home
Psychosomatics
Plutarch comparative biographies. Plutarch

Plutarch comparative biographies. Plutarch

23.06.2020

How much respect Plutarch enjoyed during his lifetime for his high knowledge and ability to speak, can be seen from the following incident, which he himself writes about in his discussion of curiosity. “Once in Rome, I spoke to many listeners, among whom was Rusticus, whom Domitian later killed, jealous of his fame. A warrior comes and gives him a letter from the emperor. There was silence, and I stopped talking to give him time to read the letter; However, Rustik did not want this and did not open the letter before, as at the end of the conversation - everyone was surprised at his firmness!

The Roman Senate erected an idol for him after his death. Agathius, the famous writer of inscriptions, made the following on one:

“The sons of Italy erected to you, Plutarch, this idol, because in their descriptions they compared the brave Romans with the most glorious Greeks. But you yourself could not make comparisons of your life - there is nothing like you.

This poetic inscription will not seem inflated when we learn that many famous writers, many of the holy fathers, exalted him with great praises.

Aulus Gellius ascribes to him high knowledge in the sciences.

Taurus calls the most learned and wise.

Eusebius puts above all Greek philosophers.

Sardian calls the "divine Plutarch", the "decoration of philosophy."

Petrarch in his moral writings repeatedly calls the "great Plutarch".

Irigen, Imerius, Cyril, Theodoret, Svyda, Photius, Xifilin, John of Salisbury, Victoria, Lipsius, Scaliger, Saint Evremont, Montesquieu mention him with great praise.

Montaigne's account of Plutarch is curious in that it lets us know what a great change his writings made in France in the sixteenth century. We will quote his words (“Experiments”, Book II, ch. 2):

“Among all French writers, I give the palm - as it seems to me, with good reason - to Jacques Amyot ... throughout his translation, the meaning of Plutarch was conveyed so excellently and consistently that either Amyot perfectly understood the author's true intention, or he got so used to the thoughts Plutarch, managed to assimilate his general mentality so clearly that nowhere, at least, does he ascribe to him anything that would disagree with him or contradict him. But mainly I am grateful to him for finding and choosing a book so worthy and valuable to bring it as a gift to my fatherland. We, the ignorant, would be doomed to stagnation if this book did not take us out of the darkness of ignorance in which we are mired.

Let's see what the latest critics have to say about him.

Laharpe writes:

“Of all the biographers in the world, the most readable and most worthy of reading is Plutarch. The very plan of his comparative biographies is an invention of a great mind regarding history and morality - a plan where two glorious men are presented from two peoples, Roman and Greek, who produced the most models in the world. But on the other hand, nowhere is history so much moralizing as in Plutarch ... He deals more with a person than with things, his main subject is a person whose life he describes, and in this respect he does his job with the greatest possible success, without collecting many details, as Suetonius, but choosing the main features. And comparisons, which are the consequences of these, are perfect articles in their own way: in them, the high dignity of Plutarch, both as a writer and as a philosopher, is most visible. No one, none of the mortals had the right to hold in his hand the scales on which eternal truth weighs people and determines their true value. No one was more wary of brilliant and dazzling temptations, no one was better able to catch the useful and expose its dignity ... His reasoning is a true treasure of wisdom and sound politics: they contain the best instructions for those who want their life, social and even domestic, to be arranged according to the rules of honesty and so on.

Blair in his Rhetoric says:

“Plutarch distinguished himself in this kind of writing; to him, for the most part, we owe everything we know about the most glorious men of antiquity ... His comparative lives of the glorious men will forever remain a precious store of useful instructions. Of the ancient writers, there are few equals to Plutarch in philanthropy and sensitivity, and so on.

Theodore Gaza, a most learned man, one of those Greeks who in the fifteenth century resurrected literature and science in Europe, had excellent respect for Plutarch. He was once asked what kind of writer would he want to keep in the event of a general destruction of all books? "Plutarch!" - he answered, considering his historical and moral writings very useful for society.

