intro
It is only natural that this essay should have aroused curiosity and speculation about its sources, for Plutarch in the very first paragraph conveys the information that he has rummaged among his note-books (ὑπομνήματα Pohlens and Siefert have at times insisted that in spite of the plural there is only one main source. This lacks all probablity.) in great haste for the material necessary to help his friend Paccius to composure in the midst of a busy life. R. Hirzel (Hermes, xiv. 354 if., especially 373 if.) attempted to show that much was drawn from Democritus’s Περὶ εὐθυμίης, some by way of the Stoic Panaetius, who, he thought, naturally opposed the Abderite’s conclusions. R. Heinze (Rheinisches Museum, xlv. 497 ff.) emphasized the relation between De Tranquillitate and De Virtute et Vitio: both go back to a StoicBut Heinze (p. 507) admitted the possibility of some Epicurean excerpts also being used. prototype and De Tranquillitate to a model which has some close relation to the Cynic Bions methods of presentation, that is, probably, to Ariston of Chios.At the same time, O. Hense (Rheinisches Museum, xlv. 550 ff.) was attempting to trace De Curiositate to Ariston. Readers of the Jahresberichte should note that F. Bock (Jbb., clii. 1911, p. 334) has not read these articles and is, as often, a thoroughly untrustworthy guide. M. PohlenzSee also Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, xlviii. 95 and note. (Hermes, xi. 275 if.), on the other hand, found that the source of the essay was Epicurean,But now Pohlenz (in the Teubner ed., 1929) has become partially converted to Siefert’s views, while rightly continuing to maintain some Epicurean influence. The fact that Plutarch in the last part of his work follows the εὐχαριστία to the gifts of Fortune urged by Epicurus (Fragg. 435 and 491 ed. Usener) seems to me decisive, in spite of Siefert’s evasions. while admitting that Plutarch added a certain amount of original material to fit the personality and circumstances of the friend he was addressing. Finally, G. SiefertFor the structure of the essay see Siefert’s earlier work (Commentationes Ienenses, vi. 1896, pp. 57-74), supplemented and corrected by Pohlenz, l.c. (Plutarchs Schrift Περὶ εὐθυμίας, Progr. Pforta, Naumburg, 1908) reverts to Democritus and Panaetius, with particular emphasis on the material illustrative of Panaetius’s lost work to be found in Cicero’s De Officiis and in Seneca: Panaetius, who was following, not the Stoa, but Democritus, is the principal source of Plutarch, practically his only source.
