ページの画像
PDF

Lausiac History. Tillemont places at the commencement of his ascetic career his abode with Elpidius of Cappadocia, in some caverns of Mount Lucas, near the banks of the Jordan (c. 70, Meurs., 106, Bibl. Patr.), and his residence at Bethlehem, and other places in Palestine. He supposes that it was at this time that he saw several other saints who dwelt in that country, and anong them, perhaps (for Palladius does not directly say that he knew him personally), St. Jerome, of whom his impressions, derived chiefly, if not wholly, from the representations of Posidonius, were by no means favourable (c. 42, 50, Meurs., 78, 124, Bibl. Patr.). Palladius first visited Alexandria in the second consulship of the emperor Theodosius the Great, i.e. in A. D. 388 (c. 3, Meurs., l, Bibl. Patr.), and by the advice of Isidorus, a presbyter of that city, placed himself under the instruction of Dorothéus, a solitary, whose mode of life was so hard and austere that Palladius was obliged, by sickness, to leave him, without completing the three years which he had intended to stay (c. 4, Meurs., 2, Bibl. Patr.) He remained for a short time in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, and then resided for a year among the solitaries in the mountains of the desert of Nitria, who amounted to five thousand (c. 9, Meurs, 6, Bibl. Patr.), of whose place of abode and manner of life he gives a description (ibid.). From Nitria he proceeded further into the wilderness, to the district of the cells, where he arrived the year after the death of Macarius the Egyptian, which occurred in A. D. 390 or 391. [MACARIUs, No. 1.] Here he remained nine years, three of which he spent as the companion of Macarius the younger, the Alexandrian [MACARIUS, No. 2], and was for a time the companion and disciple of Evagrius of Pontus [Evagrius, No. 4), who was charged with entertaining Origenistic opinions. [ORIGENEs.] How long he remained with Evagrius is not known (c. 21, 22, 29, Meurs., c. 19, 20, 29, Bibl. Patr.). But he did not confine himself to one spot: he visited cities, or villages, or deserts, for the purpose of conversing with men of eminent holiness, and his history bears incidental testimony to the extent of his travels. The Thebaid or Upper Egypt, as far as Tabenna [PAchoMIUs], and Syene, Lybia, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and even Rome and Campania, and as he vaguely and boastfully states, the whole Roman empire, were visited by him, and that almost entirely on foot (c. 2, Meurs., Prooem. in Bibl. Patr. pp. 897, 898). In consequence of severe illness, Palladius was sent by the other solitaries to Alexandria, and from that city, by the advice of his physicians, he went to Palestine, and from thence into Bithynia, where, as he somewhat mysteriously adds, either by human desire or the will of God, he was ordained bishop. He gives neither the date of his appointment nor the name of his bishopric, but intimates that it was the occasion of great trouble to him, so that, “while hidden for eleven months in a gloomy cell,” he remembered a prophecy of the holy recluse, Joannes of Lycopolis, who, three years before Palladius was taken ill and sent to Alexandria, had foretold both his elevation to the episcopacy and his consequent troubles. As he was present with Evagrius of Pontus, about the time of his death (c. 86, Bibl. Patr.), which probably occurred in A. D. 399 [Evagrius, No.4], he could not have left Egypt till that year, nor can

we well place his ordination as bishop before A. D.

