Who is Plutarch? Ancient polis as a unique phenomenon

PLUTARCH(c. 46 - c. 120), ancient Greek writer and historian. The main work is “Comparative Lives” of outstanding Greeks and Romans (50 biographies). The rest of the numerous works that have come down to us are united under code name"Morals".

PLUTARCH(c. 46 - c. 120), ancient Greek writer, author of moral, philosophical and historical-biographical works. From Plutarch's vast literary heritage, which amounted to ca. 250 works, no more than a third of the works have survived, most of which are united under common name"Moral." Another group - "Comparative Lives" - includes 23 pairs of biographies of outstanding statesmen Ancient Greece and Rome, selected according to the similarity of their historical mission and the similarity of their characters.

Biography

The ancient tradition has not preserved the biography of Plutarch, but it can be reconstructed with sufficient completeness from his own writings. Plutarch was born in the 40s of the 1st century in Boeotia, in the small town of Chaeronea, where in 338 BC. e. A battle took place between the troops of Philip of Macedon and the Greek troops. In the time of Plutarch, his homeland was part of the Roman province of Achaia, and only carefully preserved ancient traditions could testify to its former greatness. Plutarch came from an old, wealthy family and received a traditional grammatical and rhetorical education, which he continued in Athens, becoming a student at the school of the philosopher Ammonius. Returning to his hometown, he teenage years took part in its management, holding various magistrates, including the prominent position of archon-eponym. Plutarch repeatedly went on political errands to Rome, where he established friendly relations with many statesmen, among whom was a friend of Emperor Trajan, consul Quintus Sosius Senekion; Plutarch dedicated “Comparative Lives” and “Table Talks” to him. Proximity to influential circles of the empire and growing literary fame brought Plutarch new honorary positions: under Trajan (98-117) he became proconsul, under Hadrian (117-138) - procurator of the province of Achaia. A surviving inscription from the era of Hadrian indicates that the emperor granted Plutarch Roman citizenship, classifying him as a member of the Mestrian family.

Despite his brilliant political career, Plutarch chose a quiet life in his hometown, surrounded by his children and students, who formed a small academy in Chaeronea. “As for me,” Plutarch points out, “I live in a small city and, so that it does not become even smaller, I willingly remain in it.”

Plutarch's public activities earned him great respect in Greece. Around 95, his fellow citizens elected him a member of the college of priests of the sanctuary of Apollo of Delphi. A statue was erected in his honor in Delphi, from which a pedestal with a poetic dedication was found during excavations in 1877.

Plutarch's life dates back to the era of the "Hellenic Renaissance" of the early 2nd century. During this period, the educated circles of the Empire were overwhelmed by the desire to imitate the ancient Hellenes both in the customs of everyday life and in literary creativity. The policy of Emperor Hadrian, who provided assistance to Greek cities that had fallen into decay, could not but arouse among Plutarch's compatriots hope for a possible revival of the traditions of the independent policies of Hellas.

Plutarch's literary activity was primarily educational and educational in nature. His works are addressed to a wide range of readers and have a pronounced moral and ethical orientation associated with the traditions of the teaching genre - diatribes. Plutarch's worldview is harmonious and clear: he believes in higher intelligence, governs the universe, and is like a wise teacher who never tires of reminding his listeners of eternal universal values.

Small works

The wide range of topics covered in Plutarch's works reflects the encyclopedic nature of his knowledge. He creates “Political Instructions”, essays on practical morality (“On envy and hatred”, “How to distinguish a flatterer from a friend”, “On love for children”, etc.), he is interested in the influence of literature on a person (“How young men get acquainted with poetry") and questions of cosmogony ("On the generation of the world soul according to Timaeus").

Plutarch's works are permeated with the spirit of Platonic philosophy; his works are full of quotations and reminiscences from the works of the great philosopher, and the treatise “Plato's Questions” is a real commentary on his texts. Plutarch is concerned with problems of religious and philosophical content, which are the subject of the so-called. Pythian dialogues (“On the sign “E” at Delphi”, “On the decline of oracles”), the essay “On the daimony of Socrates” and the treatise “On Isis and Osiris”.

A group of dialogues dressed in traditional form conversations between table mates at a feast, is a collection of entertaining information from mythology, deep philosophical remarks and sometimes curious natural science concepts. The titles of the dialogues can give an idea of ​​the variety of questions that interest Plutarch: “Why do we not believe autumn dreams”, “Which hand of Aphrodite was wounded by Diomedes”, “ Various legends about the number of Muses”, “What meaning did Plato put into the belief that God always remains a geometer”, etc.

The “Greek Questions” and “Roman Questions” belong to the same circle of works by Plutarch, containing different points of view on the origin of state institutions, traditions and customs of antiquity.

"Comparative Lives"

The main work of Plutarch, which became one of the most famous works ancient literature, his biographical works appeared.

“Comparative biographies” have absorbed enormous historical material, including information from works of ancient historians that have not survived to this day, the author’s personal impressions of ancient monuments, quotes from Homer, epigrams and epitaphs. It is customary to reproach Plutarch for his uncritical attitude towards the sources he uses, but it must be borne in mind that the main thing for him was not the historical event itself, but the trace it left in history.

This can be confirmed by the treatise “On the Malice of Herodotus,” in which Plutarch reproaches Herodotus for partiality and distortion of the history of the Greco-Persian Wars. Plutarch, who lived 400 years later, in an era when, as he put it, a Roman boot was raised over the head of every Greek, wanted to see great commanders and politicians not as they really were, but the ideal embodiment of valor and courage. He did not seek to recreate history in all its real completeness, but found in it outstanding examples wisdom, heroism, self-sacrifice in the name of the homeland, designed to capture the imagination of his contemporaries.

In the introduction to the biography of Alexander the Great, Plutarch formulates the principle that he used as the basis for the selection of facts: “We write not history, but biographies, and virtue or vice is not always visible in the most glorious deeds, but often some insignificant act, word or joke better reveal the character of a person than battles in which tens of thousands die, the leadership of huge armies and sieges of cities."

Plutarch's artistic mastery made Comparative Lives a favorite reading for youth, who learned from his writings about the events of the history of Greece and Rome. Plutarch's heroes became personifications historical eras: ancient times were associated with the activities of the wise legislators Solon, Lycurgus and Numa, and the end of the Roman Republic seemed to be a majestic drama, driven by the clashes of the characters of Caesar, Pompey, Crassus, Antony, Brutus.

It can be said without exaggeration that thanks to Plutarch European culture there was an idea about ancient history as a semi-legendary era of freedom and civic valor. That is why his works were highly valued by thinkers of the Enlightenment, figures of the Great French Revolution and the generation of Decembrists.

The very name of the Greek writer became a household word, since numerous editions of biographies of great people were called “Plutarchs” in the 19th century.

Plutarch (also called Plutarch of Chaeronea) is an ancient Greek writer, historian, philosopher, and biographer. The description of his life path as something integral has not reached our time, but the works of Plutarch make it possible to reconstruct many events. The philosopher was a native of Boeotia, the small town of Chaeronea, where he was born around 46. He was a descendant of an old wealthy family and received a rhetorical and grammatical education typical of his social class.

The training continued in Athens, where Plutarch studied rhetoric, mathematics and philosophy. As a philosopher, Plutarch considered himself a Platonist, but, most likely, his views could be called eclectic, and he was interested mainly in the practical application of philosophy. It is known that in his youth Plutarch, in company with his mentor Ammonius and his brother Lamprius, paid a visit to Delphi, where the cult of Apollo still existed, although it had fallen into decay. This event left a noticeable imprint on further life path Plutarch and his literary activity in particular.

After studying in Athens, he returned to his native Chaeronea, where he successfully completed the assignment given to him by the city community. Subsequently, he led an active social life, held various positions, in particular, he was a caretaker of buildings, a member of the council of the Boeotian Union; He was also elected archon. On city business he traveled to Rome and other Italian cities more than once. In the capital, he met prominent statesmen, in particular, Arulen Rustik, Quintus Sosius Sentsion, who was a close friend of Emperor Trajan and consul.

