answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

famous historians from ancient Rome

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Who were plutarch and pliny?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about American Government

What is the origin of the spit handshake?

The 'Spit Handshake' originated around the 14th century in modern day Czechoslovakia. Working class individuals often had dry and callous hands due to hard labour, so when handshaking an individual they experienced some pain. In fact there was an account, (fabricated most likely) of two men's hands spontaneously conbusting due to the friction generated from their handshake. To counter this pesky and common problem, Hans Spitstein developed the 'Spit Handshake' in which both parties would lubricate their hands before commencing the act. Obviously as these were working class men, oil was not readily available and so spit was used as a replacement. Over time the act of spitting on one's hand and offering it became viewed as an act of respect and trust, involving into the 'Spit Handshake' we know and love. Sources: A Brief History of the Handshake


When did spartan girls get married?

By 600 BCE Sparta had conquered her neighbors in the southern half of the Peloponnese. The vanquished people, called Helots, were required to do all of the agricultural work on land owned by the victors, making Sparta self-sufficient in food and ruler of a slave population seven or eight times as large. Not needing to import anything allowed Sparta to isolate herself from the culture of the rest of the world; fearing revolt by such a large number of slaves forced the country to become an armed camp: thus was determined the character of one of the oddest societies in the ancient world. At the age of seven Spartan boys left home to be raised by the state in barracks. When they turned 30 they could set up their own households but they still ate dinner every night with the other men. One outsider on tasting such a dinner remarked, "Now I know why Spartan's don't fear death." The nation, not the family, was the center of focus for every man. The survival of the state, it was believed, depended on the ability of every Spartan to fight and defeat at least eight Helots. To that end, boys learned from an early age discipline, willingness to endure hardship, and the skills of a soldier. As part of their basic training, Spartan youths were sent into the countryside to seek out and kill those Helots who looked as if they might become leaders in their community. While North American children are raised on Mother Goose rhymes and the Muppets, Spartan children were told tales of courage and fortitude. A favorite concerned the young boy who endured the repeated bites of a fox rather than admit he had the animal hidden under his jacket. If boys left home for good at age 7 and husbands and fathers spent the greater part of their life in military training with other men, the impact of all this on the lives of women must have been enormous. While there is no proof one way or another, it seems likely that Spartan marriages were arranged by the parents with little thought for the preferences of the prospective bride or groom, but if Spartan women had no say in the choice of husband they certainly had more power and status in every other respect. They married at age eighteen, much later than other Greeks. Presumably this was to guarantee healthier and stronger babies rather than a large number, but it meant that most girls were emotionally stronger when they married. In any event other Greeks clearly believed that Spartan women had far too much power for the good of the state. Plutarch wrote that "the men of Sparta always obeyed their wives." Aristotle was even more critical of the influence women had in politics arguing that it was contributing to the downfall of the country. Women did not have a vote in the assembly but seem to have had a lot of influence behind the scene. Women could own property---and did in fact own more than a third of the land in Sparta---and they could dispose of it as they wished. Daughters inherited along with sons. Unfortunately, when we get down to the particulars there are some gaps in our knowledge. Attempts were made to get rid of the practice of needing a dowry to get married. It is possible that endeavors by fathers to get around the law have led to considerable confusion in our eyes as to what was a gift and what was a dowry. Daughters may have inherited half of what a son inherited; it is also possible that if you combine dowry with inheritance they ended up with a full share of the estate. Spartan women had a reputation for boldness and licentiousness that other Greeks found unseemly. Women's tunics were worn in such a way as to give them a little more freedom of movement and the opportunity to reveal a little leg and thigh if they so desired. Spartan girls competed in athletics at the same time as the boys and may have done so in the nude before a mixed audience. Plutarch mentions nude rituals witnessed by young men. The end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries BCE saw a decline in the number of men relative to women. Several men might share a wife and regard the children as their own. The woman would clearly be the dominant member of any such family. An unmarried man might approach a friend and ask if he could "borrow" his wife to produce a child for him. If the husband had all of the children he wanted and approved of the suitor he might agree. It is highly unlikely that the mature wife and mother lacked a strong voice in the arrangements, considering the power and status of adult women in everything else. Since marriage existed strictly for the procreation of children and not as an answer to emotional or social needs the arrangement would not have had the same meaning to them as it might to us. Some have suggested the practice began as a way of limiting the breakup of family estates at death---a serious problem in those societies where daughters inherit as well as sons. Others regard it as an appropriate response to a disproportionate number of men and women in a society where family life was not all that important anyway. The picture that emerges is a contradictory one. Spartan and Athenian women lived much of their lives far removed from the men of their societies. Athenian men spent time away discussing politics and philosophy, but when they went home they expected obedience from their wives and no Athenian citizen would ever admit to taking advice from a woman. Spartan men were absent even more; while they were the only ones who held official office everyone acknowledged the influence women had in decision making. Spartan women may have gained freedom from male domination, but they were even less likely to get any emotional support from their marriages. The men of Athens had to be the boss in public, but there was no such social requirement in the home behind closed doors. The overt power of the husband was replaced in Sparta by an unspoken but very real control by the state. Spartan women remained breeding machines whose purpose was to produce the male soldiers the state needed to defend itself against revolt by the Helots. Mother love was replaced by a mother's pride in her son's bravery in battle and disgust with any sign of cowardice. "Come home with your shield or upon it" was reputed to be the advice one woman gave her son as he went off to war. She may well have been speaking on behalf of all Spartan women.


