Thoughts on some of Plutarch's Lives
- bobjones1516
- Sep 14, 2020
- 3 min read
I recently completed Plutarch’s lives of Solon (Athens’ great lawgiver) and Lycurgus (Sparta’s great lawgiver), and even though my reading list doesn’t call for it, I read them with their parallel lives, respectively Numa Pompilius (second King of Rome) and Publius Valerius Poplicola (one of the leaders who created the republic). I figured that would make the most sense because it was Plutarch’s original intention that the lives be read in parallel. I’m just going to do a mini-review of these because they aren’t that long and also because there isn’t a heck of a lot to say about them. They provide interesting background information about these leaders, as well as insights into the moral and philosophical thinking of a Greek aristocrat within the Roman Empire writing in the second century A.D. They’re fairly light, fun, and interesting. Plutarch himself admits they are not perfectly historically accurate, as his main concern was comparing the virtue of each set of men.
If you’re looking to buy these, I for one think it’s important to get an edition which includes both lives AND the comparison between them at the end of the second life. As far as I know, there aren’t any editions that actually set the lives up in parallel. Instead, Greek and Roman lives are typically split up and then divided by era for each. I bought the Penguin Classics editions that seem to have excellent introductory material and footnotes and also include the comparison between the lives in the books containing the Roman lives.
Here are a few thoughts I had about these. First, it was a lot of fun to see Numa called a Platonic Philosopher King since I just read The Republic. Second, it was interesting that Plutarch has no problem with leaders claiming they are backed by the Gods, even if it’s not true, if it keeps the mob in line and helps create social cohesion.
Third, Plutarch is very open minded in his discussions of how societies can best structure their political institutions—more so that I would have expected. He was politically active and familiar with powerful Romans, yet he saw no problem with criticizing or praising political systems that were often different from the dominant Roman one. I doubt that there is any intellectual in the United States with the kind of popularity and access to powerful men which Plutarch apparently enjoyed from his contemporaries (according to the introduction) who has come out or ever would come out and say something like, “You know what, Monarchy works pretty well!”
Fourth, Plutarch’s evaluation of his leaders is more about judging the continuity and stability of the state they create than something like individual utility or happiness that we might expect now. His position (I imagine), and I’d agree, is that there isn’t going to be utility or happiness for much of anyone without a stable government. At the same time, he’s certainly not in favor of dictatorships or unnecessary cruelty or despotic use of power. He praises leaders who are measured and merciful in their use of power.
Finally, the notes claim that even Roman emperors were held to the idea that they should not behave like autocrats. Tyranny was an abomination, and one of the responsibilities of the Roman Emperors was to insure the freedom and dignity of his subjects. That’s definitely something I’d like to read more about.
At any rate, Plutarch is not a hard read and definitely worth checking out. I plan to eventually read the entire set.
Big thank you to https://eclecticlight.co/ for his great series on the art of Plutarch which helped me find these great images.
Comments