Plutarch's Lives, Vol. 1

“However, it was not the design of Lycurgus that his city should govern a great many others; he thought rather that the happiness of a state, as of a private man, consisted chiefly in the exercise of virtue, and in the concord of the inhabitants; his aim, therefore, in all his arrangements, was to make and keep them free-minded, self-dependent, and temperate.”

The influence of character on history is a prominent theme throughout Plutarch’s Lives, with individuals often continuing to shape what happens to their state long after they die. In his biography of Lycurgus, Plutarch shows how Lycurgus’s own goals in reforming the Spartan constitution shaped the later history of Sparta: Lycurgus’s constitution, for all its strength, was not designed to enable a city to “govern a great many others,” and thus began to fail as Sparta increased its power and influence.

“It is the fortune of all good men that their virtue rises in glory after their deaths, and that the envy which evil men conceive against them never outlives them long; some have the happiness even to see it die before them; but in Numa’s case, also, the fortunes of the succeeding kings served as foils to set off the brightness of his reputation.”

Plutarch was not the first ancient Greek author to note that a person’s fame often increases after they die, as legends rise around their achievements and when they are no longer affected by the petty squabbles and rivalries of daily life. Numa’s greatness, in Plutarch’s view, was further enhanced after he died by the contrast between him and the Roman kings who followed him—kings whose aggressive and warlike policies turned them into effective “foils” for the pious and peaceful Numa.

“And, therefore, when he was afterwards asked if he had left the Athenians the best laws that could be given, he replied, ‘The best they could receive.’”

Though Plutarch represents Solon as a very idealistic and principled man, he also represents him as practical. The well-traveled Solon is enough of a realist to know that his countrymen may not be stable and enlightened enough for the “best laws that could be given,” and so he tries his best to give them “‘[t]he best they could receive.’”

“That Solon should discourse with Croesus, some think not agreeable with chronology; but I cannot reject so famous and well-attested a narrative, and, what is more, so agreeable to Solon’s temper, and so worthy his wisdom and greatness of mind, because, forsooth, it does not agree with some chronological canons, which thousands have endeavoured to regulate, and yet, to this day, could never bring their differing opinions to any agreement.”

The legend of Solon’s meeting with Croesus goes back to the fifth-century BCE historian Herodotus, yet it was well-known even in antiquity that such a meeting was unlikely on chronological grounds. Plutarch, however, is not writing history, but biography, and as such he feels no compunctions about ignoring rigorous historical principles when doing so allows him to make an important point about the personal characteristics of his subject and the influence of character on history.

“Poplicola, having completed his triumph, and bequeathed the city to the care of the succeeding consuls, died; thus closing a life which, so far as human life may be, had been full of all that is good and honourable.”

Plutarch makes much of how well Poplicola died, with his legacy and reputation intact. Poplicola is thus able to die happy, which Plutarch has established earlier as the truest measure of happiness in his parallel biography of Solon. Plutarch’s reflections on the wider implications of his individual case studies’ virtues and vices also speaks to his belief in The Universality of Human Nature.

“Yet it is evident that his mind was early imbued with the keenest interest in public affairs, and the most passionate ambition for distinction.”

Themistocles’s ambition is an ambivalent quality, as Plutarch’s biography shows. On the one hand, Themistocles’s ambition inspires him to do a lot of good for Athens. On the other hand, the relentlessness of Themistocles’s “ambition for distinction” often leads him to pursue his ends through dishonest or treacherous means. Themistocles’s complex character—he is neither purely good nor purely evil—makes his legacy more complex as well.

“Moral good is a practical stimulus; it is no sooner seen, than it inspires an impulse to practice, and influences the mind and character not by a mere imitation which we look at, but by the statement of the fact creates a moral purpose which we form.”

Plutarch’s Lives are an exploration of practical ethics and the universality of human nature, using the lives of important historical individuals to teach and inspire moral behavior in others. Here, Plutarch reflects on why his method is so effective: When we learn about the morally-exemplary actions of others, we are inspired to emulate them in our own lives.

“Education and study, and the favours of the muses, confer no greater benefit on those that seek them than these humanising and civilising lessons, which teach our natural qualities to submit to the limitations prescribed by reason, and to avoid the wildness of extremes.”

Plutarch stresses the importance of education in many of his biographies—indeed, his reason for writing his Lives is primarily educational. Nowhere is the value of education more obvious for Plutarch than in those who have not had enough of it. Here, Plutarch reflects on how Coriolanus’s lack of education contributed to his considerable moral shortcomings and his failure to make the most of his natural potential.

“It was for the sake of others that I first commenced writing biographies; but I find myself proceeding and attaching myself to it for my own; the virtues of these great men serving me as a sort of looking-glass, in which I may see how to adjust and adorn my own life.”

Plutarch is writing his biographies not only for others, but also for himself, and reflects in this passage about how he finds himself implementing the lessons learned from the great figures of history in his own life. Plutarch’s goal in writing his Lives is for his readers to learn the same lessons and make the same use of them.

“So true it is that the minds of men are easily shaken and carried off from their own sentiments through the casual commendation or reproof of others, unless the judgments that we make, and the purposes we conceive, be confirmed by reason and philosophy, and thus obtain strength and steadiness.”

What defines true resolution is not passion or sentiment, as Plutarch explains, but education, especially philosophical education. In Plutarch’s view, a person cannot live their life to the fullest unless their actions and opinions stand on a firm philosophical foundation, and the only way to attain this foundation is by having a good education.

“History suggests a variety of good counsel of this sort, by the way, to those who desire to learn and improve.”

Conveying the lessons of history is one of the purposes of Plutarch’s Lives: Sometimes, these lessons come in the form of pithy sayings or anecdotes, but sometimes the reader must work harder to discover them. A diligent student of history, however, will always be able to find lessons from history to improve themselves.

“It is truly very commendable to abhor and shun the doing any base action; but to stand in fear of every kind of censure or disrepute may argue a gentle and open-hearted, but not an heroic temper.”

Public figures, generals, and politicians must navigate a fine line between being just and obsessing about their reputation to effectively uphold The Role of Leadership and Morality in Public Life. The best historical leaders, in Plutarch’s view, are people whose actions were virtuous and noble, and such people usually enjoy a good reputation long after they die. However, being too preoccupied with maintaining a good reputation (like Timoleon) can be a serious hindrance to a public figure, preventing them from achieving truly great things.

“An endeavour to avoid death is not blamable, if we do not basely desire to live; nor a willingness to die good and virtuous, if it proceeds from a contempt of life.”

Many of the moral lessons that Plutarch draws from his Lives involve virtue ethics. Here, Plutarch dissects the virtue of courage: True courage is different from fearlessness, for a person cannot be truly courageous if they do not value their life. Sometimes, being courageous means knowing when not to risk one’s life. Generals especially must often take extra measures to safeguard themselves because many other people’s lives depend on them.

“Indeed, foreign nations had held the Romans to be excellent soldiers and formidable in battle; but they had hitherto given no memorable examples of gentleness, or humanity, or civic virtue; and Marcellus seems first to have shown to the Greeks that his countrymen were most illustrious for their justice.”

By pairing his biographies of great Greeks with those of great Romans, Plutarch sheds light on the universality of human nature in different cultures and historical periods. He also seeks to show the Romans as more than just great warriors and administrators, but as a people with commendable values of their own. Throughout his Lives, Plutarch prizes the Romans above all not for their martial qualities, but for their love of justice.

“Yet though thus disposed, they covet that immortality which our nature is not capable of, and that power the great part of which is at the disposal of fortune; but give virtue, the only divine good really in our reach, the last place, most unwisely; since justice makes the life of such as are in prosperity, power, and authority the life of a god, and injustice turns it into that of a beast.”

One of the main lessons Plutarch seeks to teach in his Lives is the importance of virtue. While material gains—power, wealth, fame—are transient, only virtue and justice have the power to elevate human beings. Many of Plutarch’s subjects are misguided because they do not learn this lesson, or do not learn it until it is too late.

“Questionless, there is no perfecter endowment in man than political virtue, and of this Economics is commonly esteemed not the least part; for a city, which is a collection of private households, grows into a stable commonwealth by the private means of prosperous citizens that compose it.”

For Plutarch, financial and economic success is an important virtue: One must, after all, be able to provide for oneself and one’s family. For this reason, Plutarch is ambivalent about Aristides’s poverty, preferring Cato’s industrious pursuit of honorable financial success, even if he admits that some aspects of Cato’s success, such as his treatment of his enslaved workers, was not entirely virtuous.

“And one of the Romans, to praise him, calls him the last of the Greeks; as if after him Greece had produced no great man, nor who deserved the name of Greek.”

The decline of the Greek city-states features prominently through Plutarch’s Lives. In many ways, Plutarch represents the Romans as eclipsing the Greeks and continuing their greatness as the glories of classical Greek culture gave way to corruption, tyranny, and excess. Philopoemen, in championing Greek liberty during a period of upheaval and chaos, becomes “the last of the Greeks.”

“To conclude, since it does not appear to be easy, by any review or discussion, to establish the true difference of their merits and decide to which a preference is due, will it be an unfair award in the case, if we let the Greek bear away the crown for military conduct and warlike skill, and the Roman for justice and clemency?”

Here as elsewhere, Plutarch shows that he prefers to praise the Romans for their justice than for their military skills. Everybody already knows, as far as Plutarch is concerned, that the Romans are great conquerors—but this is not their greatest virtue. Similarly, Plutarch is heavily invested in proving that his native Greeks are not only intellectuals and philosophers, but also brave and skilled warriors in their own right.

“The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one other such would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward.”

Pyrrhus’s defeat of the Romans at battles such as Asculum has given rise to the term “Pyrrhic victory”—that is, when one wins a victory at a heavy cost to themselves. Pyrrhus’s inability to defeat the Romans illustrates something essential about the resilience of the Roman character, which allows Rome to resist its enemies against all odds and ultimately come out the winner.

“Unmindful and thoughtless persons, on the contrary, let all that occurs to them slip away from them as time passes on. Retaining and preserving nothing, they lose the enjoyment of their present prosperity by fancying something better to come […] not indeed unnaturally; as till men have by reason and education laid a good foundation for external superstructures, in the seeking after and gathering them they can never satisfy the unlimited desire of their mind.”

Marius’s ignoble death furnishes Plutarch with an opportunity to reflect once again on the value of cultivating a philosophical mindset. Ever since the time of Socrates and Plato, it had been a truism that one of the most important things philosophy teaches is how to die well. As Plutarch writes, when a wise person is on their deathbed, they should focus on what they accomplished. Unwise people like Marius, on the other hand, can only focus on what they wished they had accomplished. For such people, no achievements are ever enough.

“And moral habits, induced by public practices, are far quicker in making their way into men's private lives, than the failings and faults of individuals are in infecting the city at large.”

For Plutarch, a person’s virtues are much more important than their vices because they have a much more pervasive impact on the larger community, especially when it comes to leaders and the role of leadership and morality in public life. As Plutarch notes throughout his Lives, people are often inspired to emulate the actions of virtuous men but are not as affected by their vices. This is why Plutarch believes that we can learn even from the lives of problematic figures.

“As a vicious nature, though of an ancient stock, is dishonourable, it must be virtue itself, and not birth, that makes virtue honourable.”

Plutarch takes a stance on the “nature versus nurture” debate that was so popular in antiquity, observing that whether a person is virtuous is determined not by their birth but by their behavior. Some of the most exemplary historical figures surveyed by Plutarch thus come from humble origins, while many historical figures of high birth are more ambivalent.

“[I]t is hard, or indeed perhaps impossible, to show the life of a man wholly free from blemish, in all that is excellent we must follow truth exactly, and give it fully; any lapses or faults that occur, through human passions or political necessities, we may regard rather as the shortcomings of some particular virtue, than as the natural effects of vice.”

Plutarch emphasizes the importance of being as truthful as possible in his biographies when examining the influence of character on history, though it is significant that his definition of truth is contingent upon his aim of illustrating the characters of his subjects. For Plutarch, we often find that what is “true” is what best showcases some particular virtue or vice that is important, not necessarily what is historically factual.