Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:30:02.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plutarch's Style in the Marius

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

T. F. Carney
T. F. Carney
Affiliation:
University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In writing on Plutarch as a literary artist there is a tendency to confuse Plutarch's personality, which appears from his writings as ingenuous and somewhat naïve, with his style, which has all the sophistication of the classical renaissance of which his writings form a part. Actually, extensive acquaintance with many aspects of literary craftsmanship is visible in his work. His careful avoidance of hiatus was noticed as long ago as 1841 by Benseler. More recently it has been discovered that Plutarch writes rhythmical prose, with a great preference for certain definite forms. He is thoroughly versed in the various schemata for the presentation of material. Boissonade termed his style a mosaic because it is so well adapted for dealing with the various themes occurring in the Lives; Plutarch has in fact perfect command over matter and form as a result of a thorough acquaintance with a rich literary tradition.

The metaphors and similes which appear in this Life seem on a first reading in ill accord with the sophistication of its general craftsmanship. They are stereotyped into the thought-content, and even the diction, traditional for the symbolism they express. Their infrequency and the elaboration of the metaphors in particular makes them stand out starkly. This conspicuousness and careful articulation is significant. The metaphors and similes are in fact strikingly put so that they emphasise the passages in which they occur, and recall one another vividly to mind. Analysis reveals that they are used in two ways: as points of reference and emphasis (they occur only at important junctures) and to indicate the unity of lengthy passages. Long and elaborate metaphors occur at 11.1, 35.1, and 46.4, marking respectively the Germanic war, the civil war, and Marius' fate and death. A metaphor and simile grouped together, at 23.1 and at 32.1, 3 respectively, tell of Catulus' reverse and the Social War; two similes commence the developments which are to lead to Marius' death at 45.1–2. Less striking metaphors anticipate the civil war (10.5) and the Marian massacre (43.4).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 80 , November 1960, pp. 24 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1960

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

1 Groot, De, CQ ix (1915) 231 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Shewring, , CQ xxiv (1930) 164 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sandbach, , CQ xxvii (1933) 194 f.Google Scholar

2 Stuart, , Epochs of Greek and Roman Biography (1928) 63–4.Google Scholar

3 Forster, and Webster, , An Anthology of Greek Prose (1933) 19.Google Scholar

4 Metaphors (Loeb paragraph notation): 10.5; 11.1; 16.1; 23.1; 32.3; 35.1; 43.4; 44.4; 46.4. Similes: 11.3; 11.8; 14.1; 23.1; 26.2; 32.1; 45.1; 45.2.

5 The use of ἀκμάζοντι and διφῶντι suggest the disease metaphor. LSJ offer no parallel for ἐχώρει διά, meaning ‘killed’, as used here: the use is probably figurative and the passage meant to integrate into the overall symbolism which refers to this civil war as a disease.

6 (10.1): (31.1); (10.1) (31.2); (10.1 and 31.2); (10.1): (31.1); (10.2): (31.2).

7 Linking words are: 3.1: 34.4: 34.5; 3.1 and 34.2; 2.3 34.3 and 34.5; 3.1, 3.2 and 34.2; 3.1; 34.4; 2.3 and 45.6; 34.5 and 45.7; 2.3 and 45.6; 2.3 and 34.4 34.5 and 45.6; 34.2 and 45.7; 3.1 and 45.6; 3.1 and 34.4; 2.3 and 34.4; 2.3; 34.4; 45.7; 34.4; 45.7; 3.2 and 34.2; 3.2, 34.2 and 34.5; 3.2; 45.6; 34.3 and 45.6; 3.2 and 34.2 (twice); 2.3 and 45.6; 34.4 and 45.6 ( 34.3); 2.3, 34.5 and 45.6.

8 Marius was the type-figure to illustrate the ups and downs of fortune; cf. Val. Max. i 7.5, ii 10.6, iii 6.6, vi 9.14, viii 15.7, ix 2.2; Seneca the elder, Controv. i 1.3, i 1.5, i 6.3–4, vii 2.6; Seneca the Younger, Ad Paul. 17.6.

9 Three conflicts with Metellus, two before and one after the German wars, the central piece in this pedimental structure, and three underhand negotiations with Saturninus, one at the beginning of and the others after these wars, are others.

10 Passerini, , Athenaeum xii (1934) 33–4.Google Scholar

11 Carcopino, , Sylla ou la monarchie manquée (1950) ch. 2. fin.Google Scholar

12 Sull. 6.1; Mar. 32.2; Passerini, 353.

13 CAH ix. (1951) 246 f.

14 Bennett, , Cinna and his times (Diss. Chic., 1923) 29.Google Scholar

15 CAH ix 269 and 271 respectively.

16 Here Sulla is represented as fighting in Boeotia (86 B.C.; cf. Broughton, , Magistrates of the Roman Republic ii (1952) 55Google Scholar) while Cinna and Octavius quarrel in Rome before Cinna's deposition (87; Broughton, ii 46).

17 CP xxv (1930) 56 f.

18 CAH ix 113–16.

19 Passerini, 377–8; cf. Smith, , CQ xxxiv (1940) 7–8.Google Scholar

20 Cf. 2.3 and 45.7–46.4.

21 Gomme, , Commentary on Thucydides, i (1945) 59–60.Google Scholar

22 Ziegler, in RE xxi 2 (1951) 909–10.Google Scholar

23 E.g. Metellus in 100 is described by Passerini as a ‘cocciuto conservatore’ and his opposition as injudicious and on purely personal grounds: p. 279 and n. 1; Cinna, not Marius, seems really to have been principally responsible for the Marian Massacre: Bennett, 31–2; cf. Croiset, , Histoire litt. grecq. v (1901) 532–3.Google Scholar

24 Cic. Att. x 8.7; Epit. lxix; Dio xxvi 89.2; Vell. ii 23.1; this estimate recurs nowhere else in Plutarch (cf. Badian, in Historia vi (1957) 342–4Google Scholar).

25 Mar. 36.5–37.2 and BC 1.62.3–4 respectively.

26 P. 202 under Marius; for their form, cf. Gomme, 78 n. 1. The reworked version occurs at Mar. 14, 3–5.

27 Cf. Atkins, , Literary Criticism in Antiquity ii (1934) 127–8.Google Scholar

28 CQ xxxiv (1940) 207 f.

29 Trench, , Plutarch, Five Lectures (1873) 55–7.Google Scholar