SCHOOLS OF GAUL
IN THE LAST CENTURY OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK
TORONTO MELBOURNE CAPE TOWN BOMBAY
HUMPHREY MILFORD
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOLS OF GAUL
A STUDY
OF
PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN
EDUCATION
IN THE LAST CENTURY
OF THE
WESTERN EMPIRE
BY
THEODORE HAARHOFF
LECTURER IN LATIN AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
HUMPHREY MILFORD
1920
MATRI MEAE
CVIVS VITA
SCHOLASTICAE LICET DOCTRINAE EXPERS
VERIOR TAMEN MIHI EDVCATIO
QVAM PRAECEPTA PROFESSORVM OMNIA
HOC OPVSCVLVM REVERENTER
DICAVI
PREFACE
Education in Gaul during the fourth and fifth centuries after Christ
has curiously escaped the makers of books. Yet it has more than one
claim to notice. It was an age, like our own, of transition, and we
see education passing through the last stage of official paganism in
the Western Empire, and entering into the Christian era. Movements and
counter-movements (which have a considerable measure of modern interest)
pass before our eyes. For behind the shifting scenes of Roman and
Barbarian, Pagan and Christian, there is a continuity which reaches to
the present day. That continuity is the immense fabric of Roman Education
which passed through the Church into the Middle Ages, and shaped the
thought and culture of modern nations.
Gaul raises the problem of complex nationality. The old Celtic
population, overlaid with Roman civilization, penetrated by Germanic
tribes—Goths, Franks, Burgundians—is about to enter on a new period
of history, and the blending of these elements has an influence on
education which is interesting. Nations, when they become great, are
prone to emphasize the purity of their race and language. They exclude
foreign words and customs whenever they can, they raise the boast of a
pure and unique culture. It is an empty boast. Thousands of ‘foreign’
elements have mingled to make them what they are, and unconsciously
they daily absorb fresh elements that are ‘foreign’. But so far do they
forget this, that sometimes pride, and the ignorance that is born of
exclusiveness, lead them to impose their culture on others by force.
Complex nationality, while it is in the making, means friction; but once
that stage is passed the result is almost always a richer and better
culture. So it was with Gaul. Her position as leader of the Roman Empire
in education was undoubtedly due largely to her complexity.
At the same time, there is the problem of recognition. The elements of
the complex whole cannot be kept from discord unless there is recognition
of their individuality. Not till then will they make their positive
contribution to enrich the State. How far the Romans recognized the
individuality of those whom they governed, and with what results, is a
question of interest for modern political thought. And the effect of such
recognition (or the lack thereof) on the school curriculum, for example,
in the teaching of history, is a pertinent problem for those who live in
countries where there is a dual nationality.
It has been borne in upon us that the teaching of history is
all-important. Everybody is seeking to find the ultimate causes of the
war, and one of the most far-reaching answers that can be given is that
history has been wrongly taught. The fireworks of history have been
displayed to us, but the permanent forces behind events, the thought and
psychology of nations, the human interest of character, in fine, all that
truly makes for understanding and progress has been neglected. It was
neglected in the Roman Empire, and it is instructive to note the results.
To a South African the situation in Gaul at this time is particularly
illuminating. After all the troubles (still fresh in our memory)
attaching to the solution of the language question, it is almost
startling to note a similar situation in Roman Gaul. There the question
of teaching Greek and Latin was not so acute as in South Africa, for
Greek was dying out, and had no racial background, but the effects
of a wrong handling of ‘the second language’ are as unmistakable and
instructive. It is not time or place or circumstance that matters in
educational method so much as psychology—a study that is only beginning
to come into its heritage—and the psychology of the child is the same
yesterday as to-day.
To us the language question in Gaul is interesting from another point
of view too. The Romans did the world a great service by keeping their
language uniform. This they did chiefly by means of their law, which
was understood throughout the Roman world, and by means of their
professors, who, like the Panegyrists in Gaul during the fourth century
A.D., handed down a language which remained for centuries very similar
to that of Cicero. But a time came when this attempt failed. When
Christian teaching became strong and widespread, it was found that to
the bulk of the people the polished rhetoric of the schools had become
strange. In order to touch the understanding of their flock, the bishops
were constrained (with sore travail, for at heart they were proud of
their pagan education) to discard the style of speech in which they
had been trained, and to come closer to the idiom of the masses. So
in South Africa it has been officially recognized that the language
of Holland has become strange to the school-child, and that in order
to reach his intelligence we must use the offspring of Holland Dutch,
Afrikaans—moulded, since 1652, to a vastly different climate, scenery,
and national character. How this attempt is to be made, and what its
danger is in the direction of formlessness—these are questions for
which something may be gleaned from a consideration of the Latin of the
Fathers. Art is needed and scientific interest. For lack of these the
vivid language of Tertullian and the early Fathers degenerated later
into formlessness. And our problem to-day is to watch over the form that
is taking shape, make clear its scientific basis, and beautify it by
spreading an interest in Art.
Finally, the Gauls witnessed the breaking up of governments and its
consequent disorders. They were faced, as we are, by the problem of
‘Bolshevism’, though in their case it merely took the shape of the
marauding Vargi and the Bagaudae. The influence of a disordered society
on education was felt then as now. With us there are some who, like
Avitus of Vienne, _in malis ferventibus_, despair of any end to the
troubles which throng around them, while the wiser sort will rather urge
with the author of the _De Providentia Dei_ that, despite disappointments,
‘Invictum deceat studiis servare vigorem’.
* * * * *
This study has been based, as far as possible, directly on original
authorities, who have been neglected largely because they fall in a
period which the pedant has called ‘unclassical’ and which is yet not
definitely ‘modern’. I have found many statements in modern books
relating to this period which need modification or correcting, and I
feel sure that this essay has merely touched a field that deserves more
attention than it has hitherto received.
* * * * *
Among those to whom my gratitude is due, I wish to mention particularly
my tutor, Professor E. W. Watson of Christ Church, Professor J. A. Smith
of Magdalen, Professor Percy Gardner, who read the archaeological part,
Professor Gilbert Murray, whose suggestions were helpful and inspiring,
and the examiners of this essay when it was put forward as a thesis
at Oxford. Professor Haverfield and Mr. R. L. Poole, through whose
influence it was accepted for publication. Since then the material has
been considerably revised and amplified. For help in the dreary work of
reading the proofs, I must record my thanks to my old and trusted guide,
Professor William Ritchie, of the University of Cape Town, and to my
wife. And there is one whose memory I must always cherish, in this as in
other spheres, with the deepest affection and gratitude—my former tutor,
the late Mr. H. J. Cunningham of Worcester. His encouragement and counsel
were invaluable, and his readiness to assist one of the pleasantest
memories of my work.
I wish to acknowledge the courtesy of the Rhodes Trustees in allowing me
to use part of my scholarship to defray the expenses of publication; and
I must not fail also to put on record the financial assistance given me
by the Government Research Grant Board of the Union of South Africa. Such
assistance is not inappropriate for a book that deals so largely with
State support of education, and it is the more pleasing in view of the
growing interest of the Government in research.
Finally, I must mention the uniform courtesy and attention that I have
received from the Clarendon Press authorities. To Mr. C. E. Freeman I owe
a particular debt of gratitude for many interesting suggestions.
THEODORE HAARHOFF.
_University of Cape Town. October 23, 1919._
CONTENTS
PAGE
PART I. INTRODUCTORY
1. The Limits of the Period 1
2. Greek Influence 4
3. Celtic Influence 10
4. Germanic Influence 19
5. Romanization of Gaul 26
6. Roman Education in Gaul before the Fourth Century A.D. 33
PART II. PAGAN EDUCATION
A. The General Prosperity of the Schools in the Fourth and
Fifth Centuries 39
B. _Inside the School_ 52
(i) The Substance and Methods of Primary Education 52
(ii) The Substance and Methods of Secondary Education 68
(iii) Control and Arrangement of the School 93
(_a_) Discipline in Primary and Secondary Schools 93
(_b_) Play 97
(_c_) Organization 102
C. _Outside the School_ 119
(i) Administrative and Social Conditions 119
(ii) Class Distinction and Education 124
(iii) The Teacher in Society 132
(iv) Imperial Protection 135
PART III. CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
1. Introductory: Church and State 151
2. The Persistence of Rhetoric: Tradition and Reaction 157
3. The Rise of Christian Schools in Gaul 175
4. The Practice of Christian Education 180
PART IV. CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL IDEAS AND INFLUENCES
1. Moral Education 198
2. History 209
3. The Position of Greek 220
4. Art 231
PART V. THE DECLINE OF EDUCATION
1. Gallic Students Abroad 240
2. The Invaders 243
3. Ideals 249
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 262
INDEX 265
PART I
INTRODUCTORY
1. THE LIMITS OF THE PERIOD
In considering the extent of the last phase of Gallo-Roman education one
is met by the obvious difficulty of limits. For the main traditions of
the Roman schools were formed before Julius Caesar, and go on through the
Middle Ages up to the present day.
It is difficult to find a starting-point. The fifth century, the
transition period between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history,[1] forms a
general terminus, but it is not so easy to find a particular one. To say
that the year 476 was the end of things Roman in Gaul is to be guilty
of a generalization which many scholars have attacked.[2] This year,
‘so dear to the compiler and the crammer’, is not of any special moment
for Gaul. If we must fix a boundary, it seems better to connect it with
the Franks. It is often nationality which produces great changes in
civilization. It was the coming of the Romans which shaped the education
of Gaul, and it was the coming of the Franks which most modified that
shape and gave rise to the French nation. The defeat of the Franks by
Julian in 358 meant the continuation of Roman culture in Gaul. He came
as the saviour of a despairing Gaul.[3] The Salian Franks were allowed
to settle in Toxandria in the North as members of the Empire, to which,
for a long time, they remained loyal. It is true that Arbogast the Frank
set up the usurper Eugenius in 392. On the other hand, one of Gratian’s
wisest and most faithful adherents was the Frankish Merobaudes,[4] and
when the great invasions of 406 and the following years began the Franks
allied themselves with Stilicho and defeated the Vandals. Even as late as
451 we find that only a part of the Franks join Attila in his invasion of
Gaul, in spite of the growing weakness of the Empire which had left Gaul
exposed to the barbarians in 406.
Such was the effect of Julian’s victory, though as a military achievement
it was not very remarkable. Not merely was it of political importance,
but its significance for education was enormous. Mamertinus expresses[5]
the gratitude of a provincial for the order which Julian restored. ‘Shall
I’, says he, ‘tell the tale of the Gallic provinces, now rewon by thy
valour, of the rout of barbarism, as though it were some new and unheard
of thing? Such exploits as the voice of fame has so lavishly bruited
abroad....’
Julian has been constant in his care for Gaul, and on the list of his
good deeds the orator would record his diligence:
‘Ita illi anni spatia divisa sunt ut aut barbaros domitet aut civibus
iura restituat, perpetuum professus aut contra hostem aut contra vitia
certamen.’ A great cause of joy is the repulse of _barbaria_. Julian
has spared no trouble ‘to restore peace to the loyal provinces and to
banish, at the same time, all barbaric elements’.[6] He attended to right
living and to justice, ‘emendatio morum iudiciorumque correctio....’[7]
Most important of all, studies have revived under his fostering care,
and the orator becomes eloquent with an enthusiasm which is not entirely
exaggerated.
‘Thou, O mightiest of emperors, thou, I proclaim, hast rekindled the
dead fires of literature; thou hast not only freed philosophy from
prosecution, suspected as she was until recently, but hast clothed her
in purple and bound on her head gold and gems, and seated her on a regal
throne.’[8]
If the subjugation of the Franks thus supplies a sort of starting-point,
their rise under Chlodowig gives us a terminus. The Roman connexion with
Gaul officially ceased when Romulus Augustulus was deposed in 476, and
Gaul was no longer Roman when Euric captured Arles and Marseilles in
480. But the culmination of Germanic influence in Gaul was the coming
of the Franks in 486, when Chlodowig drove Syagrius, ‘the last of the
Romans’,[9] from his kingdom of Soissons and moved southward. The Roman
schools, which had flourished under Theodoric of Toulouse, disappeared
when the Franks came.[10] Not that the Franks swamped the Gallo-Romans
or proved the predominant element. Their invasion was in some ways like
the Norman invasion of England:[11] the conqueror was captured by the
conquered, and Gallo-Roman influence, especially in education, prevailed.
Yet the fact remains that the Frankish invasion brought factors to bear
on Gaul which modified its national life and coloured its civilization
more deeply than had previously been the case, and that it represents
the high-water mark of the Germanic tide which had been steadily rising
during the two previous centuries.
2. GREEK INFLUENCE
Nothing struck the imagination of ancient writers on early Gallic culture
more than the part played by Massilia. Daughter of the Greeks, and friend
of the Romans long before Gaul became part of the Empire, she stood forth
as a light of civilization in the midst of barbaric darkness. With such a
tradition and such a friendship it is no wonder that we find so much said
in her praise.
Ammianus,[12] following the Greek Timagenes, gives the traditional
account of the coming of the Phocaeans to Massilia in the sixth century
B.C. Whether they really fled from the persecution of the Persian
Harpalus—a motive unknown to Herodotus—or whether, as Athenaeus quoting
Aristotle says, their object was merely trade,[13] need not be discussed
here. Nor need we go into the confusion in ancient writers between
Phocaea and Phocis[14] in regard to the origin of Massilia; the point
is that it was of Greek origin, as all the authorities agree.[15] From
Greece culture came to Gaul, and once more (as Norden remarks in another
connexion) ‘it is the East that gives and the West that receives’.
The coins of Massilia bear testimony to her influence on Gaul. The
early specimens of her drachms, bearing the head of Artemis with sprigs
of olive in her hair, show a high artistic development. Their beauty
diminishes as time goes on, partly because of the large numbers in which
they were produced, since for a long time they were the chief currency
for Southern Gaul as far as Lyons and for the whole valley of the Po. So
frequently were they copied by the Celtic tribes that the imitations are
far commoner than the originals.[16]
It is probable, moreover, that Massilia’s artistic contribution did not
stop here. We possess a torso in sixth-century style of Aphrodite with a
dove on her right hand, which Prof. Percy Gardner believes to be the work
of Phocaean Greeks at Massilia. Sculpture of this kind must have been a
new ray of light for the civilization (or the lack thereof) in Celtic
Gaul.
Her friendship with Rome is well attested. Cicero mentions[17] the
support given to Rome by the Massilians at the time of the Gallic
campaigns. When Fonteius, who had been governor of Gallia Narbonensis,
was impeached for extortion, Massilia came up in his defence. Strabo
regards the connexion as a well-known fact.[18] Ammianus, too, knew of
this traditional friendship: ‘Massilia ... cuius societate et viribus in
discriminibus arduis fultam aliquotiens legimus Romam.’[19]
It is well known that at the time of the second Punic war Massilia
gave faithful and effective support to her ally.[20] Yet such was the
independence of Massilia’s Greek spirit, that when Caesar, in the Civil
war,[21] sent Domitius to take her, she alone of all the Gallic cities
refused him admittance. Her citizens replied with a dignity and a
self-consciousness that argue a high level of development, that they were
indeed allies of the Roman people, but that they would not and could not
decide between the two parties: if they were approached in a friendly
spirit they would listen to both sides; if in a hostile way they would
listen to neither. Caesar’s siege of the town was at first unsuccessful,
and he had to depart leaving the operations in the hands of others.
When, at length, Massilia capitulated, he deprived her of her material
resources, but (as was fitting) left her liberty unviolated.[22]
But the connexion with Rome was not political only. It is probable that
the Massilians traded with Italy in early times[23] and that their
city, once the rival of Carthage,[24] grew to renewed importance as a
commercial centre for Rome after the Punic wars. The Massilians were
early Rome’s agents for the products of Gaul.[25] In order to make bronze
to send to Rome they obtained tin from Cornwall[26] to blend with their
own copper. Theophrastus[27] speaks of their export to Rome of precious
stones, and the Romans knew the value of their corn trade.[28] ‘Frumenti
praecipue ac pabuli ferax (Gallia).’[29]
Yet the chief connexion with Rome, the bond most frequently mentioned by
Roman writers, was along the line of Massilia’s culture. Cicero speaks
with enthusiasm[30] of the city which possessed a statue of Minerva, and
it is well known that the Romans regularly sent their sons there,[31]
rather than to Athens,[32] to study Greek. The young Agricola looked
on it as his Alma Mater.[33] The climate was milder and healthier than
that of Athens and its morals had a better reputation. Plautus uses the
phrase ‘mores Massilienses’ in the sense of irreproachable character.[34]
Valerius Maximus speaks of the city as ‘severitatis custos acerrima’.
