Plutarch's "De facie": the Recapitulations and the Lost Beginning Martin, Hubert Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1974; 15, 1; ProQuest pg. 73 FOR JAMES H. OLIVER Plutarch's De facie: the Recapitulations and the Lost Beginning Hubert Martin, Jr I. The Problem THE ESSAY De facie in orbe lunae is complex in structure.1 The dialogue proper is a conversation reported by Plutarch's brother Lamprias, who was a chief speaker and who, during chapters 1-23, joined with one Lucius in recapitulating for the six other interlocutors some previous discourse (or discourses) that occurred under unspecified circumstances.2 The reason these circum­ stances are unspecified, as well as those of the conversation itself, is surely that the beginning of the De facie is lost.3 As the dialogue now 1 The following references will be used for works cited frequently: ADLER, Fontes: M. Adler, Quibus ex fontibus Plutardlus libel/um "De facie in orbe lunae" hauserit (Diss.Phil. Vind. 10.2 [1910]). ARNIM: H. von Arnim, Plutarch uber Diimonen und Mantik (Amsterdam 1921). CHERNISS: Harold Cherniss, Plutarch's Moralia XII (LCL 1957). DUBNER: Fr. Dubner, Plutarchi Scripta Moralia II (Paris 1890). GORGEMANNS, JVIg.: Herwig G6rgemanns, Plutarch: Das Mondgesicht (Ziirich 1968). GORGEMANNS, Us.: Herwig G6rgemanns, Untersuchungen zu Plutarchs Dialog Defacie in orbe lunae (Heidelberg 1970). HIRZEL: Rudolf Hirzel, Der Dialog II (Leipzig 1895). KEPLER: Ch. Frisch (ed.),Joannis Kepleri Opera Omnia VIII.! (Frankfurt 1870). POHLENZ, Mor.: M. Pohlcnz et alii, Plutarchi Moralia V.3 (BT, Leipzig 1960). PRICKARO: A. O. Prickard, Plutarch on The Face which appears on the Orb of the Moon (London 1911). RAIN­ GEARO: P. Raingeard, Le IIEpL 'TOU 'lTpOCW'lTOV de Plutarque (Paris 1935). For my Greek text I have relied simultaneously on Cherniss and Pohlenz; where their pagination clashes, I follow Cherniss. Though I disagree with Cherniss on certain points and have a fundamental disagreement with G6rgemanns, I regard their works as indispensable to the proper study of the De fac. 2 That Lamprias is the narrator of the dialogue is obvious from 937c-0, 940F, 9450. On the interlocutors, see Cherniss 3-8, 14-18. 3 In accepting the beginning as lost, I agree with Kepler 76; Diibner 1126; Prickard 5-7; Pohlenz, BPW 32 (1912) 649 (cf Pohlenz, Mor. x-xi); Arnim 38; Raingeard 49-50; Konrat Ziegler, RE 21 (1951) 851 s.v. "Plurarchos" and Plutarch: fiber Gott und Vorsehung, Diimonen und Weissagung (Zurich and Stuttgart 1952) 43; Cherniss 2-3; and Gorgemanns, Mg. 15 and Us. 21-31. As against Wilamowitz, Commentariolum Grammaticum III (1889) 27=Kleine Schriften IV (Berlin 1962) 654; Hirzel 186 n.6; Adler, Fontes 88-89; and C. Kahle, De Plutarchi ratione dialogorum componendonml (Diss. Gottingen 1912) 15-17. Cherniss 2 n.b summarizes fhe attitudes of Xylander and Wyttenbach, ,vhose editions I have not seen. 73 74 PLUTARCH'S DE FACIE stands, the reader is thrust, amid a corrupt text and without any prefatory mise-en-scene, into the conversation itself, which in turn confronts him almost immediately (920B) with an enigmatic reference to the matter being recapitulated (,rl 8' Olll( EpIAAoJL€v;). The missing text undoubtedly furnished enough background in­ formation to preclude the basic problem of this study.4 Stated in simplest form, it is: what was recapitulated by Lamprias and Lucius in chapters 1-23? My answer will necessarily reveal something of the circumstances under which these two heard the material they later summarized and, therefore, some of the information Plutarch must have furnished in the dialogue's lost beginning. Previous inquiries into the De facie have assumed that all the summarized material derives from a Single discourse, which has been variously depicted as a dis­ cussion5 or as a lecture.6 I will argue instead that there are two earlier discourses, one a lecture by an anonymous comrade, the other a discussion precipitated by the lecture but fully separate from either the lecture or the question-discussion part of the lecture format. The purpose of the conversation, I will contend, was for Lamprias and Lucius, who had attended both the lecture and the separate dis­ cussion, to relate to the other speakers the substance of this discussion, since these had attended only the lecture. This being the situation, the primary object of recapitulation was the discussion. Some recapitula­ tion of the lecture, however, is obvious; and this will be traced to the thematic connection of the lecture with the discussion and to the presence of Sulla, who had attended neither. Two preliminary items deserve comment. First, my inquiry will be limited to dramatic, as against historical, or source-critical, matters. In other words, I will not search for Plutarch's sources, nor will I ask whether the conversation and the recapitulated discourses actually occurred;7 my task will be to explain the dramatic situation prior to 'Cf Prickard 6-7; Pohlenz, Mor. x-xi; and Gorgemanns, Us. 25, 27-31; as well as the manner in which the dialogues examined infra (pts. II and V) begin. Ii By Prickard 6-7 and Cherniss 14-17. 6 By Hirzel 184 and n.2; Kahle, op.cit. (supra n.3) 16 and nn. 3-4 (ef 28, 46); J. J. Hartman, De Plutarclw scriptore et philosopho (Leiden 1916) 557; Arnim 38; Raingeard 49; Pohlenz, Mor. xi; Gorgemanns, esp. Mg. 11 and Us. 56-57, 66-68, 78 (on Us., see my review, CW 65 [197l] 65-{j6); and Daniel Babut, Plutarque et Ie Stofcisme (Paris 1969) 130. 7 On the De fac. sources, see Cherniss 23-26 and cf my articles "Amatorius, 756B-F: Plutarch's Citation of Par men ides and Hesiod," AJP 90 [1969] 186 and n.7; and "Plutarch's Citation of Empedocles at Amatorius 756D," GRBS 10 [1969] 59 and n.8. On its fictitious clements, see Siegmund Glinther, Vergleichende Mond- lind Erdkunde (Braunschweig 1911) HUBERT Mi\RTIN, JR 75 and during the conversation.S Second, the anonymous comrade mentioned in 921F, 929B and 929F may well be Plutarch himself, and he may have been so identified in the dialogue's lost beginning. Since, however, his identity is controversial and only tangentially related to the immediate problem, I prefer to remain academically neutral on this issue and will refer to him simply as "the comrade."9 II. The Objects of Recapitulation Numerous references and allusions (e.g. at 920F, 932D and 937c) do no more per se than indicate an oral source for the summarized material. Others argue specifically for recapitulation of a discussion. Most prominently, Lamprias opens (920B) his response to the textually problematic query with which our text begins by remarking 'Tt 8' OVK Ef.1iAAoJL€v; COf course we did").1° Whatever the exact sense of the query, EJL'AAoJL€v by its tense furnishes a sure sign that summary of a previous discourse is at hand and by its person and number leads us to expect a summary of a discussion in which the speaker participated.ll And this expectation seems confirmed at 921F, when Lamprias turns to Lucius with the request 8 'TT'PW'TOV EMX87J 'TWV ~JL€'TEPWV imoJLv7Jcov. An additional set of references, however, discloses summary of some type of lecture delivered by the comrade. At 929B Lucius observes that the comrade won approval "in his discourse" (EV'Tfj Ota'Tptf3fj) by 24; Cherniss 16-17; and G6rgemanns, Us. 21-89 passim; and cf. D. A. Russell, "On Reading Plutarch's Moralia," G&R 15 (1968) 140-41. 