Can there be an artistic plan in Roman miscellany, a genre that is characterised by its heterogeneity and therefore has long been undervalued as a haphazard compilation of trivial facts? Can there be a literary architecture of the Noctes Atticae when Gellius’ Praefatio, at least initially, denies any thematic coherence?
Scott DiGiulio attempts to untie the knot by turning the problem into the solution: he presents the aesthetics of varietas as Gellius’ artistic choice, which generates delight and effective learning at the same time.[1] DiGiulio’s book explores a meaningful web of intertextual and intratextual connections that reveal the literary structure of Gellius’ miscellany. This is the culmination of a new approach that focuses on the literary achievement of the Noctes, exploring Gellius’ accomplishments as a Roman writer who embodies the cultural practices of his time.[2] By tracing Gellius’ ways of encoding his collection, DiGiulio opens a fascinating window on the author’s creative relationship with Greek and Latin literature and on his innovative position within the tradition of imperial prose collection.
In chapter one (“Reading the NA through the Latin Literary Past. Gellius and the Imperial Prose Tradition”), DiGiulio looks at the way Gellius rewrites key models from the imperial critical tradition (Seneca, Quintilian, the Younger Pliny, Fronto) to construct his own paradigm of intellectual practice and to constitute his own imagined intellectual community.[3] Gellius invites his readers to acknowledge his intertextual interaction with the underlying models, which becomes apparent when readers critically re-examine his sources for themselves (“dialogical reading”). While Gellius openly criticises Pliny the Elder as a counter-model, he “secretly” competes with Pliny the Younger as a role model: Gellius reframes the miscellanist techniques (varietas) in Pliny’s collection and adapts them to his own programmatic purposes, combining delight with instruction (pp. 51–52). Gellius’ intertextual practice becomes a tool for criticism and for shaping his authority: Gellius openly quotes Seneca’s criticism of Cicero as a stylistic role model to expose Seneca’s stylistic defectiveness (Noctes 12.2). The commentarius simultaneously advances Gellius as the “culmination” (p. 67) of the critical discourse on eloquentia initiated by Cicero and continued by Quintilian, Tacitus, and Fronto.[4]
Chapter two (“Approaching a Miscellanistic Work from the Outside In: Paratextual Strategies”) deals with the paratextual apparatus,[5] investigating the title, table of contents and Praefatio as framing devices. All these devices convey a set of general expectations that influence the hermeneutic process and enable the author to manipulate literary conventions to encourage critical (re-)reading. Like the whole Noctes, the paratextual apparatus challenges the reader to actively engage with a plurality of readings, linear and non-linear, instrumental (reference work) and non-instrumental (literary work). DiGiulio discusses the chronotopic aspect of the title as a framework for several unified readings, e.g. of the various personae of Gellius,[6] producing a narrative of his complex intellectual development (Bildungsroman, p. 80).[7] DiGiulio explores intratextual connections between “winter” and the “(strings of a) lyre” in the Praefatio (10 and 19) and in some commentarii (9.7.3 and 16.9), suggesting that the variety of sounds produced in winter symbolise the work’s interpretive challenges: not everything is as it first sounds.[8] Finally, DiGiulio demonstrates that Gellius’ capita rerum canonise the—apparently random—order of the material (p. 97) and invite the reader to interpret the arrangement as meaningful.[9]
In chapter three (“Prescribing a Way of Reading: Gellius’ Preface as Critical Model”), DiGiulio discusses the Praefatio as both a captatio benevolentiae and a manual, preparing the audience for the multifaceted interpretive potential of the Noctes. The Praefatio prescribes an ideal method for reading the whole work, one that relies on the ideal reader’s ability to distinguish and connect the various textual strands and to acknowledge Gellius’ intellectual and artistic “plan” (11 consilium). DiGiulio explains Gellius’ dismissal of any literary or thematic structure as a literary conceit (recusatio), comparable to similar claims in Pliny the Younger (epist. 1.1). The adoption of a miscellaneous aesthetic (varietas) in the tradition of Callimachean aesthetics and Augustan poetry (Horace) distinguishes Gellius from Pliny the Elder’s Historia Naturalis and other similar works, which focus on utility and do not implement poetic connections as extensively as Gellius.
In chapter four (“Confronting Variety in the NA: A Guide for the Perplexed”), DiGiulio turns to intratextual readings of the Noctes that lend the text coherence and meaning. First, he discusses several juxtaposed commentarii as instantiations of varietas that invite critical comparison (e.g. 5.15–16); deictic markers (e.g. supra) and other phrases help the reader navigate the chapters and reflect on interconnections. Then he applies this intratextual approach to character-oriented commentarii across books: in a linear reading, readers are prompted to compare Fronto and Gellius as literary authorities. DiGiulio shows that Fronto stands alongside Favorinus as an authority figure in the Noctes (p. 164).[10] By presenting Fronto as a model of the type of learning propagated in the Noctes and at the same time critically engaging with him, Gellius claims the status of a leading figure of Antonine culture (pp. 164–174).[11] Finally, DiGiulio turns from a character-oriented to a citation-oriented approach: quotations from other authors reveal the “true stars” of the Noctes (cf. p. 16). Interpreting a sequence of commentarii (2.20–30) as a structured unit, DiGiulio explores the (intra-)textual web that shapes the literary architecture of the Noctes.[12]
In chapter five (“The Poetics of Prose: Gellius, Alexandrianism, and the Composed Book”), DiGiulio argues that Gellius integrated the aesthetics of varietas as found in Greek and Roman collections of poetry into the fabric of his Noctes. By quoting Catullus as the pivot between Greek and Roman taste in a dinner conversation about Greek and Roman erotic poetry (19.9.7), Gellius outwits his Greek dinner- (as well as his miscellanist-) companions with his mastery of Hellenic culture. DiGiulio demonstrates how Horace’s and Pliny’s artistic influences go hand in hand in Gellius’ crafting of his miscellanistic prosaics: the “parade commentarii” at the outset (1.1–10) are thus illuminated by DiGiulio as a deliberately patterned sequence, which, also on a meta-level, lift the lid on the rich learning toolbox of the Noctes as a whole (pp. 203–218).[13] A recurring value emerging from the parade commentarii is the way in which and for what purpose knowledge is acquired and used—trawling through books for the purpose of display has no place in Gellius’ programme. Understanding the literary architecture of varietas is the key to the thematic progression and deepening that make up the whole Noctes.
In chapter six (“How to Read a Book: NA Book 3”), the interlocking of intellectual programme and literary composition in the Noctes is illustrated by DiGiulio’s reading of a single book as a case study (Book 3). DiGiulio explores the third book’s polyphony through three strands, (1) citation-oriented: Gellius undermines Varro’s traditional authority in a range of scholarly issues, in which philological inquiry interacts with antiquarian inquiry; (2) in dialogue with (1): Gellius constructs his persona as Roman, authoritative exegete, critically using the same sources but with a broader and deeper range of inquiry; (3) character-oriented: the appearances of the paradoxical figure of Favorinus at the opening and closure (3.1, 3.3, 3.16 and 3.19) serves as a framing device for the whole book. DiGiulio’s profound analysis shows that Gellius does not use satire for the sake of satire but uses it in conjunction with conclusive philological and antiquarian research to substantiate his own claims. The repeated use of figures, themes and texts invites the reader to recognise the book as an artistic entity that constructs a thematic narrative about Roman cultural (and political) identity and masculinity.
In chapter seven (“Approaches to Reading Miscellanistic Aesthetics from Late Antiquity to Today”), the literary legacy of Gellius is presented as an inspiration for the literary developments of the second and third centuries (Aelian, Athenaeus, Philostratus), of Late Antiquity (Macrobius’ Saturnalia, Augustine), of the Italian Renaissance (Angelo Poliziano, Michel de Montaigne), and of the (early) modern period (Richard Burton, Jorge Luis Borges). DiGiulio compares the textual worlds of Gellius’ miscellany and later essay collections also on a more personal level: inspired by D’Israeli (p. 288) and Borges (pp. 292–293), he explains the miscellany as a self-portrait of the author through his books, introducing the reader to the author’s inner world and his place in the outer world.
Reading miscellany, then, is like meeting the author who expresses through his literary work a life well lived, i.e., a life of reading (p. 293). It is clear from every page of his book that DiGiulio’s encounter with Gellius’ miscellany was a happy one, and so was mine with DiGiulio’s study. For me, reading it was almost like enjoying an audiobook, with DiGiulio’s voice untiringly deciphering the complex DNA of the Noctes. This does not change the fact that I found the chapters where DiGiulio works most closely to the text of the Noctes (chapters 4- 6) the most enjoyable. Undoubtedly, his book will spark further critical reading, like Gellius once did and still does (Praef. 16-18). I dream of detailed commentaries on the individual books of the Noctes that will further explore Gellius’ literary artistry.
