Gellius against the Professors

Author(s): Amiel Vardi

Source: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 137 (2001), pp. 41-54
Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20190933 .
Accessed: 21/06/2013 16:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 41

Gellius Against the Professors*

Readers of Gellius' fail to notice a pattern recurring in several of his episodes,

Nodes Atticae cannot in
which an arrogant figure claiming to be an expert in some field fails to answer a question put to him by
one of the interlocutors and is treated with disdain, being at times forced to leave the company in

humiliation, at others allowed to evade answer by a feeble excuse.1 To about ten episodes of this type
we can add two similar scenes, one in which a young philosopher exposes his shallowness without the

instigation of a knock-out question (1.2) and the other where a celebrated public pleader is described as

having made a fool of himself by using obsolete and incomprehensible words in court (11.7.3). Unlike
the rest of the figures who take part in these scenes, the humiliated persons are never identified by name,
but are normally introduced by an indefinite pronoun coupled with the type of their profession, and their
status as experts is then established by referring either to their reputation in Rome (e.g. 'celebri
hominem fama et multo nomine', 20.10.2) or to their self-proclamation (e.g. 'praedicantem quendam a
sese uno Sallustii historias intellegi', \%A.lem.). This seems to indicate that Gellius' motivation in

depicting these scenes

is an objection to professional scholars as a class rather than a grudge cherished

against specific persons in his ambient society. Furthermore, though many of these anonymous experts
are also teachers and may be classed as 'professionals' in that they use their intellectual preoccupation
to earn their living, these characteristics are not
shared by all the figures exposed in these scenes. It
appears, therefore, that we should take the proclamation of expertise as the only essential characteristic
of the professores Gellius likes to put to shame.
The professionals exposed are in most cases grammarians, but the role is also assigned to a

philosopher (1.2), a specialist in civil law (16.10), and a 'uetus celebratusque homo in causis' (11.7.3),
whose reputation as an expert pleader allows us to include him here, though he is not strictu sensu a
professional in Roman terms.2 Gellius also represents a number of other scenes in which experts are
derided (implicitly or explicitly) either by one of the participants, or in Gellius' authorial comments, but
which do not involve public humiliation.3 Here too grammarians are the most common target of Gellius'

I am grateful to H. Cotton, W. Eck, L. A. Holford-Strevens and the anonymous readers for their helpful comments and

suggestions. The research involved in preparing this paper was supported by The Israel Science Foundation founded by The
Israel Academy of Science and Humanities.
1 20.10. I do not
4.1, 6.17, 5.21, 13.31, 15.9, 16.6, 16.10, 18.4, 19.10, include ch. 9.2 in this list since the sham

philosopher humiliated there is not even given the opportunity to voice his ideas, but is dismissed because of his unearned
assumption of the philosopher's garb, a recurrent (Greek) topos of Gellius' day. See below, pp. 43^4.
2 See E.
Rawson, Intellectual Life in theLate Roman Republic (London, 1985), 98-9. For Roman views on expertise in
civil law, see, e.g. Cic. de Or. 1.185-200, 234-6, Orat. 142; Quint. Inst. 12.3.9-11; and further in A. Gwynn, Roman
Education from Cicero to Quintilian (Oxford, 1926), 138^0; J. Christes, Bildung und Gesellschaft: die Einsch?tzung der
Bildung und ihrer Vermittler in der griechisch-r?mischen Antike (Darmstadt, 1975), 231-3; Rawson, ibid., 211-13; for
philosophy, e.g. Cic. de Or. 3.56-9;
Quint. Inst. 1 praef. 15,12.2.6-9, 12.3.12; and Christes, ibid., 236-9. Among his

contemporaries Gellius reserves

the title 'philosophais' exclusively to Greek speakers (mainly to Favorinus and Taurus), but
he discusses the terminology of 'Latini philosophi' (1.26.11), and mentions some 'philosophiae sectatores' with whom he

spent a summer holiday in Tibur (19.5.1), though these could be Greeks staying at Rome, like the Macedo
philosopher
(13.8.4; cf. 19.1.4). His specific mention of the fact that Herodes' answer to a presumptuous student of philosophy (see note
6 below) was given in Greek ('turn Herodes Graeca, uti plurimus ei mos fuit', 1.2.6), may that the original tirade
imply
provoking this response was given in Latin (Note that at the beginning of this chapter Gellius mentions only fellow
countrymen ('nostrates') as the guests present at Herodes' villa.). That Herodes could at times speak Latin, and therefore also
understand the youth is implied in 'uti plurimus'. Herodes, of course, would have known the language by 143, when he was

consul; his father too being a senator and consul suffectus (around 133), we may assume he acquired Latin at home and
added polish while studying with P. Calvisius Tullus Ruso (see Fronto M. Caes. 3.2.1, p. 36.20 v.d.H.2).
3
3.16.16-17, 14.5, 15.2, 17.5.3, 17.21.1, 18.5, 18.9.1-4; perhaps also the man trying to establish a
professional reputa
tion at 7.16.1 ... ad famam sese facundiae V: 'promserat' Damst?:
('quispiam qui promiserat' ['promiserat' 'promouerat'

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 A. Vardi

censure, but at times it is also directed at an avayvcooTric specializing in reciting Ennius (18.5), a
professional rhetor 'ex istis acutulis et minutis doctoribus,
qui xexviKo? appellantur' (17.5.3),4 or an

ignorant sophista makes some embarrassing

who mistakes concerning the dates of Carneades and
Panaetius while ... disserens' which seems to a declaimer of the Philo
'publi?e (17.21.1), suggest type
stratus identifies with the 'second sophistic'.51 could not find inNA scenes involving public humiliation
in which the exposed figure does not proclaim expertise.6 On the other hand we should note that not all
the professionals represented in the NA are made to go through public humiliation or censure of any
kind. Indeed some of them, such as the grammarian Sulpicius Apollinaris, Gellius' rhetoric teachers
Antonius Iulianus and Titus Castricius, or the philosopher Taurus, are highly praised, as are several

professional scholars of previous

Any attempt
generations. to explain Gellius' grudge against the

professionals should therefore be able to account

for these exemptions as well.
Gellian scholarship has long tried to reconstruct the origins and motivation of this grudge of his,

producing a copious, but suspiciously sundry, list of explanations, most of them sound and convincing
in themselves. In what follows I attempt to re-examine these explanations, not so much in order to

question their validity, but mainly to inquire into the manner in which they relate to each other. I shall
also suggest one more explanation which, if not entirely overlooked, has been at least too marginally
discussed hitherto, and which may, I believe, contribute to a solidification of these divers explanations
into a more or less coherent attitude of Gellius towards professional scholars of his day.
A great many of the explanations suggested for Gellius' exposure scenes focus on ignoble traits in
the personality of the figures exposed, especially their pedantry, arrogance and false pretensions.7 Such
faults are indeed attributed to the professionals in almost all the occurrences of the scene, and Gellius'
distaste for them may be noted throughout his work, including in his criticism of non-professionals.8
The same
holds for other faults, such as loquacity, irascibility, impatience and contempt for the

interlocutor, which characterize many of the exposed figures,9 and are condemned throughout the NA,10

Hosius andWatt, AC 55 (1986), 330]. The incomplete chapter 5.4 and the lemmata of the missing chapters 8.10 and 8.14
also suggest scenes of one of these variants.
4 connotation of 'technicus', cf. technicorum' in Quint. 2.13.15 which seems to connote
For the disparaging 'decretis
basic and dogmatic use of technical rules.
learning
5 All other occurrences of the term
'sophist' in Gellius refer either to the old sophists of the 5th century BCE, or, in
of his contemporaries, to jugglers of captious arguments of whatever profession (cf. the 'rhetoricus sophista' of
speaking
17.5.3, oo?piaxe?a of the grammarian Aelius Melissus at 18.6.1, and 'captionis sophisticae' at 18.2.6), which does not seem
to fit the context here. For the use of the term before Philostratus, see G. R. Stanton, Sophists and Philosophers: Problems of
Classification, AJPh 94 (1973), 350-64; G. Anderson, The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire
(London, 1993), 17-21; P. A. Brunt, The Bubble of the Second Sophistic, BICS 39 (1994), 25-52, at pp. 42-4. For sophists
regarding themselves as experts, Anderson, ibid., 154. For chreiae involving chronological considerations in the public
declamations ofa contemporary sophist, see e.g. Apul. Flor. 15.11, 18.19; and for a very similar chronological blunder,
namely the description of an encounter between non-contemporaries, cf. Flor. 7.1 (Polycletus and Alexander).
6
Though moral failings do draw public reproof (but not derision) in 10.19 and 13.22. The 'adulescens philosophiae
sectator, ut stoicae' of 1.2.3, may be of being a student, but only because of his age.
disciplinae, ipse dicebat, suspected
Whereas a 'sectator' of a person ('Favorini', 'Tauri', Tuliani') in Gellius may refer either to a pupil or to followers and
admirers in general 'Socratis', 14.3.2, and Augustus as a 'sectator' of Caesar's elegant style, 10.24.2), a 'sectator'
(including
of a discipline (2.21.1; 'philosophiae' also in 1.3.9, 19.5.1; 'peripateticae/stoicae disciplinae', 18.1.1; cf., 19.12.10;
19.5.1), determines the branch of knowledge in which the person is engaged. Note that this self
'eloquentiae', simply
proclaimed Stoic also professes expertise (? 4). For the scene described in chapter 13.21 see n. 16 below.
7 B. Les Nuits vol. i
Baldwin, Studies in Aulus Gellius (Lawrence Kan., 1975), 48; R. Marache, Aulu-Gelle, Ataques,
(Paris, 1967), xxvii.
8
E.g. 1.10,7.15,9.15,15.30.
9 and contempt for others:
Loquacity: 1.2.3; irascibility: 16.6.11, 19.10.14; impatience 6.17.2, 15.9.9, 18.4.6, 19.10.14,
20.10.2.
10 and contempt for others: and
E.g. loquacity: 1.15, 5.14.3, 15.30.1; impatience 17.3.2; irascibility: 9.2.3, 14.5,
the derisive of Domitius Tnsanus' (18.7), probably a real person (dead and therefore named), and well
especially portrayal

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Gellius Against the Professors 43

not to mention degrees of ignorance which Gellius

various often ascribes to his opponents, including
almost all the professionals he puts to shame.11 It is, however, curious that his censure of these vices in
persons with no claim to expertise never involves public humiliation. Most telling in this respect is the
case of an over-confident pupil of rhetoric from Naples who delivered a hideous controversia much to
the pleasure of his applauding friends, but to the embarrassment of the professional rhetorician Antonius
Iulianus (9.15). Following this poor performance, the enthusiastic admirers of the arrogant youth force
Iulianus to express his opinion about it, to which he responds with the ambiguous: 'adulescens hie sine
controuersia disertus est' (? 11). Rather than publicly denouncing the poor skills of the pupil, he thus
chooses to let him and his friends off with something they may take as a compliment, while reserving
his censure for the skilled ears of his own company (and Gellius' readers). This forbearance may be
ascribed to Iulianus'
genial character, or rather to the manner
in which Gellius wants to portray him.12
But a further reason for this leniency comes up if we compare this scene with chapter 1.2, where another
arrogant youth reveals the shallowness of his skills, but this time ismade to suffer public humiliation for
it. The arrogance of the Neapolitan rhetoric student consists of daring to attempt something which is
beyond his abilities in the hope of impressing Iulianus. But his begging Iulianus to hear him (9.15.2)
implies recognition of his status as inferior to that of the great rhetoric teacher. The young student of

philosophy at Herodes' villa, on the other hand, pronounces himself a Stoic philosopher (1.2.3, 7),
proclaims that compared with him all others, Greeks and Romans, are uncultured (? 4), and gives
himself airs as the only true philosopher in a company of laymen ('idiotas', ? 6). Therefore, though we
may consider arrogance and false pretensions among the faults Gellius is wont to rebuke, we still need
to understand why it is only those proclaiming expertise whom he makes pay for them with public
humiliation.
It is, of course, possible that experts of the Antonine age were particularly plagued by such vices,
and that Gellius provides us with a genuine representation of their character. But, though some of the
anecdotes he reports might have been based on real events, others, and especially those exposure scenes
which reveal the clear influence of the Platonic dialogues, are probably of his own invention.13 Besides,
Gellius was in full command of the choice of episodes, factual or fictitious, he wanted to include in his

miscellany, and we may, therefore, take the high proportion in his work of exposure scenes involving

professionals as reflecting his views and feelings about these people as a class. The same line of

argumentation should also warn us against brushing off the difficulty by arguing that in depicting these
scenes Gellius was merely adopting a fashionable topos of his age. We may indeed note that the
exposure of false philosophers, always a favourite sport in antiquity, is a particularly popular topic of
Greek authors of the imperial age (which may even give the impression that urban life of the period was

known for his intemperies. Note, however, that at times Gellius and some of his friends also lose their tempers when faced
with arrogant fools (6.17.4, 13.21.9, 19.9.8, 17.3.3).
11 For to professionals'
explicit references ignorance, see ?.ll.lem., 6, 7.16.1, 16.6.3, 5, 17.21.1; basic or partial

knowledge (worse than ignorance according to Fro. M. Caes. 4.3.1, p. 56 v.d.H.2): 4.1.1, 5.21.4, 8.10./em., 15.9.6; ?yijiaO?a:
11.7.3 the Ennianista is said to be 'non indoctus' but to have had worthless teachers
(cf. 15.30.1-2); (18.5.2), (? 6); and only
Probus' interlocutor at 13.21.9 is said to be totally 'indocilis'.
12 see L. Holford-Strevens,
For Gellius' portrayal of Iulianus, Aulus Gellius: The Non-Visual Portraitist, in M. J.
Edwards and S. Swain Portraits: in the Greek and Latin Literature
(eds.), Biographical Representation of the Roman Empire
(Oxford, 1997), 93-116, at pp. 100-102; and cf. 18.5.5ff, where Iulianus reserves his remarks on the error of the Ennianista
till after his company leaves the show. It is perhaps significant that the symptoms of Iulianus' and
embarrassment, blushing
sweating (9.15.9), are the ones revealed also in a sham expert when in public where form part of the
exposed (19.10.14), they
punishment of the arrogant rather than the painful experience of a forbearing teacher.
13
E.g. 4.1.lern., 18.4.1. See L. A. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius (London, 1988), 50, and in general, idem, Fact and
Fiction inAulus Gellius, LCM1 (1982), 65-8. Note also that Plato as well often ascribes pedantry, rudeness and of course
alazoneia to the impostors exposed by his Socrates; forwhich see D. Tarrant, Plato as Dramatist, JHS 75 (1955), 82-9, at p.
86.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44 A. Vardi

indeed infested by such characters).14 But again, there should be a reason for his insistence on this

particular topos out of numerous others, even such that fall in the category G. Anderson terms
'academic folklore',15 which best fit the repertoire of his scenes. We may, for instance, note that Gellius
never has a scene in which an ostentatious layman is put to shame by a professional, as in Lucian's
adver sus Indoctum.16

Furthermore, though Gellius too likes to show up charlatan philosophers (1.2, 9.2, 15.2),17 it is, as
we have seen, to the grammarians, a relatively minor target of contemporary Greek vituperation, that he
most often reserves the role of the exposed figure. This has led some scholars to assume he bears a

special grudge against this particular profession. R. Marache thus claims Gellius' exposure scenes are
motivated by his objection to the specialization and pedantry of the grammarians of his day, their
manner of hiding their ignorance behind the title of their profession and behind the rules of analogical
grammar, and their refusal to accept linguistic argumentation based on the auctoritas of the ancient
authors which was favoured by Fronto and his circle.18 Let us focus first on the possibility that Gellius'

objection to these professionals represents a methodological controversy within the field of grammar.

