|
He also worked endlessly to corrupt the Roman republic through bribery, marriage alliances, and intrigue. What Plutarch missed was that the ultimate problem wasn't the ego and vanity of men -- the problem was wealth itself.Writing in his "Histories," Herodotus wrote how the Spartans, after driving the invading Persians from Greece and finding Xerxes' tent filled with nothing but gold, laughed and remarked how a nation of wealth had invaded Greece to capture its poverty. The Greek dramatist Plutarch writing in hindsight watches the unfolding of the tragic events that would lead to the collapse of the Roman empire and human liberty with regret and remorse -- there was enough wealth in Rome and her territorities for the egos of Sulla and Marius, Pompey and Caesar to divide amongst themselves. He put his complete faith and trust in Brutus, and when Brutus delivered his blow in the Senate Caesar merely accepted his fate and died. The socio-historical forces in place meant that the Roman republic was bound to become the Roman empire, but who ultimately would triumph in this transition also depended a lot of human agency, and there was no doubt in people's mind that Julius Caesar was the natural candidate for the kingship, and that's why he became so hated among the Romans. But he would also hunt down Pompey's assassins, and at the height of his power, when no one could challenge his power, he was lenient to his enemies, and refused to surround himself with a bodyguard.
Plutarch puts the blame in human agency, and comments that it's not the rivalry between Caesar and Pompey that caused the fall of the republic, but rather their friendship -- because together they destroyed the power and influence of the nobility. Plutarch is a dramatist, and is fully invested in his characters, who are all fascinating and majestic in themselves. He pays no intention to the socio-economic forces that were simultaneously expanding while destabilizing Rome. He does not at all make the connection between the great martial victories of Pompey and Caesar abroad and the nefarious conspiracies in Rome itself. In the twilight of the Roman republic, brilliant and majestic yet ultimately vain and flawed men fight for supremacy. These men who were ultimately albeit unwittingly responsible for the destruction of the Roman republic -- Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar, and Cicero -- all were in their own way a testament to the genius of the Roman republic. They worked hard to crave distinction, they were deeply loyal to Rome, and they were Gods.
Julius Caesar is truly an amazing paradox. He won the admiration and loyalty of his troops with his military genius, Spartan lifestyle, and courageous leadership. Plutarch's rendering of the struggles and triumphs of Marius, Pompey, and Caesar (all despicable characters in themselves) elevate each man into divine status. Herodotus remarked that it was wealth and luxury had made the Persians weak decadents while poverty and privation had made the Greeks tough warriors. He also did the unthinkable, crossed the Rubicon, and invaded Rome itself.
As Pompey and Caesar conquer foreign lands and send wealth back to home, this wealth corrupts Rome so that the struggle for power can only reach a furious frenzied pitch, as during the Catiline conspiracy (when one member of the patrician class proposed to destroy the entire patrician class).Of course, one does not read Plutarch for his analytical abilities, but rather his literary merit. Caesar himself stands out as a man who combined the courage and military genius of Alexander the Great (which many felt Pompey had) with the political genius of Machiavelli (which many felt Crassus and lesser, more nefarious individuals had), making Caesar an unstoppable force of nature. As a God, he would cause the death of other Gods, Pompey and Cato the most famous. Of all the great men in Plutarch's collection, Julius Caesar proved himself the greatest, and that's why Caesar continues to live on in people's imaginations today.
Plutarch was a classical Greek historian during the Roman period who was well rounded and provides us with important insights into the classical world through his writings. Most important among these writings are the extensive biographies he wrote of important individuals from Greece and Rome. Some of his sources are now lost to us, but the tales live on.This particular collection is a set of six biographies of individuals set in the late Republic: Gaius Marius (who instituted various military reforms which probably doomed the Republic), Sulla (the first to enforce a dictatorship over the republic through civil war), Crassus, Pompey, Caesar, and Cicero. Through these writings we are introduced to religious customs, stories of prophecies, and tangential tales that have in some ways eclipsed the subject of the biography.For example, in the biography of Crassus, we are introduced to a fairly full account of the Spartacus War and the appeal of that story during McCarthy-era America among those who were dissenting from McCarthy's rhetoric is obvious.For all of this, the line that stands out in my memory is the popular description of Sulla being that his face was a "mulberry with oatmeal sprinkled on it."Definitely recommended.
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.
|