References
Baumann, Mario (2011): Bilder schreiben. Virtuose Ekphrasis in Philostrats ‘Eikones‘, Berlin & New York.
Beer, Beate (2014): “Schwache Erzähler, starke Leser: Zum erzählerischen Programm im Vorwort von Gellius‘ Noctes Atticae. ” In: Antike und Abendland 60, 51–69.
Beer, Beate (2020): Aulus Gellius und die ‘Noctes Atticae‘. Die literarische Konstruktion einer Sammlung, Berlin & Boston.
Curtis, Lauren (2017): “Becoming the Lyre. Arion and Roman Elegy.” In: Arethusa 50, 283-310.
Del Giovane, Barbara (2017): “Seneca, Quintiliano, Gellio e Frontone: critica, superamento e rovesciamento del modello educativo senecano (con una lettura di Fronto ad M. Caesarem 3.16,” pp. 47.19–22 e 48.1–25 vdH2). In: Lexis 35, 354–372.
Fitzgerald, William (2016): Variety. The Life of a Roman Concept, Chicago & London.
Genette, Gérard (1997): Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Trans. J. E. Lewin, Cambridge.
Howley, Joseph A. (2018): Aulus Gellius and Roman Reading Culture: Text, Presence, and Imperial Knowledge in the Noctes Atticae, Cambridge.
Krostenko, Brian A. (2001): Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance, Chicago & London.
La Bua, Giuseppe (2019): Cicero and Roman Education. The Reception of the Speeches and Ancient Scholarship, Cambridge.
Ludolph, Matthias (1997): Epistolographie und Selbstdarstellung. Untersuchungen zu den ‘Paradebriefen’ Plinius des Jüngeren, Tübingen.
Tischer, Ute (2024): “A taste of me as a master. Lehrerrollen und satirisches Sprechen in Frontos De orationibus. ” In: Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser & Wytse Keulen (eds.), Kommunikation und Hybridität in Frontos Spätkorrespondenz, Tübingen, 145–178.
Notes
[1] On varietas (cf. Greek poikilia) as a literary principle, see Fitzgerald (2016), to whom DiGiulio refers throughout his book. With a more narratological approach, Beate Beer (2020), following Baumann (2011), succeeds in applying the concept of virtuosity in a comparable way.
[2] See Howley (2018) and Beer (2020).
[3] According to DiGiulio (p. 23 n. 1), Fronto’s corpus is “almost entirely pre-Ciceronian”. Even if Fronto’s literary taste may reflect a preference for pre-classical authors (he never cites Vergil!), Cicero and Horace are prominent models, while Seneca is an anti-model, cf. Tischer (2024). As in Gellius’ Noctes, many imperial authors are tacitly present in Fronto’s corpus (e.g., Quintilian, Pliny the Younger, Statius).
[4] For Fronto’s and Gellius’ negative judgment of Seneca, see Del Giovane (2017); for Gellius’ positive judgment of Cicero, implicitly contesting Fronto’s judgment, see La Bua (2019: 136).
[5] Genette (1997).
[6] On p. 79 n. 24 the quoted letter (ad M. Caes. 1.4.1) is by Marcus Aurelius (not by Fronto) and contains the first attestation of the diminutive lucubratiuncula.
[7] Other studies foreground the title’s function as a social performance (inclusion/exclusion) that defines the ideal reader, see e.g. Beer (2014: 56). Maria Gkamou (University of Göttingen) kindly suggests to me that Atticus and Athenae belong to the language of humour and wit, cf. Gell. 17.8.4–7, 18.2 tit., Martial 3.20.9.
[8] In such a reading, the lyre player Arion (16.19) could perhaps embody the author’s complex and ambiguous voice, cf. Curtis (2017) and DiGiulio, p. 34–35.
[9] A table of contents would no doubt still be useful if if the material were systematically organized (cf. pp. 88–89). I am happy that DiGiulio included one, helping readers to navigate his work.
[10] Notably, Fronto’s first appearance in the Noctes (2.26) occurs in a dialogue with Favorinus.
[11] On p. 178 read “Favorinus and his company debate” (not “Fronto and Favorinus debate”).
[12] On p. 186 the Vergilian quotation in 2.26.18 should contain the double negation (“<neque> non potuit Vergilius …”): “and Vergil … <could have> called the horse (caeruleus)”.
[13] See Ludolph (1997) on Pliny’s “parade letters” (1.1-8).