Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T07:37:52.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plutarch, Alexander and Caesar: Two New Fragments?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

C. B. R. Pelling
C. B. R. Pelling
Affiliation:
Peterhouse, Cambridge
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Niebuhr saw that several paragraphs had been lost from the beginning of the Caesar; Ziegler suggested that the lacuna extended to the end of the Alexander. Both hypotheses are confirmed, if the identification of two new fragments is admitted.

At 10. 11 p. 368, Zonaras is epitomizing the text of Caes.; he recounts the Story of Caes. 60. 3, and continues: Editors leave the provenance of the passage unspecified: ‘addita sunt pauca de nomine Caesaris‘ (Wolf). The correction of the vulgar error might perhaps be an inference of Zonaras himself—though such an original contribution to historical polemic would be unique; but the erroneous version, at least, must come from somewhere. It is not found in any of Zonaras' sources for this period, nor in any surviving book which he certainly knew. Nor is it likely to be an addition from his own general knowledge.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , December 1973, pp. 343 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

page 343 note 1 Vorträge über röm. Gesch. iii (1848), 28 f. But Niebuhr was not the first to suspect this, as he thought; the translations of both ‘Dryden’ and Langhorne mention ‘some authors’ who thought the Life acephalous.Google Scholar

page 343 note 2 Mus, Rh.. lxxxiv (1935), 387–90;Google Scholar accepted by Hamilton, , ‘Plutarch, Alexander; a Commentary’ (1969), 217.Google Scholar

page 343 note 3 Buttner-Wobst, T. (Die Abhängigkeit des Geschichtsschreibers Zonaras von den erhaltenen Quellen, Commentationes Fleckeisenianae [1890], 152) thought that it came from Cassius Dio, who is fragmentary until 69 B.c.; but is this the sort of material he would include? He was saving many similar items for 44. 37.Google Scholar

page 343 note 4 The mistake is made by Ovid, Met. 15. 840; Pliny, N.H. 7. 9. 47; Serv. ad Aen. 1. 286; Isid., Orig. 9. 3. 12. Cf. Nonius Marcellus, p. 556M, 26; Emporius, R.L.M. p. 568; S.H.A. Ael. Ver. 2. 3; Serv. ad Aen. 10. 316. Cf. also Georg. Mon. p. 212, 15M; Leo, Gramm. 54. 1; Cedren i 299. 20; Suidas s.v. (Büttner-Wobst, loc. cit.). (Alternative etymologies flourished: cf. Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v. ‘Caesar’ col. 34, esp. S.H.A. loc. cit.).

page 343 note 5 They are analysed by Büttner-Wobst, op. cit., 123–70.

page 343 note 6 3. 2–3 pp. 180–2; 3. 7 p. 194. 22–9; 3. 8 pp. 198–9; 6. 29 pp. 84–5.

page 343 note 7 3. 9 pp. 205–6.

page 343 note 8 Theological: 1. 1 pp. 12–13. Moralistic: 7. 17 p. 138. 16–19; 10. 18 p. 423.

page 343 note 9 3. 15 p. 224. 10–22; 3. 26 p. 261. 19–29. cf. 3. 9 p. 206. 21–2; 6. 29 pp. 84–5.

page 343 note 10 10.5 p. 351. 9.

page 343 note 11 Büttner-Wobst, pp. 129–34, 138: e.g. 5. 23 p. 391. 23–5; 11. 13 p. 41. 1–4; perhaps 12. 11 p. 109. 2–5.

page 344 note 1 4. 10 p. 291. At 10. 9 p. 362 he similarly includes a description of Cornelia from Pomp. 55, immediately before proceeding to the chronology of Pomp. 73–80.

page 344 note 2 Cf. Schmidt (in Dindorf's ed., vol. vi) p. xviii; Büttner-Wobst, pp. 137–8.

page 344 note 3 Perhaps Aristobulus, the only author certainly used by both P. and Arr.; but Arrian's disdain suggests that even Aristobulus gave it as a.

page 344 note 4 I hope elsewhere to examine the implications of this for the textual tradition of the Lives.