Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:31:58.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTERPRETING INSTABILITY: CONSIDERATIONS ON THE LIVES OF THE TEN ORATORS*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2014

Gunther Martin
Gunther Martin*
Affiliation:
University of Bern
*
gunther.martin@kps.unibe.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The text that has been preserved among Plutarch's writings under the title βίοι τῶν δέκα ῥητόρων (Lives of the Ten Orators, henceforth LTO) is, on the one hand, an invaluable and often the best source about the canonical Attic orators: it is, for example, our only source for the verdict against Antiphon after the oligarchic revolution of 411 and for Lycurgus’ state copy of the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. On the other hand, it is a shambles, containing dubious anecdotes, obvious factual mistakes, and blatant contradictions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , May 2014 , pp. 321 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I should like to express my thanks to Tobias Reinhardt and the anonymous readers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.

References

1 With a negative estimation most recently MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator (Oxford, 2009), 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; among the apologists Edwards, M.J., ‘Notes on Pseudo-Plutarch's Life of Antiphon’, CQ ns 48 (1998), 82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Pitcher, L., ‘Narrative technique in The Lives of the Ten Orators’, CQ ns 55 (2005), 217–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar stand out.

2 Schaefer, A.D., ‘Commentatio de libro vitarum decem oratorum’, in Programm, Vereintes Gymnasial-Erziehungshaus (Dresden, 1844), 1–38Google Scholar, at 37. There is, fortunately, no longer need to rally against that theory, since Schaefer's intervention finished off the debate.

3 Cf. Pitcher (n. 1), 217 n. 4; ‘the author’ is freely used, e.g. by Edwards (n. 1) and Todd, S.C., A Commentary on Lysias. Speeches 1–11 (Oxford, 2007)Google Scholar, vii; a slightly more complex model is envisaged by Schindel, U., ‘Untersuchungen zur Biographie des Redners Lysias’, RhM 110 (1967), 32–52Google Scholar, at 33. The exception are francophone scholars: Cuvigny, M. and Lachenaud, G., Plutarque. Œuvres morales. Tome XII1 (Paris, 1981), 27Google Scholar; Schamp, J., Les Vies des dix orateurs attiques (Fribourg, 2000)Google Scholar.

4 e.g. Kantorowicz, H., Einführung in die Textkritik. Systematische Darstellung der textkritischen Grundsätze für Philologen und Juristen (Berlin, 1921), 40–1Google Scholar; Ziolkowski, J., ‘Texts and textuality, medieval and modern’, in Sabel, B. and Bucher, A. (edd.), Der unfeste Text. Perspektiven auf einen literatur-und kulturwissenschaftlichen Leitbegriff (Würzburg, 2001), 109–31Google Scholar, at 110–15. Luck, G., ‘Textual criticism today’, AJPh 102 (1981), 164–94Google Scholar, at 177 speaks of ‘working’ texts of the ‘cookbook category’.

5 Lycurgus’ law (LTO 841F) ‘restabilized’ a tradition that had become fluid. The text of the Homeric poems is a far more complex example of a text largely stabilized by Alexandrian scholarship after a period of wild proliferation: cf. West, M.L., ‘The textual criticism and editing of Homer’, in Most, G.W. (ed.), Editing texts. Texte edieren (Göttingen, 1998), 94–110Google Scholar.

6 Relatively uncontroversial examples are treatises that were expanded to cover aspects of interest to a particular readership. This is the case, for example, with Apsines’ Rhetoric, to which in one manuscript was added the short treatise On Questioning and Answering (περὶ ἐρωτήσεως καὶ ἀποκρίσεως). Original parts of proem and epilogue may have been replaced with fuller treatments; cf. M. Patillon, Apsinès. Art rhétorique. Problèmes à faux-semblant (Paris, 2001), XXVIII–XXXI.

7 Cf. A.E. Hanson, ‘Galen: author and critic’, in G.W. Most (n. 5), 22–53, at 25–8.

8 Cf. Seeliger, F., De Dionysio Halicarnassensi Plutarchi qui vulgo fertur in vitis decem oratorum auctore (Leipzig, 1874)Google Scholar. In the Life of Isaeus a first-person statement by Dionysius is turned into a general one (Isae. 1: ὡς ἐκ λόγων αὐτοῦ τεκμαίρομαι; LTO 839E: ὡς ἔστι τεκμήρασθαι ἐκ λόγων αὐτοῦ).

