The Collected Papers of J L Moles Volume 2 John Marincola Full Chapter

The Collected Papers of J. L.
Moles -
Volume 2 John Marincola
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-collected-papers-of-j-l-moles-volume-2-john-mari
ncola/
The Collected Papers of J. L. Moles
The Collected Papers of
J. L. Moles
Volume 2: Studies in Greek and Latin Literature
Edited by
John Marincola
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Cover illustration: Diogenes (1882) by John William Waterhouse. Art Gallery of NSW. With permission
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Moles, J. L. (John L.), author. | Marincola, John, editor.

Title: The collected papers of J.L. Moles / edited by John Marincola.
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2023]- | Includes bibliographical
references and index. | Contents: Volume 1. Studies in Dio Chrysostom,
Cynic philosophy, and the New Testament —
Identifiers: LCCN 2023001839 (print) | LCCN 2023001840 (ebook) |
ISBN 9789004537101 (v. 1 ; hardback) | ISBN 9789004538047 (v. 2 ; hardback) |
ISBN 9789004541283 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004538719 (v. 1 ; ebook) |
ISBN 9789004538726 (v. 2 ; ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Rome—Historiography. | Greece—Historiography. |
Dio, Chrysostom. | Cynics (Greek philosophy) | Latin poetry—History and
criticism. | Bible. New Testament—Criticism, interpretation, etc.
Classification: LCC D56 .M65 2023 (print) | LCC D56 (ebook) |
DDC 937.007202—dc23/eng/20230131
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023001839
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023001840
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
isbn 978-90-04-53710-1 (hardback, vol. 1)

isbn 978-90-04-53871-9 (e-book, vol. 1)
isbn 978-90-04-53804-7 (hardback, vol. 2)
isbn 978-90-04-53872-6 (e-book, vol. 2)
isbn 978-90-04-54128-3 (hardback, set)
Copyright 2023 by the Estate of J. L. Moles. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink,
Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic.
Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for
re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

For Rachel and Thomas
∵
Contents
Preface xi
John Marincola
Appreciation xiv
Ruth Chambers
Publications of J. L. Moles xv
Abbreviations xxii
Permissions xxiv
Professor J. L. Moles XXVIII

A. J. Woodman
Introduction to Parts 4 and 5 1

Christopher Pelling
Part 4
Studies in Greco-Roman Biography
31 Plutarch, Crassus 13.4–5 and Cicero’s de consiliis suis (1982) [8]* 11
32 The Ides of March and Anna Perenna (1982) [7] 14
33 Some ‘Last Words’ of M. Iunius Brutus (1983) [14] 17
34 Fate, Apollo, and M. Junius Brutus (1983) [17] 35
35 Plutarch, Brutus, and the Ghost of Caesar (1985) [27] 43
36 The Attacks on L. Cornelius Cinna, Praetor in 44 bc (1987) [32] 45
37 Review of J. Geiger, Cornelius Nepos and Ancient Political Biography

(1989) [35] 49
38 Review of P. A. Stadter, A Commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles (1992)

[49] 55
* Numbers in square brackets refer to the section ‘Publications of J. L. Moles’.

viii Contents
39 Review of N. Horsfall, Cornelius Nepos: a Selection, including the Lives of

Cato and Atticus (1992) [46] 65
40 The Text and Interpretation of Plutarch, Vit. Cic. 45.1 (1992) [43] 69
41 Plutarch, Vit. Ant. 31.3 and Suetonius, Aug. 69.2 (1992) [44] 76
42 On Reading Cornelius Nepos with Nicholas Horsfall (1993) [52] 81
43 Textual and Interpretative Notes on Plutarch’s Cicero (1993) [54] 91
44 Plutarch, Brutus, and Brutus’ Greek and Latin Letters (1997) [71] 100
Part 5
Studies in Greco-Roman Historiography
45 Virgil, Pompey, and the Histories of Asinius Pollio (1983) [15] 131
46 The Interpretation of the ‘Second Preface’ in Arrian’s

Anabasis (1985) [28] 134
47 Review of A. J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography:

Four Studies (1990) [38] 149
48 Review of V. J. Gray, The Character of Xenophon’s

Hellenica (1992) [45] 154
49 Truth and Untruth in Herodotus and Thucydides (1993) [53] 159
50 Livy’s Preface (1993) [51] 190
51 Xenophon and Callicratidas (1994) [61] 224
52 Herodotus Warns the Athenians (1996) [69] 247
53 Cry Freedom: Tacitus, Annals 4.32–5 (1998) [72] 272
54 Ἀνάθημα Καὶ Κτῆμα: the Inscriptional Inheritance of Ancient

Historiography (1999) [73] 365
Contents ix
55 A False Dilemma: Thucydides’ History and Historicism (2001) [76] 411
56 Herodotus and Athens (2002) [79] 439
57 ‘Saving’ Greece from the ‘Ignominy’ of Tyranny? The ‘Famous’ and

‘Wonderful’ Speech of Socles (Herodotus 5.92) (2007) [85] 462
58 Narrative and Speech Problems in Thucydides Book 1 (2010) [86] 490

John Marincola
Part 6
Greek Literature
59 Notes on Aristotle, Poetics 13 and 14 (1979) [3] 525
60 A Neglected Aspect of Agamemnon 1389–92 (1979) [4] 548
61 A Note on Antigone 1238f. (1980) [5] 562
62 Aeschylus, Agamemnon 36–7 Again (1984) [20] 567
63 Philanthropia in the Poetics (1984) [22] 571
64 Review of S. Goldhill, Language, Sexuality, Narrative: The Oresteia

(1986) [30] 583
Part 7
Latin Literature
65 A Note on Cicero, ad Quintum fratrem 2.10(9).3 (1982) [6] 605
66 Aristotle and Dido’s Hamartia (1984) [18] 609
67 Politics, Philosophy, and Friendship in Horace Odes 2.7 (1987) [31] 618
68 The Tragedy and Guilt of Dido (1987) [33] 632

x Contents
69 The Dramatic Coherence of Ovid, Amores 1.1 and 1.2 (1991) [42] 644
70 Review of R. Mayer, ed., Horace: Epistles I (1994) [68] 649
71 Reconstructing Plancus (Horace, C. 1.7) (2002) [77] 663
72 Poetry, Philosophy, Politics, and Play: Epistles 1 (2002) [78] 703
73 Vergil’s Loss of Virginity: Reading a Life (2014) [97] 725
Envoi
74 Horace: Life, Death, Friendship, and Philosophy (2012) [90] 771
Index Locorum 779

Preface
At his untimely death in October 2015, John Moles was already recognised as
one of the great classical scholars of his time. His expertise ranged widely over
Greek and Latin literature, philosophy, biography, historiography, and the New
Testament, especially the books of Luke and Acts. His work, which was and
continues to be extremely influential, is distinguished by its close reading of
texts, its careful attention to language (examining both what is said and what
is unsaid), and a consistent interdisciplinary approach.
This two-volume collection brings together fifty-nine of John’s previously
published notes, articles, and book chapters, eight reviews, and seven previ-
ously unpublished papers. The papers appear in chronological order by sec-
tion, the one exception being the final chapter, which seemed to me a fitting
envoi to the entire collection.
John’s work appeared in a variety of publications in different countries over
nearly forty years. Methods of citation varied greatly in the original publica-
tions, and so in editing these papers I have tried to bring uniformity by doing
the following: (1) standardising spelling, punctuation, abbreviations, and man-
ner of citation throughout; (2) correcting obvious minor misprints and slips;
(3) reformatting a very few of the earliest pieces to make them easier to read
and follow; (4) updating references to standard works of ancient authors or
collections that have appeared since the publication of the papers; (5) insert-
ing references to reprints (and occasionally updated editions) of scholarly
articles and books; and (6) providing a bibliography for each chapter. My edi-
torial intrusions are marked with curly brackets, thus: { }. The page numbers
of the original publication are placed within the text in white square brackets,
thus: ⟦ ⟧.
Although I have checked each item in the bibliography for accuracy, it was
not possible to check the many thousands of references in these volumes. (In a
few cases, where I became aware of a mis-citation or the like, I have corrected
it without indication.) Nor have I tried to update the articles either by listing
bibliography subsequent to their publication or by reference to those scholars
who have engaged with the articles (either in agreement or disagreement). It
would have required a scholar of John’s calibre to do so, and as with all schol-
arship, these pieces are of their time. In any case, specialists will know where
John’s influence has been felt.
His unpublished papers, as one would expect, were in various stages of com-
pleteness. Those appearing here were in sufficiently good shape to make clear
the lines of thought and interpretation that John intended to pursue. Where it
xii Preface
was possible and I felt myself competent to do so, I filled in references. At the
same time, the reader will understand that these papers did not receive John’s
ultima manus. There is a certain amount of repetition in them (which I have let
stand), and there is little doubt that John would have added more references
throughout.
There are, however, two exceptions. First, Professor Justin Reid Allison
expended a truly impressive effort in editing ‘Matthew the Mathete’ (ch. 26)
so as to bring it up to the standards John himself would have maintained, and
I am very grateful to him for his efforts, as all readers of the article will be.
Second, Professor Damien Nelis was of enormous help in clarifying and updat-
ing a number of references in ‘Vergil’s Loss of Virginity’ (ch. 73), immensely
improving the article while retaining John’s signature voice. To both of these
scholars I am greatly indebted.
It has been nearly seven years since John’s death, and I regret that it has
taken so long to bring this project to light. I have been sustained over the years
by the kindness of colleagues and friends. Ruth Chambers, John’s widow, has
supported the project from the very beginning, offering every assistance and
displaying a patience in awaiting the final product that was exemplary. Federico
Santangelo tracked down much of John’s unpublished material. Aldo Brancacci,
Jane Heath, and Chris Pelling were very helpful in providing feedback at various
stages, and I am grateful to them not least for their illuminating introductions.
For offering assistance in a variety of matters, and/or for providing material
in hard copy or electronically, I thank Justin Reid Allison, Alexander Hardie,
Stephen Harrison, Adam Kemezis, Christina Kraus, Manfred Lang, Damien
Nelis, Chris Pelling, Fran Titchener, Tony Woodman, and Harvey Yunis. At Brill I
am very grateful to Mirjam Elbers, the Classics editor, who agreed to take on
the publication, and to Giulia Moriconi, who has assisted in all aspects of get-
ting the materials ready for publication. I thank also Theo Joppe who has been
indispensable in the production of these volumes. I am indebted as always to
the Interlibrary Loan department at Florida State University’s Strozier Library
for help in procuring a large number of items. Towards the final stages of this
project St Hugh’s College, Oxford provided generous hospitality.
Two people deserve special thanks. My wife, Laurel Fulkerson, has lived
with this project every step of the way, and has offered support and assistance
throughout. And Tony Woodman’s advice and generosity at all stages of the
project was invaluable. Without his assistance and support, this collection
would have never come to fruition.
This project has been both a joy and a challenge. A joy, because I got to
spend it in John’s intellectual company, but a challenge because I wanted
Preface xiii
to do justice to his rich output and to do my best to make it more accessible to

others, since I believe it is of value not only for the numerous brilliant insights
it offers, but also because of the methodology employed, which is of a value
independent of the content of any individual chapter.
As a young scholar, I, like many, benefitted from John’s astonishing gen-
erosity in reading and commenting on my work. I hope that this collection
may represent not just my own gratitude to John but also that of all the young
scholars and colleagues whose work over the years he cultivated, nurtured, and
improved. We owe him more thanks than we can ever express.
The collection is dedicated to John’s children.
J. M.
Oxford, May 2022
Appreciation
Ruth Chambers
This collection of John’s papers brings to the classical world a definitive view of
the breadth and brilliance of his scholarly output. That this has been accom-
plished is due to an act of selfless dedication for which John would be deeply
grateful. I speak for him, and his family, friends, and colleagues, in expressing
profound thanks to John Marincola for his painstaking editorial work and his
unwavering devotion to ensuring that all John’s papers are gathered and pre-
sented under one imprint. Bringing John’s lifetime writings to publication in
this way is an outstanding achievement and a lasting tribute to a friend.
Publications of J. L. Moles
Note: The dates for unpublished articles are approximations and based on
indications in the manuscripts.
1978
1. ‘The Career and Conversion of Dio Chrysostom’, JHS 98: 79–100.
1979
2. A Commentary on Plutarch’s Brutus (diss. Oxford; unpublished; see below,
no. 100).
3. ‘Notes on Aristotle’s Poetics 13 and 14’, CQ n.s. 29: 77–94.
4. ‘A Neglected Aspect of Agamemnon 1389–92’, LCM 4: 179–89.
1980
5. ‘A Note on Antigone 1238f.’, LCM 5: 193–6.
1982
6. ‘A Note on Cicero, ad Quintum fratrem 2.10(9).3’, LCM 7: 63–5.
7. ‘The Ides of March and Anna Perenna’, LCM 7: 89–90.
8. ‘Plutarch, Crassus 13.4–5, and Cicero’s de consiliis suis’, LCM 7: 136–7.
9. Review of M. L. Clarke, The Noblest Roman (London and New York, 1981),
LCM 7: 137–9.
10. Review of P. A. Stadter, Arrian of Nicomedia (Chapel Hill and London,
1980), JHS 102: 254–5.
1983
11. ‘Dio Chrysostom: Exile, Tarsus, Nero, and Domitian’, LCM 8:130–4.
12. ‘“Honestius quam Ambitiosius”? An Exploration of the Cynic’s Attitude to
Moral Corruption in his Fellow Men’, JHS 103: 103–23.
13. ‘The Date and Purpose of the Fourth Kingship Oration of Dio Chrysostom’,
ClAnt 2: 251–78.
14. ‘Some “Last Words” of M. Iunius Brutus’, Latomus 42: 763–79.
15. ‘Virgil, Pompey and the Histories of Asinius Pollio’, CW 76: 287–8.
16. ‘The Woman and the River: Diogenes’ Apophthegm from Herculaneum
and Some Popular Misconceptions about Cynicism’, Apeiron 17: 125–30.
17. ‘Fate, Apollo and M. Iunius Brutus’, AJPh 104: 249–56.
xvi Publications of J. L. Moles
1984
18. ‘Aristotle and Dido’s Hamartia’, G&R 31: 48–54.
19. ‘The Addressee of the Third Kingship Oration of Dio Chrysostom’,
Prometheus 10: 65–69.
20. ‘Aeschylus: Agamemnon 36–37 Again’, LCM 9: 5–6.
21. ‘Brutus and Dido Revisited’, LCM 9: 156.
22. ‘Philanthropia in the Poetics’, Phoenix 38: 325–35.
23. Review of J. L. Strachan-Davidson, Appian: Civil Wars I’ (Chicago reprint,
1983), JACT Bulletin Review 64: viii.
24. Review of N. G. L. Hammond, Three Historians of Alexander the Great
(Cambridge, 1983), JACT Review 1: 32–33.
25. Review of A. J. Woodman, Velleius Paterculus: The Caesarian and Augustan
Narrative (Cambridge, 1983), JRS 74: 242–4.
1985
26. ‘Cynicism in Horace Epistles I’, PLLS 5: 33–60.
27. ‘Plutarch, Brutus and the Ghost of Caesar’, PACA 82: 19–20.
28. ‘The Interpretation of the “Second Preface” in Arrian’s Anabasis’, JHS 105:
162–8.
29. Review of C. Carena, M. Manfredini, and L. Piccirilli, edd., Plutarco: Le vite
di Temistocle e Camillo (Milan, 1983), CR 35: 260–1.
1986
30. Review of S. Goldhill, Language, Sexuality, Narrative: The Oresteia
(Cambridge, 1984), LCM 11: 55–64.
1987
31. ‘Politics, Philosophy and Friendship in Horace Odes 2.7’, QUCC 25: 59–72.
32. ‘The Attacks on L. Cornelius Cinna, Praetor in 44 B.C.’, RhMus 130: 124–8.
33. ‘The Tragedy and Guilt of Dido’, in M. Whitby, M. Whitby, and P. R. Hardie,
edd., Homo Viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble (Bristol and Chicago,
1987), 153–61.
1988
34. Plutarch: The Life of Cicero (Warminster).
1989
35. Review of J. Geiger, Cornelius Nepos and Ancient Political Biography
(Wiesbaden, 1985), CR 39: 229–33.
Publications of J. L. Moles xvii
36. Review of P. McGushin, Sallust: the Conspiracy of Catiline (Bristol, 1987),

CR 39: 393–4.
1990
37. ‘The Kingship Orations of Dio Chrysostom’, PLLS 6: 297–375.
38. Review of A. J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: Four
Studies (London, Sydney, and Portland, 1988)’, History of the Human
Sciences 3.2: 317–21.
39. Review of L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and his
Predecessors (Atlanta, 1987), JHS 110: 231–2.
40. Review of P. J. Rhodes, ed., Thucydides: History II (Warminster, 1988) and
J. S. Rusten, ed., Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War II (Cambridge, 1989),
JACT Review 7: 28–9.
41. Review of A. B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander (Oxford, 1988), JACT
Review 7: 29–30.
1991
42. ‘The Dramatic Coherence of Ovid, Amores 1.1 and 1.2’, CQ 41: 551–4.
1992
43. ‘The Text and Interpretation of Plutarch, Vit. Cic. 45.1’, Hermes 120: 240–44.
44. ‘Plutarch, Vit. Ant. 31.3 and Suetonius, Aug. 69.2’, Hermes 120: 245–7.
45. Review of V. J. Gray, The Character of Xenophon’s Hellenica (London and
Baltimore, 1989)’, CR 13: 281–4.
46. Review of N. Horsfall, Cornelius Nepos: a selection, including the lives of
Cato and Atticus (Oxford, 1989), CR 42: 314–6.
47. Review of J. R. Bradley, The Sources of Cornelius Nepos (New York, 1991),
Ploutarchos 8: 30–2.
48. Review of C. Habicht, Cicero (Baltimore 1990), Ploutarchos 9: 28–31.
49. Review of P. A. Stadter, A Commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles (Chapel Hill,
1989), CR 42: 289–94.
1993
50. ‘Le cosmopolitisme cynique’, in M.-O. Goulet-Cazé and R Goulet, edd.,
Le Cynisme et ses prolonguements (Paris) 259–80. [English version no. 70,
below.]
51. ‘Livy’s Preface’, PCPhS 39: 141–68.
52. ‘On Reading Cornelius Nepos with Nicholas Horsfall’, LCM 18: 76–80.
xviii Publications of J. L. Moles
53. ‘Truth and Untruth in Greek and Roman Historiography’, in C. Gill and
T. P. Wiseman, edd., Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World (Exeter and
Austin) 88–121.
54. ‘Textual and Interpretative Notes on Plutarch’s Cicero’, in H. D. Jocelyn
and H. Hurt, edd., Tria Lustra: Essays Presented to John Pinsent (Liverpool)
151–6.
55. ‘Thucydides’, JACT Review 14: 14–18.
56. Review of P. A. Stadter, ed., Plutarch and the Historical Tradition (London
and New York, 1992), CR 43: 29–32.
57. Review of D. A. Russell, Dio Chrysostom: Orations VII, XII, XXXVI
(Cambridge, 1992), CR 43: 256–8.
58. Review of J. M. Alonso-Núñez, La historia universal de Pompeyo Trogo
(Madrid, 1992), CR 43: 285–6.
59. Review of A. J. Pomeroy, The Appropriate Comment: Death Notices in the
Ancient Historians (Frankfurt am Main, 1991), CR 43: 295–6
60. Review of Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy: Supplementary Volume
1991: Aristotle and the Later Tradition (Oxford, 1991), Ploutarchos 9: 32–4.
1994
61. ‘Xenophon and Callicratidas’, JHS 114: 70–84.
62. Review of N. G. L. Hammond, Sources for Alexander the Great: an Analysis
of Plutarch’s Life and Arrian’s Anabasis Alexandrou (Cambridge, 1993),
CR 44: 344–5.
63. Review of T. J. Figueira, Excursions in Epichoric History: Aiginetan Essays
(Lanham, Md., 1993), CR 44: 331–3.
64. Review of F. Chamoux, P. Bertrac, and Y. Vernière, edd., Diodore de Sicile:
Bibliotheque Historique I (Paris, 1993), CR 44: 272–4.
1995
65. ‘The Cynics and Politics’, in A. Laks and M. Schofield, edd., Justice
and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy
(Cambridge) 129–58.
66. ‘Dio Chrysostom, Greece, and Rome’, in H. Hine, D. C. Innes, and C. Pelling,
edd., Ethics and Rhetoric: Studies Presented to Donald Russell (Oxford)
177–92.
67. Review of E. Badian, From Plataea to Potidaea: Studies in the History and
Historiography of the Pentekontaetia (Baltimore and London, 1993), JHS
115: 213–5.
68. Review of R. Mayer, ed., Horace: Epistles I (Cambridge, 1994), BMCR 6.2:
160–70 (= BMCR 1995.02.37).
Publications of J. L. Moles xix
1996
69. ‘Herodotus Warns the Athenians’, PLLS 9: 259–84.
70. ‘Cynic Cosmopolitanism’, in M.-O. Goulet-Cazé and R. B. Branham, edd.,
The Cynics: the Cynic Movement in Antiquity and its Legacy (Berkeley, Los
Angeles and London) 105–20.
1997
71. ‘Plutarch, Brutus and Brutus’ Greek and Latin Letters’, in J. Mossman, ed.,
Plutarch and his Intellectual World (London) 141–68.
1998
72. ‘Cry Freedom: Tacitus Annals 4.32–35’, Histos 2: 95–184.
1999
73. ‘ΑΝΑΘΗΜΑ ΚΑΙ ΚΤΗΜΑ : the Inscriptional Inheritance of Ancient Histori-
ography’, Histos 3: 27–69.
2000
74. ‘The Dionian Charidemus’, in S. Swain, ed., Dio Chrysostom: Politics,
Letters, and Philosophy (Oxford) 187–210.
75. ‘The Cynics’, in C. J. Rowe and M. Schofield, edd., The Cambridge History
of Greek and Roman Political Thought (Cambridge) 415–34. (Entitled ‘The
Political Thought of the Cynics’ in this collection.)
2001
76. ‘A False Dilemma: Thucydides’ History and Historicism’, in S. J. Harrison,
ed., Texts, Ideas, and the Classics: Scholarship, Theory, and Classical
Literature (Oxford) 195–219.
2002
77. ‘Reconstructing Plancus: Horace, Odes 1.7’, JRS 92: 86–109.
78. ‘Poetry, Philosophy, Politics and Play: Epistles 1’, in T. Woodman and
D. Feeney, edd., Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace (Cam-
bridge) 141–57, 235–7.
79. ‘Herodotus and Athens’, in E. J. Bakker, I. J. F. de Jong, and H. van Wees,
edd., Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden) 33–52.
2003
80. ‘Dio und Trajan’, in K. Piepenbrink, ed., Philosophie und Lebenswelt in der
Antike (Darmstadt) 186–207. (English edition, previously unpublished, is
entitled ‘Dio and Trajan’ in this collection.)
xx Publications of J. L. Moles
2005
81. ‘The Thirteenth Oration of Dio Chrysostom: Complexity and Simplicity,
Rhetoric and Moralism, Literature and Life’, JHS 125: 112–38.
2006
82. ‘Cynic Influence upon First-Century Judaism and Early Christianity?’, in
B. McGing and J. Mossman, edd., The Limits of Biography (London and
Swansea) 89–116.
83. ‘Jesus and Dionysus in The Acts of the Apostles and Early Christianity’,
Hermathena 180: 65–104.
2007
84. ‘Philosophy and Ethics’, in S. Harrison, ed., Cambridge Companion to
Horace (Cambridge) 165–80. (Entitled ‘Philosophy and Ethics in Horace’
in this collection.)
85. ‘“Saving” Greece from the “Ignominy” of Tyranny? The “Famous” and
“Wonderful” Speech of Socles (5.92)’, in E. Irwin and E. Greenwood, edd.,
Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories
(Cambridge) 245–68.
2008
86. ‘Defacing the Currency: Cynicism in Dio Chrysostom’ (unpublished)
2010
87. ‘Narrative and Speech Problems in Thucydides Book I’, in C. S. Kraus,
J. Marincola, and C. Pelling, edd., Ancient Historiography and its Contexts:
Studies in Honour of A. J. Woodman (Oxford) 15–39.
2011
88. ‘Luke’s Preface: the Greek Decree, Classical Historiography, and Christian
Redefinitions’, NTS 57: 461–82.
89. ‘Jesus the Healer in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and Early
Christianity’, Histos 5: 117–82.
2012
90. ‘Horace: Life, Death, Friendship and Philosophy’, in The Horatian Society
Addresses (Horatian Society, London) 5–18.
91. ‘Luke and Acts: Prefaces and Consequences’ (previously unpublished)
92. ‘What’s in a Name? Χριστός/χρηστός and χριστιανοί/χρηστιανοί in the
First Century AD’ (unpublished).
Publications of J. L. Moles xxi
2013
93. ‘Time and Space Travel in Luke-Acts’, in R. Dupertuis and T. Penner, edd.,
Engaging Early Christian History: Reading Acts in the Second Century
(Durham) 101–22.
94. ‘Matthew the Mathete: Sphragis, Authority, Mathesis, Succession, and
Gospel Truth’ (previously unpublished)
95. ‘Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Christian Philosophy in Luke-Acts’
(previously unpublished)
2014
96. ‘Accommodation, Opposition or Other: Luke–Acts’ Stance Towards
Rome’, in J. M. Madsen and R. Rees, edd., Roman Rule in Greek and Latin
Writing: Double Vision (Leiden) 79–104.
97. ‘Vergil’s Loss of Virginity: Reading the Life’ (previously unpublished)
98. ‘Selling Christian Happiness to Pagans: the Case of Luke-Acts’
(previously unpublished)
2017
99. ‘Romane, Memento: Antisthenes, Dio and Virgil on the Education of the
Strong’, in A. J. Woodman and J. Wisse, edd., Word and Context in Latin
Poetry: Studies in Memory of David West (Cambridge) 105–30.
100. A Commentary on Plutarch’s Brutus, edited with updated bibliography by
C. B. R. Pelling (Histos Supplement 7; Newcastle).
Moles also wrote the entry ‘Demonax’ in D. J. Zeyl, ed., Encyclopedia of Classical
Philosophy (Westport, 1997) 172–3, and various entries on Cynicism in OCD3:
‘Bion of Borysthenes’ (243); ‘Diatribe’ (463–4); ‘Diogenes the Cynic’ (473–4);
‘Cynics’ (418–19); ‘Crates of Thebes’ (406); and ‘Oenomaos’ (562).
Abbreviations
Ancient Authors. Abbreviations for ancient authors generally follow

H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, edd., Greek–English Lexicon, and P. G. W. Glare, ed.,
Oxford Latin Dictionary.
Note, however, that Dio Chrysostom is always and everywhere cited simply
as ‘Dio’.
Modern Works. Abbreviations for journals follow those of L’Année Philologique,

with the usual English-language modifications. For frequently cited modern
works, the following are used.
ABD D. N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols (New York, 1992).
ANRW H. Temporini, et al., edd., Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt
(Berlin and New York, 1972–).
CAH2 Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1961–2005).
CIG A. Boeckh, et al., edd., Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (Berlin,
1828–77).
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1863–).
Cohoon / J. W. Cohoon and H. L. Crosby, Dio Chrysostom (London and
Crosby Cambridge, Mass. 1932–51), 5 vols. Cohoon edited and translated
Orations 1–31, Crosby Orations 32–80; cited by author’s name, followed
by volume and page number.
D–K H. Diels and W. Kranz, edd., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Berlin,
61951).
FGrHist F. Jacoby, et al., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin and
Leiden, 1923–56; Leiden, 1994–). Texts are cited by the number of the
historian, and T(estimonium) or F(ragment).
FRHist T. J. Cornell, ed., Fragments of the Roman Historians (Oxford, 2017).
Texts are cited by the number of the historian, and T(estimonium) or
F(ragment).
HRR H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1906; vol. I2,
1914).
IEG2 M. L. West, Iambi et Elegi Graeci, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1989–92).
IGR R. Cagnat, ed., Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes (Paris,
1906–27).
ILLRP A. Degrassi, ed., Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae (Florence,
1963; vol. I2, 1965).
Abbreviations xxiii
ILS H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Berlin, 1892–1916).

