Chapter 16

[95]As regards Epicureanism, see theAdversus Coloten, theDe latenter vivendo, and theNon posse suaviter viri secundum Epicurum. Plutarch’s polemic against Stoicism is specially developed in the three tracts,Stoicos absurdiora Poetis dicere,De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, andDe communibus Notitiis. Plutarch’s attitude is purely critical: he is by no means constructive. His criticism has been severely dealt with by H. Bazin in his dissertation,De Plutarcho Stoicorum Adversario. It is worthy of note that Plutarch deals entirely with the founders of the two schools, not with the later developments of their teachings.[96]Thiersch, who regards Plutarch as the inaugurator of that moral reformation which, as we attempt to show in the next chapter, was operating before he was born, asserts that at the time when Plutarch began his work, the prevailing manner of life was based upon an Epicurean ideal. (Der Epikureismus war die Popularphilosophie des Tages, denn in ihr fand die herrschende Lebensweise ihren begrifflichen Ausdruck.—Thiersch:Politik und Philosophie in ihrem Verhältniss, etc., Marburg, 1853.) If this be so, and we willingly make the admission, there was little need for reform here, although, as Seneca found (Ad Lucilium, xxi. 9), it may have been necessary to explain to a misunderstanding world what Epicureanism really was. Whatever Plutarch, as nominal Platonist, may polemically advance against Epicureanism, the ideal of Epicurus and Metrodorus is realized in the conduct of the group of people whose manner of life is represented in theSymposiacs.[97]For some considerations on this subject see the concluding chapter.[98]E.g., Dr. August Tholuck.—At the termination of an article, “Ueber den Einfluss des Heidenthums aufs Leben,” in which he ransacks classical authors and Christian fathers for anything which may serve to exhibit the degradation of Pagan society, he quotes the words of Athanasius to give expression to the conclusion referred to in the text. The whole of Champagny’s brilliant and fascinating work on the Cæsars is dominated by the same spirit, a spirit utterly inconsistent with that attitude of philosophical detachment in which history should be written, (Études sur l’Empire Romain, tome iii., “Les Césars.”) Archbishop Trench, too, says of our period that it “was the hour and power of darkness; of a darkness which then, immediately before the dawn of a new day, was the thickest.” (Miracles, p. 162.) Prof. Mahaffy, in the same uncritical spirit, refers to the “singular” and “melancholy” spectacle presented by Plutarch in his religious work, “clinging to the sinking ship, or rather, trying to stop the leak and declare her seaworthy.” (Greeks under Roman Sway, p. 321.)[99]See Dean Merivale,Romans under the Empire, vol. vii.[100]See “St. Paul and Seneca” (Dissertation ii. in Lightfoot on “Philippians”) for a full account of the question from the historical and critical standpoints. The learned and impartial Bishop has no difficulty in proving that the resemblances between Stoicism and Christianity were due to St. Paul’s acquaintance with Stoic teaching, and not to Seneca’s knowledge of the Christian faith.Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, in Syria (consecratedA.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 hisVita 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 hisHistoria 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 theDe 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, byAndrew P. Peabody, Boston, 1885.)[101]SeeDion: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.”[104]Tibullus:Eleg., i. 3. “Quod si fatales iam nunc explevimus annos,” to the end of the Elegy.[105]Tib.i. 3 (sub finem).[106]Propertius:Eleg., ii. 13, 28; iv. 5, 23 sqq.; iv. 4.[107]Tib., i. 10.[108]Lucan:Pharsalia, i. 670.[109]The basis of the work of Augustus, and of the religious reforms inaugurated or developed by him, is laid in the recognition of a fact noted by Balbus inCic.,De Nat. Deorum, lib. ii. 3. “Eorum imperiis rempublicam amplificatam qui religionibus paruissent. Et si conferre volumus nostra cum externis, ceteris rebus aut pares aut etiam inferiores reperiemur; religione, id est, cultu deorum, multo superiores.” Cf.Horace:Od., iii. 6, vv. 1-4;Livy, xlv. 39.[110]Hor.:Od., iii. 6.[111]SeeBoissier:Religion Romaine, vol. i. cap. 5.—Le Sixième Livre de l’Enéide. St. Augustine must surely have felt thereligiousinfluence of the Æneid when he experienced the emotion which he describes in the well-known passage in the First Book of the Confessions—plorare Didonem mortuam (cogebar), quia se occidit ob amorem: cum interea meipsum morientem, Deus Vita mea, siccis occulis ferrem miserrimus. (Lib. i. cap. xiii.)[112]Ovid:Fasti, 4, 203; cf.Meta., i. sec. 8.[113]See the Life of Persius, included, with the Lives of Terence, Horace, Juvenal, Lucan, and Pliny the Elder, in the writings of Suetonius.[114]Macleane’sPersius.—Introduction.[115]Persius:Sat., v. 62-64.—At te nocturnis juvat impallescere chartis, Cultor enim juvenum purgatas inseris aures Fruge Cleanthea.[116]Pharsalia, ix. 554-555.[117]Pharsalia, ix. 570. We have not been able to refrain from quoting these—as other—well-known verses in the text. They are the highest expression of the Stoic Pantheism. “Virtus” has the appearance of a rhetorical climax; but has it been noticed that the great modern poet of Pantheism—for what else was Wordsworth?—also makes humanity the highest embodiment of that “presence ... Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, And the round ocean and the living air, And the blue sky,and in the mind of man?”[118]Quis labor hic superis, &c., vi. 490,et passim.[119]Felices errore suo, &c., i. 459.[120]Scrutabitur scholas nostras, et obiiciet philosophis congiaria, amicas, gulam: ostendet mihi alium in adulterio, alium in popina, alium in aula.—Seneca:Epist., i. 29.[121]Philostratus, i. 7. The quaint turn of the version in the text is fromBlount’s1681 translation of theLife of Apollonius.[122]Dion:Oratio32, pp. 402-3 (Dindorf).[123]SeeDion:De Cognitione Dei(pp. 213-4) for an interesting comparison between the owl and the philosopher on the one hand, and the sophist and the peacock on the other. (Cf.Ad Alexandrinos, p. 406, where the sufferings of the faithful philosopher are in implied contrast to the rewards that await the brilliant sophist.)[124]Iliad, ix. 312-3 (Chapman’s translation). This actual text is quoted inPhilostratus’Lives of the Sophists(i. 25) as a criticism on some of the false and fantastic exercises of the Sophists. The “distant lapse” referred to in the text is constantly evident in the dramas of the best Athenian period. And history shows that there was a strong tendency in the Hellenic character agreeing with that indicated by the evidence of the dramatists, notwithstanding the outcry raised when Euripides summed up the whole matter in his famous line in the Hippolytus (Hipp.612).[125]Philostratus:Vitæ Sophistarum, lib. i. sec. 24.[126]E.g.,De Stoic. Repug., 1033 A, B;De Audiendo, 43 F.[127]See frequent passages in Seneca’s letters to Lucilius, e.g.Ep.i. 16, 20. Cf.De Vita Beata, cap. 18, where Seneca defends himself and other philosophers against the charge “aliter loqueris: aliter vivis.” He will not be deterred from the pursuit of virtue by any truth human weakness may have to admit in the charge.This note is well marked in both Aurelius and Epictetus (ii. 19. Cf.Aulus Gellius, xvii. 19). The praise of Ulysses at the end of theDe Deo Socratisof Apuleius is couched in the same strain.[128]Catullus, xvi. 4, 5;Ovid:Tristia, ii. 353-4;Martial, i. 5.[129]Pliny:Ep.v. 3. Plutarch, also, is legitimately offended at the loose language of the founders of Stoicism (seeDe Stoic. Repug., 1044 B), and his expressions, as are those of Pliny’s friends, are quite in harmony with the modern attitude on the question. Apuleius defends himself against a similar charge to that brought against Pliny by a similar display of great names.—“Fecere tamen etalii talia” (De Deo Socratis).[130]Horace:Ep.i. 1, 14.[131]Epictetus:Encheir., 49;Discourses, iii. 2; i. 17.[132]Seneca:Epist. ad Lucilium, i. 21. Here are a few of theegregia dictawhich Seneca takes from the teachings of Epicurus, or Metrodorus, oralicujus ex illa officina.—“Honesta res est læta paupertas,” “Satis magnum alter alteri theatrum sumus,” “Philosophiæ servias oportet ut tibi contingat vera libertas,” “Si cui sua non videntur amplissima, licet totius mundi dominus sit, tamen miser est,” “Quid est turpius, quam senex vivere incipiens?” “Is maxime divitiis fruitur, qui minime divitiis indiget,” “Immodica ira gignit insaniam,” “Sic fac omnia, tanquam spectet Epicurus,” “Initium est salutis, notitia peccati,” &c. Yet Seneca was theacerrimus Stoicusof Lactantius (Div. Inst., i. 5).[133]Fragment 120 in Bergk’s third edition, 144 in his fourth edition, and 107 in Böckh’s edition. W. Christ includes it in his selections—ἐξ ἀδήλων εἰδῶν (No. 4).[134]Iliad, ix. 498; xi. 3, 73; iv. 440.[135]Amatorius, 763 C, sqq.; cf.De Placitis Philosoph., lib. i. 879-880 A. This tract cannot be quoted as authority for Plutarch’s views; it is in several places distinctly, even grossly, anti-Platonic, and in other places even more distinctly Epicurean. As an example of the reverence with which Plutarch constantly alludes to Plato, the first conversation in the Eighth Book of theSymposiacsmay be quoted. The conversation arises out of a celebration of Plato’s birthday, and Plutarch gives a sympathetic report of the remarks of Mestrius Florus, who is of opinion that those who impute the philosopher’s paternity to Apollo do not dishonour the God. Cf. this and hundreds of other similar examples with the bitterly contemptuous expressions in theDe Placitis, 881 A, a section which concludes with an emphatic exposition of that Epicurean view which Plutarch exerts himself so strenuously to confute in theDe Sera Numinis Vindicta. Bernardakis “stars” theDe Placitis, though Zimmerman quotes it as evidence against the sincerity of Plutarch’s piety (Epistola ad Nicolaum Nonnen, cap. 7: “aperte negat providentiam”). Wyttenbach says theDe Placitiswas “e perditis quibusdam germanis libris compilatum.” Christopher Meiners (Historia Doctrinæ de Vero Deo, p. 246) attacks the boldness of the writer, “quâ deorum numen et providentiam impugnavit, quæque a Plutarchi pietate et moribus longe abhorret.” Corsini seems to think that the incredible labour involved in the compilation makes it worthy of Plutarch. His edition, with notes, translation, and dissertations, makes a very handsome quarto, which is a monument of combined industry and simplicity. He makes no comment on the anti-Platonic expressions alluded to above (Corsinus:Plutarchi De Placitis Philosophorum, libri v., Florence, 1759), nor does Mahaffy either, who regards theDe Placitisas genuine, though he calls it jejune. I have been unable to see a copy of Beck’s 1787 edition, which Volkmann highly praises. It may be observed with regard to the passage referred to at the head of this note that Plutarch would never have limited the contribution of philosophy to the knowledge of God to τὸ φυσικόν. Dion Chrysostom (De Dei Cognitione, 393, sqq.) mentions the same three sources of the knowledge of the Divine nature as Plutarch, but also postulates a primeval and innate cognition of God.[136]Cf. the Pseudo-PlutarchicDe Placit. Phil., 880 A.[137]Λόγον ἐκ φιλοσοφίας μυσταγωγὸν ἀναλαβόντες.De Iside et Osiride, 378 A, B. “Un lien pieux se formait entre le myste et son mystagogue, lien qui ne pouvait plus se rompre sans crime.”—Maury, vol. ii. cap. xi. For the saying of Theodorus about “taking with the left hand what is offered with the right,” seeDe Tranquillitate Animi, 467 B.[138]De Iside et Osiride, andDe Superstitione, passim.[139]Cf.Diog. Laert.vii. 134 (RitterandPreller, sect. 404).—“God, by transformation of His own essence, makes the world.”—Grant’sAristotle, Essay vi., “The Ancient Stoics.” Cf.Plut:De Stoic. Repugn.1053.[140]De Ε apud Delphos, 388 F.