M. Antoninus was born at Rome, A.D. 121, on the 26th of April. His
father, Annius Verus, died while he was praetor. His mother was Domitia
Calvilla, also named Lucilla. The Emperor T. Antoninus Pius married
Annia Galeria Faustina, the sister of Annius Verus, and was consequently
the uncle of M. Antoninus. When Hadrian adopted Antoninus Pius and
declared him his successor in the empire, Antoninus Pius adopted both L.
Ceionius Commodus, the son of Aelius Caesar, and M. Antoninus, whose
original name was M. Annius Verus. Antoninus then took the name of M.
Aelius Aurelius Verus, to which was added the title of Caesar in A.D.
139: the name Aelius belonged to Hadrian's family, and Aurelius was the
name of Antoninus Pius. When M. Antoninus became Augustus, he dropped
the name of Verus and took the name of Antoninus. Accordingly he is
generally named M. Aurelius Antoninus, or simply M. Antoninus.
The youth was most carefully brought up. He thanks the gods (i. 17) that
he had good grandfathers, good parents, a good sister, good teachers,
good associates, good kinsmen and friends, nearly everything good. He
had the happy fortune to witness the example of his uncle and adoptive
father Antoninus Pius, and he has recorded in his word (i. 16; vi. 30)
the virtues of the excellent man and prudent ruler. Like many young
Romans he tried his hand at poetry and studied rhetoric. Herodes Atticus
and M. Cornelius Fronto were his teachers in eloquence. There are extant
letters between Fronto and Marcus,[A] which show the great affection of
the pupil for the master, and the master's great hopes of his
industrious pupil. M. Antoninus mentions Fronto (i. 11) among those to
whom he was indebted for his education.
[A] M. Cornelii Frontonis Reliquiae, Berlin, 1816. There are a
few letters between Fronto and Antoninus Pius.
When he was eleven years old, he assumed the dress of philosophers,
something plain and coarse, became a hard student, and lived a most
laborious, abstemious life, even so far as to injure his health.
Finally, he abandoned poetry and rhetoric for philosophy, and he
attached himself to the sect of the Stoics. But he did not neglect the
study of law, which was a useful preparation for the high place which he
was designed to fill. His teacher was L. Volusianus Maecianus, a
distinguished jurist. We must suppose that he learned the Roman
discipline of arms, which was a necessary part of the education of a man
who afterwards led his troops to battle against a warlike race.
Antoninus has recorded in his first book the names of his teachers, and
the obligations which he owed to each of them. The way in which he
speaks of what he learned from them might seem to savor of vanity or
self-praise, if we look carelessly at the way in which he has expressed
himself; but if any one draws this conclusion, he will be mistaken.
Antoninus means to commemorate the merits of his several teachers, what
they taught, and what a pupil might learn from them. Besides, this book,
like the eleven other books, was for his own use; and if we may trust
the note at the end of the first book, it was written during one of M.
Antoninus' campaigns against the Quadi, at a time when the commemoration
of the virtues of his illustrious teachers might remind him of their
lessons and the practical uses which he might derive from them.
Among his teachers of philosophy was Sextus of Chaeroneia, a grandson of
Plutarch. What he learned from this excellent man is told by himself (i.
9). His favorite teacher was Q. Junius Rusticus (i. 7), a philosopher,
and also a man of practical good sense in public affairs. Rusticus was
the adviser of Antoninus after he became emperor. Young men who are
destined for high places are not often fortunate in those who are about
them, their companions and teachers; and I do not know any example of a
young prince having had an education which can be compared with that of
M. Antoninus. Such a body of teachers distinguished by their
acquirements and their character will hardly be collected again; and as
to the pupil, we have not had one like him since.
Hadrian died in July A.D. 138, and was succeeded by Antoninus Pius. M.
Antoninus married Faustina, his cousin, the daughter of Pius, probably
about A.D. 146, for he had a daughter born in 147. He received from his
adoptive father the title of Caesar, and was associated with him in the
administration of the state. The father and the adopted son lived
together in perfect friendship and confidence. Antoninus was a dutiful
son, and the emperor Pius loved and esteemed him.
Antoninus Pius died in March, A.D. 161. The Senate, it is said, urged M.
Antoninus to take the sole administration of the empire, but he
associated with himself the other adopted son of Pius, L. Ceionius
Commodus, who is generally called L. Verus. Thus Rome for the first time
had two emperors. Verus was an indolent man of pleasure, and unworthy of
his station. Antoninus however bore with him, and it is said Verus had
sense enough to pay to his colleague the respect due to his character. A
virtuous emperor and a loose partner lived together in peace, and their
alliance was strengthened by Antoninus giving to Verus for wife his
daughter Lucilla.
The reign of Antoninus was first troubled by a Parthian war, in which
Verus was sent to command; but he did nothing, and the success that was
obtained by the Romans in Armenia and on the Euphrates and Tigris was
due to his generals. This Parthian war ended in A.D. 165. Aurelius and
Verus had a triumph (A.D. 166) for the victories in the East. A
pestilence followed, which carried off great numbers in Rome and Italy,
and spread to the west of Europe.
The north of Italy was also threatened by the rude people beyond the
Alps, from the borders of Gallia to the eastern side of the Hadriatic.
