What do you think?
Rate this book
Grosse Griechen und Römer #1
Greek Lives
Here, Plutarch introduces the major figures and periods of classical Greece, detailing the lives of nine personages, including Lycurgus, Solon, Themistocles, Cimon, Alexander, Pericles, Nicias, Alcibiades, and Agesilaus. Oxford presents the most comprehensive selection available, superbly
translated and accompanied by a lucid introduction, explanatory notes, bibliographies, maps, and indexes.
translated and accompanied by a lucid introduction, explanatory notes, bibliographies, maps, and indexes.
528 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 100
129 people are currently reading
2506 people want to read
About the author
Plutarch
4,286 books926 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 55 reviews
October 19, 2025
Fascinating, entertaining and enlightening.
May 11, 2021
Them Greeks sure liked war.
December 16, 2021
...the most outstanding exploits do not always have the property of revealing the goodness or badness of the agent; often, in fact, a casual action, the odd phrase, or a jest reveals character better than battles involving the loss of thousands upon thousands of lives, huge troop movements, and whole cities besieged.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the ancient Greeks were all comedians. There’s one point in the collection where Plato is described as a comic poet. Plutarch himself many a time gives us little quipy asides as he compiles scandalous gossip of important and zany Greek figures into the ancient equivalent of Before They Were Famous YouTube videos. I’d add examples here, but I underlined too many to count; you just have to read it for yourselves.
In true Greek fashion, I have ranked each of the Greek lives depicted in this edition from whom my mind’s eye perceived as the best-looking to the ugliest, with a bit of help from Google Image search for tie-breakers.
Alcibiades: A handsome drama queen with a lisp who managed to swoon Socrates. It’s easy to see why he’s admired to this day by people like the Bronze Age Pervert.
Alexander: Yes, we get it. He was great.
Lycurgus: Kind of psychotic. Read the Republic too many times and decided to create it, not by laws but by instilling a perfected culture into the Spartans from birth. Well actually, I’m not sure which is better, rule by law or by culture.
Agesilaus: Something like an early Adam Smith. “...it seems that the Laconian lawgiver injected an element of conflict and rivalry into his constitution as a stimulus towards virtue…” (p. 270).
Solon: Something like an early Marx. “The disparity between rich and poor had, as it were, reached a peak…A great many of [the people] banded together…to choose a reliable man as a champion for their cause and then to remove the debtors from the grasp of their creditors, redistribute the land, and form an entirely new system of government” (p. 56 - 57).
Themistocles: “...would delay every task that came his way until the day when he was due to sail, so that, as a result of doing a lot of things at once and dealing with a wide variety of people, he would give the impression of being an important person with a great deal of power” (p. 97). Sounds like me at my job.
Cimon: The shortest Life.
Nicias: “...there was widespread intolerance of natural scientists–’airheads’” (p. 210). Ugh, if only we had this now, but Nicias was pretty paranoid. Reading his Life reminded of a video I saw of a kid recording himself having a schizophrenic episode and then listening to Enigma of all things to calm himself down. Like wut?
Pericles: “In a recurrent dream Agariste imagined that she gave birth to a lion, and then a few days later she gave birth to Pericles, who was a perfectly formed baby, physically, except that his head was elongated and lopsided. That is why he was almost always portrayed wearing a helmet: it looks as though the artists did not want to draw his deformity.”
I’ve come to the conclusion that the ancient Greeks were all comedians. There’s one point in the collection where Plato is described as a comic poet. Plutarch himself many a time gives us little quipy asides as he compiles scandalous gossip of important and zany Greek figures into the ancient equivalent of Before They Were Famous YouTube videos. I’d add examples here, but I underlined too many to count; you just have to read it for yourselves.
In true Greek fashion, I have ranked each of the Greek lives depicted in this edition from whom my mind’s eye perceived as the best-looking to the ugliest, with a bit of help from Google Image search for tie-breakers.
Alcibiades: A handsome drama queen with a lisp who managed to swoon Socrates. It’s easy to see why he’s admired to this day by people like the Bronze Age Pervert.
Alexander: Yes, we get it. He was great.
Lycurgus: Kind of psychotic. Read the Republic too many times and decided to create it, not by laws but by instilling a perfected culture into the Spartans from birth. Well actually, I’m not sure which is better, rule by law or by culture.
Agesilaus: Something like an early Adam Smith. “...it seems that the Laconian lawgiver injected an element of conflict and rivalry into his constitution as a stimulus towards virtue…” (p. 270).
Solon: Something like an early Marx. “The disparity between rich and poor had, as it were, reached a peak…A great many of [the people] banded together…to choose a reliable man as a champion for their cause and then to remove the debtors from the grasp of their creditors, redistribute the land, and form an entirely new system of government” (p. 56 - 57).
Themistocles: “...would delay every task that came his way until the day when he was due to sail, so that, as a result of doing a lot of things at once and dealing with a wide variety of people, he would give the impression of being an important person with a great deal of power” (p. 97). Sounds like me at my job.
Cimon: The shortest Life.
Nicias: “...there was widespread intolerance of natural scientists–’airheads’” (p. 210). Ugh, if only we had this now, but Nicias was pretty paranoid. Reading his Life reminded of a video I saw of a kid recording himself having a schizophrenic episode and then listening to Enigma of all things to calm himself down. Like wut?
Pericles: “In a recurrent dream Agariste imagined that she gave birth to a lion, and then a few days later she gave birth to Pericles, who was a perfectly formed baby, physically, except that his head was elongated and lopsided. That is why he was almost always portrayed wearing a helmet: it looks as though the artists did not want to draw his deformity.”
February 10, 2020
I know. Giving Plutarch only three stars. I’m awful. Maybe he can impress me with his Roman Lives. :p
Read
November 7, 2025Plutarch's lives are a series of biographies of famous men but with a twist. While most biographies focus on the heroic achievements or reprehensible villainy of their subjects and focus on landmark events or military exploits, Plutarch traces a different course. He focusses far more heavily on the supposedly small things: anecdotes from the individual's childhood; a single episode with a friend; their manner of speaking and living; and above all their attitudes to the events they take part in. What results is an attempt to produce a human picture of these figures. From the awe-inspiring Alexander the Great to the semi-mythical Lycurgus, lawgiver of Sparta, Plutarch tries to illustrate how these people lived and what their personalities were.
I say try because, inevitably, Plutarch - writing in the early second century AD (around the year 100 and on) - about individuals dating back to 500BC has to rely on an disparate array of sources of varying quality and interpolate between them to tease out what he believes to the character of the people he studies. His approach and his very aim would, I imagine, be deemed ridiculous by modern historiographical standards. It is worth pointing out that Plutarch is valuable historically from the point of view of the sources he has preserved for us (where his sources themselves have been lost) but this is of interest to academic historians, not the general reading public.
This leaves the book in an awkward spot. If pitched as a kind of fictionalised history - as it certainly appears in places - then the book could have excelled. We get senses of what might have been when the book dives heavily into good old-fashioned story-telling. The best example of this is the chapter on Alexander, perhaps because his journey from Macedonia to India and back to Babylon is so full of worthy anecdotes and events.
Unfortunately such passages are few and far between. Much more of the book involves Plutarch discussing sources or contradictions between himself and views of other writers. We are treated time and again to the contrary views of other writers. For Plutarch this represented a valiant attempt to do history; for us - when we wouldn't reach for Plutarch to learn the history - it is simply pure tedium. Another related nuisance is the writer's penchant for retelling multiple versions of the same story (such as the birth of Solon or the capture of Salamis). This pulls us out of passages written by Plutarch as character-builder or story-teller and into the much less entertaining world of Plutarch as historian.
A last issue that is worth mentioning is how varied the chapters are: Alexander, as mentioned, was the pick of the bunch, but the chapter on the obscure Spartan king Agesilaus is exceptionally boring. Aside from the aforementioned problems, the key issue in this chapter is the immense amount of names, the rapid movement around the man's timeline (as well as around the Ancient Greek world) in a manner I'm sure would have been confusing to Plutarch's contemporaries let alone us.
This issue points to another, that of editing: given that this volume only presents a subset of lives, it is baffling to me that one as dull as Agesilaus' made the final cut. Why not a well known name like Coriolanus? Or better yet, throw in Artaxerxes, king of Persia after Xerxes. This ruler is referenced constantly due to the prominence of the Persian Wars in other lives.
The bigger editorial choice I take issue with is the presentation of the Lives as a whole. These are, properly called, Plutarch's Parallel Lives. Plutarch wrote (mostly) pairs of matching Greek and Roman lives and linked them in comparisons and introductions. There is a second volume of Roman Lives in this set, but they do not all match up with the Greek lives in this book. A two book edition containing the same number of lives but paired and presented as in the original would have been truer to Plutarch and, I believe, helped the modern reader appreciate his opus. Robin Waterfield does almost apologetically mention this issue in the introduction. Yet he justifies it with the not too convincing excuse that other editions opt for a chronological approach (Greek's in order followed by Romans) as readers today prefer to use Plutarch as a view on Greek or Roman history (a mistake I believe for all the reasons above). I think this is a bit of a cop-out (blaming tradition effectively) and would have liked to have seen Waterfield step out of the mould of his predecessors and re-embrace Plutarch's original vision.
