PLUTARCH'S LIVES, VOLUME I
Translated from the Greek
with Notes and a Life of Plutarch
by
AUBREY STEWART, M.A.,
Late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge
and the late
GEORGE LONG, M.A.,
Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge
IN FOUR VOLUMES.
London
George Bell & Sons, York St., Covent Garden, and New York
1894
Reprinted from Stereotype Plates by Wm. Clowes & Sons, Ltd., Stamford
Street and Charing Cross
PREFACE.
No apologies are needed for a new edition of so favourite an author as
Plutarch. From the period of the revival of classical literature in
Europe down to our own times, his writings have done more than those of
any other single author to familiarise us with the greatest men and the
greatest events of the ancient world.
The great Duke of Marlborough, it is said, confessed that his only
knowledge of English history was derived from Shakespeare's historical
plays, and it would not be too much to say that a very large proportion
of educated men, in our own as well as in Marlborough's times, have owed
much of their knowledge of classical antiquity to the study of
Plutarch's Lives. Other writers may be read with profit, with
admiration, and with interest; but few, like Plutarch, can gossip
pleasantly while instructing solidly; can breathe life into the dry
skeleton of history, and show that the life of a Greek or Roman worthy,
when rightly dealt with, can prove as entertaining as a modern novel. No
one is so well able as Plutarch to dispel the doubt which all schoolboys
feel as to whether the names about which they read ever belonged to men
who were really alive; his characters are so intensely human and
lifelike in their faults and failings as well as in their virtues, that
we begin to think of them as of people whom we have ourselves personally
known.
His biographies are numerous and short. By this, he avoids one of the
greatest faults of modern biographers, that namely of identifying
himself with some one particular personage, and endeavouring to prove
that all his actions were equally laudable. Light and shade are as
necessary to a character as to a picture, but a man who devotes his
energies for years to the study of any single person's life, is
insensibly led into palliating or explaining away his faults and
exaggerating his excellencies until at last he represents him as an
impossible monster of virtue. Another advantage which we obtain by his
method is that we are not given a complete chronicle of each person's
life, but only of the remarkable events in it, and such incidents as
will enable us to judge of his character. This also avoids what is the
dreariest part of all modern biographies, those chapters I mean which
describe the slow decay of their hero's powers, his last illness, and
finally his death. This subject, which so many writers of our own time
seem to linger lovingly upon, is dismissed by Plutarch in a few lines,
unless any circumstance of note attended the death of the person
described.
Without denying that Plutarch is often inaccurate and often diffuse;
that his anecdotes are sometimes absurd, and his metaphysical
speculations not unfrequently ridiculous, he is nevertheless generally
admitted to be one of the most readable authors of antiquity, while all
agree that his morality is of the purest and loftiest type.
The first edition of the Greek text of Plutarch's Lives appeared at
Florence in the year 1517, and two years afterwards it was republished
by Aldus. Before this, however, about the year 1470, a magnificent Latin
version by various hands appeared at Rome. From this, from the Greek
text, and also from certain MSS. to which he had access, Amyot in the
year 1559 composed his excellent translation, of which it has been well
said: "Quoique en vieux Gaulois, elle a un air de fraicheur qui la fait
rejeunir de jour en jour."
Amyot's spirited French version was no less spiritedly translated by Sir
Thomas North. His translation was much read and admired in its day; a
modern reviewer even goes so far as to say that it is "still beyond
comparison the best version of Parallel Lives which the English tongue
affords." Be this as it may, the world will ever be deeply indebted to
North's translation, for it is to Shakespeare's perusal of that work
that we owe 'Coriolanus,' 'Antony and Cleopatra,' and 'Julius Caesar.'
North's translation was followed by that known as Dryden's. This work,
performed by many different hands, is of unequal merit. Some Lives are
rendered into a racy and idiomatic, although somewhat archaic English,
while others fall far short of the standard of Sir Thomas North's work.
Dryden's version has during the last few years been re-edited by A.H.
Clough, Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford.
The translation by which Plutarch is best known at the present day is
that of the Langhornes. Their style is certainly dull and commonplace,
and is in many instances deserving of the harsh epithets which have been
lavished upon it. We must remember, however, before unsparingly
condemning their translation, that the taste of the age for which they
wrote differed materially from that of our own, and that people who
could read the 'Letters of Theodosius and Constantia' with interest,
would certainly prefer Plutarch in the translation of the Langhornes to
the simpler phrases of North's or Dryden's version. All events, comic or
tragic, important or commonplace, are described with the same inflated
monotony which was mistaken by them for the dignity of History. Yet
their work is in many cases far more correct as a translation, and the
author's meaning is sometimes much more clearly expressed, than in
Dryden's earlier version. Langhorne's Plutarch was re-edited by
Archdeacon Wrangham in the year 1819.
In 1844, thirteen Lives were translated by that eminent scholar the late
Mr. George Long; and it is by way of complement to these Lives that the
present version was undertaken with his consent and his approval.
