Shipley presents the first modern commentary on Plutarch's Life of Agesilaos together with the full Greek text and a bibliography. Plutarch's biographies have long been valued for their literary, philosophic, and historiographic content, and the Life of Agesilaos, king of Sparta for forty years after the Peloponnesian war, has special interest as an introduction to Greek history, society, and culture in the fourth century, a critical period that has received little attention in comparison with the fifth century in Athens. Internal (...) problems in Sparta followed the accession of Agesilaos: failures of hierarchical cohesion, unrest among social and subject groups, and division between aggressive and moderate foreign policies. Plato and Aristotle, Ephoros, Xenophon, Diodoros, and Nepos contributed variously to the knowledge and understanding of the period, and Plutarch created from their evidence -- and other sources -- an independent, penetrating, and balanced account of the character of those in power, and of Sparta, at their best and in decline. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Theopompos Not Theophrastos:Correcting an Attribution in Plutarch Demosthenes 14.4Brad L. CookModern reconstructions of Theopompos' presentation of Demosthenes are based on five passages, all of which are found in Plutarch's Demosthenes.1 Of these passages, two are favorable to the orator and two are starkly negative, with the fifth being neutral.2 In the negative passages Theopompos attacked the orator with such harshness, branding him unstable, unjust, and unworthy, that the two (...) favorable passages are often overshadowed in modern reconstructions of Theopompos' opinion of Demosthenes.3 Moreover, some scholars, both in the past and again recently, go one step further and argue that one of the favorable texts, Demosthenes 14.4 (F 327), should be attributed to Theophrastos. I argue that the attribution to Theophrastos in this passage is the mistake of a meddlesome scribe in one manuscript and that the reading "Theopompos" of most manuscripts should be accepted. This means that what little survives of Theopompos' opinion of the orator remains complex and not simply negative. The changes made to the other positive text, Demosthenes 18.2 (F 328), I hope to deal with on another occasion.In Demosthenes 14.4 (F 327), Demosthenes stands up to defy the cruel whim of the Athenian mob:[End Page 537]And, in addition,4 Theopompos recounts that when the Athenians were proposing him for a certain prosecution then, when he would not listen, made a commotion, he rose and said "As a counsellor, o men of Athens, even if you don't want to, you will use me; but as a false accuser, not even if you want to."The difficulty with this passage is that not all the manuscripts attribute the statement to Theopompos. The primary dissenting manuscript is Madrid 4685 (14th c.), previously known as Codex Matritensis 55 and commonly cited as N.5 Modern editions of Plutarch follow N and print "," whereas works on Theopompos follow the other manuscripts and print "." This disagreement has not received thorough examination in recent publications.6 A brief review of the arguments [End Page 538] for and against the reading of N, considering first the intrinsic character of the manuscript and then its standing in the manuscript tradition will indicate that we should reject the reading of N and keep the attribution to Theopompos.Every known manuscript and every printed text of Demosthenes 14.4 read "" until 1880. In that year Charles Graux published his examination of N and its reading in Demosthenes 14.4 of "."7 N consists of two parts. The first part contains Nikias–Crassus (the Nikias is from 24.2), Alcibiades–Coriolanus, Demosthenes–Cicero, and Agesilaos–Pompey.8 This first part of N has many readings that are distinct from the other manuscripts, and Graux argued that these readings are superior to those of the other manuscripts, especially in the Demosthenes–Cicero.9 Graux therefore not only accepted "." in Demosthenes 14.4 because of the readings in N but also supported "" by claiming that Theopompos was always hostile to Demosthenes and would never say anything favorable to him; thus Graux saw the reading "" in the other manuscripts as an error in transmission.10 [End Page 539]Response to the Madrid manuscript and Graux's high opinion of it was generally favorable.11 Several scholars, however, rejected Graux's unrestrained praise of N and argued that among the many improved readings there were interpolations.12 Gudeman complained that the scribe of N, a "semilearned librarius," was particularly intrusive with proper names and altered and interpolated the received text. Gudeman listed some of these intrusions in Demosthenes and Cicero; of note are Demosthenes 5.7, 10.3, and 23.6 as well as Cicero 36.7.13 In Demosthenes 5.7 Plutarch attributes a certain detail to Hermippos. N has a semieducated but incorrect gloss on Hermippos, calling him. But the Hermippos here is certainly Hermippos of Smyrna of the third century B.C., a writer of Lives, not the homonymous fifth–century poet.14 In [End Page 540] Demosthenes 10.2 Plutarch quotes Ariston of Chios who records an anecdote of Theophrastos about the orator. At Demosthenes 10.3 Plutarch continues, ""; N replaces with. But... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century B.C.John BucklerMichael A. Flower. Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century B.C.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. xii + 252 pp. Cloth, $49.95.Theopompos is a historian fully worthy of the attention of Michael A. Flower's new study of him. The results, unfortunately, are for the most part disappointing. F.'s most important contribution to an understanding of Theopompos' (...) method and goals is his incontrovertible conclusion that Isokrates' influence [End Page 495] on Theopompos is overrated and indeed misunderstood. F. successfully rejects the notion that Isokrates created a fourth–century genre of historical writing or that he produced from his school a cadre of historians. Despite the evidence of TT 2 and 5, the testimonia indicate only that Theopompos and Ephoros were students of Isokrates. Nothing in the evidence proves that Isokrates gave them any historical training. Isokrates was a rhetorician who educated others in oratory. He admits (Ant. 45–46; Panath. 1–2) that he himself had decided not to write history. His goal in life was to teach rhetoric that could be used for a variety of literary purposes. Although Isokrates obviously uses historical examples in his own writings, they make only a rhetorical effect. F. is surely right to say that Isokrates' influence on Theopompos was predominantly cosmetic—that he taught Theopompos the style but not the essence of his histories. The undue emphasis on Isokrates' influence on Theopompos obscures the historical genius of the latter.In chapter 4 F. examines the moral and political philosophy of Theopompos. He easily refutes (63ff.) the opinion of R. Lane Fox that Theopompos was merely a moralist without political experience and without practical criteria by which to assess people and politics. No one, however, can doubt that Theopompos was indeed a moralist. He criticizes the deleterious effects of luxury on various individuals and peoples, effects rendering them dissolute and lazy. He thinks instead that a well–ordered life of individuals and communities leads to security and prosperity. He is also a champion of ordinary and traditional religion. He is likewise opposed to democracy because he feels that it led to a dissolute life. Yet F. fails to explain the connection between personal virtue or vice and public affairs. So did Theopompos. Two examples will suffice. Although Theopompos considers Lysandros and Agesilaos good men and the Spartan constitution a good one for its moral and abstemious way of life, the efforts of both leaders led to defeat and disaster for Sparta. Conversely, Theopompos considers Philip II and the Macedonians decadent and debased because of their sexual and alcoholic excesses. Yet these degenerates won control of Greece. Without serious examination of this point, F. (117–18, 127) falls back upon Theopompos' explanation: if Philip was base, the Athenians were even more so. Perhaps Philip was just lucky, this founded in no small part upon the evidence of Demosthenes, who had himself fled from the battlefield of Chaironeia. F. never explains in historical terms why the Athenians were unable successfully to oppose Philip. In short, neither F. nor perhaps Theopompos succeed in demonstrating how good moral fibre ensures actual political success. When F. most effectively touches upon the point, he seems (114) to contradict his other conclusions.F. is surely right to endorse W. R. Connor's conclusion that Theopompos was no admirer of Philip. In chapter 5 F. examines Polybios' use of Theopompos, the latter's portrayal of Philip's private life, and the king's political and military abilities. The study of Polybios and Theopompos is needlessly speculative, and could have profited greatly by a careful reading of K. Meister, Historische Kritik [End Page 496] bei Polybios (1975), which is never cited. Theopompos and Demosthenes, neither a friend of Philip, describe Philip and his officers as hard drinkers and given to homosexual orgies. Again, no one can reasonably doubt that Philip and his Macedonians were guilty of both charges. But to repeat; neither moral defect impeded their political and military success, and in strictly historical terms the point is insignificant. The obvious truth is that Philip triumphed because he was a brilliant... (shrink)