S. M. Beall, ‘Homo fandi
dulcissimus’, 92.
228 Wytse Keulen
21
Although the Socrates in Apul. Met. 1. 6–19 is a Wctive character, featuring in
the novel’s Wrst inserted tale, he still bears many signiWcant traits of the historical
Socrates (see W. H. Keulen, ‘Comic Invention’, 110 n. 5). In Met. 10. 33. 3, the
narrator refers to the historical Socrates as diuinae prudentiae senex.
22
See M. W. Gleason, Making Men, 151: ‘those who aspired to the status of
philosopher were acutely conscious of the need to harmonize their self-presentation
with the great paradigms of the philosophic pantheon.’ On Apuleius’ assimilation of
his activities to famous Greek paradigms, especially Plato and Socrates, see
G. Sandy, The Greek World of Apuleius, 183–4.
23
Gell. 19. 9. 9 (Gellius quotes his teacher Antonius Iulianus) permittite mihi,
quaeso, operire pallio caput, quod in quadam parum pudica oratione Socraten fecisse
aiunt; Apul. Met. 1. 6. 4 et cum dicto sutili centunculo faciem suam iam dudum
punicantem prae pudore obtexit; 1. 7. 1 capite uelato (cf. Gell. 19. 9. 10 capite
conuelato). In Plato’s Phaedrus (237 a), Socrates covers his head before he starts
his Wrst speech on eros, using a Socratic technique of concentration (see K. J. Dover
on Ar. Nub. 735 KªŒÆºıł
).
24
For the signiWcance of Socrates for the Attic Nights as the archetype of the true
philosopher who exposes the false expert see S. M. Beall, above, 208–9; for his
inXuence on Favorinus see id., ‘Homo fandi dulcissimus’, 91.
Satire on the Intellectual 229
iactatorem quempiam et uenditatorem Sallustianae lectionis inrisit inlu-
sitque genere illo facetissimae dissimulationis, qua Socrates ad sophistas
utebatur.25 (18. 4. 1.)
The Socrates who appears in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses book 1 is
also a Wgure who mocks, teases, and jokes (e.g. Met. 1. 7. 4 cauil-
lum . . . dicacitas; 1. 12. 4 inlusit aetatulam; 1. 18. 6 subridens), but
he rather behaves like a buVoon on a comic stage, revealing traits of
a Cynic philosopher, and becoming an object of ridicule himself.26
In the Attic Nights, Socrates is depicted as an example of
temperance and strength (2. 1).27 By contrast, the Socrates in
Apuleius’ Metamorphoses 1 appears as a self-indulgent hypochon-
driac. Just like the Gellian Socrates, the Apuleian Socrates is
characterized as completely immobile at the outset. Whereas the
Gellian Socrates is standing all the time to train his physical
endurance (NA 2. 1. 2), the Apuleian Socrates is sitting on the
ground, expressing with his posture his complete lack of endur-
ance and an almost deliberate suVering from bad health (Met. 1. 6.
1). Whereas the Gellian Socrates deliberately stands to strengthen
his body against any chance demands upon its endurance (2. 1.
1 fortuitas patientiae uices), the Apuleian Socrates seems too weak
to give up his sitting position, and prefers to retain this position to
express his submission to fortune (1. 6. 4–1. 7. 1). Whereas the
Gellian Socrates has the reputation of abstinence, the Apuleian
Socrates indulges in food, wine, sex, and cheap entertainment
(Gell. 2. 1. 5 a uoluptatum labe cauisse Apul. Met. 1. 7. 5 dum
uoluptatem . . . consector).28 Whereas the Gellian Socrates stands
out for his fortitude (Gell. 2. 1. 3 fortitudine), the Apuleian Socra-
tes almost continuously reveals symptoms of weakness and disease
(Met. 1. 6. 1 paene alius lurore, ad miseram maciem deformatus; cf. 1.
18. 7, 1. 19. 1).
Thus, at Wrst sight, Gellius’ and Apuleius’ representations of
the Wgure of Socrates seem diametrically opposed. In the Attic
25
For the terminology of exposure and irony in the dialogue scenes of the Attic
Nights cf. also 6. 17. 2, 17. 3. 2, 18. 4. cap., 9, 19. 1. 8 (illudere); 1. 21. 4 (ridere). See
also A. D. Vardi, ‘Gellius against the Professors’, 51 with n. 63, who collects
instances of laughter as the response of those present at an exposure, e.g. 16. 6. 12
facetias nebulonis hominis risi; 19. 10. 14 cum id plerique prolixius riderent.
26
For a detailed analysis of the Apuleian Socrates as a satirical Wgure who reXects
the comic ambiguity of the Metamorphoses see Keulen, ‘Comic Invention’, esp.
114–18.
27
See Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 110 [80] with further references.
28
Cf. also Apul. Met. 1. 8. 1 uoluptatem Veneriam; contrast, however 1. 11. 4
insolita uinolentia, which is perhaps a humorous allusion to the historical Socrates’
abstemiousness.
230 Wytse Keulen
33
For the traditionally Roman suspicion of pseudo-intellectuals and the links
with the Menippean satire see J. C. Relihan, Ancient Menippean Satire, 54–9 on
Gellius, esp. 54; see also p. 69, where he quotes Gellius’ anecdote of the braggart
scholar who claimed to understand Varro’s Menippeans (Gell. 13. 31. 1–3).
232 Wytse Keulen
At ille digitum a pollice proximum ori suo admouens et in stuporem
attonitus ‘tace, tace’ inquit et circumspiciens tutamenta sermonis:
‘parce’, inquit, ‘in feminam diuinam, nequam tibi lingua intemperante
noxam contrahas.’ (Met. 1. 8. 2.)
The initiation performance of this Socrates, which serves as an
introduction to his fantastic stories about the witch Meroe, echoes
the care of the Platonic Socrates to take a good look round before
starting a philosophical discussion, to make sure no ‘non-initiate’ is
listening (Plat. Theaet. 155 e `ŁæØ b æØŒ
H Ø H
Iıø !ÆŒ
fi ). In the tradition of Clouds, which parodied the
Platonic analogy between philosophical-rhetorical instruction and
mystic initiation,34 Apuleius’ Metamorphoses introduces a charac-
ter with the signiWcant name Socrates, a superstitious outcast
Wgure who seems to represent the negative aspects of intellectual-
ism such as exclusiveness and arrogance.35
A similar type of behaviour is displayed in the main story by the
protagonist Lucius, who shares many interests and inclinations
with the Socrates of the Wrst inset tale.36 In his diatribe against
scepticism, Lucius uses the invective technique of representing his
opponent as an ignorant fool. Confuting the sceptic’s incredulity,
Lucius tries to live up to his philosophical credentials (1. 2. 1 a
Plutarcho), and strikes a rather pedantic tone, as if he were the
superior intellectual. He phrases belief in the incredible in terms of
an intellectual process for which not everyone is intelligent
enough.37 Contrasting the wrong beliefs of ordinary mortals
(1. 3. 3 prauissimis opinionibus) with the genuine perception of the
one who uses his senses accurately, and using a singular address
(si . . . accuratius exploraris . . . senties), Lucius assumes a didac-
tic-philosophical stance. His attack on those stubborn folk who do
not believe the things that lie beyond the grasp of the human mind
(1. 3. 2–3) echoes Socrates’ attack on non-intellectuals in Plat.
Theaet. 155 e cited above (cf. also Soph. 246 a–b). There Socrates
calls ‘non-initiates’ (the Apuleian Socrates behaves similarly, as we
have seen above) those who think nothing exists beyond what they
can grasp in their two hands (cf. 1. 3. 3 supra captum cogitationis).
34
See Sommerstein on Clouds 140; of Dover on 143 ıæØÆ; P. Green, ‘The
Abuses of Intellectualism’.
35
Cf. Socrates’ reference to Aristomenes’ ignorance in 1. 6. 4 Aristomene, . . . ne
tu fortunarum lubricas ambages et instabiles incursiones et reciprocas uicissitudines
ignoras.
36
See Keulen, ‘Comic Invention’, 108–9, with further references.
37
Cf. 1. 3. 2 crassis auribus, 1. 3. 3 minus hercule calles; see Keulen, ‘Swordplay—
Wordplay’, 162.
Satire on the Intellectual 233
40
However, the diVerence should be noted that whereas the grammarian of 19.
10 is covering his retreat, having been happy enough to parade his learning while it
seemed superior, Gellius himself, in his preface, is warning oV those who are not
interested in his kind of learning.
41
The quotation is from the parabasis of Frogs, vv. 354–6, 359–61.
42
Cf. e.g. 1. 1. 1 papyrum . . . calami inscriptam; 10. 2. 1 sed ut uos etiam legatis,
ad librum profero; 10. 7. 4 sed quae plane comperi, ad istas litteras proferam. See D. van
Mal-Maeder on 2. 12. 5 historiam magnam et incredundam fabulam (edn. 215–16).
43
On the deliberate association between Lucius and the author Apuleius in the
Metamorphoses (cf. 11. 27. 9 Madaurensem) see R. Th. van der Paardt, ‘The
Unmasked I’; J. L. Penwill, ‘Ambages reciprocae’, 15–16; on various parallels be-
tween Lucius and Apuleius see P. Junghanns, Erzählungstechnik, 14; Harrison,
Apuleius, 10, 217–18 (with references). See below, n. 75.
Satire on the Intellectual 235
during sympotic conversations; see H. Lucas, ‘Zu den Milesiaca’, 24; B. E. Perry,
The Ancient Romances, 95; T. Hägg, The Novel, 188; for a diVerent view see
Harrison, ‘The Milesian Tales’, 65. For Gellius’ and Apuleius’ shared interest in
the literary form of the erudite symposium, see above, §1.2, and nn. 12, 56. For the
connection between polymathy and a sympotic context cf. e.g. Gell. 2. 22. 25–6.
52
Cf. 1. 2. 6 sititor alioquin nouitatis . . . non quidem curiosum; 2. 6. 5 ex uoto
diutino poteris fabulis miris explere pectus with van Mal-Maeder ad loc. (edn. 134–5).
53
For an extensive discussion of this passage and its literary sources see
E. J. Kenney, ‘In the Mill with Slaves’, 167–70.
54
See B. L. Hijmans et al., edn. of book 9, p. 132.
55
Cf. Flor. 9. 24 (on Hippias) Quis autem non laudauit hominem tam numerosa arte
multiscium, totiugi scientia magniWcum, tot utensilium peritia daedalum?; 18. 19 Pro-
tagora, qui sophista fuit longe multiscius et cum primis rhetoricae repertoribus perfa-
cundus. The other two instances are used of Apollo (Flor. 3. 9 coma intonsus et genis
gratus et corpore glabellus et arte multiscius) and of Homer (Apol. 31. 5 Homerum,
poetam multiscium uel potius cunctarum rerum adprime peritum). Cf. Gell. 5. 10. 3
Protagoram, sophistarum acerrimum.
56
For Florida as a title of a miscellany see Vardi, ‘Why Attic Nights?’, 299 n. 7.
A lost specimen of the genre of miscellany is Apuleius’ Quaestiones conuiuales;
238 Wytse Keulen
Harrison, Apuleius, 30–1. For the contemporary popularity of the genre of miscel-
lany see also A. D. Vardi, above, Ch. 6.
57
For Apion as a boastful sophist who sought employment through self-
advertisementcf. Gell. 5. 14. 3 fortassean uitio studioque ostentationis sit loquacior—
est enim sane quam in praedicandis doctrinis sui uenditator; see Holford-Strevens,
Aulus Gellius, 61 [50]. Apion called himself —ºØ
Œ, ‘Supreme Champion’
(Gell. 5. 14. 1); Tiberius called him, as Pliny reports (NH pr. 25), cymbalum
mundi. For Gellius’ critical views on Apion and Pliny, see Holford-Strevens, Aulus
Gellius, 41, 157, 165–6 [30–1, 115, 121–2]. Another swollen-headed sophist was
Varus (Philostr. VS 540).
58
See Keulen, comm. 65–6.
Satire on the Intellectual 239
Æ
æØ.59 Against this background, Lucius, Apion, and
Pliny the Elder appear as fellow writers of a less respectable
genre, that of Unterhaltungsliteratur.60 From the perspective of a
Gellius, Lucius is a clearly negative representative of a genre such
as pursued by Apion and Pliny, and exempliWed by the collections
of trivia and marvels—especially the Greek ones—from which
Gellius is at pains to distinguish his own miscellany.61 According
to Gellius’ programmatic statement, his own work does not aim at
a quantity of learning, but is conWned to ‘useful knowledge’:
Ego uero, cum illud Heracliti Ephesii uiri summe nobilis uerbum cordi
haberem, quod profecto ita est
ºıÆŁ
P ØŒØ;62 ipse quidem
uoluendis transeundisque multis admodum uoluminibus . . . , exercitus
defessusque sum, sed modica ex his eaque sola accepi, quae . . . (pr. 12.)
67
14. 6. 1 Homo nobis familiaris . . . dat mihi librum grandi uolumine doctrinae
omnigenus, ut ipse dicebat, praescatentem, quem sibi elaboratum esse ait ex multis et
uariis et remotis lectionibus, ut ex eo sumerem, quantum liberet rerum memoria
dignarum. The homo familiaris is often identiWed with Favorinus; on this issue see
Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 116–18 [82–3]; Beall, ‘Homo fandi dulcissimus’,
101–2, who concludes: ‘the coincidence is too obvious to be dismissed entirely;
second-century readers would reasonably have counted Favorinus among Gellius’
negative precedents.’
68
See Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 40–1 [30–1].
69
See Beall, ‘Aulus Gellius 17.8’, 60; id., ‘Homo fandi dulcissimus’, 89–90: ‘By the
late second century, to write a miscellany was a risky business. It had become a well-
worn genre, to judge from the variety of titles cited by Gellius himself (praef. 5–9).’
242 Wytse Keulen
70
For a diVerent view on the amount of self-awareness we may expect of Romans
see Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 41 [31].
71
I am strongly indebted here to the views put forward by Beall, ‘Homo fandi
dulcissimus’, 102. See also Gleason, Making Men, 151 on Favorinus’ fundamental
irony and self-consciousness about the various roles he played while performing as
an intellectual.
Satire on the Intellectual 243
With this anecdote, Gellius this time gives himself the unexpected
role of the young charlatan exposed by the professional, not
unlike the arrogant Stoic exposed by Herodes Atticus in 1. 2.74
Taurus’ remarks, like Domitius’ tirade, should not be completely
identiWed with Gellius’ own judgements about himself. Neverthe-
less, these vivid vignettes show that Gellius not only appreciated
the negative light in which his own literary activities could
be viewed, but even used such views for his own purposes of
literary play. Just as Apuleius represents his satirical alter ego
Lucius as a young ear-pleasing sophist, who became the writer
of his autobiography, Gellius represents his younger self as a
rhetoriscus, who seems only interested in rhetoric and language
72
Beall, ‘Homo fandi dulcissimus’, 89.
73
Cf. 1. 9. 10–11 ‘Est etiam . . . pro Iuppiter! qui Platonem legere postulet non
uitae ornandae, sed linguae orationisque comendae gratia, nec ut modestior Wat, sed ut
lepidior.’ Haec Taurus dicere solitus, nouicios philosophorum sectatores cum ueteribus
Pythagoricis pensitans.
74
See above, n. 39.
244 Wytse Keulen
4. conclusion
Gellius and Apuleius lived in an age marked by a lively intellectual
debate, in which rival intellectuals, both Greek and Roman,
deWned their own superior status by exposing their adversaries as
‘sophists’ as a deprecatory term, in the same vein as ‘impostor’,
‘pseudo-philosopher’, ‘bad linguist’, or ‘shallow expert’. Gellius’
and Apuleius’ literary works seem widely separated by generic
boundaries: the Metamorphoses are not a miscellany, and the
Attic Nights are not a satirical novel. Yet both works are permeated
with similar topics and ideas, and reveal a shared literary and
intellectual pedigree. Following the literary tradition of the So-
cratic dialogue, and paying homage to Plutarch as their shared
intellectual ancestor, both Gellius and Apuleius wrote sympotic
dialogue scenes with the exposure of fraudulent pretensions and
unsound doctrines as an important underlying theme. Their so-
phisticated Roman audience was prepared to look behind the
masks of the literary personae featuring in their works, and to
recognize authorial views and allusions to the contemporary intel-
lectual debate. Neither Apuleius nor Gellius considered or called
himself a sophist: Apuleius proudly calls himself a philosophus
Platonicus; Gellius, being much more modest, manifests himself
as a serious Roman scholar whose literary eVorts rise above the
75
There is a striking similarity between Gell. 17. 20. 4 ‘heus . . . tu, rhetorisce’
and Apul. Met. 2. 10. 2, where Photis mockingly calls Lucius a scholasticus: ‘heus tu,
scolastice’, ait, ‘dulce et amarum gustulum carpis’.
76
Cf. 17. 20. 7 Haec admonitio Tauri de orationis Platonicae modulis non modo non
repressit, sed instrinxit etiam nos ad elegantiam Graecae orationis uerbis Latinis adfe-
utandam. See too Plut. De aud. 9 (Mor. 42 e).
77
See Beall, ‘Homo fandi dulcissimus’, 104, who mentions the important role of
sophistic role-playing, which Gellius may have learned from his teacher Favorinus,
and who also points to the programmatic aim of literary entertainment of the Nights:
delectatio in otio atque in ludo liberalior (pr. 16).
78
For Gellius as a representative of the 2nd-c. stylistic tendency of mannerism
see Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 48–64 [35–46] (‘Language and Style’).
Satire on the Intellectual 245
79
Lucius’ Greek identity is essential also in this respect (cf. Harrison, Apuleius,
216); for the links between Gellius and the Greek Second Sophistic see Vardi,
‘Gellius against the Professors’, 42 n. 5; on 52 n. 68, Vardi observes that the
exposure of the ambitious Stoic in 1. 2 is signiWcantly staged in Attica. See above,
n. 39, and sect. 3, with nn. 45–9.
This page intentionally left blank
III
RECEPTION
This page intentionally left blank
10
Recht as een Palmen-Bohm and Other Facets
of Gellius’ Medieval and
Humanistic Reception
L eo f r a n c H o l f o r d -St r ev en s
1
Cf. T. Morgan, above, Ch. 7; S. M. Beall, above, Ch. 8.
2
Arist. fr. 229 Rose ¼ 733 Gigon; Plut. Quaest. conu. 8. 4. 5 (724 e–f) Ø Ø
b
Ææa ÆFÆ Æ ŒÆd d ıŒe "æfiø e ºº
ºªŁÆØ
،
ªaæ º
i
Æ øŁ KØŁd æ Øfi,
P Œø ŁºØ
K øØ , Iººa Œıæ
FÆØ æe
P Æ
uæ I ŁØ
H† ØÆ
fiø
F
c ŒÆd æd
f IŁºØŒ
f IªH KØ
f
b ªaæ !
IŁ Æ ŒÆd ÆºÆŒÆ Ø Œ
Æ ÆP
E Ø
ıØ Œ
,
ƒ
Kææø ø
!
c ÆŒØ
P
E ÆØ Iººa ŒÆd
E æ
ÆØ KÆæ
ÆØ ŒÆd
Æh
ÆØ (Aristotle is not mentioned).
3
A. Borst, Reichskalender, i. 143–6 (MS c 2), cf. A. von Euw and J. Plotzek,
Handschriften der Sammlung Ludwig, iii. 145–53; C. de Hamel and R. Nolden, ‘Die
Recht as een Palmen-Bohm 251
7
In addition Tre explains in the upper margin the hard words Gellius had not
used: C$—ˇCIˇ˝ .i. c̄uiuium ex quo C$M—ˇC'`˚ˇC .i. c̄uiui(alis)
j —ˇ´¸˙` .i. questio ł propositio unde —ˇ´¸˙`+'jˇ˝ .i. questiuncula,
misspells symphosiacorū, adds a sidenote Cur placuerit palmam signum esse uictorie˛,
and in Isidore has insigne˛ 17. 7. 1 where Val has rightly insigne.
8
See R. M. Thomson, William of Malmesbury, 189–98.
9
The extracts from K, together with its text of Cicero, De oYciis, were copied
into MS Poppi, Bibl. Com. Rilliana 39 (s. xii); see Thomson, William, 195 with
n. 31.
10
Olim London, Sion College, Arc. L. 40. 2/L. 21.
Recht as een Palmen-Bohm 253
11
M. Mignon reads ‘intra’ but translates ‘jusqu’à terre’.
12
Cf. PL 78. 341: ‘Caroli et Ludouici’.
254 Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Agellius Lignum palme impositis ponderibus renititur ideoque eam
signum uictorie esse uoluerunt per ercle mirandam rem aristotiles in
septimo problematum et plutarchus in octauo simphoniacorum dicit. Si
super palme˛ inquiunt arboris lignum magna pondera imponas, ac tam
grauiter urgeas oneresque ut magnitudo oneris sustineri non queat non
deorsum palma cadit nec infra Xectitur sed aduersus pondus resurgit et
sursum nititur recuruaturque propterea inquit plutanus in certaminibus
palmam signum placuit esse uictorie˛ quoniam ingenium ligni huiusmodi
est ut urgentibus opprimentibusque non cedat.
eam] eı̄ Aug percle Aug mirandam] iurandam Reg ari-
stotiles] aritotiles Bra problematorum] problematum AugReg:
probleumatum Bra) plutarchus] plutr.a‘ r· chus Bra sinphonia-
corum] sinphoniachorum Bra non queat Bra: nequeat
AugReg queat in rasura Bra plutarchus] ita et in ordine et
contra Bra: plutarcus Aug: plutanus Reg ingenium] ‘ i uirtus· Aug:
uirtus et ingenium Bra
Here too intra has caused trouble, being corrupted into infra. This
latter is also found in MS Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale
II. I. 72 (s. xv), and in Erasmus, Adagia 1. 3. 4;13 it was proposed
by Daniel Wilhelm Triller of Merseburg in a letter to Christian
Falster dated 12 June 1722,14 and adopted by Marache from chi-
merical ‘edd.’
oneris sustineri non queat: non deorsum palma cedit nec intra Xectitur: sed aduersus
pondus resurgit et sursum nititur recuruaturque Propterea inquit Plutarchus in certa-
minibus palmam signum esse placuit uictorie˛ quoniam ingenium huiuscemodi ligni est ut
urgentibus prementibusque non cedat. The readings are mostly those of Bussi’s ed. pr.,
which has Symphosicorum and eiuscemodi (Jenson gives eiusmodi).
21
Timber is speciWed (lignum) as at Plut. Mor. 734 e, cf. Strabo 15. 3. 10; careless
reading might overlook the fact at Xen. Cyrop. 7. 5. 11, Thphr. HP 5. 6. 1, Plin. NH
16. 223.
22
Opera omnia, I v. 302, no. 3295.
23
See V. Woods Callahan, ‘Andrea Alciato’s Palm Tree Emblem’, who considers
the origins, development, and afterlife of this emblem; cf. Paolo Giovio, Dialogo
dell’imprese militari e amorose, ed. M. L. Goglio, 89–90; G. de Tervarent, Attributs
et symboles, cols. 295–7; A. Henkel and A. Schöne, Emblemata, col. 192.
