« ForrigeFortsæt »
ἀπανέστησαν αὐτίκα τῶν οἰκείων ἠθῶν καὶ πρὸς τὸν κατὰ Ῥωμαίων παρεσκευάζοντο πόλεμον. Cf. 4, 9, Ι, τὸ γὰρ Γερμανικὸν ἅπαν, ὧν πεπόνθει κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους ἐν οἷς Ἰουλιανὸς τὴν τοῦ Καίσαρος εἶχεν ἀρχὴν μεμνημένον, ἅμα τῷ γνῶναι τὴν αὐτοῦ τελευτὴν τὸ ταῖς αὐτῶν ψυχαῖς ἐμπεπηγὸς δέος ἀποσεισάμενοι καὶ τὸ φύσει προσπεφυκὸς αὐτοῖς θάρσος ἀναλαβόντες ὁμόσε πάντες τοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν Ῥωμαίων βασιλείαν ἐπῄεσαν χωρίοις.
Ammianus's notice refers to the year 364, but that is an impossible date for the oration. The trouble continued, however, for a number of years after Julian's death, and it was not till June 366 (cf. Clinton, i. p. 466) that the Alamanni along the northern border were finally quieted. (Cf. Zos. 4, 9, 4, of this date, ỷ μèv ovv πρòs тò Tepμaviкòv åtav μάχη ταύτης ἔτυχε τότε τῆς τελευτῆς.) The Goths also proved troublesome in the years 365 and 366, for they assisted Procopius (Ammian. 27, 4, 1), who came to his death about the time of the defeat of the Alamanni in 366. The barbarians were, however, by no means quiet during the years that followed. The Alamanni surprised Moguntiacum in 368, and the Gothic war which followed the defeat of Procopius lasted through three campaigns, 367, 368, 369. Here again, therefore, as in the case of the previous notice, although Libanius's words would seem to point to a time as soon as possible after the death of Julian (between July 21, 365, the date of the earthquake, and June 366, the date of the first general repulse of the barbarians along the northern border after Julian's death), the possibility of a later date is not wholly excluded.
Sievers (p. 253) makes a point, however, of Hieronymus's notice for the year 368: Libanius Antiochenus rhetor agnoscitur (Mai, Script. Vet.). It is no improbable supposition that for the year when Libanius 'flourished' Hieronymus selected the date of his best-known speech. This supposition, however, carries with it a consequence which Sievers did not anticipate, and which he would perhaps have hesitated to accept. If 368 is the date of the oration, it is the date of its publication, and not of its delivery. This appears from the following reasoning: Libanius informs us that the four years immediately preceding his 57th birthday was a period of continued indisposition owing to the vertigo (i. p. 96 : καὶ ὁ κλύδων οὗτος ἔτη τέτταρα ἐπεκράτει· . . .
1 Sievers reads insignis habetur and assigns the notice to 369.
καὶ ἦν μὲν ἔτος ἕβδομον ἐπὶ τοῖς πεντήκοντα λῆγον ἤδη).1 Libanius's 57th birthday was in July or August 371, as his 50th birthday was in July or August 364 (i. p. 94: τὰ δὲ ἐπὶ τούτοις, ἦν μὲν Ολύμπια τὰ παρ ̓ ἡμῖν· ἔτος δὲ ἐμοὶ πεντηκοστόν). During this period of four years, from the middle of 367 at the latest to the middle of 371, he was unable to declaim at all or to continue his instruction to his students unless lying in bed (i. p. 95 f. : ἓν ἦν ἐκείνοις μέτριον, ὅτι μήτε τοὺς λόγους μήτε τοὺς νέους ἐφεύγομεν. αὐτὸ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο οὖν ἡ παραψυχὴ, ồn τὸ ὡς ἥδιστα περὶ ταῦτα πονεῖν, οἴκοι τε ἐπὶ τῆς κλίνης, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ σκίμποδος ἐν τῷ διδασκαλείῳ· . . . αἱ δ ̓ ἐπιδείξεις ἐκποδὼν, ἀηδὴς δὲ φίλος προσιών). It is of course possible that the λóyos émirápios never was delivered, and indeed Reiske seems to have had some doubt on this point, for he says, i. p. 620, 'si dicta unquam fuit.' The probabilities are, however, in favor of its delivery. In any case, a year or two one way or the other would hardly count for much in the Chronicon, for Hieronymus's reckoning is notoriously loose when it comes to details. (See Mommsen, 'Die Quellen der Chronik des Hieron.' in Abh. d. sächs. Gesell. d. W. i. (1850) p. 684; Ritschl, Parerga, p. 623 ff.) However, it may be possible to account for the date 368. The exact date at which Libanius set up as a public teacher of rhetoric at Antioch is uncertain, but Sievers (p. 64, 12; 215 ff.) makes it out to be probably in the autumn of 354. Hieronymus completed his Chronicon in 380 (Migne, P. L. xxii. 44 f.). Taking these two dates as extremes, we should have the year 368 representing very nearly a point midway in Libanius's public career at Antioch. As such, it is one which we can readily believe Hieronymus would have selected as the year in which he 'flourished.' For similar methods of reckoning adopted by Hieronymus, see Ritschl's article in the Parerga, p. 623 ff. I notice also what seems to be a similar case in Hieronymus's remark on Basilius of Caesarea. Basilius entered the episcopate at Caesarea in 371; he died in 380. Hieronymus marks the year 376 thus: Basilius Caesariensis episcopus Cappadociae clarus habetur. Does this mean that Basilius published some work in 376 or does the date simply represent the middle point of his episcopate at
1 kλúdwv must, as Sievers says, p. 140, 36, refer to the trouble in the head, and not to the gout, which set in some years earlier.
Caesarea? The latter supposition is a possibility. The year 368 is also the point midway between the two dates which Libanius himself mentions in connection with his own age (364-371). Perhaps no conclusion can be drawn from a coincidence of this sort [though compare a similar case cited by Ritschl], but these latter dates may furnish a starting point for our reckoning. It is probably the case that, for most events contemporary with himself, Hieronymus depended not so much upon written accounts as upon verbal statements, records, and internal evidence. The pointedness of Libanius's reference to the earthquake and the inroads of the barbarians, combined with the inherent probability that the Tiтápios was actually delivered and not simply published, makes it likely that in Libanius's case at least the date of Hieronymus's notice, if we consider the year significant, is to be accounted for by some such reckoning as that suggested.
Further intimations in Libanius himself as to the date of the oration have not much significance. The famines and plagues which followed the death of Julian are referred to (i. p. 621), but the only notice in the chronicles referring to anything of the sort is Hieronymus's mention of a famine in Phrygia in 370. Clinton (i. p. 465) notices that the revolt of Procopius (365–366) is not mentioned by Libanius, and concludes therefrom either that the event was not yet known at Antioch or that the issue was still doubtful. It is to be presumed that Libanius would make mention in his oration of as many as possible of the miseries that followed the death of Julian, but still this argument, it must be admitted, is not conclusive for an early date. Libanius's reference to the indignities put upon those who had met with favor from Julian (i. p. 620) is thought by Sievers (p. 253) to be a possible reference to the indignities put upon Maximus by Valentinian (Eunap. Max. 102, 105), and is adduced as evidence of an earlier date for the oration than 375. If this argument has any force at all, the notice in Libanius points more nearly to the year 365 than to the year 368 or 369, for it was soon after the accession of the two emperors that Maximus was subjected to the treatment referred to. It is not at all clear, however, that the reference is so particular as is suggested by Sievers. Socrates (H. E. iii. 22; cf. Clinton, i. p. 465) puts the emirápios under Jovian's reign. Perhaps
this mistake signifies nothing more than that Socrates at least thought the oration early.
The question, then, stands thus: The terminus post quem of the dóyos émɩtápios is July 21, 365. All the evidence points to an early date for the oration,—to a time, we may say, between July 21, 365 and June 366. A later date is, however, not absolutely out of the question. But if we assign the speech to a time later than the summer of 367, such a date is the date of publication, and not the date of delivery.
NOTES ON THE SYMBOLISM OF THE APPLE IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY.1
BY BENJAMIN OLIVER FOSTER.
HE stories of the Garden of the Hesperides and the wooing of Atalanta suggest at once the importance of the apple in ancient mythology; but the extent to which superstitions of various kinds about apples are current to this day, and even in our own country, may perhaps not be so generally realized. These modern folk-notions about the apple have to do chiefly, so far as I am acquainted with them, with love or fruitfulness. A girl removes the peel of an apple in one long strip, throws it back over her head, and, turning round, tries to discover, in its twists and curves, the initial of her sweetheart. Or the seeds of an apple are placed on the palm of the hand, which is then clapped to the forehead, and, from the number of seeds sticking there, certain valuable conclusions are drawn. H. F. Tozer says that in modern Greece throwing an apple is a sign to express love, or to make an offer of marriage.2 Frazer in The Golden Bough3 tells of a custom among the Kara-Kirgiz, in accordance with which barren women roll upon the ground under a solitary apple-tree, in order to obtain offspring. By an old. Hallow-e'en custom, still kept up in Scotland, a maiden goes alone into a room and eats an apple before a mirror, whereupon the face of her future husband is supposed to appear, looking over
1 Fränkel, Arch. Zeit. xxxi (1874), pp. 36 ff., in an article on the Venus of Melos, gives a partial list of passages, and a brief discussion of the subject. It is treated also in Dilthey's de Callimachi Cydippa (Leips. 1863), to which I am indebted for a number of citations. Clearchus of Soli, a scholar of the Alexandrine period, wrote a little essay of about 250 words on this subject (Athen. xii. p. 553 E) chiefly interesting to us as showing that in his time the origin of the symbolism was quite forgotten.
2 Researches in the Highlands of Turkey, 1869, ii. p. 331. 8 i. p. 73.
Das alte Griechenland im Neuen, pp. 82 ff.