Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, in Syria (consecrated A.D. 420), appears to have been the first to assert the operation of Christian influences on Plutarch:—“_Plotinus, Plutarch, and Numenius, and the rest of their tribe, who lived after the Manifestation of our Saviour to the Gentiles, inserted into their own writings many points of Christian Theology._” (Theodoretus, _Græcarum affectionum curatio_—Oratio ii., De Principio.) In another place he makes a still more definite assertion: “_Plutarch and Plotinus undoubtedly heard the Divine Gospel._” (Oratio x., De Oraculis.) Rualdus, in the ninth chapter of his _Vita Plutarchi_, given towards the end of the first volume of the Paris edition of 1624, dare not be so emphatic as Theodoret:—“_There are, in the writings of Plutarch, numerous thoughts, drawn from I cannot say what hidden source, which, from their truth and importance, could be taken for the utterances of a Christian oracle. I do not hesitate, therefore, to say of him, as Tertullian said of Seneca, that he is ‘often our own man.’_” And he even goes so far as to admit that, though Plutarch never attacked the Christian faith, and might have read the New Testament as well as the Old, it is quite impossible to claim him as a believer.—Brucker, in a slight account of Plutarch in his _Historia Critica Philosophiæ_, takes a more critical view.—“The fact that Plutarch, in his numerous writings, nowhere alludes to the Christians, I do not know whether to attribute to his sense of fairness, or even to actual favour, or whether to regard it as an indication of mere neglect and contempt.” That Brucker is inclined to the alternative of contempt is shown by a comment in a footnote on Tillemont’s assertion (_Histoire des Empereurs_), that Plutarch ignored the Christians, “not daring to speak well, not wishing to speak ill.” “It appears to me,” says Brucker, “that the real reason was contempt for the Christians, who were looked upon as illiterate.” Of modern examples of this tendency one may be sufficient. In the introduction to an American translation of the _De Sera Numinis Vindicta_, the editor, after enumerating the arguments against any connexion between Plutarch and Christianity, concludes:—“Yet I cannot doubt that an infusion of Christianity had somehow infiltrated itself into Plutarch’s ethical opinions and sentiment, _as into those of Seneca_.” (“Plutarch on the Delay of the Divine Justice,” translated, with an introduction and notes, by ANDREW P. PEABODY, Boston, 1885.) [101] See DION: _Ad Alexandrinos_, p. 410 (Dindorf). See also p. 402. Cf. PHILOSTRATUS: _Vitæ Sophistarum_, i. 6. [102] E.g., _Conjugalia Præcepta_, 140 A.—“_Those who do not associate cheerfully with their wives, nor share their recreations with them, teach them to seek their own pleasures apart from those of their husbands._” [103] TIBULLUS: _Eleg._, i. 1. Cf. PROPERTIUS: _Eleg._, iii. 15. “Dum nos fata sinunt, oculos satiemus amore: Nox tibi longa venit, nec reditura dies.”