Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:45:59.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The regal image in Plutarch's Lives: I. Physical Descriptions in Plutarchan Narrative*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

W. Jeffrey Tatum
W. Jeffrey Tatum
Affiliation:
The Florida State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

That the physical description of a biographer's subject constitutes a natural and (one should think) necessary element of the genre seems an unremarkable premise on which to entertain a reading of Plutarch. In such chronicles of wasted time as we possess, after all, descriptions of the fair and the not-so-fair are hardly unusual, regardless of literary category. And, at least since the time of Leo, the prevailing scholarly assumption has been that Plutarch's Lives ordinarily include an account of the subject's appearance as a standard structural component of the biography—an idea still to be found in P. Stadter's magisterial commentary on the Pericles. One ought perhaps to hesitate in speaking of generic requirements for Plutarchan biography, if only because we are now more than ever quite uncertain in which exact literary tradition our author is most appropriately situated, though it is fair (I think) to observe how commonly physical descriptions are to be found in the extant biographies of Cornelius Nepos and in Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars. The narrative conventions of biography, one instinctively supposes, require a personal description. Moreover, the eikonismos was by Plutarch's day a staple of rhetorical technique, useful to encomium and invective alike, and regularly discussed in handbooks. Literary and rhetorical expections, then tend to support Leo's proposition.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 116 , November 1996 , pp. 135 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1996

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 Leo, F., Die griechisch-römische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form (Leipzig 1901) 180 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Stadter, P.A., A Commentary on Plutarch's Pericles (Chapel Hill 1989) xxxiv.Google Scholar

2 Genre: Geiger, J., Cornelius Nepos and ancient political biography (Stuttgart 1985)Google Scholar; cf. Moles, J.L.CR xxxix (1989) 229–34.Google Scholar Descriptions in Nepos and Suetonius: Couissin, J., REL xxxi (1953) 234–56Google Scholar; Evans, E.C., ‘Physiognomics in the ancient world’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society lix (1960) 49 ff.Google Scholar

3 Misener, G., CPh xix (1924) 97–123Google Scholar, is fundamental. Descriptive essays were part of the stock-in-trade of imperial sophists, cf. Pease, A.S., CPh xxi (1926) 27–42Google Scholar; Jones, C.P., The Roman world of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, Mass. 1978) 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Georgiadou, A., ‘Idealistic and realistic portraiture in the Lives of Plutarch’, ANRW ii. 33. 6 (Berlin and New York 1992) 4616–623.Google Scholar

5 Physical descriptions overlooked by Georgiadou: Thes. 5. 1; Rom. 3. 4–5; 6. 3; 7. 5 (see below); Flam. 5. 7. There are in some cases further instances in the Lives of a subject's description which are not noted in Georgiadou's article: e.g. Sert. 4. 3; Pyrrh. 24. 5; Mar. 34. 5; 43. 2. Such (venial) oversights (it must be said) constitute one of the common hazards faced by anyone studying so large a corpus as Plutarch's.

6 Flam. 1. 1 (Flamininus' statue); 5. 7 (his appearance); Them. 22. 3; Marc. 1.1; Cor. 2. 1. In each case, even the brief description provided by Plutarch plays into the thematic character of the life; for the latter two lives see esp. Swain, S., JHS cx (1990) 126–45, esp. 136–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 A realistic description of the overweight Marius comes at Mar. 34. 5, and at 43. 2 there is a (generalized) depiction of Marius' terrible visage.

8 On the ethical purpose of the Lives see Pelling, C.B.R., Plutarch, Life of Antony (Cambridge 1988) 11 ff.Google Scholar; Stadter (n. 1) xxvi ff., Duff, T.E., Signs of the Soul: Moralising in the Parallel Lives of Plutarch (Diss. Cambridge, 1994) 2 ff.Google Scholar, each with further literature.

9 Cf. Plut. Alc. 16; Pomp. 2. 1.

10 Jouanna, J.Ktema vi (1981) 3–15Google Scholar; Hall, E., Inventing the barbarian: Greek self-definition through tragedy (Oxford 1989) 172 ff.Google Scholar

11 An example would be the essay, [Hipp.] De Aere Aquis Locis; cf. Evans (n. 2) 17 ff.; Backhaus, W., Hist. xxv (1976) 170–85.Google Scholar

12 In addition to the monograph by Evans (n. 2), see Barton, T.S., Power and knowledge: astrology, physiognomies, and medicine under the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor 1994) 95–131Google Scholar; Gleason, M., Making Men: Sophists and self-presentation in ancient Rome (Princeton 1995) esp. 55 ff.Google Scholar Galen's complaint: Galen, Mixt. ii 6.

13 Pollitt, J.J., The ancient view of Greek art (New Haven 1974) 52 ff. and 293 ff.Google ScholarCf. also id., The art of Rome, c. 753 BC-AD 337, sources and documents (Cambridge 1983) 213 ff.

14 Pliny, N.H. xxxiv 65: ‘ab illis factos quales essent homines, a se quales uiderentur esse’. Cf. Pollitt, J.J., Art in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge 1986) 47.Google Scholar

15 Often a rather thorny matter owing to the problem of reallocation of statues: cf. Dio Chrysostom xxxi and Jones (n. 3) 28 ff. Reallocation also affected painting: Pliny, N.H. xxxv 94. That statues could be assumed to preserve an accurate likeness of their subjects (despite the problem of reallocation) was Plutarch's working principle, cf. Wardman, A.E., ‘Description of personal appearance in Plutarch and Suetonius: the use of statues as evidence,’ CQ xvii (1967) 414–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Buckler, J., ‘Plutarch and autopsy’, ANRW ii 33. 6 (1992) 4819 ff.Google Scholar and 4829 f., a view which obtains in modern scholarship as well, cf. Richter, G.M.A., Greek Portraits ii and iii (Brussels 1959–1960).Google Scholar The literary purposes to which statues were put by Plutarch are examined by Mossman, J., ‘Plutarch's use of statues,’ in Flower, M.A. and Toher, M. (eds.), Georgica. Greek studies in honour of George Cawkwell, BICS Suppl. IVIII (London 1991) 98–119.Google Scholar

16 Plut. Alex. 1. 3; Cim. 2. 3; Per. 2; De Gen. 1 = Mor. 575B-D; cf. Fuhrmann, F., Les images de Plutarque (Paris 1964) 47Google Scholar; Buckler (n. 15) 4789 f. and 4829 f.; Duff (n. 8) 4 ff.

17 Evans (n. 2) 11 ff. On Polemo see Stegemann, W., Antonius Polemon, der Hauptvertreter des zweiten Sophistik (Stuttgart 1942)Google Scholar; Bowersock, G.W., Greek sophists in the Roman empire (Oxford 1969) 20–25 and 120–23Google Scholar; (more generally) Anderson, G., The Second sophistic: a cultural phenomenon in the Roman empire (London 1993) 13–46Google Scholar; Gleason (n. 12)21 ff.

18 Plutarch not a physiognomist: Wardman (n. 15) 414–20 (cf. 417: ‘In all this Plutarch shows himself as a master of eclectic convenience’); Georgiadou (n. 4) 4623. Physiognomic expectations obtained in ancient drama as well: Wiles, D., The masks of Menander (Cambridge 1991) 152 ff.Google Scholar

19 Van der Stockt, L., Twinkling and twilight. Plutarch's reflections on literature (Brussels 1992) 26–36.Google Scholar

20 Frazier, F., ‘Contributions à l'étude de la composition des “Vies” de Plutarque: ‘l’élaboration des grandes scènes’, ANRW ii 33. 6 (1992) 4493 ff. and 4506 ff.Google Scholar

21 The bibliography is (of course) ponderous. Important modern contributions include: Genette, G., Narrative discourse: an essay in method trans. Lewin, J.E. (Ithaca 1980)Google Scholar; id., Figures of literary discourse trans. Sheridan, A. (New York 1982), esp. 127 ff.Google Scholar; Kittey, J., ‘Descriptive Limits’, Yale French Studies lxi (1981) 225–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bal, M., Narratology, introduction to the theory of narrative trans. van Boheemen, C. (Toronto 1985).Google Scholar An excellent treatment, both theoretical and pragmatic, of this issue in Greco-Roman poetry is Fowler, D.P., ‘Narrate and describe: the problem of Ekphrasis’, JRS lxxxi (1991) 25–35Google Scholar (Fowler provides a valuable bibliography of contemporary work at p. 25 n. 3).

22 Genette, Figures of literary discourse (n. 21) 134; cf. Fowler (n. 21) 26; Laird, A., JRS lxxxiii (1993) 18 ff.Google Scholar

23 Sturgress, P.J.M., Narrativity: theory and practice (Oxford 1992) 6 and 142 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Fowler (n. 21)26–28.

25 Brenk, F.E., ‘Plutarch's Life “Markos Antonios”: a literary and cultural study’, ANRW ii 33. 6 (1992) 4402 ff. and 4420 ff.Google Scholar; Frazier (n. 20). See also Deremetz, A., ‘Plutarque: Histoire de l'Origine et Genèse du Récit’, REG ciii (1990/1991) 54–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Cf. Genette, , Fiction et diction (Paris 1991)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 3. Recent work that addresses (from varying perspectives) the literariness of biography includes: Anderson, J.H., Biographical truth: the representation of historical persons in Tudor-Stuart writing (New Haven 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rose, P., ‘Fact and Fiction in biography’, in Writing of women: essays in a renaissance (Middletown 1985) 64–81Google Scholar; Eakin, P.J., Fictions in autobiography: studies in the art of self-invention (Princeton 1985)Google Scholar; Epstein, W.H., Recognizing biography (Philadelphia 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Honan, P., Authors’ lives: on literary biography and the arts of language (New York 1990).Google Scholar Very important for ancient historiography is the work of Hornblower, S. in Hornblower, S. (ed.), Greek historiography (Oxford 1994) 2 f. and 131 ff.Google Scholar (though Hornblower curiously refers to narratology as ‘the new art’ [p. 2] and as being ‘in its infancy’ [p. 166]).

27 The two types outlined here should not be regarded as strict categories but rather as limits on a (not yet fully resolved) spectrum. Lives which present a typical eikonismos: Cim. 5. 3; Per. 3. 3; 5. 1; Fab. Max. 1. 4; Sull. 2. 1; Demosth. 4. 4–5; Alex. 4. 1–3; Cat. Min. 1. 3–5; Ant. 4. 1; Pyrrh. 3. 6–9 (but cf. 24. 5). Lives which display physical descriptions that are more functionally implicated in the text: Thes. 5. 1; Alc. 1. 4–8; 16. 3; Lys. 1. 1; Ages. 2. 3–4; Cic. 3. 7; Caes. 4. 5–9; 17. 2–3; Sert. 1. 8; 3. 1; 4. 3; Eum. 11.3; Agis 4. 1. Less easy to decide are: Them. 22. 3; Pomp. 2. 1; Phoc. 5. 1; Mar. 2. 1; Philop. 2. 1–3; Arat. 3. 1–2. I have ignored Cor. 2. 1, Marc. 1. 1, and Flam. 5. 7 owing to their excessive brevity.

28 Of the lives of kings, only Numa, Cleomenes (if that may be regarded as a separate biography) and Artaxerxes lack physical descriptions of their subjects.

29 Fundamental is Goodenough, E.R., ‘The political philosophy of Hellenistic kingship’, YCS i (1928) 55–104.Google Scholar See also Scott, K., ‘Plutarch and the ruler cult’, TAPhA lx (1929) 117–35Google Scholar; Chesnut, G.F., ANRW ii. 16.2 (Berlin and New York 1978) 1310–32Google Scholar; Henrichs, A., HSCPh lxxxviii (1984) 139–58 (esp. 147 ff.)Google Scholar; Price, S.R.F., Rituals and power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984)Google Scholar; Walbank, F.W., ‘Monarchies and Monarchic Ideas’, in Walbank, F.W. and Astin, A.E. (eds.), CAH 2 vii. l (Cambridge 1984) 62–100Google Scholar; Smith, R.R.R., Hellenistic royal portraits (Oxford 1988) 49 ff.Google Scholar; Sherwin-White, S. and Kuhrt, A., From Samarkhand to Sardis: a new approach to the Seleucid empire (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1993) 114–40Google Scholar; the essays by Bringman, K. and Koenen, L. in Bulloch, A., Gruen, E.S., Long, A.A., Stewart, A. (eds.), Images and Ideologies: self-definition in the Hellenistic world (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1993) 7–24 and 25–115Google Scholar respectively all with further references.

30 The importance of justice: Goodenough (n. 29) 57–79; Walbank (n. 29) 82 f. Diotogenes: Chesnut (n. 29) 1313 ff. (with discussion of the difficulties in dating). Diotogenes' views: Diotogenes ap. Stobaeus, Anth. iv 7. 61–2.

31 Smith (n. 29) 46 ff.

32 This translation is from Goodenough (n. 29) 71 f.

33 Cf. Polyb. xxvii 12; xxx 18; xxxvi 15.

34 Plut. Dem. 2. 2–3. The description of Antony in the parallel Life, Ant. 4. 1, in which Antony is assimilated to the image of Heracles (curiously categorized as ‘realistic’ by Georgiadou [n. 4] 4618), is similarly detailed. A recent, useful introduction to the Demetrius is Osvaldi, O. and Scuderi, R., Plutarco, vite parallele: Demetrio e Antonio (Milan 1989) 35–93.Google Scholar

35 Hornblower, J., Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford 1981) 69Google Scholar; cf. Diod. Sic. xix 81. 4.

36 Dem. 1. 7–9.

37 Smith (n. 29) 52.

38 Dem. 4. 1.

39 Billows, R.A., Antigonos the One-Eyed and the creation of the Hellenistic state (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1990), 136 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 155 ff. On the importance of the dynastic factor in Hellenistic kingship generally, see most recently Sherwin-White and Kuhrt (n. 29) 125 ff.

40 The importance of Dionysus in royal portraiture: Smith (n. 29) 37 ff. It is unimportant to our purposes that Plutarch is historically inaccurate here, cf. Billows (n. 39) 150.

41 Dem. 12. 2–7.

42 Dem. 18.

43 Dem. 18. 5.

44 Dem. 41–42. Theatricality, of course, constitutes a criticism. Brenk (n. 25) 4364 has suggested that Plutarch's criticism of ruler cult may to some extent derive from the excesses of the Neronian period; if so, then the introduction of theatrical language in Plutarch's treatment of Demetrius carries additional significance (cf. Brenk, op. cit. 4356 f. and 4363).

45 It may be, as Mossman (n. 15) 109 maintains, that here suggests Pyrrhus' fundamental inferiority to Alexander, though the chief point is to criticize Demetrius. Elsewhere Mossman has perceptively if tentatively proposed reading the Pyrrhus and the Demetrius against the backdrop of the Alexander (‘Plutarch, Pyrrhus, and Alexander,’ in Stadter, P.A., Plutarch and the historical tradition [London 1992] 90–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 92 and 103 f.), a line of interpretation that merits further discussion for all the Lives of the ‘successors’; cf. Moles, J.L., CR xliii (1993) 31.Google Scholar

46 Genette, Narrative discourse (n. 21) 102. As an introduction to the Romulus, see Ampolo, C. and Manfredini, M., Plutarco: Le vite di Teseo e di Romolo (Milan 1988) esp. vii–lxxxi.Google Scholar

47 Deremetz (n. 25); on Plutarch's use of implicit moralism, see Duff (n. 8) 22 f.

48 The relationship between description and motivation in narrative: Bal (n. 21) 130.

49 My use of the term ‘focalization’ (and related terms) derives from the treatment in Bal (n. 21) 104 ff., which, one should note, diverges significantly from the discussion in Genette, Narrative discourse (n. 21) 189 ff; cf. Genette, , Narrative discourse revisited trans. Lewin, J.E. (Ithaca 1988) 72 ff.Google Scholar See also the insightful article by Kittey (n. 21). The application of narratological technique to historical narrative is illustrated impresively by Hornblower, ‘Narratology and Thucydides,’ in Hornblower (n. 26) 131–66 (Hornblower tends to employ Genette's terminology).

50 See the concise but excellent discussion in Moles, J.L., Plutarch: the life of Cicero (Warminster 1988) 11 and 13.Google Scholar

51 See Genette, Narrative discourse (n. 21) 86 ff. for a discussion of narrative duration.

52 On this technique in Plutarchan narrative, see Pelling (n. 8) 123.

53 Bal (n. 21) 108.

54 Remus stresses his twinship with Romulus at Rom. 7. 6. Remus' description, which applies as well to Romulus, is an example of what might be called ‘iterative description’, on which expression see Genette, Narrative discourse (n. 21) 99. Although mythical twins are frequently described as differing in some respect (e.g. Apollo and Artemis, the Dioscori, Heracles and Iphicles) and granted that admits of the same ambiguity as ‘twin,’ there is no reason to assume that Romulus and Remus were not identical, nor does Plutarch state or imply that they were not identical (except in matters of statesmanship). Iconographically, Remus' appearances are nearly always limited to the Lupa Romana or to scenes depicting the exposure of the infants, in which cases there is no real differentiation made between the twins; cf. Small, J.P., ‘Romulus and Remus,’ in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae vii. 1 (Zurich and Munich 1994) 639–44.Google Scholar

55 Rom. 7. 5. Plutarchan interlocutors often gaze at one another before they speak; cf. Frazier (n. 20) 4511.

56 Rom. 7. 5.

57 Similarly, in the parallel Life, Theseus' (concise) physical description (the shearing of his hair) marks the point when it is appropriate for him to learn his true identity, cf. Thes. 5. 1.

58 Plutarch's concept of mimesis requires a reader capable of perceiving–and appreciating–the intelligence manifested in the artistic representation; cf. Van der Stockt, , QUCC xxxvi (1990) 23–31.Google Scholar

59 Stadter, P.A., ‘Paradoxical paradigms: Lysander and Sulla’, in Stadter, P.A. (ed.), Plutarch and the historical tradition (London 1992) 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60 Cf. Sull. 2 and 6. 14 ff. See now, on the Lysander-Sulla, Duff (n. 8) 50 ff.

61 That Philopoemen is portrayed by Plutarch as incorruptible and inclined to simplicity is the verdict of Walsh, J.J., Philologus cxxxvi (1992) 208–38Google Scholar, who none the less finds in this pair (Philopoemen-Flamininus) a harsher characterization of Philopoemen than does Swain, S., ICS xiii (1988) 335–47.Google Scholar

62 Ages. 2. 1: [viz. Agesilaus].

63 Ample discussion of this (historical) event can be found in Cartledge, P., Agesilaos and the crisis of Sparta (Baltimore 1987) 112 ff.Google Scholar

64 Ages. 3. 7, with B. Perrin's Loeb translation.

65 Synk. Ages.-Pomp. 2. 1

66 Apophth. Lac. = Mor. 215A: Essentially the same passage is found at Reg. et Imp. Apophth. 12 = Mor. 191D. Cf. Xen. Ages. 11. 7; Cic. Fam. v 12. 7; Dio Chrysostom xxxvii 43. It can be a mark of wisdom to avoid honorific statues: Cat. Ma. 19; Mor. 198E- F; 820B-C; cf. Mossman (n. 15) 113.

67 Apophth. Lac. 25 = Mor. 210D. Flower, M., CQ xxxviii (1988) 123–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has recently argued for the historical veracity of this event.

68 One might compare Plutarch's similarly complex view of astronomical phenomena; cf. Duff (n. 8) 71 ff.

69 Gleason (n. 12) 29 ff.

70 E.g. Greenhalgh, P., Pompey, the Roman Alexander (London 1980) 11 and 171 ff.Google Scholar

71 Bosworth, A.B., ‘History and artifice in Plutarchs' Eumenes’ in Stadter, P.A. (ed.), Plutarch and the historical tradition (London 1992) 58, 63, 70.Google Scholar

72 Tent of Alexander: Eum. 13. 4–5. Envy of Antigenes and Teutamus: Eum. 13. 3; 14. 1. Betrayal by Silver Shields: Eum. 17–18.

73 Nepos, Eum. 11.5; Diod. Sic. xviii 42. 5.

74 On the importance of symmetry, see Evans (n. 2) 53 f.

75 Sert. 1. 8. Cf. Konrad, C.F., Plutarch's Sertorius: a historical commentary (Chapel Hill 1994) 31–33.Google Scholar

76 Princ. Inerud. 3 = Mor. 780C.

77 Princ. Inerud. 2 = Mor. 779F.

78 Princ. Inerud. 3 = Mor. 780F. On this practice in actual portraiture, see Smith (n. 26) 38 ff. See also Plut. Praecepta Gerendae Reipublicae = Mor. 820B-C, for Plutarch's recommendation that the statesman eschew the honor of a statue in favor of an inscription.

79 Pelling, , ICS xiii (1988) 257–74Google Scholar; id., ‘Childhood and personality in Greek biography’, in Pelling, (ed.), Characterization and individuality in Greek literature (Oxford 1990) 213–44.Google Scholar It scarcely need be said that in his emphasis on action as the proper sign of character Plutarch is part and parcel of traditional Greek thinking on this matter, cf. S. Halliwell, ‘Traditional Greek conceptions of character’, in Pelling, op. cit. 32–59. What distinguishes Plutarch is his cautious and explicit distrust (even distaste) for attending inordinately to the outward trappings of kingliness (or of excellence generally). One might compare his attitude toward feminine beauty at Amat. 23 = Mor. 769C-D.

80 Per. 2. 4. The difficulties attending the proper interpretation of this sentence are discussed by Van der Stockt (n. 19) 32 ff.; cf. Stadter (n. 1) xxix–xxx.