Side by Side by Plutarch by Frances B. Titchener Utah State University [email protected] Abstract Like many authors of his time, Plutarch associated specific characteristics and vocabulary with barbarians, notably superstition, great numbers, tremendous wealth, and the like. When he uses this language to describe non-barbarians, he is able to import a subtle negativity to his undertaking without distracting from his main narrative. The Life of Nicias furnishes a useful case study. Key-Words: Barbarians, Comparison, Superstition, Wealth, Nicias.

hink Plutarch, think of groups since it is clear from his parallel1. Scholars of many uses of the related term that his biographies can­ much like Americans and Canadians2, not get away from Plutarch and barbarians in their many the idea of compa­ different forms were old friends3. That rison:T Greek to Roman, past to pre­ barbarians were another group whose sent, victor and conquered. Plutarch thoughts, ideas, or sayings Plutarch notably liked to use groups of people— wished periodically to represent as a Greeks, Romans, Spartans, kings and whole, rather than one at a time, is clear emperors, women—to compare against from his lost Quaestiones Barbaricae4. other groups of people or individuals. We have a pretty good idea of what that We should add barbarians to that list work was like, extrapolating from the

1 Humble, 2010, passim. 2 I’d like to acknowledge the hard work and vision of my colleagues, particularly Noreen Humble, in bringing about this conference. A meeting of the North American sections has been long overdue. 3 Schmidt, 2002, counts over 950. 4 #139 Lamprias catalog.

Ploutarchos, n.s., 13 (2016) 101-110 ISSN 0258-655X 102 Frances B. Titchener

Greek and Roman questions a series writings were a form of resistance of questions with answers, touching against the Roman domination (see e.g. on barbarian religious practices, insti­ Swain 1996, Duff 1999)”6. tutions, and ways of living5. Building Nikolaidis examined Plutarch’s on the work of scholars who have treatment of Greeks and barbarians, identified a series of attributes or traits noting specific traits and attitudes. For considered “barbaric” by Plutarch, I instance, barbarians tend to be super­ will agree with them here that Plutarch stitious, show inappropriate and in­ defines certain adjectives or attributes tense emotion, especially when mourn­ as “barbaric” and hence implicitly ne­ ing, crave excess wealth and luxury, gative. I argue further that he at least and treat their captives savage­ ­ly. He some­times uses them to add a negative assembled a useful list of characteristics flavor to his depiction of non-barbarian for Greece/Greek/in a Greek way, and indi­viduals, using Nicias and the barbarian/barbarian-like/in a barbarian Nicias-Crassus pair as case studies. way, emphasizing that “in making Barbarian behavior has been well- these distinctions Plutarch does not documented by Plutarch scholars see Greeks and barbarians in black and 7 for many years and Plutarch uses the whi­te terms” . Under “Greek” we are terms barbarian, barbaric, barbarous, not surprised to see words like arête, etc., to describe not only different na­ pronoia, praotes, and philanthropia, tionalities, but also the behavior of while under “barbarian” we are equally individuals. Real barbarians were peo­ un­surprised to see kakia, thrasos, dei­ ple like Persians and Gauls, but evi­ sidaimones, and baruthumoi. dently not Macedonians or at least not In addition to the earlier mentioned always, nor, indeed Romans. T. Sch­ traits including savagery, boldness, midt, for example, suggests that Ro­ immense wealth, and overwhelming mans did not count as barbarians, but numbers, Schmidt adds a general group rather as Greeks, for contrast purposes: of traits he calls phaulotes, “vileness” “Plutarch’s presentation of barbarians which includes faithlessness, cowardice, seems to agree rather with the idea of a wickedness, and superstition. But he, conciliatory attitude of Plutarch towards like Nikolaidis, also emphasizes that the Romans (as defended e.g. by Jones some barbarian characteristics have 1971, Boulogne 1994, Sirinelli 2000) positive sides to them, in that barbarians and not with the view that Plutarch’s can exhibit courage, intelligence, and

5 Schmidt, 2009, p. 171. 6 Schmidt, 2002, p. 70, n. 7. 7 Nikolaidis, 1986, p. 244. ISSN 0258-655X Ploutarchos, n.s., 13 (2016) 101-110 Side by Side by Plutarch 103 wisdom, making them a little mo­re characteristics, Schmidt further argues complicated8. Indeed, F. Brenk com­ that Plutarch is not actually interested pellingly describes the mixture of in barbarians’ political thought, but is attraction and revulsion we feel at the simply trolling for good examples10: physical depiction of Gauls, with their With the barbarians, and especially Celtic faces, mustaches and wild hair, the barbarian monarchy, Plutarch has and their extreme solutions to problems set up a negative standard by which (i.e. assassination): “The single Dying the Greek and Roman leaders are Galatian has a distinctive Keltic face, or may be judged. It works through and hair treated and arranged in a exempla and may thus be deduced by disgusting fashion, at least to Greek and the reader himself even without explicit Roman taste. Also disruptive are the non- statements by Plutarch. The barbarian classical mustache and the distinctive monarchy is a powerful example of torque around his neck”. Who would not what a king should NOT be. be in favor of Kamma, the heroine of This predilection for exempla fits the Celtic version of the Lucretia myth? in well with the accepted notion of Kamma was married to an important Plutarch’s use of foils as a device, man among the Galatians, too important particularly in the Parallel Lives, as for the evil Sinorix to simply assault. pointed out by many scholars, many After Sinorix murdered her husband and times, including myself, most notably proposed marriage, Kamma prepared in connection with the life of Nicias11. a poisoned wedding cup, drained half Schmidt astutely notices in connection herself, and then watched her new with De fort Alex. (328A-329A), that “… husband drink the fatal draft. Having Plutarch uses the barbarians—the savage succeeded in murdering her aggressor, and lawless populations of Asia—as a she spent the day and a half it took her to foil to bring out the great achievements die dancing in victory after his demise, of Alexander and the superiority of the “a mixture of heroism and homicide, Greek political system”12. But since we civilization, and barbarity”9. are on the subject of Nicias, let us look at Despite this appreciation of the foils, or comparison, or parallelism in that potential positive side of barbarian biography and in the Nicias-Crassus pair.

8 Schmidt, 2002, p. 58, and 1999, pp. 239-70. 9 Brenk, 2005; the two quotations are from pp. 94 and 98. 10 Schmidt, 2004, p. 235. 11 See Mossman, 1988; Titchener, 1996; Titchener, 2013; Zadorozhnyi, 1997. 12 Schmidt, 2004, p. 230. Ploutarchos, n.s., 13 (2016) 101-110 ISSN 0258-655X 104 Frances B. Titchener

The Life of Nicias. pairs occur elsewhere in the life: at Throughout his biography, Nicias the beginning, Pericles is contrasted is actively contrasted with another with Thucydides, as well as Nicias, individual. In the earliest part of the and Cleon is contrasted first with biography, it is Pericles (3.1). After Pe­ Brasidas, and then with Alcibiades. In ricles’ death, Nicias is “put up against” an interesting parallel, toward the end Cleon (antitagma, 2.2) until the latter’s (26.1-2), Gylippus himself is contrasted death (9.2), at which time Alcibiades with his Syracusan counterparts, and becomes Nicias’ foil. Plutarch first then Gylippus and Hermocrates together contrasts Cleon and Alcibiades (9.1). are contrasted with Eurycles and the It is clear that Alcibiades will take up popular front. where Cleon left off being a thorn in Contrast continues to be an overt Nicias’ side: “Once freed from Cleon, device at the end of chapter twenty- Nicias had no opportunity at all to seven, where Nicias laments the contrast lull and pacify the city, but having between the Athenians’ glorious safely set matters on the right track, intentions and ignominious end, and his stumbled badly, and was immediately men lament the unfair irony of Nicias shoved into war by the power and dying in command of an expedition impetuosity of Alcibiades’ ambition” from which he more than anyone else (9.2). Later (11.1) Plutarch refers to had tried to dissuade the Athenians, the feud between Nicias and Alcibiades and the discouraging failure of his becoming so intense that ostracism many expensive religious services. was invoked. After Alcibiades’ recall, But contrast is also a more subtle Nicias faces off against Lamachus framing device, as can be seen through (15.1). However, after an explanation Plutarch’s discussion of Nicias’ piety. of why the two generals were not Most of chapter three is concerned with equals (15.3-4), Nicias becomes the Nicias’ outlay of wealth on dedications sole actor on the stage until Lamachus’ and choruses, whereas the beginning death (18.3). Nicias’ solo, as it were, of chapter four discussed his obsession coincides with the dramatic climax of with divination. Yet the end of chapter the life, and the peak of his success. twenty-three and the beginning of When Gylippus enters the scene chapter twenty-four present Nicias’ (18.5), however, almost halfway through piety as ignorant, useless, and ultimately the narrative, Nicias’ fortunes decline dangerous superstition. We admire rapidly. In the latter portion of the Nicias’ piety at the beginning; by the end biography, Nicias is contrasted both we sneer at his superstition. with his fellow general Demosthenes, I suggest that Plutarch uses these and with Gylippus also. These sub- and traits like them not only to compare

ISSN 0258-655X Ploutarchos, n.s., 13 (2016) 101-110 Side by Side by Plutarch 105 his subjects to one another (Nicias and hard to pin down why that is. This pair Crassus) and to various foils (Crassus has been seen by some as negative, and Parthians; Nicias and Hiero), like Alcibiades-Coriolanus, or Antony- barbarian and otherwise, but also to Demetrius. This is a little confusing in add dimension to a biographical subject that Nicias, conspicuous for religious who may or may not be a barbarian piety, should be a tragic figure whose himself (i.e. Nicias). Schmidt, indeed, fate was ἥκιστα ἄξιος (“least worthy”) has noted how “With remarkable because of his devotion to religion. consistency, the negative characteristics Surely Crassus, whose money came of barbarians are used as a foil to bring from proscriptions, fire sales and slave out the good qualities of the Greek and trading was worse than Nicias. But that Roman heroes”13. The more of these is not really clear. traits a biographical subject possesses, To look closely at how Plutarch or the more Plutarch chooses to focus compared his two subjects, I suggest on those traits, the more uncomfortable we look at Nicias side-by-side as part we feel, and the more uncertain about of a Duff-style book15, separate the what we are meant to emulate. proem, compare it closely with its The Nicias-Crassus pair. parallel life, Crassus, and then conclude with the Synkrisis. We will then see a To what extent does this barbarian- pervasive structure dependent on both style language or signifiers make the biographies, which throws the true the biography of Nicias the way it is, themes into deeper relief. This structure i.e. unpleasant? Nicias is unpleasant has been seen before. R. Seager noted enough that I wondered in the past it particularly in Crassus, although he why Plutarch even wrote about him. I attributes it to Plutarch’s failure to appre­ 14 concluded at the time that a pair was ciate complicated narrative16: “So in needed for Crassus, already underway general the life leaps from one landmark­ as part of the simultaneous preparation to the next: Spartacus, the consulship, for the Roman Lives so brilliantly the coalition, the second consulship and illuminated by Chris Pelling (1980). finally Carrhae”. Further, concerning Nicias is a very hard guy to like, even Plutarch’s source material for the Ni­ if one sympathizes with him, but it’s cias, Duff notes that while Alcibiades

13 Schmidt, 2002, p. 58, and p. 70 where he notes that “Dio makes the same rhetorical use the barbarians as a foil, although with less insistence than Plutarch”. 14 Titchener, 1991. 15 See Duff, 2011. 16 Seager, 2005, p. 110. Ploutarchos, n.s., 13 (2016) 101-110 ISSN 0258-655X 106 Frances B. Titchener uses Thucydides sparingly, Nicias re­ greedy (Crassus). There is a significant lies heavily on Thucydides despite the military action that acts as an exemplar promise to be useful and not re­dundant17. of the military career (Pylos for Nicias, Both of these observations can be the Servile War for Crassus), and explained by the organization of the Nicias- then the catastrophic final campaigns Crassus book. Plutarch is controlling his (Sicily for Nicias, Parthia for Crassus), material so that his sequences are parallel. followed by a kind of coda. There are The major­ themes of personality type framing pairs of bad omens in the same are established, cowardly (Nicias) and places of each biography.

