Plutarch Roman Lives: The Grachii Brothers - Essay Example

Irrespective of being unpopular with the Roman elites, when Tiberius mounted the podium to vent his ideas and sentiments on the issue of poverty, he tended to be so overpowering that scarcely anybody dared to take a stand against him.4 In contrast, though being slightly different in his approach towards public speaking, Gaius was no less a paragon of famous Roman eloquence. Once, when he rose up to defend one of his friends called Vettius in a court, the response of the masses verged on the limits of ecstasy and extremes of euphoric elation, thereby making his not less talented opponents look immature children.

5 In a political context, Plutarch tends to extol the virtues of two brothers to the extent that they come out as paragons of political goodness, public interest and welfare, a more pragmatic analysis of their political actions and tactical foibles leads to the conclusion that in the long run they would not have come out as effective leaders. In case of Gaius, he mostly ended up as being instrument of popular dissent and frustration, without evincing the ability to shape and form the public opinion.

6 His political ambition relied for sustenance on flimsy props like graffiti messages left by people at public places, the populist advice of his supporters and the predominantly emotional appeals of his friends.7 Even Tiberius, as a political leader was vulnerable to emotional sways, unlawful machinations, populism and vendetta.8 Besides he did not hesitate to milk emotional mileage from the fate of his brother by time and again using it to foment the popular resentment.9 It would not me wrong to acknowledge the existence of a possibility that at one level the two brothers intended to use the proposed reforms to.

In a political context, Plutarch tends to extol the virtues of two brothers to the extent that they come out as paragons of political goodness, public interest and welfare, a more pragmatic analysis of their political actions and tactical foibles leads to the conclusion that in the long run they would not have come out as effective leaders. In case of Gaius, he mostly ended up as being instrument of popular dissent and frustration, without evincing the ability to shape and form the public opinion.

His political ambition relied for sustenance on flimsy props like graffiti messages left by people at public places, the populist advice of his supporters and the predominantly emotional appeals of his friends. Even Tiberius, as a political leader was vulnerable to emotional sways, unlawful machinations, populism and vendetta. Besides he did not hesitate to milk emotional mileage from the fate of his brother by time and again using it to foment the popular resentment. It would not me wrong to acknowledge the existence of a possibility that at one level the two brothers intended to use the proposed reforms to overturn the existing political system.

Although professedly in the service of the people, the Grachii brothers do sometimes twisted the laws to suit their purpose.