PLUTARCH AND MOS MAIORUM IN THE LIFE OF AEMILIUS PAULLUS* Abstract: Plutarch’s Life of Aemilius stands out as an exceedingly favourable portrait of one of the leading figures of mid-Republican Rome. Above all, the biographer generously praises his subject’s quali- ties as a wise and traditionalist statesman in the city and as a philan- thropic and philhellenic benefactor abroad. Although his policies are characterised as distinctly ‘conservative’, Aemilius admirably succeeds in winning universal popularity, thus bridging the common divide between Senate and people. Led astray by demagoguery, only his unruly troops temporarily disturb the general consensus. Throughout the narrative, Aemilius strives to educate the people around him: his sons and his peers, the Roman citizens and soldiers, foreign peoples and leaders. While many of these features can also be found in the historical tradition beyond Plutarch, the biographer adapts and reinforces them to suit his own interests and objectives. The same applies to his representa- tion of political life in the Middle Republic, which sometimes resembles a golden age of ancestral virtue and at other times bears the foul marks of decay and indiscipline. On either reading, Aemilius is the man to uphold and enforce the political and moral standards cherished by Plu- tarch as well as by the Roman tradition of mos maiorum. The decades between the Hannibalic War and the Gracchan ‘Revolution’ are commonly regarded as a comparatively calm period of consensus within the Roman body politic. While there are many good reasons for positing this view, the relative stability of mid-Republican politics should not obscure the fact that its ideological underpinnings, the mos maiorum, were constantly being (re)invented and (re)defined both at the time and by later generations of politicians and historians. This process is inevitably reflected in the careers of the era’s leading statesmen, most notably the Scipiones, Cato the Elder, and Titus Flamininus, who were all heavily embroiled in the vicissitudes of political, legal, and cultural struggles, with concomitant debates about morality and decline. The same may be said of Aemilius Paullus, albeit with a major quali- fication: while the aforementioned figures are subject to both praise and blame, the victor of the Third Macedonian War stands out as a heroic figure with a virtually impeccable record in the entire literary tradition.1 * I am grateful to Geert Roskam for discussing with me many of the points raised in this paper, which grew out of a project supported by the Deutscher Akademischer Aus- tausch Dienst (DAAD). Ancient Society 42, 219-254. doi: 10.2143/AS.42.0.2172293 © 2012 by Ancient Society. All rights reserved. 995510_AncientSociety_42_09.indd5510_AncientSociety_42_09.indd 221919 33/10/12/10/12 009:079:07 220 M. TRÖSTER To some extent, this is surely due to Polybius, whose account underlies much of the later treatments by Livy and Plutarch, though these authors obviously wrote from their own perspective and consulted additional material as well.2 Another reason for the almost universal acclaim earned by Aemilius seems to be the way his image was used by both Scipio Aemilianus and his rivals in the political controversies of the subsequent generation (Plut., Aem. 38.3-5).3 Whatever its background, the exceptionally positive appraisal of Aemil- ius in the historical tradition needs to be borne in mind when reading the most comprehensive of the extant accounts of his career, which is pro- vided in Plutarch’s Life of Aemilius. This is not to argue that the biogra- pher was merely at the mercy of his sources. In fact, one of the key points to emerge from this paper is that Plutarch’s depiction of Aemilius owes a lot to his own values, interests, and objectives. At the same time, however, the biographer’s emphases ought to be interpreted against the background of the material at his disposal. What Plutarch produced is certainly an exceedingly favourable portrait, but this does not automati- cally imply that he was blinded by uncritical admiration for his subject and therefore chose to ignore important evidence to the contrary. Writ- ing more than 200 years after Aemilius’ death, Plutarch must have found it difficult, if not impossible, to see past the well-established tradition of celebrating the victor of Pydna as an exemplar of ancestral virtue and excellence.4 The laudatory image painted in Plutarch’s sources also helps to under- stand his emphasis on the value of imitating good examples in the proem to the Aemilius – Timoleon, which emphatically asserts a personal con- nexion between the biographer and his readers on the one hand and the exemplary subjects of the Lives on the other. According to Alberto Bar- zanò, this programmatic statement implies a sharp contrast with the methodological approach adopted in the rest of the series, revealing that Plutarch purposefully chose to conceal the negative aspects of Aemilius’ 1 Cf. Reiter (1988); Barzanò (1994), (1996) 97-116; also Vianoli (1972), who all seek to demonstrate that this is historically inadequate. A different approach is adopted in Tröster (2010). 2 On Plutarch’s sources for the Aemilius cf. Flacelière & Chambry (1966) 60-65; Scardigli (1979) 57-60; Barzanò (1996) 90-96. Also note Gabba (2004), Zecchini (2005) as well as Tatum (2010) on the biographer’s use of Polybius. 3 See below at n. 101ff. 4 This argument is developed more fully in Tröster (2010). Plutarch’s bias in favour of Aemilius (and Flamininus) is also discussed by Bremer (2005). 995510_AncientSociety_42_09.indd5510_AncientSociety_42_09.indd 222020 33/10/12/10/12 009:079:07 PLUTARCH AND MOS MAIORUM IN THE LIFE OF AEMILIUS PAULLUS 221 historical record.5 However, the biographer does not actually declare an intention to pass in silence over his subject’s defects, as Barzanò has it, but rather to use the Lives as a means of evading the discomfort encoun- tered in daily life (Aem. 1.5). Having said that, it remains remarkable that Plutarch’s heroes are gen- erally characterised by a mixture of good and bad traits,6 whereas the greater part of the Aemilius is constructed around an antithesis between a virtually stainless protagonist (Aemilius) and his dishonest and das- tardly adversary (Perseus).7 As indicated above, this can to a large extent be attributed to the one-sided nature of the historical tradition, which inevitably constrained the compositional options available to Plutarch. Aemilius’ (and Timoleon’s) brilliant record made it most appropriate, then, that the proem to this particular syzygy should highlight the merits of studying the fairest examples (tà kállista t¬n paradeigmátwn). Like elsewhere, the opening statement is a carefully crafted introduction that responds to the specific challenge of writing the pair at hand.8 At the same time, its focus on imitation and paradigms of virtue is perfectly in line with the moral agenda that underlies the whole series.9 Notwithstanding the importance of considering Plutarch’s material, it is above all the rich repertoire of biographical adaptation and reinterpretation that makes the Lives an original and intriguing piece of literature. Evi- dently, Plutarch’s values, his views on politics, society, and culture, and the intended message to his Graeco-Roman audience are fundamental to a meaningful understanding of the text. If Aemilius had come to embody the Roman tradition of mos maiorum before Plutarch, it is through Plu- tarch’s eyes that the modern reader looks at his career and character. Accordingly, the present paper pays special attention to the specifically Plutarchan elements in the depiction of Aemilius and his milieu, thus trying 5 Cf. Barzanò (1994) 403-404: “dichiarando esplicitamente di voler eliminare dal suo racconto tutti gli aspetti negativi pure presenti nella sua vita” (p. 404). 6 Cf. Duff (1999) 45-49 and 53-65, who rightly rejects attempts at classifying particu- lar Lives as either positive or negative; pace Nikolaidis (2005) 312-315. Also note Stadter (2000) 500-506. 7 On Plutarch’s use of foils cf. generally Bucher-Isler (1972) 62-68; Frazier (1996) 64-67. The negative characterisation of Perseus is discussed below at n. 50ff. 8 Cf. generally Duff (1999) 13-51 passim; also Cooper (2004) 34-45. 9 The imitation of exempla is also discussed in Per. 1-2 and Demetr. 1.1-6 (on bad examples); further Arat. 1. Other passages set out the purpose of depicting character: Alex. 1; Cim. 2.2-5; Nic. 1.5; also Pomp. 8.7; Dem. 11.7; Cat. Min. 24.1; 37.10; further Galb. 2.5. On some of these programmatic statements cf. the references cited in the previ- ous note, as well as Stadter (1988) 283-295; Desideri (1989) 199-204. 995510_AncientSociety_42_09.indd5510_AncientSociety_42_09.indd 222121 33/10/12/10/12 009:079:07 222 M. TRÖSTER to gain a clearer idea of how the Greek writer viewed his subject and the Roman Middle Republic as a historical period. The discussion is divided into four sections, focusing in turn on (1) the protagonist’s traditionalism and his commitment to the public good, (2) his encounter with Greece and her culture, (3) his political affiliation and statesmanlike presence at Rome, and (4) his rôle as a military leader and champion of discipline in the field. 1. AEMILIUS AND ANCESTRAL VIRTUE Following the formal proem, the narrative of Aemilius’ life begins with some remarks on the protagonist’s distinguished ancestry (Aem. 2.1-4). Evidently, this is a most appropriate opening for a biography dedicated to a champion of traditional values. In characteristic fashion, Plutarch not only highlights the shining record of the patrician house of the Aemilii, but also makes a suggestive observation on the possibility of a connexion with Pythagoras, the alleged educator of Numa (Aem.
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages36 Page
-
File Size-