This edited volume speaks to the great popularity which Plutarch is currently enjoying: it is one of several published on his works in the last two years. Surprisingly, the two editors of this present volume are both Latinists, and not Hellenists as one might expect. Its primary theme, Plutarch and the construction of history, focuses on the tension between historical narrative and literary invention. The subject is immense and allows for the variety of approaches proposed.
The contributions to this volume touch upon three broad themes. The first, Plutarch’s adaptation of his sources, is present in most of the essays but central to three in particular, which come to very different conclusions. Isabelle Pimouguet-Pédarros reads the theatricality of the Demetrius as principally emanating from Plutarch’s sources and therefore reflecting a historical reality, but wonders at the absence of theatrical imagery in the war scenes of the Life, considering its existence in other sources. The query remains unanswered. Thierry Piel proposes a reconstruction of early Roman royal history by taking into account Plutarch’s narrative of the battle of Ariccia (459 BC) in the Virtues of Women. This essay is clearly the work of a historian and will be of special interest to those seeking to compare diverging accounts of early Roman history. Most convincing is Laurent Gourmelen’s exciting essay on Plutarch’s use of mythology in the Theseus, especially with regards to the Amazons. Gourmelen demonstrates how, despite his assertion in the proem that he will rationalize myth, Plutarch weaves elements of mythology – without seeking to historicize it – into his narrative to further illustrate Theseus’ negative traits.
Secondly, this volume includes a number of essays that explore Plutarch’s break with previous traditions. Alain Billaut argues that Plutarch thought to distance himself from the supremely positive image which Demosthenes had enjoyed in his afterlife by presenting the reader with an ambivalent portrait of the orator. This, however, ignores the influence of the Peripatetic tradition – very hostile to Demosthenes – on the Life. Gaëlle Tirel outlines the general ways in which Plutarch uses dreams to illustrate his protagonists’ character and life. Plutarch’s approach, she argues, diverges from the conventional ways in which dreams had been integrated into narrative from Homer onwards. The essay falls short, however, of other works on the topic (I think here of F. Braund’s works, including ‘The Dreams of Plutarch’s Lives’, Latomus 34 (1975), 336–49, but there are others). Jérôme Wilgaux re-contextualizes Plutarch’s use of physical description within the long-standing tradition of physiognomic semiotics in antiquity. He argues that, while Plutarch did not systematically subscribe to ancient physiognomy, in some cases physical descriptions are used to contrast with the hero’s inner character and in others, especially the Alexander, they do not even point to specific character traits.
Thirdly, this volume offers three analyses of Plutarch’s exploration of the relationship between Greek and Roman cultures. Pascale Giovannelli-Jouanna outlines the parallels between Timoleon and Aemilus Paullus, especially with regard to the role of Fortune in shaping the pair. This topic, however, has already been explored with more sophistication by Douglas Cairns in ‘Roman Imperium, Greek Paideia: Plutarch’s Lives of Aemilius Paullus and Timoleon’, Horizons: Seoul Journal of Humanities 5.1 (2014), 5–28. Emmanuèle Caire’s excellent analysis of philantropia in the Parallel Lives demonstrates the complex attitudes of Plutarch’s leaders towards this virtue and its potential to become a tool of Realpolitik. Her essay highlights the key differences between the Greek protagonists’ embodiment of philantropia and the Romans’ interpretation of what Plutarch considered a Hellenic virtue. Finally, Eric Guerber offers a superb examination of the similarities and differences between Plutarch and Dio of Prusa’s attitude towards Roman hegemony. This essay gives us a sense of Plutarch’s view of Rome, not in the past, but in his present. The comparison with Dio also serves to highlight the versatility of Greek attitudes towards Rome in the early Imperial period. This parallelism is welcome since we are often tempted to treat Plutarch as an exception rather than a remarkable voice amidst others. Where Plutarch saw Rome as the centre of a peaceful empire which the Greeks needed to navigate with caution and diplomacy, Eric Guerber argues that Dio was more critical, seeing Rome as an overlord with violent and tyrannical tendencies, inferior in its values to those upheld by the surviving Greek poleis.
The volume’s conclusion is one we know well: Plutarch drew on many different types of sources, from myth to tragedy and history, in order to construct ambiguous and nuanced portraits of his subjects. Generally, the themes or approaches featured in these contributions are not radically new. While not all contributions impress or persuade, those that do add elegant and convincing discussions to topics that have already been opened in Plutarchan scholarship.
