The Influence of Plutarch's Characters in His Writings

A Comparison of Plutarch's The Lives of the Ancient Grecians and Romans and Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

Chalking up the fall of the Roman Republic to a decline in traditional Roman morality, while not false, sells the events and changes that were the causes for the fall of the Republic short. At the end of The Third Punic War with Carthage we arguably see the Republic at its height. However in only a decade things begin to change, we see events that send Rome as a Republic past a point that Rome could not recover. Gaius Marius’s military reforms, specifically that of allowing for the captive cencsi, men who owned no property, and the creation of professional soldiers is the true catalyst for the downfall of the Republic. By enacting these reforms Marius opened up military duty to Rome’s largest group of citizens, however it created unforeseen issues, such as what to do with these men once they returned from battle. These reforms opened the door for military generals like Sulla and Caesar to gain the unquestioned support of their troops, in many instances gaining more respect from the soldiers then they had for the Roman state itself. These military reforms are a constant through line through the fall of the Republic, touching large political issues such as the conflicts between the Populares and the Optimates, or the rise of The First Triumvirate; socioeconomic issues such as the rise of Roman aristocracy, development of a slave based agriculture system to the profits from war. The complexity in which these reforms help lead to this immoral Roman state is complex and has been

Events which stretch as far back as the reforms of the Gracchi brothers’ meant that the Rome was facing a Republic that was already deteriorating before Pompey had stepped into power. While Pompey’s quest for power was harmful, many other factors were also baleful to the Republic, and were hence instrumental in its decline. Gnaeus Pompeius’s measures to gain power were harmful because it was primarily a paradox to the principles of being part of a Republic with all its notions of shared and short power. The fundamental reason why there were other reasons for the decline of the system are that the military power was given to him, the already weak Senate, and the fact that Pompey was not the only player in the breakdown of the Republic due

The accounts of emperor Tiberius’ reign by both Suetonius and Tacitus have qualities that serve to show how differing authors viewed Tiberius in various flattering and unappealing ways by their personal reasoning and desire to preserve truth as much as possible in scope of their respective intentions to provide scholars with treatments of him that give a through picture of his traits, strengths and weaknesses. Overall, by examining both accounts of Tiberius’ reign, readers are able to form independent judgement of Tiberius and if each description is biased beyond any semblance of objectively. Overall Suetonius and Tacitus leaves books that differ in style and accuracy but both do indeed want the residing public to understand the true

“Oedipus” written by Sophocles and “Odysseus” written by Homer both are Greek poets. Both stories share the same themes in ways where both of the epic heroes endure a conflict. The characters in these plays are attributed certain characteristics by the author. The characteristics suggested by the authors are intrinsic to the audience. They both have a complete and subjective understanding of work. Their characteristics are displayed through the characters actions, what the writer says about them, and what they portray on themselves. This will be the focus of the essay. Both Oedipus and Odysseus, spoken by others, they describe character traits.

Above all this, ‘while he was still a youth ‘public affairs laid their grasp upon Themistocles.’ Plutarch also describes that while other boys would entertain themselves and indulge in leisurely activities, Themistocles would be composing and rehearsing to himself mock

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

Even though Agamemnon made a success for his homecoming, what was waiting for him was her wife’s conspiracy with Aegisthus and his death (262-263). Namely, his nosmos was rather a failure and he also faced fate of his failed household. This Agamemnon’s gives a comparison with Odysseus future success for preserving his family and throne. Furthermore, Clytemnestra’s unfaithfulness and infidelity provides a foil to Penelope’s faithfulness and loyalty. Clytemnestra’s merciless and brutal actions, not sealing Agamemnon’s eyes while he was dying, adds contrasting characteristics between Odysseus and Agamemnon’s wives. Note that here, the story of successful vengeance for Agamemnon by Orestes gives a foil to Telemachus’ weakness and deficiency. Orestes here is depicted as a heroic example with murder of Aegistus after he comes of age (264). On the contrary to Orestes who saved his household and restored order in his family’s kingdom, Telemachus, as he came of age, couldn’t serve as protecting his household and repel his mother’s suitors in the absence of his father. In the light of comparing each heroic figures’ sons, the son of Achilles is also depicted as successful warrior with great strength and fame in the battlefield against Trojan, adding a foil to Telemachus’ unsuccessful position as a son (266).

In Life of Alexander, Plutarch employs extensive methods to depict Alexander as a man of both great ambition and self-control, despite Alexander’s degeneration of character by the end of his life. In the modern world, the regression from just conqueror to unrestrained tyrant is completely congruent with the contemporary concept of ambiguous morality. In the ancient world, however, everything is expressed and understood in clear constructs; therefore, one’s character cannot change within a lifetime—it can only be revealed. The history of Alexander the Great is well-known, so Plutarch has to address common knowledge and beliefs while persuading the audience to believe in his portrayal of Alexander. Plutarch establishes Alexander as a great ruler whose out of character actions are made sensible with reinterpretations of situations and are neutralized with stories proving his positive traits. Through these methods, Plutarch successfully resolves the issue of Alexander’s conflicts in character and is able to create a convincible and consistent character.

It is clear that the dynamics that characterized Rome’s society during the Republic were never easy. There was a constant push and pull of intentions and interests between Patricians and Plebeians. The Patricians always wanting to maintain economic and political supremacy while the Plebeians were in constant

Plutarch outlines that Tiberius and his brother Gaius were ``the most gifted young men of their generation in Rome, their education was generally held to have a played a more important part than nature in forming their qualities.'' Plutarch further emphasises the prominence of Tiberius by stating, "Soon after reaching maturity, his fame was great enough to earn him entry into the so-called priesthood of augurs, an honor he owed to his excellence, rather than to his noble birth."

Throughout history, many leaders reigned various parts of the world and contributed to the construction or destruction of what remains in present day. Their valid efforts are often documented by the people who live during their reign or by a historian who worked closely with them. However, the documented history can often be exaggerated or fabricated to make the one in power seem as if they were more of a tyrant or beneficial to the country. The Secret History written by Procopius during the reign of the Roman Emperor Justinian and the Empress Theodora is the only piece of written work that showed the negative aspects of the two leaders, but since his writing is the only source, it is difficult to determine whether the Procopius fabricated all of the stories to dehumanize them. This paper will examine how he failed to accurately describe Justinian, but mainly Theodora, by including rumors or false information, which reveals how his disillusionment resulted in his bitter writings, making his writing seem less credible.

The classical era was a point during which humanity took a great leap forward in terms of understanding and documenting itself. One work of fiction, the Metamorphoses by Apuleius, has given historians a look into life into the second century C.E. by telling stories that were written in that time period. Works of fiction often provide metaphors and allegories greater societal and ideological trends of the civilizations they occupy, and that is especially true of this text. Apuleius uses the extraordinary anecdotes of one character’s journey to illustrate the complexities of life as he knows it. In doing so he provides a window into a world long passed without even being aware of it. This paper aims to analyze the roles of politics,

The purpose of the paper is to compare and contrast the characters of Penelope in the epic, The Odyssey, Lysistrata in the comedy, Lysistrata, and Medea in the tragedy, Medea. The writer will first give a brief synopsis of each character, followed by a comparison and climaxing with the contrast.

Not everyone is the same nor thinks the same as everybody else. We all have different minds and thoughts and aslo believes. Despite bearing some minor similarities the difference between Marcus Brutus and Caius Cassius are much more obvious than similarites. There are one difference and threee simmilarites in the paper. Therefore, these following paragraphs will show differences as well as similarites about Brutus and Cassius