-
Plutarch's Lives
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/Plutarch200.jpg)
Plutarch at the Museum of Delphi, Greece.
The readers have spoken and our next read October 1 will be: Plutarch (c.46 A.D.- c. 120 A.D.) in his famous "Lives" or Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans; also called Parallel Lives.
Schedule:
Oct. 1-?: Pompey
Oct. ?: Anthony
Oct. ?: Alcibiades, Coriolanus and comparison
?: Demosthenes, Cicero and comparison
Oct. 29-31: Windup
Questions for Week I: Pompey:
1. Someone once saidthat everyone wants either money, fame, or power. Which of these was most important to Pompey? What avenues were open to Romans to acheive these goals? Does this differe from modern society?
2. If Plutarch wrote these lives as moral lessons for the young, what do you feel is his moral assessment of Pompey? What is yours?
3. In a period where there was almost no threat to the Roman Empire from the outside, there was almost constant war. Other than reasons already given , what do you think are the reasons for this? Are there any parallels in modern times?
4. How is the US government based on the Roman Republic. What does Pompey's life tell us about how that Republic worked in practice? How is that different from the way ours works (or is it)? Could our Republic be ended at one stroke as the Roman's was?
5. What does Pompey's life tell us about the role of women in Patrician Roman society?
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/classicsbookclub/plutarch/DelphiValley_500.jpg)
Ruins of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, where Plutarch was a priest
Discussion Leaders: JoanK (joankraft13@yahoo.com) and PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net)
Clough Translation-Roshanarose's Link (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives/index.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clough translation online (http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/index-Plutarch.html)
-
Welcome, everyone, to our October Book Club. Plutarch really deserved his winning vote, and now we're about to find out why. The book is easy to get; There are free versions on Kindle, and online, including Project Gutenberg. I'm using a library book, and somehow I feel I'll be able to renew it several times without running into a waiting list. It's good to check the translation for readability. That turned out to be crucial in our Odyssey discussion. We picked 4 short sections from this massive work, and will take one a week.
Come in and say hi, let us know you're with us, and we can continue our chat from the other site.
I'm really looking forward to this!
-
X Okay, I'm here.
-
This is GREAT! Off on a new adventure. And we didn't even have to choose between Greece and Rome -- we get both! This will be a great learning experience, especially for people like me who thought Pompey was a city near a volcano.
A note for KINDLE users. There are a lot of free copies of Plutarch on the Kindle, some translated by Clough (the translation some of us seem to have and like). After experimenting with a few of the Kindle versions, the only one I found with an electronic table of contents cost 95 cents. I thought the ease of finding our selections was worth a dollar. You can recognize it because the title says in parens "(improved 8/11/2010)".
-
Hello,
I'm here !
Amicah
-
I have the Kindle version suggested. Thanks
Amicah
-
WELCOME AMICAH!! We're delighted to see you. Do tell us a little about yourself.
-
Looking forward to the discussions of "Plutarch's Lives". Will go to kindle along with Great Books copy.
-
Marking my spot. JOanK, thanks for the "improved" information. I finally did find Pompey and bookmarked him in my Kindle text, but no doubt the $.95 version will save a lot of anguish.
Welcome Amicah, and jdorum it's nice to see another Latin student here.
-
Yay!! Thank you, Pat and Joan. I'm really looking forward to this.
-
I see we have an intruder, a spammer!
-
He's gone now. He had 3 posts altogether. A while back a spammer posted some ads for really skimpy, short dresses. Wonder if he realized how much he was wasting his time?
-
I have actually been with you through the Odyssey . Loved every minute . I don't post often because I'm still getting familiar with my laptop. [heaven knows how long that will take . :) ] I'm fromNJ ,a retired nurse and teacher. I voted for Suetonius , but am quite happy with Plutarch and have begun some research already . Having four years of Latin in high school left me with a love of the classics . This book club is WONDERFUL !!
AMICAH
-
" This book club is WONDERFUL !!" I'll echo that!
WELCOME JDORUM!
-
I'm happy to be reading Plutarch after all these years! I've borrowed the Modern Library Giant edition from my daughter's library since mine didn't have it. I'm sure that I can renew it twice if I need to. It would be more comfortable in 2 volumes rather than in this behemoth! I see that Amazon has it in a 2v. paperback edition. Bet there are some used copies out there on ABEbooks!
I'm glad I found D.A.Russell's book on Plutarch himself. I think it helps to know a bit about the man as one reads his work. He seems to have come from a well-to-do, educated and influential family. "They were the sort of people who would have been sent on embassies to proconsuls. Young Plutarch himself went on one...his colleague got left behind and he had to transact the business himself. "Always report in the plural" advised his father on his return; say "we" not "I"." That rather sounds like "spread the blame" if there were any!!!
-
JOANR: GREAT! You can be our resource for that.
-
So delighted to meet you, AMICAH. You're going to find that laptop opens all kinds of
adventures for you. And yes, this is a great book club thanks to a lot of great people.
I am happy to have Michael Grant's book for reference as well. This bit of background is from
him.
Plutarch is a 2nd century A.D. Greek biographer and philosopher. He was
a prolific writer, but most important historically his biographies are his biographies.
Twenty-three pairs of his juxtaposed 'lives' have survived. Plutarch, in explaining the
value of biography, wrote that "we ought to seek out virtue not merely to contemplate it,
but to derive benefit from doing so." "...in the same way we ought to apply our intellectual
vision to those models which can inspire it to attain its own proper virtue..."
-
I'm happy to join this discussion! Hope it is as wonderful as the one on the Odyssey.
Iknow we finished that book but I recently heard the following about the Bards of Greece (and possibly other Bards as well).
Because the Bards traveled from place to place , always telling the same myths, they were instrumental in forming a national identity. Without newspapers, books, radio or TV the Bards brought the same history, geography and ideas to a populace hungry for entertainment and willing to believe every word they heard.
Now a question-My library couldn't find a full copy of Plutarchs Lives in their system (San Jose CA population close to a million)they are appealing to the University to loan me a copy. No promise when or if it will arrive. I downloaded the first chapter on Pompey from the suggested site. Will that cover all the material that is in the book for the first week?
It was a wonder and a delight to meet Joan K in person. Wish we lived closer.
-
JUDE: I echo that sentiment!
-
Hi,
I know you've all moved on to Plutarch, so this is probably not of interest to any one, but,..... maybe to someone......I have been reading the Orestia because it seemed to me to follow from the Odyssey. Today I was looking for more interpretative stuff and very easily I found this terrific BBC program at the bottom of the Wikipedia site on the Orestia. It is a really interesting program, 45 mins, and well worth listening to.......
-
Dana, don't give up, we might pick the Oresteia next. My first contact with it was about half a century ago, when I saw it acted by a local company. I didn't know anything about it, but it really blew me away, it was so powerful. I'd love to discuss it.
-
Actually Pat I was trying to find a version I could look at, but no luck, there have been some of course but apparently not available on the internet that I could find....
You might be interested in that BBC program...it does a pretty good job of explainiing why it's so powerful. I find it almost tough to read, its just so intense. But definitely.... a must read, on my bucket list....it joins us together in common humanity, 500BC to 2000AD, we haven't changed a bit...
-
DANA: I listened to the BBC program, and was fascinated!They gave a summary of the plot, and talked about the issues that it raises: femanism, patriarchy, and whether revenge is the province of the family or the state.
In "the Story of Civilization", we hear that all societies go through stages: first there are blood fueds, but these are endless (as here A kills B, B's family kills A, A's family kills and on and on forever. Finally, the role of vengence is taken over by the state: A kills B, B is tried and punished by the state and that's the end of it.
The Oresteia is portrayed as giving this argument: does vengence belong to the family or the state. And the play in in the context of the politics of the time. From the hindsight of history, we can see that only when the transition is made to the state, can we have a well-ordered peaceful society. But they couldn't see that then.
Maybe we'll choose that next time.
-
Dana, here is one you can look at online. http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/aeschylus/oresteiatofc.htm Not real pretty but it is readable.
Google has an ebook, but it costs. I was interested to see that Robert Fagles translated this one. http://books.google.com/books?id=YWJDsp1YhqsC The cover on this one reminds me of those mindreading creatures in The Chronicles of Riddick.
-
HERE!
-
PATH and JOANK - I have not been in a Latin class, but am always interested in learning. I don't know a thing about Plutarch so I looked a book up in my library. Here is a summary which I found helpful to understand a little about the man:
"PLUTARCH. c.46--c.125 Considered by many to be the most important Greek writer of the early Roman period, Plutarch was a member of a well-to-do Greek family, a chief magistrate, a priest at Delphi, and an exceptionally well-read individual. His philosophical views were based on those of Plato and, although a Greek, he esteemed the achievements and attributes of the Romans. By the time Plutarch's works were published for the first time in the eleventh century, some had already been lost. He wrote innumerable essays on philosophical, historical, political, religious, and literary subjects, 78 of which survive today and are known collectively as the "Moralia." He is known primarily, however, for his Parallel Lives of Greeks and Romans, which consists of 50 biographies---23 of prominent Greeks, 23 of Roman leaders, and 4 separate lives---accompanied at intervals by short comparative essays. Although historical information is included in the work, Plutarch wrote it originally to inspire emulation in youth, so the emphasis is on character, moral choice, and anecdote. Sir Thomas North's 1579 translation into English of Parallel Lives became an important source for William Shakespeare which he used for three plays, Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, and Coriolanus. (Bowker Author Biography)"
-
Checking in from Ginny's Latin 102 class. I had actually started reading the Odyssey with this group, but fell by the wayside when life got in the way and I ended up doing a lot of traveling. Hope to do better this time!
-
Hey Frybabe, thanks. I have actually got Fagles translation which is great but I had a sudden longing to see if I could find a production of the play, but no luck....
So glad you enjoyed the talk, JoanK...
-
Eureka! When Plutarch was chosen, I searched to see if I owned a copy, with no luck. But tonight I did a thorough search of Bob's history bookcase, and I found it. It's the Modern Library, Dryden/Clough edition, same as Ginny's and my library copy, in great condition. It's probably over 50 years old.
While I was at it, I made a thorough look through the bookcase, which is a big deal, since it's 4 feet wide and 7 feet tall, and many of the shelves are doubled, a row of paperbacks behind the hardbacks. Fifty years of being a history buff (Bob, not me) takes it's toll. I found all sorts of goodies I hadn't thought about for years.
-
Kidsal, Ella, and Roxania, Welcome, welcome. It's good to see you here.
-
Present, Miss!
-
Hooray! Good to see you, roshanarose.
-
I've been making no assumptions about who will actually be in this discussion until I see them here.
-
I'm here too - but only just. Will download the text from the heading - at the moment I'm just too busy busy busy to even look for a copy. Out of those chosen for discussion my edition of Plutarch's Lives only has Alcibiades.
Looking forward to the discussion.
-
Sounds like a windfall to me, PAT. Can you tell us about the 'goodies'?
-
Great to see you, GUM, even part of you. Don't worry, ROXANIA, that's the great thing about this site. If you don't make one discussion, there's always another one.
-
hi there
will be following the discussion with the online version at this point
going to try and get some background info as knew more about Homer and his Odyssey than this guy
is it my imagination or is Plutarch a bit 'dry' reading...everyone sounds so excited, but in
leafing thru the online felt a bit hard going...
is there a source that is easier reading for this non-classic background person
Deb
-
Hi Deb - You make a very good point. Reading about people whom you have never heard of may seem rather dry and dull at first glance. However, many of us may have thought the same about "The Odyssey". It is just like in real life, the best part is getting to know someone. :)
The only advice I can give to you is choose a least one of the bios that interests you and look outside the square, as they say. You may ask how? The answer is at your own fingertips and receptive mind - they call it a search engine.
-
Welcome, Deb! It's good to have you here. My weighty hardback is the same as the online version, and at first I found the language a bit daunting, but as I got into it I got caught up in it, and could ignore the language.
Does anyone have a different version they can comment on?
-
PATH, I don't know a thing about ancient history; perhaps it's time I put a toe in the water? I've always loved modern history, but this is all new territory. I'll follow along and if I think of anything at all that might be of interest to others, I'll post.
-
Plutarch's Lives
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/Plutarch200.jpg)
Plutarch at the Museum of Delphi, Greece.
The readers have spoken and our next read October 1 will be: Plutarch (c.46 A.D.- c. 120 A.D.) in his famous "Lives" or Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans; also called Parallel Lives.
Schedule:
Oct. 1-?: Pompey
Oct. ?: Anthony
Oct. ?: Alcibiades, Coriolanus and comparison
Oct. ?: Demosthenes, Cicero and comparison
?: Windup
Questions for Week I: Pompey:
1. Someone once saidthat everyone wants either money, fame, or power. Which of these was most important to Pompey? What avenues were open to Romans to acheive these goals? Does this differe from modern society?
2. If Plutarch wrote these lives as moral lessons for the young, what do you feel is his moral assessment of Pompey? What is yours?
3. In a period where there was almost no threat to the Roman Empire from the outside, there was almost constant war. Other than reasons already given , what do you think are the reasons for this? Are there any parallels in modern times?
4. How is the US government based on the Roman Republic. What does Pompey's life tell us about how that Republic worked in practice? How is that different from the way ours works (or is it)? Could our Republic be ended at one stroke as the Roman's was?
5. What does Pompey's life tell us about the role of women in Patrician Roman society?
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/classicsbookclub/plutarch/DelphiValley_500.jpg)
Ruins of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, where Plutarch was a priest
Discussion Leaders: JoanK (joankraft13@yahoo.com) and PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net)
Clough Translation-Roshanarose's Link (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives/index.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
its kind of ironic...I first became interested with seniorlearn when the book group with Will Durant's 'Civilization' series began, read book 1 with them then and somehow lost sight and interest in the group with book 2 and 3 and 4, of which one of them is about ancient Greece history...and now that seems where the classics are
as for the civilization group eagerly awaiting for the 1500's to begin
Deb
-
Its funny: I think we're all a bit scared: this is "THE CLASSICS" after all. Then we start reading, and find they're just people like us with all our warts and pimples: maybe even a few more.
-
I would appreciate it, JOAN, if you left warts, moles, etc., entirely out of the discussion. :(
;)
-
:D
-
I'm here, following a link provided by Ginny. I'm in the Latin 101a class. Thanks for the Kindle edition tip; an active TOC is always a big help!
-
Welcome, Perranza! It's good to meet a new friend. Another good thing about the Kindle: the hardback is very heavy. I hope you'll have fun here. And there's no exam. ;)
-
PatH,
Is there a way to mark this discussion so that it will open with the new posts since my last visit? I did get that function turned on for the Latin course but have forgotten how it is done.
-
Here is an interesting look at the classics and the general publics view of Plutarch's Lives.
When I ordered the books at the Library only Volumes 1 and 2 were in the system. I finally received the yellowing books and noticed that the last tme Book 1 was taken out was Oct. 2001. The last time book 2 was taken out was Feb. 1999 !
Book 3 was available on Amazon but it cost as much as Book 1 and 2 combined.
As I mentioned before I live in a city of close to a million souls.
Trying to give these fact a positive spin I must force myself to believe that the readers of Plutarch all buy their books.Or now read it on Kindle for 99 cents.
However I too must share the blame. If it wasn't for this group I would never have approached Plutarch.
So, if Plutarch is watching us from Mount Olympus, he is overjoyed that he has been rediscovered.(Did the Romans have a Mt. Olympus?)
-
Welcome, Perranza. I think I can help you with your question. At the top of the page is
a line, in blue, that reads Show new replies in discussions in which you have posted.
If you click on this line, it will take you to the first of the new posts.
-
Jude, my library system has 27 copies of the paperbacks volumes 1 and 2, of which one copy of volume 2 is checked out. (What's in volume 3 , that no one has it?) It has 3 hardbacks, one checked out by me. Yes, I should return it now that I've found my copy, but somehow I don't think there's any hurry. We don't stamp due dates, so I don't know when it was last out.
-
Babi, Thanks for the suggestion. I've clicked on that link and will see how it works tomorrow, when there will be new posts.
-
Here is a summary which I found helpful to understand a little about the man:
"PLUTARCH. c.46--c.125 Considered by many to be the most important Greek writer of the early Roman period, Plutarch was a member of a well-to-do Greek family, a chief magistrate, a priest at Delphi, and an exceptionally well-read individual.
The temple of Apollo at Delphi was extremely important. Here's a link to what's left now.
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/greece/delphi-sanctuary-of-apollo (http://www.sacred-destinations.com/greece/delphi-sanctuary-of-apollo)
As nearly as I can figure out, the ruins we see now are what's left of the same place Plutarch officiated in, which dates from the 4th century BC.
-
PERRANZA: if that suggestion doesn't work, try coming into the discussion with this link:
http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php?board=106.0 (http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php?board=106.0)
If i'm right (I hope) it will give you a link to the discussion where you can press "new".
-
Welcome, everyone, to our October Book Club. Plutarch really deserved his winning vote, and now we're about to find out why. The book is easy to get; There are free versions on Kindle, and online, including Project Gutenberg. I'm using a library book, and somehow I feel I'll be able to renew it several times without running into a waiting list. It's good to check the translation for readability. That turned out to be crucial in our Odyssey discussion. We picked 4 short sections from this massive work, and will take one a week.
Come in and say hi, let us know you're with us, and we can continue our chat from the other site.
I'm really looking forward to this!
Hello, I am JoeF from northern CA, and i just learned about this course from the Latin 101 discussion. I just d/loaded Plutarch's Lives, vols 1,2,3 via Kindle. I am looking forward to learn about this notable man. Thanks for offering it.
-
Welcome, Perranza. I think I can help you with your question. At the top of the page is
a line, in blue, that reads Show new replies in discussions in which you have posted.
If you click on this line, it will take you to the first of the new posts.
Dear Babi and Perranza both,
my internet expl 8 shows this discussion listing, but i do not see the blue line to which you refer. i also want to tie together my discussions/postings. to which page am i to go?
-
Took me some time to find the show new replies discussions line -- is located just below date line and above the time logged in line.
WELCOME JoeF and Perranza!
-
Am so looking forward to Plutarch. I have the Dryden/Clough translation of Volume 11; am thinking of getting Volume I from Amazon.
-
How exciting to see so many new Latin students joining our Classical Book discussion. Welcome, all!
-
Beautiful photographs in the link,PAT. I can see why a place like that could come to be
a center for worship.
JOEF, I'm not sure how the expl.8 may differ from mine; I would have thought the page
make-up would be the same. The line to which I referred is at the very top. I'm also
not sure what you mean by 'tie together' your discussions/postings. (I am definitely not
one of the best informed on computers; I only know the easy stuff. :( ) If you go to
the Discussion Index you will find a site offering help with technical questions. Good
luck.
-
The Show New Replies for any discussion is at the VERY top left hand corner of every page here on SeniorLearn:
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/ssshownewreplies2011.jpg)
If you click on that it will show you all the discussions in which you have posted which have new posts.
Welcome Perranza, and Joe F, and hepeskin! As well as everyone who previously posted. I know you will enjoy Plutarch.
I wish now we had done Otho, I just read a fascinating account of the Year of 4 Emperors, of whom he was one in 79 A.D.
This is not a course but it does look wonderful! And isn't it nice to see so many people with an interest in the classics!
-
Deb : I sometimes wonder if you can fall in love with another civilization/culture when you are besotted and passionate about another. Is it too late for me, or is it just my nature? My love of Greece started early, when I was about ten, and read Gustav Schwab's "Gods and Heroes". It blew me away. When I finally got to see Greece in 1982 I knew I had returned to my true home. The home of my soul and my heart, at least. Η Ψυκή και η καρδιά μου.
I honestly think that you need to drown yourself (metaphorically speaking) in knowing all about your passion. That includes modern and ancient history. Modern Greece has an interesting and varied history. They are still consumed by politics.
PatH - Thanks so much for that link about Delphi. I have visited there twice, and awe-inspiring is the correct adjective for Delphi. Unfortunately, the lower part of Delphi, ie down the hill from the Temple of Apollo, had recently experienced some seismic activity and was deemed unsafe to visit. There is the Sanctuary of Athena, a beautiful building of Tholos style. Also not too far from there are the sacred Castalian Springs.
The Oracle who was called Pythia, was said to perch on a tripod over the gases that emanated from the rock below. She, the Pythia, made some interesting, although always cryptic prophecies. I must see if I can find a source of those prophesies online.
-
WELCOME, WELCOME JOEF and HEPESKIN!! Great to see so many new people here.
While you're here,, if you want, browse our other discussions to see if anything interests you. Anything you read, we discuss: from mysteries to poetry to history to literary games.
To see the list, click on "Seniorlearn Discussions" at the top of the page.
Or click on the arrow after "jump to" and the name of this discussion at the bottom of the page. Highlight the discussion you're interested in, it will appear in the "jump to" box. Then hit "go".
-
Hello, JoeF and hepeskin, and welcome. It's good to see you here.
Ginny says "This is not a course". Very true. Probably some of you know more about Plutarch, or the people whose lives we are going to read, than I do. But what we do here is to dig into the subject together, share what we find, and, most important, share what we think and feel about what we have found out. In the process we all learn so much.
I'm honored to be on board with my fellow voyagers.
-
my own little system for keeping track
hi there
just thought I'd give an example of my own little system for keeping track of places in the book club
I am using 'google chrome' and when done with a reading I use the favourites bar for keeping track of where I left off, so my favourite bar now looks something like
seniorlearn.org-story of civilization-pg 37 r1451
-the classics-odessey-
-plutarch-pg 2 r42
1.. oct 1 pompey
2..oct 8 artaxeras
3a..oct 15 alcibiades
3b..oct 15 coriolanus
4a..oct 22 demosthenes
4b..oct 22 cicero
-the library-pg 1557
-tecknophobe pg 7 279
and wherever I finish off reading a section rebookmark the page with the current reply I just finished reading
I am a 'virgo' and love to create order out of chaos...probaby making more work than needs be...but love to create 'systems' for myself as well
Deb
-
Your system is lovely! Care to come to my place and organize my books?
-
Deb, which sign has a knack for turning order into chaos? I bet it's mine.
-
I'll be happy to join. Plutarch will be very exciting.
-
WELCOME, PALMTREE!
-
CONGRATULATIONS
PatH
ON
YOUR NEW
GRANDDAUGHTER!
-
PatH - A beautiful baby granddaughter has come into your life. How wonderful. What are the parents going to call her?
Welcome Newbies - Great to have you "on board" :)
btw - Ginny and/or Latin Learners who may visit this page. Please tell me what is the best Latin dictionary to buy for a beginner, ie me :)
I am going to post the "to be" endings up on the wall so I may learn them quickly. Well, that's the plan anyway. I don't want to seem antisocial not joining your group, Ginny, but this class provides a social outing for me and costs very little.
also - If anyone spotted it, I spelled one of those Greek words incorrectly. It should be Η ψυχή. It means "soul" and "mind" and is where we get all our psych- words from.
-
Roshanarose: Ginny recommends the hardback Cassell's Latin Dictionary - I got mine in Borders (when we had a Borders) $46.99 which incidentally is more than Ginny's class costs. The class is more fun for your money :D
-
I didn't realize that was one of the 'virtues' of a Virgo, bookad. My younger daughter
is a Virgo, and she is much more comfortable surrounded by disorder. She does, however,
enjoy things that require patience, precision and an eye for detail. Does beautiful craft
needlework.
-
Noted Gumtree, thanks.
-
Hi...
I'm joining Roxania and Gumtree from Latin 102. This looks like a great group. I am using the Gutenberg translation from Amazon on my Ipad. There is a good intro I plan to cover today and hopefully jump into the conversation.
-
Josh That's terrific. Looks like plenty of Latin students have signed in - Got to keep PatH and JoanK on their toes ;)
-
Hi Josh, great to see you are joining the discussion.
-
Palmtree and joshyoung, welcome! It's exciting to get so many new people here.
-
oops! Missed Palmtree. Didn't mean to miss anyone. Welcome, Palmtree. This is going to be one great discussion.
-
Wow!
The Volume 3 that I ordered from Amazon has no listed translator, No table of contents and has a very weird 16th century spelling. As an example:
t Paulianus allures us that his vilage was homely-, but at the fame time declares,that inp.i. it of li e andUrc- igth no man lit Feloponnelus exceeded him.
Can someone decode this?
Has anyone else experienced this strange way of publishing when ordering from Amazon?
-
Good Grief!!!!! Were the first 2 vols. OK? Who was the publisher? Was it a print-on-demand book? I'm curious because I have the library copy of the Modern Library Giant edition and I would like to acquire my own - but in 2 or more volumes to keep the bulk down!
-
Plutarch's Lives
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/Plutarch200.jpg)
Plutarch at the Museum of Delphi, Greece.
The readers have spoken and our next read October 1 will be: Plutarch (c.46 A.D.- c. 120 A.D.) in his famous "Lives" or Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans; also called Parallel Lives.
Schedule:
Oct. 1-?: Pompey
Oct. ?: Anthony
Oct. ?: Alcibiades, Coriolanus and comparison
Oct. ?: Demosthenes, Cicero and comparison
?: Windup
Questions for Week I: Pompey:
1. Someone once saidthat everyone wants either money, fame, or power. Which of these was most important to Pompey? What avenues were open to Romans to acheive these goals? Does this differe from modern society?
2. If Plutarch wrote these lives as moral lessons for the young, what do you feel is his moral assessment of Pompey? What is yours?
3. In a period where there was almost no threat to the Roman Empire from the outside, there was almost constant war. Other than reasons already given , what do you think are the reasons for this? Are there any parallels in modern times?
4. How is the US government based on the Roman Republic. What does Pompey's life tell us about how that Republic worked in practice? How is that different from the way ours works (or is it)? Could our Republic be ended at one stroke as the Roman's was?
