Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:47:13.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plutarch on the Stoics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

F. H. Sandbach
F. H. Sandbach
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Cambridge.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

InHermes, lxxiv (1939), p. 1 Professor M. Pohlenz publishes an article entitled ‘Plutarchs Schriften gegen die Stoiker’ which throws much light on these important sources for Stoicism. I had myself made a study of these works, and for the most part find myself in complete agreement, but in my opinion something can be added to his inquiry into Plutarch's sources; and I venture to think that the subject repays attention not so much for itself as because it illustrates an important principle, namely, that investigation of sources must be accompanied by literary appreciation: one must look not only for the flaws that will admit the dissecting knife but also for the intended structure of one's subject.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 34 , Issue 1-2 , April 1940 , pp. 20 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1940

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 It is not certain whether περὶ δικαιοσύνης, and περὶ δικαιοσύνης πρὸς Πλάτωνα refer to one work or more than one. Pohlenz rightly refuses to recongnize a περὶ δικαιοσύνης πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλην.

2 Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (SVF), Praefatio, pp. xi, xiii.Google Scholar

3 In fact a misnomer: the section is concerned with methods of teaching to be adopted by the Stoic; none of the works quoted are from the λογικὸς τόπος of which a list is preserved by Diogenes Laertius; nearly all are known to belong to the ἠθικὸς τόπος.

1 c. 29, which clearly does not come from the source-book (Pohlenz, , pp. 11, 32).Google Scholar

2 Connecting particles are twice missing; on this see below, note 2 on next page.

3 Unless one is to be restored by conjecture at the beginning of 43, where the meaningless ἢ of XgBF1, omitted by F2Π, may conceal ἔτι (sigla of the new Teubner edition; my own collations).

4 I cannot agree with von Arnim that this is the procedure of a madman: ‘quae vero per librum de repugnantiis regnat ratio ut partim in ordinem res digerantur partim inordinatae et inconexae relinquantur, eam a sani scriptoris mente abhorrere iudicamus, qui quidem in tota libri conformatione a se ipse pendeat.’

1 No. 59.

2 Confined, that is to say, in this digression. Plutarch also quotes from Chrysippus περὶ δικαιοσύνης in chapters 13, 17, and 36 to reinforce contradictions already given by other quotations; he is clearly adding to his source from his own reading, c. 32 begins with the statement that some Pythagoreans criticize Chrysippus for writing in his book περὶ δικαιοσύνης that cocks are useful to wake us, eat scorpions, arid give an example of bravery, but that they must be eaten to keep their numbers down. But Chrysippus, continues Plutarch, mocks at such criticism, for he declares in περὶ θεν that Zeus brings about wars to keep down the human population. Yet elsewhere in the same book he says that the gods do nothing disgraceful. It is clear that the passage from περὶ δικαιοσύνης is not inconsistent with either of the other quotations, but is introduced by way of ornament; and we shall conclude that it comes from Plutarch's own reading. The rule of connexion between chapters generally observed in this section is broken here and again at chapter 38, which similarly introduces an outside school of philosophy into the debate: πρὸς τὸν Ἐπίκουρον μάλιστα μάχεται καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἀναιροντας τὴν πρόνοιαν ἀπὸ τν ἐννοιν ἃς ἔχομεν περὶ θεν, εὐεργετικοὺς καὶ φιλανθρώπους ἐπινοοντες. καὶ τούτων πολλαχο γραφομένων καὶ λεγομένων παρ᾽ αὐτος οὐδὲν ἔδει λέξεις παρατίθεσθαι (Plutarch did not want the trouble of looking the quotations up!), καίτοι (καὶ τὸ gB) χρηστοὺς οὐ πάντας (ἅπαντας gBE) εἰκὸς (A. D. Nock: εναι) τοὺς θεοὺς προλαμβάνειν (γβE: προσλαμβάνειν O). ὅρα γὰρ οα Ἰουδαοι καὶ Σύροι πεν φρονοσιν κτλ. … φθαρτὸν δὲ καὶ γενητὸν οὐδεὶς ὡς ἔπος εἰπεν διανοεται θεόν… except Chrysippus at times! In either case there is no connecting particle because Plutarch is employing the device of seeming to start on a new topic and unexpectedly bringing the reader round to the main subject.

1 There are fresh Starts at c. II, C. 13, C. 20 (superficially disguised), and in the middle of C. 22 (καὶ μήν): this last is the most abrupt.

2 It must not be thought undramatic when he does. Pedants might give their references even dinner-parties, see Epictetus, II xix. 8Google Scholar: ἀλλ᾽ ἂν κενός, μάλιστα ἐπὶ συμποσί καταπλήσσομαι τοὺς παρόντας, ἐξαριθμούμενος τοὺς γεγραφότας. ‘γέγραφεν δὲ καὶ Χρύσιππος θαυμαστς ἐν τ πρώτ περὶ Δυνατν. καὶ Κλεάνθης δὲ ἰδί γέγραφεν περὶ τούτου καὶ Ἀρχέδημος. γέγραφεν δὲ καὶ Ἀντίπατρος οὐ μόνον ἐν τος περὶ Δυνατν κτλ. …’

1 Cf. Pohlenz, , p. 32.Google Scholar

2 παρίημι δὲ πολλὰς ἀτοπίας αὐτν τν παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν ἐφαπτόμενος (c. 44 init.) nearly confesses as much as regards 40–43. The structure of de communibus notitiis is defective at many points, and Hirzel, (Der Dialog, ii. 223 note)Google Scholar suggested that it was a work of Plutarch's extreme old age; certainly he cannot have given much trouble to it. At 1077 F I do not know whether to suppose that there is a lacuna before ἀλλὰ μήν, or simply to see lack of revision which has left a sentence in the air.

3 At 349,21 (Bernardakis) I think the words καὶ τὰ ὑπάρχοντα το ὑπάρχοντος have fallen out after ὑπάρχοντος. Other minor corrections of the manuscripts (there are only two, of the 14th cent., copied from the same original, and full of corruptions), might be added here: 286,2 perhaps τοτο τν ἔργων, 289,16 τὸ 〈τὸν〉 ἔννουν 293,4 αὑτὸν, 309,12 γον, 339,4 θάτερον. καὶ μηδέτερον αὐτν α πάλιν δυνατὸν εναι, συμβαίνει δ᾽ ἀμφότερα, 339,21 ἀπαγορεύσει, 349,5 τούτων 〈δ᾽〉. I hope to deal with some major corruptions in another article.

4 It may also have supplied the quotation from περὶ ἀγαθν in c. 25, which is mutilated but perhaps recorded an agreement with the unorthodox Herillus; this might well have been included in the collection of inconsistencies. The same chapter contains also a new reference to περὶ δικαιοσύνη πρὸς Πλάτωνα, no doubt from Plutarch' own reading.

1 μόνον ἐμνήσθη τν κτλ.

2 This chapter is in fact concerned with κρσις δι᾽ ὅλων, but that might be regarded as a necessary preliminary; for not only are the elements mixed with one another in this way (SVF, ii. 155)Google Scholar, but they are formed by such a mixture of ὕλη and θεός (SVF, ii. 310, 475, etc.)Google Scholar. The proper treatment of στοιχεα does not come till c. 48; having once digressed from his subject Plutarch seems to have forgotten it. The suggestion of Rasmus (de libro qui be communibus notitiis inscribitur commentatio p. 24)Google Scholar that 48–50 should be inserted between 44 and 45 (between 43 and 44 would be a better place as 44 would be linked to 50 by the subjects of οὐσία and ποιοότης) only mitigates the difficulty.