Gibbon expresses the opinion that in no period of the world's history
has the human race been happier or more prosperous than during the time
which elapsed between the reigns of Domitian and Commodus. There is not
a little that may be said in support of this remarkable conclusion.
Under Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines, the Empire enjoyed the
calm and brilliant evening following a long day of bitter strife and
perilous turmoil, and preceding the moral darkness of the rule of the
tyrants under whom paganism was fated to expire.
During this period, Italy and the interior provinces of the Empire were
entirely free from the rude alarms of war. The home of that day was as
secure from violence as it is among ourselves at the present time. No
wife or daughter had occasion unavailingly to beg the life of husband or
father from the jealous or timid cruelty of a self-indulgent ruler. In
the home circle, there was no foreboding dread of proscription. The
terrible laws regarding _crimen majestatis_, under which so many
cruelties had been perpetrated and so many families unjustly bereaved,
were held in abeyance. Pliny writes to Trajan: "It is said, sir, that a
woman and her sons have been buried in the same place where your statue
is set up." This, under some of the former emperors, would have been a
grave matter; a woman was executed under Domitian because she disrobed
before a statue of the emperor. But Trajan writes: "You should not have
hesitated about such a question, for you know very well that I do not
propose to make my name respected by terror and by accusations of
treason. Dismiss this charge, which I shall not consider."
The people were prosperous. The vast extent of the Roman dominion, with
its thoroughly organized and centralized government and its easy means
of communication, interchanged a wonderful abundance and variety of the
products of industry and commerce. At no time previous to the discovery
of America did housewife ever draw the supplies for her table and her
wardrobe from such widely separated quarters of the earth's surface as
did the Roman woman in the time of Hadrian. As a modern historian has
said: "The world was opened; the most secluded places had become
accessible; all things circulated without let or hindrance. It was free
trade, with its advantageous results in abundance and low prices. All
the produce of the world came into Rome by the Tiber. The women of the
Bernese Oberland bought their ornaments of a jeweller in Asia Minor, and
thought less of it than we of procuring rugs from Smyrna or Damascus."
The people also were protected by salutary laws. The women of that day,
when they went to the shops and purchased by weight or measure, were
assured of honest dealing. There were standards kept in the municipal
cities, and every tradesman was obliged to have his weights and measures
tested by them; he was also subject to unannounced inspection. Never
were wise laws more perfectly executed. How thoroughly the mind of
Trajan was imbued with the idea that his mission was to administer the
Empire for the benefit of the people is shown by his correspondence
with Pliny. Hadrian spent almost the whole of his reign in travelling
from one province to another, in order that he might not only satisfy
his curiosity, but also secure good government by personal inspection.
The people also enjoyed a fair semblance of liberty. True, they were not
free. The rule of the Antonines was as absolute as that of the first
Cæsars; but the emperors of the period we are describing, ostentatiously
and to the great contentment of the people, professed to administer the
laws only as they were enacted by the Senate and to be themselves
governed by the constitution. It was but a phantom of liberty, truly;
but when has the world really seen more? The five emperors who followed
Domitian exercised their absolute power under the guidance of virtue and
wisdom; and, whether or not it were an honorable peace, the people were
contented and happy.
The effect of this wise, strong, all-pervading government must have been
made especially apparent in the woman's world of that time. There are no
gains for women in war. The glory sought by man is no compensation for
the wife's anxiety entailed by her fear of bereavement. In the hazards
of foreign strife or the dangers of civil turmoil, woman may exemplify
those possibilities of her character which reveal themselves in the
heroism of devotion or resignation; but the normal qualities of her
nature do not expand as in the quiet comfort of a home life where safety
is assured.
In the history of Roman women, down to the period which we have now
reached, there has been no opportunity to ascertain what the combined
influences of culture and peace might accomplish. In the ancient
Republic, culture of any appreciable degree was absent and life was
continuously strenuous. In later days, when Roman hardihood was first
touched by Greek civilization, and the love of letters began to find a
place in woman's life, the Roman matron, though admirable and
statuesque, was too heroic in her virtue to be altogether attractive. A
writer of a later day--than whom none more keenly regretted the ancient
purity--felt this. "Let her be more chaste than any single Sabine that,
with hair dishevelled, rushed between the combatants and brought the war
to a close; let her be a very phoenix upon earth, rare as a black swan;
who could tolerate a wife in whom all excellencies are concentrated! I
would rather, far rather, have a country maiden from Venusia than you, O
Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, if along with your estimable virtues
you bring as part of your dower a haughty and disdainful brow, and
reckon as a portion of your fortune the triumphs of your house! Away, I
beg, with your Hannibal and Syphax conquered in his camp, and march with
all your Carthage!"
Equally unconducive to a feminine life combining sweetness with nobility
were those later times, when danger was always imminent from a tyrant's
lust or jealousy. Agrippina, travelling with Germanicus in expeditions
against the Teutonic tribes, might earn the title "Mother of the Camps";
menaced by Tiberius, she might strengthen her mind in anticipation of
the inevitable storm with the stern fortitude becoming to a Roman matron
of the house of Augustus; but with years and affliction comes an
unamiable sourness of disposition. Livia, Agrippina, and Antonia were
women of the most unquestionable virtue; but they were ungentle in their
manner and capable of extreme harshness in their methods. We know them
fairly well; but there is no indication of their interesting themselves
in any such womanly work as those public charities which graced the
reign of Trajan, and with which we may be reasonably certain that
Plotina, his noble consort, actively sympathized. With assured security
of life, woman's heart expanded and her sympathies widened. Faustina,
the wife of Aurelius, may not have been irreproachable; but she is
represented in the position of the Lady Bountiful by the side of her
husband in the public distributions. Under these noble emperors, a
social conscience was developed; and there was nothing to prevent or
disturb any of the genial graces of the home life, which are only
possible when women are respected and happy.
During this period, the legal condition of the Roman woman was also
greatly ameliorated. The acute sense of justice which actuated these
emperors could not neglect this result of civilization. On one occasion,
a matron stopped Hadrian in the street and begged leave to submit to him
a matter in which she was suffering injustice. He refused to be delayed.
"Why, then, are you emperor?" she bitterly exclaimed. This appealed to
him; for he was conscious that he had no right to govern unless he
allowed the salutary influence of his rule to extend to all alike.
A man and a woman, who, though they had cohabited, were not legally
married, disputed as to the possession of their child in order to
receive its share of the public allowance. "With whom do you live?"
asked Hadrian of the child. "My mother," was the answer. "You rascal,"
said the emperor to the man, "you have no right to this allowance."
"I implore you," cried another woman, "to order that a part of my son's
allowance be given to me." "But, my lord," said the son, "I do not
acknowledge her to be my mother." "Then," answered Hadrian, "I shall not
acknowledge you as a citizen."
These, it may be, were only casual incidents; but they indicate the sort
of rule under which Rome had come, and they must have formed powerful
precedents in future rulings in such cases. Laws were also passed which
helped to relieve the burden of legal injustice which from the first had
rested upon the Roman woman. A father had it always in his power to
compel his son to put away his wife, and could thus, if he chose,
shatter the life of a faithful, loving woman and drive her from her
home. Marcus Aurelius amended this tyrannical law, so that it could only
be executed for great and just cause. Under the old code, a child was
always subject to the condition of his mother at his birth; hence, if a
free woman, after conception, was relegated to servitude by sentence of
law, her child was born a slave. Hadrian decreed that if a woman was
free at any time during her pregnancy, her child should be free. This
would seem to be more of a relief to the child so born than to the
mother; but, apart from the mother sympathy, the parent of a free son
would be much more likely to regain her own liberty. This emperor also
decided that women should have the power to dispose of the whole of
their property by will, on obtaining the consent of their guardians. It
was soon afterward decreed that such a will should be valid without such
consent, and this made the property rights of the Roman woman as
untrammelled as such laws have been in any country, almost down to the
present time. There was also a modification of the law of inheritance,
so that women were allowed to take from their sons; but to avail herself
of this new law a freedwoman must have had no less than four children.
This material comfort and security of life would, of itself, hardly
suffice to substantiate Gibbon's opinion as to the superior happiness of
this particular period of the world's history; but there was something
more. Human life is not rendered felicitous solely by the abundance of
the things which a people possesses; there must be the power to make
the most of and enjoy them. It is with the life of a nation as it is
with that of an individual--the happiest age is that immediately
previous to the beginning of decadence; prior to that, the attention and
energy are wholly taken up with the process of acquiring. The Roman
Empire was now, as it were, balanced and resting on the summit of its
greatness.
With one or two exceptions, never in the history of the world has so
large a proportion of the citizens of a nation been capable of so fully
appreciating the highest mental enjoyments. Art in those days was
closely inwoven with the life of the people; they lived artistic lives.
The women of that day moved habitually among those objects which the
ladies of our time go to museums to admire. Their eyes were every day
accustomed to rest upon the beautiful structures and statuary which are
the wonder and the models of modern times. Every home, however modest,
had about it much of the artistic; every public building was a
magnificent example of architecture. Nothing was purely utilitarian, for
life was not sordid. With an ample supply of the necessaries and
luxuries of existence, and perfect protection through wise and
beneficently administered laws, this added grace and beauty which
pervaded everything lacked little to make the life of women in the days
of Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines broader and happier than it has
been in any other period, ancient or modern.
There were, however, two classes of persons which must not be left out
of the estimate; and it may be suggested that a proper understanding of
the conditions of their existence may detract greatly from the foregoing
appreciation of the period under discussion: these are the slaves and
the poor. But, inasmuch as what has been said is of the nature of a
comparison, it can be justly answered that the poor we have always with
us, and until recently the institution of slavery has been a cherished
one. At any rate, it was rare that a Roman slave woman was ill fed,
while compulsory hunger is by no means uncommon in modern times.
Since so large a portion of those Roman slaves were women, it will be
quite pertinent to our subject if we take a glance at this institution
of slavery as it existed in the ancient world.
It is estimated that at one time no less than one-fifth of the
population of Rome was in a condition of compulsory servitude. The
number was kept up by birth, by the slave market, and by war. In ancient
times, the creditor could sell the family of the debtor; the father also
could dispose of his children in the same manner. These barbarous
measures, however, were less resorted to as manners grew milder, though
the laws permitting them were not repealed until the time of Diocletian.
Parents had the legal right to expose their unwelcome children, and
whoever chose to take the abandoned infants owned them as slaves; but
Trajan granted to such children the perpetual right of claiming their
freedom, on condition that they could prove that of their parents.
By the ancient law, the slave was nothing but a chattel. He possessed no
rights, he had no will of his own, he was not a person, and could not
seek protection from the law. Over him his master owned absolute power
of life and death. Women slaves were wholly subject to their owner's
will. They might be required to bear offspring for the mere sake of
increasing their master's number of servants, with absolutely no regard
to any sentiment they might cherish relative to such a matter. A slave
could not legally marry; and for many centuries no union of that nature
was held to have any binding force. When it is considered that a large
proportion of the slaves owned by Roman masters were secured as the
spoils of war, or by kidnapping, and consequently included many persons
of both sexes who were well born and educated, it is seen how peculiarly
cruel was slavery in those times.
Gradually, principles of humanity prevailed in the softening of this
condition, and it is probable that instincts of humanity on the part of
the majority of owners induced them to do better than the law demanded.
In the house of Columella, every slave woman who had three children was
set free from labor, and she who had more was emancipated. During the
period of the Antonines, laws were passed prohibiting masters from
selling slaves to fight in the arena unless these had been convicted of
some crime by public authority. They were not allowed to be left by will
with the understanding that they were to fight with beasts. The killing
of slaves became punishable as for murder; and even the slave's honor
came to be protected, for a complaint could be lodged against the master
for an attempt on the slave's modesty. Regard was also paid to the
natural feelings of these unfortunate persons; for while those in a
condition of slavery could not legally marry, yet, where the nuptial
union had been formed it was not permitted that the husband and wife
should be separated by sale. Thus we see that the Roman slaves, from a
condition of absolute inhumanity in the days of the early Republic, came
in the time of the Antonines to be so hedged about with the protection
of the law that there was left little to be desired save the possession
of their own persons. Still, it is not meant to be asserted that even in
this mild period there was not ample scope for cruelty on the part of
barbarous or ill-natured owners. Juvenal describes with great
indignation how women would cause their female attendants to be
unmercifully whipped. But a just complaint of intolerable treatment
was, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, legal ground for compelling the
emancipation of the slave, or at least for providing him or her with a
kinder owner.
Paganism has often been accused of having paid no attention whatsoever
to public charities. On the contrary, during the period with which we
are now occupied institutions of poor-relief were founded and were as
remarkable for the wisdom with which they were organized as for the
spirit of beneficence which they manifested. There was abundance of
evidence in Pliny's time to show that his beautiful words were not mere
rhetoric: "It is a duty to seek out those who are in want, to bring them
aid, to support, and make them in a sense one's own family." Has the
modern spirit anything better to say than this sentence which was
inscribed upon a tomb: _Therc is in life but one beautiful thing, and
this is beneficence._ The Romans of the Antonine period put this
sentiment into practical operation in more ways than one. Nerva
conceived the project of rendering State aid to poor parents to enable
them to rear their children. Trajan, his successor, adopted this scheme
and developed it on a magnificent scale. As early as the year 100, there
were, in the city of Rome, as we learn from Pliny, no less than five
thousand children who received this assistance. So much consideration
was shown in the arrangement for this distribution, that it was ordered
that the apportionment of the sick or absent should be reserved until it
was sent for. From the Inscription of Veleia, one of the longest which
have come down to us, and the table of the Bæbiani for the apportionment
of food among the poor, we learn of the poor-relief system under which
two hundred and sixty-four boys and thirty-six girls were supported.
"The boys received annually one hundred and ninety-two sesterces
[$9.20], the girls one hundred and forty-four [$6.90]. The foundation
was established for a definite number of children, a number that did not
change so long as the foundation was not increased; but the assistance
varied, doubtless with the price of provisions, in different localities;
thus, at Veleia, sixteen sesterces per month; at Tarracina, twenty." The
writer of the above demonstrates by authorities and examples that from
sixteen to twenty sesterces per month was sufficient to support a Roman
child. He continues:
"It cannot be affirmed that the institution was in a general measure
established in the whole of Italy; but coins, inscriptions, and even
sculptures, enable us to discover it in many places. Thus the
bas-reliefs of the Arch of Beneventum represent men carrying boys on
their shoulders, and four women, their heads adorned with mural crowns,
conducting young girls to Trajan. Do these women represent the four
towns of the vicinity, or are they the symbol of all the cities of Italy
which had profited by the same benefaction? The second hypothesis is the
more probable, and Dion confirms it.
"Provincial cities and wealthy individuals followed the example given by
the emperors; this pagan society, which ameliorated the lot of the
slave, which was mindful of the destitution of its poor, thus showed
before its downfall that it possessed within itself powers of renewal
sufficient to save it, had it not been ruined by bad legislation."
This annuity did not cease with the end of Trajan's reign. Hadrian
increased the length of time through which the boys and girls were to
receive it. It is noticeable that fewer girls than boys were assisted,
and, while the latter received the pension until the age of eighteen, it
was taken from the girls at the age of fourteen. It must be confessed
that this introduced a suspicion of utilitarianism into the
beneficence, girls at that time being considered of less advantage to
the State than their brothers; but Antoninus, who was a man of peace and
who would have much liked to be able to dispense with the army, in honor
of his wife increased the number of girls on the lists for support;
while on the death of the second Faustina, Marcus Aurelius followed his
predecessor's example. Private persons, and especially ladies, also
established foundations of this kind. To provide for a hundred children
at Tarracina, Cælia Macrina bequeathed one million sesterces; Hispalis
profited in a similar way by the legacy of a wealthy lady resident. The
spirit in which the times viewed this subject is shown in the words of
Paulus: "Donations," says he, "may be made to the city, either for its
adornment or for its honor; and among the things which honor a city the
most is the practice of giving support to infirm old men and to young
children of both sexes." There is also proof that in many cities
physicians were salaried by the municipality and required to render
gratuitous assistance to the poor.
It is a fact exceedingly to be regretted that, while we find so much
that is admirable in this period by means of which the female portion of
society was benefited and for the existence of which much credit is
undoubtedly owing to the noble women of the time, yet the records of
individual women are extremely unsatisfactory. In the first place, they
are very meagre. Unfortunately, there are no such brilliant and copious
histories of the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian as of those of the
previous and less worthy emperors. Of individual women, apart from those
of the imperial house of this period, we know nothing. The records of
the empresses and of their female relatives exhibit a similarity to the
scandalous accounts of their predecessors which is sadly monotonous and
entirely unworthy of the otherwise wonderfully improved conditions. It
is doubtful whether or not the characters of the Faustinas could be
rehabilitated if trustworthy evidence were obtainable; but, even if that
were possible, there would still be nothing to secure for them equal
moral rank with their noble husbands. There is a fine exception,
however, in the character of Plotina, the wife of Trajan. In the Vatican
Museum there is a bust of this noble woman. It shows a lady advanced in
years, but with a countenance charmingly suggestive of intelligence and
moral dignity.
Trajan was a plain, honest soldier, who, when he was proclaimed emperor
on the death of Nerva, entered the city on foot and recognized his old
friends as he passed on his way to the palace. Plotina Pompeia
accompanied him; and as she mounted the steps of the imperial abode, she
turned to the people and said: "Such as I am entering here, I desire to
be when I leave here." She must have been then in the prime of her
womanhood; for her husband reigned nineteen years, and she outlived him.
Her life in the palace, unlike that of the majority of her predecessors,
was distinguished by her unassailable virtue, her affability, and her
charitable activity on behalf of the poor and needy. We may safely be
assured that though the charitable scheme already described was
developed by the mind of her husband, he was stimulated thereto by the
gracious counsel of Plotina. She accompanied her husband on his
expedition in the East, and was with him when he died in Cilicia, whence
she carried his ashes to Rome. Under Hadrian she still continued to
enjoy all the honors and titles of a Roman empress.
The accession of Hadrian to the throne is surrounded by a mystery which
must forever remain impenetrable. Gibbon repeats the gossip which the
ancient historians handed down as veritable fact, when he says: "We may
readily believe that the father of his country hesitated whether he
ought to intrust the various and doubtful character of his kinsman
Hadrian with sovereign power. In his last moments, the arts of the
Empress Plotina either fixed the irresolution of Trajan, or boldly
supposed a fictitious adoption; the truth of which could not be safely
disputed, and Hadrian was peaceably acknowledged as his lawful
successor." Dion asserted on the authority of his father, who was
Governor of Cilicia, where Trajan died, that the adoption never took
place and that Plotina forged the letters which were sent to Rome,
apparently from Trajan, informing the Senate of his choice. Some even
went so far as to say that, the moment after the emperor's death, he not
having named Hadrian, Plotina caused a man to be placed in his bed to
simulate his dying voice saying that he appointed Hadrian his successor.
This is a flimsy story, and rather suggests the triviality of the minds
of those who concocted it than it impairs the character of Plotina.
Hadrian had married Sabina, the daughter of Matilda, who was in turn the
daughter of Marciana, Trajan's sister. Moreover, the emperor had
showered favors upon him, and appointed him to the highest offices. To
whom else should Trajan leave the Empire? Nevertheless, it is probable
that Hadrian was greatly liked by the powerful empress, and she may have
shown a deep interest in the adoption of the youth by her husband. In
courts, where there are of necessity jealousy and rival ambitions, from
such innocent facts will formidable scandals grow. Every other mention
of her is evidence against the insinuation that the maternal affection
of Plotina for Hadrian was tinctured with love of a stronger nature.
Hadrian's mother was a native of Cadiz. How she was held in the esteem
of her imperial son is indicated in the following letter which he wrote
her: "All hail, very dear and excellent mother. Whatever you ask of the
gods for me, I ask the same for you. By Hercules, I am delighted that my
acts seem to you worthy of praise. To-day is my birthday; we must take
supper together. Come, then, well dressed, with my sisters. Sabina, who
is at our villa, has sent her share for the family repast."
Through the meagre and inconclusive accounts we have of the private
affairs of Hadrian, the allegation is circulated that his life with
Sabina was far from being an amicable one. The empress was said to be of
a morose and sour disposition, and Hadrian is even accused of having rid
himself of her by the help of poison. The latter is a calumny unworthy
of serious attention. It is altogether impossible to believe that, even
if the chasm between the two were as wide as is reported, the emperor
would not have sought relief in divorce rather than in murder. However
praiseworthy may have been Hadrian's character as an emperor, if Sabina
stood upon her rights as a wife, she had every reason for holding him in
supreme contempt; for common as may have been the vice to which there
seems to be little doubt Hadrian was addicted, it is difficult to
believe that any woman retaining the least respect for herself could at
the same time retain any regard for such a husband. The state of affairs
between this imperial couple may have been very unpleasant; but at least
a semblance of harmony was preserved. Hadrian even protected his wife;
when Suetonius the historian in some way failed in proper respect for
Sabina, the emperor immediately banished him from the court. The empress
also seems to have accompanied her husband on many of his extensive
journeys. We have an interesting proof and record of her having been
with him in Egypt. She ascended the Nile as far as Thebes and visited
the statue of Memnon, the son of Aurora, who was reported to sing every
morning in honor of his radiant mother's return. Balbilla the poetess
caused three of her verses to be engraved on the leg of the statue, in
which she records this visit. They are dated the twentieth and
twenty-first of November, 130. It seems that the god did not show proper
respect for Sabina, nor did he in the least stand in awe of "the angry
countenance of the empress," for on the occasion of her first visit he
was not in a singing mood.
From her portraits, one would not judge Sabina to have been of a morose
and bitter disposition. There is in the Vatican a statue of the empress
represented as Venus Genitrix, while there is also a bust of her in the
Capitol Museum. If these are faithful likenesses, it is as difficult to
believe that Sabina was of an unamiable disposition as it is to
understand Hadrian's preference for Antinous. In connection with this
subject Gibbon says that, down to the time of Hadrian, Claudius was the
only emperor whose taste in love matters was at all correct. This being
the case, it is only just to say that, if example could afford it, the
empresses had ample excuse for the most flagrant irregularities recorded
of them.
Antoninus Pius was adopted by Hadrian and designated his successor,
without the aid of any woman whatsoever--except that Sabina failed to
provide an occupant for the throne by the act of maternity.
The wife of Antoninus was Annia Galeria Faustina. She had borne him four
children; but at the time of his accession only one daughter, named
after her mother, survived. The annals of the period of this reign are
extremely meagre and unsatisfactory. It has been said that while the
unanimous praises that are bestowed upon the virtues of Antoninus earn
for him in pagan history the place held by Saint Louis among Christian
kings, his political career is so uncertain that, as emperor, he
appears before us a half-effaced figure, whose outlines are wholly
indistinct.
Faustina the Elder did not live long to enjoy the dignity of empress;
but in private life she had established for herself such a reputation,
if all accounts be true, that she simply added one more to the list of
immoral empresses who had disgraced the palace. Yet it must be admitted
that these reflections upon her character are extremely ill-founded, and
indeed there is evidence to the contrary which tends to make them seem
absurd. Fronto, a philosopher of the period, pronounced a eulogy upon
her, concerning which Antoninus wrote: "In the discourse which thou hast
devoted to my Faustina I have found even more truth than eloquence. For
it is the fact--yes, by the gods! I would rather live with her on the
desert island of Gyaros than without her in the palace." This is not
merely affection; from a man of Antoninus's character, it indicates an
esteem which it would have been impossible for him to cherish, or even
express, had Faustina been the wanton that the unreliable memoirs of the
time describe her.
After the death of his wife, Antoninus refused to marry again, though he
consoled himself with a concubine; he would not impart to another woman
the honors and the position which he had rejoiced to share with
Faustina. Indeed, such devoted affection is shown in the manner in which
this emperor revered the memory of his deceased wife, that it would be
one of the beautiful things in history were it not for the fact that the
suspicion fastened upon her reputation, though very improbable, cannot
be entirely eradicated, for lack of evidence to the contrary. Antoninus
built a temple to her honor, and after his death the Senate
reconsecrated it: _To the god Antoninus and to the goddess Faustina_.
The emperor also did what was far more advantageous to his people, and
was an equal proof of his love for Faustina: he established in the name
of his wife a charitable foundation for the support and education of
girls. There is in existence a medal bearing the empress's image, and on
the reverse a representation of Antoninus surrounded by young children,
with this inscription: _Puelloe Faustinianoe_.
When Hadrian appointed Antoninus as his successor, he obliged the latter
to adopt as his son Marcus Annius Verus, known in history and in
philosophy as Marcus Aurelius. The mother of Marcus Aurelius was Domitia
Lucilla, a lady of consular rank and a descendant of Domitius Afer. She
seems to have been a woman in every way an ornament to these better
times. In his _Meditations_, the imperial philosopher acknowledges that
from his mother he inherited "piety, and beneficence, and abstinence not
only from evil deeds, but even from evil thoughts; and further,
simplicity of life far removed from the habits of the rich." One would
like to dwell on the character of this sweet-natured, pure-hearted
Lucilla. It would be an inestimable boon to the interests of history and
also of moral philosophy if we had a biography of the mother of a good
emperor; but unfortunately the pitiable historians of the time have
given us instead scandals regarding Faustina. There are, however, one or
two little incidents recorded which warrant us in the belief that if we
only knew more of her life we should have in Lucilla a name and a
portrait worthy of a place among those of the most honored women of the
world. She encouraged her son in his philosophic studies; but when his
enthusiasm carried him to such an excess of self-discipline that he
purposed to sleep on bare boards, his mother prevailed on him to indulge
himself with the luxury of a sheepskin rug.
Marcus Aurelius expresses his thankfulness that "though it was my
mother's fate to die young, she spent the last years of her life with
me." In one of his letters to Fronto, he describes a day spent in the
country during the vintage. "When I returned home," he says, "I studied
a little, but not to much advantage. I had a long talk with my mother,
who was lying on her couch." Those talks with a mother from whom he had
learned to hate the thought of evil were of inestimable value to his
character, and thus have not been wholly lost to the world.
On one occasion, Lucilla was noticed by Antoninus Pius in the act of
earnest prayer before the image of Apollo. "What think you she is
praying for so intently?" insinuated a mischief maker named Valerius
Omulus; "it is that you may die, and her son reign in your stead."
Antoninus ignored the base suggestion in silent contempt. It is very
possible that Lucilla was praying for her son's reign, but for the
worthiness of its character rather than for the speediness of its
commencement.
Unfortunately, though it may not be necessary to believe all that is
said against her, it is at least very apparent that Faustina the wife of
Marcus Aurelius was not such a woman as Lucilla his mother. Gibbon sums
up in the following paragraph the whole story as it may be gleaned from
the very indifferent ancient authorities:
"Faustina, the daughter of Pius and the wife of Marcus, has been as much
celebrated for her gallantries as for her beauty. The grave simplicity
of the philosopher was ill calculated to engage her wanton levity, or to
fix that unbounded passion for variety which often discovered merit in
the meanest of mankind. The Cupid of the ancients was, in general, a
very sensual deity; and the amours of an empress, as they exact on her
side the plainest advances, are seldom susceptible of much sentimental
delicacy, Marcus was the only man in the Empire who seemed ignorant or
insensible of the irregularities of Faustina; which, according to the
prejudices of every age, reflected some disgrace on the injured husband.
He promoted several of her lovers to posts of honor and profit, and,
during a connection of thirty years, invariably gave her proofs of the
most tender confidence and of a respect which ended not with her life.
In his _Meditations_, he thanks the gods who had bestowed on him a wife
so faithful, so gentle, and of such a wonderful simplicity of manners.
The obsequious Senate, at his earnest request, declared her a goddess.
She was represented in her temples with the attributes of Juno, Venus,
and Ceres; and it was decreed that, on the day of their nuptials, the
youth of either sex should pay their vows before the altar of their
chaste patroness."
It would be a preposterous undertaking to accept a brief for Faustina;
and yet, judging such evidence as we have in the light of common sense,
one is inclined to acquit her of some charges, or at least to demand for
her a verdict of "not proven." Who are the witnesses against her?
Capitolinus, who wrote the life of Marcus Aurelius, is one. He wrote in
the time of Diocletian, one hundred and twenty years after the events.
Surely the lapse of time will to a certain degree depreciate the value
of the evidence; and then Capitolinus is an exceedingly poor biographer.
Dion Cassius is the principal witness; but it is very apparent that Dion
Cassius was accustomed to report indiscriminately every bit of scandal
he heard about anybody. He was constitutionally malignant. It is very
doubtful if any modern jury, knowing his character, would convict a
petty thief on the evidence of Dion Cassius. Because Commodus, the son
of Faustina, developed an abnormal love for bloody sports and manifested
a strong regard for the heroes of the arena, malicious tongues asserted
that he was the son of a gladiator; but the strong resemblance which may
be traced in the statues and bust of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus is
sufficient to refute this part of the charge. This likeness is also
attested by Fronto, who, though he may have desired to compliment the
emperor, was assuredly a man of too much character to adopt this
particular method if he knew Faustina to be the woman she is
represented. Then again, if her habits were as vicious as they are
described, it is absolutely inconceivable that her husband should have
remained in ignorance of the fact; it would imply that he must have been
nothing more or less than an imbecile, which Marcus Aurelius decidedly
was not. If, on the other hand, he knew of his wife's promiscuous
amours, it is incredible that he should have had the effrontery to laud
his wife's faithfulness and virtue before the public; it is
inconceivable that he should have manifested toward her such confidence
and esteem in their private relations. Our judgment is influenced more
by the treatment she received from her husband than by the venomous
testimony of Dion.
One of the charges against Faustina is that she abetted the conspiracy
of Avidius Cassius by offering him her hand in the event of her
husband's being slain. This even the biographer of Cassius denies, and
quotes a letter of Faustina's in proof.
There must, however, have been some cause for these reports of the
empress's conduct, even though they are greatly exaggerated. We may take
it for granted that Faustina was not worthy of her noble husband. It is
very possible that she had little regard for his philosophical maxims
and less liking for his austerities. She may have been more forcibly
attracted by the handsome appearance and gay manner of Verus, her
husband's colleague in the Empire; but that she was so absolutely
wanton as the ancient anecdotists describe requires no contravention of
the principles of historical criticism to disbelieve.
The letters of Faustina to Marcus Aurelius were preserved by Vulcatius
Gallicanus, and Victor Duruy says they are those of an empress, a wife,
and a mother. She often accompanied her husband on his many trying
expeditions, and thus gained from the soldiers the title of "Mother of
the Camps." It was on such a journey, at the foot of Mount Taurus, that
she died. There has been preserved a bas-relief which represents
Faustina carried by a winged being in human form from the funeral pyre
to heaven; the emperor sits below and points out to his daughter the
apotheosis of her mother, while he himself follows the departing figure
with affectionate eyes. At the theatre, her statue, formed of gold, was
placed in the position which she had been accustomed to occupy. To honor
her memory, a new foundation for the support of the daughters of
indigent parents was instituted; and at the Villa Albani there is
another bas-relief, which represents Faustina surrounded by young girls
and distributing among them corn, which they receive in the folds of
their dresses.
In the period of the Antonines, paganism was at its best. It was then
afforded a magnificent opportunity to show how far in the direction of
social progress and moral development the human race could be carried
under its influence. It was on its trial before the evolutionary forces
of the universe. What is the verdict? That paganism has disappeared
cannot be said; for much that was essential to the system is still
inherent in the prevailing religion of the civilized world to-day. But
how did the ancient system of religion respond to the quest for those
influences which make for human happiness, both for the man and the
woman--for here there can be no distinction? There is much in the old
system, as it answers for itself in the period under discussion, that is
extremely satisfactory, much that will compare most favorably with like
conditions in modern times. We have seen how a social conscience was
evolved, and how most admirable methods were adopted for the purpose of
supporting poor girls and boys. It has been noticed how in this period
life was secure, happy, and beautiful. The conditions of slavery were
ameliorated, so that involuntary servitude became, in some respects,
less severe than it was in Christian lands during the last century.
Woman's legal position was greatly improved, affording her an
independence, all things considered, which she did not enjoy during the
Middle Ages. This banner age of paganism was also capable of producing
such men as Pliny and the Antonines. Unfortunately, history lacks such
records as would reveal the best examples of the women who graced this
period. Instead of the noblest, we have only the most conspicuous. We
are shown the Faustinas, because they lived in the palace; but,
notwithstanding the excellence of the husbands of these women, it is
true that a palace is the least promising soil for the cultivation of
moral beauty. Yet in Plotina and Lucilla we find such characters as
warrant the belief that in humbler walks there were many women whose
lives would not have suffered severe criticism if they had been tried by
the principles of the modern morality.
Much was accomplished under the ancient system; but the time exhibited
the best possibilities of paganism. It could do no better; and it soon
prepared to leave the field in the possession of a victor. It could not
soften the heart and thus dispense with its cruelties. It could not
emancipate all its slaves; it contained in itself no indictment of
slavery. It recognized that all men are of one blood, but it did not
evolve the idea of universal brotherhood or the Golden Rule. It had no
argument for morality which could appeal to the unphilosophic common
multitude. In these things it was weighed and found wanting; for these
reasons it could not perpetuate itself.