No amount of investigation of yours would succeed in attaining the proof, and yet, once seen, you immediately believe you would have discovered it; by so smooth and so rapid a path he leads you to the conclusion required.
-Plutarch (on Archimedes) Everybody’s Plutarch (322)
I find myself talking to Plutarch. I have a few questions for the man. I know he worked very hard to make an academic study of the “nobel lives” of various Greek and Roman men. That would be question number one. Plutarch, come on, it wouldn’t have killed you to mention a woman or two. And no, I won’t give you credit for your one page on Aspasia (loved by the great and noble Pericles). We already heard tell from my drinking buddy Herodotus about her fabulousness. Well, alright, I’ll give maybe a partial credit, as it’s a sunny day, the sky is brilliant blue, and why not? Aspasia’s ‘ill repute’ as a ‘Madame,’ is mentioned in a single sentence. Her charm and status as a woman who taught great men the art of speaking, including “Socrates himself [who] would sometimes go to visit her, and some of his acquaintances with him; and those who frequented her company would carry their wives with them to listen to her” (180) in two more. But Plutarch flies through Pericles’ first marriage, (which ends by mutual consent) with such speed that we’ve hardly digested this rather reasonable and progressive version of divorce by irreconcilable indifference when he is finishing off the paragraph with a hilariously staid description of the passion between Pericles and Aspasia.
And he loved her with wonderful affection; every day, both as he went out and as he came in from the market-place, he saluted and kissed her. (180)
Well, it’s not much, but it’s all he gives, so there you have it- hello and goodbye with a kiss. What are we to think by this account? Perhaps it was so very common for women of this day to be regarded with such respect for their intellect and allure that a longer mention would have seemed unseemly. But somehow, I doubt it.
The chapter on Marcellus seemed to me to be as much about Archimedes as it was about Marcellus. And that leads me to my second question. I find a blatant bias towards the Greeks in these writings. If anyone out there is reading Plutarch’s Lives then chances are good that you, like I, are reading an abridged version. But the original format was to take a Greek life and then a Roman life and compare the two. Most of what I have read thus far has been about the martial prowess of the Romans compared to the martial (of course- that’s pretty much how the “Nobles” get the title) but also, mental and moral acumen of the Greeks. In fact Plutarch openly questions Marcus Cato’s “nobel-ness.” After spending far more time discussing Cato’s penny-pinching austerity mode of living than Aspasia’s “make love not war” modus operandi, he unusually inserts his own opinion into the matter by questioning Cato’s treatment, for one, of aging servants that have out-lived their usefulness and are cast out into the world in order to preserve Cato’s own bottom line and warped sense of economy.
Whether these acts are to be ascribed to the greatness or pettiness of spirit, let every one argue as they please (357).
And that is the fun of Plutarch. His histories are slightly more personalized and it is really his personality that keeps me interested in all the rest. And I love a good argument, as long as (and perhaps if Plutarch had told us more I could know if Aspasia would agree with me) no one gets hurt.
Everybody’s Plutarch arranged and edited by Raymond T. Bond, Drydan’s translation.