Plutarch's Maxime cum principibus philosopho esse disserendum: An Interpretation with Commentary

COMMENTARY

COMMENTARY chapter 1 (776a-777b): the philosopher’s φιλοκαλία: humane behaviour for the benefit of the whole community By associating with rulers, the philosopher provides evidence of his love of what is honourable (φιλοκαλία), his political spirit, and his love of mankind (φιλανθρωπία). Some people (ἔνιοι) rather claim that such an association is a token of ambition, but they are ambitious themselves. A politician who needs philosophy should not first become an ordinary person in order to be able to converse with philosophers. Philosophy makes everything active and vital and the philosophers should in the first place associate with rulers because such an association directly entails the maximisation of their usefulness and φιλανθρωπία, as is shown by several illustrative examples. Whereas the philosopher who converses with a private individual only exerts a positive influence on this individual, his colleague who associates with rulers benefits many through one (πολλοὺς δι᾿ ἑνός). 776a †Σωρκανόν: The difficult problem of textual criticism at the very beginning of the short discourse unfortunately reflects the fairly poor condition of the whole work. The first word, Σωρκανόν may prima facie be understood as a proper name, but unfortunately we know of no contemporary of Plutarch with this name. Several interpretations have been put forward, which may be classified among four basic groups: [1] The term Σωρκανόν, which is the reading of the manuscripts, should be accepted and understood as a proper name and as the direct object of ἐγκολπίσασθαι. This is the solution defended by H.N. Fowler (1969), 28, although apparently with some hesitations: “If the reading is correct, Sorcanus was some important personage and must have been well known to the person, whoever he was, to whom the essay is addressed”. F. Dübner (1856), 948 and G.N. Bernardakis (1893), 1 likewise print the text of the manuscripts, even though the latter has some preferences for the reading Σωρανὸν, as appears from his critical apparatus: “Malim Σωρανὸν, sed nihil certum”. A. Barigazzi (1981), 197-198 opts for the reading Ἀφρικανὸν, which refers to Scipio Aemilianus, “un personaggio molto caro a Plutarco perché gli appariva come il modello di quell’educazione che doveva essere a fondamento della concordia e fusione fra Greci e Romani vagheggiata nell’età imperiale”. If we accept a proper name at the outset of the work, we indeed need the name of a sufficiently famous 148 commentary statesman and Barigazzi’s proposal obviously solves the problem of the unknown Sorcanus, though only at the price of a fairly arbitrary text correction. Moreover, the reference to Scipio comes rather abruptly and remains without further explanation. A more periphrastic formula (e.g., ἄνδρα οἷος Σκηπίων Ἀφρικανὸς ἦν) would perhaps have been less abrupt, but such a reading even further deviates from the text of the manuscripts. [2] The term Σωρκανόν should be understood as the proper name of Plutarch’s addressee and thus conceals a vocative. The above mentioned solutions are unconvincing according to F.H. Sandbach (1941), 113: “A proper name in the accusative is impossible, as the treatise clearly discusses not an individual case but the general proposition that philosophers should consort with potentates. But Σωρκανόν may conceal a vocative, and a rubricator may have failed to do his job”. Hence, one should read something like 〈ἀνδρὸς ἡγεμονικοῦ συνήθειαν,〉 ὦ Ἥρκλανε, ἐγκολπίσασθαι κτλ. (on Herculanus, see De se ipsum laud. 539A; another possibility could be Soclarus, or some unknown Soranus or Servianus). Cf. also the position of J.J. Hartman (1916), 513: “An latet in his vocativus aliquis quo philosophus praepotentem aliquem alloquitur Romanum, libelli patronum futurum?” (but cf. S.C.R. Swain (1989), 295, n. 70). To the extent, however, that such a dedication implies that (the opening of) the work should be characterised as a letter (cf. P. Fabrini (2000), 257: “Plutarco, nel concepire e formulare le dediche, sembra avere tenuto maggiormente presente il genere epistolografico”), this interpretation likewise proves to be problematic, since there can hardly be found typical features of the epistolary genre in the first paragraphs of the work. [3] The term Σωρκανόν does not refer to a proper name but conceals a reference to the general group of the rulers. Many scholars indeed prefer to change the meaningless Σωρκανόν to an appellative or a general formula. Theodorus Gaza (†1475) already ‘translated’ the term Σωρκανόν as principis (C. Bevegni (1993), 37, n. 19), just as J.F.S. Kaltwasser (1911), 243 has done: “Bei großen Herren sich beliebt zu machen”. H. Patzig (1876), 62 proposes the ingenious reading Κοίρανον ἐγκολπίσασθαι καὶ φιλίαν τίμιον μετιέναι καὶ κτλ. The term κοίρανος, however , is usually poetic and appears in the...