Speranza
Comparatively little is known about Aulo
Gellio, the author of his "Roman nights", as we may call them, and our sources of information are
almost entirely his own writings.
There is difference of opinion as to the date
and the place of his birth and of his death, as to the time and duration of his short
residence in Athens, and as to the time of his appointment as index and the
beginning of his legal career.
Opinions regarding these moot points are based
upon his own statements or on the certain dates—also comparatively few in
number—in the lives of various personages whom he mentions in the "Notti"; and
the estimates of different scholars vary greatly.
The gens "Gellia" was a clan
of Samnite origin, which seems to have taken up its residence in Rome soon after
the close of the second Punic war.
Two generals of the family, Stazio Gellio
and Gellio Egnazio, fought AGAINST THE ROMANS!
STAZIO GELLIO fought against the Romans in the first Samnite war.
GELLIO EGNAZIO fought against the Romans in the second Samnite war.
STAZIO GELLIO was defeated and taken prisoner in 305
B.C..
GELLIO EGNAZIO lost his life in the battle of Sentinum in 295.
At Rome one
branch of the "Gellio" family attained noble rank, if not earlier, through
LUCIO GELLIO PUBLICOLA, who was "praetor peregrinus" in 94 B.C., consul in 72,
and censor in 70.
It was Lucio Gellio Publicola who proposed to the senate that the civic crown
should be conferred upon Cicerone, in recognition of his services in suppressing
the conspiracy of Catilina.
AULO GELLIO also mentions two other members of the
clan:
Gnaeo Gellio, a contemporary and opponent of Catone the censor, and
another Gnaeo Gellio, of the time of the Gracchi, who wrote a history of
Rome, entitled "Annales", extending at least to the year 145 a.C.
AULO GELLIO
does not claim kinship with any of these Gellii (he doesn't need to -- it is IMPLICATED), and tells us nothing of his own
rank and social position.
AULIO GELLIO was evidently of a good family and possessed of
considerable means, being also the owner of a villa at
Praeneste.
AULIO GELLIO lived on terms of intimacy with many eminent men of his day, all
of whom owed their distinction, at least in part, to their intellectual
qualities.
The birthplace of AULO GELLIO is unknown.
Some have thought that he was of African
origin, but this is questioned by others.
He is perhaps one of the few Roman
writers who were natives of the eternal city.
At any rate, he was in ROMA at the
time when he assumed the gown of manhood, probably at the age of between fifteen
and seventeen.
The year of AULIO GELLIO's birth has been variously conjectured
from the few certain dates of his career.
We know that AULIO GELLIO was in Athens after
A.D. 143, since at the time of his residence there he refers to Herodes Attico,
who was consul in that year, as consularis vir.
At the same time he speaks of
himself as "iuvenis", from which some have inferred that he was then thirty years
of age.
But too much weight cannot be given to Gellius' use of iuvenis and
adulescens (or adulescentulus).
Not only are "iuvenis" and "adulescens" used loosely
by the Romans in general, and applied indifferently to men between the ages of
seventeen and thirty or more, but Gellius seems to use "iuvenis" in a
complimentary sense and adulescens with some degree of depreciation or, in
speaking of himself, of modesty.
Thus he commonly refers to his fellow-students
at Athens, and to legitimate students of philosophy in general, as "iuvenes",
while the ignorant and presuming young men whose “taking down” he describes
ordinarily figure as adidlescentes.
The date of his birth is variously
assigned to A.D. 113, 12 to the early years of the second century, to 123, 14
and to “about 130.”
It is certain that no part of his writing was done until
the reign of ANTONIO PIO (138–161), since he always refers to Adriano
as "divo", and it probably continued during the first half of the principate of
MARCAURELIO (161–180).
As AULIO GELLIO says nothing of the remarkable death of
Peregrino Proteo, whom he knew and admired, some have assumed that he died
before that event took place, in 165.
But Radulfus de Diceto, writing in the
early part of the thirteenth century, says:
GELLIUS scribit anno CLXIX.”
