The moralising intent of the Lives has recently become the subject of more probing investigation by scholars who have emphasised the active role of readers in judging the behaviour of the characters described by Plutarch (see C.B.R. Pelling, ‘Il Moralismo delle Vite di Plutarco’, in I. Gallo and B. Scardigli [edd.], Teoria e prassi politica nelle opere di Plutarco [1995], pp. 343–61; T.E. Duff, Plutarch's Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice [1999]). As the title suggests, this volume, a slightly revised version of C.’s doctoral thesis, takes its cue from this particular field of study. It sets out to investigate the perspectives of ethical reflection that the Lives evoke in contemporary readers. Thus, C. points out in the introductory chapter that the narratological structure of the work will be examined through an analysis of the narrative techniques employed by Plutarch to involve readers in the process of evaluating historical personages and to pose challenges for their formulation of moral judgements.

The second chapter aims to identify the elements that allow us to grasp the projection of the author and his dialogue with the ideal readers within some prologues of the Lives. C. describes the narrative technique by which Plutarch eliminates the barrier between the world of readers and the world of the protagonists of his biographies, commenting on some significant passages. For example, according to C., Plutarch's περιαυτολογία in Dem. 1–3 serves to capture ‘the readers’ attention to the excellence of Plutarch's own character’ (p. 29); the programmatic praemunitio that unites Alex. 1–2 and Nic. 1 highlights the biographer's proximity to the historiographic genre, so as to convince readers of the seriousness of his own research; the choice for the coexistence of history and μῦθος in Thes. 1–2 warns the reader about the methods of introspection of the characters adopted by the author; and the emphasis on local patriotism and the use of the first-person plural in Cim. 2.2 leads the reader to overcome the border between past and present and to project authors and readers into a shared ‘imagined community’ (p. 37). C. therefore highlights the discernible cohesion between the author and the ideal reader in contrast to other authors or readers who stand outside Plutarch's work. This dynamic emerges particularly from Cim. 1–2 and Per. 1–2, in which the characteristics of the ‘imagined community’ (p. 51) that shares the moral values of Cimon, Lucullus, Pericles or Fabius are introduced, and into which Plutarch would project the image of himself. Considerations on the relationship between the thoughts of the characters (‘internal mind’) and that of the author and readers (‘external mind’) offer an argument to support a textual variant. This is the case in Per. 29.7, where C. convincingly argues for the acceptance of δοκεῖ in cod. Marc. Gr. 385 (adopted by Ziegler), since he believes that Plutarch is expressing his personal judgement about the causes of the Peloponnesian War. On the contrary, ἐδόκει of MS Seitenstettensis 34 would rather point out the Athenians’ opinion (a similar case occurs in Thuc. 8.86.4, where ἐδόκει of the MSS was corrected to δοκεῖ by Classen on the basis of Valla's translation [uidetur], which indicates the personal opinion of Thucydides).

The third chapter is divided into two parts. The first focuses on the role of the individual and his choices: moving from the concept of the ‘self in dialogue’, as developed by C. Gill (Personality in Greek Epic, Tragedy, and Philosophy: the Self in Dialogue [1996]), C. explores the various forms of ‘internalized dialogue’ (p. 68) that characterise the protagonists of the Lives in decisive moments of their lifetimes. This aspect of Plutarch's narrative technique, C. argues, allows for the identification of the reader in the mentality of the character, thus disposing him towards the activity of moral reflection. This is the case, for example, in Plutarch's description of the psychological conflicts of Dion grappling with the discontent of citizens caused by Heraclides (Di. 33.4), and in his portrait of Cicero, who hesitates about what penalty to impose on the conspirators against the state (Cic. 19.6–7). C. has well highlighted that Plutarch rarely underlines the dramatic moments with a self-reflection, preferring ‘to let his heroes reflect in silence’ (p. 71), as happens in Alex. 37.5, Ant. 67.5, Cor. 21.5, Pyrrh. 22.3 and Caes. 32. By analysing these passages, C. deduces that this silent reflection is often influenced by the social role played by the individual: Plutarch thus skilfully describes an ‘intra-psychic conflict’ (p. 78) that allows both the author and the reader to engage with a self in dialogue, which involves not only the historical character but also the corresponding social context. New interesting perspectives are offered on the relationship between the individual and the society of the time, which, according to C., can be harmonious or contrastive and would be functional to the formation of moral judgements by the readers. For example, C. dwells on the figure of Nicias in his Life. Unlike Pericles and Alcibiades, Nicias fails to capture the favour of the Athenians because he is not capable of ‘read[ing] and exploit[ing] their psychology skilfully’ (p. 89). In this sense, C. is right in discerning the same dynamics that regulate the relationship between the individual and the ‘social minds’ in Nic.–Crass. 3.8: whereas the Athenians forced the reluctant Nicias to undertake the unfortunate expedition to Sicily, Crassus with his thirst for power had instead managed to arouse the Romans by convincing them to undertake a war against their will. A more extensive example of this particular narrative expedient, which allows readers to reflect more deeply on the moral conduct of the characters, and which C. describes as ‘turnaround-technique’ (p. 95), can be found in the Lives of Pericles and Fabius. The description of the attacks directed against the two leaders by the citizens helps to make the reader of both these Lives understand the type of antagonism that the two characters have faced, emphasising their respective leadership qualities.

In the fourth chapter C. takes into consideration the final sections of the Lives, in order to point out how the closing chapters emphasise ‘key moral issues and questions that pervade the earlier account and (even) the book as a whole’ (p. 105). Thus, the ending of Alcibiades (39.1–2) summarises the moral ambiguities of the main character, outlined in the previous chapters; the endings of both Theseus (36.4–5) and Romulus (29.2–3) favour moral reflection on the heroes’ deeds in light of the consequences for the ‘afterlife’ of Athens and Rome, with reference to the historical time of Plutarch. An interesting and original point of view is outlined by C. in examining the apparent allusion to Euripidean drama in Crass. 32–3: the episode of the staging of the Bacchae offers, says C., an occasion for a moral comparison between Crassus, the Parthians and Euripidean characters, which reveals the same inability to sustain their passions (while the subject has already been treated by D. Braund, CQ 43 [1993], 468–74 and J. Nadolny, Altertum 21 [1975], 99–102 [the latter not included in the bibliography], C. is the first to focus on the specifically moral aspects of Plutarch's allusiveness).

The fifth chapter deals with the moral reflections that can be drawn from the comparative epilogue. Here C. analyses in an original way, among other things, the συγκρίσεις of the Cimon–Lucullus (3.6) and the Dion–Brutus (3.6), assuming that there are points for moral reflection that would push the reader to share the thought and appreciate the behaviour of one of the two characters, while leaving open a definitive moral judgement. An index locorum and an exhaustive index nominum et rerum enrich the book.

C. has combined a solid methodological framework with detailed intertextual analysis both within Plutarch's Lives and in relation to other literary genres, especially historiography. The result is a work that combines the innovative character of cognitive perspectives with a thorough study of the narrative techniques of the Lives, offering remarkably new thoughts in this field. This volume marks a significant step forward with regard to the narratological aspects of Plutarch's Lives; scholars interested in the dynamics of interaction between the individual and the community, between author and reader, and between the particularity and the universality of ethical judgements will also benefit from the rich discussion that it offers.