Marcus Aurelius (Haines 1916)/Note on Christians

by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

Layout 2

NOTE ON THE ATTITUDE OF MARCUS TOWARDS THE CHRISTIANS

WITH

HIS EDICT ADDRESSED TO THE COMMON ASSEMBLY OF ASIA

Marcus and the Christians.

(i. 6, iii. 16, vii. 68, viii. 48. 51, xi. 3.)

Nothing has done the good name of Marcus so much harm as his supposed uncompromising attitude towards the Christians, and in this connexion great emphasis has been laid upon a passage in the present book where the Christians, according to our accepted text, are mentioned. It will be worth while to examine this and certain other passages in the book and see if they throw any light on Marcus real sentiments towards the Christians.

Taking xi. 3 first, we note that παράταξις, which is persistently translated obstinacy to bring it into line with Pliny's obstinatio, does not mean obstinacy at all, but opposition.^[1] This is clear from the use of the word and its verb elsewhere by Marcus. In iii. 3 it is used in its primary sense of armies opposite one another on the field of battle. The only passage where the verb occurs (viii. 48) is very instructive. "Remember," he says, "that the riding Reason shows itself unconquerable when, concentrated in itself, it is content with itself, so it do nothing that it doth not will, even if it refuse from mere unreasoning opposition (κἂν ἀλόγως παρατείξηται)." Here the word is used in exactly the same connexion as in xi. 3, and by no means in a sense entirely condemnatory. It seems to me quite possible that the Emperor may have had the Christians in mind here as well as in xi. 3. Conduct such as that of the Christians was precisely what Marcus is never tired of recommending, viz., not under any compulsion to transgress the demands of the ruling Reason,^[2] and if it were found impossible to act up to the standard of right set by the conscience (τὸ ἔνδον ἱδρύμενον) owing to external causes, then to depart cheerfully from life. It appears to me that Marcus in both these passages is really approving of the resistance.

Again the actual mention of the Christians here requires to be considered. The word itself was taboo with the pagan stylists as a barbarism. Even when they are apparently alluding to Christians, such writers as Epictetus, Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, Aristides, Apuleius, Dio Cassius, Philostratus, do not use the term—much as an Arnold or a Pater would hesitate to use the word "Salvationist." We do not find it in Fronto's extant works nor Galen's. Lucian, however, employed it in the Alexander and the Peregrinus, if (which some deny) these works are by him. Marcus would no doubt have used the word, as Trajan, Pliny and Hadrian did, in rescripts and official documents, but it is a question whether his literary purism and the example of his favourite Epictetus would have allowed him to employ it in a Greek philosophical treatise. When we look at the clause, ὡς οἱ Χριστιανοί, as here inserted, we see that it is outside the construction, and in fact ungrammatical. It is in the very form of a marginal note,^[3] and has every appearance of being a gloss foisted into the text. But even if the words be omitted, Marcus may still have had the Christians in mind when he wrote the passage, which only condemns an eagerness to meet death without real justification and without due dignity.^[4]

There are other expressions in this book which seem to glance at a body of men who must have been often in Marcus's thoughts. For instance, when he speaks (vii. 68) of those who "can live out their lives in the utmost peace of mind, even though all the world cry out against them what they choose, and the beasts tear them limb from limb," he cannot be thinking of criminals in the ordinary sense of the word, for it is evident that innocent people are meant, and if so, what innocent people received such treatment? It is not at all impossible—I think it highly probable—that Marcus looked upon the Christians as misguided enthusiasts, who had to be punished as the law then stood,^[5] but whom he no more than Hadrian and Pius^[6] wished to punish. Again (vii. 51) he quotes the indignant cry of whom but the Christians? They kill us, they cut us limb from limb, they execrate us! Adding the comment: How does that prevent you from being pure, sane, sober, just? In yet another place (iii. 16), in words that point still more conclusively to the Christians, he acknowledges that to own the Intelligence as ruler and guide to what is a clear duty is found also among "those who do not believe in Gods, and those who will not stand by their country, and those who do their (evil) work behind closed doors." Now all these three were the stock charges against Christians, and who can doubt they are hinted at here? Lastly there is the reference to exorcism (i. 6),^[7] in which Marcus says that Diognetus taught him to disbelieve.

As a matter of fact, Marcus has been condemned as a persecutor of the Christians on purely circumstantial and quite insufficient grounds. The general testimony of contemporary Christian writers is against the supposition. So is the known character of Marcus. His distinguishing characteristic, in which he excelled all recorded rulers, was humanity. His φιλανθρωπία is mentioned by Galen, Dio, Philostratus, Athenagoras (twice), Melito, and Aristides (eleven times); and his humanitas by the eminent jurist Callistratus.^[8] As soon could Alexander have turned his back in the day of battle as Marcus shown cruelty to his subjects, however lowly. "Never," says Marcus in the eighth book of his self-communings, "have I willingly injured another," and Themistius (Orat. 15) records how, when penned in by his enemies in a new Caudine Forks, he raised his hands to Heaven and cried, "With this hand wherewith I have shed no blood, I appeal to Thee and beseech the Giver of life."

He had a passion for justice, and was most scrupulous in his observance of law, as Papinian, the greatest of jurists, has told us. That he should have encouraged mob-violence against unoffending persons, ordered the torture of innocent women and boys, and violated the rights of citizenship in his insensate fury, is as inconceivable as that St. Louis should have broken the Christian law or become a Mohammedan. That some Christians suffered for their religion in the reign of Marcus is most probable, though there is perhaps no single martyrdom attributed to this period of which the date^[9] is certain beyond cavil. That there was in any sense a general persecution of the Christians at this time is contrary to all the facts. There were numbers of them in Rome itself, with a Bishop at their head. There were actually Christians in the Emperor's household and probably (e.g. Apollonius) in the Senate itself. Of all these Roman Christians we only hear of Justin and his six companions being martyred, one of them being a slave of the Emperor. Other Christian slaves in the royal household survived him. If he wished to put down Christianity, why did he not begin with his own palace and with Rome?^[10]

So far from persecuting them, we know that as subordinate ruler with Pius^[11] he was responsible for the letter to the Greek cities forbidding outrages against the Christians. The letter to the Common Assembly of Asia, given below, if authentic, emanated from him in conjunction with Pius or from him alone. Its genuineness in the main has been upheld by Harnack, and is certainly capable of defence.

Letter of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia (about our religion).

 

The Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus [Armenius^[12]] Pontifex Maximus, in the fifteenth year of his Tribunate, Consul for the third time,^[13] to the Common Assembly of Asia greeting.

I am confident^[14] that the Gods also look to it that such persons should not escape detection. For it is much more their concern than yours to punish those who refuse to worship them. But you harass these men,^[15] and harden them in their conviction, to which they hold fast, by accusing them of being atheists. For indeed they would rather be thought to be accused and die for their own God than live. Consequently they even come off victorious, giving up their lives rather than comply with your demands. And with respect to the past and present earthquakes^[16] it is not amiss to remind you of them, despondent as you are whenever they occur and yet for ever contrasting your belief and conduct with theirs. They indeed show the more outspoken confidence in their God, while you during the whole time of your apparent ignorance both neglect all the other Gods and the worship of the Ever-living One,^[17] whose worshippers, the Christians, you in fact harass and persecute to the death.

And on behalf of such persons many Governors also of provinces have before now both written to our deified father, whose answer in fact was not to molest such persons unless they were shewn to be making some attempt in respect to the Roman Government,^[18] and to me also many^[19] have given information about such men, to whom indeed I also replied in accordance with my father's view. And if any one persist in bringing any such person into trouble for being what he is, let him, against whom the charge is brought, be acquitted even if the charge be made out, but let him who brings the charge be called to account.^[20]

Published at Ephesus in the Common Assembly of Asia.

Footnotes

1. Since this was written I find that M. A. P. Lemercier (Les Pensées de Marc-Aurèle, Introd. p. viii. note 2) quotes with approval E. Havet's similar interpretation. Suidas glosses παράταξις with πόλεμος ἐμπαράσκευος.
2. He says (viii. 41) that 'nothing can overbear this Reason, not steel, nor tyrant, nor obloquy.'
3. I see Lemercier holds the same view.
4. This is not much more than what Clem. Alex. says, Stromata, iv. 4. There were some egregious cases of voluntary martyrdom in Spain under the Moslems (see the present writer's Christianity and Islam in Spain, pp. 37 ff.). See also the conduct of Callistus, afterwards Bishop of Rome. Hippolytus, Refut. Haer. ix 12. Nor were philosophers exempt from the reproach of dying iactationis causa (see Digest, xxvii. 3. 6. 7).
5. This was the view of Rusticus, his 'domestic philosopher.' (See Acts of Justin Martyr.)
6. This is clear from the joint letter of Marcus and Pius to the Larissaeans, Thessalonicans, Athenians, and all the Greeks against mob-violence towards the Christians; see Melito in Eusebius, iv. 26, § 10).
7. On which see note above, and cp. Lucian, Philops. § 16 (of Christ).
8. Marcus himself in his laws repeatedly appeals to this principle. Capit. says he was noted for the mildness of his punishments, and see p. 369.
9. Dr. Abbott has given plausible reasons for doubting the date of the Lyons martyrdom, and some (e.g. Havet) deny the authenticity of the letter in Eusebius.
10. The famous caricature of the Christian religion found in the pages' quarters in the Palatine (see Lanciani, Ancient Rome 122) dates from this reign.
11. Melito says distinctly σοῦ τὰ συμπάντα διοικοῦντος αὐτῷ, Euseb. iv. 26. 10 (? πάντα συνδιοικοῦντος).
12. An unusual form for Άρμενιακός, a title not given till 163.
13. Marcus was consul for the third time and renewed his Trib. pot. for the fifteenth time in 161, in which year he became emperor on 7 March and within a few days associated Lucius Verus in the empire with himself.
14. The beginning of the rescript is apparently lost. cp. for the opening words the deorum iniuriae dis curae of Tacitus.
15. The Justin text says "charge them with disorder," and adds "and bring other charges against them which we cannot prove."
16. There were several earthquakes in Asia Minor between 138 and 180, Rhodes, Smyrna, and Cyzicus being destroyed, but the dates are not accurately settled. There was certainly one at Smyrna about 177, but that is too late. There was one at least in the reign of Pius, and the one here mentioned is supposed by some to have occurred about 152, but I think it may possibly be identified with one by which Cyzicus was chiefly affected; see Fronto, Ad Ant. 2 (A.D. 162).
17. Harnack thinks Δία should be supplied and for the following five words substitutes ἐκεῖνος δέ.
18. If this edict is by Pius, we should expect to find some such injunction in his "deified father" Hadrian's edict about the Christians (see Euseb. iv. 9), but there is none. On the other hand it may have been in the edict of Pius "to all the Greeks" mentioned by Melito (Euseb. iv. 10).
19. This is the one word in the document which does not seem consistent with the date 161, when Marcus had only just become emperor.
20. This portion of the edict seems too favourable to the Christians for even Marcus to have promulgated.