ROSKAM'S ANALYSIS

Roskam initiates his analysis by stating that it is not easy to classify a short and mutilated text such as Maxime cum principibus under a specific literary genre.Footnote ⁹ He further states that few authors have expressed their opinion on this matter. However, he moves on to argue that a key passage at the beginning of De unius can solve the problem. He points out that Plutarch in De unius refers to a discourse (διάλεξις) he held the previous day before his students. This discourse dealt with politics.Footnote ¹⁰ Roskam further states that various scholars have identified the protreptic or hortatory lecture on politics with the Προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς νέον πλούσιον (no. 27 in the Lamprias catalogue) and the Ὑποθετικὸς ἢ περὶ ἀρχῆς (no. 153 in the Lamprias catalogue). Roskam argues that this identification seems unlikely. Instead, he goes on to argue that the protreptic discourse referred to in De unius should be identified with Maxime cum principibus.Footnote ¹¹

Roskam only lines up one argument in favour of the claim that the protreptic discourse referred to in De unius should be identified with Maxime cum principibus. The argument is that the protreptic character of Maxime cum principibus is perfectly clear. Having stated this, he concedes that Plutarch does not actually advise the philosopher to become a politician himself, but merely to become the latter's adviser. However, because of the rather vague conceptual distinction in Maxime cum principibus between the public-spirited philosopher and the politician, Roskam regards this objection as meaningless. He further points out that Plutarch in Maxime cum principibus is critical of the philosopher who has withdrawn from public affairs. Hence, the conclusion seems obvious to Roskam: in De unius, Plutarch refers to Maxime cum principibus.Footnote ¹²

Roskam moves on to state that, if he indeed is right, we can also accept the following implications: first, that Maxime cum principibus is entirely rooted in Plutarch's teaching activities; second, that Plutarch's primary target audience is his own students; and third, that the genre of Maxime cum principibus is finally clear: Plutarch himself regards it as a philosophical discourse, a διάλεξις.Footnote ¹³ Roskam states that the philosophical orientation of the work is evident in the formal definition of philosophy in ch. 1, in the emphasis on the philosopher's interest in character rather than in external advantages (ch. 2), and in the importance attached to consistency (ch. 4). Roskam concludes that, even apart from the evidence provided by De unius, a careful analysis of Maxime cum principibus results in the conclusion that ‘the work should be regarded as a philosophical διάλεξις’.Footnote ¹⁴

Now, if Roskam is right in these assumptions it should be possible to work through the treatise and confirm these conclusions. And to some extent I agree that this is possible. The treatise could be read as a philosophical discourse. However, to designate something as ‘a philosophical discourse’ is not a specific indication of its genre. A more precise designation of genre, which could also be used philosophically by an author, would be to call the text a dialogue,Footnote ¹⁵ a Menippean satire (or comedy),Footnote ¹⁶ poetryFootnote ¹⁷ and biography.Footnote ¹⁸ Additionally, I would argue that it is possible to incorporate many more structural and intratextual observations about essential features in the treatise, which make it stand out as something more specific than a ‘mere’ discourse.

GUIDELINES FROM THEON'S PROGYMNASMATA

In the Progymnasmata of Aelius Theon, the exercise in thesis (θέσις) is presented as the eleventh and, hence, one of the last exercises of the Progymnasmata.Footnote ¹⁹ There are twelve ‘actual’ exercises (handed down to us in Greek), and five ‘follow-up’ or ‘elaborating’ exercises, which we only have in the Armenian translation of the Greek original.Footnote ²⁰ The way in which Theon works through each exercise makes them stand out as minor definitions of separate genres on a macro and a micro level.Footnote ²¹ By describing and analysing all the various features, elements and characteristics of the exercises, each exercise stands out as a minor genre with defining features. The actualization of these features in a specific text determines whether the text can be said to participate in a specific genre or whether it falls outside the defining characteristics.

Theon opens the chapter on thesis by defining the concept: ‘thesis is a reasoned (or verbal) enquiryFootnote ²² admitting controversy without specifying any persons and circumstance’ (θέσις ἐστὶ πρᾶγμα λογικὴν ἀμφισβήτησιν ἐπιδεχόμενον ἄνευ προσώπων καὶ πάσης περιστάσεως).Footnote ²³ Theon further provides some examples of theses: whether one should marry, whether one should have children, whether the gods exist. Hence, to conclude on these introductory remarks we can state that a thesis enquires about something in doubt and that it reveals some kind of controversy without specifying any persons or circumstances.

Theon goes on to explain that the student who performs the exercise in thesis can provide prooemia for his theses either from a maxim supporting the thesis or from a proverb or a chreia or a useful saying or a historical report, or from an encomion or an invective against the thing which is in question. This means that there is often some kind of introduction to a thesis, and that it is possible to draw from a variety of material in the introduction.Footnote ²⁴ Theon further states the quite important fact that there is no narration in theses, since there are no circumstances to explain. Hence, from the opening lines of Theon's passage on thesis we get the impression that a thesis is like a verbal discussion pro et contra about something in doubt without any narration. There is simply some proposition being discussed—whether one should marry, whether the gods exist, whether one should engage in politics. But the boundary of the genre is sketched out by the intentional absence of narrative elements.

Before introducing the various topics (κεφάλαια) and arguments (ἐπιχειρήματα) constituting the essential features of a thesis, and before providing examples of how to write a thesis, Theon makes quite an important distinction. There are theoretical theses and practical theses. The theoretical theses are for the sake of understanding and knowledge, while the practical theses are more political and have a rhetorical character. Theon states that the theoretical theses are more appropriate for philosophers, whereas the practical theses are more appropriate for students of rhetoric (who are to become lawyers and politicians). This distinction should be understood as part of the conceptual division between a theoretical life (βίος θεωρητικός) and a practical life (βίος πρακτικός), where the theoretical life focusses on abstract λόγος and the practical life focusses on concrete πράξεις. However, Theon does not at this point place more emphasis on the distinction, since he adds the notion that students of rhetoric can also write theoretical theses if they start from topics for practical theses [121]. To some extent, then, the one bleeds into the other—theory into praxis and praxis into theory.

The distinction between a theoretical thesis and a practical thesis goes closely together with a previous statement Theon made, which concerns the fact that the end or aim of a thesis is to persuade (τέλος ἐστὶ τὸ πεῖσαι, [120]). Hence, the aim of a thesis is protreptic or hortatory. Additionally, Theon points out that a thesis is normally spoken in an assembly and a lecture room (ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ἀκροάσει). This means that the people listening to a thesis are citizens in general or the audience in a lecture room. This information is very important with regard to the observations made by Roskam concerning the genre and the addressees of the Maxime cum principibus. And it has a decisive influence in relation to the theme of the work, since Maxime cum principibus enquires about the possibility (or obligation) of the philosopher to associate with and influence politicians and men in power—that is, citizens attending the assembly. To sum up on this distinction, then, Theon explains that the theoretical thesis is more appropriate for philosophers, while the practical thesis is more political in character. With regard to Maxime cum principibus it is obvious that it draws from both the theoretical and the practical, since it enquires about a philosopher who approaches politics (or men in power). And it is obvious from the argument in Maxime cum principibus that the theoretical insight Plutarch addresses to the philosopher-addressee should be translated into concrete action. This means that Maxime cum principibus would participate in both the theoretical and the practical life, just as a theoretical thesis could be written by both philosophers and future politicians.

Another defining feature of a thesis is that it does not reveal a personality.Footnote ²⁵ Hence, a thesis does not enact a ‘speech-in-character’ or an ‘impersonation’ (προσωποποιία). This is an important and essential feature of a thesis, and it has direct relevance for Maxime cum principibus since it specifically points out a genre-defining element of the text. There is no specific person speaking in Maxime cum principibus, and neither is any specific person characterized and presenting a point of view. The author (Plutarch) and ‘someone else’ (ἔνιοι, 776B) may be said to feature in the text, but ‘Plutarch’ may just as well be substituted with ‘the implied author’, and ‘someone else’ easily presents themselves as a simple rhetorical strategy of the text. So no actual προσωποποιία takes place, and this is a decisive factor in the definition of the genre of the thesis. The fact that these ‘literary personas’ are difficult to pin down in Maxime cum principibus has made scholars consider it abrupt and mutilated. But there may be a perfectly rational reason for this, which aligns itself according to the guidelines of Theon's Progymnasmata: the lack of impersonation is a genre-defining element of a thesis and, hence, is banned from the account.

Theon goes on to explain the most general headings and arguments for a practical thesis. Having explained these, he provides two examples of a thesis, first a practical thesis and then a theoretical thesis. In order to run through the various headings and arguments constituting a thesis, I shall paraphrase Theon's example of a practical thesis. This example seems extremely suitable, since the proposition Theon expounds upon is whether a wise man should engage in politics. This may not be precisely the same theme as the theme of Maxime cum principibus, but it is very similar. So some of the content from Theon's example may actually bleed into our investigation of Maxime cum principibus.

If a student undertakes the assignment of writing a thesis on the question of whether a wise man should engage in politics, Theon explains that he should argue, first, that it is possible (δυνατόν).Footnote ²⁶ Then he should move on to argue that it is in accordance with nature and according to the common manners and customs of all mankind (κατὰ φύσιν καὶ κατὰ τὰ κοινὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἔθη). Next he should argue that it is easy (ῥᾴδιος) for a wise man to engage in politics, that he is not the first to have done it and that others have done it before us (μὴ πρῶτοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλοι πρὸ ἡμῶν). Then he should argue that it is appropriate (ἁρμόττει), that it is just (δίκαιον) and that it is reverent or pleasing to the gods (ὅσιον). He should also argue from what is necessary (ἐκ τοῦ ἀναγκαίου), and he should argue that it is honourable, profitable and that it contributes to security (ἔνδοξον, λυσιτελές, ἀσφάλειαν). He should furthermore argue that it is the start of greater and more beautiful things. Theon then explains that, in order to strengthen the case, the student could present the opposite (and bad) perspective, for example that a neglected government suffers a change for the worse. All the arguments presented above can thus be reversed. Finally, Theon points to the headings which concern arguments from the like or similar (ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου), from the lesser (ἐκ τοῦ ἐλάττονος), from the greater (ἐκ τοῦ μείζονος), from the part (ἐκ τοῦ μέρους), from the whole (ἐκ τοῦ ὅλου), from the end or the goal (ἐκ τοῦ τέλους) and from what is implicit (ἐκ τῆς περιοχῆς). In sum, these headings and arguments constitute the defining features of the argument of a thesis, and presented in this way—together with the other defining features—they actualize the genre and make it materialize. When I analyse the arguments of Maxime cum principibus further down, I refer to the headings and the arguments as presented here.

Theon has another important remark which should be mentioned, before we turn to the text in order to identify these features. He states that a more advanced student should include—in each of the topics mentioned—the evidence of famous men, poets and statesmen and philosophers [122]. The advanced student should also include any histories that agree with what is being argued from the proposition. The advanced student should furthermore amplify the examples from what has been done by an individual, by a private man, by those in authority or a king, next by those in the city, and finally from what has been done in certain lands and by foreigners. Hence, the advanced student should not just put forth arguments in a simple way; he should include examples and amplify these examples in order to create a persuasive argument. The question now is if the elements described above can be identified in Maxime cum principibus.

WHAT IS PLUTARCH ARGUING IN MAXIME CVM PRINCIPIBVS?

What are the argument and its basic structure in Maxime cum principibus? From an overall perspective, Plutarch argues that a philosopher should not isolate himself from the world, but should exert himself to influence the thought and conduct of men in power. Hence, the overall proposition—which someone may doubt—is expressed in the title of the work: ‘A philosopher ought to converse especially with men in power’. Plutarch elaborates on this proposition in four minor chapters, each with a different take on the overall proposition. Additionally, the fundamental structure of the work, which cuts across the division into the four chapters, is constituted by a pro et contra composition, where Plutarch presents, respectively, his own position and the position of someone else (the ἔνιοι). Whether Plutarch actually has real opponents in view (for instance Epicureans) regarding the ἔνιοι (776B), or if these ἔνιοι merely serve a rhetorical purpose within the work, is unimportant for a decision on the genre of the work. Obviously, this is an important question to decide on for an informed understanding and interpretation of the work and for a historical contextualization, but it merely plays a minor role with regard to a decision on the genre. Another reason for us not to spend time on it here is that scholars do not agree on it and various solutions have been proposed.Footnote ²⁷ Here, however, it is enough for us to establish the point that in the rhetorical strategy of the work the ἔνιοι serves the purpose and function of the contra in the pro et contra sequence of a thesis. I will now work through the four chapters of Maxime cum principibus in order to justify the claim that (the majority of) the features of a thesis presented above can be identified in the treatise. I will go through all four chapters in order to show that ‘the plum is in the pudding’, and in order to render my claim about the genre probable.

Ch. 1: Plutarch opens the argument by presenting his own position in 776A–B, the pro: one should act like a man who loves what is noble, who is public-spirited and a friend of mankind (φιλοκάλων ἐστὶ καὶ πολιτικῶν καὶ φιλανθρώπων). He then moves on to the opponent's position, the contra, represented by the ἔνιοι in 776B. The ἔνιοι state that the philosopher merely associates with the ruler because of ambition (φιλοδοξία). However, Plutarch refutes this objection and accuses the ἔνιοι of being ambitious themselves. First, he makes an argument according to common manners in 776B–C (from his point of view), and then he brings in evidence from a famous man, Ariston of Chios (776C). He then moves on to argue his own position, the pro, and further amplifies this argument by bringing in evidence from a poet with the quotation from Pindar (776C). From this quotation he moves on to argue from what is pleasant or noble, then he introduces an argument from nature, from what is possible, and again from what is noble (776C). In 776D he moves on to argue from the analogy between a physician and a philosopher, and he further develops this analogy with an argument from the lesser to the greater. When moving into the next paragraph (776E), he brings evidence from a famous man (Heracles) and amplifies this from what others have done before. Then he introduces evidence from a poet and a philosopher in 776E (Homer and Plato) and argues from what is pleasing to the gods. In 776F, he provides an analogy with the plant eryngium and from geometry. In 777A, he provides three examples from philosophers (Anaxagoras, Plato, Pythagoras) and two examples from statesmen (Cato the Younger, Scipio). Towards the end of the first chapter, Plutarch once again refutes the position of the ἔνιοι and ends on an open note with a question (777B).

Ch. 2: Plutarch opens ch. 2 by stating that the final end of human speech/reason (λόγος) is friendship (φιλία τέλος ἐστί, 777C). This constitutes both an argument from the end or goal and from what is noble. And it further elaborates on what is appropriate and pleasant—for oneself and the other. This furthermore constitutes an amplification by emotion (πάθος), which develops into the next pro et contra regarding the importance of money (777D). Plutarch's position (that money is not the final goal) is supported with evidence from a poet (Pindar) and an argument about what is reverent towards the gods (777D–E). Plutarch further develops the argument by stating that the final end of friendship is not fame. Fame is only a means of gaining trust. This argument is developed from the opposites of the pleasant and the easy and with an analogy to light (777F). More evidence is brought in from a myth (778A) and developed into an argument from the false. Ch. 2 ends with the conclusion that, if the right circumstances are present, the philosopher will not hold back from making the man in power his friend (778A), and this is supported with evidence from a poet (Euripides) and with an argument from the lesser to the greater (778B).

Ch. 3: Plutarch opens ch. 3 with a quotation from Aeschylus’ Niobe. This point of departure sets forth the pro position, with Plutarch arguing from what is more pleasant (ἥδιον) and introducing evidence from a famous man (Tantalus) (778C). This position is further developed with evidence from a philosopher (Epicurus) and an argument from the noble and the pleasant. This argument is further developed from what is profitable and beneficial (778D) and with arguments from the opposite. Plutarch thus argues that, by associating with the ruler, the philosopher bestows benefits upon many. And he supports this with evidence from a statesman (Apollodorus), with an argument from the lesser to the greater, from what is noble, beneficial, just and honourable, and also from what is pleasing to the gods (778E–F). Hence, the philosopher who associates with rulers makes them more just, more moderate and more eager to do good, so that it is very likely that they are also happier.

Ch. 4: in ch. 4, Plutarch brings in various analogies and examples, basically arguing from the whole, from the goal, from what is noble, just and honourable (779B). The final evidence he puts forth (779B–C) is the story of how Plato went to Sicily in order to fashion and father the true philosopher-king, Dionysius. Even though Plato failed in his effort, because Dionysius was already polluted, Plutarch is confident in his conclusion that philosophy will become law if the philosopher instructs men who are still pure. On this protreptic or hortatory note, Plutarch ends the treatise.

From this analysis it is obvious that the fundamental compositional strategy of Maxime cum principibus is the pro et contra. As taken from the definition of the thesis, Plutarch presents a reasoned (or verbal) enquiry where he admits controversy without specifying any persons and circumstances. He argues from his own position why it should not be doubted that a philosopher ought to converse especially with men in power—as the headline indicates.Footnote ²⁸ It is also quite clear that Plutarch incorporates the majority of headings and arguments described by Theon. Two fundamental features of the treatise should be emphasized: first, that Plutarch does not present any person ‘speaking in character’; and second, that any narration takes place, since there are no circumstances to explain in a reasoned enquiry where controversy is admitted. Additionally, Plutarch provides plenty of evidence from famous men, poets, statesmen and philosophers. And he also amplifies the examples. In sum, the majority of genre-defining elements of the thesis are present in Maxime cum principibus.