These barbarians attempted to break into Italy, as the Germanic nations
had attempted near three hundred years before; and the rest of the life
of Antoninus, with some intervals, was employed in driving back the
invaders. In 169 Verus suddenly died, and Antoninus administered the
state alone.
During the German wars Antoninus resided for three years on the Danube
at Carnuntum. The Marcomanni were driven out of Pannonia and almost
destroyed in their retreat across the Danube; and in A.D. 174 the
emperor gained a great victory over the Quadi.
In A.D. 175, Avidius Cassius, a brave and skilful Roman commander who
was at the head of the troops in Asia, revolted, and declared himself
Augustus. But Cassius was assassinated by some of his officers, and so
the rebellion came to an end. Antoninus showed his humanity by his
treatment of the family and the partisans of Cassius; and his letter to
the Senate, in which he recommends mercy, is extant. (Vulcatius, Avidius
Cassius, c. 12.)
Antoninus set out for the East on hearing of Cassius' revolt. Though he
appears to have returned to Rome in A.D. 174, he went back to prosecute
the war against the Germans, and it is probable that he marched direct
to the East from the German war. His wife Faustina, who accompanied him
into Asia, died suddenly at the foot of the Taurus, to the great grief
of her husband. Capitolinus, who has written the life of Antoninus, and
also Dion Cassius, accuses the empress of scandalous infidelity to her
husband, and of abominable lewdness. But Capitolinus says that Antoninus
either knew it not or pretended not to know it. Nothing is so common as
such malicious reports in all ages, and the history of imperial Rome is
full of them. Antoninus loved his wife, and he says that she was
"obedient, affectionate, and simple." The same scandal had been spread
about Faustina's mother, the wife of Antoninus Pius, and yet he too was
perfectly satisfied with his wife. Antoninus Pius says after her death,
in a letter to Fronto, that he would rather have lived in exile with his
wife than in his palace at Rome without her. There are not many men who
would give their wives a better character than these two emperors.
Capitolinus wrote in the time of Diocletian. He may have intended to
tell the truth, but he is a poor, feeble biographer. Dion Cassius, the
most malignant of historians, always reports, and perhaps he believed,
any scandal against anybody.
Antoninus continued his journey to Syria and Egypt, and on his return to
Italy through Athens he was initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries. It
was the practice of the emperor to conform to the established rites of
the age, and to perform religious ceremonies with due solemnity. We
cannot conclude from this that he was a superstitious man, though we
might perhaps do so if his book did not show that he was not. But that
is only one among many instances that a ruler's public acts do not
always prove his real opinions. A prudent governor will not roughly
oppose even the superstitions of his people; and though he may wish they
were wiser, he will know that he cannot make them so by offending their
prejudices.
Antoninus and his son Commodus entered Rome in triumph, perhaps for some
German victories, on the 23d. of December, A.D. 176. In the following
year Commodus was associated with his father in the empire, and took
the name of Augustus. This year A.D. 177 is memorable in ecclesiastical
history. Attalus and others were put to death at Lyon for their
adherence to the Christian religion. The evidence of this persecution is
a letter preserved by Eusebius (E.H. V. I; printed in Routh's Reliquiae
Sacrae, vol. i, with notes). The letter is from the Christians of Vienna
and Lugdunum in Gallia (Vienna and Lyon) to their Christian brethren in
Asia and Phrygia; and it is preserved perhaps nearly entire. It contains
a very particular description of the tortures inflicted on the
Christians in Gallia, and it states that while the persecution was going
on, Attalus, a Christian and a Roman citizen, was loudly demanded by the
populace and brought into the amphitheatre; but the governor ordered him
to be reserved, with the rest who were in prison, until he had received
instructions from the emperor. Many had been tortured before the
governor thought of applying to Antoninus. The imperial rescript, says
the letter, was that the Christians should be punished, but if they
would deny their faith, they must be released. On this the work began
again. The Christians who were Roman citizens were beheaded; the rest
were exposed to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre. Some modern writers
on ecclesiastical history, when they use this letter, say nothing of the
wonderful stories of the martyrs' sufferings. Sanctus, as the letter
says, was burnt with plates of hot iron till his body was one sore and
had lost all human form; but on being put to the rack he recovered his
former appearance under the torture, which was thus a cure instead of a
punishment. He was afterwards torn by beasts, and placed on an iron
chair and roasted. He died at last.
The letter is one piece of evidence. The writer, whoever he was that
wrote in the name of the Gallic Christians, is our evidence both for the
ordinary and the extraordinary circumstances of the story, and we cannot
accept his evidence for one part and reject the other. We often receive
small evidence as a proof of a thing we believe to be within the limits
of probability or possibility, and we reject exactly the same evidence,
when the thing to which it refers appears very improbable or impossible.
But this is a false method of inquiry, though it is followed by some
modern writers, who select what they like from a story and reject the
rest of the evidence; or if they do not reject it, they dishonestly
suppress it. A man can only act consistently by accepting all this
letter or rejecting it all, and we cannot blame him for either. But he
who rejects it may still admit that such a letter may be founded on real
facts; and he would make this admission as the most probable way of
accounting for the existence of the letter; but if, as he would suppose,
the writer has stated some things falsely, he cannot tell what part of
his story is worthy of credit.
The war on the northern frontier appears to have been uninterrupted
during the visit of Antoninus to the East, and on his return the emperor
again left Rome to oppose the barbarians. The Germanic people were
defeated in a great battle A.D. 179. During this campaign the emperor
was seized with some contagious malady, of which he died in the camp at
Sirmium (Mitrovitz), on the Save, in Lower Pannonia, but at Vindebona
(Vienna), according to other authorities, on the 17th of March, A.D.
180, in the fifty-ninth year of his age. His son Commodus was with him.
The body, or the ashes probably, of the emperor were carried to Rome,
and he received the honor of deification. Those who could afford it had
his statue or bust; and when Capitolinus wrote, many people still had
statues of Antoninus among the Dei Penates or household deities. He was
in a manner made a saint. Commodus erected to the memory of his father
the Antonine column which is now in the Piazza Colonna at Rome. The
_bassi rilievi_ which are placed in a spiral line round the shaft
commemorate the victories of Antoninus over the Marcomanni and the
Quadi, and the miraculous shower of rain which refreshed the Roman
soldiers and discomfited their enemies. The statue of Antoninus was
placed on the capital of the column, but it was removed at some time
unknown, and a bronze statue of St. Paul was put in the place by Pope
Sixtus the fifth.
The historical evidence for the times of Antoninus is very defective,
and some of that which remains is not credible. The most curious is the
story about the miracle which happened in A.D. 174, during the war with
the Quadi. The Roman army was in danger of perishing by thirst, but a
sudden storm drenched them with rain, while it discharged fire and hail
on their enemies, and the Romans gained a great victory. All the
authorities which speak of the battle speak also of the miracle. The
Gentile writers assign it to their gods, and the Christians to the
intercession of the Christian legion in the emperor's army. To confirm
the Christian statement it is added that the emperor gave the title of
Thundering to this legion; but Dacier and others, who maintain the
Christian report of the miracle, admit that this title of Thundering or
Lightning was not given to this legion because the Quadi were struck
with lightning, but because there was a figure of lightning on their
shields, and that this title of the legion existed in the time of
Augustus.
Scaliger also had observed that the legion was called Thundering
([Greek: keraunobolos], or [Greek: keraunophoros]) before the reign of
Antoninus. We learn this from Dion Cassius (Lib. 55, c. 23, and the note
of Reimarus), who enumerates all the legions of Augustus' time. The name
Thundering of Lightning also occurs on an inscription of the reign of
Trajan, which was found at Trieste. Eusebius (v. 5), when he relates the
miracle, quotes Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis, as authority for this
name being given to the legion Melitene by the emperor in consequence of
the success which he obtained through their prayers; from which we may
estimate the value of Apolinarius' testimony. Eusebius does not say in
what book of Apolinarius the statement occurs. Dion says that the
Thundering legion was stationed in Cappadocia in the time of Augustus.
Valesius also observes that in the Notitia of the Imperium Romanum there
is mentioned under the commander of Armenia the Praefectura of the
twelfth legion named "Thundering Melitene;" and this position in Armenia
will agree with what Dion says of its position in Cappadocia.
Accordingly Valesius concludes that Melitene was not the name of the
legion, but of the town in which it was stationed. Melitene was also the
name of the district in which this town was situated. The legions did
not, he says, take their name from the place where they were on duty,
but from the country in which they were raised, and therefore what
Eusebius says about the Melitene does not seem probable to him. Yet
Valesius, on the authority of Apolinarius and Tertullian, believed that
the miracle was worked through the prayers of the Christian soldiers in
the emperor's army. Rufinus does not give the name of Melitene to this
legion, says Valesius, and probably he purposely omitted it, because he
knew that Melitene was the name of a town in Armenia Minor, where the
legion was stationed in his time.
The emperor, it is said, made a report of his victory to the Senate,
which we may believe, for such was the practice; but we do not know what
he said in his letter, for it is not extant. Dacier assumes that the
emperor's letter was purposely destroyed by the Senate or the enemies of
Christianity, that so honorable a testimony to the Christians and their
religion might not be perpetuated. The critic has however not seen that
he contradicts himself when he tells us the purport of the letter, for
he says that it was destroyed, and even Eusebius could not find it. But
there does exist a letter in Greek addressed by Antoninus to the Roman
people and the sacred Senate after this memorable victory. It is
sometimes printed after Justin's first Apology, but it is totally
unconnected with the apologies. This letter is one of the most stupid
forgeries of the many which exist, and it cannot be possibly founded
even on the genuine report of Antoninus to the Senate. If it were
genuine, it would free the emperor from the charge of persecuting men
because they were Christians, for he says in this false letter that if a
man accuse another only of being a Christian, and the accused confess,
and there is nothing else against him, he must be set free; with this
monstrous addition, made by a man inconceivably ignorant, that the
informer must be burnt alive.[A]
[A] Eusebius (v. 5) quotes Tertullian's Apology to the Roman
Senate in confirmation of the story. Tertullian, he says,
writes that letters of the emperor were extant, in which he
declares that his army was saved by the prayers of the
Christians; and that he "threatened to punish with death those
who ventured to accuse us." It is possible that the forged
letter which is now extant may be one of those which Tertullian
had seen, for he uses the plural number, "letters." A great
deal has been written about this miracle of the Thundering
Legion, and more than is worth reading. There is a dissertation
on this supposed miracle in Moyle's Works, London, 1726.
During the time of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Antoninus there appeared
the first Apology of Justinus, and under M. Antoninus the Oration of
Tatian against the Greeks, which was a fierce attack on the established
religions; the address of Athenagoras to M. Antoninus on behalf of the
Christians, and the Apology of Melito, bishop of Sardes, also addressed
to the emperor, and that of Apolinarius. The first Apology of Justinus
is addressed to T. Antoninus Pius and his two adopted sons, M. Antoninus
and L. Verus; but we do not know whether they read it.[A] The second
Apology of Justinus is entitled "to the Roman Senate;" but this
superscription is from some copyist. In the first chapter Justinus
addresses the Romans. In the second chapter he speaks of an affair that
had recently happened in the time of M. Antoninus and L,. Verus, as it
seems; and he also directly addresses the emperor, saying of a certain
woman, "she addressed a petition to thee, the emperor, and thou didst
grant the petition." In other passages the writer addresses the two
emperors, from which we must conclude that the Apology was directed to
them. Eusebius (E.H. iv. 18) states that the second Apology was
addressed to the successor of Antoninus Pius, and he names him Antoninus
Verus, meaning M. Antoninus. In one passage of this second Apology (c.
8), Justinus, or the writer, whoever he may be, says that even men who
followed the Stoic doctrines, when they ordered their lives according to
ethical reason, were hated and murdered, such as Heraclitus, Musonius in
his own times, and others; for all those who in any way labored to live
according to reason and avoided wickedness were always hated; and this
was the effect of the work of daemons.
[A] Orosius, vii. 14, says that Justinus the philosopher
presented to Antonius Pius his work in defence of the Christian
religion, and made him merciful to the Christians.
Justinus himself is said to have been put to death at Rome, because he
refused to sacrifice to the gods. It cannot have been in the reign of
Hadrian, as one authority states; nor in the time of Antoninus Pius, if
the second Apology was written in the time of M. Antoninus; and there is
evidence that this event took place under M. Antoninus and L. Verus,
when Rusticus was praefect of the city.[A]
[A] See the Martyrium Sanctorum Justini, &c., in the works of
Justinus, ed. Otto, vol. ii. 559. "Junius Rusticus Praefectus
Urbi erat sub imperatoribus M. Aurelio et L. Vero, id quod
liquet ex Themistii Orat. xxxiv Dindorf. p. 451, et ex quodam
illorum rescripto, Dig. 49. 1. I, § 2" (Otto). The rescript
contains the words "Junium Rusticum amicum nostrum Praefectum
Urbi." The Martyrium of Justinus and others is written in
Greek. It begins, "In the time of the wicked defenders of
idolatry impious edicts were published against the pious
Christians both in cities and country places, for the purpose
of compelling them to make offerings to vain idols. Accordingly
the holy men (Justinus, Chariton, a woman Charito, Paeon,
Liberianus, and others) were brought before Rusticus, the
praefect of Rome."
The Martyrium gives the examination of the accused by Rusticus.
All of them professed to be Christians. Justinus was asked if
he expected to ascend into heaven and to receive a reward for
his sufferings, if he was condemned to death. He answered that
he did not expect: he was certain of it. Finally, the test of
obedience was proposed to the prisoners; they were required to
sacrifice to the gods. All refused, and Rusticus pronounced the
sentence, which was that those who refused to sacrifice to the
gods and obey the emperor's order should be whipped and
beheaded according to the law. The martyrs were then led to the
usual place of execution and beheaded. Some of the faithful
secretly carried off the bodies and deposited them in a fit
place.
The persecution in which Polycarp suffered at Smyrna belongs to the time
of M. Antoninus. The evidence for it is the letter of the church of
Smyrna to the churches of Philomelium and the other Christian churches,
and it is preserved by Eusebius (E.H. iv. 15). But the critics do not
agree about the time of Polycarp's death, differing in the two extremes
to the amount of twelve years. The circumstances of Polycarp's martyrdom
were accompanied by miracles, one of which Eusebius (iv. 15) has
omitted, but it appears in the oldest Latin version of the letter, which
Usher published, and it is supposed that this version was made not long
after the time of Eusebius. The notice at the end of the letter states
that it was transcribed by Caius from the copy of Irenaeus, the disciple
of Polycarp, then transcribed by Socrates at Corinth; "after which I
Pionius again wrote it out from the copy above mentioned, having
searched it out by the revelation of Polycarp, who directed me to it,"
&c. The story of Polycarp's martyrdom is embellished with miraculous
circumstances which some modern writers on ecclesiastical history take
the liberty of omitting.[A]
[A] Conyers Middleton, An Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers,
&c. p. 126. Middleton says that Eusebius omitted to mention the
dove, which flew out of Polycarp's body, and Dodwell and
Archbishop Wake have done the same. Wake says, "I am so little
a friend to such miracles that I thought it better with
Eusebius to omit that circumstance than to mention it from Bp.
Usher's Manuscript," which manuscript however, says Middleton,
he afterwards declares to be so well attested that we need not
any further assurance of the truth of it.
