The present thesis focuses on the role of tragedy and on the multiple versions of theatricality in selected Essays and Lives of Plutarch. Most interestingly the 'tragic' does not emerge exclusively from the many quotations from the tragedians which are dispersed in the whole of the Plutarchan corpus, especially in his Essays it also emerges from distinctive suggestions of tragedy, tragic imagery, tragic parallels and texturing. Plutarch acknowledges the importance of tragedy in literary education, but is still very ready to criticise what the poets say. Even so, he does not treat tragedy negatively in itself, but figures it as a possibly bad and corrupting thing when it is wrongly transferred to real-life contexts. In this way he requires from his readers thoughtfulness and reflection on that relation between tragedy and real life, while he also makes them reflect on whether there is a distinctive 'tragic stance of life', and if so whether a philosophical viewpoint would cope with real life more constructively. In the Lives there may be less explicit thematic hints of tragedy, yet there is a strong theatricality and dramatisation, including self-dramatisation, in the description of characters, such as Pompey and Caesar, particularly at crucial points of their career and life. By developing the idea that the 'tragic' aspects may relate to the ways in which characters are morally or philosophically deficient or cause them to falter - but if so, in a way that is itself familiar from tragedy - they also relate extremely closely to the characteristics which make the people great. The tragic mindset (this idea will be illustrated from Plutarch's direct references to tragedy as well as his allusions to the theatrical world) offers a fresh angle in reading Plutarch's work and makes the reader engage more in thinking how both 'tragic' and theatre can be used as a tool to explore a hero's distinctiveness in addressing the issues of his world.

This study considers anew the central question of Herodotus’ relationship with literary and textual sources. It examines how Herodotus comes to define his own work in a context where many artists (both narrative and visual) are seeking to accumulate, delineate, and ultimately dictate cultural memory. Rather than applying traditional Quellenforschung, my analysis centres on examining significant intertextual and allusive relationships in his work. In each chapter, I address the nature of Herodotus’ engagement with certain textual rivals/genres, namely early prose writers, inscriptions, poets (expecially Homer, Simonides, Aeschylus, Sophocles), and oracles. From this emerges a highly nuanced engagement with myriad texts in the Histories (principally: as authoritative voices; as persuasive evidence; and as voices for disputation). Such engagement furnishes considerable authority for the writer of the Histories, to the extent that he provides a superior view of the past, compared to the more limited, partisan perspectives offered by his textual rivals. My study reinforces the salient point that Herodotus is no historian in any modern sense of the word; his interaction with other literary traditions does not appear in a way that is expected of an academic monograph. Nevertheless the evidence for his engagement with a wide and diverse group of texts—both contemporary and non-contemporary—clearly militates against the consensual view that Herodotus was working with predominantly unfixed, oral traditions. Indeed, through this interplay with other literary works Herodotus most clearly defines for the reader his own unique intellectual achievement: the invention of historiography.