L–M A. Laks and G. Most, edd., Early Greek Philosophy, 9 vols. (Cambridge,
Mass. and London, 2016).
Long–Sedley A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, edd., The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols.
(Cambridge, 1987).
LSJ9 H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek–English Lexicon, 9th ed.
(Oxford, 1968; repr. with new supplement, ed. P. G. W. Glare, 1996).
L&S C. T. Lewis and C. Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1880).
OCD2 N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard, edd., The Oxford Classical
Dictionary, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1970).
OCD3 S. Hornblower and A. J. Spawforth, edd., The Oxford Classical
Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1996).
OCD4 S. Hornblower, A. J. Spawforth, and E. Eidinow, edd., The Oxford
Classical Dictionary, 4th ed. (Oxford, 2012).
OGIS W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae (Leipzig,
1915–24).
OLD P. G. W. Glare, ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1982).
PCG R. Kassell and C. Austin, eds., Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin, 1983–).
Cited by fragment number with volume and page number in
parentheses.
PIR1 E. Klebs and H. Dessau, edd., Prosopographia Imperii Romani (Berlin,
1897–8).
PIR2 E. Groag, A. Stein, et al., edd., Prosopographia Imperii Romani, 2nd ed.
(Berlin, 1933–).
PSI Papiri Greci e Latini: Pubblicazioni della Società italiana per la ricerca
dei papiri greci e latini in Egitto (Florence, 1912–)
RE A. von Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, edd., Real-Encyclopädie der
klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1894–1978).
SIG3 W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd ed. (Leipzig,
1915–24).
SR G. Giannantoni, Socraticorum Reliquiae, 4 vols. (Naples, 1983–5).
SSR G. Giannantoni, Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae, 4 vols. (Naples,
1990).
SVF H. von Arnim, ed., Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4 vols. (1903–24).
TrGF B. Snell et al., edd., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Göttingen,
1971–2004).
TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Munich, 1900–).
Permissions
We gratefully acknowledge the following publishers and individuals for per-

mission to reprint the papers for which they hold the copyright. Numbers in
parentheses refer to the chapters in this volume.
E. J. Brill, Leiden:
(56) ‘Herodotus and Athens’, in E. J. Bakker, I. J. F. de Jong, and H. van Wees,
edd., Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden, 2002) 33–52.
Cambridge Philological Society, Cambridge:

(50) ‘Livy’s Preface’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 39
(1993) 141–68.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York:

(37) Review of J. Geiger, Cornelius Nepos and Ancient Political Biography
(Wiesbaden, 1985), Classical Review 39 (1989) 229–33.
(38) Review of P. A. Stadter, A Commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles (Chapel
Hill, 1989), Classical Review 42 (1992) 289–94.
(39) Review of N. Horsfall, Cornelius Nepos: a selection, including the Lives of
Cato and Atticus (Oxford, 1989), Classical Review 42 (1992) 314–6.
(46) ‘The Interpretation of the “Second Preface” in Arrian’s Anabasis’, Journal
of Hellenic Studies 105 (1985) 162–8.
(48) Review of V. J. Gray, The Character of Xenophon’s Hellenica (London and
Baltimore, 1989), Classical Review 42 (1992) 281–4.
(51) ‘Xenophon and Callicratidas’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 114 (1994) 70–84.
(57) ‘“Saving” Greece from the “Ignominy” of Tyranny? The “Famous” and
“Wonderful” Speech of Socles (5.92)’, in E. Irwin and E. Greenwood, edd.,
Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories
(Cambridge, 2007) 245–68.
(59) ‘Notes on Aristotle, Poetics 13 and 14’, Classical Quarterly n.s. 29 (1979):
77–94.
(66) ‘Aristotle and Dido’s Hamartia’, Greece & Rome 31 (1984) 48–54.
(69) ‘The Dramatic Coherence of Ovid, Amores 1.1 and 1.2’, Classical Quarterly
41 (1991) 551–4.
(71) ‘Reconstructing Plancus (Horace, C. 1.7)’, Journal of Roman Studies 92
(2002) 86–109.
Permissions xxv
(72) ‘Poetry, Philosophy, Politics and Play: Epistles 1’, in T. Woodman and
D. Feeney, edd., Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace (Cambridge,
2002) 141–57, 235–7.
Classical Association, London:

(35) ‘Plutarch, Brutus, and the Ghost of Caesar’, Proceedings of the Classical
Association 82 (1985) 19–20.
Classical Association of Canada, Calgary:

(63) ‘Philanthropia in the Poetics’, Phoenix 38: 325–35.
Classical Press of Wales, Swansea:

(44) ‘Plutarch, Brutus, and Brutus’ Greek and Latin Letters’, in J. Mossman,
ed., Plutarch and his Intellectual World (London, 1997) 141–68.
Exeter University Press, Exeter:

(49) ‘Truth and Untruth in Greek and Roman Historiography’, in C. Gill and
T. P. Wiseman, edd., Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World (Exeter and Austin,
1993) 88–121.
Francis Cairns Publications, Prenton, UK

(52) ‘Herodotus Warns the Athenians’, PLLS 9 (1996) 259–84.
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland:

(34) ‘Fate, Apollo and M. Iunius Brutus’, American Journal of Philology 104
(1983) 249–56.
(45) ‘Virgil, Pompey and the Histories of Asinius Pollio’, Classical World 76
(1983) 287–8.
Ruth Chambers and the Estate of John L. Moles:

(31) ‘Plutarch, Crassus 13.4–5, and Cicero’s de consiliis suis’, Liverpool Classical
Monthly 7 (1982) 136–7.
(32) ‘The Ides of March and Anna Perenna’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 7
(1982) 89–90.
(34, 66) ‘Brutus and Dido Revisited’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 9 (1984) 156.
(42) ‘On Reading Cornelius Nepos with Nicholas Horsfall’, Liverpool Classical
Monthly 18 (1993) 76–80.
(43) ‘Textual and Interpretative Notes on Plutarch’s Cicero’, in H. D. Jocelyn
and H. Hurt, edd., Tria Lustra: Essays Presented to John Pinsent (Liverpool, 1993)
151–6.
xxvi Permissions
(53) ‘Cry Freedom: Tacitus Annals 4.32–35’, Histos 2 (1998) 95–184.

(54) Ἀνάθημα καὶ Κτῆμα: the Inscriptional Inheritance of Ancient
Historiography’, Histos 3 (1998) 27–69.
(60) ‘A Neglected Aspect of Agamemnon 1389–92’, Liverpool Classical
Monthly 4 (1979) 179–89.
(61) ‘A Note on Antigone 1238f.’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 4 (1980) 193–6.
(62) ‘Aeschylus, Agamemnon 36–37 Again’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 9
(1984) 5–6.
(64) Review of S. Goldhill, Language, Sexuality, Narrative: The Oresteia
(Cambridge, 1984), Liverpool Classical Monthly 11 (1986) 55–64.
(65) ‘A Note on Cicero, ad Quintum fratrem 2.10(9).3’, Liverpool Classical
Monthly 7 (1982) 63–5.
(68) ‘The Tragedy and Guilt of Dido’, in M. Whitby, M. Whitby, and
P. R. Hardie, edd., Homo Viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble (Bristol and
Chicago, 1987), 153–61.
(70) Review of R. Mayer, ed., Horace: Epistles I (Cambridge, 1994), Bryn Mawr
Classical Review 6.2: 160–70 = BMCR online 1995.02.37.
(73) ‘Vergil’s Loss of Virginity’ (previously unpublished).
(74) ‘Horace: Life, Death, Friendship and Philosophy’, in The Horatian Society
Addresses (Horatian Society, London, 2012) 5–18.
Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York:

(55) ‘A False Dilemma: Thucydides’ History and Historicism’, in S. J. Harrison,
ed., Texts, Ideas and the Classics: Scholarship, Theory and Classical Literature
(Oxford, 2001) 195–219.
(58) ‘Narrative and Speech Problems in Thucydides Book I’, in C. S. Kraus,
J. Marincola, and C. Pelling, edd., Ancient Historiography and its Contexts:
Studies in Honour of A. J. Woodman (Oxford, 2010) 15–39.
Routledge, London and New York

(47) Review of A. J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: Four
Studies (London, Sydney, and Portland, 1988)’, History of the Human Sciences
3.2 (1990) 317–21.
J. D. Sauerländer’s Verlag, Bad Orb, Germany:

(36) ‘The Attacks on L. Cornelius Cinna, Praetor in 44 BC’, Rheinisches
Museum für Philologie 130 (1987) 124–8.
Permissions xxvii
Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa and Rome:

(67) ‘Politics, Philosophy, and Friendship in Horace Odes 2.7’, Quaderni
Urbinati di Cultura Classica 25 (1987) 59–72.
Société d’études latines de Bruxelles, Brussels:

(33) ‘Some “Last Words” of M. Iunius Brutus’, Latomus 42 (1983) 763–79.
Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart:

(40) ‘The Text and Interpretation of Plutarch, Vit. Cic. 45.1’, Hermes 120 (1992)
240–44.
(41) ‘Plutarch, Vit. Ant. 31.3 and Suetonius, Aug. 69.2’, Hermes 120 (1992)
245–7.
Professor J. L. Moles
A. J. Woodman
John Moles, born in Belfast in 1949, came from a linguistically gifted family.*
His father was a headmaster whose hobby was learning new languages; his
mother was a modern linguist; his uncle taught Classics at John’s school; and
his sister taught French at the University of Glasgow. He attended the Royal
Belfast Academical Institution, which was also the alma mater of E. Courtney,
J. C. McKeown and R. K. Gibson; while there, he twice became Ulster Chess
Champion; he was also Irish Champion in 1966 and 1971, and twice a member
of the Olympiad Team. He would go on to write The French Defence Main Line
Winawer (1975), described by Wolfgang Heidenfeld as ‘perhaps the best of all
chess opening monographs’, and French Winawer: Modern and Auxiliary Lines
(1979, with K. Wicker). He invested the royalties in wine, of which he was a
connoisseur. In later years he resisted all attempts at persuading him to return
to chess.
After an outstanding school career, John followed his brother to Oxford, win-
ning a scholarship to Corpus Christi College, where he was in the first cohort
to be allowed to offer literature for ‘Greats’ (previously there had been no alter-
native to philosophy and ancient history). At Corpus he was taught by Ewen
Bowie, John Bramble, Frank Lepper and Robin Nisbet; after Firsts in ‘Mods’ and
‘Greats’ he wrote A Commentary on Plutarch’s ‘Brutus’ for his D.Phil., supervised
by both Bowie and Donald Russell. One of his later regrets was that he never
seemed to have the time or opportunity to revise his thesis for publication.1 For
a year (1974–5) he held a temporary lectureship at Reading, which was followed
by permanent positions at Queen’s University, Belfast, and University College
of North Wales, Bangor (respectively 1975–9 and 1979–87), where there was a
small Department of Classics headed by M. F. Smith.
I first met John more than thirty years ago, in 1983, when he turned up at the
‘Past Perspectives’ conference on historiography which I had helped to organ-
ise in Leeds. He made an immediate impression because of his hair, which in
those days stuck out rather wildly on each side of his head; but this was not the
reason that we came to be colleagues in Durham, to which I had moved from
* This remembrance appeared originally in Histos 9 (2015) 312–18; the updated version is
printed here by kind permission of the author.
1 His thesis has now been published as Histos Supplement 7 (2017), with updated bibliography
by Christopher Pelling.
Professor J. L. Moles xxix
Leeds in 1984. In the second half of the 80s the Classics Department at Durham,
which at the time attracted more students than anywhere else in the country
apart from Oxford and Cambridge, found itself in a developing crisis: several
colleagues in quick succession departed either through retirement or resigna-
tion, but the university refused to replace any of them, with the result that
our staff:student ratio was becoming almost insupportable. Since this was a
period when the University Grants Committee was encouraging departmental
mergers, I suggested to our Vice-Chancellor that, if vacant positions were not
to be filled, we should perhaps try to tempt some other Department of Classics
to transfer itself to Durham. When he agreed to this in principle, I made the
further suggestion that perhaps we should open negotiations with the small
Department in Bangor. I reckoned that its members would be attracted by the
prospect of teaching Greek and Latin literature in the original languages to
large numbers of students, while we for our part would acquire the desired
new colleagues, amongst whom was a brilliant young historiographer.
The transfer of Bangor Classics to Durham, strongly supported by
Professor J. A. Cannon of the UGC, was the first merger of Classics Departments
in the country. John arrived in 1987 and immediately made his mark: occupying
a large room in the Department, he covered every surface with mounds of files,
papers and books, which he then proceeded to impregnate with cigar smoke.
The cleaners were forbidden to touch anything, and indeed couldn’t have done
any cleaning even if they had wanted to. (Nor did they have to face Boris, the
legendarily neurotic dog, as had often been the case with their counterparts
in Bangor. John was always very fond of dogs.) Although he lived out of town
and refused ever to learn to drive a car, he would get the bus back into town in
the evening and would spend several hours working in the Department until
it was time for the last bus home again. Very often he would come along to
my room, slump into the ancient armchair, and test out his latest ideas in col-
legial conversation, delighted to be in the company of someone who at that
time smoked even more cigars than he did. Many of my pleasantest hours in
Durham were passed with John in this way, discussing the issues and problems
raised by Latin or life.
Before coming to Durham John had already published over twenty articles or
book chapters on a wide range of major Greek and Latin authors; the year after
he arrived in Durham, there appeared the only classical book to be published
in his lifetime, a translation of, and commentary on, Plutarch’s Life of Cicero
in the Aris & Phillips series. It is unusually good at providing material at all
levels: an excellent introduction to Plutarch for beginners, it is also much more
quoted than most other volumes in the series because of its contributions to
xxx Woodman
scholarship (his discussion of the concept of ‘truth’ is especially noteworthy).

In his translation he sought to reproduce in English the verbal patterns which
articulated the author’s meaning: he regarded this as an extremely important
function of translation, and his method became a feature of much of his later
scholarship, proving especially fruitful in his various analyses of Thucydides.
His sensitivity to verbal patterns was also part of what became a larger project,
namely his attempt at persuading readers of Greek and Latin literature that
many classical texts were filled with puns, plays, and verbal wit of all kinds,
especially those relating to proper names. This became one of his particular
concerns when, at a later stage, he turned his attention to New Testament texts.
John’s move to Durham did nothing to interrupt his productivity, with
the result that by the end of the 1990s he had published (often more than
once) on Aeschylus, Sophocles, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Arrian,
Aristotle, Livy, Cornelius Nepos, Horace, Virgil, Ovid, Tacitus, Plutarch, and Dio
Chrysostom, as well as several studies of Cynicism (on which he would later be
interviewed by Melvyn Bragg on the radio). He regarded the interdisciplinary
nature of classical scholarship as one of its great glories, and he endeavoured
to put it into practice, gratified that his own work crossed the boundaries of
literature, history, and philosophy. This substantial and remarkably diverse
range of scholarship has as its defining and unifying feature John’s consistent
attempt at arriving at original positions on the texts and authors he discussed.
The outstanding quality of his work was such that he was promoted to Reader
in 1993 and was awarded a personal Chair in 1996.
The late 1990s saw Durham Classics experience a second crisis a decade
after the first. The University was using a financial model which projected
that the Department of Classics would be in debt to the tune of £1 million
by the year 2000. This was regarded as unsustainable, and the administration
in its wisdom proposed to close down the Department. Colleagues were sent
a letter by the relevant Pro-Vice-Chancellor (formerly a medieval historian
of considerable distinction), suggesting that they take early retirement and
threatening redundancy if not. The immediate response to this intimidation
was panic, and we naturally looked to our leader to see what should be done.
Our leader at the time happened to be John, who was now paying the price
for his personal Chair and, rather improbably, was serving his term of office
as Head of Department. Over the critical period that followed, John almost
single-handedly devised a rescue plan, which, though to some of us it seemed
to contain elements of pure fantasy, nevertheless was sufficient to persuade
the administration of the viability of our continued existence. Any success that
the Department has enjoyed during the past decades is due significantly to
John; without his inventive genius there might not now be a Department at all.
Professor J. L. Moles xxxi
It is absolutely characteristic that, while this crisis consumed an enormous

amount of John’s time and energy, he nevertheless thought it vital to fulfil his
more personal responsibilities as Head of Department. He was, for example,
painstakingly supportive of his short-term colleagues and junior researchers,
for whom he would make time to check if they were happy in his Department,
to advise them on all academic matters, and even to organise social events at
his own expense. It was also thanks to the trust he inspired and to the confi-
dence in themselves which he helped them develop that they proceeded to
their future careers at a time when such a prospect seemed almost impossi-
ble. His tenure of the headship is remembered with affection as well as grati-
tude; and his concern for junior colleagues remained unchanged throughout
his career.
John’s promotion to Professor coincided also with the birth of Histos, whose
first issue, under his editorship, came out in 1997. Since John had been an early
user of word-processors and computers, in retrospect it was perhaps less sur-
prising that he conceived the striking notion of combining a modern method
of communication with what was then, and remains, a hot topic in classical
scholarship. At the time, however, an online journal devoted to classical his-
toriography seemed—and indeed was—revolutionary; and, when one looks
back at that issue of 1997, one cannot fail to be amazed at the glittering names
of the contributors. Each of these scholars—scholars of the distinction of
F. W. Walbank and T. P. Wiseman, to give two examples—had contributed
either as the result of a direct invitation from John or because of his reputation.
As founder and editor, John did everything himself, apart from the technical
business of putting the papers and reviews on screen, which was done by our
colleague and fellow historiographer David Levene.
Histos brought immense prestige and welcome publicity to the Durham
department at a difficult period, but, when the Chair of Latin at Newcastle was
advertised in 2000, John felt it was the moment for a new challenge and submit-
ted an application. As it happened, there were several professorial vacancies at
the time, and highly eligible applicants for them; but it seemed to me then, as
it still does now, that Newcastle were interested only in capturing John, who
thus became their fourth Professor of Latin in succession to Jonathan Powell
(1992–2001), David West (1969–92) and G. B. A. Fletcher (1946–69, having first
joined the Department as Professor of Classics in 1937): a more distinguished
line-up is difficult to imagine. When he took up his Chair, John went out of his
way to encourage the participation of David West, who was still living locally,
in seminars and the like; in just the same way he would make a point each
week of socialising with another long-retired Newcastle Latinist, Donald Hill.
Although he had a decidedly contrary streak (which came out especially in
xxxii Woodman
his wicked sense of humour and love of provocative statements), John always
displayed a highly developed sense of responsibility.
John’s departure for Newcastle meant a break in the publication of Histos,
partly because the journal’s website remained at Durham; but, thanks to the
persistent enthusiasm and effort of John Marincola, there was a new start in
2011 under the joint banners of Florida State and Newcastle universities and
under the joint editorship of Professors Marincola and Moles. The new start
included a complete re-formatting and up-dating of the earlier issues, all of
them utterly professional in appearance, accessibility, and navigability. Some
of the papers published in Histos have become classics, and beginning in 2014
a supplementary series of monographs was begun. Histos, in other words, goes
from strength to strength, all due to John Moles’ foresight more than two dec-
ades ago. It was his pride and joy, and rightly so.
For someone who relied so much on computers, John was a strangely
reluctant user of email; he much preferred the telephone as a means of com-
munication, and thought nothing of extended long-distance phone-calls
to colleagues—sometimes across the Atlantic, and sometimes to scholars
scarcely known to him—to satisfy his curiosity about some point in a Latin
or Greek text. His phone-calling probably reached its height during his last
years in Durham, when he was trying to increase the number of submissions to
Histos, and it was Histos which also accounted for much of his scholarly energy.
He was repeatedly dismayed by the standard of submissions in terms of argu-
ment or stylistic presentation. He loved the making of a case and would often
spend many days trying to improve a single submission, writing comments and
corrections or re-writing entire sections. Exactly the same treatment was given
to the work of postgraduate students, some of whose first publications owe
far more to Moles than to the authors themselves. His role as creative reader
and critic of draft papers was not confined to his own department. Not long
after I first met him, I sent him the draft of what would eventually become a
book-chapter on Thucydides, an author in whom John had an intense interest
(at one point he planned to co-author a commentary on Book 1). A substantial
interval elapsed, as usually happened where John was concerned; but in due
course I received many closely typed pages of detailed notes and comments,
which were so helpful that I singled him out for special mention in the pref-
ace to my book. In the years that followed I would very often take advantage
of his generosity and acumen in this way; and I was not alone in so doing, as
Christopher Pelling amongst others will testify.
Although one would scarcely describe John as one of Nature’s administra-
tors, his research achievements meant that he was a natural choice to chair the
departmental Research Committee in Durham for three years in the mid-90s.
Professor J. L. Moles xxxiii
He was a most effective chairman, encouraging colleagues to write and publish

and, as always, offering help where necessary. He also oversaw the departmen-
tal research seminar, and, after he had moved to Newcastle, undertook similar
roles there. In particular he was responsible for co-ordinating the Newcastle
Classics submission for the 2014 ‘Research Excellence Framework’, a task not
to be wished on anyone.
The move from Durham to Newcastle saw a dramatic new development
in John’s scholarly interests, although he saw it more as a natural extension
of work on which he had been engaged for many years. While he continued
to publish on his favourite classical authors, from the mid-2000s he began
research on the New Testament, especially Luke-Acts, on which he became an
expert and published extensively. If this latest interest typified his intellectual
curiosity and need for challenge, it should not lead us to forget another man-
ifestation of them: for many years he was also a prolific reviewer. In the 80s
and 90s he had reviewed for various journals on a wide variety of topics. His
review-discussion of Simon Goldhill’s first book created almost as much stir
as the book itself, while his review of Joseph Geiger is rightly seen as a classic
contribution to the study of political biography. Although he eventually aban-
doned reviewing as too time-consuming, it was a task which he took extremely
seriously, regarding himself as a fearless critic.
John’s love of argument meant that he was always on top form in seminars
or at conferences, for which he was correspondingly in great demand; and the
fertility of his brain allowed him to accept invitations to speak on widely dif-
ferent subjects at many different venues in the United Kingdom and across
Europe and the United States. What turned out to be his last conference was
in Heidelberg in the summer of 2015, where he delivered the key-note address
on the subject of Seneca and Horace. He ‘contributed massively to the discus-
sions’, wrote one of the organisers in tribute. ‘He was an example of insight,
openness, and modesty’ (John, though a scholar of firm views, was famously
self-deprecating).2 In advance of the conference, as was usual, he had tested out
on me his ideas and insights during the course of numerous weekly meetings
over coffee; we held these meetings without fail during my periods at home in
England, and they were always extremely enjoyable occasions: it seems impos-
sible to believe that tomorrow, or perhaps the next day, I shall not get one of
his phone calls demanding my immediate presence at our regular rendezvous.
2 The volume, Horace and Seneca: Interactions, Intertexts, Interpretations, edited by Martin
Stöckinger, Kathrin Winter, and Andreas T. Zanker has now been published (Berlin and
Boston, 2017), and is dedicated to John’s memory.
xxxiv Woodman
Sociability was very important to him. He loved company, especially if there

was good food and drink. He believed that scholarly visitors, whether lecturing
or examining, should not only be treated with the respect due to their function
but also given a good time, often resorting to his own pocket when limited
departmental resources failed. Many visitors to Durham and Newcastle will
have pleasure in remembering—or, in some cases, trying to remember—the
hospitality to which they were treated when John was master of ceremonies. He
had been greatly looking forward to welcoming to Newcastle the new co-editor
of Histos, Christopher Krebs, whose visit was scheduled for the week after he
died: it is beyond sad that he was denied the opportunity of offering the hos-
pitality for which he had made such elaborate and far-sighted arrangements.
John died suddenly in the afternoon of Sunday, 4 October, from heart fail-
ure. Although he produced so much brilliant scholarship, he always felt that
he could have done more. The fact is that he devoted so much of his time,
almost all of it unheralded and unrewarded, to the work of others; in all the
tributes that have been paid to him since his death, the most consistent refer-
ence has been to his kindness. Although it is perhaps only natural that scholars
will never feel satisfied with their work, John leaves as a legacy of his genius a
body of scholarship which in its range and quantity, imagination, and acuity,
one finds hard to parallel.3
3 For comments and memories I am most grateful to members of John’s family, as well as to
Ewen Bowie, Anna Chahoud, John Marincola, Damien Nelis, Christopher Pelling, Elizabeth
Pender, Martin Smith, and Rowland Smith.
Introduction to Parts 4 and 5
Christopher Pelling
In late 1979 I faced the daunting task of examining John Moles’ Commentary on
Plutarch’s Brutus as a doctoral thesis, along with Alan Wardman as co-examiner.
It was one of the first doctorates to come my way, but it was not hard to realise
that most were not quite like this: the depth of scholarship, the range of inter-
ests, the sharpness of the comment were all outstanding. There were also a fair
number of the Molesian touches that were to become so familiar in his later
work. The first page set out its stall:
This commentary is … to some extent restricted in its scope and is avow-

edly a ‘literary’ one. But one must use inverted commas because it is
really impossible to make an absolute distinction between historical,
philosophical, or literary approaches1
And he goes on to explain why: the literary critic needs to explore what mate-
rial Plutarch would have been working with in order to see what he has done
with it; the historian cannot gauge the reliability of the material without an
idea of how it has been reshaped. Many of the papers collected in this vol-
ume will revisit, and again firmly qualify, that distinction between ‘historical’
and ‘literary’ approaches, with similar rebukes for anyone toying with what he
called the ‘pure lit.’ approach.
There were other things too. Take for example the intricate commentary
on Brut. 2.5–8, Plutarch’s discussion of Brutus’ Laconic epistolary style (Moles
[2017] 66–76). It is a tour de force, demonstrating that ‘from several points of
view, 2.5–8 is an excellent illustration of the subtlety and elusiveness of P.’s
literary art’. A certain amount of the subtlety depended on the double mean-
ing he found in the word παράσημος, first apparently in the sense ‘striking’
(2.5) and then in the enigmatic summary ‘that is what these παράσημα letters
are like’ (2.8). For Moles this suggested the alternative sense ‘counterfeit’, and
served as an indication to the knowing reader that these letters were forgeries,
even though on the face of it he has taken and quoted them ‘straight’. He found
a fair number of other puns and wordplays in the Life as well, including ones
that even he found ‘horrendous’ ([2017] 36)—not, on the whole, features that
had previously been thought Plutarchan characteristics. It is fair to say that his
1 Quoted from the posthumous publication, Moles (2017) i.
© Christopher Pelling, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004538726_002

2 Pelling
examiners were not wholly convinced. On 2.5–8 one of us asked ‘do you think
Plutarch is really that sort of author?’ He left us in no doubt of his view that
yes, Plutarch was. His future work would make it clear that he thought many
other authors were too.
John never published his thesis, though he never abandoned the thought
of doing so, and it eventually appeared posthumously in 2017. I was able then
to add some bibliographical updating, but there is no doubt that John him-
self would have revised it much more thoroughly and responded vigorously
to later scholarship. His reply in 1997 to Shackleton Bailey’s treatment of Cic.
ad Brutum 1.16 (below, Ch. 44) gives some idea of what he might have done. It
is true that the ‘book of the thesis’ was less of a career necessity in 1979 than
it later became, and for that matter John already had a permanent position at
Bangor; but it is hard to think that that was the reason. His mind was already
moving on to other authors and other things, with that restless thorough-
ness that was never going to be content with less than a full investigation—a
further characteristic, incidentally, already visible in the thesis, for the long
excursus on demonology and Zoroastrianism went well beyond anyone’s idea
of the needs of a Brutus commentary (Moles [2017] 314–27). His substantial
first paper on Dio Chrysostom (vol. 1, Ch. 1) had already come out in 1978; a
note on Aristotle’s Poetics and a paper on Aeschylus followed in 1979 (below,
Chs. 59–60); another tragedy paper came in 1980 (below, Ch. 61). Not that he
left Plutarch completely. Several of his papers in the 1980s and 1990s extracted
and revised material from the dissertation (below, Chs. 32–36, 44), and oth-
ers built on the Plutarchan expertise that he had acquired during the doc-
toral years (below, Chs. 31, 37–8, 40–41, 43). His Aris and Phillips Cicero also
appeared in 1989.2 As Tony Woodman said in his Histos obituary, ‘it is unusually
good at providing materials at all levels: an excellent introduction to Plutarch
for beginners, it is also much more quoted than most other volumes in the
series because of its contributions to scholarship’.3
That turned out to be the only book he published, and yet in the arti-
cles one often feels that there is a book waiting to burst out: books, per-
haps, on ‘Herodotus and imperialism’, or on ‘Tacitus and the empire’, or on
‘Historiographic prefaces’, or more generally on the interplay of the literary
and the historical. As Oliver Taplin said of Colin Macleod, ‘many a scholar
would have made whole monographs out of his austere paragraphs’:4 a sen-
tence like ‘textualised history does not create history: it is a metaphor for it’
2 Moles (1988).
3 Woodman (2015) 313 = above, p. xxix.
4 Taplin ap. Macleod (1983) ix.
(below, p. 301) prompts intense reflection and invites expansion. There is

certainly a book on Xenophon’s Hellenica lurking in his praise for its ‘generic
diversity’, ‘part Thucydidean, part-Herodotean, partly events-driven history,
partly individual-centred history, sometimes closely linked to the prose enco-
mium, of which Xenophon was a pioneer, sometimes closely linked to political
biography, of which Xenophon was also a pioneer’ (below, p. 286). Long foot-
notes frequently grapple with vast problems, again indicating how much he
had to say (e.g., below, pp. 289 n. 26, 292 n. 31, 320 n. 84, 328 n. 90, 346–7 n. 111,
379–80 n. 27). His arguments also often build on his own earlier papers, so that
one proposition or interpretation depends on others put forward years before.
Take for instance the final paper in Part 5, his ‘Narrative and Speech Problems
in Thucydides Book 1’ (Ch. 58): footnotes refer back not just extensively to his
‘History and Historicism’ (Ch. 55) but also to ‘Truth and Untruth’ (Ch. 49), to
‘Xenophon and Callicratidas’ (Ch. 51), to ‘Herodotus Warns the Athenians’
(Ch. 52), to ‘Herodotus and Athens’ (Ch. 56), to ‘The Thirteenth Oration of Dio
Chrystosom’ (Vol. I, Ch. 10), and to his piece on Herodotus’ Socles (Ch. 57)—a
host of papers, then, mainly on authors other than Thucydides. That is the sort
of interlocking to be expected in a book; it is more striking in a whole pub-
lishing career, and incidentally makes it clear how valuable it will be to have
the papers now collected together for easier consultation. Such interdepend-
ence may sometimes run the risk of circularity, though John himself would
have expected the individual arguments to stand or fall on their own merits;
it is true that anyone unconvinced of (say) one intricate case of wordplay is
unlikely to be persuaded by a second case that relies on a reader’s memory
and acceptance of the first (e.g., pp. 400, 402). But a multiplicity of similar
test-cases, all responding productively to a similar approach, can create their
own persuasiveness through simple coherence. It is one response to that scep-
tical ‘do we really think that this is that sort of author?’, or a broader ‘how do we
know that ancient authors wrote like this?’ John’s answer might be along the
lines ‘because it so often works so well if we assume that they did’—though I
expect that he would have phrased it more robustly, ‘because it’s self-evident
that they did’. Seeing the papers together will put readers in the best position
to decide how far they agree.
The papers are too nuanced to allow easy summary in a chapter-by-chapter
way, but it is possible to give a Moles-like listing5 of some features that con-
stantly recur. The first two have already been mentioned.
5 For such lists see, e.g., pp. 49–53, 93–4, 411–13, and a spectacular sequence in Ch. 58, 493–5,
495–8, and 501–5.
4 Pelling
(1) A focus on puns, especially on personal names, and wordplay. He is

concerned to reflect the verbal patterning in his translations by keeping the
same English equivalent, wherever possible, for a recurring Greek or Latin
word; this can lead to some acknowledged clunkiness (e.g., pp. 135–6), but
he is sure that it is worth it (pp. 275, 369 n. 4). Sometimes the puns come so
thick and fast as to be bewildering, as at p. 312 where, as he puts it, ‘the bio-
logical world … goes haywire’; he finds particularly dense clusters in his dis-
cussions of Cremutius Cordus (esp. pp. 330–8) and of Herodotus and Athens
(pp. 446–7). One can feel his eyes lighting up when he can combine pun-
ning with literary allusiveness: the Latin play on liber/liber/libertas evokes
the Socratic παίζειν/παῖδες/παιδία/παιδεία (p. 332), and an echo of Hesiod in
Thucydides’ treatment of causation can play on διά as ‘throughness’, ‘separate-
ness’, and ‘Zeus’ (p. 504). Few scholars would push the approach anything like
so far.
(2) The mediation between the ‘two camps’ (p. 224, cf. pp. 160–1) of histo-
rians and literary scholars, with the insistence that the literary aspects cannot
simply be stripped away like icing to leave a reliably historical cake (p. 180).
Strikingly, he takes Woodman himself to task for trying too often to justify
Velleius Paterculus’ narrative as historically accurate rather than acknowledg-
ing the literary tweaking that Woodman’s other work so often highlighted.6 His
own criticism clearly aligns more with the literary, and in the articles he rarely
engages on matters of precise historical detail, though of course he does in
the Brutus and Cicero commentaries. His bigger concern is to resist extreme
positions on either side; he can be just as sweeping about ‘pure lit.’ approaches
(p. 303 n. 56) as about unsympathetic ancient historians (367, 396, 503). Credit
though is given where credit is due, even if in characteristically Molesian
terms: ‘if in the great scholarly battle over the interpretation of historiograph-
ical texts F[igueira] is clearly on the historical side, ὡς Λακεδαιμόνιος he often
uses literature well’.7
(3) The importance of intertextuality, an aspect to which he was sensi-
tive even before the term became part of everyday classical discourse (e.g.,
pp. 136–8). The most spectacular example comes in his treatment of Annals
4.32–3, where he identified a plethora of suggestions that others had missed
(and, it should be said, not everyone would accept) and found these basic to
his interpretation (pp. 283–300).
(4) The need for minutely close reading, and its value for teasing out big
ideas: his work so often uses the sharp, precise, and often minute to offer
6 Moles (1984) 242.

7 Moles (1994) 332, alluding to Thuc. 4.84.2.
insight into the biggest critical questions. It is worth noting that he subjected
modern scholarship too to the same close reading, clearly working through
works (particularly perhaps commentaries) with a thoroughness and thought-
fulness that few would rival: that is clear not just from his reviews and from the
‘ridiculously long paper’ (p. 347) prompted by Ellen O’Gorman’s thesis (Ch. 53)
but from the extended Auseinandersetzung in many papers with the work of
Tony Woodman, conducted in the middle of a warm personal friendship.
(5) The conviction that the best literary criticism in antiquity was to be found
in the responses of later writers to earlier. In his inscriptions paper (Ch. 54)
author after author emerges as an insightful reader of his predecessors (‘that is
(of course) … that these successors understood Thucydides in the same ways
as this paper does’, p. 397!). Dionysius of Halicarnassus gets further ticks for
intelligent reading (pp. 154, 374–5 n. 17); Moles’ old favourite Dio Chrysostom is
also given a good mark (p. 512). The critics themselves by contrast win no such
favour; there is barely a mention of [Longinus] or Demetrius, and Aristotle’s
Poetics is dissected more often than approved (p. 175 is a rare exception, but
even there we have qualifications).
(6) The idea of ‘proportional meaning’, phrased like that only in his later
papers (pp. 477, 481, 513) but arguably present much earlier: that is, a willing-
ness to acknowledge countercurrents in a text while still insisting that that the
dominant meaning remains. Not all tyrants are bad, but most are, and an ideal
can remain an ideal however often it is compromised in practice (p. 455); the
unfree are not guiltless, but there is no equivalence between them and those
who strip their freedom away (p. 247); any hint of threat when Callicratidas
speaks to the allies is only minor (p. 234). This goes with the next point: renu-
ancing a moral position need not undermine its fundamental strength.
(7) The insistence on an author’s moral and political commitment, espe-
cially opposition to imperialism and tyranny: that is particularly clear in his
treatments of Herodotus and of Tacitus, and his resonant titles make his
position clear—‘Herodotus Warns the Athenians’ (Ch. 52); ‘Cry Freedom!’
(Ch. 53). Moles could consequently find texts less ‘open’ than has become
usual in recent criticism, as the final page of Ch. 58 makes particularly clear
(p. 514). He certainly thought that authors left much thinking for their read-
ers to do on their own (and for Moles it was much more readers than listen-
ers, another insistence that puts him at odds with many other scholars: cf.
below, p. 395); such a demand on the reader is indeed implied by his readi-
ness to find ‘figured speech’, cases where an audience needs to penetrate below
the surface to find the meaning that could not be openly expressed (below,
pp. 259, 308–11, 327–9, 470, 483). But for him those meanings remain clear and
emphatic. Serious authors had serious things to say, knew their own mind, and
6 Pelling
wanted to point their audience in the direction that they were convinced was
right—to use another Molesian phrase, ‘both morally and intellectually’ right
(below, pp. 477, 480, 485). He is clear, too, that good will win in the end. ‘In the
flux of history there is one great constant: the end for imperialists is always the
same, the whole enterprise is wrong and doubly so. It is immoral and it will
always fail’ (p. 268).
(8) Finally, and very engagingly, his enthusiasm for his authors. He is
refreshingly ready to state firmly that a passage or an analysis is simply very
good indeed. Herodotus’ epilogue ‘contrives a brilliant and fitting conclusion’
(p. 262); Tacitus’ contrast of Republic and Empire is ‘dense, brilliant, illuminat-
ing, and true’ (p. 280); several factors combine to demonstrate the ‘excellence’
of Socles’ speech in Herodotus (p. 472); and ‘Thucydides’ causality narrative is
a work of towering and intimidating brilliance. It is also, of course, supremely
arrogant, but sometimes arrogance can be both justified and inspiring’ (below,
p. 505).
The papers are not always easy reads, though they become easier once one
becomes accustomed to John Moles’ mindset. They are seasoned too by that
interjection of self-deprecating wryness: ‘no doubt there are many objections
to this objectionable paper’ (below, p. 355). Those who knew him will often hear
the words spoken in his Northern Irish accent; even those who did not will get
a firm idea of the personality behind the words. He enjoyed being mildly out-
rageous, and it is typical that in a seminar he could pronounce ancient literary
criticism to be simply ‘no good’ (p. 367). One sometimes suspects that provoc-
ative remarks were included as a deliberate and slightly self-parodying tease:
‘of course, if the History is so conceived [i.e., as a ‘text for any context’] (both
by Thucydides and his readers), some of the usual criticisms of Thucydides
will necessarily be misconceived’ (p. 434 n. 83). Did he really think that all his
own readers would immediately grasp exactly how he would have expanded
on that? He loved the give and take of oral discussion, showing something of
the ‘agreeable pugnacity’ he admired in Tony Woodman (p. 150); in his obitu-
ary Woodman himself leaves a memorable picture of their late-night conver-
sations amid clouds of cigar smoke,8 and I was one of the many people he
liked to phone up for immediate consultation, and usually argument, about
whatever problem was in his mind. Though he tended to regard his readings as
evidently true once they were pointed out (e.g., p. 173 n. 19, ironically an inter-
pretation which he later retracted, p. 422 n. 43), that is far from saying that he
expected everyone to be convinced or took any offence when they were not: he
8 Woodman (2015) 313 = above, p. xxix.

laughed uproariously when I told him that I could believe about 45% of one of
his articles, and just said that next time he hoped to raise it to a pass-mark. His
original conception of Histos envisaged it as a forum for free and open debate,
with each paper serving as a prompt for animated discussion-threads; and free
and open debate was close to his heart, in the classical community as much as
in the anti-tyrannical and anti-imperialist systems to which his authors, he was
convinced, were as committed as he was himself. He died far too young.
Bibliography
Macleod, C. (1983) Collected Essays (Oxford).

