Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Platonic interpretation in Aulus Gellius
Tarrant, H A S
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1996; 37, 2; ProQuest
pg. 173

Platonic Interpretation 
in Aulus Gellius 

H. A. S. Tarrant 

1\
THOUGH IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE that historians of philos­
ophy prefer to deal with material from the philosophers' 
own works, the works of informed amateurs can often 

say much about the intellectual world in which they lived, and 
may supplement comparatively meagre information from the 
pens of esteemed professionals. The Platonism of the second 
century is particularly prone to this problem, with a much fuller 
picture being built with the help of those whom we are inclined 
to think of only secondarily as philosophers. Plutarch can be 
fitted into this category in spite of his standing in philosophy. 
The figures of Theon of Smyrna, Apuleius, and Maximus of 
Tyre all contribute considerably to the picture of a vital new Pla­
tonism, which none of them has quite seemed to master. Many 
principal figures wi thin the philosophical schools, such as 
Taurus, Atticus, and Numenius, are by contrast known only 
from fragments, and these fragments frequently derive from 
non-philosophers. 

Much of what is known of Taurus comes from Aulus Gellius, 
himself no theorist.! His Noctes Atticae mark the reflections of 
a fairly conservative, practically minded Roman on his educa­
tional experiences in Greece. The issues about which he writes 
are sometimes interesting, sometimes less so, sometimes of far­
reaching importance, sometimes of curiosity-value only. All are 
treated quite briefly, from the simplest matters of etymology 
and pseudo-etymology to the treatment of the most far­
reaching ethical questions. Gellius, an interesting witness to the 
workings of the intellectual world of the second century, writes 
from a perspective essentially beyond it. He had found within it 
a great deal of useful advice and a great deal of unhelpful bick­
ering; morally uplifting teachers, and others who had simply 

1 On Taurus as a philosopher see J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists (London 
1977) 237-47. 

173 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

174 PLATONIC INTERPRETATION IN AULUS GELLIUS 

adopted the role of philosopher or sophist as a profession with­
out, so far as he could see, displaying any inclination to lead the 
kind of life that would be a good example to the pupil. His 
attitudes were probably widely shared, for there was great con­
cern during this period about the prevalence of teachers who 
were engaged in higher education to suit their wallets rather 
than their hearts. Nowhere is this more evident than in the 
works of Lucian. 2 

The use of Gellius to shed light upon the intellectual world of 
the early second century is a legitimate but at times a difficult 
task. It appears from his preface (1) that a gap of one generation 
separates the notes, which were to form the basis of the work 
(ca 140) and the author's preparation of them for his own chil­
dren and other interested readers. His memory may have been 
above average, but it is likely that he could no longer supply all 
the details that his original notes lacked. At times he may have 
misunderstood these notes or forgotten the context in which 
they had been written. Certainly he seems acutely conscious of 
his dependence on them and of their dependence in turn on a 
number of sources, for he exhorts the critical reader to blame 
his sources rather than himself for any inadequacies, and to 
balance the reasoning and authorities used by those sources 
against any reasoning and authorities of the critic's own (18). 
This disclaimer of responsibility should not be taken as proof 
that the Noctes Atticae contain nothing original; even when stu­
dents do not try to be original, it is most improbable that their 
notes consistently reflect their teachers' views: particularly as 
they interpret those notes when reading them some decades 
later. At very least the particular prejudices of the author are 
bound to come to the surface at times. 

The present study seeks insights into the interpretation of 
Plato in Gellius' day, i.e., his student years at Athens. Even 
where no source is named, it is legitimate to expect that views 
expressed originally in his notes and subsequently in his 

2 The theme is so widespread in Lucian that it would be pointless to at­
tempt a comprehensive catalogue of passages on pseudo-philosophers, but the 
most important works in this category are perhaps Fisherman, Symposium, 
and lcaromenippus. In Lucian (Pisc. 11,46; Mere. 25,40; Bis Ace.) beard and 
rough cloak are the (much abused) symbols of the philosopher, just as in Gel­
lius, e.g. N A 9.2, where Herodes says to a 'philosopher': video barbam et pal­
lium, philosophum nondum video. L. Holford Strevens, Aulus Gel/ius (Lon­
don 1988) 192 n.2, suggests that for immoral philosophers one should see Cic. 
ruse. 2.11, Nep. fr. 39 Marshall, Sen. Exhort. fr. 18 Haase, and, for their 
abundance under Marcus Aurelius, Dio 71.35.2. Surprisingly, he omits Lucian. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

H. A. S. TARRANT 175 

published work, derive from or were inspired by intellectuals 
or written compositions prominent at Athens at the time. We 
should naturally like to know which individuals or writings had 
inspired which parts of the Noctes Atticae, and hence judicious 
Quellenforschung may serve a legitimate purpose. Although I 
do not shy away from this responsibility, identifying sources is 
not my primary purpose, which is rather to ensure a more intel­
ligent discussion of certain passages of considerable importance 
for an accurate assessment of the quality of Platonic interpreta­
tion during this period. 

By the second century, Platonism was again a dominant philos­
ophy,3 enjoying a revival in which it was able to capitalize on 
relatively prosperous economic conditions, on a high regard for 
ancient authority, and on widespread desire for some kind of 
religious fulfilment. With the dependence of the teachers on 
the reputation of Plato, considerable debate arose about how 
one should approach the Platonic corpus and interpret its con­
tents. The commentary was therefore becoming an important 
vehicle in the teaching of Plato-though the evidence is slim, 
apart from Plutarch's essay De animae procreatione and the 
papyrus commentary on the Theaetetus, of which around a 
quarter survives in various states of preservation. Even beyond 
the commentaries, the study of Plato was closely linked with 
the interpretation of texts. Hence the material of Platonic inter­
pretation discussed here will be important regardless of its exact 
origin. And though Gcllius' own views may colour it at times, it 
has probably suffered less from the distorting mirror of the in­
formant's words than most information about fragmentary 
second-century Platonists, preserved by such figures as 
Proclus and Eusebius. 

3 A brief bibliography on the period from the first century B.C. to the second 
century A.D. might include the following: M. Baltes, Der Weltentstehung des 
platonischen Timaios nach dem antiken lnterpreten (Leiden 1976-78), and 
with H. Dorrie, Der Platonismus in der Antike III (Stuttgart 1993); Dillon 
(supra n.1), and A lcinous: The Handbook of Platonism (Oxford 1993); P.-L. 
Donini, Le scuole, l'anima, l'impero: La filosofia antica da Antioco a Plotino 
(Turin 1982); F. Ferrari, Dio, idee e materia: La struttura del cosmo in Pluta reo 
di Cheronea (Naples 1995); J. Glucker, Antiochus and the Late Academy 
(Gottingen 1978); D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato 
(Leiden 1986); H. Tarrant, Scepticism or Platonism (Cambridge 1985), and 
Thrasyllan Platonism (Ithaca 1993); J. Whittaker, ·Platonic Philosophy in the 
Early Empire," ANRW 11.32.2 (Berlin 1985) 81-102, and Akinoos, Enseigne­
ment des doctrines de Plalon (Paris 1990). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

176 PLATONIC INTERPRETATION IN AULUS GELLIUS 

I. Taurus in Gellius 

Where Gellius adequately labels his sources he can be of undis­
puted use. Apart from being an important witness to the good 
side of Lucian's bete noire Peregrinus Proteus (NA 8.3, 12.11) 
and supplementing our knowledge of Herodes Atticus (N A 
1.2, 9.2, 19.12), Gellius' most important contribution to 
knowledge of the world of sophists and philosophers is his 
information on Favorinus and Calvenus Taurus. Passages 
concerning Taurus have recently been collected (with other 
testimonia) with full commentary by Marie-Luise Lakmann. 4 I 
do not propose to concentrate on issues that arise directly from 
her treatment, but to consider other passages in which Gellius 
can be informative on the kind of Platonic interpretation that 
flourished in Taurus' Athens and the relation of Platonism, if 
any, to the dwindling 'Academicism' to which Favorinus still 
adhered.s Gellius fleshes out our knowledge whether or not he 
follows philosophers of eminence. 

Just how often references to Plato in Gellius are inspired by 
his Platonist teacher Taurus is difficult to decide. 6 One cannot 
assume that frequent references to Taurus always signal where 
his interpretation or his interpretative method have been in­
fluential. It may be presumed that Gellius will in some cases be 
predisposed towards acknowledging Taurus, as when the 
master offers a distinctive reading of Plato or when his attitude 
to Plato seems characteristic of Taurus. At other times, when 
Gellius is not conscious that his teacher is adding anything 
significant to Plato, why should Taurus be mentioned, even if 
he had introduced Gellius to the material in question? 

4 Der platoniker Tauros in der Darstellung des Aulus Gellius (Leiden 1995: 
hereafter 'Lakmann'). 

5 See now A. M. Ioppolo, -The Academic Position of Favorinus of Arelate, n 

Phronesis 38 (1993) 183-213; Glucker (supra n.3). 
6 References to Plato in Gellius, unless otherwise labelled, are sometimes 

seen as owing more to Favorinus than to Gellius: e.g. S. Gersh, Middle 
Platonism and Neoplatonism: The Latin Tradition (Notre Dame 1986) I 
199-213, esp. 205 n.17, 211H. I believe that the approach and attitude of 
Favorinus has indeed considerably influenced Gellius, but that there is no 
sign of Favorinus' special concern with Platonic philosophy in spite of his 
professed Academic allegiance. Further, I believe that there is very little 
indication that Favorinus was interested in exegetical matters. The case of 
Taurus is quite different. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

H. A. S. TARRANT 177 

II. Gellius on the Laws and Inebriation 

Among the passages that I have in mind, one (NA 15.2) 
criticizes an alcoholic would-be Platonist from Crete who 
sought out young men's company; there he is alleged to have 
claimed that Plato spoke in favour of drunkenness in his Laws, 
seeing it as beneficial for those of strong constitution. It is ob­
vious that this view does violence to the text of the first two 
books of the Laws. Interpretation of these books, however, is 
given at some length by Gellius' standards (15.2.4-8), and it is a 
legitimate expectation that Gellius has benefited from discus­
sion of the issue with Taurus, who would not have appreciated 
the appearance at Athens of a rival 'Platonist' who sought influ­
ence over the young by flattery.? Throughout the passage runs 
the seemingly counterintuitive theme that moderate intoxica­
tion is being allowed for the mature individual in the interests of 
temperance. Three separate reasons can be detected: (a) this 
harmless relaxation will refresh the mind for renewed applica­
tion to its sober duties (ad instauranda sobrietatis officia); (b) 
moderate intoxication will encourage the cathartic confession of 
deep-seated passions and desires, whose disclosure makes them 
easier to cure; (c) moderate inebriation will provide an appro­
priate opportunity for practice at resisting the lure of pleasures: 
in effect, you cannot be self-controlled without being tempted. 
This last reason is treated at greater length and involves the 
analogy with conventional courage, which needs to be tested on 
the battlefield. 8 

These justifications for the use of alcohol can all be related to 
the later pages of Laws I (e.g. 647c-50B), but they are distin­
guished and spelt out with precision and clarity-something 
that we have good reason to connect with Taurus in particular. 9 

7 The flatterer (kolax) was of course a well-known figure in the popular 
morality of the time, and Plutarch had written an essay on how to distinguish 
him from the friend; Platonism had associated flattery with the attempt to 
win over others by aiming to promote their pleasure ever since the arguments 
with Polus at Grg. 462c-6S D. 

8 For a contemporary view that makes pleasure the enemy of the Cynic 
campaign, see Lucian Vito Auct. 8. 

9 (a) Taurus is best known for his discussion of the various senses in which 
the world might be called 'generated' at Ti. 28R, Philop. De aet. mundi 6.8, 
pp.14Sff Rabe=T22B Lakmann; (b) he lists three separtate reasons for punish­
ment in his interpretation of the Gorgias: Gellius 7.14.1-S=T20. Notice also the 
principle of clarity rather than (obscure) erudition, 12.S.6=T12, which is 
followed again by a very clear exposition of Stoic theory of the affections. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

178 PLATONIC INTERPRETATION IN AULUS GELLIUS 

We also know that he was capable of distinguishing between the 
mind's giving way to some incontinent affection and controlled 
engagement in the kind of activity that might normally be 
associated with that affection. This can be seen in relation to 
anger (NA 1.26.8-11=T5 Lakmann), and in relation to pain 
(12.5.9-13=T 12). Although the principle of seeking 'moderation 
of affection' or metriopatheia was of course not unusual in 
Middle Platonism,lO it is an important theme in Taurus' scant 
remains. He could have been expected both to sanction non­
indulgent use of alcohol and to employ Plato in a systematic 
manner to support his judgment; the appearance of the Cretan 
among the youth of Athens gave him the right occasion. 