As it is, you can learn a bit of history from this set of Greek Lives by Plutarch, but you are better off either reading a modern history - for the definitive take on these individuals - or else reaching for Herodotus or Thucydides to get contemporaneous accounts. You can have a bit of fun with the stories in Plutarch, but are you better off going and reading a novel. Yet you can't experience Plutarch as he intended it here and for that reason I think this book is a lost opportunity.
I say try because, inevitably, Plutarch - writing in the early second century AD (around the year 100 and on) - about individuals dating back to 500BC has to rely on an disparate array of sources of varying quality and interpolate between them to tease out what he believes to the character of the people he studies. His approach and his very aim would, I imagine, be deemed ridiculous by modern historiographical standards. It is worth pointing out that Plutarch is valuable historically from the point of view of the sources he has preserved for us (where his sources themselves have been lost) but this is of interest to academic historians, not the general reading public.
This leaves the book in an awkward spot. If pitched as a kind of fictionalised history - as it certainly appears in places - then the book could have excelled. We get senses of what might have been when the book dives heavily into good old-fashioned story-telling. The best example of this is the chapter on Alexander, perhaps because his journey from Macedonia to India and back to Babylon is so full of worthy anecdotes and events.
Unfortunately such passages are few and far between. Much more of the book involves Plutarch discussing sources or contradictions between himself and views of other writers. We are treated time and again to the contrary views of other writers. For Plutarch this represented a valiant attempt to do history; for us - when we wouldn't reach for Plutarch to learn the history - it is simply pure tedium. Another related nuisance is the writer's penchant for retelling multiple versions of the same story (such as the birth of Solon or the capture of Salamis). This pulls us out of passages written by Plutarch as character-builder or story-teller and into the much less entertaining world of Plutarch as historian.
A last issue that is worth mentioning is how varied the chapters are: Alexander, as mentioned, was the pick of the bunch, but the chapter on the obscure Spartan king Agesilaus is exceptionally boring. Aside from the aforementioned problems, the key issue in this chapter is the immense amount of names, the rapid movement around the man's timeline (as well as around the Ancient Greek world) in a manner I'm sure would have been confusing to Plutarch's contemporaries let alone us.
This issue points to another, that of editing: given that this volume only presents a subset of lives, it is baffling to me that one as dull as Agesilaus' made the final cut. Why not a well known name like Coriolanus? Or better yet, throw in Artaxerxes, king of Persia after Xerxes. This ruler is referenced constantly due to the prominence of the Persian Wars in other lives.
The bigger editorial choice I take issue with is the presentation of the Lives as a whole. These are, properly called, Plutarch's Parallel Lives. Plutarch wrote (mostly) pairs of matching Greek and Roman lives and linked them in comparisons and introductions. There is a second volume of Roman Lives in this set, but they do not all match up with the Greek lives in this book. A two book edition containing the same number of lives but paired and presented as in the original would have been truer to Plutarch and, I believe, helped the modern reader appreciate his opus. Robin Waterfield does almost apologetically mention this issue in the introduction. Yet he justifies it with the not too convincing excuse that other editions opt for a chronological approach (Greek's in order followed by Romans) as readers today prefer to use Plutarch as a view on Greek or Roman history (a mistake I believe for all the reasons above). I think this is a bit of a cop-out (blaming tradition effectively) and would have liked to have seen Waterfield step out of the mould of his predecessors and re-embrace Plutarch's original vision.
As it is, you can learn a bit of history from this set of Greek Lives by Plutarch, but you are better off either reading a modern history - for the definitive take on these individuals - or else reaching for Herodotus or Thucydides to get contemporaneous accounts. You can have a bit of fun with the stories in Plutarch, but are you better off going and reading a novel. Yet you can't experience Plutarch as he intended it here and for that reason I think this book is a lost opportunity.
March 23, 2016
Having had a very spotty education in foreign languages owing to several moves from one to another school district (German in 2nd grade, Spanish in 3rd-5th, French in 6th-8th), I went for something new in high school, viz. Latin.
It was in high school Latin that I discovered that my difficulties with learning a foreign language weren't entirely due to the misfortune of entering into the middle of language programs and never catching up owing to a lack of accomodation for tranfer students. No, I was simply very bad at memorization. To survive Latin with grades ranging from Bs to Ds, I got into the habit of awakening every morning at 5am to cram for the day's quiz. By evening, most everything crammed had slipped out again.
To supplement the cramming I kept a very good word-derivative notebook, probably the most thorough in the class, and read a lot of books by and about the ancients, including Plutarch's Parallel Lives, complete. Ms. Fischer, the older of our two Latin teachers, appreciated my enthusiasm for ancient history, probably felt sorry for my obvious incapacity with the language itself, and passed me every time.
When I read the Parallel Lives many of the persons discussed were completely unknown to me except perhaps as names. Although it wasn't the best way to approach ancient biography, a modern's background being quite different than that of Plutarch's intended readership, it still served as a part of the generally haphazard introduction I gave myself to the field of ancient history. It was slow going, sometimes boring for one as ignorant as myself, but I got through the whole thing over the course of a few summer weeks.
It was in high school Latin that I discovered that my difficulties with learning a foreign language weren't entirely due to the misfortune of entering into the middle of language programs and never catching up owing to a lack of accomodation for tranfer students. No, I was simply very bad at memorization. To survive Latin with grades ranging from Bs to Ds, I got into the habit of awakening every morning at 5am to cram for the day's quiz. By evening, most everything crammed had slipped out again.
To supplement the cramming I kept a very good word-derivative notebook, probably the most thorough in the class, and read a lot of books by and about the ancients, including Plutarch's Parallel Lives, complete. Ms. Fischer, the older of our two Latin teachers, appreciated my enthusiasm for ancient history, probably felt sorry for my obvious incapacity with the language itself, and passed me every time.
When I read the Parallel Lives many of the persons discussed were completely unknown to me except perhaps as names. Although it wasn't the best way to approach ancient biography, a modern's background being quite different than that of Plutarch's intended readership, it still served as a part of the generally haphazard introduction I gave myself to the field of ancient history. It was slow going, sometimes boring for one as ignorant as myself, but I got through the whole thing over the course of a few summer weeks.
March 26, 2021
Greek Lives is endlessly fascinating and Plutarch is quite simply a brilliant writer of prose. His vivid portraits of these Ancient Greek leaders showcase their virtues and incredible heroics to be emulated as well as their vices and greed to be avoided, and provides a fascinating education on political power. Plutarch is far from objective and digresses throughout the book to give his own personal thoughts on each Life, which makes it an even better read, something many historians and biographers do not do nowadays. Plutarch covers the many battles, wars and political squabbling but as you read it you gain valuable insights on leadership, ethics, moral virtues and philosophy. There are too many highlighted pages to count in my copy.
May 16, 2020
An interesting account of nine Greeks, some more historical than others. The account of Alexander is particularly interesting and important for historians.
February 24, 2023
A series of biographies on various figures in Greek history (paired with similar figures in Roman history in a composite series of biographies). Beginning first with the legendary figure of Lycurgus--the mythical creator of the Spartan constitution--and ending with Alexander, Plutarch attempts to dissect and draw out different moral lessons from these figures. In one instance, we see how Plutarch attempts to dissect the individual of Nicias--an Athenian general who is overly cautious and fearful of the Athenian people leading to the catastrophe in Sicily--to show that intelligence without action isn't ideal. In another instance with Alcibiades, we see the opposite trend--a man committed to action but directionless (Alcibiades betrayed the Athenians to the Spartans, upon legal attack in the law-courts, and then betrayed the Spartans to the Persians, and then came back to the Athenians). The character of Alcibiades is also intriguing, as he is a prominent participant in platonic dialogues (the Symposium), and one of Socrates' lovers.
In some discourses, homosexuality is discussed either as being an underrated feature in ancient Greece or as being heavily overrated (that same-sex attraction existed, but that the social category or identity itself is a more recent addition). To this, Plutarch suggests the former as more prevalent--from discussions of how the spartan King Agesilaus was notable for his attraction to young men and gained his job in part due to a political alliance with a former lover, Lysander. The discussion of Alcibiades' moral influencing by Socrates, also appears to be sexual and a desire to bring out the good in him, while also chastising / restraining the bad.
As a moralizing character portrait, this book offers an interesting look into various figures from ancient Greek history. The book is heavy on Athenian figures (they make up 6 out of 9 figures).
In some discourses, homosexuality is discussed either as being an underrated feature in ancient Greece or as being heavily overrated (that same-sex attraction existed, but that the social category or identity itself is a more recent addition). To this, Plutarch suggests the former as more prevalent--from discussions of how the spartan King Agesilaus was notable for his attraction to young men and gained his job in part due to a political alliance with a former lover, Lysander. The discussion of Alcibiades' moral influencing by Socrates, also appears to be sexual and a desire to bring out the good in him, while also chastising / restraining the bad.
As a moralizing character portrait, this book offers an interesting look into various figures from ancient Greek history. The book is heavy on Athenian figures (they make up 6 out of 9 figures).
October 1, 2019
Thucydides's Peloponessian War is an example of a history book that can be incredibly informative but also slightly boring.
However, in this volume, Plutarch takes on the garguntuan task of recording the lives of the nine men that irrevocably influenced Greek History. However he does not just record details about their lives but brings each of their stories to life. As was his intention, you truly get a proper glimpse into the character of these men. The attributes that set them apart and made them truly great and also their shortcomings that sometimes proved their downfall.
As for his authenticity, though his biases are sometimes evident they are clearly separated from the indisputable facts. Plutarch uses references to other writers to justify his claims and rather than attempting to sensationalize his biographies, he mentions multiple versions and gives reason for the ones he deems most reasonable.
The truth is if a man wants to become wise, he learns from wise men. If a man wants to be funny or a great orator he pays attention to those who already are. In the same vein, if a man wants to become great, he must learn from great men.
The problem is these men are are rare and far-flung, like a comet that comes once a century. To circumnavigate this we can read. And in reading the souls of these men, we mold them into our very nature.
However, in this volume, Plutarch takes on the garguntuan task of recording the lives of the nine men that irrevocably influenced Greek History. However he does not just record details about their lives but brings each of their stories to life. As was his intention, you truly get a proper glimpse into the character of these men. The attributes that set them apart and made them truly great and also their shortcomings that sometimes proved their downfall.
As for his authenticity, though his biases are sometimes evident they are clearly separated from the indisputable facts. Plutarch uses references to other writers to justify his claims and rather than attempting to sensationalize his biographies, he mentions multiple versions and gives reason for the ones he deems most reasonable.
The truth is if a man wants to become wise, he learns from wise men. If a man wants to be funny or a great orator he pays attention to those who already are. In the same vein, if a man wants to become great, he must learn from great men.
The problem is these men are are rare and far-flung, like a comet that comes once a century. To circumnavigate this we can read. And in reading the souls of these men, we mold them into our very nature.
July 3, 2016
Or "Come for Alexander, stay for Alcibiades".
I wanted to better my knowledge of Alexander the Great but my copy of Herodotus's Histories was looking excessively large so when I saw "Greek Lives" for sale I snapped it up.
I wish I'd bought a "Complete Lives" instead. It's so good.
Plutarch brings the lives and times to life in an interesting way, and the translator does a very good job of making the work flow and be understandable without resorting to artificial modernising.
I could have done with some of the chapter introductions being fuller, some of them assumed knowledge I most certainly didn't have (the 4 out of 5 is because of that, Plutarch himself gets 5/5). Some of the footnotes/endnotes were a bit enigmatic too.
I think I agree with the idea put forward in the introduction that Plutarch wrote these to suggest good ways to be a public person of power, particularly if you consider the different way Cimon is treated depending on the message Plutarch is conveying in a life.
Poor Agesilaus who, after a certain point, couldn't get anything right for trying to the right thing, was completely new to me, and I learned a lot about Ancient Greece.
Definitely worth reading.
I wanted to better my knowledge of Alexander the Great but my copy of Herodotus's Histories was looking excessively large so when I saw "Greek Lives" for sale I snapped it up.
I wish I'd bought a "Complete Lives" instead. It's so good.
Plutarch brings the lives and times to life in an interesting way, and the translator does a very good job of making the work flow and be understandable without resorting to artificial modernising.
I could have done with some of the chapter introductions being fuller, some of them assumed knowledge I most certainly didn't have (the 4 out of 5 is because of that, Plutarch himself gets 5/5). Some of the footnotes/endnotes were a bit enigmatic too.
I think I agree with the idea put forward in the introduction that Plutarch wrote these to suggest good ways to be a public person of power, particularly if you consider the different way Cimon is treated depending on the message Plutarch is conveying in a life.
Poor Agesilaus who, after a certain point, couldn't get anything right for trying to the right thing, was completely new to me, and I learned a lot about Ancient Greece.
Definitely worth reading.
November 16, 2020
After reading the Oxford edition of Plutarch's Roman Lives earlier this year and Shakespeare's Pericles at the beginning of the month, I was keen to dive into more ancient history. Much like his previous biographies, these Greek Lives did not disappoint. They offer a unique insight into some of the history and, more importantly, the characteristics of individuals that later Greeks valued. Plutarch provides a brilliant commentary of politics and ruling that many leaders would benefit from today. I particularly enjoyed the first life on Lycurgus, who, in many ways, is responsible for creating the militaristic image of Sparta we still imagine today. I found reading about his laws, such as those surrounding communal eating and public nudity (both of which he encouraged), fascinating. Although Shakespeare did not base his play on the life of the Pericles that is remembered in this book, they do share similar characteristics beyond a just name. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in Greek history or biographies in general. I hope I can read some more Plutarch sometime in the future.
July 18, 2012
A fantastic read. It stands the test of time and is both great literature and great history. It probably wouldn't pass the test of modern historical analysis, but who cares? The stories are compelling, fresh and well-paced.
It's easy to see why Plutarch was such a big influence on Shakespeare. He brings out character's virtues and flaws equally well.
This version also comes with great footnotes to explain the nuances of ancient Greek culture and the translation is well done.
Highly recommended.
It's easy to see why Plutarch was such a big influence on Shakespeare. He brings out character's virtues and flaws equally well.
This version also comes with great footnotes to explain the nuances of ancient Greek culture and the translation is well done.
Highly recommended.
February 3, 2019
I'm glad I have read it, but I'm not sure I'd recommend this translation to anyone who's not a student of history. The writing is often difficult and the subject often requires explanation. I've taught using several of Plutarch's lives, but I wanted to read the ones I haven't taught. I'm used to the writing so it wasn't as onerous as it might have been
August 2, 2014
Although kind of dry reading, it is still very interesting. Being able to see the political aspects from so long ago certainly peaked my interest.
March 21, 2019
A better prose than any contemporary prose.
September 10, 2025
Plutarch's style of writing makes more sense in the comparative. This edition unfortunately skipped what makes Plutarch interesting; his Parallel Lives which is an overlooked method of biographical writing. This edition focuses entirely on a specific character with some reference to previous characters studied. It's a light read but it doesn't particularly feel great. The life of Nicias felt very much like a paraphrasing of the Peloponnesian Wars. If you have read the original books he is referencing, there isn't much reason to read this edition as he's generally repeating what is already known and if you remove the main gimmick of comparison, you have a so-so list of biographies. I don't regret reading this but I will probably ignore Roman Lives and opt for Parallel Lives or just read the original works.
June 8, 2018
This is a small selection of Noble Greeks, written by Plutarch. I liked it. The history was written concisely, admirably so, in a time when the men Plutarch was writing about already were surrounded by myth and differing tales about them. Plutarch represents different opinions and histories from differing authors when, talking about a man, he isn't sure what is true and what is not. That makes it easier to separate fact from fiction. This history is very easy to understand and read. It does have some terminology, though, that I have never heard of and I have to guess at the meanings of. People into reading well written history would love this.
December 18, 2017
Plutarch's Lives are exciting and intriguing bits of personal history. Rather than focusing on large-scale combat, Plutarch focuses on the personal and professional lives of famous Greeks. Plutarch is useful for personal reading or for historical accounts of the Greek world. Every life is different, and provides a deeper view into the Greek mind. The reader's character can be shaped by the stories and the lessons which Plutarch provides. Well worth the read! I'll be keeping this on my shelf for many years.
Want to read
December 24, 2025I read the first three, but gosh it’s boring. I think Lycurgus was a cult leader, everything about Sparta was bizarre. I am abandoning this book for now. I’ll read the rest later when I am not needing lighter reading. I will say I am impressed with Plutarch. He honestly says that his information might be wrong, and he tries to give every version of events and who reports it and why it may be incorrect or correct. He was a good researcher, doing the best he could with the material available.
June 21, 2025
Despite it's flaws Plutarch is essential in any library. The lover of History must work with him, causing a fondness for the detail and legacy of his work. This edition has a an easy and exciting translation and helpful and clear context as a guide.
August 29, 2023
The more I read these and now read them with my boys, the more I appreciate them.
October 19, 2023
greek men are silly goofy
November 27, 2023
Most fascinated by stories of Lycurgus, Alexander, Pyrrhus, and Pericles.
April 22, 2025
it was extremely boring but ok ig
September 7, 2025
An amazing ancient historian who gives you an idea of the personalities of great men from greek history. I was a particular fan of his life of Alexander.
July 25, 2020
So I picked this book up because I read somewhere that in a study done of folks in the 1920s, the two most commonly owned books were The King James Bible and Plutarch's Lives. I had never heard of Plutarch or Lives and so I figured I'd read it.
While I was reading this book, I found most other people do know what it is. Several folks had not just read it, but had an opinion about it. More than almost anything else I've read. I talked about this book with my buddy at the coffee shop and the founder of an activist hedge fund. And they both seemed to care deeply about it. Interesting.
Anyway, Plutarch does biography better than we do it now. He tells terse, tight, stories focused on the mindset of those he's studying. Speculative? Sure. But compelling. Plutarch takes a point of view - he tries to understand what's in the mind of these people. We know he's guessing, but he's provocative in guessing. And in that, he teaches us in a way those who never guess, but have reams of footnotes, do not. He also pointed out his subject's foibles in simple terms, as if he was unconcerned that these are just people with good and bad bound up inextricably together. Refreshing!
Anyhow, these are great stories.
Themistocles decided Greece should have ships. Wasn’t a popular opinion at the time. Led to an upset victory at Salamis which changed course of human history.
Pericles was a very good speaker. Sounds like he won a big political fight with thucydides during the Peloponnesian war and got the dude exiled from the city. I suppose those were the stakes.
Alcibiades seems to have been good looking and good at influencing people, though apparently sort of a mediocre speaker. Sounds like he buddies up with Socrates (who fought in wars and stuff - who knew?) and then went around making friends wherever he went by blending in with local customs. Though did not start out that way, started off somewhat off putting. Harder for me to get a read on what exactly Plutarch thought of this one.
Alexander, the best known subject, seems to me like a lunatic. Was he great? Sure, I suppose. He was apparently hard working, self sacrificing, and beloved to his troops while occasionally excoriating as susceptible to flattery, overly desirous of accomplishment and fame, and prone to ostentatious displays. I guess I got stuck at the moment where Alexander was worried his father would be so successful that he would have nothing left to conquer. Is that a guy we should admire? In my mind, obviously not. But Plutarch and folks in general seem to view this as a reasonable view. Huh.
But to me the star of this show, in an age of COVID, inequality, confusion, disiullusionment, was Lykurgus.
Lykurgus asserted the purpose of a city is to allow virtue in its citizens, not wealth or conquest. And with that premise, he reformed Sparta. Instituted a series of government and social reforms. Lykurgus had different ideas and he brought them into the world.
Here are some examples:
1) established a senate to check the monarch, which spared Sparta from revolutions against corrupt monarchs
2) redivided private property to achieve something close to equality among property holders
3) radically reformed social norms, expecting people to eat together in common rather than in their homes
4) reformed money, settling on a piece of iron that was not accepted in other states, thus making it impossible for Sparta to import luxury goods and making it independent
5) reformed gender relations, made it normal for women to exercise and participate in physical labor. Society more equal and productive than other areas.
6) viewed children as communal property of the state, not of their parents. Educated as such.
This is just a great book. I would like to see some modern writers take risks like Plutarch.
Four stars!
While I was reading this book, I found most other people do know what it is. Several folks had not just read it, but had an opinion about it. More than almost anything else I've read. I talked about this book with my buddy at the coffee shop and the founder of an activist hedge fund. And they both seemed to care deeply about it. Interesting.
Anyway, Plutarch does biography better than we do it now. He tells terse, tight, stories focused on the mindset of those he's studying. Speculative? Sure. But compelling. Plutarch takes a point of view - he tries to understand what's in the mind of these people. We know he's guessing, but he's provocative in guessing. And in that, he teaches us in a way those who never guess, but have reams of footnotes, do not. He also pointed out his subject's foibles in simple terms, as if he was unconcerned that these are just people with good and bad bound up inextricably together. Refreshing!
Anyhow, these are great stories.
Themistocles decided Greece should have ships. Wasn’t a popular opinion at the time. Led to an upset victory at Salamis which changed course of human history.
Pericles was a very good speaker. Sounds like he won a big political fight with thucydides during the Peloponnesian war and got the dude exiled from the city. I suppose those were the stakes.
Alcibiades seems to have been good looking and good at influencing people, though apparently sort of a mediocre speaker. Sounds like he buddies up with Socrates (who fought in wars and stuff - who knew?) and then went around making friends wherever he went by blending in with local customs. Though did not start out that way, started off somewhat off putting. Harder for me to get a read on what exactly Plutarch thought of this one.
Alexander, the best known subject, seems to me like a lunatic. Was he great? Sure, I suppose. He was apparently hard working, self sacrificing, and beloved to his troops while occasionally excoriating as susceptible to flattery, overly desirous of accomplishment and fame, and prone to ostentatious displays. I guess I got stuck at the moment where Alexander was worried his father would be so successful that he would have nothing left to conquer. Is that a guy we should admire? In my mind, obviously not. But Plutarch and folks in general seem to view this as a reasonable view. Huh.
But to me the star of this show, in an age of COVID, inequality, confusion, disiullusionment, was Lykurgus.
Lykurgus asserted the purpose of a city is to allow virtue in its citizens, not wealth or conquest. And with that premise, he reformed Sparta. Instituted a series of government and social reforms. Lykurgus had different ideas and he brought them into the world.
Here are some examples:
1) established a senate to check the monarch, which spared Sparta from revolutions against corrupt monarchs
2) redivided private property to achieve something close to equality among property holders
3) radically reformed social norms, expecting people to eat together in common rather than in their homes
4) reformed money, settling on a piece of iron that was not accepted in other states, thus making it impossible for Sparta to import luxury goods and making it independent
5) reformed gender relations, made it normal for women to exercise and participate in physical labor. Society more equal and productive than other areas.
6) viewed children as communal property of the state, not of their parents. Educated as such.
This is just a great book. I would like to see some modern writers take risks like Plutarch.
Four stars!
August 16, 2018
Alcibiades and Alexander are the standouts. Prefer Roman lives though.
April 12, 2024
5 enthusiastic (and surprising?) stars!
How had I never heard of Plutarch until now? His character studies in the Greek and Roman Lives were extraordinary.
As Plutarch himself famously said, he was a biographer, not a historian. I would add to that "poet" and perhaps "philosopher." His writing was descriptive, engrossing, and highly readable. His insights were nuanced, illuminating, and thought-provoking.
While many historical events were included, Plutarch's main concern was virtue and vice. He explored the character of leaders so that his audience of educated, politically involved readers could learn from history. He brought awareness of ethical choices and character. By inviting moral reflection, Plutarch's theme is timeless and applicable to us all.
Plutarch himself was Greek, and although he was writing in the 2nd century AD, the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were on clear display. Like them, Plutarch believed that:
> Humans are above all rational, meaning able to act on the basis of reason (though not all do).
> There is objective truth and goodness that a person governed by reason would use to shape his/her behavior.
> Some truths are not knowable, thus even rational judgments do not always have a clear right and wrong.
Plato and Aristotle showed us politics through the eyes of philosophers. Plutarch's biographies show us how those philosophical theories play out in real life.
A simply incredible work.
How had I never heard of Plutarch until now? His character studies in the Greek and Roman Lives were extraordinary.
As Plutarch himself famously said, he was a biographer, not a historian. I would add to that "poet" and perhaps "philosopher." His writing was descriptive, engrossing, and highly readable. His insights were nuanced, illuminating, and thought-provoking.
While many historical events were included, Plutarch's main concern was virtue and vice. He explored the character of leaders so that his audience of educated, politically involved readers could learn from history. He brought awareness of ethical choices and character. By inviting moral reflection, Plutarch's theme is timeless and applicable to us all.
Plutarch himself was Greek, and although he was writing in the 2nd century AD, the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were on clear display. Like them, Plutarch believed that:
> Humans are above all rational, meaning able to act on the basis of reason (though not all do).
> There is objective truth and goodness that a person governed by reason would use to shape his/her behavior.
> Some truths are not knowable, thus even rational judgments do not always have a clear right and wrong.
Plato and Aristotle showed us politics through the eyes of philosophers. Plutarch's biographies show us how those philosophical theories play out in real life.
A simply incredible work.
March 27, 2021
This book made me realize that I did not know nearly as much about Ancient Greek persons and happenings as I thought I did, which is fine - I like to learn! But I do believe, as is stated in the introduction, to truly enjoy this book and Plutarch’s anecdotes, a reader should have a pretty thorough grasp of Ancient Greece.
While reading it, I often found myself amazed that they were words from nearly 2,000 years ago, and that those words still ring true so often today.
My only and MAJOR complaint is the actual structuring of the book: the “footnotes” are all asterisks (not numerical or alphabetical) and you are forced to consult them at the back of the book. I cannot explain how annoying this process was or having to flip to the back multiple times a page and not only find the corresponding asterisk but then go back to where you were reading and find the asterisk you left off at. With that being said, you need to read the footnotes. They really add a lot to the book or a lot to your knowledge if your knowledge is less than what Plutarch believes it should be.
But I’m glad I read it and I plan on reading Roman Lives soon.
While reading it, I often found myself amazed that they were words from nearly 2,000 years ago, and that those words still ring true so often today.
My only and MAJOR complaint is the actual structuring of the book: the “footnotes” are all asterisks (not numerical or alphabetical) and you are forced to consult them at the back of the book. I cannot explain how annoying this process was or having to flip to the back multiple times a page and not only find the corresponding asterisk but then go back to where you were reading and find the asterisk you left off at. With that being said, you need to read the footnotes. They really add a lot to the book or a lot to your knowledge if your knowledge is less than what Plutarch believes it should be.
But I’m glad I read it and I plan on reading Roman Lives soon.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews