Some Aspects of Intertextuality between Plutarch’s Life of Pericles and Thucydides ana ferreira Univ. Porto, CECH, FLUP ORCID: 0000-0003-1764-8842 [email protected] Plutarch lived about five centuries after Pericles. Such a great lapse in time meant his knowledge of the distinguished Athenian statesman was based on data collected mostly from literary (written1) sources and information that, through oral tradition, had survived in the memory of the various ensuing generations. As would be expected, Plutarch generally opted for authors who were chronologically closer to the statesman. They either participated directly in the events or experienced personally the successes and difficulties of Athens, especially after the statesman’s death, having closely witnessed the decisions made during Pericles’ government. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the History of the Peloponnesian War is Plutarch’s main2 source for his Life of Pericles: as Thucydides was an important historian of the fifth century BC, consulting his work was obviously indispensable to address the major characters or events of this period so as to ensure credibility. Furthermore, the historical and the biographical account go hand in hand, since it is the people with their lives who make history, but, at the same time, it is the various events that influence personalities and their actions. In this specific case, although they are dedicated to different accounts, historian and biographer do, however, have a common goal: to contribute in some way to the development of future generations. Thucydides intends to examine the causes of the greatest war ever waged among the Greeks and how it unfolded. He aims to clarify the motives behind such a conflict and to facilitate an understanding of the similarities between this war and others that may take 1 We can divide these sources into three groups: historiographical (Thucydides, Duris of Samos, Ephorus, Ion of Chios, Stesimbrotos, Critolaus, Aeschines, Heraclides Ponticus or Idomeneu of Lampsacus); comic playwrights (e.g., Cratinus, Eupolis, Aristophanes, Plato Comicus), as well as works dedicated to oratory or philosophical matters (by Plato, Aristotle, or Theophrastus). 2 Thucydides is only quoted specifically in Per. 9. 1, 15. 3, 16. 1, 28. 2, 28. 8, 33. 1. However, as we shall see, the influence of this author appears throughout the biography, and a close study shows that there are several passages in which Plutarch’s text is an almost literal transcript of the historian’s one (cf. Per. 18 and 34). 99 O Mundo Clássico e a Universalidade dos seus Valores place in the future, since human deeds have much in common and history is, in a sense, cyclical; Plutarch (Per. 2), to some extent, intends to assist in the education of better men through the presentation of his paradigms, since human beings tend to imitate those they admire, and to criticize and avoid the less positive traits of individuals. Thus, as a historian, Thucydides pays special attention to the facts he seeks to understand and explain; Plutarch, as a biographer, pays special attention to the major actors involved, examining the elements that define their personality, as well as interpreting and justifying their options. Indeed, the biographer believes that how individuals act tends to reveal their qualities and faults. It should not be forgotten, however, that Plutarch generally takes on an attitude of great impartiality with regard to the sources he uses. He does not blindly accept all the information he collects. He often disagrees with what is said and evaluates the ability for thoroughness and objectivity of the several authors he resorts to. For example, when there is a lack of consensus on a certain matter, the biographer presents several points of view and, at times, indicates the one he finds to be most credible. Hence, it is necessary to observe the use the author of Parallel Lives made of the History of the Peloponnesian War. The fact that Thucydides is a historian and Plutarch a biographer is one of the main causes behind the rather particular use the latter makes of this historical source. Thucydides is concerned with analyzing, within a defined historical context, Pericles’ power over the people and the strategy he advocates for victory. Plutarch, in turn, as a biographer, omits or summarizes various historical facts (notably military details), because it is not his intention to theorize on these matters. However, he focuses on the accounts of moments in Pericles’ life that best illustrate the traits he has chosen to highlight, such as πρᾳότης ‘self-control’, δικαιοσύνη ‘sense of justice’ or caution in war, and which the statesman will also have in common with his peer, Fabius Maximus. For this reason, he provides more personal information on Pericles than Thucydides3. 3 The only characteristics that Thucydides particularly appreciates in Pericles are his ora- tory skill and the ability to sway the masses: for example, he is able to encourage people when they lack confidence in their abilities or, on the contrary, to control their impulses which, with his clairvoyance, he feels will be harmful to the good of the polis. We almost get the impression that the people are like pawns in the hands of Pericles: except for his last years in power (already during the Peloponnesian War), the statesman easily turns them around. Recalling the episode in which Plutarch describes the city’s embellishment works: when the people, instigated by Pericles’ political opponents, complain about the expenses related to the works, he proposes to finance them and states that in this case, only his name will prevail in the future as the mentor of the remodeling work. Thus, the entire demos gave him carte blanche for expenses. To some extent, this shows that, recognizing the magnificence of the works, the people did not want to run the risk of not being associated to those works in future generations. Pericles, as we can 100 Some Aspects of Intertextuality between Plutarch’s Life of Pericles and Thucydides Bearing this goal in mind, we can easily understand that Plutarch refers to Thucydides’ text mostly with the intention of proving, by describing Pericles’ actions, the personality traits he wishes to highlight. He wants to show his readers the man behind the acts – with all his virtues, weaknesses and concerns. Consequently, Plutarch immediately takes advantage of the few personal references the historian makes (cf. Thuc. 2. 65). It is Pericles’ speeches, quoted by the historian, in which the statesman presents his positions and analyzes the possibilities of victory, that best characterize his politics. Before going further, it is important to make some considerations about these speeches. Thucydides quotes three directly and one indirectly: the first, in Thuc. 1. 140 – 1. 144 (in which Pericles defends a warlike option and presents his strategy); the second, in Thuc. 2. 13 (indirectly, on what he would do if during the invasion Archidamus spared his lands, going on to talk of the financial means available to the Athenians for war); the third, the famous Funeral Oration4 (a speech that Pericles gave at the time of the funeral ceremonies in honor of the fighters who fell on the battlefield and in which he praises their ancestors, Athenian democracy and war heroes), in Thuc. 2. 35 – 2. 46; finally, the fourth, in Thuc. 2. 60 – 2. 64 (last speech following the wrath of the Athenians because of their plight aggravated by the plague). However, in Per. 8, Plutarch says that the statesman, although he was an excellent speaker, left nothing in writing except for decrees, and only a few expressions he used were still remembered. These expressions are quoted by Plutarch based on Plato, Theopompus and comedy writers, but to whom Thucydides does not make any reference. This, together with some incongruities in the speeches presented by the historian, leads scholars to admit that they cannot be representative of Pericles’ oratory skill. Despite their quality in terms of persuasion and efficacy, they are most probably by Thucydides himself5. Nonetheless, although he refutes the authenticity of the speeches, Plutarch takes advantage of much of the information they contain. But, unlike Thucydides, who intertwines speech (especially in moments when important decisions are to be made) and narrative in his work, the biographer does not employ this type of conjugation (although there is direct speech in some parts). This is, in some measure, more a matter of personal taste or derived from precepts of the genre rather than due to the authors having written their works in very different periods. If Thucydides, in the fifth century BC, was deeply influenced by the see, was all too aware of the weaknesses (in this case, pride) of his “flock,” so he knew how to convince them. Thucydides also praises the perspicacity of Pericles, which he considers an indispensable quality for the planning and decision-making related to these large enterprises. 4 Plutarch does not refer to this Oration, but to another, also delivered by Pericles on the occasion of the War against Samos. 5 For more information on this, vide Stadter 2012: 109-123. 101 O Mundo Clássico e a Universalidade dos seus Valores Sophistic movement (which would later on lead to the development of rhetoric), Plutarch, in the first century AD, is also influenced by Hellenistic oratory and even by the Second Sophistic. It is, therefore, perhaps Thucydides’ taste that leads him to use speeches, seen as powerful means of analysis of the intricacies of a subject or of the personality of those who proclaim them. The historian mainly explores the first function, that is, the constraints that are invoked in speeches as a justification for a certain political option, rather than the aspects that unveil traits of the speaker’s character (very characteristic of dramatic authors, also profoundly marked by the Sophistic model, such as Euripides, for example).