_A difference and controuersie betwene a maister and a scholler, so
subtile that the iudges coulde not geue sentence._
Diuers thinges be written, whiche although they seme of litle
importaunce, yet they be wittie and comfortable to recreate honest
mindes and deserue to be had in remembraunce. Emongs whiche Aulus
Gellius (who reporteth tenne of the former Histories, selected out of
his booke _De noctibus atticis_) remembreth this pretie controuersie. In
Athenes there was a yong man, called Euathlus, who being desirous to be
an Orator, and a pleading Aduocate, to the intent he might postulate,
according to the accustomed maner of Athenes in those daies, accorded
vpon a price, with a renowned Oratour named Protagoras, that he should
instruct him that arte, for a price agreed vpon betwene them, vpon
condicion that the Scholler should pay the one half of the money before
hande vnto his maister, and the reste at such time as he should proue to
be an Aduocate, so well instructed, as the first matter, which he did
pleade, he should obtaine sentence on his side, and gayne for his labour
and industrie. But if sentence were pronounced against hym, he should
not be bound to paye the same. Vppon this conclusion, the Maister
taughte hym with greate diligence, the vttermoste of his knowledge in
that arte. The Scholler againe learned and receyued his teaching, with
greate prompitude and readinesse of witte. When Protagoras hadde taught
him the vttermost of his knowledge: the Scholler Euathlus, to defraude
hym of the reste of his money, determined neuer to be Aduocate, whose
craft Protagoras perceiuing, cited him by writte, to appeare before the
iudge, to aunswere the reste of the bargaine. When they were both come
in the Iudges presence, Protagoras spake to his scholer in this wyse:
“Euathlus, the bargaine betweene vs, thou canst not chose but confesse
and acknowledge, whiche in effect is this. It was agreed that I should
teache thee, the arte of pleading, and in the first matter whiche thou
diddest pronounce and sentence giuen on thy parte, thou shouldest paye
me the other halfe of the money (for the first moitie I receiued before
hande) and nowe to auoyde the satisfaction thereof (although thou
knowest, that I haue full well deserued it) thou to defraude me of my
duetie, refusest to be an Aduocate. But I wil tell thee, this thy
determination is but vayne and frustrate: for I haue intangled thee in
suche nettes, as thou canst not escape: but by one meane or other thou
shalt be forced to pay mee. For if the Iudge doe condempne thee, then
maugre thy head thou shalt be constrayned: and if contrariwyse sentence
be giuen on thy side, thou shalt be likewyse bounde to paye me, by thy
verie couenaunt, sithens thou art bounde, when thou pleadest first, and
sentence should be giuen in thy behalfe. Doe nowe then what thou liste,
for in fine thou fhalt be forced to paye me, in despite of thy teethe.”
All the assistantes held with Protagoras, affirming his suite to be very
reasonable. Notwithstanding Euathlus with a bolde spirite, aunswered for
him selfe in this maner: “Sir Protagoras, it semeth vnto you that I am
conuicted, but staye a whyle and giue me leaue to speake: and then you
shall perceiue in what wyse I will confounde your argument. Here you
haue brought your action against me, wherof I truste vpon my reasonable
answere before the Iudges, to be discharged. For if by this your
pleading, by circumstaunces and arte of an Oratour, whiche you haue vsed
in all your discourse, the matter shall fall so out as sentence be giuen
on your side, then the bargayne made betwene vs is voyde and of none
effecte, bicause I losing the profite of my firste pleading: wherein by
our agrement sentence should be geuen on my behalfe, the same bargaine
is not accomplished. For you should be payde the moitie of the money
behinde, with that commoditie, which I did gayne by my first pleading:
for whiche cause, there is no reason but I must bee discharged of your
demaunde.” After this debating of the matter, the Iudges wayed with
argumentes of both parts whiche semed so doubtfull vnto them, that
knowing not howe to giue sentence, they suspended the processe.
The same Aulus Gellius, reciteth an other lyke question, whiche hee
referreth to Plinie, as the firste authour thereof. There was a lawe
(sayeth hee) in a certayne citie, that what so euer hee were, that
committed any valiaunte facte of armes, the thyng that he demaunded,
whatsoeuer it were, should be graunted vnto him. It chaunced that a
certayne persone did this worthy acte, and required that a man’s wife
(whom he derely loued) should be giuen vnto him: whiche wyfe by force
and vertue of the lawe, was accordingly deliuered. But afterwardes the
man, from whome his wyfe was taken, did the lyke facte, and demaunding
his wyfe to be redeliuered vnto him agayn, sayde vnto him that had her:
“If thou wilt obserue the lawe, thou must of force deliuer vnto me, my
wyfe, but if thou do not like the lawe, thou oughtest yet to render her
vnto me, as mine owne.” The other aunswered him in like sorte: “If thou
obserue the lawe, this woman is myne, for I haue first wonne her by the
lawe: but if thou do not approue the lawe, thou hast no right to
demaunde her, shee nowe being myne.”