Classics Colloquium 4/22: The De-ifferentiation of amicitia
On Friday, April 22, I (virtually) attended the Agnes Michels lecture, given by Dr. Katharina Volk of Columbia University, titled “Wisdom and Friendship in Cicero’s De amicitia.” I was particularly interested in this talk, as Cicero has been a central figure of our class this year, given his influence on philosophy, intellectualism, and of course, the Crisis of Catiline. Additionally, having read excerpts from De amicitia in a previous Latin class, I was interested to learn more.
Volk began with an establishment of what it meant to be a Roman intellectual to Cicero, and how that differed from “Greek intellectualism.” For Romans, intellectualism was not established by theory and specific teaching, but rather through experience and practicality.
“A Roman senator who engaged in philosophia is still a Roman senator,” she explained.
This key difference in interpreting intellectualism was the focal point for the disparity between the Greeks and Romans. Cicero sought to set his characters apart from the Greek ideas of theoretical knowledge, by equipping them with practical and experiential knowledge.
Laelius, the narrator for much of the story, is mourning the death of his friend Scipio, and is asked to give some commentary on their friendship. He is able to discuss it accurately and objectively not because he has been trained to do so, but because he has experienced friendship well enough to commentate on it. Volk also made note of Laelius’ nickname of Sapiens, meaning wise.
She additionally proposed that Laelius is able to beat the lofty intellectuals of Greece at their own game, as he challenges the wisdom of stoics and Pythagoreans who believe that there is no need for anxiety inducing pain in life. Laelius believes that a balanced individual will have experienced all these different feelings, and thus will have a better understanding of it. The Roman’s experience stands in direct contrast to the Greeks, who create a definition based on principles and theory, rather than life experiences.
I believe this Roman focus on acquiring wisdom and authority, thus working to gain your gravitas and auctoritas, is consistent with what we’ve seen from Roman heroes and exempla. They are exemplary not because they knew about and could explain the virtues, but rather because they could put them into practice in real situations. Volk additionally described Laelius as a “self-insert” character for Cicero, which makes sense, since as a novus homo, Cicero would have had to build himself up as a true champion of Roman wisdom and friendship, since his name wouldn’t have any innate gravitas.
Having read De amicitia before, I was familiar with the connection between friendship and virtue, and that friendship was supposedly reserved for good, wise people. However, I had never considered that Cicero was referring to a “Roman” type of wisdom, meaning wisdom that had been obtained empirically and through practice, as exemplified by Laelius. I am thankful to Dr. Volk for such an insightful talk on a work I was only loosely familiar with beforehand!
Word count: 495
