What do you think?
Rate this book
North's Translation of Plutarch's Life of Julius Caesar
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
122 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 120
11 people are currently reading
282 people want to read
About the author
Plutarch
4,316 books944 followersPlutarch (later named, upon becoming a Roman citizen, Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus; AD 46–AD 120) was a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist, known primarily for his Parallel Lives and Moralia. He is classified as a Middle Platonist. Plutarch's surviving works were written in Greek, but intended for both Greek and Roman readers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
May 9, 2025
CAESAR:
WHO IS IT IN THE PRESS WHO CALLS ON ME? I HEAR A VOICE SHRILLER THAN ALL THE MUSIC CRY "CAESAR!" SPEAK...
SOOTHSAYER:
BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH.
CAESAR:
WHAT MAN IS THAT?
BRUTUS:
SIRE, IT IS A SOOTHSAYER BIDDING YOU BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH.
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar.
And just like Brutus turned out that day, guys, the Ides (the Equinox) turns many men into beasts.
The Roman government was quite aware of that, though, and Roman senators sought to sublimate folks' rampant desires at the four equinoxes by turning those weeks into holidays - dedicated to the various gods and goddesses of fertility.
The brute that sprang, like a god fully armed in chain mail from out of the mercenary brain of once-noble Brutus, was symptomatic of the change of season. Chthonic fun and frenzy breed feckless violence, given world enough and time.
Well, all's not fun and games at such times, though, for folks who have a history of mental illness. The equinox, as J.D. Salinger might put it, is A Perfect Day for Banana Fish, in postmodern as in ancient days.
Blech. It can be a devastatingly brutal thing.
Plutarch, though, wants mainly to inspire us with tales of heroism and political wisdom - albeit leaving us with warnings of sudden reversals, as here - and which I take to heart very seriously…
So his Parallel Lives of great Greeks and Romans always puts me on an even keel.
And I need him around me now more than ever.
I'm writing this near the end of February, and no crackpot sorceror has to tell me to beware of what's coming in a month.
I've already folded my losing cards in anticipation of the ghastly Ides, this year on March 19, guys -
By fortifying my supply of meds!
WHO IS IT IN THE PRESS WHO CALLS ON ME? I HEAR A VOICE SHRILLER THAN ALL THE MUSIC CRY "CAESAR!" SPEAK...
SOOTHSAYER:
BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH.
CAESAR:
WHAT MAN IS THAT?
BRUTUS:
SIRE, IT IS A SOOTHSAYER BIDDING YOU BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH.
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar.
And just like Brutus turned out that day, guys, the Ides (the Equinox) turns many men into beasts.
The Roman government was quite aware of that, though, and Roman senators sought to sublimate folks' rampant desires at the four equinoxes by turning those weeks into holidays - dedicated to the various gods and goddesses of fertility.
The brute that sprang, like a god fully armed in chain mail from out of the mercenary brain of once-noble Brutus, was symptomatic of the change of season. Chthonic fun and frenzy breed feckless violence, given world enough and time.
Well, all's not fun and games at such times, though, for folks who have a history of mental illness. The equinox, as J.D. Salinger might put it, is A Perfect Day for Banana Fish, in postmodern as in ancient days.
Blech. It can be a devastatingly brutal thing.
Plutarch, though, wants mainly to inspire us with tales of heroism and political wisdom - albeit leaving us with warnings of sudden reversals, as here - and which I take to heart very seriously…
So his Parallel Lives of great Greeks and Romans always puts me on an even keel.
And I need him around me now more than ever.
I'm writing this near the end of February, and no crackpot sorceror has to tell me to beware of what's coming in a month.
I've already folded my losing cards in anticipation of the ghastly Ides, this year on March 19, guys -
By fortifying my supply of meds!
June 5, 2019
Conqueror of Gaul
5 July 2019
I would say that the books all seem to come down to this one life, but the problem is that there is more to Plutarch’s lives and this one particular character. Still, as Shakespeare says, Julius Caeser certainly is a colossus that bestrides the world, and his legacy affects even us today. Yeah, maybe Shakespeare had something to do with it, and I suspect his play is probably one of the main reasons we still talk about him, but in a way there is more to it than that.
First, it is probably appropriate that Plutarch paired Alexander and Caeser because they were both famous conquers, both of their conquests shaped the world for centuries to come, both of them pushed the edges of what was known of the world at the time, both of them punched very much above their weight, and both of them were struck down not so much in their youth, but certainly before they had lived a full life. Mind you, I also find it interesting that Plutarch doesn’t actually write a comparison piece for the two, but maybe this is a pairing where similarities, and differences, don’t need to be spelled out.
