, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 87–98 | Cite as

Paradoxes in Aulus Gellius

  • Alessandro Garcea


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.

Aulus Gellius fallacy Megarics paradoxes Protagoras sophism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Edition: Marshall, P. K.: 19902, A. Gellii noctes Atticae, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. 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).Google Scholar

Secondary literature

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Bobzien, S.: 1998, Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Garcea, A.: 2000, ‘Gellio e la dialettica’, Memorie dell'Accademia delle Scienze di Torino (Classe di Scienze Morali) 24, 53-204.Google Scholar
  4. Goossens, W. K.: 1977, ‘Eulathus and Protagoras’, Logique et analyse 77-78, 67-75.Google Scholar
  5. Hamblin, C. L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen &; Co., London.Google Scholar
  6. Holford-Strevens, L.: 1988, Aulus Gellius, Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
  7. Quine, W. V.: 19762, The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. &; London.Google Scholar
  8. Rüstow, A.: 1910, Der Lügner. Theorie, Geschichte, und Auflösung, Diss. Leipzig.Google Scholar
  9. Sainsbury, R. M.: 19952: Paradoxes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorst and T. Kruiger: 1987, Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Foris, Dordrecht/Providence.Google Scholar
  11. van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst and F. Snoeck Henkemans: 1996: Fundamentals of Argumentations Theory, Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J.Google Scholar
  12. Walton, D.: 1995, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa/ London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Garcea
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Filologia, Linguistica e Tradizione ClassicaUniversità di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations