Plutarch wrote his
Life of Theseus more than 1000 years after the real Theseus (if there was one) died, and Plutarch knows his sources aren't always reliable. He tells the story anyway. A good choice? What do you find particularly interesting/helpful to a historian in this treatment of (mostly) legendary material?
I think that Plutarch's choice of telling the story of Theseus was not a good choice. It isn't reliable because how can he trust his other sources to being truthful of what happened to Theseus. And fake history to a historian is not helpful at all. But I do find this legendary material interesting in the treatment of it because historians don't have much else to rely on for this time period. Historians do continue using this legendary work but do treat it as a "either you believe it or don't" type of material.
ReplyDeleteFrom my perspective, I can see Plutarch's desire to want to tell Theseus' story, but it obviously isn't supported one hundred percent accurately. I'm okay with him wanting to tell the story though. It is an interesting quazi-historic tale. In light of that, one of the sections I found interesting was the part dealing with the naming of Theseus. Plutarch wrote, "... some say that he was immediately named Theseus, from the tokens which his father had put under the stone; others that he had received his name afterwards at Athens..." I liked how Plutarch, instead of just giving us his theory of how Theseus received his name, Plutarch gives a couple different possibilities. This in a way gives a little more credibility to his account of the life of Theseus. That's my take anyway.
ReplyDelete-Jonathon Fargher
I would say that Plutarch's decision to write a Life of Theseus despite shaky sources was a good one. His history of Theseus's life serves a cultural purpose, mainly. The stories of Theseus serve to reflect the culture of Greece during the time instead of being factual accounts. I think the most interesting part of a historian using legendary material is when the material is presented as the truth. I feel this style strengthens the cultural importance and impact of legendary stories even further.
ReplyDeleteI think that Plutarch's writing on Theseus is only good history if you consider it a history of myth - myth shows us a lot about people and cultures, even if it's not real. It's very personal and projective of people to create a story. That being said Plutarch does a decent job of letting us know the possible Theseus. He doesn't treat his account as bona-fide history, but it reads more like a collections of possibilities. So I would say in the end it's good history, with the caveat that you don't take it literally as history.
ReplyDelete