Apollonius, the Pythagorean philosopher, was born at Tyana, in
Cappadocia, in the year of Rome 750, four years before the common
Christian era.[274] His reputation rests, not so much on his personal
merits, as on the attempt made in the early ages of the Church, and
since revived,[275] to bring him forward as a rival to the Divine
Author of our Religion. A narrative of his life, which is still extant,
was written with this object, about a century after his death (A.D.
217), by Philostratus of Lemnos, when Ammonius was systematizing the
Eclectic tenets to meet the increasing influence and the spread of
Christianity. Philostratus engaged in this work at the instance of his
patroness Julia Domna, wife of the Emperor Severus, a princess
celebrated for her zeal in the cause of Heathen Philosophy; who put
into his hands a journal of the travels of Apollonius rudely written by
one Damis, an Assyrian, his companion.[276] This manuscript, an account
of his residence at Ægæ, prior to his acquaintance with Damis, by
Maximus of that city, a collection of his letters, some private
memoranda relative to his opinions and conduct, and lastly the public
records of the cities he frequented, were the principal documents from
which Philostratus compiled his elaborate narrative.[277] It is written
with considerable elegance and command of Greek, but with more
attention to ornament than is consistent with correct taste. Though it
is not a professed imitation of the Gospels, it contains quite enough
to show that it was written with a view of rivalling the sacred
narrative; and accordingly, in the following age, it was made use of in
a direct attack upon Christianity by Hierocles,[278] Prefect of
Bithynia, a disciple of the Eclectic School, to whom a reply was made
by Eusebius of Cæsarea. The selection of a Pythagorean Philosopher for
the purpose of a comparison with our Lord was judicious. The attachment
of the Pythagorean Sect to the discipline of the established religion,
which most other philosophies neglected, its austerity, its pretended
intercourse with heaven, its profession of extraordinary power over
nature, and the authoritative tone of teaching which this profession
countenanced,[279] were all in favour of the proposed object. But with
the plans of the Eclectics in their attack upon Christianity we have no
immediate concern.
1.
Philostratus begins his work with an account of the prodigies
attending the philosopher's birth, which, with all circumstances of a
like nature, we shall for the present pass over, intending to make some
observations on them in the sequel. At the age of fourteen he was
placed by his father under the care of Euthydemus, a distinguished
rhetorician of Tarsus; but, being displeased with the dissipation of
the place, he removed with his master to Ægæ, a neighbouring town,
frequented as a retreat for students in philosophy.[280] Here he made
himself master of the Platonic, Stoic, Epicurean, and Peripatetic
systems; giving, however, an exclusive preference to the Pythagorean,
which he studied with Euxenus of Heraclea, a man, however, whose life
ill accorded with the ascetic principles of his Sect. At the early age
of sixteen years, according to his biographer, he resolved on strictly
conforming himself to the precepts of Pythagoras, and, if possible,
rivalling the fame of his master. He renounced animal food and wine;
restricted himself to the use of linen garments and sandals made of the
bark of trees; suffered his hair to grow; and betook himself to the
temple of Æsculapius, who is said to have regarded him with peculiar
favour.[281]
On the news of his father's death, which took place not long
afterwards, he left Ægæ for his native place, where he gave up half his
inheritance to his elder brother, whom he is said to have reclaimed
from a dissolute course of life, and the greater part of the remainder
to his poorer relatives.[282]
Prior to composing any philosophical work, he thought it necessary
to observe the silence of five years, which was the appointed
initiation into the esoteric doctrines of his Sect. During this time he
exercised his mind in storing up materials for future reflection. We
are told that on several occasions he hindered insurrections in the
cities in which he resided by the mute eloquence of his look and
gestures;[283] but such an achievement is hardly consistent with the
Pythagorean rule, which forbad its disciples during their silence the
intercourse of mixed society.[284]
The period of silence being expired, Apollonius passed through the
principal cities of Asia Minor, disputing in the temples in imitation
of Pythagoras, unfolding the mysteries of his Sect to such as were
observing their probationary silence, discoursing with the Greek
Priests about divine rites, and reforming the worship of barbarian
cities.[285] This must have been his employment for many years; the
next incident in his life being his Eastern journey, which was not
undertaken till he was between forty and fifty years of age.[286]
His object in this expedition was to consult the Magi and Brachmans
on philosophical matters; still following the example of Pythagoras,
who is said to have travelled as far as India with the same purpose. At
Nineveh, where he arrived with two companions, he was joined by Damis,
already mentioned as his journalist.[287] Proceeding thence to Babylon,
he had some interviews with the Magi, who rather disappointed his
expectations; and was well received by Bardanes the Parthian King, who,
after detaining him at his Court for the greater part of two years,
dismissed him with marks of peculiar honour.[288] From Babylon he
proceeded, by way of the Caucasus and the Indus, to Taxila, the city of
Phraotes, King of the Indians, who is represented as an adept in the
Pythagorean Philosophy;[289] and passing on, at length accomplished the
object of his expedition by visiting Iarchas, Chief of the Brachmans,
from whom he is said to have learned many valuable theurgic
secrets.[290]
On his return to Asia Minor, after an absence of about five years,
he stationed himself for a time in Ionia; where the fame of his travels
and his austere mode of life gained for him much attention to his
philosophical harangues. The cities sent embassies to him, decreeing
him public honours; while the oracles pronounced him more than mortal,
and referred the sick to him for relief.[291]
From Ionia he passed over to Greece, and made his first tour through
its principal cities;[292] visiting the temples and oracles, reforming
the divine rites, and sometimes exercising his theurgic skill. Except
at Sparta, however, he seems to have attracted little attention. At
Eleusis his application for admittance to the Mysteries was
unsuccessful; as was a similar attempt at the Cave of Trophonius at a
later date.[293] In both places his reputation for magical powers was
the cause of his exclusion.
2.
Hitherto our memoir has only set before us the life of an ordinary
Pythagorean, which may be comprehended in three words, mysticism,
travel, and disputation. From the date, however, of his journey to
Rome, which succeeded his Grecian tour, it is in some degree connected
with the history of the times; and, though for much of what is told us
of him we have no better authority than the word of Philostratus
himself, still there is neither reason nor necessity for supposing the
narrative to be in substance untrue.
Nero had at this time prohibited the study of philosophy, alleging
that it was made the pretence for magical practices;[294]—and the
report of his tyrannical excesses so alarmed the followers of
Apollonius as they approached Rome, that out of thirty-four who had
accompanied him thus far, eight only could be prevailed on to proceed.
On his arrival, his religious pretensions were the occasion of his
being brought successively before the consul Telesinus and Tigellinus
the Minister of Nero.[295] Both of them, however, dismissed him after
an examination; the former from a secret leaning towards philosophy,
the latter from fear (as we are told) of his extraordinary powers. He
was in consequence allowed to go about at his pleasure from temple to
temple, haranguing the people, and, as in Asia, prosecuting his reforms
in the worship paid to the gods. This, however, can hardly have been
the case, supposing the edict against philosophers was as severe as his
biographer represents. In that case neither Apollonius, nor Demetrius
the Cynic, who joined him after his arrival, would have been permitted
to remain in Rome; certainly not Apollonius, after his acknowledgment
of his own magical powers in the presence of Tigellinus.[296]
It is more probable he was sent out of the city; anyhow we soon find
him in Spain, taking part in the conspiracy forming against Nero by
Vindex and others.[297] The political partisans of that day seem to
have made use of professed jugglers and magicians to gain over the body
of the people to their interests. To this may be attributed Nero's
banishing such men from Rome;[298] and Apollonius had probably been
already serviceable in this way at the Capital, as he was now in Spain,
and immediately after to Vespasian; and at a later period to Nerva.
His next expeditions were to Africa, to Sicily, and so to
Greece,[299] but they do not supply anything of importance to the
elucidation of his character. At Athens he obtained the initiation in
the Mysteries, for which he had on his former visit unsuccessfully
applied.
The following spring, the seventy-third of his life, according to
the common calculation, he proceeded to Alexandria,[300] where he
attracted the notice of Vespasian, who had just assumed the purple, and
who seemed desirous of countenancing his proceedings by the sanction of
religion. Apollonius might be recommended to him for this purpose by
the fame of his travels, his reputation for theurgic knowledge, and his
late acts in Spain against Nero. It is satisfactory to be able to
detect an historical connexion between two personages, each of whom has
in his turn been made to rival our Lord and His Apostles in pretensions
to miraculous power. Thus, claims which appeared to be advanced on
distinct grounds are found to proceed from one centre, and by their
coalition to illustrate and expose one another. The celebrated cures by
Vespasian are connected with the ordinary theurgy of the Pythagorean
School; and Apollonius is found here, as in many other instances, to be
the instrument of a political party.
His biographer's account of his first meeting with the Emperor,
which is perhaps substantially correct, is amusing from the theatrical
character with which it was invested.[301] The latter, on entering
Alexandria, was met by the great body of the Magistrates, Prefects, and
Philosophers of the city; but, not discovering Apollonius in the
number, he hastily asked, “whether the Tyanean was in Alexandria,” and
when told he was philosophizing in the Serapeum, proceeding thither he
suppliantly entreated him to make him Emperor; and, on the
Philosopher's answering he had already done so in praying for a just
and venerable Sovereign,[302] Vespasian avowed his determination of
putting himself entirely into his hands, and of declining the supreme
power, unless he could obtain his countenance in assuming it.[303] A
formal consultation was in consequence held, at which, besides
Apollonius, Dio and Euphrates, Stoics in the Emperor's train, were
allowed to deliver their sentiments; when the latter philosopher
entered an honest protest against the sanction which Apollonius was
giving to the ambition of Vespasian, and advocated the restoration of
the Roman State to its ancient republican form.[304] This difference of
opinion laid the foundation of a lasting quarrel between the rival
advisers, to which Philostratus makes frequent allusion in the course
of his history. Euphrates is mentioned by the ancients in terms of high
commendation; by Pliny especially, who knew him well.[305] He seems to
have seen through his opponent's religious pretences, as we gather even
from Philostratus;[306] and when so plain a reason exists for the
dislike which Apollonius, in his Letters, and Philostratus, manifest
towards him, their censure must not be allowed to weigh against the
testimony, which unbiassed writers have delivered in his favour.
After parting from Vespasian, Apollonius undertook an expedition
into Æthiopia, where he held discussions with the Gymnosophists, and
visited the cataracts of the Nile.[307] On his return he received the
news of the destruction of Jerusalem; and being pleased with the
modesty of the conqueror, wrote to him in commendation of it. Titus is
said to have invited him to Argos in Cilicia, for the sake of his
advice on various subjects, and obtained from him a promise that at
some future time he would visit him at Rome.[308]
On the succession of Domitian, he became once more engaged in the
political commotions of the day, exerting himself to excite the
countries of Asia Minor against the Emperor.[309] These proceedings at
length occasioned an order from the Government to bring him to Rome,
which, however, according to his biographer's account, he anticipated
by voluntarily surrendering himself, under the idea that by his prompt
appearance he might remove the Emperor's jealousy, and save Nerva and
others whose political interests he had been promoting. On arriving at
Rome he was brought before Domitian; and when, very inconsistently with
his wish to shield his friends from suspicion, he launched out into
praise of Nerva, he was forced away into prison to the company of the
worst criminals, his hair and beard were cut short, and his limbs
loaded with chains. After some days he was brought to trial; the
charges against him being the singularity of his dress and appearance,
his being called a god, his foretelling a pestilence at Ephesus, and
his sacrificing a child with Nerva for the purpose of augury.[310]
Philostratus supplies us with an ample defence, which, it seems, he was
to have delivered,[311] had he not in the course of the proceedings
suddenly vanished from the Court, and transported himself to Puteoli,
whither he had before sent on Damis.
This is the only miraculous occurrence which forces itself into the
history as a component part of the narrative; the rest being of easy
omission without any detriment to its entireness.[312] And strictly
speaking, even here, it is only his vanishing which is of a miraculous
nature, and his vanishing is not really necessary for the continuity of
events. His “liberation” and “transportation” are sufficient for that
continuity; and to be set free from prison and sent out of Rome are
occurrences which might happen without a divine interposition. And in
fact they seem very clearly to have taken place in the regular course
of business. Philostratus allows that just before the philosopher's
pretended disappearance, Domitian had publicly acquitted him, and that
after the miracle he proceeded to hear the cause next in order, as if
nothing had happened;[313] and tells us, moreover, that Apollonius on
his return to Greece gave out that he had pleaded his own cause and so
escaped, no allusion being made to a miraculous preservation.[314]
After spending two years in the latter country in his usual
philosophical disputations, he passed into Ionia. According to his
biographer's chronology, he was now approaching the completion of his
hundredth year. We may easily understand, therefore, that when invited
to Rome by Nerva, who had just succeeded to the Empire, he declined the
proposed honour with an intimation that their meeting must be deferred
to another state of being.[315] His death took place shortly after; and
Ephesus, Rhodes, and Crete are variously mentioned as the spot at which
it occurred.[316] A temple was dedicated to him at Tyana,[317] which
was in consequence accounted one of the sacred cities, and permitted
the privilege of electing its own Magistrates.[318]
He is said to have written[319] a treatise upon Judicial Astrology,
a work on Sacrifices, another on Oracles, a Life of Pythagoras, and an
account of the answers which he received from Trophonius, besides the
memoranda noticed in the opening of our memoir. A collection of Letters
ascribed to him is still extant.[320]
3.
It may be regretted that so elaborate a history, as that which we
have abridged, should not contain more authentic and valuable matter.
Both the secular transactions of the times and the history of
Christianity might have been illustrated by the life of one, who, while
he was an instrument of the partisans of Vindex, Vespasian, and Nerva,
was a contemporary and in some respects a rival of the Apostles; and
who, probably, was with St. Paul at Ephesus and Rome.[321] As far as
his personal character is concerned, there is nothing to be lamented in
these omissions. There is nothing very winning, or very commanding,
either in his biographer's picture of him, or in his own letters. His
virtues, as we have already seen, were temperance and a disregard of
wealth; and that he really had these, and such as these, may be safely
concluded from the fact of the popularity which he enjoyed. The great
object of his ambition seems to have been to emulate the fame of his
master; and his efforts had their reward in the general admiration he
attracted, the honours paid him by the Oracles, and the attentions
shown him by men in power.
We might have been inclined, indeed, to suspect that his reputation
existed principally in his biographer's panegyric, were it not attested
by other writers. The celebrity, which he has enjoyed since the
writings of the Eclectics, by itself affords but a faint presumption of
his notoriety before they appeared. Yet, after all allowances, there
remains enough to show that, however fabulous the details of his
history may be, there was something extraordinary in his life and
character. Some foundation there must have been for statements which
his eulogists were able to maintain in the face of those who would have
spoken out had they been altogether novel. Pretensions never before
advanced must have excited the surprise and contempt of the advocates
of Christianity.[322] Yet Eusebius styles him a wise man, and seems to
admit the correctness of Philostratus, except in the miraculous parts
of the narrative.[323] Lactantius does not deny that a statue was
erected to him at Ephesus;[324] and Sidonius Apollinaris, who even
wrote his life, speaks of him as the admiration of the countries he
traversed, and the favourite of monarchs.[325] One of his works was
deposited in the palace at Antium by the Emperor Hadrian, who also
formed a collection of his letters;[326] statues were erected to him in
the temples, divine honours paid him by Caracalla, Alexander Severus,
and Aurelian, and magical virtue attributed to his name.[327]
It has in consequence been made a subject of dispute, how far his
reputation was built upon that supposed claim to extraordinary power
which, as was noticed in the opening of our memoir, has led to his
comparison with Sacred Names. If it could be shown that he did advance
such pretensions, and upon the strength of them was admitted as an
object of divine honour, a case would be made out, not indeed so strong
as that on which Christianity is founded, yet remarkable enough to
demand our serious examination. Assuming, then, or overlooking this
necessary condition, sceptical writers have been forward to urge the
history and character of Apollonius as creating a difficulty in the
argument for Christianity derived from miracles; while their opponents
have sometimes attempted to account for a phenomenon of which they had
not yet ascertained the existence, and have most gratuitously ascribed
his supposed power to the influence of the Evil principle.[328] On
examination, we shall find not a shadow of a reason for supposing that
Apollonius worked miracles in any proper sense of the word; or that he
professed to work them; or that he rested his authority on
extraordinary works of any kind; and it is strange indeed that
Christians, with victory in their hands, should have so mismanaged
their cause as to establish an objection where none existed, and in
their haste to extricate themselves from an imaginary difficulty, to
overturn one of the main arguments for Revealed Religion.
4.
1. To state these pretended prodigies is in most cases a refutation
of their claim upon our notice,[329] and even those which are not in
themselves exceptionable become so from the circumstances or manner in
which they took place. Apollonius is said to have been an incarnation
of the God Proteus; his birth was announced by the falling of a
thunderbolt and a chorus of swans; his death signalized by a wonderful
voice calling him up to Heaven; and after death he appeared to a youth
to convince him of the immortality of the soul.[330] He is reported to
have known the language of birds; to have evoked the spirit of
Achilles; to have dislodged a demon from a boy; to have detected an
Empusa who was seducing a youth into marriage; when brought before
Tigellinus, to have caused the writing of the indictment to vanish from
the paper; when imprisoned by Domitian, to have miraculously released
himself from his fetters; to have discovered the soul of Amasis in the
body of a lion; to have cured a youth attacked by hydrophobia, whom he
pronounced to be Telephus the Mysian.[331] In declaring men's thoughts
and distant events, he indulged most liberally; adopting a brevity
which seemed becoming the dignity of his character, while it secured
his prediction from the possibility of an entire failure. For instance:
he gave previous intimation of Nero's narrow escape from lightning;
foretold the short reigns of his successors; informed Vespasian at
Alexandria of the burning of the Capitol; predicted the violent death
of Titus by a relative; discovered a knowledge of the private history
of his Egyptian guide; foresaw the wreck of a ship he had embarked in,
and the execution of a Cilician Proprætor.[332] His prediction of the
Proprætor's ruin was conveyed in the words, “O that particular day!”
that is, of execution; of the short reigns of the Emperors in his
saying that many Thebans would succeed Nero. We must not omit his first
predicting and then removing a pestilence at Ephesus, the best
authenticated of his professed miracles, as being attested by the
erecting of a statue to him in consequence. He is said to have put an
end to the malady by commanding an aged man to be stoned, whom he
pointed out as its author, and who when the stones were removed was
found changed into the shape of a dog.[333]
That such marvellous occurrences are wanting either in the gravity,
or in the conclusiveness, proper to true miracles, is very plain;
moreover, that they gain no recommendation from the mode in which they
are recorded will be evident, if we extract the accounts given us by
Philostratus of those two which alone among Apollonius's acts, from
their internal character, demand our attention. These are the revival
of a young maid at Rome, who was on her way to burial, and the
announcement at Ephesus of Domitian's assassination at the very time of
its occurrence.
As to the former of these, it will be seen to be an attempt, and an
elaborate, pretentious attempt, to outdo certain narratives in the
Gospels. It runs as follows:—
“A maiden of marriageable age seemed to have died, and the
bridegroom was accompanying her bier, uttering wailing cries,
as
was natural on his marriage being thus cut short. And all Rome
lamented with him, for the maiden belonged to a consular
house. But
Apollonius, coming upon this sad sight, said, 'Set down the
bier,
for I will stop your tears for her.' At the same time, he
asked her
name; and most of those present thought he was going to make a
speech about her, after the manner of professed mourners. But
he,
doing nothing else than touching her, and saying over her some
indistinct words, woke her from her seeming death. And the
girl
spoke, and returned to her father's house, as Alcestis, when
restored to life by Hercules.”[334]
As to his proclaiming at Ephesus the assassination of Domitian at
the time of its occurrence, of course, if he was at a great distance
from Rome and the synchronism of events could be proved, we should be
bound to give it our serious consideration; but synchronisms are
difficult to verify. Moreover, Apollonius is known to have taken part
in the politics of the empire; and his words, if he used them, might be
prompted by his knowledge, or by his furtherance, of some attempt upon
Domitian's life. Apollonius was at this time busily engaged in
promoting Nerva's interests among the Ionians. Dion[335] tells us that
his success was foretold by the astrologers, among whom Tzetzes reckons
Apollonius; and he mentions a prediction of Domitian's death which had
been put into circulation in Germany. It is true that Dion confirms
Philostratus's statement so far as the prediction is concerned,
expressing strongly his personal belief in it. “Apollonius,” he says,
“ascending upon a high stone at Ephesus or elsewhere, and calling
together the people, cried out, 'Well done, Stephanus!'“ He adds, “This
really took place, though a man should ever so much disbelieve
it.”[336] But it must be recollected that Dion was writing his history
when Philostratus wrote; and one of them may have taken the account
from the other; moreover, he is well known to be of a credulous turn of
mind, and far from averse from recording marvellous stories.
Let us now turn to the statement of Philostratus; it will be found
to form as strong a contrast to the simplicity and dignity of the
Gospel narratives, as the dabbling in politics, which is so marked a
feature in Apollonius, differs from the conduct of Him who emphatically
declared that His kingdom was not of this world.
“He was conversing,” says Philostratus, “among the groves
attached
to the porticoes, about noon, that is, just at the time when
the
event was occurring in the imperial palace; and first he
dropped
his voice, as if in terror; then, with a faltering unusual to
him,
he described [an action], as if he beheld something external,
as
his words proceeded. Then he was silent, stopping abruptly;
and
looking with agitation on the ground, and advancing up three
or
four of the steps, 'Strike the tyrant, strike!' he cried out,
not
as drawing a mere image of the truth from some mirror, but as
seeing the thing itself, and seeming to realize what was
doing;
and, to the consternation of all Ephesus, for it was thronging
around while he was conversing, after an interval of suspense,
such as happens when spectators are following some undecided
action
up to its issue, he said, 'Courage, my men, for the tyrant is
slaughtered this day—nay, now, now.'“[337]
Only an eye-witness is warranted to write thus pictorially;
Philostratus was born 86 years after Apollonius's death.
5.
2. But it is almost superfluous to speak either of the general
character of his extraordinary acts, or of the tone and manner in which
they are narrated, when, in truth, neither Apollonius nor his
biographer had any notion or any intention of maintaining that, in our
sense of the word “miracle,” these acts were miracles at all, or were
to be referred to the immediate agency of the Supreme Being. Apollonius
neither claimed for himself, nor did Philostratus claim for him, any
direct mission from on high; nor did he in consequence submit the
exercise of his preternatural powers to such severe tests as may fairly
be applied to the miracles of Christianity.
Of works, indeed, which are asserted to proceed from the Author of
nature, sobriety, dignity, and conclusiveness may fairly be required;
but when a man ascribes his extraordinary power to his knowledge of
some merely human secret, impropriety does but evidence his own want of
taste, and ambiguity his want of skill. We have no longer a right to
expect a great end, worthy means, or a frugal and judicious application
of the miraculous gift. Now, Apollonius claimed nothing beyond a fuller
insight into nature than others had; a knowledge of the fated and
immutable laws to which it is conformed, of the hidden springs on which
it moves.[338] He brought a secret from the East and used it; and
though he professed to be favoured, and in a manner taught, by good
spirits,[339] yet he certainly referred no part of his power to a
Supreme Intelligence. Theurgic virtues, or those which consisted in
communion with the Powers and Principles of nature, were high in the
scale of Pythagorean excellence, and to them it was that he ascribed
his extraordinary gift. By temperate living, it was said, the mind was
endued with ampler and more exalted faculties than it otherwise
possessed; partook more fully of the nature of the One Universal Soul,
was gifted with prophetic inspiration, and a kind of intuitive
perception of secret things.[340] This power, derived from the favour
of the celestial deities, who were led to distinguish the virtuous and
high-minded, was quite distinct from magic, an infamous, uncertain, and
deceitful art, consisting in a compulsory power over infernal spirits,
operating by means of Astrology, Auguries, and Sacrifices, and directed
to the personal emolument of those who cultivated it.[341] To our
present question, however, this distinction made by the genuine
Pythagorean, is unimportant. To whichever principle the miracles of
Apollonius be referred, theurgy or magic, in either case they are
independent of the First Cause, and not granted with a view to the
particular purpose to which they are to be applied.[342]
3. We have also incidentally shown that they did not profess to be
miracles in the proper meaning of the word, that is, evident
innovations on the laws of nature. At the utmost they do but exemplify
the aphorism, “Knowledge is power.”[343] Such as are within the range
of human knowledge are no miracles. Those of them, on the contrary,
which are beyond it, will be found on inspection to be unintelligible,
and to convey no evidence. The prediction of an earthquake (for
instance) is not necessarily superhuman. An interpretation of the
discourse of birds can never be verified. In understanding languages,
knowing future events, discovering the purposes of others, recognising
human souls when enclosed in new bodies, Apollonius merely professes
extreme penetration and extraordinary acquaintance with nature. The
spell by which he evokes spirits and exorcises demons, implies the mere
possession of a secret;[344] and so perfectly is his biographer aware
of this, as almost to doubt the resuscitation of the Roman damsel, the
only decisive miracle of them all, on the ground of its being
supernatural, insinuating that perhaps she was dead only in
appearance.[345] Accordingly, in the narrative which we have extracted
above, he begins by saying that she “seemed to have died,” or “was to
all appearance dead;” and again at the end of it he speaks of her
“seeming death.” Hence, moreover, may be understood the meaning of the
charge of magic, as brought against the early Christians by their
heathen adversaries; the miracles of the Gospels being strictly
interruptions of physical order, and incompatible with theurgic
knowledge.[346]
When our Lord and His Apostles declare themselves to be sent from
God, this claim to a divine mission illustrates and gives dignity to
their profession of extraordinary power; whereas the divinity,[347] no
less than the gift of miracles to which Apollonius laid claim, must be
understood in its Pythagorean sense, as referring not to any intimate
connection with a Supreme Agent, but to his partaking, through his
theurgic skill, more largely than others in the perfections of the
animating principle of nature.
6.
4. Yet, whatever is understood by his miraculous gift and his divine
nature, certainly his works were not adduced as vouchers for his
divinity, nor were they, in fact, the principal cause of his
reputation. What we desiderate is a contemporary appeal to them, on the
part of himself or his friends; as St. Paul speaks of his miracles to
the Romans and Corinthians, even calling them in one place “the signs
of an Apostle;” or as St. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, details
the miracles of both St. Peter and St. Paul.[348] Far different is it
with Apollonius: we meet with no claim to extraordinary power in his
Letters; nor when returning thanks to a city for public honours
bestowed on him, nor when complaining to his brother of the neglect of
his townsmen, nor when writing to his opponent Euphrates.[349] To the
Milesians, indeed, he speaks of earthquakes which he had predicted; but
without appealing to the prediction in proof of his authority.[350]
Since, then, he is so far from insisting on his pretended extraordinary
powers, and himself connects the acquisition of them with his Eastern
expedition,[351] we may conclude that credit for possessing magical
secrets was a part of the reputation which that expedition
conferred. A foreign appearance, singularity of manners, a life of
travel, and pretences to superior knowledge, excite the imagination of
beholders;[352] and, as in the case of a wandering people among
ourselves, appear to invite the persons who are thus distinguished, to
fraudulent practices. Apollonius is represented as making converts as
soon as seen.[353] It was not, then his display of marvels, but his
Pythagorean dress and mysterious deportment, which arrested attention,
and made him thought superior to other men, because he was different
from them. Like Lucian's Alexander[354] (who was all but his disciple),
he was skilled in medicine, professed to be favoured by Æsculapius,
pretended to foreknowledge, was in collusion with the heathen priests,
and was supported by the Oracles; and being more strict in conduct than
the Paphlagonian,[355] he established a more lasting celebrity. His
usefulness to political aspirants contributed to his success; perhaps
also the real and contemporary miracles of the Christian teachers would
dispose many minds easily to acquiesce in any claims of a similar
character.
7.
5. In the foregoing remarks we have admitted, the general fidelity
of the history, because ancient authors allow it, and there was no
necessity to dispute it. Tried however on his own merits, it is quite
unworthy of serious attention. Not only in the miraculous accounts (as
we have already seen), but in the relation of a multitude of ordinary
facts, an effort to rival our Saviour's history is distinctly visible.
The favour in which Apollonius from a child was held by gods and men;
his conversations when a youth in the Temple of Æsculapius; his
determination in spite of danger to go up to Rome;[356] the cowardice
of his disciples in deserting him; the charge brought against him of
disaffection to Cæsar; the Minister's acknowledging, on his private
examination, that he was more than man; the ignominious treatment of
him by Domitian on his second appearance at Rome; his imprisonment with
criminals; his vanishing from Court and sudden reappearance to his
mourning disciples at Puteoli;[357]—these, with other particulars of a
similar cast, evidence a history modelled after the narrative of the
Evangelists. Expressions, moreover, and descriptions occur, clearly
imitated from the sacred volume. To this we must add[358] the
rhetorical colouring of the whole composition, so contrary to the
sobriety of truth;[359] the fabulous accounts of things and places
interspersed through the history;[360] lastly, we must bear in mind the
principle, recognised by the Pythagorean and Eclectic schools, of
permitting exaggeration and deceit in the cause of philosophy.[361]
* * * * *
After all, it must be remembered, that were the pretended miracles
as unexceptionable as we have shown them to be absurd and useless—were
they plain interruptions of established laws—were they grave and
dignified in their nature, and important in their object, and were
there nothing to excite suspicion in the design, manner, or character
of the narrator—still the testimony on which they rest is the bare
word of an author writing one hundred years after the death of the
person panegyrized, and far distant from the places in which most of
the miracles were wrought, and who can give no better account of his
information than that he gained it from an unpublished work,[362]
professedly indeed composed by a witness of the extraordinary
transactions, but passing into his hands through two intermediate
possessors. These are circumstances which almost, without positive
objections, are sufficient by their own negative force to justify a
summary rejection of the whole account. Unless, indeed, the history had
been perverted to a mischievous purpose, we should esteem it
impertinent to direct argument against a mere romance, and to subject a
work of imagination to a grave discussion.
FOOTNOTES:
[274] Olear. ad Philostr. i. 12.
[275] By Lord Herbert and Mr. Blount.
[276] Philostr. i. 3.
[277] Philostr. i. 2, 3.
[278] His work was called [Greek: Logoi Philalêtheis pros
Christianous]' on this subject see Mosheim, Dissertat. de turbatâ
per recentiores Platonicos Ecclesiâ, Sec. 25.
[279] Philostr i. 17, vi. 11.
[280] Philostr. i. 7.
[281] Ibid. i. 8.
[282] Ibid. i. 13.
[283] Ibid. i. 14, 15.
[284] Brucker, vol. ii. p. 104.
[285] Philostr. i. 16.
[286] See Olear. præfat. ad vitam. As he died, U.C. 849, he
is usually considered to have lived to a hundred. Since, however, here
is an interval of almost twenty years in which nothing important
happens, in a part also of his life unconnected with any public events
to fix its chronology, it is highly probable that the date of his birth
is put too early. Philostratus says that accounts varied, making him
live eighty, ninety, or one hundred years; see viii. 29. See also ii.
12, where, by some inaccuracy, he makes him to have been in India
twenty years before he was at Babylon.—Olear. ad locum et
præfat. ad vit. The common date of his birth is fixed by his
biographer's merely accidental mention of the revolt of Archelaus
against the Romans, as taking place before Apollonius was twenty years
old; see i. 12.
[287] Philostr. i. 19.
[288] Philostr. i. 27-41.
[289] Ibid. ii. 1-40. Brucker, vol. ii. p. 110.
[290] Ibid. iii. 51.
[291] Ibid. iv. 1. Acts xiii. 8; see also Acts viii. 9-11, and xix.
13-16.
[292] Ibid. iv. 11, et seq.
[293] When denied at the latter place he forced his way
in.—Philostr. viii. 19.
[294] Ibid. iv. 35. Brucker (vol. ii. p. 118) with reason thinks
this prohibition extended only to the profession of magic.
[295] Ibid. iv. 40, etc.
[296] Brucker, vol. ii. p. 120.
[297] Philostr. v. 10.
[298] Astrologers were concerned in Libo's conspiracy against
Tiberius, and punished. Vespasian, as we shall have occasion to notice
presently, made use of them in furthering his political plans.—Tacit.
Hist. ii. 78. We read of their predicting Nero's accession, the deaths
of Vitellius and Domitian, etc. They were sent into banishment by
Tiberius, Claudius, Vitellius, and Domitian. Philostratus describes
Nero as issuing his edict on leaving the Capital for Greece, iv.
47. These circumstances seem to imply that astrology, magic, etc, were
at that time of considerable service in political intrigues.
[299] Philostr. v. ii, etc.
[300] Ibid. v. 20, etc.
[301] Philostr. v. 27.
[302] Tacitus relates, that when Vespasian was going to the
Serapeum, ut super rebus imperii consuleret, Basilides, an
Egyptian, who was at the time eighty miles distant, suddenly appeared
to him; from his name the emperor drew an omen that the god sanctioned
his assumption of the Imperial power.—Hist. iv. 82. This sufficiently
agrees in substance with the narrative of Philostratus to give the
latter some probability. It was on this occasion that the famous cures
are said to have been wrought.
[303] As Egypt supplied Rome with corn, Vespasian by taking
possession of that country almost secured to himself the
Empire.—Tacit. Hist. ii. 82, iii. 8. Philostratus insinuates that he
was already in possession of supreme power, and came to Egypt for the
sanction of Apollonius. [Greek: Tên men archên kektêmeuos, dialexomeuos
de tps audri]. v. 27.
[304] Philostr. v. 31.
[305] Brucker, vol. ii. p. 566, etc.
[306] Philostr. v. 37, he makes Euphrates say to Vespasian, [Greek:
Philosophian, ô basileu, tên men kata physin echainei kai aspazou tên
de theoklutein phaskousan paraitou katapseudomenoi gar tou theiou polla
kai anoêta, êmas epairousi.] See Brucker; and Apollon. Epist. 8.
[307] Ibid. vi. 1, etc.
[308] Philostr. vi. 29, etc.
[309] Ibid. vii. 1, etc., see Brucker, vol. ii. p. 128.
[310] Ibid. viii. 5, 6, etc. On account of his foretelling the
pestilence he was honoured as a god by the Ephesians, vii. 21. Hence
this prediction appeared in the indictment.
[311] Euseb. in Hier. 41.
[312] Perhaps his causing the writing of the indictment to vanish
from the paper, when he was brought before Tigellinus, may be an
exception, as being the alleged cause of his acquittal. In general,
however, no consequence follows from his marvellous actions: e. g.
when imprisoned by Domitian, in order to show Damis his power, he is
described as drawing his leg out of the fetters, and then—as putting
it back again, vii. 38. A great exertion of power with apparently a
small object.
[313] Philostr. viii. 8, 9.
[314] Ibid. viii. 15.
[315] Philostr. viii. 27.
[316] Ibid. viii. 30.
[317] Ibid. i. 5. viii. 29.
[318] A coin of Hadrian's reign is extant with the inscription,
which seems to run [Greek: Tyana iera, asulos autonomos]. Olear. ad
Philostr. viii. 31.
[319] See Bayle, Art. Apollonius; and Brucker.
[320] Bishop Lloyd considers them spurious, but Olearius and Brucker
show that there is good reason from internal evidence to suppose them
genuine. See Olear. Addend. ad præfat. Epistol.; and Brucker, vol. ii.
p. 147.
[321] Apollonius continued at Ephesus, Smyrna, etc., from A.D. 50 to
about 59, and was at Rome from A.D. 63 to 66. St. Paul passed through
Ionia into Greece A.D. 53, and was at Ephesus A.D. 54, and again from
A.D. 56 to 58; he was at Rome in A.D. 65 and 66, when he was martyred.
[322] Lucian and Apuleius speak of him as if his name were familiar
to them. Olear. præf. ad Vit.
[323] In Hierocl. 5.
[324] Inst. v. 3.
[325] See Bayle, Art. Apollonius; and Cudworth, Intell. Syst.
iv. 14.
[326] Philostr. viii. 19, 20.
[327] See Eusebius, Vopiscus, Lampridius, etc., as quoted by Bayle.
[328] See Brucker on this point, vol. ii. p. 141, who refers to
various authors. Eusebius takes a more sober view of the question,
allowing the substance of the history, but disputing the extraordinary
parts. See in Hierocl. 5 and 12.
[329] Most of them are imitations of the miracles attributed to
Pythagoras.
[330] See Philostr. i. 4, 5, viii. 30, 31. He insinuates (Cf. viii.
29 with 31), that Apollonius was taken up alive. See Euseb. 8.
[331] Philostr. iv. 3, 16, 20, 25, 44, v. 42, vi. 43, vii. 38.
[332] Ibid. i. 12, iv. 24, 43, 11-13, 18, 30, vi. 3, 32.
[333] Ibid. iv. 10.
[334] Vit. iv. 45; Cf. Mark v. 29, etc.; Luke vii. 16; also John xi.
41-43; Acts iii. 4-6. In the sequel, the parents offer him money, which
he gives as a portion to the damsel. See 2 Kings v. 15, 16 [4 Kings],
and other passages in Scripture.
[335] Lib. 67.
[336] Hist. 67.
[337] Vit. viii. 26.
[338] Philostr. v. 12; in i. 2, he associates Democritus, a natural
philosopher, with Pythagoras and Empedocies. See viii. 7, § 8, and
Brucker, vol. i. p. 1108, etc., and p. 1184.
[339] In his apology before Domitian, he expressly attributes his
removal of the Ephesian pestilence to Hercules, and makes this
ascription the test of a divine philosopher as distinguished from a
magician, viii. 7, § 9, ubi vid. Olear.
[340] Vid. viii, 7, § 9. See also ii. 37, vi. 11, viii. 5.
[341] Philostr. i. 2, and Olear. ad loc. note 3, iv. 44, v.
12, vii. 39, viii. 7; Apollon. Epist. 8 and 52; Philostr. Prooem. vit.
Sophist.; Euseb. in Hier. 2; Mosheim, de Simone Mago, Sec. 13. Yet it
must be confessed that the views both of the Pythagoreans and Eclectics
were very inconsistent on this subject. Eusebius notices several
instances of [Greek: goêteia] in Apollonius's miracles; in Hierocl. 10,
28, 29, and 31. See Brucker, vol. ii. p. 447. At Eleusis, and the Cave
of Triphonius, Apollonius was, as we have seen, accounted a magician,
and so also by Euphrates, Moeragenes, Apuleius, etc. See Olear. Præf.
ad vit. p. 33; and Brucker, vol. ii. p. 136, note k.
[342] See Mosheim, Dissertat. de turbatâ Ecclesiâ, etc., Sec. 27.
[343] See Quæst. ad Orthodox 24 as quoted by Olearius, in his
Preface, p. 34.
[344] Eusebius calls it [Greek: theia tis kai arrêtos sophia] in
Hierocl. 2. In iii. 41, Philostratus speaks of the [Greek: klêseis ais
theoi chairousi], the spells for evoking them, which Apollonius
brought from India; Cf. iv. 16, and in iv. 20 of the [Greek: tekmêrion]
used for casting out an Evil Spirit.
[345] [Greek: Ei te spinthêra tês psychês euren en autê], etc.
[346] Douglas (Criterion, p. 387, note), observes that some heretics
affirmed that our Lord rose from the dead [Greek: phantasiôdôs], only
in appearance, from an idea of the impossibility of a resurrection.
[347] Apollon. Epist. 17.
[348] Vid. Rom. xv. 69; 1 Cor. ii. 4; 2 Cor. xii. 2, and Acts
passim.
[349] See Epist. 1, 2, etc., 11, 44; the last-mentioned addressed to
his brother begins, “What wonder, that, while the rest of mankind think
me godlike, and some even a god, my own country alone hitherto ignores
me, for whose sake especially I wished to distinguish myself, when not
even to you, my brother, as I perceive, has it become clear how much I
excel this race of men in my doctrine and my life
?”—Epist. ii. 44, vid. also i. 2. He does not say “in supernatural
power.” Cf. John xii. 37: “But though He had done so many miracles
before them, yet they believed not in Him.”
[350] Epist. 68. Claudius, in a message to the Tyanæans, Epist. 53,
praises him merely as a benefactor to youth.
[351] Philostr. vi. 11. See Euseb. in Hierocl. 26, 27.
[352] Hence the first of the charges brought against him by Domitian
was the strangeness of his dress.—Philostr. viii. 5. By way of
contrast, Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 3, 4; 2 Cor. x. 10.
[353] Philostr. iv. 1. See also i. 19, 21, iv. 17, 20, 39, vii. 31,
etc., and i. 10, 12 etc.
[354] Brucker, vol. ii. p. 144.
[355] Brucker supposes that, as in the case of Alexander, gain was
his object; but we seem to have no proof of this, nor is it necessary
thus to account for his conduct. We discover, indeed, in his character,
no marks of that high enthusiasm which would support him in his
whimsical career without any definite worldly object; yet the
veneration he inspired, and the notice taken of him by great men, might
be quite a sufficient recompense to a conceited and narrow mind.
[356] Cf. also Acts xx. 22, 23; xxi. 4, 11-14.
[357] Philostr. i. 8, 11, iv. 36, 38, 44, vii. 34, viii. 5, 11.
[358] See the description of his raising the Roman maid as above
given. Or take again the account of his appearance to Damis and
Demetrius at Puteoli, after vanishing from Court, viii. 12; in which
there is much incautious agreement with Luke xxiv. 14-17, 27, 29, 32,
36-40. Also more or less in the following: vii. 30, init. and 34, fin.
with Luke xii. 11, 12; iii. 38, with Matt. xvii. 14, etc., where
observe the contrast of the two narratives: viii. 30, fin. with Acts
xii. 7-10: iv. 44, with John xviii. 33, etc.: vii. 34, init. with Mark
xiv. 65: iv. 34, init. with Acts xvi. 8-10: i. 19, fin. with Mark vii.
27, 28. Brucker and Douglas notice the following in the detection of
the Empusa: [Greek: Dakruonti epskei to phasma, kai edeito mê
basanizein auto, mêde anagkazein omolsgein dti eiê], iv. 25, Cf. Mark
v. 7-9. Olearius compares an expression in vii. 30, with 1 Cor. ix. 9.
[359] E. G. his ambitious descriptions of countries, etc. In
iv. 30, 32, v. 22, vi. 24, he ascribes to Apollonius regular Socratic
disputations, and in vi. 11, a long and flowery speech in the presence
of the Gymnosophists—modes of philosophical instruction totally at
variance with the genius of the Pythagorean school, the Philosopher's
Letters still extant, and the writer's own description of his manner of
teaching, i. 17. Some of his exaggerations and mis-statements have been
noticed in the course of the narrative. As a specimen of the rhetorical
style in which the work is written, vid. his account of the restoration
of the Roman damsel, [Greek: O de ouden all ê prosapsamenos autês
aphypnise],—contrast this with the simplicity of the Scripture
narrative. See also the last sentence of v. 17, and indeed passim.
[360] E. G. his accounts of Indian and Æthiopian monsters; of
serpents whose eyes were jewels of magical virtue; of pygmies; of
golden water; of the speaking tree; of a woman half white and half
black, etc.; he incorporates in his narrative the fables of Ctesias,
Agatharchidas, and other writers. His blunders in geography and natural
philosophy may be added, as far as they arise from the desire of
describing wonders, etc. See also his pompous description of the
wonders of Babylon, which were not then in existence.—Prideaux,
Connection, Part 1. Book viii. For his inconsistencies, see Eusebius
and Brucker. It must be remembered, that in the age of Philostratus the
composition of romantic histories was in fashion.
[361] See Brucker, vol. i. p. 992, vol. ii. p. 378. Apollonius was
only one out of several who were set up by the Eclectics as rivals to
Christ Brucker, vol. ii. p. 372. Mosheim, de turbatâ Ecclesiâ, etc.
Secs. 25, 26.
[362] Philostr. i. 2, 3. He professes that his account contains much
news. As to the sources, besides the journal of Damis, from which
he pretends to derive his information, he neither tells us how he met
with them, nor what they contained; nor does he refer to them in the
course of his history. On the other hand (as we have above noticed),
much of the detail of Apollonius's journey is derived from the writings
of Ctesias, etc.