There are (justifiable) arguments, of course, that Plutarch too often put personal bias and a love of "storytelling" above historical fact. While this may be true, is what comes to us of Rome by way of the Pop Culture filter any better? The context in which most people think of Rome is either that of Biblical or Russell Crowe. Can Plutarch's approximations be any worse?
Though this edition appears to have been hastily compiled at some points (very little reference/glossary material to speak of), I still reccomend this book to:
1) Casual readers who wish to know more about an exciting period of history that has affected everything from our calendar to our way of government, and
2) History/Humanities teachers tired of purely analytical views of Rome. Let your students know that Rome had IT'S editorialists, too.
Plutarch describes a nation wracked by personal divisions during the Roman Civil War with chapters on some of the major participants in this conflict: a true fall from grace for both the people of Rome and the institution of republicanism. There is a lot here that is exciting, such as the war against the Parthians, Jugurthia and the personal rivalries between Ceasar and Pompey.
The writing moves from what I would classify as mildly interesting, usually at the beginning of each chapter as he relates the youth, familiar, and power influences on the personal development of each live, to ripping tales of combat, honour lost and found, and principled peoples meeting usually, bloody fates. Lives of particular note are Pompey and Cicero in this book, but my personal favourite was Crassus, his fight against the slave revolt of Spartacus and his eventual annihilation with his entire army against the Parthians. The other real character that keeps popping up in each chapter is Cato, a political idealist who commited suicide for his repulican ideals when there was every indication that Ceasar respected him and would have spared his life despite Cato's defection to Pompey.
There is lots here that is of course raw speculation: I think that it is unlikely that Ceasar really had dictatorship on his mind since his early youth, but Plutarch would have us believe that it was almost forordained that Ceasar wanted personal control of the State.
Plutarch is much more interesting to read than Ceasar or Livy. So if you are looking for a good place to enter the classics, this is one good read.
