Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 11-26-2006, 06:01 AM

M.Antonius "christian obstinacy" reference
is located at Meditations, 11:3):

George Longs English translation:

Quote:

"What a soul that is which is ready, if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished or dispersed or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man's own judgement, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately and with dignity and in a way to persuade another, without tragic show.

Or if you prefer the Latin:

Quote:

3. Qualis, est animus paratus, si jam debeat a corpore solvi et vel exstingui vel dissolvi vel permanere. Haec tamen
promptitudo ut a singulari judicio proficiscatur, nequaquam e mera obstinatione, ut in Christianis, sed re bene deliberata,
et cum gravitate et, ut etiam alit id persuadere possis, sine fastu tragico.

Can anyone tell me who is the first ecclesiastical historian to cite
this christian reference in M.Antoninus?

As far as I can tell it was not Eusebius.

The following text I have noted as being supplementary notes on HE book 5, however I cannot for the moment remember the author of these notes:

Quote:

On Bk. IV. chap. 1O.

For the Pious, read Pius.

On Bk. IV. chap. 18, § 2.

For the Pious, read Pius.

On Bk. V. Introd. § I (note 3, continued). The Successors of Antoninus Pius.

Antoninus Pius was succeeded in 161 by his adopted sons, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Verus and Lucius Ceionius Aelius Aurelius Commodus Antoninus. Upon his accession to the throne the former transferred his name Verus to the latter, who was thenceforth called Lucius Aurelius Verus.

In his Chronicle Eusebius keeps these two princes distinct,
but in his History he falls into sad confusion in regard to them,
and this confusion has drawn upon him the severe censure of all his critics.

He knew of course, as every one did, that Antoninus Pius had two successors.
In Bk. IV. chap. 14, § 1O, he states this directly,
and gives the names of the successors as "Marcus Aurelius Verus,
who was also called Antoninus," and "Lucius."
From that point on he calls the former of these princes simply
Antoninus Verus, Antoninus, or Verus, dropping entirely the name Marcus Aurelius.

In Bk. IV. chap. 18, § 2, he speaks of the emperor
"whose times we are now recording," that is, the successor of Antoninus Pius,
and calls him Antoninus Verus.

In Bk. V. Introd. § I he refers to the same emperor as Antoninus Verus,
and in Bk. V. chap. 4, § 3, and chap. 9, he calls him simply Antoninus,
while in Bk. IV. chap. 13, § 8, he speaks of him as the "Emperor Verus."
The death of this Emperor Antoninus is mentioned in Bk. V. chap. 9,
and it is there said that he reigned nineteen years and was then succeeded by Commodus.
It is evident that in all these passages he is referring
to the emperor whom we know as Marcus Aurelius,
but to whom he gives that name only once,
when he records his accession to the empire.

On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 5, § 1, Eusebius speaks of Marcus Aurelius Caesar
and expressly distinguishes him from the Emperor Antoninus,
to whom he has referred at the close of the previous chapter,
and makes him the brother of that emperor.

Again, in the same chapter, § 6, he calls this Marcus Aurelius Caesar,
just referred to, the "Emperor Marcus," still evidently distinguishing
him from the Emperor Antoninus. In this chapter, therefore,
he thinks of Marcus Aurelius as the younger of the two sons left by Antoninus Pius;
that is, he identifies him with the one whom we call Lucius Verus,
and whom he himself calls Lucius in Bk. IV. chap. 14 § 1O.
Eusebius thus commits a palpable error.
How are we to explain it?

The explanation seems to me to lie in the circumstance that Eusebius attempted to reconcile
the tradition that Marcus Aurelius was not a persecutor with the fact known to him as a historian,
that the emperor who succeeded Antoninus Pius was.
It was the common belief in the time of Eusebius, as it had been during the entire preceding century,
that all the good emperors had been friendly to the Christians, and that only the bad emperors had persecuted.
Of course, among the good emperors was included the philosophical Marcus Aurelius
(cf. e.g. Tertullian's Apol. chap. 5, to which Eusebius refers in Bk. V. chap. 5).
It was of Marcus Aurelius, moreover, that the story of the Thundering Legion was told (see ibid.).
But Eusebius was not able to overlook the fact that numerous martyrdoms occurred
during the reign of the successor of Antoninus Pius.
He had the documents recording the terrible persecution at Lyons and Vienne;
he had an apology of Melito, describing the hardships which the Christians
endured under the same emperor (see Bk. IV. chap. 26).

He found himself, as an historian, face to face
with two apparently contradictory lines of facts.
How was the contradiction to be solved?
He seems to have solved it by assuming
that a confusion of names had taken place,
and that the prince commonly known as Marcus Aurelius,
whose noble character was traditional,
and whose friendship to the Christians he could not doubt,
was the younger, not the older of the two brothers,
and therefore not responsible for the numerous martyrdoms
which took place after the death of Antoninus Pius.
And yet he is not consistent with himself even in his History;
for he gives the two brothers their proper names when he first mentions them,
and says nothing of an identification of Marcus Aurelius with Lucius.
It is not impossible that the words Marcus Aurelius,
which are used nowhere else of the older brother, are an interpolation;
but for this there is no evidence, and it may be suggested as more probable
that at the time when this passage was written the solution of the difficulty
which he gives distinctly in Bk. V. chap. 5 had not yet occurred to him.
That he should be able to fancy that Marcus Aurelius was identical with Lucius
is perhaps not strange when we remember how much confusion was caused
in the minds of other writers besides himself by the perplexing identity
of the names of the various members of the Antonine family.
To the two successors of Antoninus Pius, the three names,
Aurelius, Verus, and Antoninus, alike belonged.
It is not surprising that Eusebius should under the circumstances
think that the name Marcus may also have belonged to the younger one.
This supposition would seem to him to find some confirmation in the fact
that the most common official designation of the older successor of Antoninus Pius
was not Marcus Aurelius, but Antoninus simply, or M. Antoninus.
The name Marcus Aurelius or Marcus was rather a popular than an official designation.
Even in the Chronicle there seems to be a hint that Eusebius thought of a possible distinction
between Antoninus the emperor and Marcus, or Marcus Aurelius;
for while he speaks of the "Emperor Antoninus" at the beginning of the passages
in which he recounts the story of the Thundering Legion (year of Abr. 2188),
he says at the close: literae quoque exstant Marci regis
(the M. Aureli gravissimi imperatoris of Jerome looks like a later expansion of the simpler original)
quibus testatur copias suas iamiam perituras Christianorum precibus servatas esse.
But even when he had reached the solution pointed out,
Eusebius did not find himself clear of difficulties;
for his sources put the occurrence of the Thundering Legion after the date
at which the younger brother was universally supposed to have died,
and it was difficult on still other grounds to suppose the prince named Marcus Aurelius
already dead in 169 (the date given by Eusebius himself inhis Chronicle for the death of Lucius).
In this emergency he came to the conclusion that there must be some mistake
in regard to the date of his death, and possessing no record of the death
of Marcus Aurelius as distinct from Antoninus, he simply passed it by without mention.

That Eusebius in accepting such a lame theory
showed himself altogether too much under the influence
of traditional views cannot be denied;
but when we remember that the tradition that Marcus Aurelius
was not a persecutor was supported by writers
whose honesty and accuracy he could never have thought of questioning,
as well as by the very nature of the case, we must,
while we smile at the result, at least admire his effort
to solve the contradiction which he, as an historian,
felt more keenly than a less learned man,
unacquainted with the facts on the other side,
would have done.

On Bk. VI. chap. I, § 27 (note 26, continued).

See also Bk. VIII. chap. 1O, note 5.

Eusebius appears not to give much, in fact appears to give
our author here very little recognition, perhaps negative.
ie: Eusebius avoids M.Antoninus and his mention, for some
reason --- not necessarily covered above.

Does anyone know whether the work "Meditations" of
M.Aurelius would have been widely read in antiquity,
whether it is cited by many other authors?

Otherwise I can find no reference in Eusebius to the reference
of M.Aurelius Antoninus (Emperor 160-180) in his genuinely
inspiring work, called today "Meditations".

Can anyone advise which author first cites this reference in M.Antoninus?
Thanks for any pointers.

Pete Brown
Authors of Antiquity

mountainman · 03-24-2007, 06:00 AM

Perhaps someone will assist me here to recall the dating of
a purported event. Namely some sort of "jain monk" (?)
who set himself alight and burned to death in the first or second
century, mentioned by perhaps a few sources.

Toto · 03-24-2007, 10:37 AM

Are you thinking of the Hindu warrior who fought with Alexander the Great's forces and returned with them to Greece, who committed sati? Or other cases of sati observed by Alexander's entourage in India?

mountainman · 03-24-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Are you thinking of the Hindu warrior who fought with Alexander the Great's forces and returned with them to Greece, who committed sati? Or other cases of sati observed by Alexander's entourage in India?

Perhaps I am, however I wondered if there was a more
recent citation, and one specifically in the 300 year
prenice epoch. It had to do with a public display of
suicide by fire, somewhere in the Roman empire.

Ecrasez L'infame · 03-25-2007, 05:27 AM

As it happens, I'm currently reading Gregory Hays' 2003 translation of Meditations (or via: amazon.co.uk), and Hays' endnote for 11.3 says "This ungrammatical phrase [like the Christians] is almost certainly a marginal comment by a later reader; there is no reason to think Marcus had the Christians in mind here." In his translator's intro, Hays outlines (what seems to be) his own theory that the distinction between "good" and "bad" emperors had more to do with how well they got on with the senate than what they did - this for the simple reason that most and the best historians were senators. If so, then it may be that the rule "only 'bad' emperors persecuted Christians" is built upon the already exiting distinction, rather than on the actual facts or otherwise of persecutions.

mountainman · 03-25-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecrasez L'infame

As it happens, I'm currently reading Gregory Hays' 2003 translation of Meditations (or via: amazon.co.uk), and Hays' endnote for 11.3 says "This ungrammatical phrase [like the Christians] is almost certainly a marginal comment by a later reader; there is no reason to think Marcus had the Christians in mind here."

Thanks EL, this is an interesting additional bit of information.
Does anyone happen to know whether any other author, and/or
translator of "Meditations" have made any mention of this 11.3 ref?

I would be particularly interested in similar claims of late interpolation.
However I have absolutely no citation (yet) between the dates of
c.167 CE (when it was purportedly written) and 2003 with G.Hay.
Surely someone else must have made a comment about this reference
in the intervening centuries?

Quote:

In his translator's intro, Hays outlines (what seems to be) his own theory that the distinction between "good" and "bad" emperors had more to do with how well they got on with the senate than what they did - this for the simple reason that most and the best historians were senators. If so, then it may be that the rule "only 'bad' emperors persecuted Christians" is built upon the already exiting distinction, rather than on the actual facts or otherwise of persecutions.

It may well be the case that we are dealing with "The Good, the Bad
and the Ugly" when the facts of history are placed in their appropriate
perspective. It is notable that the only historians under Constantine
were "ecclesiastical", and in fact Arnaldo Momigliano goes so far as to
charge Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea as the inventor of a new form
of historiography.

Certainly, if we are to consider the claim that "most and the best
historians were senators" we need to understand that under
Constantine there was created a second senate for "The City
of Constantine", whereas before this date, the Roman senate
was singular.

jgibson000 · 03-25-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It may well be the case that we are dealing with "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" when the facts of history are placed in their appropriate perspective. It is notable that the only historians under Constantine were "ecclesiastical", and in fact Arnaldo Momigliano goes so far as to charge Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea as the inventor of a new form
of historiography.

For the umpteenth time, M. says no such thing. And you are persistently misreading and misrepresenting him when you say he does.

Nor does M say, as you would see if you actually went to a library and took the time to read his The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography and The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, nor is it a fact, that the only historians under Constantine were "ecclesiastical" ones.

What he does charge Eusebius with is being a better historian than others before him in realizing the necessity of providing as much documentation for his historical claims as possible and in dealing with subjects beyond that of a city's/state's wars or its political history or its ethnic origins.

So would you please leave off with this boring, incessant, one note nonsense. Or if you won't, will you please then have the courage of your convictions to step beyond this little soapbox and submit your views to one of the standard Classics or Late Antiquity journals. Or if not that, post it to the Classics List or to Late Antiquity where there reside people who knew M. and are familiar, as you are not, with Classical and Ecclesiastical history, historians, history writing, and historiography.

JG

mountainman · 03-26-2007, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

For the umpteenth time, M. says no such thing. And you are persistently misreading and misrepresenting him when you say he does.

Needless to say, I believe you are in error of judgement
on this issue, and have created another thread.

Quote:

Nor does M say, as you would see if you actually went to a library and took the time to read his The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography and The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, nor is it a fact, that the only historians under Constantine were "ecclesiastical" ones.

I am waiting for citation in two threads for this one.
Constantine was a despot, and controlled his propaganda
as successfully as his military enterprises.

Quote:

What he does charge Eusebius with is being a better historian than others before him in realizing the necessity of providing as much documentation for his historical claims as possible and in dealing with subjects beyond that of a city's/state's wars or its political history or its ethnic origins.

Momigliano is clear unenthusiastic (to be polite)
about the figure of Eusebius. This is a second count
where IMO your judgement is in error.

Quote:

So would you please leave off with this boring, incessant, one note nonsense. Or if you won't, will you please then have the courage of your convictions to step beyond this little soapbox and submit your views to one of the standard Classics or Late Antiquity journals. Or if not that, post it to the Classics List or to Late Antiquity where there reside people who knew M. and are familiar, as you are not, with Classical and Ecclesiastical history, historians, history writing, and historiography.

JG

But are such academicians used to having their papers
destroyed, and burnt by fire, with the death penalty for
the secretion of academic papers in a malevolent regime
reponsible for the simultaneaous publication of the "Holy
Constantine Bible"?

Ask them on my behalf.
I'd be interested in their considered response.

andrewcriddle · 03-27-2007, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Perhaps someone will assist me here to recall the dating of
a purported event. Namely some sort of "jain monk" (?)
who set himself alight and burned to death in the first or second
century, mentioned by perhaps a few sources.

I haven't checked the primary texts but from secondary sources an embassy sent to Augustus from Pandya maybe c CE 13 contained an Indian religious zealot who burned himself alive at Athens.

Sources apparently Strabo book 16 and Dio Cassius book 54 (probably based on an account by Nicolaus of Damascus.)

Plutarch apparently mentions somewhere the tomb of this zealot and records its inscription which has been interpreted as denoting a Buddhist monk.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhis...he_Roman_world

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse · 03-27-2007, 09:17 AM

Apropos of Nicolaus of Damascus; I learned at the weekend that an autobiography exists, and also parts of a life of Augustus. I'm not sure if the former has ever been translated into English.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-24-2007, 06:00 AM	#2
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Perhaps someone will assist me here to recall the dating of a purported event. Namely some sort of "jain monk" (?) who set himself alight and burned to death in the first or second century, mentioned by perhaps a few sources.

03-24-2007, 10:37 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Are you thinking of the Hindu warrior who fought with Alexander the Great's forces and returned with them to Greece, who committed sati? Or other cases of sati observed by Alexander's entourage in India?

03-25-2007, 05:27 AM	#5
Ecrasez L'infame Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: London, United States of Europe. Posts: 172	As it happens, I'm currently reading Gregory Hays' 2003 translation of Meditations (or via: amazon.co.uk), and Hays' endnote for 11.3 says "This ungrammatical phrase [like the Christians] is almost certainly a marginal comment by a later reader; there is no reason to think Marcus had the Christians in mind here." In his translator's intro, Hays outlines (what seems to be) his own theory that the distinction between "good" and "bad" emperors had more to do with how well they got on with the senate than what they did - this for the simple reason that most and the best historians were senators. If so, then it may be that the rule "only 'bad' emperors persecuted Christians" is built upon the already exiting distinction, rather than on the actual facts or otherwise of persecutions.

03-27-2007, 09:17 AM	#10
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Apropos of Nicolaus of Damascus; I learned at the weekend that an autobiography exists, and also parts of a life of Augustus. I'm not sure if the former has ever been translated into English. All the best, Roger Pearse

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.