2. CORRECTING OUR FLAWED METHODOLOGY FOR GAUGING KNOWLEDGE OF GREEK IN THE LATIN WEST

Despite the deep-rooted importance of Greek in Roman education and literary culture, surprisingly little scholarly attention has been paid to the question of Greek in the late antique West. There has been a great deal of research on Greek teaching in the Early Middle Ages and in the Renaissance,Footnote ⁵ and much interest in bilingualism and Latin learning in the late antique East,Footnote ⁶ but there exists no focussed study of the role of Greek in the education and literary culture of late antique Gaul, or of the West more generally.

Such lack of investigation of the topic probably stems from the traditional scholarly narrative, which assumes that knowledge of Greek was sharply declining or had virtually disappeared in the West by Late Antiquity. This view is central to the arguments of canonical works on education and literary culture of Late Antiquity, such as Henri Marrou's Histoire de l’éducation dans l'Antiquité (1948) and Pierre Riché's Éducation et culture dans l'Occident barbare: vi^e et viii^e siècles (1976), and has thus been perpetuated throughout the scholarship of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.Footnote ⁷ The resulting consensus ensured that by now it is common practice to interpret any glimmer of Greek in late western sources in a pessimistic light; any references or allusions to Greek texts and authors in late antique Latin literature are usually dismissed as superficial or as the products of Latin intermediaries—that is, Latin translations, summaries and reworkings of Greek texts—without considering alternative explanations for a Latin author's engagement with Greek sources.

The methodology that has yielded these conclusions examines how late Latin authors directly engage with the traditional Greek literary canon—that is, through their direct allusions, references and quotations of Greek authors in Latin texts. A notable proponent of this approach was Pierre Courcelle, who employed it in his seminal Les lettres grecques en occident (1948). Though he suggests that there was a ‘renaissance’ of Greek in Gaul in the 470s, he argues that overall there was no sustained or consistent knowledge of Greek among educated Gauls at any point in Late Antiquity, neither among literary circles nor in clerical or monastic centres.Footnote ⁸ A re-examination of Latin texts from Late Antiquity shows that this traditional methodology for gauging knowledge of Greek in Latin texts is fundamentally flawed, and that we need to reassess our assumptions about the role and place of Greek in late Latin literature and education.

For example, the traditional methodology falls short when examining the Latin works by Ausonius, a fourth-century Gallo-Roman who taught grammar and rhetoric in Bordeaux for thirty years before becoming tutor to the young Gratian, and later holding the high offices of Praetorian Prefect of Gaul and the consulship. If we employ Courcelle's approach to Ausonius’ extant Latin works, that is, if we only look at the direct allusions, references and quotations of Greek authors in his work, we might assume that Ausonius knew and read very little Greek. He clearly had read some Greek epigrams and Homer, but there is no direct evidence in his extant Latin literary output to suggest that he was familiar with Greek tragedy or Old Comedy, philosophy, nor any prose authors except perhaps Herodotus.Footnote ⁹ In fact, judging solely by how Ausonius engages directly with the Greek literary canon in his Latin poetry and prose, we could conclude that he had a very limited Greek reading repertoire, which is conventionally equated with a limited knowledge of the Greek language. This conclusion is problematic, because we know that Ausonius was able to read and write in Greek. Although he claims that he was a poor Greek student as a boy,Footnote ¹⁰ by adulthood he was able not only to play with the Greek language and its forms in many of his Latin poems but even to translate Greek poems into Latin, and to write in Greek.

Ausonius composes, or translates, three poems completely in Greek, while in two other poems the lines alternate between Latin and Greek (Epigr. 21, 47, 49, 50, 51),Footnote ¹¹ and he employs Greek phrases throughout his Ludus Septem Sapientum.Footnote ¹² In letters to Axius Paulus, a rhetor in Bordeaux, Ausonius often composes lines or even whole sections in Greek. In one letter to Paulus, the famous ‘macaronic’ letter, Ausonius switches back and forth seamlessly between Latin and Greek for forty-five lines, sometimes mid-word (Ep. 8).Footnote ¹³ Elsewhere Ausonius shows off his poetic virtuosity and firm grasp of Greek by composing playful poems about the Greek alphabet. The schoolmaster Eunus uses different letters of the Greek alphabet to describe (among other things) giving oral sex to a woman (Epigr. 87) and in another poem Ausonius composes riddles for the monosyllabic letters of the Greek and Latin alphabets (Technop. 13). Although Ausonius’ playfulness with Greek does not necessarily indicate that he was completely fluent, it nevertheless demonstrates that he was more than comfortable with the language, especially in so far as he could use it to translate into Latin. More importantly, Ausonius’ use of Greek in his Latin compositions indicates that he expected his readers and audience to be able to read his Greek phrases and short poems and understand his jokes, and that there were copies of some Greek works available in late antique Bordeaux for men such as Ausonius to peruse, learn from and imitate.Footnote ¹⁴

The contradiction between Ausonius’ evident knowledge of Greek and his lack of direct engagement with Greek authors in his work raises two important questions: first, was Ausonius in fact conversant with more of the Greek canon than comes across in his writing? And second, if he was not, how do we explain the fact that he clearly did read and understand at least basic Greek? What did ‘knowing Greek’ mean to Ausonius and his contemporaries, and what role did Greek play in their formal education and literary endeavours?

3. THE EVOLVING PLACE OF GREEK IN CLASSROOMS OF FOURTH-CENTURY GAUL

Looking to ancient technical materials, such as grammars, commentaries and colloquia can help to shed light on some of these questions and may point to larger trends in the changing role of Greek in late antique classrooms in the West. Félix Racine, for example, has argued that the use of Greek in Servius’ commentary on Virgil from the late fourth or early fifth century indicates that Greek was used as a pedagogical tool for Latin education in the West in Late Antiquity.Footnote ¹⁵ It is clear through the many technical grammatical terms and Greek citations in his commentary that Servius himself was able to read and thoroughly understand Greek. It seems, though, that much of Servius’ knowledge of classical Greek authors was governed by what was handed down through the grammatical tradition, and his commentary draws heavily on Donatus’ earlier Virgilian commentary. Donatus’ commentary is lost, but it was integrated with Servius by an Irish compiler in the Early Middle Ages, the result of which is referred to as Servius Auctus, Serv. Dan. or Servius Danielis.Footnote ¹⁶ Servius Danielis shows that Donatus’ commentary was large and not well suited to Servius’ classroom. Therefore, the ways in which Servius engages with Donatus’ commentary—that is, what he chooses to abbreviate, expand upon or leave out in his own commentary—illustrate both his aims as teacher and what he expected his students and readers to know.Footnote ¹⁷ How Servius deals specifically with Greek citations and references indicates how he perceived the role and use of Greek in his classroom. An example of how Servius interacts with the Greek material in Donatus’ commentary is his entry on the adjective Trinacrius from Book 1 of the Aeneid. Servius leaves out Donatus’ discussion of the alternative Greek spelling of the word, and focusses rather on the correct Latin term, which was used by Virgil and later Latin poets, and he provides the Latin translation and explains the etymology of the Greek word.Footnote ¹⁸ Furthermore, the most common Greek citations in Servius’ commentary are about etymologies, mythography, orthography and scansion of Latin words, and technical Greek grammatical terms. In addition, Servius tends to evoke the names of Greek authors not for their own sake but rather as authorities to support his own interpretations of language and as models for his students. Racine concludes that, while Servius himself clearly knew and read Greek well and expected at least a basic knowledge of Greek from his students and readers, it seems that Greek played a specific role in his teaching and his commentary. For Servius and his students, Greek language and literature was no longer read and taught solely for its own sake, but rather it was valued as a useful tool to help teach Latin and explain Latin texts. Servius’ tendency to use Greek as a pedagogical tool in his commentary may be symptomatic of a larger trend in the changing role of Greek in late antique education and literary culture. Greek had long been considered the foundation of Latin literature and mythology, so even when fluency in Greek and intimate knowledge of the literary canon gradually began to fade in Gaul, it is natural that interest in Greek persisted. Not only would elementary Greek language remain foundational in learning and reading Latin literature, but interest in and knowledge of Greek literature and culture would remain important to late Latin writers with literary ambitions.

A movement towards the more foundational role of Greek in Latin education may be apparent already in fourth-century sources from Gaul. Despite widespread doubts about knowledge of Greek in the late antique West, there is indeed ample evidence of Greek teaching in Gaul in the fourth century. The hesitation or reluctance of modern scholars to label such varied evidence as proof of knowledge of Greek can be alleviated by adopting a different approach to how we conceptualize the perceived value of Greek and by an adapted definition of what exactly we mean by ‘knowledge’ of Greek in this period. The evidence of Greek teachers and students from the Colloquium Celtis, Ausonius, Paulinus of Pella and the Codex Theodosianus shows that Greek was still being taught, but indicates that its place in Roman education had changed from how Quintilian had envisioned it in the first century a.d.

Elementary Greek lessons feature prominently in the school scenes from the Colloquium Celtis, a language-learning text that was probably in use in Gaul in the late third or fourth century.Footnote ¹⁹ The colloquium describes two separate school environments: an elementary school for reading and writing and a more advanced school that taught Latin and Greek grammar and some rhetoric.Footnote ²⁰ Greek teachers and lessons are included in both school scenes. A Greek teacher is listed alongside teachers of arithmetic, shorthand, Latin and rhetoric at the opening of the school scenes (18),Footnote ²¹ and a Greek teacher is mentioned in parallel to a Latin grammarian at the end of the first scene of the elementary school and at the beginning of the secondary school scene (29, 30a).Footnote ²² We also have a potential reading list for the secondary school. The older students (πρωτόσχολοι | priores) read about the Iliad and the Odyssey, perhaps in summary or paraphrase form (ἀνάγνωσιν περὶ Ἰλιάδος, ἄλλην περὶ Ὀδυσσείας | lectionem de Iliade, aliam de Odyssia, 37a), and other Greek texts listed include Theocritus, Thucydides, Demosthenes, Hippocrates, Xenophon, the Cynics and possibly Menander.Footnote ²³ The reference to the Cynics probably refers to texts of philosophical sayings called chreiai, which were often centred around Diogenes, the ‘founder’ of the Cynics, and were often used in educational contexts.Footnote ²⁴ Alongside these Greek texts are Cicero, Virgil, Persius, Lucan, Statius, Terence, Sallust and ‘the two wars’ (duo bella, 38a), which may refer to Caesar.Footnote ²⁵

The list of authors does not necessarily mirror what was taught in the schools, and it is possible that some of the authors were read as summaries or paraphrases, such as Homer and the works of the Cynics. For example, the inclusion of Persius, Lucan and Statius in the Latin list, and of Theocritus, Thucydides, Hippocrates and Xenophon on the Greek side does not equate with our other evidence of schools texts in the late antique West.Footnote ²⁶ It is possible, as in other vocabulary lists in the colloquia, that some classical authors were added to the list for ‘good measure’, as it were. The colloquia by their very nature often have more words and options than is necessary for phrases to make sense, precisely because their aim is to teach language, vocabulary and inflection.Footnote ²⁷ At the same time, even when authors from late antique Gaul talk about education they rarely record exact details of classroom environments. Therefore, it is very possible that these texts were read in some classrooms, but that only the main authors—Cicero and Demosthenes, Homer and Virgil, Terence and Menander—are recorded in the offhand remarks of our late antique sources. Whether or not the reading list reflects reality, this colloquium clearly shows that there were Greek teachers in Gallo-Roman classrooms in Late Antiquity.

A pattern of widespread yet lower-level Greek teaching is also clearly evident in the careers of five Greek grammarians who taught in Bordeaux in the early to mid fourth century, whom Ausonius celebrates in his Commemoratio professorum Burdigalensium. Three of these, namely Corinthius, Spercheus and Menestheus, won ‘little profit and small praise’ for their teaching (fructus exilis tenuisque sermo, Prof. Burd. 8.6), and taught younger students. Both Corinthius and Spercheus taught Ausonius himself when he was young (primis … in annis, Prof. Burd. 8.10). Another Greek grammarian working in Bordeaux in the mid fourth century was the Sicilian-born Citarius (Prof. Burd. 13). Judging by the familiar tone of the poem, Citarius may have been Ausonius’ colleague, perhaps taking up a post previously held by Corintheus or Spercheus. Ausonius regarded Citarius as dignus inter grammaticos qui celebrere bonos (‘worthy to be praised amongst good grammarians’, Prof. Burd. 13.1–2) such as Zenodotus and Aristarchus (Prof. Burd. 13.3–4), and admired Citarius’ Greek compositions, which he likened to that of Simonides of Ceos. Despite these accomplishments, Citarius gained little fame, as Ausonius laments that such things were no longer valued (esset Aristarchi tibi gloria Zenodotique | Graiorum, antiquus si sequeretur honos, Prof. Burd. 13.3–4). This comment may indicate that Greek was taught at a low level in Bordeaux and was not seen as equal to the more ‘important’ subjects of Latin rhetoric or perhaps even Latin grammar. At the same time, although Ausonius himself may not have been intimately familiar with the works of Zenodotus, Aristarchus or Simonides, he had enough knowledge of these figures to know that they would be ideal exemplars in praising Citarius and expected the readers of his Professores to understand the significance of the references. We might ascribe Citarius’ superior Greek skills to the fact that he was born and presumably brought up in Sicily (Prof. Burd. 13.7–8), traditionally a stronghold of Greek culture and language in the Roman world.Footnote ²⁸

Students in Bordeaux could also learn Greek grammar from Urbicus. He is praised together with Crispus (Prof. Burd. 21), but, while both are called Grammatici Latini et Graeci, Ausonius speaks specifically about Greek only in connection with Urbicus. His association with Crispus can nevertheless shed light on his precise function as Greek grammarian. Crispus taught ‘the youngest boys, unskilled in speech, the simple signs of their new task, the alphabet’ (qui primaeuos fandique rudes | elementorum prima docebas | signa nouorum, Prof. Burd. 21.4–6). Since Crispus taught basic literacy to the youngest students, indicating that he was an elementary teacher or lower-level grammarian, it is probable that Urbicus, who is praised alongside Crispus in similar ways and with similar terminology, likewise taught only the younger students the basics of Greek grammar.

Further evidence that Greek was taught, albeit at a basic level, comes from the school days of Ausonius himself and his family members. Ausonius claims that he was a poor Greek student as a child, despite the best efforts of his teachers Corinthius and Spercheus (Prof. Burd. 8.9–16).Footnote ²⁹ Even if Ausonius is telling the truth and his Greek was never completely fluent, it is important to note that he had the opportunity to learn Greek as a young boy. Ausonius expected that his grandsons would have the same opportunity. In his Protrepticus ad nepotem Ausonius tells his grandson what to expect from school, saying that he will start by reading Homer and Menander (conditor Iliados et amabilis orsa Menandri | euoluenda tibi, Protrept. 46–7).Footnote ³⁰ Another of Ausonius’ grandsons, Paulinus of Pella, also began his education in Gaul in the late fourth century by reading Greek texts. He reflects upon his early education in his Eucharisticos.Footnote ³¹ Before advancing to Latin literature, Paulinus studied Plato and Homer (Paul. Pell. Euch. 72–84):

It is clear that Paulinus of Pella read Plato and Homer in the original Greek.Footnote ³³ Not only does he distinguish his Greek instruction from his Latin with linguistic and temporal markers such as protinus to separate the two stages, but he also stresses that it was the Latin language specifically that was difficult for him, since he was used to speaking to the Greek slaves that raised him. He also refers to his schooling as consisting of a ‘double learning’ (doctrina duplex … gemino splendore), which recalls the conventional description of Greek and Latin bilingual instruction, utraque lingua doctus.Footnote ³⁴

In order to understand what level of Greek was being taught in Bordeaux and elsewhere in Gaul in this period, it is useful to consider the detailed study that Robert Kaster made regarding the teaching staff described by Ausonius in the Professores and other works.Footnote ³⁵ Arguing against previous interpretations,Footnote ³⁶ Kaster suggests that there was one Latin rhetor, two Latin grammarians and one Greek grammarian in Bordeaux at any one time during the fourth century. According to Kaster's theory, the two Latin grammarians fulfilled separate roles—one each for primary and advanced grammatical instruction. Kaster gives three main arguments to support this theory: the rough number of grammarians commemorated in the Professores, the contemporary evidence for Trier and Milan, and the allusions to different levels of grammatical instruction throughout Ausonius’ work. If Kaster is correct and there were two official Latin grammarians, one of whom taught elementary grammar, what does this say about the level of Greek instruction? If for every Greek grammarian there were two Latin grammarians, students would have spent less time on Greek and learnt it to a less advanced level—perhaps as a basis with which to be able to engage more fully and meaningfully with Latin literature and rhetoric. As we have seen, the evidence from Ausonius and other fourth-century sources support such a theory for Bordeaux, and evidence from elsewhere in Gaul also confirms such a structure of lower-level Greek teaching in the fourth century.

Students in Trier, for example, could learn Greek from the grammarian Harmonius, who was teaching there in the 370s.Footnote ³⁷ It is possible that Harmonius taught both Latin and Greek grammar, since Ausonius compares him to famous scholars of both languages, and describes him as Cecropiae commune decus Latiaeque Camenae, | solus qui Chium miscet et Ammineum (‘Harmonius, glory alike of the Attic and the Latin Muse, who alone dost mingle wine of Chios and Aminaea’, Ep. 10.31–2). Harmonius taught alongside the Latin grammarian Ursulus (Vrsule collega nobilis Harmonio, Ep. 10.26). The presence of these two grammarians may shed light on a controversial edict in the Theodosian Code, which, as we will see, helps us to reconstruct the overall picture of Greek teaching in Gaul at this time.

In Gratian's so-called ‘School Edict’ (Cod. Theod. 13.3.11, a.d. 376), salaries are set out for professors of Latin grammar, Latin rhetoric and Greek grammar throughout the northern diocese of Gaul, and higher pay scales are fixed for grammarians and rhetors in Trier. While scholars have spent much time arguing over the broader implications of the edict, all have accepted at face value the final clause regarding Greek grammarians. The final clause of the edict seems to indicate that there was a lack of suitable candidates for Greek professorships in Trier, and this is often taken as indicative of the overall decline in Greek teaching in Gaul in the fourth and fifth centuries: Treuirorum uel clarissimae ciuitati uberius aliquid putauimus deferendum, rhetori ut triginta, item uiginti grammatico Latino, Graeco etiam, si qui dignus repperiri potuerit, duodecim praebeantur annonae ‘Indeed, we suppose that a more generous amount should be bestowed upon the very renowned City of Trier, namely that thirty subsistence allowances shall be furnished to a rhetorician, likewise twenty to a Latin grammarian, and also twelve subsistence allowances shall be paid to a Greek grammarian, if anyone worthy to be chosen can be found.’Footnote ³⁸ This puzzling phrase can be better understood if we consider it alongside contemporary evidence of Greek teaching at the time, and take into account the changing role and status of Greek instruction within Latin schools in the late antique West.

A reconsideration of the edict shows that the situation regarding Greek was not so dire as previously assumed. Or, rather, the evidence from this edict does not necessitate such negative conclusions. This edict indicates not only that Greek teaching was taking place all across the northern diocese of Gaul but also that the position of a professor of Greek grammar was so prestigious as to be funded by the imperial government: per omnem dioecesim commissam magnificentiae tuae frequentissimis in ciuitatibus, quae pollent et eminent claritudine, praeceptorum optimi quique erudiendae praesideant iuuentuti: rhetores loquimur et grammaticos Atticae Romanaeque doctrinae (‘Throughout every diocese committed to Your Magnificence, in the most thickly populated municipalities, which are powerful and eminent by their renown, all the best preceptors—we mean rhetoricians and grammarians of the Attic and Roman learning—shall preside over teaching the youth’).Footnote ³⁹ Moreover, if there was any possible doubt about finding suitable Greek grammarians, it was only in Trier. Throughout most of the edict the Greek professors are treated no differently from the Latin grammarians. When the professors are first mentioned they are specified as rhetores … et grammaticos Atticae Romanaeque doctrinae, and the Latin and Greek grammarians are again referred to jointly when the salaries are set out: oratoribus uiginti quattuor annonarum e fisco emolumenta donentur, grammaticis Latino uel Graeco duodecim annonarum deductior paulo numerus ex more praestetur ‘To those holding the rank of orators shall be granted the pay of twenty-four subsistence allowances from the fisc; to the grammarians, whether Latin or Greek, shall be paid twelve subsistence allowances, an amount slightly smaller, according to custom’. It is only in the final line of the edict, in the special pay scale set for Trier, that there is any differentiation between Latin and Greek grammarians. The salaries for rhetors and Latin grammarians in Trier are to rise from 24 to 30 and from 12 to 20 annonae respectively, but the Greek grammarian's salary in Trier is to remain at 12 annonae. The emperors add a caveat, saying that Greek grammarians will receive this salary of 12 annonae, si qui dignus repperiri potuerit. The word order makes it difficult to understand this phrase as referring to anything except the Greek professors, since it falls directly between the modifying adjective Graeco and the salary they are to be paid: item uiginti grammatico Latino, Graeco etiam, si qui dignus repperiri potuerit, duodecim praebeantur annonae. At first glance the phrase si qui dignus repperiri potuerit seems to indicate that there was not a shortage of teachers of Greek grammar in Trier but rather a shortage of qualified ones, or ones who were ‘comparable in distinction to the Latinists’.Footnote ⁴⁰ If that were truly the case, surely the emperor would address this problem by trying to attract high-calibre candidates to Trier by offering competitive salaries, but the salary of the Greek professor in Trier is to remain the same as in other parts of the northern diocese.Footnote ⁴¹

It also seems peculiar that this was a problem only in Trier; according to the precise wording of the edict, there is no suggestion that there would be trouble hiring suitable Greek grammarians anywhere else in northern Gaul. But why should a problem like this affect only what was presumably the most important and prestigious city in the region? Were the standards perhaps higher in Trier as it was the capital and imperial residence? Or perhaps this phrase has more to do with Latin grammarians and less with Greek ones. It would make sense that there would be more highly qualified Latinists in Gaul, since Latin was taught to a higher level (grammar and rhetoric) in schools than was Greek. And, since it is likely that Ausonius was instrumental in drafting this legislation, since he was quaestor at the time, the fact that he himself had worked as Latin grammarian and rhetor may have augmented the prestige granted to these Latin positions in Trier. Since the salary for Greek grammarians in Trier is not any lower than the salary for any other Greek professor in northern Gaul, perhaps we should regard the final part of the edict as representing not a demotion or affront to Greek professors but rather as a special honour to professors of Latin grammar and rhetoric. Furthermore, if Greek grammarians taught only lower-level grammar, while their Latin counterparts taught more advanced Latin literature, it is therefore understandable that the Greek teachers would get a lower salary, even in Trier, the imperial residence.Footnote ⁴²

Whatever is meant by the special treatment of Greek grammarians in Trier, the edict generally paints a positive picture of teaching Greek in late fourth-century northern Gaul. It is expected that Greek grammar would be taught in all the provincial capitals in the northern diocese of Gaul, and the imperial government thought it worthwhile to fund these Chairs of Greek grammar, providing compensation equal to Latin grammarians in all cities except Trier. This edict, in addition to the evidence from Ausonius and the Colloquium Celtis, shows that Greek had certainly not disappeared from the curriculum in the fourth century in Gaul. Nevertheless, its status and function had changed; it was no longer equal to Latin, as it had been for Quintilian and his contemporaries in the first century a.d. Rather, Greek was taught at a lower level by grammarians who could be paid less than their Latin counterparts, and who sometimes taught ‘part-time’ or alongside Latin subjects.

4. CASE STUDY: CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS AND SAPAUDUS IN FIFTH-CENTURY VIENNE

An often-overlooked letter from the priest Claudianus Mamertus to Sapaudus, a teacher of Latin rhetoric, provides an opportunity to interrogate our preconceptions about the role and use of Greek in the classrooms of the late antique Latin West. A close reading of this mid fifth-century letter shows that some knowledge of Greek persisted, that it was valued by Gallo-Romans, and that Greek still had a place in the classrooms of late antique Gaul.

Claudianus Mamertus was a monk at Lérins and later became a priest in Vienne, where his brother was bishop. He is best known for his philosophical treatise, De statu animae, written around 470 and dedicated to his friend Sidonius Apollinaris. The work represents one side of a theological and philosophical controversy that was taking place in southern Gaul at this time regarding the nature of the soul. Claudianus’ work was provoked by a pamphlet, Quaeris a me, which was circulating around 469 and which argued for the corporeality of the soul. Claudianus’ three-book response, in which he drew heavily on Neoplatonic philosophy, argued that the soul was incorporeal. The only other extant works of Claudianus are two letters: one to Sidonius, which is preserved within Sidonius’ letter collections, and one to the rhetor Sapaudus. Sapaudus is also known from a letter from Sidonius (Ep. 5.10), and he taught rhetoric in Vienne in the 460s and 470s.Footnote ⁴³

Claudianus’ letter to Sapaudus is striking for its many references to Greek and Greek disciplines. Sapaudus’ eloquence is described as ‘mixed with Attic honey’ (mixta uirtute Attici more mellis), and his students are ‘imbued with the nectar of the Greek disciplines as if fed on Attic honey’ (quae Graecarum quoque disciplinarum nectare imbuta ac si melle Attico pasta).Footnote ⁴⁴ These remarks about Greek can help to illuminate the perceptions of the value and use of Greek in late antique Gaul, and they can also help us to understand the changed role that Greek played in Latin classrooms at this time.

That Greek learning is of unmistakable importance in this letter is evident from the very first lines, as Claudianus opens his letter with a eulogy to Greece: ‘Greece, the teacher of all disciplines and arts, especially in noble studies, has gone forth and has seized nearly the whole world with her manifold teachings.’Footnote ⁴⁵ Claudianus laments the contemporary decline of education and literary values—a common trope in late Latin literature.Footnote ⁴⁶ Claudianus ponders whether we ought to blame human neglect or nature for this failure to cultivate the mind, and considers Cicero and Plato, both of whom left home to search for greater learning and achievement in foreign lands. He concludes that in his age what is lacking is not ingenia (ability) but studia for learning—which could mean either enthusiasm or, in fact, actual studies. He therefore praises Sapaudus for his literary abilities and efforts as a teacher.

Claudianus continues with a highly rhetorical summary of the plight of the liberal arts, which, though in many ways conventional in its sense and argument, stands out for its use of violent and martial vocabulary. The personified arts are not simply neglected, as the ‘cultivation of the mind’ was earlier in the letter, but are violently persecuted, feared and rejected by Claudianus’ fellow Gallo-Romans.Footnote ⁴⁷ In these desperate times, Sapaudus is the teacher par excellence in Gaul.Footnote ⁴⁸ Sapaudus’ declamations are ‘mixed with Attic honey’ (mixta uirtute Attici more mellis) and Claudianus is especially pleased that Sapaudus teaches his students the Greek disciplines. Just like a bee that gathers drops of dew from the sky to fill her hive and nourish her offspring, Sapaudus gathers whatever is very learned (doctiora quaeque) from different authors and creates ‘honeycombs of eloquence’ (fauos eloquentiae) which produce ‘honey of learning’ (ingenii melle), on which his students are nourished and also ‘imbued with the nectar of the Greek disciplines as if fed on Attic honey’ (Graecarum quoque disciplinarum nectare imbuta ac si melle Attico pasta).

Claudianus’ letter closes with advice about Sapaudus’ use of literary models in his teaching. Unlike Sidonius, who, as Aaron Pelttari has argued, advocates reading contemporary authors as well as the older, canonical ones,Footnote ⁴⁹ Claudianus opts for a conservative view, explicitly forbidding contemporary ‘juvenile rubbish’ (puerilibus nugis), and prefers older, canonical models, namely Naevius, Plautus, Cato, Varro, Gracchus, Chrysippus, Fronto and Cicero.

A close reading of one passage in particular, where Claudianus compares Sapaudus to a bee on Mt Hybla, can shed light on Claudianus’ and his contemporaries’ perception of the value and role of Greek language and literature in education and literary culture, and Claudianus’ interaction with and place within Greek and Latin literary traditions (Claud. Mam. Ep. ad Sapaud. 205):

The recurrent references to Greek throughout the letter, and particularly in this passage, are striking, especially since the letter is addressed to a late antique Latin rhetor. So far, as discussed above, most scholars argue that classical schools were in decline in the West in this period and that the teaching of Greek had already largely ceased. This letter suggests that this situation was not as linear as the traditional narrative suggests. Examining how literary precedents may have informed Claudianus’ choice of words in this passage may help to make his meaning clearer. Especially intriguing are the phrases ‘Attic honey’ and ‘nectar of the Greek disciplines’. Honey or nectar is a topos in Greek and Latin literature, conventionally associated with purity, eloquence and clarity of speech. This is seen consistently throughout classical literature, from Homer to Sedulius.Footnote ⁵⁰ In the De diuinatione, for example, Cicero gives examples of omens and their interpretations that came to pass. Among these is the story that bees landed on the lips of Plato when he was an infant. This event was thought to foreshadow the philosopher's future eloquence.Footnote ⁵¹ Ausonius likewise connects honey with eloquent speech. In a letter to the rhetor Paulus, Ausonius states: sic tibi sint Musae faciles, meditatio prompta | et memor, et liquidi mel fluat eloquii ‘So be the Muses gracious to thee, thy conception ready, thy memory sound, and free thy flow of melting honey’ (Ep. 8.17–18); Ausonius regularly describes Nestor, the Homeric character famed for sound counsel and eloquent speech, with honeyed lips (Auson. Grat. act. 9, Prof. Burd. 21.22–4, Ep. 9b.14).

Given the ubiquity of honey as a metaphor in classical literature, Claudianus’ use of honey in reference to a Latin rhetor in this instance is not new or out of place. Neither is the comparison between a reader or teacher and a bee that makes honey by gathering little bits from flowers and plants. We see a similar scenario described in the preface to Macrobius’ Saturnalia, and Macrobius clearly took this idea from Seneca's Epistle 84, where a reader gathering ideas is compared to a bee taking nectar from a variety of flowers.Footnote ⁵² While neither honey nor bees are strange in the context of a letter to a Latin rhetor, it is noteworthy that Claudianus specifies not once but twice that this is ‘Attic honey’. Aside from appearing in many medical texts and throughout Pliny's Natural History, in other literary texts Attic honey is conventionally described as the best honey, especially in comparison with honey from Corsica or Sardinia, both of which are traditionally bad tasting.Footnote ⁵³

Another jarring detail in this passage is the association between ‘Attic honey’ and Mt Hybla, since ‘Attic honey’ should come from Mt Hymettus in Athens. Hybla (in Sicily) and Hymettus (in Athens) are associated with honey throughout Latin literature. Although they are often mentioned in the same breath, there is almost always a clear distinction between Hyblaean and Hymettian (variously termed Attic or Cecropian) honey, though some authors admit that Hyblaean honey can come close or even challenge its Greek counterpart.Footnote ⁵⁴

Given this solid literary tradition, it is unusual that Claudianus conflates Attic honey and Roman Mt Hybla. Claudianus may have been mistaken about his geography, which could have easily happened if he had read Virgilian commentaries, such as Servius’, which is unclear about the exact location of Mt Hybla.Footnote ⁵⁵ But if we conclude that Claudianus was mistaken about the location of Hybla—that is, if he thought it was in Athens or was possibly in Athens—this would add a further reference to Greece and would strengthen the argument that these references are significant in some way to Sapaudus and his role as teacher of Latin rhetoric. It is possible that Claudianus referred to Hybla as Attic because of its association with Greek poetry through Theocritus. Moreover, Sicily, though technically part of the ‘Latin’ world, was traditionally associated with Greek language and continued to have a Greek-speaking population in Late Antiquity.Footnote ⁵⁶ If we accept that Claudianus was aware of the rich literary tradition of Hybla and Hymettus, and was consciously drawing on this and blending the two in this passage, what does that mean for Sapaudus, Claudianus and teaching in fifth-century Gaul?

As we have seen, Attic honey is conventionally the best honey, so perhaps Claudianus uses ‘Attic honey’ to praise Sapaudus. But it is possible to take this metaphor further. Attic honey is the best honey, but for Claudianus it is associated with bees that work on Hybla in Sicily, that is, in Roman territory known for Greek language. It is Roman pupils that are fed by the ‘Attic honey’ and the ‘nectar of the Greek disciplines’, so it is Roman students—Sapaudus’ students in fifth-century Vienne—who get the benefits of Greek learning. By discarding the conventional dismissal of Greek knowledge in the West, and by considering this passage with more generous eyes, we can learn something about Sapaudus’ pedagogical practice and the place of Greek in his classroom, and, more broadly, in the classrooms of fifth-century Gaul. When Claudianus speaks of the ‘Attic honey’ and the ‘nectar of the Greek disciplines’ that sweeten Sapaudus’ declamations and nourish his students, he is perhaps alluding to the contemporary use of Greek in Latin education and literary culture. That is, Sapaudus used Greek—Greek language, learning and Greek rhetorical style, not necessarily in original language—to instruct his students in Latin language and style and improve their understanding and composition of Latin rhetoric. In Claudianus’ metaphor Sapaudus is likened to the bee and his teaching to the honeycomb. As a bee collects dew from the sky and uses it to construct her hive and nourish her offspring, so Sapaudus takes excerpts from classical authors, brings them together alongside his own learning and eloquence, and shares it with his students, adding Greek learning (‘the nectar of the Greek disciplines’) to the mix, so that his students may be fed by ‘Attic honey’. ‘Greek nectar’ is just one of the many elements that nourish Sapaudus’ students. Greek plays a similar role for Sapaudus as it did for Servius in his commentary. For Sapaudus, Greek is a pedagogical tool with which he can both strengthen his students’ understanding and appreciation of Latin rhetoric and enrich their education.

On the other hand, the reference to ‘Attic honey’ and ‘Greek disciplines’ may simply serve as a reflection of Claudianus’ own interests. We know that Claudianus valued Greek and probably read it fluently and preferred more ‘traditional’ authors, and that he also valued the Greek sources of Latin learning.Footnote ⁵⁷ Sidonius Apollinaris, one of Claudianus’ contemporaries and a well-connected and prolific letter-writer, highlights Claudianus’ knowledge of Greek and Latin and compares him to famous authors of both languages. In a letter to him (Sid. Apoll. Epist. 4.3), Sidonius lavishes praise upon Claudianus, comparing him to a whole host of famous Greek and Roman figures (from reality and mythology) in a series of impossibly long lists of authors, orators, philosophers, politicians, Church Fathers and mythological figures.Footnote ⁵⁸ Sidonius mentions Claudianus’ ‘acquaintance with Greek and Latin lore’ and, in a poem written on the occasion of the death of his friend, says that ‘under his teaching three literatures were illumined, Latin, Greek and Christian’.Footnote ⁵⁹

Claudianus was not the only one in Sidonius’ circle of fifth-century Gallo-Roman litterateurs interested in Greek. Sidonius also explicitly praises the younger and the elder Consentius for their knowledge of Greek. The elder Consentius was proficient in both Latin and Greek (Consenti … patrem, | illum cui nitidi sales rigorque | Romanus fuit Attico in lepore, Carm. 23.108–10) and is compared to the seven sages and to other Greek and Latin authors (Carm. 23.101–44, 23.145–69). The younger Consentius followed in his father's literary footsteps. He was renowned for his poetry in both Latin and Greek (Carm. 23.5–7, 23.20–8, 23.204–9; Epist. 8.4.2, 9.15.1.19–34) and was trusted by Emperor Valentinian III to act as interpreter on diplomatic missions to the Greek-speaking court of the Eastern emperor Theodosius II (Carm. 23.228–40). Despite his overall negative conclusions about Greek in late antique Gaul, Courcelle concludes, both from Sidonius’ description and from Claudianus’ own literary output, that Claudianus is the rare exception to the rule, and that he probably did read Greek literature first-hand. Courcelle even concedes that, though most of Sidonius’ references to Greek authors are rhetorical, Sidonius might have known at least some Greek.Footnote ⁶⁰ On the other hand, many scholars are persistent in their conviction that Greek had disappeared from education and literary culture by this period. In his study of philosophical knowledge in fifth-century Gaul, Charles Brittain argues that neither Claudianus nor Sapaudus nor Sidonius knew Greek, insisting that the references to Greek authors and literature in Sidonius and Claudianus only demonstrate that they both knew about a wide range of Greek and Roman authors, not that either had or was able to read these texts in the original Greek. He further argues that, ‘when Sapaudus gave his students a smattering of Greek learning to improve their eloquence, he did not need to teach them Greek first to do it’.Footnote ⁶¹ Isabella Gualandri is likewise sceptical about Sidonius’ familiarity with Greek language and literature. She argues that, although Sidonius often uses Greek words and clearly has an appreciation of the cultural value of Greek literature, his works do not betray anything beyond knowledge of technical vocabulary and basic knowledge that he could glean from scholastic material and manuals.Footnote ⁶² Based on the evidence and praise from Sidonius, there is no reason to doubt that at least Claudianus as well as both the elder and the younger Consentius actually knew Greek.Footnote ⁶³ Although Sidonius praises many of his correspondents for their learning and literary abilities, only these few are singled out as being experts in Greek, suggesting that such compliments were not simply a way to indicate that someone was especially learned but rather that these few individuals actually did value and know Greek.Footnote ⁶⁴