Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T08:06:51.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Plutarch's method of work in the Roman Lives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

C. B. R. Pelling
Affiliation:
University College, Oxford

Extract

This paper is concerned with the eight Lives in which Plutarch describes the final years of the Roman Republic: Lucullus, Pompey, Crassus, Cicero, Caesar, Cato, Brutus, and Antony. It is not my main concern to identify particular sources, though some problems of provenance will inevitably arise; it is rather to investigate the methods which Plutarch adopted in gathering his information, whatever his sources may have been. Did he, for instance, compose each biography independently? Or did he prepare several Lives simultaneously, combining in one project his reading for a number of different works? Did he always have his source-material before him as he composed? Or can we detect an extensive use of memory? Can one conjecture what use, if any, he made of notes? And can we tell whether he usually drew his material from just one source, or wove together his narrative from his knowledge of several different versions?

I start from an important assumption: that, in one way or another, Plutarch needed to gather information before writing these Lives; that, whatever may be the case with some of the Greek Lives, he would not be able to write these Roman biographies simply from his general knowledge. The full basis for this assumption will only become clear as the discussion progresses: for example, we shall find traces of increasing knowledge within these Lives, with early biographies showing only a slight knowledge of some important events, and later ones gradually filling the gaps. It will become probable that Plutarch knew comparatively little of the detail of Roman history before he began work on the Lives, and that considerable ‘research’—directed and methodical reading—would be necessary for their composition.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I am grateful to Mr D. A. Russell, to Mr J. L. Moles, and to Mr P. J. Parsons for their helpful scrutiny and criticism of this paper. The following works will be referred to by author's name alone: Peter, H., Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographien der Römer (1865)Google Scholar; Stoltz, C., Zur relativen Chronologie der Parailelbiographien Plutarchs (1929)Google Scholar; Gomme, A. W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides i (1945)Google Scholar; Theander, C., Plutarch und die Geschichte (1951)Google Scholar; Hamilton, J. R., Plutarch, Alexander: a Commentary (1969)Google Scholar; Jones, C. P., Plutarch and Rome (1971)Google Scholar. Except where stated, Cato will refer to the Cato minor.

2 Simultaneous preparation is suggested by Gomme 83 n. 3, and Brozek, , Eos liii (1963) 6880Google Scholar; cf. Stoltz 18–19 and 67. Mewaldt had already postulated simultaneous preparation in arguing for simultaneous publication: Hermes xlii (1907) 564–78.

3 A large use of memory is suggested by Zimmermann, , RhM lxxix (1930) 61–2Google Scholar; cf. Russell, Google Scholar, JRS liii (1963) 22Google Scholar; Jones 87; Hamilton xliii–iv; Gomme 78–81; Stadter, P. A., Plutarch's Historical Methods 138.Google Scholar

4 Plutarch seems to have kept some ‘commonplace book’ in his philosophical studies (Mor. 464f, cf. 457d), but that tells us little of his methods in the Lives. For varying views of the importance of notes, cf. works cited in previous note.

5 A combination of different sources is strongly argued by Theander, especially 42 ff.; cf. Stadter, op. cit. 125–40.

6 Most of that work is clearly drawn from Dionysius (note especially the inherited error at 318e–f); nonDionysian material seems largely derived from oral traditions at Rome, especially those associated with surviving monuments. (On this type of material cf. Theander, 2–32, and Eranos lvii [1959] 99131.Google Scholar) Plutarch quotes Polybius ‘in the second book’ at 325f, and elsewhere booknumbers seem to imply first-hand knowledge of a work: Jones 83.

7 For Plutarch's wide reading, cf. especially Ziegler, , PW s.v. ‘Plutarchos’, 914–28.Google Scholar

8 Comic poets: Per. 3.5–7, 8.4, 13.8–10, 24.9–10, al. Plato: 7.8, 13.7, 24.7, cf. 8.2, 15.2. Other philosophers: 4.5, 7.7, 27.4, 35.5. Theophrastus: 38.2. Ion: 5.3, 28.7. Some of these quotations may be inherited; it is hard to believe they all are. Cf. Meinhardt, E., Perikies bei Plutarch (Frankfurt 1957) 922Google Scholar and passim.

9 Per. 24.12.

10 Dem. 2.2. On the weary question of Plutarch's Latinity, Rose, , The Roman Questions of Plutarch (1924) 1119Google Scholar, is still the soundest treatment.

11 Cleopatra: Latin quotations would have been apposite especially (but not only) at 27.2–5, 56.6–10, and in the description of Actium (especially 66.5—8); note also 29.1, 36.1–2, and 62.1, where quotations from Plato and Euripides, rather than Latin poetry, lend stylistic height. Roman public opinion: e.g. 36.4–5, 50.7, 54.5, 55, 57.5.

12 The reference to Horace at Lucull. 39.5 is an exception, so isolated that one suspects the quotation to be tralatician; but it at least shows that quotations from Latin poets were not excluded by any generic ‘rules’. Had Plutarch known his Horace, a mention of him might be expected in Brutus, perhaps at 24.3, perhaps in the account of Philippi.—The contrast between Caesar and Suet. Div. Iul. is here eloquent, for Suet. is rich with material similar to that used by Plutarch for Pericles: quotations from contemporary pamphlets and lampoons, Calvus, Catullus, Curio, etc. Plutarch has nothing like this in Caesar.

13 He may have glanced at Po Pollio or Livy when engaged on his Life of Augustus, but even this is unlikely: ‘the Lives of the Caesars, to judge from the remains, were not the fruit of deep research’ (Jones 80).

14 Jones, , JRS lvi (1966) 67–8Google Scholar, places cim.-Luc. in one of positions II–IV; Theander, , Eranos lvi (1958) 1220Google Scholar, in position IV; cf. Stoltz, table at p. 135. The principal indication is that Pericles, which occupied position X (Per. 2.5), itself quotes Cimon (9.5); Dem.-Cic. occupied position V, and, on Jones's analysis, positions VI–IX are already filled by other pairs. For reservations about this type of analysis, see below p. 81; but the early position of Lucullus is adequately demonstrated by its content.

15 Presumably the ‘Theopompean’ de consiliis: so e.g. Strasburger, , Caesars Eintritt in die Geschichte 108Google Scholar, and Brunt, , CR vii (1957) 193.Google Scholar

16 The Antony version is shared by App. B.C. iv 12.45 (cf. Dio xlvii 6.3), and probably derives from Asinius Pollio.

17 Caes. 35.2 refers to the projected Pompey in the future tense, Cf. below pp. 80–2.

18 For Pollio's view, Hor. Carm. ii 1.1; cf. Caes. 13.4–6, Pomp. 47.4, Cato 30.9.

19 Cf. Cic. Att. ii 18.3, 19.5.

20 Verbal similarities: e.g. Caes. 14.2 stigmatises the cf. Pomp. 47.5, and Cato 32.2, Crass. 14.4, like Cato 33.5, speaks of the Gallic command establishing Caesar Caesar and Pompey are close to each other in their descriptions of Pompey and Crassus in the assembly (Caes. 14.3–6, Pomp. 47.6–8); and so on.

21 It is thus unnecessary to assume, with Taylor, , AJP lxxii (1951) 265Google Scholar (cf. Meier, , Hist. x [1961] 72–3Google Scholar), that Plutarch went to a new source when composing Cato, and there found the distinction of two separate bills. Note the plural νόμους in Caesar, but Plutarch there finds it stylistically useful to speak as if the bills were debated simultaneously. The procedure of Appian (B.C. ii 10.35) is exactly similar. Such conflations are common in Plutarch: I hope to examine such features of his technique in a subsequent article.

22 Pomp. 47.6–8, Caes. 14.3–6; Dio xxxviii 4.4–5.5.

23 Pomp. 48.2, Cato 32.3; Dio xxxviii 6.3.

24 Clodius: Caes. 14.16–7, Cato 32. 10, 33.6; Dio xxxviii 12.1–2. Cato's imprisonment: Caes. 14.11–12, Cato 33.1–4; Dio xxxviii 3.2–3. The two authors give this story a different context, but seem to reflect the same original item. It was probably narrated ‘out of time’ in the shared source, and both authors chose to exploit it where they thought best. Cf. Marsh, , CJ xxii (1927) 508–13Google Scholar, and Meier, art. cit. 71–9.

25 Suet. Div.Iul. 20.4 (imprisonment); 21 (marriages).

26 Cic. Phil. ii 34. For Plutarch's use of this speech, see below pp. 89–90.

27 Lepidus: Caes. 67.2. Plancus: Brut. 19.1. Cicero: Cic. 42.3, Brut. 19.1.

28 Cf. Stoltz, 75–81.

29 Caes. 4.4–5, 5.3, 5.8–9, 6.3–7, etc; deceived optimates at 4.6–9, 5.8, 6.7, 7.5, etc. Cato alone saw the truth (13.3), though Cicero had earlier felt suspicions (4.8–9). By 14.6 it is too late, and the optimates can only grieve.

30 Caes. 56.7, 60.1, 60.5, 61.9–10, 62.1: below n. 32.

31 Caes. 51, where the earned by the friends— 51.3—prepares for this loss of popular support; cf. also 57.2, 57.7, 60.8, 61. See also below p. 83 and n. 66.

32 The popular reactions to the regal salutation are traced at 60.3; to the excessive honours at 60.5 (rather uneasily, Plutarch represents them as shocked at the insult to the senate); to the Lupercalia affair at 61.6; to the tribunes' imprisonment at 61.9–62.1. App. B.C. ii 107–9 and Suet. Div.Iul. 78–9, both apparently from the same source, have no such emphasis; nor does Ant. 12. App. ii 109.458 further gives a different reading of the people's reaction at the Lupercalia. Plutarch stresses their resentment at the attempts to crown Caesar; for Appian, their dominant emotion was applause for his rejection of the crown. For the rather different account of Nic.Dam. (FGrH 90) vit.Caes. 68–79, cf. Jacoby ad loc.

33 Brut. 10.6: this was apparently the version and emphasis of the source (cf. App. B.C. ii 113.472).

34 Caes. 62, using material treated earlier in the corresponding account in Brutus.

35 Caes. 62.8. As the text stands, a cross-reference directs the reader to Brutus for a fuller treatment, here as at 68.7; cf. Brut. 9.9, similarly referring to Caesar. See below pp. 80–2.

36 Brut. 11–12.

37 Appian's account suggests that the shared source (below pp. 84–5) was much richer in historical analysis: e.g. B.C. ii 113.474, detail of the conspirators' background and connexions; ii 120.505–7, an analysis of the urban plebs. Plutarch here suppresses most of this: Brut. 12 is more interested in men who were not involved than in men who were. A terse at Brut. 18.12, and a dismissive at 21.2, are the only reflections of the analysis of the plebs.

38 Brut. 9.9 refers to Caesar: above n. 35, and pp. 80–2 below.

39 Caes. 66.12 notes this item as a λεγόμενον; Brutus is less punctilious. For a similar case, cf. Cinna's dream: ὥςφασι at Caes. 68.3, butno qualification in the more excited Brut. 20.9.

40 App. B.C. ii 117.490: presumably from Pollio, cf. pp. 84–5 below.

41 E.g. at Ant. 5.10 Antony and Cassius are given the rabble-rousing speech in Caesar's camp, though at Caes. 31.3 Plutarch knows that Caesar made the speech himself (cf. Caes. B.C. i 7); at Pomp. 58.6 Marcellus is given a proposal which Plutarch knows to be Scipio's, and a remark he elsewhere gives to Lentulus (cf. Caes. 30.4, 6: see Raaflaub, K., Chiron iv [1974] 308–9Google Scholar). Something similar seems to have happened at Ant. 5.6: there Antony is allowed to propose on 1st January, 49 that both Caesar and Pompey should disarm, while at Pomp. 58.8 Plutarch knows that this was proposed a month earlier by Curio (contra Raaflaub, art. cit. 306–11, who believes that Antony genuinely revived Curio's ploy at that time). In the present instance, note that D. Brutus has already had a considerable role in Caesar, whereas Trebonius has not been mentioned. Elsewhere we can see similar simplifications: for instance, the two names at 67.4 seem to represent a longer list in the principal source, as App. B.C. ii 119.500 suggests; and Plutarch may have felt that he had too many individuals already. Note that Ant. 13.4 has a vague ἐνίους in this context, though we should expect Trebonius to be named: he has already figured largely in that chapter. That looks like deliberate fudging, and may be the work of a man who is conscious of the inconsistency between his other two versions.

