In the multitude cases of the biographies that may be written today there are no illustrous men and no refined women in great positions of power and prestige worthy of consideration. On the contrary the basest and most vulgar among us are often the most adulated by virtue of their calloused and mean temperament.
These are the dark ages that we have long feared. Those who are distinguished by leadership provide nothing of merit save the embellishment of their own skins.
Plutarch is a very interesting writer.
What I found most interesting about him were his unexamined assumptions, which were unexamined because they were universally held among educated men of his time.
Business was considered degrading. Only landowners who produced nothing themselves were truly admirable.
Slavery was a fact of life. No indication I can recall of any consideration being given to the possibility it might just be unethical.
In his discussion of Spartacus, he assumes the reader will be appalled by Spartacus and his slave army, and approve of the utter brutality with which it was crushed. Personally I always thought that Italians who enjoyed gladiatorial games so much should have appreciated the chance to meet their heroes up close and personal.
His most admired men were conquerors who invaded their neighbors, killed their armies, stole all their stuff and then sold the survivors into slavery.
The differences in viewpoint I’m describing are those between the classical worldview and the Christian and (so far) post-Christian worldview. Plutarch was a man of his time, but his time was pretty appalling by our standards.