people of third-century Rome. Similar instances may be found not far from home which have perhaps less justification, when we consider that the cause of offense here was ceremonies, not vital creeds.
A word may also be said concerning the objects which Antonine's biographers had in view when they condemned what we should — at first sight — have expected them to praise in the Emperor's life.
As we have already pointed out, Constantine's determination to impose Christianity on the empire led to grave opposition, chiefly from the adherents of the similarly monotheistic cult of Mithra, a cult which was certainly identified with that of Elagabal, the only God. It was — if on that account alone — obviously necessary that, not only the opposing religion, but also the chief exponent of that worship, should come in for severe censure at the hands of the fourth century monotheism.
As one reads the story of Antonine's life, one is struck not so much by the record of his perverse sexualities, about which no one can have known anything definite, and which, even if the reports be true, we are bound to regard as congenital, in the light of modern research, as we are by the record of his religious fanaticism. This trait is, and in all probability justly, considered to be reprehensible. It is not, however, restricted to the Emperor in question; probably everybody has come across it, in one form or another, during the course of his life; some have even suffered under its potency.