It
seems probable from the Preface to the "Noctes", which was obviously
written after the completion of that work, that Gellio died soon after
completing his book, since he has not given us the continuation which he
promises.
It seems evident that at the time of writing the Preface he was in
the prime of life, for his children were still continuing their education, while
he himself was actively engaged in the practice of his profession, or of
managing his property.
On the whole, it seems probable that he was born about
123, and, if we accept the statement of de Diceto, that he died soon after
169.
Gellio pursued in the schools the usual course of study, consisting of
grammar, in the Roman sense of the term, and rhetoric.
Grammar in the Roman sense of the term is best understood as 'letteratura', since a 'gramma' is a 'lettera'.
Among his instructors in
grammar was the celebrated Carthaginian scholar Sulpizio Apollinaris, who
was also the teacher of the emperor Pertinax, no less.
GELLIO studied rhetoric with
Antonius Julianus, with Titus Castricius, and perhaps with Cornelius
Fronto.
After completing his studies in Rome Gellio went to his 'grand tour' in Athens for
instruction in philosophy, and, as Nettleship thought, remained there from the
age of nineteen to that of twenty-three.
It is certain that GELLIO spent at least a
year in Greece, since he mentions the four seasons of spring, summer, autumn and
winter in that connection.
There is nothing, so far as I know, that indicates a
longer residence.
His book was merely begun in Athens, 24 not finished
there -- and that's why I prefer to call it "Seven Roman nights with GELLIUS", since we take "Attic" as a pretentious hyperbole.
The question of the time of Gellius' stay in Greece is closely
connected with that of his appointment as index.
At the time of his first
appointment he must have been at least twenty-five years old, although he
refers to himself as adulescens, and it seems wholly probable that he began his
legal career after returning to Rome.
Otherwise, since he continued to
practise his profession for some time, if not to the end of his life, we must
infer that his legal career was interrupted by his sojourn in Athens, which
seems improbable.
Gellius' student life in Athens combined serious work with
agreeable entertainment.
With Calvisio Tauro he studied PLATONE and ARISTOTELE,
but to what extent is uncertain.
He seems to have seen a good deal of
Peregrinus Proteus, of whom he gives us a very different impression from that
conveyed by LUCIANO, and he was on intimate terms with the famous rhetorician
Tiberio Claudio Herodes Attico, who was afterwards, at Rome, the praeceptor
of Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius.
With his fellow-students he enjoyed the
hospitality of Herodes at his VILLA at Cephisia and elsewhere.
He made an
excursion to Aegina with his comrades, and with Calvisius Taurus a trip to
Delphi.
And that's why we speak of the "GRAND TOUR" as being instituted by the Romans.
Every week the philosophers met at dinner (symposium), where they indulged
in various intellectual diversions.
After his return to ROMA, Gellius
continued his interest in philosophy and other learning, and it was there that
he became intimate with Favorinus, the friend of the emperor Hadrian.
He
speaks with particular admiration of Favorinus, whose "παντοδαπὴ ῾ιστορία"
(pantodape historia) may have suggested the form of the Noctes Atticae, and perhaps have
furnished some of its material.
GELLIO was intimate also with the poets GIULIO PAOLO
and Anniano, and with other intellectual men of the time.
The "Seven Roman notes with Gellio" is a collection of interesting NOTES on
-- grammar
-- public antiquities
-- private antiquities
-- history
-- biography
-- philosophy (including natural
philosophy)
-- points of law
-- literary criticism, and
-- miscellanea.
The "Seven Roman nights with GELLIUS" gives us valuable information in many fields of knowledge,
and it contains extracts from a great number of Roman writers
(275 are mentioned by name), the works of many of whom are otherwise wholly or
in great part lost.
While his ability is only moderate, Gellius is in the main
accurate and conscientious, although he sometimes gives the impression that he
has consulted original authorities when in fact he took his material at second
hand.
It is believed that he cites from no one whom he does not mention at least
once by name, but it is not certain that this applies to the single works of a
writer.
It does not apply to his contemporaries.
