Plutarch’s writings were of a wide variety including Philosophy, rhetoric, antiquarianism, and biography. A series of biographies called Parallel Lives written towards the end of Plutarch’s life compared Roman and Greek people to find similarities in the two cultures, although many of his biographies were written considering the personalities of the people rather than strict historical events. The ancient Greeks thought that Plutarch’s work were concrete histories and took them as truth when looking at the past and at other cultures (i.e. Romans considering Greeks and vice- versa). Plutarch was born into an aristocratic Greek family and lived in the late 1st / early 2nd century. He traveled through much of the Greek and Roman empires and studied/ wrote about things that he didn’t understand or had questions, such as Spartan sayings. …show more content…
He wrote for both Greeks and Romans, although his surviving texts are all written in Greek.
The biographies were possibly meant to reconcile the two groups by showing the similarities between each other and thus improve relations. He also seemed to used the texts to look further into aspects of cultures that he didn’t fully understand or was confused by. Plutarch lived centuries after the Sparta that he writes about, and probably used other historian’s works in forming his writings as well as most likely over exaggerating certain aspects of the Spartan culture. Many of his other writings centered around events that occurred long before he wrote about them. His Parallel Lives were also written without personal encounters with many of his subjects. Some historians claim that many of Plutarch’s works also include his personal experiences and ideologies in his works, some of which are presented as the experiences and ideology of those he was writing about. Plutarch may have been using some of his biographies to strengthen Roman- Greek relationships by creating comparisons of great heroes in the two
cultures. Some strengths that should be considered when reading Plutarch’s works are the following. Plutarch had strong allegiance to Greece combined with a slight devotion to the Roman empire that restored his family’s wealth would allow for slightly less bias towards either place. Plutarch was also well educated and held several important roles in ancient communities, which means that he was most likely an intelligent person that was well respected, suggesting that he would seek the truth or the truth as his culture saw it. This is still beneficial for modern day people because one can study cultural ideals even if the historical accuracy is negligible. Another aspect to consider is that Plutarch’s works were extremely popular, and this could be indicative of some amount of accuracy if so many people read them and did not reject them as completely inaccurate. Plutarch’s style of incorporating histories that other wrote also allow for a larger chance that some of what he’s written was actually observed at some time. Some weaknesses that should be considered when reading Plutarch's works are the following. He created tenuous connections between Greeks and Romans in Parallel Lives in an effort to show more commonalities. He also mainly wrote concerning character when constructing his biographies, so it would be untrue to treat the other events in those books as concrete proof. Nor would it be wise to necessarily count the personalities as completely accurate because Plutarch most likely did not have any personal encounters with those he wrote about and relied on the words of others and well as his own perceptions of these people to construct his biographies. Plutarch’s other histories, such as those written about Sparta were also written using histories created by writers that came around after Sparta, and involved many romanizations of Sparta as well as simplifications of their culture. Plutarch furthered many misconceptions of the Spartans by buying into and furthering others’ historical errors.
Sulla’s earlier career had not been that of an orthodox Optimate. Though he belonged to an old patrician family, it had long slid into obscurity and poverty. Plutarch suggests that a legacy from his step-mother and another from a mistress helped him, somewhat late, to a public career (Plutarch, p. 327). Plutarch was a Greek historian who wrote more than a century after Sulla’s death. Some of his pieces are polemical, that is, his writings possibly arise from scurrilous tracts, written by political adversaries of his subjects. As Marius’ quaestor, he had captured Jugurtha and won the loyalty of his fellow soldiers, sparking a later brutal animosity between the pair. This talent for winning the loyalty of soldiers never deserted Sulla, and that fact would have terrible consequences for Rome (Williams, p.139).
Even if you do not like Suetonius' style, you must agree that he has achieved his goal of adequately exploring the lives of these 12 men. He wrote more than an adequate biography; he wrote an exquisite history of a very important period in the Roman world. Suetonius wrote so accurately that many historians today use his writings to describe the lives of the Caesars.
When talking about the differences between these two writing styles one important thing to keep in mind is that Xenophon lived during the fourth century BC and Plutarch lived in the first century AD. This means that these two writers had different contexts and intentions when creating their account. One thing that they both talked about was how the political aspect of Spartan society was changed by the Lycurgan reforms. The biggest of these reforms was changing the role of a king. The two kings were no longer excused from normal citizen activities. Plutarch gives an example of this with the story of King Agis. “King Agis returned from the campaign and wanted to eat at home with his wife instead of at the communal mess and called
When closely evaluating the two texts: Plutarch's The Lives of the Ancient Grecians and Romans and Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, there are stark differences of the theme and characters. While Plutarch's text is mostly informative, as describing a series of historical events, Shakespeare incorporates a wide variety of dramatic conventions as well as changing many events to entertain an audience. It is important to note that Shakespeare's play was based on Plutarch's text, which is why many of the differences are because of Shakespeare's revision. Shakespeare changes the tone of many important characters such as Marcus Brutus and Mark Antony. He also adds details to make the storyline heroic and inspiring. Plutarch's text is a third-person view on the events, with little explanation of people's opinions and thoughts.
His character traits are listed in three main accounts by authors A.J. Koutsoukis, Erik Hildinger, who are both current impartial historical non-fiction writers and, Plutarch. Plutarch was a Greek historian, biographer and essayist, who is most famous for his work Parallel Lives, where he focuses on all of the contributing rulers of the Roman Republic. Plutarch is very even handed and focuses on the influence of character and moral lessons that can be learned from these emperors, good or bad.
Hanson explained that Diodorus, Plutarch, and Pausanias were all biased sources. Diodorus followed Ephorus and lacked information. Plutarch included a narrative on Leuktra that followed Pelopidas and was derived from Kallisthenes. Pausanias used a lost account of Plutarch’s about Epameinondas indebted to Ephorus. The innovations were derived from Kallisthenes and Ephorus. These accounts sided with the Thebans and were not of a contemporary
Who is Marcus Aurelius? What did he do to make his mark in the pages of history? Why did the people of Rome respect and admire him? To the common person, Marcus was just a man who was an emperor of Rome and just another person who helped shaped this world. Marcus Aurelius was more than that! Anthony Birley writes, “The acquaintance of a man like Marcus Aurelius is an imperishable benefit.” The character of Marcus Aurelius is truly special, but was molded by many important people and figures in his life. With the absence of honor and duty in Rome, influences such as Junius Rusticus, a book called “The Discourses of Epictetus”, and the Roman Emperor Hadrian, led Marcus Aurelius to become one of the most important stoics and one of Rome’s greatest Emperors.
Life of Alexander the Great of Macedonia is one of the most remarkable Ancient Greece stories that prevail even in this present era. The ancient Greek sources clearly identify the life of Alexander as the one which broaden our understanding about the heroes of the Ancient times. Plutarch parallel lives are one of the sources that equip classical study and any other studies with necessary details of how Alexander manifested his life as an Ancient Greek hero. However the invention of motion pictures (cinema) had created another dimension in analysing Life of Alexander. Firstly Robert Rossen released a life of Alexander a nearly half century ago, which did not make much effort addition to what literature has far reached, and it was argued that his film consist some inaccuracies. Oliver Stone, a screenwriter also wrote a Life of Alexander (2004-2005) and it reached its hype as a cinematic presentation and it also depicts nearly accurate historical information about the life of Alexander the great. Oliver Stone’s Life of Alexander remains the controversial presentation when studying the Life of Alexander. This short essay will critically investigate how Stone went about constructing his ‘biopic’ of Alexander, including a consideration of which episodes were included as well as those which were excluded.
almost as Fate were deeming it necessary for him to die, and that he had no
Thyclydies and Herodotus were the two definers in the early histories on how histories are normally written. Herodotus is more a narrative type writer and likes to write to appeal to the writer’s feelings. Thyclides who is more of a writer like Alexander writes analytical. He looks how people write to explain how people did things other than supernatural forces. Alexander is an analytical when he looks at things season by season. He also is analytical by including all the facts and data to back up his points. Being an analytical writer helps Alexander establish his
Plutarch: Lives of the Noble Greeks is filled with nine biographies chosen by Edmund Fuller. Edmund Fuller narrowed the biographies down by choosing both the most important figures
Procopius of Caesarea was a famous scholar in his time period, and produced three important historical works, which were History of the Wars, Secret History and The Buildings of Justinian. The duality of Procopius of Caesarea for the reign of Justinian the Great depends on his historiographic interpretations about Justinian the Great, and it is totally related to what Justinian did for his empire and what kind of a man he was during his time period because “he was the last Roman emperor, and very important to his period. While Procopius of Caesarea, who was a famous historian in his time period, was declaring, mentioning, and giving clues to his audience about the duality of Justinian the Great, he produced historical works and put his objective
It hides the fact that Greek society type of justice is wrongly served by those who have no power. Odysseus is a king, he never got questioned of his actions. May this be because he is a king. Or Socrates being accused of corrupting the young? May this be because of his poverty. There is and unbalance in injustice especially what social class Greeks came from that maybe these stories depicted, but hide it from what these stories
While comparing the two pieces of literature, The Histories, by Herodotus, and The Peloponnesian War, by Thucydides they had many resemblances but what really caught my eye was the strong differences between them. The two historians, who were seen as the original fathers of Greek Historiography, played a huge role in narrating history. Although there were some similarities, Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ works differ significantly in the amount of detail, writing style, and topics discussed.
Literature can portray more than just a story. It can show the reader about a civilization’s ideals and people during different time periods. The literature of ancient Greece is no exception. In itself, literature cannot be seen as an accurate depiction of the past, but it can reveal the opinions of the writers. In Hecuba, it is significant that most of the central characters are women, who Euripides’ depicts as powerful. Through the comparison of Euripides’ depiction of women and men, he portrays his sympathy for women and therefore his radical views.