Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:42:56.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tragedy and epic in Plutarch's Alexander

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

J. M. Mossman
J. M. Mossman
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Achilles is the poetic paradigm of a hero, Alexander his real-life counterpart as well as his descendant. This idea is a commonplace of all our sources for Alexander's life. There arc numerous examples of it: Diodorus says at xvii 1.4:

έν ἔτεσι γάρ δώδεκα καταστρεψάμενος τῆς μέν Eύρώπης ούκ όλίγα, την δέ 'Aσίαν σχεδὸν ἄπασαν είκότως περιβόητον ἔσχε τὴν δόξαν καί τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἤρωσι καί ὴμιθέοις ℓσάʒουσαν … 'Aλέξανδρος οὖν γεγονώς κατά πατέρα μέν άφ’ 'Hρακλέους, κατά δέ μητέρα τῶν Aίακιδῶν οℓκείαν ἔσχε τὴν φύσιν καί τὴν άρετὴν τὴς τῶν προγόνων εύδοξίας.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 108 , November 1988 , pp. 83 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1988

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 Cf. Plut. Alex. 2.1. An earlier draft of this paper was delivered at the conference of the International Plutarch Society held at the Canadian and American Schools of Classical Studies at Athens, 26th–28th June 1987. I am most grateful to the Society and to the organisers of the conference I owe a special debt to Dr C. B. R. Felling and Mr E. L. Bowie, whose perceptive criticisms were invaluable, to the very useful remarks of an unnamed referee, and to Mark Edwards for his generous interest and stimulating conversation.

2 D.S. xvii 97.3:

σωθείς δέ παραδόξως τοῖς θεοῖς ἔθυσεν ώς μεγίστους έκπεφενγὠς κινδύυονς καί πρὸς ποταμὸν όμοίως 'Aχιλλεῖ διαγωνισάμενος.

3 Compare for example Theocritus xvii 53 ff.:

'Aργεία κυάνοφρυ, σύ λαοφόνον Διομῆδεα μισγομένα Tυδῆι τέκες, Kαλνδώνιον ἄνδρα, ὰλλὰ Θέτις βαθύκολπος ὰκοντιστὰν 'Aχιλῆα Aίακίδαι Πηλῆ· σὲ δ' αίχμητὰ Πτολεμαῖε αίχμητᾶι Πτολεμαίωι άρίʒηλος Bερενίκα.

4 Momigliano, A., The development of Greek biography, Four Lectures (Harvard 1971) 82–3Google Scholar shows the important of accounts of education to Greek biography, and this may explain Plutarch s selection of material. But in that case it is perhaps surprising that he did not make more use of Onesicritus in the early part of the Life: cf. Hamilton, I. R., Plutarch, Alexander: a commentary (Oxford 1969) lvii.Google Scholar

Onesicritus' ὠς 'Aλέξανδρος ἤχθη is paralleled by the 'Aλεξάνδρου άγωγή of Marsyas of Pella, another companion of Alexander.

5 This cannot of course be deduced simply from the de Alexandri Magni but the conjunction of Diodorus and Arnan is convincing.

6 Plutarch and tragedy: the material is false: de Aud. Poet. 16a-17e passim; tragedy contrasted with historical truth: Theseus 1.3–4, 2.3, 15.2, 16.3–4 (cf. Plato, Minos 318de, 320e–321b); cf. Romulus 8.9. Theopompus condemned as ‘tragic’ for giving a faise account: Demosthenes 21.2; Phylarchuf ditto, cf. Themistocles 32.4; Herodotus, cf. de Mal. Herod. 870c; Ctesias, Aftaxerxes 6.9; others, cf. Alexander 75.5. Also of philosophical arguments: de Pyth. Or. 399e–400c; Adv. Col. 1119c, 1123b.

The audience is deceived: de Aud poet 15cd, 16a–17c, esp. 17c. So are the poets: 17d. Tragedy=pretence: in philosophy Mor. 528bc (de genio Socratis), 724d (Quaestiones Conviviales); in wild stones Mor. 926c (de facie in Orbe lunae) cf. Lucullus 11.2; putting extra tragoedia in oracles cf. de Pyth. Or. 407b.

The actor pretends: Mor. 50e (Quomodo Adulator ab Amico Intemoscatur): cf. Ps.–Plut. de Liberis Educandis 13b; Non posse suaviter vivi 1102b.

Against actors: cf; Sulla 2.3–4, 36.1; Galba 16.3; Apophthegmata Laconica 212f (cf. Agesilaos 21.8); Solon 29.7; Demosthenes 28.3–29.7; An Seni Resp. 785a.

Tragedy = madness and anger: de Cohib. Ira 462b

Tragedy vs. philosophy Mor. 545f; = naughty stories de Aud. Poet. 27f.

Cf. also A. E. Wardman, Plutarch's Lives (London 1974) 168–79.

7 Art. cit. 167–8. For Plutarch's Platonism in general cf. eg. Jones, R. M., The Platonism of Plutarch (Diss. Menasha, Wisconsin 1916)Google Scholar.

8 Deception = ‘constructing a tragic machine’, cf. Them. 10.1; Lysander 25.2, 26.6; Numa's meetings with the Muses etc. a ‘drama’: Numa 8.10; cf. Marius and the Syrian prophetess: Marius 17.5.

Pomp and circumstance to deceive the eye: Aratus 15.3 ‘tragedy and scene-painting’; Pompey 31.10; Nicias 21.1; Lucullus 21.6; de Cupid. Div. 527ef, 528b.

Tyrants and tragedy: Demosthenes 22.5 (cf. de Alex. Mag. 337d); Lucullus 21.3; Poplicola 10.3; Antony 54.5 (cf. de Alex. Mag. 329f: Persian dress ‘tragic’). Nero: Quomodo Adul. 56e: cf. also Calba 14.2–3; Quaest. Conuiv. 717c; Pelopidas 34.1; Quomodo Adul. 63a; Praecepta Rei p. Gerendae 823e.

Opposition of tragic to military: Eumenes 2.2; Otho 5.8.

Tragic calamities: QC 7Hc; Galba 1.7–8, 12.5; Crassus 33 passim, esp. 33.7; Marius 27.2; Pompey 9.3–4.

9 4.5–8 (Plutarch is speculating as to the cause of Alexander's pleasant body-odour: he concludes that theκρᾶσις of Alexander's body was responsible, πολύθερμος οὖσα καὶ πυρώδης and continues by saying): ᾿Αλέξανδρον δ᾿ ἡ θερμότης τοῦ σώματος ὠς ἔοικε καὶ ποτικὸν καὶ θυμοειδῆ παρεῖχευ.

῾Ετι δ᾿ ὄντος αὐτοῦ παιδός ἤ τε σωφροσύνη διεφαίνετο.

This Passage is heavily influenced by philosophy: it refers to Theophrastus' de Odoribus and is akin to such works as the Airs, Waters, Places, and θυμοειδής, is a Platonic word: cf. Rep. 375c, 411c, 456a. As Wartman has pointed out (A. E. Wardman, ‘Plutarch and Alexander’, CQ n.s. v [1955] 96-107), θυμός and ira are frequently cited in Hellenistic philosophy (for example by Plutarch himself in the de Cohibenda Ira, Mor. 458b) as denoting bad qualities, which Alexander is used to exemplify; though in the Life, as in epic and often in tragedy θνμός is more ambiguous.

10 The alternation of motifs is a favorite technique of Plutarch's: one may compare the early chapters of the Antony, where Antony's military virtues are dwelt on alternately with his submissiveness first to Fulvia, then to Cleopatra. On this cf. the forthcoming commentary by C. B. R. Pelling.

11 For recent, perceptive accounts of this relationship cf. R. B. Rutherford ‘Tragic Form and Feeling in the Iliad’ JHS cii (1982) 145-60, and J. Gould, ‘Homeric Epic and the Tragic Moment’, in T. Winnifrith et al. (edd) Aspects of the Epic (London 1983).

12 Eur. Med. 626 ff.:

ἔρωτες ύπέρ μέν ἄγαν έλθόντες ούκ εύδοξίαν ούδ' ὰρετὰν παρέδωκαν άνδράσιν.

13 Cf. Rice, E. E., The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Oxford 1983) 112–3Google Scholar: Athenaeus 201f: there were twenty-four extremely large lions in the procession with statues of Alexander and Ptolemy. For lions' role in Dionysiac cult cf. the lion in the Hellenistic Dionysiac procession in the dromos of the Memphian Serapeum and the frieze of the Great Altar of Pergaimum. Lions are frequent on later sarcophagi depicting Dionysus' Indian Campaign, either as part of his triumph or drawing the god's chariot.

Lions and Alexander: cf. Curt. Ruf. v 1.21 (A. fights a lion in Bactria) and viii 1.14 (he is given presents of lions by the Babylonians). Lions are royal animals in the east. A. hunts lions on the Alexander sarcophagus; a Delphian statue of Craterus records that C. saved A.'s life on a lion-hunt (FD 111 [4] 137). A. wore the lionskin as Heracles: Ath. 537f.

14 The two are closely associated by Plutarch, as we have seen, at 4.7-8: they are seen as springing from the same natural cause.

15 Clearly in the Bacchae both elements are present; but the terrifying aspect is uppermost in the end.

For Alexander as Dionysus in Alexandria cf. Rice, 43, 48 (Dionysus' Indian triumph in the light of Alexander's successes in the cast), 67 (Alexander as new Dionysus following in the god's footsteps, identifying landmarks associated with the god. Cf. Arrian v 1.1 ff., vi 28.1 ff, vii 20.1 ff., Ind. i 1 ff., v 8 ff.). The key text is Athenaeus 200d–201c, the procession of Dionysus (cf. Rice passim, esp. 83–6 and P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria [Oxford 1972] 202–6, 211): Alexander is more the hero of the procession than Dionysus. Dionysus in military contexts: cf. Eur. Cyc. 5 ff., Ba. 13-20.

The Ptolemies connect themselves with A. through Dionysus: cf. the genealogy in Satyrus. The procession is ‘the indirect celebration of A. through the glorification of D.’ (Rice).

Rice sums up: (191–2) ‘The importance of the emphatic presentation of Alexander as the Neos Dionysos who followed in the footsteps of the god and succeeded as an equal conqueror in the east can hardly be over-estimated. These scenes from the Dionysiac procession give support to the claims that this picture of Alexander had an Alexandrian origin … the Ptolemaic kings adopted and publicised this view of Alexander, and shared in the glory of this vision themselves through their claim to a blood-relationship with both A. and D. This in turn enhanced their position as the legitimate heirs of Alexander in Egypt and endowed them with a convenient legitimisation of the divine status of their dynasty.’

Cf. also Goukowsky, P., Essai sur les origines du mythe d'Alexandre (Nancy 1978–1981)Google Scholar vol. II passim, esp. 79 ff.

For the similar link in the Antony, cf. esp. Ant. 24.

16 It is perhaps possible that the use of θεατρικὴν here rather than τραγικὴν is significant, either because Plutarch is thinking of another genre, mime, for instance, or because he does not want to label the episode directly as tragic, as, after all, it does turn out happily; if either of these possibilities is correct, then this is an exception which proves a rule.

17 Most frequently in art, for example on his coins, and on the Alexander sarcophagus.

Shakespeare (Henry V iv vii) makes Fluellen compare Henry's rejection of Falstaff with the death of Cleitus:

Alexander—God knows, and you know—in his rages, and his furies, and his wraths, and his cholers, and his moods, and his displeasures, and his indignations, and also being a little intoxicates in his prains, did, in his ales and his angers, look you, kill his best mend, Cleitus. … I speak but in the figures and comparisons or it; as Alexander kill'd his friend Cleitus, being in his ales and his cups, so also Harry Monmouth, being in his right wits and his good judgments, turn'd away the fat knight with the great belly doublet; …

18 For discussion on Plutarch's views on ruler-cult cf. Scott, K., ‘Plutarch and the Ruler Cult’, TAPA lx (1929) 117–35Google Scholar; Bowersock, G. W., ‘Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century AD’, Entr. Hardt. xix (1972), esp. 187–90Google Scholar; Price, S. R. F., Rituals and Power (Cambridge 1984) 116–7.Google Scholar

19 Homer, Il. xix 375 ff.:

ὠς δ ὅτ' ἄν ὲκ πόντοιο σέλας ναύτηισι φανηηι καιομένοιο πυρός, τό τε καίεται ύψόθ' ὅρεσφι σταθμωι ὲν οίοπόλωι· τούς δ' ούκ ὲθὲλοντας άελλαι

πόντον έπ' ίχθυόεντα φίλων άπάνευθε φέρονσιν• ὤς άπ' 'Aχιλλῆος σάκεος σέλας αὶθέρ' ἵκανε καλοῦ δαιδαλέου• περί δὲ τρυφάλειαν άείρας κρατὶ θέτο βριαρὴν• ή δ' ὰστὴρ ὣς άπέλαμπεν ἵππουρις τρυφάλεια, περισσείοντο δ ἔθειραι χρύσεαι, δς 'Hφαιστος ἵει λόφον ἁμφὶ θαμείας.

20 The Calanus-incident, and Alexander subsequently ignoring his advice, is typical of a topos which goes back to Herodotus and (for example) Croesus' encounter with Solon (Hdt. 129-32); on the other hand, despite Alexander's heedlessness ot Calanus' counsel, Plutarch obviously does wish to portray him as being well-disposed towards philosophers, as we see from 7–8, 14 and 64. There are certainly traces or Onesicritus in 64–5: Alexander philosophus is beine hinted at here, and it is Onesicritus who visits the sophists in 65.

21 Cf. Walbank, F., ‘Tragic history: a reconsideration’, BICS ii (1955), 4–14Google Scholar; ‘Tragedy and History’, Historia ix (1960) 216–34Google Scholar, repr. Selected Papers ch. 15, 224–41; Pelling, C. B. R., ‘Plutarch's Adaptation of his Source-Material’, JHS c (1980) 127–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 132 n. 26; and Russell, D. A., Plutarch (London 1972) 123.Google Scholar

22 For Caesar destroyed by external factors, cf. Pelling, art. cit. 136-7. He also notes how material on Caesar's personal (especially sexual) habits, extensively used elsewhere, is largely suppressed in the Life.

There is a strong atmosphere of divine threat in the last chapters of the Caesar (the many omens, the accounts of how Caesar is nearly warned more than once of the conspiracy, culminating in Pompey's statue as it were presiding over his death), which could be seen as comparable to the handling of the Cleitus incident in the Alexander, but this is never pinned down as tragic in the same manner: an important difference, I think.

23 The handling of the material in the Themistocles perhaps supports this.

24 With the possible exception of Heliodorus, whose use of stage-terms is extensive and complex. On this cf. Walden, J. W. H., ‘Stage-terms in Heliodorus’ Aethiopica' HSCP v (1894) 1–43.Google Scholar