He seems to have consulted no
authority earlier than VARRONE (116–28 B. C.), and often to have resorted for VARRONE's
quotations from EARLIER writers to commentaries and grammatical works.
GELLIO sometimes tries to pass off the learning of others as his own, particularly in
the case of his contemporaries. Today we would call that 'plagiarism', but that's hyperbolic, perhaps.
The style of GELLIO is sometimes
obscure, and although he deprecates the use of obsolete words, his own writings
are by no means free from unusual and archaic words and expressions.
Cfr.
"Be perspicuous" by Grice, which ain't perspicuous.
"Avoid unnecessary prolixity, i.e. be brief", which ain't.
Gellio's faults are largely those of the time in which he lived, when the reaction which
led to the so-called Silver Latin had come to an end and a nice archaistic tendency
had taken its place. This tendency will last till MACROBIO, and then came the dark ages!
GELLIO frequently cites Cicerone and Virgilio, and always speaks of
them with respect, but his authorities for the use of the Latin language are in
large part the writers of the ante-classical period.
His translator
Weiss rates him most highly, and he is doubtless right in considering him modest
and fond of learning.
Agostino calls him “vir elegantissimi eloquii et
facundae scientiae,” and Erasmo speaks of “Gellii commentariis, quibus nihil
fieri potest neque tersius neque eruditius.”
He was used by many later writers,
extensively by Nonius Marcellus and Macrobius.
Our earliest manuscripts divide the "Seven Roman nights" into two
parts, containing respectively Books i–vii and ix-xx.
These were not united in a
single codex before the fourteenth or fifteenth century.
The eighth book is lost
except for the chapter headings and some inconsiderable fragments, a loss which
must have occurred between the time of Macrobio, who knew the eighth book, and
that of the archetype of our oldest manuscripts; that is, between the fifth and
the ninth centuries.
That the division of the work was sometimes made after the
ninth book is indicated by the epigram of Gaius Aurelius Romanus, which is found
in some of the manuscripts at the end of that book.
But it would be difficult to
account for the loss of the eighth book, if that division had been universal.
The manuscripts which contain the whole work are all late, with the exception of
the fragmnentum Buslidianum.
Those which contain the first part, Books i–vii,
are the following:
P. Codex Parisinus 5765, of the thirteenth
century, in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris.
It omits i. 1–2. 10 and ends at
vii. 4. 3 with the words ictus solis.
R. Codex Lugduno-Batavianus Gronovianus
21, formerly Rottendorfianus.
This manuscript is written in various hands, for
the most part of the twelfth century. It comes to an end at vi. 20. 6, and it
lacks the lemmata.
VATICANO.
V. Codex Vaticanus 3452, of the thirteenth century.
It
begins with the index of chapters, omitting the Preface.
The descent of these
manuscripts from a single archetype is shown by the occurrence of the same
lacunae (see i. 4. 3 and i. 22. 5 and other examples in Hertz and Hosius), by
the same arbitrary additions (iii. 17. 5; v. 18. 9, etc.), and by the same
errors (i. 3. 19, 24, 25, etc.).
The nature of some of the errors indicates that
the archetype of P, R, and V was written in uncials without
word-division.
From a different archetype is our oldest manuscript:
PALAZZO -- VATICANO --
A.
Palatino-Vaticanus xxiv, a palimpsest, assigned by Hertz to the fifth, by
Teuffel (6th ed.) to the sixth, and by Hosius, with a query, to the seventh
century.
It contains a Latin version of the books of Tobias, Judith, Job and
Esther, written over several earlier works: fragments of Livy xci, Cicero pro
Fonteio and pro C. Rabirio, Seneca, Lucan and others.
Beginning with the 80th
folio it contains large parts of Books i–iv of the Noctes Atticae with the
addition of a few chapter headings.
All the Greek is omitted and a space left
for its insertion by another hand.
Although carelessly written in “litteris ex
quadrata [p. xx] forma detortis,”
A supplies lacunae and corrects some errors.
It alone contains the end of the second chapter of Book i and the beginning of
the third chapter.
β.
Besides these extant manuscripts we have some readings
from a lost codex of Hieronymus Buslidius, a Belgian cleric and jurist, who died
in 1517. These readings are for the most part from Book i, with some from Books
ix, x, xvi, xvii, and xviii, and are largely due to L. Carrio. The codex had no
connection with A, although it contained the same parts of Books i, ii and iii.
The readings are not of great value, although they are occasionally helpful in
filling lacunae. Carrio's good faith has been questioned by some, but apparently
without sufficient reason.
Of the other manuscripts of the first part of the
Noctes the earliest, R, is not the best, since it has many indications of
corruption and interpolation. Moreover, the writer was unacquainted with Greek
except as single words. Nevertheless R sometimes has value (e.g. i. 11. 8; 14.
6, etc.). Of the three, V is the most valuable, since it contains all of Book
vii, is more accurate in its Greek, and is very little inferior to P in other
respects. The readings must, however, be carefully weighed in each case, and no
codex has prime authority.
Of Books ix–xx we have seven manuscripts, which on
the basis of common readings (correct and incorrect) are divided into two
classes. The first of these, γ, contains the following:
O. Codex Reginensis
inter Vaticanos 597, of the tenth century. It begins with ix. 14. 2,
grammaticam.
II. Codex Reginensis inter Vaticanos 1646, written [p. xxi] in
the year 1170, as appears from the colophon, “Willelmus scripsit anno . . .
MCLXX.”
X. Codex Lugduno-Batavianus Vossianus Lat. F 112, of the tenth
century. It contains Books x–xx, and also ix with the exception of 1–2.
10,fortissimorum; 8. 1, nasci non—12. 10, dicit; and 16. 6, postulantis,
etc.
N. Codex Magliabecchianus 329, of the fifteenth century. This codex was
written by Nicolai Nicoli, who was helped with the Greek by Ambrosius
Traversarius. It is the only manuscript, except the deteriores, which has the
words following xx. 10. 7. It seems to owe to the hand of Nicolai some correct
readings which it offers, either alone or in agreement with the second
family.
The second family, 8, contains the following:
Q. Codex Parisinus
8664, of the thirteenth century. In the Bibl. Nat. at Paris.
Z. Codex
Lugduno-Batavianus Vossianus Lat. F 7, of the fourteenth century.
B.
Fragments written in the year 1173, a part of which are contained in the codex
in the library of Berne which is numbered 404. It gives ix.–xii. 10. 3, esse
potuit. The rest, as far as xiii. 5 (xiii. 1–4 is omitted with a mistake in
numbering), is supplied by leaves of a manuscript of the university library at
Utrecht (codex Ultra-traiectinus), designated as Aevum vetus. Scriptores Graeci.
No. 26.
All these manuscripts of Books ix–xx, with the exception of Q,
sometimes have all or a part of the Greek written in Latin letters. Neither
family is greatly superior to the other. δ is slightly the better, especially Q;
but all the codices of both families must be considered.
[p. xxii] Codices O
and Q have corrections by a second hand (O2, Q2). These sometimes eliminate
obvious errors, but at other times introduce new conjectures. O also has
corrections by a third hand (O3).
Besides these complete manuscripts there
are two Florilegia contained in cod. Parisinus 4952 (T) and Vaticanus 3307 (Y),
both of the twelfth century. In spite of their age these only occasionally give
readings of any value.
Other codices used by Hertz are regarded by Hosius as
of no importance.
A number of inferior codices (ς), for the most part later
than the fourteenth century, contain the whole of Gellius, including the last
part of the last book (otherwise found only in N), as well as the
chapterheadings of Book viii. For this reason, and because they occasionally
correct errors, they are not wholly to be disregarded.
The value of
testimonia in text criticism is generally recognized. Of these Hertz has made a
thoroughgoing collection. In some testimonia Gellius is named (Vopiscus,
Lactantius, Servius, Augustinus, Priscian), but in very many instances he is
used without mention of his name (as in Apuleius, Nonius, Ammianus, the
Glossographers). Testimonia later than the ninth century (Einhard, John of
Salisbury, etc.) are of no value in restoring the
text.
The "editio princeps" of Gellius was
published in Rome in 1469 in one volume.
This was followed in 1472 by a second
Roman edition in two volumes and a Venetian edition in one volume.
The Venetian edition appeared in a twelfth reprint in 1500.
Other important early
editions are the Aldine in 1515, that of J. F. & J. Gronov, Leyden, 4 vols.,
1706, and a new edition of the latter by J. L. Conradi, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1762.
The standard critical edition is that of Martin Hertz, Leipzig, 1883.
An editio
minor of Hertz appeared in 1886, and the edition of C. Hosius in 1903, both in
the series of Teubner texts.
There is an English translation by W. Beloe,
London, 3 vols., 1795.
It contains numerous errors and omits many words and
phrases.
A much better version is that into German by Weiss (see note 3, p.
xiii).
There is a good French translation in the edition of Apuleius, Gellius
and Petronius by Nisard.
Weiss (p. xvi) mentions four other French translations:
one published at Paris in three volumes in 1789; one by Victor Verger with the
Latin text, Paris, 3 vols., 1820; one by Jacquinet et Favre; and a fourth by
Charpentier et Blanchet (the last two without dates); also a translation into
Russian of 1820.
Nothing approaching an adequate commentary on the Noctes
Atticae exists in any language.
A list of the important works dealing with
Gellius is given in the edition of Hosius, pp. lxi ff. Besides works already
cited the following additions may be made to his list:
W. Heraeus, review of
Hosius, Berl. phil. Woch. 1904, pp. 1163 ff.
F. Hache,
"Quaestiones Archaicae.
I. De A. Gellio veteris sermons imitatore", Breslau, 1907.
A. J. Kronenberg,
ad Gellium, Class. Quart., iv. (1910), pp. 23 f.
[p. xxiv] O. Lauze, Das
synchronistische Kapitel des Gellius (xvii. 21), Rh. Mus. lxvi. (1911), pp.
237–274.
P. Maas, Varro bei Gellius (on xviii. 15), Hermes, xlviii. (1913),
pp. 157–159.
W. Schick, Favorin>, περὶ παίδων τροφῆς, Leipzig, 1912.
A.
E. Evans, A. Gellius on Mala prohibita vs Mala in se, Class. Jour. ix. (1914),
pp. 396–398.
P. H. Damsté, ad A. Gellium, Mnemos. xlii. (1914), pp.
91–92.
Emendatur locus Gellianus (xi. 21. 8), Mnemos. xlvi. (1918), p.
444.
Critical Notes on Gellius i–xx, Mnemos. xlvii. (1919), pp. 288–298, and
xlviii. pp. 80–89 and 193–204.
E. W. Fay, Nigidius Grammaticus (casus
interrogandi apud Gell. xx. 6. 7–8), Amer. Jour. of Phil. xxxvi. (1915), pp.
76–79.
M. L. De Gubernatis, Questioncelle Probiane I (on Gellius xiii. 21),
Rivista di Filologia, xliv. (1916), pp. 235–245.
J. C. Rolfe, Prorsus in
Gellius, Class. Phil. xvii. (1922), pp. 144–146. 41
We now have Noctes
Atticus ed. P. K. Marshall 2 vols. Oxford Texts 1968, 1969.
Les Nuites
Attiques, i–iv ed. with French translation R. Marache Budé, Paris 1967.
[p.
xxv]
Sigla
For Books I–VII:
A = Codex palimpsestus
Palatino-Vaticanus.
P = Codex Parisinus 5765.
R = Codex Lugduno-Batavianus
21.
V = Codex Vaticanus 3452.
ω = The agreement of (A), P, R, V.
β =
Codex Buslidianus.
T Florilegium codicis Parisini 4952.
Y = Florilegium
codicis Vaticani 3307.
ς = The late and inferior codices.
ς = The vulgate
reading.
For Books IX–XX:
N = Codex Magliabecchianus 329.
O = Codex
Reginensis 597.
II = Codex Reginensis 1646.
X = Codex Vossianus Lat. F
112.
