Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write

“Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write” is the concluding appeal in Possidius Adeodat’s criticism of Druidecht oral secrecy. Set against a tradition that forbids writing down its teachings, the phrase argues that knowledge should be cherished through every available means of preservation and inquiry.## Context: a dispute over how knowledge survives Possidius describes Druidecht training as a demanding oral tradition: its practitioners learn many verses by heart, and their course of instruction can take as long as twenty years. They regard committing those teachings to writing as unlawful. In his account, the prohibition serves two purposes: keeping doctrine from spreading among the wider population and ensuring that students do not rely on written records instead of diligent memorization.

The practice is not merely a choice of medium. It governs who may receive Druidecht knowledge and how it can pass from one generation to the next. Elsewhere, the tradition is described as knowledge passed from one practitioner to another without books or written words; Annon hungers to learn it all, hoping that study will help him control his anger. The oral system thus preserves privileged instruction while also placing its continuity in the hands of those able to learn and transmit it.

Possidius’s argument

Possidius does not accept the Druidecht case for oral transmission as sufficient. He warns that errors may enter the teachings and expand with each generation. Memorization, though intensive, cannot by itself guarantee that what is passed on remains unchanged. The possibility of accumulated error turns the apparent safeguard of an unbroken oral tradition into a vulnerability.

His response is an expansive call to preserve knowledge and to read, think, speak, and write. The sequence links reception, reflection, discussion, and record-making: knowledge is not protected simply by restricting its circulation, but strengthened by giving people means to examine and retain it. The appeal does not establish that writing automatically prevents mistakes; rather, it opposes treating the written word as an unlawful substitute for learning and insists that all means of knowledge deserve care.

Oral teaching and written records

The contrast is sharpened by the book’s other forms of knowledge. The Druidecht value what is transmitted directly between teachers and pupils, while the Paracelsus order is associated with arcane lore recovered through study and with a written record by Celsus preserved in the Archives of Kenatos. In another scene, Dwyer describes Erasmus as a man who remembers everything anyone has said or written. These different modes—oral teaching, written archives, and extraordinary personal memory—make preservation a recurring concern rather than a simple opposition between literacy and ignorance.

The saying’s concluding position is nevertheless clear. A tradition that refuses writing may retain secrecy and demand disciplined memory, but Possidius sees a cost: without records, errors can become harder to identify or correct. His appeal makes openness part of preservation itself. Knowledge should not only be guarded from loss; it should also remain available to reading, thought, speech, and writing.