I Aulus Gellius
Nothing is known about the life of A. Gellius beyond what can be gathered from occasional hints in his own writings; it has even been disputed whether his name was Agellius or A. Gellius. Probably he was a Roman by birth, of good family and connections. He seems to have spent his early years at Rome, studying under the celebrated teachers, Sulpicius Apollinaris, T. Castricius, and Antonius Julianus (cf. xxxiv. 1): to have continued his studies at Athens, where he lived on terms of familiarity with Herodes Atticus, Calvisius Taurus, Peregrinus Proteus, and other famous philosophers of that day: and after the lapse of many years to have returned to Rome, and devoted the remaining years of his life to literary pursuits and the society of a large circle of friends. The dates of his birth and death are unknown, but from the names of his teachers and friends it is certain that he lived during the reigns of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius, 117-180 A.D.
The only work of A. Gellius that has reached us, possibly the only one that he wrote, is the “Noctes Atticae,” so called because it was begun during the long nights of winter in a country house in Attica (longinquis per hiemen noctibus in agro terrae Atticae). It consists of numerous extracts from Greek and Roman writers on subjects connected with history, philosophy, philology, and antiquities, illustrated by abundant criticisms and discussions. These extracts are thrown together without any attempt at order or arrangement, and divided into twenty books. He had been accustomed whilst reading, he says, to make notes upon anything which struck him as worth remembering. These notes he embodied with little change in his work, in the same haphazard order in which they had been made (usi autem sumus ordine rerum fortuito quem antea in excerpendo feceramus).
Naturally the various parts of such a ‘Miscellany’ vary greatly in quality. Some portions of it are highly valuable and interesting. For instance, many quotations are preserved from ancient authors whose works have perished, some of which throw light upon questions of constitutional and antiquarian interest, which would otherwise have remained obscure; many literary and historical anecdotes are given which are valuable in themselves; and some important grammatical usages and theories are noted. But the author’s appetite was omnivorous. He is as eager to tell the story of a marvellous African serpent, 120 feet in length, whose destruction required the utmost efforts of a whole Roman army, with their ballistae and catapultae (magna totius exercitus conflictione, ballistis atque catapultis diu oppugnatum. —N. A. vii. 3), or to discuss some absurd etymology, such as that of avarus from avidus aeris, as to preserve some really valuable detail of senatorial procedure, or record the use and origin of obscure constitutional phrases. His own criticisms, moreover, are as a rule worthless, and his translations are feeble; but in spite of all these defects his work is exceedingly interesting, and we could ill afford to lose it.
His Latin style shows the defects of his age, an age in which the Romans had ceased to feel the full meaning of the words which they used, and endeavoured to gain emphasis by employing obscure phrases and unnatural turns of expression. But these peculiarities are even more noticeable in the writings of his contemporaries.