|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 2
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.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|