24
Quoted from ‘Plutarchi de causis naturalibus’, in Opuscula, ed. Henricus
Stephanus, iii. 275; cf. F. H. Sandbach in the Loeb Moralia, xi. 214–16.
25
See Sandbach 142 and 214–15 n. 2.
Pl. 10.1. Emblem of the palm-tree, from Omnia Andreae Alciati .V.C.
emblemata (Paris, 1608), 231
258 Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Ex. 10.1. Original text and melody of Anke van Tharaw, stt. 6–7, from
Heinrich Albert, Fünffter Theil der Arien (Königsberg, 1642), no. 21
So far, the burden has still been imposed by human hand; but in
the famous seventeenth-century song published by Heinrich
Albert,26 ‘Anke van Tharaw’, stt. 6–7 (see Ex. 10. 1), the agency
becomes Nature herself:
26
H. Albert, FünVter Theil der Arien, no. 21, ‘Aria incerti Autoris’ (¼ com-
poser). Nor is the poet named; the 18th-c. tradition that the words were written by
Simon Dach for the wedding of Johann Portatius and Anna Neander (a pastor’s
daughter from Tharau, now Vladimirovo, whose statue now stands before the
Dramos teatras at Klaipėda), is denied by W. Ziesemer, edn. of Dach, ii. 393–4,
who attributes them to Albert himself, but defended by I. Ljungerud, ‘Ehren-
Rettung’. At pp. 71–6 Ljungerud discusses the palm-tree (a device in the Portatius
arms, p. 49), which was also used as a symbol of sexual desire (cf. Plin. NH. 13.
34–5). The text, written in Samland (Zemland) dialect, is nowadays sung in High
German to a melody by Friedrich Silcher (1789–1860); whereas in J. G. Herder’s
original adaptation v. 11 was rendered word for word ‘Recht als ein Palmenbaum
über sich steigt’, it now begins more idiomatically ‘So wie’, as in the chapter-
heading of Berthold’s translation, 194.
Recht as een Palmen-Bohm 259
Recht as een Palmen-Bohm äver söck stöcht/
Je mehr en Hagel on Regen anföcht.
So wardt de Löw’ ön onß mächtich on groht/
Dörch Kryhtz/ dörch Lyden/ dörch allerley Noht.
Or in Longfellow’s free translation, ‘Annie of Tharaw’:
As the palm-tree standeth so straight and so tall,
The more the hail beats, and the more the rains fall,—
So love in our hearts shall grow mighty and strong,
Through crosses, through sorrows, through manifold wrong.
(under ‘Dominica Resurrectionis’), no. 220, also found without the heading in Paris,
BNF lat. 14595, fos. 42r ---43r ; both s. xiv.
31
Schneyer, Repertorium, ix. 324, no. 42 also cites Prague, Státnı́ knihovna České
republiky I. G. 10 (s. xiv–xv) ¼ J. Truhlář, Catalogus, i. 120–1, no. 284. Enquiries
after this MS made before and after the Xood of August 2002 have not been answered.
32
Catalogue ge´ne´ral des manuscrits des bibliothe`ques publiques des de´partements, ii
(Paris, 1855), 320, 342, 744, 885–6, citing a ghostly Parisian edn. of 1518 in conse-
quence of two errors: the Bodleian catalogue of 1684, i. 290, misdated 8o T 34 Th,
Guibert’s reprinted Sermones ad omnes status (Paris, 1513), to ‘1518’; the Histoire
litte´raire de la France, xix (Paris, 1838), 139, mistook them for the Sermones de
dominicis et festis in these MSS. Cf. J. G. Bougerol, Les Manuscrits franciscains, 54,
82, 229, 298, nos. 775bk, 823bo, 1778bm, 2052ap.
33
L. Leònij, Inventario, 50, no. 140, ‘Miscellanea . . . Il codice era del convento
di Todi, e di frate Andrea di Todi, che lo ebbe da frate Francesco di Todi nel 1419.’
The Quaracchi editors wrongly cite fo. 349v .
34
O. Grillnberger, in Handschriften-Verzeichnisse, ii. 17: ‘Sermones Guillelmi’.
The Quaracchi editors wrongly cite fo. 31. Microfilm kindly provided by Hill
Museum and Manuscript Library, Saint John’s University, Collegeville, MN.
35
As we have seen, Hi appends Guibert 180 as a collatio to 179; it also reports and
expounds in both texts a prothema ‘Cognouerunt Dominum in fractione panis’
(Luke 24: 35).
Recht as een Palmen-Bohm 261
36
G. Meyer and M. Burckhardt, Die mittelalterlichen Handschriften, ii. 466–73 at
466–7.
37
For comparison, Hi reads: Quarto Xoruit ut Xos palme in qua inmarcessibilitas
signiWcatur. vnde dicit philosophus in vijo problematum quod palma lignum est et si
super lignum arboris palme pondus inponas non cedit nec Xectitur. sed contra resurgit et
eleuatur unde in hoc datur intelligi dos inpassibilitatis quia corpus Christus [sic: xp̄c̄]
resurrexit sicut palma contra pondus se erigit et extollit; Ba: Quarto Xoruit ut palma
propter gloriosi trophei triumphatiuam potestatem/ et hoc propter dotem inpassibilitatis.
Bene enim per palmam signiWcatur triumphatiua potestas gloriosi trophei/ nam/ ad
262 Leofranc Holford-Strevens
dotem] dote Va problematum] probleumatum Au14 dicit om.
Va inponas] ponas Va tantum om. Va: tam Claraquenses
Gellium secuti honeres] honores Auuv 1 Va: oneresque Claraquenses
Gellium secuti non queat] nequeat Au4 non2 ] aut
Au4 deorsum] þ palma Claraquenses Gellium secuti cedit]
tendit Tu in terram] intra Claraquenses Gellium secuti in] ad
Va et] etiam Tu plucarius Au23 : lucarius TuVamg : lucarius an
lucanus incertum Au1 : lucanus Au4 : lieteuius Vaordo philosophus
om. Va Traiani om. Au4 signum esse] esse signum Va: lignum
esse cett. urgentibus opprimentibusque] opprimentibus urgentibus
que Au4 caro] ½½caro ita male scriptum ut paene caio legas caro
Au2 Ps(almus)] sc. 91. 13 Vulg. Xorebit] Xo. Au34 : hucusque
Va sicut . . . multiplicabitur] &c Au4 sectioni] sestioni
Au1 aut1 ] a˛ (¼ autem) j aut Au3 : seu Au4 diuisioni] diuisions
[diōns] sic Au2 ne]: nec Au4 aut discrasiam . . . corporis om.
Au4 discrasiam] sc. ıŒæÆÆ : discussionem Claraquenses propter
inscitiam aut2 ] a’ (¼ aut) Au1 complectionis Au1 : completio-
nis Au23 : complesionis Tu
That John is the source is indicated by memorabilium instead of
symposiacorum, by the word-order of placuit palmam signum [or li-
gnum] esse uictorie in certaminibus, and probably by huius (cf. John’s
huiusmodi); it is conWrmed by the description of Plutarch as magister
Traiani imperatoris, for the very book of the Policraticus from which
the Gellian passage is taken begins with the Institutio Traiani.
litteram ut dicit ysidorus palma est arbor/ victoria/ et manus victorum seu victoris seu
triumphatoris adornatur/ cum ea/ vnde et pueri ebreorum triumphatori mortis cum ramis
palmarum obuiauerunt/ clamantes Osanna Wlio dauid benedictus qui venit &c per
itaque signiWcatur in Christo dos inpassibilitatis quia palma est arbor/ nobilis et
insignis/ sempiterne pulchritudinis/ et uigoris/ conseruans folia sua tempore hyemis et
estatis/ truncus etiam eius valde solidus est/ et conpactus et inputribilis Wrmitatis/ vnde
corpus illud domini gloriosum/ et gloriWcatum vltra putrescere ledi vulnerari et pati non
potest/ Christus enim resurgens ex mortuis vltra non moritur &c.
38
Reused in Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum historiale 4. 66 ¼Speculum maius, iv.
135 (a notoriously dishonest edition).
39
A. S. Riginos, Platonica, 82–3, no. 28, knows no previous source, but cites Rep.
566 b, 567 d; cf. Cic. Tusc. 5. 58. It reappears in Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum
doctrinale 5. 7, 7. 30, ed. cit. ii. 407–8, 578.
Recht as een Palmen-Bohm 263
Tertio debemus Xorere per iustitiam; unde Canticorum secundo [Cant.
2: 1]: Ego Xos campi et lilium convallium.—Flos campi omnibus accessibilis
iustitia est, quae est omnibus communis, ut possint pauperes accedere ad
superiores. Non sunt Xores campi quidam pontiWces et praelati, sed verius
pompiWces et Pilati, tot habentes circa se cum fustibus et gladiis [Matt.
26: 55]. Aliquod grande Xagitium perpetrasse putandi sunt qui ita diligen-
ter custoditi sunt, sicut refert Historia gentium, Platonem Dionysio ty-
ranno Siciliae dixisse: ‘Quantum Xagitium commisisti, quia cum tanta
diligentia custodiris?’ Et isti non sunt Xos campi, non horti. Sed nunquid
isti sunt lilia convallium? Non; sed vepres montium ad pauperes
impugnandos. Sed utinam quotquot pauperes impugnant recolant illud
Auli Gellii, Noctium Atticarum, quod Alexander Magnus ultimum littus
Oceani devicerat et venerat expugnare insulam Fragmariae. Qui miserunt
ei litteram in haec verba: Divitias non habemus, quarum cupiditate nos
debeas expugnare; esca nobis est pro divitiis, pro cultibus et auro vilis et
rara vestis; antra nobis duplicem usum praestant: tegumentum in vita,
sepulturam in morte. Quem locum habet vindicta, ubi nulla fuit iniuria?
his motus Alexander nullam ratus victoriam, si eorum turbaret quietem,
eos in pace dimisit. Et utinam ita facerent qui pauperes opprimunt!
This combines, sometimes skilfully, the readings of the two repor-
tationes. Recension A has:
De tercio cant. ij ego Xos campi et lilium conuallium. Xos campi omnibus
est accessibilis. Iustitia est que est omnibus communis ut possint pauperes
accedere ad superiores. non sunt Xores campi quidam pontiWces et prelati
sed uerius pompiWces et pylati tot habentes satellites circa se cum fustibus
et gladiis ut non uideantur Xores campi sed orti diligentissime custoditi.
aliquod grande Xagitium perpetrasse putandi sunt qui ita diligenter custo-
diti sunt, sicut refert historia gentium platonem dyonisio tyranno sicilie
respondisse. non sunt similiter lilia conuallium sed uepres montium ad
pauperes inpugnandos. sed utinam quotquot pauperes inpugnant recolant
illud agellii noctium atticarum, cum Alexander Magnus ultimum litus
Occeani perlustrasset debellare uolebat insulam Bragmanorum. qui mise-
runt ei epistolam in haec uerba: ‘diuicias non habemus, quarum cupiditate
nos debeas expugnare; esca nobis est pro diuiciis, pro cultibus et auro uilis
et rara uestis. antra nobis duplicem usum prestant, tegumentum in uita,
sepulturam in morte. quem locum habet uindicta, ubi nulla Wt iniusticia?’
hiis motus Alexander nullam ratus uictoriam si eorum turbaret quietem
eos in pace dimisit.
ij] 7 Va accessibilis1 ] þ etAu4 est] þ virtus Au1-4 omnibus
om. Au123 : est Au4 possint om. Va pauperes] pauper
Va ad] sicut Va non sunt . . . prelati] sed non quidam pon-
tiWces et prelati sunt Xores campi Au4 sed . . . pylati om.
Au3 Va pompiWces] pontiWces Au2 tot om. Au4 habentes]
þ tot Va cum fustibus et gladiis] etc. Au4 ut] quod
Va campi om. Au4 diligentissime] -mi Va: diligenter
264 Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Au4 custoditi1 ]þ sunt Au13 Tu: þ sicut Va aliquod . . . re-
spondisse om. Au4 aliquod] a d Au1 Tu: ad Au2 grande om.
Va putandi] ½½perpetrandiputandi Va ita] ı̃ Va hystoria
Au13 Tu: ystoria Au2 Va gentium] gencium Au12 : gentilium Au3 :
om. Va dyonisio] dionisio Va sicilie respondisse] re-
spondisse scicilie Tu similiter om. Au4 ad . . . dimisit] etc.
Au4 inpugnandos] þ{ Au2 agellii] agelli Va noctium]
notum Va atticarum cum om. Va in ordine, add. mg cum om.
Tu occeani Au2 : octeani Au1 : oceani Au3 Va uolebat] uoluit
Tu insulam] per insulam Au2 qui (que Au2 , qui j q. Va) mi-
serunt ei epistolam in haec uerba Au123 Tu diuicias] diuitias
Va esca] exca Va diuiciis] diuitis Va rara] þ nobis
Tu habet]: habeat Tu uindicta] uicdicta Va Wt] sit
Au2 iniusticia] þ{ Au2 hiis] et hiis Au3 uictoriam] uici-
toriam Va
3. fragmentary manuscripts
The rest of this chapter is devoted to sidelights on the manuscript
tradition as evidence for Gellius’ diVusion, beginning with scraps
of manuscripts salvaged from the wreck of time.
43
For the Gellian fragment see Richard H. Rouse at Marshall et al., ‘Clare
College MS. 26’, 378 n. 50; cf. id. in L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission,
134; it was again brought to my notice by Barbara Haggh-Huglo and Michel Huglo.
For the readings of Cod. Lips. 30 see H. Deiter, ‘Ein Tusculanen-codex’.
44
Recorded in a partial catalogue (UB Leiden, B.P.L. 611, fos. 144r ---148r )
compiled in 1530 and Wrst published by H. van Wijn, Huiszittend Leeven, i.
316–33; identiWed with Cod. Lips. 30 by H. G. Kleyn, ‘De catalogus’, 150 n. 10.
Cf. W. Lampen, ‘Catalogus’, 31, 56 (no. 62); id., ‘De boekenlijst’, 82. Munk Olsen,
L’Étude, i. 197, C. 205 objects that ‘l’écriture semble pourtant trop évoluée pour que
le ms. puisse remonter à la seconde moitié du xie siècle’; however, J. P. Gumbert,
‘Wanneer werkte C?’, 188–91, groups it with MSS copied at Egmond in Abbot
Stephen’s time. An 11th-c.date is accepted by Rouse (n. 43), whose obit of 1083 for
Stephen follows the error of Johannes a Leydis, Chronicon Egmundanum, ed.
A. Matthaeus, 15, corrected in Matthaeus’ own note, pp. 188–9. Two other items
from Abbot Stephen’s reign survive at Leiden: Lampen no. 56, Angelomus and
Williramus on the Song of Songs ¼ B.P.L.130, and no. 73, Lucan ¼ Burm. Q 1. B.
Pl. 10.2. First page in text order of Fragmentum Egmondanum (Brus-
sels, Royal Library of Belgium, MS IV 625/60 fo. 2r: Gellius 14. 2. 19–25),
with Germanic legal term uadio instead of suadeo in l. 7 (§21). Copyright
Royal Library of Belgium
268 Leofranc Holford-Strevens
at 15. 5. cap. insci-jteque (451. 19), after which the text continues to
the end of the verso at 15. 14. cap. metellus (460. 24).45
Alas, E contributes no reading both true and new; its chief claim
to virtue is the correct coniectatoria at 14. 3. 1 (436. 25–6) as in the
Valerio-Gellian Xorilegium (present in 14. 2. 21–5, 14. 3. 1–2).
Nevertheless, it is of interest as complicating the stemma of
books 9–20, in which Marshall Wnds three families, F,
ª (XOPGvN), and (QZ); the alternative view makes F a contam-
ination of ª with proto-.46
E agrees, always in truth, with Fª against at:
14. 2. 21 Turio (435. 25)
14. 2. 23 petit (436. 3)
14. 2. 26 est (436. 19)47
14. 3. 1 mutue˛ (also Q2 ; 436. 25)
14. 8. 2 tribunis (445. 16; FON only)
15. 4. cap. ignobili (450. 11)48
15. 6. cap. erratum (452. 26)
15. 8. cap. cum (454. 18)
Cf. 15. 6 cap. secundum (432. 26), Fª rightly secundo, om. .
When E sides with against Fª it is in error at 14. 2. 25
cognouisset (436. 6–7), 14. 8. 2 ad sensum (445. 15, though strictly
speaking this is a matter of interpretatio); but at 14. 2. 26 fecissent
for fecisset (436. 16), as a lectio diYcilior, is likely to be right.49 At
14. 2. 20 (435. 18) E doubtless agrees in truth with F against ª,
for huiuscemodi is far more frequent in Gellius than huiusmodi;
at 14. 3. 2 exsenophontis (437. 1 Xenophontis) is based on
exenophontis Fac Y.50
45
As in other MSS a new chapter XII is begun at 15. 11. cap. item, the subse-
quent chapter-numbers being raised in accordance.
46
L. Gamberale, ‘Note’, 49–55; so Bernardi Perini, edn. i. 29; Cavazza, having
concurred at edn. i. 46, has doubts at iii, p. ix. On Marshall’s theory (though not
always in his practice), the agreement of F with either ª or yields the reading of the
hyparchetype (the Xorilegium being in any case independent); on Gamberale’s that
of Fª proves nothing, that of F only that the variant is of Carolingian date.
(Marache, edn. ii, p. x cannot be right in assigning F to ª simpliciter.)
47
The extent of the trim appears to require est not et.
48
Having in his ed. mai. adopted ’s ignobile, Hertz repented in the ed. min. alt. of
1886.
49
Read by editors before Marshall, it has been reinstated by Bernardi Perini; so
too in Cato (fr. 206 Malcovati ¼ 186 Sblendorio Cugusi). See LHSz ii. 433–4.
50
At §1 E preserves Qui de xenophontis, corrupted in some MSS to Quid e(x)
xenofontis.
Recht as een Palmen-Bohm 269
59
§2 littera i (440. 1; i littera), litteram (6; littera), §3 Impius inscius (12–13; inscius
et impius), qui (15; quae), syllabam om. (16); §4 secrecius (25; sed rectius), ista (28;
ista haec v, ista et Xor.), conpugnantes (25–6; conpugnantesque). It corrects its own
errors at §2 dicebat>dici (439. 25; before censebat); nomina>omnia (440. 4; Hertz’s
informant missed the point beneath the initial n); §4 colligisset > collegisset (20),
diWnierat > deWnierat (21), quidam (so Z) > quidem (25); esse added above line (27).
60
Most easily legible are 4. 13. 1 tibicen (Marshall i. 179. 20)–4. 15. 1 facundia
(for Wngendi 180. 23) and 5. 1. 6 -mentis (191. 5)–5. 3. 3 proximo (192. 9); there are
also snippets from 9. 8, 9. 9. Add. 38651 contains other binding fragments, includ-
ing music: see M. Bent, ‘New and Little-Known Fragments’, 137–41, 154–5.
61
Italian, 1460s, by scribe of Florence, Bibl. Laur. Med. pl. 65. 22 (Diog. Laert.,
tr. Traversari: ex-libris of Piero di Cosimo de’ Medici); London, BL Add. 18784
(Petrarch, Canzoniere, TrionW: arms of Gherardesca of Florence?); Harl. 3385
(Petrarch, TrionW: arms of Tedaldi of Florence).
62
On whom see F. Calvi, Famiglie notabili milanesi, ii, Resta, tav. VII ‘Dirama-
zioni staccate’.
63
See D. Girgensohn, ‘Il testamento di Pietro Miani’; Miani’s son Giannino
married Vitturi’s sister Margherita (ibid. 25–7).
64
See G. Barzizza, Opera, ed. J. A. Furietti, i. 110, 113; cf. i. 193 Lazarinus Resta
singularis amicus meus.
65
Cf. É. Pellegrin et al., Les Manuscrits classiques latins, i. 748–9: ‘Initiales
enluminées de style lombard. . . . Origine: italienne, probablement milanaise,
Recht as een Palmen-Bohm 271
5. lost manuscripts
Just as sunt lacrimae rerum has in modern literary usage been
disengaged from its location in Carthage, so Terentianus Maurus’
dictum pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli has been trans-
formed by omission of the Wrst three words into a statement
about physical books; these fates may indeed be dramatic, as
when we read in Naples, Bibl. Naz. Vittorio Emanuele III, V. B.
7 (s. xv), fo. iiv the note A. Iani Parrhasii, et amicorum Genuae
emptus ex praeda piratica aureis quatuor.71
I subjoin a summary list of lost or untraced manuscripts known
to have existed,72 not only in the interests of reception history, but
in case any should reappear, as that used by Johann ScheVer
69
É. Pellegrin, La Bibliothe`que, Supple´ment, 59: ‘Rien ne permet d’aYrmer que
le manuscrit ait été primitivement destiné au pape Alexandre V. Il dut rester dans la
région milanaise puisqu’on distingue au bas du fo. 1 la guivre des Visconti dans un
écu gratté; le cardinal Ascanio Sforza Wt ajouter de chaque côté ses initiales AS. MA.
et au<->dessus le chapeau de cardinal nettement visibles malgré le grattage.’
70
The letter does not appear in the kindred manuscript Baltimore, Walters Art
Museum, W. 357, included with which is a letter from P. K. Marshall dated 7 Jan.
1963, suggesting that it is related to Ottob. lat. 2019, but not a direct copy; a note
from A. C. de la Mare of 19 July 1974 reads ‘deWnitely Milanese, 3/4 of 15th C.’ In
notes of 7 Aug. 1991 kept with W. 412 (two initials from a missal) Anna Melograni
compares W. 357 with Huntington Library HM 1033 (Aristotle’s Ethics), signed
Hieronymus Mediolanensis: ‘writing and initials similar’.
71
See C. Tristano, La biblioteca, 140, no. 164. Parrhasius (1470–85) left the MS
to Antonio Seripandi (1485–1531; see fo. 193r ), who gave his collection to his
brother Girolamo (1492/3–1563), the future Cardinal and founder of the monastic
library at S. Giovanni a Carbonara, where our MS was recorded before 1570:
D. Gutiérrez, ‘La Biblioteca di San Giovanni a Carbonara’, 157, no. 1402, ‘Aulus
Gellius manuscriptus in membranis’ (pace Tristano, La biblioteca, 276, no. 552).
72
This list incorporates data in M. Manitius, ‘Philologisches aus alten
Bibliothekskatalogen’; K. Manitius, Handschriften antiker Autoren, 147–8. Add
the source of F, lent by Einhard to Servatus Lupus and appropriated for copying
by Hrabanus Maurus (Marshall, ‘Aulus Gellius’, 178).
Recht as een Palmen-Bohm 273
*Alcobaça
In 1441 Poggio Bracciolini was informed, apparently by the con-
sistorial advocate Vasco Rodrigues of Lisbon, of a manuscript in
the twelfth-century Cistercian house at Alcobaça: Vir clarissimus
Valascus tuus, uel noster potius, retulit dudum mihi te reperisse in
monasterio Altobassi A. Gellium Noctium Acticarum integrum neque
lacerum ut noster est.75 There is no trace of it in the Index Codicum
Bibliothecae Alcobatiae (Lisbon, 1775),76 but the third (unnum-
bered) page of the Praefatio notes that Philip II, having added the
crown of Portugal to that of Spain, had taken some Alcobaça
manuscripts for his new foundation at El Escorial; of the Gellian
manuscripts there the only candidate is e. III. 6, olim VII. E. 9–III.
