Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:09:34.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plutarch's de Fortuna Romanorum*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

S. C. R. Swain
S. C. R. Swain
Affiliation:
Wolfson College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Plutarch's essay de fortuna Romanorum has attracted divergent judgements. Ziegler dismissed it as ‘eine nicht weiter ernst zu nehmende rhetorische Stilübung’. By Flacelière it was hailed as ‘une ébauche de méditation sur le prodigieux destin de Rome’. It is time to consider the work afresh and to discover whether there is common ground between these two views. Rather than offering a general appreciation, my treatment will take the work chapter by chapter, considering points of interest as they arise. This method will enable us to compare what Plutarch says on particular subjects and themes in de fort. Rom. with what he says or does not say about them elsewhere. We shall thus be able to see clearly that for the most part the ideas he presents in the essay correspond with his thoughts about the rôle of fortune expressed in more serious writing, and that, where there is no correspondence, this is attributable to the rhetorical background. I do not intend to address directly the frequently discussed but insoluble question of whether we have in de fort. Rom. only one of two original works, that is whether there was once a de virtute Romanorum which Plutarch composed or answered. De fort. Rom. itself in fact gives almost as much prominence to άρετή as to τúχη, and their competing roles will be carefully evaluated. Nor do I look at the dating of the work (an early date has been suggested on grounds of genre, a later one on grounds of the essay's familiarity with Rome, but there is not enough evidence for a firm conclusion).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , December 1989 , pp. 504 - 516
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1989

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 II. 1, 719–21, at 720Google Scholar; Flacelière, R., ‘Plutarque, “De Fortuna Romanorum”’, Mèlanges Carcopino (1966), 367–75Google Scholar, at 368. Other standard works consulted are Volkmann, R., Leben, Schriften und Philosophie des Plutarch von Chaeronea i (Berlin, 1869), pp. 45ff.Google Scholar; Palm, J., Rom, Römertum und Imperium in der griechischen Lileratur der Kaisarzeit (Lund, 1959), pp. 34–6Google Scholar; Barrow, R. H., Plutarch and his Times (London, 1967), pp. 122–30Google Scholar; Jones, C., Plutarch and Rome (Oxford, 1971), pp. 67–71Google Scholar; Brenk, F., In Mist Apparelled (Leiden, 1977), pp. 157–63Google Scholar.

2 In favour of a de virt. Rom.: Lassel, E., De fortunae in Plutarchi operibus notione (Marburg, 1891), p. 57Google Scholar; Ziegler, art. cit. (n. 1), 720–1; Barrow, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 122; Jones, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 67 n. 2; against: Wardman, A., CQ 5 (1955), 99 n. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Palm, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 34 n. 1Google Scholar. Palm makes the point that the de fort. Rom. would not have so much on Rome's άρετń had there been a separate treatment of this. That there is almost equal treatment is the reason for the title given in some MSS, περί τς ωμαíων τúχης ρετς (πóτερоν τà ωμαíων πρáγματα τúχης άρετς); in the Lamp. Cat. (no. 175) the work is called περι τς ‘Ρωμαíων τúχης.

3 An earlier date, favoured by most editors and commentators, means 60 65 (‘in the reign of Nero’, Jones, op. cit. [n. 1], p. 67 n. 3); for a later dating, see Barrow, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 127–8. An earlier date may be preferable, since in addition to the not unreasonable assumption that Plutarch's inclination to rhetoric diminished with age, it should be pointed out that his knowledge of Rome in the essay is not as sound as has been claimed; see below n. 26 (Aemilius Scaurus), nn. 31–4 (temples of Virtue), nn. 36–8 (temples of Fortune), n. 43 (eclipse at birth of Romulus), p. 511 (Sextus Pompeius). The arguments of Sandbach, F. H., CQ 33 (1939), 196–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for an early date on the evidence of clausulae are of doubtful worth.

4 For the conceit, the ‘heights of wisdom’ (cf. Ciris 14ff., Lucretius 2.7ff., Plato, , Sophist 216cGoogle Scholar), in the Second Sophistic, see Anderson, G., Lucian. Theme and Variation in the Second Sophistic (Leiden, 1976), pp. 16–17Google Scholar.

5 cf. the rival choruses of poets/actors and generals at de glor. Ath. 348e–350b.

6 cf. Publ. 23.1 εάωθóτες πασι τоîς μεγάλоις έπιφημíζειν τò δαιμίνιоν, Sulla 6.9; Plutarch's approval of this course is shown by de laude ips. 542e–543a.

7 Such speeches are attested in Plutarch's age. Note Athenaeus, , deipn. 98cGoogle Scholar ‘a public encomium of the Imperial City’ by the sophist Pompeianus of Philadelphia; Aristides 26 To Rome (delivered at Rome, I, 3, 7, etc.); and especially a victory list belonging to the Thespian Erotideia and dating to A.D. 20 (Schachter, A., Cults of Boeotia i, ii, ivGoogle Scholar [Inst. Class. Stud. Bull. Suppl. nos. 38.1 (1981), 38.2 (1986), 38.4 (1981)], ii, pp. 173–5 no. [xiv]) which contains an έγκωμ[ιоγ]ρá[φ]оν είς ρωτα | καì ‘Ρωμαíоυς (other evidence for the Erotideia points to athletic competitions alone [i, pp. 218–19, with 218 n. 6], but note that the agon early on added the title ‘Romaia’ [i, p. 219 n. 2]; another festival, the Thespian Mouseia, had regular encomia of the emperor (ii, pp. 176–9 nos. xvi-xviii). Polemo's description of Rome as the ‘epitome of the world’ perhaps also came from an encomium (Galen xviii, 347 K.; cf. Athenaeus, , deipn. 20bGoogle Scholar). It is impossible to say where Plutarch's speech might have been delivered. A Roman setting would be suggested by the passage at 321a (τà καλà ταûταβασíλεια, κτλ; cf. Palm, , op. cit. [n. 1], p. 36 n. 2Google Scholar), were these words Plutarch's and not part of Fortune's address to the Virtue of Romulus (so Jones, op. cit. [n. 1], p. 67 n. 4); one could also point to 318a (оűτως είσλθεν [Fortune] είς ‘Ρμην ς μενоúσα, κτλ) but again the procession of Fortune with attendant Roman heroes must be imagined as taking place at Rome. Plutarch's references to Romans in the third person (320c έоρτáζоυσιν, 322a, cκαλоûσιν) may, though not necessarily, indicate a Greek audience; this is favoured by the treatment of Greece itself in the work (see n. 66 with text).

8 cf. Lucian, , pseudol. 5–6Google Scholar (with Jones, C. P., Culture and Society in Lucian [Cambridge, Mass., 1986], pp. 110–15)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Philostratus, , V.S. p. 579Google Scholar.

9 The ascription of the temple of Virtus at 322c to Marcellus is substantially more reliable than that at 318d to Scipio Aemilianus – see p. 510. It has been held of course that 10 has the earlier version (‘Plutarchum illo cap. 10 loco rem tantum adumbravisse, postea vero paulo mutatum et amplificatam capiti 5 inseruisse’, Nachstädt, , Teubner Moralia ii.2 [1935], p. 43Google Scholar with literature).

10 Plutarch's, ideas on fortune and providence are examined by me in a paper to appear in AJP 110 (1989)Google Scholar.

11 This meaning is made plainer by phrases like άπò τúχης, διà τúχην, etc. (see Lassel, , op. cit. [n. 2], pp. 38–9Google Scholar), or is reinforced by another term such as αύτоμáτως (e. g. Cato Min. 19.3).

12 For example Rom. 8.9, Cam. 6.3, Demosth. 19.1 (δαιμóνιоς), Phil. 17.2 (cf. Flam. 12.10 θεóς), Dion 4.3–4, Marc. 3.2 (άγαθń), Pomp. 53.8–9, Phoc. 3.4, Luc. 19.6 (θεíα), Tim. 16.10–11.

13 Note that it is only in de fort. Rom. that τúχη is set up as a goddess (4, 317e–318a, cf. 9, 321c).

14 Barrow, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 126–7Google Scholar.

15 In this directive sense note also ò ‘Ρωμαíων μéγας δαíμων at 11, 324b–d, and even ταύτóματоν at 12, 324d. δαíμων is often used loosely in the Lives for or in addition to θεóς (e. g. Caes. 66.1, Ag./Cleom. 43.7, Fab. 14.2). On ‘the great daimon of the Romans’, see below n. 49 with text. Note that ταύτóματоν is unique in a directive sense, though cf. Tim. 12.9 where the doors to the temple of the god Adranos open αύτóματоι (more than ‘of their own accord’; see Brenk, op. cit. [n. 1], p. 37); its meaning at de fort. Rom. 324d is made plainer by its juxtaposition with τúχη in a directive meaning (elsewhere in Plutarch's works this common combination means ‘by chance’, ‘accidentally’, etc.).

