[371] There is a strain of mysticism in the _De Osiride_ which is alien from the cheerful common sense which usually marks Plutarch; a remark which also applies to the _De Facie quæ apparet in Orbe Lunæ_. But the same strain appears in others of his authentic tracts, though mostly operating through the medium of Platonic dreams and myths, _e.g._ the story of Thespesius in the _Sera Num. Vindic._, and that of Timarchus in the _De Dæmonio Socratis_. Besides, one would not ceteris paribus deny the authenticity of Browning’s “_Childe Roland_” because he had written “_The Guardian Angel_,” or that of “_The Antiquary_” because Scott was also the author of “_The Monastery_.” The tract was probably composed after that return from Alexandria to which Plutarch so charmingly alludes in _Sympos._, 678 C. Moreover, the very nature of the subject, and the priestly character of the lady to whom it was addressed, as well as the mysterious nature of the goddess whose ministrant she was, are all parts of a natural inducement to mysticism. We must admit that Plutarch here participates in that spirit of mysticism which, always inherent in Platonism, was kept in check by his acutely practical bent, to be revived and exaggerated to the destruction of practical ethics in the dreams and abstractions of the Neo-Platonists. [372] A very slight acquaintance with Plutarch’s writings will serve to dispose of the charge of Atheism brought against him by Zimmerman, the professor of Theology in the Gymnasium of Zurich:—Credo equidem Plutarchum inter eos fuisse qui cum Cicerone crediderint eos qui dant philosophiæ operam non arbitrari Deos esse.—It is true that Zimmerman supports his case by quoting the pseudo-Plutarchean _De Placitis_ (Idem de providentia non minus male loquitur quam ipsi Epicurei), and seems himself afraid to accept the conclusion of his own demonstrations:—Atheum eum fuisse non credo, sed quomodo asserere potuerit Superstitione Atheismum tolerabiliorem esse, simul tamen eos, quos atheos fuisse minime probare potuit, Superstitioni autem inimicissimos, omnem malorum mundum intulisse, consociare nequeo.—But the learned author is too intent on exculpating _Noster Euhemerus_ from Plutarch’s “injustice” to have justice to spare for Plutarch himself.—(J. J. ZIMMERMAN, _Epistola ad Nonnen_). Gréard quotes other authors of this charge against Plutarch (p. 269).—We cannot allow this opportunity to pass of protesting against the attitude of those who assumed, even in the Nineteenth Century, that it was a sign either of moral depravity, or mental incapacity, in Plutarch not to have been a believer in the Christian faith. Even Archbishop Trench, who admits, concerning such writers as our author, that “many were by them enabled to live their lives after a far higher and nobler fashion than else they would have attained” cannot rid himself of the notion that had Plutarch actively opposed Christianity he would have