Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:27:49.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pausanias and Plutarch's Epaminondas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

C. J. Tuplin
C. J. Tuplin
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The view that Pausanias 9. 13. 1–15. 6 is a simple epitome of Plutarch's lost Epaminondas, first advanced by Wilamowitz in 1874 and later elaborated by Wilamowitz himself and by Ludwig Peper, has commonly been accepted, with little or no further discussion, by students of Plutarch, Pausanias and fourth-century history. In a recent general reaffirmation of the thesis John Buckler does note that what Pausanias says about Mantinea is hard to square with Plutarchan evidence and he therefore admits some contamination of the hypothetical source with non-Plutarchan material. But Buckler's discussion of the matter within the framework of a book on the Theban hegemony is necessarily brief and somewhat unsystematic, and may be thought over-ready to assume Plutarchan connections where none can be demonstrated. The purpose of this paper is to show that the Wilamowitz/Peper hypothesis in its pure form (as accepted apparently by such authorities as Ziegler and Sandbach) cannot reasonably be sustained, that at the very least some degree of contamination must be presumed, and that the existence of a direct connection between Pausanias and Plutarch can hardly be regarded as established beyond reasonable doubt.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , December 1984 , pp. 346 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1984

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 Wilamowitz, U., Herm. 8 (1874), 439 n. 2Google Scholar; id.Commentariolum Grammaticum 1. ll f. (= Kleine Schriften 4. 595 f.); Peper, L., De Plutarchi Epaminonda (Weidae, 1912), 15 ff.Google Scholar, Ziegler, K., RE 21. 896Google Scholar; Sandbach, F. H., Plutarch: Moralia XV (Harvard, London, 1969), 74–5Google Scholar; Regenbogen, O., RE Supplbd. 8. 1045, 1068Google Scholar (contrast slight, but unelaborated, reservations at 1072, 1076); Segre, M., Historia 1 (Rome/Milan, 1927), 202 ff.Google Scholar, 2 (1928), 217 ff., Athen. n.s. 7 (1929), 465 ff.; Hitzig, H./Blumner, H., Pausaniae Descriptio Graeciae (Berlin, 1896–1910), 3. 429Google Scholar; Swoboda, H., Rh.M. n.f. 55 (1900), 461Google Scholar; Westlake, H. D., CQ 33 (1939), 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fortina, M., Epaminonda (Turin, 1958), 9Google Scholar; Thomes, F. Carrata, Egemonia beotica e potenza maritima nella politico di Epaminonda (Turin, 1952), 10Google Scholar; Meyer, E., Geschichte des Altertums 5 (Stuttgart, 1902), 410Google Scholar; Shrimpton, G., The Epaminondas Tradition (diss. Stanford, 1970), 53Google Scholar; Cawkwell, G. L., CQ n.s. 22 (1972), 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beister, H., Chiron 3 (1973), 79Google Scholar; Buckler, J., WS 90 (1977), 79 n. 12Google Scholar.

2 The Theban Hegemony (Harvard, 1980), 272–4Google Scholar. Such a conclusion does not represent so decisive a departure from what Peper at least actually said, as distinct from what he is often taken to have proved.

3 Wilamowitz, , Comm. Gramm. (n. 1), 11 f.Google Scholar; Peper (n. 1), 20 ff.

4 Cf. Cic, . Ad Fam. 5. 12. 5Google Scholar (Ep.'s death a popular pathetic story). The reference in 8. 11. 9 to Ep.'s remarkable effect on Theban fortune is not (pace Wilamowitz) an item only appropriate to the Boeotian Plutarch (cf. Momigliano, A. D., AR 37 [1935], 101 ff.Google Scholar; Shrimpton [n. 1], pass.; id.Phoen. 25 [1971], 310 ff.).

5 Reden und Vorträge 2 4 (Berlin, 1926), 268 n. 1Google Scholar; id.Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyriker (Berlin, 1900), 102 n. 1. Contrast Beister (n. 1), 80 n. 54.

6 Trophonius appears elsewhere (Diod. 15. 53. 4, Callisth. 124F22, Polyaen. 2. 3. 8), though not, as it happens, in Plutarchan texts. Pausanias' details are unique.

7 Sulla 7. 6–10, 26. 1, 34. 3, 35. 5–10, Lucull. 12. 1–2, 19. 1, 26. 1, 27. 4, 28. 7.

8 Where we can check them, Suda excerpts are essentially verbatim reproductions of the original, with occasional slight abridgements; cf. exx. in nn. 9, 10, 15.

9 S.vv. Ἀκροχειριсτ⋯с (Paus. 6.4. 1–3), Ἀναξιμ⋯νηс (6. 18. 2 f.), (6. 10, 1–3), Γλα⋯κοс (6. 10, 1–3), Eὔθυμοс (6. 6. 4–10), Θεαγ⋯νηс (6. 11. 2–3), Ἱππ⋯μαχοс (6. 12. 6, 13. 3), Κλειτ⋯μαχοс (6. 15. 3–5), Κλεομ⋯δηο (6. 9. 6–7), M⋯λων (6. 14. 5–8; cf. s.v. ταιν⋯α, 6. 14. 7–8), N⋯κων (6. 11. 4–8; misapplication of a passage about Theogenes), Πολνδ⋯μαс (6. 5. 1 ff.), Τιμ⋯νθηс (6. 8. 4).

10 S.vv. Ἄγιс, Ἄγιδοс (8. 8. 7–8: cf. Tuplin, C. J., CQ n.s. 29 [1979], 357Google Scholar), Ἀνν⋯βαс (8. 11. 11–12), ⋯π⋯δει (8. 49. 3), ϕιλοπο⋯μην (8. 49).

11 S.vv. ⋯π⋯δει, Φιλοπο⋯μην. These are indisputably from Pausanias, not Plutarch, since they contain specifically Pausanian features (e.g. Philopoemen's ugliness: cf. n. 21) and are roughly verbatim quotations of his text.

12 The exact history of the intermediate stages of excerption/transcription does not, of course, matter here.

13 On him cf. recently Walton, F. R., Hist. 14 (1965), 236 ffGoogle Scholar.

14 Cf. the Athos fragment of John in Walton (n. 13), 240.

15 (i) Of other Suda passages which name Plutarch (s. vv. Κ⋯λλιπποс (cf. Dion 54), ν⋯ϕθα (cf. Alex. 35), сικχ⋯с (Mor. 87AB), το⋯ сελ⋯ται (cf. Timol. 26; Mor. 676D), ὑπερκ⋯πτω (cf. Lycurg. 15), ὠβ⋯ξ (cf. ibid. 6)), only one (s.v. сικχ⋯с) actually quotes a Plutarchan work, and only one (s.v. Κ⋯λλιπποс) is at all ‘biographical’. The rest are in the nature of short lexical notes (and not devoid of inaccuracies), (ii) Other Suda entries on subjects of Plutarchan Lives produce no examples of excerption, and can often be traced to other sources (ss.vv. Ἀριсτε⋯δηс Ἀλ⋯ξανδροс (Arr. 3. 10. 2, 4. 19. 5 f., 6. 13. 4, 7. 28. 1 f., John of Antioch fr. 41–2 M); Ἄρατοс (Polyb. 4. 8. 1 f., 4 f.); Ἀλκιβι⋯δηс (App. Iber. 39; the story of Cato's quotation of Od. 10. 495 is not exactly quoted from Plut, . Cat. Mai. 27Google Scholar, Mor. 200A, 805A; ? = Polyb. 36. 8. 7); M⋯ρκιοс (, D.H.Ant. R. 7. 67, 8. 60 ff.Google Scholar); Nομ⋯с (? John of Antioch); Ὄθων (id. fr. 94M); Λυκο⋯ργοс (inter alios Nic. Dam. 90F56); Θεμιсκλ⋯с (Hesych. s.v. + sch.Ar. Eq. 84); Π⋯ρροс (, D.H.Ant. R. 20. 8–9Google Scholar); Πομπ⋯ïοс (? John of Antioch fr. 70M).

16 Note 2. 8. 4 (Persaeus' death), 5 (Agis' attack on Pellene), 9. 1 (remarks on Cleomenes), 2 (violation of Antigonus' treaty), 3 (restoration of Spartan constitution; Cleomenes' fate), 4 (Micon, Euryalus). Leo, F., Die griechisch-römische Biographie (Leipzig, 1901), 158Google Scholar postulated a common biographical source.

17 (i) Agesilaus: in the succession narrative Pausanias makes Agesilaus, not Lysander central, does not name Diopeithes, excludes references to Alcibiades, and adds that Agis' behaviour repeated King Ariston's folly (3. 8. 7–10). The excuses of Athens, Thebes and Corinth for not helping Agesilaus in 395 (3. 9. 2–3), Tithraustes' and Timocrates' activities (ib. 8), the LocrianPhocian quarrel (ib. 9–11) are not in Agesilaus. (Buckler's suggestion (n. 2), 272, that Pausanias used Agesilaus to supplement Xenophon does not match the evidence.) (ii) Lysander: the incitement of Antiochus in 9. 32. 6 is not Plutarchan; Eteonicus (ib. 8) corresponds to Callibius in Lysand. 15; 4,000 Athenians are executed at Paus. 9. 32. 9, 3,000 in Lysand. 13.

18 For (Life of) Daiphantus cf. Lamprias Catalogue no. 38, Mor. 244B.

19 Pausanias' passage is about Phocian history, not Daiphantus' life; but it does lack the stress on Daiphantus that must have resulted from using the Life as an historical source. (An example is his failure to figure in the story of the Phocian women's suicide pact: contrast Mor. 244B f.) For indirect connection with the Plutarchan tradition cf. Stadter, P., Plutarch's Historical Methods (Harvard, 1965), 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. (Wilamowitz noted Pausanias' failure to use Daiphantus: op. cit. [n. 5], 268 n. 1.)

20 Nissen, H., Kritische Untersuchungen über die Quelle…Livius (Berlin, 1863), 287 f.Google Scholar; Segre, M., Athen. n.s. 7 (1929), 481Google Scholar. The case was adduced by Peper (n. 1), 17 to justify regarding 9. 13. 1 ff. as Plutarchan.

21 Pausanias has extra items of various sorts at points corresponding to Plut, . Philop. 1. 2 (49. 2)Google Scholar, 5. 1 (49. 4), 5. 2 (49. 4), 9. 1 (50. 1), 9. 2 (50. 1), 10. 8 (50. 2), 11. 2 (50. 3), 11. 3 (50. 3), 12. 2 (50. 4), 14. 3 (50. 7), 15. 2 (50. 10), 16. 1 (51. 1), 16. 3 (51. 3), 17. 3 (51. 4). Where Plutarch asserts polemically that Philopoemen was not ugly (2. 1 f.), Pausanias asserts that he was (49. 2); the story of the spear wound at Sellasia is different and more improbable in Pausanias (8. 49. 5 f; cf. Plut. 6); Philip's assassins come to Argos in Plut. 12, to Megalopolis in Paus. 8. 50. 4; the Spartan offer of money to Philopoemen comes out differently in Paus. 8. 51. 2 and Plut. 15 (especially apropos of Timolaus; and it is placed differently vis-à-vis Diophanes' march on Sparta); the versions of Philopoemen's last campaign diverge (Plut. 18 f., Paus. 8. 51. 5 f.).

22 Errington, R. M., Philopoemen (Oxford, 1969), 240Google Scholar.

23 Plutarch (16) says that Polybius gave the number of a body of Spartan exiles as 80, Aristocrates as 350. Pausanias asserts that there were 300 (8. 51. 3). ‘It is possible that Pausanias had looked at Aristocrates' own account and miscopied or adapted it in some confused way, perhaps in the light of Polybius’ figure. But…it seems more likely that he misunderstood Plutarch's information in this way; there is no other evidence that he knew Aristocrates' work' (Errington [n. 22], 239). The speculations seem premature, since Pausanias does not say what Plutarch (or Aristocrates) said, and adds in the same context extra information about the sale of 3,000 helots, which shows that his text cannot be wholly explained in terms of extant writings.

24 Errington (n. 22), 238 notes that ‘Pausanias follows [Plutarch's] order of arrangement even where this is not chronological’. But Pausanias' order is not demonstrably non-chronological where it matches Plutarch's (this includes Paus. 8. 50. 4–5/Plut. 12), and the orders differ at 8.51. 1–2/Plut. 15.2–16. 1.

25 Cf. Ebeling, , CW 7 (1913/1914), 141Google Scholar.

26 Comm. Gramm. (n. 1), 11 f.

27 Philop. has 20 chapters; Epam. was surely closer to Ages. (40) or Pelop. (35).

28 Mor. 192F (to be impressed by bad omens is mere cowardice), 774D.

29 15. 52. 2–7 (cf. Front, . Str. 1. 12. 5Google Scholar), 53. 4; cf. also Polyaen. 2. 3. 8, Xen, . Hell. 6. 4. 7Google Scholar. (All subsequent references to Xenophon are to Hellenica.)

30 Pelop. 23; Mor. 282E.

31 Mor. 618C. Epaminondas' alteration of infantry formations is mentioned alongside Pammenes' remark that Nestor was wrong to advise phalanx organization by clans rather than by pairs of lovers (cf. Pelop. 18, Mor. 761B), and it might seem that Plutarch is thinking solely about the Sacred Band. But the fact that he elsewhere associates the Band's formation and development with Gorgidas and Pelopidas (Pelop. 18; contrast Max. Tyr. 18.2, Dio Chrys. 22. 3, Athen. 602A) encourages one to refer the comment about Epaminondas to the tactics of the major battles.

32 Ἐξαλεῖψαι in the elliptical summary in Ages. 28 implies Plutarch's knowledge of a version like that in Xen. 6. 3. 19, where the Thebans are first inscribed as Θηβαῖοι and then request an alteration to Βοιωτο⋯. This will have been set out clearly in Epam.

33 Other Plutarchan material on the campaign: Ages. 34, Mor. 193F (?), 194C, 214CD, 346C, 761D.

34 Similarly the brief (and unremarkable) comments about Epaminondas' education can hardly properly reflect the attention that the philosopher Plutarch surely paid to that topic. For Epaminondas as philosopher-statesman cf. Mor. 8B, Pelop. 27. 4; and notice Plut.'s interest in the intellectual associates of fifth-century Athenian politikoi (Them. 2, Pericl. 4, Alc. 4). We might guess that Plutarch offered some qualification of the stereotypic contrast between Epaminondas and Pelopidas (cf. Pelop. 7. 3, Mor. 192C, 585D, 594A; contrast Nep, . Epam. 3Google Scholar, Plut, . Pelopid. 4. 1Google Scholar) and (cf. Peper [n. 1], 64 f.) discussed contacts with Simmias.

35 One might add Philip's sojourn at Thebes, (Pelop. 26. 5)Google Scholar or Epaminondas' relations with Jason of Pherae (Mor. 193A, 585F), whose role at Leuctra was surely not omitted (cf. Xen. 6. 4. 20 f.).

36 Cf. Mor. 594B, 598CD, Pelop. 12 for prominence after the murders; 594B, at least, asserts prior organization.

37 Mor. 193CD, 810F; cf. also Nep, . Epam. 6. 1 f.Google Scholar, (?) Diod. 15. 38. 3.

38 Diod. 15. 78. 4–79. 3, Isoc. 5. 53, Aeschin. 2. 105, Buckler (n. 2), 160 ff.

39 For these purposes the (probably) pseudo-Plutarchan Apophthegmata count as Plutarchan, since their material is regularly found in the Lives, sometimes at much greater length, e.g. 194D (nos. 4, 5: 10 lines) = Pel. 28 (40 lines).

40 9. 13. 1: poverty (Mor. 467E, 527B, 583C f., 633E, 823E, Pel. 3, Fab. 27, Arist. 1, Nep, . Ep. 2Google Scholar, Ael, . VH 2. 13, 11. 9Google Scholar), musical skill (διδ⋯γματα ⋯πιχώρια: Nep. 1.c., Aristox. 96 Wehrli), Lysis (Mor. 578D etc., Aristox. 68 Wehrli, Cic, . off. 1. 155Google Scholar, de or. 3. 139, D.L. 8. 6, Diod. 10. 11. 2, D. Chr. 49. 5, Greg, . Naz, . PG 36. 994Google Scholar). 9. 13. 6 f.: boeotarchs' disagreement (Pel. 20, Diod. 15. 53. 5, who also refers to an earlier decision to evacuate women/children [52. 1]). 9. 13. 9: disenchanted Spartan allies (Ages. 28, Xen. 6. 4. 15, Cic, . off. 2. 26Google Scholar). 9. 13. 10: Cleombrotus' death (Ages. 28, Agis 21, Comp. Lys. Sul. 6, Diod. 15. 33. 3, 55. 5, Xen. 6. 4. 13, Paus. 1. 13. 4 etc.). 9. 14. 4 f.: bare facts that Ep. unsuccessfully attacked Sparta (Ages. 31, Pel. 24, Xen. 6. 5. 22 f., Diod. 15. 62. 3 f.), refounded Messene (Ages. 34, Pel. I.c., Diod. 15. 66, Paus. 4. 26 f.), escaped conviction for extending his boeotarchy (Pel. 24 f., Mor. 194C, 540E, 799F, 817F, a. Ep. 7Google Scholar, Cic, . inv. 1. 55Google Scholar, App, . Syr. 41Google Scholar, Arist. 2. 520D). 9. 15. 6: epigram (first line quoted in Mor. 1098A, Cic, . Tusc. 5. 49Google Scholar; but it appeared on the statue which occasions Pausanias' ‘life’, so periegetic sources/autopsy might be relevant; cf. Paus. 8. 49. 1–52. 6, starting and ending with a text not in Philop.).

41 9. 13. 11 (Θηβα⋯οιс μ⋯ν ⋯ ν⋯κη κατε⋯ργαсτο ⋯πιϕαν⋯сτατα παс⋯ν ⋯π⋯сαс κατ⋯ Ἑλλ⋯νων ⋯νε⋯λοντο Ἕλληνεс) resembles Plutarch's evaluation in Ages. 29, but also Paus. 9. 6. 4 (⋯πιϕανεсτ⋯την ν⋯κην ⋯π⋯сαс γενομ⋯ναс Ἕλλ⋯νων ἔсμεν κατ⋯ Ἑλλ⋯νων); there is no reason why the latter passage should be from Epam. (would Plutarch have said that Leuctra caused the dissolution of decarchies or omitted to mention Ceressus (cf. n. 42) in a list of Boeotian victories?). 9. 14. 4: Pel. 24. 5 (on unification of Arcadia) conceivably suggests that Epam. concurred with Pausanias' view that Ep. persuaded the Arcadians to found Megalopolis; but cf. 8. 27. 2 also, and the (false) belief that the Peloponnesian expedition followed Leuctra closely is consistent with the dating of Megalopolis' foundation in 8. 27. 8 ‘a few months after Leuctra’.

42 9. 13. 3: refs. to Cephisian Lake, Ambrossus and Chaereas(for context cf. Xen. 6. 4. 3, Diod. 15. 52, 53). 9. 13. 4: the katoiades omen (vague refs. to omens in Epam. fr. 1 (Ages. 24); different omens in Lys. 18, Mor. 397F). 9. 13. 5: the rapists' names. 9. 13. 6, 15. 1: boeotarchs' names (note that 9. 1. 4 names a boeotarch without this normally being called Plutarchan information). 9. 14. 2 f.: Thespians captured at Ceressus, fulfilling an oracle issued after the archaic battle there (Plut.'s knowledge of this is not proved by his report (Cam. 19) that 5 Hippodromios was the date of Leuctra and the archaic battle – which he envisages differently from Paus.: Cam. 1.c., Mor. 866F). 9. 15. 4: release of exiles at Phoibia (Ephorus mentioned Phoibia (70F81): the story would exemplify the Ep.'s, Plutarchanepieikeia, Philop. 3Google Scholar, Comp. Pel. Mar. 1).

43 9. 13. 8: Thespian withdrawal (Polyaen. 2. 3. 3; the ultimate common source might also have had the Ceressus story; cf. n. 42). 9. 13. 10: fight over Cleombrotus' body (Xen. 6. 4. 13, Diod. 15. 56. 1). 9. 14. 7: Iphicrates thwarts attack on ‘Athenians' city’ (? Polyaen. 3. 9. 28).

44 9. 13. 2: 47 Boeotian dead (300 in Diod. 15. 56. 4). 9. 14. 1: immediate dismissal of Spartan allies (false: Xen. 6. 4. 26 f., Diod. I.e.). 9. 14. 4 (and 8. 8. 10): Ep. responsible for synoecism of Mantinea (prob. false: Xen. 6. 5. 3 f.). 9. 15. 2–4: dating of Orchomenus' destruction during Ep.'s period of exclusion from boeotarchy and his absence in Thessaly (368) (surely false: Diod. 15. 79. 2 places it during Ep.'s naval expedition, 364). 9. 15. 4: victory over Spartans, Pelleneans, Athenians under Chabrias at Lechaeum (either amalgamation of fighting near Cenchreae involving Pelleneans (Xen. 7. 1. 15 f., Diod. 15. 68. 2) and near Lechaeum involving Chabrias (Xen. 7. 1. 18, Diod. 15. 69. 1, Mor. 193F) or wrong location of first).

45 Contra Buckler, (n. 2), 273Google Scholar.

46 Am. Narr. is pseudonymous; but its version matches Pel. I.c., where comparison is possible and can arguably be used as evidence of the form of the Scedasid story known to Plutarch. Other sources: Xen. 6. 4. 7, Diod. 15. 54. 2, Ceressus oracle ap. Paus. 9. 14, 3, Ael. fr. 77 H, Jerome PL 23. 284, Nonnus PG 36. 992 = Cosmas PG 38. 621 f. = Eudocia 630 (approx.) = Apostol. 15. 53.

47 The whole campaign is variously estimated as lasting for 85 days (Diod. 15. 67. 1) or for four months (Pel. 25, Mor. 194A, 817F, Ael, . VH 13. 42Google Scholar, Nep, . Ep. 7Google Scholar) or six months (App, . Syr. 41Google Scholar) beyond the winter solstice. Three months is surely too long for the time in Laconia proper.

48 More Lechaeum/Cenchreae confusion appears in 9. 15. 4 (cf. n. 44).

49 In terms of Pausanias' narrative ώс δ⋯ βοιωταρχεῖν αὕθιс ᾕρητο deliberately asserts that the invasion came when Ep. resumed the boeotarchy, following the period as a private citizen during which Pelopidas was rescued and Orchomenus destroyed (cf. n. 44).

50 So events get out of order, and we can assume that it was arbitrary omission of the naval expedition which produced the impression that Orchomenus was destroyed during an earlier absence of Epaminondas.

51 For his presence at Mantinea cf. Ephor. 70F85, Suda s.v. Κηϕιс⋯δωροс, Harpoc. s.vv. Γρ⋯λλοс, Κηϕιс⋯δωροс.

52 In Mor. 214C the killer is an anonymous Spartan.

53 It was perhaps an Athenian habit to discover sons of Xenophon everywhere; cf. 1. 22. 4 ‘whether the statues represent the sons of Xenophon or are merely decorative I cannot say’.

54 Buckler (n. 2), 273 claims Pausanias' knowledge of the painting as a sign of use of Plutarch, even though what Pausanias says about the painting is unPlutarchan. But why should he not have seen it for himself?

55 Xenophon's eulogy in 7. 5. 16 surely guarantees that Gryllus died in the preliminary cavalry skirmish.

56 Regenbogen (n. 1), 1068.

57 The existence of a wide range of biographies on anything like Plutarchan scale about classical Greek political/military heroes (apart from lawgivers or tyrants) strikes me as much less certain; but that is a matter for discussion elsewhere. In any case, Epaminondas might have been one of the more likely subjects even if such works were not common; and Plutarch's Epaminondas could have superseded other comparable works by Pausanias' time.