F. 16 (parchment: s. xv), with illuminated initials, which was
rebound in house.77
Bamberg
Michelsberg, 1112 23: a list headed hi sunt libri quod Ruotgerus in
librario inuenit sub Wolframmo abbate including (no. 116) liber
73
See É. Pellegrin, ‘Manuscrits d’auteurs latins’, 16–17; M. Andersson-Schmitt
et al., Mittelalterliche Handschriften, vii. 344–5; F. Cavazza, ‘Un ‘‘nuovo Gellio’’ ’,
74 n. 20.
74
I excluded, as in all probability printed books, Altzella, ‘Index bibliothecae
Veteris Cellae coenobii Cisterciensis in Misnia. MDXIIII’: R 3 Auli Gellii com-
mentariorum libri XX (L. Schmidt, ‘Beiträge’, 258), and Vienna, University, Fac-
ulty of Arts, 1470: Sedecima die Iulii . . . fuerunt empti pro facultate Titus Liuius et
Aulus Gellius disligati in sexternis [¼ ‘gatherings’ (S. Rizzo, Lessico, 42–7)] pro 23
Xorenis (Th. Gottlieb, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge, i. 483, no. 1470). The
next entry concerns the purchase of Plinius in papiro impressus et Augustinus de ciuit.
item in papiro impressus pro 23 Xorenis Hungaricalibus; the two purchases, identical in
price, are comparable in bulk.
75
Lettere, ed. H. Harth, ii (Florence, 1984), 373–4, 20 Sept. 1441. Cf.
A A. Nascimento, ‘Poggio’; id., ‘La Réception’, 50–1.
76
The surviving MSS were transferred to the National Library: see Biblioteca
Nacional de Lisboa, Inventário dos Códices Alcobacenses.
77
G. Antolı́n, Catálogo, ii. 71, ‘Iniciales de adorno en oro y colores; capitales azul
y rojo, alternando<;>epı́grafes en rojo’; L. Rubio Fernández, Catálogo, 76.
274 Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Cesena
Copy left to Convento di S. Francesco by Giovanni Marco da
Rimini, 1474, apparently not Bibl. Malatestiana S XVI 4.84
Cluny
In list 1158–61: [454] Volumen in quo continetur Agellius noctium
atticarum;85 [551] Volumen in quo continetur Iuuenalis, habens
in principio categorias Augustini et partem Agellii noctium
atticarum.86 In list for Abbot Yves I, 1256–75: [85] Aulus Gelius
in libro noctium atticarum.87 Abbot Jean III de Bourbon (reigned 2
Nov. 1456–2 Dec. 1485), bishop of Le Puy (directly subject to
the Pope), gave books including Aulus Gellius in libro Noctium
Atticarum.88
Corvey
s. XII: Reinald of Hildesheim asks Wibald of Corvey and Stablo:
mittite igitur nobis Agellium noctium Atticarum et Originem super
78 79
G. H. Becker, Catalogi, 80. J. Petzholdt, ‘Bibliothekskatalog’, 277.
80
BL Cotton Galba E iv, fo. CLXVr ¼ 139r ; see M. R. James, The Ancient
Libraries of Canterbury and Dover, 83, no. 817.
81 82
Ibid. 158. Id., Western Manuscripts, ii. 132–3.
83
A. C. de la Mare et al., ‘Pietro da Montagnana’, 223–4.
84
R. Zazzeri, Sui codici e libri a stampa, 389 discounts the possibility that this is
the extant MS: ‘ma avendo il presente Codice lo stemma della famiglia Malatesta,
siamo d’avviso che il Codice di Giovanni Marco da Rimini venisse, o allora, o in
epoca posteriore commutato con altro Volume’.
85
L. V. Delisle, Cabinet, ii. 476; id. Inventaire, 366.
86
Id., Cabinet, ii. 480, Inventaire, 372.
87 88
Id., Inventaire, 382. M. Marrier, Bibliotheca Cluniacensis, col. 1684.
Recht as een Palmen-Bohm 275
Lobbes
Acquired 1074 1150: Agelli noctium atmeticarum lib. Vol. I.93
Orléans?
Both halves used by annotator of Bern, Burgerbibliothek
89
Ph. JaVé, Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum, i. 327–8, nos. 207–8; the MS
of Frontinus’ Strategemata has not been identiWed. A Gellius at Corvey is sug-
gested by the quotation from NA 11. 11 at i. 258, no. 153 (Hertz, ed. mai. ii,
p. xxxvi).
90
J. Raine, Catalogi veteres, 31. Whixlay also had out a volume containing
Hildeberti de eVectibus animae [¼ Hildebert de Lavardin, Liber de querimonia et
conXictu carnis et spiritus seu anime, PL. 171. 989–1004]. Hugon. de informatione
Nouiciorum [¼ Hugh of St Victor, De institutione nouiciorum, PL. 176. 926–51] cum
quibusdam uersibus in uno quaterno. II fo. Ostende [PL 171. 993 C]: ibid. 24.
91
Ibid. 109.
92
A. Goldmann, ‘Drei italienische Handschriftenkataloge’, 143 from Bibl. Med.
Laur. Ashburnham 1897 (1800), fo. 13v .
93
F. Dolbeau, ‘Un nouveau catalogue’, 32, no. 264, immediately following Anicii
M(anlii) S(everini) B(oethii) geometrice et arithmetice artis ab editione [ ¼ Euclide]
geometre translatae lib. V; cf. ibid. 225. The last item, no. 347, is Titus Lucretius de
natura rerum. Vol. I.
276 Leofranc Holford-Strevens
102
Payment records in A. Franceschini, Artisti a Ferrara, 189–90, items 428c, f.
103
J. A. A. Janocki, Specimen, 79; cf. Hertz, ed. mai. ii, p. lxxi n. y, who was
informed that it was not amongst the Załuski MSS in St Petersburg; these latter,
having been removed to Warsaw, were destroyed during the Second World War.
104
E. Fumagalli, ‘Appunti’, 174, no. 42: Libro uno in papiro coperto de corio rosso
quale comenza: Plutarchus in libro, and 175, no. 49 Libro uno in papiro de corio rosso
Auli Gelii Noctium Atticarum; from Archivio di Stato di Milano, Potenze Sovrane
1606.
105
The former appears to be the Libro uno in carta [¼ parchment!] coperto de
corio cosso Auli Gelii Noctium Atticarum listed ibid. 173, no. 21 (cf. É. Pellegrin, La
Bibliothe`que, 363); for the latter see above, n. 65.
106
Paris, BNF, ms. lat. 5156a, fo. 136r , ed. M. Faucon, Librairie, ii. 139, item
928. Item 933 (ii. 140) was a collection of excerpts incorporating texts from the
Florilegium Angelicum, including Agelius in libro noctium atticalium; cf. M. A. and
R. H. Rouse, Authentic Witnesses, 187–8.
278 Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Calderini, Giovanni
Canonist (d. 1365); heirs said in 1375 to have totus Agellius.112
Decembrio, Angelo
Aulus Gellius cum optimo greco among books stolen at Rodez in
May 1465 by agents of Jean V, Count of Armagnac.113
Giphanius, Hubertus (c.1535–1604)
Hertz, editio maior, ii, pp. lxxx f. n. {.114
Miani, Pietro
See above, §4.
Puteanus, Claudius
Carrio cites two Puteani; one is G, the other has not been identi-
fied.
111
Lettere, ed. Harth, i. 172, 175, 182, 185, 191, 192–3, 207, 212–13, 78, 104. Cf.
A. Grafton, below, 321.
112
Coluccio Salutati to Benvenuto da Imola, 22 May 1375 (Epistolario, ed.
F. Novati, i. 203).
113
Ch. Samaran, La Maison d’Armagnac, 149–50; C. S. Celenza, ‘Creating
Canons in Fifteenth-Century Ferrara’, 55–6 with references.
114
In this note Hertz is puzzled by Muretus’ statement (Variae lectiones 11. 17)
that ‘in vetere libro Fulvii Vrsini’ insuper habendam (1. 19. 8) is written as one word,
‘cum id neque ex V neque ex Y neque aliunde enotaverim’; reference to the ‘Fulvia-
nus’ in Muretus and Giphanius are to V, but in both MSS the space is suYciently
narrow for one scholar to recognize it and another not. P. de Nolhac’s suggestion,
La Bibliothe`que de Fulvio Orsini, 224 n. 2, of Vat. lat. 3453 is reasonable but
wrong.
280 Leofranc Holford-Strevens
115
Delisle, Cabinet, ii. 530, no. 89: this manuscript was exploited in Thomas of
Ireland, Manipulus Xorum (a.1306; ed. pr. Piacenza, 1483), see Marshall et al.,
‘Clare College MS. 26’, 379–80, 391–2. Richard also owned a Florilegium Ange-
licum, including extracts Tertio decimo, de libro Agellii noctium Atticarum (Delisle,
Cabinet, ii. 529, no. 84).
Recht as een Palmen-Bohm 281
1
Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Rés. Z.627. The colophon reads: Commen-
tarii ad unguem leuigati in Bellouisu [the address of Marchand] pro Iohanne Petit
Wdelissimo impressore.
Gellius in the French Renaissance 283
2
Bodleian C 16.14(1) Linc. Venundantur in edibus Ioannis Parvi sub lilio; the
colophon points out that this is the second French edition of the Beroaldus text.
284 Michael Heath
3
See L. A. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 28 n. 7 [20 n. 5, cf. 241 n. 3, 252].
4
Cf. Gell. pr. 6; on this activity of Ascensius, see Ann Moss, Printed Common-
place-Books, 90–1. The colophon of the 1511 edition of Gellius names Ascensius as
printer.
5
Annotationes doctorum uirorum in grammaticos, oratores, poetas, philosophos,
theologos ac leges (Paris, J. Paruus and J. Badius, 1511); in particular fos. lxviii f.
deal with Atabulus in 2. 22. 25, Cispium in 15. 1. 2, aelurorum in 20. 8. 6, and Aius in
16. 17. 2. In several later passages Beroaldus exploits Gellius to elucidate Roman
customs.
6
The title of the 1518 edition reads: Auli Gellii noctium atticarum libri undeuiginti
(nam octauus desideratur) una cum haud aspernandis Iodoci Badii Ascensii annotatio-
nibus cumque indicio diligentissime collecto atque grecorum explanatione suis locis
inserta. It was printed for Ascensius by Bernard Aubri.
7
Cf. Les Nuits attiques, ed. R. Marache, i, 4 n. 2: ‘elle paraı̂t à peu près certaine,
bien que Mommsen ait proposé uile, Maehly futile, car inutilis a tout naturellement
en latin le sens de nuisible.’
Gellius in the French Renaissance 285
for Gellius in Paris was still relatively high, and at the same time
production resumed in Lyon, with at least a dozen editions pub-
lished by the house of Gryphius between 1532 and 1585. In an odd
display of parochialism, all these editions reproduce the somewhat
outdated text of Ferrettus, without liminary material or list of
chapters, but with some rejected readings Xagged in the margins
and, to serve the hard-pressed scholar, an enormous index nominum
et rerum replacing, says the anonymous editor, the list of chapters,
and supplemented by shorter lists of philosophical, ethical, histor-
ical, and linguistic topics.
Ascensius’ notes and Mosellanus’ commentary continued to
appear in later sixteenth-century Paris editions, until Henri Es-
tienne removed them in 1585. In theory they were to be replaced
in his edition by the notes of Ludovicus Carrio (Louis Carrion, a
scholar of Belgo-Hispanic parentage). However, although Carrio
supplied Estienne with what amounts to the Wrst critical text,11 he
failed to produce the promised commentary, much to Estienne’s
annoyance, and printing began without it. At a late stage some of
Carrio’s Castigationes et notae Wltered through to Estienne and
were printed as an appendix in perhaps one-quarter of the copies.12
It was probably just as well for Parisian paper supplies that the full
version never turned up, since Carrio’s notes break oV at 1. 25. 9,
yet still amount to 120 closely printed pages. Unlike his predeces-
sors, Carrio devotes the great majority of his notes to textual
questions. We are given interesting glimpses of work in progress
as the scholar compares vulgate and manuscript readings, espe-
cially from the membranae Buslidianae, an important source
now lost and for which Carrio is the main authority.13 He fre-
quently sets out all known variants and chooses from among them
for reasons which range from the cogent to the arbitrary. Although
Carrio does also adduce Roman grammarians and poets to
11
Cf. Marache, edn. i, p. lix: ‘le texte de Carrion est un vrai texte critique, fondé
sur la comparaison de plusieurs manuscrits dont le fameux b [Buslidianus], deux
Puteani et divers autres qui appartiennent tous à la classe des recentiores. Il ne
s’eVraie pas de s’écarter de la vulgate des éditions précédentes, ce qui a choqué.
Quant au degré de conWance que Carrion mérite, il est diYcile de le mesurer. Son
texte en tous cas devint le modèle auquel se conformèrent toutes les éditions postér-
ieures jusqu’à Gronove.’ The title of the edition is Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae seu
Vigiliae Atticae quas nunc primum a magno mendorum numero magnus ueterum exem-
plarium numerus repurgauit. It falls into Wve parts, with separate pagination.
12
This unscientiWc estimate is based on the fact that both the British Library and
the Bibliothèque Nationale have four copies of the 1585 edition, of which only one
contains the notes by Carrio (BL 1089 e 1, BN Z12554).
13
See Marache, edn. i, p. l.
Gellius in the French Renaissance 287
2. s c h o l a r s
The dearth of translations indicates that Gellius remained largely
the property of scholars, and of those fortunate undergraduates to
whom the early editions were dedicated. Following Petrarch
and Politianus, among others, French scholars prized the Noctes
15
Cf. Marache, edn. i, pp. lviii f., ii, p. viii, and Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius,
341–2 [241–2].
16
Cf. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 114 n. 79 [79 n. 37], including another
French translation of 1797, in which it was compared favourably with book 1 of
Rousseau’s Émile.
17
Politiques, ou civiles institutions pour bien regir la chose publique, tr. GeoVroy
Tory (Lyon: Guillaume Boulle) (Bodleian, Bywater R. 6. 18), fos. 95r ---99v .
290 Michael Heath
18
M.-M. de La Garanderie, Christianisme et lettres profanes, 57.
Gellius in the French Renaissance 291
26
British Library C. 45. b. 13.
27
Bourbon, Nugae (Paris, 1533), quoted in Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius,
p. vi [viiii].
28
Edition of Cologne: G. Scagen, 1667, 93.
294 Michael Heath
29
Paris: Abel l’Angelier, 1588. Vignier’s historiographical masterpiece, La
Bibliothe`que historiale, was published in 1587.
Gellius in the French Renaissance 295
30
P. Boaistuau, Theatre du monde, fos. 24v ---27v . A particularly Gellian echo can
be heard in this denigration of wetnurses: ‘La nourrice est louche, subjete à ebrieté
ou maladie, ou autrement de mœurs corrompues’ (26r ; cf. Gell. 12. 1. 17).
31
Erreurs populaires, 5. 1. 401–35. References are to the Wrst edition, Avignon,
1578. An English translation by Gregory de Rocher was published in 1989.
296 Michael Heath
32
De la Nourriture et gouvernement des enfans, de`s le commencement de leur
naissance (Paris, 1609). Gellius also supplies material on the composition of breast-
milk (3).
33
Œuvres morales (Paris, 1584), 198–9. Des Caurres cites Gellius quite fre-
quently elsewhere, most extensively on Archelaus’ tower (637; Gell. 15. 1. 6–7);
he also questions his medical lore (197; Gell. 10. 10. 2).
34
Erreurs populaires, 3. 1. 254.
35
Traite´ du ris, 201–9. In this treatise, as can be seen, Joubert adopts an eccentric
form of phonetic spelling. An English translation was published by Gregory de
Rocher in 1980.
36
Pancratiaste: the Grand Robert dates this to 1579, while the Tre´sor de la langue
française cites a work of Guillaume du Choul Wrst published in 1555, but refers to
the edition of 1581.
Gellius in the French Renaissance 297
Aulu Gelle raconte qu’un nommé Diagore randit l’ame devant les yeus et
és mains de ses Wls, ayant trois jouvenceaus, l’un pugil, l’autre pancra-
tiaste, et le dernier luycteur, les voyant tous trois victorieus, et etre cou-
ronnés un maime jour Olympique. (79.)
The list is completed by similarly well-known examples from Val.
Max. 9. 12. Equally predictably, the laughing philosopher Dem-
ocritus Wgures prominently in Joubert’s discussion. He concurs
with Gellius’ view (10. 17. 1) that the philosopher put out his eyes
‘pour mieus s’adonner à la contemplacion, comme dit Aule Gelle’
(9), preferring this to Tertullian’s claim that it was to avoid carnal
temptation.
Given the widespread acknowledgement by scholars of Gellius’
utility and intelligence, it is a shock to come upon Juan Luis
Vives’s brief but remarkably pungent attack on him, to which
Henri Estienne replied vigorously in the edition of 1585. In his
encyclopedic survey of intellectual history, De tradendis disciplinis
(1531; 3. 8), Vives includes Gellius among the philologi, in such
distinguished company as the Augustine of the Ciuitas Dei and the
Erasmus of the Adagia. However, whereas they and such lesser
lights as Macrobius and Caelius Rhodiginus are treated with re-
spect (as Estienne points out, Vives is normally generous, pau-
corum uituperator, multorum laudator), Gellius is subjected to a
vivid attack:
Aulus Gellius, homo rhapsodus plane, congestor potius quam digestor, et
ostentator, quam peritus; loquaculus sine eruditione, in uerbis ac senten-
tiis putidulus; quae de signiWcatu uocum disserit, sunt friuola et plerum-
que imperita ac falsa; legendus est quidem, sed ita ut rem leuem scias
inspicere; sanior est aemulus ejus Petrus Crinitus.37
This is not all. Turning to style, Vives contends that Cicero and
Quintilian are without equal, that Quintus Curtius and Justinus
have merit, but that post hinc periculosa sunt omnia: Gellius duris-
simarum elegantiarum aVectator; Apuleius in Asino plane rudit . . .
Macrobius melius est his, atque explanatior (340).
The pugnacious Henri Estienne gave this judgement more pub-
licity than it perhaps deserved by including in the liminary mater-
ial of his edition a 31-page Auli Gelli Apologia (id est, pro Aulo
Gellio) aduersus Lud. Viuem. As a captatio beneuolentiae, Estienne
himself admits that breaking the silence surrounding Vives’s
judgement may do Gellius a disservice. But the hesitation is
37
Opera omnia, vi. 337; see Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 329 n. 2 [237 n. 2]
for some less disparaging remarks by Vives elsewhere.
298 Michael Heath
3. miscellanists
It was the Wrst of these that impressed compilers of exempla.
Gellius himself commented on the fashion in his own time for
the learned anthology, uariam et miscellam et quasi confusaneam
doctrinam, and on the exquisitissimos titulos these works were
given (pr. 5–6). Renaissance humanists enthusiastically revived
the genre of commentarii or commentationes. Some used the very
titles mentioned by Gellius, such as Siluae (Ascensius, Mexia) and
Antiquae lectiones (Caelius Rhodiginus).38 Appropriately, Gellius
provided material as well as titles and (lack of) form: the antholo-
gist was thoroughly anthologized.
In his attack on Gellius, Vives called the Florentine Petrus
Crinitus his aemulus sanior, and the De honesta disciplina libri xxv
do indeed echo Gellius’ formlessness. Though Wrst published at
Florence in 1504, the book quickly became more familiar in Paris,
where Ascensius published at least four editions between 1508 and
1525, adding a copious index.39 Crinitus considers Gellius a uir
38
See Moss, Printed Commonplace-Books, 17 and 24, also distinguishing between
these miscellanies and commonplace-books proper; on Rhodiginus, see 98–9.
39
References are to Ascensius’ edition of 1525. There was an additional Paris
edition of 1518 by Nicolas Crispin; a series of editions appeared from the Lyon press
of Gryphius from 1543 onwards.
300 Michael Heath
graui consilio in rebus humanis (9. 4, fo. 27r ) and quotes him regu-
larly on Roman customs, such as the wearing of togas (3. 7, fo. 10r )
and Servius Tullius’ ‘three ages of life’ (5. 19, fo. 17r ), though one
of the longest borrowings from Gellius, Favorinus’ diatribe against
the Chaldaeans or astrologers (14. 1), is not attributed to him (8. 9,
fo. 26). Crinitus also proposes several emendations to the text. In a
passage derided by Carrio, he attempts to resolve the controversy
over the size of stadia (Gell. 1. 1. 2) quo inscitiam quorundam atque
ineptias deuitemus (21. 10, fos. 61v ---62r ). Also rejected by later
editors was his attempt to emend scirpus to scrupus in 12. 6. 1,
reproaching nostri fere omnes grammatici for accepting Gellius’
word alone for this sense of the term (9. 13, fo. 29v ). Crinitus
oVers a new Latin version of the Anacreontic ode (19. 9. 6)
whose Greek text, he claims, has been deprauatum by Gellius (9.
4, fo. 27v ).
Crinitus’ observations were well enough known to be picked over
by most French editors of Gellius. However, the most inXuential
early humanist miscellany of French origin was the OYcina of
Joannes Ravisius Textor (Jean Tixier de Ravisy) of Nevers,40
professor of rhetoric at the colle`ge de Navarre and rector of the
university of Paris, for whose fortunate students he provided an-
other short cut to erudition. Though heavily dependent on Raphael
Volaterranus’ Commentarii and Caelius Rhodiginus’ Antiquae le-
ctiones, Ravisius also consulted the original sources and most fre-
quently cites Gellius in catalogues of disaster and disease. Among
the strange deaths lifted almost verbatim from Gellius are those of
the Milesian virgins who committed mass suicide (viiiv ; Gell. 15.
10), of the treasonous Alban Mettus Fufetius, torn apart by char-
iots (xixv ; 20. 1. 54), of Euripides, dismembered by dogs (xxiv ; 15.
20. 9), and of Milo of Croton, trapped in an oak and devoured by
wild beasts (xxiv ; 15. 16. 4). Ravisius’ chapter on death from joy
(XXIX), pillaged by Rabelais in chapter 17 of the Quart Livre,
makes much of the famous quartet in Gell. 3. 15. Among the merely
mutilati appear Croesus’ son, mute until his father stood in mortal
danger (xlvr ; 5. 9. 1–4), the blind Democritus celebrated by Laber-
ius (xlvir ; 10. 17), and the deluded Psylli who took up arms against
the South Wind (xlixv ; 16. 11. 4–7). Compiler rather than commen-
tator, Ravisius was content to register these and other mirabilia
scattered through Gellius’ work, and doubtless fostered the per-
ception that Gellius dealt extensively in lurid anecdote.
40
First edition 1520; references are to the revised edition of 1532; on Textor, see
Moss, Printed Commonplace-Books, 114–15.
Gellius in the French Renaissance 301
41
De rebus humanis uariorum exemplorum liber; references are to the reprint in
Johann Heroldt, Exempla uirtutum et uitiorum (Basel, 1555), 1102–76. The tragedy
is Gabriel Bounin’s La Soltane, published in 1561 and re-edited by M. Heath
(Textes Littéraires; Exeter, 1977); entire limping tirades are based on enumerations
in Fontenay.
42
Cf. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, p. xv [x] on this problem in general: ‘It
would be no easy task to collect even the admitted borrowings, to segregate the false
citations, to recognize unacknowledged and often distorted echoes, to distinguish
direct from indirect quotations.’
302 Michael Heath
43
Boaistuau, Theatre du monde, sig. [a5]r . Montaigne used the same metaphor
of Plutarch: ‘Je ne le puis si peu racointer que je n’en tire cuisse ou aile’ (Essais,
3. 5. 875).
44
References are to the complete six-tome Paris edition, dated 1598 (i, vi) and
1597 (ii–v).
45
Recently published in France as Les Epistres dorees (Lyon, 1558), i. 97–104
(letter dated 25 Aug. 1529).
Gellius in the French Renaissance 303
4. r a b e l a i s a n d t h e cymbalvm mvndi
One of the anthologists’ best customers was François Rabelais. For
an encyclopaedic writer who used taxonomies as both comic and
philosophical ballast, they were a godsend. However, identifying
46
Histoires prodigieuses, ii. 24; some of the same examples in Montaigne, Essais,
1. 21. 98–9.
47
Histoires prodigieuses, v. 120 and 133; Val. Max. 5. 3. ext. 3 and 3. 1. 1.
304 Michael Heath
48
All references are to the Pléiade Œuvres comple`tes, ed. Mireille Huchon (Paris,
1994), in the form book, chapter, page.
49
See Rabelais, Œuvres comple`tes, 1071 n. 4 and 1072 n. 10.
Gellius in the French Renaissance 305
Comme dict Homere que l’enfant (duquel Neptune engroissa la nymphe)
nasquit l’an aprés revolu: ce fut le douziesme mois. Car (comme dict A.
Gelle lib. III.) ce long temps convenoit à la majesté de Neptune, aYn
qu’en icelluy l’enfant feust formé à perfection. (Gargantua, 3. 15)
The fact that Gellius dismisses this and other readings of Odyssey
11. 248 as nugalia (Favorinus provides a plausible explanation at 3.
16. 17), and that the whole chapter is a discussion rather than a
resolution of the question, obviously did not trouble Tiraqueau,
still less Rabelais’s narrator, who is keen to prove that all this
erudition authorizes recent widows to make merry, preferably
with him, and ‘franchement jouer du serrecropiere [closebuttock,
translates Sir Thomas Urquhart] à tous enviz et toutes restes,
deux moys aprés le trespas de leurs maris.’ Even this Rabelaisian
sally may have been suggested by Gellius’ Wrst-hand account of a
widow whose paternity case was personally decided by Hadrian
(3. 16. 12).50
Another episode to which Gellius contributed much is the after-
math of the consultation with the superannuated judge Bridoye.
Bridoye’s bizarre methods of deciding cases remind the sage Panta-
gruel of Gellius’ story of the murderous widow (12. 7). Pantagruel’s
version (Le Tiers Livre, 44. 488–9) expands the tale of the judgment
of Dolabella and the Areopagites on this casus perplexus. Pantagruel
rearranges the opening narrative, restoring chronology but,
surprisingly, cushioning the impact of Gellius’ shockingly direct
exposition (mulier uirum et Wlium eodem tempore . . . interfecerat).
The giant adds psychological depth by exploring the motives of
the murderous stepfather and his son (‘comme vous sçavez que
rare est l’aVection des peratres, vitrices, noverces, et meratres
envers les enfans des defuncts premiers peres et meres’), and
damns them further by expanding Gellius’ simple insidiis into the
triplet ‘occultement, en trahison, de guet à pens’. Furthermore,
the widow avenges their ‘trahison et meschanseté’ by unspeciWed
means, losing Gellius’ suggestion of reciprocal perWdy, uenenis
clam datis (§2). Pantagruel’s more sympathetic presentation of
the woman’s case continues in the trial before Dolabella, rhetoric-
ally balanced in Gellius, but weighted in Rabelais not only by
repetition of their treachery ‘en trahison, de guet à pens’, but also
by his invention of another dastardly motive: ‘non par luy [the
victim] oultragez ne injuriez, seulement par avarice de occuper
le total heritage.’ The Areopagites in Rabelais give a little more
50
For further comments on this chapter see the edition of Gargantua by M. A.
Screech (Geneva, 1970), 32–5.
306 Michael Heath
51
See Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 79–80 [57] and nn., and his article
‘Getting Away with Murder’; [also D. Campanile, ‘Cornelio Dolabella’ for the
historical background. L. A. H.-S.].
52
Orationes duae, 117 and nn. 219, 227. This demonstrates the actuality of this
debate.
Gellius in the French Renaissance 307
53
For the full working of this hypothesis, see Christophe Clavel, ‘Sens et archi-
texture: l’écolier et le géant’, Actes du Colloque de Cerisy-la-Salle, forthcoming. I am
very grateful to M. Clavel for a copy of his paper.
54
Cymbalum mundi, 90–1.
55
A pertinent example: Malcolm Smith identiWed Hylactor as the free-thinking
Estienne Dolet, partly on the grounds that ‘attique’ here recalls Cicero’s famous
friend, and might allude to Dolet’s much-mocked claim to be the new Cicero: ‘A
Sixteenth-Century Anti-Theist’, 603.
308 Michael Heath
5. montaigne
Scattered allusions to Gellius show him playing a minor role in the
revival of learning and letters in the French Renaissance. With
Montaigne something more complex emerges. In the penultimate
chapter of Les Essais, Montaigne is characteristically ironical about
the fashion for anthologies, which belies the humanist enthusiasm
for recourse ad fontes:
Tel allegue Platon et Homere, qui ne les veid onques. Et moy ay prins des
lieux assez ailleurs qu’en leur source. Sans peine et sans suYsance . . .
j’emprunteray presentement s’il me plaist d’une douzaine de tels ravau-
deurs . . . Il ne faut que l’espitre liminaire d’un alemand pour me farcir
d’allegations, et nous allons quester par là une friande gloire, à piper le sot
monde. Ces pastissages de lieux communs, dequoy tant de gents mesna-
gent leur estude, ne servent guere qu’à subjects communs; et servent à
nous montrer non à nous conduire. (3. 12. 1056.)56
Despite this apparently damaging admission of his own indolent
enslavement to the ‘botchers’ (ravaudeurs), in the next and Wnal
chapter Montaigne paradoxically claims emancipation from the
unthinking subservience to classical authority that characterizes
the moral philosophy of his age:
Mais moy, qui ne mescrois non plus la bouche que la main des hommes, et
qui sçay qu’on escript autant indiscretement qu’on parle, et qui estime ce
siecle comme un autre passé, j’allegue aussi volontiers un mien amy que
Aulugele et que Macrobe, et ce que j’ay veu que ce qu’ils ont escrit. (3. 13.
1081.)
This is one of only three references57 to Gellius by name in
the Essais. He and Macrobius doubtless represent the pedlars
of second-hand erudition indispensable to the unscrupulous
Renaissance humanist. While it is true that Montaigne increasingly
56
References to Montaigne are to the one-volume Villey–Saulnier PUF edition
of Les Essais (1965), in the form book, chapter, page.
57
A second is cited in my conclusion. The third was excised from the 1595
edition and thus from modern editions; it occurred in the Apologie de Raymond
Sebond (2. 12. 505 n. 13) and associated Gellius’ judgement on Pyrrho (see 11. 5. 4)
with the similar opinions of Diogenes Laertius and Lucian.
Gellius in the French Renaissance 309
des biens et des maux depend en bonne partie de l’opinion que nous en
avons, the gladiator reappears in a heterogeneous list of those who
fortify themselves against pain, including women in labour, Spar-
tan schoolboys, Mucius Scaevola, and the Senecan philosopher
who laughed at his torturers. ‘Mais c’estoit un philosophe. Quoy?
un gladiateur de Cæsar endura tousjours riant qu’on luy sondat et
detaillat ses playes’ (1. 14. 59). Montaigne has dropped the adjec-
tive ferus and added the excruciating sonder (‘to probe’) to illustrate
his contention that even the humblest and least cerebral are
capable of detachment and self-control—quite the opposite of
Gellius’ point. In Coustume de l’isle de Cea (2. 3. 354), Montaigne
abridges the wordy tale of the suicide of the Milesian virgins but
retains its essential narrative shape; however, to suit his theme of
lethal collective madness (‘humeurs fantastiques’), Montaigne
attributes their behaviour to a ‘conspiration furieuse’, where
Gellius, like Plutarch (De mul. uir. 11, 249 b), had confessed
himself baZed: repente sine ulla euidenti causa (15. 10. 1).
Elsewhere, Montaigne’s taste for the epigrammatic also leads
him to abridge Gellius. In De la praesumption (2. 17. 652) he strips
Gell. 5. 3 to its barest elements, omitting the names and circum-
stances of Democritus and Protagoras to produce a crude general-
ization: ‘On conjectura anciennement à Athenes une aptitude à la
mathematique en celuy à qui on voioit ingenieusement agencer et
fagotter une charge de brossailles.’ He has cleared the way for a
neat antithesis, comically deprecating his own lack of practical
skills: ‘Vrayement on tireroit de moy une bien contraire conclu-
sion: car, qu’on me donne tout l’apprest d’une cuisine, me voilà à la
faim.’ In De l’experience (3. 13. 1106) Montaigne reduces Gell.
13. 11 to a tidy formula: ‘Varro demande cecy au convive: l’assem-
blée de personnes belles de presence et agreables de conversation,
qui ne soyent ny muets ny bavards, netteté et delicatesse aux vivres
et au lieu, et le temps serain.’ Montaigne resists the lure of the
clumsy puns, such as si belli homunculi conlecti sunt, si electus locus,
si tempus lectum, si apparatus non neglectus (13. 11. 3). More of
Varro’s prescriptions for the ideal dinner party are in fact scattered
over the next page or two in Montaigne, but, in this most personal
of all his essays, the Frenchman has largely assimilated his source.
A number of more extensive borrowings from Gellius again
show Montaigne conscientiously adapting his source in a number
of ways: modifying his conclusions, embellishing his dialogue, or
exploiting his portraits of the mighty for satire. Montaigne learned
much about Scipio from Gellius, but tempered the latter’s hero-
worship. De la conscience originally concluded with three anecdotes
312 Michael Heath
64
‘Allons, dit-il, mes citoyens, allons rendre graces aux Dieux de la victoire qu’ils
me donnarent contre les Carthaginois en pareil jour que cettuy-cy’ (2. 5. 368);
Memoria, inquit, Quirites, repeto, diem esse hodiernum quo Hannibalem Poenum
imperio uestro inimicissimum magno proelio uici in terra Africa pacemque et uictoriam
uobis peperi inspectabilem. Non igitur simus aduersum deos ingrati et, censeo, relinqua-
mus nebulonem hunc, eamus hinc protinus Ioui optimo maximo gratulatum (4. 18. 3).
65
Compare: Ibi Scipio exurgit et, prolato e sinu togae libro, rationes in eo scriptas
esse dixit omnis pecuniae omnisque praedae; illatum, ut palam recitaretur et ad aera-
rium deferretur. ‘Sed enim id iam non faciam, inquit, nec me ipse aYciam contumelia,’
eumque librum statim coram discidit suis manibus et concerpsit (4. 18. 9–12); ‘Scipion,
estant venu au Senat pour cet eVect, produisit le livre des raisons [comptes] qu’il
avoit dessoubs sa robbe, et dit que ce livre en contenoit au vray la recepte et la mise;
mais comme on le luy demanda pour le mettre au greVe, il le refusa, disant ne se
vouloir pas faire cette honte à soy mesme; et, de ses mains, en la presence du senat, le
deschira et mit en pieces’ (2. 5. 368).
Gellius in the French Renaissance 313
66
This follows another possible Gellian reminiscence, concerning the Spartan
ephors (Gell. 18. 3. 6), though the source is more likely Plut. De recta rat. aud.
7 (41 b).
314 Michael Heath
75
Cf. M. A. Screech, Montaigne and Melancholy (London, 1983), 55.
76 77
Les Sources, i. 76. ‘Montaigne et Aulu-Gelle’, 17, 15.
Gellius in the French Renaissance 317
Now, since you have openly confessed that you are a fool, why
don’t you give up the study of letters and join your shepherds and
their Xocks, and bring up the oVspring of their sheep and cows?’2
Elsewhere, the singer Ugolino Pisani, known in elegant circles as
‘cercopithicus literatus’, turns up with an elegantly bound copy of
his dialogue De coquinaria confabulatione, in which pots, pans, and
foodstuVs discuss their own use. Tito and his friends make short
work of this premature convert to foodie culture. When Ugolino
praises ‘the very pretty hand of the scriptor’ whom he commis-
sioned to produce the presentation copy of his work, Tito inter-
rupts, gleefully scoring a point about usage: ‘Veh tibi, your Latin
has been corrupted by the vernacular. You said scriptor when you
should have said librarius.’ More important, in the course of a
ruthless interrogation he forces Ugolino to admit that what matters
in a book is not its script, the material it is written on, or its
binding, but its content. At the end of the dialogue, even Ugolino
admits that his dialogue does not belong in Leonello’s select library
in the company of Homer and Seneca. ‘And so’, Decembrio hap-
pily concludes, ‘we passed that day joking.’3
Readers of Gellius will recognize at once that Decembrio took
the Noctes Atticae as his model for these scenes. For Gellius too
was a connoisseur of Schadenfreude, and no subject was dearer to
his large heart than the humiliation of incompetent grammarians.4
2
Decembrio, De politia literaria 5. 58. 1–2, pp. 394–5 Witten: ut Palamedem
praeceptorem, qui bucolica pueris legens—erat enim is ludi magister ludibundus ea
tempestate Ferrariae, ridiculus senex, uti plerunque solent paedagogi assidua puerorum
infestatione desipere—saepe gloriari soleret id opus totum mente sola percurrere, quod
alii forte et quidem doctissimi uiri nescirent. At Leonellus: Quid deinde? Titus: Id cum
saepe in triuiis interque aequales meos scire iactaret diceretque rei fore testimonium, si
uersum unum ei praedicerent undecunque uellent, duos et plures se protinus insequentes
additurum: idque a nemine Weri posse, nisi qui totum opus memoria retineret. Tum ego
forte superueniens: Ecce unum: Vrbem quam dicunt Romam, Meliboee, putaui;
redde tu caeteros! At ille confestim in pedes erectus adiecit: Stultus ego . . . At ego
rursus: Non igitur te stultum esse satis fuerit, nisi te etiam stultum esse sciat alter. Ita
cum te stultum esse plane professus sis, cur non omissis potius litterarum studiis ad
pastores ac uestros greges acceditis, cum quibus ouium foetus et boues educatis? Digna
res omnibus cachinnatione uisa. Witten’s immensely learned edition puts a usable text
and a vast amount of source material at the reader’s disposal. His analysis of the
textual tradition does not quite seem to agree, however, with those put forward in B.
Curran and A. Grafton, ‘A Fifteenth-Century Site Report on the Vatican Obelisk’;
and, with a far richer base of evidence, Daniela Friggè, ‘Redazioni e tradizione’.
3
Decembrio, Politia 5. 60, pp. 397–400 Witten; J. P. Perry, ‘A Fifteenth-
Century Dialogue on Literary Taste’.
4
For this side of Gellius see above all R. A. Kaster, Guardians of Language, 50–1,
53, 57–60, 65. My debt to Kaster and to the classic work of L. A. Holford-Strevens,
Aulus Gellius, will be evident throughout.
320 Anthony Grafton
11
See R. PfeiVer, ‘Küchenlatein’.
12
Battista Guarino, De ordine dicendi et studendi 31, p. 294 Kallendorf: Sed
omnino illud teneant, ut semper ex iis quae legunt conentur excerpere, sibique persua-
deant, quod Plinius dictitare solebat, ‘nullum esse librum tam malum ut non in aliqua
parte prosit’ [cit. Plin. Ep. 3. 5. 10]; translation ibid. 295.
13
Guarino, Epistolario, ep. 679. 129–30, ii. 270 Sabbadini: praesto codicillus erit
qui sicuti minister strenuus et assiduus petita subiciat.
14
A. Moss, Printed Commonplace-Books; A. Blair, The Theater of Nature.
324 Anthony Grafton
complains that the preacher has failed to use the proper loci in
preparing his eulogy. The passion for good method in notebook-
making never waned: Rudolf Agricola and Erasmus both wrote
inXuential sets of instructions for the art, and hundreds practised
what they preached. As late as the end of the sixteenth century, Sir
Philip Sidney still saw the making of accurate, systematic note-
books as the key to the kingdom of good letters:
but that I wish herein, is this [he told his younger brother], that when yow
reade any such thing, yow straite bring it to his heade. not only of what art,
but by your logicall subdivisions, to the next member and parcell of that
art. And so as in a table be it wittie word of which Tacitus is full, sentences,
of which Livy, or similitudes wherof Plutarch, straite to lay it upp in the
right place of his storehouse, as either militarie, or more spetiallie defen-
sive militarie, or more perticularlie, defensive by fortiWcation and so lay it
upp. So likewise in politick matters . . . 15
Through the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, engin-
eers and craftsmen competed to make magniWcent contraptions
designed to facilitate this sort of systematic, comparative note-
book-making (Pl. 12. 1).
Modern historians have searched far and wide for the origins of
these textual practices. Robert Bolgar noted that Byzantine
scholars had combined systematic compilation with the compos-
ition of classical prose, and suggested that Guarino might have
brought his mastery of notebook-making, like his Greek, home to
Italy from Constantinople.16 But another connection may be more
plausible, and is certainly more direct. The preface to the Noctes
Atticae, as we have seen, came back into circulation and became
the object of discussion, with the complete texts of the work, in the
late 1420s and early 1430s—just when the notebook method estab-
lished itself in humanist education. And Gellius exhaustively
described his own practices as a note-taker in the preface: ‘For
whenever I had taken in hand any Greek or Latin book, or had
heard anything worth remembering, I used to jot down whatever
took my fancy, of any and every kind, without any deWnite plan or
order; and such notes I would lay away as an aid to my memory,
like a kind of literary storehouse, so that when the need arose of
a word or a subject which I chanced for the moment to have
forgotten, and the books from which I had taken it were not at
15
Sidney, letter of 15 Oct. 1580 OS, Complete Works, iii. 131–2 Feuillerat. On
this text see E. S. Donno, ‘Old Mouse-Eaten Records’, 284–7, esp. 286–7.
16
See R. R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and its BeneWciaries from the Carolin-
gian Age to the End of the Renaissance (Cambridge, 1954), 87–8, 268–70.
Pl. 12.1. Design for a bookwheel, from Agostino Ramelli, Le diverse et
artificiose machine (Paris, 1588), fig. 188. Photograph used by permission
of Princeton University Library
326 Anthony Grafton
hand, I could readily Wnd and produce it’ (NA pr. 2).17 Gellius
made clear that notebooks could reinforce the normal scholar’s
fallible memory. He even dramatized the literary value of his
notes, since he stated that his Wnished commentarii, the Noctes
Atticae themselves, followed the order of his original notes. Here
he exaggerated, to be sure, but he also struck the imaginations of
his Wfteenth-century readers.
Sicco Polenton, whose pioneering history of Latin literature
reached completion in the late 1430s, revealed exactly how central
a role the preface played in his enthusiastic assessment of the
Noctes Atticae:
A. Gellius made 20 books full of examples and many good things worth
knowing. He had much grace in speaking, and his prowess was such that
thanks to his memory, he either excelled all others, or had few peers, in
this sort of study. His language is polished and smooth, rich in content and
decorous. But unlike others, he did not adopt a Wxed order, but used an
arbitrary one. Unlike Valerius Maximus and Frontinus, he does not place
anything under a Wxed leader and standard, but Wghts on his own. As he
picked up any Greek or Latin book or heard anything worth remembering,
he noted it down, without any deWnite plan or order.18
Polenton thus neatly managed both to praise Gellius’ skills at
compilation and to emulate them at one and the same time. At a
moment when notebook-making had assumed a new and powerful
cultural value, Gellius providentially reappeared in complete
form, as the classical master practitioner of a literary technology
that suddenly mattered a good deal. Pliny, everyone knew, had
made systematic notes: but Gellius showed how the thing was
done. No wonder that Guarino seized upon his work and edited
17
Vsi autem sumus ordine rerum fortuito, quem antea in excerpendo feceramus. Nam
proinde ut librum quemque in manus ceperam seu Graecum seu Latinum uel quid
memoratu dignum audieram, ita quae libitum erat, cuius generis cumque erant, indi-
stincte atque promisce annotabam eaque mihi ad subsidium memoriae quasi quoddam
litterarum penus recondebam, ut quando usus uenisset aut rei aut uerbi, cuius me repens
forte obliuio tenuisset, et libri ex quibus ea sumpseram non adessent, facile inde nobis
inuentu atque depromptu foret.
18
Sicco Polenton, Scriptorum illustrium latinae linguae libri xviii, bk. 8, pp. 221–2
Ullman: Libros uero A. Gellius exemplis ac rebus plurimis scitu bonis plenos XX fecit.
In dicendo quidem multum gratiae habuit atque tantum ualuit quod memoria sua hoc in
genere studii aut omnes excelleret aut paucos sibi adaequandos haberet. Dictio nanque
sua perpolita est atque suauis, rebus grauis et commoda; ordine uero haudquaquam certo,
ut solent caeteri, sed fortuito pro eius arbitrio ac iure usus est. Nihil enim, ut est apud
Valerium Maximum atque Frontinum, certo sub duce ac signis locat sed uagus militat,
quod, perinde ac librum quemquam seu Grecum seu Latinum in manus caperet aut quid
memoratu dignum audiret, indistincte ac promiscue annotaret.
Conflict and Harmony 327
it, or that his son Battista, just before he told his pupils who were
advanced enough to read on their own to make notebooks, urged
that ‘they should make an eVort to read miscellaneous works like
Gellius, Macrobius’ Saturnalia, and Pliny’s Natural History’.19
Erasmus, the author of such best-selling collections of ancient
lore and sayings as the Adagia and the De copia, praised Gellius’
‘commentarii’—a carefully chosen term, and Gellius’ own—in the
former work as exemplary encyclopaedic texts, ‘quibus nihil Weri
potest neque tersius, neque eruditius’.20 At the very least, the
Noctes Atticae provided an ancient model for the new practices of
classical learning. More likely, Gellius served as the chief source
from which Guarino and his contemporaries derived their central
pedagogical technique. Giovanni Andrea Bussi expressed some-
thing of the esteem Gellius enjoyed among the humanists in his
preface to the Wrst printed edition, which appeared in 1469. Bussi
described the Noctes Atticae as uniquely useful: at once encyclo-
paedic in coverage (‘scarcely anything worth knowing can be found
that Gellius does not deal with to some extent’) and uniquely pure
in style (‘others used styles that were their own and idiosyncratic,
but Aulus oVered the perfect model of elegant, pure writing’).21
Bussi also followed earlier humanists when he recommended that
readers work through the preface, which Gellius had curiously put
all the way at the end of his book, with special care, in order to gain
some understanding of his intentions and methods as a writer.22
But Gellius oVered even more than a particularly eVective
device for torturing schoolboys and enabling their elders to escape.
The humanists usually looked backwards in their search for cul-
tural ideals—backwards to Greece and Rome, but also to ancient
Etruria and to the Trecento world of Dante, Petrarch, and Boc-
caccio. Gellius—the friend of Fronto and Herodes Atticus—often
did the same. And Gellius oVered devices that made it far easier for
the humanists to envisage themselves as engaged in a powerful,
even fashionable, pursuit of an ideal past. In the Wrst place, Gellius
19
Battista Guarino, loc. cit. (n. 12): Vbi primum per se studere incipient, operam
dabunt ut eos uideant qui uariis ex rebus compositi sunt, quo in genere est Gellius,
Macrobius Saturnalium, Plinii Naturalis historia . . .
20
Erasmus, Adagia 1. 4. 37, ‘Nihil graculo cum Wdibus’, Adagiorum chilias
prima, Opera omnia, II 1. 437.
21
Bussi, Prefazioni, ed. M. Miglio, 19. Bussi claimed that he printed 275 copies
of Gellius, as many as he did of Caesar, Livy, or Apuleius (ibid. 83).
22
Ibid. 26: Quisquis igitur A. Gelium lecturus es, uir studiose, nostro arbitratu recte
feceris si ante omnia uiri illius Prooemium lectitaris, quod in librorum calce ab eo est
reiectum, ut et tituli rationem discas et scriptionis causam modumque pertingas et quibus
scribendi laborem desumpserit uir clarissimus atque elegantissimus non ignores.
328 Anthony Grafton
23
D. Marsh, The Quattrocento Dialogue.
24
Decembrio 1. 1. 5, p. 146 Witten: Cuius futuram seriem ut breuibus intelligas, seu
ad opus A. Gellii noctium Atticarum seu potius ad Quintiliani institutionem orato-
riam formatus est partium et librorum opportunitate eadem fere seruata.
25
Ibid. 1. 3. 1, p. 148 Witten: Placuit in primis A. Gellio, cuius imaginem et
Quintiliani pariter pollicitus sum his libris imitari, Fauorinum et quosdam paucos ueluti
frequentiores sibi magistros eligere. Mihi quoque in hac politia Leonellum principem
Guarinumque Veronensem et qui cum eis clariores facti disputare consueuerant, deligen-
dos institui.
Conflict and Harmony 329
the language with no help, and ‘can say a good deal in that language
herself, and well enough that everyone understands her, even if
she sometimes stumbles.’32 The text vividly evoked this lost,
Latin-speaking Utopia—a forgotten country of international
understanding and exact scholarship, inspiring to remember if
impossible to recreate in a Europe torn by religious and civil war.
Half a century later, the Gellian model found a diVerent, more
optimistic employment in another war-torn land. Beginning at
Advent in 1641, a group of scholars in Leipzig emulated the
Roman expatriates in Gellius who met on the Saturnalia to discuss
a wide range of festive questions. Every week, these men met
after services on Sunday and discussed ‘matters connected with
philology’. They called themselves the Collegium Gellianum. Later
still, the Hamburg humanists in the circle of J. A. Fabricius learnt
from Gellius and Macrobius how to carry on conversation that was
learned and morally instructive, but not pedantic, in their
‘Teutsch-übende Gesellschaft’.33 The Noctes Atticae, in other
words, not only gave the humanists a way to describe the social
worlds they created, but actually helped to shape these.
These connections make clear that the form—as well as the varied
and erudite content—of the Noctes Atticae played a considerable
role in its appeal. They are also a little sobering. The most vivid
recreations we have of humanist literary life—so it seems—appear
in works Wtted to an existing, classical last. It is all too possible,
then, that they are at least partly Wctional—that they can be used,
like Gellius’ own work, to describe what could have been discussed
in Wfteenth-century Ferrara or Florence, but not what actually was
discussed.
Even as notebook-making became commonplace and modern
compilations began to appear next to the Noctes Atticae on human-
ist bookshelves, Gellius continued to stimulate new forms of liter-
ary and philological writing. The numerous testimonia and
fragments that he cited from older Latin literature soon attracted
attention. Sicco Polenton was no master of the critical method.
Having decided that one Seneca had written the rhetorical and
philosophical works, another the tragedies, he found himself con-
fronted with a problem. Seneca mentioned in the rhetorical works
32
Henri Estienne, letter to Paul Estienne, 12–13. Cf. R. Colie, The Resources of
Kind, and M. J. Heath, above, 288.
33
See R. Häfner, ‘Philologische Festkultur’, for a rich study of both the uses of
Gellius in these erudite late humanist circles and the larger intellectual context
within which Fabricius and his colleagues worked.
332 Anthony Grafton
that he could have heard Cicero speak, had the civil wars not
intervened. Hence he must have been at least 14 years old when
the great orator died in 43 bc. Yet chronicles unanimously set the
death of Seneca the philosopher in ad 65. Unperturbed, Polenton
explained that Seneca must have lived to the modest age of 118.
Yet this same scholar, reading Gellius, saw that he could compile a
new kind of notebook—a historical one—as he did so. On Plautus,
for example, he wrote:
Comoedias tres ipso etiam in pistrino esse ab eo et scriptas et uenditas
M. Terentius Varro, nominis sui cultor, scribit. Annos denique nec
multos ante bellum quod tertium ac ultimum populus Romanus cum
Poenis gessit mortuus est Romae Plautus, P. Claudio et L. Porcio con-
sulibus. Censor tum erat Cato superior. Epigramma uero sibi hoc Plautus
lapidi incidendum fecit: ‘Postquam est morte captus Plautus, Comoedia
luget . . . (53.)34
Here Polenton assembled, like the pieces of a smashed mosaic,
fragments of Varro preserved by Gellius in 3. 3. 14 and 1. 24. 3.
Much of what he said about Ennius came from the same source.
Half a century later, Poliziano and others went much further in the
same direction. Using the Greek text of Euripides’ Medea, Poli-
ziano identiWed a fragment of Ennius’ version of the text in one of
Cicero’s letters. The study of Gellius—who preserved so many
testimonia and fragments, and compared Latin texts with the
Greek originals they adapted—led his modern readers to devise
forms of collection and commentary that would enable them, over
time, to reconstruct substantial portions of Rome’s lost early lit-
erature.
Gellius also helped to spread other tastes. In the 1520s, when
enemies were gathering around Erasmus and criticizing him for
the arrogance of the motto on his seal, ‘Concedo nulli’, he referred
his choice back to what he saw as another sort of Gellian scholar-
ship—the riddling form of Platonic pedagogy so brilliantly
expounded by Edgar Wind in Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance.
A pupil, Alexander Stewart, had given Erasmus an ancient gem
while he was in Italy in 1509. ‘A certain Italian antiquary’ pointed
out that the Wgure on the stone was Terminus. Thanks to Poli-
ziano, every scholar in Erasmus’ generation knew what Terminus
said. For Gellius cited, as an example of an enigma, three iambic
trimeters that he thought very old, and which Varro had discussed:
34
Sicco Polenton, bk. 2, p. 53 Ullman.
Conflict and Harmony 333
Semel minusne an bis minus sit, nescio:
An utrumque eorum, ut quondam audiui dicier,
Ioui ipsi regi noluit concedere.
I know not if he’s minus once or twice,
Or both of these, who would not yield his place,
As I once heard it said, to Jove himself. (12. 6. 2, tr. J. C. Rolfe.)
Poliziano, in the Miscellanea that he modelled on the Noctes Atti-
cae, solved the riddle handily: Terminum signiWcare uidetur, qui
deus concedere Ioui noluit, cum capitolium exaugurabatur. Ouidius
fastorum secundo (36), and even his critics, like Lilio Gregorio
Giraldi, accepted his solution: Angelus Politianus, cuius immaturo
obitu multum nuper amisimus, primus (quod sciam) scrupeas aenig-
matis huius ambages explicauit. Erasmus explained that he had
taken the gift of the stone as an omen of his approaching death
(he was, after all, already 40 years old).35 When he had ‘concedo
nulli’ engraved on his seal, accordingly, he meant only to suggest
that Mors enim uere Terminus est, qui nulli cedere nouit. Even if, as
Edgar Wind argued in a classic article, Erasmus used the chapter
from the Noctes Atticae for protective coloration, Gellius and the
scholars who imitated him certainly became a fashionable source
for similar puzzles.36 In fact, the Noctes Atticae became so syn-
onymous with riddles that some of his Renaissance readers, like
Ludovico Ricchieri (who styled himself Caelius Rhodiginus),
found them where they did not exist. In 2. 3, his chapter on the
letter h, Gellius noted that the inhabitants of Attica had pro-
nounced NŁ as ƒŁ (§2). Ricchieri devoted a whole chapter of
his Lectiones antiquae to arguing, on the basis of an immense range
of sources, that Gellius had referred to a ƒŁf ƒæ, a holy Wsh.37
Petrus Mosellanus, whose commentary on the Noctes Atticae Wrst
appeared in 1526, expressed pity and contempt for his predecessor,
‘who tortures himself in the most extraordinary way on the sacred
Wsh, and compiles a great deal of foreign material about the name
of the sacred Wsh, so that he shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that
he has no idea what Gellius is talking about. I take the passage as a
35
Poliziano, Miscellanea I 36, in Opera, 256; Giraldi, Aenigmata, ‘Aenigma
Termini’, in Opera, ii. 457. 47–9; Erasmus, Ep. 2018. 55, vii. 432 Allen.
36
E. Wind, ‘ ‘‘Aenigma Termini’’ ’, citing all three authors. Erasmus clearly
prized Gellius for his ability, like Erasmus’ own, to Wnd extended and curious senses
in proverbial sayings: see Adagia 1. 4. 37 (Opera omnia, II i. 436): A. Gellius
Noctium Atticarum extrema lucubratione sane quam eleganter hoc adagium [‘Nihil
cum Wdibus graculo’] torquet in quosdam pinguiore ingenio homines stolidaque loqua-
citate praeditos . . .
37
Caelius Rhodiginus, Lectionum antiquarum libri 7. 12 (in later edns. 12. 7).
334 Anthony Grafton
in commentariolo separatim nulla poterant uia seponi quae ad intelligendi operis neces-
sitatem pertinebant. Ne tamen non foret ex nobis etiam testata distinctio . . . rubrica ego
meorum laborum additamenta descripsi semperque uerbum id est anteposui ut et qui
castigatiore ingenio ac auribus in iudicando tersioribus forent et qui eadem trutina non
possent expendere, omnes tamen adiuncta discernerent . . . For the details of Bussi’s
critical work see ibid., pp. xxxviii–xliii. Battista Egnazio described how he later set
the text to rights in the Aldine edition of 1515, sig. R1r , at the start of a section
devoted to Latin translations of Gellius’ Greek quotations: Quoniam in hisce Atticis
noctibus graecae dictiones multae, et uersus, ac loci complures graeci erant: ea omnia
latine seorsum hic subnectenda curauimus: quando Gellius ipse graece tantum citarat:
nec latina fecerat. Consuluimus autem cum ipsi Gellio, quem integrum, impollutumque
esse uoluimus: tum etiam studiosis omnibus: quando et emendati complures loci sunt: qui
uitiati admodum erant.
42
Bussi, Prefazioni, p. 23 Miglio: Si omnia non recte pureque intelleximus ad
aliquam tamen intellectionem patefecimus melioribus uiam.
Conflict and Harmony 337
47
Bacon, Nouum organum 1. 84 (Works, i. 190–1): Rursus uero homines a progressu
in scientiis detinuit et fere incantauit reuerentia antiquitatis . . . Authores uero quod
attinet, summae pusillanimitatis est authoribus inWnita tribuere, authori autem
authorum atque adeo omnis authoritatis, Tempori, ius suum denegare. Recte enim
Veritas Temporis Wlia dicitur, non Authoritatis.
48
See esp. F. Saxl, ‘Veritas Wlia Temporis’.
49
The classic study of F. Yates, Giordano, remains the best analysis of this side of
Renaissance Egyptomania.
50
Francesco Giorgi, De harmonia mundi, canticum III, tonus IV, cap. IX, sig.
[f7]rv : Et quamuis solius Dei sit miracula facere, nihilominus humanum genus auda-
cissimae (ut Zoroastres inquit) naturae opus, et audax omnia perpetrare, fauente
maxime antiquo et ualido serpente, qui se simiam summi OpiWcis semper conatus est
exhibere, multa aggressum est, in quibus homo Dei, et naturae aemulator apparuit.
Archyta Tarentinus (ut fertur) columbam < l >igneam fecit uolitantem per aerem.
Quod et aliqui nostri temporis facere gloriantur.
Conflict and Harmony 339
51
Cf. Lamola’s comment on Archytas’ dove, Vat. lat. 3453, fo. 73v on 10. 12. 9:
Mirum de columba. Lamola probably classed this report with those sceptically
recounted by Gellius, drawing on books of wonders, in 9. 4. On these Lamola
remarks, fo. 64r on §6: Mirabilia quaedam.
52
On Archytas’ political career see K. von Fritz, Pythagorean Politics in South
Italy, 97, and the recent summary of his life by C. Riedweg, ‘Archytas’, with
references to the literature.
53
See the brief but helpful discussion in W. K. C. Guthrie, History, i. 335. For a
more detailed discussion and a full bibliography, see M. Pugliara, ‘La colomba di
Archita’.
54
Henry Cornelius Agrippa, De occulta philosophia libri tres, bk. 2, ch. 1,
pp. 249–50: Leguntur etiam statuae Mercurii quae loquebantur et columba Architae
quae lignea uolabat . . . On the importance of these stories in the 16th c. see O. Mayr,
‘Automatenlegenden in der Spätrenaissance’; J. P. Zetterberg, ‘The Mistaking’;
P. Zambelli, ‘Cornelius Agrippa’; Minsoo Kang, ‘Wonders of Mathematical Magic’.
Pl. 12.2. Design for a model of Archytas and his dove, from Athanasius
Kircher, Magnes: siue de arte mechanica opus tripartitum, 3rd edn. (Rome,
1654), p. 264, fig. 23. Photograph used by permission of Princeton
University Library
Conflict and Harmony 341
55
For a general introduction to the world of Kircher and Schott, see I. Rowland,
Ecstatic Journey, and D. Stolzenberg (ed.), The Great Art of Knowing. For their
mechanical principles and devices see Gaspar Schott, Technica curiosa.
56
For the dove see Kircher, Magnes, bk. 2, pt. 4, ch. 1, probl. 10, pp. 263–5. On
Kircher’s sunXower clock see T. Hankins and R. Silverman, Instruments and the
Imagination.
57
G. Schott, Mechanica hydraulico-pneumatica, pars II, classis I, caput III,
machina X, p. 243: Duo tam prodigiosi uolatus principia indicat Gellius: inclusum
aerem, et partium libramentum. Vt tamen utrumque conferre, ita neutrum suYcere,
optime obseruarunt Mechanici; neque enim sola aeris densatione, sed impulsu ualido
folles lusorii agitantur in sublime: nec ullum partium aequilibrium innatae contranititur
grauitati, ne quod pondere praeualet, deprimatur deorsum, nedum ut sursum eleuetur.
Aliquid igitur ulterius requiritur, quod hactenus inexplicatum ab Authoribus fuisse
plerique dolent et conqueruntur.
342 Anthony Grafton
PRIMARY SOURCES
The texts and translations listed below are those cited by at least
one contributor; they are not necessarily the best, latest, or stand-
ard resources.
(i) Aulus Gellius
Untitled editio princeps by Jo. Andreas de Buxis (Rome, 1469).
Auli Gellii Noctium Atticarum commentarii, ed. Ph. Beroaldus (Bologna,
1503).
Auli Gellii linguae et graecae et latinae fulgentissimi syderis, noctium atti-
carum libri xx, ed. Jod. Bad. Ascensius (Paris, 1508).
Accipite studiosi omnes Auli Gellii noctes micantissimas, ed. Nicolaus Fer-
rettus (Venice, 1509).
Auli Gellii uiri disertissimi Noctium Atticarum libri XX, ed. Joannes Con-
nellus (Paris, 1511; repr. Lyon, 1512).
Auli Gellii noctes redditae nuper omni discussa caligine micantissimae, ed.
Carolus Aldobrandus (Florence, 1514 [1513 stil. Flor.]).
Auli Gellii Noctium Atticarum libri undeuiginti, ed. J. B. Egnatius (Venice,
1515).
Auli Gellii Noctium Atticarum libri undeuiginti, ed. Jod. Badius Ascensius
(Paris, 1517, and subsequent revisions, the last by Michael Vascosanus,
1536).
A. Gellii luculentissimi scriptoris Noctes Atticae, ed. Joannes Soter (Col-
ogne, 1526, 2 1533).
Auli Gellii luculentissimi scriptoris Noctes Atticae, pr. Sebastianus Gry-
phius (Lyon, 1532 and subsequent edns.).
Auli Gellii Noctes Aticae, pr. Georgius de Caballis (Venice, 1565).
Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae, seu Vigiliae Atticae, ed. Ludovicus Carrio
(Paris, 1585).
Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae, ed. Joannes Tornaesius (Lyon, 1592).
Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae, ed. J. Fr. Gronovius (Amsterdam, 1651).
Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae, ed. J. Fr. Gronovius (Leiden, 1687).
Les Nuits Attiques d’Aulugelle, trans. F. J. I. (Donzé-)Verteuil, 3 vols.
(Paris, 1776–7).
Avla Gellija AWnskix nočej zapiski, trans. Afanasij Ivanov (Moscow, 1787).
Aulus Gellius: Die attischen Nächte, trans. Fritz Weiss, 2 vols. (Leipzig,
1875–6; repr. Darmstadt, 1992).
344 Bibliography
A. Gellii Noctium Atticarum libri XX, ed. M. J. Hertz, 2 vols. (Berlin,
1883–5).
A. Gellii Noctium Atticarum libri XX, ed. C. Hosius, 2 vols. (Berlin,
1903).
Aulu-Gelle: Les Nuits attiques, trans. Maurice Mignon, 3 vols. (Paris,
1934).
The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius, ed. and trans. John C. Rolfe, 3 vols.
(Loeb Classical Library; New York and London, 1927; rev. Cambridge,
MA, and London, 1946).
Aulus Gellius: Nopt, ile atice, trans. David Popescu (Bucharest, 1965), with
‘Introducere’ by Iancu Fischer, pp. vii–lxxx.
Aulu-Gelle: Les Nuits attiques, ed. René Marache (vols. i–iii), Yvette
Julien (vol. iv), 4 vols. (Budé; Paris, 1967–98).
A. Gellii Noctes Atticae, ed. P. K. Marshall, 2 vols. (Oxford Classical
Texts; Oxford, 1968, rev. 1990).
Aulo Gellio: Le notti attiche, ed. Franco Cavazza, 8 vols. so far (Bologna,
1985– ).
Aulus Gellius: Attische Nächte. Aus einem Lesebuch des Kaisers Marc Aurel,
trans. Heinz Berthold (Leipzig, 1987).
Le notti attiche di Aulo Gellio, ed. Giorgio Bernardi Perini, 2 vols. (Turin,
1992, rev. 1996).
Aulo Gelio: Noches áticas, trans. Amparo Gaos Schmidt, 2 vols. so far
(Mexico City, 2000– ).
SECONDARY SOURCES
Adams, J. N., Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge, 2003).
—— ‘An Epigram of Ausonius (87, p. 344 Peiper)’, Latomus, 42 (1983),
95–109.
—— ‘The Latin of the Vindolanda Writing Tablets: An Interim Report’,
JRS 85 (1995), 86–134.
—— ‘ ‘‘Romanitas’’ and the Latin Language’, CQ2 53 (2003), 184–205.
—— Janse, Mark, and Swain, Simon (eds.), Bilingualism in Ancient
Society: Language Contact and the Written Text (Oxford, 2002).
[Adda, Giovanni d’], Indagini storiche, artistiche e bibliograWche sulla
libreria visconteo-sforzesca del Castello di Pavia compilate ed illustrate
con documenti inediti per cura di un biblioWlo (Milan, 1875).
Aistermann, Josef, De M. Valerio Probo Berytio capita quattuor: accedit
reliquiarum collectio (Bonn, 1910).
Aitzetmüller, Rudolf, ‘Lateinisch -lentus und andere -nt-Bildungen’,
Die Sprache, 3 (1957), 131–4.
Alinei, Mario, Origini delle lingue d’Europa, i: La Teoria della Conti-
nuità; ii: Continuità dal Mesolitico all’età del Ferro nelle principali aree
etnolinguistiche (Bologna, 1996–2000).
Ameling, W., Herodes Atticus, 2 vols. (Hildesheim, 1983).
Anderson, Graham, ‘Athenaeus: The Sophistic Environment’, ANRW
II 34. 3 (1997), 2173–85.
—— ‘Aulus Gellius: A Miscellanist and his World’, ANRW II 34. 2
(1994), 1834–62.
—— Lucian: Theme and Variation in the Second Sophistic (Leiden, 1976).
—— Philostratus: Biography and Belles Lettres in the Third Century a.d.
(London, Sydney, and Dover, NH, 1986).
Andersson-Schmitt, Margarete, Hallberg, Håkan, and
Hedlund, Monica, Mittelalterliche Handschriften der Universitätsbi-
bliothek Uppsala: Katalog über [sic, cf. Swedish katalog över] die
C-Sammlung, 7 vols. (Stockholm and Uppsala, 1988–95).
André, Jean-Marie, ‘Le de Otio de Fronton et les loisirs de Marc-
Aurèle’, REL 49 (1971), 228–61.
—— L’Otium dans la vie morale et intellectuelle romaine (Paris, 1966).
Anstey, Henry, Munimenta academica (Rolls Series; London, 1868).
AntolÍn, Guillermo, Catálogo de los códices latinos de la Real Biblioteca
del Escorial, 5 vols. (Madrid, 1910–23).
Bibliography 351
Astarita, Maria Laura, La cultura nelle ‘Noctes Atticae’ (Catania,
1993).
—— ‘Un evoluzione nei recenti studi su Aulo Gellio’, Bolletino di studi
latini, 25 (1995), 172–88.
Babbitt, Irving, Literature and the American College: Essays in Defense
of the Humanities (Cambridge, MA, 1908), 1–31.
Bader, Françoise, ‘Apophonie et recomposition dans les composés’,
RPh3 34 (1960), 236–47.
—— La Formation des compose´s nominaux du latin (Paris, 1962).
—— ‘Vocalisme et redoublement au parfait radical en latin’, BSL 63
(1968), 160–96.
Baehrens, W. A., Sprachlicher Kommentar zur vulgärlateinischen
Appendix Probi (Halle, 1922).
Baldwin, Barry, Studies in Aulus Gellius (Lawrence, KS, 1975).
Baratin, Marc, La Naissance de la syntaxe à Rome (Paris, 1989).
Barnes, T. D., Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (rev. edn.,
Oxford, 1985).
Baron, Hans, ‘Aulus Gellius in the Renaissance: His InXuence and a
Manuscript from the School of Guarino’, in id., From Petrarch to
Leonardo Bruni: Studies in Humanistic and Political Literature (Chicago,
1968), 196–217 (Wrst published in SPh 48 (1951), 107–25, 49 (1952),
248–50).
Bartelink, G. J. M., Hieronymus: Liber de optimo genere interpretandi
(Epistula 57). Ein Kommentar (Mnemosyne Suppl. 61; Leiden, 1980).
Baxandall, Michael, ‘A Dialogue on Art from the Court of Leonello
d’Este: Angelo Decembrio’s De Politia Litteraria Pars LXVIII’, JWI
26 (1963), 304–26.
Beall, Stephen M., ‘Aulus Gellius 17.8: Composition and the Gentle-
man Scholar’, CPh 94 (1999), 55–64.
—— ‘Civilis eruditio: Style and Content in the Attic Nights of Aulus
Gellius’ (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1988).
—— ‘Homo fandi dulcissimus: The Role of Favorinus in the Attic Nights of
Aulus Gellius’, AJPh 122 (2001), 87–106.
—— ‘Translation in Aulus Gellius’, CQ2 47 (1997), 215–26.
Beck, J. W., ‘Studia Gelliana et Pliniana’, JbClPh. Supplbd:2 19. 1–55
(Leipzig 1893).
—— Sulpicius Apollinaris (Progr. van het Gymnasium te Groningen,
Groningen, 1884).
Becker, Gustav Heinrich, Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui (Bonn,
1885).
Becker, Henrik, Zwei Sprachanschlüsse (Leipzig and Berlin, 1948).
Benhabib, Seyla, Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmod-
ernism in Contemporary Ethics (Cambridge, 1992).
Bent, Margaret, ‘New and Little-Known Fragments of English Medi-
eval Polyphony’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 21
(1968), 137–56.
352 Bibliography
Benveniste, Émile, Origines de la formation des noms en indo-europe´en
(Paris, 1935, repr. 1948).
Berlin, Isaiah, The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of
History (London, 1992).
Bernard, Edward, Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Angliae et Hiber-
niae, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1697).
Bernhard, Max, Der Stil des Apuleius von Madaura: Ein Beitrag zur
Stilistik des Spätlateins (Stuttgart, 1927; repr. Amsterdam, 1965).
Berthold, Heinz, Aulus Gellius: Aufgliederung und Auswahl seiner The-
men (diss. Leipzig, 1959).
—— ‘Aulus Gellius. Seine Bedeutung als Vermittler antiker Bildungs-
und Kulturtraditionen’, WZ Halle-Wittenberg, 39 (1980), 45–50.
—— ‘Interpretationsprobleme im Miszellanwerk des Aulus Gellius’, WZ
Rostock, 34 (1985), 12–15.
Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa, Inventário dos Códices Alcobacenses, 5 parts
(Lisbon, 1930–2) plus index volume (Lisbon, 1978).
Binder, Vera, ‘Vir elegantissimi eloquii et multae undecumque scientiae —
Das Selbstverständnis des Aulus Gellius zwischen Fachwissen und
Allgemeinbildung’, in Marietta Horster and Christiane Reitz (eds.),
Antike Fachschriftsteller: Literarischer Diskurs und sozialer Kontext
(Palingenesia, 80; Stuttgart, 2003), 105–20.
Biondi, Albano, ‘Angelo Decembrio e la cultura del principe’, in Giu-
seppe Papagno and Amedeo Quondam (eds.), La corte e lo spazio:
Ferrara estense, 3 vols. (Rome, 1982), ii. 637–57.
Birley, Anthony R. Marcus Aurelius2 (London, 1987).
Blair, Ann, The Theater of Nature: Jean Bodin and Renaissance Science
(Princeton, 1997).
Bled, O., ‘Une bibliothèque de chanoine au xve siècle’ (Extrait de la 128e
livraison du Bulletin historique de la Société des Antiquaires de la Mori-
nie; Saint-Omer, 1884).
Bloomer, W. Martin, Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New
Nobility (London, 1992).
Boissier, Gaston, Étude sur la vie et les ouvrages de M. T. Varron (Paris,
1861).
Bolgar, R. R., The Classical Heritage and its BeneWciaries from the Caro-
lingian Age to the End of the Renaissance (Cambridge, 1954).
Bömer, Franz, ‘Der Commentarius: zur Vorgeschichte und literarischen
Form der Schriften Caesars’, Hermes, 81 (1953), 210–50.
Bompaire, Jacques, Lucien e´crivain: imitation et cre´ation (Paris, 1958).
Bona, Ferdinando, Contributo allo studio della composizione del
‘De verborum signiWcatu’ di Verrio Flacco (Collana della Fondazione
G. Castelli, 34; Milan, 1964).
Bonner, S. F., Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the
Younger Pliny (Berkeley, 1977).
Borsa, Mario, ‘Correspondence of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester
and Pier Candido Decembrio’, English Historical Review, 19 (1904),
509–26.
Bibliography 353
Borst, Arno, Der karolingische Reichskalender und seine Überlieferung bis
ins 12. Jahrhundert, 3 vols. (MGH Libri memoriales II/1–3; Hanover,
2001).
Bottiglioni, Gino, Manuale dei dialetti italici (Bologna, 1954).
Bougerol, J. G., Les Manuscrits franciscains de la Bibliothèque de Troyes
(Spicilegium Bonaventurianum, 23; Grottaferrata, 1982).
Bouteron, Marcel, and Tremblot, Jean Camille, Bibliothèque de
l’lnstitut: ancien et nouveau fonds (Paris, 1928).
Bowersock, G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1969).
Bowie, Ewen, ‘Hadrian, Favorinus, and Plutarch’, in J. Mossman (ed.),
Plutarch and his Intellectual World, 1–15.
Bradley, K. R., Suetonius’ Life of Nero: An Historical Commentary
(Collection Latomus, 157; Brussels, 1978).
Branca, Vittore, Poliziano e l’umanesimo della parola (Turin, 1983).
Braund, David, ‘Learning, Luxury and Empire: Athenaeus’ Roman
Patron’, in id. and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World, 3–22.
—— and Wilkins, John (eds.), Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek
Culture in the Roman World (Exeter, 2000).
Briquel, Dominique, ‘La conception du latin comme langue mixte chez
Varron’, in C. Moussy (ed.), De lingua Latina nouae quaestiones, 1033–43.
—— De asse et partibus eius (Paris, 1514).
Bulhart, Vinzenz, ‘Neutrum absolutum und der InWnitiv auf -urum’,
WS 70 (1957), 78–83.
Callahan, Virginia Woods, ‘Andrea Alciato’s Palm Tree Emblem:
A Humanist Document’, Emblematica, 6 (1992), 219–35.
Calvi, Felice, Famiglie notabili milanesi, ii (Milan, 1881).
Cameron, Alan, The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes
(Oxford, 1993).
Campanelli, Maurizio, Polemiche e Wlologia ai primordi della stampa: Le
Observationes di Domizio Calderini (Rome, 2001).
Campanile, Domitilla, ‘Cornelio Dolabella, la donna di Smirne e
l’Areopago (Val. Max. 8, 1, amb., 2)’, RAL9 15 (2004), 155–75.
Carilli, Maria, ‘ArtiWciosità ed espressività negli hapax di Laberio’,
SRIL 3 (1980), 19–33.
Carlson, David R., ‘The Writings of Bernard André (c.1450–c.1522)’,
Renaissance Studies, 12 (1998), 229–50.
Carter, C. J., ‘Valerius Maximus’, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Empire and
Aftermath (London, 1975), 26–56.
Cavazza, Franco, ‘Appunti sul sintagma ‘‘minime malus’’ e su altre
analoghe litoti indicanti ‘‘l’ingenuità’’, ‘‘l’insipienza’’, ‘‘la stupidità’’’,
Orpheus2 , 15 (1994), 119–53.
—— ‘Come si forma la lingua. ChiariWcazioni sulla declinatio varroniana’,
in P. Serra Zanetti (ed.), In verbis verum amare (Miscellanea dell’Istituto
di Filologia Latina e Medioevale, Università di Bologna; Bologna,
1980), 135–42.
—— ‘Due note sulla terminologia tecnica etimologico-grammaticale di
Varrone’, GIF 12 (33) (1981), 209–19.
354 Bibliography
Cavazza, Franco, ‘L’etimologia classica: ‘‘Lautveränderungen’’ e
‘‘grammatica nova’’’, Maia, 36 (1984), 21–35.
—— ‘Gellio e i canoni (varroniani?) della Latinitas’, in Pierangiolo Ber-
rettoni and Franco Lorenzi (eds.), Grammatica e ideologia nella storia
della linguistica (Perugia, 1997), 85–151.
—— ‘Gellio grammatico e i suoi rapporti con l’ars grammatica romana’,
HL 13/2–3 (1986), 259–79; repr. in D. J. Taylor (ed.), The History of
Linguistics in the Classical Period (Amsterdam and Philadephia, 1987),
85–105.
—— ‘Gli aggettivi in -ĭ-tĭmus ed il rapporto fra aedituus ed aeditumus, I’,
Latomus, 54 (1995), 577–91.
—— Lezioni di indoeuropeistica con particolare riguardo alle lingue classiche
(sanscrito, greco, latino, gotico) (Pisa, 2001– ).
—— Studio su Varrone etimologo e grammatico (Università di Bologna,
Pubblicazione della Facoltà di Magistero2 , 7; Florence, 1981).
—— ‘Un ‘‘nuovo Gellio’’: il problema di una nuova edizione e la que-
stione dei codices recentiores (e dei Xorilegia)’, Maia, 51 (1999), 47–88;
addendum, Maia, 56 (2004), 105–10.
Celenza, Christopher, ‘Creating Canons in Fifteenth-Century Fer-
rara: Angelo Decembrio’s De politia litteraria, 1.10’, RenQ 57 (2004),
43–98.
Champlin, Edward, Fronto and Antonine Rome (Cambridge, MA,
1980).
Chantraine, Pierre, Dictionnaire e´tymologique de la langue grecque, 5
vols. (Paris, 1968–80).
Chassant, Louis-Alphonse, Dictionnaire des abréviations latines et fran-
çaises usite´es dans les inscriptions lapidaires et me´talliques, les manuscrits et
les chartes du moyen âge, 5th edn. (Paris, 1884).
Coleman, Robert, ‘Quintilian 1. 6 and the DeWnition of Latinitas’, in C.
Moussy (ed.), De lingua Latina nouae quaestiones, 917–30.
Coler, Christopher, Parergorum liber singularis (Nuremberg, 1597).
Colie, Rosalie L., The Resources of Kind: Genre-Theory in the Renais-
sance (Berkeley, 1973).
Collart, Jean, Varron grammairien latin (Paris, 1954).
Cousin, Jean, ‘Problèmes biographiques et littéraires relatifs à Quinti-
lien’, REL 9 (1931), 62–76.
Culler, Jonathan, Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and
the Study of Literature (London, 1975).
Cupaiuolo, Teresa, La teoria della derivazione della lingua latina dal-
l’eolico (Palermo, 1925).
Curran, Brian, and Grafton, Anthony, ‘A Fifteenth-Century Site
Report on the Vatican Obelisk’, JWI 58 (1995), 234–8.
D’Agostino, Vittorio, ‘Aulo Gellio e le ‘‘Notti Attiche’’ ’, RSC 5
(1957), 26–34.
Dahlmann, Hellfried, ‘Der römische Gelehrte’, Das humanistische
Gymnasium, 42 (1931), 185–92; repr. in id., Kleine Schriften (Hildes-
heim, 1970), 1–8.
Bibliography 355
—— Ein Gedicht des Apuleius? (Gellius 19, 11) (Akademie der Wis-
senschaften und der Literatur, Mainz: Abhandlungen der Geistes-
und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 8; Wiesbaden, 1979).
Dalmasso, Lorenzo, ‘Aulo Gellio lessicografo’, RFIC 51 (1923),
195–216, 468–84.
Davidson, James, ‘Pleasure and Pedantry in Athenaeus’, in D. Braund
and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World, 292–303.
Deichgräber, Karl, ‘Überlegungen zu den Gedichten und Gedichtbü-
chern der Neoteriker’, Hermes, 99 (1971), 46–70.
Deiter, Heinrich, ‘Ein Tusculanen-codex der universitätsbibliothek zu
Leiden aus dem 12. jahrhundert’, Philologus, 42 (1884), 171–3.
Delisle, L. V., Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque impe´riale/
nationale, 3 vols. (Paris, 1868–81).
—— Inventaire des manuscrits de la BN, fonds de Cluni (Paris, 1884).
Della Corte, Francesco, Svetonio, eques romanus2 (Florence, 1967).
Del Vecchio, Luciana, and Fiore, A(nna) Maria, ‘Fabula in satura:
osservazioni su alcuni frammenti delle Satire di Ennio’, InvLuc 20
(1998), 59–72.
Desbordes, Françoise, ‘Latinitas: constitution et évolution d’un modèle
d’identité linguistique’, in S. Saı̈d (ed.), ¯ºº Ø, 33–47.
Di Bacco, Giuliano, and Nádas, John, ‘The Papal Chapels and Italian
Sources of Polyphony during the Great Schism’, in Richard Sherr (ed.),
Papal Music and Musicians in Medieval and Renaissance Rome (Oxford,
1998), 44–92.
Dickey, Eleanor, Latin Forms of Address from Plautus to Apuleius
(Oxford, 2002).
Dihle, Albrecht, Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire,
trans. Manfred Malzahn (London, 1994).
Diller, Hans, ‘Die Hellenen-Barbaren-Antithese im Zeitalter der Per-
serkriege’, in Fondation Hardt, Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique, viii:
Grecs et barbares (Vandœuvres-Geneva, 1962), 37–82; repr. in Kleine
Schriften zur antiken Literatur, ed. H.-J. Newiger and Hans SeyVert
(Munich, 1971), 419–50.
Dionisotti, Carlo, ‘Calderini, Poliziano e altri’, IMU 11 (1968),
151–79.
Dirksen, H. E., ‘Die Auszüge aus den Schriften der römischen Rechtsge-
lehrten in den Noctes Atticae des A. Gellius’, Abhandlungen der Königli-
chen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philologische und historische
Abtheilung, 1851, 29–77; repr. in Hinterlassene Schriften zur Kritik und
Auslegung der Quellen römischer Rechtgeschichte und Alterthumskunde, ed.
F. D. Sanio, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1871, repr. Frankfurt, 1973), i. 21–63.
Dolbeau, François, ‘Un nouveau catalogue des manuscrits de Lobbes
aux xie et xiie siècles’, Recherches augustiniennes, 13 (1978), 3–36; 14
(1979), 191–248.
Donno, Elizabeth Story, ‘Old Mouse-Eaten Records: History in Sid-
ney’s Apology’, Studies in Philology, 72 (1975), 275–98.
D’Ors, Álvaro, ‘ØŒØ
— pittaciarium’, Aegyptus, 31 (1951) 339–43.
356 Bibliography
Dowden, Ken, ‘The Roman Audience of the Golden Ass’, in James
Tatum (ed.), The Search for the Ancient Novel (Baltimore and London,
1994), 419–34.
Dubuisson, Michel, ‘Art de voltige et ‘‘code-switching’’ (Apulée, Me´ta-
morphoses I, 1, 5–6)’, Latomus, 59 (2000), 607–13.
—— ‘Graecus, Graeculus, Graecari: l’emploi péjoratif du nom des Grecs
en latin’, in S. Saı̈d (ed.), ¯ºº Ø, 315–35.
—— ‘Le latin est-il une langue barbare?’, Ktèma, 9 (1984), 55–68.
—— ‘Vtraque lingua’, AC 50 (1981), 274–86.
Dumont, J.-C. ‘Plaute, Barbare et heureux de l’être’, Ktèma, 9 (1984),
69–77.
Earl, Donald, ‘Prologue-Form in Ancient Historiography’, ANRW I 2
(1972), 842–56.
Eck, Werner, ‘P. Aelius Apollonides, ab epistulis graecis, und ein Brief
des Cornelius Fronto’, ZPE 91 (1992), 236–42.
—— ‘M. Cornelius Fronto, Lehrer Marc Aurels, consul suVectus im
J. 142’, RhM 2 141 (1998), 193–6.
Elias, Norbert, The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic
Investigations, trans. Edmund Jephcott, rev. edn. (Oxford and Malden,
MA, 2000).
—— The Court Society, trans. Edmund Jephcott (New York, 1983).
Ernout, Alfred, Les Adjectifs latins en -ōsus et en -ulentus (Paris, 1949).
—— ‘Les éléments étrusques du vocabulaire latin’, BSL 30 (1930),
82–124.
—— Morphologie historique du latin3 (Paris, 1953).
—— and Meillet, Antoine, Dictionnaire e´tymologique de la langue
latine4 (Paris, 1967).
Euw, Anton von, and Plotzek, Joachim M., Die Handschriften der
Sammlung Ludwig, 4 vols. (Cologne, 1979–85).
Faider, Paul, ‘Auli Gellii Noctium Atticarum praefatio’, Muse´e belge, 3
(1927), 189–216.
Falster, Christian, ‘Specimen Emendationum in A. Gellii Lib. I, II,
III, & IIII. Edit. Gronov. 1706 in 4’, in J. G. Krause (ed.), Noua
Litteraria anni M DCC XXI (Leipzig, 1721), 138–43.
Famerie, Étienne, Le Latin et le grec d’Appien (Geneva, 1998).
Fanna, Fidelis a, Ratio novae collectionis operum omnium . . . S. Bona-
venturae proxime in lucem edendae (Turin, 1874).
Faucon, Maurice, La Librairie des papes d’Avignon, 2 vols. (Paris,
1886–7).
Flobert, Pierre, ‘Lingua Latina et Lingua Romana: purisme, adminis-
tration et Invasions Barbares’, Ktèma, 13 (1988), 205–12.
Fögen, Thorsten, Patrii sermonis egestas: Einstellungen lateinischer
Autoren zu ihrer Muttersprache (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, 150;
Munich and Leipzig, 2000).
Foot, Philippa, Natural Goodness (Oxford, 2001).
Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, iii: The Care of the Self,
trans. Robert Hurley (London, 1988).
Bibliography 357
Fowler, Alastair, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of
Genres and Modes (Cambridge, MA, 1982).
Franceschini, Adriano, Artisti a Ferrara in età umanistica e rina-
scimentale: testimonianze archivistiche. Parte I dal 1346 al 1471 (Ferrara,
1993).
Fredouille, J.-C., et al. (eds.), Titres et articulations du texte dans les
œuvres antiques: actes du Colloque International de Chantilly 13–15
de´cembre 1994 (Paris, 1997).
Friderici, Robertus, De librorum antiquorum capitum divisione atque
summariis: accedit de Catonis de agricultura libro disputatio (diss. Mar-
burg, 1911).
Friggè, Daniela, ‘Redazioni e tradizione della ‘‘Politia litteraria’’ di
Angelo Decembrio’, IMU 37 (1994), 27–65.
Fritz, Kurt von, Pythagorean Politics in South Italy: An Analysis of the
Sources (New York, 1940).
Fruyt, Michèle, ‘Métaphore, métonymie et synecdoque dans le lexique
latin’, Glotta, 67 (1989), 106–22.
—— Proble`mes me´thodologiques de de´rivation à propos des suYxes latin
en ...cus (Paris, 1986).
Fuhrmann, Manfred, Das systematische Lehrbuch: Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der Wissenschaften in der Antike (Göttingen, 1960).
Fumagalli, Edoardo, ‘Appunti sulla biblioteca dei Visconti e degli
Sforza’, Studi petrarcheschi, ns 7 (1990), 93–211.
Gabba, Emilio, ‘Il latino come dialetto greco’, in AA. VV., Miscellanea di
studi alessandrini in memoria di Augusto Rostagni (Turin, 1963), 188–94.
Gaide, Françoise, ‘Les dérivés synchroniques dénominaux collectifs en
latin. Quelques éléments pour une étude synchronique et diachronique’,
RPh3 63 (1989), 221–8.
Gamberale, Leopoldo, ‘Note sulla tradizione di Gellio’, RFIC 103
(1975), 33–55.
—— La traduzione in Gellio (Rome, 1969).
Gaos Schmidt, Amparo, ‘El plan rector de las Noches áticas’, Nova
Tellus, 17 (1999), 109–24.
Garcea, Alessandro, ‘César et l’alphabet: un fragment du De analogia
(fr. 4 p. 148 Funaioli ¼ 5 p. 179 s. Klotz)’, Histoire e´piste´mologie langage,
24/2 (2002), 147–64.
—— ‘Gellio e la dialettica’, MAT 24 (2000), 53–204.
—— ‘Gellio, il bilinguismo greco-latino e i nomi dei colori’, in R. Oniga
(ed.), Il plurilinguismo nella tradizione letteraria latina (Rome, 2003),
173–98.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope, ‘Code-Switching in Relation to
Language Contact and Convergence’, in Georges Lüdi (ed.), Devenir
bilingue — parler bilingue: actes du 2e colloque sur le bilinguisme, Université
de Neuchâtel, 20–22 septembre 1984 (Tübingen, 1987), 99–111.
Gautier Dalché, Patrick, ‘Deux lectures et un commentaire de Jean
Scot: Censorinus, Aulu-Gelle (livres I et III) et Bède le Vénérable’,
RHT 21 (1991), 115–33.
358 Bibliography
Gebhardus, Janus, Antiquarum lectionum libri duo (Herborn, 1618).
Georgiev, V. I., Introduction to the History of the Indo-European
Languages3 (SoWa, 1981).
Gernet, Louis, ‘Notes de lexicologie juridique’, Annuaire de l’Institut
de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves, 5 ¼ Mélanges Émile Boisacq
(Brussels, 1937), 391–8.
Giomini, RaVaele, ‘Il grammatico Filosseno e la derivazione del latino
dall’eolico’, PP 8 (1953), 365–76.
Girgensohn, Dieter, ‘Il testamento di Pietro Miani (‘‘Emilianus’’)
vescovo di Vicenza ({1433)’, Archivio veneto, 5th ser. 167 (1989), 5–59.
Gleason, M. W., Making Men: Sophists and Self-Representation in An-
cient Rome (Princeton, 1995).
Goldmann, Artur, ‘Drei italienische Handschiftenkataloge s.
XIII–XV’, Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, 4 (1887), 137–55.
Gombrich, Ernst H., ‘From the Revival of Letters to the Reform of the
Arts: Niccolò Niccoli and Filippo Brunelleschi’, in Douglas Fraser,
Howard Hibbard, and Milton J. Levine (eds.), Essays Presented to
Rudolf Wittkower on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ii: Essays in the History
of Art (London, 1967), 71–82.
Gottlieb, Theodor, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Österreichs, i:
Niederösterreich (Vienna, 1915; repr. Aalen, 1974).
Gradenwitz, Otto, Laterculi vocum Latinarum (Leipzig, 1904; repr.
Hildesheim, 1966).
Grafton, Anthony, Commerce with the Classics (Ann Arbor, 1997).
Green, Peter, ‘Strepsiades, Socrates and the Abuses of Intellectualism’,
GRBS 20 (1979), 15–25.
Grilli, Alberto, ‘Sul nome dei Galli Cenomani’, Maia, 37 (1985),
245–7.
Grillnberger, P. Otto, ‘Die Handschriften der Stiftsbibliothek zu
Wilhering’, in Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Cistercienser-Stifte,
2 vols. (Xenia Bernardina, Pars II; Vienna, 1891), ii. 1–114.
Guillemin, Anne-Marie, Pline et la vie litte´raire de son temps (Paris,
1929).
Gumbert, J. P., ‘Wanneer werkte C?’, in G. N. M. Vis (ed.), Egmond
tussen Kerk en wereld (Hilversum, 1993), 183–91.
Gundermann, Gotthold, ‘Gubernius. Gubernus’, ALL 7 (1892), 587–8.
Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy, 6 vols. (Cambridge,
1962–81).
Gutiérrez, David, ‘La Biblioteca di San Giovanni a Carbonara di
Napoli’, Analecta Augustiniana, 29 (1966), 59–212.
Gutzwiller, Kathryn J., Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Con-
text (Berkeley, 1998).
Hadot, Pierre, The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius,
trans. Michael Chase (Cambridge, MA, 1998).
—— What is Ancient Philosophy?, trans. Michael Chase (Cambridge, MA,
2002).
Bibliography 359
Häfner, Ralph, ‘Philologische Festkultur in Hamburg im ersten Drittel
des 18. Jahrhunderts: Fabricius, Brockes, Telemann’, in id. (ed.),
Philologie und Erkenntnis: Beiträge zu BegriV und Problem frühneuzeit-
licher ‘Philologie’ (Frühe Neuzeit, 61; Tübingen, 2001), 349–78.
Hagedorn, Dieter, and Weber, M., ‘Die griechisch-koptische Rezen-
sion der Menandersentenzen’, ZPE 3 (1968), 15–50.
Hägg, Tomas, The Novel in Antiquity (Oxford, 1983).
Halfmann, Helmut, Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium
Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jh. n. Chr. (Göttingen, 1979).
—— ‘Die Senatoren aus den kleinasiatischen Provinzen des römischen
Reiches vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert (Asia, Pontus-Bithynia, Lycia-Pam-
phylia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Cilicia)’, in Atti del Colloquio Internazio-
nale AIEG su epigraWa e ordine senatorio, Roma, 14–20 maggio 1981
(Tituli, 4–5; Rome, 1982), ii. 603–50.
Hamel, Christopher de, and Nolden, Reiner, ‘Die neuerworbene
Beda-Handschrift aus St. Maximin’, in Karolingische Handschrif-
ten — Beda-Handschriften und -Frühdrucke (exhibition catalogue,
Trier, 1990), 14–28.
Hamp, E. P., ‘Latin arr(h)a’, Glotta, 63 (1985), 109.
Hankins, Thomas L., and Silverman, Robert J., Instruments and the
Imagination (Princeton, 1995).
Hansen, William F., Ancient Greek Popular Literature (Bloomington,
IN, 1998).
—— Ariadne’s Thread: A Guide to International Tales Found in Classical
Literature (Ithaca, NY, 2002).
Harrison, S. J., Apuleius: A Latin Sophist (Oxford, 2000).
—— ‘Apuleius Eroticus: Anth. Lat. 712 Riese’, Hermes, 120 (1992),
83–9.
—— ‘The Milesian Tales and the Roman Novel’, Groningen Colloquia on
the Novel, 9 (1998), 61–73.
—— (ed.), Oxford Readings in the Roman Novel (Oxford, 1999).
Henkel, Arthur, and Schöne, Albrecht, Emblemata: Handbuch zur
Sinnbildkunst des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1967; Son-
derausgabe 1978).
Henriksson, Karl-Eerik, Griechische Büchertitel in der römischen Lite-
ratur (Helsinki, 1956).
Heraeus, Wilhelm, ‘Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen’, in
Kleine Schriften von Wilhelm Heraeus zum 75. Geburtstag am 4. Dezem-
ber 1937, ed. J. B. Hofmann (Indogermanische Bibliothek, dritte Reihe,
Untersuchungen, 17; Heidelberg, 1937), 52–150 (superseding Wrst pub-
lication in Programm des Gymnasiums und der Realschule zu OVenbach a.
M., Leipzig, 1899).
Hijmans, B. L., jr., ‘Apuleius orator: ‘‘Pro se de Magia’’ and ‘‘Florida’’ ’,
ANRW II 34. 2 (1994), 1708–84.
Hirzel, Rudolf, Der Dialog: Ein literarhistorischer Versuch, 2 vols.
(Leipzig, 1895).
Holford-Strevens, L. A., ‘Analecta Gelliana’, CQ2 43 (1993), 292–7.
360 Bibliography
Holford-Strevens, L. A.,‘ ‘‘And by the bitter taste disclose the ground’’
(Gell. I 21 on Verg. Georg. II 246f.)’, Eikasmos, 11 (2000), 309–34.
—— ‘An Antonine Littérateur: The Case of Aulus Gellius’, in Überset-
zung, Translation, Traduction, i (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kom-
munikationswissenschaft, forthcoming).
—— Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement (Oxford,
2003) [1st edn. Aulus Gellius (London, 1988)].
—— ‘Aulus Gellius: The Non-Visual Portraitist’, in M. J. Edwards and
S. Swain (eds.), Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and
Latin Literature of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1997), 93–116.
—— ‘Fact and Fiction in Aulus Gellius’, LCM 7 (1982), 65–8.
—— ‘Favorinus: The Man of Paradoxes’, in Jonathan Barnes and Miriam
GriYn (eds.), Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome
(Oxford, 1997), 188–217.
—— ‘Gellius among the Friars Minor’, LCM 18.8 (Oct. 1993), 126–7.
—— ‘Getting away with Murder: The Literary and Forensic Fortune of
Two Roman Exempla’, IJCT 7 (2000–1), 484–514.
—— ‘Vtraque lingua doctus: Some Notes on Bilingualism in the Roman
Empire’, in H. D. Jocelyn (ed.), Tria Lustria: Essays and Notes Pre-
sented to John Pinsent (Liverpool, 1993), 203–13.
Honoré, Tony, Ulpian: Pioneer of Human Rights (Oxford, 2002).
Horsfall, Nicholas, ‘Doctus sermones utriusque linguae?’, EMC 23
(1979), 79–95.
—— ‘ ‘‘Generic Composition’’ and Petronius’ Satyricon’, SCI 11 (1991/
2), 123–38.
Hout, M. P. J. van den, A Commentary on the Letters of M. Cornelius
Fronto (Mnemosyne, Supp. 190; Leiden, 1999).
Humphries, K. W., The Friars’ Libraries (Corpus of British Medieval
Library Catalogues, 1; London, 1990).
Ioppolo, Anna Maria, ‘The Academic Position of Favorinus of Are-
late’, Phronesis, 38 (1993), 183–213.
Irigoin, Jean, ‘Titres, sous-titres et sommaires dans les œuvres des
historiens grecs du 1er siècle avant J.-C. au ve siècle après J.-C.’, in
J.-C. Fredouille et al. (eds.), Titres et articulations du texte, 127–34.
Isager, Jacob, Pliny on Art and Society: The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the
History of Art (Odense, 1991).
Jacob, Christian, ‘Athenaeus the Librarian’, in D. Braund and J. Wilk-
ins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World, 85–110.
Jaffé, Philipp, Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum, 6 vols. (Berlin, 1864–73).
James, Montague Rhodes, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and
Dover (Cambridge, 1903).
—— The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cam-
bridge, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1900–4).
Janocki, J. A. A., Specimen Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae
Zaluscianae (Dresden, 1752).
Janson, Tore, Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions
(Stockholm, 1964).
Bibliography 361
Jones, C. P., Culture and Society in Lucian (Cambridge, MA, 1986).
—— ‘The Panhellenion’, Chiron, 26 (1996), 29–56.
—— Plutarch and Rome (Oxford, 1971).
Jones, R. E., ‘Cicero’s Accuracy of Characterization in his Dialogues’,
AJPh 60 (1939), 307–23.
Julien, Yvette, ‘Fronton: Histoire d’Arion. Du mythe à l’aVaire judi-
ciaire’, in Au miroir de la culture antique: Mélanges oVerts au pre´sident
René Marache (Rennes, 1992), 323–38.
Junghanns, Paul, Die Erzählungstechnik von Apuleius’ Metamorphosen
und ihrer Vorlage (Philologus Suppl. 24/1; Leipzig, 1932).
Kahane, Ahuvia, and Laird, Andrew (eds.), A Companion to the Pro-
logue of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Oxford, 2001).
Kaimio, Jorma, The Romans and the Greek Language (Helsinki, 1979).
Kang, Minsoo, ‘Wonders of Mathematical Magic: Lists of Automata in
the Transition from Magic to Science, 1533–1662’, Comitatus, 33
(2002), 113–39.
Kaster, Robert A., Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Soci-
ety in Late Antiquity (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 11;
Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1998).
—— ‘ ‘‘Humanitas’’ and Roman Education’, SStor 9 (1986), 5–15.
Kenney, E. J., ‘In the Mill with Slaves: Lucius Looks Back in Gratitude’,
TAPhA 133 (2003), 159–92.
Kent, J. H., Corinth VIII.3. The Inscriptions 1926–1950 (Princeton, 1966).
Keulen, W. H., ‘Comic Invention and Superstitious Frenzy in Apuleius’
Metamorphoses: The Figure of Socrates as an Icon of Satirical Self-
Exposure’, AJPh 124 (2003), 107–35.
—— ‘Lucius’ Kinship Diplomacy: Plutarchan ReXections in an Apuleian
Character’, in Lukas de Blois et al. (eds.), Plutarch’s InXuence on Ancient
and Modern Art and Literature: Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference of the International Plutarch Society, Nijmegen/Hernen,
May 1–5, 2002 (Leiden, 2004), 261–73.
—— ‘Swordplay—Wordplay: Phraseology of Fiction in Apuleius’ Meta-
morphoses’, in S. Panayotakis, M. Zimmerman, and W. H. Keulen
(eds.), The Ancient Novel and Beyond (Leiden, 2003), 161–70.
Kleyn, H. G., ‘De catalogus der boeken van de abdij te Egmond’, Archief
voor Nederlandsche kerkgeschiedenis, 2 (1887), 127–70.
Knobloch, Johann, ‘Talabarriunculus — der kleine Schreihals’, RhM 2
136 (1993), 191–2.
König, Jason, ‘Favorinus’ Corinthian Oration in its Corinthian Context’,
PCPhS 47 (2001), 141–71.
Konstan, David, Friendship in the Classical World (Cambridge, 1997).
Kotula, Tadeusz, ‘Vtraque lingua eruditi. Une page relative à l’histoire
de l’éducation dans l’Afrique romaine’, in Jacqueline Bibauw (ed.),
Hommages à Marcel Renard, 3 vols. (Collection Latomus, 101–3; Brus-
sels, 1969), ii. 386–92.
Köves-Zulauf, Thomas, ‘Plinius d. Ä. und die römische Religion’,
ANRW II 16. 1 (1978), 187–288.
362 Bibliography
Koziol, Heinrich, Der Stil des L. Apuleius (Vienna, 1872).
Kramer, Johannes, Die Sprachbezeichnungen Latinus und Romanus im
Lateinischen und Romanischen (Berlin, 1998).
Kretzschmer, Julius, De A. Gellii fontibus. Part. I. De auctoribus A.
Gellii grammaticis (Posen [Poznań], 1860).
Kristeller, Paul Oskar, Iter Italicum: accedunt alia itinera, 6 vols.
(Leiden, 1963–92; index vol. Leiden, 1997).
La Garanderie, Marie-Madeleine de, Christianisme et lettres profanes:
essai sur l’humanisme français et sur la pensée de Guillaume Budé (Paris,
1995).
Lachmann, Karl, In T. Lucretii Cari De rerum natura libros commenta-
rius (Berlin, 1850; 2 1855, repr. New York and London, 1979).
Lagercrantz, Otto, ‘Lateinische Worterklärungen’, KZ 37 (2 17)
(1904), 177–89.
Lakmann, Marie-Luise, ‘Favorinus von Arelate: Aulus Gellius über
seinen Lehrer’, in Beate Czapla et al. (eds.), Vir bonus dicendi peritus:
Festschrift für Alfons Weische zum 65. Geburstag (Wiesbaden, 1997),
233–43.
Lamberton, Robert, Homer the Theologian (Berkeley, 1986).
Lampen, Willibrord, ‘De boekenlijst der oude Abdij van Egmond’, in
A. Beekman (ed.), Tien eeuwen Egmond (Heemstede, 1950), 77–95.
—— ‘Catalogus librorum abbatiae Sancti Adalberti Egmondanae’, Anto-
nianum, 17 (1942), 29–72.
Langlois, Pierre, ‘Les formations en -bundus: index et commentaire’,
REL 39 (1961), 117–34.
Lebek, W. D., Verba Prisca: Die Anfänge des Archaisierens in der latei-
nischen Beredsamkeit und Geschichtsschreibung (Hypomnemata, 25; Göt-
tingen, 1970).
Leedham-Green, Elisabeth, and McKitterick, David, ‘A Catalogue
of Cambridge University Library in 1583’, in James P. Carley and Colin
G. Tite (eds.), Books and Collectors 1200–1700: Essays Presented to
Andrew Watson (The British Library Studies in the History of the
Book; London, 1977), 153–235.
Lejeune, Michel, ‘Discussions étymologiques’, REA 63 (1961), 433–8.
Lenel, Otto, Palingenesia iuris civilis, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1889, repr. Graz,
1960).
Leònij, Lorenzo, Inventario dei codici della Comunale di Todi (Todi,
1878).
Leumann, Manu, ‘Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre 1955–1962’,
Glotta, 42 (1964), 69–120.
—— ‘Zum lat. InWn. fut. akt. auf -turum esse’, MSS 31 (1973), 129–31.
Levine, Philip, ‘Cicero and the Literary Dialogue’, CJ 53 (1958),
146–51.
Lévy, Edmond, ‘Naissance du concept de barbare’, Kte´ma, 9 (1984),
5–14.
Lindsay, W. M., Nonius Marcellus’ Dictionary of Republican Latin
(Oxford, 1901).
Bibliography 363
Lippi, Donatella, ‘Magalia, magaria, mapalia (Verg., Aen. IV 259)’,
Prometheus, 10 (1984), 241–2.
Lipsius, Justus, Epistolicae quaestiones (Antwerp, 1577).
Ljungerud, Ivar, ‘Ehren-Rettung M. Simonis Dachii’, Euphorion, 61
(1967), 36–84.
Lomanto, Valeria, ‘Cesare e la teoria dell’eloquenza’, MAT 18–19
(1994–5), 3–127.
—— ‘Il sistema del sermo Latinus in Quintiliano’, in Giorgio Bàrberi
Squarotti et al. (eds.), Voce di molte acque: miscellanea di studi oVerti a
Eugenio Corsini (Turin, 1994), 237–56.
Lucas, H., ‘Zu den Milesiaca des Aristides’, Philologus, 66 (1907), 16–35.
Lühr, F.-F., ‘Res inauditae, incredulae: Aspekte lateinischer Unterhal-
tungsliteratur bei Petronius, Plinius dem Jüngeren und Gellius’, Der
altsprachliche Unterricht, 19 (1976), 5–19.
Lukinovich, Alessandra, ‘The Play of ReXections between Literary
Form and the Sympotic Theme in the Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus’, in
O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion (Oxford,
1990), 263–71.
Luzzatto, Maria Jagoda, ‘Note su Aviano e sulle raccolte esopiche
greco-latine’, Prometheus, 10 (1984), 75–94.
Lyons, John D., Exemplum: The Rhetoric of Example in Early Modern
France and Italy (Princeton, 1989).
MacIntyre, Alasdair, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry:
Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition (London and Notre Dame,
IN, 1990).
Magnien, Michel, ‘Anacréon, Ronsard et J.-C. Scaliger’, in Robert
Aulotte et al. (eds.), Mélanges sur la litte´rature de la Renaissance à la
me´moire de V.-L. Saulnier (Geneva, 1984), 399–410.
Magnien-Simonin, Catherine, ‘Montaigne et Aulu-Gelle’, Bulletin de
la Socie´te´ des Amis de Montaigne7 , 41–2 (1995), 7–23.
Maltby, Robert, A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies (Leeds, 1991).
Manitius, Karl, Handschriften antiker Autoren in mittelalterlichen Bi-
bliothekskatalogen (Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen, Beiheft 67;
Leipzig, 1935).
Manitius, Maximilian, ‘Gellius bei Vinzenz von Beauvais’, Philologus,
51 (1892), 189–91.
—— ‘Philologisches aus alten Bibliothekskatalogen (bis 1300)’, RhM 2 47
(1892), suppl. 72–3.
Manzoni, G. E., ‘Elvio Cinna, sodale cenomano’, in P. V. Cova et al.
(eds.), Letteratura dell’Italia settentrionale: cinque studi (Milan, 1992),
17–59.
Marache, René, La Critique littéraire de langue latine et le développement
du goût archaı¨sant au IIe siècle de notre ère (Rennes, 1952).
—— ‘La mise en scène des Nuits attiques: Aulu-Gelle et la diatribe’,
Pallas, 1 (1953), 84–95.
—— Mots nouveaux et mots archaı̈ques chez Fronton et Aulu-Gelle (Paris,
1957).
364 Bibliography
Mare, A. C. de la, Marshall, P. K., and Rouse, Richard H., ‘Pietro
da Montagnana and the Text of Aulus Gellius’, Scriptorium, 30 (1976),
219–25.
Maréchal, A., ‘A propos de la préface des Nuits Attiques’, RPh2 55 (3 3)
(1929), 288–93.
Marrier, Martin, Bibliotheca Cluniacensis (Paris, 1614).
Marrou, Henri-Irénée, A History of Education in Antiquity3 , trans.
George Lamb (London, 1956).
Marsh, David, The Quattrocento Dialogue: Classical Tradition and Hu-
manist Innovation (Cambridge, MA, 1980).
Marshall, P. K., ‘Aulus Gellius’, in L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and
Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983), 176–80.
—— ‘Four Lexicographical Notes on Gellius’, Mnemosyne4 , 15 (1962),
272–4.
—— Martin, Janet, and Rouse, Richard H., ‘Clare College MS. 26
and the Circulation of Aulus Gellius 1–7 in Medieval England and
France’, Mediaeval Studies, 42 (1980), 353–94.
Marstrander, Carl, ‘Les noms de déesses latin Morta, gaulois Ro-
smerta’, SO 6 (1928), 52–4.
Martin, Henry, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothe`que de l’Arsenal,
9 vols. (Paris, 1885–99).
Martin, Josef, Symposion: Die Geschichte einer literarischen Form
(Paderborn, 1931).
Maselli, Giorgio, Lingua e scuola in Gellio grammatico (Lecce, 1979).
Maslakov, G., ‘The Roman Antiquarian Tradition in Late Antiquity’, in
Brian Croke and Alanna M. Emmett (eds.), History and Historians in
Late Antiquity (Sydney, 1983), 100–6.
Mason, H. J., ‘The Distinction of Lucius in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses’,
Phoenix, 37 (1983), 135–43.
—— ‘Fabula graecanica: Apuleius and his Greek Sources’, in B. L. Hij-
mans and R. Th. van der Paardt (eds.), Aspects of Apuleius’ Golden Ass
(Groningen, 1978), 1–15; repr. in S. J. Harrison (ed.), Oxford Readings,
217–36.
—— ‘The Metamorphoses of Apuleius and its Greek Sources’, in Heinz
Hofmann (ed.), Latin Fiction: The Latin Novel in Context (London,
1999), 103–12.
Mayr, Otto, ‘Automatenlegenden in der Spätrenaissance’, Technik-
geschichte, 41 (1974), 20–32.
Meeks, Wayne A., The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two
Centuries (New Haven, 1993).
Méhat, André, Études sur les ‘Stromates’ de Cle´ment d’Alexandrie (Paris,
1966).
Mensching, Eckart, Favorin von Arelate, Memorabilien und Omnigena
Historia (Berlin, 1963).
Mercer, R. G. G., The Teaching of Gasparino Barzizza, with Special
Reference to his Place in Paduan Humanism (MHRA Texts and Disser-
tations, 10; London, 1979).
Bibliography 365
Mercklin, Ludwig, ‘Die Citiermethode und Quellenbenutzung des A.
Gellius in den Noctes Atticae’, JbClPh, Supplbd. 3 (Leipzig, 1860),
635–710 (also issued separately).
Metzger, Fritz, ‘Latin uxor’, AJPh 65 (1944), 170–1.
Meyer, Gustav, and Burckhardt, Max, Die mittelalterlichen Hand-
schriften der Universität Basel, Beschreibendes Verzeichnis: Abteilung B,
Theologische Pergamenthandschriften, 3 vols. (Basle, 1960–75).
Michel, Alain, ‘Rhétorique et philosophie au second siècle ap. J.-C.’,
ANRW II 34. 1 (Berlin, 1993), 3–78.
Milazzo, Andrea, Àulo Gèllio, sua gente, sua terra natale, data della
nascita e della morte (Palermo, 1938); repr. in Atti del V Congresso di
Studi Romani, 5 vols. (Rome, 1939–46), v. 254–64.
Miller, J. F., ‘Callimachus and the Augustan Aetiological Elegy’,
ANRW II 30. 1 (1982), 371–417.
MöllendorV, P. von, Auf der Suche nach der verlogenen Wahrheit:
Lukians Wahre Geschichten (Classica Monacensia, 21; Tübingen,
2000).
Momigliano, A. D., ‘Ancient History and the Antiquarian’, JWI 13
(1950), 285–315; repr. in id., Contributo alla storia degli studi classici
(Rome, 1955), 67–106.
Mommsen, Theodor, Abriß des ro¨mischen Staatsrechts (Leipzig, 1907).
—— Römisches Staatsrecht3 , 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1887–8).
Monceaux, Paul, Les Africains: étude sur la litte´rature latine d’Afrique.
Les Paı¨ens (Paris, 1894).
Morgan, Teresa, ‘Assessment in Roman Education’, Assessment in Edu-
cation, 8 (2001), 11–24.
—— Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge,
1998).
Mosellanus, Petrus, Annotationes in Auli Gellii Noctes Atticas (Basel,
1526, and subsequent edns.).
Moss, Ann, Printed Commonplace-Books and the Structuring of Renais-
sance Thought (Oxford, 1996).
Mossman, Judith, ‘Plutarch’s Dinner of the Seven Wise Men and its Place
in Symposion Literature’, in ead. (ed.), Plutarch and his Intellectual
World, 119–40.
—— (ed.), Plutarch and his Intellectual World (London, 1997).
Mougeon, Raymond, and Beniak, Édouard, Linguistic Consequences of
Language Contact and Restriction: The Case of French in Ontario,
Canada (Oxford, 1991).
