Plutarch's Rhythmic Prose 0198821719, 9780198821717

Citation preview

PL UTARC H’ S RH Y T H M I C P R O S E

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose G. O. HUTCHINSON

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © G. O. Hutchinson 2018 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2018 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2017962194 ISBN 978–0–19–882171–7 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

For Rachel

Preface First, an invitation. The reader is cordially bidden to visit http://www. oup.com/hutchinson, where readings of passages can be heard; this may give the reader an illumination of prose rhythm that the silent page cannot offer. In many ways, the topic of this book is a musical one, and some element of performance is called for. Second, an apology, or at least an explanation. The book is not a comprehensive account of Plutarch’s prose rhythm. Many aspects, to my regret, remain unexplored here, many questions go unanswered. Rather, the book aspires to make progress in the understanding of prose rhythm, and, in doing so, to show how it affects appreciation of one writer and one work (the Parallel Lives). Rhythm is related to meaning, it is argued, and is not mere stuck-on ornament; Plutarch’s actual writing, it is contended, merits more scrutiny and acclamation. Both notions make apt the close consideration of particular and impressive passages where the rhythmic endings are packed together with special intensity. That consideration forms the core. There is a good deal of comparative material, and an attempt is made to establish how large a part rhythmic prose plays in Imperial Greek literature more generally. The book will, I hope, be of interest to fans of Plutarch, but it has a wider bearing. Third, thanks (and more apology). My greatest debt is to the two readers for Oxford University Press, who gave me much vital advice, and harmoniously urged me to concentrate more intensively on prose rhythm. I had been intending to let the mini-commentaries sweep more widely, and to refer to more secondary literature, not least on Plutarch. The two readers indicated that I should have more confidence in the intrinsic interest of my subject: prose rhythm. I have followed their suggestion, and so present a book which does no justice at all to Plutarchan scholarship, and keeps the reader’s nose to the grindstone. But readers apprehensive for their noses should note that the discussion is all the time bound up with larger literary aspects and questions—that is part of the point. The book now proceeds more accessibly and purposefully, thanks to my wise guides. Their encouragement has been invaluable too.

viii

Preface

I am grateful to Oxford University Press for agreeing to publish the work, and to Charlotte Loveridge for calm and kindly shepherding towards that point. Juliet Gardner has copy-edited the book with alert care; I owe many thanks too to Georgina Leighton, Lisa Eaton, Christopher de Lisle, Tim Beck, Céline Louasli, and the dauntless typesetters. Professor Andrew Steane (Department of Physics, Oxford) and Professor Philomen Probert gave me invaluable help on statistics, the former long ago, the latter at the last minute. Professor Probert has also discussed changes in phonology with me, but must not be assumed to share my opinions. Dr Peter Hill has generously enlightened me on Arabic literature. Audiences in many places, including Leipzig, Frankfurt, Rome, and Cambridge, have shown such lively interest in rhythm that I have been impelled to think it might not just be me. My wife’s support has kept the enterprise afloat, and brightened the whole voyage. The book is dedicated to a remarkable person, my sister Rachel. Gregory Hutchinson Christ Church Oxford

List of Abbreviations Periodicals are cited roughly as in L’Année philologique. Ancient authors, inscriptions, papyri, etc., are cited roughly as in, or more fully than in, Liddell and Scott9 (LSJ) and its Revised Supplement (1996), the Oxford Latin Dictionary, and Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 62 (2012), and the consolidated index to volumes 36–45 (1999). ‘Luc.’ is both Lucan and Lucian, but only Lucan is followed by numbers for book and line. Titles for Plutarch’s Moralia can be found in Russell (1973), 164–72. Abbreviations for these ancient works should be observed: Aelius Aristides: Asclepiad. is Asclepiadae, Quatt. De Quattuor, Sarap. Hymnus in Sarapidem; [Aristides]: Rhod. is Rhodiaca; Galen: Comp. Med. Gen. is De Compositione Medicamentorum per Genera, Dign. Puls. De Dignoscendis Pulsibus, Gloss. Hipp. Glossarium Hippocraticum, Nat. Fac. De Naturalibus Facultatibus, Ord. De Ordine Librorum Suorum, San. Tuend. De Sanitate Tuenda, Us. Part. De Usu Partium, ἀλυπ. περὶ ἀλυπηϲίαϲ; Isocrates: Evag. is Evagoras, Paneg. Panegyricus, Phil. Philippus, Soph. Contra Sophistas; Philo: Joseph. is De Iosepho, Leg. Alleg. Legum Allegoriae. In addition, the following abbreviations should be noted: ANRW

FRHist KG

KS

MRR RE

RRC

W. Haase and H. Temporini (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (Berlin and New York, 1972—). T. Cornell (ed.), The Fragments of the Roman Historians (3 vols., Oxford, 2014). R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre3 (2 vols., Hanover and Leipzig, 1898–1904). R. Kühner and C. Stegmann, Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache3, ed. A. Thierfelder (2 vols., Leverkusen, 1955). T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1951–2, suppl. 1960). A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll (eds.), Real-Enzyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart and Munich, 1893–1980). M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (2 vols. Cambridge, 1974).

List of Rhythms ̆

̆ /

1. 2. 3. 4. ̆

̆

̆

̆ ̆

Unrhythmic endings: 5. 6.

̆

̆

Any long except the last can be resolved, so e.g. ̆ ̆ ̆ (3), ̆ ̆ ̆ (2), ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ (4), ̆ ̆ ̆ (1); ̆ ̆ (6). If a resolved ending could be taken as either rhythmic or unrhythmic, it is taken as rhythmic. The last syllable is made long by pause, and can in itself be either long or short (brevis in longo); in this book it is always marked as long. Rhythms are scanned; the constituent syllables are printed in bold, save when there is hiatus within the ending. The actual close is marked by | (or by |h if there is hiatus within it). So Quo ūsquĕ tāndēm | abutērĕ, Cătĭlīnā, | patiēntĭā nōstrā? | (Cic. Cat. 1.1). Occasionally, an overlap between two rhythmic endings is indicated. In that case, the first close is marked by | ; so | quis te . . . | tot ex tuis ̆ 1.16). Here the first close amicis āc nĕ cēssārĭīs | să lūtāuīt? | (Cic. Cat. ̆ is āc nĕ cēssārĭīs |, the second -īs să lūtāuīt? |.

1 Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature POETRY AND PROSE A fundamental division exists in Greek and Latin literature between poetry and prose. Scholars give relatively little attention to the nature of this division; often, they devote their work principally to one or the other, in one of the languages. The definition of prose receives even less consideration than that of poetry. But some thought can lead us in interesting directions. Literature in many languages displays a similar division; the Greek case is striking in that at first, prose does not exist. It is substantially later that works in prose begin to be generally circulated. The most primary difference between poetry and prose in the Greek and Roman worlds is formal, and relates to rhythm; for this reason, it would almost never have been unclear whether a given passage was in prose or verse, except on counter-intuitive theories (thus an extreme claim that the works of Demosthenes, Xenophon, and Herodotus were poetry, Heracleodorus F 10, Janko [2000], 429; Arist. Poet. 1447b17–20: Empedocles, despite the usual view, more an inquirer into nature than a poet). oratio soluta ‘utterance unbound by rhythm’ is a common way of referring to prose in Latin (e.g. Cic. Brut. 32; in Greek cf. e.g. Dion. Hal. Lys. 3 i.11.19–20 Usener-Radermacher λελυμένηϲ ἐκ τοῦ μέτρου λέξεωϲ ‘language freed from metre’, and Apollod. Ath. FGrHist 244 T 2.36–42, where λελυμένη λέξιϲ is vividly likened to a quantity of sticks loose rather than tied up). Furthermore, it was relatively unusual for works not to be essentially one or the other. Prose works like Plutarch’s essays might contain numerous poetic quotations, but not by the author. Prose and verse alternated in works like Petronius’ novel or the narratives P. Oxy. XLII 3010 and Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

2

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

P. Turner 8, or in Varro’s Satires, but such works existed rather at the margins of generic systems. One may contrast the centrality of Sanskrit drama, in which prose and verse alternate on almost every page. Still less were such works a genuine fusion, like Baudelaire’s teasingly entitled Petits poèmes en prose.1 The differences between poetry and prose were discussed; thus in Philodemus, On Poems, we see the remains of an animated and intricate debate. Often ancient treatments seek to go beyond what most people thought the most obvious difference, the presence or absence of metre. Is imitation really more important, despite the standard view that metre is what matters (Arist. Poet. 1447b13–23)? What would happen if one reordered the words of a poem and so made it unmetrical (Plat. Gorg. 502c4–12, taken up Aristid. Quatt. 548 477.11–13 Lenz-Behr; Isocr. Evag. 11, etc., Heracleodorus F 39 Janko, Hor. Sat. 1.4.56–62)?2 A prose work can become more like poetry in various ways; these include the use of rhythm. Cf. e.g. Dion. Hal. Isocr. 2 i.57.12–15 Usener-Radermacher: Isocrates’ style of period is ῥυθμοειδεῖ πάνυ καὶ οὐ πολὺ ἀπέχοντι τοῦ ποιητικοῦ μέτρου ‘very rhythmic, not far removed from poetic metre’; Dem. 50 i.238.6–18: political speech can be like poems, its language poetic, but it should not be a poem; Comp. 25 ii.122–42 on how poetry and prose can come close, in a good way. Other areas which come into the discussion include poetic language and the world of the subject-matter. The characteristic effects of poetry, especially in comparison with prose, are not only to create a more elevated or more pleasant state of mind, but also to produce a more rapt attention, as the listener is absorbed into a special aesthetic sphere: the listener is enchanted, bewitched. Cf. e.g. Hom. Od. 17.518–21: intense attention to a singer (ἔθελγε ‘he enchanted me’, when the simile is applied to Odysseus); Pind. Pyth. 1.12 κῆλα δὲ καὶ δαιμόνων θέλγει φρέναϲ ‘the darts [of Apollo and the Muses] bewitch the minds of even the gods’; Plut. Pyth. Or. 397a οὐχ ὁρᾶιϲ . . . ὅϲην 1 On these see e.g. Labarthe (2000), esp. 18 25; for prose poems more widely, see Stillmark (2013), adding e.g. Fuller (2014). The great survey of ancient prose remains Norden (1898); for the beginnings of Greek prose, see Goldhill (2002). For editions of Sanskrit dramas, see e.g. Kālē (1967, 1969). With ποιητὴϲ κράτιϲτοϲ λόγων ‘creator of artistic language’ at Dion. Hal. Lys. 3 i.11.19 cf. Dem. 37 i.209.16 17. 2 See Janko (2000), 227; Hermog. Id. 251.21 253.10 Rabe changes lines into a different metre and so destroys their effect. On the debate in Philodemus, cf., besides much else, Porter (1995).

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

3

χάριν ἔχει τὰ Cαπφικὰ μέλη κηλοῦντα καὶ καταθέλγοντα τοὺϲ ἀκροωμένουϲ ‘do you not see how much charm Sappho’s songs have as they bewitch and enchant listeners?’—not so with verse oracles; Gal. Us. Part. 3.1 i.125 Helmreich, in an address to Pindar, ἐκπλῆξαι γὰρ οἶμαι καὶ θέλξαι καὶ κηλῆϲαι τοὺϲ ἀκροατάϲ, οὐ διδάξαι βούλεϲθε ‘you poets wish, it seems, to astonish, enchant, and bewitch your hearers, not instruct them’. Rhythm plays an important role in such effects. So at e.g. Isocr. Evag. 10: even with poor language and ideas, poems αὐταῖϲ ταῖϲ εὐρυθμίαιϲ καὶ ταῖϲ ϲυμμετρίαιϲ ψυχαγωγοῦϲιν τοὺϲ ἀκούονταϲ ‘enthral listeners simply with their fine uses of rhythm and their shaping’. Aristid. Sarap. 8 ii.354 Keil suggests that poetry has turned prose and ordinary words into metrical utterance χάριτόϲ τινοϲ ἕνεκα καὶ ψυχαγωγίαϲ ‘for a certain charm and enthralment’. Rhythm assuredly plays a part in this heightened and extreme attention in some prose. Cf. e.g. Longin. 39.2–3, where the rhythms of music, devoid of verbal meaning, are made a lesser analogy for the bewitchments of oratory (cf. θέλγητρον, κηλεῖν); Philostr. VS 1.21 p. 12 Stefec: Favorinus enchanted (ἔθελγε) even those who did not understand Greek, in part through rhythm. The state of being persuaded is connected, cf. Longin. 39.3; Isocr. Phil. 27: Isocrates showed others εὐρυθμίαι through which they could make their prose utterances ἡδίουϲ . . . καὶ ἅμα πιϲτοτέρουϲ ‘more delightful and at the same time more persuasive’.3 Hence, although there is always a rhythmic difference between poetry and prose in the ancient world, the difference has degrees. After ancient times, it is more difficult in Western literature to establish a basic rhythmic difference. The difficulty lies mostly on the poetic side of the boundary. Some medieval poetic traditions, as in the Nibelungenlied, offer rhymes but very loose rhythmic organization. Since the late eighteenth century, individual poets in the course of their oeuvre move increasingly away from rhyme, such as Giacomo Leopardi, or from fixed rhythm, such as the recent Alda Merini; from the twentieth century on, vers libre comes to predominate. Commonly now poetry is marked out not rhythmically by a fixed pattern, but typographically by an arrangement on the page; this calls for 3 The complex relation between poetry and prose in the discourse of Aristides’ prose hymn to Sarapis certainly does not imply that poetry is now fading out: not an opinion that earlier e.g. Plutarch would have cared for (cf. e.g. Pyth. Or. 396d, f ).

4

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

closer attention to shorter units than lines of prose. So form and attention are still connected. There have also, on the other hand, been works of prose which draw closer to poetic microstructuring when they rise in intensity: so Ælfric’s alliterative style in his sermons. Further afield, much Arabic prose is said to interest itself in rhyme and short rhythmic phrases, with an affinity to poetry. A rhymed style (saj‘) can be used intermittently or continuously, with various connotations. In one nineteenth-century novel, Shidyāq’s Al-Sāq ‘ala alSāq, this style with historic resonance can be moved into, it is said, at points of elevation and heightened emotion. We should not assume it to be the natural state of affairs that prose is distinguished from poetry by having no rhythmic patterning at all.4 Ancient discussion indeed often differentiates between poetry, as metrical, and prose, as unmetrical or without metre (so Plat. Phdr. 258d11, Plut. Pyth. Or. 404b). But other distinctions are frequently drawn. Aristotle, in a discussion important for all subsequent treatments, says that prose should have rhythm not metre, Rhet. 3.1408b30 (metre is the poetic subdivision of rhythm); Demetrius says that Plato’s cola are often slippery, as if not altogether ἔμμετροϲ or ἄμετροϲ (183). Cicero describes Calidius’ words thus: | nec uero haēc sŏ lūtā | nec dīfflŭēntĭā, | sed astrīctă nŭ mĕ rīs, | (Brut. 274; ‘not unbound or falling loose, but tied with rhythms’). Excellence in rhythm, εὐρυθμία, is a quality in prose widely commended, sometimes seen as desirable in all works, sometimes as practised in some not others, so Isocrates of different writers and even himself at different times (Phil. 27, his own former εὐρυθμίαι; Soph. 16–17: the art of speaking εὐρυθμῶϲ καὶ μουϲικῶϲ through the words used, and so speaking more attractively than others; Arist. Rhet. 3.1408b21–2: style in prose should be εὔρυθμοϲ; Dion. Hal. Dem. 48 i.235.9–11 Usener-Radermacher: prose too needs εὐρυθμία). The same experiment of removing metre from poetry by changing word-order or words is applied to prose that handles rhythm well (e.g. Demetr. 184, Cic. Orat. 214 [in reverse e.g. 233], Longin. 39.4). The position, then, is much more complicated Al Sāq ‘ala al Sāq: Jubran (1989), 155 7 (humour too?); earlier: Leder and Kilpatrick (1992), 5 6, 9. For a suggested example of heightening saj‘ in the Arabian Nights see Pinault (1992), 64 8. On parallelism, rhythm, and elevation, see Beeston (1974). Messadi (1981) is full of interest on rhyme and rhythm even for those who, like me, are mere lapsed beginners in Arabic. I am much indebted to Dr P. Hill for pointing me to these works. For Ælfric cf. e.g. Pope (1967), i.105 36, Godden (2000), xxxvi xxxvii. 4

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

5

than a simple division between poetry, which is concerned with rhythmic patterns, and prose, which is not. Our notions about the nature and impact of prose must reflect this complication.5

THE DEVELOPMENT OF RHYTHMIC PROSE So far, we have been looking synoptically, as is not unreasonable: similar ideas and formulations run through the ancient discussions. Now we must look cursorily at developments through time, but with some comment interwoven on the ancient reception of those developments. Prose has been in existence for only a century or so when authors begin, perhaps in the late fifth century, to write ‘rhythmically’, to cultivate particular rhythmic patterns throughout their work: numerose, Cic. Orat. 175. Cicero applies the word to all the writing of Thrasymachus (Diels-Kranz no. 85); he sees him as the inventor rather than Isocrates. At the same sort of time, some poetry comes closer to the border from the other side: instead of recurring lines or stanzas, solo song experiments with astrophic lyric (so Timotheus). The primacy that Cicero gives to Thrasymachus and Gorgias in the Orator (cf. 39, 40) he had previously ascribed to Isocrates (436–338 BC), De Orat. 3.173; Brut. 32: Isocrates was the first to realize that some sort of rhythm should be kept even in prose. Isocrates was later viewed as a major figure in this regard, and himself often speaks about rhythm. Various rhythmic features can be observed in the practice of Demosthenes. His perceived use of rhythm will subsequently be important for Dionysius as well as Cicero.6 Aristotle’s discussion, already mentioned, will greatly influence perceptions (so Dion. Hal. Comp. 25 ii.126.2–15, explicitly, and suggesting e.g. Theophrastus not important to him). Indeed, the main problem with most ensuing theoretical comments is that they are based on Aristotle’s theories rather than on subsequent developments in practice. Characteristically, Aristotle’s discussion seeks a balanced and central point between extremes; but that central point

5

For the punctuation included with the rhythmic quotation from Cicero, see p. 84. On Demosthenes’ avoidance of more than two consecutive short syllables, see Blass (1887 98), iii.1.105 12, (1901), 143 8. On Isocrates, see Usher (2010). 6

6

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

is excellence in rhythm, and one extreme is an absence of rhythm: εὔρυθμον δεῖ εἶναι τὴν λέξιν καὶ μὴ ἄρρυθμον (Rhet. 3.1409a21–2, ‘the language must have fine rhythm, not no rhythm’, cf. 1408b21–2 τὸ δὲ ϲχῆμα τῆϲ λέξεωϲ δεῖ μήτε ἔμμετρον εἶναι μήτε ἄρρυθμον ‘the form of the language must be neither in poetic metre nor devoid of rhythm’). Similarly Theophrastus, who thinks that prose with a claim to artistry should be not strictly but somewhat loosely rhythmical (| non astricte sed remissius numerosam ēss(e) ŏ pōrtērē |, fr. 701 Fortenbaugh, Cic. De Orat. 3.184). The general points from these and later discussions are the views that care over rhythm is desirable and important, and that rhythm has emotional and aesthetic connotations, rather than constituting mere self-contained patterning. The specific connotations seen in particular feet are not easily applied to reading of authors from the fifth and fourth centuries, partly because there is no one system used by many authors, and partly because the units adduced are so small. A paean on its own ( ̆ ̆ )̆ does not take us far. The use of rhythm in at least some fifth- and fourth-century prose is likely to be significant; but so far analysis has not come up with much that is compelling, and it is not proposed to consider the matter here. The earlier period has diverted interest in Greek from the one area of rhythm which we can grasp. A firmly defined way of writing is associated with the name of Hegesias (FGrHist 142), who is writing in the third century BC, and perhaps the end of the fourth. Although his style and his use of rhythm receive more abuse than praise, he is plainly a well-known figure, and the diffusion of his patterning amid various works and inscriptions of the Hellenistic period suggests that his approach had many adherents. We find ferocious attack in Dion. Hal. Comp. 18. ii.79.9–84.3 (Hegesias’ rhythms probably deliberately ignoble; his writing a failure throughout). A malevolent close reading of ‘the sophist’ Hegesias and his κομψότηϲ ‘cleverness’, not to say madness, is offered by Agatharchides fr. 21 GGM i.119–22. Strabo 14.1.41 648C iv.42.6–8 Radt briefly states that Hegesias ἦρξε μάλιϲτα τοῦ Ἀϲιανοῦ λεγομένου ζήλου, παραφθείραϲ τὸ καθεϲτὼϲ ἔθοϲ τὸ Ἀττικόν ‘was the main founder of the “Asian” fashion, corrupting the established Attic convention’.7 The success of Hegesias’ approach is hard to follow precisely through the Hellenistic centuries, which are obscure for Greek 7 On Hegesias, cf. Hutchinson (2014), 33 9. For rhythm in pre Hellenistic prose, cf. esp. De Groot (1919, 1921, 1926), Dover (1997), 160 86, and Vatri (forthcoming).

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

7

prose. It is certainly not employed by the two large works of historiography, those of Polybius and Diodorus. The traces of its alleged use need re-examination; but by the first century BC, it is used beyond doubt in inscriptions spread as far apart as Thrace (I.Thrac. Aeg. 205, second half of ii BC to early i BC) and Commagene (the inscriptions of its Antiochus I). Cicero makes it clear that the rhythmic manner which the Elder Seneca shows us in Greek rhetors, mostly from Asia, was flourishing already among the orators of Asia earlier in the century (cf. Or. 212, 230–1). Asia was, to say the least, a region of the highest importance in Hellenistic culture; writers’ connection of this scheme of rhythm with Asia in particular may have something to do with first-century controversy on Attic and Asian oratory. But the role of Rhodes, a leading place for oratory, adds to the complication and unclarity.8 We can trace traditions and terms in the discussion of the Asian fashion. Cic. Orat. 230, who wishes not to be thought a decadent Asian orator, speaks of Asiātĭcōs . . . | numero sēruĭēntēs | ‘the Asian orators, who are enslaved to rhythm’. The whole passage is related to the later Dion. Hal. Isocr. 3 i.58.4–59.3 Usener-Radermacher on Isocrates, cf. 59.2 τῶι ῥυθμῶι δουλεύοντοϲ ‘enslaved to rhythm’ (cf. 12 i.72.2–3: διάνοια often enslaved to rhythm), 58.20 παραπλήρ ωμαϲι λέξεων οὐδὲν ὠφελουϲῶν (‘fillings out of words which are of no use’, but help the rhythm), Cic. Orat. 230 | inculcata reperias inania quaedam uerba quasi complemēntă nŭ mĕ rōrūm | ‘you would find some pointless words inserted as if to fill out the rhythms’. The terms of this analysis will go back to Hellenistic discussion, whoever it was applied to; from Hellenistic discussion, and ultimately from Aristotle’s terms, descends the criticism that Hegesias’ excessively small and frequent rhythmic units (cf. 226) can produce in followers a style of writing | uersiculorūm sĭmīllĭmūm. | ‘very like little lines of poetry’ (230; cf. Theon Progymn. 71 Sp. 16.9–11 Patillon, one must especially avoid τὴν ἔμμετρον καὶ ἔνρυθμον λέξιν, ὡϲ τὰ πολλὰ τῶν Ἡγηϲίου τοῦ ῥήτοροϲ καὶ τῶν Ἀϲιανῶν καλουμένων ῥητόρων ‘the style which is in metre and rhythm, like most of Hegesias the orator and the “Asian” orators’; Demetr. 118: to put continuous μέτρα, like some, is tasteless, ποίημα γὰρ ἄκαιρον ψυχρόν, ‘a line of poetry [probably not: a poem] out of place is tasteless’, Cic. De Orat. 3.185 dummodo ne continui sint [sc. numeri] 8 Hutchinson (2013), 93 4, 106; 235 8 for Atticism, and the Hellenistic period. See also Papanikolaou (2009).

8

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

‘so long as they are not continuous’; Arist. Rhet. 3.1408b31 ποίημα γὰρ ἔϲται, if the speech has metre rather than mere rhythm ‘it will be a poem’, Dion. Hal. Dem. 50 i.238.14–15 Usener-Radermacher).9 But for all this and other criticisms of Hegesias and the Asiatic style (or styles), the rhythmic patterning which Hegesias introduces or popularizes is adopted by an enormous quantity of Latin prose from Cicero himself onwards, and, as we shall see, of Greek prose in the first three centuries AD. It becomes the hexameter of prose; it pervades the literature in both languages without a rival. Hegesias was an orator; but his most famous work was his history of Alexander. That work followed this way of writing; in the Hellenistic period, it is not at all confined to oratory. But its importance in oratory won it one particularly vital adherent. The young Cicero, in learning Greek rhetoric at Rome, adopted this pattern of writing in Latin, and applied it in all his works, speeches, dialogues, treatises, and even letters (save to his most intimate correspondents). He is the main author in his period to do so; Caesar, Varro, and others do not. It is a mark of his Hellenism. He writes of rhythm, following Aristotle and Theophrastus, in the De Oratore, assigned to speakers who most likely had not adopted this system. Even in 55 BC he has a rival to fear, Calvus, no friend of such rhythm. Nine years later, Cicero is more anxiously consolidating his position as the climax of Roman oratory against criticism that he follows Asian and not Attic oratory. Rhythm is central to this controversy, and occupies a large part of the Orator of 46. Cicero champions rhythm in oratory; he stresses its importance in Demosthenes (234), here probably following Hellenistic tradition as reflected in Dionysius and others (Dem. 48 i.234.6–9 Usener-Radermacher, 50 i.238.6–10, Comp. 25 ii.125.16–126.2), but with a special point in controversy with Attici (Orat. 29, Opt. Gen. 6–13, etc.). He keeps his distance, as we have seen, from Asian oratory, including Hegesias. He also, however, offers us detailed indications of the patterning that he follows. He indicates that his own treatment of the subject is unusual (Orat. 174). For once, discussion gets beyond the Aristotelian tradition.10 9 Winterbottom, in Wisse et al. (2008), 276, takes De Orat. 3.185 differently, as does Mankin (2011), 279; neither mentions Demetrius. 10 Some contemporaries evidently adopted the system too: M. Calidius (Brut. 274), or the author of the Ad Herennium. It was evidently viewed as a novelty, cf. Orat. 168; but Cicero plays down its modernity at Rome, cf. 171. See Hutchinson (2013), 233 5. The objection in Dionysius that the rhythms in Demosthenes may not strike a listener

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

9

After Cicero’s death, the fashion for this system sweeps into Roman writing. Sallust, and then Livy, stand aloof—Roman historiography pursues an archaic path; but from now on most types of literature, save for some technical writing, will go for the system first visible in Hegesias. Possibly Cicero, now canonized as the Roman Demosthenes, suddenly had an effect he had not had while alive; a more crucial cause was probably the influx of Greek teachers of rhetoric into Rome. They largely came from Asia; so far as the short and corrupt fragments in the Elder Seneca enable us to discern, they entirely adopted this manner of writing, which is perspicuous in all the Latin teachers of rhetoric whom Seneca excerpts. They take over from their Greek colleagues method of education, subjects to declaim on, style, and rhythm. Seneca himself adopts the system, as does his son, the Younger Seneca, who underwent education in a similar milieu. The relation between style and rhythm is intriguing: Cicero’s elaborate periods contrast with the short, sharp phrases of the declamations (the Philippics, however Demosthenic, form a curious bridge), but both deploy the Asian patterning. Dionysius of Halicarnassus takes up, like the probably earlier Demetrius, the discussion of rhythm in prose. He attributes great significance to it, loathes Hegesias and his use of rhythm, and thinks that Asianism is on the way out (Praef. Vet. Or. 1–3 i.3–6 Usener-Radermacher). The Elder Seneca suggests otherwise, and Dionysius’ own writing is more affected by this system than one would expect.11 Stylistic controversy continues to rage happily in Roman prose. But while the Younger Seneca treats Cicero coolly, and Quintilian treats Seneca coolly and idolizes Cicero, both adopt the same system of rhythm as Cicero; it is a sort of constant. Quintilian, drawing on Cicero, offers us a further detailed indication of the system. Tacitus manages without it, but only in his broadly historiographical works; the Dialogus, and its pro- and anti-Ciceronian speakers, all adopt the common medium. Petronius’ racy novel, though it assails declamation and much else, employs the system with finesse. Enthusiasm for pre-Ciceronian Latin makes some temporary impact in the second (Dem. 48 i.235.8 20) makes one wonder if the common emphasis on concealing rhythm originates or grows from the challenges of reading pre Hellenistic authors in this light; but it harmonizes with the Aristotelian position. 11 Cf. Hutchinson (2013), 108 9, 235 6, 238 40. Aili (1979) looks for rhythmical preferences in Sallust and Livy. For Dionysius’ preface, see Hidber (1996).

10

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

century AD, and Fronto and even Gellius are not rhythmic as we might expect. But Apuleius is highly rhythmic. The way of writing runs on, in some sense, into late antiquity, including Ammianus’ historiography, and beyond it. There is dispute on exactly how and when it evolves into the medieval rhythmic system; but the importance and centrality of this rhythmic tradition in Imperial prose cannot reasonably be denied.12 Although it is still too little exploited in work on many Roman Imperial authors, substantial scholarly work has been done on the rhythmic system as seen in Latin. Cicero in particular has received intensive treatment; Petronius, Quintus Curtius, and others have been carefully considered. Very little has been done to exploit rhythm in literary criticism; but scholars are at least aware that in some way, rhythm matters. The picture in Greek is quite different.13 Work has been done on individual authors and on Greek prose more generally, but nothing on the scale of research into Cicero, and much with a basis of material or a method that hardly justifies the drawing of conclusions. No standard opinion prevails on whether most Imperial Greek prose follows this rhythmic system, or very little does, or whether there is some rhythmic writing earlier on, but it is fading out. In the last part of the present chapter, an answer will be attempted to this question, on the basis of far more material than has been used before. In subsequent chapters, the literary significance of the system will be explored through a very large work which has been scanned in its entirety, the Parallel Lives of Plutarch.14 12 Cf. e.g. Zwierlein (2002) and Holmes (2002, 2007). For discussions of oratory see e.g. Leeman (1963). 13 For Cicero, see Zieliński (1904, 1914), Nisbet (1961), xvii xx, (1995), Hutchinson (1995), (1998), 9 12, Berry (1996). On Quintus Curtius see Müller and Schönfeld (1954), 775 82; for Petronius, see Müller and Ehlers (1983), 449 70; for Seneca, see Axelson (1933), 7 16, (1939), 23 42. 14 Hutchinson (2015a) is based on scansion of all phrases in a shorter work, Appian’s Civil Wars, Hunter (1983) on the scansion of all sentence endings in Longus; cf. also Heibges (1911) on Chariton. Work on some other authors: Russell (1964), 196 7 for Longinus; Szelest (1951) for Herodian the historian; for Aelius Aristides, Szelest (1959 60), Gigli (1975), Goeken (2012), 167 8. Divergent views on the extent of rhythmic prose in Greek: Norden (1898), ii.918 22; Wilamowitz (1969), 257 9; Hunter (1983), 84 (probably using ‘rhythmical’ more broadly); Winterbottom (2011), 264. The work on Plutarch’s oeuvre, and on other authors, has been done by hand for this book. Discussion with experts on computing had produced the answer that scanning Greek prose electronically would not be practicable; further discussion with others, including my former pupil Jason Webber, now suggests that it is not

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

11

THE BASICS OF PROSE-RHYTHM, AS USED BY CICERO AND OTHERS But before we proceed to Imperial Greek prose, it will be desirable to gain a firmer idea of the system—so to call it. The emphasis will for now be on explaining rather than demonstrating. The term ‘rhythmic prose’ will now be confined to prose that follows the system of Hegesias (or Cicero). Such prose is marked by a particular phenomenon: some endings to sentences and phrases occur more frequently, some less frequently than we would find in non-rhythmical prose. The argument is to come later, as is discussion of how much more frequently, or how much less; but the basic state of affairs is that the system increases the proportion of some types of ending beyond what would be expected if the author were indifferent to these rhythms, and reduces the proportion of others. The possible types of ending are as follows, if one bears in mind that for the purposes of this system any long but the last can be resolved, and the last can be represented by a short syllable (as in poetic metre, the ensuing pause gives length to the position). Rhythmic endings: 1. 2. 3. 4.

̄ ̆ ̄ ̆ ̄ ̆ ̄ ̆

̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ /̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄

Unrhythmic endings: 5. ̄ ̆ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ 6. ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ It may look at first as though the rhythmic endings are bound to win out, when there are so many of them, especially when it is learned that 4 and 5 are not particularly frequent. But 6 occurs frequently, especially when one recalls its various resolved forms, such as ̆ ̆ or ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ (the latter would have to be preceded by a long: with a short it could and so would be treated as a resolved form of 3, ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ). In Greek the difference, at its greatest, in the endings of sentences would be between impossible. Such developments would be useful for the future; but for present purposes the material gathered by hand is more than adequate.

12

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

an expected incidence of 60.5% for 1–4 and an actual incidence in an author of 89.75%. The system thus develops and modifies the ordinary patterns of Greek prose. In doing so, it gives the prose a new appearance. Greek poetic rhythms can be divided into those in which a single long alternates with two shorts (or with a long replacing them), and those in which it alternates with one short (or with a long replacing it). One may call the first type double-short metres, such as dactyls (basic form ̆ )̆ and anapaests (basic form ̆ ̆ ), the second short single-short, such as iambi (x ̆ ) and trochees ( ̆ x). The longs that can replace do not make the two types the same, since in double-short metres, one cannot have the sequence ̆ , and in single-short metres, one can only exceptionally have the sequence ̆ ̆ . There is also a mixed type, in which single-short sequences alternate with double-short. The effect of the rhythmic system in concentrating on 1–4 is to turn the endings of sentences and phrases predominantly into single-short. Furthermore, if we adopt the conventional delimitation of where each ending begins, they form a set, very like the kind of set one finds, for example, in the aeolic metres of Greek tragedy. That is to say, one has an entity which gives a core pattern, in this case the cretic, ̆ . This can end a rhythmic unit without further syllables after it: so 1 above. Or one could add a long syllable, so 2 above, or two long syllables, so 3, or a short and a long, so 4. For a glimpse of such sets in tragic ῏̄ κλεῑν̄α` Cᾰλᾰμ̄ι´ ϲ, ϲ̆υ` μ̄ε´ ν | ποῡ νᾱι´ εῑϲ metre, cf. e.g. Soph. Aj. 597–9 ω ῾ᾰ λ̆ι´ πλᾱκτο̆ϲ ε̄υ᾿ δᾱι´ μω̄ν, | π̄αϲ̑ ῑν πε̆ρ̆ι´ φᾱντο̆ϲ ᾱι᾿ ε̄ι´ ·, where a glyconic with its blunt ending ̆ (597) is followed by a colon which extends the form in a dragged ending with two long syllables (598), and then a hagesichorean (599) illustrates a pendant ending ̆ ; the hagesichorean x ̆ ̆ ̆ forms part of a set with the blunt telesillean x ̆ ̆ ̆ . In the prose system, the endings to phrases and sentences acquire an organized shape, and create a satisfying and weighty cadence; as in the hexameter, or indeed in modern classical music, ending and more limited patterns go together. But the unit thus ended need not be lengthy, and the frequency of rhythmic closes varies significantly within and between passages.15

15 The scansion of Soph. Aj. 597 8 is that of Wilamowitz (1921), 509. If one makes the first line end ϲ̆υ` μ̄ε´ ν ποῡ | with Lloyd Jones and Wilson, one has an example of the pendant ending which makes part of a set with the glyconic (a hipponactean), and then in 598 a colon which extends the form of the telesillean not the glyconic.

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

13

EXAMPLES FROM THERMOPYLAE To gain some idea of the system at work, we may look at some sentences and a longer sequence from Arellius Fuscus the Elder as excerpted and reported by Seneca the Elder (the final sequence is to be read continuously). Once again, the wish is for the reader to get a notion of the system, and not yet to establish points by argument. The passage (Suas. 2.1–2) is a fictional address by a Spartan to his fellow citizens at Thermopylae. The brevity of the sentences and the norms of word-order in Latin give us a clear vision of prose-rhythm at work, at a crucial point in its use at Rome. | pudet cōnsĭlī nōstrī, | pudet, etiāmsī nōn fūgĭmūs, | deliberāssĕ tālĭā. | Our discussion is shaming, it is shaming that, even if we have not fled, we have debated such things.

Endings are 3, 1, 4, respectively. The sentence is divided into two parts; the second part (pudet, etiāmsī, etc.) explains the first. The rhythm articulates the parts, but also marks out the extension of the second part into two rhythmical entities. The second pudet adds to its force by starting a new unit after a rhythmic close. The position of talia, unexpected in Latin, especially with such a colourless pronoun, is not demanded by rhythm (delībĕ rāssē | would have been ending 2), but placing it last in the rhythmic close gives further emphasis to the disdain heaped on this simple word. | non refero ŏ pĕ ră uēstrā, | nōn ă uōs, nōn pă trēs, | quorum uo exēmpl(o) ă b īnfāntĭā | sūrgĭt īngĕ nĭūm; | uobis Kiessling: non codd.

I will not mention what you have achieved, I will not mention your grandfathers or fathers, at whose example from your earliest years your spirit exalts itself.

Endings 2 ( ̆ with first long resolved), 1, 1 (note elision within rhythmic phrase), 3 ( ̆ with penultimate long resolved). | nōn ă uōs, nōn pă trēs, | gains fresh impetus from the separate rhythmic unit; the particular form of 1 is neatly exploited ( ̆ twice). īnfāntĭā | is highlighted by the rhythmic close, which it ends; it offers a bold extreme, especially next to the unbabyish | sūrgĭt īngĕ nĭūm; |. exēmpl(o) too garners more attention from being the first significant word in the rhythmic unit; quorum is prepositive, uobis postpositive. The usual Latin word-order is rearranged in | sūrgĭt īngĕ nĭūm; |; the

14

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

aim is to produce a rhythmic close, as ingenium surgit would not, but the alteration has an inspiring effect, and word-order, rhythm, and meaning combine to make surgit exciting. . . . | hoc mă rĕ , quōd tāntūm pă tēt, | ex uasto urgētŭ r īn mĭnĭmūm, | insidiosis excĭpĭtŭ r āngūstĭīs | uīxquĕ mĭnĭmō | aditus nauigio est, mari Håkanson

patet ex uasto Gertz: ex u. p. codd.

. . . this sea here, which extends so greatly, is constrained from being huge to being tiny; it is taken up by treacherous narrow straits; there is hardly room for the smallest vessel to have access,

Endings 1 with first long resolved, 3 with penultimate long resolved, 1 with first long resolved, 2 with first long resolved. The rhythmic division strengthens the opposition between tāntūm pă tēt, | and urgētŭ r īn mĭnĭmūm, |. The verbs contrast, but the wordorder, which makes the rhythm possible (contrast in minimum urgetur), also joins with the rhythm in spotlighting mĭnĭmūm, |, with its undignified short syllables. The whole rhythmic phrase, that is to say phrase with a rhythmic close, | ex uasto urgētŭ r īn mĭnĭmūm, | brings two opposed words into one entity, one at the start (ex is prepositive), one at the close. The Herodotean original is heightened: τοῦτο μὲν [τὸ Ἀρτεμίϲιον] τὸ πέλαγοϲ τὸ Θρηΐκιον ἐξ εὐρέοϲ ϲυνάγεται ἐϲ ϲτεινὸν ἔϲ τε τὸν πόρον . . . (7.176.1)

τὸ Ἀ. del. Stein τὸ π. τὸ Θρ. Pingel: ἐκ τοῦ πελάγεοϲ τοῦ Θρηϊκίου codd.: τὸ π. [τοῦ Θρηϊκίου] coni. Hutchinson ἔϲ τε τὸν πόρον Pingel: ἐόντα τὸν πόρον A: πόρον d16

This Thracian sea is contracted from broad to narrow, and into the channel . . .

| uīxquĕ mĭnĭmō | is an effectively minimalist phrase, where the two words reinforce each other, in wild exaggeration. The closes also underline the recurring minimus. The last phrase, | aditus nauigio est, reminds us that unrhythmical closes are often encountered. | hunc sūmĭt(e) ă nĭmūm: | nescio an uincere possimus; uīncī nōn pōssŭ mūs. | Take this spirit: we may perhaps be able to conquer; we can never be conquered. 16 Cf. Wilson (2015), 145; if Pingel was unaware of Seneca, the latter provides some confirmation. However, one may question whether the position of ἐόντα in A is dubious. The Seneca would also support the deletion of the curious ‘Thracian’.

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

15

Endings 2 with penultimate long resolved, 1. The final clause uīncī nōn pōssŭ mūs. |, which exactly fills the rhythmic close, rings out against the tentative clause before, with its unrhythmic close uincere possīmus. . . . sī că dēndūm (e)st, | erratis si metuendam crēdĭtīs mōrtēm. | . . . if you do have to fall in battle, you are mistaken if you think death is to be feared.

Endings 2, 3. The deviation from normal word-order is not demanded by rhythm, since –dām mōrtēm crēdĭtīs | would be rhythmic, but rhythm and hyperbaton are used to isolate mortem at a scornful close and sentence-end. The next sentences follow mōrtēm. | immediately, and are themselves consecutive. They form part of a passage where the rhythms are particularly tightly set and not mixed with unrhythmical closes. This density marks the elevation of a philosophizing excursion. | nulli natūr(a) ĭn aētērnūm | spīrĭtūm dĕ dīt, | stātquĕ nāscēntĭbūs | in fīnēm uītaē dĭēs. | Nature has given no one life for ever; when we are born, the day stands fixed for the end of our lives.

Endings 3 (note elision within rhythmic close), 4, 1, 1. The rhythmic close gives aētērnūm | weight; nāscēntĭbūs | and fīnēm confront each other across a rhythmic boundary (in is prepositive). Cf. in poetry Man. 4.16 nascentes morimur, finisque ab origine pendet, where pairs of words contrast, the pairs are arranged chiastically, and nascentes and finis are opposed at the beginning of halves of the line; note also Sen. Oed. 988 primusque dies dedit extremum, where primus and extremum contrast meaningfully at opposite ends of the dimeter.17 | ex imbecilla enim nos matĕ rĭā dĕ ŭ s ōrsŭ s ēst; | quīppĕ mĭnĭmīs | sūccĭdūnt cōrpŏ rā. | God fashioned us from feeble stuff; you can see how our bodies collapse at the smallest things.

Endings 1 with first and third long resolved, 2 with second long resolved, 1.

17

Housman (1937), 3 cites the Oedipus.

16

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

minimīs cōrpŏ ră sūccĭdūnt. | would also have been rhythmic, but this arrangement underlines minimis, with its light short syllables, and makes the event | sūccĭdūnt cōrpŏ rā. | stand dramatically apart. | indenūntĭātā | sōrtĕ ră pĭmūr; | sub eodem puerĭtĭă fātō (e)st, | eadem iuuēntūs caūsā că dīt. | We are snatched away by a fortune that gives no warning; our boyhood lies under the same fate, our manhood falls for the same reason.

Endings 2, 2 with second long resolved, 2 with first long resolved, 1. One would not usually mark an attributive adjective as a rhythmic entity on its own, but indenuntiata is long and weighty (cf. | insatiabiliter || Lucr. 3.907), and really a negated participle. It also alludes to Xerxes not sending heralds to Sparta before the war (Hdt. 7.133.1, cf. further the declamations on Xerxes, Sen. Suas. 5.2 and 4 | non denūntĭārēt |, 2 arma indenuntiata mŏ uērēt. |). The structure marks out the unexpected | sōrtĕ , and the three short syllables of -tĕ ră pĭmūr are expressive. eodem (after the prepositive sub) and | eadem stand out the more by beginning a new rhythmic entity—that is, a new phrase which will end with a rhythmic close. What follows shows that the talk is still of ‘us’ as humans, not as Spartans; what immediately precedes suggests that part of the point in eodem and eadem is that this same unitary fate retains the character of unpredictability. The numbers of the rhythms need not be given further, but can easily be found, should the reader need them, at the start of the book (‘List of Rhythms’, p. xiii). The reader should also be beginning to see how important the rhythm is to a detailed reading and general appreciation of a rhythmical text.

SOME BASIS FOR THE BASICS A little must now be said about the scheme itself (more trusting readers are welcome to skip this section). There are pragmatic advantages, for comprehension and persuasiveness, in adopting a scheme for the rhythms which is already standard. Nor is it necessary to have explicit ancient testimony, either for noticing rhythmical patterns or for supposing that writers’ use of them was artistic not accidental (Bacchylides need not have been able to state Barrett’s observations). However, where we have remarkably detailed ancient discussion, it

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

17

would be wise to incorporate it, particularly in a medium where not everything is rhythmical, and it is not certain how long the rhythmical elements are. In theory, however, one could have investigated different lengths of ending, instead of those in the standard scheme (endings 1–4). It would have been perverse to investigate shorter lengths, e.g. ̆ instead of 2 ̆ , when there is much more metrical coherence in the set adopted here. On the other hand, Cicero’s use of atque followed by a consonant (rare outside rhythmic closes) from time to time shows his interest in rhythm extending further back into the sentence; cf. also e.g. Quint. 9.4.102, where our 2 ̆ and Quintilian’s dichoreus (2 times )̆ is extended back into ̆ ̆ (2 times bacchius [ ̆ ]) or ̆ ̆ (a bacchius choreum [ ]̆ et spondium [ ] ante amat ‘likes a choreus and spondee before itself ’—a nice extra, perhaps). We should acknowledge that we are being tighter in our analysis than Cicero or Quintilian would always have been; but our conventional lengths fit in with their comments and usage well enough.18 Their terms are certainly different from ours, as has just been seen from Quintilian. An attraction of the conventional set of endings is, in our own terms, its metrical coherence and simplicity (save perhaps in 1, where there is a foreshadowing of the final ̆ in the preceding ̆ or ). As with ancient metrical comments generally, the patterns found in our analysis are obscured by the awkward tools of ancient writers, who have to analyse in small units, mostly groups of two or three syllables (note Quint. Inst. 9.4.79; P. Oxy. LXXVIII 5159 discourses on feet with four syllables, often made up from two feet, cf. Quint. 9.4.95). But it is apparent that they and we are considering the same kind of actual entity. Their comments do not give significant grounds for taking larger lengths as our basic units. In any case, the standard lengths suffice to show the difference between, say, Cicero, who indisputably writes rhythmic prose on the Hellenistic model, and, say, pre-Hellenistic Greek texts.19 The unit 2 ̆ is clearly supported as the dichoreus, qui placet plerisque ‘which most people like’ (Quint. Inst. 9.4.105), as in the 18 For the extension sometimes shown by atque see Hutchinson (1995), 485 6. The importance of rhythm in Cicero’s treatment of atque was observed by Wolff (1901), 637 40. To save confusion, in what follows most of Cicero and Quintilian’s comments will not themselves be given with scansion. 19 Benaissa (2012) offers much information on four syllable feet and their context.

18

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

much-admired cōmprŏ bāuīt | (Cic. Orat. 214). The foot is taken to be ̄ ̆ ̄ ̆ or ̄ ̆ ̄ ̄ : cf. Cic. Orat. 224, 212–14, 217, 224 | aēstĭmāstī |, Quint. Inst. 9.4.105. So Orat. 214 nihil enim ad rem extrema illa longa sit an breuis ‘it does not matter if the last syllable is long or short’; Cicero has less trouble with this notion than Quintilian. Cf. also the resolution mĕ ă [Badius; ne* A] fă cĭlĭtās | at Quint. Inst. 9.4.111 (Quintilian is evidently still talking of endings, cf. Spengel’s supplement at Arist. Rhet. 3.1409a10).20 3 ̄ ̆ ̄ ̄ ̄ is also clearly supported by Quintilian: 9.4.97 optime praecedet eum [spondee] creticus, ut in hoc: ‘ . . . crīmĭnīs caūsā |’ ‘the cretic will go excellently before the spondee, as in this example: . . . ’. The resolution ēssĕ uĭdĕ ātūr | is also seen as a popular clausula (9.4.73, 10.2.18), cf. 103 –tātĕ sŭ pĕ rābat | as choreus (̄ ̆ ), pyrrhichium (̆ ̆ ), choreus; note also Quintilian’s inarticulable preference for another resolution, | hūnc pĕ r hōscĕ dĭēs |, 9.4.119, over | hūnc pĕ r hōs dĭēs |. 1 (first version) is spoken of as two cretics (Quint. Inst. 9.4.107; Quintilian indicates that it is used). We do, however, also find the same ending approached without its first syllable, as a dochmius (̆ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ , amicos tenes, Cic. Orat. 218, cf. Quint. Inst. 9.4.97). Any combination of syllables before it would fit the pattern of one of the two versions (̄ ̆ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ , ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ ); ̄ ̆ ̆ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ would fit the second version. Cf. Quint. Inst. 9.4.107, apparet uero quam bene eum [i.e. creticum] praecedant uel anapaestos . . . , i.e.̆ ̆ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ ; this and ̄ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̄ ̆ ̄ are perhaps here thought even better than the unresolved first version ̄ ̆ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ . The second version in its unresolved form ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ is not explicitly supported: it remains common enough in Cicero for this to seem an accident more than the result of his growing preference for the first version by the time of the Orator. Quint. disapproves at 9.4.104 of spondee and dactyl to close (̄ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̆ ), but will soon end a sentence nōn īntērsīstĭtūr | (106); he could at 104 be wishing to avoid 5 (̄ ̆ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ ).21 4 is harder: Cic. Orat. 233 implies that 2 is preferable; Quint. 9.4.119 cannot explain his preference for 3 in a particular instance, and thought that 4 would not have been asperum. The resolution nōstră fă cĭlĭtās | seems to be acceptable at 9.4.111. Quint. 9.4.104 says that choreus + dactyl (̄ ̆ ̄ ̆ ̆ ) is even worse than spondee + dactyl, mentioned in the previous paragraph; at 107 he quotes quis non tūrpĕ dūcĕ rēt? | from Cic. Phil. 2.63, but disapproves. From 108 the 20 21

On 2 see Winterbottom (2011). Cf. also Hutchinson (1995), 485 6 and (1998), 12 n. 18; Berry (1996), esp. 67.

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

19

objection turns out to be that it sounds like the end of a verse line (cf. 102): a theoretical anxiety derived from Aristotle. Cicero’s use of atque demonstrates that in practice he wishes to obtain the form.22 5 ̄ ̆ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ gains no explicit support; it will be safest to exclude it. However, it seems to be more frequent (to anticipate) in rhythmic than in unrhythmic writing, so that by omitting it we are not producing a bias in favour of making texts rhythmic. For this reason, it does not matter for purposes of distinguishing texts if in fact we have to do with a spectrum of acceptable endings, with 4 less popular than 2, and 5 less popular still. A binary system works most simply for these purposes, and in fact promotes austerity in pronouncing texts rhythmic; however, 5 and even 4 occur too infrequently to affect outcomes much. The ending that should be excluded from the system is 6,̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ with its resolutions. It has no element of the cretic, and introduces the contrary movement of the double-short. Cicero’s and Quintilian’s comments are hostile: cf. Quint. 9.4.101 duo spondii non fere se iungi patiuntur ‘two spondees on the whole do not allow themselves to be joined together’ (with a little complication; note also Demetr. 42). Cicero regards as disastrous changes of 3 (or 2) resolved and 3 into ̄ ̆ ̆ ̄ ̄ ,̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ , and ̄ ̄ ̆ ̆ ̄ (perierit tota res, or rather | pĕ rĭĕ rīt tōtă rēs. |, Orat. 232, ‘the whole thing would have been ruined’; uidesne ut . . . | ad nihilum ōmnĭă rĕ cĭdānt |, cum sint ex aptis dīssŏ lūtā? |, 233, ‘do you see how . . . everything here is reduced to nothing, when disintegrated from fitting word-order?’). Quintilian adds his voice to the disapproval of the hexameter ending (9.4.75), and inveighs on his own against the pentameter ending (̄ )̆ ̆ ̄ ̆ ̆ ̄ (109; he regards ̄ ̄ ̆ ̆ ̄ as an improvement—it is not verse—unlike Cicero above). If we were to count 6, and 5, as rhythmic, there would be no unrhythmic endings at all; but such a view could still be accommodated: we would merely describe texts with a lower proportion of 6 as more rhythmic.

GREEK IMPERIAL PROSE: A CLASS-LIST We can now get back to Greek and the Empire. An earlier effort showed that Appian, in the second century AD, was a rhythmic writer, in the 22

Cf. Hutchinson (1995), 485 6.

20

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

sense that he followed the system that began with or around the time of Hegesias (third century BC). That account was based on a scansion of the Civil Wars; it used material from before the time of Hegesias to show the difference from Appian. Included in this material was a group of 400 sentence-endings, twenty each taken randomly from twenty authors before Hegesias. (With sentence-endings, as opposed to internal phrases, we can be sure that we have a close.) This group, hereafter the ‘group’, can now be made the object of one type of statistical χ2 test. Samples of 400 random sentences from a given Imperial author can be set against the ‘group’ by obtaining the sum of the two values of (n1 – n2)2/(n1 + n2) for first rhythmic and then unrhythmic endings. That is to say, the first time round, n1 and n2 would be the number of sentences that closed with any one of the endings 1–4 in the Imperial author (n1) and in the ‘group’ (n2); when n2 had been subtracted from n1, the answer would be squared, and then divided by the sum of n1 and n2. The second time round, n1 and n2 would be the number of sentences in each that did not end with 1–4. We would add the results from the two rounds together to obtain χ2. From χ2 could be derived a p-value. This would tell us how likely it was that in a world where the two samples belonged to the same ‘distribution’, we would find the difference that we had actually found between the two samples, or greater. If that probability were very small, we would reject the hypothesis that the two samples belonged to the same distribution. If they belonged to different distributions, that would suggest that the sample from the Imperial author was influenced by adherence to the way of patterning associated with Hegesias.23 This particular test does not require us to know that the ‘group’ exhibits normal distribution: that is, very roughly, the fairly precise shape we would see if there were no distorting factors. Exploration of somewhat more extensive material from its period suggests so far that the distribution shown by the ‘group’ broadly resembles the normal distribution, but not closely enough for us to assert that its distribution is actually normal. So we should continue to use this more cautious form of test, in which the identity of neither distribution is known.24 23

Effort on Appian: Hutchinson (2015a). For the test, see Press et al. (1992), 620 3. On the normal distribution, see Samuels et al. (2014), 155 81. 24

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

21

We can apply this form of χ2 test to samples of 400 random sentence-endings taken from the main Imperial writers up to AD 300—excepting Christian authors, and many authors on technical subjects. A list follows, of the percentage of sentences ending with one of the rhythms 1–4. There are complications, however. First, hiatus generates problems; sentences where the ending involves hiatus have not been included in the 400. The requirement in this regard differs slightly from that used in the earlier study on the sample from Appian and the sample from the twenty pre-Hegesian authors; the analysis of those samples has been changed accordingly. Second, not all authors can offer 400 sentences, or 400 non-consecutive sentences. (The interest of Cicero and Quintilian in avoiding excessive repetition, e.g. Cic. Orat. 213, suggests that one sentence-ending might conceivably influence the next, and instances must be independent.) The calculation can only be applied if we have 400 random sentences; but percentages are still given where the calculation has not been applied. It is for this reason that percentages are used: if we only had samples of 400, a number out of 400 would in theory be preferable. Instances where there are fewer than 400 sentences are put in brackets below, but not instances where some or all of the 400 sentences are consecutive; for details, see the Appendix to this chapter. Third, the list includes some authors from the fifth and fourth centuries BC for the sake of comparison, some individual works by authors, some double samples, and so forth. Here it is: Chariton (Jos. Ap. (Longinus Philo sample a (Longus (De Mundo Philo sample b Jos. BJ Ach. Tat. (Gal. Ord. App. BC Alex. Aphr. (Musonius Jos. AJ

89.75(%) 89.46) 87.55) 85.75 85.50) 84.33) 84.25 83.75 83.75 82.35) 82.00 81.75 80.05) 79.50

22

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose (Polemon Heracl. All. Herodian (Aristid. Sarap. (Hebrews Plut. Vit. random Plut. Vit. consec. Xen. Eph. Plut. Mor. (Gal. ἀλυπ. Dion. Hal. Ant. R. Max. Tyr.

78.75) 78.50 78.25 77.78) 77.68) 77.40 77.25 75.75 74.25 74.07) 74.00 73.75

Dion. Hal. crit. Lucian (Ant. Lib. Aelian (Favorinus Pausanias Iambl. Myst.

73.50 73.50 73.27) 72.50 72.20) 72.00 70.75

Ptolemy Dio Cass. Vett. Val. Epictetus Aristides Diog. Laert. Dio Chr. Hermogenes Theon Sext. Emp. Aristotle Athenaeus Gal. Us. Part. Plato Strabo Plotinus Iamblichus Porphyry Isocrates Marcus

69.25 67.00 66.75 66.75 66.25 66.25 66.00 65.75 65.50 65.25 65.00 65.00 65.00 63.75 63.25 63.25 63.25 62.75 62.25 61.75

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature Heliodorus Galen, various Random v–iv Philostratus Artemidorus Arrian Thucydides Xen. Ath.

23

61.00 61.00 60.50 60.25 59.25 58.50 58.50 56.00

A VISTA OF IMPERIAL PROSE Details of the samples, and calculations of probabilities, can be found in the Appendix to this chapter. It will be seen that 60.5% for the random sample of the ‘group’ of twenty fifth- and fourth-century authors offers a point from which the samples of particular authors in that period—Xenophon, Thucydides, Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle—do not diverge far (the lowest, Xenophon, and the highest, Aristotle, both differ by 4.5%). That is as we would expect if we were dealing with something not unlike a normal distribution. By contrast, the Imperial authors fill the whole range of percentages between a bit below the ‘group’ (lowest Arrian at 58.5%) and the exalted 89.75% of Chariton. At a glance, then, it looks as if Imperial writers include some who are not troubled by how their sentences end, and some who follow Hegesias’ pattern. Let us consider the matter more closely. Authors whose percentages run from the high 80s down to 73.75 may safely be called ‘rhythmic’, in the specific sense of adopting Hegesias’ way of ending sentences and phrases. In a world where the sample from one of these authors and the sample from the ‘group’ differed only by chance, the probability of our samples differing by as much as they do would be exceedingly small—so small that for the most part, published tables and online calculators do not even register the figure. With Plutarch’s Lives, towards the lower end of this class, the probability would still be less than one in 100,000; with his Moralia, it is one in 29,411.76471, that is, less than one in 10,000. So too with Maximus of Tyre, who offers one in 15,151.51515; one in 10,000 seems a good dividing-point. Conversely, authors whose percentages run from the high 60s down to the high 50s cannot safely be called ‘rhythmic’. The highest, Ptolemy with 69.25%, shows only a probability of one in

24

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

104.8877701, just above the standard of significance 0.01 for the p-value. Biological sciences often set 0.05, one in twenty, as a standard of significance; we are being a little more severe.25 It is difficult to know what we should make of the middle body: authors with percentages between 70.75 (Iamblichus, De Mysteriis) and 73.5 (Lucian and the critical works of Dionysius). The likelihood that they are indifferent to the ends of their sentences seems small: probabilities go from one in 439.9472063 to one in 9803.9215686. We might not have expected to meet here Lucian, the brilliant recreator of Attic, or Dionysius, the vehement critic of Asianism; yet in Latin, Asianism can be criticized by rhythmic writers, and we are unable to say how far Greek preferences had been formed by education. Whether we should call these Greek writers ‘rhythmic’ does not greatly matter at present; they bear further testimony to the impact of cretic-based rhythm. One may add that some of the figures are amalgams of writings that do not form part of one work; thus Favorinus’ speech on Fortune is clearly rhythmic at 88.8%, while his Corinthian speech and his piece on exile are not clearly rhythmic (lower than Ptolemy). Plutarch’s Moralia comprise a range of writings in various genres and at various stylistic levels.26 The results given by these substantial samples confirm, on the whole, the predictions which the earlier study made from a much more slender basis, with the aid of standard sample deviation. This is despite the requirement not strictly being met that the ‘group’ should show normal distribution. The predictions are not confirmed in all cases, notably not for Cassius Dio. The results also broadly accord with such work as has been done on individual authors; it is indeed reassuring that the rhythmic quality of authors like Philo and Longinus has seemed apparent just from reading the text. The list is whimsically called a class-list because of its chance resemblance to a list of average marks in a typical British university exam, with no marks above 90 and few below 60; but we may wonder what type of set our top class forms. 25

An online calculator is available at http://www.socscistatistics.com/pvalues/ chidistribution.aspx (last accessed 21 July 2017). 26 It may be possible at a later date to present figures for the separate works of the Moralia, but not in this book; a dense passage from the Adversus Colotem is analysed in ch. 3, with some comments on the whole piece. Quotations from the middle group of works (Dionysius’ critical writings, etc.) are cautiously given without rhythmic markings in the book.

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

25

It does not make an obvious set generically. In Latin, Imperial writers other than historians and technical authors seem largely to go for rhythm. In Greek, the most evident feature we can connect with rhythm is narrative. Four of the five novelists appear in the top class; the only novelist not to, Heliodorus, is probably later than the rest, either among the latest in our period or—now a popular view—outside our period altogether. Traces of rhythmic writing, in our sense, have not yet been detected in Greek after AD 300; a new accentual system becomes important from the fourth century on. As for history, we find in the top class Josephus (both historical works), Appian, Herodian, Dionysius, and also Plutarch’s Lives, which at any rate present us with historical narrative. But the non-narrative works of three of these authors suggest that their use of rhythmical writing for historical narrative is not purely a matter of genre (history) or type (narrative). Josephus’ Contra Apionem, although the sample is less than 400 and the sentences largely consecutive, seems still more rhythmic than even the Bellum Judaicum. Plutarch’s other works are also in the top class, while showing on average a perceptibly lower quantity of rhythm. Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ historical writing appears in the top class; his critical writings, although in our middle class, are only a little less rhythmic. In the bottom class appear Cassius Dio and Arrian; Arrian’s notably low figure, lower than his rendering of Epictetus, should probably be connected with his passionate imitation of Xenophon—he even takes his name. He may be all the more pointedly evading rhythm in treating the life of Alexander, the subject of Hegesias’ own historical work.27 Narrative seems, so to speak, the best predictor of rhythm, but we have seen that the link is not straightforward: narrators could choose not to write rhythmically, certainly outside fiction, and the choice of rhythm might not be a matter just of narrative. Much less of a predictor, perhaps unexpectedly, is rhetoric. The top class does display the declamations of Polemon, the treatise of Longinus on rhetoric (quite late in our period if the attribution to Cassius Longinus, d. AD 273, should be correct), and a hymn of Aelius Aristides. Favorinus is mixed, as we have noticed; the bottom class features a broader sample of Aristides and Dio Chrysostom, among performers, and 27

For the accentual system of rhythm cf. Hörandner (1981), Klock (1987), 219 300, and note also Valiavitcharska (2013). The difference between the place of narrative in the map of Imperial and of modern prose genres is strikingly brought out by Kl. Weissenberger (1985).

26

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Hermogenes and Theon, among theorists. Declamatory education may well contribute to the original learning of this way of writing, as the Elder Seneca and other evidence indicate for the beginnings of the Empire. But papyrus examples of declamations and other exercises rarely show signs of rhythmic prose; it would appear to be only one strand in oratory and its theory. Longinus’ more elevated style differentiates him from Hermogenes and Theon; rhythmic prose is evidently an apt medium for the proponent of sublimity. He is not, it may be noted, a straightforward devotee of Asianism.28 Philosophy too is widely spread over the list: in the highest class the Pseudo-Aristotelian De Mundo, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Musonius, and the allegorical Heraclitus; in the middle class one work of Iamblichus; in the lowest class Epictetus, Diogenes Laertius, Sextus, Plotinus, Iamblichus as a whole, Porphyry, and Marcus Aurelius. Some of the most innovative and impressive philosophy, notably Neoplatonism, and some of the most powerful ethical writing, disdains the enhancements of rhythm. Philo could well be regarded as philosophy, and Platonism; it is intriguing, but may well be pure coincidence, that Philo, Josephus, and apparently the author of Hebrews write rhythmically. The systems of Greek education undergone by these Jewish writers could conceivably be relevant—although in the case of Josephus, his alleged helpers complicate the picture. Questions of genre tie in with questions of performance. It was not only rhetoric that was bound up with performing works. Philosophers held forth before admiring audiences; thus the texts of Musonius’ and Epictetus’ disquisitions claim to be what they said aloud. The result in one case is rhythmic, in one case not. Especially pertinent to the present book is historiography. It is clear that history was frequently performed by authors: cf. e.g. Fouilles de Delphes 3.3.124 (ii BC), IG 42.687 (c.AD 165), Luc. Hist. Conscr. 28, 29, Plin. Ep. 7.17.3, 9.27. But even if excerpts were read aloud, the total structure of Plutarch’s Lives or Appian’s Wars of the Romans could never be grasped simply by hearing. On the other hand, one can rarely say that a given work could not have been performed, as one mode of transmission; in the top class one might wonder about Galen, On the Order of his Own Books, but the number of sentences involved is low. It would be better to acknowledge a multiplicity of

28

Date and identity of Longinus: Heath (1999).

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

27

possible modes in most cases, and to avoid a rigid connection of rhythm to performance, which cannot be a complete mode for the most ambitious works. Rather, we might consider how much a quasiaural and quasi-performative element may be involved even when prose is privately consumed—as the rhymes of poetry are apparent when we read it to ourselves. But rhythm has further roles to play in substantial structures, as we shall see.29 We may add in passing that the figures for rhythmic endings show that for prose-writers, as for poets, the differentiation of long and short vowels remains real and essential. We could be dealing with a purely written phenomenon, just as, say, Baudelaire would never rhyme pleurs and douleur. But Attic inscriptions did not much confuse omega and omicron in the lifetime of Plutarch, for example, and Attic pronunciation as well as language was much aspired to by writers; so it could be that Plutarch would himself have retained the difference in reciting. Although Appian was born later than Plutarch, and came from Egypt, where we see quantities blending much earlier, we should not necessarily assume that he spoke before an Emperor with the features attested in less educated papyrus documents, which his letter to Fronto does not resemble (Front. pp. 242–3 Van den Hout). But it is a question of readers too: Plutarch is widely attested in papyri for an author of his date, and soon achieved a large circulation and a high status (thus, after their preliminary matter, Gellius’ Noctes Atticae begin with him, 1.1). We can only say that educated readers too understood perfectly about longs and shorts in literature (so, purely for example, in P. Oxy. XXV 2430 fr. 32.4 [late i/early ii AD] ῡ helps in distinguishing βάρῡνον from βαρ ̆υ´ ν). The matter does not affect the validity of work on prose-rhythm; but prose-rhythm indicates the importance of the literary language, as written and perhaps spoken, to the structural basis of much prose.30 Rhythm, then, is clearly of fundamental importance for viewing the literature of the period, even if what it shows us about the total literary landscape is much less clear than in Latin. Rhythmical writing is of all the more interest for being sometimes present,

29 For a valuable discussion of performance and reading in an earlier period, see Vatri (2017). 30 On Attic pronunciation, cf. Hutchinson (2013), 94 5; for quantities of vowels, Threatte (1980 96), esp. i.228 33, 385 7, Gignac (1976 81), i.325. See also Vessella (2011); Probert (forthcoming) will touch on these questions.

28

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

sometimes absent, and practised in varying degrees. It enables us to see contrasts between works in the same genre, and differences between works by the same writer. At least in the case of the novel, the genre might seem to encourage the use of such writing; but the larger point is that genres are not restricted. Whatever the generic relationship between rhythmic writing and narrative, long narratives give particular opportunities for the extensive and varied deployment of rhythm, and we shall see how rhythm contributes to the organization of large structures. The broader scene of literary history may be left for readers to contemplate; the book will now seek to get deeper into the nature and point of rhythmic writing by considering one remarkable work.31

Appendix: Details on Samples in Rhythmical List There is one ‘degree of freedom’. Figures are only approximate for χ2, for p value (calculated probability), and sometimes for translation of p value into odds (‘one in n’); percentages for rhythmic and unrhythmic sentence endings are given to two decimal places. Where ‘all sentences’ of a work are mentioned, those with hiatus in the close and, where relevant, quotations, are as elsewhere excluded.32 Chariton, random sentences: 359 rhythmic, 41 non rhythmic, i.e. 89.75% (rhythmic), 10.25% (non rhythmic). χ2 = 91.56598299. Josephus, Contra Apionem: mostly consecutive sentences, with quotation and the like evaded: out of 351 sentences (more could be found), 314 rh., 37 non rh., i.e. 89.46%, 10.54%. Longinus, all sentences: out of 249, 218 rh., 31 non rh., 87.55%, 12.45%. Philo, random sentences: 343 rh., 57 non rh., 85.75%, 14.25%. χ2 = 64.88411847. Longus, all sentences up to 3.21.2: 342 rh., 58 non rh., 85.5%, 14.5%. (If test were applied, χ2 would = 63.41958397.)

31 Galen is an author who merits further exploration in regard to rhythm. There may well be differences between more and less technical works, and passages, but even the περὶ ἀλυπηϲίαϲ is relatively brief, and one could obtain a similar percentage from one hundred sentences of the De Usu Partium which is much lower overall, although not so low as the more widespread sample of his writing. The challenges are increased by the lack of adequate editions for many works, and by the unpredict able changes of topic in this irrepressible writer. 32 On degrees of freedom cf. Hutchinson (2015a), 792.

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

29

[Aristotle], De Mundo, all sentences: out of 140, 113 rh., 21 non rh., 84.33%, 15.67%. Philo, a different 400 random sentences: 337 rh., 63 non rh., 84.25%, 15.75%. χ2 = 56.42432341. Josephus, Bellum Judaicum, random sentences: 335 rh., 65 non rh., 83.75%, 16.25%. χ2 = 53.77435475. Achilles Tatius, random sentences: 335 rh., 65 non rh , 83.75%, 16.25%. χ2 = 53.77435475. Galen, De Ordine Librorum Suorum, all sentences: 28 rh., 6 non rh., 82.35%, 17.65%. Appian, Bella Civilia, random sentences: 328 rh., 72 non rh., 82%, 18%. χ2 = 45.13196034. Alexander of Aphrodisias, De Mixtione, De Anima, De Fato, random sentences: 327 rh., 73 non rh., 81.75%, 18.25% (Mixt. 86% rh., Fat. 85%; Anim. 78%). χ2 = 43.97477157. Musonius, all sentences (excluding 11 doubtful sentences at the end): out of 391, 313 rh., 78 non rh., 80.05%, 19.95%. Josephus, Antiquitates Iudaicae, random sentences: 318 rh., 82 non rh., 79.5%, 20.5%. χ2 = 34.380952380952. Polemon, all sentences: out of 240, 189 rh., 51 non rh., 78.75%, 21.25%. Heraclitus Allegoricus, all sentences up to p. 95 Oehlmann: 314 rh., 86 non rh., 78.5%, 21.5%. (If test were applied, χ2 would = 30.56964265.) Herodian, random sentences: 313 rh., 87 non rh., 78.25%, 21.75%. χ2 = 29.65839309. Aristides, Hymn to Sarapis all sentences: out of 72, 56 rh., 16 non rh., 77.78%, 22.22%. Hebrews, all sentences: out of 112, 87 rh., 25 non rh., 77.68%, 22.32%. Plutarch, Lives, random sentences: 310 rh., 90 non rh., 77.5%, 22.5%. χ2 = 27.02197288, p value < 0.00001, i.e. less than 1 in 100,000. Plutarch, first 400 sentences of Thes., Rom., Comp. Thes. Rom. 309 rh., 91 non rh., 77.25% and 22.75% of 400. (If test were applied, χ2 would = 26.17511789, p value < 0.00001, i.e. less than 1 in 100,000.) Xenophon of Ephesus, 200 random sentences to 3.2, then all sentences: 303 rh., 97 non rh., 75.75%, 24.25%. (If test were applied, χ2 would = 21.4196798, p value < 0.00001, i.e. less than 1 in 100,000.) Plutarch, Moralia, random sentences 297 rh., 103 non rh., 74.25%, 25.75%. χ2 = 17.20228321, p value 0.000034, i.e. 1 in 29,411.76471. Galen, περὶ ἀλυπηϲίαϲ, all sentences: out of 81, 60 rh., 21 non rh., 74.07% 25.93%.

30

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose Dionysius, Antiquitates Romanae, random sentences: 296 rh., 104 non rh., 74%, 26%. χ2 = 16.54984534, p value 0.000047, i.e. 1 in 21,276.59574. Maximus of Tyre, random sentences: 295 rh., 105 non rh., 73.75%, 26.25%. χ2 = 15.91152084, p value 0.000066, i.e. 1 in 15,151.51515.

Dionysius, critical works, random sentences (excluding quotes): 294 rh., 106 non rh., 73.5%, 26.5%. χ2 = 15.09682073, p value 0.000102, i.e. 1 in 9803.92157. Lucian, random sentences: 294 rh., 106 non rh., 73.5%, 26.5%. χ2 = 15.09682073, p value 0.000102, i.e. 1 in 9803.92157. Antoninus Liberalis, all sentences: out of 333, 244 rh., 89 non rh., 73.27%, 26.727%. Aelian, De Natura Animalium and Varia Historia, random sentences: 290 rh., 110 non rh., 72.5%, 27.5. χ2 = 12.92784199, p value 0.000324, i.e. 1 in 3086.41975. Favorinus, De Fortuna, Corinthiaca, De Exilio all sentences: out of 277, 200 rh., 77 non rh., 72.2%, 27.798%. Fort.: out of 54, 48 rh., 6 non rh., 88.89%, 11.11%; Cor.: out of 94, 65 rh., 29 non rh., 69.15%, 30.85%; Exil.: out of 126, 87 rh., 39 non rh., 69.05%, 30.95%. Pausanias, random sentences: 288 rh., 112 non rh., 72%, 28%. χ2 = 11.82948987, p value 0.000583, i.e. 1 in 1715.265866. Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, random sentences: 283 rh., 117 non rh., 70.75%, 29.25%. χ2 = 9.314632035, p value 0.002273, i.e. 1 in 439.9472063.

Ptolemy, random sentences (sentences ending with alphabetical numerals not included: not clear that a reader would have articulated numeral as a word): 277 rh., 123 non rh., 69.25%, 30.75%. χ2 = 6.71973889, p value 0.009534, i.e. 1 in 104.8877701. Cassius Dio, random sentences in 36.18 60.28 (excluding gaps bridged only by epitomators): 268 rh., 132 non rh., 67%, 33%. χ2 = 3.656524679, p value 0.055834, i.e. 1 in 17.91023391. Vettius Valens, random sentences: 267 rh., 133 non rh., 66.75%, 33.25%. χ2 = 3.375664162, p value 0.066152, i.e. 1 in 15.11670093. Epictetus/Arrian, Dissertationes (excluding preface), random sentences: 267 rh., 133 non rh., 66.75%, 33.25%. χ2 = 3.375664162, p value 0.066152, i.e. 1 in 15.11670098. Aelius Aristides, random sentences: 265 rh., 135 non rh., 66.25%, 33.75%. χ2 = 2.848853256, p value 0.091436, i.e. 1 in 10.9366114. Diogenes Laertius, random sentences: 265 rh., 135 non rh., 66.25%, 33.75%. χ2 = 2.848853256; p value 0.091436, i.e. 1 in 10.9366114.

Rhythmic Prose in Imperial Greek Literature

31

Dio of Prusa (Chrysostom), random sentences: 264 rh., 136 non rh., 66%, 34%. χ2 = 2.602475895, p value 0.106695, i.e. 1 in 9.372510427. Hermogenes, περὶ ϲτάϲεων and περὶ ἰδεῶν, 300 random sentences, 100 consecutive: 263 rh., 137 non rh., 65.75%, 34.25%. (If test were applied, χ2 would = 2.368182581, p value 0.12383, i.e. 1 in 8.075587499.) Theon, all sentences to p. 91 Patillon line 9: 262 rh., 138 non rh., 65.5%, 34.5%. (If test were applied, χ2 would = 2.143430559272, p value 0.143184, i.e. 1 in 6.984020561.) Sextus Empiricus, random sentences: 261 rh., 139 non rh., 65.25%, 34.75%. χ2 = 1.933182052, p value 0.164409, i.e. 1 in 6.082392083. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (but not books 5 7), Physics, Metaphysics, Rhetoric, random sentences: 260 rh., 140 non rh., 65%, 35%. χ2 = 1.732666649, p value 0.188066, i.e. 1 in 5.317282231. Athenaeus 4 10, 12 14, random sentences: 260 rh., 140 non rh., 65%, 35%. χ2 = 1.732666649, p value 0.188066, i.e. 1 in 5.317282231. Galen, De Usu Partium, random sentences: 260 rh., 140 non rh., 65%, 35%. χ2 = 1.732666649, p value 0.188066, i.e. 1 in 5.317282231. Plato, Tetralogies 1 7 and Republic, random sentences (excluding sentences too short to accommodate rhythm): 255 rh., 145 non rh., 63.75%, 36.75%. χ2 = 0.897796017, p value 0.343372, i.e. 1 in 2.912293373. Strabo, random sentences: 253 rh., 147 non rh., 63.25%, 36.75%. χ2 = 0.6411657559, p value 0.423277, i.e. 1 in 2.362519107. Plotinus, random sentences: 253 rh., 147 non rh., 63.25%, 36.75%. χ2 = 0.6411657559, p value 0.423277, i.e. 1 in 2.362519107. Iamblichus, random sentences: 253 rh., 147 non rh., 63.25%, 36.75%. χ2 = 0.6411657559, p value 0.423277, i.e. 1 in 2.362519107. Porphyry, alternate or random sentences: 251 rh., 149 non rh., 62.75%, 37.25%. χ2 = 0.428143851, p value 0.512923, i.e. 1 in 1.94961037. Isocrates, random sentences (for the last part every third sentence): 249 rh., 151 non rh., 62.25%, 37.75%. χ2 = 0.2583723858, p value 0.611222, i.e. 1 in 1.636066765. Marcus Aurelius, alternate sentences: 247 rh., 153 non rh., 61.75%, 38.25%. χ2 = 0.1315105965, p value 0.716882, i.e. 1 in 1.394929709. Heliodorus, random sentences: 244 rh., 156 non rh., 61%, 39%. χ2 = 0.02096930618, p value 0.884779, i.e. 1 in 1.13022574. Galen, random sentences, from De Locis Affectis, De Placitis Hippocratis et Platonis, De Sanitate Tuenda, De Alimentorum Facultatibus, De Rebus Boni Malique Suci: 244 rh., 156 non rh., 61%, 39%. χ2 = 0.02096930618, p value 0.884779, i.e. 1 in 1.13022574.

32

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose Random sample from 20 pre Hegesianic authors (for details see Hutch inson [2015a], 793): 242 rh., 158 non rh., 60.5%, 39.5%. (If an author showed the same figures, χ2 would = 0, p value 1, i.e. 1 in 1.) Philostratus, Vita Apollonii, Vitae Sophistarum (not extended speeches or quotes from documents or circulated orations), Heroicus, Gymnasticus, Imagines, random sentences: 241 rh., 159 non rh., 60.25%, 39.75%. χ2 = 0.005224967507, p value 0.942514, i.e. 1 in 1.060992197. Artemidorus, random sentences: 237 rh., 163 non rh., 59.25%, 40.75%. χ2 = 0.1300736867, p value 0.718328, i.e. 1 in 1.392121705. Arrian, Anabasis, random sentences: 234 rh., 166 non rh., 58.5%, 41.5%. χ2 = 0.3319846457, p value 0.564484, i.e. 1 in 1.771529397. (If one replaces last 100 sentences with random sentences from Scripta Minora, then: 243 rh., 157 non rh., 60.75%, 39.25%. χ2 = 0.005793159875, p value 0.939294, i.e. 1 in 1.064629392.) Thucydides, random sentences: 234 rh., 166 non rh., 58.5%, 41.5%. χ2 = 0.3319846457, p value 0.564484, i.e. 1 in 1.771529397. Xenophon of Athens, random sentences: 224 rh., 176 non rh., 56%, 44%. χ2 = 1.66533885, p value 0.196889, i.e. 1 in 5.079003906.

2 Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives THE PARALLEL LIVES The work that has been selected for closer investigation is one of the largest, most important, and most attractive works of all Imperial Greek prose, the Parallel Lives of Plutarch. It is not an assemblage of unrelated biographies, but an immense structure, organized into numbered books like a consecutive history. Although it does not claim to offer an overall historical narrative, and although it pursues many other interests, it follows, even as a presentation of historical events, a notable strategy: that of showing the same happenings from many angles, above all in the late Roman Republic. Later Appian will depict Republican history through a structure based on space, and Dio as part of a continuous chronological narrative up to his own time; but Plutarch’s depiction of it as the intersecting lives of many individuals has great historical and narratological significance, and could be compared with Homeric profundities.1 As we can see from his philosophical works, Plutarch is a great creator of unexpected and thought-provoking structures. An ancient biography most often forms part of a much larger structure (so Nepos, Suetonius, Plutarch’s own Lives of the Caesars); familiar too is the structural idea of comparison between Roman and non-Roman, particularly Greek (so Nepos, Valerius Maximus). But something more complex is pointed to by the combination of long biographies, frequent overlap, and non-chronological ordering of books, by either Greek or Roman subject (Demosthenes and Cicero book 5: Demosth. 3.1; Pericles and Fabius book 10: Per. 2.5; Dion and Brutus book 12: 1 For the Parallel Lives as a work, see e.g. Duff (1999), 287 309, Pelling (2010), Geiger (2014), 292 303.

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

34

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Dion 2.7). The connecting themes of the whole Parallel Lives are innumerable, and connection and comparison are at its heart: the formal comparison of lives in pairs, striking as it is, presents only the starting-point for its endless interweaving. In some ways the work resembles Ovid’s Metamorphoses: the conjunction of so many distinct narratives creates an inexhaustible abundance of meaning. But whereas the thought of the Metamorphoses often studiously eludes capture, a cohesive philosophy or approach underlies the Lives, which is a work of philosophy as well as history. And there remains much more to reading the work than determining Plutarch’s ideas. Help in negotiating this massive and intricate production at any level is not to be sneezed at. It will be seen that rhythm provides us with illumination on many scales, small and large. The small scale is by no means the least important. The style of a work is both a small-scale and an all-pervading phenomenon. Plutarch has benefited immensely from the vast resurgence of study on him, and much dazzling and transformative scholarship; but his way of writing has not been a major focus of interest. By analysing the writing of the Lives in accordance with the rhythmic patterning which forms its basis, we gain a fresh idea of how pointed, organized, and nuanced it is. What each page is conveying comes across far more vividly than if one were to whizz through the pages hastily, with an adjoining translation; the extraordinary invention, detail, and depth of the writing emerge through this apparently formalistic element. As we shall see, the rhythm is very far from being a mere abstract pattern, and is intimately bound up with thought and meaning. Ancient prose authors in general have many means to attract and sustain attention, both in their general style of writing and in the specifics of particular passages (so deviations from expected Latin in Tacitus perform both functions). Plutarch shares various means with pre-Hellenistic prose; but in him everything is affected by the rhythmic structuring.2

2 Clausulae were noticed in Plutarch by Abernetty (1911), 66; Hein (1914), 32 7 sees the principles, without giving the basis for his knowledge. Ziegler (1951), 935 6 ([1964], 298 9) is little more revealing (has checked on different parts of Moralia and Lives); certainly based on slender material is De Groot (1919), 1 6, 12 13, 42 54, (1926), 35 6. For the Moralia see Sandbach (1939), Baldassarri (2000), and Hunter and Russell (2011), 23 5. On further aspects of Plutarch’s style: e.g. B. Weissenberger (1895), 1 20, Ziegler (1951), 928 38 ([1964], 291 302), Hunter and Russell (2011), 21 5, and various comments in Russell (1973), esp. 18 41, Yaginuma (1992),

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

35

The present book rests on a scansion, by hand, of every phrase in Plutarch’s Lives, together with stylistic notes; the Lives that were not part of the Parallel Lives have been included (Artoxerxes, Aratus, Galba, Otho). The Lives cover 2,297 Teubner pages, and offer almost 100,000 phrases. For the other half of Plutarch’s work, the philosophical and related writings, the end of every sentence has been scanned, and stylistic notes made; the material is not directly deployed in this book, but has helped in the analysis of the Lives. The analysis has not been used to create statistics on a massive scale: smaller samples have already sufficed to determine the general rhythmical character of the Lives. The aim has been rather to understand how Plutarch’s patterning works; this will be exemplified from numerous passages. Relatively little prose has been subjected to close stylistic scrutiny, particularly from the Greek Imperial period (there seems little agreement over what commentaries on prose texts should look like). The form of this book, although unusual, should help readers to gain a new impression of Plutarch’s remarkable writing, and might even be of interest for the study of prose more widely. In this chapter, we shall move towards looking at Plutarch in particular, and shall consider both a couple of short passages and a long run of individual sentences; but material from other authors will be mentioned too, both for practice and for theory. We shall be particularly concerned with the basic point that rhythm is connected with emphasis and reflection and draws particular attention to a phrase or word. We shall see a very large number of instances later, in the main part of the book; arguments that a particular word or the like is marked out as emphatic or significant will be produced not circularly from rhythm but independently from word-order, particles, connections in the context, and so forth.3 Teodorsson (2000), and Duff (2015), with useful bibliographical suggestions at 129 n. 1. Among all the important work on Plutarch more widely, it is a pleasure to single out the fundamental contribution of Professor C. B. R. Pelling. For attention and style, note the comments of Liberman (2017), 153: ‘Nous sommes peut être là au cœur des intentions de Thucydide dans cette dialectique de la symétrie et de la dissymétrie : tenir le lecteur en éveil et le frapper . . .’ 3 Linked objections may be made in advance: 1) arguments from the context are subjective; 2) arguments from e.g. word order may be more compelling, but especially in rhythmically dense passages, there are bound to be some words that can be shown emphatic from word order, so the occurrence of some examples proves nothing. But 1) is much too sweeping: arguments about a context can be more satisfactory or less. To compare, I have taken at random words other than prepositives, postpositives, etc., in

36

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose RHYTHM AND ATTENTION

There is more to be said on the question of rhythm and attention. The notion of emphasis is similar, and will also be used in the book, but may not always be suitable: attention is a more capacious term, and has more gradations. It also points more explicitly to the reader (or listener) at whom the emphasis or the like is aimed. We are talking about a phrase or word being highlighted, given an underlining. What is needed for the argument is the proposition p that rhythm has a tendency to go with words or phrases to which attention is being drawn. (We shall return to ‘go with’.) One could venture beyond this in various directions. Firstly, a more ambitious proposition q: that at least in Plutarch’s Lives almost every rhythmic close includes a word or words which are dwelt on—with the exception that a verb, including participle or infinitive, at the end of a syntactic entity carries structural importance in itself and does not need to be marked out in sense (cf. Quint. Inst. 9.4.26 uerbō sēnsūm clūdĕ rē | multo, si compositio patiātŭ r, ōptĭmūm (e)st: | in uerbis enim sermonis uis est ‘it is much the best thing to close a sentence with a verb, if the arrangement should allow it: in verbs lies the force of one’s utterance’). q seems true to my experience in reading the Lives and marking the rhythms, and is confirmed when I test it: it seems worth trying as a conjecture. If true, it naturally supports the weaker but broader claim p (broader since p applies also, in particular, to the word immediately after a rhythmic close). There are some problems over the assertion q and the test, since in marking the rhythms and ending a rhythmic phrase, one avoids breaking too close a connection between words: one is not simply finding every instance of these rhythms that coincides with wordend. But there is plenty of space between this limitation and the discovery of reasons for assigning significance or weight to a word or phrase; rereading the larger context is one of the most potent means of discovery, but internal features are relevant too. It should

passages of pre rhythmic authors; but there are always some words (often many) where the only arguments for emphasis or special attention would seem strained or ludicrous. The contextual arguments for words in rhythmic closes emerge readily and are plausible (in my opinion). The arguments mentioned under 2) do not then stand in isolation, and so a contention from 1) and 2) together would fail. On the amount of a passage covered in the analysis of a dense passage, see the next note.

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

37

be remembered that the claim is not that all weighty words occur in rhythmic phrases.4 Illustration of p will begin before long. It should be noted, however, that there are unrhythmic phrases, including phrases where there is a definite pause but not a rhythmic close. It should also be noted that there are sometimes long sequences of words without a rhythmic close: how far they should be taken as single phrases could be disputed. By ‘rhythmic phrase’ is meant, it should be recalled, a connected group of words which end with a rhythmic close. Are there particular bits of rhythmic phrases which come especially into question for drawing attention? A short phrase (up to five words, say) which ends in a rhythmic close may be stressed as a whole, or may have more than one word in it that is stressed. If we are looking for points in or around rhythmic closes that are particularly prone to weight or underlining, we should look especially at (a) words that form part of the rhythmic close (they may start before the close but run into it), and also (b) words that immediately follow rhythmic closes, not counting prepositives and the like, and so start a new entity. In the case of (b), we are thinking primarily of words that themselves form part of short and rhythmic phrases, although probably some stress also falls on words that begin a long phrase after a rhythmic close. Under (a), the very last word is especially liable to be important; this naturally does not apply if the last word is intrinsically incapable of bearing much emphasis. The idea that beginnings and ends are particular moments of attention matches the point made by Quintilian about larger units: proximam clausulis diligentiam postulānt ĭnĭtĭā: | nam et in haec intēntŭ s aūdītŏ r ēst. | (9.4.62, ‘beginnings demand care, next after closes; for the listener is intent on beginnings too’; 60–2 for clausulae; 67 | nam ut initia claūsŭ laēquē | plurimum momenti habent, quotiens incipit sēnsŭ s aūt dēsĭnīt, | . . . , ‘for as beginnings and closes have most significance, whenever the meaning begins or ends, . . .’). Likewise Demetr. 39 on the beginning and end of a colon (phrase): a long syllable προλεγομένη τε πλήϲϲει εὐθὺϲ καὶ ἀπολήγουϲα ἐν μεγάλωι τινὶ καταλείπει τὸν ἀκούοντα, ‘when spoken at the start strikes the listener 4 The advantage of looking particularly at dense passages is that together they present q with a particularly severe test: it is a particular challenge for so much in a passage reasonably to be seen as underlined. q passes this test well if the arguments for words being dwelt on in the case of these passages are always or normally plausible, and are frequently reinforced by concrete indications. Of course the assessement is literary and linguistic rather than numerical.

38

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

[or: reader] immediately, and in stopping a colon leaves the listener in something great’. To elaborate: it is a clear principle of word-order that the beginning of an entity is a particularly apt point for emphasis or attention, provided, obviously, that the word is suited to this; naturally ‘beginning’ refers to the first word that is not a prepositive or the like. Within a tightly constructed passage, the first (proper) word after a rhythmic close can plausibly gain further force from that position, if it merits that force for other reasons. A fresh start generates attention. (Wider principles are involved here: the first lick of an ice cream makes more impact than the fifth.) Closes themselves are not so intrinsically prone to emphasis in Greek word-order as beginnings; but a rhythmic close brings rhythmic fixity, most often after an absence of fixity. It is thus suitable for drawing attention, provided the words themselves merit it (as we shall see that they usually do). In this context, the very final word, with the sense of completion and a momentary pause (visible metrically), can particularly receive thought. To take a simple instance, when Pyrrhus leaves Sicily and looks back at the island, ῏ φ̆ι´λοῑ, | Καρχηδονίοιϲ καὶ Ῥωμαίοῑϲ he says οἵαν ᾰ᾿ πο̆λε̄ ι´πο̆μ̆εν, ̄ω πᾰλᾱ ι´ϲτρᾱν. | (Pyrrh. 23.8; ‘what a wrestling-school I am leaving, friends, for the Carthaginians and Romans!’). The hyperbaton and delay show a building up to the word παλαίϲτραν; the pause and the sorting out of the sense, both made more satisfying by the rhythm, invite the reader to linger and to ponder on the image.5

CAPTURING CATO Now a brief illustration of these points, not to answer all questions, but to show what is meant. Underlining is given (in the next two 5 Attention: on the conception cf. e.g. Pashler (1998), Lavie et al. (2007); sceptical on its scientific significance Anderson (2011). For its history see Neumann (1971), Hatfield (1998), Thums (2008); important past treatments: James (1981), 380 433, Husserl (2004), 68 231. For some classical and modern applications see Fischer Lichte et al. (2006), Koehler (2012), Möller (2013), Schneider (2013), Seel (2013), Scodel (2014), and Hutchinson (2017). See now also Troscianko (2017), under ‘Attention’. The approach to emphasis or attention and the words of the rhythmic close was originally suggested by experience with Cicero and Appian; the approach to the start of a new phrase forced itself on me in the analysis of Plutarch.

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

39

passages, not later) to words in the proximity of rhythm that are specially highlighted or invite special attention.6 | ὅθεν οὐκ οἶδ’ ο῞̆ τῐ π̆επ̄ο´ νθᾱϲῑν | οἱ τῶι Λῡϲ̆ι´οῡ λ̆ο´ γ ̄ωι | τὰ μάλιϲτα προϲεοικέναι φάμενοι τ̄ο` ν Κ̆α´ τ ̄ωνο ϲ̄ . | 3. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν οἷϲ μᾶλλον ἰδέαϲ λόγων Ῥωμαϊκῶν αἰϲθάνεϲθαι προϲήκεῑ δῐᾰκρῐνο̄υ ϲ̑ ῑν, | ἡμεῖϲ δὲ τῶν ἀπομνη̄μο̆νεῡο̆μ̆ε´ ν̄ων | βρᾰχ̆ε´ ᾰ γρ̄α´ ψο̆με ν̄ , | οἳ τῶι λόγωι πολὺ μᾶλλον ἢ τ ̄ω̑ι προ̆ϲ ̄ω´ π ̄ωι, | καθάπερ ἔνιοῑ νο̆μ̄ ι´ζοῡϲῑ, | τῶν ἀνθρώπων φαμὲν ἐμφαίνεϲθαῑ τ̆ο` η῏ θοϲ̄ . |h (Cat. Mai. 7.2 3) So I don’t know what’s wrong with those who say that Cato’s utterance is especially like Lysias’ [Plutarch has just mentioned Plato on Socrates’ utterance]. But that will be decided by those whose job is more to perceive the styles of Roman writing; I will set down a few of his recorded remarks since I say that men’s character is visible through their words much more than their face, as certain people think.

Some comments: ο῞̆ τῐ π̆επ̄ο´ νθᾱϲῑν |: a vivacious and insulting expression. Λῡϲ̆ι´οῡ: the name, first significant word after a rhythmic close, confronts Κ̆α´ τ ̄ωνοϲ̄ . | at the end of another rhythmic close. The dissimilarity between the authors is to register with the reader, although less mirthfully than Cic. Brut. 293 (Atticus speaking) | equidem in quibusdam risum uīx tĕ nēbām, | cum Āttĭcō Lys̄ ĭaē | Catonem nostrum cōmpă rābās, [cf. 63–9] | magnum mehērcŭ l(e) hŏ mĭnēm | . . . sed oratorem? sed etiam Lys̄ ĭaē sĭmĭlēm? | Sansone (1989), 209 plausibly supposes Plutarch to be taking issue here with Cicero in particular; the confrontation through structuring will then be undoing Cicero’s confrontation through structuring, 63 | Catonis autem . . . | . . . Lys̄ ĭaē, |, and especially 67 . . . Lys̄ ĭaē. | . . . Ca˘ tōnēs? | δῐᾰκρῐνο̄υ ϲ̑ ῑν, |: the word has colour—it conveys discrimination as well as decision. ἀπομνη̄μο̆νεῡο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ων |: the word gains a little attention; in the context it glances at Xenophon’s title Ἀπομνημονεύματα, and so connects with the comparison to Socrates that precedes. Cf. Xen. Mem. 1.3.1 γράψω ὁπόϲα ἂν διαμνημονεύϲω, which gives further point to βρᾰχ̆ε´ ᾰ. προ̆ϲ ̄ω´ π ̄ωι, |: λόγωι has force, as the first important word after a rhythmic close; the colourlessness of | οἳ τῶι and πολὺ μᾶλλον ἢ τ̄ω̑ι make the phrase not particularly long in effect. But special and 6 For some features of the commentary format here and in the comments on snippets to come shortly, see ch. 3, p. 84.

40

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

scornful stress falls on προ̆ϲ ̄ω´ π ̄ωι, |. The word points mordantly to the physiognomical tradition, as ἔνιοῑ makes clear. ῏̄ηθοϲ. |h is especially associated with this tradition too; cf. e.g. [Arist.] Physiogn. 805a33–b3 οἱ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὰ ἤθη μόνον φυϲιογνωμονοῦντεϲ ἁμαρτάνουϲιν πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι ἔνιοι οὐχ οἱ αὐτοὶ ὄντεϲ τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν προϲώπων ἤθη τὰ αὐτὰ ἔχουϲιν, 806a29–30 ἐκ τῶν ἠθῶν τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ προϲώπου ἐμφαινομένων (cf. ἐμφαίνεϲθαῑ). Cf. Sassi (1992), Boys-Stones (2007), including p. 123. Here a context beyond the work brings out the polemical edge to the words. A little earlier we find: ̑ φαῑν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ,̄ | | ̄ ε᾿ ν δ̆`ε το̄υ´ τοῑϲ | οὕτωϲ εὔκολοϲ καὶ ἀφελὴϲ τοῖϲ ὑπὸ χε̄ ιρᾰ ` ` ᾿ ´ ´ αὖθιϲ ̄αντᾰπ̆εδ̆ιδοῡ | τὴν ϲεμνότη̄τᾰ κᾱ ι τ̆ο β̆αροϲ,̄ | ἀπαραίτητοϲ ὢν ἐν τ̄ω̑ι δῐκᾱ ι´ ̄ωι | καὶ τοῖϲ ὑπὲρ τῆϲ ἡγεμο̆ν̆ι´ᾱϲ προϲτ̄ ̄ α´ γμᾰϲῑν | ὄρθιοϲ καὶ αυ᾿ θ̆ε´ κᾱϲτοϲ,̄ |h ὥϲτε μηδέποτε τὴν Ῥωμαίων ἀρχ̄η` ν ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´ νοῑϲ | μ̄η´ τ̆ε φο̆β̆ερ ̄ωτ̆ε´ρᾱν | μήτε προϲφιλεϲτέρᾱν γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ. | (Cat. Mai. 6.4). While in these matters [his lifestyle while provincial governor] he seemed so good natured and straightforward to those subject to him, he made up for it with dignity and severity: when he was administering justice he was immovable, and when making commands for the Empire, he was upright and blunt. Hence they had never found the rule of the Romans either more fearsome or more friendly.

| ̄ ε᾿ ν δ̆`ε το̄υ´ τοῑϲ |: τούτοιϲ is more important than at first appears, since it contrasts with ἐν τ ̄ω̑ι δῐκᾱ ι´ ̄ωι | καὶ τοῖϲ ὑπὲρ τῆϲ ἡγεμο̆ν̆ι´ᾱϲ προϲ̄ τ̄α´ γμᾰϲῑν |. δῐκᾱ ι´ ̄ωι | and ἡγεμο̆ν̆ι´ᾱϲ προϲ̄ τ̄α´ γμᾰϲῑν | in turn gain force from the contrast. εὔκολοϲ acquires impact from being the first word with weight after a rhythmic close. But the extension of what follows makes it less part of a tightly rhythmic phrase, and the pair εὔκολοϲ καὶ ἀφελὴϲ (cf. Philop. 2.2, Cohib. Ira 461a) is somewhat less highlighted, as the syntactic structure indicates, than the later pair | ὄρθιοϲ καὶ ᾱυ᾿ θ̆ε´ κᾱϲτοϲ, |h. ̑ it should strictly be only χε̄ ιρᾰ ̑ that is weighted, but the ὑπὸ χε̄ ιρᾰ: two go together closely in sense. The nuance of subjection in this word makes it striking after εὔκολοϲ καὶ ἀφελὴϲ. φαῑν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ , | is not without significance, in the light of what follows, but it remains principally a verbal form that completes the structure. ̄α᾿ ντᾰπ̆εδ̆ι´δοῡ |: the word produces the anticipated change, but is also a notable verb in itself, especially in the light of 6.2–3, which bring out how little Cato cost the Sardinians. He ‘compensates’, paradoxically, with a metaphorical repayment which is unwelcome.

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

41

| τὴν ϲεμνότη̄τᾰ κᾱ`ι τ̆ο` β̆α´ ροϲ̄ , |: as so often, the rhythmic phrase is a pair of related words; the device in itself adds weight to the basic concept. The abstract nouns give the phrase more weight than the adjectives εὔκολοϲ καὶ ἀφελήϲ, which are furthermore not part of a rhythmic close. | ἀπαραίτητοϲ: the initial word advances on the preceding phrase, especially β̆α´ ροϲ̄ , |, and forms part of a chiastic structure, where it is answered by the pair | ὄρθιοϲ καὶ ᾱυ᾿ θ̆ε´ κᾱϲτοϲ, |h. ἀρχ̄η` ν: a more sombre word than ἡγεμο̆ν̆ι´ᾱϲ; it goes more readily with φο̆β̆ερ ̄ωτ̆ε´ρᾱν, more unexpectedly with προϲφιλεϲτέρᾱν. It attracts attention. ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´ νοῑϲ | is an unemphasized pronoun; although not formally postpositive, it leans against ἀρχ̄η` ν and adds syntactic strength to it. The word-order is slightly deflected from the normal. | μ̄η´ τ̆ε φο̆β̆ερ ̄ωτ̆ε´ρᾱν | μήτε προϲφιλεϲτέρᾱν γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ. |: the opposition is split between two rhythmic phrases. γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ. | completes the syntactical design without being emphasized.

RHYTHM AND MEANI NG One may ask whether the word-order and meaning alone would not suffice to create these points of emphasis, and what a rhythmical pattern can contribute. The idea is not that a word is simply emphasized or not, but rather that the rhythmic organization enhances emphasis produced by meaning, sharpens our attention, helps us observe more point in a word and more connections with other words, encourages us (if you like) to read more slowly. To illustrate by analogy with poetry: ignore the metre in garrulus atque piger scribendi ferre laborem—scribendi recte, nam ut multum, nil moror. ecce, Crispinus minimo me prouocat . . . (Hor. Sat. 1.4.12–14; ‘Lucilius was loquacious, and lazy at enduring the toil of writing—I mean writing as one should; I’m not interested in him writing a lot. Look, Crispinus challenges me with scornful little finger [if we accept Porphyrio’s evidence] . . .’). With metre: | garrulus atque piger scribendi ferre laborem— | scribendi recte, nam ut multum, nil moror. ecce, | Crispinus minimo me prouocat . . . With metre ecce is still more of a surprise, following a pause after the fifth foot; the closing rhythm in ferre laborem | invites us to linger and notice the unexpected combination of enduring effort and writing (cf. (suf/ef )ferre

42

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

laborem | in Enn. Ann. 401 Skutsch and in Lucretius). The new start in | scribendi recte gains more impetus at the start of the line; the name of Crispinus, all too familiar from the end of the preceding poem and from poem 1, comes as an unsurprising surprise at the start of the line, after the jolting change of tack in ecce |. | garrulus is slightly spotlighted by being first word in the line and isolated from the matching phrase which fills the rest of it. The very subject-matter invites us to look at the versification. Still more consider poetry which does not claim to chattiness: say salua libertate potens . . . rectorque senatus sed regnantis erat (Luc. 9.192–5; ‘Pompey was powerful, but with the freedom of the state unharmed . . . he was ruler of the Senate, but of a Senate that ruled’). There is a semicolon before salua |, which comes in the sixth foot. Thanks to the metre, | libertate falls with far greater weight, and calls for more contemplation, because it begins the line in these circumstances and supplies the isolated salua with its noun. | sed regnantis gains gravity and surprise from beginning the line and being separated from rectorque senatus |; we would in any case look at the relation between rector and regnantis, but the versification makes that relation more momentous. Ancient accounts of what rhythm offers at particular moments reveal not a self-contained musical patterning unrelated to the sense, but an interaction to which both rhythm and meaning contribute. The applause of the audience for C. Papirius Carbo Arvina’s patris dictum sapiens temeritas fili comprobauit (Cic. Orat. 214, ORF4 87 F 4; ‘the father’s wise remark has been confirmed by the son’s rashness’) might, unlikely as it seems, be nothing to do with the sense of the verb and the structure of meaning, but simply a response to the extremely common ending ̆ . Yet when Cicero says drastically that if we change the order of words, iām nĭhĭl ĕ rīt | ‘now it will be nothing’, or, if we change it in effective moments of his own, pĕ rĭĕ rīt tōtă rēs. | ‘the whole thing would be destroyed’ and | ad nihilum ōmnĭă rĕ cĭdānt, | ‘everything would collapse to nothing’ (232, 233), he is plainly presupposing not an abstract rhythm but a complex rhetorical event, to which the meaning of the words gives something: | nec uerborum lūmĕ n āppārēt | nisi diligenter cōllŏ cātōrūm. | (227; ‘the light in words does not shine unless they are placed with care’). True, he makes the difference between rhythmic and unrhythmic versions a matter for the ears (215), but he implies that the animus plays a part in the total experience (| animo istuc satis est, aūrĭbūs nōn să tīs. |, the

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

43

altered version ‘is enough for the mind but not for the ears’; Cicero places his own rhythmic ending nicely). In a related way, Longinus eloquently depicts the effect of arranging words on the ψυχαί ‘souls’ of listeners, and describes the words which are arranged as τῆϲ ψυχῆϲ αὐτῆϲ, οὐχὶ τῆϲ ἀκοῆϲ μόνη̄ϲ ε̆᾿ φᾱπτο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ων, | ‘touching the soul itself, not just the hearing’ (39.3, cf. 2 for rhythm). Cicero says of Demosthenes | cuius non tām uĭbrārēnt | fūlmĭn(a) īllā | nisi numeris contōrtă fērrēntūr | (Orat. 234; ‘those famous thunderbolts of his would not dart to their target so unless they swept along hurled by rhythm’); this must include content. Likewise Longinus sees διάνοια ‘meaning’ and ἁρμονία ‘musical arrangement’ as both contributing to a passage of Demosthenes, which loses impact when rearranged (39.3–4). Cicero says that | composite et apte sine sententiis dīcĕ r(e) īnsānĭā (e)st | (Orat. 236; ‘to speak in a well-arranged and suitable style without meaningful thoughts is insanity’); cf. Quint. Inst. 9.4.60 | atque is optime componet qui hoc non solum componendi grātĭā fă cīt. | ‘the person who will arrange words best is the one who is not doing this just for the sake of arrangement’. The supposition in all these places is that rhythm heightens the impact of the meaning, not that it is a musical extra with no power to underline the sense.7

POINT AND PLUTARCH This relation to meaning is especially easy to see in the pointed style which develops after Hegesias; that style is displayed by the Greek and Latin declamations in the Elder Seneca, and is still alive and well in the declamations of Polemon (younger than Plutarch, but overlapping with him in lifetime). The climactic points that end sentences in this style look likely to receive added force from the rhythmic closes into which they fall, and the rhythmic closes that lead up to them. So the father of Cynaegeirus attacks the father of Callimachus. Both sons died at Marathon (Hdt. 6.114), Cynaegeirus after losing his hand, Callimachus as polemarch; the father whose son died most bravely 7

Long. 39.3 invites comparison with Plat. Tim. 47c4 e2, cf. Plut. Superst. 167c. Quint. 9.4.53 7 mentions objections to the remark of Cicero on Demosthenes, perhaps of an Atticist tendency; but the objections give no indication that anyone both approved of prose rhythm and saw it as sealed off from sense.

44

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

can deliver the funeral oration on all the dead. Cynaegeirus’ father says | ϲ̆υ` δ᾿ ε̆᾿ πῐτᾰφ̆ι´ ̄ωι | μη̄δ̆`ε ε᾿̆ πῐχε̄ι´ ρεῑ |h πατὴρ ὢν νεκροῦ μηδὲ ταφῆναῑ θ̆ε´ λον̄ τοϲ̄ . | ἤδη πάλαι παρελ̄η´ λῠθ̆εν ο̆῾ καῑρ̄ο` ϲ | τῶν ὑμετέρων ἐπιταφίων· πάλαι γάρ, πάλαῑ τ̆ε´ θᾱπται | Καλλ̆ι´μᾰχο̆ϲ ῠ῾ π̆ο` τ ̄ω̑ν β̆ελ ̄ω̑ν. | (A0 46–7 p. 147 Stefec; ‘do not even attempt a burial speech, when you are the father of a dead man who does not even want to be buried. The time for burial orations from your family has long since gone by; long, long has Callimachus been buried by spears and arrows’). Rhythmic closes mark out the ταφῆναῑ and τ̆ε´ θᾱπται | which pick up and destroy ε̆᾿ πῐτᾰφ̆ι´ ̄ωι | and ἐπιταφίων, but a close marks out still more at the end of the first sentence the surprising (μηδὲ) θ̆ε´ λον̄ τοϲ̄ . | (note ‘not even’). The final phrase, which explains all (| Καλλ̆ι´μᾰχο̆ϲ κτλ.), through its separate rhythmic status confronts Callimachus stridently with the arrows and spears that have buried him (ὑπό suggests personification). The name of Callimachus, spotlighted for contrast throughout the speech, is given further stress by the rhythm. Rhythm also makes more prominent the lead-in paradox of the second sentence: the time has passed, yet the debate is about who should deliver the speech shortly. At the start, | ϲ̆υ` δ᾿ ε̆᾿ πῐτᾰφ̆ι´ ̄ωι | can be isolated as a rhythmic phrase because the unusual word-order separates it from | μη̄δ̆`ε ε᾿̆ πῐχε̄ι´ ρεῑ |h (whether or not the hiatus is right); word-order and rhythm cooperate, but the rhythm adds weight to the sequence of thought. The punchline at the end becomes really the final blow in a series of punches. The ordering in Seneca, Ep. 77.6 makes more sense when the rhythm is considered: | non est res māgnă uīuĕ rē: | omnes seruī tŭ ī uīuūnt, | ōmnĭ(a) ă nĭmālῐā: | magnūm (e)st hŏ nēstē mŏ rī, | prūdēntēr, fōrtĭtēr. | ‘it is not a great thing to live: all your slaves and all your animals do; the great thing is to die honourably, sensibly, and courageously’. The position of mori is far more telling at the end of a rhythmic phrase than it would have been in an unrhythmic text, and it matches uiuere and uiuunt, also at the end of rhythmic phrases. Without rhythm, uiuunt would lose some of its emphasis, surrounded by the anaphora omnes . . . omnia, and following on from another occurrence of the word. Rhythm helps it to achieve a sardonic scorn. Seneca often exploits rhythm with the verb uiuere. It is tempting to see a parallel to his own exploitation with it of emphatic devices in verse, such as the start of a line, followed by pause: Med. 19–20 num peius aliquid? quod precer sponso malum? | uiuat; ‘there surely isn’t something worse, is there [than the death Medea has

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

45

wished on Jason’s new bride and her family]? What harm can I pray will befall the bridegroom? Let him live.’ Outside the pointed style, Plutarch at Arist. 1.4 is arguing that choregiai are compatible with poverty: so choregiai were undertaken by Epaminondas, | ῝ον π̄α´ ντ̆εϲ ῎̄ανθρ ̄ωποῑ | γιγνώϲκοῡϲῐν ̄ ε᾿ ν π̆εν̆ι´ᾱι | καὶ τραφ̄ ε´ ντᾰ πολ̄ λ̄ηι̑ | κᾱ`ι βῐ ̄ω´ ϲᾱντᾱ, | ‘who everyone knows was reared, and lived, in much poverty’. The word-order seems peculiar unless the rhythm is helping to generate emphasis: π̆εν̆ι´ᾱι | comes at the end of a phrase, and is essential to the argument; πολλῆι does not go at the very end of the sequence, but forms part of a unit with τραφέντα, where both words are stressed, and leaves βιώϲαντα, more important for the argument than τραφέντα, to stand in an emphatic unit of its own. Often a word is marked out by rhythm which would not otherwise seem to receive particular weight in the sentence, but is shown to be important in what follows. The rhythm, then, seems to be playing a positive role. So at Marc. 19.2 Marcellus weeps as he ̑ ᾰ κᾱ`ι μορφ̄ enters Syracuse, | ἐννοήϲαϲ ο̄῟ι ο̆ν ̄ ε᾿ ξ ο̄ ῞ι οῡ | ϲχ̄ημ ̄ η` ν | ἀμείψει ´ ̑ | ‘reflecting on what μετὰ μικρόν, ὑπὸ το̄υ ̑ ϲτρᾰτο̆π̆εδοῡ | δῐᾰφο̆ρη̄θε̄ ιϲᾱ. appearance and form it had and would shortly change to, when it had been plundered by the army’. ϲτρατοπέδου does not seem particularly significant in the sentence, but the next sentence shows the gap between the leaders and the army: | τ ̄ω̑ν γ̆α` ρ η̄ ῾ γ̆εμ̆ο´ ν ̄ων [generals other than Marcellus (cf. 19.1)] | οὐδεὶϲ μὲν ἦν ὁ τολμῶν ἐναντιοῦϲθαι τοῖϲ ϲτρατιώταιϲ, . . . ‘of the generals there was none who dared oppose the soldiers’. More broadly, the roles that we shall see rhythmic phrases performing in what follows make it seem implausible that the rhythm has nothing to give. The sort of confirmation for the reader that we have just seen is not merely an argument for the relation beween rhythm and meaning but also a concrete exemplification of rhythm drawing attention. Suppose that we see a word or phrase is marked out by rhythm and look at the sentence and its context again to discover if it deserves underlining, and find that it does so more than we had realized, or has points and connections that we had not noticed. This is (I find) an extremely frequent experience in reading rhythmic prose. In effect, we are making a prediction which is then verified; since the contrary experience is rare, this is a telling indication of rhythm serving to highlight—although not a numerical or scientific argument. But beyond argument, in looking to find the point of a word marked out by rhythm, we are, if the present view is correct, following signals for attention which are implanted in the text.

46

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Ancient readers and listeners will have done so less laboriously and more quickly; but our own experience shows the process of arresting attention in operation, and shows the signals leading us in meaningful directions. Even we can illustrate how the drawing of attention through rhythm not only can but does work. Again, in the reading of poetry this would not seem strange: a reader who learns to look at enjambement in Statius’ epics is picking up a signal, and learning how to read Statius better. In reading Plutarch rhythmically, we are learning to read Plutarch more closely and responsively.

PLUTARCHAN SNIPPETS We have already seen a little of the overwhelmingly abundant evidence for a relation between rhythm and attention, and between rhythm and meaning. (Any notion that rhythm draws attention purely to itself would not suit the evidence.) These points will only be strengthened as we now consider a long series of short examples from Plutarch. They illustrate various aspects of rhythm and how it works, to prepare us for the more detailed discussion of passages later. We can see the kind of things that rhythmic phrases consist of, the kind of things that rhythm does. In what follows, underlining is used for the phrases, or words, or parts of words, relevant to the phenomenon in question. In scansion, for the most part the rules of Attic are applied, as is explained elsewhere; but in any case the ‘Attic’ treatment of mute and liquid was already available to the thoroughly non-Attic Pindar, and must be considered normal in general speech, as well as in spoken Attic of every period. Lengthening before mute and liquid has nothing to support it in prose; austerity in producing rhythmic phrases is preferable to baseless generosity. As for initial rho, however, keeping the preceding syllable short is recommended by the great preponderance of examples in Plutarch and Appian where such scansion produces a rhythmic close, and lengthening does not. There is no begging of questions here: it has already been shown that these authors write rhythmically, so we can now employ that knowledge to help us discover aspects of their usage. It is like first sorting out the metre of, say, Attic comedy, and then using that knowledge to discover the scansion of particular words. The most important thing, though, for

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

47

comparing passages within a work, and for other purposes, is to follow some consistent approach.8

BREVITY We start, then, with some passages which help to show that rhythmic phrases can be short. 1. Them. 6.1 | δημαγ ̄ωγ̆ο` ν ο ̓ντᾱ | δειν̄`ον μ̆`εν ε̄ ᾿ι πε̄ ι ν,̑ | μαλακ̄`ον δ̆`ε ̄́ ´ ῞ ̑ ̑ τ̄ηι ψῡχ̄ηι | καὶ χρη̄μ̆ατ ̄ων η̄ ττο̆νᾱ, | ‘he was a demagogue, skilled at speaking, but weak in spirit, and at the mercy of money’. Here particles show that one new phrase begins with δεινόν, another with μαλακόν; hence | δειν̄`ον μ̆`εν ε̄ ᾿ι πε̄ ι ν,̑ | is a rhythmic phrase. 2. Lyc. 13.3 | ἑτέρα δὲ πάλιν κατὰ τ̄ηϲ̑ πο̆λῠτ̆ελε̄ ι´ᾱϲ, | ὅπωϲ ο̄ ᾿ικ̆ι´ᾱ π̄αϲ̑ ᾱ | τὴν μὲν ὀροφὴν ᾰ᾿ π̆ο` π̆ελ̆ε´ κ̆ε ̄ωϲ | εἰργᾱϲμ̆ε´ νη̄ν ῎ε̆ χη̄ι, | ‘he made other laws again against extravagance, so that every house should have a roof worked only with the axe’. There is a pause in sense after πολυτελείαϲ, and μέν shows that τήν starts a new phrase; so | ὅπωϲ ο̄ ᾿ι κ̆ι´ᾱ π̄αϲ̑ ᾱ | is a rhythmic phrase (rhythm and word-order give πᾶϲα a little extra stress). 3. Aem. 23.4 | τῶν δ’ ὁ μέν τιϲ ὑπόδημα προϲποιούμενοϲ λελυμένον̄ ϲῠν̄α´ πτεῑν, | ὁ δ’ ̄ ῞ι ππο̆ν ῎̄αρδεῑν, | ο̆῾ δ̆`ε πο̆το̄υ ̑ χρ̄η´ ιζεῑν, | ‘one of these was pretending to fix a shoe that had come loose, another to give water to a horse, another to be in need of a drink’. The particles show that the last two phrases are short. 4. Pel. 5.4 Ἐπαμεινώνδαϲ δὲ κατὰ χώρᾱν ῎ε̆ μεῑνε ̄ | τῶι κᾰτᾰφρο̆νη̄θ̄ην̑ αῑ | διὰ μ̄`ε ν φῐλο̆ϲο̆φ̆ι´ᾱν | ̄ω῾ ϲ ᾰ᾿ πρ̄α´ γμ ̄ων, | δῐ̆α` δ̆`ε π̆εν̆ι´ᾱν | ̄ω῾ ϲ ᾰ᾿ δ ̆υ´ νᾰτοϲ̄ . | ‘Epaminondas remained in Theban territory, since he was held of no account; he was thought inactive because of his philosophy and powerless because of his poverty’. μέν and δέ show the beginnings of phrases; ὡϲ and the parallel negative adjectives indicate further short phrases. 5. Sol. 14.2 ὑποϲχέϲθαι κρύφα το̄ ιϲ̑ μ̆`εν ᾰ᾿ π̆ο´ ροῑϲ | γ̄ηϲ̑ ν̆ε´ μη̄ϲῑν, | το̄ ιϲ̑ δ̆`ε χρη̄μᾰτῐκο̄ ιϲ̑ | βεβαίωϲιν τῶν ϲῡμβο̆λᾱ ι´ ̄ων. [γῆϲ Herwerden: τὴν codd.] Phanias says ‘that Solon secretly promised the poor that 8

Cf. Hutchinson (2015a), 790.

48

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

land would be distributed, and those with money that contracts would be guaranteed’. Again μέν and δέ mark two larger divisions, within which smaller subdivisions are made by the parallel structures of -ϲιϲ nouns and genitives, and by the sneaky inconsistency. (νέμηϲιν needs a genitive, so the conjecture is assured.) Rom. 9.3 | ἐδέχον̄ το̆ π̄α´ ντᾱϲ, | οὔτε δε ϲ̄ π̆ο´ ταῑϲ δο̄υ λ̑ ον̄ | οὔτε θ̄ητ̑ ᾰ χρ̄η´ ϲταῑϲ | οὔτ’ ῎̄αρχοῡϲῐν ̄α᾿ νδρο̆φ̆ο´ νον̄ | ̄ ε᾿ κδῐδ̄ο´ ντε ϲ̄ , | ‘they took everyone in, and did not surrender the slave to his masters, the bondsman to his creditors, or the murderer to the authorities’. The particles and the parallelism demonstrate the short rhythmic phrases. Thes. 6.4 | χειρ ̄ω̑ν μ̆`εν ̄ ῎εργοῑϲ | κᾱ`ι πο̆δ ̄ω̑ν τ̆α´ χ̆εϲῑ | καὶ ϲ ̄ωμ̆α´ τ ̄ων ῥ ̄ω´ μαῑϲ | ‘in the deeds of their hands, the speed of their feet, and the strength of their bodies’. Cf. Cor. 8.6 | καὶ χεῑρ̆ο` ϲ ̄ ῎εργοῑϲ | κᾱ`ι πο̆δ ̄ω̑ν τ̆α´ χ̆εϲῑ | καὶ τολμ̄η´ μᾰϲῑ ψῡχ̄ηϲ̑ | [τάχεϲι N: τάχει Υ] ‘with the deeds of his hands, the speed of his feet, and the daring of his spirit’. The parallelism, and the parallel, make short rhythmic phrases probable. Cor. 38.6 [clear, unrhythmic close before] οὐδ’ ε̄῎ι τῐ ποῑε̄ ι ̑ | τῶν ἡμ̄ ιν̑ ᾰ᾿ ποῑ̄η´ τ ̄ων | καὶ μη̄χᾰν̄ατ̑ αῑ | τ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ μη̄χ̆α´ ν ̄ων | παρ̆α´ λο̆γ̆ο´ ν ̄ ε᾿ ϲτῑν, | ‘nor is it counter to reason if god does one of the things we cannot do, or devises one of the things we could never devise’. The contrasting use of the same stems within each pair of phrases, and the parallel between the pairs, shows the density of rhythmic units in an exalted religious passage. Ages. 24.9 | αἰϲχυνομένων το̄υ` ϲ Ἀ̆ θη̄νᾱ ι´οῡϲ | καὶ βουλομένων ̑ ϲῠνᾰδῐκε̄ ιϲθαῑ δο̆κε̄ ι ν,̑ | ἵνα μὴ ϲυναδικε̄ ι ν̑ δο̆κ ̄ω̑ϲῑν. | ‘the Spartans felt embarrassment towards the Athenians, and wanted to appear to share in being wronged so that they did not appear to share in doing wrong’. The last phrase is shown to be separate by its exact correspondence with, and pointed deviation from, the close of the previous phrase. A Platonic idea (Gorg. 469b12–c2) is given a social turn. Mar. 16.7 [clear, unrhythmic close before] ὅταν δέηι τάφροῡϲ ο̆᾿ ρ̄υ´ ϲϲεῑν | καὶ πηλὸν ̄ ε᾿ κκᾰθᾱ ι´ρεῑν | καὶ ποταμούϲ τινᾱϲ πᾰρᾰτρ̆ε´ πεῑν; | ‘ . . . whenever there are trenches to be dug, mud to be cleaned away, or rivers to be diverted?’. The separate units are indicated by their parallel structure; the demeaning second phrase earns its place in the indignant list of jobs.

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

49

11. Mar. 23.4 | καὶ τοὺϲ πέριξ λόφουϲ ἀναρρηγνύντεϲ, ὥϲπερ ο̄ ῾ι γ̆ι´γᾱντε ϲ̄ , | ἅμα δ̄ ε´ νδρᾰ πρ̄ο´ ρρῑζᾱ | καὶ κρημν ̄ω̑ν ϲπᾰρ̄α´ γμᾰτᾱ | καὶ γ̄ηϲ̑ κο̆λ ̄ωνο̄υ` ϲ | ἐφόρουν εἰϲ τὸν ποταμόν, ‘the Cimbri broke up the surrounding hills, and, like the Giants, heaved into the river trees with their roots, fragments of river-bank, and mounds of earth’. The distinct phrases are shown by their parallel structure, the ἅμα, and the impressive content.

PAIRS In the following examples, the rhythmic phrases consist of pairs of related words; such pairs are a basic resource in prose for giving weight to a concept or semantic area.9 12. Marc. 2.4 τοῦτο δ’ ἐϲτὶν ἱερ ̄ωϲ ̆υ´νη̄ϲ ε̄῏ι δοϲ̄ , | ὧι μάλιϲτα τὴν ἀπ’ ο̄ ᾿ι ̄ων ̄ω̑ν μᾱντῐκ̄η` ν | ἐπιβλέπειν κᾱ`ι πᾰρᾰφῠλ̄α´ ττεῑν | νόμοϲ̄ δ̆ε´ δ ̄ωκε ν̄ . | ‘the augurate is a sort of priesthood, to which the law has particularly entrusted the watching and observing of divination from birds’. 13. Rom. 20.7 ὡϲ ἕν τι τῶν ἁγι ̄ωτ̆α´ τ ̄ων ̆῾ι ε̆ ρ ̄ω̑ν | φυλάττοντεϲ κᾱ`ι ϲ̆εβ̆ο´ μ̆ενοῑ | π̆ερῐ ε̆ τε̄ ι´χῐϲᾱν. | ‘guarding and revering it as one of their most sacred holy objects, they built a wall around it’. 14. Per. 33.6 | δάκρυα κᾱ`ι δ̆ε η̄ ´ ϲεῑϲ | ἐπιβατῶν ναυτιώντων καὶ φοβουμέν ̄ων ε̆᾿ ᾱ ´ ϲᾱϲ, | ‘disregarding the tears and entreaties of sea-sick and terrified passengers’. The alliteration should be noticed; it is more significant in such pairs in Plutarch than one would expect in the fifth or fourth centuries BC.10 15. Alc. 34.7 | ἤρθη̄ μ̆`εν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄`οϲ | τ ̄ω̑ι φρο̆ν̄η´ μᾰτῑ, | καὶ τὴν ϲτρατῑα` ν ε̆᾿ π̄ηρ̑ εν̄ | ὡϲ ἄμαχον καὶ ἀήττη̄το̆ν ο̄υ῏ ϲᾱν | ἐκείνοῡ ϲτρᾰτη̄γο̄υ ν̑ τοϲ,̄ | ‘his own temper was exalted, and he exalted the army’s spirits, making it think it could not be conquered or defeated with himself as general’. The two negative adjectives go together; the participle of the verb ‘to be’ is a sort of postpositive. 16. Dion 24.10 | ἀετ̄ο` ϲ δ̆`ε θ̆ερ̆α´ π ̄ων Δῐ̄ο´ ϲ, | λόγχη̄ δ̆`ε πᾰρ̆α´ ϲη̄μον̄ | ἀρχῆϲ κᾱ`ι δῠνᾱϲτε̄ ι´ᾱϲ· | ‘the eagle is the servant of Zeus, the 9

Cf. Schmidt (2000), Teodorsson (2000).

10

Cf. Fehling (1969), 78 80.

50

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

spear is the emblem of rule and domination’. The pair is especially emphatic in this context, where the fall of tyranny is portended. Them. 18.4 | εὐδίαϲ δὲ περὶ αὐτο̄υ` ϲ γ̆ενο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ϲ | τίλλειν κᾱ`ι κο̆λο̄υ´ εῑν. | ‘but when people have good weather [said Themistocles], they pluck leaves and lop branches from the plane-tree’. The vivid pair is stressed in the context, with some bitterness. Aem. 24.5 | ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆ε´ λᾱμψ̆ε χᾰρ̄α` | μ̆ετ̆α` κρ̆ο´ τοῡ κᾱ`ι βο̆η̄ ϲ̑ , | ‘joy blazed out, with clapping and shouting’; cf. Pel. 12.7, Sen. Resp. 785b | μ̆ετ̆α` κρ̆ο´ τοῡ κᾱ`ι βο̆η̄ ϲ̑ |, and also 88. This rhythmic pair recurs, then, like many in Cicero. Aem. 28.9 τὸ ἥδῑϲτο̆ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο` ϲ η̄῏ ν | ἀπόλαυϲμα κᾱ`ι θ̆ε´ ᾱμᾱ | τοῖϲ παροῦϲι, | ‘he himself was the most delightful thing for those present to enjoy and see’. The matching formations in -μα bring the pair closer. So too the next example: Tim. 12.1 | ἀλλὰ ταὐτὰ πάλιν ἥκεῑν ε̆᾿ π’ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ` ϲ | ϲοφίϲμᾰτᾰ κᾱ`ι δ̆ελ̆εᾱ ´ ϲμᾰτᾱ, | ‘they thought the same tricks and lures had come to damage them again’. Marc. 7.4 ὦ μεγάλα ϲτρατηγῶν καὶ ἡγεμόνων ἔργα καὶ πράξεῑϲ [καὶ] ε̆᾿ πῑβλ̆ε´ π ̄ων | ̄ ε᾿ ν πο̆λ̆ε´ μοῑϲ κᾱ`ι μ̆α´ χαῑϲ, | ‘O you, Jupiter, who look upon the mighty deeds and actions of generals and leaders in wars and battles’. The final, particularly resounding pair draws on Plato, who is elevating philosophical men of action ἐν πολέμωι καὶ μάχαιϲ (Tim. 19e6–7; ‘in war and battles’). Otho 5.9 | προδότην καὶ λῡμ̆ε ̄ω̑νᾱ | τῶν Καίϲαροϲ καῑρ ̄ω̑ν κᾱ`ι πρᾱγμ̆α´ τ ̄ων | λ̆ε´ γον̄ τε ϲ̄ . | ‘calling him the betrayer and ̆ destroyer of Caesar’s chances and fortunes’. Here the second pair too, καῑρ ̄ω̑ν κᾱ`ι πρᾱγμ̆α´ τ ̄ων | , receives a rhythmic phrase, ̆ with overlap, but the first is the more vociferous. Ages. 18.6 | πολλὰϲ δὲ διὰ τῶν ὅπλων δεξάμενον εἰϲ τὸ ϲ ̄ω̑μᾰ πλη̄γ̄α` ϲ | δ̆ο´ ρᾰϲῐ κᾱ`ι ξ̆ι´φ̆εϲῑ | ‘he had received many wounds on to his body through his armour, from spears and swords’. Marc. 20.8 | ̄ω῾ ϲ ε̆῾ ̄ω´ ρᾱ | φρίκηι κᾱ`ι ϲῐ ̄ωπ̄ηι̑ | κατεχόμενον τὸ θέατρον, ‘when he saw that the people in the theatre were gripped by religious dread and silence’. ῞ ϲπ̆ερ η῞̄ δῡϲμᾱ | τοῦ πόνου καὶ τ̄ηϲ̑ Lyc. 25.4 | τὴν παιδιὰν ̄ω ´ ´ ` δῐᾱ ι τη̄ϲ | ἐμβαλ̄οντᾰ κᾰτ̆α καῑρ̄ο` ν | ‘Lycurgus added fun in, in a timely way, as a seasoning for their toil and way of life’. It is

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

51

the pair that creates the rhythmic phrase; one genitive would not merit separate contemplation. Now we can consider an alliterating pair that is sometimes conjoined in one rhythmic phrase, sometimes confronted in two: 26. Ages. 24.6 πρᾶξιν ἄδικον μὲν ὁμοίωϲ ἐκείνηι κᾱ`ι πᾰρ̆α´ νο̆μον̄ , | τόλμη̄ϲ δ̆`ε κᾱ`ι τ ̆υ´ χη̄ϲ | ἐνδε̄α ̑ γ̆ενο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ν. | ‘a deed as unjust as the other and illegal, but deprived in execution of boldness and luck’. 27. Arat. 24.2 | το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ μ̄`ε ν τ̄ο´ λμη̄ι, | το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ δ̆`ε τ ̆υ´ χη̄ι | ταῖϲ ἀρίϲταιϲ ἐνάμιλλον, ‘rivalling the finest deeds, both in daring and in good fortune’. 28. Alex. 58.2 | αὐτ̄ο` ϲ δ̆`ε τ̄ο´ λμη̄ι | τὴν τύχην ὑπε ρ̄ βᾰλ̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ | καὶ τὴν δ ̆υ´νᾰμῐν ᾰ᾿ ρ̆ε τ̄ηι̑ | φῐλο̆τῑμο̄υ´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ , | ‘since he himself was eager ̆ to overcome fortune with daring, and power with courage’. Here the two words are effectively opposed on either side of the rhythmic boundary (as ever, the prepositives do not count). In the next examples, the first in a pair, or a series, of word-groups is put into one rhythmic phrase; but the second or last is split into two phrases or more, and so acquires more weight (cf. also Sol. 13.6 under 53). 29. Fab. 24.4 αἰϲθόμενοϲ̄ τ̆ι´ν ̄ων ῎̄αρχεῑϲ | καὶ πη̄λ̆ι´κη̄ϲ μ̆ε´ γ̆εθοϲ̄ | ἀνείλη̄φᾰϲ ̄α᾿ ρχ̄ηϲ̑ . | ‘you have realized what kind of people you hold office over, and how great an office you have taken up’. The hyperbaton separates all the more the two rhythmic phrases of the second part. In the following clause, | οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖϲ καὶ οἱ πρόγονοι τὴν Ῥ ̄ω´ μη̄ν η̄υ᾿ ξ̄η´ ϲᾰμε ν̄ , | ‘in this way both we and our ancestors made Rome grow’, the nominatives relate to τ̆ι´ν ̄ων, but the climactic η̄υ᾿ ξ̄η´ ϲᾰμε ν̄ , | to πη̄λ̆ι´κη̄ϲ μ̆ε´ γ̆εθοϲ̄ |. 30. Caes. 54.3 | πῶϲ γὰρ ἂν ἐφε̄ ι´ϲᾰτο ̄ ζ ̄ω̑ντοϲ̄ , | ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ ᾰ᾿ νᾱ ι´ϲθη̄τον̄ | ἐκχέαϲ ὀργ̄η` ν το̆ϲᾱυ´ τη̄ν; | ‘for how would he have spared Cato alive when he poured out such great wrath on to the man removed from all consciousness?’. In the second part, both phrases have greater force through the expansion and separation. 31. Dion. 4.6 τραφεὶϲ γὰρ ἐν ἤθεϲιν ὑπὸ τυράνν ̄ωι τᾰπεῑνο̄ ιϲ,̑ | καὶ βίου μὲν ἀνίϲου κᾱ`ι κᾰτᾰφ̆ο´ βοῡ, | θεραπείᾱϲ δ̆`ε ν̆εο̆πλο̄υ´ τοῡ | καὶ τρυφ̄ηϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ πεῑρο̆κ̆α´ λοῡ | κᾱ`ι δῐᾱ ι´τη̄ϲ | ἐν ἡδονᾱ ιϲ̑ κᾱ`ι πλ̆εο̆νε ξ̄ ῐ ´αῑϲ | τῐθ̆εμ̆ε´ νη̄ϲ τ̆ο` κᾰλ̄ο` ν | ἐθὰϲ καὶ μεϲτ̄ο` ϲ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ , | ‘having been brought up in base ways under a tyrant, and being familiar with and sated by a life that lacked equality and was full of fear,

52

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose by a nurture sprung from recent wealth, by a tasteless luxury, and by a way of existence that identified the good with pleasures and excesses’. The second and third genitive phrases (| θεραπείᾱϲ κτλ., | καὶ τρυφ̄ηϲ̑ κτλ.) match each other with feminine noun and compound adjective; but the last member (| κᾱ`ι δῐᾱ ι´τη̄ϲ | . . . κᾰλ̄ο` ν |) inserts a connected pair of nouns, set in a rhythmic phrase, inside two other rhythmic phrases. For the pair of nouns cf. Cleom. 24 (3).1.

MATCHES Here are more examples of correspondences and contrasts between phrases: 32. Rom. 17.3 | οὐ μόνοϲ οὖν ὡϲ ἔοικεν Ἀ̄ ντ̆ι´γο̆νο̆ϲ ῎ε̆ φη̄ | προ̆δῐδ̄ο´ ντᾱϲ μ̄`ε ν φῐλε̄ ι ν,̑ | προδεδωκότᾱϲ δ̆`ε μῑϲε̄ ι ν,̑ | ‘evidently Antigonus was not alone in saying he loved men while they were committing treachery for him but hated them once they had committed it’. The assonance of infinitives and the participles from the same verb help the rhythm in creating elegant cynicism. 33. Sol. 28.5 | αἱ μεταβολᾱ`ι δ̆ε´ μοῑ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄η ̑ϲ |h ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ π̆α´ θη̄ δεῑν̄α` | καὶ ϲυμφορ̄α` ϲ ᾰ᾿ νη̄κ̄ ε´ ϲτοῡϲ | ἔργ ̄ωι τ̆ελεῡτ ̄ω̑ϲῑ. | ‘I have found that the change from happiness ends up with terrible sufferings and unhealable misfortunes that are all too real’. The parallel of nouns and adjectives is clear; the second phrase remains longer and stronger. 34. Cam. 10.4 . . . ῎ε̆ λ̆εγε ̄ | παιδευτ̄η` ϲ μ̆`εν ε̄῏ι ναῑ | κᾱ`ι δῐδ̄α´ ϲκᾰλοϲ̄ , | τὴν ̑ ν̄ χ̆α´ ρῑν | ̄α᾿ ντ̆`ι το̄υ´ τ ̄ων | ἑλόμενοϲ τ ̄ω̑ν δῐκᾱ ι´ ̄ων, | δ̆`ε πρ̆ο` ϲ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ινο ἥκειν αὐτῶι τὴν πόλιν ἐν τοῖϲ παιϲὶ κομίζων. ‘the schoolmaster said he was an instructor and a teacher, but preferred doing Camillus a favour to his present obligations; so he had come bringing him the city of Falerii, in bringing him these children’. The demonstrative pronouns neatly oppose two spheres from the schoolmaster’s deictic centre (with το̄υ´ τ ̄ων | . . . τ ̄ω̑ν δῐκᾱ ι´ ̄ων, | cf. Sol. 1.5 ἐκεῖνα τὰ δίκαια ‘those old obligations’). The separation across phrases of το̄υ´ τ ̄ων | from δῐκᾱ ι´ ̄ων, | and of | παιδευτ̄η` ϲ from the matching δῐδ̄α´ ϲκᾰλοϲ̄ , | makes the

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

35.

36.

37. 38.

39.

40.

41.

53

presentation of amorality all the neater and more elaborate, in a dense passage. Arist. 9.3 | ὡϲ μήτε τῶν φίλων τινὰ διᾱφθᾰρ̄ην̑ αῑ | μήτε τῶν πολεμί ̄ων δῐᾰφῠγε̄ ι ν.̑ | ‘with the result that no one on his own side perished, and none on the enemy’s escaped’. Both infinitives begin διαφ-; rhythm and phrasing display the fruits of the ingenious strategy. Cor. 15.1 | ἀλλὰ το̄υ ̑ γ̆ε Μᾱρκ̆ι´οῡ | πολλὰϲ ὑποφαίνον̄ το̆ϲ ̄ω᾿ τεῑλ̄α` ϲ | ἀπὸ πολλ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ γ ̄ω´ ν ̄ων, | ‘when Coriolanus revealed his many wounds from many battles’. πολλ- occurs at the beginning of both phrases, since prepositives do not count. Ages. 11.2 | ἀε̄`ι ϲῠνᾰπ̆εδ̄η´ μεῑ | καὶ ϲυνεϲτράτεῡ̆εν ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι, | ‘he always joined him in travel and joined him on campaign’. Cor. 29.4 | ἐγίνωϲκε ϲῡμπᾰθο̄υ ν̑ ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι | κᾱ`ι ϲῠνᾰδῐκο̄υ´ μ̆ενον̄ . | ‘he knew that [the most significant part of the citizen body] shared his feelings and shared his wrongs’. Here the shift in the second phrase is more subtle than in the previous example. Aem. 19.5 | θεμιτ̄ο` ν γ̆α` ρ ο̄υ᾿ κ ̄ ῎ε ϲτῑν | οὔτε τὸν μὴ β̄α´ λλον̄ τᾰ κᾰτεῡϲτο̆χε̄ ι ν,̑ | οὔτε τὸν μ̄η` μ̆ε´ νον̄ τᾰ κρᾰτε̄ ι ν,̑ | οὔθ’ ὅλωϲ τὸν ἄπρᾱκτο̆ν ε̄υ᾿ πρᾱγε̄ ι ν,̑ | οὔτε τ̄ο` ν κᾰκ̆ο` ν ε̄υ᾿ δαῑμο̆νε̄ ι ν.̑ | ‘for it is not right that the man who fires no arrow should hit the target, nor that the man who does not stay his ground should be victorious, nor more generally that the man who does nothing should succeed, nor that the bad man should be happy’. All the infinitives end in -εῖν; the last two begin with εὐ-, and within the last two phrases -πρᾱ- matches -πρᾱ-, while κακόν contrasts with εὐ-. With each of the last two phrases, the argument expands. Mar. 43.8 | καὶ π̄αϲ̑ ᾰ μ̆`εν ο̆῾ δ̄ο´ ϲ, | π̄αϲ̑ ᾰ δ̆`ε π̆ο´ λῑϲ | τῶν διωκόντων καὶ κυνη̄γ̆ετο̄υ´ ντ ̄ων | τοὺϲ ὑποφεύγονταϲ καὶ κεκρῡμμ̆ε´ νοῡϲ ῎ε̆ γ̆εμε ν̄ . | ‘every road and the whole city was full of those pursuing and hunting the fleeing and the concealed’. The second phrase in the anaphora does not simply correspond but also changes meaning and scope; the separate rhythmic phrases are more pointed than in Xen. Anab. 2.5.9 ϲὺν μὲν γὰρ ϲοὶ πᾶϲα μὲν ὁδὸϲ εὔποροϲ, πᾶϲ δὲ ποταμὸϲ διαβατόϲ,. ̑ ᾰ Demosth. 10.5 | πολλῶν πάνυ καὶ μακρ ̄ω̑ν π̆ερῐ̆ο´ δ ̄ων | ἓν ῥ̄ημ ̑ ᾱ | πίϲτιν ἔχον̄ το̆ϲ ̄α᾿ νθρ ̄ω´ ποῡ | κυρι ̄ω´ τ̆ερο̆ν η̄ ῾ γο̄υ´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ . | κᾱ`ι νε̄υ μ ‘if he thought that one word and nod from a man who can be

54

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose trusted has more authority than a great many long sentences’. πολλῶν and ἕν gain force and contrast from each beginning their rhythmic phrase; the short matching –μα nouns and the heavier sequence | ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ ̄ ̄ | give the second phrase (| ἓν κτλ.) more weight than the more numerous words and consecutive short syllables in the first. 42. Num. 10.2 ἐν ἧι τὴν μὲν πρώτη̄ν δ̆εκᾰ̆ετ̆ι´ᾱν | ἃ χρὴ δρᾶν μᾱνθ̆α´ νοῡϲῑ, | τὴν δὲ μέϲην ἃ μεμαθήκᾱϲῐ δρ ̄ω̑ϲῑ, | τὴν δὲ τρίτην ἑτέραϲ αὐτᾱ`ι δῐδ̄α´ ϲκοῡϲῑν. | ‘for the first decade of their office, the Vestal Virgins learn what they must do, for the second they do what they have learned, for the third they teach others themselves’. The neat contrasts between the phrases are heightened by the internal contrast in the last of ἑτέραϲ and αὐτᾱ`ι.

In the following examples, words are juxtaposed and contrasted on either side of a rhythmic boundary; the metrical division, and the weight acquired by each, intensify the clash. 43. Flam. 2.5 | οὐκ ἂν οὕτωϲ ῥαιδίωϲ ἀντὶ τ ̄ω̑ν ϲῠν̄η´ θ̄ων | ἀλλόφῡλο̆ν ̄α᾿ ρχ̄η` ν | η̄ ᾿ γ̆α´ πη̄ϲε .̄ | ‘Greece would not otherwise have acquiesced so readily in a foreign rule in place of the people it was used to’. 44. Ant. 9.4 | Ἀντ ̄ω´ νῐοϲ̄ δ̄ ε´ , | καὶ τῆϲ βουλῆϲ ψηφιϲαμένηϲ ὅπλων δεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Δολοβέλλαν, ἐπελθὼν καὶ μάχη̄ν ϲῠν̄α´ ψᾱϲ | ἀπέκτεινέ τέ τιναϲ τ ̄ω̑ν ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´ νοῡ | καὶ τῶν ἰδί ̄ων ᾰ᾿ π̆ε´ βᾰλε .̄ | ‘the Senate voted that arms should be used against Dolabella; Antony went against him and joined battle. He killed some of Dolabella’s men, and lost some of his own’. The word-order changes chiastically to make possible the nicely phrased contrast and inglorious outcome. 45. Pel. 26.1 | μήθ’ ὅπου πάρεϲτῐν Ἐ̆ πᾰμεῑν ̄ω´ νδᾱϲ | ἑτέρου δεῖϲθαῑ ϲτρᾰτη̄γο̄υ ̑ | νο̆μ̄ ι´ζ ̄ων. | ‘Pelopidas did not think that where Epaminondas̆ was present another general was needed’. The organization makes the marking out of Epaminondas’ name the more epigrammatic. We shall return later to the overlap of phrases at the end. 46. Fab. 7.3 τῆϲ γὰρ ἐν τοῖϲ ὅπλοιϲ τόλμη̄ϲ ῠ῾ φῑ̆ε´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | ὡϲ γνώμηι κᾱ`ι προ̆νο̄ ι´αῑ | καταπολεμήϲ ̄ων τ̆ο` ν Ἀ̄ νν̆ι´βᾱν, | αὐτὸϲ ἡττη̄μ̆ε´ νοϲ̄ το̄υ´ τοῑϲ | καὶ κατεϲτρατηγη̄μ̆ε´ νο̆ϲ ε̆᾿ φᾱ ι´ ν̆ετο.̄ | ‘Fabius gave up on daring in arms so as to war down Hannibal by planning and

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

55

forethought; he thus seemed himself to them to have been worsted and out-generalled’. The κατα- verbs at the start of phrases and the pair of wise nouns in a rhythmic phrase heighten the ironic misjudgement which is encapsulated in the juxtaposed generals.

STRESS The next instances illustrate how the first position in a rhythmic phrase (prepositives and the like not included) is a position that invites emphasis; the word gains attention from beginning again after a close. 47. Comp. Sol. Publ. 27 (4).5 | καὶ μικρ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ ποϲ̄ τ̄α` ϲ | μεῑζ̆ο´ ν ̄ων ῎ε̆ τῠχε ν̄ , | ‘standing aside from small advantages, the statesman has often obtained greater things’. The alliteration adds to the pithiness. 48. Cam. 30.1 οὕτ ̄ω μ̆`εν η̄ ῾ Ῥ ̄ω´ μη̄ | πᾰρᾰλ̆ο´ γ ̄ωϲ η῞̄ λ ̄ω | καὶ παραλογ ̄ω´ τ̆ερο̆ν ε̆᾿ ϲ ̄ω´ θη̄, | ‘thus Rome’s capture was unexpected and its rescue still more so’. ̑ ̆ τ̄η` ν 49. Sert. 14.1 ἀντὶ ληιϲτη̄ρ̆ι´οῡ μ̆εγ̆α´ λοῡ | ϲτρατὸν ἐποιε̄ ιτο δ ̆υ´ νᾰμῑν. | ‘he made his force, instead of being a large band of robbers, an army’. The more obvious order ἐποιεῖτο τὴν δύνα μιν ἀντὶ μεγάλου ληιϲτηρίου ϲτρατόν. would also have been rhythmic, but the initial position for | ϲτρατὸν, and the deviation in order, contribute strength. 50. Otho 1.1 | τοῦ δὲ Κέλϲου μήτ’ ἀγεννῶϲ ἀποκριναμένου μ̄η´ τ’ ᾰ᾿ ναῑϲθ̄η´ τ ̄ωϲ, | ἀλλὰ φήϲαντοϲ αὐτὸ το̄υ ̑ τρ̆ο´ ποῡ δῐδ̆ο´ ναῑ | τὸ ἔγκλη̄μᾰ π̄ ι´ϲτῑν, | ̄ ε᾿ γκ̆εκλ̄ηϲ̑ θαῑ γ̄α´ ρ | . . . ‘Celsus did not give either an ignoble or a tactless reply; he said that the charge made against him of itself gave a guarantee of his character— he had been charged [with loyalty to Galba]’. The word-order is again intricate; the key to it is the initial position of ἔγκλημα in the rhythm. The widely separated αὐτὸ throws the paradoxical word into further relief. The last position in a rhythmic phrase is also a point especially apt for emphasis, as a couple of examples illustrate (cf. 28, 43–6, 64, etc.).

56

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose 51. Per. 18.2 | ὡϲ εἰ μὴ πείθοῑτο̆ Π̆ερῐκλε̄ ι,̑ | τόν γε ϲοφώτατον ο̄υ᾿ χ α῾̆ μᾱρτ̄η´ ϲ̆εταῑ | ϲύμβουλο̆ν ᾰ᾿ νᾰμε̄ ι´ νᾱϲ, χρ̄ο´ νον̄ . | ‘[Pericles said] that if the people were not persuaded by Pericles, they would not go wrong in awaiting the wisest of counsellors, time’. The two advisers match each other in ending clauses and rhythmic closes; the first is shown to be marked out by the self-conscious use of the speaker’s own name, the second by the preparatory periphasis. The latter point is confirmed by the next example. 52. Ant. 28.1 | ἀναλίϲκειν κᾱ`ι κᾰθη̄δῠπᾰθε̄ ι ν̑ | τὸ πολυτελέϲτατον ὡϲ Ἀντιφῶν εἶπεν ἀνάλ ̄ωμᾰ, τ̄`ον χρ̆ο´ νον̄ . | ‘Antony used up and squandered in dissipation the most valuable thing one can spend, according to Antiphon: time’.

The following example illustrates emphasis for both the first and last word in a rhythmic phrase: 53. Comp. Dion. Brut. 56 (3).11 | ὅτι μόνοϲ τῶν ἐπὶ Καίϲᾰρᾰ ϲῠνᾱρᾰμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | ἕνα προ̄υ῎ θ̆ετο ̄ ϲκο̆π̄ο` ν | ἀπ’ ἀρχ̄ηϲ̑ α῎̆ χρῐ τ̆ε´ λοῡϲ, | τὴν πάτριον ἀποδοῦναι Ῥωμαίοῑϲ πο̆λῑτε̄ ι´ᾱν. | ‘[even Brutus’ enemies said] that he alone among those who conspired against Caesar set himself a single aim from beginning to end, to give the Romans back their ancestral constitution’. There is preparation here through initial words in phrases (μόνοϲ, | ἕνα); the hyperbaton shows the emphasis on πάτριον, but πο̆λῑτε̄ ι´ᾱν. | is an immensely weighty word, strengthened by Ῥωμαίοῑϲ. Thus it is momentous even without Romans at Sol. 13.6 | ἀφελέϲθαῑ το̄υ` ϲ υ῾̆ π̆ερη̄μ̆ε´ ροῡϲ, | καὶ τὴν γ̄ην̑ ᾰ᾿ νᾰδ̆α´ ϲᾱϲθαῑ, | καὶ ὅλ ̄ωϲ μ̆ετᾱϲτ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ | τ̄η` ν πο̆λῑτε̄ ι´ᾱν. | ‘to free those overdue with debts, divide up the land, and completely alter the constitution’; there the last clause (| καὶ ὅλ ̄ωϲ κτλ.) is significantly split into two phrases. For it is evident that stress can be given to more than one word in a rhythmic phrase, however short. So: 54. Sert. 1.9 (phrase starts with ϲυνέϲει, cf. μέν) | λειπόμενον δὲ ϲυνέϲει μὲν ο̄υ᾿ δ̆εν̄ο` ϲ το̄υ´ τ ̄ων, | τύχη̄ι δ̆`ε π̄α´ ντ ̄ων· |. ‘he was surpassed in understanding by none of these men, in good fortune by them all’. A new phrase starts with ϲυνέϲει, as μέν shows. The context is one of comparison with other one-eyed generals in specific respects (so 9 . . . | Ἀντιγόνου δὲ πῑϲτ̆ο´ τ̆ερον̄ π̆ερ̆`ι φ̆ι´λοῡϲ, | Ἀννίβου δ’ ἡμερώτερον πρ̄ο` ϲ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´οῡϲ, | ‘he was

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

57

more faithful towards his friends than Antigonus, milder towards his enemies than Hannibal’). The following example is simpler: 55. Aem. 24.5 (cf. 17) | ̄ ε᾿ κ δ̆`ε το̄υ´ τοῡ | ταχὺ τῆϲ φήμηϲ ᾰ᾿ νᾰχ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ϲ | ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ τ̆ο` πλ̄ηθ̑ οϲ̄ , | ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆ε´ λᾱμψ̆ε χᾰρ̄α` | ‘from this point the rumour overflowed to the masses, and joy blazed forth’. The colourful verb is enhanced, especially with this word-order, by resonance from Plato (Gorg. 484b1 ἐξέλαμψεν τὸ τῆϲ φύϲεωϲ δίκαιον ‘the justice of nature blazes forth’).

VERBS Now we approach the main area where rhythmic closes do not necessarily confer emphasis on a word or draw attention to it in its own right. When a verb at the end of the sentence fills a whole rhythmic phrase, the rhythm reinforces the sense of syntactic structure; the verb can also be dwelt on for itself, but need not be. It is dwelt on, for instance, in the following examples: 56. Galb. 25.2 | διό, καίπερ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ϲώματοϲ μαλακίαν καὶ θη̄λ ̆υ´ τη̄τᾱ | τῆι ψυχ̄ηι̑ δῐᾰτ̆εθρῡμμ̆ε´ νοϲ̄ , | ἀλλὰ ἰταμὸϲ ὢν πρὸϲ τὰ δεινὰ κᾱ`ι α῎̆ τρεπτοϲ, |h ἀπεδεῑλ̆ι´ᾱϲε ν̄ . | ‘so, although he was not depraved in his spirit to match the feebleness and effeminacy of his body, but rather was bold towards danger and immovable, he was suddenly filled with cowardice’. The verb offers a sort of expected surprise at the culmination of the twists and turns and of the total syntactic design (‘so, although . . . ’). It is effectively placed next to α῎̆ τρεπτοϲ, |h. 57. Aem. 8.5 | τ̆ο´ τ̆ε μ̆`εν ̄ ῎ε πτη̄ξε ̄ | καὶ πάντα τὰ καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐπέτρε ψ ̄ ε̆ Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´οῑϲ, | καὶ τυχὼν ἐπιτιμ̄η´ ϲ̆ε ̄ωϲ μ̆ετρ̆ι´ᾱϲ | η̄ ᾿ γ̆α´ πη̄ϲε ν̄ . | ‘at the time he [Philip V] was cowed, and entrusted all his affairs to the Romans; when he received a modest penalty, he was quite content’. Here the verb fits more with the rest, but still stands out ignominiously by contrast with the similar-sounding ἤνθηϲεν at the start of his career (8.4). | τ̆ο´ τ̆ε μ̆`εν prepares a coming contrast with | ὕϲτερον̄ δ̆`ε βᾰρ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ φ̆ε´ ρ ̄ων | ‘later, resenting this’.

58

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose 58. Comp. Phil. Flam. 23 (2).4 | καὶ γὰρ δὴ πολεμικωτάτοιϲ Ἑλλήνων Κρηϲὶ καὶ Λακεδαιμονίοιϲ πολεμήϲαϲ, τῶν μὲν πανουρ γοτάτων δόλωι, τῶν δ’ ἀλκιμ ̄ωτ̆α´ τ ̄ων τ̄ο´ λμη̄ι | π̆ερῐ̆ε γ̆ε´ ν̆ετο.̄ | ‘when Philopoemen warred with the most warlike of the Greeks, the Cretans and the Spartans, he excelled the most villainous of the Greeks, the Cretans, in trickery, the most courageous of them, the Spartans, in valour’. Here the verb is important to the complicated argument in favour of Philopoemen. 59. Cam. 22.5 | καὶ προϲβλέπον̄ τ̆εϲ ̄α᾿ λλ̄η´ λοῑϲ | η̄ ῾ ϲ ̆υ´ χᾱζον̄ . | ‘the Romans looked at each other and remained calm’. The verb is an expected end to a long sentence on the Romans relaxed in the Forum, to the amazement of the Gallic chieftain who has captured the Capitol. But its quiet simplicity nicely closes a structure about surprising cool.

In other places the final verb (including participles and infinitives) is still weighty, but the preceding rhythmic phrase or phrases attract a high degree of attention too. 60. Aem. 22.1 | τῶι δὲ λειπο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ωι τ̄ηϲ̑ η̄ ῾ μ̆ε´ ρᾱϲ | χρηϲάμενοι πρὸϲ τ̄η` ν δ̆ι´ ̄ωξῑν, | καὶ μέχρι ϲταδίων ἑκατὸν καὶ εἴκο̆ϲῐ δῐ ̄ω´ ξᾱντε ϲ̄ , | ἑϲπέραϲ ἤδη̄ βᾰθε̄ ι´ᾱϲ | ᾰ᾿ π̆ετρ̆α´ πον̄ το.̄ | ‘they deployed what was left of the day for pursuit; after pursuing the Macedonians up to 120 stades, they turned back when the evening was already late’. 61. Sert. 23.3 . . . | ἐπηρμένοϲ μάλιϲτα ταῖϲ τῶν κολάκων ἀλᾱζο̆νε̄ ι´αῑϲ, | οἳ τὸν μὲν Cερ̄ τ ̄ω´ ρῐο̆ν Ἀ̄ νν̆ι´βᾱι, | τὸν δὲ Μιθριδάτην Πύρρωι παρεικάζοντεϲ, οὐκ ἂν ἔφαϲαν Ῥωμαίουϲ πρὸϲ τη̄λῐκᾱυ´ τᾱϲ ο̆῾ μο̄υ ̑ | φύϲεῑϲ τ̆ε κᾱ`ι δῠν̆α´ μεῑϲ | ἐπιχειρουμένουϲ δῐχ̆ο´ θ̆εν ̄α᾿ ντῑϲχε̄ ι ν,̑ | τοῦ δεινοτάτοῡ ϲτρᾰτη̄γο̄υ ̑ | τῶι μεγίϲτωι τ ̄ω̑ν βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ων | προϲγ̆ ̄ ενο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡ. | ‘Mithridates was especially excited by the hyperboles of the flatterers, who likened Sertorius to Hannibal and Mithridates to Pyrrhus. They said the Romans would never be able to resist if they contended with two such mighty natures and powers on two sides, supposing the most formidable general were joined by the greatest of kings’. The word of unification at the end is crucial, but the two matching phrases before arrest the reader with their superlatives, and with the flatterers’ slight evasion of symmetry in the interests of the king. 62. Mar. 20.2 | ἀλλὰ θηρομιγήϲ τιϲ ὠρυγὴ καὶ βρύχημα μεμειγμένον ἀπειλαῖϲ καὶ θρήνοιϲ ἀναπεμπόμενον ἐκ πλήθοῡϲ το̆ϲο̄υ´ τοῡ | τ̆α´

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

59

̑ το̄υ ̑ πο̆τᾰμο̄υ ̑ | π̆ερῐ ε̆ φ ̄ω´ νεῑ. | ‘a beastτ̆ε π̆ε´ ρῑξ ο῎̆ ρη̄ | καὶ τὰ κο̄ ιλᾰ like bellow and a roar mixed with threats and laments, sent up from such a vast throng, resounded all about the surrounding mountains and the low places by the river’. The verb is unique (cf. only περιφώνηϲιϲ, Gen. Soc. 587c); but it gets its force from the large landscape which is created by the two preceding phrases. These are marked out with τε and καί. 63. Lys. 30.6 . . . ἐζη̄μ̆ι´ ̄ωϲᾱν, | ὅτι πλούϲιον μ̄`ε ν νο̆μ̄ ι´ζον̄ τε ϲ̄ | ε̆᾿ θ̆ερ̆α´ πεῡον̄ , | δίκαιον̄ δ̆`ε κᾱ`ι χρη̄ϲτ̄`ον | ἐκ τῆϲ πενίᾱϲ ε̆᾿ πῑγν̄ο´ ντεϲ̄ | ̄ ε᾿ γκᾰτ̆ε´ λῐπον.̄ | ‘the Spartans fined them, because they had always been dancing attendance on Lysander when they thought he was rich, but when they realized from his poverty that he was just and honest, deserted him’. Here the final aorist verb contrasts with the imperfect verb before, which is also a rhythmic unit on its own; but the two preceding rhythmic phrases present the resonant pair of synonyms | δίκαιον̄ δ̆`ε κᾱ`ι χρη̄ϲτ̄`ον |, and πενίᾱϲ in opposition to πλούϲιον (both effectively first in their rhythmic phrases), ε̆᾿ πῑγν̄ο´ ντεϲ̄ | in opposition to νο̆μ̄ ι´ζοντε ̄ ϲ̄ |. Those two phrases together make a complicated point in comparison with the simple πλούϲιον μ̄`ε ν νο̆μ̄ ι´ζοντε ̄ ϲ̄ |. The version in [Plut.] Apophth. Lac. 230a spoils the rhythmic structure and the sense: ὅτι πλούϲιον μὲν νομίζοντεϲ ἐθεράπευον, δίκαιον δὲ καὶ χρηϲτὸν ἐκ τῆϲ πενίαϲ ἐπιγνόντεϲ ὑπερεῖδον (‘despised’). 64. Ages. 32.13 | ἀναχωρῆϲαι δὲ τοὺϲ Θηβαίουϲ ἐκ τ̄ηϲ̑ Λᾰκ ̄ωνῐκ̄ηϲ̑ | οἱ μὲν ἄλλοῑ λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑ | χειμών ̄ων γ̆ενο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | καὶ τῶν Ἀρκάδων ἀρξαμέν ̄ων ᾰ᾿ πῐ̆ε´ ναῑ | καὶ διαρρε̄ ι ν̑ ᾰ᾿ τ̄α´ κτ ̄ωϲ, | οἱ δὲ τρεῖϲ ̑ μῆναϲ ἐμμεμενη̄κ̆ο´ τᾰϲ ο῞̆ λοῡϲ | καὶ τὰ πλε̄ ιϲτᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ χ ̄ω´ ρᾱϲ | δῐᾰπ̆επορ̄ θη̄κ̆ο´ τᾱϲ· | ‘the others say that the Thebans withdrew from Spartan territory when storms began and the Arcadians had started to leave and trickle away in a disorderly manner, and some indeed that the Thebans had remained for three whole months and completely sacked most of the land [but Theopompus has a scandalous account of bribery]’. The second report does not fit altogether easily into the overall structure | οἱ μὲν ἄλλοῑ λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑ | . . . | Θεόπομποϲ̄ δ̆ε´ φη̄ϲῑν |, but offers points creditable to Theban bellicosity. The final participle displays impressive destruction: the second participial clause | καὶ . . . | δῐᾰπ̆επορ̄ θη̄κ̆ο´ τᾱϲ· | is divided into two rhythmic phrases. What precedes is emphatic too, and ο῞̆ λοῡϲ | and |

60

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose ̑ (καὶ τὰ) πλε̄ ιϲτᾰ reinforce each other on opposite sides of a rhythmic boundary.

Sometimes, however, relatively little emphasis falls on the meaning of the final verb which ends a sequence and forms a rhythmic entity; it is just the structural design which the rhythm brings out. Often in such cases the verb is not finite, or the structural design does not extend to an entire sentence or half-sentence (marked by a high point, ·). 65. Cor. 1.6 | ὅλωϲ μὲν οὖν ἐν το̄ ιϲ̑ τ̆ο´ τ̆ε χρ̆ο´ νοῑϲ | ἡ Ῥώμη μάλῑϲτᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ ρ̆ε τ̄ηϲ̑ | τὸ περὶ τὰϲ πολεμικ̄α` ϲ κᾱ`ι ϲτρᾰτῐ ̄ωτῐκ̄α` ϲ | ἐκύδαῑν̆ε πρ̄α´ ξεῑϲ, | καὶ μαρτυρεῖ τὸ τὴν ἀρετ̄η` ν ῠ῾ π’ ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ν | ἑνὶ τῶι τῆϲ ἀνδρείᾱϲ ο̆᾿ ν̆ο´ μᾰτῑ | προ̆ϲᾰγο̆ρε̄υ´ ε ϲ̄ θαῑ, | ‘in general at that time, it was the part of virtue which falls under warlike and soldierly deeds that Rome particularly gave glory to; witness to this is the fact that virtue is called by them with the single name of courage [i.e. uirtus]’. The weight here falls not on the final infinitive but on the preceding phrase, which opens with an emphatic | ἑνὶ (cf. 53). 66. Demosth. 26.5 ὥϲτε φωνὰϲ οὐκ εὐγνώμοναϲ ο̄υ᾿ δ’ ο῾̆ μο̆λο̆γοῡμ̆ε´ νᾱϲ | τοῖϲ ἐν τ̄ηι̑ πο̆λῑτε̄ ι´ᾱι | νεᾱνῐε̄υ´ μᾰϲῑν | ἀπομνη̄μο̆νε̄υ´ εϲ̄ θαῑ. | ‘hence there are recorded [from Demosthenes in exile] utterances which are not reasonable and do not accord with the highspirited remarks of when he was in the state’. Probably the striking penultimate word also forms a rhythmic unit on its own; it is there that the attention falls. 67. Eum. 1.6 . . . καὶ Νεοπτολέμου τοῦ ἀρχιυπαϲπιϲτοῦ μετὰ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου τελευτ̄η` ν λ̆ε´ γον̄ τοϲ̄ | ὡϲ αὐτὸϲ μὲν ἀϲπίδα καὶ λόγχην, Ε̄υ᾿ μ̆εν̄η` ϲ δ̄`ε | γραφεῖον ἔχων κᾱ`ι πῐνᾰκ̆ι´ δῐ ον̄ | η̄ ᾿ κο̆λο̄υ´ θεῑ, | ‘Neoptolemus, Alexander’s chief shield-bearer, [was mocked] for saying after Alexander’s death that he himself accompanied him with shield and spear, Eumenes with pen and writingtablet’. The stress falls on the formally subordinate participial clauses with ἔχων, and especially on the second two objects, which unlike the first two are given extra bite by rhythm. 68. Mar. 20.3 | καὶ κατεῖχε φρικώδηϲ ἦχοϲ̄ τ̆ο` π̆εδ̆ι´ον̄ , | τοὺϲ δὲ Ῥωμαίουϲ δέοϲ αὐτόν τε τὸν Μ̆α´ ρῐο̆ν ̄ ῎ε κπλη̄ξῑϲ, | ἄκοϲμόν τινα καὶ ταραχώδη νῡκτο̆μᾰχ̆ι´ᾱν | προϲ̄ δ̆εχ̆ο´ μ̆ενον̄ . | ‘the plain was filled with a terrifying sound, the Romans with fear, and Marius himself with astonishment: he was expecting a disorderly and tumultuous night battle’. Contrast the colourful verb at the end of the previous sentence (62 above).

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

61

CONTEXT As we shall see in the commentaries, the context often gives significance to an apparently simple rhythmic phrase. First a very straightforward example: 69. Dion. 28.1 | τῶν δ’ ἐν τῆι πόλεῑ Cῠρᾱκο̆ϲ̆ι´ ̄ων | οἱ μὲν γνώριμοι καὶ χαρίεντεϲ ἐϲθῆτα καθαρ̄α` ν ῎ε̆ χον̄ τε ϲ̄ | ἀπ̄η´ ντ̄ων ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̄α` ϲ π ̆υ´ λᾱϲ, | οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ τοῖϲ τυράννου φίλοῑϲ ε̆᾿ π̆ετ̆ι´θε ν̄ το ̄ | ‘of the Syracusans in the city, the well-known and genteel went in newly cleaned clothes to meet Dion at the gates, while the many attacked the tyrants’ friends’. In isolation, the first phrase might seem odd or might scarcely register, but it is part of a larger structure which rhythm helps to underline: cf. 27.1 τῶν κατ’ ἀγροὺϲ Cυρακοϲί ̄ων ᾰ᾿ νῑϲτᾰμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | ‘the Syracusans in the fields rose up in revolt’. Much more intricate is the impact of the apparently simple rhythmic phrase | τ̄η` ν δ̆`ε Ῥ̄ω´ μη̄ν | in the following passage; some of the words that add to its force have been underlined: 70. Caes. 33.1–2 ἐπεὶ δὲ κατελ̄η´ φθη̄ τ̆ο` Ἀ̆ ρ̄ι´ μῐνον, |h ὥϲπερ ἀνεωιγ μένου τοῦ πολέμοῡ πλᾰτε̄ ι´αῑϲ π ̆υ´ λαῑϲ [cf. Num. 20.1–3] | ἐπὶ πᾶϲαν ὁμοῦ τὴν γῆν κᾱ`ι θ̆α´ λᾱϲϲᾱν, | καὶ ϲυγκεχυμένων ἅμα τοῖϲ ὅροιϲ τ̄ηϲ̑ ε̆᾿ πᾱρχ̆ι´ᾱϲ | τῶν νόμων τῆϲ πόλεωϲ, οὐκ ἄνδραϲ ῎̄αν τῐϲ ̑ | ὥϲπερ ἄλλοτε ϲὺν ἐκπλήξει διαφοιτᾶν τ̄ηϲ̑ ̄ω᾿ ῑη´ θη̄ | κᾱ`ι γῠνᾱ ικᾱϲ ̆Ἰτᾰλ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | ἀλλὰ τ̄α` ϲ π̆ο´ λεῑϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄α` ϲ | ἀνιϲταμέναϲ φυγῆι δια φέρεϲθαῑ δῐ’ ̄α᾿ λλ̄η´ λ ̄ων, | 2. τ̄η` ν δ̆`ε Ῥ̄ω´ μη̄ν | ὥϲπερ ὑπὸ ῥευμάτ ̄ων πῑμπλᾰμ̆ε´ νη̄ν φῠγᾱ ιϲ̑ | τ ̄ω̑ν π̆ε´ ρῑξ δ̄η´ μ ̄ων | κᾱ`ι μ̆ετᾱϲτ̆α´ ϲ̆εϲῑν, | οὔτ’ ἄρχοντι πεῖϲαι ῥᾱιδ̆ι´ᾱν ο̄υ῏ ϲᾱν | οὔτε λόγ ̄ωι κᾰθεκ̄ τ̄η´ ν, | ἐν πολλῶι κλύδ ̄ωνῐ κᾱ`ι ϲ̆α´ λ ̄ωι | μικρὸν ἀπολιπεῖν αὐτ̄η` ν ῠ῾ φ’ ᾱυ῾ τ̄ηϲ̑ | ᾰ᾿ νᾰτ̆ετρ̄α´ φθαῑ. | ‘when Ariminum had been captured, it was as if war were opened with its wide gates against all the earth and sea together, and as if the laws of the City had been thrown into confusion along with the boundaries of the Empire. One would have thought it was not, as on other occasions, men and women travelling through Italy in terror, but rather that the cities themselves, rising up in flight, were being swept through one another. One would have thought that Rome, which was filled as if through floods by flights and depopulations of the surrounding peoples, and was not easy for a magistrate to control or speech to restrain, in abundant tumult and tossing of waves was very nearly overturned by her own self.’

62

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose OVERLAP

Sometimes one cannot avoid the ending of what is clearly a rhythmic phrase also providing the start of another rhythmic phrase. It is as if one wave pours into another, one might say. Although the phenomenon seems to be well attested in two other substantial authors, it is only employed with caution for this book, in case some readers remain dubious. It is in general marked only where there is an overlap of one long syllable; that is, the final syllable of a rhythmic close is also the first syllable of another. The first rhythmic close is marked by | . A more generous, and in my opinion more realistic, picture of overlap̆ would considerably modify our wider picture of how rhythm works in Plutarch’s text.11 71. Cam. 18.2 | τούτουϲ τοὺϲ φιτιαλε̄ ιϲ̑ Πομπ̆ ̄ ι´λῐοϲ̄ Νο̆μ̄αϲ̑ , | βαϲιλέων ἡμερώτατοϲ̄ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | κᾱ`ι δῐκαῑ ο̆ ´ τᾰτοϲ,̄ | κᾰτ̄ ε´ ϲτη̄ϲε ̄ | φύλακᾱϲ ̆ μ̆`εν ε̄ ᾿ιρ̄η´ νη̄ϲ | . . . ‘these Fetiales Pompilius Numa, the gentlest and justest of kings, made guardians of peace . . . ’. The μέν shows that a new rhythmic phrase begins after κᾰτ̄ ε´ ϲτη̄ϲε ̄ |, and the pair of matching superlatives demonstrates that a rhythmic phrase must end with δῐκαῑ ο̆ ´ τᾰτοϲ,. ̄ There would be a rhythmic close there even if we made | βαϲιλέων ἡμερώτατοϲ γενόμενοϲ κᾱ`ι δῐκαῑ ο̆ ´ τᾰτοϲ,̄ | a single phrase (despite the word-order). 72. Fab. 18.3 | ὅϲα μέντοι πρὸϲ ἱλαϲμοὺϲ θεῶν ἢ τεράτ ̄ων ᾰ᾿ πο̆τρο̆π̄α` ϲ | ϲυνηγόρεῡο̆ν ο̄ ῾ι μ̄α´ ντεῑϲ, | ε̆᾿ πρ̄α´ ττ̆ετο.̄ | ‘but they did carry out all ̆ the things which were recommended by the “prophets”, to appease the gods or avert prodigies’. The word-order indicates a significant clause-ending for the reader with ο̄ ῾ι μ̄α´ ντεῑϲ. ` ν | καὶ φρουρὰν ̄ ε᾿ γκᾰτᾱϲτ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ | 73. Alc. 30.10 | ἀλλὰ χρ̄η´ μᾰτᾰ λᾰβ̄ω ᾰ᾿ π̄ηλ̑ θε ν̄ . | ‘he simply took some money from them, installed a ̆ garrison, and left’. The parallel participial phrases make the ` ν. reader see a rhythmic close at ̄ ε᾿ γκᾰτᾱϲτ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ as at λᾰβ̄ω 74. Per. 6.4 | ὑπέκειτο γὰρ τῶι μέν, ̄ ε᾿ κ τ̆ι´ν ̄ων γ̆ε´ γο̆νε ̄ | καὶ π ̄ω̑ϲ π̆ε´ φῡκε ̄ | θεωρῆϲαι, τῶι δέ, πρ̄`οϲ τ̆ι´ γ̆ε´ γο̆νε ̄ | κᾱ`ι τ̆ι´ ϲη̄μᾱ ι´ νεῑ | προ̆εῑπε̄ ι ν.̑ | ‘it was the philosopher’s job to contemplate from ̆ what causes the phenomenon had arisen [the ram’s single horn] and how it was produced, the seer’s to predict for what 11

Cf. for Cicero Hutchinson (1995), 494 6, for Appian Hutchinson (2015a), 801.

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

63

purpose it had arisen and what it meant’. The parallel clauses lead the reader to see a close at ϲη̄μᾱ ι´ νεῑ. προειπεῖν could be viewed as non-rhythmic like θεωρῆϲαι, but the reader has the strongest reasons to take a sentence that ends ̆ as having a rhythmic close. 75. Ages. 33.1 | ὅτι τῶν ἐμφύτων αὐτῶι παθῶν, φιλονικίᾱϲ κᾱ`ι φῐλο̆τῑμ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | ᾰ᾿ ποϲ̄ τ̄α´ ϲ, | ‘he had distanced himself from his ̆ inborn passions, contentiousness and ambition’. The abstract nouns φιλονικία and φιλοτιμία are built in the same way; the pair is kept as an entity by punctuation. This calls for a rhythmic close at φῐλο̆τῑμ̆ι´ᾱϲ; φιλονικίᾱϲ κᾱ`ι φῐλο̆τῑμ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | forms a rhythmic phrase, after an unrhythmic close at παθῶν. Cf. also 22, 28, 45.

HIATUS Another major feature of prose in this period is the avoidance of hiatus between a vowel at the end of one word and a vowel at the beginning of the next (cf. e.g. Demetr. 299, Cic. Orat. 151 on the tradition and Isocrates’ place in it). How this very widespread tendency relates to rhythm is an interesting question. It seems clear from other rhythmic authors, such as Josephus or Appian, that the wish to produce rhythms can override the wish to avoid hiatus, just as Cicero will normally avoid a consonant after atque but will allow one to obtain or assist a rhythmic close. (More positively, the contravention in rhythmic situations of general norms makes the importance of rhythm in a text more conspicuous to the reader or listener.) The approach taken here is cautious, for the benefit of the hesitant. We can distinguish two phenomena. a) A rhythmic close can include very common words in hiatus (the article, common particles, disyllabic prepositions, unemphatic pronouns, etc.), and also proper names and numerals; but hiatus seems to be permitted with such words anyway, as does elision. b) Less common words are usually found in hiatus only (i) inside a rhythmic close (inside ̆ |, etc.) or (ii) between a close, rhythmic or sometimes unrhythmic, and the next word. (i) is the more significant contravention, since after a close, one would expect hiatus to be allowed, like brevis in longo:

64

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

there is a metrical pause. In Plutarch, however, (i) is more frequent than (ii). (i) itself is less frequent in him than in Appian, but it cannot be an accident that hiatus of type b) generally coincides with a closing rhythm (i.e. (i)) or the point of close (i.e. (ii)). The matter has a bearing on textual criticism: many considerable changes are introduced by Ziegler through awareness that hiatus is usually avoided but unawareness that rhythm can allow it. The text of Plutarch needs to be approached afresh on principle b). The number of instances offsets reasonable concerns about the MSS of Plutarch, which will no doubt have altered the original order sometimes (cf. e.g. the divergence among MSS at Demetr. 36.10, and ch. 14 on Pseudo-Appian). In this book, however, instances of rhythmic closes with hiatus are marked as |h, and the close, though scanned with longs and shorts, is not put in bold, to spare the feelings of the nervous. To escape any appearance of manipulation, the practice of Ziegler has normally been followed with regard to elision, even where hiatus rather than elision would produce a rhythmic close. It should also be borne in mind that where there is a rhythmic close with elision of a common word, an element of uncertainty remains. (It is common words that are liable in prose both to hiatus and, so papyri indicate, to elision.)12 The examples that follow are very short and their interest lies in the Greek vowels, so they are mostly left untranslated. A full discussion of hiatus in Appian can be found in an earlier piece; one may add further, for example, instances from the heavily rhythmic inscriptions of Antiochus I of Commagene, which indicate that a) is part of the conventions from the Hellenistic period on. So Inscription A (Dörner and Goell [1963], 36–91, Waldmann [1973], 80–97) col. i 10–11 12

See Hutchinson (2015a), 793 7. The classic treatment of hiatus is Reeve (1971). Papyri of rhythmical (as of unrhythmical) writers often vary between eliding and not eliding. So P. Oxy. LXXVIII 5153 (ii AD), Plut. Profect. col. i 8 ἀλλά not elided (no accents in this or the following papyri), ii 4 (and 18?) elided, 17 δέ evidently not elided; P. Oxy. IX 1173 (iii AD), Philo, fol. 1 verso 3 δενδρα ἀρετ[ῆϲ (δ̄ε´ νδρᾰ α᾿̆ ρ̆ε τ̄η ̑ϲ |h), fol. 1 verso 15, fol. 7 recto 20 δέ not elided, fol. 2 recto 2 (etc.) elided, fol. 5 verso 24 elided and elision marked, fol. 5 verso 7 and recto 14 τε not elided (in latter case producing rhythm, but not necessarily by intention), fol. 1 recto 6 αφ᾿ ηϲ, fol. 5 recto 13 δι ην, fol. 7 verso 18 ανθ υδατοϲ, 19 κατα αϲ̣[εβ]ων, fol. 7 recto 2 and 5 ἀλλά not elided, fol. 7 verso 3 τότε not elided, 17 ἅτε not elided; P. Colon. inv. 901 + P. Duk. inv. 722 (iii AD), Achilles Tatius (Willis [1990]) sometimes elides δέ (so col. i 44, iv 2), sometimes not (so col. i 29, ii 10; at iv 28 and more significantly v 3 a rhythm results), whereas in P. Oxy. X 1250 + LVI 3837 (ii/iii AD), Achilles Tatius, δέ is never elided, with diverse rhythmic results, but some other words are. Readers of these lightly marked up texts may have been expected to follow their rhythmic instincts, whatever a papyrus gave.

Rhythmic Prose in Plutarch’s Lives

65

(note parallelism) μνήμη̄ν τ̆ε ᾱι᾿ ω̄ ´ νῐον |h καὶ ν̆ο´ μο̆ν ᾰ᾿ κ̄ ι´νη̄τον̄ |, 26–7 | βίοῑϲ τ̆ε ̄η῾ μ̆ε τ̆ε´ ροῑϲ |h, 39 | διϲϲ̄η` ν δ̆`ε ε̄᾿ ντᾱυ θ̑ ᾱ |h, ii 50–1 | χρείαῑ τ̆ε ῾̆υδ̆α´ τ ̄ων |h, 87–8 (note pair) ἀμελίᾱϲ τ̆ε κᾱ`ι ῞̆υ βρ̆ε ̄ωϲ. |h; cf. I.Thrac. Aeg. 205.12 ο῞̆ τῐ τ̆ο` ε̄᾿ γκ ̄ω´ μῐον |h, 41 τ̆ο` ̆ι῾ ε̆ ρ̄`ον κ̄ο´ ϲμον· |h. Jos. BJ 1.647 will illustrate a) and b) (i) and (ii): τ ̄ω̑ν ̄α᾿ ρρ ̄ωϲτη̄μ̆α´ τ̄ων | ἐν γήραι κᾱ`ι α᾿̆ θῡμ̆ι´ ᾱι |h ε̆᾿ πῐπ̆εϲ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων· | . . . προήιρη̄το̆ α᾿̆ ν̆ε λε̄ιν.̑ |h (even in the particularly smooth Contra Apionem, note 2.160 | ο̄υ᾿ θ̆`εν ᾰ᾿ ν̆ε´ χονταῑ | ̄ ε᾿ ξᾰμᾱρτε̄ ι ν.̑ |, ̄ ῾ ´ ̑ 193 |h κοινὸϲ ἁπάντων κοινοῦ θεο̄υ ᾰ π̄αντων. ̄ |h). Further examples of a) in the vicinity are easily found, e.g. 599 ο̄ι῾ α᾿̆ δελφο̄ι´ . |h, 619 | ἥ τε μ̄η´ τη̄ρ κᾱ`ι ̄η῾ γῠνή. |h, 657 | ϲωτηρίᾱν τ̆ε ῎̄ηλπῑζεν |h, 661 | τᾱυ τ̑ ᾰ ε᾿̆ ν̆ε τ̄ε´ λλ̆ε το |h, 666 | ε̄᾿ι ϲ τ̆α` ῎̆ι δῐᾱ. |h.13 Examples of the frequent a): see above 33, where for | αἱ μεταβολᾱ`ι δ̆ε´ μοῑ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄η ̑ϲ [postpositive] |h ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ π̆α´ θη̄ δεῑν̄α` | Ziegler, to avoid the hiatus, conjectures δ᾿ αὐτῆϲ . . . δεινά μοι), 56, 70, and e.g.: 76. Per. 9.4 | αὗταῑ γ̆α` ρ ᾱι῾ α᾿̄ ρχᾱ`ι |h κληρωταί τ’ ἦϲαν ̄ ε᾿ κ πᾰλαῑο̄υ ,̑ |. Here τε shows that κληρωταί starts a new phrase. 77. Artox. 16.6 ε̄ι᾿ ϲ τ̆α` ε̄᾿ ντ̄ο´ ϲ. |h 78. Pomp. 44.3 ἥ τ᾿ ἀδελφ̄η` κᾱ`ι ̄η῾ γῠνὴ |h. Cf. Jos. BJ 1.619, just quoted. Examples of b) (i) (divergences from Ziegler’s text indicated e.g. by ‘Ziegler in text’: ‘Ziegler’ alone indicates the conjecture is kept in his apparatus): 79. Sol. 4.4 | τ̄ω̑ι ϲο̆φ ̄ωτ̆α´ τ ̄ωι | τὸν τρίποδᾰ α᾿̆ πο̆δο̄υ ν̑ αῑ. |h [δοῦναι Lindskog: παραδοῦναι Ziegler] 80. Luc. 11.2 ἀλλὰ τοῦτο δὴ τὸ λεγόμενον εἰϲ τὴν γαϲτ̆ε´ ρᾰ ε᾿̆ νᾱλλο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡ |h 81. Luc. 17.7 | ἦν μ̄`ε ν γ̆α` ρ ε̆᾿ ν ε̆᾿ φῑκτ ̄ω̑ι | τῆϲ διώξεωϲ ὁ ὑπεκφέρων τὸν ῎̄ανδρᾰ ῞̄ι πποϲ, |h ̑ | καὶ χλωρότη̄τᾰ 82. Flam. 3.5 | κάλλη̄ δ̆`ε δ̄ ε´ νδρ ̄ων | ̄ω῾ ϲ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι νοῑ [χλωρότηταϲ Ziegler, in text] υ῞̄ λη̄ϲ |h . . . ο̄υ᾿ χ ῎ε̆ χοῡϲῑν· |. The concrete use of the plural χλωρότητεϲ seems less idiomatic than that of κάλλη, cf. e.g. Curios. 520b–c, [Aristid]. Rhod. 9 ii.74 Keil.

13 Antiochus’ Ιnscription A offers elisions at i 45, ii 59, 61, crasis at ii 71. At Jos. Ap. 2.193 Niese, Naber, and Reinach rightly omit L’s ὁ κόϲμοϲ after θεοῦ ἁπάντων, as is shown by the Latin translation, Eusebius, and the context; cf. Niese (1889), xxii.

66

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose 83. Caes. 39.8 | ‘ϲήμερον ἂν ἡ νίκη παρὰ το̄ ιϲ̑ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´οῑϲ η̄῏ ν, | εἰ τὸν νικω̄ ̑ντᾰ ε̄῏ι χον.᾿ |h ‘“today victory would have been with the enemy, if they had had a victor”’. [νικᾶν τα Ziegler (‘a man who knew how to win’), coll. [Plut.] Reg. Imp. Apophth. 206d ἀλλὰ τὸν εἰδότα νικᾶν οὐκ ἔχουϲιν., etc.] The less banal text is secured, as Ziegler is not unaware, by Pomp. 65.8 | εἰ τὸν νικ ̄ω̑ντᾰ ε̄῏ι χον. |h [νικᾶν τ’ Ziegler]. Ziegler gives νικῶντ’ in the text, with an unusual elision, at Pomp. 65.8 but not at Caes. 39.8; the conjecture does not really help, since the elision of εἰδότα would be unusual too. 84. Mar. 18.8 | ῾τί οὖν᾿ ἔφαϲαν ῾οὐκ εὐθὺϲ ἡμᾶϲ ἄγεῑϲ ε̆᾿ π’ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ´ ϲ, | ἕωϲ ὑγρὸν τὸ ᾱ῟ιμᾰ ῎ε̆ χο̆μεν;᾿ |h 85. Artox. 3.4 καὶ ἐπειδὰν ἐκδύηται τὴν ἐϲθ̄η ̑τᾰ ο῾̆ βᾰϲῐλε̄υ´ ϲ, |h. Note that the article is second word in the hiatus, not first as prepositive, where it would count as a). 86. Galb. 8.4 ἀνακαλο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾰ ε̄υ᾿ εργ̆ε´ τη̄ν |h [εὐεργέτην ἀνακαλοῦϲα Ziegler]

Examples of b) (ii): 87. Phoc. 18.5 | οὕτω μὲν οὖν ἐπανῆλθε πάλῑν τ̆α` χρ̄η´ μᾰτᾱ [χρήματ’ in Ziegler’s text, with an unusual elision] |h ̄ ε᾿ ξ Ἀ̆ θη̄ν ̄ω̑ν, |. ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν is pointed, and merits a separate rhythmic phrase, cf. 18.1 | τούτ ̄ων κο̆μῑϲθ̄ ε´ ντ ̄ων | ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ Ἀ̆ θ̄η´ νᾱϲ, |. Less pointed, but still weighty, is εἰϲ τὸ Ῥήγιον at Tim. 19.6 ἐκ τῶν Βρεττίων καταβεβηκότεϲ ο̄ι῾ Κο̆ρ̄ι´ νθῐοῑ |h ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ τ̆ο` Ῥ̄η´ γῐον̄ , | [ita ΛKPBMVbZ: οἱ Κορίνθιοι post Ῥήγιον C, post Βρεττίων Ziegler, in textu]; note the significant position of place-names at beginning and end (and the change of tense from 19.3). 88. Pel. 12.7 | ̄η῾ δ̆`ε [δ᾿ Ziegler’s text] ε̄᾿ κκλη̄ϲ̆ι´ ᾱ |h ὀρθὴ πρὸϲ τὴν ὄψιν [πρὸϲ τὴν ὄψιν ὀρθὴ Sintenis; and so Ziegler’s text] μ̆ετ̆α` κρ̆ο´ τοῡ κᾱ`ι βο̆η̄ ϲ̑ | ̄ ε᾿ ξᾰν̄ ε´ ϲτη̄, |. 89. Sull. 11.2 | ὥϲτε φρίκην μὲν τῶι δήμωι, ἀθυμίᾱν δ̆`ε πολ̄ λ̄η` ν | Μιθριδάτη̄ι πᾰρᾱϲχεῖν, |. Here the close (μὲν τῶι δήμωι,) is unrhythmic.

3 Density in Plutarch After inspecting the parade of examples that ended the last chapter, the reader will have an idea of what goes into rhythmic phrases, and how they are exploited. The examples made apparent a connection of rhythm with attention and emphasis; that leads us to a further phenomenon which reinforces that connection, and shows it working with particular strength. The phenomenon will be the main focus of the book. It is the occurrence of passages where rhythmic closes are packed together with particular density. Here rhythm and writing call forth especially intense attention in the reading of those passages themselves; the whole passages in consequence stand out to the attention within the Lives they belong to. The passages show the power of Plutarch’s prose at a high degree; in doing so, they bring out vividly the wider nature of that prose, and encapsulate, in heightened form, what is characteristic of Plutarch’s work in general. They indicate too how much can be contributed by rhythmic reading to the detailed and the wide-ranging interpretation of the Lives. Some objections: it may seem implausible that there should be so many points of attention in a passage; if so much is being dwelt on, do the points of attention not cancel each other out? In the first place, we are dealing with relatively short passages; the concentration of attention, through density of rhythm, is a part of what makes these passages weighty. Secondly, there is nothing intrinsically unlikely in the drawing of attention to numerous words close together: one need only think of reading poetry. Thirdly, we shall see many examples of how this works in practice. A different objection might be that in such passages, we often have rhythmic phrases put together with no interval: does this flagrantly violate stipulations against continuous μέτρα or numeri (Demetr. 118, Cic. De Orat. 3.185; the broad approach at least goes back to Theophrastus)? We are talking of Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

68

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

passages infrequent within their Lives, which call for attention through being unusual; this is not a general violation of the approach. In any case, the violation was found in ‘some’ (Demetr. 118), and recalls criticisms of Asianic oratory. The theory likewise recommends being unobtrusive; but there is in general clearly a gap between the theory, which grows out of Aristotle and Theophrastus, and the practice, which grows out of Hegesias. It might be objected that rhythmic closes could come near together by chance. To avoid this objection, demanding criteria have been set for inclusion here: the passages should contain at least twenty phrases with rhythmic closes (including |h); nearly all the phrases should be short; there should be few unrhythmic closes in between. As often, for the sake of clarity and demonstration, the book deploys firm divisions in approaching material with many gradations. We shall see further grounds in due course for not regarding the density of these passages as accidental. Although we are concentrating on these especially dense passages, we shall see examples of other passages, and be able to compare. One should not think that this density is a specific style, assumed throughout a particular section; even in the extended form that we are considering, it often begins after the start of a section or finishes before its end.

CITY RELIGION DESTROYED To show the kind of thing that is being discussed, a dense passage from outside the Lives will serve as introduction. Plutarch’s philosophical writings are his home ground (like elegiac poetry for Ovid); the best way into the Lives is often through them. The most conspicuously dense passages in his work against a work of Epicurus’ pupil Colotes are brief passages in the second sentence and the closing sentence, and a more substantial one near the end of the work, Colot. 1125d–f. This last meets our criteria for inclusion. The dialogue (more of a monologue) is palpably designed to reach a climax with its final point, from 1124d on: a common plan in philosophical works, and akin to perorations. Colotes, coming to the end of his book, had praised lawgivers. The character Plutarch first pursues an unexpected line, that laws, thought necessary for civilization by Colotes, would

Density in Plutarch

69

not be necessary if Colotes allowed us to keep the views of other philosophers; Plutarch then proceeds to contend that Epicureanism undermines laws and cities, in particular through denying that the gods take an interest in the world. The passage 1125d–f forms a climactic point within that argument, as is apparent from the rhetoric; after it, there follows a run through individual philosophers, ending with Epicurus and Metrodorus.1 The significance of the density in the passage, to which we shall come in a moment, is to a considerable degree confirmed by the briefer density of most of the final sentence in the work (1127d–e): εἴπερ οὖν οἱ νόμουϲ καῑ` πο λ̆ ῑτεῑ´ ᾱϲ | ᾰ᾿ναῑροῡ῀ντεϲ̄ | τὸν βίον ἀναιροῡ῀ϲι ̆ το` ν̆ ᾱ᾿νθρω´ ̄ πινο ̆ ν̄ , | Ἐπίκουροϲ δὲ καὶ Μη̆ τ̄ ρο´ δω ̆ ̄ ροϲ̄ | τοῡ῀το ̆ ποῑοῡ῀ϲῑ, | τοὺϲ με` ν̄ ϲυν̆ η´ ̄θεῑϲ | ἀποτρέποντεϲ τοῦ τὰ κοῑνᾰ` πρᾱ´ ττεῑν | τοῑ῀ϲ δε` ̆ πρᾱ´ ττοῡϲῑν | ἀπε χ̄ θαν̆ ο´ με | τω῀ ̄ ν νομ ̆ ν̆ οῑ | τοῡ`ϲ δε` ̆ πρω´ ̄ τοῡϲ | καῑ` ϲοφ̆ ω̄ τα´ τοῡϲ ̆ ̆ οθ̆ ετω ̆ ῀ ̄ν | κακω῀ ̄ ϲ λε´ γο ̆ ν̄ τε ϲ̄ | τῶν δὲ νόμων παρακελευόμενοῑ περι ̆ φρο ̆ ν̆ εῑ῀ν, | ἐὰν μη` ̄ προϲ̆ η῀ ῑ φο´ βο ̆ ϲ̄ | πληγῆϲ καῑ` κολ̆ α´ ϲε ̆ ω ̆ ̄ ϲ, | οὐκ οἶδα τί τηλικοῦτο κατέψευϲται τῶν ἄλλω̄ ν ο῾ ̆ Κω̄ λω´ ̄ τηϲ̄ , | η῾ λι ̄ ´ κο ̆ ν̆ ᾰ᾿ληθ̄ ω῀ ̄ ϲ | τῶν Ἐπικούρου λόγων καὶ δογμάτων κατηγ̄ ο´ρη ̆ κ̄ ε ν̄ . |’ If those who destroy laws and states also destroy human life, and this is done by Epicurus and Metrodorus, when they turn their companions away from involvement in public activity and hate those who are involved, and abuse the first and wisest of lawgivers, and encourage people to scorn the laws, provided no fear of blows and punishment is in question then I don’t know what lie is told against other philo sophers by Colotes as monstrous as the true accusation he has made against Epicurus’ utterances and doctrines.

That sentence resumes the general attack on the Epicureans for undermining laws and cities. The rhetoric in the conditional clause is vigorous, and its density is plainly climactic, even if the very close, from | οὐκ οἶδα, deliberately slackens in sly depiction of Colotes as the accuser of Epicurus. The point is confirmed by the final two sentences of the companion-piece and sequel, Non Posse Suaviter: that passage grows to obvious density as grandiose views of an afterlife are expounded, but returns to looseness in showing the narrow views of Epicurus. The passage that we are about to consider is itself followed,

1 On the structure of the work and the expansion of the epilogue, cf. Kechagia (2011), 135, 137, 157 60. Her philosophical approach supports, and can be supple mented by, the rhetorical aspects of the structure.

70

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

to end the paragraph, by a somewhat less intense and less dignified sentence, which is rhythmically looser. The idea that the passage 1125d–f is dense with a purpose finds strong support from the structure of the work and from its own content and style. It will be a useful preparation for the following chapters if we see some of the considerations involved in scanning the passage. The density is apparent on various scansions; the reader need not agree on all the suggestions, and some points are uncertain. While considering the scansion, we shall also be starting to see how the rhythm promotes the vehement rhetoric of the impassioned argument.2 εὕροῑϲ δ’ α῍ ν̆ ε᾿ πι | ̆ ω ̆ ` ̄ ν | πόλεῑϲ ᾰ᾿τεῑχῑ´ ϲτοῡϲ, | ἀγραμμάτοῡϲ, ᾰ᾿βαϲ̆ ι λευ ̆ ´ τοῡϲ, ̄ ` ´ ´ ἀοίκοῡϲ, ᾰ᾿χρημ α τοῡϲ, | νομίϲματοϲ μη δε ο μ ε νᾱϲ, | ἀπείρουϲ θεάτρων καὶ ̄ ̆ ̄ ̆ ̆ ̆ γυμναϲίων· ἀνιέρου δὲ πόλεωϲ καὶ ἀθέου, μὴ χρω̄ με´ νη ̆ ϲ̄ ευ᾿ χαῑ ̄ ῀ϲ | μηδ’ ὅρκοιϲ μηδ̄ ε` ̆ μᾱντεῑ´ αῑϲ | μηδὲ θυϲίαῑϲ ε᾿ π’ ̆ ᾰ᾿γαθ̆ οῑ῀ϲ | μηδ̄ ’ ᾰ᾿ποτ̆ ροπ̆ αῑ῀ ϲ ` ϲ̄ θεᾱτη | γεγονω κα κ̆ ω῀ ν̄ | οὐδεὶϲ ε’´ϲτι ̄ ν̆ ου᾿ δ’ ̄ ε’´ϲταῑ ̄ ̄ | ἀλλὰ πόλιϲ ἄν μοι ̆ ´ ϲ· ` ῍ ᾿ ´ δοκεῖ μᾶλλον̆ ε δα χω̄ ρῑϲ | η ̄ πολ̆ ῑτεῑ´ ᾱ | τῆϲ πε ρι ̆ ῀ ̄ν δο´ ξη ̄ ϲ̄ | ̆ φοῡϲ ̆ ̆ ` ̆ θεω ´ ´ ῀ ῀ ῀ | ϲυϲτα | τοῦτο ὑφαιρεθείϲηϲ πᾱνταπᾱϲῑ ̆ ̄ ϲ̆ ῑν λαβ̆ εῑ ν | ἢ λαβοῡϲα ̆ τηρ̄ ηϲαῑ. ̄ με´ ντοῑ το` ̆ ϲυν̆ ε κ̄ τικο ̄ ̆ ` ν̄ | ἁπᾱ´ϲηϲ̄ κοῑνω̄ νι´ᾱϲ ̆ | καῑ` νομ ̆ οθ̆ εϲι ̆ ´ᾱϲ ̆ | ἔρεῑϲμα ̆ ` ´ καῑ` βα´ θρο ν , | οὐ κύκλω ι πε ρ ι ι ο ντε ϲ | οὐδὲ κρύφα καῑ δι ’ ̆ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̆̆̄ ̄ ̆ αῑ᾿ νῑγμα´ τω ̆ ̄ ν, | ᾱ᾿λλᾰ` τη` ν̄ πρω´ ̄ την̄ | τῶν κυριω̄ τα´ ̆τω̄ ν δοξ̄ ω῀ ̄ ν | προϲ̄ βαλ̆ ο´ ντε ϲ | εὐθὺϲ ̄ ̄ ´ με ᾰ᾿νατ̆ ρε´ ποῡϲῑν. | εἶθ’ ὥϲπερ ὑπὸ Ποινη῀ ϲ̄ ε᾿ λαῡνο ̆ ̆ ̆ ν̆ οῑ | δεῑνᾰ` ποῑεῑ῀ν | ο῾ μο ̆ λ̆ ογ̆ οῡ῀ϲῑ | ϲυγχέοντε ϲ̄ τᾰ` νο´ μι ̆ μᾱ ̆ | καὶ τὰϲ διᾰ τ̆ ᾱ´ξεῑϲ τω῀ ̄ ν νο´ μω ̆ ̄ν | ̆ ᾿ᾰναῑροῡ῀ ντε ϲ̄ , | ἵνα μηδὲ ϲυγγνώμηϲ̄ τυ´ χω ̆ ̄ ϲῑ. | (Colot. 1125d f ) οὐδεὶϲ ἔϲτιν: οὐδείϲ ἐϲτιν edd.

προϲβαλόντεϲ Apelt: προϲλαβόντεϲ codd.

One could find, by visiting them, cities without walls, or literacy, or kings, or houses, or possessions, that did not need coinage, that knew nothing of theatres or gymnasia; but an unholy city without gods, that did not use prayers, or oaths, or prophecies, or sacrifices to gain good things, or rituals to avert bad, there is and will be no one who has ever viewed it. I think a city could more come into existence without any ground to be on than a state could come into existence, or keep its existence once it had, if belief regarding the gods were entirely removed. This mainstay and basis, which holds together all shared life and every legal system, they instantly uproot, not going around it in a circle, not secretly and with riddles, but by thrusting against it the first of the most Fundamental Doctrines. After that, as if they were being driven by Vengeance, they admit they are doing something terrible in confound ing custom and destroying the setting up of laws, so that they may not even obtain forgiveness. 2

For some features of the comments, see p. 84.

Density in Plutarch

71

εὕροῑϲ δ’ ῍ᾰν ε᾿ πι | ̆ ω ̆ ` ν̄ | πόλεῑϲ ᾰ᾿τεῑχῑ´ ϲτοῡϲ, | ἀγραμμάτοῡϲ, ᾰ᾿ βαϲ̆ ιλ̆ ευ´ τοῡϲ, ̄ ἀοίκοῡϲ, ᾰ᾿χρημ | νομίϲματοϲ μη` ̄ δεο̆ μ | ἀπείρουϲ θεάτρων ̄ α´ τοῡϲ, ̆ ̆ ε´ νᾱϲ, ̆ καὶ γυμναϲίων·: it is not until the next part-sentence that the density runs along continuously; this opening part is subordinated to what `̆ ̄ ν | is suitably separated follows. The initial phrase εὕροῑϲ δ’ α῍ ν̆ ε᾿ πι ̆ ω from the long object that follows. The negative adjectives do not obviously divide themselves by meaning, but πόλεϲιν ἀτειχίϲτοιϲ etc. is a familiar phrase, which makes Plutarch’s point (Thuc. 1.5.1 πόλεϲιν ἀτειχίϲτοιϲ, Polyb. 10.31.5 πόλιν ἀτείχιϲτον, App. Mith. 418 ἀτειχίϲτουϲ πόλειϲ). So a division here is natural (and pairing with ἀγραμμάτουϲ would be odd). Once that division is made, the pairs come readily enough; νομίϲματοϲ μὴ δεομέναϲ is sufficiently different to stand alone. ἀνιέρου δὲ πόλεωϲ καὶ ἀθέου, μὴ χρω̄ με´ νη ̆ ϲ̄ ευ᾿ χαῑ ̄ ῀ϲ | μηδ’ ὅρκοιϲ μηδ̄ ε` ̆ ᾿ ῀ ᾿ μᾱντεῑ´αῑϲ | μηδὲ θυϲίαῑϲ ε᾿ π’ ᾰ γα θ οῑ ϲ | μη δ ’ ᾰ πο τ ̆ ̆ ̄ ̆ ροπ̆ αῑ῀ϲ κακ̆ ω῀ ̄ ν | οὐδεὶϲ ` ᾿ ´ ’ε´ϲτι ’ ´ | γεγονω̄ ϲ θεᾱ̆ τηϲ· ̄ ν̆ ου δ’ ̄ εϲταῑ ̄ ̄ |: it would be possible, in view of the word-order, to scan ἀνιέροῡ δε` ̆ πο´ λε ̆ ω ̆ ̄ ϲ. But ἀθέου is vital for the argument, which ἀνιέρου does not make alone, so it seems better to keep the pair together, and have an unrhythmic close after ἀθέου. In what follows, | μηδὲ θυϲίαῑϲ ε᾿ π’ ̆ ᾰ᾿γαθ̆ οῑ῀ϲ | and | μηδ̄ ’ ᾰ᾿ποτ̆ ροπ̆ αῑ῀ϲ κακ̆ ω῀ ̄ ν | form an obvious pair of phrases, with opposite meanings in the last word and for the first weighted word parallel nouns in –αιϲ. Once these are made into rhythmic phrases, μηδ̄ ε` ̆ μᾱντεῑ´αῑϲ | must also be a phrase or end one (| μηδε̆` ο῞ρκοῑϲ |h would be an entirely possible articulation, but the policy in the book is to follow the whim of recent editions). 1125d εὐχαῖϲ καὶ ὅρκοιϲ καὶ μαντεύμαϲι καὶ φήμαιϲ might support having no break after εὐχαῖϲ here. But χράομαι is idiomatic with εὐχή: cf. Plat. Laws 3.688b6–c1 [misunderstood by England], Juba FGrHist 275 F 53a (Plutarch), [Dion. Hal.] Rhet. 2.6 ii.264.14–15 Usener-Radermacher, 4.3 ii.271.21, Hierocl. Prov. ap. Phot. Bibl. cod. 251 465a vii.203.31 Henry. Hence μὴ χρω̄ με´ νη ̆ ϲ̄ ευ᾿ χαῑ ̄ ῀ ϲ | should be a phrase, with μηδέ . . . μηδέ κτλ. adding other things on to it (it is not the same as μὴ χρωμένηϲ μήτ’ εὐχαῖϲ μήθ’ . . . ). The familiarity of the phrase again helps the character Plutarch’s argument. ἔϲται γεγονώϲ could hardly be a grammatical periphrasis for γενήϲεται; rather, οὐκ ἔϲτιν οὐδ’ ἔϲται etc. are common phrases (e.g. Soph. fr. 189.2 Radt), and the participial clause is added like the relative clause in Xen. Cyr. 5.4.30 οὔτε γὰρ ἔϲτιν οὔτ’ ἔϲται ποτὲ ὅτωι . . . ; Dem. 21.143 οὐδὲν οὔτ’ ἔϲτιν οὔτ’ ἔϲται . . . ὅτι . . . θεατὴϲ γίγνομαι is common instead of a simple verb, cf. e.g. Plut. Cic. 47.10, Fort. Rom. 325d. The neatness of οὐδεὶϲ ἔϲτιν οὐδ’ ἔϲται requires a separate rhythmic entity.

72

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

| ἀλλὰ πόλιϲ ἄν μοι δοκεῖ μᾶλλον̆ ε᾿ δα χω̄ ρ`ῑϲ | η῍ ̄ πολ̆ ῑτεῑ´ ᾱ | τῆϲ ̆ ´ φοῡϲ ̆ περι | ϲυ´ ϲτα ̆ ` ̆ θεω ̆ ῀ ̄ ν δο´ ξη ̄ ϲ̄ | ὑφαιρεθείϲηϲ πᾱντα´ πᾱϲῑ ̆ ̄ ϲ̆ ῑν λαβ̆ εῑ῀ ν | ἢ λαβοῡ῀ ϲα ̆ τηρ̄ η῀ ϲαῑ. |: ἀλλᾰ` πο´ λι ̆ ϲ̆ ἄν μοῑ δοκ̆ εῑ῀ | could be taken as a ̄ separate phrase, but μᾶλλον needs to go with what precedes as well as what follows, so that the split would be uncomfortable. τῆϲ περὶ θεῶν δόξηϲ is a fixed and crucial phrase, which needs to stand on its own: cf. 1125d | πρω῀ ̄ το´ ν̆ ε ϲ̄ ̓ τῑν | ἡ περ̆ `ι ̆ θεω ν̄ , |, and e.g. ̆ ῀ ̄ ν δο´ ξᾱ ̄ | καῑ` με´ γῑϲτο ̆ ῀ Non Posse Suav. 1101c ϲῡγκεκ̆ ρᾱ ϲθαι | τῆι περ̆ `ι ̆ θεω ̆ ῀ ̄ ν δο´ ξη ̄ ῑ | κοινὸν αἰδοῦϲ καῑ` φο´ βοῡ πα´ θο ̆ ̆ ϲ̄ , |, c | δεῖ με` ν̄ γᾰ`ρ ᾰ᾿με´ λεῑ ̆ | τῆϲ περ̆ `ι ̆ θεω ̆ ῀ ̄ ν δο´ ξη ̄ ϲ̄ | ̓̄ ́ ω ν̆ ι´ ᾱν· ὥϲπερ οψε ̆ |. πολιτεία well ̆ ̄ ϲ λη´ μη ̄ ν̄ | ἀφαιρεῖν τὴν δεῑϲιδαῑμο ̆ deserves rhythmic isolation, to mark its distinction from πόλιϲ. ὑφαιρεθείϲηϲ παντάπαϲι is emphatic enough to form a separate entity; compare the less loud ἀναιρήϲει from Colotes himself at 1124d. (ὑφ- need not suggest deviousness: cf. Tuend. San. 132c ὑφαιρετέον, 135a ὑφαίρεϲιν.) λαβοῦϲα shows that ἢ λαβοῦϲα τηρῆϲαι forms a distinct phrase from ϲύϲταϲιν λαβεῖν. το` ̆ ϲυ ν̆ ε κ̄ τι κο | τοῦτο με´ ντοῑ ̆ ` ν̄ | ἁπᾱ´ϲηϲ̄ κοῑνω̄νι´ ᾱϲ ̆ | καῑ` νομ̆ οθ̆ ε ϲ̆ ι´ ᾱϲ ̄ ̆ | ` ´ ´ ἔρεῑϲμα ̆ καῑ βαθρο ̆ ν̄ , | οὐ κύκλω̄ι περι ̆ ῐ ο̆ ντε ̄ ϲ̄ | οὐδὲ κρύφα καῑ` δι ’̆ αῑ᾿ νῑγμα´ τω ̆ ̄ ν, | ᾱ᾿λλᾰ` τη` ν̄ πρω´ ̄ τη ν̄ | τῶν κυριω̄ τα´ τω ̆ ̄ ν δο ξ̄ ω῀ ̄ν | προ ϲ̄ βα λ̆ ο´ ντε |: ἔρειϲμα καὶ βάθρον should be ̄ ϲ̄ | εὐθὺϲ ᾰ᾿νατ̆ ρε´ ποῡϲῑν. ̆ separated as a clear synonymous pair (and they are later paired in Christian writers). Similarly ἁπάϲηϲ κοινωνίαϲ καὶ νομοθεϲίαϲ should as a pair be separated from what precedes and follows; but each term is significant enough independently to form a distinct entity: lawgiving is at the centre of the argument, and human coexistence is important too. The two parts of the negative participial clause should also be separated. The first is strongly military (cf. Fab. 5.2, Pel. 29.5, etc.); the phrase κύκλωι περιιών/όντ-, with small variations, occurs ten other times in Plutarch, and in all but one it invites scansion as a separate rhythmic phrase (that one is Ant. 65.5, where it forms part of a more complicated structure). In the second part, κρύφα in itself has a little military suggestion; but as after the οὐδέ it is closely joined to δι’ αἰνιγμάτων, the pair is predominantly verbal (cf. E Delph. 385c τὰ πολλὰ τῶν περὶ τὸν θεὸν ἔοικεν αἰνίγμαϲι κατ̆ ακ̆ εκ̆ ρῡ´ φθαῑ |). τῶν κυριωτάτων δοξῶν is not just sarcastic inflation of Epicurus’ title Κύριαι Δόξαι (Diod. Sic. 25.1, Luc. Alex. 47, Diog. Laert. 10.27, 31, etc.), but is making an argument about the prominence of the doctrine; to this argument τὴν πρώτην adds in a parallel quasisuperlative (for the position of Epic. 5.1 Arrighetti cf., besides Diog. Laert. 139 and the Vatican Gnomology, Diog. Oen. fr. 29 lower

Density in Plutarch

73

marg., Smith [1993], 195). τὴν πρώτην and τῶν κυριωτάτων δοξῶν ought then to belong to distinct rhythmic entities. Cf. Brut. 10.6 | ου᾿ χι |; and in the sentence just quoted ̄ ` ̆ τοῡ` ϲ πρω´ ̄ τοῡϲ | καῑ` κρατ̆ ι´ ϲτοῡϲ ̄ 1127e | τοῡ`ϲ δε` ̆ πρω´ ̄ τοῡϲ | καῑ` ϲοφ̆ ω̄ τα´ τοῡϲ |; Pel. 24.6 ὁ γὰρ πρῶτοϲ ω῾ ̄ ϲ ̆ ´ ´ ε῎ οῑκε | καὶ κυριω τα τ ο ϲ νο μο ϲ . |. προϲβαλόντεϲ needs in any case to be ̆ ̄ ̄ ̆ ̄ ̆ ̄ preceded and followed by a rhythmic division, but the word is colourful and energetic (‘ut scalam muro’ Pohlenz). The conspicuous assault is important to the argument. It will be seen how the sequences οὐ κύκλωι . . . οὐδὲ κρύφα . . . πρώτην . . . κυριωτάτων, πρώτην . . . εὐθύϲ, οὐ ( . . . ) περιιόντεϲ . . . προϲβαλόντεϲ, οὐ κύκλωι περιιόντεϲ . . . εὐθὺϲ ἀνατρέπουϲιν are all underlined and strengthened by the rhythmic organization. ´ με | εἶθ’ ὥϲπερ ὑπὸ Ποινη῀ ϲ̄ ε᾿ λαῡνο ̆ ̆ ν̆ οῑ | δεῑνᾰ` ποῑεῑ῀ν | ο῾ μο ̆ λ̆ ογ̆ οῡ῀ ϲῑ | ᾿ ῀ ντε ϲ̄ , | ´ ῀ ´ ᾰ ναῑροῡ ϲυγχέοντε ϲ̄ τᾰ` νο´ μι μᾱ | καὶ τὰϲ δι α τ ᾱ ξεῑϲ τω ν νο μω ν | ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆ ̄ ̆ ̄ ̆ ἵνα μηδὲ ϲυγγνώμηϲ̄ τυ´ χω ̆ ̄ ϲῑ. |: the divisions are mostly established by the syntax. The verb | ο῾ μο ̆ λ̆ ογ̆ οῡ῀ϲῑ | stands out triumphantly in its separate phrase. One could scan, with a resolution of ̆ not ̆ , | δεινὰ ποιεῑ῀ν ο῾ μο ̆ λ̆ ογ̆ οῡ῀ ϲῑ |. In this book, however, while Cicero’s supposed favourite ēssĕ uĭdĕātūr | has generally been given priority, | ̆ ̆ ̆ | has commonly been allowed where, before it, a reader would most naturally complete another rhythmic phrase. τὰϲ διατάξειϲ τῶν νόμων is cardinal in the argument, and worth making a distinct phrase, with an overlap to the participle. So Colotes’ sentence had begun τὸν βίον οἱ νόμουϲ διατάξαντεϲ καὶ νόμιμα . . . (1124d; it seems neater for νόμιμα to be governed not by καταϲτήϲαντεϲ but by διατάξαντεϲ, for which cf. Diod. Sic. 13.29.3). At 1125c comes | νόμουϲ θεμένων καὶ πολιτείαϲ καὶ ἀρχὰϲ καὶ νόμων διάταξιν., and at d ἧϲ γε καὶ Κωλώτηϲ̄ ε᾿ παῑνεῖ | διατᾱ´ ξεω ̆ ̆ ̄ ϲ τω῀ ̄ ν νο´ μω ̆ ̄ ν. Colotes’ combination νόμουϲ . . . καὶ νόμιμα is split up here between two participial clauses; both participles, | ϲυγχέοντε ϲ̄ and ᾰ᾿ ναῑροῡ῀ντε ϲ̄ , |, are given further force by the rhythmic structuring. This much shorter sentence puts the confession in the middle; at the start comes the imaginary cause, the compulsion of Ποινή, and at the end her purpose. Both cause and purpose are made more vigorous by rhythm. The divine agency takes up the start of the peroration, where Colotes, like those who have sinned against the divine, confesses his own misdeeds (1124d); the passage also takes up a striking passage in oratory on the internalization of Ποινή (Aeschin. 1.191). The fiercely negated ϲυγγνώμηϲ̄ is the first weighty word in its rhythmic phrase, and part of the rhythmic close; rhythm makes the

74

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

reader dwell on its tone. But the phrase as a whole savagely assails the Epicureans’ own apparent aim. The analysis of the passage as densely rhythmic is confirmed in detail through the use of parallels and the careful reading of the text. The climactic significance of the passage had been made visible by the structure of the work and by the nature of the passage itself. The existence of meaningfully dense passages is starting to emerge.

DENSITY LISTED Now we may proceed to a list of the passages in the Lives which in my opinion meet the criteria mentioned. The allocation of closes is sometimes debatable, and some imprecision must attend the weighing up of interruptions to a consecutive run of short rhythmic phrases; so it may be that other people would omit some passages here included or include some here omitted. But there is no particular importance in these arbitrary boundaries, and indeed if we looked at passages that had at least ten phrases with rhythmic closes, the picture would not be very different. In the following list, Lives that have no passages of twenty phrases etc. are put in brackets; mention is not made of Comparisons that do not have them—the great majority of Comparisons do not. Bold numerals in square brackets give a means of reference to the passages in what follows. (Theseus) Romulus: [1] 7.6 (ἀλλ’ οὐδέν)–8 (speech of Remus); [2] 14.5–6 (Rape of Sabine Women) Comparison of Theseus and Romulus: [3] 30 (1).2 (| οῠ῝ϲ ᾰ᾿ναῑρω῀ ̄ν |)– 7 (great deeds of Theseus in particular against tyrants, Ariadne’s philosophical love) (Solon) (Poplicola) Themistocles: [4] 6.1 (| τοῡ`ϲ με` ν̆ α῎ λλοῡϲ |)–5 (Themistocles gains ̄ power in Athens and leads Athens and Greece against Persians) Camillus: [5] 3.2–5, esp. 3–4 ( should be put before τῆϲ) (supernatural sign); [6] 10.1 (from | τοὺϲ δὲ παῑ῀δαϲ̆ αυ᾿ τω ̄ ῀ ̄ν |)–6 (paradigmatic story of schoolmaster of Falerii, including

Density in Plutarch

75

reported ethical speech from Camillus); [7] 39.4 (Camillus abdicates from fourth dictatorship, just awarded, through strife with plebs; note briefer density for reversal at 40.2 | οὗτοϲ δ᾿ὁ φόβοϲ κτλ.) Aristides: [8] 6.3 (| ἀφθάρτωι)–4, cf. rest of 3 and 5 (philosophical expatiation on ἀρετή as supreme among things that make us godlike) Cato Maior: [9] 19.4–5 (Cato’s achievement and statue) Cimon: [10] 17.5–18.1 (Cimon’s exile revoked; noble death of friends; subordination of ambition to patriotism) Lucullus: [11] 38.1–2 (Lucullus back in Rome; his marriage to Cato’s daughter fails, and he gives up on politics, at a vital juncture for the state) (Pericles) Fabius: [12] 12.1–3 (especially from ἀλλὰ καῑ` το` ̆ μ̄ ε´ λλον̄ | to | καῑ` φι λ̆ ο´ πα ̆ τ̆ ρῑϲ. |) (Fabius starts to turn disaster of Romans round); [13] 26.3 (and first part of 4) (Fabius in opposition to the successful Scipio) Nicias: [14] 18.6–10 (and some density in rest of chapter) (Nicias’ high point: he is thought to be winning in Sicily); [15] 26.4 (| καῑ` τᾰ` μῑκρο´ τα ̆ τ̆ ᾱ |)–6 (Nicias and Athenian retreat) Crassus: [16] 14.4–5 (and last part of 2) (the triumvirs’ relations down to Crassus’ catastrophe); [17] 23.7–24.3 (beginning of disaster); [18] 25.12–14 (death of Crassus’ son [son a point of comparison with father]); [19] 26.6–9 (Crassus’ speech; his response to son’s death and peril of army); [20] 30.2–5 (Crassus goes to his death) Comparison of Nicias and Crassus: [21] 35 (2).1–4 (comparison of Crassus with Nicias in political morality; Crassus’ greatness, and his rivalry with Caesar and Pompey) Coriolanus: [22] 15.1–4 (to πρὸϲ τὸ ϲῡμβεβ̆ ηκ̄ο´ ϲ |, possibly preceded ῀ ϲ |h) (Coriolanus defeated in election; feelings of by ου᾿ δε` ̆ ε᾿ πι ̆ ε̆ ῑκω people and Senate); [23] 16.6–7 (and last part of 5, and 17.1–2) (Coriolanus’ speech; people and city); [24] 18.2–3 (and last part of 1, cf. also 7–19.1) (drama of dispute reaches height; Coriolanus condemned to death); [25] 38.1–3 (cf. also 4 and 7) (philosophical exploration of prodigy at saving of Rome)

76

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose Alcibiades: [26] 27 (Alcibiades wins sea-battle for Athenians, to whom he will return; speed and vicissitude of events) (Demosthenes) (Cicero) (Phocion) Cato Minor: [27] 14.2–5 (Pompey’s admiration and fear of Cato; their interaction); [28] 40 (debate, with reported speeches; relations with Cicero); [29] 68 (leading up to suicide: reading Plato, angry speech to son [smaller patches of density as narrative proceeds]) Dion: [30] 9.3–6 (cf. some of 2) (fear and isolation of Dionysius I, and upbringing of Dionysius II); [31] 14.5–15.1 (scene between Dion and Dionysius II; Dion expelled; fall of tyrant thought imminent) Brutus: [32] 10.4–6 (intense exchange between Cassius and Brutus on Brutus joining cause; leads to reconciliation); [33] 13.7–9 (Porcia’s speech to Brutus on their relationship and the secret); [34] 29.2–3 (comparison of Cassius and Brutus; Brutus’ virtue); [35] 40.7–8 (Brutus’ speech to Cassius on suicide, in their last time together) Aemilius: [36] 13.6–7 (Aemilius’ reported speech and orders to troops) Timoleon: [37] 1.2–4 (first chapter; dire situation of Syracuse and Sicily; tyrants); [38] 12.4–7 (victory of Timoleon through swift action; reported speech to troops [cf. 36]; note 13.1: this victory presages what is to come); [39] 35 (summation of Timoleon’s achievements; he is wanted everywhere) Sertorius: [40] 27.2–5 (last chapter; Perpenna in contrast with Sertorius; civil war in Rome averted; Pompey’s shrewdness) Eumenes: [41] 6.4–6 (Eumenes’ unique generalship in thwarting Craterus’ plan); [42] 9.3–5 (opening demonstration of greatness in adversity [see 9.1–2]); [43] 14.1–2, cf. 3–4 (Macedonians recognize that only Eumenes is a real general); [44] 17.6–11 (speech of captured Eumenes to his men) Philopoemen: [45] 15.7–11 (Philopoemen shows that he is truly virtuous [α῎ ρῑϲτο ϲ̄ . |]) ̆ Flamininus: [46] 4.8–12 (victory over Philip V)

Density in Plutarch

77

Pelopidas: [47] 28.2–4 (heroic exchange of captured Pelopidas with tyrant); [48] 33.2–4 (extreme reaction of Thessalians and others to Pelopidas’ death) (Marcellus) Alexander: [49] 63.2–6 (valiant and near-fatal leap of Alexander among Malli) Caesar: [50] 16.3–6, cf. 1 (spectacular deeds of prowess by Caesar’s devoted soldiers); [51] 58.4–7 (Caesar’s grandiose plan for future conquests, driven by his lofty ambition); [52] 66.1–3, cf. 7, 9–12 (killing of Caesar) Demetrius: [53] 28.8–9 cf. 1–7 (change to tragedy; Antigonus’ relationship with Demetrius his son); [54] 30.2–31.1 (over Athens, Demetrius loses equanimity in failure; philosophical excursion); [55] 34.4–7 (generous treatment of Athens); [56] 43.5 (from μῆκοϲ)–7, cf. 3–4 (greatness of Demetrius’ ships, and forces and plans; contrast with Ptolemy IV, whose huge ship just for show) Antony: [57] 35.3–7 (speech of Octavia to Octavian; peace) Pyrrhus: [58] 11.8 (from | ἐπεὶ δέ)–14 [this does not depend on deleting τὸν Πύρρον at end of 9, although rhythm adds to the temptation, cf. e.g. Cat. Min. 58.7] (Pyrrhus becomes king of Macedonians; contrast with Demetrius) Marius: [59] 27.2–4 (‘most tragic’ mass killing of own families and suicide by barbarians, including women); [60] 46.1–3 (last chapter; philosophers’ happiness with fortune at death; contrast with Marius) Aratus: [61] 24.5–6 (Aratus’ position among, and dedication to, Achaeans; his outlook; league of cities like a body) Artoxerxes: [62] 29.5–8, cf. 9–11 (end of conspiracy; death of king’s son Darius); [63] 30.5 (from | ὥϲτε φάρμακον ϲκεῡᾰ´ϲᾱντᾱ |) to 9 |; cf. also from δόξαϲ) (last chapter; death (δυϲθυμίᾱϲ ᾰ᾿πε ϲ̄ βε´ ϲθη, ̄ of king’s son Ariaspes, killing of king’s son Arsames, death of Artoxerxes) Agis: [64] 16.6–17.5 (Leonidas’ attack on Cleombrotus, noble support of Cleombrotus’ wife); [65] 17.9–18.3 (last part of her speech; Cleombrotus saved); [66] 19.5–21.1 (death of Agis; death of grandmother and valiant death of mother)

78

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose Cleomenes: [67] 34 (13).2 (from οὐχ οὕτω)–3 (cf. latter part of 1) (Cleomenes’ unique and accessible regal style, absence of wealth [exemplar of ϲωφροϲύνη ‘restraint’: 1]); contrast with other kings) Ti. Gracchus: [68] 15.4–7 (cf. also 2) (speech of Tiberius on tribunate; specimen of eloquence [cf. 1]); [69] 21.4–7 (with Fuhr’s ἱεροῦ καῑ` ᾰ᾿ϲῡ´λοῡ |h) (last chapter of Life of Tiberius; anger of people at Tiberius’ death; fate of killer, treatment of opponent) C. Gracchus: [70] 36 (15).3–5 (speech of Gaius’ wife; her collapse) (Lycurgus) Numa: [71] 16.5–7 (agriculture and peace; Numa’s approval and encouragement of agriculture); [72] 20.4–5 (peace brought to Italy by Numa) (Lysander) Sulla: [73] 11.3–5 (to Μαλέαϲ ε ν̄ ̓ το` ϲ̆ ῞ῑ δρῡνταῑ |) (range of Mithridates’ success) (Agesilaus) Pompey: [74] 54.6 (ἢ γὰρ ἀπᾱλλαγ̆ η´ ϲε ,̄ |) ̄ ϲ̄ θαῑ |)–8 (| δοκιμάϲᾱϲ ῞ελοῑτο ̆ (debate; Cato surprisingly supports Pompey’s sole consulship); [75] ῀ ϲε´᾿,̆ εῑ῀᾿ πεν̆ ,῾ α῎ νερ, |h)–75.1 (Cornelia and Pompey’s 74.5 (from῾ ὁρω ̆ speeches to each other after Pharsalus); [76] 78.5 (from τέναγοϲ̄ γᾰ`ρ εῑ̓ ῀ναῑ πολ̆ ῡ ́ |)–7 (Pompey welcomed aboard and departs to death); [77] 79.1 (from οὐδε` ν̄ προϲ̆ εῑπω´ ̄ ν |)–5 (death of Pompey) Galba [78] 25.3 (| ἐξήκουον̄ )–7 (Ziegler’s better put after τῶι Γάλβαι) (surprising growth of support for Otho; alarm for Galba); [79] 26.8–27.4 (cf. 26.5) (valour of Sempronius Densus, alone worthy of Empire; death of Galba) (Otho)

THE LIST PONDERED It does not look as though these passages occur at random. The demanding criteria already make randomness unlikely, as do parallel phenomena in Cicero and Appian, and the passages do not look like a series hit on with eyes shut and a pin. The first feature in the list that arrests notice is that out of the twenty-two pairs of Parallel Lives (Agis

Density in Plutarch

79

and Cleomenes and the Gracchi seem to form a single pair), fourteen—almost two-thirds—present more such passages in the second Life than in the first; in five, the two. .are equal; in. . three, the first has .. more such passages (14, 5, 3 are 63.6 3 , 22.7 2 , 13.6 3% of 22; the figure . . for first Lives, 3, is 21.428571% of the figure for second Lives, 14). This does not resemble chance. The specifics are as follows: Theseus 0, Romulus 1; Solon 0, Poplicola 0; Themistocles 1, Camillus 3; Aristides 1, Cato Maior 1; Cimon 1, Lucullus 1; Pericles 0, Fabius 2; Nicias 2, Crassus 5; Coriolanus 4, Alcibiades 1; Demosthenes 0, Cicero 0; Phocion 0, Cato Minor 3; Dion 2, Brutus 4; Aemilius 1, Timoleon 3; Sertorius 1, Eumenes 4; Philopoemen 1, Flamininus 1; Pelopidas 2, Marcellus 0; Alexander 1, Caesar 3; Demetrius 4, Antony 1; Pyrrhus 1, Marius 2; (Aratus 1; Artoxerxes 2;) Agis and Cleomenes 4 (3 + 1), Gracchi 3 (2 + 1); Lycurgus 0, Numa 2; Lysander 0, Sulla 1; Agesilaus 0, Pompey 4; (Galba and Otho 2 [2 + 0]). The fourteen include two of the three pairs where the Greek Life comes second (Timoleon, Eumenes)—that is, where the usual ordering has deliberately been changed. The reasons for the preponderance of second Lives over first will have something to do with Plutarch’s design of each book as an entity (each pair formed one book, cf. e.g. Demosth. 3.1). It would accord with common principles of structuring in the period that the second half should seek a stronger impact (Polemon’s pair of declamations gives a simple example). In the five pairs where the non-Roman Life shows a higher number of such passages, the non-Romans have a considerable claim to higher standing: three kings (Demetrius, Agis, Cleomenes), two great figures in the wars of the Diadochi (Eumenes, Demetrius), two fourth-century heroes (Timoleon, Pelopidas). At all events, the study of rhythm has implications for the Lives on a large scale, and leads us into challenging issues of interpretation.3 Other aspects of these passages link to the structure of individual Lives: some come actually in the last chapter (40, 60, 63; cf. 69, last 3 The notion that a stronger impact should most often be sought for the second Life raises interesting questions for the balance of the two Lives and for the relation of Greek and Roman Greeks do rather well in the Synkriseis. (Duff [2000] stresses the importance of balance in the Synkriseis, and their difficult relation, sometimes, to the narratives.) But similar questions enhance the complexity of other works of Greek literature: so the Iliad treats the Trojans as inferior to Greeks, but also treats them with equal sympathy. In the case of the Lives, the questions are related to the generic and intellectual complexity of a work that is both historical and philosophical.

80

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

chapter of third Life in quartet), some at the death of the principal figure (52, 66 [first Life in quartet], 77, and so in non-parallel Lives 63 and 79, the latter at least composed earlier than the Parallel Lives). Other passages lead into that death (20, 29, 35, 41; 60) or present responses to it (48, 69). But further deaths can come in too (10, 18, 59, 62, 63); in some cases (18, 62, 63) the deaths of the principal person’s sons lead into or accompany his own death. The passages can also belong to larger disasters in which the principal is involved (15, 17, and indeed 18 and 19). Achievements can be summed up, in notable language (39, 72; at an earlier point 9). Beginnings are less conspicuous (37 in the first chapter), though sometimes the, or a, situation which the figure confronts is set up (30, 37; 73, Mithridates). The passages often attach to key moments in the person’s life or the series of events: failure or defeat late on (7, 11; 54 [response to failure]; cf. 13), or earlier (22, 24, 31), or reversal of exile (10, cf. 26), or important victories (12, 26, 38, 46), or victory and deceptive success (14). It looks as if the passages are making themselves conspicuous within bigger structures, as if density of rhythm is, among other things, a means of calling forth attention in a large context. These points seem enough to show that the passages do not occur randomly. If the phenomenon of density is not accidental, it bears some significance; the only plausible way to make sense of that significance is to suppose that the passages are marked out. They may be marked out, as we have seen, within big contexts, and so may perform important roles within the work. We may now look at two further features that recur often among the passages, and consider things that these signalled moments might be doing within the Parallel Lives. Basic to the Parallel Lives is the idea of comparison. One of the things that these passages would most bring out, through the extra highlighting they gave, is the importance of comparison and the comparative mode throughout the Lives: the official comparison is just the beginning. That would seem a valid point independently of these passages; but attention drawn by spotlighted pieces of writing would make this element all the more evident. The passages can involve comparison with the due parallel person (3, 21, from Synkriseis), but we see comparison more widely with other figures in the narrative (21 [other triumvirs], 27, 34, 40, 56, 58) or even outside it (56, 60), or with other kings or generals more broadly (67; 41, particular contrast with Craterus, cf. also 43). The comparing in these passages often happens through the thoughts or comments of

Density in Plutarch

81

characters in the narrative; but the comparative sensibility should alert the reader to observe comparison even where it is not explicitly stated: so with 27 cf. 74. Comparison is very clear with many scenes involving women (so 33 [cf. Brut. 13.11, 23.7], 64, 66, 75); relationships with sons also have an intrinsically comparative dimension (so 18 with 19 and 20; 53, 63 [Ochus]). This could be thought to conjoin with the interactive element in the passages: interaction can show comparison in practice (so 13). In any case, the passages again look rather unlike the fruits of a miscellaneous lucky dip. There are things to which they are perhaps helping to draw the reader’s notice.4 Philosophy is another recurring element in the passages, blending in with other intellectual concerns. The whole project is pervaded by a philosophical sensibility, and naturally this is apparent to the reader who begins from Plutarch’s philosophical writings. But we can again see what the dense passages could contribute, by intensifying attention to important dimensions of the work as a whole. As the dense passages would help to underline, part of the point of the work’s quasi-historiography is philosophical, and historical and philosophical approaches are in fruitful cooperation and sometimes fruitful tension. Some of the dense passages offer direct philosophical expatiation (8, 25, 54, 60) and philosophical discussion or exemplification (3, 34, 42, 45). The philosophy includes ethics and politics; often the philosophy is implied through the comments of characters (so 6, 9, 61, 67; 35 explicitly philosophical discussion from character). Philosophical lines of thought can lead into description of conduct that acquires a philosophical tinge (so 55 after 54). Courage with a philosophical resonance is seen in confrontation with a tyrant (47). Tyrants are an intense philosophical and political concern of the work (3, 30, 31, 32, 37, 39, cf. 69); so is kingship (e.g. 67, 72). Ambition and the notion of greatness put the relationship between philosophical and historical outlooks under more strain (10, 51, 56). Politics is an area of both historical and philosophical interest; it combines historical awareness of elements in the city at strife in particular moments (so 7, 22) with thought about structures within and beyond the city 4 For comparison running through Plutarch cf. e.g. Russell (1966), 150 1, Moles (2017), 43 4. The papers in Humble (2010) are primarily focused on the official parallels of the pairs; Stadter (2010) goes beyond it to connect different pairs, rather than to look more closely inside each Life. The element of comparison, through different sex or age and related character and situation, goes back to Homer, particu larly the Odyssey.

82

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

(so 23, 61, 68). The intellectual foundations of the work, then, could be made the more conspicuous through these highlighted passages.5 On a stylistic level, some passages particularly mark themselves out by their departure from expression like that of history into elevation and opulence (39, 61, 72); strings of asyndetic negatives are especially of note. Explicit references to tragedy show the connotations that this density can sometimes possess (53, with a structural significance; 59, which turns aside from the concerns implied by the structure). It may be thought that Plutarch often refers to tragedy, so that the occurrences are by chance. Yet actually he does not often use the stem τραγ- to mean something like ‘tragic’ in modern usage, or ‘with the terrible pathos of tragedy’ (it more often indicates overdone show or refers to literal tragedies; exceptions are Pomp. 9.4, Galb. 12.5).6 Notable is the frequent association of the passages with speeches, whether direct or (so 6, 28, 36, 37) reported, whether in political meetings (23, 28, 68, 74) or military contexts (19, 36, 37, 44), or in exchanges, sometimes substantial and impassioned, with individuals, including friends and members of one’s family (29, 32, 33, 35, 57, 70, 75). The aim for the passage of displaying eloquence as well as character is at one point explicit (68, on Ti. Gracchus). Naturally the rhythm in fact creates a difference for the reader from expectations of secondcentury BC Roman oratory; Tiberius’ oratory is to be seen as recast and refined by Plutarch.7 It might none the less be contended that this association with speeches is fortuitous, since there is much speech in the Parallel Lives; but more substantial speech, as seen in many of these passages, is less frequent than one might expect in Plutarch. The passages concentrate themselves on speeches at particularly weighty and significant moments. The moments and the utterance are probably enhanced together. Plutarch is not just automatically falling back here on rhetorical fashions which he might have imbibed during his education (fashions that could be apparent e.g. in the notably rhythmic piece De Fortuna Romanorum, 316c–326c). No doubt an oratorical resonance adds something to the more public speeches in particular; but within these passages the alleged actual words, either directly heard or filtered through report, bring the reader especially 5 6 7

An important work on the ethical dimension of the Lives is Frazier (1996). Cf. esp. De Lacy (1952). On the lack of rhythm in C. Gracchus, see Hutchinson (2013), 234.

Density in Plutarch

83

close to the crises as felt and faced by the characters—or rather historical figures. This consideration of aspects and forms in these dense passages should suffice to confirm that we are not dealing with the chance occurrence of high numbers, and to suggest what the passages accomplish. Examination of all the passages in their contexts would further indicate that each stands out and calls for attention; the commentaries that follow will illustrate how there is often more to a passage than at first appears. That more is partly drawn to the reader’s (or listener’s) notice through the rhythm. It is not maintained that all intense passages are densely rhythmic, nor that all densely rhythmic passages are intense: the emphasis or attention which rhythm helps to bring about is not a monochrome matter of strengthened emotion. That would be like thinking that a marking of musical passages as loud had only one function. Rather, rhythmic density is a potent tool which can be used for a range of purposes. Some of these purposes seem large; the attention drawn to and by these passages is perhaps of importance for the work as a whole. At any event, by seeing how rhythm operates in these passages, we may see how rhythm works more widely, and what it has to offer interpretation. These are the most extreme examples of what rhythm accomplishes, and so provide the most vivid display. The hope is that with the aid of these examples, readers will start to look at Plutarch’s prose in a different way, and find their entire intellectual and aesthetic experience of that prose lastingly altered.

SORT-OF-COMMENTARIES Most of the passages in the rest of the book are of the rhythmically dense kind that we have been discussing. For the sake of comparison, a few longer extracts of less dense passages have been included; so, for one Life, have rhythmically dense passages that fall beneath the criterion of twenty closely set rhythmic closes. The last part of the book looks, for further comparison, at passages in works of two novelists who write rhythmically and one who does not. In addition, much further material appears, less dense or not rhythmic, in the passages from various authors that are adduced for comparison with or illumination of a given passage. Particularly important passages are put in an appendix at the end of each chapter.

84

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

The form that is used for exploring the role of rhythm has already been insinuated upon the reader in what precedes. It is a curious version of the commentary, a format which seems uniquely well suited for making close reading palatable. The commentaries on the passages are not complete in scope, as if they were extracts from a commentary on a particular Life. They do address interpretative issues, and go beyond longs and shorts: part of the point is to show that rhythmic analysis must be integrated into larger criticism, for the sake of both—as if it were metre in a Latin poem. But virtually everything that is mentioned arises from, and was suggested by, the rhythmic analysis. That analysis is a crucial way into the reading of Plutarch, for the closer and deeper understanding of his words that it generates; at the same time, the points to which it guides the reader have support independent of rhythm. Hence the discussion would have significance even for someone who denied that rhythm had any relation to meaning. But it will give so much confirmation for connecting rhythm and attention that such a denial would be difficult to sustain. To avoid the suspicion of tampering to suit a rhythmic case, the text for the passages largely follows Ziegler for Plutarch, Reardon for Chariton, Vilborg for Achilles Tatius, and Rattenbury and Lumb for Heliodorus; occasionally, none the less, other possibilities are indicated, and very occasionally there are divergences. When the first main word after a rhythmic close is mentioned, that position is sometimes shown by giving the rhythmic close, then any prepositives or the like in brackets, then the word in which we are interested: so ‘| (καὶ) ἀπολέϲθαῑ’. As with quotes that have already been given, punctuation is most often included at the end of a rhythmic quotation: it is of interest rhythmically. At the end of quotations, even of single words, grave accents are usually left unsharpened; grammatical cases are usually left as in the text. Since the form is as of a commentary, quotations are not translated. Despite that form, however, these are in no sense proper commentaries. Little reference is made to editions and translations, although some have been very useful (not least the Budé and Xylander). While the treatment is taken by rhythm into other areas, there is no attempt to provide systematic discussion and bibliography on the historical and literary questions that the passages raise. It would have been agreeable to include much more reference to scholarly work on history, archaeology, and especially Plutarch; but, as explained, I follow advice and limit the commentaries severely. From time to

Density in Plutarch

85

time some pointers are left to the reader, in order to show the fuller contexts in which this rhythmic and stylistic analysis belongs. In this and other respects, the differences among the commentaries do not pose a problem, as they would if they were parts of a full commentary on one Life. The diversity may actually be welcome rather than annoying, and the broad increase in detail as we proceed should help the reader get further into the subject. Even in the later passages not every rhythmic close will be discussed, although most will; there is actually something to say about every one of them, but the reader deserves a little mercy.

4 Life as Art (Plutarch, Timoleon 35) 1. | τὰϲ μὲν οὖν τυρανν̆ι´δᾰϲ ο̆῾ Τ ῑμο̆λ̆ε´ ̄ων | τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆ε´ κοψ ̄ ε ̄ | καὶ τοὺϲ πολέμοῡϲ ῎ε̆ λῡϲε ·̄ | τ̄η` ν δ᾿ ο῞̆ λη̄ν ν̄ηϲ̑ ον̄ , | ἐξηγρι ̄ωμ̆ε´ νη̄ν υ῾̆ π̆ο` κᾰκ̄ω̑ν | καὶ δῐᾰμ̆εμῑϲη̄μ̆ε´ νη̄ν | ῠ῾ π̆ο` τ ̄ω̑ν ο̄ ᾿ι κη̄τ̆ο´ ρ ̄ων | πᾰρᾰλᾰβω̆ ´ ν, | οὕτωϲ ἐξη̄μ̆ε´ ρ ̄ωϲε ̄ | ̆ καὶ ποθεινὴν ἐποίη̄ϲ̆ε π̄αϲ̑ ῑν, | ὥϲτε πλεῖν οἰκήϲον̄ τᾰϲ ε̆῾ τ̆ε´ ροῡϲ | ὅθεν ο̄ ῾ι ᾿ ´ ̑ πο̆λ̄ ι ταῑ | πρότερον ᾰ π̆εδ̆ιδρᾱϲκον̄ . | 2. καὶ γὰρ Ἀκράγᾱντᾰ κᾱ`ι Γ ε̆ ´ λᾱν, | πόλειϲ μεγάλαϲ μετὰ τὸν Ἀ̄ ττῐκ̄ο` ν π̆ο´ λ̆εμον̄ | ὑπὸ Καρχηδονίων ἀναϲτάτουϲ γεγενημέναϲ, τ̆ο´ τ̆ε κᾰτ ̄ω´ ικῐϲᾱν, | τὴν μὲν οἱ περὶ Μέγιλλον καὶ Φέρῑϲτο̆ν ̄ ε᾿ ξ Ἐ̆ λ̆ε´ ᾱϲ, | τὴν δ’ οἱ περὶ Γόργον ἐκ Κῶ πλεύϲαντεϲ κᾱ`ι ϲῠνᾰγᾰγ̄ο´ ντε ϲ̄ | τοὺϲ ἀρχαίοῡϲ πο̆λ̄ ι´ τᾱϲ· | 3. οἷϲ οὐ μόνον ̄α᾿ ϲφ̆α´ λεῑᾱν | ἐκ πολέμοῡ το̆ϲο̄υ´τοῡ | κᾱ`ι γᾰλ̄η´ νη̄ν | ἱδρυομένοῑϲ πᾰρᾱϲχ ̄ω´ ν, | ἀλλὰ καὶ ῞ ϲπ̆ερ ο̄ ᾿ικῑϲτ̄η` ϲ | η̄ ᾿ γᾰπ̄ατ̑ ο.̄ | τ̄α῏ λλᾰ πᾰρᾱϲκεῡ̆α´ ϲᾱϲ | καὶ ϲῡμπρο̆θῡμη̄θε̄ ι´ ϲ, | ̄ω ` ´ ῾ 4. καὶ τῶν ἄλλ ̄ων δ̆ε δῐᾰκεῑμ̆εν ̄ων | ὁμοί ̄ωϲ ᾰ π̄α´ ντ ̄ων | πρ̆ο` ϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ ν, | ο̄υ᾿ πο̆λ̆ε´ μοῡ τῑϲ λ̆υ´ϲῑϲ, | ο̄υ᾿ ν̆ο´ μ ̄ων θ̆ε´ ϲῑϲ, | οὐ χώρᾱϲ κᾰτοῑκῑϲμ̄̆ ο´ ϲ, | οὐ πολιτείαϲ διάταξιϲ ἐδόκεῑ κᾰλ ̄ω̑ϲ ῎ε̆ χεῑν, | ἧϲ ἐκεῖνοϲ μ̄η` προ̆ϲ̄α´ ψαῑτο ̄ | μηδὲ κατακοϲμήϲειεν ὥϲπερ ἔργωι ϲῡντ̆ελοῡμ̆ε´ νωι | δη̄μῐοῡργ̄ο` ϲ | ἐπιθε̄ ι´ ϲ τῐνᾰ χ̆α´ ρῑν | θεοφιλῆ κᾱ`ι πρ̆ε´ ποῡϲᾱν. | 2 Κῶ Pais: Κέω codd.

In this way Timoleon rooted out the tyrannies and ended the wars. He took over the whole island, which its fortunes had made savage and hated by its inhabitants, and he made it so civilized and attractive to all that new people came to live in the places which previously the citizens had run away from. Acragas and Gela, great cities that had been ransacked by the Carthaginians after the war with Athens, were repeopled at this time: Acragas by Megellus and Pheristus who sailed from Elea, Gela by Gorgus who sailed from Cos, and brought together the old citizens. Timoleon not only gave them when they settled security and calm after such a great war; he provided them with everything else and shared in their enthusiasm. Consequently he was loved as if he were the founder. Everyone else felt the same way about him; so no ending of war, no giving of laws, no colonization of a land, no setting up of a constitution seemed to be right if Timoleon was not involved in it, and did not adorn it like a craftsman who adds to a work that he is finishing an attractive quality dear to the gods and apt. Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

88

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Our exploration of rhythmically dense passages starts with one that is conspicuously individual in style. The requisite run of close rhythmic endings occurs in 3–4, but 1 shows a briefer density. Near the end of the Life of Timoleon, Plutarch comments on his achievement in Sicily; Timoleon arrived in 345/4 BC, achieved his aims by 339/8, and died in 334. (For his impact and approach cf. Consolo Langher [1964], 172–202, [1997], 165–91, Talbert [1974], Castrizio [2000], 26–31, Congiu et al. [2011].) Plutarch draws on Timaeus and possibly other sources for points and phrasing, as is apparent from 36.2 (passage 1 in the Appendix to this chapter) and from the similar wording in Nepos (passage 4). (Diodorus’ account is unlikely to be based on Timaeus, cf. Talbert [1974], 25–38; on sources and structure in Plutarch here cf. also e.g. Westlake [1938], 71–2, Swain [1989], 319–20, Tatum [2010], Miano [2012].) Timaeus’ lavish praise of Timoleon was well known, its extravagance controversial (cf. Polyb. 12.23.4–7, Cic. Fam. 5.12.7 [FGrHist 566 F 119 (a), (c)], Marcell. Thuc. 27). Plutarch is taking a stance; but he is also competing with Timaeus. Timaeus, as is apparent from the fragments (e.g. F 11, 18), did not imitate Hegesias’ rhythmic way of writing. Plutarch’s account does not merely turn the statements of Timaeus (and possibly others) into exalted rhythmic praise, but uses Timaeus’ poetic quotation to reach a refined ethical judgement, through comparison; he does this especially in the less dense continuation (1), but starts here. 1. | τὰϲ μὲν οὖν τυρανν̆ι´δᾰϲ ο̆῾ Τῑμο̆λ̆ε´ ̄ων | τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆ε´ κοψ ̄ ε̄ | καὶ τοὺϲ πολέμοῡϲ ῎ε̆ λῡϲε ·̄ |: the structure of the brief half-sentence, articulated through the rhythm, presents tyrannies and wars as twin evils ended by Timoleon. They are to be set, as objects of his action, against the island, which he restores; but each also receives a distinctive verb, brought out by the rhythm: violent for the tyrannies, light for the wars. Even this half-sentence moves in a positive direction. | τ̄η` ν δ᾿ ο῞̆ λη̄ν ν̄ηϲ̑ ον̄ , |: Sicily receives an entire rhythmic phrase; the amplitude is expressive. The general assertion of the sentence will turn out in 2 to grow from particular instances. | ἐξηγρι ̄ωμ̆ε´ νη̄ν ῠ῾ π̆ο` κᾰκ ̄ω̑ν | καὶ δῐᾰμ̆εμῑϲη̄μ̆ε´ νη̄ν | υ῾̆ π̆ο` τ ̄ω̑ν ᾿ ο̄ ι κη̄τ̆ο´ ρ ̄ων | : the parallelism takes over the syntax, although the ills are not really̆ parallel to the inhabitants and would not usually be given ὑπό and the genitive. The inhabitants are the more important for what follows, and have their own rhythmic phrase. | οὕτωϲ ἐξη̄μ̆ε´ ρ ̄ωϲε ̄ | καὶ ποθεινὴν ἐποίη̄ϲ̆ε π̄αϲ̑ ῑν, |: ἐξη̄μ̆ε´ ρ ̄ωϲε ̄ | takes up | ἐξηγρι ̄ωμ̆ε´ νη̄ν, with a similar beginning in sound; ποθεινὴν takes

Life as Art

89

up δῐᾰμ̆εμῑϲη̄μ̆ε´ νη̄ν |. Each of the four in effect begins a rhythmic phrase. π̄αϲ̑ ῑν, | takes up ο̄ ᾿ι κη̄τ̆ο´ ρ ̄ων | . The rhythm contributes to the ̆ joyful neatness of the structure. ̑ | ὥϲτε πλεῖν οἰκήϲον̄ τᾰϲ ε̆῾ τ̆ε´ ροῡϲ | ὅθεν ο̄ ῾ι πο̆λ̄ ι ταῑ | πρότερον ᾰ᾿ π̆εδ̆ι´δρᾱϲκον̄ . |: the rhythm accentuates words and so points the ̑ | is set against ε̆῾ τ̆ε´ ροῡϲ |, πλεῖν οἰκήϲον̄ τᾰϲ against argument; ο̄ ῾ι πο̆λ̄ ι ταῑ ᾿ᾰ π̆εδ̆ι´δρᾱϲκον̄ . |. The point of πολῖται might escape notice altogether were it not spotlighted by the rhythm. The ‘others’ seem actually to be the leaders of the recolonization, whether or not οἱ περί includes more than the individuals themselves. The epideictic rhetoric suggests more than it actually offers: a flood of new people rather than a few organizers. 2. | καὶ γὰρ Ἀκράγᾱντᾰ κᾱ`ι Γ̆ε´ λᾱν, |: it turns out that only two cities are actually in question here; καὶ . . . καί makes the most of them. (See Talbert [1974], 153–9 for the two cities, Congiu [2011] for Gela; on the depopulation of Gela cf. Diod. Sic. 14.68.2.) This half-sentence is less densely rhythmic than what surrounds it: suitably so, since it moves away from Timoleon as subject. The passage is mainly general recapitulation, leading into 36; but the specific events here provide the impetus, before the universal claims of 35.4. 36.7 glides back into narrative. A specific incident is used in 37.1–3 to make a larger point. The narrative continues at 37.4, but with a massive series of participial clauses to encompass the achievements, before main clauses turn to Timoleon losing his sight (37.7). Thus the rhythmic magnificence of 35 comes at the start of the summation. Talk of 36–9 as the epilogue is misleading. Κῶ: Asheri (1970a) argues plausibly for Pais’s easy change, in the light of what is now IG 12.4.1.223 (242 BC), where they are οἰκιϲταί of Gela (21); cf. also Herzog (1928), 45, and for Elea Asheri (1970b). 3. | οἷϲ οὐ μόνον ̄α᾿ ϲφ̆α´ λεῑᾱν | ἐκ πολέμοῡ το̆ϲο̄υ´τοῡ | κᾱ`ι γᾰλ̄η´ νη̄ν | ἱδρυομένοῑϲ πᾰρᾱϲχ ̄ω´ ν, |: after the matching of ̄α᾿ ϲφ ᾰ ´ λεῑᾱν | and πολέμοῡ το̆ϲο̄υ´τοῡ |, a rhythmic phrase is added in κᾱ`ι γᾰλ̄η´ νη̄ν | which offers a more evocative word. The reference of πολέμοῡ is not altogether clear (the phrase is taken, with or without change, from Plutarch’s source [Timaeus?], as Nepos’ ex maximo bello tantum . . . indicates, passage 4). It certainly takes up πολέμουϲ from the start. Timoleon is not denoted by name or pronoun; he effortlessly takes over the syntactic structure. ῞ ϲπ̆ερ ο̄ ᾿ι κῑϲτ̄η` ϲ | η̄ ᾿ γᾰπ̄ατ̑ ο.̄ |: the climactic οἰκιϲτήϲ is thrown into | ̄ω relief by the rhythm; it contrasts with the mere κατώικιϲαν of the

90

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

people who actually seem more like the new founders. The word would have less impact without the rhythmic close after it. Nepos’ conditor is in any case less stressed, after the emphatic hic; cf. non illi (see in passage 4 ut hic conditor urbium earum, non illi qui initio deduxerant, uideretur). The laudatory tone encourages the thought that both writers are drawing on Timaeus; ϲύγκριτοϲ . . . τοῖϲ ἐπιφανεϲτάτοιϲ τῶν ἡρώων in Polyb. 12.23.7 probably does not refer to founders, cf. 23.4 (could e.g. Heracles be in question at both places?). The verb is important too, as is shown by what follows. ϲῡμπρο̆θῡμη̄θε̄ ι´ ϲ, | prepares the emotional bond. 4. | καὶ τῶν ἄλλ ̄ων δ̆`ε δῐᾰκεῑμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | ὁμοί ̄ωϲ α῾̆ π̄α´ ντ ̄ων | πρ̆ο` ϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ ν, |: the discussion now broadens back into generalization; ̆ what follows will let Timoleon take credit for everything as an indispensable component. The word-order here is interlaced, instead of say τῶν ἄλλων δὲ ἁπάντων ὁμοίωϲ πρὸϲ αὐτὸν διακειμένων, and puts ὁμοίωϲ and ἁπάντων together in a rhythmic entity. | ο̄υ᾿ πο̆λ̆ε´ μοῡ τῑϲ λ̆υ´ ϲῑϲ, | ο̄υ᾿ ν̆ο´ μ ̄ων θ̆ε´ ϲῑϲ, | οὐ χώρᾱϲ κᾰτοῑκῑϲμ̄ο´ ϲ, | οὐ πολιτείαϲ διάταξιϲ ἐδόκεῑ κᾰλ ̄ω̑ϲ ῎ε̆ χεῑν, |: after the intricate argument in the first part of the passage, the rhythm now creates a sort of lyrical sequence. A series of more than three parallel οὐs is uncommon in the Lives (Pel. 34.4 is different); there are two other instances, one not part of the Parallel Lives and their edifice. See passages 2 and 3 in the Appendix; 3 is part of another sequence dense by our criteria. Both of these start from a rhythmic phrase which joins two single words, each ̑ ν̄ , | and | οὐ πλο̄υ τ̑ ο̆ν, ο̄υ᾿ δ̄ο´ ξᾱν, |. negated: | οὐ φυτὸν ὁρ ̄ω̑ϲῐν, ο̄υ᾿ ῥε̄ ι θρο Negation of single words with asyndeton is the norm for this device (in what follows the only time with three members or more in the author, unless otherwise stated): so Hom. Od. 24.246–7 (six members, μέν with the fourth), Hdt. 8.98.2 (Persian post; four members), Lys. 6.30 (four members; cf. also 32.16), Aeschin. 1.105 (six members), Dem. 18.310 (seven), 20.78 (four), cf. also 23.63. Verb and noun: Xen. Ages. 7.1 (three, followed by two lone nouns), Isae. 11.6 (four members). In the present passage, unusually, we have four parallel phrases of verbal noun and genitive, first, second, and fourth in –ϲιϲ; the first three are contained each in their own rhythmic phrase, while the last is part of the rhythmic phrase which contains the predicate. The result is elaborate and stately as well as ardent. | ο̄υ᾿ πο̆λ̆ε´ μοῡ τῑϲ λ ̆υ´ ϲῑϲ | again takes up τοὺϲ πολέμοῡϲ ῎ε̆ λῡϲε·̄ | from 1, | οὐ χώρᾱϲ κᾰτοῑκῑϲμ̄ο´ ϲ, | takes up κᾰτ̄ω´ ικῐϲᾱν | from 2, and ο̄ ᾿ι κῑϲτ̄η` ϲ | from 3. The legal and constitutional phrases on either side (| ο̄υ᾿ ν̆ο´ μ ̄ων θ̆ε´ ϲῑϲ, |

Life as Art

91

. . . | οὐ πολιτείαϲ διάταξιϲ) enhance the idea of Timoleon as a foundational figure like Solon or Lycurgus. The basic point comes in Nepos (passage 4), but without the exalted string of negatives. μ̄η` προ̆ϲ̄α´ ψαῑτο ̄ | μηδὲ κατακοϲμήϲειεν ὥϲπερ ἔργωι ϲῡντ̆ελοῡμ̆ε´ νωι | δη̄μῐοῡργ̄ο` ϲ |: the ordinary προϲάψαιτο is followed by a verb which can have artistic connotations (so Plat. Phaedr. 252d7). That leads us into the explicitly artistic comparison. The ϲυν-, which could, but need not, mean ‘together with someone’ cunningly shifts the sentence to the idea that the arrangements Timoleon took part in were his creation. | ἐπιθε̄ ι´ ϲ τῐνᾰ χ̆α´ ρῑν | θεοφιλῆ κᾱ`ι πρ̆ε´ ποῡϲᾱν. |: the τῐνᾰ χ̆α´ ρῑν |, and the final phrase, prepare for the argument that is to come in the next section (passage 1). That section is less intense rhythmically: it meditates on the deeds rather than presenting them. But its conception of the aesthetic attraction in Timoleon’s deeds reflects back on to this passage: not only is there an aesthetic dimension to his achievement, but the paraded beauty and exaltation of the writing fit and capture that dimension. The later passage, in an essay-like manner, expands our conception of the work we are reading. The basis of the thought there, as we have seen, comes from Timaeus. He already quotes poetry in a notably essayistic fashion, but Plutarch here prepares the point in a near-simile with an almost unbroken run of rhythms, and in passage 1 extends it into an intricately organized structure of thought, rhythm, and cultural expertise. The passage in the next chapter of the book, to warn the reader, presents a deliberate contrast to Tim. 35: it is an extended passage without the kind of sustained density that is our main concern. But there as in Tim. 35–6 we shall see shifts and structures; the constant is Plutarch’s art.

Appendix: Plut. Tim. 36.2–4, Cras. 22.1, Arat. 24.5, Nepos, Timol. 3.2, 5 1. Plut. Tim. 36.2 4 . . . 2. τῶν δὲ Τιμολέον̄ το̆ϲ ̄῎εργ ̄ων, | ἔξ ̄ω λ̆ο´ γοῠ θ̆εμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ | τὴν περὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἀνάγκην, οὐδέν ἐϲτιν ὧι μὴ τὰ τοῠ ̑ Cο̆φο̆κλ̆ε´ οῡϲ, | ὥϲ φη̄ϲῐ Τ̄ ι´ μαῑ οϲ̄ , | ἐπιφωνεῖν ἔπρεπεν ὦ θεοί, τίϲ α῏ ρα Κύπριϲ ἢ τίϲ Ἵμεροϲ τοῦδε ξυνήψατ’;

92

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

3. καθάπερ γὰρ ἡ μὲν Ἀντιμάχου ποίηϲιϲ καὶ τὰ Διονυϲίου ζωγραφήμᾰτᾰ τ ̄ω̑ν Κο̆λο̆φ ̄ων̆ι´ ̄ων | ἰϲχὺν ἔχον̄ τᾰ κᾱ`ι τ̆ο´ νον̄ , | ἐκβεβιαϲμένοιϲ καὶ καταπόνοῑϲ ῎ε̆ οῑκε ,̄ | ταῖϲ δὲ Νικομάχου γραφαῖϲ καὶ το̄ ι ϲ̑ Ὁ̆ μ̄η´ ροῡ ϲτ̆ι´χοῑϲ | μετὰ τῆϲ ἄλληϲ δυνάμεωϲ καὶ χάριτοϲ πρόϲεϲτι τὸ δοκεῖν εὐχερῶϲ καὶ ῥαιδί ̄ωϲ ᾰ᾿ πεῑργ̄α´ ϲθαῑ, | 4. οὕτωϲ παρὰ τὴν Ἐπαμεινώνδοῡ ϲτρᾰτη̄γ̆ι´ᾱν | καὶ τὴν Ἀγη̄ϲῐλ̄α´ οῡ, | πολυπόνουϲ γενομέναϲ καὶ δυϲάγωναϲ, ἡ Τιμολέοντοϲ ἀντεξεταζομένη καὶ μετὰ τοῦ καλοῦ πολὺ τὸ ῥ̄α´ ιδῐο̆ν ῎ε̆ χοῡϲᾱ, | φαίνεται τοῖϲ εὖ καὶ δικαί ̄ωϲ λο̆γῑζο̆μ̆ε´ νοῑϲ | ο̄υ᾿ τ̆υ´χη̄ϲ ̄ ῎εργον̄ , | ἀλλ᾿ ἀρετῆϲ ε̄υ᾿ τῠχο̄υ´ϲη̄ϲ. | There is none of Timoleon’s deeds, if we leave out of account what he was forced to regarding his brother, on which it was not fitting to exclaim those words of Sophocles, as Timaeus says: ‘O gods, what Aphrodite or Desire joined in with this?’ Just as the poetry of Anti machus of Colophon and the paintings of Dionysius of Colophon have strength and tension, but seem as though they have been forced and toiled over, whereas the paintings of Nicomachus and the lines of Homer have along with their general power and grace the quality of seeming to have been created lightly and easily, so, in comparison with the laborious and contentious generalships of Epaminondas and Age silaus, that of Timoleon, which has along with its goodness a large quantity of ease, seems to those who consider it well and justly, the work not of chance but of virtue enjoying happy fortune. 2. Cras. 22.1 . . . ὥϲτε μὴ μόνον δίψει καὶ χαλεπότητι τ̄ηϲ̑ πο̆ρε̄ ι´ ᾱϲ | ᾰ᾿ πᾰγο̆ρε̄υ´εῑν, | ἀλλὰ κᾱ`ι τ̆ο` τ̄ηϲ̑ ὀψ̆ ̄ ́ ε ̄ωϲ | ἀπαραμύθητον ἀθῡμ̆ι´ᾱν πᾰρ̆ε´ χεῑν, | ̑ ν̄ , | οὐ προβολὴν ὄροῡϲ κᾰθῑ̄ ε´ ντοϲ̄ , | οὐ πόαν οὐ φυτὸν ὁρ ̄ω̑ϲῐν, ο̄υ᾿ ῥε̄ ι θρο ̑ ᾱ | θιν ̄ω̑ν ε̆᾿ ρ̄η´ μ ̄ων | βλᾱϲτ̆α´ νοῡϲᾱν, | ἀλλ᾿ ἀτεχνῶϲ πελάγῑο´ ν τῐ χε̄υ μ π̆ερῐ ε̆ ´ χον̄ τ̄ο` ν ϲτρᾰτόν. | περιέχον Naber: περιεχόντων NSΥ: περιεῖχε Pseudo Appianus

Not only did the men lose heart from thirst and the difficulty of the journey, but the sight provided an inconsolable dejection, as they saw no tree, no river, no projection of land brought down by a mountain, no grass growing, but simply a sea like heap of deserted sands which surrounded the army. 3. Arat. 24.5 | ἑώρ̄ων γὰρ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο` ν | οὐ πλο̄υ τ̑ ο̆ν, ο̄υ᾿ δ̄ο´ ξᾱν, | οὐ φιλίᾱν βᾰϲῐλῐκήν, | οὐ τὸ τῆϲ αὑτο̄υ ̑ πᾰτρ̆ι´ δοϲ̄ ϲῡμφ̆ε´ ρον̄ |, οὐκ ἄλλο τι τῆϲ αὐξήϲεωϲ τ ̄ω̑ν Ἀ̆ χαῑ ̄ω̑ν | ἐπίπροϲ̄ θε ν̄ ποῑο̄υ´μ̆ενον̄ . | They could see that he was not putting wealth, or glory, or friendship with kings, or the advantage of his own city, or anything else before the advancement of the Achaean League. 4. Nepos, Timol. 3.2 ex maximo bello tantum otium totae insulae conciliauit, ut hic conditor urbium earum, non illi qui initio deduxerant,

Life as Art

93

uideretur. . . . 3.5 nullus honos huic defuit, neque postea res ulla Syracusis gesta est publice, de qua prius sit decretum quam Timoleontis sententia cognita. He brought about such peace for the whole island, after a massive war, that he, not those who originally led the colonies out, seemed to be the founder of those cities. . . . He lacked no sign of honour; nor was there any public act at Syracuse which was decided on before Timoleon’s view was known.

5 Taking Fratricide Too Hard (Timoleon 5–6) 5.1 | τ̄ηϲ̑ δ̆`ε πρ̄α´ ξ̆ε ̄ωϲ | δῐᾰβο̆η̄θε̄ ι´ ϲη̄ϲ, | οἱ μὲν κράτιϲτοι τ ̄ω̑ν Κο̆ρῑνθ̆ι´ ̄ων | ἐπήινουν τ̄η` ν μῑϲο̆πο̆νη̄ρ̆ι´ᾱν | κᾱ`ι μ̆εγᾰλοψ ̄ ῡχ̆ι´ᾱν | τοῦ Τιμολέοντοϲ, ὅτι χρηϲτὸϲ ὢν κᾱ`ι φῐλο̄ ι´κεῑοϲ̄ | ὅμωϲ τὴν πᾰτρ̆ι´ δᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ ο̄ ᾿ι κ̆ι´ᾱϲ | καὶ τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ δίκαιον προετίμηϲε τοῦ ϲῡμφ̆ε´ ρον̄ τοϲ̄ , | ἀριϲτεύοντα μὲν ὑπὲρ τῆϲ πατρίδοϲ διαϲώϲαϲ τὸν ἀδελφόν, ἐπιβουλεύϲᾱντᾰ δ’ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ηι̑ | καὶ καταδουλωϲάμ̆ενο̆ν ᾰ᾿ ποκ̄ τε̄ ι´νᾱϲ. | 2. οἱ δὲ μὴ δυνάμενοι ζῆν ἐν τῆι δη̄μο̆κρᾰτ̆ι´ᾱι | καὶ πρὸϲ το̄υ` ϲ δῠν̄α´ ϲτᾱϲ | ἀποβλέπειν εἰωθότεϲ τῶι μὲν θανάτωι το̄υ ̑ τῠρ̄α´ ννοῡ | προϲεποιο̄υ ν̑ το̆ χᾱ ι´ρεῑν, | τὸν δὲ Τιμολέοντα λοῑδο̆ρο̄υ ν̑ τε ϲ̄ | ὡϲ ἀϲ̆εβ̆`εϲ ̄ ε᾿ ξεῑργᾱϲμ̆ε´ νον̄ | καὶ μυϲ ̄ω̑δε̆ ϲ ̄ ῎ε ργον̄ , | εἰϲ ἀθυμίαν περιέϲτηϲαν. 3. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τὴν μητέρα δυϲφορε̄ ιν̑ πῠθ̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | καὶ φων̄α´ ϲ τ̆ε δεῑν̄α` ϲ | καὶ κατάραϲ ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ἀρᾶϲθαι φρικώδειϲ ἐβάδιζε παραμυθηϲόμενοϲ, ἡ δὲ προϲιδεῖν οὐχ ὑπέμεῑν̆ε τ̄η` ν ὀψῑν, ̄ ́ | ἀλλὰ τὴν οἰκίαν ἀπέκλειϲε, τότε δὴ παντάπαϲι περίλυποϲ̄ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | καὶ ϲῡντᾰρᾱχθε̄`ιϲ | τὴν διάνοιαν, ὥρμηϲε μὲν ὡϲ διαφθερῶν ἑαυτ̆ο` ν ᾰ᾿ π̆ε´ χε ϲ̄ θαῑ τρο̆φ̄ηϲ̑ · | 4. τῶν δὲ φίλων ο̄υ᾿ π̆ερῐῐδ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | ἀλλὰ πᾶϲᾱν δ̆ε´ η̄ϲῑν | καὶ πᾶϲαν ἀνάγκην προϲενεγκαμένων, ἔγνω ζῆν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐκ μέϲοῡ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ , | καὶ πολιτείαν μὲν ἅπαϲαν ἀφῆκε, το̄υ` ϲ δ̆`ε πρ ̄ω´ τοῡϲ χρ̆ο´ νοῡϲ | οὐδ̆`ε κᾰτῐ ̄ω` ν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ π̆ο´ λῑν, | ̄α᾿ λλ’ ᾰ᾿ δη̄μο̆ν ̄ω̑ν | κᾱ`ι πλᾰν ̄ω´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | ἐν τοῖϲ ἐρη̄μο̆τ̆α´ τοῑϲ τ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ γρ ̄ω̑ν | διέτριβεν. 6.1 οὕτωϲ αἱ κρίϲειϲ, ἂν μὴ βεβαιότη̄τᾰ κᾱ`ι ῥ ̄ω´ μη̄ν | ἐκ λόγου κᾱ`ι φῐλο̆ϲο̆φ̆ι´ᾱϲ | προϲ̄ λ̆α´ β ̄ωϲῑν, | ἐπὶ τὰϲ πράξειϲ ϲείονται κᾱ`ι πᾰρᾰφ̆ε´ ρον̄ τᾱι, | ῥαιδίωϲ ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ν τῠχ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | ἐπαίνων καὶ ψόγων ἐκκρουόμεναι τῶν οἰκεί ̄ων λο̆γῑϲμ ̄ω̑ν. | 2. δεῖ γὰρ οὐ μόνον ̄ω῾ ϲ ῎ε̆ οῑκε ̄ | τὴν πρᾶξιν καλὴν εἶναι κᾱ`ι δῐκᾱ ι´ ᾱν, | 3. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν δ̄ο´ ξᾰν ᾰ᾿ φ’ η̄ ῟ ϲ πρ̄α´ ττ̆εταῑ | μόνιμον καὶ ἀμετάπτωτον, ἵνα πράττωμε ν̄ δο̆κῐμ̆α´ ϲᾱντε ϲ̄ , | μηδ’, ὥϲπερ οἱ λίχνοι τὰ πλήϲμια τ ̄ω̑ν ε̆᾿ δε ϲ̄ μ̆α´ τ ̄ων | ὀξυτάτηι διώκον̄ τ̆εϲ ε̆᾿ πῐθῡμ̆ι´ᾱι | τάχιϲτα δυϲχεραίνουϲιν ἐμπληϲθέντεϲ, οὕτωϲ ἡμεῖϲ ἐπὶ ταῖϲ πράξεϲι ϲῡντ̆ελε ϲ̄ θε̄ ι´ ϲαῑϲ | ἀθυμῶμεν δι’ ̄α᾿ ϲθ̆ε´ νεῑᾱν, | ἀπομαραινομένηϲ τῆϲ τοῦ καλοῦ φανταϲίαϲ. 4. αἰϲχρὸν γὰρ ἡ μετάνοῑᾰ ποῑε̄ ι ̑ | καὶ τὸ καλ ̄ω̑ϲ π̆επρᾱγμ̆ε´ νον̄ , | ἡ δ’ ἐξ ἐπιϲτ̄η´ μη̄ϲ ̄ω῾ ρμη̄μ̆ε´ νη̄ | καὶ λογιϲμο̄υ ̑ προ̆ᾱ ι´ρ̆εϲῑϲ | οὐδ’ ἂν πταίϲωϲιν αἱ πρ̄α´ ξεῑϲ μ̆ετᾰβ̄α´ λλ̆εταῑ. | 5. διὸ Φωκίων μὲν ὁ

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

96

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Ἀθηναῖοϲ τοῖϲ ὑπὸ Λεωϲθένουϲ πραττομένοιϲ ἐνᾱντῐ ̄ωθε̄ ι´ ϲ, | ἐπειδὴ ̑ ̆ ϲ ε̆᾿ δ̆ο´ κεῑ | καὶ θύονταϲ ἑώρα καὶ μεγαλαυχουμένουϲ κατορθοῦν ἐκε̄ ι νο τῆι νίκηι το̄υ` ϲ Ἀ̆ θη̄νᾱ ι´ οῡϲ, | εἶπεν ὡϲ ἐβούλετ’ ἂν αὑτῶι ταῦτα μ̄`ε ν ̑ | 6. ϲφοδρότερον δ’ Ἀριϲτείδηϲ ὁ π̆επρ̄αχ̑ θαῑ, | βεβουλεῦϲθαῑ δ’ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι νᾱ. ̑ | Λοκρόϲ, εἷϲ ὢν τῶν Πλάτωνοϲ ἑταίρων, αἰτοῦντοϲ μὲν αὐτ̄ο` ν γῠνᾱ ι κᾱ Διονυϲίου τοῦ πρεϲβυτέρου μίαν τ ̄ω̑ν θῠγᾰτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ων, | ἥδῑο̆ν ῍ᾰ ν ῎ε̆ φη̄ | νεκρ̄α` ν ̆ι᾿ δε̄ ι ν̑ τ̄η` ν κ̆ο´ ρη̄ν | ἢ τυράνν ̄ωι ϲῠνοῑκο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱν· | 7. ἀποκτείναντοϲ δὲ τοὺϲ πᾱ ι δ̑ ᾰϲ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ̑ | μετ’ ὀλίγον χρόνον̄ το̄υ ̑ Δῐο̆νῡϲ̆ι´οῡ | καὶ πῠθο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡ πρ̆ο` ϲ υ῞̆ βρῑν | εἰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔτι γνώμην ἔχοι περὶ τῆϲ ἐκδόϲεωϲ τ̄ω̑ν θῠγᾰτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ων, | ἀπεκρίνατο τοῖϲ μὲν γεγενημένοιϲ λυπεῖϲθαι, τοῖϲ δ’ εἰρημένοιϲ μ̄η` μ̆ετᾰμ̆ελε̄ ι ϲ̑ θαῑ. | ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἴϲωϲ μείζονοϲ καὶ τελειοτέραϲ ἀρετῆϲ ἐϲτι. 6.1 ἐπὶ τὰϲ πράξειϲ: μετὰ τὰϲ π. Hutchinson: παρὰ τὰϲ π. Ziegler: ἐπὶ τὰϲ π. Reiske: ἐπὶ ταῖϲ πράξεϲι altero conatu Ziegler 5 πεπρᾶχθαι K, ut Phoc. 23.6, [Plut.] Reg. Apophth. 188e: πραχθῆναι ΛPQZ

Fame of the deed spread everywhere. The best of the Corinthians praised Timoleon’s hatred for wickedness and his greatness of spirit: despite his decent love for his family, he had preferred his country to his family, and right and justice to advantage; he had rescued his brother when he fought gallantly for his country, but when he plotted against it and enslaved it, he had slain him. Those who could not bear to live in a democracy and were accustomed to admire rulers pretended to be glad at the tyrant’s death, but abused Timoleon for carrying out an unholy and polluting deed; they changed his mood to despair. He learned that his very mother was angry with him and making terrible utterances and fearful curses against him; he tried to go and console her, but she could not stand the sight of him, and locked the house. At this he became completely overcome with grief and agitated in his mind; he set about killing himself by abstaining from food. His friends would not endure this, and brought to bear every possible plea and compulsion. He decided to live on his own, out of the public eye; he gave up politics completely, and in the initial period would not even come down into the city; he lived in the most isolated fields, wandering around in distress. So our judgements, if they have not acquired firmness and strength from reason and philosophy, move in agitation to deeds [with μετά: are shaken after deeds] and are led astray; praise and blame from chance people easily knock them from our own thinking. Evidently not only must the deed be fine and just, but the opinion which is its basis must be steady and immovable, so that we can act from careful examination of the issues, and so that we do not behave like greedy people that go after food that is filling with the keenest desire but quickly feel disgust once they are full, and we do not in the same way, out of weakness, despair at deeds once we have accomplished them and the mental image of what is right has faded away. Remorse makes ugly even a deed done well; but a

Taking Fratricide Too Hard

97

resolution that springs from knowledge and reasoned thought does not change even if the actions go wrong. So Phocion of Athens had been opposed to what Leosthenes was doing; when Leosthenes seemed to have succeeded, and Phocion saw the Athenians making sacrifices and exulting in the victory, he said he would have wanted as his own work Leocrates’ deed, but his original resolutions. Aristides of Locri, one of Plato’s friends, was asked by the elder Dionysius for the hand of a daughter of his in marriage; he replied vehemently that he would rather see the girl dead than married to a tyrant. Dionysius killed his children soon afterwards and asked him, to hurt him, if he still held the same view about marrying his daughters. He answered that he was grieved at what had happened, but did not regret what he had said. Things like these perhaps belong to a greater and more perfect virtue; [Timoleon . . . ]

This passage shows us Timoleon at a low ebb. We have already seen, in Tim. 36.2, the careful setting apart from his felicitous deeds of his involvement in killing his brother Timophanes, who became tyrant of Corinth around 366 (passage 1 in the Appendix to ch. 4; cf. Nirta et al. [2011], 163–7). The present passage considers not the killing, but what was in Plutarch’s opinion much worse, Timoleon’s response to it. It thus forms an antithesis to Tim. 35, the subject of the previous chapter, and so highlights the place of that passage of glorious fulfilment in the structure of the Life as a whole. But the primary reason for including the present passage here is to illustrate the difference from, and connections with, the passages of continued density on which this book will focus. A relatively long extract enables the reader to see how passages less thick-set with rhythm look and work. A glance at the bold type reveals the difference of this passage from 35.3–4 in the frequency of rhythmic closes, and also the variation in frequency within this extract. We shall observe in it some of the same features as in the dense passages which are our main object of analysis; but the language here is not seeking the same pitch of impact, the same intensity of attention is not demanded by rhythm. Plutarch is elaborately displaying the demanding finesse of his ethical judgement, even on so outstanding a figure (cf. Wardman [1974], 109–11, Desideri [1989], 209, Xenophontos [2016], 160–1). He takes the point up in the last sentences of the Synkrisis (passage 1 in the Appendix to this chapter). The early part of the passage draws on sources, as we can see from Nepos (passage 2); Theopompus, Ephorus, and Timaeus come into question (they are cited by Plutarch at 4.6, FGrHist 115 F 334, 70 F 221, 566 F 116). But even if Plutarch has started from a favourable account by Timaeus—and Plutarch can

98

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

form his own views on tyrannicide—he moves in a less positive direction than Nepos. The passage exhibits his subtle structures of thought and his mobility of style. Rhythm assists the exhibition. 5.1 | τ̄ηϲ̑ δ̆`ε πρ̄α´ ξ̆ε ̄ωϲ | δῐᾰβο̆η̄θε̄ ι´ ϲη̄ϲ, | οἱ μὲν κράτιϲτοι τ ̄ω̑ν Κο̆ρῑνθ̆ι´ ̄ων | ἐπήινουν τ̄η` ν μῑϲο̆πο̆νη̄ρ̆ι´ᾱν | κᾱ`ι μ̆εγᾰλοψ ̄ ῡχ̆ι´ᾱν | τοῦ Τιμολέοντοϲ, ὅτι χρηϲτὸϲ ὢν κᾱ`ι φῐλο̄ ι´κεῑοϲ̄ | ὅμωϲ τὴν πᾰτρ̆ι´ δᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ ο̄ ᾿ι κ̆ι´ᾱϲ | καὶ τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ δίκαιον προετίμηϲε τοῦ ϲῡμφ̆ε´ ρον̄ τοϲ̄ , |: the passage starts with a smaller cluster of rhythmic phrases close together. These follow on from the description of the actual killing (4.8), which is dense, although for a short space; they suit the correct valuation of Timoleon’s noble behaviour. μῑϲο̆πο̆νη̄ρ̆ι´ᾱν | is marked out by rhythm as an important word, separated from μ̆εγᾰλοψ ̄ ῡχ̆ι´ᾱν |; it looks back to 3.4 μιϲοτύρᾱννο̆ϲ ε̄῏ι ναῑ | καὶ μιϲοπόνηροϲ. (cf. Comp. Dion. Brut. 56 (3).6 for the use in relation to tyrants). μ̆εγᾰλοψ ̄ ῡχ̆ι´ᾱν is self-evidently important; the stem is used only here of Timoleon. It is modified by μείζονοϲ . . . ἀρετῆϲ at 6.7 below, where the sequel shows Timoleon’s limits; at Comp. Aem. Tim. 41 (2).12 (passage 1), Timoleon’s action is γεννᾱ ιᾰ̑ but his attitude afterwards, if extrapolated to all someone’s attitudes, would indicate a lack of μέγεθοϲ. φῐλο̄ ι´κεῑοϲ̄ | clearly connects with τ̄ηϲ̑ ο̄ ᾿ι κ̆ι´ᾱϲ |, which shows how the attribute has given way in Timoleon; without the rhythm, the connection would be less strong, especially with χρηϲτὸϲ ὤν first. The same rhythmic unit contains and opposes πᾰτρ̆ι´ δᾰ and ο̄ ᾿ι κ̆ι´ᾱϲ |. On the other hand, the prolonged unrhythmic sequence that follows does not oppose τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ δίκαιον to τοῦ ϲῡμφ̆ε´ ρον̄ τοϲ̄ , | with a similar rhythmic force. πρ̄α´ ξ̆ε ̄ωϲ | is separated off by the rhythmic ending; the word is lingered on with some significance, partly because Timoleon took part in the plan but did not physically kill his brother (| ἐκεῖνοι . . . διαφθείροῡϲῐν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ ν. | immediately precedes, 4.8), and partly because πράξειϲ will be important in the next section. | ἀριϲτεύοντα μὲν ὑπὲρ τῆϲ πατρίδοϲ διαϲώϲαϲ τὸν ἀδελφόν, ἐπιβουλεύϲᾱντᾰ δ’ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ηι̑ | καὶ καταδουλωϲάμ̆ενο̆ν ᾰ᾿ πο̄κτε̄ ι´ νᾱϲ. |: the rhythm throws weight on to the actions which alone led to the killing (ἐπιβουλεύϲᾱντᾰ, καταδουλωϲάμ̆ενο̆ν) and to the killing itself—an over-simple way to describe what Timoleon did: he stood aside weeping. But the preceding clause is too long and unrhythmic for rhythmical opposition to be felt between ᾰ᾿ πο̄κτε̄ ι´νᾱϲ. | and διαϲώϲαϲ (cf. 4.3). διαϲώϲαϲ is unaided by particles or word-order, and semantics alone carry the antithesis. | ἀριϲτεύοντα begins after a rhythmic close, but the length of the unrhythmic entity that follows, with

Taking Fratricide Too Hard

99

unrhythmic close at ἀδελφόν, prevents as taut a rhythmic opposition between | ἀριϲτεύοντα and ἐπιβουλεύϲᾱντᾰ as we would find in a denser passage. 5.2 | οἱ δὲ μὴ δυνάμενοι ζῆν ἐν τῆι δη̄μο̆κρᾰτ̆ι´ᾱι | καὶ πρὸϲ το̄υ` ϲ δῠν̄α´ ϲτᾱϲ | ἀποβλέπειν εἰωθότεϲ τῶι μὲν θανάτωι το̄υ ̑ τῠρ̄α´ ννοῡ | προϲεποιο̄υ ν̑ το̆ χᾱ ι´ρεῑν, | τὸν δὲ Τιμολέοντα λοῑδο̆ρο̄υ ν̑ τεϲ̄ | ὡϲ ἀϲ̆εβ̆`εϲ ̄ ε᾿ ξεῑργᾱϲμ̆ε´ νον̄ | καὶ μυϲ ̄ω̑δε̆ ϲ ̄ ῎ε ργον̄ , | εἰϲ ἀθυμίαν περιέϲτηϲαν.: the clause defining the subject and the sentence as a whole end unrhythmically (εἰωθότεϲ, περιέϲτηϲαν.). None the less, δῠν̄α´ ϲτᾱϲ | at the end of a rhythmic close relates both to δη̄μο̆κρᾰτ̆ι´ᾱι | and to τῠρ̄α´ ννοῡ | at the end of rhythmic closes too; τῠρ̄α´ ννοῡ | gives the critics’ compliance with the official designation, δῠν̄α´ ϲτᾱϲ | their real perspective. The defining clause (| οἱ . . . εἰωθότεϲ) and the μέν clause undermine the men’s position on Timoleon’s deed; but the point for the argument of the section will be not the falsehood of their opinion, but the error of Timoleon in being affected by them. This final point is not presented rhythmically (| εἰϲ ἀθυμίαν περιέϲτηϲαν.), but the abuse is, with wordorder and rhythm making two forceful clauses out of their allegation. | (καὶ) μυϲ ̄ω̑δε̆ ϲ advances on | (ὡϲ) ἀϲ̆εβ̆`εϲ. (The brackets, it should be remembered, indicate that both adjectives are the first significant word in their rhythmic units.) ἀϲ̆εβ̆`εϲ sounds more like Nep. Timol. 1.5 laesam ab eo pietatem (and impium), in passage 2 of the Appendix. 5.3 ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τὴν μητέρα δυϲφορε̄ ιν̑ πῠθ̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | καὶ φων̄α´ ϲ τ̆ε δεῑν̄α` ϲ | καὶ κατάραϲ ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ἀρᾶϲθαι φρικώδειϲ ἐβάδιζε παρα | ἀλλὰ τὴν οἰκίαν μυθηϲόμενοϲ, ἡ δὲ προϲιδεῖν οὐχ ὑπέμεῑν̆ε τ̄η` ν ὀψῑν, ̄́ ἀπέκλειϲε,: there are only spots of rhythm in this part of the sentence. ̓̄ ́ φων̄α´ ϲ τ̆ε δεῑν̄α` ϲ | and οὐχ ὑπέμεῑν̆ε τ̄η` ν οψῑν, | both stand out of the texture forcefully; but the stronger κατάραϲ . . . φρικώδειϲ advances on φων̄α´ ϲ τ̆ε δεῑν̄α` ϲ |, yet without the aid of rhythm. (Nepos in passage 2 suggests that | καὶ φων̄α´ ϲ τ̆ε δεῑν̄α` ϲ | καὶ κατάραϲ ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ἀρᾶϲθαι ̓̄ ́ φρικώδειϲ and ἡ δὲ προϲιδεῖν οὐχ ὑπέμεῑν̆ε τ̄η` ν οψῑν, | τὴν οἰκίαν ἀπέκλειϲε, derive from sources—possibly with some misunderstanding by Nepos in neque aspexit quin.) | (ἀλλὰ τὴν) οἰκίαν gains some strength from its position; but in a more tightly organized rhythmic passage it would be opposed more ironically to ο̄ ᾿ι κ̆ι´ᾱϲ | in 5.1. Whereas Nepos gives more weight to the verbal attack, and thus makes a link to the preceding abuse, the mother’s closing of the house is the critical point in Plutarch; but it is not reinforced by a rhythmic close.

100

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

τότε δὴ παντάπαϲι περίλυποϲ̄ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | καὶ ϲῡντᾰρᾱχθε̄`ιϲ | τὴν διάνοιαν, ὥρμηϲε μὲν ὡϲ διαφθερῶν ἑαυτ̆ο` ν ᾰ᾿ π̆ε´ χε ϲ̄ θαῑ τρο̆φ̄ηϲ̑ · |: Timoleon’s reactions now are shown to be more extreme than the ἀθυμία caused by his crypto-monarchical critics. Rhythm emphasizes the reactions with separate units, cf. Publ. 9.7 | περίφοβοῑ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆ενοῑ | καὶ ϲῡντᾰρᾱχθ̄ ε´ ντε ϲ̄ |. But τὴν διάνοιαν, somewhat weakens the effect of ϲῡντᾰρᾱχθε̄`ιϲ | rhythmically. It is not needed for the sense, but is significant for the argument and the narrative; cf. 7.1 | οὕτω κατέκλαϲε καὶ ϲυνέτριψεν αὐτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν. 5.4 | τῶν δὲ φίλων ο̄υ᾿ π̆ερῐῐδ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | ἀλλὰ πᾶϲᾱν δ̆ε´ η̄ϲῑν | καὶ πᾶϲαν ἀνάγκην προϲενεγκαμένων, ἔγνω ζῆν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐκ μέϲοῡ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ , |: the pressure which stops Timoleon from suicide needs to seem great. Anaphora makes it so, and rhythm offers some aid, in the first but not the second of the pair. The closeness of the rhythmic closes ο̄υ᾿ π̆ερῐῐδ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | and πᾶϲᾱν δ̆ε´ η̄ϲῑν | lightly increases the strength of the friends’ intervention; but this half of the sentence is quite loose rhythmically, and the saving of Timoleon’s life is rather skipped over (ζῆν leads straight into καθ’ ἑαυτόν). | καὶ πολιτείαν μὲν ἅπαϲαν ἀφῆκε, το̄υ` ϲ δ̆`ε πρ ̄ω´ τοῡϲ χρ̆ο´ νοῡϲ | οὐδ̆`ε κᾰτῐ ̄ω` ν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ π̆ο´ λῑν, | ̄α᾿ λλ’ ᾰ᾿ δη̄μο̆ν ̄ω̑ν | κᾱ`ι πλᾰν ̄ω´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | ἐν τοῖϲ ἐρη̄μο̆τ̆α´ τοῑϲ τ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ γρ ̄ω̑ν | διέτριβεν.: πολιτείαν gains some weight from rhythm as the first word after a rhythmic close, although it would have more if it were itself part of a rhythmic phrase; it has connections with | οὐδ̆`ε κᾰτῐ ̄ω` ν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ π̆ο´ λῑν, |, but fewer than it would if both were joined in a close network of rhythmic phrases. Rhythm more strongly underlines πο̆λῑτῐκ̄ηϲ̑ | in 7.1 | μηδεμιᾶϲ ἐπιφανο̄υ ϲ̑ μη̄δ̆`ε πο̆λῑτῐκ̄ηϲ̑ | ̄α῞ ψᾱϲθαῑ πρ̄α´ ξ̆ε ̄ωϲ | (the word-order confirms the emphasis). But the rhythms briefly aggregate in the present passage to heighten Timoleon’s solitude. π̆ο´ λῑν, | is answered by ᾰ᾿ γρ ̄ω̑ν |, itself strengthened by | (ἐν τοῖϲ) ἐρη̄μο̆τ̆α´ τοῑϲ. Two distinct entities, ̄α᾿ λλ’ ᾰ᾿ δη̄μο̆ν ̄ω̑ν | and | κᾱ`ι πλᾰν ̄ω´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ |, portray his emotional state and his aimless movement; | ἀμηχανῶν κᾱ`ι πλᾰν ̄ω´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | form a single phrase at fr. 157.6 Sandbach. The passage somewhat evokes Alc. fr. 130b Voigt, but Timoleon’s rusticity is self-imposed. The sentence ends unrhythmically. The little cluster of rhythm plays up the extremity of Timoleon’s response, chiefly to motivate the excursus that follows—but also, despite the explicit comments here and at the end, to show humanity in Timoleon. Cf. 4.8 ἀποχωρήϲαϲ μῑκρ̆ο` ν ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ̑ | καὶ ϲῡγκᾰλῡψ̆α´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | εἱϲτήκεῑ δᾰκρ̄υ´ ̄ων |, which must touch the reader. The introduction to this passage mentioned 36.2 (passage

Taking Fratricide Too Hard

101

1 in the Appendix of ch. 4), which indicates that the response to the deed in the Life is more complex than unlimited approbation. 6.1 οὕτωϲ αἱ κρίϲειϲ, ἂν μὴ βεβαιότη̄τᾰ κᾱ`ι ῥ ̄ω´ μη̄ν | ἐκ λόγου κᾱ`ι φῐλο̆ϲο̆φ̆ι´ᾱϲ | προϲ̄ λ̆α´ β ̄ωϲῑν, | ἐπὶ τὰϲ πράξειϲ ϲείονται κᾱ`ι πᾰρᾰφ̆ε´ ρον̄ τᾱι, | ῥαιδίωϲ ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ν τῠχ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | ἐπαίνων καὶ ψόγων ἐκκρουόμεναι τῶν οἰκεί ̄ων λο̆γῑϲμ ̄ω̑ν. |: as Plutarch sweeps into philosophical commentary, the pairs abound. The two pairs which come close together at the start, and the close-set rhythms there, give dignity to the firmness and the philosophy; the verb | προϲ̄ λ̆α´ β ̄ωϲῑν, |, which forms a rhythmic unit on its own, highlights the importance of adding these qualities. In what follows, Reiske’s would spoil the sequence envisaged, as Timoleon’s situation and what follows make clear: it is not as people proceed to action that their judgement is shaken, but after the events and people’s comments on them. We should probably read μετὰ for ἐπὶ. (Ziegler’s ἐπὶ ταῖϲ πράξεϲι draws on the phrase in 6.3 below, but there ἐπί with the dative gives an emotional reaction, cf. Them. 7.7 ἀθυμο̄υ ν̑ το̆ϲ ε̆᾿ π̆`ι το̄υ´τ ̄ωι |; his παρὰ τὰϲ πράξειϲ does not yield a suitable sense.) The παρα- conveys erroneous change, cf. Aud. Poet. 15d . . . ἢ μᾶλλον ὀρθ ̄ω̑ι τῐν̆`ι λο̆γῑϲμ ̄ω̑ι | παριϲτάντεϲ κᾱ`ι κᾰτᾰδ̆ε´ ον̄ τεϲ̄ , | τὴν κρίϲιν, ὅπωϲ μὴ παραφέρηται τῶι τέρποντι πρὸϲ τὸ βλάπτον, ἀπευθύνωμεν καὶ πᾰρᾰφῠλ̄α´ ττ ̄ωμε ν̄ ; |. τ ̄ω̑ν τῠχ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | contrasts with οἰκεί ̄ων, so merits a close; the rhythm even helps to avoid making it agree with | ἐπαίνων καὶ ψόγων. λο̆γῑϲμ ̄ω̑ν. | receives great emphasis at the end, and picks up the stem of | (ἐκ) λόγου, even while it alters the meaning (for these λογιϲμοί are not based on λόγοϲ). | ἐπαίνων καὶ ψόγων acquire some force from following a rhythmic close, but there is probably an unrhythmic close after ψόγων, in view of the close after the dependent genitive before (τ ̄ω̑ν τῠχ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων |); the pair does not receive such a pointed rhythmic opposition with λο̆γῑϲμ ̄ω̑ν. | as it would in a more densely organized sequence. 6.2 | δεῖ γὰρ οὐ μόνον ̄ω῾ ϲ ῎ε̆ οῑκε ̄ | τὴν πρᾶξιν καλὴν εἶναι κᾱ`ι δῐκᾱ ι´ ᾱν, | ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν δ̄ο´ ξᾰν ᾰ᾿ φ’ η̄ ῟ ϲ πρ̄α´ ττ̆εταῑ | μόνιμον καὶ ἀμετάπτωτον, ἵνα πράττωμε ν̄ δο̆κῐμ̆α´ ϲᾱντεϲ,̄ |: the crucial phrase μόνιμον καὶ ἀμετάπτωτον, the equivalent to καλὴν . . . κᾱ`ι δῐκᾱ ι´ ᾱν, | which the argument needs, is not rhythmic. It is annexed from Plat. Tim. 29b5–7: λόγοι about τοῦ . . . μονίμου καὶ βεβαίου καὶ μετὰ νοῦ καταφανοῦϲ must themselves be μονίμουϲ καὶ ἀμεταπτώτουϲ. The citation, not the rhythm, bestows weight on it. | (τὴν) πρᾶξιν is conjoined with | (ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν) δ̄ο´ ξᾰν and πρ̄α´ ττ̆εταῑ | in the thought; the rhythmic

102

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

organization adds some underlining to the argument. πράττωμε ν̄ receives some emphasis through rhythm; it is linked into the chain of thought and introduces the philosophizing shift to the first person plural. | μηδ’, ὥϲπερ οἱ λίχνοι τὰ πλήϲμια τ ̄ω̑ν ε̆᾿ δε ϲ̄ μ̆α´ τ ̄ων | ὀξυτάτηι διώκον̄ τ̆εϲ ε̆᾿ πῐθῡμ̆ι´ᾱι | τάχιϲτα δυϲχεραίνουϲιν ἐμπληϲθέντεϲ, οὕτωϲ ἡμεῖϲ ἐπὶ ταῖϲ πράξεϲι ϲῡντ̆ελε ϲ̄ θε̄ ι´ ϲαῑϲ | ἀθυμῶμεν δι’ ̄α᾿ ϲθ̆ε´ νεῑᾱν, | ἀπομαραινομένηϲ τῆϲ τοῦ καλοῦ φανταϲίαϲ.: πλήϲμια and ἐμπληϲθέντεϲ join together in the energetic imagery that marks the philosophical vein; but the connection is not brought out by rhythm. Word-order, meaning, and the position after a rhythmic close highlight | ὀξυτάτηι; it contrasts with the superlative | τάχιϲτα, which also follows a rhythmic close, but again the rhythmic opposition would be more forceful if what followed | τάχιϲτα were a compact rhythmic phrase. | ἀθυμῶμεν in itself carries weight from its position, and is part of a short rhythmic phrase; but rhythm does not underline the connection with ἀθυμίαν in 5.2 as it would if that word were part of a rhythmic close or even a rhythmic phrase. In thought, the two words are strongly linked. The two alpha privatives in | ἀθυμῶμεν δι’ ̄α᾿ ϲθ̆ε´ νεῑᾱν, | make this a neat phrase—a lack of θυμόϲ through a lack of ϲθένοϲ. The substantial ϲῡντ̆ελεϲ̄ θε̄ ι´ ϲαῑϲ | falls with great force; the rhythm promotes the argument. The last phrase | ἀπομαραινομένηϲ . . . φανταϲίαϲ. entirely lacks rhythm; this is probably not expressive. Rhythm does not mark out καλοῦ, although it contrasts with αἰϲχρόν in what immediately follows and is taken up in | (καὶ τὸ) καλ ̄ω̑ϲ. 6.4 αἰϲχρὸν γὰρ ἡ μετάνοῑᾰ ποῑε̄ ι ̑ | καὶ τὸ καλ ̄ω̑ϲ π̆επρᾱγμ̆ε´ νον̄ , | ἡ δ’ ἐξ ἐπιϲτ̄η´ μη̄ϲ ̄ω῾ ρμη̄μ̆ε´ νη̄ | καὶ λογιϲμο̄υ ̑ προ̆ᾱ ι´ρ̆εϲῑϲ | οὐδ’ ἂν πταίϲωϲιν αἱ πρ̄α´ ξεῑϲ μ̆ετᾰβ̄α´ λλ̆εταῑ. |: the sentence stands out through its brevity, and through the run of relatively close rhythms: the rhythm adds to the gravity of this sentence and its movement from negativity to the unshakeably positive. The last part of the sentence presents an imposing abstract statement which will then be coloured in by examples, to be contrasted with Timoleon. In the first part | (καὶ τὸ) καλ ̄ω̑ϲ is stressed by position after a rhythmic close and by the particle; it is opposed to αἰϲχρόν, which is strengthened by its position at the start of the sentence, although not by a position after a rhythmic close. In | ἡ δ’ ἐξ ἐπιϲτ̄η´ μη̄ϲ ̄ω῾ ρμη̄μ̆ε´ νη̄ | καὶ λογιϲμο̄υ ̑ προ̆ᾱ ι´ρε̆ ϲῑϲ | the words and rhythms are organized to create two separate phrases, and to stress both | (ἡ δ’ ἐξ) ἐπιϲτ̄η´ μη̄ϲ and | (καὶ) λογιϲμο̄υ ,̑ each the first important word in its rhythmic phrase.

Taking Fratricide Too Hard

103

λογιϲμο̄υ ̑ resumes λο̆γῑϲμ ̄ω̑ν. | from 6.1, but the singular indicates that the word is now aligned with philosophy. The impact of the negated μ̆ετᾰβ̄α´ λλ̆εταῑ. | at the end of the sentence is strengthened by rhythm. It especially combines with ἀμετάπτωτον in 6.3, but the lack of rhythm at that point again prevents a tight rhythmic link to reinforce the link in meaning. 6.5 | διὸ Φωκίων μὲν ὁ Ἀθηναῖοϲ τοῖϲ ὑπὸ Λεωϲθένουϲ πραττομένοιϲ ̑ ̆ ϲ ε̆᾿ δ̆ο´ κεῑ | καὶ θύονταϲ ἑώρα καὶ ἐνᾱντῐ ̄ωθε̄ ι´ ϲ, | ἐπειδὴ κατορθοῦν ἐκε̄ ινο ̆ ` μεγαλαυχουμένουϲ τῆι νίκηι το̄υϲ Ἀθη̄νᾱ ι´ οῡϲ, | εἶπεν ὡϲ ἐβούλετ’ ἂν ̑ |: the anecdote is αὑτῶι ταῦτα μ̄`ε ν π̆επρ̄αχ̑ θαῑ, | βεβουλεῦϲθαῑ δ’ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ινᾱ. narrated in loose rhythm, apart from the punchline; there the dative αὑτῶι recommends the rhythmic reading πεπρᾶχθαι, with the result that rhythm enhances the elegance, and π̆επρ̄αχ̑ θαῑ, | and | βεβουλεῦϲθαῑ confront each other on either side of a rhythmic boundary. The thread that joins π̆επρ̄αχ̑ θαῑ, | with πραττομένοιϲ is not signalled through rhythm in πραττομένοιϲ. The anecdote is, in any case, less significant for Plutarch’s purposes than the next one, which involves the relation of tyranny to familial feeling; ϲφοδρότερον denotes that story as higher in key. The version of this one in Phoc. 23.5–6 is more colourfully and rhythmically told: |h πρῶτον μ̄`ε ν γ̆α´ ρ ο῾̆ Λ̆ε ̄ωϲθ̆ε´ νη̄ϲ | λαμπρὸϲ η῎̄ ρθη̄ τᾱ ιϲ̑ πρ̄α´ ξ̆εϲῑ, | τ ̄ω̑ν τ̆ε Βοῑ ̄ωτ ̄ω̑ν | μάχη̄ι κρᾰτ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ | κᾱ`ι τ̆ο` ν Ἀ̄ ντ̆ι´πᾰτρον̄ | εἰϲ Λαμίᾱν ϲῠν̆ελ̆α´ ϲᾱϲ· | ὅτε καί φαϲι τὴν μὲν πόλιν ἐλπίδοϲ μεγάλη̄ϲ γ̆ενο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ν | ἑορτάζειν εὐαγγ̆ε´ λῐᾰ ϲῠν̆εχ ̄ω̑ϲ | κᾱ`ι θ̄υ´εῑν το̄ ι ϲ̑ θ̆εο̄ ι ϲ̑ , | τὸν δὲ Φ ̄ωκ̆ι´ ̄ωνᾱ | πρὸϲ τοὺϲ ἐλέγχειν ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο` ν ο̄ ᾿ι ο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ | καὶ πῡνθᾰνο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ | εἰ ταῦτ’ οὐκ ἂν ἤθελεν αὑτῶι π̆επρ̄αχ̑ θαῑ, | ῾π̆α´ νῠ μ̆`εν ̑ | ο̄υ῏ ν᾿ φ̆α´ ναῑ, | ῾βεβουλεῦϲθαῑ δ’ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ινᾱ᾿· 6.6 | ϲφοδρότερον δ’ Ἀριϲτείδηϲ ὁ Λοκρόϲ, εἷϲ ὢν τῶν Πλάτωνοϲ ̑ | Διονυϲίου τοῦ πρεϲβυτέρου μίαν ἑταίρων, αἰτοῦντοϲ μὲν αὐτ̄ο` ν γῠνᾱ ικᾱ τ ̄ω̑ν θῠγᾰτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ων, | ἥδῑο̆ν ῍ᾰ ν ῎ε̆ φη̄ | νεκρ̄α` ν ᾿̆ι δε̄ ι ν̑ τ̄η` ν κ̆ο´ ρη̄ν | ἢ τυράνν ̄ωι ϲῠνοῑκο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱν· |: the handling of this story differs in rhythm from that of the story before. There only the punchline brought rhythms close together. Here the punchline (in 6.7) is presented with loose rhythm; but in much of the interaction with the tyrant, the rhythms throng. This suits the intensity of the first conversation (cf. ϲφοδρότερον) and the events. The first part here introduces the character Aristides of ̑ |, θῠγᾰτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ων, |, and κ̆ο´ ρη̄ν | form a Locri with no rhythm; but γῠνᾱ ικᾱ sequence. The two last rhythmic phrases, | νεκρ̄α` ν ᾿̆ι δε̄ ι ν̑ τ̄η` ν κ̆ο´ ρη̄ν | and | ἢ τυράνν ̄ωι ϲῠνοῑκο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱν· |, stand in the strongest antithesis, with particular stress on the initial words (as ever, excluding prepositives) | νεκρ̄α` ν and | (ἢ) τυράνν ̄ωι. | ἥδῑο̆ν is isolated and emphasized in a

104

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

phrase of its own, with only postpositive and the unemphatic ἔφη (some parts of this verb are actually enclitic). ἥδιον is idiomatic, but in this context stands out forcefully; cf. Cic. 37.1 | ἐν μὲν οὖν τῆι βουλῆι ψηφιζομένων αὐτ̄ω̑ι [i.e. Cicero] θρ̆ι´ᾱμβον̄ , | ἥδῑο̆ν ῍ᾰ ν ῎ε̆ φη̄ | παρακο λουθῆϲαι Καίϲαρι θριαμβεύοντι ϲυμβάϲε ̄ων γ̆ενο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ων |. It comes in what is perhaps a parodic pendant to the present story, on Aristides of Locri’s own death (Wilson [1997], 455 is possibly too cautious on the identity): Ael. VH 14.4 ὑπὸ Ταρτηϲϲίαϲ γαλῆϲ δηχθεὶϲ καὶ ἀποθνήιϲκων εἶπεν ὅτι πολὺ ἂν ἥδιον ἦν αὐτῶι [a rhythmic close if Aelian is treated as rhythmic] δηχθέντι ὑπὸ λέοντοϲ ἢ παρδάλεωϲ ἀποθανεῖν, εἴπερ οὖν ἔδει τινὸϲ τῶι θανάτωι προφάϲεωϲ, ἢ ὑπὸ θηρίου τοιούτου. ̑ 6.7 | ἀποκτείναντοϲ δὲ τοὺϲ πᾱ ι δᾰϲ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ̑ | μετ’ ὀλίγον χρόνον̄ το̄υ ̑ Δῐο̆νῡϲ̆ι´οῡ | καὶ πῠθο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡ πρ̆ο` ϲ υ῞̆ βρῑν | εἰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔτι γνώμην ἔχοι περὶ τῆϲ ἐκδόϲεωϲ τ̄ω̑ν θῠγᾰτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ων, | ἀπεκρίνατο τοῖϲ μὲν γεγενημένοιϲ λυπεῖϲθαι, τοῖϲ δ’ εἰρημένοιϲ μ̄η` μ̆ετᾰμ̆ελε̄ ι ϲ̑ θαῑ. |: the horrible events that follow the conversation are presented with rhythms still quite close together, but the rhythm grows slack as the second conversation proceeds. That may help to convey the calm of this response, in contrast to the vehemence of Aristides’ previous words (the question would be mock-calm on this hypothesis). πᾱ ι δ̑ ᾰϲ is the last significant word in its rhythmic unit; it relates to θῠγᾰτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ων, | and the two words ̑ continue the chain. μ̄η` μ̆ετᾰμ̆ελε̄ ι ϲθαῑ. | stands out impressively, and is held particularly in mind for the ταῦτα of the following sentence; it joins especially with | οὐδ’ . . . μ̆ετᾰβ̄α´ λλ̆εταῑ. | in 6.4, also at a weighty close. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἴϲωϲ μείζονοϲ καὶ τελειοτέραϲ ἀρετῆϲ ἐϲτι: the last part of this section, which forms the transition to the next, is entirely unrhythmic; the connection of μείζονοϲ with μ̆εγᾰλοψ ̄ ῡχ̆ι´ᾱν | above is not marked through rhythm at this point. The δέ clause that follows in 7.1 contains considerable unrhythmic sequences. The passage as a whole looks strikingly different from the continuous and massed rhythmic density of the passages with which we are chiefly concerned. At numerous points here, rhythm is not used to join words with the same degree of force as if both words were marked out by rhythm in a tight network. But we have seen the apparently expressive fluctuations of the passage in density, and the coming closer of rhythm at heightened moments. The case for the expressiveness of brief density is a priori less strong than in the examples of extended density that we are mainly considering. But those examples point us to a way of reading even briefer instances,

Taking Fratricide Too Hard

105

and in briefer instances that approach can be widely supported. We shall see further examples in the book, but passages of less or of less prolonged density should form the next stage in the critical exploitation of Plutarch’s rhythm.

Appendix: Plut. Comp. Aem. Tim. 41 (2).11–12, Nepos, Timol. 1.5–6 1. Plut. Comp. Aem. Tim. 41 (2).11 12 11. | Τιμολέων δὲ γεννᾱ ι ᾰ̑ πρ̄α´ ξᾱϲ | περ̆`ι τ̆ο` ν ᾰ᾿ δε λ̄ φ̄ο` ν | οὐκ ἀντέϲχε τ ̄ω̑ι λο̆γῑϲμ ̄ω̑ι | πρὸϲ τὸ πάθοϲ, ἀλλὰ μετανοίαι καὶ λύπη̄ι τᾰπεῑν ̄ωθε̄`ιϲ | ἐτῶν εἴκοϲι τὸ βῆμα κᾱ`ι τ̄η` ν ᾰ᾿ γο̆ρ̄α` ν ᾿̆ι δε̄ ι ν̑ | οὐχ ὑπέμεινε. 12. δεῖ δὲ τὰ αἰϲχρὰ φεύγειν καὶ αἰδεῖϲθαι· τὸ δὲ πρὸϲ πᾶϲαν ἀδοξ̄ ίᾱν ε̄υ᾿ λᾰβ̄`ε ϲ | ἐπιεικοῦϲ μὲν ἤθουϲ καὶ ἁπαλοῦ, μέγεθοϲ δ’ ο̄υ᾿ κ ῎ε̆ χον̄ τοϲ̄ . | 12 ἁπλοῦ Mb

Timoleon, on the other hand, after noble action in regard to his brother, did not withstand emotion with reason. He was lowered by remorse and grief, and throughout twenty years could not once endure to see the speaker’s platform and the agora. One must shun and feel shame at things that are disgraceful; but anxious care about any ill reputation belongs to a personality that is decent and soft, but lacks greatness. 2. Nepos, Timol. 1.5 6 5. hoc praeclarissimum eius factum non pari modo probatum est ab omnibus: nonnulli enim laesam ab eo pietatem putabant et inuidia laudem uirtutis obterebant. mater uero post id factum neque domum ad se filium admisit, neque aspexit quin eum fratricidam impiumque detestans compellaret. 6. quibus rebus ille adeo est commotus ut nonnumquam uitae finem facere uoluerit atque ex ingratorum hominum conspectu morte decedere. This most glorious deed of his did not receive equal praise from all: some thought that he had injured the love of family; with their grudging spirit they damaged the praise of his virtue. After this deed his mother would not let her son into her house, nor did she see him without addressing him, in curses, as a wicked brother killer. This distressed him so much that sometimes he wanted to end his life and by dying pass from seeing ungrateful people.

6 Peace Pervades (Numa 20.4–5) 4. οὐ γὰρ μ̆ο´ νο̆ν ο̆῾ Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´ ̄ων | η̄ ῾ μ̆ε´ ρ ̄ωτο ̄ | καὶ κᾰτ̆εκ̆εκ̄η´ λη̄το ̄ | τῆι ̑ οϲ̄ , | ἀλλὰ καὶ τ̄α` ϲ κ ̆υ´κλ ̄ωι δικαιοϲύνηι καὶ πρᾱ̆ο´ τη̄τῑ | τοῦ βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ δ̄ημ ̑ ν̄ | ἢ πνεύματοϲ ὑγιεινο̄υ ̑ φ̆ε´ ρον̄ τοϲ̄ , | π̆ο´ λεῑϲ, | ὥϲπερ αὔρᾱϲ τῐν̆ο` ϲ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ιθε ἀρχὴ μ̆ετᾰβο̆λ̄ηϲ̑ ῎ε̆ λᾰβε ,̄ | καὶ πόθοϲ εἰϲε ρ̄ ρ ̆υ´ η̄ π̄α´ ντᾱϲ | εὐνομίαϲ καὶ εἰρήνηϲ καὶ γ̄ην̑ φῠτε̄υ´ εῑν | καὶ τέκνα τρέφεῑν ε̆᾿ ν η̄ ῾ ϲῠχ̆ι´ᾱι | κᾱ`ι ϲ̆ε´ βε ϲ̄ θαῑ θ̆εο̄υ´ ϲ. | 5. ἑορτᾱ`ι δ̆`ε κᾱ`ι θᾰλ̆ι´αῑ | καὶ παρ᾿ ἀλλήλουϲ ἀδε ̄ω̑ϲ ᾿̆ῑο´ ντ ̄ων | καὶ ἀναμειγνυ̑ ν̄ , | ο̄῟ι ο̆ν ̄ ε᾿ κ πη̄γ̄ηϲ̑ | μένων ὑποδοχαὶ κᾱ`ι φῐλο̆φρο̆ϲ ̆υ´ναῑ | τὴν Ἰταλίᾱν κᾰτε̄ ι χο τ̄ηϲ̑ Νο̆μ̄α̑ ϲο̆φ̆ι´ᾱϲ | τῶν καλῶν κᾱ`ι δῐκᾱ ι´ ̄ων | ἐπεῑϲρ̆ε ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ α῞̆ πᾱντᾱϲ | καὶ δῐᾰχ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ϲ | τῆϲ περὶ ἐκεῖνον̄ γᾰλ̄η´ νη̄ϲ· | Not only were the Roman people civilized and bewitched by the justice and mildness of their king, but the surrounding cities too, as if a breeze or healthy breath of air were being wafted from Rome, were gripped by the start of a change. A desire flowed into them all for order and peace, for planting the land, bringing up children in peace, and worshipping the gods. Italy was filled with festivals and feasts, with hospitality and the receiving of peoples who mingled and visited each other without fear. What was beautiful and right flowed into all from the wisdom of Numa as from a spring; the tranquillity that surrounded him was diffused everywhere.

We return to passages that fulfil the criteria for rhythmic density. This passage, like the one in ch. 4 (Tim. 35), shows the civilization and peace brought by a great man. It takes its start from the gates of Janus, which remained open throughout Numa’s reign (20.3); there is source material behind it (cf. passage 2 in the appendix to this chapter, and Helm [1984], 91, 336). The style is still more elevated than in Tim. 35; here it is not a lavish rhetorical figure which elevates, but the copious imagery, and the unreal world which the passage creates from the historical material. In what follows (passage 1), Plutarch makes explicit how his content transcends the imaginings of poetry. The present passage displays the spreading out of peace from Rome to Italy; it is less pragmatic and down-to-earth than Dionysius’ account Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

108

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

of the neighbouring states (passage 2). At the same time, it is less lost in full-blown similes than the related portion of the De Fortuna Romanorum (passage 3), from which only an extract is given; the imagery in the present passage is evocative of poetry, but concise. 4. οὐ γὰρ μ̆ο´ νο̆ν ο̆῾ Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´ ̄ων | η̄ ῾ μ̆ε´ ρ ̄ωτο ̄ | καὶ κᾰτ̆εκ̆εκ̄η´ λη̄το ̄ | τῆι ̑ οϲ̄ , |: the notable split of δικαιοϲύνηι καὶ πρᾱ̆ο´ τη̄τῑ | τοῦ βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ δ̄ημ ´ ῾ ̑ οϲ̄ , | underlines article + genitive ο̆ Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι ̄ων | from the noun δ̄ημ the division of the argument (Romans, other cities); the rhythm assists, by further dwelling on Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´ ̄ων |. In between Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´ ̄ων | ̑ οϲ̄ , |, Numa’s peaceful impact is conveyed with abundance and δ̄ημ through the pairs of words, marked out in the rhythm. Each of the two verbs | η̄ ῾ μ̆ε´ ρ ̄ωτο ̄ | and κᾰτ̆εκ̆εκ̄η´ λη̄το ̄ | is all or almost all of a separate rhythmic entity. The first verb remains more in the sphere of historical narrative (Herodotus, Polybius, Dionysius, etc.). The second, although found in Appian (BC 1.335 κατεκήλει, of Antonius’ eloquence), takes us into states of mind explored in, and effected by, poetry, philosophy, and high-flown oratory (note Plat. Crat. 403e1 of Hades acting even on the Sirens, Plut. Ant. 36.1 of reason acting on love, with a poetic quotation at the start of sentence, cf. Finglass [2016], 300 n. 3). The pair of nouns | τῆι δικαιοϲύνηι καὶ πρᾱ̆ο´ τη̄τῑ | is placed in a rhythmic phrase. The second is the quality that Plutarch so emphasizes throughout the Lives; Numa is one of his more convincing examples. The word-order and the distinct rhythmic phrase | τοῦ βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ ̑ οϲ̄ , | juxtapose king and people; thus they stress the constitutional δ̄ημ basis of Numa’s impact. That will be lacking in the impact on the surrounding cities, which must be made persuasive through Plutarch’s language. | ἀλλὰ καὶ τ̄α` ϲ κ ̆υ´κλ ̄ωι π̆ο´ λεῑϲ, |: a more spatially vivid phrase than Dionysius’ repeated περίοικοι (passage 2); it prepares the quasiphysical good contagion. ̑ ν̄ | ἢ πνεύματοϲ ὑγιεινο̄υ ̑ φ̆ε´ ρον̄ τοϲ̄ , |: with | ὥϲπερ αὔρᾱϲ τῐν̆ο` ϲ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι θε ἤ the passage presents two related images rather than expanding, like the more philosophical declamation (cf. passage 3), into extended simile. The benign wind suggests poetic pictures of prosperity: compare passages 4 and 5, and Eur. Med. 839–40. But this breeze is the more poetic for being metaphorical (note the τινόϲ, suggesting a bold conceit). The form ὑγιεινόϲ (in poetry only in Menander) keeps the language and thought connected to prose; Horace’s saluber is found quite commonly in poetry. (Any additional influence on our passage

Peace Pervades

109

from figurative art would not remove the links to poetry; cf. Thomas [2011], 72, but also e.g. Castriota [1995], 65–73.) | ἀρχὴ μ̆ετᾰβο̆λ̄ηϲ̑ ῎ε̆ λᾰβε ,̄ | καὶ πόθοϲ εἰϲερ̄ ρ ̆υ´ η̄ π̄α´ ντᾱϲ |: the phrases are made parallel by the rhythm, even though τὰϲ . . . πόλειϲ is the object of the first verb. ἀρχὴ and πόθοϲ both in effect begin their phrases; πόθοϲ advances on ἀρχὴ μεταβολῆϲ. The verb ἔλαβε for ἀρχὴ μεταβολῆϲ is striking, and is highlighted by the rhythm and the wait for it; the word evokes both medical writing (cf. e.g. Hipp. Progn. 16.1 p. 45 Jouanna, Thuc. 2.49.2) and Homer (e.g. Il. 16.548–9, 17.695). εἰϲερρύη begins the line of imagery that is to be taken up later in the sentence. The people and communities are objects, not subjects (even in the first half of the sentence the people had been the subject of passive verbs): emotions dominate, in a process for which they are not responsible. It all comes from Numa. The περίοικοι are by contrast the subjects of Dionysius’ second sentence ( . . . διαλλακτῆραϲ ἐποιο̄υ ν̑ το̆ Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´οῡϲ | . . . ). γ̄ην̑ φῠτε̄υ´ εῑν | καὶ τέκνα τρέφεῑν ε̆᾿ ν η̄ ῾ ϲῠχ̆ι´ᾱι | κᾱ`ι ϲ̆ε´ βεϲ̄ θαῑ θ̆εο̄υ´ ϲ. |: simple verbal phrases for basic human actions, each a rhythmic entity of its own after the more abstract εὐνομίαϲ καὶ εἰρήνηϲ. The second phrase is enriched with the thematic ἐν ἡϲυχίαι; the last leads into ἑορταί. 5. | ἑορτᾱ`ι δ̆`ε κᾱ`ι θᾰλ̆ι´αῑ | . . . ὑποδοχαὶ κᾱ`ι φῐλο̆φρο̆ϲ ̆υ´ναῑ |: the rhythmic pairs provide subjects for κατεῖχον which press still harder on prose language. As in Bacch. fr. 4.61–80 Snell-Maehler (some quoted in passage 1), the absence of human subjects gives a poetic headiness to the depiction. The human actions, in participles, are less emphasized by rhythm and syntax: the first phrase is less tightly rhythmic than those that precede it, and there is an unrhythmic close with ἀναμειγνυμένων. Italy is a much grander and less defined entity than τ̄α` ϲ κ ̆υ´κλ ̄ωι π̆ο´ λεῑϲ | or Dionysius’ περίοικοι (passage 2); an effect on Italy is surprising at this early date. | ο̄῟ι ο̆ν ̄ ε᾿ κ πη̄γ̄ηϲ̑ | τ̄ηϲ̑ Νο̆μ̄α̑ ϲο̆φ̆ι´ᾱϲ |: the rhythmic structuring detaches both the image and the name of Numa. Grammatically, though, one might expect an | ἐκ before τ̄ηϲ̑ (if ϲοφίαϲ were dependent on πηγῆϲ, πηγῆϲ would have an article). Water of various kinds comes into poetic pictures of a blessed city (cf. e.g. Eur. Med. 835–40), but here is again metaphorical. ϲο̆φ̆ι´ᾱϲ | is highlighted by the rhythmic close, more than it would be simply by the image and word-order; it underlines the philosophical element which will be taken up in passage 1 (cf. Fort. Rom. 321f | τ̄ο` ν φῐλ̆ο´ ϲο̆φον̄ Νο̆μ̄α ̑ν |, and note Stadter [2015], 257).

110

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

| τῶν καλῶν κᾱ`ι δῐκᾱ ι´ ̄ων | ἐπεῑϲρ̆ε̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ α῞̆ πᾱντᾱϲ |: the philosophical phrase is focused on separately from the image; this in turn expands rhythmically beyond the very similar εἰϲερ̄ ρ̆υ´ η̄ π̄α´ ντᾱϲ |. The phrase τὸ/τὰ καλ- καὶ δίκαι- is actually commoner in the Lives than in the Moralia, but it may derive especially from Plato (Polit. 309c5 etc., not just with article). | καὶ δῐᾰχ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ϲ | τῆϲ περὶ ἐκεῖνον̄ γᾰλ̄η´ νη̄ϲ. |: the phrasing gives weight to both participle and noun. Liquid and wind, which have permeated the passage, are brought together in a combination that pushes language yet further. τοιαύτην ἀναχεαμένη καὶ περιϲτήϲαϲα γαλήνην πραγμάτων in Fort. Rom. 321d (passage 3) comes more naturally after the preceding imagery of the sea. The spatial relation of the calm to Numa in the present passage is a particular linguistic challenge and conceptual triumph. Together with τ̄α` ϲ κ ̆υ´κλ ̄ωι π̆ο´ λεῑϲ | it suggests concentric circles, with tranquillity wafted from Numa to Rome and from Rome to Italy. We have passed far beyond the terms in which, say, Thucydides might write of Pericles. The start of the following sentence (passage 1) makes the reader look back afresh on the previous one. Numa’s achievement has surpassed poetry, and that achievement has been hymned with an exalted expression which suits it, and perhaps outdoes poets. The ensuing quotation from poetry omits the descriptions in Bacchylides’ passage of mortal worship, song, and partying, and so makes Plutarch’s preceding picture stand out the more. After the poetry, the passage briefly resumes rhythmic density, but with broad historical vision, and an emphasis on historical data. The passage finally turns to a well-known and of course unrhythmic passage of Plato’s Republic (5.473c–e), but draws it to a firmly rhythmical close by inserting the idea, not actually present in Plato, of virtue overcoming vice.

Appendix: Plut. Numa 20.6–9, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.76.3, Plut. Fort. Rom. 321c–d, Aesch. Eum. 902–7, Hor. CS 29–32 1. Plut. Numa 20.6 9 6. | ὥϲτε καὶ τὰϲ ποιητικὰϲ ὑπε ρ̄ βο̆λ̄α` ϲ ̄ ε᾿ νδε̄ ι ν̑ | πρὸϲ τὴν τότε κατάϲταϲῑν λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑν· | ‘ἐν δὲ ϲιδαροδέτοιϲ πόρπαξιν αἰθᾶν {ἀραχνᾶν ἔργα{’ καὶ

Peace Pervades

111

‘εὐρὼϲ δάμναται ἔγχεά τε λογχωτὰ ξίφεά τ’ ἀμφάκεα, χαλκεᾶν δ᾿ οὐκ ἔϲτι ϲαλπίγγων κτύποϲ, οὐδὲ ϲυλᾶται μελίφρων ὕπνοϲ ἀπὸ βλεφάρων.’ 7. οὔτε γὰρ π̆ο´ λ̆εμο̆ϲ ο̄υ῎ τε ̄ ϲτ̆α´ ϲῑϲ | οὔτε νε ̄ωτ̆ερῑϲμ̄ο` ϲ | π̆ερ̆`ι πο̆λῑτε̄ ι´ᾱν | ̄ ῾ι ϲτ̆ο´ ρη̄ταῑ | Νομᾶ βαϲιλεύοντοϲ· οὐ μὴν οὐδ᾿ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον ἔχθρᾱ τῐϲ η̄῍ φθ̆ο´ νοϲ̄ | ἢ δι᾿ ἔρ ̄ωτᾰ βᾰϲῐλε̄ ι´ᾱϲ | ἐπιβουλὴ καὶ ϲύϲταϲιϲ ἀνδρῶν, 8. ̄α᾿ λλ᾿ ε̄῎ι τ̆ε φ̆ο´ βοϲ̄ θ̆ε ̄ω̑ν | προκήδεϲθαι δοκούντων τοῦ ἀνδρόϲ, εἴτε τῆϲ ἀρετῆϲ αἰδώϲ, εἴτε δαιμόνιοϲ τύχη, πάϲηϲ κακίαϲ ἄθῑκτο̆ν ε̆᾿ π᾿ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´νοῡ | καὶ καθαρὸν διαφυλάττοῡϲᾰ τ̄ο` ν β̆ι´ον̄ , | ἐναργὲϲ ἐξήνεγ̄ κ̆ε πᾰρ̆α´ δεῑγμᾱ | κᾱ`ι τ̆εκμ̄η´ ρῐον̄ | τῆϲ Πλατ ̄ωνῐκ̄ηϲ̑ φ ̄ων̄ηϲ̑ , | ἣν ὕϲτερον ἐκεῖνοϲ οὐκ ὀλίγοιϲ χρόνοῑϲ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | ἐτόλμηϲεν ἀφεῖναι π̆ερ̆`ι πο̆λῑτε̄ ι´ᾱϲ, | 9. ὡϲ μία κακῶν παῦλα καὶ λύϲιϲ ἀνθρώποιϲ ἐϲτὶν ἔκ τινοϲ̄ τ̆υ´χη̄ϲ θε̄ ι´ᾱϲ | εἰϲ ταὐτὸ διανοίᾱι φῐλο̆ϲ̆ο´ φ ̄ωι | βαϲιλικὴν ϲυμπεϲοῦϲαν δύναμιν ἐγκρατῆ καὶ ὑπερδέξιον τῆϲ κακίαϲ τὴν ἀρετ̄η` ν κᾰτᾱϲτ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ. | 6 ἐν δὲ κτλ. Bacch. fr. 4.69 77 Snell Maehler ἀραχνᾶν etiam Stob. 4.14.3 ἔργα: ἱϲτοὶ πέλονται P. Oxy. III 426.32 (]ο̣ι πελ[), Stob. δάμναται post ἀμφάκεα Stob., omisso εὐρώϲ; ἀμφ. δάμναται εὐρώϲ Bergk, cf. fr. 4.61 2 ante χαλκεᾶν duos uersus omittunt et Plut. et Stob. 8 δαιμόνιοϲ Bryan: δαίμονοϲ codd.1

Hence they say that the hyperboles of poetry fall short for that situation. ‘On the iron bound handles of shields are the works of brown spiders [text?]’ and ‘Rust overcomes the pointed spears and two edged swords. There is no noise from bronze trumpets, nor is honey sweet sleep robbed from eyelids.’ For no war or civil strife or rebellion on the constitution has been recorded while Numa was king. There was no enmity or envy against Numa himself, and no conspiracy and getting together of men through desire for kingship; something, whether fear of the gods, who seemed to be looking after the man, or respect for virtue, or fate and chance, keeping life in his time untainted by all vice and pure, brought forth a clear example and testimony for that saying of Plato, which he, born no little time later, dared to utter on the state: that for humans the one pause and rescue from woes was to give power to the might of kings when by some good fortune from the gods it coincided with philosophical thought, and to give virtue supremacy over vice.

1

Both Plutarch and Stobaeus depend on a corrupt text of the Bacchylides (note that ἀραχνᾶν is unlikely as dactylo epitrite, apart from responsion). Possibly the text comes from an anthology (cf. Barrett [2007], 293); but even so Plutarch might seem to be citing it from memory.

112

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

2. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.76.3 | τῶι δὲ Νόμαι περιῆν ἐκ τούτων φιλεῖϲθαι μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων, ζηλοῦϲθαι δ᾿ ὑπὸ τῶν περιοίκων, μνημονεύεϲθαι δ᾿ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιγινομένων· δι᾿ ὧν οὔτε ̄ ϲτ̆α´ ϲῐϲ ̄ ε᾿ μφ̄υ´ λῐοϲ̄ | τὴν πολιτικὴν ἔλυϲ̆εν ο῾̆ μ̆ο´ νοῑᾱν, | οὔτε π̆ο´ λ̆εμο̆ϲ ̄α᾿ λλο̆ε̆ θν̄η` ϲ | ἐκ τ ̄ω̑ν κρᾰτ̄ ι´ϲτων | κᾱ`ι θαῡμᾰϲῐ ̄ωτ̆α´ τ̄ων | τὴν πόλιν ἐπιτηδευμάτ ̄ων ε̆᾿ κ̄ ι´νη̄ϲε .̄ | τοϲοῦτον γὰρ ἀπέϲχον οἱ περίοικοι τὴν ἀπόλεμον ἡϲυχίαν Ῥωμαίων ἀφορμὴν τῆϲ κατ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐπιθέϲε ̄ωϲ ῠ῾ πο̆λᾰβε̄ ι ν̑ | ὥϲτε καὶ εἴ τιϲ αὐτοῖϲ πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ ϲυνέϲτη πόλεμοϲ διαλλακτῆραϲ ἐποιο̄υ ν̑ το̆ Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´οῡϲ | καὶ ἐπ̆`ι δῐαῑτη̄τ̄ηι̑ Ν̆ο´ μᾱι | τὰϲ ἔχθραϲ δῐᾰλ̄υ´ εῑν η̄ ᾿ ξ̆ι´οῡν. The result for Numa from all this was to be loved by those he ruled, admired by neighbouring peoples, and remembered by posterity. Through this, civil strife did not undo the harmony of the state, nor did war with other peoples disrupt the city from its best and most extraordinary practices. So far were the neighbouring peoples from taking the warless tranquillity of the Romans as the starting point for an attack against them that if a war against each other arose, they made the Romans their conciliators, and they thought it best to end their private enmities with Numa as their arbitrator. 3. Plut. Fort. Rom. 321c d | οἷα δέ φαϲι τὰϲ ἀλκυόν ̄ων λο̆χε̄ ι´ᾱϲ | παραδε̑ ξαμένην τὴν θάλαϲϲαν ἐν χειμῶνι ϲώιζειν καὶ ϲυνε κ̄ τῐθη̄νε̄ ιϲθαῑ, | τοιαύτην ἀναχεαμένη καὶ περιϲτήϲαϲα γαλήνην πραγμάτων ἀπόλεμον καὶ ἄνοϲον καὶ ἀκίνδυνον καὶ ἄφοβον, νεοϲ̄ τᾰθε̄ ι ̑ δ̄η´ μ ̄ωι | κᾱ`ι κρᾰδαῑνο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ωι | παρέϲχε ῥιζῶϲαι καὶ κατᾱϲτ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ τ̄η` ν π̆ο´ λῑν, | αὐξανομένη̄ν ε̆᾿ ν η̄ ῾ ϲῠχ̆ι´ᾱι | βεβαίωϲ καὶ ἀνε μ ̄ πο̆δ̄ ι´ϲτ ̄ωϲ. In the way that they say the sea takes over the childbirth of halcyons in the winter and saves the young ones and fosters them together with the parents, such was the calm in affairs that Fortune poured forth and set around the Romans, without war, or plague, or peril, or fear; she allowed a newly established people, much shaken, to root their city firmly and fix it, as it grew in tranquillity firmly and without hindrance. 4. Aesch. Eum. 902 6 Χο. τί οὖν μ᾿ ἄνωγαϲ τῆιδ᾿ ἐφυμνῆϲαι χθονί; Αθ. ὁποῖα νίκηϲ μὴ κακῆϲ ἐπίϲκοπα, καὶ ταῦτα γῆθεν ἔκ τε ποντίαϲ δρόϲου ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τε· κἀνέμων ἀήματα εὐηλίωϲ πνέοντ’ ἐπιϲτείχειν χθόνα· Chor. What blessing do you bid me sing on this land? Ath. Those things which attain a victory not perverse, from earth, the water of the sea, and the sky; bid that the breezes of winds blowing sunnily may come upon the land.

Peace Pervades

113

5. Hor. CS 29 32 fertilis frugum pecorisque Tellus spicea donet Cererem corona; nutriant fetus et aquae salubres et Iouis aurae. May Earth, fertile in crops and flocks, make Ceres the gift of a corn garland; may her produce be nurtured by Jupiter’s health giving rain and breezes.

7 What to Write under a Statue (Cato Maior 19.4–6) ̑ οϲ̄ . | 4. | φαίνεται δὲ θαυμαϲτῶϲ ἀποδεξάμενοϲ αὐτοῦ τὴν τιμητείᾱν ο῾̆ δ̄ημ ἀνδριάντα γοῦν ἀναθεὶϲ ἐν τῶι ναῶι τῆϲ Ὑγιείαϲ ἐπέγραψεν οὐ τ̄α` ϲ ϲτρᾰτη̄γ̆ι´ᾱϲ | οὐδὲ τ̄ο` ν θρ̆ι´ᾱμβον̄ | το̄υ ̑ Κ̆α´ τ ̄ωνοϲ̄ , | ἀλλ᾿ ὡϲ ἄν τιϲ μεταφράϲειε τ̄η` ν ε̆᾿ πῐγρᾰφ̄η´ ν, | ὅτι τὴν Ῥωμαί ̄ων πο̆λῑτε̄ ι´ ᾱν | ̑ ν̄ | τιμητ̄η` ϲ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | ̄ ε᾿ γκ̆εκλῐμ̆ε´ νη̄ν | κᾱ`ι ῥ̆ε´ ποῡϲᾱν | ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̆ο` χε̄ ιρο χρηϲτᾱ ιϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ γ ̄ωγᾱ ι ϲ̑ | καὶ ϲ ̄ω´ φρο̆ϲῐν ε̆᾿ θῑϲμο̄ ι ϲ̑ | κᾱ`ι δῐδᾱϲκᾰλ̆ι´αῑϲ | εἰϲ ̄ο᾿ ρθ̆ο` ν ᾱυ῏ θῑϲ | ᾰ᾿ πο̆κᾰτ̄ ε´ ϲτη̄ϲε .̄ | 5. καίτοι πρότερον αὐτ̄ο` ϲ κᾰτ̆εγ̆ε´ λᾱ | τῶν ἀγαπώντ ̄ων τᾰ` τοῑᾱυ τ̑ ᾱ, | καὶ λανθάνειν αὐτοὺϲ ἔλεγεν ἐπὶ χαλκέων καὶ ζ ̄ωγρ̆α´ φ ̄ων ̄ ῎ε ργοῑϲ | μ̆ε´ γᾰ φρο̆νο̄υ ν̑ τᾱϲ, | αὑτοῦ δὲ κᾱλλ̄ ι´ ϲτᾱϲ ε̄ ᾿ι κ̆ο´ νᾱϲ | ἐν ταῖϲ ψυχᾱ ιϲ̑ π̆ερῐφ̆ε´ ρεῑν | το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̄ ι´ τᾱϲ·| 6. πρὸϲ δὲ τοὺϲ θαυμάζονταϲ ὅτι ̑ ̆ ϲ ο̄υ᾿ κ ῎ε̆ χεῑ, | ῾μᾶλλον γάρ’ ἔφη πολλῶν ἀδόξων ἀνδριάνταϲ ἐχόντων ἐκε̄ ι νο ‘βούλομαι ζητεῖϲθαι διὰ τί μου ἀνδριὰϲ οὐ κεῖται η῍̄ δῐα` τ̆ι´ κε̄ ι τ̑ αῑ.᾿ | 4 ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον S: ἐπὶ τὰ χείρω Υ

The people clearly approved of his censorship to an extraordinary degree. They set up a statue in the temple of Health; on it they inscribed, not Cato’s generalships or triumph, but rather, to translate the inscrip tion, ‘As censor he set the Roman state up straight again, when it had fallen and was inclining towards the worse, by his honest leadership, his restrained ways, and his instruction.’ Previously, however, Cato used to laugh at those who valued such things. He would say that they did not realize that they were taking pride in the works of metalworkers and painters, whereas the fairest images of himself were carried around by the citizens in their souls. To those who marvelled that he had no statue when many undistinguished people did he said, ‘I prefer it to be asked why there is no statue of me than why there is.’

Here, as in the previous two passages, a seal is set on achievement; but the achievement is limited in time—Cato’s censorship of 184 BC—and the laudation is expressed not simply by the narrator, but through a mixture of engaged description and translated inscription. The Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

116

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

passage then passes to the idea of representation and to Cato’s views on his own praise, but initially displays the bond of feeling between Cato and the citizens. It is an oblique and ingenious passage, then, more suited to its quirky honorand than extravagant laudation; but it is the density of the rhythm in 19.4–5 that helps to mark out its importance. The praise matters, but so does its context: the interaction of individual and people in values. The inscription and possibly the statue invite scepticism: cf. Fraccaro (1956–75), i.435, Astin (1978), 103 n. 89, Sehlmeyer (1999), 146–8; on honorific public statues, Sehlmeyer (1999), 142–77, Fejfer (2008), 20–1, Longfellow (2015), 348. It is unclear quite where Plutarch stands between credulous reading, credulous seeing, distortion, and invention; but essential to the passage is his contribution as a writer, rhythm included. 4. | φαίνεται δὲ θαυμαϲτῶϲ ἀποδεξάμενοϲ αὐτοῦ τὴν τιμητείᾱν ο῾̆ ̑ οϲ̄ . |: rhythm reinforces the word-order; for all the senatorial δ̄ημ critics, the fine of two talents engineered by tribunes, and the use of public money, the Roman people themselves approve of Cato. The sentence is loose rhythmically. | ἀνδριάντα γοῦν ἀναθεὶϲ ἐν τῶι ναῶι τῆϲ ‘Yγιείαϲ ἐπέγραψεν οὐ τ̄α` ϲ ϲτρᾰτη̄γ̆ι´ᾱϲ | οὐδὲ τ̄ο` ν θρ̆ι´ᾱμβον̄ | το̄υ ̑ Κ̆α´ τ̄ωνοϲ̄ , |: this sentence proceeds to the evidence, but it is with the structure—negative, negative, positive—that it warms into close rhythm. The name of Cato is helped by the rhythm to stand out; this particular name is always liable to carry extra force, and here prepares for later in the chapter (19.7 οὐ γὰρ Κάτ ̄ων̆ε´ ϲ ε̄ ᾿ι ϲῑ· | κτλ.). | ἀλλ᾿ ὡϲ ἄν τιϲ μεταφράϲειε τ̄η` ν ε̆᾿ πῐγρᾰφ̄η´ ν, |: quick mention of the source will be followed by a resumption of the density. Plutarch’s rhetoric and that of the inscription interlock. The phrasing seems to offer a literal translation, and possibly to suggest autopsy, whether or not truly: cf. passage 2 in the Appendix, from Otho. But the expression does not carry the stamp of a second-century Latin inscription. Rather, in Plutarch’s monument of celebration the austere and moral concerns of the renewed Republic, here indifferent to commands and triumphs, conjoin themselves with the rhythmic elegance and deft imagery of Greek Imperial prose. The effect remains if Plutarch is inadvertently translating, say, a later elogium. The people are made the authors of the inscription. τὴν Ῥωμαί ̄ων πο̆λῑτε̄ ι´ ᾱν |: the noun stands against ϲτρᾰτη̄γ̆ι´ᾱϲ | and θρ̆ι´ᾱμβον̄ |; the rhythmic closes go together, helped by having nouns in the same case (although not for the same reason). The name of

What to Write under a Statue

117

the Romans to some degree stands against that of Cato. A similar proud third-person manner (cf. 14.2) is shown by the Romans, but the focus is shifted to the res publica. ̑ ν̄ |: a pair of participles | ̄ ε᾿ γκ̆εκλῐμ̆ε´ νη̄ν | κᾱ`ι ῥ̆ε´ ποῡϲᾱν | ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̆ο` χε̄ ιρο highlight the image. The first constitutes a whole rhythmic unit; the second also does so, with a prepositive, but dependent words come after. A pair expands from one rhythmic phrase to two. ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον is more idiomatic than ἐπὶ τὰ χείρω (Y), cf. e.g. Plat. Rep. 2.381b10–11, Polyb. 4.81.12. | τιμητ̄η` ϲ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ |: in the structure of the sentence, Cato as ̑ ν̄ | and | τιμητ̄η` ϲ are confronted censor interrupts the decline. χε̄ ιρο across the rhythmic boundary. | χρηϲτᾱ ι ϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ γ ̄ωγᾱ ιϲ̑ | καὶ ϲ ̄ω´ φρο̆ϲῐν ε̆᾿ θῑϲμο̄ ιϲ̑ | κᾱ`ι δῐδᾱϲκᾰλ̆ι´αῑϲ |: matching rhythmic pairs of adjective and noun, but the second, | καὶ ϲ ̄ω´ φρο̆ϲῐν ε̆᾿ θῑϲμο̄ ι ϲ̑ |, is expanded with a synonym which occupies its own rhythmic entity. | εἰϲ ̄ο᾿ ρθ̆ο` ν ᾱυ῏ θῑϲ | ᾰ᾿ πο̆κᾰτ̄ ε´ ϲτη̄ϲε .̄ |: the image is resumed. The following through of standing straight resembles Brut. 29.3 | ὄρθιον̄ δ̆`ε τ̄η` ν γν ̄ω´ μη̄ν | καὶ ἄκᾱμπτο̆ν ̄ ε῾ ϲτ ̄ω̑ϲᾱν |, see ch. 8 (cf. for the following through in this context Cic. Marc. 23 | omnia quae dilapsa iam diffluxerunt seueris legibus uīncĭēndă sūnt |). But the verb with double preverb in a unit of its own imposingly presents the heroic and successful effort. 5. | καίτοι πρότερον αὐτ̄ο` ϲ κᾰτ̆εγ̆ε´ λᾱ | τῶν ἀγαπώντ ̄ων τ̆α` τοῑᾱυ τ̑ ᾱ, |: now the discourse seems to undo what had preceded; but the rhythm is still quite dense, if less climactically all-embracing. One could scan λᾱνθ̆α´ νεῑν ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ` ϲ |, with ἔλεγεν syntactically separate. The sentence in fact proceeds in a metaphorical direction that enhances Cato’s glory more philosophically. χαλκέων καὶ ζ ̄ωγρ̆α´ φ ̄ων ̄ ῎ε ργοῑϲ | μ̆ε´ γᾰ φρο̆νο̄υ ν̑ τᾱϲ, |: the structure resembles the earlier move from negative to positive, οὐ τ̄α` ϲ ϲτρᾰτη̄γ̆ι´ᾱϲ | κτλ.; the scorn for mere art is itself elevated. | αὑτοῦ δὲ κᾱλλ̄ ι´ ϲτᾱϲ ε̄ ᾿ι κ̆ο´ νᾱϲ | ἐν ταῖϲ ψυχᾱ ι ϲ̑ π̆ερῐφ̆ε´ ρεῑν | το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̄ ι´ τᾱϲ·|: the metaphorical images are best. Such moves are not exclusively Platonic, or philosophical: cf. Tac. Ann. 4.52.2 non in effigies mutas diuinum spiritum transfusum; se imaginem ueram. But the notions here are particularly Platonic: cf. Phileb. 39a1–c6 (including painting of mental images in the soul by an internal artist). 6. | πρὸϲ δὲ τοὺϲ θαυμάζονταϲ ὅτι πολλῶν ἀδόξων ἀνδριάνταϲ ̑ ̆ ϲ ο̄υ᾿ κ ῎ε̆ χεῑ, |: Plutarch has been putting together this ἐχόντων ἐκε̄ ι νο

118

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

part of his section by assembling material on Cato and statues. His final part is a witty anecdote, and the rhythm grows loose again. The situation is still that of the preceding sentence, in the period before the erection of Cato’s statue. Plutarch here alters the story (cf. passage 1), for the sake of greater consistency in Cato, so that he does not originally refuse to have statues of himself; Cato could presumably likewise have prevented the citizens in 184 BC. Such a refusal is seen with Agesilaus (Ages. 2.4). | ῾μᾶλλον γάρ’ ἔφη ‘βούλομαι ζητεῖϲθαι διὰ τί μου ἀνδριὰϲ οὐ κεῖται η῍̄ ` ̑ δῐα τ̆ι´ κε̄ ι ταῑ.᾿ |: in this context, the remark gives evidence of the difference in time from 19.4; no statue of him existed then. Here it would not make sense, as in passage 1, to include πῡνθ̆α´ νε ϲ̄ θᾱ ι´ τῐνᾱϲ |: the τινέϲ have been made part of the narrative frame for the saying.

Appendix: Praec. Ger. Reip. 820b, Otho 18.1–2 1. Praec. Ger. Reip. 820b |h ὁ δὲ Κάτων, ἤδη τῆϲ Ῥώμηϲ καταπιπλαμένηϲ ᾱ ᾿ νδρῐ̄α´ ντ ̄ων, | οὐκ ἐῶν αὑτο̄υ ̑ γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ | ῾μᾶλλον’ ἔφη ‘βούλομαι πῡνθ̆α´ νεϲ̄ θᾱ ι´ ̑ τῐνᾱϲ | διὰ τί μου ἀνδριὰϲ οὐ κεῖται η῍̄ δῐα` τ̆ι´ κε̄ ι ταῑ.᾿| Cato, when Rome was already full of statues, refused to let one be made of him: ‘I prefer some people to ask why there is not a statue of me than why there is.’ 2. Otho 18.1 2 1 . . . . κρύψαντε ϲ̄ δ̆`ε τ̄ηι̑ γ̄ηι̑ | τὰ λείψανα του ̑ Ὄ̆ θωνοϲ̄ , |h ̓ ̄ ́ ̄ωι | τὸν τάφον ἐπο̄ ι´η̄ϲᾰν οὔτ̆ε μ̆εγ̆ε´ θεῑ ϲ̄η´ μᾰτοϲ̄ | οὔτ᾿ ε̆᾿ πῐγρᾰφ̄ηϲ̑ ογκ ̑ ᾰ μ̆ε´ τρῐον̄ | ε̆᾿ π̄ ι´φθο̆νον̄ . | 2. εἶδον δ᾿ ἐν Βριξίλλ ̄ωι γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | καὶ μν̄ημ καὶ τ̄η` ν ε̆᾿ πῐγρᾰφ̄η` ν | οὕτ ̄ωϲ ῎ε̆ χοῡϲᾱν, | εἰ μεταφραϲθείη· ‘δηλώϲει Μάρκοῡ Ὄ̆ θωνοϲ̄ .᾿ |h 2 δηλώϲει: δαίμοϲι Lobeck

They buried Otho’s remains in the ground, and did not make the burial liable to envy either through the size of the tomb or through the pomp of the inscription. When I was in Brixillum I saw a modest monument, and its inscription as follows, if it were translated, ‘to show M. Otho’.

8 A Dangerous Leap (Alexander 63.2–6) 2. | ο̆῾ δ̆`ε πλο̄υϲ̑ ο̄υ᾿ κ ̄α᾿ ργ̆ο` ϲ ̄η᾿ ̑ν | ο̄υ᾿ δ᾿ ᾰ᾿ π̆ο´ λ̆εμοϲ, | προϲβάλλ ̄ων δ̆`ε τᾱ ιϲ̑ π̆ο´ λ̆εϲῐ | καὶ ἀποβαίνων, ἐχειρο̄υ τ̑ ο̆ π̄α´ ντᾱ. | πρὸϲ δὲ τοῖϲ καλοῡμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ Μᾱλλο̄ ι ϲ̑ , | οὕϲ φαϲιν Ἰνδῶν μαχιμωτάτοῡϲ γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ, | μῑκρ̆ο` ν ε̆᾿ δ̆ε´ η̄ϲε ̄ | κᾰτᾰκο̆π̄ην̑ αῑ. | 3. τοὺϲ μ̄`ε ν γ̆`αρ ̄α᾿ νθρ ̄ω´ ποῡϲ | βέλεϲιν ἀπὸ τῶν τειχ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ πε ϲ̄ κ̆ε´ δᾰϲε ,̄ | ̑ πρῶτοϲ δὲ διὰ κλίμακοϲ τ̆εθε̄ ι´ ϲη̄ϲ | ἀναβ̄α` ϲ ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̆ο` τε̄ ιχοϲ, | ὡϲ ἥ τε κλῖμᾱξ ̑ ϲῠν̆ετρ̆ι´βη | καί, τῶν βαρβάρ ̄ων ῠ῾ φῑϲτᾰμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | πᾰρ̆`α τ̆ο` τε̄ ιχοϲ, | ἐλάμβανε πληγ̄α` ϲ κ̆α´ τ ̄ωθε ν̄ , | ὀλιγιϲτὸϲ ὢν ϲυϲτρέψᾱϲ ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ο` ν | εἰϲ μέϲοῡϲ ᾰ᾿ φ̄ηκ̑ ε ̄ | το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´οῡϲ, | κᾱ`ι κᾰτ̆α` τ̆υ´χη̄ν | ̄ο᾿ ρθ̆ο` ϲ ̄ ῎ε ϲτη̄. | 4. τιναξαμένοῡ δ̆`ε το̄ ι ϲ̑ ο῞̆ πλοῑϲ, | ἔδοξᾰν ο̄ ῾ι β̄α´ ρβᾰροῑ | ϲέλᾱϲ τῐ κᾱ`ι φ̄α´ ϲμᾱ | πρὸ τοῦ ϲώματοϲ φ̆ε´ ρε ϲ̄ θαῑ. | 5. διὸ καὶ τὸ πρ ̄ω̑το̆ν ῎ε̆ φῠγον | καὶ διε ϲ̄ κ̆εδ̄α´ ϲθη̄ϲᾱν· | ὡϲ δ᾿ ε̄῏ιδο̆ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο` ν | μετὰ δυε̄ ιν̑ ῠ῾ πᾱϲπῑϲτ̄ω̑ν, | ε̆᾿ πῐδρᾰμ̄ο´ ντε ϲ̄ | ο̄ ῾ι μ̆`εν ̄ ε᾿ κ χεῑρ̄ο` ϲ | ξ̆ι´φ̆εϲῐ κᾱ`ι δ̆ο´ ρᾰϲῑ | διὰ τῶν ὅπλ ̄ων ϲῠν̆ετ̆ι´τρ ̄ωϲκον | ἀμυνόμενον, 6. εἷϲ δὲ μικρὸν ἀπ ̄ωτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ω ϲτ̄α` ϲ | ἐφ̄ηκ̑ ε̆ ν ᾰ᾿ π̆ο` τ̄ο´ ξοῡ | β̆ε´ λο̆ϲ ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ωϲ ε̄υ῎ το̆νον | κᾱ`ι β̆ι´αῑον | ὥϲτε τὸν θώρᾱκᾰ δῐᾰκ̄ο´ ψᾱν | ̄ ε᾿ μπᾰγ̄ην̑ αῑ | τοῖϲ περὶ τὸν μᾱϲτ̆ο` ν ̄ο᾿ ϲτ̆ε´ οῑϲ. | The voyage [on the rivers] was not with effort or without war; he attacked cities, and left the water, and conquered all before him. But among the people called the Malli, who they say were the most warlike of the Indians, he came close to being cut down. He had scattered the fighters from the walls with spears, and then was the first to place a ladder and go up on to the wall; when the ladder came to pieces, and he was receiving blows from beneath as the barbarians stood their ground by the wall, with very few men he bunched himself up and hurled himself into the middle of the enemy, and by luck landed upright. As he brandished his weapons, the barbarians thought some radiant vision was moving along in front of his body. So at first they fled and dispersed; but when they saw he had only two supporters with shields, they ran against him; some at close quarters were wounding him through his armour with swords and spears as he defended himself, and one man, from a position a little further off, fired from his bow an arrow that had such impetus and force that it cut through Alexander’s breastplate and lodged in the bones around his breast.

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

120

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

The previous passages have introduced us to rhythmic density through places which pause for summation or breadth of vision; this passage brings us to a different possibility, and shows us rhythmic density enhancing the narrative of action at a peak. In this passage, Alexander, in his campaign of 326–325 BC, acts in isolated valour, and is wounded. The ensuing danger to Alexander’s life, and rumours of his death, intensify the moment in retrospect; the wound is picked up as a weighty circumstance at 68.2. Critics have felt that this leap is a climactic moment in the narrative, and have even assigned it an epic quality: cf. Mossman (1988), 90. Other accounts make clear the importance generally given to the episode; so not least the pages devoted to it in Plutarch’s second speech on Alexander and Virtue or Fortune, 343d–345b (at which point the MSS give up). But Plutarch’s account here is by comparison notably compact and unexpansive; the density of rhythm does much of the work in making this moment climactic. As the Appendix to the chapter illustrates, a wealth of comparative material, rhythmic and unrhythmic, Greek and Latin, historical and rhetorical, exists to bring out the special qualities of this intense and concentrated depiction. 2. | ο῾̆ δ̆`ε πλο̄υ ϲ̑ ο̄υ᾿ κ ̄α᾿ ργ̆ο` ϲ η̄῏ ν | ο̄υ᾿ δ᾿ ᾰ᾿ π̆ο´ λ̆εμο̄ ϲ, | προϲβάλλ ̄ων δ̆`ε τᾱ ι ϲ̑ π̆ο´ λ̆εϲῐ | καὶ ἀποβαίνων, ἐχειρο̄υτ̑ ο̆ π̄α´ ντᾱ. |: the introductory sentence is in a lower key (cf. the preceding ϲχο̆λᾱ ι´ ̄ωϲ. |). A pause at a prominent point (ἀποβαίνων,) is unrhythmic; it could have been made less prominent, and it might have read more easily, with ἀποβαίνων before προϲβάλλων. | πρὸϲ δὲ τοῖϲ καλοῡμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ Μᾱλλο̄ ι ϲ̑ , |: the name is given great emphasis, as the first important word in the sentence and the last in the rhythmic close, followed by a pause in syntax. The name is opposed to π̄α´ ντᾱ. | at the end of the previous rhythmic close and sentence, and reverses the pattern of Alexander’s campaign; it also calls for historiographical attention from the reader in a moment of Alexander’s life particularly subject to scholarly controversy (cf. later Arr. Anab. 6.11, with Bosworth [1988], 75–83; but Plutarch seems to have read widely for his Life, and on this matter passage 1 in the Appendix shows that in the Life he was aware of divergences). Arrian claims that the usual account was that the incident occurred among the Oxydracae, when it was really among the Malloi (6.11.3; cf. for Oxydracae e.g. App. BC 2.637 [passage 5], Luc. Dial. Mort. 12.5; Clitarch. FGrHist 137 F 24, Paus. 1.6.2; for Sudracae—a less Hellenized version of the same name, cf. Diod. Sic. 17.98.1—Curt. 9.4.26; for

A Dangerous Leap

121

Malloi Strabo 15.1.33 701 C. iv.178.5–8 Radt). Plutarch flings both names about insouciantly in the speeches on Alexander (1 327b, 2 341c Malloi; extended account, 2 343d [passage 1] Oxydracae; cf. also Hamilton [1969], 176). Here he is being painstakingly accurate and scholarly, as the ensuing ethnographic addition shows (at Alex. 55.9 ἐν Μαλλοῖϲ Ὀξυδράκαιϲ the second or both names are rightly deleted by editors). The rhythm, then, promotes the historiography in various ways. | οὕϲ φαϲιν Ἰνδῶν μαχιμωτάτοῡϲ γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ, |: the ethnographic touch has also a preparatory role; the depiction of the barbarians is mixed in this passage, but Alexander’s deed and daring must be enhanced. | μῑκρ̆ο` ν ε̆᾿ δ̆ε´ η̄ϲε ̄ | κᾰτᾰκο̆π̄ην̑ αῑ. |: the verb stands out, as a rhythmic entity on its own at the end of the sentence, and led up to in sense by the rhythmic | μῑκρ̆ο` ν ε̆᾿ δ̆ε´ η̄ϲε ̄ |. But for all the intensity, the verb is by no means grandiose, and could suggest a rash mistake; such a thought is developed by Curtius (passage 3). 3. | τοὺϲ μ̄`εν γ̆α` ρ ̄α᾿ νθρ ̄ω´ ποῡϲ | βέλεϲιν ἀπὸ τῶν τειχ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ πεϲ̄ κ̆ε´ δᾰϲε,̄ |: the noun to denote the Malloi has a contemptuous air; its placing in the rhythmic design has it answered by the decisive ᾰ᾿ πεϲ̄ κ̆ε´ δᾰϲε,̄ |. ̑ ̄ ϲ, |: πρῶτοϲ | πρῶτοϲ δὲ διὰ κλίμακο̄ ϲ τ̆εθε̄ ι´ ϲη̄ϲ | ἀναβ̄α` ϲ ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̆ο` τε̄ ιχο is given further force by being first in its rhythmic unit, after a rhythmic close. It does not make a practical point about spurring on the feeble Macedonians, as in Diod. Sic. 17.98.5 (passage 2) and Arr. Anab. 6.9.3; rather it unobtrusively evokes Homeric valour: Zeus gives glory to Hector, ὃϲ πρῶτοϲ ἐϲήλατο τεῖχοϲ Ἀχαιῶν (Il. 12.438). For ‘unobtrusively’, compare Arrian in passage 4, mentioned in the next paragraph but one. Verse and prose deploy their own means: πρῶτοϲ in Homer’s line is dwelt on as the first important word in its clause and the word before the caesura. Plutarch will later take up the implication that there are others who follow Alexander. The syntax of this whole sentence is intricate, much more so than in Appian (passage 5), who incorporates a string of dative participles into his larger argument about two omens each for Alexander and Caesar. Plutarch’s intricacy and Appian’s relative simplicity are alike marked out through the rhythm. Admittedly, in both authors a participle about the ladder confronts a participle about Alexander across a rhythmic boundary; but in Appian the ladder is only mentioned when it breaks: | καὶ τῆϲ κλίμακοϲ ϲῡντρῐβε̄ ι´ϲη̄ϲ | ἀποληφθ̄ε´ ντῐ τ̆ε α῎̆ νω |h. Plutarch gives more detail at this stage than Appian’s excited résumé; at the same time his elaborate patterning avoids the straightforward dynamism found in

122

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Diod. 17.98.5 (passage 2) ἁρπάϲαϲ κλίμακα καὶ τοῖϲ τῆϲ ἄκραϲ τείχεϲι προϲερείϲαϲ and in Arr. 6.9.3 . . . ἁρπάϲαϲ κλίμακα ἑνὸϲ τῶν φερόντων προϲέθηκε τῶι τείχει αὐτόϲ. | ὡϲ ἥ τε κλῖμᾱξ ϲῠν̆ετρ̆ι´βη | καί, τῶν βαρβάρ ̄ων υ῾̆ φῑϲτᾰμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | πᾰρ̆α` ̑ ̄ ϲ, | ἐλάμβανε πληγ̄α` ϲ κ̆α´ τ̄ωθε ν̄ , |: this version of what leads up τ̆ο` τε̄ ιχο to the leap is very restrained in comparison with the other historical accounts. There is no roll of drums before the deed itself, as even in Diodorus’ compressed version (99.1, passage 2): ἐτόλμηϲεν ἐπιτελέϲαι πρᾶξιν παράδοξον καὶ μνήμηϲ ἀξίαν (for Diodorus’ potent compression in book 17 see 1.2–3 οὕτω γὰρ μάλιϲτα ὑπολαμβάνομεν τὰϲ πράξειϲ εὐμνημονεύτουϲ ἔϲεϲθαι, κεφαλαιωδῶϲ τεθείϲαϲ καὶ ϲυνεχὲϲ ἐχούϲαϲ ταῖϲ ἀρχαῖϲ τὸ τέλοϲ. ἐν ὀλίγωι δὲ χρόνωι μεγάλαϲ πράξειϲ οὗτοϲ ὁ βαϲιλεὺϲ κατειργάϲατο . . . ). Similarly, but more critically, Justin (passage 6): cum īllĕ r(em) aūsŭ s ēst | incredibilem ātqu(e) ĭnaūdītām | multoque magis ad famām tĕ mĕ rĭtātīs | quam glōrĭ(am) īnsīgnēm. | Even in Plutarch’s speech (passage 1), the deed is intrȏ ̆ π̄η´ δη̄μᾱ | duced, although not through narrative, as τὸ δεινὸν ἐκε̄ ινο ´ ´ καὶ ἄπιϲτον ἀκούουϲι καὶ θε ̄ωμ̆ενοῑϲ φο̆β̆ερ̄ον, |. In Arrian (passage 4) the introduction is incorporated into Alexander’s internal thought, as a long sentence freezes him on the wall with a Homeric internal monologue, and heavily obvious citation of Homer: ἔγνω δὲ ὅτι αὐτοῦ μένων κινδυνεύϲει μηδὲν ὅτι καὶ λόγου ἄξιον ἀποδεικνύμενοϲ, καταπηδήϲαϲ δὲ εἴϲω τοῦ τείχουϲ τυχὸν μὲν αὐτῶι τούτωι ἐκπλήξει τοὺϲ Ἰνδούϲ, εἰ δὲ μή, καὶ κινδυνεύειν δέοι, μεγάλα ἔργα καὶ τοῖϲ ἔπειτα πυθέϲθαι ἄξια ἐργαϲάμενοϲ οὐκ ἀϲπουδεὶ ἀποθανεῖται (cf. Hom. Il. 22.304–5 μὴ μὰν ἀϲπουδεί γε καὶ ἀκλείωϲ ἀπολοίμην, | ἀλλὰ μέγα ῥέξαϲ τι καὶ ἐϲϲομένοιϲι πυθέϲθαι; the lines are quoted direct at Polyb. 5.38.10, Charit. 7.2.4). Thus the dense rhythm piles the specific circumstances up with forceful concision. In Diodorus the Indians, Macedonians, and the king’s physical distress are more graphically conveyed, Justin (from Trogus) vividly depicts the Macedonians urging and awaiting a safer leap, Arrian exhibits Indians at different distances, and adds the piled-up ground to the spatial information, Alexander’s conspicuous position to the heroic scene. Without the density of rhythm, Plutarch’s passage would not have its sober but telling urgency. | ὀλιγιϲτὸϲ ὢν ϲυϲτρέψᾱϲ ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ο` ν | εἰϲ μέϲοῡϲ ᾰ᾿ φ̄ηκ̑ ε ̄ | το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´οῡϲ, | κᾱ`ι κᾰτ̆α` τ̆υ´χη̄ν | ̄ο᾿ ρθ̆ο` ϲ ̄ ῎ε ϲτη̄. |: | ὀλιγιϲτὸϲ unusually indicates there are others with Alexander, while expressing the number as small (cf. 5 | μετὰ δυε̄ ιν̑ υ῾̆ πᾱϲπῑϲτ̄ω̑ν, |) and forming part of a rhetorical

A Dangerous Leap

123

and rhythmical sequence with | πρῶτοϲ, also first in its part of the sentence and its rhythmic unit. Contrast Diodorus’ ἐρημωθεὶϲ πάϲηϲ βοηθείαϲ and μόνοϲ, Justin’s sine ullo satellite (in Diodorus a ὑπαϲπιϲτήϲ and others arrive later, cf. Arr. 6.10.1, Just. 12.9.10; the picture seems similar in Alex. Fort. 2 343f). This is meant to seem a historically meticulous version, which eschews the more patently impressive isolation of ‘the king’ (Plutarch does not so call him in this passage); but the courage comes through in this veracity and vigour. The actual deed packs the rhythms together as tightly as they will go. ἑαυτόν is governed by ϲυϲτρέψαϲ and understood with ἀφῆκε; cf. Plat. Rep. 1.336b5. ϲυϲτρέψᾱϲ ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ο` ν | takes us vividly into the physical movement, as Arrian and even Curtius do not: καταπηδᾶι ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχουϲ ἐϲ τὴν ἄκραν, praecipiti saltu semet ipse immisit (with Plutarch’s εἰϲ μέϲουϲ cf. Curtius’ more generalized in urbem hōstĭūm plēnām |). Diodorus’ μετὰ τῶν ὅπλων glorifies the deed with epic resonance; cf. also Virg. Aen. 9.815–16 tum demum praeceps saltu sese omnibus armis | in fluuium dedit (perhaps based on Alexander, but still choosing detail apt for the genre; for this leap out of the quasi-city cf. Hutchinson [2015b], 255–6, 262–3). The κᾰτ̆α` τ̆υ´χη̄ν |, underlined by the rhythm, dwells on luck rather than judgement. To be sure, Plutarch may be following a source, cf. Curt. 9.5.3 (passage 3) | sed forte ita librāuĕ rāt cōrpūs | ut se pĕ dĭbŭ s ēxcĭpĕ rēt. | But he was not forced to include this point and keep the deed within limits. 4. | τιναξαμένοῡ δ̆`ε το̄ ι ϲ̑ ο῞̆ πλοῑϲ, | ἔδο̄ ξᾰν ο̄ ῾ι β̄α´ ρβᾰροῑ | ϲέλᾱϲ τῐ κᾱ`ι ´ φ̄αϲμᾱ | πρὸ τοῦ ϲώματο̄ ϲ φ̆ε´ ρε ϲ̄ θαῑ. |: a brief sentence, again nearly all rhythm, allows a brief numinous moment, through the barbarians’ eyes. It is here that the armaments are brought in. The depiction in the speech (passage 1), whatever the text, unites arms and the quasi-divine much more opulently: | τίνι ἄν τιϲ ε̄ ᾿ι κ̆α´ ϲεῑεν̄ | η῍̄ πῠρ̆`ι κ̆εραῡν̆ι´ ̄ωι | ῥαγέντι καὶ φερο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ωι μ̆ετ̆α` πνε̄υ´μᾰτο̄ ϲ, | οἷον ἐπὶ γῆν κατέϲκη̄ψ̆ε φ̄α´ ϲμᾱ | {Φοίβου{ φλογοειδέϲιν ὅπλοιϲ περιλαμπόμενον;. The present vision is not so much a version of Alexander himself; but the pair in a rhythmic unit, with an expressively hazy τι, communicates a radiant mystery. 5. | διὸ καὶ τὸ πρ ̄ω̑το̆ν ῎ε̆ φῠγο̄ ν | καὶ διεϲ̄ κ̆εδ̄α´ ϲθη̄ϲᾱν·| ὡϲ δ᾿ ε̄῏ι δο̆ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο` ν | μετὰ δυε̄ ι ν̑ ῠ῾ πᾱϲπῑϲτ ̄ω̑ν, | ε̆᾿ πῐδρᾰμ̄ο´ ντεϲ̄ | ο̄ ῾ι μ̆`εν ̄ ε᾿ κ χεῑρ̄ο` ϲ | ξ̆ι´φ̆εϲῐ κᾱ`ι δ̆ο´ ρᾰϲῑ | διὰ τῶν ὅπλ ̄ων ϲῠν̆ετ̆ι´τρ ̄ωϲκο̄ ν | ἀμυνόμενον,: the barbarians’ reaction first expresses the power of the vision, then shows the danger they form. The basic outline is the same in Alex. Fort. 2 343e (passage 1) οἱ δὲ τὸ πρῶτον ̄ ε᾿ κπλᾰγ̄ ε´ ντε ϲ̄ | ἅμα φρίκηι διέτρεϲαν καὶ ἀνεχώρηϲαν· εἶθ᾿, ̄ω῾ ϲ ε̆῾ ̄ω´ ρ ̄ων | ἄνθρωπον ἕνα πολλοῖϲ ε̆᾿ πῐφ̆ερ̆ο´ μ̆ενο̄ ν, | ἀντέϲτηϲαν (and

124

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

in Curtius). But in the Life the rhythms throng much more intensely. Diodorus, Arrian, and Justin simply have a rush of barbarians. 6. εἷϲ δὲ μικρὸν ἀπ ̄ωτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ω ϲτ̄α` ϲ | ἐφῆκ̆εν ᾰ᾿ π̆ο` τ̄ο´ ξοῡ | β̆ε´ λο̆ϲ ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ωϲ ε̄υ῎ το̆νο̄ ν | κᾱ`ι β̆ι´αῑο̄ ν | ὥϲτε τὸν θώρᾱκᾰ δῐᾰκ̄ο´ ψᾱν | ̄ ε᾿ μπᾰγ̄ην̑ αῑ | τοῖϲ περὶ τὸν μᾱϲτ̆ο` ν ̄ο᾿ ϲτ̆ε´ οῑϲ. |: Plutarch’s version in Alex. Fort. 2 344c and Curt. 9.5.9 describe an arrowhead or arrow of spectacular size; such aggrandizing detail is here avoided. This fighter is separated from the others, as the rhythm underlines: contrast εἷϲ δὲ μικρὸν ἀπ ̄ωτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ω ϲτ̄α` ϲ | with | ο̄ ῾ι μ̆`εν ̄ ε᾿ κ χεῑρ̄ο` ϲ | and ᾰ᾿ π̆ο` τ̄ο´ ξοῡ | with | ξ̆ι´φ̆εϲῐ κᾱ`ι δ̆ο´ ρᾰϲῑ | (for which cf. Ages. 18.6, item 23 in ch. 2). His purposeful action is followed through with intense rhythm to its impact on Alexander’s body. In this and other accounts, the man has some existence, for Alexander kills him as he runs up (63.8, Alex. Fort. 2 344c, Diod. Sic. 17.99.4, Curt. 9.5.12, Just. 12.19.12); but outside the present passage he has much less presence at this point. In Diodorus, Arrian, and Justin, Alexander is shot, in a passive verb; Alex. Fort. 2 344c gives merely βέλεῑ τῐϲ ᾰ᾿ π̆ο` τ̄ο´ ξου | τὸν θώρᾱκᾰ δῐ̆ε´ κο̄ ψεν̄ |. Curtius makes slightly more of the man, but his parenthesis shows he is not seeking the same effect as Plutarch here: . . . | donec Indus duorum cubitorūm să gīttām |—namque Indis, ut āntĕ ā dīxĭmūs, | huius magnitudinīs să gītt(ae) ĕ rānt |—ita excussit ut per thoracem paulum super latus dēxtĕ r(um) īnfīgĕ rēt. | In Plutarch the single figure lightly evokes Homer: a momentary Pandarus. The passage becomes less dense after this crucial wound. It is the climax in what happens to Alexander, though he receives many other wounds, and especially one in the throat (63.9). In addition, the present wound is the most firmly attested in the historical tradition; others were the subject of dispute. Ptolemy claimed this was the only wound (FGrHist 138 F 26 a), Arr. Anab. 6.11.7). Rhythm responds alertly to Plutarch’s shaping, both narrative and historical. It is indispensable to the impact of a passage that combines restraint, intelligence, and narrative power.

Appendix: Plut. Alex. Fort. 2 343d–e, Diod. Sic. 17.98.5–99.2, Curt. 9.5.1–3, Arr. Anab. 6.9.5, App. BC 2.637, Just. 12.9.5–7 1. Plut. Alex. Fort. 2 343d e | Ἀλεξάνδροῡ δ᾿ ε̆᾿ ν Ὀ̄ ξῠδρ̆α´ καῑϲ | τὸ δεινὸν ̑ ̆ π̄η´ δη̄μᾱ | καὶ ἄπιϲτον ἀκούουϲι καὶ θε ̄ωμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ φο̆β̆ερ̄ο´ ν, | ἐκ τειχῶν ἐκε̄ ινο ἀφέντοϲ ἑαυτὸν εἰϲ το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´οῡϲ | δόραϲι καὶ βέλεϲι κᾱ`ι ξ̆ι´φ̆εϲῐ γῡμνο̄ ιϲ̑ |

A Dangerous Leap

125

̄ ε᾿ κδ̆εχο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ, | τίνι ἄν τιϲ ε̄ ᾿ι κ̆α´ ϲεῑε ν̄ | η῍̄ πῠρ̆`ι κ̆εραῡν̆ι´ ̄ωι | ῥαγέντι καὶ φερο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ωι μ̆ετ̆`α πνε̄υ´μᾰτοϲ, | οἷον ἐπὶ γῆν κατέϲκη̄ψ̆ε φ̄α´ ϲμᾱ | {Φοίβου{ φλογοειδέϲιν ὅπλοιϲ περιλαμπόμενον; οἱ δὲ τὸ πρῶτον ̄ ε᾿ κπλᾰγ̄ ε´ ντε ϲ̄ | ἅμα φρίκηι διέτρεϲαν καὶ ἀνεχώρηϲαν· εἶθ᾿, ̄ω῾ ϲ ε̆῾ ̄ω´ ρ ̄ων | ἄνθρωπον ἕνα πολλοῖϲ ε̆᾿ πῐφ̆ερ̆ο´ μ̆ενον, | ἀντέϲτηϲαν. ἐντᾱυθ̑ ᾿ α῎̆ ρ᾿ η̄ ῾ Τ̆υ´χη̄ | μ̆εγ̆α´ λᾰ κᾱ`ι λᾱμπρ̄α` | διέφη̄ν̆εν ̄ ῎ε ργᾱ | τῆϲ πρὸϲ Ἀλέξανδρον ε̄υ᾿ μ̆ενε̄ ι´ ᾱϲ | κτλ.

Φοίβου φλ. ὅπλ. o (?) Z: φλ. ὅπλ. AEK: etiam φλ. ὅπλ. om. J: Φόβου φλ. ὅπλ. Wyttenbach et denuo Radermacher.1

That fearsome leap of Alexander’s among the Oxydracae, unbelievable to those who hear [or: read] about it and terrifying to those that saw it, when he threw himself from the walls into the enemy, who received him with spears and arrows and unsheathed swords, to what fire of lightning could one liken it, when the thunderbolt bursts forth and is borne along in the storm wind such was the vision that hurtled down ({Phoebus{) and shone all round with fire like arms? The Indians at first were astonished and in their fright fled in all directions and withdrew; then, when they saw that one man was charging against many, they stood their ground against him. Here, then, it seems, Fortune revealed the great and glorious actions of her benevolence towards Alexander [ironic] . . . 2. Diod. Sic. 17.98.5 99.2 98.5 τῶν δὲ Μακεδόνων περὶ τὴν τειχομαχίαν ἔτι διατριβόντων, ἁρπάϲαϲ κλίμακα καὶ τοῖϲ τῆϲ ἄκραϲ τείχεϲι προϲερείϲαϲ καὶ τὴν πέλτην ὑπὲρ τῆϲ κεφαλῆϲ ἔχων προϲανέβαινε. τῆϲ δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν ὀξύτητοϲ φθανόυϲηϲ τοὺϲ προμαχομένουϲ τῶν βαρβάρων, ταχέωϲ ἐπέβη τῶι τείχει. 98.6 τῶν δ᾿ Ἰνδῶν εἰϲ χεῖραϲ μὲν ἐλθεῖν οὐ τολμώντων, ἐκ διαϲτήματοϲ δὲ ἀκοντιζόντων καὶ τοξευόντων, ὁ μὲν βαϲιλεὺϲ ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθουϲ τῶν βελῶν κατεπονεῖτο, οἱ δὲ Μακεδόνεϲ δύο κλίμακαϲ προϲθέντεϲ, διὰ τούτων προϲανέβαινον ἀθρόοι καὶ ϲυντριβειϲῶν Z and probably o, the earliest MS (xi AD), have Φοίβου after φάϲμα. (Nachstädt et al. [1935] ii.2, 117 say that o has this reading; Froidefond, in Frazier and Froidefond [1990], 110, 130 says he has examined o in the original but does not appear to report its readings.) Modern editors print κατέϲκηψε ‘φάϲμα Φοίβου φλ. ὅπλ.’ περιλ., as if Plutarch were quoting from a poem (a lyric poem?); but φλογοειδήϲ is a prose word until Nonnus (Hippocrates, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Philo, etc.; eleven other times in Plutarch). If the phrase is not a poetic quotation, Φοίβου or even Wyttenbach’s Φόβου is hard to credit. Even if it were a quotation, the syntax does not work easily (Radermacher [1903], who makes Wyttenbach’s conjecture independently, takes Φόβου with φάϲμα). Φοίβου could be an interpolation, yet it seems a strange one; Wyttenbach, who contem plated omitting it, found it absent from his sources (Wyttenbach [1796], 406). Conceiv ably it is the remains of a quoted poetic phrase beginning with φλοίϲβου or φλοῖϲβον (‘mêlée, battle’ in Homer, etc.; cf. e.g. Soph. fr. 479.3 Radt φλοίϲβου μετὰ κόπον, Mnasalc. AP 6.125.6 κατὰ βλοϲυρὸν φλοῖϲβον Ἐνυαλίου); the phrase could, say, have been omitted through a leap from φλο to φλο , and have been partially restored from the margin. 1

126

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

ἀμφοτέρων ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν κατηνέχθηϲαν. 99.1 ὁ δὲ βαϲιλεὺϲ ἐρημωθεὶϲ πάϲηϲ βοηθείαϲ ἐτόλμηϲεν ἐπιτελέϲαι πρᾶξιν παράδοξον καὶ μνήμηϲ ἀξίαν· τὸ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχουϲ ἀπελθεῖν ἄπρακτον πρὸϲ τοὺϲ ἰδίουϲ ἀνάξιον κρίναϲ ὑπάρχειν τῆϲ ἰδίαϲ εὐπραξίαϲ, καθήλατο μετὰ τῶν ὅπλων μόνοϲ εἰϲ τὴν πόλιν. 99.2 ϲυνδραμόντων δ᾿ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν τῶν Ἰνδῶν, ὑπέϲτη τεθαρρηκότωϲ τὴν τῶν βαρβάρων ἐπιφοράν. As the Macedonians were still delaying in the siege, he snatched a ladder, leaned it against the walls of the citadel, and started to go up with his shield over his head. The speed of his action was too fast for the barbarians in front of the wall, which he quickly got on to. As the Indians did not dare to engage with him close to, and were aiming spears and arrows at him from a distance, the king was being oppressed by the multitude of missiles; the Macedonians put two ladders against the wall, and were going up too in a mass, but the ladders both came apart and they crashed down on to the ground. The king, isolated from all aid, dared to accomplish an extraordinary and memorable deed. Since he thought that it was not worthy of his own record for success to go away from the walls to his own men without achieving anything, he leapt alone into the city with his armour on. The Indians ran up against him together, but he withstood the onrush of the barbarians valiantly. 3. Curt. 9.5.1 3 1. | iāmquĕ laēuām, | qua clipeum ad ictus circūmfĕ rēbāt, | lāssāuĕ rāt, | clamāntĭbŭ s ă mīcīs | ut ad ipsos dēsĭlīrēt, | stabant ̆ que excepturi, cum īllĕ r(em) aūsŭ s ēst | incredibilem ātqu(e) ĭnaūdītām | multoque magis ad famām tĕ mĕ rĭtātīs | quam glōrĭ(am) īnsīgnēm. | 2. namque in urbem hōstĭūm plēnām | praecipiti saltu semet ipse immisit, cum uix sperārĕ pōssēt | dimicantem certe et nōn ĭnūltūm | ēssĕ mŏ rĭtūrūm: | quippe āntĕ qu(am) ādsūrgĕ rēt, | ōpprĭmī pŏ tĕ rāt | ēt că pī uīuūs. | 3. sed forte ita librāuĕ rāt cōrpūs | ut se pĕ dĭbŭ s ēxcĭpĕ rēt. | gloriae Eussner2

He had already wearied his left arm, with which he was moving his shield round to meet the blows, while his friends were shouting at him to jump down to them and were standing ready to catch him, when he dared a deed which was unbelievable and unheard of, and in its fame contributed much more to his reputation for rashness than to his glory. With a headlong leap he put himself into a city full of enemies, when he could hardly have hoped that he would at least die fighting and not without taking vengeance: for he could have been overwhelmed before he got up and captured alive. But by chance he had kept his body in such balance that he landed on his feet.

2

gloriae is printed by Lucarini; but fama gloriae would seem odd in this context.

A Dangerous Leap

127

4. Arr. Anab. 6.9.5 Ἀλέξανδροϲ δέ, ὡϲ ἐπὶ τοῦ τείχουϲ ϲτὰϲ κύκλωι τε ἀπὸ τῶν πληϲίον πύργων ἐβάλλετο, οὐ γὰρ πελάϲαι γε ἐτόλμα τιϲ αὐτῶι τῶν Ἰνδῶν, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκ τῆϲ πόλεωϲ, οὐδὲ πόρρω τούτων γε ἐϲακοντιζόντων (ἔτυχε γάρ τι καὶ προϲκεχωϲμένον ταύτηι πρὸϲ τὸ τεῖχοϲ), δῆλοϲ μὲν ἦν Ἀλέξανδροϲ ὢν τῶν τε ὅπλων τῆι λαμπρότητι καὶ τῶι ἀτόπωι τῆϲ τόλμηϲ, ἔγνω δὲ ὅτι αὐτοῦ μένων κινδυνεύϲει μηδὲν ὅτι καὶ λόγου ἄξιον ἀποδεικνύμενοϲ, καταπηδήϲαϲ δὲ εἴϲω τοῦ τείχουϲ τυχὸν μὲν αὐτῶι τούτωι ἐκπλήξει τοὺϲ Ἰνδούϲ, εἰ δὲ μή, καὶ κινδυνεύειν δέοι, μεγάλα ἔργα καὶ τοῖϲ ἔπειτα πυθέϲθαι ἄξια ἐργαϲάμενοϲ οὐκ ἀϲπουδεὶ ἀποθανεῖται ταῦτα γνοὺϲ καταπηδᾶι ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχουϲ ἐϲ τὴν ἄκραν. Alexander, as he was standing on the wall and being hit all round from the nearby towers, for no Indian dared approach him, and also from the city, by people throwing spears from no long distance (for there was a sort of mound against the wall near that point), was clearly Alexander both from the brilliance of his armour and from his strange daring; he recognized that if he stayed where he was, he would be in danger while not even achieving anything memorable, whereas if he leapt inside the wall, he would if he were lucky terrify the Indians by that very action, and if not, and peril came close, he would die not without an effort but after accomplishing mighty deeds which deserved to be known about by those to come having come to this recognition he leapt from the wall into the citadel. 5. App. BC 2.637 . . . | καὶ τὰ μὲν πρῶτα κίνδυνον ϲφαλερ ο`̆ ν ῠ῾ π̆ε´ δεῑξε ν̄ , | ̑ ̆ ϲ ᾰ᾿ νᾰβ̄α´ ντῑ | πρὸ Ἀλεξάνδρωι μὲν ἐν Ὀξυδράκαιϲ, ἐπὶ τὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν τε̄ ιχο τ ̄ω̑ν Μᾰκ̆εδ̆ο´ ν ̄ων | καὶ τῆϲ κλίμακοϲ ϲῡντρῐβε̄ ι´ ϲη̄ϲ | ἀποληφθε´ ντῐ τ̆ε α῎̆ νω |h καὶ ὑπὸ τόλμηϲ ε᾿ ϲ τ̆ο` ε᾿ ντο` ϲ |h ἐπὶ το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´οῡϲ | ̄ ε᾿ ξᾰλο̆μ̆ε´ νωι | καὶ πληγέντι τὰ ϲτ̄ ε´ ρνᾰ χᾰλ̆επ ̄ω̑ϲ | καὶ ἐϲ τὸν τράχηλον ὑπέρ ̄ωι βᾰρῠτ̆α´ τ ̄ωι | καὶ πίπτοντῐ η῎ δη |h καὶ περιϲωθέντι μόλιϲ ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ν Μᾰκ̆εδ̆ο´ν ̄ων | ἀναρρηξάντων τ̄α` ϲ π̆υ´λᾱϲ ῠ῾ π̆ο` δ̆ε´ οῡϲ, | . . . [The type of entrail] first indicated a perilous danger, to Alexander among the Oxydracae, when he went up on to the enemy’s wall before the other Macedonians, and after the ladder broke was cut off on his own above, and out of daring leapt against the enemy and was struck severely in the chest, and in the throat by an exceedingly heavy cudgel, and was already falling, and was only just rescued by the Macedonians, who broke down the gates of the city in their fear . . . 6. Just. 12.9.5 7 5. quam [sc. urbem] desertam a defensoribus cum de muro, quem primus ceperat, animaduertisset, in urbis planitiem sine ullo satellite desiliit. 6. itaque cum eum hostes solum conspexissent, clamore edito undique concurrunt, si possint in uno capite orbis bella finire et ultionem tot gentibus dare. 7. nec minus Alexander constanter restitit et unus aduersus tot milia proeliatur.

128

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

When he noticed from the wall, which he had been the first to capture, that the city had been deserted by those defending it, he leapt on to the level ground of the city without a single attendant. When the enemy saw him alone, they gave out a shout and ran together from all sides, hoping that with one life they could end the wars of the world, and grant vengeance to so many races. Alexander’s courage in standing firm did not diminish; he battled alone against so many thousands.

9 Brutus and His Mirrors (Brutus 10.4–6, 13.7–10, 29.2–3, 40.7–8) Different aspects of these dense passages are emerging, different roles that this means of density fulfils. It is time to look more fully at a particular Life. We shall consider all the passages in that Life that meet the criteria for rhythmic density; a second chapter will look at some passages that do not. We shall gain more sense of how the dense passages fit into a Life, and how they bring out points that matter to it; comparison of people is one important element here. That element in dense passages is not confined to this Life, as will be seen from later chapters; another aspect important elsewhere too is connection to direct speech. But each Life creates its own world, within the wider cosmos of the Lives; the deployment of rhythmic writing contributes to that creation.

BRUT. 10.4–6 ̑ | ῾τί ο̄υ῏ ν᾿ ε̄῏ι π̆εν ο̆῾ Κ̄α´ ϲϲῐοϲ̄ | ῾ἂν 4. | φήϲαντοϲ̄ δ̆`ε το̄υ ̑ Βρο̄υ´τοῡ | μ̄η` πᾰρε̄ ι ναῑ, καλ ̄ω̑ ϲῐν η̄ ῾ μ̄αϲ̑ ;᾿ | ‘ἐμὸν ἔργον’ ἔφη ο̆῾ Βρου τ̑ οϲ̄ |h ‘ἤδη τὸ μ̄η` ϲῐ ̄ωπ̄αν̑ , | ̄α᾿ λλ᾿ ᾰ᾿ μ̄υ´νεῑν | κᾱ`ι προ̆ᾰπο̆θν̄η´ ιϲκεῑν | τ̄ηϲ̑ ε᾿̆ λεῡθ̆ερ̆ι´ᾱϲ.’ | 5. καὶ ὁ Κ̄α´ ϲϲῐο̆ϲ ε᾿̆ πᾱρθε̄ ι´ ϲ, | ῾τίϲ δ᾿ ’ ε̄῏ι π̆ε’ Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´ ̄ων | ᾰ᾿ ν̄ ε´ ξ̆εταῑ | ϲοῦ προ̆ᾰπο̆θν̄η´ ιϲκον̄ τοϲ̄ ; | 6. α῏ ρ᾿ ἀγνοεῖϲ, ὦ Βροῦτε, ϲεαυτόν; ἢ̆ τὸ βῆμά ϲου δοκε̄ ιϲ̑ κᾰτᾰγρ̆α´ φεῑν | το̄`υϲ υ῾̆ φ̄α´ ντᾱϲ | καὶ το̄υ` ϲ κᾰπ̄η´ λοῡϲ, | ο̄υ᾿ χ̆`ι το̄υ` ϲ πρ ̄ω´ τοῡϲ | κᾱ`ι κρᾰτ̄ ι´ϲτοῡϲ | τᾱυ τ̑ ᾰ ποῑε̄ ι ν̑ , | παρὰ μὲν τῶν ἄλλ ̄ων ϲτρᾰτη̄γ ̄ω̑ ν | ε᾿̆ πῐδ̆ο´ ϲεῑϲ κᾱ`ι θ̆ε´ ᾱϲ | κᾱ`ι μο̆νο̆μ̄α´ χοῡϲ, | παρὰ ϲοῦ δὲ ὡϲ ὄφλη̄μᾰ πᾰτρῐκ̄ο` ν | τὴν κατάλυϲιν τῆϲ τυρανν̆ι´δο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ παῑτο̄υ ν̑ τᾱϲ, | αὐτο̄υ` ϲ δ᾿ υ῾̆ π̄`ερ ϲο̄υ ̑ | π̄α´ ντᾰ π̄α´ ϲχεῑν | προθύμουϲ ὄνταϲ, οἷον ̄α᾿ ξῐο̄υ ϲ̑ ῑ | καὶ προϲ̄ δ̆ε´ χον̄ ταῑ | φᾰν̄ ε´ ντοϲ̄ ;’ | ̆ 4 παρεῖναι Schaefer: παριέναι codd. ἔφη ὁ Βροῦτοϲ: omnia faciunt ut hiatum uitent

6 ϲαυτόν possis

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

130

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Brutus said that he would not be present [at a meeting of the Senate if they discussed making Caesar king]. ‘Supposing they call us?’, Cassius said. ‘My job’, said Brutus, ‘is now not to keep silent, but to fight and die for freedom [and (as Cassius affects to take it): ‘before freedom does’]. Cassius replied in exalted spirit: ‘Which of the Romans will endure you dying first? Do you not know your own self, Brutus? Do you think that it is weavers and shopkeepers that have been writing on your praetor’s platform, and not the first and most eminent of the Romans doing this, demanding from other praetors largesse, spectacles, gladiatorial shows, but from you, as an ancestral debt, the ending of the tyranny, while they themselves are eager to suffer the worst on your account, if you only show yourself such as they ask and expect?’

This passage is so similar to App. BC 2.471–2 (passage 1 in the Appendix to this chapter) that the two must be drawing on a source, unless Appian is drawing on Plutarch. In passage 5 in the Appendix to the previous chapter, the location among the Oxydracae nicely shows that Appian is not there drawing on Plutarch’s Life of Alexander (in a passage comparing Alexander and Caesar!); ̄ω῾ ϲ ϲτρᾰτη̄γο̄υ´ϲ, | in the Appian here (summon us ‘as praetors’) could be his own addition, but gives more point to the question and ties in with the mention of praetors that follows. It is tempting to suppose, and could be thought more plausible on other grounds, that both writers are reworking another author. (Otherwise Moles [2017], 31.) Although Appian has generally a higher occurrence of rhythm than Plutarch, this passage in him is less climactic than Plutarch’s passage in this biography. Brutus’ relationship with Cassius is crucial to the Life (cf. Scardigli in Affortunati [2004], 17–20). Here the two have reconciled after a falling-out; Cassius gradually puts pressure on Brutus. Brutus moves towards the deed and his ancestral heritage. ̑ | ῾τί ο̄υ῏ ν᾿ ε̄῏ι π̆εν ο̆῾ Κ̄α´ ϲϲῐοϲ̄ | 4. | φήϲαντοϲ̄ δ̆`ε το̄υ ̑ Βρο̄υ´τοῡ | μ̄η` πᾰρε̄ ι ναῑ, ῾ἂν καλ ̄ω̑ ϲῐν η̄ ῾ μ̄αϲ̑ ;᾿ |: the conversation moves into direct speech and the rhythms thicken. This first part of their exchange (4–5) shows them interacting, and both Brutus’ and Cassius’ plans crystallizing. | ‘ἐμὸν ἔργον’ ἔφη̄ ο̆῾ Βρο̄υ τ̑ οϲ |h ‘ἤδη τὸ μ̄η` ϲῐ ̄ωπ̄αν̑ , | ̄α᾿ λλ᾿ ᾰ᾿ μ̄υ´νεῑν | κᾱ`ι προ̆ᾰπο̆θν̄η´ ιϲκεῑν | τ̄ηϲ̑ ε᾿̆ λεῡθ̆ερ̆ι´ᾱϲ.’ |: the phrase ἐμὸν or ϲὸν ἔργον, with infinitive or the like, comes only here in the Lives (cf. Tranq. 468c, Quaest. Conv. 3.2 368c, Fac. Lun. 921d). It fits in with lively conversation (cf. Epict. Diss. 2.5.3, with ἤδη), and at the same time marks a rise in emotion and commitment. Its position at the start of the rhythmic phrase, after a rhythmic close, adds to its impact.

Brutus and His Mirrors

131

Where Appian has just |h ‘ἀμυνῶ τῆι πατρίδι’, Plutarch strengthens ᾰ᾿ μ̄υ´νεῑν | with a preceding negated infinitive, and advances on it with a further infinitive προ̆ᾰπο̆θν̄η´ ιϲκεῑν |, stronger in meaning and longer. All this is marked out by tightly organized rhythm; the closes could not be nearer together. | τ̄ηϲ̑ ε᾿̆ λεῡθ̆ερ̆ι´ᾱϲ.’ | stands as a rhythmic phrase on its own, and forms the climax of the speech here; but Cassius will go further, to the explicit ending of the tyranny (6). In Appian, Cassius does not go beyond τ̄η` ν ε᾿̆ λεῡθ̆ερ̆ι´ᾱν | (472), and it does not end the sentence. 5. καὶ ὁ Κ̄α´ ϲϲῐο̆ϲ ε᾿̆ πᾱρθε̄ ι´ ϲ, | ῾τίϲ δ᾿ ’ ε̄῏ι π̆ε’ Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´ ̄ων | ᾰ᾿ ν̄ ε´ ξ̆εταῑ | ϲοῦ ̆ προ̆ᾰπο̆θν̄η´ ιϲκον̄ τοϲ̄ ; |: ε᾿̆ πᾱρθε̄ ι´ ϲ, | brings out the rise in tone explicitly; Appian has αὐτὸν ̄α᾿ ϲπᾰϲ̆α´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ |. Rhythm adds to the taking up and scrutinizing of προ̆ᾰπο̆θν̄η´ ιϲκεῑν | in προ̆ᾰπο̆θν̄η´ ιϲκον̄ τοϲ̄ ; |. The word had formed a weighty rhythmic unit on its own, with only a prepositive; now Cassius wittily changes the meaning to ‘dying before’, and an emphatic | ϲοῦ begins the phrase. The segmentation adds to the emphasis; the death of Brutus is what will concern the Romans. Moles (2017), 137, is better on the witty turn than Affortunati (2004), 60: there is no ground for seeing a reference to suicide in what Brutus says, and the closely parallel Appian is against it. Death before e.g. the death of freedom or before shame could occur in fighting, which is in question here, as well as through suicide; cf. Luc. 7.610–15 . . . liber ad umbras | et securus eo: te saeuo Marte subactum | . . . , | cum moriar, sperare licet, as against Plut. Aem. 34.3 τὸν πρὸ αἰϲχύνηϲ θάνατον. 6. | α῏ ρ᾿ ἀγνοεῖϲ, ὦ Βροῦτε, ϲεαυτόν;: ϲαυτόν is possible, and would be rhythmic. There are special grounds for introducing this alternative form here, since it picks up the Delphic γνῶθι ϲαυτόν frequently mentioned in Plutarch. Cf. Adulat. 49a–b: the flatterer | ἀντιτάττεται . . . πρὸϲ τὸ ῾γν ̄ω̑ θῐ ϲαῡτ̄ο´ ν᾿, | . . . ἑκάϲτωι . . . ̄ ε᾿ μποῑ ̄ω̑ ν | καὶ ἄγνοιαν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν περὶ αὑτ̆ο` ν ᾰ᾿ γᾰθ ̄ω̑ ν κᾱ`ι κᾰκ ̄ω̑ ν, | τὰ μὲν ἐλλιπῆ καὶ ἀτελῆ . . . ποῑ ̄ω̑ ν. | ‘You’ is stressed by Appian in what follows; but here in Plutarch it is part of an argument about Brutus’ true self. In Appian, τῶν ἀρ̄ ι´ϲτ ̄ων is introduced in Cassius’ first remark, and made part of the rhythmic close; it connects with οἱ Ῥωμαί ̄ων α῎̆ ρῑϲτοῑ, | later in 472, and means that the main sentence is more concerned with Brutus’ likely success in acquiring high-ranking followers than is the case in Plutarch. Plutarch’s Cassius gives still more weight to Brutus’ worth and true nature, which these judgements indicate. ἢ τὸ βῆμά ϲου δοκε̄ ι ϲ̑ κᾰτᾰγρ̆α´ φεῑν | το̄υ` ϲ υ῾̆ φ̄α´ ντᾱϲ | καὶ το̄υ` ϲ κᾰπ̄η´ λοῡϲ, | ο̄υ᾿ χ̆`ι το̄υ` ϲ πρ ̄ω´ τοῡϲ | κᾱ`ι κρᾰτ̄ ι´ ϲτοῡϲ | τᾱυ τ̑ ᾰ ποῑε̄ ι ν̑ , |

132

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

παρὰ μὲν τῶν ἄλλ ̄ων ϲτρᾰτη̄γ̄ω̑ ν | ε᾿̆ πῐδ̆ο´ ϲεῑϲ κᾱ`ι θ̆ε´ ᾱϲ | κᾱ`ι μο̆νο̆μ̄α´ χοῡϲ, |: Plutarch build up pairs, with each member placed in a unit of its own; a final pair occupies one unit, but is then strengthened by a further forceful noun in its own unit (| ε᾿̆ πῐδ̆ο´ ϲεῑϲ κᾱ`ι θ̆ε´ ᾱϲ | κᾱ`ι μο̆νο̆μ̄α´ χοῡϲ, |). Appian has some pairs, but does not seek this rhythmical and rhetorical intensity: | ἤ ϲοῑ δο̆κο̄υ ϲ̑ ῑν | οἱ χειροτέχναι κᾱ`ι κ̆α´ πη̄λοῑ | καταγράφειν ϲου τὸ δικαϲτ η̄ ´ ρῐο̆ν ᾰ᾿ ϲ̄η´ μ ̄ωϲ | μᾶλλον ἢ οἱ Ῥωμαί ̄ων α῎̆ ρῑϲτοῑ, | παρὰ μὲν τῶν ἄλλ ̄ων ϲτρᾰτη̄γ ̄ω̑ ν | θέαϲ αἰτοῦντεϲ ῞̄ ι ππ ̄ων η῍̄ θη̄ρ̆ι´ ̄ων, |. | παρὰ ϲοῦ δὲ ὡϲ ὄφλη̄μᾰ πᾰτρῐκ̄`ον | τὴν κατάλυϲιν τῆϲ τυρανν̆ι´δο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ παῑτο̄υ ν̑ τᾱϲ, |: unlike the ὡϲ ϲὸν προγο̆νῐκ̆ο` ν ̄ ε῎ ργον̄ ;᾿ |, which forms the climax of the Appian, ὡϲ ὄφλη̄μᾰ πᾰτρῐκ̄ο` ν | applies metaphorical pressure—a debt from the father (actually fathers) which needs to be repaid. | τὴν κατάλυϲιν τῆϲ τυρανν̆ι´δο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ παῑτο̄υ ν̑ τᾱϲ, | is a longer phrase than those that have preceded it, but the bold τυρανν̆ι´δο̆ϲ is given force by the rhythmic close; less weight falls on the participle, here or in Appian. The βαϲιλεία which was going to be discussed in the Senate has become a tyranny which exists now. The stem τυραννis important for the Life and its relation with the Life of Dion. | αὐτο̄ υ` ϲ δ᾿ υ῾̆ π̄`ερ ϲο̄υ ̑ | π̄α´ ντᾰ π̄α´ ϲχεῑν | προθύμουϲ ὄνταϲ, οἷον ̄α᾿ ξῐο̄υ ϲ̑ ῑ | καὶ προ ϲ̄ δ̆ε´ χο ν̄ ταῑ | φᾰν̄ ε´ ντοϲ̄ ;’ |: Plutarch finishes with a phrase that has no equivalent ̆in Appian; it ties together the thematic threads of his own presentation. | αὐτο̄υ` ϲ [not the unemphatic pronoun] δ᾿ υ῾̆ π̄`ερ ϲο̄υ ̑ | puts the leading Romans and Brutus into one rhythmic unit; it takes up and stresses the affection seen in the emphatic | ϲοῦ (5). | π̄α´ ντᾰ π̄α´ ϲχεῑν | takes up προ̆ᾰπο̆θν η̄ ´ ιϲκο ν̄ τοϲ̄ ; | from the same rhythmic entity | ϲοῦ προ̆ᾰπο̆θν η̄ ´ ιϲκο ν̄ τοϲ̄ ; |. Brutus’ death would distress these Romans; they are eager to die for him. Yet that ‘him’ must be his true self (cf. ϲεαυτόν or ϲαῡτ̄ο´ ν |), not just recognized by Brutus but manifested in action. The pair | (οἷον) ̄α᾿ ξῐο̄υ ϲ̑ ῑ | καὶ προ ϲ̄ δ̆ε´ χον̄ ταῑ | , each verb in a rhythmic phrase of its own, gives heavy weight tŏ the expectation.

BRUT. 13.7–10 7. | ‘ἐγώ, Βροῦτε, Κάτωνοϲ ο̄υ῏ ϲᾰ θῠγ̆α´ τη̄ρ | εἰϲ τὸν ϲ̆ο` ν ε᾿̆ δ̆ο´ θη̄ν ο̄῏ι κον̄ | οὐχ, ὥϲπερ αἱ πᾱλλᾰκεῡο̆ ´μ̆εναῑ, | κοίτη̄ϲ μ̆εθ̄ ε´ ξοῡϲᾱ | κᾱ`ι τρᾰπ̄ ε´ ζη̄ϲ μ̆ο´ νον̄ , | ἀλλὰ κοινωνὸϲ μ̆`εν ᾰ᾿ γᾰθ̄ω̑ ν ε̄῏ιναῑ, | κοινωνὸϲ δ’ ἀνιαρῶν. τὰ μὲν ο̄υ῏ ν ϲ̆α`

Brutus and His Mirrors

133

π̄α´ ντᾱ | περὶ τ̄ο` ν γ̆α´ μο̆ν α῎̆ με μ ̄ πτᾱ·| 8. τ ̄ω̑ ν δ̆`ε πᾰρ᾿ ε᾿̆ μο̄υ ̑ | τίϲ ἀπόδεῑξῐϲ η῍̄ ´ ´ χ̆αρῑϲ, | εἰ μήτε ϲοι π̆αθο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ π̄ο´ ρρη̄τον̄ | ϲῡνδῐο̄ ι´ ϲ ̄ω | μ̄η´ τ̆ε φρον̄ τ̆ι´δᾱ | π̄ ι´ ϲτ̆ε ̄ωϲ δ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ν; | 9. οἶδ᾿ ὅτῐ γῠναῑκε̄ ι´ ᾱ φ ̆υ´ϲῑϲ | ̄α᾿ ϲθ̆εν̄η` ϲ δο̆κε̄ ι ̑ | λόγον ἐνεγκε̄ ι ν̑ ᾰ᾿ π̄ο´ ρρη̄τον̄ · | ἀλλ’ ἔϲτι τιϲ, ὦ Βροῦτε, κᾱ`ι τρο̆φ̄ηϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ γᾰθ̄ηϲ̑ | καὶ ὁμῑλ̆ι´ᾱϲ χρη̄ϲτ̄ηϲ̑ | εἰϲ η̄῏ θο̆ϲ ̄ ᾿ι ϲχ̄υ´ϲ· | 10. ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ τὸ Κάτωνοϲ εἶναῑ θῠγᾰτ̆ε´ ρᾱ | καὶ τὸ Βρούτου γυναῖκα πρόϲεϲτιν· | οἷϲ πρότερον μὲν η̄ ῟ ττο̆ν ε᾿̆ π̆επο̄ ι´ θειν, | νῦν δ᾿ ἐμαυτὴν ἔγνωκα καὶ πρὸϲ πόνον ἀήττη̄το̆ν ε̄῏ιναῑ.᾿ | 7 κοινωνὸϲ δὲ ἀνιαρῶν scribi possit

‘I, Brutus, was given into your house as the daughter of Cato, not just to share your bed and table, as concubines might, but so as to be the sharer of your good fortune, and the sharer of your miseries. Now, all that you have done in regard to our marriage is faultless, but what display or gratitude can be given on my side if I cannot bear together with you a secret distress or a concern that requires trust? I know that women’s nature seems weak to bear a strict secret; but there exists, Brutus, a strength which noble upbringing and good contact can give to the character. And for myself I have the additional advantages of being the daughter of Cato and the wife of Brutus. In those advantages I previously had less trust, but I have now realized that I am invincible even when it comes to pain.’

This passage, like the one before, shows us interaction between Brutus and a crucial figure in his existence; here comparison has a more significant role, and throws light on Porcia as much as Brutus. The last part of the speech (10) is less densely rhythmic, but is included to show the whole utterance. Porcia delivers it at the height of the agonies brought on by deliberately wounding herself, to show she is worthy of sharing Brutus’ secret (the plan of conspiracy). The basic narrative may well derive from the little book Recollections of Brutus by Porcia’s son Bibulus (13.3, cf. 23.7, FRHist 49 [Drummond (2013a)]); but the speech explores motifs relevant to the Life. The end of the speech (10) leads back to α῏ ρ᾿ ἀγνοεῖϲ, ὦ Βροῦτε, ϲεαυτόν; in 10.6, which we have just considered: action brings recognition of one’s own truest nature, to others and oneself. Cf. 13.4 ‘she did not attempt to question her husband about the secrets before she tested herself as follows’ (λαβεῖν ἑαυτῆϲ τοιαύτην διάπειραν). Brutus prays to succeed in his act and so be revealed as a husband worthy of Porcia (φᾰν̄ην̑ αῑ. | 13.11, cf. φᾰν̄ ε´ ντοϲ̄ .᾿ | at 10.6). As that sentence confirms, comparison between man and woman is important to the passage. At the same time, Porcia’s specific nature springs, like Brutus’, from her antecedents, and especially from her being the daughter of Cato; the passage also furthers the central comparison between Cato and

134

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Brutus. Plutarch reiterates at the start of the narrative that Porcia is Cato’s daughter (13.3; it is worth considering whether Sintenis’ φιλόϲτοργοϲ for φιλόϲοφοϲ is really correct at 13.4). 7. | ‘ἐγώ, Βροῦτε, Κάτωνοϲ ο̄υ῏ ϲᾰ θῠγ̆α´ τη̄ρ | εἰϲ τὸν ϲ̆ο` ν ε᾿̆ δ̆ο´ θη̄ν ο̄῏ι κον̄ |: ϲ̆ο` ν is given more force by being the first significant word in its rhythmic phrase; the fact of emphasis is confirmed by the separation from ο̄῏ι κον̄ |. The two distinct rhythmic phrases proudly juxtapose Porcia’s two glories. Dio Cass. 44.13.4 does not have the enhancement of rhythm: ῾ . . . ἢ μηκέτι με μηδεὶϲ μήτε Κάτωνοϲ θυγατέρα μήτε ϲὴν γυναῖκα νομιζέτω.᾿ | οὐχ, ὥϲπερ αἱ πᾱλλᾰκεῡ̆ο´ μ̆εναῑ, | κοίτη̄ϲ μ̆εθ̄ ε´ ξοῡϲᾱ | κᾱ`ι τρᾰπ̄ ε´ ζη̄ϲ μ̆ο´ νον̄ , | ἀλλὰ κοινωνὸϲ μ̆`εν ᾰ᾿ γᾰθ ̄ω̑ ν ε̄῏ι ναῑ, | κοινωνὸϲ δ’ ἀνιαρῶν.: ἀνιαρόϲ is found with both long and short iotas (so short Theocr. 2.55, long 7.124), but probably a long iota, not found in Attic comedy, would strike Plutarch as poetic. However, hiatus with a word like δέ in a rhythmic close is extremely easy (see pp. 63–6), and this phrase too should be supposed rhythmic (| κοινων̄ο` ϲ δ̆`ε α᾿̆ νῐᾱρ ̄ω̑ν. |h). Scornful rhythmic phrases highlight the physical | κοίτη̄ϲ and | (κᾱ`ι) τρᾰπ̄ ε´ ζη̄ϲ, while elaborate anaphora presents the ideal of all-encompassing ̑ | μηδὲν κοινωνία. Cf. e.g. Coniug. Praec. 140a | οὕτω τ̄η` ν γῠνᾱ ι κᾱ ἴδιον̄ π̆α´ θο̆ϲ ῎ε̆ χεῑν, | ἀλλὰ κοινωνεῖν τῶι ἀνδρὶ καὶ ϲποῡδ̄ηϲ̑ κᾱ`ι παῑδῐᾶϲ | καὶ ϲυννοίαϲ κᾱ`ι γ̆ε´ λ ̄ωτοϲ̄ . |, Antip. Tars. fr. 63, SVF iii.255.11–31. For the balance of the genitives, cf. Com. Adesp. 1000.24–6 KasselAustin, where poetic metre does the work done by rhythm here: ἢ πῶϲ δίκαιόν ἐϲτιν ἢ καλῶϲ ἔχον | τῶν μὲν ἀγαθῶν με τὸ μέροϲ ὧν εἶχεν λαβεῖν, | τοῦ ϲυναπορηθῆναι δὲ μὴ λαβεῖν μέροϲ;. The contrast with the concubine is not so much with a shameless and alluring hetaira (cf. e.g. Dion. Hal. Praef. Vet. Or. 1.5 p. 88 Hidber) as with a convenient woman devoid of awkward status (cf. Plut. Sen. Resp. 789b). Rhythm still heightens the contempt of πᾱλλᾰκεῡ̆ο´ μ̆εναῑ, |, as enjambement heightens the contempt of the different designation scortum in the aristocratic hauteur of [Tib.] 3.16.3–4 (sarcastic) sit tibi cura togae potior pressumque quasillo | scortum quam Serui filia Sulpicia. In | οὐχ . . . α᾿̆ νῐᾱρ ̄ω̑ν. | h, Plutarch highlights in specific circumstances an abiding ethical concern of his philosophy and of the Lives: the characters show themselves through marriage. τὰ μὲν ο̄υ῏ ν ϲ̆α` π̄α´ ντᾱ | περὶ τ̄ο` ν γ̆α´ μο̆ν α῎̆ μεμ̄ πτᾱ· | 8. τ ̄ω̑ ν δ̆`ε πᾰρ᾿ ε᾿̆ μο̄υ ̑ | τίϲ ἀπόδεῑξῐϲ η῍̄ χ̆α´ ρῑϲ, |: the rhythmic phrasing brings out the contours of the argument and the tone of the communication. ‘You’ and ‘me’ are set against each other, in decorous neuter formulations.

Brutus and His Mirrors

135

The conventional praise α῎̆ μεμ ̄ πτᾱ·| shows an absence of criticism in a context that could seem critical (cf. Sen. Resp. 789b, IG 5.578.8–12 [Sparta, i BC] τὰν ἄμεμπτον | μετὰ ἀνδρὸϲ . . . ἑξηκον|τα̣ετῆ ϲυνβίωϲιν.). The pair of nouns ἀπόδεῑξῐϲ η῍̄ χ̆α´ ρῑϲ in a single phrase demonstrates only a wish to show gratitude rather than a call for mutual χάριϲ (cf. Soph. Aj. 520–4). The wife is graciously offering the benefit of sympathy (cf. e.g. Antip. Tars. fr. 63, SVF iii.255.25–9, incl. Eur. fr. 822.35–6 Kannicht, Naumach. GDK 29.16–18; Bryson 101–2 [Swain (2013), 475]), rather than demanding information to which she feels entitled. | εἰ μήτε ϲοι π̆α´ θο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ π̄ο´ρρη̄τον̄ | ϲῡνδῐο̄ ι´ ϲ ̄ω | μ̄η´ τ̆ε φρον̄ τ̆ι´δᾱ | π̄ ι´ ϲτ̆ε ̄ωϲ δ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ν; |: the rhythm underlines words. ᾰ᾿ π̄ο´ρρη̄τον̄ | joins with 13.4 ᾰ᾿ πορ̄ ρ̄η´ τ ̄ων | and 13.9 ᾰ᾿ π̄ο´ρρη̄τον̄ |: the rhythmic closes reinforce the verbal chain of repetition. | ϲῡνδῐο̄ ι´ϲ ̄ω | forms a powerful verb, which occupies a rhythmic unit on its own; it joins with ἐνεγκε̄ ιν̑ in the next sentence, but the preverb is crucial. | π̄ ι´ϲτ̆ε ̄ωϲ also stands in higher relief than it would have without rhythm; it comes first in the rhythmic phrase whether one scans | π̄ ι´ϲτ̆ε ̄ωϲ δ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ν; | or | πίϲτε ̄ωϲ δ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ν; |. 9. | οἶδ᾿ ὅτῐ γῠναῑκε̄ ι´ᾱ φῠ ´ϲῑϲ | ̄α᾿ ϲθ̆εν̄η` ϲ δο̆κε̄ ι ̑ | λόγον ἐνεγκε̄ ι ν̑ ᾰ᾿ π̄ο´ ρρη̄τον̄ · |: words are marked out through the rhythm, as the word-order confirms. | ̄α᾿ ϲθ̆εν̄η` ϲ is separated from the infinitive; ᾰ᾿ π̄ο´ ρρη̄τον̄ · | is separated from | λόγον. Rhythm draws our attention to | λόγον: it is a less obvious object for φέρειν than | (εἰ μήτε ϲοι) π̆α´ θο̆ϲ was. Porcia is proceeding subtly, suggesting the pain of endurance rather than the satisfaction of knowledge. With womanly diffidence and tact (cf. Eur. Hel. 1049 ἄκουϲον ἤν τι καὶ γυνὴ λέξηι ϲοφόν), she appears to advance a humble general proposition; but δο̆κε̄ ι ̑ | too garners attention, and the statement serves as foil to the assertion that follows. | ἀλλ’ ἔϲτι τιϲ, ὦ Βροῦτε, κᾱ`ι τρο̆φ̄ηϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ γᾰθ̄ηϲ̑ | καὶ ὁμῑλ̆ι´ᾱϲ χρη̄ϲτ̄ηϲ̑ | εἰϲ η̄ ᾿ ̑θο̆ϲ ̄ ᾿ι ϲχ̄υ´ϲ· |: the philosophical vein of the historiography is now apparent, with the resounding ἔϲτι τιϲ in effect beginning the phrase (ἔϲτι τιϲ in the Lives only at Numa 4.5, and in different ways Comp. Demosth. Cic. 50 (1).4, Lys. 12.5; all philosophical). But the address, with vocative, makes the phrase heighten the drama of interaction too. καὶ . . . καί and the synonyms ἀγαθῆϲ . . . χρηϲτῆϲ go with the rhythm in marking out the pairs. The placing of ἰϲχύϲ and its separation from τιϲ unite with the rhythm in contrasting ̄ ᾿ι ϲχ̄υ´ϲ· | with | ̄α᾿ ϲθ̆εν̄η` ϲ. The phrases κᾱ`ι τρο̆φ̄ηϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ γᾰθ̄ηϲ̑ | and | καὶ ὁμῑλ̆ι´ᾱϲ χρη̄ϲτ̄ηϲ̑ | prepare for the applications in 10 to being Cato’s daughter and

136

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Brutus’ wife, respectively. But, as often happens, the density of rhythm is not sustained throughout the speech; the philosophical generalization is made to stand out.

BRUT. 29.2–3 2. | η̄ ᾿ ̑ν δ̆`ε δ̄ο´ξᾱ | Κάϲϲιον μὲν εἶναι δεινὸν ἐν το̄ ι ϲ̑ πο̆λ̆εμῐκο̄ ι ϲ,̑ | ὀργ̄ηι̑ δ̆`ε τρᾱχ̄υ` ν | καὶ φόβωι μ̄αλ̑ λο̆ν ῎̄αρχον̄ τᾱ, | πρὸϲ δὲ το̄ υ` ϲ ϲῠν̄η´ θεῑϲ | ὑγρότερον τ ̄ω̑ ι γ̆ελο̄ ι´ ̄ωι | κᾱ`ι φῐλοϲ̄ κ ̄ω´ πτη̄ν· | 3. Βροῦτον δὲ λέγοῡϲῐ δῐ ᾿ ᾰ᾿ ρ̆ε τ̄η` ν | φιλεῖϲθαι μ̆`εν υ῾̆ π̆ο` τ ̄ω̑ ν πολ̄ λ ̄ω̑ ν, | ἐρ̄αϲ̑ θαῑ δ᾿ υ῾̆ π̆ο` τ ̄ω̑ ν φ̆ι´λ ̄ων, | θαυμάζεϲθαι δ᾿ ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ ν ᾰ᾿ ρ̄ ι´ ϲτ ̄ων, | μιϲεῖϲθαι δὲ μηδ᾿ ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ ν πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ ̄ων, | ὅτι πρᾶοϲ ὁ ἀν̄η` ρ δῐᾰφ̆ερ̄ο´ ντ ̄ωϲ | κᾱ`ι μ̆εγᾰλ̆ο´ φρ ̄ων | καὶ πρὸϲ π̄αϲ̑ ᾰν ̄ο᾿ ργ̄η` ν | καὶ ἡδονὴν καὶ πλεονε ξ̄ ̆ι´ᾱν ᾰ᾿ πᾰθ̄η´ ϲ, | ὄρθιον̄ δ̆`ε τ̄η` ν γν ̄ω´ μη̄ν | καὶ ἄκᾱμπτο̆ν ̄ ε῾ ϲτ ̄ω̑ ϲᾱν | ὑπὲρ τοῦ καλοῦ κᾱ`ι δῐκᾱ ι´οῡ | δῐᾰφῠλ̄α´ ττ ̄ων. | 3 πρᾶοϲ Ziegler

People’s view was that Cassius was formidable in matters of war, harsh in his anger, and controlling his men rather by fear, but to his friends more relaxed, with his sense of humour, and fond of jokes. They say that Brutus, thanks to his virtue, was loved by the many, adored by his friends, admired by the best men, and not hated even by his enemies in war, because he was exceptionally mild and generous, not stirred by any anger, pleasure, or greed, and keeping his attitude on goodness and justice fixed as upright and immovable.

Comparison is here to the fore; it is the main subject of the discourse, and the only specific past event is the opinion (| η̄ ᾿ ̑ν δ̆`ε δ̄ο´ ξᾱ |). The comparison with Cassius has run through the Life; internal comparison is as important as the comparison with Dion. The sentence presents a complex picture, articulated with the help of the rhythm; but the roles played by the rhythms alter. 2. | η̄ ᾿ ̑ν δ̆`ε δ̄ο´ ξᾱ | Κάϲϲιον μὲν εἶναι δεινὸν ἐν το̄ ι ϲ̑ πο̆λ̆εμῐκο̄ ι ϲ,̑ | ὀργ̄ηι̑ δ̆`ε τρᾱχ̄υ` ν | καὶ φόβωι μ̄αλ̑ λο̆ν ῎̄αρχον̄ τᾱ, | πρὸϲ δὲ το̄υ` ϲ ϲῠν̄η´ θεῑϲ | ὑγρότερον τ ̄ω̑ ι γ̆ελο̄ ι´ ̄ωι | κᾱ`ι φῐλοϲ̄ κ ̄ω´ πτη̄ν· |: the opening entity | η̄῏ ν δ̆`ε δ̄ο´ ξᾱ | establishes the distance of the author from the assertions that follow; λέγουϲι picks it up redundantly at the start of 29.3, while setting us less clearly in the narrated past. A historian’s caution restrains the philosophical line of thought. Within the contrast of Cassius and Brutus (μὲν [2] . . . δέ [3]), a contrast develops on Cassius’ military command: δεινόν sounds impressive in the first phrase, but the succeeding pair of phrases

Brutus and His Mirrors

137

show the negative sides (cf. Martem spirare diceres in Cic. Att. 15.11.1 on Cassius). Those phrases place Cassius’ anger in parallel with the fear of those he commands; rhythm stresses both, but μᾶλλον adds a modification, and leads into what follows. The separate rhythmic phrase | πρὸϲ δὲ το̄υ` ϲ ϲῠν̄η´ θεῑϲ | brings in a further contrast, between Cassius’ treatment of subordinates and his treatment of his friends; this contrast makes him unlike Brutus. Sull. 30.6 (passage 2 in the Appendix to this chapter) is a similarly complicated passage, of less extended rhythmical density; it compares Marius and Sulla, with an emphasis on Sulla, but also looks in Sulla at contrasts in time. There the softness and humour form a further point in Sulla’s initial good side. Jokiness is seen in both places as a positive quality; Plutarch may be drawing on letters by Cassius. ὑγρόϲ is an expressive word in both places, but here contrasts with τρᾱχ̄ υ` ν |. 3. | Βροῦτον δὲ λέγοῡϲῐ δῐ᾿ ᾰ᾿ ρ̆ε τ̄η` ν | φιλεῖϲθαι μ̆`εν υ῾̆ π̆ο` τ ̄ω̑ ν πολ̄ λ ̄ω̑ ν, | ἐρ̄αϲ̑ θαῑ δ᾿ υ῾̆ π̆ο` τ ̄ω̑ ν φ̆ι´λ ̄ων, | θαυμάζεϲθαι δ᾿ ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ ν ᾰ᾿ ρ̄ ι´ϲτ ̄ων, | μιϲεῖϲθαι δὲ μηδ᾿ ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ ν πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ ̄ων, |: δῐ᾿ ᾰ᾿ ρ̆ε τ̄η` ν | is spotlighted by the end of the rhythmic entity and by the position of μέν. It establishes a philosophical basis for what follows. The style now visibly changes. The rhythmic divisions had earlier probed complications and inconsistencies in Cassius; now they lyrically display uniformity with regard to Brutus. The rhythm gives more rapture than appears at Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.76.3 (passage 2 of the Appendix to ch. 5), in a sequence devoid of rhythm: τῶι δὲ Νόμαι περιῆν ἐκ τούτων φιλεῖϲθαι μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων, ζηλοῦϲθαι δ᾿ ὑπὸ τῶν περιοίκων, μνημονεύεϲθαι δ᾿ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιγινομένων·. | ἐρ̄αϲ̑ θαῑ here points a difference between the many and friends; but it is a difference only in degree, which heightens Brutus’ attractiveness. The feelings of other people had been hinted at in the part on Cassius (cf. especially φόβωι); but they have now become the objective indication of Brutus’ universal charm. The last element places a surprising verb μιϲεῖϲθαι first in the clause and rhythmic unit and follows it by a negative: the language remains alert. λέγουϲι of historical report can occasionally take present infinitives in Plutarch (so Cat. Min. 25.10, Gracch. 12.3; Cras. 7.4). In view of | η̄ ᾿ ̑ν δ̆`ε δ̄ο´ ξᾱ | at the start of the sentence, and of 29.4–5, we here hover a little uncertainly between opinion of the time, written sources of the time, and later accounts (cf. 29.7). | ὅτι πρᾶοϲ ὁ ἀν̄η` ρ δῐᾰφ̆ερ̄ο´ ντ ̄ωϲ | κᾱ`ι μ̆εγᾰλ̆ο´ φρ ̄ων | καὶ πρὸϲ π̄αϲ̑ ᾰν ̄ο᾿ ργ̄η` ν | καὶ ἡδονὴν καὶ πλεονε ξ̄ ̆ι´ᾱν ᾰ᾿ πᾰθ̄η´ ϲ, |: Ziegler’s πρᾶοϲ , which could be right, would move what follows from views in the

138

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

past or later to the present author’s statement about the past. πρᾶοϲ ὁ ἀν̄η` ρ δῐᾰφ̆ερ̄ο´ ντ ̄ωϲ | separates in a rhythmic unit a quality that Plutarch especially prizes, with πρᾶοϲ as first significant word; he has had to work hard to extract this quality from the sources for Brutus. The characteristic explains the liking and not hating; but ἀρετή includes more, and an added self-contained phrase, | κᾱ`ι μ̆εγᾰλ̆ο´ φρ ̄ων |, moves the sentence in a different direction. A string of nouns, all modified by πᾶϲαν, the first important word in its phrase, is arrested by ᾰ᾿ πᾰθ̄η´ ϲ, |, at the end of the rhythmic close; the word has a philosophical resonance. It had been applied to all the conspirators together at 14.6. | ὄρθιον̄ δ̆`ε τ̄η` ν γν ̄ω´ μη̄ν | καὶ ἄκᾱμπτο̆ν ̄ ε῾ ϲτ ̄ω̑ ϲᾱν | ὑπὲρ τοῦ καλοῦ κᾱ`ι δῐκᾱ ι´οῡ | δῐᾰφῠλ̄α´ ττ ̄ων. |: the rhythmic entities and word-order ennoble these more austere qualities. | ὄρθιον̄ and | (καὶ) ἄκᾱμπτο̆ν come effectively first in their rhythmic phrases; in an arrangement which heightens attention on them, the noun which they modify, predicatively, is tucked in after the first adjective. | ὄρθιον̄ and ̄ ε῾ ϲτ̄ω̑ ϲᾱν | unite in a physical image at either end of the pair of phrases (the participle is syntactically a slightly unexpected addition). The adjectives somewhat suggest Cato (Cat. Min. 4.2, 5.3, cf. also Cat. Mai. 6.4); the constancy contrasts with Cassius. Before the final separate verb, the sealed-off phrase | ὑπὲρ τοῦ καλοῦ κᾱ`ι δῐκᾱ ι´οῡ |, governed by the distant γνώμην, displays the philosophical grounding: this is not mere stubbornness, but ἀρετή.

BRUT. 40.7–8 7. | καὶ ὁ Βρο̄υ τ̑ ο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ π̆εκρ̄ ι´ νᾰτο·̄ | ῾νέοϲ ῍̄ων ε᾿̆ γ ̄ω´ , Κ̄α´ ϲϲῐε ,̄ | καὶ πραγμάτ ̄ων α῎̆ πεῑροϲ̄ | οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπωϲ ̄ ε᾿ ν φῐλο̆ϲο̆φ̆ι´ᾱι | λ̆ο´ γο̆ν ᾰ᾿ φ̄ηκ̑ ᾰ μ̆ε´ γᾱν· | ἠιτιαϲάμη̄ν Κ̆α´ τ ̄ωνᾱ | διαχρηϲάμ̆ενο̆ν ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ο´ ν, | ὡϲ οὐχ ὅϲιον οὐδ᾿ ̄α᾿ νδρ̆ο` ϲ ̄ ε῎ ργον̄ | ̑ ̆ ν ᾰ᾿ δ̆ε ̄ω̑ ϲ, | ̄α᾿ λλ’ ὑποχ ̄ωρε̄ ι ν̑ τ ̄ω̑ ι δᾱ ι´μο̆νῑ | καὶ μ̄η` δ̆ε´ χε ϲ̄ θαῑ | τὸ ϲυμπ̄ ι πτο ᾿ᾰ πο̆δῐδρ̄α´ ϲκεῑν. | 8. νυνὶ δ᾿ ἀλλοῖοϲ ἐν τᾱ ιϲ̑ τ ̆υ´χαῑϲ γ̄ ι´ νο̆μαῑ· | καὶ θεοῦ καλῶϲ τὰ πάροντα μ̄η` βρᾰβε̄υ´ϲᾱντοϲ̄ , | οὐ δέομαι π̆α´ λῐν ῎̄αλλᾱϲ ̄ ε᾿ λπ̆ι´δᾱϲ | ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆ελ̄ ε´ γχεῑν | κᾱ`ι πᾰρᾱϲκεῡ̄α´ ϲ, | ̄α᾿ λλ᾿ ᾰ᾿ πᾱλλ̄α´ ξο̆μαῑ, | τὴν Τύχη̄ν ε᾿̆ παῑν ̄ω̑ ν | ὅτι Μᾱρτ̆ι´αῑϲ ε̄ ᾿ι δο̄ ι ϲ̑ | δοὺϲ τῆι πατρίδῐ τ̆ο` ν ε᾿̆ μαῡτο̄υ ̑ β̆ι´ον̄ , | ἄλλον ἔζη̄ϲᾰ δῐ᾿ ε᾿̆ κε̄ ι´ νη̄ν | ἐλεύθερον καὶ ἔνδοξον.᾿ Brutus replied, ‘When I was young, Cassius, and without experience of the world, I somehow made a rash utterance in philosophizing: I blamed Cato for killing himself, thinking it not lawful or manly

Brutus and His Mirrors

139

conduct to yield to fortune and not take what befell without fear, but instead to run away. Now, in the circumstances that befall me, I am becoming different; if God has not made a favourable decision on the present situation, I do not want to try out other hopes and resources, but rather I will make my departure, praising Fortune that on the Ides of March I gave my own life to my country, and have lived through her another life, free and glorious.’

Here interaction with Cassius comes to its climax: Brutus is in his final conversation with him, on the verge of battle, before they turn to military particulars; Cassius has asked Brutus what he thinks about flight and death. The passage also involves comparison with Cato, and contrast between Brutus at different stages in his life. Dense rhythm promotes an intensely attentive reading of the individual phrases, and loads the speech with gravity. Plutarch suggests that he derives his account from a work by Messalla (40.1; cf. Drummond [2013b]). 7. | καὶ ὁ Βρο̄υ τ̑ ο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ π̆εκρ̄ ι´ νᾰτο·̄ | ῾νέοϲ ῍̄ων ε᾿̆ γ ̄ω´ , Κ̄α´ ϲϲῐε,̄ | καὶ πραγμάτ ̄ων α῎̆ πεῑροϲ̄ | οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπωϲ ̄ ε᾿ ν φῐλο̆ϲο̆φ̆ι´ᾱι | λ̆ο´ γο̆ν ᾰ᾿ φ̄ηκ̑ ᾰ μ̆ε´ γᾱν· |: the opening rhythmic phrase of the speech opens up a perspective of time, as if Brutus, so consistent now, might be inconsistent with his past self. | νέοϲ is stressed as the first word of speech and rhythmic phrase, and is matched by α῎̆ πεῑροϲ̄ |, stressed as the last word of the rhythmic phrase and pair of phrases. | νέοϲ ῍̄ων evokes Socrates’ account of his past intellectual development, as he faces death (νέοϲ ὤν Plat. Phaedo 96a7). The vocative adds mellowness to the reflection. πραγμάτ ̄ων α῎̆ πεῑροϲ̄ | heightens the expectation of folly. The rhythmic organization underlines a connection with ̄ ε᾿ ν φῐλο̆ϲο̆φ̆ι´ᾱι |; in the slow pace created by the content and the rhythm, the reader wonders how experience and philosophy will relate: can philosophical principles be modified by specific experiences? What is recalled turns out to be not a state of mind like the young Socrates’, but only a one-off utterance. μ̆ε´ γᾱν· | is highlighted both by the rhythmic close and by the separation from its noun; Plato’s μέγαϲ τέ τίϲ μοι φαίνεται uses different means of emphasis in applying the same word to the same λόγοϲ (Phaedo 62b5). Brutus, however, is pointedly altering the sense of μέγαϲ from Socrates’ ‘lofty, challenging’. | ἠιτιαϲάμη̄ν Κ̆α´ τ ̄ωνᾱ | διαχρηϲάμ̆ενο̆ν ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ο´ ν, | ὡϲ οὐχ ὅϲιον οὐδ᾿ ̑ ̆ν ̄α᾿ νδρ̆ο` ϲ ̄ ε῎ ργον̄ | ὑποχ ̄ωρε̄ ι ν̑ τ ̄ω̑ ι δᾱ ι´ μο̆νῑ | καὶ μ̄η` δ̆ε´ χεϲ̄ θαῑ | τὸ ϲυμπ̄ ι πτο ᾰ᾿ δ̆ε ̄ω̑ ϲ, | ̄α᾿ λλ’ ᾰ᾿ πο̆δῐδρ̄α´ ϲκεῑν. |: the rhythmic ending throws Cato’s name into further relief. Cato is a crucial figure in the Life. The

140

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

reader of the finished sequence of Lives is drawn also to the parallel scene (Cat. Min. 68–9) where Cato discusses suicide, but in a much less friendly and reflective way. He has been reading the Phaedo; but he opts for suicide. The pair in the rhythmic phrase | ὡϲ οὐχ ὅϲιον οὐδ᾿ ̄α᾿ νδρ̆ο` ϲ ̄ ε῎ ργον̄ | suggest the values of the Platonic passage, but without its direct indication (on one common ancient understanding) of metaphorical soldiers: ὡϲ ἔν τινι φρουρᾶι ἐϲμεν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ οὐ δεῖ δὴ ἑαυτὸν ἐκ ταύτηϲ λύειν οὐδ’ ἀποδιδράϲκειν. . . . Military values are included in Cato’s use of ἄνδραϲ at Cat. Min. 65.1. The entity | ὑποχ ̄ωρε̄ ι ν̑ τ ̄ω̑ ι δᾱ ι´ μο̆νῑ | isolates and dwells on the idea of suicide as yielding to the δαίμων, a word with divine connotations; it runs contrary to the conception in the Phaedo of remaining alive as obedience to the gods. In the end, suicide will emerge as an act of complete independence. ̑ ̆ ν; the A rhythmic boundary separates δ̆ε´ χε ϲ̄ θαῑ | and | τὸ ϲυμπ̄ ι πτο context lets resound the divergent suggestions of receiving something from someone and of mere chance. Rhythm, sentence-ending, and the fact of allusion add an extra air of contemptuous climax to the Platonic ᾰ᾿ πο̆δῐδρ̄α´ ϲκεῑν. | 8. | νυνὶ δ᾿ ἀλλοῖοϲ ἐν τᾱ ι ϲ̑ τῠ ´χαῑϲ γ̄ ι´ νο̆μαῑ· |: a short half-sentence syntactically, all one rhythmic entity. Self-awareness and a depth of time are conveyed with affecting simplicity of utterance. | νυνὶ at the start of the sentence is further highlighted by the rhythmic position and the demonstrative form (hence the word most commonly begins sentences and half-sentences in Plutarch). ἐν τᾱ ι ϲ̑ τ ῠ ´χαῑϲ contrasts with πραγμάτ ̄ων α῎̆ πεῑροϲ̄ |; Brutus treats wryly both his past self and his present change. Becoming ἀλλοῖοϲ might not seem a good thing (cf. Adulat. 53b), especially in seeming defiance of Platonic doctrine (Brutus was an Academic, not a Stoic). Pelling (1997), 225–7, notes the avoidance of explicit inter-school polemic at this point, cf. Griffin (1997), 10–11; such polemic would not suit the personal and interpersonal subtlety of the moment. | καὶ θεοῦ καλῶϲ τὰ πάροντα μ̄η` βρᾰβε̄υ´ϲᾱντοϲ̄ , | οὐ δέομαι π̆α´ λῐν ῎̄αλλᾱϲ ̄ ε᾿ λπ̆ι´δᾱϲ | ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆ελ̄ ε´ γχεῑν | κᾱ`ι πᾰρᾱϲκεῡ̄α´ ϲ, | ̄α᾿ λλ᾿ ᾰ᾿ πᾱλλ̄α´ ξο̆μαῐ, |: the genitive absolute is relatively extended, but much of the phrase is unrhythmic; it is as if the actual outcome of the battle is not really the centre of attention. The words are ordered in an unusual way, and give extra force to θεοῦ; the point is not so much that the Epicurean

Brutus and His Mirrors

141

Cassius would not accept divine involvement, as that the gods are merely umpiring events, not caring or planning for the individual person, who decides alone (contrast Plat. Phaedo 62b6–c8). π̆α´ λῐν and ῎̄αλλᾱϲ add to each other in the pointless attempt, and the separate appended rhythmic phrase | κᾱ`ι πᾰρᾱϲκεῡ̄α´ ϲ, | conveys further bustle. By contrast, the single phrase | ̄α᾿ λλ᾿ ᾰ᾿ πᾱλλ̄α´ ξο̆μαῑ, | presents death with brevity and quietness of language. The simple harmony of the two unresolved cretics is set against what in the context is a more agitated version of the same basic rhythm (rhythm 1) π̆α´ λῐν ῎̄αλλᾱϲ ̄ ε᾿ λπ̆ι´δᾱϲ |, with, instead of a first cretic, two consecutive shorts and then two longs. The passage stands in contrast for the reader of the whole Lives with Pompey’s approach to trying again at Pomp. 75.1–2, cf. 4; Pompey’s speech is part of another passage marked out by dense rhythm (see ch. 15). | τὴν Τύχη̄ν ε᾿̆ παῑν ̄ω̑ ν | ὅτι Μᾱρτ̆ι´αῑϲ ε̄ ᾿ι δο̄ ι ϲ̑ | δοὺϲ τῆι πατρίδῐ τ̆ο` ν ᾿ε̆ μαῡτο̄υ ̑ β̆ι´ον̄ , | ἄλλον ἔζη̄ϲᾰ δῐ᾿ ε᾿̆ κε̄ ι´ νη̄ν | ἐλεύθερον καὶ ἔνδοξον.᾿ : the sentence is now extended after the main verbs, but it is Τύχη who has inadvertently helped Brutus rather than θεοῦ, who would hypothetically be against him. The two words match at the start of clauses and rhythmic entities. τᾱ ι ϲ̑ τῠ ´χαῑϲ become notionally personified and beneficent. Rhythm helps the critical date to stick out; it had been part of an argument between Cassius and Brutus (35.4 | ὁ δὲ τῶν ε̄ ᾿ι δ ̄ω̑ ν τ ̄ω̑ ν Μᾱρτ̆ι´ων | ἐκέλευεν αὐτὸν μνημονεύεῑν ε᾿̆ κε̄ ι´ ν ̄ων, |). The phrasing separates βίον and ἄλλον, and opposes them on either side of a rhythmic boundary; the idea of another life surprises, especially in this context, and takes the notion of change to an extreme. δῐ᾿ ε᾿̆ κε̄ ι´ νη̄ν | acquires more force from the rhythm than it would otherwise have had; the important being is not a god but Brutus’ personified country. The speech ends unrhythmically. Possibly the unexpected series of long syllables adds to the grandeur of this touch of self-glorification (cf. Demetr. 42). At the end of the speech, Cassius smiles, and turns to Homeric utterance (40.9, cf. Hom. Il. 12.328). We have now looked at the four particularly dense passages in this Life. Three of them involve notable speeches, while one compares Cassius and Brutus at length; they relate in their exploration of the self, change, and comparison, and stand out as high points in the reflections of the Life.

142

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Appendix: App. BC 2.470–2, Plut. Sull. 30.6 1. App. BC 2.470 2 470 . . . . | καὶ ὁ Βροῦτοϲ οὐκ ἔφη παρέϲεϲθαι τ ̄ω̑ ι βοῡλεῡτη̄ρ̆ι´ ̄ωι. | 471. ἐπανερομένοῡ δ̆`ε το̄υ ̑ Κᾱϲϲ̆ι´οῡ | ῾τί δ᾿ ἂν ἡμᾶϲ ῏ α᾿̆ γᾰθ̆`ε Βρου τ̑ ε;̄ ᾿ |h ‘ἀμυνῶ τῆι καλῶϲιν ̄ω῾ ϲ ϲτρᾰτη̄γο̄υ´ϲ, | τί ποιήϲομεν, ω πατρίδι’ ἔφη̄ ‘μ̆ε´ χρῐ θᾰν̆α´ τοῡ.᾿ | 472. καὶ ὁ Κάϲϲιοϲ αὐτὸν ̄α᾿ ϲπᾰϲ̆α´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | ῾τίνα δ᾿ ’ ἔφη ‘οὐ προϲλήψηι τῶν ἀρ̄ ι´ ϲτ ̄ων ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ω φρο̆ν ̄ω̑ ν; | ἤ ϲοῑ δο̆κο̄υ ϲ̑ ῑν | οἱ χειροτέχναι κᾱ`ι κ̆α´ πη̄λοῑ | καταγράφειν ϲου τὸ δικαϲτ̄η´ ρῐο̆ν ᾰ᾿ ϲ̄η´ μ ̄ωϲ | μᾶλλον ἢ οἱ Ῥωμαί ̄ων α῎̆ ρῑϲτοῑ, | παρὰ μὲν τῶν ἄλλ ̄ων ϲτρᾰτη̄γ ̄ω̑ ν | θέαϲ αἰτοῦντεϲ ̄ ῞ι ππ ̄ων η̄῍ θη̄ρ̆ι´ ̄ων, | παρὰ δὲ ϲοῦ τ̄η` ν ε᾿̆ λεῡθ̆ερ̆ι´ᾱν | ὡϲ ϲὸν προγο̆νῐκ̆ο` ν ̄ ε῎ ργον̄ ;᾿ | Brutus said he would not be there at the Senate. ‘Supposing they summon us’, Cassius asked, ‘as praetors? What will we do then, my dear Brutus?’ ‘I will defend my country until death’, Brutus said. Cassius embraced him and said, ‘With such a spirit, which of the finest men will you not win to your side? Or do you think it is the artisans and shopkeepers who are writing unrecognized on your judgement platform, rather than the best of the Romans, who demand from other praetors spectacles involving horses or wild beasts, but from you freedom, as the task you have inherited from your ancestors.’ 2. Sull. 30.6 | Μάριοϲ μὲν οὖν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆϲ χαλεπὸϲ ὢν ἐπέτεινεν, οὐ μετέβαλε τῆι ἐξοῡϲ̆ι´ᾱι τ̄η` ν φ ̆υ´ϲῑν· | Cύλλαϲ δὲ μετρί ̄ωϲ τ̆α` πρ ̄ω̑ τᾱ | κᾱ`ι πο̆λῑτῐκ ̄ω̑ ϲ | ὁμῑλ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ τ̄ηι̑ τ ῠ ´χη̄ι, | καὶ δόξαν ἀριϲτοκρατικο̄υ ̑ κᾱ`ι δη̄μ ̄ωφ̆ελο̄υ ϲ̑ | ἡγεμόνοϲ̄ πᾰρᾱϲχ̄ω´ ν, | ἔτι δὲ κᾱ`ι φῐλ̆ο´ γ̆ελ ̄ωϲ | ἐκ νέοῡ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | κᾱ`ι πρ̆ο` ϲ ο̄῏ι κτο̆ν υ῾̆ γρ̄`οϲ | ὥϲτε ῥαιδί ̄ωϲ ε᾿̆ πῐδᾰκρ̄υ´ εῑν, | εἰκότωϲ προϲετρίψατο ταῖϲ μεγάλαιϲ ἐξουϲίαῑϲ δῐᾰβο̆λ̄η` ν | ὡϲ τὰ ἤθη μένειν ο̄υ᾿ κ ᾿ε̆ ̄ω´ ϲαῑϲ | ἐπὶ τ ̄ω̑ ν ̄ ε᾿ ξ ̄α᾿ ρχ̄ηϲ̑ τρ̆ο´ π ̄ων, | ἀλλ᾿ ἔμπλη̄κτᾰ κᾱ`ι χᾱυ ν̑ ᾱ | καὶ ἀπάνθρ ̄ωπᾰ ποῑο̄υ´ϲαῑϲ. | Marius was harsh from the beginning and continued so; he did not change his nature with power. Sulla, however, in his first contact with good fortune was reasonable and fitted with the city; he gave the impression of a leader who favoured aristocracy but also helped the people. From his youth he had enjoyed jokes and had been soft in his response to pity and wept for people easily. So it was fair that he had bad words for positions of great power, for not allowing characters to remain in accord with people’s original disposition, but making them mad, foolish, and inhuman.

10 Daggers and Dangers (Brutus 1.5, 16.4, 52.1–4, 7–8; 19–20) In the preceding chapter we saw that rhythmic density marked out particular passages in the Life of Brutus as high points in its thought and in the characters’ relationships. It will be rewarding to look also at the other passages in the Life which particularly show rhythmic density, but not at such length or so continuously. Such passages are harder to separate firmly from passages which are less rhythmically intense; but these three (in 1, 16, and 52) are the ones that appear to stand out. It will be noticed that they are all closely connected with violence using the sword. The connection is not as simple in the second two passages as in the first, in that the choice of what to dwell on is not always what we might expect. But it is conspicuous that in this Life, while the violent action receives heightening from rhythm, not always in obvious ways, a higher degree of rhythmic density is kept for those more contemplative and wide-sweeping passages we have already discussed. The same would not be true of all Lives, but fits the particular nature of this one. After that, we shall look at a more extended passage (19–20) which is not especially distinguished by rhythmic density. Like Tim. 5–6, considered in ch. 5, this will offer a point of comparison. Overall, the two chapters 19–20 will assist us in seeing the range of writing within a Life, and the differences and relations between various sorts of passage.

BRUT. 1.5 | Cερβιλία δ’ ἡ μήτηρ ἀν̆ε´ φ̆ερ̆ε τ̆ο` γ̆ε´ νοϲ̄ | εἰϲ Ἄ̄ λᾱν Cε ρ̄ β̄ ι´ λῐον̄ , | ὃϲ Μαῑλ̆ι´οῡ Cπο̆ρ̆ι´οῡ | τυραννίδα καταϲκευαζομένου καὶ ταράττοντοϲ τὸν δῆμον, ἐγχειρίδιον̄ λᾰβ ̄ω` ν ῠ῾ π̆ο` μ̆α´ λη̄ϲ | προ̄ηλ̑ θ̆εν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ ᾰ᾿ γο̆ρ̄α` ν | κᾱ`ι πᾰρᾱϲτ̄α` ϲ | Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

144

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

τῶι ̄α᾿ νδρ̆`ι πλη̄ϲ̆ι´ον̄ , | ὡϲ ἐντυγχάνεῑν τῐ μ̄ ε´ λλ ̄ων | κᾱ`ι δῐᾰλ̆ε´ γε ϲ̄ θαῑ, | προϲνεύϲαντα πατάξᾱϲ ᾰ᾿ π̄ ε´ κτεῑνε .̄ | δὲ ἡ possit scribi

Servilia, Brutus’ mother, took her ancestry back to Servilius Ahala. When Sp. Maelius was preparing to become a tyrant and stirring up the people, he took a sword beneath his armpit, and proceeded to the Forum; he stood close to the man, as if he wanted to have some talk and conversation with him, and when Maelius leaned his head towards him, he struck and killed him.

This first passage presents rhythmic density only briefly, but memorably. It is with the description of the action that the tight sequence of rhythmic closes really stands out for the reader. The action is set in 439 BC. The deed naturally prefigures the assassination of Caesar, but the simplicity of the effort contrasts with the elaborate procedure of the conspirators. Plutarch does not present Ahala as being commissioned by the Senate (Cincius [?] FRHist 2 F 4, Piso 9 F 26), still less as being magister equitum, as in the standard account (cf. Bispham and Cornell [2013], 51–3). In this Life the would-be conversation recalls not the mass of conspirators gathered round Caesar and beseeching him, but the false alarm with Laenas: 16.1 | διελ̆ε´ γ̆ετο̆ πλε̄ ι´ ̄ω χρ̆ο´ νον̄ | ἐφιϲταμένωι καὶ προϲέχον̄ τῐ τ̄ο` ν νο̄υ ν̑ . |. | Cερβιλία δ’ ἡ μήτηρ ἀν̆ε´ φ̆ερ̆ε τ̆ο` γ̆ε´ νοϲ̄ | εἰϲ Ἄ̄ λᾱν Cε ρ̄ β̄ ι´ λῐον̄ , | ὃϲ Μαῑλ̆ι´οῡ Cπο̆ρ̆ι´ οῡ | τυραννίδα καταϲκευαζομένου καὶ ταράττοντοϲ τὸν δῆμον,: one could easily start with Cερβιλίᾱ δ̆`ε ̄η῾ μ̄η´ τη̄ρ |h; cf. on hiatus pp. 63–6. The men’s names are underlined by their confrontation in adjacent rhythmic units. Cic. Orat. 153 plainly takes the name as Āla, and υ῾̆ π̆ο` μ̆α´ λη̄ϲ | indicates the etymological connection with āla ‘armpit’; in any case, one would suppose that Ἄλα for Ahala would have a long first a. The background is set in an unrhythmic sequence (| τυραννίδα κτλ.); this makes the intensity of rhythm for the action all the more salient. ἐγχειρίδιον̄ λᾰβ ̄ω` ν ῠ῾ π̆ο` μ̆α´ λη̄ϲ | προ̄ηλ̑ θ̆εν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ ᾰ᾿ γο̆ρ̄α` ν | κᾱ`ι πᾰρᾱϲτ̄α` ϲ | τῶι ̄α᾿ νδρ̆`ι πλη̄ϲ̆ι´ον̄ , | ὡϲ ἐντυγχάνεῑν τῐ μ̄ ε´ λλ ̄ων | κᾱ`ι δῐᾰλ̆ε´ γε ϲ̄ θαῑ, | προϲνεύϲαντα πατάξᾱϲ ᾰ᾿ π̄ ε´ κτεῑνε .̄ |: the first phrase comes after an unrhythmic close (ταράττοντοϲ τὸν δῆμον,); but it still effectively puts the weapon first and the graphic armpit last, contrast Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 12.4.4 | λαβόντα τὸ ξιφίδῐο̆ν ῠ῾ π̆ο` μ̆α´ λη̄ϲ |. The word ἐγχειρίδιον creates a link with the conspirators, and especially the episode with Laenas: 14.4 and 16.4 are its only occurrences in the Life.

Daggers and Dangers

145

| κᾱ`ι πᾰρᾱϲτ̄α` ϲ | τῶι ̄α᾿ νδρ̆`ι πλη̄ϲ̆ι´ον̄ , |, with both παρ- and πληϲίον, and | ὡϲ ἐντυγχάνεῑν τῐ μ̄ ε´ λλ ̄ων | κᾱ`ι δῐᾰλ̆ε´ γε ϲ̄ θαῑ, |, with its doublet of verbs, delay the killing with fullness of language in separate rhythmic phrases; the suspense is increased. The simple verb ᾰ᾿ π̄ ε´ κτεῑνε .̄ | closes strongly: the actions are much more elaborate and messy at the killing of Caesar (17.4–7, cf. App. BC 2.491–3). At 18.1, | οὕτω δ᾿ ἀποθαν̄ο´ ντο̆ϲ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ,̑ | is summing up at the start of the sentence, without the force of this close (likewise | κατειργαϲμένοῡ δ̆`ε το̄υ ̑ α᾿̄ νδρ̄ο´ ϲ, |h at Caes. 67.1).

BRUT. 16.4 | Κᾱϲϲ̆ι´οῡ δ’ η̄῎ δη̄ | κᾱ ι´ τῐν ̄ων ῎̄αλλ ̄ων | τὰϲ χεῖραϲ ἐπιβεβλη̄κ̆ο´ τ̄ων τᾱ ιϲ̑ λᾰβᾱ ιϲ̑ | ῾̆υ π̆ο` τ̆α` ι῾ μ̆α´ τῐᾱ |h καὶ ϲπωμένων τὰ ἐγχειρίδια, Βρο̄υ τ̑ ο̆ϲ ̄ ε᾿ γκᾰτῐδ ̄ω` ν | τῶι το̄υ ̑ Λᾱ ι´ νᾱ ϲχ̄η´ μᾰτῑ | δ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡ ϲποῡδ̄η` ν | καὶ οὐ κατη̄γο̆ρο̄υ ν̑ τοϲ̄ , | ἐφθ̄ ε´ γξᾰτο̆ μ̆`εν ο̄υ᾿ δ̄`εν | διὰ τὸ πολλοὺϲ ἀλλοτρίοῡϲ ̑ ᾰ᾿ νᾰμ̆εμ̄ ιχθαῑ, | φαιδρῶι δὲ τ ̄ω̑ι προ̆ϲ ̄ω´ π ̄ωι | τοὺϲ περὶ Κάϲϲῐο̆ν ε̆᾿ θ̄α´ ρρῡνε .̄ | Cassius and some of the others had already put their hands on the handles of their weapons under their togas and were drawing them when Brutus closely observed in Laenas’ demeanour the zeal of some one making a request, not an accusation, and said nothing, as there were many people thronging around who were not involved in the deed, but by making his face bright and cheerful he gave courage to Cassius.

There is much density in the account of Caesar’s killing in Caes. 66. In this Life, despite the brief density in the killing by Brutus’ ancestor just discussed, rhythm gives emphasis rather to a preliminary moment. This moment is arranged, as it is not in App. BC 2.487 (passage 1 in the Appendix to this chapter), to show Brutus in contrast to Cassius, and to reveal his nature more satisfyingly than in the deed of violence. (Cf. 1.4 for the ambivalence of the deed, and for contrast between the two men.) | Κᾱϲϲ̆ι´οῡ δ’ η῎̄ δη̄ | κᾱ ι´ τῐν ̄ων ῎̄αλλ ̄ων | τὰϲ χεῖραϲ ἐπιβεβλη̄κ̆ο´ τ̄ων τᾱ ιϲ̑ λᾰβᾱ ιϲ̑ | ῾̆υπ̆ο` τ̆`α ̄ι῾ μ̆α´ τῐᾱ |h καὶ ϲπωμένων τὰ ἐγχειρίδια,: in the previous sentence the subject has been the conspirators, emphatically so called (οἱ δὲ ϲυνωμόται (λεγέϲθ̄ω γ̆α` ρ ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ωϲ) |, cf. 1.4). Now they are divided. | Κᾱϲϲ̆ι´οῡ is set against Βρο̄υ τ̑ ο̆ϲ, also at the start of a clause and rhythmic phrase; the | κᾱι´ τῐν ̄ων ῎̄αλλ ̄ων |, marked out by the rhythm, helps to place Brutus in percipient isolation. In | τὰϲ χεῖραϲ . . . ̄῾ι μ̆α´ τῐᾱ |h, the rhythm brings out the close physical detail, which winds up the tension of the moment; this detail is absent from Appian.

146

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Βρο̄υ τ̑ ο̆ϲ ̄ ε᾿ γκᾰτῐδ ̄ω` ν | τῶι το̄υ ̑ Λᾱ ι´ νᾱ ϲχ̄η´ μᾰτῑ | δ̆εο̆μ̆ε´νοῡ ϲποῡδ̄η` ν | καὶ οὐ κατη̄γο̆ρο̄υ ν̑ τοϲ̄ , |: here the distinct phrases display Brutus’ perceptiveness in this fraught moment. ἐγκατ- shows the penetration (cf. e.g. Sol. 29.5, Solon and Peisistratus, ὁ δὲ Cόλων ταχὺ τὸ ἦθοϲ ̑ ν̄ · |). In our ἐφώρᾱϲ̆εν ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ,̑ | καὶ τὴν ἐπιβουλὴν πρῶτοϲ ̄ ε᾿ γκᾰτε̄ ιδε passage, ἐν- also governs the dative. At App. BC 2.487 (passage 1), | οὐ μηνύοντι μᾶλλον ἢ περί τοῡ δ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ν ̄ωι | καὶ λιπαροῦντι ἐοικότα, simply contrasts informing with requesting, for which a pair is used; the Plutarch discriminates between different kinds of ϲπουδή. | τῶι το̄υ ̑ Λᾱ ι´ νᾱ ϲχ̄η´ μᾰτῑ | instead of Appian’s | τὸν Λαίνᾱν brings out the physical discernment, like that of a philosopher (cf. e.g. Sen. Ben. 1.1.5–6). ̑ | ἐφθ̄ ε´ γξᾰτο̆ μ̆`εν ο̄υ᾿ δ̄`εν | διὰ τὸ πολλοὺϲ ἀλλοτρίοῡϲ ᾰ᾿ νᾰμ̆εμ̄ ιχθαῑ, | φαιδρῶι δὲ τ ̄ω̑ι προ̆ϲ ̄ω´ π ̄ωι | τοὺϲ περὶ Κάϲϲῐο̆ν ε̆᾿ θ̄α´ ρρῡνε .̄ |: word-order and rhythm collaborate to display Brutus’ address in the moment. | ἐφθ̄ ε´ γξᾰτο̆ begins, rather than a negative, and is responded to by τ ̄ω̑ι προ̆ϲ ̄ω´ π ̄ωι |, which carries weight thanks to the rhythm: with look rather than word. | φαιδρῶι stands out from the texture, at the start of the syntactical and rhythmic entity, and is predicative rather than attributive; it irradiates the sentence with Brutus’ calm good cheer. The rhythmic harmony makes the final verb ε̆᾿ θ̄α´ ρρῡνε .̄ | satisfying; it joins up in a ring (note μὲν . . . δέ) with the other main verb | ἐφθ̄ ε´ γξᾰτο̆, which began its clause and was negated. ̑ ᾰ᾿ νᾰμ̆εμ̄ ι χθαῑ, |, underlined by the rhythm, helps to bring out the intricate staging in the sentence: Cassius and some others, many people who are not involved, Brutus and Cassius (and others).

BRUT. 52.1–4, 7–8 1. | προϊούϲη̄ϲ δ̆`ε τ̄ηϲ̑ νῡκτ̄ο´ ϲ, | ἀποκλίναϲ, ὡϲ ἔτῠχ̆ε κᾰθε ζ̄ ο̆ ´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ , | πρὸϲ ̑ ̆ ν ε̆᾿ λ̆α´ λεῑ. | ϲιωπῶντοϲ̄ δ̆`ε το̄υ ̑ Κλε̄ ι´ τοῡ | κᾱ`ι οἰκέτην ἑαυτοῦ Κλε̄ ιτο δᾰκρ̄υ´ον̄ τοϲ̄ , | αὖθιϲ ἐπῑϲπᾰϲ̆α´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | τὸν ὑπᾱϲπῑϲτ̄η` ν Δ̄α´ ρδᾰνον̄ , | ἰδίαι τινὰϲ αὐτῶι προ̆ϲ̆ε´ φ̆ερ̆ε λ̆ο´ γοῡϲ. | 2. τέλοϲ δὲ τὸν Βολούμνιον αὐτὸν Ἑλληνιϲτὶ τῶν λόγων καὶ τῆϲ ἀϲκήϲεωϲ ὑπεμίμνηϲκε· καὶ παρεκάλει τῆι χειρὶ ϲυνεφάψαϲθαι το̄υ ̑ ξ̆ι´φοῡϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι | καὶ ϲυνεπερεῖϲαι τὴν πληγήν. 3. τοῦ δὲ Βολουμνίοῡ δῐ ̄ωϲᾰμ̆ε´ νοῡ | καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοί ̄ωϲ ε̆᾿ χ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | εἰπόντοϲ δέ ` φε̄υ´γεῑν, | ̄ ε᾿ ξᾰνᾱϲτ̄α` ϲ | ῾πάνυ μὲν ο̄υ῏ ν᾿ ῎ε̆ φη̄ τῐνο̆ϲ ̄ω῾ ϲ δε̄ ι ̑ μ̄η` μ̆ε´ νεῑν | ̄α᾿ λλ̆α ` τ ̄ω̑ν χεῑρ ̄ω̑ν.᾿ | 4. ἐμβαλὼν ` τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆δ ̄ω̑ν, | ἀλλ̆α` δῐ̆α ῾φεῡκτ̆ε´ ον̄ , | ̄α᾿ λλ᾿ ο̄υ᾿ δῐ̆α δὲ τὴν δεξῑα` ν ε̆῾ κ̄α´ ϲτ ̄ωι | μάλα φαιδρόϲ, . . . | 7. καὶ τοῦτον ἔγγιϲτα

Daggers and Dangers

147

παραϲτηϲάμ̆ενο̆ϲ ε̆῾ αῡτ ̄ω̑ι | καὶ τὸ ξίφοϲ γυμνὸν ἐπὶ τῆϲ λαβῆϲ ταῖϲ χερϲὶν ἀμφοτέραῑϲ ε̆᾿ ρε̄ ι´ ϲᾱϲ | καὶ περιπεϲὼν ἐτελεύτηϲεν. 8. οἱ δέ φᾱϲῐν ο̄υ᾿ κ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ ν, | ἀλλὰ τ̄ο` ν Cτρ̆α´ τ ̄ωνᾱ, | πολλὰ πάνυ τοῦ Βρούτοῡ δ̆εη̄θ̄ ε´ ντοϲ̄ , | ἀποϲτρέψᾱντᾰ τ̄η` ν ̄ο῎ ψῑν | ὑποϲ̄ τ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ τ̄ο` ξ̆ι´φοϲ̄ , | ἐκεῖνον̄ δ̆`ε ῥ̄υ´μη̄ι | προϲβαλ̄ο´ ντᾰ τ̄ο` ϲτ̄ ε´ ρνον̄ | κᾱ`ι δῐ ̄ω´ ϲᾱντᾱ | ϲυντόμ ̄ωϲ ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰνε̄ ι ν.̑ |

3 ἀλλ’ om. P; ἀλλὰ διὰ τῶν χειρῶν, οὐ διὰ τῶν ποδῶν Zon. Epit. Hist. 10.20, i.398 Dindorf

As the night proceeded, he leaned towards his servant Cleitus, as he happened to be sitting next to him, and started talking to him. When Cleitus fell silent and was crying, he drew to him next his shield bearer Dardanus, and was saying things to him privately. Finally he recalled to Volumnius himself, in Greek, their philosophical conversations and way of life; and he begged him to take hold of the sword with him, and help him drive in the blow. When Volumnius refused, and the others felt the same, and when someone said they should flee, not stay put, he stood up and said, ‘Indeed we should flee, but not with our feet; rather, with our hands.’ He shook everyone’s right hands with radiant cheerfulness . . . He made Straton stand very close to him, and fixing his bare sword by the handles with both hands he fell on it and ended his life. Some say that he did not fix the sword himself, but that it was Straton who did it, turning his eyes away, after a great deal of entreaty from Brutus, and that with a rush of movement Brutus threw his chest on to the sword and forced the sword through it, and died swiftly.

In this piece of narrative, as often in Plutarch, rhythmic density recurs in a passage, but does not run through it continuously (cf. also 52.6 δεηθεὶϲ δὲ κᾱ`ι πᾰρᾰκᾰλ̆ε´ ϲᾱϲ | ϲώζεῑν ε̆῾ αῡτο̄υ´ϲ, | ἀνεχ ̄ω´ ρη̄ϲ̆εν ᾰ᾿ π ̄ωτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ω | μ̆ετ̆α` δῠε̄ ι ν̑ η̄῍ τρῐ ̄ω̑ν | . . . ). The spots of rhythmic density are 1 (second sentence), and especially 3 and 8. The narrative of suicide does not sustain intense rhythm as more reflective passages in this Life do; but rhythm makes it all the more momentous, and dwells on particular points. 1. | προϊούϲη̄ϲ δ̆`ε τ̄ηϲ̑ νῡκτ̄ο´ ϲ, | ἀποκλίναϲ, ὡϲ ἔτῠχ̆ε κᾰθε ζ̄ ο̆ ´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ , | ̑ ̆ ν ε̆᾿ λ̆α´ λεῑ. | ϲιωπῶντοϲ̄ δ̆`ε το̄υ ̑ Κλε̄ ι´ τοῡ | κᾱ`ι πρὸϲ οἰκέτην ἑαυτοῦ Κλε̄ ιτο δᾰκρ̄υ´ ον̄ τοϲ̄ , | αὖθιϲ ἐπῑϲπᾰϲ̆α´ μ̆ενοϲ̄ | τὸν ὑπᾱϲπῑϲτ̄η` ν Δ̄α´ ρδᾰνον̄ , | ἰδίαι τινὰϲ αὐτῶι προ̆ϲ̆ε´ φ̆ερ̆ε λ̆ο´ γοῡϲ. |: the passage becomes more intense rhythmically, and grows more ominous. The disquieting participles | ϲιωπῶντοϲ̄ and δᾰκρ̄υ´ον̄ τοϲ̄ , | are signalled by the ring of the wordorder and the pair of rhythmic phrases; the reasons are not spelt out, any more than the content of the remarks to Dardanus is stated. The sense of significance is enhanced by the movement in status from Cleitus to Dardanus (cf. 51.3); the rhythm sets their names in more relief.

148

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

2. τέλοϲ δὲ τὸν Βολούμνιον αὐτὸν Ἑλληνιϲτὶ τῶν λόγων καὶ τῆϲ ἀϲκήϲεωϲ ὑπεμίμνηϲκε· καὶ παρεκάλει τῆι χειρὶ ϲυνεφάψαϲθαι το̄υ ̑ ξ̆ι´φοῡϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι | καὶ ϲυνεπερεῖϲαι τὴν πληγήν.: this sentence, although it proceeds to a request for assisted suicide, does not continue the rhythmic density. The request gets nowhere, and the density is saved rather for Brutus’ valiant utterance in 3. 3. τοῦ δὲ Βολουμνίοῡ δῐ ̄ωϲᾰμ̆ε´ νοῡ | καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοί ̄ωϲ ε̆᾿ χ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | εἰπόντοϲ δέ τῐνο̆ϲ ̄ω῾ ϲ δε̄ ι ̑ μ̄η` μ̆ε´ νεῑν | ̄α᾿ λλ̆α` φε̄υ´ γεῑν, | ̄ ε᾿ ξᾰνᾱϲτ̄α` ϲ | ῾πάνυ μὲν ο̄υ῏ ν᾿ ῎ε̆ φη̄ ῾φεῡκτ̆ε´ ον̄ , | ̄α᾿ λλ᾿ ο̄υ᾿ δῐ̆`α τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆δ ̄ω̑ν, | ἀλλ̆α` δῐ̆α` τ ̄ω̑ν χεῑρ ̄ω̑ν.᾿|: Brutus’ climactic utterance is set up by anonymous words in reported speech. They disrupt the scene of dining, and the isolated participle | ̄ ε᾿ ξᾰνᾱϲτ̄α` ϲ | seems at first to show Brutus’ assent; but although he will tell his friends to leave, and will himself withdraw somewhere (6), he refuses to flee. The scene is dramatic as well as philosophical. In Brutus’ words, most MSS read ἀλλ᾿ οὐ διὰ τῶν ποδῶν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῶν χειρῶν, but P omits the opening ἀλλ’. This could possibly be right; yet ἀλλ’ οὐ . . . ἀλλά need not be thought objectionable in itself, cf. e.g. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.34.4, Philo Leg. Alleg. 3.144. Accidental omission of ἀλλά would not be surprising, with such a similar phrase immediately ahead to confuse the scribe. Ziegler (1932), 80–1, with the agreement of Moles (2017), 393, holds that the original text must be Zonaras’ ἀλλὰ διὰ τῶν χειρῶν, οὐ διὰ τῶν ποδῶν: only in this way can the readings of the various sources be naturally explained. This is dubious: see indeed Ziegler (1907), 142, on Zonaras’ frequent changes to Plutarch’s word-order. Speculative narratives of corruption should not make us prefer a much weaker sentence. With the rhythm as here, the phrases lay out an utterance of a neatness and force that one might find in declamation. The contrast of ο̄υ᾿ δῐ̆α` τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆δ ̄ω̑ν, | and | ἀλλ̆α` δῐ̆α` τ ̄ω̑ν χεῑρ ̄ω̑ν. | elegantly stays within the physical, but turns the flight from cowardice into valiant metaphor. (Cf. the physicality at Sen. Marc. 1.3 scire . . . quid sit homo ingenio animō mă nū lībēr. |; contrast Plut. Cleom. 52 (31).8–10: suicide should not be cowardly metaphorical flight.) 4. | ἐμβαλὼν δὲ τὴν δεξῑα` ν ε̆῾ κ̄α´ ϲτ ̄ωι | μάλα φαιδρόϲ,: after the utterance, the passage then slackens rhythmically; φαιδρόϲ, the first main word after a rhythmic close, takes us back to Brutus’ bright tranquillity at an earlier crisis (16.4). 7. | καὶ τοῦτον ἔγγιϲτα παραϲτηϲάμ̆ενο̆ϲ ε̆῾ αῡτ ̄ω̑ι | καὶ τὸ ξίφοϲ γυμνὸν ἐπὶ τῆϲ λαβῆϲ ταῖϲ χερϲὶν ἀμφοτέραῑϲ ε̆᾿ ρε̄ ι´ ϲᾱϲ | καὶ περιπεϲὼν

Daggers and Dangers

149

ἐτελεύτηϲεν.: the first account of Brutus’ death is not heightened by dense rhythm. 8. οἱ δέ φᾱϲῐν ο̄υ᾿ κ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ ν, | ἀλλὰ τ̄ο` ν Cτρ̆α´ τ ̄ωνᾱ, | πολλὰ πάνυ τοῦ Βρούτοῡ δ̆εη̄θ̄ ε´ ντοϲ̄ , | ἀποϲτρέψᾱντᾰ τ̄η` ν ̄ο῎ ψῑν | ὑποϲ̄ τ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ τ̄ο` ξ̆ι´φοϲ̄ , | ἐκεῖνον̄ δ̆`ε ῥ̄υ´ μη̄ι | προϲβαλ̄ο´ ντᾰ τ̄ο` ϲτ̄ ε´ ρνον̄ | κᾱ`ι δῐ ̄ω´ ϲᾱντᾱ | ϲυντόμ ̄ωϲ ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰνε̄ ι ν.̑ |: the second version is only presented as an alternative, and is less straightforwardly heroic than it is made to seem in App. BC 4.552 (passage 2 in the Appendix). But it offers a scene with livelier interchange than the first version; its very complications invite the closest attention, in a rhythmic sweep which takes in almost every word. The phrases οἱ δέ φᾱϲῐν ο̄υ᾿ κ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ ν, | ἀλλὰ τ̄ο` ν Cτρ̆α´ τ ̄ωνᾱ, | seem at first to offer a demeaning version. The two rhythmic units with participles, | πολλὰ πάνυ τοῦ Βρούτοῡ δ̆εη̄θ̄ ε´ ντοϲ̄ , | and | ἀποϲτρέψᾱντᾰ τ̄η` ν ̄ο῎ ψῑν | match each other, and exhibit the same rhythm; they show Brutus’ eagerness and Straton’s reluctance. Brutus’ entreaties lack dignity, but make the scene a passionate encounter. ῥ̄υ´μη̄ι |, given extra force by the rhythm, and the two separate rhythmic phrases | προϲβαλ̄ο´ ντᾰ τ̄ο` ϲτ̄ ε´ ρνον̄ | and | κᾱ`ι δῐ ̄ω´ ϲᾱντᾱ | display the physical vehemence of Brutus’ ardour for death. The last adverb | ϲυντόμ ̄ωϲ and the plain verb ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰνε̄ ιν.̑ | restore dignity in a compact phrase. Compare Demosth. 30.4 | ϲυντόμωϲ καταϲτρέψαντα κᾱ`ι α᾿̆ λ̄υ´ πωϲ. ̄ |h. Now we turn, as mentioned, to the extended passage which is not remarkable for rhythmic density.

BRUT. 19–20 19.1 οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ τῆι ̄υ῾ ϲτ̆ερᾱ ι´ ᾱι | τῆϲ βουλ̄ηϲ̑ ϲῠνε λ̄ θο̄υ´ϲη̄ϲ | εἰϲ τὸ τῆϲ Γῆϲ ἱερόν, Ἀντωνίου δὲ καὶ Πλάγκου καὶ Κικέρωνοϲ εἰπόντων περὶ ἀμνηϲτίαϲ καὶ ὁμονοίαϲ, ἔδοξε μὴ μόνον ἄδειαν ε̄῏ιναῑ το̄ ιϲ̑ ̄α᾿ νδρ̆α´ ϲῑν, | ἀλλὰ καὶ γνώμη̄ν ῠ῾ π̄`ερ τῑμ ̄ω̑ν | προθεῖναι τοὺϲ ὑπάτουϲ· καὶ ταῦτ᾿ ἐπιψηφιϲάμενοῑ δῐ̆ελ̆υ´θη̄ϲᾱν. | 2. Ἀντωνίου δὲ τὸν υἱὸν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ τ̆ο` Κᾰπ̆ετ ̄ω´ λῐον̄ | ὁμηρεύϲον̄ τᾰ π̄ ε´ μψᾱντοϲ̄ , | κατῆλθον οἱ περὶ Βροῦτον, ἀϲπαϲμοί τε καὶ δεξιώϲειϲ ἐγένοντο πάντων ἀναμειχθέντων, 3. καὶ Κάϲϲιον̄ μ̆`εν Ἀ̄ ντ ̄ω´ νῐοϲ̄ | εἱϲτίᾱ πᾰρᾰλᾰβ ̄ω´ ν, | Βροῦτον̄ δ̆`ε Λ̆ε´ πῐδοϲ̄ , | τοὺϲ δ᾿ ἄλλουϲ ὥϲ τιϲ ε̄῏ι χ̆ε πρ̆ο` ϲ ῞ε̆ κᾱϲτον̄ | η῍̄ ϲῠνη̄θε̄ ι´ ᾱϲ | η῍̄ φῐλο̆φρο̆ϲ̆υ´νη̄ϲ. | 4. ἅμα δ᾿ ἡμέραι πάλιν ϲυνελθόντεϲ οἱ βουλευταί, πρῶτον̄ μ̆`εν Ἀ̄ ντ ̄ων̆ι´ ̄ωι | τιμὰϲ ἔδοϲαν, ὡϲ καταπαύϲαντι πολέμων ἐμφῡλ̆ι´ ̄ων ̄α᾿ ρχ̄η´ ν, | ἔπειτα τῶν περὶ Βροῦτον

150

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

ἦϲαν ἔπαινοι τ ̄ω̑ν πᾰρ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | καὶ τέλοϲ ἐπαρχι ̄ω̑ν δῐᾰνο̆μᾱ ι´ . | 5. Βρούτωι μὲν γὰρ ἐψηφίϲᾱντο̆ Κρ̄η´ τη̄ν, | Καϲϲί ̄ωι δ̆`ε Λῐβ̆υ´η̄ν, | Τρεβ ̄ων̆ι´ ̄ωι δ᾿ Ἀ̆ ϲ̆ι´ᾱν, | καὶ Κ̄ ι´ μβρ ̄ωι Βῑθῡν̆ι´ᾱν, | τῶι δ᾿ ἑτέρωι Βρούτωι τὴν περὶ τὸν Ἠριδαν̄ο` ν Γᾰλᾰτ̆ι´ᾱν. | 20.1 μ̆ετ̆α` δ̆`ε τᾱυ τ̑ ᾱ | περὶ τῶν Καίϲαροϲ διαθηκῶν κᾱ`ι τᾰφ̄ηϲ̑ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ̑ | λόγων ̄ ε᾿ μπ̆εϲ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἀντώνιον ̄α᾿ ξῐο̄υ´ντ ̄ων | τάϲ τε διαθήκαϲ ἀναγνωϲθῆναι καὶ τοῦ ϲώματοϲ ἐκφορ̄α` ν γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ | μ̄η` κ̆εκρῡμμ̆ε´ νη̄ν | μη̄δ᾿ α῎̆ τῑμον̄ , | ὡϲ μὴ καὶ τοῦτο παροξύνηι τὸν δῆμον, Κάϲϲιοϲ μὲν ἰϲχυρῶϲ ἀντέλεγεν, εἶξε δὲ Βροῦτοϲ καὶ ϲυνεχώρηϲε, δε̄υ´τ̆ερο̆ν α῾̆ μᾱρτε̄ ι ν̑ | το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ δ̄ο´ ξᾱϲ. | 2. καὶ γὰρ Ἀντωνίου φειϲάμενοϲ ᾱ ᾿ι τ̆ι´ᾱν ̄ ῎ε ϲχε ν̄ | ἐπιτειχίϲαι τ̄ηι̑ ϲῠν ̄ωμο̆ϲ̆ι´ᾱι | βαρὺν καὶ δύϲμαχον̄ πο̆λ̆ε´ μῐον̄ , | κᾱ`ι τ̆α` π̆ερ̆`ι τ̄η` ν τᾰφ̄η` ν | ὃν ὁ Ἀντ ̄ω´ νῐοϲ̄ τρ̆ο´ πον̄ | ἐάϲᾱϲ γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ | τοῦ παντ̄ο` ϲ ϲφᾰλ̄ην̑ αῑ. | 3. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ἐν ταῖϲ διαθήκαιϲ δεδομένων κατ᾿ ἄνδρα Ῥωμαίοιϲ πᾶϲι δραχμῶν ἑβδομήκον̄ τᾰ π̄ ε´ ντε ,̄ | καὶ τῶι δήμωι τῶν πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ κήπ ̄ων ᾰ᾿ πο̆λ̆ελεῑμμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων, | οὗ νῦν ἔϲτι Τύχηϲ ἱερόν, εὔνοῑᾰ θαῡμᾱϲτ̄η` | καὶ πόθοϲ αὐτοῦ τοὺϲ πολίταϲ εἷλεν· 4. ἔπειτα, τοῦ ϲώματοϲ εἰϲ τὴν ἀγορ̄α` ν κο̆μῑϲθ̄ ε´ ντοϲ̄ , | Ἀντώνιοϲ ἔπαινον ὥϲπερ ἔθοϲ ἐϲτὶ διεξελθών, καὶ τὰ πλήθη κινούμενα πρὸϲ τ̄ο` ν λ̆ο´ γο̆ν ο̆῾ ρ ̄ω̑ν, | εἰϲ οἶκτον̄ μ̆ετ̆ε´ βᾰλε ,̄ | καὶ τὴν ἐϲθῆτα λαβὼν τοῦ Καίϲαροϲ ἡιμαγμένη̄ν ᾰ᾿ ν̄ ε´ πτῡξε ν̄ , | ἐπιδεικνύμενοϲ τ̄α` ϲ δῐᾰκο̆π̄α` ϲ | καὶ τῶν τραυμάτ ̄ων τ̆ο` πλ̄ηθ̑ οϲ̄ . | 5. ἦν οὖν ἰδεῖν οὐδὲν ἔτι κόϲμωι γιγνόμενον, ἀλλ᾿ ο̄ ῾ι μ̆`εν ε̆᾿ β̆ο´ ̄ων | τοὺϲ ἀνδροφόνοῡϲ ᾰ᾿ ναῑρε̄ ι ν,̑ | οἱ δ᾿, ὥϲπερ ἐπὶ Κλωδίου τοῦ δημαγωγοῦ πρότερον, ἀπὸ τ ̄ω̑ν ̄ ε᾿ ργᾱϲτη̄ρ̆ι´ ̄ων | τὰ βάθρα καὶ τ̄α` ϲ τρᾰπ̄ ε´ ζᾱϲ | ἀναϲπῶντεϲ καὶ ϲυγκομίζον̄ τ̆εϲ ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ τᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ , | παμμεγέθη πυρ̄α` ν ῎ε̆ νη̄ϲᾱν, | 6. καὶ τὸν νεκρ̆ο` ν ε̆᾿ πῐθ̄ ε´ ντε ϲ̄ | ἐν μέϲωι πολλ ̄ω̑ν μ̆`εν ῾̆ι ε̆ ρ ̄ω̑ν, | πολλῶν δ᾿ ἀϲύλων και` α᾿̆ β̆ε βη´ λων τ̆ο´ π ̄ων | h κᾰθ̄η´ γῑζον̄ . | 7. ὡϲ δὲ τὸ πῦρ ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆ε´ λᾱμψε ν̄ , | ἀλλαχόθεν ἄλλοϲ προϲ̄ φ ε̆ ρ̆ο̆ ´ μ̆ενοῑ | καὶ δαλοὺϲ ἀναϲπῶντεϲ η̄ ῾ μῐφλ̄ ε´ κτοῡϲ | διέθεον ἐπὶ τὰϲ οἰκίαϲ τῶν ἀνηιρη̄κ̆ο´ τ ̄ων ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο` ν | ὡϲ ἐμπρήϲοντεϲ· ἀλλ᾿ εὖ πεφρᾱγμ̆ε´ νοῑ πρ ο̆ ´ τ̆ερον̄ , | ἀπεκρούϲαντο τὸν κίνδυνον. 8. ῏̆ην δ̆ε´ τῑϲ Κ̄ ι´ ννᾱϲ, | ποιη̄τῐκ̆ο` ϲ ᾰ᾿ ν̄η´ ρ, | οὐδὲν τῆϲ ᾱ ᾿ι τ̆ι´ᾱϲ μ̆ετ̆ε´ χ ̄ων, | ἀλλὰ καὶ φίλοϲ Κᾱ ι´ ϲᾰροϲ̄ γ̆εγο̆ν ̄ω´ ϲ. | 9. ̑ ̆ ν ̄α᾿ ρνε̄ ιϲθαῑ, ̑ οὗτοϲ ὄναρ ὤιετο καλούμενοϲ ὑπὸ Καίϲαροϲ ἐπὶ δε̄ ιπνο | τὸν ` ´ δὲ λιπαρεῖν κᾱ ι βῐ̄αζε ϲ̄ θαῑ, | τέλοϲ δ᾿ ἄγειν λαβόμενον τῆϲ χειρὸϲ εἰϲ ἀχανῆ τόπον κᾱ`ι ϲκο̆τεῑν̄ο´ ν, | αὐτὸν δ’ ἄκοντα καὶ τεθαμβη̄μ̆ε´ νο̆ν ῞ε̆ πε ϲ̄ θαῑ. | 10. ταύτην ἰδόντι τὴν ̄ο῎ ψῐν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ωι̑ | ϲυνέβη πυρέττειν διὰ νυκτόϲ· ὅμωϲ δ᾿ ̑ ἔωθεν ἐκκομιζο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡ το̄υ ̑ ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτοϲ̄ , | αἰδούμενοϲ μ̄η` πᾰρε̄ ι ναῑ, | προ̄ηλ̑ θ̆εν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ τ̆ο` ν ο῎̆ χλον̄ | ἤδη δῐᾰγρῐαῑν̆ο´ μ̆ενον̄ . | 11. ὀφθεὶϲ δὲ καὶ δόξαϲ οὐχ ὅϲπερ ἦν Κίνναϲ εἶναι, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκεῖνοϲ ὁ Καίϲαρα πρ̄ο` ϲ τ̄η` ν ̄ ε᾿ κκλη̄ϲ̆ι´ᾱν | ἔναγχοϲ λοῑδο̆ρ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ, | δῐε ϲ̄ π̄α´ ϲθη̄. | ̆ On the next day the Senate met in the temple of Tellus. Antony, Plancus, and Cicero spoke about an amnesty and harmony; it was decided not only that the men should have immunity but that the consuls should make a proposal about honours for them. After voting

Daggers and Dangers

151

to this effect, they dispersed. Antony sent his son to the Capitol as a hostage; upon this, Brutus and his friends descended, and there were embraces and handshakes, as all mingled together. Antony entertained Cassius to dinner, as Lepidus did Brutus; others took others in accord with their various ties of intimacy or friendliness. When day dawned, the Senate met again. First it gave honours to Antony, as having stopped the beginnings of civil war; then there were praises for those of Brutus’ friends who were present; finally there were allocations of provinces. To Brutus they voted Crete, to Cassius Libya, to Trebonius Asia, to Cimber Bithynia, to the other Brutus Gaul around the Po. After that, discussion arose on Caesar’s will and his burial. Antony asked that the will should be read out, and the ritual carrying out of the body for burial should not be hidden or lacking in honour, to avoid further antagonizing the people. Cassius launched on to vehement objections, but Brutus gave way and agreed to the suggestions; that was judged to be his second mistake. In sparing Antony before this, he was accused of fortifying a formidable and difficult enemy against the conspirators; and in now permitting the organization of the funeral to happen in the way Antony wanted he was accused of losing everything. First, 75 drachmas had been left to each of the Romans individually in the will, and to the people had been left the gardens on the far side of the Tiber, where the temple of Fortune now is; as a result the citizens were seized by extraordinary warmth towards Caesar, and longing for him. Next, when the body had been brought into the Forum, Antony gave the full customary laudation; seeing the masses were being stirred up in response to his speech, he modulated it to lament. He took Caesar’s blood stained clothing and unfolded it, displaying the cuts and most of the wounds. Nothing could now be seen happening in an orderly way; some were shouting out to destroy the murderers, others, as at the death of the demagogue Clodius before, tore up the seats and tables from the shops and brought them into one place, and heaped up a massive pyre. They put the dead body on it, in the midst of many sacred places and many places supposed to be protected from sacrilege and violation, and they solemnly burnt it. When the fire blazed out, people swept forward from all sides and snatched up half burned torches. They ran through the streets to attack the houses of those who had killed Caesar; they wanted to set the houses on fire. But the conspirators had previ ously secured themselves well, and repelled the threat. There was, however, a man called Cinna, a poet with no share in the charge of conspiracy; he had actually been a friend of Caesar’s. This man dreamt he had been invited to dinner by Caesar and had declined; but Caesar had begged and forced him, and had finally taken him by the hand and led him to an open, dark place. Cinna had accompanied him

152

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

unwillingly, in amazement. After having this dream, Cinna suffered a fever throughout the night; but when it was day, and the body was being carried forth, he felt embarrassed not to be there. So he came out into the crowd; they were already enraged. They saw him, and thought he was not the Cinna that he was but the one who had recently abused Caesar to a meeting of the people; so they tore him apart.

The difference from the passages in the last chapter will be particularly evident. It will be seen at a glance that there is much more print here which is not bold; it will be seen too that the bold gathers at certain points. At such points, the frequency and regularity of rhythm, although less striking in this passage than in those, remain significant. The organization of lesser or greater degrees of density deftly articulates the structure of the chapters, and their rising to important factors and moments. The passage also carries through, in a lower key, contrasts that we have seen more intensely displayed in some of the densest writing of the Life: so the divergent natures of Brutus and Cassius. That contrast was also visible in one of the intermediate passages which we considered in the first half of the chapter (16.4). The densest passages are part, although a distinctive part, of a large design. This passage begins (in Plutarch’s chronology) on 16 March 44, the day after the killing of Caesar. The conspirators are keeping safe on the Capitol; they have retreated there again after an insulting speech by the conspirator Cinna goes down badly with the people. 19.1 οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ τῆι ̄υ῾ ϲτ̆ερᾱ ι´ ᾱι | τῆϲ βουλ̄ηϲ̑ ϲῠνε λ̄ θο̄υ´ϲη̄ϲ | εἰϲ τὸ τῆϲ Γῆϲ ἱερόν, Ἀντωνίου δὲ καὶ Πλάγκου καὶ Κικέρωνοϲ εἰπόντων περὶ ἀμνηϲτίαϲ καὶ ὁμονοίαϲ, ἔδοξε μὴ μόνον ἄδειαν ε̄῏ι ναῑ το̄ ιϲ̑ ̄α᾿ νδρ̆α´ ϲῑν, | ἀλλὰ καὶ γνώμη̄ν ῠ῾ π̄`ερ τῑμ ̄ω̑ν | προθεῖναι τοὺϲ ὑπάτουϲ· καὶ ταῦτ᾿ ἐπιψηφιϲάμενοῑ δῐ̆ελ̆υ´θη̄ϲᾱν. |: the sentence as a whole is very loose rhythmically; the previous chapter ended with an unrhythmic close. The phrase ῠ῾ π̄`ερ τῑμ ̄ω̑ν | is made to stand out through the rhythm, and through μὴ μόνον . . . ἀλλὰ καί. The situation appears to have reversed itself: the conspirators are to be not only safe but actually honoured. The notion links up with the assignation of provinces at the end of the chapter. ε̄῏ι ναῑ το̄ ιϲ̑ ̄α᾿ νδρ̆α´ ϲῑν, | is an unusual instance where the last word is not a verb, but the words in the rhythmic close hardly carry weight (το̄ ιϲ̑ ̄α᾿ νδρ̆α´ ϲῑν, | is like an unemphatic pronoun). εἰμί + dative, however, is not like an ordinary verb.

Daggers and Dangers

153

19.2–3 | Ἀντωνίου δὲ τὸν υἱὸν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ τ̆ο` Κᾰπ̆ετ ̄ω´ λῐον̄ | ὁμηρεύϲον̄ τᾰ π̄ ε´ μψᾱντοϲ̄ , | κατῆλθον οἱ περὶ Βροῦτον, ἀϲπαϲμοί τε καὶ δεξιώϲειϲ ἐγένοντο πάντων ἀναμειχθέντων, 3. καὶ Κάϲϲιον̄ μ̆`εν Ἀ̄ ντ ̄ω´ νῐοϲ̄ | εἱϲτίᾱ πᾰρᾰλᾰβ ̄ω´ ν, | Βροῦτον̄ δ̆`ε Λ̆ε´ πῐδοϲ̄ , | τοὺϲ δ᾿ ἄλλουϲ ὥϲ τιϲ ε̄῏ι χ̆ε πρ̆ο` ϲ ῞ε̆ κᾱϲτον̄ | η῍̄ ϲῠνη̄θε̄ ι´ ᾱϲ | η῍̄ φῐλο̆φρο̆ϲ̆υ´νη̄ϲ. | The sentence grows rhythmically denser at the close; it displays the apparent restoration of friendship between the opposed sides through a mingling of specific names in phrases, and through an evocation of general social relationships. Ant. 14.2 is less dense and elaborate: simply Κάϲϲιον μὲν αὐτὸϲ ἐδείπνιϲε, Βροῦτον̄ δ̆`ε Λ̆ε´ πῐδοϲ̄ . |. There is a little irony in the conjunction of Cassius and Antony, separated by the rhythm: it was Brutus who in the preceding chapter saved Antony’s life from the other conspirators (unbeknown to Antony), and in the next chapter Cassius will oppose Antony’s proposals. πάντων ἀναμειχθέντων,, although significant, has less force than if the close were rhythmic. εἰϲ τὸ Καπετώλιον has been a phrase which recurs as a rhythmic close or part of one (18.7, 9, 13), in the literal ups and downs of the conspirators. But Antony’s notable action gives the phrase special point: | κατῆλθον ensues, marked out as the first word after a rhythmic close. 19.4 | ἅμα δ᾿ ἡμέραι πάλιν ϲυνελθόντεϲ οἱ βουλευταί, πρῶτον̄ μ̆`εν Ἀ̄ ντ ̄ων̆ι´ ̄ωι | τιμὰϲ ἔδοϲαν, ὡϲ καταπαύϲαντι πολέμων ἐμφῡλ̆ι´ ̄ων ̄α᾿ ρχ̄η´ ν, | ἔπειτα τῶν περὶ Βροῦτον ἦϲαν ἔπαινοι τ ̄ω̑ν πᾰρ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | καὶ τέλοϲ ἐπαρχι ̄ω̑ν δῐᾰνο̆μᾱ ι´ . | The sentence shows the Senate reinforcing harmony between the sides through honours, especially for the conspirators, who appear to be doing well. More striking even linguistically than the phrase ἦϲαν ἔπαινοι (cf. Lyc. 21.1) is the nominal expression ἦϲαν . . . ἐπαρχι ̄ω̑ν δῐᾰνο̆μᾱ ι´ . | Plutarch is here probably organizing data in a misleading fashion: it seems unlikely that all these provinces were distributed on the 17th or 18th. Cf. below and MRR ii.320, 321, 328, Ramsey (2003), 209, 304. ἐμφῡλ̆ι´ ̄ων receives further attention through the rhythmic close; ἐμφύλιοϲ is an ominous word, in this as in other Lives for the period: cf. 12.3, 22.6 (turning Cic. Ad Brut. 25.4 towards a future war), Ant. 14.4. πᾰρ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | is important for Plutarch’s conception of this meeting, which may itself result from confusion or construction (Sternkopf [1912], 347–9, Pelling [1979], 86 n. 90 = [2002], 37 n. 90, and [2011], 490; otherwise Moles [2017], 210–11). 19.5 | Βρούτωι μὲν γὰρ ἐψηφίϲᾱντο̆ Κρ̄η´ τη̄ν, | Καϲϲί ̄ωι δ̆`ε Λῐβ̆υ´η̄ν, | Τρεβ ̄ων̆ι´ ̄ωι δ᾿ Ἀ̆ ϲ̆ι´ᾱν, | καὶ Κ̄ ι´ μβρ ̄ωι Βῑθῡν̆ι´ᾱν, | τῶι δ᾿ ἑτέρωι Βρούτωι τὴν περὶ τὸν Ἠριδαν̄ο` ν Γᾰλᾰτ̆ι´ᾱν. | The names are heaped up; the

154

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

aggregation of rhythmic closes marks the promising turn for the conspirators, and the honour done them. ‘Africa’ and ‘Asia’ sound a grandiose division of continents, more so than ‘Cyrene’ (Cyrenaica) for Cassius, usually combined with Crete. A distinction should certainly be made between, in particular, Cisalpine Gaul, assigned to D. Brutus under Caesar (App. BC 2.518), and the provinces of the praetors Brutus and Cassius, which had not been so assigned (Cic. Phil. 2.97). D. Brutus complains, in a letter perhaps just after this date, that Antony says he cannot give him his province (Cic. Fam. 11.1.1 = SB 325, see Shackleton Bailey (1977), ii.463–4); for Cassius and Brutus, Cyrene and Crete seem to belong to a later stage in the negotiations, after the commission of collecting grain in Asia and Sicily (Cic. Att. 15.9.1, June 44; cf. App. BC 3.29, 4.247). Cf. Fromentin and Bertrand (2014), 90–1. 20.1 | μ̆ετ̆α` δ̆`ε τᾱυ τ̑ ᾱ | περὶ τῶν Καίϲαροϲ διαθηκῶν κᾱ`ι τᾰφ̄ηϲ̑ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ̑ | λόγων ̄ ε᾿ μπ̆εϲ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἀντώνιον ̄α᾿ ξῐο̄υ´ντ ̄ων | τάϲ τε διαθήκαϲ ἀναγνωϲθῆναι καὶ τοῦ ϲώματοϲ ἐκφορ̄α` ν γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ | μ̄η` κ̆εκρῡμμ̆ε´ νη̄ν | μη̄δ᾿ α῎̆ τῑμον̄ , | ὡϲ μὴ καὶ τοῦτο παροξύνηι τὸν δῆμον, Κάϲϲιοϲ μὲν ἰϲχυρῶϲ ἀντέλεγεν, εἶξε δὲ Βροῦτοϲ καὶ ϲυνεχώρηϲε, δε̄υ´τ̆ερο̆ν α῾̆ μᾱρτε̄ ι ν̑ | το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ δ̄ο´ ξᾱϲ. |: | μ̆ετ̆α` δ̆`ε τᾱυ τ̑ ᾱ |, which occurs only here in this Life, marks a significant shift in the meeting. The allimportant approach to the burial seems to receive the heightening of rhythm; so does Brutus’ mistake, which leads into the density of the next sentence. δε̄υ´τ̆ερο̆ν stresses the structure to come; | το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ sets the present action against the sparing of Antonius in 17.3–6, and sets the second half of the coming sentence (| κᾱ`ι τ̆`α π̆ερ̆`ι τ̄η` ν τᾰφ̄η` ν | κτλ.) against the first (| καὶ γὰρ Ἀντωνίου κτλ.). α῾̆ μᾱρτε̄ ι ν̑ | is the key word in a clause which seems syntactically just appended to Brutus’ preservation of harmony, but is strongly marked out by the two rhythmic closes with no interval. Affortunati (2004), 75, thinks that Plutarch has Cicero’s judgements particularly in mind. 20.2 | καὶ γὰρ Ἀντωνίου φειϲάμενοϲ ᾱ ᾿ι τ̆ι´ᾱν ̄ ῎ε ϲχε ν̄ | ἐπιτειχίϲαι τ̄ηι̑ ϲῠν ̄ωμο̆ϲ̆ι´ᾱι | βαρὺν καὶ δύϲμαχον̄ πο̆λ̆ε´ μῐον̄ , | κᾱ`ι τ̆α` π̆ερ̆`ι τ̄η` ν τᾰφ̄η` ν | ὃν ὁ Ἀντ ̄ω´ νῐοϲ̄ τρ̆ο´ πον̄ | ἐάϲᾱϲ γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ | τοῦ παντ̄ο` ϲ ϲφᾰλ̄ην̑ αῑ. |: the rhythmic density brings out the true contours of events. | ἐπιτειχίϲαι gains force from its position at the beginning of a rhythmic clause, and from the bold military metaphor and its application to Brutus the leader of the conspiracy; | βαρὺν καὶ δύϲμαχον̄ πο̆λ̆ε´ μῐον̄ , | sounds bad, particularly the ominous πο̆λ̆ε´ μῐον̄ , |. But the final | τοῦ παντ̄ο` ϲ ϲφᾰλ̄ην̑ αῑ. | in the matching clause is far worse.

Daggers and Dangers

155

20.3 | πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ἐν ταῖϲ διαθήκαιϲ δεδομένων κατ᾿ ἄνδρα Ῥωμαίοιϲ πᾶϲι δραχμῶν ἑβδομήκον̄ τᾰ π̄ ε´ ντε ,̄ | καὶ τῶι δήμωι τῶν πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ κήπ ̄ων ᾰ᾿ πο̆λ̆ελεῑμμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων, | οὗ νῦν ἔϲτι Τύχηϲ ἱερόν, εὔνοῑᾰ θαῡμᾱϲτ̄η` | καὶ πόθοϲ αὐτοῦ τοὺϲ πολίταϲ εἷλεν·: the narrative itself is at first pretty loose rhythmically. This part of the narrative corresponds to | τάϲ τε διαθήκαϲ ἀναγνωϲθῆναι in 20.1, and is likewise less intense. 20.4 ἔπειτα, τοῦ ϲώματοϲ εἰϲ τὴν ἀγορ̄α` ν κο̆μῑϲθ̄ ε´ ντοϲ̄ , | Ἀντώνιοϲ ἔπαινον ὥϲπερ ἔθοϲ ἐϲτὶ διεξελθών, καὶ τὰ πλήθη κινούμενα πρὸϲ τ̄ο` ν λ̆ο´ γο̆ν ο̆῾ ρ ̄ω̑ν, | εἰϲ οἶκτον̄ μ̆ετ̆ε´ βᾰλε ,̄ | καὶ τὴν ἐϲθῆτα λαβὼν τοῦ Καίϲαροϲ ἡιμαγμένη̄ν ᾰ᾿ ν̄ ε´ πτῡξε ν̄ , | ἐπιδεικνύμενοϲ τ̄α` ϲ δῐᾰκο̆π̄α` ϲ | καὶ τῶν τραυμάτ ̄ων τ̆ο` πλ̄ηθ̑ οϲ̄ . |: the next part flows from the carrying of the body, cf. τοῦ ϲώματοϲ ἐκφορ̄α` ν in 20.1. The rhythmic closes come nearer together for Antonius’ cunning seizure of the moment, and for his theatrical exploitation of Caesar’s body and clothing. | (εἰϲ) οἶκτον̄ is a vital word, cf. Cic. Phil. 2.91 tua illa pūlchră laūdātĭō, | tua miseratio, tŭ ă cŏ hōrtātĭō. |; but attention is drawn also to the no less important μ̆ετ̆ε´ βᾰλε ,̄ |. It is the first token of τὴν Ἀντωνίοῡ μ̆ετᾰβο̆λ̄η` ν |, which at 21.1 has supremely alarmed Brutus. τραύματα καὶ δῐᾰκο̆π̄α` ϲ ϲ ̄ωμ̆α´ τ ̄ων | are a pair at Mar. 19.9; here perhaps δῐᾰκο̆π̄α` ϲ focuses more on the conspirators’ actions, τραυμάτ̄ων on the horrible results, too numerous to show completely. The last point is stressed by the slightly unusual word-order τῶν τραυμάτ̄ων τ̆ο` πλ̄ηθ̑ οϲ̄ . |; τὸ πλῆθοϲ τῶν τραυμάτων would have been rhythmic too. 20.5–6 | ἦν οὖν ἰδεῖν οὐδὲν ἔτι κόϲμωι γιγνόμενον, ἀλλ᾿ ο̄ ῾ι μ̆`εν ε̆᾿ β̆ο´ ̄ων | τοὺϲ ἀνδροφόνοῡϲ ᾰ᾿ ναῑρε̄ ι ν,̑ | οἱ δ᾿, ὥϲπερ ἐπὶ Κλωδίου τοῦ δημαγωγοῦ πρότερον, ἀπὸ τ ̄ω̑ν ̄ ε᾿ ργᾱϲτη̄ρ̆ι´ ̄ων | τὰ βάθρα καὶ τ̄α` ϲ τρᾰπ̄ ε´ ζᾱϲ | ἀναϲπῶντεϲ καὶ ϲυγκομίζον̄ τ̆εϲ ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ τᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ , | παμμεγέθη πυρ̄α` ν ῎ε̆ νη̄ϲᾱν, | 6. καὶ τὸν νεκρ̆ο` ν ε̆᾿ πῐθ̄ ε´ ντε ϲ̄ | ἐν μέϲωι πολλ ̄ω̑ν μ̆`εν ̆ι῾ ε̆ ρ ̄ω̑ν, | πολλῶν δ᾿ ἀϲύλων κᾱ`ι α᾿̆ β̆ε β̄η´ λ ̄ων τ̆ο´ π ̄ων | h κᾰθ̄η´ γῑζον̄ . |: the rhythmic closes ̆ amass around the actual utterances and deeds of οἱ μέν and οἱ δέ. The rhythm brings out the pithy call for revenge in the phrase | τοὺϲ ἀνδροφόνοῡϲ ᾰ᾿ ναῑρε̄ ιν,̑ |; in the second part it helps the heightening brought by numerous pairs, and the sense of scale in | παμμεγέθη and πολλ ̄ω̑ν μ̆`εν (μέν shows the start of a new phrase) . . . | πολλῶν δ’. ῾̆ι ε̆ ρ ̄ω̑ν, | is an adjective not a noun, cf. Cam. 32.6 τοὺϲ ἱεροὺϲ τόπουϲ, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 8.39.1, IEphes. VII.1 3418A.11 (Metropolis; IGSK 17.1 p. 251); the second member builds up with two adjectives. 20.7 | ὡϲ δὲ τὸ πῦρ ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆ε´ λᾱμψε ν̄ , | ἀλλαχόθεν ἄλλοϲ προϲ̄ φ̆ερ̆ο´ μ̆ενοῑ | καὶ δαλοὺϲ ἀναϲπῶντεϲ η̄ ῾ μῐφλ̄ ε´ κτοῡϲ | διέθεον ἐπὶ τὰϲ οἰκίαϲ τῶν

156

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

ἀνηιρη̄κ̆ο´ τ̄ων ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο` ν | ὡϲ ἐμπρήϲοντεϲ· ἀλλ᾿ εὖ πεφρᾱγμ̆ε´ νοῑ πρ̆ο´ τ̆ερον̄ , | ἀπεκρούϲαντο τὸν κίνδυνον.: the immediate consequence of the funeral is less disastrous for the conspirators; unrhythmic closes to the two halves of the sentence lower the intensity. η̄ ῾ μῐφλ̄ ε´ κτοῡϲ | is a significant word, marked out for notice: the mob are perverting the torches from their ritual use. Cf. Virg. Aen. 12.298–9 ambustum torrem Corynaeus ab ara | corripit. 20.8 η̄ ᾿ ̑ν δ̆ε´ τῑϲ Κ̄ ι´ ννᾱϲ, | ποιη̄τῐκ̆ο` ϲ ᾰ᾿ ν̄η´ ρ, | οὐδὲν τῆϲ ᾱ ᾿ι τ̆ι´ᾱϲ μ̆ετ̆ε´ χ ̄ων, | ἀλλὰ καὶ φίλοϲ Κᾱ ι´ ϲᾰροϲ̄ γ̆εγο̆ν ̄ω´ ϲ. |: a short sentence introduces a character less fortunate than the conspirators have been so far (cf. Caes. 68.2–3 ἐκείνων μὲν . . . | Κίνναϲ δέ, passage 3 in the Appendix to this chapter). But rhythm already underlines telling points close together. The name of Cinna takes us back to the last part of another sequence, 18.13; the link will be disastrous for this Cinna. | οὐδὲν τῆϲ ᾱ ᾿ι τ̆ι´ᾱϲ μ̆ετ̆ε´ χ ̄ων, | connects with τῆϲ αἰτίαϲ μὴ μετέχον̄ τᾰϲ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ` ϲ | in the same passage (cf. also τὸν κίνδυνον there and at 20.7). | ποιη̄τῐκ̆ο` ϲ ᾰ᾿ ν̄η´ ρ, | here underlines the irony of the mob’s mistake more effectively than the point that he was a tribune, as at App. BC 2.613 etc. (neither poetry nor tribunate is mentioned at Plut. Caes. 68.3–6). The phrase, although sometimes suspected, is Plutarchan (Pyth. Or. 407b, Quaest. Conv. 7.1 698a, Es. Carn. 996b), and the identification with the poet correct (Ov. Ib. 539–40, Housman [1972], i.9, J. D. Morgan [1990]). ̑ ̆ν 20.9 | οὗτοϲ ὄναρ ὤιετο καλούμενοϲ ὑπὸ Καίϲαροϲ ἐπὶ δε̄ ιπνο ᾿̄αρνε̄ ιϲθαῑ, ` ̑ ´ | τὸν δὲ λιπαρεῖν κᾱ ι βῐ̄αζε ϲ̄ θαῑ, | τέλοϲ δ᾿ ἄγειν λαβόμενον τῆϲ χειρὸϲ εἰϲ ἀχανῆ τόπον κᾱ`ι ϲκο̆τεῑν̄ο´ ν, | αὐτὸν δ’ ἄκοντα καὶ τεθαμβη̄μ̆ε´ νο̆ν ῞ε̆ πε ϲ̄ θαῑ. |: the account of the foreboding dream is less densely rhythmic than the account of the following morning, but somewhat more rhythmic than the account in Caes. 68.3 (passage 3 in the Appendix). That account also omits the spatial element and Cinna’s wonder: ἔτῠχ̆ε . . . | ὄψιν ἑωρακὼϲ ἄτοπον· ἐδόκει γὰρ ὑπὸ ̑ Καίϲαροϲ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον̄ κᾰλε̄ ιϲθαῑ, | παραιτούμενοϲ δ᾿ ἄγεϲθαι τῆϲ χειρὸϲ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, μὴ βουλόμενοϲ ἀλλ᾿ ̄α᾿ ντῐτε̄ ι´ ̄ νων. | 20.10 | ταύτην ἰδόντι τὴν ῎οψῐν ̄ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ωι̑ | ϲυνέβη πυρέττειν διὰ νυκτόϲ· ´ ̑ ὅμωϲ δ᾿ ἔωθεν ἐκκομιζο̆μ̆ενοῡ το̄υ ̑ ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτοϲ̄ , | αἰδούμενοϲ μ̄η` πᾰρε̄ ιναῑ, | ᾿ ` ´ ῎ προ̄ηλ̑ θ̆εν ε̄ ι ϲ τ̆ον ο̆ χλον̄ | ἤδη δῐᾰγρῐαῑν̆ομ̆ενον̄ . |: after the account of the night, the narrative intensifies rhythmically, as the dutiful Cinna confronts the irrational mob (ὄχλοϲ only here in this Life). The narrative at Caes. 68.4 (passage 3) intensifies too, although not to the same pitch as here; the fever is put into the daytime: | ὡϲ δ᾿ ἤκουϲεν ἐν

Daggers and Dangers

157

ἀγορᾶι τὸ ϲῶμα καίεϲ̄ θαῑ το̄υ ̑ Κᾱ ι´ ϲᾰροϲ̄ , [note word-order] | ἐβάδῑζ̆εν ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τῑμ̄ηι̑ , | καίπερ ὑφορώμενόϲ τε τὴν ὄψιν ἅμα κᾱ`ι πῠρ̄ ε´ ττ ̄ων. |. 20.11 | ὀφθεὶϲ δὲ καὶ δόξαϲ οὐχ ὅϲπερ ἦν Κίνναϲ εἶναι, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκεῖνοϲ ὁ Καίϲαρα πρ̄ο` ϲ τ̄η` ν ̄ ε᾿ κκλη̄ϲ̆ι´ᾱν | ἔναγχοϲ λοῑδορ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ, | δῐε ϲ̄ π̄α´ ϲθη̄.: the ̆ rhythm, but explanation of the homonomy begins more loosely in ends with the rhythms packed together. The final verb, in overlap, is extreme and horrible; it picks up the final verb of 20.6 above, | h κᾰθ̄η´ γῑζον̄ . |, the same in rhythm and also in overlap. That verb ̆ described a ritual action more or less within bounds, although in unsuitable territory; this verb is hideous and still more disordered (cf. 20.5 | ἦν οὖν ἰδεῖν οὐδὲν ἔτι κόϲμωι γιγνόμενον,), and evokes, if any ritual, only the Bacchic ϲπαραγμόϲ. Caes. 68.6 is not rhythmically so climactic: | καὶ γὰρ ἦν τιϲ ὁμώμνυμοϲ ἐκείνωι Κίνναϲ ἐν τοῖϲ ϲῠνο̆μο̆ϲᾰμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ, | ὃν τοῦτον εἶναι προλαβόντεϲ, ὥρμη̄ϲᾰν ε̄υ᾿ θ̄υ` ϲ | καὶ διέϲπαϲαν ἐν μέϲ ̄ωι τ̆ο` ν ῎̄ανθρ ̄ωπον̄ . | The verb does not come at the close, and has in any case just been anticipated (Caes. 68.2 διαϲπάϲαϲθαι τοὺϲ ἄνδραϲ ζητοῦντεϲ.). The fate of Cinna is in both Lives the main reason for the fear and withdrawal of Brutus (and Cassius) from the city (Brut. 21.1, Caes. 68.7); but in the Brutus it forms the climax of a structure. It takes up the other Cinna at the end of ch. 18, and reverses the hopeful situation at the end of ch. 19 (the first part of the meeting). The structure is centred on Brutus, not on the reaction to Caesar’s death; the Life of Caesar makes an explicit cross-reference to this Life for what followed as regards Brutus and Cassius (68.7). The fluctuations in density in this whole passage of the Brutus serve a significant design; this only emerges when we start to look at the rhythmic patterning. We have gained some notion of the hills and valleys within a passage, as we have by now of the larger and lesser peaks within the Life, and of the total landscape that they form; we have seen not mere variety, but meaningful shaping of a creation.

Appendix: App. BC 2.487, 4.552, Plut. Caes. 68.3–6 1. App. BC 2.487 . . . | καὶ διένεῡο̆ν ̄α᾿ λλ̄η´ λοῑϲ | διαχρήϲαϲθαι ϲφᾶϲ αὐτο̄υ` ϲ πρ̆ο` ϲῡλλ̄η´ ψ̆ε ̄ωϲ· | προϊόντοϲ̄ δ̆`ε το̄υ ̑ λ̆ο´ γοῡ | τὸν Λαίνᾱν ο῾̆ ρ ̄ω̑ντε ϲ̄ | οὐ μηνύοντι μᾶλλον ἢ περί τοῡ δ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ωι | καὶ λιπαροῦντι ἐοικότα, ἀνέφερον . . .

158

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

They signalled to each other to kill themselves before they were caught; but as Laenas’ conversation with Caesar went on, they saw that he looked, not like someone bringing information, so much as someone making a request about something and begging, and they started to recover themselves. 2. App. BC 4.552 . . . καὶ εἰπ ̄ω` ν ε̆᾿ ν̄η´ ρεῑϲε ̄ | ταῖϲ λαγόϲι το̄υ ̑ Βρο̄υ´τοῡ τ̄ο` ξ̆ι´φοϲ̄ | οὔτε ἀποϲ̄ τρᾰφ̄ ε´ ντοϲ̄ | ου῎ τ̆ε ε᾿ νδο´ ντοϲ̄ . |h With these words Straton thrust the sword into the side of Brutus, who did not turn aside or give way. 3. Plut. Caes. 68.3 6 3. | Κίνναϲ δέ τιϲ τῶν Κᾱ ι´ϲᾰρο̆ϲ ε̆῾ τᾱ ι´ρ ̄ων | ἔτῠχ̆ε μ̆ε´ ν, ῞ ϲ φᾱϲῑ, | τῆϲ παρωιχη̄μ̆ε´ νη̄ϲ νῡκτ̄ο` ϲ | ὄψιν ἑωρακὼϲ ἄτοπον· ἐδόκει γὰρ ̄ω ̑ ὑπὸ Καίϲαροϲ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον̄ κᾰλε̄ ιϲθαῑ, | παραιτούμενοϲ δ᾿ ἄγεϲθαι τῆϲ χειρὸϲ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, μὴ βουλόμενοϲ ἀλλ᾿ ̄α᾿ ντῐτε̄ ι´ νω ̄ ν. | 4. | ὡϲ δ᾿ ἤκουϲεν ἐν ἀγορᾶι τὸ ϲῶμα καίε ϲ̄ θαῑ το̄υ ̑ Κᾱ ι´ ϲᾰροϲ̄ , | ἐβάδῑζ̆εν ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τῑμ̄ηι̑ , | καίπερ ὑφορώμενόϲ τε τὴν ὄψιν ἅμα κᾱ`ι πῠρ̄ ε´ ττ ̄ων. | 5. καί τιϲ ὀφθέντοϲ αὐτοῦ ̑ ̆ ϲ ῎̄αλλ ̄ωι, | τῶν πολλῶν ἔφραϲεν ἑτέρωι τοὔνομα πῡνθᾰνο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ωι, | κἀκε̄ ι νο καὶ διὰ πάντων θροῦϲ ἦν ὡϲ οὗτόϲ ε᾿ ϲτῐν ο̆῾ α᾿̆ νη` ρ |h τῶν ἀνηιρη̄κ̆ο´ τ ̄ων Κᾱ ι´ ϲᾰρᾱ· | 6. καὶ γὰρ ἦν τιϲ ὁμώνυμοϲ ἐκείνωι Κίνναϲ ἐν τοῖϲ ϲῠνο̆μο̆ϲᾰμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ, | ὃν τοῦτον εἶναι προλαβόντεϲ, ὥρμη̄ϲᾰν ε̄υ᾿ θ̄υ` ϲ | καὶ διέϲπαϲαν ἐν μέϲ ̄ωι τ̆ο` ν ῎̄ανθρ ̄ωπον̄ . | But a certain Cinna, one of Caesar’s friends, had had a strange dream the previous night, so they say: he dreamt that he had been invited to dinner by Caesar, and that when he declined Caesar led him by the hand; Cinna was not willing but resisted. Now, when Cinna heard that Caesar’s body was being burnt in the Forum, he set off to pay honour to Caesar, even though he was suspicious about the dream and at the same time had a fever. One of the people saw him, and said his name to another who asked it, and that other to another: there was a rumour among everyone that this man was one of those who had killed Caesar. There was indeed a man called Cinna, like him, among the conspirators; they assumed he was that Cinna, and immediately surged and tore the individual apart in their midst.

11 A Surprise from Cato (Pompey 54.5–9) 5. | Κάτωνοϲ̄ δ̆`ε Π̄ο´ μπη̄ιον̄ | ἐπαῑν̆ε´ ϲᾱντοϲ̄ | κᾱ`ι προ̆τρε ψ ̄ ᾰμ̆ε´ νοῡ | τῆϲ εὐκοϲμίαϲ ε̆᾿ πῐμ̆ελη̄θ̄ην̑ αῑ, | τ̆ο´ τ̆ε μ̆`εν ᾱ ᾿ι δε ϲ̄ θε̄`ιϲ | ε̆᾿ π̆εμ̆ελ̄η´ θη̄, | καὶ κατεϲτάθη̄ϲᾰν υ῞̆ πᾰτοῑ | Δομέτιοϲ καὶ Μεϲϲάλαϲ, ὕϲτερον δὲ πάλιν ἀναρχίαϲ γινομένηϲ καὶ πλειόνων ἤδη τὸν περὶ τοῦ δικτ̄α´ το̆ροϲ̄ λ̆ο´ γον̄ | ἐγειρ̄ο´ ντ̄ων ᾿̆ι τᾰμ ̄ω´ τ̆ερον̄ , | φοβηθέντεϲ ο̄ ῾ι π̆ερ̆`ι Κ̆α´ τ ̄ωνᾱ | μ̄η` βῐᾱϲθ ̄ω̑ϲῑν, | ἔγνωϲαν ἀρχήν τινα τῶι Πομπήιωι προ̆ε̆ ´ μ̆ενοῑ ν̆ο´ μῐμον̄ | ἀποτρέψαι τ̄ηϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ κρ̄α´ τοῡ | καὶ τυραννικ̄ηϲ̑ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´ νη̄ϲ. | 6. καὶ Βύβλοϲ ἐχθρὸϲ ὢν Πομπήιωι πρῶτοϲ ἀπεφήνατο γνώμην ἐν ϲυγκλήτωι Πόμπηιον μόνον ἑλέϲθαι ὕπατον· ἢ γὰρ ἀπᾱλλᾰγ̄η´ ϲε ϲ̄ θαῑ | τῆϲ παρούϲηϲ τ̄η` ν π̆ο´ λῐν ᾰ᾿ κοϲ̄ μ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | ἢ δουλεύϲειν τ ̄ω̑ι ` τ̆ο` ν ε̄ ᾿ι π̄ο´ ντᾱ, | κρᾰτ̄ ι´ϲτ ̄ωι. | 7. φανέντοϲ δὲ πᾰρᾰδ̄ο´ ξοῡ το̄υ ̑ λ̆ο´ γοῡ | δῐ̆α ´ ᾿ ` ` ᾿ ´ Κάτ ̄ων ᾰ νᾱϲτ̄αϲ | καὶ παραϲχ ̄ων δ̆οκη̄ϲῑν | ὡϲ ̄αντῐλ̄ εξοῑ, | γενομένη̄ϲ ϲῐ ̄ωπ̄ηϲ̑ | εἶπε τὴν προκεῑμ̆ε´ νη̄ν γν ̄ω´ μη̄ν | αὐτὸϲ μὲν οὐκ ἂν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̆ενεγ̄ κε̄ ι ν̑ , | εἰϲενηνεγμένη̄ι δ᾿ υ῾̆ φ’ ε̆῾ τ̆ε´ ροῡ | πείθεϲθαῑ κ̆ελε̄υ´εῑν, | πᾶϲᾱν μ̆`εν ̄α᾿ ρχ̄η` ν | μᾶλλον αἱρο̄υ´μ̆ενο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ νᾱρχ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | Πομπήιου δὲ μηδένα βέλτῑο̆ν ῎̄αρξεῑν | ἐν ταραχαῖϲ τη̄λῐκᾱυ´ταῑϲ | νο̆μ̄ ι´ζ ̄ων. | 8. δεξαμένη̄ϲ δ̆`ε τ̄ηϲ̑ βοῡλ̄ηϲ̑ , | καὶ ψη̄φῐϲᾰμ̆ε´ νη̄ϲ | ὅπ ̄ωϲ υ῞̆ πᾰτο̆ϲ ᾱ̆ ῾ιρ̆εθε̄`ιϲ | ὁ Πόμπη̄ιο̆ϲ ῎̄αρχοῑ μ̆ο´ νοϲ̄ , | εἰ δὲ αὐτὸϲ ϲυνάρχοντοϲ̄ δ̆εη̄θε̄ ι´η̄, | μὴ θᾶττον̄ δῠο̄ ι ν̑ μη̄νο̄ ι ν̑ | δοκιμάϲᾱϲ ῞ε̆ λοῑτο,̄ | κατᾱϲτᾰθε̄`ιϲ ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ωϲ | καὶ ἀποδειχθεὶϲ διὰ Cουλπικίου μεϲοβᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ υ῞̆ πᾰτοϲ̄ | ἠϲπάζετο φιλοφρόνωϲ τ̄ο` ν Κ̆α´ τ ̄ωνᾱ, | πολλὴν ὁμολογ ̄ω̑ν χ̆α´ ρῐν ῎ε̆ χεῑν | καὶ παρακαλῶν γίνεϲθαι ϲύμβουλον ἰδίαι τῆϲ ἀρχῆϲ. 9. Κάτων δὲ χάριν μὲν ἔχειν αὐτῶι τὸν Πόμπη̄ιο̆ν ο̄υ᾿ κ η̄ ᾿ ξ̆ι´οῡ· | δι’ ἐκεῖνον γὰρ ὧν εἶπεν ο̄υ᾿ δ̆`εν ε̄ ᾿ι πε̄ ι ν̑ , | δῐ̆α` δ̆`ε τ̄η` ν π̆ο´ λῑν· | ἔϲεϲθαι δὲ ϲύμβοῡλο̆ϲ ᾿̆ι δ̆ι´ᾱι | πᾰρᾰκᾰλο̄υ´μ̆ενοϲ̄ , | ἐὰν δὲ μ̄η` πᾰρᾰκᾰλ̄ητ̑ αῑ, | δημοϲίαι φράϲεῑν τ̆ο` φαῑν̆ο´ μ̆ενον̄ . | τοιοῦτοϲ μὲν οὖν Κάτων ἐν πᾶϲι. 6 μόν. ἑλ. Π. ὕπ. Ziegler: etiam Π. ἑλ. μόν. ὕπ. possis

9 οὖν Ziegler

Cato applauded Pompey’s stance and urged him to take care of good order in the state. At the time, he respectfully did so, and Domitius and Messala were made consuls; but later anarchy broke out again, and more people started reviving more eagerly the talk of a dictatorship. Cato and the like feared they would be forced, so they decided to grant a legitimate office to Pompey, and so divert him from that absolute and

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

160

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

tyrannical power. Bibulus, enemy though he was of Pompey’s, was the first to declare his view in the Senate that they should elect Pompey sole consul. He said that either the city would escape from its present disorder or it would be a slave to the best man. The speech seemed surprising because of the man who gave it. Cato stood up and gave the appearance of being about to speak in opposition; silence fell. He said that he himself would not have proposed the present motion; but as someone else had proposed it, he bade people accept it. He said that he preferred any official power to anarchy, and thought that no one would exercise it better than Pompey amid such great disturbances. The Senate accepted this proposal and voted that Pompey should be elected consul and wield power alone; if he himself wanted a colleague in office, he should approve and choose him in no sooner than two months. Sulpicius the interrex declared Pompey consul. Pompey welcomed Cato warmly, admitted the great gratitude he owed him, and invited him to be his private adviser in office. Cato replied that he did not think Pompey should be grateful to him: it was not for Pompey’s sake that he had said any of what he said, but for the city’s. He would be Pompey’s adviser privately, he said, if invited, and if not invited, he would declare what he thought in public. Cato was like this in everything.

We have looked at passages in one Life with different degrees of rhythmic density. The present passage enables us to compare in detail an account which displays density by our criteria with a closely similar account in another Life which does not (Cat. Min. 47–48.4, passage 1 in the Appendix to this chapter). The passage is cited above more extensively than just the part that qualifies as dense (54.6 ἢ γὰρ ἀπᾱλλᾰγ̄η´ ϲε ϲ̄ θαῑ | -8 | δοκιμάϲᾱϲ ῞ε̆ λοῑτο,̄ |), a part which evokes in detail a crucial and dramatic meeting of the Senate. The more extensive citation means that we can see moments of briefer rhythmic intensity, compare them with the Cato Minor, and observe the rises and falls in this passage. It is understandable that the treatment here should show more density: Pompey’s acquisition of his third consulship and μοναρχία is a critical juncture in his career (on the event, cf. Ramsey [2016]). At the same time, the focus of the passage and the rhythmic intensity is partly Cato himself. In this part of the Life of Pompey he has been a vital antagonist and point of comparison, and at the end of the passage he steals the show. The passage illustrates the importance of comparison within the Lives, and notably at moments that rhythm spotlights. The comparison between different treatments of the same events is especially invited by the Lives that treat of the Late Republic. The

A Surprise from Cato

161

reader of the whole work cannot possibly escape such comparison; it encourages various types of refined discrimination: stylistic, ethical, historical. 5. | Κάτωνοϲ̄ δ̆`ε Π̄ο´ μπη̄ιον̄ | ἐπαῑν̆ε´ ϲᾱντοϲ̄ | κᾱ`ι προ̆τρε ψ ̄ ᾰμ̆ε´ νοῡ | τῆϲ εὐκοϲμίαϲ ε̆᾿ πῐμ̆ελη̄θ̄ην̑ αῑ, | τ̆ο´τ̆ε μ̆`εν ᾱ ᾿ι δε ϲ̄ θε̄`ιϲ | ε̆᾿ π̆εμ̆ελ̄η´ θη̄, |: there is brief density for this initial interaction between Pompey and Cato. Cato’s opposition to the idea of Pompey as dictator has appeared in the previous sentence. The names come together at the start in a rhythmic unit of their own; a Greek verse inscription, IGUR 3.1166.4–5, indicates that Πομπηιοϲ should be scanned as three syllables. The two participles, each in its own rhythmic phrase, show Cato’s politeness (he can be polite) and a process of interaction that reflects well on Pompey. In response to Cato’s quasiphilosophical exhortation, Pompey is duly abashed; the verb in the last entity, | ε̆᾿ π̆εμ̆ελ̄η´ θη̄, |, matches the verb, ε̆᾿ πῐμ̆ελη̄θ̄ην̑ αῑ, |, at the end of Cato’s clause. We do not have quite this stage in Plutarch’s other accounts; at Caes. 28.7 (passage 2 in the Appendix), the hypocrisy of Pompey is made clear and explicit, as it is not even in the preceding sentence here, and there is no sign of his better feelings. | καὶ κατεϲτάθη̄ϲᾰν υ῞̆ πᾰτοῑ |: the density extends to the effect, constitutional normality (in the middle of the year of office, 53 BC: Dio 40.45.1). ὕϲτερον δὲ πάλιν ἀναρχίαϲ γινομένηϲ: the horrors of bloodshed are not dwelt on as in the other two Lives (especially Caesar); here the context is less important, and unrhythmic, although ἀναρχίαϲ will be taken up in the argument. πλειόνων ἤδη τὸν περὶ τοῦ δικτ̄α´ το̆ροϲ̄ λ̆ο´ γον̄ | ἐγειρ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων ᾿̆ι τᾰμ ̄ω´ τ̆ερον̄ , | φοβηθέντεϲ ο̄ ῾ι π̆ερ̆`ι Κ̆α´ τ ̄ωνᾱ | μ̄η` βῐᾱϲθ ̄ω̑ϲῑν, |: the pressure mounts, with rhythmic closes near together. Here the verb βῐᾱϲθ̄ω̑ϲῑν, | is passive and vague (note τῆϲ ἐϲχάτη̄ϲ ᾰ᾿ ν̄α´ γκη̄ϲ | in Cat. Min. 47.2, passage 1); at Caes. 28.7 (passage 2), Pompey is the subject of the middle βιάϲαιτο. | ἔγνωϲαν ἀρχήν τινα τῶι Πομπήιωι προ̆ε̆ ´ μ̆ενοῑ ν̆ο´μῐμον̄ | ἀποτρέψαι τ̄ηϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ κρ̄α´ τοῡ | καὶ τυραννικ̄ηϲ̑ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´ νη̄ϲ. |: the rhythmic phrases give extra weight to the accumulated adjectives; the stress on ν̆ο´ μῐμον̄ | is confirmed by the word-order. Other passages too dwell on legality and the dictatorship (only metaphorically illegal), the Cato in a rhythmically looser way: 47.2 (passage 1) | καὶ τῶι μετριωτάτωι τ ̄ω̑ν πᾰρᾰνο̆μη̄μ̆α´ τ ̄ων | χρηϲάμενοϲ ἰάματι τῆϲ τῶν μεγίϲτ ̄ων κᾰτᾱϲτ̆α´ ϲ̆ε ̄ωϲ |, cf. Caes. 28.7 (passage 2) | ὡϲ μὴ βιάϲαιτο δικτάτ ̄ωρ γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ, | νομιμωτέρᾱι

162

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

μο̆νᾱρχ̆ι´αῑ | παρη̄γο̆ρη̄θε̄ ι´ϲ. | Even the last passage is detached and ironic; ᾰ᾿ κρ̄α´ τοῡ | and τυραννικ̄ηϲ̑ are strong words, the latter full of resonance in this Life. ‘Tyranny’ is used of Caesar’s perpetual dictatorship, and of Sulla regardless of his office (Caes. 57.1, Comp. Lys. Sull. 39 (1).7); Pompey comes close to tyranny himself (so 30.3, 52.1 [Cato]), and his early life and his death (78.7) involve him with τύραννοι. 6. | καὶ Βύβλοϲ ἐχθρὸϲ ὢν Πομπήιωι πρῶτοϲ ἀπεφήνατο γνώμην ἐν ϲυγκλήτωι Πόμπηιον μόνον ἑλέϲθαι ὕπατον·: the narrative is certainly loose, and seems completely unrhythmic, for its headline of Bibulus’ sententia; the account of the debate will intensify. At the ending, however, notable hiatus appears in a non-rhythmic close, so for once Ziegler’s action is justified. His μόνον ἑλέϲθαι Πομπήϊον ὕπατον is taken from Cat. Min. 47.3 (passage 1), and Πόμπη̄ιο̆ν υ῞̆ πᾰτον̄ · | would be rhythmic; but in this context, the initial position for Πόμπηιον is effective after ἐχθρὸϲ ὢν Πομπήιωι, and Πόμπηιον ἑλέϲθαῑ μ̆ο´ νο̆ν υ῞̆ πᾰτον̄ ·|, also rhythmic, would be a lighter change, with consecutive words transposed. Here Bibulus is presented as a surprising proponent, in preparation for the ensuing drama; in Cato Minor, despite the surprise of Cato’s intervention, Bibulus is presented as a relative (actually son-in-law) of Cato, and οὖν suggests he is so speaking because of Cato’s opinions. Dio (passage 3) presents Bibulus as an independent agent. ἢ γὰρ ἀπᾱλλᾰγ̄η´ ϲε ϲ̄ θαῑ | τῆϲ παρούϲηϲ τ̄η` ν π̆ο´ λῐν ᾰ᾿ κοϲ̄ μ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | ἢ δουλεύϲειν τ ̄ω̑ι κρᾰτ̄ ι´ϲτ ̄ωι. |: rhythm and language sustain intensity more than in Cat. Min. 47.3 (passage 1) | ἢ γὰρ ἕξειν καλῶϲ τὰ πράγματ’ ἐκείνου καταϲτήϲαντοϲ, ἢ τῶι κρατίϲτωι δοῡλε̄υ´ϲεῑν τ̄η` ν π̆ο´ λῑν· | (they would do so even if | καλ ̄ω̑ϲ τ̆α` πρ̄α´ γμᾰτᾱ | and | ἢ τ ̄ω̑ι κρᾰτ̄ ι´ϲτ ̄ωι | formed phrases). ᾰ᾿ κοϲ̄ μ̆ι´ᾱϲ | is emphasized by its place in the rhythmic phrase and its separation from τῆϲ παρούϲηϲ, and picks up | (τῆϲ) εὐκοϲμίαϲ from 5. The position of τ ̄ωι̑ κρᾰτ̄ ι´ϲτ ̄ωι. | heightens the surprise from Bibulus. 7. | φανέντοϲ δὲ πᾰρᾰδ̄ο´ ξοῡ το̄υ ̑ λ̆ο´ γοῡ | δῐ̆`α τ̆ο` ν ε̄ ᾿ι π̄ο´ ντᾱ, | Κάτ ̄ων ᾿ᾰ νᾱϲτ̄α` ϲ | καὶ παραϲχ ̄ω` ν δ̆ο´ κη̄ϲῑν | ὡϲ ̄α᾿ ντῐλ̄ ε´ ξοῑ, | γενομένη̄ϲ ϲῐ ̄ωπ̄ηϲ̑ | εἶπε: the drama is more detailed, animated, and fraught with rhythm than in Cat. Min. 47.4 (passage 1): ἀναϲτὰϲ δ’ ὁ Κάτων οὐδενὸϲ ἂν προϲ̄ δο̆κ̄η´ ϲᾱντοϲ̄ | ἐπήινεϲε τὴν γνώμην. Even | Κάτ ̄ων ᾰ᾿ νᾱϲτ̄α` ϲ | seems rhythmic here and not in the other version; but the hiatus δὲ ὁ would be possible there. τὴν προκεῑμ̆ε´ νη̄ν γν ̄ω´ μη̄ν | αὐτὸϲ μὲν οὐκ ἂν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̆ενεγ̄ κε̄ ι ν̑ , | εἰϲενηνεγ μένη̄ι δ᾿ ῠ῾ φ’ ε̆῾ τ̆ε´ ροῡ | πείθεϲθαῑ κ̆ελε̄υ´εῑν, |: the start of Cato’s speech is captured; contrast in Cato Minor ἐπήινεϲε τὴν γνώμην. Cato’s position

A Surprise from Cato

163

is subtler here; the rhythmic phrases and the word-order bring out the subtleties. | αὐτὸϲ begins one phrase, ε̆῾ τ̆ε´ ροῡ | ends the next; οὐκ ἂν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̆ενε γ̄ κε̄ ι ν̑ , | and | εἰϲενηνεγμένη̄ι in different tenses and modalities face each other across a rhythmic boundary. μέν and δέ confirm the emphases; but the underlining through the rhythm adds finesse. | πᾶϲᾱν μ̆`εν ̄α᾿ ρχ̄η` ν | μᾶλλον αἱρο̄υ´μ̆ενο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ νᾱρχ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | Πομπήιου δὲ μηδένα βέλτῑο̆ν ῎̄αρξεῑν | ἐν ταραχαῖϲ τη̄λῐκᾱυ´ταῑϲ | νο̆μ̄ ι´ζ ̄ων. |: the first ̆ second diverges: part is similar to the version in Cat. Min. 47.4, the ´ | καὶ ϲυνεβούλευϲε π̄αϲ̑ ᾰν ̄α᾿ ρχ̄η` ν | ὡϲ ἀνᾱρχ̆ι´ᾱϲ κρε̄ ι ττο̆νᾱ· | Πόμπηιον δὲ καὶ προϲδοκᾶν ἄριϲτα τοῖϲ παροῦϲι χρ̄η´ ϲε ϲ̄ θαῑ πρ̄α´ γμᾰϲῑ | καὶ φυλάξειν διαπιϲτευθ̄ ε´ ντᾰ τ̄η` ν π̆ο´ λῑν. | In the present passage, | ̄α᾿ ρχ̄η` ν |, ᾰ᾿ νᾱρχ̆ι´ᾱϲ, |, and ῎̄αρξεῑν | form a sequence marked by the rhythm; rhythm and language in the second part are tauter than in the Cato Minor. αἱρο̄υ´μ̆ενο̆ϲ and νο̆μ̄ ι´ζ ̄ων. | go together; ἐν ταραχαῖϲ τη̄λῐκᾱυ´ταῑϲ | is ̆ much more forceful than τοῖϲ παροῦϲι . . . πρ̄α´ γμᾰϲῑ |. The sequence with ᾿ ` ᾿ ´ ῎ μέν and δέ, and with ̄αρχ̄ην |, ᾰ νᾱρχ̆ι ᾱϲ, |, ̄αρξεῑν |, leads into the praise of Pompey; but Cato’s praise is more measured and thoughtful in this Life than in the Cato Minor. 8. | δεξαμένη̄ϲ δ̆`ε τ̄ηϲ̑ βοῡλ̄ηϲ̑ , | καὶ ψη̄φῐϲᾰμ̆ε´ νη̄ϲ | ὅπ ̄ωϲ υ῞̆ πᾰτο̆ϲ ᾱ ῾ιρ̆εθε̄`ιϲ | ὁ Πόμπη̄ιο̆ϲ ῎̄αρχοῑ μ̆ο´ νοϲ̄ , | εἰ δὲ αὐτὸϲ ϲυνάρχοντοϲ̄ δ̆εη̄θε̄ ι´η̄, | μὴ θᾶττον̄ δῠο̄ ι ν̑ μη̄νο̄ ι ν̑ | δοκιμάϲᾱϲ ῞ε̆ λοῑτο,̄ | κατᾱϲτᾰθε̄`ιϲ ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ωϲ | καὶ ἀποδειχθεὶϲ διὰ Cουλπικίου μεϲοβᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ υ῞̆ πᾰτοϲ̄ |: the detail of the meeting, and the packed rhythms, continue into the specific constitutional arrangements; Cat. Min. 48.1 (passage 1) has simply | οὕτω δ’ ἀποδειχθεὶϲ ὕπᾰτο̆ϲ ο῾̆ Π̄ο´ μπη̄ιοϲ̄ |. The difference befits Pompey’s Life; the rhythm slackens, however, once Pompey is actually made consul (κατᾱϲτᾰθε̄`ιϲ ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ωϲ |). ῎̄αρχοῑ μ̆ο´ νοϲ̄ , | and ϲυνάρχοντοϲ̄ continue the line of thought on ἀρχή, and just skirt the heavily laden μοναρχία which is used in Cato Min. 47.2 and Caes. 28.7 (passage 2), and is a significant idea in Pompey (43.1, 75.4, neither an assertion by the narrator about Pompey). At App. BC 2.84 (passage 4), ῎̄αρχ ̄ων μ̆ο´ νοϲ̄ , | forms part of a nuanced and democratically inclined proposal from Cato, but is followed (85) by an ironic narratorial commentary on the μοναρχία, the novel power of the consul, and the quick dispatching of Cato himself (with some chronological rearrangement); in Appian, Cato’s proposal has been a step back from the Senate’s wish to make him dictator. Dio (passage 3) has an ingenious idea on the avoidance of ϲυναρχία, but Plutarch here gets us into the details of the decision. Even so, he seems to skip quite quickly over

164

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

the nature of the choosing or electing. In the account here, the arrangement is more honorific to Pompey (| εἰ δὲ αὐτὸϲ ϲυνάρχοντοϲ̄ δ̆εη̄θε̄ ι´η̄, |) than in the reconstruction of the reality at Ramsey (2016), 312–18. (On the principal question of how Pompey was made consul, what had seemed a problem is certainly removed by Ramsey’s convincing argument [298–308], on the basis of Ascon. pp. 35.25–36.5 Clark, that the Senate did not simply ‘appoint’ Pompey sole consul.) | ἠϲπάζετο φιλοφρόνωϲ τ̄ο` ν Κ̆α´ τ ̄ωνᾱ, |: conversely, the scene of the meeting with Cato is much more elaborately set up in Cato Minor (48.2). Cato’s coolness is there made the more salient by Pompey’s | ἀϲπαϲμοῖϲ καὶ δε ξ̄ ῐ ̄ω´ ϲ̆εϲῑ | (note Cat. Min. 30.6: friends think Cato’s answer to Pompey on marriage alliance ἄγροικον α῞̆ μᾰ κᾱ`ι ῾̆υπ̆ερ̄η´ φᾰνον |h). In the present sentence, the Senate’s decision and the conversation with Pompey are joined into a single syntactic design; the conversation and the debate form part of one closely related section. In Cato Minor, on the other hand (48.1), the | οὕτω δ’ ἀποδειχθεὶϲ ὕπᾰτο̆ϲ ο῾̆ Π̄ο´ μπη̄ιοϲ̄ | forms a transition to a new section; the conversation is there to be related to what follows, as is shown by | καὶ ταῦτ’ ἔπρᾱττ̆εν ̄ω῾ ϲ ε̄῏ι πε .̄ | (48.4). | πολλὴν ὁμολογ ̄ω̑ν χ̆α´ ρῐν ῎ε̆ χεῑν | καὶ παρακαλῶν γίνεϲθαι ϲύμβουλον ἰδίαι τῆϲ ἀρχῆϲ. Κάτων δὲ χάριν μὲν ἔχειν αὐτῶι τὸν Πόμπη̄ιο̆ν ο̄υ᾿ κ η̄ ᾿ ξ̆ι´οῡ· |: | πολλὴν, not in Cato Min. 48.2, does set up the reply. But as is indicated by the slackness of rhythm here, the interest of Pompey is not primarily in Cato’s lack of hatred or favour towards Pompey as such, but in his attitude to the city. That is what generates comparisons with Pompey. At Pomp. 55.9, a sentence contrasts Cato, who is ‘thrown out’ of the court for impartiality, and Pompey, whose partiality wins him shame; the corresponding sentence in Cat. Min. 48.8 does not mention Pompey. 9. | δι’ ἐκεῖνον γὰρ ὧν εἶπεν ο̄υ᾿ δ̆`εν ε̄ ᾿ιπε̄ ι ν̑ , | δῐ̆α` δ̆`ε τ̄η` ν π̆ο´λῑν· | ἔϲεϲθαι δὲ ϲύμβοῡλο̆ϲ ᾿̆ι δ̆ι´ᾱι | πᾰρᾰκᾰλο̄υ´μ̆ενοϲ̄ , | ἐὰν δὲ μ̄η` πᾰρᾰκᾰλ̄ητ̑ αῑ, | δημοϲίαι φράϲεῑν τ̆ο` φαῑν̆ο´ μ̆ενον̄ . |: the wording is similar to the Cato Minor’s (48.3, passage 1): | ὁ δ̆`ε Κ̆α´ τ ̄ων ᾰ᾿ π̆εκρ̄ ι´ νᾰτο ̄ | μήτε τὰ πρότερα πρὸϲ ἀπέχθειαν εἰπεῖν Πομπήιου μήτε τᾱυ τ̑ ᾰ πρ̄ο` ϲ χ̆α´ ρῑν, | ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ ϲυμφέροντι π̄α´ ντᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ π̆ο´λ̆ε ̄ωϲ· | ἰδίαι μὲν οὖν αὐτ ̄ω̑ι πᾰρᾰκᾰλο̄υ ν̑ τῑ | ϲύμβουλοϲ ἔϲεϲθαι, δημοϲίαι δὲ κἂν μ̄η` πᾰρᾰκᾰλ̄ητ̑ αῑ | πάντωϲ ἐρε̄ ι ν̑ τ̆ο` φαῑν̆ο´μ̆ενον̄ . | The difference is not quite like the abundant detail of debate and arrangement omitted earlier in Cato Minor. Here

A Surprise from Cato

165

the Pompey has in its first part a simpler structure, as against the Cato’s μήτε τὰ πρότερα . . . μήτε ταῦτα . . . ἀλλ’ . . . πάντα, and is more concisely expressed: | δῐ̆α` δ̆`ε τ̄η` ν π̆ο´λῑν· | for ἐπὶ ϲυμφέροντι π̄α´ ντᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ π̆ο´λ̆ε ̄ωϲ· |, | πᾰρᾰκᾰλο̄υ´μ̆ενοϲ̄ , | for αὐτ ̄ω̑ι πᾰρᾰκᾰλο̄υ ν̑ τῑ |, no καί, no πάντωϲ (48.4). While Cato’s snub and his vehemence are less marked in the Pompey, the words are compacted through the rhythm into a trenchant nobility. | τοιοῦτοϲ μὲν οὖν Κάτων ἐν πᾶϲι.: the unrhythmic phrase provides an end to the section; the ἐν πᾶϲι invites the reader to compare Cato’s words and actions in the rest of the section. Pompey has been much more volatile. The summation might have been expected to relate to the subject of the Life (cf. e.g. Them. 19.9); Πόμπηιοϲ δέ follows, but without a direct contrast. Cf. Brut. 9.5 | τοιο̄υ τ̑ οϲ̄ μ̆`εν ο῾̆ Κ̄α´ ϲϲῐοϲ̄ ·| Βροῦτον δέ, also without a direct contrast. The ending shows the importance of Cato and comparison with Cato in the Life of Pompey.

Appendix: Plut. Cat. Min. 47–48.4, Caes. 28.7, Dio Cass. 40.50.4, App. BC 2.84–5 1. Plut. Cat. Min. 47 48.4 47.1 | ἐπεὶ δὲ Cκιπίωνοϲ καὶ Ὑψαίου καὶ Μίλωνοϲ ὑπατείᾱν μ̆ετε ρ̄ χο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | οὐ μόνον ἐκείνοιϲ τοῖϲ ϲῡντρ̆ο´ φοῑϲ η῎̄ δη̄ | καὶ ϲυμπολιτευο̆μ̆ε´ νοῑϲ ᾰ᾿ δῐκ̄η´ μᾰϲῑ, | δωροδοκίαιϲ κᾱ`ι δ̆εκᾱϲμο̄ ι ϲ,̑ | ἀλλ’ ἄντικρῡϲ δῐ᾿ ο῞̆ πλ ̄ων κᾱ`ι φ̆ο´ ν ̄ων | εἰϲ ἐμφύλιον π̆ο´λ̆εμο̆ν ̄ω᾿ θοῡμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | τόλμηι καὶ ἀπονοίαι, Πόμπηιόν τινεϲ ἠξίουν ἐπιϲτῆναι ταῖϲ ἀρχαιρεϲίαιϲ, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἀντε̄ ι π̆̑ εν ο῾̆ Κ̆α´ τ̄ων, | οὐ τοῖϲ νόμοιϲ ἐκ Πομπήιου φάμενοϲ, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν νόμων Πομπήιωι δεῖν ὑπάρχειν τὴν ̄α᾿ ϲφ̆α´ λεῑᾱν· | 2. ὡϲ δὲ πολὺν χρόνον ἀνᾱρχ̆ι´ᾱϲ ο̄υ῎ ϲη̄ϲ | καὶ τρι ̄ω̑ν ϲτρᾰτο̆π̆ε´ δ̄ων | τὴν ἀγορὰν ὁϲημέραῑ π̆ερῐ ε̆ χ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | ὀλίγον ἀπέλιπεν ἀνεπίϲχετον γ̆εγο̆ν̆ε´ ναῑ τ̆ο` κᾰκ̄ο´ ν, | ἔγνω τὰ πράγματα πρὸ τῆϲ ἐϲχάτη̄ϲ ᾰ᾿ ν̄α´ γκη̄ϲ | εἰϲ Πόμπηιον ἑκουϲίωι χάριτι τῆϲ βουλ̄ηϲ̑ π̆ερῑϲτ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ, | καὶ τῶι μετριωτάτωι τ ̄ω̑ν πᾰρᾰνο̆μη̄μ̆α´ τ ̄ων | χρηϲάμενοϲ ἰάματι τῆϲ τῶν μεγίϲτ ̄ων κᾰτᾱϲτ̆α´ ϲ̆ε ̄ωϲ | τὴν μοναρχίᾱν ε̆᾿ πᾰγᾰγ̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ | μᾶλλον ἢ περιϊδεῖν τὴν ϲτάϲιν εἰϲ ἀναρχίᾱν τ̆ελεῡτ ̄ω̑ϲᾱν. | 3. εἶπεν οὖν ἐν τῆι βουλῆι γνώμην Βύβλοϲ οἰκεῖοϲ ῍̄ων Κ̆α´ τ ̄ωνοϲ̄ , | ὡϲ χρὴ μόνον ἑλέϲθαι Πόμπη̄ιο̆ν υ῞̆ πᾰτον̄ · | ἢ γὰρ ἕξειν καλῶϲ τὰ πράγματ’ ἐκείνου καταϲτήϲαντοϲ, ἢ τῶι κρατίϲτωι δοῡλε̄υ´ϲεῑν τ̄η` ν π̆ο´ λῑν· | 4. ἀναϲτὰϲ δ’ ὁ Κάτων οὐδενὸϲ ἂν προϲ̄ δο̆κ̄η´ ϲᾱντοϲ̄ | ἐπήινεϲε τὴν γνώμην καὶ ϲυνεβούλευϲε π̄αϲ̑ ᾰν ̄α᾿ ρχ̄η` ν | ὡϲ ἀνᾱρχ̆ι´ᾱϲ κρε̄ ι´ττο̆νᾱ· | Πόμπηιον δὲ καὶ προϲδοκᾶν ἄριϲτα τοῖϲ παροῦϲι χρ̄η´ ϲε ϲ̄ θαῑ πρ̄α´ γμᾰϲῑ | καὶ φυλάξειν διαπιϲτευθ̄ ε´ ντᾰ τ̄η` ν π̆ο´λῑν. |

166

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

48.1 οὕτω δ’ ἀποδειχθεὶϲ ὕπᾰτο̆ϲ ο῾̆ Π̄ο´ μπη̄ιοϲ̄ | ἐδεήθη το̄υ ̑ Κ̆α´ τ ̄ωνοϲ̄ | ἐλθεῖν πρὸϲ αὐτὸν εἰϲ τὸ προάϲτειον. 2. ἐλθόντα δὲ δεξάμενοϲ̄ φῐλο̆φρ̆ο´ ν ̄ωϲ | ἀϲπαϲμοῖϲ καὶ δεξ̄ ῐ ̄ω´ ϲ̆εϲῑ | καὶ χάριν ο῾̆ μο̆λο̆γ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ, | παρεκάλει ϲύμβοῡλο̆ν ᾱυ῾ τ̄ω̑ι | καὶ πάρεδρον εἶναι τῆϲ ἀρχῆϲ. 3. ὁ δ̆`ε Κ̆α´ τ ̄ων ᾰ᾿ π̆εκρ̄ ι´ νᾰτο ̄ | μήτε τὰ πρότερα πρὸϲ ἀπέχθειαν εἰπεῖν Πομπήιου μήτε τᾱυ τ̑ ᾰ πρ̄ο` ϲ χ̆α´ ρῑν, | ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ ϲυμφέροντι π̄α´ ντᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ π̆ο´ λ̆ε ̄ωϲ· | 4. ἰδίαι μὲν οὖν αὐτ ̄ω̑ι πᾰρᾰκᾰλο̄υ ν̑ τῑ | ϲύμβουλοϲ ἔϲεϲθαι, δημοϲίαι δὲ κἂν μη᾿ πᾰρᾰκᾰλ̄ητ̑ αῑ | πάντωϲ ἐρε̄ ι ν̑ τ̆ο` φαῑν̆ο´ μ̆ενον̄ . | καὶ ταῦτ’ ἔπρᾱττ̆εν ̄ω῾ ϲ ε̄῏ιπε .̄ | 47.2 ἀναρχίαν Emperius: μοναρχίαν codd.

Scipio, Hypsaeus, and Milo were not just seeking the consulship with those misdeeds long entrenched and part of the state, bribery and corruption, but were actually using arms and murder and rushing into civil war with mad audacity; some thought that Pompey should be in charge of the elections. At first Cato spoke against the idea; he said that the laws should not receive protection from Pompey, but Pompey from the laws. However, when anarchy had been going on for a long while and three armies were daily surrounding the Forum, and the menace was on the verge of becoming uncontrollable, Cato decided to transfer affairs into Pompey’s hands through a willing favour from the Senate, before things reached the point of final compulsion. He decided to use the most moderate of illegalities to heal the position of the most important matters, and to introduce sole rule rather than allow civil strife to end in a state of anarchy. So Bibulus, a relative of Cato’s, expressed his view in the Senate that Pompey should be elected sole consul: he said that either things would be fine if Pompey sorted them out, or the city would be slave to the best man. Cato stood up and approved the proposal, as no one would have expected. He recom mended any control as better than anarchy, but said that he expected Pompey would handle the present situation excellently, and would keep the city secure if he were entrusted with the job. Thus Pompey was declared consul; he asked Cato to come and see him in his house outside the city. He received Cato warmly, with embraces and handshaking, acknowledged his gratitude, and invited him to be his adviser and helper in office. Cato responded that he had not made his previous remarks to be hostile to Pompey, nor his present ones to favour him: he had said everything for the good of the city. If Pompey invited him, he said, he would be his adviser in private; even if he were not invited, he would by all means say what he thought in public. And he went on to act as he had said. 2. Plut. Caes. 28.7 ἐπε̄`ι δ̆`ε κ̄α᾿ κε̄ ι ν̑ οϲ̄ | λόγωι παραιτεῖϲθαι καλλωπιζόμενοϲ, ἔργωι παντὸϲ μ̄αλ̑ λο̆ν ε̆᾿ π̆ε´ ραῑνεν̄ | ἐξ ὧν ἀναδειχθήϲοῑτο̆ δῑκτ̄α´ τ ̄ωρ, | ϲυμφρονήϲαντεϲ ο̄ ῾ι π̆ερ̆`ι Κ̆α´ τ ̄ωνᾱ | πείθουϲι τ̄η` ν γ̆εροῡϲ̆ι´ᾱν | ὕπατον αὐτ̆ο` ν

A Surprise from Cato

167

̑ ᾰ᾿ πο̆δε̄ ι ξαῑ μ̆ο´νον̄ , | ὡϲ μὴ βιάϲαιτο δικτάτ ̄ωρ γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ, | νομιμωτέρᾱι ´ μο̆νᾱρχ̆ι ᾱι | παρη̄γο̆ρη̄θε̄ ι´ϲ. | Pompey himself in word affected modestly to decline, but in reality was trying harder than anything to bring about what would get him declared dictator. Cato perceived this, and persuaded the Senate to proclaim him sole consul, so that he did not force his way to becoming dictator, since he would have the consolation of a more lawful form of sole rule. 3. Dio Cass. 40.50.4 . . . φοβηθέντεϲ ἑκάτερον οἵ τε ἄλλοι βουλευταὶ καὶ Βίβουλοϲ, ὅϲπερ που τὴν γνώμην πρῶτοϲ ἐρωτηθεὶϲ ποιήϲεϲθαι ἔμελλε, προκατέλαβον τὴν τοῦ πλήθουϲ ὁρμήν, τῶι Πομπήιωι τὴν ὑπατείαν, ὥϲτε μὴ δικτάτορα αὐτὸν λεχθῆναι, καὶ μόνωι γε, ἵνα μὴ ὁ Καῖϲαρ αὐτῶι ϲυνάρξηι, δόντεϲ. . . . Bibulus and the other senators feared both possibilities; Bibulus was presumably to be asked his view first and so to make a proposal. They anticipated the impulse of the masses, and gave Pompey the consulship, with the result that he was not chosen as dictator, and gave it to him alone, with the aim of avoiding Caesar as his colleague. 4. App. BC 2.84 5 84 . . . . | Κάτωνοϲ δ’ αὐτοὺϲ μ̆ετᾰδῐδ̄α´ ξᾱντοϲ̄ | υ῞̆ πᾰτο̆ν ε̄ ῞ι λον̄ το ̄ | χωρ̄`ιϲ ϲῠν̄α´ ρχοῡ | ὡϲ ἂν ἔχοι τὴν μὲν ἐξουϲίαν δικτ̄α´ το̆ρο̆ϲ, ῎̄αρχ ̄ων μ̆ο´ νοϲ̄ , | τὴν δ’ εὔθῡνᾰν ῠ῾ π̆α´ τοῡ. | 85. καὶ πρ ̄ω̑το̆ϲ υ῾̆ π̆α´ τ ̄ων | ὅδε ἔθνη τε δ̆υ´ ο̆ μ̆ε´ γῑϲτᾱ | καὶ ϲτρατιὰν ἔχων καὶ χρήματα καὶ τὴν τῆϲ πόλε ̄ωϲ μο̆νᾱρχ̆ι´ᾱν | διὰ τὸ μόνοϲ υ῞̆ πᾰτο̆ϲ ε̄῏ι ναῑ, | Κάτωνα μὲν ἐψηφίϲατο, ἵνα μὴ παρὼν ἐνοχλοίη, Κύπρο̆ν ᾰ᾿ φ̆ελ̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ | Πτολεμαίοῡ βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ | . . . But Cato made them change their minds, and they chose Pompey as consul without a colleague, so that in ruling alone he might have the power of a dictator, but the accountability of a consul. He was the first consul to have two vast provinces, an army, finance, and the sole rule of the city, by virtue of being sole consul; he had it voted that Cato, so that he should not give trouble by his presence, should take Cyprus away from King Ptolemy . . .

12 Mist or Smoke? (Flamininus 4.8–12) 8. ὁ δὲ Τίτοϲ τούτοῡϲ ᾰ᾿ π̄οϲτε̄ ι´λᾱϲ, | τὰϲ μὲν ἄλλαϲ ἡμέραϲ διανέπαῡ̆ε τ̄ο` ν ϲτρᾰτ̄ο´ ν, | ὅϲα μ̄η` π̆ερῑϲπ̄αν̑ | το̄ ι ϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ κρο̆βο̆λῑϲμο̄ ι ϲ̑ | το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´οῡϲ· | 9. καθ’ ἣν δ’ ἔμελλον ὑπερφαν̄η´ ϲ̄εϲθαῑ τ ̄ω̑ν α῎̆ κρ ̄ων | ο̄ ῾ι π̆ερῐῐ̄ο´ ντ̄εϲ, | ἅμ’ ἡμέραι πᾶν μὲν βαρύ, πᾶν δὲ γυμνητικὸν ο῞̆ πλο̆ν ε̆᾿ κ̄ ι´νεῑ, | 10. καὶ τριχῆι ̑ ον | νείμαϲ τὴν δύναμιν, αὐτὸϲ μὲν εἰϲ ϲτ̆εν ̄ω´ τᾰτ̄ον | πᾰρ̆`α τ̆ο` ῥε̄ ιθρ̄ ` ´ ´ ̑ ̑ ὀρθίαϲ ἀν̄ηγε̆ τ̄αϲ ϲπε̄ ι ρᾱϲ, | βαλλόμενοϲ ὑπὸ τ ̄ων Μᾰκ̆εδ̆ον ̄ων | καὶ ϲυμπλεκόμενοϲ το̄ ι ϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ πᾱντ ̄ω̑ϲῑ | π̆ερ̆`ι τ̄α` ϲ δῡϲχ ̄ωρ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | τῶν δ’ ἄλλων ε̆῾ κᾰτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ωθ̆εν α῞̆ μᾱ | πειρωμέν ̄ων α῾̆ μῑλλ̄αϲ̑ θαῑ, | καὶ ταῖϲ τρᾱχ̆υ´τη̄ϲῑν | ἐμφυομέν ̄ων προ̆θ̄υ´μ ̄ωϲ, | 11. ὅ θ’ η῞̄ λῐο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ ν̄ ε´ ϲχ̄ε, | καὶ καπνὸϲ ο̄υ᾿ β̆ε´ βαῑ̄οϲ, | ἀλλ’ οἷον ὄρεῑο̆ϲ ο῾̆ μ̆ι´χλη̄ | πόρρ ̄ωθ̆εν ᾰ᾿ νᾰτ̄ ε´ λλ ̄ων | καὶ διαφαινόμενοϲ, τοὺϲ μὲν πολεμίοῡϲ ε̆᾿ λ̄α´ νθᾰν̄ε | (κατὰ νώτοῡ γ̆α` ρ η̄῏ ν ᾱυ᾿ το̄ ι ϲ,̑ | ἤδη τῶν ἄκρ ̄ων ε̆᾿ χο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ων), | ο̄ ῾ι ̑ | δόξαν ̄῎ε ϲχο̆ν ̄α᾿ μφ̆ι´βο̆λ̄ον, | ἐν ἀγ ̄ω̑νῐ κᾱ`ι π̆ο´ ν ̄ωι | τὴν ἐλπίδα δ̆`ε Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι οῑ ` ` πρ̄οϲ τ̆ο βοῡλ̆ο´ μ̆εν̄ον | λᾱμβ̆α´ ν̄οντ̄εϲ. | 12. ἐπεὶ δὲ μᾶλλον ᾱυ᾿ ξᾰν̆ο´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | καὶ διαμελαίν ̄ων τ̆ο` ν ̄α᾿ ε̆ ´ ρᾱ | καὶ πο̆λ̆υ` ϲ α῎̆ ν ̄ω χ ̄ωρ ̄ω̑ν | ἐδηλοῦτο πυρϲὸϲ εἶναι φίλιοϲ, οἱ μ̆`εν ᾰ᾿ λᾰλ̄α´ ξᾱντ̄εϲ | ἐπέβαῑνο̆ν ̄ ε᾿ ρρ ̄ωμ̆ε´ ν ̄ωϲ | κᾱ`ι ϲῠν̄ ε´ ϲτ̄ελλ̄ον | ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ τ̆α` τρᾱχ ̆υ´τᾰτᾱ | το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´οῡϲ, | οἱ δ’ ὄπῑϲθ̆εν ᾰ᾿ π̆ο` τ ̄ω̑ν α῎̆ κρ ̄ων | ἀντη̄λ̆α´ λᾱξᾱν. | 12 φίλιοϲ C1pc: φίλοϲ rell.

After sending that group off, Titus gave the army some rest for the other two days, apart from distracting the enemy’s attention by throwing missiles from a distance. But on the day when the men taking the route round were due to appear above the heights, as soon as day broke he set all his heavy armed and all his light armed troops in motion. He divided his forces into three. He himself led his cohorts up in long line formation by the river into the narrowest place; he was bombarded with missiles by the Macedonians, and engaged in close fighting with those who encountered them in the difficult areas. The others attempted to fight from both sides of the river at once, and stuck enthusiastically to the rough places. The sun rose, and so did some smoke which was not firmly formed; it went up from afar like a mountain mist, and was shone through. The enemy did not see it: it Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

170

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

was at their backs, as the detachment had already taken the heights; the Romans’ opinion was doubtful, but in their painful struggles they made their expectations fit their wishes. When the smoke grew, made the air black, and rose on high in abundance, it was clearly revealed as a signal from their own side. With a war cry they advanced vigorously, and crammed the enemy into the roughest places; those behind the enemy gave an answering war cry from the heights.

The previous chapter looked at two versions of the same political event in the Lives, both rhythmic, but one densely so. This one, with the help of a non-rhythmic account of the same military event, looks at how dense rhythm contributes to the climax of the narration: how it supports involvement in the experience of the developing action and in its physical setting. Some of Livy’s account is given as passage 2 in the Appendix to this chapter. Plutarch cites Livy at Flam. 18.9 and 20.10; it is simplest to think that he knows Livy’s account, and sets his own against it. Plutarch cannot be working just from Livy, as the name of Charops’ father shows (4.5, in passage 1, cf. Polyb. 27.15.3). He mentions Valerius Antias at 18.8, cf. FRHist ii.588, iii.360. But his very way of referring to T. Quinctius Flamininus as ‘Titus’ probably goes back to an early Greek source; Polybius is especially likely (cf. Polyb. 18.1.3, etc.). Plutarch and Livy are probably using the same Greek source or sources; Livy’s main source will be Polybius (cf. Nissen [1863], especially 134–6). Plutarch’s account, then, is also set against the account of Polybius, whom we know to be unrhythmic. A phrase in which Plutarch is close to Livy at 10, τριχῆι νείμαϲ τὴν δύναμιν, could be direct Polybius (see note on 10). The phrase is unrhythmic, as is the brief parenthesis on the moon which Plutarch shares with Livy (4.7 καὶ γὰρ ἦν διχόμηνοϲ, in passage 1, cf. Livy 32.11.9, et pernox forte luna erat, in passage 2). Plutarch is, then, at times likely even to appropriate Polybius’ language; the accounts will have invited comparison in verbal detail. The part of the passage preceding in Plutarch is given as passage 1, to make the situation clear, and to show the change in the narrative as it progresses. The rhythms come closest together in that earlier part as a breakthrough for Flamininus suddenly appears, and locals suggest the plan which will bear fruit in the later part that we are now considering. Flamininus has arrived in Epirus in 198 BC, and is attempting to deal with Philip V; see Hammond (1966) on the battle and the topography.

Mist or Smoke?

171

8. ὁ δὲ Τίτοϲ τούτοῡϲ ᾰ᾿ π̄οϲτε̄ ι´λᾱϲ, | τὰϲ μὲν ἄλλαϲ ἡμέραϲ διανέπαῡ̆ε τ̄ο` ν ϲτρᾰτ̄ο´ ν, | ὅϲα μ̄η` π̆ερῑϲπ̄αν̑ | το̄ ι ϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ κρο̆βο̆λῑϲμο̄ ι ϲ̑ | το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´οῡϲ· |: this is the earlier part of a lengthy sentence, before the fighting proper begins; it mixes rhythms closely and more widely spaced. The thoughtful distraction of the enemy with the light-armed fighters receives a little cluster of rhythms, to dwell on the expertise and the action. The subtleties of π̆ερῑϲπ̄αν̑ | and ᾰ᾿ κρο̆βο̆λῑϲμο̄ ι ϲ̑ | are drawn to attention through rhythm. The activity at Livy 32.11.6 (whenever it should be placed) sounds much more energetic: biduo insequenti lacessere hostem dispositis ab omni parte copiis succedentibusque integris in locum defessorum non destitit. 9. | καθ’ ἣν δ’ ἔμελλον ὑπερφαν̄η´ ϲ̄εϲθαῑ τ ̄ω̑ν α῎̆ κρ ̄ων | ο̄ ῾ι π̆ερῐῐ̄ο´ ντ̄εϲ, | ἅμ’ ἡμέραι πᾶν μὲν βαρύ, πᾶν δὲ γυμνητικὸν ο῞̆ πλο̆ν ε̆᾿ κ̄ ι´νεῑ, |: the rhythm underlines the link between α῎̆ κρ ̄ων | and α῎̆ κρ ̄ων. | from 4.4 (passage 1 in the Appendix), and so the organization of the strategem. The words ὑπερφαν̄η´ ϲ̄εϲθαῑ τ ̄ω̑ν α῎̆ κρ ̄ων | are vividly joined together in one rhythmic phrase; but this offers a false lead to the reader. The force on the heights will not in fact be visible to the soldiers below, who will be unsure if they have arrived; ὑπερφαν̄η´ ϲ̄εϲθαῑ is not relevant to the enemy, who will not know of the force above until they hear the war cry. The situation will come to seem less predictable and more tense. In Livy 32.11.8 (passage 2), the smoke is planned to indicate arrival to Flamininus before he leaves; Flamininus’ organization is more elaborate there. 10. | καὶ τριχῆι νείμαϲ τὴν δύναμιν, αὐτὸϲ μὲν εἰϲ ϲτ̆εν ̄ω´ τᾰτ̄ον | ̑ ον | ὀρθίαϲ ἀν̄ηγ̑ ε̆ τ̄α` ϲ ϲπε̄ ι´ ρᾱϲ, |: the non-rhythmic πᾰρ̆`α τ̆ο` ῥε̄ ι θρ̄ opening phrase follows a source closely, as is indicated by Livy’s trifariam diuisis copiis (12.1, passage 2); Plutarch may transcribe it directly from Polybius (cf. Polyb. 1.18.2 διελόντεϲ . . . εἰϲ δύο μέρη τὴν δύναμιν, 14.4.2 Γαΐωι μὲν Λαιλίωι . . . τοὺϲ ἡμίϲειϲ ἀπονείμαϲ τῶν ϲτρατιωτῶν). What follows resumes 3.6 (the river) ϲτεν̄η` ν πᾰρ̆α` τ̆ο` ̑ ον | ἀπολείπων ἀτραπόν, but now with closer rhythm; the narῥε̄ ι θρ̄ rative is becoming more picturable and involving as the half-sentence proceeds. The rhythm brings out both the final ϲτ̆εν ̄ω´ τᾰτ̄ον | and the initial | ὀρθίαϲ; they indicate the tricky march undertaken by Flamininus himself (αὐτόϲ). Word-order confirms the weight on | ὀρθίαϲ, separated from its noun and put first in the word-group. | βαλλόμενοϲ ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ν Μᾰκ̆εδ̆ο´ ν ̄ων | καὶ ϲυμπλεκόμενοϲ το̄ ι ϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ πᾱντ ̄ω̑ϲῑ | π̆ερ̆`ι τ̄α` ϲ δῡϲχ ̄ωρ̆ι´ᾱϲ, |: the two participles at the start of rhythmic phrases present the double difficulty to which Flamininus

172

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

has valiantly exposed himself, and the problems that the Romans are facing (cf. 3.6 ο̄υ᾿ δ᾿ ῎̄αλλ ̄ωϲ ῥᾱιδ̆ι´ᾱν | ϲτρατε̄υ´μᾰτῐ δῐ̄ελθε̄ ι ν̑ , | εἰ δὲ κᾱ`ι φῠλ̄α´ ττοῑτ̄ο, | πᾱντ̆ελ ̄ω̑ϲ α῎̆ πο̆ρ̄ον. |). το̄ ι ϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ πᾱντ ̄ω̑ϲῑ | may relate to Livy’s obuiam eunt (12.1). But in this position, opposed to τ ̄ω̑ν Μᾰκ̆εδ̆ο´ ν ̄ων |, it suggests a smaller subset contending in the difficult terrain, which is memorably evoked by Plutarch and focalized by Flamininus at 3.5–6. Livy focuses more on the camp (of which Plutarch is aware, cf. 3.4, 5.1) and less on the topography (of which he, Livy, is aware, cf. 32.10.10–11, 12.7). In Livy, no one seems to be throwing things from the camp to start with, and the movement towards it does not seem to be problematic. | τῶν δ’ ἄλλων ε̆῾ κᾰτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ωθ̆εν α῞̆ μᾱ | πειρωμέν ̄ων α῾̆ μῑλλ̄αϲ̑ θαῑ, | καὶ ταῖϲ τρᾱχ ̆υ´τη̄ϲῑν | ἐμφυομέν ̄ων προ̆θ̄υ´μ ̄ωϲ, |: the other two parts of Flamininus’ forces might have been expected to receive a main clause to parallel αὐτὸϲ μέν κτλ. But they are subordinated in a genitive absolute, and another main clause succeeds in this big sentence (11. ὅ θ’ η῞̄ λῐο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ ν̄ ε´ ϲχ̄ε, | κτλ.). The effect is not only to subordinate the other two parts to Flamininus and the main army, but also to conjoin the genitive participles | πειρωμέν ̄ων and | ἐμφυομέν ̄ων to the preceding nominative participles | βαλλόμενοϲ and | (καὶ) ϲυμπλεκόμενοϲ, and so accumulate a sense of the Romans’ struggles and determination. Rhythm reinforces the structure: the participles all effectively begin a rhythmic unit. | πειρωμέν ̄ων α῾̆ μῑλλ̄αϲ̑ θαῑ, | forms a notable selfcontained phrase; | καὶ ταῖϲ τρᾱχ ̆υ´τη̄ϲῑν | is paradoxically joined with | ἐμφυομέν ̄ων προ̆θ̄υ´μ ̄ωϲ, |, the last words in both particularly conflicting. The words ε̆῾ κᾰτ̆ε´ ρ ̄ωθ̆εν α῞̆ μᾱ | go neatly together within a phrase, but also enlarge the scene of struggle. Livy 32.12.1 (passage 2) cornua dextra laeuaque admouet castris sounds much more controlled and in military order. 11. | ὅ θ’ η῞̄ λῐο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ ν̄ ε´ ϲχ̄ε, | καὶ καπνὸϲ ο̄υ᾿ β̆ε´ βαῑ̄οϲ, | ἀλλ’ οἷον ὄρεῑο̆ϲ ο̆῾ μ̆ι´χλη̄ | πόρρ ̄ωθ̆εν ᾰ᾿ νᾰτ̄ ε´ λλ ̄ων | καὶ διαφαινόμενοϲ,: Livy does not mention the time of day; Plutarch’s account is made intensely atmospheric. The rhythmic phrases, instead of saying that the smoke went up at sunrise, make | (ὅ θ’) η῞̄ λῐο̆ϲ, | (καὶ) καπνὸϲ, and ο̆῾ μ̆ι´χλη̄ | into a sequence. Sunrise brings not disastrous revelation for the enemy, as in Aesch. Pers. 386–7 (see below), but uncertainty for the side that will be victorious. (This is practically a good first moment to send up the signal, which in the light before sunrise might have been insufficiently visible, cf. Σ Hom. Il. 18.207b [bT].) The meaning of the smoke is not stated by relating it to those who caused it; it is seen from the

Mist or Smoke?

173

perspective of the Romans below (cf. Schrott [2014], ii.540). There is no pre-arranged plan. The figurative mountain mist conjures up the locale and time as well as a source of confusion for the Romans. The rhythm marks out | πόρρ ̄ωθ̆εν; the word is less obvious than in Livy’s situation, where the signal is sent before Flamininus sets off, but it adds to the uncertainty and atmosphere. Perhaps | τηλόθεν of the smoke signal in Homer is recalled too (Il. 18.208). For atmosphere— almost literally—cf. the picture of the moon’s inhabitants looking at the earth ἐν ὑγροῖϲ καὶ ὀμίχλαιϲ καὶ νέφεϲι διαφαινομένην at Fac. Lun. 940e (διαφαινόμενοϲ works a little differently in this passage: the sun shines through the smoke). Livy’s version eliminates the uncertainty (11.8, 12.1, passage 2): Flamininus instructed the signal to be sent, and it was sent before he left. It would be interesting to know whether Plutarch has invented the version of events which he presents so evocatively (cf. Nissen [1863], 135–6, Pelling and Melandri [1997], 286, Schrott [2014], ii.540). But in the first place it is not easy to be sure which version is more authentic: some scholars prefer the sending of the signal before Flamininus leaves because they prefer a wise commander to messy events; even so, the sending of a signal in advance could be thought to risk detection (note Livy 32.11.6 ut auerteret rem ab suspicione). In any case, part of Plutarch’s reason for preferring his version will be his wish to show Flamininus trusting a distinguished Greek (4.6; Flamininus is more hesitant at Livy 32.11.4–5); but such a wish or approach need not begin with Plutarch, cf. Polyb. 27.15.2–4, Diod. Sic. 30.5. (For Charops see also Günther [2000], 127, Pfeilschifter [2005], 97 n. 14, 268–9; note that Plutarch probably does not invent his plurality of shepherds, cf. Enn. Ann. 340–2 with Skutsch [1985], 513.) In any case, Plutarch’s mentions of Livy in this Life suggest that he knows Livy’s version here and has chosen not to follow it. In that case, the artistry of his narration is bound up with a historiographical decision. τοὺϲ μὲν πολεμίοῡϲ ε̆᾿ λ̄α´ νθᾰν̄ε | (κατὰ νώτοῡ γ̆α` ρ η̄῏ ν ᾱυ᾿ το̄ ι ϲ,̑ | ἤδη τῶν ̑ | δόξαν ̄ ῎ε ϲχο̆ν ̄α᾿ μφ̆ι´βο̆λ̄ον, | ἐν ἀγ ̄ω̑νῐ ἄκρ ̄ων ε̆᾿ χο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ων), | ο̄ ῾ι δ̆`ε Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι οῑ ` ´ ` κᾱ ι π̆ον ̄ωι | τὴν ἐλπίδα πρ̄οϲ τ̆ο` βοῡλ̆ο´ μ̆εν̄ον | λᾱμβ̆α´ ν̄οντ̄εϲ. |: the relation of ε̆᾿ λ̄α´ νθᾰν̄ε | and | κατὰ νώτοῡ is highlighted by juxtaposition across a rhythmic boundary; the rhythm adds to the argumentative effect of syntax and word-order. | κατὰ νώτοῡ will derive from a source, cf. ab tergo in Livy 32.12.4. The crucial point that the heights are now occupied by the Romans, | ἤδη τῶν ἄκρ ̄ων ε̆᾿ χο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ων), |, receives

174

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

some emphasis from the separate rhythmic phrase; this helps it to carry weight, even in a genitive absolute inside a parenthesis. That phrase, hidden away inside the narrator’s knowledge, is pointedly succeeded ̑ | δόξαν ̄ ῎ε ϲχο̆ν ̄α᾿ μφ̆ι´βο̆λ̄ον, |: the Romans lack by | ο̄ ῾ι δ̆`ε Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι οῑ certain knowledge, although they are the people to whom the signal is made. ̄α᾿ μφ̆ι´βο̆λ̄ον, | stressed by word-order as well as with rhythm, connects with ο̄υ᾿ β̆ε´ βαῑ̄οϲ, | earlier in the sentence, also underlined as ending a rhythmic phrase. The participial clause | ἐν ἀγ ̄ω̑νῐ κτλ. enters into the soldiers’ motivation with Thucydidean scrutiny and distanced empathy. The isolated rhythmic phrase and emphatic pair | ἐν ἀγ ̄ω̑νῐ κᾱ`ι π̆ο´ ν ̄ωι | affectingly takes up the troubles from earlier in the sentence (4.10). | τὴν ἐλπίδα and πρ̄ο` ϲ τ̆ο` βοῡλ̆ο´ μ̆εν̄ον | are forcefully joined in a single phrase; for the construction and for the meaning of ἐλπίϲ, cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7.48.1 το̄υ` ϲ ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̆α` κρε̄ ι´ ττ ̄ω | τὴν ἐλπίδα λᾱμβ̆α´ ν̄οντᾱϲ |, Jos. AJ 5.38 περὶ τῶν ὅλων πονηρὰν ἤδη τὴν ἐλπίδα λᾱμβ̆α´ νοῡϲᾱν |, for τ̆ο` βοῡλ̆ο´ μ̆εν̄ον | Plut. Garr. 512c πρὸϲ τὸ βουλόμενον το̄υ ̑ ε᾿̆ ρ ̄ωτ ̄ω̑ντ̄οϲ |h ̄α῾ ρμο̆ϲ̆α´ μ̆εν̄ον. | 12. | ἐπεὶ δὲ μᾶλλον ᾱυ᾿ ξᾰν̆ο´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | καὶ διαμελαίν ̄ων τ̆ο` ν ̄α᾿ ε̆ ´ ρᾱ | καὶ πο̆λ̆υ` ϲ α῎̆ ν ̄ω χ ̄ωρ ̄ω̑ν | ἐδηλοῦτο πυρϲὸϲ εἶναι φίλιοϲ,: the three rhythmic participial and predicative phrases on the smoke now, in polysyndeton, are all rhythmic; after the participial phrases on the smoke earlier (πόρρ ̄ωθ̆εν ᾰ᾿ νᾰτ̄ ε´ λλ ̄ων | καὶ διαφαινόμενοϲ,), one rhythmic, one unrhythmic, they help give substance to this more definite vision. μᾶλλον ᾱυ᾿ ξᾰν̆ο´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | particularly matches up with ο̄υ᾿ β̆ε´ βαῑ̄οϲ, |, and πο̆λ̆υ` ϲ α῎̆ ν ̄ω χ ̄ωρ ̄ω̑ν | with | πόρρ ̄ωθ̆εν ᾰ᾿ νᾰτ̄ ε´ λλ ̄ων |. Despite the rhythm and most of the MSS, φίλιοϲ must be right, even if a conjecture; cf. Polyaen. 2.28.2 πυρϲὸν φίλιον αἴρειν, Polyb. 12.12a.3 φιλίουϲ ἀράντων πύρϲουϲ, etc. οἱ μ̆`εν ᾰ᾿ λᾰλ̄α´ ξᾱντ̄εϲ | ἐπέβαῑνο̆ν ̄ ε᾿ ρρ ̄ωμ̆ε´ ν ̄ωϲ | κᾱ`ι ϲῠν̄ ε´ ϲτ̄ελλ̄ον | ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ ` τρᾱχ ̆υ´τᾰτᾱ | το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´οῡϲ, | οἱ δ’ ὄπῑϲθ̆εν ᾰ᾿ π̆ο` τ ̄ω̑ν α῎̆ κρ ̄ων | τ̆α ἀντη̄λ̆α´ λᾱξᾱν. |: in Livy the cry from those on the heights, which Flamininus has told them not to raise until the battle has begun (11.8), provides a first moment of revelation for the Macedonians (12.4). Its timing does not accord with Flamininus’ instructions, since the battle has long been happening (something could be amiss with Livy’s text). In Plutarch, the sight of those on the heights gives those below the confidence to advance; the confidence is expressed through the war cry. The action of those below and the cry from those above produce a swift result: | φυγὴ μὲν οὖν ἦν ὀξε̄ ι ᾰ̑ π̄α´ ντ ̄ων (5.1). | (οἱ δ᾿)

Mist or Smoke?

175

ὄπῑϲθ̆εν takes up | κατὰ νώτοῡ and the perspective of the Macedonians. α῎̆ κρ ̄ων | takes up α῎̆ κρ ̄ων. |, α῎̆ κρ ̄ων |, ἄκρ ̄ων (4.4, 9, 11), but now shows the whole vividly depicted landscape resounding with noise. The passage has in view Aesch. Pers. 389–91, where the terrified Persians hear the Greek battle cry, and ὄρθιον δ᾿ ἅμα | ἀντηλάλαξε νηϲιώτιδοϲ πέτραϲ | ἠχώ. (Plutarch quotes 341–3 at Them. 14.1.) The rhythm isolates the last word | ἀντη̄λ̆α´ λᾱξᾱν. |, which the start of the line marks off in Aeschylus. (The verb is undermined at Plut. Pyrrh. 32.5.) ᾰ᾿ λᾰλ̄α´ ξᾱντ̄εϲ | forms a ring with | ἀντη̄λ̆α´ λᾱξᾱν. In view of the other connections, | ἐπέβαῑνο̆ν ̄ ε᾿ ρρ ̄ωμ̆ε´ ν ̄ωϲ | links with Aesch. Pers. 394 ἐϲ μάχην ὁρμῶντεϲ εὐψύχωι θράϲει. The other rhythmic phrases also benefit from their separation in this forceful narrative: | ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ τ̆α` τρᾱχ ̆υ´τᾰτᾱ | takes up ταῖϲ τρᾱχ ̆υ´ τη̄ϲῑν | and εἰϲ ϲτ̆εν ̄ω´ τᾰτ̄ον | (10), but it is now the enemy (| το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´οῡϲ, |) who are contracted and confined there, with a physically imaginable verb (ϲῠν̄ ε´ ϲτ̄ελλ̄ον |). Livy’s last sentence (4) avoids straightforward recreation of the unfolding events, which we had had more of in the preceding sentence (2–3; but for uerterat cf. KS ii.1.139). A more contemplative counterfactual construction sets at a distance the sudden alarm of the Macedonians; and the Romans’ control has only been temporarily disturbed. Plutarch has given less sense of control to begin with, and concludes his evocation of difficult and desperate struggle with the experience of resolution (for the Romans) and collapse (for the enemy).

Appendix: Plut. Flam. 4.3–7, Livy 32.11.8–9, 12.1–4 1. Plut. Flam. 4.3 7 3. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ ὄρη το̄υ ̑ Φῐλ̄ ι´πποῡ | τῆι φάλᾱγγῐ κᾰτ̆ε´ χ̄οντ̄οϲ, | ἐκ τῶν πλαγίων πανταχόθεν ἐπὶ τοὺϲ Ῥωμαίουϲ ἀκοντίων καὶ τοξευμάτ ̄ων φ̆ερο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ων, | πληγαὶ μὲν ἐγίνοντο καὶ ἀγ ̄ω̑νε̆ ϲ ̄ο᾿ ξε̄ ι ϲ,̑ | καὶ νεκροὶ παρ’ ἀμφοτέρ ̄ων ῎ε̆ πῑπτ̄ον, | οὐδὲν δὲ τοῦ πολέμοῡ π̆ε´ ρᾰϲ ε̆᾿ φᾱ ι´ ν̆ετ̄ο, | 4. προϲ̄ηλ̑ θο̆ν ῎̄ανθρ ̄ωποῑ | τῶν ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο´ θῐ ν̆εμ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | φράζοντ̄ ε´ ϲ τῐνᾰ κ̆υ´κλ ̄ωϲῑν | ἀμελουμένην ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ ̄ων, | ἧι τὸν ϲτρατὸν ἄξεῑν ῠ῾ πῑϲχνο̄υ ν̑ τ̄ο | κᾱ`ι κᾰτᾱϲτ̄η´ ϲεῑν | μάλιϲτα τριτᾱ ι ο̆̑ ν ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ ̄ω̑ν α῎̆ κρ ̄ων. | 5. γνώϲτην δὲ τῆϲ πίϲτε ̄ωϲ πᾰρε̄ ι´χ̄οντ̄ο | κᾱ`ι β̆εβαῑ ̄ωτ̄η` ν | Χ̆α´ ρο̆πᾰ τ̄ο` ν Μᾰχ̆α´ τᾱ, | πρωτεύοντα μὲν Ἠπειρωτῶν, εὔνουν δὲ Ῥωμαίοιϲ ὄντα καὶ κρύφα φόβωι τοῦ Φιλίππου ϲυναγωνιζόμενον. 6. ὧι πιϲτεύϲαϲ ὁ Τίτοϲ ἐκπέμπει χῑλ̆ι´ᾱρχο̆ν ῞ε̆ νᾱ | πεζοὺϲ ἔχοντᾰ τ̆ετρᾰκῑϲχῑλ̆ι´οῡϲ | καὶ ἱππε̄ ι ϲ̑ τρῐᾱκο̆ϲ̆ι´οῡϲ· | 7. ἡγοῦντο δ’ οἱ νομεῖϲ ἐκεῖνοῑ δ̆εδ̆εμ̆ε´ νοῑ. | καὶ τὰϲ μὲν ἡμέραϲ

176

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

ἀνεπαύοντο, κοίλουϲ προβαλλόμενοι και` υ῾ λω´ δεῑϲ τ̆ο´ ποῡϲ, |h ὥδεῡον δ̆`ε ν̄υ´κτ ̄ωρ | πρὸϲ τ̄η` ν ϲ̆ελ̄η´ νη̄ν· | καὶ γὰρ ἦν διχόμηνοϲ. Philip had occupied the mountains with his phalanx; from its sides, in all directions, javelins and arrows were raining on the Romans. There were blows and fierce struggles; men were falling dead from both sides; no end to the war was in sight. Men from among those who pastured their flocks in that area came to Titus and told of a way round which the enemy had neglected; they promised that they could lead the army by that way and could set them on the heights about the third day from then. As security and guarantor of their good faith they furnished Charops son of Machatas, the leading man among the people of Epirus, who favoured the Romans; he was helping them secretly for fear of Philip. Titus trusted him, and sent one military tribune out with 4,000 infantry and 300 cavalry. The herdsmen did their guiding tied up. The troops rested during the days, with hollow and wooded places to cover them from sight; they travelled at night, by moonlight (the moon was full). 2. Livy 32.11.8 9, 12.1 4 . . . 8. ubi, ut polliceatur, super caput hostium peruentum sit, fumo dare signum, nec antea clamorem tollere quam ab se signo recepto pugnam coeptam arbitrari posset. 9. nocte itinera fieri iubet et pernox forte luna erat . . . 12.1 interim die tertio, cum uerti cem quem petierant Romani cepisse ac tenere se fumo significarent, tum uero trifariam diuisis copiis consul ualle media cum militum robore succedit, cornua dextra laeuaque admouet castris; nec segnius hostes obuiam eunt. 2. et dum auiditate certaminis prouecti extra munitiones pugnant, haud paulo superior est Romanus miles, et uirtute et scientia et genere armorum; 3. postquam multis uolneratis interfec tisque recepere se regii in loca aut munimento aut natura tuta, uerterat periculum in Romanos, temere in loca iniqua nec faciles ad receptum angustias progressos. 4. neque impunita temeritate inde recepissent sese, ni clamor primum ab tergo auditus, dein pugna etiam coepta amentes repentino terrore regios fecisset. (The consul said that) when, according to the shepherd’s promise, they had arrived at the spot above the enemy’s heads, the military tribune was to give a smoke signal, and not to raise a shout until he had got back a signal from himself, the consul, and so could judge that the battle had been begun. He told them to do the journeying by night (as it happened, the moon was shining all through the nights) . . . . During this time, on the third day, the Romans signalled by smoke that they had reached the heights they were aiming for and were occupying them. At this point the consul divided his forces into three. He moved upwards along the middle of the valley with the main body of soldiers; the wings he moved

Mist or Smoke?

177

towards the enemy’s camp, on right and left. The enemy came to meet them no less eagerly. While the enemy were fighting outside their defence works, drawn forth by their keenness for conflict, the Roman soldiers were superior to no small degree, through their courage, their knowledge of warfare, and the nature of their weapons. But when many of the king’s soldiers had been wounded and killed, and they withdrew into places made secure by defences or by nature, then the danger turned against the Romans, who had proceeded rashly into rough ground and narrow places that made retreat difficult. They would have retreated, paying the penalty for their rashness, had not the king’s soldiers been sent wild with sudden terror, first when they heard a shout at their backs, and then when those forces had actually begun to fight with them.

13 The Terrible Retreat (Nicias 26.3–6) 3. | οἱ δὲ καὶ τὴν ἡμέρᾱν ε᾿̆ κε̄ ι´νη̄ν | καὶ τὴν ν̄υ´κτᾰ τ̄η` ν ε̆῾ τ̆ε´ ρᾱν | ἐπιμείναντεϲ, ἐπορεύοντο κλαυθμῶι καὶ ὀλοφυρμῶι, κᾰθ̆α´ π̆ερ ̄ ε᾿ κ πᾰτρ̆ι´ δ̄οϲ, | ο̄υ᾿ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | ᾰ᾿ νῑϲτ̆α´ μ̆ενοῑ, | διὰ τὰϲ ἀπορίαϲ τ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ νᾱγκᾱ ι´ ̄ων | καὶ τὰϲ ἀπολείψειϲ τ̆ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ δῠν̆α´ τ ̄ων φ̆ι´λ ̄ων | κᾱ`ι ϲῠν̄η´ θ ̄ων, | ὅμωϲ τὰ παρόντα κακὰ κουφότερα τῶν πρ̄οϲδο̆κ ̄ωμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | νομίζ̄οντ̆εϲ ε̄῏ι ναῑ. | 4. πολλ ̄ω̑ν δ̆`ε δεῑν ̄ω̑ν | ἐν τῶι ϲτρατοπέδωι φαινομένων, οὐδὲν ἦν οἰκτρότερον αὐτοῦ Νικίοῡ θ̆ε´ ᾱμᾱ, | κεκακωμένου μὲν ὑπὸ τῆϲ ̄α᾿ ϲθ̆ενε̄ ι´ᾱϲ, | ϲυνεϲταλμένου δὲ παρ’ ἀξίαν εἰϲ ἀναγκαίᾱν δ̆ι´αῑτᾱν | κᾱ`ι τ̆α` μῑκρ̆ο´ τᾰτᾱ | τ ̄ω̑ν ε᾿̆ φο̆δ̆ι´ ̄ων | εἰϲ τὸ ϲ ̄ω̑μᾰ π̄ολλ ̄ω̑ν | διὰ τὴν νόϲ̄ον δ̆εο̆ ´ μ̆εν̄ον, | πράττοντ̄οϲ δ̆`ε μ̆ετ’ ̄α᾿ ρρ̄ωϲτ̆ι´ᾱϲ | καὶ κᾱρτ̆ερο̄υ ν̑ τ̄οϲ | ἃ πολλο̄`ι τ ̄ω̑ν ̄ ε᾿ ρρ ̄ωμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | μ̆ο´ λῐϲ ῠ῾ π̆ε´ μ̆εν̄ον, | καταφανοῦϲ δὲ π̄αϲ̑ ῐν ̄ο῎ ντ̄οϲ | οὐ δι’ ἑαυτὸν οὐδὲ τ ̄ω̑ι φῐλ̄οψῡχε̄ ι ν̑ | τοῖϲ πόνοιϲ ̄ ε᾿ μμ̆ε´ ν̄οντ̄οϲ, | ̄α᾿ λλ̆α` δῐ’ ε᾿̆ κε̄ ι´νοῡϲ | τὴν ἐλπίδα μ̄η` προ̆ῑ ε̆ μ̆ε´ νοῡ. | 5. κᾱ`ι γ̆α` ρ ε̄ ᾿ιϲ δ̆α´ κρῠᾱ | και` ο̆᾿ δῡρμου` ϲ |h τῶν ἄλλων ὑπὸ φόβου καὶ λύπη̄ϲ τρ̆επο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ων, | ἐκεῖνοϲ εἴ πο̆τ̆ε βῐᾱϲθε̄ ι´η̄ | το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ ποῑ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ, | δῆλοϲ η῏ ν τ̆ο` αι᾿ ϲχρο` ν |h και` τ̆ο` α᾿̆ κλ̆ε`εϲ |h τ̄ηϲ̑ ϲτρᾰτε̄ ι´ᾱϲ | ᾰ᾿ νᾰλο̆γῑζ̆ο´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | πρὸϲ τὸ μέγεθοϲ καὶ τὴν δόξαν ὧν ἤλπιζε κατορθώϲειν. 6. ο̄υ᾿ μ̆ο´ ν̄ον δ’ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ̑ | τὴν ὄψιν ὁρῶντεϲ, ̄α᾿ λλ̆α` κᾱ`ι τ ̄ω̑ν λ̆ο´ γ ̄ων | μνη̄μο̆νε̄υ´ ̄ο ντ̄εϲ | καὶ τ ̄ω̑ν πᾰρ αῑν̆ε´ ϲ̆ε ̄ων | ῝̄αϲ ε᾿̆ ποῑ̄η´ ϲᾰτ̄ο | κωλύ ̄ων τ̆ο` ν ̄ ῎ε κπλοῡν, | ἔτι μ̄αλ̑ λο̆ν ε᾿̆ ν̆ο´ μῑζ̄ον | ἀναξί ̄ωϲ τᾰλαῑπ ̄ωρε̄ ιν,̑ | καὶ πρὸϲ τὰϲ ̄ ε᾿ κ θ̆ε ̄ω̑ν ̄ ε᾿ λπ̆ι´δᾱϲ | ἀθύμωϲ εἶχον, ̄ ε᾿ ννο̆ο̄υ ν̑ τ̄εϲ | ὡϲ ἀν̄η` ρ θ̆εο̆φῐλ̄η` ϲ | καὶ π̄ολλ̆α` κᾱ`ι μ̆εγ̆α´ λᾱ | λαμπρυνάμενοϲ πρ̄ο` ϲ τ̆ο` θε̄ ι ̄ο̑ ν | οὐδενὸϲ ἐπιεικεϲτέρᾱι τ̆υ´χη̄ι χρ̄η τ̑ ᾱι | τ ̄ω̑ν κᾰκ̄ ι´ϲτ̄ων | ἐν τ ̄ω̑ι ϲτρᾰτε̄υ´μᾰτῑ | κᾱ`ι τᾰπεῑνο̆τ̆α´ τ̄ων. | 4 ἑαυτὸν N: αὑτὸν SΥ

The Athenians waited all that day and the next night, then set off with weeping and lamentation, as if they were leaving their own country, not an enemy land; their distress was at the lack of essentials and their abandonment of sick dear ones and comrades. None the less, they thought their present woes lighter than what they were expecting. There were many grim things to see in the army; but none was more pitiable than the spectacle of Nicias himself, ravaged by disease, and unworthily constrained to the most basic way of living and the slightest Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

180

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

of provisions, for a body which needed much because of its illness. He was active for all his sickness, and was enduring things which many of those who were well could scarcely support. It was clear to everyone that he was not sticking to his labours because of himself or a desire to live; rather, it was because of the troops that he was not giving up hope. The rest were turning to crying and lamenting because of fear and anguish; but if ever he was forced to do likewise, it was clearly because he was considering the shameful state and ingloriousness of the expedition as against the greatness and glory of the successes he had hoped for. Thanks not just to viewing the sight of him but to remembering his speeches and the advice he had given against the voyage, they thought all the more that he did not deserve to endure this suffering. They felt gloom about any hopes from the gods, when they reflected that a man who had made many great and conspicuous benefactions to the deities was enjoying no more decent luck than the basest and lowest men in the army.

While the account in the previous chapter was matched by a Latin account, and Plutarch’s main Greek original was lost, here we can see Plutarch engaging with a classic of Attic prose, in one of its supreme parts. But the passage recomposes the original much more drastically than the previous passage did. Plutarch at the start of the Life (1.1–5) declines any attempt to match Thucydides; this will not prevent the reader from admiring the allegedly declined attempt, and there is much brief rhythmic density as the narrative develops (so the first part of 25.5, shortly before). But Plutarch’s rising two-part structure enables the Crassus to provide the true answer to Thucydides’ depiction of disaster. The present passage turns Thucydides’ creation of narrative with a plural and anonymous subject (the Athenian army) into a narrative based on Nicias—not that Nicias is an insignificant strand in Thucydides. The change accords with Plutarch’s avowed accent on the observation of character (1.5 πρ̄ο` ϲ κᾰτᾰν̆ο´ η̄ϲῑν | ἤθουϲ καὶ τρόποῡ); but emotional impact is caught up in the ethics. The sort of rhythm used by Plutarch is not a Thucydidean means of intensification; the density of the passage both brings it closer to Thucydides, in the effect it seeks, and differentiates it, in the stylistic means it employs. 3. | οἱ δὲ καὶ τὴν ἡμέρᾱν ε᾿̆ κε̄ ι´νη̄ν | καὶ τὴν ν̄υ´κτᾰ τ̄η` ν ε̆῾ τ̆ε´ ρᾱν | ἐπιμείναντεϲ,: the first sentence is less tightly rhythmic; it is included here so that the shape of the narrative can be seen, and the heightening as the account moves to Nicias. Plutarch makes the indication

The Terrible Retreat

181

of time into two rhythmic phrases; contrast Thuc. 7.74.1 (passage 1 in the Appendix to this chapter) καὶ τὴν ἐπιοῦϲαν ἡμέραν περιμεῖναι. ἐπορεύοντο κλαυθμῶι καὶ ὀλοφυρμῶι,: the second noun, in the context, evokes Thuc. 7.75.4 (passage 2); κλαυθμόϲ is not a Thucydidean word, but κλαυθμῶι connects with δάκρυϲι in that passage. This pair prepares for, and as to rhythm contrasts with, δ̆α´ κρῠᾱ | κᾱ`ι ο᾿̆ δῡρμο̄υ` ϲ |h in 5; by then the writing of the passage has become rhythmically more intense. κᾰθ̆α´ π̆ερ ̄ ε᾿ κ πᾰτρ̆ι´ δ̄οϲ, | ο̄υ᾿ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | ᾰ᾿ νῑϲτ̆α´ μ̆ενοῑ, |: this gives a fuller, and intensely rhythmic, form to ̆ Thuc. 7.75.4 (passage 2) καίπερ ἐκ πολεμίαϲ. The sequence employs an extravagant twist which it derives from Nicias’ speech, but turns into direct narratorial assertion: see Thuc. 7.77.5 μὴ ἄλλο τι ἡγηϲάμενοϲ ἕκαϲτοϲ ἢ ἐν ὧι ἂν ἀναγκαϲθῆι χωρίωι μάχεϲθαι, τοῦτο καὶ πατρίδα καὶ τεῖχοϲ κρατήϲαϲ ἕξειν,. | διὰ τὰϲ ἀπορίαϲ τ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ νᾱγκᾱ ι´ ̄ων | καὶ τὰϲ ἀπολείψειϲ τ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ δῠν̆α´ τ ̄ων ´ φ̆ι λ ̄ων | κᾱ`ι ϲῠν̄η´ θ ̄ων, |: this is more elegantly structured than Thuc. 7.75.2 and 4; the elegance is enhanced by the rhythm. | (καὶ τὰϲ) ἀπολείψειϲ looks to Thuc. 7.75.2 ἐν τῆι ἀπολείψει τοῦ ϲτρατοπέδου; φ̆ι´λ ̄ων | κᾱ`ι ϲῠν̄η´ θ ̄ων, | looks to Thuc. 7.75.4 (passage 2) ἢ ἑταίρων ἢ οἰκείων, and the ξυϲκήνων that follows. Plutarch cuts the extreme pathos of Thucydides’ account of the abandoned and their appeals (only some of it is given in the citation at passage 2). ᾰ᾿ νᾱγκᾱ ι´ ̄ων | links to ἀναγκαίᾱν in the next sentence (4), although the application is different. | ὅμωϲ τὰ παρόντα κακὰ κουφότερα τῶν πρ̄οϲδο̆κ̄ωμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | νομίζ̄οντ̆εϲ ε̄῏ι ναῑ. |: Plutarch gives a briskly rhythmic form to Thuc. 7.75.4 (passage 2) μείζω ἢ κατὰ δάκρυα τὰ μὲν πεπονθόταϲ ἤδη, τὰ δὲ περὶ τῶν ἐν ἀφανεῖ δεδιόταϲ μὴ πάθωϲιν. and 7 (passage 3) ὅμωϲ δὲ ὑπὸ μεγέθουϲ τοῦ ἐπικρεμαμένου ἔτι κινδύνου πάντα ταῦτα αὐτοῖϲ οἰϲτὰ ἐφαίνετο. The power of μείζω ἢ κατὰ δάκρυα, τῶν ἐν ἀφανεῖ, τοῦ ἐπικρεμαμένου ἔτι κινδύνου, and πάντα ταῦτα αὐτοῖϲ οἰϲτὰ ἐφαίνετο is deliberately reduced so that Nicias can form a climax. 4. | πολλ ̄ω̑ν δ̆`ε δεῑν̄ω̑ν | ἐν τῶι ϲτρατοπέδωι φαινομένων, οὐδὲν ἦν οἰκτρότερον αὐτοῦ Νικίοῡ θ̆ε´ ᾱμᾱ, |: the rhythm is loose, but starts to tighten as we reach the spectacle and, in what follows, its specifics. The rhythmic end to the phrase οὐδὲν ἦν οἰκτρότερον αὐτοῦ Νικίοῡ θ̆ε´ ᾱμᾱ, | reapplies the stem which is given to Nicias’ fellow-general Demosthenes in 21.1 θεατρικῶϲ, but which there bears reference to Demosthenes’ whole naval force; cf. also θέα at Thuc. 6.31.1 of the

182

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Athenian fleet and 7.71.3 of the battle in the Harbour. | πολλ ̄ων̑ δ̆`ε δεῑν̄ω̑ν | builds towards an arresting structure (compare, with a different sense of δεινόϲ, the shape of Soph. Ant. 332–3 πολλὰ τὰ δεινὰ κοὐδὲν ἀν|θρώπου δεινότερον πέλει). The importance of Plutarch’s individual figure is presented from a historical perspective, as a sight unmatched in the army. | κεκακωμένου μὲν ὑπὸ τῆϲ ̄α᾿ ϲθ̆ενε̄ ι´ᾱϲ, |: two main words are combined in a forceful rhythmic phrase, which heightens the parenthesis of Nicias in Thuc. 7.77.2 (passage 4) (ἀλλ’ ὁρᾶτε δὴ ὡϲ διάκειμαι ὑπὸ τῆϲ νόϲου). Those words seem to exclude the reader; Plutarch turns them into a sight focalized by those present but also accessible to readers. | ϲυνεϲταλμένου δὲ παρ’ ἀξίαν εἰϲ ἀναγκαίᾱν δ̆ι´αῑτᾱν | κᾱ`ι τ̆α` μῑκρ̆ο´ τᾰτᾱ | τ ̄ω̑ν ε᾿̆ φο̆δ̆ι´ ̄ων | εἰϲ τὸ ϲ ̄ω̑μᾰ π̄ολλ ̄ω̑ν | διὰ τὴν νόϲ̄ον δ̆εο̆ ´ μ̆εν̄ον, |: the two passive participles | κεκακωμένου and | ϲυνεϲταλ μένου balance each other at the start of entities after rhythmic pause; the second, which sounds physical, in fact proceeds beyond the straightforwardly observable. παρ’ ἀξίαν is taken up by | ἀναξί ̄ωϲ (6); there the rhythms are more thickly placed. The phrase recalls παρὰ τὴν ἀξίαν at Thuc. 7.77.1, where Nicias uses it as an argument for hope. μῑκρ̆ο´ τᾰτᾱ | matches π̄ολλ̄ω̑ν |; the rhythm brings out the opposition. ὑπὸ τῆϲ ̄α᾿ ϲθ̆ενε̄ ι´ᾱϲ, | and | διὰ τὴν νόϲ̄ον match less closely in rhythmic positioning. The clause here takes up Thuc. 7.74.1 (passage 1) αὐτὰ ὅϲα περὶ τὸ ϲῶμα ἐϲ δίαιταν ὑπῆρχεν ἐπιτήδεια, but transfers it from the soldiers to one general. | πράττοντ̄οϲ δ̆`ε μ̆ετ’ ̄α᾿ ρρ ̄ωϲτ̆ι´ᾱϲ | καὶ κᾱρτ̆ερο̄υ ν̑ τ̄οϲ | ἃ πολλο̄`ι τ̄ω̑ν ᾿̄ ε ρρ ̄ωμ̆ε´ ν̄ων | μ̆ο´ λῐϲ υ῾̆ π̆ε´ μ̆εν̄ον, |: the previous sentence makes Nicias stand out from the rest of the army, since the ill seem to have been left behind. The rhythm sets ̄α᾿ ρρ ̄ωϲτ̆ι´ᾱϲ | against ̄ ε᾿ ρρ ̄ωμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων |, and κᾱρτ̆ερο̄υ ν̑ τ̄οϲ | against μ̆ο´ λῐϲ ῠ῾ π̆ε´ μ̆εν̄ον, |, and helps articulate the neat structure. The δειλία in the earlier characterization of Nicias (2.5, cf. 7.3 and 8.2) has now been reversed. The depiction in the long series of genitives has moved away from pity (cf. οἰκτρότερον). | καταφανοῦϲ δὲ π̄αϲ̑ ῐν ῎̄οντ̄οϲ | οὐ δι’ ἑαυτὸν οὐδὲ τ ̄ω̑ι φῐλ̄οψῡχε̄ ι ν̑ | τοῖϲ πόνοιϲ ̄ ε᾿ μμ̆ε´ ν̄οντ̄οϲ, | ̄α᾿ λλ̆α` δῐ’ ε᾿̆ κε̄ ι´νοῡϲ | τὴν ἐλπίδα μ̄η` προ̆ῑ ε̆ μ̆ε´ νοῡ. |: | οὐ δι’ ἑαυτὸν could be | ο̄υ᾿ δῐ᾿ ᾱυ῾ τ̄ο` ν | (SΥ; cf. 27.6 αὑτοὺϲ N: ἑαυτοὺϲ SΥ), and so add rhythm to the balance with | ̄α᾿ λλ̆α` δῐ’ ε᾿̆ κε̄ ι´νοῡϲ |. The rhythm helps the reader linger on telling words. δῐ’ ε᾿̆ κε̄ ι´νοῡϲ | shows more concern for others—Nicias’ men—than a simple heroic courage. φῐλ̄οψῡχε̄ ι ν̑ |, although the stem goes back to Tyrt. fr. 10.18 West, is not found in Thucydides, and has links with famous passages of Plato

The Terrible Retreat

183

(Apol. 37c5–6, Gorg. 512e1–2); the Lives use it especially in opposition to suicide. Here, however, | τοῖϲ πόνοιϲ ̄ ε᾿ μμ̆ε´ ν̄οντ̄οϲ, | recalls sticking to one’s post in refusing suicide (cf. Plat. Phaedo 62b1–6), and is a position sustained by ἐλπίϲ (cf. | (τὴν) ἐλπίδα). That idea is taken up from Thuc. 7.77.1, 3, 4; the maintenance of hope is presented as unfeigned. Nicias’ courage has a military core. The earlier designation of him as | τῆι φύϲει . . . ῍̄ων ᾰ᾿ θᾱρϲ̄η` ϲ | κᾱ`ι δ ̆υ´ϲ̄ελπῑϲ | (2.5) has now been undone. | καταφανοῦϲ δὲ π̄αϲ̑ ῐν ῎̄οντ̄οϲ | keeps up the emphasis on sight: the assertion of Nicias’ moral qualities is made both visual and objective. 5. | κᾱ`ι γ̆α` ρ ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ δ̆α´ κρῠᾱ | κᾱ`ι ο̆᾿ δῡρμο̄υ` ϲ |h τῶν ἄλλων ὑπὸ φόβου καὶ λύπη̄ϲ τρ̆επο̆μ̆ε´ ν̄ων, | ἐκεῖνοϲ εἴ πο̆τ̆ε βῐᾱϲθε̄ ι´η̄ | το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ ποῑ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ, | δῆλοϲ ῏̄ην τ̆ο` ᾱι᾿ ϲχρο`̄ ν |h κᾱ`ι τ̆ο` α᾿̆ κλ̆ε`ε̄ ϲ |h τ̄ηϲ̑ ϲτρᾰτε̄ ι´ᾱϲ | ᾰ᾿ νᾰλο̆γῑζ̆ο´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | πρὸϲ τὸ μέγεθοϲ καὶ τὴν δόξαν ὧν ἤλπιζε κατορθώϲειν.: the sentence starts with a more rhythmic reprise of the army’s κλαυθμῶι καὶ ὀλοφυρμῶι, (3), but it develops unexpectedly. |h τῶν ἄλλων and | ἐκεῖνοϲ are both given further emphasis by the rhythm; but instead of a valorous contrast between the tears of the soldiers and the imperviousness of the general, the visible behaviour is sometimes the same, while the reason is different. This difference too is clear to sight (| δῆλοϲ ῏̄ην). Even the tears of Nicias are concerned with the expedition and founded on reasoning (note the verb | ᾰ᾿ νᾰλο̆γῑζ̆ο´ μ̆εν̄οϲ |, isolated by rhythm); but the loss of his earlier hopes does not make him give up all hope now (cf. 4–5 | τὴν ἐλπίδα μ̄η` προ̆ῑ ε̆ μ̆ε´ νοῡ. | κᾱ`ι γ̆α` ρ . . . ). It is a subtle picture. εἴ πο̆τ̆ε βῐᾱϲθε̄ ι´η̄ | delicately indicates that the expression of feeling is in this situation beyond control. 6. | ο̄υ᾿ μ̆ο´ ν̄ον δ’ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ̑ | τὴν ὄψιν ὁρῶντεϲ, ̄α᾿ λλ̆`α κᾱ`ι τ ̄ω̑ν λ̆ο´ γ ̄ων | μνη̄μο̆νε̄υ´ ̄ο ντ̄εϲ | καὶ τ ̄ω̑ν πᾰραῑν̆ε´ ϲ̆ε ̄ων | ῝̄αϲ ε᾿̆ ποῑ̄η´ ϲᾰτ̄ο | κωλύ ̄ων τ̆ο` ν ̄ ῎ε κπλοῡν, |: the rhythm slackened at the end of the previous sentence; the density resumes with a wider perspective on Nicias’ life. Now it is not just his present courage but his past words and deeds that generate the army’s reflection. (The third person plural subject steals in without full preparation.) The first aspect is his opposition to the expedition, which returns to 12.3–6 (12.3–5 show considerable rhythmic density). The soldiers’ memory takes the reader’s memory back too; the judgement of the Athenians at the time seems full of irony (the judgement that despite Nicias’ objections, the expedition would be safe because of him). ̑ |: | ἀναξί ̄ωϲ, empha| ἔτι μ̄αλ̑ λο̆ν ε᾿̆ ν̆ο´ μῑζ̄ον | ἀναξί ̄ωϲ τᾰλαῑπ ̄ωρε̄ ι ν, sized the more by beginning a new rhythmic phrase, takes up the

184

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Thucydidean narrator’s judgement at Nicias’ death 7.86.5 (passage 5) ἥκιϲτα δὴ ἄξιοϲ ὢν τῶν γε ἐπ’ ἐμοῦ Ἑλλήνων ἐϲ τοῦτο δυϲτυχίαϲ ἀφικέϲθαι; but the judgement is transferred to the internal audience, and a more active moment for Nicias. As in that passage, Nicias’ past is in mind, here and in what follows. | ἀναξί ̄ωϲ also ironically recalls the comedian Plato’s lines on Hyperbolus’ ostracism at 11.7 (fr. 203 Kassel-Austin: his fate was τῶν τρόπων μὲν ἄξια, but ἀνάξια of his servile origin because too good for him; ἀναξι- occurs only there and here in the Life). The passage goes on to virtual history: how relatively fortunate ostracism would have been for Nicias (11.9). That whole passage is marked out by some density of rhythm. τᾰλαῑπ ̄ωρε̄ ι ν,̑ |, at a major break in the sentence, also calls for reflection. It suggests to the reader a note of admirable endurance as well as suffering: cf. Plutarch’s other uses of the verb, Caes. 17.3, Ant. 40.2 [προϲ-], Artox. 24.10. | καὶ πρὸϲ τὰϲ ̄ ε᾿ κ θ̆ε ̄ω̑ν ̄ ε᾿ λπ̆ι´δᾱϲ | ἀθύμωϲ εἶχον,: the sentence takes a twist, as the army moves the focus of its thoughts from Nicias to themselves. Although he keeps up his hope (| (τὴν) ἐλπίδα, 4), it is precisely because of him that they lose their hopes. πρὸϲ τὰϲ ̄ ε᾿ κ θ̆ε ̄ω̑ν ̄ ε᾿ λπ̆ι´δᾱϲ | interacts ironically with Nicias’ own assertion in Thuc. 7.77.4 καὶ ἡμᾶϲ εἰκὸϲ τά τε ἀπὸ τοῦ θείου [Krüger: θεοῦ codd.] ἐλπίζειν ἠπιώτερα ἕξειν. ̄ ε᾿ ννο̆ο̄υ ν̑ τ̄εϲ | ὡϲ ἀν̄η` ρ θ̆εο̆φῐλ̄η` ϲ | καὶ π̄ολλ̆α` κᾱ`ι μ̆εγ̆α´ λᾱ | λαμπρυνάμενοϲ πρ̄ο` ϲ τ̆ο` θε̄ ι ̄ο̑ ν | οὐδενὸϲ ἐπιεικεϲτέρᾱι τ̆υ´χη̄ι χρ̄η τ̑ ᾱι | τ ̄ω̑ν κᾰκ̄ ι´ϲτ ̄ων | ἐν τ ̄ω̑ι ϲτρᾰτε̄υ´μᾰτῑ | κᾱ`ι τᾰπεῑνο̆τ̆α´ τ ̄ων. |: this part of the sentence takes Thuc. 7.77.2 (passage 4) καίτοι πολλὰ μὲν ἐϲ θεοὺϲ νόμιμα δεδιήιτημαι, πολλὰ δὲ ἐϲ ἀνθρώπουϲ δίκαια καὶ ἀνεπίφθονα· and νῦν ἐν τῶι αὐτῶι κινδύνωι τοῖϲ φαυλοτάτοιϲ αἰωροῦμαι·, and moves them from Nicias’ mouth and from grounds for hope to the thoughts of his men and to grounds for despair. The passage magnifies Nicias’ pious offerings with π̄ολλ̆α` κᾱ`ι μ̆εγ̆α´ λᾱ | and | λαμπρυνάμενοϲ, both given further impetus by the rhythm; it creates the same theological challenge as, say, the story of Croesus in Bacchylides and Herodotus. Plutarch would not share these anxieties philosophically, but narrative has a freer rein. Not long before, we have been shown the δειϲιδαιμονία of Nicias (and the army) (23.1, 7); in the De Superstitione that is as great a fault as atheism, but the perspective is now more magnanimous. The pair | τ ̄ω̑ν κᾰκ̄ ι´ϲτ ̄ων | and | κᾱ`ι τᾰπεῑνο̆τ̆α´ τ ̄ων. | are each given their own rhythmic phrase, and the last closes the section with social horror. The reference to τοῖϲ φαυλοτάτοιϲ in Nicias’ speech in Thucydides strikes a haughty note

The Terrible Retreat

185

perhaps rhetorically incongruous in itself, and certainly at odds with the presentation of Nicias’ social manners in Plut. Nic. 2.4–6. The scorn more fittingly redounds to Nicias’ glory now that it exists in the minds of the collective army. The passage reworks Thucydides to focus more strongly on the individual; but it does so through the army, and creates a virtue for Nicias which is based on his men and his relationship with them. It brings Nicias, for the time being, to a height of nobility not apparent earlier; the depiction of this nobility is complicated by the impact of emotion on the noble man himself. This intensely written passage allows Nicias a moment of near-greatness before his ignominious end (cf. Comp. Nic. Cras. 38 (5).4). The passage moves between and mingles pity and admiration, the passive and the strenuously active. It is subtle as well as strong; the subtlety is furthered by the refinement and pointedness both of rhythm and of intertextuality. Thucydides is translated into a different stylistic idiom, sharp, neat, eloquent; the compelling offbeat element of the original is smoothed out, but the Thucydidean dry pathos is still perceptible. All is transfused into a different literary and ethical vision.

Appendix: Thuc. 7.74.1, 75.4, 7, 77.2, 86.5 1. Thuc. 7.74.1 . . . ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖϲ καὶ τὴν ἐπιοῦϲαν ἡμέραν περιμεῖναι, ὅπωϲ ξυϲκευάϲαιντο ὡϲ ἐκ τῶν δυνατῶν οἱ ϲτρατιῶται ὅτι χρηϲιμώτατα, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα καταλιπεῖν, ἀναλαβόντεϲ δὲ αὐτὰ ὅϲα περὶ τὸ ϲῶμα ἐϲ δίαιταν ὑπῆρχεν ἐπιτήδεια ἀφορμᾶϲθαι. The generals decided to wait over the next day too, so that the soldiers could pack up the things that were most useful, from the supplies available; they decided to leave everything else behind, and to set off taking up just the things that were required for living and the body. 2. Thuc. 7.75.4 πρὸϲ γὰρ ἀντιβολίαν καὶ ὀλοφυρμὸν τραπόμενοι ἐϲ ἀπορίαν καθίϲταϲαν, ἄγειν τε ϲφᾶϲ ἀξιοῦντεϲ καὶ ἕνα ἕκαϲτον ἐπιβοώμενοι, εἴ τινά πού τιϲ ἴδοι ἢ ἑταίρων ἢ οἰκείων, . . . ὥϲτε δάκρυϲι πᾶν τὸ ϲτράτευμα πληϲθὲν καὶ ἀπορίαι τοιαύτηι μὴ ῥαιδίωϲ ἀφορμᾶϲθαι, καίπερ ἐκ πολεμίαϲ τε καὶ μείζω ἢ κατὰ δάκρυα τὰ μὲν πεπονθόταϲ ἤδη, τὰ δὲ περὶ τῶν ἐν ἀφανεῖ δεδιόταϲ μὴ πάθωϲιν. The ill and injured turned to pleading and lament and left those who were well with no idea what to do; the sick asked them to take them with them and called on any individual friend or family member they

186

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

saw . . . the whole army was filled with weeping, and in such bewilder ment could not easily set forth although they were leaving an enemy land and had already suffered distresses too great for tears and feared, as they thought of the uncertainty ahead, that they would suffer more such. 3. Thuc. 7.75.7 ὅμωϲ δὲ ὑπὸ μεγέθουϲ τοῦ ἐπικρεμαμένου ἔτι κινδύνου πάντα ταῦτα αὐτοῖϲ οἰϲτὰ ἐφαίνετο. None the less, because of the greatness of the doom that still hung over them, all these things seemed bearable to them. 4. Thuc. 7.77.2 κἀγώ τοι οὐδενὸϲ ὑμῶν οὔτε ῥώμηι προφέρων (ἀλλ’ ὁρᾶτε δὴ ὡϲ διάκειμαι ὑπὸ τῆϲ νόϲου) οὔτ’ εὐτυχίαι δοκῶν που ὕϲτερόϲ του εἶναι κατά τε τὸν ἴδιον βίον καὶ ἐϲ τὰ ἄλλα, νῦν ἐν τῶι αὐτῶι κινδύνωι τοῖϲ φαυλοτάτοιϲ αἰωροῦμαι· καίτοι πολλὰ μὲν ἐϲ θεοὺϲ νόμιμα δεδιήιτημαι, πολλὰ δὲ ἐϲ ἀνθρώπουϲ δίκαια καὶ ἀνεπίφθονα. I myself am not superior to any of you in physical force look at how my illness has left me and am not, I think, inferior to any of you in my past good fortune, both as regards my individual existence and other wise; but now I am held in suspense amid the same danger as the humblest soldiers. I have lived a life with much due observance to the gods and much justice towards men, in a way no one should begrudge. 5. Thuc. 7.86.5 καὶ ὁ μὲν τοιαύτηι ἢ ὅτι ἐγγύτατα τούτων αἰτίαι ἐτεθνήκει, ἥκιϲτα δὴ ἄξιοϲ ὢν τῶν γε ἐπ’ ἐμοῦ Ἑλλήνων ἐϲ τοῦτο δυϲτυχίαϲ ἀφικέϲθαι διὰ τὴν πᾶϲαν ἐϲ ἀρετὴν νενομιϲμένην ἐπιτήδευϲιν. Nicias had been killed for such a reason, or something very like it; of the Greeks who lived in my time he deserved the least, because of all the attention he had given to admirable behaviour, to come to this depth of misfortune. [The Athenian soldiers . . . ]

14 The Fall of the Crassi (Crassus 23.7–24.3, 25.12–14, 26.6–9, 30.2–5) The passages in this chapter display some of Plutarch’s densest exploitation of rhythmic density: four dense passages come closely together in the account of the single calamitous battle of Carrhae and its aftermath (53 BC). They form a sequence of particularly powerful moments, and tell an ethical story. The first shock of hearing and seeing the Parthian force is followed by: the heroic death of Crassus’ son; Crassus’ brave speech to his men despite seeing his son’s severed head; Crassus’ speech as he departs to expected death, with a thought for the honour of his men and people. The details will show complications in this portrayal of response to catastrophe, and the Life goes on to the Parthians’ hideous celebrations; but the treatment of rhythm displays a literary ambition singular within the Lives and certainly within the pair. The Lives of Nicias (cf. ch. 13) and of Crassus are united not so much by the characters of their central figures as by the disasters they both suffered (cf. Nic. 1.1). The extent of closely rhythmic writing in the Crassus shows how this Life is meant to rise still higher than the first in the pair. Plutarch’s account of the battle gives no names of sources; he may draw on Greek authors such as Timagenes (cf. Pomp. 49.13; P. Oxy. LXXIII 4940 [i AD?]?), but has merely ὡϲ ἔνιοί φαϲιν, (21.5, 25.3), οἱ δ᾿ οὔ φαϲιν, (31.7). Thucydides’ account of the Sicilian expedition, and his own account of it, remain in view. M. Crassus (cos. 70, 55) was proconsul in Syria; Orodes II was now firmly in control of Parthia. Since this chapter is more extended than most, a few references may be given to discussions of the battle, its background, and the sources: Regling (1899), Münzer (1926), Gelzer (1926), esp. 324–30, MRR ii.230–1, Angeli Bertinelli et al. (1993)

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

188

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

(commentary on our passages 410–13, 417–18), Braund (1993), Zadorojniy (1997), Arnaud (1998) (emphasizes Roman strategic aims behind campaign), Schmidt (1999), 299–314, Lerouge (2007), 63–81, 282–95 (emphasizes Crassus’ desire for glory), Weggen (2011), Sampson (2015), Ellerbrock and Winkelmann (2015), esp. 57–65.

CRAS. 23.7–24.3 23.7 | κᾱ`ι πρ̆`ι ν η̄῍ το̄υ τ̑ ̄ο | διὰ πάντ ̄ων γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ κᾰλ ̄ωϲ̑ , | η̄῏ γ̆εν ο̄υ᾿ ϲχ̆ε´δη̄ν | οὐδ’ ̄ω῾ ϲ ε̆᾿ π̆`ι μ̆α´ χη̄ι | δῐᾰνᾰπᾱυ´ ̄ων, | ἀλλ’ ὀξε̄ ι´ᾱι κᾱ`ι ϲῡντ̆ο´ ν ̄ωι | χρώμενοϲ τ̄ηι̑ πο̆ρε̄ ι´ᾱι, | μέχρι ο̄υ῟ κᾰτ̄ω´ φθη̄ϲᾱν | ο̄ ῾ι πο̆λ̆ε´ μῐοῑ, | παρὰ δόξαν οὔτε πολλο̄`ι φᾰν̄ ε´ ντ̄εϲ | ο̄υ῎ τ̆ε ϲο̆βᾰρο̄`ι | τοῖϲ Ῥωμαίοιϲ. 8. τὸ μὲν γὰρ πλῆθοϲ ὑπέϲτειλε τοῖϲ προτάκτοῑϲ ο῾̆ Cοῡρ̄η´ νᾱϲ, | τὴν δὲ λᾱμπρ̆ο´ τη̄τᾱ | κατέκρῡπτ̆ε τ ̄ω̑ν ο῞̆ πλ ̄ων, | ἱμ̆α´ τῐᾰ κᾱ`ι δῑφθ̆ε´ ρᾱϲ | προίϲχεϲθαῑ κ̆ελε̄υ´ϲᾱϲ. | ὡϲ δ’ ̄ ε᾿ γγ̆υ` ϲ ε̆᾿ γ̆ε´ ν̄οντ̄ο | καὶ ϲημε̄ ιο̆̑ ν η῎̄ ρθη̄ | παρὰ το̄υ ̑ ϲτρᾰτη̄γο̄υ ,̑ | πρῶτ̄ον μ̆`εν ε̆᾿ ν̆επ̄ ι´μπλᾰτ̄ο | φθογγ̄ηϲ̑ βᾰρε̄ ι´ᾱϲ | καὶ βρόμου φρικώδοῡϲ τ̆ο` π̆εδ̆ι´ ̄ον. | 9. Πάρθοι γὰρ ο̄υ᾿ κ̆ε´ ρᾱϲῑν | ο̄υ᾿ δ̆`ε ϲ̄α´ λπῑγξῑν | ἐποτρύνουϲῐν ε̆῾ αῡτο̄υ` ϲ ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ μ̆α´ χη̄ν, | ̄α᾿ λλ̆α` ῥ̄ο´ πτρᾱ | βυρϲοπαγῆ καὶ κοῖλᾰ π̆ερῐτε̄ ι´νᾱντ̄εϲ | ἠχείοιϲ χαλκοῖϲ ἅμα πολλαχόθ̆εν ε̆᾿ πῐδοῡπο̄υ ϲ̑ ῑ, | τὰ δὲ φθέγγεται βύθῑο´ ν τῐ κᾱ`ι δεῑν̄ο´ ν, | ὠρυγῆι θη̄ρῐ ̄ω´ δεῑ | καὶ τραχύτη̄τῐ βρ̄οντ̄ηϲ̑ | μ̆εμεῑγμ̆ε´ ν̄ον, | εὖ ̆ π ̄ωϲ ϲῠν̆ε ̄ωρᾱκ̆ο´ τ̄εϲ | ὅτι τ ̄ω̑ν ᾱ ᾿ι ϲθη̄τη̄ρ̆ι´ ̄ων | ἡ ἀκοὴ ταρακτικώτατόν ̄ ε᾿ ϲτῐ τ̄ηϲ̑ ψῡχ̄ηϲ̑ | καὶ τ̆α` π̆ερ̆`ι τᾱυ´τη̄ν π̆α´ θη̄ | τάχῑϲτᾰ κῑνε̄ ι ̑ | καὶ μάλῑϲτᾰ π̄α´ ντ ̄ων | ἐξίϲτηϲι τὴν διάνοιαν. 24.1 ἐκπεπλη̄γμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων δ̄`ε | τ ̄ω̑ν Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´ ̄ων δ̆ε´ εῑ | δῐ̆α` τ̆ο` ν η̄῏ χ̄ον, | ἐξαίφνηϲ τὰ προ̆κᾰλ̄υ´μμᾰτᾰ τ ̄ω̑ν ο῞̆ πλ ̄ων | καταβαλ̄ο´ ντ̆εϲ ̄ω῎ φθηϲᾱν, | αὐτο̄ ι´ τ̆ε φλο̆γο̆εῑδε̄ ιϲ̑ | κράνεϲι καὶ θώραξι, τοῦ Μαργιανο̄υ ̑ ϲῐδ̄η´ ροῡ | ϲτίλβοντοϲ ὀξὺ καὶ περιλαμπέϲ, οἵ θ’ ἵπποῑ κᾰτᾰπ̆εφρᾱγμ̆ε´ νοῑ | χαλκοῖϲ κᾱ`ι ϲῐδη̄ρο̄ ιϲ̑ | ϲκ̆επ̄α´ ϲμᾰϲῑ, | μέγιϲτ̄οϲ δ’ ο῾̆ Cοῡρ̄η´ νᾱϲ | καὶ κάλλῑϲτο̆ϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ ϲ, | τῆι δὲ κατ’ ̆ ἀνδρείαν δόξηι τὴν θηλύτη̄τᾰ το̄υ ̑ κ̄α´ λλοῡϲ | ο̄υ᾿ κ ε̆᾿ οῑκ ̄ω´ ϲ, | ἀλλὰ Μηδικώτ̆ερο̆ν ̄ ε᾿ ϲκεῡᾱϲμ̆ε´ ν̄οϲ | ἐντρ̄ ι´μμᾰϲῐ προ̆ϲ ̄ω´ ποῡ | καὶ κόμη̄ϲ δῐᾰκρ̆ι´ ϲεῑ, | τῶν ἄλλων Πάρθ ̄ων ῎ε̆ τῑ Cκῠθῐκ ̄ω̑ϲ | ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̆ο` φο̆β̆ερ̄ο` ν | τῶι ἀναϲίλλ ̄ωι κο̆μ̄ω´ ντ ̄ων. | 2. πρῶτον μὲν ο̄υ῏ ν δῐ ε̆ νο̆ο̄υ ν̑ τ̄ο | τοῖϲ κοντοῖϲ ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̆ελᾱυ´ν̄οντ̄εϲ | ὠθεῖν κᾱ`ι βῐ̄α´ ζ̄εϲθαῑ | το̄υ` ϲ προ̆τ̄α´ κτοῡϲ· | ̄ω῾ ϲ δ’ ε̆῾ ̄ω´ ρ ̄ων | τό τε βάθοϲ το̄υ ̑ ϲῠνᾱϲπῑϲμο̄υ ̑ | καὶ τῶν ἀνδρ ̄ω̑ν τ̆ο` μ̆ο´ νῐμο̆ν | κᾱ`ι πᾰρ̄εϲτη̄κ̄ο´ ϲ, | ἀν̄ηγ̑ ο̆ν ο᾿̆ π̆ι´ ϲ ̄ω, | καὶ ϲκίδναϲθαῑ δο̆κο̄υ ν̑ τ̆εϲ α῞̆ μᾱ | καὶ διαλύειν τὴν τάξιν, ἐλάνθανον ἐν κύκλωι περιβάλλοντεϲ τὸ πλινθίον αὐτῶν. 3. Κράϲϲοῡ δ̆`ε το̄υ` ϲ ψῑλο̄υ` ϲ | ἐκδραμε̄ ι ν̑ κ̆ελε̄υ´ϲᾱντ̄οϲ, | οὗτοι μὲν ο̄υ᾿ πο̆λ̆υ` προ̆η̄ λ̑ θ̄ον, | ἀλλὰ π̄ολλο̄ ιϲ̑ τ̄οξε̄υ´μᾰϲῑν | ̄ ε᾿ ντῠχ̄ο´ ντ̄εϲ, | ταχὺ ϲῡμπᾰρ̄ ε´ ντ̄εϲ | αὖθῐϲ ε̆᾿ ν̆εδ̄υ´ ̄οντ̄ο | το̄ ιϲ̑ ο῾̆ πλ̄ ι´ταῑϲ, | καὶ παρεῖχον ἀκοϲμίᾱϲ ̄α᾿ ρχ̄η` ν κᾱ`ι δ̆ε´ οῡϲ | ὁρῶϲι τὴν ῥύμην τῶν

The Fall of the Crassi

189

ο̄ ᾿ι ϲτ ̄ω̑ν κᾱ`ι τ̄ο` ν τ̆ο´ ν̄ον, | ο῞̆ πλᾰ τ̆ε ῥη̄γν̄υ´ντ ̄ων | καὶ διὰ παντὸϲ φερομέν ̄ων ο῾̆ μο̄ ι´ ̄ωϲ | ἀντιτύπου καὶ μαλακο̄υ ̑ ϲτ̆εγ̄α´ ϲμᾰτ̄οϲ. |

23.8 ὁ Cουρήναϲ: ὁ om. SΥ ἐνεπίμπλατο Pseudo Appianus: ἐπίμπλατο N: ἐπίμπλαντο SΥ 9 ἠχείοιϲ: ἥλοιϲ Ps. App. μάλιϲτα πάντων Ps. App.: π. om. NSΥ 24.1 δέει Ps. App.: om. NSΥ μέγιϲτοϲ δ’ ὁ Cουρήναϲ Ps. App. (δὲ scripto): ὁ δὲ C. μ. NSΥ τῆι δὲ Reiske: αὐτὸϲ δὲ τῆι codd. 2 παρεϲτηκόϲ: ϲυν Ps. App. ῥύμην Coraës: ῥώμην codd.; τὴν ῥώμην . . . τὸν τόνον Ps. App.: τὸν τόνον . . . ῥώμην fere NSΥ (τὸν om. N)

Before all the men had done this properly [eating and drinking], Crassus led them off, not slowly, and not taking rests for the coming battle, but with a swift and pressing march until the enemy was sighted. To the Romans’ surprise, they did not seem numerous or vigorous. Surenas limited the number of those in front, and hid the brightness of their armour; he told them to hold clothes and leather hides in front of them. When they drew near to the Romans and the signal was given by the general Surenas, first of all the plain was filled with a low pitched sound and a terrifying roar. The Parthians do not urge themselves on to battle with horns or trumpets; they stretch huge hollow bowls, which are fixed together from hide, with bronze sounding surfaces, and make a noise on these instruments from many different directions at once. The sound is deep and dreadful, mixed with howling like a beast and the harshness of thunder. They have well understood, one imagines, that hearing is the sense which most disturbs the soul and most quickly sets its passions in motion, and most of all removes thought. The Romans were thunderstruck with fear because of the sound. Suddenly the Parthians threw down the things covering their armour and were seen, the men flaming in their helmets and breast plates, the iron from Margiana flashing sharply and very brightly, the horses in mail with coverings of bronze and iron, and largest and most beautiful of all Surenas himself. He did not fit his reputation for courage in the effeminacy of his beauty: he was got up rather in the Median fashion, with make up on his face and his hair parted. The other Parthians still had their hair brushed back in the Scythian manner, for terrifying effect. First of all the Parthians intended to drive into the Romans’ front ranks with their pikes, and so push and force them back; but when they saw the depth of the ranks of conjoined shields and the way the Romans stood firm by each other, they retreated. They seemed to be scattering and undoing their battle formation; actually, without the Romans noticing, they were encircling the Romans’ square of troops. Crassus told his light armed fighters to run out of the formation; but they did not get far. They encountered lots of arrows, and soon gave up and went back among the legionaries. They produced the beginning of disorder

190

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

and fear in the troops, who saw the rush and force of the arrows, as these were breaking armour and going through every protective cover ing alike, resistant or soft.

The passage presents a particularly extended massing of dense rhythm, although with some interruptions. Both 23.8–9 (apart from start and close) and 24.1–2 (from οἵ θ’ ἵπποῑ to) | ἀν̄ηγ̑ ο̆ν ο̆᾿ π̆ι´ ϲ ̄ω, |) suffice to meet the criteria. The rhythms had also been thickly strewn in the half-sentence before (23.6, from | Κράϲϲ̄οϲ δ̆`ε): Crassus has been excited by the impetuosity of his son and the cavalry, and has not heeded most of the commanders (they recommend rest and investigation of enemy numbers); he has told those that need to eat and drink to do so while standing in formation. 23.7 | κᾱ`ι πρ̆`ι ν η̄῍ το̄υ τ̑ ̄ο | διὰ πάντ̄ων γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ κᾰλ ̄ω̑ϲ, | η̄῏ γ̆εν ο̄υ᾿ ϲχ̆ε´ δη̄ν | οὐδ’ ̄ω῾ ϲ ε̆᾿ π̆`ι μ̆α´ χη̄ι | δῐᾰνᾰπᾱυ´ ̄ων, |: | (διὰ) πάντ ̄ων and κᾰλ ̄ω̑ϲ, | are put together and stressed in a separate rhythmic entity, and underline Crassus’ cutting of corners; | διὰ πάντ̄ων is slightly at odds with the preceding | το̄υ` ϲ δ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ | (those that needed to eat and drink), or implies that even of that unreasonably limited group— the men had generally been thirsty (23.5)—not everyone was able to eat and drink satisfactorily in so unrelaxing a position. ο̄υ᾿ ϲχ̆ε´ δη̄ν | is expanded by | οὐδ’ ̄ω῾ ϲ ε̆᾿ π̆`ι μ̆α´ χη̄ι | and | δῐᾰνᾰπᾱυ´ ̄ων, |; both phrases receive stress. | δῐᾰνᾰπᾱυ´ ̄ων, | looks back to the earlier καταῡλῐϲᾰμ̆ε´ νοῡϲ | καὶ νῡκτ̆ερε̄υ´ϲᾱντᾱϲ | recommended by the other commanders (23.6); the refusal seems still harsher (and the army is evidently proceeding at night). | οὐδ’ ̄ω῾ ϲ ε̆᾿ π̆`ι μ̆α´ χη̄ι | takes up χωρε̄ ιν̑ ε̆᾿ π᾿ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ´ϲ· | (23.6), but now indicates an error of basic generalship. | ἀλλ’ ὀξε̄ ι´ᾱι κᾱ`ι ϲῡντ̆ο´ ν̄ωι | χρώμενοϲ τ̄ηι̑ πο̆ρε̄ ι´ᾱι, |: the speed gets a pair of near-synonymous adjectives, detached from the noun, and given a rhythmic phrase of their own; rhythm and word-order cooperate. The combination is not common in such contexts, but is found in Galen, of individuals’ physical movements (San. Tuend. 3.11.2 CMG v.4.2 p. 98.2, 11 p. 98.30, 6.3.10 p. 172.24 [and Dign. Puls. 8.849 Kühn]; cf. [Arist.] Prob. 900a22–3, voice and body in weeping; Plut. Sen. Resp. 793a, musical). | μέχρι ο̄υ῟ κᾰτ̄ω´ φθη̄ϲᾱν | ο̄ ῾ι πο̆λ̆ε´ μῐοῑ, | παρὰ δόξαν οὔτε πολλο̄`ι φᾰν̄ ε´ ντ̄εϲ | ο̄υ῎ τ̆ε ϲο̆βᾰρο̄`ι | τοῖϲ Ῥωμαίοιϲ.: | μέχρι ο̄υ῟ κᾰτ ̄ω´ φθη̄ϲᾱν | ο̄ ῾ι πο̆λ̆ε´ μῐοῑ | seems a natural end to the sentence, complete with rhythm; but the sentence continues into surprise and apparent anticlimax (Tim. 27.4 is different). Both word-order and

The Fall of the Crassi

191

rhythm isolate and emphasize πολλο̄`ι and ϲο̆βᾰρο̄`ι |. τὸ . . . πλῆθοϲ picks up the one, at the start of the next sentence, | τὴν δὲ λᾱμπρ̆ο´ τη̄τᾱ | the other. In Dio Cass. 40.21.2 (passage 1 in the Appendix to this chapter), it is P. Crassus who sees the enemy first; that would remove Plutarch’s ironic structuring. 23.8 τὸ μὲν γὰρ πλῆθοϲ ὑπέϲτειλε τοῖϲ προτάκτοῑϲ ο῾̆ Cοῡρ̄η´ νᾱϲ, |: the name appears for the first time since the introduction of this figure at 21.4–9—far more formidable than Crassus realizes. He takes control of the syntax; word-order and, if N and Pseudo-Appian are right the rhythm, give him weight. (The vowel appears to be long originally in Parthian [Ellerbrock and Winkelmann (2015), 153]; in any case, the diphthong could only represent a Latin short u if Plutarch saw Parthian names as Latin, whereas they actually come to Latin in Greek form.) | τὴν δὲ λᾱμπρ̆ο´ τη̄τᾱ | κατέκρῡπτ̆ε τ ̄ω̑ν ο῞̆ πλ ̄ων, |: word-order and rhythm interact to highlight λᾱμπρ̆ο´ τη̄τᾱ |, separated from its genitive; the whole sequence is memorable. | ἱμ̆α´ τῐᾰ κᾱ`ι δῑφθ̆ε´ ρᾱϲ | προίϲχεϲθαῑ κ̆ελε̄υ´ϲᾱϲ. |: the detailed explication in these phrases underlines Surenas’ grasp of generals’ cunning; we could be in Polyaenus. δῑφθ̆ε´ ρᾱϲ | adds significantly to its pair; as in the next sentence, metal and worked skin combine in the Parthians, who conjoin the rough with the flamboyant. Surenas here wants them to seem unimpressively barbarian. | καὶ ϲημε̄ ι ο̆̑ ν η῎̄ ρθη̄ |: the second part of the ‘when’ clauses presents, in a distinct phrase, a decisive moment of control. | παρὰ το̄υ ̑ ϲτρᾰτη̄γο̄υ ,̑ |: not needed for the logic of events, but the separate phrase presents Surenas’ mastery of his art, in a notable designation. | πρῶτ̄ον μ̆`εν ε̆᾿ ν̆επ̄ ι´μπλᾰτ̄ο |: for much of this Life, the exact borrowing in the curious Parthica falsely ascribed to Appian provides a further witness to the text (see Schweighäuser [1785] iii.905–22, Hallam [2017]). If it is sometimes right when the MSS of Plutarch are wrong, that raises some worries about the exact detail of Plutarch’s text, which matters for purposes of rhythm. In this case, ἐπίμπλατο would also produce a rhythm; the passive (imperfect) seems preferable to an action by the Parthians (ἐπίμπλαντο middle): it brings out the terror for the Romans. | φθογγ̄ηϲ̑ βᾰρε̄ ι´ᾱϲ | καὶ βρόμου φρικώδοῡϲ τ̆ο` π̆εδ̆ι´̄ον. |: the expressive writing creates a surprise for the reader which mimics the Romans’; the explanation only comes in what follows. (The reader

192

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

is evidently to be supposed ignorant of Parthian military music.) This prepares for the philosophical point which is to be made at the end of the next sentence. The two nouns leave it unclear what kind of cause is producing the sound (cf. Virg. Aen. 3.583–4 noctem illam tecti siluis immania monstra | perferimus, nec quae sonitum det causa uidemus). 23.9 | Πάρθοι γὰρ ο̄υ᾿ κ̆ε´ ρᾱϲῑν | ο̄υ᾿ δ̆`ε ϲ̄α´ λπῑγξῑν | ἐποτρύνουϲῐν ε̆῾ αῡτο̄υ` ϲ ᾿ ε̄ ι ϲ μ̆α´ χη̄ν, |: the account moves aside from a narrative that immerses the reader in the historical moment; the scholarship of Plutarch takes us into ethnography that includes the present, and then into philosophy. But the rhythm helps to sustain the sense of agitation, even if the reader is contemplating the agitation from different angles. And at least until AD 115–16, the Parthians were an immensely formidable power in the East, Romani imperii aemulis (speakers at Tac. Ann. 15.13.2; cf. Goodyear [1981], 389; Strabo 11.9.2 515C iii.352.15–16 Radt ἀντίπαλοι τοῖϲ Ῥωμαίοιϲ τρόπον τινα γεγόναϲι κατὰ μέγεθοϲ τῆϲ ἀρχῆϲ). The musical instruments in the first two separated phrases are the ones familiar to the Greeks and Romans; κέραϲιν would be rhythmic even without its Attic scansion. Erudition is an important element in the impact of the passage, whether or not Plutarch takes it from his narrative sources. One may contrast Dio’s account of the battle in this respect (cf. Regling [1899], 4); note Dio 40.15.1, where he excuses himself, and says that many have written on Parthian ἐπιτηδεύματα. Two writers earlier than Plutarch who certainly dealt with Parthian customs are Isidorus of Charax (FGrHist 781, note F 1), and Strabo (FGrHist 91 F 1), in a work used elsewhere by Plutarch (F 8, 9 [with title], 19). | ̄α᾿ λλ̆`α ῥ̄ο´ πτρᾱ | βυρϲοπαγῆ καὶ κοῖλᾰ π̆ερῐτε̄ ι´ νᾱντ̄εϲ | ἠχείοιϲ χαλκοῖϲ: a detailed ethnographic description of how terror is crafted. An unrhythmic phrase appears with ἠχείοιϲ χαλκοῖϲ; but largely this part of the passage sustains the close-set rhythms. The pair of adjectives | βυρϲοπαγῆ καὶ κοῖλᾰ allow the noun ῥ̄ο´ πτρᾱ | to stand separately; it is set against the more expected instruments κ̆ε´ ρᾱϲῑν | and ϲ̄α´ λπῑγξῑν |, and seems intrinsically surprising for the noise produced: the word cannot have its usual denotation (bronze ‘cymbal-clappers’, according to West [1992], 125–6). The epithets then explain. The instrument seems to be a sort of reverse timpani: instead of a large metal bowl with a hide top, we have a metal top on a large hide bowl, as ‘hollow’ and the deep sound indicate. ἅμα πολλαχόθ̆εν ε̆᾿ πῐδοῡπο̄υ ϲ̑ ῑ, |: an animated phrase; perhaps, in the context, there is an effective contrast of consecutive shorts with the

The Fall of the Crassi

193

three longs. ἅμα and πολλαχόθ̆εν are joined together in the phrase; the numerous sources of the sound take the reader into the Romans’ experience, and conflict with the impression that the Parthians are not many. The combination connects with the arrows fired ἅμα πανταχόθεν, 24.4. The stem δουπ-, most common in hexameter poetry but not exclusive to it, comes in Plutarch only here and at Eum. 14.11, where the noise made by the Macedonians on their shields with their ϲάριϲαι is to seem very un-Greek. | τὰ δὲ φθέγγεται βύθῑο´ ν τῐ κᾱ`ι δεῑν̄ο´ ν, | ὠρυγῆι θη̄ρῐ ̄ω´ δεῑ | καὶ τραχύτη̄τῐ βρ̄οντ̄ηϲ̑ | μ̆εμεῑγμ̆ε´ ν̄ον, |: the syntax vivaciously takes us ̆ into a new main clause, even though | εὖ πω ̄ ϲ ϲῠν̆ε ω ̄ ρᾱκ̆ο´ τ̄εϲ | will resume the larger structure with Parthians as subject. A rhythmic phrase with the adverbial neuters βύθῑο´ν τῐ κᾱ`ι δεῑν̄ο´ ν, | advances on βᾰρε̄ ι´ᾱϲ | (8); then two further rhythmic phrases take the description into stranger and more hyperbolic territory. The ending -ώδηϲ and the precision of τραχύτητι maintain the air of scholarly accuracy. | εὖ π ̄ωϲ ϲῠν̆ε ̄ωρᾱκ̆ο´ τ̄εϲ | ὅτι τ ̄ω̑ν ᾱ ᾿ι ϲθη̄τη̄ρ̆ι´ ̄ων | ἡ ἀκοὴ ταρακτικώτατόν ̄ ε᾿ ϲτῐ τ̄ηϲ̑ ψῡχ̄ηϲ̑ | καὶ τ̆`α π̆ερ̆`ι τᾱυ´τη̄ν π̆α´ θη̄ | τάχῑϲτᾰ κῑνε̄ ι ̑ | καὶ μάλῑϲτᾰ π̄α´ ντ ̄ων | ἐξίϲτηϲι τὴν διάνοιαν.: the language displays the philosopher’s technical understanding (ᾱ ᾿ι ϲθη̄τη̄ρ̆ι´ ̄ων |, ταρακτικώτατον, τ̆α` π̆ερ̆`ι τᾱυ´τη̄ν π̆α´ θη̄ |). The passage is close to Quaest. Conv. 4.2.4 666c κᾱ`ι γ̆α` ρ ῎̄αλλ ̄ωϲ | τ ̄ω̑ν ᾱ ᾿ι ϲθη̄τη̄ρ̆ι´ ̄ων | ἡ ἀκοὴ παθητικώτατόν ἐϲτιν, κᾱ`ι μ̆εγ̄ ι´ϲτᾱϲ | οἱ διὰ ψόφοῡ θ̆ο´ ρῠβοῑ κᾱ`ι φ̆ο´ βοῑ | ταραχ̄α` ϲ ε̆᾿ πῐφ̆ε´ ροῡϲῑν |. But the rhythmic momentum is maintained, save for the final phrase. Dwelling on the sense of hearing highlights the imminent shift to another sense, in the synaesthetic horror that confronts the Romans. 24.1 ἐκπεπλη̄γμ̆ε´ ν ω ̄ ν δ̄`ε | τ ̄ω̑ν Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´ ̄ων δ̆ε´ εῑ | δῐ̆α` τ̆ο` ν η̄῏ χ̄ον, |: the omission of δέει before διά is easily explained, especially with itacistic pronunciation; cf. Soph. Trach. 24, Eur. Bacch. 604 ἐκπεπληγμένη/αι φόβωι. The first two phrases can each stand alone as an entity, cf. Pel. 35.10 | ἐκπεπλη̄γμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων δ̄`ε | τ ̄ω̑ν ν̆εᾱν̄ ι´ϲκ ω ̄ ν | καὶ κατοκνούντων. The ` τ̆ο` ν η̄῏ χ̄ον, | leads into the visual revelation. separate phrase δῐ̆α | ἐξαίφνηϲ τὰ προ̆κᾰλ̄υ´μμᾰτᾰ τ ̄ω̑ν ο῞̆ πλ ̄ων | καταβαλ̄ο´ ντ̆εϲ ̄ω῎ φθη̄ ϲᾱν, | αὐτο̄ ι´ τ̆ε φλο̆γο̆εῑδε̄ ιϲ̑ | κράνεϲι καὶ θώραξι,: the first part could be scanned τὰ προκαλύμματα τῶν ὅπλ ω ̄ ν κᾰτᾰβᾰλ̄ο´ ντ̄εϲ, | ὤφθηϲαν αὐτοί κτλ. with the punctuation as in Ziegler. But there is no ὄντεϲ with ὤφθηϲαν (‘it was seen that they were’) and the τε marks a new phrase starting with αὐτοί. Although the enemy have been sighted already (a matching κᾰτ ̄ω´ φθη̄ϲᾱν |, 23.7), the present sight acquires great emphasis from the sudden brightness produced by the

194

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

dropping. The aspects of what is seen are spelt out, a little as in Sept. Sap. 160f, although there the dolphins are essentially seen for the first time: | δελφ̄ ιν̆̑ εϲ ̄ω῎ φθη̄ϲᾱν |, οἱ μὲν ἀθρόοι πέρῑξ κῠκλο̄υ ν̑ τ̄εϲ |, οἱ δ᾿ . . . , | ἄλλοι δ’ . . . . The word φλο̆γο̆εῑδε̄ ιϲ̑ | stands out, used of the men themselves rather than their armour. τοῦ Μαργιανο̄υ ̑ ϲῐδ̄η´ ροῡ | ϲτίλβοντοϲ ὀξὺ καὶ περιλαμπέϲ,: the details about the metal, spotlighted by the rhythmic close, are not needed for the effect of brightness. But this metal would be unusual for armour in Greeks and Romans (cf. Snodgrass [1967], 123); the scholarly name of origin adds precision and atmosphere. This part of the sentence is less tightly rhythmic, before resumption with the next two members in the series of three (the horses, Surenas). οἵ θ’ ἵπποῑ κᾰτᾰπ̆εφρᾱγμ̆ε´ νοῑ | χαλκοῖϲ κᾱ`ι ϲῐδη̄ρο̄ ιϲ̑ | ϲκ̆επ̄α´ ϲμᾰϲῑ, |: ̆ warfare (cf. the armoured horses were a famous feature of Parthian Ellerbrock and Winkelmann [2015], 155–7), but the metals, in a rhythmically separate pair, add visual and scholarly detail. | μέγιϲτ̄οϲ δ’ ο῾̆ Cοῡρ̄η´ νᾱϲ | καὶ κάλλῑϲτο̆ϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ ϲ, |: the less obvious word-order at the start is presumably right, and certainly more effective; it is notable how often improvements from manuscript sources and from emendation increase the frequency of rhythmic closes. Surenas has already been described at 21.6 with ἔτι δὲ μεγέθει κᾱ`ι κ̄α´ λλεῑ ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτ̄οϲ | ὡϲ οὐδεὶϲ ἕτεροϲ; here the adjectives come climactically, although the superlatives relate especially to the men. The pair here have a Homeric resonance (cf. Zadorojniy [1997], 175). Cf. especially Il. 21.108 (Achilles speaking) οὐχ ὁράαιϲ οἷοϲ καὶ ἐγὼ καλόϲ τε μέγαϲ τε (note the double τε); note also Plut. Arist. 17.8 Καλλικράτηϲ, ὃν ἰδέαι τε κάλλῑϲτο̆ν Ἑ̄ λλ̄η´ νω ̄ ν | καὶ ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτῐ μ̆ε´ γῑϲτ̄ον | ἐν ἐκείνωι τῶι ϲτρατῶι γενέϲθαῑ λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑ | (cf. Hom. Il. 2.673–4). | (καὶ) κάλλῑϲτο̆ϲ, separated by rhythm and word-order, is to be taken up on its own in what follows. The importance of Surenas in the Parthian kingdom informs the moment too: cf. 21.6 | ἀλλὰ πλούτωι μὲν καὶ γένει καὶ δόξηι μετὰ βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ᾱ δε̄υ´τ̆ερ̄οϲ, |. Plutarch recognizes to some extent the institutional and familial basis of this importance; cf. e.g. Tac. Ann. 6.42.4, with Ehrhardt (1998), 299, and Ellerbrock and Winkelmann (2015), 90; Amm. 30.2.5 aduenit Surena, potestatis secundae post regem. See also Weggen (2011), 277–9. | τῆι δὲ κατ’ ἀνδρείαν δόξηι τὴν θηλύτη̄τᾰ το̄υ ̑ κ̄α´ λλοῡϲ | ο̄υ᾿ κ ε̆᾿ οῑκ ̄ω´ ϲ, |: το̄υ ̑ κ̄α´ λλοῡϲ | takes up κάλλῑϲτο̆ϲ, which word-order and rhythm stressed; the rhythm underlines the development of the sentence, to which τὴν θηλύτη̄τᾰ gives a turn. The womanly appearance in

The Fall of the Crassi

195

theory detracts from the rhetorical exposition of the alarming sight, although the other Parthians soon make up for the dip. But the intrusion of the feminine adds a disturbing element, a little as in the appearance of Dionysus in the Bacchae, a work important for this Life (cf. Braund [1993], Zadorojniy [1997], esp. 175–6). Surenas will mock Crassus’ θηλύτηϲ through an ‘actor’ in female dress (32.1–3). | ἀλλὰ Μηδικώτ̆ερο̆ν ̄ ε᾿ ϲκεῡᾱϲμ̆ε´ ν̄οϲ | ἐντρ̄ ι´μμᾰϲῐ προ̆ϲ ̄ω´ ποῡ | καὶ κόμη̄ϲ δῐᾰκρ̆ι´ ϲεῑ, | τῶν ἄλλων Πάρθω ̄ ν ῎ε̆ τῑ Cκῠθῐκ̄ω̑ϲ | ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̆ο` φο̆β̆ερ̄ο` ν | ´ τῶι ἀναϲίλλ ̄ωι κο̆μ ̄ωντ ̄ων. |: the continuation of rhythmic density keeps the elaborately detailed description ominous. The description is set out in small phrases which dwell both on ethnic affinities and on the specifics of hair and adornment. Visual impact is enriched with the complex cultural identity of the Parthians; and the actual or apparent scholarly research of Plutarch is perceived by the reader (cf. Bernard [1980], Curtis [1998], 62–3, Ellerbrock and Winkelmann [2015], 64). | ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̆ο` φο̆β̆ερ̄ο` ν |, separated as a rhythmic phrase, resumes the purposeful creation of terror from the description of the drums. 24.2 | πρῶτον μὲν ο̄υ῏ ν δῐ̆ε νο̆ο̄υ ν̑ τ̄ο | τοῖϲ κοντοῖϲ ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̆ελᾱυ´ν̄οντ̄εϲ | ὠθεῖν κᾱ`ι βῐ̄α´ ζ̄εϲθαῑ | το̄υ` ϲ προ̆τ̄α´ κτοῡϲ· |: the account proceeds unexpectedly; the reaction of the Romans to the sight is not given, as would have been expected. Instead the tack changes, and indeed the ‘beginning’ of Roman fear comes later, despite ἐκπεπλη̄γμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων at 24.1 (which would indicate fear even without δ̆ε´ εῑ |). The Parthians at first confront Roman firmness, and their initial plan does not work; rhythm marks out the crucial δῐ̆ε νο̆ο̄υ ν̑ τ̄ο |, which sets up a failure. The narrative will enable a fresh sequence of initial Roman confidence followed by alarm, and more subtly gives Roman valour its place too. | το̄υ` ϲ προ̆τ̄α´ κτοῡϲ· | picks up the mention of Surenas’ προτάκτοῑϲ in 23.8 (the word first appears there in the Life; outside this Life, it comes only once in Plutarch); the comparison with Surenas’ successful plan there brings out the Parthians’ very temporary failure here. The plan is ascribed not to Surenas but to the Parthians, who now take over agency. | τοῖϲ κοντοῖϲ gains emphasis from beginning the rhythmic phrase; the Parthians will turn next to arrows. The pair of verbs | ὠθεῖν κᾱ`ι βῐ̄α´ ζ̄εϲθαῑ |, given their own phrase, convey a straightforward military action that will not work with Romans. | ̄ω῾ ϲ δ’ ε̆῾ ̄ω´ ρ ̄ων | τό τε βάθοϲ το̄υ ̑ ϲῠνᾱϲπῑϲμο̄υ ̑ | καὶ τῶν ἀνδρ ̄ω̑ν τ̆ο` μ̆ο´ νῐμο̆ν | κᾱ`ι πᾰρ̄εϲτη̄κ̄ο´ ϲ, |: the Parthians do some seeing of their own, cf. | ̄ω῾ ϲ δ’ ε̆῾ ̄ω´ ρ ̄ων | with ̄ω῎ φθη̄ ϲᾱν | (24.1); but this is only a

196

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

subordinate clause, and they take some effective action. Roman tactics and firmness are conveyed with considerable abstraction; this perhaps heightens the thoughtful perception by the Parthians. But the separated τ̆ο` μ̆ο´ νῐμο̆ν | and πᾰρ̄εϲτη̄κ̄ο´ ϲ, | show qualities of the men themselves (| (καὶ τῶν) ἀνδρ ̄ω̑ν, weightily placed after a close), as against the interlocking of the shields (το̄υ ̑ ϲῠνᾱϲπῑϲμο̄υ ̑ |). | ἀν̄ηγ̑ ο̆ν ο᾿̆ π̆ι´ ϲ ̄ω, | καὶ ϲκίδναϲθαῑ δο̆κο̄υ ν̑ τ̆εϲ α῞̆ μᾱ | καὶ διαλύειν τὴν τάξιν, ἐλάνθανον ἐν κύκλωι περιβάλλοντεϲ τὸ πλινθίον αὐτῶν.: the loosening of the rhythm perhaps fits in with actions that seem welcome to the Romans, and actions that they do not notice. 24.3 Κράϲϲοῡ δ̆`ε το̄υ` ϲ ψῑλο̄υ` ϲ | ἐκδραμε̄ ι ν̑ κ̆ελε̄υ´ϲᾱντ̄οϲ, | οὗτοι μὲν ο̄υ᾿ πο̆λ̆υ` προ̆η̄ λ̑ θ̄ον, | ἀλλὰ π̄ολλο̄ ιϲ̑ τ̄οξε̄υ´μᾰϲῑν | ̄ ε᾿ ντῠχ̄ο´ ντ̄εϲ, | ταχὺ ϲῡμπᾰρ̄ ε´ ντ̄εϲ | αὖθῐϲ ε̆᾿ ν̆εδ̄υ´ ̄οντ̄ο | το̄ ιϲ̑ ο῾̆ πλ̄ ι´ταῑϲ, |: the next stage starts with Crassus, whose failures and emotions are naturally crucial to this narrative. το̄υ` ϲ ψῑλο̄υ` ϲ | is highlighted by the rhythm; it matches το̄υ` ϲ προ̆τ̄α´ κτοῡϲ· | (24.2), and το̄ ιϲ̑ ο῾̆ πλ̄ ι´ταῑϲ, |. From Crassus’ point of view, the attack on his front ranks has been unsuccessful; now instead of a wild pursuit by the front ranks, he is skilfully deploying lighterarmed men, who can move faster over a longer distance: cf. | ἐκδραμε̄ ι ν̑ κ̆ελε̄υ´ϲᾱντ̄οϲ, |. But the planned | ἐκδραμε̄ ι ν,̑ stressed at the beginning of a rhythmic phrase, is undone by the end of the next phrase, ο̄υ᾿ πο̆λ̆υ` προ̆η̄ λ̑ θ̄ον, |. As αὖθῐϲ ε̆᾿ ν̆εδ̄υ´ ̄οντ̄ο | το̄ ιϲ̑ ο῾̆ πλ̄ ι´ταῑϲ, | brings out, the attempt to use this new resource is in vain: the different type of fighter slips back among the rest. The Parthians’ new resource, on the other hand, is highly successful: τ̄οξε̄υ´μᾰϲῑν | is given force by the rhythm; it contrasts with | (τοῖϲ) κοντοῖϲ in 2, and is taken up in the extended description that follows. The sentence runs on, with the lightarmed troops still as the subject; the failure of their attempt is given only a participle, ϲῡμπᾰρ̄ ε´ ντ̄εϲ |, but one underlined by rhythm, and unusual enough to escape inclusion in LSJ or its Supplements. More important, these fighters start alarm in the other soldiers. ἀκοϲμίᾱϲ ̄α᾿ ρχ̄η` ν κᾱ`ι δ̆ε´ οῡϲ | begins the disintegration of τ̆ο` μ̆ο´ νῐμο̆ν | κᾱ`ι πᾰρ̄εϲτη̄κ̄ο´ ϲ, |; ἀκοϲμία has ethical and wider philosophical associations in Plutarch, but in the Lives it is mainly deployed of Romans (twelve out of thirteen instances of the stem ἀκοϲμ- are in Roman Lives). | ἀκοϲμία δεῑν̄η` κᾱ`ι ϲ̄υ´γχῠϲῑϲ | appears in a further stage of the collapse at 27.8, but not in the passage of Nicias closely related to that one, 26.3 and 5. | ὁρῶϲι τὴν ῥύμην τῶν ο̄ ᾿ι ϲτ̄ω̑ν κᾱ`ι τ̄ο` ν τ̆ο´ ν̄ον, | ο῞̆ πλᾰ τ̆ε ῥη̄γν̄υ´ντω ̄ ν | καὶ διὰ παντὸϲ φερομέν ̄ων ο῾̆ μο̄ ι´ω ̄ ϲ | ἀντιτύπου καὶ μαλακο̄υ ̑ ϲτε̆γ̄α´ ϲμᾰτ̄οϲ. |: the description is not included in the account of the light-armed

The Fall of the Crassi

197

soldiers’ retreat, and so does not impede the ignominious rapidity. Rather it adds to the impact of sight on the minds of the infantry; | ὁρῶϲι acquires more strength by starting a rhythmic phrase. The next sentence will develop the description in depicting the attack on the infantry; τ̄ο` ν τ̆ο´ ν̄ον, | links with | εὐτόνοῡϲ δ̆`ε τ̄α` ϲ πλη̄γ̄α` ϲ | κᾱ`ι βῐᾱ ι´οῡϲ | (24.4). The materials of the Romans’ arms are not mentioned, by̆ striking contrast with all we have heard on the Parthians’; ἀντιτύπου καὶ μαλακο̄υ ̑ merely hints at the auxiliaries’ variety of protection. The emphasis is on the power of the arrows, as perceived by the Romans: the concise and forceful rhythmic phrase | ο῞̆ πλᾰ τ̆ε ῥη̄γν̄υ´ντ ̄ων | is extended; the next phrase brings together, at beginning and end, | (καὶ διὰ) παντόϲ and ο῾̆ μο̄ ι´ω ̄ ϲ |, cf. e.g. 25.11 | π̄α´ ντ̆εϲ ο῾̆ μᾰλ ̄ω̑ϲ, |.

CRAS. 25.12–14 12. | ἦϲαν δ̆`ε π̆ερ̆`ι τ̄ο` ν Π̆ο´ πλῐ̄ον | ἄνδρεϲ Ἕλλην̄εϲ δ ̆υ´ο̆ τ̄ω̑ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο´ θῑ, | κατοικο̄υ ν̑ τ̆εϲ ̄ ε᾿ ν Κ̄α´ ρραῑϲ, | Ἱερώνυμοϲ καὶ Νικόμαχοϲ· οὗτοι ϲυνέπεῑθο̆ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο` ν | ὑπεξελθε̄ ι ν̑ μ̆ετ’ ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ν | καὶ δῐᾰφῠγε̄ ιν̑ ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ Ἴ̆ χνᾱϲ, | πόλιν ἡιρημένη̄ν τ̆α` Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´ ̄ων | καὶ ο̄υ᾿ μᾰκρ̄α` ν ο̄υ῏ ϲᾱν. | 13. ὁ δὲ φήϲαϲ οὐδένα δεῑν̆ο` ν ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ωϲ | ἔϲεϲθαι θάνατον ̄ο῝ ν φο̆βη̄θε̄`ιϲ | Πόπλιο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ πο̆λε̄ ι´ψεῑ | τοὺϲ ἀπολλυμένοῡϲ δῐ ’ ᾱυ῾ τ̄ο´ ν, | ἐκείνουϲ μὲν ἐκέλεῡϲ̆ε ϲ ̄ω´ ιζ̄εϲθαῑ | καὶ δεξιωϲάμ̆ενο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ π̄ ε´ ϲτεῑλ̄εν, | αὐτ̄ο` ϲ δ̆`ε τ̄ηι̑ χεῑρ̄`ι | χρήϲαϲθαι μ̄η` δῠν̆α´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | δῐε̆ λ̄η´ λᾰτο̆ γ̄α` ρ β̆ε´ λεῑ | τὸν ὑπαϲπιϲτὴν ἐκέλευϲε πατάξαι, τῶι ξίφει παραϲχ ̄ω` ν τ̆ο` πλεῡρ̄ο´ ν. | 14. ὁμοίωϲ δὲ καὶ Κηνϲωρῖνον ἀποθανε̄ ι ν̑ λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑ· | Μεγάβακχοϲ δ’ αὐτὸϲ ἑαῡτ̄ο` ν δῐ ε̆ χρ̄η´ ϲᾰτ̄ο | καὶ τῶν ἄλλ ̄ων ο̄ ῾ι δο̆κῐμ̄ω´ τᾰτοῑ. | το̄υ` ϲ δ’ ῠ῾ πο̆λ̆ελεῑμμ̆ε´ νοῡϲ | ἀναβαίν̄οντ̆εϲ ο̄ ῾ι Π̄α´ ρθοῑ | τοῖϲ κοντοῖϲ διήλαυν̄ον μᾰχο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ· | ζῶνταϲ δ’ οὐ πλείουϲ φαϲὶν ἁλῶναι π̄εντᾰκο̆ϲ̆ι´ ̄ων. | τ̄α` ϲ δ̆`ε κ̆εφᾰλ̄α` ϲ | τῶν περὶ τὸν Πόπλιο̆ν ᾰ᾿ πο̆κ̄ο´ ψᾱντ̄εϲ, | ἤλαυνον εὐθ̆υ` ϲ ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̄ο` ν Κρ̄α´ ϲϲ̄ον. | 12 κατοικοῦντεϲ Ps. App.: ούντων NSϒ

14 ὑπολελειμμένουϲ Coraës: ἀπο codd.

There were with Publius two Greeks from that very region, who lived in Carrhae, Hieronymus and Nicomachus. They tried to persuade him to steal away with them and escape to Ichnae, a city which had opted for alliance with Rome and was not far away. He declared that no death was so terrible that fear of it would make Publius Crassus desert those who were perishing because of him. He told the Greeks to save themselves, shook their hands, and sent them away. He could not use his hand

198

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

himself on the sword: his hand had been thrust through by a spear. So he told his shield bearer to strike him, and presented his side to the sword. They say that Censorinus died similarly; Megabocchus did away with himself, as did the most distinguished of the rest. Those who were left the Parthians, coming up the hill, pierced with their pikes as they fought. They say that no more than five hundred were taken prisoner. They cut off the heads of Publius and those around him, and rode straight off against Crassus.

In Plutarch, P. Crassus has gone to help his father at his father’s request; in Dio Cass. 40.21.2–3 (passage 1), he seems more to have contributed to the disaster by his impetuous scorn. Some rashness is apparent even in Plutarch at 23.6 (this is not noticed in Weggen [2011], 49–55, whom see for P. Crassus, adding RRC i.88, 454, ii pl. LII). His youthful zeal has fallen prey to Parthian trickery. 12. | ἦϲαν δ̆`ε π̆ερ̆`ι τ̄ο` ν Π̆ο´ πλῐ̄ον | ἄνδρεϲ Ἕλλην̄εϲ δ̆υ´ο̆ τ ̄ω̑ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο´ θῑ, | κατοικο̄υ ν̑ τ̆εϲ ̄ ε᾿ ν Κ̄α´ ρραῑϲ, | Ἱερώνυμοϲ καὶ Νικόμαχοϲ·: the rhythm builds up the entry of these characters, here suddenly introduced. They bring about a movement from the inglorious deaths of the previous sentence (ἀκλεῆ, 25.11) to heroic deaths in what follows. Their being Greek perhaps throws the Roman suicides into relief. The relation of αὐτόθι and ἐν Κάρραιϲ would be awkward with the reading κατοικούντων; cf. Ser. Num. 556f τοὺϲ αὐτόθι. οὗτοι ϲυνέπεῑθο̆ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο` ν | ὑπεξελθε̄ ι ν̑ μ̆ετ’ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ω̑ν | καὶ δῐᾰφῠγε̄ ι ν̑ ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ Ἴ̆ χνᾱϲ, | πόλιν ἡιρημένη̄ν τ̆`α Ῥ ̄ωμᾱ ι´ ̄ων | καὶ ο̄υ᾿ μᾰκρ̄α` ν ο̄υ῏ ϲᾱν. |: the syntax of the first part is very simple, with no participle ὑπεξελθόντα; the sneaky | ὑπεξελθε̄ ι ν̑ and the secure | (καὶ) δῐᾰφῠγε̄ ι ν̑ are placed in parallel through the rhythmic articulation. The two crucial features of Ichnae are neatly presented in distinct phrases. The recommendation of the place recalls Crito’s recommendation of Thessaly, when urging Socrates to escape (Plat. Crito 45c2–5); Socrates’ act of philosophical heroism hangs over the scene. 13. | ὁ δὲ φήϲαϲ οὐδένα δεῑν̆ο` ν ο̄υ῞ τ̄ωϲ | ἔϲεϲθαι θάνατον ̄ο῝ ν φο̆βη̄θε̄`ιϲ | Πόπλιο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ πο̆λε̄ ι´ψεῑ | τοὺϲ ἀπολλυμένοῡϲ δῐ’ ᾱυ῾ τ̄ο´ ν, |: the character’s heroic declaration is given an unfussy air through the author’s syntactical subordination of it. Compare and contrast the subordination simply of speech to action at Caes. 16.9 | ὁ δ᾿ εἰπὼν ὅτι τοῖϲ Καίϲαροϲ ϲτρατιώταιϲ οὐ λαμβάνειν ἀλλὰ δῐδ̆ο´ ναῑ ϲ ̄ωτη̄ρ̆ι´ ᾱν | ἔθοϲ ἐϲτίν, ἑαυτὸν τῶι ξίφει πατάξᾱϲ ᾰ᾿ νε̄ ιλ̄̑ ε |). Perhaps in accordance with this unfussiness, the rhythm is a little looser until ῝̄ον φο̆βη̄θε̄`ιϲ |; one could even scan the passage with no closes until that point, but the separation of

The Fall of the Crassi

199

δεινὸν from θάνατον in combination with the emphatic inversion in δεινὸν οὕτωϲ (cf. Otho 17.11, Gracch. 31.6) suggests a close after the οὕτωϲ. δεῑν̆ο` ν ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ωϲ | and φο̆βη̄θε̄`ιϲ | connect in paradox. The rhythmic break after φο̆βη̄θε̄`ι ϲ | and the initial position of | Πόπλιο̆ϲ in the new phrase add force to the opposition between the scorn of φο̆βη̄θε̄`ιϲ | and the third-person pride of | Πόπλιο̆ϲ (as so often, the Greeks do not quite get Roman praenomina). The syntax subordinates φο̆βη̄θε̄`ιϲ | to ᾰ᾿ πο̆λε̄ ι´ψεῑ |: mere fear of death will not make P. Crassus perform this act of abandonment. For the vigorous relative after οὕτωϲ (especially with negative), cf. KG ii.422, Plut. Exil. 605e οὐδείϲ ἐϲτιν οὕτ ̄ωϲ ᾰ᾿ φῐλ̆ο´ τῑμ̄οϲ | ο̄υ᾿ δ᾿ ᾰ᾿ γ̄ενν̄η` ϲ | ὃϲ μ̄αλ̑ λο̆ν ῍ᾰ ν ε̆᾿ βο̄υ´λ̆ετ̄ο | . . . , Shakespeare, Macbeth 1542–4 ‘A MURTHERER Where is your Husband? | WIFE I hope in no place so vnsanctified, | Where such as thou may’st finde him.’ Despite the image of Plat. Phaedo 62b3–5, which lies in the background, this passage does not make P. Crassus a subordinate deserting his post, or even just a commander deserting his men; it is closer to, and recalls, Achilles’ αὐτίκα τεθναίην, ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἄρ᾿ ἔμελλον ἑταίρωι | κτεινομένωι ἐπαμῦναι (Hom. Il. 18.98–9). But Plutarch’s previous account makes P. Crassus’ sense of guilt (the rhythm emphasizes δῐ’ ᾱυ῾ τ̄ο´ ν, |) sound like an excess of nobility. | ἐκείνουϲ μὲν ἐκέλεῡϲ̆ε ϲ ̄ω´ ιζ̄εϲθαῑ | καὶ δεξιωϲάμ̆ενο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ π̄ ε´ ϲτεῑλ̄εν, |: two separate main clauses, each a rhythmic phrase, with short and simple syntax. The first might seem grandly contemptuous, but the second refines it with the friendly gesture of farewell. | αὐτ̄ο` ϲ δ̆`ε τ̄ηι̑ χεῑρ̄`ι | χρήϲαϲθαι μ̄η` δῠν̆α´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | —δῐ ε̆ λ̄η´ λᾰτο̆ γ̄α` ρ ´ β̆ελεῑ— | τὸν ὑπαϲπιϲτὴν ἐκέλευϲε πατάξαι, τῶι ξίφει παραϲχ ̄ω` ν τ̆ο` πλεῡρ̄ο´ ν. |: τ̄ηι̑ χεῑρ̄`ι | is thrown into relief by the rhythm; χρήϲαϲθαι can be detached from it because it forms part of a separate phrase. The hand usually creates agency in suicide by the sword; see on Brut. 52.3 in ch. 10, and note also for the hand and valour in battle Arist. 17.8 τὸν θάνᾰτο̆ν ο̆᾿ δ̄υ´ρ̄εϲθαῑ | . . . ὅτι θνήιϲκει τῆι χειρὶ μὴ χρηϲάμενοϲ. In the present passage, the word is set against τ̆ο` πλεῡρ̄ο´ ν. |: through giving his side to the sword, P. Crassus produces physical agency as best he can (cf. Agis 20.1 παρέδωκε τῶι βρόχωι τὸν τράχηλον ἑκουϲίωϲ, in ch. 17). The hand is further made the subject of its own parenthetical clause, —δῐ ε̆ λ̄η´ λᾰτο̆ γ̄α` ρ β̆ε´ λεῑ— |, and perhaps creates some surprise after δεξιωϲάμ̆ενο̆ϲ. The articulation ἐκέλευϲε πατάξαι, τῶι ξίφει seems preferable to ἐκέλευϲ̆ε πᾰτ̄α´ ξαῑ τ̄ω̑ι ξ̆ι´ φεῑ |. This is not because of the article (cf. Caes. 16.9 ἑαυτὸν τῶι ξίφει πατάξᾱϲ ᾰ᾿ νε̄ ιλ̄̑ ε |; no article e.g. App. BC 2.64 | μέχρι τιϲ τὸν Δομιτίου δαιδοῦχο̆ν ε̆᾿ π̆α´ τᾱξ̄ε

200

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

ξ̆ι´ φεῑ. |, 75 | θεράπων . . . ἐπάταξεν ἐϲ τὸ μετάφρεν̄ον ξῐφῐδ̆ι´ ̄ωι. |); rather, it seems easier for παραϲχ ̄ω` ν to have an explicit dative. 14. | ὁμοίωϲ δὲ καὶ Κηνϲωρῖνον ἀποθανε̄ ι ν̑ λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑ· | Μεγάβακχοϲ δ’ αὐτὸϲ ἑαῡτ̄ο` ν δῐ ε̆ χρ̄η´ ϲᾰτ̄ο | καὶ τῶν ἄλλ ω ̄ ν ο̄ ῾ι δο̆κῐμ ̄ω´ τᾰτοῑ. |: the rhythm helps articulate the line of thought. | ὁμοίωϲ creates a contrast with | Μεγάβακχοϲ and αὐτὸϲ ἑαῡτ̄ο` ν δῐ ε̆ χρ̄η´ ϲᾰτ̄ο |, as opposed to the assisted suicides of P. Crassus and Censorinus. The position of Megabocchus in the structure picks up the mention of his εὐψυχία at 25.3. ο̄ ῾ι δο̆κῐμ ̄ω´ τᾰτοῑ. | conjoins the courage of suicide with social distinction; Megabocchus was not yet a senator, but was only in his thirties (cf. 25.3), and politically active (cf. Cic. Att. 2.7.3; Wiseman [1971], 281). | το̄υ` ϲ δ’ υ῾̆ πο̆λ̆ελεῑμμ̆ε´ νοῡϲ | ἀναβαίν̄οντ̆εϲ ο̄ ῾ι Π̄α´ ρθοῑ | τοῖϲ κοντοῖϲ διήλαυν̄ον μᾰχο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ· | ζῶνταϲ δ’ οὐ πλείουϲ φαϲὶν ἁλῶναι π̄εντᾰκο̆ϲ̆ι´ ̄ων. |: το̄υ` ϲ δ’ ῠ῾ πο̆λ̆ελεῑμμ̆ε´ νοῡϲ | are set against ο̄ ῾ι δο̆κῐμ̄ω´ τᾰτοῑ. |; but μᾰχο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ· | at the other end of the half-sentence makes it clear that these men too were being valiant (cf. 31.7 | οἱ μὲν ἐκεῖ μαχόμενοι περὶ τὸν Κράϲϲον [i.e. M. Crassus] ἀνη̄ιρ̆ε´ θη̄ϲᾱν, |, and also 11.10 ἀμυνόμεν̄οϲ κᾰτ̆εκ̆ο´ πη̆. |). With διήλαυν̄ον μᾰχο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ· |, | ζῶνταϲ contrasts. The phrase on those captured alive is less tight rhythmically, as may suit its more distanced manner and less glorious content; the survivors of Carrhae made Horace ashamed (Odes 3.5.5–12). None the less, the number at the end displays the courage of the total force, through Plutarch’s stress on its smallness; if he has just the cavalry in mind, 500 does not seem as few out of 1,300 (25.2) as might have been expected. | τ̄α` ϲ δ̆`ε κ̆εφᾰλ̄α` ϲ | τῶν περὶ τὸν Πόπλιο̆ν ᾰ᾿ πο̆κ̄ο´ ψᾱντ̄εϲ, | ἤλαυνον εὐθ̆υ` ϲ ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̄ο` ν Κρ̄α´ ϲϲ̄ον. |: the rhythm further highlights | τ̄α` ϲ δ̆`ε κ̆εφᾰλ̄α` ϲ |, the basis for the narrative in the next chapter, and a forerunner of M. Crassus’ own fate (31.7, 33.3–7). The plural suggests that | τῶν περὶ τὸν Πόπλιο̆ν is a real plurality (cf. Radt [1980], 47–56, [2002]); but εὐθ̆υ` ϲ ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̄ο` ν Κρ̄α´ ϲϲ̄ον. | presents the father as the Parthians’ cruel goal.

CRAS. 26.6–9 6. | καίτοι τ̄ο´ ν γ̆ε Κρ̄α´ ϲϲ̄ον | ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο` ν ᾱυ῾ το̄υ ̑ | λαμπρότατον ἐν τ ̄ω̑ι τ̆ο´ τ̆ε π̆α´ θεῑ | φανῆναῑ λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑν· | ἐβόα γὰρ ἐπιὼν τὰϲ τάξειϲ· ῾ἐμόν, ὦ Ῥωμαῖοι, τοῦτο τὸ πάθοϲ ῎̆ι δῐ ο̆ ´ ν ̄ ε᾿ ϲτῑν· | ἡ δὲ μεγάλη τύχη καὶ δ̄ο´ ξᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ Ῥ ̄ω´ μη̄ϲ | ἐν ὑμῖν ἕϲτη̄κ̆ε

The Fall of the Crassi

201

ϲ ̄ωιζο̆μ̆ε´ νοῑϲ | ἄθραυϲτοϲ και` α᾿̆ η´ ττητοϲ. |h 7. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐμο̄υ ̑ τῐϲ ο̄῏ι κτ̄οϲ | ̑ | πάντ ̄ων α῎̆ ρῑϲτ̄ον, | ἐπιδείξᾱϲθ̆ε το̄υ τ̑ ̄ον | ὀργῆι τῆι πρὸϲ ἀφηιρη̄μ̆ε´ νοῡ πᾱ ι δᾱ το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ οῡϲ. | ἀφέλεϲθε τ̄η` ν χᾰρ̄α` ν ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ν, | τιμωρήϲαϲθε τὴν ̄ω᾿ μ̆ο´ τη̄τᾱ, | μὴ καταπλαγῆτε τοῖϲ γεγενημένοιϲ· εὶ δε̄ ι ̑ τῐ κᾱ`ι πᾰθε̄ ιν̑ | μεγάλ ̄ων ε̆᾿ φῑ ε̆ μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ. | 8. οὐδὲ Λεύκολλ̄οϲ Τῐγρ̄α´ νη̄ν | ἀναιμωτ̄`ι κᾰθε̄ ιλ̄̑ εν, | οὐδὲ Cκιπίων Ἀντίοχον, χῑλ̆ι´ ᾱϲ δ̆`ε νᾱυ ϲ̑ | ο̄ ῾ι πᾰλαῑο̄`ι | περὶ Cικελίᾱν ᾰ᾿ π ̄ω´ λ̆εϲᾱν, | ̄ ε᾿ ν δ’ Ἰ̆ τᾰλ̆ι´ ᾱι | πολλοὺϲ ᾱυ᾿ το̆κρ̆α´ το̆ρᾱϲ | κᾱ`ι ϲτρᾰτη̄γο̄υ´ϲ, | ὧν οὐδε̄`ιϲ προ̆η̄ττη̄θε̄`ιϲ | ἐκώλυϲεν αὐτο̄υ` ϲ κρᾰτ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ | τ ̄ω̑ν ν̆ενῑκη̄κ̆ο´ τ̄ων. | 9. οὐ γὰρ εὐτυχίᾱι τ̆α` Ῥω ̄ μᾱ ι´ ̄ων | ἀλλὰ τλημοϲύνηι καὶ ἀρετῆι πρὸϲ τὰ δεῑν̆`α ´ ᾿ χ ̄ωρο̄υντ ̄ων | ε̄ ι ϲ το̆ϲο̄υ τ̑ ̄ο | προ̄ηλ̑ θ̆ε δῠν̆α´ μ̆ε ̄ωϲ. |᾿ 6 γε Κράϲϲον αὐτὸν: γε om. Ps. App., αὐτὸν om. NSΥ δόξα καὶ τύχη Ps. App. 7 εὶ Ziegler: εἰ codd. add. Ziegler 9 τοϲοῦτο Ps. Appiani V, M?: τοϲοῦτον N, Ps. Appiani i: τοῦτο SΥ

Yet they say Crassus himself appeared at his most glorious in that moment of suffering. He shouted as he approached the successive ranks, ‘To me alone, Romans, this disaster belongs; the mighty fortune and glory of Rome stand unbroken and unbeaten in you and your state of safety. But if any pity is felt for me too, in losing the best son of all, display that pity in your anger towards the enemy, remove their joy, take vengeance on their cruelty, and do not be downcast by what has happened: those that aspire to great things must suffer some misfortune too. Lucullus did not defeat Tigranes without bloodshed, nor Scipio Antiochus. The men of old lost a thousand ships in the waters around Sicily, and many commanders and generals in Italy; the previous loss by these leaders did not prevent our ancestors from overcoming those who had been victorious. It is not through good luck that the Romans have proceeded to such heights of power: it is through their endurance and courage as they go to meet danger.’

M. Crassus has suffered agonies of suspense and indecision; but Parthians appear with the head of his son, mockingly inquiring who his father is: it surely cannot be the unmanly Crassus (26.4). The Romans are horrified, their spirits broken (5). 6. | καίτοι τ̄ο´ ν γ̆ε Κρ̄α´ ϲϲ̄ον | ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο` ν ᾱυ῾ το̄υ ̑ | λαμπρότατον ἐν τ ̄ω̑ι τ̆ο´ τ̆ε π̆α´ θεῑ | φανῆναῑ λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑν· |: particles and rhythm stress Crassus by contrast with the others. Virgil probably reverses such a sequence in Aeneid 9, where the mother’s female grief (femineo ululatu, 477) and her speech are such as to discourage the troops (498–502; Hardie [1994], 158 notes de la Cerda’s connection of the passages). The juxtaposed | ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο` ν ᾱυ῾ το̄υ ̑ | probably stands as a rhythmic entity on its own, cf. Ages. 26.3 | τῶι γὰρ ῎̄ο ντῐ Θη̄βᾱ ι´οῡϲ | αὐτο̄υ` ϲ ε̆῾ αῡτ ̄ω̑ν | πολεμικωτάτουϲ τότε γενέϲθαι φαϲί,; the omission of αὐτὸν is easily

202

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

explained. But the phrase has special point here, when Crassus’ character and career have been pretty mixed (note 27.6). | λαμπρότατον, at the start of its rhythmic unit, directly responds to the Parthians’ praise of Publius and abuse of Marcus: Publius was λαμπρὸν ἀρετ̄ηι̑ , Marcus ἀνανδροτάτου (26.4). The Parthians’ comparison showed a dominating theme of the Lives in a brutal form; but their opinion is undone as the father rises to his son’s level—or beyond (cf. Fab. 24, ending with the father’s restraint at his son’s death). | ἐβόα γὰρ ἐπιὼν τὰϲ τάξειϲ· ῾ἐμόν, ὦ Ῥωμαῖοι, τοῦτο τὸ πάθοϲ ῎̆ιδῐ̆ο´ ν ̄ ε᾿ ϲτῑν· |: the impact of the massed rhythms in the speech to come is increased by the unrhythmic introduction, and the relatively loose beginning. The moment connects with Nicias in ch. 13 (he is a devastating θέαμα, Nic. 26.4, like the head of P. Crassus, Cras. 26.5); but Plutarch goes further in this Life by permitting M. Crassus an extended speech, more like Nicias’ at Thuc. 7.77. The introduction recalls that to Nicias’ speech, at Thuc. 7.76 (passage 2 in the Appendix to this chapter). ῎̆ιδῐο̆ν segregates Crassus’ experience from the army’s more firmly than Nicias’ ἴδιον at Thuc. 7.77.2 (passage 4 in the Appendix to ch. 13). | ἡ δὲ μεγάλη τύχη καὶ δ̄ο´ ξᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ Ῥ̄ω´ μη̄ϲ | ἐν ὑμῖν ἕϲτη̄κ̆ε ϲ ̄ωιζο̆μ̆ε´ νοῑϲ | ἄθραυϲτοϲ κᾱ`ι α᾿̆ ̄η´ ττη̄τ̄οϲ. |h: the rhythms of the speech start to come closer together, as the sentence proceeds to the relation of Rome and this army. In this context, τύχη is the point that should come first, with the manuscripts of the Life. It contrasts with the misfortune which Crassus has suffered, and which allows no inference to the Romans’ fate. More generally, τύχη precedes δόξα when they form a pair with no separate article for each; cf. especially Vett. Val. 4.15.4 p. 174.25–6 Pingree οἱ δὲ καὶ ἐν μείζονι τύχηι καὶ δόξηι καθεϲτῶτεϲ, 4.16.8 p. 175.25–6 ἀπὸ μεγάληϲ τύχηϲ καὶ δόξηϲ. The boundary between rhythmic phrases strongly confronts τ̄ηϲ̑ Ῥ̄ω´ μη̄ϲ | and | ἐν ὑμῖν. Nicias’ ἄνδρεϲ γὰρ πόλιϲ (Thuc. 7.77.7) lies in the background; but the name of Rome carries more weight here than do there the name of the Athenians (as opposed to allies) and the reference to ‘the city’: γνῶτε . . . οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τὴν μεγάλην δύναμιν τῆϲ πόλεωϲ καίπερ πεπτωκυῖαν ἐπανορθώϲοντεϲ. The simple ϲ ̄ωιζο̆μ̆ε´ νοῑϲ | in the case of the men matches the imposing pair | ἄθραυϲτοϲ κᾱ`ι α᾿̆ ̄η´ ττη̄τ̄οϲ. |h in the case of Rome. 7. |h εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐμο̄υ ̑ τῐϲ ο̄῏ι κτ̄οϲ | ἀφηιρη̄μ̆ε´ νοῡ πᾱ ι δ̑ ᾱ | πάντ ̄ων α῎̆ ρῑϲτ̄ον, | ἐπιδείξᾱϲθ̆ε το̄υ τ̑ ̄ον | ὀργῆι τῆι πρὸϲ το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ οῡϲ. |: ἐμο̄υ ̑ is the first significant word in its sentence and rhythmic phrase; it takes

The Fall of the Crassi

203

up ἐμόν, the first word of the speech, but Crassus and the army are now connected rather than separated, and the rhythm is dense. The initial phrase, with much pathos, makes the pity formally uncertain (εἰ) and accompanies ο̄῏ι κτ̄οϲ | by τιϲ and ἐμο̄υ ̑ by καί, despite the extreme reaction of the Romans, which Crassus is unable to remove (27.1). ο̄῏ι κτ̄οϲ | is picked up by το̄υ τ̑ ̄ον |, and opposed by | ὀργῆι, with the more strength from the close and beginning of phrases. | πάντ ̄ων α῎̆ ρῑϲτ̄ον, |, isolated through the rhythm, intensifies the Parthians’ γενναῖον οὕτω (26.4) with a father’s subjectivity, validated through the army’s perspective (as hypothesized). | ἀφέλεϲθε τ̄η` ν χᾰρ̄α` ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ω̑ν, | τιμωρήϲαϲθε τὴν ̄ω᾿ μ̆ο´ τη̄τᾱ, | μὴ καταπλαγῆτε τοῖϲ γεγενημένοιϲ· εὶ δε̄ ι ̑ τῐ κᾱ`ι πᾰθε̄ ι ν̑ | μεγάλ ̄ων ε̆᾿ φῑ ε̆ μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ. |: the imperative phrases, all in asyndeton, form distinct units, the first two rhythmic. The last could run into what follows if γεγενημένοιϲ, εἰ were read with the MSS, as seems not impossible (the cautious presentation of the bad luck would fit with τι). In any case, the third imperative clause is less aggressive than the preceding two, and modulates the sentence into a Thucydidean tonality (cf. 7.77.4 μὴ καταπέπληχθε ἄγαν). The first two clauses have a brevity and oratorical rawness unlike Plutarch’s usual style. τ̄η` ν χᾰρ̄α` ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ω̑ν, | and τὴν ̄ω᾿ μ̆ο´ τη̄τᾱ, | in combination create a picture of the savage foe. μεγάλ ̄ων ε̆᾿ φῑ̆εμ̆ε´ νοῡϲ. |, by contrast (or | μεγάλ ̄ων ε̆᾿ φῑ̆εμ̆ε´ νοῡϲ. |), shows the noble ambition of the Romans; μέγαϲ has transformed from an actual attribute of Roman fortune (6) to an aspiration. 8. | οὐδὲ Λεύκολλ̄οϲ Τῐγρ̄α´ νη̄ν | ἀναιμωτ̄`ι κᾰθε̄ ιλ̄̑ εν, | οὐδὲ Cκιπίων Ἀντίοχον, χῑλ̆ι´ ᾱϲ δ̆`ε νᾱυ ϲ̑ | ο̄ ῾ι πᾰλαῑο̄`ι | περὶ Cικελίᾱν ᾰ᾿ π ̄ω´ λ̆εϲᾱν, |: three examples from further and further back give the flavour of Roman oratory. | ο̄ ῾ι πᾰλαῑο̄`ι | stands on its own to mark the movement back, although there is not an enormous interval between 190 BC (L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes defeating Antiochus III) and the First and Second Punic Wars. The first two items, the battles of Tigranocerta (69 BC) and Magnesia, are grouped together, with the rhythmic | οὐδὲ Λεύκολλ̄οϲ Τῐγρ̄α´ νη̄ν | being matched by the unrhythmic οὐδὲ Cκιπίων Ἀντίοχον; they allow the weight to fall on Sicily. This third example, of the First Punic War, gives emphasis to the heavy losses before ultimate triumph; | οὐδὲ . . . Τῐγρ̄α´ νη̄ν | ἀναιμωτ̄`ι κᾰθε̄ ιλ̄̑ εν, | is answered by χῑλ̆ι´ ᾱϲ δ̆`ε νᾱυ ϲ̑ | . . . ᾰ᾿ π ̄ω´ λ̆εϲᾱν, |. The examples of Lucullus and Scipio do not make Crassus’ case well: Roman casualties at Tigranocerta and Magnesia were particularly

204

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

low. Note Luc. 28.5 | ὥϲτε μήτε τραύματ̄οϲ γ̆ενο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡ | μήθ᾿ αἵματοϲ ὀφθέντοϲ ἡττᾶϲθαι τὰϲ τοϲαύταϲ μυριάδαϲ. (Since Tigranes lived on after Lucullus’ return to Rome, and Antiochus III after Scipio’s, καθεῖλε must mean ‘defeated’; cf. Comp. Cat. Arist. 32 (5).4 Scipio Africanus Maior τὸν ἀήττητον Ἀννίβᾱν κᾰθε̄ ιλ̄̑ ε, |.) In the context of this pair of Lives, the mention of losing ships around Sicily draws the reader’s thoughts to Nicias’ kindred disaster. | ̄ ε᾿ ν δ’ Ἰ̆ τᾰλ̆ι´ ᾱι | πολλοὺϲ ᾱυ᾿ το̆κρ̆α´ το̆ρᾱϲ | κᾱ`ι ϲτρᾰτη̄γο̄υ´ϲ, |: the same, somewhat curious division of categories is again separated into two rhythmic units at Comp. Per. Fab. 28 (1).3 Φάβιοϲ δ᾿ ὁρῶν πολλὰϲ μὲν φυγὰϲ καὶ ἥτταϲ, πολλοὺϲ δ̆`ε θᾰν̆α´ τ̄ουϲ κᾱ`ι ϲφᾰγ̄α` ϲ | ᾱυ᾿ το̆κρᾰτ̆ο´ ρ ω ̄ ν| κᾱ`ι ϲτρᾰτη̄γ ̄ω̑ν, | (cf. Cat. Min. 45.7; ϲτρατηγόϲ does not mean ‘praetor’ in these passages). But that passage goes on to talk of all the dead; here there is an unexpected transition to leaders from ‘not without bloodshed’ and χῑλ̆ι´ ᾱϲ δ̆`ε νᾱυϲ̑ |. Crassus might omit the ordinary soldiers out of tact; but the concentration on leaders points with irony or misgiving, the reader will think, to Crassus’ own demise. | ὧν οὐδε̄`ιϲ προ̆η̄ττη̄θε̄`ιϲ | ἐκώλυϲεν αὐτο̄υ` ϲ κρᾰτ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ | τ ̄ω̑ν ν̆ενῑκη̄κ̆ο´ τ ̄ων. |: this scansion, which seems to flow more easily than ἐκώλῡϲ̆εν ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ` ϲ | κρατῆϲαι, turns out to have advantages. προ̆η̄ττη̄θε̄`ιϲ | is contrasted with κρᾰτ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ |, and both are set against ν̆ενῑκη̄κ̆ο´ τ ̄ων. |. The force given προ̆η̄ττη̄θε̄`ι ϲ | by rhythm and syntax shows up a problem in what Crassus is saying. The defeat of a general, and thus of his army, although it might be absorbed by Rome, is of no comfort to this army in battle; and the catastrophic defeats of the early stages in the Second Punic War could hardly be worse chosen. 9. | οὐ γὰρ εὐτυχίᾱι τ̆α` Ῥ̄ωμᾱ ι´ ̄ων | ἀλλὰ τλημοϲύνηι καὶ ἀρετῆι πρὸϲ τὰ δεῑν̆α` χ ̄ωρο̄υ´ντ ̄ων | ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ το̆ϲο̄υ τ̑ ̄ο | προ̄ηλ̑ θ̆ε δῠν̆α´ μ̆ε ω ̄ ϲ. |᾿ : it is tempting to scan ο̄υ᾿ γ̆α` ρ ε̄υ᾿ τῠχ̆ι´ ᾱι | τ̆α` Ῥ̄ωμᾱ ι´ ̄ων | ̄α᾿ λλ̆α` τλη̄μο̆ϲ̆υ´νη̄ι |. ̆ The second in the pair, καὶ ἀρετῆι, does not form its own rhythmical entity, and this would normally tell against putting τλημοϲύνηι in a separate entity, but the word is extremely unusual, and deserves to be dwelt on. It comes only here in Plutarch; in Philostr. VA 7.26 it is explicitly associated with Archil. fr. 13 West, from a poem on deaths at sea. Otherwise it comes at HHAp. 191, then not until Iamblichus. The word here cuts in on and makes more sombre the conflict of τύχη and ἀρετή debated in Plutarch’s De Fortuna Romanorum, and in the two pieces on Alexander. εὐτυχία is a major and highly ambivalent theme in the Life of Fabius. τ̆α` Ῥ̄ωμᾱ ι´ω ̄ ν | looks back to τ̄ηϲ̑ Ῥ̄ω´ μη̄ϲ | (6) and indeed ὦ Ῥωμαῖοι (6); but the third-person generality is now

The Fall of the Crassi

205

striking. Crassus, and the Life, seem to be lost in impressive meditation on the Roman character and Roman history, but at the expense of arguing that the army will be fortunate now (for ε̄ ᾿ιϲ το̆ϲο̄υ τ̑ ̄ο |, stressed by rhythm and word-order, cf. Cic. Cael. 39 Camillos, Fă brĭcĭōs, Cŭ rĭōs, | omnisque eos qui haec ex minimis tāntă fēcērūnt |). The reaction of the troops is not encouraging: | οὐ πολλο̄υ` ϲ ε̆῾ ̄ω´ ρᾱ | προθύμωϲ ὑπακούονταϲ (27.1). Plutarch seems to be allowing Crassus a glorious moment (cf. 6) to match Nicias’, and indeed go beyond it with a speech. Yet Crassus’ speech has moved to compromise its own plausibility. It has affinities in this respect with Nicias’ speech in Thuc. 7.77; the resulting gloom does not altogether undo the glory of Crassus’ attempt. By the end, he sounds less hopeful for his men than Plutarch’s Nicias in that passage (see ch. 13). The precision which the rhythm helps to exact from readers enables them to discern the subtle movement in the speech.

CRAS. 30.2–5 2 . . . . ἐκάλει δὲ τὸν Κρ̄α´ ϲϲο̆ν ε̆᾿ π̆`ι ϲῡμβ̆α´ ϲεῑϲ, | ὑπειπὼν ὅτι τ̄ηϲ̑ μ̆`εν ̄α᾿ νδρε̄ ι´ᾱϲ | κᾱ`ι δῠν̆α´ μ̆ε ̄ωϲ | ἄκοντοϲ πεπείραταῑ βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ, | πραότη̄τᾰ δ’ ᾱυ᾿ το̄ ιϲ̑ | κᾱ`ι φῐλο̆φρο̆ϲ ̆υ´νη̄ν | ἑκὼν ἐπιδείκνυται, ϲπενδόμενο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ πῐο̄υ ϲ̑ ῑ | καὶ παρέχων ϲώιζεϲθαι. 3. ταῦτα τοῦ Cουρήνᾱ λ̆ε´ γ̄οντ̄οϲ, | ο̄ ῾ι μ̆`εν ῎̄αλλοῑ | προθύμ ̄ωϲ ε̆᾿ δ̄ ε´ ξᾱντ̄ο | καὶ π̆ερῐχᾰρε̄ ιϲ̑ η̄῏ ϲᾱν, | ὁ δὲ Κράϲϲοϲ οὐδὲν ὅ τι μ̄η` δῐ’ ᾰ᾿ π̆α´ τη̄ϲ | ἐϲφᾱλμ̆ε´ νο̆ϲ ῠ῾ π’ ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ν, | και` τ̆ο` αι᾿ φν̆ι´ δῐον |h τ̄ηϲ̑ μ̆ετᾰβο̆λ̄ηϲ̑ | α῎̆ λο̆γο̆ν η̄ ῾ γο̄υ´μ̆εν̄οϲ, | ο̄υ᾿ χ ῠ῾ π̄η´ κοῡ̄εν, | ̄α᾿ λλ’ ε̆᾿ βοῡλε̄υ´ε̆ τ̄ο. | 4. τῶν δὲ ϲτρατιωτ ̄ω̑ν βο̆ ̄ω´ ντ ̄ων | καὶ κ̆ελεῡ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | εἶτα λοῑδο̆ρο̄υ´ντ ̄ων | κᾱ`ι κᾰκῑζ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | ̄ω῾ ϲ προ̆β̄α´ λλ̄οντᾱ | μαχοῡμ̆ε´ νοῡϲ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ` ϲ | οἷϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο` ϲ ᾰ᾿ ν̆ο´ πλοῑϲ | εἰϲ λόγουϲ οὐ ̑ θαρρε̄ ι ̑ ϲῠν̄ελθε̄ ι ν̑ , | πρῶτον μὲν ἐπειρ̄α τ̑ ο̆ δε̄ ιϲθαῑ | καὶ λέγειν ὅτι τὸ λειπό´ μενον μέροϲ τῆϲ ἡμέραϲ διακᾱρτ̆ερ̄ηϲᾱντ̄εϲ, | ἐν τοῖϲ ὀρεῑνο̄ ιϲ̑ κᾱ`ι τρᾱχ̆ε´ ϲῑ | δύνανται διὰ νῡκτ̆ο` ϲ ᾿̆ιε̆ ´ ναῑ, | καὶ τ̄η` ν ο῾̆ δ̆ο` ν ε̆᾿ δε̄ ι´κνῠ̄ε | κᾱ`ι πᾰρ̆εκ̆α´ λεῑ | τὴν ἐλπίδα μ̄η` προ̆̄ε´ ϲθαῑ | τῆϲ ϲωτηρίαϲ ̄ ε᾿ γγ̆υ` ϲ ο̄υ῎ ϲη̄ϲ. | 5. ὡϲ δὲ χαλεπαίν̄οντ̆εϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι | καὶ τὰ ὅπλα κρού̄οντ̆εϲ η̄ ᾿ πε̄ ι´λοῡν, | φοβηθε̄`ιϲ ε̆᾿ χ ̄ω´ ρεῑ, | καὶ τοϲοῦτον εἶπε μεταϲτραφείϲ· ῾ Ὀκτάβιε κᾱ`ι Π̆ετρ ̄ω´ νῐ̄ε | καὶ ὅϲοῑ π̆α´ ρ̄εϲτ̄ε | Ῥωμαίων ἄρχοντεϲ, ὑμε̄ ιϲ̑ ο῾̆ ρ̄α τ̑ ̄ε | τ̄ηϲ̑ ε̆᾿ μ̄ηϲ̑ ο῾̆ δο̄υ ̑ | τ̄η` ν ᾰ᾿ ν̄α´ γκη̄ν, | καὶ ϲύνιϲτε παρόντεϲ ὡϲ ᾱ ᾿ι ϲχρ̆`α π̄α´ ϲχ ̄ω | κᾱ`ι β̆ι´ αῑᾱ· | τοῖϲ δ’ ἄλλοιϲ ἅπᾱϲῐν ̄α᾿ νθρ ̄ω´ ποῑϲ | λ̆ε´ γ̆ετ̆ε ϲ ̄ωθ̄ ε´ ντ̄εϲ | ὡϲ Κρ̄α´ ϲϲο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ πᾰτη̄θε̄`ιϲ | ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ ̄ων, | οὐκ ἐκδοθεὶϲ ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆λῑτ ̄ω̑ν | ̆ ᾰ᾿ π ̄ω´ λ̆ετ̄ο.᾿ | 2 αὐτοῖϲ: αὐτὸϲ Ps. App. 4 add. Ziegler 5 οὐκ ἐκδοθεὶϲ ὑπὸ τῶν πολιτῶν ἀπώλετο fere NSΥ (ἀπόλωλε N): ἀπόλωλε καὶ οὐκ ἐκδ. ὑ. τ. π. Ps. App.

206

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

. . . Surenas invited Crassus to discuss terms, and said as a preliminary that Crassus had experienced the king’s courage and power against the king’s will, and that the king was very willing to show the Romans mildness and benevolence; the king would make a treaty with them if they were going to depart, and would allow them to get away safely. When Surenas said this, the Roman army received his words eagerly, and were utterly delighted; but Crassus, all of whose failures at the Parthians’ hands had come about through trickery, thought this sudden change made no sense. He did not do as he was bid, but pondered. The soldiers shouted out and told him to go; then they abused him and called him a coward: he was giving them up to fight with people he did not even dare to meet for discussion, without their weapons. First he tried to beg the men, and to point out that if they held on and waited for the remaining part of the day, they could travel through the night in harsh and mountainous territory. He showed them the route and urged them not to abandon hope of the rescue that lay close at hand. They grew angry with him, and made threats, hitting their weapons; Crassus was frightened and set off to the talks. Turning as he went, he spoke as follows: ‘Octavius, Petronius, and all you Roman leaders here, you can see how I am compelled to go; you bear witness, present as you are, to the disgrace and violence I am undergoing. Tell all the rest of mankind, when you reach safety, that Crassus perished cheated by his enemies, not given up by his fellow citizens.’

2. . . . ἐκάλει δὲ τὸν Κρ̄α´ ϲϲο̆ν ε̆᾿ π̆`ι ϲῡμβ̆α´ ϲεῑϲ, | ὑπειπὼν ὅτι τ̄ηϲ̑ μ̆`εν ̄α᾿ νδρε̄ ι´ᾱϲ | κᾱ`ι δῠν̆α´ μ̆ε ω ̄ ϲ | ἄκοντοϲ πεπείραταῑ βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ, | πραότη̄τᾰ δ’ ᾱυ᾿ το̄ ιϲ̑ | κᾱ`ι φῐλο̆φρο̆ϲ̆υ´νη̄ν | ἑκὼν ἐπιδείκνυται, ϲπενδόμενο̆ϲ ᾰ᾿ πῐο̄υ ϲ̑ ῑ | καὶ παρέχων ϲώιζεϲθαι.: the extract begins with a somewhat less regularly rhythmic part-sentence, to give the context for what ensues. | ἄκοντοϲ and | ἑκών both begin a rhythmic unit, which underlines and connects them; in the case of | ἄκοντοϲ, the emphasis is confirmed by the separation from the noun βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ, |. The two pairs of abstract nouns in Surenas’ courtly utterance are both organized with each noun in its own rhythmic entity. (Contrast Polyaenus’ abridgement [7.41] δείξαϲ Ῥωμαίοιϲ ἀνδρίαν, νῦν δεῖξαι βούλεται φιλανθρωπίαν.) The reader is invited to dwell on every abstract noun. Particular ironies attach to | πραότη̄τᾰ, a central quality in the Lives of which the Parthians will display the extreme reverse. πραότητα καὶ φιλοφροϲύνην form a pair (unrhythmic) at Gen. Socr. 582d. ̄α᾿ νδρε̄ ι´ᾱϲ | suggests a kindred quality in the Romans; but the Parthians have brutally accused Crassus of lacking it, as Surenas will do again (26.4, 32.2). The ironic ᾰ᾿ πῐο̄υ ϲ̑ ῑ | is spotlighted too.

The Fall of the Crassi

207

3. ταῦτα τοῦ Cουρήνᾱ λ̆ε´ γ̄οντ̄οϲ, | ο̄ ῾ι μ̆`εν ῎̄αλλοῑ | προθύμ̄ωϲ ε̆᾿ δ̄ ε´ ξᾱντ̄ο | καὶ π̆ερῐχᾰρε̄ ιϲ̑ η̄῏ ϲᾱν, | ὁ δὲ Κράϲϲοϲ οὐδὲν ὅ τι μ̄η` δῐ’ ᾰ᾿ π̆α´ τη̄ϲ | ἐϲφᾱλμ̆ε´ νο̆ϲ ῠ῾ π’ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ω̑ν, | κᾱ`ι τ̆ο` ᾱι᾿ φν̆ι´ δῐ̄ον |h τ̄ηϲ̑ μ̆ετᾰβο̆λ̄ηϲ̑ | α῎̆ λο̆γο̆ν η̄ ῾ γο̄υ´μ̆εν̄οϲ, | ο̄υ᾿ χ ῠ῾ π̄η´ κοῡ̄εν, | ̄α᾿ λλ’ ε̆᾿ βοῡλε̄υ´ε̆ τ̄ο. |: the isolation of Crassus is typical (cf. 23.6; 27.6); his appearance as the first significant word in a rhythmic phrase adds to the structuring through particles. The shape of the sentence gives to the other men two brief parallel rhythmic main clauses of joy, | προθύμ̄ωϲ ε̆᾿ δ̄ ε´ ξᾱντ̄ο | καὶ π̆ερῐχᾰρε̄ ιϲ̑ η̄῏ ϲᾱν, |; but to Crassus are given first two more elaborate participial clauses, then not two reinforcing main clauses, but a negative (| ο̄υ᾿ χ ῠ῾ π̄η´ κοῡ̄εν, |) followed by the suspense of pondering. In Plutarch’s account, Crassus’ caution at this point distinguishes him from Nicias: | περὶ μέντοι τ̄η` ν τ̆ελεῡτ̄η` ν | ἀμεμπτότ̆ερο̆ϲ ο῾̆ Κρ̄α´ ϲϲ̄οϲ, | οὐ παραδο̄υ` ϲ ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ο` ν | οὐδὲ δεθεὶϲ οὐδὲ φενακιϲθείϲ, ἀλλ᾿ εἴξαϲ τοῖϲ φίλοῑϲ δ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ νοῑϲ | καὶ παραϲπονδηθεὶϲ ὑπὸ τ̄ω̑ν πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ ̄ων· | (Comp. Nic. Cras. 38 (5).4). In Dio’s narrative, Crassus simply trusts Surenas, at this point (40.26.2, passage 3; contrast 27.1), through a strange state of mind. In the Epitome of Livy (106) it looks as though Crassus is fooled, euocatus in colloquium ab hostibus uelut de pace acturis, quorum dux erat Surenas, comprehensus. (Oros. 13.3.4 gallops over this stage.) The rational thoughts of Plutarch’s participial clauses, on the treacherous past and suspicious present, have the more point from the internal comparison with Nicias and the external comparison with other versions. One of the clauses (οὐδὲν ὅ τι μ̄η` κτλ.) relates to Crassus’ total experience in Parthia, one (| κᾱ`ι τ̆ο` ᾱ᾿ι φν̆ι´ δῐ̄ον |h κτλ.) to his immediate experience; ᾰ᾿ π̆α´ τη̄ϲ |, ᾱ᾿ι φν̆ι´ δῐ̄ον |h, and | α῎̆ λο̆γο̆ν stand out with the help of rhythm. 4. | τῶν δὲ ϲτρατιωτ̄ω̑ν βο̆ ̄ω´ ντ̄ων | καὶ κ̆ελεῡ̄ο´ ντ̄ων, | εἶτα λοῑδο̆ρο̄υ´ντ̄ων | κᾱ`ι κᾰκῑζ̄ο´ ντ̄ων | ̄ω῾ ϲ προ̆β̄α´ λλ̄οντᾱ | μαχοῡμ̆ε´ νοῡϲ ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ` ϲ | οἷϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο` ϲ ᾰ᾿ ν̆ο´ πλοῑϲ | εἰϲ λόγουϲ οὐ θαρρε̄ ι ̑ ϲῠν̄ελθε̄ ι ν,̑ |: the string of genitive participles, each ending a rhythmic unit and all with the same active ending, piles the pressure on Crassus. It advances beyond | ο̄ ῾ι μ̆`εν ῎̄αλλοῑ | προθύμ ̄ωϲ ε̆᾿ δ̄ ε´ ξᾱντ̄ο | καὶ π̆ερῐχᾰρε̄ ιϲ̑ η̄῏ ϲᾱν, | (3), near the start of the previous sentence. The second pair of genitive participles turns nastier (λοῑδο̆ρο̄υ´ντ̄ων | κᾱ`ι κᾰκῑζ̄ο´ ντ̄ων |). The extreme προ̆β̄α´ λλ̄οντᾱ | is made to stand out the more through the rhythmic close that follows it; cf., especially for the sense, Demetr. 47.6 | καὶ μὴ πάντων ἐνδεᾶ καὶ γυμνὸν ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆ελᾱυ´ νεῑν | κᾱ`ι προ̆β̄α´ λλεῑν | το̄ ιϲ̑ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ οῑϲ. |. The rhythmic breaks sharpen every point in the elaborate complaint: | μαχοῡμ̆ε´ νοῡϲ is opposed to both | εἰϲ λόγουϲ and

208

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

ᾰ᾿ ν̆ο´ πλοῑϲ |, which reinforce each other on either side of a boundary. | (οἷϲ) ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο` ϲ is thrown into further relief by effectively beginning a rhythmic unit. ̑ | πρῶτον μὲν ἐπειρ̄α τ̑ ο̆ δε̄ ιϲθαῑ | καὶ λέγειν ὅτι τὸ λειπόμενον μέροϲ τῆϲ ἡμέραϲ διακᾱρτ̆ερ̄η´ ϲᾱντ̄εϲ, |: the lack of rhythm seems to suit the beginning of Crassus’ vain attempt to recommend a journey without a truce; διακαρτερέω is not a particularly strong verb, cf. Nic. 27.4, Sull. 16.7. But after that, the intensity resumes on Crassus’ side as well ̑ as the soldiers’. δε̄ ιϲθαῑ | is marked out as a notable verb for a commander talking to his men, especially with ἐπειρ̄α τ̑ ο̆. | ἐν τοῖϲ ὀρεῑνο̄ ιϲ̑ κᾱ`ι τρᾱχ̆ε´ ϲῑ | δύνανται διὰ νῡκτ̆ο` ϲ ᾿̆ι ε̆ ´ ναῑ, | καὶ τ̄η` ν ο῾̆ δ̆ο` ν ε̆᾿ δε̄ ι´κνῠ̄ε | κᾱ`ι πᾰρ̆εκ̆α´ λεῑ | τὴν ἐλπίδα μ̄η` προ̆̄ε´ ϲθαῑ | τῆϲ ϲωτηρίαϲ ̄ ε᾿ γγ̆υ` ϲ ο̄υ῎ ϲη̄ϲ. |: the account of Crassus’ try at persuasion is shaped and subverted by the narrator. The first two rhythmic phrases accentuate reasons for the return journey not to appeal. Most of the leaders had been against Crassus’ plan of a night march before (23.6); Dio’s account at this point has the soldiers dread τὴν . . . ὁδὸν ὡϲ πολλὴν καὶ τραχεῖαν (40.26.2, passage 3). In consequence, the appeal not to give up hope rings hollow, particularly through the final rhythmic words ̄ ε᾿ γγ̆υ` ϲ ο̄υ῎ ϲη̄ϲ. |. ‘Near’ is in Crassus’ intention as much temporal as spatial; but its implausibility in a spatial sense is brought out by what precedes, and especially through the third rhythmic phrase καὶ τ̄η` ν ο῾̆ δ̆ο` ν ε̆᾿ δε̄ ι´κνῠ̄ε |. From Crassus’ perspective he is being helpful, and showing how doable the return is; but the first two phrases highlight how unattractive the route will be. Even in their initial hopes the soldiers had considered the μακρ̄α` ν ο῾̆ δ̆ο` ν (18.4). The phrase | τὴν ἐλπίδα μ̄η` προ̆̄ε´ ϲθαῑ | recalls Nic. 26.4 | τὴν ἐλπίδα μ̄η` προ̆ῑ ε̆ μ̆ε´ νοῡ. |; the rhythmic organization adds to the closeness of the echo. But the hope was there truly perceived to be present in Nicias; whether Crassus really hopes is not stated. 5. | ὡϲ δὲ χαλεπαίν̄οντ̆εϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι | καὶ τὰ ὅπλα κρού̄οντ̆εϲ η̄ ᾿ πε̄ ι´λοῡν, | φοβηθε̄`ιϲ ε̆᾿ χ ̄ω´ ρεῑ, |: this is the third sequence in this passage to contrast Crassus with the other Romans, and the shortest. Now, instead of joy (in the first sequence, | καὶ π̆ερῐχᾰρε̄ ιϲ̑ η̄῏ ϲᾱν, |, 3), the emotion is anger: χαλεπαίν̄οντ̆εϲ is the first main word in its rhythmic phrase. Instead of abuse (in the second sequence, λοῑδο̆ρο̄υ´ντ̄ων | κτλ., 4), the verbal expressions are threats: η̄ ᾿ πε̄ ι´λοῡν, | ends the second in the pair of phrases. The men’s words are enhanced by a martial accompaniment (| (καὶ) τὰ ὅπλα κρού̄οντ̆εϲ). Crassus’ response to the anger and threats is the first emotion of his which is explicitly mentioned in

The Fall of the Crassi

209

this paragraph: fear, and more of the Romans than of the Parthians (| φοβηθε̄`ιϲ). Rhythm heightens the concise phrase | φοβηθε̄`ιϲ ε̆᾿ χ̄ω´ ρεῑ, |, so momentous for the narrative. | καὶ τοϲοῦτον εἶπε μεταϲτραφείϲ· ῾ Ὀκτάβιε κᾱ`ι Π̆ετρ ̄ω´ νῐ̄ε | καὶ ὅϲοῑ π̆α´ ρ̄εϲτ̄ε | Ῥωμαίων ἄρχοντεϲ, ὑμε̄ ιϲ̑ ο῾̆ ρ̄α τ̑ ̄ε | τ̄ηϲ̑ ε̆᾿ μ̄ηϲ̑ ο῾̆ δο̄υ ̑ | τ̄η` ν ᾰ᾿ ν̄α´ γκη̄ν, |: the lead-in to the speech is unrhythmic, as is the end of the opening address Ῥωμαίων ἄρχοντεϲ,. That should be seen as a phrase ending in an unrhythmic close rather than as part of what follows. Crassus significantly speaks only to the commanders, although the speech is very much for the soldiers to overhear. The end of the phrase Π̆ετρ ̄ω´ νῐ̄ε | intrigues the reader; Octavius has already been important (27.7, 29.5–7), but Petronius will first be identified at 31.5 εἷϲ τῶν χιλιάρχ ̄ων Π̆ετρ ̄ω´ νῐ̄οϲ, |. ὑμε̄ ιϲ,̑ the first word of a new and rhythmic phrase, is intrinsically emphatic too, and will contrast with | τοῖϲ δ’ ἄλλοιϲ ἅπᾱϲῐν ̄α᾿ νθρ ̄ω´ ποῑϲ |; ο῾̆ ρ̄α τ̑ ̄ε | will contrast with | λ̆ε´ γ̆ετ̆ε, the untrue version that they are to promulgate. ὁδόϲ is a notable word to choose, and | τ̄ηϲ̑ ε̆᾿ μ̄ηϲ̑ ο῾̆ δο̄υ ̑ | connects with the ὁδόϲ he showed to the army (| καὶ τ̄η` ν ο῾̆ δ̆ο` ν ε̆᾿ δε̄ ι´κνῠ̄ε |, 4), which would lead them to safety; his pessimism about his own chances is further displayed at 31.2. | καὶ ϲύνιϲτε παρόντεϲ ὡϲ ᾱ ᾿ι ϲχρ̆α` π̄α´ ϲχ ̄ω | κᾱ`ι β̆ι´ αῑᾱ· |: the two rhythmic entities ὡϲ ᾱ ᾿ι ϲχρ̆α` π̄α´ ϲχ̄ω | and κᾱ`ι β̆ι´ αῑᾱ· | advance in outrage on | τ̄η` ν ᾰ᾿ ν̄α´ γκη̄ν, |. | κᾱ`ι β̆ι´ αῑᾱ· | is separated by rhythm and word-order (instead of ὡϲ αἰϲχρὰ καὶ βίαῑᾰ π̄α´ ϲχ ω ̄ · |), and pushes from necessity as experienced by Crassus (| τ̄η` ν ᾰ᾿ ν̄α´ γκη̄ν, |) to necessity immorally imposed by the soldiers. The opening address makes the reader think that the disgrace will lie in the perversion of military discipline; but a different angle will be presented. One may compare the more trivial and absurd complaint of Sulla at Comp. Lys. Sull. ̑ 41 (3).3 ῾δεινά γ᾿, ὦ φίλοῑ πο̆λ̄ ιταῑ, | καὶ τυραννικὰ πάϲχω᾿ φάμενοϲ, ‘εἰ . . . ᾿; it shows less rhythm. | τοῖϲ δ’ ἄλλοιϲ ἅπᾱϲῐν ̄α᾿ νθρ ̄ω´ ποῑϲ | λ̆ε´ γ̆ετ̆ε ϲ ̄ωθ̄ ε´ ντ̄εϲ | ὡϲ Κρ̄α´ ϲϲο̆ϲ ᾿ᾰ πᾰτη̄θε̄`ιϲ | ὑπὸ τ̄ω̑ν πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ ω ̄ ν, | οὐκ ἐκδοθεὶϲ ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆λῑτῶν | ᾿ᾰ π ̄ω´ λ̆ετ̄ο. |᾿ the opening phrase goes beyond other Romans, whom one ̆ might expect ὑμε̄ ιϲ̑ to be opposed to. This is wrong action by Romans (cf. τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆λῑτ̄ω̑ν |) which could harm the Romans’ good name with the world in general. ϲ̄ωθ̄ ε´ ντ̄εϲ | links with | (τῆϲ) ϲωτηρίαϲ (4), and contrasts with | ᾰ᾿ π ̄ω´ λ̆ετ̄ο. |,; Crassus expects Octavius and the others to ̆ of the army, but οἱ π̆ερ̆`ι τ̆ο` ν Ὀ ̄ κτ̄α´ βῐ̄ον | (31.1), go with the rest including Petronius (31.5–6), go with Crassus, and Octavius is

210

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

killed (31.6). The name of Crassus (| (ὡϲ) Κρ̄α´ ϲϲο̆ϲ) evokes the reports he is imagining; but it is also combined in a unit with ᾰ᾿ πᾰτη̄θε̄`ι ϲ |, a humiliation for the nobilis, who talks of himself in the third person. ᾰ᾿ πᾰτη̄θε̄`ι ϲ | links with ᾰ᾿ π̆α´ τη̄ϲ | (3): ironically, Crassus could at last have learned from his mistakes, had the soldiers allowed. The final comment in the Comparison (3 n. above) shows the damage which the supposed deceit would have (or has) caused to the reputation of Crassus. The origin of the erroneous version appears to stand before the reader. Crassus goes further than not being deceived: he is willing to undergo the shame of being thought deceived to protect the reputation of his fellow-citizens. ᾰ᾿ πᾰτη̄θε̄`ιϲ | and | (οὐκ) ἐκδοθεὶϲ are opposed, as are πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ ̄ων, | and πο̆λῑτ ̄ω̑ν |; the rhythm assists. The assonant pair πολέμιοι and πολῖται are found, for example, at Per. 19.3 φοβερὸϲ μὲν φανεὶϲ το̄ ιϲ̑ πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ οῑϲ, | ἀϲφαλὴϲ δὲ καὶ δραϲτήριοϲ το̄ ιϲ̑ πο̆λ̄ ι´ταῑϲ. | and Alc. 14.1 | τὸν δ’ Ἀλκιβιάδη̄ν ο῾̆ Νῑκ̆ι´ ᾱϲ | οὐχ η̄ ῟ ττο̆ν η̄ ᾿ ν̆ι´ ᾱ | θαυμαζόμενοϲ ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ ̄ων | ἢ τιμώμενοϲ ὑπὸ τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆λῑτ̄ω̑ν. |. The precise word-order and text at the end are uncertain. τοῖϲ δ’ ἄλλοιϲ ἅπᾱϲῐν ̄α᾿ νθρ ̄ω´ ποῑϲ | suggests rather what they will say over the years than the immediate message they will bring back (cf. ἀπόλωλε at Cat. Min. 58.13, Garr. 509c); so τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆λῑτ̄ω̑ν | ᾰ᾿ π ̄ω´ λ̆ετ̄ο. | ̆ would be preferable.

Appendix: Dio Cass. 40.21.2–22.1, Thuc. 7.76, Dio Cass. 40.26.2 1. Dio Cass. 40.21.2 22.1 21.2 οἱ Πάρθοι τὸ πλεῖον τοῦ ϲτρατοῦ ϲφων ἀποκρύψαντεϲ (ἡ γὰρ χώρα ἀνώμαλόϲ τέ πηι ἦν καὶ δένδρα εἶχεν) ἀπήντηϲαν τοῖϲ Ῥωμαίοιϲ. ἰδὼν οὖν αὐτοὺϲ ὁ Κράϲϲοϲ, οὐκ ἐκεῖνοϲ ἀλλ’ ὁ νεώτεροϲ (πρὸϲ γὰρ τὸν πατέρα ἐκ τῆϲ Γαλατίαϲ παρῆν), καὶ καταφρονήϲαϲ ϲφῶν ὡϲ καὶ μόνων, 3. ἀντεξήγαγε τῶι ἱππικῶι, καὶ τραπομένουϲ ἐξεπίτηδεϲ αὐτοὺϲ ἐπιδιώκων ὡϲ καὶ κρατῶν ἀπήχθη πολὺ ἀπὸ τῆϲ φάλαγγοϲ, κἀνταῦθα περιϲτοιχιϲθεὶϲ κατεκόπη. 22.1 γενομένου δὲ τούτου, οἱ πεζοὶ τῶν Ῥωμαίων οὐκ ἀπετράποντο μέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ προθύμωϲ τοῖϲ Πάρθοιϲ, ὡϲ καὶ τιμωρήϲοντεϲ αὐτῶι, ϲυνέμιξαν· οὐ μέντοι καὶ ἄξιόν ϲφων οὐδὲν ἔκ τε τοῦ πλήθουϲ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τρόπου τῆϲ μάχηϲ αὐτῶν, ἄλλωϲ τε καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Αὐγάρου ἐπιβουλευθέντεϲ, ἐποίηϲαν. The Parthians concealed most of their army: the terrain was rather uneven and had some trees. They then went to encounter the Romans. They were seen by Crassus, not the famous Marcus but the younger

The Fall of the Crassi

211

Publius, who had joined his father from Gaul; he scorned them, think ing they were alone, and led the cavalry out against them. They turned back deliberately; he pursued them, supposing himself victorious, and was led far away from the infantry, and there surrounded and cut down. When this happened, the Roman infantry did not turn away; they actually engaged keenly with the Parthians, hoping to avenge P. Crassus. But they achieved nothing worthy of themselves, thanks to the multitude of the Parthians and their way of fighting, especially through Abgar’s plans against the Romans. 2. Thuc. 7.76 ὁρῶν δὲ ὁ Νικίαϲ τὸ ϲτράτευμα ἀθυμοῦν καὶ ἐν μεγάληι μεταβολῆι ὄν, ἐπιπαριὼν ὡϲ ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἐθάρϲυνέ τε καὶ παρεμυθεῖτο βοῆι τε χρώμενοϲ αἰεί τι μᾶλλον ἑκάϲτοιϲ καθ’ οὓϲ γίγνοιτο, ὑπὸ προθυμίαϲ καὶ βουλόμενοϲ ὡϲ ἐπὶ πλεῖϲτον γεγωνίϲκων ὠφελεῖν τι. αἰεί τι Weidgen: ἔτι codd.

Nicias saw that the army was in despair and greatly changed. He came alongside the force and tried to encourage and comfort them, as best the position allowed, and shouted out ever more loudly to each group he was near, out of enthusiasm and a wish to spread as widely as possible such help as he could give by his shouts. 3. Dio Cass. 40.26.2 καὶ αὐτῶι ὁ Κράϲϲοϲ οὐδὲν ἐνδοιάϲαϲ ἐπίϲτευϲεν· ἔν τε γὰρ ἀκμῆι τοῦ δέουϲ ὢν καὶ ὑπ’ ἐκπλήξεωϲ τῆϲ τε ἰδίαϲ ἅμα καὶ τῆϲ δημοϲίαϲ ϲυμφορᾶϲ τεθολωμένοϲ, καὶ προϲέτι καὶ τοὺϲ ϲτρατιώταϲ τήν τε ὁδὸν ὡϲ πολλὴν καὶ τραχεῖαν ὀκνοῦνταϲ καὶ τὸν Ὀρώδην φοβουμένουϲ ὁρῶν, οὐδὲν τῶν δεόντων προϊδέϲθαι ἠδυνήθη. Crassus trusted him with no hesitation: he was at the peak of fear and thrown into confusion by his shock at his own disaster, and at the Romans’. Furthermore, he saw that the soldiers dreaded both King Orodes and the journey, thinking it long and through rough terrain. He could foresee nothing that he should have foreseen.

15 Antigonus and the Athenians Change Their Tunes (Demetrius 28, 29.4, 30.2–31.1) This chapter shows a quite different use of rhythmic density in relation to a crucial battle. While the Crassus used density to heighten and shape its hugely protracted account of Carrhae, in the Demetrius the cardinal battle of Ipsus (301 BC) receives only a short narrative, and relatively little rhythmic enhancement (only 29.4 below). The interest is rather in what precedes and follows the battle. What precedes it (28) shows us Antigonus Monophthalmus and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes, and the changes in Antigonus and in his behaviour towards his son as the fatal event approaches. What follows it (30.2–31.1) forms part of an ethical story; Demetrius is presented with realities about power, on which the narrator expatiates philosophically, politically, and psychologically. The story takes up from the depiction of Demetrius and Athens before Demetrius’ failure. The pattern certainly confronts Demetrius with unwelcome truth; and there is a further, and rather redeeming, twist, which will be picked up in the next dense passage (not included here). Rhythmic density is used to intensify these explorations and developments around the crucial happening; it brings out how unobviously and how reflectively Plutarch can approach narrative.

DEMETR. 28 1. | τὴν δὲ διήγηϲιν ὥϲπερ ἐκ κ ̄ωμῐκ̄ηϲ̑ ϲκη̄ν̄ηϲ̑ | πάλιν εἰϲ τραγικὴν μετάγοῡϲῐν ᾱ ῾ι τ ̆υ´ χαῑ | καὶ αἱ πράξειϲ τοῦ ἀνδρὸϲ ̄ο῝ ν δῐη̄γο̄υ´ μ̆εθᾱ. | 2. τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων βαϲιλέ ̄ων α῾̆ π̄α´ ντ ̄ων | ϲυνιϲταμένων ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̆ο` ν Ἀ̄ ντ̆ι´γο̆ν̄ον | καὶ ϲυμφερόντων εἰϲ τᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο` τ̄α` ϲ δῠν̆α´ μεῑϲ, | ἀπῆρεν ὁ Δημήτρῐο̆ϲ ̄ ε᾿ κ τ̄ηϲ̑ Ἑ̄ λλ̆α´ δ̄οϲ, |

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

214

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

καὶ τῶι πατρὶ ϲυμμείξαϲ φιλοτιμουμέν ̄ωι πᾰρ’ η̄ ῾ λῐκ̆ι´ᾱν | πρὸϲ τὸν πόλεμον, ἔτι μᾶλλον αὐτὸϲ ἐπερρώϲθη. 3. καίτοι δοκεῖ γ’ Ἀντίγονοϲ, εἰ μικρῶν τιν ̄ων υ῾̆ φε̄ ιτ̄̑ ο | καὶ τῆϲ ἄγαν φιλαρχίᾱϲ ε̆᾿ χ̆α´ λᾰϲ̄ε, | μέχρι παντὸϲ ἂν αὑτ ̄ω̑ι δῐᾰφῠλ̄α´ ξαῑ | κἀκείν ̄ωι κᾰτᾰλῐπε̄ ιν̑ | τὸ πρ ̄ω̑το̆ν ε̄῏ι ναῑ. | 4. φύϲει δὲ βαρὺϲ ὢν καὶ ὑπερόπτηϲ καὶ τοῖϲ λόγοιϲ οὐχ ἧττον ἢ τοῖϲ πράγμαϲι τραχύϲ, πολλοὺϲ καὶ νέουϲ καὶ δυνατοὺϲ ἄνδραϲ ἐξη̄γρ̆ι´αῑν̄ε | κᾱ`ι πᾰρ ̄ω´ ξῡν̄ε· | 5. καὶ τήν γε τότε ϲύϲταϲιν καὶ κοιν ̄ων̆ι´ᾱν ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ν | ἔλεγεν ὥϲπερ ὀρνίθων ϲπ̄ερμο̆λ̆ο´ γ ̄ων ϲῡνδρο̆μ̄η` ν | ε̆῾ ν̆`ι λ̆ι´θ ̄ωι κᾱ`ι ψ̆ο´ φ ̄ωι | ϲῡνδῐᾰτᾰρ̄α´ ξεῑν. | 6. ἦγε δὲ πεζοὺϲ μὲν ἑπτακιϲμῡρ̆ι´ ̄ων πλε̄ ι´οῡϲ, | ἱππε̄ ι ϲ̑ δ̆`ε μῡρ̆ι´οῡϲ, | ἐλέφανταϲ δ᾿ ἑβδομήκ̄οντᾰ π̄ ε´ ντ̄ε, | τῶν ἐναντί ̄ων ε̆᾿ χ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | πεζοὺϲ μὲν ἑξακιϲμυρίουϲ κᾱ`ι τ̆ετρᾰκῑϲχῑλ̆ι´οῡϲ, | ἱππεῖϲ δὲ πεντακοϲίοιϲ τῶν ἐκείνου πλείοναϲ, ἐλέφανταϲ δ̆`ε τ̆ετρᾰκο̆ϲ̆ι´οῡϲ, | ἅρμᾰτᾰ δ᾿ ε̆῾ κᾰτ̆ο` ν ε̄῎ικο̆ϲῑ. | 7. γενομένωι δ’ ̄ ε᾿ γγ̆υ` ϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ν | τροπὴν ἔϲχεν ἡ διάνοῑᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ ̄ ε᾿ λπ̆ι´δ̄οϲ | μᾶλλον ἢ τῆϲ γνώμηϲ. 8. ὑψηλ̄ο` ϲ γ̆α` ρ ε̄῏ι ναῑ | καὶ γᾱυ ρ̑ ο̆ϲ ε̄ ᾿ι ̄ωθ̄ω` ϲ | ἐν το̄ ιϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ γ ̄ω̑ϲῑ, | καὶ χρώμενοϲ φων̄ηι̑ τ̆ε μ̆εγ̆α´ λη̄ι | κᾱ`ι λ̆ο´ γοῑϲ ϲο̆βᾰρο̄ ι ϲ,̑ | πολλάκιϲ δὲ καὶ τῶι παραϲκῶψαί τι καὶ γελο̄ ιο̆̑ ν ε̄ ᾿ι πε̄ ιν̑ | τῶν πολεμίων ἐν χ̄ερϲ̆`ιν ̄ο῎ ντ ̄ων | ἐπιδειξάμενοϲ ε̄υ᾿ ϲτ̆α´ θεῑᾱν | κᾱ`ι κᾰτᾰφρ̆ο´ νη̄ϲῑν, | τότε ϲύννοῡϲ ε̆῾ ̄ωρ̄ατ̑ ̄ο | καὶ ϲιωπηλ̄ο` ϲ τ̆α` π̄ολλ̄α´ , | κᾱ`ι τ̆ο` ν ῡ ῾ῑο` ν | ἀπέδεῑξ̆ε τ ̄ω̑ι πλ̄η´ θεῑ | καὶ ϲυνέϲτη̄ϲ̆ε δῐ̆α´ δο̆χ̄ον. | 9. ὃ δὲ μάλιϲτα πάντεϲ ἐθαύμαϲαν, ̄ ε᾿ ν τ̄ηι̑ ϲκη̄ν̄ηι̑ μ̆ο´ ν̄οϲ | διελέχθη̄ πρ̆ο` ϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ ν, | οὐκ εἰθῑϲμ̆ε´ νο̆ϲ ῎ε̆ χεῑν | ο̄υ᾿ δ̆`ε πρ̆ο` ϲ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ιν̄̑ ον | ἀπορρήτουϲ κοῑνο̆λο̆γ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | ἀλλ’ ῎̆ιδῐο̆ϲ ῍̄ων γν ̄ω´ μη̄ι, | εἶτα προϲτάττων φᾰν̆ερ ̄ω̑ϲ κᾱ`ι χρ ̄ω´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | οἷϲ βουλεύϲαῑτο̆ κᾰθ’ ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ο´ ν. | 10. λέγεται γοῦν μειράκιον ἔτι ὄντα τὸν Δημήτριον αὐτο̄υ ̑ πῠθ̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ | πότε μέλλοῡϲῐν ᾰ᾿ νᾱζεῡγν ̆υ´ εῑν· | τὸν δ’ εἰπε̄ ιν̑ πρ̆ο` ϲ ̄ο᾿ ργ̄η´ ν· | ῾ἀγωνιᾶιϲ μὴ μόνοϲ ϲὺ τῆϲ ϲάλπιγγοϲ ο̄υ᾿ κ ᾰ᾿ κο̄υ´ ϲη̄ιϲ;’ | The fortunes and the deeds of the man we are telling of move our account as it were from the comic stage to the tragic. The other kings were joining together against Antigonus, and uniting their powers; Demetrius left Greece, and combined with his father. His father felt eager about the war, for all his years, but Demetrius himself felt even more courageous. Yet it seems that if Antigonus had given up on a few small matters, and relaxed his excessive passion for rule, he would have maintained supremacy for himself to the end, and bequeathed it to Demetrius. By nature he was grim and contemptuous, and harsh in word no less than in deed; he made many with youth and power fierce and irritated. The present coalition and unity of the kings he used to say he would scatter into tumult, like a gathering of seed collecting birds, with noise and a single stone. He had in his army over 70,000 foot soldiers, 10,000 cavalry, and 75 elephants; his enemies had 64,000 foot soldiers, 500 cavalry more than Antigonus, 400 elephants, and 120 chariots. As he came close to the enemy, the character of his hope rather than his policy was turned about. He had usually been lofty and arrogant in battles. He employed a loud voice and vigorous words, and would often make a joke and say something funny when they were already engaging with the enemy; thus he displayed his

Antigonus and the Athenians Change Their Tunes

215

steadfastness and his scorn. But now he was seen being gloomy and silent most of the time; and he displayed his son to the crowd, and appointed him as his successor. Everyone was particularly surprised that he spoke on his own with Demetrius in the tent. He had not been accustomed to hold secret discussions even with Demetrius: rather, he formed his decisions on his own, and then openly gave orders and openly put into action the things he had resolved by himself. It is said that while Demetrius was still a teenager he asked Antigonus when they were going to move quarters; Antigonus replied angrily, ‘Are you worried that you will be the only one not to hear the trumpet signal?’

Sections 8–9 are the densest part of this extract; by themselves they meet the criteria for a dense passage (see p. 68). The whole chapter is given to show the context, and changes in density as we come towards the most startling section, and the one which takes us deepest into the mind and a relationship. Antigonus is in Phrygia, and is shortly to fight with rival kings: a key moment in the wars of Alexander’s successors. Cf. e.g. Wehrli (1968), 64–73, Billows (1990), 173–86. 1. | τὴν δὲ διήγηϲιν ὥϲπερ ἐκ κ̄ωμῐκ̄ηϲ̑ ϲκη̄ν̄ηϲ̑ | πάλιν εἰϲ τραγικὴν μετάγοῡϲῐν ᾱ ῾ι τ ̆υ´ χαῑ | καὶ αἱ πράξειϲ τοῦ ἀνδρὸϲ ̄ο῝ ν δῐη̄γο̄υ´ μ̆εθᾱ. |: the momentousness of what follows is marked in generic terms; rhythm will reinforce this weight in the chapter itself. Density follows on from a central change in the structure. The shift of design and register resembles Milton at the beginning of Paradise Lost Book 9: ‘I now must change | Those Notes to Tragic’ (5–6). Drama is used structurally in a different way at Luc. 39.1 (Lucullus’ life is like the two halves of an Old Comedy). There, as here and in Milton, the change is driven by the material. The syntax here brings this out: the material provides the subjects of the main verb, ᾱ ῾ι τ ̆υ´ χαῑ | καὶ αἱ πράξειϲ. The genitive and clause that follow πράξειϲ make the split from τ ̆υ´ χαῑ possible; the division is confirmed by the separate articles for both feminine nouns. 2. | τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων βαϲιλέ ̄ων α῾̆ π̄α´ ντ̄ων | ϲυνιϲταμένων ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̆ο` ν ̄Ἀντ̆ι´γο̆ν̄ον | καὶ ϲυμφερόντων εἰϲ τᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο` τ̄α` ϲ δῠν̆α´ μεῑϲ, |: the rhythmic patterning sets all the other kings against Antigonus (ends of rhythmic phrases); the second unit beginning with ϲυν- advances on the first. ϲυμμείξαϲ: this participle with ϲυν-, although not rhythmically emphasized itself, counterbalances the preceding | ϲυνιϲταμένων and | (καὶ) ϲυμφερόντων; Demetrius appears to provide the needed ally. This sets up the denser sentence that follows (3). The loyalty of this son to his father is unusual among the Diadochi (see 3.1–5).

216

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

3. καίτοι δοκεῖ γ’ Ἀντίγονοϲ, εἰ μικρῶν τιν̄ων υ῾̆ φε̄ ιτ̄̑ ο | καὶ τῆϲ ἄγαν φιλαρχίᾱϲ ε̆᾿ χ̆α´ λᾰϲ̄ε, | μέχρι παντὸϲ ἂν αὑτ ̄ω̑ι δῐᾰφῠλ̄α´ ξαῑ | κἀκείν ̄ωι κᾰτᾰλῐπε̄ ιν̑ | τὸ πρ ̄ω̑το̆ν ε̄῏ιναῑ. |: the turn that Demetrius’ father could have given Demetrius’ life receives a weighty sentence, conspicuously structured through rhythm. The two unfulfilled conditional clauses match each other in the parallel and synonymous verb at the end (υ῾̆ φε̄ ιτ̄̑ ο |, ̆ε᾿ χ̆α´ λᾰϲ̄ε, |); the genitives contrast: μικρῶν τιν ̄ων for the frustrating slightness of what prevented success, | (καὶ) τῆϲ ἄγαν φιλαρχίᾱϲ for the large vice. The combinations αὑτ ̄ω̑ι δῐᾰφῠλ̄α´ ξαῑ | and | κἀκείν̄ωι κᾰτᾰλῐπε̄ ιν̑ | match in their verbs, and are similar in their specific rhythms (the first, as it were, a pendant version of the blunt second); they show the benign consequences that would have ensued for both men. | τὸ πρ ̄ω̑το̆ν ε̄῏ιναῑ. | is a simple and expressive phrase in regard to the Diadochi; it would have been true of Antigonus and Demetrius successively. The whole sentence is virtual history, with the poignancy of epic (cf. Nesselrath [1992]), but with the depth of historical and ethical thought. δοκεῖ, stressed by γε, shows a historian’s caution. The blunt assessment by the other kings in the unrhythmic Diod. Sic. 20.106.4 (passage 1) naturally has none of this profundity and elegance; and within this sequence a change will appear (8). 5. | ἔλεγεν ὥϲπερ ὀρνίθων ϲπ̄ερμο̆λ̆ο´ γ ̄ων ϲῡνδρο̆μ̄η` ν | ε̆῾ ν̆`ι λ̆ι´θ̄ωι κᾱ`ι ψ̆ο´ φ ̄ωι | ϲῡνδῐᾰτᾰρ̄α´ ξεῑν. |: most of the sentence has conveyed Antigonus’ character and its effect, with looser rhythm; the thronging here not only gives energy to the utterance and the image but presents the unrealized future, and the attitude towards it which Antigonus will change (7). 6. How much authorial shaping goes into the numbers it is hard to know; but for the reader the mostly rhythmic phrases mark the parallel clauses on both sides of the conflict. μὲν after | πεζοὺϲ shows that | τῶν ἐναντί ̄ων ε̆᾿ χ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | forms a separate phrase; that phrase marks the division between the sides. The ordering of elements breaks the symmetry and diverts the reader by putting the chariots of Antigonus’ opponents last, after the elephants; in fact, the elephants will be crucial in the battle as it unfolds (29.5, cf. Diod. Sic. 21 fr. 5 Goukowsky). 7. | γενομένωι δ’ ̄ ε᾿ γγ̆υ` ϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ω̑ν | τροπὴν ἔϲχεν ἡ διάνοῑᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ ̄ ε᾿ λπ̆ι´δ̄οϲ | μᾶλλον ἢ τῆϲ γνώμηϲ.: a brief and subtle sentence sets up the long depiction that follows. The rhythmic position of | τροπὴν adds to its impetus. The situation has crystallized into a scene on the eve of a vital battle. Another densely rhythmic passage, App. BC 2.286–8,

Antigonus and the Athenians Change Their Tunes

217

presents Pompey before Pharsalus in a related fashion. (Pompey at Pharsalus is explicitly mentioned at the related passage Brut. 40.3.) ` ρ ε̄῏ι ναῑ | καὶ γᾱυρο ̑ ̆ ϲ ε̄ ᾿ι ̄ωθ̄ω` ϲ | ἐν το̄ ι ϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ γ ̄ω̑ϲῑ, | καὶ 8. ὑψηλ̄ο` ϲ γ̆α χρώμενοϲ φων̄ηι̑ τ̆ε μ̆εγ̆α´ λη̄ι | κᾱ`ι λ̆ο´ γοῑϲ ϲο̆βᾰρο̄ ι ϲ̑ , |: the pairs of words show expansively Antigonus’ confidence and would-be grandeur; the first pair contains ominous suggestions of misplaced bravado. Cf., in the paired Life, Ant. 33.3 on Antony’s daimon, and Octavian’s: | καὶ γαῦροϲ ὢν καὶ ὑψηλὸϲ ὅταν ἦι καθ᾿ ἑαυτόν, ὑπ᾿ ἐκείνου γίνεται ταπεινότεροϲ ̄ ε᾿ γγ̆ι´ϲᾱντο̄ϲ | κᾱ`ι α᾿̆ γ̄ενν̄ε´ ϲτ̆ερ̄οϲ. |h (also interesting for 30 below). The passage reaches its most intense point not with a comparison of father and son, but with the comparison of different states in one person, and his altered interaction with the son. | πολλάκιϲ δὲ καὶ τῶι παραϲκῶψαί τι καὶ γελο̄ ι ο̑ ̆ ν ε̄ ᾿ι πε̄ ιν̑ | τῶν πολεμίων ἐν χ̄ερϲ̆`ι ν ̄ο῎ ντ ̄ων | ἐπιδειξάμενοϲ ε̄υ᾿ ϲτ̆α´ θεῑᾱν | κᾱ`ι κᾰτᾰφρ̆ο´ νη̄ϲῑν, |: the mocking jokes are given a looser rhythmic structure; but the context of battle and the qualities they display bring out the point, in denser rhythm. The two qualities are separated in units of their own; this helps the reader to linger on their differences. εὐϲτάθεια is an admirable characteristic, not untinged with philosophy (cf. e.g. Cup. Div. 523d); καταφρόνηϲιϲ is more ambiguous (cf. e.g. Thuc. 1.122.4, 2.62.3–4), but narratalogically is asking for trouble (cf. e.g. Plut. Lys. 10.4). | τότε ϲύννοῡϲ ε̆῾ ̄ωρ̄ατ̑ ̄ο | καὶ ϲιωπηλ̄ο` ϲ τ̆α` π̄ολλ̄α´ , |: similar phrasing and patterning is seen at a similarly weighty moment, in Cassius’ conversation with Messalla on the eve of the first battle of Philippi, which will bring him defeat and suicide. Cf. Brut. 40.1 Κάϲϲιον δὲ Μεϲϲάλαϲ φηϲι [FRHist 61 F 1] . . . ϲύννοῡν ο̆῾ ρ̄αϲ̑ θαῑ | κᾱ`ι ϲῐ ̄ωπη̄λ̄ο´ ν, | οὐ φύϲει τοιο̄υ τ̑ ο̆ν ̄ο῎ ντᾱ· |. Here τὰ πολλά is added because what follows is joining the sombre silence to proclamation of Demetrius and talk with him. | κᾱ`ι τ̆ο` ν ῡ ῾ῑο` ν | ἀπέδεῑξ̆ε τ ̄ω̑ι πλ̄η´ θεῑ | καὶ ϲυνέϲτη̄ϲ̆ε δῐ ᾰ ´ δο̆χ̄ον. |: | (κᾱ`ι τ̆ο` ν) ῡ ῾ῑο` ν |, in a rhythmic unit of its own, conveys the king’s perspective of affection and the passing generations; contrast 38.10 (Seleucus says) ὅτι βούλεται κᾱ`ι δῐ̄ ε´ γνω ̄ κε̄ | τῶν ἄνω πάντων τόπων Ἀντίοχον ἀποδεῖξαῑ βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ᾱ | . . . and cf. 29.8 περιϲκοπ ̄ω̑ν τ̆ο` ν ῡ ῾ῑο´ ν. |. In the present passage, the πλῆθοϲ is evidently the army, cf. App. Syr. 320. Antigonus has already designated Demetrius as king, like himself (18.1), but this is a solemn moment of succession. Ant. 54.5–9 contrasts in its air of exaggeration and unreality (picked up of course by Cavafy). The idea of succession is important to the Life, and the

218

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

word comes here climactically but with irony, cf. above . . . ἂν . . . | κἀκείν̄ωι κᾰτᾰλῐπε̄ ιν̑ | τὸ πρ ̄ω̑το̆ν ε̄῏ι ναῑ. | 9. | ὃ δὲ μάλιϲτα πάντεϲ ἐθαύμαϲαν, ̄ ε᾿ ν τ̄ηι̑ ϲκη̄ν̄ηι̑ μ̆ο´ ν̄οϲ | διελέχθη̄ πρ̆ο` ϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ ν, | οὐκ εἰθῑϲμ̆ε´ νο̆ϲ ῎ε̆ χεῑν | ο̄υ᾿ δ̆`ε πρ̆ο` ϲ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ιν̄̑ ον | ἀπορρήτουϲ κοῑνο̆λο̆γ̆ι´ᾱϲ, |: unrhythmic writing leads up to the most surprising circumstance, which seems in itself the least surprising—that Antigonus should talk in private to his son. Spelling out the surprise leads us further into not only Antigonus’ character, but also, more important for this Life, his relationship with Demetrius. That aspect is formally secondary in this sentence, but is taken up in the anecdote that follows (10). | ο̄υ᾿ δ̆`ε πρ̆ο` ϲ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ιν̄̑ ον | is made to stand out in part through the rhythm; the earlier part of the Life makes this the more unexpected (cf. e.g. 3). ̄ ε᾿ ν τ̄ηι̑ ϲκη̄ν̄ηι̑ and μ̆ο´ ν̄οϲ | go effectively together in one unit: the tent is a relatively private location after the announcement to the crowd (cf. Polyb. 8.20.8). | ἀλλ’ ῎̆ι δῐο̆ϲ ῍̄ων γν ̄ω´ μη̄ι, | εἶτα προϲτάττων φᾰν̆ερ̄ω̑ϲ κᾱ`ι χρ ̄ω´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | οἷϲ βουλεύϲαιτο̆ κᾰθ’ ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ο´ ν. |: a complicated position is built up through the rhythmic units. γν ̄ω´ μη̄ι, | ends one unit, the opposed and external προϲτάττων . . . κᾱ`ι χρ ̄ω´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | all but start, and end, the next, and βουλεύϲαιτο, opposed in its turn, all but starts the next. | (ἀλλ’) ῎̆ι δῐο̆ϲ ῍̄ων at the start of the sequence is taken up by κᾰθ’ ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ο´ ν. | at the end. φᾰν̆ερ ̄ω̑ϲ, although it goes with both participles, and contrasts with ῎̆ιδῐο̆ϲ ῍̄ων, is less stressed in the word-order than the activities; its part in the rhythmic close helps to gain it some attention. 10. | λέγεται γοῦν μειράκιον ἔτι ὄντα τὸν Δημήτριον αὐτο̄υ ̑ πῠθ̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ | πότε μέλλοῡϲῐν ᾰ᾿ νᾱζεῡγν ̆υ´ εῑν· | τὸν δ’ εἰπε̄ ιν̑ πρ̆ο` ϲ ̄ο᾿ ργ̄η´ ν· | ῾ἀγωνιᾶιϲ μὴ μόνοϲ ϲὺ τῆϲ ϲάλπιγγοϲ ο̄υ᾿ κ ᾰ᾿ κο̄υ´ ϲη̄ιϲ;’ : the anecdote ends the paragraph, and is rhythmically rather looser. πρ̆ο` ϲ ̄ο᾿ ργ̄η´ ν· | receives rhythmic emphasis, and strengthens the characterization; it is not in the versions of the story at Plut. Garr. 506d, [Plut.] Reg. Imp. Apophth. 182b (passages 2 and 3 in the Appendix; Gärtner in Ziegler (1996), 467, by a slip attributes to Crassus in 2). The close is rhythmic, unlike that in De Garrulitate.

DEMETR. 29.4 | γενομένηϲ δὲ τῆϲ μάχηϲ ἐν χερϲί, Δημήτριοϲ ἔχων τοὺϲ πλείϲτουϲ καὶ κρατ̄ ι´ ϲτοῡϲ τ ̄ω̑ν ̄ ῾ι ππ̆ε´ ̄ων | Ἀντιόχωι τῶι Cελεύκοῡ ϲῠν̆ε´ π̆εϲ̄ε, | καὶ μέχρι

Antigonus and the Athenians Change Their Tunes

219

τροπῆϲ τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆λ̆εμ̆ι´ ̄ων | λαμπρῶϲ ἀγ̄ωνῐϲ̆α´ μ̆εν̄οϲ, | ἐν τ̄ηι̑ δῐ ̄ω´ ξεῑ | ϲοβαρᾶι καὶ φιλοτίμωι παρὰ καιρ̄ο` ν γ̆ενο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ι | τὴν νίκη̄ν δῐ̄ ε´ φθεῑρ̄ε ν. | Once the hand to hand fighting began, Demetrius with the most and best cavalry engaged with Antiochus son of Seleucus. He fought glori ously up to the point of turning the enemy to flight; but in the pursuit, which was inappropriately impetuous and ambitious, he ruined the victory.

The battle of Ipsus, although of such importance historically and for Demetrius, is only narrated briefly (29.3–8), and the stress is mostly on Antigonus, Demetrius, and their relationship. Not even the place is named (contrast 33.1). When the battle is mentioned briefly at Pyrrh. 4.4, the momentary density is notable: | τ̄ηϲ̑ δ̆`ε μ̆εγ̆α´ λη̄ϲ μ̆α´ χη̄ϲ | η῝̄ ν ε̆᾿ ν Ἰ̄ ψ ̄ω̑ι | π̄α´ ντ̆εϲ ο̄ ῾ι βᾰϲῐλε̄ ιϲ̑ | ἠγ ̄ων̆ι´ϲᾰντ̄ο | παρ ̄ω` ν ο̆῾ Π̄υ´ ρρ̄οϲ | το̄ ιϲ̑ ̑ ̄ | μεῑρ̆α´ κῐο̆ν ῍̄ων ῎ε̆ τῑ, | καὶ τοὺϲ κᾰθ᾿ ε̆῾ αῡτ̆ο` ν π̆ερ̆`ι Δη̄μ̄η´ τρῐ̄ον | ϲῡμμ̆ετε̄ ιχε ε̆᾿ τρ̄ ε´ ψᾰτ̄ο | καὶ δῐ ε̆ φ̆α´ νη̄ λᾱμπρ̄ο` ϲ | ἐν το̄ ιϲ̑ μᾰχο̆μ̆ε´ νοῑϲ. | The account in Demetr. 29 is not particularly dense in rhythm. The present sentence is the most important for Demetrius’ action and for the battle, and is rhythmically the densest part of the account; it is much too short to meet the criteria for a dense passage, and even so less dense than Pyrrh. 4.4, just quoted. The next sentence will describe the specific results of Demetrius’ error. The rhythm separates δῐ ̄ω´ ξεῑ | from the participial phrase, beginning with | ϲοβαρᾶι: this recalls the use of the word in the previous chapter, with regard to Antigonus’ words in battle, before his recent change (28.8). The word had not been used in the Life before. φιλοτίμωι recalls φιλοτιμουμένωι used in that chapter of Antigonus’ previous feeling towards this conflict, which belied his years (28.2, φιλοτιμουμέν ̄ωι πᾰρ’ η̄ ῾ λῐκ̆ι´ᾱν |). Demetrius’ and Antigonus’ characteristics are related in a complex way; Demetrius here fails through sudden rather than sustained excess (cf. 28.3).

DEMETR. 30.2–31.1 30.2 . . . ἀνέϲτη̄ δῐ̆α` τᾰχ̆ε´ ̄ων | καὶ τὸν πλοῦν ἐπὶ τῆϲ Ἑλλ̆α´ δο̆ϲ ε̆᾿ ποῑε̄ ι τ̑ ̄ο, | τ̄ων̑ λοῑπ̄ω̑ν ̄ ε᾿ λπ̆ι´δ ̄ων | ε̆᾿ ν Ἀ̆ θη̄νᾱ ι´οῑϲ ῎ε̆ χ ̄ων | τ̄α` ϲ μ̆εγ̄ ι´ ϲτᾱϲ. | 3. κᾱ`ι γ̄α` ρ κᾱ`ι νᾱυϲ̑ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι ̑ | καὶ χρήματα καὶ γυναῖκα Δηϊδάμειαν ἐτύγχανε κᾰτᾰλ̆ελοῑπ ̄ω´ ϲ, | κᾱ`ι β̆εβαῑο̆τ̆ε´ ρᾱν | οὐκ ἐνόμιζε καταφυγὴν ε̄῏ι ναῑ το̄ ι ϲ̑ πρ̄α´ γμᾰϲῑ | τῆϲ Ἀθηναίων εὐνοίαϲ. 4. ὅθεν ἐπεὶ γενομένωι περὶ τ̄α` ϲ Κῠκλ̆α´ δᾰϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι | πρέϲβειϲ Ἀθηναί ̄ων ᾰ᾿ π̄η´ ντη̄ϲᾱν, | ἀπέχεϲθαι τῆϲ πόλε ̄ωϲ πᾰρᾰκᾰλο̄υ ν̑ τ̄εϲ, |

220

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

ὡϲ ἐψηφιϲμένου τοῦ δήμου μηδένᾰ δ̆ε´ χ̄εϲθαῑ τ̄ηι̑ π̆ο´ λεῑ | τ ̄ων̑ βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ων, | τὴν δὲ Δηϊδάμειαν εἰϲ Μέγαρα ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆ε´ π̄εμψᾱν | μετὰ τιμῆϲ καὶ πομπ̄ηϲ̑ πρ̆επο̄υ´ ϲη̄ϲ, | το̄υ ̑ κᾰθ̄εϲτη̄κ̆ο´ τ̄οϲ | ἐξέϲτη̄ δῐ’ ̄ο᾿ ργ̄η` ν | [αὐτοῦ], καίπερ ἐνη̄νο̆χ ̄ω` ϲ ῥ̄α̑ιϲτᾱ | τὴν ἄλλη̄ν ᾰ᾿ τῠχ̆ι´ᾱν | καὶ γεγονὼϲ ἐν τοιαύτηι μ̆ετᾰβο̆λ̄ηι̑ πρᾱγμ̆α´ τ ̄ων | ο̄υ᾿ τᾰπεῑν̄ο` ϲ | ο̄υ᾿ δ’ ᾰ᾿ γ̄ενν̄η´ ϲ. | 5. ἀλλὰ τὸ παρ’ ἐλπ̆ι´δᾰ δῐ̄ε ψε̄υ ϲ̑ θαῑ | τ̄ω̑ν Ἀ̆ θη̄νᾱ ι´ ̄ων, | καὶ τὴν δοκο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾰν ε̄υ῎ νοῑᾱν | ἐξεληλ̄ ε´ γχθαῑ το̄ ιϲ̑ πρ̄α´ γμᾰϲῑ | κενὴν καὶ πεπλᾱϲμ̆ε´ νη̄ν ο̄υ῏ ϲᾱν, | ὀδυνη̄ρ̆ο` ν η̄῏ ν ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι. | 6. τὸ γὰρ φαυλότατον ̄ω῾ ϲ ῎ε̆ οῑκ̄εν | εὐνοίαϲ ὄχλων βαϲιλεῦϲι κᾱ`ι δῠν̄α´ ϲταῑϲ | τεκμήριόν ἐϲτιν ὑπ̄ερβο̆λ̄η` τῑμ̄ω̑ν, | ἧϲ ἐν τ̄ηι̑ προ̆αῑρ̆ε´ ϲεῑ | τ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ πο̆δῐδ̄ο´ ντ̄ων | ἐχούϲηϲ τὸ καλὸν ἀφαιρεῖ τὴν π̄ ι´ϲτῐν ο̆῾ φ̆ο´ β̄οϲ· | τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ κᾱ`ι δ̆εδῐ ο̆ ´ τ̄εϲ | ψηφίζονται κᾱ`ι φῐλο̄υ ν̑ τ̄εϲ. | 7. διόπερ οἱ νο̄υ ν̑ ῎ε̆ χ̄οντ̄εϲ | οὐκ εἰϲ ̄α᾿ νδρῐ̄α´ ντᾱϲ | οὐδὲ γραφὰϲ ο̄υ᾿ δ’ ᾰ᾿ πο̆θ̆ε ̄ω´ ϲεῑϲ, | ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ει᾿ ϲ τ̆α` ῎εργᾱ |h καὶ τὰϲ πράξειϲ τ̄α` ϲ ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ω̑ν | ἀπ̄οβλ̆ε´ π̄οντ̄εϲ, | ἢ πιϲτεύοῡϲῐν ̄ω῾ ϲ τῑμᾱ ι ϲ̑ , | ἢ ἀπιϲτοῦϲιν ̄ω῾ ϲ ̑ οῑ | πολλάκιϲ ἐν αὐταῖϲ μάλῑϲτᾰ τᾱ ιϲ̑ τῑμᾱ ιϲ̑ | ᾰ᾿ ν̄α´ γκαῑϲ· | 8. ὡϲ ο̄ ῞ι γ̆ε δ̄ημ μιϲοῦϲι τοὺϲ ἀμέτρωϲ καὶ ὑπερόγκωϲ κᾱ`ι πᾰρ’ ̄α᾿ κ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | λᾱμβ̆α´ ν̄οντᾱϲ. | 31.1 ὁ γοῦν Δημ̄η´ τρῐ̄οϲ τ̆ο´ τ̄ε | δεινὰ μὲν ἡγο̄υ´ μ̆εν̄οϲ π̄α´ ϲχεῑν, | ἀδύνατοϲ δ’ ῍̄ων ᾰ᾿ μ̄υ´ νᾱϲθαῑ, | προϲέπεμψε το̄ ιϲ̑ Ἀ̆ θη̄νᾱ ι´οῑϲ | ̄ ε᾿ γκᾰλ ̄ω̑ν μ̆ετρ̆ι´ ̄ωϲ, | ἀξιῶν δὲ τὰϲ νᾱυϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ πο̆λᾰβε̄ ιν,̑ | ἐν αἷϲ ἦν καὶ ἡ τριϲκαῑδ̆εκ̄η´ ρη̄ϲ. | 30.4 αὐτοῦ del. Solanus

. . . he departed quickly and sailed to Greece; the greatest of the hopes he had left were in the Athenians. He had left there his ships, his money, and his wife Deidameia; he thought he could have no more secure refuge for his position than in the goodwill of the Athenians. That explains his reaction when envoys of the Athenians met him as he was around the Cyclades and bade him keep away from the city, since the people had voted not to receive any of the kings in the city; they had sent Deidameia away to Megara with fitting honour and a suitable retinue. He went out of his normal state in anger, even though he had borne the rest of his misfortune very easily and had been, in such a change in his affairs, neither crushed nor ignoble. But it was grievous to him to have been unexpectedly deceived in the Athenians, and for their apparent good will to be exposed by events as empty and feigned. It seems that the most worthless sign for kings and rulers of the goodwill of crowds is the extravagance of honours; what is good about it lies in the attitude of those who give them, but trust in that attitude is removed by the possibility of fear. After all, the same things are voted by people out of fear and out of love. So sensible rulers concentrate their gaze not on statues, pictures, or deifications, but on their own acts and conduct, and make that the basis for trusting in such things, as expressions of honour, or distrusting them, as forced by necessity. Peoples, often in the very midst of the honours, hate those who immoderately and excessively take the honours from them against their will.

Antigonus and the Athenians Change Their Tunes

221

Demetrius at this juncture thought that he had been very badly treated, but could not take revenge; so he sent a message to the Athen ians, accusing them in a moderate way, and asking to take back his ships, including the one with thirteen banks for rowers.

Plutarch’s narrative concentrates less on the far-reaching consequences of the battle itself, and more on Demetrius’ treatment by the Athenians. This passage takes up a prolonged account of Demetrius in Athens (8–14, for periods during 307–302 BC). For Athens and Demetrius, including 301, see Habicht (1997), 67–97, Dreyer (1999), 17–76, esp. 59–76, Thonemann (2005), esp. 64, 65–6, 77–8, Grieb (2008), 68–75. 30.2 | τ ̄ω̑ν λοῑπ̄ω̑ν ̄ ε᾿ λπ̆ι´δ̄ων | ε̆᾿ ν Ἀ̆ θη̄νᾱ ι´οῑϲ ῎ε̆ χ ̄ων | τ̄α` ϲ μ̆εγ̄ ι´ ϲτᾱϲ. |: the rhythm controls every syllable; Demetrius’ expectations of Athens are crucial to the moral narrative. The rhythmic position of both | (̆ε᾿ ν) Ἀ̆ θη̄νᾱ ι´οῑϲ and μ̆εγ̄ ι´ ϲτᾱϲ. | increases the emphasis shown by the word-order. The arrangement of the three distinct phrases stresses both | τ̄α` ϲ μ̆εγ̄ ι´ ϲτᾱϲ. |, through separation from | τ̄ω̑ν λοῑπ ̄ω̑ν ̄ ε᾿ λπ̆ι´δ ̄ων |, and | ε̆᾿ ν Ἀ̆ θη̄νᾱ ι´οῑϲ ῎ε̆ χ ̄ων |, through the unlooked-for interruption. 30.3 | κᾱ`ι γ̄α` ρ κᾱ`ι νᾱυ ϲ̑ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι ̑ | καὶ χρήματα καὶ γυναῖκα Δηϊδάμειαν ἐτύγχανε κᾰτᾰλ̆ελοῑπ̄ω´ ϲ, | κᾱ`ι β̆εβαῑο̆τ̆ε´ ρᾱν | οὐκ ἐνόμιζε καταφυγὴν ε̄῏ι ναῑ το̄ ιϲ̑ πρ̄α´ γμᾰϲῑ | τῆϲ Ἀθηναίων εὐνοίαϲ.: the background is set out with less dense rhythm. Both word-order and rhythm underline the ironic β̆εβαῑο̆τ̆ε´ ρᾱν |, put first in the clause and separated from καταφυγὴν. 30.4 ὅθεν ἐπεὶ γενομένωι περὶ τ̄α` ϲ Κῠκλ̆α´ δᾰϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι | πρέϲβειϲ Ἀθηναί ̄ων ᾰ᾿ π̄η´ ντη̄ϲᾱν, | ἀπέχεϲθαι τῆϲ πόλε ̄ωϲ πᾰρᾰκᾰλο̄υ ν̑ τ̄εϲ, | ὡϲ ἐψηφιϲμένου τοῦ δήμου μηδένᾰ δ̆ε´ χ̄εϲθαῑ τ̄ηι̑ π̆ο´ λεῑ | τ ̄ω̑ν βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ων, | τὴν δὲ Δηϊδάμειαν εἰϲ Μέγαρα ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆ε´ π̄εμψᾱν | μετὰ τιμῆϲ καὶ πομπ̄ηϲ̑ πρ̆επο̄υ´ ϲη̄ϲ, |: the narrative leading up to the reaction is less dense than the reaction; but the phrases all end rhythmically. πᾰρᾰκᾰλο̄υ ν̑ τ̄εϲ, | lingered on at a pause, has some ironic edge: the word can be used for inviting someone (contrast the situation at 10.1). The separation, syntactical and rhythmic, of μηδένα from | τ̄ω̑ν βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ων, | naturally underlines μηδένα; but | τ̄ω̑ν βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ων, | is also full of point for the reader. The phrase reduces Demetrius to being merely one of a considerable number of kings; but the Athenians had first applied this title to Demetrius and Antigonus, who are indicated as the first of the Successors to use it (10.3). The Athenians had also gone far further in their acclamations: they alone called Demetrius and Antigonus saviour gods, made their priest replace the archon, and so

222

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

forth (10.4–6). Despite all that extravagance, they now portray themselves as impartial and fair. | μετὰ τιμῆϲ καὶ πομπ̄ηϲ̑ πρ̆επο̄υ´ ϲη̄ϲ, | suggests the Athenians’ words (ἐπεὶ γενομένωι περὶ τὰϲ Κῠκλ̆α´ δᾰϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ω̑ι | . . . | το̄υ ̑ κᾰθ̄εϲτη̄κ̆ο´ τ̄οϲ | ἐξέϲτη̄ δῐ’ ̄ο᾿ ργ̄η` ν | make a second clause after ἐπεὶ unlikely, or even a parenthesis). The phrase provides a vexing end to the clause: the Athenians emphasize the lengths they have gone to, when they are actually mistreating Demetrius and his wife (as he sees it). The words carry further ironies: the honours they had given Demetrius before had been anything but fitting (10–13; cf. ὑπ̄ερβο̆λ̄η` τῑμ ̄ω̑ν, | in 30.6). The πομπή of the Dionysia, renamed Demetria, had had to be abandoned amid signs of divine displeasure (12.2, 5, the latter the only occurrence of the word πομπή in the Life apart from here). | το̄υ ̑ κᾰθ̄εϲτη̄κ̆ο´ τ̄οϲ | ἐξέϲτη̄ δῐ’ ̄ο᾿ ργ̄η` ν | [αὐτοῦ], καίπερ ἐνη̄νο̆χ ̄ω` ϲ ῥ̄α ̑ιϲτᾱ | τὴν ἄλλη̄ν ᾰ᾿ τῠχ̆ι´ᾱν | καὶ γεγονὼϲ ἐν τοιαύτηι μ̆ετᾰβο̆λ̄ηι̑ πρᾱγμ̆α´ τ ̄ων | ο̄υ᾿ τᾰπεῑν̄ο` ϲ | ο̄υ᾿ δ’ ᾰ᾿ γ̄ενν̄η´ ϲ. |: with Demetrius’ reaction and the change it presents, the rhythmic temperature rises. The reader now first learns of the nobility with which Demetrius had otherwise responded to the catastrophe. ̄ο᾿ ργ̄η` ν | and ῥ̄αι̑ ϲτᾱ | are set against each other (rhythm adds further support to the deletion). 30.5 | ἀλλὰ τὸ παρ’ ἐλπ̆ι´δᾰ δῐ̄ε ψε̄υ ϲ̑ θαῑ | τ̄ω̑ν Ἀ̆ θη̄νᾱ ι´ ̄ων, | καὶ τὴν δοκο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾰν ε̄υ῎νοῑᾱν | ἐξεληλ̄ ε´ γχθαῑ το̄ ι ϲ̑ πρ̄α´ γμᾰϲῑ | κενὴν καὶ πεπλᾱϲμ̆ε´ νη̄ν ο̄υ῏ ϲᾱν, | ὀδυνη̄ρ̆ο` ν η̄῏ ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ωι̑ . |: first to be explained is the mystery of Demetrius’ inconsistent reponse. Through the connection with what precedes (2–3), the explanation convinces, and the inconsistency suggests the depth of the narrative and the narrator. The rhythms come close together, and mirror the shock of Demetrius’ discovery. They also drive home the elements of the disappointment. | (ἀλλὰ τὸ παρ’) ἐλπ̆ι´δᾰ at the start looks back negatively to ̄ ε᾿ λπ̆ι´δ ̄ων | (2). | τ̄ω̑ν Ἀ̆ θη̄νᾱ ι´ ̄ων, | stands apart through the rhythm, and takes up | (̆ε᾿ ν) Ἀ̆ θη̄νᾱ ι´οῑϲ (2) and also | (τῆϲ) Ἀθηναίων (3), marked out by their placing at the start of a phrase (the latter not rhythmic). | (καὶ τὴν) δοκοῦϲαν effectively at the start of a unit is contrasted with το̄ ιϲ̑ πρ̄α´ γμᾰϲῑ | at the end of the next unit; | καὶ τὴν δοκο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾰν ε̄υ῎ νοῑᾱν | undoes the earlier | τῆϲ Ἀθηναίων εὐνοίαϲ. (3). | κενὴν καὶ πεπλᾱϲμ̆ε´ νη̄ν ο̄υ῏ ϲᾱν, | with its pair of synonyms, gains further force and bitterness from its rhythmic separation; the phrase sets up the discussion to come. | ὀδυνη̄ρ̆ο` ν η̄῏ ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ω̑ι. | at the end, however, is simply put, without extremes; Plutarch’s own language here significantly observes restraint. 30.6 | τὸ γὰρ φαυλότατον ̄ω῾ ϲ ῎ε̆ οῑκ̄εν | εὐνοίαϲ ὄχλων βαϲιλεῦϲι κᾱ`ι δῠν̄α´ ϲταῑϲ | τεκμήριόν ἐϲτιν ὑπ̄ερβο̆λ̄η` τῑμ ̄ω̑ν, | ἧϲ ἐν τ̄ηι̑ προ̆αῑρ̆ε´ ϲεῑ | τ̄ω̑ν

Antigonus and the Athenians Change Their Tunes

223

ᾰ᾿ πο̆δῐδ̄ο´ ντ̄ων | ἐχούϲηϲ τὸ καλὸν ἀφαιρεῖ τὴν π̄ ι´ϲτῐν ο῾̆ φ̆ο´ β̄οϲ· |: the discourse now expands into generality, with not just one βαϲιλεύϲ but βαϲιλεῦϲι κᾱ`ι δῠν̄α´ ϲταῑϲ |. The second question to be investigated is the original trust which led to the disappointment. The writing is less intensely rhythmic, with some wider gaps between rhythms; but it is still highly regular. The narrative has led us into philosophical and political depth. This half-sentence is full of abstraction, especially in its second part, which is joined on in a complicated way by a relative with genitive absolute. προ̆αῑρ̆ε´ ϲεῑ |, τὸ καλὸν, π̄ ι´ ϲτῐν, and φ̆ο´ β̄οϲ· | leave only | τ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ πο̆δῐδ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | to denote people directly. προ̆αῑρ̆ε´ ϲεῑ |, marked out by the rhythm which separates it from its genitive, has philosophical resonance; Plutarch uses it twice as many times in the Moralia (plus the Comparisons) as in the narratives of the Lives. ἀφαιρεῖ τὴν π̄ ι´ ϲτῐν ο̆῾ φ̆ο´ β̄οϲ· |, where the nouns are forced together in a rhythmic close, sounds almost Thucydidean in its impersonality. | τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ κᾱ`ι δ̆εδῐο̆ ´ τ̄εϲ | ψηφίζονται κᾱ`ι φῐλο̄υ ν̑ τ̄εϲ. |: the second half of the sentence is brisk, neat, and focused on people; the rhythm brings out the matching participles used of people. These look back, with variation of vocabulary, to the abstract φ̆ο´ β̄οϲ· | and | εὐνοίαϲ. The underlying point is that one cannot argue from one act to one motivation since there are two possible motivations, but the point is made in a wryly concrete way. 30.7 | διόπερ οἱ νο̄υ ν̑ ῎ε̆ χ̄οντ̄εϲ | οὐκ εἰϲ ̄α᾿ νδρῐ̄α´ ντᾱϲ | οὐδὲ γραφὰϲ ο̄υ᾿ δ’ ᾿ᾰ πο̆θ̆ε ̄ω´ ϲεῑϲ, | ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ε̄᾿ι ϲ τ̆α` ῎ε̄ ργᾱ |h καὶ τὰϲ πράξειϲ τ̄α` ϲ ε̆῾ αῡτ ̄ω̑ν | ἀπ̄οβλ̆ε´ π̄οντ̄εϲ, | ἢ πιϲτεύοῡϲῐν ̄ω῾ ϲ τῑμᾱ ιϲ,̑ | ἢ ἀπιϲτοῦϲιν ̄ω῾ ϲ ᾰ᾿ ν̄α´ γκαῑϲ· |: the rhythm, which has sustained the intent pressure of argument, now grows denser. The temperature warms with the scornful string of negatives, first statues, and finally the biting ο̄υ᾿ δ’ ᾰ᾿ πο̆θ̆ε ̄ω´ ϲεῑϲ, | (the word only here in the Lives; ἀπεθέωϲε Glor. Ath. 350c); one then expects a rise into something more truly sublime, rather as in Cat. Mai. 19.4 (ch. 7). But the passage turns from the actions of those honouring to the actions of those honoured, with the neutral ῎ε̄ ργᾱ |h and πράξειϲ, and the heaviest emphasis on τ̄α` ϲ ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ω̑ν |. The thought is to seem penetrating and probing—are my actions actually such as to warrant affection? οἱ νο̄υν̑ ῎ε̆ χ̄οντ̄εϲ | understates the wisdom, but brings out the shrewdness. | ἢ πιϲτεύοῡϲῐν ̄ω῾ ϲ τῑμᾱ ιϲ,̑ | ἢ ἀπιϲτοῦϲιν ̄ω῾ ϲ ᾰ᾿ ν̄α´ γκαῑϲ· | elegantly matches, in reverse order, κᾱ`ι δ̆εδῐ̆ο´ τ̄εϲ | . . . κᾱ`ι φῐλο̄υ ν̑ τ̄εϲ. | (6). The metonymous use of ἀνάγκαι for ἀναγκαῖα is bolder than something being ‘a necessity’ in English.

224

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

̑ οῑ | πολλάκιϲ ἐν αὐταῖϲ μάλῑϲτᾰ τᾱ ιϲ̑ τῑμᾱ ιϲ̑ | 30.8 | ὡϲ ο̄ ῞ι γ̆ε δ̄ημ μιϲοῦϲι τοὺϲ ἀμέτρωϲ καὶ ὑπερόγκωϲ κᾱ`ι πᾰρ’ ̄α᾿ κ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | λᾱμβ̆α´ ν̄οντᾱϲ. |: a rhythmically somewhat looser half-sentence takes further the emotion and perspective of those honouring. The rhythm, and γε and ̑ οῑ | and τῑμᾱ ιϲ̑ |. First word after a rhythmic αὐταῖϲ, give weight to δ̄ημ close is μιϲοῦϲι, which goes further than δ̆εδῐ̆ο´ τ̄εϲ | (6) and is actually the opposite of φῐλο̄υ ν̑ τ̄εϲ. | (6). In this rhythmically more sprawling phrase (| μιϲοῦϲι κτλ.), the excess belongs to the honoured. Rather than the peoples giving the honours, as in ᾰ᾿ πο̆δῐδ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | (6), the victors are taking them from the peoples, against their will: καί and the rhythm emphasize the conjunction of πᾰρ’ ̄α᾿ κ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | and λᾱμβ̆α´ ν̄οντᾱϲ. |. 31.1 | ὁ γοῦν Δημ̄η´ τρῐ̄οϲ τ̆ο´ τ̄ε | δεινὰ μὲν ἡγο̄υ´ μ̆εν̄οϲ π̄α´ ϲχεῑν, | ἀδύνατοϲ δ’ ῍̄ων ᾰ᾿ μ̄υ´ νᾱϲθαῑ, | προϲέπεμψε το̄ ιϲ̑ Ἀ̆ θη̄νᾱ ι´οῑϲ | ̄ ε᾿ γκᾰλ ̄ω̑ν μ̆ετρ̆ι´ ̄ωϲ, | ἀξιῶν δὲ τὰϲ νᾱυ ϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ πο̆λᾰβε̄ ιν,̑ | ἐν αἷϲ ἦν καὶ ἡ τριϲκαῑδ̆εκ̄η´ ρη̄ϲ. |: a last dense sentence finishes the sequence off. Demetrius has been without this wisdom; but he behaves in a wiser way than the account of his emotions would have led us to expect (contrast 30.4). The monster ship will form part of the kingly show as his fortunes seem to recover in an alliance with Seleucus (32.2; its importance is confirmed by the passage on ships 43.4–7, with much rhythmic density, cf. Callix. FGrHist. 627 F 1 on Ptolemy IV). Demetrius will later take control of Athens (295 or 294 BC), but in the end show moderation (33–4); ̄ ε᾿ γκᾰλ ̄ω̑ν μ̆ετρ̆ι´ ̄ωϲ, | will be picked up with ἐλαφρ ̄ω̑ϲ δ̆`ε κᾱ`ι φῐλῐκ ̄ω̑ϲ | μεμψάμενοϲ αὐτοῖϲ (34.5). His restrained and generous treatment of Athens is the subject of the remaining dense passage of the Life, 34.4–7. That passage and this connect. One could see Demetrius as having learned something even now, or one could see people as full of surprises.

Appendix: Diod. Sic. 20.106.4, Plut. Garr. 506d, [Plut.] Reg. Imp. Apophth. 182b 1. Diod. Sic. 20.106.4 τῆϲ γὰρ Μακεδονίαϲ κρατήϲαντα τὸν Ἀντίγονον εὐθὺϲ ἀφελεῖϲθαι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τὰϲ βαϲιλείαϲ· δεδωκέναι γὰρ αὐτὸν πεῖραν πλεονάκιϲ ὅτι πλεονέκτηϲ ἐϲτὶ καὶ πᾶϲαν ἀρχὴν ἀκοινώνητον ποιεῖ. They thought that if Antigonus gained control of Macedon, he would immediately remove the others’ kingdoms too: he had all too often given proof, they said, that he was greedy for acquisition, and that he made any rule such that it would not be shared with anyone else.

Antigonus and the Athenians Change Their Tunes

225

2. Plut. Garr. 506d | Ἀντίγονοϲ γο̄υ ν̑ ο῾̆ βᾰϲῐλεῡ`ϲ | [ἐκεῖνοϲ] ἐρωτήϲαντοϲ αὐτὸν τοῦ υἱοῦ πηνίκα μέλλοῡϲῐν ᾰ᾿ νᾱζεῡγν ̆υ´εῑν | ‘τί δέδοῑκᾰϲ;’ ε̄῏ιπ̄ε· | ‘μὴ μόνοϲ οὐκ ἀκούϲηιϲ τῆϲ ϲάλπιγγοϲ;᾿ Antigonus the king, when his son asked him when they were going to move quarters, said, ‘What are you afraid of? That you will be the only one not to hear the trumpet signal?’ 3. [Plut.] Reg. Imp. Apophth. 182b πρὸϲ δὲ τὸν υἱὸν Φίλιππον πυθόμενον πλειόνων παρόντων ‘πότε μέλλομεν ἀναζευγνύναι;᾿ ‘τί δέδοικαϲ;’ εἶπε· ‘μὴ μόνοϲ τῆϲ ϲάλπιγγοϲ οὐκ ἀκούϲηιϲ;᾿ (Antigonus) said to his son Philip, when he asked him in the presence of several others, ‘When are we going to move quarters?’, ‘What are you afraid of? That you will be the only one not to hear the trumpet signal?’

16 Cornelia Blames Herself (Pompey 74.5–75.2) 74.5 | ἀπαντήϲαντοϲ δὲ τοῦ Πομπήιου καὶ δεξαμένου ταῖϲ ̄α᾿ γκ̆α´ λαῑϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄η` ν | ὑπερειπομένην καὶ περιπίπτουϲαν, ῾ ὁρω̑ ϲ̆ε´ ,᾿ ει῏π̆ε ν, ῾ α῎̆ νερ, |h οὐ τῆϲ ϲ̄ηϲ̑ τ̆υ´χη̄ϲ ̄ ῎ε ργ̄ον, | ̄α᾿ λλ̆α` τ̄ηϲ̑ ε̆᾿ μ̄ηϲ̑ , | προϲερρῑμμ̆ε´ νο̆ν ε̆῾ ν̄`ι ϲκ̆α´ φεῑ | τὸν πρὸ τῶν Κορνη̄λ̆ι´ᾱϲ γ̆α´ μ̄ων | πεντᾰκο̆ϲ̆ι´αῑϲ ναῡϲ̄`ι | ταύτην περιπλεύϲαντα τ̄η` ν θ̆α´ λᾱϲϲᾱν. | 6. τί μ’ ἦλθεϲ ἰδεῖν καὶ ο̄υ᾿ κ ᾰ᾿ π̆ε´ λῐπ̄εϲ | τ̄ω̑ι βᾰρε̄ ι ̑ δᾱ ι´μο̆νῑ | τὴν κᾱ`ι ϲ̆`ε δῡϲτῠχ̆ι´ᾱϲ | ἀναπλήϲαϲᾱν το̆ϲᾱυ´τη̄ϲ; | ὡϲ εὐτυχ̄η` ϲ μ̆`εν ῍ᾰ ν η̄῎ μη̄ν γῠν̄η` | πρὸ τοῦ Πόπλιον ἐν Πάρθοῑϲ ᾰ᾿ κο̄υ ϲ̑ αῑ | τὸν παρθένιον ῎̄ανδρᾰ κε̄ ι´μ̆εν̄ον | ῞ ϲπ̆ερ ̄ω ῞ ρμη̄ϲᾱ, | τὸν ἐμαυτ̄ηϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰνο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ, | ϲώφρων δὲ καὶ μετ’ ἐκεῖνον, ̄ω προ̆ε̆ μ̆ε´ νη̄ β̆ι´ ̄ον· | ἐϲ ̄ωζ̆ο´ μη̄ν δ’ α῎̆ ρᾱ | καὶ Πομπήιωι Μάγνωι ϲυμφορ̄α` γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ. |᾿ 75.1 ταῦτ᾿ εἰπεῖν τὴν Κορνηλίᾱν λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑ, | τὸν δὲ Πόμπηιο̆ν ᾿ᾰ πο̆κρ̄ ι´νᾱϲθαῑ· | ῾μίαν ἄρα, Κορνηλίᾱ, τ̆υ´χη̄ν η῎̄ ιδεῑϲ | τ̄η` ν ᾰ᾿ με̄ ι´νο̆νᾱ, | ἣ καὶ ϲὲ ἴϲωϲ ἐξη̄π̆α´ τη̄ϲ̄εν, | ὅτι μοι χρόνον πλείονα το̄υ ̑ ϲῠν̄η´ θοῡϲ | παρέμεινεν. ̑ δε̄ ι ̑ φ̆ε´ ρεῑν | γενομένουϲ ἀνθρώπουϲ, καὶ τῆϲ τύχη̄ϲ ῎ε̆ τῐ 2. ἀλλὰ καὶ τᾱυτᾰ ̑ | τὸν ̄ ε᾿ ξ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´ν ̄ων | πεῑρᾱτ̆ε´ ̄ον. | οὐ γὰρ ἀνέλπῑϲτο̆ν ̄ ε᾿ κ το̄υ´τ̄ων | ἀναλαβε̄ ι ν̑ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ινᾱ ἐν τούτοῑϲ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆εν̄ον. |᾿ 74.5 δεξαμένου τ. ἀ. αὐ.: ἐναγκαλιϲαμένου Zon. 10.9 ii.362 Dindorf ὁρῶ ϲε: ὁρῶ ϲ᾿ scribit Ziegler 6 τί . . . τοϲαύτηϲ; om. Zon. καὶ μετ’: καὶ om. Zon. ἐμαυτῆϲ: ἑαυτῆϲ Zon. ἐϲωιζόμην . . . γενέϲθαι: ἐϲωιζόμην δὲ καὶ ϲοί, Πόμπηιε Μάγνε, γενήϲεϲθαι ϲυμφορά Zon. ii.362 3 75.1 ταῦτ᾿ . . . ἀποκρίναϲθαι: ὁ δὲ πρὸϲ ταῦτα Zon. 10.9 ii.363 ἤιδειϲ uel Ziegler: ἤιδειϲ possis χρόνον πλείονα: πλέον Zon. 2 γενομένουϲ ἀνθρώπουϲ: ἀνθρώπουϲ ὄνταϲ Zon. ἀναλαβεῖν ἐκεῖνα: εἰϲ ἐκεῖνα μεταπεϲεῖν Zon.

Pompey met her and took her in his arms as her legs were giving way [from ὑπ ερείπω] and she was falling into his embrace. ‘I see that you, husband,’ she said, ‘are the work not of your fortune but of mine. You have been thrown into a single boat when before your marriage to Cornelia you sailed round this sea with five hundred ships. Why have you come to take sight of me? Why did you not leave me to my grim fate, when I have filled you as well as me with such great misfortune? How fortunate a woman I would have been if I had died before I heard

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

228

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

that Publius, the husband I married when I was a virgin, was lying among the Parthians! How virtuous I would have been even if I had given up my life after him, as I was eager to do! I was rescued, it seems, so that I could be a disaster for Pompeius Magnus too.’ That is what Cornelia is reported to have said; Pompey is reported to have answered, ‘It seems, Cornelia, that you only knew one of my fortunes, the better one; perhaps it deceived you as well as me, because it stayed with me for more than the usual time. But we are mortals, and must put up with even this present situation, and continue to make trial of fortune. It is not hopeless to think that the man who has been in this position after that one can take up that one again after this.’

Another aftermath to a decisive battle is treated in this passage with dense rhythm. Again Plutarch is concerned with a relationship, and especially with comparison; direct speech presents the contact and the contrast intensely. After the battle of Pharsalus (48 BC), Pompey returns to Mytilene on Lesbos, where he had left Cornelia (he had been an important patron of the city, cf. Yarrow [2006], 57–60). Cornelia was his fifth (not fourth) wife; he was her second husband. Her first, P. Crassus, had died in 53 at the battle of Carrhae (ch. 14); she had married him in 55, and married Pompey in 52. For Cornelia and the marriage, cf. e.g. Münzer (1901), Gelzer (2005), 162, 218, 220, Dingmann (2007), 85, 86–7, 360. Plutarch, unlike Appian and Dio, takes the opportunity to elaborate a scene between man and wife. λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑ, | gestures to his source or sources (cf. Cook [2001]). The seed lay in Livy (fr. 45 Jal, passage 1 in the Appendix to this chapter), and Plutarch refers to Livy on Pharsalus (Caes. 47.3–6); it seems easiest to think he used Livy here (cf. e.g. Peter [1865], 119, Bruère [1951], 232 n. 7; Heftner [1995], 59–62, refers only to the first half of the Life). Even if he did not, he was not inventing from nothing, as Lucan also shows (passage 2); if he did, he developed the thoughts in Livy differently from Livy, and from Lucan. The scholiast slightly suggests that Livy did not give her a more extended speech; if he did, the points about Cornelia seen in Plutarch would not readily follow the quotation in passage 1. 74.5 | ἀπαντήϲαντοϲ δὲ τοῦ Πομπήιου καὶ δεξαμένου ταῖϲ ̄α᾿ γκ̆α´ λαῑϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄η` ν | ὑπερειπομένην καὶ περιπίπτουϲαν,: Cornelia has run through Mytilene to the sea; she has evidently arrived at the shore (cf. | ταύτην). The description of their meeting, like the description of Cornelia’s reaction to the news, is not at all dense in rhythm,

Cornelia Blames Herself

229

emotional as the content is; the density is reserved for the speeches, and especially for hers. ῾ ὁρ ̄ω̑ ϲ̆ε´ ,᾿ ε̄῏ιπ̆ε ν, ῾ α῎̆ ν̄ερ, |h: whether there is hiatus and so rhythm here depends on whether ϲέ or ϲε is elided—an uncertain matter. The play between pronouns in what follows, and the nature of what is said (see next note), suggest an emphatic pronoun; this, together with the presentation of direct speech, make it more desirable than usual not to elide. (Ziegler elides here, within a rhythmic close, but at some places leaves hiatus outside a rhythmic close: Agis 20.5 [ch. 17] | ῾ἡ πολλή ϲε᾿ ε̄῏ι π̆εν . . . , Galb. 26.3 | ‘τίϲ ϲε’ ε̄῏ι π̆εν ῾ ε̆᾿ κ̆ε´ λεῡϲ̄εν;᾿ |, etc.) The word α῎̆ ν̄ερ, |h at the end of the perhaps rhythmic phrase carries great weight: this is the only time the vocative appears in the Lives, and it replaces the Magne that is the basis for Livy’s play on words. The word is taken up here by γ̆α´ μ̄ων |. |h οὐ τῆϲ ϲ̄ηϲ̑ τ̆υ´χη̄ϲ ̄ ῎ε ργ̄ον, | ̄α᾿ λλ̆α` τ̄ηϲ̑ ε̆᾿ μ̄ηϲ̑ , |: how these tightly rhythmical phrases fit into the sentence depends on the grammar. The most promising view is: a) I see, husband, that you are the work not of your fortune but of mine, thrown as you are . . . Alternatives are: b) I see that you, husband, who are the work not of your fortune but of mine, have been thrown . . . ; c) I see that you, husband—it is the work not of your fortune but of mine—have been thrown . . . c) presents a jolting interruption, and makes the chief point (and the point in Livy) a parenthesis; what follows would connect with the chief point, but that would only render the lack of connection with the parenthesis more awkward. b) is less awkward, since the phrase is in apposition to the vocative, but the problem of subordinating the main point persists. a) would need us to understand ὄντα, but this is not uncommon (KG ii.66–7). For a), and b), cf. Alex. Fort. 1 326d Οὗτοϲ ὁ τῆϲ Τύχηϲ λόγοϲ ἐϲτίν, ἴδιον καὶ μόνηϲ αὑτῆϲ ἔργον ἀποφαινομένη̄ϲ Ἀ̆ λ̄ ε´ ξᾱνδρ̄ον |, and e | Δαρεῖοϲ η̄῏ ν ϲ̆ο` ν ̄ ῎ε ργ̄ον, | ὃν ἐκ δούλου καὶ ἀϲτάνδοῡ βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ | κύριον Περϲ ̄ω̑ν ε̆᾿ πο̄ ι´η̄ϲᾱϲ· |. Cf. also Eum. 17.9; Ov. Pont. 4.1.27–37. Cornelia would be turning round a familiar and somewhat hostile view of Pompey: negating it, but ascribing agency to her own fortune. On a), the following run of rhythmic phrases spells out the concrete details that have generated the dramatic, abstracted start. Whereas in Livy (passage 1) felicitatem tuam is opposed, chiastically, to mea fortuna, in Plutarch the speeches are on different kinds of τύχη: yours, mine (74.5); mine good, mine bad (75.1); general (75.2). In Plutarch, as in Lucan, the emphasis is on the fortune as

230

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Cornelia’s, not as that of the Crassi, to whom Livy directly proceeds. Plutarch wishes to build up the biography of Cornelia, as seen by her. He has in view probably Andromache’s and perhaps Briseis’ visions of their lives; both think of their own ill fortune, and Andromache links her fate with Hector’s (Hom. Il. 19.290, 22.477–81, and note ἄνερ here, without ὦ, cf. Hom. Il. 24.725, Plut. Coniug. Praec. 145b; cf. Seng [2003], 139–40 for Lucan). If there is a rhythmic close after ἄνερ, the structure stresses both |h (οὐ τῆϲ) ϲ̄ηϲ̑ and ε̆᾿ μ̄ηϲ̑ , |. | προϲερρῑμμ̆ε´ νο̆ν ε̆῾ ν̄`ι ϲκ̆α´ φεῑ | τὸν πρὸ τῶν Κορνη̄λ̆ι´ᾱϲ γ̆α´ μ̄ων | πεντᾰκο̆ϲ̆ι´αῑϲ ναῡϲ̄`ι | ταύτην περιπλεύϲαντα τ̄η` ν θ̆α´ λᾱϲϲᾱν. |: the speech is tied to the present moment, as Cornelia sees the ε̆῾ ν̄`ι ϲκ̆α´ φεῑ |, and the Aegean— | ταύτην . . . τ̄η` ν θ̆α´ λᾱϲϲᾱν. |; word-order too gives emphasis to | ταύτην, separated from its noun. But she conjures up a contrasting image from the past: ε̆῾ ν̄`ι ϲκ̆α´ φεῑ | and | πεντᾰκο̆ϲ̆ι´αῑϲ ναῡϲ̄`ι | (cf. 26.2) are neatly opposed to each other by these rhythmic phrases. The context takes up rhythmically and rhetorically the messenger’s demeaning and unrhythmic ἐπὶ νεὼϲ μιᾶϲ καὶ ἀλλοτρίαϲ. (74.4; in fact, Pompey soon acquires at least a few more ships, cf. 76.1, App. BC 2.349). Cornelia’s name is marked out with the third-person | (τὸν πρὸ τῶν) Κορνη̄λ̆ι´ ᾱϲ; in Livy, the unlucky name brought in had been that of the Crassi. The rhythmic position throws the name here into sharper relief than Crassorum in ex funesta Crassorum domo. 74.6 | τί μ’ ἦλθεϲ ἰδεῖν καὶ ο̄υ᾿ κ ᾰ᾿ π̆ε´ λῐπ̄εϲ | τ ̄ω̑ι βᾰρε̄ ι ̑ δᾱ ι´μο̆νῑ | τὴν κᾱ`ι `ϲ̆ε δῡϲτῠχ̆ι´ᾱϲ | ἀναπλήϲαϲᾱν το̆ϲᾱυ´τη̄ϲ; |: the accusative participial phrase with article balances that in the last part of the previous sentence (| τὸν . . . | ταύτην περιπλεύϲαντα τ̄η` ν θ̆α´ λᾱϲϲᾱν. |)—her against him, but she has also contaminated him too. ϲέ, stressed by particle and accent, is further underlined by rhythm in | (τὴν κᾱ`ι) ϲ̆`ε. The thread of fortune runs through in δῡϲτῠχ̆ι´ᾱϲ |, emphasized by rhythm and separation from its adjective; but the distinct phrase | τ̄ω̑ι βᾰρε̄ ι ̑ δᾱ ι´μο̆νῑ | displays misfortune too, with more drastic and halfpersonifying language. The article τ̄ω̑ι suggests the δαίμων belongs to her. ᾰ᾿ π̆ε´ λῐπ̄εϲ | is dwelt on more than it would be without the rhythmic close: the wife, while not reaching the extremes she does in Lucan (passage 2), speaks of abandonment as the obvious step for her loving husband to have taken. | ὡϲ εὐτυχ̄η` ϲ μ̆`εν ῍ᾰ ν η῎̄ μη̄ν γῠν̄η` | πρὸ τοῦ Πόπλιον ἐν Πάρθοῑϲ ᾰ᾿ κο̄υ ϲ̑ αῑ | τὸν παρθένιον ῎̄ανδρᾰ κε̄ ι´μ̆εν̄ον | ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰνο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ, |: Cornelia contemplates the narrative of her own life, with the counterfactual turn taken by Helen at Hom. Il. 6.345–8. The virtual history

Cornelia Blames Herself

231

corresponds strongly to Plutarch’s narrative of Pompey’s own life at 46.2: ὡϲ ὤνητό γ’ ἂν ἐνταῦθα τοῦ βίου παυϲάμενοϲ, ἄχρι οὗ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδροῡ τ̆υ´χη̄ν ̄ ῎ε ϲχ̄εν· | ὁ δ᾿ ἐπέκεῑνᾰ χρ̆ο´ νο̆ϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι | τ̄α` ϲ μ̆`εν ε̄υ᾿ τῠχ̆ι´ᾱϲ | η῎̄ ν̄εγκ̆εν ε̆᾿ πῑφθ̆ο´νοῡϲ | ἀνηκέϲτουϲ δὲ τὰϲ δυϲτυχίαϲ. ε̄υ᾿ τῠχ̆ι´ᾱϲ | and | (ὡϲ) εὐτυχ̄η´ ϲ are stressed by μέν and separation from adjective or noun as well as by placing in the rhythmic phrase. | (ὡϲ) εὐτυχ̄η´ ϲ picks up the thread from δῡϲτῠχ̆ι´ᾱϲ | in the previous sentence. κε̄ ι´μ̆εν̄ον | and | ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰνο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ, | are put on either side of a rhythmic boundary; this increases the effect of bringing them together (the second participle particularly is long delayed), and of keeping them distinct (syntax too divides them). Death would have been better than learning of P. Crassus’ death; but rather than just the simple ‘dead’ for Crassus, a scene balances that of Pompey’s misery, and points the reader towards Pompey’s decease. | (τὸν) παρθένιον is highlighted through rhythm and word-order; the adjective, uncommon in this sense, evokes Cornelia’s own life-story, cf. 55.1 (Pompey married Cornelia) | οὐ παρθένον, ἀλλὰ χήραν ἀπολελειμμένη̄ν ν̆ε ̄ωϲτ̄`ι | Ποπλίου τοῦ Κράϲϲου παιδόϲ, ὧι ϲυνώικηκεν ἐκ παρθενίαϲ, ἐν Πάρθοῑϲ τ̆εθνη̄κ̆ο´τ̄οϲ. | (cf. also App. BC 2.351). In the present heightened context, Πάρθ- and παρθ- are bitterly conjoined. ῞ ϲπ̆ερ ̄ω ῞ ρμη̄ϲᾱ, | τὸν ἐμαυτ̄ηϲ̑ προ̆ε̆ μ̆ε´ νη̄ | ϲώφρων δὲ καὶ μετ’ ἐκεῖνον, ̄ω β̆ι´ ̄ον· |: if there were hiatus after μετά (a standard word for either hiatus or elision), κᾱ`ι μ̆ε τ̆α` ε᾿̆ κε̄ιν̄̑ ον |h would be rhythmic too. | ϲώφρων δέ answers | (ὡϲ) εὐτυχ̄η` ϲ μ̆ε´ ν—if not lucky, she would at least have had a reputation for chastity. Dido thinks Pudor would be violated by a second marriage, and would rather die (Virg. Aen. 4.25–7). In fact, Cornelia’s self-reproach only exhibits her high stand῞ ϲπ̆ερ ̄ω ῞ ρμη̄ϲᾱ, | ards: she actually had intentions to kill herself, as ̄ω brings out. | τὸν ἐμαυτ̄ηϲ̑ προ̆ε̆ μ̆ε´ νη̄ β̆ι´ ̄ον· | answers | ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰνο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ, |. The different stages in her life are poignantly shown, as is her dedication to her earlier husband too, in a speech to her present one. | ἐϲ̄ωζ̆ο´ μη̄ν δ’ α῎̆ ρᾱ | καὶ Πομπήιωι Μάγνωι ϲυμφορ̄α` γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ. |᾿ : the third-person | (καὶ) Πομπήιωι Μάγνωι, balancing and outdoing, is powerful in this setting. Cornelia does not now address Pompey as husband, but contemplates the great figure she has brought down— yet in words for his ears. (Zonaras’ rewriting in the second person, ἐϲωιζόμην δὲ καὶ ϲοί, Πόμπηιε Μάγνε, γενήϲεϲθαι ϲυμφορά, gives what might have been expected.) Plutarch is of course well aware what Magnus means (cf. 72.1), but does not here exploit the name directly like Livy (passage 1) or like Lucan (passage 2, 94 o maxime coniunx;

232

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

96 tantum . . . caput). The positions of | (πρὸ τοῦ) Πόπλιον and | (καὶ) Πομπήιωι as the first significant words in their rhythmic phrases help the names to stand out further and so connect; the designation of Pompeius Magnus outdoes in splendour that of Publius. | ἐϲ ̄ωζ̆ο´ μη̄ν δ’ α῎̆ ρᾱ | suggests that an actual attempt was foiled; α῎̆ ρᾱ points forward to the purpose, but the isolation of ἐϲ ̄ωζ̆ο´ μη̄ν in a rhythmic unit with postpositives pauses sadly on the futile deliverance. The phrase ϲυμφορ̄α` γ̆εν̄ ε´ ϲθαῑ. | combines words strikingly: she herself is the disaster, as Pompey himself is the work of her fortune. Orators use ϲυμφορά in this way of opponents (Aeschin. 3.253 οὐκ ἀποπέμψεϲθε τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὡϲ κοινὴν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ϲυμφοράν;, Din. 1.65); here the thread of fortune and Cornelia’s fortune is given a final twirl. Cornelia’s speech on its own would meet the criteria for a dense passage, if ϲέ were not elided at the start, nor μετά near the end; otherwise, the sentence of transition must be requisitioned as well to furnish two or one of the twenty phrases. Pompey’s speech seems to begin densely, but his speech becomes less dense than hers, until the end. It is at a lower emotional pitch. 75.1 | ταῦτ᾿ εἰπεῖν τὴν Κορνηλίᾱν λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑ, | τὸν δὲ Πόμπηιο̆ν ᾰ᾿ πο̆κρ̄ ι´νᾱϲθαῑ· |: the bridge between the two speeches sustains the rhythmic intensity; contrast the introduction to Cornelia’s (74.5). λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑ, | governs both infinitives, and suggests there was some basis, say in Livy, for Pompey’s speech. But whereas the speeches of Cornelia in Lucan and Plutarch are connected, there is little resemblance between the speeches of Pompey. In Lucan, Pompey’s speech precedes Cornelia’s, and he presumes that his fortuna perit (8.86). | ῾μίαν ἄρα, Κορνηλίᾱ, τ̆υ´χη̄ν η῎̄ ιδεῑϲ | τ̄η` ν ᾰ᾿ με̄ ι´νο̆νᾱ, |: Pompey is talking about his own fortune, and ignoring Cornelia’s; but his ἄρα, although it could relate just to Cornelia’s last half-sentence, suggests he is responding to her whole speech. Hence Ziegler’s addition seems desirable, and clarifies the dialectic. would be in the wrong place after ἤιδειϲ, and after τύχην would introduce hiatus; the most obvious place for is after τύχην. In that case, the insertion would actually increase the quantity of rhythm: | ῾μίᾰν α῎̆ ρᾰ, Κ̄ορνη̄λ̆ι´ᾱ, | τύχη̄ν η῎̄ ιδεῑϲ, | rather than | ῾μίᾰν α῎̆ ρᾰ, Κ̄ορνη̄λ̆ι´ᾱ, | τύχην ἤιδειϲ ,. | μίαν and | τ̄η` ν ᾰ᾿ με̄ ι´νο̆νᾱ, | are both pointed up by rhythm and structure; while moving the bad fortune within his own domain, Pompey adopts a pattern of thought familiar in Greek poetry and

Cornelia Blames Herself

233

philosophy: there is not one x but two xs, one good, one bad—οὐκ ἄρα μοῦνον ἔην Ἐρίδων γένοϲ, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ γαῖαν | εἰϲὶ δύω· τὴν μέν κεν ἐπαινήϲειε νοήϲαϲ (Hes. WD 11–12, referred to by Plutarch at Quaest. Conv. 9.1.2 736e; cf. Eur. Hipp. 385–6, referred to at Virt. Mor. 448f; Tranq. 474b–c, countering Men. fr. 500.1–3 Kassel-Austin with Emped. B 122 DK). | ἣ καὶ ϲὲ ἴϲωϲ ἐξη̄π̆α´ τη̄ϲ̄εν, | ὅτι μοι χρόνον πλείονα το̄υ ̑ ϲῠν̄η´ θοῡϲ | παρέμεινεν.: | (ἣ καὶ) ϲὲ connects with Cornelia’s | (τὴν κᾱ`ι) ϲ̆`ε (74.6). She has said that, thanks to her bad fortune, she had brought misfortune to him as well as herself; he counters that she, like he, has been deceived by his own good fortune, which was not permanent and was one of a pair. He is comforting her, in his way, and the ‘perhaps’ for her error is a courteous addition. He is also looking back collectedly over time; το̄υ ̑ ϲῠν̄η´ θοῡϲ | is marked out in its modest understatement. One could scan μοῑ χρ̆ο´ ν̄ον πλε̄ ι´ο̆νᾱ |, but the comparative goes closely with what follows. The close is unrhythmic. 75.2 ἀλλὰ καὶ τᾱυ τ̑ ᾰ δε̄ ι ̑ φ̆ε´ ρεῑν | γενομένουϲ ἀνθρώπουϲ, καὶ τῆϲ τύχη̄ϲ ῎ε̆ τῐ πεῑρᾱτ̆ε´ ̄ον. |: again there is an unrhythmic close, within a short sentence. The two rhythmic phrases, and καὶ . . . καί, conjoin ideas of necessity which do not really belong together. The need for mortals to endure seems a noble truism; the need to try Fortune again implies a belief which contradicts the division of fortune into two fortunes, one of which has gone (75.1). Later in the section, Cratippus is seen speaking misguidedly: παράγ̄οντο̆ϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο` ν | ἐπὶ τὰϲ ἀμείνοναϲ ἐλπίδαϲ (4; he should have asked Pompey why one should think Pompey would have used fortune, i.e. good fortune, better than Caesar). Plutarch does say in the Comparatio that Pompey went to Egypt ̄ ε᾿ ξ ᾰ᾿ ν̄α´ γκη̄ϲ | (85 (5).1; cf. Arist. 15.4, Alexander on Mardonius, ἀνάγκη τολμῶντα πεῑρ̄αϲ̑ θαῑ τ̄ηϲ̑ τ̆υ´χη̄ϲ | ἢ τὴν ἐϲχάτην ὑπομένειν ἀπορίᾱν κᾰθ̄εζ̆ο´μ̆εν̄ον. |, contrast Otho 13.2). But the particular decision to go to Egypt is in 76.9 Pompey’s mistake, or the intervention of a δᾱ ι´μ ̄ων |. In the present passage, the next sentence makes clear the grounding of Pompey’s utterance in mistaken opinion. ̑ | τὸν ̄ ε᾿ ξ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´ν ̄ων | ἐν | οὐ γὰρ ἀνέλπῑϲτο̆ν ̄ ε᾿ κ το̄υ´τ ̄ων | ἀναλαβε̄ ιν̑ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ινᾱ ´ ̑ τούτοῑϲ γ̆εν̆ομ̆εν̄ον. |᾿ : τᾱυ τᾰ is taken up in το̄υ´τ̄ων |, and then a ̑ |, sequence develops, scanned out by the rhythm: το̄υ´τ̄ων |, ε̆᾿ κε̄ ινᾱ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´ν̄ων |, | (ἐν) τούτοῑϲ. The simplicity of the expression is affecting; Pompey does not elaborate self-indulgently on his present calamity or past glories. Affecting in a different way is the optimism: the density of rhythm expresses the rising emotion of hope. Pompey speaks as if

234

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

there were no arrow of time. The symmetry, underlined by the rhythm, shows him ignoring the irreparable disaster of Pharsalus. The handling of rhythm in this passage promotes a searching comparison between the figures’ responses, as seen in their speeches. The woman laments, the man hopes. Both show biography as felt from within. She sees continual disaster for herself, for him a fall from glory to nothingness; he, by extending the graph into the future, sees for himself a possible sequence of rise to fall to rise. Her speech is the more extended, and the more colourful, emotional, and consistently rhythmical; his has moments of density, and makes an impact, but the rhythms partly underline the mistakes in his thought. Lucan (passage 2) compares his figures in a related but different way. In him the man’s speech comes first, and dwells on the need for the woman to pull herself together. The woman’s speech wills a sort of passive action for herself in the future (kill me at sea, to help your fortunes), as hypothetically in the past (if only I could have harmed Caesar by marrying him). Even in Plutarch, Cornelia envisages alternative biographies for herself; Pompey does not range so far in his thought. For Pompey, it has been the narrator and not Pompey who has done this (46.2). Both Plutarch and Lucan probably draw on Homer’s evocation of parallel lives within a single marriage.

Appendix: Livy fr. 45 Jal, Luc. 8.88–105 1. Livy fr. 45 Jal (Schol. Bern. Luc. 8.91) hunc locum poeta de Liuio tulit, qui Corneliam dicit dixisse Pompeio ‘uicit, Magne, felicitatem tuam mea fortuna. quid enim ex funesta Crassorum domo recipiebas nisi ut minueretur magnitudo tua?’ The poet took this passage from Livy, who says that Cornelia said to Pompey, ‘Magnus [great one], your good luck has been beaten by my fortune. What were you getting from the fatal house of the Crassi but a reduction of your greatness?’ 2. Luc. 8.88 105 ‘o utinam in thalamos inuisi Caesaris issem infelix coniunx et nulli laeta marito. bis nocui mundo: me pronuba ducit Erinys Crassorumque umbrae, deuotaque manibus illis Assyrios in castra tuli ciuilia casus, praecipitesque dedi populos cunctosque fugaui

90

Cornelia Blames Herself a causa meliore deos. o maxime coniunx, o thalamis indigne meis, hoc iuris habebat in tantum fortuna caput? cur impia nupsi, si miserum factura fui? nunc accipe poenas, sed quas sponte luam: quo sit tibi mollius aequor, certa fides regum totusque paratior orbis, sparge mari comitem. mallem felicibus armis dependisse caput; nunc clades denique lustra, Magne, tuas. ubicumque iaces, ciuilibus armis nostros ulta toros, ades huc atque exige poenas, Iulia crudelis, placataque paelice caesa Magno parce tuo.’

235 95

100

105

‘O that I had gone into the bridal chamber of hated Caesar as an unfortunate wife and bringing luck to no husband. Twice I have harmed the world. I was led to our bridal chamber by a Fury as my matron of honour and by the shades of the Crassi. As a cursed offering to those dead, I brought the catastrophes of Parthia to the armies of the civil war. I have made the peoples rush in headlong panic, and I have driven all the gods in flight from the better cause. O greatest husband, who did not deserve marriage with me, did Fortune have these rights over so great a person? Why did I wickedly marry, if I was doomed to make you wretched? Take the penalty from me, but such that I will pay of my own accord. To make the sea gentler to you, the good faith of kings assured, and the whole world readier to receive you, let me accompany you on your voyage and then scatter my body at sea. I would prefer to have paid the penalty of my life with your arms of war having good fortune; but now at last expiate your disaster, Magnus. Wherever you lie, cruel Julia [Pompey’s previous wife], now that you have avenged Pompey’s marriage to me with civil war, come hither and exact the punishment; be appeased by the slaughter of the mistress and spare your Magnus.’

17 The Deaths of King and Kindred (Agis 16.6–17.5, 17.9–18.3; 19.5–21.1) Our last passages, before we begin to look beyond Plutarch, offer climactic and connected pieces of narration, one on escape from death, one on multiple deaths, one where a woman rescues a man, one where women die with a man. There are numerous internal comparisons involved in these moments, which come from a complex comparative context, a pair of double lives, Agis and Cleomenes joined with Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus (note Thommen [2017]). The two passages show extended use of close-set rhythm: our criteria for rhythmic density are met by 16.7 (from | καὶ παρε̄`ι ϲ) to 17.3 (κᾰθ̄εζο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄, |), 17.9–18.2, 19.6 (from | ἠρώτηϲεν) to 8, and more or less met by 20.3 (from | ἀποθανούϲη̄ϲ δ’) to 5 (| ε̆᾿ πεῑϲ̄ηλ̑ θ̄ε |), with ̆ briefer use of density scattered about. Phylarchus, himself third century, was certainly a source for the Life of the third-century Agis (9.3, FGrHist 81 F 32 (b)), and is usually held, with little secure basis, to be its dominant source. If he was, then, just as the lives of Agis and Cleomenes are formed into structures that they cannot have had as parts of Phylarchus’ history, so the detailed writing has been turned from the unrhythmic prose of Phylarchus into the highly rhythmic prose of these narrations. (Even Cleom. 34 (13) and FGrHist 81 F 44 are quite different from each other in wording.) Prejudice against Phylarchus deriving from Polybius is often evident in approaches to Plutarch’s narrative here; but the power and coherence of Plutarch’s writing become apparent when we approach it through the rhythm. The date is 241 BC. The kings Agis IV and Cleombrotus II are now under attack from opponents, including the restored king Leonidas; Leonidas had been replaced as king by Cleombrotus, and sent into

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

238

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

exile, his life saved by Agis. Cleombrotus’ wife is Leonidas’ daughter. Agis’ reforms and attempts at reform have had a mixed reception from Spartans, both men and women. For more on the events and sources see Africa (1961), Powell (1999), Cartledge and Spawforth (2002), 41–8, Pomeroy (2002), 80–1.

AGIS 16.6–17.5, 17.9–18.3 16.6 τ ̄ω̑ν δ̆`ε βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ων | ὁ μὲν Ἆγιϲ ἐπὶ τὴν Χαλκίοικ̄ον κᾰτ̆ε´ φῠγ̄εν, | ὁ δὲ Κλεόμβροτοϲ εἰϲ τὸ τοῦ Ποϲειδῶνοϲ ̆ι῾ ε̆ ρ̆`ον ̄ ε᾿ λθ ̄ω` ν | ̄ ῾ι κ̆ε´ τεῡ̄ε· | 7. καὶ γὰρ ἐδόκει τούτωι μᾶλλον ὁ Λεωνίδᾱϲ χᾰλ̆ε π̆`οϲ ε̄῏ιναῑ, | καὶ παρε̄`ι ϲ τ̆`ον Ἆ̄ γῑν | ἐπὶ το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ν ᾰ᾿ ν̆ε´ βη̄ | ϲτρᾰτῐ ̄ω´ τᾱϲ ῎ε̆ χ ̄ων, | καὶ κατηγόρεῑ μ̆ε τ’ ̄ο᾿ ργ̄ηϲ̑ | ὅτι ̆ γαμβρὸϲ ὢν ἐπεβούλεῡϲ̆ ε ν ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι | καὶ τὴν βαϲιλείᾱν ᾰ᾿ φε̄ ι´λ̆ε τ̄ο | καὶ ϲυνεξ̆ε´ βᾰλ̆ε τ̄ηϲ̑ πᾰτρ̆ι´ δ̄οϲ. | ̑ | ἀλλ’ ἠπορημένο̆ϲ 17.1 ὁ μὲν ο̄υ῏ ν Κλ̆ε ̄ο´ μβρο̆τ̄οϲ | οὐδὲν ε̄῏ιχ̆ε ν ε̄ ᾿ι πε̄ ι ν, ᾿ε̆ κ̆α´ θη̄τ̄ο | κᾱ`ι ϲῐ ̄ωπ ̄ω̑ν· | 2. ἡ δὲ Χιλωνίϲ, ἡ τοῦ Λε ̄ων̆ι´δοῡ θῠγ̆α´ τη̄ρ, | πρότερον μὲν ἀδικοῡμ̆ε´ν ̄ωι τ ̄ω̑ι πᾰτρ̄`ι | ϲυνη̄δῐκε̄ ι τ̄̑ ο, | καὶ το̄υ ̑ Κλ̆ε ̄ομβρ̆ο´ τοῡ | τὴν βαϲιλείᾱν πᾰρᾰλᾰβ̄ο´ ντ̄οϲ | ἀποϲτᾶϲα, τὴν το̄υ ̑ πᾰτρ̄ο` ϲ ϲῡμφο̆ρ̄α` ν | ε̆᾿ θ̆ερ̆α´ πεῡ̄ε, | κᾱ`ι πᾰρ̄ο´ ντῐ μ̄`εν | ϲυνῑκ̆ε´ τεῡ̄ε, | φεύγοντ̄οϲ δ̆`ε π̄ενθο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ | καὶ χαλεπ ̄ω̑ϲ ῎ε̆ χοῡϲᾱ | πρὸϲ τ̄ο` ν Κλ̆ε ̄ο´ μβρο̆τ̄ον | δῐ ε̆ τ̆ε´ λεῑ· | 3. τότε δ’ ᾱυ῏ π̆α´ λῑν τᾱ ι ϲ̑ τ̆υ´χαῑϲ | ϲῡμμ̆ε τᾰβᾰλο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ | μετὰ τοῦ ̄α᾿ νδρ̆̆ `οϲ ̆῾ικ̆ε´ τῑϲ | ὤφθη̄ κᾰθ̄εζο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄, | περιβεβληκυῖα τὰϲ χεῖραϲ ἐκείνωι καὶ τῶν παιδίων τὸ μὲν ἔνθεν, τὸ δ’ ἔνθεν ὑφ’ αὑτ̄η` ν ῎ε̆ χοῡϲᾱ. | 4. θαυμαζόντ ̄ων δ̆`ε π̄α´ ντ̄ων | κᾱ`ι δᾰκρῡ̄ο´ ντ̄ων | ἐπὶ τῆι χρη̄ϲτ̆ο´ τη̄τῑ | κᾱ`ι φῐλ̄οϲτ̄οργ̆ι´ᾱι | τ̄ηϲ̑ γῠναῑκ̄ο´ ϲ, | ἁψαμένη τῶν πέπλων καὶ τῆϲ κόμηϲ ἀτημελ ̄ω̑ϲ ε̆᾿ χ̄ο´ ντ̄ων, | 5. ῾τοῦτο,᾿ εἶπεν ῾ὦ πάτερ, ἐμοὶ τὸ ϲχῆμα καὶ τὴν ὄψιν οὐχ ὁ Κλεομβρότου περιτέθεῑκ̆ε ν ῎ε̆ λ̆ε ̄οϲ, | ̄α᾿ λλ’ ᾰ᾿ π̆`ο τ ̄ω̑ν ϲ ̄ω̑ν κᾰκ ̄ω̑ν | κᾱ`ι τ̄ηϲ̑ ϲ̄ηϲ̑ φῠγ̄ηϲ̑ | μεμένηκέ μοι ϲύντροφον καὶ ϲύνοικ̄ον τ̆ο` π̄ ε´ νθ̄οϲ. |̆ . . . 9. | τούτωι μὲν οὖν εἰ καί τιϲ ̑ | καὶ ἦν λόγοϲ εὐπρεπήϲ, ἐγ̄ω` το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ν ᾰ᾿ φεῑλ̆ο´ μη̄ν, | τότε ϲοὶ ϲυν̄εξ̆ε τᾱϲθε̄ ιϲᾱ καταμᾱρτῠρ̄η´ ϲᾱϲᾱ | τῶν ὑπὸ τούτοῡ γ̆ε νο̆μ̆ε´ ν̄ων· | 10. ϲὺ δ’ αὐτωι̑ τ̆ο` α᾿̆ δ̆ι´ κημᾱ |h ποιεῖϲ ε̄υ᾿ ᾰπο̆λ̆ο´ γη̄τ̄ον, | οὕτω μέγα κᾱ`ι π̆ερῐμ̆α´ χη̄τ̄ον | ἀποφαίν ̄ων τ̆`ο βᾰϲῐλε̄υ´ εῑν, | ὥϲτε δι’ αὐτὸ καὶ γαμβρο̄υ` ϲ φο̆νε̄υ´ εῑν | κᾱ`ι τ̆ε´ κν ̄ων ᾰ᾿ μ̆ε λε̄ ι ν̑ | εἶναῑ δ̆ι´καῑ̄ον. |᾿ 18.1 ἡ μ̄`εν Χῐλ ̄ων̄`ι ϲ | τοιᾱυ τ̑ ᾰ πο̆τνῐ ̄ωμ̆ε´ νη̄ | τ̆ο´ τ̆ε πρ̆ο´ ϲ̄ωπ̄ον | ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐπέθηκε το̄υ ̑ Κλ̆ε ̄ομβρ̆ο´ τοῡ | καὶ τὸ βλέμμα διεφθαρμένον καὶ ϲυντετη̄κ̆`οϲ υ῾̆ π̆`ο λ̄υ´ πη̄ϲ | περιήνεγκεν εἰϲ το̄υ` ϲ πᾰρ̄ο´ ντᾱϲ. | 2. ὁ δὲ Λεωνίδαϲ δῐᾰλ̄εχθε̄`ι ϲ το̄ ι ϲ̑ φ̆ι´λοῑϲ, | τὸν μ̄`εν Κλ̆ε ̄ο´ μβρο̆τ̄ον | ἐκέλευϲεν ἀναϲτ̄α´ ντᾰ φε̄υ´ γεῑν, | τ̄ηϲ̑ δ̆`ε παῑδ̄ο` ϲ | μένεῑν ε̆᾿ δε̄ ιτ̄̑ ο | καὶ μὴ καταλιπε̄ ι ν̑ ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ο´ ν, | οὕτ̄ω φῐλο̄υ ν̑ τᾱ | κᾱ`ι δ̆ε δ ̄ωκ̆ο´ τᾰ χ̆α´ ρῑν | τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ηι̑ ϲ̄ωτη̄ρ̆ι´ᾱν. | 3. οὐ μ̄η` ν ῎ε̆ πεῑϲ̄εν, | ἀλλ’ ἀνιϲταμένωι τῶι ἀνδρὶ θάτερον τῶν παιδίων ἐγχεῑρ̆ι´ϲᾱϲᾱ, | θάτερ̄ον δ’ ᾰ᾿ νᾰλᾰβο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ | καὶ πρ̄οϲκῠν̄η´ ϲᾱϲᾱ | τ̄ο` ν β ̄ωμ̄ο` ν

The Deaths of King and Kindred

239

τοῦ θ̆ε ο̄υ ̑ | ϲῠν̄εξ̄ηλ̑ θ̄εν, | ὥϲτ’ εἰ μὴ πάνυ διεφθαρμένοϲ ἦν ὑπὸ κενῆϲ δ̄ο´ ξη̄ϲ ο̆῾ Κλ̆ε ̄ο´ μβρο̆τ̄̆ οϲ, | εὐτύχημᾰ ῍ᾰ ν η῾ γη´ ϲᾰτο |h τ̄η` ν φῠγ̄η` ν ᾱυ῾ τ̄ω̑ι | τῆϲ βαϲιλείαϲ ̑ ̆ ν ε̄῏ι ναῑ | διὰ τ̄η` ν γῠνᾱ ικᾱ. ̑ | με̄ ιζο Of the kings, Agis fled to the temple of Athene Chalkioikos, and Cleombrotus went to the temple of Poseidon and took up supplication. Leonidas seemed to be more angry with Cleombrotus; he ceased to follow Agis and went up against Cleombrotus with soldiers. He accused him wrathfully: despite being his son in law, he said, he had conspired against him, removed his kingship, and thrown him out of his country. Cleombrotus had nothing to say; he sat there at a loss, in silence. Chilonis, the daughter of Leonidas, had previously been wronged at the same time as her father; she had detached herself from Cleombrotus when he took the kingship, and looked after her father in his misfortune. While her father was in Sparta, she had joined in his supplication; when he was in exile, she had mourned, and persisted in her anger with Cleombrotus. But now she changed again together with the fortunes of her relations: she was seen sitting as a suppliant with her husband. She put her arms around him, and had her two little children lying beneath her, one on this side, one on that. Everyone was amazed and wept at the woman’s goodness and affection. She touched her clothes and hair, which were neglected, and said, ‘Father, this appearance and this spectacle have not been put on me by pity for Cleombrotus; from your woes and your exile, mourning has remained with me, living with me and sharing my house . . . . If he did have any plausible case, it was removed by me, when I was on your side, and bore witness against the things he did; but you make his crime easy to defend, as you show that being king is such a great thing to strive after that for its sake it is right to kill sons in law and not care about children.’ With such cries, Chilonis put her face on Cleombrotus’ head, and turned her countenance, ruined and wasted with sorrow, towards those who were there. Leonidas, after discussion with his friends, told Cleom brotus to get up and go into exile. He begged his daughter to remain and not abandon him, when he loved her so much, and had granted her the rescue of her husband as a favour. His words did not sway her; as her husband got up, she put one of their children into his arms and took up the other, made an obeisance to the god’s altar, and left with Cleom brotus. If Cleombrotus had not been deeply corrupted by empty glory, he would have thought exile a better piece of good fortune for him than kingship, thanks to his wife.

16.6–7 τ ̄ω̑ν δ̆`ε βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ων | ὁ μὲν Ἆγιϲ ἐπὶ τὴν Χαλκίοικ̄ον κᾰτ̆ε´ φῠγ̄εν, | ὁ δὲ Κλεόμβροτοϲ εἰϲ τὸ τοῦ Ποϲειδῶνοϲ ̆ι῾ ε̆ ρ̆`ον ̄ ε᾿ λθ ̄ω` ν | ̄ ῾ικ̆ε´ τεῡ̄ε· | καὶ γὰρ ἐδόκει τούτωι μᾶλλον ὁ Λεωνίδᾱϲ χᾰλ̆ε π̆`οϲ ε̄῏ι ναῑ, | καὶ παρε̄`ι ϲ τ̆`ον Ἆ̄ γῑν | ἐπὶ το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ν ᾰ᾿ ν̆ε´ βη̄ | ϲτρᾰτῐ ̄ω´ τᾱϲ ῎ε̆ χ ̄ων, | καὶ κατηγόρεῑ μ̆ε τ’ ̄ο᾿ ργ̄ηϲ̑ | ὅτι ̆

240

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

γαμβρὸϲ ὢν ἐπεβούλεῡϲ̆ε ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ω̑ι | καὶ τὴν βαϲιλείᾱν ᾰ᾿ φε̄ ι´λ̆ε τ̄ο | καὶ ϲυνεξ̆ε´ βᾰλ̆ε τ̄ηϲ̑ πᾰτρ̆ι´ δ̄οϲ. |: the rhythm grows more intense as the plot thickens. The story appears to have diverted itself, like Leonidas, to Cleombrotus rather than Agis; a chiastic structure pits the apparent forgetting of Agis (Ἆ̄ γῑν |) against the attack on Cleombrotus (| (ἐπὶ) το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ν, on the other side of the rhythmic boundary). So important is internal comparison that the Life can play on what its subject is. After Chilonis’ intervention, Leonidas will immediately (εὐθύϲ 18.4) turn his efforts against Agis. His seemingly straightforward wrath, stressed by the rhythm (̄ο᾿ ργ̄ηϲ̑ |), issues in three furious accusations, joined by καί without participles, after the initial γαμβρὸϲ ὢν which introduces them all. The rhythmic closes, one for each charge, make the accusations more incisive. The opening | (ὅτι) γαμβρὸϲ prepares the role of Chilonis; γαμβρὸϲ ὢν takes up 11.7 | γαμβρὸν ὄντα το̄υ ̑ Λ̆ε ̄ων̆ι´δᾱ, | in a more charged setting. ̑ | ἀλλ’ ἠπορημένο̆ϲ 17.1 | ὁ μὲν ο̄υ῏ ν Κλ ε̆ ̄ο´ μβρο̆τ̄οϲ | οὐδὲν ε̄῏ι χ̆ε ν ε̄ ᾿ιπε̄ ι ν, ᾿ε̆ κ̆α´ θη̄τ̄ο | κᾱ`ι ϲῐ ̄ωπ ̄ω̑ν· |: multiple comparisons come in. | οὐδὲν ε̄῏ι χ̆ε ν ̑ | and ϲῐ ̄ωπ ̄ω̑ν· | oppose Cleombrotus’ embarrassed silence ε̄ ᾿ι πε̄ ι ν, both to the stream of accusations from Leonidas and to the speech of Chilonis that will eventually follow. | (ἀλλ’) ἠπορημένο̆ϲ is underlined by word-order as well as rhythm, with the linked participles ἠπορημένο̆ϲ . . . | κᾱ`ι ϲῐ ̄ωπ ̄ω̑ν· | encompassing the verb. This is the first stage in a contrast of Cleombrotus both with Chilonis, who makes things happen, and in the end with Agis, who is all too at ease in his sanctuary; Agis does not sit still in supplication, cf. ε̆᾿ κ̆α´ θη̄τ̄ο |, but is drawn into moving to and fro (18.7–19.3; note νέον. 19.2). The opposition of the two is set up in the previous sentence (16.6–7). 17.2 | ἡ δὲ Χιλωνίϲ, ἡ τοῦ Λε ̄ων̆ι´δοῡ θῠγ̆α´ τη̄ρ, | πρότερον μὲν ἀδικοῡμ̆ε´ ν ̄ωι τ̄ω̑ι πᾰτρ̄`ι | ϲυνη̄δῐκε̄ ιτ̄̑ ο, | καὶ το̄υ ̑ Κλ̆ε ̄ομβρ̆ο´ τοῡ | τὴν βαϲιλείᾱν πᾰρᾰλᾰβ̄ο´ ντ̄οϲ | ἀποϲτᾶϲα, τὴν το̄υ ̑ πᾰτρ̄ο` ϲ ϲῡμφο̆ρ̄α` ν | ε̆᾿ θ̆ερ̆α´ πεῡ̄ε, | κᾱ`ι πᾰρ̄ο´ ντῐ μ̄`εν | ϲυνῑκ̆ε´ τεῡ̄ε, | φεύγοντ̄οϲ δ̆`ε π̄ενθο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ | καὶ χαλεπ ̄ω̑ϲ ῎ε̆ χοῡϲᾱ | πρὸϲ τ̄ο` ν Κλ̆ε ̄ο´ μβρο̆τ̄ον | δῐ ε̆ τ̆ε´ λεῑ· |: notably, in ̆ this section the rhythms throng not round the detailed description of Chilonis’ supplication (in 17.3 and 4), but round the presentation of her admirable inconsistency, over the course of events. The present half-sentence resumes, and then continues beyond, 11.8 | καὶ ϲυνῑκ̆ε´ τεῡ̄εν | η̄ ῾ θῠγᾰτ̄η` ρ τ̄ω̑ι πᾰτρ̄ ι´, | τὸν Κλεόμβροτον ᾰ᾿ πο̆λῐπο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ |; but the reprise is more elaborate and brings out her misfortune and her agency. | ϲυνη̄δῐκε̄ ι τ̑ ̄ο, | and | ϲυνῑκ̆ε´ τεῡ̄ε, | are isolated by the rhythm, and go together: she shares her father’s lot (ϲυν-) both

The Deaths of King and Kindred

241

passively and actively. | ε̆᾿ θ̆ερ̆α´ πεῡ̄ε, | is isolated too, and is unusually combined with τὴν το̄υ ̑ πᾰτρ̄ο` ϲ ϲῡμφο̆ρ̄α` ν |; it brings out Chilonis’ feminine actions and affection, as does π̄ενθο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ |, which links to π̄ ε´ νθ̄οϲ. | in 17.5. On the other hand, | ἀποϲτᾶϲα, beginning after a rhythmic close and stressed by the distance from το̄υ ̑ Κλ̆ε ̄ομβρ̆ο´ τοῡ |, has more suggestion of a political stance than the domestic ᾰ᾿ πο̆λῐπο̄υϲ̑ ᾱ | in 11.8. | δῐ̆ε τ̆ε´ λεῑ· | is telling too: Chilonis maintains her position for as long as it̆ is her father who is suffering. 17.3 | τότε δ’ ᾱυ῏ π̆α´ λῑν τᾱ ι ϲ̑ τ ̆υ´χαῑϲ | ϲῡμμ̆ε τᾰβᾰλο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ | μετὰ τοῦ ̄α᾿ νδρ̆`οϲ ῾̆ι κ̆ε´ τῑϲ | ὤφθη̄ κᾰθ̄εζο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄, |: | ϲῡμμ̆ε τᾰβᾰλο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ | is isolated in its turn, and juxtaposed with τ ̆υ´χαῑϲ |, also marked out by the rhythmic close. The ϲυν- is noteworthy in this context; her allegiance is not to her father (cf. | ϲυνη̄δῐκε̄ ι τ̄̑ ο, | and | ϲυνῑκ̆ε´ τεῡ̄ε, | above), but to fortune. This sounds like the height of fickleness, but paradoxically brings out her dedication to afflicted loved ones. She is united to sorrow: cf. ϲύντροφον καὶ ϲύνοικ̄ον τ̆`ο π̄ ε´ νθ̄οϲ. | (17.5), and further 17.8 | ἀλλὰ καὶ γυνὴ καὶ θυγάτηρ ϲυνατυχεῖν καὶ ϲυνατιμάζεϲθαι τοῖϲ ἐμαυτ̄ηϲ̑ ε̆᾿ γ̆ε ν̆ο´ μη̄ν |. | (μετὰ τοῦ) ̄α᾿ νδρ̆`οϲ is spotlighted through rhythm, like πᾰτρ̄`ι | (17.2), which it is set against. | μετὰ τοῦ ̄α᾿ νδρ̆`οϲ ῾̆ι κ̆ε´ τῑϲ | is reasonably treated as a rhythmic entity: ἱκέτιϲ is connected with καθεζομένη in sense, but separated from it by ὤφθη, as at Paus. 3.5.6 καθεζομένουϲ ἐνταῦθα ἱκέταϲ, and the conjunction of ἀνδρόϲ and ἱκέτιϲ brings out the shared supplication, cf. e.g. Jos. Vit. 328 μετὰ γυναικ ̄ω̑ν δ̆`ε κᾱ`ι τ̆ε´ κν̄ων | ἱκέτευον, App. Hann. 115 | αἱ δὲ γυναῖκεϲ ἱκέτευον ἐν τοῖϲ ῾̆ι ε̆ ρο̄ ι ϲ̑ μ̆ε τ̆α` τ ̄ω̑ν τ̆ε´ κν ̄ων |, Ar. Plut. 382–4 ὁρῶ τιν᾿ ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματοϲ καθεδούμενον | ἱκετηρίαν ἔχοντα μετὰ τῶν παιδίων | καὶ τῆϲ γυναικόϲ. περιβεβληκυῖα τὰϲ χεῖραϲ ἐκείνωι καὶ τῶν παιδίων τὸ μὲν ἔνθεν, τὸ δ’ ἔνθεν ὑφ’ αὑτ̄η` ν ῎ε̆ χοῡϲᾱ. |: the emotive details of Chilonis’ loving and protective gestures receive only loose rhythmicization; it is her choices that matter. 17.4 | θαυμαζόντ ̄ων δ̆`ε π̄α´ ντ̄ων | κᾱ`ι δᾰκρῡ̄ο´ ντ̄ων | ἐπὶ τῆι χρη̄ϲτ̆ο´ τη̄τῑ | κᾱ`ι φῐλ̄οϲτ̄οργ̆ι´ᾱι | τ̄ηϲ̑ γῠναῑκ̄ο´ ϲ, |: the response of the crowd, prepared in | ὤφθη̄, sets forth the ethical qualities of Chilonis. | τ̄ηϲ̑ γῠναῑκ̄ο´ ϲ, | might seem unimportant without the rhythm; but her characteristics and behaviour are given a feminine colouring. ̑ The word has links with γῠνᾱ ικᾱϲ, | at 17.8 | τίνι γὰρ ἐμὲ δε̄ ι ̑ ζ̄ην̑ ̑ πᾱρρη̄ϲ̆ι´ᾱι | πρὸϲ ἄλλᾱϲ γῠνᾱ ικᾱϲ, | . . . ;, already shown to be mistaken by this passage. | ἁψαμένη τῶν πέπλων καὶ τῆϲ κόμηϲ ἀτημελ ̄ω̑ϲ ε̆᾿ χ̄ο´ ντ̄ων, |: again the specifics of pathos are not what the rhythm underlines.

242

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

17.5 | ῾τοῦτο,᾿ εἶπεν ῾ὦ πάτερ, ἐμοὶ τὸ ϲχῆμα καὶ τὴν ὄψιν οὐχ ὁ Κλεομβρότου περιτέθεῑκ̆ε ν ῎ε̆ λ̆ε ̄οϲ, | ̄α᾿ λλ’ ᾰ᾿ π̆`ο τ̄ω̑ν ϲ̄ω̑ν κᾰκ ̄ω̑ν | κᾱ`ι τ̄ηϲ̑ ̆ |: the ϲ̄ηϲ̑ φῠγ̄ηϲ̑ | μεμένηκέ μοι ϲύντροφον καὶ ϲύνοικ̄ον τ̆`ο π̄ ε´ νθ̄οϲ. speech as a whole, although it rises to a densely rhythmic climax, is not as persistently rhythmic as the crucial narrative (up to 17.3 κᾰθ̄εζο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄, |). Speeches are often the object of sustained close rhythm, but not here. In this first sentence, it is not the spectacle but the relationships that receive the thickly set rhythm. The words in ϲυν- are not now marked out by the rhythm; their connection is above all with herself, and they deploy, potently, a familiar idea (cf. Cons. Ux. 609f, of Πένθοϲ, ϲύντροφον κᾱ`ι ϲ ̆υ´νοῑκ̄ον, |). 17.9 | τούτωι μὲν οὖν εἰ καί τιϲ ἦν λόγοϲ εὐπρεπήϲ, ἐγ ̄ω` το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ν ̑ | καὶ καταμᾱρτῠρ̄η´ ϲᾱϲᾱ | τῶν ὑπὸ ᾰ᾿ φεῑλ̆ο´ μη̄ν, | τότε ϲοὶ ϲυν̄εξ̆ε τᾱϲθε̄ ιϲᾱ τούτοῡ γ̆ε νο̆μ̆ε´ ν̄ων· |: Chilonis displays her contribution to the political and legal dispute; the participles, dwelt on by the rhythm, use ̑ | has words of her that are more associated with men. ϲυν̄εξ̆ε τᾱϲθε̄ ιϲᾱ a particularly political resonance; and it is more often men who bear witness. 17.10 | ϲὺ δ’ αὐτ ̄ω̑ ι τ̆ο` α᾿̆ δ̆ι´ κη̄μᾱ |h ποιεῖϲ ε̄υ᾿ ᾰπο̆λ̆ο´ γη̄τ̄ον, | οὕτω μέγα κᾱ`ι π̆ε ρῐμ̆α´ χη̄τ̄ον | ἀποφαίν ̄ων τ̆`ο βᾰϲῐλε̄υ´ εῑν, | ὥϲτε δι’ αὐτὸ καὶ γαμβρο̄υ` ϲ φο̆νε̄υ´ εῑν | κᾱ`ι τ̆ε´κν̄ων ᾰ᾿ μ̆ε λε̄ ι ν̑ | εἶναῑ δ̆ι´καῑ̄ον. |᾿ : it is better not to scan ϲὺ δ’ αὐτῶι τὸ ἀδίκη̄μᾰ ποῑε̄ ι ϲ̑ | ε̄υ᾿ ᾰπο̆λ̆ο´ γη̄τ̄ον, |, since ποιεῖϲ goes more with what follows it than with what precedes it. α᾿̆ δ̆ι´ κη̄μᾱ |h, then, is stressed by rhythm, and matched by δ̆ι´καῑ̄ον. | at the end. It looks back to ἀδικοῡμ̆ε´ν ̄ωι τ ̄ω̑ι πᾰτρ̄`ι | ϲυνη̄δῐκε̄ ιτ̄̑ ο, |. The term takes the legal and political approach that one would have expected from Leonidas, and turns it against him. In two forceful phrases with rhythmic close, γαμβρόϲ from Leonidas’ accusations is converted into an accusation of him, and Chilonis presents herself as a child whom he takes no care of. The primary values of the family confront the political and male goal of kingship; the love of kingship is arraigned, with mounting sarcasm, through four phrases all with the same rhythmic close ̆ ̆ ̆ (-τ ̄ωι̑ τ̆ο` α᾿̆ δ̆ι´ κη̄μᾱ |h, ε̄υ᾿ ᾰπο̆λ̆ο´ γη̄τ̄ον |, κᾱ`ι π̆ε ρῐμ̆α´ χη̄τ̄ον |, -ν ̄ων τ̆`ο βᾰϲῐλε̄υ´ εῑν, |), and two ending in -η̄τ̄ον |. Jocasta’s first encounter with her sons in Euripides’ Phoenissae resonates in the background (cf. Frat. 481a–b, and Aud. Poet. 18d–e, 25a–b); but politics, gender, and philosophy are here more challengingly combined. 18.1 | ἡ μ̄`εν Χῐλ ̄ων̄`ι ϲ | τοιᾱυ τ̑ ᾰ πο̆τνῐ ̄ωμ̆ε´ νη̄ | τ̆ο´ τ̆ε πρ̆ο´ ϲ ̄ωπ̄ον | ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐπέθηκε το̄υ ̑ Κλ̆ε ̄ομβρ̆ο´ τοῡ | καὶ τὸ βλέμμα διεφθαρμένον καὶ ϲυντετη̄κ̆`οϲ ῠ῾ π̆`ο λ̄υ´ πη̄ϲ | περιήνεγκεν εἰϲ το̄υ` ϲ πᾰρ̄ο´ ντᾱϲ. |: the first

The Deaths of King and Kindred

243

vowel of Χιλωνίϲ is taken to be short, on the grounds that Call. fr. 191.74 Pfeiffer is a better authority than Critias fr. 7 West (the ascription to Critias is a guess). If it is long, scan η̄ ῾ δ̆`ε Χῑλ ̄ων̄ ι´ϲ, | above. Once again, Chilonis’ gestures and appearance are not treated with tight-packed rhythms. A syllable, it is taken on the basic of Attic, should not be short before βλ, cf. e.g. Ar. Kn. 298 κἀπιορκῶ γ̄ε βλεπόντων. ὑπὸ λύπηϲ governs διεφθαρμένον too, so a break after διεφθαρμένον is undesirable. 18.2 | ὁ δὲ Λεωνίδαϲ δῐᾰλ̄εχθε̄`ι ϲ το̄ ι ϲ̑ φ̆ι´λοῑϲ, | τὸν μ̄`εν Κλ̆ε ̄ο´ μβρο̆τ̄ον | ἐκέλευϲεν ἀναϲτ̄α´ ντᾰ φε̄υ´ γεῑν, | τ̄ηϲ̑ δ̆`ε παῑδ̄ο` ϲ | μένεῑν ε̆᾿ δε̄ ιτ̄̑ ο | καὶ μὴ καταλιπε̄ ι ν̑ ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ο´ ν, | οὕτ ̄ω φῐλο̄υ ν̑ τᾱ | κᾱ`ι δ̆ε δ ̄ωκ̆ο´ τᾰ χ̆α´ ρῑν | τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ηι̑ ϲ ̄ωτη̄ρ̆ι´ᾱν. |: the vital plot, and Leonidas’ plea to Chilonis, are made densely rhythmic. The plea presents the new pressure on Chilonis for a choice. | τ̄ηϲ̑ δ̆`ε παῑδ̄ο` ϲ |, made the more prominent by rhythm, is used instead of her name; like the pathetic οὕτ ̄ω φῐλο̄υ ν̑ τᾱ |, it answers her τ̆ε´ κν ̄ων ᾰ᾿ μ̆ε λε̄ ι ν̑ |. The short clauses | μένεῑν ε̆᾿ δε̄ ι τ̄̑ ο | καὶ μὴ καταλιπε̄ ι ν̑ ε̆῾ αῡτ̄ο´ ν, | intensify the appeal; the second takes up the earlier ᾰ᾿ πο̆λῐπο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ | (11.8), and indicates the symmetry to come. | (τὴν τοῦ) ἀνδρὸϲ joins with | (μετὰ τοῦ) ̄α᾿ νδρ̆`οϲ (17.3) and is brought out through the word-order as well as rhythm: ἀνδρὸϲ is separated from ϲ ̄ωτη̄ρ̆ι´ᾱν, and the unemphatic pronoun ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ηι̑ is rested against this weighty word (cf. Adams [1994]). δῐᾰλ̄εχθε̄`ι ϲ το̄ ιϲ̑ φ̆ι´λοῑϲ, | precedes Leonidas’ gift to his daughter with male discussion: the act is not simple impulse, and Leonidas, as will soon become clear, is part of a group (cf. 17.6–7). 18.3 | οὐ μ̄η` ν ῎ε̆ πεῑϲ̄εν, | ἀλλ’ ἀνιϲταμένωι τῶι ἀνδρὶ θάτερον τῶν παιδίων ἐγχεῑρ̆ι´ϲᾱϲᾱ, | θάτερ̄ον δ’ ᾰ᾿ νᾰλᾰβο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ | καὶ πρ̄οϲκῠν̄η´ ϲᾱϲᾱ | τ̄ο` ν β ̄ωμ̄ο` ν τοῦ θ̆ε ο̄υ ̑ | ϲῠν̄εξ̄ηλ̑ θ̄εν, |: the first clause gives the outcome— he cannot changĕ her action as she has changed his. After a loose sequence, Chilonis’ physical actions and the plot at last come together, with tightly massed rhythms; the honour to the god indicates that for her, all has gone well. A last ϲυν- compound ends the narrative proper. | ὥϲτ’ εἰ μὴ πάνυ διεφθαρμένοϲ ἦν ὑπὸ κενῆϲ δ̄ο´ ξη̄ϲ ο̆῾ Κλ̆ε ̄ο´ μβρο̆τ̄οϲ, | εὐτύχη̄μᾰ ῍ᾰ ν ̄η῾ γ ̄η´ ϲᾰτ̄ο |h τ̄η` ν φῠγ̄η` ν ᾱυ῾ τ ̄ω̑ι | τῆϲ βαϲιλείαϲ με̄ ι ζ̑ ο̆ν ε̄῏ι ναῑ | ̑ |: the account returns, in a ring, to Cleombrotus. The διὰ τ̄η` ν γῠνᾱ ικᾱ. narrator makes Chilonis’ attitude to kingship his own; Cleombrotus’ rating of kingship over family is like that which Chilonis assailed in Leonidas. It is to be contrasted with Agis’ attitude: 4.2 . . . λέγειν ὡϲ οὐδὲν δέοιτο τῆϲ βαϲιλείαϲ εἰ μὴ δι᾿ αὐτὴν ἀναλήψοῑτο̆ το̄υ` ϲ ν̆ο´ μοῡϲ | καὶ

244

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

τὴν πάτρῐο̆ν ᾰ᾿ γ ̄ωγ̄η´ ν. | The rhythmic phrasing allows the reader to pause over Cleombrotus’ name: the man who has ‘glory among mortals’ is undone by empty δόξα. In what follows, the philosophically laden thought continues the rhythmic intensity; rhythmic position increases the weight thrown on | (τ̄η` ν) φῠγ̄η´ ν and | (τῆϲ) βαϲιλείαϲ, important objects of philosophical re-evaluation. Word-order strengthens the stresses (placing of ᾱυ῾ τ ̄ω̑ι |, | εὐτύχη̄μᾰ far separated ̑ ̆ ν). But everything ends with the demarcated phrase | διὰ τ̄η` ν from με̄ ιζο ̑ γῠνᾱ ικᾱ. |; the noun denotes married status, but includes gender too. It points back to the close τ̄ηϲ̑ γῠναῑκ̄ο´ ϲ, | (17.4): everyone else is overcome by Chilonis’ χρη̄ϲτ̆ο´ τη̄τῑ | κᾱ`ι φῐλ̄οϲτ̄οργ̆ι´ᾱι |.

AGIS 19.5–21.1 19.5 εὐθὺϲ δὲ παρῆν ὁ μ̄`ε ν Λ̆ε ̄ων̆ι´δᾱϲ | μιϲθοφόροῡϲ ῎ε̆ χ ̄ων π̄ολλο̄υ` ϲ | καὶ τὸ οἴκημα περῑ ε´ ϲχ̆ε ν ̄῎ε ξ̄ωθ̄εν, | οἱ δ’ ἔφοροι πρὸϲ τὸν Ἆ̄ γῐν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̄ηλ̑ θ̄ον, | καὶ τ ̄ω̑ν γ̆ερ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων | ει᾿ ϲ τ̆ο` οι῎κημᾱ |h μεταπεμψάμενοι τοὺϲ τᾱυ᾿ τ̆`α βοῡλο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ, | ὡϲ δὴ κρίϲεωϲ αὐτῶι γινομένηϲ, ἐκέλευον ὑπὲρ τ ̄ω̑ν π̆ε πρᾱγμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | ᾰ᾿ πο̆λο̆γε̄ ι ϲ̑ θαῑ. | 6. γελάϲαντοϲ δὲ το̄υ ̑ ν̆ε ᾱν̄ ι´ϲκοῡ | πρὸϲ τὴν εἰρωνείαν αὐτῶν, ὁ μὲν Ἀμφάρηϲ οἰμωξ̆ο´ μ̆ε νο̆ν ε̆᾿ κ̆α´ λεῑ | καὶ δίκη̄ν ῠ῾ φ̄ ε´ ξ̄οντᾱ | τ̄ηϲ̑ ᾿̆ι τᾰμ̆ο´ τη̄τ̄οϲ· | ἄλλοϲ δέ τῶν ἐφόρων, οἷον ἐνδιδοὺϲ τῶι Ἄγιδι καὶ δεικνύων ἀπο̆φῠγ̄η` ν τ̄ηϲ̑ ᾱ ᾿ιτ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | ἠρώτηϲεν εἰ τᾱυ τ̑ ’ ῎ε̆ πρᾱξ̄ε ν | ὑπὸ Λυϲάνδρου καὶ Ἀγη̄ϲῐλ̄α´ οῡ | βῐᾱϲθε̄ ι´ϲ. | 7. ἀποκριναμένοῡ δ̆`ε του ̑ Ἄγῐδοϲ |h ὡϲ βιᾱϲθε̄`ι ϲ μ̆`εν ῠ῾ π’ ο̄υ᾿ δ̆ε ν̄ο̆´ ϲ, | ζηλῶν δὲ καὶ μιμούμενοϲ τ̄ο` ν Λῠκο̄υ ρ̑ γ̄ον | ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔλθοῑ πο̆λῑτε̄ ι´ᾱν, | πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸϲ ἠρώτηϲεν ε̄ ᾿ι μ̆ε τᾰνο̆ε̄ ι ̑ | το̄ ι ϲ̑ π̆ε πρᾱγμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ. | 8. φήϲαντοϲ δὲ το̄υ ̑ ν̆ε ᾱν̄ ι´ϲκοῡ | μ̄η` μ̆ε τᾰνο̆ε̄ ι ν̑ | ἐπὶ τοῖϲ κάλλῑϲτᾰ β̆ε βοῡλεῡμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ, | κα῍ ν τ̆α` ῎εϲχᾰτᾱ |h πειϲ̆ο´ μ̆ε νο̆ν ᾱυ῾ τ̆`ον ῎̆ι δη̄ι, | θ̆α´ νᾰτο̆ν ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ̑ | κατεψη̄φ̆ι´ϲᾱντ̄ο, | καὶ το̄υ` ϲ ῠ῾ πη̄ρ̆ε´ τᾱϲ | ἐκέλευον ἄγειν εἰϲ τὴν καλοῡμ̆ε´ νη̄ν Δ̆ε χ̆α´ δᾱ· | το̄υτ̑ ο̆ δ’ ̄ ε᾿ ϲτ̄`ι ν | οἴκη̄μᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ ε̄ ῾ιρκτ̄ηϲ̑ | ἐν ὧι θανατοῦϲι το̄υ` ϲ κᾰτᾰδ̆ι´κοῡϲ | ἀποπνίγοντεϲ. 9. ὁρῶν δὲ τοὺϲ ὑπηρέτᾱϲ ο̆῾ Δᾱμο̆χ̆α´ ρη̄ϲ | οὐ τολμῶνταϲ ἅψᾱϲθαῑ του ̑ Ἄγῐδοϲ, |h ὁμοίωϲ δὲ καὶ τῶν μιϲθοφόρων το̄υ` ϲ πᾰρ̄εϲτ̄ω̑τᾱϲ | ἀπ̄οϲτρ̆ε φο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ | καὶ φεύγοντᾱϲ τ̆ο` ῎εργον, |h ὡϲ οὐ θεμιτὸν ο̄υ᾿ δ̆`ε ν̆ε νο̆μῑϲμ̆ε´ ν̄ον | βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτῑ | τ̄α` ϲ ̑ χε̄ ιρᾱϲ πρ̄οϲφ̆ε´ρεῑν, | διαπειλη̄ϲ̆α´ μ̆ε νο̆ϲ ᾱυ᾿ το̄ ι ϲ̑ | καὶ λοῑδο̆ρη̄θε̄`ι ϲ | ε̄῟ι λκ̆ε ν ᾿ ` ᾱυτ̄οϲ | ει᾿ ϲ τ̆ο` οι῎ κημᾱ |h τὸν Ἆγιν. 10. ἤδη γὰρ ἤιϲθηντο πολλοὶ τὴν ϲύλληψιν, καὶ θόρῠβο̆ϲ η̄῏ ν ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τᾱ ι ϲ̑ θ̆υ´ραῑϲ | καὶ φ ̄ω̑τᾰ π̄ολλ̄α´ , | κᾱ`ι πᾰρ̄ηϲ̑ ᾱν | ἥ τε μη´ τηρ του ̑ Ἄγῐδοϲ |h καὶ ἡ μάμμη, βοῶϲαι κᾱ`ι δ̆εο̆ ´ μ̆ε ναῑ | τὸν βαϲιλέα τῶν Cπᾱρτῐᾱτ ̄ω̑ν | λόγοῡ κᾱ`ι κρ̆ι´ϲ̆ε ̄ωϲ τῠχε̄ ι ν̑ | ἐν το̄ ιϲ̑ πο̆λ̄ ι´ταῑϲ. | 11. διὸ καὶ μάλιϲτα κατήπειξαν τ̄η` ν ᾰ᾿ νᾱ ι´ρ̆ε ϲῑν, | ὡϲ ἐξαρπαγηϲομένου νυκτὸϲ ἂν πλείο̆ν̆ε ϲ ε̆᾿ π̄ ε´ λθ ̄ωϲῑν. |

The Deaths of King and Kindred

245

20.1 ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἆγιϲ ἐπὶ τὴν ϲτραγγάλη̄ν πο̆ρεῡ̆ο´ μ̆ε ν̄οϲ, | ὡϲ εἶδέ τινα τ ̄ω̑ν ῠ῾ πη̄ρ̆ε τ̄ω̑ν | δακρύοντα κᾱ`ι π̆ε ρῐπᾰθο̄υν̑ τᾱ, | ῾παῦϲαι´ μ̆ε ,᾿ ει῏πεν |h ῾ὦ ἄνθρ ̄ωπ̆ε , κλᾱ ι´ ̄ων· | καὶ γὰρ οὕτωϲ παρανόμωϲ καὶ ἀδίκ ̄ωϲ ᾰ᾿ π̄ολλ ̆υ´μ̆ε ν̄οϲ | κρείττων εἰμὶ τ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ ναῑρο̄υ´ ντ̄ων᾿· | καὶ ταῦτ’ εἰπὼν παρέδωκε τῶι βρόχωι τὸν τράχηλον ἑκουϲίωϲ. 2. ὁ δ’ Ἀμφάρηϲ προ̄ελθ ̄ω` ν ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̄α` ϲ θ ̆υ´ρᾱϲ | καὶ τ̄η` ν Ἁ̄ γη̄ϲῑϲτρ̆α´ τᾱν | προϲπεϲο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾰν ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι | διὰ ϲυνήθειαν καὶ φιλίᾱν ᾰ᾿ νᾱϲτ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ, | οὐδὲν ἔφη περὶ τὸν Ἆγιν ἔϲεϲθαῑ β̆ι´αῑ̄ον | ο̄υ᾿ δ’ ᾰ᾿ ν̄η´ κ̄εϲτ̄ον· | ἐκέλευε δὲ κἀκείνην εἰ ̑ | 3. ἐκείνηϲ δὲ καὶ τὴν μητέρα μετ’ βούλοιτο πρὸϲ τὸν ῡ ῾ι `ο̆ ν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̄ελθε̄ ιν. ´ αὐτῆϲ παρεῖναῑ δ̆ε ο̆μ̆ενη̄ϲ, | οὐδὲν ἔφη κωλύεῑν ο̆῾ Ἀμφ̆α´ ρηϲ· |h καὶ ̑ | τὰϲ θύραϲ τοῦ δεϲμωτηρίοῡ δεξ̆α´ μ̆ε νο̆ϲ ̄α᾿ μφο̆τ̆ε´ ρᾱϲ | κᾱ`ι π̆α´ λῑν κλε̄ ιϲαῑ κ̆ε λε̄υ´ ϲᾱϲ, | προτέραν μὲν τὴν Ἀρχιδαμίαν παρέδωκεν, ἤδη ϲφόδρα πρεϲβ̄υ τ̑ ῐν ο̄υ῏ ϲᾱν | καὶ καταγεγηρακυῖαν ἐν ἀξι ̄ω´ μᾰτῐ μ̆ε γ̄ ι´ϲτ ̄ωι | τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆λῑτ̆ι´δ ̄ων· | ἀποθανούϲη̄ϲ δ’ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´νη̄ϲ | ἐκέλευϲε τ̄η` ν Ἁ̄ γη̄ϲῑϲτρ̆α´ τᾱν | ἔϲ ̄ω βᾰδ̄ ι´ζεῑν. | 4. ὡϲ δ’ εἰϲελθοῦϲα τόν θ’ υἱὸν ἐθεάϲᾰτο̆ χᾰμᾱ`ι κε̄ ι´μ̆ε ν̄ον | καὶ τὴν μητέρα νεκρὰν ἐκ τοῦ βρόχοῡ κρ̆ε μᾰμ̆ε´ νη̄ν, | ἐκείνη̄ν μ̆`εν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄η` | το̄ ι ϲ̑ ῠ῾ πη̄ρ̆ε´ ταῑϲ | ϲῡγκᾰθε̄ ι λ̑ ̄ε, | καὶ παρεκτείναϲα τῶι Ἄ̄ γῐδῐ τ̆`ο ϲ ̄ω̑μᾱ | περιέϲτειλε κᾱ`ι κᾰτ̆ε κ̆α´ λῡψ̄ε· | τῶι δ’ υἱῶι πρ̄οϲπ̆ε ϲο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ | καὶ φιλήϲᾱϲᾰ τ̆`ο ῏ πᾱ ι ,̑ | ε̄υ᾿ λ̆α´ βεῑᾱ | κᾱ`ι τ̆`ο πρ̄α ̑̄ον | κᾱ`ι πρ̆ο´ ϲ ̄ωπ̄ον, 5. | ῾ἡ πολλή ϲε,᾿ ε̄῏ιπ̆ε ν ῾̄ω φῐλ̄α´ νθρ ̄ωπ̄ον | ἀπ ̄ω´ λ̆ε ϲ̆ε μ̆ε θ’ η̄ ῾ μ ̄ω̑ν.᾿ | 6. ὁ δ’ Ἀμφάρηϲ ἀπὸ τῆϲ θύραϲ ὁρ ̄ω̑ ν τ̆α` γῑν̆ο´ μ̆ε νᾱ | καὶ τὰϲ φων̄α` ϲ ᾰ᾿ κο̄υ´ ̄ων, | ε̆᾿ πεῑϲ̄ηλ̑ θ̄ε | καὶ πρὸϲ τ̄η` ν Ἁ̄ γη̄ϲῑϲτρ̆α´ τᾱν | μετ’ ὀργῆϲ εἶπεν· ῾εἰ τοίνυν᾿̆ ἔφη ῾ταὐτὰ ἐδοκίμαζεϲ τῶι υἱῶι, τᾱυ᾿ τ̆α` κᾱ`ι πε̄ ι´ϲη̄ι.᾿ | 7. καὶ η῾ Ἁγηϲῑϲτρ̆α´ τᾱ |h πρὸϲ τὸν βρ̆ο´ χο̆ν ᾰ᾿ νῑϲτᾰμ̆ε´ νη̄ | ῾μόνον᾿ ἔφη ῾ϲυνενέγκαι τᾱυ τ̑ ᾰ τ̄ηι̑ Cπ̄α´ ρτη̄ι.᾿ | 21.1 τοῦ δ̆`ε π̆α´ θοῡϲ ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ τ̄η` ν π̆ο´ λῑν | ἐξαγγελθέντοϲ καὶ τ̄ω̑ν τρῐ ̄ω̑ ν ϲ ̄ωμ̆α´ τ ̄ων | ̄ ε᾿ κκο̆μῑζο̆μ̆ε´ ν̄ων, | οὐκ ἦν ο̆῾ φ̆ο´ βο̆ϲ ο̄υ῞ τ̄ω μ̆ε´ γᾱϲ | ὥϲτε μὴ καταφανεῖϲ εἶναι το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̄ ι´τᾱϲ | ἀλγοῦνταϲ μὲν ἐπὶ το̄ ι ϲ̑ γ̆ε γο̆ν̆ο´ ϲῑ, | μιϲοῦνταϲ δὲ τ̄ο` ν Λ̆ε ̄ων̆ι´δᾱν | κᾱ`ι τ̆ο` ν Ἀ̄ μφ̆α´ ρη̄ν, | μηδὲν δεινότερον μη̄δ’ ᾰ᾿ νο̆ϲῐ ̄ω´ τ̆ερ̄ον | ἐξ οὗ Δωριεῖϲ Πελοπόννη̄ϲο̆ν ο̄ ᾿ι κο̄υϲ̑ ῑν | οἰομένουϲ ἐν Cπάρτη̄ι π̆ε πρ̄α χ̑ θαῑ. | 19.6 add. Gärtner τὸ φ. GΠ

20.5 εἶπεν ὦ παῖ GL: ὦ π. εἶπ. Π καὶ φιλάνθρωπον L: καὶ

Leonidas was there in a moment, with a large number of mercenaries, and surrounded the prison from outside. The ephors went in to Agis, and sent for those of the Elders who wanted the same as them to come into the building. As if Agis were on trial, they told him to defend himself for what he had done. The young man laughed at their façade; Amphares cried out that he would regret this, and would pay the penalty for his boldness. Another of the ephors, as if he were being helpful to Agis and showing him a way out of the charge, asked if he had done these things because he was forced by Lysander and Agesilaus. Agis replied that he had not been forced by anyone; it was out of eager imitation of Lycurgus that he had reached the same form of state that

246

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Lycurgus had. The same ephor asked if he regretted what he had done; the young man said that he did not regret such fine decisions, even if he saw that he must suffer the extreme penalty. They condemned him to death, and told the servants to take him to the place called Dechas: the room of the prison where they kill the condemned by strangulation. Damochares saw that the servants did not dare touch Agis, and that likewise those of the mercenaries standing there turned away and shunned the deed, thinking it not lawful practice to lay hands on the king’s body. Damochares threatened and abused them, and dragged Agis into the room himself. Many had already realized that Agis had been captured; there was tumult at the doors, and there were lots of lights. The mother and grandmother of Agis were there, shouting out and asking that the king of the Spartiates should be allowed to give an account of himself and receive judgement among the citizens. This more than anything made them hurry the killing: they thought Agis would be snatched away during the night if more people came on the scene. As Agis was going to the noose, he saw one of the attendants weeping and in great distress. ‘You there, stop crying for me’, he said. ‘Even though I am perishing so illegally and unjustly, I am better than those who are killing me.’ With these words, he gave his neck to the halter willingly. Amphares went forward to the doors of the prison, where Hagesi strata fell on him in entreaty. He raised her up because of their famil iarity and friendship, and said that nothing violent or irreparable would happen to Agis. He bade her come in as well to see her son if she wished. Hagesistrata asked if her mother could be with her too; there was nothing against it, said Amphares. He welcomed them both and ordered for the doors of the prison to be shut again. He gave Archida mia over first to the attendants; she was now exceedingly aged and had grown old enjoying the highest esteem out of all the Spartan women. Once she was killed, he told Hagesistrata to walk inside the Dechas. She came in and looked upon her son lying on the ground and her mother hanging dead from the noose. She took her mother down, together with the servants, and stretching the body out beside Agis, she laid it out and covered it. She fell upon her son and kissed his face. ‘My son,’ she said, ‘your great prudence and gentle kindness have destroyed you and the two of us.’ From the door Amphares saw what was happening and heard what was said; he came in and said angrily to Hagesistrata, ‘If you approve of the same things as your son, you will have the same things done to you too.’ Hagesistrata stood up to face the halter and said, ‘Just let this be for the good of Sparta.’ When news of the calamity reached the city and the three bodies were being carried out, the citizens’ fear was not so great that they did not

The Deaths of King and Kindred

247

reveal clearly their grief at what had happened and their hatred for Leonidas and Amphares. They thought that nothing had been done in Sparta that was more shocking or unlawful since the Dorians had lived in the Peloponnese.

19.5 εὐθὺϲ δὲ παρῆν ὁ μ̄`εν Λ̆ε ̄ων̆ι´δᾱϲ | μιϲθοφόροῡϲ ῎ε̆ χ ̄ων π̄ολλο̄υ` ϲ | καὶ τὸ οἴκημα περῑ ε´ ϲχ̆ε ν ̄ ῎ε ξ̄ωθ̄εν, | οἱ δ’ ἔφοροι πρὸϲ τὸν Ἆ̄ γῐν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̄ηλ̑ θ̄ον, | καὶ τ ̄ω̑ν γ̆ερ̄ο´ ντ̄ων | ε̄ι᾿ ϲ τ̆ο` ο̄῎ικη̄μᾱ |h μεταπεμψάμενοι τοὺϲ τᾱυ᾿ τ̆α` βοῡλο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ, | ὡϲ δὴ κρίϲεωϲ αὐτῶι γινομένηϲ, ἐκέλευον ὑπὲρ τ ̄ω̑ν π̆ε πρᾱγμ̆ε´ ν̄ων | ᾰ᾿ πο̆λο̆γε̄ ι ϲ̑ θαῑ. |: in the previous sentence the rhythms had already started to cluster. Agis has been manoeuvred and then violently manhandled from sanctuary to the Spartan prison. In this sentence, rhythm helps to mark out the physical exploitation of buildings and rooms: περῑ ε´ ϲχ̆ε ν ̄ ῎ε ξ ̄ωθ̄εν, |, ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̄ηλ̑ θ̄ον, |, ε̄ι᾿ ϲ τ̆ο` ο̄῎ικη̄μᾱ |h. This promotes not only the rush of action, but also the sense of shocking events. The deployment and perversion of the political structure is made evident. Whether or not the Gerousia and ephors would be sufficient for a royal trial (cf. 19.10, as against e.g. de Ste. Croix [1972], 132–3), τ̄ω̑ν γ̆ερ̄ο´ ντ̄ων | is offset with τοὺϲ τᾱυ᾿ τ̆`α βοῡλο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ, |, only those on the side of Leonidas and his newly appointed ephors (18.4); the wordorder assists, with | (καὶ τ̄ω̑ν) γ̆ερ̄ο´ ντ̄ων | at the start and a delay before the final phrase. The mock legality is displayed through ὑπὲρ τ̄ω̑ν π̆ε πρᾱγμ̆ε´ ν̄ων | ᾰ᾿ πο̆λο̆γε̄ ι ϲ̑ θαῑ. |. The highly legal verb occupies a rhythmic phrase on its own; τ ̄ω̑ν π̆ε πρᾱγμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | at the end of its rhythmic phrase implies crimes. | μιϲθοφόροῡϲ (the first occurrence of μιϲθοφόροϲ in the Life) is set against the name of Leonidas across a rhythmic boundary: the Spartan king is not leading a large force of citizens (note καὶ τῶν μιϲθοφόρων at 19.9, and | ἐν το̄ ι ϲ̑ πο̆λ̄ ι´ταῑϲ. | at 19.10). 19.6 | γελάϲαντοϲ δὲ το̄υ ̑ ν̆ε ᾱν̄ ι´ϲκοῡ | πρὸϲ τὴν εἰρωνείαν αὐτῶν, ὁ μὲν Ἀμφάρηϲ οἰμωξ̆ο´ μ̆ε νο̆ν ε̆᾿ κ̆α´ λεῑ | καὶ δίκη̄ν υ῾̆ φ̄ ε´ ξ̄οντᾱ | τ̄ηϲ̑ ̆᾿ιτᾰμ̆ο´ τη̄τ̄οϲ· |: the designation νεανίϲκοϲ has been used for Agis before (7.4, 10.1, 14.4), again at the end of a rhythmic phrase; sometimes others are ̑ ο̆ϲ ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆ε πλ̆α´ γη̄ | τ̄η` ν surprised at his maturity (cf. 10.1 | ὁ μὲν οὖν δ̄ημ μ̆ε γᾰλ̄οψῡχ̆ι´ᾱν | το̄υ ̑ ν̆ε ᾱν̄ ι´ϲκοῡ |, 14.3, 15.1). Here the word marks not only his courage, but also his youthful scorn for the solemn games of this gathering. Amphares is presumably a similar age to Agis (cf. 18.8); his angry rejoinder none the less assails Agis’ youthful ᾿̆ιτᾰμ̆ο´ τη̄τ̄οϲ· |. That word links up in the sentence with ν̆ε ᾱν̄ ι´ϲκοῡ |. But the idea of paying a penalty for this quality exhibits the grotesque

248

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

mockery of law, even though Amphares’ response is not a legal indictment; δίκη̄ν ῠ῾ φ̄ ε´ ξ̄οντᾱ | confronts | τ̄ηϲ̑ ᾿̆ιτᾰμ̆ο´ τη̄τ̄οϲ· | in juxtaposed rhythmic phrases. υ῾̆ φ̄ ε´ ξ̄οντᾱ | further picks up Amphares’ utterance at 19.3, where it has suggested a different conception of the procedure: |h ῾ἄγω ϲε . . . ἐπὶ τοὺϲ ἐφόρουϲ, ὦ Ἆγι, λ̆ο´ γο̆ν ῠ῾ φ̄ ε´ ξ̄οντᾱ | τ ̄ω̑ν π̆ε πο̆λῑτεῡμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων᾿ · |. Marked out by the rhythm too is his vulgar outburst οἰμωξ̆ο´ μ̆ε νο̆ν ε̆᾿ κ̆α´ λεῑ |, entirely inappropriate in register. He seems to be an ephor too, cf. ῎̄αρχεῑν |h 19.3, like his silkier colleague in the next half-sentence. | ἄλλοϲ δέ τῶν ἐφόρων, οἷον ἐνδιδοὺϲ τῶι Ἄγιδι καὶ δεικνύων ἀπο̆φῠγ̄η` ν τ̄ηϲ̑ ᾱ ᾿ιτ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | ἠρώτηϲεν εἰ τᾱυ τ̑ ’ ῎ε̆ πρᾱξ̄ε ν | ὑπὸ Λυϲάνδρου καὶ Ἀγη̄ϲῐλ̄α´ οῡ | βῐᾱϲθε̄ ι´ϲ. |: the loosening of the rhythm in the first part ̆ (Gärtner’s addition fits usage) separates explanation from the direct evocation of speech. In Plutarch’s presentation, there seems to be no formal charge and no speech of prosecution; so τ̄ηϲ̑ ᾱ ᾿ιτ̆ι´ᾱϲ, | and the reported speech τᾱυτ̑ ’ ῎ε̆ πρᾱξ̄ε ν | convey the distortion of law here too. The importance of the final | βῐᾱϲθε̄ ι´ϲ. |is apparent; but the pair of ̆ older names make a crucial rhythmic entity too. The unrhythmic order ὑπὸ Ἀγηϲιλάου καὶ Λυϲάνδρου is not used, although Agesilaus is now the more prominent and hated (16.1–3). 19.7 | ἀποκριναμένοῡ δ̆`ε το̄υ ̑ Ἄ̄ γῐδ̄οϲ |h ὡϲ βιᾱϲθε̄`ι ϲ μ̆`εν ῠ῾ π’ ο̄υ᾿ δ̆ε ν̄ο´ ϲ, | ζηλῶν δὲ καὶ μιμούμενοϲ τ̄ο` ν Λῠκο̄υρ̑ γ̄ον | ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔλθοῑ πο̆λῑτε̄ ι´ᾱν, | πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸϲ ἠρώτηϲεν ε̄ ᾿ι μ̆ε τᾰνο̆ε̄ ι ̑ | το̄ ι ϲ̑ π̆ε πρᾱγμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ. |: rhythm combines with word-order and particle to light up |h (ὡϲ) βιᾱϲθε̄`ι ϲ. Λυϲάνδρου καὶ Ἀγη̄ϲῐλ̄α´ οῡ | are answered by ο̄υ᾿ δ̆ε ν̄ο´ ϲ, |, but more by the mighty name Λῠκο̄υ ρ̑ γ̄ο̆ ν |; the rhythm helps articulate the argument. πο̆λῑτε̄ ι´ᾱν, | stresses Agis’ conception of his actions: the recreation of political structures, not criminal misdeeds. The ephor moves to what looks like another route of escape: μ̆ε τᾰνο̆ε̄ ι ̑ | is marked out rhythmically, and ties up with | βῐᾱϲθε̄ ι´ϲ. | (19.6), as | το̄ ιϲ̑ π̆ε πρᾱγμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ. | does with τᾱυ τ̑ ’ ῎ε̆ πρᾱξ̄ε ν |̆ (19.6). 19.8 | φήϲαντοϲ δὲ το̄υ ̑ ν̆ε ᾱν̄ ι´ϲκοῡ | μ̄η` μ̆ε τᾰνο̆ε̄ ι ν̑ | ἐπὶ τοῖϲ κάλλῑϲτᾰ β̆ε βοῡλεῡμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ, | κ̄α῍ ν τ̆`α ῎ε̄ ϲχᾰτᾱ |h πειϲ̆ο´ μ̆ε νο̆ν ᾱυ῾ τ̆`ον ῎̆ι δη̄ι, | θ̆α´ νᾰτο̆ν ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ̑ | κατεψη̄φ̆ι´ϲᾱντ̄ο, |: the narrative is concise and speedy; the speed suggests a rushing of procedures (cf. κατήπειξαν at 19.11 on the killing itself). Agis is το̄υ ̑ ν̆ε ᾱν̄ ι´ϲκοῡ | again, rather than το̄υ ̑ Ἄ̄ γῐδ̄οϲ |h: his courage is to seem the more impressive for his age, the expression to have a youthful fire and imprudence. | μ̄η` μ̆ε τᾰνο̆ε̄ ι ν̑ | is a blunt negation of the matching ε̄ ᾿ι μ̆ε τᾰνο̆ε̄ ι ̑ | (19.7); the matching | το̄ ι ϲ̑ π̆ε πρᾱγμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ. | (19.7) is transformed into τοῖϲ κάλλῑϲτᾰ β̆ε βοῡλεῡμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ, |,

The Deaths of King and Kindred

249

political and admirable. The extreme | (ἐπὶ τοῖϲ) κάλλῑϲτᾰ balances the extreme τ̆α` ῎ε̄ ϲχᾰτᾱ |h; his valorous periphrasis τ̆α` ῎ε̄ ϲχᾰτᾱ |h is turned into their bare | θ̆α´ νᾰτο̆ν. | καὶ το̄υ` ϲ ῠ῾ πη̄ρ̆ε´ τᾱϲ | ἐκέλευον ἄγειν εἰϲ τὴν καλοῡμ̆ε´ νη̄ν Δ̆ε χ̆α´ δᾱ· | το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ δ’ ̄ ε᾿ ϲτ̄`ι ν | οἴκη̄μᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ ε̄ ῾ιρκτ̄ηϲ̑ | ἐν ὧι θανατοῦϲι το̄υ` ϲ κᾰτᾰδ̆ι´κοῡϲ | ἀποπνίγοντεϲ.: the rhythmic density continues into the grim explanation; but the last word is unrhythmic. 19.8 ὁρῶν δὲ τοὺϲ ὑπηρέτᾱϲ ο̆῾ Δᾱμο̆χ̆α´ ρη̄ϲ | οὐ τολμῶνταϲ ἅψᾱϲθαῑ το̄υ ̑ Ἄ̄ γῐδ̄οϲ, |h ὁμοίωϲ δὲ καὶ τῶν μιϲθοφόρων το̄υ` ϲ πᾰρ̄εϲτ ̄ω̑τᾱϲ | ἀπ̄οϲτρ̆ε φο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ | καὶ φεύγοντᾱϲ τ̆ο` ῎ε̄ ργ̄ον, |h ὡϲ οὐ θεμιτὸν ο̄υ᾿ δ̆`ε ν̆ε νο̆μῑϲμ̆ε´ ν̄ον | βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτῑ | τ̄α` ϲ χε̄ ι ρ̑ ᾱϲ πρ̄οϲφ̆ε´ρεῑν, | διαπειλη̄ϲ̆α´ μ̆ε νο̆ϲ ᾱυ᾿ το̄ ι ϲ̑ | καὶ λοῑδο̆ρη̄θε̄`ι ϲ | ε̄῟ι λκ̆ε ν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο` ϲ | ε̄ι᾿ ϲ τ̆ο` ο̄῎ικη̄μᾱ |h τὸν Ἆγιν.: the name of Damochares stands out. This big and brutal man had previously dragged Agis along towards the prison, putting a himation round his throat: ε̄῟ι λκ̄εν. | at 19.4 is repeated by | ε̄῟ι λκ̆ε ν here. The outrage of laying hands on the king, commented on by the narrator after the death at 21.2, is here expressed through the servants and mercenaries. There the version of the present | βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ ̑ ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτῑ | τ̄α` ϲ χε̄ ιρᾱϲ πρ̄οϲφ̆ε´ ρεῑν, | is much less rhythmic: not even enemies in war | βαϲιλεῖ . . . | προϲέφερον τὰϲ χεῖραϲ,. Here ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτῑ | is ̑ on the other side of a rhythmic included and opposed to | τ̄α` ϲ χε̄ ιρᾱϲ ̑ πρ̄οϲφ̆ε´ρεῑν, | close; the two phrases | βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτῑ | and | τ̄α` ϲ χε̄ ιρᾱϲ are set against each other. Pairs of words add weight to the scene, | ἀπ̄οϲτρ̆ε φο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ | καὶ φεύγοντᾱϲ τ̆ο` ῎ε̄ ργ̄ον, |h, οὐ θεμιτὸν ο̄υ᾿ δ̆`ε ν̆ε νο̆μῑϲμ̆ε´ ν̄ον |, διαπειλη̄ϲ̆α´ μ̆ε νο̆ϲ ᾱυ᾿ το̄ ι ϲ̑ | καὶ λοῑδο̆ρη̄θε̄`ι ϲ |. The participles, each one in its own rhythmic phrase, oppose the mercenaries’ anxious avoidance and Damochares’ fierce words towards them (and the servants). 19.10 ἤδη γὰρ ἤιϲθηντο πολλοὶ τὴν ϲύλληψιν, καὶ θόρῠβο̆ϲ η̄῏ ν ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τᾱ ι ϲ̑ θ ̆υ´ραῑϲ | καὶ φ ̄ω̑τᾰ π̄ολλ̄α´ , |: a more general and less rhythmic phrase begins, but is then intensified with more rhythmic and alarming responses. A little less densely rhythmic is the similar Arat. 7.5 | καὶ φῶτα π̄ολλ̆`α κᾱ`ι θ̆ο´ ρῠβο̆ϲ η̄῏ ν | τῶν ε̆᾿ πῐπο̆ρεῡο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ων. |. The doors are important too (θ ̆υ´ραῑϲ |) in this narrative of inside and outside. | κᾱ`ι πᾰρ̄ηϲ̑ ᾱν | ἥ τε μ̄η´ τη̄ρ το̄υ ̑ Ἄ̄ γῐδ̄οϲ |h καὶ ἡ μάμμη, βοῶϲαι κᾱ`ι ´ δ̆εο̆ μ̆ε ναῑ | τὸν βαϲιλέα τῶν Cπᾱρτῐᾱτ ̄ω̑ν | λόγοῡ κᾱ`ι κρ̆ι´ϲ̆ε ̄ωϲ τῠχε̄ ι ν̑ | ἐν το̄ ιϲ̑ πο̆λ̄ ι´ταῑϲ. |: the τε shows that | κᾱ`ι πᾰρ̄ηϲ̑ ᾱν | is a separate phrase, leading in to the entry of the royal women, who will dominate the following narrative. Their shouts are pointedly political and procedural; πο̆λ̄ ι´ταῑϲ. | picks up Cπᾱρτῐᾱτ̄ω̑ν |. Even in Plutarch, ‘king of the

250

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

Spartiates’ is less common than ‘king of the Lacedaemonians’ (in inscriptions note IvO 309.2–3 of Cleomenes III βαϲιλέα [Κλεομένε]α | Λακεδαιμονίων); the reported speech Cleom. 52 (31).3 ο̄υ᾿ χ ῠ῾ π̄ερβ̄η´ ϲ̆ε ταῑ | τὸν βαϲιλέα τῶν Cπᾱρτῐᾱτ̄ω̑ν | Ἀντ̆ι´γο̆νο̆ϲ ε̄ ᾿ι μ̄η` ν̆ε κρ̄ο´ ν. | is full of pride, as 52 (31).4 indicates. Although the greatest emphasis lies on | ἐν το̄ ι ϲ̑ πο̆λ̄ ι´ταῑϲ. |, | λόγοῡ κᾱ`ι κρ̆ι´ϲ̆ε ̄ωϲ τῠχε̄ ι ν̑ | presents a legal perspective juster than that of the sham trial: Agis should actually be allowed to put his case, as he did not then, despite the initial ̑ ἐκέλευον . . . | ᾰ᾿ πο̆λο̆γε̄ ιϲθαῑ. |, (19.5), cf. λ̆ο´ γο̆ν ῠ῾ φ̄ ε´ ξ̄οντᾱ | (19.3). 19.11 | διὸ καὶ μάλιϲτα κατήπειξαν τ̄η` ν ᾰ᾿ νᾱ ι´ρ̆ε ϲῑν, | ὡϲ ἐξαρπαγηϲομένου νυκτὸϲ ἂν πλείο̆ν̆ε ϲ ε̆᾿ π̄ ε´ λθ ̄ωϲῑν. |: the response of ‘them’ is to the total situation of the preceding sentence, as ὡϲ κτλ. shows; but the direct juxtaposition to the women’s request for legality gives | (διὸ καὶ) μάλιϲτα at the rhythmic start a pointed irony, assisted by connective (διό) and particle. The slackening in the rhythm of this sentence accompanies the distancing from the specifics of speech and action. 20.1 | ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἆγιϲ ἐπὶ τὴν ϲτραγγάλη̄ν πο̆ρεῡ̆ο´ μ̆ε ν̄οϲ, | ὡϲ εἶδέ τινα τ ̄ω̑ν ῠ῾ πη̄ρ̆ε τ̄ω̑ν | δακρύοντα κᾱ`ι π̆ε ρῐπᾰθο̄υν̑ τᾱ, | ῾παῦϲᾱι´ μ̆ε ,᾿ ε̄῏ιπ̄εν |h ῾ὦ ἄνθρ ̄ωπ̆ε , κλᾱ ι´ ̄ων· | καὶ γὰρ οὕτωϲ παρανόμωϲ καὶ ἀδίκ ̄ωϲ ᾰ᾿ π̄ολλ ̆υ´μ̆ε ν̄οϲ | κρείττων εἰμὶ τ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ ναῑρο̄υ´ ντ ̄ων᾿· |: the version of the first part in Apophth. Lac. 216d (passage 1 in the Appendix to this chapter) removes most of the rhythm; the compiler, whom we should assume to come after Plutarch, keeps the second half intact. In his ἀπαγόμενοϲ ἐπὶ τὸν βρόχον ἰδών τινα τῶν ὑπηρετῶν κλαίοντα, ‘παῦϲαι,’ εἶπεν ‘ὦ ἄνθρωπε, ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ κλαίων·, the only rhythmical close, if that were a rhythmical work, would be ἀπαγ̆ο´ μ̆ε νο̆ϲ ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̄ο` ν βρ̆ο´ χ̄ον |. In the present version, what could have been a close, ὑπηρετ ̄ω̑ν δᾰκρ̄υ´ ̄οντᾱ |, is changed to produce a separated pair of participles in which π̆ε ρῐπᾰθο̄υν̑ τᾱ, | intensifies | δακρύοντα through meaning and rhythm; cf. Ant. 43.2 δεδακρυμένοϲ κᾱ`ι π̆ε ρῑπᾱθ̄ω̑ν. |, Caes. 38.1 | ἀπορούμενοϲ κᾱ`ι π̆ε ρῐπᾰθ̄ω̑ν,|. The whole phrase from the narrator is taken up in the speaker’s brusque κλᾱ ι´ ̄ων· | (cf. Apophth. Lac. 224e). ῠ῾ πη̄ρ̆ε τ̄ω̑ν | gains more weight in the present context; the earlier reluctance of τοὺϲ ὑπηρέτᾱϲ (19.9) has progressed to strong emotion. The proud utterance of the king is full of philosophical point: inner qualities are what ultimately matter, not outer success; the very end of the Life resumes the question (21.5, see 20.5 n.). The rhythmic organization confronts ᾰ᾿ π̄ολλ ̆υ´μ̆ε ν̄οϲ | and | κρείττων; κρείττων plays on the meanings ‘having the upper hand over’ (expected sense, but not the

The Deaths of King and Kindred

251

case here) and ‘better’. τ ̄ω̑ν ᾰ᾿ ναῑρο̄υ´ ντ̄ων᾿· | looks back meaningfully to τ̄η` ν ᾰ᾿ νᾱ ι´ρ̆ε ϲῑν, | in the previous sentence (19.11). | καὶ ταῦτ’ εἰπὼν παρέδωκε τῶι βρόχωι τὸν τράχηλον ἑκουϲίωϲ.: the end of Agis appears suddenly, in an unrhythmic sentence. (πο̆ρεῡ̆ο´ μ̆ε ν̄οϲ, | might have suggested that he was not yet at the noose, cf. καὶ ταῦτ’ εἰπών; but the distance within the Dechas is no doubt small.) This death is not the climax of the narrative, but the first in a series. 20.2 | ὁ δ’ Ἀμφάρηϲ προ̄ελθ̄ω` ν ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τ̄α` ϲ θ ̆υ´ρᾱϲ | καὶ τ̄η` ν Ἁ̄ γη̄ϲῑϲτρ̆α´ τᾱν | προϲπεϲο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾰν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ω̑ι | διὰ ϲυνήθειαν καὶ φιλίᾱν ᾰ᾿ νᾱϲτ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ, | οὐδὲν ἔφη περὶ τὸν Ἆγιν ἔϲεϲθαῑ β̆ι´αῑ̄ον | ο̄υ᾿ δ’ ᾰ᾿ ν̄η´ κ̄εϲτ̄ον· |: the doors of the prison are marked out again by rhythm, cf. ε̆᾿ π̆`ι τᾱ ι ϲ̑ θ ̆υ´ραῑϲ | (19.10); they are vital to the conception of the action. The rhythmic patterning sets the grand person τ̄η` ν Ἁ̄ γη̄ϲῑϲτρ̆α´ τᾱν | (no longer ‘the mother of Agis’, as in 19.10) against | προϲπεϲο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾰν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ω̑ι |: Amphares on opening the doors encounters his royal benefactress, | μέγα δυνᾰμ̆ε´ νη̄ν ̄ ε᾿ ν τ̄ηι̑ π̆ο´ λεῑ | (6.7), supplicating him. The resonant name itself, ‘leader of the people’, stands out in the context; only here does a feminine version of Hegesistratus seem to be found. ᾰ᾿ νᾱϲτ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ, | rights | προϲπεϲο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾰν. The negated pair β̆ι´αῑ̄ον | and ᾰ᾿ ν̄η´ κ̄εϲτ̄ον· |, which come a sentence after the strangling of the king, manifest Amphares’ hideous deceit, all the more so in view of his conspiring against the royal women to acquire rich objects (18.9). But the reader feels some uncertainty about Amphares’ motives: he raises Hagesistrata up | διὰ ϲυνήθειαν καὶ φιλίᾱν, and it seems from his later burst of anger that he had not originally been planning to kill her. ̑ |: the slack | ἐκέλευε δὲ κἀκείνην εἰ βούλοιτο πρὸϲ τὸν ῡ ῾ι `ο̆ ν ε̄ ᾿ιϲ̄ελθε̄ ι ν. rhythm suits this pretence of relaxed politeness. At the end comes the critical verb of entering; ῡ ῾ι `ο̆ ν is full of pathos, contrast περὶ τὸν Ἆγιν just before and πρὸϲ τὸν Ἆ̄ γῐν ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̄ηλ̑ θ̄ον, | of the ephors (19.5). 20.3 | ἐκείνηϲ δὲ καὶ τὴν μητέρα μετ’ αὐτῆϲ παρεῖναῑ δ̆ε ο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ϲ, | οὐδὲν ἔφη κωλύεῑν ο̆῾ Ἀ̄ μφ̆α´ ρη̄ϲ· |h: more politeness and some rhythmic looseness. Ἀμφάρην in 21.1 shows that the name does not come from –ήρηϲ. |h καὶ δεξ̆α´ μ̆ε νο̆ϲ ̄α᾿ μφο̆τ̆ε´ ρᾱϲ | κᾱ`ι π̆α´ λῑν κλε̄ ι ϲ̑ αῑ | τὰϲ θύραϲ τοῦ δεϲμωτηρίοῡ κ̆ε λε̄υ´ ϲᾱϲ, | προτέραν μὲν τὴν Ἀρχιδαμίαν παρέδωκεν, ἤδη ϲφόδρα πρεϲβ̄υτ̑ ῐν ο̄υ῏ ϲᾱν | καὶ καταγεγηρακυῖαν ἐν ἀξι ̄ω´ μᾰτῐ μ̆ε γ̄ ι´ϲτ̄ωι | τ ̄ω̑ν πο̆λῑτ̆ι´δ ̄ων· |: the entry of the women, the doors, and the closing of the doors are heightened by rhythm. Not so—unless something is missing—the seemingly innocent consignment of Archidamia to the

252

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

attendants (cf. Cam. 10.4), who take her inside the Dechas. (Hardly ‘consigned her to the noose’; κ̆ε λε̄υ´ ϲᾱϲ, | has already implied servants, since Amphares would scarcely instruct the royal women whom he is receiving to shut the door behind them.) But the implications of the consignment are present in the obituary-like description that follows (ἤδη κτλ.). The amplification on Archidamia, enhanced by rhythm, makes Amphares’ deed outrageous, and the woman’s death important. ἐν ἀξι ̄ω´ μᾰτῐ μ̆ε γ̄ ι´ϲτ̄ωι | and | τ̄ω̑ν πο̆λῑτ̆ι´δ ̄ων· | prepare for the horror among the citizens at the three killings (21.1). | ἀποθανούϲη̄ϲ δ’ ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´νη̄ϲ | ἐκέλευϲε τ̄η` ν Ἁ̄ γη̄ϲῑϲτρ̆α´ τᾱν | ἔϲ ̄ω βᾰδ̄ ι´ζεῑν. |: the very simple language and syntax are weighted by the rhythm; apparent politeness mingles with the rapid processing of murder. The rhythmic phrasing matches ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´νη̄ϲ | with Ἁ̄ γη̄ϲῑϲτρ̆α´ τᾱν |; entry closes. 20.4 | ὡϲ δ’ εἰϲελθοῦϲα τόν θ’ υἱὸν ἐθεάϲᾰτο̆ χᾰμᾱ`ι κε̄ ι´μ̆ε ν̄ον | καὶ τὴν μητέρα νεκρὰν ἐκ τοῦ βρόχοῡ κρ̆ε μᾰμ̆ε´ νη̄ν, | ἐκείνη̄ν μ̆`εν ᾱυ᾿ τ̄η` | το̄ ι ϲ̑ ῠ῾ πη̄ρ̆ε´ταῑϲ | ϲῡγκᾰθε̄ ι λ̑ ̄ε, | καὶ παρεκτείναϲα τῶι Ἄ̄ γῐδῐ τ̆`ο ϲ̄ω̑μᾱ | περιέϲτειλε κᾱ`ι κᾰτ̆ε κ̆α´ λῡψ̄ε· |: the horrors of seeing her son and mother already dead receive less dense rhythm than Hagesistrata’s actions. χᾰμᾱ`ι κε̄ ι´μ̆ε ν̄ον | and ἐκ τοῦ βρόχοῡ κρ̆ε μᾰμ̆ε´ νη̄ν, | display the grim processing at work: there is only one noose, so Agis has been removed. It is the ὑπηρέται who have removed him; the queen herself helps these lowly personages remove her mother. The meaning of αὐτή and ϲυν- are reinforced by the rhythmic articulation of ᾱυ᾿ τ̄η` | το̄ ι ϲ̑ υ῾̆ πη̄ρ̆ε´ταῑϲ | ϲῡγκᾰθε̄ ιλ̄̑ ε, |. | τῶι δ’ υἱῶι πρ̄οϲπ̆ε ϲο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ | καὶ φιλήϲᾱϲᾰ τ̆`ο πρ̆ο´ ϲ ̄ωπ̄ον, |: πρ̄οϲπ̆ε ϲο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ | and πρ̆ο´ ϲ ̄ωπ̄ον, | stand in contrast with κᾰτ̆ε κ̆α´ λῡψ̄ε· |. The body of the woman, and especially her strangled head, must be hidden from view (cf. [Plut.] Mul. Virt. 253e). The passionate gestures of the mother to her dead son Agis are the focus of more acute attention through the rhythm than those of Chilonis to her living husband Cleombrotus (17.3, 18.1, with nn.). ῏ πᾱ ι ,̑ | ε̄υ᾿ λ̆α´ βεῑᾱ | κᾱ`ι τ̆`ο πρ̄ᾱο̑ ν | κᾱ`ι 20.5 | ῾ἡ πολλή ϲε,᾿ ε̄῏ι π̆ε ν ῾̄ω ´ ´ ῾ φῐλ̄ανθρ ̄ωπ̄ον | ἀπ ̄ωλ̆ε ϲ̆ε μ̆ε θ’ η̄ μ ̄ω̑ν.᾿ |: one would expect no new article before φιλάνθρωπον (τὸ φ. GΠ), as the stem is so often paired with πρα-. Cf. Cat. Min. 23.1 ἁπάντων ἐπὶ τὸ πραότερ̄ον ῥῠ̄ ε´ ντ̄ων | καὶ φιλανθρωπότερον,, Alex. 58.8 τὴν πραότητα [Ziegler: λαμπρο- codd.] κᾱ`ι [τὴν add. C] φῐλᾱνθρ ̄ωπ̆ι´ᾱν |, and also Coh. Ir. 464d τὸ ̄ ῞ι λ̆ε ̄ων το̄υ τ̑ ̄ο | καὶ πρᾶον κᾱ`ι φῐλ̄α´ νθρ ̄ωπ̄ον |; Polyb. 28.3.3 τὴν τῆϲ ϲυγκλήτου πραότητα καὶ φιλανθρωπίαν, Aristid. Asclepiad. 24 ii.319 Keil τῆι

The Deaths of King and Kindred

253

ὑμετέραι πραότητι καὶ φιλανθρωπίαι. At Plut. Thes. 6.4 τὸ ἴϲον καὶ τὸ φιλάνθρωπον the two conceptions are decidedly different; the only place in the Lives where there would be similar conceptions with repeated neuter article is Pomp. 2.1 τῶι νεαρῶι καὶ ἀνθοῦντι διέφαινεν εὐθὺϲ ἐν ἀρχῆι τὸ γεραρὸν καὶ τὸ βαϲιλικὸν τοῦ ἤθουϲ., but there we should omit the second τό, with NL1 against SGL2. These qualities and still more | ε̄υ᾿ λ̆α´ βεῑᾱ | (cf. Cleom. 22 (1).4) seem unlikely to be destructive; the utterance is still more paradoxical than its inspiration Hom. Il. 6.407 (Andromache to Hector) δαιμόνιε, φθείϲει ϲε τεὸν μένοϲ, cited Plut. Stoic. Repugn. 1036b–c. The rhythm emphatically confronts φῐλ̄α´ νθρ ̄ωπ̄ον | and | ἀπ ̄ω´ λ̆ε ϲ̆ε . The particular point is Agis’ earlier safeguarding of Leonidas’ life against Agis’ uncle Agesilaus (12.6), although his trusting affability with Amphares and others comes in too. So at the end of the Life, in the next chapter: | μ̄εμφθε̄`ι ϲ δ᾿ υ῾̆ π̆`ο τ ̄ω̑ν φ̆ι´λ ̄ων | δικαιότερον ἢ τῶν ἐχθρῶν, ὅτι καὶ Λεωνίδᾱν π̆ε ρῐ̆ε´ϲ ̄ωϲ̄εν | καὶ τοῖϲ ἄλλοῑϲ ε̆᾿ π̄ ι´ϲτεῡϲ̄εν, | ἡμερώτατοϲ καὶ πραότατ̄οϲ γ̆ε ν̆ο´ μ̆ε ν̄οϲ | (21.5). In both passages the prime emphasis is on praise, and πραότηϲ is perhaps the most important quality in the Lives; but in both passages the relation to success and politics is problematic. 20.6 | ὁ δ’ Ἀμφάρηϲ ἀπὸ τῆϲ θύραϲ ὁρ ̄ω̑ ν τ̆α` γῑν̆ο´ μ̆ε νᾱ | καὶ τὰϲ φων̄α` ϲ ᾰ᾿ κο̄υ´ ̄ων, | ε̆᾿ πεῑϲ̄ηλ̑ θ̄ε | καὶ πρὸϲ τ̄η` ν Ἁ̄ γη̄ϲῑϲτρ̆α´ τᾱν | μετ’ ὀργῆϲ εἶπεν· ῾εἰ τοίνυν᾿ ἔφη̆ ῾ταὐτὰ ἐδοκίμαζεϲ τῶι υἱῶι, τᾱυ᾿ τ̆α` κᾱ`ι πε̄ ι´ϲη̄ι.᾿ |: it seems that Amphares is at the door of the Dechas, which he has now apparently opened. In ὁρ ̄ω̑ ν τ̆`α γῑν̆ο´ μ̆ε νᾱ |, τ̆α` γῑν̆ο´ μ̆ε νᾱ must be Hagesistrata’s actions, and the phrase must balance τὰϲ φων̄α` ϲ ᾰ᾿ κο̄υ´ ̄ων, | . One last dramatic entrance is made; | ε̆᾿ πεῑϲ̄ηλ̑ θ̄ε | probably connotes ̆ attack, cf. Mar. 39.2 | λαβὼν ξίφοϲ ̆ἐπειϲ̄ηλ̑ θ̆ε ν ᾱυ᾿ τ ̄ω̑ι. |. Amphares’ angry outburst declaring death recalls his outburst to Agis at 19.6 (Amphares is intently characterized). But whereas that remark was closely rhythmic, this is much looser; it contrasts with Hagesistrata’s preceding utterance (20.5), and the final sentence that follows (20.7). τᾱυ᾿ τ̆α` κᾱ`ι πε̄ ι´ϲη̄ι. | recalls Agis’ own | κ̄α῍ ν τ̆α` ῎ε̄ ϲχᾰτᾱ |h πειϲ̆ο´ μ̆ε νο̆ν ᾱυ῾ τ̆`ον ῎̆ι δη̄ι, | (19.8), and underlines the series of deaths; the end of this sentence joins to the end of the sentence before, | ἀπ ̄ω´ λ̆ε ϲ̆ε μ̆ε θ’ η̄ ῾ μ ̄ω̑ν.᾿ |. 20.7 | καὶ ̄η῾ Ἁ̄ γη̄ϲῑϲτρ̆α´ τᾱ |h πρὸϲ τὸν βρ̆ο´ χο̆ν ᾰ᾿ νῑϲτᾰμ̆ε´ νη̄ | ῾μόνον᾿ ἔφη ῾ϲυνενέγκαι τᾱυ τ̑ ᾰ τ̄ηι̑ Cπ̄α´ ρτη̄ι.᾿ |: Hagesistrata’s confrontation of death, and her utterance, form the climax of the narrative. Agis’ similar confrontation (end of 20.1) had been unrhythmized, and his

254

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

action less forceful than hers in standing up (̆α᾿ νῑϲτᾰμ̆ε´ νη̄ | reverses πρ̄οϲπ̆ε ϲο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾱ | [20.4] as ᾰ᾿ νᾱϲτ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ, | had reversed | προϲπεϲο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾰν [20.2]). Her utterance comes after the action of assent, his before. The utterance contributes to the dialectic of the whole passage: he had dwelt on himself, she dwells only on Sparta, with a standard Spartan attitude pushed to an extreme (her death is unlikely to benefit Sparta). Cf. Cleom. 43 (22).5 (ch. 19) (Cleomenes’ mother laughing at being made a hostage) | οὐ θᾶττον ἡμᾶϲ ἐνθέμενοϲ ε̄ ᾿ιϲ πλο̄ ιο̆̑ ν ᾰ᾿ π̄οϲτ̆ε λε̄ ιϲ̑ | ὅπου ποτὲ τῆι Cπάρτη̄ι νο̆μ̄ ι´ζεῑϲ | τὸ ϲ ̄ω̑μᾰ το̄υ τ̑ ̄ο | χρηϲιμ ̄ω´ τᾰτο̆ν ῎ε̆ ϲ̄εϲθαῑ, |, 50 (29).1 (Cleomenes) | αὐτὸϲ δ’ εἶπεν εἴτε ζῶν ε̄῎ιτ’ ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰν ̄ω´ ν, | ὃ μέλλοι τῆι Cπάρτη̄ι ϲῠνο̄ ι´ϲεῑν, | το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ πρ̄α´ ξεῑν. |. In the present passage, the name of Sparta ends. In the Life of Cleomenes, part of a unit with this Life, the competition of male and female is more explicit; Panteus’ wife dies | ἡρωϊκ ̄ω̑ϲ (59 (38).11, cf. 60 (39).4–6), and after her and Cratesicleia’s deaths, Plutarch writes | ἡ μὲν οὖν Λακεδαίμων ἐφαμίλλωϲ ἀγ ̄ωνῐϲᾰμ̆ε´ νη̄ | τῶι γυναῑκε̄ ι´ ̄ωι δρ̄α´ μᾰτῑ | πρ̄ο` ϲ τ̆ο` α᾿̄ νδρε̄ι ο̄̑ ν, |h (60 (39).1). 21.1 | τοῦ δ̆`ε π̆α´ θοῡϲ ε̄ ᾿ιϲ τ̄η` ν π̆ο´ λῑν | ἐξαγγελθέντοϲ καὶ τ̄ω̑ν τρῐ ̄ω̑ ν ϲ ̄ωμ̆α´ τ̄ων | ̄ ε᾿ κκο̆μῑζο̆μ̆ε´ ν ̄ων, | οὐκ ἦν ο̆῾ φ̆ο´ βο̆ϲ ο̄υ῞ τ̄ω μ̆ε´ γᾱϲ | ὥϲτε μὴ καταφανεῖϲ εἶναι το̄υ` ϲ πο̆λ̄ ι´τᾱϲ | ἀλγοῦνταϲ μὲν ἐπὶ το̄ ιϲ̑ γ̆ε γο̆ν̆ο´ ϲῑ, | μιϲοῦνταϲ δὲ τ̄ο` ν Λ̆ε ̄ων̆ι´δᾱν | κᾱ`ι τ̆`ον Ἀ̄ μφ ᾰ ´ ρη̄ν, | μηδὲν δεινότερον μη̄δ’ ᾰ᾿ νο̆ϲῐ ̄ω´ τ̆ερ̄ον | ἐξ οὗ Δωριεῖϲ Πελοπόννη̄ϲο̆ν ο̄ ᾿ι κο̄υϲ̑ ῑν | οἰομένουϲ ἐν Cπάρτη̄ι π̆ε πρ̄α χ̑ θαῑ. |: the dense rhythm continues into the immediate popular reaction. δῆμοι are important in Plutarch’s Lives generally, and especially in that of Agis; the response here takes up the unrest and feared action at the end of the preceding chapter (19.10–11). Words of emotion are highlighted through particles and initial position in rhythmic phrases: | (οὐκ ἦν ο῾̆ ) φ̆ο´ βο̆ϲ, | ἀλγοῦνταϲ, | μιϲοῦνταϲ. The fear is surprising after the earlier tumult, and suggests dread of repression; it makes the other emotions stand out all the more. Cf. Cic. Phil. 2.64 seruiēntĭbūsqu(e) ă nĭmīs, | cum omnia metū tĕ nērēntūr, | gemitus tamen populi Romānī lībēr fŭ īt. | | μιϲοῦνταϲ advances powerfully on | ἀλγοῦνταϲ; it is resumed at Cleom. 22 (1).3 | τὸν μὲν Λεωνίδᾱν ε̆᾿ μ̄ ι´ϲεῑ, when Leonidas makes Agis’ widow marry Leonidas’ son Cleomenes (the table in Africa [1961] before p. 1 may mislead). Leonidas deserves a separate rhythmic unit in the scansion: the article is repeated, and he has been conspicuously absent from the narrative since he surrounded the prison. The spatial ambit widens: | ̄ ε᾿ κκο̆μῑζο̆μ̆ε´ ν̄ων, |, which fills a rhythmic unit, brings the result of the events out of the building into which they

The Deaths of King and Kindred

255

have been concentrated; ε̄ ᾿ιϲ τ̄η` ν π̆ο´ λῑν | takes word of the event into Sparta itself. (Spartan execution, unlike Spartan burial, is evidently kept outside the city.) | ἐξ οὗ Δωριεῖϲ Πελοπόννη̄ϲο̆ν ο̄ ᾿ι κο̄υϲ̑ ῑν | impressively expands the horizons of space as well as time, with the larger ethnic term Δωριεῖϲ in effect beginning its rhythmic unit. Less sweeping is Ages. 32.11, on Agesilaus’ first putting Spartiates to death without trial. At the end of this sentence, Cπάρτη̄ι gives a name, unlike τ̄η` ν π̆ο´ λῑν |, with a sense of shame, and looks back ironically to Hagesistrata’s hopes on this action and τ̄ηι̑ Cπ̄α´ ρτη̄ι. | (20.5). π̆ε πρ̄α χ̑ θαῑ. | ironically contrasts with τ̄ω̑ν π̆ε πρᾱγμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων | (19.5), τᾱυτ̑ ’ ῎ε̆ πρᾱξ̄ε ν | (19.6), and | το̄ ι ϲ̑ π̆ε πρᾱγμ̆ε´ νοῑϲ. | (19.7): that is, with the deeds of which Agis was accused. τ̄ω̑ν τρῐ ̄ω̑ ν ϲ̄ωμ̆α´ τ̄ων |, separated from the participle by the rhythm, brings the sequence of the narrative together; but what follows will return the primacy to Agis, and the unparalleled treatment of the Spartan king by the Spartan ephors.

Appendix: [Plut.] Apophth. Lac. 216c–d Ἆγιϲ ὁ τελευταῖοϲ, τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων βαϲιλεύϲ, ἐξ ἐνέδραϲ ϲυλληφθεὶϲ καὶ καταδικαϲθεὶϲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐφόρων χωρὶϲ δίκηϲ, ἀπαγόμενοϲ ἐπὶ τὸν βρόχον ἰδών τινα τῶν ὑπηρετῶν κλαίοντα, ‘παῦϲαι,’ εἶπεν ‘ὦ ἄνθρωπε, ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ κλαίων· καὶ γὰρ οὕτωϲ παρανόμωϲ καὶ ἀδίκωϲ ἀπολλύμενοϲ κρείϲϲων εἰμὶ τῶν ἀναιρούντων.’ καὶ ταῦτ’ εἰπὼν παρέδωκε τῶι βρόχωι τὸν τράχηλον ἑκουϲίωϲ. The last Agis, king of the Spartans, was surprised and seized, and condemned by the ephors without a trial. When he was being led to the noose, he saw one of the attendants weeping. ‘You there, stop crying for me’, he said. ‘Even though I am perishing so illegally and unjustly, I am better than those who are killing me.’ With these words, he gave his neck to the halter willingly.

18 A Distraught Hero (Chariton 3.5.5–6) Plutarch has engrossed our attention, but comprehension both of his rhythmic writing and of rhythmic writing more widely will profit from a little excursion. The novelists provide an opportunity to see rhythm informing ways of writing that are different from Plutarch’s, and from each other’s, in another narrative genre. They also give an opportunity to compare work in the same genre that is rhythmic and that is not, since Heliodorus, the latest and most elaborate of them, certainly does not write rhythmically. It will be more rewarding for our purposes to look at three authors in slightly more detail than to include all five (and the fragments of others). Most of the chapters will at least be short. The first passage will enable us to contrast perhaps the earliest of the novelists with Plutarch; a particularly related passage of Plutarch will occupy the following chapter. The relative brevity of Chariton’s sentences is a salient difference, although in both authors there are internal differences between narrative and speeches. More important with regard to the speeches are the cleverness and extravagance characteristic of Chariton’s pointed style. This style itself is an individual version of a wider fashion (see ch. 2, and cf. Hutchinson [2013], 183–6). To judge from the fragments of Hegesias in Dionysius and Rutilius, such a style was not cultivated by Hegesias himself, although it fits with the chopping of the utterance into small bits which is ascribed to him. The present scene in Chariton is an intense moment; but in general Chariton is more highly rhythmical than Plutarch, and that suits a world of perpetual intensity and sensational utterance. 5. η̄ ῾ δ̆`ε μ̄η´ τη̄ρ | τῶν γονάτων αὐτο̄υ ̑ λᾰβο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ | ῾ἐγὼ δέ ϲου δέομαι,᾿ φη̄ϲ̆ι´ν, ῏ τ̆ε´ κν̄ον, | μή με ἐνταῦθα καταλίπη̄ιϲ ῎ε̆ ρη̄μ̄ο ν, | ἀλλ’ ἐμβαλο̄υ ̑ τρῐ̄η´ ρεῑ | ῾̄ω ῏ βᾰρε̄ ιᾱ̑ | κᾱ`ι π̆ερῑττ̄η´ , | ῥίψατέ με εἰϲ τὴν φ̄ορτ̆ι´̄ον κο̄υ φ̑ ̄ον· | ἂν δὲ ̄ω

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

258

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

̑ | 6. ταῦτα λέγουϲα περιερρήξατο τὴν ἐϲθῆτα καὶ θάλᾱϲϲᾰν η῝̄ ν ϲ̆υ` πλε̄ ιϲ.᾿ ` προτείνοῡϲᾰ τ̄αϲ θη̄λ̄α` ϲ | ῾τέκνον,᾿ φηϲί, ῾τάδ’ αἴδεο καί μ’ ἐλέηϲον αὐτήν, εἴ ποτέ τοι λαθικηδέα μαζὸν ἐπέϲχον.᾿ κᾰτ̆εκλ̄α´ ϲθη̄ Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ | πρὸϲ τὰϲ τῶν γονέ̄ων ῾̆ικ̆εϲ̆ι´ᾱϲ | καὶ ἔρριψεν ἑαῡτ̆ο` ν ᾰ᾿ π̆ο` τ̄ηϲ̑ ν̆ε ̄ω` ϲ | εἰϲ τ̄η` ν θ̆α´ λᾱϲϲᾱν, | ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰνε̄ ιν̑ θ̆ε´ λ ̄ων, | ἵνα φύγη̄ι δῠο̄ ιν̑ θ̄α´ τ̆ερ̄ον, | ἢ [τὸ] μὴ ζητεῖν Καλλιρόην ἢ [τὸ] λῡπ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ το̄υ` ϲ γο̆νε̄ ι ϲ·̑ | ταχέωϲ δὲ ἀπορρίψᾱντ̆εϲ ο̄ ῾ι νᾱυτ̑ αῑ | μόλιϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο` ν ᾰ᾿ ν̆εκο̄υ´φῐϲᾱν. 5 ῥῖψον ἐμέ Zankogiannes (melius sit ῥῖψόν με) 6 περιερρήξατο Cobet, τὴν ἐϲθῆτα Gasda: περιέρρηξε τὸ ϲτῆθοϲ F [τὸ] (bis): del. Hilberg

Chaereas’ mother grasped his knees and said, ‘I beg you, my child, do not leave me deserted here; put me on board the trireme as a light piece of cargo. Or if I am heavy and not wanted, throw me into the sea which you are sailing.’ So saying, she tore her dress and put forth her breasts. ‘Child,’ she said, ‘ “feel respect for these and pity me myself, if I have ever held to you the breast that brings forgetfulness of sorrows”.’ Chaereas was completely overwhelmed by his parents’ supplications and hurled himself from the ship into the sea. He wanted to die, so that he could escape one of two things, either failing to search for Callirhoe or giving pain to his parents. The sailors quickly jumped in and with difficulty brought him to the surface.

Chaereas is about to set out on a state-sponsored voyage to find his wife, whom he has lately discovered to be alive but in slavery. His parents are distressed that he should leave them; his father, extremely old and ill, has pleaded with him not to go until he himself dies—which will be very soon. His mother takes up the theme of not wishing to be left. 5. η̄ ῾ δ̆`ε μ̄η´ τη̄ρ | τῶν γονάτων αὐτο̄υ ̑ λᾰβο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ |: a new sentence begins, after an unrhythmic close. Although Chaereas’ mother is never named, the stark designation of her here, separated by the rhythm, perhaps brings out that the account is moving up a gear emotionally; compare the designation at 3.5.4 | Ἀρίϲτων δέ, ὁ Χαῑρ̆ε´ οῡ πᾰτ̄η´ ρ, | (no name 8.6.10), and the progression in the scene which is explicitly cited below, Hom. Il. 22.25 ὁ γέρων Πρίαμοϲ, 79 μήτηρ δ᾿ αὖθ’. The gesture of formal supplication is emphasized through the division; τῶν γονάτων, which begins a rhythmic phrase, makes an advance on 3.5.4 τῶι τραχήλωι τοῦ παιδόϲ. ῏ τ̆ε´ κν̄ον, | μή με ἐνταῦθα καταλίπη̄ιϲ | ῾ἐγὼ δέ ϲου δέομαι,᾿ φη̄ϲ̆ι´ν, ῾̄ω ῎ε̆ ρη̄μ̄ον, |: it is best not to have a rhythmic break before the postpositive φηϲίν (῾ἐγ ̄ω` δ̆ε´ ϲοῡ δ̆ε´ ο̆μαῑ,᾿ |). Even so, the opening of the speech splits the opening of the father’s 3.5.4 τί νῦν με κᾰτᾰλε̄ ι´ πεῑϲ,

A Distraught Hero

259

῏ τ̆ε´ κν̄ον, | . . . ; into two phrases, each pathetic. It strengthens the idea ̄ω of leaving with ῎ε̆ ρη̄μ̄ον, | (cf. in the parallel scene as Jason leaves in Apollonius, his mother’s κενεοῖϲι λελείψομαι ἐν μεγάροιϲιν, Ap. Rhod. ῏ τ̆ε´ κν̄ον, | connect, and underline 1.285). The two rhythmic closes in ̄ω τέκνον. It is, at least in the singular, an emotional and grandiose word; Plutarch does not use it in the singular in the Lives. For address he uses rather ὦ παῖ, which the novelists, apart from Heliodorus, avoid ῏ παῑδ̆ι´ ̄ον, |). Notably, the no doubt un(Charit. 3.9.1 does use ̄ω Plutarchan Apophthegmata Laconica repeatedly give (ὦ) τέκνον to Spartan mothers as an address (241e–f, five times), and the possibly Plutarchan Mulierum Virtutes gives it to another heroic mother (252d). But the matter-of-fact Spartan mother whom we shall meet in the next chapter does not there call her son anything. | ἀλλ’ ἐμβαλο̄υ ̑ τρῐ̄η´ ρεῑ | φ̄ορτ̆ι´ ̄ον κο̄υ φ̑ ̄ον· |: ἐμβάλλομαι is an everyday word for loading things on to boats, cf. e.g. P. Oxy. XLV 3250.5–8 (AD 63), so | (ἀλλ’) ἐμβαλο̄υ ̑ is striking with the addressee’s mother as the object. But | φ̄ορτ̆ι´ ̄ον κο̄υ φ̑ ̄ον· | is made into a separate phrase, with a mixture of neatness and surprise: the little old lady would indeed be a light cargo, but she ostentatiously affects to think her heartless child interested only in navigational practicalities. (For the paradox of a human φορτίον, cf. 1.10.7.) ῏ βᾰρε̄ ιᾱ̑ | κᾱ`ι π̆ερῑττ̄η´ , | ῥίψατέ με εἰϲ τὴν θάλᾱϲϲᾰν η῝̄ ν ϲ̆υ` | ἂν δὲ ̄ω ̑ |: the two adjectives in the initial pair each merit their own πλε̄ ιϲ.᾿ rhythmic phrase. βᾰρε̄ ιᾱ̑ | reverses κο̄υφ̑ ̄ον· |, and with energetic logic moves to an extremely unlikely condition—but even with this condition, Chaereas can do better than leave her on land. π̆ερῑττ̄η´ , | adds in the idea that she is not just a physical problem but an unwanted nuisance; the passage takes up 1.12.4, where the pirate Theron tells himself to throw Callirhoe into the sea, | τὴν ἄκαιρον καὶ περιττήν ϲοῑ ̑ |. γῠνᾱ ικᾱ Not only do we have the flamboyant melodrama of the mother telling her son to cast her into the sea (the singular needs restoration for pairing with the low-key | (ἀλλ’) ἐμβαλο̄υ ̑ and for concinnity with πλεῖϲ). The short half-sentence ends with the hyperbolic pathos of the thought that she would at least to some extent be in the same place as him, because he would be sailing on the sea she was in—better than being left on land. As often, the conjectured amendment ἵνα ϲὺ πλέηιϲ (Zankogiannes) brings out the precision and fantasy of the original by removing them.

260

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

6. | ταῦτα λέγουϲα περιερρήξατο τὴν ἐϲθῆτα καὶ προτείνοῡϲᾰ τ̄α` ϲ θη̄λ̄α` ϲ |: if the conjecture is right (F’s reading can hardly be right, though rhythmic), a looser piece of narrative succeeds the speech. | ῾τέκνον,᾿ φηϲί, ‘τάδ’ αἴδεο καί μ’ ἐλέηϲον αὐτήν, εἴ ποτέ τοι λαθικηδέα μαζὸν ἐπέϲχον.᾿ : τέκνον comes again, straight after a rhythmic close, and joins up with the τέκνον ἐμόν of the Homeric passage (Hom. Il. 22.82–3 Ἕκτορ, τέκνον ἐμόν, τάδε τ’ αἴδεο κτλ.). In Chariton, even characters weave poetry into their discourse (so 4.4.5), but here the mother offers a restaging that goes beyond the original (just one breast). In rhythm the passage displays the distinctness of verse and prose rather than their affinity: double-short against single-short (cf. ch. 1). κᾰτ̆εκλ̄α´ ϲθη̄ Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ | πρὸϲ τὰϲ τῶν γονέ ̄ων ῾̆ι κ̆εϲ̆ι´ᾱϲ |: the asyndeton is forceful, the first two words a dramatic rhythmic phrase; the rhythm sets Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ | against | (πρὸϲ τὰϲ τῶν) γονέ ̄ων, across the boundary of a close. The syntax, with | καὶ ἔρριψεν ἑαῡτόν to follow, is simpler than we would expect in Plutarch; in him we would look for a participle. | καὶ ἔρριψεν ἑαῡτ̆ο` ν ᾰ᾿ π̆ο` τ̄ηϲ̑ ν̆ε ̄ω` ϲ | εἰϲ τ̄η` ν θ̆α´ λᾱϲϲᾱν, | ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰνε̄ ιν̑ θ̆ε´ λ ̄ων, | ἵνα φύγη̄ι δῠο̄ ιν̑ θ̄α´ τ̆ερ̄ον, | ἢ [τὸ] μὴ ζητεῖν Καλλιρόην ἢ [τὸ] λῡπ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ το̄υ` ϲ γο̆νε̄ ιϲ·̑ |: the language here is very simple, but the simplicity enhances the portrayal of strange and extreme actions and thoughts. Unlike Hector and Jason, Chaereas does not persist despite his parents; his action is courageous, from the standard point of view, but will not actually help either his parents or Callirhoe. The phrase λῡπ̄ηϲ̑ αῑ το̄υ` ϲ γο̆νε̄ ιϲ·̑ |, emphasized by the rhythm, is particularly peculiar: his parents are likely to be grieved by his suicide. He is, rather, escaping the consciousness of taking one or other course of action or inaction; the emotion shows his good heart. δυοῖν θάτερον, followed by ἢ . . . ἤ, is common in the Attic orators and Aelius Aristides; but the rhythmic form heightens its role here in shaping a complicated dilemma. Chariton uses the phrase three times (here, 2.10.4, 5.6.9), the other novelists only once between them (Heliod. 3.18.2). | ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰνε̄ ιν̑ θ̆ε´ λ ̄ων, | uses basic language and seems selfevident, but the self-contained rhythmic phrase brings out the paradox. Cf. for the paradox 6.7.7 | μόνοιϲ γὰρ τούτοιϲ οὐδὲ ἀποθανεῖν θέλοῡϲῐν ̄ ῎ε ξ̄εϲτῑ. |᾿, for the rhythmic emphasis Ach. 2.21.2 (the lion distressed at his cowardice) τέλοϲ ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰνε̄ ιν̑ η῎̄ θ̆ελ̄εν. |, Petr. 48.8 (the Sibyl’s reply) | ῾ ᾰ᾿ πο̆θᾰνε̄ ιν̑ θ̆ε´ λ ̄ω.᾿ |. ᾰ᾿ π̆ο` τ̄ηϲ̑ ν̆ε ̄ω` ϲ | and | εἰϲ τ̄η` ν θ̆α´ λᾱϲϲᾱν, | neatly match as closes, and bring out the abandonment of

A Distraught Hero

261

Chaereas’ purpose. The link with the mother’s ῥῖψόν με [?] εἰϲ τὴν θάλᾱϲϲᾰν displays the curious actualization of a parallel wish in the son. | ταχέωϲ δὲ ἀπορρίψᾱντ̆εϲ ο̄ ῾ι νᾱυ τ̑ αῑ | μόλιϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̆ο` ν ᾰ᾿ ν̆εκο̄υ´φῐϲᾱν. |: now the sailors join in the jumping; the rhythm underlines them as the next in the sequence. The strange progresses into the undignified, with a sense of play; the intransitive use is not elevated (Acts 27:43 of jumping off a ship). The rhythmic structure, however, also stresses | μόλιϲ: Chaereas is not keen to be saved, so intense is his emotion.

19 A Blasé Mother (Plutarch, Cleomenes 43 (22).4–5) 4. | ἐπεὶ δὲ Πτολεμαῖοϲ ὁ τῆϲ Αἰγύπτου βαϲιλεὺϲ ἐπαγγελλόμενοϲ αὐτ ̄ω̑ι βο̆η̄ ´ θεῑᾱν | ἠξίου λαβε̄ ι ν̑ ο῞̆ μη̄ρᾱ | τοὺϲ παῖδᾱϲ κᾱ`ι τ̄η` ν μη̄τ̆ε´ ρᾱ, | χρόνον μὲν ϲυχνὸν ἠιϲχύνετο φράϲαι τῆι μητρί, καὶ πολλάκιϲ εἰϲελθὼν καὶ πρὸϲ αὐτῶι γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆εν̄οϲ τ ̄ω̑ι λ̆ο´ γ ̄ωι | κᾰτ̆εϲῐ ̄ω´ πη̄ϲ̄εν, | ὥϲτε κἀκείνη̄ν υ῾̆ πο̆νο̆ε̄ ι ν̑ | καὶ παρὰ τ̄ω̑ν φ̆ι´λ ̄ων ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ̑ | διαπῡνθ̆α´ ν̄εϲθαῑ | μ̄η´ τῐ κᾰτο̆κνε̄ ι ̑ | βουλόμενοϲ ̄ ε᾿ ντῠχε̄ ι ν̑ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ηι̑ . | 5. τέλοϲ δὲ το̄υ ̑ Κλ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ | ἀποτολμήϲᾱντο̆ϲ ε̄ ᾿ι πε̄ ι ν,̑ | ἐξεγ̆ε´ λᾰϲ̆ε´ τ̆ε μ̆ε´ γᾱ | καὶ ‘τοῦτ’ ἦν᾿ εἶπεν ῾ὃ πολλ̆α´ κῐϲ ̄ο῾ ρμ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ λ̆ε´ γεῑν | ἀπεδεῑλ̆ι´ᾱϲᾱϲ; | οὐ θᾶττον ἡμᾶϲ ἐνθ̆ε´ μ̆ενο̆ϲ ε̄ ᾿ιϲ πλο̄ ι ̄ο̑ ν | ἀποϲτελεῖϲ ὅπου ποτὲ τῆι Cπάρτη̄ι νο̆μ̄ ι´ ζεῑϲ | τὸ ϲ ̄ω̑μᾰ το̄υ τ̑ ̄ο | χρηϲιμ̄ω´ τᾰτο̆ν ῎ε̆ ϲ̄εϲθαῑ, | πρ̆`ι ν υ῾̆ π̆ο` γ̄η´ ρ ̄ωϲ | αὐτο̄υ ̑ κᾰθ̄η´ μ̆εν̄ον | δῐᾰλῠθ̄ην̑ αῑ; |᾿ When King Ptolemy of Egypt promised Cleomenes help but asked to take his children and his mother as hostages, for a long time Cleomenes was ashamed to tell his mother about it. He often came into where she was and was on the very point of saying, and then fell silent. In consequence she grew suspicious, and inquired from his friends whether there was perhaps something he was shrinking from mention ing when he wanted to meet her. When Cleomenes finally summoned up the courage to speak, she burst into loud laughter. ‘So was that’, she asked, ‘the thing that you were often starting to tell me, and then got stopped by cowardice? Just hurry up and put me in a boat, and send me wherever you think this body of mine will be most useful to Sparta, before it falls apart from old age while sitting here.’

Plutarch’s Agis and Cleomenes comes in again (cf. ch. 17), to provide a passage for comparison with that from Chariton in the last chapter. The rhythms grow much denser as the passage proceeds; the passage does not quite qualify as rhythmically dense by our criteria, but has a briefer density which marks it out. The larger section (43 (22).4–10) is intent on showing the nature of Cleomenes’ mother Cratesicleia:

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

264

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

compare the last sentence αὕτη μὲν οὖν παρὰ τὰϲ τύχαϲ τοιαύτη λέγεται γεγενῆϲθαι with that on Cato at Pomp. 54.9 | τοιοῦτοϲ μὲν οὖν Κάτων ἐν πᾶϲι. (ch. 11). The present story, the first, is given a light-hearted quality by Cratesicleia’s nonchalance. But the whole section prepares for the tragic denouement, where Cratesicleia is killed, after seeing Cleomenes’ children killed; the one thing she had asked was to be killed before them (59 (38).8–9). This in turn forms part of the imposing structure of these four Lives in two. And the present passage itself has much to convey. 4. | ἐπεὶ δὲ Πτολεμαῖοϲ ὁ τῆϲ Αἰγύπτου βαϲιλεὺϲ ἐπαγγελλόμενοϲ αὐτ̄ω̑ι βο̆η̄ ´ θεῑᾱν |: this first sentence, although not particularly long by Plutarch’s standards, covers more territory than we would expect of a sentence in Chariton. The situation is set up in a rhythmically loose clause; the sentence is organized to progress. Cleomenes III is being offered help by Ptolemy III in 223 BC; cf. e.g. Cartledge and Spawforth (2002), 48–58. | ἠξίου λαβε̄ ι ν̑ ο῞̆ μη̄ρᾱ | τοὺϲ παῖδᾱϲ κᾱ`ι τ̄η` ν μη̄τ̆ε´ ρᾱ, |: the form highlights the juxtaposition of ο῞̆ μη̄ρᾱ | and | τοὺϲ παῖδᾱϲ κᾱ`ι τ̄η` ν μη̄τ̆ε´ ρᾱ, |. Cleomenes’ dilemma receives further articulation from the rhythm. | χρόνον μὲν ϲυχνὸν ἠιϲχύνετο φράϲαι τῆι μητρί, καὶ πολλάκιϲ εἰϲελθὼν καὶ πρὸϲ αὐτῶι γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆εν̄οϲ τ̄ω̑ι λ̆ο´ γ ̄ωι | κᾰτ̆εϲῐ ̄ω´ πη̄ϲ̄εν, |: the preliminaries are delivered loosely; τῆι μητρί, is not given the rhythmic emphasis that τ̄η` ν μη̄τ̆ε´ ρᾱ, | possessed in the weightier clause before. The rhythm then tightens as the narrative depicts the detailed drama of personal interaction. With nice mimesis, the rhythm leads the reader up to λ̆ο´ γ̄ωι |, then produces a small break, and an opposition with a verb of silence, which occupies a whole phrase and is followed by a longer pause. | ὥϲτε κἀκείνη̄ν ῠ῾ πο̆νο̆ε̄ ι ν̑ | καὶ παρὰ τ ̄ω̑ν φ̆ι´λ ̄ων ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ̑ | διαπῡνθ̆α´ ν̄εϲθαῑ | μ̄η´ τῐ κᾰτο̆κνε̄ ι ̑ | βουλόμενοϲ ̄ ε᾿ ντῠχε̄ ι ν̑ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ηι̑ . |: both Plutarch and Chariton can use indirect speech, but by comparison with the mass of direct speech in Chariton, a lot of work is done by indirect speech in Plutarch; here delicate conversation is conveyed, and the cluster of dense rhythm brings out the anxiety of the discussion for Cratesicleia. The separate phrase | μ̄η´ τῐ κᾰτο̆κνε̄ ι ̑ | especially shows her hesitation (note τῐ, cf. [Plut.] Reg. Apophth. 189d), and his (note the choice of verb). παρὰ τ̄ω̑ν φ̆ι´λ ̄ων ᾱυ᾿ το̄υ ̑ | underlines the indirectness with which she is proceeding, instead of asking him straight out. She is not just a monochrome bluff Spartan, as is seen later in the section too (see 5 n.).

A Blasé Mother

265

5. | τέλοϲ δὲ το̄υ ̑ Κλ̆εο̆μ̆ε´ νοῡϲ | ἀποτολμήϲᾱντο̆ϲ ε̄ ᾿ι πε̄ ι ν,̑ | ἐξεγ̆ε´ λᾰϲ̆ε´ τ̆ε μ̆ε´ γᾱ | καὶ ‘τοῦτ’ ἦν᾿ εἶπεν ῾ὃ πολλ̆α´ κῐϲ ̄ο῾ ρμ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ λ̆ε´ γεῑν | ἀπεδεῑλ̆ι´ᾱϲᾱϲ; |: the two rhythmic phrases | ἀποτολμήϲᾱντο̆ϲ ε̄ ᾿ι πε̄ ι ν,̑ | and | ἐξεγ̆ε´ λᾰϲ̆ε´ τ̆ε μ̆ε´ γᾱ | are effectively contrasted, and with them the worried son and the no-nonsense mother. Although Cratesicleia’s reaction is meant to surprise, we are with both characters a long way from the son who leaps into the waves or the mother who wishes to be cast into them (ch. 18). There is also an opposition, enhanced by the shared prefix, between | ἀποτολμήϲᾱντο̆ϲ and | ἀπεδεῑλ̆ι´ᾱϲᾱϲ; |: where the son sees his eventual action as showing courage, the mother presents his earlier failings as cowardice—a humorously extreme reproach within the Spartan scheme of values. Her account ὃ πολλ̆α´ κῐϲ ̄ο῾ ρμ̄η´ ϲᾱϲ λ̆ε´ γεῑν | ἀπεδεῑλ̆ι´ᾱϲᾱϲ; | is a brisker version than the narrator’s πολλάκιϲ εἰϲελθὼν καὶ πρὸϲ αὐτῶι γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆εν̄οϲ τ̄ω̑ι λ̆ο´ γ̄ωι | κᾰτ̆εϲῐ ̄ω´ πη̄ϲ̄εν, |, and the final verb | ἀπεδεῑλ̆ι´ᾱϲᾱϲ; | contrasts with the much less colourful | κᾰτ̆εϲῐ ̄ω´ πη̄ϲ̄εν, |. The interaction is vivacious and down-to-earth, and itself part of a more intricate depiction: later (43 (22).6–8) she judiciously leads her son into a private place and tactfully uses the first person plural of tears, not laughter, ὅπωϲ . . . | μηδεὶϲ ἴδηι δακρύ̄οντᾰϲ η̄ ῾ μ̄αϲ̑ |. She there deploys Spartan values more respectfully in addressing him ὦ βαϲιλεῦ Λακεδαιμονίων. | οὐ θᾶττον ἡμᾶϲ ἐνθ̆ε´ μ̆ενο̆ϲ ε̄ ᾿ιϲ πλο̄ ι ̄ο̑ ν | ἀποϲτελεῖϲ ὅπου ποτὲ τῆι Cπάρτη̄ι νο̆μ̄ ι´ ζεῑϲ | τὸ ϲ̄ω̑μᾰ το̄υ τ̑ ̄ο | χρηϲιμ̄ω´ τᾰτο̆ν ῎ε̆ ϲ̄εϲθαῑ, | πρ̆`ι ν ῠ῾ π̆ο` γ̄η´ ρ ̄ωϲ | αὐτο̄υ ̑ κᾰθ̄η´ μ̆εν̄ον | δῐᾰλῠθ̄ην̑ αῑ; |᾿: Cratesicleia is more unpretentious even about the ship than the mother of Chaereas. Where the latter has τρῐ̄η´ ρεῑ | (Charit. 3.5.5), Cratesicleia uses πλο̄ ι ̄ο̑ ν |, low-key in the singular (the narrator uses ναῦϲ, 43 (22).6). Chaereas’ mother with theatrical self-abasement wishes to be treated like cargo (3.5.5, ch. 18), but implies the respect due to the body of a mother, and demands such respect when she displays her breasts (αἴδεο, 3.5.6). Cratesicleia’s | τὸ ϲ ̄ω̑μᾰ το̄υτ̑ ̄ο | is cheerfully contemptuous; it is marked out by having a rhythmic unit to itself. | (πρ̆`ι ν ῠ῾ π̆ο` ) γ̄η´ ρ ̄ωϲ | gives the reason for the contempt (cf. 9 διὰ μίαν γραῦν). | πρ̆`ι ν ῠ῾ π̆ο` γ̄η´ ρ ̄ωϲ | . . . | δῐᾰλῠθ̄ην̑ αῑ; | presents her decease with detachment (contrast the sentimental | ὅπωϲ ἐν ταῖϲ χερϲὶ ϲᾱ ι ϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ πο̆θ̆α´ ν ̄ω· | used by Chaereas’ father, Charit. 3.5.5). The detachment is enhanced by the scornful phrase in the middle, | αὐτο̄υ ̑ κᾰθ̄η´ μ̆εν̄ον | (cf. Pind. Ol. 1.82–3 τά κέ τιϲ ἀνώνυμον | γῆραϲ ἐν ϲκότωι καθήμενοϲ ἕψοι μάταν . . . ;). | αὐτο̄υ ̑ is part of Cratesicleia’s cool indifference to her present security, while | (μή με) ἐνταῦθα (Charit. 3.5.5) is part of Chaereas’ mother’s scenario of pathos.

266

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

| χρηϲιμ ̄ω´ τᾰτο̆ν is detached too, but it highlights the attachment that matters, to a political entity. In the phrasing, νο̆μ̄ ι´ ζεῑϲ | makes part of a unit with Cπάρτη̄ι, the more emphatic word against which it leans, cf. e.g. Sept. Sap. 152d | ἀλλὰ πόλῑν μ̆`εν ο̄῎ιεῑ | κατὰ τὸν θεὸν ἄρῑϲτᾰ πρ̄α´ ττεῑν | τὴν ε̆῾ ν̆ο` ϲ ᾰ᾿ κο̄υ´οῡϲᾱν, | ϲυμποϲίου δ᾿ ἀρετ̄η` ν νο̆μ̄ ι´ ζεῑϲ | τὸ πάντᾱϲ δῐᾰλ̆ε´ γ̄εϲθαῑ | καὶ περὶ πάντων. The name of Sparta will come with similarly unanswerable force in 43 (22).7 and 9. The section concludes with Cratesicleia’s character (10 τοιαύτη λέγεται γεγενῆϲθαι), but the character is focused on a political ideal. Even a sentence introduced by the pithily colloquial | οὐ θᾶττον (cf. Ar. Birds 1323) extends itself; its structure unites divergent registers and tones into rich characterization and a philosophically significant line of thought. In both the passage of Chariton and this, rhythm marks the onward movement of narrative and thought; but in Chariton the sentences or syntactic units are shorter, and the movement is towards spectacular utterance and opulent extremes. In Plutarch, we have larger syntactic structures, which themselves form part of elaborate structures of historical and ethical ideas. While the tone here is lighter, the reality of Plutarch’s worlds is more serious. The rhythm helps the sentences display to full view their range and reach.

20 Bewilderments of Joy (Heliodorus 10.38.3–4) 3. ὁ δῆμοϲ ἑτέρωθεν ϲὺν εὐφήμοιϲ ταῖϲ βοαῖϲ ἐξεχόρευε, πᾶϲα ἡλικία καὶ τύχη ϲυμφώνωϲ τὰ γινόμενα θυμηδοῦντεϲ, τὰ μὲν πλεῖϲτα τῶν λεγομένων οὐ ϲυνιέντεϲ, τὰ ὄντα δὲ ἐκ τῶν προγεγονότων ἐπὶ τῆι Χαρικλείαι ϲυμβάλλοντεϲ, ἢ τάχα καὶ ἐξ ὁρμῆϲ θείαϲ ἣ ϲύμπαντα ταῦτα ἐϲκηνογράφηϲεν εἰϲ ὑπόνοιαν τῶν ἀληθῶν ἐλθόντεϲ. 4. ὑφ’ ἧϲ καὶ τὰ ἐναντιώτατα πρὸϲ ϲυμφωνίαν ἡρμόζετο, χαρᾶϲ καὶ λύπηϲ ϲυμπεπλεγμένων, γέλωτι δακρύων κεραννυμένων, τῶν ϲτυγνοτάτων εἰϲ ἑορτὴν μεταβαλλομένων, γελώντων ἅμα τῶν κλαιόντων καὶ χαιρόντων τῶν θρηνούντων, εὑριϲκόντων οὓϲ μὴ ἐζήτουν καὶ ἀπολλύντων οὓϲ εὑρηκέναι ἐδόκουν, καὶ τέλοϲ τῶν προϲδοκηθέντων φόνων εἰϲ εὐαγεῖϲ θυϲίαϲ μεταβαλλομένων. 3 : add. Coraës

ἐπεχόρευε Hutchinson

The people from another side burst into dancing [or: danced to cele brate] with well omened cries; every age and class rejoiced in unison at what was happening. Most of what was being said they did not under stand; but they interpreted what was the case now from what had happened before in regard to Charicleia. Or perhaps they actually arrived at an inkling of the truth through a divine impulse which had stage managed all these events. Thanks to this impulse the most con trary things were being tuned into harmony: joy and grief were being woven together, tears were being mixed with laughter, the most hideous things were being transformed into festivity. At one and the same time, those that were crying were laughing, those that were lamenting were rejoicing. They were finding those they had not been seeking and losing those they thought they had found. Finally, the expected slayings of humans were being transformed into unpolluted sacrifices.

Now we come to look together at the unrhythmic Heliodorus and the rhythmic Chariton. Heliodorus’ joyous moment is especially to be compared with the passage of Chariton in ch. 21; but his distinctness from Chariton will be apparent even after reading ch. 18. Comparison of the two writers is not straightforward, but is worth attempting, to Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

268

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

gain a further idea of the difference that rhythm makes. One difficulty is that there are other differences between the authors, thanks to Chariton’s pointed style and its surface simplicity and to Heliodorus’ offbeat deviations (cf. on Heliodorus’ style Mazal [1955]). This difficulty will be only partly met when we bring in Achilles Tatius. Another difficulty is that the comparison can sound as if it is attributing greater aesthetic merit either to the presence of rhythm or to its absence—that is not intended. A further twist is that Heliodorus could be thought of as post-rhythmic, as retaining some of the qualities of rhythmic style without rhythm, and perhaps compensating for others. A consecutive reading of the passage from ch. 18 (Chariton) and then of this one brings out at once the more even flow of the Heliodorus: this springs not just from the more elaborate syntax, as in the Plutarch of ch. 19, but from the reader’s lack of rhythmical attention to each phrase and the slight pause that each brings. The reader’s mind is more exclusively focused on the run of ideas; one could even say that the experience is at a further remove from poetry. Unrhythmic endings to phrases and entities abound; cf. particularly ἐξεχόρευε, (if sound), θυμηδοῦντεϲ,, ϲυμβάλλοντεϲ,, ἐϲκηνογράφηϲεν, ἀληθῶν ἐλθόντεϲ., ϲυμφωνίαν ἡρμόζετο,, μεταβαλλομένων,, τῶν κλαιόντων,, τῶν θρηνούντων,, προϲδοκηθέντων φόνων, μεταβαλλομένων.. (Punctuation is typically included in quotations, as for rhythmic writers hitherto.) The novel is almost at an end, and has brought its convolutions to a dizzying level of complexity. Charicleia has already been both recognized as the daughter of the Aethiopian king Hydaspes and spared, at the crowd’s wishes, from being sacrificed to the gods. She is now reunited with Charicles, the non-biological ‘father’ who had brought her up; her real father as well as her mother realize that Theagenes is her bridegroom-to-be and are about to realize that he does not need to be sacrificed either. Marriage is just round the corner. 3. ὁ δῆμοϲ ἑτέρωθεν ϲὺν εὐφήμοιϲ ταῖϲ βοαῖϲ ἐξεχόρευε, πᾶϲα ἡλικία καὶ τύχη ϲυμφώνωϲ τὰ γινόμενα θυμηδοῦντεϲ: the article placed between εὐφήμοιϲ and βοαῖϲ is a non-rhythmic means of throwing emphasis on to εὐφήμοιϲ; cf. e.g. 9.5.10 ἐν ἀκινήτοιϲ τοῖϲ ὅπλοιϲ ἡϲύχαζον, Charit. 1.3.5 ὑφαίμοιϲ τοῖϲ ὀφθαλμοῖϲ καὶ πάχει τῶι φθέγματι (and 5.8.3 ἀναπεπταμένοιϲ τοῖϲ ὀφθαλμοῖϲ, ch. 21). (εὐφήμοιϲ ταῖϲ βοαῖϲ would be rhythmic in a rhythmic text, but would need more support to create even a momentarily rhythmic

Bewilderments of Joy

269

passage in a post-rhythmic text.) The adjective suggests not just festivity but the truly pious avoidance of human sacrifice which the conscientious king will presently agree to. ἐξεχόρευε could compensate by its colour for the absence of rhythm (cf. Σ Opp. Hal. 4.215 ἐξεχόρευϲε· . . . ἐϲκίρτηϲεν . . . ); but there is no satisfactory parallel for the alleged sense ‘exult’ (LSJ), and perhaps as in Lycophr. TrGF 100 F 2.9 (C and E of Epit. for Ath. 10.420b), ἐξεχόρευ- is a corruption for ἐπεχόρευ-, which accords smoothly with the following clause (‘breaking out of the chorus’ would not). πᾶϲα ἡλικία καὶ τύχη is not linguistic invention but standard phrasing seen in the inscriptions of some places, e.g. I.Straton. (IGSK 21) 266.13–14 πάϲηι τύχηι καὶ ἡλικίαι τῶν ἑορταζόν|των (cf. also Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7.12.4 πᾶϲαν η̄ ῾ λῐκ̆ι´ᾱν κᾱ`ι τ ῠ ´ χη̄ν |). It adds to the sense of religious celebration (cf. εἰϲ εὐαγεῖϲ θυϲίαϲ at the end). θυμηδεῖν is an unusual verb for a common kind of sense. It is also employed at 10.3.3 and at Semon. fr. 7.103 West. It is probably not poetic: cf. the anonymous prose at Suda Θ 559 οἱ δὲ ὑπὸ ϲυρίγγων καὶ αὐλῶν θυμηδούμενοι μετὰ παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν πρὸϲ θυμηδίαϲ ἦϲαν (the noun is common in Imperial prose). That passage and 10.3.3 may suggest that it adds to the aura of festal celebration; perhaps too the uncommon choice draws some attention to this close now that rhythm cannot. The unusual syntax also invites notice (cf. J. R. Morgan [1978], i.lxxxiv–lxxxv for unexpected verbs governing the accusative in Heliodorus). τὰ μὲν πλεῖϲτα τῶν λεγομένων οὐ ϲυνιέντεϲ, τὰ ὄντα δὲ ἐκ τῶν προγεγονότων ἐπὶ τῆι Χαρικλείαι ϲυμβάλλοντεϲ,: the sentence runs on, but not as part of the grand structure we might expect in Plutarch; further nominative participles (ϲυνιέντεϲ etc.) are added on without connection to the nominative participle (θυμηδοῦντεϲ) that has already been added on. The incomprehension of the masses bestows a touch of humour, the more double-edged since the reader—who at least knows Greek—may be having difficulty in keeping up with everything that is said. The pair of clauses produces the impression of neatness, but without rhythmic and pointed correspondence of words and phrases: against τὰ ὄντα are set τὰ μὲν πλεῖϲτα τῶν λεγομένων and ἐκ τῶν προγεγονότων ἐπὶ τῆι Χαρικλείαι. Χαρικλείαι is the crucial word, and marks the symmetry of the action as the male victim seems to be approaching release. ϲυμβάλλοντεϲ, is not quite in contrast with ϲυνιέντεϲ, (ϲυμβάλλειν will be used at 39.2 of the inference the king should have made); but see the next paragraph.

270

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

ἢ τάχα καὶ ἐξ ὁρμῆϲ θείαϲ ἣ ϲύμπαντα ταῦτα ἐϲκηνογράφηϲεν εἰϲ ὑπόνοιαν τῶν ἀληθῶν ἐλθόντεϲ.: the sentence takes a further turn, towards the divine purpose so important at this point (cf. 38.1 and 39.2–3). There seems a certain blurring in the language, between the impulse felt by humans and the will of heaven (cf. Epict. 4.1.100 τὰϲ ὁρμὰϲ τοῦ θεοῦ; in its first sense, the phrase recalls Plato, cf. Parm. 135d3 θεία . . . ἡ ὁρμή [with Procl. Parm. ii.201–3 Steel], Phaedr. 279a8–b1 . . . τιϲ ὁρμὴ θειοτέρα). εἰϲ ὑπόνοιαν τῶν ἀληθῶν ἐλθόντεϲ. now does make a contrast both with ϲυνιέντεϲ, and with ϲυμβάλλοντεϲ,, but in a more complex phrase, where the key word is ὑπόνοιαν. The idea of an inkling which is less than direct apprehension may connect to the very striking ἐϲκηνογράφηϲεν, which stands out of the texture without being led up to as a crucial point. Chariton, through rhythm, will be seen to create a quite different exploitation of theatre (ch. 21). The reference to the past, and ϲύμπαντα, sound more like the organization of events on stage; but usage elsewhere suggests illusionistic painting (of scenery and buildings). It is a rare verb (cf. Clem. Strom. 6.7.56.1, GCS ii.460.7–13). For theatrical references in Heliodorus, see Paulsen (1992), 279–80, etc. Phrases recur (ὥϲπερ ἐπὶ ϲκηνῆϲ, καθάπερ ἐκ μηχανῆϲ); but they are not so strongly underlined as in Chariton’s recurring phrases marked by rhythm. 4. ὑφ’ ἧϲ καὶ τὰ ἐναντιώτατα πρὸϲ ϲυμφωνίαν ἡρμόζετο, χαρᾶϲ καὶ λύπηϲ ϲυμπεπλεγμένων, γέλωτι δακρύων κεραννυμένων, τῶν ϲτυγνοτάτων εἰϲ ἑορτὴν μεταβαλλομένων, γελώντων ἅμα τῶν κλαιόντων καὶ χαιρόντων τῶν θρηνούντων, εὑριϲκόντων οὓϲ μὴ ἐζήτουν καὶ ἀπολλύντων οὓϲ εὑρηκέναι ἐδόκουν, καὶ τέλοϲ τῶν προϲδοκηθέντων φόνων εἰϲ εὐαγεῖϲ θυϲίαϲ μεταβαλλομένων.: ϲυμφώνωϲ is taken up from the previous sentence, but not in a pointed connection of thought. Rather, the account proceeds from the joining of all ages and classes into a harmony which includes literal song to the joining of contrary emotions and the like into some sort of harmonious blend. The phrasing itself is idiomatic, both literally (Plat. Phileb. 56a3 μουϲικὴ . . . τὸ ϲύμφωνον ἁρμόττουϲα) and figuratively (cf. esp. Them. Paraphr. Arist. De Anim. 1.4 ii.9–14 Spengel τὴν οὖν τἀναντία ταῦτα εἰϲ ϲυμφωνίαν ἄγουϲαν καὶ ἁρμόζουϲαν, θερμὰ λέγω καὶ ψυχρὰ καὶ ὑγρὰ καὶ ξηρά . . . ). The imagery changes in the next two clauses, with words commonly used for figurative mixing, ϲυμπλέκω and κεράννυμι (κεραννυμένων reinvigorates its figurative status by being placed next to the liquid δακρύων). The notion of harmonious blending itself seems to fade with τῶν ϲτυγνοτάτων εἰϲ ἑορτὴν

Bewilderments of Joy

271

μεταβαλλομένων,. That final word has less imagery to it than the preceding participles, and possesses still less force in itself when it is repeated at the end of the sentence: the sentence is not moving to a climactic word or a word that is a strong part of the climax, as we might have expected in a rhythmic structure. The syntactic design is elaborate (cf. J. R. Morgan [1978], ii.597–601), but not with the kind of architecture seen in Plutarch. The main clause is followed and explained by a long series of genitive absolutes, which are connected with particles only in the pairs γελώντων . . . καὶ χαιρόντων . . . and εὑριϲκόντων . . . καὶ ἀπολλύντων . . . (the latter connection is of opposites), and in the final member (καὶ τέλοϲ . . .). The sixth and final member takes up the third, τῶν ϲτυγνοτάτων εἰϲ ἑορτὴν μεταβαλλομένων,; the fourth, γελώντων ἅμα τῶν κλαιόντων καὶ χαιρόντων τῶν θρηνούντων,, takes up both the first and second, χαρᾶϲ καὶ λύπηϲ ϲυμπεπλεγμένων, and γέλωτι δακρύων κεραννυμένων,. It is itself developed in the fifth member, εὑριϲκόντων οὓϲ μὴ ἐζήτουν καὶ ἀπολλύντων οὓϲ εὑρηκέναι ἐδόκουν,. The intricate shaping is a closing extreme of virtuosity in Heliodorus; the references are not easy for the reader. The mourning and loss are not selfevident: presumably Charicles has lost the daughter he thought he had found, but the language of lamentation sounds exaggerated. (Charicles’ lamentation at 10.37.1 was before the discovery of Charicleia; the reference to finding also seems to exclude grief at the possible death of Theagenes [cf. J. R. Morgan (1978) 599–600]; Meroebus, for whom the gods had found a bride, 10.24.1, would not balance εὑριϲκόντων οὓϲ μὴ ἐζήτουν so well.) The mixtures in the same people are not as lucidly explained as at e.g. 4.9.1 (Calasiris) ἡδονῆϲ δὲ ἅμα καὶ λύπηϲ ἐνεπλήϲθην καὶ πάθοϲ τι καινότερον ὑπέϲτην ὁμοῦ δακρύων καὶ χαίρων, διαχεομένηϲ μὲν τῆϲ ψυχῆϲ πρὸϲ τὴν τῶν ἀγνοουμένων εὕρεϲιν κτλ. The asyndeton and the combination of people and expressions of emotion go back to Thuc. 7.71.5 ἦν τε ἐν τῶι αὐτῶι ϲτρατεύματι τῶν Ἀθηναίων, ἕωϲ ἀγχώμαλα ἐναυμάχουν, πάντα ὁμοῦ ἀκοῦϲαι, ὀλοφυρμὸϲ βοή, νικῶντεϲ κρατούμενοι, ἄλλα ὅϲα ἐν μεγάλωι κινδύνωι μέγα ϲτρατόπεδον πολυειδῆ ἀναγκάζοιτο φθέγγεϲθαι. But Heliodorus has departed some way from that passage and its pithiness into a stylistic tour de force. We shall shortly compare what Chariton does with it. The separate members give this sentence something of the subdivisions of rhythmic prose, but in a less sharp and cohesive form.

272

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

The two sentences of the passage differ in their relation to rhythmic prose. Close scrutiny of both shows drifting in structure and thought, and elegance which is not quite the rhythmic writers’ string of organized detonations, of small and linked explosions. At the same time, we see aspects which come near those writers, and we see other ways of arresting notice. Especially after all the rhythmic prose we have been reading, there seems something about this writing of Heliodorus’ which is less instantaneously accessible, more aloof.

21 Chaereas Lives (Chariton 5.8.1–3) 1. ἔτῐ δ̆`ε λ̆ε´ γ̄οντ̄οϲ | (οὕτω γὰρ η̄῏ ν δῐᾰτ̆ετᾱγμ̆ε´ ν̄ον) | προῆλθε Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ ϲ. | ἰδοῦϲα δὲ ἡ Καλλιρόη ἀνέκραγε ῾Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱ, ζ̄ηι̑ ϲ;᾿ | καὶ ὥρμηϲεν αὐτῶι προϲδραμεῖν· κατ̄ ε´ ϲχ̆ε δ̆`ε Δῐο̆ν̄υ´ϲῐ̄οϲ | καὶ μέϲ̄οϲ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | οὐκ ̑ ̆ τ̄ο` εἴαϲεν ἀλλήλοῑϲ π̆ερῐπλᾰκ̄ην̑ αῑ. | 2. τίϲ ἂν φράϲη̄ι κᾰτ’ ̄α᾿ ξ̆ι´ᾱν | ἐκε̄ ι νο ´ ̑ ` ᾿ ` ̑ ̑ ϲχ̄ημᾱ | το̄υ δῐκᾱϲτη̄ρ̆ι οῡ; | ποῖοϲ ποιητ̄ηϲ ε̆ π̄ ι ϲκη̄ν̄ηϲ | παράδοξον μῦθον ̑ ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ωϲ ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̄η´ γᾰγ̄εν; | ἔδοξαϲ ἂν ἐν θεάτρ ̄ωι πᾰρε̄ ι ναῑ | μυρί ̄ων πᾰθ ̄ω̑ν πλ̄η´ ρεῑ· | πα´ ντᾰ η῏ ν ο̆῾ μου ,̑ |h δάκρυα, χαρά, θ̄α´ μβο̆ϲ, ῎ε̆ λ̆ε ̄οϲ, | ἀπῑϲτ̆ι´ ᾱ, ευ᾿ χαι´ . |h 3. Χαιρέᾱν ε̆᾿ μᾰκ̆α´ ρῑζ̄ον, | Μιθριδάτηι ϲυνέχαιρον, ϲυνελυπο̄υ ν̑ το̆ Δῐο̆νῡϲ̆ι´ ̄ωι, | περὶ Κᾱλλῐρ̆ο´ η̄ϲ η̄ ᾿ π̆ο´ ροῡν. | μάλιϲτα γὰρ ἦν ἐκείνη̄ τ̆εθο̆ρῠβη̄μ̆ε´ νη̄ | καὶ ἄναῡδο̆ϲ ε̄ ῾ι ϲτ̄η´ κεῑ, | μόνον ἀναπεπταμένοιϲ τοῖϲ ὀφθαλμοῖϲ εἰϲ Χαιρέαν ἀπ̄οβλ̆ε´ ποῡϲᾱ· | δοκεῖ δ’ ἄν μοι κᾱ`ι βᾰϲῐλε̄υ` ϲ τ̆ο´ τ̆ε θ̆ε´ λεῑν | Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ ε̄῏ι ναῑ. | While Mithridates was still speaking (for so it had been arranged) there came forth Chaereas himself. Seeing him, Callirhoe cried out ‘Chaereas, are you alive?’, and started running towards him. But Dionysius held her back; he stood in the middle of them and would not let them embrace one another. Who could describe fittingly the court as it appeared then? What dramatist has ever brought such a surprising story on to the stage? You would have thought you were present in a theatre which was full of countless emotions. Everything was there together: tears, joy, amazement, pity, incredulity, prayers. They called Chaereas happy, they rejoiced with Mithridates, they grieved with Dionysius, they were puzzled about Callirhoe. She was totally bewil dered and stood there without speech; she just gazed at Chaereas with eyes wide open. I think that at that moment the King himself would have wanted to be Chaereas.

Many climactic moments in Plutarch have been considered; we shall return to them in the Conclusion. For now, Chariton’s climactic moment calls to be confronted with Heliodorus’ (ch. 20). We have already gained some idea of differences between the writers, and Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

274

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

discussion of this passage will bring out further points. Those considerations will promote the most important object of this chapter: to see how integral rhythm is, and with what ramifications, at this climactic point of Chariton’s narrative, and how much it affects the nature of his writing. Rhythmic density, however, cannot be discussed in relation to the text as a whole: samples apart, the novelists have only been read through with rhythm in mind, not properly scanned throughout as with Plutarch’s Lives. We have had a first taste of Heliodorus’ finale (ch. 20). The present passage is not the grand finale of Chariton’s novel, but a major climax. Callirhoe is certain for the first time that her original husband Chaereas is alive. Here he appears suddenly as the key witness in the trial of Mithridates, satrap of Caria, before the king of Persia Artaxerxes; Mithridates is accused by Dionysius of Miletus, now Callirhoe’s husband, of sending Callirhoe a forged letter supposedly from Chaereas. 1. ἔτῐ δ̆`ε λ̆ε´ γ̄οντ̄οϲ | (οὕτω γὰρ η̄῏ ν δῐᾰτ̆ετᾱγμ̆ε´ ν̄ον) | προῆλθε Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ ᾿ ᾱυτ̄ο´ ϲ. |: on the short timescale of Chariton’s sentences, the sentence is organized to lead up, with the delay of two rhythmic phrases, one of them parenthetical, to the name of Chaereas in the final rhythmic close. Rhythm greatly enhances the power of the lovers’ names in the rhythmic novelists. But the first two phrases also perform functions of their own, the second justifying the surprising courtroom procedure of the first (contrast e.g. the rude interruption of one pirate by another at 1.10.4 | ἔτι δὲ αὐτο̄υ ̑ λ̆ε´γ̄οντ̄οϲ |). The prearranged theatricality is all the more effective because Mithridates has ironically been addressing Chaereas as if he were in the form of his dead spirit, ̑ ̆ ν ᾰ᾿ γᾰθ̄ ε´ (5.7.10, cf. I.Iasos [IGSK 28.1] 116.3–4 | φάνηθι, δᾱ ιμο ἀ[πο]|θ̣[ε]ωθῆναι, 11–12 τιμῶνταϲ | Ἰϲοκράτην δαίμονα ἀγαθόν). Dead and living are superimposed, and αὐτόϲ receives extra significance. (Cf. further Charit. 5.6.10, with Hutchinson [2013], 156.) | ἰδοῦϲα δὲ ἡ Καλλιρόη ἀνέκραγε ῾Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱ, ζ̄ηι̑ ϲ;᾿ |: this sentence speeds along without rhythmic interruption to the crucial utterance, which forms a rhythmic close. The phrase is impressively paradoxical in itself: it is unusual to address someone and at the same time ask if they are alive. The preceding play on Chaereas’ status as living or dead leads up to this moment. (Cf. also 5.9.4; the paradox would remain even if Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱ, ζ̄ηι̑ ϲ |were an exclamation.) But the moment is led up to on a larger scale by the preceding occurrences of this phrase in different versions, greatly heightened by rhythm: cf. esp. 1.5.7

Chaereas Lives

275

(of Callirhoe) | ὅτι ᾱυ῾ τ̄ηϲ̑ μ̄α λ̑ λ̄ον θ̆ε´ λεῑ | Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱν ζ̄ην̑ . |, 4.3.10 (Callirhoe apostrophized by Chaereas) γυν̄η` γ̆ε´ γο̆νᾰϲ ῎̄αλλοῡ | Χαῑρ̆ε´οῡ ζ ̄ω̑ντ̄οϲ, |, 5.1.5 (Callirhoe speaking) | ἵνᾱ ζ ̄ω̑ ντ̄οϲ Χαῑρ̆ε´ οῡ | ἄλλ ̄ωι γᾰμη̄θῶ. |, 5.2.5 (Callirhoe apostrophized by Chaereas) | ο̄υ᾿ γ̆α` ρ ο̄῏ι δᾱϲ | ὅτι Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ ζ̄ηι̑ · |, 5.6.9 (Dionysius’ oration) | δεῖ γ̄α` ρ δῠο̄ ι ν̑ θ̄α´ τ̆ερ̄ον, | ἢ Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱν ζ̄ην̑ | ἢ Μιθριδάτην ἠλέγχθαι μοῖχον., 5.7.8 (Dionysius) |h μη̄δ̆ε´ πο̆τ᾿ ῍ᾰ ν ̄ ε᾿ λπ̄ ι´ ϲᾱϲ | ὅτι Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ ζ̄ηι̑ . |. And note how the opening of Chaereas’ letter | ῾Κᾱλλῐρ̆ο´ η̄ι Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ· | ζῶ, καὶ ζῶ δῐα` Μῐθρῐδ̄α´ τη̄ν, | (4.4.7) is toyed with until it becomes a rhythmic close, 4.5.8 (Dionysius) | εἶδεν οὖν ῾Καλλιρόηι Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ· ζ ̄ω̑.᾿ | (or even ῾Κᾱλλῐρ̆ο´ η̄ι Χαῑρ̆ε´ᾱϲ· | ζ̄ω̑. ᾿ |), 5.6.10 (Dionysius speaking to Mithridates) | λέγε λαβών· ῾Χαῑρ̆ε´ᾱϲ ζ̆ ̄ω̑.᾿ |. All these moments build up to the utterance of the phrase here in the second person by Callirhoe herself. Rhythm contributes to big accumulations and structures (the use of the phrase does not end here); these give the verbal instant overwhelming force. | καὶ ὥρμηϲεν αὐτῶι προϲδραμεῖν· κατ̄ ε´ ϲχ̆ε δ̆`ε Δῐο̆ν̄υ´ϲῐ̄οϲ | καὶ μέϲ̄οϲ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | οὐκ εἴαϲεν ἀλλήλοῑϲ π̆ερῐπλᾰκ̄ην̑ αῑ. |: the effect of the character’s name Δῐο̆ν̄υ´ϲῐ̄οϲ | is strengthened by word-order and by the rhythmic close and the metrical pause after it; the placing of | καὶ μέϲ̄οϲ γ̆εν̆ο´ μ̆εν̄οϲ | and the pause after it add to the force of its meaning (even without metastylistic play on μέϲοϲ γενόμενοϲ and the design of the sentence). In addition to this, the phrase advances the physical theatre: Mithridates had told Chaereas to stand in between himself and Dionysius (5.7.10). The symbolism and physicality of the embrace are brought into rhythmic phrasing which again has structural force, on a small scale (5.9.5 [Callirhoe speaking] | πῶϲ οὖν ὑπέμεινέ μοι μ̄η` π̆ερῐπλᾰκ̄ην̑ αῑ;) and a large (8.1.17 | περιπλακ̄ ε´ ντ̆εϲ ̄α᾿ λλ̄η´ λοῑϲ | ῾ἀϲπάϲιοι λέκτροιο παλαιοῦ θεϲμὸν ἵκοντο᾿.). ̑ ᾱ | το̄υ ̑ δῐκᾱϲτη̄ρ̆ι´οῡ; |: 2. | τίϲ ἂν φράϲη̄ι κᾰτ’ ̄α᾿ ξ̆ι´ᾱν | ἐκε̄ ι ν̑ ο̆ τ̄ο` ϲχ̄ημ this is rhythmically the densest of such outbursts of narratorial despair (cf. 1.6.2 τίϲ ἂν οὖν ἀπαγγεῖλαι δύναιτο κατ᾿ ἀξίαν τὴν ἐκκομιδ̄η` ν ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´ νη̄ν; | and 1.1.12, 8.1.14). That is not accident, as is shown by the fresh rhetorical question (| ποῖοϲ . . . ), which follows only here. Even | το̄υ ̑ δῐκᾱϲτη̄ρ̆ι´ οῡ; | is weighty, and there is point in its ̑ ̆ τ̄ο` ϲχ̄ημ ̑ ᾱ |: the court is a climactic place in separation from | ἐκε̄ ι νο the narrative (cf. 5.4.13, 5.5.2, 3, 7, all with δικαϲτηρι- reinforced by rhythm), and it has been described in its royal grandeur by the author, with generalized presents (5.4.5–6). But it is the condition produced by these events and by love which defy description (cf. 5.5.7 ἄπιθι εἰϲ τὸ βαϲιλέ ̄ωϲ δῐκᾱϲτ̄η´ ρῐ̄ον | ὡϲ ἱερ̆ο` ν Ἀ̆ φρο̆δ̄ ι´ τη̄ϲ, |).

276

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

| ποῖοϲ ποιητ̄η` ϲ ε̆᾿ π̄`ι ϲκη̄ν̄ηϲ̑ | παράδοξον μῦθον ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ωϲ ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̄η´ γᾰγ̄εν; | ̑ ἔδοξαϲ ἂν ἐν θεάτρ ̄ωι πᾰρε̄ ι ναῑ | μυρί ̄ων πᾰθ ̄ω̑ν πλ̄η´ ρεῑ· |: Heliodorus had providence painting or managing the scene (10.38.3, ch. 20); Chariton begins by differentiating this moment from drama. ποιητ̄η` ϲ and ϲκη̄ν̄ηϲ̑ | are brought together into one rhythmic phrase; the phrase both implies the truth of Chariton’s story and exalts his work above poetry (one could, however, think of the Alcestis . . . ). | παράδοξον is stressed by beginning the new phrase and by the separation from ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ωϲ; rhythmic prose is well calculated to emphasize the surprising, which is so important a value for Chariton. The notable word-order would make an overlapping close worth considering, if we allowed ourselves an overlap of two syllables (μ̄υ θ̑ ο̆ν ο̄υ῞ τ ̄ωϲ | ε̄ ᾿ι ϲ̄η´ γᾰγ̄εν; |). ̆ of theatricality then shifts somewhat, but does not disturb The use syntax or logic as Heliodorus’ shifts did. The analogy with drama is now approached through emphasizing the closeness rather than the superiority of this event; but the argument retains the essential ideas of drama and the event having a powerful impact on those who see them. θεάτρ ̄ωι gains emphasis from rhythm, although less than ϲκη̄ν̄ηϲ̑ |; but the real weight falls on the adjectival clause which says more about it, | μυρί ̄ων πᾰθ ̄ω̑ν πλ̄η´ ρεῑ· |. The emotions and expressions of emotion are bound up with the sudden surprise of the event. Their multiplicity is not, as at 6.6.1 μυρί ̄ων πᾰθ̄ω̑ν μ̄εϲτ̄ο´ ϲ, | and 8.5.8 |h μυρίων παθ̄ω̑ν ε̆᾿ πλη̄ρο̄υ τ̑ ̄ο· |, due to the confused feelings of one person (cf. uno in corde at Virg. Aen. 12.666–8). It comes from the varying reactions of a crowd (cf. 3.4.1, 3.5.3, 8.4.1) to the contrasting feelings of different principals. A sophisticated perception of theatre is implied. | π̄α´ ντᾰ ῏̄ην ο̆῾ μο̄υ ,̑ |h δάκρυα, χαρά, θ̄α´ μβο̆ϲ, ῎ε̆ λ̆ε ̄οϲ, | ἀπῑϲτ̆ι´ ᾱ, ε̄υ᾿ χᾱι´ . |h: after the mention of theatre, a new genre enters the mix as Thucydides is evoked. The passage 7.71.5 was cited in ch. 20 on Heliod. 10.38.4, but is repeated here for convenience: ἦν τε ἐν τῶι αὐτῶι ϲτρατεύματι τῶν Ἀθηναίων, ἕωϲ ἀγχώμαλα ἐναυμάχουν, πάντα ὁμοῦ ἀκοῦϲαι, ὀλοφυρμὸϲ βοή, νικῶντεϲ κρατούμενοι, ἄλλα ὅϲα ἐν μεγάλωι κινδύνωι μέγα ϲτρατόπεδον πολυειδῆ ἀναγκάζοιτο φθέγγεϲθαι. Heliodorus, as we saw, keeps Thucydides’ idea of opposites, but in an involved and extended structure. Chariton only slightly extends the compression of Thucydides’ quartet (ὀλοφυρμὸϲ βοή, νικῶντεϲ κρατούμενοι,), but somewhat mixes the idea of opposites to convey confused variety. Contrasts are implicit in | δάκρυα, χαρά,

Chaereas Lives

277

and | ἀπῑϲτ̆ι´ ᾱ, ε̄υ᾿ χᾱι´ . |h. The rhythmic form shapes the sequence, but not into three rhythmic pairs. The departures from neatness seem expressive and themselves stylized, as is indicated by the recurrence of similar departures in similar passages: 1.9.3 | τὴν Καλλιρόην κατελάμβᾰν̆εν ο̆῾ μο̄υ ̑ π̄α´ ντᾱ |, φόβ̄οϲ, χᾰρ̄α´ , λ̄υ´πη, | θαυμαϲμόϲ, ἐλπίϲ, ἀπιϲτία, 3.4.1 (response to report of παράδ̄οξᾰ κᾱ`ι καῑν̄α´ . |) | καὶ ἦν ὁμο̄υ ̑ π̆α´ θη̄ ποῑκ̆ι´λᾱ | κλαιόντων, θαυμαζόντων, πυνθανομένω ̄ ν, ᾰ᾿ πῑϲτο̄υ´ντ ̄ων·|, 3.5.3 καὶ ἦϲαν ὁμο̄υ ̑ δ̆α´ κρῠᾰ, ε̄υ᾿ χᾱι´ |h [Jackson: εὐ. δ. F], ϲτενᾱγμο̄ ι´ , πᾰρᾰμῡθ̆ι´ᾱ, | φόβοϲ, θάρϲοϲ, ἀπόγν ̄ωϲῐϲ, ̄ ε᾿ λπ̄ ι´ ϲ. | 8.4.1 | τίϲ ἂν φράϲηι τὴν ἡμέρᾱν ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι´ νη̄ν | πόϲαϲ ̄ ῎ε ϲχ̆ε πρ̄α´ ξεῑϲ, | πῶϲ ἀλλήλαῑϲ δῐᾰφ̆ο´ροῡϲ, | εὐχομένων, ϲυνταϲϲομένων, χαιρ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, λῡποῡμ̆ε´ ν ̄ων, | ἀλλήλοιϲ ἐντολ̄α` ϲ δῐδ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων, | τοῖϲ οἴκοῑ γρᾰφ̄ο´ ντ ̄ων; |. As for | ἀπῑϲτ̆ι´ ᾱ, ε̄υ᾿ χᾱι´ . |h, the hiatus of a long vowel in a rhythmic close is unusual, and likely to be connected with the asyndeton: cf. Reeve (1971), 518, 522, 526, 529. In the passages above, 3.4.1, 3.5.3, and 8.4.1 indicate that rhythm is not simply suspended for such asyndetic strings. 3. |h Χαιρέᾱν ε̆᾿ μᾰκ̆α´ ρῑζ̄ον, | Μιθριδάτηι ϲυνέχαιρον, ϲυνελυπο̄υ ν̑ το̆ Δῐο̆νῡϲ̆ι´ ̄ωι, | περὶ Κᾱλλῐρ̆ο´η̄ϲ η̄ ᾿ π̆ο´ ροῡν. |: asyndeton continues, but there is now an elegant set of four. The second and third elements are ̑ ̆ , in chiasmus, and joined by the contrasting ϲυνέχαιρον, ϲυνελυπο̄υντο the fourth offers the neat surprise of a reaction which cannot be shared because it is unknown. (Plut. Brut. 29.3, in ch. 9, offers a more fleeting surprise in the fourth of a foursome.) The names are set into relief by the rhythmic shaping. The reader here considers the diverse feelings shared with characters seen at the same time on stage, as it were; two speaking and two unspeaking (as yet) seems not too remote from drama. Cf. the different emotions of characters, for example, in the scene from Menander’s Perikeiromene on the mosaic from Daphne (iii AD), Gutzwiller and Çelik (2012), 581–90. The writing neatly displays the intricacy of Chariton’s own narrative, with its diverse sympathies. This crispness can be set against the purposefully obscure plural people in Heliod. 10.38.4. Κᾱλλῐρ̆ο´ η̄ is shown as the spelling and scansion by e.g. Hes. Theog. 280, IG 7.2522.2 (Thebes); there is virtually no ancient evidence for Καλλιρρόη, the spelling of F, but not of the papyri (so P. Oxy. VII 1019 [+2948] [ii AD] col. i 11, 25, ii 4 [32]). | μάλιϲτα γὰρ ἦν ἐκείνη̄ τ̆εθο̆ρῠβη̄μ̆ε´ νη̄ | καὶ ἄναῡδο̆ϲ ε̄ ῾ιϲτ̄η´ κεῑ, | μόνον ἀναπεπταμένοιϲ τοῖϲ ὀφθαλμοῖϲ εἰϲ Χαιρέαν ἀπ̄οβλ̆ε´ ποῡϲᾱ· |: after so much brevity and asyndeton, the prose luxuriates a little, as it

278

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

elaborates on the female lover. Rhythmic closes are put close together in presenting a condition that might puzzle the reader too, especially after Callirhoe’s earlier urge to run towards Chaereas (1). A looser clause (| μόνον κτλ.) displays her rapt passion for him, and ends in the devoted gaze ἀπ̄οβλ̆ε´ ποῡϲᾱ· |, which the rhythm accentuates. | μόνον marks the change in the shape of the sentence. | δοκεῖ δ’ ἄν μοι κᾱ`ι βᾰϲῐλε̄υ` ϲ τ̆ο´ τ̆ε θ̆ε´ λεῑν | Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ ε̄῏ι ναῑ. |: even Callirhoe’s emotions can be divined; but the narrator goes beyond the characters displayed in his theatrical scene to surmise, with arch mock-caution, the feelings of the king himself. His sentiments have not been mysterious to the reader: cf. 4.6.7, 5.5.4. The sudden reserve leads into a paradoxical point which brings the sequence to a climax. After all the occurrences of Chaereas’ name in this passage, including Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄ο´ ϲ. | and ῾Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱ, ζ̄ηι̑ ϲ;᾿ |, he now appears in a selfcontained rhythmic phrase as the person the Great King would wish to be. (The simple ε̄῏ιναῑ. | is full of force; contrast Ach. Tat. 6.17.2 γενέϲθαι Κλειτοφῶν, and compare Hadrian’s line ego nolo Florus esse in rejoinder to Florus’ ego nolo Caesar esse, Courtney [1993], 375–6.) The king of Persia is at an extreme of good fortune, cf. e.g. Hor. C. 3.9.4 Persarum uigui rege beatior; in this work, there is a great arch between the rhythmical utterances 3.1.8 (Dionysius, on having a child from Callirhoe) τότε μακαρι ̄ω´ τ̆ερ̄οϲ δ̄ο´ ξ ̄ω | τοῦ μεγάλοῡ βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ. |, this passage, and 8.5.7 (king speaking) ῾μᾰκ̆α´ ρῐ̄οϲ Χαῑρ̆ε´ ᾱϲ, | ε̄υ᾿ τῠχ̄ ε´ ϲτ̆ερο̆ϲ ε̆᾿ μο̄υ .̑ ᾿ | Rhythm is integral to the work’s local and large designs. The sharpness of the passage, which is bound up with the rhythm, and the network of large verbal links, which rhythm supports, make it a different experience for the reader from the passage of Heliodorus. Both climactic passages present complications of emotion; but the Heliodorus, although elegant and full of antitheses, does not seek the same continual assaults and surprises as the Chariton. The Heliodorus flows more richly, and retains an air of obliqueness and mystery.

22 The King of Persia is Put in His Place (Chariton 8.5.5–7) 5. | ἡ δ̄`ε Cτ̆α´ τεῑρᾱ | προελθο̄υ ϲ̑ ᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ ϲκη̄ν̄ηϲ̑ | ἔδεῑξ̆εν ᾱυ῾ τ̄η´ ν. | εὐθὺϲ οὖν τ̆`α ο῞̆ πλᾰ ῥι´ ψᾱντεϲ |h προ̆ϲ̆εκ ̆υ´νη̄ϲᾱν· | ὁ δὲ βαϲιλεὺϲ ο̄υ᾿ κᾰτ̄ ε´ ϲχ̄εν, | ἀλλὰ πρὶν καλῶϲ τὴν νᾱυ ν̑ κᾰτᾱχθ̄ην̑ αῑ | πρῶτοϲ εἰϲεπήδη̄ϲ̆εν ε̄ ᾿ιϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄η´ ν, | περιχυθεὶϲ ̑ |h καὶ εἶπε ῾τίϲ ἄρα μοι θεῶν δὲ τ̄ηι̑ γῠναῑκ̄`ι | ἐκ τῆϲ χαρᾶϲ δάκρῠᾰ α᾿̆ φηκε ἀποδέδωκ̆ε´ ϲ̆ε, γ ̆υ´ναῑ φῑλτ̆α´ τη̄; | ἀμφότερᾰ γ̆α` ρ α῎̆ πῑϲτᾱ, | καὶ ἀπολέϲθαῑ βᾰϲῐλ̆ι´δᾱ | και` α᾿̆ πο̆λο̆μ̆ε´ νην |h ε̄υ῾ ρ̆εθ̄ην̑ αῑ. | 6. πῶϲ δέ ϲε εἰϲ γ̄ην̑ κᾰτᾰλῐπ ̄ω` ν | ἐκ θαλ̄α´ ϲϲη̄ϲ ᾰ᾿ πο̆λᾱμβ̆α´ ν̄ω;᾿ | Cτάτεῑρᾰ δ̆`ε α᾿̆ π̆ε κρι´ νᾰτο |h ῾ δῶρον ἔχειϲ μ̆ε πᾰρ̆α` Κᾱλλῐρ̆ο´ η̄ϲ.᾿ | ἀκούϲαϲ δὲ τὸ ο῎̆ νο̆μᾰ βᾰϲῐλευ` ϲ |h ὡϲ ἐπὶ τρᾱυ´μᾰτῐ πᾰλαῑ ̄ω̑ι | πληγ̄η` ν ῎ε̆ λᾰβ̆ε καῑν̄η´ ν· | βλέψαϲ δὲ εἰϲ Ἀρταξάτη̄ν τ̆ο` ν ε̄υ᾿ νο̄υ χ̑ ̄ον | ῾ἄγε με᾿ φηϲὶ ῾πρὸϲ Καλλιρόην, ἵνα αὐτ̄ηι̑ χ̆α´ ρῑν γν ̄ω.̑ ᾿ | 7. εἶπεν η̄ ῾ Cτ̆α´ τεῑρᾱ | ῾μαθήϲηι π̄α´ ντᾰ πᾰρ’ ε̆᾿ μο̄υ ,̑ ᾿ | ἅμα δὲ προήιεϲαν ἐκ τοῦ λιμένοϲ ε̄ ᾿ιϲ τ̆α` βᾰϲ̆ι´λεῑᾱ. | Stateira came in front of the tent on deck and showed herself. In an instant, everyone threw their weapons away and fell down in obeisance. The king did not restrain himself: before the ship had landed properly, he leapt on to it ahead of anyone else. He embraced his wife, shed tears of joy, and said, ‘So what god has returned you to me, dearest wife? Both things were unbelievable: that a queen should be lost, and that once she had been lost she should be found. And how is it that I left you on land, but get you back from the sea?’ Stateira answered, ‘You have me as a gift from Callirhoe.’ Hearing that name, the king as it were received a new blow on top of an old wound. He looked at Artaxates the eunuch and said, ‘Take me to Callirhoe, so that I can thank her.’ ‘You will learn the whole story from me’, said Stateira; as she spoke they started to go forward from the harbour to the palace.

This next passage shows a scene of reunion and the complications of one man’s feelings. It will be interesting to set beside the passage of Heliodorus that follows (ch. 23), and has some link with the passage of Heliodorus that we have been looking at (ch. 20). Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

280

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

The king on campaign had left his wife Stateira and Callirhoe on the small island of Arados (7.4.13); he thinks his wife has been killed (8.5.2), but what look like enemy ships in fact restore her to him. This is the doing of Chaereas, at the instigation of Callirhoe. Stateira had suspected the king’s passion for Callirhoe (6.1.6–7); but the two women have become close (7.6.7, 8.3.7, 8.3.14, etc.), and Callirhoe has now departed with Chaereas. Artaxerxes II was a well-known figure to Greeks, and Stateira, his wife in Deinon (FGrHist 690 F 15) and Ctesias (688 F 15.55), appears as a popular and accessible queen in Plutarch (Artox. 5.6—both spellings are ancient, cf. IG 12.5.444 A 89 for Arto-, which is adopted for Plutarch from Ziegler) 5. | ἡ δ̄`ε Cτ̆α´ τεῑρᾱ | προελθο̄υϲ̑ ᾰ τ̄ηϲ̑ ϲκη̄ν̄ηϲ̑ | ἔδεῑξ̆ε ν ᾱυ῾ τ̄η´ ν. |: the scansion of the queen’s name is not certain. But it appears pretty often at what would be rhythmic closes if the first syllable were short (so 8.3.3, 6, 13), and no counter-argument can be drawn from 8.5.2, even if Cobet’s Cτάτειραν πρόφαϲιν is correct: Chariton, in inserting his own character’s name into Homer’s verse (Il. 19.302), would cheerfully ignore poetic rhythm: cf. 7.3.5 νῶϊ δ᾿, ἐγὼ Πολύχαρμόϲ τε, μαχηϲόμεθα (Cθένελόϲ τε Il. 9.48). In this context, the name carries more force than might be expected. At the end of the preceding sentence she was τ̄ηι̑ βᾰϲῐλ̆ι´δῑ. |; the tent, separated by the rhythm, is royal (βᾰϲῐλῐκ̄η´ ν, |, 8.4.7), and the ship is thought by the Persians to be royal but not Persian (8.5.3–4). Yet the royal figure that emerges is the king’s Stateira and the Persian soldiers’ queen. The rhythmic phrase of revelation | ἔδεῑξ̆ε ν ᾱυ῾ τ̄η´ ν. | is effectively delayed, on the tiny scale of Chariton’s sentences, by the rhythmic phrase before; thanks to rhythm, much is packed into a short and simple sequence. ` ο῞̆ πλᾰ ῥ̄ι´ ψᾱντ̄εϲ |h προ̆ϲ̆εκ ̆υ´νη̄ϲᾱν· |: the phrases are | εὐθὺϲ οὖν τ̆α marked out with some humour. The throwing away of arms is caused not, as would be usual, by fear of the enemy in battle, but by respect and fear for their queen. The standard Persian obeisance, which here has a rhythmic phrase to itself, looks back in this context to the first scene in which the queen appeared (5.3.3 | προϲεκύνηϲαν πᾶϲαι τ̄η` ν βᾰϲῐλ̆ι´δᾱ |). The soldiers’ response, and their conception of Stateira, is contrasted with the king’s. | ὁ δὲ βαϲιλεὺϲ ο̄υ᾿ κᾰτ̄ ε´ ϲχ̄εν, | ἀλλὰ πρὶν καλῶϲ τὴν νᾱυ ν̑ κᾰτᾱχθ̄ην̑ αῑ | πρῶτοϲ εἰϲεπήδη̄ϲ̆εν ε̄ ᾿ιϲ ᾱυ᾿ τ̄η´ ν, | περιχυθεὶϲ δὲ τ̄ηι̑ γῠναῑκ̄`ι | ἐκ τῆϲ χαρᾶϲ δάκρῠᾰ α᾿̆ φ̄η ̑κε̄ |h: after the proper proskynesis, the first rhythmic phrase conjoins the king with a lack of restraint. He has been | βαϲιλεὺϲ . . . ὁ μέγαϲ at the start of this section of narrative (8.5.1); the

The King of Persia is Put in His Place

281

article, so often omitted for the Persian king in this work, makes something of a link with τ̄ηι̑ βᾰϲῐλ̆ι´δῑ. | at the end of the last sentence but one. | (ἀλλὰ πρὶν) καλῶϲ comes next after κᾰτ̄ ε´ ϲχ̄εν, | at the rhythmic boundary; the juxtaposition reinforces the king’s indifference to due procedure. κᾰτᾱχθ̄ην̑ αῑ |, the ship’s careful movement in reaching land, is opposed with the help of rhythm to the king’s impulsive movement in leaping on to it. | πρῶτοϲ, given further stress by beginning a rhythmic phrase, marks how the king should at the least be preceded by attendants, and not jumping aboard like a common sailor. | περιχυθεὶϲ δὲ τ̄ηι̑ γῠναῑκ̄`ι | joins the embrace and the wife in a powerful phrase; she is designated through his eyes in their marital relationship, not as a royal person. | περιχυθείϲ, a strong word, looks to its only other occurrence in the novel, the recognition and reunion of the lovers at the start of this book: 8.1.8 | περιχυθέντ̄εϲ δ̆`ε ᾱ᾿ λλ̄η´ λοῑϲ |h. Joy and tears are paradoxically brought together in a single rhythmic phrase | ἐκ τῆϲ χαρᾶϲ δάκρῠᾰ α᾿̆ φ̄ηκ̑ ε̄ |h (cf. also | δάκρυα, χαρά in 5.8.2, ch. 21): Heliodorus’ γελώντων ἅμα τῶν κλαιόντων καὶ χαιρόντων τῶν θρηνούντων, (10.38.4, ch. 20) was more complicated and inscrutable, the language less familiar (cf. with Chariton e.g. Plut. Ages. 33.8 | δακρύ ̄ων ῠ῾ π̆ο` χᾰρ̄α ϲ̑ |, a little less paradoxical). The moment connects especially, with the help of rhythm, to 8.6.8: Callirhoe has been disclosed in a tent on board ship very like Stateira’s to ̑ ̆ μ̆ετ̆α` her parents who thought her dead, and | δάκρυα πᾶϲιν ἐχε̄ ιτο ̑ χᾰρ̄αϲ. |. But a king has more dignity to lose in public tears. |h καὶ εἶπε ῾τίϲ ἄρα μοι θεῶν ἀποδέδωκ̆ε´ ϲ̆ε, γ̆υ´ ναῑ φῑλτ̆α´ τη̄; |: his affectionate phrase in the rhythmic close advances on the narrator’s τ̄ηι̑ γῠναῑκ̄ ι´ |. But the superlative will also acquire irony from the interest he will show in Callirhoe; this will be further taken up at 8.5.8 ̄ω᾿ ργ̄ ι´ ζ̆ετ̄ο | διὰ τὴν ἅλ ̄ωϲῑν τ ̄ω̑ν φῑλτ̆α´ των |. | ἀμφότερᾰ γ̆α` ρ α῎̆ πῑϲτᾱ, | καὶ ἀπολέϲθαῑ βᾰϲῐλ̆ι´δᾱ | κᾱ`ι α᾿̆ πο̆λο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ν |h ε̄υ῾ ρ̆εθ̄ην̑ αῑ. |: the γάρ shows why a god must be involved—the events are so strange; the utterance moves from affection to paradox. | ἀμφότερᾰ in the initial phrase prepares the structure of the paradox. The next phrase gives the first wonder, and surprisingly conjoins | (καὶ) ἀπολέϲθαῑ with βᾰϲῐλ̆ι´δᾱ |; the article is not omitted by Chariton to denote the Persian queen, so the omission shows the generalizing oddity of a queen being mislaid. The second wonder, going beyond the first, is split into two rhythmic entities to highlight ε̄υ῾ ρ̆εθ̄ην̑ αῑ. |. The surprises are recherché, and the second seems initially to clash

282

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

with the first (if it is unexpected that she should be lost, can it be unexpected that she should be found?). This is stylistically in a different world from Heliodorus’ solemn εὑριϲκόντων οὓϲ μὴ ἐζήτουν καὶ ἀπολλύντων οὓϲ εὑρηκέναι ἐδόκουν (10.38.4, ch. 20). 6. | πῶϲ δέ ϲε εἰϲ γ̄ην̑ κᾰτᾰλῐπ ̄ω` ν | ἐκ θαλ̄α´ ϲϲη̄ϲ ᾰ᾿ πο̆λᾱμβ̆α´ ν ̄ω;᾿ |: the next surprise is grandiose, and the rhythm neatly matches not only γ̄ην̑ and θαλ̄α´ ϲϲη̄ϲ but κᾰτᾰλῐπ ̄ω´ ν | and ᾰ᾿ πο̆λᾱμβ̆α´ ν ̄ω;᾿ | (̆α᾿ πο̆λᾱμβ̆α´ ν ̄ω;᾿ | also follows ἀποδέδωκ̆ε´ , ἀπολέϲθαῑ, and α᾿̆ πο̆λο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ν |h). Yet the surprise seems rarefied: if Stateira were to return from a small island, it would have to be by sea. The underlying idea is that Stateira could normally move from Arados only if fetched by the king (cf. 8.5.1)—rather like Cornelia having to be collected from Lesbos by Pompey (ch. 16). | Cτάτεῑρᾰ δ̆`ε α᾿̆ π̆εκρ̄ι´ νᾰτ̄ο |h ῾δῶρον ἔχειϲ μ̆ε πᾰρ̆α` Κᾱλλῐρ̆ο´ η̄ϲ.᾿ |: the two names ring the sentence, and rhythm adds impact to the unexpected name at the end. Within the second phrase, the queen is strangely made into a gift, and a gift from a mere Greek woman (the king had sent her presents, 5.9.7). | δῶρον takes up ἀποδέδωκ̆ε´ (5), in a sort of answer to the king’s opening question. The sequence develops Chaereas’ letter, not yet read by the king: 8.4.2–3 | οὗτόϲ [i.e. ̑ τ̄η` ν ε̆᾿ μ̄η´ ν, | ̄α᾿ λλ̆α` κᾱ`ι πόλεμοϲ] μοῑ α᾿̆ πο̆δ̆ε´ δωκ̄ ̄ εν |h οὐ μόνον τὴν γυνᾱ ι κᾰ τ̄η` ν ϲ̄η´ ν. | . . . ϲοι . . . Cτάτειραν ᾰ᾿ πο̆δ̆ι´δ ̄ωμῑ | . . . ἴϲθι δὲ οὐκ ἐμέ ϲοῑ τ̆ο` δ ̄ωρ̑ ̄ον | ἀλλὰ Καλλιρόη̄ν ᾰ᾿ π̄οϲτ̄ ε´ λλεῑν. | The cool enigma of Stateira’s brief answer, with no gushing address, enhances the contrast between the dramatic characters. | ἀκούϲαϲ δὲ τὸ ο῎̆ νο̆μᾰ βᾰϲῐλε̄υ` ϲ |h ὡϲ ἐπὶ τρᾱυ´μᾰτῐ πᾰλαῑ ̄ω̑ι | πληγ̄η` ν ῎ε̆ λᾰβ̆ε καῑν̄η´ ν· |: the potent name and the king are joined in a phrase, and a run of short syllables. At 6.7.5, Artaxates (who comes in the present sentence) observes to Callirhoe that the queen herself was awed ἀκούϲαϲα τὸ βᾰϲῐλ̆ε´ ̄ωϲ ο῎̆ νο̆μᾱ |; cf. also 7.6.6 on τὴν ἔμφυτον θρήϲκεῑᾱν τ ̄ω̑ν βᾱρβ̆α´ ρ ̄ων | πρὸϲ τὸ ὄνομᾰ τ̆ο` βᾰϲῐλῐκ̄ο´ ν | (hearing that Stateira is the queen). But on the king of Persia himself, another name has a powerful impact. That impact is conveyed through two phrases with the same rhythm to close ( ̆ ̆ ̆ ), with contrasting adjectives to close, πᾰλαῑ ̄ω̑ι | and καῑν̄η´ ν· |, and with parallel nouns first in the rhythmic phrase (prepositives apart). The king’s present and past experience are the same, as the near resemblances bring out. But the fresh blow is all the more painful: the imagery has more gravity than at Ov. Rem. 729–30 admonitu refricatur amor, uulnusque nouatum | scinditur. It is made the more telling by the fighting just averted (8.5.4–5).

The King of Persia is Put in His Place

283

| βλέψαϲ δὲ εἰϲ Ἀρταξάτη̄ν τ̆ο` ν ε̄υ᾿ νο̄υχ̑ ̄ον | ῾ ἄγε με᾿ φηϲὶ ῾ πρὸϲ Καλλιρόην, ἵνα αὐτ̄ηι̑ χ̆α´ ρῑν γν̄ω̑.᾿ |: ‘Artaxates the eunuch’ has recurred through the work (this phrase 5.2.2, 2.6 [rhythmic close], 3.10 [rhythmic close], 6.2.2 [the name last; rhythmic if the penultimate syllable is short]); he has been the king’s confidant and go-between. Here the king, less dashingly than in his leap aboard, gives the initial position in movement to Artaxates: cf. | ῾ ἄγε με᾿ with | πρῶτοϲ (nor does he bid the eunuch bring Callirhoe to him). His utterance here is not tightly rhythmic. 7. | εἶπεν η̄ ῾ Cτ̆α´ τεῑρᾱ | ῾μαθήϲηι π̄α´ ντᾰ πᾰρ’ ε̆᾿ μο̄υ ,̑ ᾿ |: the contact of look and word with the queen has been broken, but Stateira, not Artaxates, replies and takes control; Cτ̆α´ τεῑρᾱ | matches Ἀρταξάτη̄ν τ̆ο` ν ε̄υ᾿ νο̄υχ̑ ̄ον | (6). But her name and πᾰρ’ ε̆᾿ μο̄υ ,̑ | also supersede the name of Callirhoe (πᾰρ̆α` Κᾱλλῐρ̆ο´ η̄ϲ.᾿ |, 6). Stateira’s simple-sounding interruption of the king’s simple-sounding wishes without comment delicately establishes the new situation (cf. ἡϲυχ̄η ̑ of her giving Callirhoe’s letter to Callirhoe’s ex-husband, 8.5.12). At the end of her narrative (summarized) and the king’s emotional reading of Chaereas’ letter, she will nicely urge him to console Dionysius because | τοῦτο . . . ϲε παρακαλεῖ Καλλιρόη.᾿ (8.5.9). There she all but acknowledges his passion for Callirhoe, as well as their common debt to her. | ἅμα δὲ προήιεϲαν ἐκ τοῦ λιμένοϲ ε̄ ᾿ιϲ τ̆α` βᾰϲ̆ι´λεῑᾱ. |: the simultaneous action quietly expresses the resumption of their shared life. Cf. | ἅμα with | ῾ ἄγε (6) and | πρῶτοϲ (5): they all gain some emphasis from their position. The rhythmic looseness in the present sentence is apt to its low key; but τ̆α` βᾰϲ̆ι´λεῑᾱ. | carries force at the end: the palace is the proper place for personal matters, unlike the harbour, and the home of the king and queen. Rhythm is a fundamental element in this further narrative climax. Partly it gives heightened meaning to even the plainest-seeming narrative; partly it intensifies the pointed paradox which everywhere underlies the narrative and surfaces most ostentatiously in the king’s speech; and partly it enables the complicated feelings of the king and the subtle behaviour of the queen to be registered with incisive brevity and with the loading of ordinary words.

23 A Father Struggles (Heliodorus 10.16.1–2) 1. οὐκέτι κατεῖχεν ἡ Περϲίννα, ἀλλ’ ἀθρόον τε ἀνήλατο τοῦ θρόνου καὶ προϲδραμοῦϲα περιέβαλέ τε καὶ περιφῦϲα ἐδάκρυέ τε καὶ πρὸϲ τὸ ἀκατάϲχετον τῆϲ χαρᾶϲ μυκηθμῶι τινι προϲεοικὸϲ ἀνωρύετο (ὑπερβολὴ γὰρ ἡδονῆϲ καὶ θρῆνόν ποτε ἀποτίκτειν φιλεῖ), μικροῦ τε ἔδει ϲυγκατενεχθῆναι τῆι Χαρικλείαι. 2. ὁ δὲ Ὑδάϲπηϲ ἠλέει μὲν τὴν γυναῖκα ὀδυρομένην ὁρῶν καὶ εἰϲ ϲυμπάθειαν ἐκάμπτετο τὴν διάνοιαν, τὸ ὄμμα δὲ οἱονεὶ κέραϲ ἢ ϲίδηρον εἰϲ τὰ ὁρώμενα τείναϲ, εἱϲτήκει πρὸϲ τὰϲ ὠδῖναϲ τῶν δακρύων ἀπομαχόμενοϲ· καὶ τῆϲ ψυχῆϲ αὐτῶι πατρικῶι τῶι πάθει καὶ ἀνδρείωι τῶι λήματι κυματουμένηϲ καὶ τῆϲ γνώμηϲ ὑπ’ ἀμφοτέρων ϲταϲιαζομένηϲ καὶ πρὸϲ ἑκατέρου καθάπερ ὑπὸ ϲάλου μεταϲπωμένηϲ, τελευτῶν ἡττήθη τῆϲ τὰ πάντα νικώϲηϲ φύϲεωϲ καὶ πατὴρ οὐκ εἶναι μόνον ἐπείθετο ἀλλὰ καὶ πάϲχειν ὅϲα πατὴρ ἠλέγχετο· καὶ τὴν Περϲίνναν ϲυγκατενεχθεῖϲαν τῆι θυγατρὶ καὶ ϲυμπεπλεγμένην ἀνεγείρων οὐκ ἔλαθε καὶ τὴν Χαρίκλειαν ἐναγκαλιζόμενοϲ καὶ δακρύων ἐπιρροῆι πατρικὰ πρὸϲ αὐτὴν ϲπενδόμενοϲ. Persinna could restrain herself no longer: all at once she leapt from her throne, ran to Charicleia, and embraced her. In clinging to her, she wept, and, in the unstoppable quality of her joy, she roared in a way that was like a bellowing (the extreme of pleasure is sometimes liable to beget even a lament). She almost fell down together with Charicleia. Hydaspes felt pity as he saw his wife lamenting, and was being bent towards sharing her emotions in his mind; but he fixed his eyes like horn or iron on what he was seeing, and stood there fighting off the birth pangs of tears. His soul was tossed about between his emotion, which was fatherly, and his spirit, which was manly; his mind was thrown into tumult by both of these, and was dragged in the opposite direction by either singly as by a swelling sea. In the end he was overcome by Nature, which conquers everything; he was not only convinced that he was a father, but he was proved to be subject to the feelings of a father. As he lifted Persinna up, who had fallen down with her daughter and was wound in an embrace with her, he could also be detected taking Charicleia in his arms and, in a flood of tears, making a fatherly libation of concord with her. Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

286

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

We return now to an earlier moment in Heliodorus’ very grand finale. Charicleia’s identity has just been revealed to her parents, as she is about to become a human sacrifice; her father, however, the king of the Ethiopians, will, despite the recognition, persist (for the time being) in his purpose of sacrificing her. He fights his tears, unlike the Persian king, and the fight presages a much more elevated emotional conflict between fatherhood and patriotism than the Persian king’s awkward combination of love for his wife with revived love for Callirhoe. Callirhoe’s and Chaereas’ fathers are less inhibited on finding their children alive (Charit. 8.6.8, 10). For endings that could not be rhythmic, note especially ἡ Περϲίννα,, καὶ περιφῦϲα [cf. ἐδάκρυέ τε], τῆι Χαρικλείαι., τὴν διάνοιαν,, ὁρώμενα τείναϲ,, ϲταϲιαζομένηϲ, νικώϲηϲ φύϲεωϲ, ϲυμπεπλεγμένην ἀνεγείρων, αὐτὴν ϲπενδόμενοϲ. 1. οὐκέτι κατεῖχεν ἡ Περϲίννα, ἀλλ’ ἀθρόον τε ἀνήλατο τοῦ θρόνου καὶ προϲδραμοῦϲα περιέβαλέ τε καὶ περιφῦϲα ἐδάκρυέ τε καὶ πρὸϲ τὸ ἀκατάϲχετον τῆϲ χαρᾶϲ μυκηθμῶι τινι προϲεοικὸϲ ἀνωρύετο (ὑπερβολὴ γὰρ ἡδονῆϲ καὶ θρῆνόν ποτε ἀποτίκτειν φιλεῖ), μικροῦ τε ἔδει ϲυγκατενεχθῆναι τῆι Χαρικλείαι.: the sentence has a complicated design and effect. Its impetus and alteration are not like the subdivided sentences of rhythmic prose. The τε . . . τε after ἀθρόον and μικροῦ joins an accumulation of actions which powerfully express emotion (ἀνήλατο etc.) to a final extreme (ϲυγκατενεχθῆναι) which verges on the humorous, as μικροῦ . . . ἔδει brings out. (In 2 Persinna actually has fallen down with Charicleia.) There are many almost playful elements in this great final scene. The accumulation is shown by a τε . . . καί within a τε . . . καί within a τε . . . τε, by περιφῦϲα taking up and varying περιέβαλε, and by τὸ ἀκατάϲχετον taking up and intellectualizing οὐκέτι κατεῖχεν. Language presses to a far point with the animalistic μυκηθμῶι and the animalistic or uncivilized ἀνωρύετο (but the stem is used at Mel. CXXV.5 Gow-Page of mourning parents). Here Persinna’s defiance of civilized norms is moving, but the animalism will contrast hierarchically with Hydaspes’ manly restraint. Between the two syntactic structures comes a cool psychologizing aside (ὑπερβολὴ κτλ.), expressed in more ordinary language, but threading in a metaphorical verb of maternity (ἀποτίκτειν). The first phrase οὐκέτι κατεῖχεν ἡ Περϲίννα is similar to | ὁ δὲ βαϲιλεὺϲ ο̄υ᾿ κᾰτ̄ ε´ ϲχ̄εν, | in Charit. 8.5.5 (ch. 22). There will be a contrast in the present passage between the mother (cf. 9.24.8) and

A Father Struggles

287

the father, as there was a contrast between the king and his subjects; but the mother’s behaviour is less surprising, and Heliodorus’ phrase does not have the same compacted paradox as Chariton’s. Heliodorus’ phrase comes earlier too, at 8.5.1 οὐκέτι κατέϲχεν ἡ Ἀρϲάκη (she is in love); but the connection, if any, is remote—less pointed than the links that were mentioned in Chariton. There is more of a Chariton-style connection between ἀνήλατο τοῦ θρόνου and 9.25.1 ἀνήλατο πρὸϲ βραχὺ τοῦ θρόνου, where the king leaps only briefly from his throne at the sight of the lovers, and perhaps 10.32.3 οὐδὲ ὁ βαϲιλεὺϲ ἐκαρτέρηϲε ἀλλ’ ἀνήλατο τοῦ θρόνου, where he is impressed by Theagenes (the action was not new, cf. e.g. Charit. 8.5.4). The final phrase is close to 5.3.1 ὀλίγου μὲν ἐδέηϲε καὶ κατενεχθῆναι, but the difference of context and setting, and the absence there of ϲυν-, make the link less salient. 2. ὁ δὲ Ὑδάϲπηϲ ἠλέει μὲν τὴν γυναῖκα ὀδυρομένην ὁρῶν καὶ εἰϲ ϲυμπάθειαν ἐκάμπτετο τὴν διάνοιαν, τὸ ὄμμα δὲ οἱονεὶ κέραϲ ἢ ϲίδηρον εἰϲ τὰ ὁρώμενα τείναϲ, εἱϲτήκει πρὸϲ τὰϲ ὠδῖναϲ τῶν δακρύων ἀπομαχόμενοϲ·: the mix of language is now made more striking by the appearance of a conspicuous epic intertext. Penelope weeps for her husband, who is actually sitting next to her (Hom. Od. 19.209); Odysseus θυμῶι μὲν γοόωϲαν ἑὴν ἐλέαιρε γυναῖκα, | ὀφθαλμοὶ δ᾿ ὡϲ εἰ κέρα ἕϲταϲαν ἠὲ ϲίδηροϲ | ἀτρέμαϲ ἐν βλεφάροιϲι· δόλωι δ᾿ ὅ γε δάκρυα κεῦθεν (210–12). Chariton in Heliodorus’ position might actually have quoted; but Heliodorus combines language that sounds intrinsically Homeric (the pity at the tears, the horn or iron) with later and more intellectualized language (especially ϲυμπάθειαν; note the austere τὰ ὁρώμενα after τὴν γυναῖκα . . . ὁρῶν). He also proffers an un-Homeric richness of metaphor. In ὠδῖναϲ, ἀποτίκτειν (1) is taken up; the maternal and female suggestions contend with the virile suggestions of ἀπομαχόμενοϲ. The mixture of language accompanies a situation more complicated than Homer’s: the couple are thinking not just about each other but about Charicleia (joined to Persinna in an embrace and part of τὰ ὁρώμενα), and are in a supremely public setting. The many-layered language emerges in an unrhythmic flow: the phrases are not divided off but stream along copiously. It might be thought that there is a forcible contrast between τὴν διάνοιαν, and τὸ ὄμμα across the boundary of punctuation, somewhat as across a rhythmic boundary, but the force is less than appears: τὴν διάνοιαν is often appended in this way at the end of a clause (e.g. 7.12.1 βεβυθιϲμένοι τὴν διάνοιαν, Plut. Tim. 5.3 (ch. 5) ϲυνταραχθεὶϲ

288

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

τὴν διάνοιαν,, Pomp. 72.1 παράφρονι καὶ παραπλῆγι τὴν διάνοιαν,, Gal. Nat. Fac. 1.14 p. 139.18 Helmreich ἀϲύνετοί τε καὶ βραδεῖϲ τὴν διάνοιαν,). Heliodorus has actually avoided Homer’s emphatic opposition θυμῶι μέν . . . ὀφθαλμοὶ δ᾿. There is more of a contrast with τῆϲ ψυχῆϲ at the start of the next half-sentence. καὶ τῆϲ ψυχῆϲ αὐτῶι πατρικῶι τῶι πάθει καὶ ἀνδρείωι τῶι λήματι κυματουμένηϲ καὶ τῆϲ γνώμηϲ ὑπ’ ἀμφοτέρων ϲταϲιαζομένηϲ καὶ πρὸϲ ἑκατέρου καθάπερ ὑπὸ ϲάλου μεταϲπωμένηϲ, τελευτῶν ἡττήθη τῆϲ τὰ πάντα νικώϲηϲ φύϲεωϲ καὶ πατὴρ οὐκ εἶναι μόνον ἐπείθετο ἀλλὰ καὶ πάϲχειν ὅϲα πατὴρ ἠλέγχετο·: the neatness is here extreme, but with a smoothness and almost sing-song balance rooted in non-rhythmical traditions (cf. before Hegesias e.g. (for πατρικῶι τῶι πάθει καὶ ἀνδρείωι τῶι λήματι) Gorg. B 6.2 DK ἐκέκτηντο ἔνθεον μὲν τὴν ἀρετήν, ἀνθρώπινον δὲ τὸ θνητόν; (for the feminine middle participles) Isocr. Paneg. 185 τῆϲ ϲτρατιᾶϲ . . . ϲτρατηγουμένηϲ, . . . ἀθροιζομένηϲ, . . . ἐκπεμπομένηϲ, . . . πορευομένηϲ;). τῆϲ ψυχῆϲ is matched with τῆϲ γνώμηϲ, in a refined elaboration of the divided mind. Within the part on the ψυχή is the antithesis πατρικῶι τῶι πάθει καὶ ἀνδρείωι τῶι λήματι; within the part on the γνώμη, the elements of the antithesis are combined, from a different perspective, with ὑπ’ ἀμφοτέρων ϲταϲιαζομένηϲ and then separated again with πρὸϲ ἑκατέρου . . . μεταϲπωμένηϲ. The final mot has an elaboration, especially through the ‘rhyming’ ἐπείθετο and ἠλέγχετο, which one would not quite associate with the pointed declamatory style. (More like that style is 10.17.2 ῾ὁ τοῦ δήμου πατήρ, γίνου καὶ κατ᾿ οἶκον πατήρ.᾿.) Poetic models probably come in too; cf., whether a direct model or derivative from one, Ov. Met. 8.470–3 (Althaea torn between tears and dry eyes, between mens . . . materna [499] and duty to her brothers) utque carina | quam uentus uentoque rapit contrarius aestus | uim geminam sentit paretque incerta duobus, | Thestias haud aliter dubiis adfectibus errat. Heliodorus’ actual vocabulary here avoids marked poeticism. The later and less poetic κυματόω is chosen rather than κυμαίνω, shared between poetry and prose, and used by Plato of ψυχαί at Laws 11.930a3–4. The imagery of water seeps from the tears in the sentence before (1) to the feelings here to the tears to come (δακρύων ἐπιρροῆι). The warlike suggestion of ἀπομαχόμενοϲ continues with ἀνδρείωι, but that imagery passes to the advantage of parental love with ἡττήθη and νικώϲηϲ. The political dimension of the scene is lightly suggested in the ϲταϲιαζομένηϲ transferred to the mind; τὸ κλυδώνιον τοῦ δήμου

A Father Struggles

289

(10.16.3) will transfer the marine imagery to them. The narrator’s philosophical insertion on nature, τὰ πάντα νικώϲηϲ, takes up his earlier knowing parenthesis. (He settles an argument which runs between Charicleia at 10.12.3 and Hydaspes at 10.16.7.) The reader’s attention and scrutiny are thus exacted by other means than rhythm. καὶ τὴν Περϲίνναν ϲυγκατενεχθεῖϲαν τῆι θυγατρὶ καὶ ϲυμπεπλεγμένην ἀνεγείρων οὐκ ἔλαθε καὶ τὴν Χαρίκλειαν ἐναγκαλιζόμενοϲ καὶ δακρύων ἐπιρροῆι πατρικὰ πρὸϲ αὐτὴν ϲπενδόμενοϲ.: this part-sentence is shaped round the names τὴν Περϲίνναν and τὴν Χαρίκλειαν which begin the participial clauses; the point is marked explicitly by the καί before τὴν Χαρίκλειαν. The physical entanglement of the situation enables some sly paternalism from Hydaspes, observed by the slyer narrator. At last the tears emerge, but with a remarkable expression. What is remarkable is not the link between tears and a libation (cf. 2.23.1), but the extension of this into the military sphere, with the implication that in this flood of tears, Hydaspes is making a kind of peace or truce with his daughter. (There is no evidence for libations related to paternity, cf. J. R. Morgan [1978], ii.374.) The next sentence (10.16.3) marks the negation of this impulse on the level of action: οὐ μὴν εἰϲ τὸ παντελέϲ γε ἐξεκρούϲθη τῶν πρακτέων . . . The peculiar expression forms a kind of distortion of phrases like (τὰϲ) πατρίουϲ [‘ancestral’] ϲπονδάϲ (I.Priene 108 col. viii 334 [ii BC], IG ii2.1338.40 [i BC]). Both πάτριοϲ and πατρικόϲ have a wide range of meaning, but πατρικὰ here points to the singular πατήρ. The word πατήρ, which πατρικὰ takes up from the previous half-sentence, is variously exploited in the novel, and is a key word; here there is a play on endings which extends into 10.16.4–5 (in Hydaspes’ speech) with πατρώιαϲ, preceded by πατέρα, and τῶι πατρίωι . . . νόμωι, preceding τῆϲ πατρίδοϲ: the endings mark the opposition between notions of the father and of the fatherland and the fathers. This goes beyond Chariton’s rhythmic marking of phrases and words to something more recherché—and to a more tragic clash of values.

24 Some Tears in Achilles Tatius (Achilles 6.7.3–7) Tears lead us into two less climactic passages of Achilles Tatius, a rhythmical novelist like Chariton. Achilles is a more luxuriant writer than Chariton, not only in his expatiations, but also in the inventiveness of his language. In his first book (1.16.2), he makes a peacock (a peacock has entered the narrative) τὸ θέατρον ἐπιδεῑκν ̆υ´ναῑ τῶν πτ̆ερ̄ω̑ν. |; this is a remarkable phrase. The shape of the peacock’s tail is made to evoke the shape of the ancient auditorium; the eyes in it (cf. 1.16.3; Dio Chr. 12.2, Ov. Met. 1.721–3, etc.) evoke the many eyes of the audience; the theatre becomes not a place for display but the object of display. The word-order, the rhythm, and the bold metaphorical syntax (noun with defining genitive) give the ingenious ideas incisive form. In some ways, Achilles’ writing stands in between Heliodorus’ and Chariton’s. Looking at two passages from him will show us a different exploitation of rhythm in style, and will offer us something to compare with the unrhythmic passages of Heliodorus, especially that in ch. 23. The present passage connects with that one both on problems of crying and not crying and in the differentiation of the sexes. 3. | τοιαῦτα Λευκίππηϲ η̄῏ ν τ̆`α δ̆α´ κρῠᾱ, | αὐτὴν τὴν λύπην εἰϲ κάλλ̄οϲ ν̆ενῑκη̄κ̆ο´ τᾱ· | εἰ δὲ ἠδύνατο παγῆναῑ π̆εϲ̄ο´ ντᾱ, | καινὸν ἂν εἶχεν ἤλ̄εκτρο̆ν η̄ ῾ γ̄η.̑ | ὁ δὲ Θέρϲανδροϲ ἰδὼν πρὸϲ μὲν τὸ κ̄α´ λλο̆ϲ ε̆᾿ κ̆εχ̄η´ νεῑ, | πρ̄ο` ϲ δ̆`ε τ̄η` ν λ̄υ´πη̄ν | ἐξεμεμήνει, καὶ τοὺϲ ὀφθαλμοὺϲ δακρύων ̄ ε᾿ γκ ̆υ´οῡϲ ε̄῏ιχ̄εν. | 4. ἔϲτι μὲν γ̄α` ρ φ ̆υ´ϲεῑ δ̆α´ κρῠ̄ον | ἐπαγωγ̆ο´ τᾰτο̆ν ε̆᾿ λ̆ε´ οῡ | το̄ ι ϲ̑ ο῾̆ ρ̄ω̑ϲῑ· | τὸ δὲ τ̄ω̑ν γῠναῑκ̄ω̑ν | μᾶλλον, ὅϲωι θαλερώτερον, τοϲούτωι κᾱ`ι γο̆η̄τ̆ο´ τ̆ερ̄ον. | ἐὰν δὲ ἡ δακρύοῡϲᾰ η῏ ι και` κᾰλη` |h καὶ ὁ θεατ̄η` ϲ ε̆᾿ ρᾱϲτ̄η´ ϲ, | οὐδ’ ὀφθᾱλμ̆`οϲ ᾰ᾿ τρ̆εμε̄ ι ,̑ | ἀλλὰ τὸ δάκρῠο̆ν ε̆᾿ μῑμ̄η´ ϲᾰτ̄ο. | 5. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ εἰϲ τὰ ὄμματα τῶν καλῶν τὸ κάλλ̄οϲ κ̆α´ θη̄ταῑ, | ῥ̆ε´ ο̆ν ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι θ̄̑ εν | ἐπὶ τοὺϲ ὀφθαλμοὺϲ τ̄ω̑ν

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

292

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

ο῾̆ ρ ̄ω´ ντ̄ων | ἵϲταται καὶ τῶν δακρύων τὴν πη̄γ̄η` ν ϲῠν̆εφ̄ ε´ λκ̆εταῑ. | ὁ δὲ ἐραϲτὴϲ δ̄εξ̆α´ μ̆ενο̆ϲ ῎̄αμφ ̄ω | τὸ μὲν κάλλοϲ εἰϲ τ̄η` ν ψῡχ̄η` ν η̄῞ ρπᾰϲ̄ε, | τὸ δὲ δάκρυον εἰϲ τοὺϲ ὀφθαλμο̄υ` ϲ ε̆᾿ τ̄η´ ρη̄ϲ̄εν, | ὁραθῆναῑ δ̆`ε ευ῎ χ̆ε ταῑ, |h καὶ ἀποψήϲαϲθαι δυν̆α´ μ̆ενο̆ϲ ο̄υ᾿ κ ε̆᾿ θ̆ε´ λεῑ, | ἀλλὰ τὸ δάκρυον ὡϲ δύναται κατέχει ̑ | μ̄η` πρ̆`ο καῑρο̄υ ̑ φ ̆υ´γη̄ι. | 6. ὁ δὲ καὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τὴν κᾱ`ι φο̆βε̄ ι ταῑ κίνη̄ϲῐν ε̆᾿ π̆ε´ χεῑ, | μὴ πρὶν τὸ ἐρ ̄ω´ μ̆ενο̆ν ̆᾿ι δε̄ ιν̑ | τᾰχ̆υ` θ̆ελ̄η´ ϲη̄ι π̆εϲε̄ ι ν̑ · | μαρτυρίαν γὰρ ταύτην νεν̆ο´ μῐκ̆εν ο῞̆ τῐ κᾱ`ι φῐλε̄ ι.̑ | 7. τοιοῦτό τι καὶ τῶι Θερϲάνδρωι ϲῡμβ̆εβ̄η´ κεῑ· | ἐδάκρυε γ̄α` ρ πρ̆`οϲ ε̆᾿ π̆ι´δεῑξῑν, | παθὼν μέν τι, κατὰ τὸ ε̄ ᾿ικ̆ο´ ϲ, ̄α᾿ νθρ ̄ω´ πῐν̄ον, | καλλωπιζόμενοϲ δὲ πρὸϲ τὴν Λευκίππην, ὡϲ διὰ το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ δ̆εδᾰκρῡμ̆ε´ ν̄οϲ, | ὅτι κἀκείνη̄ δᾰκρ̄υ´ εῑ. | 4 γοητότερον: γοητικώτερον Hercher maluissem)

δάκρυον: δακρύον Jacobs (δακρῦον

Such were the tears of Leucippe, which overcame her very sorrow to produce beauty. If they could have been made solid when they fell, the earth would have possessed a new sort of amber. As Thersander looked at her, he gaped in astonishment at her beauty but was wild with dismay at her grief; his eyes were pregnant with tears. Tears are by their nature prone to induce pity in those who see them; women’s tears have the stronger magic for being more abundant. And if the woman who is crying is beautiful in addition, and the spectator is in love with her, his eye does not keep still but rather imitates the tears. Since it is in the eyes of the beautiful that beauty sits, it flows from them into the eyes of those who are looking; it stands there and draws onward too the spring of tears. The man in love welcomes both: he snatches the beauty into his soul, and guards the tear in his eyes. He prays to be seen, and although he could wipe the tear away, he does not want to; he keeps the tear back as best he can, and is afraid that it may fall before the critical moment. He stops the movement of his very eyes, lest the tear should wish to fall quickly before the object of his affection sees it: he thinks crying a testimony that he actually loves that person. Something like this was what happened to Thersander. He was weeping for display; what he probably experienced was a natural human feeling, but he was showing off to Leucippe that the reason he was crying was that she was crying too.

Leucippe has been abducted for the benefit of Thersander; Cleitophon, whom she loves, has just been put in prison by him. Cleitophon, who also narrates most of the novel, tells how Thersander is infatuated by his first sight of Leucippe, and how she weeps at his words. In the preceding sentences (6.7.1–2), he divagates on how tears can add to the beauty of a beautiful eye; the description is ornate (though with several unrhythmic endings to sentences and half-sentences), and ends with a paradoxical and descriptive flourish: τὰ δὲ δάκρυα τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἔνδον εἱλο̄υ´μ̆ενᾰ γ̆ελ̄αι̑ . |.

Some Tears in Achilles Tatius

293

3. | τοιαῦτα Λευκίππηϲ η̄῏ ν τ̆α` δ̆α´ κρῠᾱ, | αὐτὴν τὴν λύπην εἰϲ κάλλ̄οϲ ν̆ενῑκη̄κ̆ο´ τᾱ· | εἰ δὲ ἠδύνατο παγῆναῑ π̆εϲ̄ο´ ντᾱ, | καινὸν ἂν εἶχεν ἤλ̄εκτρο̆ν η̄ ῾ γ̄η.̑ |: the narrator was not present, but the rapt subjectivity of the lover informs the sentence. In the first part the tears are active, and their abstract victory closes a rhythmic phrase (ν̆ενῑκη̄κ̆ο´ τᾱ· |); in the second, they are passive, and are contemplated as a counterfactual object. κάλλ̄οϲ is given special weight, and is helped by the unusual syntax and by the rhythmic ending which it is part of; the whole rhythmic phrase | αὐτὴν τὴν λύπην εἰϲ κάλλ̄οϲ ν̆ενῑκη̄κ̆ο´ τᾱ· | is to be contemplated as a triumph of thought. The whole rhythmic phrase | καινὸν ἂν εἶχεν ἤλ̄εκτρο̆ν η̄ ῾ γ̄η.̑ | is made to stand on its own as a spectacular invention. The comparison of water and amber, seen in Call. H. 6.28 τὸ δ᾿ ὥϲτ’ ἀλέκτρινον ὕδωρ (in a grove), here becomes a fantastical conceit; the novelty dear to the pointed style (in Achilles himself cf. e.g. 5.26.4) now becomes visual rather than conceptual. | καινὸν and ἤλ̄εκτρο̆ν are marked out through the rhythmic structure, and the former, especially, by the word-order; but γ̄η.̑ | ends the sentence with expansive extravagance—a new possession for the whole earth. | ὁ δὲ Θέρϲανδροϲ ἰδὼν πρὸϲ μὲν τὸ κ̄α´ λλο̆ϲ ε̆᾿ κ̆εχ̄η´ νεῑ, | πρ̄ο` ϲ δ̆`ε τ̄η` ν λ̄υ´πη̄ν | ἐξεμεμήνει, καὶ τοὺϲ ὀφθαλμοὺϲ δακρύων ̄ ε᾿ γκ ̆υ´οῡϲ ε̄῏ι χ̄εν. |: κ̄α´ λλο̆ϲ and λ̄υ´πη̄ν |, both highlighted through rhythm, pick up the first part of the preceding sentence. One might expect the μέν and δέ clauses to be parallel in rhythm, especially with the assonance –̄η´ νεῑ . . . –ήνει, but | πρ̄ο` ϲ δ̆`ε τ̄η` ν λ̄υ´πη̄ν | justifies its separate phrase, as it is particularly the distress of Leucippe that leads to Thersander’s tears (cf. also 6.7.8). δακρύων ̄ ε᾿ γκ ̆υ´οῡϲ ε̄῏ι χ̄εν. | resembles Heliodorus’ τὰϲ ὠδῖναϲ τῶν δακρύων (10.16.2, ch. 23); but it is more audacious, since ὠδίϲ is more frequently figurative or extended, and attention is drawn here to the image by the rhythm, while Heliodorus’ image is not especially singled out through word-order. Achilles’ phrase takes up the daring | ἔοικε πηγῆϲ ἐγκύμονι μαζῶι (6.7.1, of the eye), but holds an extra surprise through being applied to a male; gender is important in what follows, as it is in Heliodorus’ passage. 4. | ἔϲτι μὲν γ̄α` ρ φ ̆υ´ϲεῑ δ̆α´ κρῠ̄ον | ἐπαγωγ̆ο´ τᾰτο̆ν ε̆᾿ λ̆ε´ οῡ | το̄ ιϲ̑ ο῾̆ ρ̄ω̑ϲῑ· | τὸ δὲ τ̄ω̑ν γῠναῑκ̄ω̑ν | μᾶλλον, ὅϲωι θαλερώτερον, τοϲούτωι κᾱ`ι γο̆η̄τ̆ο´ τ̆ερ̄ον. |: the discourse moves into generality, finally applied with | τοιοῦτό τι καὶ τῶι Θερϲάνδρωι ϲῡμβ̆εβ̄η´ κεῑ· | (7). This comes on the heels of a similar excursus in 7.1–2, prompted by one sentence of narrative and applied with | τοιαῦτα Λευκίππηϲ η̄῏ ν τ̆α` δ̆α´ κρῠᾱ, | (3);

294

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

it begins | δάκρυον γὰρ. We saw briefer quasi-philosophical intrusion in the passage of Heliodorus (ch. 23); the present expansions are made the more disconcerting because the narrator is homodiegetic (a character in his own story). The opening here sounds more portentously philosophical than | δάκρυον γὰρ ὀφθαλμὸν ἀνίϲτηϲι (6.7.1). | ἔϲτι μὲν γ̄α` ρ φ ̆υ´ϲεῑ δ̆α´ κρῠ̄ον | and | ἐπαγωγ̆ο´ τᾰτο̆ν ε̆᾿ λ̆ε´ οῡ | are separated and made suitably ponderous through the rhythmic structure; for | ἐπαγωγ̆ο´ τᾰτο̆ν ε̆᾿ λ̆ε´ οῡ |, cf. e.g. SVF iii.719 ἣν δὲ . . . ὀνομάζοντεϲ ̄ ῎ε μφᾰϲῑν κ̄α´ λλοῡϲ | ἐπαγωγὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἔρωτ̄οϲ λ̆ε´ γοῡϲῑ, | . . . . The plural | το̄ ι ϲ̑ ο῾̆ ρ̄ω̑ϲῑ· | adds to the generality (we shall soon move to the singular); cf. also τ̄ω̑ν ο῾̆ ρ ̄ω´ ντ̄ων | (5). | τὸ δὲ τ̄ω̑ν γῠναῑκ̄ω̑ν |, marked out by the rhythm, takes us back to the discussions on women and boys at the end of Book 2, where Cleitophon the character praised women as objects of love (θαλερώτερον, though Homeric [Il. 2.266, 6.496, etc.], also fits with 2.37.6 on the female body). μᾶλλον is not part of what precedes, but leads superfluously into γο̆η̄τ̆ο´ τ̆ερ̄ον. |, cf. 7.9.10 (so roughly Vilborg [1962], 110). γο̆η̄τ̆ο´ τ̆ερ̄ον. | is a doubtful form, certainly for this date; ἱερεὺϲ γοητοϲ at P. Hib. I 52 fr. (a) col. ii 18 (iii BC) is obscure. Hercher’s conjecture would also be rhythmical. The subjective adjective is made to stand out after the detachedly intellectual | ἐπαγωγ̆ο´ τᾰτο̆ν ε̆᾿ λ̆ε´ οῡ |. | ἐὰν δὲ ἡ δακρύοῡϲᾰ ῏̄ηι κᾱ`ι κᾰλ̄η` |h καὶ ὁ θεατ̄η` ϲ ε̆᾿ ρᾱϲτ̄η´ ϲ, | οὐδ’ ὀφθᾱλμ̆`οϲ ᾰ᾿ τρ̆ε με̄ ι ,̑ | ἀλλὰ τὸ δάκρῠο̆ν ε̆᾿ μῑμ̄η´ ϲᾰτ̄ο. |: the argument proceeds from tears to women’s tears to women’s tears in particular circumstances (note κᾱ`ι before κᾰλ̄η´ |h and οὐδ’ before ὀφθᾱλμ̆`οϲ). | (ἐὰν δὲ ἡ) δακρύοῡϲᾰ pairs with |h (καὶ ὁ) θεατ̄η` ϲ and κᾰλ̄η` |h with ε̆᾿ ρᾱϲτ̄η´ ϲ | in the rhythmic structuring; | (οὐδ’) ὀφθᾱλμ̆`οϲ matches with | (ἀλλὰ τὸ) δάκρῠο̆ν, as ε̆᾿ μῑμ̄η´ ϲᾰτ̄ο. | brings out. If the neuter participle were read, the υ should be long; that close would be rhythmical too. But the singular is often generalizing, not least in the Homeric θαλερὸν . . . δάκρυ/δάκρυον, and the chances of the reader not understanding ΤΟΔΑΚΡΥΟΝ as the noun seem small (accents would not be normal for such a work). 5. | ἐπειδὴ γὰρ εἰϲ τὰ ὄμματα τῶν καλῶν τὸ κάλλ̄οϲ κ̆α´ θη̄ταῑ, | ῥ̆ε´ ο̆ν ᾿ε̆ κε̄ ι θ̄̑ εν | ἐπὶ τοὺϲ ὀφθαλμοὺϲ τ̄ω̑ν ο῾̆ ρ ̄ω´ ντ̄ων | ἵϲταται καὶ τῶν δακρύων τὴν πη̄γ̄η` ν ϲῠν̆εφ̄ ε´ λκ̆εταῑ. |: the passage moves back to the plural for further explanation. The intricate exposition, much more elaborate than in Heliodorus’ passage, builds on Thersander’s words to Leucippe: instead of the beauty of your eyes flowing down on to the ground, | ἐπὶ τοὺϲ ὀφθαλμοὺϲ μᾶλλ̄ον ῥ̆εε̆ ´ τ̄ω το̄υ` ϲ ε̆᾿ μο̄υ´ϲ.᾿ | (6.6.4). The

Some Tears in Achilles Tatius

295

idea of the actual movement of beauty goes beyond the common interaction of eyes to a sort of theory of vision; cf. Plat. Phaedr. 251c6–7 βλέπουϲα πρὸϲ τὸ τοῦ παιδὸϲ κάλλοϲ ἐκεῖθεν μέρη ἐπιόντα καὶ ῥέονθ᾿—ἃ δὴ διὰ ταῦτα ἵμεροϲ καλεῖται—δεχομένη. The crucial | (ἐπειδὴ γὰρ εἰϲ τὰ) ὄμματα picks up | (οὐδ’) ὀφθᾱλμ̆`οϲ and is in turn picked up by ε̆᾿ κε̄ ι θ̄̑ εν | and | (ἐπὶ τοὺϲ) ὀφθαλμοὺϲ; τ̄ω̑ν ο῾̆ ρ ̄ω´ ντ̄ων | dwells on the new people considered, cf. τῶν καλῶν, and looks back to | το̄ ι ϲ̑ ο῾̆ ρ̄ω̑ϲῑ· |. κ̆α´ θη̄ταῑ, | is standard language, cf. e.g. Pind. Nem. 8.2 (of Hora) παρθενηΐοιϲ παίδων τ᾿ ἐφίζοιϲα γλεφάροιϲ; but it is matched by the more active | ἵϲταται. The movement beyond Plato depends on the liquid suggestions of πη̄γ̄η` ν and on the notable verb ϲῠν̆εφ̄ ε´ λκ̆εταῑ. | (ἕλκω is suitable to liquids, cf. e.g. Theophr. Hist. Plant. 3.18.10, 4.7.6, and the ϲυν- shows the connection between the beauty and the abundant tears, cf. for πηγή 6.7.1, 7.4.6 [ch. 25, with n.]). | ὁ δὲ ἐραϲτὴϲ δ̄εξ̆α´ μ̆ενο̆ϲ ῎̄αμφ ̄ω | τὸ μὲν κάλλοϲ εἰϲ τ̄η` ν ψῡχ̄η` ν η῞̄ ρπᾰϲ̄ε, | τὸ δὲ δάκρυον εἰϲ τοὺϲ ὀφθαλμο̄υ` ϲ ε̆᾿ τ̄η´ ρη̄ϲ̄εν, |: after the explanation, the discourse returns to singular people and the gnomic aorist, cf. ε̆᾿ μῑμ̄η´ ϲᾰτ̄ο. |. As in Chariton’s ἀμφότερᾰ γ̆α` ρ α῎̆ πῑϲτᾱ, | καὶ ἀπολέϲθαῑ βᾰϲῐλ̆ι´δᾱ | κᾱ`ι α᾿̆ πο̆λο̆μ̆ε´ νη̄ν |h ε̄υ῾ ρ̆εθ̄ην̑ αῑ. | (8.5.5, ch. 22), the structure is marked out through the rhythm, with a rhythmic entity ending ῎̄αμφ ̄ω |, and then two rhythmic entities beginning with | (τὸ μὲν) κάλλοϲ and | (τὸ δὲ) δάκρυον. The involved relation of the two nouns in the passage has now crystallized into parallelism. They are more pointedly matched, through the rhythm, than τὸ ὄμμα and τῆϲ ψυχῆϲ in the Heliodorus. The verbs at the closes are, like ϲῠν̆εφ̄ ε´ λκ̆εταῑ. |, striking, and they contrast: the hasty η῞̄ ρπᾰϲ̄ε, | (cf. e.g. Soph. Trach. 548–9) and the surprisingly unhasty ε̆᾿ τ̄η´ ρη̄ϲ̄εν, |; the surprise sets up what follows. | ὁραθῆναῑ δ̆`ε ε̄υ῎ χ̆ε ταῑ, |h καὶ ἀποψήϲαϲθαι δυν̆α´ μ̆ενο̆ϲ ο̄υ᾿ κ ε̆᾿ θ̆ε´ λεῑ, | ̑ ἀλλὰ τὸ δάκρυον ὡϲ δύναται κατέχει κᾱ`ι φο̆βε̄ ι ταῑ | μ̄η` πρ̆`ο καῑρο̄υ ̑ φ ̆υ´γη̄ι. |: the account moves to the present; the lover is no longer the object of inescapable physical and emotional processes, but a cunning manipulator. While he retains his basic purpose of love, love causes him to counter impulse. The struggle in Heliodorus is unlike this crafty and counter-intuitive picture, which is made neat with the assistance of rhythm. The verbs ε̄υ῎ χ̆ε ταῑ, |h (or δ᾿ ε̄υ῎ χ̆εταῑ |) and ̑ | contrast with each other, and both govern something φο̆βε̄ ιταῑ unexpected: | ὁραθῆναῑ turns one seeing into someone seen; | μ̄η` πρ̆`ο καῑρο̄υ ̑ φ ̆υ´γη̄ι. | is a phrase to be contemplated for its exquisite depiction of precision and tactics in emotion. φ ̆υ´γη̄ι. | in the negative purpose continues the suggestion of handling people and even

296

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

soldiers in ε̆᾿ τ̄η´ ρη̄ϲ̄εν, | (cf. η῞̄ ρπᾰϲ̄ε, |). δυν̆α´ μ̆ενο̆ϲ ο̄υ᾿ κ ε̆᾿ θ̆ε´ λεῑ, | is an elegant phrase, to be admired; cf. 4.9.5 | κᾱ`ι ο̆῾ α᾿̆ ναῑδ̄η` ϲ ε᾿̆ γ `̄ω |h λῦϲαι δυν̆α´ μ̆ενο̆ϲ ο̄υ᾿ θ̆ε´ λ̄ω. |, Dio Cass. 61.15.1. 6. | ὁ δὲ καὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τὴν κίνη̄ϲῐν ε̆᾿ π̆ε´ χεῑ, | μὴ πρὶν τὸ ἐρ ̄ω´ μ̆ενο̆ν ᾿̆ιδε̄ ιν̑ | τᾰχ̆υ` θ̆ελ̄η´ ϲη̄ι π̆εϲε̄ ι ν̑ · | μαρτυρίαν γὰρ ταύτην νεν̆ο´ μῐκ̆εν ο῞̆ τῐ κᾱ`ι φῐλε̄ ι .̑ |: the eyes are matched with the tear (note καὶ). τὴν κίνη̄ϲῐν ε̆᾿ π̆ε´ χεῑ, | counters the | οὐδ’ . . . ᾰ᾿ τρ̆ε με̄ ι ,̑ | (4) of the instinctive reaction. The rhythm balances ᾿̆ι δε̄ ι ν̑ | and π̆εϲε̄ ι ν·̑ |, alike in shape and accent; the wish of the personified tear combats the wish of the lover, cf. ο̄υ᾿ κ ε̆᾿ θ̆ε´ λεῑ, | (5). κᾱ`ι φῐλε̄ ι .̑ | probably adverts to the earlier stages in the argument: the lover shows he has passed beyond dry-eyed sympathy for an ordinary woman (| ἐὰν δὲ . . . , | οὐδ’ ὀφθᾱλμ̆`οϲ ᾰ᾿ τρ̆ε με̄ ι ,̑ | [4] suggests ‘if and only if ’). 7. | τοιοῦτό τι καὶ τῶι Θερϲάνδρωι ϲῡμβ̆εβ̄η´ κεῑ· | ἐδάκρυε γ̄α` ρ πρ̆`οϲ ε̆᾿ π̆ι´δεῑξῑν, | παθὼν μέν τι, κατὰ τὸ ε̄ ᾿ικ̆ο´ ϲ, ̄α᾿ νθρ ̄ω´ πῐν̄ον, | καλλωπιζόμενοϲ δὲ πρὸϲ τὴν Λευκίππην, ὡϲ διὰ το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ δ̆εδᾰκρῡμ̆ε´ ν̄οϲ, | ὅτι κἀκείνη̄ δᾰκρ̄υ´ εῑ. |: | ἐδάκρυε γ̄α` ρ πρ̆`οϲ ε̆᾿ π̆ι´δεῑξῑν, | is a self-contained and selfdisplaying phrase. Not only is a seemingly spontaneous act being performed for viewing (cf. Sen. Ep. 63.2 dolorem non sequimūr sĕ d ōstēndĭmūs; |); it is also, unlike say philosophy, an act that a man might wish to conceal (cf. Luc. Demon. 48 τοῖϲ οὐ πρὸϲ ἀλήθειαν ἀλλὰ πρὸϲ ἐπίδειξιν φιλοϲοφοῦϲιν·). The narrator’s animus becomes more visible as the thoughts are applied. ̄α᾿ νθρ̄ω´ πῐν̄ον, | appears to make a concession, as love and tears for love are natural (cf. Herodian 5.6.2 | φήϲαϲ ἀνθρ ̄ω´ πῐν̄ο´ ν τῑ | πεπ̄ονθ̆ε´ ναῑ π̆α´ θ̄οϲ· | [self-justification]; Heliod. 10.16.5 [tears out of pity]). But on the other side of the rhythmic boundary, and with δέ after μέν, comes | καλλωπιζόμενοϲ. The general account appeared to proceed easily from response to planning, with the tears natural but not stopped; now, however, the two aspects are firmly separated. The feelings of Thersander in particular are partly conjectured; Heliodorus, on the other hand, had probed at length the soul of Hydaspes in particular. The final pair of phrases ὡϲ διὰ το̄υ τ̑ ο̆ δ̆εδᾰκρῡμ̆ε´ ν̄οϲ, | ὅτι κἀκείνη̄ δᾰκρ̄υ´ εῑ. | is neatly arranged, thanks to the rhythm; but it seems extremely straightforward after the involved discussion, and it mimics a straightforwardness which Thersander wishes Leucippe to infer. This passage explores conflicting impulses, like the Heliodorus in ch. 23 and the Chariton in ch. 18; but while Heliodorus deploys philosophy to paint the conflict colourfully, Achilles deploys it to create a tightly wrought sequence of argument, from which the

Some Tears in Achilles Tatius

297

conflict emerges with little sense of anguish. Rhythm furthers the closeness of the discussion, and helps the reader to catch the movements in thought and shifts in stance. The passage is much more intellectualizing than Chariton. It has something of his interest in point; but the applause-winning statements are not so narrowly focused on epigrammatic cleverness. Sharpness of language combines with range and finesse, in self-contemplating artistry.

25 More Tears in Achilles Tatius (7.4.3–6) 3 . . . . | ἦλθε δέ μοῑ τ̆ο´ τ̆ε δ̆α´ κρῠᾱ | καὶ τοῖϲ ὀφθαλμοῖϲ τὴν λύπη̄ν ᾰ᾿ π̆εδ̆ι´δοῡν. | 4. ὥϲπερ γὰρ ἐν ταῖϲ τοῦ ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτ̄οϲ πλη̄γᾱ ιϲ̑ | οὐκ εὐθὺϲ ἡ ϲμ ̄ω̑δῑξ ε̆᾿ πᾰν̄ ι´ϲτᾰταῑ, | ἀλλὰ παραχρῆμα μὲν οὐκ ἔχει τὸ ῎̄ανθο̆ϲ η̄ ῾ πλη̄γ̄η´ , | μετὰ μικρο` ν δ̆`ε α᾿̆ ν̆ε´ θο̆ρε, |h καὶ ὀδόντι ϲυόϲ τῑϲ πᾰτᾱχθε̄`ιϲ | εὐθὺϲ μὲν ζητε̄ ι ̑ τ̆ο` ̑ | καὶ οὐκ ο̄῏ι δ̆εν ε̄υ῾ ρε̄ ιν,̑ | τὸ δὲ ῎ε̆ τῐ δ̆ε´ δῡκ̄ε | κᾱ`ι κ̆ε´ κρῡπταῑ | τρᾱυμᾱ κατειργᾱϲμ̆ε´ ν̄ον ϲχο̆λ̄ηι̑ | τ̄ηϲ̑ πλη̄γ̄ηϲ̑ τ̄η` ν το̆μ̄η´ ν, | μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ ἐξαίφνηϲ λευκή τιϲ ἀνέτεῑλ̆ε γρᾱμμ̄η´ , | πρ̆ο´ δρο̆μοϲ του ̑ αι῞ μᾰτοϲ, |h ϲχολη` ν δ̆`ε ο̆᾿ λ̆ι´ γην λᾰβο` ν |h ἔρχεται καὶ ἀθρ̆ο´ ο̆ν ε̆᾿ πῑρρε̄ ι,̑ | 5. οὕτω καὶ ψυχὴ παταχθεῖϲα τ ̄ω̑ι τ̄ηϲ̑ λ̄υ´ πη̄ϲ β̆ε´ λεῑ, | τ̄οξε̄υ´ ϲᾱντ̄οϲ λ̆ο´ γοῡ | τέτρωταῑ μ̆`εν η῎̄ δη̄ | και` ῎ε̆ χεῑ τη` ν ̑ ᾱ, | τὰ το̆μη´ ν, |h ἀλλὰ τ̆ο` τ̆α´ χ̄οϲ το̄υ ̑ βλ̄η´ μᾰτ̄οϲ | οὐκ ἀνέωιξεν οὔπ ̄ω τ̆ο` τρᾱυ μ δὲ δάκρυᾰ ε᾿̆ δ̆ι´ ωξε |h τ ̄ω̑ν ̄ο᾿ φθᾱλμ ̄ω̑ν μᾰκρ̄α´ ν· | δάκρῡον γ̆α` ρ ᾱ῟ι μᾱ | τρᾱυ´ μᾰτ̄οϲ ψῡχ̄ηϲ̑ . | ὅτᾰν ο̆῾ τ̄ηϲ̑ λ̄υ´ πη̄ϲ ο̆᾿ δο̄υ` ϲ | κατὰ μικρὸν τὴν κᾱρδ̆ι´ᾱν ̄ ε᾿ κφ̆α´ γη̄ι, | κατέρρηκται μὲν τῆϲ ψυχ̄ηϲ̑ τ̆ο` τρᾱυμ̑ ᾱ, | ἀνέωικται δὲ τοῖϲ ὀφθαλμοῖϲ η̄ ῾ τ ̄ω̑ν δᾰκρ ̆υ´ ̄ων θ ̆υ´ρᾱ, | τὰ δ̆`ε μ̆ετ̆α` μῑκρ̄ο` ν | τ̄ηϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ νο̄ ι´ ξ̆ε ̄ωϲ | ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆επ̄η´ δη̄ϲ̄εν. | 6. οὕτω κἀμὲ τὰ μὲν πρῶτα τῆϲ ἀκροάϲεωϲ τῆι ψυχῆι πρ̄οϲπ̆εϲ̄ο´ ντᾱ | κᾰθ̆α´ π̄ερ τ̄οξε̄υ´ μᾰτᾱ | κατεϲίγαϲε καὶ τῶν δακρύων ἀπέφρᾱξ̆ε τ̄η` ν πη̄γ̄η´ ν, | μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ ἔρρει, ϲχολαϲάϲηϲ τ̄ηϲ̑ ψῡχ̄ηϲ̑ τ̄ω̑ι κᾰκ ̄ω̑ι. |

4 αἵματοϲ Hirschig: τραύματοϲ codd. ἐπιρρεῖ Hase; etiam τραύματοϲ . . . ἔρχεται legere possis 5 ὅταν Jacobs 6 δ᾿ ἔρρει possis scribere

Then tears came to me, and I allowed my eyes their due of grief. It is as when the body is hit: the weal does not rise up instantly, and the blow does not have its bloom immediately; rather it leaps up after a little while. Or when someone is struck by the tusk of a boar, immediately afterwards he looks for the wound and cannot find it; the wound is still sunk and hidden, having barely brought about the cut of the blow. After that, suddenly a sort of white line arises, herald of the blood; after taking its time a little, the blood comes and flows on to the skin, all of it at once. Even so, when the soul has been struck by the dart of grief, through the

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

300

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

archery of speech, it has already been wounded and has the cut, but the swift blow has not yet opened up the wound, and has chased tears far away from the eyes: tears are the blood of the soul’s wound. When the tooth of grief has gradually devoured the heart, the wound of the soul bursts out, and the door of tears is open in the eyes; a little after, the tears leap forth from that opening. So it was with me: the first bits of what I heard fell on my soul like arrows and made me silent, and blocked off the spring of tears; after that they started flowing, when my soul had found leisure to attend to the catastrophe.

A further passage shows Achilles exploring tears and their psychology with still more elaborate art. He is here closer to the Heliodorus (ch. 23) in depicting what is felt, but instead of pouring metaphors on to the complexity, he develops one analogy, and brings out the resemblances with protracted refinement. Further images are all part of the single thought. Rhythm promotes the neatness of the exposition. Cleitophon has heard from a deceptive fellow-prisoner, placed in his prison through Thersander, that Leucippe has been killed. At first he has neither tears nor speech; | μικρ̄ο` ν δ̆`ε ν̄η´ ψᾱϲ | ἐκ τ̄ηϲ̑ μ̆ε´ θη̄ϲ το̄υ ̑ λ̆ο´ γοῡ | (7.4.2), he has some exchange of words with the prisoner. Then, at last, he weeps. 3. | ἦλθε δέ μοῑ τ̆ο´ τ̆ε δ̆α´ κρῠᾱ | καὶ τοῖϲ ὀφθαλμοῖϲ τὴν λύπη̄ν ᾰ᾿ π̆εδ̆ι´δοῡν. |: ´ δ̆ακρῠᾱ | forms a climactic close to the first part of the sentence (cf. 7.4.1 | οὔτε γὰρ φωνὴν εἶχον ο̄υ῎ τ̆ε δ̆α´ κρῠᾱ· |); | ἦλθε provides a light hint which the rest of the passage will develop. | καὶ τοῖϲ ὀφθαλμοῖϲ τὴν λύπη̄ν ᾰ᾿ π̆εδ̆ι´δοῡν. |is a characteristically memorable rhythmic phrase, notable partly because eyes and the self become like distinct people and partly because pain is paradoxical as an expected due. 4. | ὥϲπερ γὰρ ἐν ταῖϲ τοῦ ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτ̄οϲ πλη̄γᾱ ιϲ̑ | οὐκ εὐθὺϲ ἡ ϲμ ̄ω̑δῑξ ε̆᾿ πᾰν̄ ι´ ϲτᾰταῑ, | ἀλλὰ παραχρῆμα μὲν οὐκ ἔχει τὸ ῎̄ανθο̆ϲ η̄ ῾ πλη̄γ̄η´ , | μετὰ μικρο`̄ ν δ̆`ε α᾿̆ ν̆ε´ θο̆ρ̄ε, |h: the narrative is now suspended for a general explanation. It starts from an analogy, which is then elaborated in a more specific example (|h καὶ ὀδόντι ϲυόϲ κτλ.). The image is next applied to the soul and tears at length (5); the narrative returns with | οὕτω κἀμέ (6). The initial | ὥϲπερ . . . τοῦ ϲ̄ω´ μᾰτ̄οϲ is answered by | οὕτω καὶ ψυχὴ. A lament will follow; but this passage itself has the effect of wilfully delaying vicarious grief for the reader. The deviousness and subtlety of the author are enhanced by the language. In particular ἡ ϲμ ̄ω̑δῑξ ε̆᾿ πᾰν̄ ι´ ϲτᾰταῑ, | presents us with vocabulary unlike prose; cf. esp. Hom. Il. 2.267 ϲμῶδιξ δ᾿ αἱματόεϲϲα μεταφρένου ἐξυπανέϲτη (once more in Homer, then in Lycophron and Nicander;

More Tears in Achilles Tatius

301

Galen does give ϲμωδικόϲ from Hippocrates, Gloss. Hipp. xix.139 Kühn, but then has to gloss ϲμώδικαϲ). οὐκ ἔχει τὸ ῎̄ανθο̆ϲ η̄ ῾ πλη̄γ̄η´ , | is stranger than ἐξανθέω; even ταῖϲ τοῦ ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτ̄οϲ πλη̄γᾱ ιϲ̑ | is at first a somewhat unexpected phrase. |h καὶ ὀδόντι ϲυόϲ τῑϲ πᾰτᾱχθε̄`ιϲ | εὐθὺϲ μὲν ζητε̄ ι ̑ το`̆ τρᾱυμ̑ ᾱ | καὶ οὐκ ο̄῏ι δ̆εν ε̄υ῾ ρε̄ ιν,̑ | τὸ δὲ ῎ε̆ τῐ δ̆ε´ δῡκ̄ε | κᾱ`ι κ̆ε´ κρῡπταῑ | κατειργᾱϲμ̆ε´ ν̄ον ϲχο̆λ̄ηι̑ | τ̄ηϲ̑ πλη̄γ̄ηϲ̑ τ̄η` ν το̆μ̄η´ ν, |: the whole sentence is long by Achilles’ standards. It now passes from the sort of scientific analogy we might find in Plutarch (cf. the exploration in Straton fr. 111 Wehrli) to a more specific scene, closer to Homeric similes. Wounds from boars could occur in Homer’s world as later, but the wound from the boar at Hom. Od. 19.392–3, 449–51 is especially conspicuous; it too occurs in a passage which for the listener delays the narrative of reaction. ̑ | καὶ οὐκ ο̄῏ι δ̆εν ε̄υ῾ ρε̄ ιν,̑ | gives two brief and ζητε̄ ι ̑ τ̆ο` τρᾱυμᾱ peculiar phrases, in which someone needs and wants to find their own wound. The τραῦμα is given the striking verbs δ̆ε´ δῡκ̄ε | and κ̆ε´ κρῡπταῑ |, and is separated from the πλη̄γ̄ηϲ̑ and the το̆μ̄η´ ν, |, the latter of which it causes (only just; cf. SVF ii. no. 420 p. 139.5). The order | κατειργᾱϲμ̆ε´ ν̄ον ϲχο̆λ̄ηι̑ | τ̄ηϲ̑ πλη̄γ̄ηϲ̑ τ̄η` ν το̆μ̄η´ ν, | lightly deflects from the expected, and makes το̆μ̄η´ ν, | stand out as distinct. | μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ ἐξαίφνηϲ λευκή τιϲ ἀνέτεῑλ̆ε γρᾱμμ̄η´ , | πρ̆ο´ δρο̆μ̄οϲ το̄υ ̑ ᾱ῞ιμᾰτ̄οϲ, |h ϲχολ̄η` ν δ̆`ε ο̆᾿ λ̆ι´ γη̄ν λᾰβ̄ο` ν |h ἔρχεται καὶ ἀθρ̆ο´ ο̆ν ε̆᾿ πῑρρε̄ ι,̑ |: the position at the start of phrases, as well as the particles, help to underline the sequence | οὐκ εὐθὺϲ, | (ἀλλὰ) παραχρῆμα, | μετὰ μικρ̄ο` ν, then | εὐθὺϲ, | (τὸ δὲ) ῎ε̆ τῐ, | μετὰ ταῦτα. The text is given as in Vilborg, and Garnaud. But Vilborg (1962), 118 gives an unsatisfactory first argument against τραύματοϲ: he says that it should not be used of the outer wound when it has just been used of the inner; but the τραῦμα would now be coming to the surface. What seem to be his second argument (ἀθρόον ἐπιρρεῖ can only refer to blood), and his third (δάκρυον γὰρ αἷμα τραύματοϲ ψυχῆϲ in 5 presupposes αἷμα before), can both be met by inserting after ἔρχεται. That would deal too with the problem that the subject of ἔρχεται should not have to be inferred from τοῦ αἵματοϲ. One change is more economical than two. The clause would then run ἔρχεταῑ |h; the order would balance well ἦλθε δέ μοῑ τ̆ο´ τ̆ε δ̆α´ κρῠᾱ |. Hase’s position for introduces hiatus as well as removing rhythm; it is quite normal for καί to add a member to a clause syntactically complete, with the order A B καὶ A. Cf. e.g. 2.14.5 εἰϲ ̑ |. τὴν ἐλαίαν η̄ ᾿ ιν̄ ι´ ξᾰτο̆ κᾱ`ι τ̆ο` π̄υρ,

302

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

The rhythmic divisions help the reader to dwell on the minuteness and liveliness of the description. γρᾱμμ̄η´ , | contrasts with ἀθρ̆ο´ ο̆ν ε̆᾿ πῑρρε̄ ι,̑ |; its position after the verb and its separation from λευκή τιϲ further stress the choice of word. A metaphorical use of πρόδρομοϲ is not original, cf. e.g. Plut. Tuend. San. 127d; but in this context, the emphasis on relative speeds makes the phrase especially effective. |h ϲχολ̄η` ν δ̆`ε ο̆᾿ λ̆ι´ γη̄ν λᾰβ̄ο` ν |h with some humour has the personified blood take its time; ο̆᾿ λ̆ι´ γη̄ν adds to the humour as well as the precision. |h ϲχολ̄η` ν joins with ϲχολαϲάϲηϲ in 6. 5. | οὕτω καὶ ψυχὴ παταχθεῖϲα τ ̄ω̑ι τ̄ηϲ̑ λ̄υ´ πη̄ϲ β̆ε´ λεῑ, | τ̄οξε̄υ´ ϲᾱντ̄οϲ λ̆ο´ γοῡ | τέτρωταῑ μ̆`εν η῎̄ δη̄ | κᾱ`ι ῎ε̆ χεῑ τ `̄ην το̆μ̄η´ ν, |h ἀλλὰ τ̆ο` τ̆α´ χ̄οϲ το̄υ ̑ ̑ βλ̄η´ μᾰτ̄οϲ | οὐκ ἀνέωιξεν οὔπ ̄ω τ̆ο` τρᾱυμᾱ, | τὰ δὲ δάκρυᾰ ε᾿̆ δ̆ι´ ̄ωξ̄ε |h τ ̄ω̑ν ̄ο᾿ φθᾱλμ ̄ω̑ν μᾰκρ̄α´ ν· | δάκρῡον γ̆α` ρ ᾱ῟ιμᾱ | τρᾱυ´ μᾰτ̄οϲ ψῡχ̄ηϲ̑ . |: ̑ | to | τέτρωταῑ. But β̆ε´ λεῑ, | βλ̄η´ μᾰτ̄οϲ | corresponds to β̆ε´ λεῑ, |, τρᾱυμᾱ, and | τέτρωταῑ are both expanded. β̆ε´ λεῑ, | introduces a new image after the boar’s tusk; this image is made more notable and ingenious by the phrase | τ̄οξε̄υ´ ϲᾱντ̄οϲ λ̆ο´ γοῡ |, which extends it to the more specific circumstances of hearing news (the even more specific art deliberately used against Cleitophon, τῆϲ ἐπ’ ἐμὲ το̄υ ̑ λ̆ο´ γοῡ τ̆εχνη̄ϲ, | 7.2.2, renders the phrase apter still). Two separate rhythmic phrases, with two matching main verbs, | τέτρωταῑ and | (κᾱ`ι) ῎ε̆ χεῑ, convey the reality with force. The temporal significance of the perfect | τέτρωταῑ and of η῎̄ δη̄ | are intensified in the conspicuous phrase | κᾱ`ι ῎ε̆ χεῑ τ̄η` ν το̆μ̄η´ ν, |h, where a cut is a possession. τ̄η` ν το̆μ̄η´ ν, |h takes up τ̄η` ν το̆μ̄η´ ν, | from 4. τ̆ο` τ̆α´ χ̄οϲ is mimetic in the speed of the opening short syllables. | οὐκ ̑ ἀνέωιξεν οὔπ ̄ω τ̆ο` τρᾱυμᾱ, | puts words together arrestingly, in one rhythmic phrase (contrast the usual sense of opening a wound, e.g. Gal. Comp. Med. Gen. xiii.640 Kühn, Cels. 7.5.4A). Arrestingly combined in a different way is | (τὰ δὲ) δάκρυᾰ | with the bold image ε᾿̆ δ̆ι´ ωξ̄ ̄ ε |h . . . μᾰκρ̄α´ ν· |, still with τ̆ο` τ̆α´ χ̄οϲ as subject. The rhythmic organization sets | (τὰ δὲ) δάκρυᾰ against |h (τ ̄ω̑ν) ̄ο᾿ φθᾱλμ ̄ω̑ν, with the aid of the unusual word-order (one would expect μακράν first, cf. e.g. Polyb. 15.2.6, Plut. Demosth. 26.3); the confrontation brings out the strangeness of tears existing before they reach the eyes. The next clause justifies this (| δάκρῡον γ̆α` ρ κτλ.); it brings the long simile together in curt metaphor. The division into two rhythmic phrases puts the equated | δάκρῡον and ᾱ῟ιμᾱ | into one isolated entity, and lets the impressive | τρᾱυ´ μᾰτ̄οϲ ψῡχ̄ηϲ̑ . | stand alone (with no articles). The phrase matches ταῖϲ τοῦ ϲ ̄ω´ μᾰτ̄οϲ πλη̄γᾱ ιϲ̑ | (4).

More Tears in Achilles Tatius

303

| ὅτᾰν ο῾̆ τ̄ηϲ̑ λ̄υ´ πη̄ ϲ ο̆᾿ δο̄υ` ϲ | κατὰ μικρὸν τὴν κᾱρδ̆ι´ᾱν ̄ ε᾿ κφ̆α´ γη̄ ι, | ̑ | ἀνέωικται δὲ τοῖϲ ὀφθαλμοῖϲ κατέρρηκται μὲν τῆϲ ψυχ̄ηϲ̑ τ̆ο` τρᾱυμᾱ, η̄ ῾ τ̄ω̑ν δᾰκρ̆υ´ ̄ων θ̆υ´ρᾱ, | τὰ δ̆`ε μ̆ετ̆α` μῑκρ̄ο` ν | τ̄ηϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ νο̄ ι´ ξ̆ε ̄ωϲ | ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆επ̄η´ δη̄ϲ̄εν. |: after the arrow for the initial impact, τ̄ω̑ι τ̄ηϲ̑ λ̄υ´ πη̄ϲ β̆ε´ λεῑ, | is replaced by ο̆῾ τ̄ηϲ̑ λ̄υ´ πη̄ϲ ο̆᾿ δο̄υ´ ϲ |. This initially picks up |h (καὶ) ὀδόντι ϲυόϲ from the comparison (4); but a new phrase, | κατὰ μικρὸν τὴν κᾱρδ̆ι´ᾱν ̄ ε᾿ κφ̆α´ γη̄ι, |, applies the word in a drastic image. | κατὰ μικρὸν, by contrast with | μετὰ μικρ̄ο` ν above (4) and μ̆ετ̆α` μῑκρ̄ο` ν | below (5), draws out the process ghoulishly. The accomplishment of the wound is conveyed in two matching and unexpected perfects in -κται, | κατέρ ρηκται and | ἀνέωικται; they answer | τέτρωταῑ in position and sense, and all are stressed by particles. Rather as ο̆᾿ δο̄υ´ ϲ | turns |h (καὶ) ὀδόντι in a different direction, so | ἀνέωικται turns | (οὐκ) ἀνέωιξεν into opening a door (a metaphorical door of the literal tears, by contrast with the ̑ |). Yet another metaphorical wound in | οὐκ ἀνέωιξεν οὔπ ̄ω τ̆ο` τρᾱυμᾱ, image enters the central comparison. Rhythmic structure underlines the elaborate relation between this sentence and the first part of 5 (| οὕτω καὶ ψυχὴ . . . | τρᾱυ´ μᾰτ̄οϲ ̑ |, τ̆ο` τρᾱυμᾱ, ̑ | ψῡχ̄ηϲ̑ . |): in | κατέρρηκται μὲν τῆϲ ψυχ̄ηϲ̑ τ̆ο` τρᾱυμᾱ, ̑ | in | οὐκ ἀνέωιξεν οὔπ ̄ω τ̆ο` τρᾱυμᾱ, ̑ |, which looks back to τ̆ο` τρᾱυμᾱ, this clause is reversing; at the same time, the word-order varies | τρᾱυ´μᾰτ̄οϲ ψῡχ̄ηϲ̑ . |. | τὰ δ̆`ε μ̆ετ̆α` μῑκρ̄ο` ν | τ̄ηϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ νο̄ ι´ξ̆ε ̄ωϲ | ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆επ̄η´ δη̄ϲ̄εν. | takes up | μετὰ μικρ̄ο` ν δ̆`ε α᾿̆ ν̆ε´ θο̆ρ̄ε, |h (4) from the original, more general image, but spreads it into three rhythmic phrases. | τ̄ηϲ̑ ᾰ᾿ νο̄ ι´ξ̆ε ̄ωϲ | picks up | ἀνέωικται in extended preparation, and the climactic final verb | ̄ ε᾿ ξ̆επ̄η´ δη̄ϲ̄εν. | stands alone. 6. | οὕτω κἀμὲ τὰ μὲν πρῶτα τῆϲ ἀκροάϲεωϲ τῆι ψυχῆι πρ̄οϲπ̆εϲ̄ο´ ντᾱ | κᾰθ̆α´ π̄ερ τ̄οξε̄υ´μᾰτᾱ | κατεϲίγαϲε καὶ τῶν δακρύων ἀπέφρᾱξ̆ε τ̄η` ν πη̄γ̄η´ ν, | μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ ἔρρει, ϲχολαϲάϲηϲ τ̄ηϲ̑ ψῡχ̄ηϲ̑ τ̄ω̑ι κᾰκ ̄ω̑ι. |: elision of δέ would produce rhythm where hiatus would not (so too less importantly in 4 μετὰ τᾱυ τ̑ ᾰ δ’ ̄ ε᾿ ξᾱ ι´ φνη̄ϲ |). At last the vast structure is applied, to the first-person speaker. | κᾰθ̆α´ π̄ερ τ̄οξε̄υ´ μᾰτᾱ |, separated as a phrase, looks back to | τ̄οξε̄υ´ ϲᾱντ̄οϲ λ̆ο´ γοῡ |, which had already hinted at Cleitophon’s particular situation, but gives it the pathos of first-person experience; it has some kinship with Creon’s πάντεϲ ὥϲτε τοξόται ϲκοποῦ | τοξεύετ’ ἀνδρὸϲ τοῦδε (i.e. himself, Soph. Ant. 1033–4). After τ̄οξε̄υ´μᾰτᾱ |, on the other side of the rhythmic boundary, κατεϲίγαϲε comes as a surprising verb. Yet another image enters with τῶν δακρύων ἀπέφρᾱξ̆ε τ̄η` ν πη̄γ̄η´ ν, |; the splitting of τ̄η` ν πη̄γ̄η´ ν, | from

304

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

τῶν δακρύων in order marks the whole phrase out all the more. The idea of a πηγή of tears is familiar (cf. 6.7.5, Charit. 2.3.6, Philo Joseph. 23), but ἀπέφρᾱξ̆ε renews its physicality, like | τ̄οξε̄υ´ϲᾱντ̄οϲ for β̆ε´ λεῑ, |. | μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ resumes | μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ from the simile (4), as ἔρρει, (or, with δ’, ̄ ῎ερρεῑ, |) resumes ε̆᾿ πῑρρε̄ ι,̑ | (4). But here | μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ and ἔρρει, are joined in one phrase, where in the simile there was a considerable gap between | μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ and ε̆᾿ πῑρρε̄ ι,̑ | and | μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ accompanied an intermediate stage: Cleitophon’s account of his own experience is much briefer. τ ̄ω̑ι κᾰκ ̄ω̑ι. | at the close goes paradoxically in a phrase with ϲχολαϲάϲηϲ (which comes after a rhythmical close if we read δ’ ̄ ῎ερρεῑ, |); to follow ϲχολαϲάϲηϲ, one expects something good in the dative. A wry detachment turns the first-person narrator into a philosophical observer of himself. This is an extraordinarily elaborate and highly wrought development of a felicitous basic comparison. The artistry could only be achieved through rhythm; the rhythm is itself part of the artistry and focuses attention on the minute details of this minute observation and expansive working out. The discussion of this and the other passage appears to indicate an evolution of the pointed style as seen in Chariton, so that point is less all-pervasive, and is applied beyond the sphere of declamatory brilliance. We cannot be sure of the chronological sequence of the earlier novelists (cf. for Chariton, Achilles, and Xenophon e.g. Kißel [1990], 287 n. 591, Cavallo [2005], 225–7, Coleman [2011], Henrichs [2011]); but we have seen the diversity with which rhythm is exploited by Chariton and Achilles, and how significantly the absence of rhythm contributes to separating Heliodorus.

Conclusion Form can seem unimportant to us; it was more central to ancient conceptions of literary works. Few modern scholars, perhaps, would lay much weight on metre in describing ‘epic’; and yet even we would allow that Homer’s poems would not be the same poems in iambic trimeters. Prose rhythm is no less important, as we have seen, to the Lives of Plutarch and the novels of Chariton and Achilles; it even goes beyond much Greek metre in its bearing on the sense. It does not play so vital a role as metre in dividing genres, especially for Greek (in Latin, its absence segregates historiography). While rhythm was at least significantly associated with historical narrative by the time of Plutarch, and seems characteristic of novelistic narrative before Heliodorus, there can be a novel without prose rhythm, as Heliodorus shows us, and there can be prose rhythm without narrative, as we see from Plutarch’s philosophical writings. The question for us rather to ask is how the individual authors use rhythm to assist in building up and communicating the world of their works. Rhythm, it should now be clear, is an expressive device, one that enhances and draws attention; although it can theoretically be abstracted from any words, it actually exists in specific works and contexts. We have been looking particularly at moments of much importance within the works where they appear; in the case of Plutarch, density of rhythm has drawn these passages to notice (other passages can of course be singled out by other means). At Charit. 5.8.1–3 (ch. 21), the large world of empire and war falls away in comparison to the values of love. At the centre of the work stands amorous feeling, and rhythm combines with the pointed style to bring out the paradoxical importance of that feeling. In other passages (chs. 22, and, less climactic, 18), rhythm helped the sharp or subtle delineation of erotic love in conflict with other affections. Achilles took the subtlety of Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. G. O. Hutchinson. © G. O. Hutchinson 2018. Published 2018 by Oxford University Press.

306

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

psychological exploration to a remarkable degree, if not without an element of artistic game. In 7.4.3–6 (ch. 25), the more intense of the two moments in the story, he expatiated in metaphorical investigation with an imaginative expansion that recalled Plutarch, but with an intricacy and precision of organization all his own. These were made possible through his way of deploying rhythm. The generalization here extended beyond the love that was the immediate focus. Erotic love and its paradoxes are not at the centre of Plutarch’s values in the Lives—even if marriage matters. The values of philosophy do not make the political and military dimensions of his world irrelevant: his figures are much engaged in various versions of politics and war. Sometimes the moments celebrate the triumphant carrying through of moral ideals in a political environment, by means of politics, war, or even peace: so chs. 4, 6, and 7 on Timoleon, Numa, and Cato the Elder; with Numa especially, the philosophical overtones are apparent. Rhythm helps in the creation of special levels of utterance to convey the achievement. More often in these moments, crisis separates the figures from power and success, and moral values assert themselves in this isolation. The powerless king of Sparta confronts his accusers and death (ch. 17), Crassus defeat and the death of his son (ch. 14), Nicias his own and his army’s failure and suffering (ch. 13). Rhythm intensifies these passages. Other characters, especially women, can display their passionate dedication, like Cornelia (ch. 16), or their love and continued patriotism, like Hagesistrata (ch. 17), in a way that shows the central man to less advantage (Pompey) or steals his limelight (Agis). These characters’ words, or words and actions, are marked out through density of rhythm. Moral change can appear in these moments of defeat: altered treatment of his son from Antigonus, insight into subjects from Demetrius (ch. 15), a sudden rise in Nicias and Crassus (chs. 13 and 14), philosophical maturity from Brutus, and acceptance of death (ch. 9). Sometimes, too, these moments display the greatness of solitary courage in war (Alexander in ch. 8) or celebrate the joy of military success as it happens (Flamininus’ men in ch. 12). Rhythm here is essential in creating a sense of something special about the narrative. But the moments often stand outside the obvious contours of the military or political narrative: so as regards Demetrius and the battle of Ipsus (ch. 15), or Brutus and the killing of Caesar (ch. 9). Plutarch is shaping events into his own patterns, and his whole design evades

Conclusion

307

the march of political development so apparent in the dense moments of Appian’s Civil Wars. Above all, Plutarch’s concern with comparison comes to the fore. Part of this is comparison of the same person in past and present, which we have already seen; but comparison of different people is again and again a concern of these highlighted passages: Brutus and Cassius, Brutus and Porcia, Brutus and Cato (ch. 9), Pompey and Cato (ch. 11), Pompey and Cornelia (ch. 16), Crassus and his son (ch. 14), Antigonus and his son (ch. 15), and so forth. These comparisons are made much sharper and more telling through rhythm. These are a selection of passages particularly dense in rhythm; the very distribution of dense passages marks significant divergences, on some levels, between Lives in a pair: marked disparities are most usual (ch. 3). These asymmetries are striking, since the pair is basic to the structure; they probably help differentiate between the two Lives in a pair, and they may even have a bearing on the distinct treatment of Greek and Roman history in the work as a whole. Rhythm is not just a matter of dense passages; it pervades the entire work, and the works of Chariton and Achilles. Rhythm in Chariton underlines significant verbal links which integrate the whole construction of the work; in Plutarch, although less clamorously, rhythm creates connections of language that bring out themes. The whole argumentative and reflective quality of Plutarch’s narration is made the more conspicuous through the rhythmic marking out of words; the same point can be seen in miniature through the last passage of Achilles Tatius (ch. 25). In Plutarch’s narrative outside, and on either side of, the dense passages, the constant massing and slackening of rhythm (so chs. 5 and 10) give shape and contour to the writing. Rhythm (to end my laudation) gives us a different way of reading. It draws us into a closeness of perception and a heightened sense of meaning which can be shown as valid independently. One benefit is to strengthen appreciation of Plutarch’s greatness as a writer of Greek. The analysis of passages in the book has always grown out of considering their rhythm; it is hoped that at least the reader’s own careful contemplation of these extraordinary moments has instilled a new admiration for how Plutarch writes. His writing in the Lives is infused by the convergent streams of philosophy and history and by his own imagination; but it is through rhythm that all this richness gains potent form. The reader should by now have a grasp of this

308

Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose

system and its significance, or at least a curiosity to grasp the basics— no arduous task. Once one reads in this way, Plutarch and large areas of Imperial Greek literature have a quite different impact. One would then no sooner wish to read Plutarch without a sense of rhythm than to forget the hexameter in reading Homer. Enjoyment is enlarged; in a new way, the prose speaks.

Bibliography Abernetty, W. (1911), De Plutarchi qui fertur de superstitione libello (Diss. Königsberg). Adams, J. (1994), ‘Wackernagel’s Law and the position of unstressed per sonal pronouns in Latin’, Transactions of the Philological Society 92, 103 78. Affortunati, M. (2004), Plutarco: Vita di Bruto. Introduzione e commento storico (Studien zur klassischen Philologie, Frankfurt am Main, etc., 145). Africa, T. W. (1961), Phylarchus and the Spartan Revolution (University of California Publications in History 68, Berkeley and Los Angeles). Aili, H. (1979), The Prose Rhythm of Sallust and Livy (Studia Latina Stock holmiensia 24, Stockholm). Anderson, B. (2011), ‘There is no such thing as attention’, Frontiers in Psychology 2, 246. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00246. Angeli Bertinelli, M. G., Carena, C., Manfredini, M., and Piccirilli, L. (1993), Plutarco, Le Vite di Nicia e di Crasso (Milan). Arnaud, P. (1998), ‘Les Guerres parthiques de Gabinius et de Crassus et la politique occidentale des Parthes Arsacides entre 70 et 53 av. J. C.’, in E. Dąbrowa (ed.), Ancient Iran and the Mediterranean World. Proceedings of an International Conference in Honour of Professor Józef Wolski Held at the Jagiellonian University, Cracow, in September 1996 (Electrum 2, Cracow), 13 34. Asheri, D. (1970a), ‘Notes on the resettlement of Gela under Timoleon’, Historia 19, 618 23. Asheri, D. (1970b), ‘I coloni elei ad Agrigento’, Kokalos 16, 79 88. Astin, A. E. (1978), Cato the Censor (Oxford). Axelson, B. (1933), Senecastudien. Kritische Bemerkungen zu Senecas Natur ales Quaestiones (Lunds Universitets Årsskrift, N. F. Avd. 1, 29.3, Lund). Axelson, B. (1939), Neue Senecastudien. Textkritische Beiträge zu Senecas Epistulae morales (Lunds Universitets Årsskrift, N. F. Avd. 1, 36.1, Lund and Leipzig). Baldassarri, M. (2000), ‘Osservazioni sulla struttura del periodo e sulla costruzione ritmica del discorso nei Moralia di Plutarco’, in Van der Stockt, 1 13. Barrett, W. S. (2007), Greek Lyric, Tragedy, and Textual Criticism, ed. M. L. West (Oxford). Beeston, A. F. L. (1974), ‘Parallelism in Arabic prose’, Journal of Arabic Literature 5, 134 46.

310

Bibliography

Benaissa, A. (2012), ‘Chapter on tetrasyllabic feet’, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 78 (London), 101 10. Bernard, J. (1980), ‘Plutarque et la coiffure des Parthes et des nomades’, Journal des Savants, 67 84. Berry, D. H. (1996), ‘The value of prose rhythm in questions of authenticity: the case of De Optimo Genere Oratorum attributed to Cicero’, Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 9, 47 74. Billows, R. (1990), Antigonos the One Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London). Bispham, E. H., and Cornell, T. J. C. (2013), ‘2. L. Cincius Alimentus: commentary’, FRHist iii.50 62. Blass, Fr. (1887 98), Die attische Beredsamkeit2 (3 vols., Leipzig). Blass, Fr. (1901), Die Rhythmen der attischen Kunstprosa: Isocrates Demosthenes Platon (Leipzig). Bosworth, A. B. (1988), From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation (Oxford). Boys Stones, G. (2007), ‘Physiognomy and ancient psychological theory’, in S. Swain (ed.), Seeing the Face, Seeing the Soul: Polemon’s Physiognomy from Classical Antiquity to Medieval Islam (Oxford), 19 124. Braund, D. (1993), ‘Dionysiac tragedy in Plutarch, Crassus’, CQ n.s. 43, 468 74. Bruère, R. T. (1951), ‘Lucan’s Cornelia’, CP 46, 221 36. Cartledge, P., and Spawforth, A. (2002), Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities2 (London and New York). Castriota, D. (1995), The Ara Pacis Augusteae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art (Princeton). Castrizio, D. (2000), La monetazione mercenariale in Sicilia. Strategie eco nomiche e territoriali fra Dione e Timoleonte (Antiqua et Nova, sez. archeol. 5, Soveria Mannelli). Cavallo, G. (2005), ‘Veicoli materiali della letteratura di consumo. Maniere di scrivere e maniere di leggere’, in Il calamo e il papiro. La scrittura greca dall’età ellenistica ai primi secoli di Bisanzio (2005), 213 33. Coleman, K. (2011), ‘Sailing to Nuceria: evidence for the date of Xenophon of Ephesus’, Acta Classica 44, 27 42. Congiu, M. (2011), ‘L’impianto urbano di età timoleonta a Gela’, in Congiu, Micciché, Modeo, 193 200. Congiu, M., Micciché, C., and Modeo, S. (eds.) (2011), Timoleonte e la Sicilia della seconda metà del IV sec. a.C. Atti del VII Convegno di studi (Caltanissetta and Rome). Consolo Langher, S. N. (1964), Contributo alla storia della antica moneta bronzea in Sicilia (Milan). Consolo Langher, S. N. (1997), Un imperialismo tra democrazia e tirannide. Siracusa nei secoli V e IV a.C. (Rome).

Bibliography

311

Cook, B. L. (2001), ‘Plutarch’s use of λέγεται: narrative design and source in Alexander’, GRBS 42, 329 60. Courtney, E. (1993), The Fragmentary Latin Poets: Edited with Commentary (Oxford). Curtis, V. S. (1998), ‘The Parthian costume and headdress’, in Wiesehöfer, 61 74. De Lacy, P. (1952), ‘Biography and tragedy in Plutarch’, AJP 73, 159 71. de Ste. Croix, G. E. M. (1972), The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London). Desideri, P. (1989), ‘Teoria e prassi storiografica di Plutarco: una proposta di lettura della coppia Emilio Paolo Timoleonte’, Maia n.s. 41, 199 205. Dingmann, M. (2007), Pompeius Magnus. Machtgrundlagen eines spätrepu blikanischen Politikers (Rahden). Dörner, F. K., and Goell, Th. (1963), Arsameia am Nymphaios. Die Ausgra bungen im Hierothesion des Mithradates Kallinikos von 1953 1956 (Istan buler Forschungen 23, Berlin). Dover, K. J. (1997), The Evolution of Greek Prose Style (Oxford). Dreyer, B. (1999), Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des spätklassischen Athen (322 ca. 230 v. Chr.) (Historia Einzelschriften 137, Stuttgart). Drummond, A. (2013a), ‘49. Calpurnius Bibulus’, in FRHist i.407 9, ii.826 9, iii.511. Drummond, A. (2013b), ‘61. M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus’, in FRHist i.463 71, ii.896 9, iii.546 50. Duff, T. E. (1999), Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice (Oxford). Duff, T. E. (2000), ‘Plutarchean Synkrisis: comparisons and contradictions’, in Van der Stockt, 141 61. Duff, T. E. (2015), ‘Aspect and subordination in Plutarchan narrative’, in R. Ash, J. Mossman, and F. B. Titchener (eds.), Fame and Infamy: Essays for Christopher Pelling on Characterization in Greek and Roman Biog raphy and Historiography (Oxford), 129 48. Ehrhardt, N. (1998), ‘Parther und parthische Geschichte bei Tacitus’, in Wiesehöfer, 295 307. Ellerbrock, U., and Winkelmann, S. (2015), Die Parther. Die vergessene Großmacht2 (Darmstadt). Fehling, D. (1969), Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias (Berlin). Fejfer, J. (2008), Roman Portraits in Context (Image & Context 2, Berlin and New York). Finglass, P. (2016), ‘Mistaken identity in Euripides’ Ino’, in P. Kyriakou and A. Rengakos (eds.), Wisdom and Folly in Euripides (Trends in Classics Suppl. 31, Berlin and Boston), 299 315. Fischer Lichte, E., et al. (eds.) (2006), Wege der Wahrnehmung: Authentizi tät, Reflexivität und Aufmerksamkeit im zeitgenössischen Theater (Berlin). Fraccaro, P. (1956 75), Opuscula (4 vols., Pavia).

312

Bibliography

Frazier, Fr. (1996), Histoire et morale dans les Vies parallèles de Plutarque (Paris). Frazier, Fr., and Froidefond, Chr. (1990), Plutarque, Œuvres Morales v.1 (Paris). Fromentin, V., and Bertrand, E. (2014), Dion Cassius, Histoire romaine, livre 47 (Paris). Fuller, J. (2014), The Dice Cup (London). Geiger, J. (2014), ‘The project of the Parallel Lives: Plutarch’s conception of biography’, in M. Beck (ed.), A Companion to Plutarch (Alden, Oxford, Chichester), 292 303. Gelzer, M. (1926), ‘Licinius 68’, RE xiii.295 331. Gelzer, M. (2005), Pompeius. Lebensbild eines Römers (with contributions by E. Herrmann Otto) (Stuttgart). Gigli, D. (1975), ‘Teoria e prassi metrica negli inni a Sarapide e Dioniso di Elio Aristide’, Prometheus 1 (1975), 237 65. Gignac, F. T. (1976 81), A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichità 55, 2 vols., Milan). Godden, M. (2000), Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: Introduction, Commentary, and Glossary (Early English Text Society S.S. 18, Oxford). Goeken, J. (2012), Aelius Aristide et la rhétorique de l’hymne en prose (Recherches sur les rhétoriques religieuses 15, Turnhout). Goldhill, S. (2002), The Invention of Prose (Greece & Rome New Surveys in the Classics 32, Oxford). Goodyear, F. R. D. (1981), The Annals of Tacitus II (Annals 1.55 81 and Annals 2) (Cambridge). Grieb, V. (2008), Hellenistische Demokratie. Politische Organisation und Struktur in freien griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Großen (Historia Einzelschriften 199, Stuttgart). Griffin, M. (1997), ‘Philosophy, politics, and politicians at Rome’, in Griffin and Barnes, 1 37. Griffin, M., and Barnes, J. (eds.) (1997), Philosophia Togata I: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society (Oxford). Groot, A. W. de (1919), A Handbook of Antique Prose Rhythm I (Groningen, The Hague, Leipzig). Groot, A. W. de (1921), Der antike Prosarhythmus I. Zugleich Fortsetzung des Handbook of Antique Prose Rhythm (Groningen). Groot, A. W. de (1926), La Prose métrique des anciens (Collection d’études latines II, Paris). Günther, L. M. (2000), ‘Titus Quinctius Flamininus Griechenfreund aus Gefühl oder Kalkül?’, in K. J. Hölkeskamp and E. Stein Hölkeskamp (eds.), Von Romulus zu Augustus. Große Gestalten der römischen Republik (Munich), 120 30.

Bibliography

313

Gutzwiller, K., and Çelik, Ö. (2012), ‘New Menander mosaics from Antioch’, AJA 116, 573 623. Habicht, Chr. (1997), Athens from Alexander to Antony, tr. D. L. Schneider (Cambridge, Mass., and London). Hallam, C. (2017), ‘The Parthica of Pseudo Appian’, Historia 66, 362 81. Hamilton, J. R. (1969), Plutarch, Alexander: A Commentary (Oxford). Hammond, N. G. L. (1966), ‘The opening campaigns and the battle of the Aoi Stena in the Second Macedonian War’, JRS 56, 39 54. Hardie, P. (1994), Virgil, Aeneid Book IX (Cambridge). Hatfield, G. (1998), ‘Attention in early scientific psychology’, in R. D. Wright (ed.), Visual Attention (New York and Oxford), 3 25. Heath, M. (1999), ‘Longinus On Sublimity’, PCPS 45, 43 74. Heftner, H. (1995), Plutarch und der Aufstieg des Pompeius. Ein historischer Kommentar zu Plutarchs Pompeiusvita. Teil I: Kap. 1 45 (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe III, Bd. 639, Frankfurt am Main). Heibges, St. (1911), De clausulis Charitoneis (Diss. Münster; Halle). Hein, A. (1914), De optativi apud Plutarchum usu (Diss. Breslau). Helm, R. (1984), Eusebius Werke 7. Die Chronik des Hieronymus3 (Berlin). Henrichs, A. (2011), ‘Missing pages: papyrology, genre and the Greek novel’, in Obbink and Rutherford, 302 22. Herzog, R. (1928), Heilige Gesetze von Kos (APAW Jg. 1928, Phil. Hist. Klasse 6, Berlin). Hidber, Th. (1996), Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass. Die Praefatio zu De oratoribus veteribus. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kom mentar (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 70, Stuttgart and Leipzig). Holmes, N. (2002), ‘Metrical notes on Vegetius’ Epitoma rei militaris’, CQ n.s. 52, 358 73. Holmes, N. (2007), ‘False quantities in Vegetius and others’, CQ n.s. 57, 668 86. Hörandner, W. (1981), Der Prosarhythmus in der rhetorischen Literatur der Byzantiner (Wiener Byzantinische Studien 16, Vienna). Housman (1937), M. Manilii Astronomicon liber quartus. Recensuit et enar ravit A. E. H.2 (Cambridge). Housman, A. E. (1972), The Classical Papers, eds. J. Diggle and F. R. D. Goodyear (3 vols., Cambridge). Humble, N. (ed.) (2010), Plutarch’s Lives: Parallelism and Purpose (Swansea). Hunter, R. L. (1983), A Study of Daphnis & Chloe (Cambridge). Hunter, R., and Russell, D. (2011), Plutarch, How to Study Poetry (De audiendis poetis) (Cambridge). Husserl, E. (2004), Wahrnehmung und Aufmerksamkeit: Texte aus dem Nachlass (1893 1912), eds. T. Vongehr and R. Giuliani, Husserliana 38 (Dordrecht). Hutchinson, G. O. (1995), ‘Rhythm, style, and meaning in Cicero’s prose’, CQ n.s. 45, 485 99.

314

Bibliography

Hutchinson, G. O. (1998), Cicero’s Correspondence: A Literary Study (Oxford). Hutchinson, G. O. (2013), Greek to Latin: Frameworks and Contexts for Intertextuality (Oxford). Hutchinson, G. O. (2014), ‘Hellenistic poetry and Hellenistic prose’, in R. Hunter, A. Rengakos, and E. Sistakou (eds.), Hellenistic Studies at a Crossroads: Exploring Texts, Contexts and Metatexts (Trends in Classics, Suppl. 25, Berlin), 31 51. Hutchinson, G. O. (2015a), ‘Appian the artist: rhythmic prose and its literary implications’, CQ n.s. 65, 788 806. Hutchinson, G. O. (2015b), ‘Space in the Aeneid’, in E. Cingano and H. Günther (eds.), Virgilian Studies. A Miscellany Dedicated to the Mem ory of Mario Geymonat (Studia Classica et Mediaevalia 10, Nordhausen), 251 86. Hutchinson, G. O. (2017), ‘Repetition, range, and attention: the Iliad’, in Chr. Tsagalis (ed.), The Winnowing Oar: New Perspectives in Homeric Studies (Berlin), 147 72. James, W. (1981 [orig. 1890]), The Principles of Psychology I (Cambridge, MA, and London). Janko, R. (2000), Philodemus, On Poems Book 1: Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford). Jubran, S. (1989), ‘The function of rhyming prose in Al Sāq ‘ala al Sāq’, Journal of Arabic Literature 20, 148 58. Kālē, M. R. (1967), The Vikramorvaśīyam of Kālidāsa: Edited with a New Sanskrit Commentary and Arthaprakashika, Various Readings, Introduc tion, a Literal Translation, Exhaustive Notes in English, and Appendices11 (Mumbai). Kālē, M. R. (1969), The Abhijñānaśākuntalam of Kālidāsa: With Commen tary of Rāghavabhaṭṭa, Various Readings, Introduction, Literal Transla tion, Exhaustive Notes and Appendices10 (Mumbai). Kechagia, E. (2011), Plutarch Against Colotes: A Lesson in History of Phil osophy (Oxford). Kißel, W. (1990), Aules Persius Flaccus, Satiren. Herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert (Heidelberg). Klock, Chr. (1987), Untersuchungen zu Stil und Rhythmus bei Gregor von Nyssa. Ein Beitrag zum Rhetorikverständnis der griechischen Väter (Bei träge zur klassischen Philologie 173, Frankfurt am Main). Koehler, M. (2012), Poetry of Attention in the Eighteenth Century (Basingstoke). Labarthe, P. (2000), Petits Poèmes en prose de Charles Baudelaire (Paris). Lavie, N., Beck, D. M., and Konstantinou, N. (2007), ‘Blinded by the load: attention, awareness and the role of perceptual load’, in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 36920130205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0205.

Bibliography

315

Leder, St., and Kilpatrick, H. (1992), ‘Classical Arabic prose literature: a researchers’ sketch map’, Journal of Arabic Literature 23, 2 26. Leeman, A. D. (1963), Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians and Philosophers (2 vols., Amsterdam). Lerouge, Ch. (2007), L’Image des Parthes dans le monde gréco romain. Du début du Ier siècle av. J. C. jusqu’à la fin du Haut Empire romain (Oriens et Occidens Bd. 17, Stuttgart). Liberman, G. (2017), Les Préliminaires de la guerre. Prolégomènes à la lecture du premier livre de Thucydide (Scripta Antiqua 99, Bordeaux). Longfellow, B. (2015), ‘Architectural settings’, in E. A. Friedland, M. Grunow Sobocinski, and E. K. Gazda (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Sculpture (Oxford), 343 57. Mankin, D. (2011), Cicero, De Oratore Book III (Cambridge). Mazal, O. (1955), Der Stil des Heliodorus von Emesa (Diss. Vienna). Messadi, M. (1981), Essai sur le rythme dans la prose rimée en arabe (Tunis). Miano, D. (2012), ‘Tychai of Timoleon and Servius Tullius: a hypothesis on the sources’, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, ser. 5, 4, 365 78. Moles, J. L. (2017), A Commentary on Plutarch’s Brutus (updated biblio graphical notes by C. Pelling) (Histos Suppl. 7: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/ histos/HistosSupplements.html). Möller, M. (2013), Ciceros Rhetorik als Theorie der Aufmerksamkeit (Bib liothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, 2. Serie, Bd. 143, Heidelberg). Morgan, J. D. (1990), ‘The death of Cinna the poet’, CQ n.s. 40, 558 9. Morgan, J. R. (1978), ‘A Commentary on the Ninth and Tenth Books of the Aithiopica of Heliodoros’ (D. Phil. thesis, 2 vols., Oxford). Mossman, J. (1988), ‘Tragedy and epic in Plutarch’s Alexander’, JHS 108, 83 93. Müller, K., and Ehlers, W. (1983), Petronius, Satyrica/Schelmenszenen. Lateinisch Deutsch3 (Munich). Müller, K., and Schönfeld, H. (1954), Q. Curtius Rufus, Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen. Lateinisch und Deutsch (Munich). Münzer, Fr. (1901), ‘Cornelius 417’, RE iv.1596 7. Münzer, Fr. (1926), ‘Licinius 63’, RE xiii.291 4. Nachstädt, W., Sieveking, W., and Titchener, J. B. (1935), Plutarchi Moralia ii (Leipzig). Nesselrath, H. G. (1992), Ungeschehenes Geschehen. ‘Beinahe Episoden’ im griechischen und römischen Epos von Homer bis zur Spätantike (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 27, Stuttgart). Neumann, O. (1971), ‘Aufmerksamkeit’, in J. Ritter (ed.), Historisches Wör terbuch der Philosophie (Darmstadt), i.635 45. Niese, B. (1889), Flavii Iosephi opera edidit et apparatu instruxit B. N. V: De Iudaeorum vetustate sive contra Apionem libri II (Berlin).

316

Bibliography

Nirta, A., Calabrò, G., and Sterrantino, A. (2011), ‘Da Corinto alla Sicilia. Il percorso politico ideologico di Timoleonte’, in Congiu, Micciché, Modeo, 161 83. Nisbet, R. G. M. (1961), M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio: Edited with Text, Introduction, and Commentary (Oxford). Nisbet, R. G. M. (1995), ‘Cola and clausulae in Cicero’s speeches’, in Collected Papers on Latin Literature, ed. S. J. Harrison (Oxford), 312 24. Nissen, H. (1863), Kritische Untersuchungen über die Quellen der vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius (Berlin). Norden, Ed. (1898), Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance (2 vols., Leipzig). Obbink, D., and Rutherford, R. B. (eds.) (2011), Culture in Pieces: Essays on Ancient Texts in Honour of Peter Parsons (Oxford). Papanikolaou, D. (2009), ‘The Aretalogy of Isis from Maroneia and the question of Hellenistic “Asianism” ’, ZPE 168, 59 70. Pashler, H. E. (ed.) (1998), Attention (Hove and New York). Paulsen, Th. (1992), Inszenierung des Schicksals. Tragödie und Komödie im Roman des Heliodor (Bochumer altertumwissenschaftliches Colloquium, Bd. 10, Trier). Pelling, C. B. R. (1979), ‘Plutarch’s method of work in the Roman Lives’, JHS 98, 74 96. Pelling, C. B. R. (1997), ‘Plutarch: Roman heroes and Greek culture’, in Griffin and Barnes, 199 232. Pelling, C. B. R. (2002), Plutarch and History: Eighteen Studies (London and Swansea). Pelling, C. B. R. (2010), ‘Plutarch’s “Tale of Two Cities”: do the Parallel Lives combine as global histories?’, in Humble, 217 35. Pelling, C. B. R. (2011), Plutarch, Caesar: Translated with an Introduction and Commentary (Oxford). Pelling, C. B. R., and Melandri, E. (1997), Plutarco, Filopemene, Tito Flami nino (Milan). Peter, H. (1865), Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographieen der Römer neu untersucht (Halle). Pfeilschifter, R. (2005), Titus Quinctius Flamininus. Untersuchungen zur römischen Griechenlandpolitik (Hypomnemata 162, Göttingen). Pinault, D. (1992), Story Telling Techniques in the Arabian Nights (Leiden, New York, Cologne). Pomeroy, S. B. (2002), Spartan Women (Oxford). Pope, J. C. (1967), Homilies of Ælfric: A Supplementary Collection (Early English Text Society no 259, 2 vols., Oxford). Porter, J. (1995), ‘Content and form in Philodemus: the history of an evasion’, in D. Obbink (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace (Oxford and New York), 97 147.

Bibliography

317

Powell, A. (1999), ‘Spartan women assertive in politics? Plutarch’s Lives of Agis and Cleomenes’, in S. Hodkinson and A. Powell (eds.), Sparta: New Perspectives (London), 393 419. Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., and Flannery, B. P. (1992), Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing2 (Cambridge). Probert, P. (forthcoming), Latin Grammarians on the Latin Accent: The Transformation of Greek Grammatical Thought (Oxford). Radermacher, L. (1903), ‘Φόβοϲ’, RhM 58, 315 16. Radt, S. L. (1980), ‘Noch einmal Aischylos, Niobe Fr. 162 N.2 (278 M.)’, ZPE 38, 47 58. Radt, S. L. (2002), ‘Οἱ περί τινα bei Strabon’, ZPE 139, 46. Ramsey, J. T. (2003), Cicero, Philippics I II (Cambridge). Ramsey, J. T. (2016), ‘How and why was Pompey made sole consul in 52 BC?’, Historia 65, 298 324. Reeve, M. D. (1971), ‘Hiatus in the Greek novelists’, CQ n.s. 21, 514 39. Regling, K. (1899), De belli Parthici Crassiani fontibus (Diss. Berlin). Russell, D. A. (1964), ‘Longinus’ On the Sublime: Edited with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford). Russell, D. A. (1966), ‘On reading Plutarch’s Lives’, G&R 2nd ser. 13, 139 54. Russell, D. A. (1973), Plutarch (London). Sampson, G. C. (2015), The Defeat of Rome: Crassus, Carrhae and the Invasion of the East2 (Barnsley). Samuels, M., Witmer, J., and Schaffner, A. (2014), Statistics for the Life Sciences4 (Harlow). Sandbach, F. H. (1939), ‘Rhythm and authenticity in Plutarch’s Moralia’, CQ 33, 194 203. Sansone, D. (1989), Plutarch: The Lives of Aristeides and Cato (Warminster). Sassi, M. M. (1992), ‘Plutarco antifisiognomico, ovvero: del dominio della passione’, in I. Gallo (ed.), Plutarco e le scienze. Atti del IV Convegno plutarcheo, Genova Bocca di Magra, 22 25 aprile 1991, 353 403. Schmidt, Th. (1999), Plutarque et les barbares : la rhétorique d’une image (Collection d’Études Classiques 14, Louvain et Namur). Schmidt, Th. (2000), ‘La Rhétorique des doublets chez Plutarque : le cas de βάρβαρος καὶ [ . . . ]’, in Van der Stockt, 455 64. Schneider, U. (2013), ‘Literatur auf dem Markt: Kommunikation, Aufmerk samkeit, Inszenierung’, in Ph. Theisohn and Chr. Weder (eds.), Literatur betrieb. Zur Poetik einer Produktionsgemeinschaft (Munich), 235 47. Schrott, P. (2014), Plutarchs Philopoimen und Titus Quinctius Flamininus. Eine philologisch historische Kommentierung (Altsprachliche Forschungs ergebnisse 10, 2 vols., Hamburg). Schweighäuser, J. (1785), Ἀππιανοῦ Ἀλεξανδρέως Ῥωμαϊκῶν Ἱϲτοριῶν τὰ σωζόμενα/Appiani Alexandrini Romanarum Historiarum quæ supersunt, collegit, recensuit, adnotationibus variorum suisque illustravit, commodis indicibus instruxit I. S. (3 vols., Leipzig).

318

Bibliography

Scodel, R. (2014), ‘Narrative focus and elusive thought in Homer,’ in D. Cairns and R. Scodel (eds.), Defining Greek Narrative (Edinburgh Leventis Studies 7, Cambridge), 55 74. Seel, M. (2013), Die Künste des Kinos (Frankfurt am Main). Sehlmeyer, M. (1999), Stadtrömische Ehrenstatuen der republikanischen Zeit. Historizität und Kontext von Symbolen nobilitären Standesbewussteins (Historia Einzelschriften 130, Stuttgart). Seng, H. (2003), ‘Troja Motive bei Lucan’, Gymnasium 110, 121 45. Shackleton, D. R. Bailey (1977), Cicero: Epistulae ad Familiares (2 vols., Cambridge). Skutsch, O. (1985), The Annals of Q. Ennius: Edited with an Introduction and Commentary (Oxford). Smith, M. F. (1993), Diogenes of Oenoanda, The Epicurean Inscription: Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Notes (La scuola di Epicuro, Suppl. 1, Naples). Snodgrass, A. M. (1967), Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Ithaca and New York). Stadter, P. A. (2010), ‘Parallels in three dimensions’, in Humble, 197 216, also in Stadter (2015), 286 302. Stadter, P. A. (2015), Plutarch and his Roman Readers (Oxford). Sternkopf, W. (1912), ‘Die Verteilung der römischen Provinzen vor dem Mutinensischen Kriege’, Hermes 47, 321 401. Stillmark, A. (2013), Gedichte in Prosa von der Romantik bis zur Moderne (Frankfurt am Main, Weimar, London, New York). Stockt, L. Van der (ed.) (2000), Rhetorical Theory and Praxis in Plutarch: Acta of the IVth International Congress of the International Plutarch Society, Leuven, July 3 6, 1996 (Collection d’Études Classiques 11, Louvain and Namur). Swain, S. C. R. (1989), ‘Plutarch’s Aemilius and Timoleon’, Historia 38, 314 34. Swain, S. C. R. (2013), Economy, Family, and Society from Rome to Islam: A Critical Edition, English Translation and Study of Bryson’s Management of the Estate (Oxford). Szelest, H. (1951), ‘De Herodiani clausulis metricis’, Eos 45, 87 92. Szelest, H. (1959 60), ‘De Aelii Aristidis clausulis rhythmicis in orationibus quae Μελέται et Μαντευτοὶ inscribuntur obviis’, Eos 50, 91 8. Talbert, R. J. A. (1974), Timoleon and the Revival of Greek Sicily: 344 317 B.C. (Cambridge). Tatum, W. J. (2010), ‘Another look at tyche in Plutarch’s Aemilius Paullus Timoleon’, Historia 59, 448 61. Teodorsson, S. T. (2000), ‘Plutarch’s use of synonyms: a typical feature of his style’, in Van der Stockt, 511 18. Thomas, R. F. (2011), Horace, Odes Book IV and Carmen Saeculare (Cambridge).

Bibliography

319

Thommen, L. (2017), ‘Agis und Kleomenes als Vorläufer der Gracchen’, MH 74, 54 65. Thonemann, P. (2005), ‘The tragic king: Demetrios Poliorketes and the city of Athens’, in O. Hekster and R. Fowler (eds.), Imaginary Kings: Royal Images in the Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome (Oriens et Occidens 11, Stuttgart), 63 86. Threatte, L. (1980 96), The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions (2 vols., Berlin and New York). Thums, B. (2008), Aufmerksamkeit. Wahrnehmung und Selbstbegründung von Brockes bis Nietzsche (Munich). Troscianko, E. (2017), Cognitive Humanities Bibliography, https:// cognitiveclassics.blogs.sas.ac.uk/cognitive humanities bibliography. Usher, S. (2010), ‘Eurhythmia in Isocrates’, CQ n.s. 60, 82 95. Valiavitcharska, V. (2013), Rhetoric and Rhythm in Byzantium (Cambridge). Vatri, A. (2017), Orality and Performance in Classical Attic Prose: A Linguistic Approach (Oxford). Vatri, A. (forthcoming), ‘On the perception of prose rhythm in Greek’, CP. Vessella, C. (2011), ‘Reconstructing the phonology of dead languages. The case of Late Greek «η»’, Rivista di Studi Orientali n.s. 84, 257 71. Vilborg, E. (1962), Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon: A Commentary (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 15, Göteborg). Waldmann, H. (1973), Die kommagenischen Kultreformen unter König Mith radates I. Kallinikos und seinem Sohne Antiochos I. (Leiden). Wardman, A. (1974), Plutarch’s Lives (London). Weggen, K. (2011), Der lange Schatten von Carrhae. Studien zu M. Licinius Crassus (Studien zur Geschichtsforschung des Altertums 22, Hamburg). Wehrli, Cl. (1968), Antigone et Démétrios (Études et documents publiés par l’Institut de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Genève 5, Geneva). Weissenberger, B. (1895), Die Sprache Plutarchs von Chaeronea und die pseudoplutarchischen Schriften. I. Teil (Programm des K. hum. Gymna siums Straubing 1894/5, Straubing). Weissenberger, Kl. (ed.) (1985), Prosakunst ohne Erzählen. Die Gattungen der nicht fiktionalen Kunstprosa (Tübingen). West, M. L. (1992), Ancient Greek Music (Oxford). Westlake, H. D. (1938), ‘The sources of Plutarch’s Timoleon’, CQ 32, 65 74. Wiesehöfer, J. (ed.) (1998), Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse / The Arsacid Empire: Sources and Documentation. Beiträge des internationalen Collo quiums, Eutin (27. 30. Juni 1996) (Historia Einzelschriften 122, Stuttgart). Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1921), Griechische Verskunst (Berlin). Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1969 [orig. 1900]), ‘Asianismus und Atticismus’, Kleine Schriften iii (Berlin), 223 73. Willis, W. H. (1990), ‘The Robinson Cologne papyrus of Achilles Tatius’, GRBS 31, 73 102.

320

Bibliography

Wilson, N. G. (1997), Aelian: Historical Miscellany (Cambridge, Mass.). Wilson, N. G. (2015), Herodotea: Studies in the Text of Herodotus (Oxford). Winterbottom, M. (2011), ‘On ancient prose rhythm: the story of the dichor eus’, in Obbink and Rutherford, 262 76. Wiseman, T. P. (1971), New Men in the Roman Senate 139 B.C. A.D. 14 (Oxford). Wisse, J., Winterbottom, M., and Fantham, E. (2008), M. Tullius Cicero, De Oratore Liber III: A Commentary on Book III, 96 230 (Heidelberg). Wolff, J. (1901), ‘De clausulis Ciceronianis’, Jahrbücher für classische Philo logie Suppl. 26 (Leipzig), 581 680. Wyttenbach, D. A. (1796), Πλουτάρχου τοῦ Χαιρωνέως τὰ Ἠθικά / Plutarchi Chæronensis Moralia, id est opera, exceptis vitis, reliqua. Gr. emendavit, Lat. Xylandri interpretationem subjunxit, animadversiones adjecit D. W., ii (Oxford). Xenophontos, S. (2016), Ethical Education in Plutarch: Moralising Agents and Contexts (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 349, Berlin). Yaginuma, Sh. (1992), ‘Plutarch’s language and style’, ANRW 2.33.6.4726 42. Yarrow, L. M. (2006), Historiography at the End of the Republic: Provincial Perspectives on Roman Rule (Oxford). Zadorojniy, A. V. (1997), ‘Tragedy and epic in Plutarch’s “Crassus” ’, Hermes 125, 169 82. Ziegler, K. (1907), Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der vergleichenden Lebens beschreibungen Plutarchs (Leipzig). Ziegler, K. (1932), ‘Plutarchstudien’, RhM 81, 51 87. Ziegler, K. (1951), ‘Plutarchos’, RE xxi.636 962. Ziegler, K. (1964), Plutarchos von Chaironeia2 (Stuttgart). Ziegler, K. (1996), Plutarchi Vitae Parallelae2 III.1, corrected with addenda by H. Gärtner (Stuttgart and Leipzig). Zieliński, Th. (1904), Das Clauselgesetz in Ciceros Reden. Grundzüge einer oratorischen Rhythmik (Philologus Suppl. 9.4, Leipzig). Zieliński, Th. (1914), Der constructive Rhythmus in Ciceros Reden. Der oratorischen Rhythmik 2. Teil (Philologus Supp. 13.1, Leipzig). Zwierlein, O. (2002), ‘Augustins quantitierender Klauselrhythmus’, ZPE 138, 43 70.

Index of Passages This index contains the majority of the passages mentioned; comments on whole works are included, where the author has written more than one work. Achilles Tatius 1.16.2 3: 291 2.14.5: 301 2.21.2: 260 2.35 8: 294 2.37.6: 294 4.9.5: 296 5.26.4: 293 6.6.4: 294 6.7.1 2: 292, 293 4, 295 6.7.3 7: 291 7, 304, 305 6 6.17.2: 278 7.2.2: 302 7.4.1: 300 7.4.2: 300 7.4.3 6: 295, 299 304, 305 6, 307 7.9.10: 294 Aelian VH 14.4: 104 Aelius Aristides Asclepiad. 24 ii.319 Keil: 252 3 Sarap.: 3 n. 3, 22, 25, 29 8 ii.354 Keil: 3 Aeschines Ctes. 253: 232 Tim. 105: 90 191: 73 Aeschylus Eum. 902 6: 108, 112 Pers. 386 95: 172, 175 Agatharchides fr. 21 GGM i.119 22: 6 Alcaeus fr. 130b Voigt: 100 Alexander of Aphrodisias Anim.: 29 Fat.: 29 Mixt.: 29 Ammianus Marcellinus 30.2.5: 194 Antipater of Tarsus fr. 63, SVF iii.255.25 9: 134

Apollodorus of Athens FGrHist 244 T 2.36 42: 1 Apollonius Rhodius 1.285: 259 Appian BC: 21, 29, 306 7 1.335: 108 2.64: 199 200 2.75: 200 2.84 5: 163, 165 2.286 8: 216 17 2.349: 230 2.470 2: 130 2, 142 2.487: 145 6, 157 8 2.491 3: 145 2.518: 154 2.613: 156 2.637: 120, 121, 127, 130 3.29: 154 4.247: 154 4.552: 149, 158 Hann. 115: 241 Syr. 320: 217 Archilochus fr. 13 West: 204 Aristophanes Birds 1323: 266 Plut. 382 4: 241 Aristotle EN: 31 Poet. 1447b13 23: 2 1447b17 20: 1 Rhet. 3.1408b21 2: 4, 6 3.1408b30: 4 3.1408b31: 8 3.1409a10: 18 3.1409a21 2: 5 [Aristotle] Mund.: 21, 26, 29 Physiogn. 805a33 b3: 40 806a29 30: 40 Prob. 900a22 3: 190

322

Index of Passages

Arrian Anab.: 21, 32 6.9.3: 121, 122 6.9.5: 122, 123, 124, 127 6.11: 120, 124 Asconius pp. 35.25 36.5 Clark: 165 Bacchylides fr. 4.69 77 Snell Maehler: 109, 110 11 Bryson 101 2: 135 Callimachus fr. 191.74 Pfeiffer: 243 H. 6.28: 293 Celsus 7.5.4A: 302 Chariton 1.1.12: 275 1.3.5: 268 1.5.7: 274 5 1.6.2: 275 1.9.3: 277 1.10.4: 274 1.10.7: 259 1.12.4: 259 2.3.6: 304 2.10.4: 260 3.1.8: 278 3.4.1: 276, 277 3.5.3: 271, 277 3.5.4: 254, 255 6 3.5.5 6: 257 61, 265, 268, 305 3.9.1: 259 4.3.10: 275 4.4.5: 260 4.4.7: 275 4.5.8: 275 4.6.7: 278 5.1.5: 275 5.2.2: 283 5.2.5: 275 5.2.6: 283 5.3.3: 280 5.3.10: 283 5.4.5 6: 275 5.4.13: 275 5.5: 275, 278 5.6.9: 260, 275 5.6.10: 274, 275 5.7.8: 275 5.7.10: 274, 275

5.8.1 3: 273 8, 281, 297 8, 305 5.8.3: 268 5.9.4: 274 5.9.5: 275 5.9.7 : 282 6.1.6 7: 280 6.2.2: 283 6.6.1: 276 6.7.5: 282 6.7.7: 260 7.2.4: 122 7.3.5: 280 7.6.6: 282 7.6.7: 280 8.1.7: 275 8.1.8: 281 8.1.14: 275 8.3: 280 8.3.14: 280 8.4.1: 276, 277 8.4.2 3: 282 8.4.7: 280 8.5.1: 280, 282 8.5.2: 280 8.5.3 4: 280, 282 8.5.5 7: 278, 279 83, 286, 295, 305 8.5.8: 276, 281 8.5.9: 283 8.5.12: 283 8.6.8: 281, 286 8.6.10: 258, 286 Cicero Cael. 39: 205 Cat. 1.1: xii 1.16: xii Marc. 23: 117 Phil. 2.63: 18 2.64: 254 2.91: 155 2.97: 154 Brut. 32: 1 63: 39 67: 39 274: 4, 8 n. 10 293: 39 De Orat. 3.173: 5 3.184: 6 3.185: 7, 67 Orat. 151: 63 153: 144 168: 8 n. 10 171: 8 n. 10

Index of Passages 174: 8 175: 5 213: 21 214: 18, 42 215: 42 3 218: 18 224: 18 227: 42 230: 7 232: 19, 42 233: 18, 19, 42 234: 8, 43 236: 43 Ad Brut. 25.4: 153 Att. 2.7.3: 200 15.9.1: 154 15.11.1: 137 Fam. 11.1.1: 154 Cincius FRHist 2 F 4: 144 Clement Strom. 6.7.56.1, GCS ii.460.7 13: 270 Comica Adespota 1000.24 6 Kassel Austin: 134 Critias fr. 7 West: 243 Ctesias FGrHist 688 F 15.55: 280 Curtius 9.4.26: 120 9.5.1 3: 121, 123 4, 126 9.5.9: 124 Deinon FGrHist 690 F 15: 280 Demetrius Eloc. 39: 37 8 42: 141 118: 7, 67 183: 4 299: 63 Demosthenes 18.310: 90 20.78: 90 Dinarchus 1.65: 232 Dio Cassius 40.15.1: 192 40.21.2 22.1: 191, 198, 210 11 40.26.2: 207, 208, 211 40.45.1: 161 40.50.4: 162, 163, 167

44.13.4: 134 61.15.1: 296 Dio Chrysostom 12.2: 281 Diodorus Siculus 17: 122 17.1.2 3: 122 17.98.5 99.2: 121, 122, 124, 125 6 20.106.4: 216, 224 21 fr. 5 Goukowsky: 216 30.5: 173 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. Rom.: 21, 30 2.76.3: 107 8, 109, 112, 137 7.12.4: 269 7.48.1: 174 8.39.1: 155 12.4.4: 144 Comp. 18 ii.79.9 84.3 Usener Radermacher: 6 25 ii.122 42: 2 25 ii.125.16 126.2: 8 25 ii.126.2 15: 5 48 i.234.6 9: 8 48 i.235.8 20: 8( 9) n. 10 48 i.235.9 1: 4 50 i.238.6 18: 2, 8 Isocr. 2 i.57.12 15: 2 3 i.58.4 59.3: 7 12 i.72.2 3: 7 Lys. 3 i.11.19: 1, 2 n. 1 Praef. Vet. Or. 1 3 i.3 6: 9, 134 Empedocles B 122 DK: 233 Ennius Ann. 340 2 Skutsch: 173 Epictetus Diss.: 21, 30 2.5.3: 130 4.1.100: 270 Epicurus fr. 5.1 Arrighetti: 72 3 Euripides Bacch.: 195 Hipp. 385 6: 233 Med. 835 40: 108, 110 Phoen. 261 637: 242 Favorinus Cor.: 24, 30 Exil.: 24, 30 Fort.: 24, 30

323

324

Index of Passages

Fronto pp. 242 3 Van den Hout (Appian): 27 Galen ἀλυπ.: 22, 29 Comp. Med. Gen. xii.640 Kühn: 302 Gloss. Hipp. xix.139 Kühn: 300 1 Nat. Fac. 1.14 p. 139.18 Helmreich Ord.: 21, 26, 29 San. Tuend. 3.11.2, 11 CMG v.4.1 p. 98: 190 6.3.10 p. 172: 190 Us. Part.: 22, 28 n. 31, 31 3.1 i.125 Helmreich: 3 Gellius 1.1: 27 Gorgias B 6.2 DK: 288 Hadrian Courtney (1993), 375 6: 278 Heliodorus 2.23.1: 289 3.18.2: 260 4.9.1: 271 5.3.1: 287 7.12.1: 287 8.5.1: 287 9.5.10: 268 9.24.8: 286 9.25.1: 287 10.3.3: 269 10.12.3: 289 10.16.1 2: 285 9, 293, 294, 300 10.16.3: 289 10.16.5: 296 10.16.7: 289 10.17.2: 288 10.24.1: 271 10.32.3: 287 10.37.1: 271 10.38.3 4: 267 72, 276, 277, 281, 282 10.39.2: 269 Heracleodorus F 10 Janko: 1 Hermogenes Id.: 31 251.20 253.10 Rabe: 2 n. 2 Stas.: 31 Herodian 5.6.2: 296

Herodotus 7.176.1: 14 8.98.2: 90 Hesiod WD 11 12: 233 Homer Il.: 79 n. 3 2.267: 300 6.345 8: 230 6.407: 253 9.48: 280 12.328: 141 12.438: 121 18.98 9: 199 18.208: 172, 173 19.290: 230 19.302: 280 22.25: 258 22.79: 258 22.82 3: 260 22.304 5: 122 22.477 81: 230 24.725: 230 Od. 17.518 21: 2 19.209 12: 287, 288 19.392 3: 301 19.449 51: 301 24.246 7: 90 Horace Odes 2.5.5 12: 200 3.9.4: 278 CS 29 32: 108, 113 Sat. 1.4.12 14: 41 Iamblichus Myst.: 22, 24, 26, 30 Inscriptions Antiochus I of Commagene Inscription A: 64 5 I.Ephes. VII.1 3418A.11: 155 IG 22.1338.40: 289 5.578.8 12: 135 12.4.1.223: 89 12.5.444 A 89: 280 IGUR 3.1166.4 5: 161 I.Iasos 116.3 4, 11 12: 274 I.Priene 108 col. viii 334: 289 I.Straton. 266.13 14: 269 I.Thrac. Aeg. 205: 7, 65 IvO 309.2 3: 250 Isaeus 11.6: 90 Isocrates

Index of Passages Evag. 10: 3 Paneg. 185: 288 Phil. 27: 3, 4 Soph. 16 17: 4 Josephus AJ: 21, 25, 29 5.38: 174 Ap. 21, 25, 28, 65 2.160: 65 2.193: 65 BJ: 21, 25, 29 1.599: 65 1.619: 65 1.647: 65 1.657: 65 1.661: 65 1.666: 65 Vit. 328: 241 Justin Epit. 12.9.5 7: 122, 123, 124, 127 8 Livy 32.11.6: 171 32.11.8 12.4: 170 5, 176 7 fr. 45 Jal: 228, 229 30, 231, 234 Epit. 106: 207 Longinus 39.2 3: 3, 43 39.3 4: 43 Lucan 7.610 15: 131 8.88 105: 228, 229 30, 231 2, 234 5 9.192 5: 42 Lucian Demon. 48: 296 Lucretius 3.907: 16 Lycophron TrGF 100 F 2.9: 269 Lysias 6.30: 90 Manilius 4.16: 15 Meleager CXXV.5 Gow Page: 286 Menander Perik.: 277 fr. 500.1 3 Kassel Austin: 233 Messalla FRHist 61 F 1: 217 Nepos Timol. 1.5 6: 97, 98, 99, 105

3.2: 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 3 Orosius Hist. 13.3.4: 207 Ovid Ib. 539 40: 156 Met.: 34 1.721 3: 291 8.470 3: 288 Rem. 729 30: 282 Papyri P. Colon. inv. 901 + P. Duk. inv. 722: 64 n. 12 P. Hib. I 52 fr. (a) col. ii 18: 294 P. Oxy. IX 1173: 64 n. 12 X 1250 + LVI 3837: 64 n. 12 XXV 2430 fr. 32.4: 27 XLII 3010: 1 2 XLV 3250.5 8: 259 LXXIII 4940: 187 LXXVIII 5153: 64 n. 12 LXXVIII 5159: 17 P. Turner 8: 1 2 Pausanias 3.5.6: 241 Petronius 48.8: 260 Philo Joseph. 23: 304 Philodemus Poem.: 2 Philostratus VS: 51 2 1.21: 3 7.26: 204 Phylarchus FGrHist 81 F 32 (b): 237 F 44: 237 Pindar Nem. 8.2: 295 Ol. 1.82 3: 265 Pyth. 1.12: 2 Piso FRHist 9 F 26: 144 Plato Apol. 37c5 6: 183 Crat. 403e1: 108 Crito 45c2 5: 198 Gorg. 484b1: 57 502c4 12: 2 512e1 2: 183 Laws 3.688b6 c1: 71 11.930a3 4: 288

325

326

Index of Passages

Plato (cont.) Parm. 135d3: 270 Phaedo: 140 62b1 c8: 139, 140, 141, 183, 199 96a7: 139 Phaedr. 251c6 7: 295 252d7: 91 279a8 b1: 270 Phileb. 39a1 c6: 117 56a3: 270 Rep. 5.473c e3: 110, 111 Tim. 19e6 7: 50 29b5 7: 101 Plato Comicus fr. 203 Kassel Austin: 184 Plutarch Vit. Parall. (other Lives after Tim.): 22, 29, 33 66, 78 83, 161 2, 305 8 Aem. 8.4 5: 57 13.6 7: 76 19.5: 57 22.1: 58 23.4: 47 24.5: 50, 57 28.9: 50 34.3: 131 Ages. 2.4: 118 11.2: 51 18.6: 48, 124 24.6: 51 24.9: 48 26.3: 201 32.11: 255 32.13: 59 33.1: 63 33.8: 281 Agis: 78 9 4.2: 243 4 6.7: 251 7.4: 247 9.3: 237 10.1: 247 11.7: 240 11.8: 240, 241, 243 12.6: 253 14.3 4: 247 15.1: 247 16.1 3: 248 16.6 17.5: 77, 238 44 17.6 7: 243 17.8: 241

17.9 18.3: 77, 238 44 18.4: 240, 247 18.7 19.3: 240, 247, 248, 250, 251 19.4: 249 19.5 21.1: 77, 199, 237, 244 55, 306 20.5: 229 21.2: 249 21.5: 250, 253 Alc. 14.1: 210 27: 76 30.10: 62 34.7: 49 Alex. 55.9: 121 58.2: 51 58.8: 252 63.2 6: 77, 119 28, 306 63.8: 124 63.9: 124 68.2: 120 Ant. 9.4: 54 14.2: 153 14.4: 153 28.1: 56 33.3: 217 35.3 7: 77 36.1: 108 43.2: 250 54.5 9: 217 65.5: 72 Arist. 1.4: 45 6.3 5: 75 9.3: 53 15.4: 233 17.8: 194, 199 Brut.: 33, 129, 130, 132, 136, 139, 140, 141, 143, 145, 152, 157 1.4: 145 1.5: 143 5 9.5: 165 10.4 6: 76, 129 32, 133, 141, 306, 307 10.6: 73 12.3: 153 13.3: 133 13.4: 133, 134, 135 13.7 9: 76 13.7 10: 132 6, 141, 306, 307 13.11: 133 14.4: 144 16.1: 144 16.4: 144, 145 6, 148, 152

Index of Passages 17.3 6: 154 17.4 7: 145 18.1: 145 18.7: 153 18.9: 153 18.13: 153, 156 19 20: 143, 149 57, 307 21.1: 155, 157 22.6: 153 29.2 3: 76, 117, 136 8, 141, 277 29.7: 137 35.4: 141 40.1: 139, 217 40.3: 217 40.7 8: 76, 138 41, 306, 307 40.9: 141 51.3: 147 52.1 8: 143, 146 9 Caes. 16.1 6: 77 16.9: 198, 199 28.7: 161 2, 166 7 33.1 2: 61 38.1: 250 39.8: 66 47.3 6: 228 54.3: 51 57.1: 162 58.4 7: 77 66: 145 66.1 3: 77 66.7 12: 77 67.1: 145 68.2 3: 156, 157 68.3 6: 156, 157, 158 68.7: 157 Cam. 3.2 5: 74 10.1 6: 74 5 10.4: 52 3, 252 18.2: 62 22.5: 58 30.1: 55 32.6: 155 39.4: 75 40.2: 75 Cat. Mai. 6.4: 40 1 7.2 3: 39 40 19.4 5: 75 19.4 6: 115 19, 223, 306 19.7: 116 Cat. Min. 14.2 5: 76 23.1: 252 30.6: 164

327

40: 76 45.7: 204 47 48.4: 160 6 48.8: 164 58.13: 210 65.1: 140 68: 76 68 9: 140 Cic.: 33 37.1: 104 Cim. 17.5 18.1: 71 Cleom. 22 (1).3: 254 34 (13): 237 34 (13).2 3: 78 43 (22).4 5: 254, 259, 263 6 43 (22).4 10: 263 4, 265, 266 50 (29).1: 254 52 (31).3 4: 250 52 (31).8 10: 148 59 (38).8 9: 264 59 (38).11: 254 60 (39).1: 254 60 (39).4 6: 254 Comp. Aem. Tim. 41 (2).11 12: 98, 105 Comp. Ages. Pomp. 85 (5).1: 233 Comp. Cat. Arist. 32 (5).4: 204 Comp. Dion. Brut. 56 (3).6: 98 56 (3).11: 56 Comp. Lys. Sull. 39 (1).7: 162 41 (3).3: 209 Comp. Nic. Crass. 35 (2).1 4: 75 38 (5).4: 185, 207, 210 Comp. Per. Fab. 28 (1).3: 204 Comp. Phil. Flam. 23 (2).4: 58 Comp. Sol. Publ. 27 (4).5: 55 Comp. Thes. Rom. 30 (1).2: 74 Cor. 1.6: 60 8.6: 48 15.1: 53 15.1 4: 75 16.5 7: 75 17.1 2: 75 18.2 3: 75 29.4: 53 38.1 7: 75 38.6: 48 Cras.: 180, 187 11.10: 200 14.2 5: 75 18.4: 208 21.6: 194

328

Index of Passages

Plutarch (cont.) 22.1: 90, 92 23.5 6: 190, 198, 207, 208 23.7 24.3: 75, 188 97 25.2: 200 25.3: 200 25.11: 197, 198 25.12 14: 75, 197 200, 307 26.4 5: 201, 202, 203, 206 26.6 9: 75, 200 5, 306, 307 27.1: 203, 205, 207 27.6: 202, 207 27.7: 209 27.8: 196 29.5 7: 209 30.2 5: 75, 205 10 31.1: 209 31.2: 209 31.5 6: 209 10 31.7: 200 32.1 3: 195 32.2: 206 33.3 7: 200 Demetr.: 79 3.1 5: 215 8 14: 221, 222 10.1: 221 10.3: 221 10.4 6: 221 2 12.2: 222 12.5: 222 18.1: 217 28: 77, 213 18, 219, 306, 307 29.3 8: 219 29.4: 213, 218 19 29.5: 216 29.8: 217 30.2 31.3: 77, 213, 217, 219 24, 306 32.2: 224 33 4: 224 33.1 219 34.4 7: 77, 224 36.10: 64 38.10: 217 43.3 7: 77, 224 47.6: 207 Demosth.: 33 3.1: 33 10.5: 53 4 26.5: 60 30.4: 149

Dion: 33 4, 132 2.7: 33 4 4.6: 51 9.2 6: 76 14.5 15.1: 76 24.10: 49 27.1: 61 28.1: 61 Eum.: 79 1.6: 60 6.4 6: 76 9.1 5: 76 14.1 4: 76 14.11: 193 17.6 11: 76 Fab.: 33, 204 7.3: 54 5 12.1 3: 75 18.3: 62 24: 51, 202 26.3: 75 Flam. 2.5: 54 3.5: 65 3.5 6: 171 4.3 7: 170, 171, 175 6 4.8 12: 76, 169 77, 306 5.1: 174 18.8: 170 18.9: 170 20.10: 170 Gracch., C. 31 (10).6: 199 36 (15).3 5: 78 Gracch., Ti. 15.4 7: 78, 82 21.4 7: 78 Luc. 11.2: 65 17.7: 65 28.5: 204 38.1 2: 75 39.1: 215 Lyc. 13.3: 47 21.1: 153 25.4: 50 1 Lys. 10.4: 217 30.6: 59 Mar. 16.7: 48 18.8: 66 19.9: 155 20.2: 58 9 20.3: 60 23.4: 49 27.2 4: 77 39.2: 253

Index of Passages 43.8: 53 46.1 3: 77 Marc. 2.4: 49 7.4: 50 19.2: 45 20.8: 50 Nic. 1.1 5: 180, 187 2.4 6: 185 11.7: 184 18.6 10: 75 12.3 6: 183 21.1: 181 23.1, 7: 184 26.3 6: 75, 179 86, 196, 202, 208, 306 Num. 10.2: 54 16.5 7: 78 20.4 5: 78, 107 13, 306 20.6 9: 107, 109, 110 11 Pel.: 79 5.4: 47 12.7: 50, 66 24.6: 73 26.1: 54 28.2 4: 77 33.2 4: 77 34.4: 90 35.10: 193 Per.: 33 2.5: 33 6.4: 62 9.4: 65 18.2: 56 19.3: 210 33.6: 49 Philop. 15.7 11: 76 Phoc. 18.1: 66 18.5: 66 23.5 6: 103 Pomp.: 160, 165 2.1: 253 9.4: 82 30.3: 162 43.1: 163 44.3: 65 46.2: 230 1, 234 52.1: 162 54.5 9: 159 67, 264, 307 54.6 8: 78 55.1: 231 55.9: 164 65.8: 66

329

72.1: 288 74.3: 230 74.5 75.2: 78, 227 35, 282, 306, 307 75.1 4: 141, 163, 233 76.1: 230 76.9: 233 78.5 7: 78, 162 79.1 5: 78 Publ. 9.7: 100 Pyrrh. 4.4: 219 11.8 14: 77 23.8: 38 32.5: 175 Rom.: 29 7.6 8: 74 9.3: 48 14.5 6: 74 17.3: 52 20.7: 49 Sert. 1.9: 56 14.1: 55 23.3: 58 27.2 5: 76 Sol. 1.5: 52 4.4: 65 13.6: 51, 56 14.2: 47 28.5: 52, 65 29.5: 146 Sull. 11.2: 89 11.3 5: 78 30.6: 137, 142 Them. 6.1: 47 6.1 5: 74 7.7: 101 18.4: 50 19.9: 165 Thes.: 29 6.4: 48, 253 Tim.: 79 1.2 4: 76 3.4: 98 4.6: 97 4.8: 98, 100 5 6: 95 105, 143, 287 8, 307 7.1: 100 12.1: 50 12.4 7: 76 19.6: 66 27.4: 190 35: 76, 87 93, 97, 107, 306

330

Index of Passages

Plutarch (cont.) 36.2 4: 88, 91 2, 97 36 9: 89 Arat.: 35 7.5: 249 24.2: 51 24.5 6: 77, 90, 92 Artox.: 35 3.4: 66 5.6: 280 16.6: 65 29.5 11: 77 30.5: 77 Galb.: 35 8.4: 66 12.5: 82 25.2: 57, 65 25.3 7: 78 26.3: 229 26.8 27.4: 78 Otho: 35 1.1: 55 5.9: 50 13.2: 233 17.11: 199 18.1 2: 116, 118 Adulat. 49a b: 131 53b: 140 Alex. Fort. 1 2: 204 1 326d e: 229 1 327b: 121 2 341c: 121 2 343d 345b: 120 2 343d e: 120, 121, 122, 123 4, 125 6 2 343f: 123 2 344c: 124 Aud. Poet. 15d: 101 18d e: 242 25a b: 242 Coh. Ir. 464d: 252 Col.: 68 9 1107e: 68 1124d 1127e: 68 1125d: 72 1125d f: 68 74 1127d e: 69, 73 Coniug. Praec. 140a: 134 145b: 230 Cons. Ux. 609f: 242 Cup. Div. 523d: 217 Exil. 605e: 199

Fac. Lun. 940e: 173 Fort. Rom.: 82, 204 321c d: 108, 109, 112 321f: 109 Frat. 481a b: 242 E Delph. 285c: 72 Garr. 506d: 218, 225 509c: 210 512c: 174 Gen. Socr. 582d: 206 Glor. Ath. 350c: 223 Non Posse Suav. 1101b: 72 1101c: 72 Praec. Ger. Reip. 820b: 116, 118 Pyth. Or. 397a: 2 3 Quaest. Conv. 4.2.4 666c: 193 9.1.2 736e: 233 Sen. Resp. 785b: 50 789b: 134 793a: 190 Sept. Sap. 152d: 266 160f: 194 Stoic. Repugn. 1036b c: 253 Superst.: 184 Tranq. 474b c: 233 Tuend. San. 127d: 302 Virt. Mor. 448f: 233 fr. 157.6 Sandbach: 100 [Plutarch] Apophth. Lac. 216c d: 250, 255 224e: 250 230a: 59 241e f: 259 Mul. Virt. 252d: 259 253e: 252 Reg. Imp. Apophth. 182b: 218, 225 189d: 264 Polemon Α´ 46 7 p. 147 Stefec: 43 4 Polyaenus 7.41: 206 Polybius 5.38.10: 122 8.20.8: 218 12.23.4: 90 12.23.7: 90 27.15.2 4: 173 28.3.3: 252 Ptolemy FGrHist 138 F 26 a: 124 Quintilian Inst. 9.4.26: 36

Index of Passages 9.4.60: 43 9.4.62: 37 9.4.67: 37 9.4.75: 19 9.4.97: 18 9.4.101: 19 9.4.102: 17 9.4.103: 18 9.4.104: 18 9.4.105: 17 9.4.106: 18 9.4.107: 18 9.4.108: 18 19 9.4.109: 19 9.4.111: 18 9.4.119: 18 Semonides fr. 7.103 West: 269 Seneca Med. 19 20: 44 5 Oed. 988: 15 Ben. 1.1.5 6: 146 Ep. 63.2: 296 77.6: 44 Marc. 1.3: 148 Seneca Rhetor Suas. 2.1 2: 13 16 5.2: 16 5.4: 16 Sophocles Aj. 597 9: 12 Ant. 332 3: 182 1033 4: 303 Trach. 548 9: 295 Stobaeus 4.14.3: 111 Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta ii.420: 301 iii.719: 294 Strabo 11.9.2 515C iii.352.15 16 Radt: 192 14.1.41 648C iv.42.6 8 Radt: 6 15.1.33 701C. iv.178.5 8 Radt: 120 1 Straton fr. 111 Wehrli: 301 Suda Θ 559: 269 Tacitus Ann. 4.52.2: 117

331

6.42.4: 194 15.13.2: 192 Themistius Paraphr. Arist. De Anim. 1.4 ii.9 14 Spengel: 270 Theocritus 2.55: 134 7.124: 134 Theon Progymn. 71 Sp. 16.9 11 Patillon: 7 Theophrastus fr. 701 Fortenbaugh: 6 Thucydides 1.122.4: 217 2.62.3 4: 217 6.31.1: 181 2 7.71.3: 182 7.71.5: 271, 276 7.74.1: 181, 182, 185 7.75.2: 181 7.75.4: 181, 185 6 7.75.7: 181, 186 7.76: 202, 211 7.77: 202, 205 7.77.1: 182, 183 7.77.2: 182, 184, 186 7.77.3: 183 7.77.4: 184, 203 7.77.5: 181 7.77.7: 202 7.86.5: 183 4, 186 [Tibullus] 3.16.3 4: 134 Tyrtaeus fr. 10.18 West: 182 Vettius Valens 4.15.4: 202 4.16.8: 202 Virgil Aen. 3.583 4: 192 4.25 7: 231 9.477: 201 9.498 502: 201 9.815 16: 123 12.298 9: 156 Xenophon of Athens Ages. 7.1: 90 Mem. 1.3.1: 39

General Index Authors are usually mentioned only in the preceding index when specific passages are in question. Romans are given full names only when a single name seriously risks confusion. Achilles Tatius boldness of language 293 and Chariton 291, 296 7, 304 excursuses in 293 gender in 293, 294 and Heliodorus 291, 293, 296 7, 300 homodiegetic narrator 294, 296, 304 humour in 302 imagery in 300 4 inventiveness 291 memorable phrases 300, 302, 306 philosophy in 294, 295, 304 play in 306 and Plutarch 300, 306 and psychology 300, 306 and reader 300 and rhythm 21, 29, 300 visual conceit in 293 Acragas 87, 89 Ælfric 4 Aelian 22, 30 Aelius Aristides 22, 25, 29 Aemilius Paullus 76 Agis IV 77, 79, 237 55, 306 Ahala, name 144 ἀκοϲμ 196 Alcibiades 76 Alexander of Aphrodisias 21, 26, 29 Alexander the Great 60, 77, 119 28, 306 ‘the king’ 123 alliteration 49, 51 ἄμεμπτοϲ 135 Ammianus 10 Amphares 245, 247 55 ἀνάγκη 223 anaphora 100 ἀνήρ (ἄνερ) 229 ἀνιαρόϲ 134 Antigonus Monophthalmus 77, 213 19, 306, 307 Antiochus III 201, 203 4 Antoninus Liberalis 22, 30

Antony 56, 149 55 Appian and density 78 and hiatus 63, 64 not drawing on Plutarch 130 and rhythm 19 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 130 structure and Plutarch 33 Apuleius 10 Arabic prose 4 Aratus of Sicyon 77 Archidamia 251 2 Aristides of Locri 96, 103 4 Aristotle 4 6, 22, 23, 31 Arrian 22, 23, 25, 30, 32 art and life 91 Artaxates 279, 283 Artaxerxes II 77, 274, 278, 279 83 spelling of name 280 Artemidorus 23, 32 article creates emphasis 268 Asia 7, 9 Asianism 6 9, 24, 26, 68 asyndeton 82, 90, 203, 276 7 Athenaeus 22, 31 Athenians 76, 179 86, 202, 220 4 Athens 74, 87, 213, 220 4 attention 38 n. 5 and alternatives to rhythm 289 and beginnings and ends 37, 38, 55 and emphasis 36 and poetry 2 and rhythm 3, 35, 36 8, 41, 58, 67 8, 80, 81, 83, 84, 97, 135, 138, 149, 153, 155, 171, 218, 252, 268, 293, 304, 305 Attic prose 180 pronunciation 27, 46 Augustus (Octavian) 77, 217 Bacchylides 16 Baudelaire 2, 27 beginnings and attention 37, 38, 55

General Index Bibulus, see Calpurnius biography and structures 33 4 brackets for prepositives at start of phrase 84 Brutus 56, 76, 129 58, 306 and Cassius 76, 129, 130, 139, 145, 152, 307 and Cato 139 40, 307 and Porcia 133, 307 Budé of Plutarch 84 cadences 12 Caesar 8, 75, 77, 144, 145, 150, 155, 306 Calidius 4 Callirhoe 258, 259, 260, 274 8, 279 83 spelling of name 277 Calpurnius Bibulus, M. (cos. 59 BC) 162 Calpurnius Bibulus, son of Porcia 133 Camillus 74 5 Carrhae, Battle of 187 211, 228 Cassius 76, 129 33, 136 41, 145 6, 149 50, 153, 217 Cato the Elder 39 41, 75, 110 18, 306 Cato the Younger 51, 75, 76, 132 4, 138 40, 159 67, 264 Celsus, see Marius Chaereas 257 61, 274 8, 280, 282, 283, 286 Charicleia 267 72, 285 9 Charicles 268, 271 Chariton and Achilles Tatius 296 7, 304 brief sentences 257 constant intensity 257 and Heliodorus 267 72, 276, 278, 279 83, 286, 287, 289 highly rhythmic 21, 23, 28 movement in 281 play in 261, 280 and Plutarch 257, 259, 260, 263 6 pointed style 257, 304 quotations in 260, 280 recurring phrases in 274, 307 syntax 260, 266 values in 305 Charops 170, 173, 176 χ2 test, type of 20 1, 28 32 Chilonis 237 44, 252 scansion of name 242 3 Cicero analysis of rhythm 8, 17 19 and Cato 76 and density 78

333

Plutarch pointing to? 39, 154 and prose rhythm 8 9 recurring pairs in 50 Cimbri 49 Cimon 75 Cinna 150, 156 7 Cleitophon 292, 294, 299 304 Cleombrotus II 77, 237 44, 252 Cleomenes III 78, 79, 254, 263 6 Clodius 150 colonization, founder 89 90 Colotes 68 70, 72, 73 commentaries, strange version of 83 5 comparison in Plutarch 81 2, 129 41, 160 1, 234, 240, 307 computing 10 n. 14 Corinthians 95, 97 Coriolanus 75 Cornelia, wife of Pompey 78, 227 35, 282, 306 Cornelius Scipio Africanus Maior, P. (cos. 205 BC) 75 Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes, L. (cos. 190 BC) 203 Cos 89 Crassus 187 211, 306, 307 Cratesicleia 263 6 Curtius, Quintus 10 Damochares 245, 249 death and fate 15 in Plutarch 80 near greatness before 185 Deidameia I 219 20, 222 Demetrius Poliorcetes 77, 79, 213 25, 306, 307 Demosthenes (the general) 181 Demosthenes (the orator) 1, 5, 9, 43, 60 density of rhythm 67 8 in Appian 78, 307 and battles 213, 216 17, 219 in Cicero 78 criteria 68 fluctuations 104, 156, 157, 183, 277 8, 307 not just one function 83 not specific style 68 in Plutarch briefer density in 104 5, 263 essential to climactic impact of a passage 122

334

General Index

density of rhythm (cont.) in Greek and Roman Lives 79 list of passages 74 83 looser rhythm expressive? 196 and lyricism 90, 137 more limited density 143 9, 184 much extended 190 passages without density 95 105, 149 57 self contemplating artistry 91 in a single Life 129 42, cf. 143 9 and structure of Lives 79 80, 215, 306 and values 306 7 Diadochi 215, 216, 221 διακαρτερέω 208 διάνοια 287 8 dictatorship 161 2 Dido 231 Dio Cassius not rhythmic 22, 24, 25, 30 structure and Plutarch 33 Dio Chrysostom 22, 25, 31 Diodorus 7 Diogenes Laertius 22, 26, 30 Dion 61, 76 Dionysius (character in Chariton) 273 5, 278, 283 Dionysius I 76, 96 Dionysius II 76 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 9, 22, 24, 25, 30, 257 distribution, ‘normal’ 20, 23 δουπ 193 δύοιν θάτερον 260 εἰμί 278 + dative 152 ἔϲτι τιϲ 135 ἐκχορεύω 269 elision 64, 66, 229, 303 ἐλπίϲ 174, 184 ἐμβάλλομαι 259 emphasis and attention 36 confirmed by word order 35, 100, 135, 161, 163, 171, 174, 194, 205, 206, 221, 230, 243, 244, 293, 302 on more than one word 56 7 and rhythm 35, 41, 44, 55 60, 190 1 and verbs 57 60 enchantment 2 3, 108

ends and attention 37, 55 6 enjambement 46 Epaminondas 45, 47 ephors 244 55 Ephorus 97 Epictetus 22, 25, 26, 30 Epicurus, Epicureanism 68 70, 72, 74, 141 2 ἔργον 130, 229 ethical plot 213, 221 ethnography 192 εὐχή with χράομαι 71 Eumenes 60, 76, 79 εὐρυθμία 4, 6 Fabius 75 Favorinus 22, 24, 25, 30 Flamininus 76, 169 77, 306 fortune 141, 203, 229 30, 232, 233, 241 Fronto 10 Galba 55, 78 Galen 21, 23, 26, 28 n. 31, 29, 31 Gela 87, 89 Gellius 10 Gerousia 247 gods Alexander as if momentarily divine 123 Antigonus and Demetrius as 221 ἡ περὶ θεῶν δόξα 72 in Heliodorus 270 and individual 141 and suicide 140 theological challenge 184 Gorgias 5 Gracchus, C. 78 Gracchus, Ti. 78, 82 Hagesistrata 245, 251 5, 306 hands and courage 148, 199 Hannibal 56, 58 Hebrews 22, 26, 29 Hegesias 6 9, 11, 25, 68, 257 Heliodorus 23, 25, 31, 257, 304 and Achilles Tatius 296, 300 and Chariton 267 72, 276, 278, 279 83, 286, 287, 289 gender in 286 7 humour 269, 286 imagery in 270 1, 288 9 narrator in 289 philosophy in 289, 294, 296

General Index and Plutarch 269 and reader 271, 289 post rhythmic? 268 stylistic deviation 268 syntactic structures 269, 271, 286 virtuosity 271 Hellenistic discussion of rhythm 7 8 Heraclitus Allegoricus 22, 29 Hermogenes 22, 26, 31 Herodian 22, 25, 29 heroism mitigated 149 hiatus xii, 21, 229 historiography: and performance 26 and rhetoric on Alexander 120 and rhythm 9, 25, 26 Homer Achilles Tatius evokes 294, 301 Heliodorus evokes 287 8 and metre 305, 308 perspectives and Plutarch 33, 230 in Plutarch and Arrian 121 2 Plutarch evokes 109, 124, 194, 199, 230, 234 Hydaspes 268, 285 9, 296 Iamblichus 22, 24, 26, 30, 31 imagery in Achilles Tatius 300 4 followed through 117 in Heliodorus 270 1, 288 9 in Plutarch 102, 108 10 individual and army 182 and gods 141 inscription, alleged 116 inscriptions, rhythm in 7 Ipsus, Battle of 213 19, 306 irony in Appian 163 see also Plutarch, irony in Isocrates 5, 22, 31, 63 jokiness good 137 Josephus 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 63 καί after clause seems complete 301 καταφρον 217 king of Persia 278 see also Artaxerxes II kingship 123, 217 18, 221, 237 55, 278, 279 83, 286, 287, 289, 306 κυματόω 288

335

Late Republic, Plutarch’s treatment of 33, 160 1 λέγουϲι 137 Leonidas II 77, 237 55 Leopardi 3 Leucippe 291 7, 300 Licinius Crassus, P. (son of triumvir) 75, 191, 197 202, 227, 231, 306, 307 Livy 9 Plutarch and 170, 173, 175, 228 long syllables, series of grandiose? 141 Longinus 21, 24, 25, 26, 28 Longus 21, 28 Lucian 22, 24, 30 Lucullus 75, 201, 203 4, 215 Lycurgus 50 1, 245, 248 Lysander 59 Lysias 39 μα 50 Maelius, Sp. 143 5 Magnesia, Battle of 203 4 Malloi 120 1 μᾶλλον 294 Marathon 43 4 Marcellus 45 Marcus Aurelius 23, 26, 31 Marius 60, 77, 137 Marius Celsus, A. (cos. suff. AD 69) 55 marriage 134, 135, 234, 283, 306 remarriage 231 Maximus of Tyre 22, 23, 30 Megabocchus 200 μέγαϲ 139 Merini 3 Messalla, see Valerius metre 2 aeolic in tragedy 12 and rhythm 4, 8, 12, 41 Metrodorus 69 Milton 215 Mithridates (satrap of Caria in Chariton) 273 5 Mithridates VI of Pontus 58, 78, 80 μοναρχία 160, 163 mosaic from Daphne 277 Musonius 21, 26, 29 mute and liquid 46 Mytilene 228 names meaning exploited 231 2, 244, 251 not used 243, 258

336

General Index

names (cont.) and rhythm in novelists 274, 278 third person use of 116 17, 199, 204, 230, 231 narrative and rhythm 25 negatives, strings of 90 1, 223 Nepos and structure 33 Nibelungenlied 3 Nicias 75, 179 86, 202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 306 novel chronology of 304 and rhythm 25, 304 Numa 62, 78, 107 13, 306 oratio soluta 1 oratory and rhythmic prose 7 8 ὁρμή 270 Orodes II 187, 206 Otho 78, 118 οὕτωϲ + adj. + relative 199 overlap of rhythmic phrases xii, 62 3 Ovid 34, 68 Oxydracae 120 pairs of clauses 269 of Lives 79, 180, 307 of phrases 51 expansion 51, 117 of words 49 52, 101, 131 2, 155, 202, 217, 252 3 create rhythmic phrase 50 1 make pairs of phrases 131 2 recurring 50 παῖϲ 259 papyri accents in 64, 294 hiatus and elision in 64 paradox 44, 55, 172, 199, 241, 253, 259, 260, 274, 278, 281, 283, 293, 300, 305, 306 Parthians 187 211 particles 47, 48 πατρικόϲ 289 πάτριοϲ 289 Pausanias 22, 30 peacock 291 πηγή 304 Pelopidas 77, 79 περί, οἱ 89, 200, 209

Pericles 56 Persinna 285 9 Petronius (author) 1, 9, 10 Petronius (trib. mil. under Crassus) 209 Pharsalus, Battle of 228 34 φίλιοϲ 174 Philip V 57, 76, 170, 175 Philo 21, 24, 26, 28, 29 Philopoemen 58, 76 φιλοψυχ 182 3 philosophy in Achilles Tatius 294 5 in Elder Seneca (Arellius Fuscus the Elder) 15 in Heliodorus 289, 294 and love 74 in Plutarch 68 9, 75, 77, 81 2, 100, 135, 213, 223, 307 and politics 81, 306 Philostratus 23, 32 Phocion 95 6, 103 phonology, changes in 27 Phylarchus 237 physiognomy 40 Plato 22, 31, 76, 117 and Plutarch 39, 182 3 πλοῖον 265 Plotinus 22, 26, 31 Plutarch alliteration in 49, 51 and Appian 306 7 atmosphere in 172 3 and Chariton 257, 259, 260, 263 6 comparison in 80 1, 133, 136, 160, 202, 234, 240, 307 creator of structures 33 deaths in 80, 146 9, 187 211, 245 55 deceives reader 171 density of rhythm in 68 83 see also density of rhythm, in Plutarch different treatments of same material 103, 107 8, 120, 124, 145, 153, 156 7, 159 67, 219 elaborate syntax 121, 164, 172, 264, 266, 269 epideictic mode in 89 and ethnography 192 imagery in 102, 108 10, 117 indirect speech in 264 inventing? 173

General Index irony in 55, 153, 156, 162, 183, 184, 191, 204, 206, 210, 218, 221 landscape in 90, 92, 175 and Livy 170, 173, 175, 228 marriage in 134 5, 306 meeting of Senate in 160, 162, 164 more complex than explicit comments 100 1 overlap of rhythms in 62 3 on papyri 27 philosophy in 68 9, 75, 81 2, 95, 100, 135, 192, 193, 213, 223, 242, 250, 306 tension with history 81, 137, 184 and Phylarchus 237 and Polybius 170, 171 πραότηϲ in 108 quotations in 1, 108 his reading 120 restraint in 120, 222 rhythm in Lives 22, 23, 25, 29, 34 in Moralia 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 82 scansion of 35 scholarly air 121 2, 192, 193, 194, 195 and science 301 speeches in 82 3, 201 5, 229, 242 structure in philosophical works 33 text of 64, 191, 194 and Thucydides 174, 180 6, 187, 223 and Timaeus 88, 89, 90, 91, 97 tragedy and 82 virtual history in 184, 216, 230 1 women in 81, 133 6, 234, 241, 244, 254, 306 poetry and attention 2, 41 and enchantment 2 3 medieval and modern 3 4 and metre 2 Ποινή 73 pointed style 43 5, 257, 268, 288, 293, 304 Polemon 22, 25, 29, 43 Polybius 7, 237 Plutarch and 170 Pompey 75, 78 and Brutus 141 and Cato 76, 78, 159 67, 307 and Cornelia 227 35, 282, 306, 307 name in Greek 161 third consulship 160, 163 4

337

Porcia 76, 132 6 Porphyry 22, 26, 31 portraits, metaphorical 117 praenomina 170, 199 πραότηϲ in Plutarch 108, 138, 206, 252 3 prefix, shared or continued 48, 240 3, 265 prepositives and postpositives 13 brackets for prepositives 84 quasi postpositive 49 show division of phrases 47, 48 word after prepositive real beginning of phrase 51, 55 προαίρεϲιϲ 223 probability 20, 28 32 prose Arabic 4 fifth and fourth century 6 and poetry 1 5, 108 9 see also rhythmic prose prose rhythm, basics of 11 12, 16 19 prosody, knowledge of 27 provinces in 44 BC 153 4 Pseudo Appian 64, 191 Ptolemy (author) 22, 23 4, 30 Ptolemy III 263, 264 Ptolemy IV 77, 224 Punic War, First 203 Punic War, Second 203, 204 Pyrrhus 58, 77 Quintilian 9 discussion of rhythm 16 19 religion 48 Republic and Imperial style 116 rhetors in Rome 7, 8, 9 rho, initial 46 Rhodes 7 ῥόπτρον 192 rhythm and argument 307 and attention 3, 35, 36 8, 41, 45 6, 58, 67 avoidance of repetition 21 choice between alternatives 73 contrast of longs and shorts 193 density of 67 8; see also density of rhythm and emphasis 35, 44, 55 60, 190 1 and genre 305

338

General Index

rhythm (cont.) and hiatus xii, 63 6, 229 and historiography 9, 25, 305 and literary structure 79 80, 215, 275 matching forms 216, 242, 282 and meaning 41 6 a combined experience 42 3 and metre 4, 8, 12, 41, 305 and names 274, 282 and narrative 25, 305 and novel 25, 305 in novelists 257, 274 overlap xii, 62 3 and pointed style 43 5, 257 61, 305 and recurring phrases 274 5 and readers 45 6, 64 n. 12 reinforces syntactic design 172 and relation of poetry to prose 2 3, 107 and religious passages 48, 68 74 and repetition 135 stresses paradox 55, 260, 283, 305 and text 194 and violence 143 7 rhythmic boundary, juxtaposition on either side of 54 5, 60, 103, 117, 121, 141, 163, 173, 231, 240, 247, 281, 287, 296, 303 phrases can be short 47 9 can consist of pairs 49 52 match and contrast 52 5 with no gaps 67 8 parallelism in 48 prose development of 5 10 in Hellenistic Greek 6 8 in Imperial Greek 10, 19 28 in Latin 8 10, 13 medieval, in Latin 10 and oratory 8 in specific sense 8, 11 see also prose rhythm; rhythm symbols xii Rome Caesar approaches 61 captured 55 glory 202 growth 29, 204 5 and Italy 61, 109, 110 under Numa 107 10

rhetoric at 8, 9, 13, values 60, 204 5 Rutilius Lupus 257 Sallust 9 Sanskrit drama 2 Scipio, see Cornelius Seleucus I 217, 218, 224 Seneca 9, 44 Seneca the Elder 9, 43 series of phrases 51 2 Sertorius 56, 58, 76 Servilia 143 Servilius Ahala 143 5 Sextus Empiricus 22, 26, 31 Shidyāq 4 Sicily 38, 75, 76, 87 105, 201, 204 simple words 13, 233, 283 ϲκηνογραφέω 270 ϲμῶδιξ 300 smoke signals 172 3 Socrates 39, 139 Solon 47 8 sound 191 2 Sparta 13 16, 58, 59, 237 55, 259, 266 speeches in Chariton 264 in Plutarch 82 3, 201 5, 229 Stateira 279 83 Statius 46 statue, alleged 116 statues 115 17 status: female 134 male 147 Strabo 22, 31 ϲτρατηγόϲ 129, 130, 204 suicide 140, 146 9, 198 200 Sulla 137, 209 ϲυμπαρίημι 196 ϲυμφορά 232 Surena 189, 191, 194 5, 205, 206 7 synaesthesia 193 Syracuse 45, 61, 76 ταλαιπωρεῖν 184 tears 270, 281, 286 9, 291 7, 299 304 τέκνον 259 θεα 181 Theagenes 268, 271, 287 theatre in Achilles Tatius 291

General Index in Chariton 270, 274, 275, 276 in Heliodorus 270 Thebans 59 Themistocles 74 Theon 22, 26, 31 Theopompus 59, 97 Thermopylae 13 16 Thersander 291 7, 300 Theseus 74 Thrasymachus 5 Thucydides 23, 32, 180 6, 187 θυμηδ 269 Tigranes 201, 203 4 Tigranocerta, Battle of 203 4 Timaeus 88, 89, 90, 91, 97 Timagenes 187 time, arrow of 233 4 Timoleon 76, 79, 87 105, 306 Timophanes 97 τλημοϲύνη 204 tragedy and Plutarch 82 τύχη 269 see also fortune two xs not one, in Greek 232 3 tyranny 49 50, 51 2, 61, 74, 76, 81, 87, 88, 95, 97 8, 103 4, 132, 143, 162, 209 unrhythmic closes 14 phrases 37 prose 268 72, 285 9 Valerius Maximus 33 Valerius Messalla Corvinus, M. (cos. 31 BC) 139, 217

339

Varro 2, 8 Vattius Valens 22, 30 verbs with and without emphasis 36, 57 60, 157, 195, 240, 295 water and prosperity 109 wind and prosperity 108 9 womanliness in men 194 5 women in novelists 257 61, 286 Spartan 254, 259, 263 6, 306 see also Plutarch, women in word order arguments from 35 n. 3 and beginnings 38, 55 experiments with 2, 4 in Latin 13 14 in Plutarch 45, 55, 90, 148, 191, 194 in Polemon 44 and rhythm collaborate 15, 42, 44, 47, 54, 90, 99, 108, 109, 116, 138, 146, 173, 174, 190, 191, 205, 209, 221, 240, 244, 248, 275, 302 Xenophon of Athens 23, 25, 32 Xenophon of Ephesus 22, 29 Xerxes 16 Xylander 84 youth 247, 248 Ziegler and text of Plutarch 64 6, 78, 84, 172, 232, 252 Zonaras 148, 231