Barbarian Comparisons by Philip A. Stadter University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill [email protected] Abstract When comparing two heroes, who both fought barbarians, Plutarch does not draw parallels between Greek and Roman campaigns. Instead, in the four pairs of Parallel Lives studied here (Pyrrh.-Mar., Them.-Cam., Cim.-Luc., Alex.-Caes.), Plutarch broadens the significance of barbarian contact, allowing the barbarian enemy, the external Other, to draw attention to Hellenic traits of freedom, culture, and prudence in his heroes and in their cities, both Greek and Roman. Equally important, this Other serves to uncover traces of the barbarian in those same heroes and cities. Key-Words: Barbarians, Hellenism, Themistocles, Camillus, Cimon, Lucullus, Alexander, Caesar, Pyrrhus, Marius, Plutarch, Parallel Lives. t has long been re cognized gory2. A significant, and rather iro­ that the Pa rallel Lives do nic, example occurs in Pyrrhus, when not set up a contrast or com­ Pyrrhus makes his initial contact with pe tition between ci vilized Romans. Pyrrhus observes a Roman Greek heroes and barbarian Ro mans1. In fact, Plutarch never pre­ army drawn up for battle, and marvels, I “This battle formation of the barbarians sents Romans as barbarians, but draws them into the Hellenic cultural sphere is not barbarian” (τάξις μέν . αὕτη τῶν as partners in a civilizing mission. The βαρβάρων οὐ βάρβαρος, Pyrrh. 16.7). Parallel Lives set Greek next to Roman, Thus Plutarch leads Pyrrhus to realize with the barbarians as a separate cate­ that the Romans were not barbarians3. 1 Cf. e.g. C. JONES, 1971, pp. 124­25, T. DUFF, 1999, pp. 304­5, SCHMIDT 1999, p. 8. 2 Note the entry Barbarian Questions in the Lamprias catalogue (139), an apparent companion to the extant Greek and Roman Questions. 3 MOSSMAN, 2005, BUSZARD, 2005. In other lives, Plutarch exploits earlier, chiefly legendary contacts, such as Numa’s with Pythagoras. PLOUTARCHOS, n.s., 12 (2015) 65-82 ISSN 0258-655X 66 PHILIP A. STADTER In fact, his narrative implies, the judges a person’s worth on inner Romans could teach Pyrrhus a thing qualities and virtuous behavior, not on or too about being Greek. One vivid ethnic background or native language. example is furnished by C. Fabricius, Rash and anti­social behavior could be who is neither swayed by money nor seen as barbarian; calm, prudent, and terrified by the surprise appearance temperate behavior as Hellenic and and trumpeting of an elephant (20.1­5). cultivated, the result of education or Moreover, when an admiring Pyrrhus paideia5. Greek and Roman cultures urges Fabricius to return with him to merged, to create, in different degrees Epirus, where he could be first among and at different times, a blended Greco­ the king’s comrades and generals, Roman world. Greeks and Romans the Roman declines. His excuse is would continue to define themselves unexpected: he declines not because he against one another, but could unite in wished to remain at Rome, but because defining themselves against a barbarian it would be a bad deal for Pyrrhus: Other. However, such self­definition Those men who now hold you in Plutarch’s eyes was always subject in honor and awe, if they were to evaluation. Thomas S. Schmidt has to become acquainted with me, shown how Plutarch used barbarian would prefer to be ruled by me negative qualities to enhance his heroes’ rather than by you. virtues. However, the biographer may also use these same qualities to de­ Pyrrhus is not enraged: apparently monstrate their weaknesses6. he accepts Fabricius’ words as in some measure true, despite their arrogance This paper will consider how Plutarch (20.8­10). In fact, the Roman possesses deploys his fundamental technique of the qualities of a Greek sage4. The parallel lives in combination with the confrontation of Fabricius and Pyrrhus category of barbarian to illuminate the destabilizes the Greek/barbarian dicho­ behavior and moral stance of his heroes tomy: Pyrrhus himself appears less and their cities. In comparing heroes, Greek than the Roman. Plutarch here Plutarch frequently chooses men who 4 This reading also explains Cinesias’ report that the Roman senate seemed to him “a senate of many kings” (βασιλέων πολλῶν συνέδριον). MOSSMAN 2005, 509, sees this as a “back­ handed compliment”, since Romans hated kings. But I suspect that Plutarch thinks rather of the Platonic kingship of the virtuous: the Roman senators had a dignity and simplicity which separated them from the norm. Cf. Pericles’ “aristocratic and kingly (βασιλικήν) government” (Per. 15.1). 5 Cf. PELLING 1989, SWAIN 1990. 6 SCHMIDT, 1999, 311­14, recognizes the portrait of Crassus as an exception. Cf. also NIKOLAIDIS, 1986. ISSN 0258-655X PLOUTARCHOS, n.s., 12 (2015) 65-82 Barbarian Comparisons 67 have had to respond to barbarian more if we consider the preliminaries; attacks or have attempted to conquer Camillus’ battle on the via Gabina is barbarians. But does he expect us to dispatched in a few lines (Cam. 29.6)9. see parallels? Are his portraits of his There are numerous obstacles to protagonists enriched by the resonance exploiting a comparison of this sort. between their diverse barbarian con­ Nevertheless, I believe Plutarch was fron tations?7 able to develop parallels and contrasts On the face of it, no. The worlds regarding barbarians in ways as diverse are different, the actors dissimilar, the as the lives themselves. I will take as problems faced distinctive. Consider test cases three pairs. Two of these, the pair Themistocles-Camillus. The Themistocles-Camillus and Alexander- Persians represented an enormous Caesar, lack the usual epilogue offering multi­national empire with a long­term a comparison or syncrisis10. The syn­ policy of expansion; the Gauls faced crisis of the third pair, Cimon-Lu cullus, by Camillus are a relatively small tribe offers little help, but the prologue touches looking for a place to settle. The Persians themes relevant to this inquiry, as shall have interacted with Greek cities for be shown, as does the first chapter of decades and subjected many of them; the Themistocles. A useful element in my Gallic attack is sudden, and not initially analysis will be the presence of the directed at Rome. Themistocles builds a word βάρβαρος or its cognates in these navy and by his victory in a great sea­ lives. Not that Plutarch’s references battle allows the Athenians to reclaim to barbarians or barbarisms of various their city8, the Romans fight on land sorts are coextensive with his use of the and finally defeat the Gauls only after Greek term, but attention to that term the barbarians have withdrawn from the permits a more restricted focus, and city. The account of the battle of Salamis alerts the reader to interpretations not occupies three chapters (Them. 13­15), otherwise apparent. 7 Pairs of Lives in which barbarians are particularly prominent: Them.-Cam., Arist.-CMaj., Cim.-Luc., Nic.-Crass., Ages.-Pomp., Pyr.-Mar., and Alex.-Caes. This is not the place to consider Plutarch’s typology of different barbarians, such as Persians, Medes, Parthians, Armenians, Egyptians, Mauretanians, Celtiberians, Celts, Gauls, Germans, Britons, etc. 8 Plutarch gives Themistocles no role in the battle of Plataea. 9 In this he is similar to Livy, V 49.6. 10 The question whether these epilogues were ever written is vexed: see recently DUFF, 2011, 259; PELLING, 2011, 32­33 (purposeful omission, at least for Alexander-Caesar). On prologues or proemial openings, see DUFF, 2011, 216­42, esp. 216­24. Note that the end of Alexander probably and the beginning of Caesar certainly have been lost. PLOUTARCHOS, n.s., 12 (2015) 65-82 ISSN 0258-655X 68 PHILIP A. STADTER 1. Themistocles and Camillus οὔτε βαρβάροις ἐνάλιον ἔργον εἴργασται Themistocles λαμπρότερον (15.3, F 5 West). The first chapter of Themistocles, Two incidents mark the sharp line in which we are told that Themistocles which Themistocles drew between restored the telesterion at Phlya, which barbarians and Greeks as they confronted had been burnt by the “barbarians” each other and the fierce opposition he (1.4), immediately indicates the threat championed. When an interpreter came that barbarians would present to the from the King to ask for earth and water, protagonist and alerts the reader to the Themistocles moved that he be executed, destruction that the barbarian invasion for «having dared to use the Greek brought11. Throughout the greater part language to convey barbarian demands». of the life, Plutarch will continue to In addition, according to Plutarch, he speak of the invaders as “the barbarians” moved that Arthmios of Zelea, together rather than Persians12. Chronologically with his children and descendants, be Themistocles’ preoccupation with the deprived of their rights, for having brought Median gold to Athens (Them. barbarians begins with Miltiades’ vic­ 13 to ry at Marathon, which he recognizes 6.3­4) . It appears that Themistocles was will only lead to greater conflicts (3.4­5). relentlessly hostile to the barbarians. It gradually builds as Xerxes advances, Yet Plutarch destabilizes this neat until it reaches its high point in the dichotomy from the very beginning, confrontation with Xerxes and his fleet where he reports that Themistocles at Salamis, highlighted in Plutarch by himself was only half Greek, his mother the reference to Simonides’ description being variously remembered as Thracian of the victory, “No more brilliant naval or Carian (Them. 1.1­2)14. At Salamis, action has been achieved by either Themistocles employed a Persian, Greeks or barbarians”: οὔθ Ἕλλησιν Sicinnus, to work his trick on Xerxes15. 11 DUFF, 2008, makes a number of excellent observation on this opening paragraph, but does not discuss the points I make here and in the following paragraph.