FREE ESSAY ON PLUTARCH'S CRASSUS AND CAESAR

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. 


  
    
      Can`t find essay here? Order custom written term paper. We offer high quality
      and quick writing for only $12.95 per page!
    
  





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."