Are not you our Father, and you our priest, that you should throw yourselves at our feet?
I'm not sure I understand this statement. If he was the "Father" (and to me, the capital F here is quite important) or a priest, then why would he throw themselves at THEIR feet!? Shouldn't it be opposite. It's difficult to interpret these kinds of texts sometimes.
four elders
Again with the number four!
four angels
This is like the third time they've mentioned "four angels." I wonder what the significance of the number four is. why is it always four angels? It makes me curious if there's a reason for this.
On the day when we abode in the stocks, this was shown me. I saw that place which I had before seen, and Dinocrates clean of body, finely clothed, m comfort; and the font I had seen before, the edge of it being drawn to the boy's navel; and he drew water thence which flowed without ceasing. And on the edge was a golden cup full of water; and Dinocrates came up and began to drink therefrom; which cup failed not. And being satisfied he departed away from the water and began to play as children will, joyfully.
She's saying that the day she saw the stocks she also had a vision of her brother clean and being able to reach the water. It almost sounds to me like she is saying by knowing she was about to die in the name of Christianity she saw too that her pain was about to end and everything would be better soon because she would be with God.
After a few days we were taken into prison, and I was much afraid because I had never known such darkness
I have a hard time understanding old language documents like this.. but it sounds to me like she is saying that she was put into prison because her father did not approve of her Christianity. This type of persecution is both interesting and heartbreaking to think about nowadays. It wouldn't be tolerated now.. her father would be the one punished for persecuting her because of her religion.
For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit:12:9to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit;12:10and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; to anotherdiverskinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues
When he originally started talking about gifts I thought he meant physical gifts but clearly in this he is not, he's talking about gifts of a much different kind. Knowledge and wisdom are one thing... but healings, miracle workings, and prophecy? I wonder how widely accepted this would have been and how many people might have taken advantage of it.
, that no collections be made when I come.
I wonder why this is? You would think that the collections would be considered a way to honor God.. why choose that they should not be offered when he came? This seems odd to me.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;15:4and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;
This choice of wording - "according to the scriptures" - is REALLY interesting. There was a particular sentence in our book when they were talking about the rise of Christianity that mentioned this EXACT phrase.. of course I'm having a hard time finding the passage now but it was basically saying that they used that term as a way to kind of leave things up for interpretation to draw more people in.. "according to the scriptures," like.. believe what you want and how you want but we're just telling you what the scriptures said. How interesting to see this phrase repeated in an actual document from antiquity after seeing it discussed in the text.
lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name.1:16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.1:17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.1:
If he's saying that Christ sent him to preach the gospel and not to baptize then why is he even performing baptisms? It seems to me like if that was not one of Christ's orders for him then perhaps he shouldn't be doing it. And another thing - why does he say "lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name." The whole idea of being baptized would be to do so in CHRIST'S name.. isn't it kind of prideful to think that anyone would assume it was in his name instead of Christs? This whole statement just seems a tad odd to me.
I beg you to tell whether I have done right
Seems that Pliny was making decisions without Trajan telling him what to do. It's definitely different to see a situation like this - you would think the ruler would be the one who should dictate what should be done before any action is taken at all.
You are the best judge of what to do at Nicaea. It will be enough for me to be informed of the plan you adopt. All Greek peoples have a passion for gymnasia, so perhaps the people of Nicaea have set about building one on a rather lavish scale, but they must be content to cut their coat according to their cloth. You again must decide what advice to give the people of Claudiopolis
It's interesting to see how much responsibility Trajan gave to Pliny, and how much faith he put in him. It's almost like Pliny was the one who was a ruler, and not Trajan. He was the one making the major decisions/moves.
Besides there was not a single public fire engine or bucket in the place, and not one solitary appliance for mastering a fire.
I find myself rather curious of what types of device they are talking about here. Obviously Pliny is not talking about a "fire engine" in the sense that we would think of one.. perhaps it was some sort of chariot-drawn tank type deal? & "appliance for mastering a fire" ... is this just referring to buckets as he had mentioned, or did they maybe have something slightly more sophisticated as well? Very interesting to think about.. perhaps worth researching further!
But I profess it is also part of your diligent duty to find out who is to blame for the waste of such sums of money by the people of Nicomedia on their aqueducts, and whether or no there has been any serving of private interests in this beginning and then abandoning of [public] works.
It's refreshing to see that Trajan was concerned that their might have been misappropriation of the funding. He wants to be sure that no one used the money for their own personal affairs instead of the public aqueduct it was intended to fund. He is making sure that no corruption took place.