γ = The archetype of N, O, II, X.
B = Codex Bernensis 404 and
Rheno-traiectinus, aevum vetus, Scriptores Graeci 26.
Q = Codex Parisinus
8664.
Z = Codex Vossianus Lat. F 7.
δ = The archetype of (B) Q, Z.
ω =
The agreement of the codices of Books ix–xx.
Q2, O2 = Correctors of codices
Q, O.
T, Y, β, ς, ς,, as for codices of Books i–vii.
Note
A
complete Index of Proper Names is given at the end of vol. iii and, in
connection with the names of the writers, the editions of the fragments of those
whose works are in great part lost are there cited.
1 Livy, ix. 44. 13.
2
Livy, x. 18–29.
3 V. 6. 15.
4 xiv. 2. 21 and 26.
5 xviii. 12. 6.
6
Cf. xi. 3. 1.
7 By joining his praenomen A. with the nomen; cf. the reverse
process in M. Accius for T. Maccius Plautus.
8 Sittl, Die lok.
Verschicdenheiten (1882), p 144.
9 Vogel, Jahrb. f. klass. Phil. 127, p.
188.
10 xviii. 4. 1.
11 For example, i. 2. 3; i. 10. 1; viii. 3; ix. 15.
2; x. 19. 1; xiii. 20. 3.
12 Fritz Weiss, Die Attischen Nächte des Aulus
Gellius, Leipzig, 1876, p. viii.
13 B. Romano, Rivista di Filologia, xliv.
(1916), pp. 547 ff.
14 Lectures and Essays, 1885, p. 249 (from Amer. Jour. of
Phil. iv. pp. 4ff.).
15 Teuffel, Römische Literatur, 6th ed., 1913, iii., p.
95, and Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyk. s.v. Aulus Gellius.
16 Lucian, De Morte
Peregrini.
17 De Viris Illust. Radulfus is credited with using good sources
(Teuffel, Rōm. Lit. ii6, § 285, 3), but see Schanz-Hosius, Rōm. Lit. iii3, p.
178, and Götz, Ber. der Sächs. Akad. 75 (1926).
18 Praef. 24.
19 Praef.
23, quantum a tuenda re familiari procurandoque cultu liberorum meorum dabitur
otium.
20 vii. 6. 12, etc.
21 ix. 15. 1; xix. 9.
22 xi. 13. 1.
23
ii. 26. 1; xiii. 29. 2; xix. 8. 1.
24 Praef. 4.
25 xiv. 2. 1; xii. 13. 1;
cf. i 22. 6. Two separate appointments are mentioned, unless Gellius is
inaccurate in referring one to the praetors and the other to the consuls.
26
Digest, xlii. 1. 57; 1. 4. 8.
27 The writer in Teuffel's Römische Literatur
thinks it was after his visit to Athens.
28 See xi. 3. 1.
29 Scr. Hist.
Aug., vita M. Anton. ii. 4 (L.C.L. i. p. 136), v. Ver. ii. 5 (L.C.L. i. p.
210).
30 ii. 21. 1.
31 xii. 5. 1.
32 xv. 2, 3.
33 Scr. Hist. Aug.,
vita Hadr. xiv. 12 (i. p. 49 L.C.L.).
34 xix. 7. 1.
35 xx. 8. 1–2.
36
For fuller details see Nettleship, l. c. (p. xiii, n. 5) passim.
37 See
Knapp, Archaism in A. Gellius, Class. Stud. in hon. of H. Drisler, New York and
London, 1894; Foster, Studies in Archaism in A. Gellius, Columbia Univ. Diss.,
New York, 1912.
38 De Civ. Dei, ix. 4.
39 Adagiorum Chilias L, cent. 4,
prov. xxxvii.
40 For a list see Hertz, ed. maior, ii. (1885), pp. v.
ff.
41 The total number of examples should be 42; add xiv. 1. 29; 2. 16; 6.
5; xvii. 20. 2; xx. 5. 10.
The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius. With An English
Translation. John C. Rolfe. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University
Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1927.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment