iiHiis*Si3SJlKSiirTW CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY DATE DUE wn* — ' w IL. ytcjj S^3 W^^^„.^aa»if^ "- ^ *4UMP*BR' sSSwSBr*^*^^ ^AYLORO PRINTEDINU.S.A. Cornell University Library B580 .L84 1886 Thouahts of the Emperor M. Aurellus Anto Clin 3 1924 029 002 131 -3 DATE DUE SB 4-043?; : - ^ ■ —^ ^ -«- --. ! iO ^(^ 7HS77P 9lP 1 i 1^77 P ' »>. T.3 1 1 ~l , **'T "TZJ rj^ ^^^ v-J^ " V9 Tfr 0ECT7 ■TT^ 1 13« CAVLOHO PRINTED INU.S. A. NOTE. I HAVE been informed that an American publisher has printed the first edition of this translation of M. Antoninus. I do not grudge him his profit, if he has made any. There may be many men and women in the United States who will be glad to read the thoughts of the Eoman emperor. If the American politicians, as they are called, woidd read them also, I should be much pleased, but I do not think the emperor's morality would suit their taste. I have also been informed that the American publisher has dedicated this translation to an American. I have no objection to the book being dedicated to an American ; but in doing this without my consent the publisher has trans- gressed the bounds of decency. I have never dedicated a book to any man, and if I dedicated this, I should choose the man whose name seemed to me most worthy to be joined to that of the Eoman soldier and philosopher. I might dedicate the book to the successful general who is now the President of the United States, with the hope that his integrity and justice will restore peace and happiness, so far as he can, to those unhappy States which have suffered so much from war and the unrelenting hostility of wicked men. But, as the Boman poet said, Tictrix causa Deis placuit, sad victa Catoni ; and if I dedicated this little book to any man, I would dedicate it to him who led the Confederate armies against the powerful invader, and retired from an unequal contest defeated, but not dishonoured ; to the noble Virginian soldier, whose talents and virtues place him by the side of the best and wisest man who sat on the throne of the Imperial Caesars Geobos Long THE THOUGHTS EMPEROR M. AURELIUS ANTONINUS. TRANSLATED BY GEORGE LONG. REVISED EDITION. LONDON ! GEORGE BELL & SONS. YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN. 1886. LONDON : PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, STAHFOBD STBEET AND CEABIHG CB0S9. ''JjtCt'TvJM^^ jMr^ PREFACE, I HATS careMly revised the Life and Philosophy of Antoninus, in which I have made a few corrections, and added a few notes. I have also made a few alterations in the translation where I thought that I could approach nearer to tha author's meaning ; and I have added a few notes and references. There still remain difficulties which I cannot remove, because the text is sometimes too corrupt to be under- stood, and no attempt to restore tUe true readings could bo successful. Geoboe Long. Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029002131 CONTENTS. FAQE SI. AmtEUUB ANTOSunj-s 1 The FmusoPHT of ANTomstiiB 28 M. Antonikdb . • • ti8 luBax 207 M. AUEELIUS ANTONINUS, M ANTONINUS was bom at Eome a.d. 121, on the 26th • of April. His father Annius Verus died while he was praetor. His mother was Domitia Galvilla also named LucUla. The Emperor T. Antoninus Pius married Annia Galeria Faustina, the sister of Annius Verus, and was con- sequently the uncle of M. Antoninus. When Hadrian adopted Antoninus Pius and declared him his successor in the empire, Antoninus Pius adopted both L. Ceionins Commodus, the son of AeHus Caesar, and M. Antoninus, whose original name was M. Annius Yerus. 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 work 2 M. AurdiuH Antoninus. (r. 16 ; VI. 30) the virtues of this exceUent man and prudent ruler. Like many young Bomans lie tried his hand at poetry and studied rhetoric. Herodes Atticus tod M. Cor- nelius Fronto were his teachers in eloquence. There aie extant letters between Fronto and Marcus,' 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. 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 Hfe, even so far as to injure his health. Finally, he abandoned poetry and rhetoric for philosophy, and he attached himseK 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 Eoman discipline of arms, which was a necessary pai't 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 savour 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, ho wiU be mistaken. Anto- ninus means to commemorate the merits of his several teachers, what they taught and what a pupil might learn from them. ' K. Cornelii Frontonis Eeliquiae, Berlin, 1816. There ure a few letters between Fronto and Antoniuus Fius. M. Aurelius Antoninus. 3 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 yirtues 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 favourite teacher was Q. Junius Busticus (i. 7), a philosopher and also a man of practical good sense in public affairs. Eusticus was the adviser of Antoninus after he became emperor. Young men who are destined for high places are not often fortimate 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. An- toninus. Such a body of teachers distinguished by their ac- quirements 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 adminis- tration of the state. The father and the adopted son lived to- gether 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. Tho Senate, it is said, urged M. Antoninus to take the sole jidministration of the empire, but he associated with himself the other adopted eon of Pius, L. Ceiouius Commodus, who is generally called 4 M. Aurelius Antoninus. L. Verus. Thus Eome for the first time tad two emperors. Verus was an indolent man of pleasure and unworthy of hia station. Antoninus however bore with him, and it is said that 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 Bomans 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 Borne 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 hxmdred years before ; and the rest of the life of Antoninus with some intervals was employed in driving back the in- vaders. In 169 Verus suddenly died, and Antoninus ad- ministered the state alone. During the German wars Antoninus resided for three years on the Danube at Camuntum. 