Jump to content

Talk:Plutarch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.146.132.102 (talk) at 19:53, 19 March 2011 (→‎Revert to BC/AD date format: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dates of birth and death and Travels to Rome

According to the Teaching Company and the links at the bottom of the page he was born in 46. According to the Teaching Company he lived beyond 127. I do not know the proper way to say he lived beyond 127 so I wrote "beyond 127". But feel free to change it if it is "127+" or "127?" or whatever.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, he "died after 119", so I'm guessing this is one of those things that are full of scholarly dispute. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. There's debate about his date of birth and as well his date of death. Instead of placing all the debate in the main parts of the article, it would be better to use the Notes section to discuss it, alongside the Timeline which will try to be as conservative as possible.-BiancaOfHell 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that the introduction to this article states unequivocally that Plutarch went to Rome at least twice, while the introduction to the translation by Dreyden says it was at least once, with no evidence to indicate otherwise?

Right. Some say he spent 40 years in Rome, which is largely refuted. Some say he went to Rome once, others say he went to Rome twice. Some say he went to Alexandria after his studies, others say no. There is a lot of debate about Plutarch's biography. I'm suggesting going with what is conservative and what Scholars think is largely correct, and placing all the interesting arguments for and against in the Notes section, alongside the Timeline to it's right.-BiancaOfHell 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

listing of Lives in chronological order

The following was posted in the article by 65.148.17.110 (talk • contribs) and moved here by —Charles P. (Mirv) @ 15:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

It would be good if someone could include a listing of the Lives in chronological order, for this resource is not easily found elsewhere on the web.

Not easily found? Has it been found? By chronological order you mean when Plutarch wrote/finished them, or chronological order of the Greek lives and then the Roman lives? A listing of the chronological order of some of the Roman lives and the Roman Emperors and Plutarch and his contemporaries lifetimes exists at http://www.constitution.org/rom/plutarch/intro.htm.-BiancaOfHell 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Plutarchs?

I was going through Britannica's website, improving some of our math bios, when I came upon what appears to be either an error, or major omission. Specifically, I was working on Proclus. EB's article says "At Athens he studied under the Greek philosophers Plutarch and Syrianus, whom he followed as diadochos (Greek: “successor”), or head of the Academy founded by Plato c. 387 BC."

This is all well and good, except for the minor problem that Proclus was born 410 CE, and Plutarch worked in the 100s and such CE. So, either two entire biographies (in both Wikipedia and Britannica) are completely screwed up by centuries, or there is some other Plutarch who was important enough to either be almost or actually the head of Plato's Academy (I think he was in fact the head preceding Proclus, as the EB quote mentions him and Syrianus- our article on Syrianus has him succeeding Proclus, implying that Plutarch was the preceding head). Thought you guys should know, if for disambiguations reasons alone. --maru (talk) Contribs 03
16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
http://www.goddess-athena.org/Encyclopedia/Friends/Proclus/ says
"Then Syrianus presented Proclus to Plutarch, sun of Nestorius, his predecessor, who due to age was forced into semi-retirement. But Plutarch accepted Proclus as auditor of his courses."
If it helps any. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little known fact that many Greek names famous in the West today were very common in ancient Greee & hence we should not be suprised at this turn of events... There are several Thucydides' for example, several Socrates' and so on. Plutarch (the author of the Lives) could not have followed Plato as head of the academy since he wrote about evens occuring centuries after this succession is said to have occured. For example, Plutarch writes about Caesar's murder (47 BCE or thereabouts) so he couldn't possibly have been around in 387 BCE... --Mikkerpikker 04:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It still bothers the hell out of me- it means that if I link to Plutarch like I want to, I am misleading the reader, who almost certainly does not know that about common Greek names (for instance, Proclus was taught math by a "Heron". I already know that this is a different Heron from the Heron, and so I did not link it, but what about a user hip to the ways of Wikipedia, who decides to manually rectify this mistake by editting or going directly to the Heron article? Now I have to insert a nasty parenthetical note noting that this is not the Heron you were expecting.); besides, I think being the head of the Academy is noteworthy enough there should at least be a bare mention. Not to mention a number of other sources have screwed up this side note- the Britannica article misleads one by omission, and http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Proclus.html, the MacTutor article, normally a reliable source, sends you to the wrong/famous Plutarch when you click on the link! --maru (talk) Contribs 04:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A way to get around the "nasty parenthetical note" you are referring to is to use the Greek convention, i.e. to name people by their cities. So Plutarch (as in the guy who wrote the Lives) would be "Plutarch of Chaeronea" and the Plutarch who succeeded Plato would be "Plutarch of Athens" (or whatever). Mikkerpikker 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost works of Plutarch

Has there been any discussion, or any published work, on his lost works? Haiduc 12:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica the first pair of Parallel Lives, Epaminondas and Scipio, are lost. Are there others?
BiancaOfHell 15:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's essential that a proof of these lost works is done. Where does it say that they did in fact exist at some point? Apparently there is a listing but where can I go to see this listing?-BiancaOfHell 13:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any specific information about this, but presumably other writers whose work has been preserved would have referred to reading such and such by Plutarch. I haven't read all of the the Parellel Lives, so I don't know if there is any reference within them or not. I'm sorry that I couldn't be of more help. --Kyoko 13:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Even the lives of such important figures as Augustus..." It looks like Perseus has the North translation of the Life of Octavius Agustus Caesar. Is it a pseudopigraphic work, or is this statement particially incorrect and in need of modification?

In the Parallel Lives article it says "The Perseus project also contains a biography of Caesar Augustus appearing in the North translation, but not coming from Plutarch's Parallel Lives" Here's the link to the text: [[1]] So I don't know where this biography came from and why it has such a low key presence amongst his works. Is there still in fact a Life of Augustus from the Lives to be found? -BiancaOfHell 17:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link, External links - biography of Plutarch

Impossible

this may relate to Maru's question but while looking for a quote on the spartans i found "Come back with your shield,-- or on it", as sort of rejoicing phrase for the women of Sparta as the men left to fight, it said that Plutarch reported this, but how is this possible, the hieght of military Sparta was three centuries before the birthdate of Plutarch, so how is this possible? Thrawst 06:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google and the Straight Dope are your friends: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mspartanmoms.html. --maru (talk) contribs 07:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plutarch's Influence

The first couple of sentences in this section are incoherent, the apparent victim of editing. They do not make sense. What is being said about Shakespeare, for example? If it intends to convey that Shakespeare based some of his plays on the Parallel Lives, that is not contained in this sentence.


I've heard that he based specifically Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra on Plutarch's lives of Caesar, Brutus, and Antony. I'm not sure where I read it, though - possibly in Michael Grant's The Ancient Historians. I'll check when I'm at home and have access to said book. --Jim Henry 17:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quote from Aubrey Stewart's introduction to his 1894 translation of Plutarch's Lives:
Amyot's spirited French version was no less spiritedly translated by Sir Thomas North. His translation was much read and admired in its day; a modern reviewer even goes so far as to say that it is "still beyond comparison the best version of Parallel Lives which the English tongue affords." Be this as it may, the world will ever be deeply indebted to North's translation, for it is to Shakespeare's perusal of that work that we owe 'Coriolanus,' 'Antony and Cleopatra,' and 'Julius Caesar.'
--Jim Henry 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the two biggest authors influenced by Plutarch are Shakespeare for his plays, and Montaigne for the development of the Essay. The Influences section should probably reflect this. BiancaOfHell 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plutarch's Influence on Dante?

I've heard that Dante was influenced but how? is it significant? BiancaOfHell 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations

These quotes should be boxed up (like in the Demosthenes article) and placed appropriately in sections that will discuss the works of Lives and Moralia, ESPECIALLY if they come from there. Plutarch had a lot of influence on moralists, etc... and some of these quotations are examples of his wisdom that influenced those that came after. BiancaOfHell 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plutarch Scholars

What books, or editions with introductions, forewords, etc.. that talk about Plutarch's life and work are out there? BiancaOfHell 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the philosophy of Plutarch of Chaeroneia one might look at The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 by John Dillon (Ithaca, 1996, Revised Edition). It has a chapter "Plutarch of Chaeroneia and the Origins of Second-Century Platonism" (pp 184 - 230) that concentrates on Plutarch's philosophy. In a note to this chapter (p. 185) Dillon recommends Plutarch by D. A. Russell (London, 1972) for "the whole man, essayist, historian, teacher, conversationalist, statesman." I am unfamiliar with Russell so I cannot comment on this books worth. But Dillon is a well-respected academic who is recognized as an expert in the history of Platonism. Pomonomo2003 01:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put it in References. Is that allowed when the book hasn't even been glimpsed? Better for a bibliography perhaps? Either way, Amazon has a new Edition of said book (Plutarch by D.A. Russell) and it looks like it has a goldmine of information. Going to get it. Thanks. -BiancaOfHell 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. R.H. Barrow, Plutarch and His Times (1967, reprinted 1979)
  2. C.J. Gianakaris, Plutarch (1970), are good general introductions that list further reading.
  3. C.P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (1971), begins with a useful biography and continues by tracing his career under various Roman emperors.
  4. D.A. Russell, Plutarch (1973), provides a literary evaluation.
According to Additional Reading at Britannica Online -BiancaOfHell 22:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


For too much information see Bibliography on Plutarch at <http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/chaironeia/bibliography.html> -BiancaOfHell 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an extremely useful bibliography, but I don't think it's been updated since the late '90s. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Plutarch

A number of authors have written a 'Life of Plutarch's it seems. Here's the beginnings of a list. Please add to it if you come across more.

  1. North's 'Life of Plutarch'
  2. Dryden's 'Life of Plutarch'
  3. Arthur Hugh Clough, writes introductions to Dryden's translations of Lives
  4. Rualdus wrote a Life of Plutarchus on the Paris folios that is a basis for much knowledge on Plutarch's life.

-BiancaOfHell 11:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translations and their Translators

  1. In english what are the major and respected translations?
  2. Did Dryden translate all of Plutarch's works? He translated Lives from the Greek original
  3. Did Thomas North?

North, Sir Thomas, 1535?–1601?, English translator. He is famous for his translation of Plutarch, entitled Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (1579), which he made from the French of Jacques Amyot. This work, ornate but vivid, was a source for many of Shakespeare's plays, among them Antony and Cleopatra and Julius Caesar, and was a major influence in the development of Elizabethan prose.

  1. North versus Dryden versus?

North translated from Amyot's French translation, whilst or while Dryden translated from the Greek original

  1. What of Amyot's French translation?

-BiancaOfHell 13:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Dryden did not translate much of Plutarch at all. The Dryden edition is just that: he was the general editor, lending his name for the saleability of the thing, but a large team did the actual work, each individual taking one of the Lives. Bill 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind citing your source, and incorporating that knowledge into the Translations section? I'm not sure if the way I've done it, separating into French and English translations sections, is the best way, since Amyot's was the start of a translation that went through many languages. The whole thing is a lot more complicated than any section breakdown could possibly convey.-BiancaOfHell 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis On?

What to cover about Plutarch is a question on my mind. His biographical information is sketchy. A lot of questions on the size of his family, his travels to Rome, his career. The importance of his works and criticisms of it seems to be more interesting. Anyone have any good advice? -BiancaOfHell 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes Section

Stuff whose deduction must be explained:

  1. birth date
  2. death date
  3. travels to Rome and Alexandria, when and for how long?

-BiancaOfHell 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diaphram

The life timeline at the end lists "Invented diaphram" but there is no reference made to this in the page - this needs to be addressed by at least a short section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.107.193.183 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It was just a vandal doing his/her thing.-BillDeanCarter 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death date

This date is rather vague, but the sentence should be placed perhaps someplace other than "Work as magistrate and ambassador", right? Is there any info pertaining to his later life? Sedonaarizona 18:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian

I see that Plutarch is categorized as a vegetarian, but why is no mention of this made in the article? Given that vegetarians were exceedingly rare then, and the fact that he wrote essays extolling the virtues of vegetarianism, it seems relevant to me.--Hraefen Talk 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Which articles of his were about vegetarianism or mentioned his vegetarianism? Are there any historians you know who have mentioned the rarity of vegetarianism back in those days? I hope the categorization wasn't a form of vandalism long overlooked.-BillDeanCarter 00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book Heretic's Feast by Colin Spencer (pp. 98-101) says that Plutarch's Moralia contains the Essay on Flesh-Eating and Rules for the Preservation of Health, both of which discuss vegetarianism. That same book also addresses the rarity of vegetarianism in those times and discusses the philosophers that embraced it.--Hraefen Talk 05:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Translations

The article says, "there is one translation of Parallel Lives into Latin" which it describes as being made in the 18th century, pour le dauphin. Meanwhile, above in the article is a photograph of a 15th century Latin edition of the same. Clearly either there was more than one Latin translation, or it was not made pour le dauphin. Rwflammang (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plutarch=Unreliable

In Pyrrhus article, a user has added the pov sign with the arguement that Pyrrhus' sources came from the unreliable author Ploutarch... This is off course an anti-encyclopedic action. It is really sad that famous authors like Plutarch are so badly criticized and the worst, without a single argument against him! (he said that he was Greek...so unreliable)Alexikoua (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well i have some arguments against him. some of his stories cannot be checked in any other source. second, in his paralells lives he pretends to be neutral but the romans always look better than the greeks in comparsion. If you care about my opinion, he was in the roman´s pockets 201.29.161.165 (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to BC/AD date format

There has been a violation of WP:ERA in that no discussion or concensus was done on this article's talk page after the 29th October 2010 before the date format was changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE. Therefore I propose that the date format be reverted back to that of 29/10/10 should no one object and voice reasons why this should not occur. 78.146.132.102 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]