5. What does Pompey's life tell us about the role of women in Patrician Roman society?
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/classicsbookclub/plutarch/DelphiValley_500.jpg)
Ruins of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, where Plutarch was a priest
Discussion Leaders: JoanK (joankraft13@yahoo.com) and PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net)
Clough Translation-Roshanarose's Link (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives/index.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weird - I agree - but how interesting:
Was it a digitally printed copy - that sometimes causes problems with letters
Paulianus allures us that his vilage was homely-, but at the fame time declares,that inp.i. it of li e andUrc- igth no man lit Feloponnelus exceeded him.
-Pausianus assures us that his visage was homely, but at the same time declares that - the next part defeats me - no man but Feloponnelus exceeded him.
H'mm such fun! who was Feloponnelus?
-
Good grief, Jude, what a bummer! Since there seems to be a pattern of writing Ls in place of some of the Ss, I'm guessing that Feloponnelus is Peloponnesus. My index doesn't have Pausianus, but it does have a Pausanias. But none of the references are anything like this passage. Anyway, you're trying to read biography, not play at cryptography.
-
One eek til the start of our discussion. I think we will need some background before we tackle Pompey: I'll get that up before the first.
-
Jude's problem leads me to wonder: is anyone missing some of the lives we picked? My single book doesn't give the divisions into 3 volumes. Pompey is on page 739 out of 1300, so he's probably in volume 2, but Artaxerxes is practically the last one, and Demosthenes and Cicero are near the end too. Alcibiades is close to the beginning.
Does anyone have a problem?
-
Sent the book back to Amazon with many snarky comments. First time I've ever done that.
I can download the chapters from the Gutenberg Site. Lots of paper but still cheaper and easier to read than the monster I received.
-
Jude, they deserve every snarky comment you can think of. Is Pompey in volume 2?
-
PatH, the volume I downloaded from Amazon (which said it was complete) does not have the comparison chapters. The freebie from Gutenberg does, but it doesn't have an active link TOC. George, to the rescue, suggested (mind you he doesn't have a Kindle) that I use the find feature to get to the appropriate chapters faster. Duh! :P He knows me only too well. If there is a long way or difficult way to do things, that is what I think of first. (My excuse for not thinking of it myself)
Oh, that reminds me. Did Plutarch actually make the comparisons or did the translator?
-
Frybabe, the comparisons are Plutarch's. If you have a Kindle, JoanK is the authority on TOCs. She paid a whopping 95 cents to get a version with an active TOC. We aren't doing any comparisons until week 3, so that will give you a chance to sort things out.
-
PatH, thanks. When I originally read Plutarch, there weren't any comparison chapters either. In fact, I got two books, one for Roman and one for Greek and, if I remember correctly, they only had 7 or 10 in each. Anyway, the one I got from Amazon was titled Plutarch's Lives Complete in One Volume and was translated by George Long, Aubrey Stewart and Hugh Clough. I got it for $1.99. The contents begin with the regular preface, then a Preface to the Civil Wars of Rome and then the Life of Plutarch. Afterwards it goes on to the individual lives. I thought the preface to the Civil Wars and the bio of Plutarch himself was nice. That's why I got it, but I forgot to check to see if the comparisons where there. Odd that they would call this "complete in one volume" and then leave out the comparisons.
-
And my (kindle) version has the comparisons, but not the nice inttro material. I'll have to shop sme more.
But don't worry, you guys. We're in this together, and we'll get it together.
At this point, I'd like to know who has and doesn't have what. Could you let me know the following:
1. What Volume is each of our selections in?
2. Are you missing Volume 3 with it's selections?
3. Are you missing any comparisons? Or anything?
(If any of the particular selections or comparisons we chose turn out to be a problem, we can just choose something else. It's our discussion. So don't kill yourself trying to get something that's hard to find. Tell us.)
-
I am fortunate to have all the selections we've chosen in my one, unnumbered volume. I
have wondered, however, if that may mean my copy is abbreviated and does not have the
full translations. I do hope I don't find I'm lacking passages that everyone else is reading.
Only six more days, counting today. I'm going to be re-reading background on Plutarch, too.
It's always helpful, isn't it, to know where the writer is 'coming from'?
-
All I have is Pompey.
-
I have downloaded Pompey, Artaterxes and Alcibiades and Coriolanus.
Wondered that the latter is only three pages long while the other two go on for page after page. Also wondered how we can compare two people we haven't met before?
For background I am reading The Way of The Greeks by Edith Hamilton.
Any opinions on this book?
-
Jude - Something must be amiss!
Alcibiades pages 233-262; Coriolanus pages 262 -290; the comparison of the two men is page 290-293.
I'm taking that from the big one-vol. edition from Modern Library Giant. It's the Dryden translation. I think that Ginny has the same book. I borrowed this from our library but although it seems pretty heavy for me, I'm ordering my own copy. I would like to see it split up into a couple of vols. to save weight but after hearing about your problems with multi-volumes, I'm sticking with this big fellow!! It has everything (I think!)
I also have an Oxford edition of " Plutarch - Roman Lives" translated by Robin Waterfield. It only has 8 of the "lives" but reads nicely and has some good introductions. I'll be reading Caesar's "life" for background for Latin class.
Pompey is also in this book - I've looked at it and the style of the translation is of course different from Dryden's - and a bit easier to read.
-
Jude, the two chapters before Comparison of Alcibiades with Coriolanus are Alcibiades, 29 pages, and Coriolanus, 28 pages. By the time we get to the comparison, we'll have plenty of material. I guess I should re-word the schedule to avoid ambiguity.
I haven't actually seen The Way of the Greeks, but I've heard of it, and I bet it's excellent background. I have her Mythology, which I used as a resource in our Iliad and Odyssey discussions. Although simply told, it's very good, copious, and her love of the material shines through.
-
JoanR, we were posting at the same time. I have the same book you and Ginny do, identical page numbers.
I think most of the translations were not actually done by Dryden, but by a stable of translators. Dryden wrote the introduction, and lent the glamor of his name to the project. I don't know how copious Clough's revisions were.
I found the language a bit daunting at first, but after a few pages I kind of got into the rhythm and spirit of it, and now I'm enjoying it.
-
OK, so far, only kidsal lacks some Sections. What about the rest of you?
-
is 'comparisons' different than reading info /person in the online
source noted for our group? I was wondering why one week there was one name then another there was 2; !!
confused, please advise
thanks
Deb
-
Deb, it is a bit confusing, especially if you don't have a Table of Contents. Plutarch made pairs of many of his bios, then compared the two men. In week 1, we are reading about one person, Pompey. In week 2, we are reading about one person, Artaxerxes. In week 3, we are reading the chapter on Alcibiades and the chapter on Coriolanus, and the 3 page comparison of the two men which follows Coriolanus. In week 4, same sort of thing, Demosthenes, plus Cicero plus the 3 page comparison of the two after Cicero.
If your online version doesn't have the short comparisons, you can probably wing it.
-
PatH, I'm glad you explained that about the comparisons -- they follow the chapters about the "comparisonees." I've been getting acquainted with moving about the Kindle when you don't have a clickable table of contents. Fortunately it's much easier to search on the PC where you have a keyboard. I wonder if I can export my notes and bookmarks to the Kindle itself.
For Pompey, if any Kindle user needs it, he will be found in
Lives of noble Greeks and Romans at location 16050
Plutarch's Lives Vol 3 p. 212, location 3160
Artaxerxes in the same book is at location 27337
-
PatH
Thanks for the explanation.
All is clear now.
Demosthenes and Cicero are in volume three. Will have to figure out a way to get hold of that volume.
-
funny how things work--by the way thanks for the
explaination about the comparisons
-but went to the Barrie library today and found vol1,2, 3 of
Plutarch's Lives--do we know why he chose to compare the people
-initially I thought Pompey was a place...you have a real rookie on your
hands here
Deb
-
Actually, Deb, we're all rookies. Some of the Latin students probably have some background, but I'm working away hard to get the things straight.
I wonder why vol 3 is so hard to get. My library doesn't have it either, though it has lots of 1 and 2, and a few copies of the whole thing. Maybe they think you're going to read it in order, and no one will last as far as 3. ;)
-
PatH et al - I have always wondered who "al" was?
I borrowed two Plutarch's from my local library.
FYI - They are "Makers of Rome" by Plutarch which includes a bio of Coriolanus but not Pompey, published by Penguin Classics ISBN 9 780140 441581
and the other:
"Greek Lives" by Plutarch, which includes Solon, Alcibiades and the incomplete Alexander. Published by Oxford World's Classics ISBN 9 780192 825018.
Pat H - We had a similar situation with the Odyssey, ie having many different copies to read and quote from. I, personally, thought it made the process of writing about the Odyssey more interesting from a comparative point of view.
I also think it is understandable that some of those who wish to participate, should be confused about books, translations etc. But we should really just stick to the individuals from Plutarch that we voted for.
The site that I use and find very useful is
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives
It has all the bios we have voted for, including the comparisons. So I figure with two books and this site I am set.
Hope this helps :o
-
Roshanarose
Thanks for the site you posted. I will use it rather than trollimg around for volume three.
-
Me too ! Thanks RR
I really haven't had time to even start searching for the texts and plan on using the online link in the heading.
-
Thanks, Roshanarose. I've downloaded it to my computer. I think my Kindle accepts ePub files, if not I have a nifty little program I can try to convert it from ePub to pdf or .azw. So now I will have three sources to read from. Nothing like overkill.
-
BOOKAD, Plutarch was very much interested in promoting ethics and honor in young people.
He made his comparisons between people who by their behavior demonstrated, in his opinion,
having or lacking these qualities. It was one reason he thought biographies to be important and worth his time pursuing.
-
He made his comparisons between people who by their behavior demonstrated, in his opinion, having or lacking these qualities. It was one reason he thought biographies to be important and worth his time pursuing.
Babi, thanks for that.
That reminds me of a friend who's son is in prison, unfortunately for life. But she has said more than once how books were important to him, and how he wanted to read about people who had made successes of their lives. I'm going to tell her what you said. She can't take books to him -- they can only come from a certain source. I don't know about computer access.
-
thank you Babi
Deb
-
I'll be here.
Evelyn
-
Welcome EvelynMC.
-
Welcome, EvelynMC! Hope you'll enjoy this. Are you set up with a translation?
-
Bless you, EVELYN, we haven't heard from you for ages. Where have you been? Pleased to
know you are back.
-
Online translation glitch. Since I have the book and hate reading online, I hadn't been reading from that link I posted, but I took a good look at the Pompey chapter today, and it's not all there. By searching in the help section on the site, I found out that a "glitch", which they are trying to correct, has "truncated" some of the selections. Grrr. Would someone with a PC please check for me that this is not just a Mac problem? The last sentence should say what happened to Pompey's ashes.
I have put a link in the heading to Roshanarose's translation, which is complete, and will remove the old link when I find out it doesn't work for PCs either.
Thanks, Roshanarose.
-
I'm not sure where you were looking, Pat. I found this with my Windows PC
The ashes of Pompey were . . . . .
Plutarch; Clough, Arthur Hugh (2011-03-30). Plutarch: Lives of the noble Grecians and Romans (Kindle Locations 17333-17334). Kindle Edition.
-
Pat
I downloaded 19 pages from the Gutenberg site but didn't look at the last page. Now that I have, I see that it stops in the middle of a sentence. The sentence is:
For he seemed to be under sail in the Euxine Sea with a propsperous gale, and just in.........
And then nothing!
You have a sharp eye Pat.
What should I do to find the ending?
-
Judy, try the new link, to Roshanarose's site. It's in the heading, marked Roshanarose's link. That has the whole thing. I don't know if there are any snags to downloading, since I only checked it online, where it seems to be complete. In my printed book, the chapter is 58 pages, and by doing the proportions, I calculate the online version is equivalent.
-
When you start reading Pompey, there is a forest of detail about armies, the military situation, and the government. JoanK worked out some summaries that help a lot in keeping things straight. Probably the Latin students won't need all this, but I sure did.
Unfortunately, her computer is acting up again, but luckily she sent them to me yesterday, so I'll post them.
-
From JoanK:
The first thing I thought when I read Pompey was WHAT ON EARTH is all this fighting about?
I looked in my copy of Story of Civilization to get a feel for the times when Pompey lived. At that time, Rome ruled all of Italy, and in addition was conquering neighboring areas. There were three areas of tension that an ambitious soldier could use to his advantage to gain wealth, glory and/or power.
First, Rome's wealth depended on capturing new lands, bringing back wealth and slaves to sustain Rome.
Second, Italians outside of Rome were resentful of Rome's power. While they didn't rebel during this period, a Roman who had been expelled from Rome could go to another Roman town and raise an army, promising future favors.
Third, within Rome, itself, the government was supposed to provide a balance between the Patricians (descendents of the oldest families) and the Plebes (all the other citizens). But in fact, the patricians ruled the roost. The Plebes resented this, and if someone wanted to seize (or keep) power in Rome, he could get the backing of the Plebes by promising concessions.
The men with armies oftened combined these missions. A man might raise an army to go and fight a rebellion, while he was there, going on to conquer new lands for Rome. When he came back to Rome, he was supposed to disband his army and enter Rome in peace. Sometimes that happened, and sometimes he was honored and offered a position of power. But If he had enemies in Rome, another army might be sent out to meet him, with the winner getting the power.
This sort of thing seemed to happen in Pompey's lifetime, not once or twice but again and again. You can't always tell reading Plutarch exactly what's going on, since he assumes we know who all the people are. But I don't think we have to know in detail about each battle, as long as we understand the thrust. A lot of conquering of non-Romans, combined with a lot of power struggles between Romans (indeed between Patricians) with no wider aim than to change which of them was at the top of the heap.
Indeed, although some of these fights involved promises of change to plebes or Italians, in fact, there was no fundemental change involved. These civil wars are not comparable to ours, or to the revolution, say, where fundemental structural changes resulted.
-
Plutarch's Lives
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/Plutarch200.jpg)
Plutarch at the Museum of Delphi, Greece.
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/classicsbookclub/plutarch/DelphiValley_500.jpg)
Ruins of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, where Plutarch was a priest
The readers have spoken and our next read October 1 will be: Plutarch (c.46 A.D.- c. 120 A.D.) in his famous "Lives" or Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans; also called Parallel Lives.
Schedule:
Oct. 1-?: Pompey
Oct. ?: Anthony
Oct. ?: Alcibiades, Coriolanus and comparison
Oct. ?: Demosthenes, Cicero and comparison
?: Windup
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/pompey1sm.jpg)
Pompey the Great
Questions for Week I: Pompey:
1. Someone once saidthat everyone wants either money, fame, or power. Which of these was most important to Pompey? What avenues were open to Romans to acheive these goals? Does this differ from modern society?
2. If Plutarch wrote these lives as moral lessons for the young, what do you feel is his moral assessment of Pompey? What is yours?
3. In a period where there was almost no threat to the Roman Empire from the outside, there was almost constant war. Other than reasons already given , what do you think are the reasons for this? Are there any parallels in modern times?
4. How is the US government based on the Roman Republic. What does Pompey's life tell us about how that Republic worked in practice? How is that different from the way ours works (or is it)? Could our Republic be ended at one stroke as the Roman's was?
5. What does Pompey's life tell us about the role of women in Patrician Roman society?
Discussion Leaders: JoanK (joankraft13@yahoo.com) and PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net)
Clough Translation-Roshanarose's Link (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives/index.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
From JoanK:
The second thing I wanted to understand was the government. It's really complicated: I don't understand it all, but here's what we probably need to know.
Pompey lived at the time of the Roman Republic. This republican form of government is considered one of Rome's great contributions to civilization: our government is based on it.
There were two governing bodies: the Senate, picked by the Patricians, and the Tribunal, voted on by the plebes. If I understand it, the Senate passed the laws, but the Tribunal had veto power. Although the tribunal was voted on by plebes, and plebes could be members, most of the members were Patricians who had bribed the plebes to vote for them. At this time, according to Durant, the plebes did not really exercise power, but were bribed by patricians, so it was a means of gaining money, relief from debts, or other concessions in the law.
Instead of one "president", there were two consuls, one chosen by the Senate, and one by the tribunes. The term of a consul was short (1 to two years) but after the end of his term, he became a Senator. Senators served for life. The consul's power was limited by the short term, and by the fact that there were two. BUT in times of danger, the senate could elect a consul to be DICTATOR. A dictator had absolute power: most of those who came to power as consuls had themselves elected dictator. But a dictators term was very short, 6 months to a year. When the term was up, the dictator stepped down.
A little later, Julius Ceasar will get himself elected Dictator, and refuse to step down. That, in one step, was the end of the Republic! This reading is making me realize to a new level what a wonder our government (with all its flaws, and they are many) is!
-
PatH and JoanK- Nice summaries there.
FYI - the last two line in "roshanarose's link" re Pompey are :
The ashes of Pompey were carried to his wife Cornelia, who deposited them at his country house near Alba.
-
Thanks for that summary of the military situation, PAT. That should help considerably. All
I have been able to discern about Pompey from past reading was that he was popular and successful...and always seeking to advance himself. I hope to have a broader view after this
reading and discussion.
-
Thanks, Babi. It's JoanK's summary. She's better than I am at boiling things down.
-
The summaries are VERY helpful, PatH and JoanK, even for Latin students. We really haven't talked much about Pompey. With all this talk about Pompey, what keeps running through my mind is a best seller from eons ago called The View from Pompey's Head Haven a clue what it's about. Maybe learning more about Pompey will give some insight into the title.
-
Thanks for the explanation Pat H and Joan K. It really helps.
I haven't been online for a while because I had a a an operation on my foot, was in a wheel chair and couldn't get to my computer. Am completely healed now and am walking just fine. And feel its time I used my brain again. ;)
Looking forward to this discussion.
Evelyn
-
Pat H,
You asked what translation I had ...
My translation is the Kindle edition "Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, Plutarch's Lives, Improved 8/11/2010". I think this is the same edition Joan K. referred in her post.
Thank goodness for my Kindle. It's lightweight and I can enlarge the print.
Evelyn
-
EVELYN:"Thank goodness for my Kindle. It's lightweight and I can enlarge the print." I'm with you there. great to "see you again!
My wacky keyboard is working again, thank goodness. When I first read the Plutarch section, I admit my reaction was "huh?". What on earth are they doing with all these fights, and new fights etc. I think the overall picture is more important than the details, especially on the Civil Wars: who's on whose side when. It's kinda like high school: who's in, who's out etc. If we get too bogged down in details, we'll be here forever.
So if any of you were feeling bogged down, I hope the summaries above help.
-
I owe The San jose Library system a Mea Culpa.
It wasn't the library system that didn't know or have Plutarch's Lives but the Librarian who didn't know how to access them.
I went to the library in a last ditch attempt to ask them to get volume three from another library.
Lo and behold! a different librarian (very serious older gentleman) asked me what edition I wanted and with a flick of the
computer keys he ordered me what I wished from the main library that has transllations starting from 1574. (that one they won't loan out).
So my "Odyssey" is over and I will join you as a full fledged reader not dependent on the computer's whimseys.
-
YEAH!
-
With the big day just one day away, I decided to go back to Michael Grant and see what else
I should remind myself of before tackling Plutarch's "Pompey". Grant, (formerly Fellow of Trinity College Cambrige; Professor of Humanity at Edinburgh Univ; and President and Vice-Chancellor of the Univ.of Khartoum.) had some pertinent critique of Plutarch and his style.
Though Plutarch lived most of his life at his birthplace in Greece, he also attained Roman
citizenship. He was famed in Rome as a lecturer on philosophical and rhetorical themes.
His renown also naturally gained him honors in his homeland. He must have been 50+
when he was awarded a priesthood for life and citizenship in Athens.
He was a prolific writer. An ancient list of his works numbers 227 treatises, of which 60
survive. Historically, his most important works would be the biographies describing
military men and statesmen. These were mostly grouped in pairs, one Greek and one
Roman, compared because of similarities. Grant assessed some of his strengths and weaknesses.
One of Plutarch’s strengths he saw as the inclusion of actions, sayings and minor peculiarities
of his subjects; another is the “flexibility of the structures” of the “Lives”. “His special
gift lies in his choice of intimate anecdotes, calculated to catch the attention of his readers
and to bring out the moral character of his subjects.”
Plutarch’s weakness is the use of 'unfounded conjecture’, imaginary conversations, and
“shaky personal judgment”. He saw everything in terms of his own times, and had no concept of historical change. Grant says, “Yet this was, perhaps, a natural enough attitude during the long lasting Roman Peace, which seemed to stretch infinitely both backward and forward without a break.” Plutarch did not believe a person's character could change, either.
All these seemed good points to keep in mind when reading the biographies.
-
You may find me MIA for a while, depending. George is back in the hospital, but up home this time. I will be checking on the house and cats. Hopefully, I will not have to drive up there.
-
Babi,
Thanks for the very interesting information. That's what I like about these discussions. All the background that enriches the reading.
Evelyn
-
I had posted this comment in the Latin class, but it's applicable here:
"I feel somewhat consoled re: my struggles with Latin grammar on finding out about Plutarch's difficulty with same!! Looking up background for the Classics discussion I found this from Plutarch himself who, a speaker of Greek, wished to learn Latin for his researchs : " I was able to follow the meaning of words ..but to understand the various figures and
connections..requires a degree of practice and study which is not easy."
What was true for Plutarch is true for me - with bells on!!!!
-
On one of the sites giving an overview of Plutarch they mention in awe and wonder about Plutarch's Lives which consists, in the original , of 800,000 words and 1,300 pages of fine print.
I haven't checked those numbers personally but the author of the article felt that this was one of the longest books written by one man in those years.
Though the Odyssey and Illiad are long as well the final opinion as to who really wrote these works and who embroidered on them is till an ongoing discussion.
-
BABI: thanks for the background on Plutarch. It's very interesting: especially his strengths and weaknesses. I guess we should take his interesting little stories with a grain of salt. but those are what we are going to remember!
JUDE: yes, Plutarch is amazing! 800,000 words! And I suspect they'll be times when we wish he'd cut a few of them out. This first selection is 60 pages. There are parts that are repititious. Feel free to skim. I always say the secret to reading Tolstoy (War and Peace) is creative skimming. We might as well try it with Plutarch as well.
JOANR: so Plutarch's Latin was shaky? That makes me like him even better!
-
WELL, HERE WE GO! Tomorrow, actually, but since I live on the West coast and sleep late, by the time I get on the computer, you will already be in the middle of it.
The questions for this week will be in the heading. If they aren't there yet, here they are:
Questions for Week I: Pompey:
1. Someone once saidthat everyone wants either money, fame, or power. Which of these was most important to Pompey? What avenues were open to Romans to acheive these goals? Does this differe from modern society?
2. If Plutarch wrote these lives as moral lessons for the young, what do you feel is his moral assessment of Pompey? What is yours?
3. In a period where there was almost no threat to the Roman Empire from the outside, there was almost constant war. Other than reasons already given , what do you think are the reasons for this? Are there any parallels in modern times?
4. How is the US government based on the Roman Republic. What does Pompey's life tell us about how that Republic worked in practice? How is that different from the way ours works (or is it)? Could our Republic be ended at one stroke as the Roman's was?
5. What does Pompey's life tell us about the role of women in Patrician Roman society?
Now we need a Latin student to give us a nice Latin cheer to start.
-
Will we be discussing Pompey here, or going to another site? I realize I'm on very early, but
I've gotten into the habit of getting my time in before Val needs the computer for her work.
Even on Saturday I get up early. After all, Nipper and Smooch still expect to be fed on time. :-\
-
And here's some more background on Plutarch and his writing from the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature:
Plutarch's object is to bring out the moral character in each case, rather than to relate the political events of his time; hence his full treatment of the subject's education and natural disposition, and his relation of anecdotes calculated to reveal the nature of the man, a "light occasion, word, or some sport which makes men's natural dispositions more plain than the famous battles won, in which ten thousand men may be killed."
Although Plutarch distorts the truth in order to exemplify virtue or vice, in general he is as reliable as his sources, and sometimes very valuable. He shows no bias or unfairness in his treatment of Greeks and Romans, no flattery of the now dominant power of Rome or vanity in the past glories of his own nation. He believed in the compatibility of Rome the ruler and Greece the educator.
I love the questions! That #4 is in itself a Pandora's box. Wonderful start!
-
Greatness has it's roots. These are Pompeys.
Strabo, the father of Pompey, was an accompished General who served in the "Marsic Social Wars".
By age 17 Pompey was active in his father's campaigns and building up his own military career.
Another factor in his rise to power was his natural beauty and resembalance to King Alexander.
Pompey seems like a combo of John Kennedy's charisma (and attractiveness to woman) with the military skills of Eisenhower and Patton. What a rare combination.
-
I think #4 will be a delightful and heated conversation. In reference to #4, I'd like to put this out for consideration to start the first part anyway of that multi faceted issue:
One of the regrets of my life is that I did not study Latin. I'm absolutely convinced, the more I understand these eighteenth-century people, that it was that grounding in Greek and Latin that gave them their sense of the classic virtues: the classic ideals of honor, virtue, the good society and their historic examples of what they could try to live up to.
(David McCullough, Historian and author, on understanding the Founding Fathers).
4. How is the US government based on the Roman Republic.
Very few people realize that our Founding Fathers in this country were rabid and I mean RABID fans of the Roman Republic. To the extent that they founded a secret society giving themselves Roman names. One of George Washington's heroes was Cincinnatus, a Roman in 458 BC, for whom Cincinnati is named, who turned his sword literally into a plowshare. If you've been to Mount Vernon and taken in the sound and light show, they repeat this desire of Washington's over and over.
The Founding Fathers founded this country as close as they could TO those principles, utilizing the structure, the Senate, the House, the Judiciary, the system of checks and balances, it really goes on and on, and when we read about Pompey, we are reading about the beginning of the disintegration OF that system.
IS it like America? You hear SO many people nowadays saying we're just like the Romans and in the free fall they were. I've never understood that. Which Romans? What period of Roman history do you think most like America's, a young nation?
The periods of Roman history are:
753 BC: The Kings
510 BC: The Republic
44 BC: The death of Julius Caesar: Civil War
27 BC till 23 BC: Octavian rules as consul
23 BC: Augustus has supreme power and the Empire is established
476 AD: "The Fall of Rome"
527: Justinian Emperor in the East
Do people really think that America is going to emerge an Empire with an Emperor?
I am really looking forward to this discussion!
-
Welcome, everyone! Down to business at last. We won't move to a new site, there's a lot of stuff here we might want again.
More shortly.
-
I am just beginning to realize how much people of the period around the time of our founding fathers admired the men of the classical period and wanted to be like them. For example, I knew that that period in music (Haydn, mozart eg) was called the Classical Period, but not that musicians of that period were trying to imitate what the music of the Greeks might have sounded like.
It's too bad that we are seeing the Republic only as it is starting to disintegrate. I would love to know if anyone has followed this process closely. I'm fascinated by the period in US history just AFTER the revolution, when our founding fathers were worried as to whether this government of ours would remain a republic, or become a dictatorship. Reading Plutarch, I really understand that concern.
-
You cn see that, as a sociologist, I'm more interestee in the society of the times than in Pompey as a person. It's Plutarch's strength that he gives us both.
If any of you feel buried under all those generals and battles, please don't sweat it. It's the overall picture that's interesting, not who fought who when. A society where armies are running around, fighting all the time, fighting with each other one minute, against each other another. WOW.
-
For those of you who are new to discussions here:
As you can see, we don't have a very formal structure. We more or less keep to the time table, there are questions to spark discussions, and we hope to cover the subject reasonably well, but often we follow interesting sidelines. Anything you want to say, from brilliant insight to minor point or sideline, is welcomed.
-
Minor point! Yes, I'm amazed that Plutarch could write all this stuff - did he keep a daily diary? I have just skimmed a third of Pompey and, as JOANK said I am trying to overlook the battles. I see Pompey fighting all over the globe, in Africa, Sicily, Rome, wherever. What great ships they must have had. He brought elephants back with him but they were too big to get through the city gates. I smiled at that!
Anyway, what I have skimmed (and that is exactly what it is) I feel Pompey is rather humble, a great warrior, admired by his men. I don't think he wanted money, he was not interested in the treasure that might have been found in Africa I think it was. His father was so greedy, so perhaps the son is determined not to be a carbon copy.
But all these battles, thousands involved! (I'm sure I am getting facts and places mixed up here, good thing we are not in a classroom)
-
Yes, Ella, no pop quizzes here on who killed whom. (My translation of the Iliad actually has an index of who killed whom; it was important to the warriors that they be remembered this way--their compensation for having to die in battle.)
I agree about the ships--and the numbers of them! Imagine the cost of those huge fleets.
-
ELLA: you're doing exactly what I hoped you'd do. We'd go nuts if we tried to remember all te details.
" He brought elephants back with him but they were too big to get through the city gates. I smiled at that!"
I think it's touches like that that make people like Plutarch.
What do you think of the story of Flora the prostitute. Plutarch seems to be using it to show how moral he is.
you're doing exactly what I hoped you'd do. We'd go nuts if we tried to remember all te details.
-
That makes a great deal of sense, GINNY. Education in those days always included,
at the higher levels, a sound grounding in Latin and Greek. All the influential
men of that period would have had the same literary background, and similar visions
of what leadership should be.
I've always understood the unfavorable comparison with Roman history was from
their decline, when Roman citizens expected 'bread and circuses', had lost the
freedoms that had been theirs when a republic, hired mercenaries to do their
fighting, and required more and more violence in the arenas to satisfy their jaded
tastes.
Plutarch has high praise for the young Pompey. Temperance, martial skills, eloquence, integrity of mind, affability. No wonder everyone loved him. The kind of man we love to make a
hero.
-
JoanK, did I read that right about Flora? Pompey was attentive to her and she would not accommodate one of his friends. So the friend asked Pompey if he could be with Flora and Pompey said yes? Then he would not longer converse with Flora.
There’s a lot of detail here – am trying to pick out the major figures. Caesar, of course. Sylla (who is also named Sulla) and Pompey. Both Caesar and Sylla held Pompey in high esteem, though it seems agewise that Sylla was more a contemporary of Pompey’s father Strabo. Not so Lucullus, who was an enemy.
-
BABI: yes, the people really loved him. Perhaps in the same way we "love" sports and movie stars today (although today, we know too much about them to love them unconditionally.
Good, PEDLIN. and some of the figures in the Senate: Cato for example.
-
Well, I just finished reading Pompey. it seemed to be a loong read.
I guess what he wanted more than anything was fame and the money came along with his victories.
It wasn't clear to me why he and Caesar fought. They were both Romans, both great military leaders.
So I read some background information and it said that after the Triumverate, Julia and Sulla died, and Pompey sided with one politcal faction and Caesar the other. Over that they had a civil war?? Or was it not a civil war?
The Romans seemed to argue about everything and constantly fight each other and everyone else. (Just an observation).
Evelyn
-
Very true. Yo me, that's more interesting than details of each fight.
-
I believe fame was most important to him as evidenced by his desire for a Triumph.
-
To get into a little more detail, despite his great popularity, of course, that didn’t stop some from trying to grab a chunk of his inheritance when his father died. Plutarch again praises him for his ‘steadfastness’ and said he gained “great reputation and favor". I had to raise an eyebrow at the story of that case, complete with a proposal from the presiding judge for an engagement between his daughter and Pompey. Plutarch admits that the judge showed him favor in the outcome of his case. What does surprise me is that Plutarch did not seem to find any of this a discredit to Pompey.
It’s not accurate, of course, to say that everyone admired and liked our hero. Someone
was certainly circulating “false suggestions and calumnies” against him in Cinna’s camp.
He decided, probably wisely, to quietly decamp. Cinna was suspected of having murdered
him, which gave his enemies an opportunity they seized. One of his centurions killed him,
“to be revenged upon a lawless and wicked tyrant”. I can't help but wonder how accurate that
story is. It simply doesn't sound to me like the sort of thing a veteran soldier says in those
circumstances. It sounds more like what an orator would say; it sounds good.
Another mild astonishment...how easily a wealthy and popular citizen could raise an army!
-
“to be revenged upon a lawless and wicked tyrant”. I can't help but wonder how accurate that
story is. It simply doesn't sound to me like the sort of thing a veteran soldier says in those
circumstances. It sounds more like what an orator would say; it sounds good.
It sure does, Babi, either what the historians said, or what Carbo, who replaced Cinna said he said.
Pompey then takes over the anti-Carbo faction. I love the way this is described: "...Pompey, finding a spirit of government upon him....took the privilege to grant himself full power...."
-
Roshanarose, if you have read Plutarch in the original, it would be very interesting to know how the translation compares. Does it capture some of the flavor of Plutarch's style, or is it like reading Pope's Homer, where the style is all Pope?
-
KIDSAL: "I believe fame was most important to him as evidenced by his desire for a Triumph. "
I agree. But doesn't that seem to change later? Maybe you can get bored with fame after awhile.
Babi: "Another mild astonishment...how easily a wealthy and popular citizen could raise an army!"
That hit me, too! All these soldiers wandering around, joining firt one army, then at the drop of a hat, leaving it for another army! They must be what we would now call mercenaries. What's going on?
I've thought about it. First, I'll bet the numbers of soldiers given are exaggerated -- WAY exaggerated.
Second, as I said before, this was a country whose economy was based on warfare, not on manufacture or trade. The only way to bring wealth into the economy was to go and fight for it. So, if you were a young man growing up, what options would you have for an occupation? Soldier or farmer, of course.
And once you're a soldier, if there's no war, you don't make any money (they must have had soldiers permenantly assigned to the conquered lands, but not nearly as many as they needed to conquer it). So you're always looking foe wars to fight.
-
PatH - If only I were able to translate from the original Greek I would be a happy woman. Modern Greek, well, maybe some. I wore out my eyes and got a neck problem whilst studying MG. Now I just browse the occasional word or phrase in Ancient Greek. And if I have time (?) I may pick up my "Reading Greek" and try to work out how it is different from Modern Greek. I am currently doing that with Latin. What I like about Latin is that it has no definite articles, whereas all the Greek types (Attic Greek, Doric Greek, Koine, Katharevousa, and Demotic) have them for every word. And I mean every word, even your first name. I think this is how the expression "O King" came into being. Also Latin doesn't have an accent on every word as Greek does, although we are using them in beginners' class just so we can get used to the pronunciation. Greek accents also move according to the tense of the verb. Uuuurghhh. I love it but it is difficult.
-
Plutarch's Lives
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/Plutarch200.jpg)
Plutarch at the Museum of Delphi, Greece.
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/classicsbookclub/plutarch/DelphiValley_500.jpg)
Ruins of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, where Plutarch was a priest
The readers have spoken and our next read October 1 will be: Plutarch (c.46 A.D.- c. 120 A.D.) in his famous "Lives" or Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans; also called Parallel Lives.
Schedule:
Oct. 1-?: Pompey
Oct. ?: Anthony
Oct. ?: Alcibiades, Coriolanus and comparison
Oct. ?: Demosthenes, Cicero and comparison
?: Windup
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/pompey1sm.jpg)
Pompey the Great
Questions for Week I: Pompey:
1. Someone once saidthat everyone wants either money, fame, or power. Which of these was most important to Pompey? What avenues were open to Romans to acheive these goals? Does this differ from modern society?
2. If Plutarch wrote these lives as moral lessons for the young, what do you feel is his moral assessment of Pompey? What is yours?
3. In a period where there was almost no threat to the Roman Empire from the outside, there was almost constant war. Other than reasons already given , what do you think are the reasons for this? Are there any parallels in modern times?
4. How is the US government based on the Roman Republic. What does Pompey's life tell us about how that Republic worked in practice? How is that different from the way ours works (or is it)? Could our Republic be ended at one stroke as the Roman's was?
5. What does Pompey's life tell us about the role of women in Patrician Roman society?
Discussion Leaders: JoanK (joankraft13@yahoo.com) and PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net)
Clough Translation-Roshanarose's Link (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives/index.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
roshanarose, when I was reading the Iliad, a friend suggested I really should learn the ancient Greek; he claimed it would be easy, since the vocabulary was quite small. I knew there had to be a catch to that one. Now I know what it was.
-
ROSHANA, thank you. Now I understand the old saying, "The Greeks have a word for it." It
seems they actually did!
What of this story that a man named Vindius was killed by some Picentines for commenting
about Pompey, that he was “come from the school-room to put himself at the head
of the people..” I can’t help wondering how reliable that story is. It seems a rather extreme
reaction to a mild put-down. If it did happen, I would have to wonder if the killers had been
encouraged to act.
Certainly Pompey was masterful at military strategy, and courageous in battle. It’s easy
to see why his men would love him. And why wouldn’t Sylla love a man who presented him
with a substantial army, well fitted out and armed, and with a record of successful battles
behind them. The title of “Imperator”....which I understand means ‘Commander’...is a small
price to pay for a gift like that.
-
Money, Fame or Power?
Well first Pompey became wealthy, then he became famous because of his personality and brilliance on the battlefield, then he went after Power.
Thus this is not an either or question but rather a developmental one.He couldn't acheive power without fame and wealth.
Was this a "trick question"?
Along with all these accomplishments Pompey had numerous wives and concubines. Although Plutarch says here and there that he was "not as bad as some of the powerfull men".
Pompey wasn't all money, fame, power and sex. He also tried to improve the lives of his fellow countrymen. The building of the huge theatre and arena struck me as a "Bill Gates moment" in the narrative (even if Pmpey perhaps had an ulterior motive).
-
JUDE: "Was this a "trick question"?" Not at all. Most mere mortals specialize in one or another (or none, in my case). Plutarch is impressed at how modestly Pompey lives compared to others in his circumstance, and that, at first, he is not interested in being consul.
I saw something interesting on an Intro to Art class given on TV by the local college. The instructor credited Rome with being the first society interested in portrature. As opposed to the idealized sculptures of the Grreks, if you look at the bust of Pompey, it looks like a real person in his middle age that you would recognize if you met him. Prettified, no doubt, but real.
-
I read a number of articles (from Wiki) on marriage in Rome.
One interesting fact stuck with me more than others: A Patrician woman , after she had borne three living children , could participate in business or affairs outside the home. A lower class woman could do the same after bearing four living children.
In other words once a woman had done her duty to her husband and to the state (or Army) she could find other things to do.
It was not clear what professions were open to women. Market stalls was one and weaving was another (perhaps designing togas?).
Woman couldn't be soldiers or farmers or teachers. Though it seems wealthy, well educated women often taught their own children whatever they themselves had learned.
Most patrician women married around age 15 while poorer women somewhat later at about 20. Divorce and remarriage was accepted. With all those men dieing in battle there surely must have been a glut of widows. Almost no woman married for the first time after the age of 30.
Beauty mattered but connections mattered more among the wealthy. Marriage for love was rare but occasionally occurred.
I don't think I would have wanted to live in those times.
-
Has anybody been keeping track of Pompey's wives? I kind of lost count after a while. It seems to be accepted to divorce one wife so you could marry another, including, in Pompey's case, a woman in an advanced state of pregnancy.
-
Yes, Jude, and at one point Roman women were given medals and honored for having three children. I forget who instituted that practice, but it was an attempt to increase the population.
I don't know about the rest of you, but my Plutarch is a little hard to get through. It seems I am having trouble keeping the thread of sentences that are extremely long with lots of commas interspersed. That never used to bother me. I intend on looking at the Roshanarose's online version when I have a minute.
-
Frybabe, I found the same thing,especially at first. But as the chapter went on, it got better, as I learned when to tease things out and when just to get the general drift. Also, the plot gets simpler, and maybe the sentences do too, though it's never easy. But by the end, I was reading it in big chunks and was really interested. I've already forgot a lot though, I'm skimming over it again as we talk about different parts.
There aren't a lot of translations out there. You may be reading the same one as Roshanarose's. I certainly am.
-
PatH - Learning Ancient Greek in order to just read the Iliad would be a foolish endeavour unless one was a monk or a bored academic. Did the person who suggested that know anything about Greek at all? Both Modern and Ancient Greek have very rich vocabularies. Take a look at the Greek dictionaries. ::)
I haven't spotted any Greek versions of Plutarch online. It would be good to know if there are any just for reference, if required on here.
-
For my part, I find the death of Pompey the Great and the events leading up to it almost unbelievably poignant. And so memorable, you never forget them.
Starting with Cornelia's lamentation to Pompey, before you married me you had 500 ships now it's my fault, I have been decreed to bring about the ruin of Pompey.
And his answer to her: "It behooves us, who are mortals born, to endure these events, and to try fortune yet again; neither is it any less possible to recover our former state than it was to fall from that into this."
Think of all the formerly famous and rich men of our own age who fell. Just in the last year. Does Pompey deserve this? Has he cheated hundreds of people of their money? IS this Pompey's fault? He says it's the Fates, it's Fortune. I tempted fortune and now I have to endure. He's not blaming anybody. He's steadfastly "just keeping swimming."
He's sanguine about it.
And brave.
And what's the result?
Probably one of the most poignant scenes of antiquity: the formerly famous great general of 500 ships now in a rowboat approaching the shore of Egypt where he does hope to find help, with his wife and children watching:
Nearing the shore and seeing it not covered by a royal welcome but crowded with soldiers. Seeing the few fishing boats approaching in welcome instead of what he expected or hoped for, a Royal ship. Even if he wanted to turn back now he could not, and he will not give them an excuse for turning on him. Imagine Cornelia's distress at seeing this, she obviously loves him. She is lamenting his death as he says goodbye because she sees what is coming.
"I am not mistaken, surely, in believing you to have been my former fellow soldier." He reaches out and when he only gets a nod, just keeps swimming, reading over his address to the boy king. He steadfastly keeps up hope when possibly a lesser man would have turned back.
What, ultimately, I wonder, does his death say about him? And about all men.
And he, too, just like Caesar, took up his robe about his face, and "neither saying nor doing anything unworthy of himself, only groaning a little, endured the wounds they gave him."
And died in his 59th year, the day after his birthday.
What a privilege it is to be able to read such a thing and to enter into the last minutes and hours of a great man's life.
Why, do you suppose, Caesar cried when he received Pompey's seal?
What a pitiful end, and how Philip gathered up the remains, wrapping it in his own shirt, finding some pieces of fishing boat, and making a funeral pyre with one of the old soldiers who considered it an honor to help.
Obsequies were extremely important to the Romans. For Pompey's remains to lie unheralded in death was the worst insult. Did Pompey deserve it?
Is the moral of this story "Sic transit gloria mundi:" (known today often as "sic transit...") Thus passes the glory of the world? Lo, how the mighty have fallen?
Did Pompey deserve this? Why did Caesar cry? We don't hear of too many instances of Caesar crying, this poignant scene 2000 years later makes me almost want to cry.
And what happened to Cleopatra's brother the boy king Ptolemy? AND the main adviser Theodotus?
The stories of the fall of the mighty continue to fascinate us in 2011 and this is one of the most poignant in history, right up there with Cicero, Caesar, Crassus and many more. What's the lesson we need to learn from it?
Does it make a difference how a man dies?
-
Oh, dear, you are all seemingly at the end, and I'm still making notes from the middle. I don't
know whether to post them or not.
What are we to think of Pompey’s response to the Mamertines who objected to his jurisdiction
over their courts? “What! will you never cease prating of laws to us that swords by our sides?”
Is he an advocate of ‘might makes right’? Or is it a simple, ‘I have the upper hand; I’ll do as I
d--- well please.’ Which of course is every tyrants viewpoint. And Pompey is a humanitarian tyrant, right?
In dealing with the Sylla’s particular enemies, Plutarch sees Pompey as being under a necessity to demonstrate severity, but that elsewhere he acted with clemency as far as possible.
I am seeing a man who is practical where political necessities are involved. He won’t alienate
powerful allies. But where he can act mercifully, he will. I was impressed with the story of
Sthenis, who took upon himself the blame for his city’s support of Pompey’s opponents.
Pompey was so impressed by the man’s courage and honorable behavior, he pardoned both
him and his people. I haven’t read anything about Pompey that earns my respect and liking more.
JUDE, from what I've read of Roman history, the building of arenas and theatres was a
way for the wealthy to obtain the backing of the populace. They wanted to be entertained...free of charge.
-
PatH
Pompey's wives. He had five.
1st - Anistisia
2nd - Aemilia Scaura (Sulla's stepdaughter)
3rd - Mucia Tertia (whom he divorced for adultery, according to Cicero's letters)
4th - Julia (Caesar's daughter)
5th - Cornelia Metella (daughter Metellus Scipio)
My source is New World Encyclopedia. I just googled Pompey and that's what I got.
Evelyn
-
Oh, dear, you are all seemingly at the end, and I'm still making notes from the middle. I don't
know whether to post them or not.
YES, POST THEM. In the discussion, we haven't even reached the middle, and I bet that half of us haven't yet finished reading the chapter. We want to say everything we think of about any section we want. Post things whenever you want.
-
BABI: "I am seeing a man who is practical where political necessities are involved. He won’t alienate
powerful allies. But where he can act mercifully, he will,"
That sounds right to me. What do the rest of you think?
GINNY: that brought tears to my eyes. Yes, now I see why you wanted to read about this man.
-
OK. After reading about all these rebellions, I'm feeling rebellious, too. We all voted to read Antixerces, next. the problem is, it involves a whole new time and casdt of chaaracters, just as we're finally getting used to these. And I've started it, and frankly, it doesn't "float my boat" as a friend used to say.
I suggest instead we read Anthony next. It has the story of him and cleopatra (don't you want to know how she practiced with the asps?) and takes up the careers of some of the people we've already met.
Could I have a vote for how you all feel about that?
-
BABI: "I am seeing a man who is practical where political necessities are involved. He won’t alienate
powerful allies. But where he can act mercifully, he will,"
That sounds right to me. What do the rest of you think?
Yes. Look at the way he treated the captive pirates; he couldn't turn them loose to go back to pirating, but he didn't want to kill them, so he settled them in some sparsely populated towns, turning them into farmers. A lot more trouble than just executing them.
-
JoanK,
Anthony is okay with me.
Evelyn
-
Oh I am SO sorry. I noted with some anxiety this morning that today is the 5th and Pompey only goes thru the 7th and I was so afraid I'd miss him entirely and felt really guilty, just don't read my post above until you're ready to talk or read about the end!!
I am sorry!
-
Antony next seems a good idea, although I will be away most of next week. I am going to the glitzy Gold Coast for a couple of days.
I haven't been there for years and am interested in seeing how it has changed. I will catch up when I get back. Although on the 17th I am having seven teeth pulled by a maxillo facial surgeon. Not looking forward to it but it has to be done.
-
Goodness, roshanarose, what an ordeal. I hope it goes well.
-
Thanks PatH - I feel happier because my darling daughter will drive me to aforesaid surgeon and back home again. It is a result of osteoporosis. One of the teeth is directly below the sinus, that is why a surgeon has to treat me. What it costs is $1,520.75 but all that will be refunded by Medicare. I don't like the idea of paying for pain.
-
Reminds me of Homer with the thousands of people in the army. How could they afford to have so many people off to the wars. Who took care of the farms? Did they fight and then go home to plant?
Battle between Caesar and Pompey: "The pick of the manhood and power of a single city was here clashing in internal conflict, with members of the same families bearing arms against one another, brothers arrayed against brothers, all under the same standards.
"He never had any extra-marital affairs ..." "This is something which women seem to have found very attractive..."
-
Reminds me of Homer with the thousands of people in the army. How could they afford to have so many people off to the wars. Who took care of the farms? Did they fight and then go home to plant?
I think that was a real problem. Even if wars had an off button for planting time, you couldn't march all the way back from northern Gaul in time. Rome's economy seems to have been based on getting wealth from conquest rather than production, but you still need grain from somewhere.
Soldiers were indeed also farmers. One of Pompey's demands when he came back from his Eastern campaign was farmland for his soldiers.
-
I like JoanKs suggestion to do Anthony next. I feel like I'm finally beginning to get some of the people and politics of this time through my thick head, and I wouldn't mind working at it a bit more.
Please, everyone, tell us what you want. We want to do what everyone wants.
-
EvelynMC, thanks for the list of wives.
"He never had any extra-marital affairs ..." "This is something which women seem to have found very attractive..."
:)
Some of the marriages seem very loving, especially the last two, Julia and Cornelia.
-
I'm ok with Antony, we could do a real Roman immersion now that we are learning the background. Sometimes the Romans did exaggerate the numbers in combat, but usually of the opposition, so they looked even more magnificent to themselves. It's hard to get an accurate count of the opposition, they knew exactly how many were in their own fields, however.
It might be fun to research the composition of their armies, it's quite interesting. At the time however the Romans were a fighting machine unequaled by anybody else.
But it's the MAN to me who shines through, and tomorrow is our last day scheduled with Pompey, are you proposing extending it?
RR, that sounds traumatic, I hope that it goes well and you make a fast recovery. 4 teeth are the most I've had extracted at once (wisdom teeth). Good luck!
-
Try to look at it this way, ROSHANA. You're not paying for the pain; you're paying to
avoid what could happen otherwise. We recently ran into a similar problem with the car;
that is, paying too much to resolve a problem that could have been resolved much earlier
and much cheaper.
I'm glad there were at least two of his marriages that were loving, as the earlier
ones seemed purely political. It gives us an answer to Question #5 as to how women
were regarded. Obviously, they were trade goods..offered like a sack of grain to seal
a bargain or gain an ally. I was absolutely horrified when Aemilia was torn from from
her husband, pregnant, and forced into a marriage with Pompey. How could her father do
that to his daughter? Did he hate her? Under those circumstances, I'm not surprised
she did not survive the birth of the child.
-
Kidsal and Babi, you were two of the three votes for Artaxerxes. How do you feel about switching to Anthony?
-
Babi, it would be interesting to know what Pompey felt about Aemilia's death. He was heartbroken when Julia died, but he was besotted with her. He hardly knew Amelia. Did he feel sad or guilty? I guess we'll never know.
-
Good morning, friends and a special Hi to Ginny!
I'm supposed to be packing for our semi-annual migration, like the birdies, as this Sunday we head south to FL. So instead I started reading the Pompey section, thanks for the link, on my PC. As much as I love my Kindle, it's easier to read on my laptop, this time.
I'm so glad someone posted the list of the wives of Pompey. There's a wonderful fictional account of the marriage of Julia, Caesar's daughter, to P. in the book by Colleen McCullough, one of the 6 vols. on Roman history. (at other house, so cannot say which vol). According to the fictional version, Julia fell in love with Pompey when she was a mere teen, like girls nowadays fall for singers or sports stars. So when her father told her about her impending engagement, she was delighted! As you may know, patrician girls had no choice whatsoever about whom they'd marry; the father made the choice in every case I've heard of. So it was a marriage with love, and then, alas, Julia died in childbirth. Apparently Caesar was away in Gaul on the battlefield and could not return to Rome in time for her funeral.
If anyone has corrections to the above, do post! This is all from memory, as I've been reading historical fiction about Romans and Greeks for decades! Never had time to study either Latin or history in college, so making up for it now!
-
It looks like we're just finally getting to the meat of things here. How about we keep on with Pompey for a few extra days until we're ready to move on?
-
Are we going to do Anthony instead of Artaxerxes? So far, several ayes and no nays. JoanK says Anthony is easier reading than either Artaxerxes or Pompey.
-
MIPPY: HI, HI. Great to see you here!
So you migrate with our beloved birds. Good for you. Looking for ward to hearing from you when you're settled.
Yes, let's extend the diwscussion for a few days, until we feel we're ready to move on. A section a week may have been too ambitious.