They prohibited pantomimes on moral grounds;[35] sumptuary laws limited
personal expense; and women were not allowed to drink wine.[36] Such was
the moral austerity (at any rate in early times[37]) of the Massilians,
and this reputation no doubt enhanced its popularity—with parents at any
rate—as an educational centre.
Massilia stood for a very long time far above any other Gallic city in
culture. The Rhodians in Livy[38] are made to say that the Massilians
would long ago have been barbarized by the uncivilized tribes around
(_tot indomitae circumfusae gentes_) had it not been for their sheltered
situation; and Pomponius Mela[39] speaks of Massilia as ‘olim inter
asperas posita’, and remarks that the Massilians nevertheless retained
their individuality after the civilization of the rest. They had their
own constitution, and it was prominent enough for Aristotle to notice.[40]
Many writers tell us how the Massilians spread their Greek civilization
among the Gauls.[41] Strabo speaks of Massilia as the School of Gaul,
which so hellenized the barbarians that they drew up their contracts in
Greek.[42] So Ammianus[43] says that after the foundation of Massilia
‘men gradually became civilized in these parts, and the pursuit of
praiseworthy branches of knowledge, begun by the bards and the Celtic
philosophers (_euhages_ and _drasidae_), grew and prospered’. The
bards sang in heroic verse, to the accompaniment of tuneful music,
the deeds of the valiant. The _euhages_ were natural philosophers who
investigated the secrets of the physical world, ‘scrutantes seriem et
sublimia naturae pandere conabantur’. And, according to Pythagoras, the
_drasidae_, who were of loftier spirit and lived in exclusive clubs and
colleges, investigated and pronounced on occult metaphysical questions.
So effectively did Greek influence spread, ‘ut non Graecia in Galliam
emigrasse, sed Gallia in Graeciam translata videretur’.[44]
To a certain extent Massilia must have been influenced by her
surroundings. ‘Massilia’, says the consul in Livy,[45] ‘inter Gallos
sita traxit aliquantum ab accolis animorum’. Her inhabitants must have
learned much of the physical features and culture of the land from the
barbarians. But the overwhelming strength of influence was on their side.
The fact that they were not swamped is in itself a striking testimony.
It meant that they possessed a culture which was destined not only to
hold its own, but to win increasingly as time went on. It was owing to
them that the Gauls appointed professors and doctors,[46] and many of
their teachers are mentioned in ancient literature. Telon and Gyareus
are called by Lucan[47] ‘gemini fratres, fecundae gloria matris’, and
together with Lydanus, Pytheas, Eratosthenes, Eudimenes, are famous for
mathematics and astronomy[48] in the early days of Massilia. Seneca
mentions a rhetorician Moschus, who had been found guilty of poisoning
and taught at Massilia,[49] and notices also Agroitas as a rhetorician
of distinction.[50] Natural philosophy was not neglected. Plutarch[51]
mentions Euthymenes of Massilia, whose opinion he quotes on the
overflowing of the Nile, and refers to the famous Pytheas on the causes
of the tides. Of the eight recensions of Homer, which were known before
Zenodotus, one was the famous διόρθωσις Μασσαλιωτική[52] to which Wolf
assigns an honourable place.[53]
As for their proficiency in languages, it is well known that they were
called _trilingues_,[54] speaking Greek and Latin and Celtic. The Greek
of Massilia left its mark on the French language after a lapse of many
centuries, especially on the proper names of Aquitaine,[55] and Christian
times afford many instances in literature and inscriptions of this
influence. To name two only, the Acta Martyrum were written in Greek,
the language of Irenaeus (second century), by the order of the Churches
of Vienne and Lyons,[56] and as late as the sixth century Caesarius[57]
could make the people of his congregation at Arles sing in Greek. As late
as the Middle Ages the territory around Massilia was called Graecia, and
its sea Mare Graecum.[58]
Such was the great part played by Massilia. Tradition tells how the
leaders of the Phocaeans, Protis and Simos, when they landed in Gaul,
went to the local King Nannus for help. They were invited to attend a
ceremony at which the daughter of the king extended a cup of water to
the suitor whom she favoured. She bestowed the token on Protis, who thus
married a daughter of the soil on which he was to establish Massilia.[59]
So Massilia ruled the household of Gaul and set in order its culture. In
imperial times there was a decline,[60] and the Massilians found their
pre-eminence shaken and their trade ruined by the colony which Caesar
sent to Arles (destined to develop into a commercial centre) under
Tiberius, father of the Emperor.[61] Under Marcus Aurelius they had to
give up their ancient constitution and fall into line with the other
imperial cities.[62] But their work was accomplished. They kept the torch
of civilization burning until they could pass it on to Romanized Gaul.
Even then they retained their culture, and retained it longer than the
other towns. The capture of Massilia in 477 by the Goths completed the
separation of Gaul from Rome and prepared the way for the Gallo-Frankish
state.
As she had given the impetus to letters, so, in later times, she proved
their salvation. At the time of the great invasions at the beginning of
the fifth century, and at its end when the Visigoths were encroaching
more and more, Massilia was a refuge for Christian monks to whose labours
literature owes so much. The Monastery of St. Victor ranked with Lérins
as a centre of Christian education, and many famous men found a refuge
there during the menace of troublous times. Victorinus, Prosper of
Aquitaine, Gennadius, Musaeus, Salvian, were among those who sought its
peace.[63]
Justinus tells of the Celtic chief Catumandus who was chosen by the
neighbouring tribes to lead an army against the prosperous Massilia.
Being terrified, however, by the figure of a fierce-looking woman whom
he saw in a dream, he made peace with the Massilians and begged to be
allowed to enter their city and worship their gods. In the portico of
the temple he saw the statue of Minerva and exclaimed that that was the
figure of his dream.[64]
Thus it was that the goddess of culture saved Massilia, and through
Massilia, Gaul.
3. CELTIC INFLUENCE
Bouquet[65] refers to a legendary account given by one Pezronius to
explain the rise of culture among the Gauls. On the death of Pluto,
Jupiter gave to Mercury the Empire of the West and he, by his wit and
eloquence, civilized the people. ‘Populorum sibi subditorum ferocitatem
emollivit, leges statuit, artes adinvenit, commercia inter Occidentales
populos instituit’. For this service the Celts of Gaul were so thankful
that for two thousand years they worshipped Mercury with the greatest
veneration.
This story is a fable and an afterthought, but it is significant of the
sort of culture that later people conceived of as having existed among
the ancient Gauls. Long before the days of Roman rule the elder Cato
had testified to the trend of their genius in the well-known words:
‘Pleraque Gallia duas res industriosissima persequitur, rem militarem
et argute loqui’,[66] and it is quite certain that Mercury (and before
the Romans his Celtic counterpart) was actually and almost universally
worshipped in Gaul. ‘Galli’, says Caesar,[67] ‘Deum maxime Mercurium
colunt’, a statement which is abundantly supported by the inscriptions.
An inscription at Chalon-sur-Saône shows the figure of Mercury with his
three favourite animals, a cock, a tortoise, a goat, and the words ‘Deo
Mercurio Augu ... Sacro’,[68] while at Lyons there were three altars
with the words ‘Mercurio Augusto et Maiae Augustae’. An inscription of
Poitiers, which is as late as the third century, is dedicated to ‘the
god Mercurius’.[69] Even in the barbarous North there is a large number
of inscriptions referring to Mercury, especially around Trèves.[70] The
worship of Minerva, too, is established by many inscriptions, e.g. the
twenty on bowls and cups found at Andecavi in Lugdunensis.[71]
Thus the Gauls singled out for special worship the subtlest and cleverest
of the gods,[72] and the fact may be connected with their undoubted
culture in early times. Out of the darkness in which pre-Roman Gaul
is shrouded we gather hints here and there concerning the first known
teachers of the Gallic Celts, the Druids. One or two points may be
noticed.
The warlike nature of the Celts is a subject of frequent comment.
Aristotle refers to it,[73] and Aelian says Ἀνθρώπων ἐγὼ ἀκούω
φιλοκινδυνοτάτους εἶναι τοὺς Κέλτους.[74] Pausanias considered them
very barbarous. Their equipment for war, in which they were supposed
to excel, was primitive: they had no defensive armour except shields.
Of scientific warfare they knew nothing, and when they charged it was
without order, like a troop of wild animals.[75] In these accounts a
margin must be left for prejudice and lack of understanding on the
part of the narrator. For we hear a good deal about education from
various sources. Three classes of skilled men were held in particular
honour among the Celts:[76] the βάρδοι, who chanted hymns in honour of
the valiant; τῶν μὲν ᾀσμάτων ὑποθέσεις ποιοῦνται τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς
ἀποθανόντας ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ καλῶς:[77] the Οὐάτεις (Vates), who performed
sacrifice and studied natural science; and the Δρυΐδαι, who studied
science and ethics and theology. The bards also were the representatives
of that eloquent temperament which is associated with Gaul from the
earliest times, and which enabled subsequent Gallic writers and orators
to assimilate classical rhetoric. They sing public panegyrics (μετ’
ᾠδῆς ἐπαίνους λέγοντες) and are taken with the army to eulogize the
heroes of war.[78] They are called ποιηταὶ μελῶν by Diodorus,[79] who
is constrained to remark οὕτω καὶπαρὰ τοῖς ἀγριωτάτοις βαρβάροις ὁ
θυμὸς εἴκει τῇ σοφίᾳ καὶ ὁ Ἄρης αἰδεῖται τὰς Μούσας, a somewhat unusual
admission, for a Greek, of culture among ‘barbarians’. It must be clearly
understood, however, that they had not elaborated a system of rhetoric
or studied scientifically the art of speaking. All we can say is that
they had a kind of imagination and a quick enthusiasm which gave them a
rough natural oratory, and made them apt students of the rhetoric which
the Greeks and Romans brought. The richness and pomposity of subsequent
Gallic orators was due rather to the advent of the rhetorical system
and, perhaps, to the influence of Roman character, than to native Celtic
qualities. Caesar does not mention the Bardi and the Vates, but only
the Druids, who belonged to the upper classes, and were held in high
honour as the teachers and priests of the nation. ‘They administer divine
rites, attend to public and private sacrifice, and expound theology:
to them a large number of youths resort for training, and great is the
honour in which they are held.’[80] It is said that there were girls’
schools kept by the wives of the Druids,[81] a statement which seems
to be supported by the frequent mention of female Druids, Drysidae, in
later times. Their learning was thought to be derived from Britain,
whither students went from Gaul.[82] Freedom from military service and
public duties was granted them—a curious anticipation of the concessions
granted to teachers in imperial times. Hence there were many candidates
for the office, and large numbers were sent by their parents to undergo
the training which sometimes lasted twenty years.[83] The students learnt
by heart a great many verses, which were not written down, for this
they did not consider right (_fas_), though for secular purposes they
used Greek letters. Examples of this writing have been preserved.[84]
The Druids taught the doctrine of immortality and the transmigration of
souls.[85] Astronomy, physical science, and theology also formed part of
their training.[86] Science was still studied by the Druids in Cicero’s
time. ‘In Gaul too’ (he says), ‘there are Druids (and I had personal
acquaintance with one of them, the Aeduan Divitiacus) who professed a
knowledge of natural science, which the Greeks call φυσιολογία.’[87]
This education, however, was purely one of class and profession. ‘Docent
multa nobilissimos gentis’, says Mela.[88] Lucan apostrophizes the
Druids, as those who alone had the privilege of knowing or not knowing
the gods, dwelling in the sequestered glades of deep forests.[89]
Knowledge, thus monopolized, must have grown unhealthy, and we hear of
the riddling speech and obscure phrases with which the Druids worked on
the superstitions of the people.[90] Monnard observes that the darkness
of this Celtic philosophy was dispelled by the light of Massilia.[91]
Yet the Celts had made their contribution. For we must remember that
in the centuries just preceding the Christian era it was the Celts who
gave the lead to the Teutonic peoples in culture. Towards the end of the
fifth century B.C. Celtic civilization flourished exceedingly. The ‘La
Tène Civilization’—as the archaeologists call it—shows artistic products
of fine taste and technical perfection. The centre of this civilization
was perhaps in Southern France, whence it spread throughout Europe along
the Rhine, the Rhone, the Danube, until it was succeeded by Graeco-Roman
culture. And it was only between 100-70 B.C. that the Celts were expelled
from lower Germany.[92]
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that it took so long for the Druids
to disappear from the scene, representing as they did so ancient a
culture. We should expect the warders of a national religion and
tradition to be conservative, and we find that they even played a
political part. In the confusion of the year A.D. 70, when the Capitol
was burnt down, they circulated a rumour among the Celts that the event
portended the passing of the power from the Romans to the Gauls,[93]
seeing that the Capitol had once proved to be the only obstacle to
Brennus’s victorious march. It was natural, then, that the Roman
imperial policy should aim at the removal of an element which fostered
the national sentiment.[94] Augustus later followed this tendency when
he forbade the Druid’s worship to Roman citizens in Gaul, and Claudius
(we are told by Suetonius) abolished once for all their monstrous
practices.[95] So Aurelius Victor[96] attributes the complete suppression
of the Druids to Claudius. Accordingly, when we find Pliny[97] saying
that it was Tiberius who suppressed the Druids, there is a suspicion that
he is guilty of a confusion: Claudius’s first name having been Tiberius.
It is clear that definite attempts were made to wipe out Druidism and
the Celtic element. But they showed a remarkable tenacity in spite of
laws and edicts. The elder Pliny refers to them as surviving in his
time,[98] and Flavius Vopiscus (third century) tells of certain ‘wise
women’ who called themselves Dryades (_mulier dryas_, _drysada_) and
were, by a strange irony, consulted (if we may believe the fanciful
_Scriptores Historiae Augustae_), even by persons in high imperial
authority. Aurelianus was said to have consulted them about the future of
his imperial office,[99] and a Druid prophesied the throne to Diocletian
‘cum aprum occideris’.[100] The prophetic influence seems in these later
times to have passed from the men to the women, who become recognized
semi-officially, and form, on a small scale, a sort of Delphic oracle.
Nothing is more difficult than to make a people forget its language, as
Fauriel[101] has remarked, especially a people that largely lives on the
land. This dictum, which history has so often illustrated, is instanced
also by the tenacity of Celtic in Gaul. It penetrates right into the
fourth and fifth centuries, and, since language and education hang so
closely together, it is worth while to look into the evidence. More
than 10,000 inscriptions have been found in Gaul, and of these a large
number relate to the lower classes. Yet we find that scarcely twenty
are in Celtic, and these probably are not later than the first century
A.D.[102] This does not mean that Celtic died out then; it was never much
of a written language, for the Druids had a distinct prejudice against
writing, and recorded only secular matters.[103]
Strabo[104] says that the people in Narbonne began to accept Latin only
in the reign of Tiberius, and it is in Narbonne that the most and best
Latin inscriptions are found. Irenaeus, writing from Lyons in the second
century, begs to be excused from rhetorical polish, seeing that he
lives among the Celts—περὶ βάρβαρον διάλεκτον τὸ πλεῖστον ἀσχολουμενων
(ἡμῶν).[105] In the following century we find Alexander Severus, in
preparing his last expedition, being met by a female Druid who prophesied
his death in Celtic (_Gallico sermone_)[106]—though the reference may
have been inserted merely to adorn a tale, and _Gallicus sermo_ may
stand for Gallic Latin. At any rate, Celtic was not entirely forgotten
in Ausonius’s day (fourth century), who refers to Patera, rhetor at
Bordeaux, as ‘stirpe Druidarum satus’, while Phoebicius similarly is
‘stirpe satus Druidum’,[107] and is, moreover, the ‘temple-warder of
Belenus’,[108] the Celtic Apollo, just as the race of Patera comes
‘Beleni ... e templo’. In satirizing the pedantic trifling of the
grammarian, Ausonius gives ‘al’ and ‘tau’ as Celtic letters.[109] Even
Sidonius in the fifth century has to notice it, in spite of his Roman
disdain. It was owing to the zeal of Ecdicius, he says,[110] that the
nobility of Gaul became cultured—‘sermonis Celtici squamam depositura’,
a statement which shows that the old language was still to be reckoned
with. It is rather an irony of fate that the style of Sidonius—the one
point on which he prided himself—undoubtedly owes its exotic character
in order, rhythm, and vocabulary[111] to Celtic and Gothic influence. His
elaborate scorn for what is foreign recoils on his own head.
One final instance of the survival of Celtic must be mentioned for the
controversy which it has evoked. Jerome says that the Galatians in his
day had practically the same native language as the Treveri.[112] Was
this language Celtic? Freeman[113] thinks that Jerome’s word may be
doubted, as he was not a philologist. This would seem to rule out all
the witnesses, for philology is an entirely modern development; and it
would hardly have been indispensable for forming so simple a judgement.
Jerome, moreover, is a considerable authority, the most learned of
the Fathers. Lavisse[114] has recently accepted his statement. He
mentions the objection of Perrot,[115] who maintains that Celtic had
long vanished from Asia Minor, and of Fustel de Coulanges,[116] who
says that the language of the Treveri was German, and answers: (1) that
Celtic survived in the speech if not in the documents of Asia Minor,
and (2) that Coulanges is wrong; the names of the Treveri are Celtic.
This being granted, it would seem that Celtic survived well into the
fifth century, and this conclusion appears to be reinforced in extent
and significance by Freeman’s statement that there was a survival of the
Celtic language and sentiment in Brittany during the fifth century.[117]
But this statement is misleading. It is generally admitted that Gallic
had entirely gone out of use in Armorica, when the fugitives from Great
Britain settled in the country and introduced their insular speech from
the fifth century onwards. And Breton is more closely allied to Welsh
and Old Cornish than to Gallic. On the whole we must say that the
evidence of modern philology points to a less considerable influence of
the Celtic element than we should expect. Celtic was overshadowed by
German, and especially, of course, Latin. Hitherto modern philology has
found traces of Celtic loan-words in the following spheres: agriculture,
carriage-building, the names of animals, trees, and plants, the parts of
the body, items of clothing, weapons, and geographical terms.[118] The
inscriptions in Gaul show words like _cantalon_,[119] a kind of building,
and _cantuna_ (canteen) which the philologists pronounce to be of Celtic
origin.[120] We must conclude, therefore, that while sporadic traces of
Celtic are undoubtedly found in the fifth century (as in the case of the
Treviri, who in their secluded valley would naturally retain the ancient
language longer than the people around them), the language had, in the
main, disappeared by that time.
All this shows us that in dealing with education in Gaul we cannot
attempt a thorough and systematic study. Romanization lies over the
country and its institutions like a veil. Roman authors give us scattered
pictures of what went on beneath that veil, but they give it from
the Roman point of view. Roman rule was so mighty, and its methods
so far-reaching, that everything is reduced to Roman form. The ruler
did not see the native genius or native ways, or if he saw them did
not understand or sympathize. It was his task to rule, and he knew,
in general, only one method: the rule of force—‘parcere subiectis et
debellare superbos’—though diplomacy plays a large part in the later
Empire. Moreover, the mass of the people were too uneducated to give
expression to their individuality, or did not know Latin sufficiently
well to do so. All our evidence comes from Greek or Roman pens. As soon
as the Empire is withdrawn from Gaul natural differences find expression
and variety of individuality is at once displayed. Jung[121] notices
that the inscriptions of Arles and Trèves are an illustration of this.
While the Empire is there we catch only dim glimpses of the sort of
education that (fraught with the traditions of a mighty past) may have
lingered on among the mass of the people even as late as the fourth
century. When we deal with the schools of Gaul, therefore, it must be
with those of the Gallo-Romans who were more Roman than Gallic. But there
is another element which operated, as it were, under the surface of
Romanization in Gaul.
4. GERMANIC INFLUENCE
In trying to form an idea, of the influence of the Germanic races on the
culture of Gaul during the later Empire, we must again be satisfied with
only a few stray references in the contemporary authorities. Philologists
think that as early as the first century A.D. the German races must
have influenced the Romans. They establish indisputable cases, but it
is admitted that the whole question is difficult and complicated in the
extreme.[122]
The question of German influence may be looked at from two opposite
points of view—from the constructive and the destructive. The latter is
by far the more prominent and will be dealt with at a later stage. The
former is far the more difficult, and nothing is attempted here except
to set down in bare outline one or two of its aspects. It would be far
easier to describe the influence of Roman civilization on the barbarians.
Yet there is something to be said. If the Roman generals prescribed a
Roman form of government for the barbarians, as Corbulo did for the
Frisians in A.D. 47, German fashions intruded into the Roman world and
the Roman ladies wore barbarian costume and coiffure.[123] On the Rhine
frontier these barbarians developed to such an extent and so many towns
sprang up—Cologne the prosperous, Bonn, Coblentz, Strassburg—which
grew out of the Roman camps but drew their life from the neighbouring
tribes, that the law forbade the selling of certain commodities to
barbarians.[124] On the other hand, the Empire needed them as cultivators
and soldiers, and the _Panegyrici Latini_ show us that it was part of
the imperial policy to make them settle in the provinces.[125] Social
history shows that the Germanic peoples stood on a fairly high level
of culture even in the first centuries of our era. They possessed a
traditional religious cult which promoted the noblest virtues—conjugal
love, friendship, hospitality—a body of legends about gods and heroes,
an ancestral poetry, in which clan and family feeling plays a large
part.[126] In these respects they were capable of influencing the Romans,
who admired their courage and feared their strength.
Besides the casual intermingling of people for various reasons, there
were three main sources of intercourse: the army, the administration,
and trade. The first need not be dwelt on, nor the well-known question
be raised how far the German element in it was responsible for the fall
of the Empire. Of the second we may mention as an instance Pliny’s
picture of Trajan dispensing justice in Germany—sometimes without an
interpreter—while the influence of the trade in furs, wine, and fish in
introducing Germanic words into Latin has been amply established.[127]
Turning to Gaul in particular, we find many avenues of Germanic
influence; for, besides the big invasions of the third and fifth
centuries, we find the Goths officially settled in Aquitaine in A.D. 419,
and the Burgundians about the same time, in the north and north-eastern
parts. It is not surprising, therefore, to catch from Ausonius glimpses
of fairly familiar intercourse between German and Gallo-Roman in
the fourth century. His enthusiastic praise of Bissula, the Suebian
maid who was captured beyond the Rhine[128]—‘Barbara, sed quae Latias
vincis alumna pupas’—is an indication of this. Now there is a law of
Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian, given in A.D. 370, forbidding all
intermarriage. ‘Nulli provincialium’, it says, ‘cuiuscumque ordinis
aut loci fuerit, cum barbara sit uxore coniugium: nec ulli gentilium
(foreigners, i.e. not Roman) provincialis foemina copuletur. Quod si
quae inter provinciales atque Gentiles adfinitates ex huiusmodi nuptiis
exstiterint, quod in his suspectum vel noxium detegitur, capitaliter
expietur.’[129] This law, however, as Lavisse remarks,[130] does not
seem to have had much effect. Such laws very rarely have. We may assume,
therefore, that there was considerable intercourse even before the
Visigoths were settled in Aquitaine.
Not only had points of contact been multiplied, but the standard of
civilization among the invaders had risen. Orosius notes that the
Burgundians were mild and modest enough to treat their Gallic subjects
as brothers,[131] and their laws dating from the sixth century show a
considerable culture. Roman civilization and Christian morality had
raised them to this level, but they still had their own contribution to
make. For they still had their own national character and traditions
and language, and these produced blends and combinations in the already
richly blended Aquitaine which have played their part in the shaping
of the whole. Such influences cannot be reduced to specific items, but
it is plain that they were there. They left their mark (all the more
effectively because the Goths welcomed Roman culture with open arms)
on the character of the people, on their literature, and on their
language.[132] Even in Cicero’s day Gallic Latin had a distinctive
flavour. To Brutus he says that when he comes to Gaul he will hear words
not used at Rome, though the differences are not fundamental.[133]
By the time of Sidonius Germanic influences have accentuated these
differences. To such an extent, says this lover of Rome to his friends,
had the host of idle and careless people increased, that they would soon
have to weep for the extinction of the Latin language, were it not for
the tiny band of scholars who might save the purity of the Roman tongue
from the rust of undignified barbarisms.[134] To Arbogast Sidonius
declares[135] that Latin has perished from Belgium and the Rhine; and
though this may be a rhetorical preparation for the antithesis ‘in te
resedit’, we cannot fail to hear in it and in the phrase ‘our vanishing
culture’ the tramp of the approaching barbarians.
The contribution of Germanic to the peculiar character of Gallic Latin
is traced by modern philology to the following spheres: proper nouns,
weapons and military terms, administration and jurisdiction, animals and
plants, terms of domestic economy, and, what is more, certain abstract
names (_affre_, _hâte_, _guise_, _orgueil_, &c.), and a good number of
adjectives and verbs.[136]
Looking at this Germanic influence from the point of view of French,
the decadence of Gallic in the fifth century and the preponderance of
Germanic, to omit Latin for the moment, are accomplished facts. But from
the point of view of the fourth and fifth centuries, what we find is that
philologists have never clearly distinguished between those Germanic
words which came in after the third-century invasions and those which
were imported in the fifth century. The fact that most of the Germanic
words recognized in French are Frankish seems to point to the conclusion
that the most important German influence came with Chlodowig—i.e.
after our period. Here, then, is a point which we would recommend for
philological research: an estimation of the relative importance of
Germanic influence in Gaul, after the third-century invasions and after
those of the fifth.
Sidonius has given us a few glimpses of Gothic life in Gaul towards the
end of the fifth century. Theodoric, whose ‘civilitas’ he commends,[137]
does not load his table with tasteless profusion: ‘maximum tunc pondus
in verbis est’. And it is to his credit that in his case, ‘cibi arte,
non pretio placent’.[138] A wise balance is kept: ‘videas ibi elegantiam
Graecam, abundantiam Gallicanam, celeritatem Italam.’ He does not go
in for those cheap amusements which were all too common as meal-time
entertainments: there is no hydraulic organ, no choir, no flute, or lyre
or performing girl.[139] If we take this with Salvian’s panegyrics on the
morals of the Goths, it may not perhaps be unjustifiable to conclude that
the Gothic element gave some stability to the moral education of Southern
Gaul.
Intellectually, too, they stood high. It is not without significance
that Arbogast (391-2) made his nominee for the Empire a former teacher
of rhetoric. Seronatus speaks of ‘literature among the Goths’,[140]
and Sidonius praises Arbogast, who, though ‘potor Mosellae’ is famous
for his Roman eloquence and commits no barbarism, in spite of living
among barbarians.[141] The greater part of the nobility understood
Latin well, though Gothic was probably spoken in ordinary intercourse.
The lower classes among the Goths understood Latin very imperfectly.
At the collapse of the conspiracy vaguely mentioned by Sidonius[142]
an interpreter is used. The persons concerned were clearly Goths. And
Ennodius speaks of an interpreter at an interview between Euric and
Epiphanius, when the latter made a speech in Latin.[143] But Latin was
preponderant. It was the language of diplomacy[144] and legislation;
it was the language of a mighty civilization, and of Placidia, the wife
of Ataulf. Theodoric II was trained by Avitus in Latin literature, and
Euric encourages the teaching of classical literature. Lampridius sang
in praise of the Gothic kings at Bordeaux, and Leo, Euric’s minister,
was famous as a rhetorician. In fact, the Visigothic court became the
last refuge of Roman letters.[145] Nor did the activity of the Goths end
with literature. In 484, feeling the complexity and difficulty of the
Theodosian code, they called a conference of lawyers and ecclesiastics
who produced an abridged form, with interpretations, which was
destined[146] to replace the older code throughout the country occupied
by the Goths. That there were schools of jurisprudence in this part,
notably at Arles, we gather from Sidonius.[147] Fauriel thinks this
revised form, published A.D. 506, bore traces of the Germanic spirit and
tradition, and was, in comparison with the Roman code, ‘plus concise et
mieux rédigée’.
There is no doubt that a large number of people in Gaul welcomed the
government of the Goths, whose influence was thereby extended to the
classes whose interest did not reach to books and codes. For the poor,
crushed by the cast-iron imperial system, looked to the Goths as their
deliverers, and the middle classes, oppressed with taxation, welcomed
any change, while many eagerly sought the service of the Gothic
government.[148] ‘Sed Gothicam fateor pacem me esse secutum’, says
Paulinus of Pella,[149] who, though a nobleman, preferred Gothic rule,
because he felt how uncertain imperial protection was becoming. He also
mentions the ‘summa humanitas’ which the Goths showed in shielding the
people on whom they were billeted.[150] Generally speaking, he was
satisfied with Gothic rule: it was quite profitable, in spite of his many
and great sufferings.[151]
Under these circumstances it was easy to forget Rome. ‘Rome était si loin
de Bordeaux’, remarks Rocafort.[152] And so Gallo-Romans very often came
to treat their Gothic neighbours on terms of friendliness and equality.
But among the upper classes of the Gallo-Romans generally Roman pride was
still very strong. They held high offices at the court of the barbarians,
for whom they cherished a secret contempt, or else retired to their great
châteaux[153] (ruins of which are still to be seen[154]) and bewailed
to one another the encroachment of the Goths, who retained, to a large
extent, their lawless and roving instinct. There is a feeling that
literature and religion (in both of which we see, though in different
degrees, the growth of a ceremonious externalism) are the only things
left. Sidonius asks Basilius to see to it that the bishops obtain the
right of ordination in those parts which the Goths have taken, so that
there may be, at any rate, a religious if not a political bond.[155] And
both in religion and literature they despised the Goths. For the Goths
were Arians, and their jargon was barbarous. The well-known epigram of
the Latin Anthology[156] expresses the attitude of mind:
Inter _hails_ goticum, _scap jah matjan jah drigkan_
non audet quisquam dignos educere versus.
How can one write poetry, exclaims Sidonius, among people who put rancid
oil on their hair? ‘The Muse of the six-foot metre has scorned her task,
since the appearance of patrons seven feet high.’[157] And to Philagrius
he confesses: ‘barbaros vitas quia mali putentur: ego etiamsi boni’.[158]
How sensitive men of Sidonius’s class were to the charge of barbarism we
may see from Avitus’s letter to Viventiolus.[159] Rumour whispers that
in one of his sermons he has slipped into a ‘barbarism’, and his friends
are openly criticizing. ‘I confess’, says the bishop with wounded pride,
‘that such a thing may have happened to me. Any learning I may have had
in more youthful years is now the spoil of age, “omnia fert aetas”’—a
Virgilian quotation to indicate that, in spite of his profession to his
friend, his ‘studia litterarum’ still remain to mark his culture. The
barbarism at issue is the quantity of the middle syllable of ‘potitur’,
to which he devotes most of the letter.
Thus to the nobleman of the fifth century, even if he was a churchman
and might, therefore, be expected to take the wider Christian view,
culture meant something essentially Roman. By the side of this Roman
culture Germanic influence must seem small, and yet, when we remember the
attitude of men like Paulinus of Pella to the Goths, and allow a margin
for Sidonius’s prejudice, it cannot seem unimportant in the civilization
of Gaul.
5. ROMANIZATION OF GAUL
Having glanced at the negative side of Gallic Romanization, it is
important to look a little closer at the positive side, in order to form
an idea of the extent of Gallo-Roman education.
How mighty the Roman impress was is seen in the many Roman roads,
the amphitheatres, the inscriptions where Gauls very often appear as
priests of Rome and Augustus, in the famous altar at Lyons, mentioned by
Juvenal,[160] on which the sixty peoples of Gallia Comata inscribed their
names after the pacification of the country by Drusus in 12 B.C., and
which formed the common sanctuary for the province, and was the scene of
regular rhetorical contests in Latin and in Greek.[161] And the speech of
Claudius to the Senate[162] shows how eager the emperors were to speed on
the rapidly advancing Romanization of Gaul.
Traditionally, Aquitaine was the first to be Romanized. Ammianus remarks
that the shores of the Aquitanians were easily accessible to merchants,
and that their characters were soon degraded to effeminacy, so that
they easily passed under Roman domination.[163] But Lyons was the real
centre of systematic Romanization. Thence Latin spread widely among the
Gauls, who have left us no record of their Gallic Latin.[164] By the
fifth century the victory of Latin was complete. It was the language of
civilization, of government, of society. Slaves brought from all parts of
the world made a common language between master and servant a necessity.
Soldiers settled in Gaul spread its influence. Finally, it was the
official language of the Church and (a fact which was most important for
its propagation) of the School.[165]
It is a tribute to the thoroughness of Caesar’s work that when Classicus
rebelled in A.D. 70[166] his associates were two Julii, one of whom
tried to pass himself off as a descendant of the Dictator, while the
other assumed the insignia of the Roman Emperor. So mighty was the
Roman name that even its enemies in attacking it desired a part of its
glory. ‘Between Classicus and the first Buonaparte’, says Freeman,[167]
‘no man again dreamed of an Empire of the Gauls.’ And Strabo had some
justification when he spoke of the Gauls as δεδουλωμένοι καὶ ζῶντες κατὰ
τὰ προστάγματα τῶν ἑλόντων αὐτοὺς Ῥωμαίων.[168]
Not that the feeling against Rome entirely disappeared. The Gauls
objected to the luxury of the Roman emperors,[169] and we have such
incidents as the Treveri shutting their gates to Decentius, brother
of Magnentius.[170] Lampridius speaks of ‘Gallicanae mentes ... durae
ac pertorridae, et saepe imperatoribus graves’.[171] Zosimus tells
us that after the fall of the usurper Constantine[172] in A.D. 411
the whole of the Armorican land cast out its Roman rulers. But in the
main the Roman machine worked efficiently enough by keeping the border
tribes busy with feuds among themselves, and the mass of the people
with oppressive exactions. There are many references to the loyalty of
Gaul, from the exulting cry of Cicero in the _Philippics_[173] to the
enthusiasm of Rutilius Namatianus. Pliny[174] calls Narbonensis ‘Italia
verius quam provincia’. Claudian represents the whole of Gaul as fighting
for Stilicho,[175] Gaul which supplies the Empire with soldiers.[176]
Before him the panegyrists of the emperors—the majority of whom were
Gauls—had been loud in their testimonies of Gaul’s loyalty. The orator
of Autun[177] boasts (A.D. 311) that his city, rejoicing then in the
imperial title of ‘Flavia Aeduorum’, had been the only one to join the
Romans of its own free will—though Caesar records the subjugation of the
Aedui in much the same way as that of the other tribes. Of purer fidelity
than Massilia or Saguntum, the Aedui are ‘ingenua et simplici caritate
fratres populi Romani’. The hollowness of the speaker’s rhetoric deceives
no one; but it shows that there was at least a large part of Gaul which
considered such speeches ‘the correct thing’, and that confidence in
Rome’s destiny was widely felt: the fate-appointed eternal city,
whose menacing enemies had all been rooted out.[178] Much more genuine
is Rutilius. He feels that Gaul is his native country,[179] but the
enthusiasm he shows for Rome is more than the mere official utterance of
a Praefect of the City. There is real inspiration in his lines, in spite
of Gibbon’s opinion that he was only an ‘ingenious traveller’.[180]
Te canimus semperque, sinent dum fata, canemus:
sospes nemo potest immemor esse tui,
obruerint citius scelerata oblivia solem,
quam tuus ex nostro corde recedat honos.[181]
Even if conquered peoples chafe under the yoke of Rome at first, Rutilius
is confident that it is all for their good:
Profuit invitis, te dominante, capi.
The great achievement of the Empire is that it made a city of the world:
‘urbem fecisti quod prius orbis erat’. Rome, he maintains, is greater
than her deeds: ‘Quod regnas minus est quam quod regnare mereris’. And as
her buildings dazzle his sight, he exclaims in admiration:
Ipsos crediderim sic habitare deos.[182]
The whole of Gaul was not equally loyal. While the South remained
predominantly Roman to the end, the North, ‘audax Germania’, Claudian
calls it,[183] was less friendly, and its hostility increased as time
went on.
The Aeduan panegyrist, who implores help for the future from the Emperor
Constantine, while he thanks him for the benefits of the past, shows
the bearing of physical features upon this difference between North
and South.[184] In contrast with the cultivated fields of the South,
its ‘viae faciles’, its ‘navigera flumina’, we find in Belgica ‘vasta
omnia, inculta squalentia, multa tenebrosa, etiam militaris vias ita
confragosas et alternis montibus arduas atque praecipites, ut vix
semiplena carpenta, interdum vacua, transmittant’. The roads are very bad
(_regionum nostrarum aditum atque aspectum tam foedum tamque asperum_),
and even an ardent panegyrist must admit that loyalty is damped, when,
in addition to an exiguous harvest, you must experience difficulties of
transport. It is remarkable how important a part the road plays in the
Roman Empire, one way or another. Here, barbarism on the one hand and bad
roads on the other proved a formidable combination against civilization.
It is not surprising to find, therefore, that as we go north traces of
Gallo-Roman schools become fewer, inscriptions bearing on education
almost non-existent, and Greek almost unknown.
But the testimony of literature to the Romanization of Gaul is far
less eloquent than that of the extant remains. The modern traveller in
Provence might well be tempted to exclaim with Pliny ‘Italia verius quam
provincia’. The theatres and amphitheatres at Fréjus and Arles, the arch
and theatre at Orange, the temple of Augustus and Livia at Vienne, and
above all the Maison Carrée, the Porta Augusta and the Thermae at Nîmes,
and the neighbouring Pont du Gard, challenge comparison with the great
buildings of Italy and even of Rome herself. And these are but the most
notable examples of evidence which may be found in less degree in almost
every village of Provence.
Outside the ‘old province’, though the evidence is naturally less
impressive in bulk and less widely spread in area, yet the walls and
gates of Autun, the amphitheatre at Paris, the Porte de Mars at Reims,
the arch at Langres, the Porte Noire and amphitheatre at Besançon, and
the theatre at remote Lillebonne, tell the tale of Roman influence on the
Tres Galliae; and to these must be added the great buildings of Trèves
which, as an imperial capital, occupies a place apart.
And what is writ large on these great monuments is written no less
unmistakably in the contents of the French museums. That of the
world-famous statues of Venus three come from Narbonensis is significant
of the taste of Gallic connoisseurs. These great masterpieces were of
course imported, but the discoveries at Martres Tolosanes attest the
existence of local schools of sculpture.[185] Even if the reliefs of
Gallic tombstones in the north and centre diverge somewhat sharply from
the Roman convention in preferring the naturalistic to the allegorical
in their choice of subject, yet the form is predominantly classical. And
the readiness of Gaul to learn the industrial arts of Italy is strikingly
proved by its pottery. The manufacture of the red ‘Arretine’ ware or
‘terra sigillata’ was already flourishing among the Ruteni in the first
century A.D., and met with such success that it was actually exported to
Italy, and finally displaced the home product.[186] In this useful if
humble art, Gaul, like Greece, took captive her captor.
The causes of this all but complete Romanization are not far to seek.
The sword of Caesar was mighty and its argument efficient. Part of this
argument the Romans always retained, but as time went on they mingled
diplomacy with their militarism. The altar at Lyons had its persuasive
side, though the spirit that moved the orator’s tongue was no doubt
quickened by the scourge and the river in the background. Yet imperial
policy is as clearly seen here as in the utterances of the panegyrists,
who are regularly employed to publish the prince’s praises. Caracalla’s
extension of the citizenship to provincials is part of the same policy
(A.D. 212).
Not to exterminate the barbarian tribes, but to bring them within
the Empire as cultivators and soldiers, was the aim of the later
emperors[187]—an aim which they sometimes followed with ruthless
cruelty.[188] Of Constantine the panegyrist says that he entirely cleared
Batavia of the Franks who had occupied it, and made them live among
Romans, so that they might lose not only their arms but also their savage
temper.[189] He brought the barbarous Franks from their original homes
in the distant North to till the soil and to fill the armies of the Roman
Empire.[190]
Moreover, as Glover[191] remarks, the schoolmaster of the West was the
ally of the Empire. The elaborate system of imperial protection in the
schools had in view the important object of Romanizing the growing
generation. Besides, by increasing lines of communication, by rendering
news and books accessible, by making intercourse secure, the emperors
helped forward Roman influence. The security which the provincial felt in
the protection of the Eternal City was one of the strongest pillars of
loyalty. The effect of Alaric’s success upon minds like those of Jerome
and Augustine, critical as they were of Pagan Rome, is some measure of
the confidence which people felt in her power. Yet even after Rome had
deserted the Gauls in the great invasions of the fifth century, we have
the picture of Sidonius’s passionate ardour for the Roman name and his
bitter grief when he ceased to be a Roman citizen in 475.
‘Birth in the Gallic provinces during the fourth century brought with
it no sense of provincial inferiority. Society was thoroughly Roman,
and education and literature more vigorous, so far as we can judge,
than in any other part of the West.’[192] While we agree with this in
the main, it may be questioned whether the Roman did not sometimes tend
to look on the Gaul as a mere provincial. In the first century we find
Pliny saying that he is pleased to hear that his books are being sold
at Lyons, where he evidently does not expect so civilized a thing as
a book-shop.[193] Symmachus, in the fourth century, writes[194] to a
friend in Gaul ‘rusticari te asseris ... non hoc litterae tuae sapiunt’,
and adds sarcastically ‘nisi forte Gallia tua dedux Heliconis’. And
Cassiodorus (sixth century) implies that there were some who thought
that Latin literature should be confined to Rome. ‘You have found Roman
eloquence’ he writes to a friend, ‘not in its native place, and you have
learned oratory from your Cicero in the country of the Celts. What are
we to think of those who maintain that Latin must be learnt at Rome and
Rome only? Liguria too sends forth her Ciceros.’[195] A protest of this
kind as late as the sixth century suggests that the idea of provincialism
was pretty strong. One of the panegyrists,[196] a Gaul[197] of uncertain
name,[198] illustrates this same tendency. And though his words are
probably as insincere as his praise of the Emperor, yet they imply a
tradition which he found it expedient to recognize.
‘Full well I know how much we provincials lack of Roman intelligence.
For, indeed, to speak correctly and eloquently is the Roman’s birthright
... our speech must ever flow from their fountain.’[199]
6. ROMAN EDUCATION IN GAUL BEFORE THE FOURTH CENTURY A.D.
The extent of Romanization in Gaul gives us a general idea of the
influence of Roman civilization in that country; for wherever the Roman
went he spread his culture. It remains to investigate very briefly the
traces of actual schools and teachers in the times that lead up to the
fourth and fifth centuries.
As early as the first century B.C. we hear of Gaul in connexion
with education. ‘In provincias quoque’, says Suetonius, ‘Grammatica
penetraverat, ac nonnulli de notissimis doctoribus peregre docuerunt,
maxime in Gallia Togata.’[200] Tacitus made all the speakers in his
dialogue on Famous Orators Gauls,[201] except Vipstanus Messalla, and
Suetonius tells of many Gallic teachers: Marcus Antonius Gnipho, who
taught in the house of Julius Caesar and is said to have had Cicero among
his pupils;[202] Valerius Cato (first century B.C.), a Gallic freedman,
known as ‘the Latin siren’, who wrote a book called _Indignatio_, and
taught many youths of high rank, being especially famous as a teacher of
poetry;[203] and Claudius Quirinalis of Arles,[204] who taught with great
success in the first century A.D.
Schools were widely spread. ‘Il n’y a pas lieu de douter’, says
Bouquet,[205] ‘qu’il n’y eût dès lors (first century A.D.) autant
d’écoles publiques qu’il y avait de villes principales.’ Narbonne,
stirred by the culture of the neighbouring Massilia,[206] Arles, Vienne,
Toulouse, Autun, Lyons, the scene of Caligula’s famous rhetorical
contests and the imperial seat before Trèves and Arles, Trèves, Nîmes,
Bordeaux, and a large number of other towns, ‘cultivated learning
and produced great men’. Jullian thinks that Bourges was probably a
scholastic centre of some importance.[207] Claudius, the Emperor,
remarked: ‘insignes viros e Gallia Narbonensi transivisse’.[208]
Tradition says that Toulouse was called Palladia on account of its love
of letters,[209] and Martial rejoices that his poems are so widely
read at Vienne.[210] It may not be mere rhetoric when Tacitus says
that Roman education came to Britain from Gaul, and that Agricola, in
his attempt to Romanize the Britanni, took a particular interest in
their education.[211] ‘Iam vero principum filios liberalibus artibus
erudire, et ingenia Britannorum studiis Gallorum anteferre,[212] ut qui
modo linguam Romanam abnuebant, eloquentiam concupiscerent.’ Thus the
educational influence of Gaul was early great.
During the second century education continued to flourish. Lucian[213]
introduces a Gaul οὐκ ἀπαίδευτος τὰ ἡμέτερα ... ἀκριβῶς Ἑλλάδα φωνὴν
ἀφιείς, φιλόσοφος, ὡς οἶμαι, τὰ ἐπιχώρια, who discourses in learned
fashion on the question whether Mercury or Hercules should be the patron
god of the art of speaking. It was the time of the wandering rhetor—‘die
zweite Sophistik’—and Greek flourished under the patronage of the
philhellenic Hadrian. Aulus Gellius has left us a picture of the pupils
escorting the sophist from place to place. ‘Nos ergo familiares eius
circumfusi undique eum prosequebamur domum’;[214] and in the case of
Favorinus at Rome they went about with him ‘spellbound, as it were, by
his eloquence’.[215] Intercourse was quite free and easy and not always
serious: ‘in litteris amoenioribus et in voluptatibus pudicis honestisque
agitabamus.’[216] These literary clubs set the fashion for the rhetorical
schools and perpetuated the distinctive methods of the Greek- and
Latin-speaking sophist-rhetorician—‘rhetoricus sophista, utriusque
linguae callens’.[217]
Almost all records of the Gallic rhetors during this interesting period
have been lost. The letters of Valerius Paulinus, of Geminus, of
Trebonius Rufinus to the younger Pliny, the orations of the lawyers,
the books of the famous philosopher Favorinus, the poems of Sentius
Augurinus, have all perished. Only the work of L. Annaeus Florus has come
down to us.[218] Yet the general trend of education may be discerned.
If one great feature of this century was the wandering sophist, another
was the power of the Christian religion, whose influence went forth
from Lyons in particular, where Irenaeus was predominant. ‘Christi
religio novam admovit oratorum ingenio facem.’[219] This influence has
been exaggerated, especially by eighteenth-century writers. One of them
lays stress on the revival of the finer accomplishments as a result of
this influence, and on the dignity and polish of language in which the
Christian writers agreed with the ancients.[220] This is manifestly an
overstatement: the Church on the whole had neither the time nor the
inclination to pay much attention to ‘elegantiora studia’; its attention
was directed to the search for truth and it is hence that its real
inspiration to education came.
We find imperial interest in education during this period beginning to
take a more definite form. Antoninus Pius gives teachers’ salaries and
honours,[221] and fixes the number of rhetors in each town. No doubt the
influence of M. Cornelius Fronto, the famous tutor of Marcus Aurelius,
the model of succeeding generations of orators, told in this direction.
In a fragment of this teacher we have a reference which seems to point
to schools in the North during the second century. He speaks of Reims
(_Durocortorum_) as ‘illae vestrae Athenae’[222], and it would not be
surprising if the imperial policy had selected this important frontier
town as a centre of Romanization, just as it afterwards patronized Trèves
for the same purpose.
In the third century a large number of churches sprang up, whose
educational value among the people must have been important.[223] Pagan
letters, on the other hand, had been showing signs of decline since
the end of the second century. Under Caracalla, who in his hatred for
literature put to death many men of education,[224] culture sank still
lower. It is true that Alexander Severus was a patron of literature[225]
and founded schools[226] and fixed salaries, but the general trend of
education was one of decline. Barbarian invasions and civil unrest
increased this tendency.[227] And so Gaul was disorganized, and amid her
disorder education grew feeble. But when in 292 Gaul passed under the
government of Constantius Chlorus, interest in culture revived and grew
strong. Constantius fixed his abode at Trèves and actively set himself to
aid the cause of education. The school of Massilia was declining, but,
on the whole, Gallic education grew and gained individuality. Eumenius
has told us at length how much the Gallic youth owed to his interest and
protection (_incredibilem erga iuventutem Galliarum suarum sollicitudinem
atque indulgentiam_), and how thankful he is to the Emperor who
transferred him ‘from the secrets of the imperial chambers (he had been
Magister Memoriae) to the private shrines of the Muses’.[228]
Autun is mentioned by Tacitus[229] as a centre of education in the time
of Tiberius: ‘nobilissimam Galliarum subolem, liberalibus studiis ibi
operatam’. It flourished until the last quarter of the third century,
when it was destroyed by the plundering Bagaudae.[230] Eumenius
pleads earnestly with the Emperor for the restoration of the famous
Maeniana,[231] ‘vetustissima post Massiliam bonarum artium sedes,’[232]
the university of the North even, perhaps, in pre-Roman[233] days, just
as Massilia was of the South—the Latin university of Gaul as Massilia was
the Greek. Of all the Gallic towns, except Lyons, Autun was the soonest
Romanized, though no Roman colony had been sent there.[234] It had the
Aeduan tradition of voluntary friendship with Rome. Its Gallic nobles had
renounced Celtic connexions in favour of Roman civilization. There was a
current legend that Autun had been founded by Hercules; like the Romans,
the Aeduans wanted to establish an ancestry for themselves which did not
smack of barbarism. If Lyons in these days was the political centre, the
intellectual centre was certainly Autun.[235]