Friendly relations with them helped Plutarch make serious progress as a public figure. He was given Roman citizenship, and with it he received a new name - Mestrius Plutarch, and turned into an extremely influential person in his province. The governor of Achaia had to pre-coordinate any events with him: this was ordered by Emperor Trajan, and later by his successor Hadrian.

Good connections and increased fame as a writer helped Plutarch become proconsul under Trajan and procurator of the province of Achaia under Hadrian. But even with such a brilliant career as a politician, Plutarch did not move to the capital, preferring his quiet hometown, where he lived, surrounding himself with children and students, creating a kind of small academy in which he taught young people.

When Plutarch was almost 50, he was elected by his fellow citizens as a member of the college of priests of the temple of Apollo at Delphi and put a lot of effort into ensuring that the sanctuary acquired former greatness. Died around 127

Literary heritage it was very large - approximately 250 works, of which no more than a third have survived. His activities in the field of literature were educational, educational, moral and ethical in nature, and were addressed to the widest readership.

Plutarch's main work, which he wrote in the last period of his life, was the Comparative Lives, which are biographies of famous citizens of Rome and Greece. In total, 70 works were written within their framework, of which 50 have survived to this day. “Comparative Lives” are one of the most famous works of the era of antiquity, the pinnacle of the biographical genre of that time. Plutarch's works on philosophy, ethics, pedagogy, religion, politics, history, literature, and natural science are a valuable source of information about the history of ancient peoples.

It is impossible to overestimate the importance of the works written by the ancient sages, their discoveries and other heritage inherited by humanity since those times. Unfortunately, many works have not survived to this day, and this is a serious loss. However, there is no point in regretting something that cannot be changed; you should act based on the current situation. At least, this is what the ancient Greek and Roman sages themselves claimed, including Plutarch of Chaeronea.

Childhood and youth

Little is known about the childhood of the ancient Greek writer and philosopher. He was born in 46 AD. The boy’s parents, although they were wealthy people, did not belong to aristocrats or other privileged classes. However, this fact did not prevent Plutarch and his brother Lamprius from reading books and receiving a good education in Athens.

While studying philosophy, rhetoric and mathematics, Plutarch became friends with the teacher Ammonius, an adherent of the doctrine. This friendship led to the fact that, after completing his studies, Plutarch went to Delphi with his brother and teacher.

The purpose of this trip was personal acquaintance with the cult of Apollo, as well as the activities of the oracles and Pythia. This event seriously influenced the young Plutarch; in subsequent years, he recalled this more than once (including in his works).

Returning back to his hometown of Chaeronea, Plutarch entered public service, becoming an eponymous archon. The young archon's first task was to report to the proconsul of the province of Achaia about the demands of the city's inhabitants. Having successfully completed the assignment, Plutarch continued to work as a public figure.

Philosophy and literature

Plutarch always considered himself a follower of the teachings of Plato. However, it would be more correct to classify him as an eclectic - adherents of a movement that was fully formed after the death of Plutarch by the Alexandrian philosopher Potamon.

The formation of Plutarch’s views was influenced by many factors, among which the Platonist Ammonius played main role. However, it is worth noting that even during his studies, the future philosopher managed to make acquaintances with the Peripatetics (disciples) and the Stoics. And if the followers of Aristotle seemed to him more or less convincing, then Plutarch later seriously criticized the Stoics, like the Epicureans.

Also, during one of his travels around the world, Plutarch managed to meet the Roman Neo-Pythagoreans. The philosopher's literary heritage is truly extensive. According to the catalog compiled by the philosopher's brother Lampri, Plutarch wrote about 210 works, the bulk of which have survived to this day. From this mass, researchers single out the “Comparative Lives” and the “Moralia” cycle, consisting of 78 works (plus 5 more with disputed authorship).

“Comparative Lives” are 22 paired biographies of the ancient Greeks and Romans, including the Spartan king Leonidas, as well as orators and. The pairs were selected based on similarity of characters and activities.

When describing life, the philosopher freely operated with facts, claiming that he was writing a biography, not history. The main task of this essay was to get acquainted with the great figures of the past and was purely educational in nature. By the way, in the original there were more pairs for comparison, but some were not preserved.

The Moralia cycle also had an educational function, since the bulk of the works included in it were written when Plutarch was a lecturer and mentor. The most striking examples include the following works: “On Excessive Timidity”, “On Talkativeness”, “On How to Use Lectures”, “On Wisdom”, “On Raising Children”.

There were also works of a political nature - “Instruction on government affairs" and "On monarchy, democracy and oligarchy." Plutarch wrote them after receiving citizenship and a government position in Rome (this happened thanks to his acquaintance with Quintus Sosius Senecion). When the persecution of scientists and philosophers by the emperor Titus Flavius ​​Domitian began, he returned back to Chaeronea, risking being executed for his statements.

Plutarch visited all major cities of Greece (including Corinth), visited Sardis, Alexandria and a number of other cities. Based on his travels around the world, the philosopher wrote such works as “On Isis and Osiris,” in which he outlined his point of view on understanding ancient Egyptian mythology, and the two-volume book “Greek Questions” and “Roman Questions.”

These works examined the history of two influential states, two biographies of Alexander the Great (in addition to the one included in the “Comparative Lives”) - “On the Glory of Alexander” and “On the Fortune and Valor of Alexander the Great”, as well as a number of other works.

Their philosophical views Plutarch outlined the works of Plato (“Plato’s Questions”), in critical works (“On the contradictions of the Stoics”, “On the fact that even a pleasant life is impossible if you follow Epicurus”), in the collection “Table Talks”, consisting of 9 books, as well as in Pythian dialogues (“On the fact that the Pythians no longer prophesy in verse,” “On the decline of the oracles,” “Let the deity delay in retribution”).

Personal life

Plutarch loved his family, which he repeatedly mentioned in his works. He had 4 sons and a daughter, but the daughter and one of the sons died in infancy. In order to somehow reassure his wife Timoxena, the philosopher wrote the essay “Consolation to his wife,” which has survived to this day.

When his sons grew up, Plutarch decided to educate them himself. Later, his students included the children of other townspeople. This gave the philosopher the idea of ​​teaching people all over the country, which is what he did.

Death

The exact date of the philosopher's death is unknown, however, presumably, it happened between 125 and 127. Plutarch died natural cause- from old age. This happened in his hometown of Chaeronea, but Plutarch was buried in Delphi - according to his will.

A monument was erected at the philosopher’s burial site, which archaeologists discovered in 1877 during excavations. Plutarch left behind a good memory - they are named after the philosopher numerous biographies great people, as well as a crater on visible side Moons.

Bibliography

• "Comparative Lives"
• "Morals"
• "Table Talk"
• "Greek Questions"
• "Roman Questions"
• "On monarchy, democracy and oligarchy"
• "On Contradiction among the Stoics"
• "On Isis and Osiris"
• “That the Pythia no longer prophesies in verse”
• "On the Fortune and Valor of Alexander the Great"
• "Plato's Questions"

Quotes

• “Traitors betray, first of all, themselves.”
• “A chatterbox wants to force himself to be loved - and causes hatred, wants to provide a service - and becomes intrusive, wants to cause surprise - and becomes funny; he insults his friends, serves his enemies, and all this to his own destruction.”
• “Whoever expects to ensure his health by being lazy acts as stupidly as a person who thinks to improve his voice by silence.”
• “We often ask a question, not needing an answer, but trying to hear the voice and ingratiate ourselves with the other person, wanting to draw him into the conversation. Getting ahead of others with answers, trying to capture someone else’s ears and occupy other people’s thoughts is the same as going to kiss a person who is thirsty for another’s kiss, or trying to attract someone’s gaze fixed on another to oneself.”
• “Sometimes it is not without benefit to shut the offender’s mouth with a witty rebuke; such a rebuke should be brief and show neither irritation nor rage, but let her know how to bite a little with a calm smile, returning the blow; just as arrows fly from a solid object back to the one who sent them, so an insult seems to fly back from an intelligent and self-controlled speaker and hit the insulter.”

Andrey Teslya

STATE AND LAW OF ARCHAIC SPARTA

(IX – VI centuries)

Spartan soldier.

Sparta, along with Crete, is a unique society, of particular interest to the historian as evidence of archaic Greek life. We owe most of the information about Sparta to Xenophon and Plato, whose evidence dates back to the 4th century. BC, other historians - Plutarch, Strabo, Pausanias - described either a society that no longer existed, or recorded the little that was preserved in museum form in Laconia in Roman times. The conservatism of Spartan life and social structure allows us to use, in any case, the evidence of Plato and Xenophon, to reconstruct the social life of Sparta in its heyday - in the 7th - 6th centuries. BC, and through this he will become familiar with the general features of the archaic Dorian polis structure. It is important to note that later news is difficult to use for the reason that over time, Sparta became not only a conservative, but also a reactionary society. In Laconia, the desire to go against the “spirit of the times” prevailed, which led to attempts to restore the “good morals” of the time of Lycurgus, resulting in practice in many arbitrary restorations and pseudo-archaic reforms.

The traditional image of Sparta portrays to us a harsh society, entirely subordinated to the tasks of preserving the existing social order, dissolving the individual in the social whole, and placing the highest ideal of man in the image of a perfect warrior, superbly trained, enduring and fearless in battle - a person who is completely dissolved in his social function and not having other dimensions of its own existence.

This image is largely correct in relation to the situation that developed in Sparta by the 4th century, however, even here it suffers from a significant simplification, reducing the already not very diverse Spartan life exclusively to one plane. The history of Sparta paints a much more complex picture for us. That society, which for classical Greece is the embodiment of conservatism, at one time acted at the head of the development processes of Greek society. Its frozen image is not an initially given state, but the result of prematurely (compared to other Greek policies) maturity, a stop in development, turned into an ideal. Since the 8th century, the arts have flourished in Sparta; the 7th century gives it pan-Greek meaning:

“In the archaic era of Sparta... large Cultural Center, who cordially accepts strangers, art and beauty - all that she will later begin to irreconcilably reject. In this era, Sparta is the capital Greek culture what Athens will become only in the 5th century."

At this time, the barracks drill that is traditionally associated with the image of Sparta is absent. Alcman, a Laconian poet of the 7th century, tells how the rich people of his day eat “select dishes,” while he himself prefers the simple food of the people and satisfies his hunger with bean porridge. In other words, those obligatory common dinners (fiditi) with their “black stew” are not here either.

The Spartan social order replaces the Homeric ideal. The latter is an image dictated by a “knightly” society - individual valor comes first, war is waged in the form of individual skirmishes, where the main thing is personal advantages, abilities, dexterity, dexterity and intelligence. Already in early archaic the people's militia comes to the fore - a foot mass, where the main qualities are discipline, perseverance, devotion to the common cause - even to the point of readiness to sacrifice themselves. All these virtues are impersonal, requiring, first of all, to learn to restrain oneself, to be like everyone else, acting as a single phalanx. In the implementation of this image, Sparta achieves the highest possible perfection, forming a collective ideal policy, devotion whole. As Antonien Marroux notes, “this is a totalitarian ideal: πόλις - everything for its citizens, it is the state that makes them people.”

Tyrtaeus, an exponent of the Spartan spirit, perfectly reflects the change that took place in the military and social values ​​of the Greek world:

The common good of all fellow citizens and the beloved fatherland

The husband brings it when between the front fighters

Full of strength, he stands, forgetting about the shameful flight.

(Translated by V. Latyshev)

At this time - in the VIII - VI centuries. – Sparta forms, along with Ionia, the model of the Greek polis - a social whole that embraces a person and shapes him as a citizen, a phenomenon that cannot be reduced to state power, nor to one or another individual social institution. The polis acts as that whole, which for an individual person acts as a natural habitat, a “society-state”, outside of which he is not conceivable for himself. Until the end of the 6th century, and in many ways until the beginning of the 4th century, Sparta remained a vibrant, multifaceted society, going a long way from an ideal for a large part of the Greek world to self-closure, from simplicity to spiritual narrowness.

Spartan kingship its roots go back to the Mycenaean era, which is manifested, in particular, in the fact that the Agiads - one of the two royal families - claimed their Achaean origin. There were two kings, as already noted, who came from different kinds(in the legend their ancestors were called brothers). Kings were forbidden to marry foreign women in order to prevent, as subsequent commentators explained, the entry of the Spartan kings into dynastic politics and to avoid inclinations towards tyranny. The status of kings carries with it a lot of archaic elements, which can include the marriage ban just cited, which from this point of view represents a kind of royal endogamy, the right to take wives only from among the clans of the Spartiates. The Spartan kings used a double cup at feasts and had the right to double the amount of food during dinners.

Since ancient times, rules have been preserved according to which every citizen was obliged to give the kings a certain part of the offspring and harvest. The king disposed of the property of the only heiress, if she had no brothers, assigning her a husband at his discretion.

Just as after the death of a Spartan, access to the premises where he lived was closed for some time, so after the death of a king, access to city squares and streets was closed, as if he were their owner. In all likelihood, this provision can be interpreted in such a way that previously the king of Sparta was considered the owner of all the land of the state.

A number of norms preserved during the classical period indicate that the king of Sparta was once considered a divine being, and his power was unlimited. According to Spartan laws, in the event of unanimity between the two kings, the decision they made had unquestioning force. The kings themselves were called "archegetes"; besides them, this title was applied only to the gods, they were also called theotimetoi, i.e. "honored as gods." Upon the return of the kings from the campaign, they were greeted with divine honors, and after death, measures were taken to preserve the body - the kings were buried in honey. Also, the Spartan kings were considered the earthly embodiment of the Tyndarid gods: while both kings went on campaigns together, they carried a double wooden icon depicting the gods. After the decision was made that only one king could go on a campaign, the board on which the picturesque image was applied was sawed and the half corresponding to him went on a campaign together with the king.

Laws of Lycurgus. Towards the end of the 9th century, after the Spartans established control over all of Laconia, including the Achaean settlement of Amycles into their alliance, probably the first historically discernible changes in the state structure occurred. Apparently, the so-called belongs to this time. the oldest Spartan “constitution”, cited by Plutarch in his life of Lycurgus as a response to the Delphic oracle (so-called “Big Retra”):

“Build a temple to Zeus Gellania [Syllania] and Athena Gellania [Sillania], divide the people into phyles and obes, establish a council of thirty members, together with the leaders, and let the people gather from time to time between Babika and Knakion. You must propose laws and collect votes, but the final decision must belong to the people.”

Great antiquity This answer of the oracle follows from the fact that in classical times no one knew Zeus and Athena under the names of Syllani, and no one could establish which specific places were called Babika and Kiakion. Since this text speaks of the establishment of new oblasts, this must refer to Amykla, included in Spartan state as the fifth oba.

According to this “constitution,” kings have already lost their ancient significance and are included, along with the other twenty-eight members (geronts), in the council of elders (gerusia). The elders are in charge of the main issues of government and administration of justice, i.e. judicial and administrative power.

The question of the “laws of Lykugus” is one of the most difficult in the history of Sparta. This is due to the fact that a fairly early tradition, including that belonging to the Spartan society itself, began to link the establishment of the entire traditional structure of Spartan society with the name of Lycurgus, combining elements belonging to different eras. This tradition is presented in its most complete form by Plutarch in his biography of Lycurgus, although Plutarch himself admits that, “in general, none of the stories about the legislator Lycurgus deserves full trust. There are conflicting testimonies about his origin, travels, death, and finally, about his laws and political activities; but especially there is little similarity in the stories about the time of his life." In modern European historiography, on the basis of these discrepancies, a position has developed that completely denies the fact of the historicity of Lycurgus and sees in him a mythological character - a “cultural hero”.

At this stage of the development of historical knowledge, such a hypercritical approach was abandoned. The latter is due to the fact that many traditional evidence of ancient historiography about historical events of early eras received numerous confirmations in the course of subsequent research based on archaeological data and epigraphic materials. Nowadays, world antiquity is inclined to recognize Lycurgus as one of those great ancient legislators whose activities are associated with the transformation of the polis structure of their home cities, similar to Draco or Solon (albeit dating back to an earlier time).

If the late ancient tradition, known to us regarding Sparta mainly through Plutarch and Pausanias, cannot be considered adequate, then all the more important when studying the issue of the legislation of Lycurgus is the appeal to the first Greek evidence of the activities of the latter, which served as the main material for subsequent, already Hellenistic treatments.

The earliest evidence of Lycurgus belongs to Herodotus, who wrote in the first book of his History:

“Formerly the Lacedaemonians had almost the worst laws of all the Hellenes, so that they did not communicate either with each other or with foreign states. They received their present excellent state structure in this way. Lycurgus, a noble Spartan, arrived in Delphi to question the oracle. When he entered the sanctuary, the Pythia immediately said this to him:

You flowed, O Lycurgus, to the abundant temple with gifts,

Dear Zeus and all those who have a place on Olympus,

Are you mortal or god? To whom should I prophesy?

According to some, Pythia, in addition to this prediction, even predicted to Lycurgus the entire existing Spartan state structure. But, as the Lacedaemonians themselves claim, Lycurgus brought these innovations [to the political system] of Sparta from Crete. He was the guardian of his nephew Leobot, king of Sparta. As soon as Lycurgus became the king's guardian, he changed all the laws and strictly ensured that they were not violated. Then he issued decrees dividing the army into enomotii, and established triacadas and sissitii. In addition, Lycurgus established the office of ephors and founded a council of elders [geronts].

So the Lacedaemonians changed their bad laws to good ones, and after the death of Lycurgus they erected a temple for him and now reverently venerate him.”

The testimony of Herodotus is all the more important for us because, according to Charles Star, “Herodotus knew Sparta, and very well, even before the Peloponnesian War loomed on the horizon, i.e. before Athenian prejudices and Athenian idealization introduced serious distortions into this picture." . Without calling Lycurgus by name, essentially the same message is briefly repeated by Thucydides, noting that once “Lacedaemon... suffered more than any city, as far as we know, from internecine strife. However, since ancient times the city has been governed by good laws and has never been under the rule of tyrants.” Thucydides attributes ordering civil life Sparta by the time 400 or more years “before the end of this war”, i.e. by the end 9th century.

Xenophon (“The Lacedaemonian Polity”, a treatise devoted primarily to the issues of education of the Spartiates), Ephorus (known to us primarily from extracts and references to his works in Strabo’s “Geography”), Aristotle (“Politics”) also wrote about Lycurgus and his laws. , the work is especially valuable for us, since Aristotle not only expounds general provisions state legislation of Sparta, but also refers, illustrating them, to specific historical events; Also, from references and some extracts, we know the “Lacedaemonian Polity” belonging to Aristotle, a work similar to the “Athenian Polity” that accidentally survived and was found in 1890). This circle of works is especially valuable to us because their authors lived at a time when Spartan society was a living and integral social entity, and often they could also observe it from the inside. Unlike them, subsequent authors (Polybius, Strabo, Plutarch, Pausanias) either observed a society that had already entered the stage of decay and archaizing reforms, or wrote from hearsay. The value of the works of these authors is determined primarily by how accurately and to what extent they reproduce an earlier tradition, often no longer directly accessible to us.

For us, the analysis of the ancient historiographical tradition in relation to the laws of Lycurgus is important in the sense that all the early authors, characterizing the laws, speak exclusively about the state structure, while the subsequent tradition (and primarily Plutarch) attributes to Lycurgus a comprehensive transformation of Spartan society, the creation of not only the original Spartan socio-economic system, but also the system of Spartan education, the formation of the foundations of the specific moral code of Sparta. Such a comprehensive nature of Lycurgus’s legislation raises some doubts among Plutarch himself. Thus, having described the institution of cryptia ( secret wars against the helots declared ephors), he notes: “But, it seems to me, the Spartans became so inhuman after... I at least do not dare to attribute the establishment of such a terrible custom as cryptia to Lycurgus, taking into account the gentleness of his character and his justice in everything - qualities attested by the oracle himself" . Although the decisive critical argument for Plutarch is moral considerations, it is nevertheless significant that in at least one essential element of the Spartan social structure he deviates from his own general scheme attribute it entirely to the decisions of Lycurgus. As noted by L.G. Pechatnova, “Lycurgus in the ancient tradition gradually turned into a kind of “god ex machina” (deus ex machina), with the help of which the entire strange and exotic collection of Spartan laws and customs could be explained.”

Literally, “retra” means “speech,” “saying,” “word.” But this meaning seems to be contradicted by the fact that the “Great Retra” (the law of Lycurgus) is known to us precisely as a written document. It should be noted that one does not contradict the other, even if one insists on the fact of recording the retra at the same time as its acceptance. The fact is that in Greek culture - especially in such a polis as Sparta, which was already prone to archaization from early times - oral laws enjoyed special respect due to the special antiquity and strength recognized for them, since, according to Lysias, in case of their violations “are punished not only by people, but also by the gods” (Lysias, VI, 10).

Moreover, in Sparta, the use of writing for any purpose other than the military-administrative sphere was of a “semi-underground” nature. Under these conditions, the term “retra” also spread to written laws, especially since their formulation in Sparta was usually deliberately brief, like the sayings of the most ancient oracles. The last circumstance is important, among other things, allowing us to understand the use of the term “retra” in relation to Spartan laws. Sparta traditionally, and much more often than most other Greek city-states, turned to oracles (mainly the Delphic one) to sanction its own laws or obtain an answer in case of internal difficulties. Also, according to legend, it is from the Delphic oracle of Apollo that the “Great Retra”, presented to Lycurgus as the deity’s answer, comes from.

First of all, the “Great Retra” prescribes the division of the people into phyles and obes. This point should be understood in such a way that “Lycurgus either completely or partially replaced the tribal division of society with a territorial one. It is possible that the three traditional Dorian phyla were transformed in such a way that, without being formally abolished, they were nevertheless included in the system of the new territorial division of the civil collective." . Nevertheless, the available materials do not allow us to say anything unambiguously definite about what exactly the transformation of phil. According to Nicholas Hammond, a major specialist in the history of Sparta during the archaic period, the “Great Retra” is not about three clan phyla, but about the formation of territorial units of the same name, allocated along the boundaries of the already existing five oblasts, i.e. in relation to the laws of Lycurgus, we should talk about the “philo-obovian” system. Thus, the army was now organized on a territorial principle, and the goal of the entire reform was to divide the three clan phyla with a “transverse line” and include in each territorial phyle persons of different clan affiliation. However, it is characteristic of the compromise nature of Lycurgus’s legislation that the reform did not lead to the violent liquidation of clans - on the contrary, the latter retained their influence in many spheres of social life, especially in the religious and ritual area, which was so important for the Spartans, having lost their administrative significance . Thus, if N. Hammond's version is correct, then we are dealing with an early legislative reform, of a type very similar to the reform of Cleisthenes in late Athens VI century .

The “Great Retra” names the council of elders (gerusia) headed by kings as the main government body. We know nothing about the nature of gerusia before Lycurgus, but the very mention of it in the retra means the fact of a radical reform of this institution. First of all, its number was established - 30 people, which apparently goes back to the ancient division of Spartan society into three clan phyla. Probably, Lycurgus abolished the recruitment of gerusia on the basis of clan and introduced the principle of class recruitment of the highest state body of Sparta. Apparently, the tradition reported by Aristotle and reproduced by Plutarch is reliable, according to which the comrades of Lycurgus initially entered the gerousia and supported him in reforming the state. After Lycurgus, the gerusia was staffed exclusively on the class principle - members of the same clans fell into it from generation to generation, regardless of their belonging to one or another clan phylum. With the establishment of gerousia in this form, Sparta turned into a polis with an aristocratic form of government. In all likelihood, the procedure for electing geronts, described by Plutarch, dates back to the same times:

“When the people had time to gather, the elected officials locked themselves in one room of a neighboring house, where they could not see anyone, just as no one could see them. All they could hear was the shouts of the assembled people: both in this case and in others, he decided the election by shouting. Those elected did not come out immediately, but one by one, by lot, and walked silently through the entire assembly. Those who were locked in the room had writing tablets in their hands, on which they noted only the strength of the cry, not knowing who it was referring to. They only had to record how much they shouted to the one who was taken out first, second, third, etc. The one to whom they shouted more often and louder was declared the chosen one.”

In addition to the Geronts, the gerusia also included two kings, named in the “Great Retra” by the name of “archagetes.” Perhaps in this way they were named precisely as members and chairmen of the gerusia - in this case, this title, meaning “founder”, “organizer”, indicates the status of the king in the gerusia - first among equals and nothing more. In this case, the meaning of this resolution of the “Great Retra” can be interpreted as placing kings as members of the gerusia under the authority of the civil community, which is also suggested by the sound of the final provisions of the retra.

Next, we are talking about the people gathering for an appella - a people's assembly. The indication of time (“from time to time”) and place (“between Babika and Knakion”) speaks of the transformation of the former gathering of warriors of Homeric times into a people’s assembly of a polis type. The reference to time - "from time to time" - cannot, in all likelihood, be interpreted as establishing any proper interval between meetings. This formulation should be interpreted as an indication of the permanent, orderly nature of meetings that become a feature of proper civil life, and not collected only in emergency or any extraordinary situations.

The People's Assembly acts as the highest authority, approving or rejecting issues proposed for its decisions. Plutarch describes the organization of the work of the appella as follows:

“In the People's Assemblies no one had the right to express their opinion. The people could only accept or reject the proposals of the geronts or kings."

Thus, the decisions prepared by the gerousia were presented to the People's Assembly - similar to how the draft resolutions of the People's Assembly in Athens were drawn up by Bule. But if in Athens, in the absence of a Bule project, an open discussion began and the text of the law was prepared along the way, then in Sparta the function of the appeal was solely to accept or reject the proposed project.

Probably, however, this prohibition of legislative initiative was not in the original legislation of Lycurgus - it arose only as a result of a much later interpretation of the “Great Retra”, due to its nature as a brief and undetailed act. In the initial conditions, very similar to a military meeting, each Spartiate, although he had the right to make proposals, practically did not use it, guided by the established tradition when proposals were formulated by elders - later this practice took the form of a legal order.

Be that as it may, the laws of Lycurgus singled out the People's Assembly and, from a body subordinate to the kings and the council of elders (tribal), turned it into an institution with the highest state power.

None of the institutions listed in the “Great Retra” is an innovation of Lycurgus - they all belong to the traditional structure of archaic society. The significance of Lycurgus's legislation is not in institutional innovations, but in the consolidation of an archaic polis, thanks to which it was able to avoid a difficult period of both the extremes of oligarchic rule and tyranny. The essence of the reforms was not the elimination of the political advantages of the aristocracy (as tyranny would later accomplish), but, on the contrary, the transformation of the entire Spartan people into the ruling class. But thereby the process of closing off the class of full-fledged citizens from other people began and began to progress quite quickly. social groups population.

The legislative innovations of Lycurgus caused significant opposition in Spartan society, which ultimately led to the fact that Lycurgus was forced to go into exile, in which he died, and ancient tradition testifies to his deep concern for the fate of his reforms. Plutarch says about the death of Lycurgus:

“... Having taken an oath from the kings and elders, then from all citizens that they would firmly adhere to the existing government until he returned from Delphi, Lycurgus left for Delphi. Entering the temple and making a sacrifice to God, he asked him whether his laws were good and whether they sufficiently served the happiness and moral improvement of his fellow citizens. The oracle replied that his laws were excellent and that on his part his state would be at the height of glory as long as it remained faithful to the state structure given to him. He wrote down this oracle and sent it to Sparta, he himself made a secondary sacrifice to God, said goodbye to his friends and son and decided to die voluntarily so as not to free his fellow citizens from the oath they had taken. [...] He starved himself to death in the conviction that the death of a public figure should be useful to the state and that the very end of his life should not be an accident, but a kind of moral feat... [...]

According to Aristocrat, son of Hipparchus, when Lycurgus died..., his friends burned his corpse and, according to his will, threw the ashes into the sea: he was afraid that his remains would be transferred to Sparta, as a result of which the Spartans would consider themselves free from the oath and make changes to this their state structure under the pretext that he had returned to his homeland."

The consolidation of the polis gave Sparta internal stability and reconciliation of conflicts among the Spartiates, which in turn made it possible to strengthen its dominance over Lacedaemon and the strength to move on to external expansion, which resulted in the First Messenian War.

State reforms in Sparta after Lycurgus. The surviving evidence, primarily the remarks of Aristotle, suggests that the social and political system of Sparta after the death of Lycurgus was not particularly stable (by the way, the above legends about the death of Lycurgus speak of the same thing). Most likely, by the end of the 8th century, after the First Messenian War, a serious political crisis broke out in Sparta, accompanied by a conspiracy of the Parthenians , and some, “suffering disasters due to the war, demanded the redistribution of land.” In the 30s - 20s. VIII century The most significant amendment to the “Great Retra” is also adopted, the initiators of which Plutarch names the kings Polydorus and Theopompus. According to Plutarch, they “made the following addition: “If the people decide badly, the kings and elders should go,” in other words, they were not supposed to confirm it [i.e. people, appellas - A.T.] decisions, and generally dissolve the meeting, declare it closed, since it was causing harm by distorting and perverting their proposals.”

The adoption of this amendment changed the balance of power in the Spartan polity, bringing to the fore the gerousia, endowed with the right of veto. According to P. Oliva, such a reform became possible as a result of the First Messenian War, from which the aristocratic families gained the greatest benefits and increased influence - i.e. those who were represented in the council of elders. The amendment, according to legend, received the sanction of the Delphic oracle, as evidenced by the lines of Tyrtaeus that have reached us. The first six lines are known to us through Plutarch, who quotes them in the corresponding section of the biography of Lycurgus:

Those who heard Phoebus's speech in Python's cave,

They brought the wise word of the gods to their home:

Let the kings whom the gods honor in the Council,

The first will be; let dear Sparta be preserved

With them are elder advisers, behind them are men from the people,

Those who must answer the question directly with speech.

This fragment builds a seemingly quite clear hierarchy within the framework of Spartan society: in the first place are the kings, “honored by the gods,” then the geronts, and in last place are the “men of the people,” who have the right only to directly answer the question given to them by the kings and gerontami question. However, the meaning of the fragment changes significantly if we add to it four more lines from Tyrtaeus, preserved by Diodorus Siculus:

“Let [the men of the people] speak only good things and do what is right,

I do not harbor evil intentions against my homeland, -

And then neither victory nor strength will leave the people.”

Phoebus showed such a will to our city.

If we agree that both fragments are genuine - and the largest domestic specialist on the history of Sparta during the archaic and classical periods, L.G. Pechatnova, together with a significant number of Western antiquists, adheres to this opinion - then the conclusion about the unambiguous nature of the hierarchy in Spartan society seems much more complex and the first order can rather be attributed to the order of ritual and sacred action, which has great, but not total significance and cannot be transferred to the general balance of power in the Spartan polis.

Tradition also attributes the establishment of the ephorate to King Theopompus. Aristotle's opinion This is also confirmed by the fact that the “Big Retra” does not mention this institute. The opposite judgment is conveyed by Herodotus, an earlier author, classifying the ephorate among the Lycurgus institutions, however, referring only to the opinion of the Spartans themselves (“as the Lacedaemonians themselves claim”).

Prominent Russian antiquarian S.Ya. Lurie believed that the ephorate was a very ancient institution, dating back to pre-Curgus times. Already probably since Mycenaean times in Sparta, believed S.Ya. Lurie, there was a position of “stargazers”, “observers” (ephors). Just as in a number of other primitive societies, the Spartan kings, as sacred, “divine” figures, had their power limited in the form of “compliance” with the will of heaven, which had to be confirmed after a certain period. Every eight years in Sparta, the ephors went to the sanctuary of Pasiphae and watched the sky - if a falling star flashed in a certain direction, the king should be deposed. It is quite understandable that in times of unrest, the position of ephors should have acquired increasing importance. Already in ancient times, kings, going on campaigns, transferred their judicial powers to the ephors. . Theopompus reform, in the opinion of S.Ya. Lurie, was that from now on they began to be chosen, and not appointed by the king, and received much greater autonomy in relation to him, which allowed them to later become the de facto leaders of Sparta.

Nevertheless, at this stage, historical science has returned to recognize as the most probable the version of Aristotle, who wrote that Theopompus compromised and agreed to limit royal power “by various measures, including the establishment of the office of ephors; weakening the meaning royal power, he thereby contributed to the prolongation of its existence, so that in a certain respect he did not belittle it, but, on the contrary, exalted it. They say that it was he who answered his wife, who told him if he was not ashamed that he was transferring royal power to his sons to a lesser extent than he inherited from his father: “It’s not a shame at all, since I am transferring it to them more durable.”

Initially, a college of five ephors was supposed to perform the duties of the king during his absence. The number of ephors was apparently determined based on the number of Spartan obs, one from each. Ephors were appointed by kings from among their relatives or friends, i.e. only persons of noble origin could become them, by analogy with the Cretan cosms, with which Aristotle himself compared the ephors. When the transition to the election of ephors occurred, it is difficult to say based on the available data, but in all likelihood this event occurs during the Second Messenian War, the most complex and protracted military conflict in which Sparta was involved, which also gave rise to internal internal affairs that were also dangerous for the very existence of the polis. unrest. Having become elective, the position of ephors became isolated, as S.Ya. noted. Lurie, from the tsarist power, becoming the new “center of power”. This transformation, in any case, should have occurred much earlier than the middle of the 6th century, when the ephorate emerged as a completely independent force with its own interests and methods of action.

Reforms of the ephor Chilo. T.N. “Chilo's reforms” are of key importance in the history of Sparta - they complete the process of the formation of the Spartan state structure, and in many ways social models of behavior, and lead to the creation of Sparta as a polis of the classical era.

We know quite little about Chilo himself. Classical tradition calls him one of the seven sages , and Diogenes Laertius in his history of philosophy provides some information of a biographical and anecdotal nature, which is typical of his work as a whole. We do not know for sure what exactly the reforms associated with ancient tradition with his name. This was probably the transfer of the presidency of the people's assembly and the gerusia from the kings to the ephors, which consolidated the actual position of their power. A monthly oath was also established between kings and ephors, and, as Xenophon reports, the ephors swore on behalf of the civil community, while the kings swore on their own behalf. Such oaths were not uncommon in those Greek communities where royal power remained, however, apparently, nowhere were they carried out so often - monthly, which indicates the extreme distrust of Spartan society (or at least that part of it, whose opinion was expressed by the ephors ) to the kings.

The so-called also may be associated with Chilon. “small retras”, which Plutarch reports, attributing their publication to Lycurgus. The latter attribution is now clearly recognized as incorrect, since it is contradicted not only by the content - the conscious archaization of Spartan society and the desire to establish external equality between its members - but also by the very form in which these decisions are contained. Plutarch conveys their content as follows:

“One of his [i.e. Lycurgus – A.T.] “retr”... forbade having written laws, the other was directed against luxury. The roof of each house could be made with only one ax, the doors with one saw; the use of other instruments was prohibited. [ …]

The third “retra” of Lycurgus is also known, where he prohibits waging war with the same enemies...”

If the “Great Retra” is formulated as a saying of an oracle, then the “small retras” in their form rather resemble clear and precise rescripts aimed at regulating society in a certain direction. Unlike the early laws, they are unambiguous and at the same time laconic in their formulations, which is usual for Spartan documents. Although it is not known whether Chilon had anything to do with their publication, in any case they appeared no earlier than the 6th century. on the initiative of the ephors.

Particularly indicative is the second of the “small retras”, aimed at regulating the appearance of the Spartan home. Limiting the tools used actually meant a ban on the creation of certain amenities that the relatively wealthier Spartiates could provide themselves with. All the dwellings of the Gomeans (wounds) were supposed to have the same simple, rural appearance of the archaic times, and in many ways this desire of the legislator was realized - in any case, we know nothing about the existence in Sparta of palaces or dwellings that stood out in any way in appearance and improvement.

The issue of “Chilon’s reforms” is closely related to the so-called theory of the “6th century revolution”, according to which during this period a holistic conservative reform took place in the Spartan polis, militaristic elements, determined to close Sparta from outside world and it was during this period that those provisions were formulated that would subsequently (through artificial archaization or deliberate falsification, “extension” of the history of Sparta) be associated with the name of Lycurgus.

Indeed, the 6th century marks the decline of the previously rather intense cultural and artistic life of Sparta. The change is felt even in the lists of winners at the Olympic Games. The victories of the Spartiates “abruptly stop” after 576 - “one can be noted only in 552, then twelve separate victories can be counted, evenly distributed over the period 548 - 400, and, finally, one in 316.”

If it is impossible to deny isolationist and, in many ways, xenophobic tendencies in Spartan society, then one cannot agree with the theory that asserts the abrupt and radical nature of the change that took place, as if it interrupted the gradual and completely traditional development of Spartan society, similar to other Greek city-states until that moment. In our opinion, it is more correct to talk about the gradual growth of this kind of processes, partly embedded in the early legislation of Lycurgus, and especially with those social traditions and values ​​that were inherent in Spartan society already from the 8th - 7th centuries.

The more intensively the surrounding Greek world changes, the more noticeable the difference between Spartan society becomes and the more the latter - choosing as a model of social development the stability and isolation of the ruling layer, based on isolationism from other groups and their forced displacement or suppression - even more so Spartan society begins to isolate itself from the surrounding world, begins to move towards both conscious and unconscious archaization. And a significant role in this process was played by the formation of the ephorate - an institution covering all aspects of civil life, capable of bringing them under its control, and first of all the process of educating the Spartiates.

general characteristics Spartan society. Education system. Within Sprartan society there were no demos in the ancient sense of the word - i.e. “people” in the sense of contrasting the majority of those with full rights in civil terms population to a small group of nobles and rich. The reform of Lycurgus and the private measures that followed led to the expansion of the aristocracy, in the legal sense, in such a way that it included the entire full population, the images of the class of Spartiates or Gomeans (equals).

As a result of the internal evolution of the 8th – 6th centuries, caused largely by the circumstances of the two Messenian wars, Sparta was transformed into a military camp, and its citizens into a military caste, on whose cohesion and unanimity the survival of the state depended. The ideology of brotherhood and cooperation became the main one in Spartan society, pushing into the background and completely casting suspicion on the quality of social values advantages such as wealth or nobility. The latter was not disputed in Sparta, but was clearly not revered as a self-sufficient, decisive basis for primacy in society - the most noble Spartiate, in order to receive the rights of a citizen, had to successfully go through the entire required path of education. Nobility, of course, gave some advantages - and often quite significant - but in order to realize them, the Spartiate had to confirm his civic status with his entire lifestyle, behavior in accordance with the rules recognized as equally binding for everyone.

In his youth in Athens, Plutarch studied philosophy (mainly from the Platonist Ammonius), mathematics, and rhetoric. Subsequently, the Peripatetics and Stoics had a significant influence on Plutarch's philosophical views. He himself considered himself a Platonist, but in fact he was rather an eclectic, and in philosophy he was interested mainly in its practical application. Even in his youth, Plutarch, together with his brother Lamprius and teacher Ammonius, visited Delphi, where the cult of Apollo, which had fallen into decline, was still preserved. This trip had serious influence on the life and literary work of Plutarch.

Soon after returning from Athens to Chaeronea, Plutarch received an assignment from the city community to the Roman proconsul of the province of Achaia and successfully completed it. He subsequently served his city faithfully, holding public positions. While teaching his own sons, Plutarch gathered young people in his house and created a kind of private academy, in which he played the role of mentor and lecturer. Plutarch was well known to his contemporaries both as a public figure and as a philosopher. He visited Rome and other places in Italy many times, had students, with whom he taught classes in Greek (he began to study Latin only “in his declining years”). In Rome, Plutarch met the Neo-Pythagoreans, and also struck up friendships with many prominent people. Among them were Arulenus Rusticus, Lucius Mestrius Florus (comrade-in-arms of Emperor Vespasian), Quintus Sosius Senecion ( personal friend Emperor Trajan). Roman friends provided Plutarch with valuable services. Having become a purely formal member of the Mestrian family (in accordance with Roman legal practice), Plutarch received Roman citizenship and a new name - Mestrius Plutarch. Thanks to Senecion, he became the most influential man in his province: Emperor Trajan forbade the governor of Achaia to carry out any events without prior approval from Plutarch. Subsequently, this order of Trajan was confirmed by his successor Hadrian.

In the fiftieth year of his life, Plutarch became a priest of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. Trying to restore the sanctuary and oracle to their former meaning, he earned the deep respect of the Amphictyons, who erected a statue of him.

Essays

Plutarch was not an original writer. Basically, he collected and processed what others had written before him. However, Plutarch's tradition influenced European thought and literature for many centuries.

Approximately 80 essays belong to the Ethics. The earliest of them are those that are rhetorical in nature, such as praises of Athens, discussions about Fortune (Greek Tyche) and her role in the life of Alexander the Great or in the history of Rome. A large group also consists of popular philosophical treatises; Of these, perhaps the most characteristic of Plutarch is the short essay “On the State of Spirit.” Without going deeply into theoretical reasoning, Plutarch often provides a lot of valuable information on the history of philosophy. Such are the works “Plato’s Questions” and “On the Creation of the Soul in Timaeus,” as well as polemical works directed against the Epicureans and Stoics.

For educational purposes, other essays were conceived containing advice on what to do in order to be happy and overcome shortcomings (for example, “On excessive curiosity”, “On talkativeness”, “On excessive timidity”). For the same reasons, Plutarch dealt with issues of love and marriage. For essays on topics family life also applies to the consolidation (that is, a consoling composition after a bereavement), addressed to Plutarch’s wife Timoxena, who lost her only daughter. Plutarch’s pedagogical interests are reflected in many of his works (“How to young man listen to poets”, “How to use lectures”, etc.). Thematically, the political works of Plutarch are close to them, especially those that contain recommendations for rulers and statesmen.

Along with the most popular works in dialogical form, the Ethics also included others - close in nature to scientific report. So, for example, the essay “On the Face on the Lunar Disk” presents various theories regarding this celestial body; at the end, Plutarch turns to the theory adopted in Plato’s Academy (Xenocrates of Chalcedon), seeing in the Moon the homeland of demons.

Plutarch also wrote about the human soul, and was interested in psychology, the psychology of animals (“On the intelligence of animals”, “On meat-eating”).

Plutarch devoted numerous works to issues of religion, among them the so-called “Pythian” dialogues concerning the oracle of Apollo at Delphi. The most interesting in this group is the work “On Isis and Osiris,” in which Plutarch, himself initiated into the mysteries of Dionysus, outlined a wide variety of syncretic and allegorical interpretations of the mysteries of Osiris and ancient Egyptian mythology.

Plutarch's interest in antiquity is evidenced by two works: “Greek Questions” (Aitia Hellenika; Latin Quaestiones Graecae) ​​and “Roman Questions” (Aitia Romaika; Latin Quaestiones Romanae), which reveal the meaning and origin of various customs of the Greco-Roman world ( a lot of space is devoted to religious issues). Plutarch's passion for anecdotes, also evident in his biographies, is reflected in a collection of Lacedaemonian proverbs (another collection famous sayings, “Apothegms of Kings and Generals” is most likely not genuine). The most different topics such works as “The Feast of the Seven Wise Men” or “Table Talks” (in 9 books) are revealed in the form of dialogue.

Plutarch’s “Ethics” also includes inauthentic works (of unknown authors, attributed to Plutarch in ancient times and which became widely known under his name). The most important of them include the treatises “On Music” (one of the main sources of our knowledge about ancient music in general) and “On the Education of Children” (a work translated during the Renaissance into many languages ​​and until the beginning of the 19th century was considered authentic).

A number of works previously attributed to Plutarch were written by unknown authors, in relation to whom scientists now use the (conventional) name Pseudo-Plutarch. Among these is a person who supposedly lived in the 2nd century AD. e. unknown author the works “Small Comparative Lives” (another name is “Collection of Parallel Greek and Roman Stories”, abbreviated as MCZ) and “On Rivers”, containing a lot of information on ancient mythology and history, which, as is generally accepted in science, was completely invented by him. In addition to these two, many other works not belonging to him have been preserved under the name of Plutarch, for example, the treatise “On Music”.

Comparative biographies

Plutarch owes his literary fame not to eclectic philosophical speculations, nor to writings on ethical issues, but to his biographies (which, however, have the most to do with ethics direct relation). Plutarch outlines his goals in the introduction to the biography of Aemilius Paulus: communication with the great people of antiquity carries with it educational functions, and if not all heroes of biographies are attractive, then negative example also has value, it can have a terrifying effect and turn you to the path of righteous life. In his biographies, Plutarch follows the teachings of the Peripatetics, who in the field of ethics crucial attributed to human actions, arguing that every action generates virtue. Plutarch follows the pattern of peripatetic biographies, describing in turn the birth, youth, character, activity, and death of the hero. Nowhere is Plutarch a historian who critically examines the facts. The vast historical material available to him is used very freely (“we are writing a biography, not history”). First of all, Plutarch needs a psychological portrait of a person; in order to visually present it, he willingly draws on information from the private lives of the persons depicted, anecdotes and witty sayings. The text includes numerous moral arguments and various quotes from poets. This is how colorful, emotional stories were born, the success of which was ensured by the author’s talent of the storyteller, his craving for everything human and moral optimism that elevates the soul. Biographies of Plutarch also have purely historical value for us, for he had many valuable sources that were subsequently lost.

Plutarch began writing biographies in his youth. First he turned his attention to famous people Boeotia: Hesiod, Pindar, Epaminondas. Subsequently, he began to write about representatives of other regions of Greece: the Spartan king Leonidas, Aristomenes, Aratus of Sikyon. There is even a biography of the Persian king Artaxerxes II. While in Rome, Plutarch wrote biographies of Roman emperors intended for the Greeks. And only in the late period did he write his most important work, “Comparative Lives” (ancient Greek. Βίοι Παράλληλοι ; lat. Vitae parallelae). These were biographies of prominent historical figures of Greece and Rome, compared in pairs. Currently, 22 pairs and four single biographies of an earlier period are known (Aratus of Sicyon, Artaxerxes II, Galba and Otho). Among the pairs, some are successfully composed: the mythical founders of Athens and Rome - Theseus and Romulus; the first legislators were Lycurgus of Sparta and Numa Pompilius; the greatest commanders are Alexander the Great and Gaius Julius Caesar; greatest speakers- Cicero and Demosthenes. Others are juxtaposed more arbitrarily: the “children of happiness” - Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus, or a couple illustrating the vicissitudes of human destinies - Alcibiades and Coriolanus. After each pair, Plutarch apparently intended to give comparative characteristics(syncrisis), a brief indication of the common features and main differences of the characters. However, for several pairs (notably Alexander and Caesar), the comparison is missing, that is, it has not survived (or, less likely, was not written). In the text of the biographies there are cross-references, from which we learn that initially there were more of them than in the corpus of texts that has reached us. The biographies of Leonidas, Epaminondas, and Scipio Africanus have been lost).

The lack of historical criticism and depth of political thought did not, and still does not, prevent the biographies of Plutarch from finding numerous readers interested in their varied and instructive content and highly appreciating the warm, humane feeling of the author.

Other works

The standard edition includes 78 treatises, some of which (according to modern science) Plutarch does not belong.

Translations of Plutarch

Among the translators of Plutarch into new European languages, the French author Amio enjoyed particular fame.

Russian translations

Plutarch began to be translated into Russian from the 18th century: See the translations of Stepan Pisarev, “Plutarch’s Instructions on Childhood” (St. Petersburg, 1771) and “The Word of Persistent Curiosity” (St. Petersburg, 1786); Iv. Alekseev, “Moral and Philosophical Works of Plutarch” (St. Petersburg, 1789); E. Sferina, “On Superstition” (St. Petersburg, 1807); S. Distunis and others “Plutarch’s comparative biographies” (St. Petersburg, 1810, 1814-16, 1817-21); "The Lives of Plutarch" ed. V. Guerrier (M., 1862); biographies of Plutarch in a cheap edition by A. Suvorin (translated by V. Alekseev, vols. I-VII) and under the title “The Life and Affairs of Famous People of Antiquity” (M., 1889, I-II); “Conversation about the face visible on the disk of the moon” (“Philological Review” vol. VI, book 2).

• reprint: Comparative biographies. / Per. V. A. Alekseeva. M.: Alpha-book. 2008. 1263 pp.

The best Russian edition“Comparative Lives,” where most of the translation was done by S. P. Markish:

• Plutarch. Comparative biographies. In 2 volumes / Ed. preparation S. S. Averintsev, M. L. Gasparov, S. P. Markish. Rep. ed. S. S. Averintsev. (Series " Literary monuments"). 1st ed. In 3 volumes - M.-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961-1964. - 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Nauka, 1994. - T. 1. 704 p. - T. 2. 672 p.
• Plutarch/ Per. G. A. Ivanova. Based on materials from the collection “Philosophy of Nature in Antiquity and the Middle Ages.” M.: Progress-Tradition, 2000.

Research

ABOUT comparative merits for manuscripts of Plutarch, see critical apparatus for the editions of Reiske (Lpts., 1774-82), Sintenis (“Vitae”, 2nd ed., Lpts., 1858-64); Wyttenbach (“Moralia”, Lpc., 1796-1834), Bernardakes (“Moralia”, Lpc. 1888-95), also Treu, “Zur Gesch. d. Überlieferung von Plut. Moralia" (Bresl., 1877-84). Dictionary of Plutarchian language - with the name. published by Wyttenbach. Svida gives scant information about the life of Plutarch.

From other op. Wed Wesiermann, "De Plut. vita et scriptis" (Lpts., 1855); Volkmann “Leben, Schriften und Philosophie des Plutarch” (B., 1869); Muhl, "Plutarchische Studien" (Augsburg, 1885), etc.

• Elpidinsky Ya. S. The religious and moral worldview of Plutarch of Chaeronea. - St. Petersburg, 1893. 462 pp.
• Averintsev S. S. Plutarch and ancient biography: On the question of the place of the classic of the genre in the history of the genre. - M., 1973.
  • reprint in the book: Averintsev S.S. Image of Antiquity. Sat. - St. Petersburg: ABC-classics. 2004. 480 pp. 3000 copies.

Memory

Write a review about the article "Plutarch"

Links

• in ancient Greek
• in the library of Maxim Moshkov
• on ancientrome.ru
• about “Comparative Lives”

Excerpt characterizing Plutarch

Pelageya Danilovna Melyukova, a broad, energetic woman, wearing glasses and a swinging hood, was sitting in the living room, surrounded by her daughters, whom she tried not to let get bored. They were quietly pouring wax and looking at the shadows of the emerging figures when the footsteps and voices of visitors began to rustle in the hall.
Hussars, ladies, witches, payassas, bears, clearing their throats and wiping their frost-covered faces in the hallway, entered the hall, where candles were hastily lit. The clown - Dimmler and the lady - Nikolai opened the dance. Surrounded by screaming children, the mummers, covering their faces and changing their voices, bowed to the hostess and positioned themselves around the room.
- Oh, it’s impossible to find out! And Natasha! Look who she looks like! Really, it reminds me of someone. Eduard Karlych is so good! I didn't recognize it. Yes, how she dances! Oh, fathers, and some kind of Circassian; right, how it suits Sonyushka. Who else is this? Well, they consoled me! Take the tables, Nikita, Vanya. And we sat so quietly!
- Ha ha ha!... Hussar this, hussar that! Just like a boy, and his legs!... I can’t see... - voices were heard.
Natasha, the favorite of the young Melyukovs, disappeared with them into the back rooms, where they needed cork and various dressing gowns and men's dresses, which through the open door received the naked girlish hands from the footman. Ten minutes later, all the youth of the Melyukov family joined the mummers.
Pelageya Danilovna, having ordered the clearing of the place for the guests and refreshments for the gentlemen and servants, without taking off her glasses, with a restrained smile, walked among the mummers, looking closely into their faces and not recognizing anyone. Not only did she not recognize the Rostovs and Dimmler, but she also could not recognize either her daughters or her husband’s robes and uniforms that they were wearing.
-Whose is this? - she said, turning to her governess and looking into the face of her daughter, who represented the Kazan Tatar. - It seems like someone from Rostov. Well, Mr. Hussar, what regiment do you serve in? – she asked Natasha. “Give the Turk, give the Turk some marshmallows,” she said to the bartender who was serving them: “this is not prohibited by their law.”
Sometimes, looking at the strange but funny steps performed by the dancers, who had decided once and for all that they were dressed up, that no one would recognize them and therefore were not embarrassed, Pelageya Danilovna covered herself with a scarf, and her entire corpulent body shook from the uncontrollable, kind, old lady’s laughter . - Sashinet is mine, Sashinet is that! - she said.
After Russian dances and round dances, Pelageya Danilovna united all the servants and gentlemen together, in one large circle; They brought a ring, a string and a ruble, and general games were arranged.
An hour later, all the suits were wrinkled and upset. Cork mustaches and eyebrows were smeared across sweaty, flushed and cheerful faces. Pelageya Danilovna began to recognize the mummers, admired how well the costumes were made, how they suited especially the young ladies, and thanked everyone for making her so happy. The guests were invited to dine in the living room, and the courtyard was served in the hall.
- No, guessing in the bathhouse, that’s scary! - said the old girl who lived with the Melyukovs at dinner.
- From what? – asked the eldest daughter of the Melyukovs.
- Don’t go, you need courage...
“I’ll go,” said Sonya.
- Tell me, how was it with the young lady? - said the second Melyukova.
“Yes, just like that, one young lady went,” said the old girl, “she took a rooster, two utensils, and sat down properly.” She sat there, just heard, suddenly she was driving... with bells, with bells, a sleigh drove up; hears, comes. He comes in completely in human form, like an officer, he came and sat down with her at the device.
- A! Ah!...” Natasha screamed, rolling her eyes in horror.
- How can he say that?
- Yes, as a person, everything is as it should be, and he began and began to persuade, and she should have occupied him with conversation until the roosters; and she became shy; – she just became shy and covered herself with her hands. He picked it up. It's good that the girls came running...
- Well, why scare them! - said Pelageya Danilovna.
“Mother, you yourself were guessing...” said the daughter.
- How do they tell fortunes in the barn? – asked Sonya.
- Well, at least now, they’ll go to the barn and listen. What will you hear: hammering, knocking - bad, but pouring bread - this is good; and then it happens...
- Mom, tell me what happened to you in the barn?
Pelageya Danilovna smiled.
“Well, I already forgot...” she said. - You won’t go, will you?