[141]Quomodo Adulator, 78 E. Cf.EunapiusonHistorians of Philosophy. “No one has written any careful account of the lives of philosophers, among whom we count not only Ammonius, teacher of divinest Plutarch, but also Plutarch himself, the darling and delight of all Philosophy.” Eunapius thinks that theParallel Liveswere Plutarch’s finest work, but adds that “all his writings are thickly sown with original thoughts of his own, as well as with the teachings of his Master.”[142]393 E.[143]Plutarch elsewhere comments upon the εὑρησιλογία of the Stoics in finding explanations of the various names of the popular Deities (Quomodo Adolescens, 31 E).Cicero(De Natura Deorum, iii. 24) represents Cotta as charging the Stoics with supporting the crudest superstitions of the popular faith by the skill which they displayed in finding a mysterious significance in the current names and legends:-“Atque hæc quidem et ejusmodi ex vetere Græcia fama collecta sunt; quibus intelligis resistendum esse, ne perturbentur religiones. Vestri autem non modo hæc non repellunt, verum etiam confirmant, interpretando quorsum quidque pertineat.”[144]Iliad, xv. 362-4.[145]In another place Plutarch expresses the view that the original Creator of the world bestowed upon the stuff of the phenomenal world a principle of change and movement by which that stuff often dissolves and reshapes itself under the operation of natural causes without the intervention of the original Creator (De Defectu Orac., 435-6).[146]Plutarch, in this Essay, distinctly places himself in opposition to Plato, whose views, for the purposes of contrast, may be summarized from two well-known passages of the Republic. In 337 B, C, the greater part of the myths current in the popular poets are repudiated. Then, after that famous series of criticisms applied to particular passages taken from Homer and Hesiod and other poets, after his analysis of the various kinds of “narration,” and his implicit inclusion of the great poets of Greece among the masters of that kind of imitative narration which a man will the more indulge in, the more contemptible he is, Plato concludes with that ironical description of the reception which a Homer or a Hesiod would have to meet in a state founded on the Platonic ideal. “We shall pay him reverence as a sacred, admirable, and charming personage; we shall pour perfumed oil upon his head and crown him with woollen fillets; but we shall tell him that our laws exclude such characters as he, and shall send him away to some other city than ours.”—398 A, B (Davies and Vaughan’s translation). Plutarch, however, takes the world as it is. He admits that poetry is a siren, but refuses to stop the ears of the young people who listen to her fascinating strains. Lycurgus was mad in thinking he could cure drunkenness by cutting down the vineyards; he should rather have brought the water-springs nearer to the vines. It is better to utilize the vine of poetry by checking and pruning its “fanciful and theatrical exuberance” than to uproot it altogether. We must mingle the wine with the pure water of philosophy, or, to use another image, poetry and philosophy must be planted in the same soil, just as the mandragora, which moderates the native strength of the wine, is planted in vineyards (Quomodo Adolescens, 15 E).August Schlemm, in hisDe fontibus Plutarchi Commentationum De Aud. Poetis et de Fortuna(Göttingen, 1893), subjects the structure of theDe Audiendisto a very close and careful analysis, and comes to the conclusion that the main sources of Plutarch’s material are to be found in the writings of Stoic and Peripatetic philosophers. He notes that Plutarch’s examples are taken from the same Homeric, verses as Plato’s, and adds, “Quæ cum ita sint, quomodo hæ Plutarchum inter et Platonem similitudines ortæ sint dubium jam esse non potest. Plutarchus, ut in eis quæ antecedunt, ita etiam hic, usus est libro Peripatetici cujusdam, qui,ut criminationes a Platone poetis factas repelleret, hujus modi fictiones in natura artis poeticæ positas esse demonstravit et commentationi suæ inseruit poetarum versus a Platone vituperatos.” Chrysippus had composed a work onHow to study Poetry, Zeno one entitledOn Poetical Study, and Cleanthes another, calledOn the Poet.The opinion of so conscientious a scholar on Plutarch’s “appropriations” is worth quoting:—“tenendum est ... Plutarchum non eum fuisse qui more compilatorum libros aliorum ad verbum exscriberet sed id egisse ut ea quæ legisset atque collegisset referret, sed ita ut modo sua intermisceret, modo nonnulla omitteret vel mutaret.”[147]De Iside et Osiride, 353 E.[148]De Ε apud Delphos, 393 D. Cf.De Defectu, 433 E. Ammonius is here evidently referring to a remark made (386 B) by “one of those present” to the effect that “practically all the Greeks identify Apollo with the Sun.” The words of Ammonius quoted in the text are strikingly similar in spirit to the famous verses in the “In Memoriam:”—“O thou that after toil and stormMay’st seem to have reached a purer air,Whose faith has centre everywhere,Nor cares to fix itself to form,“Leave thou thy sister when she prays,Her early Heaven, her happy views;Nor thou with shadowed hint confuseA life that leads melodious days.“Her faith through form is pure as thine,Her hands are quicker unto good:Oh, sacred be the flesh and bloodTo which she links a truth divine!”[149]Consolatio ad Apollonium, 102 A.—“He was a very sage and virtuous youth, conspicuous for the reverence which he paid to the gods, to his parents, and to his friends.” This is nearly the old Hellenic ideal as expressed,e.g., in the lines from the “Antiope” of Euripides, preserved by Stobæus, “On Virtue”—“There be three virtues for thy practice, child:Honour the gods, revere thy loving parents,Respect the laws of Greece.”[150]Amatorius, 756 B.[151]Amatorius, 762 A.[152]De Defectu Orac., 435 E.[153]Consolatio ad Uxorem, 612. Cf.De Defectu Orac., 437 A.[154]Supplying, as Bernardakis does after Wyttenbach, καὶ οὐκ ἀγνοῶ ὁτι ταῦτα πολλὰς ἔχει ἀπορίας.[155]De Pythiæ Orac., 409 C. Cf.De Rep. Ger., 792 F.[156]Plutarch puts these words into the mouth of Theon, a literary man, and a most intimate friend of his own. But Theon is here a mere modest disguise of Plutarch, just as “Lamprias” is in theDe Defectu Oraculorum. The argument is, in any case, not affected—the statement is clearly Plutarch’s own. (See the note on that dialogue in a subsequent chapter.)[157]De Pythiæ Orac., 409 B.[158]The antiquarian regret of Propertius for the old simple worships of Rome—“Nulli cura fuit externos quærere divos Cum tremeret patrio pendula turba sacro” (Eleg., v. 1)—touched a chord which very few Romans would have responded to in Plutarch’s time.[159]De Exilio, 602 E. This recognition of the sacred character of the Emperor does not preclude criticisms of individual rulers,e.g., Nero:De Sera Num. Vindicta, 567 F; and Vespasian:Amatorius, 771 C.[160]De Pythiæ Orac., 408 B.[161]Cf. the fate of Chæroneia under Antony, as told by Plutarch’s grandfather (seeLife of Antony, 948 A, B).[162]814 A.[163]Præcepta Reip. Ger., 813, et passim:—He insists, however (814 E, F), that subservience must not go too far, and he is also careful to point out such brilliant openings for political ambition as are left by the peculiar conditions of the time (805 A, B).[164]Plutarch states that the aim of his political advice is to enable a man not only to become “a useful citizen,” but also “to order his domestic affairs with safety, honour, and justice” (De Unius in Repub., &c., 826 C).[165]Præcepta Reip., 824 C.[166]Præcepta Reip., 813 F.[167]Propertius, iv. 11. “Hæc Di condiderant, hæc Di quoque mœnia servant.” Plutarch’s essay reads like an exposition of this text of the Roman poet.[168]“Et hoc verbo monere satis est, Τύχης nomine contineri omnem rerum actionumque efficientiam, quæ a Virtute disjuncta, nec in hominis potestate posita est; sive illa ut casus et temeritas, sive ut divina providentia informetur.”—Wyttenbach.Schlemm says that this tract and theDe Alexandri sive virtute sive fortunaare “meræ exercitationes rhetoricæ in quibus certam quandam philosophiam persequi in animo non habebat.” Yet the rhetoric of theDe Fortuna Romanorumis in wonderful harmony with Plutarch’s mature opinion as deliberately expressed in theDe Republica Gerenda.[169]Virgil:Georgics, ii. 534;Plut:De Fortuna Romanorum, 316 E. This may be a conscious reminiscence of Virgil’s line. If Plutarch had not read Virgil, he may have heard so famous a verse quoted by his friends at Rome. He himself translates a passage from “the poet Flaccus” in hisLife of Lucullus(518 C—Horace:Ep., i. 6, 45). The question of Plutarch’s acquaintance with Latin is very important for investigations into the historical sources of his “Lives;” but it lies beyond our present limits. It is fully dealt with byWeissenbergerin hisDie Sprache Plutarchs(1895). He exculpates Plutarch from some of the grosser mistakes in Latinity imputed to him by Volkmann.[170]317 B, C.[171]Cicero:Quæst. Tusc., i. 23.[172]Amatorius, 762 A.[173]One need scarcely go so far as Professor Lewis Campbell, who says that the main result of the “Ethics” of Plutarch is to show “how difficult it was for a common-sense man of the world to form distinct and reasonable opinions on matters of religion in that strangely complicated time” (Religion in Greek Literature, 1898). But Professor Campbell is also of opinion that “the convenient distinction between gods and demons, which he (i.e.Plutarch) and others probably owed to their reading of Plato, is worth dwelling onbecause it was taken up for apologetic purposes by the early Christian fathers.” Surely its religious value to an age which did not anticipate the coming of “the early Christian fathers” makes the distinction worth study from a point of view quite different from that represented in Christian apologetics.[174]SeeMaury, vol. i. p. 352.—“Pythagore admet l’existence de démons bons et mauvais comme les hommes, et tout ce qui lui paraissait indigne de l’idée qu’on devait se faire des dieux, il en faisait l’œuvre des démons et des héros.” (For a fuller discussion of this question see the chapters on Dæmonology.)[175]Plutarch devotes so much of his work to an exposition of his views of the Divine character, that one feels inclined to regard him less as a philosopher in the general sense than as a theologian. A kindly piece of description of his own (seeDe Defectu Orac., 410 A), in which he mentions Cleombrotos of Lacedemon as “a man who made many journeys, not for the sake of traffic, but because he wished to see and to learn,” and says that as a result of his travels and researches he was compiling a practically completecorpusof philosophical material, the end and aim of philosophy being, as he used to put it, “Theology”—may be spoken with equal truth of Plutarch himself. We cannot, perhaps, do better than apply the term Θεόσοφος to him, and support the appellation with an interesting passage from M. Maury, in which he deals with the distinction between theosophs and philosophers in the early stages of Greek philosophy and religion:—“Les uns soumettant tous les faits à l’appréciation rationelle, et partant de l’observation individuelle, pour expliquer la formation de l’univers substituaient aux croyances populaires un système créé par eux, et plus ou moins en contradiction avec les opinions du vulgaire: c’étaient les philosophes proprement dits. Les autres acceptaient la religion de leurs contemporains, ... ils entreprenaient au nom de la sagesse divine, dont ils se donnaient pour les interprètes,non de renverser mais de réformer les notions théologiques et les formes religieuses, de façon à les mettre d’accord avec leurs principes philosophiques” (Maury, vol. i. p. 339). Cf.C. G. Seibert,De Apologetica Plutarchi Theologia(1854):-“Finis autem ad quem tendebat ipsa erat religio a majoribus accepta, qua philosophiæ ope purgata æqualium animos denuo implere studebat.” He thinks Plutarch was a theologian first and a philosopher after. (In the passage quoted above from theDe Defectuit is difficult not to regard Mr. Paton’s emendation of φιλόθεος μὲν οὖν καὶ φιλόμαντις as more in accordance with the character of Cleombrotos than the φιλοθεάμων καὶ φιλομαθής of Bernardakis’ text, although, of course, he was a great traveller and an ardent student.)[176]De E, 392 A. Cf.Plato:Laches, 240 C.[177]393 A-D.[178]394 C.[179]De Defectu, 413 D.[180]433 D, E.[181]426 B.[182]1051 E.[183]1052 E.[184]De Defectu Orac., 420 E.

[96]Thiersch, who regards Plutarch as the inaugurator of that moral reformation which, as we attempt to show in the next chapter, was operating before he was born, asserts that at the time when Plutarch began his work, the prevailing manner of life was based upon an Epicurean ideal. (Der Epikureismus war die Popularphilosophie des Tages, denn in ihr fand die herrschende Lebensweise ihren begrifflichen Ausdruck.—Thiersch:Politik und Philosophie in ihrem Verhältniss, etc., Marburg, 1853.) If this be so, and we willingly make the admission, there was little need for reform here, although, as Seneca found (Ad Lucilium, xxi. 9), it may have been necessary to explain to a misunderstanding world what Epicureanism really was. Whatever Plutarch, as nominal Platonist, may polemically advance against Epicureanism, the ideal of Epicurus and Metrodorus is realized in the conduct of the group of people whose manner of life is represented in theSymposiacs.

[97]For some considerations on this subject see the concluding chapter.

[98]E.g., Dr. August Tholuck.—At the termination of an article, “Ueber den Einfluss des Heidenthums aufs Leben,” in which he ransacks classical authors and Christian fathers for anything which may serve to exhibit the degradation of Pagan society, he quotes the words of Athanasius to give expression to the conclusion referred to in the text. The whole of Champagny’s brilliant and fascinating work on the Cæsars is dominated by the same spirit, a spirit utterly inconsistent with that attitude of philosophical detachment in which history should be written, (Études sur l’Empire Romain, tome iii., “Les Césars.”) Archbishop Trench, too, says of our period that it “was the hour and power of darkness; of a darkness which then, immediately before the dawn of a new day, was the thickest.” (Miracles, p. 162.) Prof. Mahaffy, in the same uncritical spirit, refers to the “singular” and “melancholy” spectacle presented by Plutarch in his religious work, “clinging to the sinking ship, or rather, trying to stop the leak and declare her seaworthy.” (Greeks under Roman Sway, p. 321.)

[99]See Dean Merivale,Romans under the Empire, vol. vii.

[100]See “St. Paul and Seneca” (Dissertation ii. in Lightfoot on “Philippians”) for a full account of the question from the historical and critical standpoints. The learned and impartial Bishop has no difficulty in proving that the resemblances between Stoicism and Christianity were due to St. Paul’s acquaintance with Stoic teaching, and not to Seneca’s knowledge of the Christian faith.Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, in Syria (consecratedA.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 hisVita 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 hisHistoria 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 theDe 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, byAndrew P. Peabody, Boston, 1885.)

Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, in Syria (consecratedA.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 hisVita 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 hisHistoria 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 theDe 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, byAndrew P. Peabody, Boston, 1885.)

[101]SeeDion: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.”

[104]Tibullus:Eleg., i. 3. “Quod si fatales iam nunc explevimus annos,” to the end of the Elegy.

[105]Tib.i. 3 (sub finem).

[106]Propertius:Eleg., ii. 13, 28; iv. 5, 23 sqq.; iv. 4.

[107]Tib., i. 10.

[108]Lucan:Pharsalia, i. 670.

[109]The basis of the work of Augustus, and of the religious reforms inaugurated or developed by him, is laid in the recognition of a fact noted by Balbus inCic.,De Nat. Deorum, lib. ii. 3. “Eorum imperiis rempublicam amplificatam qui religionibus paruissent. Et si conferre volumus nostra cum externis, ceteris rebus aut pares aut etiam inferiores reperiemur; religione, id est, cultu deorum, multo superiores.” Cf.Horace:Od., iii. 6, vv. 1-4;Livy, xlv. 39.

[110]Hor.:Od., iii. 6.

[111]SeeBoissier:Religion Romaine, vol. i. cap. 5.—Le Sixième Livre de l’Enéide. St. Augustine must surely have felt thereligiousinfluence of the Æneid when he experienced the emotion which he describes in the well-known passage in the First Book of the Confessions—plorare Didonem mortuam (cogebar), quia se occidit ob amorem: cum interea meipsum morientem, Deus Vita mea, siccis occulis ferrem miserrimus. (Lib. i. cap. xiii.)

[112]Ovid:Fasti, 4, 203; cf.Meta., i. sec. 8.

[113]See the Life of Persius, included, with the Lives of Terence, Horace, Juvenal, Lucan, and Pliny the Elder, in the writings of Suetonius.

[114]Macleane’sPersius.—Introduction.

[115]Persius:Sat., v. 62-64.—At te nocturnis juvat impallescere chartis, Cultor enim juvenum purgatas inseris aures Fruge Cleanthea.

[116]Pharsalia, ix. 554-555.

[117]Pharsalia, ix. 570. We have not been able to refrain from quoting these—as other—well-known verses in the text. They are the highest expression of the Stoic Pantheism. “Virtus” has the appearance of a rhetorical climax; but has it been noticed that the great modern poet of Pantheism—for what else was Wordsworth?—also makes humanity the highest embodiment of that “presence ... Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, And the round ocean and the living air, And the blue sky,and in the mind of man?”

[118]Quis labor hic superis, &c., vi. 490,et passim.

[119]Felices errore suo, &c., i. 459.

[120]Scrutabitur scholas nostras, et obiiciet philosophis congiaria, amicas, gulam: ostendet mihi alium in adulterio, alium in popina, alium in aula.—Seneca:Epist., i. 29.

[121]Philostratus, i. 7. The quaint turn of the version in the text is fromBlount’s1681 translation of theLife of Apollonius.

[122]Dion:Oratio32, pp. 402-3 (Dindorf).

[123]SeeDion:De Cognitione Dei(pp. 213-4) for an interesting comparison between the owl and the philosopher on the one hand, and the sophist and the peacock on the other. (Cf.Ad Alexandrinos, p. 406, where the sufferings of the faithful philosopher are in implied contrast to the rewards that await the brilliant sophist.)

[124]Iliad, ix. 312-3 (Chapman’s translation). This actual text is quoted inPhilostratus’Lives of the Sophists(i. 25) as a criticism on some of the false and fantastic exercises of the Sophists. The “distant lapse” referred to in the text is constantly evident in the dramas of the best Athenian period. And history shows that there was a strong tendency in the Hellenic character agreeing with that indicated by the evidence of the dramatists, notwithstanding the outcry raised when Euripides summed up the whole matter in his famous line in the Hippolytus (Hipp.612).

[125]Philostratus:Vitæ Sophistarum, lib. i. sec. 24.

[126]E.g.,De Stoic. Repug., 1033 A, B;De Audiendo, 43 F.

[127]See frequent passages in Seneca’s letters to Lucilius, e.g.Ep.i. 16, 20. Cf.De Vita Beata, cap. 18, where Seneca defends himself and other philosophers against the charge “aliter loqueris: aliter vivis.” He will not be deterred from the pursuit of virtue by any truth human weakness may have to admit in the charge.This note is well marked in both Aurelius and Epictetus (ii. 19. Cf.Aulus Gellius, xvii. 19). The praise of Ulysses at the end of theDe Deo Socratisof Apuleius is couched in the same strain.

This note is well marked in both Aurelius and Epictetus (ii. 19. Cf.Aulus Gellius, xvii. 19). The praise of Ulysses at the end of theDe Deo Socratisof Apuleius is couched in the same strain.

[128]Catullus, xvi. 4, 5;Ovid:Tristia, ii. 353-4;Martial, i. 5.

[129]Pliny:Ep.v. 3. Plutarch, also, is legitimately offended at the loose language of the founders of Stoicism (seeDe Stoic. Repug., 1044 B), and his expressions, as are those of Pliny’s friends, are quite in harmony with the modern attitude on the question. Apuleius defends himself against a similar charge to that brought against Pliny by a similar display of great names.—“Fecere tamen etalii talia” (De Deo Socratis).

[130]Horace:Ep.i. 1, 14.

[131]Epictetus:Encheir., 49;Discourses, iii. 2; i. 17.

[132]Seneca:Epist. ad Lucilium, i. 21. Here are a few of theegregia dictawhich Seneca takes from the teachings of Epicurus, or Metrodorus, oralicujus ex illa officina.—“Honesta res est læta paupertas,” “Satis magnum alter alteri theatrum sumus,” “Philosophiæ servias oportet ut tibi contingat vera libertas,” “Si cui sua non videntur amplissima, licet totius mundi dominus sit, tamen miser est,” “Quid est turpius, quam senex vivere incipiens?” “Is maxime divitiis fruitur, qui minime divitiis indiget,” “Immodica ira gignit insaniam,” “Sic fac omnia, tanquam spectet Epicurus,” “Initium est salutis, notitia peccati,” &c. Yet Seneca was theacerrimus Stoicusof Lactantius (Div. Inst., i. 5).

[133]Fragment 120 in Bergk’s third edition, 144 in his fourth edition, and 107 in Böckh’s edition. W. Christ includes it in his selections—ἐξ ἀδήλων εἰδῶν (No. 4).

[134]Iliad, ix. 498; xi. 3, 73; iv. 440.

[135]Amatorius, 763 C, sqq.; cf.De Placitis Philosoph., lib. i. 879-880 A. This tract cannot be quoted as authority for Plutarch’s views; it is in several places distinctly, even grossly, anti-Platonic, and in other places even more distinctly Epicurean. As an example of the reverence with which Plutarch constantly alludes to Plato, the first conversation in the Eighth Book of theSymposiacsmay be quoted. The conversation arises out of a celebration of Plato’s birthday, and Plutarch gives a sympathetic report of the remarks of Mestrius Florus, who is of opinion that those who impute the philosopher’s paternity to Apollo do not dishonour the God. Cf. this and hundreds of other similar examples with the bitterly contemptuous expressions in theDe Placitis, 881 A, a section which concludes with an emphatic exposition of that Epicurean view which Plutarch exerts himself so strenuously to confute in theDe Sera Numinis Vindicta. Bernardakis “stars” theDe Placitis, though Zimmerman quotes it as evidence against the sincerity of Plutarch’s piety (Epistola ad Nicolaum Nonnen, cap. 7: “aperte negat providentiam”). Wyttenbach says theDe Placitiswas “e perditis quibusdam germanis libris compilatum.” Christopher Meiners (Historia Doctrinæ de Vero Deo, p. 246) attacks the boldness of the writer, “quâ deorum numen et providentiam impugnavit, quæque a Plutarchi pietate et moribus longe abhorret.” Corsini seems to think that the incredible labour involved in the compilation makes it worthy of Plutarch. His edition, with notes, translation, and dissertations, makes a very handsome quarto, which is a monument of combined industry and simplicity. He makes no comment on the anti-Platonic expressions alluded to above (Corsinus:Plutarchi De Placitis Philosophorum, libri v., Florence, 1759), nor does Mahaffy either, who regards theDe Placitisas genuine, though he calls it jejune. I have been unable to see a copy of Beck’s 1787 edition, which Volkmann highly praises. It may be observed with regard to the passage referred to at the head of this note that Plutarch would never have limited the contribution of philosophy to the knowledge of God to τὸ φυσικόν. Dion Chrysostom (De Dei Cognitione, 393, sqq.) mentions the same three sources of the knowledge of the Divine nature as Plutarch, but also postulates a primeval and innate cognition of God.

[136]Cf. the Pseudo-PlutarchicDe Placit. Phil., 880 A.

[137]Λόγον ἐκ φιλοσοφίας μυσταγωγὸν ἀναλαβόντες.De Iside et Osiride, 378 A, B. “Un lien pieux se formait entre le myste et son mystagogue, lien qui ne pouvait plus se rompre sans crime.”—Maury, vol. ii. cap. xi. For the saying of Theodorus about “taking with the left hand what is offered with the right,” seeDe Tranquillitate Animi, 467 B.

[138]De Iside et Osiride, andDe Superstitione, passim.

[139]Cf.Diog. Laert.vii. 134 (RitterandPreller, sect. 404).—“God, by transformation of His own essence, makes the world.”—Grant’sAristotle, Essay vi., “The Ancient Stoics.” Cf.Plut:De Stoic. Repugn.1053.

[140]De Ε apud Delphos, 388 F.

[141]Quomodo Adulator, 78 E. Cf.EunapiusonHistorians of Philosophy. “No one has written any careful account of the lives of philosophers, among whom we count not only Ammonius, teacher of divinest Plutarch, but also Plutarch himself, the darling and delight of all Philosophy.” Eunapius thinks that theParallel Liveswere Plutarch’s finest work, but adds that “all his writings are thickly sown with original thoughts of his own, as well as with the teachings of his Master.”

[142]393 E.

[143]Plutarch elsewhere comments upon the εὑρησιλογία of the Stoics in finding explanations of the various names of the popular Deities (Quomodo Adolescens, 31 E).Cicero(De Natura Deorum, iii. 24) represents Cotta as charging the Stoics with supporting the crudest superstitions of the popular faith by the skill which they displayed in finding a mysterious significance in the current names and legends:-“Atque hæc quidem et ejusmodi ex vetere Græcia fama collecta sunt; quibus intelligis resistendum esse, ne perturbentur religiones. Vestri autem non modo hæc non repellunt, verum etiam confirmant, interpretando quorsum quidque pertineat.”

[144]Iliad, xv. 362-4.

[145]In another place Plutarch expresses the view that the original Creator of the world bestowed upon the stuff of the phenomenal world a principle of change and movement by which that stuff often dissolves and reshapes itself under the operation of natural causes without the intervention of the original Creator (De Defectu Orac., 435-6).

[146]Plutarch, in this Essay, distinctly places himself in opposition to Plato, whose views, for the purposes of contrast, may be summarized from two well-known passages of the Republic. In 337 B, C, the greater part of the myths current in the popular poets are repudiated. Then, after that famous series of criticisms applied to particular passages taken from Homer and Hesiod and other poets, after his analysis of the various kinds of “narration,” and his implicit inclusion of the great poets of Greece among the masters of that kind of imitative narration which a man will the more indulge in, the more contemptible he is, Plato concludes with that ironical description of the reception which a Homer or a Hesiod would have to meet in a state founded on the Platonic ideal. “We shall pay him reverence as a sacred, admirable, and charming personage; we shall pour perfumed oil upon his head and crown him with woollen fillets; but we shall tell him that our laws exclude such characters as he, and shall send him away to some other city than ours.”—398 A, B (Davies and Vaughan’s translation). Plutarch, however, takes the world as it is. He admits that poetry is a siren, but refuses to stop the ears of the young people who listen to her fascinating strains. Lycurgus was mad in thinking he could cure drunkenness by cutting down the vineyards; he should rather have brought the water-springs nearer to the vines. It is better to utilize the vine of poetry by checking and pruning its “fanciful and theatrical exuberance” than to uproot it altogether. We must mingle the wine with the pure water of philosophy, or, to use another image, poetry and philosophy must be planted in the same soil, just as the mandragora, which moderates the native strength of the wine, is planted in vineyards (Quomodo Adolescens, 15 E).August Schlemm, in hisDe fontibus Plutarchi Commentationum De Aud. Poetis et de Fortuna(Göttingen, 1893), subjects the structure of theDe Audiendisto a very close and careful analysis, and comes to the conclusion that the main sources of Plutarch’s material are to be found in the writings of Stoic and Peripatetic philosophers. He notes that Plutarch’s examples are taken from the same Homeric, verses as Plato’s, and adds, “Quæ cum ita sint, quomodo hæ Plutarchum inter et Platonem similitudines ortæ sint dubium jam esse non potest. Plutarchus, ut in eis quæ antecedunt, ita etiam hic, usus est libro Peripatetici cujusdam, qui,ut criminationes a Platone poetis factas repelleret, hujus modi fictiones in natura artis poeticæ positas esse demonstravit et commentationi suæ inseruit poetarum versus a Platone vituperatos.” Chrysippus had composed a work onHow to study Poetry, Zeno one entitledOn Poetical Study, and Cleanthes another, calledOn the Poet.The opinion of so conscientious a scholar on Plutarch’s “appropriations” is worth quoting:—“tenendum est ... Plutarchum non eum fuisse qui more compilatorum libros aliorum ad verbum exscriberet sed id egisse ut ea quæ legisset atque collegisset referret, sed ita ut modo sua intermisceret, modo nonnulla omitteret vel mutaret.”

August Schlemm, in hisDe fontibus Plutarchi Commentationum De Aud. Poetis et de Fortuna(Göttingen, 1893), subjects the structure of theDe Audiendisto a very close and careful analysis, and comes to the conclusion that the main sources of Plutarch’s material are to be found in the writings of Stoic and Peripatetic philosophers. He notes that Plutarch’s examples are taken from the same Homeric, verses as Plato’s, and adds, “Quæ cum ita sint, quomodo hæ Plutarchum inter et Platonem similitudines ortæ sint dubium jam esse non potest. Plutarchus, ut in eis quæ antecedunt, ita etiam hic, usus est libro Peripatetici cujusdam, qui,ut criminationes a Platone poetis factas repelleret, hujus modi fictiones in natura artis poeticæ positas esse demonstravit et commentationi suæ inseruit poetarum versus a Platone vituperatos.” Chrysippus had composed a work onHow to study Poetry, Zeno one entitledOn Poetical Study, and Cleanthes another, calledOn the Poet.

The opinion of so conscientious a scholar on Plutarch’s “appropriations” is worth quoting:—“tenendum est ... Plutarchum non eum fuisse qui more compilatorum libros aliorum ad verbum exscriberet sed id egisse ut ea quæ legisset atque collegisset referret, sed ita ut modo sua intermisceret, modo nonnulla omitteret vel mutaret.”

[147]De Iside et Osiride, 353 E.

[148]De Ε apud Delphos, 393 D. Cf.De Defectu, 433 E. Ammonius is here evidently referring to a remark made (386 B) by “one of those present” to the effect that “practically all the Greeks identify Apollo with the Sun.” The words of Ammonius quoted in the text are strikingly similar in spirit to the famous verses in the “In Memoriam:”—“O thou that after toil and stormMay’st seem to have reached a purer air,Whose faith has centre everywhere,Nor cares to fix itself to form,“Leave thou thy sister when she prays,Her early Heaven, her happy views;Nor thou with shadowed hint confuseA life that leads melodious days.“Her faith through form is pure as thine,Her hands are quicker unto good:Oh, sacred be the flesh and bloodTo which she links a truth divine!”

“O thou that after toil and stormMay’st seem to have reached a purer air,Whose faith has centre everywhere,Nor cares to fix itself to form,“Leave thou thy sister when she prays,Her early Heaven, her happy views;Nor thou with shadowed hint confuseA life that leads melodious days.“Her faith through form is pure as thine,Her hands are quicker unto good:Oh, sacred be the flesh and bloodTo which she links a truth divine!”

“O thou that after toil and stormMay’st seem to have reached a purer air,Whose faith has centre everywhere,Nor cares to fix itself to form,

“O thou that after toil and storm

May’st seem to have reached a purer air,

Whose faith has centre everywhere,

Nor cares to fix itself to form,

“Leave thou thy sister when she prays,Her early Heaven, her happy views;Nor thou with shadowed hint confuseA life that leads melodious days.

“Leave thou thy sister when she prays,

Her early Heaven, her happy views;

Nor thou with shadowed hint confuse

A life that leads melodious days.

“Her faith through form is pure as thine,Her hands are quicker unto good:Oh, sacred be the flesh and bloodTo which she links a truth divine!”

“Her faith through form is pure as thine,

Her hands are quicker unto good:

Oh, sacred be the flesh and blood

To which she links a truth divine!”

[149]Consolatio ad Apollonium, 102 A.—“He was a very sage and virtuous youth, conspicuous for the reverence which he paid to the gods, to his parents, and to his friends.” This is nearly the old Hellenic ideal as expressed,e.g., in the lines from the “Antiope” of Euripides, preserved by Stobæus, “On Virtue”—“There be three virtues for thy practice, child:Honour the gods, revere thy loving parents,Respect the laws of Greece.”

“There be three virtues for thy practice, child:Honour the gods, revere thy loving parents,Respect the laws of Greece.”

“There be three virtues for thy practice, child:

Honour the gods, revere thy loving parents,

Respect the laws of Greece.”

[150]Amatorius, 756 B.

[151]Amatorius, 762 A.

[152]De Defectu Orac., 435 E.

[153]Consolatio ad Uxorem, 612. Cf.De Defectu Orac., 437 A.

[154]Supplying, as Bernardakis does after Wyttenbach, καὶ οὐκ ἀγνοῶ ὁτι ταῦτα πολλὰς ἔχει ἀπορίας.

[155]De Pythiæ Orac., 409 C. Cf.De Rep. Ger., 792 F.

[156]Plutarch puts these words into the mouth of Theon, a literary man, and a most intimate friend of his own. But Theon is here a mere modest disguise of Plutarch, just as “Lamprias” is in theDe Defectu Oraculorum. The argument is, in any case, not affected—the statement is clearly Plutarch’s own. (See the note on that dialogue in a subsequent chapter.)

[157]De Pythiæ Orac., 409 B.

[158]The antiquarian regret of Propertius for the old simple worships of Rome—“Nulli cura fuit externos quærere divos Cum tremeret patrio pendula turba sacro” (Eleg., v. 1)—touched a chord which very few Romans would have responded to in Plutarch’s time.

[159]De Exilio, 602 E. This recognition of the sacred character of the Emperor does not preclude criticisms of individual rulers,e.g., Nero:De Sera Num. Vindicta, 567 F; and Vespasian:Amatorius, 771 C.

[160]De Pythiæ Orac., 408 B.

[161]Cf. the fate of Chæroneia under Antony, as told by Plutarch’s grandfather (seeLife of Antony, 948 A, B).

[162]814 A.

[163]Præcepta Reip. Ger., 813, et passim:—He insists, however (814 E, F), that subservience must not go too far, and he is also careful to point out such brilliant openings for political ambition as are left by the peculiar conditions of the time (805 A, B).

[164]Plutarch states that the aim of his political advice is to enable a man not only to become “a useful citizen,” but also “to order his domestic affairs with safety, honour, and justice” (De Unius in Repub., &c., 826 C).

[165]Præcepta Reip., 824 C.

[166]Præcepta Reip., 813 F.

[167]Propertius, iv. 11. “Hæc Di condiderant, hæc Di quoque mœnia servant.” Plutarch’s essay reads like an exposition of this text of the Roman poet.

[168]“Et hoc verbo monere satis est, Τύχης nomine contineri omnem rerum actionumque efficientiam, quæ a Virtute disjuncta, nec in hominis potestate posita est; sive illa ut casus et temeritas, sive ut divina providentia informetur.”—Wyttenbach.Schlemm says that this tract and theDe Alexandri sive virtute sive fortunaare “meræ exercitationes rhetoricæ in quibus certam quandam philosophiam persequi in animo non habebat.” Yet the rhetoric of theDe Fortuna Romanorumis in wonderful harmony with Plutarch’s mature opinion as deliberately expressed in theDe Republica Gerenda.

[169]Virgil:Georgics, ii. 534;Plut:De Fortuna Romanorum, 316 E. This may be a conscious reminiscence of Virgil’s line. If Plutarch had not read Virgil, he may have heard so famous a verse quoted by his friends at Rome. He himself translates a passage from “the poet Flaccus” in hisLife of Lucullus(518 C—Horace:Ep., i. 6, 45). The question of Plutarch’s acquaintance with Latin is very important for investigations into the historical sources of his “Lives;” but it lies beyond our present limits. It is fully dealt with byWeissenbergerin hisDie Sprache Plutarchs(1895). He exculpates Plutarch from some of the grosser mistakes in Latinity imputed to him by Volkmann.

[170]317 B, C.

[171]Cicero:Quæst. Tusc., i. 23.

[172]Amatorius, 762 A.

[173]One need scarcely go so far as Professor Lewis Campbell, who says that the main result of the “Ethics” of Plutarch is to show “how difficult it was for a common-sense man of the world to form distinct and reasonable opinions on matters of religion in that strangely complicated time” (Religion in Greek Literature, 1898). But Professor Campbell is also of opinion that “the convenient distinction between gods and demons, which he (i.e.Plutarch) and others probably owed to their reading of Plato, is worth dwelling onbecause it was taken up for apologetic purposes by the early Christian fathers.” Surely its religious value to an age which did not anticipate the coming of “the early Christian fathers” makes the distinction worth study from a point of view quite different from that represented in Christian apologetics.

[174]SeeMaury, vol. i. p. 352.—“Pythagore admet l’existence de démons bons et mauvais comme les hommes, et tout ce qui lui paraissait indigne de l’idée qu’on devait se faire des dieux, il en faisait l’œuvre des démons et des héros.” (For a fuller discussion of this question see the chapters on Dæmonology.)

[175]Plutarch devotes so much of his work to an exposition of his views of the Divine character, that one feels inclined to regard him less as a philosopher in the general sense than as a theologian. A kindly piece of description of his own (seeDe Defectu Orac., 410 A), in which he mentions Cleombrotos of Lacedemon as “a man who made many journeys, not for the sake of traffic, but because he wished to see and to learn,” and says that as a result of his travels and researches he was compiling a practically completecorpusof philosophical material, the end and aim of philosophy being, as he used to put it, “Theology”—may be spoken with equal truth of Plutarch himself. We cannot, perhaps, do better than apply the term Θεόσοφος to him, and support the appellation with an interesting passage from M. Maury, in which he deals with the distinction between theosophs and philosophers in the early stages of Greek philosophy and religion:—“Les uns soumettant tous les faits à l’appréciation rationelle, et partant de l’observation individuelle, pour expliquer la formation de l’univers substituaient aux croyances populaires un système créé par eux, et plus ou moins en contradiction avec les opinions du vulgaire: c’étaient les philosophes proprement dits. Les autres acceptaient la religion de leurs contemporains, ... ils entreprenaient au nom de la sagesse divine, dont ils se donnaient pour les interprètes,non de renverser mais de réformer les notions théologiques et les formes religieuses, de façon à les mettre d’accord avec leurs principes philosophiques” (Maury, vol. i. p. 339). Cf.C. G. Seibert,De Apologetica Plutarchi Theologia(1854):-“Finis autem ad quem tendebat ipsa erat religio a majoribus accepta, qua philosophiæ ope purgata æqualium animos denuo implere studebat.” He thinks Plutarch was a theologian first and a philosopher after. (In the passage quoted above from theDe Defectuit is difficult not to regard Mr. Paton’s emendation of φιλόθεος μὲν οὖν καὶ φιλόμαντις as more in accordance with the character of Cleombrotos than the φιλοθεάμων καὶ φιλομαθής of Bernardakis’ text, although, of course, he was a great traveller and an ardent student.)

[176]De E, 392 A. Cf.Plato:Laches, 240 C.

[177]393 A-D.

[178]394 C.

[179]De Defectu, 413 D.

[180]433 D, E.

[181]426 B.

[182]1051 E.

[183]1052 E.

[184]De Defectu Orac., 420 E.

Back to Index Next