|
THE THOUGHTS OF THE EMPEROR
MARCUS AURELIUS
ANTONINUS
CONTENTS.
BIOGRAPHICAL
SKETCH 9
PHILOSOPHY OF MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS 45
THE
THOUGHTS 99
INDEX OF TERMS 305
GENERAL
INDEX 311
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
OF
MARCUS
AURELIUS ANTONINUS.
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 tes 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 to Oeo, touto genestho]
[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 (Zurich, 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
Antoninou Autokratoros ton 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. |
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기