Plutarch (c. 45 - c. 127) - ancient Greek writer and historian. Everything written by him can be conditionally divided into two groups: “Moral writings” (“Morals”) and “Comparative biographies”. "Comparative Lives" are biographies of prominent Greeks and Romans, united in pairs, and such people are united, in the fates or characters of which there is, according to Plutarch, a similarity. 46 paired biographies have come down to our time, as well as 4 biographies, the pairs for which have been lost. In the introduction to the biography of Alexander the Great, he quite clearly defines his tasks: “We do not write history, but biographies, and virtue or depravity is not always visible in the most glorious deeds, but often some insignificant deed or joke reveals a person’s character better than battles ... Just as the artist, paying little attention to the rest of the body, achieves similarity through an accurate depiction of the face and expression of the eyes, in which the character of a person manifests itself, so let us be allowed to delve into the study of the signs that reflect the soul of a person, and on the basis of this to compose each biography, leaving others to sing of great deeds and battles ”(Plutarch, Alexander. I).

I. In general, none of the stories about the legislator Lycurgus deserves full credit. About his origin, travels, death, finally, about his laws and political activities, there are conflicting testimonies; but in particular there is little similarity in the stories about the time of his life.

Some consider him a contemporary of Ifit, who, together with the latter, took part in establishing a truce during the Olympic Games, an opinion shared by the philosopher Aristotle, who refers to the inscription on the disc in Olympia, which mentions the name of Lycurgus. Others, adhering to the lists of ancient Spartan kings in chronological calculations, for example, Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, say that he lived shortly before the first Olympiad. Timaeus accepts two Lycurguses who lived in Sparta at different times - tradition ascribes to one of them what was done by both. The eldest of them was almost a contemporary of Homer, or, according to some, even knew Homer personally. Xenophon also refers his life to ancient times, calling him several times a contemporary of the Heraclides. But, probably, by "Heraclides" he understood the most ancient kings, the closest relatives of Hercules, since the later Spartan kings were also called "Heraclides".

In view of the inconsistency of the testimonies of historians, we will try to describe the life of Lycurgus on the basis of those data that least of all contradict each other, and the stories of persons who deserve complete trust ...

II. Of his ancestors, the most famous was Soy, during whose reign the Spartans enslaved the helots and annexed a significant part of Arcadia to their possessions. It is said that Soi, once surrounded by clitoris in an inconvenient and waterless area for battle, offered them to make peace and return the land they had conquered if they allowed him and all his army to drink from the nearest source. The world was made under an oath. Then he gathered an army and promised to give the throne to those who would not drink. But no one could overcome himself, everyone quenched their thirst, only one king, having gone down in front of everyone, only splashed water on himself in the presence of enemies. He retreated, but did not return the land he had conquered, referring to the fact that "not everyone drank."

Despite all the respect for him for his exploits, his family was called not by his name, but by the Eurypontides, by the name of his son - probably Eurypont, currying the people, wanting to win the love of the mob, forfeited part of his rights as an unlimited monarch. As a result of these indulgences, the people raised their heads. The next kings were either hated by the people for their strictness towards them, or became the subject of ridicule for their pliability and weakness of character, therefore anarchy and unrest reigned in Sparta for a long time, the victims of which also fell the king, the father of Lycurgus. Wanting to break up the fight, he was wounded with a kitchen knife and died, leaving the throne to his eldest son, Polydectes.

III. When Polydectes also died, everyone considered Lycurgus to be the legitimate heir to the throne, and, indeed, he ruled the state until he was told that his daughter-in-law was pregnant. Upon learning of this, he announced that if the newborn turned out to be a boy, he would transfer the throne to him, personally he would rule the state as a guardian ...

Lycurgus reigned for only eight months, but managed to earn the deep respect of his fellow citizens. They obeyed him not only because he was the royal guardian and had supreme power in his hands, the majority willingly carried out his orders, obeyed him, out of respect for his moral qualities. But he also had envious people.

V. ... Of the many transformations introduced by Lycurgus, the first and most important was the establishment by him of a council of elders (gerousia), which, restraining royal power within certain limits and at the same time using the same number of votes with it in solving the most important issues, served , according to Plato, and the anchor of salvation, and delivered the state inner peace. Until now, it did not have a solid foundation - either the power of the tsar was strengthened, turning into despotism, then the power of the people in the form of democracy. The power of the elders (gerons) was represented in the middle and, as it were, balanced them, ensuring complete order and its strength. Twenty-eight elders took the side of the king in all those cases when it was necessary to rebuff democratic aspirations. On the other hand, they, if necessary, supported the people in their struggle against despotism. According to Aristotle, the number of elders was such because of the former thirty accomplices of Lycurgus, two refused to participate in his enterprise out of fear. Sphere, on the contrary, says that the number of accomplices of Lycurgus was the same as at first, perhaps because this number is even, obtained by multiplying seven by four, and, like six, equal to the sum of its divisors. In my opinion, there were so many elders so that, together with the kings, there were a total of thirty people.

VI. Lycurgus considered this institution so important that he sent an oracle to Delphi to inquire about it and received from him the following answer, the so-called retra: “Build a temple to Zeus-Gellanius and Athena-Gellania, divide the people into phyla and obs, establish a council of thirty members, together with the chiefs, and let the people gather from time to time between Babika and Knakion. But you must propose laws and collect votes, but the final decision must belong to the people ”... Aristotle says that Knakion is a river, Babika is a bridge. Between these two points, popular meetings took place in Sparta. Neither a portico nor any other building was there: according to Lycurgus, this not only did not make those present smarter, but even harmed them, giving them a reason to chat, boast and amuse themselves with trifles when they admire the statues during the National Assembly, paintings, theatrical porticos, or the ornate ceiling of the Council Building. In the People's Assemblies, no one had the right to express his opinion. The people could only accept or reject the proposals of the elders and kings. Subsequently, when the people began to distort, distort the proposals that were submitted for its discussion, reducing or supplementing them, the kings Polydorus and Theopompus made the following addition in the former retra: “If the people decide badly, the kings and elders should leave,” in other words, they should not have approve his decisions, but generally dissolve the meeting, declare it closed, as it did harm, distorting and distorting their proposals. They even managed to convince the citizens that the oracle ordered so...

VII. Despite the fact that Lycurgus did not transfer state power into one hand, the oligarchy in its pure form still continued to assert itself, therefore, his successors, noticing that it transcends the limit of the possible and becomes unbearable, established to curb it, as Plato puts it, the position ephors. The first ephors, under King Theopompus, were Elates and his comrades, which took place about one hundred and thirty years after Lycurgus. It is said that Theopompus' wife reproached him for giving the children less power than he himself had received. “Yes, smaller,” the king answered, “but more durable” ...

