Plutarch's Romane Questions With dissertations on Italian cults, myths, taboos, man-worship, aryan marriage, sympathetic magic and the eating of beans — Context and Discussion

The Voice of Philemon Holland

Holland's 1603 translation gives Plutarch's questions a distinctive English voice, one that is both archaic and vigorous. His phrasing—'disasterous or dismall daies,' 'carieth no congruitie at all, nor apparence of reason'—preserves the texture of early modern English while conveying Plutarch's logical scrutiny. Holland often expands the original with explanatory clauses, as when he glosses 'the morrow after the Ides' by adding 'which was the same that July now is.' This habit of bridging ancient and contemporary references makes the text feel immediate, even as its language distances the reader. The translator's presence is felt in the rhythm of the sentences, which frequently pile up alternatives introduced by 'Is it because…' or 'Or last of all…,' mimicking the structure of Plutarch's own enumerations.

Plutarch's Method of Multiple Hypotheses

In Question 25, concerning why the days after Calends, Nones, and Ides are considered unlucky, Plutarch first cites a historical explanation: the Roman defeat at the Allia. He then immediately undermines it, noting that the battle occurred on a different day and that the superstition extends beyond a single month. He proceeds to offer an alternative rooted in religious calendar theory—that the first days are sacred to celestial gods, the second to infernal spirits—and finally a numerological argument about odd and even numbers. This layered approach, where each hypothesis is presented and then qualified, is typical of the Romane Questions. Plutarch does not settle on one answer but leaves the reader to weigh the possibilities, a method that Jevons compares to modern folkloric inquiry, though he notes the crucial difference in underlying assumptions.

Jevons' Editorial Framework

F.B. Jevons' preface and dissertations frame Plutarch's work as 'the earliest formal treatise on the subject of folk-lore.' He argues that while Plutarch's questions anticipate modern science, his answers are anachronistic, projecting contemporary philosophy onto primitive minds. Jevons' own dissertations—on topics like 'Aryan Marriage' and 'Sympathetic Magic'—reflect late Victorian anthropology, with its comparative method and evolutionary assumptions. The juxtaposition is instructive: Plutarch explains customs by imagining rational founders; Jevons explains them by reconstructing prehistoric thought. Readers should note that Jevons' contributions are themselves products of their era, and his confidence in reconstructing 'Stone Age' beliefs may now seem as dated as Plutarch's reliance on Greek philosophy.

This edition offers two layers of interpretation: Plutarch's own, filtered through Holland's English, and Jevons' late-Victorian commentary. The reader is encouraged to attend to the gaps between them—where Plutarch sees deliberate design, Jevons sees unconscious survival. The Romane Questions reward a slow reading that savors the play of hypotheses and the texture of early modern prose, while the dissertations provide a contrasting lens that reveals as much about the 1890s as about ancient Rome.

I sometimes set Plutarch’s old questions beside The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The common English version, corrected by the final committee of the American Bible Union. — Text and Context, and think how both ask what people truly meant by their rituals—one through temple bones, the other through troubled new words. A hushed fellowship there, across centuries, sharing a patient ear for old strangeness.