Comparative biographies that have come down to us and are about to be published in Russian are as follows:

- Theseus and Romulus

- Lycurgus and Numa

- Solon and Poplicola

- Themistocles and Camillus

- Pericles and Fabius Maximus

- Alcibiades and Gaius Marcius

- Timoleon and Aemilius Paul

- Pelopidas and Marcellus

– Aristides and Mark Cato

- Philopemen and Titus

- Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius

- Lysander and Sulla

- Cimon and Lucullus

- Nicias and Crassus

- Sertorius and Eumenes

- Agesilaus and Pompey

– Alexander and Caesar

- Phocion and Cato

- Agis and Cleomenes and Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi

- Demosthenes and Cicero

- Demetrius and Anthony

- Dion and Brutus

– Artaxerxes

– Galba

No biographies have come down to us:

Epaminondas - Scipio Africanus - Augustus - Tiberius - Gaius Caesar - Vitellius - Hercules - Hesiod - Pindar - Aristomenes - Socrates and some others.

Plutarch's writings have been translated into almost all the latest European languages. The first translation was published in French during the restoration of the sciences of Amyot in the reign of Henry II, in 1558 *. This translation is still considered excellent, despite its many errors and a great change in language. M. Dasier's translation, published after Amyot a hundred and fifty years later, when the French language had already reached perfection, did not in the least degrade the dignity of the former in the eyes of connoisseurs. Although Dasier's translation is more widely read, Amyot deserves our gratitude not only as a good translator, but, moreover, as a Hellenistic scholar who corrected the shortcomings of the original in many places. He traveled to Italy to find manuscripts, which he distinguished with great diligence. None of the translators of the prose writer has acquired such fame as Ahmyot has. It should not be forgotten that he translated all the writings of Plutarch, Dassier translated only the biographies.

From Amio's translation, Plutarch was translated into English in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Until the time of Dryden, there was no other translation. This great man humiliated himself by giving his glorious name to the imperfect work of many other translators. The public was deceived. This translation was, however, revised many times and republished after comparison with Dassier's in 1728. After that, it was again cleared of many errors and published in 1758. For all that, Plutarch's biographies were, one might say, mutilated. Finally, two brothers, John and William Langorn, translated the biographies from the original Greek. In 1805 there was the ninth edition of their translation.

There are several translations of Plutarch in German. Kaltwasser's translation, published in 1799, deserves special attention.

Russian literature is daily enriched with the most useful books translated from different languages. It seems that the time has come in which everyone lags behind the reading of useless books in order to occupy themselves with those that contribute to the education of man. In this era, in which Homer, Virgil, Tacitus, Sallust and other great writers, exemplary in their kind, find worthy translators, it is surprising that Plutarch is forgotten, of all, perhaps the most useful, Plutarch, who glorified a good translator when only had it. Wasn't Amyot worthy of his good translation of Plutarch to be among the educators of the French language? The reason for the fact that Plutarch was not translated into Russian must be an inexcusable neglect of the Greek language, which Russians learn least of all enlightened peoples. Perhaps the multitude of Plutarch's writings terrified lovers of literature, busy with the most important things.

I feel very much that the more glorious and famous the writer is, the more they demand from the translator; I also feel that with my zeal and diligence, I cannot hope for the glory of even a mediocre translator, because the Russian language is not my native language, but was acquired by me through constant and long-term work. However, seeing how large the number of mediocre translators is and that they are often tolerated by the public due to a lack of the best, I dared to enter a dangerous field. No matter how bad my translation is, I thought, it is nevertheless quite faithful, as close as possible to the original - an important dignity, especially when the best authors, ancient and new, are allowed to translate from French, not always good translations! Plutarch himself did not escape the hard lot of being translated from the French translation. This translation brings no benefit or pleasure to anyone, but my labors will help some skillful translator to translate Plutarch correctly. Over the course of four years, I published several selected life stories for the experience. They were honored with His most merciful Imperial Majesty the view, and many persons, known for their learning, no less than for the celebrity of their rank, assured me that my translation was not disgusting to them.

Encouraged by this favorable response, I received new strength to continue the long and difficult occupation - I decided to translate both Plutarch's biographies and the best of his other works. I consider it a debt of gratitude to work for the society to which I owe my education. But with all my desire to translate the works of Plutarch, being almost at the end of my feat, I confess that for the glory of this great man, for the benefit of Russian literature, for the greater pleasure of lovers of reading, I would have decided - after five years of labors - to lag behind my enterprise, as soon as made sure that a more skillful person is engaged in such a translation.

It would be superfluous to speak of the difficulties encountered in translations from ancient languages; these are diverse and concern more scientists. The most important of them comes from the difference in customs, ancient and ours. Although a person is always a person, but at different times, under different circumstances, his concepts of things, feelings and passions are subject to various changes, which present this chameleon as if in a different form. From this it happens that the writings of other peoples, and even our people, written over several centuries, seem strange to us; we find in them expressions and thoughts that are unpleasant to us only because they are not ours; we say that they have no taste, no purity in morals, because pride assures us that our taste is the best. How much more careful we would be in our judgments if by some miracle we could foresee what opinion descendants will have about the works that are famous in our time! How many writers who surprised their contemporaries have become the laughingstock of posterity! For this reason, we must moderate the severity with which we judge certain shortcomings that are discovered in ancient writers, and, if possible, ignore places that are contrary to our concepts. Such places are all the more visible, the more our customs lag behind the ancients, and the less we know their way of thinking. The Russians, unlike those who can receive the most thorough education, study the ancient languages little, not considering them the basis of their learning. And for this reason, the writings of the ancients in Russian are not always successful, although the language itself is more capable of such translations than other modern languages.

You can sometimes soften expressions that are too repulsive to our ears, but to transform your author, now adding, now cutting off, is not the job of a translator, who, in my opinion, should not hide the very shortcomings of his writer, for fidelity is his first duty. If every translator takes it into his head to correct his author in his own way, then what a variety there will be in translations! How different any translation will be from the original! It must not be forgotten that some curious readers want to have the author as he is, in order to better know the spirit that prevailed in the century in which he wrote.

I must say something about the use of Greek and Latin names. The Russians, having adopted faith, writing and several concepts of historical, philosophical and other things from the Greeks, preserved the Greek pronunciation of the 10th century in all foreign names. So, for example, they say: "Abraham" and not "Abraham"; "Theodosius", not "Theodosius", "Cilicia", not "Cilicia". Latin names were pronounced like the Greeks, saying "Caesar" instead of "Caesar", "Patricius" instead of "Patrician". So the Russians used these names until the 18th century, when they began to borrow many concepts from Europeans who adhere to the Latin pronunciation. Many began to use Latin, but others followed Greek, following the example of Slavic books. Soon some, caring neither for Greek nor for Latin, followed the pronunciation of the French; and they write: "Simon", "Eshil", etc. Who in this reprimand recognizes "Cimon" or "Cimon" and "Aeschylus"? Is it forgivable to spoil names and confuse a reader who can accept an Athenian

Kimon for the Jew Simon? It may happen that in a Russian book we find: Cesar, Tyusidides, Aristot, Ambroise - and we do not recognize these great men. As for me, I followed the pronunciation, previously used by the Russians, and deviated from it only in such cases when any name could be recognized in no other way than by the Latin pronunciation. So, for example, I write: “Theseus”, “Ajax”, and not “Fisei”, “Eant”, in all other cases I observe the Greek pronunciation, although it already seems strange to many. However, those who want us to write: "Demosten", "Themistocles", "Lesvos", let them themselves begin to write: "Athena", "Thee", etc. instead of "Athena", "Thebes" and so on. .

Wishing to make this book more useful to readers, especially to those who are not very familiar with ancient history, I have enriched it with the remarks of Dasier, Meserai, Clavier, Ruald, Coray, the Langor brothers and some others. My comments are very few.

Some readers may be warned not to judge all the writings of Plutarch by the first two biographies, which, being for the most part fabulous, cannot satisfy the strict lovers of truth.

Spyridon Destunis

The most valuable in the creative heritage of Plutarch of Chaeronea (c. 45 - c. 127) are the biographies of prominent statesmen and public figures of Greece and Rome. … Outstanding historians of Greece and Rome, compiling the biography of a historical figure, sought to chronologically, consistently outline his life. Plutarch, on the other hand, sought to write a detailed history "about events, to avoid a heap of incoherent stories, to state what is necessary for understanding the mindset and character of a person."

"Comparative Lives" are biographies of the great figures of the Greco-Roman world, combined in pairs. After each of them, a small “Comparison” is given - a kind of conclusion. 46 paired biographies and four biographies have survived to this day, pairs for which have not been found. Each pair included a biography of a Greek and a Roman, in whose fate and character the historian saw a certain similarity. He was interested in the psychology of his heroes, proceeding from the fact that a person has an inherent desire for good, and this quality should be strengthened in every possible way by studying the noble deeds of famous people. Plutarch sometimes idealizes his heroes, notes their best features, believing that mistakes and shortcomings should not be covered with "all the desire and detail." We know many events of the ancient history of Greece and Rome, first of all, in the presentation of Plutarch. The historical framework in which his characters lived and acted is very wide, starting from mythological times and ending with the last century BC. e.

Plutarch's "Comparative Lives" are of great importance for the knowledge of the ancient history of Greece and Rome, since many works of writers from which he drew information have not reached us, and his writings are the only information about many historical events, their participants and witnesses .

Plutarch left to posterity a majestic "portrait gallery" of famous Greeks and Romans. He dreamed of the revival of Hellas, sincerely believing that his instructions would be taken into account and implemented in the public life of Greece. He hoped that his books would cause a desire to imitate wonderful people who selflessly loved their homeland and were distinguished by high moral principles. Thoughts, hopes, wishes of the great Greek have not lost their significance in our time, after two millennia.

THESEUS AND ROMULUS

[Translated by S.P. Markish]

1. Just as pundits, working on a description of the lands, push everything that eludes their knowledge to the very edges of the map, marking in the margins: “Further, waterless sands and wild animals”, or: “Swamps of Gloom”, or: “Scythian frosts” , or: “The Arctic Sea”, just like me, Sosius Senecion, in my work on comparative biographies, having passed through times accessible to thorough study and serving as a subject for history occupied with genuine events, one could say about a more ancient time: “Further miracles and tragedies, expanse for poets and mythographers, where there is no place for reliability and accuracy. But as soon as we published a story about the legislator Lycurgus and King Numa, we considered it reasonable to go to Romulus, in the course of the story, being very close to his time. And so, when I thought, in the words of Aeschylus,

Who will fight with such a husband?
Who to send? Who can match his power?

it seemed to me that with the father of invincible and glorified Rome, one should compare and compare the founder of beautiful, universally praised Athens. I would like the fabulous fiction to submit to reason and take on the appearance of a real story. If in some places he turns away from verisimilitude with self-willed contempt and does not even want to approach it, we ask the sympathetic reader to treat these stories about antiquity with indulgence.

2. So it seemed to me that Theseus was in many ways similar to Romulus. Both were born secretly and out of wedlock, both were attributed to divine origin,

Both are the most glorious warriors, we were all convinced of that,

both have strength combined with wisdom. One founded Rome, the other Athens - two of the most famous cities in the world. Both are kidnappers. Neither one nor the other escaped family disasters and grief in private life, and in the end, they say, acquired the hatred of fellow citizens - of course, if some legends, the least fabulous, are able to show us the way to the truth.

3. The clan of Theseus on his father's side goes back to Erechtheus and the first native inhabitants of Attica, and on his mother's side to Pelops. Pelops rose among the Peloponnesian sovereigns not so much due to wealth as to numerous offspring: he married many of his daughters to the most noble citizens, and put his sons at the head of many cities. One of them, Pittheus, the grandfather of Theseus, who founded the small city of Troezen, enjoyed the fame of the most learned and wisest man of his time. The model and pinnacle of such wisdom were, apparently, the sayings of Hesiod, primarily in his Works and Days; one of them is said to have belonged to Pittheus:

A friend is always provided with a contractual fee.

This opinion is held by the philosopher Aristotle. And Euripides, calling Hippolytus "the pet of the immaculate Pittheus", shows how high the respect for the latter was.

Aegeus, who wanted to have children, received a well-known prediction from the Pythia: God inspired him not to have intercourse with any woman until he arrived in Athens. But this was not expressed quite clearly, and therefore, having come to Troezen, Aegeus told Pittheus about the divine broadcast, which sounded like this:

Do not untie the lower end of the wineskin, mighty warrior,
Before you visit the people of the Athenian borders.

Pittheus understood what was the matter, and either convinced him, or forced him by deceit to get along with Etra. Knowing that this was Pittheus' daughter, and believing that she had suffered, Aegeus left, leaving his sword and sandals hidden in Troezen under a huge stone with a recess large enough to accommodate both. He opened himself to Etra alone and asked her if a son was born and, having matured, could roll away a stone and get the hidden, send a young man with a sword and sandals to him, but in such a way that no one knew about it, keeping everything in the deepest secret: Aegeus is very he was afraid of the intrigues of the Pallantides (they were fifty sons of Pallant), who despised him for childlessness.

4. Etra gave birth to a son, and some argue that he was named Theseus immediately, according to a treasure with noticeable signs, others - that later, in Athens, when Aegeus recognized him as his son. While he was growing up with Pittheus, his mentor and educator was Connidus, to whom the Athenians still, the day before the feast of Theseus, sacrifice a ram - memory and honors much more deserved than those given to the sculptor Silanion and the painter Parrhasius, the creators of the images of Theseus .

5. Then it was still customary for boys, coming out of childhood, to go to Delphi and dedicate the first hair of their hair to the god. He visited Delphi and Theseus (they say that there is a place there, which is now called Theseus - in his honor), but he cut his hair only in front, as, according to Homer, the Abants were cut, and this type of haircut was called "Theseev". The Abantes were the first to start cutting their hair like this, and they did not learn from the Arabs, as some people think, and did not imitate the Mysians. They were a warlike people, masters of close combat, and best able to fight in hand-to-hand combat, as Archilochus testifies to this in the following lines:

It is not slings whistling and not countless arrows from bows
They will rush into the distance when the battle on the plain begins
Ares is mighty: many-toned swords will break out the work.
In a fight like this, they are most experienced, -
Men-lords of Euboea, glorious spearmen ...

And so, so that the enemies could not grab them by the hair, they cut their hair short. From the same considerations, no doubt, Alexander the Great ordered, they say, his military leaders to shave the beards of the Macedonians, to which the hands of opponents reach out in battle.

6. During all this time, Etra concealed the true origin of Theseus, and Pittheus spread the rumor that she gave birth to Poseidon. The fact is that the tridents especially honor Poseidon, this is their guardian god, they dedicate the first fruits to him and mint a trident on coins. Theseus was still very young, when, along with the strength of his body, courage, prudence, a firm and at the same time lively mind were revealed in him, and now Etra, leading him to a stone and revealing the secret of his birth, ordered him to get the identification marks left by his father, and sail to Athens. The young man slipped under the stone and easily lifted it, but he refused to sail by sea, despite the safety of the journey and the requests of his grandfather and mother. Meanwhile, it was difficult to get to Athens by land: at every step the traveler was in danger of dying at the hands of a robber or a villain. That age brought into the world people whose strength of arms, speed of legs and strength of body apparently exceeded ordinary human capabilities, tireless people, but who did not turn their natural advantages to anything useful or good; on the contrary, they enjoyed their impudent rampage, gave vent to their forces in savagery and ferocity, in murder and reprisal against anyone they met, and, considering that for the most part mortals praise conscience, justice and humanity, only not daring to inflict violence themselves and fearing to be subjected to them, were sure that none of these qualities befits those who are superior in power to others. Wandering around the world, Hercules exterminated some of them, the rest, at his approach, fled in horror, hid and, dragging out a miserable existence, were all forgotten. When misfortune befell Hercules and he, having killed Iphitus, retired to Lydia, where he carried out the slave service of Omphala for a long time, having imposed such a punishment on himself for the murder, peace and serene tranquility reigned among the Lydians, but in the Greek lands the atrocities again broke out and bloomed luxuriantly: there was no one to suppress or curb them. That is why the pedestrian route from the Peloponnese to Athens threatened with death, and Pittheus, telling Theseus about each of the robbers and villains separately, about what they are and what they are doing with strangers, urged his grandson to go by sea. But Theseus, apparently, had long been secretly worried about the glory of Hercules: the young man had the greatest respect for him and was always ready to listen to those who spoke about the hero, especially eyewitnesses, witnesses of his deeds and sayings. He felt, no doubt, the same feelings that Themistocles experienced much later, confessing that he was deprived of sleep by the trophy of Miltiades. So it was with Theseus, who admired the valor of Hercules, and at night he dreamed of his exploits, and during the day he was haunted by jealousy and rivalry, directing his thoughts to one thing - how to accomplish the same thing as Hercules.

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.

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.

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.

Plutarch and his Comparative Lives

Here Chaeroneus and Delphi jointly erected Plutarch:
The Amphictyons ordered him to be honored in this way.
(Translated by Ya. M. Borovsky)

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

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! 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.

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. 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).

The parallel arrangement of the biographies of Greek and Roman figures was, according to the apt expression of S. S. Averintsev, "an act of cultural diplomacy" of the writer and citizen of Chaeronea, who, as we remember, in his social activities 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.

1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145

Plutarch comparative biographies. Plutarch

Plutarch Comparative biographies

Plutarch and his Comparative Lives

Plutarch and his Comparative Lives

Plutarch
Comparative biographies