VIII. The second of the transformations of Lycurgus, and the most daring of them, was the division of lands by him. The inequality of fortunes was terrible: the mass of the poor and the poor threatened the state with danger, while wealth was in the hands of a few ... He persuaded fellow citizens to abandon land ownership in favor of the state, make a new division of it and live on equal terms for everyone, so that no one was not higher than the other - giving the palm to one moral qualities. Inequality, the difference between one and the other, was to be expressed only in censure for the bad and praise for the good. Putting his plan into execution, he divided the whole of Laconia into thirty thousand land plots for the inhabitants of the outskirts of Sparta, the perieks, and nine thousand for the district of Sparta itself: that was exactly the number of Spartans who received the land allotment. Some say that Lycurgus allocated only six thousand plots and that three thousand were added later ... Each plot could produce annually seventy coppers of barley for a man and twelve for a woman, in addition, a certain amount of wine and oil, which, according to Lycurgus , was enough to live without getting sick, in good health, and not needing anything else ...

IX. In order to finally destroy all inequality and disproportion, he wanted to divide the movable property, but, seeing that it would be difficult for the owner to lose his property directly, he took a detour and managed to deceive greedy people with his orders. First of all, he withdrew all the gold and silver coins from circulation, ordering the use of one iron coin, but it was also so heavy, so massive at its low cost, that in order to save ten minas at home, it was necessary to build a large pantry and transport them on a cart .. They say that Lycurgus ordered to lower red-hot iron into vinegar. By this he deprived him of hardness, made him worthless, useless in his fragility for making any things out of him. Then Lycurgus expelled all useless, superfluous crafts from Sparta. However, even if he had not expelled them, most of them would still have disappeared by themselves along with the introduction of a new coin, since their belongings would not have found a market for themselves - iron money did not go in other Greek states; they gave nothing for them and laughed at them, as a result of which it was impossible to buy for themselves either foreign goods or luxury goods. For the same reason, foreign ships did not enter Spartan harbors. Neither speakers, nor landlords of hetaerae, nor gold or silversmiths came to Sparta - there was no money there. Thus, luxury, no longer having what could support it, give it a livelihood, gradually disappeared by itself ... Therefore, all the essentials - beds, chairs, tables - Spartan work were considered far better than others ... For all this is to be thanked by the legislator. Craftsmen, who had previously worked in luxury goods, had to use their talent from then on to make essential items.

X. In order to further restrict luxury and completely destroy the feeling of self-interest, Lycurgus established a third, in all respects excellent, institution, joint meals, sissitia, so that citizens would come together to dine at a common table and eat meat or flour dishes prescribed law...

XII. ... Fifteen people sat down at the table every time, sometimes more, sometimes less. Each of the sissites brought monthly a medimn of barley, eight hoi of wine, five minas of cheese, two and a half minas of figs, and then some money to buy other provisions. In addition, everyone who made a sacrifice sent the best part of it to the sissitia. Those who were late due to sacrifice or hunting could dine at home, but others had to be present...

Children often went to sissitia. They were taken there as to a school for the development of the mind. Here they listened to conversations about politics and saw before them mentors in the best sense of the word. They themselves learned jokes and ridicule, never insulting. They were taught to endure jokes themselves, without being offended by others. It was considered a great honor for a Spartan to treat jokes in cold blood...

XIII. The laws of Lycurgus were not written, as one of his “retres” convinces us. Everything that, in his opinion, is quite necessary and important for the happiness and moral perfection of citizens, must enter into their very manners and way of life, in order to remain in them forever, to get used to them. Good will in his eyes made this union stronger than coercion, and this will was formed in young people by education, which made each of them a legislator. As for the little things in life, for example, money matters - things that change depending on the circumstances - he considered it better not to include them in the framework of written laws and unchanging rules, but gave the right to make additions or subtractions to them, depending on circumstances and opinions of smart people. In general, all his concerns as a legislator were directed to education.

The roof in each house could be made with only one ax, the doors with one saw; the use of other instruments was prohibited. Later, Epaminondas, sitting at his table, said, they say that “the thought of treason will not come to mind at such a dinner,” Lycurgus was the first to understand that neither a pampered nor a person accustomed to luxury could live in such a house. Indeed, no one can have so little taste and intelligence that he ordered, for example, to bring beds with silver legs into a simple hut ... and other luxury items ...

The third “retra” of Lycurgus is also known, where he forbids making war with the same enemies, so that, having become accustomed to resisting, they do not become militant ... Lycurgus called his decrees “retres” in order to convince everyone that they were given oracle, are his answers.

XIV. Considering education to be the highest and best task for the legislator, he began to carry out his plans from afar, and first of all turned his attention to marriage and the birth of children. Aristotle is mistaken in saying that he wanted to give a reasonable education to women, but refused this, being unable to fight the too much will that women took for themselves and their power over their husbands. The latter, as a result of frequent trips, had to leave the whole house in their hands and, on this basis, obey them, going over every measure and even calling them "ladies." But Lycurgus paid due attention to the female sex. To strengthen the body, the girls had to run, wrestle, throw a disc, throw spears, so that their future children would be strong in body in the womb of their healthy mother ... A woman was instilled with a noble way of thinking, the consciousness that she, too, could join in honor ...

XVI. The upbringing of the child did not depend on the will of the father - he brought him to the "leshu", a place where the older members of the family sat, who examined the child. If he turned out to be strong and healthy, he would give him to feed his father, allocating him one out of nine thousand plots of land, but weak and ugly children were thrown into the “apothes”, the abyss near Taygetus ... The nurses followed them very carefully and knew perfectly well your business. They didn't swaddle their children... they taught them not to eat a lot, not to be picky about food, not to be afraid in the dark or not to be frightened when left alone, not to be capricious and not to cry. On this basis, even foreigners prescribed Spartan nurses for their children ... All children who had just turned seven years old gathered together and were divided into detachments, “agels”. They lived and ate together and learned to play and spend time with each other. The head of the "agela" was the one who turned out to be smarter than others and more courageous in gymnastic exercises. The rest should follow his example, follow his orders and unquestioningly be punished by him, so this school was a school of obedience. The old people watched the children play and often deliberately brought them to a fight, quarreled with them, and they perfectly recognized the character of each - whether he was brave and whether he would run away from the battlefield. They learned to read and write, but out of necessity, the rest of their upbringing pursued one goal: unquestioning obedience, endurance and the science of winning. Over the years, their upbringing became more severe: they cut their heads bald, taught them to walk barefoot and play together, usually without clothes. In the thirteenth year, they took off their tunic and received one cloak each for a year. Their skin was tanned and rough. They did not take warm baths and never put on anointing oil; only a few days a year they were allowed this luxury ...

XVII. At this age, so-called "admirers" begin to appear among the most worthy young men. The old people paid more attention to them, went to their schools more often for gymnastic exercises, watched if they fought or laughed at each other, and did not do it in passing - they all considered themselves fathers, teachers and mentors of young people, so that the delinquent young a person could not hide anywhere for a minute from reprimand or punishment. In addition, another educator was assigned to them, a “pedon”, from among the best, most worthy citizens, while they themselves chose from each agela always the smartest and most courageous in the so-called “irens” ... The twenty-year-old Iren commanded his subordinates in exemplary battles and supervised the preparations for dinner. They ordered adults to collect firewood, small ones - vegetables. Everything they brought was stolen. Some went to the gardens for this, others sneaked into the sissitia, trying to fully show their cunning and caution ... Whoever was caught stealing was beaten and forced to starve ...

XIX. Children were also taught to express themselves tartly, but in an elegant form and in a few words - a lot.

XXIV. Education continued until adulthood. No one had the right to live the way he wanted, on the contrary, the city was like a camp, where a strictly defined way of life and activities were established, which meant only the good of all. In general, the Spartans considered themselves not belonging to themselves personally, but to the fatherland.

If they were not given other orders, they looked after the children, taught them something useful, or they themselves learned from the old people. One of the enviable advantages that Lycurgus provided to his citizens was that they had a lot of free time - they were strictly forbidden to engage in crafts, but they had no need to accumulate wealth, which involves a lot of work and worries. : no one envied wealth and did not pay attention to it. The land was cultivated by helots, who paid a certain dues.

Along with the money disappeared in Sparta, of course, and all sorts of litigation. There was no more place for self-interest or poverty, instead of them there was an equal distribution of wealth, while the simplicity of life had as its result carelessness. Dances, feasts, dinners, hunting, gymnastics, conversations in public meetings absorbed all their time when they were not on the campaign.

XXVI. Lycurgus, as we said above, first appointed as members of the Gerousia those who took part in his enterprise. Later, he made an order that in the event of the death of one of them, any of the respected citizens over sixty years of age should be elected in his place. In this case, the greatest competition in the world began, a competition where everyone fought to the last strength. It was not about being declared the fastest of the fast, the strongest of the strong, but the best and smartest among the best and smartest people ... The elections took place as follows. When the people had time to gather, the elected ones locked themselves in one room of a neighboring house, where they could not see anyone, just as no one could see them. They could only hear the cries of the assembled people: in this case, as in others, he decided the election by a cry. The elect did not come out all at once, but one by one, by lot, and walked silently through the entire assembly. Those who sat locked in the room had writing boards in their hands, on which they noted only the strength of the cry, not knowing to whom it refers. They only had to write down how much they shouted to the one who was taken out first, second, third, etc. The one who was shouted more often and louder was declared the chosen one...

XXVII. ... With Lycurgus, nothing was aimless, nothing was done without need - all his most important orders were aimed at praising the good and condemning the bad. He filled the city with many role models. They constantly had to deal with, grew up with them, as a result of which for everyone they served as a path and an example to achieve virtue.

On this basis, Lycurgus did not allow him to leave home and travel without a specific purpose, adopting other people's customs and imitating a way of life devoid of order and a state structure that did not have a harmonious system. Moreover, he even evicted foreigners if they came to Sparta without any purpose and lived in secret, but not because, as Thucydides thinks, he was afraid that they would introduce his state system at home or learn something useful, leading to moral perfection, but simply so that they do not become teachers of vice.

XXVIII. ... Only the "cryptia" - if it really was established by Lycurgus, as Aristotle says - could give Plato a reason, by the way, to speak badly both about the political structure of Lycurgus and about his personality. The cryptia was as follows. From time to time, the Spartan government sent a few young men, who stood out for their mental abilities, out of the city for no purpose. They had nothing with them but a short sword and the necessary provisions. During the day they hid, sitting in secret places, and slept, at night they went out onto the road and killed the helots that fell into their hands. Often they ran through the fields and killed the strongest and healthiest of them.

Aristotle even says that the ephors, when they take office, declare war on the helots in order to be able to kill them without becoming criminals. The Spartans treated them always severely and cruelly. By the way, they made them drunk with pure wine and then brought them to the sissies to show the youth what drunkenness can lead to. Further, they were ordered to sing obscene songs and perform obscene, immoral dances, while at the same time forbidding decent ... Anyone who says that in Sparta the free enjoy the highest measure of freedom, and slaves are slaves in the full sense of the word, understands well the difference between them. But it seems to me that the Spartans became so inhuman later, then, especially when they had a terrible earthquake, during which the helots rebelled, they say, together with the Messenians, completely ruined the country and brought the state to the brink of death. I at least hesitate to attribute the establishment of such a terrible custom as cryptia to Lycurgus, considering the gentleness of his character and his justice in everything - qualities attested by the oracle himself.

Plutarch. Lycurgus // Plutarch. Favorites

biographies: In 2 vols. T.1. - M., 1986. - S. 91-125.

Almost all of Plutarch's "Comparative Lives" are built according to approximately the same scheme: it tells about the origin of the hero, his family, family, early years, upbringing, his activities and death. Thus, before us passes the whole life of a person, drawn in a moral and psychological aspect, with the allocation of some aspects that are important for the author's intention.

Very often, moral reflections precede the biography of the hero and are concentrated in the first chapters. Sometimes the biography closes with a detailed conclusion with an appeal to a friend (“”, Ch. 31), and sometimes the end suddenly breaks off (“Alexander”, Ch. 56), as if symbolizing the accidental and untimely death of a brilliant, glorious life.

Some biographies are saturated to the limit with entertaining anecdotes and aphorisms.

One has only to recall the witty answers of the gymnosophists to Alexander the Great (Alexander, ch. 64) cited by Plutarch, the dying words of Demosthenes (ch. 29), the warrior Callicrates in the battle of Plataea (“It is not death that saddens me, but it is bitter to die without having met with enemies ”,“ Aristides”, ch. 17) or Crassus (ch. 30), as well as a conversation brutus with a ghost before the decisive battle ("Caesar", ch. 69), words Caesar about the deceased cicero(“Cicero”, ch. 49) or the words about the honesty of the commander, addressed by Aristides to Themistocles (“Aristides”, ch. 24).

Bust of Plutarch in his hometown, Chaeronea

In Comparative Lives, Plutarch seeks to highlight the most striking features in the character of not only a person, but even an entire people. So, he emphasizes the ability of Alcibiades to adapt to any circumstances (“Alcibiades”, ch. 23), the nobility of the young Demetrius, who saved Mithridates with his resourcefulness (“Demetrius”, ch. 4), the passionate rivalry of the Greeks after the battle of Plataea, when they were ready kill each other for trophies, and then generously gave them to the citizens of Plataea ("Aristides", ch. 20), the spontaneous violence of the Roman crowd burying Caesar ("Brutus", ch. 20).

Plutarch is a master of psychological details, memorable and often even symbolic. He appreciates the inner beauty of a person who is unhappy, tortured and has lost all his external charm (“Anthony”, ch. 27 and 28 about Cleopatra). The whole love story of Cleopatra and Antony is full of these amazingly subtle observations (for example, ch. 67, 78, 80, 81). And how symbolic is the burning of the murdered Pompey at the stake of rotten boats or the gesture of Caesar, who took the ring from the messenger with the head of Pompey, but turned away from him (“Pompey”, ch. 80). Or the following details: Caesar swims without letting go of notebooks (“Caesar”, ch. 49); he himself unclenched the fingers that grabbed the dagger, seeing that Brutus was killing him (“Brutus”, ch. 17), and Cicero himself stretched his neck under the blow of the sword, and he, the great writer, was cut off not only his head, but also his hands (“Cicero ”, Ch. 48).

Plutarch is a sharp observer, but in his Comparative Lives he is able to sketch with powerful strokes a broad tragic canvas. Such, for example, are the death of Antony in the tomb of Cleopatra (“Antony”, ch. 76-77), the grief of the queen (ibid., ch. 82-83), her suicide in the luxurious robes of the mistress of Egypt (ibid., ch. 85) or the death of Caesar (his murderers in a frenzy began to strike each other; "Caesar", ch. 66) and Demosthenes, who took the poison with dignity ("Demosthenes", ch. 29). Plutarch does not forget to assure readers that the tragic events are prepared by the gods, because he has so many omens (for example, Anthony assumes his death, since the god Dionysus with his retinue left him; "Anthony", ch. 75), prophetic fortune-telling (" Caesar", ch. 63), miraculous signs ("Caesar", ch. 69 - the appearance of a comet) and actions ("Alexander", ch. 27: ravens lead the troops of the Greeks).

The whole tragedy of human life is depicted in the biographies of Plutarch as a result of the vicissitudes and, at the same time, the laws of fate. So, the Great Pompey is buried by two people - his old soldier and a slave released to freedom ("Pompey", ch. 80). Sometimes it is even said that a person going to death is guided not by reason, but by a demon (ibid., ch. 76). Fate in Plutarch laughs at a man, and the great perish at the hands of nothingness (the death of Pompey depends on a eunuch, a teacher of rhetoric and a hired soldier; ibid., ch. 77); from the one whom they themselves once saved (Cicero kills the tribune, whom he once defended; Cicero, ch. 48); the Parthians carry the dead Crassus in a wagon train along with harlots and hetaerae, and, as if parodying the triumphal procession of the Roman commander, a captured soldier dressed as Crassus rides in front of this wagon train (“Crassus”, ch. 32). Antony, boasting, put out the head and hands of the murdered Cicero, but the Romans saw in this atrocity "the image of Antony's soul" ("Cicero", ch. 49). That is why in Plutarch's Comparative Lives, the death of a person, directed by fate, is completely natural, as is the retribution of fate, which repays an evil deed (Crassus, ch. 33, Pompey, ch. 80, Antony, ch. 81, Cicero, chapter 49, Demosthenes, chapter 31, which directly speaks of Justice avenging Demosthenes).

Plutarch has not only the ability to understand and portray life in the aspect of heroic harsh and gloomy pathos, he knows how to give his canvases the radiance and brilliance of luxurious decorativeness: for example, Cleopatra's swimming on Cydnus amid the intoxication of love, refinement of feelings and an abundance of happiness ("Anthony", ch. 26) or the splendor of the Roman general's triumph (" Emilius Pavel", ch. 32-34).

However, Plutarch not only uses the techniques of decorative painting in his Comparative Lives. He understands (like many writers of the Hellenistic-Roman world, such as Polybius, Lucian) the very life of a person as a kind of theatrical performance, when, at the behest of Fate or Chance, bloody dramas and funny comedies are played out. So, Plutarch emphasizes that the murder of Caesar took place next to the statue of Pompey, who was once killed because of rivalry with Caesar ("Caesar", ch. 66). Plutarch’s Crassus dies helplessly and even almost by accident, ironically becoming a participant in a genuine theatrical performance: Crassus’s head is thrown onto the stage during the production of Euripides’ Bacchantes, and it is perceived by everyone as the head of Prince Pentheus, torn to pieces by the Bacchantes (Crassus, ch. 33 ). Demosthenes in Plutarch has a dream before his death in which he competes with his pursuer Archius in a tragic game. How Plutarch meaningfully conveys the subconscious feeling of a person who has lost his life's work: "And although he (Demosthenes) plays beautifully and the whole theater is on his side, because of the poverty and poverty of the production, the victory goes to the enemy" ("Demosthenes", ch. 29). “Fate and History”, according to the author, transfer the action “from the comic scene to the tragic one” (“Demetrius, ch. 28), and Plutarch accompanies the completion of one biography and the transition to another with the following remark: “So, the Macedonian drama has been played, it’s time to stage on the Roman stage” (ibid., ch. 53).

- one of the heroes of Plutarch's "Comparative Lives"

Thus, in Comparative Lives the story is told by an intelligent and skillful narrator, not a moralist who bothers the reader, but a kind and condescending mentor who does not burden his listener with deep learning, but seeks to capture him with expressiveness and amusingness, a sharp word, an anecdote told in time, psychological details, colorfulness and decorative presentation. It is worth adding that Plutarch's style is distinguished by noble restraint. The author does not fall into strict atticism and, as if focusing on the living diversity of the linguistic element, at the same time does not plunge into it recklessly. In this regard, a small sketch by Plutarch "Comparison of Aristophanes and Menander”, where the writer's sympathy for Menander's style is clearly felt. The words addressed to this beloved Hellenistic comedian can also be attributed to Plutarch himself: “Whatever passion, whatever character, style it expresses and to whatever diverse persons it may be applied, it always remains one and retains its homogeneity, despite the fact that that uses the most common and current words, those words that are in the language of everyone, ”and this style, being homogeneous,“ nonetheless fits any character, any mood, any age.

Current page: 1 (the book has 145 pages in total)

Font:

100% +

Plutarch
Comparative biographies

Plutarch and his Comparative Lives

"Genus scripturae leve et non satis dignum"“The genre is lightweight and not respectable enough,” summed up Cornelius Nepos, a Roman writer of the 1st century BC. e., the attitude of their compatriots (and not only them alone) to the genre of biography. And the author of these words, although he is the compiler of the biographical collection "On Famous Men", essentially does not argue with this opinion, justifying his choice of genre solely by curiosity about the little things in the life of different peoples. Perhaps the attitude of the ancients to the genre of biography would not have changed, which means that even fewer examples of it would have survived to this day if not for Plutarch.

Against the background of many ancient writers and poets, whose life is replete with dramatic and tragic events, and the recognition of readers does not always come during their lifetime, Plutarch's human and literary fate was surprisingly successful. Although the ancient tradition has not preserved for us any of his biographies, Plutarch himself writes so willingly and much about himself, his family and the events of his life that his biography can be easily restored from his own works *.

To understand the writer's work, one must have a very good idea of ​​where and when he lived. So, Plutarch lived in the I-II centuries AD. e., in the final era of ancient Greek literature, which is commonly called the "period of Roman rule." Both the high classics, with its great playwrights, orators, and historians, and the whimsical Hellenism, with its learned experimental poets and original philosophers, have been left far behind. Of course, in the Roman period, Greek literature also had its representatives (Arrian, Appian, Josephus Flavius, Dio Cassius, Dio Chrysostomos, etc.), but neither they themselves nor their descendants can put them on a par with Sophocles, Thucydides or Callimachus, and indeed Literature is losing its position as a "mentor of life" and performs mainly decorative and entertaining functions. Against this background, the figure of our writer emerges even brighter.

So, Plutarch was born around 46 AD. e. in the Boeotian city of Chaeronea, once infamous for the events of 338 BC. e., when Greece, under the onslaught of the military power of Philip of Macedon, lost its independence. By the time of Plutarch, Chaeronea had turned into a provincial town, and Greece itself, even earlier, into the Roman province of Achaia, to which the Romans were somewhat milder than other conquered countries, paying tribute to its high culture, which did not prevent them from calling the population of Greece a disparaging word. Graeculi- "buckwheat". In this town Plutarch lived almost all his life. He announces his attachment to his native city with a light joke in the introduction to the biography of Demosthenes, and hardly a single book or article about the Chaeronean writer does without these words - they are so sincere and attractive: “True, who undertook historical research, for which it is required to re-read not only easily accessible, domestic, but also many foreign works scattered in foreign lands, this really needs a “famous and glorious city”, enlightened and populous: only there, having all kinds of books in abundance ... will he be able to publish his work with the smallest number errors and gaps. As for me, I live in a small town and, in order not to make it even smaller, I am going to live in it further ... "(Translated by E. Yountz). These words were spoken in the very era when Greek writers chose major cultural centers, primarily Rome or Athens, as their place of residence, or led the life of touring sophists, traveling through different cities of the vast Roman Empire. Of course, Plutarch, with his curiosity, breadth of interests and lively character, could not sit at home all his life: he visited many cities in Greece, twice was in Rome, visited Alexandria; in connection with his scientific research, he needed good libraries, visiting places of historical events and ancient monuments. It is all the more remarkable that he retained his devotion to Chaeronea and spent most of his life in her.

From the writings of Plutarch himself, we learn that his family belonged to the wealthy circles of the city and that his property status was not luxurious, but stable. At home, he received the grammatical, rhetorical and musical education usual for representatives of his circle, and to complete it he went to Athens, which was considered a cultural and educational center even in the time of Plutarch. There, under the guidance of the philosopher of the academic school Ammonius, he improved in rhetoric, philosophy, natural sciences and mathematics. We do not know how long Plutarch stayed in Athens, we only know that he witnessed the visit of the Roman emperor Nero to Greece in 66 and the illusory "liberation" of this province*.

Upon returning to Chaeronea, Plutarch takes an active part in its public life, reviving not only in his works, but also by personal example, the classical ideal of polis ethics, which prescribes practical participation in the life of his native city to every citizen. While still a young man, on behalf of the Chaeroneans, he went to the proconsul of the province of Achaia, and this event was the beginning of that connection with Rome, which turned out to be important both for the life of Plutarch and for his literary activity. In Rome itself, as already mentioned, Plutarch visited twice, and the first time - as an ambassador from Chaeronea on some state affairs. There he gives public lectures, participates in philosophical discussions, strikes up friendships with some educated and influential Romans. To one of them, Quintus Sosius Senecion, a friend of Emperor Trajan, he later devoted many of his works (including Comparative Biographies). Apparently, Plutarch was also well received at the imperial court: Trajan honored him with the title of consular and ordered the ruler of Achaia to resort to the advice of Plutarch in doubtful cases. It is possible that under Hadrian he himself was procurator of Achaia for three years.

It must be said that for all his loyalty to Rome, which distinguished him from other opposition-minded writers, Plutarch had no political illusions and clearly saw the essence of the real relationship between Greece and Rome: it was he who owns the famous expression about “the Roman boot brought over the head of every Greek” ("Instructions to a statesman", 17). That is why Plutarch tried to turn all his influence to the benefit of his native city and Greece as a whole. The expression of this influence was the acquisition of Roman citizenship by him, which we learn, contrary to custom, not from Plutarch's own writings, but from the inscription about the installation of the statue of the emperor Hadrian who came to power, made under the direction of the priest Mestria Plutarch. The name Mestrius was given to Plutarch when receiving Roman citizenship: the fact is that the assignment of Roman citizenship was considered as an adaptation of one of the Roman clans and was accompanied by the assignment of the appropriate generic name to the adaptable. Plutarch, thus, became a representative of the Mestrian family, to which his Roman friend Lucius Mestrius Florus belonged. Like Senecion, he often appears as a character in the literary works of Plutarch. It is extremely characteristic of Plutarch's civic position that this writer, who so willingly tells about other, much less significant, events of his life, nowhere mentions that he became a Roman citizen: for himself, for readers and for posterity, he wants to remain only a resident of Chaeronea, for the benefit of which all his thoughts were directed.

In his mature years, Plutarch gathers young people in his house and, teaching his own sons, creates a kind of “private academy”, in which he plays the role of mentor and lecturer. At the age of fifty, he becomes the priest of Apollo at Delphi, that most famous sanctuary of former times, without whose advice no important business, either public or private, was once undertaken, and which in the era of Plutarch was rapidly losing its authority. Discharging the duties of a priest, Plutarch tries to return the sanctuary and the oracle to its former significance. The respect he earned from his countrymen while in office is evidenced by the inscription on the plinth of a statue found at Delphi in 1877:

He reluctantly speaks about the years of extreme old age that led Plutarch into big politics, and we learn about them from late and not always reliable sources. The exact date of Plutarch's death is unknown, he probably died after 120.

Plutarch was a very prolific writer: more than 150 of his works have come down to us, but antiquity knew twice as much!

The entire vast literary heritage of Plutarch falls into two groups: the so-called "Moral writings" (Moralia) and "Biographies". We will touch on the first group only because acquaintance with it helps to understand the personality of Plutarch and the philosophical and ethical basis of his biographical cycle.

The breadth of Plutarch's interests and the incredible thematic diversity of his Moral Writings make even a cursory review of them a very difficult task: apart from works whose authorship is considered doubtful, this part of Plutarch's legacy is more than 100 works. In terms of literary form, they are dialogues, diatribes*, letters, and collections of materials. At the same time, only to a limited number of treatises can we apply the term Moralia in the exact sense. These are early works about the influence on human actions of such forces as valor, virtue, on the one hand, and the will of fate, chance on the other (“On the happiness or valor of Alexander the Great”, “On the happiness of the Romans”), diatribes, letters and dialogues about family virtues (“On brotherly affection”, “On love for children”, “Marriage instructions”, “On love”), as well as messages of consolation (for example, “Consolation to the Wife”, which Plutarch wrote after receiving the news of death daughters). The "Morals" in the proper sense adjoins a number of treatises in which Plutarch will explain his position in relation to various ethical teachings. Like most late antique thinkers, Plutarch was not an original philosopher, the founder of a new philosophical school, but rather leaned towards eclecticism, preferring one direction and arguing with others. Thus, numerous works directed against the Epicureans (“On the impossibility of living happily following Epicurus”, “Is the saying: “Live imperceptibly”” correct?) and the Stoics (“On General Concepts”, “On the Contradictions of the Stoics”) have a polemical character. Often, Plutarch sets out his philosophical preferences in the form of interpretations of the works of Plato, whose followers he considered himself to be, or in the form of treatises on individual philosophical problems (“Plato's researches”). Essential for understanding Plutarch's worldview are the so-called "Delphic Dialogues" - works in which the writer sets out his idea of ​​the world and its laws, about the divine and demonic forces operating in it - as well as the treatise "On Isis and Osiris", in which Plutarch makes an attempt to connect his own thoughts about the deity and the world with Egyptian myths and cults.

Along with these writings, Morals include works that, from a modern point of view, are not related to ethical problems. They are devoted to mathematics, astronomy, physics, medicine, music and philology. Also, this part of Plutarch's legacy includes works in the form of descriptions of feasts, touching on issues of literature, history, natural science, grammar, ethics, aesthetics and others (“Table Talks” in nine books and “The Feast of the Seven Wise Men” *), a collection of short stories “On Valor women", which is very characteristic of the personality of Plutarch, as well as works of a historical and antiquarian nature (for example, "The Ancient Customs of the Spartans"), which subsequently served as material for the "Biographies", and, finally, no less important for understanding the latest writings on political topics (" Political instructions”, “Should old people participate in state activities”, “On the monarchy, democracy and oligarchy”).

It goes without saying that such an imposing creative heritage, even without the Comparative Lives, could glorify the Chaeronean writer through the ages, but European readers, starting from the Renaissance, he became known precisely and par excellence as the author of a biographical cycle. As for the Morals, while remaining an object of attention mainly for specialists in the field of ancient culture, they are nevertheless absolutely necessary for understanding the philosophical, ethical and political views of Plutarch the biographer.

As already mentioned, Plutarch was an eclecticist, and in this direction he was pushed both by the prevailing mentality of the era, which allowed the most amazing mixtures of ideas, and by his own flexibility and susceptibility. His worldview bizarrely combined elements of the ethical systems of both the Platonists and Peripatetics he revered, and the Epicureans and Stoics he disputed, whose teachings he in some cases expounds in a revised form. According to Plutarch, a person, together with his family and the people for whom he is responsible, has ethical obligations in relation to two systems: to his native city, in which he recognizes himself as the heir to the former Hellenic greatness, and to a much more universal entity - the Roman Empire. (in both cases, he himself was a model of impeccable fulfillment of these obligations). While most Greek writers treat Rome coldly and indifferently, Plutarch presents the Roman Empire as a synthesis of two principles - Greek and Roman, and the most striking expression of this conviction is the basic principle of the construction of the Comparative Lives, with their constant method of comparing the prominent figures of both peoples.

From the point of view of a person’s dual obligation to his native city and to the Roman Empire, Plutarch analyzes the main ethical problems: self-education, duties towards relatives, relationships with his wife, friends, etc. For Plutarch, virtue is something that can be taught Therefore, not only the "Moral writings" are dotted with moral prescriptions and advice, but the "Biographies" are imbued with didacticism. At the same time, he is very far from idealization, from the desire to make his heroes walking examples of pure virtue: here common sense and good-natured indulgence help him.

In general, a feature of Plutarch's ethics is a friendly and condescending attitude towards people. The term "philanthropy", appearing in Greek literature from the 4th century BC. e., it is with him that it reaches the fullness of its meaning. For Plutarch, this concept includes a friendly attitude towards people, based on an understanding of their inherent weaknesses and needs, and an awareness of the need for support and effective assistance to the poor and weak, and a sense of civic solidarity, and kindness, and spiritual sensitivity, and even just politeness.

Plutarch's family ideal is based on a peculiar and almost exclusive attitude towards women in ancient Greece. He is very far from the neglect of the intellectual possibilities of woman, so common in archaic and classical Greece, and from the encouragement of emancipation of the type complained of by Juvenal and other Roman writers. Plutarch sees in a woman an ally and girlfriend of her husband, who is by no means inferior to him, but has her own range of interests and responsibilities. It is curious that in some cases Plutarch addresses his works specifically to women. Finally, it was quite unusual for the ideas about the traditional Greek way of life to transfer all the poetry of love precisely to the sphere of family relations. Hence - Plutarch's attention to the marriage customs of Sparta, and the fact that, talking about Menander, he emphasizes the role of love experiences in his comedies, and, of course, the fact that, speaking about the origin of the heroes of his "Comparative Lives", he responds with such respect about their mothers, wives and daughters (cf. Gaius Marcius, Caesar, Brothers Gracchi, Poplicola).

The transition from philosophical and ethical treatises to literary biography is apparently explained by the fact that the framework of the former became narrow for Plutarch's literary talent, and he turned to the search for other artistic forms to embody his ethical ideas and his picture of the world. This has already happened in ancient literature: the Stoic philosopher Seneca, the author of treatises and moral messages, whose literary gift also pushed him to search for new forms, at a certain moment chose the dramatic genre as an illustration of the Stoic doctrine and, through powerful tragic images, demonstrated the perniciousness of human passions. Both great writers understood that the impact of artistic images is much stronger than direct instructions and exhortations.

The chronology of Plutarch's writings has not yet been fully elucidated, but it is obvious that he turned to the biographical genre as a well-established writer who won a name for himself with his ethical and philosophical writings. For Greek literature, the biographical genre was a relatively new phenomenon: if the Homeric poems - the first examples of the epic - date back to the 8th century BC. e., the first literary biographies appear only in the 4th century BC. e., during a period of acute social crisis and the strengthening of individualistic tendencies in art in general and in literature in particular. It was the biography of an individual - in contrast to the historiography that had taken root in Greek literature a century earlier - that became one of the signs of a new era - the Hellenistic one. Unfortunately, samples of the Hellenistic biography have been preserved at best in the form of fragments, and at worst only in the form of titles of lost works, but even from them we can get an idea of ​​who was in the focus of interest of the most ancient biographers; they were mostly monarchs or professional cultural figures - philosophers, poets, musicians*. The rapprochement of these two types is based on the eternal interest of ordinary people not so much in the activities as in the private life of celebrities, sometimes causing a variety of emotions - from admiration to contempt. Therefore, the spirit of sensation and curiosity dominated the entire Hellenistic biography, stimulating the emergence of various kinds of legends and even gossip. In the future, Greek biography basically remained true to the given direction, subsequently passing the baton to Rome. It is enough to take a quick look at the list of biographical collections of late antiquity to understand that this genre did not disdain anyone: from very respectable miracle-working philosophers (like Pythagoras and Apollonius of Tyana) to harlots, eccentrics (like the legendary misanthrope Timon) and even robbers! 1
Cm.: Averintsev S. S. Plutarch and ancient biography. M., Nauka, 1973. S. 165–174.

Even if just “great” people (Pericles, Alexander the Great) fell into the field of view of late antique biographers, they also tried to make heroes of piquant anecdotes or funny stories out of them. This is the general trend of the genre. Of course, not all biographers are the same, and we do not know all the representatives of this genre. There were also quite serious authors who wrote not only to amuse their readers with newly minted gossip or court scandal. Among them is Plutarch's younger contemporary, the Roman writer Suetonius, author of the famous Lives of the Twelve Caesars: in his striving for objectivity, he turns each of the twelve biographies into a catalog of the virtues and vices of the corresponding character, the object of his attention is primarily a fact, not gossip or fiction * . But for him, as we see, they are primarily interested in caesars, that is, monarchs, the bearers of sole power. In this respect, Suetonius is wholly within the framework of the traditional Greco-Roman biography.

As for Plutarch, before the famous "Comparative Lives", he became the author of much less well-known biographical cycles, which have come down to us only in the form of separate biographies *. In these early biographies, our writer also could not get away from traditional themes, making his heroes the Roman Caesars from Augustus to Vitellius, the Eastern despot Artaxerxes, several Greek poets and the philosopher Crates.

The situation is completely different with the theme of the "Comparative Lives", and it was in the selection of heroes, in the first place, that Plutarch's innovation manifested itself. 2
There. S. 176 sl.

In this cycle, as in the Moral Writings, the author’s moralizing and didactic attitude was reflected: “Virtue by its deeds immediately puts people in such a mood that they both admire its deeds and wish to imitate those who have committed them ... itself by its very action and immediately instills in us the desire to act,” he writes in the introduction to the biography of Pericles (“Pericles”, 1–2. Translated by S. Sobolevsky). For the same reason, Plutarch, with all his scholarship, a penchant for antiquarian studies and admiring antiquities, prefers the biographical genre over historiography, which he also unequivocally states: “We do not write history, but biographies, and it is not always visible in the most glorious deeds. virtue or vice, but often some insignificant act, word or joke reveals the character of a person better than battles in which tens of thousands die, leading huge armies or sieges of cities. (“Alexander”, 1. Translated by M. Botvinnik and I. Perelmuter).

So, in his heroes, Plutarch is looking primarily for role models, and in their actions - examples of acts that should be guided by, or, conversely, those that should be avoided. It goes without saying that among them we find almost exclusively statesmen, and among the Greek husbands representatives of the polis classics predominate, and among the Romans - the heroes of the era of civil wars; these are outstanding personalities who create and change the course of the historical process. If in historiography a person's life is woven into a chain of historical events, then in Plutarch's biographies historical events are concentrated around a significant personality.

It may seem strange to a modern reader that this collection does not contain people of creative professions, representatives of culture, from whom, it would seem, one can also learn a lot. But it is necessary to take into account the diametrically opposite view of these representatives of society in ancient times and today: almost throughout antiquity, there is a disdain for professionalism, which was considered unworthy of a free person, and for people engaged in paid work, whether it be craft or art (by the way, in In Greek, these concepts were denoted by one word). Here Plutarch is no exception: “Not a single young man, noble and gifted, looking at Zeus in Pis, wants to become Phidias, or, looking at Hera in Argos, Polykleitos, as well as Anacreon, or Philemon, or Archilochus, deceived by their writings ; if a work gives pleasure, it does not yet follow that its author deserves imitation” (“Pericles”, 2. Translated by S. Sobolevsky). Poets, musicians and other cultural figures, whose lives were the property of Hellenistic biography, do not find a place among the exemplary heroes of the Comparative Lives. Even the outstanding orators Demosthenes and Cicero are considered by Plutarch as political figures, the biographer deliberately keeps silent about their literary work*.

So, going beyond the circle of heroes traditional for this genre, Plutarch found an original and previously unused method of pairwise grouping of characters in Greek and Roman history, and, as is natural for Plutarch, the formal find was put at the service of the important idea of ​​​​glorifying the Greco-Roman past and the rapprochement of the two greatest peoples in the Roman Empire. The writer wanted to show his compatriots, who were in opposition to Rome, that the Romans were not savages, and to remind the latter, in turn, of the greatness and dignity of those whom they sometimes disparagingly called "buckwheat". As a result, Plutarch got a complete cycle of 46 biographies, including 21 dyads (pairs) and one tetrad (a combination of 4 biographies: the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi - Agis and Cleomenes). Almost all dyads are accompanied by a general introduction, emphasizing the similarities of the characters, and a final juxtaposition, in which the emphasis, as a rule, is on their differences.

The criteria for combining heroes into pairs are different and do not always lie on the surface - this may be the similarity of characters or psychological types, the comparability of the historical role, the commonality of life situations. So, for Theseus and Romulus, the main criterion was the similarity of the historical role of "the founder of brilliant, famous Athens" and the father of "invincible, glorified Rome", but, in addition, a dark, semi-divine origin, a combination of physical strength with an outstanding mind, difficulties in relationships with relatives and fellow citizens and even kidnappings of women. The similarity of Numa and Lycurgus is expressed in their common virtues: intelligence, piety, the ability to manage, educate others and inspire them with the idea that both received the laws they gave exclusively from the hands of the gods. Solon and Poplicola are united on the grounds that the life of the second turned out to be the practical realization of the ideal that Solon formulated in his poems and in his famous answer to Croesus.

Quite unexpected, at first glance, seems to be a comparison of the stern, straightforward and even rude Roman Coriolanus with the refined, educated and, at the same time, far from exemplary in moral terms, the Greek Alcibiades: here Plutarch starts from the similarity of life situations, showing how two completely dissimilar, albeit richly gifted by nature of character, due to exorbitant ambition, they came to treason to the fatherland. On the same spectacular contrast, shaded by partial similarities, the dyad of Aristides - Mark Cato, as well as Philopemen - Titus Flamininus and Lysander - Sulla is built.

The generals Nikias and Crassus are paired as participants in tragic events (the Sicilian and Parthian catastrophes), and only in this context are they of interest to Plutarch. The same typological similarity of situations is demonstrated by the biographies of Sertorius and Eumenes: both, being talented commanders, lost their homeland and became victims of a conspiracy on the part of those with whom they defeated the enemy. But Cimon and Lucullus are united, rather, by the similarity of characters: both are warlike in the fight against enemies, but peaceful in the civil field, both are related by the breadth of nature and the extravagance with which they set feasts and helped friends.

Adventurism and volatility of fate make Pyrrhus related to Gaius Marius, and severe inflexibility and devotion to obsolete foundations - Focion and Cato the Younger. The connection of Alexander and Caesar does not require special explanations at all, it seems so natural; once again this is confirmed by the anecdote retold by Plutarch about how Caesar, reading at his leisure about the deeds of Alexander, shed a tear, and when surprised friends asked him about the reason, he answered: “Does it really seem to you an insufficient reason for sadness that at my age Alexander already ruled so many peoples, and I still have not done anything remarkable!” (“Caesar”, 11. Translated by K. Lampsakov and G. Stratanovsky).

The motivation for the Dion-Brutus parallel seems somewhat unusual (one was a student of Plato himself, and the other was brought up on Plato's sayings), but it also becomes clear if we recall that Plutarch himself considered himself a follower of this philosopher; in addition, the author credits both heroes with hatred of tyrants; finally, another coincidence gives this dyad a tragic connotation: the deity announced untimely death to both Dion and Brutus.

In some cases, the commonality of characters is complemented by the similarity of situations and destinies, and then the biographical parallelism turns out to be, as it were, multilevel. Such is the pair of Demosthenes - Cicero, whom “the deity, it seems, from the very beginning sculpted according to one model: not only did it give their character many similar features, such as, for example, ambition and devotion to civil liberties, cowardice in the face of wars and dangers, but mixed and there are many coincidences. It is difficult to find two other speakers who, being simple and ignorant people, achieved fame and power, entered into a struggle with kings and tyrants, lost their daughters, were expelled from their fatherland, but returned with honors, fled again, but were captured by enemies and said goodbye to life at the same time when the freedom of their fellow citizens died out ”(“ Demosthenes ”, 3. Translated by E. Yountz).

Finally, the tetrad Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi - Agis - Cleomenes unites these four heroes as "demagogues, and noble ones at that": having won the love of their fellow citizens, they seemed to be ashamed to remain in their debt and constantly strived with their good undertakings to surpass the honors shown to them; but in trying to restore a just form of government, they incurred the hatred of influential people who did not want to part with their privileges. Thus, here, too, there is both a similarity of psychological types and a commonality of the political situation in Rome and Sparta.

The parallel arrangement of the biographies of Greek and Roman figures was, according to the apt expression of S. S. Averintsev 3
Averintsev S. S. Plutarch and ancient biography. S. 229.

, "an act of cultural diplomacy" by the writer and citizen of Chaeronea, who, as we remember, in his social activities has repeatedly played the role of an intermediary between his native city and Rome. But it is impossible not to notice that between the heroes of each pair there is a kind of competition, which is a reflection in miniature of that grandiose competition that Greece and Rome have waged on the arena of history since Rome began to recognize itself as the successor and rival of Greece*. The superiority of the Greeks in the field of education and spiritual culture was recognized by the Romans themselves, whose best representatives traveled to Athens to improve their philosophy, and to Rhodes to hone their oratorical skills. This opinion, reinforced by the statements of many writers and poets, found its most striking expression in Horace:

Greece, taken prisoner, captivated the proud winners.

As for the Romans, both they themselves and the Greeks recognized their priority in the ability to manage their state and other peoples. It was all the more important for the Greek Plutarch to prove that in politics, as well as in the art of war, his compatriots also have something to be proud of. In addition, as a follower of Plato, Plutarch considers political art to be one of the components of philosophical education, and state activity is the most worthy sphere of its application. In this case, all the achievements of the Romans in this area are nothing but the result of the educational system developed by the Greeks. It is no coincidence, therefore, that Plutarch, wherever possible, emphasizes this connection: Numa is portrayed as a student of Pythagoras, Poplicola's life turns out to be the realization of the ideals of Solon, and Brutus owes all the best in himself to Plato. Thus, a philosophical basis is provided for the idea of ​​the identity of Greco-Roman valor with the spiritual priority of the Greeks.

100 Great Books Demin Valery Nikitich

11. PLUTARCH "COMPARATIVE LIVES"

11. PLUTARCH

"COMPARATIVE LIVES"

The name of this ancient Greek writer has long become a household name. There is a series of books with titles: “School Plutarch”, “New Plutarch”, etc. This is when it comes to biographies of wonderful people, chosen according to some principle, and the whole cycle is connected by some kind of core idea. Of course, most often this idea is “good deeds that should remain in the memory of grateful descendants.”

Plutarch of Chaeronea (Boeotia) was born in 46 and came from an old wealthy family. After studying in Athens, he was the high priest of the Pythian Apollo in Delphi. During his travels, including to Egypt and Italy, sometimes with a political mission entrusted to him, he met and communicated with prominent people of his time (among others with the emperors Trojan and Hadrian). In a friendly circle, he indulged in refined communication, led conversations on a variety of topics, including scientific ones. This rich spiritual life is reflected in his writings. From teaching his own children, as well as the children of his wealthy fellow citizens, a kind of private academy arose, in which Plutarch not only taught, but also engaged in creativity. Of the huge literary heritage of Plutarch (250 works), only a certain part of it has survived - about one third.

In Russian, "Comparative Biographies" occupy more than 1300 pages of dense text. The content covers the entire history of the ancient world up to the 2nd century AD. The author found such lively and bright colors that, on the whole, an unusually realistic picture is created, which is not found in any special historical work.

"Comparative Lives" are biographies of prominent historical figures, Greeks and Romans, grouped in pairs, so that in each pair one biography of a Greek, the other of a Roman; each pair is represented by persons between whom there are similarities in some respect, after the biography of each pair, a small summary is given - “Comparison”, where their similarities are indicated. Twenty-three pairs of such biographies have come down to us; in four of them there are no "Comparisons". In addition to these 46 paired (parallel) biographies, there are 4 more separate biographies. Thus, there are 50 biographies in total. Some biographies have not been preserved. In our editions, the biographies of Greek generals and statesmen are arranged for the most part (but not completely) in chronological order; but this order does not correspond to that in which they were published by Plutarch. These biographies are as follows:

1. Theseus and Romulus.

2. Lycurgus and Numa.

3. Solon and Poplicola.

4. Themistocles and Camillus.

5. Pericles and Fabius Maximus.

6. Gaius Marcius Coriolanus and Alcibiades.

7. Aemilius Paul and Timoleon.

8. Pelopidas and Marcellus.

9. Aristides and Cato the Elder.

10. Philopemen and Titus.

11. Pyrrhus and Marius.

12. Lysand and Sulla.

13. Cimon and Lucullus.

14. Nicias and Krase.

15. Sertorius and Eumenes.

16. Agesilaus and Pompeii.

17. Alexander and Caesar.

18. Phocion and Cato the Younger.

19-20. Agida and Cleomenes and Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi.

21. Demosthenes and Cicero.

22. Demetrius and Anthony.

23. Dion and Brutus.

Separate 4 biographies: Artaxerxes, Arat, Galba, Otho.

All biographies are of great importance for historians: many writers from whom Plutarch borrowed information are not known to us, so that in some cases he remains our only source. But Plutarch has many inaccuracies. However, for himself, when compiling a biography, the main goal was not history, but morality: the faces he described were supposed to serve as illustrations of moral principles, partly those that should be imitated, partly those that should be avoided. Plutarch himself defined his attitude to history in the introduction to the biography of Alexander:

We do not write history, but biographies, and virtue or vice is not always visible in the most glorious deeds, but often some insignificant deed, word or joke reveals a person’s character better than a battle with tens of thousands of dead, huge armies and sieges of cities. Therefore, just as painters depict the resemblance in the face, and in its features, in which the character is expressed, they care very little about the rest of the body, so let us be allowed to immerse ourselves more in the manifestations of the soul and through them depict the life of each, leaving others with descriptions of great deeds. and battles.

In the biography of Nicias (ch. 1), Plutarch also indicates that he does not intend to write a detailed history:

The events described by Thucydides and Philistus, of course, cannot be completely passed over in silence, because they contain indications of the character and moral character of Nikias, obscured by many great misfortunes, but I will briefly touch only on what is absolutely necessary so that their omission is not attributed to my carelessness and laziness. And those events that are unknown to most people, about which other writers have only fragmentary information, or which are on monuments donated to churches, or in decisions of people's assemblies, I tried to combine those events together, since I do not collect useless historical information, but I convey facts that serve to understand the moral side of a person and his character.

Perhaps the best impressions of Plutarch's personality are expressed by a hard worker-translator, who owns two-thirds of the Russian translation of the gigantic text “Plutarch's path of kindness, his aversion to cruelty, atrocity, deceit and injustice, his humanity and philanthropy, his heightened sense of duty and his own dignity, which he does not tire of instilling in his readers, his slight skepticism of a sober realist, who understands that there is nothing to expect perfection from nature, including human nature, and that one has to accept the world around with this necessary amendment.