9 The first κλῆρος is already a change from Dionysius’ original and seems to denote an inheritance in general rather than a land lot, so there may be a case of internal proliferation of interpretations/mistakes, cf. §3 (v) below.

10 Both in 412/11 and 406/5 the archon's name was Callias. The same disambiguation can be found in the first hypothesis to Ar. Lys. and (more frequently) for the later Callias (e.g. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7.1.5).

11 There are doubts if Dionysius added a sketch to his stylistic observations: cf. the discussion in van Wyk Cronjé, J., Dionysius of Halicarnassus: De Demosthene: A Critical Appraisal of the Status Quaestionis (Hildesheim, 1986), 162–5Google Scholar.

12 Pace Edwards (n. 1), 82–3: the only reliable biographic information after Antiphon's schooling and embarking on politics (832C πολιτεύεσθαι [!]) is situated much further down in the text (832F–833A) and pertains to the time of the 400; so most of his political career is passed over.

13 For the possibility that these were already two steps – the extract from Dionysius and the later completion of the canon of ten – see §5 below.

14 LTO 839E: σχολάσας <…> Λυσίᾳ … ῥητόρων εἰσίν from Dion. Hal. Isae. 1–2.

15 The manuscripts all descend from a (Ambros. C 126 inf.), with the exception of F (Paris B. N. Gr. 1957), which could itself be the source of a: this is the case in other Plutarchean treatises and the putative separating errors are not strong enough to prove C.G. Lowe's suggestion (‘The Manuscript-tradition of Pseudo-Plutarch's Vitae Decem Oratorum’ [Ph.D Diss., University of Illinois, 1924], 25–6) that the two traditions were initially separate, and a was used to correct F. In any case, nothing in the text indicates that the scribes of the extant manuscripts changed deliberately to ‘contribute’ to the text.

16 Cf. Zetzel, J.E.G., Marginal Scholarship and Textual Deviance. The Commentum Cornuti and the early Scholia on Persius (London, 2005), 75–6Google Scholar.

17 Cf. also Lysias’ age at his death (836A) and Hyperides’ way of dying (849B–C). On Antiphon's death(s) cf. below.

18 Vita Zosimi p. 212.18–24 Mandilaras, Hermippus fr. 64 Wehrli, Plut. Dem. 5.6.

19 δέ shows that the reference is informative; for a resumptive sense we might expect something like ἡ τοῦ ποιητοῦ Ἀφαρέως μήτηρ.

20 e.g. Lysias born under Philocles: 835C, 836A; Aeschines’ voice 840A, E; Demosthenes’ daughter 847B, C.

21 For Isocrates’ death at one point only one version is given, at another two alternatives (837E, 838B); Isocrates’ brothers are mentioned by name in 836E, but in 838E there appears another one.

22 e.g. 849E–F: ἐψηφίσατο δὲ καὶ τιμὰς Ἰόλᾳ τῷ δοκοῦντι Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τὸ φάρμακον δοῦναι. ἐκοινώνησε δὲ καὶ Λεωσθένει τοῦ Λαμιακοῦ πολέμου.

23 The comparison with Dion. Hal. Isoc. 1 reveals ὡς καὶ … θυγάτριον as later additions.

24 In the extreme case of the long excerpt from Cratippus in the Life of Andocides one ‘user’ has made the resumption of the ‘main text’ clear by repeating the last words before the interpolation (Δήμητρος ἁμαρτὼν μυστήρια and προσαμαρτὼν μυστήρια 834C–D).

25 That she has been added after Telesippus and Diomnestus seems clear from the fact that she is not relevant for the current idea, which is wealth manifesting itself in large-scale spending. Also, the form θυγάτριον is used either as a comic diminutive (e.g. Men. Dys. 19) or for a little daughter (Dem. 40.13, Plut. Aem. 10.6), not for a daughter as such. For that θυγατήρ occurs ten times in LTO. The word is also used for Antiphon's daughter, but the reference is drawn from a speech on her behalf, where the diminutive was intended to make her more pitiable (833A, Lysias fr. 25a–28 Carey). On similar ‘internal’ mistakes cf. below.

