Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
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.
2
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
3
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).
4
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.
5
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.
6
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
7
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.
8
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.
9
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
10
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”
11
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).
12
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.
13
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.”
14
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)
15
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.
16
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.
17
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
18
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.
19
“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
20
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.
21
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.
22
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
23
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).
24
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)
25
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
26
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.
27
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.
28
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
