ladyofnorthfarm's review against another edition
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
samypants35's review against another edition
2.0
It started out really strong, but by the end I was struggling. I think it's more my fault than the authors, as the book is very readable. I lost my momentum after Christianity began to get adopted in the Roman empire. I think if I had more familiarity with the emperors or the story of early Christianity, I could have gotten a lot more from it, but I mostly was interested in the "end of traditional religion" part of the subtitle.
The author had a nice conversational tone, but I don't think this is an amazing introduction to a general historical audience.
The author had a nice conversational tone, but I don't think this is an amazing introduction to a general historical audience.
sireno8's review against another edition
3.0
This was like taking a really savvy course in Ancient Social History with a prof who knows his stuff and knows how to keep in interesting. Also, don't know if I've ever read anything about the mythology of religion -- i.e. the setting up of lore around practice. O'Donnell makes all seem plausible. People are always and have always been people.
silvernfire's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed reading this book and found it thought-provoking, but I can't quite muster that final star. It took a while to figure out where O'Donnell was going. I decided to read Pagans because of the book summary that talked about how this was a history of the rise of Christianity as told from the viewpoints of the non-Christians whose religion(s) were destroyed by it. That's not entirely off-base, but having read the book, I'd say O'Donnell is arguing that "paganism" was created by Christianity as something it was differentiating itself from. It's not an entirely new argument—I've heard it over the years from modern Pagan writers—but I thought it would be interesting to hear it from what was more likely a modern Christian viewpoint.
For me, the main fault of the book was a lack of focus. As I said above, the publisher's description didn't match the book. This happens, but the problem continued into the book itself. I went through the first half of the book enjoying each chapter, but wondering why some of them had been included. Often, a chapter didn't seem related to the ones before and after it, so the first half of the book felt more like a collection of essays on pre-Christian Roman religious practices. Later, the author began referring back to these earlier chapters. and I appreciate how he brought all this together, but yes, I wish it had been clearer at the beginning. The book was more focused by the second half, but that covered the period in which Christianity was triumphing, and that part of history simply doesn't interest me as much. And this is a lot of history to cover in 241 pages (not counting the notes or the index). I found it helpful that I'd already done some reading on ancient Roman history, although O'Donnell is concentrating on the 4th century CE which is later than I'm familiar with. I get that the book is meant for non-specialists, but it would've been nice to slow down some more and get more in-depth with some of the points covered.
Still, yes, I recommend it if this is a topic that interests you. O'Donnell's tone is conversational. He likens the book to a tour of Rome, comparing what a tour guide might tell you to what he argues was closer to the truth. As a lover of linguistics, I liked when he'd take a word like "paganism" or "church" and talk about how it came to be used in this context. If you're willing to read a history you're unlikely to completely agree with, this may be worth your time.
For me, the main fault of the book was a lack of focus. As I said above, the publisher's description didn't match the book. This happens, but the problem continued into the book itself. I went through the first half of the book enjoying each chapter, but wondering why some of them had been included. Often, a chapter didn't seem related to the ones before and after it, so the first half of the book felt more like a collection of essays on pre-Christian Roman religious practices. Later, the author began referring back to these earlier chapters. and I appreciate how he brought all this together, but yes, I wish it had been clearer at the beginning. The book was more focused by the second half, but that covered the period in which Christianity was triumphing, and that part of history simply doesn't interest me as much. And this is a lot of history to cover in 241 pages (not counting the notes or the index). I found it helpful that I'd already done some reading on ancient Roman history, although O'Donnell is concentrating on the 4th century CE which is later than I'm familiar with. I get that the book is meant for non-specialists, but it would've been nice to slow down some more and get more in-depth with some of the points covered.
Still, yes, I recommend it if this is a topic that interests you. O'Donnell's tone is conversational. He likens the book to a tour of Rome, comparing what a tour guide might tell you to what he argues was closer to the truth. As a lover of linguistics, I liked when he'd take a word like "paganism" or "church" and talk about how it came to be used in this context. If you're willing to read a history you're unlikely to completely agree with, this may be worth your time.
triumphal_reads's review against another edition
3.0
3.5 out of 5 stars - Full review can be found at - https://triumphalreads.com/pagans-james-odonnell/
Cons - The second half of the book was much dryer than the first half.
- Not enough attention to the common people in the ancient world and their thoughts
Pros - Great use of the primary source material
- First half has an enjoyable array of various traditional religion practices (some may not like that purposeful lack of narrative here, but I though it worked well with the context)
Cons - The second half of the book was much dryer than the first half.
- Not enough attention to the common people in the ancient world and their thoughts
Pros - Great use of the primary source material
- First half has an enjoyable array of various traditional religion practices (some may not like that purposeful lack of narrative here, but I though it worked well with the context)
robertrivasplata's review against another edition
3.0
This book provides an outline of what we believe pre-christian western religions might have looked like. I would have preferred to have more comprehensive and detailed accounts of the different religions and cults of Ancient Europe and the Mediterranean, as well as more detail regarding the process by which Christianity supplanted the old religions. Overall, this book is a good starting point for its topic.
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.