Assuming, then, that the teacher has expressed his views on 
the subject, these views were likely to have coloured Gellius' 
treatment. He had no need to mention Taurus, as his main 
purpose had of course been to expose the sham philosopher 
and to call for fair and honest interpretation of Plato-a purpose 
to which the exact source of Gellius' interpretation was of no 
relevance. One cannot argue that N A 15.2.4-8 should be in­
cluded in Taurus' testimonia, but it is a passage that probably 
reflects his views and certainly adds to the picture of the kind 
of Platonic scholarship with which Gellius was familiar. 

III. Gellius on Callicles 

At 10.22, an even more impressive discussion of a Platonic 
passage, Gellius gives an interpretation of parts of Callicles' 
attack on philosophizing in old age (Grg. 484c-85E), quoting the 
text at length (10.22.4-23). Clearly Gellius is reading the Greek 
for himself and can form his own view of its correct interpre­
tation, but the interpretation that he offers is nevertheless fairly 
sophisticated. The interesting point is that he avoids the com­
mon assumption that Plato's positive messages are conveyed 
only through the respectable figures of Socrates, Timaeus, and 
the Eleatic and Athenian Strangers, as at D.L. 3.52, where it is 
stated that Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles in the Gorgias, like the 
sophists in other dialogues, are there to have false opinions 
tested and refuted. Gellius finds important moral messages 

10 Dillon (supra n.1) 77, 1S1, 196,241, 302f; Lakmann 43ff; S. R. C. Lilla, 
Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism 
(Oxford 1971) 99-106. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

H. A. S. TARRANT 179 

even in the words of Callicles; this has a partial parallel in the 
traditions of interpretation of the Gorgias, in that Olympio­
dorus can find a message in Gorgias' own words; 11 and another 
partial parallel in the Plutarch an On Chance ( M or. 98D), where 
Protagoras' account of the creation of humans is taken as Plato's 
own (lC<l'tU 'tOY nAa't<Ova; cf Prt. 321c). 

The most important parallel, however, is Gellius 17.20.4ff, 
where Taurus finds much to commend in the speech of Pau­
sanias at Symp. 180E. Although the ancients, like ourselves, 
often supposed that the distinction here between two Aphro­
dites and two Erotes is of some wider importance for Plato,12 
Pausanias is clearly not intended to have the same authority as 
Socrates in this work. Not surprisingly, Taurus finds much to 
admire in the literary and rhetorical artistry of the passage, but 
also much to commend in Pausanias' technique of argument 
(17.20.4). And the injunction at 17.20.6 that Gellius should 
proceed to the inner recesses of Plato and to the considerable 
worth of the matters discussed (ipsa Platonis penetralia ip­
sarumque rerum pondera et dignitates) is surely meant to imply 
that much value and seriousness lie beneath the surface in this 
passage too, even though gravitas and dignitas are not qualities 
easily detected in Pausanias. Taurus' own method, then, looks 
for depth of meaning in the words of a wide variety of Plato's 
characters-a surprisingly modern technique. What else sug­
gests the influence of Taurus behind this passage? 

For Gellius, Callicles' invective against mature persons study­
ing philosophy is a valid criticism when applied to a certain type 
of intellectual pursuits: he has a skewed idea of what philosophy 
is, but he correctly identifies a problem concerning what he 
supposes philosophy to be. Gellius acknowledges that Callicles 
is not to be imitated or taken seriously (persona ... non gravis 
neque idonea, 1), indeed is a man of unsound character (non 
proba, 24), but describes him as having sensus ... intelligentiae-

11 In Grg. 8.12 (cf 8.7), but the lesson is not very deep; moreover, there is a 
strong tendency to see Callicles as the interlocutor furthest removed from the 
'common notions' and hence from the truth (e.g. 25.1); and Olympiodorus 
passes over the entire long rhesis of Callicles (one twentieth or more of the 
Grg.) in just one (no. 26) of his fifty lectures of the work, thus betraying a lack 
of respect for all that our interlocutor is saying. 

12 A good example from a second-century Platonist is Apul. Apol. 12: mitlo 
enim dicere alta ilia et divina Platonica, rarissimo cuique piorum ignara, 
ceCerum omnibus profanis incognita: geminam esse Venerem deam, proprio 
quamque amore et diversis amatoribus pollen tis; earum alteram vulgariam ... 
alteram vero cae litem. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

180 PLATONIC INTERPRETATION IN AULUS GELLIUS 

que communis fides and an indissimulabilis veritas. The first 
phrase marks Callicles as being close to the related concepts of 
(a) the 'common notions' and (b) 'what is evident to mankind's 
senses and intellect'.D Unlike J. C. Rolfe (Loeb edition, 1927), I 
do not understand the phrase as "a reputation for common 
sense and understanding," but rather as "a trust in common 
perceptions and understanding." This would in fact entail his 
having the surest available epistemological foundations in the 
eyes of many second-century philosophical and scientific 
thinkers,14 and give an explanation of why, in their view, Plato's 
Socrates should credit Callicles with episteme at Grg. 487A. The 
second phrase again relates to the attributions afforded Callicles 
by the text of 487 A -B, this time to the suggestion that Callicles is 
outspoken and not afraid to say what he believes. We see then 
that what Gellius says about the Gorgias owes something to (a) a 
close reading of the text, (b) the application of contemporary 
epistemology to that text, and (c) a willingness to find truth 
behind the words of morally dubious interlocutors. 

These three indications of an interpretation that seeks greater 
depth than one might expect appear to confirm that Gellius has 
not come to his conclusions independently. As Taurus was his 
mentor in Platonic philosophy, it would be natural to suspect 
that he is responsible for the reading preserved in Gellius' 
notes. Taurus' willingness to search for depth in Pausanias' 
words in the Symposium adds to this impression. But when 
one also bears in mind that Gellius consulted Taurus' commen­
taria on the Gorgias, 15 indeed that this is the only work of 
Taurus to which he refers, it seems probable that he did read 
the Gorgias with Taurus and that his reading has been shaped by 
Taurus'. 

There are two general objections to seeing Taurus' view be­
hind those of Gellius here. First, one cannot fail to note that the 
practical Gellius will naturally consider many philosophical 

13 On these concepts see H. Tarrant, a Agreement and the Self-Evident in 
Plato of Larissa.," Dionysus 5 (1981) 66-97, 9 (1985) 49-53. 

14 Although Sextus Empiricus appears to use the concept of self-evidence to 
intellect and senses at Math. 7.141-44 in discussing Plato, it is used most 
regularly by Galen, including PH P 2.5.5.2, 5.76.2; 3.8.35.11; 9.1.22.2, 7.4.1 and 
elsewhere (Kuehn's edition): 1.47.20, 50.7; 5.90.5; 5.94.8; 6.454.12; 10.39.8; 
11.448.16; 18b.665.10. 

15 Whether in Athens or later when publishing is not clear; NA 7.14.5=T20 
Lakmann. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

H. A. S. TARRANT 181 

issues not worthy of attention 16 and be dismissive of those 
whom he does not consider genuine rhilosophers.17 One 
would thus expect him to be suspicious 0 the inutile otium of 
fake philosophers, who thrive even at an advanced age on a 
futtilis atque puerilis meditatio argutiarum. Taurus, in contrast, 
seems less ready to reject debate about issues that have no 
practical outcome: at N A 7.13.7 Gellius' fellow pupils are 
actually rebuked by their master for dismissing problems of no 
immediate practical relevance. But the difference between them 
might easily be overstated. Gellius is approving of Taurus' 
atti tude at 7.13.7, and Taurus too is conscious of the need for 
standards in the conduct of philosophy {7.10.5=T12 Lakmann; 
1.9.5=T4}; he could be presumed to disagree with nothing in 
10.22. Indeed the sentiments of 10.22, though inevitably 
coloured by Gellius' choice of Latin, are entirely compatible 
with Plato's Euthydemus, where the two sophist brothers 
spend their aging days {not to mention the youth of their 
hapless pupils} in trivial, indeed juvenile, sophisms without any 

16 Gellius is worried about getting too far into logic-it becomes like the 
sirens' rocks (16.8.15ff)-but this is not outright criticism. Although (a) it 
seems a dreadful bore at first, and (c) it can become a ridiculous obsession if 
one does not control one's later enthusiasm for it, nevertheless (b) ubi 
aliquantum processeris, tum denique et emolumentum eius in animo tuo 
dilucebit et sequitur quaedam discendi voluptas insatiabilis, cui sane nisi 
modum feceris, periculum .... Thus even logic is accepted in appropriate doses. 

t7 E.g. 1.2; 9.2; 13.8.5; 15.2. At 9.2 he tactfully puts his criticism of sham 
philosophers into the mouth of Macedo philosophus, vir bonus, familiaris 
meus. The sham philosopher here cannot avoid in practice the vices he decries, 
or the transposition of the mores et emolumenta philosophiae into linguistic 
cleverness. Gellius goes one step further, using Afranius to support the notion 
that one should come to sapere atque consuiere from the lessons of pericula 
ipsa rerum rather than from the isolated teaching of libri aut magistri-com­
pared with the empty images of words and pictures from a mime or dream. 
Here are the strong practical leanings of a man who believes that philosophy 
is only valuable when combined with the serious management of affairs. 
Holford-Strevens (supra n.2: 192f) exaggerates the anti-philosophical content 
in Gellius: e.g. 2.29.18f does no more than favourably compare the way that a 
fable can convey the same message as the sanctiores libri philosophorum; cf 
13.24.2, where he praises M. Cato for his justification of going without things 
in terms of others being unable to do without them. This, he says, has more 
effect in inducing thrift than Graecae (or Graecorum) istorum praestigiae, phil­
osophari sese dicentium umbrasque verborum inanes fingentium, qui se nihil 
habere et nihil tam en egere ac nihil cupere dicunt, cum et habendo et egendo 
et cupiendo ardeant. This passage is comparing not so much philosophers 
with non-philosophers, as Greek professional philosophers with a Roman 
non-professional philosopher, and those who do not practice what they 
preach with one who does. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

182 PLATONIC INTERPRETATION IN AULUS GELLIUS 

potential for improving their lives. Any astute Platonist, willing 
to search for truth behind Callicles' words and asking himself 
what experience Plato had of those who grew old in philo­
sophical trifles, would immediately think of Euthydemus and 
Dionysodorus in Plato's tragicomic work, and it is of special 
relevance that the conclusion of the Euthydemus calls their 
pursuit "philosophy" (304£ 7-307B7), encouraging Crito to 
distinguish their brand of it from that of any proper prac­
titioner. 

It would be well to consider the final part of 10.22.2: proinde 
tamen accipienda sunt quae dicuntur, ut nos sensim moneri 
intellegamus, ne ipsi quoque culpationes huiuscemodi mere­
amur neve inerti inanique desidia cultum et studium philo­
sophiae mentiamur. 18 The hidden purpose that Gellius finds 
behind Callicles' speech might equally be found behind the 
whole Euthydemus, which exposes, little by little, the futility of 
preoccupation with arguments that have no relation to factY 
That work was written by a philosopher anxious to set his own 
discipline apart from what he considered to be a cheap imita­
tion. This sentence too has its origin within philosophy, for it is 
'we who pursue philosophy' who are being warned to avoid an 
effortless but purposeless substitute. One can envisage the 
ancient Platonist drawing attention in class to just such a warn­
ing in Plato's text, using a similar first person plural. Again the 
description of true philosophy at 10.22.24 is made from within 
the discipline: quae virtutum omnium disciplina est quaeque in 
publicis simul et privatis officiis excel/it civitatesque et rem­
publicam, si nihil prohibeat, constanter <et> fortiter et perite ad­
ministrat. There is nothing here for which Gellius could not be 
responsible, even the allusion to Zeno's views in the phrase si 
nihil prohibeat, 20 and yet if this is Gellius, it is remarkable for its 
trust in philosophy's powers to improve human life. 

18 "It is just because of this that we should take these words to heart, so that 
we gradually realise that we are being warned that we too must not deserve 
reproof of this kind, and not to mimic the educational discipline of 
philosophy in idle and pointless apathy." 

19 The critic who is introduced at 304 D finally chastizes the 'philosophers' 
for their "worthless enthusiasm for things of no worth" (304E4f) and for being 
unconcerned with the impossibility of what they are maintaining (30SA4). 
This critic is of course another who can be viewed as giving a valuable 
warning without being presented as a wholly unblemished character. 

20 Zeno ap. Sen. De otio 3.2=SVF I 271; Diogenes Laertius asserts (7.121= 
SVF III 697) that the wise man's willingness to engage in politics if nothing 
obstructs him was expressed in the third book of Chrysippus' On Lives. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

H. A. S. TARRANT 183 

The second objection to finding Taurus' views here is that 
even in 7.14, where Taurus' commentary is mentioned, Gellius' 
reading is not dependent upon it, for he is able to contrast PI. 
Grg. 525B, where only two reasons for punishment are men­
tioned (improvement of the offender and setting an example to 
others), with the three reasons given by Taurus, who adds the 
need for the victim's dignity to be upheld. Rather, however, 
this passage confirms Gellius' own interpretative inadequacies. 
He leaves us with the question of whether Plato omitted the 
upholding of dignity because he thought it was insignificant or 
because it did not apply to punishment after this life. 21 But it had 
been clear during the argument with Polus at 477E-79E that 
Socrates assumed that the improvement of the offender was 
always the proper reason for punishment, and we are not 
talking about punishment in another existence. Elsewhere 
Plato's 'Protagoras' speaks eloquently against punishment for 
the satisfaction of the victim, assuming that in a civilized society 
one punishes for the future: so that the individual may not re­
peat the crime, and so that others will be deterred. 22 It should 
be abundantly clear to the sophisticated reader of the Gorgias 
that the writer does not regard the restoration of the dignity of 
the victim as any reason for punishment whatsoever. 

In that case, one might ask, why did Taurus not notice that 
Plato was working with only two reasons for punishment, not 
three? Here we must observe that Gellius is reading, or had 
once read, of the three reasons in the first book of Taurus' 
commentaria; the passage of Plato that he has in mind comes 
right at the end of the Gorgias. Taurus cannot be commenting 
on that passage there, nor indeed is it necessary that he is 
commenting on any lemma of the Gorgias. His discussion of 
the reasons for punishment was probably part of his introduc­
tory material,2J perhaps relating to the object of forensic oratory 

21 Lakmann (94) is cautious about assuming that Gellius is entirely inde­
pendent of Taurus here, but we may be assured that Taurus would have post­
poned a discussion of Plato's true reason for omitting revenge-motives in 
rather different terms. 

22 PTt. 324A6-B5. Cf Leg. 682EI-83A2, which, although it may give three rea­
sons for punishment, passes over upholding the victim's dignity and includes 
instead freeing of the city from such criminal individuals. 

23 The discrepancy between the location of the citation and the part of the 
commentary utilized has been noted by Dillon (supTa n.l: 247), who places 
Taurus' discussion either in the prefatory remarks or in relation to 477E, and 
by Lakmann (89), who rather thinks of 472 D (the first occurrence of "ttlloopiu) 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

184 PLATONIC INTERPRETATION IN AULUS GELLIUS 

of securing or avoiding the punishment of the offender. There 
is no suggestion that these are the reasons Plato would give, nor 
even those of Taurus. 24 Gellius represents these three as ex­
amples of reasons traditionally offered by philosophers,25 and 
one would assume that Taurus set out to give the traditional 
reason too, probably with some foreshadowing of Plato's dis­
agreement. Accepted Platonic reasons could wait until the 
appropriate point of the commentary, but Gellius seems to 
have employed the traditional short cut and consulted the 
beginning of the book only.26 We do not even know that he had 
ever possessed or even consulted the later books of the com­
mentaria. Whatever the case, it seems clear that in the one 
instance where Gellius claims a discrepancy between Taurus 
and Plato, his own reading of Plato is not deepY Thus my 
preliminary conclusion will be that sophisticated interpretation 
of Plato in Gellius may be regarded, where possible, as evidence 
for at least the general trust of Taurus' own interpretation. 

IV. Gellius, Taurus, and Platonic Interpretation 

As a result of these observations, I consider it sounder to as­
sume some link between Gellius' more sophisticated interpreta-

or shortly after. I believe that for Gellius to have so misunderstood a dis­
cussion of 'ttflCJ)pio: in Plato would, if anything, make him look even more 
foolish-though one must concede that terminology must have been an 
important issue in Taurus' discussion, wherever it occurred, being relevant to 

NA 7.14.2ff and 8. 
24 Lakmann (89) correctly draws attention to tres esse ~ causas exis­

timatum est, but believes that Taurus engages earlier critics of Plato who had 
thought an important reason was missing from his treatment. She claims that 
"In diesem Fall hatte Gellius lediglich das Referat der cirei gcgnerischen 
Grunde aus Tauros' Gorgiaskommentar ubernommen, ohne naher auf den 
Zusammenhang einzugehen.» Even if the suggestion that one ought to recog­
nize three reasons is Taurus' own, this need mean no more than that we 
should see human beings as giving three reasons; it would not commit him to 

the view that there were three legitimate reasons. 
25 a philosophis (heading), et philosophi alii plurifariam (5). 

26 Note too that the citation of Plato is from the end of the work, another 
easily consulted pan. 

27 For a similar conclusion on this question see Lakmann (88-92): "Was fUr 
Tauros nur eine Vorbereitung auf das sich anschliessende Eindringen in die 
eigentlich philosophischen Gedanken Platons sein so lite, hat sich bei 
Gellius-trotz der Warnung des Tauros-vollkommen verselbstandigt." The 
warning of Taurus that she has in mind is that of NA 17.20.6. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

H. A. S. TARRANT 185 

tion of Plato and that of his mentor than to confine religiously 
treatment of Taurus to passages that sport his name in the text. 
Two other significant passages in which the influence of Tau­
rus, though not acknowledged, might be suspected are as 
follows: 

(a) At 2.8.9 the main subject has been Plutarch's criticism of 
the presentation of Epicurean logic. Gellius now adds the obser­
vation that Plato did not present arguments according to the 
mechanical rules of his successors. The observation could easily 
be made by Gellius, but Plutarch's philosophy was probably 
known to Gellius chiefly through Taurus. 28 

(b) At 14.3 a discussion of the rivalry between Plato and Xeno­
phon and their alleged attempt to outdo each other's works de­
rives from qui de Xenophontis Platonisque vita et moribus 
pleraque omnia exquisitissime scrips ere. An immediate source 
might be either Favorinus (cf 17.12.3) or Taurus. 

I do not intend to argue further for Taurus' influence in either 
of these locations, as neither contributes to the picture of con­
temporary interpretation of Plato. What 10.22 and 15.2 achieve 
is to show that some thought was currently being given to 
matters of Platonic interpretation. Taurus is known from else­
where to have given close attention to the Timaeus,29 and his 
discussion of the possibility of interpreting the creation non­
temporally was still important for Philoponus four centuries 
later. In the course of that discussion he utilized the opinions of 
Aristotle and Theophrastus,30 and in fact contrasts their views 
with a series of apparently later theories of how one might un­
derstand the creation non-literally. The comments are at times 
extensive, but at times briefer (T23B5-9; possibly also T 26.3~ 
39), which may reflect the division of the commentary into a 
series of theoria and texis units. In his Commentary on the Re­
public he evidently included a detailed general discussion of 
epistemology, to which a doxography concerning the defini­
tions of a particular kind of knowledge given by Plato, Aristotle, 
and Zeno belongs. 31 There are slight indications that Taurus 

28 Gellius would call him Plutarchus noster: 1.26.4;;:T5 Lakmann. 
29 See Philop. De aet. mundi 6.8, 21-22, 27; 13.15 (=TI22-26 Lakmann), and 

perhaps Stob. Eel. 1.378.25-379.6=T27. 
JO TI22, 24, 26 Lakmann. Note the texis-like nature of the former, and the 

preceding phrase £Ttl Ai~£(O.;. 

JI [Hero] De! 137.4=SVF I 70=T21 Lakmann. The doxography duplicates 
that given by anon. Tht. col. 15, so offers nothing likely to be original. See H. 
Tarrant, ·Zeno on Knowledge or on Geometry: The Evidence of Anon In 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

186 PLATONIC INTERPRETATION IN AULUS GELLIUS 

interpreted the Republic more as an ethical than as a political 
work.J2 

Taurus' ability to study such high profile works in depth is 
less impressive than his deep thought about a range of other 
dialogues. We have seen above that these are likely to have 
included the opening books of the Laws, the Symposium, the 
Gorgias, and probably the Euthydemus. We also know that he 
could utilize impromptu parts of the Parmenides when the 
occasion arose (NA 7.13.10f=TS Lakmann), and that he in­
cluded the Phaedrus in his repertoire (NA 1.9.9=T4). He knew 
the Statesman and Critias well enough to say what could not be 
found in them (Philop. De aet. mundi 6.21= T23B). He also knew 
the Meno, which is seen as giving Plato's positive teaching on 
epistemology.33 Thus his expertise covered early, middle, and 
late dialogues of Plato, and those that were less obviously 
'teaching' as well as those that were. Above all, he was prepared 
to look beneath the surface of the text and to interpret at a 
deeper level-a tendency that enabled him to extract fuller 
positive teaching from the so-called 'zetetic' dialogues,34 in­
cluding Euthydemus, Gorgias, and M eno. Hence he can take as­
pects of the dialogues figuratively and believes that Plato 
describes how things come to be in order to show better how 
things are: not just in relation to the Timaeus, but also in relation 

Theaetetum," Phronesis 29 (1984) 96-99. It is interesting that the Taurus 
doxography has been correctly linked by J. Mansfeld with Resp. 510c-E: 
-Intuitionism and Formalism: Zeno's Definition of Geometry in a Fragment 
of L. Calvenus Taurus," Phronesis 28 (1983) 59-74 at 61; the parallel in anon. 
Tht. comments on y£rol.u:tpia~ ana (145c8) and distinguishes items of geo­
metrical knowledge from the craft as a whole; an occasion for just such a com­
ment is found at Resp. 510c2, where the accusative plural y£ro~£tpiar; occurs. 
The passage (C2-D3) is concerned with individual geometrical problems, and 
with how agreed conclusions (OJlOAoyoUJltvror;) follow from the postulation of 
certain data (urtOE}EJl£vot, Ult09E(J£t<;) with the addition of some reasoning 
process (ta Aotlta tiOt1 Ot£~l6vt£l;). The definitions of 'simple knowledge' 
given by anon. (with special reference to geometry), and apparently given by 
Taurus in relation to the epistemic status of geometry in the Republic (see 
Mansfeld), seem chosen to reflect the pattern of hypothesis + reasoning (assent 
+ reasoning in Zeno). The implication would then be that, as in Resp. VI, a 
superior knowledge has dispensed with the need for unproven premises and is 
presumably identical with what anon. calls systematic knowledge. 

32 Phi lop. De aet. mundi 6.21, 27=rr23B, 24 Lakmann; the depiction of the 
generation of the state is an expository device designed to uncover justice. 

JJ [Hero) De! 137.4=T21 Lakmann=SVF I 70, on which see above. 
H See D.L. 3.49; Albinus Prologus 3; Tarrant (supra n.) [1993]) 46-57. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

H. A. S. TARRANT 187 

to the description of how the state comes to be in the Republic, 
whose purpose is to reveal justice (Philop. De act. mundi 
6.21.27=TI23B, 24). Inclusion of Gellius' treatment of drunken­
ness in the Laws and of Callicles in the Gorgias helps to flesh 
out the picture of Taurus as an interpreter in important ways 
even of lower profile texts. 

V. Gellius and Taurus on Pleasure 

One should also observe that the mention of Taurus as a part 
of one of Gellius' miniatures does not mean that his influence 
can be presumed in the remainder. I have to doubt that the dox­
ography on pleasure before the reference to him at 9.5.8 con­
tains significant imput from Taurus. Lakmann (110-13), though 
agreeing that the doxography is a separate section of Gellius 9.5, 
emphasizes the focus on the Academy and an alleged anti­
hedonist tendency throughout, which agrees with the attitude 
of Taurus. 

In fact no anti-hedonist attitude is made clear in the presenta­
tion of the doxography, given that most philosophers with 
original views on pleasure were in any case anti-hedonists. 
Though there had been a Cyrenaic hedonism, Epicurus is here 
a sufficient representative of the hedonist cause, particularly in a 
doxography confined to the five major surviving schools: 
Epicurean, Cynic, Academic, Stoic, and Peripatetic. Separate 
opinions are presented bluntly and without comment, leaving 
little opportunity for any bias to emerge. The Stoic attitude 
towards pleasure is more simplified,35 and Zeno is credited with 
a neutral view of its value, when it would have been entirely 
possible to highlight the Stoic view of pleasure as a pathos or ex­
cessive impulse, something linked with mistaken judgment and 
alien to the sage. Such a pathos would go hand in hand with 
vice, which alone is genuinely bad, and is the reason for the 
strong Stoic position in resisting hedonism. It is significant, 
then, that of two different Stoic conceptions of pleasure-one 
that would give it neutral value (or even to be preferred when 
in accordance with nature) and one that associates it with error 

J5 This may be seen even from the partially parallel doxography at Sext. 
Emp. Math. 11.73=SVF III 155, where pleasure seems to be given different 
values within the wider 'indifferent' class by different Stoics, or in accordance 
with whether or not it accords with nature. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

188 PLATONIC INTERPRETATION IN AULUS GELLIUS 

and vice 3(,-our passage chooses to emphasize the former. It 
does so for essentially rhetorical, almost satirical, reasons, so as 
to emphasize the great range of opinions that philosophers have 
held; in the debate over the value of pleasure Stoic neutrality 
was distinctive: this alone would therefore be what is high­
lighted. 

