Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

logy, though commonly considered the second, was in reality something prior to the former. It is, as we now possess it, manifestly an imperfect production; the beginning of which has been lost, though the conclusion is probably entire. And there is at the end of it a very significant allusion to Antoninus Pius, and his two sons-both of whom the first Apology designates by the title of Philosophers; which is sufficient to prove, that these three were reigning in conjunction at the time of this address, as well as at that of the former: εἴη οὖν καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀξίως Εὐσεβείας καὶ Φιλοσοφίας τὰ δίκαια ¿πèρ Éαντŵν кρîvaid. A plurality of rulers, too, is implied in the following passage, just before: kai vμâs ovv ἀξιοῦμεν ὑπογράψαντας τὸ ὑμῖν δοκοῦν προθεῖναι τουτὶ τὸ Bißxidiove: notwithstanding which, some one of them might still be addressed as the supreme governor, or emperor as such; which is the case in the passage referred to above*.

There is mention made in this treatise of Musonius the philosopher, ev Toîs κal' ýμás f; that is, as a contemporary of the writer's: which can scarcely be understood of the philosopher of that name, whom Tacitus, Philostratus, Suidas, and others †, prove to have

* If, indeed, this second Apology was written soon after the matter of fact happened, which gave occasion to it, (see 106. i. sqq.) then 110. 21-25. in the course of that narrative, seems clearly to recognise Antoninus Pius, as the reigning emperor ; and only one other person as associated in the mention with him, whom it calls piλorópov or piλorópa Kairapos maidi. This φιλοσόφῳ Καίσαρος παιδί. must be M. Aurelius as such: whether before or after he was invested with the tribunitia po

testas, may be doubtful. Why should not this second apology, as it is called, have been written and presented to Antoninus Pius, about the fourth of his reign, U. C. 894, where Eusebius and Jerome, in Chronico, place the first? and the first about the ninth, U. C. 899. where Cassiodorus places it?

+ Cf. Dio, lxvi. 13. Pliny, Epp. iii. 11. vii. 31. (which together ascertain his name to have been C. Musonius Bassus ; though Jerome, Chronicon, ad

e P. 133. 13.

d P. 135. 2.

f P. 118. 22.

flourished in the reigns of Nero and Vespasian*. But Origen also contra Celsum, speaks of a Musonius, whom he describes as one τῶν χθὲς καὶ πρώην γεγονότων: who was, most probably, this contemporary of Justin's †. The Apology begins with an abrupt reference

Titi ii. calls him Musonius Rufus. So Dio lxii. 27.)-Julian Opera, 265. C. D. ad Themistium: Eusebius and Jerome in Chronico: Eunapius, vitæ Sophistarum, Prooemium, p. 3. The sect which this Musonius followed was the Cynic.

*Suidas, voce Kopvoûτos, in his account of Cornutus the philosopher of Leptis in Africa, says he was put to death by Nero, along with the abovementioned Musonius; and he repeats this statement of Musonius' being put to death by Nero, under Μουσώνιος. But the truth is, that Nero did not put either Cornutus or Musonius, his contemporary, to death, but only banished them, see Dio, lxii. 27, and 29. and Jerome, Chronicon, 162, ad Neronis xiv: as might be collected indeed from Suidas'very account, in the extract from Julian, in the last of these instances. The same conclusion would follow from the history of Cornutus, in conjunction with that of Persius, the satirist, whose preceptor he was : see Satira v. Suidas, voce Пwλiwv, Asinius Pollio, whose acme is placed in the time of Pompey the Great, is yet made a contemporary of Musonius the philosopher, if not later than he: the former of which is barely possible, but the latter is impossible. Another Pollio, how. ever, is mentioned directly after.

† Philostratus, in his Life of Herodes Atticus, Vitæ Sophistarum ii. 555. B. mentions Mu

sonius the Tyrian, as the preceptor of Lucius, the philosopher, one of the contemporaries and friends of Herodes; who must have been contemporary with Justin. Aristides, also, Ἱερῶν λόγων s. Oratio xxviii. 551. mentions a Musonius, apparently as one of his contemporaries-who was probably the same person.

It appears in fact from Suidas, 'Epμoyevns, that Hermogenes of Tarsus was the preceptor of a Musonius, the philosopher, who must have been contemporary with the emperor Marcus, because Marcus himself also was among the hearers of Hermogenes; who yet, it appears, could have had no hearers or disciples after he was twenty-five years of age. Cf. the Vita Sophistarum of Philostratus, ii. 575. Hermogenes,-from whom Suidas quotes his account of the Hermogenes in question. We may conclude that this Musonius was Musonius the Tyrian, as well as the contemporary of Justin. The Musonius mentioned by Eunapius, Vitæ Sophistarum, 92. Proæresius, as a contemporary of Proæresius, must have been a totally different person. Of this Musonius, also, see Suidas, in Movovios, and Valesius, ad Ammianum Marcellinum, xxvii. 9: whence it appears that the date of his death was A. D. 368, in the reign of Valentinian the First.

g Lib. iii. 66. Operum i. 491. B.

Jerome

to a fact which had happened under the mayoralty of Urbicus, not long before", xès de Kai pónν. At what time any Urbicus was Urbis Præfectus unfortunately is not exactly known*. A Lollius Urbicus is spoken

Jerome in Chronico, places the acme of a writer (whom he calls Musanus, and Eusebius' Chronicon Armeno-Latinum Musianus, and Syncellus Movocavòs, i. 670. 1.) in the twelfth of Severus. His true name indeed was Musanus. But he was a Christian writer, not a Gentile philosopher; and besides would be too late for Justin Martyr, were it not that Jerome, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, xxxi. Operum iv. Pars ia. 111, enumerates him among those who wrote against the Encratita, or followers of Tatian, (a disciple of Justin :) sub Imperatore M. Antonino Vero. Cf. Eusebius, E. H. iv. 21. 28: and Theodorit, Hæreticarum Fabularum i. 21. Operum iv. 313. His acme, according to these testimonies, would certainly be the reign of M. Aurelius, Commodus, or Severus. The Musonius, contemporary of Nero and Vespasian, or the Musonius, who flourished in the reign of M. Aurelius, is most probably the one alluded to by name, in Himerius, Oratio xxiii. §. 21. p. 802.

The name of Lollius Urbicus, as Urbis Præfectus, or mayor of the city of Rome, occurs in the extant Oratio of Apuleius, De Magia, (Opera, vol. ii. p. 5.) and he is spoken of there as V. C. Vir Consularis, also, at the time when that oration was delivered.

It would take up too much

VOL. III.

The

time, and after all would probably prove a very uninteresting discussion to the reader, were I to enter upon a detailed analysis of this speech. It is sufficient to observe, respecting it, that it was delivered by Apuleius in answer to the charge of having gained the affections of one Pudentilla, a rich widow, of Ea in Africa, by magical charms and incantations, and so persuaded her to marry him. The time of this marriage, it might be made to appear, was the year after Apuleius' coming to Ea, on his way to Alexandria; Pudentilla having then been thirteen years complete a widow; and being about forty years of age. proconsul of Africa, at the time of the marriage, was Lollianus Avitus; and Apuleius was once heard before this proconsul, upon the charge preferred against him by the surviving relations of Pudentilla's first husband-at Carthage-a short time after his marriage; consequently in the same year with that event. The extant Oratio de Magia was delivered at a second hearing of the same accusation and defence, before Claudius Maximus, who it seems succeeded Lollianus Avitus in the proconsulate. This it appears was in the third year, since Apuleius first arrived at Ea; consequently, it was in the year after his marriage; and Claudius Maximus must have followed Avitus directly in the

h Page 106. 1-107. 21.

Q q

of by Capitolinus, as Antoninus' legate in Britain ', during a war which does not appear to have extended

government of Africa. That the proconsulate of Africa was an annual office at this time appears further from the Florida of Apuleius, vol. ii. 123, 124.

Whether Claudius Maximus here mentioned is the same person with Gavius Maximus, præfectus prætorii under Antoninus Pius, according to Capitolinus, (Vita, 8.) is doubtful; especially as this last is said to have been twenty years in office as præfectus prætorii, under Antoninus Pius. The name of Cavius Maximus occurs in Frontonis Opera inedita, Epp. ad Antoninum, iv. pars i. p. 10, and a letter to Lollianus Avitus, ibid. 131. Epp. ad Amicos, ii. Avitus and Maximus, however, who thus succeeded each other in the proconsulate of Africa, it seems from the Fasti Consulares were consuls ordinarii together U. C. 897. A. D. 144. in the seventh of Antoninus Pius. It appears too from the oration that they were personal friends. How long after their consulate the first of them was in office as proconsul, is matter of uncertainty. The oration before Maximus was pronounced when Pius was still emperor; as appears from an allusion to his statue, before which the proceedings took place. Anciently, we know that the usual interval between the consulate and the proconsulate was five or six years at least; and it could scarcely be less at this time of day. If so, Avitus was probably not in office before U. C. 904 or 905 at least.

It is not easy to ascertain the precise interval of time which would probably intervene between the consulate and proconsulate in a given instance. It was liable to vary, and doubtless did vary, at different periods of Roman history. I should be inclined, however, to think that as it had once been five or six, it was now about seven or eight years. We may arrive at this conclusion on probable grounds as follows.

In Tacitus' Life of Agricola, cap. 42. an allusion occurs to the time, when, in the due course of things, Agricola who was consul U. C. 830, (cap. 9. and vide the Fasti Consulares) Proconsulatum....sortiretur. This time

may not be exactly defined; but it seems it was later or not earlier than the date of Agricola's return from Britain, U. C. 838 or 839. (see capp. 9. 18. 20-25. 28-33. 39, 40.) and from cap. 45, we may infer it was not less than four years before Agricola's death, which (cap. 44.) bore date U. C. 846. For my own part, I should apprehend that the time in question was this very year of Agricola's return, U. C. 838: and that one reason of his resigning the command in Britain, was that he might Ex more provinciam sortiri, by returning home. The life of Agricola is not very exact in point of chronology. The context of capp. 41, 42. compared with Dio, lvii. and Suetonius' Domitian, will imply that the year of the sortitio in question

i Vita, 5.

beyond the third year of his reign k. An Orphitus is mentioned as præfect sometime under the same empe

was as probably U. C. 838, as any. If so, Agricola's turn for the proconsulate either was, or should have been, just eight years after the expiration of his consulate.

The same conclusion may be generally inferred from Herodian vii. 10: where it appears that Gordian the elder was proconsul of Africa, A. D. 237. The Fasti shew that he was consul suff. once ex kalendis Martiis A. D. 213, and again, A. D. 229. If so, he was serving the office of proconsul in Africa, either twenty-four years after his first consulate, or eight years after his second; the latter of which is much the more probable supposition: Cf. Capitolinus, Gordianus, 2.4. 5. In any case, he was serving the office of proconsul a certain number of years, eight or a multiple of eight, after the date of his consulate.

The same rule existed in the time of Nero. Marcus Junius Silanus was serving the office of proconsul of Asia, post consulatum, U. C. 807, when he was poisoned by order of Agrippina immediately after Nero's accession: Oct. 13. U. C. 807. Pliny, H. N. vii. 11. Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 1. Now M. Junius Silanus was consul ordinarius, U.C. 799, whence to U. C. 807, is just eight years, exclusive of the year of the consulate.

Avitus' year of office coincided, as it appeared, with the date of Apuleius' marriage, as that of Maximus did with the date of his extant oration, de Magia.

Before this oration was delivered, the principal party in bringing forward the accusation against which it is directed, Sicinius Æmilianus, (a brother in law of Pudentilla, that is, the brother of her former husband,) is charged by Apuleius with having attempted to set aside the will of his avunculus, or maternal uncle, at Rome, on the pretence of forgery; the cause having been heard and determined before Lollius Urbicus, at that time urbis præfectus.

This allusion certainly proves the mayoralty of Urbicus to have come before the proconsulate of Maximus, and we may justly presume of Avitus; but how long, appears uncertain. I cannot help thinking, however, that as the son of Pudentilla, Pontianus, (whose name is often mentioned in the course of this oration, first as the personal friend and acquaintance of Apuleius, by whose advice and entreaty he was persuaded to marry his mother, and then, as one of his adversaries or accusers, who took part in the charge against him,) appears to have been at Rome at the very time when Pudentilla, his mother, in the fourteenth year of her widowhood, had conceived the determination of marrying again, (as it is supposed, because her health required it,) and was summoned thence by a letter of his mother to Ea; he was there upon this business, connected with the will of his mother's brother in law's maternal uncle.

k Eckhel, vii. 14. Cf. Capitolinus, Vita, 5. 6.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »