Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 284-292

jind Philosophy
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa

Two literary encyclopaedias from Late Antiquity *

Paula Olmos
Instituto de Estudios Clásicos ‘Lucio Anneo Séneca', Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain

A R T I C L E A B S T R A C
I N F O T
Article history: This paper aims to offer a new perspective on two fifth-century texts: Martianus Capella’s De nuptiis Phil-
Available online 9 January 2012
ologiae et Mercurii and Macrobius’ Saturnalia. Both were transmitted and received throughout the Middle
Ages as methodical sources containing an account of the ancient sciences and disciplines, and highly criticised
Keywords: in modern times for their supposedly poor level of scientific knowledge. Setting aside the recent focus on the
Encyclopaedia Late Neoplatonic ascription of some of their content, I claim that these texts still contribute to a traditional
Antiquity educational ideal. They put forward a kind of amateur, dilettantish encyclopaedic lore as the appropriate
Macrobius
'further education’ for young Latin men of the higher class that would allow them to acquire material for
Martianus Capella
excellence in discourse within the framework of a basically rhetorical education. With their literary
Rhetoric
Roman education
sophistication and informal approach, they also illustrate the means of acquiring this broader knowledge in
a non-professional way, by individual reading/listening and excerpting, as something distinct from the
formal schooling available in grammar and rhetoric. Such an approach could help us to avoid the still rather
widespread and sometimes undeservedly excessive criticism of the level of their 'science’ and, especially,
blaming this dubious characteristic on the prejudiced assumption of the decline of science in the 'obscure
times’ of Late Antiquity.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

been somewhat rehabilitated by modern criticism, at least in some Plato, particularly the Timaeus).2 Macrobius’
respects. The works of these two authors have many things in common1
2 although they are rather different in their final format and presentation.

In fact, they shared a common fate during the Middle Ages as maître-
livres, i.e. books that were used as intermediate sources that could make
other purportedly worthier ones more understandable (e.g. the works of

* It was just after finishing this paper that I had access to two, most recently published, works that will surely be of considerable importance for future Macrobian scholarship, namely:
R. A. Raster's new edition and translation of the Saturnalia in the Loeb Collection (3 vols., 2011) and A. Cameron's comprehensive study of the social and intellectual context of its
composition in his monumental The Last Pagans of Rome (2011), both of which show a rather similar approach to the figure of Macrobius and to the interpretation of his works. Even
though I've been able to add these works to the reference list and insert a few footnotes highlighting points of contact with their stances, it was impossible for me, at such a stage in the
edition process, to go over the whole paper again. In any case, even if at some point I may seem to abide with some of the traditional assumptions they so effectively attack (e.g.
Macrobius' paganism), these are in no way essential for my arguments, being even explicitly minimized as keys for Macrobius' interpretation. On the contrary, I would say that my
reading of Macrobius is fairly compatible with the general approach offered in these two works, which has likewise so much in common with the spirit of L. Cracco Ruggini's studies
on Late Antiquity, extensively used in this paper.
E-mail address: polmos@inst.uc3m.es
1 Although there is still some debate about the identity and chronological position of these two authors, the most widely accepted hypotheses place both of them in the first half of
the 5th century and their works as follows: Macrobius' Saturnalia and Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis, Rome, 430-440 AD; Martianus Capella's De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii,
Carthage, 410-439 AD. Capella is widely believed to have been born and resident in Carthage and he made his living, according to his own testimony, as an advocate. Macrobius,
probably also of African (or Hispanic) origin, lived and wrote in Rome and became part of the senatorial elite, his family being connected with the Symmachi.
2 Cf. Barkhouche, 1997, p. 17. In his edition of Macrobius' Commentarii, L. Scarpa ([ed.], 1981, p. 50) also talks about this combined reception of a group of Late Antique texts, including
the works of Calcidius and Boethius together with those of Macrobius and Martianus Capella within the context of the medieval interest in Platonism.

0039-3681/$ - see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.12.018

1 Introduction Martianus Capella. Traditionally undervalued as mere compilers of an

Recent studies have showed a renewed interest in the intriguing allegedly already degraded scientific legacy and choice victims of the
works of encyclopaedic authors of Late Antiquity such as Macrobius or excesses of Quellenforschung, they have both
 P. Olmos / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 284-292
Commentaries on the Dream of Scipio is actually a work that could easily be
framed within the tradition of Platonic interpretation, via Cicero. But the
way in which Martianus Capella’s only extant work, the allegorical
narrative in nine books On the Marriage of Philology and Mercury (Ramelli
[ed.], 2001) (in which the seven liberal arts expound their doctrines), or
Macrobius’ other major work,3 the convivial dialogue called Saturnalia
(Marinone [ed.], 1967; Raster [ed.], 2011) (in which twelve guests discuss
various erudite issues), would contribute to such an endeavour is not at
all clear.
However, among the most significant interpretations of Capella’s
contribution is the recent assessment by Guillaumin (2007), Guillaumin
(2008), based on Hadot’s theory of a late, specifically Neoplatonic fixing
of the cycle of the seven liberal arts (Hadot, 1984, 2nd ed. 2005),4 i.e. the
seven personified disciplines featured in the Marriage. Moreover, the
mythical allegory within which Mar- tianus offers his closed cycle of
disciplines has also been meticulously described as related to
mysteriosophical rituals (Lenaz, [ed.], 1975) and connected with a
Neoplatonic sensibility through the doctrines of lamblichus and the
Chaldean Oracles. This allegory—i.e. the myth of Philology selected as a
bride for Mercury and ascending to immortality through divine science,
with the help of the seven disci- plines/maidens, the marriage gift
offered by Mercury—is particularly developed in his first and second
books, although it is present throughout the whole work.
In the case of Macrobius’ Saturnalia, some emphasis has also been put
on its allegedly Neoplatonic lineage5 (Neri & Ramelli, [eds.], 2007, p. 124).
Here, however, l am not so much interested in the presence of these
philosophical and theosophical references (taking into account,
moreover, that the different trends of the various schools of
Neoplatonism to a certain extent pervade most of the literary production
of Late Antiquity), as l am in taking a serious look at these works as
honest attempts to compile, expound and transmit a certain store of
knowledge for educational and cultural purposes.
lt has been acknowledged, even by the most conspicuous supporters
of Martianus’ Neoplatonic ascription, that unlike Augustine, who in his
De musica—and allegedly in his De grammatica— adapted and interpreted
the precise content of these two disciplines to better serve the
Neoplatonic purpose of the ‘return of the soul’, Martianus does not
undertake such an endeavour. He instead offers a much more traditional
and standard account of the arts, based on a wide variety of sources.3 4 5 6
Furthermore, the conventional suspicion of the soundness (and thus,
3 We have only a third extant, but very fragmentary, work by Macrobius,
which is believed to be prior to the two major ones (420-425 AD), a grammatical essay
called De verborum Graeci etLatini differentiis vel societatibus. In addition, the relative
chronology of the Commentarii and the Saturnalia is still controversial (Cf. Navarro Antolin,
[ed.], 2010, pp. 7-9).
4 The first source for such a cycle would have been Augustine’s De ordine, supposedly
based on the suggestions made by Porphyry in his De regressu animae. Hadot’s ‘late
fixation’ theory partially conflicts with Marrou’s (1971 [1948], 1969) account of a long-
running but gradual and coherent evolution of encyclopaedic concerns, from the
purportedly old Greek education in the liberal arts to the medieval cycles.
5 This is said to be particularly present in the solar theology expounded in Sat.
117-23 where, for example, Plotinus (l 17, 3) and Porphyry (l 17, 70) are mentioned. The
solar theology is expounded by one of the most respected figures in the dialogue, Vettius
Agorius Praetextatus, who starts his redefinition and reinterpretation of the characters
and roles of the Olympic gods with the following assertion: ‘That most gods, at least those
placed under supreme heaven, are related to the Sun, is not an estimation born out of vain
superstition, but of divine reason’ (‘Nam quod omnes paene deos, dumtaxat qui sub caelo
sunt, ad solem referunt, non vana superstitio sed ratio divina commendat’, Sat. 117, 2). An
extensive commentary on the possible alternative interpretations of this fragment is to be
found in Cameron (2011, pp. 264-268).
6 ln Hadot’s own words: 'Si l’arrière-plan de l’allégorie elle-même (livres l et
ll) et de l’introduction des sept disciplines au début des livres lV, V, Vl, Vll, Vlll et lX est
essentiellement néoplatonicien, le contenu des disciplines ne s’y rapporte
qu’occasionnellement’ (Hadot, 1984, pp. 155).
7 Stahl’s pioneering yet also rather prejudiced work on Late Antiquity science
was criticized by L. Cracco Ruggini in her programmatic 1997 paper, ‘From Fourth to Sixth
Century: A No-Man’s Land in the History of Sciences’. Referring to Stahl’s Roman Science
(1962), she says: ‘however, the author proceeds from premises which are highly debatable
and which today may be regarded as obsolete (for example the Romans were incapable of
285
technical interest) of these authors’ scientific knowledge—an attitude
that dominated traditional accounts of Capella’s work by authors such as
Stahl, Johnson, and Burge (1971)7 and is also found in so recent an editor
as B. Ferré ([ed.], 2007)—is beginning to give way in the face of careful
study of many intriguing passages (Schievenin, 2009; Suárez Martínez,
2006).8 It should not, in any case, act as an anachronistic hindrance to the
understanding of Martianus’ or Macrobius’ true intentions and interests.
Although we are dealing here with very complex and multilay-
ered 9 —and at least in the case of the Saturnalia, fragmentary—works,
there is really no reason but our own surprise at their particular literary
choices (highly conspicuous writing strategies, which include myth,
fiction and their paraphernalia, self-irony and even grotesque and
humorous standpoints) 10 not to take their common reference to their
educational aims and cultural agenda seriously. Both the Saturnalia and
the Marriage were dedicated to their respective authors’ sons—Martianus
(Jr.) and Plotinus Eustathius. These would be receiving from their own
fathers a ready-made compilation of established lore for their personal
Bildung. In Macrobius’ own words in the ‘Prooemium’ to the Saturnalia:
[s]o that all that I have worked out from different volumes [written]
in either Greek or the Roman language, since you have been in this
world and even before you were born, all this may be for you like a
trousseau of knowledge, a kind of storeroom of writings, so that
when you need to remember either the stories that are buried in a
heap of books, hidden from regular people, or memorable sayings or
deeds, may it be easy for you to find and extract them.11
Martianus’ son, for his part, appears as an interlocutor both at the
beginning and the end of the Marriage in programmatic sections that
reveal, according to L. Crisante, ‘l’impegno didascalico-peda- gogico di
Marziano’ (Crisante, [ed.], 1987, p. 19). However, as Hadot’s (1984)
corrections to Marrou’s (1948) probably too naive account of ancient
education show, there is a certain lack of connection between such
endeavours as Martianus’ and Macrobius’ ency- clopaedism and any
properly recorded institutionalized educational practice. Hadot
mentions, for example, the variety of sources used by Martianus as
evidence of the innovative nature of his endeavour and the lack of similar
textbooks intended for such an educational syllabus (1984, p. 155).
However, Martianus’ subtle homage to Varro as a presiding fig-
ure—albeit probably not so much as a source in the proper sense
(Schiavenin, 2009, pp. 31-45)—or Macrobius’ close imitation of Au- lus
Gellius’ Noctes Atticae12 could testify to their being conscious of working
pure science, which they vulgarized with a superficial and presumptuous encyclopaedic
erudition destitute of creativity)’ (p. 192).
8 ln his brief article, Suarez Martinez clarifies a confusing paragraph regarding
certain topological characteristics of the number three mentioned by Capella, previously
deemed faulty or incomprehensible. For his part, Schievenin, in his collection of essays on
Martianus Capella, resolves a number of traditional misreadings and reveals the overall
accuracy (relative to the knowledge of the times) of his views and reported theories on,
for example, Eratosthenes’ measurement of the Earth’s circumference (pp. 75-88) or the
climatic characteristics of the lands of the antipodes (pp. 89-109).
9 Cracco Ruggini describes Late-Antiquity’s ‘endless proliferation, intersecting and
stratification of different traditions and mentalities’ (1997, p. 193).
10 Humour is present throughout Martianus’ Marriage and Macrobius’
Saturnalia. ln the first case, Satire, the inspiring muse, is responsible for many humorous
passages, although her explicit presence and involvement is not always necessary. The
presentation of Dialectic in Book lV (§328-334) is, for example, particularly ridiculous. ln
the case of the Saturnalia, there is a long section dedicated to jokes and humorous dicta
(Sat. ll 1-ll 7) and Evangelus, the uninvited guest, is also responsible for some politically
incorrect remarks that, while denoting his own negative characteristics, give some nice
variation to the tone of the dialogue.
11 ‘et quidquid mihi vel te jam in lucem edito vel antequam nasceris, in diversis
Graecae seu Romanae linguae voluminibus elaboratum est, id totum sit tibi scientia
supellex, et quasi de quodam litterarum peno, siquando usus venerit aut historiae quae in
librorum strue latens clam vulgo est, aut dicti factive memorabilis reminiscendi, facile id
tibi inventu atque depromptu sit’, Proo. 2. The verbs invenire and depromere, which we
have translated as ‘find’ and ‘extract’, belong to the rhetorical vocabulary of invention, the
oratorical task of excogitating and selecting material (particularly arguments) for a
discourse.
12 Cf. among other cross-references: Sat. Proo. 2-3/NA, Proo. 2-3; Sat. 111,41-
44/NAII18; Sat. II2,15-17/NA XIX11,1-4; Sat. II 8,4-9/NA XV 2,3-8. For a
286 P. Olmos/Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 284-292
within a certain tradition, favouring a specific kind of cultural ideal or
agenda. However, this agenda could more easily be linked to the
continuous further education of cultivated young adults than to any kind
of formal schooling. This is probably the main reason these works, even
though they make use of sources of this kind for their technical details,
look like anything but textbooks (regardless of their use as such in the
very different context of medieval monastic schools). This is also
probably one of the reasons each of them is so unique and so different in
genre and literary choice, both being two particular samples, diverse and
disconnected, of individual approaches to amateur and non-professional
reading/listening and excerpting, a kind of cultural practice or task
which was nowhere formally established. In my opinion, their stunning
literary sophistication would thus be both due to and part of their educa-
tional informality and amateur cultural ideal.
In what follows, I will explore various aspects of the significance of
these two works as samples of an informal proposal for the cultural
enhancement of elite adults within the context of the fifth- century Latin
world. This was a world in which different cultural trends, Christian and
pagan, competed for ascendancy, even during the most peaceful periods
of coexistence. My stance in no way disputes the presence of Neoplatonic
topics or the possibility of ascribing a philosophical/religious faith to
both authors, but it does not seem so clear that the concrete aim of these
two works was such a particularized proselytism. 13 The educational
proposal they present is, in both cases, fairly wide-ranging and could
serve high society in general, as well as addressing a composite audience
of pagan (both classical and orientalizing pagans) and Christian elites.14
On the other hand, Macrobius and Martianus were most probably both
pagan15 and favoured traditional Classical lore and erudition, probably
in a context of relative defeat for their position.16 It is also clear that they
objected to certain Christian attitudes, 17 but they do not write in an
openly anti-Christian frame of mind. Whether this be self-censorship,18
fearful prudence or smart disguise 19 is another question. Beyond the
alleged winks to their coreligionists, in the later all-Christian context, the
cultural/educational proposal they offered could be and was easily
accepted and preserved as something valuable.20
Finally, it should also be taken into account that, although situated in
their own contexts, these works issue from a long tradition: the
Ciceronian ideal of a cultivated Roman youth whose excellence in public
office would be supported by an in-depth philosophical (and scientific)
contemporary approach to Aulus Gellius, see Keulen (2009).
13 In Cameron’s wording, either pagans or Christians, these authors wouldn’t
count among the ‘committed’ or ‘rigorist’ ones (Cameron, 2011, pp. 206-230).
Marinone ([ed.], 1967), Italian editor and translator of the Saturnalia, while
considering Macrobius a pagan, already talked about this lack of commitment: ‘Nel
nostro scrittore la fede religiosa e cosi poco combattiva, direi quasi cositepida, che
trova spiegazione soltanto in un deliberato silenzio nei confront! degli avversari.’
(1967: 24).
14 Against excessively dichotomous views of Late Antiquity religious
confrontations, L. Scarpa, in his own edition of Macrobius’ Commentarii (1981, p.
26), states: ‘C’era invece un largo spazio di indagine e di dibattito non
necessariamente polarizzato nell’antitesi tra Cristianesimo e paganesimo.’
15 Both Kaster and Cameron assume, though, that the most sensible hypothesis,
taking in account his dates and high office, is that Macrobius was, after all, a
Christian, as were, by then, the descendants of the personages taking part in his
Saturnalia dialogues.
16 See L. Cracco Cracco Ruggini (1985, p. 298): ‘Macrobius wrote at a time when
the pliant self-confidence which many proceres of Symmachus’ generation had still
manifested with regard to their social and cultural status was beginning to weaken.’
17 See, for example, Martianus complaining about the prohibitions regarding the
divination arts in Book IX (§898), where he states that they have been ‘indecently
chased from Earth’ (‘terris indecenter expulsas’), a fragment mentioned by Shanzer
(1986, p. 21) as evidence of the anti-Christian polemic supposedly contained in the
work. Macrobius is conspicuously silent regarding Christianity, but in the Saturnalia,
his character Evangelus, the bad character of the dialogue, garrulous, uninvited and
ignorant (although not always wrong), has been interpreted as a Christian
stereotype, particularly because of his name. Ramelli, for example, favours this
interpretation (Neri & Ramelli, 2007, p. 7 ff), although it is rather contested by other
scholars (Flamant, 1977; Scarpa, [ed.], 1981) and has been finally rejected by both
Kaster ([ed.], 2011) and Cameron (2011).
18 Or ‘Roman etiquette’, in Stewart’s words, according to Stahl ([ed.], 1952, p. 8).
education. We will look at some aspects of this tradition in the following
section.
2. Classical education: grammar and rhetoric
Flamant (1977, p. 253) summarized the classical education of Roman
young men as follows: ‘Sortant de la classe du grammaticus, le jeune
Romain entrait dans la classe du rhetor; il n’en sortait d’ailleurs jamais...
’. The last remark is not to be taken literally, however, but refers to the
rhetorical standards that dominated the continuous evaluation of young
men who were active in Roman social life and its discursive practices. It
is widely acknowledged that formal education (with the effective
presence of professional teachers) was in most cases limited to the two
areas of grammar and rhetoric, and provided complete training in these
discursive skills. This curriculum was meant to prepare young elite
Romans to act as agents, or alternatively, as an attentive and expert
audience, for any discourse, particularly public, legal, and political
discourse. Other fields of knowledge such as specialized philosophy
(physical, metaphysical or ethical) or the mathematical and descriptive
sciences and arts, were deemed a suitable undertaking for a more
restricted group of particularly interested pupils.21 And although many
decided to pursue such subjects, attending certain schools and joining the
circle of specific masters, knowledge of such areas was not particularly
required for public office or to take part in the social life of the senatorial
elite, at least in principle.
But of course the arts of discourse are meta-linguistic in nature, and
discourse itself must be about something. Concerns about the quality
(epistemic and ethical) of the content of discourse had pervaded and
complicated discussions about the very essence of such arts as grammar
and rhetoric from the very beginning. If it were supposed that someone
like Plato had opposed the sophistic masters of words he confronted
because they were not interested in attaining truth, any sensible response
to such a stance would need, from then on, to combine two elements: (a)
the conscious assumption of the meta-discursive character of the art
involved (usually identified with rhetoric), which is in principle
indifferent to certain aspects of the content (or may at least have room for
certain strategies and devices that are indifferent to the epistemic status
of the contents), and consequently, (b) the requirement for the speaker to
19 Schievenin (2009, pp. 1-17) finds traces of Martianus’ use of Lucretius and
Porphyry in his Prologue and interprets these references as subtle indications of a
general pagan cultural framework that would easily be noticed by attentive readers:
‘La omogeneita di proemio e intermezzo rende chiari gli elementi del prologo del De
nuptiis: presenza di autori incompatibili con la cultura cristiana; contrasto dell’autore
con la cultura dominante (cristiana, mai nominata), ma sopratutto rivendicazione e
funzione del sapere della tradizione classica. A questo punto il De nuptiis puo
procedere: gli elementi proemiali attesi sono suficienti per il lettore attento.’
Schievenin thus assumes a certain anti-Christian stance in Martianus, which is
nevertheless subsumed under a more general and relevant argument in favour of the
knowledge pertaining to traditional lore.
20 According to Cracco Ruggini (1985, pp. 298-299): ‘the tradition of ancient culture
actually did survive thanks to this gradual detachment from the mores, in which all
its values were shifted to grammar. This facilitated its Christianization and allowed
the great aristocratic libraries of the fourth and fifth centuries to be transformed into
ecclesiastical and monastic libraries.’ A. Cameron’s conclusive words also relate to
this long-term endurance of ancient Classical culture: ‘This is one area in which
paganism (defined as the Roman tradition, Rome’s glorious past) continued to
exercise real power and influence on men’s minds. Despite the best attempts of
Augustine and other rigorists, the Roman literary tradition played a vital and
continuing role in shaping the thought-world of Christians, both at the time and in
centuries to come’ (2011: 801).
21 The reasons for such individual interest could be many indeed, ranging from the
intellectual disposition of some particularly gifted elite youngsters to the educational
needs of people who would be employed all around the Empire in the many
professions that made use of mathematical knowledge. See especially Cuomo (2000,
Ch. 1): ‘Land-surveyors, architects, mechanicians, ‘technicians’ of various sorts were
all pretty visible in the scenario of late antiquity’ (p. 16). Incidentally, Cuomo’s
contextual study reveals the inadequacy of Hadot’s restrictive view of mathematics
as a field almost exclusively concerned with philosophical (Platonist) propaedeutics
(Hadot, 1984, Ch. 2, pp. 25 ff).
 P. Olmos / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 284-292
find his ‘good’ content elsewhere, and so the need for the praiseworthy
orator of, at least, a general-purpose broad education in other fields of
knowledge.22
In Quintilian (¡nst. Orat. 2.17) we find what is probably one of the
bravest statements regarding (a): a courageous and indeed rather lucid
recognition of the indifference of the art of rhetoric towards pure
epistemic goals:
I admit that in rhetorical discourse sometimes false things are
presented as true, but I do not concede that, for that reason, rhetoric
itself is based on false opinions, because it is a very different thing to
have a certain viewpoint oneself than to make others embrace it.23
But Quintilian himself must have accordingly favoured education in a
broader sense, 24 following the Isocratean 25 ideal of a general political
Bildung: one based on rhetoric, but including a wider cultural training.
However, it is Cicero who makes his viewpoint about aspect (b) most
clear in his rhetorical works—the orator’s need for positive knowl-
edge/erudition and thus the demand for further extra-rhetorical
education:
It is my opinion that no-one can be a praiseworthy orator if he has
not attained knowledge of all the great issues and arts: because it is
necessary that discourse should flourish from and be full of the
recognition of realities for, if these are not well known and
understood by the orator, his words [his elocution] will be useless
and mostly childish. De oratore, I 20.26
Let him be not only instructed in dialectical skills, but also familiar
with all the subjects indicated and treated by philosophy. Orator,
XXXIII 118.27
This Ciceronian ideal of the perfect orator (and, thus, the perfect elite
Roman citizen) as someone well versed in almost everything remained
an important stereotype alternatively embodied or referred to by
different authors. However, it did not, to our knowledge, give rise to any
institutional programme in response. Cicero himself offers testimony to
a certain resistance to such a thing even within his own circle. Thus, in
the dialogue De oratore, for example, he has the character of Antonius
reply to such proposals of a broad education, which he deems excessively
ambitious, with the following remark:
let him [the orator] restrict himself to those issues useful in the forum
and civil life and leave aside other disciplines, important and
clarifying as they might be, and urge him to pursue this single task,
night and day, as they say.28
22 The dual perspective on discourse as good in a rhetorical sense (persuasive,
well-argued, well presented, well pronounced) and good because of its proper content is
also behind the tension found in traditional associations such as Hippias’ polymathia or
Gorgias’ claim to be able to talk about ‘every possible issue’ (Gorgias 448a, De Oratore
III129). These feats could alternatively be interpreted as genuine, and thus a desirable goal,
or as evidence of the sophists’ blameworthy epistemic indifference.
23 ‘ego rhetoricen nonnunquam dicere falsa pro veris confitebor, sed non ideo in falsa
quoque esse opinione concedam, quia longe diversum est, ipsi quid videri et, ut alii
videatur, efficere’.
24 Cf.: ¡nst. Orat. 1.10, especially regarding music, geometry and astronomy;
10.1, about readings in history and philosophy; 12.2-4, about education in practical
philosophy, civil law, customs, exempla.
25 Cf. J.-Y. Guillaumin (2003, [ed.], p. XLVIII).
26 ‘Ac mea quidem sententia nemo poterit esse omni laude cumulatus orator,
nisi erit omnium rerum magnarum atque artium scientiam consecutus: etenim ex rerum
cognitione efflorescat et redundet oportet oratio. Quae, nisi res est ab oratore percepta et
cognita, inanem quandam habet elocutionem et paene puerilem.’
27 ‘Nec vero dialecticis modo sit instructus sed habeat omnis philosophiae notos et
tractatos locos.’ See, also, Orator III12-13, IV 14-16 and most especially XXXI112-XL 139.
28 ‘is autem concludatur in ea, quae sunt in usu civitatum vulgari ac forensi,
remotisque ceteris studiis, quamvis ea sint ampla atque praeclara, in hoc uno opere, ut
ita dicam, noctes et dies urgeatur’, De oratore, I 260.
29 Cracco Ruggini (1986, pp. 97-98). Cameron’s book (2011) is mainly devoted to
rejecting the historical authenticity of such a neat, jointly pagan, anti-Christian, Classical
and learned renaissance.
30 Although he is, in general terms, a negative character with morally corrupt attitudes
287
The relationship between all of these traditional concerns and our fifth-
century authors is, of course, not straightforward. What we do have to
take into account is that both of them refer, in some way, if not to such
remote instances, at least to a traditionally understood idealized situation
which they try to reconstruct. In Macrobius’ case, this is very obvious, as
he situates his dialogue more or less a generation before his own
(following Ciceronian models). According to what we know of the real
persons portrayed as characters in the Saturnalia (especially the three
main ones, Quintus Aurelius Symma- chus, Vettius Agorius Praetextatus
and Nicomachus Flavianus), the dramatic date of the dialogue could be
placed around 382-383. Around this period and due, in part, to the extant
works and testimonies of these same people, historians have traditionally
identified a certain ‘pagan/classical renaissance’ as taking place. Today
the status of this as a genuine historical fact is somewhat contested, but
it is more or less portrayed as such by Macrobius.29 In the Saturnalia, these
three erudite aristocrats share their wisdom with other characters in the
dialogue, including professional specialists (all foreigners: the
philosopher Eustathius, the rhetorician Eusebius and the doctor Disarius,
who were Greeks, and the Cynic boxer Horus, an Egyptian), lesser and
some younger but equally erudite Romans (the brothers Rufius and
Caecina Albinus, the young grammarian Servius and Avie- nus) and a
twelfth rather intriguing character (Evangelus), the self-invited banquet
spoiler, a bad-mannered and poorly educated aristocrat who acts as a
contrasting and ironic figure. 30 Based in part on Macro- bius’ images,
Cracco Ruggini has talked about the way these kinds of aristocrats and
other people belonging to their circle (particularly the ‘usually Greek’
professional ‘scholars’ admitted to it) 31 employed their leisure time
(otium) in the kind of erudite and cultural activities which were ideally
socially connected with their civic positions
(negotia).32
In the case of Martianus, his choice of a non-realistic scenario— the
mythical assembly of the Gods in heaven to celebrate the marriage of
Philology and Mercury—makes this kind of reference much more
difficult. However, there is a significant, albeit rather ironic, allusion to
the ignorance of his own times, in contrast to a putative past.33 Moreover,
Schievenin has also worked on a particularly difficult section of the
Prologue (§1-2). The proposed interpretation, connected with certain
Egyptian rituals, implies that the work as such would be intended for the
‘awakening’ of a certain cultural renaissance.34 On the other hand, what
is clear in Martianus is not so much the way this kind of broad erudition
should be put to use in social gatherings (Macrobius’ chosen scenario),
but the way it should be acquired in maturity and outside the context of
formal schooling, by dedicating some leisure time (paradigmatically, ‘the
(conceited, scornful and more inclined to social and tricky discursive success than true
knowledge), he is not always wrong. In Sat. I 7,12, he quotes Varro’s Menippean Satires and
Praetextatus accepts his quotation; in Sat. II 2,10, he makes his contribution to the
discussion on funny dicta and immediately afterwards (Sat. II 2,12) his opinion on Servius’
modesty is deemed somewhat impertinent but mostly right; in Sat. III10-11, it is his
protestations that help develop the dialogue, etc.
31 Kaster (1980), Kaster (1988) comments on the very relative acceptance and recognition
(within certain limits) of these professional sages and teachers in the context of aristocratic
dilettantism.
32 See L. Cracco Ruggini (1986): ‘Alle attivita culturali l’aristocrazia senatoria si
dedicava allora soprattutto nei periodi di otia che si alternavano ai negotia, vale a dire
all’esercizio di funzioni e di cariche pubbliche’ (p. 98); ‘II tipo di otium che Simmaco
sembra auspicare e preferire e pertanto quello litteratum, che nulla ha a che vedere
con la iners desuetudo da ogni impegno che offusca l’intelligenza come acqua fangosa,
con gli otia muta che isolano dal contatto sociale e politico, con la quies piacevole ma
inoperosa e quindi virtuti infructuosa’ (p. 99). Cameron examines as well this idea of
the learned activities of the elite (2011, Ch.10. ‘The real circle of Symmachus’: 353-
398) finally finding a high degree of idealism in Macrobius’ view and the supposedly
historical accounts based on his portrait.
33 ‘Felicis, inquit, sed Capellae flamine, indocta rabidum quem videre saecula’
(§999). L. Crisante (1987, pp. 19ff.) comments on this final section of Capella’s work
in which the author confronts his muse Satire, the personified genre which he is
allegedly using and in which he is also innovating.
34 ‘in Marziano la similitudine tra l’inno proemiale della sua opera e quello del rito
di risveglio della divinita diventa metafora di quel risveglio culturale che egli conta
di perseguire con il progetto di una grande opera’ (Schievenin, 2009, p. 24).
288 P. Olmos/Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 284-292
languishing eves of winter’)35 either to doing the kind of job he did—i.e.
compiling basic wisdom and information about every field of knowledge
from erudite and well-informed old established books—or, alternatively,
to taking advantage of his own efforts and reading his book. If his
encyclopaedic Marriage is the result of what a certain muse (Satire, in this
case) kept telling him for some time about the adequate use of leisure
time for his own learning, it may easily become the best instrument for
the learning of others—as Scheherazade’s tales kept the sultan
entertained for many nights, they likewise become the source of our own
entertainment, night after night.
However, it should not be assumed that Martianus’ interest in
learning is less ‘socially oriented’ (less pragmatic) than that of Macrobius,
who offers us so vivid an image of erudite conversation and learning ‘in
use’ (meaning discursive use). He has chosen a format in which the
positive exposition of learned matters is clearly more systematic than in
Macrobius’ Saturnalia—the particular issues and themes addressed are
also different and somewhat more ‘scientific’. However, there are many
clues throughout the work to the context of interpersonal communication
in which such lore matters. We know from his own testimony (§577,
§999) that Martianus worked as an advocate in Carthage and his
rhetorical background can be glimpsed in many passages. By way of
example, let us turn to two successive poetical sections: the conclusion of
Book II (§219-220) and the beginning of Book III (§221-222).36 In the first,
the author announces the start of the technical portion of his work (the
exposition of the disciplines: ‘Now that the myth is over, the books begin
that expound the following arts’, 37 §220.1-2) after the more narrative
section had concluded (‘Now that the main part of the fable is past’,38
§219.1) in the holding of the divine assembly into which the seven
maidens will subsequently make their entrances. In the second, the
author starts a playful dispute/dialogue with a secondary muse,
Camena, regarding the proper way of expounding the arts, either as
‘naked truths’ or dressed in a fictional/literary discourse. 39 These two
consecutive sections of the work reveal to us an author who is highly
conscious of the subtle difficulties of a language which supposedly
expresses truthful knowledge, but also aims to make such knowledge
comprehensible, visible, teachable and even, hopefully, amusing. There
is a methodological concern here with the proper exposition and
transmission of artistic and technical lore. However, the solution offered
is still rather paradoxical. There will be poetic ornament in it, represented
by muse Camena’s attribute (a bejewelled booklet, §221.1), but also,
purportedly, technical accuracy. Meanwhile, an all-pervading satirical
genius will now and then continue to make fun of some aspects of the
disciplines themselves.40
This attitude could be characterized as extremely literary and
rhetorical, revealing a skilled analyst of the characteristics of human
discourse, someone interested in how linguistic representation operates
and how human communication (as something distinct from the sage’s
or philosopher’s solitary attainment of truth) works. His taste for
dialectical and yet playful disputes like the one represented by his
dialogue with Camena and other particular passages—those in Book I
regarding the nature of deliberation and consultation as the proper way
35 ‘hiemali pervigilio marcescentes’ (§2).
36 Martianus’ work is written in a mixed prose and poetry style, becoming a
comprehensive example of prosimetrum.
37 ‘Nunc ergo mythos terminatur; infiunt/artes libelli qui sequentes asserent.’
38 ‘Transcursa, lector, parte magna fabulae.’
39 ‘the arts are dressed. Or would you rather send the flock of sisters nude to join
the heavenly senate and thus plead to the Thunderer?’ (‘et vestiantur Artes. An tu
gregem sororum nudum dabis iugandis, et sic petent Tonantis, et caelitum
senatum?’ §222. 9-13).
40 ‘and [the books] will illustrate serious disciplines for the most part without
hindering pleasure’ (‘et disciplinas annotabunt sobrias/pro parte multa nec
vetabunt ludicra’, §220.4-5).
41 Johnson (Stahl et al., 1971) mentions the fact that it is the book with the widest
variety of sources.
42 Olmos (2011) is an attempt to overcome this situation.
43 ‘audire operae pretium etiam superis fuit tantae inventionis ingenium, tam
to address a situation of uncertainty (§6, §8, §21-22) or persuasion as
depending on a variety of factors (§25), for example—betrays a very
specific interest in and familiarity with rhetorical themes that has so far
been fairly neglected by the critics. Martianus’ profession as a lawyer in
Carthage has been mentioned as the source of his familiarity with legal
vocabulary (Stahl et al., 1971, pp. 19-20) and the generally well-informed
nature of the book dedicated to Rhetoric (Book V) has been duly
emphasized.41 But, apart from older works by Hinks (1935) and Fisher
(1936) on its sources and its separate edition as part of Halm’s collection
of Latin rhetorical texts (1863), the specific content of Martianus’ Book V
has not received much attention.42
There we find a particular paragraph, supposedly containing an
informal list of the parts (or officia) of Rhetoric, which is particularly
significant for our point. Although at the appropriate stage of Rhetoric’s
didactic discourse (§442), we find five parts of the art explicitly
mentioned, the five traditional ones, in the traditional order (inven- tio,
dispositio, elocutio, memoria and pronuntiatio), previously there is a kind of
informal presentation of rhetoric’s acknowledged officia in paragraph
428:
it was really worthwhile, even for the gods, to listen to such an
ingenious choice of arguments [invention], such rich and eloquent
expression [elocution], such capable memory and treasure of
recollections; such an order in disposition, such nice modula-
tion in pronunciation and the gestures in motion, such deep
conceptions!43 44 45
Bovey (2003, chap. 5) has commented on this paragraph, emphasizing the
peculiar mention of that final ‘deep conceptions’ (‘profund- itas in
conceptu’), which, unlike the rest of the discursive characteristics
mentioned, is not related to any previously recognized rhetorical officium.
She concludes, rather convincingly, that it cannot be identified with
Augustine’s or Sulpicius Victor’s intellec- tio,44 which is conceived as a
preliminary duty of the orator, undertaking the analysis and
characterization of the particular case or issue at stake. Martianus himself
moreover states, at the above-mentioned §442, that other authors allow
for a sixth part of rhetoric which they call iudicatio, but he explicitly rejects
this ‘judgement’ as a separable part because it should preside over every
duty (‘partibus cunctis adscribitur’), being best understood as the
orator’s capacity to discriminate in every aspect of discourse. As Bovey
concludes, it does not seem very promising either to identify the pro-
funditas of §428 with such iudicatio.
There is not much we can say, however, about Martianus’ addition
in technical terms, as there is no connected subsequent technical
development in the work. In fact, it does not seem to be an explicitly
technical addition or correction. It may be just the opposite: a way of
expressing Martianus’ concern with the failure of the technical precepts
of Rhetoric to ensure good speech, mentioning, albeit in an informal way,
the need to be ‘profound’ in terms of content. Such a concern envisages
the kind of wide-ranging intelligence, erudition and communicative
capacity socially acknowledged as belonging to renowned orators or
sophists beyond their implementation of the skills acquired in rhetorical
school. There would be no easy precepts attached to such a requirement.
facundae ubertatis eloquium, tam capacis memoriae recordationisque thesaurum;
qualis dísponendí ordo, quam pronuntiandi congruens modulatio, qui gestus in motu,
quae profunditas in conceptu!'
44 Bovey just mentions Augustine in her discussion, but in his Institutiones Oratoriae, the
4th-century rhetorician Sulpicius Victor also acknowledged such intellectio as one of the
orator's duties (Lopetegui, Muñoz García, & Redondo, 2007, p. 180, n. 13). Augustine and
Sulpicius Victor follow an alternative tradition, enumerating just three parts of rhetoric:
intellectio, inventio and iudicatio (Halm, 1863). In Marius Victorinus' Explanationum in
rhetoricam M. Tullii Ciceronis libri duo, a recognized source of Capella's work, we can also
read about such discrepancies between the number of parts of rhetoric: ‘Alii enim partes
septem, multi quattuor, sed plerique quinque esse dixerunt. Eorum et sententiam Cicero
secutus quinque partes esse confirmat' (Lopetegui et al., 2007, pp. 270, 478).
45 Macrobius mentions Cicero's dialogues (Sat. 11, 4) and particularly Plato's
Symposium (Sat. 11, 3) in his Prologue, but the tradition of the symposium genre had
grown and expanded considerably since Plato, with both Greek and Latin authors. See
Navarro Antolín (2010, pp. 14-22).
 P. Olmos / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 284-292 289

Such a profunditas could come instead from a thorough education in the also involved. The extant 52 content of the discussions included in
recognized arts and sciences and would represent the traditional Macrobius’ Saturnalia can be summarized thus:
aspiration of the masters of rhetoric to ensure that their pupils were Eve of the 1st day: origins of the Saturnalia festivities; ways of dividing
capable of speaking properly and reasonably on any issue, ideally in a the day, according to legal, religious and literary sources;
well-informed way. Such aspiration to encyclo- paedism driven by
discursive and rhetorical concerns is precisely the interpretative key I am
seeking to explore here.

3. Compiling as systematizing: literary unity as unification of

knowledge

In the previous section, I have tried to provide evidence for what I

think is one common aim behind such encyclopaedic endeavours as
those undertaken by Martianus and Macrobius (with all their
differences): to offer a broad and accurate, yet somehow informal, store
of knowledge suitable for the cultural enhancement of citizens (young
and mature men) who would be taking part in public social life through
discursive practices. Now
I will focus on the very different literary strategies selected by the two to
serve this goal.
In both cases, a literary form that takes us away from the classroom
context is chosen. Macrobius’ erudite dialogue, following the Ciceronian
tradition, but also taking after the more concrete genre of the symposia,45
provides a dramatic setting in which literary and philosophical issues
seem to emerge within polite society in a rather spontaneous way. It is
not so spontaneous in the text, however, because the plot has been
planned twice over. The author begins his plan with the ‘Prooemium’,
speaking about his own method for creating a unified work based on the
many sources he would be using, as bees make their honey from different
flowers:
We should imitate the bees in their ways, that wander about and pick
flowers and then sort what they have gathered and divide it into
honeycomb’s cells, and from a varied juice they make a mix of a single
flavour, changing the properties of their fragrance.46
He then makes his own literary ambition explicit: ‘I would like my work
to be like this: there are many disciplines in it, many precepts and
examples 47 from many periods, but composed into a single whole.’ 48
Such unity is attained by means of the dramatic setting itself, the choice
of characters, the justification given to the gathering and the literary logic
of the plot. Yet in any case, the author feels it should be justified on
another level and the characters themselves make a second plan for their
own meeting explicit, mentioning, once and again, their interest in
conducting a culturally enhancing dialogue: ‘May we have here literate
enjoyment and erudite musing.’ 49 Moreover, before the three-day
banquet begins, there is a previous gathering on the eve of the festival at
which an erudite issue is already discussed (the origins of the Saturnalia
festivities), initiated by the assertion made by Rufius Albinus that
‘nothing could be more agreeable for either us [Rufius, Praetextatus and
Avienus] and these other gentlemen [the newly arrived Symmachus,
Caecina and Servi- us] to talk about than learned issues’,50 after which
they decide to ‘arrange’ the main meetings, mentioning the proposed
guests and their suitability for such an aim.
The issues ultimately discussed throughout the work are varied,
although knowledge about traditions and religious rituals as contained
in the literary works of the Latin writers, especially Virgil, is central. As
will be mentioned later, the specific domain of the grammarian’s
concerns makes up the backbone of Macrobius’ interests in this work.51
But as the following outline reveals, many other fields of knowledge are

46 ‘Apes enim quodam modo debemus imitari, quae vagantur et flores carpunt, 48 ‘Tale hoc praesens opus volo: multae in illo artes, multa praecepta sint, multarum
deinde quicquid attulere disponunt ac per favos dividunt, et sucum varium in unum aetatum exempla, sed in unum conspirata' (Sat. Proo. 10).
saporem mixtura quadam et proprietate spiritus sui mutant' (Sat. Proo. 5). 49 ‘Haec nobis sit litterata laetitia et docta cavillatio', Sat. II1, 8.

47 This distinction between technical, theoretical precepts and historically situated case 50 ‘nec enim ulla alia de re quam doctis quaestionibus colloqui aut nobis aut his potest

studies (exempla) relates to the distinction between knowledge/study/discussion of esse iucundius', Sat. I 2,17.
general principles vs. particularities, a divide always present in rhetorical discussions 51 See Kaster, 1980.

about the themes (quaestiones) involved in discourse (either general thesis or particular 52 There are various lacunae throughout the work.

hypothesis).
290 P. Olmos/Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 284-292
justification of the use of archaic expressions; praise of the philosopher
Eustathius, to be present the next day, for his familiarity with the three
schools of philosophy (Academic, Stoic, Peripatetic).
Morning of the 1st day: origins and anecdotes regarding various
official garments (especially the praetexta gown); ritual traditions
involving Saturn, the identification of Saturn with Serapis; Roman
religion in its literary and physical aspects (‘quid mythici, quid physici
aestiment’, i.e. excluding profound theology); true religious vs. folk
traditions; slaves and their role; fixing and calculating the calendar in
Rome and Egypt; solar theology, identification of all the gods with the
sun; the religious/philosophical authority of the poets (Virgil); Virgil’s
expertise in many fields (each guest will develop a different aspect
tomorrow).
Afternoon/evening of the 1st day: afternoon discussions will be lighter;
the proper balance between funny and serious subjects; a round of funny
and erudite dicta (sayings); comments on Cicero’s mordacitas (sharpness);
other public figures (theatrical ambience); wine and desserts (secunda
mensa), proper vocabulary and traditions about them; praise and
criticism of drink, food and sex.
Morning of the 2nd day: Virgil as a source of ‘pontifical law’ (ius
pontificium);53 sacred terms, places, and rituals; Evangelus mentions
supposed errors in Virgil (and is contradicted).
Afternoon/evening of the 2nd day: the ancient Roman lifestyle, criticism
of old luxury; laws regarding meals; names and characteristics of nuts
and fruits; traditions about figs, olives and grapes.
Morning of the 3rd day: Virgil’s rhetorical expertise and eloquence
(figures of speech, pathos); Cicero vs. Virgil as the best orator; styles and
genera dicendi (types of speech); Virgil’s knowledge of Greek literature,
philosophy and science; parallels between Virgil and Homer; Virgil’s use
of Greek poetry; the importance of Greek culture; Virgil’s use of archaic
Roman writers.
Afternoon/evening of the 3rd day: philosophy as a proper subject for a
symposium; how to arrange a good banquet and philosophy’s role in it;
appropriate and inappropriate degrees of censure and scorn within a
banquet; food, drink and health (medical approach); formal debate
(disputatio), proposed by guests, between two Greek specialists (Disarius,
a doctor, and Eustathius, a philosopher) on kinds of food and their effects
on health; medical and philosophical Greek doctrines and opinions on
wine, women, and other victuals (their hot/cold character); the brain and
the nervous system; age and ageing (draught/humidity); blushing and
turning pale; geography and climate in food production; physiology
(thirst and hunger); the ring finger, traditions and beliefs about its
meaning; density and other characteristics of different waters; water
optics, augmentation of shapes through water, opposition between
Atomistic and Platonic theories of sight (opposition between the doctor’s
and the philosopher’s ways of solving problems); chicken/egg priority
problem; conservation of meat; final lacuna.
According to our modern categorizations, it seems that the most
‘scientific’ and specialized matters are those addressed in the final
session, those related to medical and physiological problems, the rest
falling more or less within the domain of the literary/gram- matical
antiquitates. But all of these final subjects are explicitly called quaestiones
conviviales (Sat. VII 3, 24; VII 4, 1, i.e. questions that are suitable for a
banquet), and many of them are taken directly from Plutarch’s
homonymous work. So we have here a fine example of a somewhat
frivolous yet socially relevant use of scientific knowledge.
In the case of Martianus, the literary genre selected for the coherent
and unified transmission of his compendium of arts is a mythical
narration presided over by Satire as the inspiring muse, in the tradition
of Milesian fables and Menippean satire. There is a nice passage at the
beginning of Book II (§100) in which Philology, already chosen as a bride
53 Virgil’s philosophical lore and Virgil’s expertise in ‘augural law’ (the stated
themes of Eustathius and Flavianus) are missing (lacuna). It is Praetextatus who is
speaking at the beginning of the extant text.
54 ‘nam certe mythos, poeticae etiam diversitatis delicias Milesias historiasque
mortalium, postquam supera conscenderit, se pellitus amissuram non cassa
for Mercury in Book I, shows certain initial resistance to being divinized
and undergoing the rites of purification and ascent to the heavens that is
not exactly justified by the possible difficulties and pains involved in
such a process (presented in §134-143). Before all of that comes, she
claims that she does not want to lose ‘the myths and the Milesian delights
and the stories of the mortals, in all their poetic diversity’,53 54 a captivat-
ing longing for human ‘multiplicity’ explicitly opposed to the divine
‘oneness’ and based on its particularly enjoyable and varied literary
expressions.
This nostalgic lament (the author’s own?) will not be satisfied in the
following narrative, as Philology must submit to the rituals of her
apotheosis (occupying Book II), literally throw up her human doctrines
(§135-6) and acquire the divine wisdom provided by her bridegroom’s
gift, thus performing the appropriate purification that is obviously
praised as a good thing throughout the text. But Martianus has already
voiced an alternative, rather ironical and slightly negative view of such a
process that places him in a very particular position regarding the
doctrines and disciplines to be subsequently set out. This ironic stance
will reappear at particular points in the text, not really threatening the
sincere appraisal of the good disciplines, but embodying the constant
supervision of a somewhat mocking Satire over the whole work, both
acting as a source of pedagogical entertainment (by making the useful
but possibly dry sciences more pleasurable) and, in my opinion,
embodying a rather mature and human sceptical perspective.
Books III to IX contain the systematic expositions of the seven liberal
arts (Grammar, Dialectic, Rhetoric, Geometry, Arithmetic, Astronomy
and Music), presented as long discourses voiced by the personified
disciplines themselves. However, the contrast between the
narrative/mythical sections, the ironic meta-discourse (appearing time
and again in different significant sections) and the technical expositions
within the work has been a constant source of puzzlement for modern
scholars, who seek a key to the unity of the text. The scholars that have
focused on the myth itself and the rituals contained in it (Guillaumin,
2007; Guillaumin, 2008; Lenaz 1975) tend to emphasize the religious and
Neoplatonic aspects of the work as the leitmotif, while among those who
have tried to make sense of the role of the ‘technical parts’, opinions vary.
For some critics,55 it is not even clear that these ‘technical parts’ are really
substantive and they suggest that they could be seen more as a literary
characterization of the speech of the plot’s heroines. As we have already
seen, this would not be fair, as the ‘instructive’ or ‘theoretical’ parts are
in fact better informed than was previously thought. Moreover, they
occupy too much of the work to be seen as mere literary excursuses. And
yet Shanzer (1986), who presents a very open and comprehensive
approach to the text, analyzing its particular genre as belonging within
the Menippean tradition, points to the possibility of its not being com-
pletely ‘in earnest’,56 while Stahl, Johnson and Burge (1971), in a more
critical mood, talk about a possible ‘exhibition piece’, displaying rather
than transmitting knowledge. Shanzer’s conclusion is not so
discouraging, however. She prefers to talk about a combination of
motives. She posits a serious interest in the ‘scientific’ doctrines pre-
sented, equally sincere philosophical and religious beliefs behind the
allegorical framework, but also a very remarkable ironic mood (1986, p.
43). This humorous stance is apparently dictated by the adoption of Satire
both as a mythical character, who would have told such a tale to the
author during ‘the languishing eves of winter’, and as a literary genre
from which Martianus, still according to Shanzer, would really like to
borrow and innovate within (1986, pp. 29-44). Shanzer’s inclusive
definition of our text as a ‘philosophical spoudo- geloion’ (1986, p. 41)
attempts to summarize both the serious and pleasant (useful and
enjoyable) aspects expressed by the Greek compound and the deeper
ideological basis for its allegorical form.
opinatione formidat.’
55 Stahl, Johnson and Burge (1971).
56 ‘If asked what it was, one might equally well respond, ‘a philosophical polemical
allegory’ or ‘an only partially successful literary joke’ (Shanzer, 1986, pp. 43-4).
 P. Olmos / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 284-292
Other studies, such as those by Crisante (1987) and Schievenin (2009),
focus on certain meta-discursive and particularly significant sections of
the work to try to make sense of it: the prologue, the ending, 57 the
previously mentioned dialogue with the muse Camena, certain
interruptions of the action by side remarks, etc. Both scholars comment
on one of these supposedly significant moments, at the beginning of Book
VI (Crisante, 1987, pp. 18-25; Schievenin, 2009, pp. 47-59), where Satire
ridicules Martianus because he has not recognized certain characters, two
additional maids, who appear at the introduction of Geometry (the first
of the mathematical Greek arts). These are Philosophy and Paedia, two
‘comprehensive’ disciplines (disciplines of disciplines) who, together
with Philology itself, represent ideals of learning. Although things are
not completely clear, here it would seem that Philosophy is an old,
already abandoned ideal and path to wisdom. Paedia would represent a
more practical and ‘scientific’ approach (particularly concerned with
incorporating the mathematical sciences or arts) and explicitly of
Varronian lineage. And finally, it would be expected of Philology, after
her assimilation of her bridegroom’s gift, that she would represent
Martianus’ own proposed comprehensive standard ofbroad culture and
education.
For her part, M. Bovey (2003) has pointed out the need to ‘trail’ the
myth and the allegory into the technical books (III-IX) and analyze, in
particular, the physical presentation, short narratives and poetic
fragments introducing and dismissing the seven maidens. Bovey thus
arrives at a closer view of the seven disciplines that makes more sense of
the whole work and its encyclopaedic ambitions. Finally, as I have tried
to indicate in my own analysis of certain parts of Book V (Rhetoric)58 and
as Schievenin’s (2009, pp. 75-103) studies on certain passages of Book VI
(Geometry) reveal, there is still much to be gleaned as characteristic of
Martianus’ method and interests from his supposedly standard
‘compilations’, that is, from the supposedly dullest and most technical
parts of the work. A careful study of the artistic content and precepts of
Book V, for example, reveals our author’s rather practice-related and
somewhat realistic approach to the art of speech in its civic context.
Moreover, if there is a ‘personal touch’ in his apparently merely
traditional exposition of Rhetoric’s precepts, it does not seem to have
much to do with a Neoplatonic orientation of its lore towards the proper
purification and return of the soul to a divine sphere.
To sum up, if Macrobius’ work represents a literary unit emerging
from a complicated framework of interests and a creative use of highly
varied sources and traditions, the same could be said about Martianus’
book. Their most conspicuous common characteristic is the literary
sophistication (LeMoine, 1972) chosen and carefully developed to do the
job for them: that of offering a guide to selfenhancement directed at an
audience of already cultured people59 who would probably need such a
strategy to be duly encouraged.
4. Conclusion: grammatical and rhetorical encyclopaedism
We have seen how the encyclopaedic endeavours of Macrobius’
Saturnalia and Martianus’ De nuptiis could be related to their authors’
interest in proposing and disseminating certain recipes and strategies for
more substantive learning in the context of a culture in which what was
more or less guaranteed (for the elite, at least) was a grammatical and
rhetorical education. Macrobius’ obvious fondness for specifically
grammatical and literary issues and Martianus’ known background and
proven expertise in rhetorical practice could lead us to initially establish
a distinction between a grammar-driven and a rhetoric-driven
encyclopaedism, but I really do not think such a distinction could take us
57 ‘Questi interventi metaletterari hanno, come si é detto, la spiegazione
definitiva e il loro suggello nella chiusa e precisamente nella violenta replica di Satyra
alie accuse di Marziano' (Crisante, 1987, p. 25).
58 See Olmos (2011). I find particularly significant certain details of his
doctrines on the parts of Rhetoric (§428, §442), the genres and audiences of Rhetoric
(§428, §447-448), the matter of Rhetoric (§439-40), the questions properly addressed by
Rhetoric (§441) and his particular exposition of the stasis theory (§443-472).
59 Schievenin (2009, p. 57) expresses a somewhat similar idea by talking about
291
much further. The common context is that of sought-after social promi-
nence based on discursive excellence that could derive from slightly
different backgrounds and personal inclinations, and we do not have
enough encyclopaedic works to create such a division.
In his influential study, Flamant provided a somewhat cursory
diagnosis of the Latin rhetorical tradition after the major figures of the
classical period:
Ce que les rhéteurs latins ont retenu de Cicéron et de Quintilien, ce
ne sont pas les innovations, le désir d’élargir l’art oratoire aux
dimensions d’un véritable humanisme, mais au contraire ce qu’il y a
de plus impersonnel, de plus banal, en un mot le simple héritage de
la tradition grecque. A l’ambitieux programme du De oratore, on
préfera tout de suite la sécheresse scolaire du De inventione. (Flamant,
1977, pp. 253-254)
This assessment could easily be contradicted by mentioning the
proposals of our two authors, writing three centuries after Quintilian
with the confidence that they would be understood and most likely
followed by a cultured set.
References
Barkhouche, B. (1997). La transmission du Timée dans le monde latin. In D. Jacquart
(Ed.), Les voies de la science grecque (pp. 1-31). Genève: Droz.
Bovey, M. (2003). Disciplinae cyclicae. L'organisation du savoir dans l'oeuvre de Martianus
Capella. Trieste: Edizioni Université di Trieste.
Cameron, A. (2011). The last Pagans of Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cracco
Ruggini, L. (1985). Conservatism and innovation in the culture of the fourth/ fifth
century. Quaderni ticinesi di Numismatica e Antichità classiche, XIV, 287-303. Cracco
Ruggini, L. (1986). Simmaco: otia et negotia di classe, fra conservazione e rinnovamento.
In F. Paschoud et al. (Eds.), Colloque Genevois sur Symmaque (pp. 97-118). Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.
Cracco Ruggini, L. (1997). From fourth to sixth century: A No-Man’s Land in the history
of sciences. Scripta Classica Israelica, XVI, 191-198.
Crisante, L (Ed.). (1987). Martiani Capellae, De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii Liber IX.
Padua: Editrice Antenore.
Coumo, S. (2000). Pappus of Alexandria and the mathematics of late antiquity. Cambridge:
CUP.
Ferré, B. (Ed.). (2007). Martianus Capella, Les noces de Philologies et de Mercure, Livre VI, La
Géométrie. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Fischer, H. -W. (1936). Untersuchungen uber die Quellen der Rhetorik des Martianus Capella
(Inaugural-Dissertation). Breslau: Hermann Eschenhagen.
Flamant, J. (1977). Macrobe et le Néo-Platonisme latin, à la fin du IVe siècle. Leiden: Brill
(Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire Romain, 58). Guillaumin, J.-
Y. (Ed.). (2003). Martianus Capella. Les noces de Philologies et de Mercure, Livre VII,
L'Arithmétique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Guillaumin, J.-B. (2007). L’encyclopédisme de Martianus Capella: héritage d’une forme
traditionnelle ou nouveauté radicale? Schedae prépublication, 4(1), 45-68. Guillaumin, J.-B.
(2008). Néoplatonisme et encyclopédisme dans l’oeuvre de Martianus Capella. R.É.L.,
86,167-190.
Hadot, I. (1984). Arts libéraux et philosophie dans la pensée antique. Paris: Études
Augustiniennes.
Halm, K. (1863). Rhetores Latini Minores. Leipzig: Teubner.
Hinks, D. A. G. (1935). Martianus Capella on Rhetoric, PhD Theses, Trinity College,
Cambridge.
Kaster, R. A. (1980). Macrobius and Servius: Verecundia and the Grammarian's function.
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 84, 219-262.
Kaster, R. A. (1988). Guardians of language: The grammarian and society in Late Antiquity.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kaster, R. A. (Ed.). (2011). Macrobius. Saturnalia (Vol. 3 vols.). Cambridge, Mass./
London: Harvard University Press.
Keulen, W. (2009). Gellius the Satirist. Roman Cultural Authority in Attic Nights.
Leiden/Boston MS: Brill.
LeMoine, F. (1972). Martianus Capella, A Literary Re-evaluation. Munich: Arbeo-
Gesellschaft.
Lenaz, L. (Ed.). (1975). Martiani Capellae. De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii liber secundus.
Padua: Liviana Editrice.
Lopetegui, G., Muñoz García, M., & Redondo, E. (2007). Antología de textos sobre retórica
(ss. IV-IX). Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco.
Marinone, N. (Ed.). (1967). Macrobio. I Saturnali Torino: UTET.
Martianus' work as a ‘teacher's book' as opposed to a ‘student's book': ‘perché il De nuptiis
non é per l'allievo, ma per il maestro: basti pensare ai ricorrenti topoi dello studio, alle arti
che espongono solo i loro principi fondamentali, agli strumenti stessi di Grammatica: il
profilo dell'opera vuole essere elevato, rivolto non ai principianti ma ai dotti, ai sapientes,
e con questi trova perfetta e cordiale intesa, segno di orientamento, programma di
conoscenza'. I would instead say that, in any case, the kind of maestro that Martianus is
embodying is not at all a teacher in such a professional sense and that the context of the
learning contained in his work is definitely outside that of the formal classroom.
292 P. Olmos /Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 284-292

Marrou, H.-I. (1948). Histoire de l'éducation dans l'antiquité. Paris: Seuil.

Marrou, H. I. (1969). Les Arts Libéraux dans l'Antiquité Classique. In Arts Libéraux et
Philosophie au Moyen Âge. Actes du Quatrième Congrès International de
Philosophie Médiévale (pp. 5-27). Montréal; Paris: Institut d'Études Médiévales;
J.Vrin.
Navarro Antolín, F. (Ed.). (2010). Macrobio. Saturnales. Madrid: Gredos.
Neri, M., & Ramelli, i. (Eds.). (2007). Macrobio Commento al Sogno di Scipione. Milán:
Bompiani.
Olmos, P. (2011). Rhetoric, Satire and Encyclopaedia in Martianus Capella. in D.
Hernández de la Fuente (Ed.), New perspectives on Late Antiquity (pp. 327-351).
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ramelli, i. (Ed.). (2001). Marziano Capella, Le nozze di Filologia e Mercurio. Milano: Bompiani.
Scarpa, L (Ed.). (1981). Macrobii Ambrosii Theodosii. Commentariorum in somnium Scipionis
libri duo. Padua: Liviana Editrice.
Schievenin, R. (2009). Nugis ignosce lectitans. Studi su Marziano Capella. Trieste: Edizioni
Universita di Trieste.
Shanzer, D. (1986). A philosophical and literary commentary on Martianus Capella’s De Nuptiis
Philologiae et Mercurii. Book 1 (Vol. 32). Berkeley: University of California Press
(Classical Studies).
Stahl, W. H. (Ed.). (1952). Macrobius. Comentary on the Dream of Scipio. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Stahl, W. H., Johnson, R., & Burge, y. E. L. (1971). Martianus Capella and the seven liberal
arts. Vol. I. The quadrivium of Martianus Capella. Latin traditions in mathematical sciences.
50 B.C.-A.D. 1250, with a study of the allegory and the verbal disciplines. New York;
London: Columbia University Press.
Suárez Martínez, P. (2006). in Martianum Capellam i: Un problema en torno al 3.
Exemplaria Classica, 10, 253-262.