After initially contrasting the extreme positions (those of 
Epicurus and Antisthenes: ef Sext. Emp. Math. 11.73), Gellius 
gives Old Academic, Stoic, and Peripatetic opinions, thus intro­
ducing the three schools to which Cicero's teacher Antiochus 
of Ascalon considered himself indebted.37 The Old Academic is 
Speusippus, Plato's first successor; the Stoic is Zeno, the 
founder of Stoicism whom Antiochus was much more inclined 
to see as a predecessor than Chrysippus; and the Peripatetic is 
Critolaus, a very minor figure, rarely mentioned in doxog­
raphies but a contemporary of Carneades and thus a figure 
whose views the Academy seem to have considered in relevant 
contexts. At any event he is mentioned by Cicero (Fin. 5.14; 
Tuse. 5.51). His presence here strongly suggests some kind of 
post-Carneadean Academic influence, possibly Antiochan. 

Next Gellius implausibly labels Plato the father of all these 
views-implausibly, because he cannot reasonably be linked 
with Epicurus' 'stable state of the flesh' or with Antisthenes' 
pleasure-phobia, even though he does seem to take broadly pro­
and anti-hedonistic stances in different dialogues. Perhaps GeI­
lius' ultimate source had done what could plausibly be done: 
labeling Plato the father of the latter three views only. This 
would be natural for an Antiochian sympathizer, for it would 
show how Academy, Lyceum, and Stoa might all find their 
roots in Platonic philosophy, which is the principal dogma of 
his history of philosophy. But this more modest claim cannot 
really explain the totality of 9.5.7-a picture of Plato's extremely 
varied treatment of pleasure. Not one representative of the 
Academy, Stoa, and Lyceum is accredited with any good word 
for pleasure, and thus it is clear that Gellius' immediate source 
must have associated Plato's variety with influence over 
extreme pro- and anti-hedonistic views as well, if not quite in 
the form set out by Gellius above. 

36 See A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cam­
bridge 1987) I 421, II 405. Principal passages to be considered are SV F III 378, 
391,394,431 (pleasure as a pathos), 1190, III 117, 136, 156, 178 (pleasure as 
indifferent). 

37 Cic. Fin. 5.7; Leg. 1.38,55; Ac. 1.18, 34-42. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

H. A. S. TARRANT 189 

The difficulties in reconciling apparently contradictory state­
ments in Plato had been well appreciated since at least the first 
century B.C., when Eudorus of Alexandria had drawn attention 
to what he saw as polyphonia rather than polydoxia (Stob. Eel. 
2.49.25, 55.6). Diogenes Laertius (3.63f) paints a picture of a 
Plato who varies his terminology and changes the meaning of 
particular terms to conceal his meaning from the uninitiated. It 
might have been expected that Taurus would have believed that 
apparent contradictions can be reconciled through deep inter­
pretation, but the picture here in Gellius emphasizes rather the 
different furposes that Plato had in mind, and the multi-faceted 
nature 0 pleasure. Taurus would hardly have characterized 
Plato as one who allows the occasion to dictate what he says­
like an orator-and give no indication in his uncompromising 
attitude at 9.5.8 that legitimate attitudes to pleasure and the value 
of pleasure itself are as varied as 9.5.7 suggests. 

Thus Gellius does not write as if the doxography comes from 
Taurus at all. There are two additional reasons why this is not 
so. First (a) what Taurus says appears to be contrasted with 
what his predecessors had said. Linguistically (at), it is relevant 
that he is introduced with an autem, as Taurus noster. Taurus is 
winning approval in a way that others including Plato had failed 
to do. Why? The answer depends upon the methodological 
contrast (a2): Taurus is prepared to dismiss Epicureanism out of 
hand, not as an unarguable philosophic thesis, but because it is 
morally unsound. He is demonstrating the kind of no-non­
sense attitude that would appeal to Gellius. Second (b), Gellius is 
not following any source of Taurus from which he could be 
taking the doxography, because he states what Taurus would 
regularly say when others mentioned Epicurus. He is writing 
from general experience of Taurus, and Taurus' tactic is not one 
specially designed to tackle Epicurean hedonism, but rather it is 
a general dismissal of Epicurus as a philosopher whose views 
were worth considering. If Gellius is not following a text of 
Taurus at 9.5.8, then there is nothing in favor of his following 
one at 9.5.1-7. Furthermore, if Taurus' attitude is so extremely 
anti-hedonist as to concur with Hierocles in thinking that the 
very identity of pleasure with Good is the doctrine of a pros­
titute, as 9.5.8 strongly suggests, then Taurus is most unlikely to 
have sanctioned the idea that Plato could have inspired, 
wittingly or unwittingly, any pro-hedonist stance. 

We have established that Taurus is not a likely source of this 
doxography, in so far as it seems to take a view of Plato to 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

190 PLATONIC INTERPRETATION IN AULUS GELLIUS 

which he could not have subscribed, and it is designed by Gel­
lius to contrast with Taurus' attitude. It should also be noted 
that it is at odds with what little we know of Taurus' doxogra­
phic techniques. His Commentary on the Republic gives a 
doxography of knowledge that follows the normal doxographic 
practice of treating thinkers in roughly doxographic order, con­
centrating on major figures and others who contributed on this 
particular issue. 38 The passage in Philoponus where Taurus 
introduces the opposing views on the interpretation of Plato's 
creation begins with Aristotle's temporal view of creation in the 
Timaeus, followed by Theophrastus', then mentions others 
who concurred; after this the atemporal view is given (De aet. 
mundi 6.8= T22B Lakmann). Chronology seems less important 
here, but the approach is very methodical. Thus it also contrasts 
with that of NA 9.5, which treats thinkers in an order designed 
to highlight the variety of views rather than to organize them. 

Taurus, then, is not the origin of this doxography. So whence 
could it come? In structure (though not in importance)39 N A 
9.5 is reminiscent of 5.1Sf. It consists of a brief and possibly 
satirical outline of opposing views on a question of philosophy, 
followed by a reaction of partial hostility to the very debate that 
appeals to some respected figure. Of the concluding para­
graphs, 5.15.9 and 5.16.5 appeal to Ennius, 9.5.8 to Taurus. One 
imagines that this form would have suited, above all, Skeptics, 
who engaged in the balancing of rival dogmata in order to 
achieve suspension of judgment along with the dismissal of 
their rivals. Gellius, of course, is influenced by Favorinus, who 
adheres to that Academic skepticism, which is a little readier 
than the Pyrrhonist variety to affirm that it perceives nothing. 
His adherence to this brand of skepticism may have significan­
ce, for according to Augustine (C.Acad. 2.11) Carneades' main 
area of doubt lay in the matters debated by the philosophers, 
not matters of everyday knowledge (cf Numenius frr. 26.107ff, 
27.58f des Places). What could illustrate the problems of philo­
sophical debate better than a satirical contrast of opposing 
views, followed by some crowning words of conventional 
wisdom, which appeared to suggest that the debate had been 

38 Here Plato-Aristotle-Zeno, [Hero] De! 137.4=SVF I 70=T21 Lakmann. 
39 To us there is the important difference that although 5.15f discuss a 

subject of admittedly slender practical relevance, 9.5 discusses, in this 
somewhat satirical fashion, the supreme ethical question (that of the identity 
of the telos) and dismisses the protagonist of one of the opposing views out of 
hand. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

H. A. S. TARRANT 191 

unnecessary? Favorinus is mentioned with respect in Gellius' 
discussion of the difference between Academic and Pyrrhonian 
skepticism at 11.5; he may well be the inspiration behind the 
structure of 5.15f and 9.5. 

Could the doxography come from Favorinus, with the con­
clusion alone being changed to suit Gellius' own views better? 
That is not, I think, unlikely. One might see Skeptic influence 
already in the first sentence with the words diversas sententias, 
with which one may compare perpetua quaestio (5.15.1) and 
diversas opiniones (5.16.1); it could conclude in the discussion 
of Plato in 9.5.7: 

Plato ante hos omnis ita varie et multiJormiter de voluptate 
disseruit, ut cunctae istae sententiae quas exposui videantur ex 
sermonum eius Jontibus profluxisse; nam proinde unaqua­
quam [sc. sententia] utitur, ut et ipsius voluptatis natura Jert, 
quae est multiplex, et causarum quas tractat, rerumque quas 
eJficere vult ratio desiderat. 

Note here suggestions of the pros ti, of relativity, creeping into 
the last sentence: Plato's treatment of pleasure differs in accord­
ance with differences within pleasure itself, differences in the 
argument being conducted, and differences in his basic pur­
poses. The theme of relativity is one of the most powerful 
weapons that the Skeptic possesses,40 though it need not always 
have Skeptic associations. 

If one did not feel obliged to offer a source for an unusual dox­
ography such as 9.5.1-7, then one might be content to see 
Gellius acting entirely alone, as one might at 5.l5f. But as things 
are, the doxography must have derived from somewhere. We 
saw that it had certain oddities, including probable Academic 
connexions. Favorinus was perhaps the only philosopher of 
note still to call himself an Academic. There is, of course, an 
obvious objection to postulating Favorinus as Gellius' source. 
He was an Academic in the sense of a follower of New 
Academic 'Skepticism', and would thus not have the same 
reason as an Antiochene 'Old Academic' for constructing the 
doxography according to the rationale I have proposed. It is not 
of concern to him that the positions of Speusippus, Zeno, and 
Critolaus should all be included, nor that they should all lead 
back to Plato. Yet Antiochus' doxographies influenced both 
sides of the Academic debate as it had flourished in Cicero's 
day; and subsequent Skeptics, particularly concerned with 

40 Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1.135-40, 167; anon. The. 63. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

192 PLATONIC INTERPRETATION IN AULUS GELLIUS 

refuting Antiochus, were prepared to include the same figures 
as Antiochus. It is a Skeptic, Sextus Empiricus, who explicitly 
mentions Antiochus qua historian of philosophy in his own 
most lavish doxography at Math. 7.162, 201; Antiochus no 
doubt had a wider influence on this doxography, at least on the 
basis of Math. 7.141. -41 Favorinus was at least as likely to use An­
tiochus' doxography as Sextus. 

Hence we could do worse than claim that Favorinus is the 
source here. Gersh's reason for preferring Favorinus as a 
source of Platonist material in Gellius begins with his apparent 
preference for the rhetorical qualities in Plato rather than under­
lying meanings (NA 17.20.7ff).42 The present paper argues that 
in at least two passages, where underlying meaning is found in 
Plato according to Gellius' treatment, Taurus is the likely 
source. In the doxography of the value of pleasure, however, 
there is no deep penetration; and the material is presented in 
such a way as to score, with strong ironical overtones, an 
essentially rhetorical point-as when choosing a particular Stoic 
position with a view to achieving contrast. Rhetorical presenta­
tion sounds more characteristic of Favorinus, as much a sophist 
as philosopher,43 who probably had a more extensive general 
influence on Gellius than Taurus. Irony is also not foreign to 
Favorinus.44 

We ought also to be cautious of denying any originality to 
Gellius at 9.5. His hostility to unnecessary philosophical intri­
cacies appears regularly, and the final shape of 9.5, as of 5.15f, 
has much of Gellius' own character. It is important for present 
purposes to dispel the idea that it could derive from Taurus. If 

41 Tarrant (supra n.3 [1985]) 89-114. 
42 Gersh (supra n.6) 211 f. The second reason that there is no great interest in 

Platonic metaphysics in Gellius-as one would expect if his approach had 
been learnt from Taurus-is probably misconceived: the Neoplatonist sources, 
by virtue of their own interest in metaphysics, have distorted the picture they 
give of the balance of Middle Platonist interests. If Taurus taught Gellius the 
Gorgias, then he surely taught him much of principally ethical and social 
relevance. 

43 On Favorinus' stress on the importance of argument in utramque partem, 
and the resultant similarities between him and a sophist, see loppolo (supra 
n.s) esp. 208-12. 

44 M. W. Gleeson, Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient 
Rome (Princeton 1995) 151: -Here Favorinus appears to advocate an attitude 
of fundamental irony towards all the parts one plays." It may be that even the 
part of philosophy need not be played without a certain irony, according to 
the exile speech. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

H. A. S. TARRANT 193 

there had been any effort to use careful distinction and in-depth 
interpretation to show why Plato had apparently inspired 
different views on pleasure, then Taurus would be a likelier 
source. As things are, Plato emerges as a far from venerable 
figure; his overall anti-hedonistic stance is not even suggesed; 
and the contrast with Taurus' instant dismissal of hedonistic 
ethics is marked. 

UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE, NSW 

January, 1997