Talk:Plutarch

Dates of birth and death and Travels to Rome

According to the Teaching Company and the links at the bottom of the page he was born in 46. According to the Teaching Company he lived beyond 127. I do not know the proper way to say he lived beyond 127 so I wrote "beyond 127". But feel free to change it if it is "127+" or "127?" or whatever.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, he "died after 119", so I'm guessing this is one of those things that are full of scholarly dispute. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. There's debate about his date of birth and as well his date of death. Instead of placing all the debate in the main parts of the article, it would be better to use the Notes section to discuss it, alongside the Timeline which will try to be as conservative as possible.-BiancaOfHell 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it that the introduction to this article states unequivocally that Plutarch went to Rome at least twice, while the introduction to the translation by Dreyden says it was at least once, with no evidence to indicate otherwise?

Right. Some say he spent 40 years in Rome, which is largely refuted. Some say he went to Rome once, others say he went to Rome twice. Some say he went to Alexandria after his studies, others say no. There is a lot of debate about Plutarch's biography. I'm suggesting going with what is conservative and what Scholars think is largely correct, and placing all the interesting arguments for and against in the Notes section, alongside the Timeline to it's right.-BiancaOfHell 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

listing of Lives in chronological order

The following was posted in the article by 65.148.17.110 (talk • contribs) and moved here by —Charles P. (Mirv) @ 15:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC).

It would be good if someone could include a listing of the Lives in chronological order, for this resource is not easily found elsewhere on the web.

Not easily found? Has it been found? By chronological order you mean when Plutarch wrote/finished them, or chronological order of the Greek lives and then the Roman lives? A listing of the chronological order of some of the Roman lives and the Roman Emperors and Plutarch and his contemporaries lifetimes exists at http://www.constitution.org/rom/plutarch/intro.htm.-BiancaOfHell 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Listing the lives in the chronological order by the life of the subject would help students read the biographies of individuals who were alive during the period that the student was studying....

Other Plutarchs?

I was going through Britannica's website, improving some of our math bios, when I came upon what appears to be either an error, or major omission. Specifically, I was working on Proclus. EB's article says "At Athens he studied under the Greek philosophers Plutarch and Syrianus, whom he followed as diadochos (Greek: “successor”), or head of the Academy founded by Plato c. 387 BC."

This is all well and good, except for the minor problem that Proclus was born 410 CE, and Plutarch worked in the 100s and such CE. So, either two entire biographies (in both Wikipedia and Britannica) are completely screwed up by centuries, or there is some other Plutarch who was important enough to either be almost or actually the head of Plato's Academy (I think he was in fact the head preceding Proclus, as the EB quote mentions him and Syrianus- our article on Syrianus has him succeeding Proclus, implying that Plutarch was the preceding head). Thought you guys should know, if for disambiguations reasons alone. --maru (talk) Contribs 03

16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.goddess-athena.org/Encyclopedia/Friends/Proclus/ says

"Then Syrianus presented Proclus to Plutarch, sun of Nestorius, his predecessor, who due to age was forced into semi-retirement. But Plutarch accepted Proclus as auditor of his courses."

If it helps any. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a little known fact that many Greek names famous in the West today were very common in ancient Greee & hence we should not be suprised at this turn of events... There are several Thucydides' for example, several Socrates' and so on. Plutarch (the author of the Lives) could not have followed Plato as head of the academy since he wrote about evens occuring centuries after this succession is said to have occured. For example, Plutarch writes about Caesar's murder (47 BCE or thereabouts) so he couldn't possibly have been around in 387 BCE... --Mikkerpikker 04:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It still bothers the hell out of me- it means that if I link to Plutarch like I want to, I am misleading the reader, who almost certainly does not know that about common Greek names (for instance, Proclus was taught math by a "Heron". I already know that this is a different Heron from the Heron, and so I did not link it, but what about a user hip to the ways of Wikipedia, who decides to manually rectify this mistake by editting or going directly to the Heron article? Now I have to insert a nasty parenthetical note noting that this is not the Heron you were expecting.); besides, I think being the head of the Academy is noteworthy enough there should at least be a bare mention. Not to mention a number of other sources have screwed up this side note- the Britannica article misleads one by omission, and http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Proclus.html, the MacTutor article, normally a reliable source, sends you to the wrong/famous Plutarch when you click on the link! --maru (talk) Contribs 04:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A way to get around the "nasty parenthetical note" you are referring to is to use the Greek convention, i.e. to name people by their cities. So Plutarch (as in the guy who wrote the Lives) would be "Plutarch of Chaeronea" and the Plutarch who succeeded Plato would be "Plutarch of Athens" (or whatever). Mikkerpikker 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost works of Plutarch

Has there been any discussion, or any published work, on his lost works? Haiduc 12:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica the first pair of Parallel Lives, Epaminondas and Scipio, are lost. Are there others?

BiancaOfHell 15:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's essential that a proof of these lost works is done. Where does it say that they did in fact exist at some point? Apparently there is a listing but where can I go to see this listing?-BiancaOfHell 13:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any specific information about this, but presumably other writers whose work has been preserved would have referred to reading such and such by Plutarch. I haven't read all of the the Parellel Lives, so I don't know if there is any reference within them or not. I'm sorry that I couldn't be of more help. --Kyoko 13:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Even the lives of such important figures as Augustus..." It looks like Perseus has the North translation of the Life of Octavius Agustus Caesar. Is it a pseudopigraphic work, or is this statement particially incorrect and in need of modification?

In the Parallel Lives article it says "The Perseus project also contains a biography of Caesar Augustus appearing in the North translation, but not coming from Plutarch's Parallel Lives" Here's the link to the text: [[1]] So I don't know where this biography came from and why it has such a low key presence amongst his works. Is there still in fact a Life of Augustus from the Lives to be found? -BiancaOfHell 17:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Broken Link

Broken link, External links - biography of Plutarch

Impossible

this may relate to Maru's question but while looking for a quote on the spartans i found "Come back with your shield,-- or on it", as sort of rejoicing phrase for the women of Sparta as the men left to fight, it said that Plutarch reported this, but how is this possible, the hieght of military Sparta was three centuries before the birthdate of Plutarch, so how is this possible? Thrawst 06:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Google and the Straight Dope are your friends: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mspartanmoms.html. --maru (talk) contribs 07:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Plutarch's Influence

The first couple of sentences in this section are incoherent, the apparent victim of editing. They do not make sense. What is being said about Shakespeare, for example? If it intends to convey that Shakespeare based some of his plays on the Parallel Lives, that is not contained in this sentence.

I've heard that he based specifically Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra on Plutarch's lives of Caesar, Brutus, and Antony. I'm not sure where I read it, though - possibly in Michael Grant's The Ancient Historians. I'll check when I'm at home and have access to said book. --Jim Henry 17:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Aubrey Stewart's introduction to his 1894 translation of Plutarch's Lives:

Amyot's spirited French version was no less spiritedly translated by Sir Thomas North. His translation was much read and admired in its day; a modern reviewer even goes so far as to say that it is "still beyond comparison the best version of Parallel Lives which the English tongue affords." Be this as it may, the world will ever be deeply indebted to North's translation, for it is to Shakespeare's perusal of that work that we owe 'Coriolanus,' 'Antony and Cleopatra,' and 'Julius Caesar.'

--Jim Henry 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the two biggest authors influenced by Plutarch are Shakespeare for his plays, and Montaigne for the development of the Essay. The Influences section should probably reflect this. BiancaOfHell 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Plutarch's Influence on Dante?

I've heard that Dante was influenced but how? is it significant? BiancaOfHell 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

These quotes should be boxed up (like in the Demosthenes article) and placed appropriately in sections that will discuss the works of Lives and Moralia, ESPECIALLY if they come from there. Plutarch had a lot of influence on moralists, etc... and some of these quotations are examples of his wisdom that influenced those that came after. BiancaOfHell 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Plutarch Scholars

What books, or editions with introductions, forewords, etc.. that talk about Plutarch's life and work are out there? BiancaOfHell 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the philosophy of Plutarch of Chaeroneia one might look at The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 by John Dillon (Ithaca, 1996, Revised Edition). It has a chapter "Plutarch of Chaeroneia and the Origins of Second-Century Platonism" (pp 184 - 230) that concentrates on Plutarch's philosophy. In a note to this chapter (p. 185) Dillon recommends Plutarch by D. A. Russell (London, 1972) for "the whole man, essayist, historian, teacher, conversationalist, statesman." I am unfamiliar with Russell so I cannot comment on this books worth. But Dillon is a well-respected academic who is recognized as an expert in the history of Platonism. Pomonomo2003 01:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put it in References. Is that allowed when the book hasn't even been glimpsed? Better for a bibliography perhaps? Either way, Amazon has a new Edition of said book (Plutarch by D.A. Russell) and it looks like it has a goldmine of information. Going to get it. Thanks. -BiancaOfHell 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

1. R.H. Barrow, Plutarch and His Times (1967, reprinted 1979)
2. C.J. Gianakaris, Plutarch (1970), are good general introductions that list further reading.
3. C.P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (1971), begins with a useful biography and continues by tracing his career under various Roman emperors.
4. D.A. Russell, Plutarch (1973), provides a literary evaluation.

According to Additional Reading at Britannica Online -BiancaOfHell 22:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For too much information see Bibliography on Plutarch at <http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/chaironeia/bibliography.html> -BiancaOfHell 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an extremely useful bibliography, but I don't think it's been updated since the late '90s. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Life of Plutarch

A number of authors have written a 'Life of Plutarch's it seems. Here's the beginnings of a list. Please add to it if you come across more.

1. North's 'Life of Plutarch'
2. Dryden's 'Life of Plutarch'
3. Arthur Hugh Clough, writes introductions to Dryden's translations of Lives
4. Rualdus wrote a Life of Plutarchus on the Paris folios that is a basis for much knowledge on Plutarch's life.

-BiancaOfHell 11:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Translations and their Translators

1. In english what are the major and respected translations?
2. Did Dryden translate all of Plutarch's works? He translated Lives from the Greek original
3. Did Thomas North?

North, Sir Thomas, 1535?–1601?, English translator. He is famous for his translation of Plutarch, entitled Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (1579), which he made from the French of Jacques Amyot. This work, ornate but vivid, was a source for many of Shakespeare's plays, among them Antony and Cleopatra and Julius Caesar, and was a major influence in the development of Elizabethan prose.

1. North versus Dryden versus?

North translated from Amyot's French translation, whilst or while Dryden translated from the Greek original

1. What of Amyot's French translation?

-BiancaOfHell 13:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And Dryden did not translate much of Plutarch at all. The Dryden edition is just that: he was the general editor, lending his name for the saleability of the thing, but a large team did the actual work, each individual taking one of the Lives. Bill 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind citing your source, and incorporating that knowledge into the Translations section? I'm not sure if the way I've done it, separating into French and English translations sections, is the best way, since Amyot's was the start of a translation that went through many languages. The whole thing is a lot more complicated than any section breakdown could possibly convey.-BiancaOfHell 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis On?

What to cover about Plutarch is a question on my mind. His biographical information is sketchy. A lot of questions on the size of his family, his travels to Rome, his career. The importance of his works and criticisms of it seems to be more interesting. Anyone have any good advice? -BiancaOfHell 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes Section

Stuff whose deduction must be explained:

1. birth date
2. death date
3. travels to Rome and Alexandria, when and for how long?

-BiancaOfHell 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Diaphram

The life timeline at the end lists "Invented diaphram" but there is no reference made to this in the page - this needs to be addressed by at least a short section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.107.193.183 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

It was just a vandal doing his/her thing.-BillDeanCarter 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Death date

This date is rather vague, but the sentence should be placed perhaps someplace other than "Work as magistrate and ambassador", right? Is there any info pertaining to his later life? Sedonaarizona 18:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarian

I see that Plutarch is categorized as a vegetarian, but why is no mention of this made in the article? Given that vegetarians were exceedingly rare then, and the fact that he wrote essays extolling the virtues of vegetarianism, it seems relevant to me.--Hraefen ^Talk 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Which articles of his were about vegetarianism or mentioned his vegetarianism? Are there any historians you know who have mentioned the rarity of vegetarianism back in those days? I hope the categorization wasn't a form of vandalism long overlooked.-BillDeanCarter 00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• The book Heretic's Feast by Colin Spencer (pp. 98-101) says that Plutarch's Moralia contains the Essay on Flesh-Eating and Rules for the Preservation of Health, both of which discuss vegetarianism. That same book also addresses the rarity of vegetarianism in those times and discusses the philosophers that embraced it.--Hraefen ^Talk 05:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a brief paragraph on his vegetarianism, though there doesn't seem to be a scholarly consensus on his exact diet or how long he adhered to vegetarianism. I may add a summary of Essay on Flesh-Eating AKA On the Eating of Flesh later. Jmill1806 (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Latin Translations

The article says, "there is one translation of Parallel Lives into Latin" which it describes as being made in the 18th century, pour le dauphin. Meanwhile, above in the article is a photograph of a 15th century Latin edition of the same. Clearly either there was more than one Latin translation, or it was not made pour le dauphin. Rwflammang (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Plutarch=Unreliable

In Pyrrhus article, a user has added the pov sign with the arguement that Pyrrhus' sources came from the unreliable author Ploutarch... This is off course an anti-encyclopedic action. It is really sad that famous authors like Plutarch are so badly criticized and the worst, without a single argument against him! (he said that he was Greek...so unreliable)Alexikoua (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

well i have some arguments against him. some of his stories cannot be checked in any other source. second, in his paralells lives he pretends to be neutral but the romans always look better than the greeks in comparsion. If you care about my opinion, he was in the roman´s pockets 201.29.161.165 (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert to BC/AD date format

There has been a violation of WP:ERA in that no discussion or concensus was done on this article's talk page after the 29th October 2010 before the date format was changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE. Therefore I propose that the date format be reverted back to that of 29/10/10 should no one object and voice reasons why this should not occur. 78.146.132.102 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Term for this?

Hi, newbie here. Not sure if this is the right way to discuss this sort of thing, but:

In the section "Parallel Lives": "...went to tremendous effort (often leading to tenuous comparisons) to draw parallels between physical appearance and moral character"

This strikes me as being sort of Chaucerian, (this certainly isn't the right term, as Plutarch predated Chaucer by many years). Does anyone know if there's a term for this kind of literary attribution of moral/personality characteristics to physical ones? (I'm thinking something along the lines of Phrenology). I feel like there is a term, but it escapes me at the moment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodaen (talk • contribs) 06:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok, nevermind - I think I found what I was looking for in the related links of Phrenology: Physiognomy. Thanks anyways. Rodaen (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Plutarch delphi 1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Plutarch delphi 1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Plutarch delphi 1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Plutarch delphi 1.jpg - question

Anyone know if there is any reason to suppose that this image of the bust added by User:Odysses on 22 February 2011‎, is in anyway reliable? It's confidently described as "Statue of Plutarch, at the Museum of Delphi," but the only evidence Odysses seems to have put forward for this identification is the fact that a similar picture is used as thumbnail [2] at livius.org. Pasicles (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'm mystified that the bot tells us of speedy-deletion nomination, when the only notice given at Commons is of a question about the factual accuracy of the description. I think you are missing that Odysses says that s/he took the picture (is the copyright holder). I am willing to suppose that if Odysses visited the museum at Delphi, took the picture, and uploaded it with that description, then that is how it is described at the museum. Wareh (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The speedy-deletion nomination refers to an earlier version of the file (apparently the one on livius.org). Odysses replaced it with a self made photo on 1 March. This made me wonder if the sequence of events was (1) Odysses uploads thumbnail from livius.org where its used to illustrate an article on Plutarch, and added description to that effect, (2) thumbnail was nominated for speedy-deletion for copy-vio, (3) Odysses pops into local museum in Delphi (or looks in his holiday snaps) and takes picture of same bust and uploads it regardless of how it might actually be described at the Delphi Archaeological Museum. The thing that makes me suspicious is that precisely the same sequence of events occurred with this picture of "Heraclitus", which I'm pretty darned certain has never been formally identified as Heraclitus or anyone else.

I would certainly be surprised if this bust has been securely identified as Plutarch - it just looks like an anonymous bust like so many other anonymous busts which survive from the ancient world. A search for "bust of plutarch" or "statue of plutarch" on Google Book Search gives me nothing other than Greek/Roman references to such statues having once existed. Pasicles (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well for now I've left a note at User talk:Odysses. Maybe that will give us an answer to these speculations. Wareh (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now found similar pictures of this bust on a number of webpages: [3], [4], [5], and its pretty clear that it's identified merely as a bust of an "unknown philosopher". At best, all I can find is that Plutarch is merely a possible suggested identification [6]. Pasicles (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems clear enough. I think this is a reasonable basis on which to rewrite the image description at Commons and to get rid of any inappropriate usages of the image. Wareh (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've put in a rename request over at Commons for this image to be moved from File:Plutarch delphi 1.jpg to File:Head of a philosopher - Archaeological Museum of Delphi.jpg. Pasicles (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Delphi Archaeological Museum that I've visited in the past and I've taken several pictures, describes this bust as "a portrait of Plutarch, Plotinus or a philosopher", ranking Plutarch as the most probable candidate. The livius.org website is possitive about this bust been of Plutarch. I've also seen this bust as a cover page on a couple of books about Plutarch. Although I am not 100% certain that this bust is of Plutarch, yet Plutarch is the most probable candidate. Do we have another statue of Plutarch at any other museum? Odysses (₪) 13:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI, this is a modern copy of the bust of Plutarch at present day Chaeronea. And more uses throuht the internet: [7], [8], [9]. Odysses (₪) 16:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay that's fine -- but in my mind this seems to prove that this is a "bust of an unknown philosopher". Websites such as livius.org often use a "best guess" anonymous bust to illustrate an ancient figure when there is isn't a definitive bust available. It is interesting that there is a modern copy at Chaeronea, which is being used as a "portrait" of Plutarch. Clearly the fact that Plutarch has been suggested as one possible candidate for this bust has lead it to becoming an unofficial portrait. At best, if you want this picture to go back onto this page, then the caption should say something like "Bust of a philosopher - tentatively identified as Plutarch". But before you do that, could you please upload a high resolution version of this bust from your picture collection -- just the raw image taken by your camera will be fine -- and state clearly when you took the photograph and where. Thanks. Pasicles (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

On your comments above you say "in my mind this seems to prove that this is a "bust of an unknown philosopher. Websites such as livius.org often use a "best guess" anonymous bust to illustrate an ancient figure". OK, this is your opinion. In my mind livius.org is doing a fine job and they probably have more solid evidence regarding the identity of a portrait before displaying it in their essays. And do you suppose that the makers of the bust of Plutarch at present day Chaeronea, which you have removed from the description of the file would bother to produce a copy of Plutarch's bust without making sure that this is Plutarch indeed?

Do you seriously propose that greekhotel.com which you provide in the file description is a more reliable source regarding ancient philosopher portraits than livius.org?

Please do not remove sources and links such as the bust of Plutarch at Chaeronea, that are against your opinion, unless you properly justify your action. -Odysses (₪) 17:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

List of examples where the mentioned bust is positively identified as of Plutarch

• The University of Adelaide

University of Adelaide

• The Complete Collection of Plutarch's Parallel Lives Comparisons (Illustrated) by Charles River Editors (Editor), John Dryden (Translator)

Parallel Lives

• Delphi Classics - Plutarch

Plutarch

• United Architects – Essays

Essays

• mmdtkw.org

Plutarch

• timeone.ca

Plutarch

• akorra.com

Plutarch (46 – 127 A.D) Plutarch]

In other languages:

• egypte.dominiquecardinal.fr/

Biographie de Plutarque

• histoire-pour-tous.fr

Plutarque, penseur grec

• hellinon.net

Κείμενα του Πλούταρχου στα αρχαία Ελληνικά

• viotikoskosmos.wikidot.com

Πλούταρχος ο Χαιρωνεύς

The above examples by Universities, such as The University of Adelaide, Institutions, authors etc. are traditionally considered more reliable than the greekhotel.com which is provided in the file description to confuse the identiτy of this bust. If the above Universities, Institutions, authors etc. positively identify this bust as of Plutarch, then Wikipedia should also identify it as such -Odysses (₪) 18:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Odysses. I'm sorry you are upset about this. It was not my intention to make you angry. Can I first make it clear that I did not remove the bust of Plutarch at present day Chaeronea link from the image file description -- I am quite happy for it to be part of the file description, which is why I left it in there, because I agree that it is interesting that there is a modern sculpture that uses this bust as a template. I do not dispute that this might be a bust of Plutarch -- all I am disputing is that this bust which has been dug out of the ground at some point is definitely Plutarch -- if there isn't an inscription and if there isn't a definitive identifying feature, then its impossible to know. As I said before, websites often use a "best guess" anonymous bust to illustrate an ancient figure when there is isn't a definitive bust available. This is not at all unusual -- other ancient busts of philosophers such as this one of Plotinus are similarly uncertain.

You are quite right to question whether the greekhotel.com site is a reliable source. The reason why I used it is because they are actually quoting the caption used at the Museum of Delphi. Sorry to disappoint you, but if you look at this this picture of the bust on Flickr and zoom in then you will see the writing that says "Marble bust from a herm. It has tentatively been recognized as a portrait of Plutarch, Plotinus or a philosopher of the Neoplatonic school, but not enough clues are available for a definitive identification of the portrayed man" -- this is how the Museum of Delphi describes the bust. As I said before, I don't mind if this bust appears on the page, but it should say that the identification is uncertain -- I am very willing to compromise on this.

The issue which needs to be cleared up, however, is the copyright status. Are you Odysses, the copyright holder of this photograph as you claim to be? If you are then I will happily reinstate this picture to this article myself. Pasicles (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pasicles and thanks for your comments. I'm glad that we are having a nice and constructive discussion in this talk page on the identity of this bust. I'm sorry if I have given you the impression of been upset, my intension was to support my edit and bring some useful reference and info from reliable sources. I just realized that you moved the bust of Plutarch at present day Chaeronea to the bottom of the description. My sincere apologies.

Since my record of my old photos was of low quality and low resolution, I decided to make a visit again at the Museum of Delphi, (and at Chaeronea) as it's only a short trip, to get some new digital photos and info. I even spoke to the museum attendants and one of them was happy to talk about their "beloved bust of Plutarch" for which they are proud to own the one and only original item. Of course, they mentioned that, just to be "on the safe side" they'd leave a small possibility for the bust to belong to another Neoplatonic philosopher, just as per description of the Delphi museum plate, which you have mentioned above.

Thanks for your example of the bust of Plotinus. I see that although Plotinus' bust, as you said is "uncertain", it is shown on the Wikipedia article of Plotinus.

It would be nice to do the same by showing Plutarch's bust in Wikipedia and also mention the uncertainty that it might belong to another philosopher.

I have now uploaded a high-resolution photo of this bust taken at the Museum of Delphi and I hope it's better, more useful than the previous one and without any copyright issues. Odysses (₪) 21:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

To make this issue more complicated, the Museum of Delphi displays this bust of Plutarch/philosopher (left) next to a headless herm (right). The description given for the herm is: Headless herm of a votive with the bust of Plutarch, set up by the people of Delphi around 125 AD. What the museum doesn't make clear is whether the head on the left once stood on the herm on the right, since they appear to be made approximately the same period of time, of the same type of marble and they were both uncovered near the southeast corner of the temple of Apollo at Delphi. Odysses (₪) 07:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Too Much in Lives Section?

As I read the section of the article on Plutarch's Lives, i noted that there was more information there than on the actual lives page. Does anyone else agree on moving some of it over to the lives page, or at least copying it?--Accurateedits (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, moreover his important "Isis and Osiris" is quickly mentioned, while it should have its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Eldritch (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion - Koine?

The intro talks about koine Greek and provides a citation that does not back that up. Delete? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Confusing Emerson sentence

'Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Transcendentalists were greatly influenced by the Moralia — so much so, in fact, that Emerson called the Lives "a bible for heroes"' - that makes no sense, it seems to me. They are two utterly different works. Even if they weren't, this wouldn't make a lot of sense. 110.20.157.59 (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Of Athens Plutarch" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Of Athens Plutarch. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "Criticism" section

The following section, copied below, was removed here by 17u9e:

Criticism of Parallel Lives

Plutarch stretches and occasionally fabricates the similarities between famous Greeks and Romans in order to be able to write their biographies as parallel. The lives of Nicias and Crassus, for example, have little in common except that "both were rich and both suffered great military defeats at the ends of their lives".

In his Life of Pompey, Plutarch praises Pompey's trustworthy character and tactful behaviour in order to conjure a moral judgement that opposes most historical accounts. Plutarch delivers anecdotes with moral points, rather than in-depth comparative analyses of the causes of the fall of the Achaemenid Empire and the Roman Republic, and tends on occasion to fit facts to hypotheses.

On the other hand, he generally sets out his moral anecdotes in chronological order (unlike, say, his Roman contemporary Suetonius) and is rarely narrow-minded and unrealistic, almost always prepared to acknowledge the complexity of the human condition where moralising cannot explain it.

References

Discussion

While there may be problems with the above, some discussion of criticism seems to me to be likely warranted. Can none of this text be salvaged? Paul August ☎ 12:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@17u9e: Please do not remove large bits of text (with sources) like that without providing a more solid argumentation (typically on the talk page of the article or that of the Wikiproject). Your citations to the Parallel Lives are incomplete (Plutarch. The life of Caesar) is missing the paragraph number (eg. Plutarch. The life of Caesar, 69.); I don't know which part you referred to in your citation of the Life of Alexander. Your statement regarding the Life of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus also needs to be sourced. T8612 (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

For a more solid argument, I think that, although it may be partially accurate, the extensive detail that the editor goes in in this aspect of Plutarch and his works does not correspond with the briefness of the article, generally speaking. For it seems unreasonable to go into detail, in a neutral encyclopedia, with specific parts chosen indiscriminately, especially of criticism and negativity, for perhaps the editor held a grudge against the lives for some reason, whilst whoever wrote this small paragraph did not write a corresponding paragraph regarding the , for Plutarch's accounts are, as you know, a vital source of historical knowledge and it seems unfair to somebody to put a bad mark on it (especially if they cram only a small bit of positivism into it, as if he criticism towers over the former, which of course is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17u9e (talk • contribs) 08:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the somewhat non-neutral article must stay, I request that the irrational insult against Suetonius be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17u9e (talk • contribs) 08:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently "non-neutral" about including a criticism section in an article. Indeed, if there are criticisms it would be POV pushing to prevent them from being included. Teishin (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't sure what to write here yesterday, but rereading the contents that were removed this morning, I have to say that they're not very useful to the article. The section consisted of three very short paragraphs, of which only the first makes a single, relevant, but debateable point; the second combines three different ideas that don't fit together at all, each of which requires requires considerably more explanation and some decent sourcing. The third paragraph is rather vague and fails to explain itself satisfactorily. Additionally, the first two paragraphs seem to be phrased in a very PoV manner, accusing Plutarch of "fabricating" similarities between individuals and "conjuring" moral judgments—both of which statements imply an intent to deceive his readers, which I don't think is really supported by scholarly opinion.

Going more in-depth, the first paragraph is the most coherent, but uses as an example of "fabricated similarities" that two individuals had nothing in common—then undercuts that judgment with "both were rich and both suffered great military defeats at the ends of their lives". It sounds like a decent basis to treat the two together; if the level of similarity is superficial, it's fine to say so, but more of an explanation would be needed than what's written, and "fabrication" sounds like an extreme judgment in this regard, given the lack of detail. This paragraph could be salvaged by explaining why the two "lives" in question are basically dissimilar, but it should avoid language that suggests a deliberate intent to deceive the reader.

The second paragraph consists of three points that don't fit together. First, it claims that Plutarch's moral judgment of Pompeius is contradicted by "most historical accounts". This raises several questions. 1) what is Plutarch's moral judgment of Pompeius? 2) which historical accounts differ, and how? Are we speaking of other Roman historians, or modern sources? If Plutarch's assessment differs from that of other Roman sources, then it's one of many opinions rendered in that era, and dismissing one account as biased (for no obvious reason) while embracing the others as truthful (ignoring any biases their authors may have had) is fatuous. If modern historians disagree with Plutarch's assessment, then aren't their conclusions equally a product of their day? 3) What exactly do these other sources say about Pompeius' character? Do they really all oppose Plutarch's opinion? 4) In any case, isn't Plutarch's judgment of Pompeius a matter of opinion? The criticism seems to read, "Plutarch is wrong, because other (unnamed) writers disagree with him." If that were the case, then historical truth is determined by a vote of the majority. Wouldn't most historians be surprised to learn that! And the assertion that Plutarch is "conjuring" his moral judgment of Pompeius implies that it's not even his opinion—he just made it up out of thin air! Surely some explanation would be needed to justify such a characterization, besides simply stating—or even demonstrating—that "other historians disagree".

The second sentence of the second paragraph is, "Plutarch delivers anecdotes with moral points, rather than in-depth comparative analyses of the causes of the fall of the Achaemenid Empire and the Roman Republic". This assertion has nothing to do with whether Plutarch's moral judgments are credible, which is what the previous sentence was about. It's about whether moralizing is an adequate historical tool for discovering the root causes of major social and political upheavals. But is this really what Plutarch's work was about? Is he remiss compared to his contemporaries in failing to address the underlying causes of broader historical events? For example, does Suetonius discuss in depth why the Romans turned to autocracy as a form of government? The criticism here is phrased in such a way that it sounds as though Plutarch was asked to write a doctoral thesis on the declines of the Roman Republic and the Achaemenid Empire, and instead turned in a series of biographies—a somewhat nonsensical point, really.

The paragraph closes with the assertion that Plutarch "tends on occasion to fit facts to hypotheses"—tacked onto the end of the sentence about lacking "in-depth comparative analyses of the causes of the fall of the Achaemenid Empire and the Roman Republic", a completely different matter. Does Plutarch fit facts to hypotheses? Which facts? What hypotheses? What is the discrepancy between them? Without a single example—and probably more than one is called for—this fails to inform the reader of anything useful about Plutarch. Without detail, it's utterly insubstantial. It's reporting a complaint that somebody sometime might have made, but we don't know who and we don't know why.

The third paragraph is a single sentence that praises Plutarch in three ways. It begins by asserting that Plutarch "generally sets out his moral anecdotes in chronological order". Why is this important? I'm not saying it isn't—just that the reason why it's important or relevant isn't explained. Is giving a series of anecdotes in chronological order better than giving them in thematic order? More useful, more comprehensible? Why is this point being made? The second part of the sentence praises Plutarch for rarely being "narrow-minded and unrealistic". Again, why is this being raised? Is this a regular criticism of Plutarch's contemporaries? If Plutarch isn't being contrasted with anyone in particular, then normally we would assume that he wasn't "narrow-minded and unrealistic" unless some source suggested otherwise. I can't find any fault with the conclusion of the sentence, that Plutarch is "almost always prepared to acknowledge the complexity of the human condition where moralising cannot explain it", which reads well, except that it doesn't really follow from the other two points being made in the same sentence. And perhaps a bit like it was lifted unedited from some other source, since it's written better than any other passage in these three paragraphs.

Overall, the section is extremely vague, lacking in clear examples and the kind of "in-depth comparative analyses" that would justify the assertions made about Plutarch's value as a historical source. The first paragraph is vague and somewhat self-contradictory. The structure of the second and third paragraphs is a complete mess of unrelated thoughts. The second paragraph begins with a vague assertion in desperate need of elaboration and explanation, then follows it with a sentence that seems to be criticizing Plutarch for not meeting unrealistic expectations that might not be satisfied by any contemporary writer, and which may not be entirely relevant to the style of historical writing that Plutarch employed; and then tacked onto the same sentence is a third, unrelated criticism that is utterly useless because of vagueness and a complete lack of any kind of examples. The third paragraph again combines three points in a single sentence, the first of which fails to explain its relevance to the discussion, the second of which negatives faults that haven't previously been mentioned; and the third of which reads well, but doesn't follow from the preceding two, and sounds so much better than the rest of the section that it might well have been copied from another source.

Is any of this salvageable? Perhaps, but only if someone really goes to the trouble of addressing all of these points, finding clear examples to elucidate the extreme vagueness of several of them, and removing the parts about Plutarch "fabricating" and "conjuring" ideas simply because other writers—thus far nameless—disagree with him. Otherwise it's a hodgepodge of disjointed, contradictory, and unrealistic ideas and unsupported assertions—and deleting it outright would seem arguably justified. P Aculeius (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: thanks for that detailed analysis. A lot to digest. When I read that section yesterday, I had similar, if much more vague, misgivings as yours. I would still guess that a "criticism" section is warranted, but perhaps it would be best to start from scratch. I would like to have a look at Warner's introduction in the Penguin edition cited above, but that might require a library visit, so that's not happening anytime soon. I may look in other editions to see what I can find. Paul August ☎ 16:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"the first two paragraphs seem to be phrased in a very PoV manner, accusing Plutarch of "fabricating" similarities between individuals and "conjuring" moral judgments—both of which statements imply an intent to deceive his readers, which I don't think is really supported by scholarly opinion."

Wikipedia editors are obliged to present their texts in NPOV. On the contrary our sources can be oponionated. Per Biased or opinionated sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. ... Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". "

If sources indicate that Plutarch is stressing similarities that are hardly evident, we should follow their example. And we should never assume that Plutarch's moral judgments are beyond criticism.

But that's the point. The criticism doesn't attribute an intent to deceive the reader from the truth (that Plutarch is supposedly trying to hide by making stuff up) to some scholarly source analyzing him. It's presented as though it were the original opinion of the Wikipedia editor who wrote it. It's a bald assertion that Plutarch knew better, and was trying to put one over on his readers. I never said that the critics couldn't have a point of view; but we don't have any critics here. Just an extraordinary assertion stated as a matter of fact, not as somebody's—anybody's—opinion.

"If Plutarch's assessment differs from that of other Roman sources, then it's one of many opinions rendered in that era, and dismissing one account as biased (for no obvious reason) while embracing the others as truthful (ignoring any biases their authors may have had) is fatuous. If modern historians disagree with Plutarch's assessment, then aren't their conclusions equally a product of their day? "

Honestly this seems like a sophistry more than an argument. Modern historians are the ones who should examine both the biases and the relevant reliability of our ancient sources. It is not our job to second-guess modern sources on Plutarch's biases and how he compares with other available sources.

The "criticism" here says that Plutarch's opinions can be safely disregarded because "most historical accounts" disagree with him. It says nothing about what those sources are, why they disagree, and does nothing to indicate why mere disagreement between them and Plutarch makes Plutarch an unreliable source—which is what the criticism is saying. Who are we talking about? What are the points of disagreement? Shall we just take a majority vote to see who's right and who's wrong among the ancient historians? That will surely settle historical fact. And what is "moral judgment" if not objective fact determined by a majority vote of people living two thousand years later? If someone, whether Suetonius, Angelo Mai, or Mary Beard, wants to say "Plutarch made an atrocious error in his judgment of Pompeius' moral character", that's still their opinion, not objective fact, and it needs to be stated as opinion, not fact.

"This assertion has nothing to do with whether Plutarch's moral judgments are credible, which is what the previous sentence was about. It's about whether moralizing is an adequate historical tool for discovering the root causes of major social and political upheavals."

To me, it sounds more like stressing Plutarch's limitations as a source. Plutarch is primarily interested on the moral character of the historical figure, and may not offer a comprehensive image of the forces at work behind the rise and fall of empires. Plutarch has similarities with the Great man theory in viewing a person's unique attributes as an underlying cause for historical events. Dimadick (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

But why are we even considering applying contemporary standards of historiography to Plutarch? Is there any ancient historian who would stand up to modern standards of scholarship? Yes, Plutarch was writing a series of biographies. So why are we saying that "among his great failings" was not providing an in-depth analysis of something else that was never his primary purpose? It makes no sense as a criticism of Plutarch, any more than it would to criticize Boccaccio for failing to discuss the social phenomenon of "contamination" in Western culture from the Plague of Justinian to his own time, or Captain Johnson's lack of critical analysis of the socio-political and economic forces that drove seafarers of the 17th and 18th centuries into a life of piracy. And just as importantly, this point being made doesn't follow from the previous sentence, and doesn't lead into the second half of the sentence it's in!

In two sentences, this paragraph mentions, but does not discuss, three completely separate ideas—the first of which asserts that Plutarch is inventing his judgments out of thin air because somebody somewhere doesn't agree with them, the second of which faults him for not applying a different method of analyzing history than the one in which he wrote, and the third of which asserts that he altered the facts as it suited him, providing no examples and no authority for the premise. This paragraph in the "criticism" section isn't thoughtful analysis, it's regurgitation of half-remembered opinions (whose?) without any substance, and that makes it pretty useless for all of the points for which it's being offered. P Aculeius (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, after rereading my reply to Dimadick: I'm not saying that the critics are wrong. I'm saying that we don't know what they're saying, because nothing in this skeletal outline of criticism clearly identifies who these critics are or attributes anything specific to them. Somehow I doubt that mainstream scholarship concludes that Plutarch "fabricated" his comparisons or "conjured" moral judgments that can't be supported by the evidence; possibly somebody has said something like this, but it's very unlikely to represent any sort of scholarly consensus about Plutarch's shortcomings as either a biographer, a historian, or a moralist. It's not "sophistry" to point out that we don't know what sources are being used to dispute Plutarch's opinion or how or why. It's sophistry to assert that Plutarch's judgments are faulty because they represent a minority view, which is how the criticism reads. I'm not arguing that every analysis by every writer is equally good—I'm saying that you can't determine the veracity of an opinion by counting the number of writers who share or oppose it.

Plutarch's limitations as a source are certainly relevant to this section. But they need to be discussed, not alluded to in passing, without sources, examples, or detail, and they can't be folded into the same sentence with completely different matters. And it makes no sense to apply modern standards of historiography to ancient writers, which is how the current wording of the criticism describes Plutarch, as if he alone among ancient historians were deficient in this regard. The question raised above is whether an editor was justified in removing the criticism section as it then stood. If someone rewrites it—perhaps has already started doing so—in a way that deals with these issues, then it certainly could be helpful. But as it was written, it was so vague, so confused, and so misleading as to be utterly useless to most readers. I might still have left it as a guide for future improvement, but I don't feel strongly that its removal harms the article to any significant degree—until it says something substantive, coherent, and attributable, it doesn't make the article better. P Aculeius (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Further to re-writing this section: if we must, we should have the headline of something like "positivity and negativity of the Parallel lives", or two seperate sections, for it seems unfair to have one critisizing it. And yes, P Aculeius is quite right when he/she asks why the editor simply named Plutarch wrong because "all the other sources state the opposite" - so what sources? And, Paul August, no need to worry about going to a library; I have a copy at home. But anyway, why is the editor criticizing his historical accounts when Plutarch clearly explained that he was not doing it for history but rather moral insights? And Rex Warner repeats his intentions in his introduction. And I do not see why the editor is so desperate about making a fool of Plutarch's comparison of Nicias and Crassus, for he is simply pairing the two he thought most alike, not the two who were exactly the same. I believe that the critism section was written by sombody who has clearly not read all of the lives, just a few, and for some reason must "review" him on Wikipedia, not goodreads. 17u9e (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with setting up "pro" and "con" sections. I've seen what happens when this is done in other articles, and it tends to set up a false equivalency: "these people say that Plutarch is terrible, these people say that Plutarch is great, and the other people are just deluded. How can anybody know which is right?" I'm not arguing "Plutarch is right, and all of his critics are wrong." What I'm saying is that the criticisms leveled by the section as it stood when this controversy began were too vague, illogical, and incoherent to be of any use to readers—and appeared to be substituting opinion for fact. That's not to say that there aren't valid criticisms behind this mess. They just need to be rewritten in a way that shows less editorial bias, and provides a firm basis for what is said, not merely alludes to criticisms that unknown people have made on other occasions, without detail, explanation, or nuance. P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I find it unfair to have a criticism section without the opposite. Allow me to explain: it is, as the NPOV policy explains easily, taking sides rather than explaining sides to write a criticism section without the opposite, both comparing the points of the negatives and positives. If the criticism section is re-written, although warranted, it is not abiding by the NPOV policy. Another way of putting it, maybe more simplified, is that although these details may be factual, the positives are factual as well. I suspect you didn't understand my meaning when I said that there should also be a positive section? I didn't mean that there would be "oh, Plutarch's great in my opinion" and "I think Plutarch's trash" but rather "here are the reasons why Plutarch is useful and here are the reasons of why he is not." Please reconsider this, because rather than a debate I meant that it would be more of a list of facts and the reader can decide which to believe depending on what they want in a historical account/moral study. 17u9e (17u9e) 6:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

We summarise what the sources say, be they positive or negative. This is what NPOV means. It doesn't mean that we have to give positive and negative arguments on Plutarch's work. Commentators on Plutarch say that he is a great source of information as he used works that are lost to us, but as he was concerned about writing moral biographies, he omitted many details. T8612 (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand my meaning. When did I mention the word "arguments" in my previous explanation? I find it funny that you interpreted my idea of "listing the positives and negatives, with no commentary or arguments" into "arguing about the positives and negatives". Anyway, I'm not sure that your critism is valid: he clearly states that he was writing philosophy. This is like saying, "I don't like thriller novels because they aren't domestic". 17u9e (17u9e) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we may be arguing at cross purposes. Neither T8612 nor myself was suggesting either that there be no criticism, or that the criticism be one-sided, or that the problem with criticism is that it's argumentative. My main points above were that a criticism section needs to be worded neutrally so as to avoid giving the impression that Wikipedia is taking a side; that the arguments need to be informative, with specific details and examples that illustrate to a reader why the criticism is being made; that they must be logical, so that they make some sense in context; and that they need to be coherent, not haphazardly mixed together. In response to what you said immediately above, my point was that criticism tends to become incoherent when presented as a series of "anti-Plutarch" and "pro-Plutarch" views, which is what you seemed to be suggesting. The logical way to present differing viewpoints is to address each issue separately, not group them according to whether they're positive or negative.

T8612 was simply articulating this point: Wikipedia doesn't take a position on whether the opinions of various critics are right or wrong. Our job as editors is to explain what scholars have to say, to the extent that it's helpful in illuminating the useful aspects and the drawbacks of the subject. We can exercise some discretion in selecting authors and quotations that we think are useful for this purpose. I don't think that the criticism section as it stood when this discussion started was very useful, but I also think it suggested what approaches would be useful if we could find more details to flesh out the criticisms, and present them in a logical and coherent manner. Plutarch's approach to history has its limitations; that can be fairly stated. It's probably not fair to describe his approach as a failure on his part, however, which is how the original section read. This is the kind of problem that can be resolved by rewriting the section—not by eliminating it and preventing the appearance of anything similar in the future, or on the other hand by trying to find positive things to counterbalance the negative ones. P Aculeius (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think P Aculeius has it exactly right. Paul August ☎ 20:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This whole argument contradicts what I state. P Aculeius said "trying to find positive things to counterbalance the negative ones" - yes, that's what I meant. Let me see if I can balance them:

1n) Plutarch's historical accounts are not satisfactory as he focuses on morality.

1p) Plutarch's insights into historical figures' morality provide a rare account as they do not only state the facts but he also creates a familiar character for the subject, like a novel.

2n) He often has unreliable moments.

2p) Some of his works are priceless, for they are often one of the only surviving accounts.

3n) He sometimes makes adjustments to make the lives paralle.

3p) His accounts are more neutral and have less propaganda than any other primary sources because he was writing in Greece.

Please correct me if I got any of these wrong. I am just outlining what it might be. 17u9e (17u9e) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

But that's exactly the problem. Wikipedia isn't here to advocate for or against Plutarch, much less both at the same time, or either for no better reason than to counterbalance the other. Our goal as editors is to present the facts neutrally so that readers can form their own conclusions about Plutarch's strengths and shortcomings. That's what's meant by maintaining a "neutral point of view", not finding something positive to counterbalance each thing that might be perceived as negative, so that readers can't form any opinion. Moreover, the criticisms as you've summarized them above are extremely vague, and it's not clear whether they represent any kind of scholarly views, or just the opinion of the writer, and that was one of the major problems with the deleted criticism section in the first place.

I don't think it makes any sense to say that Plutarch is "unsatisfactory" because of the approach he took toward writing his Lives. He followed an approach to history shared by many of his contemporaries, and that approach has as much to do with the limitations of his work as anything, but every historian of the period necessarily followed some approach, and none of them could possibly cover every aspect of the topic or adequately address every point of view—nor could modern historians, for that matter. Every manner of writing history has its limitations. A properly-written criticism section will consist of a well-reasoned discussion of Plutarch's strengths and weaknesses as a source, without making absurd comparisons to modern historiographical techniques, or implying that Plutarch's approach is a defective example of an approach perfected by other writers. It will give specific examples and cite scholarly works for individual points, not simply allude to things that the reader cannot hope to understand by reading the article. It must present clear and coherent ideas in a logical order. This is what the criticism section needs to do—not present opinions as fact, or attempt to persuade the reader that one view of Plutarch is correct, and that others are not. P Aculeius (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Well if my work isn't good enough for you, please fell free to write it yourself. 17u9e (17u9e) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Age of Bust

The bust displayed in the infobox certainly can't be Plutarch and from the 2nd century BC, right? As he lived in the 1st to 2nd centuries AD. Is the bust from the 2nd century AD and this is just a typo? Truth-minister (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good point. The provenance of the image should be better established if at all possible. Ifly6 (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I too noticed the discrepancy.

Multiple topics on this talk page are about this bust and another is about the BC/AD vs BCE/CE format. I read most of them. The picture here is from the Delphi Museum and is identified as possibly being Plutarch. During my searches, I found this other picture of the same bust [https://i0.wp.com/talesoftimesforgotten.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/portrait-of-a-philosopher.jpg?w=731&ssl=1] which provide a better look at the plaque and confirms the 2nd to 3rd century AD date.

My best guess is that it was a simple mistake done by an editor during one of these discussions. The bust isn't from BC. The odds this is Plutarch is another discussion but previous discussions were fine leaving it with the "tentatively Plutarch" description. I've updated the article. Knipea (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Why the same bust twice?

The top B/W picture of a bust "tentatively identified as Plutarch" appears to be the exact same bust later shown in a color photograph alongside a stele (and there titled "portrait of a philosopher"). See spots on stone etc.

Why show the same bust twice? What information does it add? 2A02:AA1:1043:9549:49EC:84DF:106E:D0B6 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)