8 On the questions of composition date and of dramatic date and location, see the varied answers by Ziegler, op.cit. (supra n.3) 709-10,856; Chern iss 8-14; Pohlenz, Mor. xi; C. P. Jones, "Towards a Chronology of Plutarch's Works," JRS 56 (1966) 70; and Gorgemanns, Us. 29. 9 For differing identifications of the comrade, see Cherniss 15, 48 n.a (cf. Hirzel 166, 173 n.2, 184 and n.2) and G6rgemanns, Us. 31, 39,66-68,78. 10 On the text of the query, see Chern iss' and Pohlenz' editions and G6rgemanns' dis­ cussion (Us. 21-27). Cherniss and Gorgemanns correctly interpret 'TL 8' O?!K €jLt;v.OjLEV; Cherniss translates "\Vhat else would you expect us to have done?", and G6rgemanns offers three possibilities: "Aber natiirlich" (Mg. 15) and "Wie hatten wir das nicht tun sollen?" or "Natiirlich haben wir das getan" (Us. 23). Diibner 1126 translates accurately ("Sane attulimus"), since he reads 'lTpoaavEKpovcadJE, rendered "attulistis," in the preceding sentence. Kepler 77; Prickard 17; and Raingeard 2, 51 offer faulty or obscure translations. Mine is based on LS] S.v. jLt;v.w rJ (cf. H. W. Smyth and Gordon Messing, Greek Grammar [Cambridge (Mass.) 1956] §1959.d). 11 Gorgemanns rightly observes (Us. 24): "Dass diese Untersuchung in der Vergangen­ heit liegt, wird durch das Imperfekt €P.€>J..OjLEV bewiesen." Because of the loss of the opening, Lamprias is not identified as the speaker until 937D. 76 PLUTARCH'S DE FACIE demonstrating Anaxagoras' theory that the moon receives its bright­ ness from the sun.12 And it must be that Sulla has this same BUt:Tp,fJ'r} in mind when, shortly afterwards (929E-F), he interrupts Lucius to ask whether the comrade dealt with the strongest argument against his thesis that the moon's brightness is reflected sunlight. Again, similarity in subject matter-namely, the composition of the moon and the origin of its brightness-marks the 8W.Tp'fJ~ as the object of recapitulation when Lamprias explains (921F-922A) how the comrade disposed of the Stoic belief in a moon composed of fire and air. It is evident we are confronted with recapitulation of two discourses: a lecture of some variety delivered by the comrade and attended by Lamprias and Lucius and a discussion in which these two participated. It remains to decide whether the 8LCt,TPLfJ~ and the discussion were part of the same event or there were two separate events. The latter decision is forced upon us by what Lucius says at 929B: Our comrade in his discourse (EV 7fj OLCXTPL/3fi) won approval by demonstrating this theory of Anaxagoras' that "the sun imparts brightness to the moon," but I will not talk about what (TCxiha . .. &) I learned from you (nap' vf.Lwv) or with you (f.LEO' vf.Lwv) but ... will go on to the rest (-r 7TapLYJJ-Lt 0 oca XWpLC LOUt- In prIvate 7TpOC -rac aC€tC Kat -rac ota4JOp~c€LC €AEX8YJY Although this discussion was private, in subject matter it shared much with the public lecture; for the nature and composition of the moon was a topic at both. In his lecture the com­ rade presented the moon's brightness as reflected sunlight (929B), opposed the Stoic theory of a moon composed of fire and air (921F- 922A) , and buttressed his own theories about moonlight with catop­ tric arguments (929E-930A and 930E). And the discussion covered such topics as the phases of the moon (933c), the figure seen in the moon's orb (920B-C), and the source of the moon's brightness (929B-C, be­ ginning with -rd: Aoma). The lecture and the private discussion were thus separate in time and circumstance, but thematically united by common subject matter. The dramatic conditions surrounding three other Plutarchan dialogues will disclose what type of setting would have accommodated this arrangement. In the De sollertia animalium, the points of departure for its initial 17 Chern iss reads .pefC£LC for fJefwc and omits (rac). The key word for my interests is lSl~, which I render "in private." Nor, with the aid ofWyttenbach (Lexicon Plutarcheum I [Oxford 1830] S.v. rSwc) and LS] (s.v. rawc VI.2 [lal~]). do I find lexical justification for the meanings aSSigned lal~ by previous translators. whether it is combined with xwplc into a single semantic unit (Pickard 33: "I omit the points of detail mentioned as to bases and per­ meations"; and G6rgemanns, Mg. 46: "Ich iibergehe das, was spezieU zu der Bahn und den QuerHiufen [des Mondes] gesagt wurde") or the two words are treated separately (Kepler 91: "Omitto autem quae seorsim singulis propria ... "; Diibner 1142: "Omitto autem quae seorsim et peculiariter de basi et transitu dicta sunt"; Raingeard 26 [cf 112]: "Je passe tout ce qui independamment a ete dit de particulier touch ant la course et les irregularites de la lune"; Cherniss 129: "I pass over all that was said besides with particular reference to the phases and variations"; and G6rgemanns, Us. 50: "Ich iibergehe abel'. was gesondert fUr sich beztiglich des Voranschreitens und der QuerHiufe gesagt wurde"). These trans­ lators render l3l~ as though it were l3lwc (see LS] S.v. r3LOC VI.I [l3lwc]). To my knowledge, lSl~ in Plutarch always refers to the situation of persons and means "in private" or some­ thing close to that, as at Compo Ale. Cor. 4.2 (contrasted with aTJp.ocl~) and at Fab. 11.1 (lSl~ Ka1 xwplc). At Mor. 43E it obviously means "in private" in its first occurrence; that it bears the same meaning in its second and again at 43F-44A is shown by the context, in which public lectures are contrasted with private conversations (43E--44A). Note l3l~ in Plato Resp. 363B, rendered by LS] as "in ordinary talk" (s.v. r~lLoc vI.2.b [l3l~]), and at Resp. 366B rSLOL A6yOL. which LS] explains as "ordinary private conversation" (s.v. rswc III); and cf Plutarch's use of rSLOC and T .. EYXOll aU'TfiJ 7TpocfjYEC;25 Lamprias replies by summarizing his argument (921Bff); and the chapters under immediate scrutiny (1-4) end at the 22 For parallel uses of the present tense, see, e.g., 925A-B, 925c, 925E, 926c, 927 A (ch. 13). 927E.928B. 23 Similar interchanges occur at 933F-934B, 9350-F, 9360. 24 Cherniss 15,39 n.b and Gorgemanns, Us. 41 also treat lOOKEL MYEc8aL as proof that Lamprias is summarizing. Note the imperfect ~v at 920p (ch.3). On the lacuna which initiates Lamprias' reference to Clearchus, see Dlibner 1127; Raingeard 3, 55; Cherniss 38- 39; and Pohlenz, Mor. We are not to suppose that this Clearchus. the pupil of Aristotle. attended the discussion (see Cherniss 39 nn. c, d). 25 Adler's 1TpOCfjyEC (1TpOCfjYE MSS) is cogently justified by its author ("Zu Plutarchs Mora­ lia," WS 31 [1909] 306) and by Cherniss 15 n.e, who translates (43) "but how did you proceed to bring your counterargument against it?" For opposition, see Pohlenz (Mor. apparatus to 1TpOCfjy€ and rev. of Adler's Fontes in BPW 32 [1912] 649) Jnd Gurgemanns (Us. 42 and n.6 and transl. in Mg. 18). Diibner 1128; Prickard 18; and Raingeard 4, 57 seem merely perplexed. Kepler 78 \vas rendering a text which apparently offered &AAd 1TTJ ••• 1Tpocay€. 82 PLUTARCH'S DE FACIE conclusion of his reply, when he asks Lucius to remind him how they began the general presentation of their own theories about the moon (921F): 8 7TPWTOV EAlXOTJ TWV 7]JLETlpwv imoJLvTJcov. Lucius instead instructs Lamprias to address himself to the Stoic theory that the moon is a mixture of air and fire (ch.5, 921F). In the process, he gives a quick summation of this theory and indicates he is requesting consideration of it out of deference to their fellow inter­ locutor, Pharnaces the Stoic. Lamprias retorts (921F) that the comrade spoke the truth when he bluntly rejected the theory, and offers a brief summary (921 F-922A) , in indirect discourse, of the comrade's opinion. Lamprias' own orderly refutation of the theory, which is presented in the present tense, begins in 922A (with on JLlVTOt) and extends to the end of the chapter (922F). Only the indirect statement summarizing the comrade's opinion is traceable to the lecture. The remainder of the chapter leaves the clear impression that it is either new argumentation or recapitulation of the discussion. The same impression is left by Lucius' remarks in chapter 6 (Lam­ prias does not speak in this chapter), for they are elicited by Pharnaces' complaint at 922F and seem to formulate Lucius' own thinking about the moon. Nor is there any indication that chapters 7-15 (923F-928D) are derived from the comrade's lecture. The speaker is again Lam­ prias; and his purpose is to demolish the Stoic doctrine of natural place, which was set forth by Pharnaces at the end of chapter 6 (923E-F). Lamprias never refers to the comrade's lecture and is obviously presenting his own arguments in his own manner; for he enters the verbal fray at 923F to relieve Lucius, incorporates into his discourse a special remark to Apollonides (925A), and speaks in the present tense and first person. What is not clear is whether Lamprias' arguments are new formulations or recapitulations of arguments presented during the discussion. Apparently Plutarch's dramatic intent is for them to come across as some combination of the two. Early in chapter 16 (at 928F), Lucius assumes the role of chief speaker and summarizer to reply to a complaint from Aristotle. Lucius notes (929B) that the comrade won approval during his lecture by demonstrating Anaxagoras' thesis about the moon's brightness, but he rejects further recapitulation of the lecture on the grounds that the company is familiar with its content. Instead, he elects to ccgo on to the rest" (Ta Aoma). Since "the rest," as previously explained, refers to the discussion, we may classify the remainder of chapter 16, HUBERT MARTIN, JR 83 in which Lucius presents in his own words and person the theory that moonlight is reflected sunlight, as basically recapitulation of the discussion. At the beginning of chapter 17 (929E-F), Sulla recalls Lucius to the lecture by asking if the comrade dealt with a certain counterargument. This query marks Lucius' reply, which continues to the end of chapter 17 (930E), as summary of the lecture. There Lucius concludes his recapitulating of the lecture with the observation that the comrade was unable to construct a diagram because of the size of his audience. With the opening of chapter 18 (930E), Lucius returns to presenta­ tion of his own thoughts, whether they be new or summarized from the discussion. This leads up to the original ava'\oyla (931c) for which he wins approval at the beginning of chapter 19 (931D); but there are no firm indications as to how far back into chapter 18 his new con­ tributions extend. Much of the chapter may well be summary of the discussion. It has already been determined that roughly the first half of chapter 19 (931D-932A), in which Lucius sets forth his second ava'\oyla, is also a new contribution. The second half (beginning with El o· oUX OVTWC 932A), in which he continues his explanation of eclipses, is summary of the discussion, as is revealed by the question to Lam­ prias with which he opens (932D) chapter 20: «Well now, which of the proofs came after this?" Lamprias' answer, "that the moon is subject to the same eclipse," leads Lucius to ask permission to omit this proof from his summary. Theon, however, requests the proof (932D-E); and Lucius responds with a presentation