BOWER, Some Technical Terms in Roman Education

8/12/2019 BOWER, Some Technical Terms in Roman Education

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bower-some-technical-terms-in-roman-education 1/17

Some Technical Terms in Roman Education

Author(s): E. W. BowerSource: Hermes, Vol. 89, No. 4 (1961), pp. 462-477Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4475183 .

Accessed: 08/04/2011 05:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

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 [email protected].

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4475183?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4475183?origin=JSTOR-pdf




462 E. W. BOWER

SOME TECHNICAL TERMS IN ROMAN EDUCATION'

I

In the first four chapters of Suetonius de Grammaticis we are given an

account of the early history of the teaching of literature at Rome, which for all

practical purposes started with the visit there of Crates of Mallos in I69 B. C.

The fourth chapter begins:

Appellatio grammaticorumGraecaconsuetudineinvaluit; sed initio litterati

vocabantur.Cornelius quoqueNepos libello quo distinguit litteratumab erudito

litteratos vulgo quidemappellari ait eos qui aliquid diligenter et acutescienterque

possint aut dicere aut scribere,ceterumproprie sic appellandos poetaruminter-

pretes, qui a Graecisyqajya-rtxoi nominentur. (2) Eosdem litteratores vocitatos

Messalla Corvinus in quadam epistula ostendit, non esse sibi dicens rem cum

Furio Bibaculo, ne cum Ticida quidem aut litteratoreCatone; significat enim

haud dubie Valerium Catonempoetam simul grammaticumquenotissimum. sunt

qui litteratuma litteratoredistinguant, ut Graecigrammaticuma grammatista,

et illum quidemabsolute,hunc mediocriterdoctumexistiment.quorumopinionem

Orbilius etiam exemplis confirmat; namque apud maiores ait, cum familia

alicuius venalisproduceretur, on temerequem itteratum n titulo, sed litteratorem

inscribi solitum esse, quasi non perfectum itteris sed imbutum.

From this it appears that the teachers of literature who later were regularly

called grammaticiwere originally called litterati, a claim which I propose to

call in question. The second paragraph contains the rather surprising state-

ment that they were also called litteratores, although some (apparently a

minority) distinguished litteratus from litterator as the more- from the less-

learned. What is surprising about this, of course, is that modern authorities

give litteratoras the regularword for an elementary teacher, and distinguish it

sharply fromgrammaticus,the secondary teacher; Suet., however, seems to be

aware of this distinction only as a minority view and not as part of the stan-dard terminology of his day. For the modern view cf. GWYNN, Roman Edu-

cation, p. 84: >Roman usage distinguished clearly between the elementary

schoolmaster (ludi magister or litterator, in Greek yQa,u,aztoar'g)who gave

lessons in readingand writing, and the teacher of literature<; cf. also HAARHOFF

in the Oxford ClassicalDictionary, s. v. Education, III. 3: )When Greek stu-

dies affected Rome (c. 240 B. C.) the school of the elementary teacher (littera-

tor) appeared ... After the Second Punic War came the secondary school of

the grammaticus.. .

I propose to examine this passage of Suet., together with evidence fromother authors, to see what light can be thrown on this topic; and to begin

1 I wish to thank Professors M. J. BOYD and M. L. CLARKE for criticisms and sugges-

tions, and the Editor of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae for his kindness in supplying me

with a complete list of references for litterator, litteratus, litteratio, and litteratura.



Some Technical Terms in Roman Education 463

with I should like to consider how far we can accept Suet.'s first sentence.

It will be noticed that the expression is vague, and gives no indication of the

period referred to in initio; GUDEMANn PW (s. v. Litterator&c) would apply

invaluit to Suet.'s own day (>hasbecome current<),but prefers to understand

initio not of the years immediately after the embassy of Crates,but of a later

period towards the end of the Republic, when Alexandrian views on poetry

and scholarship were current.

GUDEMANmay well be right about the force of invaluit here, though

grammaticuswas used much earlier, and is found several times in Cicero;

cf. de Oratore I, 3, IOhuic studiolitterarum,quodprofitenturei qui grammatici

vocantur, a form of expression which suggests that grammaticushad not yet

crystallized into a technical term. His view about initio depends mainly on

the hypothesis that if the teaching of literature at Rome did in fact stem from

the embassy of Crates it would be unlikely that the teachers would be called

either grammaticior litterati(presumably a direct translation of yaa,[lacrwxol),

since the Pergamene scholars of whom Crates was the head called themselves

xetrtxot', while their rivals the Alexandrians used the name yea,u4uaztxot'.I am inclined to agree with GUDEMAN on this latter point; and in fact I would

go further, and argue that we have no reliable evidence that they were ever

called litterati at all. I shall suggest that Suet.'s statement was probably

based on a vague recollection of an attempt which seems to have been made

in the first century B. C. to establish a Latin terminologyfor Roman education,

and that if (as Cicero's words just quoted seem to imply) grammaticuswas

late in coming into use at Rome, the earliest name for the teacher of literature

is likely to have been litteratorrather than litteratus.

If we examine Suet.'s words carefully we see that he brings no reliable

evidence in support of his statement sed initio litterati vocabantur.The slightly

puzzling use of quoque in the following sentence suggests that the quotation

from Nepos is intended, not as proof of the previous statement, but as anillustration of a fact already established; but in any case Nepos' words could

be taken in more than one way. He could be correcting a popular misconcep-

tion about the meaning of litteratus,or trying to restore an original use which

had become obsolete; alternatively he could be recommending the adoption

of a new distinguishing term, or more accurately the restriction of a term in

general use to a particular technical meaning.

In trying to choose between these interpretations we are hampered by

lack of knowledge about the libellus in question, which has not survived; no

other reference is made to it, and modern scholars cannot agree what it waslike. SCHANz-HosIus Geschichte der R. Literatur I p. 357 ? 6) suggest that

the statement might have occurred in the preface to an assumed section on

grammaticiin de Viris Illustribus; others, as LEO,suppose that Suet. is refer-

ring to a special libellusdistinguishing litteratusfrom eruditus. It seems unlikely



464 E. W. BOWER

that if Suet. had been referring to a work on illustrious grammatici he would

have referred to it thus; it seems necessary to assume that the phrase libellus

quo distinguit litteratumab eruditoindicates at least the purpose of the book if

not its title.

But to write a book or even a pamphlet simply to distinguish between two

words seems a rather improbable proceeding; it becomes less so, however, if

we assume that Nepos' object was to advocate the use of litteratusas the Latin

equivalent of yea/u,uartxo's.Probably in fact the gerundive apbpellandos oints

this way, since if he had merely meant that popular usage was wrong he might

well have used appellari; but even then we are no nearer a solution, since there

is nothing to show whether he was advocating a new use or trying to revivean old. However, there is at least a good possibility that he was doing the

former, and Suet.'s quotation cannot therefore be taken as reliable evidence

that grammaticiwere once called litterati. It may of course still be true, for all

that; but I am going to suggest that in fact litteratuswas never a mere synonym

of grammaticus,but that their true relationship was always that of genus and

species, litteratus (when used as a substantive) meaning )>cultured, ducated

mane(,and including others besides teachers of literature.

The earliest examples of the word quoted by the dictionaries are found in

Plautus, in the literal sense of ))inscribed, ettered&(;t is so used of a smallsword and an axe found in a chest among trinkets which help to identify a

long-lost child (Rud. 4, 4, II2. II5), and of an urn (ib. 2, 5, 21). Used of a

slave it means )branded< (Cas.2, 6, 49, where note the substantival use); this

literal use is found again in Apuleius, in both senses: cf. Met. 3, I37, 7, and

9, 222, 30. GUDEMAN1 claims to find the derived meaning doctus, eruditus in

Plautus, but I have been unable to find an example of this, unless the urna

litterata which eapse cantatquoia sit (Rud. 2, 5, 2I) be taken as a play on two

senses of the word. In Cicero, who uses it only adjectivally, this derived

meaning prevails: so Canius, an eques Romanus, is described as nec infacetuset satis litteratus in de off. 3, I4, 58; Servius Galba studies with servis litteratis,

quorumalii aliud dictare eodemtemporesolitus esset, a case he is to plead next

day (Brut. 22, 87); the orator Albinus, is qui Graecescripsit historiam, et litte-

ratus et disertusfuit (ib. 2I, 8i); Cicero himself tells the jurist Sulpicius tua

veronobilitas .... . hominibus litteratis est notior,populo veroet suffragatoribus

obscurior(pro Mur. i6); while he describes Ser. Clodius (he and his father-in-

law together instruxerunt auxeruntqueab omni parte grammaticam Suet. de

Gramm.3) as litteratissimum(ad Fam. 9, i6, 4). It will be observed that only

the last example relates to a professed grammaticus; the others are mostnaturally taken as ))menof culture or learning(.

The earliest reliable examples of litteratusas a substantive in the derived

sense appear to be those quoted from Orbilius and Nepos by Suet. in the

1 Loc. cit. 744.



Some TechnicalTerms in Roman Education 465

passage under consideration; both the authors lived in the first century B. C.,

Nepos c. 99-c. 24, Orbilius somewhat earlier (he came to Rome at the age of

50 in 63). But the substantival use never became common, so far as I can

judge; it is most frequently found in the Historia Augusta, where of twelve

examples I have noticed seven are substantival, and in the Christian fathers,

where the proportionis nine out of fourteen; elsewhere it is very rare. In two

of the seven examples from the Hist. Aug. the context clearly excludes the

possibility that litteratusis used as the equivalent of grammaticus;so in Clod.

Alb. I2, I2 Septimius Severus says of Albinus in a letter to the senate maior

fuit dolor (sc. mihi) quodillum pro litterato audandumpleriqueduxistis, cum ille

neniis quibusdam anilibus occupatus inter Milesias Punicas Apulei sui et

ludicra litteraria consenesceret.Here the second part of the sentence indicates

that Albinus is describedas litteratusbecause he dabbled in literature (cf. also

agri colendiperitissimus, ita ut etiam Georgicascripserit.Milesias (sc. fabulas)

nonnulli eiusdem esse dicunt ii, 7-8); he was also moderately educated

(eruditus itteris Graecis et Latinis mediocriter5, i). His father also is described

as litteratus1because his knowledge of literature and general education enabled

him to recognize an omen when he saw one (quod ille homo litteratus omen

accipiens et testudinem ibenter accepit et eam curari iussit &c. 5, 7). Neither is

anywhere described as a grammaticus,and there is no reason for thinking that

either was.

Again, when the senators are acclaiming Tacitus as emperor, they ask ecquis

melius quam gravis imperat? ecquis melius quam litteratus imperat? (Tac. 4,4),

whereagain litteratusclearly means )>a ultured man((,and there is no suggestion

that he was a grammaticus; later, in fact, we read of the emperornec unquam

noctem intermisit qua non aliquid vel scriberet ille vel legeret (ii, 8). In the

remaining five examples of the substantival use in the Hist. Aug. it would be

possible to take litteratus as equivalent to grammaticus,but in no case is this

necessary, and the meaning ))culturedman<(s always appropriate.So in Ael.4, 2

and 4, 5 Hadrian is represented as enjoying the company of litterati; Opellius

Macrinus adhibuit convivio litteratos,ut loquensde studiis liberalibusnecessario

abstemius(Op. Macr.I3, 5). Alexander Severus had the habit ut si de iure aut

de negotiis tractaret, solos doctos et disertos adhiberet,si vero de re mtilitari,

militares veteres et senes bene meritos. .. et omnes litteratos et maxime eos qui

historiam norant, requirens quid in talibus causis ... veteres imperatores...

fecissent (Sev. Al. i6, 3), where clearly a knowledge of literature, especially

historical, is implied, but there is no need to assume that they were practising

grammatici.Only in the last of the five examples is there some ground for hesitation:

Alex. Severus adsessoribus(assistants to provincial governors) salaria instituit,

quamvissaeke dixerit eos essezbromovendosui perse rem ibublicamererekossent,

1 Here of course adjectivally.

Hermes 89,4 30



Some TechnicalTermsin Roman Education 467

only other passage I have noticed in the Patrologia where the sense gram-

maticus( might seem appropriate: Symmachus (Rel. 5, 2) refersto Celsus,ortus

Archetimopatre, quem memoria itteratorumAristotelisubparemuisse consentit;

though in any case there would be little to choose here between the two mean-

ings, even if the word were taken to be from litteratus.

Consideration of a large number of passages from all periods of Latin

literature' has in fact failed to produce a single decisive example of the use of

litteratusin the sense of grammaticus.This in itself of course is not enough to

disprove Suet.'s statement that litteratus was the original name for the gram-

maticus,since he implies that the use was in any case obsolete in his own day;

though in fact traces of it might have been expected to survive. There is

however another passage where a similar (though by no means identical)

statement is made, and we must now consider this.

In MartianusCapella 3, 229 one of the bridesmaids at the marriage of Mer-

cury and Philology says: Feauuartxr dicor in Graecia, quodye,an/ linea et

yea,u,aua litteraenuncupentur,mihiquesit attributum itterarumormas propriis

ductibus lineare. hincque mihi Romulus Litteraturae nomen ascripsit, quamvis

infantemmeLitterationem olueritnuncupare,sicut apudGraecos eaa artaTm

primitus vocitabar,tunc et antistitem dedit et assectatores mpuberes aggregavit.

itaque assertornostri nunc litteratusdicitur, litteratorantea vocabatur.hoc etiamCatullus quidam, non insuavis poeta, commemoratdicens 'munus dat tibi Sulla

litterator'. dem apudGraecosyea,jua-ro&6'axato; vocitatur. 230) Officium vero

meum tunc fuerat doctescribere egereque;nunc etiam illud accessit,ut meum sit

erudite intellegere probareque . . .

The meaning of this passage is not immediately obvious; or more accurately

two differentinterpretations seem possible, and it is difficult to decide between

them. The second sentence contains a clear referenceto the attempt (whichwill

be discussed in ? III of this article) to establish a Latin terminology for educa-

tion. Romulus is presumably used collectively here for the Romans, andyeajuta,rix'/litteratura represents secondary education while yea,uartartxi/litteratiorepresents the primary stage; the phrase quamvis infantemmeLittera-

tionem voluerit nuncupare is a clear verbal reminiscence of the phrase from

Varro embedded in the quotations fromAugustine and Isidore given on p. 775.

The question arises whether the third sentence, with its distinction between

litteratus and litterator, s intended to correspondto the earlier distinction be-

tween litteraturalyealituartmxnd litteratio/yeacqiuaxtartx4t seems natural to

take it so, and in this case Capellawould be saying that the teacher of the latter

(i.e. primary education) was in his day called litterator,and the teacher of theformer (i.e. secondary education) was called litteratus.This of course does not

directly support Suet.'s statement that the original name of the secondary

1 See p. 462 n. I.

30*



468 E. W. BOWER

teacher was litteratus;but at least it is evidence that this name was given to him

at some period - evidence which, as we have seen, is otherwise conspicuously

lacking.

However, certain indications suggest a different explanation. The third

sentence, taken in isolation, would naturally mean that the teacher of gramma-

tice (assertornostri)was called litteratusin Capella's time, but litteratorearlier;

the quotation from Catullusis then introduced as an example of this earlieruse,

now presumably obsolete. It will be noticed that there is nothing in the quota-

tion itself, or in the poem from which it was taken (I4), to show in what sense

Catullus was using litterator;certainly there is nothing to show that it means

)>primaryeacher<(, nd we shall see in ? II that it can (and more often does)mean )>secondaryeacher((or grammaticus.This implies that the contrast be-

tween nunc litteratusdiciturand litteratorantea vocabatur s between two periods

in the historical development of education, not between the primary and

secondary stages of Capella's own day.

If this interpretation is correct, does it apply to the distinction between

ryeauartartx /litteratio and yeal,utacrtx/litteratura?.e. are these also regarded

as different periods in the historical development of education rather than two

stages in the education of any one pupil? I find this difficult to decide; but

fortunately for my present purpose there is no need to decide it. Whicheverinterpretation of the passage from Capella we adopt, he clearly states that the

teacher of grammaticewas in his day called litteratus; and this is the only

statement I have found, apart from the passage from Suet., that litteratus and

grammaticuswereat any time synonymous. Whetherhe uses litteratoras _ )>pri-

mary teacher((or as an early equivalent of litteratus_ grammaticus s irrelevant

to my purpose; either interpretation would fit the facts (as we shall see in ? II),

but it is noticeable that he seems unaware that the use of litterator= gram-

maticus was current in his own day, or at any rate is found in Macrobius (see

quotations on p. 47I).

We have then two statements by Suet. and Capellathat litteratuswas used

as a synonym forgrammaticus;the first describesit as an early use, presumably

obsolete in his day, the second as current in his own time. The statements are

not irreconcilable, since litteratus may as Suet. says have been the original

term, which later fell into abeyance (as is borne out by the fact that it never

seems to be found in this sense), but was revived in Capella's day; but it may

be noticed that Capella himself does not use litteratus thus except in this

passage (as may easily be verified by a glance at the index in the Teubner

edition), while he uses grammaticusa number of times. It is odd also that heseems unaware of the current use of litterator=grammaticus;and one suspects

that the information conveyed in this passage may not in fact be derived from

personal observation but from some authority he has consulted. In any case,

it seems necessary to regardhis evidence with some mistrust; and we are still




without any reliable example of litteratusused as a synonym for grammaticus,

as distinct from the statements of identity in Suet. and Capella.

II

Before any decision is reachedon the equivalence of litteratusand grammati-

cus, however, I shouldlike to considerthe use of litterator. t will be noticed that

in both Capellaand Suet. the two forms are mentioned together, and that both

writers' claim that litteratorwas also at some time or other a synonym for

grammaticus.Now modern authorities generally take it for granted that the

litteratorwas the elementary teacher of reading and writing, and as such clearly

distinguished from the grammaticus . It will be advisable to consider the

evidence for this view.

The passage commonly quoted in support of it is Apuleius Florida 4, 20,

where the author after quoting a saying of some sage about wine: Prima,

inquit, craterraad sitim pertinet, secunda ad hilaritatem,tertia ad voluptatem,

quartaad insaniam, proceeds to adapt this to the craterraMusarum (learningor

education): prima craterra itteratorisruditueximit, secundagrammaticidoctrina

instruit, tertiarhetoriseloquentiaarmat.The reading of the first phrase is uncer-

tain, but at least there can be no doubt that three stages of education are in

question, and that the litteratorrepresents the first stage.

The three stages of Roman education are of course well-established, and

admit of no dispute; there is also other evidence that the elementary teacher,

often called ludi (litterarii)magister,was also called litterator.So, e.g., a poet of

the early empire,Alphius Avitus, in MORELrag. Poet. Lat. p. I43, mentioning

the Faliscan schoolmaster who offered his pupils as hostages to the Romans

(cf. Liv. 5, 27), calls him litterator;he would naturally be a primary teacher

since higherstudies had not yet appearedat Rome. Again, in the Hist. Aug. the

account of the education of M. Aurelius runs: usus est magistris ad prima

elementaEuphorione litteratoreet Gemino comoedo,musico Androne eodemquegeometra3.. usus praetereagrammaticis,GraecoAlexandro Cotiaeensi, Latinis

TrosioApro et Pollione, et Eutychio ProculoSiccensi. oratoribususus est Graecis

Aninio Macro,Caninio CelereetHerodeAttico,LatinoFrontoneCornelio M.Ant.

2, 2ff.). Again, Alexander Severus, who was educated both in his native Syria

and at Rome, in prima pueritia litteratoreshabuit Valerium Cordum et T.

Veturium et Aurelium Philippum libertumpatris ... grammaticum in patria

GraecumNehonem,rhetoremSerapionem,philosophumStilionem, Romaegram-

maticos4 Scaurinum Scaurini filium ... rhetoresIulium Frontinum etc. (Sev.

Al. 3, 2f.), from which it seems that he received a complete Greek education inSyria, but had to wait for his education in Latin literature and rhetoric until he

1 If we adopt the second explanation of Capella. 2 See quotations on p. 462.

3 Comoedo,musico, geometra: cf. Quintil. i, io-I iT. 4 The plur. is presumably an error.



470 E. W. BOWER

came to Rome (though he presumably learned the Latin language in Syria, if

the names of his teachers are anything to go by).In

both these passageslittera-

tor is clearly distinguished from the grammaticus as the primary from the

secondary teacher.

In two other passages in the Hist. Aug., however, litteratorappears to be

used as a synonym for grammaticus,thus supporting the identification of the

two terms in Suet. (and Martianus Capella?). So in Comm. i, 6 we read that

Commodus habuit litteratoremGraecumOnesicratem,Latinum Capellam An-

tistium; oratorei Ateius Sanctusfuit; and since only two stages are mentioned

instead of the usual three it is more likely that the first and least important

stage is omitted than that the firstand third stagesarementionedandthe middleone omitted; similarly Quintilian in Book I, though of course assuming that

the child will be taught the Greek and Latin languages, never in fact mentions

the primary teacher by name. The second passage comes from the life of the

younger Maximinus (Maximini duo 27, 2-5): ... litteris et Graecis et Latinis

imbutus ad primam disciplinam. nam usus est magistro1 Graeco litteratore

Fabillo, cuius epigrammataGraecamulta et exstant . . . qui versus Graecosecit ex

illis Latinis Vergilii ... grammatico Latino usus est Philemone, iurisperito

Modestino,oratoreTitiano ... habuit et GraecumrhetoremEugamium . . . Here

at first sight it might look as though Fabillus were an elementary teacher, buttwo considerations make this improbable. In the first place, the fact that he

wrote epigrams and translated passages of Virgil into Greek suggests a gram-

maticus rather than a mere teacher of readingand writing; in the second place,

if he were an elementary teacher there would be no mention in the passage of a

Latin elementary teacher or a Greek grammaticus, though both Latin and

Greek rhetoricians are mentioned; but we know in fact that Maximinus atten-

ded a Greek grammaticus (cf. cum grammaticodaretur, quaedamparens sua

libros Homericosomnes ... dedit30, 4). It is more likely, then, that Fabillus was

a grammaticusGraecus,and we then have the names of both Latin and Greekgrammaticiand rhetoricians, while the names of his elementary teachers are

omitted as less important, as in Comm. i, 6. These two examples, then, support

the identification of litteratorand grammaticus; this is, of course, without

prejudice to the fact already noticed, that litterator s also used for an elementary

teacher in two other passages of the Hist. Aug.

However, the identification of litteratorand grammaticus does not rest on

the two passages cited, but is amply confirmedby the usage of other writers. So

Gellius uses litterator wice in this sense; in Noctes Atticae i6, 6 he mentions a

linguaeLatinaelitterator,Roma a Brundisinis accersitus,who experiundum sesevulgodabat (? i). The man was clearly a poetarumexplanator2;he was reading

1 For magister of a grammaticus cf. Suet. op. Cit. 23 ad fin.; Gell. Noctes Att. I9, 10, 13.

2 Cf. sunt enimnexplanatores onmniumhorum, ut grammatici poetarum (Cic. de Div. i,

5I, iI6).



Some Technical Termsin Roman Education 47I

(albeit barbare nsciteque) a passage from Aeneid 7, and on being cornered by

Gellius on the meaning of bidenssaid angrily: Quaereeapotius quaeegrammatico

quaerendasunt; nam de ovium dentibus opiliones percontantur (? iI); he thus

identifies himself as a grammaticuseven though Gellius called him a litterator.

Again, in i8, 9 Gellius says: )>Insecenda((uid esset quaeri coeptum. um ex his qui

aderantalterlitterator uit, alter litteras sciens, id est alter docens, doctus alter. hi

duo inter sese dissentiebant. et grammaticus quidem contendebat))insequenda((

scribendumesse . .. alter autem ille eruditiornihil mendum, sedrecte . scriptum

esseperseverabat ? 2 ff.). If we take the wordsin their naturalorder,we find that

alter litterator = docens = grammaticus, while alter litteras sciens = doctus=

alter eruditior. We may be tempted to suppose that the contrast between the

two is the same as that noted by Suet. in the passage under considerationbe-

tween litteratorand litteratus;but it cannot be the same, since the grammaticuss

representedhere as the less-learned of the two, and there is in fact nothing here

to hinder the identification of grammaticus and litterator as in the previous

example; it would be perverse, in fact, to try to avoid it. It is perhaps worth

noting that neither litterator n the sense of primary teacher, nor litteratus as a

substantive, seem to be known to Gellius; apart from the two passages just

considered, grammaticusalone seems to be used.

Two and a half centuries later Macrobius uses litterator in the sense of

grammaticus; cf.: nec his Vergilii verbis copia rerum dissonat, quam plerique

omnes litteratorespedibus illotis praetereunt, tanquamnihil ultra verborumex-

planationemliceat nosse grammatico (Sat. I, 24, I2); modomemineritisa Servio

nostro exigendum, ut quidquid obscurumvidebitur, quasi litteratorumomnium

maximus palamfaciat (whereit could of course come from litteratus,but if so it

would be the only example of this use) (ib. 20); Eustathius )>iam udum<(,nquit,

)multa de Vergiliogestit interrogareServium, quorumenarratio respicit officium

litteratoris(( ib. 6, 7, 2); see finally 5, I9, 3I, where after a disquisition on ara

Palici in Aen. 9, 585 he concludes: absolutaest, existimo, ... explanatio Ver-giliani loci; quem itteratoresnostri necobscurum utant .. . It will be seen that in

each of these passages Macrobius s talking about the literary studies which are

associated with the grammaticus,and the work of the primary teacher is not in

question.

It should perhaps be mentioned here that GUDEMAN (Ioc. cit.) cites Jerome's

Commentaryon St. Matthew 8 as an example of the use we are studying. He

quotes the passage as follows: litteratorerat, quod significantius graecedicitur

yea,uua-rto0g.However, the only editions I have been able to consult, including

MIGNEPatrologiaLat. 26, p. 54) read yeayuacrzev'g.he man was in fact a scribeof the Jewish law; the regular N. T. Greek word for this is yea,uuaaTEVg,he

Latin scriba; see Matth. 8, 29 and passim. As far as I know litterator s not

elsewhere used as an equivalent in the N. T., but Tertulllan (de Idololatria 9)

in a reference to I CorinthiansI, 20 translates zoviyeal,,amEv'g;by ubi litterator?



472 E. W. BOWER

though the passage appears as ubi scriba? in the Vulgate. These two passages

perhaps suggest that the Jewish scribe was sometimes thought of as roughly

equivalent to the Latin litterator,in one of the two senses (presumably the

higher) of the word; in any case the second passage supports the reading

yeapya-revg rather than yea,u,/artxo'g n Jerome,and we cannot therefore use

him as evidence for the equivalence of litterator and grammaticus. Doubt

similarly arises about a passage in Augustine contra Cresc. I, I4, I7, which at

first sight appears decisive; sicut autemgrammaticusa veteribusLatinis dictus

est litterator.Unfortunately however the mss. vary, and MIGNE(Patr. Lat. 43,

456) adopts the reading litteratus from some of them; so that we cannot use

this passage either as evidence for the identification. It seems possible that the

reading litteratus is due to a recollection of Suet.'s words; and if my thesis be

accepted that litteratusis never used in practice as a synonym for grammaticus

we shall naturally read litteratorhere; but this cannot be pressed.

Finally, a casual piece of evidence; a late chronographer, Chron. Alex.

(Monum.German.Hist. ed. MOMMSEN, ol. 9, p. I20, 262) = Excerpta Latina

Barbari (ChronicaMinora I ed. FRICK (I892) P. 246, I5) refers to Homer as

literatoret scriba; the Greekversion of this (FRICKP. 247, 45) calls him o yeah-

,uartxog xat yeaivg.

Enough evidence has now been brought to show that the use of litterator n

the sense of grammaticuswas well established in Latin literature of the Empire;

the late grammarians indeed included it in their definitions, as eg. Explan. in

Donat. (GLK4,486-7); grammatica ibtdr6vyeaztu,ua'rTvicta est. undeet Latini

a litteris appellaverunt itteraturam, temgrammaticum itteratorem;and Diome-

des Grammatica (GLK I, 42I, II); nam et grammaticusLatine litterator est

appellatus,etgrammatica itteratura.How farback we can trace it is difficult to

say. Catullus (I4, 9; see quotation from Capella on p. 467) mentions a Sulla lit-

terator whom he suspects of having given Calvus a present of pessimi poetae

which he then passed on to Catullus; but whether he was a grammaticusor aprimary teacher there is nothing to show. He is likely to have volumes of poetry

in his possession, and so more likely perhaps to have been a grammaticus,but

that is as far as we can go. Suet. himself refers to a letter written by Messalla

Corvinus (64 B.C. - 8 A.D.) which says non esse sibi rem cum Furio Bibaculo,

ne cum Ticida quidem aut litteratoreCatone,where Suet. rightly assumes that

Valerius Cato, poetamsimul grammaticumque otissimum,must be in question;

see de Gramm. ii, where all three writers are mentioned together as here. He

also attributes to Orbilius,who came to Rome at the age of 50 in 63 B.C., the

statement that apud maiores (2nd. century B.C.?) it was more common tofind slaves for sale described as litteratores han as litterati; the assumption is

that litteratus represented a higher degree of education than litterator, and

sellers were chary of claiming too much. Perhaps it may not be unduly cynical

to wonder if such diffidence has ever been characteristic of sellers; it seems




equally possible that litteratormay have been more commonly used in this

connection because it implied teaching experience, and a slave so qualified

would be more valuable than one who was educated but had no such experience.

This of course is only a suggestion, and I do not propose to claim this as an

example of litteratorn the sense of grammaticus;but I think there is reasonable

ground for suggesting that it may have been so used even here, though Suet.

and perhaps Orbilius himself took it differently. However, it is fair enough to

say that we have ten or so decisive examples of litteratorn that sense from the

time of Messalla Corvinusin the second half of the last century B.C. to that of

Macrobius around 400 A.D., while Catullus and Orbilius may quite possibly

have used it in this sense earlier, though we cannot be sure. We have also the

statements of Suet. and the two late grammariansthat it was so used; and one

interpretation of Capellamakes him claim this as a use once current, though

obsolete in his own day.

Of litterator n the sense of primary teacher, on the other hand, we have

noted only four definite examples (Apuleius,Avitus, and two in the Hist. Aug.).

It appears, then, that while litterator could be used of both primary and

secondary teachers, it was a good deal more common in the latter sense; and

this fact seems at first sight to be reflected in Suet. de Gramm.4 quoted at the

beginning of this article. Here, the phrase sunt qui litteratuma litteratoredistinguant, ut Graecigrammaticuma grammatista, et illum quidem absolute,

hunc mediocriterdoctumexistiment, implies that he is speaking of a minority

view; apparently most people did not make this distinction between litteratus

and litterator,and presumably therefore used litteratoras the normal equivalent

of grammaticus.In fact, however, in the whole of this passage Suet. seems to

be referring to a situation now past, and we cannot safely draw conclusions

about the usage of his own day.

On the other hand we have seen that his earlier statement that grammatici

were originally called litteratiis renderedsuspect by consideration of the usageof other writers. No extant writer, it appears, uses litteratusunmistakably in

the sense of grammaticus;nor does any otherwriter equate the two words except

Capella,who however assigns the use, not to an earlier period like Suet., but to

his own day. Even then, he does not use it so himself, except in the passage

quoted; and I have already suggested that this passage reflects something

which he has read rather than the conditions of his own time.

Furthermore the late grammarians, while equating grammaticus with

litterator,never equate it with litteratus; and in face of this evidence I am in-

clined to think that both Suet. and Capellawere mistaken. It is perhaps possiblethat both were right, and that litteratus began as the Latin name for a teacher

of literature, was later ousted by grammaticus, and by Capella'stime had been

reinstated; but it is easier to believe that both writers were in error. How the

mistake arose is not clear, but there is sufficient si ilarity in their statements



474 E. W. BOWER

to suggest that both may have been using the same source, or possibly mis-

interpreting the same set of facts. I shall try to show that some evidence

exists of an attempt towards the end of the first century B.C. to establish a

Latin terminology for the second stage of Roman education, and I suspect that

both Suet. and Capella were influenced by a vague recollection of this when

they made their statements.

III

Quintilian, in Bk. 2, mentions casually that the Latin equivalent for gram-

maticewas litteratura:et grammatice quam in Latinumtransferentesitteraturam

vocaverunt) ines suos norit (2, I, 4); cf. nos ipsam nunc volumus significare

substantiam,ut grammatice itteraturaest (2, I4, 3). Litteratura s not in fact a

common word in classical and silver Latin. To CiceroI and Tacitus2 it means

~>writing((;eneca and Apuleius both use prima litteratura in the sense of

))primaryeducation<(: f. quemadmodum rima illa, ut antiqui vocabant, ittera-

tura, per quampueris elementatraduntur,non docet iberalesartes, sed mox per-

cipiendis locum parat, sic . . (Sen. Epp. 88, 20); and doctoreshabuit in prima

litteraturaDionysium, at in palaestra Aristonem(Apul. de dog. Plat. I, 2); this

latter passage is repeated almost verbatim in the Berne Commentaryon Lucan

P.322, 6 (ed. USENER). The word occurs a numberof times in the grammarians,

and we have already seen (p. 467) that some mention the equivalence of

grammaticeand litteraturareferred to by Quintilian; cf. also Marius Victorinus

(GLK 6, 4, 4): ut Varroni placet, >arsgrammatica, quae a nobis litteratura

dicitur, . .. Apart from this, however, and two or three instances in Vitruvius,

it occurs hardly at all until we come to the writings of the Christian fathers,

where it is common, especially in the sense of ))literature<(;aecularislitteratura

is a frequent phrase, and we have also Iudaica, divina litteratura,&c.

In perhaps half-a-dozen places in Augustine, however, it is used in Quin-

tilian's sense, and once or twice in other Christian authors. TwiceAugustine

combines it with oratoria,as if deliberately using Latin equivalents for gram-

matice and rhetorice;cf. coeperam itteraturaeatque oratoriaepercipiendaegratia

peregrinari (Conf.2, 3, 5), and prohibiti sunt Christiani docerelitteraturamet

oratoriam (ib. 8, 5, IO); in another passage he seems to use it alone as an

equivalent of grammatice: quare nunc divinas Scripturas in ipsa litteratura

tractatis (de disc. Christ. ii, I2). Elsewhere he is careful to explain the word:

sicut grammaticamLatine litteraturamlinguae utriusque doctissimi appellave-

runt (c. Cresc. I, I4, I7); quia ipso nomineprofiteri se litteras clamat (sc. gram-

matice)-

unde etiam Latine litteraturadicitur-factum est ut ... (de Ord. 2,I2, 37); scientiam, quaegrammaticagraece,Latine autem litteraturanominatur

(de mus. 2, I, I). To complete the documentation, add Boethius Cat. 257eC

I Part. Or. 7,26. 2 Ann. ii, I3, 2.



Some Technical Terms in Roman Education 475

(MIGNE 4, 257 C) ipsa grammatica, d est litteratura . .; Greg. Magn. Moral.I5,

47 (MIGNE 5, II05) sed litteraturae(id est, grammaticae) ocutio ...

It seems clear, however, that if litteratura was in fact the equivalent of

grammatice,as many of these passages affirm, it was not much used; it is

found very seldom before Augustine, and most writers who use it at all in this

sense feel obliged to explain it; grammatica(-e) is much more common. How did

it come to be used forgrammatica n the first place? The passages which seem to

have a bearing on this are Martianus Capella 3, 229 (alreadyquoted in full on

p. 467), Seneca Epp. 88, 20 and Apuleius de dog. Plat. I, 2 (quoted on p. 474),

and MariusVictorinus (GLK 6, 4, 4, also quoted on p. 474). To these we must

add the following: quibusduobus(the arts of writing and counting)repertis nata

est illa librariorumet calculonum (teachers of these subjects) professio, uelut

quaedam grammaticae infantia, quam Varro litterationemvocat (Aug. de Ord.

2, I2, 35) and primordia grammaticaeartis litterae communes' existunt, quas

librarii et calculatoressequuntur; quarum disciplina velutquaedamgrammaticae

artis infantia est, unde et eam Varro litterationemvocat (Isidor. Orig. I, 3, I).

Fromaconsiderationofthese last two passages t wouldappearthatVarroused,

or proposedto use, litteratio n the sense of ))elementary tudies((;these would be

reading, writing, and arithmetic and would be preliminaryto the study of litera-

ture, grammatice.He may also have proposed the use of litteraturaas the Latin

equivalent of grammatice;but this is not certain, since nobis in the quotation

from Marius Victorinus may mean the Romans and not Varro himself, and

litteraturamay have been used in this sense before Varro. It will have been

noticed that Seneca and Apuleius both use prima litteratura,apparently with the

same meaning as Varro's litteratio; but the evidence is insufficient for us to

decide whether Seneca's phrase prima illa, ut antiqui vocabant, litteratura

implies that the usage goes further back than Varro. A phrase from another

grammarian, Ps.-Asper (GLK 5, 547, 7ff.) may have a bearing on this: gram-

matica est scientia rectescribendiet enunciandi interpretandique oetas .. . quamTerentius[et] Varroprimum ut adhuc rudem appellatamesse dixit litteraturam;

but it looks rather as if this were a confused recollection of litteratio; and the

same impression is conveyed by Audax de Scauri et Palladii libris excerpta

(GLK 7, 32I, 6ff.): grammaticaquid est? scientia interpretandietc.... cui no-

men Latinum a quibusdamlitteratura vel litteralitas datum est. However, it is

possible that Varromay have proposed the use of both litteratioand litteratura

as the Latin equivalents of yeajyartartx and yeapItartxr respectively.