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 Eoman commander who was at the head of the troops in Asia revolted M. Attrelius Antoninus. 5 and declared himself Augustus. But Cassius was assassinated by some of his of&cers, and so the rebellion came to an end. Antoninus showed his humanity by his treatment of the family and the partizans 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 Bome 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 accuse 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 Bome 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 Bomo without her. There are not many men who would give their wives a better character than these two emperors. Capi- tolinus 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. 6 M, Av/relius Antoninus. 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 con- clude 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 this 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 super- stitions of his people, and though he may wish that they were wiser, he will know that he caimot make them so by offending their prejudices. Antoninus and his son Commodns entered Eome in trixmiph, perhaps for some German victories, on the 23rd of December Aj). 176. In the following year Commodus was associated with his father in the empire and took the name of Augustus. This year aj). 177 is memorable in ecclesiastical history. Attains and others were put to death at Lyon for their ad- herence to the Christian religion. The evidence of this per- secution is a letter preserved by Ensebius (E, H. v. 1 ; printed in Bouth's Eeliquiae Sacrae, vol. i. with notes). The letter is from ihe Christians of Vienna and Lugdunum in Gallia (Vienne and Lyon) to their Christian brethren in Asia and Phrygia ; and it is preserved perhaps nearly entire. It con- tains a very particular description of the tortures inflicted on the Christians in Gallia, and it states that while the persecu- tion was going on, Attalus a Christian and a Eoman citizen was loudly demanded by the populace and brought into the smphitheatre, but the governor ordered biTn to be reserved with the rest who were in prison, until he had received in- if. Aurelius Antoninus. 7 structiuns &om the emperor. Many had been tortured before the governor thought of applying to Antoninus. The im- perial rescript, says the letter, was that the Christians should be panished, but if they would deny their faith, they must be released. On this the work began again. The Christians who were Boman 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 punish- ment. 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 circum- stances of the story, and we cannot accept his evidence for one part and reject the other. We often receive small evi- dence as a proof of a thing which 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 ft letter may be founded on real facts ; and he would make 8 M. Aurditti Antoninus, this admission as the most provable way of accounting fox 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 Pannouia, 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 Eome, and ho received the honour 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 Borne. The bassi rilievi which are placed in a spiral line round the shaft commemorate the victories of Antoninus over the Marco- manni and the Quadi, and the miraculous shower of rain which refreshed the Eoman 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. M. Aurelius Antonmus. 9 The most curious is the story about the miracle which happened ia a.d. 174 during the war with the Quadi. The Bonmn 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 Eomans gained a great victory. All the authorities which speal: 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 (KcpowojSoXos, or Kcpa-uvo^dpos) before the reign of Antoninus. We learn this fcom Dion Cassius (Lib. 55, c. 23, and the note of Eeimarus) who enumerates all the legions of Augustus' time. The name Thundering or 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. Yalesius also observes that in the 10 M. Aurdius Antoninus. Notitia of the Imperium Bomonum there is mentioned nndei the commander of Armenia the Praefectura of the twelfth legion named " Thundering MeUtene ;" and this position in Armenia will agree with what Dion says of its position in Gappadocia. Accordingly Yalesius concludes that Melitene was not the name of the legion, but of the town in which it was stationed. MeHtene 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 Apolina- rius and Tertullian believed that the miracle was worked through the prayers of the Christian soldiers in the emperor's army. Bufinus 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 pur- posely destroyed by the Senate or the enemies of Christianity, , that so honourable 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 then does exist a letter in Greek addressed by Antoninus to the Eoman people and the sacred Senate after this memorable victory. It is some- times printed after Justin s first Apology, but it is totally M. Aurelius Antoninus. 11 uucounected with the apologies. This letter is one of the most stupid forgeries of the many whi'ch 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 incon- ceivably ignorant, that the informer must be btirnt alive.' During the time of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Antoninus there appeared the first Apology of Justinus, and under M. Antoninus the Oration of Tatiaa 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. Yerus ; but we do not know whether they read it.' The second Apology of Justinus is intitled " to the Boman Senate ;" but this super- ^ Eusebius (v. 5) quotes TertuUian's Apology to the Boman 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 leading. There is a dissertation on this supposed miracle in Moyle's Works, London, 1726. ' Orosius, vn. 14, says that Justinus the philosopher presented to Antoninus Fius his work in defence of tb3 Christian religion, and made him merciful to the Christians. 