What do you think?
Rate this book
The Age of Alexander: Nine Greek Lives
The nine Lives in this selection trace a crucial phase in ancient history.
Plutarch's Lives of the great Greek statesmen amd men of action were designed to pair with the now better-known Roman portraits and contain many of his finest descriptions of war, revolution and heroic achievement.
Agesilaus, Pelopidas, Dion, Timoleon, Demosthenes, Phocion, Alexander, Demetrius, Pyrrhus
448 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 100
85 people are currently reading
3587 people want to read
About the author
Plutarch
4,286 books929 followersPlutarch (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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews
September 1, 2022
The age of Alexander the Great was a splendid time for warlike kings and generals – for all those would-be emperors who liked nothing better than overrunning large stretches of other people’s territory, and spilling vast amounts of blood in the process. On the other hand, it was a terrible time for quaint, old-fashioned values like peace and democracy. Such were the times that the Greco-Roman historian Plutarch chronicles in these nine biographies, collected here under the title The Age of Alexander.
Plutarch’s name and work are familiar to students of classical civilization. Living in the first and second centuries A.D., at the peak of the Roman Empire, Plutarch was of Greek cultural background, but eventually became a Roman citizen. Small wonder, then, that when he took as his great subject the study of biography, he chose to compose and bring together paired biographies of eminent Greek and Roman political and military leaders.
Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans is the great classical work of comparison and contrast – Alexander is paired with Caesar among military leaders, Demosthenes with Cicero among orators, and so on. It would be as if a modern historian wrote a book titled Lives of the Noble Britons and Americans, and paired Churchill with F.D. Roosevelt, Montgomery with Patton, etc.
Implicit in Plutarch’s approach – and sometimes stated explicitly – is the idea that these biographies can teach readers what actions to emulate, and which to avoid, if they wish for their own lives to be worthy of being remembered and celebrated by future generations. As Plutarch himself puts it, the writing of these Lives “allows me to treat history as a mirror, with the help of which I can adorn my own life by imitating the virtues of the men whose actions I have described” (p. 151).
His work has been a staple of the classical education for centuries – William Shakespeare often drew upon Plutarch’s Parallel Lives for the plots of his plays, and the monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein educates himself in his isolation by reading a pilfered copy of Plutarch.
Because modern readers cannot be counted upon to know the ancient Greek or Roman world as well as did the people of classical times, Penguin Books has organized Plutarch’s Lives into a series of books – half of them dedicated to the Greeks, the other half to the Romans. Earlier books in the Greek part of the series were titled The Rise and Fall of Athens and On Sparta, and chronicled the ascendancy of those two Greek city-states. With the nine biographies included in The Age of Alexander, we move on to the period of Macedonian dominance.
But before we get to the Macedonians, there are leaders of other Greek city-states to deal with. Agesilaus II of Sparta (444-360 B.C.) was “king of Sparta for forty-one years; for more than thirty of these he was the greatest and most powerful man in Greece, and had been regarded as the king and the leader of almost the whole of Hellas, down to the time of the battle of Leuctra” (p. 68).
The battle of Leuctra, in 371 B.C., in which Thebes led Boeotian forces against Sparta and her allies, was a devastating defeat for Sparta, and therefore it is appropriate that this volume then turns to Pelopidas of Thebes (403-364 B.C.), who commanded the victorious Theban forces in that battle. Pelopidas always conducted himself with conspicuous battlefield courage; Plutarch sums up the short life of this leader by writing that Pelopidas “spent the greater part of his life surrounded with honour and renown and finally…while engaged in a heroic action aimed at the destruction of a tyrant, he sacrificed his life for the freedom of Thessaly” (p. 102).
Dion of Syracuse (408-354 B.C.), was “a disciple of Plato who knew the philosopher personally” (p. 104); and when his military campaigning eventually helped him become tyrant of Syracuse, he sought to behave in the Athenian manner, with moderation and restraint. Unfortunately, Dion “possessed the kind of temperament which finds it difficult to unbend”, and he behaved toward his Syracusan subjects in an excessively grave and formal manner, “even though the times called for a more gracious demeanour” (p. 145). His enemies thereupon found it an easy thing to plot and carry out his murder. For Plutarch, Dion provides lessons in what not to do.
A more positive role model is Timoleon of Corinth (411-337 B.C.). He fought many battles in Sicily, defending the Greek colonies there from the Carthaginian enemy on the other side of the Mediterranean, and established a constitution for Syracuse. By the time of his death from natural causes, “He had come to be regarded as the father of the whole people,” and at the time of his death it was announced that the Syracusan people “resolve to honour his memory for all time to come with annual contests of music, horse-racing, and gymnastics, because he overthrew the tyrants, subdued the barbarians, repopulated the largest of the devastated cities, and then restored their laws to the people of Sicily” (pp. 186-87).
One of the few non-military men in this volume is the renowned orator Demosthenes of Athens (384-322 B.C.). Here, readers get to hear the famous story of how Demosthenes overcame a speech impediment: “He corrected his lisp and his indistinct articulation by holding pebbles in his mouth while reciting long speeches” (p. 197). Therefore, I suppose Eliza Doolittle from the musical My Fair Lady can blame Demosthenes for the way in which Professor Henry Higgins makes her speak with marbles in her mouth in order to improve her articulation. Demosthenes poisoned himself after the decisive Macedonian victory over an alliance of Greek city-states in the battle of Crannon (322 B.C.), and the Athenian people erected in his honour a statue bearing the inscription, “If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom/Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares” (p. 216).
Phocion of Athens (402-318 B.C.), according to Plutarch, “By nature…was one of the kindest and most considerate of men, but his appearance was stern and forbidding” (p. 221). Like Demosthenes, Phocion had the misfortune of living in the time when Athens and other city-states were falling under Macedonian rule; but Phocion’s humility and practicality were appreciated by the people of Athens, as with his response when he learned that the Athenians wanted to make war against Philip of Macedon: “he at first tried to persuade the people not to go to war and to accept Philip’s terms, in view of the fact that the king was peaceably inclined and greatly feared the dangers which were likely to ensue from a war” (p. 230). Traduced and betrayed by his enemies, Phocion was executed; but “only a short time elapsed before the course of events taught the Athenians how great a protector and champion of moderation and justice they had lost….Phocion’s fate reminded the Greeks once more of that of Socrates: they felt that in each case the wrong which the city of Athens had done and the misfortune she had suffered were almost identical” (pp. 250-51).
All of which brings us to Alexander the Great. Most readers of this volume will be more interested in hearing about Alexander than about any of the other eight subjects whose lives Plutarch chronicles. Some of the most famous stories about Alexander are here – for instance, the story of how he tamed the supposedly “untamable” horse Bucephalus, winning a bet with his father Philip. Alexander figured out what was bothering the horse – “went quickly up to Bucephalus, took hold of his bridle, and turned him towards the sun, for he had noticed that the horse was shying at the sight of his own shadow” (p. 258). Once Alexander had successfully tamed Bucephalus – the horse that would carry him through so many legendary campaigns – Philip wept with joy and told Alexander, “My boy, you must find a kingdom big enough for your ambitions. Macedonia is too small for you” (p. 258).
Alexander, famously, was tutored by Aristotle; but if you think that the future world-conqueror was overawed by taking lessons from history’s greatest philosopher, think again. When Aristotle published one of his treatises on topics that Alexander thought should remain a word-of-mouth matter, the pupil did not hesitate to upbraid his teacher:
Alexander to Aristotle, greetings. You have not done well to write down and publish those doctrines you taught me by word of mouth. What advantage shall I have over other men if these theories in which I have been trained are to be made common property? I would rather excel the rest of mankind in my knowledge of what is best than in the extent of my power. Farewell. (p. 259)
Among the other pre-eminent bits of Alexandrian legend set down here is the story of the “Gordian knot.” Plutarch records how, after Alexander’s conquest of Gordium in modern Turkey, Alexander “saw the celebrated chariot which was fastened to its yoke by the bark of the cornel-tree, and heard the legend which was believed by all the barbarians, that the fates had decreed that the man who untied the knot was destined to become the ruler of the whole world.” Seeing the elaborateness of the knot, Alexander “did not know what to do, and in the end loosened the knot by cutting through it with his sword” (271) – thereby providing a lasting metaphor for all those who end up solving a problem by not quite following the rules.
Alexander emerges as an enigmatic figure in the pages of Plutarch – always bold, always ready for a fight, but sometimes treating either friends or enemies in an unexpectedly merciful or harsh manner. I suppose that is how it is when one is the conqueror of worlds.
Incidentally, it is not in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, but rather in Plutarch’s essay collection Moralia, that one reads the story of Alexander weeping when he hears the philosopher Anaxarchus discussing the possibility that there exist an infinite number of worlds, and then saying to his friends, “Is it not worthy of tears that, when the number of worlds is infinite, we have not yet become lords of a single one?” This is the quote that Alan Rickman’s villainous Hans Gruber character mangles, albeit stylishly, in the movie Die Hard (1988) – another example of Alexander’s enduring hold on our culture.
Demetrius I of Macedon (337-283 B.C.) had a great nickname – “Demetrius the Besieger” – but in a way his nickname seems to speak to his problems; he always had to be besieging some town or city. His restless spirit, which kept him going through one conquest-and-defeat cycle after another, is cited by Plutarch as expressing the truth of Plato’s declaration “that great natures produce great vices as well as great virtues” (p. 336). It is as if he wanted to out-Alexander Alexander; he couldn’t accept and consolidate a victory. Out would come the siege towers again, and off went Demetrius the Besieger to yet another besieging. Plutarch links Demetrius with Rome’s Mark Antony as leaders who “met with prodigious triumphs and disasters, conquered great empires and as easily lost them, rose to the heights of success as unexpectedly as they plumbed the depths of failure” (p. 336).
And appropriately, this volume ends with Pyrrhus of Epirus (319-272 B.C.), whose career shows the beginning of the end of Greek or Hellenistic ascendancy, and the beginnings of Roman power. Pyrrhus gives us the term “Pyrrhic victory”; for while he never hesitated to engage his Roman enemies, his battles with Rome resulted in Greek casualties that Pyrrhus could not replace. Nominally, the Greeks won the Battle of Asculum in 279 B.C., but Greek casualties were so high that “when one of Pyrrhus’ friends congratulated him on his victory, he replied, ‘One more victory like that over the Romans will destroy us completely!’” (p. 409)
After some unsuccessful campaigning in Sicily, Pyrrhus and his army decamped for the Italian mainland in 275 B.C. As they did so, “The story goes that as he was leaving, [Pyrrhus] looked back at the island and remarked to his companions, ‘My friends, what a wrestling ground we are leaving behind us for the Romans and the Carthaginians.’ And certainly it was not long before this prophecy of his was fulfilled” (p. 412), as the First Punic War between Rome and Carthage began just eight years later, in 267 B.C. In Pyrrhus’ words, we see the final eclipse of Greek power in the Mediterranean basin. Henceforth, it will be Rome, as republic and empire, that will dominate the Western world for the next six centuries.
These nine Plutarch biographies collected as The Age of Alexander are essential reading for any student of the classical world – or, for that matter, for anyone who wants to observe the process by which hegemony and supremacy pass from one great power to another.
Plutarch’s name and work are familiar to students of classical civilization. Living in the first and second centuries A.D., at the peak of the Roman Empire, Plutarch was of Greek cultural background, but eventually became a Roman citizen. Small wonder, then, that when he took as his great subject the study of biography, he chose to compose and bring together paired biographies of eminent Greek and Roman political and military leaders.
Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans is the great classical work of comparison and contrast – Alexander is paired with Caesar among military leaders, Demosthenes with Cicero among orators, and so on. It would be as if a modern historian wrote a book titled Lives of the Noble Britons and Americans, and paired Churchill with F.D. Roosevelt, Montgomery with Patton, etc.
Implicit in Plutarch’s approach – and sometimes stated explicitly – is the idea that these biographies can teach readers what actions to emulate, and which to avoid, if they wish for their own lives to be worthy of being remembered and celebrated by future generations. As Plutarch himself puts it, the writing of these Lives “allows me to treat history as a mirror, with the help of which I can adorn my own life by imitating the virtues of the men whose actions I have described” (p. 151).
His work has been a staple of the classical education for centuries – William Shakespeare often drew upon Plutarch’s Parallel Lives for the plots of his plays, and the monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein educates himself in his isolation by reading a pilfered copy of Plutarch.
Because modern readers cannot be counted upon to know the ancient Greek or Roman world as well as did the people of classical times, Penguin Books has organized Plutarch’s Lives into a series of books – half of them dedicated to the Greeks, the other half to the Romans. Earlier books in the Greek part of the series were titled The Rise and Fall of Athens and On Sparta, and chronicled the ascendancy of those two Greek city-states. With the nine biographies included in The Age of Alexander, we move on to the period of Macedonian dominance.
But before we get to the Macedonians, there are leaders of other Greek city-states to deal with. Agesilaus II of Sparta (444-360 B.C.) was “king of Sparta for forty-one years; for more than thirty of these he was the greatest and most powerful man in Greece, and had been regarded as the king and the leader of almost the whole of Hellas, down to the time of the battle of Leuctra” (p. 68).
The battle of Leuctra, in 371 B.C., in which Thebes led Boeotian forces against Sparta and her allies, was a devastating defeat for Sparta, and therefore it is appropriate that this volume then turns to Pelopidas of Thebes (403-364 B.C.), who commanded the victorious Theban forces in that battle. Pelopidas always conducted himself with conspicuous battlefield courage; Plutarch sums up the short life of this leader by writing that Pelopidas “spent the greater part of his life surrounded with honour and renown and finally…while engaged in a heroic action aimed at the destruction of a tyrant, he sacrificed his life for the freedom of Thessaly” (p. 102).
Dion of Syracuse (408-354 B.C.), was “a disciple of Plato who knew the philosopher personally” (p. 104); and when his military campaigning eventually helped him become tyrant of Syracuse, he sought to behave in the Athenian manner, with moderation and restraint. Unfortunately, Dion “possessed the kind of temperament which finds it difficult to unbend”, and he behaved toward his Syracusan subjects in an excessively grave and formal manner, “even though the times called for a more gracious demeanour” (p. 145). His enemies thereupon found it an easy thing to plot and carry out his murder. For Plutarch, Dion provides lessons in what not to do.
A more positive role model is Timoleon of Corinth (411-337 B.C.). He fought many battles in Sicily, defending the Greek colonies there from the Carthaginian enemy on the other side of the Mediterranean, and established a constitution for Syracuse. By the time of his death from natural causes, “He had come to be regarded as the father of the whole people,” and at the time of his death it was announced that the Syracusan people “resolve to honour his memory for all time to come with annual contests of music, horse-racing, and gymnastics, because he overthrew the tyrants, subdued the barbarians, repopulated the largest of the devastated cities, and then restored their laws to the people of Sicily” (pp. 186-87).
One of the few non-military men in this volume is the renowned orator Demosthenes of Athens (384-322 B.C.). Here, readers get to hear the famous story of how Demosthenes overcame a speech impediment: “He corrected his lisp and his indistinct articulation by holding pebbles in his mouth while reciting long speeches” (p. 197). Therefore, I suppose Eliza Doolittle from the musical My Fair Lady can blame Demosthenes for the way in which Professor Henry Higgins makes her speak with marbles in her mouth in order to improve her articulation. Demosthenes poisoned himself after the decisive Macedonian victory over an alliance of Greek city-states in the battle of Crannon (322 B.C.), and the Athenian people erected in his honour a statue bearing the inscription, “If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom/Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares” (p. 216).
Phocion of Athens (402-318 B.C.), according to Plutarch, “By nature…was one of the kindest and most considerate of men, but his appearance was stern and forbidding” (p. 221). Like Demosthenes, Phocion had the misfortune of living in the time when Athens and other city-states were falling under Macedonian rule; but Phocion’s humility and practicality were appreciated by the people of Athens, as with his response when he learned that the Athenians wanted to make war against Philip of Macedon: “he at first tried to persuade the people not to go to war and to accept Philip’s terms, in view of the fact that the king was peaceably inclined and greatly feared the dangers which were likely to ensue from a war” (p. 230). Traduced and betrayed by his enemies, Phocion was executed; but “only a short time elapsed before the course of events taught the Athenians how great a protector and champion of moderation and justice they had lost….Phocion’s fate reminded the Greeks once more of that of Socrates: they felt that in each case the wrong which the city of Athens had done and the misfortune she had suffered were almost identical” (pp. 250-51).
All of which brings us to Alexander the Great. Most readers of this volume will be more interested in hearing about Alexander than about any of the other eight subjects whose lives Plutarch chronicles. Some of the most famous stories about Alexander are here – for instance, the story of how he tamed the supposedly “untamable” horse Bucephalus, winning a bet with his father Philip. Alexander figured out what was bothering the horse – “went quickly up to Bucephalus, took hold of his bridle, and turned him towards the sun, for he had noticed that the horse was shying at the sight of his own shadow” (p. 258). Once Alexander had successfully tamed Bucephalus – the horse that would carry him through so many legendary campaigns – Philip wept with joy and told Alexander, “My boy, you must find a kingdom big enough for your ambitions. Macedonia is too small for you” (p. 258).
Alexander, famously, was tutored by Aristotle; but if you think that the future world-conqueror was overawed by taking lessons from history’s greatest philosopher, think again. When Aristotle published one of his treatises on topics that Alexander thought should remain a word-of-mouth matter, the pupil did not hesitate to upbraid his teacher:
Alexander to Aristotle, greetings. You have not done well to write down and publish those doctrines you taught me by word of mouth. What advantage shall I have over other men if these theories in which I have been trained are to be made common property? I would rather excel the rest of mankind in my knowledge of what is best than in the extent of my power. Farewell. (p. 259)
Among the other pre-eminent bits of Alexandrian legend set down here is the story of the “Gordian knot.” Plutarch records how, after Alexander’s conquest of Gordium in modern Turkey, Alexander “saw the celebrated chariot which was fastened to its yoke by the bark of the cornel-tree, and heard the legend which was believed by all the barbarians, that the fates had decreed that the man who untied the knot was destined to become the ruler of the whole world.” Seeing the elaborateness of the knot, Alexander “did not know what to do, and in the end loosened the knot by cutting through it with his sword” (271) – thereby providing a lasting metaphor for all those who end up solving a problem by not quite following the rules.
Alexander emerges as an enigmatic figure in the pages of Plutarch – always bold, always ready for a fight, but sometimes treating either friends or enemies in an unexpectedly merciful or harsh manner. I suppose that is how it is when one is the conqueror of worlds.
Incidentally, it is not in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, but rather in Plutarch’s essay collection Moralia, that one reads the story of Alexander weeping when he hears the philosopher Anaxarchus discussing the possibility that there exist an infinite number of worlds, and then saying to his friends, “Is it not worthy of tears that, when the number of worlds is infinite, we have not yet become lords of a single one?” This is the quote that Alan Rickman’s villainous Hans Gruber character mangles, albeit stylishly, in the movie Die Hard (1988) – another example of Alexander’s enduring hold on our culture.
Demetrius I of Macedon (337-283 B.C.) had a great nickname – “Demetrius the Besieger” – but in a way his nickname seems to speak to his problems; he always had to be besieging some town or city. His restless spirit, which kept him going through one conquest-and-defeat cycle after another, is cited by Plutarch as expressing the truth of Plato’s declaration “that great natures produce great vices as well as great virtues” (p. 336). It is as if he wanted to out-Alexander Alexander; he couldn’t accept and consolidate a victory. Out would come the siege towers again, and off went Demetrius the Besieger to yet another besieging. Plutarch links Demetrius with Rome’s Mark Antony as leaders who “met with prodigious triumphs and disasters, conquered great empires and as easily lost them, rose to the heights of success as unexpectedly as they plumbed the depths of failure” (p. 336).
And appropriately, this volume ends with Pyrrhus of Epirus (319-272 B.C.), whose career shows the beginning of the end of Greek or Hellenistic ascendancy, and the beginnings of Roman power. Pyrrhus gives us the term “Pyrrhic victory”; for while he never hesitated to engage his Roman enemies, his battles with Rome resulted in Greek casualties that Pyrrhus could not replace. Nominally, the Greeks won the Battle of Asculum in 279 B.C., but Greek casualties were so high that “when one of Pyrrhus’ friends congratulated him on his victory, he replied, ‘One more victory like that over the Romans will destroy us completely!’” (p. 409)
After some unsuccessful campaigning in Sicily, Pyrrhus and his army decamped for the Italian mainland in 275 B.C. As they did so, “The story goes that as he was leaving, [Pyrrhus] looked back at the island and remarked to his companions, ‘My friends, what a wrestling ground we are leaving behind us for the Romans and the Carthaginians.’ And certainly it was not long before this prophecy of his was fulfilled” (p. 412), as the First Punic War between Rome and Carthage began just eight years later, in 267 B.C. In Pyrrhus’ words, we see the final eclipse of Greek power in the Mediterranean basin. Henceforth, it will be Rome, as republic and empire, that will dominate the Western world for the next six centuries.
These nine Plutarch biographies collected as The Age of Alexander are essential reading for any student of the classical world – or, for that matter, for anyone who wants to observe the process by which hegemony and supremacy pass from one great power to another.
February 3, 2016
Spengler once wrote that Mozart would cease to be heard not when his music was no longer played, but when its meaning was no longer understood. Something of this fate is also shared by Plutarch in an age where the study of history remains distorted by positivist ideology (see some other reviews on this site for examples of its largely unconscious perpetuation), coupled with the obvious temporal distance between Hellenic (pre-monotheistic) notions of virtue which Plutarch upheld, and today's neoliberal capitalism wherein virtue has been degraded to the empty rhetoric of the protestant work ethic and selfish profiteering. These kinds of prevailing reception practices mean that it is particularly important to approach Plutarch on his own terms and cognisant of the social and historical conditions in which he wrote.
Unlike Thucydides, Plutarch is not building a system, a philosophy of history - which also means that he is not in the habit of inventing speeches. Rather, he is interested in studying character, as may be reflected in chance remarks, habits, or idiosyncratic actions. His interest is in the understanding of virtue, perhaps indeed of reason conceived as an objective and divinely-mediated feature of social life that must be carefully cultivated and upheld against corruption, tyranny, and other forms of barbarism. His choice of subjects covered by those biographies included in this volume, reflects his emphasis on good statesmanship and the virtuous conduct of military endeavours - in essence moral themes that provide a stark contrast to Nietzsche's (in my view, very wayward) conception of Hellenic "amoralism." To be sure, his appraisal of democracy is certainly coloured by the aristocratic viewpoint that the majority of classical writers shared as a result of their social position. But this does not mitigate some of his carefully reasoned criticisms of unrestrained mob rule (particularly in the biography of Timoleon, which is fantastic!). For those that hold to the historical character of truth and reject the delusion of the so-called objectivity of the historian--a rejection put very well by E.H. Carr, for instance--it is not remarkable that Plutarch, like all historians and biographers, is writing for a particular purpose and for a particular end.
What is remarkable is that Plutarch constructs a highly dialectical account of Alexander as both a Dionysian-type character and, paradoxically, a paragon of virtue who is wracked by guilt for the sacking of Thebes and his belief that he has angered Dionysus, the patron god of Thebes, who as punishment for the sacking manipulates fate and prevents his army from advancing further into India. Although Nietzscheans would love to render him into a merely Dionysian character, Plutarch tends to emphasise that his "greatness" is founded not in the daring of his military conquests alone but also in his just treatment of Darius and his family, and various other smaller and greater episodes, such as his siding with an aristocratic woman who was raped by one of his soldiers and subsequently stoned the soldier to death. Through his perceptive and exciting narration of such events, Plutarch appeals to an idea of virtue that resembles something of the "just rule" that was a leitmotif of Aristotle's 'Politics.' Academic commentators nowadays tend to regard Plutarch as a Platonist, which may be true in certain respects, but I see his understanding of virtue as distinctly Aristotelean in orientation.
For the above reasons and more, this volume is well worth reading for those who wish to understand something of the social, economic and political values of the Hellenic world. The biography of Pyrrhus provides a portrait of emerging Roman power in Italy and their degree of militaristic ruthlessness, which Plutarch quite mercilessly contrasts to the luxuriousness of the Italian Greek cities.
Unlike Thucydides, Plutarch is not building a system, a philosophy of history - which also means that he is not in the habit of inventing speeches. Rather, he is interested in studying character, as may be reflected in chance remarks, habits, or idiosyncratic actions. His interest is in the understanding of virtue, perhaps indeed of reason conceived as an objective and divinely-mediated feature of social life that must be carefully cultivated and upheld against corruption, tyranny, and other forms of barbarism. His choice of subjects covered by those biographies included in this volume, reflects his emphasis on good statesmanship and the virtuous conduct of military endeavours - in essence moral themes that provide a stark contrast to Nietzsche's (in my view, very wayward) conception of Hellenic "amoralism." To be sure, his appraisal of democracy is certainly coloured by the aristocratic viewpoint that the majority of classical writers shared as a result of their social position. But this does not mitigate some of his carefully reasoned criticisms of unrestrained mob rule (particularly in the biography of Timoleon, which is fantastic!). For those that hold to the historical character of truth and reject the delusion of the so-called objectivity of the historian--a rejection put very well by E.H. Carr, for instance--it is not remarkable that Plutarch, like all historians and biographers, is writing for a particular purpose and for a particular end.
What is remarkable is that Plutarch constructs a highly dialectical account of Alexander as both a Dionysian-type character and, paradoxically, a paragon of virtue who is wracked by guilt for the sacking of Thebes and his belief that he has angered Dionysus, the patron god of Thebes, who as punishment for the sacking manipulates fate and prevents his army from advancing further into India. Although Nietzscheans would love to render him into a merely Dionysian character, Plutarch tends to emphasise that his "greatness" is founded not in the daring of his military conquests alone but also in his just treatment of Darius and his family, and various other smaller and greater episodes, such as his siding with an aristocratic woman who was raped by one of his soldiers and subsequently stoned the soldier to death. Through his perceptive and exciting narration of such events, Plutarch appeals to an idea of virtue that resembles something of the "just rule" that was a leitmotif of Aristotle's 'Politics.' Academic commentators nowadays tend to regard Plutarch as a Platonist, which may be true in certain respects, but I see his understanding of virtue as distinctly Aristotelean in orientation.