Moles, J. L. (1984) ‘Review of A. J. Woodman, Velleius Paterculus: The Caesarian and
Augustan Narrative (Cambridge, 1983)’, JRS 74: 242–4.
Moles, J. L., ed. (1988) Plutarch: The Life of Cicero (Warminster).
Moles, J. L. (1994) ‘Review of T. J. Figueira, Excursions in Epichoric History: Aiginetan
Essays (Lanham, Md., 1993)’, CR 44: 331–3.
Moles, J. L. (2017) A Commentary on Plutarch’s Brutus, edited with notes and bibliogra-
phy by C. Pelling (Histos Supplement 7; Newcastle).
Woodman, A. J. (2015) ‘Professor J. L. Moles’, Histos 9: 312–18 = above, pp. xxviii–xxxiv.
Part 4
Studies in Greco-Roman Biography
∵
Chapter 31
Plutarch, Crassus 13.4–5 and Cicero’s

de consiliis suis
In the course of a stimulating study of Cicero’s de consiliis suis E. Rawson argues

that the reference in Plutarch, Crassus 13.4–5 {= FRHist 39 F 7 + F 1} cannot be
to that work.1 Plutarch writes:
ὅμως δὲ ὁ Κικέρων ἔν τινι λόγῳ φανερὸς ἦν Κράσσῳ καὶ Καίσαρι τὴν αἰτίαν
προστριβόμενος. ἀλλ᾽οὗτος μὲν ὁ λόγος ἐξεδόθη μετὰ τὴν ἀμφοῖν τελευτήν,
ἐν δὲ τῷ Περὶ ὑπατείας ὁ Κικέρων νύκτωρ φησὶ τὸν Κράσσον ἀφικέσθαι πρὸς
αὐτὸν, κ.τ.λ.
Plutarch is here concerned with Crassus’ role in the Catilinarian Conspiracy.

The sequel of his narrative does not concern us here.
Ms Rawson comments on this passage:2
It has been customary since Schwartz … to identify this too with our
work. But the fact is that λόγος must be translated as ‘speech’. The word
recurs frequently in Plutarch, for example, obviously enough, in the life
of Cicero, where it always means either an actual speech, spoken or pub-
lished, or the like…. The expositio would surely have come under the head
of τὰ βιβλία … καὶ τὰ συγγράμματα full of self praise (ch. 24), if not of
συντάξεις (Comp. Dem. et Cic. 1); Octavian’s memoirs are ὐπομνήματα (ibid.
3). Dio … calls the de consiliis suis a βιβλίον.
This argument is very forced. It would, indeed, be equally forced to draw pre-
cisely the opposite conclusion from Plutarch’s language and infer from the
μὲν … δὲ contrast that, since the first work is a λόγος, the second must be too,
and, since the Περὶ ὑπατείας was not a speech, that λόγος must here have a
broad application (‘work’, ‘treatise’) covering different types of literature: μὲν …
δὲ contrasts do not require complete symmetry between the two elements.
Both arguments, in fact, press Plutarch’s language too hard. A basic point
should be that, while λόγος with reference to the works of an orator will of
1 Rawson (1982).
2 Rawson (1982) 121 {= (1991) 409}.
© Estate of J. L. Moles, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004538726_003

12 Chapter 31
course normally mean ‘speech’, this cannot be regarded as a certain transla-

tion in every case when the orator in question produced other works besides
speeches, as Plutarch knew Cicero to have done.
The term λόγος is often given precise definition by context (the contrasts
λόγος/ἔργον, λόγος/μῦθος, λόγος/ποίησις; also λόγος in discussions of oratory or
of philosophy), but it has a very wide range of meaning, and by itself and in
isolation (as in Plut. Crass. 13) it can be a very vague word, even when applied
to categories of literature. Λόγος is a perfectly acceptable way of referring to
practically any literary ‘work’ (poetry excluded). So, for example, Aristotle in
Poetics 1454b18 refers to fuller discussion of a topic ἐν τοῖς ἐκδεδομένοις λόγοις:
the work(s) here alluded to may in fact have been written in dialogue form (see
Lucas {1968} ad loc.), but all ἐν τοῖς ἐκδεδομένοις λόγοις means in context is ‘my
published works’. Similarly, in Dion 2.7 our author Plutarch proposes further
treatment of ‘demonological’ problems in ἄλλος λόγος, ‘another work’. And, fol-
lowing the example of Herodotus, λόγος or λόγοι can readily be applied to his-
toriographical works. So Arrian describes his Indica as a λόγος (Ind. 43.14.) and
his Anabasis as λόγοι (Anab. 1.12.5). Plutarch himself refers to a pair of Parallel
Lives as a λόγος (Dion. 2.7 [by implication]; Thes. 1.4: λόγον ἐκδόντες) besides the
terms βιβλίον (Alex. 1.1; Dem. 3.1; Per. 2.5; etc.) and γραφή (Dion 1.1).
The notion that Plutarch should have carefully restricted the application of
so elastic ⟦137⟧ a word as λόγος to a single sense in all his references to Cicero
is bizarre. Consequently, the argument ‘the word … always means either a
speech … or the like’, has no formal validity, even if we concede, as perhaps we
should not,3 that this is a true statement of Plutarch’s usage in the Cicero itself.
Similarly, the argument ‘the expositio would surely have come under the head
of’ βιβλία, συγγράμματα, or whatever, lacks force: these are relatively precise
terms, each of which could be glossed in general terms by the word λόγος (just
as in English, ‘work’ can cover such different literary categories as novels, short
stories, essays, articles, etc.).
If, then, Plutarch has in mind Cicero’s de consiliis suis in Crassus 13.4–5,
he could certainly have referred to it as a λόγος, using the term either quite
vaguely or (possibly) with a mild historiographical flavour. That he does not
have the de consiliis suis in mind is, indeed, not absolutely certain, but it is
extremely likely, as the material presented by Ms Rawson herself shows. Like
3 Ms Rawson presumably means ‘λόγος with reference to a literary work’: otherwise the state-
ment is absurd. But in Cicero 2.3 λόγος is more than just ‘eloquence’ and in 16.5 λόγοι are
‘words’, not ‘speeches’. Plutarchean usage elsewhere (see text) shows that λόγος in Plutarch,
even of a literary work, does not necessarily denote ‘speech’, which of course is in line with
normal Greek practice.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Vegas, a short distance south of Habana, in which about 600 of
both sexes can receive instruction at one time. This form of
instruction is more important, under the conditions found to
exist, than the ordinary instruction given in the other
schools. As conditions improve, an opportunity can be given to
increase the number of these schools, and by their means
introduce modern methods more rapidly than by other systems."
General John R. Brooke,

Civil Report, October 1, 1899
(Message and Documents: Abridgment, 1899-1900,
volume 2, pages 1266-1276).
General Fitzhugh Lee reported, September 19, 1899, on the

state of things in the province of Havana, as follows: "I
assumed command of the department of the province of Habana
January 1, 1899, and of the province of Pinar del Rio April
19, 1899. The deplorable condition of the island after it was
evacuated by the Spanish is well known. Business of all sorts
was suspended. Agricultural operations had ceased; large sugar
estates, with their enormous and expensive machinery, were
destroyed; houses burned: stock driven off for consumption by
the Spanish troops, or killed. There was scarcely an ox left
to pull a plow, had there been a plow left. Not a pig had been
left in the pen, nor a hen to lay an egg for the poor,
destitute people who still held on to life, most of them sick,
weary, and weak. Miles and miles of country uninhabited either
by the human race or domestic animals was visible to the eye
on every side. The great fertile island of Cuba in some places
resembled an ash pile; in others, the dreary desert. The
'reconcentrado' order of the former Captain-General Weyler, it
will be remembered, drove from their houses and lands all the
old men, women, and children who had remained at their homes
because they were not physically able to bear the burdens of
war. The wheels of the former government had ceased to
revolve. Chaos, confusion, doubt, and uncertainty filled with
apprehension the minds of the Cubans, who, for the first time,
had been relieved of the cruel care of those who for centuries
controlled their country and their destiny. … The railroads on
the island were in bad order, having been used to the extent
of their endurance conveying Spanish troops and Spanish
supplies over them, while the great calzadas or turnpikes were
filled with holes, for the war prevented repairs to either
railroads or roads. Municipalities were all greatly in debt.
None of the civil officers had been paid, and school-teachers
had large amounts of back salary due. Judicial officers were
discharging their duties as far as they could—for there was
really no law in the island except the mandate of the
Captain-General—without pay, and many months of back pay was
due to the professors in the colleges of the largest cities.
The whole framework of the government had to be rebuilt, and
its machinery carefully and gradually reconstructed. Important
government problems had to be promptly solved, which involved
social, economic, commercial, agricultural, public
instruction, support of eleemosynary institutions of all
kinds, means of communications, reorganization of
municipalities, with the necessary town and city police,
including a mounted force to patrol the adjoining rural
districts within the limits, and subject to the authorities of
the mayors and council of their respective municipalities; the
appointment of new alcaldes and other officers to replace
those left in authority by the Spanish Government, and who
would be more in accord with the inhabitants whose local
affairs they directed. Many trying and troublesome questions
arose, and many difficulties environed on either side of the
situation.
"Of the Cuban rural population, less than 20 per cent of them
were able to read and write, resembling children awaking the
first time to the realities of life. They were in the main
obedient, docile, quiet, and inoffensive, and anxious to adapt
themselves as soon as possible to the new conditions which
confronted them. The Cuban soldiers, black and white, who had
been in the fields and woods for four years defying the
Spanish banner, still kept their guns, and were massing around
the cities and towns, producing more or less unrest in the
public mind with the fear that many of them, unaccustomed to
work so long, would be transformed into brigands, and not
become peaceful, law-abiding citizens.
{185}
In eight months wonderful progress has been made. The arms of
the Cuban soldiers have been stacked, and they have quietly
resumed peaceful vocations. Brigandage, which partially
flourished for a time, has been stamped out, tillage
everywhere has greatly increased, many houses rebuilt, many
huts constructed, fences are being built, and more and more
farming lands are gradually being taken up, and municipalities
reorganized with new officers representing the wishes of the
majority of the inhabitants. Municipal police have been
appointed who are uniformed and under the charge of, in most
cases, efficient officers."
General Fitzhugh Lee,

Report, September 19, 1899.
General Leonard Wood, commanding in the province of Santiago,

reported at the same time as follows: "On the assumption of
control by the American Government, July 17, 1899, of that
portion of the province of Santiago included in the
surrendered territory, industries were practically at a
standstill. In the rural districts all industries were at an
end. The estates, almost without exception, have been
destroyed, and no work is being done. … In the towns the
effect of reconcentration was shown by large crowds of women
and children and old men who were practically starving. They
were thin, pale, and barely able to drag themselves about. The
merchants and a few planters were the only prosperous people
in the province. … A feeling of bitter hostility existed
between the Cubans and Spaniards, and also a very ugly feeling
between the Cubans who had acted in harmony with the
autonomists in the latter days of the Spanish occupation and
those who had been in the Cuban army. At first there was a
good deal of talk of a threatening character in regard to what
the Cubans would do to the Spaniards, now that they were in a
position to avenge themselves for some of the many injuries
received in the past. This, however, soon passed over, and
much more friendly and sensible ideas prevailed. There were no
schools and no material for establishing them. All officers of
the civil government had resigned and left their posts, with
the exception of one judge of the first instance and several
municipal judges and certain police officers. The prisons were
full of prisoners, both Spanish and Cuban, many of them being
Spanish military and political prisoners. The administration
of justice was at a standstill. The towns all presented an
appearance of greatest neglect, and showed everywhere entire
disregard of every sanitary law. The amount of clothing in the
possession of the people was very limited, and in many of the
interior villages women were compelled to keep out of sight
when strangers appeared, as they had only skirts and waists
made of bagging and other coarse material. Many of the
children were absolutely without clothing. Evidences of great
suffering were found on every hand. A very large proportion of
the population was sick in the country districts from malaria
and in the seaboard towns from lack of food and water. …
"The first two and a half months after the surrender were
devoted almost entirely to the distribution of food and to
supplying hospitals and charities with such limited quantities
of necessary material as we were able to obtain. Commanding
officers in all parts of the island were busily engaged in
cleaning up towns and carrying out all possible sanitary and
administrative reforms. Schools were established, some 60 in
the city of Santiago and over 200 in the province as a whole.
Affairs have continued to improve slowly but surely, until at
the present time we find the towns, generally speaking, clean,
the death rate lower than the people have known before, some
public improvements under way in all the large towns, the
amount of work done being limited only by the amount of money
received. … Industries of all kinds are springing up. New
sugar plantations are being projected; hospitals and
charitable institutions are being regularly supplied, and all
are fairly well equipped with necessary articles. The death
rate among the native population is very much lower than in
former years. The people in the towns are quiet and orderly,
with the exception of a few editorial writers, who manage to
keep up a certain small amount of excitement, just enough to
give the papers in question a fair sale. The people are all
anxious to work. The present currency is American currency. A
condition of good order exists in the rural districts. The
small planters are all out on their farms and a condition of
security and good order prevails. The issue of rations has
been practically stopped and we have few or almost no
applications for food."
General Leonard Wood;

Report, September 20, 1899.
CUBA: A. D. 1899 (October).

Census of the Island.
Statistics of population, nativity, illiteracy, etc.
"The total population of Cuba on October 16, 1899, determined

by the census taken [under the direction of the War Department
of the United States] as of that date, was 1,572,797. This was
distributed as follows among the six provinces:
Habana, 424,804;
Matanzas, 202,444;
Pinar del Rio, 173,064;
Puerto Principe, 88,234;
Santa Clara, 356,536;
Santiago, 327,715.
The latest census taken under Spanish authority was in 1887.

The total population as returned by that census was 1,631,687,
and the population by provinces was as follows:
Habana, 451,928;
Matanzas, 259,578;
Pinar del Rio, 225,891;
Puerto Principe, 67,789;
Santa Clara, 354,122;
Santiago, 272,379.
Whether that census was correct may be a matter of discussion,

but if incorrect, the number of inhabitants was certainly not
overstated. Comparing the total population at these two
censuses, it is seen, that the loss in the 12 years amounted
to 58,890, or 3.6 per cent of the population in 1887. This
loss is attributable to the recent civil war and the
reconcentration policy accompanying it, but the figures
express only a part of the loss from this cause. Judging from
the earlier history of the island and the excess of births
over deaths, as shown by the registration records, however
imperfect they may be, the population probably increased from
1887 up to the beginning of the war and at the latter epoch
reached a total of little less than 1,800,000. It is probable,
therefore, that the direct and indirect losses by the war and
the reconcentration policy, including a decrease of births and
of immigration and an increase of deaths and of emigration
reached a total of approximately 200,000. …
"The area of Cuba is approximately 44,000 square miles, and

the average number of inhabitants per square mile 35.7, about
the same as the State of Iowa. … Habana, with the densest
population, is as thickly populated as the State of
Connecticut, and Puerto Principe, the most sparsely populated,
is in this respect comparable with the State of Texas. …
{186}
"The total number of males of voting age in Cuba was 417,993,

or 26 per cent of the total population. This is a little less
than the proportion, in 1890, in the United States, where it
was 27 per cent. … Classifying the potential voters of Cuba by
birthplace and race, it is seen that 44.9 per cent were
whites, born in Cuba; that 30.5 per cent were colored, and as
nearly all the colored were born in the island it is seen that
fully seven-tenths of the potential voters of Cuba were native
born, 23 per cent were born in Spain, and 1.6 per cent in
other countries. Classifying the whole number of potential
voters by citizenship it is seen that 70 per cent were Cuban
citizens, 2 per cent were Spanish citizens, 18 per cent were
holding their citizenship in suspense, and 10 per cent were
citizens of other countries, or their citizenship was unknown.
…
"The Cuban citizens, numbering 290,905, were composed almost

entirely of persons born in Cuba, there being among them but
220 white persons, and probably not more colored, of alien
birth. The white Cuban citizens, who were natives of the
island, numbered 184,471, and of these 94,301, or 51 per cent,
were unable to read. The colored Cuban citizens numbered
106,214, of which not less than 78,279, or 74 per cent, were
unable to read. The people of Cuba who claimed Spanish
citizenship numbered 9,500, and of these nearly all were born
in Spain, there being but 159 born elsewhere. Those whose
citizenship was in suspense numbered 76,669. These also were
nearly all of Spanish birth, the number born elsewhere being
but 1,420. The number of persons of other or unknown
citizenship was 40,919. Of these fully one-half were colored,
most of them being Chinese, and much the larger proportion of
the remaining half were of Spanish birth.
"Summing up the situation, it appears that the total number of

males of voting age who could read was 200,631, a little less
than half the total number of males of voting age. Of these
22,629 were of Spanish or other foreign citizenship or unknown
citizenship. The number whose citizenship was in suspense was
59,724, and the number of Cuban citizens able to read was
118,278, or 59 per cent of all Cuban citizens of voting age."
Census of Cuba,
Bulletins Numbers I and III.
CUBA: A. D. 1899 (December).

Appointment of General Leonard Wood to the
military command and Governorship.
On the 6th of December General Leonard Wood was commissioned

major-general of volunteers, and was assigned to command of
the Division of Cuba, relieving General Brooke as division
commander and military governor of Cuba. On the 30th, Governor
Wood announced the appointment of the following Cuban
ministers to form his cabinet:
Secretary of State and Government, Diego Tamayo;

Secretary of Justice, Luis Estevoz;
Secretary of Education, Juan Bautista Hernandez;
Secretary of Finance, Enrique Varona;
Secretary of Public Works, Jose Ramon Villalon;
Secretary of Agriculture, Industry, and Commerce, Rius Rivera.
CUBA: A. D. 1900.
Organization of a school system.
Teachers at Harvard Summer School.
"Especial attention has been given by the military government

to the development of primary education. The enrollment of the
public schools of Cuba immediately before the last war shows
36,306 scholars, but an examination of the reports containing
these figures indicates that probably less than half the names
enrolled represented actual attendance. There were practically
no separate school buildings, but the scholars were collected
in the residences of the teachers. There were few books, and
practically no maps, blackboards, desks or other school
apparatus. … Even these poor apologies for public schools
were, to a great extent, broken up by the war, and in
December, 1899, the entire public-school enrollment of the
island numbered 21,435. The following table shows the advance
in school facilities during the half year ending June 30 last:
School rooms. Enrollment.
January, 1900 635 37,995

February, 1900 1,338 69,476
March, 1900 3,126 127,881
April, 1900 3,126 127,426
May, 1900 3,313 139,616
June, 1900 3,500 143,120
"This great development was accomplished under the Cuban

secretary of public instruction and the Cuban commissioner of
public schools, with the able and experienced assistance of
Mr. Alexis E. Frye as superintendent. It is governed by a
school law modeled largely upon the law of Ohio. … The schools
are subject to constant and effective inspection and the
attendance is practically identical with the enrollment.
"The schools are separated from the residences of the

teachers, and each schoolroom has its separate teacher. The
courses and methods of instruction are those most approved in
this country. The text-books are translations into Spanish of
American text-books. For the supply of material $150,000 were,
in the first instance, appropriated from the insular treasury,
and afterwards, upon a single order, 100,000 full sets of
desks, text-books, scholars' supplies, etc., were purchased
upon public advertisement in this country at an expense of
about three-quarters of a million dollars. All over the island
the old Spanish barracks, and barracks occupied by the
American troops which have been withdrawn, are being turned
into schoolrooms after thorough renovation. The pressure for
education is earnest and universal. The appropriations of this
year from the insular treasury for that purpose will amount to
about four and a half million dollars; but great as the
development has been it will be impossible, with the resources
of the island for a long time yet to come, to fully meet the
demand for the learning so long withheld. The provincial
institutions and high schools and the University of Habana
have been reorganized.
"During the past summer, through the generosity of Harvard

University and its friends, who raised a fund of $70,000 for
that purpose, 1,281 Cuban teachers were enabled to attend a
summer school of instruction at Cambridge, designed to fit
them for their duties. They were drawn from every municipality
and almost every town in the island. They were collected from
the different ports of the island by five United States
transports, which carried them to Boston, and, at the
expiration of their visit, took them to New York and thence to
Habana and to their homes. They were lodged and boarded in and
about the University at Cambridge, and visited the libraries
and museums and the educational institutions and manufacturing
establishments in the neighborhood of Boston. Through the
energy of Mr. Frye money was raised to enable them to visit
New York and Washington. They were returned to their homes
without a single accident or loss, full of new ideas and of
zeal for the educational work in which they had found so much
sympathy and encouragement."
United States, Secretary of War, Annual Report,

November 30, 1900, pages. 32-33.
{187}
CUBA: A. D. 1900 (June-November).

Municipal elections and election
of a Constitutional Convention.
Meeting of the Convention.
Statement of the Military Governor.
"The census having been completed and the period given for
Spanish residents to make their election as to citizenship
having expired on the 11th of April, 1900, steps were
immediately taken for the election of municipal governments by
the people. In view of the fact that 66 per cent of the people
could not read and write, it was not deemed advisable that
absolutely unrestricted suffrage should be established, and,
after very full conference with leading Cubans, including all
the heads of the great departments of state, a general
agreement was reached upon a basis of suffrage, which provided
that every native male Cuban or Spaniard who had elected to
take Cuban citizenship, of full age, might vote if he either
could read and write, or owned real estate or personal
property to the value of $250, or had served in and been
honorably discharged from the Cuban army; thus according a
voice in the government of the country to everyone who had the
intelligence to acquire the rudiments of learning, the thrift
to accumulate property, or the patriotism to fight for his
country. On the 18th of April an election law, which aims to
apply the best examples of our American election statutes to
the existing conditions of Cuba, was promulgated for the
guidance of the proposed election. On the 16th of June an
election was held throughout the island in which the people of
Cuba in all the municipalities, which include the entire
island, elected all their municipal officers. The boards of
registration and election were composed of Cubans selected by
the Cubans themselves. No United States soldier or officer was
present at or in the neighborhood of any polling place. There
was no disturbance. After the newly elected municipal officers
had been installed and commenced the performance of their
duties an order was made enlarging the powers of the municipal
governments and putting into their hands as much of the
government of the people as was practicable.
"As soon as the new municipal governments were fairly
established the following call for a constitutional convention
was issued:
'Habana, July 25, 1900.

The military governor of Cuba directs the publication of the
following instructions:
Whereas the Congress of the United States by its joint

resolution of April 20, 1898, declared That the people of the
island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and
independent; That the United States hereby disclaims any
disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty,
jurisdiction, or control over said island except for the
pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that
is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the
island to its people; And whereas the people of Cuba have
established municipal governments, deriving their authority
from the suffrages of the people given under just and equal
laws, and are now ready, in like manner, to proceed to the
establishment of a general government which shall assume and
exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, and control over the
island: Therefore
"'It is ordered,
That a general election be held in the island of Cuba on the
third Saturday of September, in the year nineteen hundred, to
elect delegates to a convention to meet in the city of Habana,
at twelve o'clock noon on the first Monday of November, in the
year nineteen hundred, to frame and adopt a constitution for
the people of Cuba, and, as a part thereof, to provide for and
agree with the Government of the United States upon the
relations to exist between that Government and the Government
of Cuba, and to provide for the election by the people of
officers under such constitution and the transfer of
government to the officers so elected.
"'The election will be held in the several voting precincts of
the island under and pursuant to the provisions of the
electoral law of April 18, 1900, and the amendments thereof.
The people of the several provinces will elect delegates in
number proportionate to their populations as determined by the
census, viz: The people of the province of Pinar del Rio will
elect three (3) delegates. The people of the province of
Habana will elect eight (8) delegates. The people of the
province of Matanzas will elect four (4) delegates. The people
of the province of Santa Clara will elect seven (7) delegates.
The people of the province of Puerto Principe will elect two
(2) delegates. The people of the province of Santiago de Cuba
will elect seven (7) delegates.'
"Under this call a second election was held on the 15th of

September, under the same law, with some slight amendments,
and under the same conditions as the municipal elections. The
election was wholly under the charge of Cubans, and without
any participation or interference whatever by officers or
troops of the United States. The thirty-one members of the
constitutional convention were elected, and they convened at
Habana at the appointed time. The sessions of the convention
were opened in the city of Habana on the 5th of November by
the military governor, with the following statement: 'To the
delegates of the Constitutional Convention of Cuba. Gentlemen:
As military governor of the island, representing the President
of the United States, I call this convention to order. It will
be your duty, first, to frame and adopt a constitution for
Cuba, and, when that has been done, to formulate what, in your
opinion, ought to be the relations between Cuba and the United
States. The constitution must be adequate to secure a stable,
orderly, and free government.
"'When you have formulated the relations which, in your

opinion, ought to exist between Cuba and the United States,
the Government of the United States will doubtless take such
action on its part as shall lead to a final and authoritative
agreement between the people of the two countries for the
promotion of their common interests.
{188}
"'All friends of Cuba will follow your deliberations with the

deepest interest, earnestly desiring that you shall reach just
conclusions, and that, by the dignity, individual self-restraint,
and wise conservatism which shall characterize your
proceedings, the capacity of the Cuban people for
representative government may be signally illustrated. The
fundamental distinction between true representative government
and dictatorship is that in the former every representative of
the people, in whatever office, confines himself strictly
within the limits of his defined powers. Without such
restraint there can be no free constitutional government.
Under the order pursuant to which you have been elected and
convened you have no duty and no authority to take part in the
present government of the island. Your powers are strictly
limited by the terms of that order.'"
United States, Secretary of War,

Annual Report, November 30, 1900, pages 24-32.
CUBA: A. D. 1900 (December).

Measures for the destruction of the mosquito,
as a carrier of yellow fever.
See (in this volume)

SCIENCE, RECENT: MEDICAL AND SURGICAL.
CUBA: A. D. 1900-1901.
Frauds by American officials in the Havana post office.
Question cf the extradition of C. F. W. Neely.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States as to the
independent status of Cuba in its relations
to the United States.
In the spring of 1900 a discovery was made of extensive frauds

committed by American officials who had been placed, by U. S.
military authority, in the post office at Havana. One of the
persons accused, named C. F. W. Neely, having returned to the
United States, his extradition, for trial in Cuba, was
demanded, and a question thereon arose as to the status of the
island of Cuba in its relations to the United States. The case
(Neely vs. Henkel) was taken on appeal to the Supreme Court of
the United States, and Neely was subjected to extradition by the
decision of that tribunal, rendered in January, 1901. The
status of Cuba, as an independent foreign territory, was thus
defined in the opinion of the Court:
"The legislative and executive branches of the Government, by

the joint resolution of April 20, 1898, expressly disclaimed
any purpose to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control
over Cuba, 'except for the pacification thereof,' and asserted
the determination of the United States, that object being
accomplished, to leave the government and control of Cuba to
its own people. All that has been done in relation to Cuba has
had that end in view, and so far as the court is informed by the
public history of the relations of this country with that
island, nothing has been done inconsistent with the declared
object of the war with Spain. Cuba is none the less foreign
territory, within the meaning of the act of Congress, because
it is under a military governor appointed by and representing
the President in the work of assisting the inhabitants of that
island to establish a government of their own, under which, as
a free and independent people, they may control their own
affairs without interference by other nations. The occupancy
of the island by troops of the United States was the necessary
result of the war. That result could not have been avoided by
the United States consistently with the principles of
international law or with its obligations to the people of
Cuba. It is true that as between Spain and the United
States—indeed, as between the United States and all foreign
nations—Cuba, upon the cessation of hostilities with Spain and
after the treaty of Paris, was to be treated as if it were
conquered territory. But—as between the United States and
Cuba, that island is territory held in trust for the
inhabitants of Cuba, to whom it rightfully belongs and to
whose exclusive control it will be surrendered when a stable
government shall have been established by their voluntary
action."
CUBA: A. D. 1901 (January).

Draft of Constitution reported to the Convention
by its Central Committee.
Public sessions of the Constitutional Convention were not

opened until the middle of January, 1901, when the draft of a
Constitution was reported by its Central Committee, and the
text given to the Press. By subsequent action of the
Convention, various amendments were made, and the instrument,
at this writing (early in April), still awaits finish and
adoption. The amendments have been reported imperfectly and
the text of the Constitution, even in its present state,
cannot be authentically given. It is probable, however, that
the structure of government provided for in the draft reported
to the Convention stands now and will remain substantially
unchanged. An outline of its features is the most that we will
venture to give in this place.
The preamble is in these words:
"We, the delegates of the Cuban people, having met in assembly

for the purpose of agreeing upon the adoption of a fundamental
law, which, at the same time that it provides for the
constitution into a sovereign and independent nation of the
people of Cuba, establishes a solid and permanent form of
government, capable of complying with its international
obligations, insuring domestic tranquillity, establishing
justice, promoting the general welfare, and securing the
blessings of liberty to the inhabitants, we do agree upon and
adopt the following constitution, in pursuance of the said
purpose, invoking the protection of the Almighty, and prompted
by the dictates of our conscience."
The form of government is declared to be republican. The

guarantees of the Constitution, defined with precision and at
length, include "equal rights under the law," protection from
arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, freedom of thought, speech,
writing and publication, freedom of worship, freedom of
association and meeting, freedom of teaching, freedom of
travel, inviolability of private dwellings and private papers,
"except by order of a competent authority and with the
formalities prescribed by the laws."
Legislative powers are to be exercised by two elective bodies,

to be named House of Representatives and Senate, and
conjointly known as Congress. The Senate to be composed of six
senators elected from each of the six departments of the
republic; the boundaries and names of the departments to be
those of the present provinces "as long as not modified by the
laws."
{189}
The terms of the senators to be six years, one third of their

number to be elected every two years. The House of
Representatives to be composed of "one representative for
every 25,000 inhabitants or fraction of more than 12,000,
elected for a period of four years, by direct vote, and in the
manner prescribed by law "; one half to be elected every two
years. Representatives and Senators not to be held responsible
for opinions expressed in the exercise of their duties, and not
to be arrested nor tried without the consent of the body to
which they belong, "except in case of being discovered in the
act of committing some crime." Congress to meet in regular
session every year on the first Monday in November, and to
remain in session for at least ninety consecutive days,
excepting holidays and Sundays. Its powers to be substantially
the same as those exercised by the Congress of the United
States.
The executive power to be exercised by the President of the

republic, who "shall be elected by direct votes, and an
absolute majority thereof, cast on one single day, in
accordance with the provisions of the law." The term of the
President to be four years, and none to be elected for three
consecutive terms. A Vice-President to be elected "in the same
manner as the President, conjointly with the latter and for a
like term."
The judicial power to be "exercised by the Supreme Court of

Justice and such other courts as may be established by law."
The Supreme Court, like that of the United States, "to decide
as to the constitutionality of legislative acts that may have
been objected to as unconstitutional," and to have an
appellant jurisdiction corresponding to that of the Supreme
Court of the United States.
Over each of the six departments or provinces it is provided

that there shall be a governor, "elected by a direct vote for
a period of three years," and a Departmental Assembly, "to
consist of not less than eight or more than twenty, elected by
direct vote for a like period of three years." The
Departmental Assemblies to "have the right of independent
action in all things not antagonistic to the constitution, to
the general laws nor to international treaties, nor to that
which pertains to the inherent rights of the municipalities,
which may concern the department, such as the establishment
and maintenance of institutions of public education, public
charities, public departmental roads, means of communication
by water or sea, the preparation of their budgets, and the
appointment and removal of their employés."
The "municipal terminos" are to be governed by
"Ayuntamientos," composed of Councilmen elected by a direct
vote in the manner prescribed by law, and by a Mayor, elected
in like manner. The Ayuntamientos to be self-governing, free
to "take action on all matters that solely and exclusively
concern their municipal termino, such as appointment and
removal of employés, preparation of their budgets, freely
establishing the means of income to meet them without any
other limitation than that of making them compatible with the
general system of taxation of the republic."
The provision for amendment of the Constitution is as follows:
"The constitution cannot be changed in whole or part except by

two-thirds vote of both legislative bodies. Six months after
deciding on the reform, a Constitutional Assembly shall be
elected, which shall confine itself to the approval or
disapproval of the reform voted by the legislative bodies.
These will continue in their functions independently of the
Constitutional Assembly. The members in this Assembly shall be
equal to the number of the members in the two legislative
bodies together."
CUBA: A. D. 1901 (February-March).

Conditions on which the government of the island will
be yielded to its people prescribed by the Congress
of the United States.
In the call for a Constitutional Convention issued by the

military governor on the 25th of July, 1900 (see above), it
was set forth that the duty of the Convention would be "to
frame and adopt a constitution for the people of Cuba, and, as
a part thereof, to provide for and agree with the government
of the United States upon the relations to exist between that
government and the government of Cuba." This intimated an
intention on the part of the government of the United States
to attach conditions to its recognition of the independent
government for which the Convention was expected to provide.
The intimation was conveyed still more plainly to the
Constitutional Convention by Military Governor Wood, at the
opening of its sessions, when he said: "When you have
formulated the relations which, in your opinion, ought to
exist between Cuba and the United States, the government of
the United States will doubtless take such action on its part
as shall lead to a final and authoritative agreement between
the two countries for the promotion of their common
interests." The Convention, however, gave no sign of a
disposition to act as desired by the government of the United
States, and seemed likely to finish its work, either without
touching the subject of relations between the Cuban and
American Republics, or else offering proposals that would not
meet the wishes of the latter. Those wishes were made known to
the Convention in flat terms, at length, by the military
governor, and its prompt action was urged, in order that the
judgment of the Congress of the United States might be
pronounced on what it did. But the day on which the session of
Congress would expire drew near, and still nothing came from
the Cubans, who seem to have understood that they were
exempted from such dictation by the resolution which Congress
adopted on the 18th of April, 1898, when it took up the Cuban
cause [see (in this volume)) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1998 (APRIL)], declaring that "the United States hereby
disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise
sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island [of
Cuba], except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its
determination when that is accomplished to leave the
government and control of the island to its people."
Unwilling to be left to deal, alone, with the question thus

arising between the Cubans and their liberators, President
McKinley caused it to be understood that he should call an
extra session of Congress, if no Congressional expression on
the subject of Cuban relations was found practicable before

The Collected Papers of J L Moles Volume 2 John Marincola Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Collected Papers of J L Moles Volume 2 John Marincola Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Collected Papers of J L Moles Volume 2 John Marincola Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Collected Papers of J. L.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Moles, J. L. (John L.), author. | Marincola, John, editor.

isbn 978-90-04-53710-1 (hardback, vol. 1)

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Professor J. L. Moles XXVIII

Introduction to Parts 4 and 5 1

31 Plutarch, Crassus 13.4–5 and Cicero’s de consiliis suis (1982) [8]* 11

32 The Ides of March and Anna Perenna (1982) [7] 14

33 Some ‘Last Words’ of M. Iunius Brutus (1983) [14] 17

34 Fate, Apollo, and M. Junius Brutus (1983) [17] 35

35 Plutarch, Brutus, and the Ghost of Caesar (1985) [27] 43

36 The Attacks on L. Cornelius Cinna, Praetor in 44 bc (1987) [32] 45

37 Review of J. Geiger, Cornelius Nepos and Ancient Political Biography

38 Review of P. A. Stadter, A Commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles (1992)

* Numbers in square brackets refer to the section ‘Publications of J. L. Moles’.

39 Review of N. Horsfall, Cornelius Nepos: a Selection, including the Lives of

42 On Reading Cornelius Nepos with Nicholas Horsfall (1993) [52] 81

43 Textual and Interpretative Notes on Plutarch’s Cicero (1993) [54] 91

46 The Interpretation of the ‘Second Preface’ in Arrian’s

47 Review of A. J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography:

48 Review of V. J. Gray, The Character of Xenophon’s

49 Truth and Untruth in Herodotus and Thucydides (1993) [53] 159

50 Livy’s Preface (1993) [51] 190

51 Xenophon and Callicratidas (1994) [61] 224

52 Herodotus Warns the Athenians (1996) [69] 247

53 Cry Freedom: Tacitus, Annals 4.32–5 (1998) [72] 272

54 Ἀνάθημα Καὶ Κτῆμα: the Inscriptional Inheritance of Ancient

55 A False Dilemma: Thucydides’ History and Historicism (2001) [76] 411

56 Herodotus and Athens (2002) [79] 439

57 ‘Saving’ Greece from the ‘Ignominy’ of Tyranny? The ‘Famous’ and

58 Narrative and Speech Problems in Thucydides Book 1 (2010) [86] 490

Introduction to Parts 6 and 7 518

59 Notes on Aristotle, Poetics 13 and 14 (1979) [3] 525

60 A Neglected Aspect of Agamemnon 1389–92 (1979) [4] 548

61 A Note on Antigone 1238f. (1980) [5] 562

62 Aeschylus, Agamemnon 36–7 Again (1984) [20] 567

63 Philanthropia in the Poetics (1984) [22] 571

64 Review of S. Goldhill, Language, Sexuality, Narrative: The Oresteia

65 A Note on Cicero, ad Quintum fratrem 2.10(9).3 (1982) [6] 605

66 Aristotle and Dido’s Hamartia (1984) [18] 609

68 The Tragedy and Guilt of Dido (1987) [33] 632

70 Review of R. Mayer, ed., Horace: Epistles I (1994) [68] 649

71 Reconstructing Plancus (Horace, C. 1.7) (2002) [77] 663

72 Poetry, Philosophy, Politics, and Play: Epistles 1 (2002) [78] 703

73 Vergil’s Loss of Virginity: Reading a Life (2014) [97] 725

74 Horace: Life, Death, Friendship, and Philosophy (2012) [90] 771

Index Locorum 779

to do justice to his rich output and to do my best to make it more accessible to

36. Review of P. McGushin, Sallust: the Conspiracy of Catiline (Bristol, 1987),

Ancient Authors. Abbreviations for ancient authors generally follow

Modern Works. Abbreviations for journals follow those of L’Année Philologique,

ILS H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Berlin, 1892–1916).

We gratefully acknowledge the following publishers and individuals for per-

Cambridge Philological Society, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York:

Classical Association, London:

Classical Association of Canada, Calgary: