|
That must have been some outrageous piece of jewelry, to get mention Plutarch`s book, written 150 years later. 2) If you go to Rome, be sure to seek out some of the ruins of the Republic: Temple of Hercules Victor, and the Temple of Portunus. CAESAR (Triumvir #3) is the best known of these men, so I won't elaborate. Shortly after, he seeks asylum in Egypt, and is murdered by King Ptolmey's agents, in an example of cold-blooded Machiavellian politics which Plutarch explains well on page 239. I'm not sure why Gaius was included on this list; he seems the less impressive than the others. Through sheer dumb luck, Sulla was asked to receive the surrender of notorious outlaw Jogurtha on behalf of Rome.
It's history is the cautionary tale of a prosperous, learned society with codified rights (for some), and elements of representative governance, which proceeded down a path to dictatorship. SULLA is a little Roman Joseph Stalin. On the other hand, Plutarch writes history in the form of biographic essays, showing us one unique, sometimes inconsistent, often inscrutable man at a time. CRASSUS (Triumvir #1) is best known as the General who defeated Spartacus, and in his day: the richest man in Rome. He spends his last few unhealthy years fleeing political rivals and seeking sanctuary wherever he can find it, much as Mohammad Reza Pahlavi "the Shah of Iran" did in 1979. His peers were particularly miffed by a giant gold ring he had custom made, bearing the surrender scene. It's nice to know that political power wasn't completely limited to generals, but Cicero wasn't nearly as powerful as the others on this list. Turning on the public who elected him Consul, he maneuvers himself into a position of Dictator, and then proceeded to butcher over 12,000 citizens, political opponents, personal enemies and their families for the slightest real or perceived transgressions.
Six Lives was written 150 years after the fall of the Roman Republic, and gives the reader a feel for six top leaders of the Republic. He is responsible for the slaughter on the Capitoline Hill, demonstrating an arrogance and ruthlessness which makes him plenty of enemies and few friends. There are plenty of places mentioned in this book, and no maps. I wish somebody who saw it would have drawn a picture. When Crassus's death ends the Triumvirate, the Republic descends into civil war.
Plutarch is the opposite of Isaaic Asimov. Without question, military might ruled the day. This is a setup for much confusion: what the Romans called "Albania" is in present-day Georgia, while what we now call "Albania", the Romans called Dyrrhachium; what the Romans called "Iberia" is in present-day Armenia. Pompey snatches defeat from the jaws of victory, and loses to Caesar. Side note: while reading this section, I couldn't help feeling Pompey's nemesis, the renegade king Mithridates, was a much more intriguing personality. POMPEY (Triumvir #2) is the military strategy whiz-kid, who becomes General at twenty-two, and gets his own Triumph (victory parade) without the normally required rank of Praetor.
(Ascaris.). Sulla hadn't contributed anything to Jogurtha's defeat and capture, but that didn't stop him from commissioning statues in Rome depicting him standing triumphally over the humbled outlaw. I think they help show that while the Empire was sexier than the Republic, the Republic may have more to teach us. His career as statesman is less impressive.
There is little accounting for individual personalities; only stochastic movements of people, information, money, and resources. No matter; there is so much overlap of events in the personal histories of Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar, that reading them in succession starts to feel a bit like Rashomon. I guess he wore it under their noses, like bad bad LeRoy Brown. Plutarch thinks Cicero is a too-clever-by-half smartass, but does grudgingly admit his brilliant oratory skills, and his impressive legal career. I like him better in his own work: On the Good Life Penguin Classics. Foundation portrays history only in terms of massive predictable, quantifiable and eminently understandable trends. If you have read Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and the preceeding chapters on Crassus and Pompey, this section has little new to offer.
CICERO is the lone intellectual of the group. Brutal ending for Crassus: a beheading when his military adventures in Parthia go bad. If the owner refused, the firemen turned around and went home. He comes across as the weakest of the Triumvirs, with no realistic shot at coming out on top over Pompey or Caesar. Some understanding of how this happened may be gleaned from the six lives Plutarch examines: GAIUS MARIUS parlays success as a General into a legendary political career, becoming the first man to be elected Consul seven times.
Parting Advice 1) Get a good Atlas of the Roman World for reference when you read this. Sulla died, incidentally, of a gruesome intestinal worm infestation. His for-profit fire company used to show up at burning homes to negotiate a bargain sale of the house. Sadly, Cicero's life illustrates that being right or just or smart was not enough to ensure the public's goodwill during the Republic. etc.
This book is full of wonderful anecdotes that render the story of ancient Rome so entertaining. If one merely wants to read an awfully good biography of some of the makers of history during the last generation of the Roman Republic, one cannot go wrong with Rex Warner's translation of Plutarch's Lives of Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar and Cicero. As with the Penquin edition of "The Age of Alexander," however, the editors have skimped and not provided an index (which I notice Oxford has done) and therefore have made the book a pain to use in undergraduate classes. Each "Life" is full to the brim of goodies (Even the skimpy life of Marius has its magnificent moments, such as the Cimbri women strangling their children and stabbing themselves rather than surrender to the Romans; or Marius with his Bardyae goons, who laugh when he laughs and kill when he doesn't laugh [Godfather material]., and my favorite bit in the life of Marius is when he is tryihg to make a deal with the angry Senate at the front door of his house and his tribune Saturninus at the back door--running back and forth between the two, excusing himself each time, pretending that he has diarrhea. ["Terribly sorry, the sardines I ate at lunch must have been off."; the subtext, not Warner]). Again, the cover has been tarted up, but no effort has been made to facilitate students in looking up the multifarious characters in each of the lives. Well, I'm cross with Penguin, but not with Rex Warner's splendidly readable translation.
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.
|