26 847D–E: the source is stated (the decree pertaining to the honours awarded to Demochares and his son Laches).

27 842F–843C. The list does not follow the male line but contains the holders of prominent religious offices. The last person to be mentioned is Diocles, son of the daduch Themistocles (and brother of the daduch Theophrastus), in the time of the emperor Claudius (IG II2 4175, 4176); cf. Perrin-Saminadayar, É., ‘Traditions religieuses et stratégies familiales. Sur quelques familles sacerdotales athéniennes de l’époque hellénistique’, in Baslez, M.-F. and Prévot, F. (edd.), Prosopographie et histoire religieuse. Actes du colloque tenu en l'Université Paris XII-Val de Marne les 27 & 28 octobre 2000 (Paris, 2005), 51–67Google Scholar, esp. at 64–5.

28 In the Life of Isocrates this is mainly a lengthy string of anecdotes and dicta as well as monuments (838E–839D). After the basic information on Lysias’ life, works and style, more biographical details are given in the form of mentions of Lysias in other works (836B–D): an affair with Metaneira (Dem. 59.21), followed by an epigram by Philiscus. Finally, there is more information on speeches, which could easily have been inserted in the section about his works.

29 840F–841A: note in particular the data about Aeschines’ activities before his political career and his alleged autodidacticism, the latter in conflict with both versions given in 840B.

30 For example, Hyperides’ early career is sketched after his actions under Alexander; this is followed by references to the Harpalus trial and the aftermath of Chaeroneia, before the text turns to the battle of Crannon and Hyperides’ death (848E–849B). On the way in which connections and transitions can be deliberately concealed in texts with literary pretensions (in this case Athenaeus) cf. Pelling, C., ‘Fun with fragments. Athenaeus and the historians’, in Braund, D. and Wilkins, J. (edd.), Athenaeus and his world. Reading Greek culture in the Roman Empire (Exeter, 2000), 171–190Google Scholar, at 171–5. Such a technique is not detectable in LTO.

31 Schindel (n. 3), 38.

32 Pitcher (n. 1), 222–4; the source is possibly the chronographer Apollodorus.

33 This procedure is not paralleled in Dionysius. There, only Lysias’ return from Thurii is dated by archon year (412/11, Dion. Hal. Lys. 1). Schindel (n. 3), 33–4 does not ascribe the cluster of dates to a particular source but rather to ‘the compiler's’ interest in precise dates.

34 Cf. Fox, R. Lane on Dionysius’ reliance (probably) on Philochorus and Hermippus in ‘Demosthenes, Dionysius and the dating of six early speeches’, C&M 48 (1997), 167–203Google Scholar, at 172 and 175.

35 The exception is 839E (see text to n. 14 above).

36 e.g. Lysias, where the first characteristic recommended for emulation by Dionysius is καθαρότης (Lys. 2), while the Life does not mention it and describes Lysias generally as hard to imitate (LTO 836B).

37 Caecilius is referred to alongside Dionysius for the number of genuine speeches of individual orators and reported to have written a treatise on Antiphon (832E); the repeated interest in the development of figures (σχήματα) in rhetoric matches the title of the lost treatise περὶ σχημάτων: Isaeus was the first to σχηματίζειν (839F), and Dinarchus τῶν σχημάτων δ’ αὐτοῦ μιμητὴς ὑπάρχει (850E). Andocides is ἀφελής τε καὶ ἀσχημάτιστος (835B), with which cf. Phot. Bibl. cod. 259 p. 485b (fr. 103 Ofenloch): Ὁ μέντοι Σικελιώτης Καικίλιος μὴ κεχρῆσθαί φησι τὸν ῥήτορα (sc. Andocides) τοῖς κατὰ διάνοιαν σχήμασιν.

38 Pitcher (n. 1), 229.

39 Pitcher (n. 1), 226–7.

40 Cf. Heldmann, K., Antike Theorien über Entwicklung und Verfall der Redekunst (Munich, 1982), 125–6Google Scholar.

41 Plato's pupils: Aeschines (840B), Lycurgus (841B), Demosthenes (imitator 844B, pupil 844C), Hyperides (848D). The source could be Demetrius of Phaleron (cf. fr. 171 Wehrli). Hermippus is another scholar keen to proclaim people pupils of philosophers (fr. 40–56 Wehrli) or orators, esp. Isocrates (fr. 64–77). We must not, however, forget the wider meaning of ‘teacher–pupil’ relationships in antiquity, cf. Lefkowitz, M.R., The Lives of the Greek Poets (London, 1981), x–xiGoogle Scholar, Kivilo, M., Early Greek Poets’ Lives: The Shaping of the Tradition (Leiden, 2010), 212–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 The confusion over the Antiphon in Xenophon's Memorabilia (1.6; cf. LTO 832C) suggests dilettantes at work rather than philosophical propagandists.

43 On Theodorus’/Isocrates’ θυγάτριον cf. above n. 25.

44 Cf. Pritchett, W.K., The Greek State at War (Berkeley, 1974–91), 4.222–3Google Scholar: the Life is the only source on that delay.

45 ἐπεσκεύασεν was suggested by Oikonomides, A.N., ‘The epigraphical tradition of the decree of Stratocles honoring “post mortem” the orator Lykourgos. IG II2 457 and IG II2 513’, AncW 14, (1986), 51–4Google Scholar, at 54. Kirchner in IG accepts κατεσκεύασε, ignoring the stoichêdon lettering and producing a line that is one letter too long. Since substantial changes can be perceived elsewhere (e.g. πολλαῖς and ὅλην; cf. Curtius, C., ‘Zum redner Lykurgos. Erster artikel. Zwei bruchstücke vom decret des Stratokles’, Philologus 24 [1866], 83–114Google Scholar, Prauscello, L., ‘Il decreto per Licurgo. IG II2 457, IG II2 513 e [Plut.] Mor. 851 F–852 E: discontinuità della tradizione?’ in Virgilio, B. [ed.], Studi ellenistici 12 [Pisa and Rome, 1999], 41–71Google Scholar), it is more likely that the two texts diverge here, too, than that the cutter left out a letter.

46 On the history of the project cf. Hintzen-Bohlen, B., Die Kulturpolitik des Eubulos und des Lykurg. Die Denkmäler und Bauprojekte in Athen zwischen 355 und 322 v. Chr. (Berlin, 1997), 39, 102–3Google Scholar (the ship shed, the new Pnyx). Cf. also LSJ s.v. ἐπισκευάζω II.

47 A work of the same title (so probably our text) is mentioned in the ‘Catalogue of Lamprias’, which originated in the late third to fourth century; cf. Treu, M., Der sogenannte Lampriascatalog der Plutarchschriften (Waldenburg, 1873), 54Google Scholar. This should be regarded as the earliest possible date for the ascription, since the catalogue was subject to alterations (so it was, in some sense, itself an unstable text), as the three different traditions show; cf. Irigoin, J., ‘Le catalogue de Lamprias. Tradition manuscrite et editions imprimées’, REG 99 (1986), 318–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 324–5.

48 Relationship to the biographical notes in lexica (e.g. Suda s.v. Λυσίας, λ 858) etc. is possible, but the matter is complicated and unclear.

49 See n. 3.

50 Bibl. cod. 268 p. 496b, Ballheimer, R., De vitis decem oratorum (Bonn, 1877), 13Google Scholar.

51 Schamp (n. 3), e.g. 79–80, 122; according to Heath, M., ‘Caecilius, Longinus, and Photius’, GRBS 39 (1998), 271–92Google Scholar, the material from Caecilius reached Photius via Longinus and perhaps another intermediary source.

52 Detailed comparisons can be found in Vonach, A., ‘Die Berichte des Photios über die fünf ältern attischen Redner analysiert’, in Commentationes Aenipontanae 5 (Innsbruck, 1910), 14–76Google Scholar.

