No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
‘GREETINGS, CICERO!’: CAESAR AND PLATO ON WRITING AND MEMORY
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 December 2018
Extract
In his digression on the Gauls in Book 6 of the Gallic War, Caesar includes a portrait of the Druids (BGall. 6.13.3 sed de his duobus generibus [sc. quae aliquo sunt numero atque honore] alterum est druidum) and their public roles first and foremost in religious and legal affairs (6.13.4–5 illi rebus diuinis intersunt, sacrificia publica ac priuata procurant, religiones interpretantur … fere de omnibus controuersiis publicis priuatisque constituunt), not forgetting their philosophical doctrine (6.14.6 multa … disputant et iuuentuti tradunt). He emphasizes the strictly oral form their teaching takes (6.14.4), how ‘they do not deem it appropriate to commit it [their learning] to writing even though in almost everything else, in public and private affairs, they resort to Greek writing (neque fas esse existimant ea litteris mandare, cum in reliquis fere rebus, publicis priuatisque rationibus Graecis litteris utantur)’, about the reasons for which he then proceeds to speculate (6.14.4):
id mihi duabus de causis instituisse uidentur, quod neque in uulgum disciplinam efferri uelint neque eos qui discunt litteris confisos minus memoriae studere: quod fere plerisque accidit, ut praesidio litterarum diligentiam in perdiscendo ac memoriam remittant.
This [sc. practice] they seem to me to have instituted for two reasons: they do not wish either that their teaching be revealed to the general public or that those who are learning it, having become reliant on writing, give less attention to memorization; and it does, as a rule, happen to many that, because of the prop offered by writing, they relax their diligence in thoroughly committing things to memory.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2018
References
1 For Celtic inscriptions in Greek letters in France, see Lejeune, M., Recueil des inscriptions Gauloises I: Textes gallo-grecs (Paris, 1985)Google Scholar.
2 All translations are mine except where specified otherwise. I have consulted throughout the following: Hammond, C., Caesar – The Gallic War (Oxford and New York, 1996)Google Scholar and Edwards, H.J., Caesar. The Gallic War (Cambridge, 1917; repr. 2006)Google Scholar. The latter may be in need of replacement.
3 Within the BGall., the following two instances come closest: 5.13.4 nos nihil de eo percontationibus reperiebamus, nisi certis ex aqua mensuris breuiores esse quam in continenti noctes uidebamus, and 7.25.1 accidit inspectantibus nobis quod dignum memoria uisum praetereundum non existimauimus. But both passages use the plural and merge the narrator with the historical agent. For comprehensive lists of self-reference in Caesar, see Kollmann, E.D., ‘Die Macht des Namens. Beobachtungen zum “unpersönlichen” Stil Caesars’, Studii Clasice 17 (1977), 45–60Google Scholar, esp. 54–8. Instances of cross-referencing are listed in Albrecht, Fr., Die Rückverweisungen bei Caesar und seinen Fortsetzern (Berndorf, 1911)Google Scholar. On that practice as a debt to the administrative language, see E. Odelman, Étude sur quelques reflets du style administratif chez César (Diss., Stockholm, 1972), 169–70.
4 It is commonly assumed that the portrait in Strabo (4.4.4) is based on Posidonius, who must have been consulted by Caesar too (see Klotz, A., Cäsarstudien [Leipzig and Berlin, 1910], 120–8Google Scholar, even though he is much too willing to credit Posidonius with everything). But even if not, Strabo reveals what else Caesar could have mentioned: παρὰ πᾶσι δ᾽ ὡς ἐπίπαν τρία φῦλα τῶν τιμωμένων διαφερόντως ἐστί, βάρδοι τε καὶ ὀυάτεις καὶ δρυΐδαι: βάρδοι μὲν ὑμνηταὶ καὶ ποιηταί, ὀυάτεις δὲ ἱεροποιοὶ καὶ φυσιολόγοι, δρυΐδαι δὲ πρὸς τῇ φυσιολογίᾳ καὶ τὴν ἠθικὴν φιλοσοφίαν ἀσκοῦσι: δικαιότατοι δὲ νομίζονται καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πιστεύονται τάς τε ἰδιωτικὰς κρίσεις καὶ τὰς κοινάς, ὥστε καὶ πολέμους διῄτων πρότερον καὶ παρατάττεσθαι μέλλοντας ἔπαυον, τὰς δὲ φονικὰς δίκας μάλιστα τούτοις ἐπετέτραπτο δικάζειν. … ἀφθάρτους δὲ λέγουσι καὶ οὗτοι καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ τὸν κόσμον, ἐπικρατήσειν δέ ποτε καὶ πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ.
5 On ‘signposting’ allusions by Roman poets, see Hinds, S., Allusion and Intertext (Cambridge, 1998), esp. 1–5Google Scholar. I here use the concept somewhat more broadly than, say, Conte, G.B., Memoria dei poeti e sistema letterario (Turin, 1985), 35–45Google Scholar, in his influential reading of Ariadne's memini (Fast. 3.473) as a flag of Ovid's engagement with Catullus 64, or than I myself do in suggesting that Caesar's use of the verbs imitari and tradere (BGall. 7.22.1) signals his adaptation of Thucydides’ account of the siege of Plataea (C.B. Krebs, ‘Thucydides in Gaul and signposting in the Gallic War. The sieges of Plataea and Avaricum’, Histos 10 [2016], 1–14, esp. 11–12). But the three features discussed above clearly signal something; a more systematic study of signposting, i.e. how a reader is alerted / invited / urged to (consult) an intertext, would perhaps be welcomed.
6 As I tentatively suggest in Krebs (n. 5), esp. 5, aggerem apparare is modelled on Thucydides’ χῶμα ἔχουν. Caesar enjoyed such play (as my forthcoming commentary on BGall. Book 7, index, s.v. sound play, will show).
7 The ut is often (and quite naturally) taken to be the object clause to accidit (OLD s.v. 7a); but it may just as well be epexegetical to quod.
8 The intensive compound verb occurs only here in Caesar (Menge, R., Preuss, S., Lexicon Caesarianum [Hildesheim, 1972, orig. Gerstenberg, 1890], s.v.Google Scholar), just like ediscere a few lines before (6.14.2). Of discere there are four instances (ibid. s.v.).
9 Julian, in a law included in the Codex Theodosianus, declares (6.26.1): in rebus prima militia est, secundus in litterarum praesidiis pacis ornatus. I fail to see why neither the author of the lemma littera nor the author of the lemma praesidium marks the relation between the two instances (TLL 7.2.1522.10–11, 10.2.888.26). Nor do I understand how this instance in Caesar could possibly appear in the following company (TLL 10.2.886.4–8): ‘Caes. Gall. 6, 5, 7 loci [praesidi]o freti Menapii ([4 paludibus silvisque muniti]. Liv. 4, 41, 6. 26, 46, 2 l. ac stagni. al.). 6, 14, 4 ut [praesidi]o litterarum diligentiam in perdiscendo … remittant. Hor. carm. 3, 29, 62 biremis [praesidi]o scaphae (…). Liv. 37, 20, 14 in [praesidi]um urbis redit eruptione facta (40, 49, 3).’ Seneca (Ep. 88.28) seems pertinent too: … et nescio an certior memoria sit quae nullum extra se subsidium habet.
10 Then again 276a6 δυνατὸς μὲν ἀμῦναι ἑαυτῷ [sc. ὁ λόγος] and, similarly, 276c8-9 μετὰ λόγων ἀδυνάτων μὲν αὑτοῖς λόγῳ βοηθεῖν.
11 I am indebted to the anonymous reader for alerting me to the possible significance of disputare; in fact, disputo may well translate διαλέγομαι vel sim. (cf. TLL 5.1.1443.11, 1445.35, 1447.16, 1447.47 [Lackenbacher]).
12 On the Lucretian echoes (multa praeterea, de rerum natura) in this passage (and elsewhere), see Krebs, C.B., ‘Caesar, Lucretius and the dates of De rerum natura and the Commentarii’, CQ 63 (2013), 751–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 755.
13 ὅταν δὲ … κακίας πλησθεῖσα βαρυνθῇ [sc. ἡ ψυχή], βαρυνθεῖσα δὲ πτερορρυήσῃ τε καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν πέσῃ, τότε νόμος ταύτην μὴ φυτεῦσαι εἰς μηδεμίαν θήρειον φύσιν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ γενέσει, ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν πλεῖστα ἰδοῦσαν εἰς γονὴν ἀνδρὸς γενησομένου φιλοσόφου ἢ φιλοκάλου ἢ μουσικοῦ τινὸς καὶ ἐρωτικοῦ, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν …
14 I speak of ‘the most cogent additional reason’, as the Druidic belief in metempsychosis by itself would hardly have sufficed to evoke the passage in the Phaedrus; in fact, Ennius’ well-known dream of being Homer reincarnate––but only after passing through a peacock––would make a Pythagorean reminiscence just as likely, if not more so; see Skutsch, O., The Annals of Quintus Ennius (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar, on Enn. Ann. 1.9.
15 For an overview, see Prince, G., ‘Reader’, in Hühn, P. et al. (edd.), Handbook of Narratology (Göttingen, 2009), 398–410Google Scholar. The quotation is on page 398.
16 Quint. Inst. 11.2.9 quamquam inuenio apud Platonem obstare memoriae usum litterarum. There is very little to suggest knowledge of Plato among Cicero's contemporaries; surprisingly, not even Lucretius refers to him in De rerum natura, even though he certainly knew of Plato through Epicurus’ writings (as Andrea Nightingale informs me per litteras).
17 I here mean ‘intended’ more literally and specifically than it was advanced by Wolf, E. in his influential paper ‘Der intendierte Leser. Überlegungen und Beispiele zur Einführung eines literaturwissenschaftlichen Begriffs’, Poetica 4 (1971), 141–66Google Scholar.
18 Görler, W., ‘From Athens to Tusculum: gleaning the background of Cicero's De oratore’, Rhetorica 6 (1988), 215–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 220. I have discussed the discursive function of this reference in Krebs, C.B., ‘A seemingly artless conversation: Cicero's De Legibus (1.1–5)’, CPh 104 (2009), 90–106Google Scholar, esp. 96–7.
19 This argument was first proffered by Hendrickson, G.L., ‘The De analogia of Julius Caesar; its occasion, nature, and date, with additional fragments’, CPh 1 (1906), 97–120Google Scholar. Among more recent elaborations on that view, see first and foremost Garcea, A., Caesar's De Analogia. Edition, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford, 2012), esp. 78–113Google Scholar.
20 As Cicero himself mentions in De diuinatione (1.90): … in Gallia druidae sunt, e quibus ipse Diuitiacum Aeduum, hospitem tuum laudatoremque, cognoui [sc. Quintus], qui et naturae rationem, quam ϕυσιολογίαν Graeci appellant, notam esse sibi profitebatur …. Caesar mentions him earlier in his digression (BGall. 6.12.5): qua necessitate adductus Diuiciacus auxili petendi causa Romam ad senatum profectus infecta re redierat.
21 I am hoping to offer a wider discussion of Caesar and Cicero's intellectual differences, entitled ‘A sibling rivalry?’ (forthcoming).
22 Cic. Inu. rhet. 1.90 qui et naturae rationem quam φυσιολογίαν Graeci appellant notam esse sibi profitebatur et partim auguriis, partim coniectura, quae essent futura dicebat.
23 This may be right: ‘The second element of this compound is the root of the verb *weyd- “see, know” (Skt. Véda, etc.). The first element is presumably PIE *derw-, *dru- “oak”, which metaphorically also meant “strong, firm”. *dru-wid- is therefore the priest with “strong insight”’, in: R. Matasovic, Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic, http://dictionaries.brillonline.com.
24 I wish to thank Andrea Nightingale and Richard Martin (both Stanford University) for helpful discussion of individual points and especially Tony Woodman (UVA) for comments on an earlier draft. I am also indebted to audiences at the University of Texas at Austin, Boston University, University of Virginia and UC Davis, and to the participants in Stanford's second Historiography Jam in April 2017 as well as Brandon Bark (Stanford) for help with the proofs.