|
A great number of small details seem to be taken directly from Spartan life in Plato's work and this suggests that Plato, like Xenophon, was fundamentally more sympathetic to Sparta than to Athens.On the negative side, I agree that it would be good to have a more complete reference of Plutarch's references to Sparta in one volume.On the whole, this is an interesting book. Perhaps this is why Plutarch places Lycurgus above Plato, saying that the latter wrote books on political theory but the former had invented them and put them in practice.
It provides a great deal of food for thought and I would recommend it.The book consists of roughly three parts: The first is a collection of biographies of Spartan kings (Lycurgas, etc). This book is a collection of some lives and excerpts from lives (or biographies) by Plutarch about Spartan kings.
The third part is an appendix which includes some of Xenophon's notes about Sparta.The book allows us to ask a number of questions which may provide fruitful, such as the specific relationship between Spartan culture and Plato's ideas in "Republic." In general a lot of things in Republic that seem particularly contrary to the Athenian state are found in Sparta in this book. The Life of Lysander has been omitted because it is included in another Penguin edition.
The second part consists of excerpts of Putarch's writings consisting of sayings which provide insight into Spartan life and culture. These include descriptions of everything from female public nudity being equivalent to male public nudity to the idea that children should all be wards of the state and not the wards of their fathers.
4 stars
Gives a good read over Plutarch's Lives. Its was a quick read. I would have liked more of a commentary as well as factual information.
This does not include Plutarch's Lives of Agesilaos or of Lysander, both incredibly important figures in Sparta and in international Greek politics of the mid- and late-Classical period. There is some faint, stupid excuse for not including the Life of Lysander as the Penguin "Rise and Fall of Athens" includes that; but there can be no possible excuse for omitting the Life of Agesilaos, for Agesilaos was one of the most important figures of 4th century BC Aegean history. This is of course completely inexcusable and condemns this edition altogether.
Probably very readable for those already closely acquianted with historical and mythological references. I prefer footnotes mixed with the text as I have seen in most other translations of the ancients. It is still a very interesting read and I am encouraged to try some other 'Lives'.
This edition is a good editing and compilation and the first version of Plutarch's writings on Sparta that I would recommend readers select. I enjoy to ponder parallels between late Spartan reformer-Kings and the Roman Emperor Julian Apostate.
Plato and Aristotle had much to say of the Spartan constitution. Amidst all the contemporary historical deconstructionist prattling over the Spartans, the views and words of the more proximate historians among the ancients shine out like stars in a dark firmament.
They are archetypal stories of heroic-tragic figures who strive greatly to resurrect a noble but dying people and their way of life. Likewise did Plutarch, who was a later Greek historian living from 46-120 AD during the period of Roman Imperial ascendacy.
In this book there is much instructive and readable biographical information on prominent Spartan lives, as well as explantions of culture and customs surrounding the "Laws of Lycurgus." There are Spartan tales and aphorisms as well and the inclusion of the tragic stories of the later reformers are invaluable inclusions taken from the perspective of time. Plutarch's book is required reading for students of Sparta.
|