If so, he may well have been behind, or at least in favour of, the proposal

which I have assumed Nepos to have made (p. 464), that litteratus should berestricted to the technical meaning )>teacher f literature((,while its current

meaning cultured, educated (man)(< should be taken over, so to speak, by

I See p. 477, note I.



476 E. W. BOWER

eruditus . Along with this may well have gone a proposal to limit litterator o

the elementary teacher; the Romans would then have had the quartet litterator,

litteratio,litteratus,litteratura,to correspondto the GreekyQa,a4uuartcr?7',eau-

yawrnt,4 yQajuyartxog, yeaJuyarTtx. It is possible that Suet. may have

had such a proposal in mind when he said sunt qui litteratuma litteratoredistin-

guant; but in general it may be admitted that his words do not suggest an

organized movement to establish a Latin terminology, though the wording of

the whole context does imply that he was concerned, not with popular usage,

but with authorities. The use of the indefinite sunt qui suggests that he was

relying on his memory here, since for his other statements in these two sections

he is careful toname his sources; this might account for his failure to mentionthe existence of such an organizedmovement, and the omissionof any reference

to Varro,or to litteraturaand litteratio;in any case, he was not concerned with

litteratio n de Grammaticis,nor indeed with litteratorexcept in so far as it was

used for grammaticus.

However, a proposal to limit litteratorto the elementary teacher, if it were

ever made, can hardly have been made by Nepos (at least in his libellus) or

surely Suet. would have said so; if it had come from Varro, one might have

expected a reference to it in the passages of Augustineand Isidorewhichmention

litteratio. Presumably therefore it came from a third source which we do notknow. It is tempting to assume that this third person was someone connected

with Varro and Nepos; but the ice is getting very thin, and I cannot hope that it

will bear me much longer. It may well be, after all, that both Nepos and those

who distinguished litteratus from litteratorwere concerned with nothing more

than the affirmation of correctusage as they saw it, and had no idea of establish-

ing a Latin terminology for Roman education; and there may in fact be no

connection between these matters and Varro'scoinage of litteratioand possibly

litteratura.

In any case, none of these words except litteratorand litteratura had anyvogue in educational terminology2, and the quartet was never established as a

whole; this was no doubt largely because Greekintellectual preeminence in the

higher branches of learning encouraged the adoption at Rome of Greek ter-

minology, and grammaticus,grammatice, like musice, geometria,philosophia,

rhetor,became standard terms, in much the same way as Italian terms became

predominant in European music later. In the elementary schools, on the other

hand, as GWYNN points out (RomanEduc. p. 9I f.), the terms remained Latin

magisterludi (litterarii), litterator;no doubt because both the schools and the

terminology were of earlier date3. It is possible, in fact, that litteratorquite

1 SCHANZ-HOSIUSall Nepos a friend of Varro's, on the strength of a passage in Charisius

(GLK I, 59, I5) Varro in Nepote ))haecpraesepes( dixit; a bold but not inherently improbable

assumption. 2 Litteratio appears to be found only in the passages quoted in this article.3Grammatista appears to be found only in Suetonius de gramm. 4 and 24.




early had the sense of Ateacherof letters (i.e. reading and writing)((,and that

when litterae came to mean >literature((s well as )>letters f the alphabet((' the

name passed by an easy transition to the teacher of literature; this would

explain why it is found in both senses later. It seems just possible that this

knowledge was at the back of Suet.'s mind when he claimed that grammatici

were once called litteyati. I have already suggested that both Suet. and Capella

were influenced by the vague recollection of an attempt to establish a Latin

terminology for Roman education, in which the grammaticuswould in fact have

been called litteratus. Their recollection would have been vague because the

attempt was unsuccessful; and the fact that the general term litteratus for a

cultured, educatedman naturally included the grammaticusamong others mayhave helped to mislead Suet. into thinking that this, and not litterator, was the

earlier term which was ousted by grammaticus. But since litterator is used

fairly commonly in that sense and litteratus is not, it seems more likely that

litteratorwas the earlier term, which later2 was largely, though never completely,

displaced by grammaticus.

In this article I have tried to make the following points: i. The use of

litterator in the sense of ))primaryteacher<, generally accepted nowadays as

having been part of standard usage, is in fact less common than its use in the

sense of grammaticus; modern views on this should therefore be corrected.

2. Suetonius' statement that grammaticiwereoriginally called litterati s suspect

for reasons I have given. 3. If any name precededgrammaticus t seems more

likely to have been litterator,which is found several times later as an equiva-

lent, while litteratus is not. 4. Some evidence exists to suggest that an attempt

was made in the first century B. C., by Varro and Nepos and perhaps others, to

establish a Latin terminology for Roman secondary education, with litteratus

as the equivalent of yeayuaztxo'g. If it was made it never caught on fully; but avague recollection of it, together with the knowledge that litteratorwas some-

times used for grammaticus, may have misled Suet. into thinking that the

grammaticutswas originally called litteratus.

The Queen's University of Belfast E. W. BOWER

1 Isidor. I, 4, 2 distinguishes them as litterae communes and litterae libetales.2 The process was probably beginning about 55 B. C.; see quotation from de Oratore

on p. 463.

BOWER, Some Technical Terms in Roman Education

Documents

Transcript of BOWER, Some Technical Terms in Roman Education