Moussy, Claude (ed.), De lingua Latina nouae quaestiones: actes du X e
Colloque international de linguistique latine (Leuven, Paris, and Sterling,
VA, 2001).
Müller, Roman, Sprachbewußtsein und Sprachvariation im lateinischen
Schrifttum der Antike (Zetemata, 111; Munich, 2001).
Munk Olsen, Birger, L’Étude des auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et
XII e sie`cles, 3 vols. (Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes,
Documents, études et répertoires; Paris, 1982–9).
366 Bibliography
Mutschmann, Hermann, ‘Inhaltsangabe und Kapitelüberschrift im
antiken Buch’, Hermes, 46 (1911), 93–107.
Nascimento, Aires Augusto, ‘Poggio e o seu interesse por códices de
Alcobaça’, Revista da Faculdade de Letras, Universidade de Lisboa5 ,
13–14 (1990), 37–40.
—— ‘La réception des auteurs classiques dans l’espace culturel portugais:
une question ouverte’, in Claudio Leonardi and Birger Munk Olsen
(eds.), The Classical Tradition in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance
(Spoleto, 1995), 47–56.
Nettleship, Henry, ‘The Noctes Atticae of Aulus Gellius’, AJPh 4
(1883), 391–415; repr. in id., Lectures and Essays on Subjects Connected
with Latin Literature and Scholarship (Oxford, 1885), 248–76.
Nichols, E. W., ‘The Semantics of the Termination -ario-’, AJPh 50
(1929), 40–63.
Niedermann, Max, Phonétique historique du latin4 (Paris, 1985).
Nolhac, Pierre de, La Bibliothèque de Fulvio Orsini (Paris, 1887).
—— ‘Le catalogue de la première bibliothèque de Pétrarque à Vaucluse’,
Revue des bibliothèques, 16 (1906), 341–3.
Norden, Eduard, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis
in die Zeit der Renaissance3 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1915).
O’Brien Moore, Ainsworth, Senatus, RE Suppl. vi (1935), 660–800.
Ohl, Raymond, ‘A Literateur in the Age of the Antonines’, Classical
Weekly, 20 (1927), 99–105.
Onions, J. H., ‘Notes on Gellius’, Journal of Philology, 11 (1882), 77–9.
Opsomer, Jan, ‘Favorinus versus Epictetus on the Philosophical Heritage
of Plutarch: A Debate on Epistemology’, in J. Mossman (ed.), Plutarch
and his Intellectual World, 17–39.
Otto, August, Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der
Römer (Leipzig, 1890).
Paardt, R. Th. van der, ‘The Unmasked ‘‘I’’: Apuleius’ Metamorphoses
XI.27’, Mnemosyne4 , 34 (1981), 96–106; repr. in S. J. Harrison (ed.),
Oxford Readings, 237–46.
Packer, J. E., The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A Study of the Monuments in
Brief (Berkeley, 2001).
Pariente, Ángel, ‘Sobre los compuestos nominales latinos con preWjo de
valor intensivo’, Emerita, 47 (1979), 113–48.
Pascucci, Giovanni, ‘Le componenti linguistiche del latino secondo la
dottrina varroniana’, in AA. VV., Studi su Varrone, sulla retorica, sto-
riograWa e poesia latina: Scritti in onore di Benedetto Riposati (Rieti,
1979), ii. 339–63.
Pellegrin, Élisabeth, La Bibliothe`que des Visconti et des Sforza (Paris,
1955).
—— La Bibliothe`que des Visconti et des Sforza, Supplément (Paris,
1969).
—— ‘Manuscrits d’auteurs latins de l’époque classique conservés dans les
bibliothèques publiques de Suède’, Bulletin d’information de l’Institut de
Recherche et d’histoire des textes, 4 (1955), 7–33.
Bibliography 367
—— et al., Les Manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothe`que Vaticane, 3
vols. so far (Paris, 1975– ).
Pennacini, Adriano, La funzione dell’arcaismo e del neologismo nelle
teorie della prosa da CorniWcio a Frontone (Turin, 1974).
Penwill, J. L., ‘Ambages reciprocae: Reviewing Apuleius’ Metamor-
phoses’, Ramus, 19 (1990), 1–25.
Perrot, Jean, Les Dérivés latins en -men et -mentum (Paris, 1961).
Perry, B. E., The Ancient Romances: A Literary-Historical Account of
Their Origins (Sather Classical Lectures, 37; Berkeley and Los Angeles,
1967).
Perry, Jon Pearson, ‘A Fifteenth-Century Dialogue on Literary Taste:
Angelo Decembrio’s Account of Playwright Ugolino Pisani at the Court
of Leonello d’Este’, RenQ 39 (1986), 613–43.
Peter, Hermann, Die geschichtliche Litteratur über die römische Kaiserzeit
bis Theodosius I. und ihre Quellen (Leipzig, 1897).
Petitmengin, Pierre, ‘Capitula paı̈ens et chrétiens’, in J.-C. Fredouille
et al. (eds.), Titres et articulations du texte, 491–507.
Petrochilos, Nicholas, Roman Attitudes to the Greeks (Athens, 1974).
Petzholdt, Julius, ‘Bibliothekskatalog des Bamberger Domkapitels aus
dem XIII. Jahrhundert’, Neuer Anzeiger für Bibliographie und Biblio-
thekswissenschaft, 1877, 276–7.
Pfeiffer, Rudolf, History of Classical Scholarship, i: From the Beginnings
to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford, 1968).
—— History of Classical Scholarship, ii: From 1300 to 1850 (Oxford,
1976).
—— ‘Küchenlatein’, Philologus, 86 (1931), 455–9; repr. in id., Ausge-
wählte Schriften, ed. Winfried Bühler (Munich, 1960), 183–7.
Pfohl, Gerhard (ed.), Griechische Inschriften als Zeugnisse des privaten
und öVentlichen Lebens (Munich, 1965).
Pianezzola, Emilio, Gli aggettivi verbali in -bundus (Florence, 1965).
Poignault, Rémy, ‘Les références à Lucrèce chez Quintilien, Fronton et
Aulu-Gelle’, in id. (ed.), Présence de Lucre`ce (Tours, 1999), 177–98.
Pokorny, Julius, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2 vols.
(Bern and Munich, 1959–69).
Portalupi, Felicita, Frontone, Gellio, Apuleio: ricerca stilistica (Turin,
1974).
—— Marco Cornelio Frontone (Turin, 1961).
Powell, J. G. F., ‘Cicero’s Translations from Greek’, in id. (ed.), Cicero
the Philosopher: Twelve Papers (Oxford, 1995), 273–300.
Pugliara, Monica, ‘La colomba di Archita’, in Eugenio Lo Sardo (ed.),
Athanasius Kircher: il museo del mondo (Rome, 2001), 253–5.
Pugliarello, Mariarosaria, ‘Disparilitas e memoria nella trama delle
Noctes Atticae’, Serta antiqua et mediaevalia, 1 (Genoa, 1997), 95–109.
Raine, James, Catalogi veteres librorum cathedralis Dunelm (Surtees Soci-
ety, 7; London, 1838).
Ramat, Paolo, ‘L’etimologia del nome latino ‘‘Morta’’ ’, AGI 45 (1960),
61–7.
368 Bibliography
Ranke, Kurt, ‘Androklus und der Löwe (AaTh 156)’, in id., Enzyklo-
pädie des Märchens, i (Berlin, 1977), 501–8.
Rawson, Elizabeth, ‘Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian’,
JRS 62 (1972), 33–45; repr. in ead., Roman Culture and Society, 58–79.
—— Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London, 1985) .
—— ‘The Introduction of Logical Organisation in Roman Prose Litera-
ture’, PBSR 46 (1978), 12–34; repr. in ead., Roman Culture and Society,
324–51.
—— Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers, ed. Fergus Millar
(Oxford, 1991).
Reitzenstein, Richard, Verrianische Forschungen (Breslauer Philolo-
gische Abhandlungen, 1. Band, 4. Heft; Breslau, 1887).
Relihan, J. C., Ancient Menippean Satire (Baltimore and London, 1993).
Reynolds, L. D. (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin
Classics (Oxford, 1983).
Riedweg, Christoph, ‘Archytas [1, aus Tarent]’, Der neue Pauly,
i (1996), 1029–31.
Riginos, Alice Swift, Platonica: The Anecdotes concerning the Life and
Writings of Plato (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition,
3: Leiden, 1976).
Rizzo, Silvia, Il lessico Wlologico degli umanisti (Sussidi eruditi, 26; Rome,
1984).
Robinson, J. Armitage, and James, Montague Rhodes, The Manu-
scripts of Westminster Abbey (Cambridge, 1909).
Rochette, Bruno, Le Latin dans le monde grec: Recherches sur la diVusion
de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de
l’Empire romain (Collection Latomus, 233; Brussels, 1997).
—— ‘Latinitas — peregrinitas: purisme et nationalisme linguistique chez
les auteurs latins’, Orbis, 40 (1988), 97–110.
—— ‘Les ØŒ et les ÆæÆæØŒa O ÆÆ dans les théories linguistiques
gréco-latines’, AC 65 (1996), 91–105.
Romeri, Luciana, ‘The º
ªØ
: Athenaeus between Banquet and
Anti-Banquet’, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his
World, 256–71.
Roth, Francis, The English Austin Friars 1249–1538, i: History,
ii: Sources (Cassiciacum, 6–7; New York, 1966 and 1961 respectively).
—— ‘A History of the English Austin Friars (continuation)’, Augustini-
ana, 16 (1966), 446–519.
Rouse, Mary A. and Richard H., Authentic Witnesses (Notre Dame, IN,
1991).
Rowland, Ingrid, Ecstatic Journey: Athanasius Kircher in Baroque
Rome (Chicago, 2000).
Rubio Fernández, Lisardo, Catálogo de los manuscritos clásicos latinos
existentes en España (Madrid, 1984).
Ruske, L. L., De A. Gellii noctium Atticarum fontibus quaestiones selectae
(Glatz [¼ Kłodzko], 1883).
Russell, D. A., Plutarch (London, 1973).
Bibliography 369
Sabbadini, Remigio, Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne’ secoli XIV
e XV, rev. Eugenio Garin, 2 vols. (Florence, 1967).
—— La scuola et gli studi di Guarino Guarini Veronese (Catania, 1896),
repr. in id., Guariniana, ed. Mario Sancipriano, 2 vols. in 1 (Turin,
1964), vol. ii.
SaÏd, Suzanne (ed.), ¯ ºº Ø: quelques jalons pour une histoire de
l’identité grecque. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 25–27 octobre 1989
(Leiden, 1991).
Samaran, Charles, La Maison d’Armagnac au XVe siècle et les dernières
luttes de la fe´odalite´ dans le Midi de la France (Paris, 1907).
Sandy, Gerald N., The Greek World of Apuleius: Apuleius and the
Second Sophistic (Mnemosyne, Supp. 174; Leiden, 1997).
—— ‘West meets East: Western Students in Athens in the Mid-Second
Century a.d.’, in Heinz Hofmann (ed.), Groningen Colloquia on the
Novel, 5 (1993), 163–73.
Saxl, Fritz, ‘Veritas Wlia Temporis’, in Raymond Klibansky and R. J.
Paton (eds.), Philosophy and History: Essays Presented to Ernst Cassirer
(Oxford, 1936), 197–222.
Schepens, Guido, and Delcroix, Kris, ‘Ancient Paradoxography:
Origin, Evolution, Production, and Reception’, in Oronzo Pecere and
Antonio Stramaglia, La letteratura di consumo nel mondo greco-latino:
Atti del convegno internazionale (Cassino, 14–17 settembre 1994)
(Cassino, 1996), 373–460.
Schindel, Ulrich, ‘Archaismus als EpochenbegriV zum Selbverständ-
nis des 2. Jhs.’, Hermes, 122 (1994), 327–41.
Schmidt, Ludwig, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Stu-
dien in sächsischen Klöstern’, Neues Archiv für sächsiche Geschichte, 18
(1897), 201–72.
Schneyer, J. B., Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters für
die Zeit von 1150—1350, 11 vols. (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philoso-
phie und Theologie des Mittelalters, Texte und Untersuchungen, 43;
Münster, 1969–90).
Schöll, Fritz, ‘Zur lateinischen Wortforschung’, IF 31 (1912–13),
309–20.
Schöpsdau, Klaus, ‘Vergleiche zwischen Lateinisch und Griechisch in
der antiken Sprachwissenschaft’, in C. W. Müller, K. Sier, and
J. Werner (eds), Zum Umgang mit fremden Sprachen in der griechisch-
römischen Antike (Stuttgart, 1992), 115–36.
Schulze, Wilhelm, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Göttingen,
1904).
Scipioni, Silvia, I codici umanistici di Gellio (Edizioni di storia e lette-
ratura; Rome, 2003).
Sedley, David, ‘Lucretius’ Use and Avoidance of Greek’, in J. N. Adams
and R. G. Mayer (eds.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry
(London, 1999), 227–46.
Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social
Commentary (Oxford, 1966, 2 1985).
370 Bibliography
Sidney, Sir Philip, Complete Works, ed. Albert Feuillerat, 3 vols. (Cam-
bridge, 1912–23).
Sihler, A. L., New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (New York
and Oxford, 1995).
Singer, Peter, Practical Ethics2 (Cambridge, 1993).
Skidmore, Clive, Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen: The Work of
Valerius Maximus (Exeter, 1996).
Skydsgaard, J. E., Varro the Scholar: Studies in the First Book of Varro’s
De Re Rustica (Analecta Romana Instituti Danici IV, Supplementum;
Copenhagen, 1968).
Small, Jocelyn Penny, Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of
Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity (London and New York,
1997).
Smith, Malcolm C., ‘A Sixteenth-Century Anti-Theist’, Bibliothèque
d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 53 (1991), 593–618.
Soverini, Paolo (1994), ‘Aspetti e problemi delle teorie retoriche fron-
toniane’, ANRW II 34. 2, 919–1004.
Spawforth, A. J. S., ‘Corinth, Argos, and the Imperial Cult: Pseudo-
Julian, Letters 198’, Hesperia, 63 (1994), 211–32.
—— ‘The Panhellenion Again’, Chiron, 29 (1999), 339–52.
Stein, Arthur, Römische Inschriften in der antiken Literatur (Prague,
1931).
Steinmetz, Peter, Untersuchungen zur römischen Literatur des zweiten
Jahrhunderts nach Christi Geburt (Wiesbaden, 1982).
Stevenson, A. J., ‘Aulus Gellius and Roman Antiquarian Writing’
(Ph.D. diss., London, 1993).
Stolz, Friedrich, Schmalz, J. H., Leumann, Manu, and Hofmann,
J. B., Lateinische Grammatik, 2 vols. (Munich, 1926–8).
Stolzenberg, Daniel (ed.), The Great Art of Knowing: The Baroque
Encyclopedia of Athanasius Kircher (Stanford, CA, 2001).
Strzelecki, WŁadysŁaw, Quaestiones Verrianae (Prace Towarzystwa
Naukowego Warszawskiego, wydział 1, no. 13; Warsaw, 1932).
Sumner, G. V., review of T. P. Wiseman, Cinna the Poet, in Phoenix, 29
(1975), 392–8.
Swain, Simon, ‘Apuleius Sophista’ (review of S. J. Harrison, Apuleius:
A Latin Sophist), CR2 51 (2001), 269–70.
—— ‘Bilingualism in Cicero? The Evidence of Code-Switching’, in J. N.
Adams, M. Janse, and S. Swain, Bilingualism, 128–67.
—— Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek
World, ad 50–250 (Oxford, 1996).
—— ‘Plutarch’s Moral Program’, in S. B. Pomeroy (ed.), Plutarch’s
Advice to the Bride and Groom and A Consolation to His Wife (New
York, 1999), 85–96.
—— ‘The Hiding Author: Context and Implication’, in A. Kahane and
A. Laird (eds.), A Companion, 55–63.
Szemerényi, Oswald, Einführung in die vergleichende Sprach-
wissenschaft4 (Darmstadt, 1990).
Bibliography 371
—— ‘The Latin Adjectives in -ulentus’, Glotta, 33 (1954), 266–82.
—— Syncope in Greek and Indo-European and the Nature of Indo-
European Accent (Naples, 1964).
Tarrant, H. A. S, ‘Platonic Interpretation in Aulus Gellius’, GRBS 37
(1996), 173–93.
Tempesti, A. M., ‘Quinto Terenzio Scauro, grammatico adrianeo’, SRIL
1 (1977), 175–220.
Tervarent, Guy de, Attributs et symboles dans l’art profane 1450–1600:
Dictionnaire d’un langage perdu (Geneva, 1959, suppl. 1964).
Thomson, Rodney M., William of Malmesbury, rev. edn. (Woodbridge,
2003).
Toner, J. P., Leisure and Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1995).
Traglia, Antonio, Poetae noui2 (Rome, 1974).
Traina, Alfonso, ‘Le traduzioni’, in Guglielmo Cavallo, Paolo Fedeli,
Andrea Giardina (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, ii: La
circolazione del testo (Rome, 1990), 93–123.
Tristano, Caterina, La biblioteca di un umanista calabrese, Aulo Giano
Parrasio (Manziano, [1988]).
Truhlář, Josef, Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum Latinorum qui in C.
R. Bibliotheca Publica atque Universitatis Pragensis asservantur, 2 vols.
(Prague, 1905–6).
Tuerk, Egbert, ‘Macrobe et les Nuits Attiques’, Latomus, 24 (1965),
381–406.
Vainio, Raija, Latinitas and Barbarisms according to the Roman Gram-
marians: Attitudes towards Language in the Light of Grammatical
Examples (Turku, 1999).
Vardi, Amiel, ‘An Anthology of Early Latin Epigrams? A Ghost Recon-
sidered’, CQ2 50 (2000), 147–58.
—— ‘A Book of Verse Beneath a Bough: Literature for Recreation in the
Early Principate’, SCI 21 (2002), 83–96.
—— ‘Brevity, Conciseness, and Compression in Roman Poetic Criticism
and the Text of Gellius’ Noctes Atticae 19.9.30’, AJPh 121 (2000),
291–8.
—— ‘Gellius Against the Professors’, ZPE 137 (2001), 41–54.
—— ‘Why Attic Nights? or What’s in a Name?’, CQ2 43 (1993), 298–301.
Verdière, Raoul, ‘L’euphémisme amoureux dans les sobriquets
féminins à Rome’, GIF 11 (1958), 160–6.
Veyne, Paul, ‘La famille et l’amour sous le Haut-Empire romain’,
Annales E.S.C. 33 (1978), 35–63; repr. in id., La Société romaine
(Paris, 1991), 88–130.
—— ‘The Roman Empire’, in id. (ed.), A History of Private Life
[series eds. Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby], i: From Pagan Rome to
Byzantium, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA, 1987),
5–234.
Villey, Pierre, Les Sources et l’évolution des Essais de Montaigne2 (Paris,
1933).
Vitale, M. T., ‘Cesellio Vindice’, SRIL 1 (1977), 221–58.
372 Bibliography
Vogel, Theodor, ‘De Noctium Atticarum A. Gellii compositione’, in
Philologische Abhandlungen Martin Hertz zum siebzigsten Geburtstage
von ehemaligen Schülen dargebracht (Berlin, 1888), 1–13.
Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols. (Oxford,
1957–79).
Walde, Alois, and Hofmann, J. B., Lateinisches etymologisches
W örterbuch3 , 2 vols. (Heidelberg, 1938–54).
Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew, Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars
(London, 1983).
Watson, L. C., ‘Cinna and Euphorion’, SIFC 54 (1982), 93–110.
Wenskus, Otta, ‘Markieren der Basissprache in lateinischen Texten mit
griechischen Einschaltungen und Entlehnungen’, IF 101 (1996),
233–57.
—— ‘Triggering und Einschaltung griechischer Formen in lateinischer
Prosa’, IF 100 (1995), 172–92.
——‘Wie schreibt man einer Dame? Zum Problem der Sprachwahl in der
römischen Epistolographie’, WS 114 (2001), 215–32.
Whitmarsh, Tim, ‘The Politics and Poetics of Parasitism: Athenaeus on
Parasites and Flatterers’, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus
and his World, 304–15.
Wieacker, Franz, Römische Rechtsgeschichte. Quellenkunde, Rechtsbil-
dung, Jurisprudenz und Rechtsliteratur (Handbuch der Altertumswis-
senschaft, 10. 3. 1. 1; Munich, 1988).
Wijn, Henrik van, Huiszittend Leeven, 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1801–12).
Wilkins, John, ‘Dialogue and Comedy: The Structure of the Deipnoso-
phistae’, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World,
23–37.
Wilkinson, L. P., Golden Latin Artistry (Cambridge, 1963).
Williams, Bernard, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (London, 1985).
Wind, Edgar, ‘Aenigma Termini’, JWI 1 (1937–8), 66–9; repr. as
‘aenigma termini: The Emblem of Erasmus of Rotterdam’ with
expanded notes in id., The Eloquence of Symbols: Studies in Humanist
Art, ed. Jaynie Anderson (Oxford, 1993; 1 1983), 77–82.
—— Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance (London, 2 1967, repr. 1968; repr.
Oxford, 1980).
Wiseman, T. P., Cinna the Poet and Other Roman Essays (Leicester,
1974).
Wisse, Jakob, ‘Greeks, Romans, and the Rise of Atticism’, in J. G. J.
Abbenes, S. P. Slings, and Ineke Sluiter (eds.), Greek Literary Theory
after Aristotle: A Collection of Papers in Honour of D. M. Schenkeveld
(Amsterdam, 1995), 65–82.
Wood, Antony, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. Philip Bliss, 4 vols. (London,
1813–20).
Wyatt, W. F., Jr., Indo-European /a/ (Philadelphia, 1970).
Yates, Frances, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London,
1964, 2 2002).
Bibliography 373
Yoder, Edward, ‘A Second-Century Classical Scholar’, CJ 33 (1938),
280–94.
Zambelli, Paola, ‘Cornelius Agrippa, ein kritischer Magus’, in August
Buck (ed.), Die okkulten Wissenschaften in der Renaissance (Wiesbaden,
1992), 65–89.
Zanker, Paul, The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in
Antiquity, trans. Alan Shapiro (Sather Classical Lectures, 59; Berkeley,
Los Angeles, and Oxford, 1995).
Zazzeri, Raimondo, Sui codici e libri a stampa della Biblioteca Malate-
stiana di Cesena (Cesena, 1887).
Zetterberg, J. Peter, ‘The Mistaking of ‘‘the Mathematicks’’ for Magic
in Tudor and Stuart England’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 11/1 (1980),
83–97.
Zetzel, J. E. G., Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity (New York, 1981).
Ziino, Agostino, Il Codice T. III. 2: Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale Uni-
versitaria (Lucca, 1994).
Zimmermann, August, ‘Zu auārus, amārus, cārus’, KZ 38 (2 18) (1905),
502–3.
Zoll, Gallus, Cicero Platonis aemulus: Untersuchung über die Form von
Ciceros Dialogen, besonders De Oratore (Zurich, 1962).
This page intentionally left blank
Index Locorum Potiorum