No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Plutarch's Methods in the Lives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
The locus classicus for Plutarch's own views on his methods is in the Alexander
He has begun by asking for the indulgence of his readers if they do not find all the exploits of Alexander and Caesar recounted by the biographer or if they discover him not reporting some famous incident in detail (
); and he goes on to compare his own search for evidence which will indicate the kind of soul, with the activity of the painter, who, in order to create a likeness, concentrates on the eyes and pays little attention to the other parts. Commentators and critics have been right to take this as a key text for the purpose of understanding Plutarch's attitude towards his biographical work; nevertheless there are other passages in the Lives where we can at least glimpse his attitude to his subject, and we can only see the Alexander-remarks in correct perspective if we take these other passages into account. I propose therefore, starting with the Alexander, to see how far these critical remarks apply to Plutarch's theory and practice elsewhere in the Lives
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1971
References
page 254 note 1 On the expression
, see Hamilton, J. R., Plutarch, Alexander (1969), p. 2.Google Scholar For a discussion of the analogy with painting see Lucas, D. W., Aristotle, Poetics (1968), pp. 269 f.Google Scholar
page 254 note 2 I lay stress on the fact that there are three kinds, as some translations obscure this point; thus ‘a slight thing like a phrase or jest …’ (Perrin in LCL).
page 254 note 3 Lukács, G., The Historical Novel (Peregrine edn., 1969), p. 50Google Scholar, referring to Hegel's phrase. Johnson, similarly, did not think that such items as Dryden's chair were the heart of the biographer's matter.
page 254 note 4 Yet the story probably comes from Aristobulus: see Moralia, 1093 c and cf. Hamilton, p. li.
page 255 note 1 For the importance of this topic in Plutarch's work see Stadter, P. A., Plutarch's Historical Methods; the Mulierum Virtutes (1965).Google Scholar
page 255 note 2 The effect of τ καλόνis to make us want to emulate the doer; the effect of art is to make us admire the artefact but not the artist. Notice, further, that when moderns speak of Plutarch as an ‘artist’ they should bear in mind that they are using a term which Plutarch would have rejected. See Gomme, A. W., Thucydides i, p. 56 n. 1.Google Scholar
page 255 note 3 Plut. Them. 19. 6; on the archaeology of the subject see Kourouniotes, K. and Thompson, H. A., Hesperia i (1932), pp. 90 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 255 note 4 Plut. C. Gracch. 5: but see Cic. de amicitia, 96 (C. Licinius Crassus).
page 255 note 5 On the function of
as a means of persuasion see, e.g., Pelop. 30; Moralia, 33 F and 854E; and Jeuckens, R., Plutarch und die Rhetorik (1907).Google Scholar
page 256 note 1 For Plutarch's view of Lysias see Cato i. 7. 1–3; for βραχυλογία see, e.g., Phocion, 5 and Lyc. 20.
page 256 note 2 For absence of κωµολοχία see, e.g., Cleom. 12. On ‘jest’ and ‘earnest’ in Plato see Shorey, P., Republic, LCL (1946), ii, p. 214 and p. 227.Google Scholar
page 256 note 3 Plato, Leg, 650 a–b. For τά µικρά. cf. too Plut. Aem. Paull. 3. 4–5 and 5. 4.
page 256 note 4 See especially Plut. Ant. 10 and 29.
page 257 note 1 Westlake, H. D., Individuals in Thucydides (1968).Google Scholar
page 257 note 2 Xen. Hellenica, 2. 3. 56.
page 257 note 3 Thuc. 7. 86. 5.
page 257 note 4 Xen. Anab. 2. 6 ff.
page 257 note 5 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5. 48.
page 257 note 6 On various means of portraying character, see Kirn, P., Das Bild des Menschen in der Geschichtsschreibung von Polybius bis Ranke (1956).Google Scholar
page 257 note 7 On the chronology see Jones, C. P., JRS lvi (1966), pp. 66 f.Google Scholar Cf. Hamilton, p. xxxvii.
page 257 note 8 Cf. note 7 above.
page 257 note 9 For other passages on 
see Nicias, 4 and 23; Numa, 4. 12 and 8. 10; Pericles, 6; Cor. 24.
page 258 note 1 On digressions see Hamilton, J. R., Plutarch, Alexander (1969), p. 95Google Scholar (note on 35. 16). Plutarch does not always apologize for his scientific digressions; yet he does at times apologize for his moral digressions: cf. Tim. 14 and Dion. 21.
page 258 note 2 Plut. Nic. 1. 4; and cf. Gomme, A. W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides i, pp. 54 f.Google Scholar
page 259 note 1 Pomp. 8. 6 and cf. ibid. 30. 6–31. 2.
page 259 note 2 On this topic see Russell, D. A., Greece & Rome xiii (1966), pp. 139 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 259 note 3 For Suetonius see Townend, G. B., Latin Biography (1967), esp. pp. 84 f.Google Scholar
page 260 note 1 Life of Fohnson (O.U.P., 1953 edn.), pp. 23 f. For Johnson's own views on biography see esp. the Rambler No. 60 and the Idler No. 84, e.g. ‘Few are engaged in such scenes as give them opportunities of growing wiser by the downfall of statesmen or the defeat of generals.’ Plutarch's Lives, however, are catering for the ‘few’. Another important difference is that in Johnson's view biography should be composed by contemporaries.
page 260 note 2 See esp. Stauffer, D. A., The Art of Biography in Eighteenth Century England i (1941), chs. 1, 6, and 7Google Scholar; and Clifford, J. L., Biography as an Art (1962).Google Scholar
page 260 note 3 We should think of Sosius Senecio as the dedicatee and of men like Menemachos {Mor. 798 a) as the readers who will benefit. On the Praecepta gerendae reipublicae see Renoirtė, Th., Les Conseils politiques de Plutarque (1951)Google Scholar; Russell, D. A. cf., Greece & Rome xiii (1966), pp. 140–1.Google Scholar It follows that I doubt Gomme's remark ( Thuc. i, p. 74 n.) that ‘Plutarch thought that his readers would all be equally at home with his Greek and his Roman Lives …’.
- 10
- Cited by