Chapter 5 Philosophy’s Parallel Itineraries 5.1 Where Philosophy Begins: Epistemology and Historiography in the Academica The preface to the first Academic Book stages an exchange between Cicero and Varro, which, among other topics, is concerned with the relationship between the newly imported disciplines of philosophy and history, and their place at Rome. Cicero challenges what he perceives as his opponent’s almost exclusive interest in history by developing an opposition between writing philosophy and writing in other historically-minded genres, such as political, legal and military history, geography, biography and literary criticism. Whatever Varro’s achievements in those fields, and his success in providing Romans with a bet- ter idea of their place in history and a better sense of their social and cultural identity (qui et ubi essemus), Cicero makes it very clear that he considers this kind of social and institutional anthropology only “enough to stimulate the learner, but not enough for a complete education” (ad impellendum satis, ad edocendum parum, Ac. 1.9).176 In launching his challenge to Varro and describing the field of “intellectual pursuits” (studia) and “systematic arts” (artes) within which the genus of phi- losophy must take pride of place, Cicero employs a significant expression to define the substance of his project: what he has recently decided to record for posterity (mandare monumentis) and brighten up in literary Latin (Latinis lit- teris illustrare) is more than just a theoretical attitude towards knowledge.177 At Ac. 1.3 the genus is described specifically as “that ancient philosophy, sprung from Socrates” (philosophiam veterem illam a Socrate ortam). The etiologi- cal orientation of Cicero’s undertaking is foregrounded, emphasizing his task as one of establishing at Rome an intellectual practice with a long history rooted in an originary Socratic—Greek—legacy. Starting with Ac. 1.4, Varro’s response mobilizes the same historical register. For the antiquarian, setting up philosophy in the canon of Latin letters is a problematic project that entails understanding the history of Latin philosophical publications, hijacked by art- less Epicureans, and more generally the history of Greco-Roman translation. 176 The passage was discussed in §I.3.1 in relation to Cicero and Varro’s educational collaboration. 177 On monumenta and illustrare, see Vesperini (2012: 381–471). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���9 | doi:�0.��63/9789004389878_007 <UN> 116 Chapter 5 Over his speech, Varro rehearses key preoccupations of the philosophica, namely that interested and learned Romans would read philosophy in the original Greek and that adaptations would fail to change the mind of those Ro- mans who are set against Hellenic disciplines (Ac. 1.4; cf. Fin. 1.4-10). However, he frames this double impasse in terms of the specific difficulties Academics face—as opposed to Epicureans—in modelling an appropriate register to match the complexity of the school’s logic, physics and ethics (Ac. 1.5-8). Varro evades the derivative nature of such enterprises, but capitalizes on his philo- sophical education by infusing philosophical form and topics into other genres more appropriate to the Roman tongue. His corpus offers an indication of such a strategy, with moments of dialectic and philosophic insight punctuating the Menippean Satires, his funeral orations and the prefaces to the Antiquities (Ac. 1.8). In tackling the question of genre, translation, competing traditions and intellectual exchange, the preface of the first Academic Book associates writing philosophy historically and writing history philosophically, even be- fore the debate opens onto rival interpretations of Academic history offered by Philo and Antiochus. The preface to the Lucullus weaves an even more intricate web of histori- cal elements, into which similar issues are introduced. In the so called “eulogy of Lucullus” (laudatio Luculli) opening the dialogue, Cicero sketches a short biography of his protagonist. The profile accentuates Lucullus’ military and po- litical successes against Mithridates vi in the East and offers an apology for the general’s clandestine philosophical interests; Cicero’s defense appeals to ven- erable precedents of the Middle Republic, namely Cato, Scipio Africanus and Panaetius (Luc. 3–5). Finally, he introduces Lucullus’ telling of the Alexandrian Episode as a response to Hortensius’ desire to hear a more thorough investiga- tion of the issues raised “yesterday” (heri) during the conversation memorial- ized in the lost Catulus. Against the background of a debate about derivation and source, translation, imitation and repetition, Hortensius pointedly won- ders whether Lucullus might be able to go over in greater detail the same topics he had previously discoursed on impromptu (a me enim ea quae in promptu erant dicta sunt, a Lucullo autem reconditiora desidero, Luc. 10).178 Biography, intellectual history and Hortensius’ plea all launch a quest for revision, be it of a life, of a period in history or of a debate; all three elements identify telling a story as a site for contestation and negotiation, a site within which and through which the philosophical subject-matter will develop. 178 The comparative “reconditiora” strengthens the continuity between the two dialogues and has created not inconsiderable issues for reconstructions of the Catulus. Indeed, commentators have forcefully rejected the possibility that different versions of the same speech were offered. Cf. Schäublin (1995: lvii) and Mansfeld (1997: 51–53 and 65). <UN>.