 Chapter 28, Sections 1-3 of J.B. Bury's The Student's Roman Empire, Part 2. The Student's Roman Empire, Part 2, by J.B. Bury, Chapter 28, The Principe of Marcus Aurelius 161-180 AD. Sections 1-3. Section 1. Marcus and Varys, The Two Augustae. Marcus Aurelius had reached the age of 40, born at Rome, 121 AD, when he succeeded Antoninus. His family belonged to Succubo, a municipal town near Cordoba, in Spain. His grandfather was one of the new patricians created by Vespasian. He had shown an early predilection both for the study of Stoic philosophy and for the practice of Stoic austerity. When he was twelve years old, his mother Dometia Lucila could hardly induce him to lie on a bed spread with sheep skins. His whole life was marked by similar asceticism. As his constitution was weak, he was obliged to spend some care in husbanding the forces of his body, and had constantly to consult the medical skill of the famous physician Galen and others. But he did this as a duty. His only pleasures were meditation and the society of philosophers and men of letters. No man has ever carried further than Marcus Aurelius the desire of moral perfection, and he accounted, like other Stoics, the service of humanity indispensable to the attainment of such perfection. The idea which runs through all his meditations, a collection of thoughts jotted down in the leisure moments of a busy life, much of it is written in the camps on the Danube during the Markumannic War, is that of a natural unity, embracing not only mankind, but nature and God, in which every individual has a distinct place of his own, and distinct functions to fulfill. Each man is expected to act so as to promote not his own good, at least directly, but the general good of the great whole, of which he forms part, and on whose welfare his own welfare depends. The meditations in fact show how the Stoic theory of pantheism is to be applied in detail to life and morality, thus Marcus Aurelius enjoins service to others as the special function for which we are adapted by nature. What more dost thou want? he asks, when thou hast done a man a service, art thou not content that thou hast done something conformable to thy nature, and dost thou seek to be paid for it, just as if the eye demanded a recompense for seeing or the foot for walking? He considered the social principle as the chief in the constitution of human nature, yet he had himself a passion for solitude, which he set himself strictly to keep under. Men seek retreats for themselves, he says, houses in the country, seashores and mountains, and thou too art wont to desire such things very much, but this is altogether a mark of the most common sort of men, for it is in thy power, whenever thou shalt choose, to retire into thyself. And he goes on to advise constant self-communing. His view of life is austere and even sad. The things which are much valued in life are empty and rotten and trifling. But he cultivated a cheerful temper. His teacher Maximus, he tells us, had taught him cheerfulness in all circumstances as well as in illness. The precepts on which he is always dwelling are to love all men as brothers, to forgive injuries, and to sacrifice everything to duty. Few men have more nearly approached in practice their own ideal. Plato had prophesied that there would be no end of the sufferings of mankind, until a philosopher should become a king, or until a king should become a philosopher. This had at length come to pass. A philosopher now ruled over a far greater state, a far larger portion of mankind than Plato had dreamed of. The philosophic ruler, whom the world had at length obtained, did not attempt to establish the ideal Republic of Plato or any other a priori constitution, but he treasured up Plato's words and made it his aim to mitigate suffering and to help humanity. He desired to show that Plato's saying was really true. The idea of helping humanity and alleviating its burdens was one of the leading sentiments of the new stoicism which Marcus represented. But after all he was only doing on system, what Antoninus had been already doing instinctively. Antoninus indeed was also in some measure imbued with stoic ideas. Two different views have been taken of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Some regard the empire as fortunate to have been ruled by such a noble model of pagan virtue, such an unselfish and high-minded prince. Others pity the subjects of a mere philosopher, who took more interest in the disputations of sophist and returitions than in the affairs of the state which he governed. There is a certain measure of truth in this censorious criticism, but it may easily be exaggerated. His fault was that he thought more of doing his duty than of what was good for the state. He regarded every question from the standpoint of personal ethics rather than from that of political wisdom. He was excessively self-conscious and used to ask himself in a difficulty not what is the best course, but rather how should the philosopher act? On the other hand it must be remembered to his credit that he did not as many serious philosophers, as Plato himself, might have been tempted to do, make any attempt to apply a priori theories to politics or perform experiments with a fabric of the constitution. The single innovation in constitutional practice which he introduced was, as we shall see, not a very happy one. In general he clung to the traditions of the empire and walked on the lines marked out by his predecessors. He did not try to reform the world on a model constructed in the philosopher's workshop. He was a precision in ethics, but he was not a doctrinaire in politics. He honored philosophers above all men, but did not allow them to interfere in the management of the state. But if Aurelius was determined to show by righteous and beneficent government that Plato was right, Fortune was equally determined to show that Plato was wrong. Men were to learn by the reign of Aurelius that their happiness cannot be secured by political government independently of external circumstances unless indeed they adopt the maxims of stoicism and feel indifferent to external circumstances themselves. The imperial philosopher fell on evil times. His principate was marked by a series of formidable wars on the Euphrates and the Danube with hardly an interval of peace, and the empire was devastated by one of those terrible plagues, like the Black Death of the 14th century, which produced permanent effects on the lands which they visit. It required all the stoical resignation and patience that Marcus could command to stand firmly at the helm throughout these tempests, which were the heralds of the beginning of the decline of the empire. The first act of Marcus on being elected emperor by the Senate was highly characteristic of the man and shows his weak point. He did not know man. His adoptive brother L. Commodus had been kept in the background by Antoninus and received no honors, except such as might be permitted to any member of the imperial house. He was a young man without much character or ability, and fond of pleasure, though his disilluteness has perhaps been exaggerated. According to the example set by Hadrian and Antoninus, it would have been proper for Marcus to make Lucius his consort with the title of Caesar and subordinate pro-consular power. But Marcus was not content with this. He regarded Lucius as having an equal right with himself to the supreme dignity, and deemed it his duty to share the principate equally with his brother. He therefore insisted that the Senate should confer all the titles and privileges which he had himself received on Lucius also. Thus Marcus and Lucius, henceforward called El Verus, were colleagues, co-equal and each ruling in his own right over the whole empire. Lucius like Marcus was an Augustus and a princeps. The theory of the principate was quite compatible with such collegiality, but in practice it was an innovation. Two Augusti had never ruled together over the empire before. Marcus assuredly did not look into the future or consider the probable consequences of introducing this system. But it was clear enough that the joint rule of two co-equal emperors must in most cases lead to rupture in disunion, unless either one, one of them were to keep himself in the background, or two, the territory of the empire were to be divided between them into two huge provinces. In the case of Marcus and Lucius, harmony was preserved because Lucius was good-natured, insignificant and unambitious, and willingly left all initiation to his elder brother. If he had been a strong and energetic man, the harmony would have been as little imperiled, for in that case Marcus would have gladly resigned the chief conduct of affairs to him, but though the precedent which Marcus introduced made little difference in his own case, it was fraught with grave consequences in a later age, when the second alternative came to pass, and the empire ruled by two Augusti was split up into two distinct realms. SUCKTION II ADMINISTRATION OF MARCUS The points which chiefly call for notice in the internal policy of Marcus Aurelius are, one, the further growth of the aristocratic power of the princeps combined with punctilious outward deference to the senate, two, the further growth of centralization on the lines of Trajan and Hadrian, three, an injudicious financial administration, four, a marked advance on the lines of Antoninus Pius in humanity and equity in legislation. The deference which Marcus paid to the senate has been made much of, and was duly appreciated. When at Rome he was constantly in attendance in the Curia, and when in Campania he used often to come all the way to Rome to introduce a proposal, he never quitted the assembly until the consul pronounced the words of dismissal, Nihilvos Muramur Patres Conscripti, we no longer detain you, PC. He used regularly to refer foreign affairs to the senate, and present treaties to receive its confirmation. In all this Marcus followed the policy of Trajan, but at the same time he not only surrendered none of the prerogatives or powers which the emperors had gradually usurped, but rather increased them. This path had been marked out for him by Antoninus Pius, for on his elevation to the rank of Caesar he had received the right of bringing five relationes in writing before the senate, which should have precedence before all others. The power of the emperor to introduce one bill, Relatianum Fesere, in writing at each sitting, which should be read before all others by an imperial questor, had been established by Augustus and practiced by his successors. Antoninus himself had the right of four relationes, but we have no evidence that until Marcus any emperor possessed the right of so many as five relationes. The imperial relatio took the form of an oration or letter to the senate and the fiction that the emperor was proposing it in person seems to have been kept up. Hadrian had felt himself obliged to follow Nero's example and take oath in the senate that he would never condemn a senator to death, but Marcus could not be moved to take this step, although he endeavored throughout his reign to act as if he had. He thus refused to recognize the principle that the senators were exempt from being tried at the imperial tribunal or could not be condemned by their peers. It is also important to observe that he made large use of the powers which lay in his hands to determine the constitution of the senate. He employed the right of adlection to raise, many of his friends, to the rank of Praetorian and Adilitian senators. The title Vir Clarissimus, abbreviated in inscriptions to V.C., was in general use in the second century as a title of honor for senators. It was perhaps Marcus who first gave it regular official sanction. It is known with more certainty that he divided the public officials of equestrian rank into three classes. One, Viri eminentissimi, confined to the Praetorian prefects. Two, Viri perfectissimi, including the heads of departments at Rome. Three, Viri egregii, procurators and less important subordinate officials. The title of a municipal knight, in Italy, who did not hold office was splendidis eques romanus. Marcus contributed to the improvement of the new civil service, which had been organized by Hadrian by appointing undersecretaries in the various departments and thus diminishing the burdens