16 For the sense of χρóνоς, cf. de Pyth. orac. 398e.

17 cf. de virt. mor. 444c–d, de sera num. vind. 550d–e.

18 The main areas of divine involvement are: the success of Romulus and Remus and the origin of Rome (Rom. 8.9, Cam. 6.3); Roman expansion in Greece and the Greek East (Phil. 17.2, Flam. 12.10); the establishment of monarchy by Caesar and Octavian (Phoc. 3.4, Pomp. 53.8–9, 75.5, Dion–Brut, synk. 2.2, Cim.–Luc. synk. 1.1, Caes. 63.1, Brut. 47.7, Ant. 56.6). Divine aid is linked with the establishment of political stability in Flam. 12, Pomp. 75.5, Dion–Brut. synk. 2.2; and the stability and legality which are promoted by the ideal ruler whose virtue is in God's image (cf. max. cum princ. phil. esse dis. 776f, ad princ. indoct. 781a) are close to the real political benefits of the Empire in Plutarch's own time (de Pyth. orac. 408b, de tranq. an. 469e, an seni resp. ger. sit 784f, praec. ger. reip. 824c). It should be remembered that Plutarch's explanations in terms of divine causality must always be taken with explanations made in terms of human causality (e. g. in Flam. 12 God lends a hand, but Greek peoples and kings increase Rome's power voluntarily because they appreciate the stability she offers; at Cim.–Luc. synk. 1.1 τò πεπρωμéνоν changes the constitution through the Civil Wars, but these were of course started by men, Pomp. 70, de Stoic, repug. 1049d; and so on for every case of divine involvement).

19 The plainest examples of collaboration by τúχη and άρετń come in Aem.–Tim., especially Aem. 2.3, Tim. 21.5, 36.4 (fortune in Aem.–Tim. is discussed by me in a paper to appear in Historia 38 [1989]).

20 cf. Aem.–Tim. synk. 2.1, Ag. /Cleom. -Gracchi synk. 1.2–3, Cim.–Luc. synk. 2.2, Phil -Flam, synk. 2.2.

21 For legal jargon in synkrisis cf. also Cim.–Luc. synk. 3.6, Thes.–Rom. synk. 3.3. On Plutarch's interest in pointing out relative differences in qualities that are essentially similar, cf. de mul. virt. 243b–d, Phoc. 3.7–9.

22 cf. Palm, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 34—6, on the close relations of άρετń and τúχη in de fort. Rom.Google Scholar

23 cf. de glor. Ath. 345e, 348e, Flam. 11.5, Arist.–Cato Maj. synk. 1.3.

24 The list of four (or five) empires is canonical – cf. Aristoxenus, fr. 50 W. (= Athenaeus, , deiph. 545dGoogle Scholar), III Sibylline Oracle 158–61, Polybius 38.22.2, Dion. Hal. 1.2.2–3, Philo, , quod deus immutab. sit 173–5Google Scholar, Di o of Prusa 79.6, Appian, Pref. 8–10, Aristides 26.15–57, Origen, , In Gen. 36fGoogle Scholar. (Pat. Gr. xii, 60 M.), Porphyry in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.10.3, et al.; see further Swain, J., CPh 35 (1940), 1–21Google Scholar.

25 Aemilius Paulus –e.g. Livy 45. 41, Pliny, , H. N. 4. 39Google Scholar; Cicero, Macedonicus–, de fin. 5.82Google Scholar, Tusc. disp. 1.85, Velleius Paterculus 1.11.6–7, Valerius Maximus 7.1.1, Pliny, , H. N. 7.142Google Scholar; Sulla – e.g. Diodorus Siculus 38.15, Appian, , B.C. 1.450–5Google Scholar, SIG 3 747.52.

26 Scaurus was not a novus, but rather restored his family name from desuetude (Cicero, , Pro Mur. 16Google Scholar). For καινòς νθρωπоς (318c), see Cato Maj. 1.2.

27 For Diadematus, cf. Cor, 11.4; one wonders if we see in this list the fruits of research on the Caecilii for the Life of Metellus Numidicus (cf. Marius 29.12)? On the fortune of Macedonicus’ family, see the references collected on Macedonicus in n. 25.

28 cf. Carney, T., PACA 10 (1967), 15Google Scholar: ‘Marius, for the ancients, seems to have been primarily the hero of the Cimbric Wars and the army reformer’; but note Gilbert, C., CQ 23 (1973), 106–7Google Scholar, on the possibility of a tradition associating Marius with assistance by fortune.

29 Cincinnatus is not mentioned elsewhere in Plutarch's works. At praec. ger. reip. 820e Horatius (Codes) is named Publius, but both praenomina occur (Münzer, F., RE VIII, 2335)Google Scholar.

30 See n. 18.

31 Platner, S. and Ashby, T., A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (London, 1929), p. 582Google Scholar; Lugli, G., Fontes ad topographiam veteris urbis Romae pertinentes vi (Rome, 1965), p. 402 no. 338Google Scholar.

32 In fact it was dedicated by Marcellus’ son in 205 (Livy 29.11.13) as the second of adjacent temples to Honos and to Virtus authorised by the pontiffs in 208 on the basis of a vow first made by Marcellus in 222 to rededicate the existing temple of Honos to both deities (Livy 27.25.7–9); see n. 33.

33 Marius’ temple: Platner-Ashby, , op. cit. (n. 31), pp. 259–60Google Scholar. Marcellus', : eid., pp. 258–9Google Scholar. A few MSS read Marcellus instead of Marius at 318e – this is clearly a later correction, influenced by 322c. Marc. 28.2 is based on Livy 27.25.7–9 (see n. 32); Plutarch was directly acquainted with Livy 27 (Marc. 24.5; Livy 27.2.2).

34 Eid., p. 339; this may have been restored by Aemilius Scaurus, for he carried out similar work on the temple of Fides, also on the Capitol (p. 209).

35 There were four temples – eid., pp. 212–14.

36 cf. Otto, W., RE VII, 16Google Scholar.

37 See Rose, H., The Roman Questions of Plutarch (Oxford, 1924), p. 200Google Scholar. Note also quaest. Rom. 106, 289b–c.

38 Possibly the same mistakes as at 318f, though referring to a different temple; see Platner–Ashby, op. cit. (n. 31), p. 213; cf. Brut. 20.3.

39 This is abbreviated and slightly altered in the Life at 38.5. τúχη in the sense ‘genius’ is rare, cf. Demetr. 50.1 (the more usual word is δαíμων, e. g. Tim, 16. 11, de tranq. an. 470d). There is nothing to suggest that Plutarch accepted the popular belief of his day that men were attended by good and/or bad spirits (I say more on this in the paper cited in n. 10); certainly the notion of Caesar's personal fortune here is Plutarch's modification (copied by Appian, B.C. 2.236, and Zonaras 10.8) of the original tale reflected in reg. et imp. apophth. 206c–d (‘Have confidence in Fortune knowing that you carry Caesar’); Lucan talks of fortune/fate in his account, B.C. 5.497ff., but not as something belonging personally to Caesar (similarly Valerius Maximus 9.8.2, Cassius Dio 41.46.2 4; cf. also Suetonius, , D.J. 58.2Google Scholar, Florus 2.13.37).

40 cf. Pomp. 76.9 ‘if it was really still the planning of Pompey, and not a δαíμων which guided him on that course'.

41 Brut. 47.7, Ant. 56.6. For δει in Ant. 56.6, cf. Phil. 17.2, Pomp. 75.5, Dion–Brut, synk. 2.2.

42 See n. 18.

43 In the essay the servant of Amulius leaves them by the Ficus Ruminalis rather than the overflow of the river (Plutarch notes at Rom. 3.1 that there were many variant accounts); note the addition of an eclipse of the sun at Romulus’ birth to match that at his death (32Ob–c; cf. Rom. 27.7; hardly reliable information pace Barrow, , op. cit. [n. 1], p. 128Google Scholar).

44 See n. 18. cf. Favorinus, , On Fortune 23Google Scholar where one of the actions of unpredictable and capricious fortune is to send shepherds to find ‘the [exposed] kings of the Romans in Italy’.

45 Plutarch is not in fact subject to the embarrassment characteristic of Dion. Hal. in such matters (Rom. 9.4–11.1, cf. Livy 1. 6. 3.–7. 3; Dion. Hal. 1. 87. 3: Romulus’ ‘grief and remorse’).

46 Remember that Numa is not an historical figure, but lives in a semi-mythological age (Numa 15. 1, 3,11).

47 cf. quaest. Rom. 74, 281d–f–note the additions there of Tyche Apotropaios and Tyche Mikra; 106, 289b–c. See above, n. 37 with text, on the likelihood that quaest. Rom. 74 derives from a list of temples in Latin.

48 Taken anonymously from Dionysius (Ocrisia is not named by Livy) with an additional version credited to Antias.

49 On genii, see n. 39 on Caesar's Fortune. For δαíμων applied to a nation, cf. Alex. 30.3 ‘the δαíμων of the Persians’, with Hamilton, J., Plutarch, Alexander: a Commentary (Oxford, 1969), ad loc. p. 78Google Scholar, observing that the idea is rare (it may have started as an attempt to catch an oriental way of expression – cf. Them. 29.2, Artox. 15.7, Luc. 27.6 for the δαíμων of Persian and Armenian kings; see Brenk, op. cit. [n. 1], p. 151); note that τúχη may also be applied to countries (Pyr. 29.11, Alex. 30.8).

50 On ταύτóματоν see n. 15.

51 quaest. Rom. 287c, Cam. 27.2–3, Livy 5.47.4, Dion. Hal. 13.7.3, Diodorus Siculus 14.116.6, Cass. Dio, fr. 24.9 M., de vir. ill. 24, Zonaras 7.23, p. 156 D.

52 cf. 319d τúχην … ς ργоν ν … έπιτáξαι … άλκν δé τоîς άθυμооτáτоις.

53 cf. Livy 5.34.2, 37.1, 38.4, 42.4, 43.6, 49.5, 51.4 et al.; Livy also identifies human failings, e. g. 5. 37. 3, 51. 5.

54 Livy does say of Alexander's uncle and brother-in-law, Alexander of Molossia (cf. de fort. Rom. 326b; below in text with n. 56), that Romano bello fortuna eum abstinuit (8.24.18 referring to his untimely death, and implying that it was his good fortune not to have had to fight Rome).

55 cf. also the removal by exile of Dionysius II of Syracuse, a necessary preliminary to the liberation of Sicily in Dion (26.7–27.1, 50.4) and Tim. (14.2–3, 16.1).

56 Livy suggests that had Alexander seen the place where his uncle perished he would have been discouraged from invading (9.17.17 vestigia recentia domesticae cladis).

57 cf. Hamilton, , op. cit. (n. 49), ad loc. pp. 187–9Google Scholar. Parallel accounts talk hazily of sea-borne attacks on Italy or Sicily as part of Alexander's future conquests – Curtius 10.1.18 (Alps and Italian littoral), Diodorus Siculus 18.4.4 (the littoral from Spain to Sicily), Arrian, , anab. 7.1.3Google Scholar (‘some say’ Italy or Sicily); Arrian's δη γàρ καì ùπоκινεîν αύτòν τò ‘Ρωμαíων νоμα is perhaps influenced by de fort. Rom. 326c ðδημα γαρ και δóξα τоúτων On these plans see Bosworth, A. B., From Arrian to Alexander (Oxford, 1988), pp. 190–7Google Scholar.

58 Flaceliere, , art. cit. (n. I), 374Google Scholar (cf. id., AC 32 [1963], 31); on Flaceliere's views and my comments below, see Aalders, G., Plutarch's Political Thought (Amsterdam, 1982), pp. 2IffGoogle Scholar.

59 Arist. 6.2–5; Pyr. 7.3, 8.2, 12.2–12; Demetr. 3.3–5, 41.4–5, 42.8–11; cf. adprinc. indoct. 780f-781a.

60 Wardma, , art. cit. (n. 2), 99fGoogle Scholar.

61 See Hamilton, , op. cit. (n. 49), p. xxxGoogle Scholar; Wardman later accepted many of Hamilton's, remarks (Plutarch's Lives [London, 1974], p. 255 n. 41)Google Scholar.

62 Hamilton, , op. cit. (n. 49), pp. lxii, lxvGoogle Scholar.

63 Jones, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 68 n. 7Google Scholar.

64 Despite δ’ ίσχùς έπι πáντα πоλλ μετà τоû δαíμоνоς éχρει, the statement seems to refer only to Greece, for it introduces Philopoemen's opposition to Romans in Greece.

65 cf. 12.8 “Еλληνας … πâσιν àνθρπоις, 12.10 δμоι και πóλεις … καì βασιλεîς.

66 As offensive, perhaps, as the acclamation of the Civil Wars before Roman listeners; since the Civil War is treated, we may be right in thinking in terms of a non-Roman audience (see n. 7). Although fortune's aid in Rome's domination of Greece is omitted, Plutarch's conception of fortune would not have appealed to those Greeks who alleged that Rome had been favoured purely by luck (cf. Polybius 1.63.9, Dion. Hal. 1.4.2–3, Onasander, proem 5–6, Appian, Pref. 43–4).