The reality of this incident need not be doubted. The highwaymen were as superstitious as Gregory, probably more so. When they found what they had against them they fled in a panic. The peculiar wording of the last sentence makes it seem likely that Gregory for his part thought that the highwaymen had demons to help them and that these in their urgent flight before the superior “virtue” of St. Martin were responsible for the appearance he describes. * * * * * Of Gregory’s education and literary training we receive scanty details. At the age of eight he was beginning to learn to read.[8] The books he read were naturally the Scriptures and works of Christian writers and his contact with pagan literature of the classical period must have been slight; he appears to have read Virgil and Sallust’s _Catiline_ but probably did not go beyond these.[9] His attitude toward pagan literature was the conventional one of his age,--fear of the demonic influences embodied in it;[10] he expresses it thus: “We ought not to relate their lying fables lest we fall under sentence of eternal death.”[11] Among Christian writers Sulpicius Severus, Prudentius, Sidonius Apollinaris, and Fortunatus were the only ones to exercise a genuine influence on his style. The question has been much discussed whether sixth-century education in Gaul included a knowledge of the liberal arts. Gregory gives us no definite information on the point. It is true that he is explicit as to his own case. He says, “I was not trained in grammar or instructed in the finished style of the heathen writers, but the influence of the blessed father Avitus, bishop of Auvergne, turned me solely to the writings of the church.”[12] Gregory does indeed mention Martianus Capella’s work on the seven liberal arts and seems to have had some notion of the scope of each one,[13] but in the face of his repeated confessions of ignorance of the most elementary of them as well as the actual proof of ignorance which he constantly gives, the conclusion must be that they were not included in his education. As to the general situation the only evidence is furnished by Gregory’s famous preface in which he declares that “liberal learning is declining or rather perishing in the Gallic cities,” and no one could be found sufficiently versed in the liberal arts to write the _History of the Franks_ as it ought to be written. We may feel certain that Gregory’s idea of the qualifications for historical writing were not high; correct spelling, knowledge of the rules of grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic as laid down in the text-books would be sufficient. But, as he tells us, no person so qualified could be found to undertake the task. Again we hear of bishops who were illiterate. It is plain that the trend of the evidence is all in one direction, namely that in Gaul by this time the liberal arts had disappeared from education.