Plutarch's adaptation of his source-material

Abstract

In an earlier article, I argued that six of the Roman Lives—Crassus, Pompey, Caesar, Cato, Brutus, and Antony—were prepared as a single project, and rest upon the same store of source-material. If this is so, it affords a unique opportunity to investigate Plutarch's techniques. There are substantial variations among these six versions, both crude inconsistencies of fact and subtler differences of interpretation. It no longer seems adequate to assume that these are simply inherited from differing source-material; they must arise from Plutarch's individual literary methods. Their analysis should therefore illuminate those methods. How much licence did Plutarch allow himself in rewriting and manipulating detail for artistic ends? And what considerations would lead him to vary his treatment in these ways?In the first part of this paper, I examine the literary devices which Plutarch employed in streamlining his material: conflation of similar items, chronological compression and dislocation, fabrication of circumstantial detail, and the like. In the second, I turn to the differences of interpretation and emphasis among these Lives. These suggest some wider conclusions concerning Plutarch's biographical practice, which are developed in the final section: in particular, the very different aims, interests, and conventions which are followed in different Lives, and the flexible nature of this biographical genre.

Bibliography

“…The impact of reception studies, and hence also of ancient reception ^ As Kavvaiko Ro.sclli (2005: 3) observed; 'Biographic anecdotes may not be good history, but ihcir fictional value speaks to contemporary cuhural beliefs.' ^ Sec Pelling(l979), Pelling (1980) and Pelling (1990a). ^ On the iradnbility of biographical narratives, see Mdllcr (2004: 27).…”

Plutarch between worlds: visions of Sparta, Athens and Rome

“…También ha observado que César, Antonio y Bruto fueron escritas durante un mismo período y concebidas en ese orden, aunque los variados enfoques sobre los mismos eventos siguen diversos criterios y finalidades. En un artículo posterior, Pelling (1980) aborda dichas diferencias y demuestra que más allá del conocimiento de múltiples fuentes, existe una apropiación creativa del autor que selecciona, modifica, completa e interpreta la información mediante sus propios recursos y según una impronta específica, lo que convierte a cada biografía en una pieza anecdótica y conceptual única. En el caso de Ant., un rasgo que la distingue de otras Vidas romanas y que la acerca a su par griego Demetrio es la relevancia que el arte dramático cobra en la visión de los acontecimientos y del «carácter» (ἦθος) del personaje.…”

“…En palabras de Ramón Palerm (2009: 49): «el logos retórico da paso al logos filosófico, que se apropia de la retórica y la desnuda de su pura función persuasiva primigenia para moralizarla». Pero es Ant., considerada literaria (Pelling 1980) y barroca (Harrison 1995) en su estilo, la que «hace ver la vida» como una superposición de los planos constructivos del βίος. Tal es el pacto de lectura al final de Demetr.…”

Genres and Their Implications: Meddlesomeness in On Curiosity versus the Lives

“…31 Cf. Pelling 1980, andidem 1988, 284 andn. 5. ambition or anger in a way so as to make the former, contrarily to the other affections, unfit for a hero?…”