DOCSLIB.ORG

Pericles-Fabius Maximus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Chapter 4 Pericles-Fabius Maximus 4.1 Introduction In Pericles-Fabius Maximus, Plutarch joined two statesmen who enjoyed long careers during which they encountered a wide array of political and military challenges. Pericles was active in the political arena for over thirty years— beginning in the mid-460s and extending to his death in 429—while Fabius played an active role in Roman politics from the 230s until his death in 203 BC. During their careers, Athens and Rome faced extraordinary threats, and the survival of these cities was generally attributed to the firm leadership and foresight of these two leaders. By tying their achievements to the moral character and critical strategic decisions that produced them, Plutarch provid- ed lessons in behaviors readers should imitate or avoid—the objective stated in the Prologue to the pair. Per-Fab is well suited to launch our examination of the Parallel Lives as prag- matic biography. First, of all the sets of Lives, this pair provides the broadest overlap with the exempla of good statesmanship in the Moralia. As shown in Table 4.1, Pericles is mentioned nearly forty times in the Moralia, largely in the context of his role as leader in Athens. He is used fourteen times to il- lustrate principles of leadership in Political Precepts1 and is a prominent exam- ple of why old men should stay active in public affairs in Old Men in Politics.2 Fabius, in turn, illustrates excellent generalship and constructive approaches for old men to engage the young and train them for public service.3 Secondly, as noted above in Chapter 3, both the Prologue and synkrisis to Per-Fab praise the men for their political and military achievements. In the Prologue (Per. 2.4), Pericles and Fabius are applauded for their mildness (πρᾳότητα) and justice (δικαιοσύνην)—virtues emphasized in the Moralia as essential for men 1 Fourteen of the thirty-nine references to Pericles in the Moralia are in Political Precepts, and only three of these fourteen are absent from his Life. Alexander is the only statesman mentioned more often in the Moralia, which included two essays devoted exclusively to his achievements. 2 Pericles is mentioned in five different contexts in Old Men in Politics, second only to Cato Maior (seven). Phocion (three) and Agesilaus (two) and Solon (two) are also used as exempla in multiple contexts. 3 We will see Cato Minor performing the same role in different circumstances in Chapter 9. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2�18 | doi 1�.1163/9789004276611_007 Pericles-fabius Maximus 129 Table 4.1 Pericles as exemplum in the Moralia and Pericles Topic Moralia Life of Pericles Political Precepts Changed habits in private life 800C 7.4 Democracy in name, rule of Pericles 801E 9.1 Story of Archidamus, Thucydides and Pericles 802C 8.4 Bidding Athenians to remove eyesore of Piraeus 803A 8.4 Pericles’ speech after the plague 803B Not mentioned Prayer before speech not to utter an extra word 803F 8.4 Pericles attacked by Simmias 805C 35.4 Pericles says he is “a friend as far as the altar” 808B Not mentioned Pericles avoided abusive speech to enemies 810C passim Pericles kept self for important matters 811C–D Delegated Pericles delegated to Menippus and Ephialtes 812D 9.4 Pericles divided power with Cimon 812E 10.4 Pericles reminded self he ruled free men/Greeks 813D–E Not mentioned Public acts to gratify the people 818D 12 - Acropolis Old Men in Politics Pericles to greatest power in old age (start of war) 784E 31.1–32.3 Stop Athenians from fighting in inopportune time 784E 33.3–34.1 Unseemly to urge Pericles, Cato or Phocion to retire 789B passim Don’t advise Pericles to leave democracy in lurch 790B–C passim Pericles’ eloquence inspired Demosthenes 795D Not mentioned On Inoffensive Self-Praise Pericles: “ I love my country and cannot be bought” 540C–D passim Pericles: “No Athenian put on mourning because of me” 543C 38.3 On Being Compliant Pericles: “As far as the altar, I am a friend.” 531C–D Not mentioned.
Recommended publications
  • 341 BC the THIRD PHILIPPIC Demosthenes Translated By

    341 BC the THIRD PHILIPPIC Demosthenes Translated By

    1 341 BC THE THIRD PHILIPPIC Demosthenes translated by Thomas Leland, D.D. Notes and Introduction by Thomas Leland, D.D. 2 Demosthenes (383-322 BC) - Athenian statesman and the most famous of Greek orators. He was leader of a patriotic party opposing Philip of Macedon. The Third Philippic (341 BC) - The third in a series of speeches in which Demosthenes attacks Philip of Macedon. Demosthenes urged the Athenians to oppose Philip’s conquests of independent Greek states. Cicero later used the name “Philippic” to label his bitter speeches against Mark Antony; the word has since come to stand for any harsh invective. 3 THE THIRD PHILIPPIC INTRODUCTION To the Third Philippic THE former oration (The Oration on the State of the Chersonesus) has its effect: for, instead of punishing Diopithes, the Athenians supplied him with money, in order to put him in a condition of continuing his expeditions. In the mean time Philip pursued his Thracian conquests, and made himself master of several places, which, though of little importance in themselves, yet opened him a way to the cities of the Propontis, and, above all, to Byzantium, which he had always intended to annex to his dominions. He at first tried the way of negotiation, in order to gain the Byzantines into the number of his allies; but this proving ineffectual, he resolved to proceed in another manner. He had a party in the city at whose head was the orator Python, that engaged to deliver him up one of the gates: but while he was on his march towards the city the conspiracy was discovered, which immediately determined him to take another route.
  • Plutarch's 'Lives' and the Critical Reader

    Plutarch's 'Lives' and the Critical Reader

    Plutarch's 'Lives' and the critical reader Book or Report Section Published Version Duff, T. (2011) Plutarch's 'Lives' and the critical reader. In: Roskam, G. and Van der Stockt, L. (eds.) Virtues for the people: aspects of Plutarch's ethics. Plutarchea Hypomnemata (4). Leuven University Press, Leuven, pp. 59-82. ISBN 9789058678584 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/24388/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . Publisher: Leuven University Press All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online Reprint from Virtues for the People. Aspects of Plutarchan Ethics - ISBN 978 90 5867 858 4 - Leuven University Press virtues for the people aspects of plutarchan ethics Reprint from Virtues for the People. Aspects of Plutarchan Ethics - ISBN 978 90 5867 858 4 - Leuven University Press PLUTARCHEA HYPOMNEMATA Editorial Board Jan Opsomer (K.U.Leuven) Geert Roskam (K.U.Leuven) Frances Titchener (Utah State University, Logan) Luc Van der Stockt (K.U.Leuven) Advisory Board F. Alesse (ILIESI-CNR, Roma) M. Beck (University of South Carolina, Columbia) J. Beneker (University of Wisconsin, Madison) H.-G. Ingenkamp (Universität Bonn) A.G. Nikolaidis (University of Crete, Rethymno) Chr. Pelling (Christ Church, Oxford) A. Pérez Jiménez (Universidad de Málaga) Th.
  • Reading Plutarch's Women: Moral Judgement in the Moralia

    Reading Plutarch's Women: Moral Judgement in the Moralia

    Received: 5th September 2018 Accepted: 12th November 2018 Reading Plutarch’s Women: Moral Judgement in the Moralia and Some Lives* [Lectura de las Mujeres de Plutarco: Juicio Moral en los Moralia y en Algunas Vidas] by Lunette Warren Stellenbosch University [email protected] Abstract Plutarch has two distinct bodies of work: the Moralia and the Lives. Increasingly, however, questions about the unity of Plutarch’s work as a whole have been raised, and it has become of some concern to scholars of ancient biography to establish the level of philosophical content in the Lives. A comparative study of the women of the Lives and those in the Moralia may provide some insight into Plutarch’s greater philosophical project and narrative aims. Plutarch’s writings on and for women in the Conjugalia praecepta, Mulierum virtutes, Amatorius, De Iside et Osiride, and Consolatio ad uxorem lays a firm groundwork for the role of Woman in society and the marital unit. The language in these works is consistent with the language used to describe women in the Lives, where historical women appear as exempla for the moral improvement of his female students. This case study of five prominent women in the Lives reveals an uncomfortable probability: Plutarch presents women in the Lives in accordance with the principles set out in the Moralia and uses certain concepts to guide his readers towards a judgement of the exempla that agrees with his views on the ideal Woman. Key-Words: Plutarch, Exempla, Women, Moral education, Virtue. Resumen Plutarco tiene dos corpora distintos en su obra: los Moralia y las Vidas.
  • Demosthenes, Chaeronea, and the Rhetoric of Defeat

    Demosthenes, Chaeronea, and the Rhetoric of Defeat

    CHAPTER 6 Demosthenes, Chaeronea, and the Rhetoric of Defeat Max L. Goldman Introduction For years Demosthenes urged the Athenians to oppose the rising power of Macedon, which had come to prominence in the second half of the fourth century through the diplomatic and military efforts of its king, Philip II.1 Demosthenes finally convinced the Athenians and the Thebans to form an al- liance, which faced Philip at Chaeronea in the late summer of 338 BCE. Philip’s decisive victory in that battle had immediate consequences for the political landscape of the Greek world and modern historical narratives tend to treat Chaeronea as a turning point, as the moment when mainland Greece ceased to engage in independent foreign policy actions.2 Although this turned out to be the case, it was not immediately clear at Athens that the new order established by Philip after the battle was irrevocable. When Demosthenes was selected to deliver the funeral oration (logos epitaphios) for the Athenians who died at the battle of Chaeronea, he faced a particularly challenging task because the soldiers, whose deaths he needed to praise, had died fighting a losing battle, a battle he had vigorously advocated for. In his funeral oration, Demosthenes needed to discuss the defeat and his role in it in a way that created a sense of continuity with the past, that minimized the potential disruption such a defeat can inflict on a community, and that gave the Athenians a way to understand their defeat and his role in it. There can be no doubt that Demosthenes delivered the oration for the dead of Chaeronea.
  • Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman

    Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman

    Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman In his speech On the Crown Demosthenes often lionizes himself by suggesting that his actions and policy required him to overcome insurmountable obstacles. Thus he contrasts Athens’ weakness around 346 B.C.E. with Macedonia’s strength, and Philip’s II unlimited power with the more constrained and cumbersome decision-making process at home, before asserting that in spite of these difficulties he succeeded in forging later a large Greek coalition to confront Philip in the battle of Chaeronea (Dem.18.234–37). [F]irst, he (Philip) ruled in his own person as full sovereign over subservient people, which is the most important factor of all in waging war . he was flush with money, and he did whatever he wished. He did not announce his intentions in official decrees, did not deliberate in public, was not hauled into the courts by sycophants, was not prosecuted for moving illegal proposals, was not accountable to anyone. In short, he was ruler, commander, in control of everything.1 For his depiction of Philip’s authority Demosthenes looks less to Macedonia than to Athens, because what makes the king powerful in his speech is his freedom from democratic checks. Nevertheless, his observations on the Macedonian royal power is more informative and helpful than Aristotle’s references to it in his Politics, though modern historians tend to privilege the philosopher for what he says or even does not say on the subject. Aristotle’s seldom mentions Macedonian kings, and when he does it is for limited, exemplary purposes, lumping them with other kings who came to power through benefaction and public service, or who were assassinated by men they had insulted.2 Moreover, according to Aristotle, the extreme of tyranny is distinguished from ideal kingship (pambasilea) by the fact that tyranny is a government that is not called to account.
  • Cato, Roman Stoicism, and the American 'Revolution'

    Cato, Roman Stoicism, and the American 'Revolution'

    Cato, Roman Stoicism, and the American ‘Revolution’ Katherine Harper A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Arts Faculty, University of Sydney. March 27, 2014 For My Parents, To Whom I Owe Everything Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... i Abstract.......................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter One - ‘Classical Conditioning’: The Classical Tradition in Colonial America ..................... 23 The Usefulness of Knowledge ................................................................................... 24 Grammar Schools and Colleges ................................................................................ 26 General Populace ...................................................................................................... 38 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 45 Chapter Two - Cato in the Colonies: Joseph Addison’s Cato: A Tragedy .......................................... 47 Joseph Addison’s Cato: A Tragedy .......................................................................... 49 The Universal Appeal of Virtue ...........................................................................
  • Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards

    Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards

    MARATHON 2,500 YEARS EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 124 DIRECTOR & GENERAL EDITOR: JOHN NORTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS: RICHARD SIMPSON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARATHON CONFERENCE 2010 EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2013 The cover image shows Persian warriors at Ishtar Gate, from before the fourth century BC. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Photo Mohammed Shamma (2003). Used under CC‐BY terms. All rights reserved. This PDF edition published in 2019 First published in print in 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN: 978-1-905670-81-9 (2019 PDF edition) DOI: 10.14296/1019.9781905670819 ISBN: 978-1-905670-52-9 (2013 paperback edition) ©2013 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London The right of contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory note 1 P. J. Rhodes The battle of Marathon and modern scholarship 3 Christopher Pelling Herodotus’ Marathon 23 Peter Krentz Marathon and the development of the exclusive hoplite phalanx 35 Andrej Petrovic The battle of Marathon in pre-Herodotean sources: on Marathon verse-inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; Seg Lvi 430) 45 V.
  • Citations in Classics and Ancient History

    Citations in Classics and Ancient History

    Citations in Classics and Ancient History The most common style in use in the field of Classical Studies is the author-date style, also known as Chicago 2, but MLA is also quite common and perfectly acceptable. Quick guides for each of MLA and Chicago 2 are readily available as PDF downloads. The Chicago Manual of Style Online offers a guide on their web-page: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html The Modern Language Association (MLA) does not, but many educational institutions post an MLA guide for free access. While a specific citation style should be followed carefully, none take into account the specific practices of Classical Studies. They are all (Chicago, MLA and others) perfectly suitable for citing most resources, but should not be followed for citing ancient Greek and Latin primary source material, including primary sources in translation. Citing Primary Sources: Every ancient text has its own unique system for locating content by numbers. For example, Homer's Iliad is divided into 24 Books (what we might now call chapters) and the lines of each Book are numbered from line 1. Herodotus' Histories is divided into nine Books and each of these Books is divided into Chapters and each chapter into line numbers. The purpose of such a system is that the Iliad, or any primary source, can be cited in any language and from any publication and always refer to the same passage. That is why we do not cite Herodotus page 66. Page 66 in what publication, in what edition? Very early in your textbook, Apodexis Historia, a passage from Herodotus is reproduced.
  • Demosthenes, the Fourth-Century B.C

    Demosthenes, the Fourth-Century B.C

    Demosthenes 1) Reference edition: García Ruiz-Hernández-Muñoz 2016, Clavaud 1987. 2) Sender(s): Demosthenes, the fourth-century B.C. Athenian orator, who urged Athens to resist Philip II of Macedon (cf. AESCHINES §2).1 The authenticity of the letters, not doubted in antiquity (Worthington 2003, 585), has been the subject of vigorous debate in modern scholarship.2 The broad modern consensus is that some, but not all, of the letters are authentic (López Eire 1976, 233-4, Klauck 2006, 114): letters 1-4 are now usually regarded as genuine but letter 5 as pseudepigraphic (e.g. Goldstein 1968, Clavaud 1987),3 while letter 6 is controversial (probably authentic for Worthington 2003, but viewed as pseudepigraphic by Goldstein 1968, 261-4).4 If some of the letters are indeed authentic, this would make them among the very earliest Greek letters to survive independently as part of a collection 5 in the ms tradition (letters 1-4, 6 deal with events in the late 320s B.C.). 3) Extent and range of length There are six letters in the fullest version of the collection in the mss (see §5). The mean average length in García Ruiz-Hernández-Muñoz 2012 is 92.67 lines, but this conceals a wide divergence between letters 1-3 (average 150.67 lines) and 4-6 (average 34.67 lines). The longest letter is 3 (231 lines), the shortest 6 (13 lines). 4) Dating of the collection The earliest evidence for a letter from the collection is a late-second/early-first century B.C. papyrus preserving a large part of letter 3 (P.Lit.Lond.
  • Solon and His Πόλις: the Afterlife of an Archaic Personage in Late Democratic Athens This Paper Investigates the Afterlif

    Solon and His Πόλις: the Afterlife of an Archaic Personage in Late Democratic Athens This Paper Investigates the Afterlif

    Solon and his πόλις: The Afterlife of an Archaic Personage in Late Democratic Athens This paper investigates the afterlife of archaic literary legacy in political discourses of fourth-century Athens. It does so through juxtaposition of two literary tradition concerning Solon: Solonian fragments, and the courtroom speeches of Demosthenes and Aeschines. This paper argues that in Sol. 4, Solon perceives the populace as threat to the πόλις and its constitution: both the elites and the general public are source of moral corruption that puts the polis in danger, and both suffer the consequences of civil strife when Dike enacts the divine revenge. The word choices of Sol. 4 form parallels between the fate of the commoners and that of the elites, while the dichotomy between the πόλις and its populace is established through the scenes such as the private citizens plundering public property and the divine revenge entering the private household (Irwin, 2006; Noussia-Fantuzzi, 2010). Next, this paper discusses the implications of this reading of Sol. 4. First, I point out that the overlap of the divine and the mortal forms the political hub of the Solonian Weltanschauung: the people live in the physical space of πόλις; the gods maintain their presence with their sanctuary and ensure the survival of the πόλις with Dike’s revenge as a deterrent. This answers the long-debated question of whether the political realm in Sol. 4 is secular or supernatural (Anhalt, 1993; Blaise, 2006). I also argue that the dichotomy between the πόλις and its populace undermines the legitimacy of “the people” (Ober, 2018).
  • Mercenaries, Poleis, and Empires in the Fourth Century Bce

    Mercenaries, Poleis, and Empires in the Fourth Century Bce

    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts ALL THE KING’S GREEKS: MERCENARIES, POLEIS, AND EMPIRES IN THE FOURTH CENTURY BCE A Dissertation in History and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies by Jeffrey Rop © 2013 Jeffrey Rop Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2013 ii The dissertation of Jeffrey Rop was reviewed and approved* by the following: Mark Munn Professor of Ancient Greek History and Greek Archaeology, Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Gary N. Knoppers Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Religious Studies, and Jewish Studies Garrett G. Fagan Professor of Ancient History and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Kenneth Hirth Professor of Anthropology Carol Reardon George Winfree Professor of American History David Atwill Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies Graduate Program Director for the Department of History *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT This dissertation examines Greek mercenary service in the Near East from 401- 330 BCE. Traditionally, the employment of Greek soldiers by the Persian Achaemenid Empire and the Kingdom of Egypt during this period has been understood to indicate the military weakness of these polities and the superiority of Greek hoplites over their Near Eastern counterparts. I demonstrate that the purported superiority of Greek heavy infantry has been exaggerated by Greco-Roman authors. Furthermore, close examination of Greek mercenary service reveals that the recruitment of Greek soldiers was not the purpose of Achaemenid foreign policy in Greece and the Aegean, but was instead an indication of the political subordination of prominent Greek citizens and poleis, conducted through the social institution of xenia, to Persian satraps and kings.
  • The Funeral Oration of Pericles

    The Funeral Oration of Pericles

    Big Takeaway: Pericles Greatly expanded Athenian Democracy by allowing more men to vote!!! The Funeral Oration of Pericles The excerpt below is taken from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. The Ancient Greek historian Thucydides recorded a speech made by the Athenian leader Pericles in honor of those who died fighting Sparta in the first year of The Peloponnesian war (431 B.C). In the speech, Pericles describes the superior qualities of Athenian democracy as compared with life in Sparta. This speech is one of the most famous defenses of democracy of all time! “For our government (Athens’) is not copied from those of our neighbors; we are an example to them rather than they to us. Our constitution is called a democracy because it is in the hands not of the few but of the many! But our laws secure equal justice for all in their private disputes, and our public opinion welcomes and honors talent in every branch of achievement, not for any sectional reason but on grounds of excellence alone. And as we give free play to all in our public life, so we carry the same spirit into our daily relations with one another We are lovers of beauty without extravagance, and lovers of wisdom without unmanliness. Wealth to us is not mere material for vainglory but an opportunity for achievement; and poverty we think it no disgrace to acknowledge but a real degradation to make no effort to overcome. Our citizens attend both to public and private duties, and do not allow absorption in their own various affairs to interfere with their knowledge of the city’s.