The Roman State had now become so strong that it was a match for any of its neighbours in war, but its greatness threatened to last for only one generation, since through the absence of women there was no hope of offspring, and there was no right of intermarriage with their neighbours.
It's always enlightening to see things like this from the past - "there was no right of intermarriage with their neighbours" - that's weird to think about in modern times.. It'd basically be similar to say, if people from MD couldn't marry people from PA and they had to send out envoys to ask for an alliance and permission to do so.. What!? That just sounds crazy. Pretty neat to get an idea of what life was like in that time.
I will not discuss the question-for who could speak decisively about a matter of such extreme antiquity?-whether the man whom the Julian house claim, under the name of Iulus, as the founder of their name, was this Ascanius or an older one than he, born of Creusa, whilst Ilium was still intact, and after its fall a sharer in hisfather's fortunes. This Ascanius, where ever born, or of whatever mother-it is generally agreed in any case that he was the son of Aeneas-
He seems to be saying here that it is possible that Ascanius' mother was not faithful to Aeneas and that he might possibly not even be his son.. but it seems that it was accepted that he was regardless and the matter wasn't pushed. Interesting!
n the same manner the senate also, though invested with so great authority, is bound to yield a certain attention to the people, and to act in concert with them in all affairs that are of great importance
This makes perfect sense. If the Senate wasn't acting in the interests of the people then obviously a lot of problems would arise like civil wars etc..
n all these things that have now been mentioned, the people has no share.
How is it then that they can say they see examples of democracy in Roman government, as they indicated in the very beginning of the document? To me, this IS democracy.. that the people should have some vote/say in matters of government.. they later mention that they do have a part in being "dispensers of rewards and punishments" but to me I wouldn't say that qualifies it as having the qualities of a democracy...
absolute authority. For to them it belongs to impose upon the allies whatever services they judge expedient; to appoint the military tribunes; to enroll the legions, and make the necessary levies, and to inflict punishments in the field, upon all that are subject to their command
With this it's hard for me to consider Roman government as a monarchy in anyway. The document claims that the consuls having all this power is what gives it the appearance of a monarchy... but to me a monarchy is a SINGLE ruler, and there were multiple consuls. Just doesn't fit in my personal mind!
To each of the Roman plebs I paid 300 sesterces [Arkenberg: about $172 in 1998 dollars] in accord with the last will of my father [Caesar]. In my own name in my fifth consulship [29 B.C.] I gave 400 sesterces [Arkenberg: about $229 in 1998 dollars] from the spoils of war. Again in my tenth consulship [24 B.C.] I gave from my own estate to every man [among the Romans] 400 sesterces as a donative. In my eleventh, twelve times I made distributions of food, buying grain at my own charges. And I made like gifts on several other occasions. The sum which I spent for Italian farms [for the veterans] was about 600,000,000 sesterces [Arkenberg: about $200,000,000 in 1998 dollars] and for lands in the provinces about 260,000,000 [Arkenberg: about $158,600,000 in 1998 dollars].... Four times have I aided the public treasury from my own means, to such extent that I furnished to those managing the treasury department 150,000,000 sesterces [Arkenberg: about $86,000,000 in 1998 dollars
All of these gifts would have been really beneficial in keeping the public on Augustus' side.. it's no wonder he was such a popular leader! Especially in the fact that he gave gifts to the plebeians separately, even though he himself was a patrician.
I have cleared the sea from pirates
I wish there was more detail on how exactly Augustus accomplished this.. I wonder what battle on the sea would have looked like in this time, without guns or cannons and that kind of thing. This isn't something our text even goes into detail with.. and it makes me wonder if piracy was truly that big of an issue or if this was really an accomplishment at all.
The men who killed my father [Arkenberg: Julius Caesar, who adopted his nephew as his son in his will] I drove into exile by strictly judicial process,
This must have taken a lot of restraint.. to follow "judicial process" and exile these men instead of executing them. I think many men, had they been in his position, would have just killed them out of their rage and desire for revenge.
[parricides were sewn upin a sack with a dog, a cock, a snake, and a monkey, and thrown into the sea or a river]
That is quite the punishment indeed!!! Parricide means to kill a parent or other relative, though.. so I suppose it's fitting!
and burned morethan two thousand of them
AHH!!! I really really don't like that. Book burning to me as an avid reader is just incessantly wrong.. but it also seems so selfish to burn the works of another society just because they aren't of your own country... urgh!
For example, when he was addressing the soldiers and a throng ofcivilians had been admitted to the assembly, noticing that Pinalius, a Roman knight, wastaking notes, he ordered that he be stabbed on the spot, thinking him an eavesdropper anda spy. Because Tedius Afer, consul elect, railed at some act of his in spiteful terms, heuttered such terrible threats that Afer committed suicide. Again, when Quintus Gallius, apraetor, held some folded tablets under his robe as he was paying his respects, Augustus,suspecting that he had a sword concealed there, did not dare to make a search on the spotfor fear it should turn out to be something else; but a little later he had Gallius hustledfrom the tribunal by some centurions and soldiers, tortured him as if he were a slave, andthough he made no confession, ordered his execution, first tearing out the man's eyeswith his own hand.
Again I feel that this document is making Augustus out to be very different than what our text had.. and I have to wonder which accounts are true. By these statements - that he ordered a man stabbed for taking notes and that he tortured and executed another for having "a sword" that really was a tablet.. he seems really paranoid and extremely harsh/rash. as it further indicates that he himself had written that Gallius had attacked him and then later lost his life by other means I truly am curious which of these is the TRUE story.. though in my opinion it seems less likely that Augustus would have told the truth about what happened if it indeed was so harsh, it seems likely that he would make up another story taking the blame away from himself...
Those vho had celebrated triumphs were theonly ones whom he thought ineligible for prizes, even though they had been thecompanions of his campaigns and shared in his victories
This, along with some of the previously mentioned actions - such as him not allowing his generals to visit their wives etc.. make it surprising to me that Augustus was such a popular leader. This document is putting him in a much different light than our text had seemed to to me...
efusing to allow madmen to sit on the Council or make speeches or attend the general assemblies. Such advantages would indeed very soon throw the poor into complete subjection
It seems to me that they're asking for some sort of balance between the elite and the poor classes. They don't want the poor/low classes to just run rampant and do whatever they want, but they also don't want them to be thrown into "complete subjection" and disregarded completely.
for it is the poor which mans the fleet and has brought the state her power, and the steersmen and the boatswains and the shipmasters and the lookout-men and the shipwrights---these have brought the state her power much rather than the hoplites and the best-born and the elite. This being so, it seems right that all should have a share in offices filled by lot or by election, and that any citizen who wishes should be allowed to speak
I love this passage and how they are pointing out that the working class is what really allows the state to have power. Without shipmasters, for instance, how would they have a navy? How would they have anything without those willing to do the more "menial" jobs?
The poor of Athens protect the poor in the allied cities,
From the tone of the rest of this document, it is no surprise to me that the "poor would protect the poor" - they HAVE to! No one else is protecting them. This whole document assumes that by not being wealthy they are also uneducated and have nefarious agendas against the elite.. it kind of angers me to read of such inequality and prejudice. The poor were doomed, it seems to me! They had no chance of bettering themselves.
As for the constitution of the Athenians, their choice of this type of constitution I do not approve, for in choosing thus they choose that thieves should fare better than the elite. This then is why I do not approve. Firstof all, then, I shall say that at Athens the poor and the commons seem justly to have the advantage over the well-born and the wealthy;
I have to say.. I feel like this was written by someone who was high born. Obviously they'd be threatened by the "common" people having a word in their politics. Otherwise I don't see how anyone could have an issue with a government that allows word from ALL the people. To say that the "thieves would fare better" is obviously a gross exaggeration as well - I think this author just doesn't like the idea of REAL equality because they're already so high up.
In the funeral procession cypress coffins are borne in cars,
They obviously don't mean "cars" in the sense that we think of them today - more likely carriages of some sort.. but it's interesting to see the similarities to today's funeral processions, as we see the procession from the funeral home to the burial grounds.
So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand.
The fact that this document is basically saying "you can't believe everything that's reported" is making it difficult for me to keep straight in my head what actually occurred and what didn't. But at the same time I guess that's the point that the document is trying to make about historical records - it's hard to weed through what was accurately reported sometimes.
slew him as he was arranging the Panathenaic procession
This is a huge insult! I can't believe that, regardless of what he had done or how much he deserved it, anyone would have dared to attack someone while they were arranging the Panathenaic procession. I'm surprised it doesn't say more about this and how shocking it is
Further, he divided the country into thirty groups of demes, ten from the districts about the city, ten from the coast, and ten from the interior. These he called trittyes; and he assigned three of them by lot to each tribe, in such a way that each should have one portion in eachof these three localities.
This gave the people a much greater/more representative voice in matters of politics compared to past forms of government that divided based on income or social class.
Two years later, in the archonship of Nicodemus, the mines of Maroneia were discovered, and the state made a profit of a hundred talents from the working of them. Some persons advised the people to make a distribution of the money among themselves, but this was prevented by Themistocles. He refused to say on what he proposed to spend the money, but he bade them lend it to the hundred richest men in Athens, one talent to each
I wonder who they had to work these mines and what those people were paid, or how the people felt that the profits from the mine were ultimately used to fund a war. Was this a supported move, or was it resented by the people?
Thus for three years they continued to ostracize the friends of the tyrants,
The common people really did not like the idea of a tyranny.. oftentimes it seems to me that when tyrants came about they were supported so that one particular goal could be obtained, then once that happened they were forced out in favor of a more preferred type of government. They were used as pawns pretty much.
r freedom for us, my sentence is that we keep to the rule of one. Even apart from this, we ought
This is such an unfair question in my opinion. The men in this forum would have been of a higher/more well off class.. funny for them to talk about "the freedom which we enjoy" and how it was obtained.. and to make judgements to what government is best based on that. Where I'm sure the lower-middle class people would have a much different take on "freedom" and on government as a whole.
ose who belong to it submit to the rule of the king only so far as they themselves choose; they are bound, however, to observe the laws of the land like the o
It wouldn't let me select the last three words "family in Persia" no matter what I did but at any rate...
I find it interesting that this was permitted, or even that Otanes requested it. When he spoke he was saying "it seems advisable that we should no longer have a single man to rule over us" and he said a Monarchy was not ideal because it "allows a man to do as he likes without being answerable" yet here is is requesting and being granted special treatment, which is similar to what he was saying was not ideal about a king's rule - they were given special privileges where he wanted equality for all. Seems very contradictory to me, and in any form of government it seems very surprising that any one family would not be subjected to the rule
ngths Cambyses went in his haughty tyranny, and the haughtiness of the Magi you have yourselves experienced. How indeed is it possible that monarchy should be a well-adjusted thing, when it allows a man to do as he likes without being answerable? Such licence is enough to stir strange and unwonted thoughts in the heart of the worthiest of men. Give a person this power, and straightway his manifold good things puff him up
This goes back to what our book was saying about how tyrannys never really lasted long - they were always eventually overthrown. It's clear that it caused a lot of unrest with people to have that sort of power in the control of a single person.
I really want to know what happens in Book Two now! I have seen movies etc but not for a while and I don't remember specifics. I want to know how Zeus fulfills his vow to honor Achilles' wish for revenge against Agamemnon! I want to see Achilles take Agamemnon down for his pompous behavior. Though of course I do remember the whole "Achilles Heel" thing.. I can't remember how exactly that happened or what happened to Agamemnon. I'm curious now!
It's kinda refreshing to see how they indicate that women were "associated more closely with the divine and accorded a certain honor" in the panathenaic procession. Typically you see women regarded lower than men, but in this case it seems to be the opposite which is pretty neat in my opinion!
CHAPTER FOURTEEN §1§1@:i@j The Panathenaic Procession: Athens' Participatory Democracy on Display? LISA MAURIZIO Introduction The Panathenaia was a state festival celebrated in honor of Athena, Athens' patron divinity.1 It took place over a period of roughly a week and included musical and athletic contests, sacrifices, a boat regatta, a procession, an all-night revelry, a torch race, and, most importantly, a dedication of a garment to Athena. The Panathenaia has been called the "most political" of Athens' festivals and has been treated as distinctly democratic or populist. 2 This modern assessment echoes that of the Athenians themselves, who saw the Panathenaia as the event that occasioned the defeat of the tyrants and the birth of democracy.
It's interesting to me that this is assumed to be related to democracy, when it has to do with Athena. Isn't it more likely that they were just celebrating Athena.. much as we celebrate God with holidays like Easter and Christmas? The second page seems to agree with this as well - that it being attributed to government may not be so accurate.. but I'm unable to annotate anything after this page. I do think though that the festival would have been, like I said, more closely related to something like Christmas.. different traditions used to celebrate their God. One might think athletic contests, sacrifices, torch races, etc are a weird way to celebrate a God.. but at the same time.. aren't stockings, tree decorations, etc kind of "weird" ways to celebrate a God too when you think about it?
This is one of my favorite stories from mythology, and I love the movie too! It to me is yet another line to the importance of the Gods in Greek mythology. Odysseus was a king and thus one of the closest mortals to the Gods. His men didn't obey him when he said they should take their treasures and leave Ismarus, they wanted to stay longer. Because they did they then were defeated by the Cicones, ended up in a storm because of not leaving at the appropriate time, which ultimately blew them into the Cyclops lair where they met further misfortune. All of this leads back to that first initial refusal to listen to their king.. which could be tied in and thought of as a refusal to listen to the Gods since kings would have been thought to be chosen by the Gods.. and we all know disobeying the Gods never ends well!
4] Alexander was born the sixth of Hecatombæon, which month the Macedonians call Lous, the same day that the templeof Diana at Ephesus was burnt; which Hegesias of Magnesia makes the occasion of a conceit, frigid enough to have stopped the conflagration. The temple, he says, took fire and was burnt while its mistress was absent, assisting at the birth of Alexander. And all the Eastern soothsayers who happened to be then at Ephesus, looking upon the ruin of this temple to be the forerunner of some other calamity, ran about the town, beating their faces, and crying that this day had brought forth something that would prove fatal and destructive to all Asia
It surprises me that this isn't talked about more, or that something didn't happen to Alexander as a result of this. The Greeks read into everything else so much - the lightning bolt dream etc and considered everything to be a sign from the Gods... and though they do seem by saying "this day had brought forth something that would prove fatal and destructive to all Asia" to see the temple burning as a bad omen.. they don't seem to directly associate it with Alexander. I would have expected great hate to be placed upon him because of this - especially since it wasn't just a coincidence - it happened BECAUSE of his birth. Because the temple's mistress was away attending to his birth. I'm surprised he wasn't killed as a baby because of this bad omen, to be honest. That would have been what i'd expect of the Ancient Greeks with a "sign" like this.
But at Sparta there is not one man who wouldnot feel ashamed to welcome the coward
The Spartans were trained very hard NOT to have an ounce of cowardice in them, it is obvious that this would have been a shameful trait and no one would have wanted to be associated with someone deemed a coward. It's hard to picture any Spartan male actually being a coward though, after all their rigorous training.
Now nature has distinguished between the female and the slave. For she is not niggardly, like the smith who fashions the Delphian knife for many uses; she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best made when intended for one and not for many uses. But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female.
This passage is quite interesting.. they're quite obviously indicating that women were held at a higher standard than slaves - they were considered above them. But at the same point when they say "among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them" they seem to be saying that women are only put above slaves because the King or other ruler makes it so. Without a ruler there would be no way to make the distinction between woman and slave. It's like they're saying women are similar enough to slaves that some sort of ruling power is required in order to enforce the fact that there is a difference between the two.
Be active during the time of your existence, do no more than is commanded. Do not spoil the time of your activity; he is a blameworthy person who makes a bad use of his moments. Do not lose the daily opportunity of increasing that which your house possesses. Activity produces riches, and riches do not endure when it slackens
Compared to the code of Hammurabi, Ptah Hotep seems more concerned with quality of life in this document. He seems to be saying here that life is not to be wasted, that you should live life to it's fullest. This document is less about right versus wrong and more about what to do to live a fruitful life. It seems that they were less concerned with law and order and more concerned with being a good person/a successful member of society. I'm curious as to why that is, did they have other ways of working out disputes/punishing crimes - or was it simply not a large issue for them?
Let your thoughts be abundant, but let your mouth be under restraint, and you shall argue with the great.
This is probably my favorite excerpt of the whole article. I love that it is basically saying though you can think a lot of things, you should consider when it is and isn't appropriate to speak out loud. If you are successful at doing so you shall "argue with the great" - to me, meaning you would sound more intelligent and be able to argue/converse with the most successful of scholars should you think before you speak. I have to agree that that's an important thing! No matter how intelligent you might be, it's easy to make yourself sound less intelligent if you just spout of the first thing that comes to mind!
A vexation weighs upon him every day; sight fails, the ear becomes deaf; his strength dissolves without ceasing. The mouth is silent, speech fails him; the mind decays, remembering not the day before. The whole body suffers. That which is good becomes evil; taste completely disappears. Old age makes a man altogether miserable; the nose is stopped up, breathing no more from exhaustion. Standing or sitting there is here a condition of . . . Who will cause me to have authority to speak, that I may declare to him the words of those who have heard the counsels of former days?
It's interesting how at first they seem to be condemning old age here... as if it is a negative thing.. but then as he goes on to say "who will cause me to have authority to speak, that I may declare to him the words of those who have heard the counsels of former days?" it seems that he is saying the elderly are the wise, and who is going to give him permission to repeat their counsels, how can he carry on the word of those with such knowledge?