Introduction to the Book: Nicias 1: “Since we agree that it is not out of line to compare Crassus to Nicias, and the Parthian disaster to the Sicilian”, then on to source criticism on Thucydides, Philistus, and Timaeus. Nicias Crassus 2: personality = timid 2: personality = greedy 3: Crassus used hard work and preparation 3: Nicias used money in lieu of rhetorical to overcome those more naturally gifted powers like those of Pericles (Caesar, Pompey, Cicero) 7: Cleon as foil. Pylos episode: theme of 7. Spartacus as foil, but: “This was the cowardice and dangers of catering to the base beginning of his rivalry with Pompey.” 7-9: Pylos episode; enter new foil, Alcibiades 8-12: Servile war; enter additional foil, Caesar 12: Nicias does not want to go to Sicily 16: Crassus is elated to go to Mesopotamia 16-17: BAD OMENS: Ateius, cursing lunatic 13: BAD OMENS: Meton, Altar of the gods; (w. incense); trips over Publius who has fallen Adonia; Herms; Socrates outside Ishtar’s temple 14: Athenians arrive in Sicily 18: Parthian campaign begins 23: BAD OMENS: wrong cloak; heavy 23: BAD OMENS: eclipse standards 28: Nicias’ death 31: Crassus’ death 29-30: prisoners’ fate; news reaches Athens 32-33: Parthian production of Bacchae

In the Synkrisis Plutarch recapitulates • Money: How they got it and what the themes of both Lives, in the same they did with it. order as in the biographies, establishing • Political career: Nicias was subser­ these points of comparison: vient to the base and obsessed with

17 Duff, 1999, p. 24.

ISSN 0258-655X Ploutarchos, n.s., 13 (2016) 101-110 Side by Side by Plutarch 107 safety; Crassus was violent but contended close attention to their teachers so that against wor­thy opponents; however, he they not miss the hidden fruit on the can’t compete­ with the Peace. vine. He advises study of the diffe­ • Base Motives: Nicias let Cleon in rences between the language the poets and abandoned Athens to the inferior. use for good and bad characters, pro­ That’s how he got stuck with Sicily. He viding many examples from Homer. He didn’t want war, but got it. Athens sent ends this chapter curiously, saying: Nicias out unwilling, and his city hurt him. Crassus did well against Spartacus 30C: ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱκανὰ because there were good men running πε ρὶ­ διαφορᾶς, ἂν μὴ κἀκεῖνο things. He wanted war, but didn’t get it. βου λώμεθα­­ προσλαβεῖν, ὅτι τῶν He hurt his city. Τρώ ων­ ἑαλώκασι καὶ πολλοὶ • Public Stance: Nicias was right to ζῶν τες,­ οὐδεὶς δὲ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν, καὶ warn about Sicily; Crassus was wrong τῶν μὲν ὑποπεπτώκασιν ἔνιοι τοῖς to push for Parthia. πολεμίοις, ὥσπερ ὁ Ἄδρασ τος,­ οἱ Ἀντιμάχου παῖ­δες, ὁ Λυκάων, • Military conduct: Nicias came αὐτὸς ὁ Ἕκτωρ δεό­μενος περὶ close; disease and envy overcame him; τα φῆς­ τοῦ Ἀχιλ λέως,­ ἐκείνων δ᾽ Crassus didn’t give fortune a chance to οὐδείς, ὡς βαρβαρικοῦ τοῦ ἱκε­ help him. τεύειν καὶ ὑποπίπτειν ἐν τοῖς • Divination: not a factor because ἀγῶ σιν­ ὄν­τος, Ἑλληνικοῦ δὲ τοῦ although Nicias was devout and Crassus νιό κᾶν­ μα­χ με­ ­νον ἢ ἀποθνῄσκειν. an unbeliever, they both died the same way. This is enough on the subject of diffe ­rences, unless perhaps we desire to • Manner of death: Nicias was led add, that of the Trojans many were taken by false hope to surrender, and Crassus was led by false hope to destruction. alive, but none of the Achaeans; and that of the Trojans some fell down at the feet Final Judgement of the enemy, as did Adrastus, the sons of Antimachus, Lycaon, and Hector himself Nicias’ personality, timid and co­ begging Achilles for burial, but of the ward ­ly, in the end made his death more Achaeans none, because of their con­ shameful than Crassus’ per­so­na­li­ty, viction that it is a trait of barbarian peoples gree­dy and grasping. to make supplication and to fall at the That’s a pretty half-hearted denun­ enemy’s feet in combat, but of Greeks to ciation of Nicias, who seemed to be conquer or to die fighting. winning (or losing) the race up to that Plutarch is done with examining the point. What’s the coffin’s final nail? One differences between “good” and “bad” clue may lie in Quomodo Adolescens. Homeric figures, and the coda he chooses About half-way through that essay, to add has to do with surrendering. Plutarch cautions young people to pay Plutarch carefully puts this sentiment Ploutarchos, n.s., 13 (2016) 101-110 ISSN 0258-655X 108 Frances B. Titchener into the mouths of the ancient Greek In light of the differences warriors, but he has gone to some in Plutarch’s aim and method, trouble to do so. The “fall at the feet” discussions of his use of Thu­ verb, ὑποπίπτειν, is based on the same cydides should differentiate bet­ verb used in Nicias (προσπεσὼν, 27.4). ween the two genres, since “The threads used as the warp in the But is it possible to use a Moralia composition of the Moralia be­ quote to illuminate something in the come the woof in the Lives, and Lives? Is there only one Plutarch, or those yarns which form the warp not? Is there a parallel Plutarch, an anti- in the Lives are found again in Plutarch? I have heard both sides of this the woof of the Moralia. question argued with great eloquence and by the most learned of scholars. In the Parallel Lives, Thu­ Unitarians say that one way or another, cydi­des is a source of informa­ Plutarch is Plutarch, and distinctions tion. In the Moralia, he is, addi­ between Lives and Moralia cannot be tio ­nally, a source of ornamental categorically assigned18. Separatists quo ­tations. Therefore, it is my say that Lives and Moralia are written contention that it is frequently for different purposes entirely, and that Thucydides the stylist whom the rhetorical nature of the Moralia Plutarch cites in the Moralia, makes it difficult to transfer inferences but almost always Thucydides the historian that Plutarch cites thus derived. Yet some essays seem in the Parallel Lives. There can to have plenty of connection to the be no question of Plutarch’s ap­ Lives or their subjects, such as An preciation of Thucydides as an Seni or Praecepta. The Quaestiones artist, and there can be no ques­ may be notebooks or kinds of outlines tion of Plutarch’s fondness for (hypomnemata) for use in Lives. The the liberal use of γνωμολογίαι. disagreement is the same when it comes Perhaps Plutarch felt that the si­ to examining Plutarch’s use of sources. multaneous use of Thucydides as So, for example, it has been argued historian and ornament was so­ mehow distasteful—that one or that Plutarch’s use of Thucydides is the other was appropriate but not very different in the Moralia than in both. Perhaps he felt that Thu­ the Lives, and that this difference stems cydides’ eloquent writing style 19 from the genres themselves : would interfere with the point

18 For discussion on this subject, see Nikolaidis, 2008, especially the Introduction, Section 2.a (How Plutarch deals with other genres), and Section 3 (Moralia in vitis). 19 The first quotation is from Babbitt, 1927, p. xii, the second from Titchener, 1995, pp. 194-5.

ISSN 0258-655X Ploutarchos, n.s., 13 (2016) 101-110 Side by Side by Plutarch 109

of the biographies, whereas it the deciding factor in who was the would enhance the flow of the more shameful, the bigger barbarian, essays. The best explanation is Crassus or Nicias. Crassus, as a Roman, that in the Parallel Lives, Plu­ had a definite barbarian flavor to him tarch used Thucydides as a pri­ which Plutarch and his contemporaries mary source, while in the Mora- would have considered natural. But for lia he is one of many secondary sources, frequently consulted Plutarch, barbarian attributes in a Greek in one of Plutarch’s notebooks, were harder to overlook or forgive, and where his admiration of Thu­ his characterization of Nicias using cydides’ writing style made the those attributes condemns the general historian an important ingredient in an oblique and disconcerting way. in Plutarch’s own version of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. Bibliography Here I suppose that I have shifted Babbitt, F., the argument to whether or not there - Plutarch Moralia. Vol. 1 (Loeb Classical Library), Cambridge, 1927. is only one Thucydides, but I am Boulogne, J., comfortable with the idea of one - Plutarque: un aristocrate grec sous Plutarch who has different facets, and l’occu­­pation romaine, Villeneuve-d’Asq, so I will press the point that I want to 1994. apply Plutarch’s comment in Quomodo Braund, D., Adolescens to the final sentence of the - “Dionysiac Tragedy in Plutarch, Cras­ Synkrisis between Nicias and Crassus. I sus”, CQ, 43 (1993) 468-74. think part of the “negativity” in Nicias, Brenk, F., certainly in the oddly flat final judgment - “The Barbarian Within. Gallic and Ga­ latian Heroines in Plutarch’s Ero­ti­kos”, of the Synkrisis, comes from Plutarch’s in A. Pérez Jiménez & F. Titchener deliberate use of characteristics and (eds.), Historical and Biographical Va­ language typically associated with bar­ lues of Plutarch’s Works. Studies devoted ba­rians. Great wealth, superstition, to Professor Philip A. Stadter by the In­ and cowardice signified barbarians, not ternational­ Plutarch Society, Málaga, 2005, 93-106. Greeks. The end of the Synkrisis, with its Duff, T., spe ­cific reference to surrender making - Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring Virtue and his death more shameful, reinforces Vice, Oxford, 1999. the idea that Nicias was an individual - “The Structure of the Plutarchan Book”, who did not fit in with aristocrats like ClAnt, 30 (2011) 213-78. Pericles and Alcibiades, or street- Geiger, J., fighters like Cleon and Hyperbolus. - “Lives and Moralia: How Were Put Asunder What Plutarch Hath Joined Wealthy, superstitious, and cowardly, Together”, in A. Nikolaidis (ed.), The Unity the general’s surrender in Sicily was of Plutarch’s Work: ‘Moralia’ Themes in