In order to form a proper notion of the condition of the Christians
under M. Antoninus we must go back to Trajan's time. When the younger
Pliny was governor of Bithynia, the Christians were numerous in those
parts, and the worshipers of the old religion were falling off. The
temples were deserted, the festivals neglected, and there were no
purchasers of victims for sacrifice. Those who were interested in the
maintenance of the old religion thus found that their profits were in
danger. Christians of both sexes and all ages were brought before the
governor who did not know what to do with them. He could come to no
other conclusion than this, that those who confessed to be Christians
and persevered in their religion ought to be punished; if for nothing
else, for their invincible obstinancy. He found no crimes proved against
the Christians, and he could only characterize their religion as a
depraved and extravagant superstition, which might be stopped if the
people were allowed the opportunity of recanting. Pliny wrote this in a
letter to Trajan (Plinius, Ep. x. 97). He asked for the emperor's
directions, because he did not know what to do. He remarks that he had
never been engaged in judicial inquiries about the Christians, and that
accordingly he did not know what to inquire about, or how far to inquire
and punish. This proves that it was not a new thing to examine into a
man's profession of Christianity and to punish him for it.[A]
[A] Orosius (vii. 12) speaks of Trajan's persecution of the
Christians, and of Pliny's application to him having led the
emperor to mitigate his severity. The punishment by the Mosaic
law for those who attempted to seduce the Jews to follow new
gods was death. If a man was secretly enticed to such new
worship, he must kill the seducer, even if the seducer were
brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend. (Deut. xiii.)
Trajan's rescript is extant. He approved of the governor's judgment in
the matter, but he said that no search must be made after the
Christians; if a man was charged with the new religion and convicted, he
must not be punished if he affirmed that he was not a Christian, and
confirmed his denial by showing his reverence to the heathen gods. He
added that no notice must be taken of anonymous informations, for such
things were of bad example. Trajan was a mild and sensible man; and both
motives of mercy and policy probably also induced him to take as little
notice of the Christians as he could, to let them live in quiet if it
were possible. Trajan's rescript is the first legislative act of the
head of the Roman state with reference to Christianity, which is known
to us. It does not appear that the Christians were further disturbed
under his reign. The martyrdom of Ignatius by the order of Trajan
himself is not universally admitted to be an historical fact.[A]
[A] The Martyrium Ignatii, first published in Latin by
Archbishop Usher, is the chief evidence for the circumstances
of Ignatius' death.
In the time of Hadrian it was no longer possible for the Roman
government to overlook the great increase of the Christians and the
hostility of the common sort to them. If the governors in the provinces
were willing to let them alone, they could not resist the fanaticism of
the heathen community, who looked on the Christians as atheists. The
Jews too, who were settled all over the Roman Empire, were as hostile to
the Christians as the Gentiles were.[A] With the time of Hadrian begin
the Christian Apologies, which show plainly what the popular feeling
towards the Christians then was. A rescript of Hadrian to Minucius
Fundanus, the Proconsul of Asia, which stands at the end of Justin's
first Apology,[B] instructs the governor that innocent people must not
be troubled, and false accusers must not be allowed to extort money from
them; the charges against the Christians must be made in due form, and
no attention must be paid to popular clamors; when Christians were
regularly prosecuted and convicted of illegal acts, they must be
punished according to their deserts; and false accusers also must be
punished. Antoninus Pius is said to have published rescripts to the same
effect. The terms of Hadrian's rescript seem very favorable to the
Christians; but if we understand it in this sense, that they were only
to be punished like other people for illegal acts, it would have had no
meaning, for that could have been done without asking the emperor's
advice. The real purpose of the rescript is that Christians must be
punished if they persisted in their belief, and would not prove their
renunciation of it by acknowledging the heathen religion. This was
Trajan's rule, and we have no reason for supposing that Hadrian granted
more to the Christians than Trajan did. There is also printed at the end
of Justin's first Apology a rescript of Antoninus Pius to the Commune of
([Greek: to koinon tês Asias]), and it is also in Eusebius (E.H. iv.
13). The date of the rescript is the third consulship of Antoninus
Pius.[C] The rescript declares that the Christians--for they are meant,
though the name Christians does not occur in the rescript--were not to
be disturbed unless they were attempting something against the Roman
rule; and no man was to be punished simply for being a Christian. But
this rescript is spurious. Any man moderately acquainted with Roman
history will see by the style and tenor that it is a clumsy forgery.
[A] We have the evidence of Justinus (ad Diognetum, c. 5) to
this effect: "The Christians are attacked by the Jews as if
they were men of a different race, and are persecuted by the
Greeks; and those who hate them cannot give the reason of their
enmity."
[B] And in Eusebius (E.H. iv. 8, 9). Orosius (vii. 13) says
that Hadrian sent this rescript to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul
of Asia after being instructed in books written on the
Christian religion by Quadratus, a disciple of the Apostles,
and Aristides, an Athenian, an honest and wise man, and Serenus
Granius. In the Greek text of Hadrian's rescript there
is mentioned Serenius Granianus, the predecessor of Minucius
Fundanus in the government of _Asia_.
This rescript of Hadrian has clearly been added to the Apology
by some editor. The Apology ends with the words: [Greek: ho
philon tô Oeô, touto genesthô]
[C] Eusebius (E.H. iv. 12), after giving the beginning of
Justinus' first Apology, which contains the address to T.
Antoninus and his two adopted sons, adds: "The same emperor
being addressed by other brethren in Asia, honored the Commune
of Asia with the following rescript." This rescript, which is
in the next chapter of Eusebius (E.H. iv. 13) is in the sole
name of Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus Armenius,
though Eusebius had just before said that he was going to give
us a rescript of Antoninus Pius. There are some material
variations between the two copies of the rescript besides the
difference in the title, which difference makes it impossible
to say whether the forger intended to assign this rescript to
Pius or to M. Antoninus.
The author of the Alexandrine Chronicum says that Marcus, being
moved by the entreaties of Melito and other heads of the
church, wrote an Epistle to the Commune of Asia in which he
forbade the Christians to be troubled on account of their
religion. Valesius supposes this to be the letter or rescript
which is contained in Eusebius (iv. 13), and to be the answer
to the Apology of Melito, of which I shall soon give the
substance. But Marcus certainly did not write this letter which
is in Eusebius, and we know not what answer he made to Melito.
In the time of M. Antoninus the opposition between the old and the new
belief was still stronger, and the adherents of the heathen religion
urged those in authority to a more regular resistance to the invasions
of the Christian faith. Melito in his Apology to M. Antoninus represents
the Christians of Asia as persecuted under new imperial orders.
Shameless informers, he says, men who were greedy after the property of
others, used these orders as a means of robbing those who were doing no
harm. He doubts if a just emperor could have ordered anything so unjust;
and if the last order was really not from the emperor, the Christians
entreat him not to give them up to their enemies.[A] We conclude from
this that there were at least imperial rescripts or constitutions of M.
Antoninus which were made the foundation of these persecutions. The fact
of being a Christian was now a crime and punished, unless the accused
denied their religion. Then come the persecutions at Smyrna, which some
modern critics place in A.D. 167, ten years before the persecution of
Lyon. The governors of the provinces under M. Antoninus might have found
enough even in Trajan's rescript to warrant them in punishing
Christians, and the fanaticism of the people would drive them to
persecution, even if they were unwilling. But besides the fact of the
Christians rejecting all the heathen ceremonies, we must not forget that
they plainly maintain that all the heathen religions were false. The
Christians thus declared war against the heathen rites, and it is hardly
necessary to observe that this was a declaration of hostility against
the Roman government, which tolerated all the various forms of
superstition that existed in the empire, and could not consistently
tolerate another religion, which declared that all the rest were false
and all the splendid ceremonies of the empire only a worship of devils.
[A] Eusebius, iv. 26; and Routh's Reliquiae Sacrae, vol. I, and
the notes. The interpretation of this Fragment is not easy.
Mosheim misunderstood one passage so far as to affirm that
Marcus promised rewards to those who denounced the Christians;
an interpretation which is entirely false. Melito calls the
Christian religion "our philosophy," which began among
barbarians (the Jews), and flourished among the Roman subjects
in the time of Augustus, to the great advantage of the empire,
for from that time the power of the Romans grew great and
glorious. He says that the emperor has and will have as the
successor to Augustus' power the good wishes of men, if he will
protect that philosophy which grew up with the empire and began
with Augustus, which philosophy the predecessors of Antoninus
honored in addition to the other religions. He further says
that the Christian religion had suffered no harm since the time
of Augustus, but on the contrary had enjoyed all honor and
respect that any man could desire. Nero and Domitian, he says,
were alone persuaded by some malicious men to calumniate the
Christian religion, and this was the origin of the false
charges against the Christians. But this was corrected by the
emperors who immediately preceded Antoninus, who often by their
rescripts reproved those who attempted to trouble the
Christians. Hadrian, Antoninus' grandfather, wrote to many, and
among them to Fundanus, the governor of Asia. Antoninus Pius,
when Marcus was associated with him in the empire, wrote to the
cities that they must not trouble the Christians; among others,
to the people of Larissa, Thessalonica, the Athenians, and all
the Greeks. Melito concluded thus: "We are persuaded that thou
who hast about these things the same mind that they had, nay
rather one much more humane and philosophical, wilt do all that
we ask thee."--This Apology was written after A.D. 169, the
year in which Verus died, for it speaks of Marcus only and his
son Commodus. According to Melito's testimony, Christians had
only been punished for their religion in the time of Nero and
Domitian, and the persecutions began again in the time of M.
Antoninus, and were founded on his orders, which were abused,
as he seems to mean. He distinctly affirms "that the race of
the godly is now persecuted and harassed by fresh imperial
orders in Asia, a thing which had never happened before." But
we know that all this is not true, and that Christians had been
punished in Trajan's time.
If we had a true ecclesiastical history, we should know how the Roman
emperors attempted to check the new religion; how they enforced their
principle of finally punishing Christians, simply as Christians, which
Justin in his Apology affirms that they did, and I have no doubt that he
tells the truth; how far popular clamor and riots went in this matter,
and how far many fanatical and ignorant Christians--for there were many
such--contributed to excite the fanaticism on the other side and to
embitter the quarrel between the Roman government and the new religion.
