For helpful suggestions and criticisms of this paper I am indebted to E. L. Bowie, J. L. Moles, and C. B. R. Pelling.

¹ For statues, cf. Cato Maj. 19.5–6, praec. ger. reip. 820b (Rome began to be full of portrait statues in the time of Cato the Elder; Plutarch knows of earlier Greek statues at Rome, cf. Numa 8.20 with Pliny HN xxxiv 26). The similarity of Greek and Roman portrait statues is noted by Dio of Prusa (lxxii 5), who also says nothing on Greek origins (contrast Pliny, HN xxxiv 27Google Scholar). The Roman fascination with Alexander (bibliography in Stadter, P. A., Arrian of Nicomedia [Chapel Hill 1980] 211 n. 14Google Scholar) might have been exploited rather more by Plutarch regarding Pompey's craving for power and plans for world conquest (Pomp. 38.4–5; comparison is made on other levels at 2.2–4, 34.7–8, 46.1–4), the eastern adventures of Antony (cf. Ant. 37.5), and Caesar's monarchy and divinity (cf. Caes. 11.6, Ant. 6.3, Alex. 28).

² Greek origin: Gabba, E., in Studi Rostagni (Turin 1963) 188–94Google Scholar, della Corte, F., La filologia latina dalle origini a Varrone ² (Florence 1981) 169–75.Google Scholar Plutarch's caution towards Juba's suggestion of Greek influence in Latin at Numa 13.9–10 . . . γλιχὸμενος ὲξελληνὶσαι. . .εῐ γε δὴ δεῖ πρὸς ὸ ᾿Ιὸβας τὴν ῾Ελληνικὴν διὰλεκτον ἐξὰγειν) should be remembered when he mentions Juba in connection with the statement that Greek and Latin were mixed together in ancient Italy (Numa 7.10–11 [cf. Marc. 5.5, quaest. Rom. 40, 274c], Rom. 15.4). Greek etymologies are uncommon in Plutarch, and when they do occur (e.g. quaest. Rom. 277d, 280a–b) we may attribute them to his sources, since the idea is ridiculed at quaest. conv. viii 6, 726d–727a.

³ The closest he comes is to cite Greek parallels (e.g. quaest. Rom. 5, 264f; 37, 273d).

⁴ Cato said that ‘the Romans would lose their empire when they had become infected with Greek letters. But time, in which the city's empire reached its greatest extent and Greek learning and culture as a whole became familiar, shows that this gloomy forecast was empty.’

⁵ Flam. 11.7 ἐναὺσματα μικρὰ καὶ γλὶσχρα κοινωνὴματα παλαιοῦ γὲνους ἒχειν δοκοῦντες [sc. οὶ ῾Pωμαῖοι] should not be pressed: Flam. II does represent Plutarch's thoughts, but the words are dramatized as those of the Greeks following Flamininus' proclamation of Greek liberty at Corinth. Lack of interest must also account for the silence of Plutarch and other Greeks on the Roman origin of contemporary cultural intrusions in Greece such as pantomime and gladiatorial games, for these activities were closely connected with the Roman imperial festivals (Price, S. R. F., Rituals and power. The imperial cult in Asia Minor [Cambridge 1984] 89Google Scholar).

⁶ Cf. graecari, pergraecari, congraecare.

⁷ Cf. Luc. 41.2 for the Greeks who were troubled by Lucullus' excessive hospitality ὂντως ῾Ελλ- ηνικὸν τι παθὸντας On Lucullus, see Petrochilos, N., Roman attitudes to the Greeks (Athens 1974) 85.Google Scholar

⁸ Asian Greeks are not differentiated from peninsular Greeks in the Ant. : when Plutarch talks of Antony behaving properly to the Greeks ‘at least at first’ (23.2), he is talking of all the Greeks, and Antony's later bad behaviour is his carousing in Asia at the expense of the Asian cities (24 ff.). This and other aspects of Ant. are discussed in a paper of mine to appear in QUCC.

⁹ Cato Maj. 8.2 = reg. et imp. apophth. 198d, quaest. conv. iv.4, 668b–c.

¹⁰ From the Polybian passage come also Athenaeus deipn. 274f–275a and Posidonius F 211c Theiler (Diodorus Siculus xxxvii 3.6). See also Polybius ix 10 on the moral damage caused to Rome by acquiring the rich artefacts of Syracuse.

¹¹ Cf. e.g. Art. 24.9, Cam. 2.6.

¹² Cf. further Nic.-Cras. synk. 1.4, de cupid. divit., On Wealth frr. 149–51.

¹³ Sulla 12.5–14, 25.4–5, Sert. 24.5, Luc. 7.6–7, 20.1–4, Cim. 1.3–2.2, Ant. 24. 5–8, 62.1, 68.6–8.

¹⁴ Marius 34.4, Luc. 39.2, Publ. 15.3–6.

¹⁵ For Plutarch's similar presentation of day-to-day politics in Greece and Rome, cf. Aalders, H., Plutarch's political thought (Amsterdam 1982) 28, 30, 35, 37Google Scholar, and particularly on his fondness for the βουλὴ-δῆμος opposition see Peiling, C. B. R., in Past perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman historical writing, ed. Moxon, I., Smart, J., Woodman, A. (Cambridge 1986) esp. 175 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Them. 19.5, Arist. 26.2, Cato Maj. 14.4, 27.3.

¹⁷ Arist. 22.1,4, Cato Maj. 16.8, esp. Aem. 10.1, 11.3–4, Aem.–Tim. synk. 2.2.

¹⁸ E.g. Arist. 2.1, Aem. 38.2,6; Cim. 15.1–2, Per. 7.8, Gracchi 16.1, 26.3–4, Caes. 14.2.

¹⁹ Cim. 17.9, Gracchi 20.1.

²⁰ Per. 11.2–3, cf. e.g. Alc. 13.5, Nic. 6.1, Phoc. 34.6; Gracchi 20.1, Mar. 35.1, Caes. 6.1 ff., cf. e.g. Pomp. 25.7, Cic. 33.2. The opposition between the people and the establishment is also the background to politics in the very early period (Thes. [;24–25, 32.1–2], Sol., Rom. [;13.7, 27.8–9], Numa [2.3,5], Publ., Cor., Cam.).

²¹ Per. 15.1, 20.3, Aem. 11.2, 38.2,6.

²² Alc. 19.7, 34.10, Phoc. 32.3, Luc. 42.8, Cato Min. 18.3.

²³ Educational works in the Moralia include de aud. poet., de aud., de prof, in virt., max. cum princ. phil. esse dis., ad princ, indoct.; lost works include Lamp. Cat. 106 The proper use of school exercises, 223 Introductions to philosophy, frr. 128–33 from The necessity of educating one's wife. The relationship between character and education is discussed more fully by me in Phoenix xliii (1989) 62–8.

²⁴ τὴν ποιὸτητα ταὺτην καὶ τὴν διαφορὰν ἒθει λαμβὰνει τὸ ἂλογον ὺπὸ τοῦ λὸγου πλατ- τὸμενον cf. de sera num. vind. 551e, Aristotle, EN 1103a17 f., Plato Laws 792e.

²⁵ It is aided by age, de sera num. vind. 552d, Fab 3.7, Them. 2.7.

²⁶ Cf. de vit. pud. 530e, de sera num. vind. 551d, de gen. Socr. 584e.

²⁷ As Russell, D. A., Plutarch (London 1973) 132Google Scholar observes with regard to the hero Marius who rejects the benefits of Hellenism, ‘Most Romans, for Plutarch, had a potentiality for barbarism.’

²⁸ Jones, C. P., JRS lx (1970) 98–104Google Scholar, Plutarch and Rome (Oxford 1971) 54–7. The suggestion that Sosius Senecio in fact hailed from the East (Syme, R.Historia xvii [1968] 101 n. 127Google Scholar = Roman Papers ii, ed. E. Badian [Oxford 1979] 688 n. 3, Jones [1970] 103) is insecure. The only probable basis is the phrase τὴν ἐκ προγὸνων εὒνοιαν εἰς τὴν πὸλιν in a titulus honorarius (IGRR iv 779) cited by Jones from the Phrygian town of Apameia honouring Sosius' daughter. The words are more likely to refer to Sosius' father-in-law, Sex. Iulius Frontinus, than to Sosius himself. The argument for discounting eastern origin will be elsewhere set out by me more fully.

²⁹ Jones (n. 28) 59–60.

³⁰ Jones (n. 28) 51–3.

³¹ Jones (n. 28) 57, 63.

³² Sulla: Jones (n. 28) 60; Fundanus: Jones 58–66.

³³ Rawson, E., Intellectual life in the late Roman republic (London 1985) 57.Google Scholar

³⁴ See n. 69 with text.

³⁵ A traditional Roman occasion—Nisbet, R. and Hubbard, M., A commentary on Horace: Odes Book I (Oxford 1970) 401–2Google Scholar, on Horace, Odes i 36Google Scholar (Et ture et fidibus dibus iuvat ); music and poetry—Murray, O., JRS lxxv (1985) 47.Google Scholar

³⁶ Modesty: v 2. 674f–675b, v 3. 677b (see below.

³⁷ Roscher iii 2. 2347, 3024.

³⁸ 95c, 169d, 445d, Ant. 24.3.

³⁹ Cf. Pelling, C. B. R., Plutarch: Life of Antony (Cambridge 1988) 178–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ He cites Homer, Pindar, Sophocles, Menander, Theophrastus, Hecataeus of Abdera, and knows something of the Stoics (ii 3, 637a, cf. de prof, in virt. 75d) and Epicureans (v intro. 672d).

⁴¹ He appears six times on six separate occasions (i 1, i 5, ii 1, ii 3, iv 3, v 1).

⁴² For Prokles, see Müller, FHG ii 342Google Scholar Menecrates fr. 2 with note; Fuhrmann, F., Plutarque: Œuvres morales (Coll. des univ. de France ) ix 2 (Paris 1978) 169.Google Scholar Suspension of dramatic representation: Fuhrmann ib.

⁴³ The date of de prof, in virt. is unknown (before 116—Jones, C. P., JRS lvi [1966] 73Google Scholar), though Plutarch may imply that Sosius is still a νὲος (i.e. under 30 or so; cf. 79a, 85c–d).

⁴⁴ For Florus see Jones (n. 28) 48–9. He obtained for Plutarch his Roman citizenship (SIG ³829A). Florus appears in thirteen questions on ten separate occasions (i 9; iii 3, 4, 5; v 7; v 10; vii 1; vii 2; vii 4; vii 6; viii 1, 2; viii io).

⁴⁵ Jones (n. 28) 49.

⁴⁶ He also mentions Aristotle, Protagoras, Pyrrhon, and the historian Phylarchus.

⁴⁷ Sosius: see i 1, 613d, ii 1, 629f, v 1 (no speech); Florus: i 9 (no speech), iii 5, 651f, 652b, v 10, 684e, vii 1, 698e, vii 2, 701a, vii 4, 702e, vii 6, 707c, viii 10 (no speech); note, though, that Sosius does speak in i 5, 623–d, ii 3, 636e–6388a (a long speech), and iv 3, 666d–667a, and Florus speaks in iii 3 and iii 4, 650a, 651c–e (the same meal as iii 5), v 7, 680c–f, viii 1, 717d–e, and viii 2, 719a–c (the same meal as viii 1).

⁴⁸ Note that two of the surviving single Lives, Galba and Otho, concern men who lived during Plutarch's lifetime. Plutarch is not interested in the education of these heroes, though he does observe the consequences for Rome of not having educated leaders in the period after Nero's death at Galba 1.3–4 (cf. Georgiadou, A., ICS xiii.2 [1988] 349–65Google Scholar).

⁴⁹ I am not concerned with Romulus, Publicola, or Camillus, whose Lives offer nothing on the subject, nor with Numa, who is a semi-divine, semi-mythological hero, and something of a special case (but see n. 75).

⁵⁰ Cf. Porcius Licinus fr. 1 Buechner: Poenico bello secundo Musa pinnato gradu = intulit se bellicosam in Romuli gentem feram; but Plutarch (or his source) is unlikely to have been affected by this tradition (for which see Leo, F., Geschichte der römischen Literatur i [Berlin 1913] 388, 436Google Scholar).

⁵¹ Particularly dangerous for statesmen: Ag./ Cleom. 2.3, Arist.-Cato Maj. synk. 5.4, praec. ger. reip. 819f–820f, 825f (note that φιλοτιμὶα can be a good thing; see n. 61); regulated by education: de virt. mor. 452d τὰ πὰθη τῶν νὲων . . . φιλοτιμὶαν ῶν ἐμμελῆ καὶ σωτὴριον ἀφὴν ἀπτὸμενος ὸ λὸγος καὶ ὸ νὸμος εἰς τὴν προσὴκουσαν ὸδὸν ὰνυσὶμως καθὶστησι τὸν νὲον see generally Wardman, A., Plutarch's Lives (London 1974) 115–24.Google Scholar Note that Plutarch thinks that Romans are particularly prone to one form of ambition, φιλαρχὶα-—at any rate 16 of the 18 instances of the word in the Lives concern Roman heroes (and of these 5 are to do with Pompey).

⁵² It is not clear what Plutarch means by this— probably military training (cf. Cor. 1.6), probably also (forensic) oratory which he thinks of, perhaps anachronistically, as characterizing even early Rome (Publ. 2.1, Cor. 27.1, 39.6, Fab. 1.7–9, Luc. 1.3); see below, p. 137.

⁵³ Similarly there are no details about the education of Cato the Elder who is well versed in Greek life and letters (Cato Maj. 2.3–6, 4.1, 8.4, 8.14, 9.3, 13.1, 20.3, 24.8) in spite of apparent hostility (22, 23.1–24.1); he is merely described as an ‘opsimath’ (2.5).

⁵⁴ πολὺ γὰρ δὴ τι φῦλου ἀπὸ τῆς ῾Ελλὰδος ἐπιρρὲον ὸρῶ . . . τῶν τοιουτων ὰνθρὼπων . The date is indicated by Scipio being eighteen (xxxi 24.1)—see Walbank, F., A historical commentary on Polybius iii (Oxford 1979) 497Google Scholarad loc. It is reasonable to assume that παιδεὶα was also an important element in Plutarch's lost Scip. Aem., but impossible to estimate how important (cf. Luc. 38.4 on Scipio's unseasonable ambition in later years).

⁵⁵ This was Metrodorus, pictor idemque phtlosophus (Pliny HN xxxv 135).

⁵⁶ Cf. Arat. 38.12—Phylarchus is not trustworthy ‘unless supported by the testimony of Polybius’.

⁵⁷ λὸγοι, σοφὶσματα, στωμυλὶα; for στωμυλὶα (‘clever talk’. ‘philosophers’ claptrap') cf. de aud. 42e, Cim. 4.5.

⁵⁸ Cf. Rawson (n. 33) 5. Plutarch will mention the presence of Greek scholars at Rome (Polybius Cato Maj. 9.2–3, Blossius Gracchi 8.6, Philon Cic. 3.1, Panaetius? Scip. Aem. ), and knows of their stimulating effects on Roman philosophy (Lucullus' support of Antiochus against Cicero's support of Philon Luc. 42.3–4), but is not interested in who was where at what time.

⁵⁹ Note that we do not really have anything in the Lives on what Romans rejected in Greek education: at quaest. Rom. 274d–e Plutarch remarks on their strong aversion to athletics (cf. Marrou, H.-I., Histoire de l'education dans l'antiquité ⁶ [Paris 1965] 363–6Google Scholar), and at Cic. 5.2 notes τὰ ῾Pωμαὶων τοῖς βαναυσοτὰτοις πρὸχειρα καὶ συνὴθη ῥὴματα Γ ραικὸς καὶ σχολαστικὸς

⁶⁰ For excessive grief as a sign of ineffective education, cf. Cato Min. 11.3 ἐμπαθὲστερον . . . ἢ φιλοσοφὼτερον (Cato's reaction to Caepio's death), consol, ad uxor. 608c, 609b, 611a (the need for ‘correct reasoning’).

⁶¹ Cf. de cap. ex inim. util. 92d, de virt. mor. 452b, Ages. 5.5, Lys. 2.4.

⁶² Loss of early chapters: Pelling, C. B. R., CQ xxiii (1973) 343–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶³ There is a little on Caesar's rhetorical education under Apollonius Molon (3.1, corresponding to Alexander's tuition under Aristotle, Alex. 7–8). Note how Plutarch uses Caesar's study with Apollonius to introduce his prosecutions of Cornelius Dolabella and Antonius Hybrida (4.1–3), whereas in fact these unsuccessful trials (in 77–6) were followed by the stay on Rhodes (75; Suetonius DJ 4.2, Gelzer, M., Caesar. Der Politiker und Staats mann ⁶ [Wiesbaden 1960] 20–1Google Scholar).

⁶⁴ Contrast Marius (Marius 25.8) and Cicero (Cic. 5.6).

⁶⁵ Note Pomp. 8.7: Plutarch has no time to dwell on Pompey's early life. Pompey is pictured as having an interest in literature and philosophy (10.8, 42.9–11, 52.5, 75.4–5); see Rawson (n. 33) 104–9. Crassus ‘is said to have had an encyclopaedic knowledge of history, and was also something of a philosopher, holding with the doctrines of Aristotle’ (3.6); cf. Cic. 25.4 (interest in Stoic doctrine).

⁶⁶ Cf. Arat. 10.5 τὴν δὲ τοιαὺτην ἀνωμαλὶαν ἒνδεια λὸγου φολοσὸφου . . . ἀπεργὰζεται Note that Crassus' wide education (Crass. 3.6; see n. 65) is only alleged λὲγεται

⁶⁷ Note that Sertorius like Sulla undergoes a change of character (Sert. 10.5–7, Sulla 30.6), but Plutarch has nothing in this Life on education and affirms that Sertorius' προαὶρεσις and φὺσις were in fact noble.

⁶⁸ Plutarch does comment dryly on Antony's ‘schooling’ in uxoriousness and pleasure (10.6 διδασκὰλια . . . πεπαιδαγωγημὲνον 29.1 διεπαιδαγὼγει

⁶⁹ Cato Maj. 27.7, Brut. 2.1, Pomp. 40.2. The only other examples seem to be the astrologist, scholar, and philosopher P. Nigidius Figulus (an seni resp. ger. sit 797d; used at quaest. Rom. 268f; cf. Cic. 20.3), and the polymath M. Terentius Varro (Rom. 12.3; used on several occasions, cf. Valgiglio, E., in Atti del congresso internazionale di studi Varroniani [Rieti 1976] 571–95Google Scholar).

⁷⁰ In a paper to appear in Hermes.

⁷¹ A good illustration of Plutarch's suppression of Stoicism in Brut, is the contrast between his silence on Antiochus of Ascalon's Stoic leanings at Brut. 2.3 and his interested comments at Cic. 4.2 and Luc. 42.3–4 (cf. Babut, D., Plutarque et le Stoïcisme [Paris 1969] 198–200Google Scholar). Brutus was formally a Platonist, which is course the basic for the comparison with Dion (cf. Dion I). On his actual tendency towards Stoicism, see Moles, J. L., QUCC xxv (1987) 64–5.Google Scholar It may be thought surprising that we find nothing in Gracchi on the limitations of idealism in politics: the reason is probably that the Gracchi are destroyed not by a blind reforming zeal like Cato, but by a φὸβος ὰδοξὶας (Ag./Cleom. 2.7) which Plutarch considers to be no bad thing (ib. ἐκ προφὰσεως οὺκ ἀγεννοῦς cf. 30.4–5).

⁷² The standard exploration of this aspect of Plutarch's methodology is Stadter, P. A., GRBS xvi (1975) 77–85Google Scholar (on Per.–Fab. ); see also Erbse, H., Hermes lxxxiv (1956) 398–424Google Scholar; Pelling, C. B. R., in Miscellanea Plutarchea. Atti del I convegno di studi su Plutarco (Ferrara 1986) 83–96Google Scholar; Frazier, F., RPh lxi (1987) 65–75Google Scholar; Larmour, D. H. J., TAPA cxviii (1988) 361–75Google Scholar; my papers in ICS xiii.2 (1988) 335–47; Historia xxxviii (1989) 314–34.

⁷³ Cf. Erbse (n. 72) 399–400, 406–13 on the closely paralleled structure of Demosth.-Cic., and 406–7 on the exposure of both heroes to φιλοτιμὶα

⁷⁴ In the case of Sulla it should be remembered that Plutarch offers no reason for the instability in the first place.

⁷⁵ Although Plutarch presents Numa as enjoying contacts with Pythagoras in the regal period (cf. Numa 8, 22.5), Numa's ‘most beautiful and most just system’ quickly fails ‘because it lacked the cohesive force that is παιδεὶἀ (synk. 4.12, cf. Numa 1.3).

⁷⁶ Cf. Polybius xxxi 29.1: ἀνδρεὶα is ‘a most important item … particularly at Rome’.

⁷⁷ Cf. educational conditioning in Sparta at Lys. 2.4, Ages. 5.5.

⁷⁸ The main source (quoted at synk. 2.4); see Russell, D. A., JRS liii (1963) 21–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ de adul. et amico 56b–f, de cohib. ira 462f, animian corp. affect, sint peiores 500e–501b, de vit. pud. 529d, fr. 161 from the Letter on friendship; cf. Alc. 16.4.

⁸⁰ See n. 52.

⁸¹ Note that Plutarch detests the Hellenistic monarchs of which Pyrrhus is a prime example (7.3, 12.2–12), if better than most (8.2, Demetr. 41.4–5); cf. Arist. 6.2–5, Demetr. 3.3–5, 42.8–11, ad princ, indoet. 780f.

⁸² τις ἀνὴρ ἐπιεικὴς 13.6–11; cf. Dionysius xix 8.

⁸³ The one true valuation ever made of the senate according to Livy ix 17.14; for Kineas' visit, cf. Livy Per. 13.

⁸⁴ ‘Greek Muses’, cf. Cor. 1.5; for Plato's advice, cf. conj. praec. 141f, amat. 769d. For ‘beached’ (ἐξοκεὶλας) cf. 45.10 Luc 38.3 (of Marius).

⁸⁵ Cf. similarly Flam. 2.5, Arat. 10.5, Per. 2.5, 9.1, Cim. 3.3, Ag./Cleom. 2.9, Phoc. 3.9, quaest. conv. vii intro. 697e.

⁸⁶ Plutarch cites Val. Max. at Brut. 53.5, Marc. 30.5; Sallust at Lys.-Sulla synk. 3.3, Luc. 11.6, 33.3 (Sallust may have been used in translation, cf. Suda Z 73 Adler). There is no evidence that Posidonius' unfavourable account of Marius (cf. Malitz, J., Die Historien von Posidonios [Munich 1983] 394 ff.Google Scholar) has affected Plutarch's position here.

⁸⁷ Carney, T., A biography of C. Marius, PACA Suppl. i (1961) 14.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Carney (n. 87) 12–14 pointing to 2.2 (Greek games given at the dedication of Marius' temple of Honos and Virtus), 8.5 (Marius says he has fastened an ἀλὰστωρ on Metellus), 29.5 (Marius describes Metellus by quoting from Pindar [this is rather Plutarch speaking]), 45.9 (Marius speaks of Hellenistic τὺχη) It would certainly have jarred with Plutarch's presentation if he had recorded Marius' appearance after Vercellae as Neos Dionysus (Carney 12 n. 70).

⁸⁹ Cf Marcellus (Marc. 28.6 μειρακιῶδες- . . . καὶ φιλοτιμὸτερον πὰρος and Flamininus (Flam. 20.1 νεανὶζοντα τω̣ πὰθει)

⁹⁰ Wardman (n. 51) 130.

⁹¹ Note the v. I. at Marc. 20.1 δικαιοτὲρους (‘juster’); Plutarch should not be taken as intending a comparison with Greeks (the Romans were now ‘very just’ or ‘juster’ than they had been).

⁹² The example Livy gives in this passage, which is partially the basis of Marc. 21.4–5 (see below), is of Fabius leaving behind the colossal statues of the gods; Pliny, (HN xxxiv 40)Google Scholar reports that Fabius left the colossus of Jove because he could not move it, and did in fact take the statue of Heracles (as Plutarch notes, Fab. 22.8).

⁹³ πρᾳὸτης and φιλανθρωπὶα do not refer to Marcellus' taste in art as is sometimes asserted. Cf. Cicero, ii Verr. 4.120–21, on Marcellus' humanitas in sparing Syracuse and not denuding it entirely of treasures (unlike Verres).

⁹⁴ Cf. Pelling, C. B. R., ‘Plutarch: Roman heroes and Greek culture’, in Philosophia Togata, ed. Griffin, M., Barnes, J. (Oxford 1989) 202Google Scholar ‘the criticism [21.4 rf.]… seems very mild’.

⁹⁵ For ‘sword of Rome’, cf. 9.7, Fab. 19.4, Posidonius FGrH 87 F 42ab.

⁹⁶ As is done by Edelstein-Kidd fr. 261 and Theiler F 92 (but not Jacoby FGrH 87 F 41), and accepted by Malitz (n. 86) 363; Theiler ii 89 notes that Marc. 1.3 is Plutarch's addition. On Plutarch's relationship with Posidonius I have not seen Mühl, M., Posidonios und der plutarchische Marcellus. Untersuchungen zur Geschichtsschreibung des Posidonios von Apamea (Berlin 1925)Google Scholar, reviewed by Münzer, F., Gnomon i (1925) 96–100.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Though note that Posidonius knows of (and presumably approved of) dedications from the spoils at Lindos on his adopted Rhodes (and elsewhere), Marc. 30.6–8, FGrH 87 F 44; it is possible that he approved of the dedication of much of the booty which was brought to Rome (cf. Livy xxv 40.3, Cicero ii Verr. 4.121).

⁹⁸ For barbarous rites contrasted with approved ancestral practice see de superstit. 166b and de fac. quae in orbe lun. app. 935b; cf. also amat. 756c, where the god Eros is οὺδ᾿ ἒπηλυς ἒκ τινος βαρβαρικῆς δεισιδαιμονὶας

⁹⁹ Cf. Ages. 6.7–8, de superstit. 171b–e; for ‘barbarous and abnormal’ views about deities, cf. de Is. et Osir. 358e–f, de def. orac. 418e. On barbarian and Hellenic religious practices in Plutarch's eyes, cf. Aalders (n. 15) 20, Nikolaides, A., WS xx (1986) 233–5.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Sulla 12.7, 35.3, Numa 10.4, 22.12, Caes. 63.11, Brut. 39.6, Cam. 19.12, quaest. Rom. 83, 283f–284c (a later sacrifice of two Greeks and two Gauls ordered by the Sibylline Books for ἀλλοκὸτοις τισὶ δαὶμοσι καὶ ξὲνοις; in Marc. Plutarch cannot invoke strange daimons, but must insist on propriety in Roman religion to match Pel. and protect Marcellus' Hellenism).

¹⁰¹ Note Fab. 4.4 also plays down Roman superstition during the Hannibalic War; this ties in with Per. (cf. 6.1).

¹⁰² To avoid cross-references I have preferred to repeat here some material on Lucullus from a paper to appear in RhM.

¹⁰³ ‘We should not point out failings’—see de Herod. Mal. 3, 855c–d; ‘no character which is purely good’—de laude ips. 545e, Sulla 30.6, Sert. 10.5–7.

¹⁰⁴ ῾φαῦλον, ἂκομψον, τὰ μὲγιστ᾿ ἀγαθὸν᾿ (Euripides Likymnos fr. 473 N²). Plutarch refuses to believe Stesimbrotus on Themistocles (a pupil of Anaxagoras and Melissus, Them. 2.5), and criticizes him also at Per. 13.16, 26.1.

¹⁰⁵ Lucullus' infighting with Pompey 42.4 ff. is less serious than at Pomp. 46. 5–6, 48.2, 4, 7 and Cato Min. 31.1, 7.

¹⁰⁶ Plutarch veils the fact that the books were booty (ἢ τε χρῆσις ῆν φιλοτιμοτὲρα τῆς κτὴσεως) see van Ooteghem, J., L. Licinius Lucullus (Brussels 1959) 184.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Plutarch seems to know the basic argument of Cicero's Lucullus (Acad. Priora ); there is an unattributed quotation from it at Cic. 24.5 (ii 119), and Jones, C. P., Hermes cx (1982) 254–6Google Scholar argues correctly for an intransitive sense to ἀντετὰττετο at 42.3, so that Lucullus himself ‘opposed’ Cicero as in Cicero's work. But Plutarch is unaware of Acad. Post. (in which Lucullus' part was disparagingly transferred to Varro; Cicero, ad Att. xiii 12.3Google Scholar, 13.1, 16.1, 19.5, Ooteghem [n. 106] 25–7), and it is hard to say whether he had actually read Acad. Priora himself (as is suggested by Babut [n. 71] 198–200).

¹⁰⁸ Cf. Velleius Paterculus ii 33.4 (profusae huius … luxuriae primus auctor ), Athenaeus deipn. 274e–f, 543a, resting on Nicolaus FGrH 90 F 77ab (‘foremost guide of the πολυτὲλεια which now flourishes’, ‘pioneer of τρυφὴ among the Romans’).

¹⁰⁹ Esp. ii 4; see Rawson (n. 33) 57, 81. The emphasis is quite hypocritical—see n. 107.

¹¹⁰ See n. 107. Plutarch's φιλοσοφὶαν δὲ πᾶσαν μὲν ὴσπὰζετο καὶ πρὸς πᾶσαν εὺμενὴς ὴν καὶ οικεῖος (42.3) may reflect Cicero's cum omni litterarum generi tum philosophiae deditus (ii 4), though both statements look like generalizations. Note, however, Glucker, J., Antiochus and the late Academy (Göttingen 1978) 27Google Scholar: ‘Lucullus the philosopher is a creation of Cicero’.

¹¹¹ See Glucker (n. 110) 21–7, Rawson (n. 33) 81, both observing that Antiochus was more useful to Lucullus as a guide to eastern affairs than to philosophy. Note that Cicero's Lucullus becomes attached to Antiochus not through love of the Old Academy but because Antiochus enjoys the best reputation among the philosphers of his day (ii 4, 113). Note further that Lucullus' generous sentiments about the grammarian Tyrannion (Luc. 19.8–9) are also really Plutarch's own (see Christes, J., Sklaven und Freigelassene als Grammatiker und Philologen im antiken Rom [Wiesbaden 1979] 29Google Scholar).

¹¹² Cf Pelling (n. 72) 94.

¹¹³ See Jones (n. 28 [1971]) 103–9 (103 n. 1 citing earlier literature), Wardman (n. 51) 18–26.

¹¹⁴ I see no reason to agree with Flacelière, R., AC xxxii (1963) 33–4Google Scholar: ‘Naturellement Plutarque se fait un malin plaisir de montrer … que la plupart de ceux-ci [Roman heroes] … étaient pénétrés de culture grecque’.