Dialogue form in Cicero’s Academica - Princeton UniversityDialogue form in Cicero’s Academica...

GeorginaWhitegeorgina.white@vanderbilt.edu

DialogueforminCicero’sAcademica

Putofore,ut,cumlegeris,mirerenosidlocutosesseinternos,quodnumquamlocutisumus;sednosti

moremdialogorum.

Ithinkthatwhenyoureadityouwillbeamazedthatwehavesaidtoeachotherthingsthatwehave

neversaid;butyouknowtheconventionofdialogues.

Cic.AdFam.9.8

(DedicatoryLettertothe3rdVersionoftheAcademica)

Introduction

GiventhetypicalscholarlycharacterisationsofCiceroniandialogue,itmightcomeassome

surprisetofindthelateRepublicanphilosopherandoratorselectedforinclusionina

conferenceondialogueform.EventhestaunchestdefendersofCiceroasaphilosophicalauthor

tendtohaverathernegativeviewsofhisproficiencyinthedialogueform.MalcolmSchofield,

whogivesthemostsympatheticrecentanalysisofCiceroniandialogueasagenre,arguesthat,

althoughCicerosuccessfullyemploysonefeaturetypicalofdialogue–namely,thebalanced

presentationofopposingphilosophicalperspectives–hefailstodeliveronthe“dramatic

elements”thatwearefamiliarwithfromtheworkofPlato.Ratherthantheback-and-forthof

anauthenticconversation,Ciceroniandialogueisinsteadcharacterizedbyextendedspeeches

insupportofcompetingphilosophicalpositions(“inutramquepartemperpetuaoratio”(Fat.

1)).Thisrepresents,Schofieldargues,Cicero’s“negationofthedramaticintheinterestsofthe

expositionofsystems”andhesuggeststhatwefollowPaulMacKendrickinconsideringthe

Romanphilosopher’sworkstoconstituteanewgenreof“dialogue-treatise”ratherthanbeing

dramaticdialoguesinthePlatonicmold.1

1Schofield,2008:66.Forasimilarview,seeBrittain2006:xii-xiii,whoargues“theprimarypurposeofhisuseofthedialogueformisthustoallowCicerotopresentarathercomplicatedseriesofphilosophicaldebatesstretchingover250years”inawaythattreatsallsideseven-handedly.

Thisanalysisiscorrectinanumberofimportantways.Thedramaticelementsof

characterisationandsettingthatwefindinthedialoguesofPlatojustdonotseemtobean

essentialpartofCiceroniandialogueform.Totakethemostextremeexample,theTusculan

Disputations,althoughitpurportstoreflectthecontentofaconversationthattookplaceat

Cicero’shouseinTusculum,isstrippedofallcharacterisationandnarrativeaction“sothatour

argumentsbesetoutmoreconveniently.”2Inthiswork,weseeaclearprivilegingofexposition

overdramatization–though,asGildenhardhasargued,thisdoesnotimplyafailureofthe

dialogueform.Rather,thereadermaybeabletoassimilatehimselfmoreeasilytotheroleof

thestudentinthisdialoguepreciselybecauseofthelackofcharacterisationoffered.3

Schofield’sanalysis,then,iscertainlyusefulforCiceroniandialogueasawhole:asageneric

formitdoesnotseemtorelyonthedramatisationofitsspeakersandsettingsinthesameway

thatPlatonicdialoguedoes,andtheTDshowsusthatCicerofeltabletowriteaphilosophical

dialoguewithoutanyoftheconventional“dramatic”featuresexpectedofthisgenre.But,the

factthattheTDisuniqueinbeingsodenudedofthedramaticelementsofplaceandcharacter

shouldmakeuspauseandconsiderwhyotherdialoguesplacesuchanemphasisonthese

features.Clearly,thiswasnotsomethingthatCicerofeltwasessentialtophilosophical

exposition.Indeed,workssuchastheDeOfficiisandtheTopicashowusthatCicerowasmore

thanhappytotreatphilosophicalsubjectsinliteraryformsotherthandialogue.Whenlooking

atthewayinwhichCiceroconstructshisdialogues,then,weshouldconsiderwhyhechoosesa

particularliteraryformforparticularsubjectmatter.

Oneofthedialoguesthatdoesexhibitasurprisinginterestinconstructingadramaticbackdrop

foritsphilosophicaldiscussionistheAcademica,andthisisgoingtobethefocusofour

attentiontoday.Overthecourseofthispaper,IamgoingtoarguethatCicero’spresentationof

thisworkasadramaticallyvividrecreationofapastconversationisadeliberatechoiceonthe

partoftheauthor,andthatitisonewhichhelpstoreinforcetheepistemologicalmessageof

thedialogue.Bycreatingadramaticallyconvincingaccountofaconversationwhich,itwillturn

out,neveractuallytookplace,Ciceroisprovidingusafurtherexampleofthedifficulties2TD.1.8:quocommodiusdisputationesnostraeexplicentur3Gildenhard,2007

inherentindifferentiatingbetweenthetrueandthefalse,or,inthiscase,factandfiction.So,I

willargue,theformofthedialogueitselfservestoreinforcetheAcademicclaimthatwehave

accesstonoclearcriterionoftruth:thebestwecandoistojudgesomethingtobe“similarto

thetruth”(verisimile).4

Tosupportthisargument,Iamgoingtorelynotonlyupontheevidenceofthedialogueitself,

butwillalsoconsiderhowtheideasof“evidentness”5(ενάργεια,evidentia,perspicuitas)in

Antiochian/StoicepistemologyrelatetothoseofHellenisticrhetoricaltheoryandhowCicero’s

concernsaboutthepersuasivenessofhisfictionalaccountinthistextemergefromhisletters

toAtticus.Finally,IamgoingtomakeuseofthededicatorylettertoVarrowhichseemstohave

prefacedthethirdandfinalversionoftheAcademica.Thisprogrammaticletterdrawsthe

reader’sattentiontothestatusofthisworkasadialogueattheoutsetand,inparticular,to

abilityofphilosophicaldialoguetopresentasiftrueanaccountofeventswhichare,infact,

fictive-themosdialogorumoftheepigraphtothispaper.

TheTwoEditionsoftheDialogue

ThefirstobstacleinourattempttounderstandthedramaticelementsoftheAcademicaand

theirrelationshiptotheepistemologicalclaimsofthedialogue,istherathermutilatedstateof

thetextaswehaveit.WecurrentlypossesssectionsoftwoCiceronianbooksdepicting

discussionsofHellenisticepistemologybyRomanstatesmen,andinwhichthecharacter,

“Cicero”,takesontheroleofthedefenderofAcademicScepticism.However,eachofthese

booksoriginatesfromadifferentversionofthework.Beforewecandiscussthecontentsofthe

textmorefully,then,weneedtoconsiderhowthesetwobooksfittogether,andwhetherwe

canpositasingleexplanationforthedialogueformofthisworkthatcanapplytotheentirety

4E.g.Luc.1285FortheEnglishtranslationofthisdifficultterm,Iamgoingtouse“evidentness”throughout.Othertranslatorshaveuseddifferentterms,forexample“perspicuity”(e.g.Brittain,2006),“vividness”(e.g.Innes,1995),or“evidence”(Görler,1997).

ofthetextaswenowhaveit.Atthesametime,aconsiderationofthismulti-stageprocessof

compositionandrevisionwillalsoallowusaninsightintoCicero’sinterestsandaimsin

selectingafinaldramaticsettingforthefinalversionofhiswork,andrevealthehighlevelof

importancethatthedramaticelementsofthetextheldforhisproject.

Thehistoryofthecompositionofthetext,ascanbereconstructedfromtheexistingtextual

remainsandfromletterssentbyCicerotohisfriendandpublisherAtticus,isdealtwithindetail

byMiriamGriffin.6Griffinmarshalstheevidenceforthreedifferentversionsofthedialogue

(twoofwhichweresenttoAtticusforpublication,andsocanbecalled“editions”).Eachof

theseversionsseemstohavecoveredthesamephilosophicalcontent,buttheyeachdifferedin

theirchoiceofcharacterandsetting.Thefirstversionofthetextwaswritteninearly45BCE,

hadadramaticsettingofsometimeinthemid60sBCE,andwascomprisedoftwobooks,

knownastheCatulusandtheLucullusrespectivelyafterthemainspeakerineach.7Thisoriginal

versionwassenttoAtticus,whoseemstohavebeguntheprocessofpublication.Ofthis

originaledition,thesecondbookhasbeenpreservedforus,andiscommonlyreferredtoeither

usingitsoriginalname,Lucullus,orasAcademicaII.Onthe26thofJune45BCE,however,Cicero

wrotetoAtticussayingthathehadrewrittenthedialogue(whichhenowcallstheἈκαδημικὴ

σύνταξις).8Inthissecondversion,whichwasneversenttohisfriendforpublication,the

dramaticdateseemstohavebeenmovedclosertothedateofcomposition.Thephilosophical

contentofthedialoguehasbeenretained(Cicerosaysheuseseosdemillossermones),but

Brutusand(therecently-deceased)Catohavebeenchosenasthenewspeakers.Inthissame

letter,however,CicerosaysthathehasalreadyadoptedAtticus’suggestionofrewritingthe

dialoguetoproduceathirdversion,inwhichthespeakerswillbehimself,Atticus,andVarro.

Thedramaticdateforthisthirdversion,whichiseventuallysenttoAtticusforpublicationand

soconstitutesthesecondeditionofthedialogue,appearstobenear-contemporaneouswith

6Griffin1997:esp.14-16;c.f.Brittain2006:ix-xix.7Att.13.328Att.13.16;c.falso13.12fortheuseofthetermἈκαδημικήtorefertotheoldereditionofthebook.ThisseemstospeakagainstGriffin’s(1997:33)claimthattherewasnocollectivetermforbothbooksofthefirstversionofthetext.Retrospectively,atleast,theyseemtohavebeenreferredtoastheἈκαδημική.

thedateofrevisioninearlysummer45BCE.9Forthisthirdversion,CicerotellsAtticus,hehas

cutoutmanythings(multadetracta)andtransferredthecontentsfromtheoriginaltwobooks

intofourbooks(duobuslibriscontuliinquattuor).10Theopeningofthefirstbookofthissecond

editionhascomedowntous,andisknownasAcademicaI.

1stVersion

1stEdition2ndVersion 3rdVersion

2ndEditionDramaticDate Late60sBCE(after

Cicero’sconsulshipin63BCE)

SometimebeforeCato’sdeathin46BCE

c.45BCE

Characters Cicero,Lucullus,

Catulus,Hortensiusetc.

Brutus,Cato Cicero,Varro,Atticus

ExtantSections(excludingshortfrgs)

2ndbook(“Lucullus”) Beginningof1stbook;dedicatoryletter

Table1:SummaryofVersionsoftheAcademicaSomeoftheevidencethatIwillappealtointheremainderofthispaperwillapplyonlytoour

understandingofthesecondeditionoftheAcademica–inparticular,thededicatoryletterto

Varrowhichprefacedthisfinalversionofthetext.However,Ciceroconsistentlytalksabout

thesevariouseditionsasbeingdifferentversionsofthesametext,inwhichthesamecontentis

“transferredover”(conferre)fromoneversiontothenext,eveniftheaccountissomewhat

pareddown.11Consequently,IamgoingtohelpmyselftoargumentsfromtheLucullusinorder

toreconstructthecontentofthesecondeditionoftheAcademica.Iamalsogoingtoargue

that,inspiteofthefactthatwedonothaveaprefatoryletterdirectingourreadingforthefirst

editionofthework,theformofthetextitself,aswellasthewayinwhichCicerodescribesits

shortcomings,suggeststhattheaimofestablishingaconvincingdramaticrepresentationofa

real-lifeconversationwaspresent,too,intheoriginalversionofthetext.

TheimportancethatCiceroattributedtothedramaticelementsofthedialogueinbotheditions

isapparentfromaconsiderationofthemotivationsgivenfortherevisionofthisworkinhis

9AtAc.1.1thediscussionisdescribedashavingtakenplacenuper(“recently”).10Att.13.1311Ibid.

letterstoAtticus.Throughouttheseletters,twothemesemergeexplainingCicero’sdecisionto

changethedramaticsetting.Thefirstispolitical:VarrohasdedicatedatreatisetoCicero,so

Cicerowishestopayhimback“inthesamemeasureandevenbetter”(Att.13.12)12byadding

Varroasacharactertohisdialogue.ButthedecisiontoaddVarroasacharacteronlycomes

afterCicerohasalreadychangedthedramaticsettingofthedialogue,movingitfromthelate

60sBCEtothelate40sBCE,andchangingthespeakersfromtheelderstatesmen,Lucullus,

Catulus,andHortensius,toCicero’scontemporaries,CatoandBrutus.13Theoriginalchange

seems,rather,tohavebeenmotivatedbyCicero’sconcernsaboutthecredibilityofhisdialogue

initsoriginalform.HetellsAtticus,variously,thathehasrewrittenhisdialoguebecause:a)his

originalcharacters“beinginnorespectmenoflearningaremadetospeakwithasubtlety

beyondthem”(Att.13.12);14b)“thereseemedalackofappropriateness,becausethosemen

werenotoriously-Idon'tsayill-educated,butunversedinthoseparticularsubjects”(Att.

13.16);15andc)“itwasquiteinappropriatetotheircharacters[i.e.thoseofCatulus,Lucullus,

andHortensius]:foritwasmorelearnedthananythingtheywouldappearlikelytohaveever

dreamedof”(Att.13.19).16Theprimarymotivationforthechangesmadetothedialogue,then,

andonewhichwaspresentevenbeforetheissueofaliteraryrepaymenttoVarrowasraised,is

thattheoriginalversionfailedtomeettheauthor’saims,inthatitdidnotprovideaconvincing

accountofaplausibleconversation–thehistoricalfiguresinitiallyselectedforthisdiscussion

weresimplynotcredibleintheseroles.

Theproductionofacredibledramaticdialogue,then,seems,fromtheseletters,tohavebeen

anessentialpartofCicero’sliteraryprojectinconstructingthistext.Andthisappearstobethe

casenotonlyfortherevisedversionsofthetext,butalsofortheoriginalversion,whichfails,

Cicerotellsus,preciselybecauseitfailstomeetthestandardsofplausibilityhehadsetforit.

Having,then,notedtheimportanceofthedramaticfeaturesofthisparticulardialogueandthe

12αὐτῷτῷμέτρῳκαὶλώϊον13Att.13.1614nullomodophilologinimisacuteloquuntur15deindequiaπαρὰτὸπρέπονvidebatur,quoderathominibusnotanonillaquidemἀπαιδευσίαsediniisrebusἀτριψία16saneinpersonasnoncadebant;erantenimλογικώτεραquamutillideiissomniasseumquamviderentur

valueplacedbyCiceroonthecredibilityofhisfictiveaccount,itisnowtimeforustoconsider

whyCiceroprivilegesthesefeaturesinthisparticulardialogue,dealing,asitdoes,with

Hellenisticepistemology.

TheRejectionof“Evidentness”(ἐνάργεια)asanIndicatorofTruthintheAcademica

ThecontoursandcontroversiesoftheepistemologicaldebateintheAcademicahavebeen

well-documented,soIwilltakethemuponlybrieflyhere.17Ineachversionofthedialogue,the

character“Cicero”arguesforthepositionoftheNewAcademy(calledsimplytheAcademiaby

“Cicero”intheLuculluse.g§103,butAcademianovainthesecond,e.g.§13,§46)against

representativesoftheOldAcademyofAntiochus/theStoa(whoseepistemologicaltheoryis

presentedinthisworkasbeingessentiallythesame).18Thattheviewsofthecharacter,

“Cicero,”reflecttheviewsoftheauthor,canbeseennotonlyintheassimilationofthe

characterof“Cicero”tothehistoricalfigureinthedialogue(e.g.thereferencetoCicero’srole

intheCatilinarianconspiracyatLuc.62),butalsointhewayinwhichthisdialogueis

representedinlaterworks.Onmultipleoccasions,thisworkispresentedasCicero’sdefenceof

Academicepistemology:intheTusculanDisputations,forexample,itisdescribedaspresenting

everythingthatcouldbesaidonbehalfoftheAcademy(proAcademia,TD2.4).19Cicero’s

retrospectiveassessmentofthiswork,then,wasthatitconstitutednotonlyavaluable

expositionofthepositionsoftheseopposingphilosophicalschoolstoanew,Romanaudience,

butalsothatitconveyedthesuperiorityofhisownfavouredscepticalsystem–anideafurther

supportedbytheendingoftheLucullusinwhich“Cicero”’sspeechinsupportofscepticism

winstheday.

17See,InwoodandMansfield(eds)1997foracompletebibliography.18E.g.Ac.1.42Quaecumdixisset,“Brevitersaneminimequeobscureexpositaest,”inquam,“ate,Varro,etveterisAcademiaeratioetStoicorum”;Luc.69eademdicit[sc.Antiochus]quaeStoici.WhichpassagesofCicero’stextmightderivefromaClitomacheaninterpretationofCarneades,andwhichfromtheMetrodoran/Philonianinterpretationshouldnotaffectourdiscussioninthispaper(seee.g.Burnyeat,1997:301-5forafullerdiscussionofthisdistinction).19Cf.alsoND1.6;andDiv2.1onthedefenceofAcademicScepticismasaprimaryaimofthedialogue.

Cicero’sdefenceofhisscepticalsysteminthistext(atleastascanbereconstructedfromthe

LucullusandthelimitedevidenceoftheopeningofAcademicaI)revolvesaroundtherejection

oftheStoic/Antiochiantheoryoftheφαντασίακαταληπτική,or“catalepticimpression.”

AccordingtoCicero’scharacter“Lucullus”,AntiochusandtheStoicsareinagreementin

definingthecatalepticimpressionas:“animpression…stampedandmoldedfromitssourcein

awaythatitcouldn’tbefromwhatwasn’titssource.”20Suchanimpression,theStoicsand

Antiochiansclaim,isnecessarilytrue,andsocanformasolidbasisforhumanknowledge.

“Cicero”,however,followinghisscepticalforerunnersArcesilausandCarneades,rejectsthe

possibilitythatthereexistsanyimpressionthatismoldedbyitssourceinsuchawaythatit

couldnotcometobefromanythingelse.Hedescribestheoutlineofthedisputeasfollows:

But,tonarrowdownourdebate,pleasenotehowsmallourdisagreementis.Therearefourpremisesto

theconclusionthatnothingcanbeknownorapprehended[i.e.bethesubjectofacatalepticimpression],

whichistheonlysubjectatquestionhere.Theyarethat:

[1]therearesomefalseimpressions;

[2]those[i.e.false]impressionsaren’tapprehensible[i.e.theyarenotcatalepticimpressions];

[3]whentwoimpressionsdon’tdifferatall,it’snotpossiblethatoneisapprehensible,whilethe

otherisn’t;

[4]thereisnotrueimpressionderivedfromthesensesthatmaynotbepairedwithanother

impressionthatdoesn’tdifferfromitatallbutisn’tapprehensible[i.e.isnotacataleptic

impression].

