^{page 96 note 1} I wish to thank Professor J. M. R. Cormack, Professor F. W. Walbank, and Mr. G. T. Griffith for helpful suggestions and comment.

^{page 96 note 2} Demetrius, De Elocutions 282:

^{page 96 note 3} Cicero, Tusc. 3. 21, 5. 25; Ad Att. 13. 28. 3.

^{page 96 note 4} Stroux, , Philologus, lxxxviii, 1933, pp. 223 f. The passages are Quintilian, Inst. Or 1. 1. 19 and Clement, Paed. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 5} Cf. Tarn, vol. ii, p. 296: ‘any one sen-tence [sc. of the Life] may need an essay to elucidate it’.

^{page 96 note 6} Henceforth referred to as the speeches and the Life.

^{page 96 note 7} Treves (see below, p. 100, n. 3) stresses the speech of Appius Claudius, Vita Pyrrhi, 19. 2–3, in his account of Plutarch's attitude to the Livian excursus and the Alexander legend.

^{page 97 note 1} O.C.D., art. ‘Plutarch’, 14.

^{page 97 note 2} The relation between and is a favourite with Plutarch. Cf. de Stoicorum repugnantiis 1033 b.

^{page 98 note 1} 337 a.

^{page 98 note 2} Life 26. 7.

^{page 98 note 3} The technique of earlier biography; see below, p. 107.

^{page 99 note 1} Cf. the Life 45. 2. For an earlier, similar view see Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1. 3. 2.

^{page 99 note 2} Veterum philosophorum qualia fuerint de Alexandro Magno iudicia, 1909, pp. 53 f. He mentions de fort. Rom. 326 a, but does not see its purport.

^{page 99 note 3} ‘Das literarische Porträt von A. d. G. im gr. und r. Alt.’, p. 93: ‘Plutarch hat eine Paradoxic in durchaus rhetorischer Weise zu rein epideiktischen Zwecken durchzuühren versucht.’

^{page 99 note 4} Vol. ii, App. 16 passim.

^{page 99 note 5} Aristotle, Rhetoric 1355*35:

^{page 99 note 6} Lassel, , de fortunae notione Plutarchi, p. 57, says: ‘postrema declamationis pars mutila … deest prae ceteris virtutis oratio’. But this is unnecessary.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 7} Lassel, ibid., p. 63 distinguishes the fortune of the speeches from that of ‘de Romanorum fortuna'. World-rule provides a link, e.g. 317 c and 327 d.

^{page 100 note 1} Perhaps Auct. ad Herennium 4. 22. 31 is an excerpt from a theme of this type.

^{page 100 note 2} Livy 9. 17.

^{page 100 note 3} de fort. Rom. 326 a. The relation of the speeches to the Livian excursus is also dealt with by Treves, , Il Mito di Alessandro e la Roma d'Augusto, esp. pp. 99, 100.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 4} Cf. Lydus, Johannes, de Mensibus 4. 62; and for the converse, 343 c.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 5} Hoffmann (p. 90) thought ‘dass eine Rede der ‘vorausging, in der sie sich den Ruhm Alexanders zuschrieb’. The only evidence is the opening but this is simply a dramatic way of stating the view against which Plutarch is to argue.

^{page 100 note 6} Cf. Tarn, vol. ii, App. 16.

^{page 100 note 7} See his treatment of Darius' womenfolk, 21.

^{page 101 note 1} e.g. Bagoas. See Tarn, vol. ii, App. 18.

^{page 101 note 2} 42. 2–4 … This can hardly mean ‘slanders which took up what he really meant and turned it into something he did not mean …’ They are slanders by other people (about others), which Alexander was trying to judge.

^{page 101 note 3} Anaxarchus, for instance. 52. 4.

^{page 101 note 4} 59. 4.

^{page 101 note 5} Cf. Tarn, vol. ii, pp. 298–9: ‘but more important is Fortune’. Though Tarn recognizes that Fortune is not applied in any consistent way.

^{page 101 note 6} 20. 4.

^{page 102 note 1} Loc. cit.

^{page 102 note 2} A contrast between his own and . Cf. Barbu, , Biographies de Plutarque, P. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 3} Barbu, , op. cit., p. 139: ‘ dans les jugements de Plutarque’. Cf. esp. p. 143: ‘ … au cas où il s'agissait d'une opinion risquée sur un homme politique, il s'en tenait à de toute l'activité de cet homme’.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 1} Cf. also Vita Demosthenis 23. 5.

^{page 103 note 2} Cf. Diodorus 17. 20. 23. For the Hippocratic origins of cf. Jaeger, , Eranos, xliv. 123–30.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 3} Aristotle, , Politics 7. 6. I327 ^b 18.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note4} ‘The parts of the soul’, correspond to the three lives of pleasure, ambition, and reason.

^{page 103 note 5} Distinct from the in Diotogenes 266. 14 (Delatte, Traités de la Royauté). There it appears with as a vice.

^{page 103 note 6} Vita Caesaris 58. 2.

^{page 103 note 7} Eicke, , op. cit., p. 63, misses the irony.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 8} De Ira 2. 23. 2: Alexander's behaviour is contrasted favourably with that of Hippias. But Seneca adds: ‘hoc eo magis in Alexandre laudo, quia nemo tarn obnoxius irae fuit’.

^{page 104 note 1} Cf. Hoffmann, , op. cit., p. 56: ‘Was den König bei seinen Raubzügen besonders treibt, ist seine temeritas, die aber immer von Glück begleitet ist …’Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 2} For instances of this important idea in Roman historiography see Nordh, ‘Virtus and Fortuna in Florus’, Eranos, 1. 112.

^{page 104 note 3} De Ira 1. 9. 2. Cf. Plutarch, 458 e: Did Aristotle use even It seems impossible to say. The point, however, is that has a wider meaning than the others, even though it can be confined to mere anger.

^{page 104 note 4} Epist. 91. 17; 113. 29; 119. 7; Nat. quaest. 5. 18. 10; De ben. 7. 2. 5.

^{page 104 note 5} Curtius 5. 13. 4. (Alexander loq.): ‘Dareus haud procul, destitutus a suis aut oppressus.’ Cf. ib. 9. 2. 32 (the army refuse to go on) and 8. 1. 47 (murder of Cleitus): ‘comprehendi se a proximis amicorum, quod Dareo nuper accidisset, exclamat …’ Cf. Arrian 4. 8. 8.

^{page 104 note 6} Cf. Pauly-W. iv. 2, 1872: ‘Der Stil mit den zerhackten Sätzen, den aufdringlichen Sentenzen, der unruhigen Effecthascherei weist auf die Zeit Senecas.’

^{page 104 note 7} Tarn, op. cit., pp. 49 f., refers the stories of Alexander's to Cleitarchus.

^{page 104 note 8} Cf. above, p. 102.

^{page 104 note 9} Arrian 7. 29. 4.

^{page 105 note 1} e.g. is an analogical form of courage, Eth. Eud. 1229 ^a 25.

^{page 105 note 2} e.g. Fabius Max. 2, Aratus 36, Lysander and Sulla (comparison) 4; for and cf. Dion 47, Agesilaus 11, Agesilaus and Pompey (comparison) 1.

^{page 105 note 3} Cf. above, p. 102.

^{page 105 note 4} e.g. Agesilaus 18, Agesilaus and Pompey comparison) 1.

^{page 105 note 5} e.g. Fabius Max. 10: and 22:

^{page 105 note 6} Aristotle, Eth. Mic. Nic. 1107 ^b 27 f.

^{page 105 note 1} As at Plato, Parm. 128 d, e and apparently Thucydides, 3. 82. 8.

^{page 105 note 2} Titus and Philopoemen (comparison), 1.

^{page 105 note 3} e.g. Agesilaus 8 and 23; Cimon 8; Fabius Maximus 25.

^{page 105 note 4} Cf. Agesilaus 33, where he is said to have forsaken

^{page 105 note 5} Cf. Lysander 23 and Agesilaus 5:

^{page 105 note 6} Lysander 4. 4.

^{page 105 note 7} For Plutarch's view on the war against Persia cf. Agesilaus 36.

^{page 105 note 8} The Life, 16. 8.

^{page 105 note 9} Ibid. 34. 1.

^{page 105 note 10} Dittenberger, Syll.³, 434 Chremonidean decree, 1. 30. Cf. also 1. 60:

^{page 105 note 11} e.g. Thebes and Cleitus, The Life, 11 to 13 and 50. Cf., too, Plutarch, 458 b, where Callisthenes and Cleitus are mentioned.

^{page 107 note 1} Except for Lycurgus and Numa, the ideal legislators.

^{page 107 note 2} Cf. the speech to the Spartans at Thucydides I. 69. 5. Also Cleitarchus, frag. 35 Jacoby. For Plutarchan usage the most interesting example is the Caesar, 32. 6, …

^{page 107 note 3} Following Tarn, vol. ii, pp. 306–9 against Powell, J.H.S. 1939.

^{page 107 note 4} Cf. Demetrius i, passim.

^{page 107 note 5} Cf. Barbu, , op. cit., pp. 27, 49.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 6} Athenaeus 536 f.