All the foregoing particulars relate to the author of the Lausiac History, from the pages of which the notices of them are gleaned. Now we learn from Photius (Biblioth. Cod. 57), that in the Synod “of the Oak,” at which Joannes or John Chrysostom was condemned [CHRysostomus], and which was held in A. D. 403, one of the charges against him related to the ordination of a Palladius, bishop of Helenopolis, in Bithynia, a follower of the opinions of Origen. The province in which the diocese was situated, the Origenist opinions (probably imbibed from or cherishod by Evagrius of Pontus), and the intimation of something open to objection in his ordination, compared with the ambiguous manner in which the author of the Lausiae History speaks of his elevation, are, we think, conclusive as to the identity of the historian with Palladius of Helenopolis. He is doubtless the Palladius charged by Epiphanius (Epistol. ad Joan. Jerosol. apud Hieronymi Opera, vol. i. col.252, ed. Wallars.), and by Jerome himself (Prooem. in Dial. adv. Pelagianos) with Origenism. Tillemont vainly attempts to show that Palladius the Origenist was a different person from the bishop of Helenopolis. Assuming this identity, we may place his elevation to the episcopacy in A. D. 400, in which year he was present in a synod held by Chrysostom at Constantinople, and was sent into Proconsular Asia to procure evidence on a charge against the bishop of Ephesus. (Pallad. Dial. de Vita S. Joan. Chrys. p. 131.) The deposition of Chrysostom involved Palladius also in troubles, to which, as we have seen, he refers in his Lausiac History. Chrysostom, in his exile, wrote to “Palladius the bishop” (Epistol. cxiii. Opera, vol. iii. p. 655, ed. Benedictin., p. 790, ed. Bened. secund. Paris, 1838, &c.), exhorting him to continue in prayer, for which his seclusion gave him opportunity; and from this notice we could derive, if needful, a farther proof of the identity of the two Palladii, since the historian, as we have seen, speaks of his concealment for “eleven months in a gloomy cell.”

Fearful of the violence of his enemies, Palladius of Helenopolis fled to Rome (Dialog. de Vita S. Chrysost. c. 3. p. 26, and Hist. Lausiac, c. 121, Bibl. Patr.) in A. D. 405; and it was probably at Rome that he received the letter of encouragement addressed to him and the other fugitive bishops, Cyriacus of Synnada, Alysius, or Eulysius of the Bithynian Apameia, and Demetrius of Pessinus. (Chrys. Epistol. cxlviii. Opera, vol. iii. p. 686, ed. Benedictin., p. 827, ed. Benedict. secund.) It was probably at this time that Palladius became acquainted with the monks of Rome and Campania. When some bishops and presbyters of Italy were delegated by the Western emperor Honorius, the pope, Innocentius I. [INNocentius], and the bishops of the Western Church generally, to protest to the Eastern emperor Arcadius against the banishment of Chrysostom, and to demand the assembling of a new council in his case, Palladius and his fellow-exiles returned into the East, apparently as members of the delegation. But their return was ill-timed and unfortunate: they were arrested on approaching Constantinople, and both delegates and exiles were confined at Athyra in Thrace; and then the four returning fugitives were banished to separate and distant places, Palladius to the extremity of Upper Egypt, in the vicinity of the Blemmyes. (Dial. de Vita Chrysost. c. 4, 19, pp. 30, &c., 192, &c.) Tillemont supposes that after the death of Theophilus of Alexandria, the great enemy of Chrysostom (A. D. 412), Palladius obtained some relaxation of his punishment, though he was not allowed to return to Helenopolis, or to resume his episcopal functions. He places in the interval between 412 and 420, when the Lausiac History was written, a residence of four years at Antinče or Antinoopolis, in the Thebaid (c. 81, Meurs, 96, Bill. Patr.), and of three years in the Mount of Olives, near Jerusalem (c. 63, Meurs., 103, Bill. Patr.), as well as the visits which Palladius paid to many parts of the East. After a time he was restored to his bishopric of Helenopolis, from which he was translated to that of Aspona or Aspuna in Galatia (Socrat. vii. 36): but the dates both of his restoration and his translation cannot be fixed: they probably took place after the healing of the schism occasioned by Chrysostom's affair, in A. D. 417, and probably after the composition of the Lausiac History, in A. D. 419 or 420. Palladius was probably dead before A. D. 431, when, in the third General (first Ephesian) Council, the see of Aspona was held by another person. He appears to have held the bishopric of Aspona only a short time, as he is currently designated from Helenopolis. The works ascribed to Palladius are the following: "H rpès Aadowva röv trpairéaitov iotopia repoxovoa Bious daiwy ratépwy, Ad Lausum Praepositum Historia, quae Sanctorum Patrum titas complectitur, usually cited as Historia Lausiaca, “the Lausiac History.” This work contains biographical notices or characteristic anecdotes of a number of ascetics, with whom Palladius was personally acquainted, or concerning whom he received information from those who had known them personally. Though its value is diminished by the records of miracles and other marvels to which the author's credulity (the characteristic, however, of his age and class rather than of the individual) led him to give admission, it is curious and interesting as exhibiting the prevailing religious tendencies of the time, and valuable as recording various facts relating to eminent men. Sozomen has borrowed many anecdotes from this work, but without avowedly citing it. Socrates, who mentions the work (H. E. iv. 23), describes the author as a monk, a disciple of Evagrius of Pontus, and states that he flourished soon after the death of Valens. The date, and the absence of any reference to his episcopal dignity, might induce a suspicion that the author and the bishop were two different persons; but the coincidences are too many to allow the casual and inaccurate notice of Socrates to outweigh them. The Lausus or Lauson (the name is written both ways, Aajaos and Aasaww), to whom the work is addressed, was chamberlain ("pairé*** 700 koirovos, praepositus cubiculo), apparently to the Emperor Theodosius the Younger. The Historia Lausiaca was repeatedly translated into Latin at an early period. There are extant ** ancient translations, one ascribed by Heribert **eyd, but improperly, to Rufinus, who died * the work was written; and two others, the * of which are not known ; beside a compa*Y modern version by Gentianus Hervetus. *first printed edition of the work was in one - the ancient Latin versions, which appeared lit .* of the typographic art in the Vitae lii,

Patrun, printed three times without mark of year or place, or printer's name. It was reprinted in the Prototypus Veteris Ecclesiae of Theodoricus Loher a Stratis, fol. Cologn. 1547. The version ascribed by Rosweyd to Rufinus had also been printed many times before it appeared in the first edition of the Vitae Patrum of that editor, fol. Antwerp, A. D. 1615. The remaining ancient Latin version, with several other pieces, was printed under the editorial care of Faber Stapulensis, fol. Paris, 1504, under the following title: Paradysus Heraclidis (Panzer, Annal. Top. vol. vii. p. 510), or more fully Heraclidis Eremitae Liter qui ducitur Paradisus, seu Palladii Galatae Historia Lausiaca. (Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol.x. p. 194.) The first edition of the Greek text, but a very imperfect one, was that of Meursius, who added notes, small 4to. Leyden, 1616. Another edition of the Greek text, fuller than that of Meursius, was contained in the Auctarium of Fronto Ducaeus, vol. ii. fol. Paris, 1624, with the version of Hervetus, which had been first published 4to. Paris, 1555, and had been repeatedly reprinted in the successive editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum, the Vitae Patrum of Rosweyd, and elsewhere. The Greek text and version were reprinted from the Auctarium of Ducaeus, in the editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum, fol. Paris, 1644 and 1654. Our references are to the edition of 1654. Some additional chapters are given in the Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta of Cotelerius, vol. iii. 4to. Paris, 1686. It is probable that the printed text is still very defective, and that large additions might be made from MSS. 2. Aid Aoyos ioTopikos IIaMAaôtov ‘EAevovtrówea's Yevéuevos Tpós 9e33apov Šudikovov Paums, Tepl Biow kal troAireias toū uakaptov 'Iwdvvov ëriakórov KavatavruvoróAews toū Xpwood Táuov. Dialogus Historicus Palladii episcopi Helenopolis cum Theodoro ecclesiae Romanae diacomo, de vita et conversatione Beati Joannis Chrysostomi, episcopi Constantinopolis. This inaccurate title of the work misled many into the belief that it was really by Palladius of Helenopolis, to whom indeed, not only on account of his name, but as having been an exile at Rome for his adherence to Chrysostom, it was naturally enough ascribed. Photius calls the writer a bishop (Bibl. cod. 96. sub init.), and Theodorus of Trimithus, a Greek writer of uncertain date, distinctly identifies him with the author of the Historia Lausiaca. A more attentive examination, however, has shown that the author of the Dialogus was a different person from the bishop, and several years older, though he was his companion and fellow-sufferer in the delegation from the Western emperor and church on behalf of Chrysostom, which occasioned the imprisonment and exile of the bishop. Bigotius thinks that the work was published anonymously; but that the author having intimated in the work that he was a bishop was mistakenly identified with Palladius, and the title of the work in the MS. given accordingly. The Dialogus de Vita S. Chrysostomi first appeared in a Latin version by Ambrosius Camaldulensis, or the Camaldolite, 8vo. Venice, 1532 (or 1533), and was reprinted at Paris and in the Vitae Sanctorum of Lipomannus, and in the Latin editions of Chrysostom's works. The Greek text was published by Emericus Bigotius, with a valuable preface and a new Latin version by the editor, with seve

ral other pieces, 4to. Paris, 1680, and was reprinted 4to. Paris, 1738. Tillemont, assuming that the h

[graphic][graphic]

author of the Dialogue was called Palladius, thinks he may have been the person to whom Athanasius wrote in A. D. 371 or 372. 3. IIepl rév rās Ivösas éðvøv kal rôv Bpayuávov, De Gentibus Indiae et Bragmanibus. This work is, in several MSS., ascribed to Palladius of Helenopolis, and in one MS. is subjoined to the Historia Lausiaca. It was first published with a Latin version, but without the author's name, in the Liber Gnomologicus of Joachimus Camerarius, 8vo. Leipsic, without date, according to Fabricius, but placed by Niceron (Mémoires, vol.xix. p.112),in 1571. It was again printed, and this time under the name of Palladius, together with “S. Ambrosius De Moribus Brachmanorum,” and “Anonymus, De Bragmanibus” by Sir Edward Bisse (Bissaeus), Clarenceux King of Arms, 4to., London, 1665. Some copies were printed on large paper in folio. The editor was evidently ignorant of the work having been published by Camerarius, and consequently gave a new Latin version, which is not considered equal to that of his predecessor. The authorship of Palladius is doubted by Cave, and denied by Oudin. Lambecius (De Biblioth. Caesaraea, vol. v. p. 181, ed. Kollar) ascribes the work to Palladius of Methone. [No. 9..] All that can be gathered from the work itself, is that the author was a Christian (passim), and lived while the Roman empire was yet in existence (p. 7, ed. Biss.), a mark of time, however, of little value, as the Byzantine empire retained to the last the name of Roman ; and that he visited the nearest parts of India in company with Moses, bishop of Adula, a place on the borders of Egypt and Aethiopia. If this be the Moses mentioned by Socrates (H. E. iv. 36) and Sozomen (H. E. vi. 38), he lived rather too early for Palladius of Helenopolis to have been his companion, nor is there any reason to suppose that the latter ever visited India, so that the work De Gentibus Indiae is probably ascribed to him without reason. The supposed work of St. Ambrose, published by Bisse, is repudiated by the Benedictine editors of that father, and has been shown by Kollar to be a free translation of the work ascribed to Palladius. (Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 401, vol. i. p. 376, fol. Oxford, 1740–43; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. i. p. 727, vol. viii. p. 456, vol. x. p. 98, &c.; Oudin, Comment. de Scriptor. Eccles. vol. i. col. 908, &c.; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. xi. p. 500, &c.; Vossius, De Historicis Graecis, lib. ii. c. 19.) 8. IATRosophistA, of Alexandria. [See above.] 9. Of METhoNE, a sophist or rhetorician, was the son of Palladius, and lived in the reign of Constantine the Great. He wrote, (1) IIep tav trapd 'Paouaious éoptèv, De Romanorum Festis ; (2.) AlaAéčeis, Disputationes; and (3.) A670 biáqopol, 'OAvutriakós, wavnyvpurós, òlkavikás, Orationes Diversae, Olympiaca, Panegyrica, Judicialis (Suidas, s.v. IIaMAdãios ; Eudocia’Iwwud, Violetum, s. v. IIaMAdètos é Pirwp, apud Willoison, Anecdot. Graec. p. 352). It is probable that what Suidas and Eudocia describe as Orationes Diversae are the Mexéral Sudqopol, Erercitationes Diversae, which Photius (Bibl. codd. 132–135) had read, and which he describes as far superior in every respect to those of the rhetoricians Aphthonius [AphthoN1Us], Eusebius, and Maximus, of Alexandria. Lambecius ascribed, but without reason, to this Palladius the work De Gentibus Indiae, &c., published under the name of Paliadius of Helenopolis [No. 7]. This Palladius of Methone must not be confounded with the Latin

rhetorician Palladius, the friend of Symmachus, mentioned by Sidonius Apollinaris (Symmach. Epistol, passim ; Sidon. Epistol, lib. v. ep. 10). (Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. vi. p. 135, vol.x. pp. 113,716, &c.; Vossius, De Historicis Graec. lib. iv. c. 18.)

10. Port A. In various collections of the minor Latin poets is a short Lyric poem, Allegoria Orphei, in the same measure as Horace's ode “Solvitur acris hiems,” &c. Wernsdorf, who has given it in his Poetae Latini Minores, vol. iii. p. 396, distinguishes (ibid. p. 342, &c.) the author of it from Palladius Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus, the writer on Agriculture ; and is disposed to identify him with the rhetorician Palladius who lived in the reign of Theodosius the Great, and to whom many of the letters of Symmachus are addressed. He thinks that he may perhaps be the Palladius to whom his father, Julius Nicephorus, erected a monument, with the inscription, given by Gruter and others—

“Utte, Palladi, raptum flevere Camoenae, Fleverunt populi, quos continet Ostia dia.”

If these conjectures are well founded, it may be gathered that Palladius was the son of a rhetorician, or at least sprung from a family which had produced some rhetoricians of eminence; that he was originally himself a rhetorician, but had been called to engage in public life, and held the praefecture or some other office in the town and port of Ostia. He is perhaps also the Palladius mentioned by Sidonius Apollinaris (lib. v. Epist. 10). Wernsdorf also identifies him with the Palladius “Poeta Scholasticus,” several of whose verses are given in the Anthologia of Burmann: viz. Epitaphium Ciceronis, lib. v. ii. 161, Argumentum in Aeneidos ii. 195, Epitaphia Virgilii, ii. 197, 198, De Ratione Fabulae, iii. 75, De Ortu Solis, v. 7, De Iride, v. 25. De Signis Coelestibus, v. 31, De Quatuor Tempestatibus, v. 58, De Amne Glacie Concreto, v. 97. (Burmann, Antholog. Latina, ll. cc.; Wermsdorf, Poetae Latini Minores, ll. c.c. : Fabricius, Bibl. Med. et Infim. Latinit. vol. v. p. 191, ed. Mansi.)

11. RhEtor. [No. 9, 10.]

12. RUtilius TAUR Us AEMILIANUs, a writer on agriculture. [See below.]

13. ScotoR is M. Episcopus. In the Chronicon of Prosper Aquitanus, under the consulship of Bassus and Antiochus (A. D. 431), this passage occurs, “Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a papa Coelestino Palladius, et primus episcopus mittitur.” In another work of the same writer (Contra Collatorem, c. 21, §2), speaking of Coelestine's exertions to repress the doctrines of Pelagius, he says, “Ordinato Scotis episcopo, dum Romanam insulam studet servare Catholicam, fecit etiam barbaram Christianam.” (Opera, col. 363, ed. Paris, 1711.) To these meagre notices, the only ones found in contemporary writers (unless, with some, we refer to the conversion of the Scoti the lines of Prosper De Ingratis, vss. 330– 332), the chroniclers and historians of the middle ages have added a variety of contradictory particulars, so that it is difficult, indeed impossible, to extract the true facts of Palladius' history. It has been a matter of fierce dispute between the Irish and the Scots, to which of them Palladius was sent; but the usage of the word “Scoti,” in Prosper's time, and the distinction drawn by him between “insulam Romanam” and “insulam barbaram,” seem to determine the question in favour of the Irish. This solution leads, however, to another difficulty. According to Prosper, Palladius converted the Irish, “fecit barbaram (sc. insulam) Christianam ;” while the united testimony of ecclesiastical antiquity ascribes the conversion of Ireland to Patricius (St. Patrick), who was a little later than Palladius. But possibly the success of Palladius, though far from bearing out the statement of Prosper, may have been greater than subsequent writers, zealous for the honour of St. Patrick, and seeking to exaggerate his success by extenuating that of his predecessors, were willing to allow. There is another difficulty, arising from an apparent contradiction between the two passages in Prosper, one of which ascribes to Palladius the conversion of the island, while the other describes him as being sent “ad Scotos in Christo credentes:" but this seeming contradiction may be reconciled by the supposition that Palladius had visited the island and made some converts, before being consecrated and again sent out as their bishop. This supposition accounts for a circumstance recorded by Prosper, that “Florentio et Dionysio Coss.” i.e. in A. D. 429, Palladius, while yet only a deacon, prevailed on Pope Coelestine to send out Germanus of Auxerre (GERMANUs, No. 6..] to stop the progress of Pelagianism in Britain: which indicates on the part of Palladius a knowledge of the state of the British islands, and an interest in them, such as a previous visit would be likely to impart. The various statements of the mediaeval writers have been collected by Usher in his Britannicar. Ecclesiar. Antiq. c. xvi. p. 799, &c. See also J. B. Sollerius, De S. Palladio in the Acta Sanctor. Jul. vol. ii. p. 286, &c. Palladius is commemorated as a saint by the Irish Romanists on the 27th Jan. : by those of Scotland on July 6th. His shrine, or reputed shrine, at Fordun, in the Mearns, in Scotland, was regarded before the Reformation with the greatest reverence; and various localities in the neighbourhood are still pointed out as connected with his history. Jocelin, of Furness, a monkish writer of the twelfth century states, in his life of St. Patrick (Acta Sanctor. Martii, vol. ii. p. 545; Julii, vol. ii. p. 289), that Palladius, disheartened by his little success in Ireland, crossed over into Great Britain, and died in the territory of the Picts; a statement which, supported as it is by the local traditions of Fordun, may be received as containing a portion of truth. The mediaeval writers have, in some instances, strangely confounded Palladius, the apostle of the Scoti, with Palladius of Helenopolis; and Trithemius (De &riptor. Eccles. c. 133), and even Baronius (Annal. Eccles, ad ann. 429. § 8), who is followed by Possevino, make the former to be the author of the Dialogus de Vita Chrysostomi. Baronius, also, astribes wo him (ibid.) Liber contra Pelagianos, Homiliarum Liber unus, and Ad Coelestinum Epistolarum Liber unus, and other works written in Greek. For these statements he cites the authority of Trithemius, who however mentions only the Dialogus. It is probable that the statement roots on the very untrustworthy authority of Bale (Bale, Script. Illustr. Maj. Britann. cent. xiv. 6; Usher, l.c.; Sollerius l.c.; Tillemont, Mém. vol. *: p. 154, &c. p. 737; Fabricius, Bibl. Med. * losin. Latinit. vol. v. p. 191.) 14. Of Suedra, in Pamphylia. Prefixed to the *orutus of Epiphanius of Salamis or Constantia

[ocr errors]

[Epiph ANIUs], is a Letter of Palladius to that father. It is headed 'Etta toxi) Ypapeiaa trapd IIaxAa3tov Tis attàs róAews Xovéðpwy troAttevouévov kal diroo taxesora opós Tov adrów toytov 'Etiopéviov airforavros kai auroi trepi tāv adráv, Palladii ejusdem Suedrorum urbis civis ad Sanctum Epiphanium Epistola, qua idem ab eo postulat, i. e. in which he seconds the request made by certain Presbyters of Suedra (whose letter precedes that of Palladius) that Epiphanius would answer certain questions respecting the Trinity of which the Ancoratus contains the solution. (Epiphanius, Opera, vol. ii. p. 3. ed. Petav, fol. Paris, 1622; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. x. p. 114.) [J.C.M.] PALLA/DIUS, RUTI'Ll US TAURUS AEMILIA/NUS, the author of a treatise De Re Rustica, in the form of a Farmer's Calendar, the various operations connected with agriculture and a rural life being arranged in regular order, according to the seasons in which they ought to be performed. It is comprised in fourteen books: the first is introductory, the twelve following contain the duties of the twelve months in succession, commencing with January ; the last is a poem, in eighty-five elegiac couplets, upon the art of grafting (De Insitione); each of these books, with the exception of the fourteenth, is divided into short sections distinguished by the term Tituli instead of the more usual designation Capita, a circumstance which is by some critics regarded as a proof that the author belongs to a late period. What that period may have been scholars have toiled hard to discover. The first writer by whom Palladius is mentioned is Isidorus of Seville, who refers to him twice, simply as Aemilianus (Orig. xvii. 1. § 1, 10. § 8), the name under which he is spoken of by Cassiodorus also (Divin. Lect. c. 28). Barthius supposes him to be the eloquent Gaulish youth Palladius, to whose merits Rutilius pays so warm a compliment in his Itinerary (i. 207), while Wernsdorf, advancing one step farther into the realms of fancy (Poët. Lat. Min. vol. v. pars i. p. 551), imagines that he may have been adopted by Rutilius, an idea which, however, he afterwards abandoned (vol. vi. p. 20), and rested satisfied with assigning him to the age of Valentinian or Theodosius. The internal evidence is by no means so copious as to compensate for the want of information from without. The style, without being barbarous, is such as would justify us in bringing the writer down as low as the epoch fixed by Wernsdorf, although he might with equal propriety be placed two centuries earlier; but the controversy seems to have recently received a new light from the researches of Count Bartolommeo Borghesi, who in a memoir published among the Transactions of the Turin Academy (vol. xxxviii. 1835), has pointed out that Pasiphilus, the person to whom in all probability Palladius dedicates his fourteenth book, was praefect of the city in A. D. 355. We gather from his own words (iv. 10. § 16), that he was possessed of property in Sardinia and in the territorium Neapolitanum, wherever that may have been, and that he had himself practised horticulture in Italy (iv. 10. § 24), but the expressions from which it has been inferred he was a native of Gaul (i. 13. § 1, vii. 2. § 2) by no means justify such a conclusion. Although evidently not devoid of a practical acquaintance with his subject, a considerable portion of the whole work is taken directly from Columella; in all that relates to gardening, and

i

[graphic][graphic]
[graphic]

especially to the management of fruit trees he was deeply indebted to Gargilius Martialis; various recipes are extracted from the Greeks consulted by the compilers of the “Geoponica,” and the chapters connected with architectural details are mere compendiums of Vitruvius. Palladius seems to have been very popular in the middle ages, a fact established by the great variety of readings afforded by different MSS., since these discrepancies prove that the text must have been very frequently transcribed, and by the circumstance that nearly the whole of the treatise is to be found included in the well-known “Speculum" of Vincentius of Beauvais. The name, as given at the head of this article, appears at full length both at the beginning and at the end of the Vatican Codices. Palladius was first printed by Jenson in the “Rei Rusticae Scriptores,” fol. Venet. 1472, and from that time forward was included in nearly all the collections of writers upon agricultural topics. The best editions are those contained in the “Scriptores Rei Rusticae veteres Latini” of Gesner, 2 vols. 4to. Lips. 1735, reprinted with additions and corrections by Ernesti in 1773, and in the “Scriptores Rei Rusticae" of Schneider, 4 vols. 8vo. Lips. 1794, in which the text underwent a complete revision, and appears under a greatly amended form. There are translations into English by Thomas Owen, 8vo. London 1803, into German along with Columella by Maius, fol. Magdeb. 1612, into French by Jean Darces, 8vo. Paris, 1553, into Italian by Marino, 4to. Sien. 1526, by Nicolo di Aristotile detto Zoppino, 4to. Vineg. 1528, by Sansovino, 4to. Vineg. 1560, and by Zanotti, 4to. Veron. 1810. [W. R.] PALLA'NTIA, a daughter of Evander, was beloved by Heracles, and said to be buried on the Palatine hill at Rome, which derived its name from her. (Serv. ad Aen. viii. 51.) Evander himself, being a grandson of Pallas, is also called Pallantius. (Ov. Fast. v. 647.) [L. S.] PALLA'NTIAS, a patronymic by which Aurora, the daughter of the giant Pallas, is sometimes designated. (Ov. Met. iv. 373, vi. 567, ix. 420.) Pallantias also occurs as a variation for Pallas, the surname of Athena. (Anthol. Palat. vi. 247.) PALLAS (IIáAAas). 1. A son of Crius and Eurybia, was one of the Titans, and brother of Astraeus and Perses. He was married to Styx, by whom he became the father of Zelus, Cratos, Bia, and Nice. (Hes. Theog. 376, 383 ; Paus. vii. 26. § 5, viii. 18, § 1 ; Apollod. i. 2. §§ 2, 4.) 2. A son of Megamedes, and father of Selene. (Hom. Hymn. in Merc. 100.) 3. A giant, who, in the fight with the gods, was slain by Athena, and flayed by her. (Apollod. i. 6. § 2.) 4. A son of Lycaon, and grandfather of Evander, is said to have founded the town of Pallantium in Arcadia, where statues were erected both to Pallas and Evander. (Paus. viii. 3. § 1, 44. § 5.) Servius (ad Aen. viii. 54) calls him a son of Aegeus, and states that being expelled by his brother Theseus, he emigrated into Arcadia; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (i. 33) confounds him with Pallas, the son of Crius. 5. According to some traditions, the father of Athena, who slew him as he was on the point of violating her. (Cic. De Nat. Deor. iii. 23; Tzetz. ad Lyc. 355.)

6. A son of Heracles by Dyna, the daughter of Evander ; from her some derived the name of the Palatine hill at Rome. (Dionys. i. 32.) 7. A son of Evander, and an ally of Aeneas, was slain by the Rutulian Turnus. (Virg. Aen. viii. 104, 514, xi. 140, &c.) 8. A son of the Athenian king Pandion, and accordingly a brother of Aegeus, Nisus, and Lycus, was slain by Theseus. The celebrated family of the Pallantidae at Athens traced their origin up to this Pallas. (Apollod. iii. 15. § 5 ; Paus. i. 22. § 2, 28. § 10; Plut. Thes. 3.; Eurip. Hippol. 35. [L. S.] PALLAS (IIaMAds), a surname of Athena. In Homer this name always appears united with the name Athena, as IIaxxds 'Athivn or IIaxxas Atomvain; but in later writers we also find Pallas alone instead of Athena. (Pind. Ol. v. 21.) Plato (Cratyl. p. 406) derives the surname from trăAAeov, to brandish, in reference to the goddess brandishing the spear or aegis, whereas Apollodorus (i. 6. § 2) derives it from the giant Pallas, who was slain by Athena. But it is more probable that Pallas is the same word as triNAač, i. e. a virgin or maiden. (Comp. Tzetz. ad Lyc. 355.) Another female Pallas, described as a daughter of Triton, is mentioned under PALLADIUM. [L. S]. PALLAS, a freedman of the emperor Claudius, and one of his greatest favourites. He was originally the slave of Antonia, the mother of Claudius, and is first mentioned in A. D. 31, when Antonia entrusted to him the responsible commission of carrying a letter to the emperor Tiberius, in which she disclosed the ambitious projects of Sejanus, and in consequence of which the all-powerful minister was put to death. (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 7. § 6). The name of Pallas does not occur during the reign of Caligula, but on the accession of Claudius, whose property he had become by the death of Antonia, and who had meantime manumitted him, he played an important part in public affairs. Along with Narcissus and Callistus, two other freedmen, he administered the affairs of the empire, but Narcissus had more energy and resolution than the other two, and consequently took the leading part in the government during the early part of Claudius' reign. When they saw that the death of Messalina, the wife of the emperor, was necessary to their own security, Narcissus alone had the courage to carry it into execution [NARcissus] ; Pallas was afraid to take any decisive step. The consequence was, that after the execution of the empress, the influence of Narcissus became superior to that of Callistus and Pallas, but the latter soon recovered his former power. The question now was, whom the weak-minded emperor should marry, and each of the three freedmen had a different person to propose. Pallas was fortunate enough to advocate the claims of Agrippina, who actually admitted the freedman to her embraces in order to purchase his support; and upon the marriage of Agrippina to the emperor in A. D. 50, Pallas shared in the good fortune of his candidate. He was now leagued with the empress in order to oppose Narcissus; and Pallas and Agrippina became the real rulers of the Roman world. It was Pallas who persuaded Claudius to adopt the young Domitius (afterwards the emperor Nero), the son of Agrippina, and he thus paved the way for his accession to the throne. This important service did not go unrewarded. In A. D.

« 前へ次へ »