Let us consider Caeser’s conquest, namely that of Gaul, which is by far his most famous. Not only did his conquest pretty much raise his status among the people of Rome, pretty much making him a hero, as well as earning the loyalty of many in the army, but as I mentioned it also reshaped the world that we know. Up until that time Gaul was basically a collection of warring tribes, but after Caeser’s conquests Gaul become a part of the Roman empire, and remained a part until the collapse in the West. This is why the people today in that region speak French, and not some Celtic dialect.
Then there is Britain – before Julius Caeser conquered Gaul, people has heard rumours of there being an island lying off the northern coasts, but nobody had actually seen it. In fact nobody had even brought ships around into the Atlantic – they just didn’t think it was at all feasible, or worth while – there weren’t any seafaring people around at the time. However, not only did Caeser prove that it could be done, he actually managed to move an army across the English Channel, something that only one other person has managed to do – William the Conqueror (though since England was basically a collection of warring tribes, it was nowhere near as hard as other would be conquerors have discovered).
Then there is the civil war, which was probably a long time coming anyway. Sure, there was this issue that the alliance between Caeser and Pompey had degenerated considerably, but there was also this issue that Caeser was a man of the people. Oh, and that he also had designs on becoming king, not that he actually outwardly said that he would (and even went as far as staging this event where he was offered the crown three times, and he refused it three times). Mind you, bringing an army across the Rubicon was pretty much a no no either – it would be similar to deploying the army in the United States to basically police the people. There would certainly be a reaction if this were to happen – in fact it would pretty much reek of martial law.
Yeah, and then there was his death, a death that has pretty much echoed throughout the ages. One could almost say that Caeser’s assassination is one of the most well known in history, and the events that it unleashed would literally bring it to the level of the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand. Yeah, his death pretty much not only plunged the Republic back into civil war, but it also signalled the end of the Republic, because once Rome had managed to emerge from that second round of bloodshed, there was only one person left in charge – Ausgustus.
5 July 2019
I would say that the books all seem to come down to this one life, but the problem is that there is more to Plutarch’s lives and this one particular character. Still, as Shakespeare says, Julius Caeser certainly is a colossus that bestrides the world, and his legacy affects even us today. Yeah, maybe Shakespeare had something to do with it, and I suspect his play is probably one of the main reasons we still talk about him, but in a way there is more to it than that.
First, it is probably appropriate that Plutarch paired Alexander and Caeser because they were both famous conquers, both of their conquests shaped the world for centuries to come, both of them pushed the edges of what was known of the world at the time, both of them punched very much above their weight, and both of them were struck down not so much in their youth, but certainly before they had lived a full life. Mind you, I also find it interesting that Plutarch doesn’t actually write a comparison piece for the two, but maybe this is a pairing where similarities, and differences, don’t need to be spelled out.
Let us consider Caeser’s conquest, namely that of Gaul, which is by far his most famous. Not only did his conquest pretty much raise his status among the people of Rome, pretty much making him a hero, as well as earning the loyalty of many in the army, but as I mentioned it also reshaped the world that we know. Up until that time Gaul was basically a collection of warring tribes, but after Caeser’s conquests Gaul become a part of the Roman empire, and remained a part until the collapse in the West. This is why the people today in that region speak French, and not some Celtic dialect.
Then there is Britain – before Julius Caeser conquered Gaul, people has heard rumours of there being an island lying off the northern coasts, but nobody had actually seen it. In fact nobody had even brought ships around into the Atlantic – they just didn’t think it was at all feasible, or worth while – there weren’t any seafaring people around at the time. However, not only did Caeser prove that it could be done, he actually managed to move an army across the English Channel, something that only one other person has managed to do – William the Conqueror (though since England was basically a collection of warring tribes, it was nowhere near as hard as other would be conquerors have discovered).
Then there is the civil war, which was probably a long time coming anyway. Sure, there was this issue that the alliance between Caeser and Pompey had degenerated considerably, but there was also this issue that Caeser was a man of the people. Oh, and that he also had designs on becoming king, not that he actually outwardly said that he would (and even went as far as staging this event where he was offered the crown three times, and he refused it three times). Mind you, bringing an army across the Rubicon was pretty much a no no either – it would be similar to deploying the army in the United States to basically police the people. There would certainly be a reaction if this were to happen – in fact it would pretty much reek of martial law.
Yeah, and then there was his death, a death that has pretty much echoed throughout the ages. One could almost say that Caeser’s assassination is one of the most well known in history, and the events that it unleashed would literally bring it to the level of the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand. Yeah, his death pretty much not only plunged the Republic back into civil war, but it also signalled the end of the Republic, because once Rome had managed to emerge from that second round of bloodshed, there was only one person left in charge – Ausgustus.
December 26, 2024
“He was the first to show that to be loved by the people was more to be valued than to be feared by them.”
It offers an insightful look into one of the most significant leaders of ancient Greece. As with many of Plutarch's biographical works, it blends historical events with moral lessons, making it as much about the character of Pericles as it is about his political and military accomplishments. While it provides an interesting portrait of Pericles' leadership and his contributions to Athens, I found myself somewhat disconnected from the narrative at times.
Pericles is portrayed as a visionary leader who transformed Athens into a dominant force in the ancient world. His dedication to his city and his belief in the importance of civic participation are well-highlighted in Plutarch's account. For example, the quote, "Pericles was the first to introduce the idea that a man who had no share in public affairs was useless and unfit for the state," showcases his commitment to democratic ideals, making him a progressive leader in the context of ancient Greece.
The writing style, while informative, occasionally felt dry and repetitive. The structure of the biography also felt fragmented at times, with Plutarch jumping between various episodes in Pericles' life. While this approach offers a broader scope of his leadership, it can make it harder to follow the narrative thread or deeply engage with Pericles as a person. The account is rich with historical events, but I sometimes found the moralizing tone of Plutarch to be a bit much, especially when compared to the complexity of Pericles' actions.
That said, the biography does capture some of Pericles' most important traits—his unwavering commitment to Athens, his ability to shape its military and cultural glory, and his dedication to democracy. The quote, "He was the first who made it seem shameful for any man... to keep silence about the state’s affairs," stands out as a reminder of how Pericles sought to engage all citizens in governance.
Overall, I enjoyed reading about Pericles' contributions to Athens, but the style and structure of the biography didn’t fully captivate me. It’s a solid read for those interested in ancient Greek history and leadership, but I feel like it could have been more engaging if it had delved deeper into Pericles as a person rather than just presenting his deeds.
It offers an insightful look into one of the most significant leaders of ancient Greece. As with many of Plutarch's biographical works, it blends historical events with moral lessons, making it as much about the character of Pericles as it is about his political and military accomplishments. While it provides an interesting portrait of Pericles' leadership and his contributions to Athens, I found myself somewhat disconnected from the narrative at times.
Pericles is portrayed as a visionary leader who transformed Athens into a dominant force in the ancient world. His dedication to his city and his belief in the importance of civic participation are well-highlighted in Plutarch's account. For example, the quote, "Pericles was the first to introduce the idea that a man who had no share in public affairs was useless and unfit for the state," showcases his commitment to democratic ideals, making him a progressive leader in the context of ancient Greece.
The writing style, while informative, occasionally felt dry and repetitive. The structure of the biography also felt fragmented at times, with Plutarch jumping between various episodes in Pericles' life. While this approach offers a broader scope of his leadership, it can make it harder to follow the narrative thread or deeply engage with Pericles as a person. The account is rich with historical events, but I sometimes found the moralizing tone of Plutarch to be a bit much, especially when compared to the complexity of Pericles' actions.
That said, the biography does capture some of Pericles' most important traits—his unwavering commitment to Athens, his ability to shape its military and cultural glory, and his dedication to democracy. The quote, "He was the first who made it seem shameful for any man... to keep silence about the state’s affairs," stands out as a reminder of how Pericles sought to engage all citizens in governance.
Overall, I enjoyed reading about Pericles' contributions to Athens, but the style and structure of the biography didn’t fully captivate me. It’s a solid read for those interested in ancient Greek history and leadership, but I feel like it could have been more engaging if it had delved deeper into Pericles as a person rather than just presenting his deeds.
July 16, 2022
Life of Caesar by Plutarch.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
I read this for the Online Great Books program.
The OGB group I attend voted Caesar the Great Life they would most like to have a beer with. I'm not sure it would be a beer, probably a glass of wine, but the conversation would be phenomenal.
Caesar was descended from a god, but in Rome, at that time, that kind of thing was expected from the great families. Caesar certainly took his divine ancestry to heart and set for himself the goal of being the first man in Rome. Not necessarily the only great man, but certainly the greatest among everyone else. He would be the person whom people would come to if they wanted patronage and positions.
Caesar had grown up endangered during the proscriptions of Sulla. There was a good chance that he would not survive childhood as a relative of Sulla's enemy Marius. It is noteworthy that when he had power, Caesar did not himself put up proscription lists. Perhaps he wanted to be Sulla without the killing.
After surviving Sulla, Caesar's life was the life of a trapeze artist, swinging from one position to another, staying barely ahead of falling to his death. Every step up the ladder of success required money, and Caesar was not one to stint on spending money to keep his name in the minds of Romans. He made enemies, but was fortunate up to the end. At one point, the Senate under Cicero was contemplating killing Caesar for his opposition to the execution of the confederates of Catiline, but because Cato spoke in support of Caesar, Caesar escaped that mortal danger.
Caesar's fortune was a result of preparation, skill, and vigilance. He was all-in for the game of Roman politics. He also turned out to be a brilliant general which put him at the head of an army that owed him exclusive personal allegiance. Caesar's army was better than Pompey's, or maybe, Pompey was getting on in years and did not have the vigor or agility he had in his younger days.
Plutarch could have taken the end of Caesar's life from Shakespeare....which is a joke since it was vice versa.
Caesar's life was a prodigy in a time of prodigies. He expanded the empire, survived a conspiratorial environment, and became the first man of Rome. He did not end the Roman Republic - that honor would go to his nephew, Octavian.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
I read this for the Online Great Books program.
The OGB group I attend voted Caesar the Great Life they would most like to have a beer with. I'm not sure it would be a beer, probably a glass of wine, but the conversation would be phenomenal.
Caesar was descended from a god, but in Rome, at that time, that kind of thing was expected from the great families. Caesar certainly took his divine ancestry to heart and set for himself the goal of being the first man in Rome. Not necessarily the only great man, but certainly the greatest among everyone else. He would be the person whom people would come to if they wanted patronage and positions.
Caesar had grown up endangered during the proscriptions of Sulla. There was a good chance that he would not survive childhood as a relative of Sulla's enemy Marius. It is noteworthy that when he had power, Caesar did not himself put up proscription lists. Perhaps he wanted to be Sulla without the killing.
After surviving Sulla, Caesar's life was the life of a trapeze artist, swinging from one position to another, staying barely ahead of falling to his death. Every step up the ladder of success required money, and Caesar was not one to stint on spending money to keep his name in the minds of Romans. He made enemies, but was fortunate up to the end. At one point, the Senate under Cicero was contemplating killing Caesar for his opposition to the execution of the confederates of Catiline, but because Cato spoke in support of Caesar, Caesar escaped that mortal danger.
Caesar's fortune was a result of preparation, skill, and vigilance. He was all-in for the game of Roman politics. He also turned out to be a brilliant general which put him at the head of an army that owed him exclusive personal allegiance. Caesar's army was better than Pompey's, or maybe, Pompey was getting on in years and did not have the vigor or agility he had in his younger days.
Plutarch could have taken the end of Caesar's life from Shakespeare....which is a joke since it was vice versa.
Caesar's life was a prodigy in a time of prodigies. He expanded the empire, survived a conspiratorial environment, and became the first man of Rome. He did not end the Roman Republic - that honor would go to his nephew, Octavian.
April 19, 2025
Much more entertaining than alexander, this guy was him
October 16, 2021
Not my favorite of the lives. He clearly hates his subject and does everything he can to make him look bad.
July 14, 2024
Perhaps Plutarch's best
February 11, 2026
Plutarch's biography is a bit of a puff piece on Julius Caesar. There's one part where he's talking about the Gallic wars and describing a surprise attack on three of Caesar's legions. This attack is so devastating it nearly annihilates the first two, but Caesar saves the day by single-handedly rushing into battle as his reserve legion follows his lead. It reads like something out of The Lord of the Rings and I'm not entirely convinced it happened. He also goes crazy with his numbers: 300,000 killed in every other battle, rivers choked with corpses, arms conveniently lopped off at the most opportune moments, that kind of thing. But Plutarch is a historian whose occasional embellishments are made up by his gift for telling a story. His account is swashbuckling and altogether very charming and even funny at points.
Plutarch describes Caesar as both relentless and conniving, but also unpretentious and merciful. In a way he's the ultimate politician: he can be brutal to his enemies, but he also knows how to lead, win support of the people, rewards the loyalty of his allies and sometimes even bring over his enemies. Plutarch says he respects those he defeated in battle, especially Romans, and always gives them a chance to join his ranks. He will only execute fellow Romans if they betray him after pledging allegiance. The Germans and Gauls can be worthy opponents too. He respects Vercingetorix but executes him because the people want blood.
Not so merciful to people he deems well beneath him: when he's a teenager he gets captured by pirates intending to sell him for ransom. This does not bother him one bit, and braggadociously tells his captors to more than double the price on his head. Why? Because when he's free, he'll find ships of his own, track them down and kill them all. They think he's joking, but he does exactly this. While he waits, he recites poetry to the crew and even joins them in some kind of unnamed sport, what I take to be the ancient equivalent of throwing a poetry slam and shooting hoops.
He also sells out his daughter to whomever he thinks is politically expedient, changing the suitor multiple times. This leads Cato to call him the "pimp" and "marriage-broker" of Rome. I doubt Cato meant anything feminist by this. Rather, it is this nepotistic wheeling and dealing which allows Cato to see where the late Republic is headed.
Caesar's ultimate flaw is that he is too trusting, and assumes the best in people. He thinks he can win the ultimate loyalty of his allies by letting them participate in his greatness, taking them on grand adventures around the Mediterranean and sharing with them the spoils of the places he conquers. He also comes too close to absolute dictatorship, which puts a lot of people on nerve. And he fails to appreciate just how risky this position is. Hence his utter surprise as his closest friends stab him to death. He never suspects it.
Plutarch describes Caesar as both relentless and conniving, but also unpretentious and merciful. In a way he's the ultimate politician: he can be brutal to his enemies, but he also knows how to lead, win support of the people, rewards the loyalty of his allies and sometimes even bring over his enemies. Plutarch says he respects those he defeated in battle, especially Romans, and always gives them a chance to join his ranks. He will only execute fellow Romans if they betray him after pledging allegiance. The Germans and Gauls can be worthy opponents too. He respects Vercingetorix but executes him because the people want blood.
Not so merciful to people he deems well beneath him: when he's a teenager he gets captured by pirates intending to sell him for ransom. This does not bother him one bit, and braggadociously tells his captors to more than double the price on his head. Why? Because when he's free, he'll find ships of his own, track them down and kill them all. They think he's joking, but he does exactly this. While he waits, he recites poetry to the crew and even joins them in some kind of unnamed sport, what I take to be the ancient equivalent of throwing a poetry slam and shooting hoops.
He also sells out his daughter to whomever he thinks is politically expedient, changing the suitor multiple times. This leads Cato to call him the "pimp" and "marriage-broker" of Rome. I doubt Cato meant anything feminist by this. Rather, it is this nepotistic wheeling and dealing which allows Cato to see where the late Republic is headed.
Caesar's ultimate flaw is that he is too trusting, and assumes the best in people. He thinks he can win the ultimate loyalty of his allies by letting them participate in his greatness, taking them on grand adventures around the Mediterranean and sharing with them the spoils of the places he conquers. He also comes too close to absolute dictatorship, which puts a lot of people on nerve. And he fails to appreciate just how risky this position is. Hence his utter surprise as his closest friends stab him to death. He never suspects it.
December 5, 2021
“What led him to take on the whole world… was an insatiable lust for rule and an insane desire to be first in power and importance—for which the downfall of Pompey was a prerequisite.” Life of Antony
January 14, 2018
"as if the present were all spent." "...how he might out do his past actions by his future."
May 17, 2018
Unlike previous lives, Plutarch was appropriately specific here and his writing slightly felt more energetic. I appreciate his unbiased writing of each persons.
September 7, 2021
the modernity of this book is amazing
September 13, 2022
very short and condensed story
April 18, 2024
mister man was insecure about his height AND IT SHOWED
October 5, 2024
This was a very interesting, very fun read. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I'm curious to read more of the other lives.
April 16, 2025
Caesar had to be huzz to have that many wife's
February 8, 2026
Libro resumen de la vida de César, bastante plano, sin adornos literarios. Muy descriptivo. Fácil de leer.
July 21, 2019
Compared to many other chapters of Plutarch’s lives (which is available for free in complete digital form), this is surprisingly light, and doesn’t really cover much beyond the core struggle between Caesar’s ambition and patriotism. Still mandatory reading for any fan of JC.
January 28, 2026
Read for Lily’s Y6T2 Plutarch selection. I only knew a cursory amount about Caesar, and I don’t know how much Plutarch’s account helped, other than confusing me a bit more—but maybe that’s the point. He wasn’t an only good guy or only bad guy—he had many strengths and victories and people obviously were won over by him, but he had a lot of things I’d consider character flaws and possessed both brutal and deceitful tendencies whenever either would well serve him. At the end I still wasn’t quite sure what to make of him, and failed to see what made him such a huge figure in history, so I grabbed our Caesar Landmark book and it has helped me so much. I’ve reviewed it already.
July 17, 2019
Good background for reading Shakespeare's Julius...
December 27, 2019
La traduction n'est pas très bonne.
September 27, 2025
Si te gustan los clásicos es parada obligatoria. El libro es una extracción de las vidas paralelas. Ágil y fácil de leer.
Read
September 26, 2017Read for school, quite interesting to understand the history of Julius Caesar.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews