Abstract
The noctes Atticae of Aulus Gellius contain almost all the ancient paradoxes. Nevertheless, in comparison with his philosophical sources, the author shows a shift in the perspective of his approach. He analyses the `master argument' of Diodorus Chronus only from an ethical point of view and, among the seven paradoxes attributed to Eubulides of Milet, he quotes the `heap' as an absurdity (absurdum), the `horned one' and the `not-someone' as a trap (captio), the `liar' as a sophism (sophisma). Following the advice of Cynics, Gellius mistrusts deceptive manoeuvres, which highlight gaps in binary logic. At the same time, however, he is interested in argumentative structures, which lead one of two opponents on to victory. The extensive report of the quarrel between Protagoras and Evathlus, and many observations of Gellius on convertible forms of reasoning in literary texts fall within this rhetorical field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Edition: Marshall, P. K.: 19902, A. Gellii noctes Atticae, Clarendon, Oxford.
Translation (sometimes adapted): Rolfe, J. C.: 1927, The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius, W. Heinemann &; G. B. Putnam's Sons, London &; New York (The Loeb Classical Library).
Secondary literature
Barnes, J.: 1982, ‘Medicine, Experience and Logic’, in J. Barnes, J. Brunschwig, M. Burnyeat and M. Schofield (eds.), Science and Speculation. Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 24-68.
Bobzien, S.: 1998, Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy, Clarendon, Oxford.
Garcea, A.: 2000, ‘Gellio e la dialettica’, Memorie dell'Accademia delle Scienze di Torino (Classe di Scienze Morali) 24, 53-204.
Goossens, W. K.: 1977, ‘Eulathus and Protagoras’, Logique et analyse 77-78, 67-75.
Hamblin, C. L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen &; Co., London.
Holford-Strevens, L.: 1988, Aulus Gellius, Duckworth, London.
Quine, W. V.: 19762, The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. &; London.
Rüstow, A.: 1910, Der Lügner. Theorie, Geschichte, und Auflösung, Diss. Leipzig.
Sainsbury, R. M.: 19952: Paradoxes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorst and T. Kruiger: 1987, Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Foris, Dordrecht/Providence.
van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst and F. Snoeck Henkemans: 1996: Fundamentals of Argumentations Theory, Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J.
Walton, D.: 1995, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa/ London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garcea, A. Paradoxes in Aulus Gellius. Argumentation 17, 87–98 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022951908973
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022951908973