Everyoneconcedesthesecondandthirdofthesefourpremises.Epicurusdoesn’tgrantthefirst;butyou,

ourcurrentopponents,concedethatone,too.Sothebattleisentirelyoverthefourthpremise(omnis

pugnadequartoest).

Cic.Luc.8321

20Luc.18:talevisum…impressumeffictumqueexeoundeessetqualeessenonpossetexeoundenonesset.21ThisandsubsequenttranslationsadaptedfromBrittain2006.Quattuorsuntcapitaquaeconcludantnihilessequodnoscipercipiconprehendipossit,dequohaectotaquaestioest.equibusprimumestesseali-quodvisumfalsum,secundumnonposseidpercipi,tertiuminterquaevisanihilintersitfierinonposseuteorumaliapercipipossintalianonpossint,quartumnullumessevisumverumasensuprofectumcuinonadpositumsitvisumaliudquodabeonihilintersitquodquepercipinonpossit.horumquattuorcapitumsecundumettertiumomnesconcedunt;primumEpicurusnondat,vos,quibuscumresest,idquoqueconceditis;omnispugnadequartoest.

The“battleoverthefourthpremise,”aroundwhichCicerobuildshisdefenceofScepticism,

focusesontheStoic/Antiochianclaimthatwecandistinguishcatalepticimpressionsfromfalse

impressionsbecausetheformercomewith“amarkdistinctiveofatrueimpression,not

commontotrueandfalsealike”(Luc.34).22Themarkistheἐνάργεια,or“evidentness”ofthe

impression–afeaturewhichCicerotranslatesintoLatinvariouslyasdeclaratio,perspicuitas,

evidentia.23Thecatalepticimpressionis,then,undertheStoic/Antiochiansystem,self-

verifying:thereisaqualitativedifferencebetweenimpressionsthataccuratelyrepresentthe

worldandthosewhichdonot,inthattheformerexhibit“evidentness”whilethelatterdonot.

Ciceroemphasisesthecentralityofthisclaimastotheevidentnessofthecatalepticimpression

fortheStoic/Antiochianpositioninbotheditionsofourtext.IntheLucullus,at§17,thefeature

ofἐνάργειαisdiscussedintheveryopeningpassagesdescribingtheStoic/Antiochianposition.

InAcademicaI,meanwhile,itisintroducedastheessentialfeatureofthecatalepticimpression

asfirstdescribedby“Varro”:

‘...visisnonomnibusadiungebatfidemsedissolumquaepropriamquandamhaberentdeclarationem

earumrerumquaeviderentur;idautemvisumcumipsumpersecerneretur,comprehendibile–feretis

haec?'

'nosvero'inquit;'quonamenimaliomodoκαταλημπτὸνdiceres?’

[Varrospeaking:]“He[Zeno]heldthatnotallimpressionsaretrustworthybutonlythosethathavean

“evidentness”(declaratio),peculiartothemselves,oftheobjectspresented;andatrustworthy

impression,beingperceivedassuchbyitsownintrinsicnaturehetermed“apprehensible”

(comprendibile)–willyouendurethesecoinages?”“Indeedwewill,”saidAtticus,“forhowelsecouldyou

expresskatalēmpton?”

Cic.Ac.1.41

22propriaveri,noncommuneverietfalsinota23Ac.1.41fordeclaratio;Luc.83forperspicuitasandevidentia

The“battleoverthefourthpremise,”then,whichCiceroclaimsseparatestheStoicsand

Antiochiansfromhisownschool,isthebattleovertheclaimthattrueimpressionscomewith

thisevidentness,whichallowsustorecognisethemastrue,andwhichcannotbefoundinany

falseimpression.

“Cicero’s”responsetothisStoic/Antiochianpositionintherevised,secondeditionofthetext

is,unfortunately,losttous.Itdoes,however,surviveintheLucullus,wherewecanseethathis

rejectionoftheStoic/Antiochianclaimthattrueimpressionsandonlytrueimpressionsexhibit

evidentnessisbuiltaroundtheuseofanumberof(forthemostpartstandard)counter-

examples.Wefindfamiliaropticalillusions,includingthestraightoarthatappearsbentwhen

seeninwater;24thepigeon’sneck,whoseiridescentcolouringappearsdifferentdependingon

theviewer’sposition;25andthesun,which,althoughitappearstousasasmalldotinthesky,

is,inreality,incrediblylarge.26Inadditiontotheseopticalillusions,“Cicero”alsoappealstothe

falseimpressionscreatedbyalteredstatesofconsciousness:madness,drunkenness,and

dreaming.27Ineachofthesecases,itisargued,thereisnowayoftellingfromthequalityofthe

impressionitselfthatitdoesnotaccuratelyrepresentreality.28

Clearly,then,thepurposeofthesecounter-examplesistoclaimthatfalseandtrueimpressions

possessthesamelevelofevidentness,and,consequently,thatthisfeaturecannotfunctionasa

reliable“mark”distinguishingthefalsefromthetrue(as“Cicero”says:nullanotaverum

distinguebaturafalso(Luc.84)).29Butistheideaherethatnoimpressionsexhibitevidentness?

Orarewesupposedtothinkthatsomeimpressionsdoexhibitevidentness,butitisnot

exclusivelytrueimpressionsthatdothis?Inotherwords,istheclaimthatimpressionscan

possessevidentnessbeingrejectedwholesale,oronlytheclaimthatsuchevidentnessisan

infalliblemarkeroftruth?ThekeypassageinthisdebateisLuc.34,where“Lucullus”,the

24Luc.7925Ibid.26Luc.8227Luc.88-9028E.g.Luc.90:intervisaveraetfalsaadanimiadsensumnihilinteresse.29“nomarkdistinguishesthetruefromthefalse”

proponentoftheStoic/Antiochianpositioninthiseditionofthetext,attacksonebranchofhis

scepticalcritics,saying:

“Theymakethesamemistakewhen,underpressurefromthetruthitself,theytrytodistinguish‘evident’

(perspicua)from‘apprehensible’(percepta)impressions.Theirideanowistoshowthatthereareevident

impressionsthataretrueandstampedonthemindorintelligencebutstillaren’tapprehensible.Buthow

couldyousaythatsomethingisevidentlywhitewhenit’spossiblethatsomethingblackisgivingriseto

theimpressionthatit’swhite?Andhowarewegoingtosaythatsuchimpressionsareevidentor

accuratelystampedwhenit’sunclearwhetherthemindismovedinresponsetosomethingtrueor

vacuously?Thatleavesyouwithnocolour,body,truth,argument,senses,oranythingevidentatall.

JamesAllen(1997)arguesthatthispassageisreferringtothepositionofCarneades,whose

views(or,perhapsmoreaccurately,theClitomacheaninterpretationofwhoseviews)“Cicero”

explicitlypresentsasmatchinghisowninthistext.30ReadingthispassagealongsideSextus

EmpiricusM7.402ff,whichattributestoCarneadesthepositionthatfalsepossessthesame

evidentnessasthetrue,AllenclaimsthatwehavesufficientevidencetobelievethatCarneades

heldtheviewthatimpressionscouldbe“evident”(perspicua)withoutthisfeaturenecessarily

indicatingtheirtruthfulness;instead,theevidentnessofanimpressionwasindicativeofits

plausibilityor,inthemorecommonterminologyoftheschool,probability.31So,Allenargues:

“wehavegoodgrounds,then,toconcludethatCarneades,asitwere,detachedthesubjective

sideofevidentnessfromtheobjectiverelationtothetruthfromwhichtheStoicshadclaimedit

wasinseparable.Tobeevidentwastobeprobable,orprobableinacertainway.”32

Itispossiblethatthisisalsothepositiontakenby“Cicero”intheLucullus.Thereisadifficult

passageatLuc.99,describingaCarneadeandistinctionbetweentheapprehensibleandthe

probable,andclaimingthatargumentsagainstsensesandevidentnessapplyonlytothe30E.g.Luc.98:“Butlet’sabandonallthesebarbedargumentsandthedialecticians’twistedapproachtodebatealtogether,andshowwhoweare.OnceCarneades’viewhasbeenthoroughlyexplained,allyourAntiochianobjectionswillcollapse.”31SextusM7.403:καὶτεκμήριοντῆςἀπαραλλαξίαςτὸἐπ'ἴσηςταύταςἐναργεῖςκαὶπληκτικὰςεὑρίσκεσθαι,τοῦδὲἐπ'ἴσηςπληκτικὰςκαὶἐναργεῖςεἶναιτὸτὰςἀκολούθουςπράξειςἐπιζεύγνυσθαι.“Andanindicationoftheirindistinguishabilityistheirbeingfoundequallyplain(ἐναργεῖς)andstriking,whileanindicationoftheirbeingequallystrikingandplainisthefactthatthecorrespondingactionsareconnectedwiththem.”(Trans.Bett2005)32Allen,1997:242(Ihaveslightlyadaptedthisquotetomaintainmyvocabularyof“evidentness”forperspicuitas).

