Mayer, 'Plutarch's Sertorius: A Historical Commentary', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9409
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9409-mayer-plutarchs
Christoph F. Konrad, Plutarch's Sertorius: A Historical
Commentary. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1994. Pp. lvi + 259. $49.95. ISBN 0-8078-2139-X.
Reviewed by Kenneth Mayer -- University of Texas at Austin
"I think it's wrong to demonstrate against your own
country or organize demonstrations against your own
country in foreign soil. I just think it's wrong."
--George Bush, debate on Oct. 11, 1992.
Emotions run high when the distinction between civis
and hostis becomes blurred: witness Jane Fonda, Willy
Brandt, Marlene Dietrich, and the presiding figure of this new
commentary, Quintus Sertorius. A problematic figure even to his
contemporaries, in modern scholarship Sertorius has been by turns
romanticized as the leader of a liberation movement and vilified
as a traitor to Rome. Philip Spann's Quintus Sertorius and the
Legacy of Sulla (Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press,
1987) went a long way towards creating a more balanced portrait
of the man, better attuned to Roman realities and the accounts
found in our sources. Now K.'s commentary shows how much a close
reading of Plutarch's text can lead to an unquestionably more
correct appreciation of the man and his times.
In most respects this work follows the model of Philip
Stadter's elegant commentary on Plutarch's Pericles
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989). At its
core is a reprint of Ziegler's Teubner text of the Life,
prefaced by an introduction on Plutarch's aims, methods and
sources, together with a survey of other ancient sources for
Sertorius. Each section of the commentary proper begins with a
brief description of what Plutarch is doing, adduces comparanda
from other Lives, and deduces the function of this
particular passage in the Life as a whole. Only when
Plutarch's program has been made patent (or at least probable)
does the historian venture to scrutinize the individual details.
The work betrays an erudite command of the literature in every
pertinent field and a particular joy in all things Iberian. The
commentary is rounded out with two much-needed and gratefully
appreciated maps and an up-to-date and informative excursus on
the peoples then inhabiting the Iberian peninsula. The
production, typography, and index are outstanding and the
commentary sound: without a doubt this will be the
commentary on Sertorius for the foreseeable future.
As one would expect, considering the extremely dissimilar
natures of the Pericles and the Sertorius, K.'s
approach differs from Stadter's. Despite the author-based
methodology outlined above and K.'s masterful understanding of P.
as a literary author and gentleman, K.'s work is an
uncompromisingly historical commentary and is so titled.
That K.'s focus is primarily on Sertorius and his time is shown
by the fact that Attis, Actaion, and Charidemos (the mercenary,
RE [5]) all go uncommented upon in the first chapter. To
be sure, most points of mythological, geographical, linguistic,
and literary interest are explicated well and at length, but this
commentary is primarily designed for readers eager to mine the
Sertorius as a historical source.
Well and good, but it is precisely those readers who would
benefit from features such as a brief history of the text, a
discussion of P.'s style, and perhaps a little more paraphrase
and translation in the notes. A simple referral to Stadter's
masterful and concise treatment of text and style would have
sufficed, if space considerations prevented K. from delving into
such matters on his own. K. offers a few readings that differ
from Ziegler's text and it would be helpful to have them all
listed on one page. History-oriented readers may find that their
responses to the text and commentary engender basic questions as
to the manuscripts, Plutarch's Greek, or even Koine in general
and some might not know where to turn for enlightenment.
These are minor details; the glory of the work is in the sound
arguments that grace the commentary itself. First the reader is
led through a series of arguments for updating and redating much
of what we know or think we know about Sertorius' steps along the
cursus honorum. K. has a quite compelling refutation of
the common belief that Sertorius' rhetorical training took place
in Rome (36-7) and some choice insights on his early spying
missions (45). In some cases, as here, K. refutes Spann's
reconstruction of events, at other times he substantially
modifies it, and just as often he accepts it. Based on negative
evidence, he makes a very tentative case for a tribunate in 87
(59-62). He dates Sertorius' praetorship to 85, and his
reconstruction of the incident at Suessa is the most plausible
that I've seen. Throughout K. takes care to avoid rhetorical
hyperbole such as "must have been...", "doubtless..." or "surely
this could have been no other than...", yet nonetheless
constructs extremely convincing arguments. K. applies
prosopography to good use, being most productive where his
skepticism debunks the overstated claims of earlier scholars (see
his discussion of the Flacci 85-6). His caution is also salutary
in his overall reading of his author: it is refreshing to read
someone wise enough to refrain from drawing conclusions based
upon what Plutarch doesn't tell us.
K. believes in isolating and analyzing literary and
mythological motifs, but not to the point of denying
Realien. The Atlantic Isles were there and
Sertorius heard of them: sometimes an island paradise is just an
island paradise. K. raises the possibility that instead of P.,
Poseidonios, or Sallust adapting and inserting pre-existing
motifs, Sertorius himself, a known manipulator of superstition,
may have worked at creating his own legend. This probably
accounts for some episodes, but the following sentences contain
more than just infelicitous overstatement: "[T]he ease and skill
with which he was to exercise his leadership....indicated a more
than superficial understanding of Hispanian, and especially
Celto-Hispanian, culture. When he learned of the real islands in
the Atlantic, he could hardly have failed to realize their
significance in the context of Celtic beliefs" (110). This is a
projection of K.'s 20th century anthropological perspective and
undercuts the picture of Sertorius that emerges elsewhere in the
book. Building upon Spann's work, K. has Sertorius being invited
to lead the Lusitani, as a Roman governor (116-7, referring to
Spann 58-62). Spann and K. are in agreement that the Lusitani and
Sertorius' other non-Roman allies had their own motives for
remaining in a clearly "Roman" context. The problematic nature of
their claim to legitimacy would have forced an extremely Roman
discourse and procedure in Sertorius' consilium (see Spann
169-174). Sertorius thereby maintained his political viability,
did not renounce his citizenship, and did not inhale any Celtic
mythology and leadership tactics. We have no compelling proof
that Sertorius' knowledge of Celtic customs went beyond the
smattering of the language P. mentions in chapter 3.3. P.
mentions Alcibiades' ability to adjust to whatever customs
prevailed about him, but does not emphasize this aspect of
Sertorius. The modern looks at Sertorius and finds T.E. Lawrence,
but there is little evidence for this in the Roman mindset and
none in Plutarch's.
To conclude, K.'s commentary is learned, cogent, and
thought-provoking. It says much about Sertorius and his times and
not a little about Plutarch's motives and methods.