42 Cf. Russell's explanation of similar errors in Coriolanus, JRS liii (1963) 22. On the possible use of memory, below pp. 92–4.

43 Below pp. 86–7.

44 The exceptionally curious may find further examples analysed in my doctoral dissertation on Caesar (Oxford D. Phil. thesis, 1974). Other parallel accounts where we might expect to find increasing knowledge and do not: the accounts of Luca, , Caes. 21.3–6Google Scholar, Pomp. 51.4–5, Crass. 14.6–7; the analysis of Roman κακοπολιτεία, Caes. 28, Pomp. 54, Cato 47; the debates before the outbreak of the war, Ant. 5, Caes. 30–31, Pomp. 58–9; Pharsalus, , Caes. 42–6Google Scholar, Pomp. 68–73.

45 The literary devices I hope to analyse in a later article; for the errors, cf. below pp.

46 The full list is given by Stoltz, 9. Study of the cross-references led for reasons similar to those given here, to suggest simultaneous preparation of several Lives (Eos liii [1963] 68–80); cf. also Gomme, 83 n. 3.

47 Hermes xlii (1907) 564–78, at 567–8; refuted by Stoltz 63–8.

48 The analysis of Stoltz strongly defended the authenticity of the other, non-contradictory cross-references. Stoltz doubted the authenticity of Dion1 58.10, Brut. 9.9, and Cam. 33.10, but even here hesitated to delete. The language of these three cross-references seems no less Plutarchean than that of the others: cf. Mewaldt, , Gnomon vi (1930) 431–4Google Scholar. Note also the forceful argument of J. Geiger's doctoral dissertation: ‘Should one believe that on some 1000 folio pages an author has made 45 references to other places in his work: in addition to these 3 other references, through interpolation, corruption or otherwise, have made their way into the text: and all three of them had the bad luck to have one at least of the genuine references, so sparsely sown in the text, to testify to their false pretensions?’ (A Commentary on Plutarch's Cato Minor [Oxford D. Phil. thesis 1971]; cf. his article ‘Munatius Rufus and Thrasea Paetus on Cato the Younger’, to appear in Athenaeum.)

49 Stoltz 58 ff.; in particular, the aorist ἐκδόντες at Thes. 1.4 clearly implies that Lyc.–Numa had already been published. Flacelière's defence of Mewaldt, (REG lxi [1948] 68–9Google Scholar) is countered by Hamilton, xxxvi–vii. Jones, , JRS lvi (1966) 67Google Scholar, adopts a modified form of Mewaldt's theory, but is not convincing.

50 The language of Thes. 1.4 seems to imply that Romulus was written soon after Numa: so Jones, , JRS lvi (1966) 68 n. 57Google Scholar, and Bühler, , Maia xiv (1962) 281Google Scholar. Nor can Numa and Camillus be far apart. Numa twice quotes Camillus; but Numa itself seems to be an early Life, for Pericles, one of the tenth pair (Per. 2.5), quotes Lysander 1, and Lysander quotes Lycurgus (Per. 22.4, Lys. 17.11, with Stoltz 101–2). Some reservations concerning this type of argument are given below, and conclusions as precise as those of Jones (art. cit. 66–8) are not possible; but this whole group of Lives does seem early.

51 The Quaestiones Romanae, partly based on similar source-material, seem to have been composed at about the same time: Jones, art. cit. 73. They are quoted at Rom. 15.7 and Cam. 19.12.

52 Cf. Ziegler, , PW s.v. ‘Plutarchos901, with Hermes lxvi (1931) 268–9.Google Scholar

53 For the possible nature of such a ‘draft’, see below pp. 94–5. This may help to explain the oddity of Tim. 13.10, referring to a passage of Dion which does not seem to exist. Plutarch may have included the relevant passage in an early version of Dion, but excised it from his final draft, forgetting to alter the reference in Timoleon: so art. cit. 76–7. Plutarch may equally, if Tim. is the earlier Life, have intended at that time to include the passage in the planned Dion, but later have altered his mind or forgotten.

54 Plutarch elsewhere uses such phrases and tenses as in the introduction to a Life (Cor. 1.1, cf. Cic. 1.5, Agis 3.3, Ti. Gr. 1.7); but an epistolary flavour is there felt especially strongly (cf. Arat. 1.5). Flam. 16.6, in mid-Life, is a closer parallel. See Stoltz 86.—It is of course possible that Caesar was expected sooner after Brutus than Pompey after Caesar; if a longer delay was anticipated in the second case, the future tenses at Caes. 35.2 are more explicable.

55 See n. 48.

56 Thus the detailed argument of Jones, art. cit. 66–8, is not cogent.

57 For Oppius, see below p. 85.

58 So Geiger, diss. cit., with additional arguments.

59 For such literature, see e.g. Afzelius, , Class. et Med. iv (1941) 198203.Google Scholar

60 So Geiger, diss. cit.: perhaps transmitted by Thrasea Paetus, cf. below p. 85 and n. 84. (Geiger's arguments are repeated in his article ‘Munatius Rufus and Thrasea Paetus on Cato the Younger’, to appear in Athenaeum.)

61 Geiger tends towards this view, but prefers to think that the Pompey passages are based on notes taken for Cato, or a draft (not the final version) of Cato.

62 Presumably from Pollio, as the contact with App. B.C. ii 84–5 suggests.

63 Cf. Jones, art. cit. 66–8, with the reservations expressed above.

64 Cato 73.6 = Brut. 13, 53.5: some of this is apparently from Nicolaus of Damascus, as Brut. 53 suggests.

65 The Brutus passage is corrupt as it stands: (the Ides of March), ἐν αἷς Καίσαρα ἕκτειναν, οὐκ αὐτὸν ἄγοντα καὶ φέροντα πάντας ἀνθρώπους, ἀλλ᾿ ἑτέρων †δύναμιν ὄντα ταῦτα πρασσόντων. It is important for the logic of the passage to have some reference to ‘friends’: cf. the point of 35.5, ἄμεινον ἦν τοὺς Καίσαρος φίλους ὑπομένειν ἤ τοὺς ἑαυτῶν περιορᾶν ἀδικοῦντας. Perhaps ἑτέρων conceals ἑταίρων. Ziegler's speculative δύναμιν ὐπομένοντα ταῦτα πρασσόντων presumably captures the sense.

66 Above p. 78. Neither Brutus nor Antony is so interested in political analysis, and in Brutus the notice is purely incidental. It is hardly likely that he would have elaborated this (rather unusual, though hardly profound) analysis for those Lives alone; but, once it had been developed for Caesar, it might readily be taken over. For a similar instance in Brutus, cf. 18.3: Plutarch there refers to Antony's όμιλία καὶ συνήθεια πρὸς τὸ στρατιωτικόν, which seems to be borrowed from one of the major themes of Antony.

67 Below pp. 86–7.

68 I omit Sertorius from this analysis because it relates to the very beginning of the relevant period, and because its content affords little basis for comparison with other Lives. It may well be later than this group of Lives: Scardigli, B., SIFC xliii (1971) 3341Google Scholar, argues for a late date, and a significant detail may confirm this. The early chapters of Demetrius point Demetrius' (4.5), and Plutarch makes the most of what anecdotes he can find: note the expansive treatment of the tales of chs 3–4. Yet he omits Demetrius' pressure to save the life of Eumenes (early 316), an item which he knows at Eum. 18.6. This looks like a case of increasing knowledge: if so, Sert.–Eum. should be later than Dtr.–Ant.

69 Cf. Jones, 84–6. For a particularly clear example, Caes, 22.1–5, where the citations of Tanusius Geminus and of Caesar's commentarii seem inherited: App. Celt. fr. 18, certainly from the same source, retails them in the same manner. Caes. 44.8 and Pomp. 69.7 provide a similar case: both again quote Caesar, but so does App. B.C. ii 79, clearly from the same source. See Peter, 120–123. Note also Brut. 41.7 = App. B.C. iv 110.463, both quoting Augustus.

70 See the remarks on the ὑπόμνημα stage of composition, below pp. 94–5.

71 Above p. 77.

72 Jb. für cl. Phil. Suppl. xxii (1896) 672–91; cf. Peter 125, and many works since then (bibliography at SchanzHosius ii4 28–9).

73 The following list is very selective: Dio xxxix 31–2 ῀ App. B.C. ii 17– 18 ῀ Pomp. 51–3, Crass. 15, Cato 41–3; Dio xxxix 39.5–7 ῀ App. ii 18.66 ῀ Crass. 16.7–8; Dio xl 52–5 ῀ App. ii 23–4 ῀ Pomp. 55.6–11, Cato 48.5–10; Dio xli 41.1 ῀ App. ii 40 ῀ Cato 53.2–3, Pomp. 61.2; Dio xli 46 ῀ App. ii 56–8 ῀ Caes. 38; Dio xlii 3–4 ῀ App. ii 84–6 ῀ Pomp. 77–80, Brut. 33; Dio xlii 40.4–5 ῀ App. ii 90.377 ῀ Caes. 49.7–8; Dio xlii 57 ῀ App. ii 87.367 ῀ cato 57–8; Dio xliii 10–12 ῀ App. ii 98–9 ῀ Cato 62–71; Dio xliii 12.1, 13.4 ῀ App. ii 99.414 ῀ Caes. 54, Cato 36.5; Dio xliv 8–11 ῀ App. ii 107–10 ῀ caes. 60–61, Ant. 12; Dio xliv 12 ῀ App. ii 112.469 ῀ Caes. 62, Brut. 9–10 ῀ Suet. Div.Iul. 80.3; Dio xlvi 49 ῀ App. iii 95.392–3 al.Brut. 27; Dio xlvii 47–8 ῀ App. iv 114–7 ῀ Brut. 44–5; Dio xlviii 38 ῀ App. v 73 ῀ Ant. 32; Dio xlviii 39.2 ῀ App. v 76 ῀ Ant. 33.6–7. The similarities will be inherited from Pllio, but Dio is very unlikely to have known Pollio at first hand: he will have found his account transmitted in Livy (cf. below p. 91 and n. 124). Two further points are worth making. (a) The persistence of the Dio-Plutarch-Appian contact well past Philippi supports the view that Pollio continued his history to include at least the mid-thirties, and possibly Actium as well: so Gabba, E., Appiano e la storia delle guerre civili (1956) 242–3Google Scholar, contra André, J., La vie et ľoeuvre ďAsinius Pollion (1949) 4651Google Scholar. (b) Millar, F., A Study of Cassius Dio 56Google Scholar, tentatively suggests that Dio used Plutarch's Brutus as a source. This will now be seen to be unlikely: Dio's relation to Brutus is parallel to his relation to the other five later Lives, and is best explained as a shared inheritance from a historical source.

74 E.g. Suet. Div.Iul. 29.1 ῀ App. B.C. ii 26.100–101 ῀ Caes. 29.3, Pomp. 58.2; Suet. 30.4 ῀ Caes. 46.2; Suet. 31–2 ῀ App. ii 35 ῀ Caes. 32; Suet. 36 ῀ App. ii 62.260 ῀ Caes. 39.8; Suet. 44.2–3 ῀ App. ii 110 ῀ Caes. 58; and many points of contact in the account of the assassination.

75 For Appian's possible knowledge of Plutarch, Gabba, Appiano 225–8. Such verbal parallels as App. ii 14.51 ῀ Caes. 14.8 and App. ii 27.106 ῀ Caes. 30.2 may thus be explained: see Kornemann, art. cit. 577 for further close verbal similarities. It is also possible that the elaborate comparison of Alexander and Caesar which concludes B.C. ii is indebted to the (lost) Plutarch synkrisis.

76 Therefore it is odd that the contact with Appian only begins with the year 58. It is possible that Plutarch drew his accounts of Caesar's consulate from a different source, perhaps Livy: the closeness to Dio's account has been observed, and Livy is likely to be Dio's source. But it is more likely that Appian, who is capable of exploiting a variety of sources (Gabba, Appiano 109–15), did not turn to the common source until ii 15.54. Barbu, N., Les sources et ľoriginalité ďAppien dans le deuxième livre des Guerres Civiles (1934) 2840Google Scholar, 81–8, argued on different grounds for a similar view. In that case, Plutarch and Dio both reflect Pollio's version: Dio probably inherited it from Livy.

77 Cf. e.g. Kornemann, art. cit.; Peter 124 ff.; Garzetti, A., comm. on Caesar (1954) xxii–xxxiiiGoogle Scholar; Gabba, Appiano, esp. 119–51, 229–49; André, op. cit. 41–66.

78 Sallust's Histories were translated into Greek in the early second century (Suda Z 73 Adler, cf. Jones 86), and nothing precludes the possibility that Pollio was translated as well. But Caes. 46.2 should not be used as evidence for this: Häussler, , RhM cix (1966) 339–55Google Scholar, is convincing.

79 Russell, , JRS liii (1963) 23–5.Google Scholar

80 Probably Fenestella: cf. Crass. 5.6. All the material of the first chapters may come from the same author: we know that Fenestella mentioned the fate of the Vestal Licinia (fr. 11 P; cf. Crass. 1.4–6). See Peter 109.

81 I have attempted to reconstruct some elements of the lost preface from Zonaras' excerpt in CQ xxiii (1973) 343–4. Flacelière, (Budé, edn Alex.–Caes. 130Google Scholar) suggests that Caesar is complete as it stands, but this is quite unconvincing: cf. Briscoe, , CR xxvii (1977) 177–8.Google Scholar

82 Oppius is quoted at 17.7; comparison with Suet. Div.Iul. 53 leaves no doubt that Oppius lies behind 17.9–10; and he is again mentioned in the anecdote of 17.11.

83 Pomp. 10.7–9 criticises Oppius' bias. Oppius' work is never precisely described as a biography (cf. Strasburger, , Caesars Eintritt in die Geschichte 30–3Google Scholar), but content is here more important than form. For the fragments of Oppius' work, Peter, , HRR ii 46–9Google Scholar, LXIII–IV.

84 Cf. Peter 65–9; Flacelière, , Budé, edn Phoc.–Cato 65–6Google Scholar; Geiger, Athenaeum, to appear; above p. 82.

85 Cf. Peter 114–17; Flacelière, , Budé, edn Ages.–Pomp. 154–6.Google Scholar

86 E.g. App. B.C. ii 109.455 ῀ Caes. 57.7; App. ii 110 (cf. iii 25, 77) ῀ Caes. 58; App. ii 107.445 ῀ Caes. 60.4; App. ii 108–9 ῀ Caes. 61; App. ii 112.466–7 ῀ Caes. 62.4–6, Brut. 7–8; App. ii 115–6, 149.619 ῀ Caes. 63–5, Brut. 14–16; App. ii 117 ῀ Caes. 66, Brut. 17; and perhaps App. ii 112.469 ῀ Caes. 62.7, Brut. 9–10 (though in this case Mr Moles may be right in suggesting that App.'s account is itself indebted to Plutarch; if so, it is likely that App. is incorporating the items from memory, without having Plut.'s words before his eyes).

87 Cf. Garzetti, comm. on Caesar, xxviii–xxix.

88 The item is given a different context in Plutarch's two accounts. Caesar attaches it to the story of Caesar's failure to rise before the approaching magistrates, while Antony links it with the Lupercalia episode. It may be that the item was given no context in the source; it is more likely that Plutarch deliberately displaces it in Antony, where he does not use the ‘approaching magistrates’ story.

89 Urban praetorship: B.C. ii 112.466–7. But Appian is interested in the conspirators' motives, and does not portray them favourably: cf. ii 111. If he had had the story of Brut. 8.6–7 before his eyes he would have used it.

90 (a) Honours were not voted to the tyrannicides, as Plutarch claims: this apparently reflects the proposal of Ti. Claudius Nero (Suet. Tib. 4.1), but Appian knows that this was not carried (B.C. ii 127.530 ff.—apparently not put to the vote). App.'s version was doubtless that of the Pollio-source. (b) ‘They voted to honour Caesar as a god’ seems another error: there is no mention elsewhere of divine honours granted at this juncture, though many had already been voted during Caesar's lifetime (Weinstock, , Divus Julius, esp. 281 ff.Google Scholar, 287 ff.). Plutarch seems to imply consecration, which was in fact decreed on or about 1st January, 42 (Weinstock 386). (c) Plutarch's notice of the provinces granted to the tyrannicides (Brut. 19.5) is no less confused: Sternkopf, Hermes xlvii (1912) 340–9. (d) Plutarch alone attests a separate session of the senate, held mainly in honour of the assassins and in the presence of some of them, on the day after their descent from the Capitol (Brut. 19.4–5). This is surely an error (so Sternkopf, art. cit. 348–9; Motzo, , Ann. Fac. Fil. Lett. Cagliari [1933] 2631Google Scholar; contra e.g. Gelzer, , Cicero 327Google Scholar). We should assume that Plutarch found, perhaps in Empylus, a notice of such an honorific session, and combined this as best he could with the Pollio-source. He knew from that source that the assassins had not been present at the 17th March session, for the sons of Antony and Lepidus had been sent as hostages to persuade the conspirators to descend from Capital, and the source had clearly placed this mission after the 17th March debate (Brut. 19.2, App. ii 142.594; misleadingly streamlined at Ant. 14.2–4). If these honours, voted in the assassins' presence, were to be introduced at all, a separate session was inevitable.

91 Cf. Theander, , Eranos lvii (1959) 120–8.Google Scholar

92 Empylus: FGrH no. 191; mentioned as an orator by Quint. × 6.4. He was a companion of Brutus (Brut. loc. cit.), and an enthusiastic treatment is to be expected. He does not sound a reliable man for the details of senatorial decisions; and a Rhodian orator might well be attracted by the role of the Cnidian ‘sophist’ Artemidorus (Caes. 65.1).

93 Cf. Brut. 2.4–8, 21.6, 22.4–6, 24.3, 28.2, 29.8–11, 53.6–7; Cic. 45.2, 53(4).4. The information which Plutarch derives from these letters is independent of the historical tradition, and (at least in the case of the Latin letters) seems excellent. Various collections of Brutus' letters were published: Schanz-Hosius i4 397. Plutarch's quotations, when comparable with extant letters, are close enough to suggest first-hand knowledge: esp. Brut. 22.4–6 ῀ Cic. ad Brut. 24, 25 (i 16, 17); cf. Sickinger, A., de linguae Latinae apud Plutarchum et reliquiis et vestigiis (diss. Freiburg 1883) 81–3Google Scholar; Peter 140–1. The letters may have been read for Cicero (below p. 89); but there is no indication that Plutarch knew Cicero's letters to Brutus —note ὤς φασιν at Brut. 26.6. See also below p. 93 and n. 140.

94 Ch. 47, the fine story of Clodius, cannot be reconciled with App.'s insistence that both sides knew of the sea-battle and its outcome, B.C. iv 122.513. App. and Dio agree that Brutus was forced into battle by the reproaches of his officers and men (an obvious reminiscence of Pompey at Pharsalia), and this was doubtless Pollio's version. Plutarch might well prefer the Clodius anecdote: the tragic elements, both of Brutus struggling against an adverse destiny and of his coming so close to being saved, are important to him; and the picture of Brutus which Plutarch has favoured—e.g. , 29.3—would sit uneasily with Pollio's description of a man persuaded into a civil battle against his better judgment.

95 For Messala, 40.1 ff., 40.11, 41.5, 42.5, 45.1, 45.7, 53.1, 53.3. For Volumnius, 48.1 ff., 51.1, 51.3–4, 52.2. For their works, Peter 137–9, and HRR ii 52–3, 65–7, and LXVII–LXVIII, LXXVIII–LXXXIII.

96 Suggestions have included Nicolaus (Heeren, Gutschmid); Strabo (Heeren); an unevidenced memoir of C. Cassius (Flacelière); Timagenes (Regling, arguing for a combination of Timagenes with Livy); and, implausibly, Dellius (Adcock). The possibility of two sources should certainly not be dismissed. Some aspects of Plutarch's version show close contact with the Livian tradition: e.g. 17.8 ῀ Dio xl 13.3–4; 17–9 ῀ Oros. vi 13.1–2; 19, 23.1 ῀ Obs. 64, Dio xl 18–19, Val.Max. i 6.11; etc. Yet most of Plutarch's details of the fighting cannot be reconciled with Dio or the other Livian sources, even when we take into account Dio's tendency to revamp battle-descriptions according to his own stereotypes. If there is some supplementation of Livy from another authority, it is more likely to be due to Plutarch himself than to any intermediate source. Such a combination was argued (though crudely) by Regling, K., de belli Parthici Crassiani fontibus (diss. Berlin 1899Google Scholar).

97 Most obviously at the explicit 45.12, and at 49.5; but the impression is reinforced elsewhere. The description of the χωρά as εὐδαίμων (49.6) uses a favourite Anabasis locution; so does the mention οώμας οἰκουμένας (41.3). The echoes need not be derived from Dellius (cf. Jacoby on FGrH 197 fr. 1): such allusion is very much in Plutarch's manner.

98 It is again possible that two versions are here combined: some of Plutarch's details look like doublets. Cf. 41 ῀ 46–7, 45.3–6 ῀ 49.1 (Flor. ii 20.7 attaches the item of 49.3 to the context of 45); and perhaps 47.6 ῀ 49.6.

99 On the terminus of Pollio's history, above n. 73.

100 Cf. Russell, , Plutarch 140Google Scholar; Griffin, J.JRS lxvii (1977) 25–6.Google Scholar

101 Strabo xi 523e refers to (Casaubon: codd.) Jacoby (on FGrH no. 197) concludes that this historical work was limited to this campaign, but this is by no means certain: A. Bürcklein had some reason to suggest that Dellius continued his work at least as far as Actium (Quellen und Chronologie der röm.-parth. Feldzüge [diss. Leipzig 1879]). Ant. 59.6–7 certainly seems to imply that the tale of Dellius' desertion in 32 is drawn from his own work (note the present the item is more likely to come from a memoir or history than from the epistulae ad Cleopatram lascivae (Sen. Suas. i 7). If Plutarch expected his readers to recognise it seems unlikely that his historical fame rested on the description of just one campaign. Plutarch also mentions Dellius' role in Antony's first meeting with Cleopatra (Ant. 25–6): it is not unlikely that those splendid chapters are also indebted to Dellius himself. Cf. Russell, , Plutarch 136.Google Scholar

102 For Crassus, see n. 96; for Pompey, Peter 117 n. 1 and 119, and note the suggestive similarities between Pompey's closing chapters and Lucan B.C. viii.

103 Cf. Theander 72–8. For a possible explanation of the sparseness of these traces of Livy in the present group of Lives, see below p. 95.

104 Sallust seems to inform the early chapters of Pompey (cf. Peter, 112–14), and has clearly influenced the earlier Lucullus (and underlies most of Sertorius: Scardigli, , SIFC xliii [1971] 3364Google Scholar, esp. 41 n. 2). For Fenestella, see n. 80. Of other secondary sources Nepos, Strabo, Nicolaus, Timagenes, and Valerius Maximus are the most likely to be known at first hand.

105 cf. Lendle, , Hermes xcv (1967) 90109Google Scholar, esp. 94–8. Caes. 8.4 clearly implies that Plutarch knew the work at first hand, and Crass. 13.4 similarly seems to show him taking a pride in his own researches. Letters: Cic. 24.6–9, 36.6, 37.3–4, 40.3. Speeches: 6.3, 24.6, 33.8, 48.6, 50(1).4. More besides: 5.6, 20.3, 24.4–6. In general, cf. Flacelière, , Budé, edn Demosthenes—Cicero 5661.Google Scholar

106 Brutus: 45.2, 53(4).4 (cf. n. 93). Antony: 41.6. Tiro: cf. Peter 129 ff.; Flacelière, op. cit. 57.

107 Most clearly at Pomp. 42.13, 63.2; Phoc. 3.2; and cf. n. 93.

108 The quotations at Caes. 22.2 and 44.8 seem inherited: above n. 69.

109 Caes. 3.2–4, Crass. 3.3–4, Cato 5.3–4 and 23.3, Brut. 2.5, Ant. 2.8. For the survival of their speeches until Plutarch's day, cf. Schanz-Hosius i4 336, 388–9, 396–7, 400, 490.

110 For Caesar's letters, Suet. Div. Iul. 56.6, Gell, xvii 9.1–2; for Antony's, Suet. Div. Aug. 7.1 al., Ov. ex.P. i 1.23, Tac. Ann. iv 34.

111 Above n. 93.

112 Cf. Garzetti, , RSI lxv (1953) 80Google Scholar; Hamilton xliii n. 6.

113 For a second, less important example, Crass. 13.4: above p. 75.

114 For use of the Second Philippic in the early parts of Antony, Flacelière, , Budé, edn Demetrius—Antony 8990Google Scholar, with a qualification I make in my review, CR xxix (1979).

115 Ant. 8.1–3 seems to be making the most of slight information: 8.1 is a great overstatement of the items of Caes. B.C. iii 46 and 65, while 8.2–3 seems a simple inference from Antony's command of the left wing at Pharsalia.

116 Above p. 85.

117 If the preparation of these six Lives was simultaneous, it is not surprising that reflections of this re-reading of the Second Philippic are found elsewhere, especially at Caes. 51.2; cf. also Pomp. 58.6, on Antony's friendship with Curio.

118 Above p. 82.

119 Caes. 7.7–8.4 and Cato 22.4–24.3 ̃ Cic. 20.4–21.5: esp. Caes. 7.8–8.1, Cato 22.5 ̃ Cic. 21.1–2; Caes. 8.1, Cato 22.6 ̃ Cic. 21.3 (Silanus); Caes. 8.2, Cato 23 ̃ Cic. 21.4 (Cato inculpating Caesar).

120 Caes. 9–10 ̃ Cic. 28–9. The adaptation has two curiosities. (a) At Cic. 28.4 the codd. have Clodius indicted by an unnamed Caes. 10.6 specifies (whence Barton proposed in Cic., which Ziegler accepts). But the Caes. version seems a mistake. The affair was raised in the senate by the praetorian Q. Cornificius, while Clodius' formal prosecutor was L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus, the pr. 58 and cos. 49. If Lentulus was now tribune, it is odd that this is not mentioned elsewhere (e.g. at Cic. Att. i 14.6, i 16.3). It is easier to assume that Caes. is here in error; in that case, we should retain the manuscript reading at Cic. 28.4. Plutarch has here carelessly misread his earlier account, (b) At Caes. 10.3 Plutarch uses the vigorous and rare word he had also used the word, in a quite different context, in the account of the 63 Bona Dea incident (Cic. 20.2). If he had recently re-read Cicero, the use of the same phrase in Caesar may unconsciously reflect that passage.

121 It is a great merit of Theander, 2–32, to emphasise this point; cf. Eranos lvii (1959) 99–131.

122 Livy: the Composition of his History (1977) 143. It will become clear that my approach to Plutarch is very similar to Luce's treatment of Livy.

123 Fr. 1.2 (Boissevain): (coni. Millar) So at liii 19.6 he refers to ‘the many books which I have read’.

124 This is, I trust, not controversial: the similarities may be traced in Schwartz, PW iii 1697–1714. The non-Livian material seems to increase after Caesar's death: ib., 1711–14. Thus the systematic contact with Plutarch and Appian (above n. 73) is best explained by the assumption that Dio found Pollio's account transmitted by Livy.

125 Cf. Schwartz, PW iii 1706–9, though not all his arguments are strong. As I hope to argue elsewhere, additions to, or revisions of, Caesar's material can always be explained by Dio's own techniques.

126 The similarities are analysed in my doctoral thesis on Caesar (diss. Oxford 1974) App. 1; cf. n. 105.

127 For Caesar being transmitted by Livy, Schwartz, PW iii 1706–8; for Cicero, Schwartz, Hermes xxxii (1897) 581 ff.; Willrich, H., de coni. Cat. Fontibus (1893) 4551.Google Scholar

128 xxix 27.13; cf. e.g. vi 12.2–3, xxvi 49.2–6, xxix 25.2, xxxiii 30.6–11. At xxxii 6.8 he refers to ceteri graeci latinique auctores, quorum quidem ego legi annales …: thus he admits that he has not read everything, but evidently claims to have read several accounts other than that of Valerius Antias (quoted at xxxii 6.5 ff.). In general, cf. Steele, , AJP xxv (1904) 1531.Google Scholar

129 Luce, op. cit. 158–84, has strong arguments to defend Livy's wide reading. In particular, cf. Tränkle, , Cato in der vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius (Abh. Mainz 1971)Google Scholar, in defence of Livy's first-hand knowledge of Cato.

130 Cf. Tränkle, , Livius und Polybius (1976) esp. 28 ff.Google Scholar, 59–72.

131 Schwartz, PW v 939, 946–60; for the coincidences between Livy and Dionysius in their accounts of the early Republic, Tränkle, , Hermes xciii (1965) 311–37Google Scholar. Plutarch offers a useful control: Romulus, Numa, and Poplicola are at times close to this tradition; elsewhere (e.g. in describing the birth of Romulus and Remus, Rom. 2 ff.) they show what divergences were possible.

132 Luce, op. cit. 139–84, esp. 143–50 and 172 n. 73; cf. Tränkle, , Livius und Polybios 20Google Scholar: ‘ein kontinuierliches Verweben mehrerer Darstellungen wird man ihm höchstens in Ausnahmefällen zutrauen dürfen'.

133 Cf. esp. Syme, , Tacitus 180–90, 674–6Google Scholar: subsequent bibliography at Jones 74 n. 15. Townend, , AJP lxxxv (1964) 337–77Google Scholar, plausibly argues for the use of several sources in these books of the Histories; but the overwhelming predominance of a single source within a single expanse of narrative remains unimpugned.

134 Lucian, quom. hist. 47–8Google Scholar, quoted below (p. 94), with the passages collected by Avenarius, G., Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung (1956) 71104, esp. 88.Google Scholar

135 Dio lxxii 23.5, with Millar, , A Study of Cassius Dio 3240Google Scholar; D.H., Ant. Rom. i 7.2.Google Scholar It is thus plausible to suggest that Livy, too, read widely in his sources before beginning to compose: Luce, op. cit. 188–93.

136 Cf. Russell, , JRS liii (1963) 22Google Scholar, who suggests a similar procedure for Plutarch in Coriolanus; Luce, op. cit. 210 ff., who makes a similar suggestion concerning Livy.

137 Cf. esp. Birt, , Das antike Buchwesen (1882) 157 ff.Google Scholar; Schubart, , Das Buch bei den Griechen und Römern 3 (1962) 6671Google Scholar. The relevance of such points was clearly seen by Nissen, , Kritische Untersuchungen über die Quellen der vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius (1863) 78–9Google Scholar; cf. Briscoe, , Commentary on Livy xxxi–xxxiii (1973) 10.Google Scholar

138 Birt, , Kritik und Hermeneutik des antiken Buchwesens (1913) 303–4.Google Scholar

139 E.g. Strabo xvii 790, who does seem to have collated two (closely similar) versions. And, of course, systematic comparison of texts was regular in the case of διόρθωσις, with textual variants being noted in a margin: cf. e.g. Allen, , PBSR v (1910) 7680Google Scholar. In such cases, either a book-rest or a slave's assistance (e.g. by dictating one version) was presumably used. But comparison of versions must have been more complicated for a historian, who had to deal (a) with a wider range of texts, (b) with texts which might order their material in different sequences, (c) with variants which were generally more substantial, and (d) with variants which were more difficult to note. (This footnote is indebted to discussion with Mr Parsons.)

140 Cf. above n. 93. Brut. 22.4–6 has a medley of points taken from Brutus' two letters, and these points recur in an order quite different from the original. Apart from one explicit quotation (οἱ δὲ πρόγονοι …), itself easily memorable, the passage looks like a paraphrase from memory.

141 As Peter 130, argued in the case of the pro Plancio passage.

142 As Gelzer does: Festgabe P. Kirn (1961) 49 n. 19. The number may originally be derived from Caes. B.G. iv 15.3, who claims that the enemy had totalled 430,000; Pollio may have reasoned that very few escaped.

143 Or, if we assume that Plutarch composed just one ὑπόμνημα for all six Lives (below pp. 94–5), he presumably worked carefully through this part of the ὑπόμνημα when composing Caesar, and turned the pages (or tablets) more quickly when writing Cato or Crassus.

144 From the reading for Cicero or other Lives: above p. 82. From general knowledge, or from research for other works: e.g. the digression on the Bona Dea festival, Caes. 9.4–8 (perhaps drawn from work for the Quaestiones Romanae; cf. 268de); and perhaps such cases as Ant. 33.2–4 and 34.9, absent from other ancient narratives of these events, but exploited by Plutarch in de fortuna Romanorum (319d–320a).

145 Cf. Gomme 78.

146 Cf. Hamilton xliv. The elder Pliny's studious practice, nihil enim legit quod non excerperet, is noted as a peculiarity: Plin. Ep. iii 5.10.

147 Inst. Or. x 3.31. In general, cf. Roberts, , PAB xl (1954) 170–75.Google Scholar

148 In these cases, however, the possibility of marginal jottings in the main source's account should be considered—very much after the manner of διόρθωσις: this is especially likely with Livy. The elder Pliny may be exceptional, but he not merely excerpebat but also adnotabat (Plin. Ep. iii 5.10), i.e. noted things in a margin, which would be a convenient way of assembling minor divergences, for instance in numbers. Livy's (though not Plutarch's) supplements to his main source are often of this type. But in this case the problems of using two rolls simultaneously would remain, and we should assume either a book-rest or some assistance from a slave. (This note is again indebted to Mr Parsons.)

149 See Avenarius', collection of parallel passages, Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung 85104.Google Scholar

150 Cf. the remarks of Millar, , A Study of Cassius Dio 33.Google Scholar

151 The following references are drawn from Avenarius, op. cit. 85–9. Ammonius, , CIAG iv 1887Google Scholar, suggests a very unfinished version. But there seems to have been a theory that Thuc. viii represents a rather than a final composition (Marc. vit. Thuc. 44), which suggests that a could be much more finished; the same impression is given by Jos. c.Ap. i 50. Mr Parsons observes that FGrH 533 fr. 2 maybe a if so, it seems close to its final form.

152 But, on silent reading, note the cautious remarks of Knox, , GRBS ix (1968) 421–35.Google Scholar

153 On dictation, Herescu, , REL xxxiv (1956) 132–46.Google Scholar

154 c.Ap. i 50; cf. Thackeray, H., Josephus (1929) 100–24.Google Scholar

155 Cf. Quint. lnst. Or. × 1.128, on Seneca: ‘ingenium facile et copiosum, plurimum studii, multa rerum cognitio, in qua tamen aliquando ab iis quibus inquirenda quaedam mandabat deceptus est’.

156 Jones, 84–7, has a sensible and useful discussion of such assistants.

157 It was understandable that Stegmann, followed by Flacelière, should conjecture at Ant. 19.1; but that is more likely to correct the author than his text.

158 In such Lives, the picture of Gomme, 77–81, is likely to be more accurate; cf. above pp. 74–5.

159 This point is owed to Mr Russell.

160 For another aspect of the differences among the Lives, cf. Wardman, , CQ xxi (1971) 254–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar