Aurelius also visited Athens, where he was initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries. Respect to religious observances is a characteristic of Aurelius, and on many occasions we find him conforming to all the established religious rites of his age, and performing all the ceremonies with due solemnity. It has been sometimes concluded from this, that he shared largely in the ordinary superstitions of the time. But if we contrast the Emperor's public observances of religious rites with his private thoughts as exhibited in his Meditations, we can hardly admit this conclusion in its full extent. He had doubts and difficulties, and on many points hardly a defined belief, but he was above superstitious hopes or fears. Yet he conformed to the religion of his age, and, like all great administrators, of whom he was undoubtedly one, he never offended religious opinions or superstitious prejudices. The religious part of his character is indeed one which it is somewhat difficult to estimate, but his toleration and love of quiet, his consideration for others, exhibited in every act of his life, his self-denial and self-humiliation, all concur to make us believe that he viewed the religious usages of mankind with the eye of a politician and a philosopher, that his religion was not debased by superstition, and his toleration was unmixed with contempt.

Dion states that Aurelius appointed teachers of all branches of knowledge at Athens with salaries; but there must have been teachers at Athens some time before this, for in the year 175 the__Athenians made their complaint to the Emperor against Herodes Atticus, to whom Aurelius had up to that time given the nomination of the teachers of philosophy. Antoninus also had already granted immunities and probably salaries to rhetoricians and philosophers. Probably Aurelius more fully organized the school of Athens, to which, in common with many other schools, Antoninus had been a benefactor.

On landing at Brundisium, on the voyage from Greece, Aurelius and his soldiers assumed the toga or ordinary dress of citizens. The passage of Capitolinus seems to mean that he never allowed the soldiers to wear the sagum or military dress in Italy; which implied that Italy was peaceful and united, and that it was only when the Roman went beyond its limits that he found an enemy. Commodus, though only in his sixteenth year, was named consul for A.D. 177, an act of indulgence for which the Emperor

the title of Imperator, which he assumed himself for the eighth time, probably for some successes obtained over the Germans. Aurelius and his son entered Rome in triumph on the 23rd of December, in honour of the victories obtained by the Roman arms over the barbarians on the northern frontier. It was usual on such occasions to distribute money among the soldiers and citizens, and Aurelius surpassed all his predecessors in his liberality.

In 177, the year of the consulship of Commodus, this youth was associated with his father in the empire, and took the name of Augustus. The Emperor remitted on this occasion the arrears which had become due to the Fiscus and Ærarium for the space of forty-six years, which followed a like remission of Hadrian (thus Tillemont interprets the passage in Dion); and he burnt in the Forum all the written evidence of these debts. The Emperor also showed his liberality in the assistance which he gave towards restoring the city of Smyrna, which had been destroyed by an earthquake. But Eusebius places the great earthquake of Smyrna in A.D. 179, which will hardly agree with the chronology of Dion. [ARISTIDES, ÆLIUS.] The historian justly adds that this was an instance of the Emperor's generosity, and he wonders how anybody could accuse him of parsimony. In his personal expenses Aurelius was economical, and he was thus able to give largely when there was a proper occasion. He well knew that without judicious economy there can be no well-regulated generosity.

The war on the northern frontier still continued, and was conducted with vigour by the two Quintilii. But the presence of Aurelius was thought necessary, and he made preparations for leaving Rome again. He married his son Commodus to Crispina, the daughter of Bruttius Præsens, and the people received a present on the occasion, which is commemorated by an extant medal that bears the usual inscription, LIBERALITAS . AVG. He would not take money from the ærarium without asking the consent of the senate; not, says Dion, that the ærarium was not at his disposal, but he said that it belonged to the senate and the Roman people: and he added, "We (the Emperors) are so far from having any property that we live in your house." This was giving effect to what only existed in theory under the Imperial constitution, and was a restoration of the republican constitution, so far as it could be restored. It is consistent with the character of Aurelius, that he should have laboured to divest the Imperial office of all extravagant pretensions. Before he left Rome Aurelius was requested by his friends, who apprehended that he might not return from his expedition, to ex

mitting gladiators to fight with other than blunted weapons.

In the time of Aurelius there appeared the apologies of Tatian, Athenagoras, Apolinarius of Hierapolis, Melito of Sardis, and Theophilus of Antioch. (As to the apologies of Justin, see Fabricius, Biblioth. Græc. vii.) The apology of Athenagoras is addressed to Aurelius and Commodus, and must have been written near the end of his reign. During the time of Aurelius, Justin and Polycarp suffered death for their religion, and the persecutions raged at Lyon in France with great fierceness. There is no doubt that Aurelius was acquainted with the Christians and with their doctrines in a general way. He speaks of them in his Meditations (xi. 3), as persons who were ready to die from mere obstinacy: a passage which seems to prove that he knew that they had been put to death. The sufferings of the martyrs of Lyon are told at great length by Eusebius, and though there are manifest absurdities and exaggerations in the narrative, there is no reason to doubt the main facts. Justin was executed at Rome, but it is not agreed in what year. He was examined before Rusticus, the præfect of Rome (erapxos), who appears to be Junius Rusticus the Stoic, who was also præfectus urbi, and who is mentioned in a rescript of Aurelius and Verus as their friend (Dig. 49, tit. 1, s. 1). Justin and his associates were required by the præfect to sacrifice to the gods, and on their refusal were sentenced to be whipped and beheaded, pursuant to the Emperor's edict-an expression which seems to have been sometimes misunderstood, and taken to signify that the Emperor sat in judgment. (Acta Martyris Justini; Justinus, Opera, ed. Haag, fol. 1742.) It is difficult to reconcile the behaviour of Aurelius towards the Christians with the general humanity and kindness of his character. There is indeed no satisfactory evidence of any edict being published by him against the Christians, and the persecutions of Smyrna and Lyon were carried on in places distant from Rome. Still it cannot be doubted that he was well acquainted with what was going on in the provinces, and he must have heard of what took place at Lyon and Smyrna. The letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyon to the churches in Asia and Phrygia, which is preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. v. 1), states that the governor of the province sent to the Emperor, who was then at Rome (A.D. 177), to ask what should be done with respect to Attalus [ATTALUS THE MARTYR] and other Christians, who were then in prison. Attalus was a Roman citizen. The rescript of the Emperor was, that those who confessed themselves to be Christians should be put to death, but that those who denied that they were should be set at liberty. These persecutions of the Christians are de

scribed as accompanied by popular tumults, and they had their origin apparently in the bigotry of the people and the suspicion with which the government looked on the Christians. There is no evidence that Aurelius encouraged these persecutions; nor is there any evidence that he prevented the persecutions or punished those who were most active in them. The rescript contained in Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iv. 13), which was published at Ephesus, and forbids the persecution of the Christians, is attributed to Aurelius by some critics, and to Antoninus Pius by others. The opinions expressed in this rescript are consistent enough with what Aurelius thought of the Christians; but it is not easy to decide to which of these two emperors this rescript belongs, nor yet if it is a genuine document. Aurelius did not like the Christians, and he may have thought their assemblies dangerous to the state. Those ecclesiastical historians who have judged him the most severely have judged him unfairly; and yet the admirers of Aurelius will find it difficult to give a satisfactory explanation of the sufferings of the Christians in his time. The relation of the Christians during this period to the imperial government, and the persecutions to which they were exposed, is a subject full of difficulty.

The philosophy of Aurelius was the Stoic. His thoughts are recorded in his own work, in twelve books, which is entitled Mápkov 'Αντωνίνου Αὐτοκρατόρος τῶν εἰς ἑαυτὸν βιβλία B', "Twelve Books of the Meditations of Marcus Antoninus the Emperor:" but it is not certain that this is the true title, and the matter is of no importance. These Meditations form no system of philosophy, nor were they written with that view. They illustrate the Stoic doctrine of self-government and the constant examination of our thoughts and actions. They are the record of the private thoughts of a man who administered an extensive empire and who combined with the labour of government the severe task of selfdiscipline. The remarks seem to have been often suggested by circumstances and to have been put down as opportunity occurred: sometimes they have the appearance of reflections preparatory to entering upon business or important measures. They show the cares and anxieties attendant on an exalted station, and that the Emperor had often occasion to recur to first principles to fortify himself against the annoyances and troubles of life. Aurelius had recourse to whatever he found to his purpose in the writings of the Greek philosophers, but his favourite sect was the Stoic, whose doctrines always found most followers among the Romans who were of a grave and serious temper. The great model of the imperial philosopher was a man of servile birth, Epictetus. Aurelius thanks Rusticus in his Meditations

for supplying him with a copy of the works of Epictetus, on whose philosophy that of Aurelius is based. The philosophy both of Epictetus and Aurelius is that which_was | most suited to the Roman character, the Ethical, or that which concerns the conduct of life. Philosophy, according to Epictetus, consisted in investigating and confirming by practice the rules of action: and Aurelius (ix. 16) says, "Not in passivity, but in action consist the evil and the good of the rational political animal; just as virtue and vice consist not in passivity, but in action." Aurelius, as his work shows, does not reject speculation, but all speculation must have reference to self-improvement and the conduct of life. Of the three divisions of philosophy made by some antient philosophers, and retained by the Stoics, the Dialectical, Physical, and Ethical, Aurelius only considered the Physical and the Ethical: he rejected the Dialectical as useless. The Physical was philosophy in its highest sense, the branch of inquiry which investigated the nature of the universe and of the Deity. Though the mind of Aurelius was sometimes clouded with doubt, he often asserts emphatically the existence of the gods, and that they direct human affairs. " Always act and think as if you may have to quit life at any moment: but as to leaving the world, if there are gods, there is no cause of fear, for they will not bring you to harm; and if there are no gods, or if they have no concern for human affairs, why should I care to live in a world without gods or without a providence? but there are gods, and, they have concern for human affairs, and they have put it into men's power not to fall into those things which are real evils."-" Death and life, honour and dishonour, pain and pleasure, wealth and poverty, all these are alike incident to all men, both the good and the bad, but as these things are neither virtuous nor vicious, so they are neither good nor bad." Virtue alone is good; vice alone is bad: the things that are akin to virtue also are good; the things that are allied to vice are bad. There are four chief virtues, each of which has its proper sphere: wisdom, or the knowledge of good and evil; justice, or the giving to each his due; fortitude, or the enduring of labour and pain; and temperance, or moderation in all things. The end of all the virtues is to live conformably to nature. Aurelius says that a man must go in the straight course, following his own nature and the common nature, and the path of both is one. He who would really live according to nature, must ascertain the nature of himself and of everything else: "He must always remember this, what is the nature of things generally and what is our own, and how this is related to that, and what part it is of what whole, and that there is no one who prevents us from always doing

and saying what is according to the nature of that of which we are a part" (ii. 9). A man should follow the monitor that is within him (he calls it a daíμwv), which the deity (Zeús) has given as a guardian and guide, being a portion of himself (iii. 6, v. 27). Death is no evil, and therefore a man should expect it calmly and with satisfaction; but it is also his maxim that a wise man should take his leave of life, when he can no longer live conformably to nature. The opinions of Aurelius on the immortality of the soul are not expressed with sufficient clearness; but as the human mind is said to be a portion of the divine, it follows that it must return to the divine source from which it came, when the body is dissolved by death.

The Greek of Aurelius is concise and sometimes obscure: the text also is often corrupt. With these disadvantages the "Meditations" of the Emperor still form one of the most useful manuals for self-discipline that exist. A noble and elevated tone pervades the whole, and those who read the Emperor's work with care will be the better for it. His own life was an exemplification of his doctrine. He was grave, but not morose, temperate in all things, just, generous, and merciful. The chief defect in his character was indulgence to his son Commodus, who was unworthy of it; and his acquiescence in his wife's irregularities, if the stories of her are true. He took great pains with the education of Commodus, but his labour was thrown away, and there are intimations that Aurelius knew the badness of his disposition. It would have required unusual firmness of character to exclude from the empire a son who was unfit to administer it; but a Stoic philosopher should have been able to do that. His severity to the Christians is inexcusable, if he was the author of their persecutions, which is not yet proved; but there is sufficient evidence that the Christians during his time were persecuted by popular bigotry and subjected to cruel punishments by persons in authority under him, and that Aurelius knew it. Some of his modern biographers are shocked at this decent emperor taking a concubine after his wife's death, and others will not believe the story, though it rests on as good evidence as other parts of his history. But the concubinage of Aurelius and of Antoninus Pius was a recognised mode of cohabitation among the Romans, as free from all imputation as a morganatic marriage of a German prince. Aurelius was unwilling to give a step-mother to his children.

The letters between Fronto and Aurelius have been published by Mai, whose edition was reprinted at Frankfort, 1806. The first edition of the Meditations was by Xylander, Zürich, 1558, 8vo. with a Latin version. That by Thomas Gataker, Cambridge, 1652, 4to. is still the most useful. Gataker's edition was reprinted in 1697, 1704, 4to. with some addi

tions by George Stanhope. The edition of J. M. Schultz, Schleswig, 1802, 8vo. is accompanied with a Latin version; the Greek text is improved by the collation of several MSS.; a commentary was promised, but it has not yet appeared. The "Meditations" of Antoninus also form the fourth volume of Coray's "Bibliotheca Hellenica," Paris, 1816, 8vo. The text of Schultz was reprinted by Tauchnitz, Leipzig, 1821, 12mo. There are at least five German translations of the "Meditations;" the latest is by J. M. Schultz, 1799. There are French, Italian, Spanish, and English versions. The translation of John Bourchier, Lord Berners (1534, 8vo.), is from the French. There is a translation by Meric, son of Isaac Casaubon, of which there are several editions. The translation of Jeremy Collier, as it is called, 1702, 8vo. is a vulgar, blundering paraphrase, which bears no resemblance to the original: it is the most impudent attempt that has been made to pass off a thing as a translation which has not a single quality of a good version. There is a translation by James Thomson, London, 1747, 8vo.; an anonymous one, Glasgow, 1749, 1764, 12mo.; and one by R. Graves, London, 1792, 8vo., which is said to be the best. (J. Capitolinus, M. Ant. Philosophus; Dion Cassius, lib. lxxi., and Reimar's Notes; Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, and the authorities quoted by him; Nic. Bachius, De Marco Aurelio Antonino Philosophante, &c. Leipzig, 1826, 8vo.; Lardner, Credibility, &c.; Moyle, Works, London, 1726, 8vo.; Whiston's Dissertation on the Thundering Legion, and Woolston's Defence of the Miracle of the Thundering Legion, were called forth by Moyle's Dissertation on the subject: Fabricius, Bibliotheca Græca, v. 500; Rasche, Lexic. Rei Numaria; Eckhel, Doctrina Num. Vet. vii.; the Apologies of Justin and Athenagoras, the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, and Ruinart's Acta Primorum Martyrum, are the materials for the history of the Christian persecutions under Marcus Aurelius.)

G. L. AURELIUS OLYMPIUS NEMESIA'

NUS. [NEMESIANUS.]

AURELIUS PRUDENTIUS. DENTIUS.]

[PRU

AURELIUS SY'MMACHUS. [SYMMACHUS.]

AURELIUS VICTOR. [VICTOR.] AURELJ, LODOVICO. [AURELIO, LODOVICO.]

AURELLI, GIOVANNI MUʼZIO. [AURELIO, GIOVANNI MUZIO.]

AURENGZEBE. [AURANGZEB.] AURENHAMMER or AUERNHAMMER, JOSEPHA, was a celebrated pianoforte player at Vienna, at the close of the eighteenth century. She was a pupil of Richter, Kozeluch, and Mozart, and, in addition to her celebrity as a performer, she acquired some

fame as a composer. To her was confided the task of editing the greater part of Mozart's Sonatas and Airs with variations for the piano-forte. Her own compositions were chiefly of the latter class. In 1796 she married Herr Bösenhönig, but she is musically known by her maiden name. (Gerber, Lexicon der Tonkünstler.) E. T.

AU'REOLUS, CAIUS, one of the numerous usurpers sometimes called, but incorrectly, "the Thirty Tyrants," who assumed the purple in various provinces of the empire in the reign of Gallienus. He was born in Dacia, of an obscure family. He was originally a shepherd, but entered the military service of the empire, and rose by his merit and the favour of the Emperor Valerian to the rank of "commander (povriσths) of the imperial cavalry," probably the cavalry of the emperor's guards. In this office he served Gallienus, by whom he was highly esteemed, in his wars with the usurpers Ingenuus, Macrianus, and Postumus.

The battle between Sirmium and Mursa, in which Ingenuus, who had been declared emperor by the troops in Moesia and Pannonia, was defeated by Gallienus in person (A.D. 260), was gained chiefly by the valour of Aureolus and his cavalry. When Macrianus (or, as Zonaras calls him, Macrinus) had, with his sons Macrianus the younger and Quietus, assumed the purple in the East, and was marching westward, with a force of thirty thousand men according to some accounts, or forty-five thousand men according to others, he was defeated (A.D. 262) on the confines of Thrace, by Aureolus or his lieutenant Domitian, and only escaped captivity by a voluntary death. There is reason to think that the soldiers of Macrianus had been gained over before the battle, for they laid down their arms on the first encounter, and were nearly all incorporated in the victorious army. In the war with Postumus, or Postumius, in Gaul (A.D. 262 or 263), Aureolus was less assiduous or less faithful; for after the defeat of the usurper, of whom he was sent in pursuit, he allowed him to escape, alleging falsely his inability to overtake him.

Trebellius Pollio places the revolt of Aureolus before these wars, at least before those of Macrianus and Postumus. He makes him conquer Macrianus as a competitor for the empire; and in the war with Postumus, represents him as the ally, not the subject, of Gallienus, who, according to him, after a vain attempt to destroy Aureolus, had made peace with him. The authority of Trebellius is, however, less valuable than that of the other historians of the period; and his narrative is confused and inconsistent.

It was probably not before A.D. 267 that Aureolus assumed the purple. The statement of Trebellius that he was constrained to this step by the troops which he com