For the above reasons and more, this volume is well worth reading for those who wish to understand something of the social, economic and political values of the Hellenic world. The biography of Pyrrhus provides a portrait of emerging Roman power in Italy and their degree of militaristic ruthlessness, which Plutarch quite mercilessly contrasts to the luxuriousness of the Italian Greek cities.
November 16, 2016
“War has an appetite that cannot be satisfied by quotas.” Hegesippus
Plutarch’s Parallel Lives was the primary source for the history of Rome and Greece during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, this volume covers the period after Athens fall from supremacy in the Greek-speaking world.
“… and deliver the state from the habit of pandering to the mob, a disease scarcely less pernicious than tyranny itself.” (Some things never change)
Plutarch’s Lives influenced art and literature as well as politics and history. Shakespeare based his ancient history plays on Plutarch, occasionally quoting him verbatim.
“The truth is that the great majority of mankind are more offended by a contemptuous word than a hostile action, and find it easier to put up with an injury than an insult.”
Ian Scott-Kilvert’s English translation is clear and readable, if occasionally colloquial. Every day English has evolved since the 1970s.
“To show kindness only to one’s friends and benefactors is no proof of having acquired such self-control: the real test for a man who has been wronged to be able to show compassion and moderation to the evil-doers.”
The serious student of history may look elsewhere for greater authority, but the rest of us are enlightened and entertained by Plutarch’s commentary on the lives of the movers and shakers during a time which reads to us like epic fantasy: Descendants of Heracles, mythic tasks, loyalty and betrayal, heroes and tyrants.
“One more victory like that over the Romans will destroy us completely.” Pyrrhus
Plutarch’s Parallel Lives was the primary source for the history of Rome and Greece during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, this volume covers the period after Athens fall from supremacy in the Greek-speaking world.
“… and deliver the state from the habit of pandering to the mob, a disease scarcely less pernicious than tyranny itself.” (Some things never change)
Plutarch’s Lives influenced art and literature as well as politics and history. Shakespeare based his ancient history plays on Plutarch, occasionally quoting him verbatim.
“The truth is that the great majority of mankind are more offended by a contemptuous word than a hostile action, and find it easier to put up with an injury than an insult.”
Ian Scott-Kilvert’s English translation is clear and readable, if occasionally colloquial. Every day English has evolved since the 1970s.
“To show kindness only to one’s friends and benefactors is no proof of having acquired such self-control: the real test for a man who has been wronged to be able to show compassion and moderation to the evil-doers.”
The serious student of history may look elsewhere for greater authority, but the rest of us are enlightened and entertained by Plutarch’s commentary on the lives of the movers and shakers during a time which reads to us like epic fantasy: Descendants of Heracles, mythic tasks, loyalty and betrayal, heroes and tyrants.
“One more victory like that over the Romans will destroy us completely.” Pyrrhus
July 23, 2024
Plutarch is a Boeotian blessing, a priest at the Temple of Apollo among other positions, and an essential author to bridge the ancient Greek and Roman worlds with biographies written in Greek during the reign of the Roman Emperor Hadrian circa 110 AD. The structure of his comparative approach to biography examined Greek and Roman men of character and accomplishment. His selections then present biographies of these men and it is the reader who is to consider the connections and differing dimensions of each man. In this edition by Penguin, the biographies have been grouped by thematic and historical chronology. This grouping, The Age of Alexander, examines basically from the end of the Peloponnesian War (404 BC) to the First Punic War (279 BC), highlighted by Alexander’s conquests (334-323 BC) of the known Asiatic world: Western, Central, and South Asia.
But this narrative provided by Plutarch constitutes a greater story from Libya to the Indus River. It indulges in the shifting political alliances focused on Sparta with Agesilaus, the Thebes of Pelepidas (and Epaminondas, sadly one of Plutarch’s lost biographies), Sicily and Syracuse through Dion, Corinth with Timoleon, the Athens of Demosthenes and Phocion, Macedonia and Alexander, reuniting the empire through Demetrius, and the non-Macedonian Epirus of Pyrrhus. There is no biography lesser or greater, though Alexander is further embellished. In concert they provide an alternate approach to historical understanding. The accounts of each man’s character and his relationships, his agency on the greater political world interconnect men, events and movements.
From the section on Alexander, I finally learned the source of a humorous story my father told me about the Cynic Diogenes:
The way that the first Penguin edition on Athens ends with the Spartan Lysander ruining Athenian power and this Alexandrian edition ending with Pyrrhus confronting the Romans and Carthaginians preempts knowledge of the subsequent events and pulls the reader along. With four more Penguin editions examining On Sparta, The Rise of Rome, Rome in Crisis, The Fall of Rome, I can be safely entertained and provided an introductory history.
Plutarch is the best!
But this narrative provided by Plutarch constitutes a greater story from Libya to the Indus River. It indulges in the shifting political alliances focused on Sparta with Agesilaus, the Thebes of Pelepidas (and Epaminondas, sadly one of Plutarch’s lost biographies), Sicily and Syracuse through Dion, Corinth with Timoleon, the Athens of Demosthenes and Phocion, Macedonia and Alexander, reuniting the empire through Demetrius, and the non-Macedonian Epirus of Pyrrhus. There is no biography lesser or greater, though Alexander is further embellished. In concert they provide an alternate approach to historical understanding. The accounts of each man’s character and his relationships, his agency on the greater political world interconnect men, events and movements.
From the section on Alexander, I finally learned the source of a humorous story my father told me about the Cynic Diogenes:
14. In the previous year a congress of the Greek states had been held at the Isthmus of Corinth: here a vote had been passed that the states should join forces with Alexander in invading Persia and that he should be commander-in-chief of the expedition. Many of the Greek statesmen and philosophers visited him to offer their congratulations, and he hoped that Diogenes of Sinope, who was at that time living in Corinth, would do the same. However since he paid no attention whatever to Alexander, but continued to live at leisure in the suburb of Corinth which was known as Cranion, Alexander went in person to see him and found him basking at full length in the sun. When he saw so many people approaching him, Diogenes raised himself a little on his elbow and fixed his gaze upon Alexander. The king greeted him and inquired whether he could do anything for him. 'Yes," replied the philosopher, 'you can stand a little to one side out of my sun.' Alexander is said to have been greatly impressed by this answer and full of admiration for the hauteur and independence of mind of a man who could look down on him with such condescension. So much so that he remarked to his followers, who were laughing and mocking the philosopher as they went away, 'You may say what you like, but if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes.'
The way that the first Penguin edition on Athens ends with the Spartan Lysander ruining Athenian power and this Alexandrian edition ending with Pyrrhus confronting the Romans and Carthaginians preempts knowledge of the subsequent events and pulls the reader along. With four more Penguin editions examining On Sparta, The Rise of Rome, Rome in Crisis, The Fall of Rome, I can be safely entertained and provided an introductory history.
Plutarch is the best!
April 22, 2024
alexander character essay coming up on leaving cert trust
September 29, 2019
Artaxerxes II - wasn't especially interesting to me. Artaxerxes was apparently not super amazing but he was pretty generous. His brother Cyrus II is the one who rebelled and employed 'The Ten Thousand' Greek mercenaries, including Xenophon. There was one kind of interesting scene where Plutarch describes 'the death of the troughs', where the victim is put between two troughs, which have holes for his legs/arms/head to stick out. The victim is then forced to consume milk and honey, which is also poured over his face. This attracts swarms of flies both to his face and to the inside of the trough, where his excrement collects. So he will eventually be eaten alive by worms and maggots. Pretty disgusting.
Pelopidas - I was impressed by two things especially - his daring and his harmonious collaboration with Epaminondas. He led a tiny group of exiles back to Thebes and was able to overthrow the Spartan garrison against long odds. He then led the Theban army against the Spartan and won unprecedented victory against them, in party by organizing the Sacred Band (a group of 300 elite warriors and lovers) into its own unit (it had previously been dispersed across the front ranks of the army). I think at both the battles of Tegyra and Leuctra he led the Sacred Band into headlong charges against the Spartan, absolutely destroying their ranks. He ended up being too bold for his own good though - at one point he got himself captured by Alexander of Pherae (a tyrant in Thessaly), and in a later battle against Alexander he allowed himself to be provoked into a suicidal attack on Alexander in which he challenged Alexander to battle amidst Alexander's troops - Alexander retreated and his troops filled Pelopidas with javelins.
Dion - this life illustrates the vicissitudes of fortune. Dion was one of the most trusted advisors of Dionysius I, the tyrant of Syracuse. After Dionysius I died, his son Dionysius II became the tyrant. Dion tried to 'reform' Dionysius II's character by introducing him to Plato, but in the end Dion fell out with Dionysius and was sent into exile. Dion eventually organized a small mercenary army and returned to Syracuse to overthrow Dionysius - in the process of the siege, he was at first welcomed as a savior by the Syracusans, then told he wasn't welcome, then when Dionysius's mercenaries set fire to the city, they begged him again to come back. So Dion took the city and became its tyrant for a while. And then he was assassinated. So yeah, I basically learned you should hold to your principles - if they are good they will guide you to success, and maybe assassination.
Timoleon - Timoleon is interesting 1) because he spent 20 years in self-enforced exile and 2) because of his extremely good fortune during his expedition to Sicily. When he was younger, he killed his brother because he had made himself tyrant of Corinth. His mother disowned him, and he felt so guilty and depressed that he left Corinth and apparently wandered around the countryside for 20 years. But he was finally recalled to lead an expedition to free Syracuse from the tyrant Dionysius II. This expedition was interesting because Timoleon overcame such huge odds over and over again. He set out with about 1,000 troops and 10 ships but was blocked by Carthaginians in Rhegium. When I was reading this I thought, "How's he gonna overcome this?" But then he does! Via trickery - he worked with the Rhegians to distract the Carthaginians in an assembly and slipped away with his cre to Sicily. When in Sicily he defeated a superior Syracusan force by taking them by surprise. This enabled him to win over a bunch of smaller towns. Then Dionysius II surrendered Ortygia (Syracuse's acropolis) to him (at this point the city had been taken over by Hicetas and the Carthaginians). But THEN the Carthaginians abandoned Syracuse (apparently because they were concerned by Timoleon's luck?). So Timoleon took Syracuse and, in counterpoint to Dion, demolished the acropolis (a redoubt for tyrants) and replaced it with courts of law. THEN Timoleon took on a vastly superior Carthaginian army and managed to rout it, ensuring the Greek Sicilians' freedom from Carthaginian domination. His combination of good thinking and good luck was pretty amazing.
Demosthenes - I think that the inscription carved at the base of a statue commemorating Demosthenes sums up his life pretty well: "If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom, / Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares." Demosthenes is interesting because he definitely was not marked out for greatness and earned his fame entirely through his own hard work. As Plutarch records: "He was a skinny and sickly child from the beginning and it is said that it was to make fun of his puny physique that the other boys called him Batalus. According to one account, Batalus was an effeminate flute-player." "His voice was weak and his utterance indistinct and [...] he suffered from a shortness of breath, which had the effect of breaking up his sentences and making his meaning difficult to follow."
He completely devoted himself to the study of rhetoric: "he built an underground study [...]. Every day, without fail, he would go down to work at his delivery and to train his voice, and he would often remain there for two or three months on end, and would shave only one side of his face, to prevent himself out of shame from going out even if he wanted to." "He corrected his lisp and his indistinct articulation by holding pebbles in his mouth while he recited long speeches, and he strengthened his voice by running or walking uphill, discoursing as he went, and by reciting speeches or verses in a single breath. Besides this, he kept a large mirror in his house and would stand in front of it while he went through his exercises in declamation." He was pretty much the Rocky Balboa of Athenian orators.
Unfortunately, as the inscription alludes, although Demosthenes was a great orator and he steered Athens on what was probably the correct path in resistance against Philip II of Macedon, when it came to applying his principles in real life he fell short. At the disastrous Battle of Chaeronea (in which Philip crushed Athens and Thebes), Demosthenes "left his place in the ranks and took to his heels in the most shameful fashion, throwing away his arms in order to run faster" - in the 9 lives covered in this book, Demosthenes is the only coward. Later on, he probably accepted a bribe from Harpalus (Alexander's corrupt treasurer who fled to Athens with a lot of money). In the end, however, he committed suicide rather than allow himself to be taken prisoner by the Macedonians, which kind of redeemed his reputation.
Phocion - I don't have much to say about Phocion. He was just a really great and honorable leader. He lived a very humble life and was incorruptible; he was elected general more times than any other Athenian (over 40 times I think); he always hewed to virtuous, responsible, and principled opinions and policies, even when that antagonized the mob; etc etc. He also lived for forever (to be 84) and was instrumental in arranging compromises between Athens and Macedon. Unfortunately, after various twists and turns in fortune he was condemned to death by the mob (as was Socrates) and died by hemlock. There was one humorous anecdote in this life: Phocion's wife "remarked, when an Ionian woman who was staying with her showed off her gold ornaments and her collars and necklaces glittering with jewels, ‘My ornament is Phocion, who is just now serving his twentieth year as a general of Athens.’" I'm sure Phocion and his wife were amazing people but this comment is so obnoxious it made me laugh.
Alexander - Since I recently read Arrian's description of Alexander's campaigns, this life was very interesting to me. Arrian did not relate many of the anecdotes that Plutarch does, and he did not describe the others as vividly. Even if Alexander had not been born the son of a king and placed at the head of a world-beating army, it's clear that he would have been an exceptional person. "He cared nothing for pleasure or wealth but only for deeds of valor and glory," and he was surprisingly disciplined in most aspects of his life probably due to his pursuit of glory. He was surprisingly controlled around women (especially compared to his father who was very polygamous) - he never touched Darius's wife and daughters after he captured them (which is impressive by ancient standards) and only had one illegitimate child (once again impressive by ancient standards) - and in fact only one legitimate child. He was also "exceptionally temperate in what he ate." "When he was at leisure, his first act after rising was to sacrifice to the gods, after which he took his breakfast sitting down. The rest of the day would be spent in hunting, administering justice, planning military affairs or reading." He trained extremely diligently and was always at the forefront of the action in his battles. "Alexander made a point of risking his life in this way both to exercise himself and to inspire others to acts of courage, but his friends, because of the wealth and pomp with which they were surrounded, desired only to lead a life of luxury and idleness." "He continued to expose himself unsparingly to danger: for example, he crossed the River Orexartes, which he believed to be the Tanaïs, routed the Scythians and pursued them for 11 miles, even though all this while he was suffering from an attack of dysentery."
Alexander was a complicated character and Plutarch goes over his executions of many of his friends and associates. He vividly narrates the confrontation between Alexander and Cleitus the Black. Cleitus had saved Alexander's life at the Battle of the Granicus 6 years earlier. Based off of Plutarch's retelling of their confrontation, I don't really blame Alexander for killing Cleitus, because Cleitus kept on hurling insults at Alexander. And the problem with the insults was that they were really true - especially regarding Alexander's annoying insinuations that he was the son of Zeus Ammon and not Philip, and his adoption of Persian customs.
One interesting anecdote: "He regarded the Iliad as a handbook on the art of war and took with him on his campaigns a text annotated by Aristotle, which became known as ‘the casket copy’, and which he always kept under his pillow together with his dagger."
Eumenes - I read a lot about Eumenes in James Romm's book "Ghost on the Throne," which is basically an extended version of Plutarch's Life of Eumenes. One thing that annoys me about Ghost on the Throne, though, is that Romm always calls Eumenes "little Eumenes," and the "former secretary." That is pretty misleading. Philip II first took note of Eumenes because of his skill as a wrestler, and I doubt that Eumenes was little. Plutarch says "his whole body, with its astonishingly well-proportioned limbs, resembled a carefully composed work of art." He was a tough guy and when he started to make his appearance on the battlefield he killed people (in particular Neoptolemus, his arch-nemesis for a time whom he slew in hand-to-hand combat). I had this impression of Eumenes from Romm's book as a slight but clever former secretary, but from this Life it's clear that he was a tough and cunning general. Even under Alexander he was like that - once Alexander asked him to give him 300 talents since the royal coffers were empty, and Eumenes gave him 100 talents, saying that even that money was hard to find. So Alexander had his tent burned down to see how much gold Eumenes would have to carry out. Unfortunately the tent burned down too fast, but apparently there were 1,000 talents of gold and silver in the tent. (Also, maybe don't take management tips from Alexander). Eumenes also often quarreled with Hephaestion, Alexander's favorite. So even when he was a secretary, Eumenes was a sly guy who was not afraid of a fight.
As a general, Eumenes was extremely skilled both on the battlefield and in manipulating his soldiers in camp. I won't recount his battlefield victories, but his management of his soldiers was pretty amazing I think. Once while he was fleeing he came upon the enemy's baggage train. He realized that if he allowed his soldiers to plunder the baggage train they would be too burdened to flee. So he sent a secret message to the head of the baggage train warning him to head for high ground, thwarting his own soldiers. At other times, however, he allowed his soldiers to plunder the countryside freely to keep them happy. In order to convince the leaders of the Silver Shields to meet with him, he invented the "Alexander tent", a tent with a throne dedicated to Alexander where Alexander's ghost could preside over their meetings. When Eumenes was leading the eastern satraps, he perceived that they hated him, so he got them to lend him money - so if they ever wanted their money back, they would have to keep him safe.
Demetrius - There were a few interesting aspects of this life. One was that Demetrius was a hedonist and a womanizer. Two is that Demetrius went through a lot of very severe swings in fortune - so many that it's hard to keep track of where he was in power - at first he and Antigonus controlled most of Alexander's Asian conquests; Demetrius lost to Ptolemy, losing Syria, but later won against Ptolemy, regaining Syria. Then Seleucus took Babylon and most of the east for himself. Then Demetrius took Athens and most of Greece but then had to come back to help his father fend off an alliance of the other Successors. They were crushed in this battle and Antigonus was killed, but Demetrius was able to escape to Greece (and maybe Cyprus? Can't remember). He was able to make himself king of Macedon, and raised an immense army to invade Asia. But most of his army went over to Pyrrhus, and Demetrius fled to Asia where he fought a pitiful campaign and was ultimately captured by Seleucus, who kept him under house arrest basically. Demetrius then drank himself to death.
The third interesting aspect of the Life is that this is pretty much the point in history at which Athens loses its soul (permanently). It became a competition among the politicians of the city to see who could heap the most honors on Demetrius (while he was alive and in charge of Athens).
"They were the first people in the world to confer upon Antigonus and Demetrius the title of king." "The Athenians changed the name of the month Munychion to Demetrion, gave the name of Demetrias to the last day of the month and renamed the festival of the Dionysia the Demetria." Etc. It was sad to see Athens reduced to this state of servility.
Pyrrhus - Pyrrhus seems to have been defined by his boldness and his restlessness - he was always chasing dreams that led him to be briefly a king of Sicily and later a king of Macedon. He died in Argos after an old lady threw a tile at him and knocked him out.
Pelopidas - I was impressed by two things especially - his daring and his harmonious collaboration with Epaminondas. He led a tiny group of exiles back to Thebes and was able to overthrow the Spartan garrison against long odds. He then led the Theban army against the Spartan and won unprecedented victory against them, in party by organizing the Sacred Band (a group of 300 elite warriors and lovers) into its own unit (it had previously been dispersed across the front ranks of the army). I think at both the battles of Tegyra and Leuctra he led the Sacred Band into headlong charges against the Spartan, absolutely destroying their ranks. He ended up being too bold for his own good though - at one point he got himself captured by Alexander of Pherae (a tyrant in Thessaly), and in a later battle against Alexander he allowed himself to be provoked into a suicidal attack on Alexander in which he challenged Alexander to battle amidst Alexander's troops - Alexander retreated and his troops filled Pelopidas with javelins.
Dion - this life illustrates the vicissitudes of fortune. Dion was one of the most trusted advisors of Dionysius I, the tyrant of Syracuse. After Dionysius I died, his son Dionysius II became the tyrant. Dion tried to 'reform' Dionysius II's character by introducing him to Plato, but in the end Dion fell out with Dionysius and was sent into exile. Dion eventually organized a small mercenary army and returned to Syracuse to overthrow Dionysius - in the process of the siege, he was at first welcomed as a savior by the Syracusans, then told he wasn't welcome, then when Dionysius's mercenaries set fire to the city, they begged him again to come back. So Dion took the city and became its tyrant for a while. And then he was assassinated. So yeah, I basically learned you should hold to your principles - if they are good they will guide you to success, and maybe assassination.
Timoleon - Timoleon is interesting 1) because he spent 20 years in self-enforced exile and 2) because of his extremely good fortune during his expedition to Sicily. When he was younger, he killed his brother because he had made himself tyrant of Corinth. His mother disowned him, and he felt so guilty and depressed that he left Corinth and apparently wandered around the countryside for 20 years. But he was finally recalled to lead an expedition to free Syracuse from the tyrant Dionysius II. This expedition was interesting because Timoleon overcame such huge odds over and over again. He set out with about 1,000 troops and 10 ships but was blocked by Carthaginians in Rhegium. When I was reading this I thought, "How's he gonna overcome this?" But then he does! Via trickery - he worked with the Rhegians to distract the Carthaginians in an assembly and slipped away with his cre to Sicily. When in Sicily he defeated a superior Syracusan force by taking them by surprise. This enabled him to win over a bunch of smaller towns. Then Dionysius II surrendered Ortygia (Syracuse's acropolis) to him (at this point the city had been taken over by Hicetas and the Carthaginians). But THEN the Carthaginians abandoned Syracuse (apparently because they were concerned by Timoleon's luck?). So Timoleon took Syracuse and, in counterpoint to Dion, demolished the acropolis (a redoubt for tyrants) and replaced it with courts of law. THEN Timoleon took on a vastly superior Carthaginian army and managed to rout it, ensuring the Greek Sicilians' freedom from Carthaginian domination. His combination of good thinking and good luck was pretty amazing.
Demosthenes - I think that the inscription carved at the base of a statue commemorating Demosthenes sums up his life pretty well: "If only your strength had been equal, Demosthenes, to your wisdom, / Never would Greece have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares." Demosthenes is interesting because he definitely was not marked out for greatness and earned his fame entirely through his own hard work. As Plutarch records: "He was a skinny and sickly child from the beginning and it is said that it was to make fun of his puny physique that the other boys called him Batalus. According to one account, Batalus was an effeminate flute-player." "His voice was weak and his utterance indistinct and [...] he suffered from a shortness of breath, which had the effect of breaking up his sentences and making his meaning difficult to follow."
He completely devoted himself to the study of rhetoric: "he built an underground study [...]. Every day, without fail, he would go down to work at his delivery and to train his voice, and he would often remain there for two or three months on end, and would shave only one side of his face, to prevent himself out of shame from going out even if he wanted to." "He corrected his lisp and his indistinct articulation by holding pebbles in his mouth while he recited long speeches, and he strengthened his voice by running or walking uphill, discoursing as he went, and by reciting speeches or verses in a single breath. Besides this, he kept a large mirror in his house and would stand in front of it while he went through his exercises in declamation." He was pretty much the Rocky Balboa of Athenian orators.
Unfortunately, as the inscription alludes, although Demosthenes was a great orator and he steered Athens on what was probably the correct path in resistance against Philip II of Macedon, when it came to applying his principles in real life he fell short. At the disastrous Battle of Chaeronea (in which Philip crushed Athens and Thebes), Demosthenes "left his place in the ranks and took to his heels in the most shameful fashion, throwing away his arms in order to run faster" - in the 9 lives covered in this book, Demosthenes is the only coward. Later on, he probably accepted a bribe from Harpalus (Alexander's corrupt treasurer who fled to Athens with a lot of money). In the end, however, he committed suicide rather than allow himself to be taken prisoner by the Macedonians, which kind of redeemed his reputation.
Phocion - I don't have much to say about Phocion. He was just a really great and honorable leader. He lived a very humble life and was incorruptible; he was elected general more times than any other Athenian (over 40 times I think); he always hewed to virtuous, responsible, and principled opinions and policies, even when that antagonized the mob; etc etc. He also lived for forever (to be 84) and was instrumental in arranging compromises between Athens and Macedon. Unfortunately, after various twists and turns in fortune he was condemned to death by the mob (as was Socrates) and died by hemlock. There was one humorous anecdote in this life: Phocion's wife "remarked, when an Ionian woman who was staying with her showed off her gold ornaments and her collars and necklaces glittering with jewels, ‘My ornament is Phocion, who is just now serving his twentieth year as a general of Athens.’" I'm sure Phocion and his wife were amazing people but this comment is so obnoxious it made me laugh.
Alexander - Since I recently read Arrian's description of Alexander's campaigns, this life was very interesting to me. Arrian did not relate many of the anecdotes that Plutarch does, and he did not describe the others as vividly. Even if Alexander had not been born the son of a king and placed at the head of a world-beating army, it's clear that he would have been an exceptional person. "He cared nothing for pleasure or wealth but only for deeds of valor and glory," and he was surprisingly disciplined in most aspects of his life probably due to his pursuit of glory. He was surprisingly controlled around women (especially compared to his father who was very polygamous) - he never touched Darius's wife and daughters after he captured them (which is impressive by ancient standards) and only had one illegitimate child (once again impressive by ancient standards) - and in fact only one legitimate child. He was also "exceptionally temperate in what he ate." "When he was at leisure, his first act after rising was to sacrifice to the gods, after which he took his breakfast sitting down. The rest of the day would be spent in hunting, administering justice, planning military affairs or reading." He trained extremely diligently and was always at the forefront of the action in his battles. "Alexander made a point of risking his life in this way both to exercise himself and to inspire others to acts of courage, but his friends, because of the wealth and pomp with which they were surrounded, desired only to lead a life of luxury and idleness." "He continued to expose himself unsparingly to danger: for example, he crossed the River Orexartes, which he believed to be the Tanaïs, routed the Scythians and pursued them for 11 miles, even though all this while he was suffering from an attack of dysentery."
Alexander was a complicated character and Plutarch goes over his executions of many of his friends and associates. He vividly narrates the confrontation between Alexander and Cleitus the Black. Cleitus had saved Alexander's life at the Battle of the Granicus 6 years earlier. Based off of Plutarch's retelling of their confrontation, I don't really blame Alexander for killing Cleitus, because Cleitus kept on hurling insults at Alexander. And the problem with the insults was that they were really true - especially regarding Alexander's annoying insinuations that he was the son of Zeus Ammon and not Philip, and his adoption of Persian customs.
One interesting anecdote: "He regarded the Iliad as a handbook on the art of war and took with him on his campaigns a text annotated by Aristotle, which became known as ‘the casket copy’, and which he always kept under his pillow together with his dagger."
Eumenes - I read a lot about Eumenes in James Romm's book "Ghost on the Throne," which is basically an extended version of Plutarch's Life of Eumenes. One thing that annoys me about Ghost on the Throne, though, is that Romm always calls Eumenes "little Eumenes," and the "former secretary." That is pretty misleading. Philip II first took note of Eumenes because of his skill as a wrestler, and I doubt that Eumenes was little. Plutarch says "his whole body, with its astonishingly well-proportioned limbs, resembled a carefully composed work of art." He was a tough guy and when he started to make his appearance on the battlefield he killed people (in particular Neoptolemus, his arch-nemesis for a time whom he slew in hand-to-hand combat). I had this impression of Eumenes from Romm's book as a slight but clever former secretary, but from this Life it's clear that he was a tough and cunning general. Even under Alexander he was like that - once Alexander asked him to give him 300 talents since the royal coffers were empty, and Eumenes gave him 100 talents, saying that even that money was hard to find. So Alexander had his tent burned down to see how much gold Eumenes would have to carry out. Unfortunately the tent burned down too fast, but apparently there were 1,000 talents of gold and silver in the tent. (Also, maybe don't take management tips from Alexander). Eumenes also often quarreled with Hephaestion, Alexander's favorite. So even when he was a secretary, Eumenes was a sly guy who was not afraid of a fight.
As a general, Eumenes was extremely skilled both on the battlefield and in manipulating his soldiers in camp. I won't recount his battlefield victories, but his management of his soldiers was pretty amazing I think. Once while he was fleeing he came upon the enemy's baggage train. He realized that if he allowed his soldiers to plunder the baggage train they would be too burdened to flee. So he sent a secret message to the head of the baggage train warning him to head for high ground, thwarting his own soldiers. At other times, however, he allowed his soldiers to plunder the countryside freely to keep them happy. In order to convince the leaders of the Silver Shields to meet with him, he invented the "Alexander tent", a tent with a throne dedicated to Alexander where Alexander's ghost could preside over their meetings. When Eumenes was leading the eastern satraps, he perceived that they hated him, so he got them to lend him money - so if they ever wanted their money back, they would have to keep him safe.
Demetrius - There were a few interesting aspects of this life. One was that Demetrius was a hedonist and a womanizer. Two is that Demetrius went through a lot of very severe swings in fortune - so many that it's hard to keep track of where he was in power - at first he and Antigonus controlled most of Alexander's Asian conquests; Demetrius lost to Ptolemy, losing Syria, but later won against Ptolemy, regaining Syria. Then Seleucus took Babylon and most of the east for himself. Then Demetrius took Athens and most of Greece but then had to come back to help his father fend off an alliance of the other Successors. They were crushed in this battle and Antigonus was killed, but Demetrius was able to escape to Greece (and maybe Cyprus? Can't remember). He was able to make himself king of Macedon, and raised an immense army to invade Asia. But most of his army went over to Pyrrhus, and Demetrius fled to Asia where he fought a pitiful campaign and was ultimately captured by Seleucus, who kept him under house arrest basically. Demetrius then drank himself to death.
The third interesting aspect of the Life is that this is pretty much the point in history at which Athens loses its soul (permanently). It became a competition among the politicians of the city to see who could heap the most honors on Demetrius (while he was alive and in charge of Athens).
"They were the first people in the world to confer upon Antigonus and Demetrius the title of king." "The Athenians changed the name of the month Munychion to Demetrion, gave the name of Demetrias to the last day of the month and renamed the festival of the Dionysia the Demetria." Etc. It was sad to see Athens reduced to this state of servility.
Pyrrhus - Pyrrhus seems to have been defined by his boldness and his restlessness - he was always chasing dreams that led him to be briefly a king of Sicily and later a king of Macedon. He died in Argos after an old lady threw a tile at him and knocked him out.
Read
June 5, 2020Just read Alexander, the rest are boring.
September 12, 2014
Plutarch's biography of Alexander is, of course, the main event of this collection of Greek lives. And what a fascinating biography it is. Nietzsche once said of Alexander that he was a Dionysus incarnate, and although it may be true that Alexander thought himself cursed by the god for his ransacking of Thebes, his life and character can be said to have embodied what Nietzsche understood to be the Dionysian mode of life. He was an utterly otherworldly being, breathtakingly indifferent to risk and adversity, and possessed of a self-assuredness and singularity of purpose more commonly found among prophets than among kings.
The myths Plutarch relates about him are fascinating, and further illuminate the meaning of the man himself. As a youth, he tamed a wild horse, Bucephalus, which may have taken him as an adult from Macedon to Pakistan. When he was preparing to invade Asia, a statue of Orpheus was said to glisten with sweat; a sign, they told him, that the bards and poets would exhaust themselves in relating the glory of his deeds. He never once flinched in the face of danger; making a harrowing crossing of the river Granicus under fire, demonstrating an almost inhuman tenacity in his long siege of Tyre, smashing Darius's army at Issus and Gaugamela, pressing on to make war on the Indians. The man was ambition personified.
Little wonder that the generals of the ancient world so often consciously sought to emulate him. Even Pompei Magnus styled himself after Alexander; Lord of Asia, ruler of land and sea.
The myths Plutarch relates about him are fascinating, and further illuminate the meaning of the man himself. As a youth, he tamed a wild horse, Bucephalus, which may have taken him as an adult from Macedon to Pakistan. When he was preparing to invade Asia, a statue of Orpheus was said to glisten with sweat; a sign, they told him, that the bards and poets would exhaust themselves in relating the glory of his deeds. He never once flinched in the face of danger; making a harrowing crossing of the river Granicus under fire, demonstrating an almost inhuman tenacity in his long siege of Tyre, smashing Darius's army at Issus and Gaugamela, pressing on to make war on the Indians. The man was ambition personified.
Little wonder that the generals of the ancient world so often consciously sought to emulate him. Even Pompei Magnus styled himself after Alexander; Lord of Asia, ruler of land and sea.
June 27, 2014
I wonder if these Ten Greek Lives are similar to those in the two-volume paperbacks published by Vintage (?). I think their translated versions could be lexically different if another team of translators had to tackle such a monumental historical writing by Plutarch, however, I need time to find the paperbacks first so that I can compare each Life, one by one.
In "Life of Demetrius", a word in this sentence has surprised me: "Besides this Philippides enjoyed a good reputation, since he was no busybody and had none of the self-important habits of a courtier." (p. 413) I mean the word 'busybody'. The reason is that I first heard my Australian friend say this word during our chat in a bookstore and it seems to denote disapproving. So it is a surprise to find it in one of Plutarch's Lives. Moreover, this extract related to Plato is a good point I've found and scribbled:
In short, Seleucus was a conspicuous example of the wisdom that Plato showed when he argued that the man who wishes to be really rich should seek not to increase his possessions but to decrease his desires. For he who can never restrain his avarice will never be free from the sense of poverty and want. (p. 432)
In "Life of Demetrius", a word in this sentence has surprised me: "Besides this Philippides enjoyed a good reputation, since he was no busybody and had none of the self-important habits of a courtier." (p. 413) I mean the word 'busybody'. The reason is that I first heard my Australian friend say this word during our chat in a bookstore and it seems to denote disapproving. So it is a surprise to find it in one of Plutarch's Lives. Moreover, this extract related to Plato is a good point I've found and scribbled:
In short, Seleucus was a conspicuous example of the wisdom that Plato showed when he argued that the man who wishes to be really rich should seek not to increase his possessions but to decrease his desires. For he who can never restrain his avarice will never be free from the sense of poverty and want. (p. 432)
April 19, 2014
One of my favorite Roman-contemporary Greek biographers. Rich with context into each man's life, this work is, as far as my undergraduate knowledge is concerned, relatively unbiased. It also includes the life of Pelopidas, one of the leading generals of the Theban sacred band. These guys were the 'OG' 300 bad asses. 150 lovers that fought together, whooped serious city-state ass together, and died together. Even the militaristic society of Sparta was no match for them. They put Thebes on the map. But that is only one man in this collection of histories. Plutarch's content is rich, and considered by scholars a prime source for information on the lives of these men. The same can be said for his other work, The Rise and Fall of Athens.
February 28, 2016
This was more like a fantasy novel than a history.
Warriors! Intrigue! DISTURBING OMENS.
Warriors! Intrigue! DISTURBING OMENS.
November 2, 2017
It's really cool to me that we can get a glimpse of what life was like an ancient Greece thanks to historians like Plutarch. It was so different back then and yet the same in many ways. Unlike some ancient histories, Plutarch doesn't get bogged down with unnecessary details, and even offers his own opinion of the events which he describes. That being said, one naturally questions the validity of Plutarch's interpretation of history and how much of served as propaganda for the time.
