No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 September 2021
Reading Plutarch's Parallel Lives is a fascinating encounter with the history of the ancient world. It includes witnessing the foundation of Athens (Thes. 24.1–3) and Rome (Rom. 11.1–12.1); participating in the battles of Salamis (Arist. 9.1–4; Them. 13.1–15.4), Pharsalus (Pomp. 69.1–72.6; Caes. 42.1–45.8), Philippi (Brut. 49.1–10), and Actium (Ant. 65.1–66.8); marvelling at Alexander sitting on Darius’ throne (Alex. 37.7); being dazzled by the wonderful buildings on the Acropolis (Per. 12.1–13.14); watching in dismay as Caesar is killed with twenty-three dagger blows (Caes. 66.1–14); sharing Pyrrhus’ desperation with one more victory (Pyrrh. 21.14); and standing aghast at the rape of the Sabines (Rom. 14.1–15.7), the tragic fate of Spartacus (Crass. 8.1–11.10), and Hannibal's triumph at Cannae (Fab. 16.1–9). It is a rendezvous with so many distinguished figures of Greek and Roman history: the protagonists and antagonists of the Lives, of course, but also the many less-known figures behind the scene, like Mnesiphilus, the teacher of Themistocles (Them. 2.6–7) or Damon, the brains behind the young Pericles (Per. 4.1–4). The decisive moments of history, such as Caesar's famous alea iacta est before his crossing of the Rubicon (Caes. 32.8; Pomp. 60.4), or his veni vidi vici at Zela (Caes. 50.3), are juxtaposed with ‘petite histoire’ with all its juicy anecdotes: Demetrius’ liaison with Lamia (Demetr. 27.1–14), Pericles’ relationship with Aspasia (Per. 24.2–12), Pompey's fondness for Flora (Pomp. 2.5–8), and, of course, Antony's notorious affair with Cleopatra (Ant. 36.1–7; 53.5–12; 71.4–86.9).
1 Quite strikingly, the Battle of Chaeronea, the great disaster where the Greeks lost their freedom, is only alluded to (Dem. 20.2–3; Alex. 9.2) but never related in detail. On Plutarch's account of other celebrated battles like those of Aegospotami, Leucra, and Sellasia, see Pelling 2019.
2 Frazier 1992; Duff 2015: 138–48.
3 On the vividness (enargeia) of Plutarch's writing, see, e.g., Mueller 1995; see also Salcedo Parrondo 2005 (on the Life of Alcibiades) and Soares 2007 (on the Life of Artaxerxes).
4 On these Lives, see C. Jones 1971: 72–80; Georgiadou 1988 and 2014; Stadter 2015b: 56–69.
5 Ash 1997.
6 A brief presentation of both Lives can be found in Almagor 2014. On Aratus, see further Koster 1937; Porter 1937; Stadter 2015a. On Artaxerxes, see Binder 2008; Mossman 2010.
7 With one exception, viz. Agis/Cleomenes–Gracchi. On Plutarch's choice of the heroes, see Geiger 1981, 2002, and 2005; on his criteria for juxtaposing two heroes in one pair, see Frazier 1987 and Desideri 1992b.
8 Unfortunately enough, this pair has been lost. There is much discussion about the identity of the lost Scipio; see on this esp. Herbert 1957 (further bibliography in Duff 2011b: 259 n. 207). The case is still sub iudice.
9 Nikolaidis 2005; earlier attempts include C. Jones 1966 and Delvaux 1995.
10 Thus C. Jones 1966: 70.
11 Duff 2011b.
12 On the chronological ordering, see Dem. 3.5 (λεκτέον δὲ περὶ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου πρότερον, ‘I must speak of the more ancient first’) and Dion 2.7 (τὸν τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου προεισαγάγωμεν, ‘let us begin with [the life of] the elder man’). There are exceptions, however: Aemilius–Timoleon and Sertorius–Eumenes. These two, together with Coriolanus–Alcibiades, provide the three exceptions to the Greek coming first. In one pair (Philopoemen–Flamininus), Plutarch juxtaposes two contemporaries.
13 Pelling 2002: 357 and 390. See also Duff 1999b: 206 and 250; Verdegem 2010b: 88; Roskam 2011a: 212; Larmour 2014: 410; Stadter 2015b: 126–7 and 244.
14 See Nikolaidis 1982–4 for a critical overview of the different theories.
15 Wardman 1971 and Duff 1999b: 14–22 have correctly underlined that this programmatic statement should be understood in the context of the following pair. See also Nic. 1.5.
16 On the meaning of the term ἱστορία in Plutarch, see Gómez and Mestre 1997; Hershbell 1997; Duff 1999b: 17–22 and 33–4.
17 The proem is analysed in Duff 1999b: 30–4. On the image of the mirror in this passage, see Stadter 2003–4; Zadorojnyi 2010; Frazier 2011.
18 See Stadter 1989: 55–6; Duff 1999b: 34–45 and 2001.
19 Demetr. 1.4–6. However, such a clear-cut distinction between good and bad heroes does not really work, for Demetrius and Antony are not presented as completely wicked characters, whereas other heroes are not entirely flawless: see Duff 1999b: 53–65; Pelling 2002: 133; Alexiou 2010.
20 See Pelling 2002: 239.
21 Duff 1999b; he expands the argument in Duff 2007–8 and esp. 2011a.
22 Aem. 1.2; cf. Ca. Mi. 14.4; Roskam 2014a: 188 and 191.
23 See Pelling 2002: 102–7 and 2011a: 19–25 (on the Life of Caesar and the Life of Themistocles as two rather ‘historical’ biographies).
24 Jacobs 2018.
25 See also Stadter 2015b: 241, who argues that the Parallel Lives not only contain timeless moral examples, but have a timely relevance as well; see also Stadter 2015b: 10: ‘There is every reason to think that Plutarch saw his political essays and especially his Parallel Lives as his attempt as philosopher to enter the cave of politics.’ The timely resonance and relevance of the Lives is further examined in Stadter and Van der Stockt 2002.
26 See Comp. Per. et Fab. 1.1 (πολιτικῆς καὶ πολεμικῆς ἀρετῆς…παραδείγματα, ‘examples of political and military virtue’). Also Comp. Arist. et Ca. Ma. 3.1 on political virtue as the supreme virtue.
27 As has been pointed out by Pelling and Duff (see above, nn. 20 and 21).
28 See Cleombrotus’ project as described in De def. or. 410B. See also Duff 2007–8: 14–15 and 2011a: 82.
29 See Duff 2011a; also Duff 1999b, passim.
30 Duff 1999b: 39: ‘The Lives arouse not simply an “eagerness” or “uplift” to imitate the subjects delineated. That could be merely an unreflective aping of the great men of the past, and as such on a much lower plane of moral usefulness and intellectual worth. Imitation is involved, and is indeed central. But there is more. The Lives, Plutarch claims, not only instil a desire for imitation but actually change or “mould” character (ἠθοποιοῦν). This is achieved by the observer not simply looking, but also investigating, considering, testing; applying, as Plutarch might have put it, philosophy and reason.’
31 Much has been written about the importance of the parallelism of the Parallel Lives. See Duff 1999b: 250 n. 25 for a convenient list of relevant studies. A recent volume on this topic is Humble 2010.
32 On the comparative reading of different pairs together and even of the collection as a whole, see Mossman 1992; Pelling 2002: 26, 79, and 188, 2005: 339, and 2010; Beneker 2005; Buszard 2008; Duff 2011a: 73–4; Stadter 2015b: 286–302.
33 Ziegler 1951: 897, my translation (‘Griechen und Römer als die Träger des Imperiums einander immer näher zu bringen, sie einander immer besser kennen zu lehren und die gegenseitige Achtung zu erhöhen; den Römern zu zeigen, daß die Griechen nicht nur verächtliche Graeculi seien, sondern, allerdings vor allem in der Vergangenheit, Männer der Tat hervorgebracht hätten, die den besten Römern nicht nachstanden; den Griechen zu zeigen, daß die Römer keine Barbaren seien’). Ziegler's view is accepted, for instance, by Russell 1966: 141; Bucher-Isler 1972: 89; Valgiglio 1992a: 4047–50; and Binder 2008: 14–15.
34 Thus C. Jones 1971: 103–9; see also Barrow 1967: 57–9; Russell 1972: 109.
35 Thus Desideri 1992b: 4478–86 and Duff 1999b: 301–9.
36 Contra Geiger 2014: 298: ‘the pairing of Greeks and Romans, however innovative, may well have been a by-product conditioned by his times and surroundings without a necessarily well-thought-out purpose’.
37 See Duff 1999b: 249–52; Desideri 1992b: 4475–6; Larmour 2014: 409. Philopoemen and Flamininus were contemporaries and even opponents, and it was precisely this opposition that yielded rich opportunities to view the same matters from two different points of view.
38 See above, n. 13. In the Lives of Agis, Cleomenes, and the Gracchi, Plutarch even provides four different perspectives on the same issue: see Roskam 2011a.
39 See, e.g., Russell 1966: 150; Tatum 2010: 10–14; Duff 1999b: 286; Larmour 2014: 407–8.
40 E.g. Barrow 1967: 59; Lamberton 2001: 65 and 115; Pelling 2002: 360.
41 Duff 1999b: 243–86.
42 Duff 1999b: 261, 263, and 257–86 passim, and 2011a: 74–5.
43 Boulogne 2000.
44 Nikolaidis 2014: 359.
45 Verdegem 2010a: 36.
46 Duff 1999b: 200–4 and 252–86, and 2011a: 74–5.
47 Pelling 2002: 360.
48 Duff 1999b: 271.
49 See Comp. Ag., Cleom. et Gracch. 1.1; Comp. Ages. et Pomp. 4.7. See also Reg. et imp. apophth. 172D; Roskam 2011a: 221–3 and 2014a: 188 and 190–1.
50 Comp. Ag., Cleom. et Gracch. 5.7. See also Pelling 2002: 273–5; Duff 2004: 286–7 and 2011a.
51 See Beck 2014b on the Socratic paradigm in the Lives.
52 Although Plutarch stresses the political accomplishments of many philosophers, including the Stoics; on this, see Roskam 2009b: 31–65.
53 Cf. Duff 1999b: 66.
54 On the soul of the Plutarchan hero, see esp. Duff 1999b: 72–98 and Beneker 2012: 9–17.
55 Russell 1972: 106; Wardman 1974: 115–24; Frazier 1988 and 2014; Pelling 2002: 242–7 and 292–7; Roskam et al. 2012.
56 See esp. Duff 1999a (pointing to the Platonic antecedents of the theory; Resp. 491e1–492a5) and 1999b: 47–9, 60–5, and passim; also Bucher-Isler 1972: 80–1.
57 On the importance of paideia in the Parallel Lives, see above, Chapter IV, §4, with n. 31.
58 Den Boer 1985: 379 goes too far in stating that the Lives ‘could better be called ethical essays rather than biographies’.
59 Contra Russell 1972: 106.
60 See esp. Gill 1983; also Bucher-Isler 1972: 61, 79, 83, and 92; Beneker 2012: 84.
61 On Plutarch's sophisticated use of anecdotes, see Stadter 1996; Beck 1999, 2000, and 2005; Duff 2003; Schmitt Pantel 2008. On the protagonists as moral agents with a fixed set of qualities, exemplified through well-chosen anecdotes revealing their nature, Duff 2008a is particularly relevant.
62 Pelling 2002: 287–97 and 315–21.
63 See Nikolaidis 2014: 362–4; Aloumpi 2017: 193; Zadorojnyi 2018: 222–8.
64 Yet Plutarch repeatedly employs pluralized names: the Cimons (Per. 16.3), the Marii (Brut. 29.6), even the Alcibiadeses (De Al. Magn. fort. 328C; Flam. 11.5). See Zadorojnyi 2018 on such ‘biographical synecdoche’.
65 See, among many others, Ameling 1985; Worthington 1985; Schütrumpf 1987; Tritle 1987; Bosworth 1992: 80; Bloedow 1996; Schepens 2000: 351; Bresson 2002; Verdegem 2004/5: 149; Binder 2008: 26.
66 Barigazzi 1994: 291: ‘In realtà Plutarco non volle essere uno storico. Qualcuno si ostina a considerarlo soltanto uno storico, ma egli esplicitamente nega a se stesso tale qualifica’ (‘In reality Plutarch did not want to be a historian. Some insist on considering him only a historian, but he explicitly denies himself this title’).
67 See Schneeweiss 1979: 382 (arguing that, in the Parallel Lives, Plutarch transfers Plato's doctrine of Ideas to the field of history) and Wolman 1972 (on the Roman Lives).
68 Badian 2003: 44; see also Shipley 1997: 5; Nikolaidis 1997b: 341; Schmitt Pantel 2008: 249.
69 Plutarch even decided to add a pair of biographies in which the negative character traits were at the forefront, the Demetrius–Antony; see above, n. 19.
70 Cf. Stadter 2015b: 237–43.
71 See Duff 1999b: 133–4. More examples can be found in Buszard 2008: 187 and Duff 2011a: 73–4.
72 E.g. Lysander–Sulla and Phocion–Cato Minor; see the rich analyses of Duff 1999b: 131–204. On this topic, see also Pérez Jiménez 2004.
73 See Frazier 1995: 157; see also Leão 2019b on the Life of Solon.
74 It is central to the Aemilius–Timoleon pair. On this topic, see Swain 1989b; Hershbell 1997: 241–3; Frazier and Leão 2010; Opsomer 2011; Titchener 2014.
75 Brenk 1977: 163.
76 The term is borrowed from Pelling 2002: 154; see also 310.
77 Thus Pelling 2002: 150. Cf. Cim. 2.4 with Kaesser 2004.
78 For Plutarch's reception of Herodotus’ famous story, see Muñoz Gallarte 2010–11; see also Pelling 2011b: 41–3; Leão 2020: 286–8.
79 Cf. Pelling 2002: 143: ‘This, perhaps, is one instance where Plutarch shows less concern to investigate historical truth than we should like.’
80 This is a much discussed topic. Nearly every commentary on a Life or a pair contains a section on the sources which Plutarch used. General studies include Peter 1865; Theander 1951; Scardigli 1979; Desideri 1992a; Schettino 2014.
81 Plutarch's use of inscriptions is discussed in Liddel 2008.
82 E.g. Cicero's Περὶ ὑπατείας (Crass. 13.4, Caes. 8.4, and probably the main source for Cic. 10–23: see Lendle 1967; Pelling 2002: 45–9) and his Cato, as well as Caesar's Anti-Cato (Cic. 39.5, Caes. 3.2 and 54.2–3; see also Ca. Mi. 11.4 and 36.3); the Memoirs of Aratus (Arat. 3.3, 32.5, 33.3, 38.6; Agis/Cleom. 15.4, 37.4–5, 38.4, 40.4: see Stadter 2015a: 163–5) and of Sulla (Sull. 6.8 and 37.1; Mar. 35.4: see Russo 2002); the verses of Solon; and the Letters of Alexander (Hamilton 1969, lix–lx).
83 See esp. Buckler 1992; also Theander 1951: 2–32; Frost 1980: 50–2; Muccioli 2012: 78–89.
84 Plutarch's knowledge of Latin is another much discussed topic. The locus classicus on this issue is Dem. 2.2–4, where Plutarch claims that his familiarity with the subject matter enables him to understand his Latin sources, but that he cannot appreciate the beauty of the Latin style. The communis opinio has it that Plutarch's claims in this passage are largely justified. See, e.g., Rose 1924: 11–19; C. Jones 1971: 81–7; De Rosalia 1991; Moya del Baño and Carrasco Reija 1991; Strobach 1997: 33–9; Setaioli 2007; Stadter 2015b: 133–7 and 2016.
85 Stadter 2014.
86 Pelling 2002: 65–90.
87 The authenticity of the letter (and of the collection as a whole) has long been doubted, but has been convincingly defended by Flacelière 1976: 100–3 and Beck 2002; see also Roskam 2014a: 190–1.
88 This is the hypothesis of Pelling, who distinguishes between three phases in the composition process, viz. the preliminary reading of the sources, the production of a first draft, and the writing of the final version; Pelling 1988: 31–3 and 2011a: 36–42; see also Stadter 1989: xliv–li; Heftner 1995: 12–13; Verdegem 2010b: 76–7. Reading for one Life also provided Plutarch with material for other Lives, and it is likely that several Lives were indeed prepared simultaneously; thus Pelling 2002: 2–11 (on the Lives of Pompey, Cato the Younger, Crassus, Caesar, Brutus, and Antony, as different from the earlier Cicero and Lucullus). See also Nikolaidis 2005: passim; Verdegem 2010b: 93 and 402 (on Alcibiades and Nicias); Moles 2017: 11 (on the pairs Dion–Brutus, Aemilius–Timoleon, and Alexander–Caesar).
89 See De gen. Socr. 575C–D, with Beneker 2012: 81.
90 See Pelling 2002: 118–22 and 2011a: 40 n. 90 (on the Life of Nicias); and Russell 1963 and Ahlrichs 2005 (on the Life of Coriolanus).
91 Occasionally, Plutarch even combines many sources, so that it is no longer possible to trace back larger sections to specific sources. A case in point is the Life of Alexander: see Hamilton 1969: xlix–lxii.
92 This hypothesis (see above, n. 88) is supported by interesting information about the ancients’ working methods that can be found in other authors: see esp. Lucian, Hist. conscr. 48; Ammonius, In Arist. Cat. 4.6–13 Busse; Philoponus, In Arist. Cat. 3.29–4.10 Busse; Olympiodorus, In Arist. Cat. 6.25–35 Busse. See also Avenarius 1956: 85–104; Dorandi 1991: 13 and 2000: 111. On Plutarch's ὑπομνήματα, see also above, Chapter III, §5, with n. 53.
93 Plutarch's adaptation of his source material has often been discussed. Again, Pelling paved the way: Pelling 1988: 33–6, 2002: 1–63 and 91–115, and 2011a: 56–8. See also Moles 1988: 36–8; Stadter 1989: xlviii–li; Larmour 1992: 4165–74; Konrad 1994: xxxix–xli; Heftner 1995: 14–19; Ahlrichs 2005: 41–2 and passim; Binder 2008: 22–3; Verdegem 2010b: 62–3 and 405–9.
94 Cf. Beneker 2012: 59–64.