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.[35]
In addition to the Latin version the sixteenth century also produced an
Italian[36] and French translation.[37]
The _editio princeps_ of Aldus was superseded a century later by the
edition of Morel,[38] which in its turn was followed a century still
later by that of Olearius.[39] 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the text of Olearius was superseded by that of Kayser (the first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.[40] 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.[41] Of books distinctly
dedicated to the subject the works of the Abbé Dupin[42] and of de
Tillemont[43] are bitter attacks on the Philosopher of Tyana in defence
of the monopoly of Christian miracles; while those of the Abbé
Houtteville[44] and Lüderwald[45] 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.[46]
Nevertheless, Bacon and Voltaire speak of Apollonius in the highest
terms,[47] and even a century before the latter the English Deist,
Charles Blount,[48] 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,[49] 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 mist.
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).[50] 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 saw 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
Mönckeberg, 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.[51] 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.[52] 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,[53] 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 and work.