Plutarch and Rome

Abstract

PREFACEThe vicissitudes of Plutarch's reputation are themselves anchapter in the history of culture. Deposed in the last centurynfrom his high position as a historian and a moralist, he came to be regarded as little more than a lifeless receptacle, valuable mainly for what he had preserved of earlier literature. His works became a quarry in the scramble for lost sources, and his reputation dwindled by comparison with the cloudy trophies of which he was the involuntary saviour.It was always unlikely that an author should have made himself so inert a medium for the transmission of borrowed knowledge. More recent investigation has provided correctives. Plutarch's knowledge of the classical poets is not drawn entirely from handbooks; when his dependence on prose anthologies was thought to have been proved, the proof turned out to be illusory, the result of the use of his own works by later authors.The rediscovery of Plutarch as a literary personality is welcome. It invites a new approach, from the direction of history. If his independence as an author can be proved, so also can his position in his own time be re-examined. Not that he can be turned into a major figure of imperial history, any more than he can be restored to a position equal to that of the classical writers. But he can be shown to have been affected by currents prevailing in his day, and these currents may prove to help with the understanding of his works.Rome is the foil, the inescapable background for Plutarch's activity and thought. His life was passed entirely under the Caesars in a province of their empire. In the course of time he came constantly into contact with Rome: as the friend of Roman officials, the priest of a shrine favoured by the emperors, and as a citizen with honorary positions in the Roman hierarchy. Among Greek authors, his interest in Rome is unequalled : the Parallel Lives prove it, and also the Roman Questions and numerous passages in his essays and dialogues.There is another justification for a study of Plutarch in relation with Rome, besides its importance in his life. In recent yearsnhistorians of the early and high empires have pursued two lines with particular profit. One is the part taken by provincials in imperial history and literature. The other, closely cognate, is the relation between the two halves of the empire, east and west. These two paths have led in turn to a reconsideration of the Greek renaissance of the second and third centuries, and for a clear reason: this movement owes much of its vitality to the encouragement, both fortuitous and deliberate, of Rome. Plutarch lived at the beginning of this period, and is at once an observer and an early representative of it. Not only, therefore, can the history ofhis time illustrate his works, but they themselves are a source, often neglected, for contemporary manners and thought.What follows has two parts. The first reviews the evidence for Plutarch's life and society. In the second, those of his writings that reveal his attitude to Rome are considered, as far as possible in order of composition : the Roman Questions, since their interest is mainly antiquarian, have not received separate treatment. While Rome provides the organizing principle, the primary subject is Plutarch.n n n n n n

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 120 citations exist upstream.