Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T00:09:35.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards A Chronology of Plutarch's Works*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

C. P. Jones
C. P. Jones
Affiliation:
Harvard University/University College, Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The belief is widespread that the majority of Plutarch's works was written after the death of Domitian in 96, when the author was a comparatively old man. So far, however, the foundations for this belief have not been firmly laid. The latest study of Plutarchean chronology, that of Ziegler, omits much, and new evidence is constantly accruing. The following study is an attempt to make use of all the material now available that bears on the dating of Plutarch's works. It cannot be definitive: there may be omissions, certain problems (such as that of Plutarch's marriage and the number of his children) appear insoluble, and new data, particularly new inscriptions, that affect the question are sure to turn up.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 56 , Issue 1-2 , November 1966 , pp. 61 - 74
Copyright
Copyright ©C. P. Jones 1966. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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 Ziegler, K., RE 21 (1951—also published separately, 1949), 708 ff.Google Scholar (henceforth cited as ‘Ziegler’).

2 PIR M 433; Groag, RE 15, 1820 ff.

3 ILS 1030.

4 So Goold, G. P., Phoenix 17 (1963), 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Pliny, ib., ‘sororem patrem adhortabatur’.

6 Syme, , Tacitus (1958), 661.Google Scholar

7 Wifstrand, A., Δρᾶγμα Nilsson (1939), 529 ff.Google Scholar

8 So Mahaffy, J. P., Greek World under Roman Sway (1890), 346, n. 1Google Scholar, followed by Alton, E. H., CR 32 (1918), 150Google Scholar; Renoirte, T., Les ‘Conseils Politiques’ de Plutarque (1951), 139.Google Scholar Against, Helmbold, W. C., edition of Plutarch's Moralia, Loeb Library, Vol. VI (1939), 185, n. (e)Google Scholar. The issue is ignored by Ziegler.

9 Thus Tiberius, de def. orac. 419 D, de exil. 602 E, an seni 794 B; Gaius, Galba 9, 12; Claudius, ib. 12; Vespasian, amat. 770 C; Titus, de tuenda san. 124 C (but Τίτος ὀ αὐτοκράτωρ, 123 D); Trajan, de primo frig. 949 E. Καῖσαρ alone usually designates Augustus: thus Rom. 17, 3; Per. 1, 1; Cic. 49, 5 f.; Marc. 30, 10 f., al.

10 Thus quaest. conviv. 630 F, 632 F, 655 A. Cf., however, de def. orac. 419 E.

11 Even if Plutarch thought with Livy (1, 46, 4) that Tarquinius Priscus was the father of Tarquinius Superbus, still Priscus did not ‘leave his power’ to Superbus, but was succeeded by Servius Tullius.

12 On the use of πατρίκιοι for senatorial, not patrician shoes, see Mau, RE 3, 1340 f.

13 Q. Pompeius Macer from Mitylene in 15 (ILS 9349); M. Plancius Varus from Perge in Pamphylia (Jameson, S., JRS 55 (1965), 54 ff.Google Scholar) and M. Antonius Flamma from Cyrene (PIR 2 A 831; cf. Reynolds, J., JRS 49 (1959), 97)Google Scholar under Nero; and, about the same time, L. Servenius Cornutus from Acmonia in Phrygia (ILS 8817). Cf. Syme, Tacitus (1958), 509, n. 4.

14 C. Caristanius Fronto from Pisidian Antioch in 90 (ILS 9485: for the consulate, see Alfieri, N., Athenaeum 26 (1948), 116Google Scholar); Ti. Julius Celsus Polemaeanus from Ephesus or Sardis in 92 (ILS 8971), and C. Antius A. Julius Quadratus from Pergamum in 94 (ILS 8819). Cf. Syme, op. cit. 510. Quadratus was cos. II ord. in 105.

15 On Trajan's policy towards Eastern senators, see most recently Hammond, M., JRS 47 (1957), 79Google Scholar; Habicht, Chr., Istanb. Mitt. 9/10 (1959–1960), 121 f.Google Scholar

16 Syme, op. cit. 668 ff.

17 Published by H. Bloch, to whom I owe this reference, HSCP 56–57 (1947), 75, no. 353.

18 Inscription: SIG 3 829 A (on the date, see Pomtow ad loc., n. 1). Eusebius apud Syncellus 349 B (659, 13), on which see Groag, Reichsbeamten von Achaia (1939), 145 ff.; Pflaum, , Les Carrières procuratoriennes équestres 3 (1961), 1071.Google Scholar

19 In 124/5, 128/9, and 131/2: see Weber, W., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus (1907), 156 ff.Google Scholar, 205 ff., 268 ff.

20 Hadrian and Delphi: Bourguet, E., De rebus Delphicis imperatoriae aetatis (1905), 72 ff.Google Scholar Statues erected to him: SIG 3 829, 835. ὤρθωκας τὴν πόλιν: inscription in Bourguet, op. cit. 84 f., l. 27.

21 So Bourguet, op. cit. 74; Pomtow ad SIG 3 830, n. 6; Flacelière, Rev. de Phil., 3e ser., 8 (1934), 56 ff. and frequently since.

22 SIG 3 835 B. Flacelière, art. cit. 64, asserts that the date of Plutarch's death ‘ne doit pas être antérieure à 127’, referring to Christ, W., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur4 (1905), 675.Google Scholar Christ's evidence was the identification of an Egyptian riot mentioned by Plutarch (de Isid. et Osir. 380 B f.) with that of Juvenal 15, 27 ff. (consule Iunco). Christ himself, however, had doubts about the identification (ib., n. 4) and in fact it is incorrect: see now Ziegler, 640 f. On the true date of Plutarch's death, see below, p. 66.

23 Despite Flacelière, , REG 63 (1950), 302.Google Scholar Though Plutarch several times castigates the worship of Hellenistic monarchs (Scott, K., TAPA 60 (1929), 117 ff.Google Scholar), he never mentions the emperor-cult.

24 Daux, Rev. Arch., 6e sér., 11 (1938), 3 ff., whose arguments are now accepted by Flaceliére, , Plutarque: Dialogue sur les oracles de la Pythie (1962), 80 f.Google Scholar

25 Augustus: Plut., de E Delph. 385 F. Claudius: SIG 3 801 D. Nero: Dio Cass. 63, 14, 2. Titus: SIG 3 817. Domitian: SIG 3 821 A (temple), C. Trajan: inscription in Bourguet, op. cit. n. 20, 70.

26 In a seminar on Plutarch at Harvard in 1963 this interpretation was considered and rejected by Prof. G. W. Bowersock, who has nevertheless kindly allowed me to make it public.

27 Artemis: SIG 3 559, l. 36. Dionysus: CIG 3067, l. 2, 3068 A, l. 5 (Teos); SIG 3 694, l. 46 (Pergamum). Antiochus: OGIS 383, 11. 85 ff. These and other examples in Flacelière, Rev. de Phil., 3e sér., 8 (1934), 61, n. 1.

28 Denniston, Greek Particles 2 (1954), 558. The fact that μέν and δέ are both preceded by the same word, φιλῶ, would normally suggest that they introduced unopposed sentences (ib. 370).

29 So Ziegler, 661, after Hirzel and others. For καθηγεμών of a political leader, cf. praec. ger. reip. 805 F.

30 SIG 3 843.

31 Note the uneasiness of Wilamowitz, , Glaube der Hellenen 2 (1932), 470, n. 4Google Scholar; cf. Flacelière, , REG 63 (1950), 301 f.Google Scholar

32 That the speaker is Plutarch's father, however, is not quite certain: Ziegler, 644.

33 SIG 3 825 A-C.

34 SIG 3 846; but this may refer to his son (Pomtow, ad loc., n. 3).

35 Pausanias 8, 8, 12. On the date: Weber, , Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus (1907), 185.Google Scholar

36 Weber, op. cit. 268 ff.

37 Pausanias 1, 42, 5; cf. Weber, op. cit. 180 f.

38 For instance, by von Gaertringen, RE 4, 2578; Daux, , Delphes au IIe et au Ier Siècle (1936), 410, n. 1Google Scholar: against, Pomtow apud von Gaertringen, ib.

39 Svoronos, I. N., BCH 20 (1896), 36, no. 54; 46, no. 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Cichorius, , Römische Studien (1922), 406 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Fuks, A., JRS 51 (1961), 98 ff.Google Scholar

42 Dio of Prusa 32, 72; perhaps Plut., de Iside et Osir. 380 B f. (on the date of this work, see above, n. 22, and below, p. 73).

43 So West, , CP 23 (1928), 266.Google Scholar

44 Daux, , Chronologie delphique (1943), 90.Google Scholar

45 Daux, ib.

46 Statue and date: above, n. 18.

47 SIG 3 835 B.

48 The fullest discussion of the ‘self-citations’ is that of C. Stoltz, Zur relativen Chronologie der Parallelbiographien Plutarchs (1929), with a full list on p. 9. See also Ziegler, 899 ff.; Bühler, W., Maia n.s. 14 (1962), 271 ff.Google Scholar; Broźek, M., Eos 53 (1963), 68 ff.Google Scholar After exhaustive analysis, Stoltz concluded that all the self-citations were genuine except Dio 58, 10; Brutus 9, 9; and Camillus 33, 10: cf. Mewaldt, , Gnomon 6 (1930), 431 ff.Google Scholar

49 Hermes 42 (1907), 564 ff.

50 So Stoltz, op. cit. 72 ff.; Bühler, art. cit. 273; Flacelière's defence of Mewaldt (REG 61 (1948), 68 f.) is not convincing.

51 See the Budé editors, Plutarque, Vies, 2 (1961), 217.

52 Thus Ziegler 897, e.g. Probably the younger Africanus is meant, Ziegler 896.

53 This refers to the Lycurgus, not to the spurious Instituta Laconica (Stoltz, op. cit. 101 f.).

54 The reference seems clear, though Plutarch does not mention the Nicias by name (Mewaldt, , Hermes 42 (1907), 573Google Scholar; Stoltz, op. cit. 22).

55 Again, Plutarch does not mention the Demosthenes by name (Stoltz, ib.).

56 So Flacelière, , Rev. de Phil., 3e sér., 23 (1949), 132.Google Scholar

57 Plutarch's words in the preface to the Theseus (1, 2), have led some to consider the Theseus-Romulus one of the last pairs (thus Stoltz, op. cit. 134). But it is clear that Plutarch had already written Lives of persons from very diverse times; and in the same preface he implies ( 1, 4) that this pair followed immediately on the Lycurgus-Numa.

58 For similar dedications in consular years, see Syme, , Tacitus (1958), 672.Google Scholar

59 Reden und Vortr. 24 (1926), 258.