Texts, Translations, and Literature
We will
now turn to the texts, translations, and general literature of the
subject in more recent times. Apollonius returned to the memory of the
world, after the oblivion of the dark ages, with evil auspices.
From the very beginning the old Hierocles-Eusebius controversy was revived, and the whole subject was
at
once taken out of the calm region of philosophy and history and hurled
once more into the stormy arena of religious bitterness and prejudice.
For long Aldus hesitated to print the text of Philostratus,and only
finally did so (in 1501) with the text of Eusebius as an appendix, so
that, as he piously phrases it,“the antidote might accompany the
poison.” Together with it appeared a Latin translation by the Florentine
Rinucci.[Philostratus de Vita Apollonii Tyanei Libri Octo, tr by A
Rinuccinus, and Eusebius contra Hieroclem, tr by Z Acciolus (Venice
1501-04 fol.), Rinucci’s translation was improved by Beroaldus and
printed at Lyons (1504?) , and again at Cologne 1534.]In addition to the
Latin version the sixteenth century also produced an Italian [F
Baldelli, Filostrato Lemnio della Vita di Apollonio Tianeo (Florence
1549, 8vo)] and French translation. [B de Vignère,Philostrate de la Vie
d’Apollonius (Paris 1596, 1599, 1611). Blaise de Vignère’s translation
was
subsequently corrected by Frédéric Morel and later by Thomas
Artus, Sieur d’Embry, with bombastic notes in which he bitterly attacks
the wonder-workings of Apollonius. A French translation was also made by
Sibilet about 1560, but never published; the MS was in the Bibliothèque
Imperial. See Miller,Journal des Savants 1849, p 625, quoted by
Chassang, op infr cit., p iv.}The editio princeps of Aldus was
superseded a century later by the edition of Morel, [F
Morellus,Philostrati Lemnii Opera, Gr. and Lat. (Paris 1608.)]which in
its turn was followed a century still later by that of Olearius. [G.
Olearius, Philostratorum quæ supersunt Omnia, Gr and Lat. (Leipzig
1709).]Nearly a century and a half later again the text of Olearius was
superseded by that of Kayser (the first critical text), whose work in
its last edition contains the latest critical apparatus. [C L. Kayser,
Flavii Philostrati quæ supersunt, etc. (Zurich 1844, 4 to). In 1849 A
Westermann also edited a text, Philostratorum et Callistrati Opera, in
Didot’s “Scriptorum Græcorum Bibliotheca” (Paris 1849, 8vo). But Kayser
brought out a new edition in 1853 (?), and again a third, with
additional information in the Preface, in the “Bibliotheca Teubneriana”
(Leipzig 1870).] All information with regard to the MSS, will be found
in Kayser’s Latin Prefaces.
We shall now attempt to
give some idea of the general literature on the subject, so that the
reader may be able to note some of the varying fortunes of the war of
opinion in the bibliographical indications.And if the general reader
should be impatient of the matter and eager to get to something of
greater interest, he can easily omit its perusal; while if he be a lover
of the mystic way, and does not take delight in wrangling controversy,
he may at least sympathise with the writer, who has been compelled to
look through the works of the last century and a good round dozen of
those of the previous centuries, before he could venture on an opinion
of his own with a clear conscience.Sectarian prejudice against
Apollonius characterises nearly every opinion prior to the nineteenth
century.[For a general summary of opinions prior to 1807, if writers who
mention Apollonius incidentally, see Legrand d’Aussy, op. cit., pp
313-327.] Of books distinctly dedicated to the subject the works of the
Abbé Dupin [L’Histoire d’Apollone de Tyane convaincue de Fausseté et
d’Imposture (Paris 1705).] and of de Tillemont [An Account of the Life
of Apollonius Tyaneus (London 1702), tr out of the French, from vol ii,
of Lenain de Tillemont’s Histoire des Empereurs (Second Edition, Paris
1720): to which is added Some Observations upon Apollonius. De
Tillemont’s view is that Apollonius was sent by the Devil to destroy the
work of the Saviour.] are bitter attacks on the Philosopher of Tyana in
defence of the monopoly of Christian miracles; while those of the Abbé
Houtteville [A critical and Historical Discourse upon the Method of the
Principal Authors who wrote for and against Christianity from its
Beginning (London 1739),tr. from the French of M. l’Abbé Houtteville; to
which is added a “Dessertation on the Life of Apollonius Tyanæus, with
some Observations on the Platonists of the Latter School,” pp 213-254.]
and Lüderwald[Anti-Hierocles oder Jesus Christus und Apollonius von
Tyana in ihrer grossen Ungleichheit, dargestellt v. J.B. Lüderwald
(Halle 1793).] are less violent, though on the same lines. A
pseudonymous writer,however, of the eighteenth century strikes out a
somewhat different line by classing together the miracles of the Jesuits
and other Monastic Orders with those of Apollonius, and dubbing them
all spurious, while maintaining the sole authenticity of those of Jesus.
[Phileleutherus Helvetius, De Miraculis quæ Pythagoræ, Apolloni
Tyanensi, Francisco Asisio, Dominico, et Ignatio Lojolæ tribuuntur
Libellus (Draci
1734).]Nevertheless, Bacon and
Voltaire speak of Apollonius in the highest terms, [See Legrand d’Aussy,
op.cit., p 314, where the texts are given.] and even a century before
the latter the English Deist, Charles Blount, [The Two First Books of
Philostratus concerning the Life of Apollonius Tyaneus (London ; 1680
fol.) Blount’s notes (generally ascribed to Lord Herbert) raised such an
outcry that the book was condemned in 1693, and few copies are in
existence. Blount’s notes were, however, translated into French a
century later, in the days of Encyclopædism, and appended to a French
version of the Vita, under the title, Vie d’Apollonius de Tyane par
Philostrate avec les Commentaires donnés en Anglois par Charles Blount
sur les deux Premiers Livres de cet Ouvrage (Amsterdam ; 1779, 4 vols.,
Svo), with an ironical dedication to Pope Clement XIV., signed
“Philalethes.”] raised his voice against the universal obloquy poured
upon the character of the Tyanean ; his work, however, was speedily
suppressed.In the midst of this war about miracles in the eighteenth
century it is pleasant to remark the short treatise of Herzog, who
endeavours to give a sketch of the philosophy and religious life of
Apollonius,[Philosophiam Practicam Apollonii Tyanæ in Sciagraphia,
exponit M. Io. Christianus Herzog (Leipzig 1709) ; an academical oration
of 20 pp.] but, alas! there were no followers of so liberal an example
in this century of strife.
So far then for the earlier literature of the subject. Frankly none of it is worth reading; the problem could
not
be calmly considered in such a period. It started on the false ground
of the Hierocles-Eusebius controversy, which was but an incident (for
wonder-working is common to all great teachers and not
peculiar to Apollonius or Jesus), and was embittered by the rise of Encyclopædism and the rationalism of
the
Revolution period. Not that the miracle-controversy ceased even in the
last century; it does not,however, any longer obscure the whole horizon,
and the sun of a calmer judgment may be seen breaking through the
midst.In order to make the rest of our summary clearer we append at the
end of this essay the titles of the
works which have appeared
since the beginning of the nineteenth century, in chronological order.A
glance over this list will show that the last century has produced an
English (Berwick’s), an Italian(Lancetti’s), a French (Chassang’s), and
two German translations (Jacobs’ and Baltzer’s). [Philostratus is a
difficult author to translate, nevertheless Chassang and Baltzer have
succeeded very well with him;Berwick also is readable, but in most
places gives us a paraphrase rather than a translation and frequently
mistakes the meaning. Chassang’s and Baltzer’s are by far the best
translations.]The Rev E.Berwick’s translation is the only English
version; in his Preface the author, while asserting the falsity of the
miraculous element in the Life, says that the rest of the work deserves
careful attention.No harm will accrue to the Christian religion by its
perusal , for there are no allusions to the Life of Christ in it, and
the miracles are based on those ascribed to Pythagoras.This is certainly
a healthier standpoint than that of the traditional theological
controversy, which,
unfortunately, however, was revived again by
the great authority of Baur,who say in a number of the early documents
of the Christian era (notably the canonical Acts) tendency-writings of
but slight historical content, representing the changing fortunes of
schools and parties and not the actual histories of individuals.The Life
of Apollonius was one of these tendency-writings; its object was to put
forward a view opposed to Christianity in favour of philosophy. Baur
thus divorced the whole subject from its historical standpoint and
attributed to Philostratus an elaborate scheme of which he was entirely
innocent. Baur’s view was largely adopted by Zeller in his Philosophie
der Griechen (v 140), and by Réville in Holland.This “Christusbild”
theory (carried by a few extremists to the point of denying that
Apollonius ever existed) has
had a great vogue among writers on the subject, especially compilers of
encyclopædia articles; it is at any rate a wider issue than the
traditional miracle-wrangle, which was again revived in all its ancient
narrowness
by Newman, who only uses Apollonius as an excuse for a dissertation on
orthodox miracles, to which he devotes eighteen pages out of the
twenty-five of his treatise. Noack also follows Baur, and to some extent
Pettersch, though he takes the subject onto the ground of philosophy;
while Möckeberg,pastor of St. Nicolai in Hamburg, though striving to be
fair to Apollonius, ends his chatty dissertation with an outburst of
orthodox praises of Jesus, praises which we by no means grudge, but
which are entirely out of place in such a subject.
The
development of the Jesus-Apollonius miracle-controversy into the
Jesus-against-Apollonius and even Christ-against-Anti-Christ battle,
fought out with relays of lusty champions on the one side against a
feeble protest at best on the other, is a painful spectacle to
contemplate.How sadly must Jesus and Apollonius have looked upon, and
still look upon, this bitter and useless strife over their saintly
persons.Why should posterity set their memories one against the other?
Did they oppose one another in life? Did even their biographers do so
after their deaths? Why then could not the controversy have ceased with
Eusebius? For Lactantius frankly admits the point brought forward by
Hierocles (to exemplify which Hierocles only referred to Apollonius as
one instance out of many)—that “miracles” do not prove divinity.We rest
our claims, says Lactantius, not on miracles, but on the fulfilment of
prophecy. [This would have at least restored Apollonius to his natural
environment, and confined the question of the divinity of Jesus to its
proper Judæo-Christian ground.] Had this more sensible position been
revived instead of that of Eusebius, the problem of Apollonius would
have been considered in its natural historical environment four hundred
years ago, and much ink and paper would have been saved.With
the progress of the critical method, however, opinion has at length
partly recovered its balance, and it is pleasant to be able to turn to
works which have rescued the subject from theological obscurantism and
placed it in the open field of historical and critical research. The two
volumes of the independent thinker, Legrand d’Aussy, which appeared at
the very beginning of the last century, are, for the time,remarkably
free from prejudice, and are a praiseworthy attempt at historical
impartiality, but criticism was still young at this period. Kayser,
though he does not go thoroughly into the matter, decides that the
account of Philostratus is purely a “fabularis narratio,” but is well
opposed by I. Müller, who contends for a strong element of history as a
background. But by far the best sifting of the sources is that of
Jessen. [I am unable to offer any opinion on Nielsen’s book, from
ignorance of Danish, but it has all the appearance of a careful,
scholarly treatise with abundance of references.] Priaulx’s study deals
solely with the Indian episode and is of no critical value for the
estimation of the sources.Of all previous studies, however, the works of
Chassang and Baltzer are the most generally intelligent, for both
writers are aware of the possibilities of psychic science, though mostly
from the insufficient standpoint of spiritistic phenomena.
As
for Tredwell’s somewhat pretentious volume which, being in English,is
accessible to the general reader, it is largely reactionary, and is used
as a cover for adverse criticism of the Christian origins from a
Secularist standpoint which denies at the outset the possibility of
“miracle” in any meaning of the word. A mass of well-known
numismatological and other matter, which is entirely irrelevant, but
which seems to be new and surprising to the author, is introduced, and a
map is prefixed to the title page purporting to give the itineraries of
Apollonius, but having little reference to the text of
Philostratus.Indeed, nowhere does Tredwell show that he is working on
the text itself, and the subject in his hands is but an excuse for a
rambling dissertation on the first century in general from his own
standpoint.This is all regrettable, for with the exception of Berwick’s
translation, which is almost unprocurable, we have nothing of value in
English for the general reader[Réville’s Pagan Christ is quite a
misrepresentation of the subject, and Newman’s treatment of the matter
renders his treatise an anachronism for the twentieth century.] except
Sinnett’s short sketch, which is descriptive rather than critical or
explanatory.So far then for the history of the Apollonius of opinion; we
will now turn to the Apollonius of Philostratus,and attempt if possible
to discover some traces of the man as he was in history, and the nature
of his life
Apollonius of Tyana
-
▼
2012
(17)
-
▼
March
(17)
- Apollonius Of Tyana Introduction
- The Religious Associations and Communities of the ...
- India and Greece
- The Apollonius of Early Opinion
- Texts, Translations, and Literature
- The Biographer of Apollonius
- Apollonius of Tyana Early Life
- The Travels of Apollonius
- In the Shrines of the Temples and the Retreats of ...
- The Gymnosophists of Upper Egypt
- Apollonius and the Rulers of the Empire
- Apollonius The Prophet and Wonder-Worker
- Apollonius of Tyana Mode of Life
- Himself and His Circle
- Apollonius Of Tyana Sayings and Sermons
- From His Letters
- The Writings of Apollonius
-
▼
March
(17)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment