Chapter thirteen of Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox dot org. Recording by Leon Meyer, Chapter thirteen Marcus Aurelius Antoninus by George long m A. Marcus Antoninus was born at rome A d. One twenty one on the twenty sixth of April. His father, Aias Verus, died while he was praetor. His mother was Domitia Culvilla, also
named Lucilla. The emperor Titus. Antoninus Pius married Anea Galeria Faustina, the sister of Aeneas Verus, and was consequently the uncle of Marcus Antoninus. When Hadrian adopted Antoninus Pious and declared him his successor in the empire, Antoninus Pius adopted both Lucius Saionius Commodus, the son of Elius Caesar, and Marcus Antoninus, whose original name was Marcus Anius Verus. Antoninus then took the name of Marcus Elius Aurelius Verus, to which was added the title of Caesar in eighty
one thirty nine. The name Elius belonged to Hadrian's family, and Aurelius was the name of Antoninus Pious. When Marcus Antoninus became Augustus, he dropped the name of Verus and took the name of Antoninus. Accordingly, he is generally named Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, or simply Marcus Antoninus. The youth was most carefully brought up. He thinks the gods 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, Antonius Pius, and he has recorded in his work the virtues of this excellent man and prudent ruler. Like many young Romans, he tried his hand at poetry and studied rhetoric. Herodes Atticus and Marcus Cornelius Fronto were his teachers and eloquence. There are 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. Footnote Marcus cornelia E Fontonis RILIKUII, Berlin, eighteen sixteen. There are a few letters between Fronto and Antoninus Pious. In footnote, Marcus Antoninus mentions Fronto 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 life, even so far as to injure his health.
Finally, he abandoned poetry and rhetoric for philosophy, and he attached himself to the sect 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 Lucius Phlacianus Macianus, 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 anyone 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 Marcus Antoninus's campaigns against the Quadi, at a time when the commemoration of the virtues of his illustrious teachers might remind him of their lessons in the practical uses which he might derive from them. Among his teachers of philosophy was Sextus
of Karinea, a grandson of Plutarch. What he learned from this excellent man is told by himself. His favorite teacher was Quintus Junius Rusticus, 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 Marcus Antoninus. Such a body of teachers, distinguished by their requirements in 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. One thirty eight and was succeeded by Antoninus Pious. Marcus Antoninus married Faustina, his cousin, the daughter of Pious, probably about a d. One forty six, for he had a daughter
born in one forty seven. 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 Pious loved and esteemed him. Antoninus Pious
died in March A d. One sixty one. The Senate, it is said, urged Marcus Antoninus to take the sole administration of the empire, but he associated with himself the other adopted son of Pious, Lucia, Saianius Commodus, who was generally called Lucius 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 that Verus had
enough sense to pay 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 Verius 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 AD one sixty five. Aurelius and Verus had a triumph AD one sixty six 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 one sixty nine, Veris suddenly died and Antoninus administered the state alone. During the German Wars,
Antoninus resided for three years on the Danube a carnuntum. The Marcomanni were driven out of Pannonia and almost destroyed in their retreat across the Danube, and in eighty one seventy four the emperor gained a great victory over the Quadi. In AD one seventy five, Avidius Cassius, a brave and skillful Roman commander who was at the head of the troops in Asia, revolted and declared himself Augustus. But Cassius was assassinated by some of the 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. Antoninus set out for the east on hearing of Cassius's revolt, though he appears to have returned to Rome in eighty one seventy four. 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. Capatilinus, who has written the life of Antoninus and also dion Cassius, accused the empress of scandalous infidelity to her husband and of abominable lewdness. But Capitellinus 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 Pious, and yet he too was perfectly satisfied
with his wife. Antoninus Pious 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. Capitulinus 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 l Usinian mysteries. It was the practice of the emperor to conform to the established rights 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 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 superstitions of his people, and though he may wish that they were wiser, he will know that he cannot make them so by offending their prejudices. Antoninus and his son Commodus entered Rome and triumph perhaps for some German
victories, on the twenty third of December eighty one seventy six. In the following year, Commodists was associated with his father in the Empire and took the name of Augustus. This year a d. One seventy seven is memorable in ecclesiastical history. Atlas 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. The letter is from the Christians of Vienna and Logdunum in Gallia, Vienne 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 Atolas, a Christian and a Roman citizen was loudly demanded by the populace and brought into the amphitheater, 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 behead head, the rest
exposed to the wild beasts in the amphitheater. Some modern writers in ecclesiastical history, when they use this letter, say nothing of the wonderful stories of the martyr's sufferings. Sanctus, as the letter says, was burnt with plates of hot iron till his body was one sore and he 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 received small evidence as a proof of a thing which we believed to be within the limits of probability or possibility, and we rejected 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. One six nine During this campaign, the emperor was seized with some contigious malady, of which he died in the camp at Sermium meet Ravitz on the Sava in lower Pannonia, but at Vendabina Vienna, according to other authorities, on the seventeenth March eighty one eighty, in the fifty ninth year of his
age, his son Commodus was with him. The body or the ashes, probably 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 Capatalinus wrote, many people still had statues of Antoninus. Among the deopinatus 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 bas reliefs, 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 reign, 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 Saint 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 eighty one seventy four 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 battles speak also of the miracle the Gentile writers assigned 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. Bute 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. Scalager also had observed that the legion was called Thundering before the reign of Antoninus. We can learn this from Dion Cassius, who enumerates
all the legions of Augustus's time. The name thundering or lightning also occurs on an inscription of the reign of Trajan, which was found at Trieste. Eusebius, when he relates the miracle, quotes A. Polinarius, bishop of Hierapolis, as authority for this name being given to the legion Melatini by the emperor in consequence of the success which he had obtained through their prayers. From which we may estimate the value of Pollinarius's testimony. Eusebius does not say in what
book of Apollinarius the statement occurs. Dion says that the Thundering Legion was stationed in Cappadocia in the time of Augustus. Vllasius also observes that in the notitia of the Imperium Romanum there is mention under the commander of Armenia, the prefectura of the twelfth Legion named Thundering Melatini, and this position in Armenia will agree
with what Dion says of its position in Cappadocia. Accordingly, Vllasius concludes that Melatinia was not the name of the legion, but of the town in which it was stationed. Melatini 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 Melatini does not seem
probable to him. Yet Vllasius, on the authority of Apollinarius and Tertulian, 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 Melatini to this legion, says Vllasius, and probably he purposely omitted it because they knew that Melatini was the name of a town in an 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. Dosier 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
in their religion might not be perpetuated. The critic has, however, not seen that he contradicts when he tells us 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 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 so or genuine, it would free the Emperor from the charge of persecuting men because they are Christians. For he says in this false letter that if a man accused 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 edition made by man inconceivably ignorant, that the informer must be burnt alive. During the time of Antoninus Pious, in Marcus Antoninus there appeared the first Apology of Justinus, and under Marcus Antoninus the Oration of Tatian against the Greeks, which was a fierce attack on the established religions. The address of Athanagaris to Marcus Antoninus on behalf of the Christians, and the apology of Malito, bishop
of Sardes, also addressed to the Emperor, and that of Apollinarius. The first Apology of Justinus is addressed to Titus Antoninus Pious and his two adopted sons, Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Verus, but we do not know whether they read it. Footnote. Aurotius says that Justinus the philosopher presented to Antoninus Pious his work in defense of the Christian religion and made him merciful to the Christians. In footnote, 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 Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Verus, as it seems, and he also directly addresses the emperor, saying of a certain woman quote, she addressed a petition to thee the Emperor, and thou didst grant the petition unquote. In other passages, the writer addresses the two emperors, from
which we must conclude that the apology was directed to them. Eusebius states that the second Apology was addressed to the successor of Antoninus Pious, and he names him Antoninus Verus, meaning Marcus Antoninus. In one passage of the Second Apology, 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, Mousonius in his own times
and others. For all, those who in any way labor to live according to reason and avoided wickedness were always hated. And this was the effect of the work of demons. 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 Pious. If the Second Apology was written in the time of Marcus Antoninus, and there was evidence that this event took place under Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Verus, when Rusticus was prefect to the city, the persecution in which Polycarps suffered at Smyrna belongs to the time of Marcus Antoninus. The evidence for it is the letter the Church of Smyrna to the churches of philam Emelium and
the other Christian churches, and it is preserved by Eusebius. 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 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 Ireneus, the Disciple of Polycarp, then transcribed by Socrates at Corinth quote, after which I Pioneus again wrote it out from the copy above mentioned, having searched it out by the revelation of Polycarp, who directed it to me, etc. The story of Polycarp's martyrdom is embellished with miraculous circumstances, which
some modern writers on ecclesiastical history take the liberty of omitting footnote Conyer's Middleton and in or into the Miraculous Powers, et cetera, Page one, twenty six. 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 Bishop Basher'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 footnote. In order to form a proper notion of the condition of the Christians under Marcus Antoninus, we must go back to Trajan's time, when the younger Pliny was governor of Bethenia. 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 relige religion thus found that their prophets 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 know their conclusion in this that those who confess 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 are allowed the opportunity of recanting. Pliny wrote this in a letter
to Trajan. Footnote. The Martyrium ignatia E, first published in Latin by Archbishop Usher, is the chief evidence for the circumstances of Ignatius's death. In footnote. 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 sword to them. If the governors and the provinces were willing to let them alone, they could not resist the fanaticism of the u 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. Footnote we have the evidence of justinness to this effect. Quote, 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 unquote. In footnote. With the time of Hadrian began the Christian apologies, which show plainly what the popular feeling towards the Christians then. Was a rescript of Hadrian to Minucius Fondanas, the Proconsul of Asia, which stands at the end of Justine's first apology, 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. Footnote and in Eusebius, Erosius says that Hadrian sent its rescript to Manusius Fandanus, proconsul of Asia, after being instructed in books written on the Christian religion by Quadratus, a disciple of the Apostles, and Aristides and Athenian, an honest and wise
man, and Serenus Grenaeus. In the Greek text of Hadrian's rescript there is mentioned Sereneus Grannianus, the predecessor of Minutius Fandanus in the government of Asia. This rescript of Hadrian has clearly been added to the apology by some editor. In footnote, Antonius Pious 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 are only to be punished like other people for illegal acts, it would have 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 Justine's First Apology a rescript of Antoninus Pious to the Commune of Asia, and it is also an Eusebius. The date of the rescript is the third consulship of Antoninus Pious.
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. In the time of Marcus Antoninus, the opposition between the old and the new believe chief 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 Marcus 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. We conclude from this that there were at least imperial rescripts or constitutions of Marcusantoninus which are made the foundations 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 eighty one sixty seven, ten years before the persecution of Leone. The governors of the provinces under Marcus 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 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 consistently tolerate another religion which declared that all the rest are false, and all the splendid ceremonies of the Empire only a worship of
devils. If we had a true ecclesiastical history, we should know how the Roman empires attempted to check the new religion, how they enforced their principle of finally punishing Christians simply as Christians, which just and 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 embedter 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 Marcus Antoninus, the Heathen populations were an open hostility to the Christians, and that under Antoninus's 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's 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 are made in the habitable earth. The nation which he alludes to is Gallia, and he then proceeds to give the letter the churches of Vienna in Lagdunum. 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 to 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 he 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 precedence of his predecessors. We cannot 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 footnote, except that of Erosius, who says that during the Parthian War there were grievous persecutions of the Christians in Asia and Gallia under the orders of Marcus Prakepto Ayus, and quote many were crowned with a martyrdom
of saints unquote in footnote. 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 profession's 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. Footnote. Doctor F. C. Bauer, in his work entitled does christinetum undi christly kakirka derdry erstag yo Hunderta et cetera 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. In footnote, 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. Footnote. In the digest there is the following excerpt from Modestinus. Quote see KUIs ali kuit fekeret kuo leis hominoma nima separastiona namenus terrerin d u s marcus hu yas mada homenas in insulam relegela rescripsit unquote. 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 an himself, his family, and his teachers, and in other books he mentions himself. Soueidis notices the 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. Zilander, who published the first edition of this book 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 titles in no inscriptions. Of the several books, the eleventh only has the inscription marked with an asterisk. The other Vatican manuscripts in the
three Florentine contain only excerpts from the Emperor's book. All the titles of the excerpts nearly agree with that which Silander prefix to his edition. 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
Eusebius Combatusts, who however, had no taste for his father's philosophy. Some careful hand preserved the precious volume and a work by Antoninus, as mentioned by other late writers beside Suidas, Many critics have labored on the text of Antoninus. The most complete edition is that by Thomas Gataker sixteen fifty two quarto. The second edition of Gataker was superintended by George Stannup sixteen ninety seven quarto.
There is also an edition of seventeen o four. 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 prevace, the editor says that he wrote it at Rotherhis, near London, in a severe winter, when he was in the seventy eighth year of his age sixteen fifty one, a time when Milton Selden and other great men of the Commonwealth time were living, and the great French scholar Solma's Soulmatius, with whom Gadaker corresponded
and received help from him for his edition of Antoninus. The Greek text has also been edited by J. M. Schultz Leipzic eighteen o two eight volumes, and by the learned Greek Athamontainus Coret Paris eighteen sixteen, eight volumes. The text of Schultz was republished by Taupnitz eighteen twenty one. There are English, German, French, Italian, and Spanish translations of Marcus Antoninus, and
there may be others. I have not seen all the English translations. There is one by Jeremy Collier seventeen o two eight volumes, a most coarse and vulgar copy of the original. The latest French translation, by Alexis Pieron, in the collection of Charpontier, is better than Dossier's, which has been honored with an Italian version Udinae seventeen seventy two. There is an Italian version sixteen seventy five, which I have not seen. It is by a cardinal quote
a man illustrious in the church. The Cardinal Francis Barberini, the elder nephew of Pope Urban the seventh, 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 side of the virtues of this gentile. 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 determine 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 in some places they are
wrong, and in other places I am sure that they are. I have placed in some passages a plus sign, 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 have not given the best words for the Greek, I have done the best that I could, And in the next 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's commentary of the Incridian 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 includes 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's in Caridian, which he translated into Latin and dedicated to his great patron, Lorenzo dme Medici, in whose collection he had found the book Poliziano's version was printed in the first ball edition of the Encridian
eighty fifteen thirty one aped andream Cartandrum. Policiano recommends the Encridian 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 printed.
The Little Book of Antoninus has been the companion of some great men. Macchiavelli's Art of War and Marcus Antoninus were the two books which were used when he was a young man by Captain John Smith, and he could not have found two writers better fitted to form the character of a soldier and a man. Smith is almost unknown and forgotten in England, his native country, but not
in America, where he saved the young colony of Virginia. He was great in his heroic mind and his deeds in arms, but greater still in the nobleness of his character. For a man's greatness lies not in wealth and station, as the vulgar believe, nor yet in his intellectual capacity, which is often associated with the meanest moral character, the most abject servility to those in
high places, and arrogance to the poor lowly. But a man's true greatness lies in the consciousness of an honest purpose in life, founded on a just estimate of himself and everything else, on frequent self examination, and a steady obedience to the rule which he knows to be right, without troubling himself. As the Emperor says, he should not about what others may think or say, or whether they do or do not do that which he thinks and says and does. End of Chapter thirteen.