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 some times 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 indi viduals, using Nicias and the barbarian/barbarian­like/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 whi te 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 un surprised 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 mo re 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. (328A­329A), 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. 239­70. 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 (26.1­2), 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 (15.3­4), 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. twenty­three and the beginning of When Gylippus enters the scene chapter twenty­four 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.