Plutarch and Late Republican Rome

This paper argues that Plutarch’s depiction of Caesar’s conduct during the Gallic War (Caesar 15-27) explicitly reflects the rhetorical purposes left implicit within Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War. He renders unto Caesar precisely what Caesar sought to be rendered, claiming that the Gallic War marked Caesar’s new start in public life, one that would make him the greatest of all Rome’s generals (Caes. 15).

In this paper I propose a new explanation of Plutarch’s view of Sulla’s (lack of) strategy in the sack of Athens. Plutarch describes Sulla’s attack on Athens as “fighting against shadows” (σκιαμαχοῦντα, Sull. 13), but scholars have considered this depiction a grave and surprising error (e.g., Santangelo 2007), given the strategic importance of the city for Sulla. I suggest that Plutarch’s analysis is based on his anachronistic presentation of Athens in the life: the city is depicted as the site of Greek culture and philosophy, rather than a strategic battleground.

Plutarch describes Sulla entering a city, an act loaded with religious and legal significance, three times in the Life: twice at Rome and once at Athens. In each case, the violation of the city corresponds with a violation of the religious landscape. This portrayal of religious violation contributes to the ambiguity in Sulla’s characterization. The work of Stadter (1992) and Duff (1999) has highlighted the ambiguity that is prevalent in the Sulla and its counterpart, the Lysander, but neither comment on the religious aspect.

Plutarch's Politika parangelmata (Praecepta rei publicae gerendae) is a work whose opening is diffident about its own value. Plutarch characterizes the work as a second-best way to fulfil the philosopher's duty to instruct, since the work's addressee, Menemakhos, lacks the time to learn through observation of actual politics (798A-C). This diffidence clusters especially around paradeigmata.