apprehensible,nottotheprobable.Thishasbeentakentobeareiterationbythe“Cicero”

characteroftheCarneadeanviewgivenatLuc.34thatimpressionscanbeperspicuawithout

beingpercepta,soopeningthedoortofalse,yetevident,impressions(thoughtheLatin

provideslittlesupportforthisreading).33Ifthiswerethecase,itwouldfitneatlywithCicero,

theauthor’s,apparentrelianceonrhetoricalevidentnessingeneratingconvincing,yet

fictitious,literaryproducts–areliancewewillexploreintheupcomingsections.Thereis,

however,verylittleevidenceforthisreadingintheLatintext,anditseemsmorelikelythat

“Cicero”isherefocusedexclusivelyonrejectingtheStoic/Antiochianclaimthatevidentnessof

thekindtheyargueforispresentintrueimpressions,thanthatheisalso,withlittletono

argumentation,advocatingforadifferentkindofevidentnessthatcanbeheldbybothfalse

andtrueimpressions.TheclaimatLuc.105that“Lucullus’”“defenceofevidentness”

(perspicuitatispatrocinium)hascollapsedunder“Cicero’s”argumentativeonslaughtalsoseems

tomakemoresenseif“Cicero’s”speechisaimedatrejectingtheStoic/Antiochianformulation

ofevidentness,ratherthansupportingarevised,Carneadeanversion.“Cicero’s”goalinhis

speech,then,istoshowthatevidentnessofthekindenvisagedbytheStoics/Antiochianswhich

actsasaguaranteeofthetruthofanimpression,isindefensible,ratherthantoargueforthe

possibleevidentnessoffalseimpressions.However,justbyhaving“Lucullus”raisethe

possibilityofascepticalsysteminwhichevidentnessisunyokedfromtruthatLuc.34,thedoor

isleftopenforthekindsofevidentyetfalseimpressionsthat,asweshallsee,wefindin

Hellenisticrhetoricaltheory,andunderwhichcategorythedramaticallyvividyetfictional

accountfoundinadialoguesuchastheAcademicamightfall.Ifthisisthecase,thenthe

entiretyoftheAcademicacouldbereadasyetanothercounter-exampletotheStoic-

Antiochianformulationofevidentness,inthatitisitselfafictionalaccountwhichdisplaysthe

33Allen1997(Brittain2006:p.58n148seemstobeinagreement:“[Cicero’s]interpretationofCarneadesdrawsonthedistinctionbetweenthe‘unclear’and‘inapprehensible’inAc.2.32,whichallowsfortheidentificationofinapprehensiblebutpersuasiveimpressionsasCarneades’‘practicalcriterion’inAc.2.33–36.”ThemainproblemwithreadingtheLatininthiswayisthatthereisnoexplicitreferencetotherolewhichthe“evident”playsinthesecondofCarneades’twodivisions,inwhichwefindtheprobableandtheimprobable:duoplacetesseCarneadigeneravisorum;inunohancdivisionem,aliavisaessequaepercipipossint<aliaquaenonpossint,>inalteroautem,aliavisaesseprobabiliaalianonprobabilia.itaquequaecontrasensuscontraqueperspicuitatemdicantureapertinereadsuperioremdivisionem,contraposterioremnihildicioportere.quareitaplacere,talevisumnullumesseutperceptioconsequeretur,utautemprobatiomulta.

qualitativefeatureofevidentnessthatisreservedbytheStoicis/Antiochiansexclusivelyfortrue

impressions.

Anobjectioncouldberaisedatthispointthattheimpressionsproducedbyreadingaliterary

dialoguearesimplynottherightkindofimpressionstoformsuccessfulcounter-examplesto

theStoic/Antiochianposition,asdescribedinthistext.Thetextemphasisesrepeatedlythatthe

typeofcatalepticimpressionthattheStoics/Antiochiansaremostinterestedindefendingisthe

catalepticimpressiongeneratedbysenseperception–thereliabilityofwhichcan,

consequently,confirmthereliabilityofoursensesthemselves.34Whilethesoundor

appearanceofthewordsthatmakeuptheAcademicamayproduceinusthiskindofsensory

impressioninthereaderorlistener,theimpressionsthatwegetinregardtothespeechand

activitiesofacharactersuchas“Cicero”whenwereadtheAcademicaareofadifferentkind.

Worksofliteraturecertainlydo,ontheStoic/Antiochianaccount,generateimpressionsintheir

audience:EpictetusfamouslydescribestheIliadas“nothingbutimpression(φαντασία)”;35the

playsAtreus,Oedipus,andPhoenix,meanwhile,aredescribedasφαινόμεναofthekind

believedonlybymadmen.36Thekindofimpressionscausedbythedescriptionsofeventsfound

inliterature,however,arenon-sensoryimpressions,which,accordingtotheStoics,were

generatedbytheminditself.37How,then,wouldthekindsofnon-sensoryimpressions

generatedbyaliteraryaccountformarelevantcounter-exampletotheaccountsoftheunique

evidentnessoftruesensoryimpressionsfoundintheStoic/Antiochiansectionsofthe

Academica?

Significantly,theNewAcademyappealstopreciselythiskindofnon-sensoryimpressionwhen

attackingtheStoic/Antiochianclaimthattrueimpressionsarequalitativelydistinctfromfalse

34E.g.Luc.1935Epictetus,Discourses,1.28.12-1336ibid.32-3337DL.7.51Τῶνδὲφαντασιῶνκατ'αὐτοὺςαἱμένεἰσιναἰσθητικαί,αἱδ'οὔ·αἰσθητικαὶμὲναἱδι'αἰσθητηρίουἢαἰσθητηρίωνλαμβανόμεναι,οὐκαἰσθητικαὶδ'αἱδιὰτῆςδιανοίαςκαθάπερτῶνἀσωμάτωνκαὶτῶνἄλλωντῶνλόγῳλαμβανομένων.“Accordingtothemsomepresentationsaredataofsenseandothersarenot:theformeraretheimpressionsconveyedthroughoneormoresense-organs;whilethelatter,whicharenotdataofsense,arethosereceivedthroughtheminditself,asisthecasewithincorporealthingsandalltheotherpresentationswhicharereceivedbyreason.”

impressionsbyvirtueoftheirevidentness.Thecounter-examplesofthemadman,the

inebriatedman,andthedreamer,exploitedfrequentlybythescepticalAcademy,are

introducedpreciselybecausethenon-sensoryimpressionsproducedbythemindsofthosewho

areintheseatypicalstatesseemtothemtoexhibitthesamelevelofevidentnessastrue

impressionsresultingfromsenseperception.Thefactthattheseimpressionsappeartobe

qualitativelyindistinguishablefromtrueimpressions,despitehavingnoexternalorigininthe

realworld,ispreciselywhatmakesthempowerfulcounter-examplestotheStoic/Antiochian

formulationofthecatalepticimpression.Consequently,thenon-sensorynatureofthese

impressionsisemphasisedbyCicerothroughoutthetext.Whentheyarefirstintroducedby

“Lucullus,”theseimpressionsaredescribedas“producedbytheimagination(cogitatio)”and

“fabricated(fingere)toourselvesandinvented(depingere)bytheimagination(cogitatio)”(the

useofthetermsfingoanddepingohere,interestingly,beingtakenfromthefieldofartisticor

literaryproduction).38Whentheexamplesofthemadman,inebriatedman,andthedreamer

areraisedagainby“Cicero”atLuc.88-90,heconcludeshisdiscussionbyoncemorepointing

outthenon-sensorynatureofthesecounter-examples,endinghisaccountwiththewords“but

Iamdepartingfromthesenses.”39

Thesortsofnon-sensoryimpressionsexperiencedbythereaderofadramaticdialoguewould,

then,seemtobeofroughlythesamekindasthoseexperiencedbythedreamer,drunkard,or

madman,inthatourmindscreateforusimpressionsofthecharactersandeventsdescribedin

thetext.Indeed,itissignificantthatEpictetusattributestosomeoneunderthegripofa

dramaticillusionanerrorsimilartothatofthemadman.40Assuch,then,theimpressions

createdbytheliteraryrepresentationoftheconversationwhichtakesplaceintheAcademica

seemtobepreciselythekindofimpressionsthatcouldbeemployedasacounter-example

againstStoic/Antiochianepistemology–provided,thatis,thattheimpressionscreatedfrom

38Luc.5139Luc.90:sedabeoasensibus.40Epictetus,Discourses,1.28.32-33(seeaboveftnt34)

thistexthavealevelofevidentnesssimilartothatexhibitedbyimpressionsformedfromtrue

events(apossibilitythatiscertainlypresentinthepre-Ciceroniantradition).41

Now,then,itistimetoturntoaconsiderationoftheroleof“evidentness”inHellenistic

rhetoricaltheory.Thiswillconfirmforusboththat“evidentness”isafeaturethatcanbe

extendedtoliterarytexts,andthatitcanbeimpartedtodramaticdialogueslikethe

Academica.WewillthenlookatthewaysinwhichCiceroworkstofosterthis“evidentness”in

hisowntext,before,finally,consideringhowheplayswiththeconvincing,or“evident”,nature

ofhisfictionalrepresentationinhisdedicatoryletter.

TheRoleof“Evidentness”inHellenisticRhetoricalTheory

Asalreadymentioned,theconceptofἐνάργεια(or“evidentness”)isemployednotonlyin

Stoic/Antiochianepistemology,butalsoinHellenisticrhetoricaltheory.42GrahamZanker(1981)

providesacomprehensiveoverviewoftheuseofthisterminGreekcriticism,aswellasthe

transmissionoftheseideasintoLatin.Mostrelevantforourpurposesaretheaccountsof

DionysiusofHalicarnassus(writingacenturyafterCicero,butemergingfromthesame

intellectualtradition)andPs-Demetrius,theauthorofOnStyle(whoseemstohavebeenactive

sometimebetweenthe3rdcenturyBCEandthe1stcenturyAD,andlikelypredatedCicero).43

DionysiusofHalicarnassusmakesthefollowingclaimaboutthepresenceofἐνάργειαinthe

workoftheearly4thcenturyBCEspeech-writer,Lysias:

41See,e.g.SextusEmpiricusM.7.216-7:“ButAristotleandTheophrastusandingeneralthePeripateticsalsoallowthecriteriontobetwofold(thenatureofthingsbeing,atthehighestlevel,twofold,since,asIsaidbefore,somethingsareperceptible,othersintelligible):sense-perceptionforperceptiblethings,intelligenceforintelligiblethings,andcommontoboth,asTheophrastussaid,whatisevident(ἐναργές).”42Thisconnectionhaspreviouslybeennoted,butnotexploredfurther,byVassaly,1993,inherworkonCiceronianoratory.43SeeDeJonge,2012forafullbibliographyregardingthedatingofPs-Demetrius.

ἔχειδὲκαὶτὴνἐνάργειανπολλὴνἡΛυσίουλέξις.αὕτηδ᾿ἐστὶδύναμίςτιςὑπὸτὰςαἰσθήσειςἄγουσατὰ

λεγόμενα,γίγνεταιδ᾿ἐκτῆςτῶνπαρακολουθούντωνλήψεως.ὁδὴπροσέχωντὴνδιάνοιαντοῖςΛυσίου

λόγοιςοὐχοὕτωςἔσταισκαιὸςἢδυσάρεστοςἢβραδὺςτὸννοῦν,ὃςοὐχὑπολήψεταιγινόμενατὰ

δηλούμεναὁρᾶνκαὶὥσπερπαροῦσινοἷςἂνὁῥήτωρεἰσάγῃπροσώποιςὁμιλεῖν.ἐπιζητήσειτεοὐθέν,

οἷονεἰκὸςτοὺςμὲνἂνδρᾶσαι,τοὺςδὲπαθεῖν,τοὺςδὲδιανοηθῆναι,τοὺςδὲεἰπεῖν.κράτιστοςγὰρδὴ

πάντωνἐγένετοῥητόρωνφύσινἀνθρώπωνκατοπτεῦσαικαὶτὰπροσήκονταἑκάστοιςἀποδοῦναιπάθητε

καὶἤθηκαὶἔργα.

Evidentness(ἐνάργεια)isaqualitywhichthestyleofLysiashasinabundance.Thisconsistsinacertain

powerhehasofconveyingthethingsheisdescribingtothesensesofhisaudience,anditarisesoutofhis

graspofcircumstantialdetail.NobodywhoapplieshismindtothespeechesofLysiaswillbesoobtuse,

insensitiveorslow-wittedthathewillnotfeelthathecanseetheactionswhicharebeingdescribedgoing

onandthatheismeetingface-to-facethecharactersintheorator’sstory.Andhewillrequirenofurther

evidenceofthelikelyactions,feelings,thoughtsorwordsofthedifferentpersons.Hewasthebestofall

theoratorsatobservinghumannatureandascribingtoeachtypeofpersontheappropriateemotions,

moralqualitiesandactions.44

DionysiusofHalicarnassos,Lysias7

Thewayinwhichthequalityof“evidentness”isconceivedofintherhetoricaltheoryof

Dionysiusis,then,remarkablysimilartowhatwehaveseeninourdiscussionofHellenistic

epistemology.Dionysiusclaimsinthispassagethat,althoughLysias’audiencedonot

experiencetheeventsdescribedbytheoratoratfirsthand,theevidentnessofhisstylemeans

thatthey,nevertheless,experiencethethingsspokenabout“throughtheirsenses”(ὑπὸτὰς

αἰσθήσεις).45Theaveragereaderfeelslikehe“sees”(ὁρᾶν)theeventsdescribed,andthathe

himselfstandsface-to-facewiththecharactersofthenarrative.So,justasinStoic/Antiochian

epistemology,thequalityof“evidentness”isassociatedwiththosekindsofimpressionsthat

weobtainthroughoursenses(thefocusinthispassagebeinguponthesenseofsight).The

differencehereisthattheaudiencehave,infact,nofirst-handsensoryexperienceofthe

eventswhichappeartothemtobesoevident;instead,theconvincing,sensoryqualityofthe

impressionsthattheyreceivecomesfromLysias’rhetoricalskillinimpartingἐνάργειαtohis

44TransadaptedfromUsher,1974.45Admittedly,thisisaveryunusualuseofὑπὸ+theaccusative,butIamherefollowingtheloebtranslator.

speeches.ToputthisintermsofStoic/Antiochianepistemology,theevidentnessofthese

impressionswouldcomenotfromthefactthattheyhavetheparticularcausalhistory

associatedwiththecatalepticimpression(i.e.comingfromwhatistrueinsuchawaythatit

couldnotcometobefromanythingthatisfalse),butbyvirtueofthevividstyleinwhichLysias

relateshisnarrative.Moreover,Dionysiusevengivesussomeofthefeaturesofthisvividstyle:

Lysias’abilitytoproducethisqualityofevidentnessinhisspeechesisattributedtotheinclusion

ofdramaticdetailsintohisnarrative,includingcircumstantialdetail(τῶνπαρακολουθούντων)

andappropriatecharacterisation(τὰπροσήκονταἑκάστοιςἀποδοῦναιπάθητεκαὶἤθηκαὶ

ἔργα).

Pseudo-Demetrius,inhisaccountofἐνάργεια,furtheremphasisestheimportanceofdetailed

scene-settingfortheproductionofthiseffect,andalsodrawsourattentiontothefactthatthis

sortofqualityisassociatedwiththephilosophicaldialoguesofPlato.

(209)Πρῶτονδὲπερὶἐναργείας·γίνεταιδ᾿ἡἐνάργειαπρῶταμὲνἐξἀκριβολογίαςκαὶτοῦπαραλείπειν

μηδὲνμηδ᾿ἐκτέμνειν,οἷον“ὡςδ᾿ὅτ᾿ἀνὴρὀχετηγὸς”καὶπᾶσααὕτηἡπαραβολή·τὸγὰρἐναργὲςἔχειἐκ

τοῦπάνταεἰρῆσθαιτὰσυμβαίνοντακαὶμὴπαραλελεῖφθαιμηδέν…(217)Γίνεταιδὲκαὶἐκτοῦτὰ

παρεπόμενατοῖςπράγμασιλέγεινἐνάργεια,οἷονὡςἐπὶτοῦἀγροίκουβαδίζοντοςἔφητις,ὅτι“πρόσωθεν

ἠκούετοαὐτοῦτῶνποδῶνὁκτύποςπροσιόντος,”ὡςοὐδὲβαδίζοντοςἀλλ᾿οἷόνγελακτίζοντοςτὴνγῆν.

(218)ὅπερδὲὁΠλάτωνφησὶνἐπὶτοῦἹπποκράτους,“ἐρυθριάσας[ἤδητῇνυκτὶ],ἤδηγὰρὑπέφηνέντι

ἡμέρας,ὥστεκαταφανῆαὐτὸνγενέσθαι,”ὅτιμὲνἐναργέστατόνἐστι,παντὶδῆλον·ἡδ᾿ἐνάργειαγέγονενἐκ

τῆςφροντίδοςτῆςπερὶτὸνλόγονκαὶτοῦἀπομνημονεῦσαι,ὅτινύκτωρπρὸςαὐτὸνεἰσῆλθενὁἹπποκράτης.

(209)First,evidentness:itcomesfirstfromtheuseofprecisedetailandfromomittingandexcluding

nothing,forexamplethewholesimilebeginning“aswhenamandrawsoffwaterinanirrigation

channel.”Thiscomparisonowesitsevidentnesstothefactthatallaccompanyingdetailsareincludedand

nothingisomitted…(217)Evidentnessalsocomesfromtheuseofcircumstantialdetail,asinsomeone’s

descriptionofacountrymanwalkingalong,“theclatterofhisfeetwasheardfromfarawayashe

approached,”justasifhewerenotjustwalkingalongbutvirtuallystampingtheground.(218)Platotoohas

anexamplewhenheisdescribingHippocrates:“Hewasblushing,fortherewasalreadyafirstglimmerof

daylighttorevealhim.”(Pl.Protag.312a)Thisisextremelyevident,asanybodycansee,andtheevidentness

istheresultofhiscarefuluseofwordsandkeepinginmindthatitwasnightwhenHippocratesvisited

Socrates.46

Ps-Demetrius,OnStyle,209and217-18

Again,then,thisrhetoricaltheoristemphasisestheinclusionofaccompanyingdetailasbeing

keytotheproductionofἐνάργεια,andthepassagefromPlato’sProtagorasprovidesusthe

kindofaccompanyingdetailswhichproducethiseffectinthecontextofaphilosophical

dialogue,namelytheinclusionofanincidentaldetailwhichcanreinforceforthereaderthe

dramaticsettingofthework.

WhentheconceptofἐνάργειαistakenupinRomanrhetoricaltheory,wefind,again,theclaim

thatitisthisfeatureofanoratoricalworkwhichaccountsforthefactthatliterarytextscangive

usthekindofvividmentalimpressionsthatwewouldexpecttoderiveonlyfromdirectsensory

contactwiththecharactersandeventsinquestion.Inhisdialogue,DePartitioneOratoria,

whichpurportstobeaLatinlanguageaccountofGreekrhetoricaltheory,thecharacter

“Cicero”describesthisfeatureofrhetoricalstyle(whichheherecallsinlustrisoratio)asthepart

oforatory“whichalmostsetstheeventbeforetheeyes,”withtheeffect“thatweseemtosee”

(utviderevideamur)theeventsinquestion.47Theideathatthiseffect(herecalledinlustris

explanatio)isproducedbytheinclusionofadetailednarrativeaccount,meanwhile,isfoundin

Cicero’sDeOratore,wherethecharacter“Crassus”states:

Nametcommoratiounainrepermultummovetetinlustrisexplanatiorerumque,

quasigerantur,subaspectumpaenesubiectio;quaeetinexponendareplurimumvalentetad

inlustrandumid,quodexponitur,etadamplificandum;uteis,quiaudient,illud,

quodaugebimus,quantumefficereoratiopoterit,tantumessevideatur.

46TransadaptedfromInnes,1995.47Cic.Part.Orat.6.20:illustrisautemoratioestsietverbagravitatedelectaponunturettranslataetsuperlataetadnomenadiunctaetduplicataetidemsignificantiaatqueabipsaactioneatqueimitationererumnonabhorrentia.Estenimhaecparsorationisquaeremconstituatpaeneanteoculos,isenimmaximesensusattingitur:sedceteritamen,etmaximemensipsamoveripotest.Sedquaedictasuntdeorationedilucida,caduntinhancillustremomnia;estenimplurisaliquantoillustrequamilluddilucidum:alterofitutintellegamus,alteroveroutviderevideamur.

“Fordwellingonasinglecircumstanceoftenhasaconsiderableeffect,andisaclearillustration(inlustris

explanatio)ofmatters,almostplacingthemunderthegazeoftheaudienceasiftheywerehappening.

Thishaswonderfulpowerforrepresentinganevent,bothtoillustratewhatisrepresented,andtoamplify

it,sothatthethingweamplifymayappeartotheaudiencetobeasgreatasourspeechisabletomake

it.”48Cic.DeOrat.3.202

So,then,CicerohimselfadoptsinhisownrhetoricaltheorytheGreekideathatnarrative

accountsofevents,can,ifdescribedwithsufficientrhetoricalflair,createanimpactonthe

audienceasiftheyhadexperiencedthemfirst-hand,throughtheirownsenses.

Inthepassagesthatwehaveseen,and,indeed,inallthesurvivingpassagesinwhichCicero

dealswiththisideaofrhetoricalevidentness,theterminologyofillustratioisused.Quintilian,

however,writingacenturyandahalfafterCiceroanddrawingheavilyonhiswork,49speaksof:

“ἐνάργεια,whichiscalledbyCicero“illustration”(inlustratio)and“evidentness”(euidentia)

(Quint.Inst.Or.6.2.32).50Evidentia,is,ofcourse,oneofthetechnicaltermsusedbyCiceroto

translatetheGreekἐνάργειαintheAcademica(e.g.Luc.83).Quintilianhere,then,attributesto

Ciceroarhetoricaltheoryofevidentnessthatemploysthesameterminologyasthatusedinthe

epistemologicalcontextoftheAcademica.Quintilianalsodescribestheeffectofthisrhetorical

evidentnessonthemindusingthepsychologicalterminologyoftheAcademica:thesetexts

producevivid“φαντασίαι”(impressions)inourminds,whichQuintiliantranslatesintoLatin

usingtheCiceronianvisiones(e.g.Luc.33andpassim).51Wecannot,unfortunately,knowfor

48TranslationadaptedfromWatson,1895.49ThepassageoftheDeOratorejustquotedis,forexample,citedbyQuintilianatQuint.Inst.Or.9.2.40.50ἐνάργεια,quaeaCiceroneinlustratioeteuidentianominatur51Quint6.2.30-1:QuasφαντασίαςGraecivocant(nossanevisionesappellemus),perquasimaginesrerumabsentiumitarepraesentanturanimouteascernereoculisacpraesenteshaberevideamur,hasquisquisbeneceperitiseritinadfectibuspotentissimus.Quidamdicuntεὐφαντασίωτονquisibiresvocesactussecundumverumoptimefinget:quodquidemnobisvolentibusfacilecontinget;nisiverointerotiaanimorumetspesinanesetvelutsomniaquaedamvigilantiumitanoshaedequibusloquorimaginesprosecunturutperegrinarinavigareproeliari,populosadloqui,divitiarumquasnonhabemususumvideamurdisponere,neccogitaresedfacere,hocanimivitiumadutilitatemnontransferemus[adhominem].Occisumqueror:nonomniaquaeinrepraesentiaccidissecredibileestinoculishabebo?nonpercussorillesubituserumpet?nonexpavescetcircumventus,exclamabitvelrogabitvelfugiet?nonferientem,nonconcidentemvidebo?nonanimosanguisetpalloretgemitus,extremusdeniqueexpirantishiatusinsidet?“The

surewhethertheterminologicalconnectionbetweenrhetoricalandepistemological

evidentnessattributedtohimbyQuintilianwasactuallymadebyCiceroinpassagesnowlostto

us:itcould,instead,bethecasethatQuintilian’swordsrepresentaninterestingmomentinthe

earlyreceptionofCicerowherehisworksonrhetoricaltheoryandepistemologyareread

togetherinthesearchforaunifiedaccountofἐνάργεια.Cicerodoes,however,makeuseinthe

AcademicaoftheillustratiovocabularythatwefindinhisdiscussionofevidentnessintheDe

OratoreandPart.Or..Anevidentimpressionisdescribedasinlustrisby“Cicero”throughout

Luc.94.InthesummaryofStoicepistemologyatDND1.12,meanwhile,thecataleptic

impressionisdescribedasinsignisetinlustris.Thissharedvocabularyinthepassageswhich

surviveforusshould,Ithink,suggestthatCicero’suseofthesharedtechnicaltermevidentiato

describeevidentnessinbothepistemologicalandstylisticcontextsinalostsectionofthetextis

eminentlyplausible.Whatisclearfromthisdiscussion,however,isthatCiceroisawareofand

subscribestotheGreekrhetoricaltheorists’viewsonἐνάργεια,andagreeswiththeiraccount

oftheabilityofliteraturetoconvincinglyproduceasceneinthe“mind’seye.”Moreover,this

rhetoricalfeatureisdiscussedbyCiceropreciselybecauseofitsutilityinoratory,inthatitcan

beusedtoconvincetheaudienceofapoliticalorforensicspeechofthetruthofanaccount.52

So,then,asZankerhasobserved:“theancienttestimonia[inwhichheincludesthatofCicero

himself]…demonstratethatἐνάργειαanditsLatinequivalentsdenotethatstylisticqualityof

descriptiverepresentationwhichmakesavividappealtothesenses,inparticulartosight;a

personwhowillshowthegreatestpowerintheexpressionofemotionswillbethepersonwhohasproperlyformedwhattheGreekscallphantasiai(letuscallthem“visiones”),bywhichtheimagesofabsentthingsarepresentedtothemindinsuchawaythatweseemactuallytoseethemwithoureyesandhavethemphysicallypresenttous.Someusethewordeuphantasiōtosofonewhoisexceptionallygoodatrealisticallyimaginingtohimselfthings,words,andactions.Wecanindeedeasilymakethishappenatwill.Whenthemindisidleoroccupiedwithwishfulthinkingorasortofdaydreaming,theimagesofwhichIamspeakinghauntus,andwethinkwearetravellingorsailingorfightingabattleoraddressingacrowdordisposingofwealthwhichwedonotpossess,andnotjustimaginingbutactuallydoingthesethings!Canwenotturnthismentalvicetoausefulpurpose?Surelywecan.SupposeIampleadingthecasethatsomeonehasbeenmurdered.AmInottohavebeforemyeyesallthecircumstanceswhichonecanbelievetohavehappenedduringtheevent?Willnottheassassinburstoutonasudden,andthevictimtremble,cryforhelp,andeitherpleadformercyortrytoescape?ShallInotseeonemanstrikingtheblowandtheothermanfalling?Willnottheblood,thepallor,thegroans,thelastgaspofthedyingbeimprintedonmymind?”52C.f.DeOrat.3.215sedea[sc.veritas]sisatisinactioneefficeretipsapersese,arteprofectononegeremus;butiftruthwereefficientenoughindeliveryofitself,weshouldcertainlyhavenoneedfortheaidofart.

numberaddtheconsiderationthatitwillbeproducedbydetaileddescriptionoftheattendant

circumstancesofanaction.”53Ifaliteraryworkweretoexhibitthiskindofevidentness,then,it

wouldhavepreciselythequalitiesthatwouldmakeitanidealcandidateasasuccessful

counter-exampletotheStoic/Antiochiantheoryofthecatalepticimpression:thiskindof

literaryaccountwouldproduceinitsreaderallofthequalitativefeaturestypicallyassociated

withtrueimpressionsproducedbysenseperception,despitethatfactthatthereaderhashad

nosensorycontactwiththecharactersoreventsdepictedbythetextatall.Thereaderofa

well-craftedliteraryaccountcould,then,beseenbytheAcademicsceptictobeinthesame

positionasthatmuch-usedfigure,thedreamer:justasthedreamerhasimpressionswhich

appeartoderivefromsenseperception,butareinfactproducedbyhismind,sotoothereader

ofadramaticallysuccessfultexthasimpressionswhichappeartoderivefromsenseperception

butareinsteadproducedbythemind’sresponsetothestylisticfeaturesofthework.

Whatremains,beforeweturntoadiscussionofthefeaturesindicativeofrhetorical

evidentnesswithintheAcademicaitself,istonotethatadramaticdialogueofthistypeis

preciselythekindoftexttowhichthisrhetoricaltheoryshouldapply.Inthefirstplace,as

discussedatthebeginningofthispaper,botheditionsofthetextarestructuredasaseriesof

competingspeeches(orationes).Weourselvesmayhaveatendency,asexpressedby

Schofield,54tolookattheseextendedspeechesandthinktheyprovidelessopportunityfor

dramaticimpactthanthemoreconversationalbackandforthofsomePlatonicdialogues.In

Ciceronianterms,however,theuseofextendedoratioallowshimtoemployallofthetricksof

theorator’strade(ashetellsusatTD1.7,hisgoalinwritinghisphilosophicaltextsisto

combineprudentiawitheloquentia),andsoprovideshimwithpreciselytherightkindof

materialforproducinginlustrisoratioandthevividdramaticimpactthatgoeswithit.

Moreover,thisisexactlywhatCicerotellsusheisdoinginthiswork.Thecharacter“Cicero”

tellsusattheverybeginningofAcademicaIthattheauthor’sprojectofwritingGreek

philosophyinLatinisanattemptphilosophiamqueveteremillamaSocrateortamLatinislitteris

53Zanker1981:299-300:54Seep.1ofthispaper.

illustrare(“tomakeevidentinLatinliteraryformtheoldsystemofphilosophywhicharose

fromSocrates).55

TheProductionof“Evidentness”intheAcademica

So,then,canwefindevidenceofattemptstoimpartarhetorical“evidentness”inthe

Academicaitself?Ifwetaketheattempttoimpartἐνάργειαtoatexttoinvolvethosestylistic

featuresdescribedbyCiceroandourotherHellenisticrhetoricaltheoristsinthepreceding

section(namely,descriptionofcircumstantialdetailandrealisticcharacterisation),thenabrief

glanceatthetextwillshowusthatwecan.

Inadditiontotheintroductoryscene-settingofeachoftheeditions(which,inthecaseofthe

Lucullus,involvesalengthy,10-paragraphdiscussionofLucullus’biographicaldetailsto

convinceusthathemightrealisticallyhavebeentheauthorofhisupcomingspeechon

Antiochus),wefindrepeatedreferencestothedramaticframeofthedialogue,eveninthe

midstofphilosophicalexposition.InAcademicaI,forwhichwehavelessextensiveevidence,

thenodstothedramaticframeareaccomplishedbyfrequentinterjectionsandencouragement

from“Cicero”and“Atticus,”astheylistento“Varro’s”speech.“Varro’s”speech,whichstartsat

Ac.1.15,isinterruptedatAc1.18,25,26,33,35,and41,beforeourtextbreaksoffat1.46,so

thereadergoesnomorethanafewparagraphswithoutbeingremindedthatthisspeechis

depictedaspartofareal-lifeconversation.IntheLucullus,wefindrepeatedreferencestothe

dramaticsettingoftheconversation,whichisimaginedastakingplaceinthegardenof

Hortensius’houseatBauli,overlookingtheBayofNaples.56“Cicero”appealstothedramatic

settingoftheconversationinordertomakeapointabouttheimperfectnatureofeyesight,

saying:

55Ac.1.456Luc.9

egoCatuliCumanumexhoclococernoeteregione,57Pompeianumnoncerno,nequequicquam

interiectumestquodobstet,sedintendiacieslongiusnonpotest.opraeclarumprospectum:Puteolos

videmus;atfamiliaremnostrumP.AvianiumfortasseinporticuNeptuniambulantemnonvidemus.

Lookingfromthisspotstraightahead,IcanseeCatulus’houseinCumae,butnottheoneinPompeii,

althoughthereisnothinginterposedtohindermysight—it’sjustthatmyvisioncan’tstretchthatfar.

Whatawonderfulview!IcanseePuteoli!ButIcan’tseemyfriendGaiusAvianius,thoughhemaybe

takingastrollinthePorticoofNeptune.

Cic.Luc.80

Hethengoesontotalkaboutthefishthatareinthebayjustashortdistanceawayfromthem,

althoughtheycannotseethem(quinequevidenturanobisetnuncquidemsuboculissunt,Luc.

81).Thisseasidesettingisinvokedby“Cicero”againatLuc.100,whereheintroducesthe

questionofwhetherthewisemanwouldholdanyopinionsifhesetoutbyboatfromtheir

currentlocationtoPuteoli.Itisraisedoncemoreat125,whentalkingaboutDemocritus’

theoryofmultipleworlds(“justaswearenowatBauliandhaveaviewofPuteoli,sothereare

innumerableothergroupsofpeoplewiththesamenamesanddistinctionsandrecord,minds,

appearancesandages,discussingthesamesubjectsinsimilarplaces”).58Wefindthisfrequent

invocationofthedramaticsettingofthetextalongsiderepeatedmentionsoftheviewsand

biographiesofthecharacters,59andtheregularuseofexclamationanddirectaddressto

remindusthatthesespeechesarepresentedasbeingdeliveredtoaparticulargroupofRoman

statesmen.60Indeed,Cicero’sintegrationofsettingandargumentissuchthat,inhissecond

editionoftheAcademica,heretainsthiswaterfrontsetting(now,though,withtheaction

transportedtoVarro’svillainCumae)toaccompanywhatseemsfromourfragmentstobea

continuedrelianceuponaquaticexamples.61

57IamhereusingReid’stext.58etutnosnuncsimusadBaulosPuteolosquevideamussicinnumerabilesparibusinlocisesseisdemnominibushonoribusrebusgestisingeniisformisaetatibusisdemderebusdisputantes.59E.g.thereferencetoCicero’sfoilingoftheCatlinarianconspiracyatLuc.6260E.g.thevocativesLuculle(Luc.87)andCatule(Luc.89)61SeeGriffin,1997:24.Thefragmentsinquestionarefr.3and7(Reid)fromBook2andfr.13(Reid)fromBook3.Fr.13isparticularlystrikingforitsemploymentofthevisualfeaturesofthedramaticsetting:“rightnowwearesittingbytheLucrineLakeandseethelittlefishesjumpingoutofthewater”(etutnosnuncsedemusadLucrinumpisciculosqueexultantesvidemus).

Toturnnowtocharacterisation,wehavealreadyobservedinourdiscussionofCicero’sletters

toAtticustheemphasisplacedbytheauthorupontheselectionofplausiblecharactersforhis

dialogue.FurtherevidenceofCicero’sconcernwithcrediblecharacterisationinhisproduction

ofthiscanbefoundinthetextaswehaveit.IntheintroductiontotheLucullus,Ciceroties

himselfinknotstryingtoprovideasuitablebackstoryforhischaracter,“Lucullus,”whichwill

providehimofthenecessaryknowledgeofAntiochianphilosophywhich,asthelettersto

Atticustellus,hishistoricalmodelprobablydidnothave.62Inthesecondeditionofthetext,

meanwhile,therearerepeatedreferencestotheintellectualbiographiesandcurrentliterary

interestsofthecharacters,inordertosupporttheplausibilityoftheirengaginginthekindof

discussiondescribedinthetext.Finally,theconversationbetweenthecharactersinboth

editionsisfullofthefamiliarityandrespectfuldisagreementthatwearemeanttobelieve

typifiesarealconversationbetweenagroupofeliteRomanfriends.63

Allofthesefeatures,then,whentakentogether,indicatethatCicero’stextwasproducedwith

aneyetoimbuingitwithdramaticcredibilityandrhetoricalevidentness,andsothatitwas

intendedtoeffectthereaderinsuchawaythatheexperiencedthedepictedspeechesasif

theywererealandtakingplaceinfrontofhisveryeyes.Insteadofexhibitingthe“negationof

thedramaticintheinterestsoftheexpositionofsystems,”64then,intheAcademicaCicero

takescaretoemploytheveryrhetoricaltropesthataredesignedtobringthesceneshedepicts

tolifeinthemindofhisreader.Thisisnot,ofcourse,tosaythatthesetropesnecessarilyhave

thedesiredeffect(Ithinkitwouldbeverydifficulttofindareadertodaywhoisblownaway

withthedramaticrealismoftheAcademica)-butthisapparentfailurewillhaveasmuchtodo

withthereader’sownculturalbackground,sensitivitytooratoricalstyle,andliterary

expectations,aswiththetextitself.

62SeeLuc.5,whereCiceroraisesthefactthatsomereaderswillnotbelievehisclaimthatLucullusknewthedoctrinesofAntiochus63E.g.“Lucullus’”gentlemockeryofCiceroatLuc.62;“Hortensius’”jokesandpraiseatLuc.63etc.64Schofield,2008(seep.1)

TheDedicatoryLetterasaGuidetotheFunctionoftheDialogueForm

Sofar,then,wehaveexaminedthewaysinwhichCiceroworkstomaximisethe“evidentness”

ofhisAcademica,andhavedevelopedatentativehypothesisthat,inproducingthiskindof

crediblebutultimatelyfictitiousaccount,hemaybeprovidinghisreaderwithalarge-scale

counter-exampletotheStoic/Antiochianclaimthatcatalepticimpressionsareuniquelyevident.

Iamnowgoingtosuggestthatthiskindofreadingmaybefurtherauthorisedandendorsedby

theprogrammaticdedicatoryletterwhichaccompaniedthesecondedition.