Ploutarchos, n.s., 13 (2016) 101-110 ISSN 0258-655X 110 Frances B. Titchener

the ‘Lives’, Features of the ‘Lives’ in the der Stockt (eds.), Sage and Emperor: ‘Moralia’, Berlin, 2008, 5-12. Plutarch, Greek Intellectuals, and Ro­ Humble, N. (ed.), man Power in the Time of Trajan (9-117 - Plutarch’s Lives: Parallelism and Pur­ A.D.), Leuven, 2002, 57-71. pose, Swansea, 2010. - Plutarque et les barbares: la rhétorique d’une image, Louvain, 1999. Jones, C., - Plutarch and Rome, Oxford, 1971. Seager, R. (ed.), - Plutarch. Fall of the Roman Republic Mossman, J., (Pen­guin Classics), London, 2005. - “Tragedy and Epic in Plutarch’s Alexan­ der”, JHS, 108 (1988) 83-93. Sirinelli, J., - Plutarque de Chéronée: un philosophe Nikolaidis, A., dans le siècle, Paris, 2000. - “Ἑλληνικός-βαρβαρικός. Plutarch on Greek and Barbarian Characteristics”, Swain, S., WS, 20 (1986) 229-44. - Hellenism and Empire: Language, - The Unity of Plutarch’s Work: ‘Moralia’ Classi­cism, and Power in the Greek Themes in the ‘Lives’, Features of the World, AD 50-250, Oxford, 1996. ‘Lives’ in the ‘Moralia’, Berlin, 2008. Titchener, F., Pelling, C., - “Plutarch the Architect: structure as art - “Plutarch’s Adaptation of his Source- in the life of Nicias”, in G. Santana Material”, JHS, 100 (1980) 127-39. Henríquez (ed.), Plutarco y Las Artes, Madrid, 2013, 249-54. Schmidt, T., - “Plutarch’s Use of Thucydides in the - “Barbarians in Plutarch’s Political Moralia”, Phoenix, 49 (1995) 189-200. Thought,” in L. De Blois (ed.), The Sta­ - “The Structure of Plutarch’s Nicias”, in tesman in Plutarch’s Works. Vol. 1. (Pro­ J. A. Fernandez Delgado & F. Por­do­ ceedings of the Sixth International Con­ mingo Pardo (eds.), Estudios sobre Plu­ ference of the International Plutarch So­ tarco: Aspectos Formales. Atti of the ciety, Nijmegen/Castle Hernen, May 1-5, IV Simposio Español sobre Plutarco, 2002.), Leiden, 2004, 227-35. Salamanca, 1996, 351-56. - “Les « Questions barbares » de Plutar­ ­ - “Why did Plutarch Write about Nicias?” que: un essai de reconstitution”, in M. AHB, 5.5/6 (1991) 153-58. Chassignet (ed.), L’étiologie dans la pensée antique, Turnhout, 2009, 165-83. Zadorojnyi, A., - “Plutarch’s Timeless Barbarians and the - “Tragedy and epic in Plutarch’s Cras­ Age of Trajan”, in P. Stadter & L. Van sus”, Hermes, 125 (1997) 169-82.

ISSN 0258-655X Ploutarchos, n.s., 13 (2016) 101-110