The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman EmpireGlover, T. R. (Terrot Reaveley)
Religion
The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire
Glover, T. R. (Terrot Reaveley)
Christianity and other religions; Church history -- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600; Rome -- Religion
Besides Biographies he wrote moral treatises--some based on lectures,
others on conversation, others again little better than
note-books--pleasant and readable books, if the reader will forgive a
certain want of humour, and a tendency to ramble, and will surrender
his mind to the long and leisurely sentences, for Plutarch is not to be
hurried. Everything he wrote had some moral or religious aim. He was
a believer, in days of doubt and perplexity. The Epicurean was heard
at Delphi. Even in the second century, when the great, religious
revival was in full swing, Lucian wrote and found readers. Men brought
their difficulties to Plutarch and he went to meet them--ever glad to
do something for the ancestral faith. Nor was he less ready to
discuss--or record discussions of--questions much less serious. Was
the hen or the egg first? Does a varied diet or a single dish help the
digestion more? Why is fresh water better than salt for {85} washing
clothes? Which of Aphrodite's hands did Diomed wound?
It is always the same man, genial, garrulous, moral and sensible.
There are no theatricalities in his style--he is not a rhetorician even
on paper.[41] He discards the tricks of the school, adoxography,
epigram and, as a rule, paradox. His simplicity is his charm. He is
really interested in his subject whatever it is; and he believes in its
power of interesting other men, too much to think it worth while to
trick it out with extraneous prettinesses. Yet after he has discussed
his theme, with excursions into its literary antecedents and its moral
suggestions, we are not perhaps much nearer an explanation of the fact
in question,[42] nor always quite sure that it is a fact. Everything
interests him, but he is in no hurry to get at the bottom of anything;
just as in the _Lives_ he is occupied with everything except the depths
of his hero's personality. It remains that in his various works he has
given us an unexampled pageant of antiquity over a wide reach of time
and many lands, and always bright with the colour of life--the work of
a lover of men. "I can hardly do without Plutarch," wrote Montaigne;
"he is so universal and so full, that upon all occasions, and what
extravagant subject soever you take in hand, he will still intrude
himself into your business, and holds out to you a liberal and not to
be exhausted hand of riches and embellishments." What Shakespeare
thought of him is written in three great plays.[43]
[Sidenote: His wife and children]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account