Now it is true that a law of Constantius[756] enacts that no one shall attain to the first rank in the ‘ordo decurialis’ unless he has passed through a course of studies. But firstly, the law applies technically only to the city of Rome, and its ‘decuriae’; secondly, the amount of education required was not excessive: all the emperor wanted was that a man of the first rank should be able to speak grammatically (_ita esse litteris expolitum, ut citra offensam vitii ex eodem verba procedant_); and finally, the regulation that this elementary knowledge was specially laid down as a qualification for the first rank (_librarii_) suggests that the other two (_fiscales et censuales_) were frequently held without such proficiency. If the law tended to stifle the curial’s interest in education, much more was this so with those who belonged to a lower grade. The incentive needed there was greater and the incentive given, less. The work of the artisans belonging to the rigidly separated ‘collegia’ was harder, though it varied with the trade. The bakers’ guild was not far removed from slavery. Here, too, frequent flight from the class points to oppression. The tendency to learn only the practical tricks necessary to make the trade a paying one must have been even more accentuated. For where there is no prospect except the drudgery of the trade in which he grew up, it must be an exceptional man who will take an interest in education or awaken it in his son. Even the school of the ‘litterator’ must have been a mystery to many of these ‘corporati’. Moreover, intermarriage between the classes was regarded with horror, and forbidden on the severest penalties. Senators or men who ranked as ‘perfectissimi’, or ‘duumviri’, or ‘quinquennales’, or ‘flamines’, or ‘sacerdotes’, suffered ‘infamia’ if they married a freedwoman or the daughter of a freedwoman, an actress or the daughter of an actress, a shopkeeper (_tabernarius_) or the daughter of a shopkeeper, or any one of low standing.[757] Whatever we may think of the wisdom of such a measure, one thing is clear: the difficulty of imagining that all ranks were levelled, as Jullian says, in the school, and that the son of a senator sat on the same benches as the sons of freedmen. Further, the tendency of the emperors to restrict people to the same place must also have had an effect on education.[758] For the imperial policy aimed at uniformity and immobility, and in attaining them it lost life and progress. The discouragement of travel must have meant a restriction of knowledge and a strangling of that wonder which is stimulated by new scenes, and is, as Plato said, the beginning of philosophy.