53 Pitcher (n. 1), 222.

54 Blass, F., Antiphontis orationes et fragmenta (Leipzig, 1908)Google Scholar, XXXIX writes: ‘tota e Plutarchea [sc. vita] pendet nulliusque pretii est’, but cf. below on additional material.

55 Cf. Edwards (n. 1), 83.

56 The Γένος also states that Antiphon taught Thucydides. Photius (cod. 259 p. 486a) and the Life (832E), by contrast, both call Antiphon the pupil, so the mistake seems to go a long way back.

57 The findings of Maitland, J., ‘“Marcellinus”’ Life of Thucydides: criticism and criteria in the biographical tradition’, CQ ns 46 (1996), 538–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar point in the direction of instability, even though in places she speaks of compilation as if it were a single act.

58 Stok, F., ‘Stemma vitarum Virgilianarum’, Maia ns 43 (1991), 209–20Google Scholar and again Brugnoli, G. and Stok, F., Vitae Vergilianae antiquae (Rome, 1997)Google Scholar, esp. vi.

59 Cf. e.g. Perry, B.E., Studies in the Text History of the Life and Fables of Aesop (Chicago, 1981), 1Google Scholar. The process that reverses the accretion in the Lives, the gradual reduction and condensation of content, can be studied from POxy. 1800; cf. Lamedica, A., ‘Il P. Oxy. 1800 e le forme della biografia greca’, SIFC 3.3 (1985), 55–75Google Scholar.

60 With Edwards (n. 1), 90.

61 For three different datings of that canon cf. Douglas, A.E., ‘Cicero, Quintilian, and the canon of ten Attic orators’, Mnemosyne 4.9 (1956), 30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McComb, R.M., ‘The tradition of Pseudo-Plutarch's Lives of the Ten Orators in Photius’ Bibliotheca’ (Diss., Chapel Hill, 1991)Google Scholar; Worthington, I., ‘The canon of the ten Attic orators’, in id. (ed.), Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action (London, 1994), 244–63Google Scholar.

62 De ant. orat. 4, Din. 1.

63 Cf. n. 27.

64 Mansfeld, J., Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text (Leiden, 1994), 6, 178–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Galen 19.53 Kühn.

65 Cf. Antiphon's position at the start of the tradition and the absence of σχήματα in his speeches; the explanation of his defence speech by the use of the document; Demosthenes’ style and his education by an actor; and the connection between his religious offices and argumentation in Lycurgus. Something similar may be referred to by Philostratus (VS 479) when he speaks of ‘our discussions about sophists’ (τῶν … σπουδασθέντων ποτὲ ἡμῖν ὑπὲρ σοφιστῶν). On a related function of Libanius’ Hypotheses to Demosthenes’ speeches cf. Gibson, C.A., ‘The agenda of Libanius’ hypotheses to Demosthenes’, GRBS 40 (1999), 171–202Google Scholar, at 193–202. These summaries may constitute the next step in the introduction, when students turned to specific speeches.

66 Among the declamation topics is the accusation speech against Phryne (cf. 849E); Isocrates’ known abstention from public speaking (837A) led to the invention of a decree that forbade him to speak, against which he has to defend himself; cf. R. Kohl, De scholasticarum declamationum argumentis ex historia petitis (Paderborn, 1915), nos. 223, 227. Either a false anecdote or a declamation topic that crept into the biography is Hyperides’ proposal to honour Iolas (849F; Kohl no. 259). Libanius’ reference to Demosthenes attending Isocrates’ and Isaeus’ lessons (Decl. 23.32) must be owed to the later tradition. Aelius Theon in his precepts alludes to the anecdote about Demosthenes placing ὑπόκρισις first, second and third among the rhetorical officia (p. 104.31–2 ~ 845B).

67 Cf. Gibson, C.A., ‘Learning Greek history in the ancient classroom. The evidence of the treatises on progymnasmata’, CPh 99 (2004), 103–29Google Scholar, at 116–17 on historical authors recommended for preparation by rhetoricians. It would probably be asking too much of the ancient educational standards to assume that Theon's long list, rather than some more easily digestible material such as LTO, was used in less elite educational establishments.