in eisdem exposuit, quae in Italia Hispaniisque [aut fierent aut] viderentur admiranda: in quibus multa industria et diligentia comparet, nulla doctrina.
Nulla doctrina? That doesn’t appear to make a great deal of sense. I searched online, and found at least one text that has multa doctrina. Thoughts? Anybody have access to a critical edition?
OCR error?
Also Cornelii Nepotis Quae supersunt. Apparatu critico adiecto edidit Carolus Halm has nulla doctrina.
OK then nulla it is. An extreme example of bias on Nepos’ part, reacting against Cato’s extreme anti-Greek bias.. It’s a startlingly harsh judgment, given all Cato’s literary achievements (mostly lost), but it’s explicable as contrasting with the wide-ranging and sophisticated learning of Scipio Africanus (Cato’s enemy) and Nepos himself. Cato devoted himself exclusively to Roman affairs, and evidently for Nepos, whose friends were all thoroughly hellenized and steeped in Greek literature, that didn’t qualify as true doctrina. Cf. e.g. Catullus’ docta puella (Catullus dedicated his poems to Nepos), and Cicero’s expertise in Greek lit.
A window into Rome’s culture wars in the last century of the republic.
Yes, that’s the only way to read nulla. I’m willing to go with the critical flow, but it’s still a bit jarring considering that Nepos has just written:
In omnibus rebus singulari fuit industria: nam et agricola sollers et peritus iuris consultus et magnus imperator et probabilis orator et cupidissimus litterarum fuit. [2] quarum studium etsi senior arripuerat, tamen tantum progressum fecit, ut non facile reperiri possit neque de Graecis neque de Italicis rebus, quod ei fuerit incognitum.
Still, it makes sense if Nepos is criticizing specific works without criticizing Cato as a whole.
He knew a lot but didn’t show any understanding? Seems a familiar type.
But can doctrina be used of understanding? It is normally used either actively of “teaching” or passively of “learning.” I want to take it actively here, in the sense that he doesn’t teach us anything through those particular writings, rather than he doesn’t evidence any learning.
I was influenced by the context:
“In quarto autem bellum Poenicum est primum, in quinto secundum. Atque haec omnia capitulatim sunt dicta; reliquaque bella pari modo persecutus est usque ad praeturam Ser. Galbae, qui diripuit Lusitanos. Atque horum bellorum duces non nominavit, sed sine nominibus res notavit. In iisdem exposuit quae in Italia Hispaniisque aut fierent aut viderentur admiranda; in quibus multa industria et diligentia comparet, nulla doctrina.”
The criticism of Cato’s slipshod methods, his summary treatment the first Punic war and other wars, his failure to name names culminates in damning with faint praise his “great industry and carefulness” (in context maybe the Loeb’s “carefulness” is a bit odd perhaps “earnestness” is better). It reminded me of an undergraduate essay in which someone had read the sources but failed to convince that they had full command of them or that they understood them.
But surely “understanding” is implicated in the idea of “learning” (in the sense of “being learned” )?
I hadn’t read MWH’s post when I first commented. Clearly the well worn trope of the anxiety which was felt about the “Hellenisation” of Roman culture is the most important facet of this passage.
I make no claim to be in command of any of this material. 
Yes, we are picking up on different elements of the context (see what I wrote above). I had read the passage above as a more neutral description of Cato’s literary activity, but I can certainly see how, in the broader context and background, it can be viewed much more negatively, especially in the light of nulla doctrina. Cato did know Greek literature, but apparently had little use for it.
I now have the opportunity to look at " Cornelius Nepos: A selection, including the lives of Cato and Atticus, Nicholas Horsfall, Oxford 1989".
Horsfall observes on this passage:
“Did Cato not name sources? Or discuss alternative versions? Cf. Astin (1978), 223. By comparison with Varro’s recently issued Antiquitates (25 books on human affairs and 16 on divine), which had so awed Cicero {Ac. Post. 1. 9; Horsfall BICS 19 (1972), 120ff.;and id., CHCL ii. 289), Cato’s Origines may indeed have seemed unscholarly, but one might wonder whether N. was quite the proper person to make such disdainful comments. N. may, however, refer only to the absence of Greek scientific theory in the Admiranda (see note on 3. 4, events and sights).”
Unsurprisingly this fits with what MWH wrote, although Horsfall notes the following on Cato’s knowledge of Greek (3.2)
"Plutarch (Cat. mai. 2. 5) shows that a Greek recognized numerous allusions to Greek literature in Cato’s writings, and it is clear that he could quote Homer in public (Plb. 36. 8. 7, 3566. 3f.; cf. Astin (1978), 162ff.). Greek he may have learned from Ennius; serious interest in literature came from a good deal later (Val. Max. 8. 7. 1; Astin (1978), 159). On philosophy, he was apparently no keener than (p. xvi) N. himself (Gell. 18. 7. 3, Plut. Cat. mai. 23. 1; Astin (1978), 169f.). But historians, tacticians, and agronomists he probably consulted extensively; see note on Nepos, fr. 56. "
So perhaps it’s not quite true to say that he had little use for Greek literature.
Thanks. However, this information is all in the same sentence in Nepos:
…cupidissimus litterarum fuit. [2] quarum studium etsi senior arripuerat, tamen tantum progressum fecit, ut non facile repeirri possit neque de Graecis neque de Italicis rebus, quod ei fuerit incognitum.
I’m reminded of Quigley (Tom Sellick) in Quigley Down Under, who, although he didn’t like to use pistols, still had the skill set necessary to use them quite effectively.
Barry I am not sure I fully understand your reply.
I don’t think that the text you quote supports the contention that “Cato …apparently had little use for [Greek Literature].”
As the Loeb has it:
"Although he took up literary work late in life, yet he made such progress that it is not easy to find anything either in the history of Greece or of Italy which was unknown to him. "
or Horsfall
“though he only seized upon the pursuit of letters as an older man, yet he made such progress that it is hard to find anything in Greek or Italian affairs that he did not know.”
This really says nothing explicit about his use of Greek language material although the sources quoted by Horsfall would indicate that he not only knew Greek well but used Greek sources.
[edit] Perhaps we are just at cross purposes.
I’m simply trying to bring the various elements of the context together. I read it that Cato did in fact know at least some Greek literature very well, but didn’t always view it in a positive light. My sense of it is that he learned in order to know his “enemy” well. Of course, that could be wrong, and it’s certainly more complicated than that. In figuring these things out, we are like people listening into parts of conversations without hearing the whole thing. As it is, I think we have a lot of good material on what Nepos might have meant by “nulla doctrina.”
Maybe speaking past each other a bit, but not cross purposes. This has been a good discussion, at least for me.