How did the enlightenment influence the American political thought?

The American Enlightenment is a term sometimes employed to describe the intellectual culture of the British North American colonies and the early United States (as they became known following the American Revolution). It was a part of a larger intellectual movement known as the Age of Enlightenment. The American Enlightenment began during the 1690s but didn't become fully realized until the 1730s. The origins of the American Enlightenment are predominantly European. However Puritan culture also contributed to the prominence of the Enlightenment in America. Small Puritan religious colleges were one of the few places where philosophy was discussed prior to the Enlightenment. During the American Enlightenment these colleges rapidly expanded and became the breeding grounds for the Enlightenment thinkers. Throughout the colonies "Enlightened" individuals focused on classical writings for inspiration. The American Enlightenment was categorized not only by knowledge of classical writings but also an atmosphere where people craved new knowledge and wisdom. It was that craving that inspired people to make new developments in science, religion, and politics. There was a large emphasis during the Enlightenment for new scientific developments. One of the easiest ways America participated in the scientific community was by exploring the colonies. During expeditions through unknown territories explorers kept very detailed journals noting any discovery of new plant or animal life. Dr. Michael Sarrazin was an example of an explorer whose scientific journals largely contributed to the scientific community. Dr. Sarrazin took expeditions to document any plant or animal life previously unknown in Europe. He then sent his journals and plant specimens to Europe where they were studied at Oxford University and The Academy of Sciences. The largest contribution to scientific community came from Benjamin Franklin's works on electricity. Franklin was convinced that new scientific discoveries like electricity should be put to use for the improvement of human life. Although the Enlightenment's effect on religion is often overlooked, it was evident in America. John Wise, a Puritan clergyman, supported Plutarch's claim that "to follow God and obey Reason is the same thing." Wise began to preach these ideals and immediately received praise from some of the best known enlightened thinkers. Wise's "religion of reason" became very popular especially in the Calvinist and Anglican congregations in the colonies but found serious opposition when received by more orthodox communities. Wise's "religion of reason" has a left a lasting mark on the predominant Christian denominations today. Probably the most influential aspects of the American Enlightenment were political developments. It is without doubt that the ideas of the American Enlightenment led to America's independence and the principles of the Government America has today. Through enlightenment ideals people began to think that a ruler had to be held to higher laws. American political minds like Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Madison were able to take the ideas of John Locke, David Hume, and Adam Smith to create a government whose power was obtained from the people. The founding fathers were able to create a checks and balances system that held rulers to higher laws. They also sought to create a government that would protect the natural rights of man. Today, this is exemplified in the Bill of Rights.


What is the reliable evidence that Jesus really existed?