I haven't heard from many of you, but those who have spoken agree that to stick with the Romans for awhile makes sense. So let's plan on Antony (I learned him as Mark Anthony) next. There's a lot of interesting story there, and we get to see some of the same characters some years later.
We are skipping Julius Ceasar. You probably all remember that he became emporor, ending the republic, and was killed in the Senate (on the Ides of March) by a conspiracy that included cassius and Brutus (the son of Pompey's brutus) after about a year. Antony's story starts after that.
-
The book Mippy was referring to was Caesar's Women by Colleen McCullough. It's a paperback version from 1996. I can no longer read such small print but I still hang on to it.
Evelyn
-
Can you imagine what it must have been like to live in such a time, with constant wars and political change? here is Virgil, writing a little later, but things haven't gotten any better, maybe even worse:
(here, Mars is the god of War, as well as the red planet).
From Georgics I
I feel the dread,
And the sun burns me, burns like a fever.
The world is full of war, and at home, crime
resembles a war. Men flock to the city
leaving their fields to weeds, their tools to rust.
Plowshares now are beaten into swords.
It's bad in Asia, bad in Europe, bad...
No treaties hold, no laws hold, nothing
but Mars, blood red ... he holds it all,
hurtling through the sky in his chariot.
I feel those wheels rumble. I feel the sway
of speed. The horses are mad and running faster.
they ought to check. They ought to answer the reins.
There ought to be reins.
But there are none.
(tr. David R. Slavitt)
-
In my case, rereading the chapter has really paid off. Here's one thing that didn't sink in the first time.
Pompey started off with increasingly impressive victories in Spain and elsewhere, and now he was going to be used against a crucial enemy--the pirates. Pirates had gotten control of all the Mediterranean, boxing the Romans in at all their ports. A law was passed giving Pompey the resources to fight this. Look what he got; absolute power and authority in all the seas within the pillars of Hercules (the whole Mediterranean) and in the adjacent mainland for the space of 400 furlongs from the sea(that's most of the territory anyone cared about), power to take what money he wanted from the treasury, 200 ships (later raised to 500), power to press soldiers and seamen (later raised to 120,000 infantry and 5000 horse) and some other stuff.
What a lot of power. No wonder Caesar had to deal with him in some way, first by alliance in the triumvirate, and later turning against him.
-
I'm all for Alexsander next. Seems a logical transition.
I read somewhere, that the Romans went to war so much because that was the main way they got their wealth-especially gold. Each kingdom, or Pirate group they conquered was a way of enriching themselves, their men and their city.
I also read that soldiers were promised farming land on their return home but this was not always carried out in an honest way by their commanders.
If you think the Romans were warlike .the Nabatim tribe that lived in what is now known as Petra in Jordan made their living by attacking caravans that passed through their valley. If one of their members grew a blade of grass or a flower, let alone , crops , they were put to death. This ensured that the tribe would continue to live by plunder alone. In Petra all the homes are cut into the red mountains doing away with the need for building materials , builders or slaves.
-
So those beautiful rose-colored classical buildings have a ruddy history. I'm not surprised. Rome lived by plunder too. I'd love to see a chart of flow of grain from production to consumption. I think that though grain production was always a problem, the Romans produced most of the food they needed, but I don't really know. For sure, the luxuries came from plunder.
I also read that soldiers were promised farming land on their return home but this was not always carried out in an honest way by their commanders.
That's another example of Pompey's quality. He made a big deal of insisting his troops got their land.
-
If you want to see Petra on film rent Mr Speilberg's "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
Babi - You always give such good advice. I would have had to have the work done anyway. I am just a whinger ::)
I am interested in Artaxerxes because he gave Themistokles a haven after he (Themistokles) was ostracised from Athens. One of my favourite poems by Cavafy "The Satrapy" is about that topic. So from a selfish point of view I would like to see Artaxerxes included. After all, the great men of history weren't just Greek and Roman.
-
Plutarch's Lives
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/Plutarch200.jpg)
Plutarch at the Museum of Delphi, Greece.
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/classicsbookclub/plutarch/DelphiValley_500.jpg)
Ruins of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, where Plutarch was a priest
The readers have spoken and our next read October 1 will be: Plutarch (c.46 A.D.- c. 120 A.D.) in his famous "Lives" or Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans; also called Parallel Lives.
Schedule:
Oct. 1-?: Pompey
Oct. ?: Antony
Oct. ?: Alcibiades, Coriolanus and comparison
Oct. ?: Demosthenes, Cicero and comparison
?: Windup
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/pompey1sm.jpg)
Pompey the Great
Questions for Week I: Pompey:
1. Someone once saidthat everyone wants either money, fame, or power. Which of these was most important to Pompey? What avenues were open to Romans to acheive these goals? Does this differ from modern society?
2. If Plutarch wrote these lives as moral lessons for the young, what do you feel is his moral assessment of Pompey? What is yours?
3. In a period where there was almost no threat to the Roman Empire from the outside, there was almost constant war. Other than reasons already given , what do you think are the reasons for this? Are there any parallels in modern times?
4. How is the US government based on the Roman Republic. What does Pompey's life tell us about how that Republic worked in practice? How is that different from the way ours works (or is it)? Could our Republic be ended at one stroke as the Roman's was?
5. What does Pompey's life tell us about the role of women in Patrician Roman society?
Discussion Leaders: JoanK (joankraft13@yahoo.com) and PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net)
Clough Translation-Roshanarose's Link (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives/index.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Roshanarose, I wouldn't call anyone a whinger for complaining about what you're about to have done. But Babi's advice is consoling.
Nothing is cast in stone in this discussion. If enough people want to read more than is scheduled, it could happen.
This morning (Fri) I'm off to the west coast to meet my new granddaughter. I'm taking Plutarch along in the daypack I use for a carryon--at great personal sacrifice, since it weighs 5 pounds. We'll see if I read it or just sleep most of the 7 hour journey.
-
PatH, I can't help remembering his attitude toward Flora after he gave his buddy
permission to 'borrow' her. He never touched her again. The marriage with Aemilia, a
woman who was married to another man and was pregnant by him? I can't imagine him being
more than polite to her. Her father had much to answer for, IMO.
I would be happy to spend another day or two on Pompey. This bio. is longer than I
realized, and covers so much ground. I have no objection to switching to Marc Antony
if that is what the others prefer. I can always read Artaxerxes on my own. We will need
to bear in mind that Plutarch definitely disapproved of Marc Antony; he was one of the
'bad' examples in Plutarch's choice of subjects.
JOANK, that selection from Virgil is great! If that's what his 'Georgics' are like,
I must see more of them.
Back to Pompey, I do love that magnificent scene in which Pompey, despite all his honors, approaches the censors leading his horse, like any other knight, to give account of his military service and request discharge. Plutarch describes a scene of people watching in silent amazement. The senior censor asks the required question: “Pompeius Magnus, I
demand of you whether you have served the full time of the wars that is prescribed by law.”
To which Pompey replies, “Yes. I have served all, and all under myself as general.” Upon
which the crowd went wild with delight. I think I would have been cheering right along with them.
I was amazed to read of how wealthy and powerful the pirates had become. I knew they were
a plague to shipping on the Mediterranean at that time, but purple sails? Silver-plated oars?
Coastal cities placed under tribute? Plutarch also writes that the religious mysteries of Mithras
were instituted by these pirates. Adopted by them, perhaps, but from what I could find out, it
had it’s origins elsewhere. Here’s what I found; scroll down below the row of ads.
http://www.answers.com/topic/mithras
-
Good morning,
I'm still reading Pompey, now on Kindle as well, it is better after all. Then, later, for comparison, I began Marcus Antonius, which reads well and I hope we do that section next.
The Brutus in the Pompey section is the father of the Brutus who was in the gang of Caesar's enemies. Plutarch does say that later on.
Thanks, Ev, for posting the McCullough book title I forgot.
Once of the problems is lack of dates, isn't it? I ought to research a time line, but cannot do it today.
-
Don't care which we read next as finally have the complete set. Artaxerxesis is a short read so perhaps could squeeze him in. But Antony OK with me.
-
I’m behind in my reading (and in a lot of other things, it sems), but am getting a lot from your posts here. Since there is so much to grasp here they really help zero in on what’s important. Pompey’s ability to get what he asked for amazed me too, Babi. And the other some posts touched on how some facts might have been exaggerated -- such as the size of the armies. I wondered at that – 40,000 soldiers? That would be like moving my city.
I’ll go along with whatever for the next reading, as I know nothing about the scheduled one and very little about Antony.
-
Eeek! I'm getting senile!
why did I write Alexsander instead of Marc Antony?
It's just a mistake, not senility I hope.
-
JUDE: no, I've met you, and you are far from senile.
BABI: glad you like the Virgil. The part I posted was excerpted from a longer piece that's not so interesting. For years, I've had "The Aeneiad"(sp.) at the top of my "must read" list, and always chickened out.
PEDLIN: "Since there is so much to grasp here they really help zero in on what’s important". I agree. When I first read Pompey, all the detail really overwhelmed me. All the people and battles flow together.
I admit to downloading on my computer a childs version of Plutarch, hoping it would help me sort things out.
By the way, if you think Plutarch doesn't like Antony, you should see what he does to Artaxerxes.
-
One of the things that blew by me was how much power Pompey was given to fight the pirates. Thanks for pointing that out, PatH. Is this the beginning of the end for the Republic? Who had the power to give him all that power?
I'm still struggling with the differences between the Roman Republic and ours. Is there a difference that will enable ours to last, while the Roman's didn't? Or not?
-
Joan
Re your interesting question of the differences between the Roman republic and ours...
In trying to research this fascinating idea (surely there is a book to be written about this) I was not sure if you are talking about the Roman Republic or the Roman Empire.
I am now quoting from Wiki :
The Roman Empire :44BC-1453AD
Roman Republic which preceded it had been subverted by civil war after existing for 500 years.
The events that divided the eras were:
1)Julius Ceasar's appointment as perpetual dictator (27BC)
2)Battle of Actium (31BC)
3)Roman Senates granting to Octavion the honorific "Augustus".(27BC)
In trying to peruse the article further I found that I was so weak in background in this matter that to answer your question in the way it deserves it will take a more knowledgeale person than I.
-
Well, Jude, I went on the hunt for more info and came up with lots, but nothing very concise so far. There are a number of some books the deal with the Roman Constitution itself and others that attempt a comparison. I remember some hype a year or so ago about a book called Are We Rome?, but that deals with comparing the US with Rome as a whole. As for the Roman Republic vs. our Constitution there are some, but this book struck me as interesting. http://books.google.com/books/about/American_republicanism.html?id=zN7lgzjettgC It deals with our founding fathers and the Roman authors they read. Keep in mind that the "republicanism" they are talking about is as in Republic not the Republican Party.
One of the other things we tend to forget in trying to compare the US with Rome is that some of our foundations were also rooted in English Common Law and the Magna Carta (such as limited government). I suppose if we went far enough back with that line, though, it would also lead to Rome.
How much of Greek democracy was influential to the US and to the Roman constitutions and law?
Let us know what else you dig up.
-
Good morning, everyone!
For all of you who want to read more about Pompey, Crasus, Brutus, and Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) my strong suggestion is to read A. Goldsworthy: Julius Caesar. This wonderful history book is much more than a biography of Caesar! The author covers Roman history, including pirates, with excellent details, and he's written other histories, too. Do look him up on Amazon.
Have a great weekend. We are off to Boston to visit our family, then on Sun headed south to see VA family, then home to FL.
See y'all Wed ... if the crick don't rise ... and on to Antonius!
-
Thanks for the 'heads up', JOANK. I suppose what I really need is someone like you to
tell me where the good parts are! If I had to plow through too much 'not so interesting'
to get to the good stuff, I'd probably never make it.
By the way, if you think Plutarch doesn't like Antony, you should see what he does to
Artaxerxes
. On reflection, I suppose that doesn't really surprise me. After all, it
was the Greeks and Romans that Plutarch thought worth emulating. The ethical ones, of
course.
The power bestowed on Pompey as Admiral of the Mediterranean, both Sea and coast, was
unprecedented. Really, I think there can be few figures in history that equal his accomplishments. Nor one who so consistently withdrew to private life and declined
to take advantage of the adulation accorded him, at least in the beginning. Even his own friends
felt he was being 'trivial’, insincere, in his protestations when Rome gave him such enormous
control over so much of the Empire. (Another historian Appian, called ‘artful’ what Plutarch saw as noble. It should be noted, tho’, that Appian was a supporter of Caesar’s faction.)
It does seem that when Pompey was personally affronted, or felt that someone had
made him appear foolish, he was harsh and unforgiving. I believe he did have an enormous
ego, which he was able to conceal well by his congenial manners. Over time, with all the
adulation, the popularity and honors,....it would not be surprising if it went to his head. Not
many could remain unchanged by all that.
-
ROSE: I didn't mean to pass over your preference for Artaxerxes. I wanted to read him too, to get a Persian in here. Maybe we can do him after Antony. have you read the selection?
-
jUDE: so the Roman republic lasted twice as long as ours has before falling apart! Hmmmm. I guess nothing is permanant. Makes you think.
And the Civil Wars are given as the cause. The Republic was already weak in the period we are reading, if Pompey could have that much power.
FRY: that book sounds like just the thing. If the writing isn't too dense, I'll give it a try.
MIPPY: that sounds great, too. We're kind of skipping Julius: but we're getting a lot of him in the other two.
BABI: I like your analysis of Pompey's character. I'm having trouble viewing that character within the context of the times. Much that seems cruel to us was just accepted behavior then. When we read Antony, whom Plutarch doesn't like, we'll be able to do our own comparison.
-
I looked at all the things I didn't know on this topic and decided to choose to further research the one I know the LEAST about. Possibly many or even most of you are more knowledgeable on this than I but here goes anyhow.
The Battle of Actium (cited as one of the three reasons the Republic fell and turned into an Empire)
The battle of Actium was the decisive confrontation between the forces of Octavian and the combined forces of Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII . It took place on Sept. 2,31BC on the Ionian Sea near the city of Actium at the Roman Province of Expirus vitus in Greece.
Octavius's fleet was commanded by Marcus Agrippa while Antony was supported by the ships of Queen Cleopatra of Ptlolemaic Egypt.
Octavius's victory enabled him to consolidte his power over Rome and its dominions making hin an Emperor and sole ruler.
Fearing to bore you I will stop here but I'm sure we will get finer(and more) details as we read about Mark Antony.
-
Babi, I agree he must have had a huge ego, and I suspect he had it from the start. Remember how he managed to get a huge Triumph early in his career, before it was really appropriate, and when he didn't yet fit the ground rules, whatever they were for such.
I'm curious about the details of a Triumph. It's obviously official, with rules involved, and has some sort of standing, like a medal or an increase in rank When Pompey meets Lucullus, it's remarked that although Lucullus is the elder, as well as having priority in the order of consulships, Pompey's two triumphs made him the greater man.
And who paid for all that pomp? The state, or the recipient of the honor?
-
Pompey must have had a superb military strategic sense to win so many battles. We don't get much of this, but there's one example of his thinking. One of the many times he's chasing Mithridates (who keeps popping up again like a bad penny) he takes over a good strategic spot which M had had to abandon because there was no water. P took a look at the plant life, figured out from this where to dig wells, and soon had plenty of water.
-
From the Encylopaedia Britannica:
Triumph, Latin triumphus , a ritual procession that was the highest honour bestowed upon a victorious general in the ancient Roman Republic; it was the summit of a Roman aristocrat’s career. Triumphs were granted and paid for by the Senate and enacted in the city of Rome. The word probably came from the Greek thriambos, the name of a procession honouring the god Bacchus. To triumph in republican times a man was required to have been a magistrate cum imperio (holding supreme and independent command) who had won a major land or sea battle in the region considered his province, killing at least 5,000 of the enemy and ending the war. The ceremony began with a solemn procession from the Triumphal Gate in the Campus Martius to the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, passing through the forum and the Via Sacra (“Sacred Way”) along streets adorned with garlands and lined with people shouting, “Io triumphe.”
The magistrates and members of the Senate came first in the processions followed by musicians, the sacrificial animals, the spoils of war, and the captured prisoners in chains. Riding in a chariot festooned with laurel, the victorious general (triumphator) wore the royal purple and gold tunic and toga, holding a laurel branch in his right hand and an ivory sceptre in his left. A slave held a golden crown over the general’s head while repeatedly reminding him in the midst of his glory that he was a mortal man. The general’s soldiers marched last, singing whatever they liked, which included ribaldry and scandal against their commander, probably as a way to avert the evil eye from him. On reaching the Capitoline temple the general presented his laurel, along with thank-offerings, to the image of Jupiter. The prisoners were usually slain, and the ceremony concluded with a feast for the magistrates and Senate.
A general who did not earn a triumph might be granted an ovatio, in which he walked or rode on horseback, wearing the purple-bordered toga of an ordinary magistrate and a wreath of myrtle.
In the last century of the Roman Republic the rules were sometimes bent. Pompey celebrated two triumphs without having held a regular magistracy, and Julius Caesar allowed two of his subordinates to triumph. Under the empire only the emperors or members of their families celebrated triumphs, because the generals commanded under their auspices as lieutenants (legati); the only honour the generals received was the right of wearing triumphal costume (ornamenta triumphalia) on festivals, and even these were cheapened and lost their military connections. There were still triumphs of Christian emperors (e.g., Honorius in 403), and the theme was revived in new and spectacular forms in Renaissance art.
-
The Roman republic lasted till the death of caesar....42 BC .
The Roman empire lasted in the west till 476AD, and in the East till the end of the 6th century.
The British empire lasted from about 1770 (Clive of India) till the end of WW1 (nothing,compared to the Romans)
The America empire or sphere of influence really began after WW2.......we'll just have to wait and see.........so far we're neophytes.....
-
I have been doing some searching for info about Athenian democracy. I had studied it in the past but needed to refresh my memory. Here is a thumbnail sketch :
The advent of Ancient Greek democracy goes back to its fledgling stages with Solon the reformer c.600BC
100 years later democracy was ushered in by Cleisthenes (an Athenian) c.500 who along with many others was unhappy with the harsh rule of Peisistratus, grandson and namesake of the "benevolent dictator". The political radical reform was introduced by Cleisthenes c.508/7 and became the first Athenian democratic constitution.
Ephialtes c.490(not the one who betrayed Leonidas at Thermopylae) and Pericles c.480/479 shone in the glow of a reasonably stable democratic government and Greece finally defeated the Persians in the final battle at Salamis.
In 411 oligarchy returned to Athens.
However, democracy was reimposed a year later and stayed in place until 322 when it was terminated by Alexander the Great.
Democracy was still the form of government in places in Greece that Alexander had not conquered.
The arrival of the Romans extinguished Ancient Greek democracy for good.
Source:
www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks
If you scroll down on this site you will see the differences between Ancient Greek democracy and modern democracy as we have it today.
-
Unfortunately, I have had problems accessing the original website I used for the above. The one I have given you will get you there but there will be a bit of double clicking going on, sorry folks.
Finally, you should click on the article by Professor Paul Cartledge "The Democratic Experiment".
www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/
-
Thanks for that interesting information on triumphs, KIDSAL. It added some details for
me.
Of sideline interest, I was fascinated by the brief comments on Mithridates concubine, a young
woman named Hypsicrates. She "dressed like a Persian horeman, accompanied the king in all
his flight, never weary even in the longest journey, nor ever failing to attend the king in perso,
and look after his horse too.." . I wanted to know more about this woman, and found this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypsicratea
Also, I didn't know there were Amazons reported by Plutarch, with information as to where they came from, their dress, and some of their customs. I had half suspected the women were
legends that grew from some vague source.
-
Kidsal, thanks. You covered every question I could think of about Triumphs. I note that 2 of Pompey's 3 Triumphs didn't fit the rules.
Babi, the info about Hypsicrates is fascinating. What a woman! I wonder what became of her when Mithridates killed himself; Plutarch doesn't say.
-
JUDE: the battle of Actium figures prominantly in Pluitarch, and is very interesting. I hope GINNY comes in at that point: I've heard her talk about it before, and raise some interesting questions (WHAT was Cleopatra thinking?)
-
Let's move on to Antony on Wednesday. That's time to read it.
A warning on names. They repeat, since everyone is related to everyone, due to all these political marriages. So in the Antony section, we have two Pompeys and two Caesars (a title, not a name?), and a second Brutus. What Plutarch seems to do: the first time he mentions someone, he gives the full name: after that he assumes you know who he's talking about.
Antony's story overlaps that of Pompey and Julius Caesar. At the beginning, our Pompey figures. After that Pompey's death, Plutarch introduces a Gauis (sp?) Pompey, presumably the son of ours, who is referred to as Pompey thereafter.
The same thing happens with the Caesars. At first, the Caesar mentioned is Julius, but his full name is only mentioned once. Then, after Julius' death, Plutarch introduces Octavius, (Julius's younger relative who afterwards became Augustus Caesar). From then on, when he says Caesar, he means Octavius. Watch for this switch: Julius is important at the beginning of the story, Octavius at the end.
This sounds more complicated than it is. And if we think the wrong Caesar did something, so what? We can call it Caesar salad.
There are minor characters where I suspect the same thing happens. But to me, it's not worth the trouble to keep track of them.
-
The quick and dirt links to:
Pompey the Younger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnaeus_Pompeius
Sextus Pompey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextus_Pompey
Sextus had one daughter before he was executed, Gnaeus died childless. Named Pompeia Magna, she seems to have disappeared from history after her father's death.
-
Roshanarose, that's a very interesting site about Greek democracy. It will be useful when we get to Alcibiades.
-
When I read the chapter through the first time, the end seemed like the last act of a Shakespearean tragedy, where everything comes unraveled for the hero, and he goes down to his tragic end.
Rereading it, I see that Pompey's life is the whole play, with the classic structure: the upward slope, the hero succeeding more and more, until the turning point in the third act, where things start coming apart, getting worse and worse until the final catastrophe at the end of the fifth act.
He starts out as a promising young general, winning more and more battles, getting honors and triumphs. Finally he is given huge power: a giant fleet, an army, dominion over most of the land anyone cared about. He gets rid of the pirates, and goes on to the east, getting rid of Mithridates, annexing Syria and Palestine, and setting things in order. Back to Rome, general acclaim, and a Triumph that lasted two days.
Here we are in the middle of the third act. Plutarch says "And well had it been for him had he terminated his life at this date, while he still enjoyed Alexander's fortune, since all his after-time served only either to bring him prosperity that made him odious, or calamities too great to be retrieved." He uses his power poorly until "at last he was overthrown even by the force and greatness of his own power"
He had dismissed his troops before entering Rome (Caesar didn't make this mistake) so he had to preserve his power by politicking, and took up with some unsavory characters. Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus allied as the First Triumvirate. They each got something out of it, but they were basically rivals. Crassus dies. So does Julia, and she was one thing holding Caesar and Pompey together. Now they are at each other's throats, and it's all downhill from here--defeat and betrayal.
-
It's a shame that Shakespeare didn't write that into a play.
-
ROSE: I didn't mean to pass over your preference for Artaxerxes. I wanted to read him too, to get a Persian in here. Maybe we can do him after Antony. have you read the selection?
JoanK - Thank you for being so thoughtful. No need for Artaxerxes unless he is democratically voted in.
-
Hello everyone,
i'm very tardy, due to credible excuses, but won't bore you with these. Thankfully, i was able to read the many discussion questions and comments from the past week from this lively group. Very keen insights help me to begin my readings of Pompey and, next, Marc Anthony.
once i finally d/loaded the $1.99 version of Plutarch (with the table of contents), i was able to find my way. Previously, i got the electronic version w/o TOC, a free version. it was nice, esp for background and translators' comments. But, having the TOC surely does make for a lot less work.
With the above stated, I am beginning Pompey, now, and hope to be up-to-speed with the group as you begin Marc Anthony.
Sincerely,
Joe F
-
Welcome, Joe, better late than never.
If you've been reading along, you already know that the secret to survival is not to try to sort out all the names. You'll already know who most of the heavyweights are. See you back soon.
-
Good morning! I've been here -- this has been a wonderful experience - being introduced to Plutarch by such a great story of a great life. I've been greedily enjoying all the posts too.
I've been wondering if Pompey's story would fit Aristotles definition of tragedy. He did seem to have a "fatal flaw" - that of hubris. since he was endowed with physical beauty and success in all his endeavors, he must have thought that he would always win out - thus the "pride" and thus the fall. Has it been made into a play at all? His ending was so tragic - I could hardly read the last few pages.
-
I have enjoyed reading all your posts. They were all very enlightening and this has been a real learning experience for me.
I have started reading Anthony, and it seems easier to read. Or perhaps I'm just getting used to Plutarch's way of writing.
Evelyn
-
PatH
I imagined the whole story of Pompey as a play by Shakespeare. I was grappling with the problem of how he would show the last scene on the water when I realized that it was Plutarch writing the story and not Shakespeare.
Perhaps William S. would have done the last bit of the story on the shore rather than on the water.
Who would play Pompey in the movie version of the play? Perhaps the young Marlon Brando or maybe someone has a more current actor to suggest?
-
How DID Shakespeare handle boat scenes? There should be one, surely, in Antony and Cleopatra? I think the boat scene is such a metaphor, here, almost poetic and pivotal to emphasizing lo how the mighty have fallen.
You've got all the contrasts there, deftly defined in boats. The drawing up by his own rag tag fleet of ships, much reduced in size and being some ships of war and some merchant vessels, to the Egyptian coast line. No flotilla of impressive ships waiting to come out from Egypt in welcome. Pompey's wife and family on his own ships, his family almost as a Greek chorus lamenting and watching the final downfall. Pompey holding out hope, bravely addressing his wife as he steps into a mean fishing boat, the inhospitable nature of his reception, having to ride in total silence, on that fishing boat, I love that scene, it's so poignant. Hope rising and falling. Hope rises as the family sees what appears to be a royal procession coming down to the shore. As the Egyptian boat approached it hailed him as Imperator: Commander, the title in stark contrast to the reception.
The reader remains in suspense, too, not really knowing how it will turn out. Hope rises and falls. The excuses for the fishing boat while at the same time they saw soldiers clambering aboard the King's boats and the shore covered with soldiers: escape was impossible. Hope falls with the inhospitable reception from Septimius, shame on him, in the fishing boat. Pompey doesn't give up, even then, he turns and prepares his speech. And then the end. Gosh. That was a brave man. No wonder Caesar cried.
What did you all make of the last words he spoke to his wife? What did he mean, I wonder?
-
JOE F: Glad you're here. We're winding up Pompey, so if you start with Antony, you're right up-to-date.
JOANR: good to hear from you.
Hope you lurkers will let us know you're there once in awhile.
EVELYN: I found Antony easier too. I think it's a little of both.
I'll put up Antony queastions today or tomorrow. Meanwhile, does anyone know what happened to Cleopatra BEFORE she met Antony?
Who could play Pompey? Hmmmm.
-
Dear JoanR,
ok, beginning with Anthony is fine by me.
thank you,
joef
-
Dear JoeF We have 3 Joans - JoanP, JoanK and me. I rather believe that you meant the message for JoanK but I'll happily take any message!!
-
Plutarch's Lives
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/Plutarch200.jpg)
Plutarch at the Museum of Delphi, Greece.
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/classicsbookclub/plutarch/DelphiValley_500.jpg)
Ruins of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, where Plutarch was a priest
The readers have spoken and our next read October 1 will be: Plutarch (c.46 A.D.- c. 120 A.D.) in his famous "Lives" or Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans; also called Parallel Lives.
Schedule:
Oct. 1-10: Pompey
Oct. 11- ?: Antony
Oct. ?: Alcibiades, Coriolanus and comparison
Oct. ?: Demosthenes, Cicero and comparison
?: Windup
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/Antony.jpg)
Antony
Questions for Week 2: Antony
(1). We've discussed Pompey's ambitions: what are Antony's? How do they affect his life?
(2) What evidence do you see that the Roman "republic" is not a republic? If you don't know, what do you think will happen to Rome's system of governance now?
(3) What is your reaction to the scene where the three generals meet, and divide up the Roman Empire (the Second Triumvirate)? How well did that work?
4) Cleopatra is one of the famous women in history. How does her story exemplify women's role? Challenge it? What does it tell us about women's role in Egypt?
(5) Are there any similarities between the role of women in Pompey and Antony's lives? Do you agree with Plutarch that Cleopatra ruined Antony's life? What do you think might have happened to him if he had never met her?
(6) Do you think Plutarch is fair in his assessments of Ptolemy and Antony? In his assessments of Cleopatra and Octavia? What do those assessments tell us about PLUTARCH's character? About his views on women?
(7) What was Cleopatra doing at Actium? Do you think that she panicked? Betrayed Antony? Plotted with Antony?
(8 ) What do you think of Antony and Cleopatra's long preparation for death (the dyers club, the practice on slaves)? Throughout Plutarch, do you think the Roman attitude toward death is the same or different from ours?
Discussion Leaders: JoanK (joankraft13@yahoo.com) and PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net)
Clough Translation-Roshanarose's Link (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives/index.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Hot off the Press
The movie "Coriolanus" inspired by Will Shakespeare should be showing in the US any time now.
Ralph Fiennes (the Thinking Woman's Crumpet :-*) directs and stars as Coriolanus, Gerard Butler (Leonidas in "300") and Brian Cox (Agamemnon in "Troy"and Vanessa Redgrave also star. Read the right hand sidebar links for some interesting info about setting etc. Set in War (necessarily) but not any war of Rome. Temporal and spatial changes big time. See side bar link Ralph Fiennes' - Full metal Coriolanus.
www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/mar/11/ralph-fiennes-directs-coriolanus
-
Not any war of Rome? Gosh.
I look forward to seeing what Fiennes does with it. I still can't watch Ian McKellan's Richard III, he's SOOO MEAN!
PatH I loved what you did with your summary above, that was splendid and I love the questions, JoanK, in the heading. Really good ones.
I just came in to say how much I am enjoying the Antony sections and how surprised I am at Plutarch's open bias against "Caesar." (Octavian). It's a super read. I have never read the whole section, I love it, and it shows how difficult it is to look anything up in Plutarch, he's got stuff all over everywhere, here we have the so called 2nd triumvirate and the Proscriptions but it's Antony who leaves me gape jawed. I think I'll get out my Cleopatra with Richard Burton again, he did a better job than I thought. (Of course who else could have played Antony?)
(We might want to say Antony, not "Anthony.")
I think Plutarch's description beats the movie, tho, so far, but am not through. A super choice!
No last words for Pompey? The scene of Pompey's death is one of the most memorable in history and the way Plutarch writes it is lyrical. But I still don't know what Pompey meant by HIS last words to his wife. I really have no clue, why did he quote Sophocles? Did he mean from that point on his life would be changed? Was he trying to warn her? Of what? Yet he went boldly on. But what choice did he have? I don't know what he meant.
-
Hmmm, I've never read 'Coriolanus'. Since I'm interested in seeing the movie,I guess
it's time I read the play first.
-
His ending was so tragic - I could hardly read the last few pages.
Me too, but it also had an awful fascination such that I couldn't put it down. You're watching Pompey fall apart before your eyes. He starts making worse and worse decisions. He leaves Rome; he gathers an army and navy, but keeps them scattered. He ignores his own instinct to choose a favorable time and place for battle, giving in to his advisers, making a stand where he is outnumbered, with inexperienced troops. His conduct of the battle is that of a man who has lost his nerve.
Then, to me the most moving bit of all, he retreats to his tent in shock, so stunned by his realization of what has just happened that he can't even speak.
-
Here are the questions to think about while we read Antony. They are in the heading as well.
(1). We've discussed Pompey's ambitions: what are Antony's? How do they affect his life?
(2) What evidence do you see that the Roman "republic" is not a republic? If you don't know, what do you think will happen to Rome's system of governance now?
(3) What is your reaction to the scene where the three generals meet, and divide up the Roman Empire (the Second Triumvirate)? How well did that work?
4) Cleopatra is one of the famous women in history. How does her story exemplify women's role? Challenge it? What does it tell us about women's role in Egypt?
(5) Are there any similarities between the role of women in Pompey and Antony's lives? Do you agree with Plutarch that Cleopatra ruined Antony's life? What do you think might have happened to him if he had never met her?
(6) Do you think Plutarch is fair in his assessments of Ptolemy and Antony? In his assessments of Cleopatra and Octavia? What do those assessments tell us about PLUTARCH's character? About his views on women?
(7) What was Cleopatra doing at Actium? Do you think that she panicked? Betrayed Antony? Plotted with Antony?
(8 ) What do you think of Antony and Cleopatra's long preparation for death (the diers club, the practice on slaves)? Throughout Plutarch, do you think the Roman attitude toward death is the same or different from ours?
-
Antony starts tomorrow. it's a much easier read than Pompey. We are already familiar with the society and most of the main characters.
We see also in this what happens to Julius Caesar. It's not always spelled out. But we probably all remember that he marches his army into Rome, declares himself Emporor (the formal end of the Republic) and is murdered a year or so later on the Ides of March, in the Senate by (among others) Cassius and Brutus. We'll find out in Antony what happens to THEM! (See if you can catch a phrase that Shakespeare borrows almost word for word from Plutarch).
-
I'm trying to think what other background we might need. When we meet Cleopatra, she already has a child by Julius Caesar, so he's been there. Antony is following in his footsteps?
There are various political posts mentioned. A tribune is a member of the other house of their congress, the Tribunal (the equivelant of our House of Representatives) and are supposedly elected by the people.
I found out yesterday that in the US, like in Rome, originally only the House of Representatives was elected by the people. The Senators were (until the 20th century) elected (appointed) by committee. The Senate and House are modeled on the Roman Senate and Tribunal. As, of course is the british Parliament (House of Lords and House of Commons).
Magistrate was another powerful position. I believe that it was the Magistrates that appointed the Senators: I'm not sure.
-
In te intro by A.H.Clough (1819-1861) to Plutarch's Lives we find this poem which supposedly was found on a statue of Plutarch.
"Charonean Plutarch, to thy deathless praise
Does martial Rome this greatful staue raise,
Because both Greece and she thy fame have shared,
(Their heroes written, and their lives compared).
But thou thyself coudst never write thy own;
Their lives have parallels, but thine has none."
I thought this was a really beautiful pean to Plutarch, who, with more and more interest, I find myself reading.What a project he took on when he wrote these lives and dared to compare them.
How could I have considered myself a well read individual and never read Plutarch before?
So thanks Joan and all my" fellow travelers" for this site.
-
Joan posted the following summary:
(Julius Caesar) marches his army into Rome, declares himself Emperor (the formal end of the Republic) and is murdered a year or so later on the Ides of March
Goldsworthy in his book Caesar runs this period for almost 50 pages, so I'll try to type in some highlights. My first point is that when he crossed the Rubicon and entered Rome near the end of July 46, he was not doing so in order to become the emperor. He had been a vocal supporter of the Republic all his life.
Caesar celebrated four triumphs, over Gaul, Egypt, Asia, and Africa, where he conquered the land of King Juba. The celebrations lasted from Sep 21 through Oct 2. Pliny the Younger wrote that Caesar had killed 1,192,000 enemies in his four campaigns; Goldsworthy questions how that number was calculated. Caesar gave 5,000 denarii to each of his soldiers, more than a legionary would earn in 16 years of service!
Goldsworthy says that at that time Caesar wanted to be consul for the second time, not dictator or emperor! He was, however, elected consul in the subsequent years through a 5th term. It's thus obvious that Caesar had great power, but scholars disagree about his overall aims. Much criticism of Caesar comes down to us in the publications of Cicero. Goldsworthy says (p 487) that the majority of the Senate was willing to tolerate Caesar's extraordinary power in order to avoid civil war.
(stopping here, too much?)
-
Not too much at all, Mippy. The more background we have, of events and motives, the easier it is to understand what we're reading. This was recent history to Plutarch's audience.
I've been reading some background too. One book (sorry, I forget which one) said that when Caesar, Pompey and Crassus first hooked up, Caesar wanted the consulate, Pompey wanted the money and land for his troops that he felt was their due, and Crassus wanted some tax fiddle with the eastern lands that I didn't bother to sort out. Pompey had dismissed his troops, as required by law, so was not in as powerful a position as he might have been.
Mippy, does that fit with what Goldsworthy says?
-
Mippy
Thanks for the interesting info. No, I don't think it is too much. I think everything anyone brings here is very helpful to understand the background and what was going on in Rome at that time.
Evelyn
-
Thanks, PatH and Evelyn. Goldsworthy (p 254 ff):
In 59, the 2 wealthiest and most influential men in Rome, Pompey and Crassus, had joined to achieve the immediate aims, using Caesar as their tool to overcome opposition that until then had proved too solid. Pompey had secured his Eastern Settlement, in order to have land for his army veterans, while Crassus had renegotiated the tax-famers' contracts. The two were satisfied, as was Caesar with his land reform and military command, but only for the moment.
Each had further ambitions for the future. It had suited each to combine their efforts for a while, permitting a degree of success that none could have managed on his own. But it was not an alliance built on deep roots of shared ideology or commitment to a common cause.
In spite of Caesar's outstanding, recent successes in Gaul, he was clearly the junior partner. Pompey and Crassus actually disliked each other intensely, and their rivalry was just below the surface, at that time. No one else in Rome could match Pompey and Crassus in their wealth, fame and auctoritas.
-
JUDE: I love that inscription:
"Their lives have parallels but thine has none."
MIPPY: " Goldsworthy says (p 487) that the majority of the Senate was willing to tolerate Caesar's extraordinary power in order to avoid civil war."
Exactly! One of the main things I learned from the discussion in "Story of civilization", reading through many centuries of history in many countries is that this pattern occurs again and again in history. There is a period of chaos or danger. In order to control it, the leader is given extrordinary powers, which he uses wisely to bring about a period of peace and prosperity. However, when he dies, his successors are not as wise, and start using the same piowers for amassment of power and gold. Things go downhill rapidly.
This is exactly what will happen in the years after our story. Octavius (Augustus Caesar) will bring about a "silver" age for Greece, but get even more powers. When he dies, things will really fall apart.
-
From reading my book "Cleopatra" by Stacy Schiff:
Women in Cleopatra's time made their own marriages, could divorce and get alimony, the house and child support, could loan money, operate barges, serve as priests, own property, introduce lawsuits.
Cleopatra was funding the war at Actium. Also acted as interpretor as she spoke several languages.
Found an instance where Shakespeare copied Plutarch's dialogue: Charmion, Cleopatra's maidservant, in response to Octavian's soldiers remark at death of Cleopatra "A fine deed this Charmion." Charmion replied "It is indeed most fine, and befitting the descendant of so many kings."
-
Cleopatra by Stacy Schiff is indeed a fine background source for our Antony discussion, Kidsal/Sally. I need to locate my copy.
My recollection is that Cleopatra funded a great many of Antony's elaborate schemes in the years after they met. Her wealth outshone his by orders of magnitude. Do you recall if women's ability to plan their own marriages was limited to royalty and upper class citizens? I had thought that lower class women had no rights of their own at all.
No only does Shakespeare use Plutarch as noted, but his play Julius Caesar lifts material from Plutarch. The famous "friends, Romans, countrymen" speech may not be historically accurate, but it no doubt made many of us today think of Mark Antony as a hero. My question: do you think Antony was a hero when in the civil war he fought against Octavian? Comments?
-
Great stuff here! My question: do you think Antony was a hero when in the civil war he fought against Octavian? Comments?
Great question!
I'm not quite there. I'm watching Antony disintegrate. I'm fascinated by his commerce and interaction with the Parthians. In this age of no phones, no internet, no walkie talkies, no means of electronic communication at all, it's amazing how the enemy are constantly talking to each other. I am totally caught up in watching him fall. I love this book and wish it were not so heavy, you can't hold it UP in bed (my copy anyway).
Yet his men still love him. And he's betraying them. He's making very bad decisions and costing lives, PLUTARCH says because of his total infatuation with Cleopatra.
Was it that, I wonder? It's obvious he's a hard living type of guy. Could it be too much vino? Or was it something else? He deliberately delayed..because of HER! What was the reason again? He's losing respect but they are still holding their admiration for him amidst rumors of defection.
The Romans hated Cleopatra. Here in Plutarch we see some of that sneaking thru but in his own bias, she's at fault.
And my goodness Octavia! Talk about powerful women, look what SHE did, averted a civil war yet, well done, you go girl! A paragon among women as she will prove to be yet after everybody (Antony) is dead including Cleopatra. I wonder how many of us would do what she did.
And the awful "decimation." How long one wonders can Antony hold ON to the loyalty of his army? It's clear he was a powerful commander, once. I can't imagine him against Octavian. Roman against Roman. Just this scene here makes me understand his deep depression after Actium, how could he even live hearing and picturing the screams of his men as he sailed away from them, literally over them struggling in the water when they as Plutarch says preferred "his good opinion of them to their very lives and being. "
Powerful powerful stuff, I love it. Better than any Real Housewives of anything! Love the description of them kneeling down covering selves with shields like a testudo, tortoise formation and rising up all at once, wonderful stuff.
-
http://historicmysteries.com/role-of-women-in-ancient-egypt
Discusses role of women throughout Egyptian history.
-
Whatever Plutarch’s ultimate judgment, it appears he is being as even-handed as he
can. I freely describes Marc Antony’s good qualities. Despite his early association with
disreputable types, he finally left them for Greece and the study of 'eloquence’ (rhetoric?)
and military training. He “gave proofs of his personal valor and military conduct”, humanity,
and gallantry.
He seems to have been a young man who wanted to be liked, who enjoyed popularity and
being ‘one of the boys’. “What might seem to some very insupportable, his vaunting, his raillery, his drinking in public, sitting down by the men..and eating...off the common soldiers’
tables, made him the delight and pleasure of the army”. Plutarch refers to his ‘generous
ways’.
This popularity, and his speaking skills, stood him in good stead as tribune and augur. He
made an effective representative of the people, and was able to be most useful to his party.
Nevertheless, he also showed signs, imo, of immaturity and petulance. Being commanded
by the consul Lentulus to leave the Senate, because he was effectively thwarting the consul’s
wishes in the matter, he disguises himself and fleeing to Caesar, has himself a nice tantrum.
His report about the actions of the Consul were true enough, but I question whether he was
actually in danger of his life. Still, perhaps he was.
On the question of early signs that the Republic was no longer existent, the very fact that a
Consul could order a duly elected Tribune out of the Senate for doing his job is, to me, clear
evidence that the laws of the Republic no longer held.
I found most interesting Plutarch’s assessment of Caesar’s response, and his motives. He
accuses Caesar of “unquenchable thirst of empire, and the ....ambition of being the greatest
man in the world, which was impracticable for him, unless Pompey were put down.” I’ve
always had a better impression of Caesar than that. He was immensely proud, of course. His
actions following his captivity and ransom by the pirates prove that. Still.... Thanks for that
summary, MIPPY. That sounds much more like the true Julius Caesar to me.
On reading your post, PatH, I couldn't help wondering if 'Crassus' was where the word
crass comes from. ;)
-
Thank you for that reference to the role of women in Egypt, KIDSAL. According to the reference above (Alfred Jones), it seems that this role varied a lot. At one point the author states that Egypt was unique in that there was no idea of male superiority. This equality was fragile, and varied through the years. In the time of Cleopatra VII (I hope that's our Cleopatra) she could be a powerful queen, but didn't call herself "Pharoah", a title reserved for men. With the fall of Cleopatra, women's roles became subserviant until the 20th century.
We have to be a little careful. Just as some might falsely assume that because we have a black President, there's no racial predjudice here, having a powerful queen doesn't necessarily mean that ordinary women had control over their lives.
-
BABI: "On the question of early signs that the Republic was no longer existent, the very fact that a
Consul could order a duly elected Tribune out of the Senate for doing his job is, to me, clear
evidence that the laws of the Republic no longer held."
Exactly. Can you imagine how Congress or Parliament would function id every time a member lost a vote, they had to flee for their lives?
-
I checked the list of Plutarchs Lives..The subjects are all male.
Is this a personal bias of Plutarch or is he just reacting to the general attitude toward women as important figures in the history of Rome and Greece?
From what I've read about Plutarch himself , he was a good father and husband. Not one for hanky-panky. So perhaps his strait laced virtuous personality didn't like what went on between Anthony and Cleopatra. No matter Plutarch's personal attitude toward this couple , their romance was obviously deeply felt and there love has become a symbol for lovers throughout the ages.
Cleopatra may have started out as using Antony for political purposes but by the time they had three children together she was deeply enough attached that she was willing to die when he did. In other words ,without Antony life was not worth living.
I don't think Cleopatra was a typical woman or even a typical monarch. First and foremost she was brilliant, mistress of many languages, physically beautiful and capable of deep love. Growing up among conniving court and royal persons she was not naive or innocent but a person who knew how to use power and the people that weild it.
Because she is so atypical her name and persona have managed to shine not only among scholars but with anyone who has a basic interest in history and especially in women's history. And of course Shakespeare helped her image quite a bit.
-
I was surprised to read that the position of “Master of the Horse” meant second in power and
authority to the dictator himself. Why was ‘Master of the Horse’ so prestigious? Well,
naturally, I had to find out. All I could find was the importance of cavalry. It didn’t really
explain why that title might be given to the most powerful man in Rome in the absence
of the dictator. Perhaps it was simply that the leader of the cavalry was second only to
the commander of the Army, and trusted by his leader. http://rtw.heavengames.com/history/general/the_history_of_cavalry_infantry_and_ranged_units/index.shtml
It becomes evident that while Antony shone in the military, he had no aptitude for the
responsibilities of a more settled office. His dissolute youth returned more rambunctious
than ever, and soon lost him the favor of even those who had admired him. His soldiers,
reportedly, began to imitate him in his “acts of license and rapacity”. When Caesar
finally came home he had himself a fine mess to clean up.
I was really amazed that, tho' reversing many of Antony's actions, Caesar was surprisingly mild
with him. I wonder why he chose to be so patient? Was it perhaps because he was a relative of
Julia's? In any case, if turned out to be a wise decision. According to Plutarch, he was able to
succeed in "curing him (Antony) of a good deal of his folly and extravagnce. He gave up his former
courses, and took a wife, Fulvia"....apparently a strong personality in her own right.
Antony back on the right track
-
Good morning! just a few notes:
Antony was a cousin of Gaius Julius Caesar, both being members of the Julian family. Many of the family's girl children were typically named Julia, which can be confusing.
As noted more than once in these posts, the Caesar in this reading is Octavian (not Octavius) the great-nephew of Julius Caesar, who later took the name of Augustus. Octavian was not in Rome when Caesar was killed.
Additional supplementary reading is the historical novel by Colleen McCullough: Antony and Cleopatra. Although fictional, her scholarship appears to be excellent and she does not distort historical facts, just adds a lot of conversation that an historian could not put in.
McCullough (p 54ff) suggests that Cleopatra encouraged Antony to engage in the civil war in order to keep Roman legions from turning to Alexandria and plundering Egypt. At that time, she was also afraid that there was a Roman plot to kill her son by Julius Caesar, Caesarion.
-
He gave up his former
courses, and took a wife, Fulvia"....apparently a strong personality in her own right.
Antony back on the right track
On track for a while at least.
I love the description of Fulvia: "...a woman not born for spinning or housewifery, nor one that could be content with ruling a private husband, but prepared to govern a first magistrate, or give orders to a commander-in-chief. So that Cleopatra had great obligations to her for having taught Antony to be so good a servant, he coming to her hands tame and broken into entire obedience to the commands of a mistress."
Plutarch can be devastating when he doesn't approve.
-
PatH
I loved that bit about Antony "...he came to her hands tame and broken into obedience to the commands of a mistress." It made me giggle. :D
Evelyn
-
I'm the one guilty of writing OctaviUS instead of OctaviAN. Sorry.
Off to run (the seemingly endless) errands. Back later.
I like this discussion -- there's a lot to think about here.
(I wonder if Antony and Caesar ran errands. I'll bet they had a slave to take care of all that).
-
Found an instance where Shakespeare copied Plutarch's dialogue: Charmion, Cleopatra's maidservant, in response to Octavian's soldiers remark at death of Cleopatra "A fine deed this Charmion." Charmion replied "It is indeed most fine, and befitting the descendant of so many kings."
I found another.
Plutarch: "'It is not,' said he (Caesar) 'those well-fed, long-haired men that I fear, but the pale and hungry-looking;' meaning Brutus and Cassius...."
Shakespeare: "Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights;
Yond' Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous."
-
I've just started Antony. He seemed easily swayed by others in his early years.
-
JoanK, amica mea ~ I did not mean to be harsh when I corrected the spelling/typing of Octavian. Please forgive me.
Yes, any upper class Roman had many, many slaves to run errands. Most household slaves were literate and numerate and many were freed upon the death of their owner. They then became Roman citizens and could vote! Do any of you recall: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum? Sondheim's lyrics are spot on, as said in the UK. I might quote a bit here, later
The names of these players is enough to drive us mad, isn't it. It especially bothers me when Plutarch switches to calling Octavian Caesar. However, Octavian's officers did quickly start to address him as Caesar, according to McCullough, since he was named by Julius Caesar as his heir.
-
He does, indeed, FRYBABE. My impression was that Antony wanted to be liked, and was
willing to go along with whatever the popular leader wanted. When he became a leader
himself, he still wanted everyone to like him, and went out of his way to associate
with his soldiers in a 'one of the boys'sort of way.
I found it most interesting to learn that the conspirators had sounded out Antony, to see
if he might join them in their attack on Caesar. He would not, but I guess he felt that
having put him on guard, they would not proceed. At any rate, he did not betray the one
who had approached him. I was also pleased to see that Brutus refused to allow the group
to include Antony in their plans for assassination because “an action undertaken in defence of
right and the lawsmust be maintained unsullied, and pure of injustice”. Brutus was indeed
an honorable man, though Shakespeare had Antony using that point to telling effect after
Caesar’s death.
I was astonished, though, that Antony had given his son as hostage when he urged the
conspirators to ‘come down’ from the capitol. His plea was successful, tho’, and all in all,
I think he showed more political acumen and civic responsibility than I would have credited
to him before.
I was puzzled by the term 'act of oblivion’ which Antony proposed before the Senate, after
the assassination. I found this definition in the Free Dictionary
<I>The action of a government by which all persons or certain groups of persons who have committed a criminal offense, usually of a political nature that threatens the sovereignty of the government are granted immunity from prosecution.
-
Margie,glad to see you back, hope George is oK?
Jude, what a super assessment of Cleopatra and what a job Plutarch does on her and on Octavia. I wonder which would, in the eyes of somebody in 2011, be considered the more fine example of womanhood?
I am loving Antony's chapter. Just loving it. I love reading it right before going to sleep even tho it's impossible to hold up. I am distressed to see it already ending (where I am, anyway) and us already at Actium, the final sea battle, such as it was, and Plutarch's stunning assessment of what Cleopatra was doing there and her own plans. I am absolutely LOVING this!
Also PatH brings up some Plutarchisms, I have laughed out loud at several of them. I liked that the enemy in the battle of the Parthians "did not think it convenient to advance any further" hahaha he's SO like Caesar in his speech (Julius, that is).
I loved his assessment of the King of the Parthians, here Antony (isn't that an amazing bit about the water!!??) is running about on the front lines and here the Parthian king is retired at the rear: "for he himself was never present in any fight."
I cannot imagine Antony later abandoning soldiers who tried to carry water in their hands and helmets, when there was none so they could fight for him. But supposedly he did, according to Hollywood, to follow Cleopatra like a love sick puppy.
Over and over Plutarch portrays Antony as a lovesick boy who leaves everything for Cleopatra. This is the same slant the movie Cleopatra took on Antony when Richard Burton left the battle of Actium. It's now not thought accurate for Actium. I can't wait to see what Plutarch says.
Babi: Brutus was indeed an honorable man, though Shakespeare had Antony using that point to telling effect after
Caesar’s death.
I myself am in Dante's camp. He placed Brutus and Cassius in the lowest rung of his hell, along with Judas for the same reason.
That honorable man stuff, that vain flattery is what killed Brutus's soul and his real honor, trying to be like his ancestor Brutus, he should have studied his history more. What a play HE would have made!~
LOVE this! To me Octavia wins the Real Woman battle here, hands down.
-
Here, for those vaguely interested is Spark Notes on Dante's Fourth Ring of the 9th Circle of Hell in the Inferno and why Brutus is there:
From: http://www.sparknotes.com/poetry/inferno/section13.rhtml
.
Analysis: Canto XXXIV
Here in the Fourth Ring of the Ninth Circle of Hell, at the utter bottom, Dante comes to the end of his hierarchy of sins and thus completes the catalogue of evil that dominates and defines Inferno. Although Inferno explores most explicitly the theme of divine retribution and justice, the poem’s unrelenting descriptions, categorizations, and analysis of sin makes human evil its fundamental subject.
The positioning of fraud as the worst of sins helps us to define evil: fraud, more than any other crime, acts contrary to God’s greatest gift to mankind—love. A deed’s degree of wickedness thus depends on the degree to which it opposes love. So-called ordinary fraud only breaks the natural bonds of trust and love that form between men; other categories of fraud reach an even greater depth of evil because they break an additional bond of love. Of these, frauds against kin, country, and guests constitute the lighter end of the scale, for they violate only socially obligated bonds—our culture expects us to love our family and our homeland and to be a good host.
But fraud against a benefactor constitutes the worst fraud of all, according to Dante, for it violates a love that is purely voluntary, a love that most resembles God’s love for us. Correspondingly, one who betrays one’s benefactor comes closest to betraying God directly. Thus, the ultimate sinner, Judas Iscariot, was a man who betrayed both simultaneously, for his benefactor was Jesus Christ.
The justice of Brutus and Cassius’s placement in the lowest depths of Hell is more problematic. History tells us that these men did betray and murder Julius Caesar, but Caesar’s status as a great benefactor remains disputed.
The explanation for their presence lies in Dante’s often-implied belief that Rome is the sovereign city, destined to rule the world both physically and spiritually. Just as Christ, whose church is centered in Rome, was the perfect manifestation of religion, Dante feels that Caesar was the perfect manifestation of secular government, as the emperor of Rome at the height of its power.
Since spiritual concerns must, in the end, outweigh temporal ones, Judas has committed the greater sin, and his head, rather than his legs, feels the constant chewing of Lucifer’s teeth. However, the fact that Brutus and Cassius suffer a punishment only slightly less harsh demonstrates Dante’s belief that church and state play equally important roles, each in its own sphere. Throughout Inferno, Dante has expressed the view that church and state should remain separate but equal. Now, Dante finds an arrangement for the final circle of Hell that both completes his vision of the moral hierarchy and makes one last, vivid assertion of his politics.
-
Ginny, you bring up an interesting point. My view of Brutus and Cassius is colored by Shakespeare. But they did have reasons for what they did. What were they? Were any of them good? What does anyone think? Would you put them in the 9th circle?
-
PatH
When Dante wrote his words Hitler, Mao and Stalin had not yet been born.
So many evil people since Dante wrote(1265-1321) . Who today would put Brutus and Cassius next to Genghis Khan or
those who wiped out the South American Indian tribes?
So many years, so much evil.
Personally I get too upset if I think about evil people and the horror they have caused.
Someone famous said "The evil men do dies with them, the love they leave lives on."
Philosophically it is possible to debate that statement but this is neither the place or time.
-
GREAT discussion!
No, I agree, for sheer bestiality the 20th century beats the ancients any time. Rwanda alone. Pol Pot and his Killing Fields in Cambodia alone.
Would I put Brutus and Cassius in the lowest rung of hell? I wouldn't put anybody there but then I didn't write the Inferno, with such a wonderful honorable man as Brutus, one wonders why Dante put him there?
The point is, he did. Living when he did. Would anybody today put him there? It might depend on the criteria you apply. The most evil man in the world? no. The greatest mass murderer? No. Those don't appear to be the criteria Dante applied either.
Did Cassius have good reasons? Apparently not, according to Plutarch, who says of him:
"And they were well persuaded that Cassius, being a man governed by anger and passion, and carried often, for his interest's sake, beyond the bound of justice, endured all these hardships of war and travel and danger most assuredly to obtain dominion to himself, and not liberty to the people. (Marcus Brutus section, page 1204...I don't know what page that is in other editions).
But of Brutus Plutarch says, "But Brutus for his virtue was esteemed by the people, beloved by his friends, admired by the best men, and hated not by his enemies themselves. For he was a man of a singularly gentle nature, of a great spirit, insensible of the passions of anger or pleasure or covetousness; steady and inflexible to maintain his purpose for what he thought right and honest. And that which gained him the greatest affection and reputation was the entire faith in his intentions."
(Plutarch in the chapter Marcus Brutus, page 1204).
And yet Brutus for all this great honor, and sense of honesty, and everybody finding him spotless in intent, entered into a dishonest cowardly conspiracy to kill the man who had not only pardoned him twice and his friends, and elevated him to high office, but who saw him as a friend and possibly successor in some way. Plutarch quotes Caesar, who apparently was able to see thru Brutus, when he was told of the conspiracy and that Brutus was part of it, "Brutus will wait for this skin of mine," intimating that he was worthy to bear rule on account of his virtue, but would not be base and ungrateful to gain it." (Caesar section page 888 in this book). Again this is repeated slightly differently, in another part of Plutarch, paraphrased as Caesar held up his hand, as surely Brutus can wait for this little body.
Plutarch also says of Brutus, "But the honors and favors he received from Caesar took off the edge from the desires he might himself have felt for overthrowing the new monarchy. For he had not only been pardoned himself, after Pompey's defeat at Pharsalia , and had procured the same grace for many of his friends, but was one in whom Caesar had a particular confidence....Nor would Caesar afterwards listen to some who spoke against Brutus..."
Caesar had also pardoned Cassius, when Cassius deserted his friend Pompey when Pompey's fortunes turned bad at Pharsalus and nevertheless was pardoned afterwards by Caesar.
Caesar was too lenient a man, and too generous in his pardons, in my opinion. So why did Dante put the most honorable man alive into Hell, and not only Hell, in the lowest possible place? What did he know we don't? Even by Dante's time genocide and torture had taken place on a large scale.
The name Brutus in Latin means stupid. It literally means "idiot." Brutus is not the family name, it's his cognomen, kind of like a nickname. He claimed descent from the first Brutus tho this was somewhat doubted. Again possibly a problem with the "honest" bit. (There's a nifty story about the first Brutus, the honorable ancestor that Marcus Brutus hoped to emulate and how he did a play on words on his name).
As for our Marcus Junius Brutus, surely when the most honorable of men saw his secret group running about putting on wreaths on statues of Caesar to slander him and arouse the public against him, and the conspirators meeting in secret meetings, he felt perhaps ashamed. His reported inability to sleep before the murder was much remarked on. Maybe we should read Brutus before we're through.
I guess it depends on what a person thinks is character and loyalty. He didn't seem to have a problem with Pompey's sole consulship. Plutarch says in the Brutus section again page 1204, "For it had not ever been supposed that Pompey the Great himself, if he had overcome Caesar, would have submitted his power to the laws, instead of taking the management of the state upon himself, soothing the people with the specious name of consul or dictator, or some other milder title than king."
In other words, the "Republic" was already done. It was Caesar, not Pompey, nor Brutus, who increased the number of senators to 900.
Cicero's letters also reveal a slightly different slant on Brutus' character: on his financial dealings with the people of Salamis (in Cyprus) he lent money at 48 percent interest, and was said to be prepared to go to any length to recover the debt.
Both the Caesar and the Brutus chapters are very interesting sections. On the positive side Plutarch quotes Antony himself who is said to have observed that "Brutus was the only man that conspired against Caesar out of a sense of the glory and the apparent justice of the action, but that all the rest rose up against the man himself, from private envy and malice of their own."
"The glory and the apparent justice of the action, sounds positive, unless you think it's not glorious or in the name of justice for any reason to surround and stab an unarmed man 23 times.
Goldsworthy remarks of the conspirators that "Yet although these men believed that they were doing what was right for the Republic, they would not have been Roman aristocrats if they did not also crave the fame and glory that they felt would be attached to such a deed. It should also be noted that the conspirators, especially the most distinguished of them like Cassius, Marcus and Decimus Brutus, Trebonius and Galba, were bound to do very well politically if the venture succeeded. They were men likely to be foremost amongst those senators who would guide the restored Republic, especially since it was scarcely likely that those who had remained staunchly loyal to Caesar would prosper after his death. But Marcus and Decimus Brutus gave up certain consulships, but could confidently predict that they would win the magistracy in the election. (Page 504).
Why did Dante put Brutus there with Cassius? It may have something to do with betrayal of loyalty and friendship. What a cowardly act it was, to me.
-
MIPPY: of course, goes without saying.
JUDE:"The evil men do dies with them, the love they leave lives on."
We can argue aboutwhether it is true, but we all WISH it were true.
WE never get to find out whether Brutus would have restored more Democracy or not. Somehow, I doubt it: even if he'd tried, he would have been overthrown. I agree that things had gone too far.
I think I'm the only one in the world who can't take Dante seriously. I think it's a hoot, making up all those punishments for his political enemies and anyone he didn't like. We.ve all felt that way, but didn't have the excuse of great poetry to excuse us.
In the spirit of evil dying and love living on, I think we should make up levels of Heaven for people we like. No, on second thought, that wouldn't do. Would our friends call us "You only gave ME the First level of heaven and SHE got the third?"
-
My view on Brutus and CAssius are surely also colored by Shakespeare. Nevertheless, I
see Cassius as greedy and ambitious, and Brutus as manipulated into joining the conspiracy
by persuading him that Caesar was reaching for a crown and it was his duty as a good
Roman to help bring him down. I don't think either man quite qualifies for the bottom
run of the inferno, tho'. There have been been men quilty of far worse. Greed,ambition
and betrayal are really rather common sins, don't you think?
“It was his character in calamities to be better than at any other time. Antony, in misfortune, was most nearly a virtuous man.”
The dichotomy in Mark Antony’s character does not appear to change as he matures. He is
still the ideal Roman in battle...a fine strategist, bold, courageous, well able to handle himself.
In civilian life, however, he returns to his dissolute and extravagant ways and appears utterly
lost to all sense of what is right, honorable or wise.
Is battle, for him, just another way of having fun? Is that why he slips away, when it isn't
fun anymore?
-
That's a good take on Antony's character, Babi, especially:
"Is battle, for him, just another way of having fun? Is that why he slips away, when it isn't fun anymore?"
Ingenious. I bet you're right.
He certainly made a mess of his last campaign, when he was really more interested in trailing after Cleopatra, and passed up all sorts of good chances. I don't completely trust Plutarch to give an even-handed account, but it's pretty clear.
-
Ginny
You certainly analyzed the issues down to the Nth degree!
Very impressive!
However look at things this way Who would you rather "hang out" with if you were a well to do Roman?
Who did all the woman fall for?
Who today remains a sort of"Superhero"?
Marc Antony of course.
JoanK
I'm with you. If you don't take Dante seriuosly he is quite a "hoot".
-
Plutarch's Lives
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/Plutarch200.jpg)
Plutarch at the Museum of Delphi, Greece.
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/classicsbookclub/plutarch/DelphiValley_500.jpg)
Ruins of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, where Plutarch was a priest
The readers have spoken and our next read October 1 will be: Plutarch (c.46 A.D.- c. 120 A.D.) in his famous "Lives" or Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans; also called Parallel Lives.
Schedule:
Oct. 1-10: Pompey
Oct. 11- 20: Antony
Oct. 21-?: Cicero
Oct. ?: Coriolanus
?: Windup
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/latin/Thorvaldsen_Cicero.jpg)
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Bertel Thorvaldsen, copy of Roman original, ca 1800
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/CiceroiCatilineCesareMaccari%2818401919%29.jpg)
Cicero denouncing Catiline (Cesare Maccari)
Questions for Cicero
1. What is the role of the Orator in Roman society? Is there anyone in British or US history comparable to Cicero and the role he played?
2. What were Cicero's ambitions? His strong and weak points? How did they help/hurt him?
3. Cicero is the first Roman we've read about who was not accomplished in battle. How did this hurt him? How did it help him? What is the relationship between the army and politics in Rome?
4. Cicero is best known for suppressing Catiline's revolt. How did he do that?
5. Cicero is criticized all his life for executing Catiline's fellow rebels without a trial. Yet later, Augustus Caesar calmly agrees to execute Cicero as part of a bargain for power. What is the difference?
6. Are we getting to know our guide, Plutarch any better? What does this section tell us about his character?
Discussion Leaders: JoanK (joankraft13@yahoo.com) and PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net)
Clough Translation-Roshanarose's Link (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives/index.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
However look at things this way Who would you rather "hang out" with if you were a well to do Roman?
Who did all the woman fall for?
Who today remains a sort of"Superhero"?
Marc Antony of course.
You must be kidding? A woman chasing drunk? Who deserted his own men and then lived to regret it? What part of Marc Antony is admirable? When he fell out with his former friend Cicero who protested that he was wasting Julius Caesar's money left to the people? To the extent that it was Antony who put Cicero, despite Octavian arguing for 2 days against it, in the proscriptions so he could have some concession he wanted? Who ordered his own faithful wife who was taking care of his own children by two previous wives out of the house?
No thanks. hahaaa :)
-
I came IN to say I just came from the new George Clooney movie The Ides of March which advances the old fashioned idea (apparently) that loyalty matters, even when the most powerful men in the land are involved.
I was astounded when the movie was over that the people around me didn't understand how the title fit the movie.
Despite Philip Seymour Hoffman's passionate speech in the middle of it that what mattered was loyalty. He said "if you are not loyal, you are nothing. Loyalty is all that matters."
And this is 2011. I am sure nobody here would have a problem understanding the title in connection with the movie, whether or not they agree with the premise. I was glad we are reading this actually. How au courant can you GET?
Nth degree?
Actually I left half of it out. Like the part where the Romans historically hated a conspiracy. To them a conspiracy was anathema. Like the part where the conspirators approached their friends to sound them out on it and Plutarch reports in the Marcus Brutus section that not everybody thought it was a good idea.
Two of Brutus's friends were Satilius the Epicurean and Favonius, and he approached them both.
Favonius (Plutarch Marcus Brutus page 1192) "declared his judgement to be that a civil war was worse then the most illegal monarchy; and Statilius held, that to bring himself into troubles and danger on account of evil or foolish men did not become a man that had any wisdom or discretion." Apparently Brutus did not listen.
They left Cicero off entirely. The reason given that he was , well Plutarch again says it best: "for which reason they concealed the plot from Cicero, tho he was very much trusted as well beloved by them all, lest, to his own disposition, which was naturally timorous, adding now the weariness and caution of old age (Cicero was 62) by his weighing, as he would do, every particular, that he might not make one step without the greatest security, he should blunt the edge of their forwardness and resolution in a business which required all the dispatch imaginable."
Well yeah. Since Cicero was the man who, 20 years earlier fairly spit at Catiline, the conspirator, and exposed him and his nefarious plotting in the Senate to the point that the Senators rose up and left where Catiline sat. To read his blistering speeches on the subject of conspiracy is to know the real Republic.
(And he died much more bravely than any Cassius, Brutus or Antony, too).
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/CiceroiCatilineCesareMaccari%2818401919%29.jpg)
Here's Cicero in the famous painting by Cesare Maccari denouncing the conspirator Catiline. Yes, I think he'd be a good one to leave off, too.
And with that, I promise, I'll stifle! :)
-
GINNY: don't ever stifle!
We'll be reading about Cicero later, and I hope you'll point us to which of his speeches to read.
-
Wonder if Anthony's men had any respect for him or just enjoyed his partying and good humor. Most leaders would say this is the wrong way for a commander to act before his men. Quite a difference between Anthony's and Patton's leadership style. Some of Anthony's men deserted and were probably not too fit for battle after a night of carousing. Just read the section where he led his men through a snow storm where thousands died from the cold just so he could meet up with Cleopatra. Beyond me why anyone would choose him to lead men into battle.
-
Here are some kind words for Antony, from his critic Plutarch....
“For there was much simplicity in his character; he was slow to see
his faults, but, then he did see them, was extremely repentant, and ready to ask pardon of those
he had injured; prodigal in his acts of reparation, and severe in his punishments; but his generosity was much more extravagant than his severity; his raillery was sharp and
insulting, but the edge of it was taken off by his readiness to submit to any kind of repartee; for
he was as well contented to rallied, as he was pleased to rally others.” Plutarch also sees naivete’ in Antony. “He never imagined those who used so much liberty
in their mirth would flatter or deceive him in business of consequence..."
All in all, I continue to see the key to Mark Antony's actions and behavior as immaturity; a
man stuck at about age 16. Physically strong and brave, but much of what he does seems to
reflect the impulsiveness and poor judgement of a teen-ager.
Side note: The early Romans apparently saw dreams as important. Caesar(Octavius) “retired before the battle (with Brutus) on account of a dream which one of his friends had”. And Calpurnia, I recall, was very upset over a dream she had, trying to persuade Julius Caesar not to go to the forum the day of his assassination.
-
Aside to your side note, Babi ~ don't you just love asides?
Augustus, whom we know here as Octavian and Caesar, was quite inclined to believe dreams and any predictions based on the priest's reading of signs, such as which direction eagles flew over the Forum and the entrails of an animal that was sacrificed.
Another source of the dreams he believed in were those of his wife (later than our reading here) Livia, whom he married while she was pregnant by her prior husband. Livia used dreams to influence Augustus, especially when it came to choosing his heir. Source: Livia, Anthony A Barrett, 2001.
-
Such good points here! The BBC World News on the radio just now mentioned a special program on Evil, the commercial said that every person is capable of evil, and the point is how it starts: in small things. This program airs October 22. I thought it was germane to what we were discussing and might make good collateral watching or listening.
-
BABI: "All in all, I continue to see the key to Mark Antony's actions and behavior as immaturity; a
man stuck at about age 16. Physically strong and brave, but much of what he does seems to
reflect the impulsiveness and poor judgement of a teen-ager."
I think you hit the nail on the head. His obsession with Cleo is also like a teenager's crush.
We've seen that dreams and signs were very important to the Greeks: that seems to be true for the Romans as well. MIPPY: is the book about Livia interesting?
-
GINNY: that sounds interesting. What channel is it on?
-
Well I thought it sounded good over the car radio (I get it on Sirius) but now that I see the people being interviewed it's not quite what I thought. I had thought it would be a sort of scientific look, maybe it will be. Anyway the BBC has a wonderful radio series of shows like NPR and they are fully on the internet for listening:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00kt6zf
Somewhere here hopefully they show on October 22, the Anatomy of Evil. I'm not at all sure now that it's what I hoped, tho. The last thing I want to hear about is somebody who IS evil talking about why.
-
Hi, JoanK ~ The book about Livia is not my favorite, but it is full of fine research. It's a bit dry, as if it were a Ph.D. dissertation.
If I were buying just two non-fiction books about the people we are studying they would be:
Goldsworthy Caesar
Everitt, Anthony Cicero
-
I have to say I am just blown away by the Antony chapter. I am so sorry to see it end. There's not a boring minute in it, reads like a bestseller, it's just fabulous and full of all kinds of surprises. I had never read it.
It's got romance and tragedy, (is it a tragedy?) Supposedly a tragedy hinges on the hero's tragic flaw. What. I wonder, was Antony's? He sure did Caesar proud at that funeral and it really could have gone either way. So in that he was brave and honorable. Maybe afterwards what he did with the receipts was not. What a figure!
But if it had not been for Cleopatra, I wonder if we'd really have known of him at all?
-
I'd be interested in seeing what "Anatomy of Evil" has to say, if I can find BBC. Oddly enough,
I was doing some researching on 'evil' just the other day. I don't recall how my thoughts
wandered that way, but I was recalling a puzzling, seeming contradiction in the Bible. You recall
we are admonished to 'resist temptation', 'resist the devil', etc., etc. Nevertheless, there is
an instance where Christ advises "Resist not evil...." I decided to find out just what the word
meant in that context.
I found it referred not to wickedness, but to trials, disasters, griefs...like famine, flood, military
occupation. In that particular instance he seemed to be advising people how to deal with the
demands of the Romans. For example, a Roman soldier could commandeer any Hebrew bystander to carry his burdens for one mile of a march. Christ suggested voluntarily carrying
them for two miles. Consider how this changes the whole situation....on both sides.
-
Yes, Antony had two sides to his personality...but then many great men do.
Is he a great man?
The scene Which made him known to all (and this was before Cleopatra) happened On March 14,44BC. Antony learned of the assasination plot and went to warn Ceasar. The assasins arrived first........................... Then, because of a speech by Cicero in the Senate amnesty was given to the assasins.
At Ceasar's funeral Antony gave the Eulogy. He snatched the toga from Ceasar's body and showed the crowds the stab wounds and the blood pointing to each perpetrator of each wound. Then Antony read Ceasar's will which left most of his property to the people of Rome, which was contrary to what the assasins had claimed. Public opinion changed and the assasins had to flee for their lives.
Yes, there were periods of debauchery and yet there were outstanding examples of military valour.
Do any of you think that all those clever, powerful women wanted him despite his flaws. He must have had something special to attract these phenomanal ladies.
It wasn't all good looks I imagine.
-
We were too ambitious in our schedule. We'll never get through 4 more people in 13 days! I suggest, since we're deep into Rome at the minute, that we leavethe two Greeks (Alcibiades and Demosthenes) for another session, and just do the two Romans (Cicero and Coriolanus). That makes this reading all Roman. Then for next, or a later time, we can do all Greek, and really get into a period of greek history, as we have here with the Romans.
Notice, I flipped the order. Since Cicero has been hanging in the background of our reading, let's do him first. Then finish with Coriolanus. He was a little earlier, but there isn't a large cast of characters to learn.
So I propose: finish up Antony on the 20th (Thursday) Start Cicero Friday: it's short.
And leave some time at the end for Coriolanus. here we see another side of Plmutarch. He's pondering everything from acorns to whether the gods really make men act. We'll seewhat we think of Plutarch the philosopher.
Am I being too bossy? If I am, revolt and banish me. (or just say what you'd rather do).
-
Mippy, I've read Everitt's Cicero. As a result, I can't make up my mind whether I like him or not. He seemed such a lane switcher, going to whatever side looked like the winning side, or the side that he could position himself best. I am anxious to read what Plutarch made of him. But, oh, what a sharp mind and mouth.
-
JoanK
No, you are not being too bossy. I just love this---having a nice, relaxed discussion with everyone's input and taking as much time as we want to. And not sticking to a set schedule just because it is in the heading.
I'll go along with whatever and whoever you all wish to read next. This is a great learning experience for me.
Evelyn
-
JoanK, if it means we get to add a few more people (on the Greek side), I am all for it. I haven't been able to fully participate because of all the goings on around here lately, so doing it as you suggest will give me another opportunity to keep up. I didn't finish Pompey so I could get started on Antony.
-
Frybabe, I hope at some point you will have the time to go back and read the ending of Pompey. It's worth it.
-
That sounds reasonable, GINNY. I hadn't realized so much could be
crammed into what I assumed were fairly brief bios, since they were all in one volume. But you're right; it is too much to discuss in our current
time frame. It's just so 'meaty', so to speak.
In the Phaedrus, Plato presented this theory even more graphically, comparing the rational soul to a charioteer whose vehicle is drawn by two horses, one powerful but unruly (desire) and the other disciplined and obedient (will). In Antony's case, the horse of desire appears to have the upper hand.
I was curious about the reference to King Antigonus of Judea, since I'd never
heard that name. Apparently that was Antigonus II Mattathias (known in Hebrew as Matityahu) (died 37 BC) was the last Hasmonean king of Judea. He was the son of King Aristobulus II of Judea. Mattathias is a name I can recognize.
-
I'm glad that we have this extra time with Antony. The Cleopatra part of the text sent me to Schiff's book (she uses Plutarch a lot as source material none better, I imagine). Antony's end was so dramatic. He botches his suicide and flees (HOW? So wounded!) to Cleopatra who has fled to her tomb and sealed the entry. She hauls him up by ropes to an upper level - another HOW? He dies in her arms. As the saying goes: "You can't make this stuff up!"
It's interesting to see what became of Antony's descendants - right down to Germanicus and Claudius. Cleopatra's daughter by Antony (also named Cleopatra) was married to Juba, a king, but we're not told by Plutarch any more of her fate. Schiff tells us that she and her husband turned the capitol of Mauretania into a cultural center complete with a splendid library!
-
Evelyn, Babi and Fry: thanks for the vote of confidence. None of us had read the material beforehand, and I think we all made the same assumptions: that it was easier and shorter than in reality.
What abourt the battle of Actium? What's going on there? Here they are, fighting away. Suddenly Cleopatra, who has insisted that Antony fight by sea, instead of using his superior land forces, and that she command part of the fleet, comes sailing through the middle of the fight and flees. Antony forgets all about the battle and follws her.
What on Earth? Plutarch seems to think they planned that beforehand. But to what end? What do you think?
-
Hi, I've been travelling and so not keeping up with the discussion on Plutarch....but that quote about the evil that men do from a while ago is the wrong way round. The actual quote is Shakespeare--Julius Caesar actually, and is, "the evil that men do lives after them, the good is often interred with their bones"
-
In our final time with Antony we ought to tie up the end. What happened at Actium, how well or poorly was it fought, why is it so important, and then the final days of the defeated Antony and Cleopatra.
-
Mea culpa! Enthusiasm got the better of me and I posted re: the final events too soon - a few posts back. Should I copy it and move it up here?
-
Not at all, JoanR, let the comments fall where they may. It's good to have loose ends tied up too.
I'm impressed with how much everyone has read or knows about our subjects. You all know more than I do.
-
It's surprisingly hard to find a legible map of the battle of Actium. This was about the best.
Battle of Actium (http://octavianchronicles.com/?page_id=1120/)
-
Those of you who have read other books about Antony and Cleopatra: is Plutarch being fair to them? Or is he overstating?
He's certainly devastating. When Antony sails away from the battle:
"Here it was that Antony showed to all the world that he was no longer actuated by the thoughts and motives of a commander or a man, or indeed by his own judgment at all...."
-
Here are the questions for Cicero. I'll puit them in the heading as well.
1. What is the role of the Orator in Roman society? Is there anyone in British or US history comparable to Cicero and the role he played?
2. What were Cicero's ambitions? His strong and weak points? How did they help/hurt him?
3. Cicero is the first Roman we've read about who was not accomplished in battle. How did this hurt him? How did it help him? What is the relationship between the army and politics in Rome?
4. Cicero is best known for suppressing Catiline's revolt. How did he do that?
5. Cicero is criticized all his life for executing Catiline's fellow rebels without a trial. Yet later, Augustus Caesar calmly agrees to execute Cicero as part of a bargain for power. What is the difference?
6. Are we getting to know our guide, Plutarch any better? What does this section tell us about his character?
-
In Cicero's career, he holds many posts. here is a quick list of some of them, thanks to the Durant's Story of Civilization.
Consul: you will remember is the head of government. There are two. they hold office for only one year. After the end of their term, they are automatically members of the Senate for life, but can't hold the office of consul again for 10 years.
The Senate was one of two lawmaking bodies: only patricians could be members. The other, the Tribunal, was elected by the plebes (ordinary people) but could only veto, not propose and vote on laws. By custom, the Senate had become supreme, combining what we would call executive, legislative, and judicial functions in one body. Durant claims that given how much power they held, they did very little abuse of it and praises the quality of men that were in it.
Lesser offices, many of which, Cicero held (starting with the lowest):
Quaestors: managed the expenditure of state funds and assisted in preventing, punishing crime.
The four Aediles were charged with the care of buildings, aquaducts, streets, markets, theater, brothels, saloons, police courts, and public games.
The four Praetors led armies in war, and in peace acted as judges and interpreters of law. They had a special guard called the Praetorian Guard.
The two Censors: did just about anything else (including the census, building the aquaducts and the Appian Way, and approving the candidates for consul).
-
On Antony and Cleopatra and the Battlel of Actium, such as it was, but so decisive for Roman History, there's a wonderful clip of it from the Richard Burton Elizabeth Taylor Cleopatra movie which really sets the scene, on Youtube:
The Battle of Actium (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cleopatra%20sea%20battle%20youtube&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCwQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D55QGKfHOJW4&ei=80yhTsqSGIPV0QH2-IiLBQ&usg=AFQjCNGkUCqHJ5pPKZewzkvwovlJyzHv7g&cad=rja)
Burton does a wonderful job here, and portrays Antony much as Plutarch did: a love sick kind of guy. Modern scholars are not so sure. The bit about the sails alone in the ships which Plutarch mentions Antony as having said we don't want any of them to get away, are thought perhaps to have been there for another reason entirely: a planned break for the sea. They base this on Cleopatra's fleet of ships (not one as here in the movie) with the Royal Treasury of Egypt aboard and the fact that adding the sails to the fighting ships severely took up valuable room. These things are not mentioned in the movie but a lot of the detail is spot on.
This is wonderfully atmospheric especially if you've read Plutarch, and you can hit the four boxes to the bottom right of the screen and enjoy in its full appearance.
I'm going to find my Goldsworthy Antony and Cleopatra and see what he says about this Battle, too. They have just found the place where the prows of the ships conquered in this battle were displayed AT Actium, pretty exciting stuff!
-
Since Antony's (and Cleopatra's) actions at the end have no documented explanation,
Plutarch is reporting them from his own viewpoint. We know his opinion of Antony,
and he could well have drawn erroneous conclusions about the events. We simply
have no way of knowing why either one, Cleopatra and Antony, took the actions they
did. We have few clues as to their motives and obviously there are many possibilities.
-
Nothing like a cast of thousands to make a battle come alive. :) That clip led me to another. This is the exact opposite in style; it's some young man's history class report, but if you're patient it has a fairly intelligible moving diagram of the battle. One goof, though--at the end he has Antony and Cleopatra sailing north instead of south.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDdpst1Tz1s&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDdpst1Tz1s&feature=related)
-
Since this is Plutarch, comparisons are very much in order, and I want to compare the end of Pompey and Antony. Quite a difference! Pompey keeps his honor and dignity to the end, fighting to the last. He is finally betrayed, killed, and his body treated without dignity, but Pompey’s own behavior is noble to the last—a touching and tragic end.
Antony almost descends to low comedy. He leaves the sea battle before it’s over, following Cleopatra. They then both engage in a long, self-absorbed wallowing in defeat and their coming deaths. He definitely ends “not with a bang but a whimper”
-
PatH
Thank you so much for that video on the battle of Actium!!
My understanding of this important chapter of the World's history was so fuzzy beforehand.
This video made all the fuzziness turn into a clear and concise history of the era.
As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, I FELT that the Battle of Actium was important.
Now I KNOW how important it really was and how Antony really lost the battle ,his life and that of Cleopatras as well.
If I was that young mans' teacher he would certainly rate an A+ from me.
-
An A+ from me, too.
It's time to turn to a very different man, Cicero. He is what we would have called a "self-made man". He had two strikes against him: he was not a Patrician (a descendant of the original families of Rome) but an Equestrian, the next class down: not like the masses of plebes, but not quite...
Second, he did not play a heroic role in the army. In Rome, according to Durant, the Army and politics were completely interrelated: men were not allowed to hold any political office until they had served at least 10 years in the army, and, as we've seen up to now, the top positions usually went to those who had won major battles. Even voting was done by army regiments, with each regiment having one vote (Of course, the Patricians had the most regiments, the Equestrians some, and the Plebes only one).
But the power of oration was important, too. We have seen how Antony was able to influence people after Julius caesar's assassination. How far will it take Cicero, and will it be enough?
-
On another note, look at the bust of Cicero in the heading. He sure looks crabby. Does that crabbiness come through in Plutarch's descruiption of him?
I have a theary as to why he was so grouchy. I read somewhere (probably Durant) that he said he only made love to his wife when there was a thunderstorm. I thought of this when I moved to Southern california, where there are only two thunderstorms a year. Does anyone know how often it thunders in Rome?
-
JoanK
Sounds like a plot for a new Monty Python act.
It also brings up the question of what Cicero did when there was lightning which usually accompanies Thunder.
-
Oh, I don't know, JOANK. I think he simply looks stern and serious. Plutarch does
report a sharp tongue. Remember what poor health he had, tho'. So careful
of what he ate, and only one meal a day.
I must confess to some nasty suspicions when I first heard how desperately ill he
was, and how much better he got after leaving Italy and going to Greece. But he
continued to have these digestive problems all his life. I still wouldn't want to
wager whether that was due to nerves and stress, or to damage done by early poisoning.
-
Plutarch's Lives
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/Plutarch200.jpg)
Plutarch at the Museum of Delphi, Greece.
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/classicsbookclub/plutarch/DelphiValley_500.jpg)
Ruins of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, where Plutarch was a priest
The readers have spoken and our next read October 1 will be: Plutarch (c.46 A.D.- c. 120 A.D.) in his famous "Lives" or Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans; also called Parallel Lives.
Schedule:
Oct. 1-10: Pompey
Oct. 11- 20: Antony
Oct. 21-?: Cicero
Oct. ?: Coriolanus
?: Windup
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/latin/Thorvaldsen_Cicero.jpg)
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Bertel Thorvaldsen, copy of Roman original, ca 1800
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/CiceroiCatilineCesareMaccari%2818401919%29.jpg)
Cicero denouncing Catiline (Cesare Maccari)
Questions for Cicero
1. What is the role of the Orator in Roman society? Is there anyone in British or US history comparable to Cicero and the role he played?
2. What were Cicero's ambitions? His strong and weak points? How did they help/hurt him?
3. Cicero is the first Roman we've read about who was not accomplished in battle. How did this hurt him? How did it help him? What is the relationship between the army and politics in Rome?
4. Cicero is best known for suppressing Catiline's revolt. How did he do that?
5. Cicero is criticized all his life for executing Catiline's fellow rebels without a trial. Yet later, Augustus Caesar calmly agrees to execute Cicero as part of a bargain for power. What is the difference?
6. Are we getting to know our guide, Plutarch any better? What does this section tell us about his character?
Discussion Leaders: JoanK (joankraft13@yahoo.com) and PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net)
Clough Translation-Roshanarose's Link (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives/index.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
In that picture of the statue -- he kind of looks like Joe Biden, crabby or not.
Sorry to have been such a dropout. I don't read fast, and have had trouble keeping up with everything I want to read. But we'll be reading Cicero pretty soon in Latin class, so I will be following the posts here for sure.
-
Great! I envy you.
-
I found Cicero a mixed bag i.e.A brilliant orator and lawyer and an unlikeable personality.
After reading a number of articles on Cicero as well as Plutarch's chapter here are some of the highs and lows I came across.
"Would that he had been able to endure prosperity with greater self control and adversity with greater fortitude"..wrote Asinus Pollo a contemporary Roman statesman and Historian.
Cicero divorced both of his wives. The marriages were for convenience (money, connections). After Cicero was killed and his head and hands put on public display his ex-wife pulled out his tongue and stuck it with pins, saying: This is my revenge
against his powers of speech".
Cicero ws extremely attached to his daughter who died in childbirth. He wrote "I have lost the one thing that bound ne to life." Cicero also had a son who , against his Father's wishes , had a successful military career.His Father wanted him to study Philosophy but of course he didn't.
Cicero inspired the Founding fathers of the U.S. an of the French Revolution. John Adams said," All the ages of the world have not produced a greater philosopher". While Fredrich Engels wrote:"the most contemptable scoundrel in history for upholding republican democracy while denouncing land and class reforms."
The Catholic Church deemed him a"righteous pagan" and his works preserved and read.
Most fascinating of all I found was that his theories had a major influence on Copernicus who said that Cicero's theory that the earth moves through space was one of the precedents for his scientific work.
-
Thanks, JudeS, for those asides. I was aware of most, but not his influence on Copernicus.
What do you think Cicero was striving for? I suspect he, above all, wanted to be famous. I suppose a certain amount of power comes with fame, but I don't think power was his main driver. I think he wanted to be the best and recognized as being the best among his rivals.
Did you notice how he flip-flopped between alliances several times? I think he did this to stay in the game so he would continue to be noticed, be influential, and not forgotten or pushed aside.
-
It's good that we have you to help with the background research, Jude. I had no idea Cicero had any notions about astronomy. Plutarch doesn't dwell on Cicero's non-speech writings, but there were huge numbers of letters. philosophical and political works. He seems to have had an important formative influence on Latin style. No doubt pedln will eventually be able to tell us all about it.
-
Frybabe, I agree he wanted fame more than power. He also seems to have had an idealized notion of what the state should be like, security and good principles being of prime importance, and to have been working for this at least some of the time.
Yes, he did tend to change sides--a sense of self-preservation and some timidity in sticking his neck out.
-
I found Mr. Pollo's comment odd, JUDE. I have the impression from Plutarch
that Cicero was not one who 'flashed his wealth' so to speak. In fact, he is
said to have in income sufficient to his needs, but not excessive wealth. So
far I have found no instance in which he showed a lack of self-control.
His wives did not seem to hold any great interest for him. With his reputation
for the quick and sharp retort, I am not surprised to hear that his wives may
have had to put up with it's use on them.
I agree with FRYBABE. Cicero basked in praise. He accepted no fees from his
clients; perhaps the opportunity to shine before the courts and Senate were
reward enough. There is no question of the high caliber of his oratory, and
no question as to his integrity.
He was, I think, timid and cautious in his decisions. Perhaps, at PAT notes, a strong
sense of self-preservation. But definitely not 'for sale'.
Apparently, Plutarch's poor opinion of Cicero's poetry was justified, as none
of it has survived.
-
As far a whether or not Cicero lived a life of modesty:
he had around eight different country villas, so he did not live quietly or in a moderate-size house. As far as accepting fees, no Roman lawyers or barristers received direct fees. Most of them received lavish gifts, such as loot from the provinces or houses.
Many of his speeches, including those studied in our Latin classes, were rewritten after being given. Cicero wanted to leave a more perfect version of his thought to posterity than what had been spoken in the Senate.
Apparently there was nothing like our congressional records in the Roman Senate in the days before Cicero. His famous secretary/slave named Tiro developed a method of taking shorthand notes, and his transcribed notes were useful to Cicero in the revisions of his speeches.
-
I can see a need for country villas, since Cicero kept making Rome too hot to hold him. ;) What do you think of his Latin style, Mippy? That's assuming you have any energy left to appreciate it after sweating through translating it.
-
This is from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP)Cicero. a very long and indepth look at Cicero, his accomplishments and his weaknesses.
In the first paragraph we find :"He placed politics above philosophical study, the latter being important in its own right but was even more valuable as the means to a more effective political action."
Perhaps that is the answer to JoanK's question:"What were Cicero's ambitions ?"
They also say "Plutarch's Life of Cicero" was written a century after his death and has no firsthand knowledge of the events he describes. Plutarch's goal was also to offer MORAL LESSONS rather than to simply record events.
The Roman historian Sollust's "Conspiracy of Catiline" offers a description of the events twenty years after the events and fails to give Cicero the same degree of importance he gave himself.
-
Why on earth is there such a large space after my last post?
Oh, well. MIPPY, you are destroying my illusions, but I think you are probably
perfectly correct. Of course he would 'tidy up' his orations when writing them
down for posterity. I knew his income came from a number of country 'villas',
but I have the impression that few, if any, were very grand. Mostly income-
producing farms. I am quite prepared to abandon that impression if the facts
are otherwise.
JUDE reminds us, and a timely reminder, too, that Plutarch was more interested
in promoting ethics and morality than accurately reporting history. He does, on
the whole, highly approve Cicero by that standard. It's a pity we don't know
his sources as to the historical events, but they do include enough personal
detail to suggest a high degree of accuracy.
I haven't read Sollust's account, so I can't comment on that. I do know, tho'
that most of the ancient historians considered the military events and the
military leaders to be the important issues. The back-home politicos were
of less interest.
-
BABI:" I do know, tho'
that most of the ancient historians considered the military events and the
military leaders to be the important issues. The back-home politicos were
of less interest."
And peace was of less interest than war. As PatH and I were talking about, Cicero seemed to consistantly work for peace; in putting down Cateline's rebellion with relatively little bloodshed for example. Earlier, he had been sent out to quell a rebellion, and managed to do so peacably, by good governance. When he came home, expecting praise, no one remembered what he had done. If he had faught a big battle, everyone would have praised him, maybe even given him a "triumph"! Thus a military society.
-
Cicero is the first Roman politician we've read about without significant military ability. Pompey, Julius and Augustus Caesar, and Antony all continued to fight impressive battles, even while in ruling positions. Given the amount of infighting and backstabbing in Roman politics, it was an impressive feat to hold onto your power when you were out of town much of the time.
-
Mippy and Babi, I can think of another reason Cicero might have to edit his speeches. Plutarch says when he was nervous he tended to deliver speeches poorly. Perhaps many of the speeches weren't declaimed well at the time.
That early shorthand is kind of interesting. I wonder what it was like.
-
Considering the plans Lentulus and his allies had made...wholesale slaughter of
the populace and torching the city of Rome...I was surprised that there was even room
for debate over whether they should be put to death. It did seem to me that Cicero
was definitely timid in this matter and seemed more concerned with possible danger
to himself from vengeful relatives. He had done an excellent job so far as watchfulness
and securing the safety of the city. But he was most reluctant to stick his neck out
and order the death of the culprits.
I do need to correct what I said earlier. I had read selections from Sallust, esp. his
work on Catiline, but did not recall them when reading Plutarch. In reporting the
arrest and trial of the conspirators in Rome, he has little to say about the role of
Cicero, but instead focuses on the opposing arguments of Julius Caesar and Marcus
Cato. These two, as Sallust himself wrote, “towered above their contemporaries,
though their characters presented the sharpest of contrasts..”
I note this comment in Michael Grant’s analysis of Sallust as historian: “..although
his own career had not been ethically flawless, he chose to see every issue in terms of
virtue and vice, even while offering cogent social and economic descriptions.”
-
One more round on Cicero and Catilina, if I may:
Please note that Cicero or any consul had no mechanism for suppressing insurrection. There was not a "national guard" at his finger tips! Cicero had to move his listeners with oratory, which he famously did indeed accomplish.
Here's a non-wikipedia link:
http://gluedideas.com/Encyclopedia-Britannica-Volume-5-Part-1-Cast-Iron-Cole/Catiline-Lucius-Sergius-Catilina.html (http://gluedideas.com/Encyclopedia-Britannica-Volume-5-Part-1-Cast-Iron-Cole/Catiline-Lucius-Sergius-Catilina.html)
-
From Mippy's link above " others maintain that Catiline's object was simply the cancelling of his huge debts."
When we were reading the history of Rome in "The Story of Civilization", and again here, I noticed that throughout Roman history whenever someone wanted the support of the people, the first thing they promised was the cancellation of debt. I don't have a clear picture of how the Roman economy worked, but it is clear that it was an ecomony built on debt. No matter how often the debt was cancelled, the next would-be leader was able to get favor by cancelling debt again. Meanwhile, the interest paid on these loans must have been tremendous.
Is this beginning to sound familiar?
-
That's a good link, Mippy, makes the conspiracy somewhat clearer. No one seems to be really certain of it's extent, or even exactly what they were up to, but it was obviously dangerous. The article says:
"Cicero paid more regard to the effect than to the truthfulness of an accusation."
This reminds me of Plutarch, saying that Cicero "...made the Romans feel how great a charm eloquence lends to what is good, and how invincible justice is, if it be well spoken...."
Plutarch seems to assume honesty of presentation on Cicero's part.
-
About executing Lentulus and the others:
It did seem to me that Cicero was definitely timid in this matter..
Yes, he was timid, and only agreed when some other orators insisted. But he had good reason to hesitate. There wasn't really any legal precedent for it, and he kept getting blamed for it for the rest of his life.
-
Well I now understand for the first time what somebody means when they say they are getting a lot out of reading the discussion when in fact they are not up on the reading.
I'm way behind you all in the dust but tremendously enjoying your discussion of Cicero, he has to be one of the most complex men in history. I find him fascinating and if you read Everitt's biography you can't help but agree, and he draws on Plutarch a lot.
I did not know that about Copernicus either but Cicero wrote about solar systems beyond our galaxy, he was quite a man, very very complex. I am so glad we are reading him, (fits in nicely with Antony, too, good call). He's definitely left a mark on us today, too, here he is in 2011 at the equivalent of the Federal Court in Rome, a gigantic building, the Hall of Justice takes up the equivalent of several blocks and is sinking under its own weight:
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/cicerohallofjusticefar.jpg)
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/cicerohallofjusticefountain.jpg)
I got left in the dust of Actium. I'm reading Stacy Shiff's account now. Herod!!! and his suggestion: just kill Cleopatra and it will be ok Antony. ahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa
Thank you Pat for the young man's project of Actium, I love anything with battle movements. I'm a little confused on some of the tactics shown so I'm still reading but I'm finding treasures beyond compare.
Let me share this little bit while they are still waiting at Actium:
Schiff: "From the distance Antony's camp must have offered a splendid sight, with its vast and variegated armies, the flashes of gold-spangled purple- red robes. Towering Thracians in black tunics and bright armor mingled with Macedonians in fresh scarlet cloaks. Medians in richly colored vests. A Ptolemaic military cloak, woven with gold, might feature a royal portrait or a mythological scene. The scruffy Greek lowland blazed with costly equipment, with gleaming helmets and gilded breastplates, jeweled bridles, dyed plumes, decorated spears. The bulk of the soldiers were Eastern, as were an increasing number of rowers, many of them raw recruits. With them assembled an ecumenical collection of arms: Thracian wicker shields and quivers joined Roman javelins and Cretan bows and long Macedonian pikes."
Wow. What a picture pre battle, so reminiscent of other more recent wars, the excitement initially, the pomp. Then the reality. There, of course, lay half of Antony's problems with troops pre malaria, but isn't that a marvelous picture? She also points out Cleopatra was the only one from the leadership who could speak to them in their own languages and they, being from the East, had no problem with a woman leader. But the Romans did. Really really did.
Schiff is of the "new school" of historical conclusion, in saying the entire flight of Cleopatra and Antony at Actium was obviously a pre established plan. She makes a good case. I did not know that most of the Romans could not swim.
Sorry to interject, wanted to contribute something but am hopelessly mired in Actium at the moment. :) Am really enjoying the Cicero discussion, had never heard the thunderstorm bit.
Oh, the Fulvia who spit on Cicero's head and put hatpins thru his tongue?
She was not Cicero's ex wife, but rather the first wife of Antony, then she married Clodius, who was a notorious hater of Cicero, and Curio. Cicero had attacked her in his speeches, and that was how she felt she got revenge. She was an enthusiastic participant in the proscriptions, (!?!) but having lost Antony and "all interest in life" after starting the Perusine war, she died in 40.
Super discussion, I am enjoying reading it so much!
-
This is the sort of personal glimpse that makes me appreciate Plutarch so much.
The reference to Cicero’s wife, Terentia...”she was otherwise in her own nature neither
tender-hearted nor timorous, but a woman eager for distinction (who, as Cicero himself
says, would rather thrust herself into his public affairs, than communicate her domestic
matters to him)..”
I was struck by the careful way in which someone’s death was announced. No one
wanted to actually say the 'inauspicious’ word 'dead’. The safer custom was to declare
“They did live.”.
-
Ginny, thanks for clarifying which Fulvia attacked Cicero's tongue. I thought it was not his wife, but didn't have the time to go look it up. I am somewhat behind, too. I never finished Pompey or Antony and am still in the middle somewhere with Cicero.
-
Ginny
Sorry about my mistake with the "lady" who jabbed Cicero's tongue with the needle. Indeed it was Fulva, Antony's wife who did that particular deed.
I keep reading and came upon this remark in one of the articles.
Antony ordered Cicero's hands cut off because he had used them to write the "Phillipics" against Antony. He believed that
Cicero would never support the Triumvirates measures of dealing with the assasins and th subsequent division of spoils.
If you put into google "Cicero's death" there is a video that the makers of" Rome" did that purport to show Cicero being killed by Herennius. It is much less brutal then the written descriptions of the event.
-
" I did not know that most of the Romans could not swim." We do know that later most british sailors could not swim. It's mentioned in a number of places.
Makes me wonder about the history of swimming. Were Romans swimmers? What stroke did Romans use? does it resemble our modern strokes? What odd questions these discussions bring up!
Back to Cicero: what do you all think of his power gained through the power of his oration alone? Can you imagine that happening today? I admit, as one who always goes to sleep during political speeches, it's hard for me to imagine!
-
It really surprised me to read that one historian claimed Cicero's speaking style was very poor
and disjointed. Poor delivery is hardly likely to have the influence claimed here for Cicero's
orations.
Such a complex character, Cicero. So many fine qualities, an admirable man, yet so
desirous of that admiration. Plutarch says “he created himself much envy, and offended very
many, not by any evil action, but because he was always lauding and magnifying himself.”He did this in his writings as well, which means we would have to take those with a ‘grain
of salt’. More succinctly, Plutarch writes “he was intemperately fond of his own glory”.
Ah, but how many of us are all of a piece, so to speak. We all have our foibles, and we’re
fortunate if they are not of a kind to irritate those around us.
-
I see my posts are breaking up again. I've clicked on the 'ripped page' icon,
so hopefully that will be corrected now.
I've been reading the examples of Cicero's sharp wit and tongue. Some of
them I could understand and appreciate; others were no doubt puns whose
meaning is lost to me.
Could one of you Latin scholars interpret the comment, "Axios Crassou"
for me? I'm sure it must be very clever, if I only had some idea what it
means. :-\
-
It looks Greek to me, Babi. Crassou could be Greek for Crassus, but I don't know what the phrase means either.
-
That's a good question and a great story. I don't read ancient Greek, and it is Greek, but the story is quite famous, so I do know this one.
Crassus was crass and noted for his greed.
This young man, son of Crassus, favored in appearance a man called Accius apparently so much so that it was remarked on, like Prince Harry's appearance, so Cicero, after the young man had made a speech which got roars of approval (thus piquing Cicero who valued his rank as an orator) remarked sourly that it was befitting or worthy of a Crassus (or possibly he meant an Accius) . Either way it was a scathing sarcastic remark and the Accius part was downright nasty.
That tongue of Cicero again.
-
He seems to have had an important formative influence on Latin style. No doubt pedln will eventually be able to tell us all about it.
It will probably be 2012 before our Latin class gets to the section of Cicero readings, but our text has pointed out certain aspects of his style. I’m sure Ginny can expand on all these and explain them further.
He likes lots of figures of speech, many of which are still used today
Anaphora, repetion of a word at the beginning of phrases and clauses
Correlatives – conjunctions and adverbs used in pairs, to form balanced clauses, such as either or, neither nor, both and, etc.
The style of the period – long sentences with phrases and clauses and the thought not revealed until the end. (oh goody >:( )
And many others too numerous to mention. I’m looking forward to it, even the long convoluted ones, and am glad the text makes a habit of pointing out these different aspects.
-
I think that when we did Cicero in high school Latin we only translated his speeches - those lambasting Catiline are all I faintly remember!
Reading Plutarch has been an eye-opener and has led me to some other sources: the Modern Library edition of "The Basic Works of Cicero" for one. His essay "On Old Age" is really interesting and casts a different light on the man than you get from Plutarch.
The introduction to the book is quite useful - one passage says " for the vacillation and opportunism the blame is partly on the exigencies of political life and its accepted standards, but partly also, surely, on Cicero's academic criteria in philosophy and his training as a lawyer. He was always able to see the merit in either side of a question and his advocate's eloquence naturally tended to heap up arguments of probability on the side which happened to be expedient."
This is a pretty nifty little book and I think I'll have to chase down a used copy on ABEbooks!
-
That question #1 is such a good question!!!
Isn't it oratory which has just about killed Governor Perry's chances at the nomination? How important IS the ability to speak and persuade in 2011? Is it possible to HAVE great speakers without the teleprompter?
When I think of great speakers, I think of Winston Churchill How like Cicero was he would you say, role wise?
Who else? Ronald Regan? Are any of our famous speakers writing their own material? I never have understood why people make so much negativity of President Obama's teleprompters, don't they all use them?
But on Cicero, that's a great list, Pedln and I found a fascinating article by Dr. Harris of Middlebury College, Vermont. Here are a couple of excerpts. I find his POV fascinating as to today's speech versus what it was in our congress even 100 years ago! I am astounded at the sheer amount of Cicero's writings extant and how things have changed. This, to me, is out of this world, note the influence of Greek oratory on Cicero:
...Suffice it here to survey the ten volumes of 500 pages each which constitute the printed works of Cicero in a modern (e.g. Teubner) series.
The speeches are the best known, since they constitute in this country a part of the high-school required reading in Latin. The elaborate style was derived from models over several centuries of Greek rhetorical discipline and speechmaking, which Cicero took seriously. Thoroughly acquainted with the Ten Attic Orators and the theoreticians, he adapted their language to Latin, favoring the flowery or as it was then called, "Asiatic" style, which became a synonym for Ciceronian rhetorical style.
Tiro, a diligent slave perfected a system of Latin shorthand, which served to preserve fairly accurately Cicero's speeches. A number of medieval MSS in "Tironian annotation" survive, containing much of the master's speeches and perhaps more than we are aware of, since the specialization required for a study of this exoteric field deters all but the most laborious of scholars. The list of extant speeches is immense, the text fills several volumes. The commonly read speech against Cataline and Pro Archia Poeta represent the very tip of the iceberg; Catullans should read the Pro Caelio, while a serious historian has to peruse all the speeches carefully.
If one opens the pages of the American Congressional Report of a century ago, one will find Ciceronian periods completely dominating the verbal art. The tripartite sentence, the verb at the end jamming in the punch meaning home suddenly with delayed force, the aposiopeseis., the overstatements in sarcastic vein, the tricks and devices of rhetorical discipline are all too evident. Indeed Cicero was praised since the Renaissance as the supreme orator, his golden voice of persuasion was assumed to be the business of any congressional orator, since the schools had reinforced this view from the days when the first Latin paradigms were learned. This was the great period of English and American Rhetoric.
In the 20th c. this ground to an end. As we reminisce, the accents of Ciceronian eloquence now sound quaint, as antique as the gingerbread decoration on overdeveloped Victorian mansions. Nowadays we have moved into a new type of rhetoric, which relies on short, pungent phraseology, interspersed with long pauses for the radio or TV audience to catch up, and written mostly in the language of the people, with only so much "highfalutin' speechifying" as a politician thinks will confirm him as thoroughly American. The days of Ciceronian diction are gone, probably forever, and when we read his grand speeches, we have to disassociate ourselves from the world around us. This makes the speeches a bit foreign, tedious and finally boring, unless one can develop a taste for the niceties of an antique style which has passed into cultural oblivion.
From: http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/LatinAuthors/Cicero.html
-
That's very interesting. I remember reading that in this country at the time of Abraham Lincoln oratory was much prized. People flocked to hear a good speaker, and expected him to keep speaking for hours on end.
Ginny, do you have a translation of Cicero's speech against Cataline?
-
Our month of October has come to an end. We'll leave the discussion open for a few more days to finish Cicero. It looks like we were too ambitios scheduling four readings for the month. But we always have the option of returning to Plutarch later: perhaps another session with Greeks only.
-
Ginny
I read the first two paragraphs of Dr Harris's article in one of the other articles on the internet.. However the final two paragraphs that bring it up to date I found fascinating.
I was thinking of great orators and could come up with only three: Winston Churchill,
Abraham Lincoln and FDR. These men lived in very dramatic times and also had great command of the language.
Bill Clinton, though not a great orator, had an amazing charisma that mesmerized his listeners.
Thanks JoanK for all your hard work.
This discussion opened up many doors for me that had been closed or never opened.
-
Oh Jude, of course: Lincoln and FDR! Good ones!! I wonder, thinking over that excellent question #1, how Media, or maybe "THE MEDIA" have taken over our own political process and removed the need for orators to BE gifted orators? Is it all appearance and superficiality now?
ISN'T Dr. Harris stunning?
JoanK, I did find, when you first brought it up, after exhaustive looking hahaha one of Cicero's speeches but upon reading Dr. Harris' entire article for what he thought memorable, I thought perhaps Cicero's essay on old age (De Senectute) might be of better interest.
Here are some excerpts, it's written as if it were a conversation on the subject, and of course has many famous lines:
From: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/Cato_Maior_de_Senectute/text*.html
Cato Maior De Senectute
by
Cicero
And, indeed, when I reflect on this subject I find four reasons why old age appears to be unhappy: first, that it withdraws us from active pursuits; second, that it makes the body weaker; third, that it deprives us of almost all physical pleasures; and, fourth, that it is not far removed from death. Let us, if you please, examine each of these reasons separately and see how much truth they contain.
6 "Old age withdraws us from active pursuits." From what pursuits? Is it not from those which are followed because of youth and vigour? Are there, then, no intellectual employments in which aged men may engage, even though their bodies are infirm? Was there, then, no employment for Quintus Maximus? And none, Scipio, for your father Lucius Paulus, the father-in-law of that best of men, my son? And those other men, like Fabricius, Curius, and Coruncanius — were they doing nothing, when by their seldom and influence they were preserving the state?
....... Those, therefore, who allege that old age is devoid of useful activity adduce nothing to the purpose, and are like those who would say that the pilot does nothing in the sailing of his ship, because, while others are climbing the masts, or running about the gangways, or working at the pumps, he sits quietly in the stern and simply holds the tiller. He may not be doing what younger members of the crew are doing, but what he does is better and much more important. It is not by muscle, speed, or physical dexterity that great things are achieved, but by reflection, force of character, and judgement; in these qualities old age is usually not only not poorer, but is even richer......
....... rashness is the product of the budding-time of youth, prudence of the harvest-time of age.
But, it is alleged, the memory is impaired. Of course, if you do not exercise it, or also if you are by nature somewhat dull. Themistocles had learned the names of all the citizens of Athens by heart; do you think, then, that after he became old he was wont to address as Lysimachus one who in fact was Aristides? I, for instance, know not only the people who are living, but I recall their fathers and grandfathers, too; and as I read their epitaphs I am not afraid of the superstition that, in so doing, I shall lose my memory; for by reading them I refresh my recollection of the dead. I certainly never heard of any old man forgetting where he had hidden his money! The aged remember everything that interests them, their appointments to appear in court, and who are their creditors and who their debtors.
And how is it with aged lawyers, pontiffs, augurs, and philosophers? What a multitude of things they remember! Old men retain their mental faculties, provided their interest and application continue; and this is true, not only of men in exalted public station, but likewise of those in the quiet of private life. Sophocles composed tragedies to extreme old age; and when, because of his absorption in literary work, he was thought to be neglecting his business affairs, his sons haled him into court in order to secure a verdict removing him from the control of his property on the ground of imbecility, under a law similar to ours, whereby it is customary to restrain heads of families from wasting their estates. Thereupon, it is said, the old man read to the jury his play, Oedipus at Colonus, which he had just written and was revising, and inquired: "Does that poem seem to you to be the work of an imbecile?" When he had finished he was acquitted by the verdict of the jury.
Think you, then, that old age forced him to abandon his calling, or that it silenced Homer, Hesiod, Simonides, Stesichorus, or Isocrates, and Gorgias (whom I have mentioned already), or any of those princes of philosophy Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato, and Xenocrates, or Zeno and Cleanthes of a later time, or Diogenes the Stoic, whom you both have seen at Rome? Rather, did not activity in their several pursuits continue with all of them as long as life itself?
But come now — to pass over these divine pursuits — I can point out to you Roman farmers in the Sabine country, friends and neighbours of mine, who are scarcely ever absent from the field while the more important operations of husbandry, as sowing, reaping, and storing of the crops, are going on. Although this interest of theirs is less remarkable in the case of annual crops, — for no one is so old as to think that he cannot live one more year — yet these same men labour at things which they know will not profit them in the least.
He plants the trees to serve another age
But it is our duty, my young friends, to resist old age; to compensate for its defects by a watchful care; to fight against it as we would fight against disease; to adopt a regimen of health; to practise moderate exercise; and to take just enough of food and drink to restore our strength and not to overburden it. Nor, indeed, are we to give our attention solely to the body; much greater care is due to the mind and soul; for they, too, like lamps, grow dim with time, unless we keep them supplied with oil. Moreover, exercise causes the body to become heavy with fatigue, but intellectual activity gives buoyancy to the mind. For when Caecilius speaks of "the old fools of the comic stage," he has in mind old men characterized by credulity, forgetfulness, and carelessness, which are faults, not of old age generally, but only of an old age that is drowsy, slothful, and inert. Just as waywardness and lust are more often found in the young man than in the old, yet not in all who are young, but only in those naturally base; so that senile debility, usually called "dotage," is a characteristic, not of all old men, but only of those who are weak in mind and will......
O glorious day, when I shall set out to join the assembled hosts of souls divine and leave this world of strife and sin! For I shall go to meet not only the men already mentioned, but my Cato, too, than whom no better man, none more distinguished for filial duty, was ever born. His body was burned by me, whereas, on the contrary it were more fitting that mine had been burned by him; but his soul, not deserting me, but ever looking back, has surely departed for that realm where it knew that I, myself, must come. People think that I have bravely borne my loss — not that I bore it with an untroubled heart, but I found constant solace in the thought that our separation would not be long......
..... For these reasons, Scipio, my old age sits light upon me (for you said that this has been a cause of wonder to you and Laelius), and not only is not burdensome, but is even happy. And if I err in my belief that the souls of men are immortal, I gladly err, nor do I wish this error which gives me pleasure to be wrested from me while I live. But if when dead I am going to be without sensation (as some petty philosophers think), then I have no fear that these seers, when they are dead, will have the laugh on me! Again, if we are not going to be immortal, nevertheless, it is desirable for a man to be blotted out at his proper time. For as Nature has marked the bounds of everything else, so she has marked the bounds of life. Moreover, old age is the final scene, as it were, in life's drama, from which we ought to escape when it grows wearisome and, certainly, when we have had our fill.
There, written in the words of a man who died 43 BC are some startling words to leave us with. It's a shame I had to remove his beautiful words about the joys of farming, they could be sung, but the entire thing is there if anybody would like to read it and to have some idea of his character.
Have really enjoyed the discussion, it ended too soon! I am so glad we've gotten to read Plutarch. Frybabe, and anybody who abandoned Pompey for Cicero, do turn to the last 2 or so pages of Pompey, and read them if nothing else: nobody should miss his death? It's one of the more memorable parts of Plutarch.
Plutarch was a good choice that you all made, a Greek but we've essentially read his Roman biographies, a perfect first choice for your vote and beautifully led by JoanK and PatH! I just wish I could have kept up, I'm still at Actium with Antony. :)
Vale atque vale
-
When Crassus expressed admiration of the Stoic doctrine, that
the good man is always rich, "Do you not mean," said Cicero, "their
doctrine that all things belong to the wise?" Crassus being generally
accused of covetousness. One of Crassus's sons, who was thought so
exceedingly like a man of the name of Axius as to throw some suspicion
on his mother's honour, made a successful speech in the senate. Cicero,
on being asked how he liked it, replied with the Greek words Axios
Crassou.
Plutarch has put it so very delicately that Axius may or may not be the son of Crassus, but after Crassus had made his statement echoing the Stoic doctrine, appears to confirm that Axius must be the son of Crassus. This is a bit oblique to me as I have only read this small part of Plutarch on Cicero. It definitely seems that Plutarch is probably insulting both Crassus and Axius with just those two words as he was smarting at Axius successful oratory, while being thoroughly annoyed by Crassus in general. So he decided to send that barb effectively insulting both men. Touche!!
That -ou ending is definitely genitive, though, as is -os a very common singular masculine nominative noun ending. It is the same in Modern Greek.
Ginny - I meant to ask. Did we get the word "crass" from Crassus the individual, or did the word exist already in Latin and was just applied to Crassus as an insulting nickname. The chicken or the egg?
-
But, GINNY, what would "accius" imply? Ass?
Your excerpt now has me curious to read not only some of Cicero's speeches, but some of the
old Congressional speeches as well. I was quite startled to learn that a form of shorthand had
been developed by and had played such a part in preserving Cicero's speeches.
And the text from Cicero's speech on old age. There we are, seeking "intellectual employment" though I'm not sure how 'active' that is. I must take offense, however, at the suggestion that my impaired memory implies that either I don't exercise it, or I am by nature somewhat dull.
The style of the period – long sentences with phrases and clauses and the thought not revealed until the end. (oh goody >:( )
(Pedlin...that gave me a chuckle.)
JOANR, thanks so much for that quote from the introduction to Cicero's 'Basic Works'. I found
it very helpful in better understanding the seeming inconsistencies in the man.
-
That's a good question RoshannaRose, and I don't know! Crassus is an old family name in Latin AND a Latin adjective. As an adjective it means solid, thick, dense, fat and gross, greatly swollen. Of the atmosphere it means thick, dense or heavy. Then it has other meanings like a sound beating. It also means solid, coarse grained, dull, or uneducated. Plautus used it as an adjective and he died in 184 BC.
Crassus was also a family name in the gens Licinius. The most distinguished members were Lucius Licinius Crassus, an orator, 140-91BC, and Marcus Licinius Crassus the triumvir, d. 53 BC. . Wikipedia seems to have a good bit on the family but I really am afraid to trust their information. They do point out it was a cognomen and that: Another family of the Licinii bore the cognomen Varus, which means "crooked, bent," or "knock-kneed." The Licinii Vari were already distinguished, when their surname was replaced by that of Crassus. This was a common surname, which could mean "dull, thick," or "solid," and may have been adopted because of the contrast between this meaning and that of Varus.[3][6]
The problem with this citation is that citation 6 is Cassell's and they don't say this. That is, they give the definition of the words but not the inferences made here. I also read Smith which is citation 3 and tho he has a lot on the Licinius family he also does not mention why they took up the name Crassus as a family name.
It's interesting that the definition of our word crass from Webster's is:
\ˈkras\
Definition of CRASS
1
a : gross ; especially : having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination b : being beneath one's dignity <crass concerns of daily life> c —used as a pejorative intensifier <crass flattery> <crass propaganda>
2
: guided by or indicative of base or materialistic values <crass commercialism> <crass measures of success>
— crass·ly adverb
— crass·ness noun
A few people seemed shocked by her crass comments.
<a loudmouthed jerk given to rude jokes and crass comments>
Minor criticism though it was compared to the rest, the most galling calumny of all as far as Gaius Marius was concerned was the perpetual inference that he was unacceptably crass because he had no Greek. —Colleen McCullough, The First Man in Rome, (1990) 1991
Origin of CRASS
Latin crassus thick, gross
First Known Use: circa 1625
So this is a long way of saying I don't know when or why the Licinius family took on the name of crassus and which came first but it's an intriguing question!
-
But, GINNY, what would "accius" imply? Ass?
It would imply that he was illegitimate, the son of Accius instead of Crassus, his supposed father who, if the Accius reference were correct, was cuckolded.
I must take offense, however, at the suggestion that my impaired memory implies that either I don't exercise it, or I am by nature somewhat dull.
hhaaa, well one thing's for sure, he was the original "use it or lose it" guy, 2000 years ago. I think it's more an exhortation to keep mentally active than a condemnation.
-
Plutarch's Lives
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/Plutarch200.jpg)
Plutarch at the Museum of Delphi, Greece.
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/classicsbookclub/plutarch/DelphiValley_500.jpg)
Ruins of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, where Plutarch was a priest
The readers have spoken and our next read October 1 will be: Plutarch (c.46 A.D.- c. 120 A.D.) in his famous "Lives" or Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans; also called Parallel Lives.
Schedule:
Oct. 1-10: Pompey
Oct. 11- 20: Antony
Oct. 21-?: Cicero
Oct. ?: Coriolanus
?: Windup
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/latin/Thorvaldsen_Cicero.jpg)
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Bertel Thorvaldsen, copy of Roman original, ca 1800
(http://seniorlearn.org/latin/graphics/CiceroiCatilineCesareMaccari%2818401919%29.jpg)
Cicero denouncing Catiline (Cesare Maccari)
Questions for Cicero
1. What is the role of the Orator in Roman society? Is there anyone in British or US history comparable to Cicero and the role he played?
2. What were Cicero's ambitions? His strong and weak points? How did they help/hurt him?
3. Cicero is the first Roman we've read about who was not accomplished in battle. How did this hurt him? How did it help him? What is the relationship between the army and politics in Rome?
4. Cicero is best known for suppressing Catiline's revolt. How did he do that?
5. Cicero is criticized all his life for executing Catiline's fellow rebels without a trial. Yet later, Augustus Caesar calmly agrees to execute Cicero as part of a bargain for power. What is the difference?
6. Are we getting to know our guide, Plutarch any better? What does this section tell us about his character?
Discussion Leaders: JoanK (joankraft13@yahoo.com) and PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net)
Clough Translation-Roshanarose's Link (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives/index.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't know as much about the workings of the brain then. Perhaps that is Cicero's vanity talking.
GINNY: Thank you so much. I loved that excerpt. I especially liked it when he said that if he wasn't going to be immortal, he doesn't want to know. At least he doesn't have to fear that those who say there is no life after death will say "I told you so!" when they are dead.
It's interesting that, in spite of the awful view of life after death in the Oddysey, he has the same view of it that we do: he'll be able to see his old friends again. Some things change and some things don't!
-
Cicero's freedman and secretary Tiro interests me very much. He sounds both clever and accomplished. He invented a shorthand system, preserved Cicero's speeches and letters and got them published, and wrote a biography of C. They also seem to have been good friends. When they were returning from governing Cilicia, Tiro became ill and had to be left behind. One of the books I fished out of the downstairs bookcase (R. H. Barrow, The Romans) has a letter Cicero wrote to Tiro at this time. It starts "I miss you very much and I thought I could bear it more easily, but I simply cannot....". Then it goes on, alternating back and forth between concern for Tiro's health, urging him to be sure to get really well before continuing, and fussing about maybe now that you are rested you could come on, but don't compromise your health, but if you sailed now you could catch me up at Leucas, etc, etc. It's amusing and touching.
Thanks for the info about the medieval manuscripts, Ginny. I can just imagine the difficulty of reading them. The manuscripts themselves probably aren't all that easy to read. Then you are looking at someone's efforts to transcribe a centuries-old system, probably without fully understanding it. The system itself may not be as logical and straightforward as modern shorthands. And it undoubtedly had some abbreviated forms that stood for commonly used words; modern shorthand has these too, and many people make up more. No wonder it takes a specialist.
-
Ginny - Thank you for the plausible answers and the research you did finding them re "Crassus".
-
So, from the definition of Croasus, Cicero could have been implying that Axios speech
was dense, heay, perhaps dull or uneducated? That's pretty clever, hinting so much with
two words.
What do you all think of this line from Plutarch: But the desire of glory has great power in
washing the tinctures of philosophy out of the souls of men...". I suppose the experience of
adulation and admiration can do that. Certainly, the lust for power has corrupted many a soul.
-
The more you look at Plutarch, the more little gems you find.
-
Really, this reading and discussion of Plutarch has been a revelation. I had only read the 'lives'
that interested me most at the time we selected this as a topic. Cicero and Pompey have been a
revelation. I had a number of misconceptions about Pompey, in particular, which I am very
pleased to have had corrected.
I did feel that Plutarch's fixed views of Mark Antony definitely biased his interpretations of the
events at the end. No one knows what was actually in Antony's mind,..or Cleopatra's...at that
climactic end. Plutarch assumed the worst because of his long-held opinion of Antony.
Nevertheless, on the whole Plutarch does present a fair-handed description of his subjects,
illuminating both their virtues and their faults. Most priceless were the little vignettes that gave
us insight into the personalities and made them real for us.
-
Well, it's time to close this discussion. I've had a great time, and really increased my knowledge of Rome in that period. As always, discussing things with you guys is fun and an eye-opener. No matter what the subject, we always find when we put our heads and our knowledge together, we find out more than we ever dreamed possible.
-
Many thanks for this discussion. I'm happy to have discovered Plutarch's work - now I have my own copy as well as "The Basic Works of Cicero". We had Cicero in 3rd year High School Latin (a thousand years ago it seems) but only his speeches - his essays are well worth reading too. I plan to go on with Plutarch, reading the section on Caesar, which as well as interesting, should be useful as background for Latin class.
The section on Antony turned my idea of him (by way of Richard Burton!) totally upside-down - now he seems interesting as a study of a "fightin' man" -more realistic and less admirable for sure.
Such wonderfully informative posts - thank you! And such useful background and links from our leader. Such patience too! All much appreciated.
-
Well, I'm sad it's over. Thanks for picking Plutarch; I hadn't read him, and it was indeed a revelation. I'll keep on reading more.
You are all such great fellow-discussers. You know so much--more than I do--and have such good ideas. And as JoanK points out, all of us together are unbeatable. It was great fun.
-
I've enjoyed what I could get read, and definitely enjoyed reading everyone's posts. By the time we get back to Plutarch and his Greek Lives, I expect I will have more time to devote to it. It seems my grant funding has dried up and is not likely to be available to pay for Spring classes (and neither will I at this point).
-
Oh, what a disappointment, FRYBABE. I'm so sorry to hear that. Perhaps, between not and
Spring, you could pick up another grant. Helping people get the training they need to get back
on the work force ought to be a priority out there, wouldn't you think?
JOAN, PAT, you have done such a great job with this Latin trio. I'm really looking forward to
a future exploration of some of their Greek counterparts. Kudos to you both.
-
Even if a person just skimmed the last few pages of the discussion itself in curiosity, he'd learn something he might not have known! Super job!
I've loved the conversations here, so wide ranging and incisive and best of all, we're reading about the Romans, who are hot hot hot everywhere you turn. So that makes US au courant. And I love that people have really enjoyed learning about Plutarch, as he does form the basis for a lot of our English literature. I love the way he writes, you enter his own little world. The Caesar section particularly and Brutus in his tent, don't miss Brutus, watching his dreams of restoring the Republic exploding around him, the disillusionment and the despair.
The timelessness of the themes is a miracle to me, will we never learn from the past? To me so many of these people are Everyman, you'd think we could learn from their own example and mistakes. I still wonder if Caesar knew (and it appears he did) about the coming assassination but he went anyway to the Senate which was so characteristic of him. Did he just underestimate them? Did hubris get in his way too? Plutarch has it all. I love that we are even talking about this subject and really am proud of you all.
(Do you ever contemplate which 3 figures from history you'd want to invite to a dinner if you could? Maybe when we finish the series, assuming we keep on in a series) we can say our Dream Table. Only 3!! Caesar would be my first, I've got SO much to ask him, but the other two need to be dinner guests he'd enjoy too. I know the 2nd, the 3rd is still up for grabs. A fun exercise on a beautiful fall day. :))
Joan and PatH have done a masterful job here. I've loved the questions and the insightful comments by all. I loved the revelation comments, Babi! Plutarch to me IS just that, and I love the "you are there" feeling of his writing.
Frybabe, I am so sorry to hear that, aren't you almost through? Bummer!
My only regret is I wish we had had more time, maybe the next time, if JoanK and PatH are willing. We had talked about reading Greek drama. In one of our Latin classes we're doing the Theater and there are wonderful sites on the difference in Greek and Roman theater architecturally and in composition, and some great places to quickly learn about the thematic structure of the plays.
Here's a great youtube presentation of the differences in Greek and Roman Theater architecturally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0xWwhW_SuU&feature=related, and here's a great Q&A on Greek Theater, who wrote it, what kinds of plays there were, Satyr Plays, etc., and how it differs from the Roman: would make an expert of us all: it's absolutely excellent: http://www3.northern.edu/wild/th100/chapt11.htm.
Both of those presentations have a couple of technical flaws, typos, etc., but basically they are sound, and full of stuff I didn't know.. Watching them makes me want to try something Greek!
Just super job, I'm so proud to even see a website offering this! Kudos to all!
-
Yes, Ginny, two more classes for the Certificate. I might have foot the bill for them, but the steam pipe leak with the asbestos removal took care of that.
-
FRY: what a bummer. But I'm sure you will win through.
Well, we're through with this discussion. But not with the classices by any means. Let us retire to our old website for observations on what we've read, and what we'd like to read next. See you there! (you can see where the old posts end and the new ones begin by my post number 157. Looking back, I see I thought Pompey was a town near Naples!
http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php?topic=2395.new#new (http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php?topic=2395.new#new)