This volume takes as its subject an entire Plutarchan book of Parallel Lives, the Lives of Demosthenes and Cicero. The volume contains a brief introduction (17 pages), chronologies for the lives of both subjects, translations, commentaries, a select bibliography (4 pages) and an index. L.'s focus is the historical details of, and background to, the lives of Demosthenes and Cicero. There appears to be slightly more interest in Cicero than Demosthenes, a point manifest in the fact that whilst the Cicero is approximately twice as long as its pair, L.'s commentary on Demosthenes takes up 33 pages, that on the Cicero 85.
The aim of the Clarendon Ancient History series, to which L.'s volume belongs, is to provide introductions, translations and commentaries to texts studied by ancient historians. L. provides translations based upon Ziegler's Teubner edition (1964); his stated aim is to produce a more flowing and accessible translation than a literal rendering of Plutarch's ‘more workmanlike than stylish’ Greek would yield, whilst not entirely eliminating the ‘academic impression’ of Plutarch's style (p. 17). The translations are similar in style to those of Perrin's Loeb, which is somewhat more literal, in balancing the need to produce a readable English translation with a desire to maintain an element of Plutarch's style. With their historical focus, L.'s commentaries uphold the aims of this Clarendon series and are particularly helpful in cross-referencing additional literary sources. Pelling's commentary on Plutarch's Caesar (2011) also belongs to the Clarendon Ancient History series. Pelling's volume, though, has a much wider scope, not focusing so narrowly on historical commentary, and offering more in-depth analyses and discussions. It is also significantly different in extent (Pelling has 519 pages on Caesar, L. has 227 pages on Demosthenes and Cicero). Moles' earlier commentary on the Cicero (1988) includes substantially the same historical material as L. on Cicero, but is again wider in scope, discussing, for instance, matters of linguistic style, and highlighting some of Plutarch's biographical and narrative techniques.
L.'s decision to treat an entire Plutarchan book is very welcome, as the importance of the Lives' parallel structure is now well established. L. states that he began from an interest in Cicero, and thus in Plutarch's Cicero, but included the Demosthenes on the grounds that this was necessary in order to do justice to Plutarch (preface). Scholars of Plutarch, however, may be a little disappointed that, although including both Lives, the volume displays limited and inconsistent interest in considering the book as a unified whole; that is, in discussing the shared themes and direct parallels between the two Lives which serve to create a unified and coherent text. This perspective is not neglected entirely. In his introduction, L. discusses briefly Plutarch's stated reasons for pairing Demosthenes and Cicero, notes some points of parallel between the two subjects in the Lives, and discusses some common themes of the pair, which he sees as being the pursuit of honour through principled action, and the associated love of freedom. The introduction is brief and does not engage with current debate, but it raises some important issues relevant to this particular pair of Lives.
Given the decision to treat both Lives of this Plutarchan book, it is surprising that there is little engagement with scholarship on parallelism and the nature and functioning of synkrisis in Plutarch's Lives. Current approaches widely accept the importance of synkrisis, not simply in the concluding synkriseis, but as a more extended and thoroughgoing comparative approach in the Lives, through which ethical issues pertaining to the characters of the subjects are raised and explored. (See especially, Pelling in Brenk and Gallo [edd.], Miscellanea Plutarchea [1986], pp. 83–96; and Duff, Plutarch's Lives [1999], esp. pp. 243–86. The earlier study of synkrisis by Erbse, Hermes 84 [1956], 398–424, takes the Demosthenes–Cicero as a case study, and demonstrates the importance of the pairing in more than the closing synkrisis.) Engagement with these approaches might have encouraged more systematic attention to how the Demosthenes–Cicero book functions as a coherent whole, as well as to how the concern with paralleling and comparison influences Plutarch's shaping of his historical material. L. rightly notes the possibility that by emphasising points of parallel between his subjects Plutarch may potentially have distorted the historical truth (p. 11), but he does not elaborate on this important issue in the introduction or commentary.
Discussion of issues of parallelism and synkrisis are largely confined to the remarks in the introduction (pp. 3–8). Some points of direct parallel are noted in the commentary, but they are not the focus and their full significance, either for the way in which Plutarch presents these two individuals or for the overall themes of the book, is rarely explored. More subtle aspects of the synkrisis between these two individuals are not noted. Taking an example which is discussed by Moles (op. cit. [1988]), at Cicero 38.1 Plutarch narrates Cato's criticism of Cicero that, whilst it was not right for Cato himself to alter his consistent political policy (αὑτῷ μὲν γὰρ οὐχὶ καλῶς ἔχειν ἐγκαταλιπεῖν ἣν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς εἵλετο τῆς πολιτείας τάξιν), the same was not true for Cicero. Here Moles rightly notes a point of comparison with Demosthenes, whom Plutarch presents as being politically consistent (explicitly at Dem. 13.2: ϕαίνεται γάρ, εἰς ἣν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς τῶν πραγμάτων μερίδα καὶ τάξιν αὑτὸν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ κατέστησε, ταύτην ἄχρι τέλους διαϕυλάξας). Cicero 38.1 therefore introduces a criticism of Cicero for acting in a manner which is presented as commendable in Demosthenes. L. does not remark on this parallel, which not only directly compares Demosthenes and Cicero in their approach to politics, but is part of the book's wider concern with the issue of consistency in politics, and whether it is, necessarily, always the correct moral position.
L.'s comments on the opening and conclusion of the Demosthenes–Cicero indicate how far his commentary is concerned with more than historical details. The opening chapters (Dem. 1–3) form a distinct section and function as a prologue to the book as a whole. L.'s commentary on Demosthenes 1–3 extends to less than two full pages, and does not discuss its function as the opening of the book. There is no comment, for instance, upon Plutarch's opening disquisition on whether happiness depends upon living in a famous city (Dem. 1); this is a curiously indirect manner of opening, and its possible function, or thematic relevance, for the book which it introduces is open to discussion. (On the Demosthenes–Cicero prologue see Zadorojnyi, PCPhS 52 [2006], 102–27; and Duff's analysis of Plutarchan prologues in M. Beck [ed.], A Companion to Plutarch [2014], pp. 336–7.). The Demosthenes–Cicero concludes with a formal synkrisis, a distinct section of the book which parallels the prologue. The synkrisis is rightly laid out by L. as a distinct section. Commentary on this section does not, however, address its nature or purpose. One function of the formal synkriseis is to make direct comparisons between the subjects so as to bring out the differences between them, as one function of prologues is to establish similarities between them. L.'s commentary often includes references to passages in the two Lives where the topics of the comparisons were first discussed, which is helpful, but his comments on the synkrisis most often pertain to historical details in preference to the nature or effect of the comparisons Plutarch draws. (On the structure of the Plutarchan book, and the nature of prologues and synkriseis, see now Duff's long article on the subject, CA 30.2 [2011], 213–78.)
The volume is well presented and easy to use, and provides a welcome historical commentary on Plutarch's Demosthenes–Cicero; it is especially welcome for including both Lives of this Plutarchan book and thereby, at least in principle, recognising the importance of the paired structure of the Parallel Lives.