Josephus the Jewish historian mentioned his miracles as 'wondrous works' and Tacitus the Roman. Pliny also mentioned a new 'sect' called the 'Christians' that had formed. Roman catacombs, tunnels used to bury the dead, are full of Christian symbols, pictures and depictions of the resurrection engraved on the walls by the earliest Christians hiding there for safety in around 80AD. Another source is Polycarp, who, himself was a disciple of John, the disciple closest to Jesus himself, who has left a great deal of writing about Christ - none of which contradicts the Gospel stories.And let's not forget, with the exception of the Gospel of Mark being used by Luke and Matthew, the gospels were all written independently (including a fifth Gospel, now lost, called 'Q' which can be seen in fragments in Matthew and Luke) and yet they all agree with each other very well. The Gospel of John was written totally independently, and yet the details of the Life, death and resurrection all agree with remarkable accuracy.As for the resurrection one has to say - what if the resurrection never happened and the whole thing was a lie? A superb book is atheist Frank Morrison's 'Who moved the Stone?' - a book that was intended to disprove the resurrection on 'hard' evidence. The result was that Morrison was converted, became a Christian and had to rewrite the book. It is still in print and available from Amazon.Let's look at the evidence:1. The body wasn't there. Why? was it removed by the diciples including Joseph of Arimathea No. If they removed the body, many of them went on to be executed for their beliefs, especially in the resurrection. Hardly credible if they knew they were dying for something they knew to be a lie. Did the Roman or Jewish authorities take it? Hardly. Peter almost caused a riot in Jerusalem when he proclaimed the resurrection to a large crowd. All the authorities had to do would be to produce the body and his cover would be blown. But they didn't. AND they knew about the resurrection - firstly by the guards posted at the tomb who may well have signed their own death warrants by admitting that they allowed it to happen, and secondly by the disciples who preached it. What about grave robbers? Hardly. Jesus had few possessions, a fact known my all who saw him, therefore nothing to take.2. They went to the wrong grave. How silly. They knew exactly where the grave was - after all, large tombs of this importance (Joseph of Arimathea, a rich merchant, owned it) were not that common.3. Jesus didn't die on the cross - merely fainted and the cold tomb 'brought him round'. Unbelieveable. have a look at Mel Gibson's 'The passion of the Christ', and, for all its 'antisemitism' and other criticisms, it was an historically accurate portrayal of Crucifixion. The Romans knew what they were doing - they didnt make mistakes here. Even so, the eye witness John records a spear thrust in his side. Sinmilarly it is inconcievable that someone died in his place - they wouldn't have made this simple error.4. Jesus appeared to many, many people. not as a resuscitated corpse, but as a shining radiant human. He appeared to the disciples, to the women (Mary Magdalene was the first to see him) to Cleopas (a follower) and his friend on the road to a village called Emmaus, to the other 72 'hangers on', and, at one time to over 500 Christians gathered together. So it is hardly possible that they could have made it up. Lastly he appeared to Paul, a persecutor of the Christians, who was converted as a result and helped to plant Christian churches all over Europe. He appeared as a body - not as a ghost. A body that could eat a meal with the disciples and yet could appear and disappear at will.5. The disciples, from being a scared group, meeting in locked rooms for fear of the Jewish authorities and Romans, were transformed into a vibrant energetic band of evangelists who spread all over the world (from India - Thomas, to Africa - Philip, to Rome - Peter and to Spain - James) . Most died for their beliefs.Would they have done this knowing that everything was a put-up job?6. The church spread like wildfire throughout the then known world in a very short time. Let's not forget that the Gospels record that Jesus, after the resurrection, returned to Galillee in the north - and therefore the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would not have recored any resurrection. But the disciples knew. After Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit, they were fired up so much that the Christian church spread across Europe from this tiny backwater of a desert country, where communications were poor, and travelling dangerous, and any deviation from the religion of Rome (e.g. worship of the Emperor) was a sure death sentence, to such an extent that Chrisan churches were present over most of the Mediterranean area, Africa, India, the Middle east, Spain, Italy and other places by the end of the 1st century, and in many cases just 10-20 years after the events. All this hardly possible if everything was based on a lie..Another answer from our communityThere is no historical evidence for the resurrection nor that any such Jesus as described in the New Testament gospels ever existed.Then again, there is no evidence for Moses, Abraham, or Mohammad having existed, either. Nor Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, Kukulkan, or Marduk for that matter. Seems to be a common thread among so-called "holy" types.Another answer from our communityThe utter silence by those opposed to Jesus is a strong argument in favor of the literal historical resurrection.Normally an argument from silence is invalid for a variety of reasons, since it makes false assumptions based on no evidence whatsoever. In the case of the resurrection of Jesus however, we can argue positively from the silence of His non-believing opponents for a number of reasons:1. They had just crucified Jesus and had power and authority on their side (in human political terms).2. Their antagonism to Jesus who they regarded as an 'impostor', led them to set a guard over His tomb to prevent any lies being told that He was risen from the dead.3. They felt the necessity to concoct a story to 'cover' the soldiers, in case Pilate the Governor heard heard they had neglected their duty - except if he had heard of it they would normally have been executed for such neglect.4. No body was ever produced, even though the opponents of Jesus undoubtedly knew where the tomb was.5. No torture or interrogation or even executions were ever undertaken to force divulgence of the 'plot' to steal away Jesus' body and its new location.6. No counter-claim by eyewitnesses was ever recorded even though they had both the motivation and the ability (as mentioned above) as well as the opportunity to do so.7. The authorities were certainly made aware of the claims of Jesus' followers that He had risen from the dead, at an early time, both from the testimony first of the guards and then from the preaching of the believers.The inescapable conclusion from all of this is that they knew what really happenned. Acts records that on a number of occasions how the authorities expressly forbade the teaching or preaching 'in this name' but they never denied its historical reality. A Non-believer's viewThe utter silence by those supposed to be opposed to Jesus is also a strong argument against the literal historical resurrection. They made no counter-claim because they knew nothing about claims that Jesus had been resurrected.Some scholars say that the original version of Mark was the earliest gospel (written around 70 CE). The earliest versions of the gospel that we have, did not claim that the resurrected Jesus appeared to anyone after his crucifixion - simply ending with a young man saying that he was risen. In support of this:The United Bible Societies' 'The Greek New Testament' (4th Edition, 1993), regarded as the consensus of Bible Scholars, omits the verses 16:9-20 (known as the "longer ending" to distinguish it from another "shorter ending" that has also been used), commenting that they had been assimilated from sources in Matthew, Luke, John and Acts. The Roman Catholic New American Bible includes the "longer ending" verses, but with a footnote that says that this ending has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the Gospel since the Council of Trent, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was not written by Mark.Mark's Gospel is said to be the major source used by the authors of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels, for the life of Jesus. If the author of Mark's Gospel knew nothing of the resurrection appearances, then it is reasonable to say that they did not occur. Counter argument on the above....What about John's gospel? You did not mention this. And yet, in this Gospel, the resurrection is clearly mentioned and described in detail. let's not forget that John as the disciple closest to Jesus, was an eye witness at the crucifixion, was one of the first disciples at the empty tomb, and who wrote his gospel in isolation probably on the Isle of Patmos - and yet it agrees remarkably with the others. Polycarp, one of John's disciples, left us with a wealth of information and writing on Jesus. Polycarp himself was executed for his belief - is this something he would do if he knew John's teachings were lies? Further counter arguments on the above...RE: "The earliest versions of the gospel that we have, did not claim that the resurrected Jesus appeared to anyone after his crucifixion - simply ending with a young man saying that he was risen."


Related questions

Who wrote an encyclopedia on natural history that's discussed meteorology geography botany zoology and astronomy?

Pliny and elder Pliny and elder Pliny The Elder


What do Easter bunnies got to do with Jesus?

The hare was a popular motif in medieval church art. In ancient times, it was widely believed (as by Pliny, Plutarch, Philostratus, and Aelian) that the hare was a hermaphrodite.The idea that a hare could reproduce without loss of virginity led to an association with the Virgin Mary


Who wrote the biography Parallel Lives of Illustratious Grek and Romans?

certainly not me . it was plutarch he loved discovering character of a person


What was plutarch famous for?

Plutarch is the most famous biographer of the ancient world and the author of a famous collection now known as Plutarch's Lives. Plutarch's original title was Parallel Lives of Famous Greeks and Romans


What did the gang of girl pirates do to pliny?

Pliny the Elders dies and the children mourn children mourn him. Pliny dies because of the sulfur after the volcano erupts.


Did Pliny the younger survive mt Vesuvius in 79ad?

yes pliny did. years after the volcanoe erupted, pliny the younger wrote to his friend tacitus about what happened.


When did Pliny T. Merrick die?

Pliny T. Merrick died in 1867.


When was Pliny T. Merrick born?

Pliny T. Merrick was born in 1794.


When was Pliny Earle I born?

Pliny Earle I was born on 1762-12-17.


When did Pliny Earle I die?

Pliny Earle I died on 1832-11-19.


When was Pliny Fisk III born?

Pliny Fisk III was born in 1944.


When was John Pliny Crysler born?

John Pliny Crysler was born in 1801.