My favorite story of Dion, who served as an advisor for a brutal tyrant named Dionysius. After the tyrant's death, Dion made an effort to groom his successor, who shared the same namesake as his father, to be a more benign ruler. However, Dionysius II was not only stupid, due to his education being neglected, he was also a man who lived for pleasure and partying. He was also very susceptible to manipulation by his friends, who were afraid that Dion's influence would eventually make Dionysius relinquish his throne, which would ruin their own sweet setup. So basically you have this tug-o-war between Dion, who simply wants to make Dionysius as a better human being, even going so far as recruiting Plato to help tutor the young king, and Dionysius's leech friends who just wanted to protect their prestige. Dion was eventually forced to leave for his life after Dionysius II decided that all of this "being a good person" talk was just a ploy to take away his power.
What an interesting story this is, right? We didn't learn about this in our history classes! This book is full of neat little stories like this if you can wade through the confusing haze of military campaigns that punctuate these histories. Man, people fought wars constantly at this point in time. It's treated more like a sporting event than an actual war of consequences. Anyway, as a history buff, I was very satisfied with this read.
My favorite story of Dion, who served as an advisor for a brutal tyrant named Dionysius. After the tyrant's death, Dion made an effort to groom his successor, who shared the same namesake as his father, to be a more benign ruler. However, Dionysius II was not only stupid, due to his education being neglected, he was also a man who lived for pleasure and partying. He was also very susceptible to manipulation by his friends, who were afraid that Dion's influence would eventually make Dionysius relinquish his throne, which would ruin their own sweet setup. So basically you have this tug-o-war between Dion, who simply wants to make Dionysius as a better human being, even going so far as recruiting Plato to help tutor the young king, and Dionysius's leech friends who just wanted to protect their prestige. Dion was eventually forced to leave for his life after Dionysius II decided that all of this "being a good person" talk was just a ploy to take away his power.
What an interesting story this is, right? We didn't learn about this in our history classes! This book is full of neat little stories like this if you can wade through the confusing haze of military campaigns that punctuate these histories. Man, people fought wars constantly at this point in time. It's treated more like a sporting event than an actual war of consequences. Anyway, as a history buff, I was very satisfied with this read.
January 5, 2017
Allows his own personal biases (mainly against Democracy, which you can tell he despises by the many opportunities he takes to shit all over it and the things that come with it when he can) to seep into the work often, which only gives the Lives more flavour and makes it entertaining to read. Rather than simply recording the events that took place, Plutarch focuses moreso on the personalities of the characters in his Lives, thus leaving out much information that he probably supposed the reader to have a general knowledge about anyway at the time. He doesn't allow the reader to form their own opinions on the people whose lives he is recording, instead giving his own opinions on them and their actions and leaving no ambiguity - which makes sense when you consider that it was written as an address to an individual he was seeking to instruct with the example of the Lives rather than writing a purely historical narrative.
His inclusion of people like Artaxerxes, Demetrius and Pyrrhus who he was able to find constant fault with and used particulars of their Lives as examples of things a person should not emulate (IE. Artaxerxes' despotism [general contempt for orientalism here though]; Demetrius' arrogance, puffed up by the Athenians, vainglory and debauchery; Pyrrhus' insatiable ambition, shared by Demetrius also to a large degree), was refreshing after the long list of people he heaped praise on, but was also able to find fault with as well (such as Demosthenes' greed, Dion's unapproachability/arrogance, Pelopidas' constant self-exposure to danger, etc.).
A worthy classic.
His inclusion of people like Artaxerxes, Demetrius and Pyrrhus who he was able to find constant fault with and used particulars of their Lives as examples of things a person should not emulate (IE. Artaxerxes' despotism [general contempt for orientalism here though]; Demetrius' arrogance, puffed up by the Athenians, vainglory and debauchery; Pyrrhus' insatiable ambition, shared by Demetrius also to a large degree), was refreshing after the long list of people he heaped praise on, but was also able to find fault with as well (such as Demosthenes' greed, Dion's unapproachability/arrogance, Pelopidas' constant self-exposure to danger, etc.).
A worthy classic.
January 1, 2025
Plutarch declares in the first few lines of this work: "It must be borne in mind that my design is not to write histories, but lives." He stays true to it and furnishes us with a chronicling of the life of Alexander, expatiating on the kind of man he was, his virtues and vices, what drove him and broke him, the character traits that led to his victories and accomplishments, and the flaws even great men such as he possessed. It helps contextualize the life of such a mythical figure whose name is known by children world over even 2350 years after his passing. Plutarch keeps him real and paints a full portrait of Alexander rather than attempting to write a story of stunning glory and tragic early downfall. This is not a tale to give you goose bumps or shake you with chills, it's an insightful character sketch and biography of the philosopher-general who conquered half the world.
November 29, 2025
So much better than the lives in the Rise and Fall of Athens. The Age of Alexander was filled with plenty of moral and philosophical and life lessons, every life in this book contained such lessons. It also contained a lot of dramatic narrative, with betrayals, battles, power struggles and politics. Really makes you realize that people haven't changed at all since ancient times, same drama.
If you like big historical drama, conquests, and charismatic leaders: The Age of Alexander is the way to go. The lives life are rich in personal ambition, hubris, and tragedy. I was expecting more from the chapter on Alexander, and I much prefer Arrian's writing on it. But the rest of the lives were great to read and learn.
Lastly the footnotes were super helpful and informative, while also not distracting from the storyline.
If you like big historical drama, conquests, and charismatic leaders: The Age of Alexander is the way to go. The lives life are rich in personal ambition, hubris, and tragedy. I was expecting more from the chapter on Alexander, and I much prefer Arrian's writing on it. But the rest of the lives were great to read and learn.
Lastly the footnotes were super helpful and informative, while also not distracting from the storyline.
April 12, 2023
I started reading this book for the chapter on Alexander - one of Plutarch's lengthier lives. It was of course engrossing and enlightening, particularly reading Mary Beard's chapter on him after in her book Confronting the Classics. However, it was the chapter on Dion that I found most interesting. An extraordinary story and slice of history. I was already familiar with parts of the story from reading Mary Renault's Mask of Apollo, and Plutarch's impassioned account is an excellent version, rendered in vivid prose by Ian Scott-Kilvert's translation.
I'm excited now to move on to Plutarch's other lives in Fall of the Roman Republic - Crassus, Pompey, Caesar, Cicero.
I'm excited now to move on to Plutarch's other lives in Fall of the Roman Republic - Crassus, Pompey, Caesar, Cicero.
October 1, 2021
While I typically don't enjoy history that's centered upon "great men," especially from a conservative Roman historian, I have to admit that Plutarch could paint a lively picture of the societies and the battles in which these men lived and died. I have all of the Penguin editions of the Roman Lives that I plan on digging into later. But first I want to go back and read some more books about ancient Iraq, the Near East, and Egypt.
February 20, 2024
I did not finish the whole collection. I only read the biography of Alexander, however Plutarch would have counted it as a whole book so I think I can say I read the book. I intend to come back and read the whole collection of Plutarch’s biographies sometime in the somewhat farther future. I greatly enjoyed Plutarch’s biography of Alexander and found it very compelling - even if most of it isn’t terribly true.
February 17, 2025
I have only written the Alexander the Great segment but it was a masterpiece - to see the story of Alexander and all his wonderful is just so interesting. I love the way it combines both Plutarch’s personal views on Alexander while also being a bit of a biography it makes it feel even more closer to the man of Macedonia himself.
November 10, 2024
Plutarch has his head so far up Alexander's rectum it's a miracle he can breathe, let alone write multiple biographies.
"Not a hagiography" (or something to that effect) *proceeds to write what is absolutely a hagiography*
"Not a hagiography" (or something to that effect) *proceeds to write what is absolutely a hagiography*
March 13, 2025
The fate of Pyrrhus and the prophecies which commanded his life from the oracles at Delphi and Dodona is so beautiful to me. Every ancient source says the same thing of Pyrrhus, that he was the brightest of his generation and died an ignominious death at the hands of a soldier’s old mother. His entire life reads like a fairytale to me, the fact that he lived as a real person keeps the belief of fate and prophecy alive in me.
October 9, 2017
Opinionated historians are, by far, the most entertaining.
July 27, 2019
I enjoyed Plutarch as I continued my self-education through Classical Greece and Rome.
January 10, 2021
We are lucky to have this wonderful glimpse into the past. These books remind me of how little, yet how greatly people have changed.
January 16, 2021
Good for Alexander, the rest are boring.
August 9, 2021
A classic and one of the main primary sources on Alexander the Great.
January 16, 2023
The more Greco-Roman history I read, the more I appreciate how readable and enjoyable Plutarch's biographies are.
February 8, 2023
Why do I do anything else??
April 22, 2023
I didn’t exactly read the entire book - segments for classes, mostly. But this translation is easier to understand than some other versions I’ve read, which makes it a lot more enjoyable.
November 6, 2023
Plutarch, pretty fun
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews