The Complete Collection of Plutarch's Parallel Lives

by Plutarch, John Dryden (Translator)

Plutarch, also known as Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus (46-120 A.D.) was a Greek historian and biographer best known for his parallel lives comparisons of famous Greeks and Romans. Plutarch also wrote biographies on many famous people of his day.

This version of Plutarch’s The Complete Collection of Plutarch’s Lives includes a working table of contents.

Genres: History, Classics, Biography, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Ancient History, Ancient

42 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 100

About the author

Plutarch (later named, upon becoming a Roman citizen, Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus; AD 46–AD 120) was a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist, known primarily for his Parallel Lives and Moralia. He is classified as a Middle Platonist. Plutarch's surviving works were written in Greek, but intended for both Greek and Roman readers.

Reviews

[Roy Lotz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ease, and speed of execution, seldom produces work of any permanent value or delicacy. It is the time which is spent in laborious production for which we are repaid by the durable character of the result.

In the course of his grand theory of history, Oswald Spengler distinguishes what he sees as the fundamental difference between the ancient Greco-Roman and the contemporary Western cultures: the Greek’s ideal concept was of bounded, perfect forms, while the Western soul craves the boundless, the formless, and the infinite. It is a somewhat vague statement, I know, but I kept coming back to Spengler’s idea as I read Plutarch’s Lives.

Specifically, I kept thinking of Spengler’s idea as I mentally compared Plutarch’s conception of personality with Montaigne’s. I could not help making this comparison, you see, since it was Montaigne who led me to Plutarch. The Frenchman idolized the Greek; and the Essays are full of quotes of and references to Plutarch. Indeed, Montaigne specifically praises Plutarch for his insight into human nature:

The historians are my right ball, for they are pleasant and easy, and where man, in general, the knowledge of whom I hunt after, appears more vividly and entire than anywhere else… Now those that write lives, by reason they insist more upon counsels than events, more upon what sallies from within, than upon what happens from without, are the most proper for my reading; and, therefore, above all others, Plutarch is the man for me.

For my part this quote better describes Montaigne than Plutarch. Since it is exactly in this—the representation of personality—that I think Spengler’s idea most aptly applies in these two writers.

Compare the representation of a person in a classical Greek statue and in a portrait by Rembrandt, and I think you will catch my meaning. The first is all surface—shapely limbs, a well-proportioned body, a harmonious face, whose eyes nevertheless stare out serenely into vacancy, suggesting nothing internal. In Rembrandt it is exactly the reverse: the face may be ugly, the body largely hidden in shadows, yet all the energy is focused on the expression—an expression of endless suggestion, which brings to us a definite human personality.

I feel the same contrast between Plutarch and Montaigne. Plutarch’s method of characterization is statuesque. He enumerates his heroes’ virtues and qualities as if they were set in stone; and he derives all of their actions from these static characteristics. Montaigne is completely the reverse: he contradicts himself a thousand times in his book, and in the process reveals the qualities of his mind far more exquisitely than any straightforward description could accomplish. Plutarch’s heroes never change: their character is their destiny; whereas Montaigne is nothing but change. Indeed, for me it is hard to say that Plutarch’s heroes have “personality,” in the sense that I can imagine meeting them. They are no more relatable than a Greek statue.

They were certainly relatable to Plutarch himself, however, as he writes in a famous passage:

It was for the sake of others that I first undertook to write biographies, but I soon began to dwell upon and delight in them for myself, endeavoring to the best of my ability to regulate my own life, and to make it like that of those who were reflected in their history as it were in a mirror before me. By the study of their biographies, we receive each man as a guest into our minds, and we seem to understand their character as the result of personal acquaintance, because we have obtained from their acts the best and most important means of forming an opinion about them.

This quote also illustrates Plutarch’s moral purpose. For a book written by a Greek living under Roman domination, comparing the lives of Greeks and Romans, he seems to have been quite bereft of political purpose. He is, rather, a moralist. Through his biographies he hopes to determine which actions are noble, which nobler, and which noblest, an analysis he performs through his comparisons at the end of the paired lives. He writes biographies in the conviction that we naturally imitate which we see and admire; we are drawn in by the attraction we feel for noble characters, and become ennobled ourselves in the process. This is why Plutarch eschews writing strict history:

I am writing biography, not history; and often a man’s most brilliant actions prove nothing as to his true character, while some trifling incident, some casual remark or jest, will throw more light upon what manner of man he was than the bloodiest battle, the greatest array of armies, or the most important siege. Therefore, just as portrait painters pay most attention to those peculiarities of the face and eyes, in which the likeness consists, and care but little for the rest of the figure, so it is my duty to dwell especially upon those actions which reveal the workings of my heroes’ minds, and from these to construct the portraits of their respective lives, leaving their battles and their great deeds to be recorded by others.

This sounds promising enough: teaching moral lessons through depicting great personalities. My problem—aside from not being able to relate to the heroes—was that I questioned the very greatness of their actions. Of course there are many virtuous actions recorded here, worthy of praise and emulation. However, nearly all of Plutarch’s heroes are military commanders; and these pages are spattered with blood. The cutthroat world of ancient political squabbles, territorial conquests, internal strife, did not strike me as promising ground to teach virtue. Voltaire was perhaps thinking of Plutarch when he made this remark:

Not long since the trite and frivolous question was was debated in a very polite and learned company, viz., Who was the greatest man, Caesar, Alexander, Tamerlane, Cromwell, etc.? Somebody answered that Sir Isaac Newton excelled them all. The gentleman’s assertion was very just; … those politicians and conquerors (and all ages produce some) were generally so many illustrious wicked men. That man claims respect who commands over the minds of the rest of the world by force of truth, not those who enslave their fellow-creatures: he who is acquainted with the universe, not they who deface it.

Plutarch, to his credit, does give a remarkable portrait of the Newton of his time: Archimedes. But this is tucked away in his life of the Roman general, Marcellus.

For these reasons I had a great deal of difficulty in finishing this book. After every couple Lives I had to take a break; so it took me three years of on-again, off-again reading to finally get to the end. My ignorance did not help, either. Plutarch, being an ancient author, sometimes presumed a great deal more knowledge that I possessed about the relevant political history; and so I found myself frequently lost. And his style, though eloquent, is also monotonous (at least in translation), which was another challenge to my attention.

But I am glad I read Plutarch. This book is an extraordinary historical document, an invaluable (but not infallible) source of information about these ancient figures. Plutarch loved a good story and these pages are rich in anecdote—some of them so famous that it is likely you know one even if you have not read Plutarch. And though I struggled through many of the less famous figures, I was entranced by Plutarch’s biographies of the heroes I was acquainted with: Pompey, Alexander, Cicero, Brutus, and Antony. (Shakespeare followed the latter two Lives very closely in his Roman plays.) If Plutarch was good enough for Montaigne then, by Jove, he is good enough for me.

[فؤاد · Rating 4 out of 5]

حيات مردان نامى، اثر پلوتارك، به شرح زندگى مردان نامى روم و يونان مى پردازد، و يكى از كتب معتبر و مهم در تاريخ يونان و روم است. و تفاوت آن با تاريخ هاى ديگر، به قول ژان ژاك روسو در "اميل"، آن است كه از مردان نامى مجسمه هايى بى روح و تك بعدى نمى سازد، بلكه جزئيات واقعى و زنده اى از خلقيات و زندگى شخصى آن ها ارائه مى كند، و همين باعث مى شود كتاب بى اندازه لذت بخش شود.

ساختار كتاب

نام ديگر كتاب "زندگى هاى موازى" است، كه بهتر ساختار كتاب را توصيف مى كند.
شيوه ى پلوتارك آن است كه شخصيت هاى يونانى و رومى مشابه را دو تا دو تا در كنار هم قرار دهد و با هم مقايسه شان كند. به اين ترتيب كه يك فصل زندگى شخصيت يونانى را باز مى گويد، در فصل بعد زندگى شخصيت رومى معادل آن را، و در فصل سوم شباهت ها و تفاوت هاى دو شخصيت را بررسى مى كند.

آيا كتاب ارزش خواندن دارد؟

تمام كتاب نه. بسيارى از فصل ها مربوط به كسانى است كه امروزه اهميتى ندارند، هر چند در زمان خود از سياستمداران و سرداران نامى بوده اند. بسيارى از فصل ها هم به قدر كافى جذاب نيستند.
اما فصل هايى كه به افراد شهير (همچون اسكندر، كراسوس، ژوليوس سزار، بروتوس، كلئوپاترا، هانيبال و...) مى پردازند، قطعاً ارزش خواندن دارند. مخصوصاً به خاطر توصيفات ريزبينانه ى پلوتارك كه جبران كلى گويى هاى كتب درسى تاريخ را مى كند.

[Clif Hostetler · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Lives" (a.k.a The Lives of the Great Greeks & Romans or Parallel Lives) is a series of biographies of famous Greeks and Romans, arranged in pairs to facilitate the comparison their common characteristics. The first century AD author, Plutarch, states that his goal in writing is primarily to compare the influence of character on the lives and destinies of their respective cultural and political worlds. Indeed he does devote much of his writing to interesting anecdotes and incidental trivial happenings while quickly skimming over some of the more historical accomplishments. I believe Plutarch is assuming the the readers are familiar with the roles these individuals played in major historical events, but what he's providing are the lesser known stories.

Nevertheless, this book does read mostly as a series of historical biographies, and the comparisons of the lives don't seem all that significant to a modern reader. It's interesting to speculate as to what his motivations were in writing a book structured in this manner. Plutarch was a native of Greece, but was also a Roman citizen. I suspect he was striving to enhance the memories of historical characters from his own native Greece whose political power had been eclipsed by the Roman Empire. By comparing their stories and actions with those of the current world power he was reminding the readers of his day of the past glories of ancient Greece, and he was making the case that they deserved to be compared with the glories of Rome.