Those translated by Mr. Long were selected by him as illustrating a
period of Roman history in which he was especially interested, and will
therefore be found to be more fully annotated than the others. It has
seemed to me unnecessary to give information in the notes which can at
the present day be obtained in a more convenient form in Dr. Smith's
Classical Dictionary and Dictionary of Antiquities, many of the articles
in which are written by Mr. Long himself. The student of classical
literature will naturally prefer the exhaustive essays to be found in
these works to any notes appended to Plutarch's text, while to those who
read merely "for the story," the notes prove both troublesome and
useless.
In deciding on the spelling of the Greek proper names, I have felt great
hesitation. To make a Greek speak of Juno or Minerva seems as absurd as
to make a Roman swear by Herakles or Ares. Yet both Greek and Roman
divinities are constantly mentioned. The only course that seemed to
avoid absolute absurdity appeared to me to be that which I have adopted,
namely to speak of the Greek divinities by their Greek, and the Latin
ones by their Latin names. In substituting a k for the more usual c, I
have followed the example of Grote, who in his History spells all Greek
names exactly as they are written, with the exception of those with
which we are so familiar in their Latin form as to render this
practically impossible; as for instance in the case of Cyprus or
Corinth, or of a name like Thucydides, where a return to the Greek k
would be both pedantic and unmeaning.
The text, which I have followed throughout, is that of C. Sintenis,
Leipsic, 1873.
AUBREY STEWART.
PREFACE TO THE CIVIL WARS OF ROME.[A]
[Footnote A: It has been thought desirable to give here Mr. Long's
preface to the lives published by him, under the title of "Civil Wars of
Rome." The lives will be found in subsequent volumes.]
Among the extant Lives of Plutarch there are thirteen Lives of Romans
which belong to the most eventful period of Roman history. They are the
lives of the brothers Tiberius and Caius Sempronius Gracchus, of Caius
Marius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Quintus Sertorius, Marcus Licinius
Crassus, Cneius Pompeius Magnus, Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger, Marcus
Tullius Cicero, Lucius Licinius Lucullus, Caius Julius Caesar, Marcus
Junius Brutus, and Marcus Antonius. From the year of the death of
Tiberius Gracchus, B.C. 133, to the death of Marcus Antonius, B.C. 30, a
period of about one hundred years, the Roman State was convulsed by
revolutions which grew out of the contest between the People and the
Nobility, or rather, out of the contests between the leaders of these
two bodies. This period is the subject of Appian's History of the Civil
Wars of the Romans, in Five Books. Appian begins with the Tribunate and
legislation of Tiberius Gracchus, from which he proceeds to the
Dictatorship of Sulla, and then to the quarrels between Pompeius and
Caesar, and Caesar's Dictatorship and assassination. He then proceeds to
the history of the Triumvirate formed after Caesar's death by his great
nephew Caius Julius Caesar Octavianus, Marcus Antonius, and Lepidus, the
quarrels of the Triumviri, the downfall of Lepidus, who was reduced to
the condition of a private person, and the death of Sextus Pompeius, the
last support of the party in whose cause his father, Cneius Pompeius,
lost his life. The remainder of this History, which is lost, carried the
narration down to the quarrels of Octavianus and Marcus Antonius, which
ended in the defeat of Antonius in the battle of Actium, B.C. 31, and
his death in Egypt, B.C. 30. The victory over Antonius placed all the
power in the hands of Octavianus, who, in the year B.C. 27, received
from the Roman Senate the title of Augustus, or the Sacred, by which
name he is commonly known as the first of the long series of Roman
Emperors. "He made himself," says Appian (_Civil Wars_, i. 5), "like
Caius Julius Caesar, and still more than Caesar, governor of his country
and of all the nations under it, without needing either election or the
popular votes, or any show of such things. After his government had
subsisted for a long time, and been maintained with vigour, fortunate in
all his measures, and feared, he left behind him descendants and
successors who kept the power that he transmitted to them. In this way,
after various civil commotions, the Roman State was restored to
tranquillity, and the government became a Monarchy. And how this came
about I have explained, and brought together all the events, which are
well worth the study of those who wish to become acquainted with
ambition of men unbounded, love of power excessive, endurance unwearied,
and forms of suffering infinite." Thus, the historian's object was to
trace the establishment of the Imperial power in Rome back to its
origin, to show that the contests of the rival heads of parties involved
the State in endless calamities, which resulted in a dissolution of all
the bonds that held society together, and rendered the assumption of
supreme power by one man a healing and a necessary event.
As already observed, it happens that thirteen of Plutarch's extant Lives
are the lives of the most distinguished of the Romans who lived during
this eventful period; and though Plutarch's Lives severally are not
histories of the times to which they respectively refer, nor
collectively form a History of any given time, yet they are valuable as
portraits of illustrious men, and help us to form a better judgment of
those who make so conspicuous a figure in History.
