D.’s book offers a new look at the interrelationship between theatrical elements and politics in Plutarch’s magnum opus, The Parallel Lives. The book consists of an introduction, six chapters, a conclusion, bibliography and indexes (rerum, nominum et locorum).
The introduction commences with some modern examples of political theatre and then moves smoothly to a discussion of notable examples in Plutarch (e.g. Coriolanus, Agesilaus), wherein the occurrence of the theatrical furnishes ‘a lens’ (p. 3) through which the political may be evaluated. Included in the introduction is a general overview of Plutarch that serves to frame the topic at hand, while articulating his (ambiguous) interest in the theatre, as gleaned from his works. Most importantly, D. demarcates her nuanced methodological perspective on what constitutes theatricality in the Lives that transcends theatre settings or language, interpreting the theatre to encompass ultimately the dynamic performative scenes in which protagonists are represented as consciously emotionally manipulating their audiences to attain their political aims. D. employs the Demetrius–Antony pair to showcase her approach, as both Lives furnish prime examples of theatricality in tragic and comedic modalities. This is followed by sections on politics in Plutarch (and notable recent research in this area), a brief exploration of the use of the theatrical in various Latin authors similarly representing the political dynamics of the Principate and a closer look at Plutarch’s unique bicultural readership, prior to a concluding section that elucidates the scope of the book.
In Chapter 1 D. explores the interrelationship between oratory and acting in the Life of Demosthenes. She argues for the equivocation of oratory with acting, citing Gorgias and Cicero in support of this view. In Demosthenes, she notes, Pericles is used by Eunomus as a didactic model of powerful oratory, not simply oratory that provides principled guidance and is devoid of rhetorical effect. It combines both. It is an effective oratory aligned with moral purpose. Demosthenes’ encounter with the actor Satyrus is equally formative, in that Satyrus inculcates the performative aspect of oratory by having Demosthenes recite texts drawn from Euripides and Sophocles to enhance the projection of a suitable character. The correct meaning of diathesis vs hypokrisis is at issue here, with D. arguing for diathesis meaning ‘arrangement’, rather than the traditional translation of the word as ‘delivery’ in this context.
D. goes on to show that Plutarch develops a portrait of Demosthenes’ ‘histrionic oratory’ that relies more on the tonal modulation of voice than on gestures for its effects. Against this backdrop we witness Demosthenes’ preparation anxiety (and heavy reliance on preparation) and lack of spontaneity, contrasted with Demades’ spontaneity and gift for improvisation. D. argues that this view of Demosthenes’ devotion to practice and preparation undermined his oratorical effectiveness, in that he comes across as being cowardly and artificial, and that this in turn detracts from his persuasiveness and political effectiveness. Accordingly, in imitating Pericles, he focuses on the superficial aspects of the statesman’s speeches, while disregarding the moral component. Moreover, when Demosthenes is tested on the battlefield, he proves to be a coward.
In Chapter 2 D. contrasts Plutarch’s portrait of the incorruptible Phocion as the counter-example to Demosthenes and highlights the straightforward brevity (brachylogia) of his public speeches and the philosophical underpinnings of his intellectual background (as a pupil of Plato and Xenocrates). Rather than indulging in theatrics, according to D., Phocion eschews performative displays in favour of rational persuasion, against the backdrop of the declining Athenian democracy. Chapters 3 to 5 offer a generalised account of the sociocultural, political and literary role of the theatre and the theatrical in the Lives of various Spartan and Roman protagonists, as represented by Plutarch. The key Lives in these chapters include Agesilaus, Agis/Cleomenes, Lysander (all representing the typical negative Spartan view of the theatre), Marcellus, Sulla, Fabius Maximus, Coriolanus, Marius, Flamininus, Aemilius Paullus, Cato Maior, Cicero, Caesar, Brutus, Cato Minor, Lucullus and Pompey. The Cicero is the subject of Chapter 6, and, as D. makes clear, it is a life replete with theatrical imagery. A summative conclusion refocuses readers on the salient points of Plutarch’s use of the theatrical in the Lives.
This is a very important book on a topic that heretofore has not been subjected to such deep and sensitive exploration. D.’s prose is lucid and engaging. She is a subtle and sensitive reader of Plutarch. As a result, the book is filled with a wealth of allusive and thought-provoking observations. I was a bit surprised to see that she completely bypasses the Lives of the Caesars. As the earlier of the two large-scale biographical projects, it too contains references to the theatrical and could have received cursory treatment in the introduction. Broadly, another structural element of note is the separation of the Demosthenes and Cicero chapters that bookend, so to speak, the analysis. I think I would have preferred to see them both evaluated in one chapter that shows Plutarch systematically developing the theme of the theatrical in both Lives. That said, both of these chapters are particularly rich in detail and convincingly argued. In Chapters 3 to 5 the analysis of the theatrical in key Spartan and Roman Lives offers deep insight into Plutarch’s biographical art in conjunction with the socio-historical context of the individuals portrayed, while also revealing Plutarch’s ambivalence vis-à-vis the theatrical. In conclusion, this is an extremely impressive book and a must-read for anyone interested in theatre and spectacle in Plutarch’s Lives.
