No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 April 2013
In his Life of Aemilius Paulus, Plutarch (quite naturally) rehearses the initial phase of Aemilius Paulus' campaign against Perseus, when the Macedonian had occupied a position on the northern bank of the river Elpeus so strongly fortified that any direct assault could only be disastrous for the attackers. Aemilius instead resorted to a cunning strategy of synchronized surgical strikes, while a detachment, the departure and direction of which were successfully disguised, managed to round the Macedonian camp. Perseus' position was thus compromised, and in reaction the monarch hastily retreated to Pydna, where in the end his luck was even worse. Embedded in this narrative is the report that, prior to Aemilius' dislodging of Perseus, the morale of the legions was sorely depressed. The reason was simple and straightforward: they were suffering from a shortage of satisfactorily potable water. This difficulty Aemelius resolved by digging wells.
1 Plut. Aem. 12–16. Digging wells: Aem. 14; cf. Liv. 44.33.1–4; Zonar. 9.23; Diod. Sic. 30.20. On Aemilius' campaign against Perseus up to his victory at Pydna, see the evidence and exposition, with further literature, in Hammond, N.G.L. and Walbank, F.W., A History of Macedonia, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1988), 539–57Google Scholar. I am very grateful to Chris Pelling and to the journal's anonymous referee for significantly improving this paper.
2 Derow, P.S., ‘Rome, the fall of Macedon and the sack of Corinth’, in Astin, A.E., Walbank, F.W., Frederiksen, M.W. and Ogilvie, R.M. (edd.), CAH, vol. 8 (Cambridge, 1989 2), 316Google Scholar.
3 The design of Polybius' history: Polyb. 3.1–5. On the importance of Pydna, see Polyb. 1.1.5; 3.1.9–10; 29.21. Walbank, F.W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1970), 292–7Google Scholar remains fundamental. The sources for Aemilius' victory in the Third Macedonian War are assembled in Broughton, MRR 1.427. On the memorialization of Aemilius' victory, see Geiger, J., The First Hall of Fame: A Study in the Statues of the Forum Augustum (Leiden, 2008), 151CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sumi, G.S., ‘Monuments and memory: the Aedes Castoris in the formation of Augustan ideology’, CQ 59 (2009), 167–86, esp. 174–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. After its several refurbishments by ambitious Aemilii, it is unimaginable that Aemilius went unremembered in the Basilica Pauli, which in Plutarch's day was one of Rome's most splendid constructions (Plin. HN 36.102): see Bauer, H., ‘Basilica Paul(l)i’, in Steinby, E.M. (ed.), LTUR, vol. 1 (Rome, 1993 2), 183–7Google Scholar; Freyberger, K.S., Ertel, C., Lipps, J. and Bitterer, T., ‘Neue Forschungen zur Basilica Aemiliana auf dem Forum Romanum’, MDAI(R) 113 (2007), 493–552Google Scholar. Aemilius was certainly celebrated in the Arch of Fabius: ILLRP 392; cf. Chioff, L., ‘Fornix Fabia’, LTUR, vol. 2 (Rome, 1995), 264–6Google Scholar.
4 After dealing with Aemilius' background and previous career (Aem. 2–6), the Life records the Pydna campaign (Aem. 18–22), the flight and capture of Perseus, Aemilius' triumph and personal tragedy (Aem. 23–39). On the limited biographical detail for Aemilius, see Swain, S., ‘Plutarch's Aemilius and Timoleon’, Historia 38 (1989), 317–18Google Scholar (adducing a few matters missed by Plutarch).
5 On Plutarch's design in the Aem.–Tim. see Swain (n. 4), 314–34.
6 See below, especially n. 33.
7 Peter, H., Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographien der Römer (Halle, 1865), 114–17Google Scholar; Scardigli, B., Die Römerbiographien Plutarchs (Munich, 1970), 120–5; 196–8Google Scholar. The Pompey seems to have been composed not very long after the Aemilius; see Jones, C.P., ‘Towards a chronology of Plutarch's works’, in Scardigli, B. (ed.), Essays on Plutarch's Lives (Oxford, 1995), 95–124Google Scholar.
8 B Alex. 5–9.
9 dono deum: Liv. 1.54.3 (in the event the Gabini are wrong in their conclusion but that is beside the point of the expression's effect there); cf. Ogilvie, R.M., A Commentary on Livy Books 1–5 (Oxford, 1965), 208Google Scholar. Parallels: Cic. Arch. 18; Suet. Vit. 7.3. For Livy's aversion, see Levene, D.S., Religion in Livy (Leiden, 1993), 116–20Google Scholar.
10 Liv. 44.33.4–11. Cf. Plut. Aem. 13.6–7; Diod. Sic. 3.30 (clearly relying on Polybius).
11 Liv. 44.34.1–9. The content of Livy's speech reprises the sentiments of Polyb. 29.1–3, Liv. 44.22.2–15, Plut. Aem. 11, each a version of a speech Aemilius delivered in Rome. Aemilius' commitment to traditional military discipline is a recurring theme of Livy's characterization of the man: Reiter, W., Aemilius Paullus: Conqueror of Greece (London, 1988), 77–8Google Scholar.
12 On the remains of Polybius' account and Livy's dependence, see Walbank, F.W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1979), 27–30Google Scholar (with further references).
13 Plutarch's sources: Peter (n. 7), 86–9; Liedmeier, Z.C., Plutarchus' Biographie van Aemilius Paullus: Historische Commentar (Utrecht, 1935), 290–1Google Scholar (and passim); Scardigli, Die Römerbiographien Plutarchs (Munich, 1970), 57–60; 174–5Google Scholar. The most lucid discussion remains Flacelière, R. and Chambry, É., Plutarque: Vies, vol. 4 (Paris, 1966), 60–5Google Scholar. One should note, more generally, the importance of Polybius as a model for Plutarch: Móron, J.M. Candau, ‘Polybius and Plutarch on Roman Ethos’, in Schepens, G. and Bollansée, J. (edd.), The Shadow of Polybius: Intertextuality as a Research Tool in Greek Historiography (Leuven, 2005), 307–28Google Scholar; Zecchini, G., ‘Polibio in Plutarco’, in Jiménez, A. Pérez and Titchener, F.B. (edd.), Historical and Biographical Values of Plutarch's Works: Studies Devoted to Professor Philip A. Stadter by the International Plutarch Society (Logan, 2005), 513–22Google Scholar.; Zadorojnyi, A.V., ‘King of his castle: Plutarch, Demosthenes 1–2’, PCPhS 52 (2006), 102–27, at 117–18Google Scholar.
14 For Plutarch on Aemilius' military merit in his victory at Pydna, which trumps his undeniable good fortune, see Aem. 12.1–2; cf. his similar assessment of Aemilius' Spanish command: Aem. 4.3. On fortune in the Aem.: Swain (n. 4), 314–34, esp. 323–7; Tatum, W.J., ‘Another look at tyche in Plutarch's Aemilius Paullus – Timoleon’, Historia 59 (2010), 448–61Google Scholar.
15 On Plutarch's rewriting of his sources, see Pelling, C., Plutarch and History: Eighteen Studies (Swansea, 2002), 91–142Google Scholar (with further references).
16 Plut. Alex. 1.1–2. On the complications on this passage and its implications, see Duff, T., Plutarch's Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice (Oxford, 1999), 22–30Google Scholar; Pelling (n. 15), 102–4 (and further literature cited by each).
17 On the paucity of personal information about Aemilius: Swain (n. 4), 316–19.
18 Arist. Mete. 349b23–350a14; Sen. Q Nat. 3.9; cf. Gross, N., Senecas Naturales Quaestiones: Komposition, naturalphilosophische Aussagen und ihre Quellen (Stuttgart, 1989), 125–6Google Scholar. An exhaustive collection of Greek and Latin texts, theoretical and practical alike, dealing with the question of underground waters is assembled by Oder, E., ‘Ein angebliches Bruchstück Democrits über die Entdeckung unterirdischer Quellen’, Philologus, Suppl. 7 (1899), 231–384Google Scholar. See also the discussion in Gilbert, O., Die meteorologischen Theorien des griechischen Altertums (Leipzig, 1907), 393–438Google Scholar.
19 Arist. Mete. 349b20.
20 Sen. Q Nat. 3.8 discusses reservoirs.
21 Theophrastus distanced himself from Aristotle on the topic of meteorology: Ath. 2.41e–43b. We remain uninformed of other subsequent Peripatetic reactions; see Gilbert (n. 18), 425. On Stoic receptiveness to Aristotle's condensation theory see ibid. 426–35.
22 Anaxagoras: DK 59A42 = Kirk–Raven–Schofield, Presocratic Philosophers fr. 502. Plato: Phd. 111c–113c; cf. Gilbert (n. 18), 401–2.
23 On uncertainty regarding Plato's seriousness here see Rowe, C.J., Plato: Phaedo (Cambridge 1993), 282Google Scholar. On the importance of the Phaedo in subsequent Platonism: Westerink, L.G., The Greek Commentaries on Plato's Phaedo. Volume 1: Olympiodorus (New York, 1976), 7–20Google Scholar. On Plato taken seriously as a natural philosopher by subsequent philosophers, see Lloyd, G.E.R., ‘Plato as a natural scientist’, JHS 88 (1968), 78–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Gregory, A., Plato's Philosophy of Science (London, 2000)Google Scholar. On Plato taken seriously here by Aristotle, see Mete. 355b34–356b2; cf. Gilbert (n. 18), 402.
24 On Plutarch's Platonism, see Dillon, J., The Middle Platonists: 80 b.c. to a.d. 220 (London and Ithaca, NY, 1977), 184–230Google Scholar.
25 On Plutarch and the Stoics, see Babut, D., Plutarque e le stoïcisme (Paris, 1969)Google Scholar. On the Platonic motive for his hostility, see Boys-Stones, G., ‘Thyrsus-bearer of the Academy or enthusiast for Plato?’, in Mossman, J. (ed.), Plutarch and his Intellectual World (London, 1997), 41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26 e.g. Vitr. 8.1.1–7; Plin. HN 31.43–51 (true despite Vitruvius' exploitation of philosophical sources). It is routine to compare Vitr. 8.1.6 with Aristotle's condensation theory, and indeed some formulation of that theory (or some view of the sources of water influenced by that theory) may well lie behind Vitruvius' exposition there (the frequent claim that Posidonius is the intermediary source is difficult to substantiate owing to the paucity of our evidence): Callebat, L., Vitruve: De l'Architecture, livre VIII (Paris, 1973), xxx–i; 60–1Google Scholar. Nevertheless, one should not overlook the significance of foliage (… et in his locis primum crebrae sunt arbores et silvosae …) in Vitruvius' observations.
27 Pelling (n. 15), 143–70.
28 Two examples: in his account of Marcellus' siege of Syracuse, Plutarch explicitly contradicts the emphasis in Polybius and Livy on the military technologies employed by both sides by way of an apparent digression on Archimedes' commitment to abstract philosophy (inaccurately represented in Plutarch), all in order to conform with Platonic principles stressing the inferiority of mechanics; cf. Culham, P., ‘Plutarch on the Roman siege of Syracuse: the primacy of science over technology’, in Gallo, I. (ed.), Plutarco e le scienze (Genoa, 1992), 179–98Google Scholar. In his Life of Cicero Plutarch integrates his Platonic criticism of Antiochus of Ascalon into the narrative of Cicero's education in the Greek east: cf. Tatum, W.J., ‘Plutarch on Antiochus of Ascalon: Cicero 4,2’, Hermes 129 (2001), 139–42Google Scholar.
29 On Plutarch's construction of (and demands on) his reader, see Pelling (n. 15), 267–82.
30 Swain, S., ‘Hellenic culture and the Roman heroes of Plutarch’, in Scardigli, B. (ed.), Essays on Plutarch's Lives (Oxford, 1995), 229–64Google Scholar, remains basic.
31 Swain (n. 4), 325.
32 Pédech, P., La Methode historique de Polybe (Paris, 1964), 221Google Scholar; Reiter (n. 11), 38–40.
33 Aemilius: Plut. Aem. 2.6. Scipio: Polyb. 31.25–30. Interpretation: Swain (n. 4), 316. On Aemilius' Hellenism in the Aem. see Scuderi, R., ‘Perseo, ultimo soverano di Macedonia, nella biografia plutarchea di Emilio Paulo’, ACD 40–1 (2004–5), 55–64Google Scholar.
34 On digressions and their integration into the totality of literary (including oratorical) works see Heath, M., Unity in Greek Poetics (Oxford, 1989), 88–97Google Scholar and passim.
35 On great men and education in Plutarch, a familiar point, see Duff (n. 16), 222–40 (with further literature).