THE WIVES OF THE STOICS
On the twenty-fifth of February, in the year 138, Hadrian had
summoned the Senators to the palace. Verus was dead, and the whole
world wondered on whom the erratic fancy of the ailing Emperor
would rest next. Among the Senators was a distinguished, able, and
amiable statesman and commander, Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius
Arrius Antoninus, whose great merit had--as the long series of names
implies--been richly rewarded by older relatives. He had been much
consulted by Hadrian in his last years, and was respected by all. To
the great relief of the Senate the wavering finger of the Emperor fell
on this man, and he was acclaimed Cæsar. He attended Hadrian devotedly,
prolonged the useless life which lingered between him and the throne,
and--it was rumoured--saved many a noble head from execution in the
last frenzies of Hadrian. Early in July that great traveller set out on
his last journey, and Aurelius Antoninus--a name to which the Senate
soon added the appellation of Pius--ascended the throne.
The new Empress of Rome was Annia Galeria Faustina, a matron in her
thirty-fourth year, of an ancient and distinguished Italian family.
It is of some interest to regard the extraction of Faustina. Through
her the Imperial throne is about to pass once more to one of its most
ignoble occupants, and Rome will sink rapidly from the reign of Marcus
Aurelius to the riot of Commodus. The two opposing tendencies of Roman
life meet in her family, and the Stoic succumbs to the Epicurean--or,
rather, to the Sybaritic or Cyrenaic, for the gospel of Epicurus
was one of dignity and sobriety. Rome might have said, in the later
language of Goethe, as he depicted himself passing through a similar
phase:
Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach, in meiner Brust.
One soul leaned to sloth, sensual and selfish indulgence: one, with
larger horizon, was for temperance, vigour, and Imperial duty. The
curious feature of this critical stage in the fortunes of Rome is
that the two tendencies are developed within the same family, and
the Stoic yields to the Sybarite. Annia Galeria Faustina was born of
the same parents as the father of Marcus Aurelius, and was reared in
the same atmosphere of old Roman virtue, or manliness, as the word
signifies. The great-grandfather of Marcus Aurelius was Annius Verus,
a Senator of great merit and of Spanish extraction. His son Annius
Verus was twice consul, and both his sons in turn--the father and
uncle of Marcus Aurelius--were promoted to the consulate. Everything
we know of the family suggests a fine and sober patrician type, and
confirms the beautiful picture of it given us by Marcus Aurelius in his
“Meditations.”
The one element of possible weakness in the ancestry of the Faustinas
and of Commodus is in the mother of Annia Galeria Faustina. Annius
Verus had married Rupilia Faustina. Her family is obscure, and, though
one must hesitate to trace to her this strain of weakness and vice on
such slender grounds, one is disposed to believe that she was married
for her beauty, and brought into that strong family the tainted germ
which ripened in more than one of her descendants. It may, however,
very well be that the strength of the stock was decaying--Marcus
Aurelius himself was delicate--and its later descendants succumbed to
the evil influences about them. A genealogical table will show how the
fate of Rome hung on this family for more than a generation:--
[Illustration: FAUSTINA THE ELDER
BUST IN THE LOUVRE]
Annius Verus (twice consul)
and Rupilia Faustina
|
+--------------------+----------------------------+
| | |
Annius Libo Annius Verus (consul) Annia Galeria Faustina
(consul) (marries Domitia Calvilla) (marries Antoninus Pius)
| |
+-----------------+ ------+-------
| |
Annia Cornificia Marcus Aurelius Annia Faustina
(marries Annia Faustina) |
| |
+--------------+---------------+
|
Commodus
Faustina had inherited her mother’s beauty, and was reared in a very
conscientious home. It was the home in which Marcus Aurelius learned
his first lessons in virtue, as his father died early, and all the
chroniclers speak of it with great respect. We know very little about
her, however, until she becomes Empress, and, as she died three years
afterwards, we have not much concern with her. She is believed to have
married somewhat late for a Roman girl, in or about her sixteenth year
(120). Titus Aurelius Antoninus was then in his thirty-fourth year, a
tall, graceful, and handsome man, of quiet and captivating manners,
good cultivation, fine character, and a face of great dignity and
sweetness. He was of good family, and was advancing rapidly in the
public service. Shortly after the marriage he became consul, and he
remained in Rome in one or other civic capacity until 128 or 129. He
was very wealthy and greatly esteemed.
One of the chroniclers has charged her with light behaviour, and, as
this is the only period in which we can plausibly entertain it, we may
regard the charge for a moment. The book of Dio’s history for the reign
of Antoninus Pius is lost, so that neither he nor his commentators
throw any light on Faustina. Aurelius Victor and Eutropius say nothing
of her character. The one hostile witness is “Julius Capitolinus,” the
anonymous writer of the fourth century who provides the sketch of the
life of Antoninus Pius in the “Historia Augusta.” He says (c. 3): “Many
things are said of his wife’s excessive freedom and looseness of life,
which he had painfully to overlook.” Serviez enlarges on this with his
usual license. But as he makes Faustina the sister of Ælius Verus, and
says that she neglected the education of her children, which is also
untrue, we may ignore him.
It is now more customary to reject this charge against the elder
Faustina, on the ground that the single witness is a light anecdotist
of the fourth century. Moreover, when the tutor Fronto wrote a glowing
panegyric of Faustina after her death, Antoninus Pius answered that it
was even more true than eloquent, and swore that he “would rather live
with her at Gyaros [a barren island, to which criminals were deported]
than in a palace without her.” Nevertheless, we must leave the question
open. Antoninus Pius was not a puritan. When the Emperor Julian
introduces him before the gods, in his charming contest of the Emperors
for the highest praise (“The Cæsars”), he calls him “a moderate man,
not indeed in love-affairs, but in the administration of the Empire.”
Faustina was probably charming enough to merit his sincere lament. But
as Capitolinus mingles truth and untruth with a very light hand, and
the relevant book of Dio is wanting, we cannot decide the issue.
In the year 128 or 129 Antoninus was appointed Proconsul of Asia,
and he and Faustina went to Smyrna. The elder of their two daughters
died about the same time. An amusing incident in connexion with their
arrival is narrated by Philostratus in his “Lives of the Sophists.”
The Proconsul at once occupied the finest house in Smyrna, the home
of the teacher Polemo, who was absent. Polemo was the idol of Smyrna,
and was proportionately conceited. He drew youths from all parts to
his school, and had won much favour from Hadrian for the city. He
travelled in a superb Phrygian chariot, and his mules had silver
trappings; and when some grumblers had hinted that he had diverted to
his own pocket some of Hadrian’s subsidies, he had pompously written
to the Emperor: “Polemo has given me an account of money given by
you to him.” This conceited sophist reached his house in the middle
of the night, and found the Proconsul and Faustina abed there. He
promptly turned them out, and roundly abused them. Years afterwards,
when the genial Antoninus was Emperor, and Polemo came to the palace,
he said laughingly to an attendant: “See that Polemo has a chamber in
the palace, and that no one turns him out.” Later an actor came from
Smyrna to complain that Polemo, the autocrat, had turned him out of the
theatre. “At what hour?” asked the Emperor gravely. It was at midday.
“That is nothing; he turned me out at midnight,” said the Emperor.
The amiability and solid work of Antoninus must have won Polemo, as
Hadrian is reported to have said in his will that it was he who advised
the adoption of Antoninus. But the East generally so much appreciated
the Proconsul that, when he returned to Rome, he stood very high in the
favour of Hadrian. We again lose sight of Faustina until he becomes
Emperor, and then there are one or two brief references to her before
she dies in 141. At his accession he refused the greater part of the
money (_aurum coronarium_) which was due to him, by custom, from the
provinces, and drew very liberally on his private fortune for paying
the great expenses entailed. Faustina naturally demurred. “Foolish
woman,” he is said to have answered, “when we obtained the Empire
we lost what we previously possessed.” The only other reference is
contained in a letter of the younger Faustina to Marcus Aurelius: “In
the defection of Celsus my mother exhorted Antoninus to be concerned
first about his own family.” We know nothing of this revolt. Apparently
Antoninus, like Marcus Aurelius, was disposed to be dangerously
lenient. The final reference to Faustina is that she died in the third
year of his reign (141), and was deeply mourned by him. Nominated
“Augusta” in life, she was deified at death, and Antoninus built in her
honour the beautiful temple of which traces are still seen in Rome. He
also instituted in her honour a fresh charity for orphans, the “Puellæ
Faustinianæ,” and ordered that gold and silver statues of her should be
borne in the processions.
This sincere tribute of the Emperor tells at least of a great affection
and esteem, but the literary references to Faustina are too meagre
and disputable to bring her clearly before us. The busts that are
believed to represent her do not, unfortunately, assist us much. In the
Capitoline Museum at Rome is one that may depict her in her twenties
or earlier. It has a round and tranquil face, not devoid of strength,
but more directly suggesting an even and sober character. Another bust,
in the Vatican Museum, shows the same features at a later age; but a
third, in the same Museum, has not so pleasant an expression. The oval
face is hard and querulous. The loose lips droop at the ends; the large
eyes, prominent cheekbones, and strong chin have an expression that is
very far from tender or spiritual. The bust that is attributed to her
in the British Museum is between the two. The elder Faustina remains in
obscurity, and we pass to her more notorious daughter and successor.
For twenty years after the death of Faustina there was no Empress of
Rome. Antoninus, who was in his fifty-fifth year, refused to marry
again, and took a concubine--an arrangement recognized in Roman law
and practice, in which marriage had several degrees. It was an era
of general peace and great prosperity. The group of Stoic lawyers
that the Emperor gathered about him humanely moderated the rigour
of the laws, medical service was supplied to the poor in the towns,
the school-system was further endowed, and works of mercy continued
to multiply. The armies usually rested--and, it is to be feared,
rusted--the treasury was again filled, the Empire was happy and
prosperous. In the year 161 the cheerful, benevolent Antoninus passed
away, and the two men whom Hadrian had compelled him to adopt came to
their joint reign. With them are introduced two new Empresses of no
little interest.
The two boys whom Hadrian had lightly designated as the heirs to the
throne after Antoninus were Annius Verus, or Verissimus, as Hadrian
genially called him on account of his precocious gravity and piety,
and Lucius Verus, son of Hadrian’s dissolute companion. Annius was a
great favourite of the Emperor. He received office in his sixth year,
and donned the philosopher’s cloak in his twelfth. He was the pet of
his grandfather’s palace, but so serious in his Stoicism that his
mother had difficulty in persuading him to sleep in a bed instead of on
the floor. In his sixteenth year Hadrian gave him the manly toga, and
betrothed him to the daughter of Lucius Verus. In his eighteenth year
he was “terrified” to hear that he had been chosen for the succession,
and must go to live in the palace. Then Hadrian died, and Antoninus
adopted him.
Gibbon has greatly praised Antoninus for preferring the welfare of the
State to the interest of his family in this adoption. It is true that,
as we know from coins, Antoninus and Faustina had had two sons, as well
as two daughters, but they must have died before the year 138. Dio
expressly says that Hadrian ordered Antoninus to adopt the two youths
“because he had no male children at the time.” His boys, like his
elder daughter, must have died before that time; and indeed we have no
further mention of them. But if this particular grace cannot be allowed
to Antoninus, we must admire his careful control of their education and
his discriminating guidance of their fortunes. The best masters in Rome
instructed each of them, and it was only the deep-rooted difference
in their constitutions--the moral strength of the one and weakness of
the other--that led them to diverge so widely. The vigilant eye of the
Emperor observed the dissimilarity of promise. He left Lucius Verus out
of the way of promotion, and destined Marcus for the great advancement.
No sooner was Antoninus on the throne than he approached Marcus,
through Faustina, with a proposal of marriage with his daughter. She
had been promised by Hadrian to young Lucius Verus, and Marcus was to
marry Ceionia. The Emperor proposed to cancel these contracts, and
marry the younger Faustina to the young Stoic. It would be extremely
interesting if we could penetrate the feelings of the young princess at
the time. The later busts of her suggest a pretty, round-faced girl,
probably in her early teens, with small eyes and a lively temperament.
The grim and austere young scholar would not attract her, and one
can imagine her feelings when he asked time to consider whether he
would accept the hand of the Emperor’s charming daughter. Marcus
philosophically weighed the proposal in his mind until the time he
asked had expired, and then he consented to betrothal. He was appointed
Cæsar and consul designate, and given the palace of Tiberius for a
dwelling. A bust that we have of him, in the Capitol Museum, represents
him about this time--a face of singular beauty and refinement framed in
a mass of short curly hair.
Their marriage--a superb ceremony--did not take place until about seven
years later (145), a circumstance which we may regard as a further
philosophic error. During the years of waiting, and during most of the
reign of Antoninus, Marcus was absorbed in study. He was penetrated
with the aphorism of Plato, that the State would be happy whose prince
was a philosopher. What the effect was on Faustina we may be in a
better position to say later. Her mother had died in 141, her womanhood
was fully born, and the eye of her father had an Empire to survey. At
the death of Antoninus the throne was at once offered to Marcus. In his
last moments Antoninus had ordered the golden statue of Fortune, which
he kept in his chamber, to be conveyed to Marcus. From a sense of duty
he, unluckily for Rome, associated Lucius Verus with him in the Empire.
Somewhat delicate himself, he relied on Verus for such work abroad as
was immediately necessary, and continued to frequent the schools.
His peaceful studies were quickly interrupted. Fatal floods and
scarcity of food disturbed the capital; the eastern frontier was again
aflame, and the German frontier was threatened. Marcus sent Verus to
take command in the East, after betrothing him to his daughter Lucilla,
held off the northern barbarians with bribes and diplomacy, and worked
hard for the relief of Rome. For a time his policy seemed to triumph.
The Germans were pacified, and the eastern peoples repressed. Verus,
indeed, advanced no farther than the voluptuous palaces of Antioch and
the licentious groves of Daphne. Once only during the campaign did
he quit the luxury of Antioch. He heard that Marcus was coming East
with his daughter Lucilla, and hastened to meet him otherwhere than
in garrulous Antioch. Marcus did not leave Italy, however, and Verus
wedded Lucilla, and returned to his perfumed vices. Happily, there was
in the East a Roman general of the old stamp, Avidius Cassius, a strong
and blunt man, disdainful of luxury. He lashed the debauched troops
into a state of discipline, pacified the East, and let Verus return to
Rome to enjoy his triumph.
Here begin the stories that have gathered about the memory of the
younger Faustina, and have persuaded many a writer that, as one of the
authorities says, she became a second Messalina. If we are to believe
the “Augustan History,” she behaved with the most abominable license
throughout her whole married life. Four Roman nobles are specifically
named as notorious lovers of the Empress, and she is charged with
general license. One of the four was named Tertullus, and it is said
that one day, when Marcus was in the theatre, an actor made flagrant
reference to this liaison. Asked for the name of a certain lover, he
said three times (_ter_), “Tullus, Tullus, Tullus.” It is added that
Marcus--who might very well miss a point in the theatre, as he read and
wrote letters there--was quite aware of the liaison, because he one day
surprised Faustina at breakfast with Tertullus. The Empress is further
charged with adultery with the voluptuous colleague of her husband, and
with wantoning among actors, gladiators, sailors, and others of the
baser sort.
The more sober writers on Faustina have generally been unwilling to
admit this debauchery. Duruy rejects the stories altogether, Merivale
recommends reserve, and Renan thinks that “careful research has reduced
to very small proportions the accusations which scandal was pleased to
bring against the wife of Marcus Aurelius.” It seems to me that we can
only come to the same conclusion as we did in regard to Messalina; we
must regard particular legends with reserve, but must conclude that
the general opinion of Faustina at the time, which the stories embody,
must have had a serious basis. Some of the stories put on record by
Capitolinus in the “Augustan History” are palpably false. One runs that
she confessed to Marcus her passion for a certain gladiator, and that
Marcus was directed by the Chaldæan sages, whom he consulted, to kill
the man and bathe the Empress in his blood. Her passion was cured, but
her next child was the brutal Commodus. This story is so gross--I do
not reproduce all the details--that the writer does not insist on it,
but he continues: “Still, as her conduct with the gladiators is well
known, Commodus probably was the son of a gladiator.” Now the tutor of
the princes, Fronto, remarks in one of his letters, and the surviving
busts bear him out, that Commodus had a striking likeness to Marcus
Aurelius. I may add that Commodus was born in the year of the Emperor’s
accession, when such conduct is incredible.
[Illustration: FAUSTINA THE YOUNGER
BUST (REPUTED) IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM]
Other parts of the legend are just as vulnerable. Thus it is said that
Faustina poisoned Verus when he boasted to his wife of his relations
with her. He died a very natural death, as we shall see later. On the
other hand, Dio, who lived shortly afterwards, and had no dislike for
scandal, knows nothing whatever about this looseness on the part of the
Empress, and there is nothing in Eutropius or Aurelius Victor. The only
other writer who, in a general way, accuses Faustina of dissoluteness
is the Emperor Julian (“Cæsars,” c. 28). We are therefore in a dilemma,
and must not too readily speak of Faustina as a second Messalina.
The quiet assumption of her guilt in Julian, and the fact that the
stories in the “Augustan History” are professedly taken from Marius
Maximus, an historical writer not far removed from her time, imply a
very general belief in her guilt. In one place Capitolinus says (c. 23)
that the Emperor “cleared her by his letters” of the charge of loose
behaviour with actors, and in another represents him as saying, when
he is urged to divorce her on account of her vices: “If we send away
the wife, we must give up her dowry,” though the Empire could hardly
be called Faustina’s dowry. In a third place, however, Capitolinus
leaves it open whether Marcus “was ignorant of, or ignored,” his
wife’s misconduct. For many writers, in fact, the attitude of Marcus
is decisive. If such things had been done he must have known, and,
with such knowledge, he could not have spoken so highly of his wife in
his “Meditations,” and would not have dared to set up, in her memory,
an altar on which the maidens of Rome should offer sacrifice before
marriage.
The scale, in truth, is somewhat evenly balanced, yet one cannot easily
conceive that the heavy charges of Marius Maximus and the deliberate
verdict of Julian had no foundation. Whether from weakness, or from an
excess of casuistry, Marcus Aurelius lacked decision or penetration
in such matters. He married his daughter to a profligate, whom he
afterwards deified, and he committed the Empire to a son who had given
early promise of vice. His grave and ascetic ways probably repelled the
gay and beautiful woman whom he had diplomatically married, and she
seems to have sought relief. None of the busts, medallions, or coins,
which more or less convey an image of her to us, suggest character or
culture, but rather a weak control and a sensuous temper. From her
Commodus derived the enfeebled will that put him at the mercy of his
more dissolute courtiers, and the sensuality that made his short reign
an indescribable debauch. Much as we should like to relieve Marcus
Aurelius of the shame of having begotten such a monster, we must admit
his parentage, and cast what blame there is on the mother.
In this unsatisfactory haze we must leave the conduct of the Empress
during the years in which her husband wrought for the safety of
the Empire, bequeathed his austere reflections to later ages, or
contemplated the golden images of his teachers in his _lararium_. The
triumphant return of Verus was quickly followed by years of gravest
anxiety. In the pestilential East the legions had absorbed the germs
of plague, had strewn them along their route, and had now disseminated
them throughout Rome. Thousands of victims, rich and poor, succumbed
to the subtle malady. Marcus vainly summoned the ministers of every
religion and the medical men of all schools, and sacrificed those
obscure Christians on whom popular anger was ever ready to visit a
calamity. His trouble increased when it was announced that the fierce
Marcomanni of the north had burst into the Empire, and were driving
the Romans before them. With great energy he mustered the demoralized
legions in the north, and set out with Verus against the enemy. In
the middle of the war (168) Verus, who had repeatedly tried to return
to the comfort of the capital, died. He had an apoplectic fit on the
journey, and we may ignore the various suggestions that either Lucilla,
or Faustina, or Marcus put an end to his useless career.
Marcus continued for several years the task of settling the frontier
tribes. It seems that Faustina went with him on these arduous
campaigns, though whether we may see in the circumstance any merit
on her part, or a device of the Emperor to control her conduct, it
is impossible to say. She at least earned a title--“Mother of the
Camps” and “Mother of the Legions”--which is found on few coins of the
Empresses. It is probable that her disorders belonged to an earlier
date, before and in the early part of the Emperor’s reign. It is
chiefly at Gaeta, the pretty bay on the coast where many Romans had
villas, that Capitolinus places her familiarity with gladiators and
sailors. Possibly the sobriety of her later years was accepted by her
husband as an expiation, and held to justify his eulogy of her.
Those later years were full of trouble and anxiety. Not only did two
of their children die, and their daughter Lucilla become the widow
of a notorious profligate, but the gods seemed to have entered upon
a contest with the virtue of Marcus Aurelius. A great earthquake
shook the East, the plague left a blackened trail over the Empire and
infested the camps, and other disasters were crowded into a few years.
The treasury ran short, and Marcus was obliged to put up the Imperial
treasures at auction to obtain funds for carrying on the war. His one
consolation was that the Eastern frontier was tranquil, yet in the
year 175 a messenger came to announce that his great general, Avidius
Cassius, was in revolt, and claimed the Empire.
Verus, who must have felt the scorn of the stronger man, had warned
Marcus years before that Cassius was dangerous, but the actual revolt
is persistently connected in the chronicles with Faustina. Cassius had
ambition, and had only been prevented by his father in earlier years
from rising against Antoninus Pius. In 174 or 175, it is said by Dio,
he received a message from Faustina, proposing that, in the event of
Marcus dying, he should marry her, and occupy the throne. Shortly after
this a false message reached him that Marcus was dead, and he at once
announced to the legions that he assumed the Empire. The message was
quickly contradicted, but Cassius thought it too late to retire, and he
prepared for a struggle. Marcus sadly moved towards the East. Before he
had gone far, however, he learned that the soldiers, who hated Cassius
for his rigour, had put him to death.
The position of Faustina is once more in grave ambiguity. The writer
on Cassius in the “Historia Augusta” gives the rumour implicating her,
but rejects it. Unfortunately, his rejection is in this case no more
weighty than his acceptance in others. He admits that his source,
Marius Maximus, believes Faustina guilty, and ascribes it to “a wish
to defame” the Empress. Except that the hatred of Commodus at Rome
may have for some time been extended to the woman who had borne him,
there is no clear reason why Maximus should calumniate Faustina. Dio,
who lives very close to the time, gives it as a positive fact that
Faustina secretly urged Cassius to marry her, and occupy the throne,
if Marcus died. We may concur in the verdict of most of the writers on
the matter. Marcus was ailing, delicate, and overburdened with work. It
seemed to Faustina that he would not live long, and, as Commodus was a
callow and unpromising youth, and by no means sure of succession, she
sought an arrangement by which she should remain on the throne if her
husband died.
It is not generally felt that there was anything gravely reprehensible
in this, but a secret negotiation of such a character does not
present her to us in an attractive light. Her subsequent zeal for the
punishment of Cassius and his friends is equally unpleasant, even
if we recall that she had no intention of raising him against the
Emperor while he lived. Several letters which passed between Marcus
and Faustina have been preserved in the “Historia Augusta,” from
Marius Maximus, and there seems to be little ground to doubt their
genuineness. They suggest that Marcus was in the habit of consulting
with Faustina on matters of grave importance. “Come up to the Alban
Mount,” he writes her, after telling of the sedition, “and by the
favour of the gods, we will discuss the affair in safety.” Faustina
replies:
“I will set out to-morrow for the Alban Mount, as you command,
but I at once implore you, if you love your children, to visit
these rebels with the utmost severity. The soldiers and their
leaders have fallen into evil ways, and they will crush us if
we do not coerce them.”
In another letter she presses him again:
“My mother Faustina urged your father [by adoption] Pius, at
the time of the secession of Celsus, to feel first for his own
family.... You see how young Commodus is, and our son-in-law
Pompeianus is older and is abroad. Do not spare men who have
not spared you, and would not spare me and the children if they
won.”
A later letter of Marcus tells that he has read her exhortation in his
villa at Formiæ (on the Gulf of Gaeta). By that time he has heard that
Cassius is dead, and he will hear of no further revenge on his family.
He will spare his wife and children, and beg the Senate to be moderate
in punishing the accomplices, because “there is nothing that so much
commends the Emperor of Rome to the nations as clemency.” We know, in
fact, that he treated the family of Cassius with great generosity.
The Emperor and Empress then went to the East to complete the work
of pacification. In the course of the voyage, in a little village at
the foot of Mount Taurus, Faustina met her end in the year 175. As a
matter of course she was placed among the gods, but Marcus was not
content with the customary honouring of her memory. He gave the village
the name of Faustinopolis, founded a fresh charity with the title of
“Puellæ Faustinianæ,” and built a beautiful temple at Rome, which, when
he died a few years later, was dedicated in their joint names by the
Senate. As if to obliterate all the rumours about her infidelity, he
went on to ask extraordinary honours for her of the Senate. He set up
a special altar, with a silver statue of her, in the temple of Venus,
and directed that maidens about to marry should offer sacrifice on it;
and he had a golden statue of her placed on her seat in the theatre
whenever he attended its performances.
Dio gives two versions of the death of Faustina which were current in
his time. Some said that she died of gout, from which she suffered;
others held that she put an end to her life in fear lest her complicity
with Cassius should be discovered by Marcus in the East. The second
theory is superfluous. The natural cause of death seems adequate
enough, nor would she be in any serious danger if Marcus heard that
Cassius had made her the pretext of his rebellion. Her chief misdeeds
were to live after her. Frivolous, and probably licentious, in her
early married life, she seems to have settled in sober ways when she
became Empress, but we find no influence of hers in the ordering
of affairs. Had she only reared healthy children to succeed her
husband, she might have contributed worthily to the mighty task of
supporting the shaken Empire. Instead, she gave to the Empire Lucilla
and Commodus, her two surviving children, and it fell into a fresh
degradation.