intro
Siefert’s discussion, in particular, is impressive as well as learned; but I would remark that all these authorities may well be right-and wrong. Some of them admit that portions, at least, of the essay were written, or adapted, especially to suit the particular occasion for which the essay was composed. Plutarch himself is not averse to naming authorities here and elsewhere; that he followed exclusively one, or even two, is made very unlikely by his own opening statement and by the very mixed nature of his philosophical terminology.This conclusion bears some resemblance to that reached by H. N. Fowler (Harvard Stud. Cl. Phil., i. 149 ff.), whose work is called by Siefert noch unergiebiger than the Biomanie of the Hense-Heinze school; but Fowler was inclined to stress too mcuh the relation to Democritus and the parallels which Hirzel had urged between Seneca and Plutarch. That Seneca’s De Tranquillitate Animi goes back to an immediate original common to Plutarch’s work also is extremely unlikely. Only one anecdote, one quotation, and a dozen or so commonplaces are not nearly enough to show any close relationship. And how dissimilar the two works are in treatment, design, terminology, and form (pace Hirzel, Der Dialog, ii. p. 28, n. 1)!