The individual stories are easy to read. However, the book as a whole is a difficult read. This book isn't the longest book I've ever read (1500 pages, commonly published in two volumes) but it sure seemed like it. There are a total of 50 biographies varying in length from 20 to 50 pages, the comparisons are between individuals separated in time by hundreds of years, and the biographies are not necessarily discussed in chronological order. After a while it becomes difficult for the reader to keep the various stories straight. It's sort of like reading a really long collection of short stories. I read the book over a summer for a book group that met three times to discuss the book, a third at a time. That helped keep the stories in context, but I sure feel sorry for the reader who reads from beginning to end without this assistance. I found the timeline at THIS LINK to be helpful. (This link hasn't work for a couple days. Here's a SECOND LINK to the web page that has a link to it.)

The following is a summary of some of my observations from this book:

1. The greater the accomplishment of an individual, the greater the hatred and jealousy of their opponents.

2. There was a reoccurring tendency for wealth to accumulate into the hands of fewer and fewer rich people.

3. Steps taken to more evenly redistribute wealth was almost never accomplished through peaceful means.

4. The most loved and admired politicians were those who live modestly in their personal lives.

5. Support of fellow citizens was fickle. (I understand now why Plato concluded democracy was not the best form of government -- "democracy, which is not a government at all but, as Plato says, a market-place." The swings in public sentiment as described in this book were extreme and sudden. Any ancient Greek who hadn't suffered banishment at sometime during their life could not be considered a prominent citizen.)

6. Augury and auspices were considered of great importance to ancient Greeks and Romans. (These appear silly to 21st century readers, but I'll bet that readers of American history 2,000 years from now will likewise find the role that religion plays in politics today as being rather strange.)

7. War seemed to be a constant state of affairs. (I suspect that a close study of the ratio of years of peace to years of war might reveal that the 20th century is about the same as for ancient Greece and Rome.)

After spending this summer reading Plutarch, I sense some familiarity with what I perceive his personality to be. He impresses me as the sort of person who was probably a good, happy and long winded conversationalist -- the sort of person who would say, "That reminds me of a story ..." He often discusses the sources for his stories, and sometimes he admits that certain stories are probably not true. But he proceeds to tell the story anyway because it's such a good story. There a couple of stories where he indicates that they are first hand accounts told to him by his grandfather. He obviously had to do a lot of reading and research to write book, and this was in the days of scrolls and hand written manuscripts. It is my understanding that Plutarch's writing is the sole source for some of the facts that we know about ancient Greece and Rome since many of his sources no longer exist.

I find it of personal interest to note that Plutarch was writing during the same time period when many of the books of the New Testament were also being written. Even though he is writing about morals and ethics, he gives no indication that he's heard of the new upstart religion of Christianity. If he did know about them I'm sure he considered them to be an insignificant group.

[Tristram Shandy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Long-Term Project

Most certainly, reading Plutarch’s Parallel Lives is as much a long-term project in reading as it was in writing for the author himself because otherwise, you might end up hurrying through these biographies and stop appreciating them, all the more so as they also centre on names that have somewhat faded into oblivion in our day and age. Still, there is a lot to appreciate even about these lives since Plutarch did not write as a mere historian but instead enlivens his texts by inserting various thought-provoking excursions and observations.

From the still extant 22 biography pairs – Plutarch always puts one Greek biography next to a Roman one – I have so far read three, namely Theseus – Romulus, Lycurgus – Numa and Solon – Publicola, and I think it best to take a little break and share some of my initial impressions and thoughts.

What strikes me first of all, is that on the one hand, Plutarch does not enter into his task sine ira et studio but he does let us know his sympathies or antipathies either for the men under discussion or for some of their particular actions and decisions, and yet he manages to abstain from giving sweeping judgments but remains fair and balanced in his views. Only in the case of the semi-mythological law-giver Lycurgus, who changed the Spartan state into the community for which the label Spartan has become a household name, does he abandon his full measure of reserve, and it becomes clear how much he admires Lycurgus and his stern measures, which actually ended up creating a proto-fascist society by entirely subordinating the individual to the needs of the so-called commonwealth. He even extols measures that invade into people’s family lives, like this:

”nor was it lawful for every father to rear or train his son as he pleased, but as soon as they were seven years old, Lycurgus ordered them all to be taken by the state and enrolled in companies, where they were put under the same discipline and nurture, and so became accustomed to share one another’s sports and studies.”

Such a totalitarian stance is justified by Plutarch with a reflexion like the following:

”In a word, he trained his fellow-citizens to have neither the wish nor the ability to live for themselves; but like bees they were to make themselves always integral parts of the whole community, clustering together about their leader, almost beside themselves with enthusiasm and noble ambition, and to belong wholly to their country.”

Of course, one must bear in mind that these words were written nearly two thousand years ago, and our world has meanwhile gone through experiences that should make us wary about likening human beings to bees and putting the reason of the state above everything, but thoughts like these still exert their unwholesome attractions today. As it happens, yesterday when I was sitting in a café, I heard two people at my neighbouring table talk about the present-day crisis, and they most unanimously came to the conclusion that the dooming economic recession was quite a good thing because it would teach people the ethics of renunciation. People need not travel by plane anymore, and they need not go on holiday once or more often every year, the lady said, and her companion replied that he read about the concept of a commonwealth economy in which everything that did not contribute to the commonwealth was most heavily taxed as to make it nigh impossible. At this point, I could not help laughing, and the lady asked me what I was laughing about.

“Frankly speaking,” I said, “I am laughing about the two of you.”

Now, this was not too good a way of entering into a conversation, but that was okay with me because there is a certain type of do-gooder that I don’t even care to get into conversation with any more, but still I asked them who defined what is the commonwealth. The lady said this would be defined by the Grundgesetz, where we have values like the protection of the environment (she called the environment “creation”) and the happiness of future generations. I asked her where exactly they have the part of “future generations” in the Grundgesetz and also pointed out that the first article of our Grundgesetz is about human dignity and its inviolability and that their drawing board theories about what people should do to brave future crises might just fail to notice that governments are at the service of individuals and not entitled to educate and transform them. At that point, they had finished their coffee, both literally and metaphorically, and took their leave, and I felt reminded of the Lycurgus biography and could not help thinking that if a clever man like Plutarch had fallen prey to the fascination of totalitarianism it was perhaps more excusable for those two to have been led up the similar alluring garden path. By the way, they looked as though they were still a long way from the ethics of renunciation themselves but just found it a nice thing for others.

To return to Plutarch: What I also found very enjoyable was the author’s tendency to throw in some anecdotes and reflexions, such as – in the biography of Solon – on the Athenians’ tendency to use euphemisms. He says,

“Now later writers observe that the ancient Athenians used to cover up the ugliness of things with auspicious and kindly terms, giving them polite and endearing names. 3 Thus they called harlots “companions,” taxes “contributions,” the garrison of a city its “guard,” and the prison a “chamber.””

Here I couldn’t help laughing and thinking that some things just never die and that a pig would still squeal and grunt by any other name if only you know how to use your ears. Those biographies are bristling with little asides like that which give you a vivid impression of Roman and Greek life at Plutarch’s time and which also make you more aware of interesting little details of your own society.

Note made on 15 December 2023:

After working my way to Sulla, I decided to stop reading any more of the Parallel Lives by Plutarch because what with all those campaigns, the usurpations and counter-usurpations, the takings and re-takings of towns and the slaughtering of populations, I eventually got lost, which can also be said of my interest in Plutarch’s accounts. Nevertheless, I will count this book as a notch on my belt because I spent a lot of time reading it and I also took some insight from it, namely that history seems to be mainly an account of events brought about by people with narcissistic leanings and strong inferiority complexes, who are helped in their work of destruction and infliction of suffering by knaves and fools. This has not changed a lot today even though the instruments of foolishness have changed here and there.

From time to time, Plutarch makes wise and thoughtful comments, but the biographies he presents are detailed registers of senseless slaughter and intrigue, and I think that modern history books will help you better to look at history from a more analytical vantage point.

[Vuk Vuckovic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ok, kreće vožnja.
Plutarha smatram jednim od najvećih pisaca svih vremena i mislim da bi da je rođen početkom dvadesetog veka bio najveći filmski scenarsita svih vremena.
A zapravo su u njegovo vreme u svakom većem naselju postojali ljudi koji su pisali biografije poznatih stvarnih, mitskih i polu-mitskih ličnosti. Šta je onda među tolikim papirusima njegovo delo izdvojilo od svih ostalih?

Osećaj za detalj koji govori o karakteru više nego najveće pobede u bitkama - ovo je parafraza čuvene rečenice-vodilje koja stoji pre početka uporednih biografija Aleksandra Makedonskog i Cezara.

Kao Helen u Rimskom carstvu, koje je poštovalo helensko nasleđe, rešio je da pokaže neku vrstu cikličnog kretanja istorije (i možda još važnije, cikličnog kretanja karaktera, koji menjaju sudbine čitavih svetova) prvi put kroz antičke polise, drugi put kroz prostranstva Rimske republike i kasnije carstva, čime bi odao priznanje i dodvorio se rimljanima, ali i trajno nakalemio rimsku kulturu na helensko plodno tle i time dodatno stavio do znanja Rimu da bi oni bez Helena bili varvari i da zbog toga moraju da ih poštuju bez obzira što vladaju "celim svetom".

Kad bi se samo neka budala iz Holivuda setila da snimi film po Plutarhovoj biografiji Cezara! ili Alkibijada - pa to bi bio najbolji film ikada!; Aleksandar, Romul, Brut, Solon i Ciceron (ciceron inače znai grašak i kroz celu biografiju se provlače neke fore sa tim nadimkom koji je Ciceron dobio jer je imao neku kugličastu izraslinu na nosu koja je sve ljude podsećala na grašak) bi imali isto vrhunske ekranizacije - samo da neko hoće da čita knjigu staru 2000 godina, a ne da plaća neke pajace i cirkuzante za očajne scenarije za Aleksandra Velikog ili Troju...

Najzanimljiviji parnjaci u ovim "Uporednim život(opis)ima" su: Cezar i Aleksandar, Dion i Brut i Romul i Tezej.
Epizoda sa razjarenom pobunom građana nakon Cezarove smrti; sa Aleksandrovim postavljanjem pitalica gimnosofistima (nagim mudracima) u Indiji i njihovim genijalnim odgovorima; sa ogromnim crim bićem-demonom koje staje pred već u duši ubijenog Bruta; sa Tezejevim igranjem kola na nekom ostrvu na koje je pristao nakon što je ubio Minotaura na Kritu, gde je poveo kolo u takvom koraku koji je potpuno reprodukovao njegovu kretnju kroz Lavirint ili sa izjavom nekog državnika iz Atine da "Helada ne bi mogla da podnese postojanje dva Alkibijada." - sve je genijalno.

Takođe, "bolje prvi u selu nego drugi u gradu" izreka je koja je došla valjda u sve jezike sveta iz Cezarovog života gde je on, nakon što je čuo kako se neki vojnici smeju i sprdaju sa građanima nekog malog mesta kroz koje su prolazili uz zajebancije tipa: "Šta mislite da li se i ovde biju za vlast kao u Rimu?" projahavši pored njih surovo rekao:"Radije bih bio prvi ovde nego drugi u Rimu.", nakon čega su vojnici zaćutali.
Vrhunski prevod Miloša N. Đurića na srpski je nešto o čemu bi mogao jedan poseban zapis da se napravi.

Uticaj Plutarha na svetsku književnost mislim da je nemerljiv, pre svega jer ga je Šekspir često koristio za pisanje svojih dela. A kada je Vuk Karadžić hteo da napiše biografije poznatijih vojvoda I i II srpskog ustanka, nazvao je taj spis:"Srpski Plutarh".

A sad opet jedna molba za bibliotekare, pošto među 1005 izdanja "Uporednih životopisa" ovde nisam našao nijedno izdanje na srpsko-hrvatskom, evo podataka pa ubacite šta mislite da treba:

1. USPOREDNI ŽIVOTOPISI 1 - 3 - Plutarh
Izdavač: AUGUST CESAREC Zagreb
Godina izdanja: 1973.
Broj strana: 514+509+406

2. SLAVNI LIKOVI ANTIKE I i II
prevod: Miloš N. Đurić
Izdavač: Matica srpska
Broj strana: 302 + 376
Godina izdanja: 1990.

3. SLAVNI LIKOVI ANTIKE
prevod: Miloš N. Đurić
Izdavač: Dereta
Broj strana: 415
Godina izdanja: 2005.

Pored toga u Radovoj biblioteci "Reč i Misao" izašli su kao posebne knjige uporedni životopisi Diona i Bruta kao i Tezeja i Romula, ali sad ne mogu da tražim godine.

[Stuart · Rating 5 out of 5]

There's something really comforting about watching someone else's Republic fall apart, especially when so much of it has a familiar ring. If you want to be transported to an alternate universe where noble (and not-so-noble)characters vie with tragic mix of ignorance and evil and then settle it all with big battles, you don't have to pick up the latest fantasy trilogy. Plutarch did it all long ago.

Writing in the early years of the Roman Empire (first century AD) Plutarch is a source for much of what you may see on television or movies concerning the Greek and Roman worlds. His Parallel Lives match one notable Greek against a similar notable Roman, usually in 40-100 page biographies, and then Plutarch compares their lives. I didn't find his editorials that instructive, but the biographies are lively and can be mind-blowing.

Much of what we see in newspapers is reflected here. Thought Mao was the first guy to level a society? Check out Lycurgus, the ancient Spartan who divided the land, devalued the money, forced all citizens to eat in common and made Sparta a highly controlled egalitarian state. Read about Solon's Athens, where the rich had so concentrated wealth and enslaved the populace that Solon was called in to head off a growing revolt. Julius Caesar comes out as both conniving politician and popular hero, not to mention the self-agrandizing General who destroyed the Gauls and used their gold to buy political influence in Rome.

Plutarch may have some of the cultural biases that we would expect from a citizen of one of the world's more vicious empires, but he never loses sight of the tragedies and cruelties caused by the egos of ambitious men. His portrayal of Alexander "The Great" is a vivid portrait of a mass murderer's downward spiral into insanity.

In the 19th century this book was standard schoolboy fare. In the 21st, it's still an entertaining and provocative place to meander.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clearly, this is one of the all time great books and which can definitely be a slog a times.

I did not realize how all of Western Civilization histories are just a rearranging of Plutarch in one way or another. There are redundancies between the biographies and a good historian ends up making them coherent.

When Plutarch breaks his narrative and steps outside of his biography story telling the reader gets overwhelmed by his greatness. He’ll do that every 3rd or so biography that he is writing about. For example, he’ll mention how when he was learning Latin in order to tell his story that he realized that it wasn’t the words that gave meaning to the things he was discussing, but it was the experiences that he was learning about that were giving meaning to the story and helped him to understand what was important as he was learning since it is not words that matter but the meaning that we give the experiences that matter.

Plutarch takes it as a given that the dignatas of the individual is what is most important. Dignatas can be loosely translated as what we would call celebrity status or fame (both of which I consider as fleeting, but they are all important in the Roman world according to Plutarch), and according to Plutarch dignatas comes from the individuals character shaped by community and beliefs befitting of the virtuous man (and for Plutarch it always was a man) and for him virtue would be manly excellence, overall he seemed to have contempt towards women in general with very few exceptions. I would say that Oswald Spengler and his fascist manifesto, Decline of the West, Volume I definitely overlaps with Plutarch in this regard and also surprisingly a lot with how Aristotle would see the world.

At the same time, contrarily within Plutarch there is a humanist strain. He definitely thinks that reason, logic and experience are virtues and that the individual is important in their own right while oddly heartily appealing to visions, dreams, soothsayers, oracles at Delphi and other superstitious non-sense as if they are real. Note that the first real humanist would probably be Erasmus and he too was saddled with superstitious non-sense.

When Plutarch likes the person he is writing about he is at his best, and when Plutarch steps outside of his narrative he excels. Take Cato the Younger, Plutarch definitely admires him. After having read Plutarch, I can understand why Dante does not put Cato in the The Inferno with those who committed suicide and puts him in Purgatory despite his suicide and why Dante exalts the Pagan Plutarch the way he does. Plutarch makes suicide noble and good when he likes his subject and does the opposite when he does not like his subject. (Side note: for Dante the Roman Republic was God ordained and anything that would protect it was ipso facto good, and Cato wanted to save the Roman Republic and Dante believed that the Roman Republic was God ordained since Rome (Italy) was meant to be, according to Dante.

Almost all of ancient western history seems to be contained within these biographies and piecing it together can be a slog and tedious at times. I noticed that Plutarch would also quote from Livy from parts of Livy that no longer survived. That was cool. Plutarch also assumed a familiarity with Aristotle and Plato for his reader. That was also cool.

Plutarch is one of those things as you are doing it you know can be as painful as a filling for a cavity, but in the end your glad you no longer have the toothache and you took the time and trouble because in the end it was the right thing to do.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 5 out of 5]

Taking a leaf from Bettany Hughes' "Helen Troy", Plutarch begins his series of lives with Theseus, a person who never existed. Like Bettany Hughes, Plutarch knew exactly why he was doing this. Plutarch understood that a biographer writes about the moral character and circumstances of his subject not his or her historical era. Ultimately the question of whether or not this subject ever lived was irrelevent.

While one reads Dante to see how the early Rennaissance judged antitquity and the late middle ages, one reads Plutarch to learn how antiquity judged antiquity. At times Plutarch's style is plodding, but usually it is quite competent. At moments it is brilliant. It is hard to imagine how Shakespeare could have given us his masterpiece "Julius Cesear" if he had not read Plutarch's accounts of the lives of Cesear, Brutus and Mark Anthony.

Generally the biographies are delightful. Plutarch was a lover of literature filling his text with ciations form Aeschylus, Eurpides, Sophocles, Pindar, Aristophanes and Homer. Nuggets about the social and cultural attitudes of the era abound. At one point, he explains that eclipses of the Sun occurred when the moon blocked its rays in the direction of the earth which I had realized that the educated of the first century understood. At another point, he describes a practice in one city state where nobles would fertile wives would lend them to their childless friends so that they could have heirs.
Reading the entire collection is absurd. The law of diminishing marginal returns rules. As one advances, sne finds fewer nuggets in each successive biography. My advice is to read the Penguin selection or some other comparable volume containing the favourites of a legitimate expert. I certainly would never have ploughed through the whole set of 50 biographies if the bookstores and libraries had not been closed due to Covid-19.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Roughly 1800 years ago, a biographer and historian decided to compare the great men of Greece and Rome to one another to give his readers inspiration to follow their example or what to avoid. Parallel Lives by Plutarch chronicles the lives of the greatest men of the ancient world and the times they lived in.

To show the influence of character—good or bad—of the great men of more remote past of Greece and the more recent past of Rome was Plutarch’s main aim in his biographies of these great men especially when he compared them to one another. Yet throughout his writing he shows the times these great men lived to the benefit of readers today that might know the overall history, but not the remarkably interesting details or events that general history readers might never know about. The usual important suspects like Alexander, Julius Caesar, and their like but it was those individuals that one never heard of today especially those Greeks between the end of the Peloponnesian War and its takeover by Rome save Alexander. This revised edition of the John Dryden translation contains both volumes in one book resulting in almost 1300 pages of text thanks to the fact that they added four lives that Plutarch wrote independent of his parallel pairs which included a Persian monarch, yet this printing is of poor quality as there are missing letters throughout which does slow reading down for a moment.

Parallel Lives is a fascinating series of biographies of individuals that in the second century AD were the greatest men in history to those living at the time, a few of which have continued to our time. Plutarch’s prose brings these men to life as well as the times they live in and influenced which history readers would appreciate a lot.

[Aaron Wolfson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A monumental achievement, covering the lives of 50 of the most influential ancient Greeks and Romans. Plutarch's aim was to write biography, not history, so the focus is on the characters and decisions of these men. Plutarch is notoriously poor at describing battles, but he scoured the available sources for illuminating anecdotes. Since many of those sources are no longer extant, Plutarch has performed an invaluable service to posterity.

Reading this is an undertaking, and it took me time to settle in to Plutarch's narrative style. I read the translation by Stewart and Long, and I was pleased with it, especially Long's copious footnotes on the Romans at the end of the Republic.

This work gave me a great sense of the epic scope of both classical Greece and the Roman Republic, and perhaps the best reason to read it is to see the Republic spiral into chaos, from the perspectives of the men who led it there.

This is a world of constant war and political acrimony, where fame and power are fickle yet seductive. Many men careened from exaltation to destitution and back, several times. And a noble few disdained luxury and cruelty in favor of actual service to the state and its people.

These champions were few and far between. While Greece and Rome are noted for their political, economic, and cultural advances, these came consistently at the point of the sword. It would be interesting to see a Zinn-style history of this period written from the point of view of the "barbarians" who made way (with much slavery and death), or focusing on the masses who eked out an existence while the kings and demagogues battled around them.

Alas, the winners write the history, and there are few better than Plutarch.

[Lili Kyurkchiyska · Rating 4 out of 5]

Скъпи Плутарх от Херонея,
Благодаря ти за прекрасните биографии, които си написал. Особено за тази на Демостен, нищо, че в нея доста си послъгал. В тази на Перикъл също. Но с Алкивиад наистина си постигнал баланс. Бъди си все така добър моралист и продължи да ни напомняш, че това има значение.
Поздрави,
Твой почитател

[Marina the Reader · Rating 2 out of 5]

Maybe it is good, but I found it dry and could not go through with it

[Tom Willis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lycurgus ✓
Solon ✓
Alcibiades ✓

[Josh Friedlander · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting way to do biography, pairing two subjects (a Greek and a Roman) who have some kind of thematic overlap and comparing them at the end. (There are also some standalone biographies included in this edition.) Part of Plutarch's goal was apparently to show that the Romans were no less noble than their Greek predecessors, and he has a clear ethical program that comes out in the Lives in his praise and criticism, and in his choices of subjects (who are by no means all positive examples.) His values include courage and stoicism, loyalty, and a kind of mission-focus - as opposed to the "effeminate" trait of decadence. The latest of the lives is that of the Roman emperor Otho, of the Year of the Four Emperors, when Plutarch was in his twenties.

Some of the stories I knew from middle school Shakespeare (Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra, heavily based on Plutarch's versions). The life of Caesar was probably my favourite, showing Caesar's brilliance and ambition, his self-promotion and ability to take advantage of moments of crisis. All of these allowed him to take control of a stable, prosperous republic whose one rule was "No Tyranny" and become a tyrant, and the people loved him for it. (One of his secrets: generous redistribution of wealth.) Some of the side-characters in his story have their own bios - Pompey, Brutus, Cicero, Antony, as well as Cato, whose unyielding opposition to Caesar and gruesome botched suicide (which involves yanking out his own bowels and tearing them) were hard to forget. (This source suggests that the chaotic scene is reflecting Stoic disapproval of suicide as an irrational and unmanly choice.)

I listened to this (extremely long) book on audio, and it is based on Dryden's translation (I assumed this probably wasn't the Dryden but it is! There aren't many other full translations. This would not have been the translation used by Shakespeare, who lived slightly earlier.) I've included some snippets I enjoyed, from the Dryden translation hosted on MIT's Internet Classics Archive.

About excessive fondness for animals:

Caesar once, seeing some wealthy strangers at Rome, carrying up and down with them in their arms and bosoms young puppy-dogs and monkeys, embracing and making much of them, took occasion not unnaturally to ask whether the women in their country were not used to bear children; by that prince-like reprimand gravely reflecting upon persons who spend and lavish upon brute beasts that affection and kindness which nature has implanted in us to be bestowed on those of our own kind.

About hydraulics - are there underground reservoirs of water, or does the energy of digging convert the soil into water?

Aemilius, considering that he was at the foot of the high and woody mountain Olympus, and conjecturing by the flourishing growth of the trees that there were springs that had their course underground, dug a great many holes and wells along the foot of the mountain, which were presently filled with pure water escaping from its confinement into the vacuum they afforded. Although there are some, indeed, who deny that there are reservoirs of water lying ready provided out of sight, in the places from whence springs flow, and that when they appear, they merely issue and run out; on the contrary, they say, they are then formed and come into existence for the first time, by the liquefaction of the surrounding matter; and that this change is caused by density and cold, when the moist vapour, by being closely pressed together, becomes fluid. As women's breasts are not like vessels full of milk always prepared and ready to flow from them; but their nourishment being changed in their breasts, is there made milk, and from thence is pressed out. In like manner, places of the earth that are cold and full of springs, do not contain any hidden waters or receptacles which are capable, as from a source always ready and furnished, of supplying all the brooks and deep rivers; but by compressing and condensing the vapours and air they turn them into that substance. And thus places that are dug open, flow by that pressure, and afford the more water (as the breasts of women do milk by their being sucked), the vapour thus moistening and becoming fluid; whereas ground that remains idle and undug is not capable of producing any water, whilst it wants the motion which is the cause of liquefaction. But those that assert this opinion give occasion to the doubtful to argue, that on the same ground there should be no blood in living creatures, but that it must be formed by the wound, some sort of spirit or flesh being changed into a liquid and flowing matter. Moreover, they are refuted by the fact that men who dig mines, either in sieges or for metals, meet with rivers, which are not collected by little and little (as must necessarily be, if they had their being at the very instant the earth was opened), but break out at once with violence; and upon the cutting through a rock, there often gush out great quantities of water, which then as suddenly cease. But of this enough.

On symmetric-key cryptography.

When the Ephors send an admiral or general on his way, they take two round pieces of wood, both exactly of a length and thickness, and cut even to one another; they keep one themselves, and the other they give to the person they send forth; and these pieces of wood they call Scytales. When, therefore, they have occasion to communicate any secret or important matter, making a scroll of parchment long and narrow like a leathern thong, they roll it about their own staff of wood, leaving no space void between, but covering the surface of the staff with the scroll all over. When they have done this, they write what they please on the scroll, as it is wrapped about the staff; and when they have written, they take off the scroll, and send it to the general without the wood. He, when he has received it, can read nothing of the writing, because the words and letters are not connected, but all broken up; but taking his own staff, he winds the slip of the scroll about it, so that this folding, restoring all the parts into the same order that they were in before, and putting what comes first into connection with what follows, brings the whole consecutive contents to view round the outside.

(There was also a quote I couldn't find, about how civil war is more bloody than regular war because there is no value in taking prisoners.)

[Zach · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's a lot to like about Plutarch. He does a reasonably good job of telling usually interesting stories about incredibly interesting people. And he's definitely got volume working for him - even though we've lost some of his lives (where's Augustus?), there's a lot left.

The downside is that he's religious to the point of incredible superstition; every event has at least three incredible signs (birds descending out of nowhere, statues moving, rivers flooding, sacrifices deformed...). It gets tiring to read a paragraph out of a every few pages dedicated to these events. He's also not the least bit discerning in his history, to the point where he makes Herodotus and his giant gold ants of India look like Thucydides. Every ancient rumor and legend is perfectly credible to him, especially if it supports his position that people used to be more virtuous, or appeals to his religious sentiment.

So, he's a silver age writer who definitely reads like one, who tells interesting stories interspersed with annoying anecdotes and omens.

[Andrew Sutherland · Rating 5 out of 5]

It took me over three months to get through this entire work, but I'm glad I took the time to read it. I would not recommend reading the entire Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans, but I'm glad I did. Some of the more notable and must read lives are: Theseus, Romulus, Lycurgus, Numa, Solon, Themistocles, Pericles, Alcibiades, Coriolanus, Marcus Cato, Sulla, Caius Marius, Crassus, Pompey, Alexander, Caesar, Cato the Younger, Cicero, Brutus, Antony, Marcus Brutus, Artaxerxes, Galba, and Otho.
After reading the Life of Coriolanus, I read Shakespeare's Coriolanus. After reading the Life of Antony, I read Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra. Reading the lives of Cicero, Caesar, Crassus, Pompey, Brutus, and Cato have given me so much more insight into Shakespeare's Tragedy of Julius Caesar.
It took me over three months to get through this behemoth, but I finally slayed the beast and am better off for it.

[Rob Roy · Rating 4 out of 5]

When we read Greek and Roman history, we get brief summaries of the key personalities, but Plutarch gives us far more. These historic names become flesh and blood. They are much like the people of today, yet quite different culturally. One has to wade through the folksy tales, but while not pure history, the people to come to life. If you enjoy ancient history, this is a must read.

[Tommy V · Rating 4 out of 5]

Plutarch was a Greek scholar who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Not much is known about his life other than he taught, made several trips to Rome, and possibly held a small public office within the Roman Empire. So it is somewhat ironic that his most famous writing is the series of parallel lives and comparisons of famous Greek and Roman statesmen collected and translated into English in the late 1500s by John Dryden as The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (hereafter Lives).

Plutarch makes it clear that he is not so much interested in events that shaped history as he is in the character of the famous people he portrays in the Lives. In that sense, he is less a historian than he is a moralist. “My design is not to write histories, but lives,” he states in the introduction to the “Life of Alexander.” “And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men; sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations, than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever.”

This does not mean that Plutarch shortchanges the reader by purposely avoiding legendary events. Indeed, in the “Life of Alexander” and the parallel “Life of Caesar,” he devotes entire pages to their battles and victories. But he only dwells on the events insofar as they provide insight to the men. For example, after recounting the decisive battle between Caesar and Pompey, he writes how, though victorious, Caesar grieved to view the aftermath on the battlefield where the two Roman armies slew each other. Instances like this one are scattered throughout each Life, where Plutarch pauses to discover emotions that drove, or were a result of, a particular action.

In providing a reason for writing his Lives, Plutarch notes, “Moral good is a practical stimulus; it is no sooner seen, than it inspires an impulse to practice” (“Life of Pericles”). In other words, it was his hope that by reading the virtues of his subjects, his audience would imitate their actions. By writing the lives of lawgivers and rulers, both just and unjust, Plutarch holds each subject up to the ethical standards expounded by Plato and Aristotle. He neither condemns nor praises most deeds, but lets the reader determine right from wrong.

There are a couple of areas in which Plutarch’s influence is noticeable. First, as one of the earliest biographers, he certainly molded and shaped how biographers approached their subjects. Plenty of authors found inspiration in his work, too. William Shakespeare drew so much from reading Plutarch’s Lives that the Bard should have shared writing credit with Plutarch on such plays as Antony and Cleopatra .

When I first read Plutarch in college, I found his tome dry and tedious. I consider it a much more interesting read nowadays, but I still find myself skimming over some passages. One of the reasons for this is because Plutarch sometimes goes into what I call “Biblical mode” where so-and-so begot such-and-such. Students of ancient history might appreciate the references, but I don’t read Plutarch for a list of names.

Another common trait of Plutarch’s is that he will cite several sources regarding certain incidents. Some of these sources will be in agreement, but many will contradict one another. I enjoy reading the differing viewpoints, even the ones that Plutarch ultimately dismisses as fabricated, but it is sometimes difficult to sort through all of the stories and thread them back to Plutarch’s estimation of his subject. Nevertheless, one can appreciate to what great lengths Plutarch must have gone to document all of the various sources.

Plutarch also likes to engage in digressions. For example, in the “Life of Lycurgus,” the Spartan lawmaker, Plutarch goes from a recapitulation of Lycurgus’ laws on raising children to a brief discourse on how children behave in his day. Though the intention was to raise the point about how valid Lycurgus’ ideas remain, it makes for a slightly disjointed reading.

Some of the problems with the text arise from what Dryden collected. The book as it stands today is not in the order in which Plutarch wrote. Several of the Lives that he alludes to are no longer extant, while some of the comparisons are either missing or were never completed. However, there is enough information contained in the book for attentive readers to fill in the blanks.

I confess that I have only read about one-third of the Lives thoroughly, but what I have read has been very interesting. For example, one can read the saga within the Roman Empire and the interaction/animosity between Caesar, Pompey, Cato, Crassus, Cicero, and Antony. There is the “Life of Alcibiades,” a former student of Socrates, who sold out the Athenians to the Spartans, and then sold out both of them to the Persians. His actions indirectly led to Socrates’ trial and death. In the “Life of Romulus,” one can read an account of how men, on their wedding night, carry their brides across the threshold of their new home. Whether or not this is the root of our modern tradition I cannot say, but I found bits of information like this fascinating.

The Modern Library edition that I purchased in college as one 1300-page volume is now offered as a two-volume set. This is the famous Dryden edition. My only gripe is that I wished it included ancient maps, for when Plutarch refers to various cities and trade routes, I am at a loss as to the geographical reference.

Another popular edition is distributed by Penguin Classics. Penguin groups the lives according to subject matter (for instance, the rise and fall of Athens), which not only makes searching for related lives easier, but the paperback versions are also less bulky.

[Ridgewalker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Make no mistake, this is a hard book to read, and a very long one. Having said that I found it most valuable. Plutarch from two thousand years in the past gives us a pair of biographies of a Roman and a Greek and compares one against the other. For me, I loved this book for the perspective it offered in looking at our world today. Plutarch paints the pictures of good noble and virtuous men and shows the impact they had on those around them and their country. He does the same for those with dark and evil ambitions. He paints hundreds of years of history through the lives he details and you start to get a sense of the impact one good man, or one evil man can have on the world he lives in. Seeing what happened, long ago in the past, gives me a greater perspective of who is on the political and military stage today.

This is not a book to be taken lightly, it is a serious read. I give it four stars for its difficulty.

[Idontknow · Rating 5 out of 5]

1400 pages of Stories the Jedi wouldn't tell you.

[olishmou · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lecture académique — Automne 2024

4.

J’ai lu, dans le cadre de mon cours, les Vies de: Alcibiade, Thésée, Romulus, César, Cicéron, Brutus, Sylla.

[Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

I pulled it out to start reading it, although I am apprehensive about starting such a dense book set millenia ago in with unfamiliar people and places. This could easily be a semester of study, or longer. As I read, I am reminded of the importance of knowing history. We get so caught up in our modern accessories that we forget the fundamental human nature of all that we do.

I started this book, and then it sat without being read for six months. When I picked it up again, I started the chapter on: Lycurgus king of Sparta. The true details are shrouded in antiquity, but this chapter outlines him as a king who worked to create laws and a society for the blessing of his people. The laws of marriage are quite strange. He created a culture of self-denial.

A couple of paragraphs quite struck me, and are quoted here.

"Cæsar once, seeing some wealthy strangers at Rome, carrying up and down with them in their arms and bosoms young puppy-dogs and monkeys, embracing and making much of them, took occasion not unnaturally to ask whether the women in their country were not used to bear children; by that prince-like reprimand gravely reflecting upon persons who spend and lavish upon brute beasts that affection and kindness which nature has implanted in us to be bestowed on those of our own kind. With like reason may we blame those who misuse that love of inquiry and observation which nature has implanted in our souls, by expending it on objects unworthy of the attention either of their eyes or their ears, while they disregard such as are excellent in themselves, and would do them good." (Loc 4651)

"It was not said amiss by Antisthenes, when people told him that one Ismenias was an excellent piper, “It may be so,” said he, “but he is but a wretched human being, otherwise he would not have been an excellent piper.” And king Philip, to the same purpose, told his son Alexander, who once at a merry-meeting played a piece of music charmingly and skilfully, “Are you not ashamed, son, to play so well?” For it is enough for a king or prince to find leisure sometimes to hear others sing, and he does the muses quite honor enough when he pleases to be but present, while others engage in such exercises and trials of skill. He who busies himself in mean occupations produces, in the very pains he takes about things of little or no use, an evidence against himself of his negligence and indisposition to what is really good." (Loc 4669)


Theseus about 1284-1232 BC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus
Romulus about 771 BC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus...
Lycurgus of Sparta Born: 800 BC
Numa Pompilius Wikipedia Born: April 21, 753 BC
Solon Born: Athens, Greece Died: 558 BC
Themistocles Athenian Politician Wikipedia Born: 524 BC, Athens, Greece Died: 459 BC
Marcus Furius Camillus (/kəˈmɪləs/; c. 446 – 365 BC) was a Roman soldier and statesman of patrician descent.
Pericles Greek statesman Born: 495 BC, Holargos, Greece Died: 429 BC, Athens, Greece
Pyrrhus - a fierce warrior without moral principle. (Loc - 12313)
Eumenes - betrayed into the hands of Antigonus. (Loc 17600-17643)
Tiberius was a just man who endeavored to do justice to the people by ensuring that they had property, and not just the rich. He was slain by a conspiracy of the wealthy. (75% of the way through)

The term patrician (Latin: patricius, Greek: πατρίκιος, patrikios) originally referred to a group of ruling class families in ancient Rome.

[Darran Mclaughlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating book. The gulf between these famous Greeks and Romans and we today is huge. It is interesting to see the similarities and differences between their day and ours. Their attitude towards death is certainly hugely different to ours, as they seemed to be ready to risk their lives far more willingly then we are. Another major difference involves what was expected of a man. Today people are often more specialized and tend to conform to some subculture or other, but with the ancients a man was expected to balance a range of accomplishments, so you have the example of the most popular, attractive aristocrat in Athens choosing to spend most his time with the poor and unattractive Socrates instead of carousing with other young aristocrats. You were expected to develop your mind through study, practice and appreciate philosophy, poetry and music, be graceful and attractive in your looks and manner, engage in athletic competition, be physically courageous and willing to go to war etc...etc... I suppose this is an aristocratic conception of life that has fallen away but why have we discarded the idea of this kind of balanced development?

The edition I read contains the lives of Solon, Pericles, Alcibiades, Themistocles and Alexander of the Greeks, and Marius, Sylla, Pompey, Caesar and Cicero of the Romans. I generally found the Greek lives more interesting then the Romans but they were all very interesting. There was a greater sense of courage, cunning and individual heroics about the Greeks. I suppose all the Romans performed their deeds with the backing of the Roman Legions whilst the Greeks didn't have a massive standing army to rely upon, and what they achieve often involved having to persuade lots of free thinking individuals to back them.

