'A critical study of a significant aspect or aspects of Plutarch's aims and achievements as a biographer' -To what extent does Plutarch achieve his aims for the lives of Marius and Caesar?
'A critical study of a significant aspect or aspects of Plutarch's aims and achievements as a biographer' -To what extent does Plutarch achieve his aims for the lives of Marius and Caesar?
We are able to establish Plutarch's aims in creating his biographies by looking at his background and influences. Plutarch was born in Greece to a wealthy established family. He was well educated, studying rhetoric in Athens, and then travelled to Rome where he established connections with some important political figures. Despite being an outsider (a Greek), Plutarch accepted Roman aristocratic tradition as well as the moralising of some key Roman figures. This is reflected in the 'Lives' which in effect provide moral guidelines, prescribing how one should live a virtuous life. He viewed himself as an artist or moraliser rather than a historian, believing, "It is not so much history that we are writing but lives."1
Plutarch was deeply into the platonic approach to ethics, and therefore was also influenced by Socrates. Plato was a pupil of Socrates who claimed that the most important thing in life was to know how one should live; an emphasis on moral conduct was therefore passed down to Plutarch. He is fascinated not only by great deeds and battles but, "often a little matter, like a saying or a joke,"2 which can be more revealing in terms of character and virtue. Plato's philosophy was about the search for absolute standards of truth and moral certainty and almost all of his works are about ethics, or moral philosophy.
His aim was therefore to create a, "revelation of virtue or vice,"3 intending to "shape the life of each man"4 in terms of moral not financial or political stature, and hopes the reader gains a practical moral lesson and understands better the way to become a virtuous person. Plutarch provides the reader with more than just a story. The reader is invited to reflect on what they have read and to emulate the actions of the virtuous man, being encouraged to shun vice throughout. To do this Plutarch used a list of twelve virtues presenting a 'golden mean' that could be taken to excess or to deficiency, both being a vice. This list was developed by Aristotle from the five cardinal virtues, and is known as the 'virtue theory', it expresses that to be virtuous, the irrational side must be governed by the rational side. By the time of Plutarch (nearly 400 years after Aristotle,) there had been some modification of Aristotle's system, but the basic principles still applied. Russell goes as far as to say:
"Without Aristotle's 'Ethics', there would have been no such thing as the Plutarchian biography."5
Both Plato and Aristotle were eudaimonists, believing the purpose of man is to be eudaimon, or virtuous.
Plutarch's religion is also key in working out his aims. He believed in gods and an after life, this meant he believed there were two reasons for a person to be virtuous; firstly because it is the right was to behave and secondly because you will be rewarded or punished as appropriate in the afterlife:
"Athletes receive their prizes not during the contest but ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
"Without Aristotle's 'Ethics', there would have been no such thing as the Plutarchian biography."5
Both Plato and Aristotle were eudaimonists, believing the purpose of man is to be eudaimon, or virtuous.
Plutarch's religion is also key in working out his aims. He believed in gods and an after life, this meant he believed there were two reasons for a person to be virtuous; firstly because it is the right was to behave and secondly because you will be rewarded or punished as appropriate in the afterlife:
"Athletes receive their prizes not during the contest but after they have won"6
These ideas as to what Plutarch's aims were likely to have been are backed up by a statement made by Plutarch on what he thinks he is trying to achieve in the opening paragraph of the Life of Alexander the Great:
"...we must be allowed to penetrate rather the signs of the soul, and through these to shape the life of each man, leaving to others the magnitudes and battles."7
This statement is referring also referring to Alexander's 'pair', Julius Caesar. However, the language used in this section is sufficiently general allowing us to believe we can apply the same statement of principles to other Lives, including that of Marius. Plutarch makes it clear he wants to judge each man in terms of his moral stature, not his worldly success.
Plutarch believed Marius' upbringing to be "rough and unrefined," coming from a poor, uneducated and "entirely undistinguished"8 background. Being a Platonist this clearly sets Plutarch against Marius as Plato believed we are born with certain natural qualities (e.g. receptiveness to learn, good memory, natural self control and love of wisdom). Then add to this the right kind of education (being taught or 'habituated', to virtue) and the right kind of character will emerge. Plutarch therefore values education (something Marius lacks) very highly, believing the correct moral training can make a huge difference. Marius' background is in contrast to Plutarch's wealthy established background making him a Patrician and anti-Marius. His aristocratic sympathies are clearly evident in his positive accounts of patricians, in particular Metellus. He scorns Marius when despite rising to power through the influence of the Metelli, he, "unlike the rest, took no trouble at all to increase the prestige of Mettellus."9 Plutarch saw this as insolence, believing he was "quite deliberately making himself hated by the upper class."10
A theme throughout the biographies is the idea of 'hubris' (acting with arrogance) leading to 'nemesis' (divine retribution). Plutarch believed the Gods would eventually punish those who acted with such presumption. This idea is clearly expressed in the life of Marius. He is described as having a "rough, bitter character," "too forward and lacking in modesty."11 Inevitably this leads to his 'nemesis', starting mildly:
"some sort of retribution came to him for his behaviour; for Sulla took from Marius the credit of the final success, just as Marius had taken it from Metellus."12
Then finally leading to his death; "cast up upon the shores of a bloodthirsty and savage old age."13 Plutarch believed that death and how a person dies is often shown to reveal something of the true nature of their character, and therefore portrays Marius' death as some sort of retribution for his immoral life. Plutarch shows his contempt for Marius and respect of Plato after Marius' death by describing Plato as "a man and not an irrational animal"14 in comparison to Marius.
Plutarch shows a clear bias against Marius yet is not wholly unsympathetic towards him. He is shown to be a strong leader having, "won the affection of the soldiers by showing that he would live as hard as they did"15 and good at winning the support of the people. Plutarch makes it clear that Marius has achieved a lot, but, as Plutarch stated he was going to, talks more of Marius' moral faults and qualities than his military achievements.
Plutarch is more ambivalent towards Caesar, the 'life of Caesar' is closer to a narrative history, unlike in the 'life of Marius' when:
"Marius and his political importance disappear almost completely behind a smoke screen of moralising."16
It is more balanced in terms of assessment of character than that of Marius. This is perhaps inappropriate if one of his aims is to distinguish between the virtuous and the vicious. However, Plutarch makes it quite clear whom he believes to be more virtuous. Plutarch uses some of Caesars battles to emphasise the importance of being virtuous: After Gaul broke into revolt during Caesars journey back to Italy Plutarch tells of Caesar hurrying back to the relief of Cicero, he describes the besiegers to have courage to excess (the vice rashness) and says Caesar played on their "over-confidence". This led to the besiegers downfall and highlights the importance of having the 'golden mean' and not too much of a good thing.
Most of the 'life of Caesar' is given to an account of the conquest of Gaul. Plutarch is not achieving his aims by doing this as in the opening of the 'life of Alexander' (created in parallel to the 'life of Caesar') Plutarch states he wishes to "penetrate the signs of the soul"17 rather than focusing on great deeds, something he seems to have forgotten.
Plutarch makes many connections between Marius and Caesar (mainly through family ties). After telling of Marius' marriage to Caesars aunt, he says Caesar "seems in some ways, because of this relationship, to have modelled himself on Marius."18 However, Plutarch wants to impress upon his reader the sense that Caesar is far more human and genial than the "irrational animal"19 Marius. Plutarch is not achieving his aims in the 'life of Caesar' at this point. Rather than moralising he seems to be focussing on Caesars deeds, in fact, the only vice Plutarch expresses Caesar to have is ambition, suggesting Caesar was born to overthrow the Republic:
"In this boy there were many Mariuses"20
This cannot be Caesars only vice, therefore Plutarch is not achieving his aims by overlooking the others.
A feature of this biography is the tension between a pleasant man with unpleasant ambition. Cicero says when he sees Caesar arranging his hair that he:
"Cannot imagine that this man could conceive of such a wicked thing as to destroy the Roman constitution."21
Caesar is portrayed as a romantic figure, which leads to some fundamental absences in his biography, for example Cato and the Optimates' rejection of Pompey's political overtures towards them, which, in part, led to his alliance with Caesar and the formation of the first triumvirate.
In contrast to Marius' death, Plutarch describes Caesar's death as an injustice. Caesar comes to a bad end, which, (unlike the death of Marius, who Plutarch seems to feel deserved everything he got,) was not right as he viewed Caesar to be a virtuous person. Plutarch feels Caesars murder was not pleasing to the gods and says that even after his death they "remained active as an avenger of his murder." 22 Caesar's death does not agree with Plutarch's theory that by living a virtuous life you will be rewarded in the end.
I believe that Plutarch achieved some if not all of his aims for the lives of Marius and Caesar. I feel he is far more successful in moralising Marius' character without being distracted by historical events than Caesars. This is probably partly due to Plutarch favouring Caesar and therefore feeling there are less moral faults to be put right. However Plutarch uses both lives to give the reader a moral lesson, although in different ways. He shows Marius coming to a bad end and suffering at times due to being immoral, while he uses Caesars opposition rather than Caesar to show the effect of the vices. The murder of Caesar is a blow to Plutarch's theory, however he manages to emphasise the fact that the gods are on Caesars side and punishing his murderers. I believe Plutarch managed to achieve his aims in the 'Life of Marius' despite being thoroughly biased against him but achieved less (although still a few) of his aims in the 'Life of Caesar'.
Plutarch, Fall of the Roman Republic, Alexander, 1.1-3, Penguin
2 Plutarch, Alexander, 1.1-3,
3 Plutarch, Alexander, 1.1-3,
4 Plutarch, Alexander, 1.1-3,
5 Russell, p105
6 Russell, Plutarch quote, p80
7 Plutarch, Alexander, 1.1-3
8 Plutarch, Marius [3]
9 Plutarch, Marius [7]
0 Plutarch, Marius [9]
1 Plutarch, Marius [2,5]
2 Plutarch, Marius [10]
3 Plutarch, Marius [45]
4 Plutarch, Marius [46]
5 Plutarch, Marius [7]
6 Plutarch, Marius notes by Robin Seager
7 Plutarch, Alexander, 1.1-3
8 Plutarch, Marius [6]
9 Plutarch, Marius [46]
20 Plutarch, Caesar [1]
21 Cicero
22 Plutarch, Caesar [69]
