Acprof Oso 9780199605507.003.0013

Love Theory and Political Practice in Plutarch: The
Amatorius and the Lives of Coriolanus and

Alcibiades
University Press Scholarship Online
Oxford Scholarship Online
Erôs in Ancient Greece

Ed Sanders, Chiara Thumiger, Christopher Carey, and Nick Lowe
Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780199605507
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2013
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199605507.001.0001
Love Theory and Political Practice in

Plutarch: The Amatorius and the
Lives of Coriolanus and Alcibiades
Michele A. Lucchesi
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199605507.003.0013
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter discusses how Plutarch, ultimately, considers

erôs to be in conflict with public life. First, the analysis focuses
on the Amatorius, where Plutarch presents an idealized image
of the god Eros which, however, implies that his great power
over humans and his primacy over every aspect of life create
the premises for a collision between the public and the private
spheres. Then, the chapter scrutinizes erôs in Coriolanus and
Alcibiades, a case study emblematic of Plutarch’s negative
views about love in the Parallel Lives. In both the biographies
private life has a negative impact on the protagonists' military
and political careers. Nonetheless, while in Coriolanus love is
treated only marginally, in Alcibiadeserôs is examined in its
various nuances and represents a key element in
Page 1 of 28
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: Trent
University; date: 24 February 2017
Alcibiades
understanding Alcibiades' progressive moral decadence and
his failure as a political leader.
Keywords: Plutarch, erôs, private life, public career, Amatorius, Coriolanus,

Alcibiades, biography
Introduction
To explore in detail the private life of renowned people and to
present this to the public audience are two of the main goals
of modern biographies. Looking at how illustrious politicians,
poets and writers, actors and singers, or scientists lived their
family relationships and friendships often allows us to
understand why they took the decisions which made them
famous, the hidden reasons for their behaviour in public, and
their lesser-known sources of inspiration. Sometimes we
remain surprised by the striking contrasts between their
public and private conduct as we discover unknown aspects of
their character. Ancient biography too follows this generic
pattern. The Roman biographer Suetonius, for instance,
devotes long sections of his Lives of the Caesars to the private
sphere of the Roman emperors, revealing in some cases even
the secrets of their sexual behaviour.1 Similarly, before him
Cornelius Nepos regularly inserts family or personal
information about the protagonists into the Lives of famous
men. The relevance of the private sphere, as Titchener has
noted, constitutes one of the main features of the biographical
genre that (p.210) differentiates it from historiography.2 In
ancient biography, however, especially in the biographies
devoted to politicians or other public figures, private life
appears to be relevant only inasmuch as it may complement
our understanding of the protagonists’ public life. The primary
focus of ancient biography would still lie in the public
behaviour of the protagonists while on duty, in their
‘profession’, and in their activities, no matter whether these
consisted of political and military enterprises or, in the case of
intellectuals, of literary or philosophical works.3
In this respect, the Greek biographer and philosopher Plutarch

does not seem to have moulded his biographies differently
from other ancient authors. In the Parallel Lives (and in the
unparalleled Galba, Otho, Aratus, and Artaxerxes) he presents
Page 2 of 28
Alcibiades
anecdotes and facts concerning the private lives of the
characters: education, relationships with parents and other
relatives, weddings, friendships, and so forth. Private matters,
nonetheless, would not be important per se but because they
could serve as further examples of the character of the
protagonists exposed by their public deeds. This would explain
why Plutarch does not examine in detail topics regarding the
most intimate spheres such as love and sex, marriage,
adultery, and faithfulness. These are, at least, some recurrent
assumptions of the most recent contributions on this topic.4
In general, therefore, in the Lives every aspect of the

characters’ existence is public or is viewed from the
perspective of its public relevance. All this makes it more
surprising that in some of them the private sphere is
predominant. In Agesilaus, for instance, the relationship
between Lysander and Agesilaus, which begins as an erotic
passion between lover and beloved, has extremely important
consequences for Spartan history, first when Agesilaus’ ascent
to the throne is determined by Lysander’s intervention, then
when their disagreements in Asia induce Lysander to try to
subvert the Spartan constitution.5 Similarly in Pompey,
Pompey’s marriage to Julia is a decisive element of the
political alliance with Caesar; at the same time, their sincere
love makes Pompey neglect his public duties.6 Another
example is represented by Theseus, where Theseus starts a
long series of enterprises only because of his admiration for
Heracles. Also, Theseus’ love affairs, in particular his
relationship with (p.211) Ariadne, are the core of several
adventures with both positive and negative endings.7 The most
striking case, however, which I examine in this chapter, is
Coriolanus and Alcibiades, in which the separation between
the public and the private fades and these two categories
become indistinguishable. I shall argue that in this pair the
centrality of erôs is the factor that inextricably ties together
the private and the public life of the heroes, and that leads the
private to overstep its limits and clash with the public. This
case study is emblematic of how in the Lives Plutarch mainly
emphasizes the negative effects of love on the protagonists.
Such a negative aspect of erôs can be clarified by comparing it
to the image of Eros presented in the Amatorius, the dialogue
Page 3 of 28
Alcibiades
where Plutarch thoroughly discusses its divine nature and its
qualities. In particular, the difference between the ideal erôs
of the Amatorius and the evident misbehaviour of the
characters in the Parallel Lives stresses, on the one hand, the
difficulty in combining virtuous love with a successful career.
On the other hand, Coriolanus and Alcibiades indirectly
reaffirms the importance for a politician to keep his private
life separate from his public duties, however hard and
sometimes almost impossible this may appear.8
Erôs in the Amatorius

In the Amatorius, Plutarch analyses various theories about
erôs in Plato’s wake, as is explicitly remarked in the prefatory
exchange between Flavianus and Autobulus, Plutarch’s son,
who is also the fictional narrator of the dialogue (Amat.
749A).9 The scandalous love between the young Bacchon and
the older Ismenodora—a widow who first tried to seduce
Bacchon and then even kidnapped him, subverting the
traditional relationship between erastês and erômenos/-ê—
constitutes the starting point for exploring the differences
between homosexual and heterosexual love.10 In his three long
speeches (Amat. (p.212) 753C–754E, 756B–763F, and 764A–
771C), which represent the main sections of the dialogue,
however, Plutarch also explains his ideas about the power of
Eros and his divine nature.
In the second speech, as a preliminary, Plutarch claims that

love is not just a human passion (pathos), as suggested by
Pemptides, one of the interlocutors who supports this opinion
(Amat. 755F). Rather, Eros is a god, and thanks to him
Aphrodite creates affection and the intimate union between
lovers (philotês and sunkrasis) (Amat. 756E); otherwise,
without Eros her action has virtually no value (Amat. 759E–
F).11 For Eros presides over the pursuit of young and
handsome men by lovers, and leads them to virtue and
friendship (aretê and philia) (Amat. 758C). Subsequently,
Plutarch examines the power (dunamis) of Eros in comparison
to Ares through a series of historical and mythical examples
that illustrate the superiority of Eros. These exempla remark
upon the indissolubility of erotic relationships, but the
Page 4 of 28
Alcibiades
perspective is not limited to the private sphere. Tyrants, for
instance, who usually do not meet any opposition to their
despotism, encounter the fierce resistance of their competitors
(anterôntes) when they try to seduce the erômenoi (Amat.
760C). That was the case of Aristogeiton of Athens, Antileon of
Metapontum, and Melanippus of Agrigentum, who defended
their erômenoi and eventually defeated the despots of their
cities. Similarly, Eros gives strength and endurance to fight
against the enemy, as Cleomachus of Pharsalia and his
erômenos did against the Eretrians (Amat. 760E–761B). The
great power of Eros is finally demonstrated by the fact that
the most warlike peoples and heroes were also the most
devoted to Eros: the Thebans, the Spartans, the Cretans,
Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, and Epaminondas
(Amat. 761D). Plutarch concentrates especially on Thebes,
where the erastai used to provide their erômenoi with a
complete suit of armour when these reached the age of
majority (Amat. 761B). Pammenes, moreover, changed the
traditional order of the army and organized the hoplites by
placing each erômenos next to his erastês.12 While focusing on
the force of Eros, therefore, Plutarch attributes to love and to
homoerotic love in particular the traditional meaning of
initiating the young into adult life, since erotic relationships
prepare them to serve their country and guarantee its cultural
continuity.13 Erôs, that is to say, has a strong impact on public
life and its potentialities are fully displayed in it. The
references to Alcestis, Protesilaus, and Eurydice, nevertheless,
prove that (p.213) Plutarch does not limit his considerations to
homosexual intercourse, but also includes male–female love in
his analysis.14
Plutarch tries to demonstrate that his view of Eros’ divinity

and dunamis is anchored in the Greek tradition by inserting in
his discourse numerous quotations from poets such as Hesiod
or ancient philosophers like Parmenides and Empedocles,
which would seem to corroborate his position.15 Plato,
however, is clearly the philosopher that Plutarch
acknowledges as the authority on this subject matter, and the
Amatorius is in substantial continuity with Platonic works and
theories.16 In particular, Plutarch takes up several ideas
Page 5 of 28
Alcibiades
present in the Symposium, especially in Phaedrus’ speech. For
instance, he argues that Eros is a god, citing two verses of
Parmenides and Hesiod, which are quoted in Phaedrus’
discourse too (Plut. Amat. 756E–F; Pl. Symp. 178b).17 Also, the
exempla of Alcestis and Orpheus, which Plutarch mentions
only briefly, are discussed in greater detail by Phaedrus
(Symp. 179b–d).18 Most importantly, Plutarch expands
Phaedrus’ argument about the positive influence of Eros over
individuals and cities in the public sphere. In this regard, the
Thebans and their Sacred Band may have constituted a
response to Plato’s hypothesis about an invincible army
formed by erômenoi and erastai (Symp. 179a), bringing out
how history proved the potential of Plato’s ideas.19
Plutarch, then, seems to offer updated answers to some
questions already discussed in the Symposium, which he still
finds relevant in his time. The public dimension of erôs is
certainly one of these ideas. Furthermore, by referring to
Plato’s most important and famous dialogue on love and, in
general, by presenting his own interpretation as consistent
with Platonism, Plutarch characterizes himself in the narrative
as a reliable expert on the themes debated in the Amatorius.
His role is different from the other characters, since he is
expected to judge on the affair between Ismenodora and
(p.214) Bacchon, clarifying the most complex aspects of
erôs.20 The continuity with Plato, nevertheless, is by no means
dogmatic nor does it prevent Plutarch from making his own
original contribution to the theory of love. By emphasizing
Eros’ divine nature and the importance of heterosexual love,
two topics introduced in the first part of Plutarch’s speech and
thoroughly examined in later chapters of the Amatorius,
Plutarch significantly distances himself from Plato. The
emulation of the great master implies the possibility of
improving or correcting some of his views, without Plutarch’s
credibility being undermined by this.21
In the second part of the speech, after elucidating Eros’

dunamis, Plutarch moves on to discuss briefly the benefits for
lovers. Not only erômenoi but also erastai improve when they
are in love, and thanks to Eros they become clever,
courageous, generous, frank, and high-minded (Amat. 762B).
Page 6 of 28
Alcibiades
All these positive qualities do not concern merely the private
sphere but also represent public virtues.22 In this regard too,
Plutarch considers that Eros’ action affects social skills as
much as it determines personal progress. The remark after the
anecdote of Alcibiades and Anytus (Amat. 762C–D), presented
as an example of generosity, is noteworthy: ‘Does [Eros] not
make the ill-tempered and sullen more sociable and agreeable
through intercourse?’23 The overlap between public and
private spheres is even more clearly expressed in a later
passage, where Plutarch states that the influence of Eros on
lovers is stronger than laws, magistrates, and kings, inasmuch
as a man in love despises almost everything else, since ‘he
does not fear anything nor does he marvel at anything nor
does he care about anything’ (Amat. 762E).24 These effects
confirm the divine nature of Eros, his primacy among the
other gods, and his dominance over all human activities. At
the same time, Eros’ characteristics may constitute the
premises for a potential collision between private and public
life. Such a contrast, nonetheless, is not examined in detail but
remains an implicit consequence of Eros’ rule over all aspects
of human life. The same implication can be noted in the
definition of Eros as king (basileus), chief magistrate (archôn),
and governor (harmostês), an unusually strong (p.215)
combination of titles indicating absolute power, which covers

all the political systems known in ancient Greece: monarchy,
democracy, and oligarchy (Amat. 763E).25 Plutarch claims in
this way that poets, philosophers, and lawgivers, symbolized
by Hesiod, Plato, and Solon—despite the divergences of their
opinions derived from their respective fields (myth,
philosophy, and law)—agree that Eros is a god and also the
first ruler. Such unanimity about Eros is compared to the
cases of Solon and Pittacus, famous politicians highly
respected for their virtue. Solon was jointly elected by the
three ancient factions of citizens at Athens as mediator
(diallaktês), archôn, and legislator (nomothetês), while
Pittacus was named tyrant (turannos) of Mitylene (Amat.
763D–E). Once again, Plutarch chooses examples that connect
love to the public sphere in order to highlight Eros’ beneficial
effect on public and private life.
Page 7 of 28
Alcibiades
As in the previous chapters of the speech, the references to
Plato’s dialogues are particularly relevant, inasmuch as they
confirm Plutarch’s flexible approach to Platonism. Plutarch
appears to deepen Plato’s conception of Eros as the god who
inspires and guides lovers (Amat. 762B–763F), a theory earlier
presented where Plutarch discusses the two forms of madness
(mania), one rising from the body and the other, which is also
called ‘enthusiasm’ (enthousiasmos), set in motion by Eros
(Amat. 758C–759E). He borrows these concepts from the
Phaedrus, where mania is treated extensively.26 The
Symposium, however, is the text where we can find the closest
parallels with this section of the Amatorius. The designation of
Eros as king, archon, and harmost recalls Agathon’s speech,
where Eros is praised as steersman (kubernêtês), defender
(epibatês), comrade-in-arms (parastatês), saviour (sôtêr), and
leader (hêgemôn) in labour and fear, while drinking and
making discourses (Symp. 197d–e). Yet, in this context, the
terms employed by Agathon evoke Eros’ compassionate care
of humans and gods rather than the idea of command.27
Agathon also celebrates the beauty, the tenderness, the
power, and the virtue of Eros, claiming that Eros does not
need to act by force, since ‘everyone willingly serves Eros in
all things, and the agreements on both sides willingly made
are declared to be just “by the city’s king, the laws”’ (Symp.
196c). The perfect integration of erotic principles and customs
into the laws, nonetheless, is implicitly contradicted by
Plutarch. For, while affirming that Eros exerts an (p.216)
influence stronger than laws and magistrates, Plutarch seems

to imply that conflicts between erôs and laws may happen,
and, when these situations arise, lovers invariably prefer to
follow erôs. According to Plutarch, moreover, the general
agreement about the primacy of Eros derives from Eros’ force
rather than, as Agathon asserts, from reciprocal justice
between men, gods, and Eros. Thus, Plutarch’s perspective on
the superiority of Eros is different from that of Agathon. A
similar conclusion can be drawn from the comparison with
Diotima’s speech. Like Plutarch, Diotima too mentions some
famous figures such as Homer, Hesiod, Lycurgus, and Solon
(Symp. 209c–e). She explains to Socrates that love consists of
the desire for the lasting possession of the good and,
ultimately, is the desire for immortality (Symp. 206c–207a). All
Page 8 of 28
Alcibiades
men try to attain the good and immortality through biological
procreation, so that they can transmit their cultural heritage
and knowledge from one generation to the next. Those who
are pregnant in their souls, nonetheless, seek immortality in a
different way, by bringing to birth values such as prudence,
temperance, and justice.28 In this respect, the great poets
Hesiod and Homer and the lawgivers Lycurgus and Solon are
paradigmatic examples, since they obtained immortal glory
through their poetic works and political constitutions, which
are the everlasting legacy of their virtue (Symp. 208c–209c).
By referring to them Diotima indicates the great achievements
that men in search of the good can earn as a result of their
personal progress under Eros’ guidance. She aims to instil in
Socrates the desire to start the ascent towards the Form of
beauty, gradually proceeding from the desire for an individual
beautiful body to the love of beautiful souls, from these to the
love of beautiful pursuits and laws, and, finally, to the love of
the beautiful in itself (Symp. 209e–212c). In the Amatorius,
conversely, as we saw earlier, Plutarch recalls Plato, Solon,
and Hesiod as authoritative exponents of the Greek tradition
in order to substantiate his view of Eros’ superiority,
described in political terms and with political examples.
Despite accepting Plato’s idea of the public relevance of erôs,
Plutarch focuses on the power of Eros rather than on the
personal growth of lovers. In this regard, significantly, the
second speech concludes with the triumphal image of Eros
descending on a chariot from the mount Helicon to the
Academy to be celebrated with a procession (Amat. 763F),
which marks once again the majesty of the god Eros.29
(p.217) Plutarch’s repeated remarks on the divinity, the

dunamis, and the rule of Eros throughout the second speech
do not reflect Diotima’s famous definition of Eros as a great
spirit (daimôn megas), that is, an intermediary between the
gods and men (Symp. 202d–e). Analogous concepts are
expressed by Socrates in the Phaedrus, where he states that
Eros is either a god or something divine (ti theion) (Phdr.
242d–e), and the explanation of erôs’ action centres around
the idea that love is a divine mania and a pathos (Phdr. 249e,
252b). Rather, despite the differences revealed by the analysis
of the Amatorius, the discourses of the ‘secondary’ characters
Page 9 of 28
Alcibiades
of the Symposium, Phaedrus and Agathon in particular, are
important models for Plutarch’s encomium of Eros as a god
(Symp. 178b–c, 194e–195c). To combine their arguments,
considered complementary to Plato’s main theory of love, and
to adapt them to emphasize Eros’ divine power constitute, per
se, Plutarch’s distinctive contribution to the debate about
erôs.30 Thanks to his flexible approach to Platonic texts,
Plutarch can also reject the accusations moved against
Ismenodora and Bacchon. Since Eros is the most powerful
god, whose influence on erômenoi and erastai is always
positive and cannot be resisted because of its supernatural
origin, Plutarch can consequently claim that social rules and
moral principles, usually respected in other situations, can be
transgressed by lovers. Lovers, that is to say, hold a special
status, as Plato too shows in the Phaedrus (252a) and in the
Symposium (183a–b). Thus, Ismenodora is not guilty and
should not be condemned for ‘obeying’ Eros. Plutarch’s second
speech in the Amatorius, therefore, provides the theoretical
basis for the defence of Ismenodora and Bacchon, which is
conducted in more practical terms in the first speech.31
Such an idealized image of Eros and his qualities is also the

necessary premiss for the innovative interpretation of
heterosexual love, which is presented in Plutarch’s third
speech. At Soclarus’ request, Plutarch compares some
Egyptian myths and the Platonic doctrine of love, indicating
the major points of convergence and the differences between
them (Amat. 764A–B). After distinguishing between vulgar and
heavenly Eros, Plutarch concentrates on the analogies
between Eros and the sun and between Aphrodite and the
moon (Amat. 764B–E). He clarifies that there is no perfect
identity between (p.218) them, just as the corporeal and the
spiritual spheres remain separate (Amat. 764D). While the sun
makes men and women turn their attention from the
intelligible to the perceptible, Eros stimulates in the human
soul the recollection (anamnêsis) of her original immortal
condition and the desire for the divine beauty through the
beauty of the lover’s body (Amat. 764E–766B).32 Plutarch’s
description of this process too is largely indebted to the
Phaedrus and the Symposium.33 Once again, however,
Page 10 of 28
Alcibiades
Plutarch distances himself from Plato. For anamnêsis is not
limited to homosexual relationships but also involves
heterosexual love, since women, who show traces (sêmeia) of
harmonious and prudent characters through their physical
beauty, can originate memories of the divine beauty and may
activate the recollection as much as men do (Amat. 766E–
767B). Women too, indeed, can be virtuous. As a consequence,
marriage, founded on stability, complete reciprocity,
faithfulness, and mutual self-restraint among husbands and
wives, is the relationship in which the joint action of Aphrodite
and Eros allows the partners to realize their philia and a
perfect union (dia holôn krasis) (Amat. 767C–770B).34
According to Plutarch, this demonstrates that marital life and
male–female love should be preferred to homosexual
intercourse.
Like erôs, marriage too does not concern merely private life,
and its public relevance can be implied from the observation
that the law supports husbands and wives (Amat. 770A). Just
like erôs in Plutarch’s second speech, however, marriage may
clash with the public sphere; when this happens, husbands
and wives give erôs the highest priority, no matter what risks
they have to take. The last example of faithful and loyal
relationships with women, which concludes Plutarch’s third
speech, implicitly clarifies this aspect of love. Sabinus, a Gaul
who took part in the rebellion of Civilis against Vespasian, and
his wife Empona secretly continued their marital life after
Civilis’ defeat, when Sabinus was forced to live in a cave,
where he regularly met Empona until she was condemned to
death by Vespasian. The strong union of Sabinus and Empona
shows that Eros influences lovers’ actions more than laws,
magistrates, or even the emperor (Amat. 770D–771C).
Moreover, although this story is presented as a model of
virtuous love, one can note that, when erôs oversteps the
limits of private life and marriage, colliding with the political
power, the consequences can be negative for lovers.
To conclude, in the Amatorius Plutarch describes the great

power of the god Eros and the benefits for men and women. In
many respects, he presents here an idealized erôs. In the
Lives, Plutarch adopts a different approach. Since the
Page 11 of 28
Alcibiades
protagonists are all public figures and erotic behaviour always
has (p.219) repercussions on public life, the clash between the
power of Eros and the political sphere, which in the Amatorius
is not analysed in detail, assumes a greater importance. The
case study of Coriolanus and Alcibiades will show how
dangerous the conflict between private and public life, and
between erôs and politics, can be not only for individuals but
also for cities.
Coriolanus and Alcibiades

The Lives of Coriolanus and Alcibiades are in many respects
diametrically opposite to one another. Plutarch, however, as
often happens in the Lives, treats some topics in both the
biographies as complementary variations on the same
theme.35 Private life is one of these common denominators in
each part of the paralleled narratives, while the importance of
erôs in Alcibiades marks a main difference between the two
Lives.
In Coriolanus, the erotic sphere is completely absent and

Coriolanus’ marriage with Vergilia, compared to his
relationship with his mother, is marginal.36 An explanation for
the absence of erôs can be found as early as the portrait in the
first chapters, which centres around the contrast between his
noble and good nature (phusis) and his lack of education
(paideia).37 Coriolanus loses his father early in his life, but
despite so disadvantageous a condition he still manages to
become an excellent and distinguished man (Cor. 1.2). His
undeniable qualities, however, are accompanied by a clear
inability to interact with other people in political relations
because of his intemperate fits of anger and his inflexible
contentiousness (Cor. 1.4). Coriolanus’ lack of moderation,
due to his lack of education, causes his insensibility (apatheia)
to be perceived as grievous and unpleasant, and appears to be
a sign of oligarchic tendencies.38 He is unable to create
positive relationships with anyone except his mother,
Volumnia, the only person to whom he is sincerely devoted. No
mention is made of his marital life.
Page 12 of 28
Alcibiades
Such a strong bond with Volumnia creates a collision between
the private sphere and the political choices in Coriolanus’ life.
From an early age, Coriolanus achieves important military
successes, as demonstrated by the battle of (p.220) Lake
Regillus, the first of many occasions in which his military
virtue shines (Cor. 3). Yet, the glory and recognition he gains
are not his ultimate goal nor do they leave him fully satisfied.
Rather, Coriolanus always tries to gladden and honour
Volumnia: her happiness in seeing him praised and crowned
by the Romans is his only reason to achieve glory. In this
sense, indeed, Coriolanus’ private life determines his political
and military conduct. This behaviour, in Plutarch’s view, is
unbalanced and rather inappropriate. Plutarch compares this
trait of Coriolanus’ character to the Theban Epaminondas,
who regarded the fact that both his parents could see him
defeating the Spartans at Leuctra as his greatest joy (Cor. 4.6–
7). One should consider that Epaminondas represents
Plutarch’s ideal statesman, having a solid philosophical
education and extraordinary political and military expertise.39
Furthermore, a decisive factor in Epaminondas’ career was his
friendship with Pelopidas, which was based on virtue and on
the common desire (erôs) to make Thebes the most illustrious
and the greatest Greek city (Pel. 4.2–4). In Epaminondas,
therefore, erôs and friendship assume a political dimension
and are founded on public values.40 In contrast, Coriolanus’
character lacks these feelings of erôs and friendship, but
paradoxically his political and military life responds simply to
his private need to honour Volumnia. Their relationship is
uncommon and, to a certain extent, abnormal, as the details
about Coriolanus’ marriage to Vergilia prove. Coriolanus is
asked by Volumnia to get married, but he continues living in
the same house with his mother even after his children are
born: another sign that Coriolanus does not experience ideal
erôs in his life.41
As Pelling has noted, Plutarch reinterprets Dionysius of

Halicarnassus’ account, especially Ant. Rom. 8.44–54, his only
source about the relationship between Coriolanus and
Volumnia, possibly in order to offer a realistic psychological
reconstruction of the two characters, reading back from their
dramatic dialogue towards the end of the war between the
Page 13 of 28
Alcibiades
Romans and the Volscians (Cor. 36).42 After being sent into
perpetual exile by the Roman assembly, Coriolanus moves
from the Roman to the Volscian side. In his revenge he is led
by anger and resentment towards the Romans, and on multiple
occasions he arrogantly rejects the proposals of the Romans
and the appeals of his friends and relatives, sent by the Senate
(Cor. 30.4–8, 31.6–7, 32.2–3). Only his affection for his mother
makes him desist from (p.221) trying to destroy Rome. In
Dionysius the tone of the dialogue is rather different from
Plutarch’s Life, showing how deeply Plutarch remoulds the
story of Coriolanus and his mother. Volumnia, in particular, is
not portrayed as the authoritarian and severe mother gratified
by her son’s successes that we find in Plutarch. Most
importantly, in Dionysius she does not try to move her son to
compassion; rather, she presents herself as intermediary on
behalf of the other Roman matronae (Ant. Rom. 8.46) and tries
to find a political solution to the conflict, so that Coriolanus’
honour may also be saved (Ant. Rom. 8.48–50).43 Only in the
second part of her speech does she leave aside her capacity as
political diplomat and talk as a mother (Ant. Rom. 8.51–3).
Conversely, in Coriolanus, Volumnia places emphasis right
from the start on the contradictory condition of both herself
and Vergilia caused by Coriolanus’ being son, husband, and
public enemy (Cor. 35). Their personal difficulties and sorrow
are at the centre of her strategy, which proves successful. For
Coriolanus gives up his resolve to attack Rome exclusively
because of her: ‘You have won a victory fortunate for the
country, but fatal to me. For I will retreat even though
defeated by you alone’ (my italics) (Cor. 36.5).44 Even in the
presence of many women, in particular of his wife, Vergilia,
Coriolanus pays attention only to Volumnia, as shown by the
use of the singular personal pronoun sou. Thus, the crucial
moment of Coriolanus’ story in Plutarch confirms the collision
between the public and the private, and the reduction of the
private to the mother–son relationship.
Cornell has remarked that the whole episode could also be

read as a sexual assault against Rome and as an act of
rebellion against family ties and female domesticity.45
According to this interpretation, Coriolanus would represent
an archetype of warlike hero, follower of purely male values,
Page 14 of 28
Alcibiades
while his mother could be identified with the motherland, both
attacked by Coriolanus. Such a hypothesis, however, seems to
be plausible only if related to Livy’s version of the story, where
Volumnia asks Coriolanus: ‘Could you ravage this land, which
gave you birth and nourished you?’ (Liv. 2.40.7).46 The Life of
Coriolanus is a different case. In Volumnia’s appeal there is no
such identification between herself and Rome, and she simply
plays on the respect (charis, the same term used at Cor. 4.7)
due to her by Coriolanus. Rather, Plutarch focuses on the
contrast between the private and the public spheres. When
Coriolanus abandons himself to pathos and promises Volumnia
that he will retire, he puts (p.222) his private feelings before
his public duties. In the final comparison Plutarch passes a
negative judgement on this decision and how it is reached
(Cor.–Alc. 43(4).2–9). In Plutarch’s opinion, Coriolanus
humiliates Rome as if Rome does not deserve to be saved in
her own right. Charis is due to Rome as much as to the family,
while, in this regard, Coriolanus merely shows the inflexibility
of his unsociable nature and desperate anger. Moreover, since
the mother and the wife are part of the fatherland, it is wrong
to care uniquely about them, and the collision between the
public and the private creates a breakdown of the natural
order of the state. It is no surprise, then, that Coriolanus is not
loved by his fellow citizens despite their admiration for him
(Cor.–Alc. 42(3).6).
While the absence of erôs and an insufficient education are

two traits which distinctly characterize Coriolanus, erôs and
paideia assume a crucial importance in the Life of Alcibiades.
For Alcibiades receives an appropriate physical and cultural
training, although he challenges some traditional elements of
the Athenian education system, such as learning to fight
following the rules or playing the pipe—all clear signs,
according to Plutarch, of his ambition and his desire always to
come first.47 Like Coriolanus, Alcibiades too is an orphan, but
he finds other parental role models in Pericles, Ariphron, and
Socrates. Especially in the first part of the biography Plutarch
concentrates on the complex erotic relationship between
Alcibiades and Socrates. Socrates’ erôs has a deeply
pedagogic and philosophical meaning: it represents the path
to virtue that Socrates offers Alcibiades and that Alcibiades
Page 15 of 28
Alcibiades
seems to accept. Socrates, in this sense, plays the role of the
true and virtuous lover. Their love, however, is far from being
exclusive. Just as Alcibiades has many ‘fathers’, so too he has
many erastai, false friends and lovers who address only
flatteries to him and tempt him into various forms of pleasure.
Plutarch remarks quite strongly on the differences between
Socrates and these other lovers. Socrates is able to look
beyond Alcibiades’ beauty and recognizes his potential for
virtue (euphuia pros aretên); he also makes Alcibiades aware
of the weakness of his soul and of his foolish pride (Alc. 4.1–3).
The other pretenders, conversely, are simply interested in his
appearance and, by playing on Alcibiades’ philotimia and
philodoxia, instil in him the desire to enter into politics, even if
he is not ready yet, so that he can surpass the other stratêgoi
and demagogues, Pericles included (Alc. 6).48
(p.223) The comparison between Socrates and the other

erastai sheds light on the different views about Alcibiades’
political role. According to Socrates, Alcibiades should be
guided towards moral virtue through erôs in order to be of
benefit to Athens. Their love, that is to say, is meant to have
positive public effects, as is confirmed by two anecdotes
presented by Plutarch after the depiction of their relationship
(Alc. 7.4–6). First, despite having shown great courage in
rescuing Alcibiades during the battle of Potidaea (the
historical event in question, 432 BCE), Socrates rejects a
crown and a suit of armour in favour of Alcibiades. Then, at
the battle of Delium (424 BCE) Alcibiades in turn protects his
lover during the retreat. In this regard, as Gribble has
thoughtfully explained, Plutarch presents Socrates as acting
differently from the Symposium.49 In Alcibiades, Socrates
appears to be perfectly integrated into Athens and he does not
live in any tension with his city, a tension to which, in contrast,
Plato attributes great importance. In short, ‘[Socrates’] role is
not to turn Alcibiades away from a political career, but to
prepare him for one’.50 In Socrates’ case, therefore, the
private erôs is supposed to affect Alcibiades’ career positively
and, more broadly, Athenian public life, while, as we saw
earlier, the flatterers offer Alcibiades prospects for a political
career without any consideration for public utility or virtue.
Thus, the public is only a means for their private ambitions
Page 16 of 28
Alcibiades
with regard to Alcibiades, who in turn is encouraged by them
to make politics serve only his personal aspirations. The public
domain is reduced merely to a private affair.
Fraught with such different options, Alcibiades’ good nature is

not strong enough to decide in favour of virtue alone. Although
he becomes acquainted with Socrates thanks to his own
euphuia and distances himself from his rich and famous lovers,
he never completely breaks these relationships (Alc. 6.1–2). As
Plutarch explains, Alcibiades’ character is inconsistent and
shows many changes, so that throughout his life he remains an
enigmatic and unpredictable figure, whose behaviour is very
difficult to evaluate, considering the inextricable mixture of
good and bad in his actions (Alc. 2.1).51 The same instability
characterizes his erotic life and the presence of many erastai
creates the conditions for being inconsistent as a lover. There
is, however, something inherent in his nature that makes him
anomalous as an object of sexual attraction. His beauty is
certainly beloved (erasmion), but it is ambiguous too: his
speech impediment, for instance, is an anomaly but one that
broadens his appeal (Alc. 1.4). Some traits of his character are
effeminate, but they are also related to aggressiveness, as the
anecdote of the fight, in which he bites his opponent like a
woman (or like a lion, according to Alcibiades himself),
(p.224) exemplifies well (Alc. 2.2–3).52 His debauchery and
vanity weaken him as fire weakens iron, while Socrates forges
him with his discourse and gives him back his ‘shape’ by
making him humble and cautious (Alc. 6.5).53 Alcibiades,
nonetheless, is harsh and intractable with his other lovers,
who are responsible, in Plutarch’s opinion, for undermining his
character (Alc. 4.4). The anecdote concerning Anytus, from
whom Alcibiades steals silver and golden cups (Alc. 4.5–6),
and that of the foreigner convinced to outbid the other
participants at the auction for the public revenues (Alc. 5),
give further proof of his inconsistent behaviour as an
erômenos. As Wohl has demonstrated, Alcibiades’ anomaly is
reflected also in the fact that his attractiveness lasts
throughout his life, even into adulthood, when physical beauty
normally disappears (Alc. 1.4–5).54 This may suggest that the
passage from a passive to an active role in erotic intercourse
Page 17 of 28
Alcibiades
is never perfectly completed and Alcibiades remains bound to
the role of erômenos.
Alcibiades’ inconsistent and, in many respects, atypical erôs

has serious public repercussions. His relationship with the
Athenians has ‘erotic’ connotations, so that he is portrayed as
erômenos of the people (dêmos).55 As Plutarch recalls through
the quotation of Aristophanes’ Frogs 1425, the dêmos loves
and hates him at the same time, and ultimately wants to
possess him (Alc. 16.3). His extravagance and wrongdoing are
constantly forgiven with indulgence because of his appeal,
which, in Plutarch’s view, is due to his contributions, the glory
of his ancestors, his eloquence, beauty, vigour, and military
skills (Alc. 16.4). Only the most eminent citizens criticize his
contempt and love of luxury, his transgression of the laws
(paranomia), and the excesses of drink and sex. Erôs,
therefore, is a crucial element of Alcibiades’ public image, as
further confirmed by the Eros holding a thunderbolt which is
carved on his shield instead of the usual ancestral emblems
(Alc. 16.2–3). Yet, Alcibiades’ erôs, together with other
controversial aspects of his character, can be associated with
tyranny. The key episode, in this regard, is the expedition to
Sicily, which is preceded by the mutilation of the Herms (Alc.
17–21). Plutarch narrates that Alcibiades inflames the
Athenians’ strong desire (erôs) to attack Sicily, and persuades
them to prepare a great armament for the enterprise. (p.225)
He also encourages them to have great hopes, as he himself

has great aspirations: ‘He regarded Sicily as a beginning of
the campaign towards the objectives he was hoping for and
not, like the others, as an end in itself’ (Alc. 17.2). Once again,
Alcibiades’ erôs makes the public sphere bend to his
interest.56 Similarly, the Athenians deliberate on the
expedition being influenced by Alcibiades’ charisma, having
the same attitude as the erastai who pushed him into politics.
Thus, the desire of the Athenians to possess Alcibiades
becomes passivity to his initiative. In this case too, the normal
relationship between erastês and erômenos is confused.
The mutilation of the Herms on the eve of the departure

reinforces the idea that Alcibiades is an aggressive erômenos,
almost an erastês to the Athenians. The Herms, statues of the
Page 18 of 28
Alcibiades
god Hermes with genitals at their base, became the symbol of
Athenian freedom from the erotic and political rule of the
tyrants, after the two lovers Aristogeiton and Harmodius killed
the Pisistratid tyrant Hipparchus, who made sexual advances
towards Harmodius. The Herms, then, recall the essence of
the Athenian democracy. As Wohl writes, an attack against
them is inevitably feared as an attempt to reimpose tyranny
and a castration of the democratic regime.57
Alcibiades becomes the obvious suspect because of his erotic
paranomia, since, for the Athenians, only Alcibiades, breaking
the limits of his being erômenos, could try to subdue them
violently, by making them passive erômenoi and political
subjects, as the ancient tyrants did. The scandal of the Herms,
however, reveals further aspects of the complex relationship
between the dêmos and Alcibiades. Alcibiades’ involvement in
the mutilation is not clear, since the accusations are not well
founded and the accusers are motivated by personal
resentment (Alc. 19–22). The reaction of the Athenian people,
nonetheless, is characterized by anger (orgê), the same
driving force behind Coriolanus’ political decisions (Alc. 20.6,
21.5, 21.7). The dêmos trusts Alcibiades’ accusers without
considering the political consequences of its decision or the
correctness of its judgement. The Sicilian expedition,
moreover, is left without adequate leadership, since Nicias is
too indecisive and Lamachus lacks reputation and dignity,
despite being warlike and manly (Alc. 21.8–9).58 The dêmos
too, therefore, appears to be an inconstant lover and its
instinctive revulsion towards Alcibiades compromises the
public interest.59 In this regard, Alcibiades’ triumphal return
from exile, (p.226) marked by the restoration of the traditional
procession to Eleusis to celebrate the mysteries, interrupted
since the Spartans fortified Deceleia, represents a new
episode in the complex relationship between the dêmos and
Alcibiades (Alc. 34.3–6). For the poor and the humble feel the
desire to have him as a tyrant (Alc. 34.7–35.1), another sign
that Alcibiades’ erotic attractiveness is too strong for the
dêmos to be able to take rational decisions.60
Page 19 of 28
Alcibiades
Conclusion
In Coriolanus and Alcibiades the private sphere of both
protagonists impinges on public life. Coriolanus and Alcibiades
make their private behaviour, relationships, desires, and
impulses become public and determine the political course of
their cities. In this pair, therefore, private life is not a marginal
element of the narrative nor is it simply used to illustrate
aspects of the character of the protagonists, which only
become fully evident when Coriolanus and Alcibiades take
political decisions or are involved in military enterprises.
Rather, private life has a decisive influence on how Coriolanus
and Alcibiades begin and pursue their careers, lead their
cities, and make choices that positively or negatively change
the course of the events or, conversely, fail to mark a turning
point in Greek and Roman history. Thus, public duties bend to
personal interests. Erôs, in particular, is a key factor, which
blurs the distinction between the public and the private
spheres. Paradoxically, the absence of erôs in Coriolanus,
which represents one of the most remarkable differences from
Alcibiades, characterizes Coriolanus’ relationship with the
Romans, who hate his intractable character, while Coriolanus’
political actions do not show genuine concern for the public
good. In Alcibiades, on the other hand, the impact of erôs on
political practice is very problematic. For Socrates fails to
guide Alcibiades, the erastai exert a bad influence on
Alcibiades, and, ultimately, erôs makes Alcibiades and the
Athenian dêmos take wrong political decisions, following their
egoistic desires and impulses, without considering what the
best option for the city is. This is emblematic of Plutarch’s
rather negative view of love, when love tangibly influences
public life, and contrasts with the idealized image of erôs in
the (p.227) Amatorius. Here Plutarch illustrates his love
theory and presents erôs as a strong and extremely positive
force, although it can potentially collide with laws and political
authorities. The effects of this clash are examined in detail in
the Lives. Even if the Life of Alcibiades is an extreme example,
compared to the virtuous models of Epaminondas and
Pelopidas, nevertheless it shows the difficulty of practising in
the political context virtues proposed in theory. (p.228)
Page 20 of 28
Alcibiades
Notes:
I am grateful to Prof. Chris Pelling for having read earlier
versions of this chapter and for his most valuable suggestions.
I wish to thank also John Moffat and Ed Sanders for having
proofread the chapter and for their help in improving my
English. All the remaining oddities, inaccuracies, and muddled
thinking are, obviously, my own responsibility. The
translations of the passages quoted are my adaptation from
the various Loeb volumes, while for the Greek text I have
followed the more recent Teubner editions. Throughout the
chapter ‘erôs’ refers to love as feeling, while ‘Eros’ indicates
the god.
(1) Wallace-Hadrill (1995) 157–8 and 171–4.
(2) Titchener (2003) 98; cf. Plut. Alex. 1. Famously, Leo (1901)
distinguished between Plutarchan and Suetonian biographies
as subgenres of ancient biography, and examined their
differences from ancient historiography. Momigliano (1993)
criticized this schematization (see esp. 86–8), although he
accepted the categories of political and literary biography
(101–4). See also Geiger (1985) 11–29, and McGing and
Mossman (2006) ix–xii.
(3) Ancient political and intellectual biography, despite their

different aims as sketched by Geiger (1985) 23–5, do have this
element in common. Conversely, see M. Saunders (2010) 62–4
on the importance of the inner life and psychology in shaping
modern biographies.
(4) Duff (1999) 94–7; Stadter (1995) 222.
(5) Plut. Ages. 2.1, 3.5–9, 6.1–5, 7–8.
(6) Plut. Pomp. 47.10, 53.1–6.
(7) Plut. Thes. 19–21 (Ariadne), 26.1–5 (Antiope), 29.1–2

(Theseus’ violent loves), 31.1–3 (Helen).
(8) On Coriolanus as the first Life of the pair see Duff (1999)
205–6, Verdegem (2010) 87–8.
Page 21 of 28
Alcibiades
(9) The reference is to Pl. Phdr. 229a and 230b–c. The
structure of the Amatorius—a narrated dialogue between
several characters within a frame, which also has the form of a
conversation—deliberately imitates Plato’s Symposium. The
most relevant difference consists in Plutarch’s taking part in
the dialogue as the main speaker of the Amatorius, a role that,
conversely, in the Symposium is played by Socrates and
Diotima, both alter egos of Plato. Cf. Gallé Cejudo (2007) 45;
Georgiadou (2010) 230–2; Martin (1984) 87. For a
narratological analysis of the Amatorius see also Scarcella
(1991); Valverde Sánchez (2005).
(10) In the fiction of the dialogue, Pisias and Protogenes

oppose the marriage between Bacchon and Ismenodora and
argue for the superiority of homosexual erôs. Conversely,
Anthemion and Daphneus, supported by Plutarch, defend
Ismenodora and declare in favour of heterosexual erôs and
marriage. The paradoxical character of the relationship
between Ismenodora and Bacchon was noted by Foucault
(1986) 195–7; cf. the thorough discussion of this issue in
Goldhill (1995) 150–5.
(11) Plutarch’s Eros as a god: Brenk (1988) 462–5; Frazier

(2005/2006) 71–4 and 78–87; Görgemanns (2005) 169–73 and
186–91; Martínez Hernández (2007) 373–7 and 380–5.
(12) Görgemanns (2011) 166 n. 229. Cf. Plut. Pel. 18.2 and
Quaest. conv. 618D.
(13) On this topic the analysis conducted by Dover (1989), esp.

153–70, is still of fundamental importance; see also Cartledge
(2001) 92–105; P. W. Ludwig (2002) 27–39; Wohl (2002) 3–9,
with further bibliography.
(14) Plut. Amat. 761E: ‘It is good that Alcestis came to our
mind. For women have no part at all in Ares, but the
inspiration which comes from Eros leads [them] to acts of
courage beyond nature, even to die.’
(15) Plut. Amat. 756D (Empedocles), 756E–F (Parmenides),

756F (Hesiod), etc. Tragedians and Homer, conversely, appear
to have expressed more negative views on erôs: e.g. Euripides
Page 22 of 28
Alcibiades
(756B–C), Sophocles (757A), Homer (757B), etc. Quotations in
the Amatorius are listed by Scarcella (1991) 352 nn. 15 and 16;
Zucker (2009); cf. also Martin (1969a), (1969b), and (1984)
84–5. Plutarch’s large use of exempla in the Amatorius:
Frazier (2005); Valverde Sánchez (2007).
(16) Cf. Plut. Amat. 758D and 762A. For an overview of the
Platonic influence on Plutarch in the Amatorius see Billault
(1999); Boulogne (1999); Martin (1984); Rist (2001); Trapp
(1990).
(17) Görgemanns (2011) 155–6 nn. 141 and 142; Longoni

(1986) 131 n. 107.
(18) The story of Aristogeiton too is recalled by Plato at Symp.

182c with a meaning and in a context rather different from the
Amatorius.
(19) Cf. Plut. Pel. 18–19. On the Sacred Band, its controversial
tradition, and the references in Plato and Plutarch see
Davidson (2007) 433–41; DeVoto (1992); Georgiadou (2006);
Leitao (2002), esp. 149–62.
(20) In the introduction, Autobulus explains that Plutarch and

his friends were chosen as arbitrators of the controversy over
the relationship between Ismenodora and Bacchon (Amat.
750A); cf. Amat. 752C and 753B–C. See Longoni (1986) 113 n.
11.
(21) Frazier (2005/2006) 76–7; Martin (1984) 86–7; Rist (2001)

558–9; Russell (1973) 92.
(22) Being sagacious (sunetos), for instance, is a quality often

associated by Plutarch with public recognition: Demetr. 47.4,
Them. 2.1, An seni 797C, etc. Similarly, being frank (aplous)
reverberates in politics: e.g. Artax. 30.2, Brut. 1.4, Cor. 15.5,
Lys. 5.7.
(23) The same anecdote is mentioned at Alc. 4.5, where,

however, it demonstrates Alcibiades’ contradictory nature and
his recalcitrant reception of Socrates’ teaching about moral
virtue. On the relationship between Alc. 4.5 and Amat. 762C–
Page 23 of 28
Alcibiades
D, and on the relative chronology see Verdegem (2010) 112–
14, 145–9.
(24) Plutarch mentions here the verse of Phrynicus fr. 17

Nauck, which is also quoted at Alc. 4.3 and, with a different
meaning, at Pel. 29.11; see Görgemanns (2011) 169 n. 261.
(25) Frazier (2005/2006) 96; Görgemanns (2005) 172–3 and

(2011) 172–3 n. 282; Longoni (1986) 146 n. 229. Similar terms
such as leader (hêgemôn) and master (despotês) are employed
at Amat. 758C; cf. the reference to Pammenes, who defines
Eros as the only invincible general (stratêgos) (Amat. 761B).
(26) Pl. Phdr. 244a–245c; see Frazier (2005/2006) 71–83.
(27) Cf. Phaedrus’ definition of Eros as ‘the oldest of gods,

most worthy of honour, and most powerful (kuriôtatos) in
helping men achieve virtue and happiness’ (Pl. Symp. 180b),
and Aristophanes’ exhortation to take Eros as leader and
commander in order that ‘we shall find and join our own
beloved ones’ (Pl. Symp. 193b).
(28) Pregnancy of the soul—also called psychic pregnancy—is a

postulate of Plato’s theory of knowledge, which is related to
the innate Ideas or Forms: human souls have innate
knowledge and values as potentialities that are actualized
through successive stages, just as women give birth to their
children through gestation. See Dover (1980) 146–59 and
(1989) 153–65; Ferrari (1992) 254–60; Irwin (1995) 315; Most
(2005) 38–9; Pender (1992); Rawson (2006), esp. 137–40 and
144–50.
(29) The Helicon and the Academy may implicitly indicate

Hesiod and Plato, that is, poetry (the Helicon is the mountain
sacred to the Muses) and philosophy in general, reaffirming
the continuity between Plutarch’s idea of Eros and the Greek
tradition. It is also plausible that, by connecting the Helicon—
which is near Thespiae in Boeotia, where Plutarch sets the
fictional dialogue of the Amatorius—to the Academy, Plutarch
wants to claim that his theory about Eros is genuinely
Platonic. Cf. Plut. Amat. 748E–F. The setting of the Amatorius
at Thespiae: Brenk (1998); Georgiadou (2010); Graf (2011).
Page 24 of 28
Alcibiades
(30) See Brenk (1988) 462–8; Frazier (2005/2006) 78–83;
Görgemanns (2005) 171–3; Martin (1984) 83; Rist (2001) 571–
2.
(31) In the first speech, Plutarch’s strategy is based on three

arguments: Ismenodora’s wealth, beauty, and higher social
status are not disadvantages but positive qualities (753C);
although Ismenodora is older than Bacchon, the right age for
marriage depends on the possibility of procreation, which she
still has (754B); nothing forbids a more mature wife from
guiding her husband in life (754D).
(32) See Brenk (1988) 463–5; Frazier (2005/2006) 87–9;

Opsomer (2007) 165; Rist (2001) 571.
(33) Cf. Pl. Phdr. 248e–250c, Symp. 210a–211d (Diotima’s

speech). See Martin (1984) 85–6.
(34) Foucault (1986) 203–9; Frazier (2005/2006) 74–8;

Opsomer (2007) 165–6; Rist (2001) 573–5.
(35) The presence of complementary elements in the

biographies of the same pair is thoroughly examined by Pelling
(1986).
(36) Plutarch wrongly changes the names of Coriolanus’

mother and wife, calling the mother Volumnia for Veturia, and
the wife Vergilia for Volumnia; cf. Russell (1995b) 359. In
order to avoid confusion, I maintain the names given by
Plutarch, even when I refer to texts such as Dionysius’
Antiquitates Romanae, where Veturia and Volumnia are
correctly used.
(37) See Ahlrichs (2005) 47–62; Duff (1999) 206–15, (2008) 13–
14. Coriolanus’ lack of paideia: Swain (1990) 136–7. Cornell
(2003) 78–9, 84–91 tries to reconstruct Coriolanus’ story
beyond the myth.
(38) Pelling (1989) 206–7.
(39) Cf. Fabrini and Ghilli (1998) 159–60 n. 28, 162–4 nn. 34,
37, and 38.
Page 25 of 28
Alcibiades
(40) Georgiadou (1997) 75–80. Cf. Pel. 17.13–19.5: on this
Georgiadou (1997) 153–60. On the public dimension of erôs
at Thebes and on the Sacred Band see n. 19. In general, on the
connection between erôs, friendship, and public life cf.
Leontsini (this volume); see also Fisher (2013).
(41) On the distinctiveness of the relationship between

warriors and mothers at Rome see Cornell (2003) 79–80.
(42) Pelling (2002) 155–6 and 309–10; cf. Russell (1995b) 368.
(43) In fact, the beginning of Volumnia’s speech aims to arouse

Coriolanus’ pity (eleos), but it is pity for the Roman women all
together as female community (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 8.46.1–2).
(44) Duff (1999) 214–15 has stressed that the importance of

anger and pathos in Coriolanus’ decisions represents another
proof of his lack of education. On the different tone between
Dionysius and Plutarch cf. also Pelling (2002) 394–8.
(45) Cornell (2003) 80–1.
(46) One should consider, however, that at Liv. 28.29.1

Coriolanus’ rebellion against Rome is defined as public
parricide.
(47) Alcibiades’ dislike of the pipe can be compared to

Coriolanus’ lack of benefit derived from the Muses (Cor. 1.5,
Alc. 2.5–7). Similarly, the reference to the Thebans and their
predilection for this instrument may represent the resumption
of the implicit comparison with Epaminondas, from whom
Alcibiades, like Coriolanus, is very distant. This anecdote is
thoroughly discussed by Duff (2003) 102–6 and Verdegem
(2010) 126–8.
(48) Cf. Pl. Alc. I 104a and 105b, and Symp. 215e–216b. On the
Platonic reminiscences in this part of the Life see Alesse
(2005); Duff (2009) 37–45 and (2011); Pelling (2005) 116–25;
Russell (1995a) 196–7; Verdegem (2010) 137–51.
(49) Cf. Pl. Symp. 219e–221c.
(50) Gribble (1999) 275–6. Cf. also Duff (2009) 45–9; Pelling
(2005) 121–5.
Page 26 of 28
Alcibiades
(51) Duff (1999) 230–1, (2003) 94–5; Verdegem (2010) 119–21.
On Alcibiades’ mixture of vice and virtue cf. Nepos Alc. 1.1.4
and Plut. Nic. 9.1.
(52) Wohl (2002) 131 n. 21 notes that erasmion and hêdu,

adjectives that Plutarch attributes to Alcibiades’ beauty (Alc.
1.4), ‘describe a distinctly unmasculine appeal’. Similarly,
other clear signs of effeminacy are reflected in Alcibiades’ son
(Alc. 1.8): cf. Wohl (2002) 132–3. Alcibiades’ ambiguity and
effeminacy occur in the narration of Alcibiades’ death (Alc.
39.1–7): Alcibiades has the vision of wearing the clothes of the
hetaira Timandra and of having his face made up like a
woman, something which prefigures his death. Duff (2003) 96
explores other aspects of Alcibiades’ sexual ambiguity.
(53) Cf. Duff (2009) 39.
(54) Wohl (2002) 131.
(55) It is probably no coincidence that the name of one of

Alcibiades’ first lovers is said to be Democrates (Alc. 3.1). Cf.
Pl. Alc. I 132a, where Alcibiades is designated as dêmerastês,
active lover of the people; see Wohl (2002) 149.
(56) Cf. Pelling (2002) 126. See also the episode at Plut. Alc.
13.3: Alcibiades makes private use of utensils that belong to
the city.
(57) For the origin and the meaning of the Herms and their
mutilation see Wohl (2002) 20–5, 152–8, 215–17.
(58) Considering also the remark upon poverty, the description

of Lamachus closely resembles Coriolanus and implicitly
contrasts with Alcibiades’ femininity: in contrast to Alcibiades,
both Coriolanus and Lamachus do not represent characters
able to govern cities.
(59) Pelling (2002) 125–8 and (2005) 121–2 discuss how

Alcibiades and the dêmos have very similar characteristics.
(60) Plut. Alc. 34.7: ἐρᾶν ἔρωτα θαυμαστὸν ὑπ' ἐκείνου

τυραννεῖσθαι. By contrast, one can note that Alcibiades’
marriage with Hipparete as much as his frequent intercourse
Page 27 of 28
Alcibiades
with courtesans (hetairai) do not seem to be based on erôs,
which represents an aspect common to Coriolanus’ marriage
(Alc. 8.4–6). Similarly, the seduction of the Spartan queen
Timaea is due to Alcibiades’ immense ambition to see his
descendants reigning over Sparta (Alc. 23.7–8); cf. Verdegem
(2010) 158–61 and 279–83.
Access brought to you by: Trent University
Page 28 of 28

Acprof Oso 9780199605507.003.0013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acprof Oso 9780199605507.003.0013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Love Theory and Political Practice in Plutarch: The

Amatorius and the Lives of Coriolanus and

Erôs in Ancient Greece

Print publication date: 2013

Love Theory and Political Practice in

Abstract and Keywords

This chapter discusses how Plutarch, ultimately, considers

Keywords: Plutarch, erôs, private life, public career, Amatorius, Coriolanus,

In this respect, the Greek biographer and philosopher Plutarch

In general, therefore, in the Lives every aspect of the

Erôs in the Amatorius

In the second speech, as a preliminary, Plutarch claims that

Plutarch tries to demonstrate that his view of Eros’ divinity

In the second part of the speech, after elucidating Eros’

combination of titles indicating absolute power, which covers

influence stronger than laws and magistrates, Plutarch seems

(p.217) Plutarch’s repeated remarks on the divinity, the

Such an idealized image of Eros and his qualities is also the

To conclude, in the Amatorius Plutarch describes the great

Coriolanus and Alcibiades

In Coriolanus, the erotic sphere is completely absent and

As Pelling has noted, Plutarch reinterprets Dionysius of

Cornell has remarked that the whole episode could also be

While the absence of erôs and an insufficient education are

(p.223) The comparison between Socrates and the other

Fraught with such different options, Alcibiades’ good nature is

Alcibiades’ inconsistent and, in many respects, atypical erôs

He also encourages them to have great hopes, as he himself

The mutilation of the Herms on the eve of the departure

(1) Wallace-Hadrill (1995) 157–8 and 171–4.

(3) Ancient political and intellectual biography, despite their

(4) Duff (1999) 94–7; Stadter (1995) 222.

(5) Plut. Ages. 2.1, 3.5–9, 6.1–5, 7–8.

(6) Plut. Pomp. 47.10, 53.1–6.

(7) Plut. Thes. 19–21 (Ariadne), 26.1–5 (Antiope), 29.1–2

(10) In the fiction of the dialogue, Pisias and Protogenes

(11) Plutarch’s Eros as a god: Brenk (1988) 462–5; Frazier

(13) On this topic the analysis conducted by Dover (1989), esp.

(15) Plut. Amat. 756D (Empedocles), 756E–F (Parmenides),

(17) Görgemanns (2011) 155–6 nn. 141 and 142; Longoni

(18) The story of Aristogeiton too is recalled by Plato at Symp.

(20) In the introduction, Autobulus explains that Plutarch and

(21) Frazier (2005/2006) 76–7; Martin (1984) 86–7; Rist (2001)

(22) Being sagacious (sunetos), for instance, is a quality often

(23) The same anecdote is mentioned at Alc. 4.5, where,

(24) Plutarch mentions here the verse of Phrynicus fr. 17

(25) Frazier (2005/2006) 96; Görgemanns (2005) 172–3 and

(26) Pl. Phdr. 244a–245c; see Frazier (2005/2006) 71–83.

(27) Cf. Phaedrus’ definition of Eros as ‘the oldest of gods,

(28) Pregnancy of the soul—also called psychic pregnancy—is a

(29) The Helicon and the Academy may implicitly indicate

(31) In the first speech, Plutarch’s strategy is based on three

(32) See Brenk (1988) 463–5; Frazier (2005/2006) 87–9;

(33) Cf. Pl. Phdr. 248e–250c, Symp. 210a–211d (Diotima’s

(34) Foucault (1986) 203–9; Frazier (2005/2006) 74–8;

(35) The presence of complementary elements in the

(36) Plutarch wrongly changes the names of Coriolanus’

(38) Pelling (1989) 206–7.

(41) On the distinctiveness of the relationship between

(43) In fact, the beginning of Volumnia’s speech aims to arouse

(44) Duff (1999) 214–15 has stressed that the importance of

(45) Cornell (2003) 80–1.

(46) One should consider, however, that at Liv. 28.29.1