WhilewehavelostthelargerpartofthesecondeditionoftheAcademica,weareluckyenough

tohavebothaletterdedicatingthedialoguetoVarro,andalettertoAtticuswhichdiscusses

thisdedicatoryletter.ThislettertoAtticustellsusthatthededicatoryletterwasappendedto

thecopyofthetextsentbyCicerotohisfriendandpublisher,andso,presumably,was

includedwithintheeditionoftheAcademicamadebyAtticus’copyistsanddistributedtoa

generalaudience.65Thededicatoryletter,whichCicerotellsAtticushelabouredoveratlength

(“letmebedamnedifIevertakesomuchtroubleaboutanythingagain!”),66displaysallthe

expectedfeaturesofthegenre,dedicatingtheworktoVarroandoutliningthesocial

obligationsthatarisefromthisact.Italso,however,containsanunexpectedcomment

concerningtheanticipatedimpactofthetextonitsreader.Attheendofsection1,Cicero

writes:

Putofore,ut,cumlegeris,mirerenosidlocutosesseinternos,quodnumquamlocutisumus;sednosti

moremdialogorum.

Ithinkthatwhenyoureadit[i.e.the2ndeditionoftheAcademica]youwillbeamazedthatwehavesaid

toeachotherthingsthatwehaveneversaid;butyouknowtheconventionofdialogues. Cic.AdFam.9.8

65AdAtt.3.25:sed,quaeso,epistulameaadVarronemvaldenetibiplacuit?66Ibid.malemisitsiumquamquicquamtamenitar

Thereader’samazement(mirere)ispresumablytheresultofthemismatchdescribedhere

betweentheeventsasrepresentedinthetext(nosidlocutosesseinternos)andthewayin

whichtheyactuallyhappened(numquamlocutisumus).67Sothisletter,whichprefacesthe

workasawhole,asksthereadertoturnhisattentiontothegenericidentityoftheAcademica

asadramaticdialogue,andpointsoutthekeyfeaturewhichitshareswithotherexamplesof

thisgenre:namely,thatitprovidesacredibleandconvincingaccountofaconversationwhichis

entirelyfabricated.Thereferencetothismosdialogorum,then,worksbeforethedialogueeven

beginstodrawthereader’sattentiontoitsstatusasaconvincingaccountofareal-life

conversation,whilesimultaneouslyrevealingittobealiteraryfiction.Thedifficultyin

differentiatingtherealfromtheunreal,whichwillturnouttobethemainphilosophicaltheme

ofthetextasawhole,isfirstencountered,then,asaproblemexhibitedbytheliteraryformof

thephilosophicaldialogue:themosdialogorumistoportrayeventssorealisticallythatweare

astonishedwhenwerealisethattheydidnot,infact,occur.Thedramaticillusionofthe

Academicaitself,then,mayverywellbethefirstexamplethatweencounterofthe

epistemologicaluncertaintythatwillbeCicero’smainmessageinthisdialogue.

ThatCiceroconsideredhistextitselftobeemblematicoftheepistemologicalproblemsit

describedcanperhapsbeconfirmedbyafurthercommentinthelettertoAtticusinwhichhe

discussesthededicatorylettertoVarro.Herehesays:OAcademiamvolaticametsuisimilem

(“OhtheAcademica,68sochangeableandsimilartoitself!”AdAtt13.25).Thepointhereseems

tobethat,followingthenumerousrevisionshehasmadetothetext,theformofthe

AcademicaitselfnowreflectsthephilosophicalmethodoftheNewAcademy,inthatits

proponentsconstantlyflitfromoneargumentativepositiontoanother,testingtheplausibility

ofeachbeforeadopting(albeitprovisionally)anyparticularview.InwritingtheAcademica,

then–or,atleast,inthefinalstagesofitsrevision–Ciceroseemstohavebeenthinkingabout

thesignificantsimilaritiesbetweentheliteraryformofhisdialogueandthephilosophical

67IndeedintheGreekrhetoricaltraditionἐνάργειαisassociatedwithἔκπληξις,“astonishment”:seee.g.Longinus,15.268Theterm“Academia”herereferringtothetextinwhichCicerodefendstheAcademy,i.e.theAcademica.

positionforwhichitargues.69Itwouldnot,then,tobetoomuchofastretchtothinkthat

Ciceromaybeaskinghisreadertodothesameinhisdedicatoryletter.

Ifwedoadoptthisreading,wearerewardedwithaplausibleexplanationfortheparticular

emphasisoncharacterisation,scene-setting,anddramaticembellishmentintheAcademica,

whichfitsinwiththeremainsofthetextaswehavethem:namely,thattheseallworktogether

toproducealiteraryἐνάργειαwhichcreatesinthemindofthereadervividimpressionsthat

havethesamequalityasthoseproducedthroughsenseperception,andsounderminethe

Stoic/Antiochianrelianceuponevidentnessasacriterionfordistinguishingfalsefromtrue

impressions.Failingthat,ourdiscussionofCicero’semphasisuponcharacterisationanduseof

oratoricaldevicesshouldatleastgosomewaytodispellingthepervasiveopinionthatCicero’s

dialogueformismerewindowdressingwhichthereadercansafelyignorewithoutdoingany

disservicetothetext.IntheAcademica,atleast,theemploymentofthemosdialogorumseems

tobeanessentialpartofCicero’sproject.

69ThetwoeditionsoftheAcademicamayalsoaddtoitsattractionasanillustrativeexampleinsupportofCicero’sepistemologicalscepticism.Anotherimportantcounter-exampleusedbytheSceptictoattacktheStoic/Antiochianaccountofthecatalepticimpressionistheindistinguishabilitybetweentwins(Cic.Luc.84).Therearenowtwo“twin”editionsoftheAcademica,andthereseemstohavebeensomeconfusionastowhichwasthe“real”AcademicaamongCicero’sreaders:seeGurd,2007.

BibliographyofWorksCited:Allen,J.1997.“CarneadeanargumentinCicero’sAcademicBooks,”InwoodandMansfieldeds.AssentandArgument,p.217-256.Bett,R.2005.SextusEmpiricus.AgainsttheLogicians.Cambridge.Brittain,C.2006.Cicero.OnAcademicScepticism.Indianapolis:Hackett.Burnyeat,M.F.1997.“Antipaterandself-refutation:elusiveargumentsinCicero’sAcademica,”InwoodandMansfieldeds.AssentandArgument,p.277-310.DeJonge,C.2012.“Review:NicolettaMarini(ed.),Demetrio,LoStile.”BMCR,2009.08.12http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-08-12.htmlGildenhard,I.2007.PaideiaRomana:Cicero’sTusculanDisputations.Cambridge:CambridgePhilologicalSociety.Goldhill,S.Ed.2008.TheEndofDialogueinAntiquity,Cambridge.Görler,W.1997.“Cicero’sphilosophicalstanceintheLucullus,”InwoodandMansfieldeds.AssentandArgument,p.36-57.Griffin,M.1997.“ThecompositionoftheAcademica:motivesandversions,”InwoodandMansfieldeds.AssentandArgument,p.1-35.Gurd,S.2007.“CiceroandEditorialRevision,”ClassicalAntiquity,Vol.26,No.1(April2007),p.49-80Innes,D.C.1995.Demetrius.OnStyle.Cambridge,MA.Inwood,B.andMansfield,J.1997.AssentandArgument:studiesinCicero’sAcademicBooks.Brill:Leiden,NewYork.Schofield,M.2008.“CiceronianDialogue,”Goldhilled.TheEndofDialogueinAntiquity,p.63-84.Usher,S.1974.DionysiusofHalicarnassusVolumeVIII“CriticalEssays,VolumeI:AncientOrators.Lysias.Isocrates.Isaeus.Demosthenes.Thucydides”.Cambridge,MA.Vassaly,A.1993.Representations:ImagesoftheWorldinCiceronianOratory.Berkley,CA.Zanker,G.1981.“EnargeiaintheAncientCriticismofPoetry,”RheinischesMuseumfürPhilologie,NF,124.Bd.,H.3/4,p.297-311

Dialogue form in Cicero’s Academica - Princeton UniversityDialogue form in Cicero’s Academica...

Documents

Gestiòn academica

Reforma academica

Cicero’s Political Imperative/a reading of On Dutiesdetroitgreekandlatin.com/resources/Cicero's Political Imperative.pdf · Cicero’s Political Imperative/a reading of On Duties

TAREA ACADEMICA

Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis, Confessiones · numquam novus, numquam vetus, innovans omnia; in vetustatem ... une, a quo est omnis modus, formosissime, qui formas omnia et lege tua

Cicero’s duties and Adam Smith’s sentiments: how Smith

Motivacion academica

Oratoria Academica

Presentaciòn Academica

RESILIENCIA ACADEMICA

ApresentaçÞao Academica

Nature and the Good: in Cicero’s De finibus · in Cicero’s De finibus Juan Pablo Bermúdez-Rey* Abstract: This paper investigates the differences between ancient Greek and modern

Dimension Academica

PRO MILONE: THE PURPOSES OF CICERO’S ... MILONE: THE PURPOSES OF CICERO’S PUBLISHED DEFENSE OF T. ANNIUS MILO by ROBERT CHRISTIAN RUTLEDGE (Under the Direction of James C. Anderson,

1CUM DIGNITATE OTIUM. REMARKS ON CICERO’S SPEECH …CUM DIGNITATE OTIUM. REMARKS ON CICERO’S SPEECH IN DEFENCE OF SESTIUS might violate any of their interests. 10 Pompey, who maintained

Idealizing Humanitas in Cicero’s De oratore, or, why ... · Idealizing Humanitas in Cicero’s De oratore, or, why Herbert O. Morrison was wrong Taylor Putnam, 2016 Political Theory

APTITUD ACADEMICA

Voces_escritura academica

Oferta Academica Unidad Academica Santa Cruz

Dissertacao Academica