Character comparison is a wonderful way to think about people, ideas, and even ourselves by looking at them side-by-side with others. Think of it as holding up two different things and seeing what makes each one special, where they overlap, and how their differences shine a light on what they truly are. The sources give us some terrific examples of how this kind of comparison works in literature, philosophy, and even psychology. One of the most famous examples of character comparison comes from the ancient biographer Plutarch. He wrote a series of works called the _Parallel Lives_, and the very name tells you what he was up to! Plutarch paired up famous Greek and Roman figures – generals, statesmen, orators – and wrote their biographies side-by-side. His main goal wasn't just to recount history, but to explore moral questions and reveal the character of these significant individuals. He believed that character, meaning virtue or vice, could often be best understood through small things like a saying or a joke, rather than just huge battles or troop movements. Plutarch's method was fundamentally comparative. He used one life story as a sort of background or "foil" to bring out what was particularly good or bad, or even just different, about the other. This technique wasn't entirely new; it was known in literary criticism and even seen in earlier works comparing figures like Greek heroes or Roman and foreign leaders. But Plutarch really took it further, developing a complex approach where the focus of one Life could actually influence the selection of material for its pair. Structural strategies could also shape the pair as a whole, not just the individual biography. It's important to know that Plutarch wasn't just setting up hostile contests between cultures. Instead, he used this dual structure to examine moral questions from different angles, inviting his readers to think about the issues and form their _own_ judgments. While the comparisons often had a competitive element, he frequently avoided expressing a clear preference for one hero over the other. He might balance accounts, first establishing the greatness of one figure and then arguing for the other, or outlining strengths and weaknesses before concluding they both had "good and god-like natures". In this way, he transcended the simple Greek versus Roman idea, aiming for a universal ethico-political perspective. The core idea in the _Parallel Lives_ was that the reader was meant to compare themselves to these historical figures. Were there virtues or actions to imitate? Vices or weaknesses to avoid?. The paired Lives often brought out similar or related character-traits, as well as parallels in their actions or circumstances. Sometimes, the prologues to the pairs would even explicitly state the main moral points to focus on. Within these pairs, Plutarch encouraged readers to rank the subjects across various aspects like military success or corruptibility, but usually, neither man was deemed definitively superior. The reader was invited to "consider" or "judge for yourself". This means the reader wasn't just passively receiving information but was an active participant in the process of moral and political judgment. Beyond the explicit comparisons at the end of pairs (called _synkrisis_), Plutarch also encouraged broader comparisons. You weren't just supposed to compare the two men in a pair, but also contrast them with other significant historical figures, and even with philosophical ideals like Socrates. For instance, in the Lives of Aristides and Cato Maior, you're encouraged to compare them to each other, to figures like Themistocles and Scipio, _and_ to Socrates. The Socratic paradigm itself served as a kind of "metahistorical synkrisis" that brought out issues of morality and character in a more subtle way. Comparing characters revealed "subtle permutations of cardinal virtues". Plutarch used various techniques to highlight these comparisons and contrasts. The very structure of pairing lives was the most powerful technique. He chose subjects whose life histories offered didactic value, meaning they were good teachers through their examples. Their relative brevity and the comparative structure emphasized the representation of character. Comparing similar and different qualities (_homoiotētes_ and _diaphorai_) made virtuous traits more nuanced. Themes that appeared in a Greek Life would often be further explored in the corresponding Roman Life. Plutarch was interested in showing differences in character and psychological makeup, often subtly. Switching gears slightly, let's look at how comparison plays out in the world of Shakespeare, as discussed in the sources. Shakespeare also masterfully employs comparison and contrast to explore character, identity, and societal issues. In _The Merchant of Venice_, the play sets up what seem like clear opposites – Christian/Jew, Venice/Belmont, male/female – but then, as the play unfolds, these opposites start to appear oddly similar to each other. Shakespeare uses these apparent differences to make us question the very idea of difference itself. How are others and their "otherness" related to our own sense of "self"?. The play tests its Christian characters and highlights how Shylock's issues stem from his interpretation of values, not just his religion. Even the distinction between Venice and Belmont, built on wealth, becomes blurred. And the male/female distinction is playfully undercut by the women disguising themselves as men. The startling question in the courtroom, "Which is the merchant here, and which the Jew?", forces the audience to see the similarities between Antonio and Shylock, noting that they are not entirely opposites. They are both merchants, both moneylenders, both lonely, and both excluded at the end. In plays like _Henry IV Part 1_, Shakespeare uses comparison and contrast between characters like the King, Falstaff, Hotspur, and Prince Hal to work through ideas of rule, rebellion, idealism, and pragmatism. These characters are shown to be both similar in some ways and opposite in others. For instance, the King and Falstaff are both rebels/subversives, but the King represents rule while Falstaff represents misrule. Hotspur and Falstaff are both anarchic, but Hotspur is an idealist while Falstaff is a cynical realist. The comparison even extends to names and perceived traits, as when Cassius argues to Brutus that their names have the same weight and can conjure spirits just as well as Caesar's. This subtle linguistic comparison links Brutus and Caesar, twinned in name just as the play often equates or compares them. Even in _Much Ado About Nothing_, the contrast between the witty, resistant lovers Beatrice and Benedick and the more conventional Hero and Claudio is central, though other romantic comedies might feature pairs that are more alike. Comparing these pairs highlights different approaches to love and relationships. Character comparison isn't just for literature and biography; it's also a tool used in philosophy and psychology. In Plato's dialogues, the characters aren't just mouthpieces for ideas; they are carefully constructed individuals whose personalities, backgrounds, and relationships add depth and meaning to the philosophical discussions. Plato uses historical or fictional characters as "types" representing different lives, occupations, beliefs, or intellectual capacities. Comparing Socrates with his interlocutors, or contrasting different interlocutors with each other (and with historical figures outside the dialogue), is crucial to understanding the dialogue's deeper meaning. For example, comparing Socrates with Protagoras is key because Protagoras claims to teach virtue, something Socrates questions. Comparing Charmides and Critias in the discussion of temperance adds layers of meaning because of their later historical roles. Plato even uses structural inversions, where the literary and dramatic features can counterbalance or invert the logical arguments on the surface, inviting comparison between surface appearance and deeper reality. The very act of comparison and contrast brings up fundamental philosophical ideas about difference and identity. As discussed in the context of dialogism, when two people regard each other, they make sense of the other person by placing them into categories of "self" or "other". This initial difference then allows for secondary differences based on specific, socially and historically defined values. This process of seeing the "other" in terms of difference is a fundamental aspect of cognition mediated through language. Dialogue itself involves relating different points of view. In Bakhtin's view, the novel, particularly in the work of Dostoevsky, achieves "polyphony" by allowing characters to have the status of an "I" standing against the author's perspective, a complex form of relating different subjectivities. This is different from lesser authors who treat characters merely as "others" or even as "things". For Bakhtin, progress in consciousness isn't about unity but multiplicity and variety, seen in the constant contest between monologue and dialogue. Concepts of difference are also central in psychoanalytic and metaphysical traditions. Hegel's Master/Slave Dialectic, for instance, assumes difference as the foundation of identity; self-consciousness needs the recognition of an 'other' who is different. This can involve relations of domination and subordination. Jung and Irigaray also focus on difference, particularly paired contraries like male/female, in relation to identity formation and symbolic systems. Psychoanalytic traditions, like Freud's, have discussed sexual difference in terms of anatomical differences, while metaphysical traditions grapple with how to account for difference within an overarching idea of the "Same" or unity. Even discussions of virtues and values involve comparison. David Hume notes that qualities like good sense, courage, temperance, and industry form personal merit. While the sentiment of approval for these might differ slightly from that for social virtues like justice and humanity, this isn't reason to put them in entirely different classes. He compares the characters of Caesar and Cato as drawn by Sallust; both are virtuous, but in different ways, eliciting different sentiments – love for Caesar, esteem for Cato. One is amiable, the other awful. Rawls discusses envy, which arises from comparing oneself to others who are better off due to inequalities. The least advantaged may experience general envy, wanting similar advantages, contrasting with particular envy seen in rivalry over specific objects like office or affections. The question becomes whether principles of justice might create too much destructive general envy. The sources also touch on comparing different ways of communicating or interacting. One source contrasts discourse (one-way information delivery) with diatribe (competitive, emotional expression) and dialogue (two or more parties seeking common ground). Even within seemingly similar activities like gossip, distinctions are made through comparison – "Nowadays" gossip is different from idle gossip by having a slogan and closure, while "Broken Skin" gossip adds rivalry and technical sophistication. Rhetorical strategies can also be used in dialogues to test and problematize ideas by presenting different perspectives, as seen in Plutarch's discussions about animals. Character comparison, then, is a rich and versatile tool used across disciplines to understand individuals, explore complex themes, question apparent differences, and invite readers or listeners to engage actively in judgment and reflection. It highlights the "similarity-in-irreducible-difference" that underlies interpersonal encounters. Now, isn't that a lot to chew on? Thinking about how characters are compared really opens up how we understand not just the works themselves, but perhaps even how we understand each other and ourselves! Here are a few thoughts and questions to explore further: - How does the _purpose_ of character comparison differ across different forms, say, between Plutarch's moral biographies, Shakespeare's plays exploring societal tensions, and Plato's philosophical dialogues? - The sources mention various types of differences highlighted by comparison: moral, psychological, social/historical, ontological (self/other), sexual, behavioral patterns, virtues, and even stylistic. Can you think of other kinds of differences that comparison brings out in the examples discussed? - Plutarch invites the reader to judge. How does Shakespeare do this? Are there moments where we are explicitly asked, or implicitly prompted, to compare characters and form our own verdicts? - The idea of difference being fundamental to identity comes up. How does comparing characters help us understand this philosophical concept in a more concrete way? - Can we compare the _methods_ of comparison used by different authors? Plutarch pairs whole lives. Shakespeare might use paired characters within one play or even just a brief mention or scene to create a comparison. Plato uses characters as types within a single dialogue.