|
In a recent interview, Bob Dylan cites a number of ancient historians and philosophers as his favored reading, and makes a special mention of Plutarch's Roman lives as a book to which he returns over and over again. The facts and figures, the sequence of events depicted, are far less important than the experience itself, the pleasure of being in the company of soldiers who prize wisdom, moderation, efficiency, and honor over all. It is easy to see why. In an age of murkiness and mediocrity, cheap sensationalism and formula, an existence that is electric but at the same time sickly and often vacuous, it is an almost therapeutic experience to spend time with the ambitious, able, brave, visionary, and healthy-spirited generals. These were self-made men, entrepreneurs in the modern sense. The empire was no accident, and this books is a reminder of what we once were, and could still one day be.
Out of greed and personal rivalry.Caesar won and asked to be given all powers. (He got) immunity for all his past acts, while for the future he was to have the power of life and death, the power to confiscate property, to found new cities or to demolish existing ones.'A brave `Cicero' attacked Sulla's murky business transactions in court.`Pompey' restored the powers of the tribunes, the representatives of the plebeians, and the rights of the classes outside the Senate to serve on juries in law courts. Plutarch's 6 biographies of Roman politicians/generals give a fair picture of a decadent Rome in the 1st century B.C.: mighty unequal distribution of wealth and `legal safeguards inadequate to deter the forces of law and order from murder.' `Since the whole state was rotten within itself, it was in the power of any bold man to overthrow it.' Bold were men like the generals, `who had risen to the top by violence.'Plutarch's portraits of `Gaius Marius' and `Crassus' are very superficial.On the contrary, his picture of `Sulla', the first Roman dictator, is very clear-cut: `Sulla, a butcher. The Romans opted for the Hobbes/Machiavelli solution: `the rule of one man would give them respite from the miseries of the civil wars, and so they appointed Caesar dictator for life. He worked together with `Caesar' to destroy the powers of the aristocracy. After they grabbed power, they fought one another: `armies of the same kin, ranks of brothers, here the whole manhood and might of a single state was involved in self-destruction.'Why did they fight. This meant an undistinguished tyranny; his power was now not only absolute, but perpetual `. until the Ides of March.Plutarch's dramatic talent produced a shocking tale, full of `putting to death', `cutting into pieces', burning to the ground, slaughtering, enslaving, looting and plundering.A must read for all those interested in the history of mankind.
I must disagree with "Paper Man". There are just a few essays in this book that are considered key players in the end of the republic era. They also play key roles in the formation of the empire from the republic. It is very obvious that he is one of Pompey's biggest fan's and althought he respects Caesar, he is no fan of him at all. This book is a short collection for those whom may not have the patience to read all of the "Lives" and want to focus on a few main characters, Sulla, Marius, Crassus, Pompey, Caesar and Cicero. He made sure to state that the fall of the republic and one of Pompey's biggest mistakes was to befriend Julius Caesar, and that their friendship, not their fighting, led to the fall of the republic. Plutarch is sure to insert his opinion everywhere in this book. If I were the authors (editors) of this book, I would have included Marc Antony and Augustus.
We must take this book for what it is. This book contains the same information as in his "Lives". This book also lacks the comparisons of the Lives. I have already stated that Antony and Augustus should have been in this book, and I can't figure out why Cicero was included, since he is a passionate republican and I cannot see how he had any motives to seek absolute power, as the other five did.Take this for what it is worth.
Plutarch in his "Lives Of The Noble Grecians And Romans" written around 100 C.E., sheds new light on Greek and Roman history from their Bronze Age beginnings, shrouded in myth, down through Alexander and late Republican Rome. By the way Plutarch is even the only contemporary source of all the biographical information on Cleopatra, whom he writes about in his biographies of Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and Octavian. In fact all the founding fathers of note had read Plutarch and learned much from his fifty biographies of noble men of Greece and Rome. Plutarch writes of the rise of Roman Empire while Gibbon uses his scholarship to advance the story to write about its decline. His biographies are a great study in human character and what motivates leaders to decide and act the way they do, this masterpiece has proven to be still prescient today.If you are truly interested in a classical education, put this book on the top of your list. He was a proud Greek that was equally effected by Roman culture, a Delphic priest, a leading Platonist, a moralist, educator and philosopher with a deep commitment as a first rate writer. Plutarch is the lens that we use today to view the Greco-Roman past; his work has shaped our perceptions of that world for 2,000 years. Thomas Jefferson wrote to his nephew that there were three books every gentleman had to have familiarity with; Plutarch's "Lives", Livy's "History of Rome" and Virgil's Aeneid.
Being a Roman citizen, Plutarch was afforded the opportunity to become an intimate friend to prominent Roman citizens and a member of the literary elite in the court of Emperor Trajan.Plutarch's influence and enormous popularity during and after the Renaissance is legendary among classicist. Plutarch's "Lives", served as the sourcebook for Shakespeare's Roman Plays "Julius Caesar", "Antony and Cleopatra" and "Coriolanus". When Hamilton, Jay and Madison write "The Federalist Papers" they use many examples of good and bad leadership traits that they read in Plutarch's work. I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in political philosophy, and history.
Plutarch is not a historian often seen in the diluted cirriculum of the modern American High School, but I would argue that his love of the dramatic, moving battle scenes,and relatively easy-to-comprehend style would do much do endear the modern student to ancient Rome. The context in which most people think of Rome is either that of Biblical or Russell Crowe. There are (justifiable) arguments, of course, that Plutarch too often put personal bias and a love of "storytelling" above historical fact. While this may be true, is what comes to us of Rome by way of the Pop Culture filter any better. Can Plutarch's approximations be any worse.Though this edition appears to have been hastily compiled at some points (very little reference/glossary material to speak of), I still reccomend this book to:1) Casual readers who wish to know more about an exciting period of history that has affected everything from our calendar to our way of government, and2) History/Humanities teachers tired of purely analytical views of Rome. Let your students know that Rome had IT'S editorialists, too.
|