12 M. Awelius Antoninus. scription is from some copyist. In the first chapter Justinus addresses the Eomans. In the second chapter he speaks of an affair that had recently happened in the time of M. Anto- ninus 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 writeir addresses the two emperors, from which we must conclude that the Apology was directed to them. Eusebins (E. H. rv. 18) states that the second Apology was addressed to the successor of Antoninus Pius, and he names him Antoninus Yerus, 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 laboured to live according to reason and avoided wickedness were always hated ; and this was the effect of the work of daemons. Justinus himself is said to have been put to death at Borne, 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 Eusticus was praefect of the city.* ■• See the Martyrium Sanotomm Justini, &c.,m the works of Justinus, ed. Otto, vol. n. 559. " Junius Eusticus Praefef^tus tJrbi erat sub impe- ratoribos M. Aurelio et L. Vera, id quod liquet ex Themistii Orat. xzxiv. Diudorf. p. 451, et ex quodatn illorum rescripto. Dig. 49. 1.1, §2.' (Otto.) The rescript contains the words " Junium Kustioum amioum nostrum Praefectum Urbl." The Martyriim of Justinus and others is M. Aurelius Antoninus. 13 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 Fhilomelium and the other Christian churches, and it is preserved by Eusebius (E. H. iv. 15). Biit the critics do not agree about the time of Polycarp's death, differing in the two extremes to the amount of twelve years. The circum- stances 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." written in Greek. It begins, " In the time of the 'nicked defenders of idolatry impious edicts were published against the pious Chi-istians 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 Buiiticus, the praefect of Borne." The Maityrium 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 suffer- ings, if he was condemned to death. He answered that he did not ex- pect: 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 Bnsticus 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. Soma of the faithful secretly carried off the bodies and deposited them in a fit place. 14 JH. Aurelius. Antoninua. The story of Polycarp's martyrdom is embeUished with miraculous circumstanceB which some modem writers oa ecclesiastical history take the liberty of omitting.' 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 worshippers 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 foimd that theii profits were in danger. Christians of both sexes and of 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 obstinacy. 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. PHny 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 • Conyers Middleton, An Inquiry into the Miraculous Fowers, &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 "1 am so little a friend to such miracles that I thought it better with Eusebius to omit that circnmsiBnce than tc mention it from Bp. Usher's Manuscript," which mauuBoript however says Middleton, he afterwards declares to be so well attested that we need not any farther assurance of the truth of it. M. Aurdius Antoninus. 15 inqTiiries about the ChriBtians, and that accordingly he did not Imow what to incLuire 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." Trajan's Bescript 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 afSxmed that he was not a Christian and con- firmed 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 Eoman 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 imiversally admitted to be an historical fact.' In the time of Hadrian it was no longer possible for the Eoman 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, ' OroBius (vn. 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 hy 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.) ' The Martyrinm Ignatii, first published in Latin by Archbishop Usher, is the chief evidence for the circumstances of Ignatius' death, 16 M. Aurelius Anioninus. 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 Eoman Empire were as hostile to the Christians as the Gentiles were." 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,' in- structs the goTemor that innocent people must not be troubled and false accusers must not be allowed to extort money &om them ; the charges against the Christians must be made in due form and no attention must be paid to popular clamours ; when Christians were regularly prosecuted and convicted of illegal acts, they must be pimished according to their deserts; and false accusers also must be punished.. Antoninus Pius is said to have published Bescripts to the same effect. The terms of Hadrian's Eesoript seem very favourable 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 " We have the evidence of Juatinns (ad Dioguetum, c. 5) to thia,effect : " the Christiana 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." ' And in Eusebius, E. H. iv. 8, 9. Orosiua (vn. 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 bj some editor. The Apology ends with the words: t (plxov t^ ee$, rovro M. Aurelius Antoninus. 17 have been done without asking tlie emperor's advice. The real purpose of the Kescript 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 Eescript of Antoninus Pius to the Com- mune of Asia {to KOivov T^s 'Ao-i'as), and it is also in Eusebius (E. H. iv. 13). The date of the Bescript is the third consulship of Antoninus Pius." The Eescript declares that the Christians, for they are meant, though the name Christians does not occur in the Eescript, were not to be disturbed, unless they were attempting something against the Eoman rule, and no man was to be punished simply for being a Christian. But this Eescript is spurious. Any man 1 10 Eusebius (E. H. rv. 12) after giying the beginning of Juatlnns' 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 honoured the Commune of Asia with the following Eescript." This Eescript, which is in thfe next chapter of Eusebius (E. H. rr. 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 Eescript of Antoninus Pius. There are some material variations between the two copies of the Eescript besides the difference in the title, which difference makes it impossible to say whether the forger intended to assign this Eescript to Pius or to M. Antoninus. The author of the Alexandrine Chronioum 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 (ry. 13), and to he the answer to the apology of Melito of which I shall soon give the sub- stance. But Marcus certainly did not write this letter which is io Eusebius, and we know not what answer he made to Melito. o 18 M. Awrdius Antoninus. moderately acquainted with Roman history will see by the style and tenor that it is a clumsy forgery. In the time of M. Antoninus the opposition between the old and the new belief was stUl stronger, and the adherents >| of the heathen religion urged those in authority to a more regular resistance to the invasions of the Christian faith. MeKto in his apology to M. Antoninus represents the J 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." We conclude from " Eosebiua, iv. 26 ; and Bouth's Beliquiae Sacrae, vol. i. and the notes. The interpretation of this Fragment is nst easy. Mosheim mis- understood 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 Komans grew great and glorious. He says that the emperor ha s and will have as the successor to Augustus' power the good wishes of men, if be will protect that philosophy which grew up with the empire and began with Augustus, which philosophy the predecessors of Antoninus honoured in addition v| 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 aU honour and respect that any man could desire. Nero and Domitian, he says, wore 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 Eescripta reproved those who attempted to trouble the Christians. Hadrian^ Antoninus' grandfather, wrote to many and among them to Fundanus the governor of Asia. Antoninus Fins when Marcus wag associated M. Aurelius Antoninus. 19 this that there were at least imperial Eescripts or Constitu- tions 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 Eescript 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 maintained 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 con- sistently tolerate another religion, which declared that all with him in the empire wrote to the cities, that they must not trouble the Ohristians ; among others to the people of Larissa, Thessalonica, the Atheniana and all the Greeks. Melito concluded thus : We are per- suaded 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 Yerus 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 Domltian, and the persecu- tions 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 bad been punished in Trajan's time. 20 M. Awelius Antoninus. the rest were false and all the splendid ceremonies of tho empire only a worship of devils. If we had a true ecclesiastical history, we should know how the Boman 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 clamour 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 Eoman 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 populacet ■ 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 pro- ceeds to give the letter of the churches of Vienna and Lug- i dunum. It is probable that he has assigned 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 dp not know, for the historical reoorda M. AureliuB Antoninus. 21 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 afGLrm that it was in hia power, for it would be a great mistake to suppose that Antoninus had the unlimited authority, which some modem sovereigns have had. His power was limited by certain constitutional forms, by the senate, and by the precedents of his predecessors. We can- not admit that such a man was an active persecutor, for there is no evidence that he was," though it is certain that he had no good opinion of the Christians, as appears from his own words." But he knew nothing of them except their hostility 12 Except that of Orosius (vu. 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." ^ See XI. 3. The emperor probably speaks of such fanatics as Cle- mens (quoted by Grataiker 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 Gtod 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 w ho 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 whid^ avails nothing, as the Indian Gymnosophists give themselves up foolishly to fire." Cave in his Primitive Christianity (n. e. 7) says of the Christians : " They did flock to the place of torment f iister 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 Bome in order to his execution, yet by the way as he went could not but vent his passionate desire of it : O 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 tc eet 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 frcnt 22 M. Aurdius Anton*nu». to the Boman 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 perse- cutions ; but as I seek the truth and am sure that they are false, I leave him to bear whatever blame is his due." 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." There is no doubt that the Emperor's Eeflections 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. MapKos) 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 Eusebius. Cave, an honest and good man, says all this in praise of the Christians ; but I tliink that he mistook the matter. We admire a man who holds to his principles even to death ; but these fanatical Christiana are the CJynmosophists whom Clemens treats with disdain. ** Dr. F. 0. 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 ua to reach it. " In the Digest, 48, 19, 30, there is the following excerpt from Modea- tinns: " Si quis aliquid fecerit, quo leves hominum onimi iraperstitiono numiiiis terrerentur, divus Marcus hujusmodi homines in insulair relegftri rescripsit." .j M. Aurelius Antoninus. 23 mention of the emperor's name. The true title of the work is Tiuknown. Xylander who published the first edition of this book (Zurich, 1558, 8vo. with a Latin Tersioii) used a manuscript, which contained the twelve books, but it is not known where the manuscript is now. The only other complete mauuscript 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 Mo/dkot; avTOKparopoi marked with an asteriBk. 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, MapKOU 'AvTOivivcfU AuTOKparopos tZv ei9 lai?rov /SijiXia ifi. This title has been used by all subsequent editors. We cannot tell whether Antoninus divided his work into books or some- body 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 labour 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 laboured on the text of Antoninus. The most complete edition is that by Thomas Gataker, 1652, 4to, 24 M. Auretius Antoninus. The second edition of Gataker was superintended by Greorge Stanhope,. 1697, 4to. There is also an edition of 1704. Gataber 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 Eoman writers for the illustration of the text. It is a wonderful monument of learning and labour, and certainly no Englishman has yet done anything like it. At the end of his preface the editor says that he wrote it at Eotherhithe 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 (Sahnasius), with whom Gataker corre- sponded and received help from him for his edition of Antoninus. The Greek text has also been edited by J. M. Schultz, Leipzig, 1802, 8vo. ; and by the learned Greek Adamantinus Corajis, 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 aU 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 M. Au/relius Antoninus. 25 than Dacier's, which has been honoured with an Italian version (Udine, 1772). There is an Italian version (1675) which I have not seen. It is by a cardinal. "A man illuBtriouB in the church, the Cardinal Francis Barberini the elder, nephew of Pope Urban VIII., occupied the last years of his life ia translating into his native language the thoughts of the Boman 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 GentUe " (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 trans- lation for my own use, because I found that it was worth the labour ; but it may be useful to others also and therefore I determined to print it. As the original is sometimes very difEcult to understand and stiU. more difficult to translate, it is not possible that I have always avoided error. But I believe that 1 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 afe. I have placed ia some passages a j°, 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 bettex 26 M. Aurdius Antoninus. suited to express the character of the original ; and some* times 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 correc- tions 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 oould ; 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 Bale 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 M. Aurelius Antoninus. 27 the companion of some great men. MachiaTelli's Art oi War and Marcus Antoninus were the two books which were used when he wafi 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 seK-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 oi du not do that which he thinks and savs and does. S8 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANTONINUS. IT has been said that the Stoic philosophy first showed its real value when it passed from Greece to Eome. ' The doctrines of Zeno and his successors were well suited to the gravity and practical good sense of the Bomans ; and even in the Eepublican period we have an example of a man, M. Cato Uticensis, who lived the life of a Stoic and died consistently with the opinions which he professed. He was a man, says Cicero, who embraced the Stoic philosophy from conviction ; not for the purpose of vain discussion, as most did, but in order to make his life conformable to the Stoic precepts. In the wretched times from the death of Augustus to the murder of Domitian, there was nothing but the Stoic philosophy which could console and support the followers of the old religion imder imperial tyranny and amidst universal corrup- tion. There were even then noble minds that could dare and endure, sustained by a good conscience and an elevated idea of the purposes of man's existence. Such were Paetus Thrasea, Helvidius Prisons, Cornutus, 0. Musonius Eufus,' and the poets Persius and Juvenal, whose energetic language ' I have omitted Seneca, Nero's preceptor. He was in a sense a Stoic and he has said many good things in a very fine way. There is a judgment of Gellius (xn. 2) on Seneca, or rather a statement of what some people tliought of his philosophy, and it is not favourable. His writings and his life must be taken together, and I have nothing more to say of him herft. The reader will find a notice of Seneca and hia philosophy in " Seekers after God," by the Bev. F. W. Parrar. Ma* miUanand C:, The Philosophy of Antoninus. 29 wid manly thoughts may be as instructive to us now as they might have been to their contemporaries. Fersius died under Nero's bloody reign, but Juvenal had the good fortune to survive the tyrant Domitian and to see the better times of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian." His best precepts are derived from the Stoic school, and they are enforced in his finest verses by the unrivalled vigour of the Latin language. The two best expounders of the later Stoical philosophy were a Greek slave and a Boman emperor. Epictetus, a Phrygian Greek, was brought to Eome, we know not how, but he was there the slave and afterwards the freedman of an unworthy master, Epaphroditus by name, himself a freedman and a favourite of Nero. Epictetus may have been a hearer of C. Musonius Eufus, whUe he was still a slave, but he could hardly have been a teacher before he was made free. He was one of the philosophers whom Domitian's order banished from Borne. He retired to Nicopolis in Epirus, and he may have died there. Like other gi-eat teachers he wrote nothing, and we are indebted to his grateful pupil Arrian for what we have of Epictetus' discourses. Arrian wrote eight books of the discourses of Epictetus, of which only four remain and some fragments. We have also from Arrian's hand the small Enchiridion or Manual of the chief precepts of Epictetus. There is a valuable commentary on the Enchiridion by Sim- pliciuB, who lived in the time of the emperor Justinian.' ' Bibbeck has laboured to prove that those Satires, which contain philosophical precepts, are not the work of the real, but of a falsa Juvenal, a Declamator. Still the verses exist, and were wi'itten by somebody who was ecquaiuted with the Stoic doctrines, ^ There is a complete edition of Arrian's Epictetus with the com- mentary of Simplioius by J. Sohweighaeuser, 6 vols. 8vo. 1799, 1809, There is also an English translation of Epictetus by Mrs. Caiter. 30 The Philosophy of Antoninus. Antoninus in his first book (r. 7), in which he gratefully commemorates his obligations to his teachers, says that he - was made acquainted by Junius Ensticus with the discourses of Epictetus, whom he mentions also in other passages (rv. 41; XI. 34. 36). Indeed the doctrines of Epictetus and Antoninus are the same", and Epictetus is the best authority for the explanation of the philosophical language of Antoninus and the exposition of his opinions. But the method of the two philosophers is entirely different. Epictetus addressed himself to his hearers in a continuous discourse and in a familiar and simple manner. Antoninus wrote down his reflections for his own use only, in short unconnected paragraphs, which are often obscure. The Stoics made three divisions of philosophy, Physic (i^uo-iKov), Ethic {rjOiKov), and Logic (XoyiKw) (vni. 13). This division, we are told by Diogenes, was made by Zeno of Citium, the founder of the Stoic sect and by Chrysippus ; but these philosophers placed the three divisions in the following order, Logic, Physic, Ethic. It appears however that this division was made before Zeno's time and acknow- ledged by Plato, as Cicero remarks (Acad. Post. i. 5). Logic is not synonymous with our term Logic in the narrower sense of that word. Cleanthes, a Stoic, subdivided the three divisions, and made six : Dialectic and Khetoric, comprised in Logic ; Ethic and Politic; Physic and Theology. This division was merely for practical use, for all Philosophy is one. Even among the «arliest Stoics Logic or Dialectic does not occupy the same place as in Plato : it is considered only as an instrument which is to be used fc» the other divisions of Philosophy. An exposition of the earlier Stoic doctrines and of their The Phihsophy of Antonums. 31 modifications would require a, volume. My object is to explain only the opinions of Antoninus, so far as they can be collected from his book. According to the subdivision of Cleanthes Physic and Theology go together, or the study of the nature of Things, and the study of the nature of the Deity, so far as man can understand the Deity, and of his government of the universe. This, division or subdivision is not formally adopted by Antoninus, for as already observed, there is no method in his book ; but it is virtually contained in it Cleanthes also connects Ethic and Politic, or the study of the priaciples of morals and the study of the constitution of civil society; and undoubtedly he did well in subdividing Ethic into two parts, Ethic in the narrower sense and Politic, for though the two are intimately connected, they are also very distinct, and many questions can only be properly discussed by carefully observing the distinction. Antoninus does not treat of Politic. His subject is Ethic, and Ethic in its practical application to his own conduct in life as a man and as a governor. His Ethic is founded on his doctrines about man's nature, the Universal Nature, and the relation of evsry man to everything else. It is therefore intimately and inseparably connected with Physic or the nature of Things and with Theology or the Nature of the Deity. He advises us to examine well all the impressions on our minds (^avratr&t) and to form a right judgment of them, to make just conclu- sions, and to inquire into the meanings of words, and so far to apply Dialectic, but he has no attempt at any exposition of Dialectic, and his philosophy is in substance purely moral and practical. He says (vni. 13), "Constantly and, if it be possible, on the occasion of every impression on the 32 Tlie Philosophy of Antoninus. soul,* apply to it the principles of Physic, of Ethic and of Dialectic :" which is only another way of telling us to examine the impression in every possible way. In another passage (in. 11) he says, " To the aids which have been mentioned let this one still be added : make for thyself a definition or description of the object (to tfrnvraarov) which is presented to thee, so as to see distinctly what kind of a thing it is in its substance, in its nudity, in its complete entirety, and tell thyself its proper name, and the names of the things of which it has been compounded, and into which it will be resolved." Such an examination implies a use of Dialectic, which Antoninus accordingly employed as a means towards estab- lishing his Physical, Theological and Ethical principles. • There are sfeveral expositions of the Physical, Theological, and Ethical principles, which are contained in the work of Antoninus ; and more expositions than I have read. Bitter (Geschichte der PhUosophie, iv. 241) after explaining the doctrines of Epictetus, treats very briefly and insufficiently those of Antoninus. But he refers to a short essay, in which the work is done- better.' There is also an essay on the Philosophical Principles of M. Aurelius Antoninus by J. M. Schultz, placed at the end of his German translation of * The original is iirl irdiffris (payriurltts. We have no word which ezpressea ^amaala, for it is not only the sensuous appearance which comes from an external object, which object is called rh avTcuTT6v, but it is also the thought oi feeling or opinion which is produced even when there is no corresponding external object before us. Accordingly everything which moves the soul is ^aina maintain against the hard realities of his daily life. A poor remark it is which I have seen somewhere, and made in a disparaging way, that the emperor's reflections show that he had need of consolation and comfort in life, and even to prepare him to meet his death. True that he did need comfort and support, and we see how he found it. He con- stantly recurs to his fundamental principle that tho univi The Philosophy of Antoninus, 35 ts wisely ordered, that every man is a part of it and must conform to that order which he cannot change, that whatever the Deity has done is good, that all mankind are a man's brethren, that he must love and cherish them and try to make them better, even those who would do him harm. This is his conclusion (n. 17) : " What then is that which is able to conduct a man ? One thing and only one, Philosophy. But this consists in keeping the divinity within a man free from violence and unharmed, superior to pains and pleasures, doing nothing without a purpose nor yet falsely and with hypocrisy, not feeling the need of another man's doing or not doing any- thing; and besides, accepting %11 thai happens and all that is allotted, as coming from thence, wherever it is, from whence he himself came ; and finally waiting for death with a cheerful mind as being nothing else than a dissolution of the elements, of which every living being is compounded. But if there is no harm to the elements themselves in each con- tinually changing into another, why should a man have any apprehension about the change and dissolution of all the elements [himself] ? for it is according to nature ; and nothing is evil that is according to nature." The Physic of Antoninus is the knowledge of the Nature of the Universe, of its government, and of the relation of man's nature to bot|h. Se names the imiverse (rj tSv oXav ova-Ca, VI. 1),' "the universal substance," and he adds that ' Ab to the word oiata, the reader may see the Index. I add here a few examples of the use of the word ; Antoninus has (v. 24), j/ a-v/iiracra yiala, " the universal substance." He says (xn. 36), " there is one com- mon substance " (ovo-ta), distributed among countless bodies ; and (iv. 40). In Stobaeus (tom. i. lib. 1, tit. 14) there is this definition, uiirlav S4 ^aaiy tuv ivruv imivruv t^iv Trpin^v S\nv, (In vm. 11), Antoninus speaks of rh oiaiSiSes koI ihixSv, ' the ecbstantial and 36 The Philoso^phy of Antoninus. "reason" (Xoyos) governs the xmiverse. He also (vi. 9) uses tlie terms " universal nature " or " nature of the uni- verse." He (vi. 25) calls the universe "the one and all, which we name Cosmus or Order" (Kooytos). If he ever Beems to use these general terms as significant of the All, of aU that man can in any way conceive to exist, he still on other occasions plainly distinguishes between Matter, Ma- terial things (u\ij, vKlkov), and Cause, Origin, Beason (atria, otTiGSes, Aoyos).' This is conformable to Zeno's doctrine the material ;" and (vn. 10) he* says that " everything material ' (ej/uXoi/) disappears in the substance of the whple (rp tSc 'iKav ovirif). The ovcia is the generic name of that existence, which we assume as the highest or ultimate, because we conceive no existenco which can be co- ordinated with it and none above it. It is the philosopher's " sub- stance :" it is the ultimate expression for that which we conceive or suppose to be the basis, the being of a thing. " From the Divine, which is substance in itself, or the only and sole substance, aU and every thing that is created exists." (Swedeuborg, Angelic Wisdom, 198.) ^ I remark, in order to anticipate any misapprehension, thai all these general terms involve a contradiction. The " one and all," and the like, and "the whole," imply limitation. "One" is limited; "aU" is limited ; the " whole " is limited. We cannot help it We cannot find words to express that which we cannot fully conceive. The addition of- "absolute" or any other such word does not mend the matter. Even the word God is used by most people, often unconsciously, in such s way that limitation is impHed, and yet at the same time words are added which are intended to deny limitation. A Christian martyr, when he was asked what God was, is said to have answered that God lias no name like a man ; and Justin says the same (Apol. n. 6), " the names Father, God, Creator, Lord and Master are not names, but appellations derived from benefactions and acts." (Compare Seneca, De Benef. rv. S.) We can conceive the existence of a thing, or rather we may have the idea of an existence, without an adequate notion of it, " adequate " meaning coextensive and coequal with the thing. We have a notion of limited space derived from the dimensions of what we call a material thing, though of space absolute, if I may use the term, we have no notion at all ; and of infinite space the notion is the same, no notioo The Philosophy of Antomnua. 37 Qiat there are two original principles (apxai) of all things, that which acts (to ttoiovv) and that which is acted upon (to irda^ov). That which is acted on is the formless matter (uA.17) : that which acts is the reason (\oyos), God, who is eternal and operates through all matter, and produces all things. So Antoninus (y. 82) speaks of the reason (A.oyos) which pervades all substance (oia-M), and through all time by fixed periods (revolutions) administers the universe (to •jtSv). God is eternal, and Matter is eternal. It is God who gives form to matter, but he is not said to have created matter. According to this view, which is as old as Anazagoras, God and matter exist independently, but God governs matter. This doctrine is simply the expression of the fact of the existence both of matter and of God. The Stoics did not perplex themselves with the insoluble C[uestion of the origin and nature of matter.' at all ; and yet we conceive it in a sense, though I know not how, and we believe that space is infinite, and we cannot conceive it to be finite. ' The notions of matter and of space are inseparable. We derive the notion of space from matter and form. But we have no adequate con- ception either of matter or of space. Matter in its ultimate resolution is as unintelligible as what men call mind, spirit, or by whatever other name they may express the power which makes itself known by acts. Anasagoras laid down the distinction between intelligence (vovs) and matter, and he said that intelligence impressed motion on matter, and so ■epaiated the elements of matter and gave them order ; but he prob&bly only assumed a beginning, as SimpUcius says, as a foundation of his philosophical teaching. Empedocles said " The universe always existed." He had no idea of what is called creation. Ocellus Lucanus (1, § 2) uaintsuned that the Universe (rb iray) was imperishable and uncreated. Consequently it is eternal. He admitted the existence of God ; but his Theology would require some discussion. On the coniiary, the Brach- mans, according to Strabo (p. 713, ed. Cas.), taught that the universe was created and perishable ; and the creator and administrator of it pervades the whole. The author of the book of Solomon's Wisdom says (zi. 17) : I 38 TTif Philosophy of Antoninus. Antoninus also assumes a beginning of things, as wo now know them ; but his language is sometimes very obscurei I have endeavoured to explain the meaning of one difficult passage, (vn. 75, and the note.) Matter consists of elemental parts (orotxeia) of which all material objects are made. But nothing is permanent in form. The nature of the universe, according to Antoninus' expression (iv. 36), "loves nothing so much as to change the things which are, end to make new things like them. For everything that exists is in a manner the seed of that which wiU be. But thou art thinking only of seeds which are cast into the earth or into a womb : but this is a very vulgar notion." All things then are in a constant flux and change : some things are dissolved into the elements, others come in their places ; and so the " whole universe continues dver young and perfect." (xii. 23.) Antoninus has some obscure expressions about what he calls " seminal principles " (oTrc/ojaaTiKot koyoi). He opposes them to the Epicurean atoms (vi. 24), and consequently his " seminal principles" are not material atoms which wander about at hazard, and combine nobody knows how. In one passage (iv. 21) he speaks of living principles, souls (^t^X"') after the dissolution of their bodies being received into the "seminal principle of the universe." Schultz thinks that by " seminal principles Antoninus means the relations of the various elemental principles, which relations are de- termined by the deity and by which alone the production of " Thy Almighty hand made the world of matter without form," which may mean that matter existed already. The common Greek word which we translate '■ matter " is S\i). It is the stuff that things are made of. The Philosophy of Antoninus. ^ 39 organized beings is possible." ■ This may be the meaning, but if it is, nothing of any value can be derived from it.° Antoninus often uses the word " Nature " ((^wts), and we must attempt to fix its meaning. The simple etymological sense of ^vcris is " production," the birth of what we call Things. The Bomans. used Natura, which also means " birth " originally. But neither the Greeks nor the Eomans stuck to this simple meaning, nor do we. Antoninus says (x. 6) : " Whether the universe is [a concourse of] atoms or Nature [is a system], let this first be established that I am a part of the whole which is governed by nature." Here it might seem as if nature were personified and viewed as an active, efficient power, as something which, if not inde- pendent of the Deity, acts by a power which is given to it by the Deity. Such, if I understand the expression right, is the way in which the word Nature is often used now, though it is plain that many writers use the word without fixing any exact meaning to it. It is the game with the expression Laws of Nature, which some writers may use in an intelligible sense, but others as clearly use in no definite sense at all. There is no meaning in this word Nature, except that which Bishop Butler assigns to it, when he says, " The only distinct meaning of that word Natural is Stated, Fixed or Settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i. e. to ^ Justin (Apol. n. 8) has the words Karct ffirGpfiariKov \6yov fiepos^ where he is speaking of the Stoics ; but he uses this expression in a peouliai sense (note, 11). The early Christian writers were familiar with the Stoic terms, and their writings show that the contest was begun be- tween the Christian expositors and the Greek philosophy. Kven in the second Epistle of St. Peter (n. 1, v. 4) we find a Stoic expression, Ii'o 5i^ Toiraiv ycvri