The Lives are the source of many well known quotes and anecdotes. Can you imagine a modern equivalent to Diogenes being visited by Alexander the Great and upon being asked what the most powerful man in the known world could do for him replying that he could step out his way and stop blocking the sunlight?

[Zharel Anger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Douglas Adams, A.A. Milne, Shakespeare, and the Python Group were informed by these writings.

This is a great read into the morality of leadership and power in the ancient Greco-Roman world and is valuable research for those who want to write about the mindset of Greeks and Romans at the second century AD.

Plutarch’s writing is pleasant and easy, but the specifics of the histories in this work are incomplete. Indeed, he admits at the start that he is “writing biography, not history” and that “their great deeds (are) to be recorded by others.” What we gain is an insight into the quality the lives he writes about as well as what qualities were valued by Plutarch and why those qualities were valued.

The style of the narrative is entertaining as he besmirches other ‘historians’ for their lack of insight or their emphasis on irrelevant deeds over motivations and reason. The narrative style was adopted in part by Milne for the narrator in Once on a Time as well as by Douglas Adams for The Book in the Hitchhiker series. The influence is unmistakable.

The many strange anecdotes have also been employed by comedic writers and inform such works as Shakespeare and the Monty Python Group. I was pleasantly surprised to read Plutarch’s assessment of Greek currency which is replicated in Douglas Adam’s treatment of the Altairian dollar. Both currencies are cumbersome and a generally incompatible medium of exchange.

If you have the time to read this tome, you will gain greater insight and understanding into the stories of the countless authors who were influenced by this book.

[Onyango Makagutu · Rating 4 out of 5]

what a great journey through ancient Greece and Rome.
These were the days of Phocion, Cato, Brutus, Cicero and others who were steadfast in their desire for public good and the likes of Caeser, Pompey, Otho and others whose only drive was power for its own sake.
We truly miss the Catos, the law givers such as Solon and Lycurgus and other noble men.
Plutarch tells his history very well

[Elad · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an amazing experience. Plutarch meant to write these histories so we could learn good moral behaviour from them .
He succeeded - painting a clear picture of their image and character.


It was a journy in which I learned about historie's favorite characters.
Recommended for everybody in every age.

[J]

Plutarkhos, kreikkalaisroomalainen filosofi, oli tavattoman ahkera kirjailija, ja hänen kokonaistuotantonsa käsitti noin 4500 painosivua. Hänen maineikkain teoksensa Kuuluisien miesten elämänkertoja ilmestyi alun perin todennäköisesti toisen vuosisadan alussa, ja teoksesta on säilynyt viidenkymmenen suurmiehen elämänkerrat. Plutarkhos järjesti elämänkerrat alun perin pareittain, kuvaten yhden roomalaisen ja yhden kreikkalaisen elämää rinnatusten. Nämä elämänkertaparit sisälsivät aina yhteisen johdannon sekä vertailevan katsauksen lopussa. Ilmeisesti tarkoituksena on ollut korostaa miten ihmiskohtalot saattavat muistuttaa hämmästyttävästi toisiaan halki kansallisuuden ja aikakauden. Toisaalta hän myös jatkoi, ehkäpä tietoisesti, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustuksen kulttuuripolitiikkaa vahvistaen roomalaista kansallisidentiteettiä, mutta myös yhdistämällä roomalaisen kulttuuriperinteen aiempaan kreikkalaiseen kontekstiin vertaamalla kummankin kansakunnan sankareita keskenään.

Lukemani suomennos Kuuluisien miesten elämämänkerroista on vuoden 1955 ensimmäinen painos. Suomennos käsittää kymmenen elämänkertaa säilyneestä 50:stä, mutta sisältää silti useimmat Plutarkhoksen perusteellisimmat kuvaukset. Filosofin johdannot ja vertailevat koonnit on jätetty yhtä lukuun ottamatta kokonaan pois, ja elämänkertoja ei ole järjestetty pareittain vaan kronologiseen järjestykseen uudemmasta vanhempaan. Kirja näin ollen alkaa Marcus Antoniuksesta, jatkaa Brutuksen ja Julius Caesarin kautta muun muassa Sullaan ja Cracchusten veljeksiin, minkä jälkeen alkavat kreikkalaiset elämänkerrat alkaen Demostheneestä ja päättyen Perikleeseen. Suomennoksesta on jätetty pois etenkin myyttisemmät elämänkerrat kuten Romulus, Theseus ja Lykurgos. Tämä on sääli, sillä niin roomalaiset kuin kreikkalaisetkin pitivät näitä myyttien heeroksia myös todellisina ihmisinä ja kansallissankareinaan. Näin jää siis pois arvokasta tietoa sekä roomalaisesta uskonnosta, mutta ennen kaikkea esimerkkejä kreikkalais-roomalaisten historiankirjoittajien ainutlaatuisesta tyylistä sekoittaa historialliset faktat ja uskonnollinen aines keskenään. Myyttistä ainesta esiintyy kuitenkin jonkin verran myös todellisten historiallisten henkilöiden kuvauksissa. Plutarkhos kuvaa hyvin tarkasti erinäisiä ennemerkkejä ja niiden vaikutuksia. Nämä uskonnolliset huomautukset kuitenkin pikemminkin lisäävät kirjan arvoa oman aikansa kuvaajana, ja ovat täysin ymmärrettäviä kun otetaan huomioon Plutarkhoksen entinen toimi Delfoin oraakkelin pappina. Erityisen huvittava oli Plutarkhoksen kuvaus Lucius Cornelius Sullan sotajoukon ja satyyrin kohtaamisesta, mikä erottui hauskasti historiallisen asiatekstin seasta: ” Sullan miesten kerrotaan täällä ottaneen kiinni nukkumasta tapaamansa satyyrin… - … Sulla kysyi tulkkien välityksellä useilla kielillä sen syntyperää, mutta se päästi tuskin yhtään ymmärrettävää sanaa…”.

Vaikka Kuuluisien miesten elämänkertoja on yksi tärkeimpiä Rooman ja Kreikan historian lähteitä, ei Plutarkhos esiintynyt elämänkertoja kirjoittaessaan historioitsijana vaan pikemminkin ihmisluonnon kuvaajana. Tämä lähestymistapa tekee kirjasta eloisan ja helposti luettavan, mutta samalla teoksesta tulee roomalaisen kulttuurin erinomainen kuvaaja. Kaikki roomalaisessa kulttuurissa arvostetut piirteet ilmentyvät mitä parhaiten teoksen suurmiehissä. Täten kirja tarjoaakin lähes ainutlaatuisen mahdollisuuden tarkastella antiikin suurmiehiä hyve-eettisestä näkökulmasta, ja keskitynkin tulevissa kappaleissa tähän tarkasteluun. Tutkiskelun keskiössä ovat Aristoteleen Nikomakhoksen etiikassa esittelemä hyveoppi. Myöhemmissä kappaleissa käsittelen myös roomalaisten suurmiesten yhteydessä yhtä Rooman perushyvettä, virtus:ta, mikä pitää sisällään laajan kokoelman luonteenpiirteitä kuten urhoollisuus, miehisyys sekä kunniallisuus.

Aristoteleen mukaan hyveellinen ihminen tekee oikeat valinnat vapaasti ja omasta halustaan. Tällaisen hyvekäsityksen perusteena on, että hyveellinen ihminen luonnostaan haluaa tehdä sitä, mikä on hyvää, ja minkä järjellään tietää oikeaksi. Teoria edellyttää tiettyä tarkkaa erottelua: mitä jokin yksilö pitää jonakin tiettynä ajankohtana itselleen hyvänä ei ole sama asia kuin mikä todella on hänelle ihmisenä hyvää. Aristoteleen teorian hyveellinen ihminen harjoittaa hyveitä tässä jälkimmäisessä mielessä. Ihmisen päämääränä on hyvin eletty ihmiselämä, ja hyveiden harjoittaminen on keskeistä tämän päämäärän saavuttamiseksi. Hyvää on siis mahdotonta saavuttaa hyveitä harjoittamatta. Koska hyveiden harjoittaminen näin ollen vaatii tietynlaista tarkkaa arvostelukykyä, ovat luonteenhyveet tiukasti sidottuna käytännön järkeen ja järkevään arvostelukykyyn. Äly on se erotteleva tekijä tietynlaiseen luonnollisen taipumuksen ja hyveen välillä. Aristoteles määrittelee hyveen tietynlaiseksi keskitieksi, jolloin hyveet ovat kahden paheen välissä. Esimerkiksi anteliaisuuden hyve on tuhlaavaisuuden ja kitsauden välissä. Henkilön tulee tehdä anteliaita tekoja tullakseen anteliaaksi, ja tämä vaatii tarkkaa järjen käyttöä ja tasapainottelua tuhlaavaisuuden ja kitsauden paheen välillä. Hyveelliseksi voi Aristoteleen mukaan siis tulla vain tekemällä hyveellisiä tekoja.

Kuuluisien miesten elämänkertoja tarjoaakin suuren määrän hyveitä ja paheita tälle tarkastelulle. Plutarkhos keskittyi kuvaamaan nimenomaan suurmiesten luonteenpiirteitä ja persoonallisuuksia, joten hyveet ovat jopa tietyllä tavalla kirjan pääosassa. Tarkasteltavien ollessa länsimaisen historian nerokkaimpia sotapäälliköitä, taitavimpia poliitikkoja ja rikkaimpia valtionmiehiä, on luonnollista että nimenomaan heidän keskuudessaan hyveet ja paheet pääsivät uusiin mittasuhteisiin. Mielenkiintoista onkin, että lähes poikkeuksetta jokainen kirjan suurmiehistä oli sekä sotilas että valtionmies. Näin etenkin miehuullisuuden (uhkarohkeuden ja pelkuruuden paheen välissä) ja oikeudenmukaisuuden hyveille tarjoutuu runsaasti vertailukohtia.

Plutarkhos aloittaa jokaisen elämänkerran selventämällä hieman oloja, joista suurmiehet kotoisin. Tähän yleensä kuului suppean sukupuun ja kuuluisien esi-isien mainitsemisen lisäksi perheen varallisuuden sekä jalosukuisuuden kuvaaminen. Tämän lisäksi Plutarkhos myös kertoo siitä kasvatuksesta, mitä kyseinen suurmies on saanut osakseen. Aristoteles painottaakin hyve-etiikassaan oikean kasvatuksen tärkeyttä hyveellisen elämäntavan kannalta. Hänen mukaansa kasvatus määrää ne luonteenpiirteet, joiden mukaan ihminen käyttäytyy. Hyveellinen ihminen käyttäytyy siis hyveellisesti koska hän tekee hyveellisiä tekoja, ja näitä tekoja hän haluaa tehdä koska hän on saanut hyvän moraalisen kasvatuksen ja haluaa toimia kasvatuksessa sisäistämiensä periaatteiden mukaan. Kuuluisien miesten elämänkertoja tarjoaa tästä monta oivaa esimerkkiä, mutta selvimmin kasvatuksen vaikutus tulee esiin Cracchusten veljesten tarinoista. Tiberius ja Gaius Cracchus olivat molemmat merkittäviä poliitikkoja ja suuresti arvostettuja roomalaisia. Heidän isänsä, Tiberius Cracchus, oli antanut henkensä säästääkseen vaimonsa hengen, ja näin ollen leskeksi jäänyt Cornelia kasvatti pojat yksinhuoltajana. Cornelia osoitti poikiensa kasvatuksessa niin suurta järkevyyttä, ylevämielisyyttä ja äidinrakkautta, että hänestä tuli suorastaan roomalaisen hyveellisen naisen esikuva ja hänestä tehtiin kuolemansa jälkeen marmorinen patsas. Plutarkhos kuvaa Cornelian pojilleen antamaa kasvatusta näin sanoin: ”Heidän kasvatukseensa hän uhrasi niin paljon huolta, että poikien avut on luettu enemmän äidin kasvatuksen tuloksiksi kuin luonnon antimiksi, vaikka heitä tunnetusti pidettiin lahjakkaimpina roomalaisina.”. Myöhemmin Plutarkhos vielä painottaa hyvän kasvatuksen merkitystä kirjoittamalla: ”…luonteen lujuus, jalo sukuperintö ja hyvä kasvatus ovat murheen päivinä ihmisen parhaat tukijat.”. Kun kasvatukselle hyveellisen elämän kannalta annetaan näin suuri painoarvo, ei siis ole ihme että Aleksanteri Suuri, joka tuli tunnetuksi suuresta jalomielisyydestään ja anteliaisuudestaan, oli itse Aristoteleen kasvatti. Plutarkhoksen mukaan Aleksanteri itsekin ymmärsi hyvän ja moraalisen kasvatuksen hyveelliset vaikutukset: ”Aristotelestä hän aluksi ihailija rakasti omien sanojensakin mukaan yhtä paljon kuin isäänsä, joka oli antanut hänelle elämän, kun taas edellinen oli opettanut hänet elämään jalosti…”.

Aleksanteri Suuren elämänkerrassa anteliaisuuden ja oikeudenmukaisuuden hyveet ovat suuressa roolissa. Oikeudenmukaisuuden hyve onkin koko kirjassa hyvin keskeisessä asemassa sillä, kuten aikaisemmin mainitsin, kaikki kirjan suurmiehet olivat valtionmiehiä. Oikeudenmukaisuus saattoi tuoda henkilölle suurta arvostusta, kuten Aleksanteri Suuren tapauksessa, mutta epäoikeudenmukaisuus saattoi tuhota poliittiset pyrkimykset yhtä tehokkaasti kuin oikeudenmukaisuus edistää niitä. Koko kirjan ajan suurmiehet ponnistelevatkin yrittäessään noudattaa oikeudenmukaisuuden hyvettä, sillä siinä korostuu Aristoteleen painottama käytännön äly ja järkevä arvostelukyky. Esimerkiksi Ciceron poliittista uraa avitti suuresti tämän poikkeuksellisten puheenlahjojen lisäksi se oikeudenmukaisuus mitä hän tuomarina ollessaan osoitti. Etenkin hänen järkevä ja oikeudenmukainen toimintansa uransa alkuvaiheessa, ollessaan Sisiliassa kvestorina toi hänelle suurta mainetta. Toisaalta esimerkiksi Mariuksen apulainen, kansantribuuni Sculpius, herätti suurta halveksuntaa ja vihaa kansan keskuudessa nimenomaan osoittamastaan epäoikeudenmukaisuudesta. Tämän kerrotaan julmuuksiensa lisäksi myyneen Forum Romanumilla Rooman kansalaisoikeuksia barbaareille ja vapautetuille orjille keskellä kirkasta päivää. Lucius Cornelius Sulla tuli tunnetuksi epäoikeudenmukaisista proskriptioistaan. Enemmänkin Sullan epäoikeudenmukaisuus kuin tekojen raakuus herätti kansassa häntä kohtaan niin suurta vihaa, että Sulla Felix muistetaan vieläkin pääasiassa kyseisistä proskriptioista, kuin uransa alkuvaiheen suurteoista. Plutarkhos kirjoittaa asiasta seuraavasti: ”Takavarikoituja tiloja huutokaupatessa hän istui tuomarin tuolilla jaellen häikäilemättömästi määräyksiään, ja tämä häikäilemättömyys tiloja luovutettaessa herätti häntä kohtaan suurempaa vihaa kuin takavarikot itse. Kauniit naiset, lyyransoittajat, näyttelijät ja lurjusmaiset vapautetut orjat saivat kokonaisten kansojen maat ja kokonaisten kaupunkien tulot.”.

Näin poliittinen toiminta antaa hyveille myös tiettyä välineellistä arvoa. Vaikka Aristoteleen mukaan oikeudenmukainen ihminen tulee onnelliseksi tehdessään oikeudenmukaisia ja antelias anteliaita tekoja, edisti hyveellinen toiminta myös huomattavasti poliittista uraa sillä se takasi arvostusta ja kansansuosiota. Tästä erinomaisen esimerkin tarjoaa Plutarkhos kirjoittaessaan Brutuksesta, jota hyveellisyytensä takia kunnioittivat jopa vihamiehensäkin: ”Brutus taas oli voittanut joukkojen ystävyyden jalomielisyydellään. Häntä ystävät rakastivat, ylimykset ihailivat eivätkä edes vastustajat vihanneet, sillä paitsi hän oli erittäin maltillinen ja ylevämielinen, hän oli tukahduttanut itsestään kaiken kiukun, aistillisuuden ja ahneuden, hän pysyi suoraviivaisesti ja järkkymättömästi sen kannattajana, minkä oli todennut hyväksi ja oikeudenmukaiseksi. Ennen kaikkea häneen kohdistunut kiintymys ja arvonanto ilmenivät siitä, että hänen poliittisten tarkoitusperiensä vilpittömyyteen luotettiin. ”. Näin hyveellinen elämäntapa ja jalo luonne toivat suoria etuja Brutuksen poliittiselle uralle, mutta toisaalta johtivat myös tämän turmioon. Plutarkhoksen mukaan Caesarin salaliittoilijat eivät uskaltaneet toimia ilman Brutusta, sillä yksin Brutuksen hyveellinen maine sai kansan uskomaan, että kyseessä oli oikeamielinen teko tasavallan pelastamiseksi, eikä vain juoni poliittisen vallan saavuttamiseksi ja voimakkaan kilpailijan raivaamiseksi.

Se, että Brutus surmasi isänään (ainakin Plutarkhoksen sanojen mukaan) pitämänsä henkilön, on oikeastaan yksi todiste Marcus Juniuksen ylevästä luonteesta, ja tavallaan yksi parhaista kirjan tarjoamista esimerkeistä ystävyyden hyveestä. Aristoteles määritteli ystävyyden laajemmin kuin sana nykyään käsitetään, ja piti sitä yhtenä hyveistä. Aristoteleen määrittelemään ystävyyteen kuuluu, että yhdessä tunnistetaan jokin asia hyväksi, ja tätä asiaa tavoitellaan yhdessä. Tällä tavalla hän näki ystävyyden olevan kaikkien yhteisöjen, etenkin polisten perusta. Nykyiseen ystävyyteen kuuluva kiintymys oli toissijaista hyvien asioiden yhteisen tavoittelun, ja yhteisen sitoutumisen rinnalla. Tässä tapauksessa yhteinen hyvä oli Rooman tasavalta, jota Caesar uhmasi liiallisella vallanhimollaan. Toisaalta Brutus rikkoi ystävyytensä (Aristoteleen määrittelemä ystävyyden hyve oli toisaalta myös kahden henkilön ehdotonta välittämistä ja rakkautta) Caesarin kanssa ja suoritti paheellisen murhan, ja toisaalta hän luopui lähes varmasta paikasta maailman mahtavimman imperiumin hallitsijan oikeana kätenä ja mahdollisesti jopa sen kuninkaana vain tehdäkseen niin kuin uskoi olevan oikein. Hyveellisestä näkökulmasta Caesarin murha onkin äärimmäisen vaikea kysymys. Yksiselitteisemmän esimerkin ystävyyden hyveestä Kuuluisien miesten elämänkeroja tarjoaa Demostheneen elämänkerrassa. Plutarkhos kertoo miten Demosthenes hoiti esimerkillisesti valtiolliset velvollisuutensa tyttärensä kuolemasta huolimatta: ”Mutta se, että Demosthenes jätti kotoiset surunsa ja kyyneleensä talonsa naisväen haltuun ryhtyessään ajamaan sitä, minkä katsoi olevan valtion parhaaksi, on kiitoksen ansaitsevaa. Pidänpä ytimiään myöten oikeana kansalaisena ja miehenä juuri sellaista, joka omistautuu yhteisönsä pyrkimykselle ja tekemällä työtä valtion menestykseksi unohtaa oman povensa ahdistukset.”.

Kuuluisat miehet joista Plutarkhos teoksessaan kertoo, olivat kaikki myös sotilaita, ja näin ollen kirjassa on lukuisia esimerkkejä urhoollisuudesta ja roomalaisesta virtuksesta. Roomalaisessa yhteiskunnassa virtus saattoi ajankohdasta riippuen tarkoittaa lähes mitä tahansa hyvää luonteenpiirrettä tai – ominaisuutta. Alkuperäisessä tarkoituksessaan virtus kuitenkin oli eräänlaista miehistä kestävyyttä, mitä varhainen Roomalainen sotilas- ja maanviljelysyhteiskunta edellytti kansalaisiltaan. Myöhemmin sana kehittyi tarkoittamaan miehisyyttä, kunniallisuutta ja urhoollisuutta taistelussa kuin myös fyysistä voimaa ja viriliteettiä. Lucilius määritteli virtuksen jopa tarkoittamaan moraalista täydellisyyttä ylipäätään, toisin sanoen hyveellisyyttä. Tästä näkökulmasta kaikki aikaisempi hyveiden tarkastelu niin oikeudenmukaisuuden kuin luonteen lujuudenkin kannalta on ollut myös suurmiesten tarkastelua virtuksen kannalta. Vaikka virtus ylipäätään hyveenä on hyvin miehinen, saattoivat myös naiset edustaa virtusta, kuten esimerkiksi Cicero teksteissään mainitsee. Keskityn kuitenkin viimeisessä kappaleessa tarkastelemaan suurmiehiä nimenomaan sotaisan urhoollisuuden ja kunnian kannalta. Urhoollisuuden hyve, jota Aristoteles nimitti myös miehuullisuudeksi, on osittain hyvinkin päällekkäinen roomalaisen virtuksen hyveen kanssa.

Miehuullisuutta ja urhoollisuutta pidettiin antiikin aikana äärimmäisen tärkeänä luonteenpiirteenä, ja tämä näkyy Plutarkhoksen tekstissä varsin hyvin etenkin silloin kun jokin suurmiehistä epäonnistui tämän hyveen toteuttamisessa. Demostheneesta hän mainitsee: ”Maanpakolaisena hän käyttäytyi epämiehekkäästi… - …hänen nähtiin usein istuvan kyyneleet silmissä katse Attikaan suunnattuna…” ja ”Totta tosiaan, jos hänen yleviin valtiollisiin pyrkimyksiinsä ja puheittensa korkeisiin periaatteisiin olisi vielä liittynyt sotilaallinen urhoollisuus ja moitteeton taloudellinen toiminta, häntä ei asetettaisi Moirokleen, Polyeuktoksen ja Hypereideen kaltaisten puhujien joukkoon, vaan hänet katsottaisiin arvokkaaksi astumaan Kimonin, Thukydideen ja Perikleen seuraan.”. Tietyllä tavalla Plutarkhos siis piti Demosthenesta vähempänä miehenä sen takia, että hän ei edustanut tiettyä miehistä urhoollisuutta. Niistä ketkä puolestaan edustivat miehuullisuutta, urhoollisuutta ja virtusta (joita ovat lähes kaikki muut kirjan suurmiehet kuin Demosthenes), Plutarkhos ylistää suurin sanoin. Jos Brutusta ja Periklestä voidaan kirjan antaman kuvan perusteella pitää eräänlaisena ylevien hyveiden jalona ruumiillistumana, niin voidaan Gaius Julius Caesaria pitää virtuksen ja miehuullisen urhoollisuuden ja kunnian henkilöitymänä. Hän edusti suurta käytännön järkeä sotilaittensa johtamisessa, oikeudenmukaisuutta heidän palkitsemisessaan, urhoollisuutta taistelussa ja rasituksia kestäessään hän edusti virtusta mitä parhaiten sen alkuperäisessä merkityksessä: miehisessä kestävyydessä. Ei siis ihme että hän tällä tavoin toimiessaan sai osakseen sotilaittensa ehdottoman kuuliaisuuden ja kunnioituksen, ja toimi heille esimerkkinä kannustaen heitä suureen urhoollisuuteen tiukoissa tilanteissa. Plutarkhos mainitsee barbaariheimo avernien jopa säilyttäneen Caesarilta sotasaaliiksi saamaansa tikaria temppelissään, kuin roomalaisen sodanjumalan artefaktia konsanaan. Caesarista Plutarkhos kirjoittaa: ”Sodan tuottamia rikkauksia hän ei omistanut itselleen eikä käyttänyt niitä ylelliseen elämään, vaan ne olivat vain hänen valvonnassaan yhteisinä urhoollisuuden palkintoina, ja hän piti tehtävänään jakaa näitä sellaisille sotilaille, jotka niitä olivat ansainneet. Mutta parhaimpana yllykkeenä sotilaille oli se, että hän itse arkailematta antautui kaikkiin vaaroihin eikä ollut yhtäkään soturiaan huonompi rasitusten kestämisessä… - …se tarmo, millä hän hennosta ruumiinrakenteestaan huolimatta kesti rasitukset, hämmästytti kaikkia.”.

Plutarkhoksen Kuuluisien miesten elämänkertoja antaa äärimmäisen kattavan kuvauksen antiikin historian merkittävimmistä henkilöistä, sekä roomalaisesta kulttuurista ja sen arvomaailmasta. Teos asetti esimerkin elämänkertojen kirjoittamisesta koko seuraavalle puolelletoista vuosituhannelle, ja on ehdottomasti yksi tärkeimpiä yksittäisiä historiallisia teoksia koko länsimaisessa kirjallisuudessa. Plutarkhoksen taidokas ja eloisa kirjoitustyyli on nykylukijallekin miellyttävä, ja tekee kirjasta helposti lähestyttävän. Näin Plutarkhos tyylinsä puolesta vetää vertoja Rooman kultaisen kauden kirjailijoille, ja historiallisen painoarvon puolesta on hänet asetettava Liviuksen, Cato Maiorin ja Tacituksen seuraan. Harry S. Truman arvosti kirjaa jopa niin suuresti, että hän kertoi kääntyneensä vaikeina aikoina usein Plutarkhoksen puoleen, ja että hän löysi tämän sanoistaan aina suurempaa viisautta kuin kaikista avustajistaan yhteensä.

[Ben Adams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Plutarch’s incredible exploration of moral character in the great men of history is perhaps the most joyful experience I’ve ever had reading the ancients.

His witty asides to explain men’s character, his references to other author’s with relevant quotations, and his piercing insights in his comparison chapters all contribute to a rich reading and educational experience.

Above all, his virtue comparison approach, strangely enough, rang fresh and new for me in the field of history. Living in such a secular and postmodern age, we often see a person’s biography as just a collection of events that happened, not examples to be learned from for good or ill. And while I’m aware that Plutarch has received his share of criticisms for accuracy and for leaving out big events to focus on character, I found that I enjoyed his writing the more for it.

In his opening to the Life of Timoleon, Plutarch writes that his study and writing of these lives “can be compared to nothing but daily living and associating together,” and that it allows him to “receive and retain images of the best and worthiest characters,” by which he is “enabled to free myself from any ignoble, base, or vicious impressions, contracted from the contagion of ill company that I may be unavoidably engaged in, by the remedy of turning my thoughts in a happy and calm temper to view these noble examples.”

I felt the same as I read the lives, over 84 hours by audiobook, on my commute home from teaching 7th graders. I lived with Plutarch and his subjects each day, saw their examples, and cleansed myself of the work day before arriving home. And thus at the end of this journey, I find myself experiencing the true mark of great literature— the sadness one finds at the end of a journey, as though one is saying goodbye to a close friend.

[Minäpäminä · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loistavaa kirjallisuutta, kuten antiikin klassikot tuppaavat olemaan. Hillityllä kuvauksella maalataan suuria kohtauksia: Alesian piiritys, Ciceron mestaus, Aleksanterin juhlat ja Kleitoksen surma.

Päällimmäisenä mieleen jäi kuolema: yllättäen elämäkerrat päättyvät siihen, mutta väkivaltainen loppu oli ennemmin sääntö kuin poikkeus. Erityisesti Brutuksen kohtalo kosketti, vaikka hänet onkin populaarikulttuurissa maalattu petturin arkkityypiksi. Plutarkhoksen kertomana hänestä välittyy moniulotteisempi, ihmismäinen kuva.

Suosittelen kenelle tahansa tarinoista pitävälle, sillä nämä ovat suuria seikkailuja, joiden rikkaus, aitous ja jännitys jättää kaikki kulttuuriteollisuuden tuotteet varjoonsa. Helppolukuisia ja koukuttavia. Totta.

Mieleenpainuvimmat ja minua kiinnostavimmat elämäkerrat olivat Brutus, Aleksanteri Suuri ja Perikles, mutta kaikki olivat mainioita ja limittyivät toisiinsa.

[Garrett Mullet]

This, too, is what it means to be a product of Western civilization, to make these kinds of notes of men - good and bad, noble and ignoble - who went before, and whose legacy has impacted our experience and circumstances.

Plutarch blessed us in writing out the noble lives of the Greek and Roman, but only if we read what is our inheritance in his work.