Our extant ecclesiastical histories are manifestly falsified, and what
truth they contain is grossly exaggerated; but the fact is certain that
in the time of M. Antoninus the heathen populations were in open
hostility to the Christians, and that under Antoninus' rule men were put
to death because they were Christians. Eusebius, in the preface to his
fifth book, remarks that in the seventeenth year of Antoninus' reign, in
some parts of the world, the persecution of the Christians became more
violent, and that it proceeded from the populace in the cities; and he
adds, in his usual style of exaggeration, that we may infer from what
took place in a single nation that myriads of martyrs were made in the
habitable earth. The nation which he alludes to is Gallia; and he then
proceeds to give the letter of the churches of Vienna and Lugdunum. It
is probable that he has assiged the true cause of the persecutions, the
fanaticism of the populace, and that both governors and emperor had a
great deal of trouble with these disturbances. How far Marcus was
cognizant of these cruel proceedings we do not know, for the historical
records of his reign are very defective. He did not make the rule
against the Christians, for Trajan did that; and if we admit that he
would have been willing to let the Christians alone, we cannot affirm
that it was in his power, for it would be a great mistake to suppose
that Antoninus had the unlimited authority which some modern sovereigns
have had. His power was limited by certain constitutional forms, by the
Senate, and by the precedents of his predecessors. We cannot admit that
such a man was an active persecutor, for there is no evidence that he
was,[A] though it is certain that he had no good opinion of the
Christians, as appears from his own words.[B] But he knew nothing of
them except their hostility to the Roman religion, and he probably
thought that they were dangerous to the state, notwithstanding the
professions, false or true, of some of the Apologists. So much I have
said, because it would be unfair not to state all that can be urged
against a man whom his contemporaries and subsequent ages venerated as a
model of virtue and benevolence. If I admitted the genuineness of some
documents, he would be altogether clear from the charge of even allowing
any persecutions; but as I seek the truth and am sure that they are
false, I leave him to bear whatever blame is his due.[C] I add that it
is quite certain that Antoninus did not derive any of his ethical
principles from a religion of which he knew nothing.[D]
[A] Except that of Orosius (vii. 15), who says that during the
Parthian war there were grievous persecutions of the Christians
in Asia and Gallia under the orders of Marcus (praecepto ejus),
and "many were crowned with the martyrdom of saints."
[B] See xi. 3. The emperor probably speaks of such fanatics as
Clemens (quoted by Gataker on this passage) mentions. The
rational Christians admitted no fellowship with them. "Some of
these heretics," says Clemens, "show their impiety and
cowardice by loving their lives, saying that the knowledge of
the really existing God is true testimony (martyrdom), but that
a man is a self-murderer who bears witness by his death. We
also blame those who rush to death; for there are some, not of
us, but only bearing the same name, who give themselves up. We
say of them that they die without being martyrs, even if they
are publicly punished; and they give themselves up to a death
which avails nothing, as the Indian Gymnosophists give
themselves up foolishly to fire." Cave, in his primitive
Christianity (ii. c. 7), says of the Christians: "They did
flock to the place of torment faster than droves of beasts that
are driven to the shambles. They even longed to be in the arms
of suffering. Ignatius, though then in his journey to Rome in
order to his execution, yet by the way as he went could not but
vent his passionate desire of it 'Oh that I might come to those
wild beasts that are prepared for me; I heartily wish that I
may presently meet with them; I would invite and encourage them
speedily to devour me, and not be afraid to set upon me as they
have been to others; nay, should they refuse it, I would even
force them to it;'" and more to the same purpose from Eusebius.
Cave, an honest and good man, says all this in praise of the
Christians; but I think that he mistook the matter. We admire a
man who holds to his principles even to death; but these
fanatical Christians are the Gymnosophists whom Clemens treats
with disdain.
[C] Dr. F.C. Baur, in his work entitled "Das Christenthum und
die Christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte," &c., has
examined this question with great good sense and fairness, and
I believe he has stated the truth as near as our authorities
enable us to reach it.
[D] In the Digest, 48, 19, 30, there is the following excerpt
from Modestinus: "Si quis aliquid fecerit, quo leves hominum
animi superstitione numinis terrerentur, divus Marcus hujusmodi
homines in insulam relegari rescripsit."
There is no doubt that the Emperor's Reflections--or his Meditations, as
they are generally named--is a genuine work. In the first book he speaks
of himself, his family, and his teachers; and in other books he mentions
himself. Suidas (v.[Greek: Markos]) notices a work of Antoninus in
twelve books, which he names the "conduct of his own life;" and he cites
the book under several words in his Dictionary, giving the emperor's
name, but not the title of the work. There are also passages cited by
Suidas from Antoninus without mention of the emperor's name. The true
title of the work is unknown. Xylander, who published the first edition
of this book (Zürich, 1558, 8vo, with a Latin version), used a
manuscript which contained the twelve books, but it is not known where
the manuscript is now. The only other complete manuscript which is known
to exist is in the Vatican library, but it has no title and no
inscriptions of the several books: the eleventh only has the
inscription, [Greek: Markou autokratoros] marked with an asterisk. The
other Vatican manuscripts and the three Florentine contain only excerpts
from the emperor's book. All the titles of the excerpts nearly agree
with that which Xylander prefixed to his edition, [Greek: Markou
Antôninou Autokratoros tôn eis heauton biblia ib.] This title has been
used by all subsequent editors. We cannot tell whether Antoninus divided
his work into books or somebody else did it. If the inscriptions at the
end of the first and second books are genuine, he may have made the
division himself.
It is plain that the emperor wrote down his thoughts or reflections as
the occasions arose; and since they were intended for his own use, it is
no improbable conjecture that he left a complete copy behind him written
with his own hand; for it is not likely that so diligent a man would use
the labor of a transcriber for such a purpose, and expose his most
secret thoughts to any other eye. He may have also intended the book for
his son Commodus, who however had no taste for his father's philosophy.
Some careful hand preserved the precious volume; and a work by Antoninus
is mentioned by other late writers besides Suidas.
Many critics have labored on the text of Antoninus. The most complete
edition is that by Thomas Gataker, 1652, 4to. The second edition of
Gataker was superintended by George Stanhope, 1697, 4to. There is also
an edition of 1704. Gataker made and suggested many good corrections,
and he also made a new Latin version, which is not a very good specimen
of Latin, but it generally expresses the sense of the original, and
often better than some of the more recent translations. He added in the
margin opposite to each paragraph references to the other parallel
passages; and he wrote a commentary, one of the most complete that has
been written on any ancient author. This commentary contains the
editor's exposition of the more difficult passages, and quotations from
all the Greek and Roman writers for the illustration of the text. It is
a wonderful monument of learning and labor, and certainly no Englishman
has yet done anything like it. At the end of his preface the editor says
that he wrote it at Rotherhithe near London, in a severe winter, when he
was in the seventy-eighth year of his age, 1651--a time when Milton,
Selden, and other great men of the Commonwealth time were living; and
the great French scholar Saumaise (Salmasius), with whom Gataker
corresponded and received help from him for his edition of Antoninus.
The Greek test has also been edited by J. M. Schultz, Leipzig, 1802,
8vo; and by the learned Greek Adamantinus Corais, Paris, 1816, 8vo. The
text of Schultz was republished by Tauchnitz, 1821.
There are English, German, French, Italian, and Spanish translations of
M. Antoninus, and there may be others. I have not seen all the English
translations. There is one by Jeremy Collier, 1702, 8vo, a most coarse
and vulgar copy of the original. The latest French translation by
Alexis Pierron in the collection of Charpentier is better than Dacier's,
which has been honored with an Italian version (Udine, 1772). There is
an Italian version (1675), which I have not seen. It is by a cardinal.
"A man illustrious in the church, the Cardinal Francis Barberini the
elder, nephew of Pope Urban VIII., occupied the last years of his life
in translating into his native language the thoughts of the Roman
emperor, in order to diffuse among the faithful the fertilizing and
vivifying seeds. He dedicated this translation to his soul, to make it,
as he says in his energetic style, redder than his purple at the sight
of the virtues of this Gentile" (Pierron, Preface).
I have made this translation at intervals after having used the book for
many years. It is made from the Greek, but I have not always followed
one text; and I have occasionally compared other versions with my own. I
made this translation for my own use, because I found that it was worth
the labor; but it may be useful to others also; and therefore I
determined to print it. As the original is sometimes very difficult to
understand and still more difficult to translate, it is not possible
that I have always avoided error. But I believe that I have not often
missed the meaning, and those who will take the trouble to compare the
translation with the original should not hastily conclude that I am
wrong, if they do not agree with me. Some passages do give the meaning,
though at first sight they may not appear to do so; and when I differ
from the translators, I think that in some places they are wrong, and in
other places I am sure that they are. I have placed in some passages a
+, which indicates corruption in the text or great uncertainty in the
meaning. I could have made the language more easy and flowing, but I
have preferred a ruder style as being better suited to express the
character of the original; and sometimes the obscurity which may appear
in the version is a fair copy of the obscurity of the Greek. If I should
ever revise this version, I would gladly make use of any corrections
which may be suggested. I have added an index of some of the Greek terms
with the corresponding English. If I have not given the best words for
the Greek, I have done the best that I could; and in the text I have
always given the same translation of the same word.
The last reflection of the Stoic philosophy that I have observed is in
Simplicius' Commentary on the Enchiridion of Epictetus. Simplicius was
not a Christian, and such a man was not likely to be converted at a time
when Christianity was grossly corrupted. But he was a really religious
man, and he concludes his commentary with a prayer to the Deity which no
Christian could improve. From the time of Zeno to Simplicius, a period
of about nine hundred years, the Stoic philosophy formed the characters
of some of the best and greatest men. Finally it became extinct, and we
hear no more of it till the revival of letters in Italy. Angelo
Poliziano met with two very inaccurate and incomplete manuscripts of
Epictetus' Enchiridion, which he translated into Latin and dedicated to
his great patron Lorenzo de' Medici, in whose collection he had found
the book. Poliziano's version was printed in the first Bâle edition of
the Enchiridion, A.D. 1531 (apud And. Cratandrum). Poliziano recommends
the Enchiridion to Lorenzo as a work well suited to his temper, and
useful in the difficulties by which he was surrounded.
Epictetus and Antoninus have had readers ever since they were first
printed. The little book of Antoninus has been the companion of some
great men. Machiavelli's Art of War and Marcus Antoninus were the two
books which were used when he was a young man by Captain John Smith, and
he could not have found two writers better fitted to form the character
of a soldier and a man. Smith is almost unknown and forgotten in
England, his native country, but not in America, where he saved the
young colony of Virginia. He was great in his heroic mind and his deeds
in arms, but greater still in the nobleness of his character. For a
man's greatness lies not in wealth and station, as the vulgar believe,
nor yet in his intellectual capacity, which is often associated with
the meanest moral character, the most abject servility to those in high
places, and arrogance to the poor and lowly; but a man's true greatness
lies in the consciousness of an honest purpose in life, founded on a
just estimate of himself and everything else, on frequent
self-examination, and a steady obedience to the rule which he knows to
be right, without troubling himself, as the emperor says he should not,
about what others may think or say, or whether they do or do not do that
which he thinks and says and does.