Scan barcode
oisin175's review against another edition
2.0
This book was interesting, though it didn't really give me much in the way of new information. If you read any other, more in-depth books, like "A History of Pagan Europe," you'll have already gotten all of this information with less snark. O'Donnell's tone is dismissive and more informal than is useful for an academic issue. This is really a book meant for beginners with no interest in reading more in depth academic works.
christianhartman's review against another edition
3.0
Narrates the rise of Christianity from the perspective of a non-Christian, truly strange how (Paraphrasing), "a street preacher's followers had learned, in four centuries, how to control a multinational empire". As a Christian I know the rough history of Christianity, but had never fully put it's rise in its true context, against the background of "paganism", a made up term to describe a religion that had no history, a religion that simply was the way of life before Christianity and it's radical monotheism destroyed the old polytheism (I'm grateful anyways). Also very interesting to view Constantine's "conversion" to Christianity in a different light. Overall fascinating book, amazing history of life in Roman times.
mburnamfink's review against another edition
4.0
Give me that old time religion! The kind with bloody sacrifice, sacred groves, portents and oracles. By Jove! And Athena, and Serapis, and Ba'al, give me that old time religion.
In Pagans, O'Donnell tackles the question of what happened to the traditional religion of the Mediterranean. How, in the 4th century, did the rites of the old gods up and vanish? The mundane argument is pretty simple. The Emperor Diocletian (284-305) massively reformed the civil service, centralizing power and finances at the expense of local elites. Money, which used to support local civic rites across the Empire, was distributed from Constantinople to new Christian leaders via the mechanism of the military and the Church.
That, of course, is a paltry explanation. Belief that exists only in the presence of cash subsidies is a paltry belief indeed. But that may have been enough. O'Donnell argues that the old religions were transactional. A sacrifice to a god was the human side of a deal, the divine side of which was victory in battle, prosperity in trade, or healthy children. Gods which lost the support of human emperors were no longer worthy of emulation by the masses. 4th century Christians had a number of rhetorical and technological advantages, as their doctrine combined the sophisticated philosophy of the neoplatonists, a strong tradition of public oratory and writing, and the political power of the assembled congregation (Oh, and the True Gospel of Christ's Love). Against this, the old religion had the obscurity of signs and portents, the spectacle of rite and sacrifice, and Bronze Age traditions that seemed sclerotic and obsolete.
O'Donnell writes clearly for the new reader, while placing this work in an ongoing scholarly dialog about the Classics that I don't know enough about to criticize. His most original argument is that pagans as such did not exist. Augustus would never have used the word to describe his beliefs. Rather, paganism was constructed as an opponent by the early Church, a specific kind of rhetorical move to distinguish 'soldiers of Christ' from the ignorant superstitions of the countryside, which is the root word of 'pagan'. Similarly, one should not speak of belief in Jupiter, but rather an assemblage of practices and images relating specific human beings to a common vision of a 'heavenly father'. There's a frustrating skipping around in the arguments and primary sources. These are very much O'Donnell's interpretations, and I'm not convinced they are the interpretations. Still, this is an interesting book for a modern atheist who loves Rome, but knows relatively little about the end of the Empire.
In Pagans, O'Donnell tackles the question of what happened to the traditional religion of the Mediterranean. How, in the 4th century, did the rites of the old gods up and vanish? The mundane argument is pretty simple. The Emperor Diocletian (284-305) massively reformed the civil service, centralizing power and finances at the expense of local elites. Money, which used to support local civic rites across the Empire, was distributed from Constantinople to new Christian leaders via the mechanism of the military and the Church.
That, of course, is a paltry explanation. Belief that exists only in the presence of cash subsidies is a paltry belief indeed. But that may have been enough. O'Donnell argues that the old religions were transactional. A sacrifice to a god was the human side of a deal, the divine side of which was victory in battle, prosperity in trade, or healthy children. Gods which lost the support of human emperors were no longer worthy of emulation by the masses. 4th century Christians had a number of rhetorical and technological advantages, as their doctrine combined the sophisticated philosophy of the neoplatonists, a strong tradition of public oratory and writing, and the political power of the assembled congregation (Oh, and the True Gospel of Christ's Love). Against this, the old religion had the obscurity of signs and portents, the spectacle of rite and sacrifice, and Bronze Age traditions that seemed sclerotic and obsolete.
O'Donnell writes clearly for the new reader, while placing this work in an ongoing scholarly dialog about the Classics that I don't know enough about to criticize. His most original argument is that pagans as such did not exist. Augustus would never have used the word to describe his beliefs. Rather, paganism was constructed as an opponent by the early Church, a specific kind of rhetorical move to distinguish 'soldiers of Christ' from the ignorant superstitions of the countryside, which is the root word of 'pagan'. Similarly, one should not speak of belief in Jupiter, but rather an assemblage of practices and images relating specific human beings to a common vision of a 'heavenly father'. There's a frustrating skipping around in the arguments and primary sources. These are very much O'Donnell's interpretations, and I'm not convinced they are the interpretations. Still, this is an interesting book for a modern atheist who loves Rome, but knows relatively little about the end of the Empire.
me300k_h1st's review against another edition
5.0
This is a great introduction to the prejudices that people can come across when they're new to reading about late Roman and early Christian history. It doesn't assume you have very much background knowledge which is perfect for me. It doesn't sugar coat problems but also tries to be fair to the people who lived in a time period with circumstances that are sometimes foreign and other times all too familiar to inhabitants of the twenty-first century. He tries to contextualize the choices of each individual so that their choices make sense, whether or not any given individual modern would agree with them. It helps me analyze how the history of ideas and discourse affects the way I speak of my own life. I appreciate the author for writing this book.
trejondunkley's review against another edition
Really just don’t like the writing style. Felt smug and disjointed.
deearr's review against another edition
5.0
“Pagans” is an amazing book, presenting history and culture while at the same time opening the reader’s senses to a world that can’t be examined through the today’s lenses. Jumping back in time 1500-2000 years can be confusing if not viewed through the mindset of those alive at that time. While the author states this can be enjoyable, he cautions that “…we should remind ourselves at the beginning and end of such stories is how easily we assume that the people in them are really just like us.” Thankfully, author James J. O’Donnell does his best to keep us continually grounded.
The book does a superb job analyzing the subject of how religions may lose favor with the populace with one becoming more accepted than another. What makes this book different is that the perspective mentioned in the last paragraph takes center stage, and religious citizens from centuries ago are confronted with what they may have considered to be a cult. Mr. O’Donnell’s presentation is well-researched, offering thoughts based on written documentation rather than opinion.
“Pagans” could have been a stodgy bundle of historical facts, presented in a studious and boring clump. Fortunately, the author kept his explanations interesting – almost funny at times – yet still manages to maintain an appropriate level of respect for the subject matter. I found the descriptions of religious rites fascinating, and the book thought-provoking. Five stars.
The book does a superb job analyzing the subject of how religions may lose favor with the populace with one becoming more accepted than another. What makes this book different is that the perspective mentioned in the last paragraph takes center stage, and religious citizens from centuries ago are confronted with what they may have considered to be a cult. Mr. O’Donnell’s presentation is well-researched, offering thoughts based on written documentation rather than opinion.
“Pagans” could have been a stodgy bundle of historical facts, presented in a studious and boring clump. Fortunately, the author kept his explanations interesting – almost funny at times – yet still manages to maintain an appropriate level of respect for the subject matter. I found the descriptions of religious rites fascinating, and the book thought-provoking. Five stars.
hilaritas's review against another edition
4.0
This is an interesting but flawed history of the interaction between Christianity and "paganism". The strongest parts lay in O'Donnell's acerbic and evocative depictions of the past: he has some great accounts of the welter of ancient religious practices that really help sketch what the situation on the ground was like when the early church was just another mystery cult among many. O'Donnell's chief thesis, such as it can be pinned down, is that Christianity created the monolith "Paganism" out of a mass of localized, disparate, and nebulous traditional practices, and was thus able to sharpen its own focus through the lens of its self-created nemesis, leading to the world-historical success it has become. O'Donnell has some interesting side excursions in telling this tale, and he vividly recasts many familiar historical figures as much more ambiguous and historically situated than how they're typically described.
Despite these strengths, the book as a whole is not really convincing. First and foremost, O'Donnell falters by refusing to take seriously the piety of ancient cult religious practitioners. He assumes that ancient religion was largely a matter of genial tradition, not the subject of committed fervor. This may be true at times and in certain circumstances, but I find it highly unlikely to be the case generally. Similarly, O'Donnell stretches his argument about the blurring of boundaries between traditional religious practices and Christianity during the 4th century too far, to the point where he is basically doubting whether anyone was actually a Christian convert. It may be true that Christianity existed more comfortably with past practices than is often apparent from Christian polemicists at the time, but I think it's a stretch to go on to say that every Christian at the time was also still swimming in traditional cult currents.
It's O'Donnell's desire to be arch, knowing, and above reproach as a partisan in religious matters that makes this book so fun to read, but also so infuriating to evaluate. You get the sense that he's so interested in giving a novel take that he doesn't mind fudging the details. That said, there is ample food for thought here, even if you can't swallow it all without some skeptical probing. I'm rating it higher based on its strengths.
Despite these strengths, the book as a whole is not really convincing. First and foremost, O'Donnell falters by refusing to take seriously the piety of ancient cult religious practitioners. He assumes that ancient religion was largely a matter of genial tradition, not the subject of committed fervor. This may be true at times and in certain circumstances, but I find it highly unlikely to be the case generally. Similarly, O'Donnell stretches his argument about the blurring of boundaries between traditional religious practices and Christianity during the 4th century too far, to the point where he is basically doubting whether anyone was actually a Christian convert. It may be true that Christianity existed more comfortably with past practices than is often apparent from Christian polemicists at the time, but I think it's a stretch to go on to say that every Christian at the time was also still swimming in traditional cult currents.
It's O'Donnell's desire to be arch, knowing, and above reproach as a partisan in religious matters that makes this book so fun to read, but also so infuriating to evaluate. You get the sense that he's so interested in giving a novel take that he doesn't mind fudging the details. That said, there is ample food for thought here, even if you can't swallow it all without some skeptical probing. I'm rating it higher based on its strengths.
More...