which fell on the chiefs. It is probable that he fixed certain salaries for the members of the imperial concilium, but what is of more importance, the strange development of the office of Praetorian prefect, which beginning as a purely military ultimately became a purely civil office, enters on a new stage. Under Marcus the Praetorian prefecture is occasionally filled by eminent jurists, and the prefect is thus more clearly designated as representative of the emperor. In the administration of Italy he revived the four judges who had been instituted by Hadrian and, to please the senate, abolished by Pius. But in reviving this institution he modified it. The Juridici, for so they were now called, if not before, were no longer consulers, but Praetorians, and thus the appointment was accessible to a larger class. The institution of the Curatoris Republiche, chosen from either the senatorial or the equestrian order, seems to have been developed further and doubtless from financial motives. Thus Marcus encouraged that advance of centralization which soon paralyzed public life in the municipal towns of Italy. On the other hand he seems to have accorded greater freedom to the public associations and guilds, Collegia, which were regarded with such suspicion by Trajan. He gave them the power of making wills and performing the act of manumission, in fact to a certain extent the privileges of a legal person, but he took the precaution of making a regulation that no one should belong to more than one Collegium at the same time. Pius had left a large sum in the treasury, not withstanding the numerous buildings which he had undertaken, but the imprudent and lavish administration of Marcus involved the fiscous in serious financial difficulties. His errors in this respect were chiefly due to his good nature. On his accession he indulged in an act of liberality which was uncalled for and indeed mischievous. He gave each soldier of the Praetorian Guard a sum of twenty thousand Cisterces, about one hundred sixty pounds, and a proportional sum to the other soldiers. He repeatedly bestowed large Congiara on the people, and he increased the number of those entitled to receive the public corn. Towards the end of his reign he remitted an immense sum of Erires, one seventy-eight A.D. Much of the extravagant expenditure may perhaps be set down to the account of El Veris, but it is not known how the two colleagues arranged between themselves the control of the fiscous. In all financial matters Marcus was indulgent and easygoing in accordance with his philosophical theories on the duties of a prince. But in this reign the empire was called to face dangers which required all its strength and entailed heavy expenses, so that greater stringency in the taxation and greater economy in the administration were urgently required. Marcus, under the pressure of his military expenses, was forced to pawn his crown jewels and to depreciate the gold coinage. Things went so far that, at the end of his principate, the issue of gold came altogether to a stop, and the silver coinage was called in, in order to be issued in a depreciated form. It is therefore not surprising that very little was done by Marcus in the way of public buildings. That which above all things links together the reigns of Antoninus and Marcus, and makes them appear as an epic animated by a single spirit, is the policy and legislation and administration of justice common to both. What has already been said in these respects of Antoninus applies to Marcus. To come to the aid of the weaker, to mitigate the estate of slaves, to facilitate manumission, to protect the condition of wards, were the objects of Marcus as of his predecessor. A special officer, Praetor Tutillerius, was instituted to regulate difficulties between wards and guardians. The law permitting a creditor to seize the goods of a debtor was modified. Children no longer suffered disgrace for the crimes of their fathers. The emperor was himself untiring in hearing causes, and his sentences were marked by leniency. Like Antoninus, he was anxious to defend the provinces against the oppression of procurators, and to come to the assistance of communities in the case of public disasters. Section 3 The Parthian War Almost immediately after his accession, Marcus Aurelius was threatened by hostilities both in the East and in the West. The dangers in the West were easily dealt with. The Picts threatened Britain, and at the same time the Britannic legions formed a design to make the Legatus and Statius Priscus emperor in place of Marcus. These movements were speedily checked, and attacks of the Chattai and Chausai in the Rhine provinces were also repelled. But it was impossible to avert the greater danger which had been long looming in the East. Hadrian and Antoninus had succeeded in deferring the evil day, but when Marcus came it could be deterred no longer. The Parthian king Velogesys was an able and ambitious man. He had pulled together the Parthian realm, which he had found split up into a number of kingdoms, and having firmly established its unity, he resolved to get Armenia into his power. No sooner was Pius dead than a Parthian general invaded Armenia and set Pacorus and Arsaceid on the throne. The governor of Cappadocia, P. alias Severianus Maximus, immediately led a legion across the Euphrates, and at Elegea, the place at which Partho Miserus had bowed the knee to Trajan, a battle was fought, and the Roman legion was annihilated. Severianus slew himself. The Parthians, elated by this victory, invaded Syria and defeated the Roman army, then under El Etidius Cornelianus. In consequence of these disasters, which proved that the oriental legions were as demoralized and inefficient as they had been a hundred years before when they were taken in hand by Corbulo, it was necessary to transport western legions to defend the eastern provinces. Statius Priscus was appointed to succeed Severianus in Cappadocia, while Julius Varus became governor of Syria. The supreme command in the war was undertaken by the emperor Varus, 162 A.D., who, however, had neither military gifts nor a sense of duty, and spent most of his time at Antioch in amusements, leaving the actual conduct of the war to his generals, Avidius Cacius, Priscus, and Marcius Varus. At first overtures of peace were made, for Marcus Aurelius would have been glad to avoid the war, but Velogices rejected them and left the Romans no choice. Armenia was soon recovered by Priscus, who captured Artexata and burned it to the ground, 163 A.D. Near its site, Caianopolis, or New City, in Armenian nor Calak, was built, and became the capital of the country. Pacorus and his Parthians were driven out, and Sohamus, a prince of Arcesid family but a Roman senator and devoted to Rome, was raised to the throne, 163 A.D. Thus the war led to no theoretical change in the position of Armenia. This country still remained a Roman dependency, ruled by a prince of Parthian blood, but in actual fact it was now bound more closely to Rome than before, owing to the personal interests of Sohamus. After this success, Varus assumed the title Arminiacus, but Syria and Mesopotamia were the scene of the most serious events of the war, which was chiefly conducted by Avidius Cacius, who became governor of Syria, about 164 A.D. Of the details we know very little. A Roman victory at Sura was followed by the capture of the fortress Nysophorium on the Mesopotamian side of the Euphrates. At Zugma the Parthians offered strenuous resistance to the Romans crossing the river, but were wholly defeated in a battle at Eropus. Having thus opened their way into Mesopotamia, the legions stormed Dasara, laid siege to Edessa, and captured Nacebus. The satraps forsook their king, and the victorious army marched on Ctesiphon. The Greek city of Seleucia opened its gates, but the inhabitants were subsequently accused of collusion with the enemy, and it was burned to the ground. Ctesiphon, the Parthian capital, was taken and destroyed. The Romans also penetrated into Media. In 165 A.D. the war was practically finished, and Varus was able to return to Rome to celebrate a brilliant triumph in conjunction with his brother, 166 A.D. Lucius bore the titles Arminiacus Parthicus Maximus and Medicus, Marcus that of Arminiacus Parthicus. Through this war Rome not only won immunity from Parthian aggressions for many years and increased her prestige, but also slightly enlarged her territory. The district of Mesopotamia known as Osrienae was made a Roman dependency, and Carhay became a free city under Roman protection. Thus Marcus committed himself, though on a very small scale, to the same policy which Trajan had inaugurated on a very large scale and which Hadrian had disapproved of. Seeing that Marcus was by no means a grasping or a acquisitive ruler, this circumstance suggests that there was something to be said on grounds of policy for Trajan's enterprise. Fate willed that these successes in the east should be bought at a terrible cost. The army of Vividius Cassius contracted the germs of a pestilential disease in the Tigris regions, and brought the infection back with them into Roman dominion. The plague spread in the eastern provinces, and was carried to the west by the legions who returned with Varus. The army was terribly ravaged by this visitation. Italy was devastated, and many districts left without inhabitants. In Rome immense numbers died, and Marcus ordained that both poor and rich should be buried at the public expense. He assayed all the ceremonies of the national religion to save the state, and performed a lustration of the city. He even attempted to propitiate foreign deities. There is no doubt that this virulent pestilence which spread in every direction produced far reaching effects on the population of the empire. The historian Nibur even goes so far as to think that the ancient world never recovered from the blow. But we know very little about it beyond some details given by the physician Galen. No account has been preserved like that which Thucydides gives us of the plague at Athens, or that which Procopius wrote of the great pestilence in the reign of Justinian, or like Boccaccio's description of the Black Death in the fourteenth century. THE END OF CHAPTER 28 SECTIONS I TO III THE MENACES OF DANGER, WHICH HAD APPEARED AT THE OPENING OF HADRIAN'S RAIN HAD BEEN HAPPILY AVERTED, AND THE CHIEF NATIONS ON THAT FRONTIER, THE ROXALANI IN THE EAST, THE JASICIES IN THE STRIP OF LAND BETWEEN DACEA AND PANONIA, THE MARKIMANI IN BOHEMIA, THE QUADY IN MARRAVIA, ALL Acknowledged more or less the sovereignty of Rome and did not trouble her with hostilities. The Quadi had asked Pius to confirm the election of a new prince, but after the death of Pius a change came over the scene, and Marcus soon found himself involved in a great war with these frontier nations, generally known as the Markimantic War. For this war the Romans were not to blame. The policy of Antoninus Pius had been essentially one of peace, and Marcus was not a man to provoke enemies. Nor yet was it due to the spontaneous rapacity or restlessness of the neighbouring barbarian peoples. The cause came from a strange quarter, quite beyond the limits of Roman politics. Shiftings took place among the German folks of Central and Northern Europe, on the Elbi and the Vistula, and these migratory movements induced pressure on the Markimani, Quadi, Bury, and other southern nations who in turn pressed upon Roman territory. The empire resisted their pressure, and the consequence was a serious war of thirteen years, which may be regarded as an early prelude of those historic events which took place two or three centuries later, known as the Wandering of the Nations. The first incident which declared the new danger and occasioned the war was the appearance of a large number of Germans in Pannonia, seeking new abodes there. This multitude consisted of Lengabardi or Lombards from the distant Elbi, their first appearance in the south, as well as of Markimani and others. But they were promptly driven back across the Danube, and then they sent as ambassador Balamar, king of the Markimani, and ten others representing ten tribes, to Aelius Bassus, governor of Pannonia, asking for an assignment of territory. But the request was not granted, and they had to return. The migrations already mentioned seemed to have produced some pressure westward as well as southward, for in Upper Germany we find the governor, Gaeus Auphidius Victorinus, the father-in-law of Fronto, compelled to take the field against the Chatai who had attacked the province. The outbreak of the war in the east hindered Marcus from taking adequate measures to avert the dangers which, as it was easy to see, threatened the Danube provinces. It was at least lucky that the first great blow was not struck until Roman arms had been successful against the Parthians. It was probably about the time of the triumph of Marcus and Verus, 166 AD, that a great, though loose coalition of German tribes, Markimani, Quadi, Harmanduri, and others, burst into the empire and overran Dacia, Pannonia, Racia, and Noricum. The Jasegis took part in this eruption, but the Sarmatian tribes to the east of Dacia were not implicated. In Dacia the town of Albernus, Verus Patuk, was burnt down, and Sarmisigathusa itself was threatened. But the danger came far nearer to the heart of the empire and made Rome herself tremble, since the day when the Symbry and Tutans had been repelled by Marius on the field of Versilade, no barbarian enemy had ever carried arms into Italy, but now they swooped down from Racia to destroy Apatergium, Oderzo, and crossed the Julian Alps to lay siege to Aquileia. Of the measures which were taken to check the incursions by the commanders on the spot, we only know that furious Victorinas was defeated and slain. The invasion took place at an awkward moment for the government. The Parthian war was over, but the plague which it had brought in its train had made fearful havoc in Italy and famine the usual companion of pestilence also set in. People were unable to pay the dues to the state, and the emperors had not money to meet the expenses of the war. Marcus was compelled to sell by auction the imperial jewels in order to provide immediate funds. New troops had to be raised and measures had to be taken for the defense of the chief cities which lay in the path of the invaders or tempted their progress. The walls of Salone in Dalmatia and those of Philippopolis in Thracie were restored. Two new legions were created. Two Pia and three Concordia, and assigned to the defense of Racia and Noricum, where a new frontier camp was established at Loricum, Lorch, near the mouth of the Enns, as well as a large number of small forts. The troops in Noricum and Pannonia were supported by the Danube Fleet, which had its chief stations at Loricum and Carnuntum. Marcus, although not a soldier, was obliged to undertake the irksome task of directing in person the operations of the war. The matter could not be left to the several commanders of the provinces. The general control of one supreme commander was required, and this duty could not be safely consigned to the frivolous and incompetent Verus. The two emperors left Rome and reached Aquileia, 168 A.D. Their advance frightened the invaders, who had no idea of acting together and immediately began to retreat. The Quadi offered submission and begged for terms, but the Marcomani held out. It was clearly premature to make peace until the barbarians had been taught a lesson, although the younger emperor, eager to return to Rome, wished to consider the danger as past, but the devastations which the invaders had wrought could not be atoned for so easily. They had carried off enormous numbers of Roman captives. The Quadi, it is said, over sixty thousand, the Jesugees one hundred thousand. Marcus saw the importance of teaching the barbarians a lesson and prosecuted the war with vigor. Unfortunately, we have no precise record of his movements. He made peace with the Quadi, on condition of their giving back the captives, and confirmed the election of a new king, Fertius. He proceeded to the Panonian frontier, and seems to have made Carnuntum his headquarters. In the meantime his son-in-law, Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus, was appointed commander in Racia and Noricum, and with the help of his lieutenant, P. Helvius Prytinax, who at a later period became emperor, cleared these lands of their invaders, who in Racia at least, were probably the Chatae. Some of the barbarians, it is worth noting, were seduced by Roman Pei into fighting in Roman service against their fellow barbarians. By this policy the war was soon practically reduced to a war against the Marcomani and Jesugees. The emperor returned to Rome in 169 A.D., but Verus died at Altenham on the way, and Marcus had to carry on the war alone. He returned to the Danube in the same year and remained on the scene of action, making Carnuntum, Vindabona, or Aquincum his headquarters as occasion demanded. The operations were for a long time unsuccessful, and the Romans met with severe defeats. A special command over Dacia and Upper Mosia had been entrusted to Marcus Claudius Fronto, but he fell in a battle against the Jesugees. Another victim of the war was Marcus Macrinius Vindex, the prefect of the Praetorian Guard. It was not until 172 A.D. that the first decisive success was gained. The Marcomani sustained a grave defeat, and the emperor assumed the title Germanicus. But in the meantime the Quadi had rebelled, driven out their king Fertius, the client of the Romans, and elected a new king, Ariogasus, who entered into alliance with the Marcomani king Balomar. Marcus set a price of one thousand pieces of gold on the head of Ariogasus. He was soon surrendered to the Romans and sent to the distant city of Alexandria. The curious legend of the Thundering Legion arose in connection with a great victory over the Quadi. A storm seems to have burst over the armies during battle, and while a grateful shower of rain fell upon the Romans, the enemy were disconcerted by thunder and lightning. The event was considered miraculous, and was said to be the answer of heaven to the prayers of a legion consisting of Christians. That some such occurrence did take place is confirmed by a sculpture on the column of Aurelius, but of course at this time there was no such thing as a Christian legion, and the legion Fulminata existed under Augustus. The reduction of the Quadi was soon followed by that of the Jazagies, 175 AD, which was signalized by the emperor's assumption of the name Sarmeticus. Marcus had the insight of a true statesman. He realized the permanent danger which threatened the empire on the northern frontier. He foresaw the barbarian eruptions which were ultimately destined to break up the empire. He perceived clearly that in order to prevent these perils, it was not enough to gain victories. It was necessary to subjugate the enemy. He saw that Trajan had been right in annexing Dacia. In fact, this Marcomannic war had thoroughly justified Trajan's policy, for the fact that Dacia was in the hands of the Romans had kept the Roxalani and other folks in the eastern Carpathians from joining in the invasion. Marcus decided that it was necessary to go further in the path marked out by Trajan and round off the frontier on this side by annexing the lands of the Jazagies and the Marcomanni. The annexation of Jezeghia, the strip between the Danube and the Fice, was indeed obviously expedient. Bohohamum, Bohemia, which the Marcomanni occupied, is so well defended by nature within its mountain and forest walls that it would have proved a useful advanced position against the Barbarians. Marcus therefore decided to erect two new provinces, Sarmatia and Marcomania. Sarmatia at all events he would probably have formed at once by expelling the Jazagies, but he was obliged to postpone the execution of his plans by an insurrection which broke out in Syria. The terms which in the meantime he imposed on the conquered peoples were as follows. They had to contribute contingents to the Roman army, thus the Jazagies had to furnish 8,000 horsemen. The Marcomanni and Jazagies had to evacuate a strip of land along the Danube, ten miles in breadth, afterwards reduced to five miles, and the Quadi and Marcomanni had to receive in their country Roman garrisons to the number of 20,000 men. The conditions of trading were strictly regulated in order to possibilities of collision. About the same time the tribe of the Estinghi entered Dacia and demanded permission to settle there on the condition of military service, but another tribe, the Likringi, fearing that their own interests might be endangered and incited by the Roman governor of Dacia, attacked the Estinghi and destroyed them. This incident deserves mention here because it is an early example of the method of keeping enemies in check by stirring up one tribe against another which the Roman government afterwards developed into a system. The revolt which threatened the throne of Marcus in the east was organized by Avidius Cassius, the able governor of Syria, who had been chiefly instrumental in bringing the Parthian war to a successful issue. When Verus returned to Rome, Cassius had been appointed to a military command, like that which Corbulo had held under Nero, extending beyond his own special province over all the regions adjacent to the eastern frontier. Cassius belonged by birth to this quarter of the empire, being a native of Ceres, and possessed great influence there. The soldiers seemed to have loved him, although his discipline was strict and even harsh. During the term of his special command he rendered further services to the government by suppressing a rising in Arabia and putting down a serious revolt of religious fanatics who were known as Bukalix in Egypt. But he chafed under the rule of the imperial philosopher, and this feeling of dissatisfaction with the administration of Marcus seems to have prevailed in military circles in the east. The officers sneered at the philosophical old woman, who wrote ethical essays in the camp. Verus had warned Marcus against him, but the imperial stoic replied in the spirit of fatalism, No Prince ever killed his successor. At length, in 175 AD, while Marcus was on the Danube waging war against the Marcomani, Cassius had organized a sufficient party of adherents to declare openly his treasonable designs. He was supported by Flavius Calvissius, the prefect of Egypt. The significance of the movement, as expressed in the manifestos of the pretender, lay in the contrast between the soldier and the philosopher. Cassius was willing to allow that Marcus was a very good man, but complained that in his devotion to philosophy he neglected the republic. The outbreak of the revolt was hastened by the diffusion of a false report that Marcus was dead, and this decided its failure. Avidius was proclaimed imperator and recognized in the belief that the emperor was dead, but when this news proved false, men no longer cared to undertake the usurper's cause, and Cassius was murdered. On learning that the revolt had broken out, Marcus had immediately started for the east, prepared for civil war. He took the precaution of first investing his son Commodus, who was then fifteen years old, with the Toga Virilis. When Marcus, on arriving in Syria, found the pretender dead, he expressed much distress at being deprived of the pleasure of pardoning him. All who had been concerned in the treason were treated with lenity, but the principal was henceforth established that men should not be appointed as governors in their native provinces. The Empress Faustina, who had accompanied her husband in his expedition against the Marcomani and had received from the army the name Mother of the Camp, Mater Castrorum, accompanied him also to the east, but she died on the journey at Halala in Cappadocia at the foot of Mount Tares. The sonnet decreed her divine honors, and a temple was built to her at the place where she died. Her good name, like that of her mother, was assailed by the breath of slander. She is said to have been openly unfaithful to her husband. It was even whispered that Commodus was the son of a gladiator. The worst aspersion shed upon her fame was that she was privy to and favored the treasonable design of Cassius and promised to marry him in case he succeeded, but there is positively no evidence against her character that can claim to be seriously considered. Since the death of Lucius Verus the Roman world had been governed once more by a single ruler, the Emperor's two sons, El Aurelius Commodus, born 161 AD, and Annius Verus had received the title of Caesar in 166 AD, and it is probable that, if they had both lived, Marcus would have committed the Empire to the joint rule of the two brothers, but Annius the younger died in 170 AD, and Commodus was the only surviving son of a large family. On the Emperor's return to Rome after the revolt of Cassius, he received the title Imperator, shared in his father's triumph, and was designated to the Consulate for the following year, notwithstanding his extreme youth. At the same time he received the Tribunition Power, before December 10th 176, and in 177 AD was raised to hold the same place which El Verus had held, and be his father's peer with a title Augustus. Commodus was not indeed of a radically bad nature, but he was utterly weak, devoid of judgment and self-indulgent. He was a man who could not possibly make a good or even a tolerable ruler. Marcus cannot have been blind to the faults of his son's character, and he has been severely blamed for sacrificing the good of the state to his feelings of paternal affection. His son-in-law Claudius Pompeinus, who had married Lucilla, the widow of Verus, would have been a better choice. On the other hand, if he set aside Commodus, who might naturally consider himself as having a right to succeed, there was the probability of a civil war. The Imperial Constitution provided no means of avoiding such a necessity of a choice between evils occasionally arising, and it would be difficult to say that of the two evils Marcus did not choose the lesser. In the meantime the conquered nations on the Danube frontier had violated the peace. Marcus had hardly turned his back when the Quadi and Marcomani, uneasy under the constraint of the Roman garrisons, determined to take advantage of the revolt of Cassius, and they rebelled. Thus Marcus, when he returned from the east, was forced to begin a second Marcomanic war, just as Trajan had been forced to undertake the Second Dacian War. And if he had lived, this too would have been like Trajan's, a war of extermination. This time Marcus was attended to the scene of war by his son Commodus. It is related that before he left Rome he conformed to the old custom of hurling a bloody javelin in front of the temple of Bologna. The details of this war, 178-180 AD, are unknown. We hear of a great victory gained by a general named Paternus, in consequence of which Marcus was proclaimed Imperator for the 10th time. The Marcomani seemed to have been completely subjugated, and the Quadi suffered so severely that they wished to move northward and settle in the land of the Semnonis, but were compelled to remain where they were and cultivate the land for the Roman garrisons. The Jesugees seemed to have submitted more readily and received favorable terms. The hardest burdens which had been before imposed upon them were abolished, and the important right was conceded to them of passing through Dacia in order to keep up communication with their Sarmatian brethren in the east, the Roxalani. We may conclude that Marcus was on the point of organizing Jesugea as a Roman province, and that Marcomania would soon have been treated in the same way. It was a critical moment. The reduction of an important part of Central Europe under direct Roman sway, which would have had its effect on the future history of those lands, was a matter of a few months. The frontier of the Empire was about to be extended to the Elbe, and a design which had fallen through under Augustus Welnai two centuries ago was on the eve of being accomplished. But on March 17, AD 180, Marcus Aurelius died in the camp at Vindabona. He was not yet sixty years of age, but his body seems to have been exhausted by the fatigues of military life, and he was carried off by fever. His death doomed his plans to disappoint. His worthless son Commodus immediately abandoned the results which had been achieved by his father's statesman-like resolution and admirable perseverance. Eager to return to Rome and get rid of the war, the young emperor, instead of completing the work of annexation, granted favorable terms to the Marcomania and the Quadi, and so stultified his father's long campaign. A very important result of these wars of Marcus must be briefly noticed here, though it really belongs to the history of the following century. The system of settling large bodies of Germans and Sarmatians on Roman soil as military Koloni now regularly began. Marcus 172 AD made such settlements in Pannonia, Macea, Dacia, and Germany. He even attempted to relieve the depopulation of Italy by establishing a barbarian colony near Ravenna, but the settlers tried to seize Ravenna and the idea was abandoned. Land was assigned to them, and they were free, but their freedom was limited insofar as they were not permitted to leave their lands. They were also bound to perform military service. Thus both the cultivation and the military defense of frontier districts, where such settlements were made, depended upon the same persons. The development of the colonatus to its final form took place during the third century. It is to be carefully observed, however, that this institution did not arise solely from the settlement of foreign captives. The military colonatus was only one form of a system which resulted from the economic conditions of the empire itself. Tenants by contract, who were unable to meet heavy arrears of rent, lapsed into the state of Koloni, attached to their landlord's soil by a tie which was practically, though at first not legally, obligatory. It also happened that small proprietors who had failed and become bankrupt voluntarily ceded their ownership to others, and took upon themselves the yoke of the colonate as an improvement in their condition. The beginning of the military colonate is one of the circumstances which show that in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, we stand on the threshold of the decline of the Roman Empire. For the breaking up of the empire was due not only to the invasion of Teutonic nations from without, but also to the presence of a large Teutonic element within. It is also significant that the other great force, which, besides the Teutonic nations, was instrumental in disintegrating the empire and transforming the condition of Europe, namely the Christian religion, appears prominently for the first time in the reign of Marcus, and comes for the first time into serious collision with the state. CHAPTER XXIX Literature under Hadrian and the Antonines The reign of Hadrian inaugurated a new era in Latin literature, and was also marked by a renaissance of Greek literature. Hadrian himself dabbled in literature and science, and assiduously cultivated the society of men of letters. He founded a sort of academy at Rome called the Athenium, in which rhetoricians, philosophers, and poets could read their compositions. He produced some slight compositions in both in verse and in prose, but they were only the work of a dilettante. He affected the style of the older Latin writers, preferring Cato to Cicero and Enneus to Virgil. Here he was following the tendency of his age. In fact, it might almost be said that the note of the literature of the second century was an affectation of archaic style. The man of letters spent much of his time in searching among old writers for unusual expressions and obsolete words, which he then introduced in his own compositions. Reckondite learning was thus in fashion. Retoricians and grammarians were the leaders in literary taste. The whole movement, revival of interest in the early national literature, and the taste for archaism and style, has parallels in similar movements in modern times. Only a few writers trained on the precepts of Quintilian escaped this prevailing tendency. But on the other hand, the Roman literature of this period is distinctly becoming less national and more cosmopolitan. Greek and Latin come into closer contact, and many writers such as Hadrian himself, like Claudius, Fronto Suetonius, Apollaeus compose works in both tongues. Literature and learning were patronized by the Antonines as well as by Hadrian. Antoninus Pius, following his predecessor's example, endowed chairs of philosophy and rhetoric in various cities throughout the empire, and also accorded privileges of exemption from taxes to a certain number of sophists, grammarians, and physicians in both small and large towns. Under his reign, both Fronto, the representative of Latin, and Herodes Atticus, the representative of Greek literature, had the honor of being consuls. Marcus Aurelius was not only a patron of learning, but a man of letters himself. Although the interest of his meditations lies entirely in the matter and not at all in the literary form, for which it can only be said that it is quite free from affectation. Section 1, Latin Literature. In the reign of Hadrian, Juvenel wrote some of his Latin satires, but there was no other poet of distinction. Anianus sang the pleasures of country life. Floris wrote pretty trifles and interchanged verses with the emperor. He gested at Hadrian's travels in the following lines. I would rather not be Caesar, have to haunt Batavian marches, lurk about among the Britons, feel the Scythian frosts assail me. To which Hadrian replied, I would rather not be Floris, have to haunt the Roman taverns, lurk about among the cook-hopps, feel the bossy bowl assail me. The lines of Hadrian to his soul have already been quoted. The versatile emperor, beside several works in Greek, wrote an autobiography which was published by his freedman, Flagan, but has not come down to us. Flagan himself wrote a history entitled Olympiads in the Greek language. Suetonius Tranquilis, about 75 to 160 A.D., had filled some posts under Trajan and afterward become private secretary, Magister Epistolarum, to Hadrian. He was a polymath, the varro of this period, and wrote on all kinds of subjects. His Prata, or miscellanies, was an encyclopedic work giving an account of Roman institutions and customs, chronology and dress, with special attention to the interpretation of words, also dealing with natural philosophy and keeping specially in view the favorite parallel between nature and man. Most of his works are lost. We possess only his lives of the Caesars and fragments of his accounts of famous men, De viris illustribus. The De vita cesarum is divided into eight books. The first six Caesars, beginning with Julius, occupy each one book. The seventh is devoted to Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, the eighth to the three Flavian emperors. The work is strictly biographical, not historical, and therefore a preponderance is given to anecdotes and personal details. The writer had good materials at his disposal, but is not critical, though as far as we can judge impartial in recording all that he could learn and thought likely to be interesting. His De viris illustribus was confined to men who had made a mark in any branch of Roman literature. We possess the lives of Terence, Horus, and in part, Lucan, and fragments of the life of the Elder Pliny. Floris composed an abridgment of Roman military history in two books, reaching down as far as Augustus, and founded chiefly on Livy. The first book deals with the best days of Rome, the second with her decline, the line of division being drawn at the Grachen age. The work is written in a rhetorical and exaggerated style. His object that has been said was not to record the wars of Rome, but to praise her empire. It is possible that this Floris was the same as the poet of that name. The three great representatives of Latin literature in the age of the Antonians were Fronto, Aulus Galeus, and Apoleius. As Fronto was a native of Serta and Apoleius of Madura, Africa is beginning to take the same place in Roman literature which Spain had taken in the previous century. M. Cornelius Fronto, about 100 to 175 AD, has been already mentioned as a teacher of M. Aurelius, and his correspondence with his pupil has been referred to. He was a learned rhetorician and in point of style he may be said to have given the tone to the age. He cultivated what he called an elocusio novella, marked by quaint expressions, uncommon words, archaic images, and he found a host of imitators. In fact, he headed a reaction against the style represented by Seneca, which reminds us in some ways of the reaction in English literature of the present century against the style of the 18th. He tried to return, partially at least, to priests Syseronian Latin. Besides the letters he wrote essays on eloquence, comparing its value without a philosophy, a pen gyric on El Veris for his conduct of the Eastern War, entitled Principia Historiae, and other treatises. The letters are very interesting, although they are full of mannerisms, and give little information as to contemporary history. Under the influence of the literary movement, of which Fronto was the chief representative, was composed a notable poem of unknown authorship entitled the Paravigilium veneris, in Trochaic-Septinarian Mater. It is inspired by the springtime, intended perhaps to be sung at a spring festival, and celebrates the power of Venus in nature. The refrain of the poem is Cres Amet Quinumquam Amavit, Quique Amavit Cres Amit. Aulus Gelius flourished under Marcus, and wrote a miscellaneous collection of details on ancient literature and language in twenty books, called Noctis Atticae. He was a man of very mediocre talent, but great diligence, and his work contains much valuable information. In fondness of archaic expression, he went with the tendency of his age, of which, in his very mediocrity, he is a typical example. Hero worship was a necessity to him, and like most of his contemporaries, he had no critical faculty. Of a very different order of merit, was Apolaeus, born about 125 A.D., son of a duovir at Madura. He studied at Attic Athens, as he calls it in plautine phrase, and for some time practiced as a pleader at Rome. He married a rich widow, much older than himself, Emilia Podentilla, whom he met at Oj, on a journey from Madura to Alexandria, and her kinsfolk brought a suit against him for having won her affections by magic. To defend himself, he composed his Apologia, which has come down to us, and in which he seems to have easily disposed of his accusers. After this he lived at Carthage, from which he sometimes made tours to the cities of Africa to deliver public addresses, after the fashion of the Greek rhetoricians. Apolaeus had a decidedly original talent, a lively fancy and considerable literary powers, but he was completely dominated by the mannerisms of his age, which have already been noted, and he had not a sufficient faculty of criticism to guide his taste and determined the legitimate limits within which a literary stylist may affect the flavor of antiquity, or to discern the point at which quaintness passes into absurdity. Besides the Apologia, the following works are preserved. The Florida is an anthology of his lectures and speeches on various subjects. The Metamorphoses, in eleven books, is the work on which his fame rests. The subject is probably borrowed from Lucius of the contemporary Greek writer Lucian, who in turn derived it from the metamorphoses of a certain Lucius of Petre. The story recounts the experiences of a man who has been transformed into an ass. Apolaeus introduced various episodes of which the most striking is the charmingly told legend of Amor and Psyche. Besides these works, there are some philosophical treatises by Apolaeus who profess the Platonic philosophy. The De Deo Socrates expands the Platonic doctrine of God and the demons. The treatise on Plato and his dogmas deals with natural and moral science, and the De Mundo reproduces the tract on the cosmos falsely ascribed to Aristotle. The activity of the jurists, the works of Julian and Gaius have already been mentioned. Grammar was a very popular study at this time. Under Hadrian it was represented by Q. Tarentius Scaris, who wrote a Latin grammar and commentaries on Plautus, Virgil, and Horus. A little later, C. Sepulcius Apollonaris of Carthage wrote Pvestiones Epistolicae, dealing with grammatical and literary questions, and composed metrical arguments to the plays of Terence and the Aeneid. He was the teacher of Aulus Galeus. The Lieber Memorialis of El and Pelis describing the geography of the world and the doings of mankind with a resume of Greek, Roman, and Eastern history probably belongs to this age. The most distinguished philosopher was the Stoic, Junius Rusticus, a revered master of Marcus Aurelius, who mentions that Rusticus induced him to abandon the rhetorical triflings to which he had devoted himself under the influence of Fronto and studied the books of Epictatus. The first apology for Christianity in Latin was composed in this age by Menusius Felix. This curious and interesting work will be referred to in the following chapter. Section 2 Greek Literature One of the most characteristic figures of the Greek Renaissance under Hadrian was Flavius Ariannis of Nicomedia in Bethenia, who, as has been often noticed, has many points of resemblance with Xenophon. The same kind of endurance that Socrates exercised on Xenophon was exercised on Ariann by the Stoic philosopher Epictatus. And though, like Xenophon, drawn to philosophy in his youth, like Xenophon also, he chose a practical career. He was consul Suffolk in 130 AD and governor of Cappadocia from 131 to 137 AD. And we meet him as Archon at Athens in 147 AD. Like Xenophon again, he wrote on all subjects. His philosophical works were devoted to the exposition of the teaching of his master. The Encuridion is a shorthand book to Stoic morality as taught by Epictatus, and the Diatribe Epictati in eight books, of which four are preserved, gave a fuller account of his doctrines. In imitation of Xenophon's Anabasis of Ceres in seven books, Ariann wrote the Anabasis of Alexander in seven books. This was the most important of his historical works. And has luckily been preserved. The author does not confine himself to the eastern expedition of his hero, but gives a full biography. The tale is told simply on the model of Xenophon and without rhetorical ornament. In connection with this work, Ariann also wrote an account of India, the Indica, chiefly geographical in Ionic dialect. His other historical works are lost. They included a history of the Diodarchy, a history of Bithynia, biographies of Timoleo and Dion, a history of Trajan's Parthian Wars, and a work on the Alans, of which an important fragment is extant. Ariann's Periplus, or account of a circumnavigation of the Uxine Sea, has already been mentioned. He also wrote a treatise on tactics and a work on hunting, Synegeticus, being a continuation of Xenophon's tract on that subject. All these have come down to us. The significance of Ariann in the history of Greek literature is that he belonged to the Atticizing School, of which Lucian was the chief representative. The return to the style of Plato and Xenophon involved a reaction against the style represented by Polybius, that is, against the natural development of the Greek language and could not be permanent. It may be added that notwithstanding all his character right pure Attic, Ariann often falls into errors. Appian of Alexandria wrote his history of Rome about 160 AD. He had come to Rome in the reign of Hadrian and through Fronto's influence obtained the post of a procurator. The most remarkable point about Appian's history is in its arrangement. He abandoned the chronological method adopted by most historians of that time and arranged his work in subject groups. Thus, his history consists of a number of special histories. One book dealt altogether with Spanish events and was entitled Ibaric. Another with Ilaricum, Ilaricke. Five books were devoted to the Civil Wars, Amphilia. Appian wrote without any regard to style and his pages are full of Latinisms. Paulianus of Macedonia wrote a work entitled Stratigimata in eight books which he dedicated to the emperor Marcus Aurelius and Elverus. This has come down to us almost entire. It is a collection of strategic tricks which had been actually used by generals in the course of Greek history. The writer shows no discrimination in the choice or use of his material. The great astronomer and geographer Ptolemy of Alexandria flourished under Marcus Aurelius. His chief works are the great system of astronomy and the guide to geography containing besides the text a number of maps based on mathematical computations. Both these works may be said to have been epic-making. A short work by Ptolemy on the theory of music is also preserved. Here may be mentioned also a hexameter poem of Dionysius, the Periegid, describing the world which afterwards came to be used in schools. Of Pausanias who wrote a tour around Greece, we know nothing personally except that he was born or lived in the neighborhood of Mount Sypolis in Asia Minor and that he wrote under Marcus Aurelius. His work in ten books describes a tour he made through the greater part of Greece. He professes to describe of all the buildings, statues and works of historical or artistic interest which he saw in his travels and he often goes into long historical and mythological digressions. But while there can be no doubt that he visited all the countries which he describes, he seems to have written his work from memory on his return home or not to have kept a very careful notebook. For he omits all mention of many important monuments which we know to have been in existence in his time. But notwithstanding his many omissions, his book is priceless now to the archaeological student. It was through a notice of Pausanias that Shleiman was enabled to discover the royal sepulchres in the Agorah of Mycenae. Of the Mycenaean wars, the fourth book of Pausanias is our chief source. The great Sophist, Elia Sarastides, was a native of Myzia, born in 117 A.D. He sat at the feet of the most celebrated masters of the Sophistic art, Herodes Atticus at Athens, Polemo at Smyrna, and others. When his education was finished, he traveled about through Egypt, Asia Minor, and Greece, seeing the world and delivering lectures. He also visited Rome, but his headquarters were at Smyrna. He died about 185 A.D. Fifty-five of his discourses have come down to us. Most of them are speeches in the proper sense of the word, but some are in the form of letters. Many of them turn on events and situations of ancient history. In one, he declaims on the Athenian expedition to Sicily, in another, on the peace with Sparta, while no less than five are devoted to the situation of Athens in respect to Sparta and Thebes, after the Battle of Leoctra. Two declamations discuss the question at issue in the speed of Demosthenes in reply to Leptinas. The Panathenaikos is a panjeric on Athens, in imitation of the like-named speech of Isocrates, and the glory of the same city is the keynote of the discourse on behalf of the Four, that is, the Four Athenian statesmen, the Mysticles, Militiatis, Semen and Pericles, whom Plato attacked in the Gorgias. The Panjeric on Rome was delivered in 160 A.D. The Five Sacred discourses give an account of the author's long illness and of the miraculous cures which at last gave him relief. They are interesting as a picture of the superstitions of the age. The discourses in honor of gods illustrate the tendency then prevailing to interpret legend allegorically. The discourse to Poseidon was delivered at a celebration of the Isthmian games, and that to Escalapius on the occasion of the dedication of his temple at Cisacus. The general impression left upon the reader by the works of Aristides is that he is dealing with an author who operates entirely with words and cares nothing about ideas. And Aristides confessed or rather boasted himself that he set words about everything. He was not a ready speaker. He rather despised extemporary speech. He polishes sentence the highest point and through his extreme artificiality and subtlety is often obscure. Lucian of Sammasata born about 125 A.D. Not only is by far the greatest figure in the Greek literature of the second century but holds a distinguished place in the literature of the world. He tells us in his dream how an accident saved him from becoming a sculptor and made him a man of letters. His parents had been in doubt whether they should apprentice him to his uncle who was a sculptor or gave him a literary education. The consideration that a course of study required so much money and time decided them in favour of the former alternative. And besides the boy had displayed some skill in making wax figures. But in the first days of his apprenticeship Lucian smashed a block of marvelline pieces by striking it with too much force and was beaten by his master for his awkwardness. This incident reinforced by a dream which had appeared to him decided him to abandon the sculptor's trade. Tecne, art, and Paidea, culture had come to him in his sleep each inviting him to follow her own way. And the promises of Paidea who pointed to the glories of a Redarition's career had forced her rival to retire. Lucian's parents allowed him to return to his studies. When his education was finished he travelled about like Aristides delivering public addresses. Of these some have survived and one especially deserves mention as displaying that literary talent which was afterwards developed in other kinds of composition. This is the lawsuit of letters a lawsuit between Sigma and Tal brought before the court of the vowels. Sigma complains of having been ousted from a number of Greek words in Attic speech to make room for Tal like Thalata for Thalassa. But although he was successful as a Sophist or Redarition a man with Lucian's powers could not be rest satisfied with an art which after all was so hollow. He took up his court as an Athens and devoted himself to philosophy. This new study had an effect on the form of his literary compositions leading him to discover and adopt the style which suited his genius best. He now composed dialogues instead of speeches and abandoned the elaborate periods which were considered an essential feature of rhetoric. He is the creator of satirical dialogue. In the later years of his life indeed when the freshness of his muse was exhausted he returned to the composition of discourses. He also left Athens and accepted a public post in Egypt where he died probably in the reign of Commodus certainly later than 180 AD. The dialogues of the gods are the best known and most original of Lucian's works. Among the most witty and amusing are those in which the satirical philosopher Minipus recounts his experiences in the underworld and describes visits which having put on the wings of Icarus he made to the moon and Olympus. The subject of the Charon is a visit which the ferrymen of sticks made to the upper world. Parnassus is placed on the top of Ossa and Olympus and from the summit Charon gazes upon the world of men and their follies. In all these dialogues Lucian contends against superstition with the weapons of ridicule and exposes the absurdities of pagan theology by ludicrous situations. In others he attacks the gods more directly. In Zeus under examination an Epicurean philosopher examines the god as to the incompatibility of the necessity of fate with the free will of the gods and reduces him to a dilemma. The dialogue entitled Timan the misanthrope is also very clever. Of those dialogues which ridicule philosophical imposter the most striking perhaps is Hermitimus which aims at showing the mistake of accepting any philosophical system. The cynic is very bitter against the cynics and shows the follies of rejecting the good things which nature offers us. The philosopher's auction and the parasite must also be mentioned. The Lexifanus is an attack on the euphoists of his own day. Lucian also composed some works in epistolary form. Alexander or the false prophet gives a biography of the caliostro of that day. An imposter who professed to have divine powers and work all sorts of miracles and who closely resembled Apollonius of Tyana. The peregrinus is another attack on the cynics. The professor of rhetoric is a bitter caricature of a rhetorician or sophist and was probably aimed at some particular person. The celebrated pamphlet How History Should Be Written ridicules writers who undertook to describe the contemporary War of 165 AD in the style of Thucydides or Herodotus. Other works which deserve mention are The True Stories, a satire on contemporary novelists and the romance entitled Lucius or Ass which has already been referred to in connection with Apollonius. There is a great charm about Lucian's graceful and easy style. He had mastered with marvellous thoroughness the Attic Idiom and his is one of the few cases in which a return to the speech and style of ancient models has been happy and effective. He was unusually well read in the great works of classical literature and not the least attraction in his writings is that one is ever coming across a phrase of Homer an echo of Aristophanes or a reminiscence of Plato. Greek poetry had wholly declined. The only kind of poetical composition still practiced with any success was Epigram. The poetess Balbila has already been mentioned as accompanying the Empress Sabina on her visit to Egypt. Opium of Coricus in Cilicia wrote a work on fishing in five books entitled Halutica. The hexameters flow easily enough but it has no poetic merit. Opium's father was banished but the son won the favor of Marcus Aurelius 169 AD and procured his father's pardon. The date of Babrius is uncertain but he certainly lived in the first or second century AD. He wrote a collection of esopic fables in two books. The meter is coleyambic. Nearly all the stories are taken from older sources but a few seem to have been invented by the author. End of Chapter 29 Chapter 30 Section 1 Of H. B. Buries The Student's Roman Empire Part 2 This is a Librivox recording. All Librivox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit Librivox.org The Student's Roman Empire Part 2 By John Bagnell Burie Chapter 30 The Roman World under the Empire Politics Philosophy Religion and Art Section 1 The Political Development of the Principet It will be well here to recapitulate the chief features which we have observed from time to time in foregoing pages as marking the political development of the Principet from its inauguration by Augustus to the death of Marcus Aurelius. In the first place the relations between the Emperor and the Senate in their joint rule gradually shift to the advantage of the Emperor at the expense of the Senate. The diary instituted by Augustus has set a long way in the direction of pure monarchy by the time of Marcus. In general the unlimited autocratic power which the Emperor possessed in the large dominion subject to his Imperium reacted on his limited power in Rome and Italy. The man who was absolute monarch abroad could hardly help working towards the acquisition of absolute power at home also and if he worked towards it he could not help winning it. In particular the constitutional position of the Principes was strengthened by new prerogatives especially by the sensorial power which was openly usurped by Domitian and silently adopted by his more tactful successors. The sphere of the Emperor's competence in Italy and Rome was enlarged. His province was enlarged by the acquisition of new territories especially Britain and Dacia. His power of interfering in senatorial provinces by virtue of his Mayus Imperium was more clearly recognized and more frequently exercised. None of these tendencies has reached its final consummation at the end of the second century but it is already quite evident to what point the Empire is drifting. The doer he will be subverted and the Principes will become an absolute monarch. The distinction between Italy and the provinces will disappear and the distinction between senatorial and imperial provinces will be obliterated and therefore when those characteristic principles which distinguish the principle from other forms of monarchical government have been undermined the principle itself will come to an end 285 AD and an undisguised autocraty will take its place. Practically indeed though not theoretically the emperors of the second century were very nearly absolute monarchs Ovid had distinguished Augustus from Romulus as the Principes from Adominus but a hundred years later the Principes in generally addressed as Dominus. In the first century there is a continuous struggle sometimes acute between the two members of the doer he. In the second century the struggle is over the senate acknowledges its master without murmuring and the emperors find it convenient to be extremely conciliatory and considerate in their relations with that body. As a political machine the principle cannot be pronounced a success it is hardly perhaps fair to say that it rested on a transparent falsehood it certainly professed to be a republic whereas in reality it was a monarchy it disguised monarchical government under republican forms but this one of Kandor which was essential to it cannot in itself be reasonably called a fault if the maintenance of republican forms had given general satisfaction it could not be censured the real fault was that the disguise did not succeed the principle did not accomplish the object which was the sole justification of such a cumbersome machine it did not satisfy the higher classes in whose hands the government had rested before and after the dictatorship of Caesar the aristocracy had governed so badly that monarchy was necessary but when monarchy was established the aristocracy could not with impunity be disregarded thus the problem said to the new monarch was to frame a constitution of such a kind that the aristocracy should have a sufficient share in the government to satisfy them and congenial political employment that the ingenious experiment which Augustus made to solve this problem was a failure is proved by the history of the first century and the writings of Tacitus a form of government in which a large and influential class or a large section of such a class does not acquiesce or only acquiesces through fear is so far a failure one cannot sympathize with the desire of men like Tracia and Helvides to recall the republic but their opposition shows the weak point of the principle the aristocracy no longer felt themselves free if Augustus had had the experience of modern Europe and known something about the working of ministries he might have made a better attempt at establishing a monarchy to which the nobles would have been more easily reconciled the military side of the empire becomes more pronounced the elevation of both Claudius and Nero was due to the attitude of the military forces at Rome the events of the year 69 AD proved still more clearly that the creation of emperors depended on the armies and showed too that they need not be created at Rome Trajan was a military monarch and in his time the title emperor begins to come into common use instead of princeps to designate the emperor without special reference to his position as commander-in-chief another tendency which we have frequently noticed is the growing importance of the provinces it was the provincial administration which above all things had made the empire a necessity and it was in the provincial administration above all things that the empire was a success the elevation of emperors of provincial family beginning with Trajan is in itself an important sign of the tendency to promote the provinces to the level of Italy the Roman senate ever since the censorship of Vespasian was recruited from provincial as well as Italian families the extension of Roman citizenship was destined to reach its culmination only 32 years after the death of Marcus when the Constitutio Antoniniana of Caracalla conferred it on all the subjects of the empire 212 AD the tendency to political uniformity between the various parts of the empire is one of the many tendencies perceptible in the second century which were destined to weaken and disintegrate the empire closely connected with it is the policy of limiting the local self-government of both Italian and provincial communities a policy which was ultimately a result in a thorough going centralization and to paralyze municipal life throughout the Roman world on the other hand the policy of converting non-municipal into municipal communities was largely adopted another sign of what was to come hereafter may be seen in the revolt of Avidius Cassius which suggests the division and opposition of interests between the eastern and western halves of the empire the wars of Marcus on the Danube are a foretaste of the danger which menaced the empire from the barbarians of central Europe a hundred years before the war of the Chivalrys had shown conspicuously as a strength of the empire but the Marco Manic war rather displayed its weak points the system of foreign settlements in Roman territory and its significance have been set forth in the foregoing chapter the institution of II Augusti is also a step in the direction of disintegration Christianity which was destined to help in the weakening of the state begins to attract attention but the weakest point of the empire was its financial administration the ancients had very little knowledge of economical causes and effects but it is difficult to see how even they could fail to discern the results to which the cheap distribution of grain at Rome necessarily led an immense sum was spent every year in order to keep bread cheap in a city where a variety of circumstances tended to make it dear the singular system of annihilating capital and ruining agriculture and industry was so deeply rooted in the Roman administration that similar gratuitous distributions of grain were established at Antioch and Alexandria and other cities the depreciation of coinage had begun with Nero and paved the way for the public frauds committed by this means on a gigantic scale by some of the emperors of the third century this policy tended to diminish and ultimately destroyed a large part of the trading capital in the empire the laws which regulate the distribution the accumulation and the destruction of wealth the demand for labor and the gains of industry attest that the depreciation of the currency was one of the most powerful causes of the impoverishment and the population of the roman empire in the third century manors have an important influence on economy and luxury was one of the direct causes of the financial difficulties which induced emperors to adopt the dangerous experiment of depreciating the currency the costliest articles of roman luxury were imported from the east and immense sums of species were drafted every year to oriental countries and never returned the Elder Pliny speaks of the Arabs as the richest people in the world for the treasures of the romans and the Parthiaus flow into them the same writer mentions that the luxury of roman woman cost the state a hundred million sistercies about 800 000 pounds yearly which went to arabia, india and china but though we can detect in the second century these small beginnings of causes which were subsequently fatal to the roman state no one at that time could possibly dream of such results the period from Tarjan to the outbreak of the plague under Marcus is the most brilliant period of the empire never was prosperity more widely diffused seldom was the individual subject more respectfully considered than under Antonius Pius this general happiness of a large portion of the world is a pleasant prospect though rendered somewhat melancholy by the thought of the troubles which immediately followed but the second century has a far higher significance in the history of the world then began a period of legislation the like of which men have never seen either before or since the roman genius for legal construction entered on the highest phase of its development Hadrian inaugurated Pius and Marcus fostered the movement which was to produce Papinin and Ulpian the principles of jurisprudence which were developed then form the basis of the law which at present prevails in most countries of continental europe but it is worthy of note that the spirit of humanity which animated the roman legislators of this period was probably a source of weakness for the empire it was a departure from the general traditions of roman antiquity a simultaneous movement in the direction to which not only christianity but also the later greek philosophies were pointing having reviewed the political tendencies of the empire we may now proceed to a brief survey of contemporary philosophy and religion end of chapter 30 section 1 recording by chris karan the student's roman empire part 2 by john bagnell buri chapter 30 the world under the empire politics philosophy religion and art section 2 philosophy and philosophers the later greek philosophies which subordinated theory to practice and pursue knowledge mainly as a means to happiness had been introduced at rom in the second century bc sincero made a special study of them and his numerous treaties contributed largely to making the latin world familiar with the tents of the stoics and the epicureans the akademicans the parapatex and the septics the three last named schools although they possessed considerable interest in the special history of philosophy were not prominent under the empire and did not at this time exercise much influence on the spiritual development of mankind the parapatex who were the most important of the three chiefly confine themselves to the exposition of the writings of aristotle but stoicism and uretheism claim our attention as representing an important side of the spiritual life of our period the apurean school held that the supreme good was happiness and that happiness consisted in pleasure virtue they said has no value except in so far as it is a means to enjoying pleasure but the wise man will seek pleasure for the whole of life not merely for the moment hence he will reject many momentary pleasures which may entail pains afterwards and he will pay greater attention to the pleasures of hope and memory and to spiritual joy than to sensual pleasures the supreme good is thus reduced to a mental condition of tranquility which nothing could shake and this condition is impossible according to epicurus without the practice of virtue and especially of temperance above all man must learn not to fear death and not to be superstitious the epicureans adopted the atomic theory of the universe and did not believe in the existence of the gods or of a guiding provenance their theories were presented to the roman world in the great poem of lucratus who came forward as a champion against the terrors of religion under the empire the school continued to exist and attracted those who desired to lead a tranquil life and were repelled by the asterisk system of the stoics horus who called himself a peg of the drove of epicurus endeavored to realize this cheerful tranquility the stoic philosophy which was originated by zeno and developed by trisapus based its system of morality on a physical theory of the universe the stoics held that all things are corporal there is no spiritual as distinguished from material substance hence they considered god and nature to be the same god is the soul of nature and nature the body of god the universe is a whole of which all the parts are bound together by law in a rational order the parts are strictly subordinate to the whole no single thing is at liberty to isolate itself from the spreadable of the rational order of the world they deduced their ethics the supreme good some benune for the individual is to live in harmony with the whole of which he is a part to live suitably to nature javera contivera neturcs this is virtue and virtue is the supreme tool hence the stoics reject pleasure as of no moral worth for it is merely a personal end of individual it and has no part in the supreme good they also reject all external goods regarding them as morally indifferent such things may be used well or ill to be without them does not affect man's true happiness the only good is virtue and the only evil vice moreover they did not admit any decree in virtue and vice all good acts they said are equally right all bad acts equally wrong their ethics culminated in the paradoxal idea of the wiseman he the perfect stoic philosopher knows everything he is the true lawgiver the true physician the true poet the true friend for he alone has true knowledge of all things human and divine he may have never cinched a shoe in his life but yet he is a good shoemaker he is only responsible to himself for his actions therefore he is lord of himself and king this ethical ideal of stochism is the purest and original form made it exclusive and highly unpopular a philosophy which set up virtue as the sole good and accounted all other things as valueless could not be acceptable to ordinary people a system which upheld the absolute sovereignty of reason was not likely to spread widely and Seneca who is essentially a man of compromise presents us with a much milder form of stoicism than that of his Greek masters he then goes so far as to say that is that he is bust who is least bad like the older stoics he holds that the distinction between God and nature is not primary the ethical importance of God's providence he also goes further than they in making morality the man-purpose of philosophy it is easy to see that the circumstances of the age influence the spirit of the stoic teaching the decadence of morals and the despotism of such emperors as Kagula and Nero made men tight with great seriousness then problem of finding a firm vantage ground within the mind itself from which to defy fortune the feeling of human weakness was also brought home to men in new days and this produced a feeling of sympathy and indulgence which soften the rigorous principle of stoic sight of sufficientness we can mark these effects in the writings of Seneca no one has taught with more enthusiasm than he to independence on external tillings which philosophy can give the chief condition of happiness is contempt of death and no ancient philosopher has insisted more strongly on the importance of universal philanthropy which does not exclude even the slave God he says dwells in the soul of the slave as well as in that of the night Musinus Rufus a younger contemporary of Seneca taught philosophy at Rome in the reign of Nero and Vespasian and enjoyed a high reputation he was a friend of pastus Thera and a member of the stoic party of opposition and was banished by Nero in 65 AD it has been mentioned before that he was honorably accepted when Vespasian ejected the philosophers from Rome he seems to have been a man of strong nature and to have exercised a great influence on his pupils in strengthening their moral character every one of us said a distinguished pupil of his thought as he sat listening that he was personally meant so vividly did our master bring the evil qualities of each home to him Musinus did not introduce new doctrines the distinctive character of his teaching lay in emphasizing strongly and perhaps extravagantly special doctrines philosophy he said is the only way to virtue a philosopher and a good man are synonymous Musinus was the teacher of the celebrated Apecchius a native of Heropolis in Phygra a slave of Nero's freedmen Ephra Proditis he was lame and of weakly body he hired the lectures of Musinus and devoted himself to philosophy afterwards he acquired his freedom under Domenton he was banished with the other philosophers from home and retired to Nicopolis where Orion was one of his pupils hence he is described by a modern poet as that halting slave who in Nicopoli taught Arian when Vespasian's brutal son cleared Rome of what most shamed him like Seneca and Mosoes he laid the whole weight of philosophy in ethics Socrates had taught that the beginning of philosophy is a painful consciousness of one's ignorance Ipecchius taught that the beginning of philosophy is a painful consciousness of one's weakness in order to be good a man must be convinced that he is evil there are two rules for realizing happiness the first is to bear with regulation all outward circumstances the second is to renounce desires of outward things these may be expressed in two words Susslin and Epstein he insists strongly on divine province the paternal care of God for the world and the faultless perfection of the universe he tries to reconcile the popular religion with his philosophical pantheism by explaining the gods as subordinate beings derived from the supreme being all things are full of girls and demons he seems to have believed in the immortality of the soul though it is not clear what form his theory of his life after death assumed he looks upon the soul as a stranger to the body longing to leave it thou art a little soul he said bearing up a corpse the brotherhood of mankind is a prominent feature of his teaching Marcus Arulis was a great admirer of the epitous whom he follows closely he neglects physics and dialectics and denies that much knowledge is necessary for leading the life of the wise man the chief theories on which he builds up his ethical precepts are the doctrine which the Stoics derived from Heraclitus that all things are in a constant flux every moment passing into new form and that in this great stream of the world the life of an individual is of absolutely no account on the other hand this eternal process of becoming is controlled by supreme law and serves the aims of supreme reason like epictetus he believes in gods and even says that it would not be worth living in a world without gods he also believes in spiritual revelations to men by means of dreams and prophecies perhaps the chief difference in the spirit between Marcus and Epictetus lies in the stronger emphasis which the empire lays on the duties of the individual to society in the first century BC the cynic philosophy seems to have been regarded as practically obsolete but it was revived under the empire and in Nero's sign we met a cynic named Demetris of Hyriputu a great friend of Seneca and Therasa Petsutus he was afterwards banished to an island by Vespasian his principles differed little from those of the Serios he only carried him out more unscrupulously and rudely what chiefly distinguished the paractical aid of the Stoic from the Sinek teaching was that the Stoics admitted that of indifferent things some were desirable than others whereas the cynics rejected this distinction in this matter Kepetitus had approximated to cynicism the cynics who affected simplicity in matters like dress did not wear tunics hence juvenile describes the Stoic doctrines as differing only by the tunic from the cynic in the second century Demenax was head of the cynic school at Athens and Lucian who was no lover of philosophers especially of cynics gives a favorable picture of his life and teaching on the other hand he gives a caricature of the cynics in his description of the adventurer P. Gibinus who after a desolate youth embraced Christianity then became a cynic and finally in order to make himself notorious cast himself into a funeral pyre at a celebration of the Olympian games 165 A.D. in the presence of a large concourse of spectators it seems impossible however that the true Pyrogenius was a man of moral earnestness who wished to enforce his views on the desirability of suicide by a striking example the tone and spirit of these philosophies was much the same however widely different their first principles their systems and their methods both Stoics and Epicureans believe that happiness is attainable in this life by a man's own efforts when a man is educated by philosophy to recognize that bodily pains are not real and that the true self is independent of external circumstances he attains to resignation and happiness they agreed consists in resignation knowledge makes a man free for it makes him independent of circumstances the precept of epititus sustain and abstain strikes the note of all these later philosophies men of serious and austere temperament were attracted to the porch of chiropsipus men of milder and weaker character to the garden of epicureus it is also observable that while the epicureans held their own special tents observably the stoics and other schools mutually approximated their views kekatism the combining of various doctrines selected from different systems was thus rendered easy those who professed adhesion to plateau were quite ready to adopt the parts of the stoic teaching and perpetetics were anxious to assimilate Aristotle to plateau of the spirit of compromise which was characteristic of the age Plutarch was a typical example in philosophy his adherence to the academy was loose even for that very broad in a dogmatic school it would be hard to say whether the number of stoic dogmas which he rejects exceeds that which he quotes with approval he will not adopt with plateau the equally of the sexes or with the stoics the injustice of slavery or with the pythagoreans the rights of the lower animals to justice at the hands of men yet he goes a long way with all three magnifying the position and the dignity of the house mother both by example and precept in kill eating everywhere kindness and consideration to slaves adopting even vegetarian doctrines in some of his earlier treatises though greek philosophy spread among the romans and exercise considerable influence on their leading men there was a certain lurking antipathy to it the roman character which was never wholly removed both ifyricans and stoics taught their pupils to hold aloof from public life both likewise regarded celibacy as preferable to marriage musonius indeed was an exception here were points in which they're teaching directly clashed with the interests of the community and which provoked adversion and contempt on the part of practical romans tactitis suggests that the most common function of philosophy is to serve as a cloak for idleness and he ridicules the unreasonable wisdom of the stoic musonius rufus who when the falavian army approached rome 69 ad went about among the manuals discoursing philosophy to the soldiers on the advantages of pace and the dangers of war quintillion opposed the practical statesman to the mere philosopher a vitus cassius ridiculed marcus arulis for nibb philosophical studies but in the attitude adopted to philosophy if not by the educated public at all events by the government up here is a marked difference between the first and second sentomies of the empire in the first century philosophers are regarded with suspicion narrow was not allowed to learn philosophy as a study likely to prove injurious to the character of a ruler sanica felt himself called upon to make an attempt to remove the prevailing prejudices and to show that philosophy was not inconsistent with the performance of public duties the fact that most of the leading nobles who under nero and the flavians were irreconcilable adversaries of the imperial government were professed stoics may have had a good deal to do with the attitude of distress which the emperors assumed towards philosophy stoicism became associated and identified with disloyalty after dominatin there was a reaction and the emperors of the second century from draw on the soldier to marcus the philosopher favor and encourage philosophy under marcus it was fashionable even for women to study my subject and men like the stoic eugenius rusticus and the perpetuic claudius severus held high and influential positions philosophers were always unpopular with the mass of the people their pretensions to superiority their strict moral precepts and their severe moral judgment made them disliked their weak points and their external appearance the long beard bare feet coarse cloak of the stoics were unsparingly ridiculed moreover philosophy was despised as unproductive and useless perseus in his satires introduced centurion's mocking at philosophy as a useless art big vulfians gives a horse laugh and bids a bad farthing for a hundred Greeks another laughs at the idea of growing pale or growing without of breakfast in order to meditate on a sick man's dream that nothing arises out of nothing and nothing returns into nothing it need hardly to be said that the mercantile world agree with the centurion's the rich freedman trimuk sheil in the satire icon of petroneos ordered that his epitaph could end with the words he left 30 million sentences and never heard a philosopher philosophy was also despised and disliked by rhetoricans the controversy which has been raised in modern times as to the respective educational values of classical literature and science has this parallel in the controversy which was vehemently waged under the empire between the merits of philosophy and rhetoric the rhetoricans made little of philosophy and useless for practical purposes just as votaries of science in the present century have been inclined to make little of the humanities quintillion mentions as a subject set for a declamation a man who had three children an orator a philosopher and a physician divided by property into four parts each son received a part and the fourth was to belong to him who is most useful to the state who is the fourth to be the elder seneca hated philosophy in the second century aristotias was a vehement defender of retoric verses philosophy and pronto shared the same and apathy to the favorite studies of his imperial pupil lucian makes out in his hermo timus a striking case for the utter futility of philosophic pursuits another circumstance which gave philosophy a bad name was that she frequently served as a mask for vise men who pretended to be stoics or cynics wearing long beards and professing extreme strictness often led most disillusioned livates models of propriety in public they had shameless orgies at home many a very kiss sky offense wore the guys the philosophers nor were even the genuine professors of philosophy always above the suspicion of greed of gold aristotias described them as a vicious class without our deeming virtue the towns of greece swarmed with them everywhere lucian tells us one meets in the streets their long beards their rolls of books their threadbare cloaks and their big sticks poor cobblers and carpenters gave their shops to robe about the country as begging cynics and the cynics school which had gained a new lease of vitality under the empire helped especially to bring philosophy into dispute in the second century the country was infested with begging philosophers carrying script and staff like the begging monks of the middle ages this trade was often adopted by runaway slaves and the whole class was distinguished for shameless and filth but although unpopular and mercilessly jibbed at the philosophers exercise great influence and the very existence of a multitude of serpious philosophers proves the repute which the true philosophers enjoyed it was not uncommon among the better classes at rome to retain a philosopher as a perpetual inmate of the house to be consulted on all difficulties somewhat like a father confessor of modern times in this capacity and as the heads of schools and also as traveling missionaries they exercised an important influence on public opinion the teaching of all the schools tend to promote a cosmopolitan spirit a puricism by its opposition to national sentiment and patriotism cynicism by denying all bonds of family and country sexism by the positive doctrine that all men are brothers external circumstances the immense traffic and lively intercourse which were kept up between the various peoples of the empire and its remotest provinces were favorable to cosmopolitanism we have not says Seneca shut ourselves up in the walls of a city but opened an intercourse with the whole world we have declared ourselves citizens of the world it is clear that the growth of this spirit prepared mankind for the reception of the christian idea of human fellowship one of the most striking facts in the early empire was the frequency of suicide among the higher classes in rome no system of philosophy regarded self-destruction as a crime and the ancients in general did not look upon it with the same eye as modern societies in the age of the early caesars the doctrine was empathetically preached that it was each man's inalienable right to leave the world at pleasure the stoics who held that death was not an evil regarded the power of self-destruction as an estimable privilege familacity with the bloody scenes in the area blunted men's horror of death and on the other hand the example of their hero kato katanas terrible let him made suicide popular with the aristocracy and thus the discontented nobles were ready to engage in desperate conspiracies which had little chance of success and be take themselves to a voluntary death when the plot was discovered the admiration in which area the wife of basetus was held shows how honorably suicide was esteemed in the first century ad when her husband had sentenced him for conspiracy with the scurbionis she determined to die with him and having given herself the first blow ended him the dagger saying it is not painful her relations had attempted to dissuade her from her resolution and when theressa her son-in-law asked her whether she would wish her daughter to destroy herself under similar circumstances she answered yes if she shall have lived with you as long and as harmlessly as i have with my patus when they kept watch over her actions she said you can make me die painfully but cannot hinder me from dying and leaping up dash your head against the wall i told you she said on recovering from the shock i would find a way of death however hard if you denied me an easy one the younger plenty tells the story with the greatest admiration end of chapter 30 section 2 recording by chris coran ham lake minnesota