Pedagogues in Rome and Greece: Dominion of the Fathers

Pedagogues in Rome and Greece: Dominion of the FathersReese 1

The bond that developed between a child and a pedagogue was

often one that was reinforced for life. For most of a boy’s

childhood his pedagogue was his constant companion, his teacher,

moralist, bodyguard and life-guide. More than any other person,

his pedagogue was there for him. This relationship was not

perfect; often pedagogues have been cited in texts for their

strictness and for being quick to censure. Pedagogues earned a

reputation for being dour old men and the grown men of Rome —who

in many texts were senators—would joke of them and say if a

pedagogue was near then one must turn his eyes to the ground.

Despite this attitude and reputation, most men write fondly of

their pedagogues, and many pedagogues earned their freedom owing

to the service they provided their ward. Even if they did not

receive outright freedom, some were given honored positions at

the side of the child they served for so many years. The

relationship between pedagogue and child was unique and is worthy

of exploring for its singularity.


In Ancient Rome, life was much the same for aristocratic

boys (and sometimes, though very infrequently, girls) as for

modern well-to-do children. They would learn the basics from

their nurses, such as the Greek language alongside their native

Latin. By the time they reached the age of seven or eight, most

children would be able to read and write fluently in both

languages. At this point, when the child, most often a boy, was

ready for the next stage in his schooling, that he was given a

pedagogue, who would accompany him through this stage of life,

until he reached adulthood which was a rather subjective age.

The pedagogue was a slave, and generally expected to be

educated in some regard. It was the pedagogue’s duty to protect

his charge both physically and morally. He was also somewhat

responsible for the education of his charge. What this usually

meant was escorting him to and from school, attending him while

he was worked at school, making sure he paid attention to his

lessons, and also tutoring him at home. But, as stated before,

education was not his only concern; he was also tasked with the


moral and physical well being of his charge as well. What we

know about pedagogues has been passed on to us through general

educational texts, letters, and dialogues.

Many ancient authors mentioned pedagogues, most only in

passing, though a few mention pedagogues at length in reference

to character. Quintilian, Suetonius, Plutarch, Libanius and

Valerius Maximus all discuss pedagogues throughout the course of

their works. Quintilian’s first book especially discusses the

pedagogue as he delineates what is necessary for a child to be

successful as an orator. Libanius also has much to offer in way

of information on pedagogues and their function in ancient Greek

society.

The secondary sources available in the way of pedagogues are

spare. Most information can be found in journal articles rather

than books. A few books, which do offer information, are,

generally, Stanley Bonner’s Education in Ancient Rome, which offers an

excellent overview of the education system, this can also be said

of Aubrey Gwynn’s Roman Education from Cicero to Quintilian. In regards


to articles, A.V. Yannicopoulos’s “The Pedagogue in Antiquity”

and Norman H. Young’s “The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor”

are both quite informative. Also, Beryl Rawson’s book, Children

and Childhood in Roman Italy adds much needed insight and overview

into the life of a child in Rome.

The idea of the pedagogue was not unique to Roman culture.

In fact, the Romans adopted the practice from the Greeks. The

Greek version of the pedagogue was slightly different in that

each family had a pedagogue, not each child. Beyond this, the

functions performed by the Greek and Roman pedagogues were

essentially the same. Generally, Romans had more slaves than

Greeks; however, Roman society utilized the function of the

pedagogue much more specifically for its aspect of control, due

to their practices of liberorum quaerendum gratia and patria potestas.

Commonly, in Roman society the family was the pillar of an

individual’s life, family was essentially, their identity.

Family, rather the entire familia, exerted a control to which the

state could only later try to make claims. The paterfamilias, who


was the eldest male and the head of the family, literally held

the power of life and death over all in his familia whether they

resided in his household or not.

At times, members of the familia did not reside in the

paterfamilia’s house, for example, his grown sons could very well be

married and have children of their own. This grown son would live

in his own house, but would still be under his father’s

authority. The paterfamilia’s daughter, when married, more often

stayed in her familia instead of her husband’s (sine manu marriage),

but there were options which transferred her to her husband’s

patria potestas (confarreatio, coemptio, and usus marriage would all place

the woman in the paterfamilia of her husband).1 This did not mean,

however, that she stayed living in her father’s house, it only

meant that her husband did not have legal control over her.

Despite the status of the mother, the children always came

under the authority of their father’s patria potestas, whether that

be the father himself, or the father’s father. At birth, the

1 Beryl Rawson, "The Roman Family," in The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, ed. Beryl Rawson (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986), 20, 19.


paterfamilias had the right to decide if the child was to live or to

die. Before he examined the child, the midwife would inspect the

infant as well and offer her verdict of viability to add to his

scrutiny. The paterfamilias would take many factors beyond this

suggestion into account, such as the family’s financial ability

to care for the child, the inheritance of this child as well as

how much the inheritances of any other child would be affected by

the survival of this child. If the child was a girl the

paterfamilias had to consider the family’s ability to provide a

proper dowry for her so she would have marriage prospects of the

proper class. Needless to say the first few moments of a child’s

life were some of the most important in his or her life. This is

not to say though that the child was expected to live through his

or her childhood. There is a running debate among scholars as to

whether girls were exposed at a higher rate than male infants.

It has long been stated that girls were more often exposed than

boys.2 Beryl Rawson counters this argument stating there is no

evidence that girls were exposed at a higher rate than boys and 2 Eva Cantarella, Pandora's Daughters: The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antiquity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), 115.


there would have been a serious imbalance in the population if

this were indeed the case.3

For all the “modern marvels” of the Ancient Roman world,

childhood disease was still rampant and grief-stricken parents

were left behind to mourn and memorialize the loss of their

beloved child.4 Also at risk were the young mothers, who were

often still in their early teens when bearing children. Too

often they died in childbirth and it was not uncommon for an

Aristocratic widower to marry time and again. Furthermore,

Augustus made the condition of marriage, law, for the Roman

aristocrat during his reign due to a serious population crisis.5

Each new marriage, whether due to death or divorce of the

partners, brought a massive new dynamic to the household. As

part of her dowry and personal effects, the new bride would bring

her slaves into her new husband’s house. At this point, the

3 Beryl Rawson, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 153.4 Beryl Rawson, "The Iconography of Roman Childhood," in The Roman Family in Italy: Status, Space and Sentiment, ed. Beryl Rawson and Paul Weaver (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997).5 Rawson, “The Roman Family,” 31.


slaves now belonged to the familia of the bride’s husband, whether

that was him or his father.

Another part of the familia were any former slaves who had

been freed, now formally referred to as Freedmen, though still

bound to the household of their former master and were obligated

to him in many regards. The de facto members of the familia were

the children of the household slaves known as vernae. The vernae

were often raised with their master’s children and were

frequently given the benefit of the same primary education that

they received. More problematic in definition were the alumni

who may or may not have been slaves. The best definition eminent

ancient Roman child scholar Beryl Rawson can give them is foster

children, though they very well could have been apprentices,

slaves, or even simply adopted children.6

In the social hierarchy of Roman society, the slaves would

reside on the base, the freedmen above them, the freeborn at the

next level, then the Patricians at the top with many categories

6 Beryl Rawson, "Children in the Roman Familia," in The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, ed. Beryl Rawson (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986), 173.


within each of these generalizations. At every level in society

there were social controls, some legally prescribed, some self-

imposed; the slaves were subject to their owners, the freedmen,

to their former masters, and the freeborn to the laws of the

Aristocrats. External this social hierarchy, within a family

there was a rigid hierarchy of power as well, which delineated

who could do what at which time, with whom. The issue at the

heart of this power is patrias potestas, which was the right of the

eldest male of the familia (which was distinct from a family in

that the familia encompassed the family plus dependants such as

slaves and unmarried children, whereas a family generally

comprised only the nuclear family) to make the decisions for the

entire familia.

As stated above, this power was utilized in the lives of the

children of the familia but its extent was much more comprehensive

than this. The paterfamilias exercised financial control over all

members of the familia and acted also as a chief magistrate in

legal affairs before the courts were firmly established. Even


after the state set the courts in place, some issues, such as

adultery, the courts dictated were still in the realm of the

paterfamilias to handle.7 The main role of the paterfamilias according

to Eva Cantarella, however, was fiscal. Because no son under the

control of his pater was financially independent, he could not run

for political office, entertain guests, or speculate in business

without the consent and financial support of his father.8 In

fact, an adult male with a living father could not even choose

his own bride without his father’s consent.

Because of these constraints, it has been speculated by Paul

Veyne that parricide was often on the mind of young Aristocratic

Romans who wanted to be fully a part of the world, instead of

mere observers.9 Cantarella relates, “…the key to understanding

the relationship between generations is in the legal powers of

the father. Over the centuries historians too, have viewed Roman

paternal authority as the very basis of Roman social stability

7 Rawson, “The Roman Family,” 16. 8 Eva Cantarella, "Fathers and Sons in Rome," The Classical World 96 (Spring 2003): 281-298. JSTOR. www.jstor.org/, 287-288.9 Ibid., 283.


and political order.”10 A running argument has been that the

Romans were a paternalistic, authoritarian society, which

imprisoned its adult sons under extremely harsh restrictions

until the passing of the father. This led to a state of men who

wished nothing more than the death of their aged fathers, which

in turn, shaped the entire society.

Richard Saller took up this question of disgruntled adult

men under the control of patria potestas. He, alongside Brent Shaw

(who worked along the same veins as Saller, but with a different

topic, Shaw studying women) conducted a study, and what they

determined is only one in five men and two in five women had a

living father when they were married.11 These statistics hardly

account for a murderous society bent on destroying their paters,

though Canterella does point out that those whose pater was still

alive would feel even more disadvantaged than their cohorts,

leading them to far more aggressive attitudes and they would be

more likely to take extreme measures.12

10 Ibid., 282.11 Ibid., 286.12 Ibid., 298.


What is most relevant to this paper however, is the

frequency with which we see fathers alive to see their sons grow

into adulthood. Fathers more often did not see their sons mature

into men; they only saw their sons as young adults and children.

Because of this, it becomes easier to understand and accept the

reliance fathers had on pedagogues, and the attachment the

children generally had to the pedagogue, which often lasted into

adulthood. Fathers needed to be assured that even if something

happened to them, there would be a figure in place to guide their

son into manhood. Furthermore, because of the presence of the

pedagogue, the father could spend long hours engaged in his work

or years away at military campaigns safe in the knowledge that

his son was being brought up well.

Another reason for this reliance of pedagogues is the legal

standard to which the upper class was held in regards to

procreation. Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, a senator

with a long political career, includeding a consulship, delivered

a speech as early as 131 B.C.E., which stated that the reason for


marriage was procreation and no other reason. Indeed, he took

this a step farther said that all sex within marriage was for the

sake of creating a child and this was in fact, an official duty

to the state.13 Augustus referenced this speech when crafting

support for his many marriage reforms which culminated in the Lex

Iulia et Papia Poppaea, essentially stating that since the ancients

were concerned with matters of marriage and procreation, we as

moderns should be as well.14

The birthrate for the senatorial class was in crisis; thus

Augustus enacted the lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus, which was the

first of such marriage legislations. “Senators,” James Field

explains,

were restricted in their choice of the women whom theymight marry, libertinae, courtesans, and women of thetheater being forbidden them. An ingenious system ofrewards and penalties was formulated, inheritance ofbequests and precedence of entry into public officewere made dependent upon marriage and the number ofchildren, and a direct blow was struck theunreconstructed bachelors, who were barred from the

13 David B. George, "Lucilius 676M, Metellus, and His Munus," The Classical Journal 83 (Apr.- May 1988): 298-300. JSTOR. www.jstor.org/, 299.14 James A. Field Jr., "The Purpose of the Lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea," The Classical Journal 40 (April 1945): 398-416. JSTOR. www.jstor.org/, 405.


delights not only of inheritance but also of attendanceon stage plays and festivals.15

As can be expected, there was much resentment stemming from

this legislation. There were many attempts to circumvent the

legislation, which included fake adoptions, hasty marriages that

were quickly terminated once the position was attained, and

claiming illegitimate children as one’s own.16 What is clear

however, is that a family was more than a legacy, a family was a

political tool to be utilized to gain office and beyond that,

clout. If two equal candidates came up before the senate, the

candidate with the larger family would have more theoretical

advantage.

There were several terms that were used for this practice of

marrying for the purpose of having children. The most common

being liberorum quaerendum gratia, which literally means, ‘for the

purpose of producing children.’17 Another phrase which was used

was liberis procreandis, meaning, ‘to produce children.’18 Contrarily,

15 Ibid., 402.16 Ibid., 412-413; Rawson, The Roman Family, n18, 46.17 Rawson, The Roman Family, 9.18 Ibid., n9, 45.


liberorum quaerendorum causa was used in reference to Caesar’s more

liberal legislation, suggesting the legislation would allow one

to marry whomever they wished.19 However, in the context it was

used it was thought of as a hypothetical, or something to be

sought or dreamed for. The wording, which would have been most

commonly used in reference to the Augustan legislation and in

Roman society in general, would have been liberorum quaerendum gratia.

Speaking strictly of the Augustan legislation, it had one

purpose and one purpose only, to increase the senatorial ranks.

Field calls it a, “primarily eugenic legislation, and only

secondarily populationist in the loose sense of the word.”20

Augustus was not concerned about bolstering the population in

general; he wanted to increase the senatorial family. In this,

he failed. Rawson states there is no evidence of any increase of

the birth rate among the upper class, and Field concludes that

there had to have been a decline as well, judging from the influx

of senators from outside the peninsula.21 There are two

19 Ibid.20 Field., 414.21 Rawson, The Roman Family, 10.; Field, 414.


conclusions which one can draw from this issue, that is the issue

of liberorum quaerendum gratia, the first being that the fathers of

senatorial standing would be looking toward their careers more

often then their sons, creating more than a passing need for the

pedagogue to look after and guide the young man. The second

conclusion one might come to is that owing to the decline in

population, each child was considered an assurance for the

future, and thus demanded the best education and level of

nurturing possible which included the attendance of, first a

nurse, then a pedagogue, until he reached the age of majority.

In “Adult-Child Relationships in Roman Society,” Rawson

argues that not only did the Romans have a concept of childhood,

which is an idea that has only recently gained ground, “there is

evidence to suggest that adult-child relationships could often be

close and sensitive.”22 Cantarella agrees in “Fathers and Sons in

Rome” hinging her argument on the notion of pietas. Pietas was

“used to describe moral and social duty of both sons and fathers,

22Beryl Rawson, "Adult-Child Relationships in Roman Society," in Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. Beryl Rawson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 7.


[and] encapsulated this dual set of emotional obligations.”23

Parents also loved and memorialized their children in death,

which Rawson writes about at length in many articles and in her

book, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy. Children were a treasure,

worthy of attention and effort. Thus, one aspect of the

placement of children under the tutelage of a pedagogue was for

the advancement of their education and their physical protection

as well as their morality. However, owing to patria potestas, a

large aspect of the pedagogue in Roman society is control,

especially when one considers the legal requirements associated

with child-bearing and the social standing which came with

family.

One aspect of the self-imposed social responsibilities was

education. Roman society valued education on a level that should

resonate with the modern reader. Not only were treasured sons

educated, daughters and slaves were educated to varying degrees

as well. Daughters were educated for the betterment of society

as a whole and for the sake of their future children. Slaves

23 Cantarella, 286.


were educated to increase the productivity of the household, with

most slaves being trained to a very specific function, a fact

which Seneca lamented.24 With slaves being trained to such

specific tasks such as perfumers, painters, and waiters, it does

not take a large mental leap to see how a household could be

staffed with a large contingent of slaves.

It is also quite apparent how quickly the specialization of

slave tasks could become a status symbol, a sign of wealth among

the Roman Aristocracy. If a family could afford to have so many

slaves trained exclusively to one specific task, then that family

was well off indeed. There was also a certain amount of disdain

for this practice, slaves receiving more education then some poor

freeborn. In reference to a young slave who had received an

extensive education, but no manners, Hermeros (who was a

freedman) was nothing but contemptuous. “Hermeros probably

shared the more general societal distaste for a slave’s receiving

an education more appropriate to a freeborn, upper-class boy, but

he also valued more highly the more practical education which he

24 Beryl Rawson, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy, 189.


himself had received—basic financial calculations and

understanding of capital letters…”25

This education of slaves, however, allowed them to become

socially mobile if they were freed. There are examples of

pedagogues, on manumission, becoming grammarians. The best

example would be Quintilian’s probable one-time master, Remmius

Palaemon, known as much for his vice as for his former slavery

and eventual success.26 Suetonius states that Palaemon, “learned

his letters while accompanying his mistress’s son to school.”27

It was because of this education he was able to set up as a

grammarian, “captivating people with his learning and his fluent

speech alike.”28 Speech was especially important in Rome owing

to the low amount of texts available. Students were often

expected to learn by memorizing recitations.

Quintilian suggests that children begin memorizing as early

as possible, be it letters, sentences, or short poems. But, he

25 Ibid., 188.26 Aubrey Gwynn, Roman Education from Cicero to Quintilian (New York: Teachers College Press, 1966), 192.27 C. Suetonius Tranquillus, De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus, ed. and trans. Robert A. Kaster, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 27.28 Ibid.


cautions, “I am not so careless of age differences as to think

that the very young should be forced on prematurely, and that set

tasks should be demanded of them. For one of the first things to

take care of is that the child, who is not yet able to love

study, should not come to hate it and retain his fear of the

bitter taste.”29 By the time children entered the grammatici, the

secondary school, between the ages of six to eight, they knew

their letters and had memorized some proverbs, most having

learned them at home under the tutelage of their nurse.

Primary schools, ludus litterarius, were many times utilized as a

means of education for the lower classes, not as the continuous

system of education which we are used to today.30 Kaster posits,

…in Rome of the first century A.D. the three schools—ludus litterarius, schola grammatici, schola rhetoric—did notnormally form a sequence at all, but were separateparts of a socially segmented system composed of twotracks, one of which (the ludus litteraries) was intendedprimarily for the lower orders and ‘peddled craft

29 Quintilian, The Orator's Education: Books 1-2, ed. and trans. Donald A. Russell (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 73.30 There has been much discussion on this subject, Robert Kaster wrote extensively on the education system in “Notes on ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ Schools in Late Antiquity,” Rawson addresses early education in the house in Children and Childhood in Roman Italy (pgs. 157, 165, 181), and Quintilian also mentions that children should begin schooling at the age of seven, which is the age which children began at the grammatici.


literacy to children, slave and free, to enhance theiremployability,’ while the other provided a liberaleducation for upper-class children who receivedinstruction in the elements either at home or in thelower reaches of the grammarian’s school.31

There was an extensive hierarchy among the teachers at the

different schools, as one might expect, the lowest of these, the

master of the ludus litterarius, called magistri ludi, commanded little

respect, and few wages.32 Conversely, the grammaticus and

rhetoricians were paid much better. Furthermore, certain

immunities were granted to these higher level teachers as well,

with rhetoricians being the most advantaged of the lot.33

Despite the fact that rhetoricians were the top form, and some

even enjoyed a “‘star’ quality,”34 teaching was still considered

menial work, as Seneca elucidated, “it was dishonourable to teach

what it was honourable to learn.”35

The grammar school, however, is the most relevant school to

the age group whom we are analyzing. Entered at the same time as

31 Robert A. Kaster, "Notes on 'Primary' and 'Secondary' Schools in Late Antiquity," Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 113 (1983): 323-346.JSTOR. www.jstor.org/, 324.32 Ibid., 325.33 Rawson, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy, 165.; Kaster, 325.34 Rawson, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy, 181.35 Ibid., 179


the child received his pedagogue, it was here that the boy began

his formal training, generally with hopes that he would become a

great orator. Classes began very early in the day, usually

before first light. The room in which they were conducted would

not seem a likely choice by modern standards, there would have

been no desks, the boys, and generally very few to no girls at

this level, were to balance their ledgers on their laps. The

walls would have been familiar though, with maps on them, and

busts of the great writers strewn about the classroom to inspire

the students.36

Pedagogues were peppered among the students to keep them in

line and on task, the grammatici might also have an assistant for

this purpose as well. At this point, the children were expected

to know their letters, but the grammatici would also be prepared

to teach them this basic, if need be. There was no rushing of

education in Roman society.37 In fact, beyond the three levels

of education, ludus litterarius, schola grammatici, schola rhetoric, there were

36 H. I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (New York: Sheed and Ward, Inc., 1956), 369.37 Kaster, 336.


also music and dance schools. But, as J.J. Eyre reminds us, “the

only school subjects to which the Romans ever paid more than lip-

service were literature, rhetoric and law.”38

As stated earlier, education was not undervalued in any form

in Roman aristocratic society, whether at home or in school.

Penultimate among these educators, was the pedagogue, the person

who was to spend the greatest amount of time with the child, but

generally took second, in the educational realm, to the teacher

himself. Norman Young tells us that the pedagogue, “led taught,

admonished, ruled, and guarded.”39 The pedagogue was appointed

to the child by the father, an extension of his power over him or

her, and was more than just a surrogate parent. As stated

before, fathers would often be away on military campaigns, or

simply detained in the Senate for the length of the day, in

short, their duties kept them away from their children for

extended periods of time and there was a need to keep their

children under control.

38 J.J. Eyre, "Roman Education in the Late Republic and Early Empire," Greece & Rome, Second Series 10, no. 1 (1963): 47-59. JSTOR. www.jstor.org, 51.39 Norman H. Young, "Paidagogos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor," Novum Testamentum 29, no. 2 (1987): 150-176. JSTOR. www.jstor.org, 157.


To be fair, while the father valued his children, his duties

came first in the aristocratic world and beyond. Thus, the role

of the pedagogue. He (and exceptionally rarely, she) existed to

be with the child from the moment he or she woke in the morning

to the ending of the day. The pedagogue’s job was to see to it

that the child made it safely to school, on time and in a fashion

becoming their station. Once at school, they were to supervise

the scholastic endeavors of the child, then escort the child back

home for lunch (if the house was close enough).

After lunch, there might be calisthenics, dance, or music

lessons, or simply more of the standard school. It was also the

job of the pedagogue to accompany the child on social visits, if

he or she was required to make them. Valerius Maximus tells us

of Cicero, on a visit to Sulla, asking his pedagogue (called

tutor in the text) a question about the nature of Sulla and

politics in general. Cato asked of his pedagogue, Sarpedon, why

no one had yet killed the tyrant Sulla. Sarpedon replies,

“people did not lack the will but the opportunity.”40 Cato 40 Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, ed. and trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 233.


demands a sword, stating that he would end the cruelty then and

there for he was allowed to sit with Sulla on his couch, after

which point Sarpedon searched Cato for weapons each time he left

for Sulla’s.

This relatively short passage in Valerius Maximus’ Memorable

Doings and Sayings relays much about the character of Cato, but more

about the nature of the relationship of child and pedagogue.

First, Sarpedon accompanies Cato on a social visit, as one should

expect. It seems that Cato is older here, close to adulthood,

but not yet at the age of majority, for he is petitioned to make

an appeal to his uncle, whom was raising him, on behalf of

Quintus Poppaedius. Thus even at this young age, he was being

employed in politics, and was learning to be politically savvy.

Social visits were part of his existence and education at this

moment in his maturation.41

The second point which can be drawn from this passage, is

that Cato turns to Sarpedon with questions of a political nature;

this demonstrates that the pedagogue had more than a passing

41 Ibid.


awareness of the outside world and the complexities of the

relations therein. Sarpedon was the first line of information

for his ward. There is a stereotype that aristocrats generally

thought slaves ignorant of the world around them, but this

passage, in part, disproves this conception.

The last point of note that can be drawn from Valerius is

the influence that Sarpedon has over Cato. Valerius states that

after Cato declared his desire to kill Sulla, “The tutor both

recognized Cato’s spirit and was aghast at the proposal; and

thereafter he always searched him when bringing him to Sulla.”42

Sarpedon was close enough to Cato to know that he would go

through with murdering Sulla for the cruelties he had inflicted.

He also had enough authority over Cato to search him for weapons

and confiscate any he found on his person, thus aborting any

assassination attempt on the part of the young statesman. Cato

though, was a highly capable young man, obviously quite bright

and strong of mind, still under the supervision of his pedagogue

yes, but at this point in his life, his pedagogue was there for

42 Ibid.


support and guidance not to shape and control him as much. Cato

did not need the attention that a pedagogue would have had to

give a younger child or a duller one, expect in matters of

murder. In contrast, Suetonius tells of Tiberius Claudius Drusus

Caesar, much the opposite of Cato.

Suetonius says that Claudius, “was afflicted with a variety

of obstinate disorders, insomuch that his mind and body being

greatly impaired, he was, even after his arrival at the years of

maturity, never thought sufficiently qualified for any public or

private employment. He was, therefore, during a long time, and

even after the expiration of his minority, under the direction of

a pedagogue….”43 Claudius is the counterpoint to Cato, given a

pedagogue, one prone to excessive force at that, for an extended

period of time, because those around him did not trust him to be

master of his own reason.

Interestingly enough, despite the fact that Claudius was

mollycoddled through his younger years, he still became emperor

43 Suetonius, Ancient History Sourcebook: Suetonius: Life of Claudius, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-claudius-worthington.html (accessed Feb 16, 2010).


(by default, however, most everyone else in his family was

murdered), gaining a reputation as a devout admirer of the law.

He was also the progenitor of many public works and Britain was

conquered under his reign.44 Claudius’ patria utilized the

pedagogue as a way of controlling the dimwitted Claudius for as

long as possible, hoping that an authoritarian man such as this

likely uneducated pedagogue, (he was described as a former mule-

driver) could mold Claudius into a strong man.

This concept runs in direct contradiction with what

Quintilian wished for the role of the pedagogue. Quintilian

described the pedagogue as one who, “should either be thoroughly

educated (this is the first priority) or know themselves to be

uneducated….”45 His pedagogue served as a supplementary educator.

He was there to guide the child in the direction of knowledge

with a skillful touch, not with forceful blows. In general,

Quintilian was against any sort of brutal acts toward students,

decrying teachers who resorted to violence.46

44 Ibid.45 Quintilian, 69.46 Ibid., 101.


Quintilian’s pedagogue needed to be knowledgeable in grammar

in order to train up a child in the correct manner of speech.

And not only in just matters of grammar, but also incorrect

phrasing, base colloquialisms, and other such mannerisms which

would be undesirable for a future orator.47 Also of great

importance were the accents of those around the child for fear

the wrong accents and intonations would be passed on to him or

her, thus ruining his chances for greatness as an orator or her

prospects for marriage. In short, the best pedagogue, in

Quintilian’s mind, was a watchful one, one who was aware of all

aspects of his ward and who was ready to correct him or her as

necessary, though never forcefully.48

Through these writers emerges a picture of a Roman pedagogue

that is quite full and it is easier to understand the weight of

responsibility which was placed upon the pedagogues shoulders.

A.V. Yannicopoulos reminds us,

If we take into account that children left home forschool early in the morning, that they had to travel along distance from home to school, that they were

47 Ibid., 71.48 Ibid., 93.


exposed to dangers from animals, weather conditions andimmoral people, and that the volume and weight of therolls of books and tablets they had to take with themwere considerable, it is easy to realize the magnitudeof a pedagogue’s contribution to the child’s overallsafety and welfare.49

Keep in mind that for the Romans, each child was privileged to

their own pedagogue at least and sometimes might have another one

or two slaves in constant attendance over them as well, such as a

slave to carry his or her books, simply depending on the wealth

of the family. On the other hand, Greek children shared a

pedagogue between the entire family, no matter the amount of

children in the family who would necessitate the use of a

pedagogue.50

Owing to Greek social structure, the control aspect of the

pedagogue was not as much of an issue. It is firmly the

pedagogue who is responsible to train up a child, but the only

author here who brings up the issue of control is Libanius,

Themistocles’ master doles out encouragement for him in Plutarch.

49 A.V. Yannicopoulos, "The Pedagogue in Antiquity," British Journal of Educational Studies 33, no. 2 (1985): 173-179. JSTOR. www.jstor.org, 175.50 Stanley F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome: From the elder Cato to the younger Pliny (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), 38.


The master says, “You my boy will be nothing small, but great one

way or another, for good or else for bad.”51 Themistocles’

master was close enough to him to see that he was capable, one

might say destined, for distinction. He also knew him thoroughly

enough to realize that he had the capacity to be evil as much as

he had the capacity to do good. In short, he was bound for

excellence in all he attempted and his pedagogue was going to see

to it that he had the skill-set necessary to achieve greatness.

Beyond moralistic advice, Themistocles’ instruction from his

master included such as, “to improve his manners and behavior, or

to teach him any pleasing or graceful accomplishment,” which he

paid attention to with a capacity beyond his years.52 Thus this

pedagogue fulfilled his duty to the fullest of his capacity,

instructing morally, socially, and as one reads further in the

text, educationally.

Such was the same for Alexander. Plutarch again is our

source and he informs us that it was to Leonidas that Alexander’s

51 Plutarch, The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans: The Dryden Translation (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), 88.52 Ibid.


overall education was entrusted, though Leonidas was not

Alexander’s pedagogue. He was the supervisor, in a sense, in

that he was in charge of all the various attendants and teachers

who were assigned to Alexander and had the final say over

Alexander’s education. Plutarch refers to Leonidas as

Alexander’s foster-father. Alexander’s pedagogue was an

Acarnanian named Lysimachus, who Plutarch informs ranked second

in the chain of Alexander’s educational command, after Leonidas.

One can infer that Alexander was more than well cared for, had

more than enough helpers, attendants, educators, companions, and

guides.53 He was also a-typical for the Greeks because of all

the attendants he had.

Plutarch again instructs us about pedagogues, this time in a

more general sense in his, The Training of Children. In this text, he

states that more often than not the slave assigned to the role of

pedagogue is the slave who is, “a drunkard or a glutton, and

unfit for any other business…; whereas, a good pedagogue out to

be such a one in his disposition as Phoenix, tutor to Achilles,

53 Ibid., 542.


was.”54 Plutarch thus delineates both an abhorrent practice

(which seems to be overly dramatized) and the solution to this

custom. If one of the functions of the pedagogue was to train up

a child, morally, then it could not have been common practice to

assign a lazy alcoholic to the position. Though this would be

consistent if there was not as much of a concern for control

within the society as a whole. Plutarch also was writing with a

Roman influence, having become a Roman citizen during the course

of his life and thus would have been influenced by Roman

practices, as well as his native Greek, and might have been

writing to defame the Greek practices.

Libanius as well places much emphasis on the character of

the pedagogue. He speaks much of pedagogues in his Oration 34,

this oration is the narrative of an impertinent pedagogue who

interrupted a declamation and caused mass consternation and it

also examines the backlash thereof.55 While most of the oration

is an attack on the students who left the city during the Riots

54 Plutarch, The Training of Children, ed. Oliver J. Thatcher, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/plutarch-education.html.55 Libanius, Antioch as a Centre of Hellenic Culture as Observed by Libanius, trans. A.F. Norman (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), 137.


of the Statues in Antioch of February A.D. 387, he also speaks to

not, “fearing the slanders of a wretched pedagogue.”56 The most

pertinent and fascinating portion of the oration is the ending

however, when Libanius speaks of an ideal pedagogue (who happens

to be the rogue pedagogue’s ward’s father’s pedagogue). Of this

pedagogue he states;

He was not a bad lad himself [the father], nor did hehave such a pedagogue as this one, but a decent,prudent and sensible man who protected his charge andkept him away from all improprieties, one who did notdisturb the order of things and did not arrogate tohimself anything beyond that allowed by convention, onein fact, who knew just what the difference is betweenbeing a teacher and a pedagogue.57

Libanius was trying to dispute the fact that the father put the

child up to having his pedagogue go about such antics. It is

interesting that the tactic he chose was to extol the virtues of

the father’s pedagogue. The logic follows that because the

father had a, “decent, prudent and sensible” pedagogue he would

have been raised morally, and thus would not have the capacity to

56 Ibid., 143.57 Ibid., 144.


act in the manner suggested, that is to have his son’s pedagogue

interrupt a declamation.

Libanius believed strongly in the pedagogue’s

responsibility for the actions of his ward. The case above

evidences that this responsibility does not end once the child is

grown and the relationship is severed. In his Progymnasmata,

Libanius again gives a case involving a pedagogue, this time with

a child present. In this instance, Diogenes happens upon a child

misbehaving, and instead of correcting the child, Diogenes,

“strikes many a blow on his [the pedagogue’s] back, and adds to

the blows the statement that he should not be that sort of

teacher.”58 Thus, it is the mistake of the teacher that the boy

is out of control. Libanius goes on to say, “the punishing of

the pedagogue for the mistakes of the youth we will find to be

characteristic of intelligent individuals.”59 The reasoning

behind this is that children have a natural tendency toward

58 Libanius, Libanius's Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Compostition and Rhetoric, trans. Craig A. Gibson (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature), 57.59 Ibid.


mistakes, whereas the pedagogue is aged and thus wizened and

should know better.

Further on in the text Libanius explains (what everyone must

have already known when Libanius was writing this text), “for

every man judges the character of a youth by the character of his

pedagogue.”60 Because the responsibility of the pedagogue was so

great, and so much was at stake regarding the future of the

pedagogue’s charge, the pedagogue was given much liberty in

training him.

Therefore, it is the father’s job to provide the money,but it is the job of the pedagogue to take thought foreverything else, without holding back; for it is forthis reason that beating and choking and torturing andeverything done by masters toward slaves—they thinkthat these, too, should be permitted to those whosupervise their sons, so that there may be no excuseslater.61

Fathers were willing to have a slave treat their sons like an

object in order that they be trained up morally, ethically, and

with manners. With this scenario, the glory of a well-trained

60 Ibid., 59.61 Ibid.


child is placed squarely on the shoulders of the pedagogue, as

well as the failure if the child is a rapscallion.

When the contrast is presented in the text, the point is

made that the relationship between the pedagogue and the child is

collaborative. The child is there to learn and grow, but the

child has a choice to make, in that he or she can either listen

and obey, or can choose to disregard the advice of even the best

pedagogue. The same goes for the pedagogue, a great pedagogue

might have a lazy or dimwitted child, or a horrid pedagogue might

have a brilliant child. Thus Libanius instructs it might be,

“reasonable for them to share both in the honors and in the

punishment, if some mistake is made.”62 Otherwise, Libanius

cautions, “No one will admire the young man for his good

qualities; furthermore, no one will even punish him for the

opposite. The pedagogue will receive admiration for the boy’s

favorable qualities, and therefore also the punishment for his

mistakes.”63

62 Ibid., 61.63 Ibid.


The end of this text finds Libanius siding with Diogenes

though, in the choice to strike the pedagogue to correct the

actions of the student. He places the decision in a greater

context of generals being ultimately responsible for the actions

of their armies to make his case, specifically citing the example

of Athens putting to death all its generals when they did not

recover the dead at Arginusae. Ultimately, responsibility lies

with those who have the most knowledge and power.64

Knowledge and power are the foundations of responsibility,

but they are also the basis for an aspiration to control. While

the Greeks controlled their children through their pedagogue,

there was much leniency in their version of the pedagogue, for

the pedagogue was generally held responsible for the actions of

the child. And with any scenario where the attentions of a

caretaker are disseminated over a group, such as the whole family

sharing a pedagogue, there was much more room for personal

growth, even when the child was not specifically responsible for

his or her own actions.

64 Ibid., 63.


In Rome, with the practice of one pedagogue per child, it

was much easier for the father to control the child through the

pedagogue and also for the pedagogue to control the child,

especially if the father was away for extended periods of time,

whether at work during the day or on campaigns in the military.

Also, because each child was so precious owing to the declining

birthrate, the pedagogue’s function as protector became all the

more important. Also, because there was such an emphasis on the

continuance of the aristocracy, education was all the more

important, each member having to function within this society to

his or her fullest capacity.


Bibliography

Primary

Funerary stele from Nicomedia. Nov 2007. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Funerary_stele_Louvre_Ma4498.jpg (accessed May 10, 2010).

Libanius. Antioch as a Centre of Hellenic Culture as Observed by Libanius. Translated by A.F. Norman. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000.


—. Libanius's Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Compostition and Rhetoric. Translated by Craig A. Gibson. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Plutarch. The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans: The Dryden Translation. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952.

—. The Training of Children. Edited by Oliver J. Thatcher. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/plutarch-education.html.

Quintilian. The Orator's Education: Books 1-2. Edited by Donald A. Russell. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Suetonius. Ancient History Sourcebook: Suetonius: Life of Claudius. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-claudius-worthington.html (accessed 2010 16-Feb).

—. De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus. Edited and Translated by Robert A. Kaster. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

ValeriusMaximus. Memorable Doings and Sayings. Edited by D.R. Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Secondary

Bonner, Stanley F. Education in Ancient Rome: From the elder Cato to the younger Pliny. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.

Cantarella, Eva. “Fathers and Sons in Rome.” The Classical World 96 (Spring 2003).

—. Pandora’s Daughters: The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.

Eyre, J.J. “Roman Education in the Late Republic and Early Empire.” Greece & Rome, Second Series 10, no. 1 (1963): 47-59.


Field Jr., James A. “The Purpose of the Lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea.” The Classical Journal 40 (April 1945): 398-416.

George, David B. “Lucilius 676M, Metellus, and His Munus.” The Classical Journal 83 (Apr.- May 1988): 298-300.

Gwynn, Aubrey. Roman Education from Cicero to Quintilian. New York: Teachers College Press, 1966.

Kaster, Robert A. “Notes on 'Primary' and 'Secondary' Schools in Late Antiquity.” Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-)113 (1983): 323-346.

Marrou, H. I. A History of Education in Antiquity. New York: Sheed and Ward, Inc., 1956.

Rawson, Beryl. “Adult-Child Relationships in Roman Society.” In Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome, edited by Beryl Rawson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

—. Children and Childhood in Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.—. “Children in the Roman Familia.” In The Family in Ancient Rome: New

Perspectives, edited by Beryl Rawson. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.

—. “The Iconography of Roman Childhood.” In The Roman Family in Italy: Status, Space and Sentiment, edited by Beryl Rawson and Paul Weaver.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.

—. “The Roman Family.” In The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, edited by Beryl Rawson. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.

Yannicopoulos, A.V. “The Pedagogue in Antiquity.” British Journal of Educational Studies 33, no. 2 (1985): 173-179.

Young, Norman H. “Paidagogos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor.” Novum Testamentum 29, no. 2 (1987): 150-176.

Pedagogues in Rome and Greece: Dominion of the Fathers

Documents

Transcript of Pedagogues in Rome and Greece: Dominion of the Fathers