APOLLODORUS (Athenian painter) APPREHENSION
APOLLODORUS (Athenian grammarian) APPRENTICESHIP
APOLLODORUS (of Carystus) APPROPRIATION
APOLLODORUS (Greek architect) APPURTENANCES
APOLLONIA APRAKSIN, THEDOR MATVYEEVICH
APOLLONIUS (the Surly) APRICOT
APOLLONIUS (Greek rhetorician) APRIES
APOLLONIUS (the Sophist) APRIL
APOLLONIUS MOLON APRIL-FOOLS' DAY
APOLLONIUS OF PERGA A PRIORI
APOLLONIUS OF RHODES APRON
APOLLONIUS OF TRALLES APSARAS
APOLLONIUS OF TYANA APSE
APOLLONIUS OF TYRE APSE and APSIDES
APOLLOS APSINES
APOLLYON APT
APOLOGETICS APTERA
APOLOGUE APTERAL
APOLOGY APTIAN
APONEUROSIS APULEIUS, LUCIUS
APOPHTHEGM APULIA
APOPHYGE APURE
APOPHYLLITE APURIMAC (river of Peru)
APOPHYSIS APURIMAC (department of Peru)
APOPLEXY APYREXIA
APOROSE 'AQIBA BEN JOSEPH
APOSIOPESIS AQUAE
APOSTASY AQUAE CUTILIAE
APOSTIL AQUAMARINE
APOSTLE AQUARELLE
APOSTLE SPOONS AQUARII
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS AQUARIUM
APOSTOLIC CANONS AQUARIUS
APOSTOLIC FATHERS AQUATINT
APOSTOLICI AQUAVIVA, CLAUDIO
APOSTOLIC MAJESTY AQUEDUCT
APOSTOLIUS, MICHAEL AQUILA
APOSTROPHE AQUILA, CASPAR
APOTACTITES AQUILA, SERAFINO DELL'
APOTHECARY AQUILA (city of Italy)
APOTHEOSIS AQUILA (constellation)
APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS AQUILA ROMANUS
APPANAGE AQUILEIA
APPAREL AQUILLIUS, MANIUS
APPARITIONS AQUINAS, THOMAS
APPARITOR AQUINO
APPEAL AQUITAINE
APPEARANCE ARABESQUE
APPENDICITIS ARABGIR
APPENDICULATA ARABIA
APPENDINI, FRANCESCO MARIA ARABIAN PHILOSOPHY
APPENZELL (canton of Switzerland) ARABIAN SEA
APPENZELL (city of Switzerland) ARABICI
APPERCEPTION ARABI PASHA
APPERLEY, CHARLES JAMES ARABISTAN
APPERT, BENJAMIN NICOLAS MARIE ARABS
APPIAN ARACAJU
APPIANI, ANDREA ARACATY
APPIA, VIA ARACHNE
APPIN ARACHNIDA
APPLAUSE ARAD
APPLE ARAEOSTYLE
APPLEBY ARAEOSYSTYLE
APPLETON, NATHAN ARAGO, DOMINIQUE FRANCOIS JEAN
APPLETON (city of U.S.A.) ARAGON
APPOGGIATURA ARAGONITE
APPOINTMENT, POWER OF ARAGUA
APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE ARAGUAYA
APPONYI, ALBERT ARAKAN
APPORTIONMENT ARAKCHEEV, ALEKSYEI ANDREEVICH
APPORTIONMENT BILL ARAL
APPRAISER
APOLLODORUS, an Athenian painter, who flourished at the end of the 5th
century B.C. He is said to have introduced great improvements in
perspective and chiaroscuro. What these were it is impossible to say:
perspective cannot have been in his day at an advanced stage. Among his
works were an Odysseus, a priest in prayer, and an Ajax struck by
lightning.
APOLLODORUS, an Athenian grammarian, pupil of Aristarchus and Panaetius
the Stoic, who lived about 140 B.C. He was a prolific and versatile
writer. There is extant under his name a treatise on the gods and the
heroic age, entitled [Greek: Bibliothaekae], a valuable authority on
ancient mythology. Modern critics are of opinion that, if genuine, it is
an abridgment of a larger work by him ([Greek: Peri theon]).
Edition, with commentary, by Heyne (1803); text by Wagner (1894)
(_Mythographi Graeci_, vol. i. Teubner series). Amongst other works by
him of which only fragments remain, collected in Muller, _Fragmenta
Historicorum Graecorum_, may be mentioned: [Greek: Chronika], a
universal history from the fall of Troy to 144 B.C.; [Greek:
Periaegaesis], a gazetteer written in iambics; [Greek: Peri Neon], a
work on the Homeric catalogue of ships; and a work on etymology
([Greek: Etymologiai]).
APOLLODORUS, of Carystus in Euboea, one of the most important writers of
the New Attic comedy, who flourished at Athens between 300 and 260 B.C.
He is to be distinguished from an older Apollodorus of Gela (342-290),
also a writer of comedy, a contemporary of Menander. He wrote 47
comedies and obtained the prize five times. Terence borrowed his
_Hecyra_ and _Phormio_ from the [Greek: Hekyra] and [Greek:
Epidikazomenos] of Apollodorus.
Fragments in Koch, _Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta_, ii. (1884); see
also Meineke, _Historia Critica Comicorum Graecorum_ (1839).
APOLLODORUS, of Damascus, a famous Greek architect, who flourished
during the 2nd century A.D. He was a favourite of Trajan, for whom he
constructed the stone bridge over the Danube (A.D. 104-105). He also
planned a gymnasium, a college, public baths, the Odeum and the Forum
Trajanum, within the city of Rome; and the triumphal arches at
Beneventum and Ancona. The Trajan column in the centre of the Forum is
celebrated as being the first triumphal monument of the kind. On the
accession of Hadrian, whom he had offended by ridiculing his
performances as architect and artist, Apollodorus was banished, and,
shortly afterwards, being charged with imaginary crimes, put to death
(Dio Cassius lxix. 4). He also wrote a treatise on _Siege Engines_
([Greek: Poliorkaetika]), which was dedicated to Hadrian.
APOLLONIA, the name of more than thirty cities of antiquity. The most
important are the following: (1) An Illyrian city (known as Apollonia
[Greek: kat Epidamnon] or [Greek: pros Epidamno]) on the right bank of
the Aous, founded by the Corinthians and Corcyraeans. It soon became a
place of increasing commercial prosperity, as the most convenient link
between Brundusium and northern Greece, and as one of the
starting-points of the Via Egnatia. It was an important military post in
the wars against Philip and during the civil wars of Pompey and Caesar,
and towards the close of the Roman republic acquired fame as a seat of
literature and philosophy. Here Augustus was being educated when the
death of Caesar called him to Rome. It seems to have sunk with the rise
of Aulon, and few remains of its ruins are to be found. The monastery of
Pollina stands on a hill which probably is part of the site of the old
city. (2) A Thracian city on the Black Sea (afterwards Sozopolis, and
now Sizeboli), colonized by the Milesians, and famous for its colossal
statue of Apollo by Calamis, which Lucullus removed to Rome.
APOLLONIUS, surnamed [Greek: ho dyskolos] ("the Surly or Crabbed"), a
celebrated grammarian of Alexandria, who lived in the reigns of Hadrian
and Antoninus Pius. He spent the greater part of his life in his native
city, where he died; he is also said to have visited Rome and attracted
the attention of Antoninus. He was the founder of scientific grammar and
is styled by Priscian _grammaticorum princeps_. Four of his works are
extant: _On Syntax_, ed. Bekker, 1817; and three smaller treatises, on
_Pronouns_, _Conjunctions_ and _Adverbs_, ed. Schneider, 1878.
_Grammatici Graeci_, i. in Teubner series; Egger, _Apollonius Dyscole_
(1854).
APOLLONIUS, surnamed [Greek: ho malakos] ("the Effeminate"), a Greek
rhetorician of Alabanda in Caria, who flourished about 120 B.C. After
studying under Menecles, chief of the Asiatic school of oratory, he
settled in Rhodes, where he taught rhetoric, among his pupils being Mark
Antony.
APOLLONIUS, surnamed "the Sophist," of Alexandria, a famous grammarian,
who probably lived towards the end of the 1st century A.D. He was the
author of a Homeric lexicon ([Greek: Lexeis Homaerikai]), the only work
of the kind we possess. His chief authorities were Aristarchus and
Apion's Homeric glossary.
Edition by Villoison (1773), I. Bekker (1833); Leyde, _De Apollonii
Sophistae Lexico Homerico_ (1885); E.W.B. Nicholson on a newly
discovered fragment in _Classical Review_ (Nov. 1897).
APOLLONIUS MOLON (sometimes called simply MOLON), a Greek rhetorician,
who flourished about 70 B.C. He was a native of Alabanda, a pupil of
Menecles, and settled at Rhodes. He twice visited Rome as an ambassador
from Rhodes, and Cicero and Caesar took lessons from him. He endeavoured
to moderate the florid Asiatic style and cultivated an "Atticizing"
tendency. He wrote on Homer, and, according to Josephus, violently
attacked the Jews.
See C. Muller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum_, iii.; E. Schurer,
_History of the Jewish People_, iii. (Eng. tr. 1886).
APOLLONIUS OF PERGA [PERGAEUS], Greek geometer of the Alexandrian
school, was probably born some twenty-five years later than Archimedes,
i.e. about 262 B.C. He flourished in the reigns of Ptolemy Euergetes and
Ptolemy Philopator (247-205 B.C.). His treatise on _Conics_ gained him
the title of The Great Geometer, and is that by which his fame has been
transmitted to modern times. All his numerous other treatises have
perished, save one, and we have only their titles handed down, with
general indications of their contents, by later writers, especially
Pappus. After the _Conics_ in eight Books had been written in a first
edition, Apollonius brought out a second edition, considerably revised
as regards Books i.-ii., at the instance of one Eudemus of Pergamum;
the first three books were sent to Eudemus at intervals, as revised,
and the later books were dedicated (after Eudemus' death) to King
Attalus I. (241-197 B.C.). Only four Books have survived in Greek; three
more are extant in Arabic; the eighth has never been found. Although a
fragment has been found of a Latin translation from the Arabic made in
the 13th century, it was not until 1661 that a Latin translation of
Books v.-vii. was available. This was made by Giovanni Alfonso Borelli
and Abraham Ecchellensis from the free version in Arabic made in 983 by
Abu 'l-Fath of Ispahan and preserved in a Florence MS. But the best
Arabic translation is that made as regards Books i.-iv. by Hilal ibn Abi
Hilal (d. about 883), and as regards Books v.-vii. by Tobit ben Korra
(836-901). Halley used for his translation an Oxford MS. of this
translation of Books v.-vii., but the best MS. (Bodl. 943) he only
referred to in order to correct his translation, and it is still
unpublished except for a fragment of Book v. published by L. Nix with
German translation (Drugulin, Leipzig, 1889). Halley added in his
edition (1710) a restoration of Book viii., in which he was guided by
the fact that Pappus gives lemmas "to the seventh and eighth books"
under that one heading, as well as by the statement of Apollonius
himself that the use of the seventh book was illustrated by the problems
solved in the eighth.
The degree of originality of the _Conics_ can best be judged from
Apollonius' own prefaces. Books i.-iv. form an "elementary
introduction," i.e. contain the essential principles; the rest are
specialized investigations in particular directions. For Books i.-iv. he
claims only that the generation of the curves and their fundamental
properties in Book i. are worked out more fully and generally than they
were in earlier treatises, and that a number of theorems in Book iii.
and the greater part of Book iv. are new. That he made the fullest use
of his predecessors' works, such as Euclid's four Books on Conics, is
clear from his allusions to Euclid, Conon and Nicoteles. The generality
of treatment is indeed remarkable; he gives as the fundamental property
of all the conics the equivalent of the Cartesian equation referred to
_oblique_ axes (consisting of a diameter and the tangent at its
extremity) obtained by cutting an oblique circular cone in any manner,
and the axes appear only as a particular case after he has shown that
the property of the conic can be expressed in the same form with
reference to any new diameter and the tangent at its extremity. It is
clearly the form of the fundamental property (expressed in the
terminology of the "application of areas") which led him to call the
curves for the first time by the names _parabola_, _ellipse_,
_hyperbola_. Books v.-vii. are clearly original. Apollonius' genius
takes its highest flight in Book v., where he treats of normals as
minimum and maximum straight lines drawn from given points to the curve
(independently of tangent properties), discusses how many normals can be
drawn from particular points, finds their feet by construction, and
gives propositions determining the centre of curvature at any point and
leading at once to the Cartesian equation of the evolute of any conic.
The other treatises of Apollonius mentioned by Pappus are --1st, [Greek:
Logou apotomae], _Cutting off a Ratio_; 2nd, [Greek: Choriou apotomae],
_Cutting of an Area_; 3rd, [Greek: Dioris menae tomae], _Determinate
Section_; 4th, [Greek: Epaphai], _Tangencies_; 5th, [Greek: Neuseis],
_Inclinations_; 6th, [Greek: Topoi epipedoi], _Plane Loci_. Each of
these was divided into two books, and, with the _Data_, the _Porisms_
and _Surface-Loci_ of Euclid and the _Conics_ of Apollonius were,
according to Pappus, included in the body of the ancient analysis.
1st. _De Rationis Sectione_ had for its subject the resolution of the
following problem: Given two straight lines and a point in each, to draw
through a third given point a straight line cutting the two fixed lines,
so that the parts intercepted between the given points in them and the
points of intersection with this third line may have a given ratio.
2nd. _De Spatii Sectione_ discussed the similar problem which requires
the rectangle contained by the two intercepts to be equal to a given
rectangle.
An Arabic version of the first was found towards the end of the 17th
century in the Bodleian library by Dr Edward Bernard, who began a
translation of it; Halley finished it and published it along with a
restoration of the second treatise in 1706.
3rd. _De Sectione Determinata_ resolved the problem: Given two, three or
four points on a straight line, to find another point on it such that
its distances from the given points satisfy the condition that the
square on one or the rectangle contained by two has to the square on the
remaining one or the rectangle contained by the remaining two, or to the
rectangle contained by the remaining one and another given straight
line, a given ratio. Several restorations of the solution have been
attempted, one by W. Snellius (Leiden, 1698), another by Alex. Anderson
of Aberdeen, in the supplement to his _Apollonius Redivivus_ (Paris,
1612), but by far the best is by Robert Simson, _Opera quaedam reliqua_
(Glasgow, 1776).
4th. _De Tactionibus_ embraced the following general problem: Given
three things (points, straight lines or circles) in position, to
describe a circle passing through the given points, and touching the
given straight lines or circles. The most difficult case, and the most
interesting from its historical associations, is when the three given
things are circles. This problem, which is sometimes known as the
Apollonian Problem, was proposed by Vieta in the 16th century to
Adrianus Romanus, who gave a solution by means of a hyperbola. Vieta
thereupon proposed a simpler construction, and restored the whole
treatise of Apollonius in a small work, which he entitled _Apollonius
Gallus_ (Paris, 1600). A very full and interesting historical account of
the problem is given in the preface to a small work of J.W. Camerer,
entitled _Apollonii Pergaei quae supersunt, ac maxime Lemmata Pappi in
hos Libras, cum Observationibus, &c_. (Gothae, 1795, 8vo).
5th. _De Inclinationibus_ had for its object to insert a straight line
of a given length, tending towards a given point, between two given
(straight or circular) lines. Restorations have been given by Marino
Ghetaldi, by Hugo d'Omerique (_Geometrical Analysis_, Cadiz, 1698), and
(the best) by Samuel Horsley (1770).
6th. _De Locis Planis_ is a collection of propositions relating to loci
which are either straight lines or circles. Pappus gives somewhat full
particulars of the propositions, and restorations were attempted by P.
Fermat (_Oeuvres_, i., 1891, pp. 3-51), F. Schooten (Leiden, 1656) and,
most successfully of all, by R. Simson (Glasgow, 1749).
Other works of Apollonius are referred to by ancient writers, viz. (1)
[Greek: Peri tou pyriou], _On the Burning-Glass_, where the focal
properties of the parabola probably found a place; (2) [Greek: Peri tou
kochliou], _On the Cylindrical Helix_ (mentioned by Proclus); (3) a
comparison of the dodecahedron and the icosahedron inscribed in the same
sphere; (4) [Greek: Hae katholou pragmateia], perhaps a work on the
general principles of mathematics in which were included Apollonius'
criticisms and suggestions for the improvement of Euclid's _Elements_;
(5) [Greek: Okutokion] (quick bringing-to-birth), in which, according to
Eutocius, he showed how to find closer limits for the value of [pi] than
the 3-1/7 and 3-10/71 of Archimedes; (6) an arithmetical work (as to
which see PAPPUS) on a system of expressing large numbers in language
closer to that of common life than that of Archimedes' _Sand-reckoner_,
and showing how to multiply such large numbers; (7) a great extension of
the theory of irrationals expounded in Euclid, Book x., from binomial to
multinomial and from _ordered_ to _unordered_ irrationals (see extracts
from Pappus' comm. on Eucl. x., preserved in Arabic and published by
Woepcke, 1856). Lastly, in astronomy he is credited by Ptolemy with an
explanation of the motion of the planets by a system of epicycles; he
also made researches in the lunar theory, for which he is said to have
been called Epsilon ([epsilon]).
The best editions of the works of Apollonius are the following: (1)
_Apollonii Pergaei Conicorum libri quatuor, ex versione Frederici
Commandini_ (Bononiae, 1566), fol.; (2) _Apollonii Pergaei Conicorum
libri octo, et Sereni Antissensis de Sectione Cylindri et Coni libri
duo_ (Oxoniae, 1710), fol. (this is the monumental edition of Edmund
Halley); (3) the edition of the first four books of the Conics given
in 1675 by Barrow; (4) _Apollonii Pergaei de Sectione, Rationis libri
duo: Accedunt ejusdem de Sectione Spatii libri duo Restituti:
Praemittitur, &c., Opera et Studio Edmundi Halley_ (Oxoniae, 1706),
4to; (5) a German translation of the _Conics_ by H. Balsam (Berlin,
1861); (6) the definitive Greek text of Heiberg (_Apollonii Pergaei
quae Graece exstant Opera_, Leipzig, 1891-1893); (7) T.L. Heath,
_Apollonius, Treatise on Conic Sections_ (Cambridge, 1896); see also
H.G. Zeuthen, _Die Lehre van den Kegelschnitten im Altertum_
(Copenhagen, 1886 and 1902). (T. L. H.)
APOLLONIUS OF RHODES (RHODIUS), a Greek epic poet and grammarian, of
Alexandria, who flourished under the Ptolemies Philopator and Epiphanes
(222-181 B.C.). He was the pupil of Callimachus, with whom he
subsequently quarrelled. In his youth he composed the work for which he
is known--_Argonautica_, an epic in four books on the legend of the
Argonauts. When he read it at Alexandria, it was rejected through the
influence of Callimachus and his party. Disgusted with his failure,
Apollonius withdrew to Rhodes, where he was very successful as a
rhetorician, and a revised edition of his epic was well received. In
recognition of his talents the Rhodians bestowed the freedom of their
city upon him--the origin of his surname. Returning to Alexandria, he
again recited his poem, this time with general applause. In 196, Ptolemy
Epiphanes appointed him librarian of the Museum, which office he
probably held until his death. As to the _Argonautica_, Longinus' (_De
Sublim_. p. 54, 19) and Quintilian's (_Instit_, x. 1, 54) verdict of
mediocrity seems hardly deserved; although it lacks the naturalness of
Homer, it possesses a certain simplicity and contains some beautiful
passages. There is a valuable collection of scholia. The work, highly
esteemed by the Romans, was imitated by Virgil (_Aeneid_, iv.), Varro
Atacinus, and Valerius Flaccus. Marianus (about A.D. 500) paraphrased it
in iambic trimeters. Apollonius also wrote epigrams; grammatical and
critical works; and [Greek: Ktiseis] (the foundations of cities).
_Editio Princeps_ (Florence, 1496); Merkel-Keil (with scholia, 1854);
Seaton (1900). English translations: Verse, by Greene (1780); Fawkes
(1780); Preston (1811); Way (1901); Prose by Coleridge (1889); see
also Couat, _La Poesie alexandrine_; Susemihl, _Geschichte der griech.
Lit. in der alexandnnischen Zeit._
APOLLONIUS OF TRALLES (in Caria), a Greek sculptor, who flourished in
the 2nd century B.C. With his brother Tauriscus, he executed the marble
group known as the Farnese Bull, representing Zethus and Amphion tying
the revengeful Dirce to the tail of a wild bull.
See GREEK ART, pl. i. fig. 51.
APOLLONIUS OF TYANA, a Greek philosopher of the Neo-Pythagorean school,
born a few years before the Christian era. He studied at Tarsus and in
the temple of Asclepius at Aegae, where he devoted himself to the
doctrines of Pythagoras and adopted the ascetic habit of life in its
fullest sense. He travelled through Asia and visited Nineveh, Babylon
and India, imbibing the oriental mysticism of magi, Brahmans and
gymnosophists. The narrative of his travels given by his disciple Damis
and reproduced by Philostratus is so full of the miraculous that many
have regarded him as an imaginary character. On his return to Europe he
was saluted as a magician, and received the greatest reverence from
priests and people generally. He himself claimed only the power of
foreseeing the future; yet in Rome it was said that he raised from death
the body of a noble lady. In the halo of his mysterious power he passed
through Greece, Italy and Spain. It was said that he was accused of
treason both by Nero and by Domitian, but escaped by miraculous means.
Finally he set up a school at Ephesus, where he died, apparently at the
age of a hundred years. Philostratus keeps up the mystery of his hero's
life by saying, "Concerning the manner of his death, _if he did die_,
the accounts are various." The work of Philostratus composed at the
instance of Julia, wife of Severus, is generally regarded as a religious
work of fiction. It contains a number of obviously fictitious stories,
through which, however, it is not impossible to discern the general
character of the man. In the 3rd century, Hierocles (q.v.) endeavoured
to prove that the doctrines and the life of Apollonius were more
valuable than those of Christ, and, in modern times, Voltaire and
Charles Blount (1654-1693), the English freethinker, have adopted a
similar standpoint. Apart from this extravagant eulogy, it is absurd to
regard Apollonius merely as a vulgar charlatan and miracle-monger. If we
cut away the mass of mere fiction which Philostratus accumulated, we
have left a highly imaginative, earnest reformer who laboured to infuse
into the flaccid dialectic of paganism a saner spirit of practical
morality.
See L. Dyer, _Studies of the Gods in Greece_ (New York, 1891); A.
Chassang, _Le Merveilleux dans l'antiquite_ (1882); D.M. Tredwell,
_Sketch of the Life of Apollonius of Tyana_ (New York, 1886); F.C.
Baur, _Apollonius von Tyana und Christus_, ed. Ed. Zeller (Leipzig,
1876,--an attempt to show that Philostratus's story is merely a pagan
counterblast to the New Testament history); J. Jessen, _Apollonius v.
Tyana und sein Biograph Philostratos_ (Hamburg, 1885); J. Gottsching,
_Apollonius von Tyana_ (Berlin, 1889); J.A. Froude, _Short Studies_,
vol. iv.; G.R.S. Mead, _Apollonius of Tyana_ (London, 1901); B.L.
Gildersleeve, _Essays and Studies_ (New York, 1890); Philostratus's
_Life of Apollonius_ (Eng. trans. New York, 1905); O. de B. Priaulx,
_The Indian Travels of Apollonius_ (1873); F.W.G. Campbell, _Apoll. of
Tyana_ (1908); see also NEO-PYTHAGOREANISM.
APOLLONIUS OF TYRE, a medieval tale supposed to be derived from a lost
Greek original. The earliest mention of the story is in the _Carmina_
(Bk. vi. 8, II. 5-6) of Venantius Fortunatus, in the second half of the
6th century, and the romance may well date from three centuries earlier.
It bears a marked resemblance to the _Antheia and Habrokomes_ of
Xenophon of Ephesus. The story relates that King Antiochus, maintaining
incestuous relations with his daughter, kept off her suitors by asking
them a riddle, which they must solve on pain of losing their heads.
Apollonius of Tyre solved the riddle, which had to do with Antiochus's
secret. He returned to Tyre, and, to escape the king's vengeance, set
sail in search of a place of refuge. In Cyrene he married the daughter
of King Archistrates, and presently, on receiving news of the death of
Antiochus, departed to take possession of the kingdom of Antioch, of
which he was, for no clear reason, the heir. On the voyage his wife
died, or rather seemed to die, in giving birth to a daughter, and the
sailors demanded that she should be thrown overboard. Apollonius left
his daughter, named Tarsia, at Tarsus in the care of guardians who
proved false to their trust. Father, mother, and daughter were only
reunited after fourteen years' separation and many vicissitudes. The
earliest Latin MS. of this tale, preserved at Florence, dates from the
9th or 10th century. The pagan features of the supposed original are by
no means all destroyed. The ceremonies observed by Tarsia at her nurse's
grave, and the preparations for the burning of the body of Apollonius's
wife, are purely pagan. The riddles which Tarsia propounds to her father
are obviously interpolated. They are taken from the _Enigmata_ of
Caelius Firmianus Symposius. The many inconsistencies of the story seem
to be best explained by the supposition (E. Rohde, _Der griechische
Roman_, 2nd ed., 1900, pp. 435 _et seq_.) that the Antiochus story was
originally entirely separate from the story of Apollonius's wanderings,
and was clumsily tacked on by the Latin author. The romance kept its
form through a vast number of medieval rearrangements, and there is
little change in its outlines as set forth in the Shakespearian play of
_Pericles_.
The Latin tale is preserved in about 100 MSS., and was printed by M.
Velser (Augsburg, 1595), by J. Lapaume in _Script. Erot_. (Didot,
Paris, 1856), and by A. Riese in the _Bibl. Teubneriana_ (1871, new
ed. 1893). The most widespread versions in the middle ages were those
of Godfrey of Viterbo in his _Pantheon_ (1185), where it is related as
authentic history, and in the _Gesta Romanorum_ (cap. 153), which
formed the basis of the German folk-tale by H. Steinhowel (Augsburg,
1471), the Dutch version (Delft, 1493), the French in _Le Violier des
histoires romaines_ (Paris, 1521), the English, by Laurence Twine
(London, 1576, new ed. 1607), also of the Scandinavian, Czech, and
Hungarian tales.
In England a translation was made as early as the 11th century (ed. B.
Thorpe, 1834, and J. Zupitza in _Archiv fur neuere Sprachen_, 1896);
there is a Middle English metrical version (J.O. Halliwell, _A New
Boke about Shakespeare_, 1850), by a poet who says he was vicar of
Wimborne; John Gower uses the tale as an example of the seventh deadly
sin in the eighth book of his _Confessio Amantis_; Robert Copland
translated a prose romance of _Kynge Apollyne of Thyre_ (Wynkyn de
Worde, 1510) from the French; _Pericles_ was entered at Stationers'
Hall in 1607, and was followed in the next year by George Wilkins's
novel, _The Painfull Adventures of Pericles, Prynce of Tyre_ (ed.
Tycho Mommsen, Oldenburg, 1857), and George Lillo drew his play
_Marina_ (1738) from the piece associated with Shakespeare; _Orendel_,
by a Middle High German minnesinger, contains some of the episodes of
_Apollonius_; Heinrich von Neustadt wrote a poem of 20,000 lines on
_Apollonius von Tyrland_ (c. 1400); the story was well known in
Spanish, _Libre de Apolonio_ (verse, c. 1200), and in J. de Timoneda's
_Patranuelo_ (1576); in French much of it was embodied in _Jourdain de
Blaives_ (13th cent.), and it also appears in Italian and medieval
Greek. See A.H. Smyth, _Shakespeare's Pericles and Apollonius of Tyre_
(Philadelphia, 1898); Elimar Klebs, _Die Erzahlung van A. aus Tyrus_
(Berlin, 1899); S. Singer, _Apollonius van Tyrus_ (Halle, 1895).
APOLLOS ([Greek: Apollos]; contracted from Apollonius), an Alexandrine
Jew who after Paul's first visit to Corinth worked there in a similar
way (1 Cor. iii. 6). He was with Paul at a later date in Ephesus (1 Cor.
xvi. 12). In 1 Cor. i. 10-12 we read of four parties in the Corinthian
church, of which two attached themselves to Paul and Apollos
respectively, using their names, though the "division" can hardly have
been due to conflicting doctrines. (See PAUL.) From Acts xviii. 24-28 we
learn that he spoke and taught with power and success. He may have
captivated his hearers by teaching "wisdom," as P.W. Schmiedel suggests,
in the allegorical style of Philo, and he was evidently a man of unusual
magnetic force. There seems to be some contradiction between Acts xviii.
25 a b and Acts xviii. 25 c, 26 b c; and it has been suggested that
these latter passages are subsequent accretions. Since Apollos was a
Christian and "taught exactly," he could hardly have been acquainted
only with John's baptism or have required to be taught Christianity more
thoroughly by Aquila and Priscilla. Martin Luther regarded Apollos as
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and many scholars since have
shared his view.
Jerome says that Apollos was so dissatisfied with the division at
Corinth, that he retired into Crete with Zenas, a doctor of the law;
and that the schism having been healed by Paul's letter to the
Corinthians, Apollos returned to the city, and became its bishop. Less
probable traditions assign to him the bishopric of Duras, or of
Iconium in Phrygia, or of Caesarea.
See the articles in the _Encyclopaedia Biblica_; Herzog-Hauck,
_Realencyklopadie_; _The Jewish Encyclopaedia_; Hastings' _Dictionary
of the Bible_; and cf. Weizsacker, _Das apostolische Zeitalter_; A.C.
McGiffert, _History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_.
APOLLYON, the "foul fiend" who assaulted Christian on his pilgrimage
through the Valley of Humiliation in John Bunyan's great allegory. The
name (Gr. [Greek: Apollyon]), which means "destroyer" ([Greek:
apollyein], to destroy), is taken from Rev. ix. 11, where it represents
the Hebrew word _Abaddon_ (lit. "place of destruction," but here
personified). The identification with the Asmodeus (q.v.) of Tobit iii.
8 is erroneous.
APOLOGETICS, in theology, the systematic statement of the grounds which
Christians allege for belief in (at least) a _supernatural revelation_
and a _divine redemption_ (cf. e.g. Heb. i. 1-3). The majority of
apologists in the past have further believed in an _infallible Bible_;
but they admit this position can only be reached at a late stage in the
argument. We should note, however, that even a liberal orthodoxy, while
saying nothing about infallibility, is pledged to the _essential_
authority of the Bible; it cannot e.g. simply ignore the Old Testament
with F.E.D. Schleiermacher. Catholic apologetics must further give a
central position to _Church_ authority, which Roman Catholics explicitly
define as infallible; but this position too is debated in a late section
of their system. On the other hand, there may be a Christianity which
seeks to extricate the "spiritual" from the "supernatural" (Arnold
Toynbee, characterizing T.H. Green). It would only lead to confusion,
however, if we called this method "apologetic." Any _single_ effort in
apologetics may be termed "an apology." More elaborate contrasts have
been proposed between the two words, but are of little practical
importance.
I. _The Word itself._--In Greek, [Greek: apologia] is the defendant's
reply (personally, not through a lawyer) to the speech for the
prosecution--[Greek: kataegoria]. Sometimes defendants' speeches passed
into literature, e.g. Plato's splendid version of the _Apology_ of
Socrates. Thus, in view of persecution or slander, the Christian church
naturally produced literary "Apologies," The word has never quite lost
this connotation of standing on the defensive and rebutting criticism;
e.g. Anselm's _Apologia contra insipientem Gaunilonem_ (c. 1100); or the
Lutheran _Apology for the Augsburg Confession_ (1531); or J.H. Newman's
_Apologia pro vita sua_ (1864); or A.B. Bruce's _Apologetics; or
Christianity Defensively Stated_ (1892). Of course, defence easily
passes into counterattack, as when early apologists denounce Greek and
Roman religion. Yet the purpose may be defence even then. And there is
perhaps a reason of a deeper kind for holding Apologetics to the
defensive. Christianity is a prophetic religion. Now a prophet does not
argue; he declares what he feels to be God's will. For himself, he
rests, like the mystic, upon an immediate vision of truth; but he
differs from most mystics in having a message for others; and--again
unlike most mystics--he addresses the hearer's _conscience_, which we
might call (in one sense) the mystic element in every man--or better,
perhaps, the prophetic. Can the positive grounds for a prophet's message
be analysed and stated in terms of argument? If so, apologetics is
literally a science, and it is pedantry to claim the defensive and
pretend to throw the _onus probandi_ upon objectors. But, if not, then
apologetics is a mere auxiliary, and is only "a science" in so far as it
presents a _conscious_ and _systematic_ plea. Bruce's title, and his
programme of "succouring distressed faith," imply the latter
alternative; the moral appeal of Christianity, primary and essential;
its confirmation by argument, secondary. The view has its difficulties;
but it is hignly suggestive.
The word [Greek: apologia] is used by Origen (_Contra Cel._ ii. 65, v.
19) of the general Christian defence. But the introduction of the
adjective "apologetic" and of the substantive "apologetics" is recent.
They are serviceable as bracketing together (1) Natural Theology or
Theism, (2) Christian Evidences--chiefly "miracles" and "prophecy"; or,
on a more modern view, chiefly the character and personality of Christ.
The lower usage of Apology (as expression of regret for a fault) has
tipped many a sarcasm besides George III.'s on the occasion of Bishop
Watson's book, "I did not know that the Bible needed an apology!"
II. _Apologetics in the Bible._--The Old Testament does not argue in
support of its beliefs, unless when (chiefly in parts of the Wisdom
literature) it seeks to rebut moral difficulties (cf. T.K. Cheyne, _Job
and Solomon_; A.S. Peake, _Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament_,
1904). The New Testament reflects chiefly controversy with Jews. Great
emphasis is laid upon alleged fulfilments--striking or fanciful, but
very generally striking to that age--of Old Testament prophecy (Matt.
especially; rather differently Ep. to Heb.). The miracles of Jesus are
also canvassed. Jews do not deny their wonderful character, but
attribute them to black art (Mark iii. 22 &c., &c.). On the other hand,
Christians and Jews are pretty well agreed on natural theology; so the
New Testament tends to take its theism for granted. However, Rom. i. 20
has had great influence on Christian theology (e.g. Thomas Aquinas) in
leading it to base theism upon reason or argument. One apologetic
contention, aimed at Gentile readers, is found among the motives of
Acts. Christianity is not a lawless but an excellent law-abiding faith.
So (it is alleged) rulers, both Jewish and Gentile, have often admitted
(xviii. 14; xix. 37; xxiii. 9; xxvi. 32).
III. _Early Christian._--When we leave the New Testament, apologetics
becomes conspicuous until the political triumph of Christianity, and
even somewhat later. The atmosphere is no longer Jewish but fully Greek.
True there are, as always, Jewish controversialists. Justin Martyr
writes a _Dialogue with Trypho_; Origen deals with many anti-Christian
arguments borrowed by Celsus from a certain nameless Jew. Yet Greece was
the sovereign power in all the world of ancient culture. And so
Christianity was necessarily Hellenized, necessarily philosophized. One
result was to bring natural theology into the forefront. A pure
morality, belief in one God, hopes extending beyond death--these
appealed to the age; the Church taught them as philosophically true
_and_ divinely revealed. But, further still, philosophy offered a
vehicle which could be applied to the contents of Christianity. The
Platonic or eclectic theism, which adopted the conception of the Logos,
made a place for Christ in terms of philosophy within the Godhead. (John
i. 1 may or may not be affected by Philo; it is almost or quite solitary
in the N.T.) Similarly, the immortality of the soul may be maintained on
Platonic or quasi-Platonic lines, as by St Athanasius (_Contra Gentes_,
S 33)--a writer who repeatedly quotes the Alexandrian Book of Wisdom, in
which Platonism and the Old Testament had already joined partnership.
This phase of Platonism, however, was much more slowly adopted. The
earlier apologists dispute the natural immortality of the soul;
Athanasius himself, in _De Incarnatione Dei_, SS 4, 5, tones down the
teaching of _Wisdom_; and the somewhat eccentric writer Arnobius, a
layman--from Justin Martyr downwards apologetics has always been largely
in the hands of laymen--stands for what has recently been called
"conditional immortality"--eternal life for the righteous, the children
of God, alone.
Allied with this more empiricist stand-point is the assertion that Greek
philosophy borrowed from Moses; but in studying the Fathers we
constantly find that groundless assertion uttered in the same breath
with the dominant Idealist view, according to which Greek philosophy was
due to incomplete revelation from the divine Logos.
On purely defensive lines, early apologists rebut charges of cannibalism
and sexual promiscuity; the Christians had to meet in secret, and the
gossip of a rotten age drew malignant conclusions. They make counter
attacks on polytheism as a folly and on the shamefulness of obscene
myths. Here they are in line with non-Christian writers or
culture-mockers like Lucian of Samosata; or graver spirits like
Porphyry, who champions Neo-Platonism as a rival to Christianity, and
does pioneer work in criticism by attacks on some of the Old Testament
books. Turning to Christian evidence proper, we are struck with the
continued prominence of the argument from prophecy. The Old Testament
was an immense religious asset to the early church. Their enemies had
nothing like it; and--the N.T. canon being as yet but half formed--the
Old Testament was pushed into notice by dwelling on this imperfect
"argument," which grew more extravagant as the partial control exercised
by Jewish learning disappeared. An argument from miracles is also urged,
though with more reserve. Formally, every one in that age admitted the
supernatural. The question was, whose supernatural? And how far did it
carry you? Miracle could not be to a 3rd century writer what it was to
W. Paley--a conclusive and well-nigh solitary proof. Other apologies are
by Aristides (recently recovered in translation), Athenagoras
("elegant"), Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Alexandria; in Latin by
Minucius Felix, Tertullian (a masculine spirit and phrase-coiner like T.
Carlyle, if bitterer still), Lactantius Firmianus, &c., &c.[1]
As Christianity wins the day, a new objection is raised to it. The age
is full of troubles; Christianity is ruining the empire! Besides notices
elsewhere, we find the charge specially dealt with by St Augustine and
his friends. Paulus Orosius argues that the world has always been a vale
of tears. Salvian contends that not the acceptance of Christianity, but
the sins of the people are bringing trouble upon them; and he gives ugly
evidence of the continued prevalence of vice. Most impressive of all was
Augustine's own contribution in _The City of God_. Powers created by
worldliness and sin are crumbling, as they well may; "the city of God
remaineth!" Whether he meant it so or not, the saint's argument became a
programme and an apologia for the imperializing of the Western Church
under the leadership of Rome during the middle ages.
IV. _Middle Ages._--From the point of view of apologetics, we may mass
together the long stretch of history which covers the period between the
disappearance and the re-appearance of free discussion. When emperors
became converts, the church, so lately a victim and a pleader for
liberty, readily learned to persecute. Under such conditions there is
little scope for apologetics. Force kills argument and drives doubt
below the smooth surface of a nominal conformity. But there were two
influences beyond the bounds or beyond the power of the christianized
empire. The Jew remained, as always, stubbornly unconvinced, and, as
often, fond of slanders. Many of the principal medieval attempts in
apologetics are directed chiefly against him, e.g. the _Pugio Fidei_ of
Raymond Martini (c. 1280), which became one of Pascal's sources (see V.
below), or Peter Abelard's _Dialogus inter Judaeum Philosophum et
Christianum_. And the Moslem came on the scenes bringing, as a gift for
Christendom, fuller knowledge of classical, especially Aristotelian,
texts. The Jews, less bitterly opposed to Mahommedanism than the
Christians were, caught fire more rapidly, and in some cases served as
an intermediate link or channel of communication. These two religions
anticipated the discussion of the problem of faith and reason in the
Christian church. According to the great Avicenna and Maimonides, faith
and the highest reason are sure to coincide (see ARABIAN PHILOSOPHY).
According to Ghazali, in his _Destruction of Philosophers_, the various
schools of philosophy cancel each other; reason is bankrupt; faith is
everything. (So nearly Jehuda Halevi.) According to Averroes, reason
suffices, and faith, with (what he considers) its dreams of immortality
and the like, is useful only for the ignorant masses. Christian
theology, however, strikes out a line of its own. Moslems and Jews were
applying Aristotelian philosophy to rigorously monotheistic faiths;
Christianity had been encouraged by Platonism in teaching a trinity of
divine persons, and Platonism of a certain order long dominated the
middle ages as part of the Augustinian tradition. In sympathy with this
Platonism, the medieval church began by assuming the entire mutual
harmony of faith and reason. Such is the teaching, along different
lines, alike of St Anselm and of Abelard. But, when increased knowledge
of Aristotle's texts (and of the commentaries) led to the victory of a
supposed Aristotelianism over a supposed Platonism, Albertus Magnus, and
his still more distinguished pupil Thomas Aquinas, mark certain
doctrines as belonging to faith but not to reason. They adhere to the
general position with exceptions (in the case of what had been
considered Platonic doctrines). From the point of view of philosophy,
this was a compromise. Faith and reason partly agree, partly diverge.
The tendency of the later middle ages is to add to the number of the
doctrines with which philosophy cannot deal. Thomas's great rival, Duns
Scotus, does this to a large extent, at times affirming "two truths."
The latter position, ascribed by the schoolmen to the Averroists,
becomes dominant among the later Nominalists, William of Occam and his
disciples, who withdraw _all_ doctrines of faith from the sphere of
reason. This was a second and a more audacious compromise. It is not
exactly an attempt to base Christian faith on rational scepticism. It is
a consistent policy of harbouring inconsistencies in the same mind. A
statement may be true in philosophy and false in theology, or vice
versa. To the standpoint of Aquinas, however, the Church of Rome (at
least in regard to the basis of doctrine) has more and more returned.
The councils of Trent and of the Vatican mark the Two Truths hypothesis
as heretical, when they affirm that there _is_ a natural knowledge of
God and natural certainty of immortality. Along with this affirmation,
the Church of Rome (if less decisively) has adopted the limitations of
the Thomist theory by the condemnation of "Ontologism"; certain
mysterious doctrines are beyond reason. This cautious compromise
sanctioned by the Church does not represent the _extremest_ reaction
against nominalism. Even in the nominalistic epoch we have Raymond of
Sabunde's _Natural Theology_ (according to the article in Herzog-Hauck,
not the title of the oldest Paris MS., but found in later MSS. and
almost all the printed editions) or _Liber Creaturarum_ (c. 1435). The
book is not what moderns (schooled unconsciously in post-Reformation
developments of Thomist ideas) expect under the name of natural
theology. It is an attempt once more to demonstrate _all_ scholastic
dogmas out of the book of creation or on principles of natural reason.
At many points it follows Anselm closely, and, of course, very often
"makes light work" of its task.
The Thomist compromise--or even the more sceptical view of "two
truths"--has the merit of giving filling _of a kind_ to the formula
"supernatural revelation"--mysteries inaccessible to reason, beyond
discovery and beyond comprehension. According to earlier
views--repeatedly revived in Protestantism--revelation is just
philosophy over again. Can the choice be fairly stated? If revelation
is thought of as God's personal word, and redemption as his personal
deed, is it reasonable to view them either as open to a sort of
scientific prediction or as capricious and unintelligible? Even in the
middle ages there were not wanting those--the St Victors,
Bonaventura--who sought to vindicate mystical if not moral redemption as
the central thought of Christianity.
V. _Earlier Modern Period._--It will be seen that apologetics by no
means reissued unchanged from the long period of authority. The
compromise of Aquinas, though not unchallenged, holds the field and that
even with Protestants. G.W. Leibnitz devotes an introductory chapter in
his _Theodicee_, 1710 (as against Pierre Bayle), to faith and reason. He
is a good enough Lutheran to quote as a "mystery" the Eucharist no less
than the Trinity, while he insists that truths _above_ are not _against_
reason. Stated thus baldly, has the distinction any meaning? The more
celebrated and central thesis of the book--this finite universe, the
best of all such that are possible--also restates positions of Augustine
and Aquinas.
Before modern philosophy began its career, there was a great revival of
ancient philosophy at the Renaissance; sometimes anti-Christian,
sometimes pro-Christian. The latter furnishes apologies by Marsilio
Ficino, Agostino Steuco, J.L. Vives.
Early in the modern period occurs the great name of Blaise Pascal
(1623-1662). A staunch Roman Catholic, but belonging to a school of
Augustinian enthusiasts (the Jansenists), whom the Church put down as
heretics, he stands pretty much apart from the general currents. His
_Pensees_, published posthumously, seems to have been meant for a
systematic treatise, but it has come to us in fragments. Once again, a
lay apologist! A layman's work may have the advantage of originality or
the drawback of imperfect knowledge. Pascal's work exhibits both
characters. It has the originality of rare genius, but it borrows its
material (as industrious editors have shown) from very few sources--the
_Pugio Fidei_, M. de Montaigne, P. Charron. Ideas as well as learning
are largely Montaigne's. The latter's cheerful man-of-the-world
scepticism is transfigured in Pascal to a deep distrust of human reason,
in part, perhaps, from anti-Protestant motives. But this attitude, while
not without parallels both earlier (Ghazali, Jehuda Halevi) and later
(H.L. Mansel), has peculiarities in Pascal. It is _fallen_ man whom he
pursues with his fierce scorn; his view of man's nature--intellect as
well as character--is to be read in the light of his unflinching
Augustinianism. Again, Pascal, unlike most apologists, belongs to the
small company of saintly souls. This philosophical sceptic is full of
humble joy in salvation, of deep love for the Saviour.
Another French Roman Catholic apologist, P.D. Huet (1630-1721)--within
the conditions of his age a prodigy of learning (in apologetics see his
_Demonstratio Evangelica_)--is not uninfluenced by Pascal (_Traite de la
faiblesse de l'esprit humaine_).
As we might expect, Protestant lands are more busily occupied with
apologetics. Intolerant reliance upon _force_ presents greater
difficulties to them; soon it grows quite obsolete. Benedict Spinoza,
the eminent Jewish pantheist (1632-1677), to whom miracle is impossible,
revelation a phrase, and who renews pioneer work in Old Testament
criticism, finds at least a fair measure of liberty and comfort in
Holland (his birth-land). Bayle, the historical sceptic, lectured and
published his learned _Dictionnaire_ (1696) at Rotterdam. From Holland,
earlier, had proceeded an apologetic work by a man of European fame.
Hugo Grotius's _De Veritate Christianae Religionis_ (1627) is partly the
medieval tradition:--Oppose Mahommedans and Jews! It is partly
practical:--Arm Christian sailors against religious danger! But in its
cool spirit it forecasts the coming age, whose master is John Locke. His
_Reasonableness of Christianity_ (1695) is the thesis of "a whole
century" of theologians. And his _Essay on the Human Understanding_
(1690) is almost a Bible to men of education during the same period; its
lightest word treasured. Locke does not break with the compromise of
Aquinas. But he transfers attention from _contents_ to _proof_. Reason
proves that a revelation has been made-and then submits. Leibnitz has to
supplement rather than correct Locke on this point.
In such an atmosphere, deism readily uttered its protest against
mysterious revelation. Deism is, in fact, the Thomist natural theology
(more clearly distinguished from dogmatic theology than in the middle
ages, alike by Protestants and by the post-Tridentine Church of Rome)
now dissolving partnership with dogmatic and starting in business for
itself. Or it is the doctrine of unfallen man's "natural state"--a
doctrine intensified in Protestantism--separating itself from the
theologians' grave doctrine of sin. If Socinianism had challenged
natural theology--Christ, according to it, was the prophet who first
revealed the way to eternal life--it had glorified the natural powers of
man; and the learning of the Arminian divines (friends of Grotius and
Locke) had helped to modernize Christian apologetics upon rational
lines. Deism now taught that reason, or "the light of nature," was
all-sufficient.
Not to dwell upon earlier continental "Deists" (mentioned by Viret as
quoted first in Bayle's _Dictionary_ and again in the introduction to
Leland's _View of the Deistical Writers_), Lord Herbert of Cherbury (_De
Veritate_, 1624; _De Religione Gentilium_, 1645?--according to J.G.
Walch's _Bibliotheca Theologica_ (1757) not published complete until
1663) was universally understood as hinting conclusions hostile to
Christianity (cf. also T. Hobbes, _Leviathan_, 1651, ch. xxxi.; Spinoza,
_Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_, 1670, ch. xiv.). Professedly,
Herbert's contention merely is that non-Christians feeling after the
"supreme God" and the law of righteousness must have a chance of
salvation. Herbert was also epoch-making for the whole 18th century in
teaching that _priests_ had _corrupted_ this primitive faith. During the
18th century deism spread widely, though its leaders were "irrepressible
men like Toland, men of mediocre culture and ability like Anthony
Collins, vulgar men like Chubb, irritated and disagreeable men like
Matthew Tindal, who conformed that he might enjoy his Oxford fellowship
and wrote anonymously that he might relieve his conscience" (A.M.
Fairbairn). More distinguished sympathizers are Edward Gibbon, who has
the deistic spirit, and David Hume, the historian and philosophical
sceptic, who has at least the letter of the deistic creed (_Dialogues
Concerning Natural Religion_), and who uses Pascal's appeal to "faith"
in a spirit of mockery (_Essay on Miracles_). In France the new school
found powerful speaking-trumpets, especially Voltaire, the idol of his
age--a great denier and scoffer, but always sincerely a believer in the
God of reason--and the deeper but wilder spirit of J.J. Rousseau. Others
in France developed still more startling conclusions from Locke's
principles, E.B. Condillac's sensationalism--Locke's philosophy purged
of its more ideal if less logical elements--leading on to materialism in
J.O. de la Mettrie; and at least one of the Encyclopedists (P.H. von
Holbach) capped materialism with confessed atheism.
In Germany the parallel movement of "illumination" (H.S. Reimarus; J.S.
Semler, pioneer in N.T. criticism; and a layman, the great Lessing) took
the form of "rationalism" within the church--interpreting Bible texts by
main force in a way which the age thought "enlightened" (H.E.G. Paulus,
1761-1851, &c.).
Among the innumerable English anti-deistic writers (see W. Law, The
_Case of Reason_; R. Bentley, or "Phileleutherus Lipsiensis"; &c., &c.),
three are of chief importance. Nathaniel Lardner (Arian, 1684-1768)
stands in the front rank of the scholarship of his time, and uses his
vast knowledge to maintain the genuineness of all books of the New
Testament and the perfect accuracy of its history. Joseph Butler, a very
original, careful and honest thinker, lifts controversy with deists from
details to principles in his _Analogy of Religion both Natural and
Revealed to the Constitution and Course of Nature_ (1736). This title
introduces us to a new conception. Deists and orthodox in those days
agreed in recognizing not merely natural theology but natural
religion--"essential religion," Butler more than once styles it; the
expression shows how near he stood intellectually to those he
criticized. But morally he stood aloof. In part i.--on Natural
Religion--he defends a moral or punishing Deity against the sentimental
softness of the age. The God of Nature, whom deists confess does punish
in time, if they will but look at the facts; why not in eternity?
"Morality," as others have confessed, is "the nature of things"! Not the
Being of God is discussed--Butler will not waste words on triflers (as
he thinks them) who deny that--but God's character. Unfortunately
(perhaps) Butler prefers to argue on _admitted principles_; holds much
of his own moral belief in reserve; tries to reduce everything to a
question of _probable fact_. If this hampers him in part i., the
situation appears still worse in part ii., which is directly occupied
with the defence of Christianity. Butler says nothing about
incomprehensible mysteries, and protests that reason is the only ground
we have to proceed upon. But by treating the atonement simply as
revealed (and unexplained) matter of fact--in spite of some partial
analogies in human experience, a thing essentially anomalous--Butler
repeats, and applies to the _moral_ contents of Christianity, what
Aquinas said of its speculative doctrines. (Whether one calls the
unknowable a revealed mystery or an unexplained and inexplicable fact
makes little difference.) William Paley (1743-1805) borrows from many
writers; he borrows Lardner's learning and Butler's "particular evidence
for Christianity," viz. miracles, prophecy and "history"; and he states
his points with perfect clearness. No man ever filled a typical position
more exactly than Paley. Eighteenth-century ethics--Hedonism, with a
theological background. Empiricist Natural Theology--the argument from
Design. Christian Evidences--the strong probability of the resurrection
of Christ and the consequent authority of his teaching. _Horae
Paulinae_--mutual confirmations of _Acts_ and Epistles; better, though
one-sided. When such exclusively "external" arguments are urged, the
contents of Christianity go for next to nothing.
VI. _Later Modern Period._--Towards the end of the 18th century a new
epoch of reconstruction begins in the thought and life of civilization.
The leader in speculative philosophy is Immanuel Kant, though he
includes many agnostic elements, and draws the inference (which some
things in the letter of Butler might seem to warrant) that the essence
of Christianity is an ethical theism. While he thus created a new and
more ethical "rationalism," Kant's many-sided influence, alike in
philosophy and in theology, worked to further issues. He (and other
Germans, but not G.W.F. Hegel) was represented in England in a
fragmentary way by S.T. Coleridge (1772-1834), probably the most typical
figure of his period--another layman. His general thought was that
"rationalism" represents an uprising of the lower reason or
"understanding" against the higher or true "reason." The mysteries of
theology are its best part--not alien to reason but of its substance,
the "logos." This is to upset the compromise of Aquinas and go back to a
Christian platonism. Of course the difficulty revives again: If a
philosophy, why supernaturally revealed? Thomas Arnold, criticizing
Edward Hawkins, appeals rather to the atonement as deeper neglected
truth. So in Scotland, Thomas Erskine and Thomas Chalmers--the latter in
contradiction to his earlier position--hold that the doctrine of
salvation, when translated into experience, furnishes "internal
evidence"--a somewhat broader use of the phrase than when it applies
merely to evidence of date or authorship drawn from the contents of a
book. This gives a new and moral filling to the conception of
"supernatural revelation" The attempt to work out either of the
reactions against Thomism in new theological systems is pretty much
confined to Germany. Hegel's theological followers, of every shade and
party, represent the first, and Schleiermacher's the second.
Schleiermacher rejects natural religion in favour of the positive
religions, while the school of A. Ritschl and W. Herrmann reject natural
theology outright in favour of revelation--a striking external parallel
to early Socinianism. British and American divines, on the other hand,
are slow to suspect that a new apologetic principle may mean a new
system of apologetics, to say nothing of a new dogmatic. Among the
evangelicals, for the most part, natural theology, far from being
rejected, is not even modified, and certain doctrines continue to be
described as incomprehensible mysteries. No Protestant, of course, can
agree with Roman Catholic theology that (supernatural) faith is an
obedient assent to church authority and the mysteries it dictates. To
Protestantism, faith is personal trust. But the principle is hardly ever
carried out to the end. Mysterious doctrines are ascribed by Protestants
to _scripture_; so half of revelation is regarded as matter for blind
assent, if another half is luminous in experience. The movement of
German philosophy which led from Kant to Hegel has indeed found powerful
British champions (T.H. Green, J. and E. Caird, &c.), but less churchly
than Coleridge (or F.D. Maurice or B.F. Westcott), though churchly again
in J.R. Illingworth and other contributors to _Lux Mundi_ (1890). Before
this wave of thought, H.L. Mansel tried (1858) to play Pascal's game on
Kantian principles, developing the sceptical side of Kant's many-faceted
mind. But as he protested against relying on the human conscience--the
one element of positive conviction spared by Kant--his ingenuity found
few admirers except H. Spencer, who claims him as justifying
anti-Christian agnosticism. Butler's tradition was more directly
continued by J.H. Newman--with modifications on becoming a Roman
Catholic in the light of the church's decision in favour of Thomism.
A.M. Fairbairn (_Catholicism, Roman and Anglican_, ch. v., and
elsewhere) and E.A. Abbott (_Philomythus_, and elsewhere) suspect Newman
of a sceptical leaven and extend the criticism to Butler's doctrine of
"probability." Yet it seems plain that any theology, maintaining
redemption as historical fact (and not merely ideal), must attach
religious importance to conclusions which are technically probable
rather than proven. If we transfer Christian evidence from the
"historical" to the "philosophical" with H. Rashdall--we surely cut down
Christianity to the limits of theism. And the _inner_ mind of Butler has
moral anchorage in the _Analogy_, quite as much as in the _Sermons_. It
is in part ii. more than in part i. of his masterpiece that the light
seems to grow dim. Another of the Oxford converts to Rome, W.G. Ward,
made vigorous contributions to natural theology.
VII. _Contents of Modern Apologetics._--Superficially regarded,
philosophy ebbs and flows, whatever progress the debate may reveal to
speculative insight. Old positions re-emerge from forgetfulness, and
there is always a philosophy to back every "case." More visible dangers
arise for the apologist in the region of science, historical or
physical. There the progress of truth, within whatever limits, is
manifest. _Essays and Reviews_ (1860) was a vehement announcement of
scientific results--startling English conservatism awake for the first
time. And in the scientific region the great apologetic classics, like
Butler, are hopelessly out of date. The modern apologist must do
ephemeral work--unless it should chance that he proves to be the
skirmisher, pioneering for a modified dogmatic. He holds a watching
brief. While he must beware of hasty speech, he has often to plead that
new knowledge does not really threaten faith; or that it is not
genuinely established knowledge at all; or else, that faith has mistaken
its own grounds, and will gain strength by concentrating on its true
field. The work is not always well done; but the Christian church needs
it.
1. _Apologetics and Philosophy._--The main part of this subject is
discussed under THEISM. Some notes may be added on special points, (a)
Freewill is generally assumed on the Christian side (R.C. Church;
Scottish philosophy; H. Lotze; J. Martineau; W.G. Ward. Not in a
libertarian sense; Leibnitz. New and obscure issues raised by Kant). But
there is no continuous tradition or steady trend of discussion. (b)
Personal immortality is affirmed as philosophically certain by the
Church of Rome and many Protestant writers. Others teach "conditional
immortality." Others base the hope on belief in the resurrection of
Christ, (c) Theodicy--the tradition of Leibnitz is preserved (on
libertarian lines) by Martineau (_A Study of Religion_, 1883). See also
F.R. Tennant's _Origin and Propagation of Sin_ (1902)--sin a
"bye-product" of a generally good evolution. Others find in the gospel
of redemption the true theodicy. (d) The problem of Christian apologetic
has been simplified in the past by the prevalence of the Christian
ethics and temper even among many non-Christians (e.g. J.S. Mill). But
hereafter it may not prove possible for the apologist to assume as
unchallenged the Christian moral outlook. Germans have suspected an
anti-Christian strain in Goethe; all the world knows of it in E. von
Hartmann or F. Nietzsche.
2. _Apologetics and Physical Science._--(a) Copernicanism has won its
battles and the Church of Rome would fain have its error forgotten. The
admission is now general that the Bible cannot be expected to use the
language of scientific astronomy. Still, it is not certain that the
shock of Copernicanism on supernatural Christianity is exhausted. (b)
Geology has also won its battles, and few now try to harmonize it with
Genesis. (c) Evolution came down from the clouds when C. Darwin and A.R.
Wallace succeeded in displacing the naif conception of special creation
by belief in the origin of species out of other species through a
process of natural law. This gave immense vogue to wider and vaguer
theories of evolutionary process, notably to H. Spencer's grandiose
cosmic formula in terms of mechanism. Here the apologist has more to
say. The special Darwinian hypothesis--natural "selection"--may or may
not be true; it was at least a fruitful suggestion. If true, it need not
be exhaustive. Again, evolution itself need not apply everywhere. We are
offered a philosophical rather than a scientific speculation when E.
Caird (_Evolution of Religion_, 1893) tries to vindicate Christianity as
the highest working of nature--true just _because_ evolved from lower
religions. The Christian apologist indeed may himself seek, following
John Fiske, to philosophize evolution as a restatement of natural
theology--"one God, one law, one element and one far-off divine
event"--and as at least pointing _towards_ personal immortality. But if
evolution is to be the whole truth regarding Christianity, we should
have to surrender both _supernatural revelation_ and _divine
redemption_. And these, it may be strongly urged, contain the magic of
Christianity. Losing them it might sink into a lifeless theory.
As far as pure science goes, the inference from science in favour of
materialism has visibly lost much of its plausibility, and Protestant
apologists would probably be prepared to accept in advance all verified
discoveries as belonging to a different region from that of faith. Roman
Catholic apologetic prefers to negotiate in detail.
3. _Apologetics and History._--History brings us nearer the heart of the
Christian position. (a) Old Testament criticism won startling victories
towards the end of the 19th century. It blots out much supposed
knowledge, but throws a vivid and interesting light on the reconstrued
process of history. Most Protestants accept the general scheme of
criticism; those who hang back make not a few concessions (e.g. J. Orr,
_Problem of the O.T._, 1906). The Roman Catholic Church again prefers an
attitude of reserve, (b) New Testament criticism raises even more
delicate issues. Positively it may be affirmed that the recovered figure
of the historical Jesus is the greatest asset in the possession of
modern Christian theology and apologetics. The "Lives" of Christ, Roman
Catholic and Protestant; "critical" (D.F. Strauss, A. Renan, &c., &c.)
and "believing," imply this at least. Negatively, "unchallenged
historical certainties" are becoming few in number, or are disappearing
altogether, through the industry of modern minds. True, the Tubingen
criticism of F.C. Baur and his school--important as the first scientific
attempt to conceive New Testament conditions and literature as a
whole--has been abandoned. (A. Ritschl's _Entstehung der
alt-katholischen Kirche_, 2nd edition, 1857, was an especially telling
reply.) The synoptic gospels are now treated with considerable respect.
It is no longer suggested in responsible quarters that they are party
documents sacrificing truth to "tendency." But not all quarters are
responsible; and in the effort to grasp scientifically, i.e. accurately,
the amazing facts of Christ and primitive Christianity, every imaginable
hypothesis is canvassed. Even the Roman Catholic Church produced the
Abbe Loisy (though he undertakes to play off church certainties against
historical uncertainties). Hitherto at least the fourth gospel has been
the touchstone. The authorship of the epistles is in many cases a matter
of subordinate importance; at least for Protestants or for those
surrendering Bible infallibility, which Rome can hardly do. (c) New
Testament history, The apologist must maintain (1) that Jesus of
Nazareth is a real historical figure--a point well-nigh overlooked by
Strauss, and denied by some modern advocates of a mythical theory; (2)
that Jesus is knowable (not one "of whom we really know very little"--B.
Jowett) in his teaching, example, character, historical personality; and
that he is full of moral splendour. On the other hand, faith has no
special interest in claiming that we can compose a biographical study of
the development of Jesus. Certainly no early writer thought of providing
material for such use. It is a common opinion in Germany that our
material is in fact too scanty or too self-contradictory. Yet the
fascination of the subject will always revive the attempt. If it
succeeds, there will be a new line of communication along which that
great personality will tell on men's minds and hearts. If it
fails--there are other channels; character can be known and trusted even
when we are baffled by a thing necessarily so full of mystery as the
development of a personality. Notably, the manifest _non-consciousness
of personal guilt_ in Jesus suggests to us his sinlessness. (3)
Apologists maintain that Jesus "claimed" Messiahship. There are
speculative constructions of gospel history which eliminate that claim;
and no doubt apologetics could--with more or less difficulty--restate
its position in a changed form if the paradox of to-day became accepted
as historical fact to-morrow. The central apologetic thesis is the
_uniqueness_ of the "only-begotten"; it is here that "the supernatural"
passes into the substance of Christian faith. But most probably the
description of Jesus as thus unique will continue to be associated with
the allegation--He told us so; he claimed Messiahship and "died for the
claim." (See preface to 5th ed. of _Ecce Homo_.) Nor did so superhuman a
claim crush him, or deprive his soul of its balance. He imparted to the
title a grander significance out of the riches of his personality. (4)
In the light of this the "argument from prophecy" is reconstructed. It
ceases to lay much stress upon coincidences between Old Testament
predictions or "types" and events in Christ's career. It becomes the
assertion; historically, providentially, the expectation of a _unique
religious figure_ arose--"the" Messiah; and Jesus gave himself to be
thought of as that great figure. (5) It is also claimed as certain that
Jesus had marvellous powers of healing. More reserve is being shown
towards the other or "nature" miracles. These latter, it may be
remarked, are more unambiguously supernatural. But, if Jesus really
cured leprosy or really restored the dead to life, we have miracle
plainly enough in the region of healing. (6) For Jesus' own resurrection
several lines of evidence are alleged. (i.) All who believe that in any
sense Christ rose again insist upon the impression which his personality
made during life. It was _he_ whose resurrection seemed credible! Some
practically stop here; the apologist proceeds. (ii.) There is the report
of the empty grave; historically, not easily waved aside. (iii.) We have
New Testament reports of appearances of the risen Jesus; subjective? the
mere clothing of the impression made by his personality during life? or
objective? "telegrams" from heaven (Th. Keim)--"Veridical
Hallucinations"? or something even more, throwing a ray of light perhaps
on the state and powers of the happy dead? (iv.) There is the immense
influence of Jesus Christ in history, _associated with belief in him_ as
the risen Son of God.
In view of the claims of Jesus, different possibilities arise, (i.) The
evangelists impute to him a higher claim than he made. This may be
called the rationalistic solution; with sympathy in Christ's ethical
teaching, there is relief at minimizing his great claim. So,
brilliantly, Wellhausen's Gospel commentaries and Introduction. (Mark
fairly historical; other gospels' fuller account of Christ's teaching
and claims unreliable.) (ii.) The claim was fraudulent (Reimarus; Renan,
ed. 1; popular anti-Christian agitation). This is a counsel of despair.
(iii.) He was an enthusiastic dreamer, expecting the world's end. This
the apologist will recognize as the most plausible hostile alternative.
He may feel bound to admit an element of illusion in Christ's vision' of
the future; but he will contend that the apocalyptic form did not
destroy the spiritual content of Christ's revelations--nay, that it was
itself the vehicle of great truths. So he will argue as the essence of
the matter that (iv.) he who has occupied Christ's place in history, and
won such reverence from the purest souls, was what he claimed to be, and
that his many-sidedness comes to focus and harmony when we recognize him
as the Christ of God and the Saviour of the world.
To a less extent, similar problems and alternatives arise in regard to
the church:--Catholicism a compromise between Jewish Christianity and
Pauline or Gentile Christianity (F.C. Baur, &c.); Catholicism the
Hellenizing of Christianity (A. Ritschl, A. Harnack); the Catholic
church for good and evil the creation of St Paul (P. Wernle, H. Weinel);
the church supernaturally guided (R.C. apologetic; in a modified degree
High Church apologetic); essential--not necessarily exclusive--truth of
Paulinism, essential error in first principles of Catholicism
(Protestant apologetic).
LITERATURE.--Omitting the Christian fathers as remote from the present
day, we recognize as works of genius Pascal's _Pensees_ and Butler's
_Analogy_, to which we might add J.R. Seeley's _Ecce Homo_ (1865). The
philosophical, Platonist, or Idealist line of Christian defence is
represented among recent writers by J.R. Illingworth [Anglican], in
_Personality, Human and Divine_ (1894), _Divine Immanence_ (1898),
_Reason and Revelation_ (1902), who at times seems rather to
presuppose the Thomist compromise, and A.M. Fairbairn
[Congregationalist], in _Place of Christ in Modern Theology_ (1893),
_Philosophy of the Christian Religion_ (1902). The appeal to ethical
or Christian experience--"internal evidence"--is found especially in
E.A. Abbott [Christianity supernatural and divine, but not
miraculous], _Through Nature to Christ_ (1877), _The Kernel and the
Husk_ (1886), _The Spirit on the Waters_ (1897), &c., or A.B. Bruce,
_Chief End of Revelation_ (1881), _The Miraculous Element in the
Gospels_ (1886), _Apologetics_ (1892), and other works; Bruce's
posthumous article, "Jesus" in _Encyc. Bib._, was understood by some
as exchanging Christian orthodoxy for bare theism, but probably its
tone of aloofness is due to the attempt to keep well within the limits
of what the author considered pure scientific history. Scholarly and
apologetic discussion on the gospels and life of Jesus is further
represented by the writings of W. Sanday or (earlier) of J.B.
Lightfoot. Much American work of merit on the character of Christ is
headed by W. E Channing, and by H. Bushnell (in _Nature and the
Supernatural_). For defence of Christ's resurrection, reference may be
made to H. Latham's _The Risen Lord_ and R. Mackintosh's _First Primer
of Apologetics_. For modification in light of recent scholarship of
argument from prophecy, to Riehm's _Messianic Prophecy_, Stanton's
_Jewish and Christian Messiah_, and Woods's _Hope of Israel_. Roman
Catholic apologetics--of necessity, Thomist--is well represented by
Professor Schanz of Tubingen. The whole Ritschl movement is apologetic
in spirit; best English account in A.E. Garvie's _Ritschlian Theology_
(1899). See also the chief church histories or histories of doctrine
(Harnack; Loofs; Hagenbach; Shedd); A.S. Farrar's _Critical History of
Free_ (i.e. anti-Christian) _Thought_ (Bampton Lectures, 1862); R.C.
Trench's Introduction to _Notes on the Miracles_, and F.W. Macran's
_English Apologetic Theology_ (1905). For the 18th century, G.V.
Lechler's _Geschichte des englischen Deismus_ (1841); Mark Pattison in
_Essays and Reviews_ (1860); Leslie Stephen's _English Thought in 18th
Century_ (agnostic); John Hunt, _Religious Thought in England_ (3
vols., 1870-1873). (R. Ma.)