Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-9lb97 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-24T06:29:01.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marcus Aurelius a Persecutor?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Paul Keresztes
Paul Keresztes
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relative peace enjoyed by the Christians under the rule of the Emperor Antoninus Pius was followed during the next regime by an era of extraordinarily violent and massive anti-Christian movements that probably surpassed in intensity all the persecutions that the Christians endured during the first and second centuries. It is therefore not uncommon to hear the charges that Marcus Aurelius was a persecutor of the Christians; that he deliberately issued anti-Christian edicts; that the persecution under this Emperor was the first that deserved the name of persecution; that the persecutions during his rule had his sanction at least. Subsequent attempts by historians to exculpate the philosopher-emperor for his alleged responsibility — whether direct or indirect — in the persecutions under his rule are only to be expected. In contrast to these latter-day charges the ancient Christian writers, led by Justin, a victim of his rule, Melito, Athenagoras, and other writers of the same period and with hardly any exceptions, put an almost infinite trust in him and simply do not show any belief that he was a persecutor. Tertullian, in fact, roundly declared him to be a protector of the Christians. In spite of their rhetorical tendencies, they must have known better than these later historians. The absence of a clear view and historical interpretation of what happened under this philosopher-ruler is the most regrettable feature of most of the modern commentaries on the Christian problem of this era.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , July 1968 , pp. 321 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Keim, Th, Rom und Christentum (Berlin, 1881), 604ft.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dove, C. Clayton, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (London, 1930), 216–31Google Scholar; Phipps, C. B., Persecution under Marcus Aurelius, Hermathena 47 (1932), 167–201Google Scholar; Grégoire, H., Nouvelles observations sur le nombre des martyrs, B.A.B. 38 (1952), 37–60Google Scholar; Wlosok, A., Die Rechtsgrundlagen der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte, Gymnasium 66 (1959), 14–32Google Scholar; Sordi, M., Le polemiche intorno al cristianesimo nel II secolo e la loro influenza sugli sviluppi della politica imperiale verso la chiesa, Riv. di Storia d. Chiesa in Ital. 16 (1962), 1–28Google Scholar; et al.

2 The Acts of Felicitas and her seven sons is fairly generally regarded as authentic, and the martyrdoms described in it are believed to have taken place during the first years of Marcus Aurelius: Le Blant, E., Sur l'authenticité du martyre de Sainte Félicité et de ses sept fils, Comptes Rend, de l'Acad. des Inscr. et Belles-lettres, III (1875), 138–41Google Scholar; Allard, P., Histoire des Persécutions pendant les deux premiers siècles (Paris, 1885), 342ft.Google Scholar; De Rossi, G. B., Scoperta d'una cripta storica nel cimitero di Massimo, Bullet, di Archeol. Crist. (1884–85), 149–84Google Scholar; Doulcet, H., Mémoire relatif à la date du martyre de Sainte Félicité et de ses sept fils, in Essai sur les rapports de l'Église chrétienne avec l'État Romain pendant les trois premiers siècles (Paris, 1882), 187–217Google Scholar; et al. Aubé, B., Histoire des Persécutions de l'Église (Paris, 1875), 438–65Google Scholar, although with reservations, accepts the Acts as authentic, but regards the date of the martyrdoms as uncertain; et al.

3 Mémoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rhéteur Aelius Aristide (Paris, 1867), 30–39Google Scholar; Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques de l'Empire Romain, etc. (Paris, 1872), 219–21.Google Scholar

4 Meinhold, R.E. of P-W, s.v. Polycarpus; Calder, W. M., Philadelphia and Montanism, Bullet, of John Ryl. Libr. 7 (1923), 333f.Google Scholar; Amatucci, A. G., Gli Acta Martyrum e una Passio del tempo di Settimo Severo, Studi Cald. e Perib. (1956), 363–67Google Scholar; et al.

5 Syme, R., Proconsuls d'Afrique, Rev. des Études Anc. 61 (1959), 310f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; et al.

6 Grégoire, H., La véritable date du martyre de Saint Polycarpe, A.B. 69 (1951), 1–38Google Scholar, demolishes Waddington's suggestion.

7 The period 161–168/9 A.D. and, in particular, one of the last few years of this same period have found convincing supporters in Telfer, W., The Date of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, J.Th.S., n.s., III (1952), 79–83Google Scholar; Marrou, H. I., La date du martyre de S. Polycarpe, A.B. 71 (1953), 5–20Google Scholar; Simonetti, M., Alcune osservazioni sul martirio di S. Policarpo, Giorn. Ital. di Filol. 9 (1956), 328–44Google Scholar; Qualche osservazioni a proposito dell' origine degli Atti dei martiri, Rev. des Études August. 2 (1956), 39–57Google Scholar; et al. Arguments in favour of 177 A.D. are unconvincing in H. Grégoire, La véritable date etc., op. cit.; Nouvelles observations etc., op. cit.; Grégoire, H., Orgels, P., and Moreau, J., Les martyres de Pionios et Polycarpe, B.A.B. 47 (1961), 72–83Google Scholar. See also de Moreau, É., Le nombre des martyrs des persécutions romaines, B.A.B. 38 (1952), 62–70Google Scholar.

8 The Greek text of the Acts in von Gebhardt, O., Das Martyrium des h. Pionius, Arch. f. Slav. Philol. 18 (1896), 156–71Google Scholar; et al.

9 Corssen, P., Die Vita Polycarpi, Ztschr. f. nt. Wissenschaft 5 (1904), 266ff.Google Scholar; Schwartz, E., De Pionio et Polycarpo (Göttingen, 1905), 17f.Google Scholar; Robert, L., Recherches épigraphiques (IV–IX), Rev. des Études Anc. 62 (1960), 276–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar; et al.

10 H. Grégoire, Nouvelles observations etc., op. cit., esp. 49; La véritable date etc., op. cit., 13; H. Grégoire, P. Orgels, and J. Moreau, op. cit. Arguments, however, in favour of the last years of Marcus Aurelius (177–180 A.D.) are unconvincing.

11 Harnack, A., Die Akten des Karpus, des Papylus und der Agathonike, Texte u. Untersuchungen 3 (1888), 435–65Google Scholar; see also Delehaye, H., Les Actes des martyrs de Pergame, A.B. (1940), 142–76Google Scholar; et al. In favour of a date under Decius: Guibert, J., La date du martyre des saints Carpos, Papylos et Agathonice, Rev. des Quest. Hist. 83 (1908), 5–23Google Scholar; De-Regibus, L., La cronologia degli Atti di Carpo, Papilo e Agatonice, Didaskaleion 3 (1914), 305–20Google Scholar; et al.

12 Borghesi, B., Praefecti Urbis Romae in Oeuvres Complètes (Paris, 1879), 310Google Scholar; see also W. H. WAddington, Fastes etc., op. cit., 226–28.

13 S. Abercii Vita, ed. Nissen, Th. (Leipzig, 1912)Google Scholar.

14 Ramsay, W. M., The Tale of Saint Abercius, J. Hell. S. 3 (1882), 339–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Cassius Dio, LXXI, 2, 4; Orosius, VII, 15, 5f.; Vit. Marci 13, 3f.; 17, 2; 21, 6; Vit. Veri 8, 1f.; Lucian, Alex. 36; et al.

16 Gilliam, J. F., The Plague under Marcus Aurelius, A.J.Ph. 82 (1961), 225–51.Google Scholar

17 Beaujeu, J., La Religion Romaine à l'Apogée de l'Empire, I (Paris, 1955), 340–42Google Scholar; Schwendemann, J, Der histor. Wert d. Vita Marci (Heidelberg, 1923), 54–58Google Scholar; Zwicker, W., Studien zur Markussäule (Amsterdam, 1941), 64ff.Google Scholar; et al.

18 Tacitus, Ann. XV, 44.

19 Keresztes, P., The Massacre at Lugdunum in 177 A.D., Historia 16 (1967), 75–86.Google Scholar

20 Sordi, M., I “nuovi decreti” di Marco Aurelio contro i cristiani, Studi Romani 9 (1961), 365–78; esp. 368.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., 369; see also: Gaschino, C., Intorno alla data della “Supplica per i Cristiani” di Atenagora, Didaskaleion (1914), 41–47Google Scholar: Porta, G., La dedica e la data della ΙΙρεσβεία di Atenagora (1916), 53–70Google Scholar.

22 Keresztes, P., The “so-called” Second Apology of Justin, Latomus 24 (1965), 858–69.Google Scholar

23 Op. cit., 376.

24 H. Grégoire, Nouvelles observations etc., op. cit., esp. 44–46.

25 Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), 447–52.Google Scholar

26 Zeiller, J., A propos d'un passage énigmatique de Meliton de Sardes, Rev. des Études August. 2 (1956), 262f.Google Scholar

27 Dig. XLVIII, 19, 30. See also: Eberlin, H., Kaiser Mark Aurel und die Christen (Breslau, 1914), 13–22Google Scholar.

28 Sentent. V, 21, 1–4.

29 Dig. XLVIII, 3, 6, I, 18, 13; XLVIII, 13, 4, 2.

30 Oliver, J. H. and Palmer, R. E. A., Minutes of an Act of the Roman Senate, Hesperia 24 (1955), 320–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Ibid., 324–27.

32 Piganiol, A., Recherches sur les jeux romains (Strasbourg, 1923), 70.Google Scholar

33 See lines 11ff. of the fragment from Sardis, in Oliver and Palmer, op. cit., 329.

34 Ibid., 326.

35 Renan, E., Re. Histoire des pers. de l'Église etc., Journal des Savants (1876), 731Google Scholar; et al.

36 H.E. V, 9, 1; 21, 1.