Plutarch's Crassus And Caesar
Plutarch presented history through biographical stories of the people that were important and influential during the time period he wished to address. However, after having read some of his work, one realizes that Plutarch inserts his own personal opinion and views of the people at hand into the factual documentation of their lives. For example, in The Life of Crassus, Plutarch expresses a general dislike and negative view of the man, but in The Life of Caesar he portrays the life through a lens of praise. It also seems that he uses his opinions of the people that he writes about to subtly extend moral lessons to the reader. What follows is a further isolation of Plutarch’s opinions and lessons from within The Lives of Crassus and Caesar.
“Certainly the Romans say that in the case of Crassus many virtues were obscured by one vice, namely avarice; and it did seem that he had only one vice, since it was such a predominant one that other evil propensities which he may have had were scarcely noticeable.” Beginning the Life of Crassus with this statement, Plutarch starts the reader off with a negative feeling of who Crassus was. This statement is very strong because it not only points out Crassus’s largest shortcoming, but also implies that it was so prevalent that it outweighed all his virtues as well as his other faults. One can read between the lines and in order to see that Plutarch did not favor Crassus. If Plutarch had wanted to, he could have conveyed the same information about Crassus’s faults in a much gentler manner. He wants the reader to see how horrible greed is and that it has the ability to destroy people no matter how wonderful their other characteristics may be.
Plutarch did make an effort to show the reader Crassus’s virtues as well. As well as greedy, he also portrayed Crassus as a kind man who was a talented speaker, good politician, and willing to help the people of Rome:
It must be admitted, however, that Crassus was eager to show kindness and hospitality. …. He became one of the best speakers in Rome, and by care and application, was able to surpass those who were more highly gifted by nature. …. often when Pompey and Cicero and Caesar were reluctant to speak, he undertook the whole management of the case himself, thereby gaining an advantage over them in popularity, since people thought of him as a man willing to take trouble to help others.
In fact, this readiness to help others in their time of need was his one saving grace was instrumental in his retention of power in Rome. He often threw lavish parities, lent people money willingly, and was always eager to lend a helping hand to anyone who needed his assistance in court. Crassus also always treated everyone in a warm and courteous manner no matter his or her wealth, power, or station in society. For these reasons, the people truly liked him. In Rome, such popularity was the handmaiden of power.
Plutarch does not leave Crassus’s virtues untainted. He makes sure to point out that greed often overcame and interfered with the good things that Crassus did, to further support his belief that greed is such a terrible thing that it overpowers everything else:
… and he used to lend money to his friends without interest; but when the time came for repayment, he was quite relentless about demanding it back from the borrower, so that his readiness to lend often proved more burdensome than the payment of heavy interest would have been.
One of the things that made Crassus popular was his kindness and willingness to help others. However, even this he could not do whole-heartedly because of his underlying greediness, which kept him from being a truly giving person. Plutarch gives the reader a sense that the things that made Crassus popular were simply illusions that were created, for the public, to benefit his own aspirations. Along this line of thought, Plutarch shows the reader that even though Crassus was very popular, he was not consistently in the good graces of the people as he was often feared by the public:
As a politician Crassus was singularly inconsistent, neither a steadfast friend nor an implacable enemy. Where his self-interest was involved he found no difficulty in breaking off an attachment or in making up a quarrel. …. He was strong because he was popular and because he was feared – particularly because he was feared.
It is shown time and time again by Plutarch that Crassus was an extremely greedy man and his virtues were often overcome by gluttony. This is a lesson to the reader that those who are avaricious can never truly be good.
In the case of Crassus, a new passion, in addition to his old weakness of avarice, began to show itself. The glorious exploits of Caesar made Crassus also long for trophies and triumphs. … This passion of his gave him no rest or peace until it ended in an inglorious death and a national disaster.
As Crassus’s life went on his greed grew into a greater and more destructive form. He was now not only greedy, but also power and glory hungry. Plutarch uses this as a lesson of what not to do, and makes a strong claim that this manifestation of greed is what ultimately brings Crassus to his death. Because of his pursuit for military glory, Crassus loses his sense and makes rash decisions that were not in the best interests of Rome or the soldiers that he was leading. All he could think about was winning more battles and conquering more territory. He was so focused on this that he disregarded all reason, ignoring the well thought out advice of his generals. “But Crassus paid no attention to them or to anyone else who gave any advice other than to press forward.” There are many moral lessons that can be derived from Plutarch’s emphasis on this shortcoming of Crassus. Firstly, one should keep in mind that triumph and glory are not the most important things and that the gift of life is much more important. Crassus should have focuses more on his own well-being, and the well-being of the soldiers more then off his personal conquests. Secondly, no one person knows all the answers to the problems that arise in life. This is why people such as kings and presidents have advisors, so that they have a greater perspective on things. Crassus, in the last days of his life, completely ignored the advice of others, which aided in the event of his death. If he had listened to some of the military advice he had been given, things may have been different. People should never think that they have all the answers and should at least be open minded enough to listen to the thoughts of others. Lastly, people should be thankful for what they have and be aware of what they have and what their strengths are. Crassus was so caught up in what he wasn’t, and who was better then him, that he drove himself to his death while on the mission to attain what others had that he didn’t:
The ordinary mind will see in his plight an example of the fickleness of fortune, but to the wise it will seem rather and example of reckless ambition. Because of this he was not content to be first and greatest among many millions; simply from the fact that two men were judged superior to him, he concluded he had nothing at all.
Plutarch holds Caesar in a completely different light then Crassus. “Caesar was born to do great things and to seek constantly for distinction,” as Plutarch describes Caesar at one point in his writings. Plutarch only has good opinions of Caesar and seems to use him as an example of how one should be. This starkly contrasts to his presentation of Crassus.
Caesar has all the virtues that Crassus has without the faults. Caesar was as good a speaker as Crassus, if not better. “It is said that Caesar’s natural ability as a political speaker was of the highest order, and that he took the greatest pains to cultivate it.” Caesar, like Crassus, was popular with the people as he was overly giving and kind to the public. “In Rome Caesar won a brilliant reputation and great popularity by his eloquence in these trails. …. He was very much in the good graces of the ordinary citizen because of his easy manners and the friendly way in which he mixed with people.”
Caesar was not greedy or over ambitious as Crassus was:
He was not amassing a great fortune from his wars in order to spend it on his personal pleasures or on any life of self-indulgence, instead he was keeping it, as it were, in trust, a fund open to all for the reward of velour, and his own share in all this wealth was no greater than what he bestowed on his soldiers who deserved it.
The fact that Caesar did not share in this fault with Crassus, allowed him to rise above Crassus as well as everyone else. “We shall find that Caesar’s achievements surpass them all.” This only proves Plutarch’s point, regarding the wretchedness and power of greed, more. Due to his moderation, Caesar was able to accomplish a lot more and reach a greater level of power then Crassus did. The soldiers that fought under Caesar had a great respect for him and therefore, were much more loyal and determined in battle. “His ability to secure the affection of his men and to get the best out of them was remarkable.” This was something that Crassus was never able to fully achieve. Caesar took this one step further. Not only did he put himself on the same level as his soldiers, he also did the same with the people that lived in the territories that he occupied. He often shared the spoils of battle with the civilians. “These military successes of his were followed up by equally good work in civilian administration. He established good relations between the various cities.” This greatly aided in the suppression of uprisings and revolts within the territories because the people living there were happy to be part of Rome. This is how Caesar eventually grew to the highest form of power in Rome and became dictator. Nowhere along the way did Plutarch shed a negative light on Caesar. For Plutarch, Caesar was the model Roman. Even though Caesar was hatefully murdered in the end, Plutarch still talks about him favorably, and even goes as far to portray those that murdered him as wrong and bitter. “But that great diving power or genius, which had watched over him and helped him in his life, even after his death remained active as an avenger of his murder, pursuing and tracking down the murderers over every land and sea…”
After reading the Life of Crassus and the Life of Caesar carefully, Plutarch’s opinion of these men, and the messages to the reader are plainly seen. He had very contrasting views of Crassus and Caesar, holding one as a model and the other as a negative example. Granted Crassus did have his positive points, but his greed consumed and destroyed him, exemplifying how Plutarch though people should not be. Caesar through moderation, skill, and popularity was able to rise to the top of Rome, personifying Plutarch’s vision of what a ruler and person should be.
Free Essays,
Cliff Notes
and Term Paper Database
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cannot find your essay? Order it from us and for only $12.95 you will receive a professionally written essay that meets your specific requirements. We guarantee complete satisfaction!
Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson The year was 1824. The election of this year was very unusual because of the number of candidates running for president. One of the candidates was Andrew Jackson, or “Old Hickory” as they called him, a general that had won the Battle of New Orleans(which was a battle not needed) in the War of 1812. Jackson became a hero after this war, and it would bring him all the way to the presidency. Another one of the candidates was John Quincy Adams. The son of John Adams, the second president of the United States, Adams was a excellent debator from New England. He was the only candidate from the NorthEast. The two other candidates were William Crawford and Henry Clay. Crawford, the secretary of the Treasury during the presidential term of James Monroe, seemed desperate for votes. Martin Van Buren, a political influence from New York, supported Crawford. James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, actually made Crawford the candidate of the fading Virginia Dynasty which h!ad controlled the presidency for twenty-four years thanks mostly in part to a working agreement with New York. I think Van Buren supported Crawford because of the respect that he had for this fading dynasty. In May of 1824, a Cumberland planter, Alfred Bach, visiting Washington, sent John Overton a disturbing account of Jackson’s prospects. ”I think his strength is {giving} out... Crd is undoubtedly the strongest man.” Daniel Webster surveyed the field with satisfaction. “Jackson’s interest is evidently on the wane.” When all the votes were in, Jackson received the popular vote, but he didn’t have the majority needed in the electoral college to become president. The vote then was in the hands of the House of Representatives. Jackson had ninety-nine votes, Adams with eighty-four, Crawford with forty-one, and Clay with thirty-seven. Jackson only needed two more votes to become president. This statement was in The New York Statesman, a journal not unfriendly to Adams. It predicted that he would get three on the first ballot-Ohio, Kentucky, and Missouri. Clay’s most distinguished supporter in the west, Thomas Hart Benton, who had private reasons to hate Jackson, promptly announced! that as Missouri preferred Jackson to Adams he was for Jackson. Benton didn’t have the casting of Missouri’s vote, however. That would be the duty of John Scott, the state’s sole representative. When Scott declared that nothing could induce him to vote for Adams, hasty observers, of whom there were many, counted the twelfth state for Jackson. After this vote, only one more remained for Old Hickory. It seemed within easy reach. Kentucky indicated that it would support Jackson. The same was expected with Ohio. Henry Randolph Storrs, a clay man from Utica, exclaimed that the only way Adams could get New York was through the support of the Crawford people. “And let them do it if they dare.” Clay knew that he couldn’t win. It was between Jackson and Adams, and Jackson was on the verge of gaining the presidency. The only way Adams could win was to get votes from either Crawford of Clay. The Jacksonians didn’t suspect this, however. Clay seemed to be leaning away from Jackson. Clay declined to follow his friend and lieutenant, Benton, into the Jackson camp. He was going to vote for Adams. In fact, Clay never intended to vote for Jackson. He had met with Adams when he first got to the capital. Jackson was outraged by this decision because it gave Adams the necessary majority in the House. Therefore John Quincy Adams was the sixth president of the United States. Clay was offered the Secretary of State job by Adams, which he graciously accepted. Jackson called this “confidential interview” a “corrupt bargain” and he vowed to do everything that he can to win the presidency in 1828. When the election of 1828 came around, the presidential candidates sunk to a new low. Adams and Clay took massive shots at Rachel Jackson, the wife of Old Hickory. When all the votes were tallied, Jackson came out on top again. Only this time, he had the necessary majority in the electoral college. Jackson had little to celebrate, however. His wife, Rachel, died a couple days before his inauguration. One of her last remarks were,” I had rather be a door-keeper in the house of God than to live in that palace.” Jackson blamed her death on both his political enemies and himself. A couple of days before “ General J” arrived, Daniel Webster wrote this famous letter to his friends: “ General Jackson will be here abt. 15. of Feb.- Nobody knows what he will do. Many letters are sent to him; he answers none of them. His friends here pretend to be very knowing; but.... Great efforts are being made to put him up to a general sweep as to all offices; springing from great doubts whether he is disposed to do it. Nobody is authorized to say whether he intends to retire after one term.... Who will form the cabinet is as well known at Boston as at Washington.... My opinion is that when he comes he will bring a breeze with him. Which way it will blow I cannot tell.” When Andrew Jackson reached Washington in 1929, he seemed incapable of carrying the burdens of being president. He suffered from tuberculosis and when his wife died, he felt he had little to live for. Many thought that he would never survive the first term. Jackson supporters swarmed their way into Washington because they believed that Jackson would make a “clean sweep” of all federal officials appointed by Adams. Old Hickory used the “spoils system” to replace only about a sixth of federal office holders during his years in the White House. Jackson started his first term with a social problem called the “Affair of Mrs.Eaton.” It involved John Eaton, the secretary of war, and a married daughter of the owner of a Washington boardinghouse where Eaton resided. When the girl’s husband died at sea(some said he killed himself because of her affair with Eaton), Jackson urged him to marry the girl as quickly as possible to silence the “scandalmongers.” Eaton married her two months before Jackson took office. But after Eaton was appointed secretary of war, many society leaders began snubbing Mrs.Eaton. Because the wives of most of Eaton’s Cabinet members refused to receive Mrs.Eaton, Jackson called a special meeting within his Cabinet. Old Hickory said that any of the wives who didn’t respect Mrs.Eaton would pay the price with the resignation of their husbands’ jobs. The Cabinet members said that they could not control their wives and they refused to resign. Mrs. Eaton was sent to Tennessee, which made many wives happy. In 1832, Jackson was seeking re-election. I think that it’s amazing how Jackson got through the first term with all of his problems. The opponent was Henry Clay. Jackson was still not over the “corrupt bargain” and the death of his wife. Clay urged Congress to pass a bill that would re-charter the bank. Jackson, as expected, vetoed the bill. Clay could not get enough support to override it. When the votes were counted in this election, Jackson crushed Clay.I mean he just crushed him with an electoral vote of 219 to 49. After the election, South Carolina’s legislature voted to nullify federal tariff laws and prepared to secede from the Union if federal tariffs were collected after February 1, 1833. When Jackson heard this, he prepared for civil war. In December 1832, Jackson issued a Proclamation on Nullification warning that disunion by armed force is treason. Calhoun resigned as Vice President to take the seat of senator of South Carolina. Jackson threatened to hang Calhoun if South Carolina, went through with its threat. South Carolina backed down after Jackson’s threat. A Force bill was passed after this uprising, and this bill gave the president the authority to use troops to collect federal taxes. South Carolina got a cut in its tariffs, so everybody got something. Ironically, the crisis ended on Jackson’s sixty-sixth birthday, which gave Jackson a special birthday present. Jackson began his second term with a powerful inauguration speech that almost ended the thought of secession from the United States. Early in this term, Jackson made it clear that he wanted to get rid of the “monster.” This “monster”, was the Bank of the United States. His first step to his great plan was to transfer federal funds from the Bank of US, to state banks. Jackson didn’t have full support from his Cabinet, however. William Duane, his secretary of treasury, refused to carry out Jackson’s plan. Old Hickory removed Duane and appointed Roger Taney to his spot. Taney, not stupid like Duane, didn’t dare challenge Jackson and carried out all of the transfers federal deposits to state banks. Nicholas Biddle, the head of the Bank of the US, retaliated by recalling loans and tightening up credit. The American economy slowed up dramatically because of this. The Senate voted to censure Jackson for his actions. The House of Representatives, however, overwhelmingly passed resolu!tions supporting Old Hickory. Clay, head Of the Senate, wouldn’t give up, though. He criticized Jackson for appointing Taney, whom he thought of as “incompetent.” This criticism quickly passed, however. The greatest crisis in foreign relations came with France in 1835-6 over demands by Jackson that payments be made for damages of American ships. Jackson immediately prepared for military action. The French didn’t want another war, so they paid Jackson four past due installments and everything was honki dory. There is one thing about Andrew Jackson that I didn’t like. His record with Indian Affairs. He didn’t honor the treaties that he had signed with them. He forced them to move west of the Mississippi into what is now Oklahoma. If treaties are signed, don’t people have to honor them? In 1836, word came that Texas was an independent country, and Sam Houston had a major role in this event. Houston, an old buddy of Jackson, lured Santa Anna, the Mexican president, to San Jacinto where he defeated him. Santa Anna let Texas secede from Mexico at the time, but you could see that he was not happy about it and that he wouldn’t let them get away with it. Because of this, Texas wanted to join the United States. Jackson hesitated with his decision because of the growing northern opposition to the extension of slavery. But, on his last day in office, he recognized Texas independence, setting the stage for future annexation. Jackson gladly handed over his seat to his hand picked successor, Martin Van Buren. Andrew Jackson was a very controversial president. He used the presidential veto more than anybody ever has. Even after his presidency, Jackson still had an influence in Washington. For example, he played an important role in secret negotiations with Sam Houston to achieve the annexation of Texas. When Van Buren came out against the annexation, he said that Van Buren should be dumped as president. He then helped his friend James Polk win the presidency. So, as you can see, Jackson still had a major influence even after he retired. All of this ended in his bed on July 24, 1862. His last words were: “ I hope to see you all in heaven, both white and black, both white and black.”
Word Count: 1895
Cannot find your essay? For only $12.95 a page, you can have an essay written by professional writers. We write on any topic or subject and guarantee that your essay will be written from scratch! The service is opened 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.
Order your custom essay from us now!
|
|
|
|
|
Home Page:
Free Essays, Cliff Notes, Term Paper
|
|
|
Sponsored Listings:
Term Paper,
Research Papers,
Cliff Notes
|
|
|
Copyright 2004, Essays.cc, All Rights Reserved
Design by Dream Net Studio
|
|
|