in three parts (1TpWTOV 932E; OEVTEPOV 932F; TplTOV 933A-B), which ends approximately two-thirds of the way through the chapter (933c), when he states that he will omit some things said loler-, that is, during the discussion. The presentation thus derives from the discussion. The final third of chapter 20 is recapitulation of the dis­ cussion and/or fresh argumentation, for Lucius speaks in the present tense and makes no reference to the lecture. Lamprias returns as chief interlocutor in chapter 21, to answer a series of complaints and queries posed by Apollonides and Pharnaces at 933F (ch.21), 935D-E (ch.22) and 936n (ch.23). At the beginning of chapter 24 (937C) Lamprias remarks that he and Lucius have reported "as much of what was said there" as they can remember ("~fLE'iC fLEV .,. " "'/" '''' '<:- I,/.. , I -. - \ e I , 1\ ovv E~7JV oca fL7J OL(X7TE~EVyE T7JV fLv7JfL7JV TWV EKE' I\EX EVTWV a1T7JYYEI\- KafLEv"). Since the discussion is the primary object of recapitulation 84 PLUTARCH'S DE FACIE and since the comrade's lecture was last mentioned in chapter 17 (929F-930E), this remark must refer to the discussion. As the conclu­ sion to the 'scientific' portion of the De facie, it is a dramatic tag with which Plutarch reminds us that much of what Lamprias has said in chapters 21-23, as well as substantial portions of what he and Lucius have spoken throughout the preceding chapters, is recapitulation of the discussion. At the same time, Plutarch's determination to portray conversation realistically is strikingly in evidence in chapters 21-23, for he furnishes no signs as to the junctures of new and summarized arguments or to the proportions in which Lamprias has combined the two. The SL(X:TPtfJ~ has emerged from this survey as an identifiable object of recapitulation only in chapter 17 (929F-930E), and, more briefly, in chapters 5 (921F-922A) and 16 (929B). The bulk of Lamprias' and Lucius' summarizing was of the discussion, and it was carried out in such a manner as to imply that they were the chief speakers in that discussion. IV. The Interlocutors Of Lamprias' and Lucius' audience, Sulla had not attended the lecture, as his question at 929F reveals: " ... but what tells most strongl y on the other side, did our comrade explain that away or did he fail to notice it?" Nor had Sulla attended the discussion. Though his remarks 920B are fraught with textual difficulties, it is obvious he is requesting information; for there are no cruces in 7TPWTOV ~S€Wc av fLO' SOKW TTv(}€c(}a" his concluding words.26 And the referent of this request is the discussion, since Lamprias opens his reply with an imperfect in the first person plural: T{ S' OflK J,.,IA)l.OfLEV; The remaining interlocutors are Theon, Apollonides, Pharnaces, Aristotle and Menelaus ;27 and there is no evidence that any of them is to be exempted from the plural "you" in Lucius' assertion (929B) that he will not talk about what he learned "from you or with you" but will instead summarize the discussion. We, therefore, conclude that these five had attended the lecture but not the discussion. Two 26 Pace Raingeard 49-51, it is certainly Sulla who makes this request. See Dubner 1126; Prickard 17; Arnim 38; Cherniss 3, 34-35; Pohlenz, MOT. 31 (apparatus to 1.1); and Gorge­ manns, Mg. 15 and Us. 21-29. 27 Menelaus does not speak in the dialogue as preserved. HUBERT MARTIN, JR 85 passages, moreover, specifically establish the absence of Apollonides and Theon from the discussion.28 After Lamprias reveals (920F) that a theory of Clearchus' was treated during the discussion, Apollonides asks Lamprias what the theory was (920F) and how he refuted it (921B). And, when Lucius asks (932D) whether the group wants a discourse (l-t