Though, as L. Holford-Strevens argues,19 the quarrel between analog?a and anomal?a had by Gellius'

day lost much of its point, being an archaist Gellius might be permitted to revive long dead contro
versies. But it should be noted that Gellius does not eschew analogical argumentation in his linguistic

discussions, and though in two of his exposure scenes we do indeed find professional grammarians'
adherence to ratio (5.21, 15.9), the grammarian
ridiculed exposed in chapter 4.1 bases his false

argumentation on the auctoritas of the same archaic authors Fronto and Gellius cherish, and of the two
equally ridiculous grammarians engaged in a hot controversy over a trifle in chapter 14.5 one adheres to
ratio, the other to usus.
What Gellius does seem to abhor is blind dependence on dogmatic rules. This fault he most
commonly ascribes to grammarians, and he even makes Valerius Probus pronounce it a deficiency

typical of the art of grammar ('non finitiones illas praerancidas neque fetutinas grammaticas spectaueris,
sed aurem tuam interroga', 13.21.1).20 But an objection to dogmatism is also implied in the quotation
from Epictetus Gellius puts in the mouth of Herodes Atticus at 1.2.9-12 in response to the bold
assertions of the self-proclaimed Stoic. A. Michel tries to trace Gellius' abhorrence of dogmatism back
to Favorinus and thence to Pyrrhonic ideas.21 Favorinus, of course, was not a Pyrrhonist but an

14Cassius Dio Itwould take far too long to enumerate all the
(71.35.3) will have it that they abound under Marcus.
occurrences of the
sham-philosopher topos in antiquity, which dates back at least to Aristophanes' Clouds', see, e.g. Cic.
Tuse. 2.11-12; Hor. S. 2.3; Quint. Inst. 1 praef. 15; luv. 2.1-35; D. Chr. 32.8-9, 35.2, 70.7-10, 72.3-4, 77/8.34-5; Luc.Eun.;

Peregr. Iff.; Pise. 31-7; Catapl. 23^4; Bis Ace. 6-8, 11; and see further Marache, op. cit. (n. 1), xxvii; P. A. Brunt, Marcus
Aurelius in his Meditations, JRS 64 (1974), 1-20, at p. 12 and n. 79; E. Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal
(London, 1980), 120-121; M. L. Astarita,Za cultura nelle "Nodes Atticae" (Catania, 1993), 113-14.
15G.
Anderson, Philostratus: Biography and Belles Lettres in the Third Century A.D. (London, 1986), 47.
16 does not provide about Probus' interlocutor at 13.21 who may be either a
Esp. adv. Ind. 8-10. Gellius any details
or a However this does not aim to expose an ostentatious ignoramus, but to rebuke the need of
layman grammarian. episode
the unskilled for rules which, according to Probus, characterizes grammarians too; see below, pp. 44-45. For Lucian's

exposure scenes, see further J. Bompaire, Lucien ?crivain: Imitation et cr?ation (Paris, 1958), 485-91; G. Anderson, Lucian:
Theme and Variation in the Second Sophistic (Leiden, 1976), 42-4, 106-9; idem, op. cit. (n. 15), 47-50; C. Robinson, Lucian

and his Influence inEurope (London, 1979), 18-20.

17 See also 19.1.
13.8.5, 13.24.2, 17.19.1-4,
18R.
Marache, La critique litt?raire de langue latine et le d?veloppement du go?t archa?sant au IIe si?cle de notre ?re
(Rennes, 1952), 208-213; idem, A propos de l'analogie et de l'anomalie, Pallas 2 (1954), 32-8, at p. 33; and op. cit. (n. 7),
xxiii; also F. Cavazza, Aulo Gellio, Le Notti Attiche, vol. i (Bologna, 1985), 32-3.
19 cit. also F. Cavazza, Gellio e i suoi con l'ars grammatica
Holford-Strevens, op. (n. 13), 126-9; grammatico rapporti
romana,Historiographia Ling?istica 13 (1986), 259-79, at p. 267.
20 but consult own ear.' Cf. 'homo in doctrinis in
'Pay no attention to rotten rules and grammatical rubbish, your quasi

praestigiis mirificus', 7.15.2.

21 A. et philosophie au second si?cle ANRWU.34A at pp. 41-3.
Michel, Rh?torique ap. J.-C, (1993), 3-78,

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Gellius Against the Professors 45

Academic sceptic, who studied Pyrrhonism in order to delineate the distinctions between the two
schools.22 But in spite of the differences between the sects, of which Gellius too was aware (11.5.8),23
their views, as Sextus Empiricus tells us {PH 1.220), were similar enough for some to think they were

basically the same.24 We cannot, therefore, dismiss the possibility that Gellius' objection to dogmatism,
and perhaps to the 'professors' as well, reflects the sceptic concepts of his admired mentor, especially as
Gellius not only knows of Favorinus' interest in sceptic theories (11.5.15), but even represents him as a
true Academic sceptic at 20.1.9, where he is made to say: 'Noli [...] ex me quaerere, quid ego
existumem. Seis enim solitum esse me pro disciplina sectae, quam colo, inquirere potius quam
decernere'.25 This, however, more or less concludes all traces of sceptic ideas in Gellius, who nowhere
reveals any sign of distrust of sense perception or suspension of judgement, and certainly no doubt of
the possibility of true and teachable artes. This holds also for chapter 4.1, adduced by Michel to
illustrate the influence of Favorinus' scepticism on Gellius' objection to dogmatism. In this chapter a
grammarian attempting to prove that the word 'penus' may be used in different genders and declensions
is rebuked by Favorinus for not being able to produce a definition/?er genus et differentia of what the
word means. This insistence on the xi ecm, as the poor grammarian rightly observes (? 13), is the
requirement of philosophy in general, as is also implied in Gellius' description of this conversation as
carried on 'in Socraticum {lern. cf. ? 19). It is not, however,
modum' the typical question of a sceptic,
and an assertion such as Favorinus' 'nam hoc quidem peruolgatum est definitionem omnem ex genere et
differentia consistere' (? 10) seems very shallow scepticism even for an Academic sceptic.26 I therefore
find it difficult to detect in Gellius' aversion to blind adherence to rules any traces of sceptic anti

dogmatism which, being based primarily on the objection to any positive assertion regarding external
realities,27 is far too abstract for Gellius' ideas.28
Unlike 'accidental' such as pedantry or ostentation,
characteristics dogmatism may be deemed a
fault inherent to professionalism as such, rules being one of the basic requirements of an ars, and could
therefore have been considered a better explanation for Gellius' polemic with the professionals if only it
had been evoked in our exposure scenes. But it never is. Even more intrinsic to professionalism is the
diffraction of knowledge into distinct fields and specialization in limited areas. The possibility that
Gellius' quarrel with the professionals is motivated by an objection to the narrowness of their
specialization is very competently discussed by M. L. Astarita, who points out several cases in which
Gellius decries the attempts of experts to evade difficult questions by claiming they do not appertain to
their field of expertise.29 This deficiency, moreover, is also one which is not confined to grammar or
any other specific branch of knowledge: Gellius has grammarians refusing to discuss questions they
consider to belong to philosophy (4.1.13-14), to husbandry (16.6.11) or to law (20.10.2), but also a
specialist in civil law who evades a question on the meaning of 'proletarius' in Ennius by referring it to

22 L. A. Favorinus: The Man of Paradoxes, in J. Barnes and M. Griffin

Holford-Strevens, (eds.), Philosophia Togata, ii

(Oxford, 1997), 188-217, at pp. 212-17.

23 For a discussion of these differences, see also Sex. PH 1.220-35.
24 For see Holford-Strevens,
the possibility that Sextus' Tiv?? refer to Favorinus, op. cit. (n. 22), 217.
25 'Do not ask what is my view. For you know
me, said Favorinus, that in accordance with the sect to which I belong, I
am in the habit of inquiring rather than deciding.' Cf. ? 21.
26 Tor this is
surely widely known, that all definitions consist of the general kind and the distinctive features.' Note that
for Pyrrhonian sceptics definitions are neither necessary nor possible (Sex. PH 2.205-12).
27 Sex. PH 1.13-15. Note also that though in his critique of the professors of grammar Sextus objects to analogy, he
embraces modern GX>vr\Qew rather than auctoritas {Math. 1.176-240), and also dismisses etymology (241-7), the 'historical'

explanations of texts and contexts (248-69) and thewhole 'part dealing with writers' (270-320), which Gellius shows no
hesitation in using.
28 Abstract
thinking is not one of Gellius' strong points, and the little inclination he has in philosophical ideas is
towards Stoicism. See Holford-Strevens, op. cit. (n. 13), 78, 192-3.
29
Astarita, op. cit. (n. 14), 117, 149-51, 171, 203; cf. Holford-Strevens, op. cit. (n. 13), 221.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
46 A. Vardi

the grammarians (16.10.4). When pushed into a corner by an occurrence of the same term in the Twelve

Tables, this expert ducks out by restricting his professed expertise even further, to contemporary legal
terminology alone (?? 7-8). In response to the refusal of the grammarian of chapter 4.1 to attempt a
'philosophic' definition, Gellius makes Favorinus declare that, in spite of his being devoted to
he never
neglects to investigate the exact meaning of Latin words, a practice which to his
philosophy,
mind befits any Roman citizen (? 18). Similarly, Gellius' Taurus, albeit a philosopher, gently rebukes a
physician for his negligence in the correct Greek terminology for arteries and veins, revealing by the
way his own knowledge of physiology (18.10.5-7). That this is an important issue for Gellius is also
manifest in his praise of the wide scope of learning of some of the experts he admires. The jurist Sextus
Caecilius is thus made to exalt Favorinus: 'For what philosopher is skilled and learned in the laws of his
own discipline to the extent to which you are versed in our decemviral laws?' (20.1.20). And similarly,
the Augustan lawyer M. Antistius Labeo earns highest acclaim for the fact that in addition to his

expertise in civil law, he was also versed in the other bonae artes, and at home with grammatica,
dial?ctica and ancient (13.10.1).literature
As Astarita rightly observes, the specialization of experts stands in direct opposition to the ideal of

encyclopaedic learning, which is also reflected in the very miscellaneous character of the NA.30 It is

tempting to relate this cultural idea of Gellius to a tendency detected by some scholars in the luminaries
of the Second (notably Aristides and Galen) to profess expertise in several fields, a
Sophistic
phenomenon G. W. Bowersock terms 'the interaction of disciplines'.31 But this phenomenon, like
modern interdisciplinary studies, involves an interaction between established fields of specialization
within the professional world, whereas Gellius' prospective readers are, as he maintains in his preface

12-21), generally educated laymen rather than professionals. If we take this element in Gellius'
(praef.
programmatic statements and I can see no reason why we should not, his condemnation
seriously, of
over specialization would appear not as a call for reform
in the 'academic' world, but rather as an

insistence on the traditional ideal of enkyklios paideia, which, as shown by S. Beall, is very much in
Gellius' mind in his preface and throughout theNA.32 His afterthoughts on the incident of the physician
who confused the terms 'vein' and 'artery' reflect this ideal very clearly (18.10.8):
Hoc ego postea cum inmedico reprehensum esse meminissem, existimaui non medico soli,
sed omnibus quoque hominibus liberis liberaliterque institutis turpe esse ne ea quidem
ad notitiam corporis nostri pertinentia, quae non altius occultiusque remota
cognouisse
sunt[...].

Afterwards when I recalled this criticism of the physician, I thought that it was shameful,
not only for a physician, but for all cultivated and liberally educated men, not to know even
such facts pertaining to the knowledge of our bodies as are not deep and recondite...33
The introduction of social considerations into the study of Roman intellectual ideas has made a
contribution to our understanding of Gellius' objection to the professionals. In his study of
major
Fronto, E. the following description of Gellius' exposure scenes: 'a recognized magister
Champlin gives
the pedantry, imposture, or ignorance of an upstart, usually after the victim has
publicly exposing

30 H. is still one of the best surveys of the

Nettleship, The Noctes Atticae of Aulus Gellius, AJPh 4 (1883), 391-415
of fields this work accosts. For more detailed discussions see Holford-Strevens, op. cit. (n. 13), 115-235; Astarita, op.
variety
cit.{n. 14), 35-171.
31 G. W. Greek in the Roman also and R. B. Rutherford,
Bowersock, Sophists Empire (Oxford, 1969), 68, pp. 11-12,
Aurelius but some strong reservations on the validity of this view in Brunt,
The Meditations of Marcus (Oxford, 1989), 87-8;

op. cit. (n. 5), at pp. 38-44.

32 S. M.
Beall, Civilis eruditio: Style and Content in the Attic Nights' of Aulus Gellius (diss., Berkeley, 1988), 43-5,
99-104. We rule out
the possibility, op. cit. (n. 14), 34, 206, that in this respect
cannot, however, suggested by Astarita,
Gellius also directs his work to the professionals whom he wishes to reform. For Gellius as a true representative of the scope

of Roman artes R. A. Kaster, "Humanitas" and Roman Education, SStor 9 (1986), 5-15.
liberales,
33 J. C. Rolfe's translation inICI
(1927).

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Gellius Against the Professors 47

arrogantly displayed his mistaken erudition in a bid for glory'. He consequently interprets these scenes
as representing a mechanism by which those dilettantes who are not sufficiently competent are excluded
from the closed group of the intellectual elite.34 As has been noted, however, the persons whose

ignorance Gellius likes to expose are normally experts of no small renown rather than dilettantes. Nor is
the role of the exposer necessarily assigned to 'recognized magistrV. At times it is indeed played by the
grammarian Sulpicius Apollinaris (18.4), the rhetor Fronto (19.10) or the philosopher Favorinus (4.1,
8.14), but in several other instances Gellius shoulders the task of exposing the ignorant pretender
himself (6.17, 15.9, 16.6, 16.10, 20.10), and in others he assigns it to his friends, the poet Iulius Paulus
(16.10), theNumidian Iulius Celsinus (19.10),35 or simply 'a friend' of whom we know nothing else
(5.21; cf. 7.15). Therefore, though our exposure scenes indeed appear to display a mechanism of

exclusion, we are still left with our initial question: what is it in these professional scholars that makes
Gellius want to exclude them from the privileged group of intellectuals?
The fact that the majority of Gellius' exposed figures are grammarians is the starting point of R. A.
Raster's thorough examination of our scenes, which, he maintains, reflect the characteristic attitude of
the Roman aristocracy of letters towards teachers, and especially those of the schola grammatical6
According to Suetonius, the first to open such institutions in Rome of the late second or early first

century BCE, were freedmen and other men of very humble origin, who slowly disengaged themselves
from their dependence on the great households, and established the grammar school as the standard
institution of secondary, and at times also primary, education.37 Itwas at this formative stage, according
to Raster's reconstruction, that the Roman aristocracy's attitude to the grammatici developed,
consisting, on the one hand, of assenting to commit its children to the grammarians' care for their

education, while struggling to maintain traditional class distinctions and exclude these teachers from the
intellectual elite, on the other. In attempting a reconstruction of the status of teachers in Gellius' day we
are fortunate to have three important documents from a generation or so before his time, the extant

segment on grammarians and rhetoricians from Suetonius' de Viris Illustribus, Juvenal's Satire 1 on
intellectualcareers, which might be a response to this work of Suetonius,38 and the rather heart-breaking

apology of Florus for his professio litterarum {Verg. pp. 186-7 R). According to Suetonius the first

century CE witnessed a gradual rise in the esteem enjoyed by teachers, both grammatici and rhetor es, in
Roman society. Eventually teaching even became respectable enough for some members of the Roman
upper classes to engage in it, while serving other people as a channel of Romanization or social

mobility.39 But though we have evidence for the social ascent of some distinguished teachers of

34 E.
Champlin, Fronto andAntonine Rome (CambridgeMA, 1980), 49 (but ibid. p. 47: 'the professional routed by true
amateurs', on Gell. 19.10). See also E. Yoder, A Second-Century Classical Scholar, CJ 33 (1937-1938), 280-294, at p. 293.
35 For see Champlin, n. 62; Holford-Strevens,
possible prosopography, op. cit. (n. 34), 14,147 op. cit. (n. 13), 110-111.
36 R. A.
Kaster, Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (Antiquity, 1988), 51-60.
37 See A.
Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars (New Haven, 1983), 30-38. The three-level model
of Roman educational institutions has been questioned by A. D. Booth, Elementary and Secondary Education in the Roman

Empire, Florilegium 1 (1979), 1-14; also R. A. Kaster, Notes on "Primary" and Schools in Late
"Secondary" Antiquity,
TAPhA 113 (1983), 323-^6; T. Morgan, Literate Education in theHellenistic and Roman Worlds (New York, 1998), 28.
38G. B.
Townend, The Literary Substrata to Juvenal's Satires, JRS 63 (1972), 148-60, at p. 152; S. H. Braund, Beyond
Anger: A Study of Juvenal's Third Book of Satires (Cambridge, 1988), 45-7.
39 For the social status of see Christes, cit.
teachers, op. (n. 2), 238^3, idem, Sklaven und Freigelassene als Grammat
iker und Philologen im antiken Rom (Wiesbaden, 1979);Wallace-Hadrill, op. cit. (n. 37), 36-9; Kaster, op. cit. (n. 36), 97
230; E. Fantham, Roman Literary Culture from Cicero toApuleius (Baltimore & London, 1996), 199-200. For education and
a teaching career as a channel of social mobility, Gwynn, op. cit. (n. 2), 134^5; J. Gag?, Les classes sociales dans l'empire
romain (Paris, 1971), 221-43; H. Bardon, La notion d'intellectuel ? Rome, StudClas 13 (1971), 95-107, at pp. 102-106; K.
Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves: Sociological Studies inRoman History (Cambridge, 1978), 77-9; and for the importance
of the emperor's beneficia for such mobility, e.g. HA, Hadr. 16.8-11, and further in H.-I. Marrou, Histoire de l'?ducation
dans l'antiquit? (Paris, 61965), 434-43; F.Millar, The Emperor in theRoman World (31BC-AD 337) (London, 1977), 491
506. For Gellius' social rank (probably equestrian), Holford-Strevens, op. cit. (n. 13), 10-12.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48 A. Vardi

rhetoric, this, as Juvenal is eager to emphasize, seems to have been an exceptional case: 'si Fortuna

uolet, fies de rhetore consul; | si uolet haec eadem, fiet de consule rhetor' he says (7.197-8), referring to
the immense wealth and the ornamenta consularia that a rhetorical career brought Quintilian on the one

hand, and to the bitter words of the unfortunate ex-praetor Valerius Licinianus on the other (cf. Plin. Ep.
4.11.1-2). Furthermore, grammarians fared far worse than rhetoricians in both remuneration and social
status, and we certainly not at this stage envisage meteoric
should careers of grammarians such as that
of Ausonius in the fourth century.40 It seems, nevertheless, safe to infer from Suetonius' account that by
the turn of the century grammarians were becoming increasingly involved in the intellectual life of the
Roman elite. This is also the picture which emerges from Gellius' representation of the grammarians of
his day, who seem always to be around in educated company, and converse on equal terms with
members of the higher social orders, such as Fronto (e.g. 19.10.7, 19.13.1) or the urban prefect Erucius

Clarus(7.6.12).41
In such circumstances it is not surprising to find the Roman aristocracy insisting on the often
outdated stigma origin of grammarians
of servile in order to preserve its traditional status as an
intellectual elite and to exclude from its circles these newcomers to intellectual struggles are
life. Social
seldom much concerned with fair play, and to further discredit the teachers other blemishes, besides a
low origin, were close at hand. 'O rem indignissimam! [...] sedere in scholis et puerispraecipere',
exclaims Florus' interlocutor upon hearing he has chosen the professio litterarum (Flor. Verg. p. 196 R).
The teachers' profession is thus associated
young with an involvement with pupils, and hence often
suspected of consisting only of elementary and unsophisticated learning. Worse, these teachers even
took fees for their teaching, as their ancestors the sophists had done, which in Roman eyes could be
viewed as an offence not only in terms of the ancient Greek ideal of the G%oXaGTiKoq ?cvrip, but also in
those of the traditional objection of the Roman aristocracy to the exchange of money for any respectable
service.42
It is in this context, according to Kaster, that we should understand Gellius' exposure scenes, and in
some of these scenes we might indeed discern the mark of social prejudices. We may thus detect a trace
of prejudice against teachers in the form of address '(mi) magister' which Gellius frequently employs to
accost the grammarians, normally at the opening of the knock-out question which exposes their

ignorance.43 In itself the term magister does not necessarily carry any derogatory meaning for Gellius,
and he applies it to some of his most cherished teachers such as the rhetors T. Castricius (13.22.1) and
Antonius Iulianus (19.9.2; cf. 1.18./em., 20.5.1).44 Even its use in the vocative form seems, at times, to

40 Suet. Gram, et Rhet. 25.3 etiam ac doctorum floruit ut nonnulli ex

'magna professorum profluxit copia adeoque
?nfima fortuna in ordinem senatorium atque ad summos honores processerint.' Cf. luv. 7.188-198; and see further Kaster, op.
cit. 104-5, 130-32; idem, Suetonius, De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus (Oxford, 1995), 278-9; and for Gellius' day,
(n. 36),
op. cit. 119. The report of the HA that Marcus' grammar teacher, Eutychius (Tuticius?) Proculus of Sicca
Champlin, (n. 34),
was advanced 'usque ad proconsulatum' {HA, Marc. 2.5), if true, must represent a very exceptional case; see A. R. Birley,
Some Teachers of Marcus HAC 1966/67 39-^1, at p. 40, who tends to accept this report if we assume a
Aurelius, (1988),
rather than a consular but some doubts in J. Schwartz, L'Histoire Auguste et la fable de
praetorian proconsulship,
l'usurpateur Celsus, AC (1964), 33 429, and W. Eck per e.-litt.
41 Erucius whom the younger rise to the senatorial rank was in the early
Clarus, Pliny helped {Ep. 2.9.2), city prefect
of Pius to 146, the year of his death and second consulate. Fronto was member of the senatorial order already in the
years
120s, and consul suffectus for July-August 142 (for the date see now W. Eck, M. Cornelius Fronto, Lehrer Marc Aurels,
consul suffectus im J. 142,RhM2 141 (1998), 193-6).
42 See further H.
Dahlmann, Florus Preis der "Professio Litterarum", Kleine Schriften (Hildesheim, 1970), 253-65, at
Christes, cit. 222-8; A. D. Booth, The Image of the Professor in Ancient Society, EMC 20
pp. 255-6, 261-2; op. (n. 2),
(1976), 1-10, at pp. 5-6.
43 the grammarian to shame at 6.17.1 is
4.1.4; 13.31.3, 11; 15.9.7; 16.6.5; 18.4.2; 19.10.10, 13; 20.10.3. Similarly, put
described as in docendo celebritatis'. See further, A. D. Booth, Some Suspect Schoolmasters, Florilegium 3 (1981),
'primae
1-20.
44 This is also the term Marcus Aurelius uses to address see M. P. J. Van den Hout, A Commentary on
normally Fronto;
the Letters Cornelius Fronto (Leiden, 1999), ad 1.5.
ofM.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Gellius Against the Professors 49

be no more than a polite manner of accosting someone whose knowledge is respected, as for instance in
Fronto's address to Apollinaris (19.13.2) or Favorinus' address to Domitius (18.7.2).45 We may also
note that in the same narrative position in exposure scenes Gellius sometimes uses similar manners of

address, such as 'uir bone' (5.21.6), 'uir doctissime' (6.17.4), or even 'philosophorum amplissime'
(1.2.6), which are clearly meant to be taken ironically,46 but do not refer to the addressee's

preoccupation with teaching. Nevertheless we cannot rule out the possibility that the similar ironic

usage of the vocative magister in episodes where grammarians are humiliated was not also meant to
recall the way young pupils addressed their teacher in the class-room, thus presenting the addressee as
one whose views represent the rudimentary level of knowledge suited to elementary teaching.47 This is
even clearer when the humiliated person is dubbed a litterator (16.6.1; 18.9.2), which evokes an even
lower stage of the education system.48 At 18.9.2 Gellius explicitly juxtaposes the litterator to the litteras

sciens, explaining: 'alter docens, doctus alter', and reveals his prejudice against the former by letting the
latter have the upper hand. It is noteworthy that in both occurrences of the term the person dubbed
litterator is also called a grammaticus (16.6.11, 18.9.3), and this, together with the fact that litterator is
never used to address a person directly, suggests that in Gellius' circle of educated people this term,
unlike magister, was indeed considered abusive per se.
The preoccupation money, which H. Dahlmann
of teachers with sees as the primary cause for
Florus' need to exculpate the professio litter arum,49 may also be traced in some of the grammarians
Gellius puts to shame, two of whom he describes as trying to sell themselves ('uenditatorem
Sallustianae lectionis', 18.4.1; iaudabat uenditabatque se', 13.31.1). Though we cannot be sure whether
for Gellius this expression still implies financial dealing, the question of fees is explicitly evoked by the
latter grammarian who is even made to use it as an excuse to evade the knock-out question: 'talia ego

gratis non doceo' (13.31.13). Furthermore, the ostentation which as we have seen characterizes many of
Gellius' derided professionals, may also be suspected of being a base technique of salaried teachers to
advertise their services.50
Further traces of social prejudice against grammarians may perhaps be discerned in the reference to
the 'grammaticorum uulgus' found in one exposure scene (15.9.3).51 Though Gellius' usage of 'uulgus'
seldom carries its original social connotations,52 it still reveals an elitist distinction between the many
and the happy few, and between the learned and the uncultured.53 And once we assume such a prejudice

45 The case of 5.10.13

(Euathlus' address to Protagoras) is, of course, intentionally ambiguous.
46 Such
irony explicitly asserted in 18.4.1.
is
47 The
grammarian addressed as magister at 4.1.4 is explicitly said to have produced nothing but 'scholica quaedam
nugalia' (? 1). On Gellius' scorn for such school-stuff, cf. praef. 15, and 8.10.
48 term to refer mainly to a 'teaching see
The 'litterator' has been shown grammaticus', and not to the 'magister ludi';
E.W. Bower, Some Technical Terms inRoman Education, Hermes 89 (1961), 462-77; A. D. Booth, Litterator, Hermes 109
(1981), 371-78. It seems nevertheless to have been used especially for teachers of the first stages of education; cf. Apul.
Flor. 20.3 (in which, pace Booth, I find it hard to take the differentiation between 'litterator' and 'grammaticus' as due to

stylistic variation only). See also Kaster, op. cit. (n. 37), 229-31.
49
Op. cit. (n. 42), 255-6; also Booth, op. cit. (n. 42), 5-6.
50 SAO.lem. animis ostentante'; cf. Quint. Inst.
E.g. 'capiendis imperitorum 12.11.14. Similarly, Gellius regards the title
de Loquendi Proprietate of a book by the grammarian Aelius Melissus as designed to attract readers ('inlecebrae ad

legendum', 18.6.3).
51 at 11.1.5.
Also 2.21.6 and cf. 'turba grammaticorum nouicia'
52 Social
prejudice may nevertheless be present in expressions such as 'in plebe uolgaria' (1.22.2), or 'ex sordidiore
usu' (16.7.4), as well as in the description of the rule-loving fool who faces Probus' rebuke as 'rudis profecto et aure
uulgi
agresti homo' (13.21.7). For 'profanum uolgus' (praef. 20) meaning 'indoctus', see L. Gamberale, Reminiscenze poetiche e

grammaticali in un passo di Gellio, RFIC 98 (1970), 194-8, and more generally Kaster, op. cit. (n. 32), 8-9.
53 Cf. and the confrontation
'uulgus semidoctum' (1.7.17), 'inperitus' (19.13.2, cf. 5.17.1), of the 'uolgus loquacium
nebulonum' with the true Stoic at 1.2. lern, and 7. Kaster also finds signs that Gellius still regards the professio litter arum as a
new profession in 11.1.5 and 16.7.13, but here I am a little hesitant. In the latter case, Laberius is said to have used

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50 A. Vardi

against the profession of teaching objection to underlie

to the professionals,
Gellius' their
characterization as ignorant, pedantic, and irascible becomes easier to explain, these being defects

commonly ascribed to teachers in the ancient world.54 His omission of other common allegations
brought against teachers, such as pederasty and a vicious readiness to employ the cane, may be
attributed both to Gellius' tact, and to his wish to keep his polemic with professional teachers restricted
to issues that bear upon their position in (adult) intellectual life.55
Raster's interpretation of Gellius' exposure scenes is thus not only the one best grounded in a
diachronic scheme of Roman cultural ideas, but also the one that can account for the largest number of
characteristics Gellius tends to ascribe
to the professionals he puts to shame. But it does not account for
the public exposure of any professionals except the grammarians, and we would thus need other

explanations for the rather similar scenes which involve philosophers, rhetoricians or experts in civil

law, who were not subject to the same prejudices as the teachers of grammar.56 Kaster also needs to

explain the exemption

away of some of the grammarians Gellius mentions from any of these allegations.

Sulpicius Apollinaris, he maintains, is intentionally portrayed as a grammarian of a different type, and

shaped into the ideal of what a grammarian should be.57 He is more deeply learned than the 'uolgus
grammaticorum', less combative and does not press his authority, his instruction is given not to pueri
but to mature as eminent adults such as Erucius Clarus
students as well (7.6.12; cf. 13.18.2) and in
public places therather
schoolroom, than
and the manner of his association with his followers

{sectatores rather than pupils) is more in accord with that of the ancient institution of tirocinium fori
than of the schola grammatical Valerius Probus might have earned Gellius' respect for responding to
the same ideal.59 But what are we to do with other grammarians, contemporary or of previous days, who
not only escape Gellius' rebuke but at times are even allowed to be in possession of the right answer?
One of these, 'a man well versed in early literature', who was present in the circle of Fronto and

Apollinaris at the vestibule

of the imperial palace, is even permitted to prove the great Apollinaris

wrong by providing an early example of the use of 'nanus' in Latin (19.13.5).60

As with other professionals, Gellius thus seems to present good as well as bad grammarians, who
differ not so much in their involvement with teaching, nor in the methodology they adopt, but rather in

'emplastrum' in the neuter, and not in the feminine 'ut isti nouicii semidocti', a sneer thatmay just as well be directed at the
of modern writers rather the precepts
than of grammarians, or at modern trends in the methods of the grammarians,
usage
who adhere to the rules of to hide their of ancient(cf. auctoritas
'grammaticorum noua institu?a',
analogy ignorance
17.2.15). Similarly at 11.1.5 the 'turba grammaticorum nouicia' who
explain
etymologythe of 'multa' ('fine') by the
of unlike Varro who maintained the origin of the term is Samnite
rather than Latin, may simply refer to
principle ?viuppocai?
modern as opposed to better ones of old, as in 'nouicios Philosophorum sectatores' at 1.9.11, or again
grammarians
to those modern who rules to erudition; see Holford-Strevens, op. cit. (n. 13), 127 and n. 10.
specifically grammarians prefer
54 1-2.
Booth, op. cit. (n. 42),
55 For the
bearing of irascibility on intellectual life, see below, p. 51.
56 that whom we can trust for social prejudices, rhetoricians
Note, however, Juvenal, always second-century couples
with in his list of the famished Greek newcomers into Roman society readily profess {Sat.
together grammarians occupations
3.76-7).
57
Kaster, op. cit. (n. 36), 59-60.
58 As cit. 126 rightly Gellius never calls Apollinaris a grammaticus or magister
Holford-Strevens, op. (n. 13), observes,

explicitly, though this may be implied in 7.6.12 and 18.4.1. For nostalgic longing for the tirocinium fori in the second
century, see Tac. Dial. 34, with Gwynn, op. cit. (n. 2), 132-4.
59 Suet. Gramm.
24.3, with A. Gris?t, Valerius Probus de Beyrouth, Helikon 2 (1962), 374-414, at pp. 389-90; Kaster,
cit. cit. for the possibility that Suetonius too was a grammarian of this type,
op. (n. 36), 54; idem, op. (n. 40), 249, 266-7;
Wallance-Hadrill, op. cit. (n. 37), 41. For 'sectator', see note 6 above and Kaster, op. cit. (n. 36), 59, n. 107. This type of
advanced grammatical teaching may go as far back as Caecilus Epirota; cf. Suet. Gramm. 16; and see M. L. Clarke, Higher
Education in the Ancient World (London, 1971), 12.Note, however, thatGellius' Probus is not a model of how to suffer
ignorance with forbearance (13.21.9).
60 Cf. the valuable of Fidus Optatus, a grammarian of great renown nominis Romae at
discovery ('multi grammaticum')
2.3.5. For 'nanus', see W. D. Lebek, Verba Prisca (G?ttingen, 1970), 135 n. 73.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Gellius Against the Professors 51

the width and depth of their erudition, and in the way they treat their interlocutors. Here we should
return to examine some characteristics of Gellius'
sight to professionals which seem at first to belong
the domain of etiquette. To lose one's temper, be impudent and hold one's interlocutors in contempt is

certainly bad manners, but can that be reason enough to make the professionals (and, as already noted,
only the professionals) pay with public humiliation for such faults? It can ifwe are to suppose that in
such persons these are not mere breaches of etiquette, but serious obstacles in the way of one of Gellius'
most cherished objectives. As proclaimed in his preface, a primary purpose of the Nodes Atticae is to
lure people of ordinary education ('ciuiliter eruditi', praef. 13; cf. 18.10.8) engaged in the business of

daily life ('aliis iam uitae negotiis occupatos', praef. 12; cf. 20.10.6) to dedicate whatever spare time
they have to learning and the contemplation of the useful arts ('ad honestae eruditionis cupidinem
utiliumque artium contemplationem'), and thus to redeem themselves from shameful and boorish

ignorance ('a turpi certe agrestique rerum atque uerborum imperitia', praef. 12; cf. ? 16). Meticulously
Gellius endeavours to remove all obstacles that might scare his prospective readers away from the

pursuit of knowledge, such as the hardship it involves61 or the intricacy of some of the topics he
discusses (?? 13, 17; cf. 16.8.15-17), and to represent intellectual activities, such as reading and
educated conversation, as not only dignified and worthwhile, but also an enjoyable occupation for one's
leisure, and such that can vie with other allurements that otium may provide.62 To encounter a haughty
professor and be the object of his bilious contempt for daring to discuss a topic of his expertise on equal
terms may impart a fatal blow to the attempt of Gellius' prospective readers to partake in paideia. By
representing these figures as ridiculous and making them the laughing stock of the company, Gellius

manages to turn such nightmarish encounters into rather amusing incidents.63 For some experts, on the
other hand, this very attitude towards their interlocutors serves as a technique to establish their superior
status versus the layman, as Gellius' wording at 18.4.6 most clearly reveals:
Turn ille rictu oris labearumque ductu contemni a se ostendens et rem, de qua quaereretur, et
hominem ipsum, qui quaereret: 'priscorum' inquit fet remotorum ego uerborum medullas et

sanguinem, sicuti dixi, perspicere et elicere soleo, non istorum, quae proculcata uulgo et

protrita sunt.
Then the other, showing by a grin
and a grimace that he despised both the subject of the
inquiry and the questioner himself said: T am accustomed to examine and explain the
marrow and blood of ancient and recondite words, as I said, not of those which are in
common use and trite.64
If this is what lies behind
ascription Gellius'
of irascibility, conceit and insolence to the

professionals in his
exposure scenes, we may suspect other of their stock characteristics, such as

pedantry, to be present because they also constitute part of the experts' techniques to manifest their
superior knowledge on the one hand, and may intimidate the layman into refraining from conversation
with such persons on the other. Ostentation and self-glorification are of course also a mechanism for
establishing one's professional reputation, especially in a world in which such a status was confirmed by

61
Though toil is implied in the title and occasionally mentioned in thework (e.g. praef. 4, 10, 14, 19, 19.9.5), apparent
ly since the effort of acquiring knowledge adds to the grandeur of intellectual achievement. See A. D. Vardi, Attic
Why
Nights? orWhat's in aName?, CQ2 43 (1993), 298-301, at p. 300.
62 in otio in ludo
'delectado atque liberalior', praef. 16; cf., for instance, the explicit references to enjoyment at 19.7.12,

19.9.5, and the detailed description of the pleasant setting of conversations inHerodes' villa (1.2.2), or while strolling along
the shore at Ostia with Favorinus on a spring (18.1.2). See further Beall, op. cit. (n. 32), 34-9.
evening
63 For
laughter as the response of those present at an exposure of a professional, see 13.31.10, 16.6.12, 19.10.14; cf.

7.16.1, and references to the exposer's witticism at 8.14.lem., 18.4.1.

64 as a means
Rolfe's translation. Cf. 6.17.2-3, 16.6.11, 20.10.2. For contempt for others to establish auctoritas, see also

Quint. Inst. 12.3.12.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52 A. Vardi

neither diploma nor institutional affiliation.65 But, as Gellius appears to imply at 8.10.lern., such

displays of one's abilities too may be meant to place the expert on a level that discourages others from

engaging in a discussion with him:

Qualis mihi fuerit [...] disceptatio cum grammatico quodam praestigioso [...] remotarum
autem quaestionum nebulas et formidines capiendis imperitorum animis ostentante.
A discussion that I had [...J with a conceited grammarian who [...J ostentatiously proposed
abstruse questions of a hazy and formidable character, to impress the minds of the
unlearned .66
Since for the layman abstruse questions are intimidating ('formidines'), vaunting his own capacity
to tackle them seems to serve the crafty grammarian to scare off potential contenders. Similarly, to save
his professional reputation, the grammarian proclaiming expertise in Sallusts' Historiae does not only
evade Apollinaris' imminent question, but also attempts to discourage his interlocutor from further
discussion by scornfully adding (18.4.6):
Surely a man ismore worthless and stupid than Gnaeus Lentulus himself, if he does not know that
vanitas and stoliditas indicate the same kind of folly.67

Experts such as this grammarian, who try to make their interlocutors feel like complete

ignoramuses, are of course even more dangerous to Gellius' endeavours to encourage laymen to partake
in intellectual discussions.
technique is also used by the young philosopher
The at Herodes' villa who

proclaims that compared with himself all others, Greeks and Romans, are uncultured boors ('praeque se
uno ceteros omnes [...] rudes esse et agrestes praedicabat', 1.2.4), thus reducing even Herodes Atticus
to the status of a layman ('nos [...] quos uocas idiotas', 1.2.6).68
To establish his superiority versus the rest of the company this conceited youth also claims to hold a
on a specific branch of knowledge ('asseuerabat nulli esse ulli magis ea omnia explorata,
monopoly
comperta meditataque', 1.2.4), as do two other professionals Gellius puts to shame, the one claiming to
be the only true interpreter of Varro's Menippean satires (13.31.1), the other boasting sole expertise in
the inner meaning of Sallust's Histories {ISA.lem., 2). But the claim to superior knowledge in a specific
field is after all what professing expertise is about. Iwould therefore suggest that it is primarily because
of this exclusiveness of the experts that they are the professed enemies of Gellius' programme. If they
are allowed to hold their monopoly on knowledge, the educated amateur would be excluded from
intellectual discourse and thus prevented exercising one of the most central components
from of his
scenes as a
humanitas.69 Therefore, though we may indeed regard Gellius' exposure representing
mechanism of exclusion, the picture which emerges from his work is no longer that of a dominating
elite trying to control the infiltration of newcomers of dubious origin to its circles, but rather of a
defensive combat against a powerful rivalling clique, which is just as exclusive. Thus, driven away from
the company assembled at Fronto's bedside, to which Gellius and his friend Iulius Celsinus also

65 chair or a position
Though some official posts, such as a position as tutor at the emperor's court, an imperial in, say,
the Museion of Alexandria, could have contributed much to the reputation of professionals. See Millar, op. cit. (n. 39), 493

4, 502-6, and for the significance of such a position inAusonius' career,M. K. Hopkins, Social Mobility in the Later Roman
Empire: The Evidence of Ausonius, CQ2 11(1961), 239-248.
66 Rolfe's translation.
67 Rolfe's translation. Cf. 6.17.2: me inludens leuitatem looked at me
'aspicit quaestionis prauitatemque' ('he
at the insignificance and faultiness of my question') and 19.10.8-9.
sniggering
68 Cf. allows his polemic with the professionals in general to fuse
6.17.4, 19.10.14. In chapter 1.2, set in Attica, Gellius

with the Greek between the new and the philosophers resenting the encroachment upon their
topical quarrel sophists
traditional cultural areas; cf. 17.20.4 and see Anderson, op. cit. (n. 5), 133-43.
69 For Humanitas cit. denial of the
Gelliana, see 13.17 with Beall, op. cit. (n. 32), 99-104; Kaster, op. (n. 32). Gellius'
social of 'humanitas', i.e. 'dexteritatem beniuolentiamque erga omnis homines promiscam' (13.17.1)
meaning quandam
might well betray his social prejudices.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Gellius Against the Professors 53

belonged, a crestfallen
grammarian resorts to a no less effective mechanism of exclusion and says: 'To

you alone, Fronto, will I tell [this] later, so that the less erudite may not hear and learn' (19.10.14).
It is therefore precisely for professing expertise that Gellius bears a grudge against the figures he

puts to shame in his exposure scenes. In this respect, as we have seen, experts in all disciplines are

equally bad, and we should probably ascribe the relatively large proportion of grammarians among them
to the fact that language and topics which most
literature are interest him.70 Some of the
the
characteristics commonly found in Gellius' portrayal of these experts reflect the menace he sees in them
to his ideal of a generally learned amateur, in as much as they discourage the participation of non

professionals in the intellectual discourse. Other traits, such as ignorance, dogmatism and over

specialization are clearly meant to render them vulnerable and thus less alarming for his prospective
readers. once
And they are marked as enemies, other traditional allegations against teachers,
grammarians, or philosophers may be thrown in to boost their denigration. As is his habit, against this
portrait of the professional who discourages debate and tries to keep knowledge for himself, Gellius is
also careful to set a different model of polite conversation and a standard of behaviour, common to both

laymen like himself and his friends and to genuine professionals such as his most illustrious idols, who
seek knowledge rather than an opportunity to shine in dispute, and are willing to share their learning and
to conduct their learned discussions with forbearance, modesty and respect towards their interlocutors
even when a pretentious
faced with ignoramus.71 And finally, the literary topos of exposing sham

philosophers and other charlatan professors, together with the generic conventions of the dialogue and
the symposium, were close at hand to give his scenes the hue of scholarship and to place them in a long
and respectable Graeco-Roman tradition.

As we have the gradual recognition

seen, of the cultural contribution of professional scholars witnessed
in the first two centuries CE, which is reflected (and encouraged) by the establishment of official posts
and the bestowal of imperial beneficia, resulted not only in a rise in their social status, but also in their
ever growing involvement in Roman intellectual life. That this was not always liked by the Roman elite,
at times even by the very persons who encouraged the process, we may learn, for instance, from the
report in the Historia Augusta that Hadrian, 'though he was most fluent in both speech and verse and
skilled in all the arts, nevertheless used to ridicule, scorn and treat the professors of all these arts

('professores artium') with contempt as if he was more

omnium learned than they' {Hadr. 15.10).72 It
seems, therefore, that we may regard the special turn Gellius gives to the traditional topos of exposing
charlatan professors as representing the reaction of erudite Roman gentlemen to the rise of this new
classof professional experts, for whom the pursuit of learning was no longer the mark of a vir bonus
and the quintessence of the otium litteratum of those otherwise engaged in their civic officium, but
rather a main occupation and at times also a lucrative business.73 As such it may well reflect Gellius'

70
According to the calculation of Cavazza, op. cit. (n. 19), 259 (based on T. Vogel, De Noctium Atticarum A. Gellii
in Philologische Abhandlungen Martin Hertz zum siebzigsten Geburststage von ehemaligen Sch?lern
compositione,
dargebracht (Berlin, 1888), 1-13), more than 60% of Gellius' chapters are devoted to questions appertaining to the ars

grammatica.
71 19.13.5. For the juxtaposition of the tyrant teacher and the mild mentor
E.g. 4.1.4,19; 5.21.6; 6.17.1; 7.15.5; 18.10.5;
cf. 2.29.1 and Aus. Ep. 22, with Booth, op. cit. (n. 42), 1-3.
72 Cf. ibid. 16.8: 'sed esset in reprehendendis
quamuis musicis, tragicis, comicis, grammaticis, rhethoribus, oratoribus

facilis, tarnen omnes et honorauit et diuites fecit, licet eos quaestionibus semper agitauerit' (But as he
professores ready
have been to criticize musicians, writers of tragedy and comedy as well as grammarians, rhetoricians and orators, he
might
nevertheless bestowed honours upon them and made them rich, though he always troubled them with questions). This
evidence of theHistoria Augusta is accepted as genuine by A. R. Birley, Hadrian, The Restless Emperor (London, 1997),
194-5. At worst we may take it to represent the views of late fourth century Romans of senatorial sympathies.
73 See of Morgan, cit. on the manner in which ancient writers on
the excellent discussion op. (n. 37), esp. pp. 262-70,
education presented enkyklios paideia as offering the elite minority a justification of its social superiority not just in terms of

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
54 A. Vardi

attempt to secure the place within the intellectual elite not only of his prospective readers, but also of
people like himself, or even of members of higher social strata, such as his friend the clarissimus vir
Servilianus (1.2.1) and the urban prefect Erucius Clarus, an attempt we might be justified to interpret in
terms of social conflict. But what Gellius' quarrel with the professors seems to reflect primarily is his
concern in the face of a radical
change in the paradigm of learning. In his endeavour to expose the
shortcomings of professional experts he detects and points out some of the most serious dangers
professionalism poses to intellectual life, namely narrow specialization and the creation of a breach
between the ivory tower of the 'academic' world and the generally educated population, which, he
seems to fear, would result in the surrender of knowledge to the hands of the professionals and a total
abandonment of the pursuit of learning by laymen. His representation of his admired mentors, biased as
it may be, as models of 'the good expert' whose conduct may ward off the hazards of the new
professionalism may betray the extent to which he regards this process as an irreversible and accom
plished fact.
Gellius has the not altogether undeserved reputation of being of mediocre intelligence and lacking in
originality.74 He is also a terrible name-dropper and a snob, and had he been more self-aware, he might
have been more cautious in condemning others for vices such as pedantry, garrulity and conceit. But he
has some ideas about what intellectual life should look like, and he knows how to harness his little
scenes and the characterization
of his dramatis personae to these views.75 His
lionization of the learned
amateur, together with the ideal of enkyklios paideia, are certainly not original, but rather the traditional
ideals of Roman aristocracy,76 and to modern eyes, his programme may indeed be regarded as an
attempt 'to give the weary successors of the younger Pliny and Frontinus something improving and

impressive to talk about over dinner. Trivial pursuits for tired administrators'.77 But, though his picture
of the balance of power between experts and laymen in his day may well be exaggerated, his battle was

eventually lost, and his work is nowadays read not by its original prospective readers, but by
professional scholars.78 This, it seems, requires us to treat his ideas about the dangers that
professionalism presents to general education with extra caution concerning our own prejudices, not
only his.

Jerusalem Amiel Vardi

birth and wealth, but also in terms of intellectual assets. For otium litteratum, see J.-M. Andr?, L 'otium dans la vie morale et
intellectuelle romaine (Paris, 1966), 279-334.
74 rev. W. Kroll F. Skutsch,
E.g. W. S. Teufell, and Geschichte der r?mischen Literatur (Leipzig, 61913), iii.95;
Nettleship, op. cit. (n. 30), at p. 415.
75 For a similar see Holford-Strevens, cit.
treatment of Gellius' characters and scenes, op. (n. 12); S. M. Beall, Aulus
Gellius 17.8: Composition and theGentleman Scholar, CPh 94 (1999), 55-64.
76 L.
Friedl?nder, Roman Life andManners under theEarly Empire, tr. J.H. Freese (London, 1909), iii 26-7; Bardon,
op. cit. (n. 39); Gwynn, op. cit. (n. 2), 82-92, 177-179; Christes, op. cit. (n. 2), 196-206; Kaster, op. cit. (n. 32), 8-10;
op. cit. (n. 37), esp. pp. 33-9; also the added visual dimension of H.-I. Marrou, sur les
Morgan, Movoik?? 'Avijp: ?tudes
sc?nes de la vie intellectuelle figurant sur les monuments fun?raires romaines (Grenoble, 1937), 213-14; P. Zanker, The
Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual inAntiquity, tr.A. Shapiro (Berkeley, 1995), 212-216.
77 N.
Horsfall, JRS 80 (1990), 217; cf. Holford-Strevens, op. cit. (n. 13), 6.
78 For a similar view of general in an age of increasing see S. Collini, Lament for
nostalgic learning professionalization,
a Lost Culture: How the Twentieth Century Came toMourn the Seriousness of the Nineteenth, TLS 19 January 2001, 3-5.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:44:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions