Why did some 19th-century scholars question Plutarch’s historical accuracy?

In the 19th century, scholars began to adopt a more critical approach toward historical accuracy, which led them to scrutinize Plutarch’s works more rigorously. This shift in perspective drew significant attention to the inherent bias present in his presentation of facts.1

Plutarch himself never claimed to be writing formal history, which he distinguished from biography. His primary aim was to delight and edify his readers by providing model patterns of behavior through the lives of famous figures. Consequently, his narratives were often shaped by his own sympathies and moral objectives rather than a strict adherence to objective historical record. For instance, he openly displayed a warm admiration for Spartan leaders and, in his essay "On the Malignity of Herodotus," he launched a critique against the historian Herodotus that was widely considered virulent and unfair, stemming from his own local patriotic biases.234

As 19th-century historiography prioritized a more detached and factual analysis, Plutarch’s tendency to prioritize ethical reflection, anecdote, and character portrayal over chronological or factual precision led scholars to question the reliability of his accounts.123