CHAPTER EIGHT

ARISTOTELIAN ELEMENTS IN THE MYTH OF PLUTARCH'S DE FACIE

As the material dealt with in chapter 7 showed, recovery of the sources of Plutarch's myth in the De facie is a perilous undertaking. Like Plato, Plutarch is first and foremost a creative author of great literary talent who is quite capable of developing and using entirely new motifs in his writings to further his philosophical or literary aims. Where he does not expressly mention his sources, certainty about older authors which he may have used cannot be gained. At the same time it is to be assumed that Plutarch made repeated use of themes and stories found in the literature of his time, which he collected and studied assiduously. As far as Plato's work is concerned, this is borne out by almost every page of Plutarch's writings. Influence is likely in the case of other writers, but difficult to determine because their works have been lost. One thinks of such figures as Speusippus, Xenocrates, Heraclides Ponticus, and Stoics like Posidonius. Matters are even more complicated as far as Aristotle is concerned. Although passages in Plutarch's writings often recall texts from the Corpus Aristotelicum, it cannot be established conclusively that Plutarch drew on them. F. H. Sandbach, on the other hand, has argued strongly that Plutarch had no knowledge of the Corpus and was only acquainted with Aristotle's published work, now lost.1 Where Plutarch does not name his source, however, it is difficult to ascertain what he derived from these published works. Nevertheless it may be useful to list any elements in the myth of the De facie which can be connected with matters traditionally attributed to Aristotle. In this way we may be able to reinforce the assumption that Aristotelian motifs were also incorporated in the De facie myth. After that we could try to decide whether any other author contributed more to the genesis of the De facie myth than Aristotle.

1. The motif of the revelation by a Stranger

Plutarch puts the entire description of the Kronos island and the myth about the fate of the souls on the moon in the mouth of a 'Stranger' who is said to come from the 'Great continent'. After his period of service on the

1 Cf. F. H. Sandbach, 'Plutarch and Aristotle*, ICS 7 (1982) 207-232. Sec also his Aristotle and the Stoics (Cambridge 1985). And see further P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen (Berlin 1973)1 42 f. 72 COSMIC AND ΜΕΤΑ-COSMIC THEOLOGY Kronos island, we are told, he was overcome by a curious desire and longing to see the 'Great island' (i.e. the world of ordinary mortals).2 His background and the knowledge which he passes on mark this Stranger as a being of more than ordinary human status. We know that in his dialogue the Eudemus or On the Soul Aristotle used the motif of the 'revelation by the daemon Silenus',3 a being who, through his daemonic status and close relationship to Dionysus, is also characterized as a being of more than ordinary human quality and insight.

2. The theme of the dreaming god Kronos

According to Plutarch's narrative, it is the stranger from the Great continent who has provided knowledge unattainable for ordinary mortals about the 'island of Kronos', home of the god Kronos, whom Zeus has put to sleep eternally, but who in this very capacity functions as a transmitter of Zeus' divine ordinances to beings of daemonic stature.4 This motif immediately recalls the myth in Plato's Politicus about the government of the world by Kronos and the daemons around him, and we would take it to be a strikingly creative elaboration on Plutarch's part, were it not for Tertullian's assertion that Aristotle too talked about a Kronos figure, and that he too presented Kronos as a dreaming Kronos.5 This forces us to conclude that the figure of the dreaming Kronos was introduced by Aristotle in his polemic against Plato's theory of world government and that in this debate Plutarch chooses Aristotle's side. Aristotle's criticism must be understood in the sense that he exempted the highest deity from any form of changeability or dialectic and that he assigned the government of the world to the world archon Kronos, but gave him a distinctly lower ontic status and level of knowledge than Zeus. The relationship between Zeus and Kronos must have been presented by Aristotle as the ideal (dependent) relationship between the philosopher (the representative of the contemplative life) and the statesman (the representativeo f the practical life). The dependence and lower status of the practical life was expressed by depicting Kronos as asleep when participating in the counsel of Zeus. In the myth of the De facie Plutarch accepts Aristotle's criticism of the dialectical theology in Plato's Timaeus and Politicus and opts for the Aristotelian double theology of the Transcendent Unmoved Mover and the subordinate cosmic gods.

2 Plu., De facie 941a; 942b-c; 945d. 3 Plu., Consol. ad Apoll. 115c-d = Arist, Eudemus fir. 6 Ross. 4 Plu., De facie 941a and 941f-942a. 5 Tert., An. 46 = Arist, Protr. fir. 20 Ross.