Written by Oscar Virdee
Before diving into the hypocrisy, allow me to give you a crash course in Classics. The Moralia are a set of guiding principles that Plutarch sent to an ancient statesman advising him how he should rule; a basic list of “do, and do not’s”. Parallel Lives are a collection of biographies embellished and written by Plutarch that cover some of the Graeco-Roman world’s greatest rulers from Theseus to Mark Antony. The tradition of “Mirrors for Princes” refers to when authors wrote what were in essence self-help books for rulers.
For those wondering why Plutarch would choose to write biographies of men who had long since passed, it is always best to ask the man himself. A passage from his Life of Alexander explains,
“For it is not Histories that I am writing, but Lives; and in the most illustrious deeds there is not always a manifestation of virtue or vice, nay, a slight thing like a phrase or a jest often makes a greater revelation of character than battles when thousands fall.”
Modern scholars suggest alternate theories; Beneker suggests that Plutarch hoped to leave a set of guiding principles in a similar fashion to “Mirrors for Princes”. Duff holds a similar belief, highlighting that Alexander’s life is portrayed as virtuous and therefore the one to be emulated. However, upon closer inspection (which I have done so you don’t have to) one can see that Alexander goes against the ideals Plutarch outlines in the Moralia, but is praised for them, whilst Caesar is criticised for following them, or at times when he should be praised Caesar is ignored. Before answering the why, let’s look at the how.
The best example within the Lives are the rivers of destiny that both men cross, for Alexander the Granicus, for Caesar the Rubicon. In Moralia there is an abstract statement of what Plutarch believes to be virtuous conduct of a leader: “The statesman must, then, do his best to control himself in such matters and not go down…on foot to fight with cavalry”. Let us see how Plutarch describes the river crossings.
Alexander, “plunged into the stream with thirteen troops of horsemen” vs Caesar’s approach, where he “hastened to cross the river”. You would think Plutarch would praise Caesar, right? Wrong.
Plutarch clearly believed that a good leader should be in control and not dive headfirst in to combat. This belief is pragmatic: classical warfare was a confusing cacophony of weapon-blows, death cries, and war chants. So, due to the noise of the surrounding battle, it would have been difficult for Plutarch’s Alexander to effectively marshal his forces after giving the initial order to charge. Plus, if you’ve seen Troy you will know, classical warfare is frequently a matter of brutal close-quarters combat – if a general led the charge, there was the distinct possibility that he could be maimed or even killed. This is more likely given that high ranking men would wear distinctive armour, which highlighted their presence for not only their own men, but also for their enemies – a danger Plutarch highlights himself: “Many rushed upon Alexander, for he was conspicuous by his buckler and by his helmet’s crest”. Alexander’s actions run directly counter to the dictates of Plutarch’s Moralia – we surely would expect to get a strong rebuke.
Instead, there is little criticism aimed at Alexander for leading the charge; instead, Alexander’s rashness meets with Plutarch’s favour, for against the caution of his friend Parmenio (pragmatic and well-advised), Alexander retorts that “the Hellespont would blush for shame, if, after having crossed that strait, he should be afraid of the Granicus”. Alexander’s speech goes against ideals that Plutarch outlines in his Moralia and Precepts of Statecraft, for it is both “juvenal and theatrical” and full of “flowery words” which are all effects that Plutarch believes a leader should avoid. We can see Alexander is failing to be a leader Plutarch would praise, but Plutarch praises him anyway.
The diss that Plutarch’s Alexander receives as a result of this foolish charge is slight and vague. Alexander only “seemed” to be acting “like a frenzied and foolish commander rather than a wise one”– even here then, Plutarch is keen to assure his audience that there is method in Alexander’s apparent madness, an apparent madness Plutarch should disdain.
Let us look at Ceaser’s careful crossing. “As if abandoning calculation and casting himself upon the future and uttering the phrase with which men usually prelude their plunge into desperate and daring fortunes, ‘Let the die be cast,’ he hastened to cross the river”. At a glance, Caesar’s crossing suffers from a similar rashness to that of Alexander, but in fact Plutarch’s Caesar is following two ideals that Plutarch himself holds in high esteem. One, he is in control of himself before he crosses the river, for he only “cast[s] himself upon the future” after he has abandoned “calculation”. Two, Caesar only crosses after consulting with his commanders. Plutarch’s Caesar appears to practice what the Moralia preaches but these actions are not praised like we’d expect. This would also be a great moment to give Caesar a speech or comment praising his consideration, like Suetonius (a contemporary historian) does in Life of Julius Caesar but from Plutarch we get nothing.
Given all this we are left with three questions; Why not praise Caesar? Why defend Alexander? Why create the hypocrisy?
The answer lies in the tradition of “Mirrors for Princes”. If a pair of lives is presented, one must be chosen to emulate, the other to avoid. To suit this construct and carve his name in history, Plutarch is forced to violate his ideals.
Bibliography
Plutarch, De Virtute Moralia 443C, trans. by Duff, T. (1999) Oxford
Plutarch, The Life of Alexander, The Parallel Lives, trans. by B. Perrin (1919) London
Plutarch, The Life of Caesar, The Parallel Lives, trans. by B. Perrin (1919) London
Plutarch, Moralia , trans. by H.N Folwer, (1936) Harvard
Suetonius, Julius Caesar: The Lives of the twelve Caesars trans. by J. C. Rolfe (1907) London
Buszard, B. (2008) ‘Caesar’s Ambition: A Combined Reading of Plutarch’s “Alexander-Caesar” and “Pyrrhus-Marius?” Transactions of the American Philological Association 138: pp.185-215
Duff, T. (1999) Plutarch’s Lives: exploring virtue and vice, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pelling, C.B.R. (1979) ‘Plutarch’s method of work of Roman Lives’, the Journal of Hellenic Studies, 99: pp.74-96
Featured image credit: Portrait of Plutarch, Greek Historian. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plutarch.gif
Retrospect Journal 
