Olivier Hekster Emperors and Empire Marcus Aurelius and Commodus No two Roman rulers better exemplify the difference between a study of emperors and one of em- pire than Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. A study of emperors cannot help but note the massive differences between the ruler who was deemed the best of potential rulers, and his son, who by general consensus was one of Rome’s worst tyrants. The polarisation is pronounced, with the two successive rulers being depicted in widely divergent ways. At the same time studies of empire and emperorship may well note the continuity from one reign to the next in many aspects of rule. On a number of levels, the empire continued to function under the latter ruler much as it had done under the former. Yet even in studies of empire the change from the reign of Marcus to that of his son is often remarked upon. Historiography is of importance here. There is of course Gibbon’s famous dictum: “If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world, during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom […] A just but melancholy reflection imbittered, however the noblest of human enjoyments. They must often have recollected the instability of a happiness which depended on the character of a single man. The fatal moment was perhaps approaching, when some licentious youth, or some jealous tyrant, would abuse, to the destruction, that absolute power, which they had exerted for the benefit of their people.”1 For Gibbon, the accession of Commodus changed the empire, setting in motion the very events that would lead to its fall. He even explicitly blames Marcus for this error in judgement, stating that “the monstrous vices of the son have cast a shade on the purity of the father’s virtues. It has been objected to Marcus, that he sacrificed the happiness of millions to a fond partiality for a worthless boy; and that he chose a successor in his own family, rather than in the republic.”2 Previously already Niccolo Macchiavelli had stressed the differences for a ruler between the Empire under Marcus and that under Commodus (or under Nerva rather than Domitian): “Let a Prince therefore place himself in the times from Nerva to Marcus, and let him compare these with 1 Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1 (London 1776) ch. 3. 2 Gibbon, Decline and Fall (as in n. 1) chap. 4. 318 Olivier Hekster those which preceded and followed; and afterward let him select in which period he would want to be born, or in which he would want to reign.”3 The notion, of course, goes back further than that, and similar sentiments were expressed by the ancients, particularly Cassius Dio, who noted how Commodus’ behaviour limited Marcus’ happi­ ness. Dio famously ended his account of the life of Marcus with the words: “our history now de­ scends from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust, as affairs did for the Romans of that day” (Cass. Dio 72 [71], 36, 4). Likewise, Julian the Apostate raised only one criticism against Marcus, whom he had elected by the gods as the most excellent emperor of Roman history, namely “his error in judgement in the case of his son”, when “he failed to see that his son was ruining the empire as well as himself ” (Caes. 312 A–B). Julian gave the wise Marcus a perfect answer even to this, and has him quote the excuse of Zeus himself whilst rebuking Ares: “Long ago, I should have smitten you with a Thunderbolt, had I not loved you because you are my son. Besides, I had never thought my son would prove so wicked. Youth ever vacillates between the extremes of vice and virtue, and if in the end he inclined to vice, still he was not vicious when I entrusted the empire to him.”4 The point here is not to simply cite once more the obvious sources discussing Marcus and Commodus, but to highlight how they explicitly assumed that the differences of character and style of rule from one emperor to the next had far­reaching impact on the very functioning of the empire as a whole. In such a mode of viewing, the differences between Marcus and Commodus became of the utmost importance. And these differences were pronounced5. It is, however, relevant to keep in mind that the biographical pictures which have been painted of both rulers in ancient times often consisted of, as it were, topical snapshots, in which father and son were placed against one an­ other. This is the case for Dio, and even more strongly for Herodian. For the first, Commodus’ reign was the first that Dio had actually experienced in person, and there is a recognisable change in the work at the beginning of the reign6. Marcus’ death, as stated above, becomes the breaking point in Dio’s conception of the history of the empire; the moment in which “the kingdom of gold” ended. Thus, Commodus was made into an “anti­emperor”; the direct opposite of his filo­senatorial father Marcus Aurelius7. Herodian, in his turn, had as one of the crucial themes in his work the important division between good emperors and tyrants, which dictated the portrayal of both emperors8. A 3 Macchiavelli, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, 1, 10, 21: “Pongasi, adunque, innanzi un principe i tempi da Nerva a Marco, e conferiscagli con quelli che erano stati prima e che furono poi; e dipoi elegga in quali volesse essere nato, o a quali volesse essere preposto.” 4 Julian., Caes. 334 D; cf. Illiad 5, 897. 5 For a description of Marcus Aurelius’ life and times, see amongst other works Werner Eck, Marcus Aurelius, DNP 7 (1999) 870–875; Pierre Grimal, Marc Aurèle (Paris 1991); Anthony R. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (London 21987); Richard Klein (ed.), Marc Aurel (Darmstadt 1979). On Commodus see Falko von Saldern, Studien zur Politik des Commodus (Rahden 2003); Olivier Hekster, Commodus. An Emperor at the Crossroads (Amsterdam 2002); Maria Gherardini, Studien zur Geschichte des Kaisers Commodus (Dissertationen der Universität Graz 27, Wien 1974); Fulvio Grosso, La lotta politica al tempo di Commodo (Turin 1964). Still of use is Greg R. Stanton, Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, and Commodus. 1962–1972, ANRW II 2 (1975) 478–549. 6 Manfred G. Schmidt, Die ‘zeitgeschichtlichen’ Bücher im Werk des Cassius Dio – von Commodus zu Severus Alexander, ANRW II 34.3 (1997) 2591–2649, 2602, 2608–2610. 7 Urbano Espinosa Ruiz, El reinado de Cómmodo. Subjetividad y objetividad en la antigua historiografía, in: Gerión 2 (1984) 113–149, 116. 8 Herodian. 1, 1, 4: τυράννων τε καὶ βασιλέων; Gabriele Marasco, Erodiano e la crisi dell’impero, ANRW II 34.4 (1998) 2837–2927, 2857. Herodian applies the term τύραννος to Commodus (2, 1, 8; 2, 4f.); cf. Martin Zimmermann, Kaiser und Ereignis. Studien zum Geschichtswerk Herodians (München 1999) 29: “Darüber Emperors and Empire 319 good emperor, of which Marcus, as starting point of Herodian’s history, was the key-example, ruled the empire in the form of an ἀριστοκρατία (2, 3, 10). A tyrant, into which Commodus rapidly descended, behaved like an unmitigated autocrat. Add to these authors the even more outspoken Historia Augusta – in which the senatorial bias is as pronounced as can be – and it was always go- ing to be clear how Marcus’ and Commodus’ lives were going to be juxtaposed9. Indeed, one might suggest that for Dio, Herodian and the unknown author of the Historia Augusta, the blackening of Commodus’ reputation was partly an exercise to make Marcus shine by comparison. Yet ancient bias is not the only reason for the widely divergent reputation of both rulers. Through the ages, there has also been a marked difference in the aspects that post-classical historians chose to pay attention to from one ruler to the next. In the case of Marcus Aurelius, for instance, much attention tends to go to his writing. His self-musings and letters are at the front of much scholarship on the philosopher-emperor. Still, the “Meditations” were probably never meant to be published, though one can see references to Marcus’ thoughts already in the writings of contemporary authors, implying the text may have become known very soon after his death. The history of the text up to the tenth century is brief- ly set out by Birley, who concludes that “by the fourth century the work was undoubtedly well known”10. Themistius for the first times mentions the work directly when addressing the emperor Valens in 364: “You have no need of the Precepts of Marcus, or any excellent saying of any particular emperor”11. We cannot properly trace the work in the following ages, but the “Meditations” resur- face in the late ninth or early tenth century.