Plutarch was a native of the town of Chaeroneia, in Boeotia; the times
of his birth and death are not exactly known, but we learn from his own
works that he was a young student at Delphi, in the thirteenth year of
the reign of the Emperor Nero, A.D. 66. He visited both Italy and Rome,
and probably resided at Rome for some time. He wrote his Life of
Demosthenes, at least after his return to Chaeroneia: he says (_Life of
Demosthenes_, c. 2), that he had not time to exercise himself in the
Latin Language during his residence at Rome, being much occupied with
public business, and giving lessons in philosophy. Accordingly it was
late before he began to read the Latin writers; and we may infer from
his own words that he never acquired a very exact knowledge of the
language. He observes that it happened in his case, that in his study of
the Latin writers he did not so much learn and understand the facts from
the words, as acquire the meaning of the words from the facts, of which
he had already some knowledge. We may perhaps conclude from this, that
Plutarch wrote all his Roman lives in Chaeroneia, after he had returned
there from Rome. The statement that Plutarch was the preceptor of the
Emperor Trajan, and was raised to the consular rank by him, is not
supported by sufficient evidence. Plutarch addressed to Trajan his Book
of Apophthegms, or Sayings of Kings and Commanders; but this is all that
is satisfactorily ascertained as to the connection between the Emperor
and Philosopher. Trajan died A.D. 117.
"The plan of Plutarch's Biographies is briefly explained by himself in
the introduction to the Life of Alexander the Great, where he makes an
apology for the brevity with which he is compelled to treat of the
numerous events in the Lives of Alexander and Caesar. 'For,' he says, 'I
do not write Histories, but Lives; nor do the most conspicuous acts of
necessity exhibit a man's virtue or his vice, but oftentimes some slight
circumstance, a word, or a jest, shows a man's character better than
battles with the slaughter of tens of thousands, and the greatest arrays
of armies and sieges of cities. Now, as painters produce a likeness by a
representation of the countenance and the expression of the eyes,
without troubling themselves about the other parts of the body, so I
must be allowed to look rather into the signs of a man's character, and
thus give a portrait of his life, leaving others to describe great
events and battles.' The object then of Plutarch in his Biographies was
a moral end, and the exhibition of the principal events in a man's life
was subordinate to this his main design; and though he may not always
have adhered to the principle which he laid down, it cannot be denied
that his view of what biography should be, is much more exact than that
of most persons who have attempted this style of composition. The life
of a statesman or of a general, when written with a view of giving a
complete history of all the public events in which he was engaged, is
not biography, but history. This extract from Plutarch will also in some
measure be an apology for the want of historical order observable in
many of his Lives. Though altogether deficient in that critical sagacity
which discerns truth from falsehood, and distinguishes the intricacies
of confused and conflicting statements, Plutarch has preserved in his
Lives a vast number of facts which would otherwise have been unknown to
us. He was a great reader, and must have had access to large libraries.
It is said that he quotes two hundred and fifty writers, a great part of
whose works are now entirely lost." (_Penny Cyclopaedia_, art.
"Plutarch," by the writer of this Preface.)
The lively portraitures of men drawn in Plutarch's Lives have made them
favourite reading in all ages. Whether Plutarch has succeeded in drawing
the portraits true, we cannot always determine, because the materials
for such a judgment are sometimes wanting. But when we can compare his
Lives with other extant authorities, we must admit, that though he is by
no means free from error as to his facts, he has generally selected
those events in a man's life which most clearly show his temper, and
that on the whole, if we judge of a man by Plutarch's measure, we shall
form a just estimate of him. He generally wrote without any
predilections or any prejudices. He tells us of a man's good and bad
acts, of his good and bad qualities; he makes no attempt to conceal the
one or the other; he both praises and blames as the occasion may arise;
and the reader leaves off with a mixed opinion about Plutarch's Greeks
and Romans, though the favourable or the unfavourable side always
predominates. The benevolent disposition of Plutarch, and his noble and
elevated character, have stamped themselves on all that he has written.
A man cannot read these Lives without being the better for it: his
detestation of all that is mean and disingenuous will be increased; his
admiration of whatever is truthful and generous will be strengthened and
exalted.
The translation of these Lives is difficult. Plutarch's text is
occasionally corrupted; and where it is not corrupted, his meaning is
sometimes obscure. Many of the sentences are long and ill-constructed;
the metaphors often extravagant; and the just connection of the parts is
sometimes difficult to discover. Many single words which are or ought to
be pertinent in Plutarch, and which go towards a description of
character in general or of some particular act, can hardly be rendered
by any English equivalent; and a translator often searches in vain for
something which shall convey to the reader the exact notion of the
original. Yet Plutarch's narrative is lively and animated; his anecdotes
are appropriately introduced and well told; and if his taste is
sometimes not the purest, which in his age we could not expect it to be,
he makes amends for this by the fulness and vigour of his expression. He
is fond of poetical words, and they are often used with striking effect.
His moral reflections, which are numerous, have the merit of not being
unmeaning and tiresome, because he is always in earnest and has got
something to say, and does not deal in commonplaces. When the reflection
is not very profound, it is at least true; and some of his remarks show
a deep insight into men's character.
I have attempted to give Plutarch's meaning in plain language; to give
all his meaning, and neither more nor less. If I have failed in any
case, it is because I could do no better. But, though I have not always
succeeded in expressing exactly what I conceive to be the meaning of the
original, I have not intentionally added to it or detracted from it. It
may be that there are passages in which I have mistaken the original;
and those who have made the experiment of rendering from one language
into another, know that this will sometimes happen even in an easy
passage. A difficult passage attracts more than usual of a translator's
attention, and if he fails there, it is either because the difficulty
cannot be overcome, or because he cannot overcome it. Mere inadvertence
or sleepiness may sometimes cause a translator to blunder, when he would
not have blundered if any friend had been by to keep him awake.
The best thing that a man can do to avoid these and other errors is to
compare his translation, when he has finished it, with some other. The
translation which I have compared with mine is the German translation of
Kaltwasser, Magdeburg, 1799, which is generally correct. Kaltwasser in
his Preface speaks of the way in which he used the German translations
of two of his predecessors, J. Christopher Kind, Leipzig, 1745-1754, and
H. v. Schirach, 1776-1780, and some others. He says, "These two
translations, with the French translations above mentioned, I have duly
used, for it is the duty of a translator to compare himself with his
predecessors; but I lay my labour before the eyes of the public, without
fearing that I shall be accused of copying or of close imitation. First
of all, I carefully studied the text of my author and translated him as
well as I could: then, and not before, I compared the labour of my
predecessors, and where I found a more suitable expression or a happier
turn, I made use of it without hesitation. In this way, every fault,
every deviation of the old translators must be apparent; the most
striking of them I have remarked on in the notes, but I have more
frequently amended such things silently, as a comparison will show the
reader." The translator has not compared his version with any English
version. The translation of North, which has great merit in point of
expression, is a version of Amyot's French version, from which, however,
it differs in some passages, where it is decidedly wrong and Amyot's
version is right. Indeed, it is surprising to find how correct this old
French translation generally is. The translation of 'Plutarch's Lives
from the Greek by several hands,' was published at London in 1683-86. It
was dedicated by Dryden to James Butler, the first Duke of Ormond, in a
fulsome panegyric. It is said that forty-one translators laboured at the
work. Dryden did not translate any of the Lives; but he wrote the Life
of Plutarch which is prefixed to this translation. The advertisement
prefixed to the translation passes under the name and character of the
bookseller (Jacob Tonson), but, as Malone observes, it may from internal
evidence be safely attributed to Dryden. The bookseller says, "You have
here the first volume of Plutarch's Lives turned from the Greek into
English; and give me leave to say, the first attempt of doing it from
the _originals_." This is aimed at North's version, of which Dryden
remarks in his Life of Plutarch: "As that translation was only from the
French, so it suffered this double disadvantage; first, that it was but
a copy of a copy, and that too but lamely taken from the Greek original;
secondly, that the English language was then unpolished, and far from
the perfection which it has since attained; so that the first version is
not only ungrammatical and ungraceful, but in many places almost
unintelligible." There is another English version, by the Langhornes,
which has often been reprinted; there is an edition of it with notes by
Wrangham. I have compared my translation carefully with the German of
Kaltwasser, and sometimes with the French of Amyot, and I have thus
avoided some errors into which I should have fallen. There are errors
both in the versions of Amyot and Kaltwasser which I have avoided; but I
may have fallen into others.
The translation of Kaltwasser contains some useful notes. Those which I
have added to this translation are intended to explain so much as needs
explanation to a person who is not much acquainted with Roman history
and Roman usages; but they will also be useful to others. The notes of
Kaltwasser have often reminded me of the passages where some note would
be useful, and have occasionally furnished materials also. But as I have
always referred to the original authorities, I do not consider it
necessary to make more than this general acknowledgment. The notes added
to this translation are all my own, and contain my own opinions and
observations.
This translation has been made from the edition of C. Sintenis, Leipzig,
1839, and I have compared the text of Sintenis with that of G.H.
Schaefer, Leipzig, 1826, which has been severely criticized: this
edition contains, however, some useful notes. I have very seldom made
any remarks on the Greek text, as such kind of remark would not have
suited the plan and design of this version, which is not intended for
verbal critics.
I shall explain by two brief extracts what is my main design in this
version and in the notes, which must be my apology for not affecting a
learned commentary, and my excuse to those who shall not find here the
kind of remarks that are suitable to a critical edition of an ancient
author. I have had another object than to discuss the niceties of words
and the forms of phrases, a labour which is well in its place, if it be
done well, but is not what needs to be done to such an author as
Plutarch to render him useful. A man who was a great reader of Plutarch,
a just and solid thinker above the measure of his age, and not surpassed
in his way by any writer in our own, Montaigne, observes in his 'Essay
of the Education of Children'--"Let him enquire into the manners,
revenues, and alliances of princes, things in themselves very pleasant
to learn, and very useful to know. In this conversing with men, I mean,
and principally those who only live in the records of history, he shall
by reading those books, converse with those great and heroic souls of
former and better ages. 'Tis an idle and vain study, I confess, to those
who make it so, by doing it after a negligent manner, but to those who
do it with care and observation, 'tis a study of inestimable fruit and
value; and the only one, as Plato reports, the Lacedaemonians reserved
to themselves. What profit shall he not reap as to the business of men,
by reading the Lives of Plutarch? But withal, let my governor remember
to what end his instructions are principally directed, and that he do
not so much imprint in his pupil's memory the date of the ruin of
Carthage, as the manners of Hannibal and Scipio; not so much where
Marcellus died, as why it was unworthy of his duty that he died there.
That he do not teach him so much the narrative part, as the business of
history. The reading of which, in my opinion, is a thing that of all
others we apply ourselves unto with the most differing and uncertain
measures."[A] North, in his address to the Reader, says: "The profit of
stories, and the praise of the Author, are sufficiently declared by
Amiot, in his Epistle to the Reader: so that I shall not need to make
many words thereof. And indeed if you will supply the defects of this
translation, with your own diligence and good understanding: you shall
not need to trust him, you may prove yourselves, that there is no
prophane study better than Plutarch. All other learning is private,
fitter for Universities than Cities, fuller of contemplation than
experience, more commendable in students themselves, than profitable
unto others. Whereas stories are fit for every place, reach to all
persons, serve for all times, teach the living, revive the dead, so far
excelling all other books, as it is better to see learning in Noblemen's
lives, than to read it in Philosophers' writings."
GEORGE LONG.
[Footnote A: Cotton's Translation.]
CONTENTS.
LIFE OF PLUTARCH xxiii
LIFE OF THESEUS 1
LIFE OF ROMULUS 30
COMPARISON OF THESEUS AND ROMULUS 62
LIFE OF LYKURGUS 67
LIFE OF NUMA 99
COMPARISON OF NUMA WITH LYKURGUS 124
LIFE OF SOLON 130
LIFE OF POPLICOLA 161
COMPARISON OF SOLON AND POPLICOLA 181
LIFE OF THEMISTOKLES 185
LIFE OF CAMILLUS 214
LIFE OF PERIKLES 252
LIFE OF FABIUS MAXIMUS 288
COMPARISON OF PERIKLES AND FABIUS MAXIMIUS 315
LIFE OF ALKIBIADES 318
LIFE OF CAIUS MARCIUS CORIOLANUS 357
COMPARISON BETWEEN ALKIBIADES AND CORIOLANUS 390
LIFE OF TIMOLEON 395
LIFE OF AEMILIUS 428
COMPARISON OF PAULUS AEMILIUS AND TIMOLEON 461
LIFE OF PLUTARCH.
Plutarch was born probably between A.D. 45 and A.D. 50, at the little
town of Chaeronea in Boeotia. His family appears to have been long
established in this place, the scene of the final destruction of the
liberties of Greece, when Philip defeated the Athenians and Boeotian
forces there in 338 B.C. It was here also that Sulla defeated
Mithridates, and in the great civil wars of Rome we again hear, this
time from Plutarch himself, of the sufferings of the citizens of
Chaeronea. Nikarchus, Plutarch's great-grandfather, was, with all the
other citizens, without any exception, ordered by a lieutenant of Marcus
Antonius to transport a quantity of corn from Chaeronea to the coast
opposite the island of Antikyra. They were compelled to carry the corn
on their shoulders, like slaves, and were threatened with the lash if
they were remiss. After they had performed one journey, and were
preparing their burdens for a second, the welcome news arrived that
Marcus Antonius had lost the battle of Actium, whereupon both the
officers and soldiers of his party stationed in Chaeronea at once fled
for their own safety, and the provisions thus collected were divided
among the inhabitants of the city.
When Plutarch was born, however, no such warlike scenes as these were to
be expected. Nothing more than the traditions of war remained on the
shores of the Mediterranean. Occasionally some faint echo of strife
would make itself heard from the wild tribes on the Danube, or in the
far Syrian deserts, but over nearly all the world known to the ancients
was established the Pax Romana. Battles were indeed fought, and troops
were marched upon Rome, but this was merely to decide who was to be the
nominal head of the vast system of the Empire, and what had once been
independent cities, countries, and nations submitted unhesitatingly to
whoever represented that irresistible power. It might be imagined that a
political system which destroyed all national individuality, and
rendered patriotism in its highest sense scarcely possible, would have
reacted unfavourably on the literary character of the age. Yet nothing
of the kind can be urged against the times which produced Epictetus, Dio
Chrysostom and Arrian; while at Rome, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus,
Martial, and Juvenal were reviving the memories of the Augustan age.
From several passages in Plutarch's writings we gather that he studied
under a master named Ammonius, at Athens. For instance, at the end of
his Life of Themistokles, he mentions a descendant of that great man who
was his fellow-student at the house of Ammonius the philosopher. Again,
he tells us that once Ammonius, observing at his afternoon lecture that
some of his class had indulged too freely in the pleasures of the table,
ordered his own son to be flogged, "because," he said, "the young
gentleman cannot eat his dinner without pickles," casting his eye at the
same time upon the other offenders so as to make them sensible that the
reproof applied to them also.
By way of completing his education he proceeded to visit Egypt. The
"wisdom of the Egyptians" always seems to have had a fascination for the
Greeks, and at this period Alexandria, with its famous library and its
memories of the Ptolemies, of Kallimachus and of Theokritus, was an
important centre of Greek intellectual activity. Plutarch's treatise on
Isis and Osiris is generally supposed to be a juvenile work suggested by
his Egyptian travels. In all the Graeco-Egyptian lore he certainly
became well skilled, although we have no evidence as to how long he
remained in Egypt. He makes mention indeed of a feast given in his
honour by some of his relatives on the occasion of his return home from
Alexandria, but we can gather nothing from the passage as to his age at
that time.
One anecdote of his early life is as follows:--"I remember," he says,
"that when I was still a young man, I was sent with another person on a
deputation to the Proconsul; my colleague, as it happened, was unable to
proceed, and I saw the Proconsul and performed the commission alone.
When I returned I was about to lay down my office and to give a public
account of how I had discharged it, when my father rose in the public
assembly and enjoined me not to say _I_ went, but _we_ went, nor to say
that _I_ said, but _we_ said, throughout my story, giving my colleague
his share."
The most important event in the whole of Plutarch's pious and peaceful
life is undoubtedly his journey to Italy and to Rome; but here again we
know little more than that he knew but little Latin when he went
thither, and was too busy when there to acquire much knowledge of that
tongue. His occupation at Rome, besides antiquarian researches which
were afterwards worked up into his Roman Lives, was the delivery of
lectures on philosophical and other subjects, a common practice among
the learned Greeks of his day. Many of these lectures, it is
conjectured, were afterwards recast by him into the numerous short
treatises on various subjects now included under the general name of
Moralia. Plutarch's visit to Rome and business there is admirably
explained in the following passage of North's 'Life of Plutarch':--"For
my part, I think Plutarch was drawn to Rome by meanes of some friends he
had there, especially by Sossius Senecio, that had been a Consull, who
was of great estimation at that time, and namely under the Empire of
Trajan. And that which maketh me think so, is because of Plutarch's own
words, who saith in the beginning of his first book of his discourse at
the table, that he gathered together all his reasons and discourses made
here and there, as well in Rome with Senecio, as in Greece with Plutarch
and others. Not being likely that he would have taken the pains to have
made so long a voyage, and to have come to such a city where he
understood not their vulgar tongue, if he had not been drawn thither by
Senecio, and such other men; as also in acknowledgement of the good
turnes and honour he had received by such men, he dedicated diverse of
his bookes unto them, and among others, the Lives unto Senecio, and the
nine volumes of his discourse at the table, with the treaty, How a man
may know that he profiteth in vertue. Now for the time, considering what
he saith in the end of his book against curiosity, I suppose that he
taught in Rome in the time of Titus and of Domitian: for touching this
point, he maketh mention of a nobleman called Rusticus, who being one
day at his lecture, would not open a letter which was brought him from
the Emperor, nor interrupt Plutarch, but attended to the end of his
declamation, and until all the hearers were gone away; and addeth also,
that Rusticus was afterwards put to death by the commandment of
Domitian. Furthermore, about the beginning of the Life of Demosthenes,
Plutarch saith, that whilst he remained in Italy and at Rome, he had no
leizure to study the Latine tongue; as well for that he was busied at
that time with matters he had in hand, as also to satisfie those that
were his followers to learne philosophie of him."[A]
[Footnote A: North's 'Plutarch,' 1631, p. 1194.]
A list of all Plutarch's writings would be a very long one. Besides the
Lives, which is the work on which his fame chiefly rests, he wrote a
book of 'Table Talk,' which may have suggested to Athenaeus the plan of
his 'Symposium.'
The most remarkable of his minor works is that 'On the Malignity of
Herodotus.' Grote takes this treatise as being intended seriously as an
attack upon the historian, and speaks of the "honourable frankness which
Plutarch calls his malignity." But it is probably merely a rhetorical
exercise, in which Plutarch has endeavoured to see what could be said
against so favourite and well-known a writer.
He was probably known as an author before he went to Rome. Large
capitals have always had a natural attraction for literary genius, as it
is in them alone that it can hope to be appreciated. And if this be the
case at the present day, how much more must it have been so before the
invention of printing, at a time when it was more usual to listen to
books read aloud than to read them oneself? Plutarch journeyed to Rome
just as Herodotus went to Athens, or as he is said to have gone to the
Olympian festival, in search of an intelligent audience of educated men.
Whether his object was merely praise, or whether he was influenced by
ideas of gain, we cannot say. No doubt his lectures were not delivered
gratis, and that they were well attended seems evident from Plutarch's
own notices of them, and from the names which have been preserved of the
eminent men who used to frequent them. Moreover, strange though it may
appear to us, the demand for books seems to have been very brisk even
though they were entirely written by hand.
The epigrams of Martial inform us of the existence of a class of slaves
whose occupation was copying books, and innumerable allusions in Horace,
Martial, &c., to the Sosii and others prove that the trade of a
bookseller at Rome was both extensive and profitable. Towards the end of
the Republic it became the fashion for Roman nobles to encourage
literature by forming a library, and this taste was given immense
encouragement by Augustus, who established a public library in the
Temple of Apollo on the Mount Palatine, in imitation of that previously
founded by Asinius Pollio. There were other libraries besides these, the
most famous of which was the Ulpian library, founded by Trajan, who
called it so from his own name, Ulpius. Now Trajan was a contemporary of
our author, and this act of his clearly proves that there must have been
during Plutarch's lifetime a considerable reading public, and consequent
demand for books at Rome.
Of Plutarch's travels in Italy we know next to nothing. He mentions
incidentally that he had seen the bust or statue of Marius at Ravenna,
but never gives us another hint of how far he explored the country about
which he wrote so much. No doubt his ignorance of the Latin language
must not be taken as a literal statement, and probably means that he was
not skilled in it as a spoken tongue, for we can scarcely imagine that
he was without some acquaintance with it when he first went to Rome, and
he certainly afterwards became well read in the literature of Rome. In
some cases he has followed Livy's narrative with a closeness which
proves that he must have been acquainted with that author either in the
original or in a translation, and the latter alternative is, of the two,
the more improbable.
It seems to be now generally thought that his stay at Rome was a short
one. Clough, in his excellent Preface, says on this subject, "The fault
which runs through all the earlier biographies, from that of Rualdus
downwards, is the assumption, wholly untenable, that Plutarch passed
many years, as many perhaps as forty, at Rome. The entire character of
his life is of course altered by such an impression." He then goes on to
say that in consequence of this mistaken idea, it is not worth while for
him to quote Dryden's 'Life of Plutarch,' which was originally prefixed
to the translations re-edited by himself. Yet I trust I may be excused
if I again quote North's 'Life of Plutarch,' as the following passage
seems to set vividly before us the quiet literary occupation of his
later days.
"For Plutarch, though he tarried a long while in Italy, and in Rome, yet
that tooke not away the remembrance of the sweet aire of Greece, and of
the little towne where he was borne; but being touched from time to time
with a sentence of an ancient poet, who saith that,
"'In whatsoever countrey men are bred
(I know not by what sweetnesse of it led),
They nourish in their minds a glad desire,
Unto their native homes for to retire,'
"he resolved to go back into Greece againe, there to end the rest of his
daies in rest and honour among his citizens, of whom he was honourably
welcomed home. Some judge that he left Rome after the death of Trajan,
being then of great yeares, to leade a more quiet life. So being then at
rest, he earnestly took in hand that which he had long thought of
before, to wit, the Lives, and tooke great pains with it until he had
brought his worke to perfection, as we have done at this present;
although that some Lives, as those of Scipio African, of Metellus
Numidicus, and some other are not to be found. Now himselfe confesseth
in some place, that when he began this worke, at the first it was but to
profit others; but that afterwards it was to profit himselfe, looking
upon those histories, as if he had looked in a glasse, and seeking to
reform his life in some sort, and to forme it in the mould of the
vertues of these great men; taking this fashion of searching their
manners, and writing the Lives of these noble men, to be a familiar
haunting and frequenting of them. Also he thought, [said he himselfe]
that he lodged these men one after another in his house, entering into
consideration of their qualities, and that which was great in either of
them, choosing and principally taking that which was to be noted, and
most worthy to be knowne in their sayings and deeds."[A]
[Footnote A: North's 'Plutarch,' 1631, p. 1198.]
Of Plutarch in his domestic relations we gather much information from
his own writings. The name of his father has not been preserved, but it
was probably Nikarchus, from the common habit of Greek families to
repeat a name in alternate generations. His brothers Timon and Lamprias
are frequently mentioned in his essays and dialogues, where Timon is
spoken of in the most affectionate terms. Rualdus has ingeniously
recovered the name of his wife, Timoxena, from internal evidence
afforded by his writings. A touching letter is still extant, addressed
by Plutarch to his wife, bidding her not give way to excessive grief at
the death of their only daughter, who was named Timoxena after her
mother. The number of his sons we cannot exactly state. Autobulus and
Plutarch are especially spoken of as his sons, since the treatise on the
Timaeus of Plato is dedicated to them, and the marriage of his son
Autobulus is the occasion of one of the dinner-parties recorded in the
'Table Talk.' Another person, one Soklarus, is spoken of in terms which
seem to imply that he was Plutarch's son, but this is nowhere definitely
stated. His treatise also on Marriage Questions, addressed to Eurydike
and Pollianus, seems to speak of her as having been recently an inmate
of his house, but without enabling us to form an opinion whether she was
his daughter or not. A modern writer well describes his maturer years by
the words: "Plutarch was well born, well taught, well conditioned; a
self-respecting amiable man, who knew how to better a good education by
travels, by devotion to affairs private and public; a master of ancient
culture, he read books with a just criticism: eminently social, he was a
king in his own house, surrounded himself with select friends, and knew
the high value of good conversation; and declares in a letter written to
his wife that 'he finds scarcely an erasure, as in a book well written,
in the happiness of his life.'"
He was an active member of the little community of Chaeronea, being
archon of that town. Whether this dignity was annual or for life we do
not know, but it was probably the former, and very likely he served it
more than once. He speaks of his devotion to the duties of his office as
causing him to incur the ridicule of some of his fellow-citizens, when
they saw him engaged in the humblest duties. "But," he says, in Clough's
version, "the story told about Antisthenes comes to my assistance. When
some one expressed surprise at his carrying home some pickled fish from
market in his own hands, _It is_, he answered, _for myself_. Conversely,
when I am reproached with standing by and watching while tiles are
measured out, and stone and mortar brought up, _This service_, I say,
_is not for myself_, it is for my country."
Plutarch was for many years a priest of Apollo at Delphi. The scene of
some of his 'Table Talk' is laid there, when he in his priestly capacity
gives a dinner party in honour of the victor in the poetic contest at
the Pythian games. Probably this office was a source of considerable
income, and as the journey from Chaeronea to Delphi, across Mount
Parnassus, is a very short one, it interfered but little with his
literary and municipal business. In his essay on "Whether an old man
should continue to take part in public life," he says, "You know,
Euphanes, that I have for many Pythiads (that is, periods of four years
elapsing between the Pythian festivals), exercised the office of Priest
of Apollo: yet I think you would not say to me,'Plutarch, you have
sacrificed enough; you have led processions and dances enough; it is
time, now that you are old, to lay aside the garland from your head, and
to retire as superannuated from the oracle.'"
Thus respected and loved by all, Plutarch's old age passed peacefully
away. "Notwithstanding," as North says, "that he was very old, yet he
made an end of the Lives.... Furthermore, Plutarch, having lived alwaies
honourably even to old age, he died quietly among his children and
friends in the city of Chaeronea, leaving his writings, an immortal
savour of his name, unto posterity. Besides the honour his citizens did
him, there was a statue set up for him by ordinance of the people of
Rome, in memory of his virtues. Now furthermore, though time hath
devoured some part of the writings of this great man, and minished some
other: neverthelesse those which remaine, being a great number, have
excellent use to this day among us."
PLUTARCH'S LIVES.
LIFE OF THESEUS.
I. As in books on geography, Sossius Senecio, the writers crowd the
countries of which they know nothing into the furthest margins of their
maps, and write upon them legends such as, "In this direction lie
waterless deserts full of wild beasts;" or, "Unexplored morasses;" or,
"Here it is as cold as Scythia;" or, "A frozen sea;" so I, in my
writings on Parallel Lives, go through that period of time where history
rests on the firm basis of facts, and may truly say, "All beyond this is
portentous and fabulous, inhabited by poets and mythologers, and there
is nothing true or certain."
When I had written the lives of Lykurgus the lawgiver and Numa the king,
it appeared to me natural to go back to Romulus also, as I was engaged
on the history of times so close to his. So when I was reflecting, in
the words of Aeschylus,
"Against this chieftain, who can best contend?
Whom shall I match in fight, what trusty friend?"
it occurred to me to compare the founder of the fair and famous city of
Athens with him, and to contrast Theseus with the father of unconquered
glorious Rome. Putting aside, then, the mythological element, let us
examine his story, and wherever it obstinately defies probability, and
cannot be explained by natural agency, let us beg the indulgence of our
readers, who will kindly make allowance for tales of antiquity.
II. Theseus appears to have several points of resemblance to Romulus.
Both were unacknowledged illegitimate children, and were reputed to
descend from the Gods.
"Both warriors, well we all do know,"
and both were wise as well as powerful. The one founded Rome, while the
other was the joint founder of Athens; and these are two of the most
famous of cities. Both carried off women by violence, and neither of
them escaped domestic misfortune and retribution, but towards the end of
their lives both were at variance with their countrymen, if we may put
any trust in the least extravagant writings upon the subject.
III. Theseus traced his descent on the father's side from Erechtheus and
the original Autochthones,[A] while on the mother's side he was
descended from Pelops. For Pelops surpassed all the other princes of the
Peloponnesus in the number of his children as well as in wealth; and of
these he gave many of his daughters in marriage to the chief men of the
country, and established many of his sons as rulers in various cities.
One of these, Pittheus, the grandfather of Theseus, founded Troezen,
which is indeed but a little state, though he had a greater reputation
than any man of his time for eloquence and wisdom. The nature of this
wisdom of his seems to have been much of the same kind as that which
made the reputation of Hesiod, in the collection of maxims known as the
'Works and Days.' One of these maxims is indeed ascribed to Pittheus:
"Let promised pay be truly paid to friends."
At any rate, this is what Aristotle the philosopher has recorded; and
also Euripides, when he speaks of Hippolytus as "child of holy
Pittheus," shows the prevailing opinion about Pittheus. Now Aegeus
desired to have children, and the Oracle at Delphi is said to have given
him the well-known response, forbidding him to have intercourse with any
woman before he reached Athens, but not appearing to explain this
clearly. Consequently, on his way home, he went to Troezen, and asked
the advice of Pittheus about the response of the God, which ran thus:
"Great chief, the wine-skin's foot must closed remain,
Till thou to Athens art returned again."