Selected Essays of Plutarch
SELECTED ESSAYS OF PLUTARCH
VOL. II
TRANSLATED WITH INTRODUCTION
BY
A. O. PRICKARD
‘But the Author in whom he delighted most was Plutarch, of whose works he was lucky enough to possess the worthier half; if the other had perished Plutarch would not have been a popular writer, but he would have held a higher place in the estimation of the judicious.’—SOUTHEY, The Doctor, chapter vi, p. 1.
OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1918
PREFACE
This volume covers about one-eighth part of the miscellaneous works of Plutarch known as the Moralia, much the same quantity as is contained in Professor Tucker’s volume of this series which appeared in 1913. All the pieces now offered are in the form of dialogue, except the short treatise On Superstition, which seemed to justify its inclusion by a certain affinity of thought.
The text followed is that of Wyttenbach, issued by the Clarendon Press in 1795-1800, or rather a text compounded of the Greek text there printed, his own critical notes and revision of the old Latin version, his commentary, where one exists, and his posthumous Index of Greek words used by Plutarch (1830). A few corrections by C. F. Hermann, Emperius, Madvig, and other scholars, have been introduced, for many of which I am indebted, in the first place, as I have acknowledged more particularly, to M. G. N. Bernardakis, the accomplished editor of the Moralia in the Teubner series (1888-96). A very few fresh corrections, mostly on obvious points, have been admitted.
The notes at the foot of the page are intended to show all deviations from Wyttenbach’s text, so constituted, or to give references to the authors of passages quoted by Plutarch; there may be a few exceptions, where an illustrative reference or an obvious explanation is given. For the plays and fragments of the Tragic Poets reference is made to Dindorf’s Poetae Scenici; for Pindar and other lyric poets, to Bergk’s Poetae Lyrici Graeci (ed. 1900); for the fragments of Heraclitus, to Bywater’s Heracliti Ephesii reliquiae (Oxford, 1877); those of other early philosophers will be found in their places in Diels’ Vorsokratiker (1903) or other collections.
To four of the dialogues I have with some reluctance prefixed a short running analysis. It is always a pity to anticipate what the author puts clearly before us;[1] but there is here a real practical difficulty, even for a careful reader, in being sure who is the speaker for the time being; and as he is often introduced by the pronouns ‘I’ or ‘he’, no typographical device quite serves. The other dialogues seem to explain themselves sufficiently. There is no attempt to supply a commentary; but it is hoped that the full index of proper names (which are very numerous) will enable a reader to distinguish those as to whom it is worth his while to inquire further from those who are only of passing interest. I have given here a good many references to other works of Plutarch, but more may usefully be sought, for instance in such an index as is appended to Clough’s edition of the Lives.
I may perhaps be allowed to mention that the dialogue On the Face which appears on the Orb of the Moon was translated by me, and tentatively published in 1911, with the hope of obtaining some helpful criticism. Having received several kind notices, and in particular a very full one in Hermathena by Dr. L. G. Purser, to which I am deeply indebted, I have now ventured to reproduce this dialogue in somewhat fuller form than the others, and to retain some of my original notes. I should add that I have no competence to deal with any scientific matters as such. I have added two longer notes on special points of interest.
Sir Thomas Browne, writing in 1681-2 to his son Edward who was by way of translating the Lives of Plutarch, and in fact accomplished two of them, assumes that he will in the main follow Amyot’s version, which North had followed absolutely, and suggests that, with some corrections and the removal of obsolete words, North’s work might still serve ‘especially with gentlemen, who if the expression bee playne looke not into criticisme’. ‘If you have the Greek Plutarke,’ he writes, ‘have also the Latin adjoyned unto it, so you may consult either upon occasion, though you apply yourself to translate out of French, and the English translation may be sometimes helpful.’ Very likely an acceptable version of the Moralia might now be produced out of Amyot and Philemon Holland, a racy and scholarly translator from the Greek, with the original and the old Latin at hand for reference. But Dr. Edward Browne was a physician, of little leisure and of delicate health, and it might hardly be respectful to Plutarch to adopt this procedure now; indeed it seems to recall that of ‘the dog’ in the proverb, who ‘drinks from the Nile’, running as he drinks, always with an eye on the crocodiles. However this may be, some indulgence may fairly be claimed by a translator of an author, who, however straight-forward himself, abounds in allusion and latent quotation, and also in difficulties of text not of his own making, and upon whom no commentary exists. I will mention, for the sake of clearness, two instances as to which I have troubled myself and, I fear, others a good deal:
In the dialogue On the Genius of Socrates, chap. iii, end (577 A), the speaker says that his brother Epaminondas is keeping out of the patriotic enterprise in hand, on the ground that the more hot-headed members of the party will not stop short of a general massacre and the murder of many of the leading citizens.
I have followed the Latin version in so rendering the words καὶ διαφθεῖραι πολλοὺς τῶν διαφερόντων. But I have felt some doubt—needlessly, I think—whether the Greek participle would bear this meaning, and also whether the sense so given is strong and suitable. Wyttenbach felt doubts too, for in his posthumous Index, s.v. διαφέρω, the rendering given is ‘hostes vel amici’, i.e. ‘friends or foes’. The sense is excellent, but seems hardly to be in the Greek; probably it was a mere query or jotting. The Teubner editor prints τῶν ἰδίᾳ διαφόρων ὄντων, i.e. ‘those with whom they had private differences’, giving Cobet’s name for the last two words. I have not been able to trace the reference in Cobet, but in Novae Lectiones, p. 565, he examines instances where he thinks that ἰδίᾳ should be supplied or suppressed, as the case may be, before compounds of διά. The sense seems good, but too special to be introduced into a text without cogent evidence, since, once given currency, it is difficult for a future critic to go back upon it. Meanwhile, in Wyttenbach’s note on ii, 75 A, he collects many instances where οἱ διάφοροι is used by Plutarch for ‘the enemy’, ‘the other party’, and τῶν διαφερόντων may have grown out of τῶν διαφόρων with τῶν repeated. I have thought it the more peaceable course to preserve the old rendering. I only quote this instance, which is of no great importance but is of some, as one where a Variorum editor would have stated at length and evaluated the possible alternatives. That a translator should do so is perhaps a case of ‘putting the cart before the horse’.
The other instance is one of real interest, where the problem is perhaps insoluble upon our present knowledge. In the long dialogue On the Cessation of the Oracles, c. 20 (420 c.), where Cleombrotus has been pressing a view that there may be daemons with a long, but yet a limited, term of existence, against the Epicureans, whose own strange theory of Eidola he derides, Ammonius replies in words which appear thus in the Latin:
‘Recte, inquit, mihi pronunciare videtur Theophrastus, quid enim obstat quin sententiam gravissimam et philosophiae convenientissimam recipiamus dicentis: opinionem de Daemonibus, si reiciatur, multa eorum simul abolere quae fieri possunt demonstratione autem carent; sin admittatur multa secum trahere impossibilia et quae non exstiterint.’
Amyot and others write ‘Cleombrotus’ for ‘Theophrastus’, a change which, in view of Plutarch’s carelessness as to personal names, seems not unlikely, and helps a little. No doubt Theophrastus is quoted, but his name need not have been mentioned, and may have been brought into the text in the wrong place. The absurdity of the words which I have given in italics seems evident, and I have returned to a suggestion of Xylander,[2] by introducing a negative before πολλά, assuming that Theophrastus is quoted, not for any opinion about daemons, but for a canon of what is logically ‘probable’. More subtle solutions are suggested, which could not be discussed here properly: the question seems too intricate to be settled by a translator as he goes on his way. We really want to know what Theophrastus said.
The remarks on the absence of a commentary do not apply to the dialogue on Instances of Delay in Divine Punishment, fully annotated by Wyttenbach in 1772, nor to the essay On Superstition and the greater part of The E at Delphi, which are dealt with in his continuous commentary. Nor should I omit to mention the great help afforded by Kepler’s notes on the Face in the Moon and his scholarly translation.