:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/185736904-56aac7cd3df78cf772b485a1.jpg)
Posted on 08/08/2019 10:42:21 AM PDT by Antoninus
Conqueror of Dacia. Subduer of Parthia. The Roman Emperor Marcus Ulpius Traianus — or Trajan as he is known to history — died on August 8 in the year AD 117.
By most measures, Trajan was a superior emperor. In his satirical work The Caesars, written in AD 361, the emperor Julian the Apostate puts these words into the mouth of Trajan in defense of his reign and exploits before the gods:
"O Zeus and ye other gods, when I took over the empire it was in a sort of lethargy and much disordered by the tyranny that had long prevailed at home, and by the insolent conduct of the Getae. I alone ventured to attack the tribes beyond the Danube, and I subdued the Getae, the most warlike race that ever existed...Of all the Emperors who came before me I was regarded as the mildest in the treatment of my subjects....Against the Parthians I thought I ought not to employ force until they had put themselves in the wrong, but when they did so I marched against them, undeterred by my age, though the laws would have allowed me to quit the service. Since then the facts are as I have said, do I not deserve to be honored before all the rest, first because I was so mild to my subjects, secondly because more than others I inspired terror in my country's foes, thirdly because I revered your daughter divine Philosophy?"This summary of Trajan's career is largely accurate. Writing about 120 years after his death, Cassius Dio describes him further, saying:
When Trajanus had finished this speech the gods decided that he excelled all the rest in clemency; and evidently this was a virtue peculiarly pleasing to them.
Trajan was most conspicuous for his justice, for his bravery, and for the simplicity of his habits. He was strong in body, being in his forty-second year when he began to rule, so that in every enterprise he toiled almost as much as the others; and his mental powers were at their highest, so that he had neither the recklessness of youth nor the sluggishness of old age. He didn't envy nor slay anyone, but honored and exalted all good men without exception, and hence he neither feared nor hated any one of them. To slanders he paid very little heed and he was no slave of anger. He refrained equally from the money of others and from unjust murders. He expended vast sums on wars and vast sums on works of peace; and while making very many urgently needed repairs to roads and harbours and public buildings, he drained no one's blood for any of these undertakings. [Cassius Dio, Epitome of Book LXVIII]Of his triumphant campaign against the Dacians, and his short-lived victory over the Parthians, few details have come down to us from the ancient historians. Most of what we have may be found in Cassius Dio's summary account linked above. Thanks to the works of his contemporary, Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, or Pliny the Younger, we have some additional knowledge of his character. In a panegyric in praise of Trajan dating to about 111 AD, Pliny lauds the emperor's conquest of the Dacians, saying:
During the preceding reigns the barbarians had become insolent and no longer struggled to gain their liberty but fought to enslave us. But on your accession they were again inspired with fear and a willingness to obey your commands. For they saw that you were a general of the old stamp one of those who had earned their title on fields heaped high with slaughter or on seas resounding with the shouts of victory. The result is that we now accept hostages we do not buy them. Nor do we now make peace on disadvantageous terms in order to keep up the appearance of success. [Pliny's Panegyric in Praise of Trajan]More famous is the fascinating correspondence between Pliny and Trajan, written about AD 112, wherein Pliny asks for advice in dealing with the sect known as the Christians, and Trajan offers a sage response. Below is Pliny's letter (excerpted), followed by the emperor's response:
Pliny to the Emperor Trajan.Trajan died at age 64 in the year AD 117. Cassius Dio records the circumstances of his death as follows:
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent, ....whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one....
In the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished....
Soon accusations spread...and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ—none of which those who are really Christians...can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be....They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food....
I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you....For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms....
Trajan to Pliny
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it—that is, by worshiping our gods—even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age. [Click here to read Pliny's Letters, 96 (97) in full.]
Trajan was preparing to make a fresh expedition into Mesopotamia, but, as his malady began to afflict him sorely, he set out, intending to sail to Italy, leaving Publius Aelius Hadrian with the army in Syria....Trajan himself suspected that his sickness was due to poison that had been administered to him; but some state that it was because the blood, which descends every year into the lower parts of the body, was in his case checked in its flow. He had also suffered a stroke, so that a portion of his body was paralyzed, and he was dropsical all over. On coming to Selinus in Cilicia, which we also call Traianopolis, he suddenly expired, after reigning nineteen years, six months and fifteen days. [Cassius Dio, Epitome of Book LXVIII]Because of his perceived clemency toward Christians, Trajan was often considered a virtuous pagan. Indeed, according to one story written down in the 9th century by John the Deacon, Trajan, though a pagan, was rescued from Hell. The legend says that while walking through the Forum of Trajan in Rome, Pope Saint Gregory the Great saw an inscription describing how Trajan had given justice to a poor widow. Feeling so moved, the Pope entered Saint Peter's and wept such tears of supplication, that a sign was given him that Trajan's soul had been released from torment, under condition that he never attempt to rescue another pagan from Hell again. This story gained such currency in the Middle Ages that it was included even in Dante's Divine Comedy, though later theologians and historians give the story no credence.
Catholic ping (at the end of the article, at least!)
Good man!
####
“He refrained equally from the money of others and from unjust murders. He expended vast sums on wars and vast sums on works of peace; and while making very many urgently needed repairs to roads and harbours and public buildings, he drained no one’s blood for any of these undertakings.”
Pliny and Democrats have a lot in common.
John the Deacon’s story amounts to proclaiming a different gospel than the Gospel.
“For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished....”
Indeed, except for the possibility that he was far more manly and too honest to be like the Democrats, that is.
Maybe instead of comparing him to the Cultural Marxism riddled Democrats, men and women and undecided lunatics incapable of sustaining a civilization and a nation who feel enlightened and justified in tearing them down, it would be better to compare him to the rabid secularists of the French Revolution: bad without being unmanly, radical without being insane, self destructive and destructive of their civilization without being set on their course like sheep driven over a mine field.
Yes, necessarily.
For it portrays salvation not as a matter of personal volition between a man and the Lord but lets an interloper step in and pretends he should make a difference.
Many men, great and small, who had opportunity (however slim) to accept the Gospel but who did not will be found to have been generous and kind for their times and circumstances ... but no one is either condemned or commended by what is written in the books but only if their name is found written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
...according to one story written down in the 9th century by John the Deacon... says that while walking through the Forum of Trajan in Rome, Pope Saint Gregory the Great saw an inscription describing how Trajan had given justice to a poor widow. Feeling so moved, the Pope entered Saint Peter's and wept such tears of supplication, that a sign was given him that Trajan's soul had been released from torment, under condition that he never attempt to rescue another pagan from Hell again. This story gained such currency in the Middle Ages that it was included even in Dante's Divine Comedy, though later theologians and historians give the story no credence.
Trajan died not long after conquering the Parthian capital, Ctesiphon and adding Mesopotamia to the Roman Empire, but was alas succeeded by has allegedly adopted son Hadrian, who only liked little boys' behinds and traveling the Empire.
Sounds like Mr. Pliny would have fit right in at a certain party’s national convention a few years back...
Per Wiki...
Trajan's Column (Italian: Colonna Traiana, Latin: COLVMNA·TRAIANI) is a Roman triumphal column in Rome, Italy, that commemorates Roman emperor Trajan's victory in the Dacian Wars. It was probably constructed under the supervision of the architect Apollodorus of Damascus at the order of the Roman Senate. It is located in Trajan's Forum, built near the Quirinal Hill, north of the Roman Forum. Completed in AD 113, the freestanding column is most famous for its spiral bas relief, which artistically represents the wars between the Romans and Dacians (101–102 and 105–106). Its design has inspired numerous victory columns, both ancient and modern.
The structure is about 30 metres (98 feet) in height, 35 metres (115 feet) including its large pedestal. The shaft is made from a series of 20 colossal Carrara marble[a] drums, each weighing about 32 tons,[2] with a diameter of 3.7 metres (12.1 feet). The 190-metre (620-foot) frieze winds around the shaft 23 times. Inside the shaft, a spiral staircase of 185 steps provides access to a viewing platform at the top. The capital block of Trajan's Column weighs 53.3 tons, which had to be lifted to a height of c. 34 metres (112 feet).[3]
“But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.”
It only took the #MeToo crowd about 1900 years to reverse this precedent.
Trajan in one of the leaders in the turn based strategy game of Sid Meier's Civilization VI. For that he is significantly less obscure.
Age of Empires has served a similar purpose introducing historical figures to my kids.
Intercession while someone is alive may be effective because prayer itself is effective.
Once they are already dead it is not.
But more to the point, by saying “interloper” it tracks back to what the story asserts: that someone who was not a party in a relationship under the terms offered, which comes with a time limit based in our mortality, and therefore requires timeliness for intercession, is in fact an interloper.
I understand the basic reason for the tale, aside from sounding nice (when it really isn’t) it is an expression either of two things: first and foremost in its inception it probably (hopefully) represented a desire that occurs then people consider that folks they greatly admire, who were “good people” but who rejected the Gospel, are somehow not damned (what in our current era I would call the belief that the Ghandis of the world aren’t lost through what we know of their lives says that they rejected the Gospel); secondly it could represent on the part of the teller them asserting a potency on account of an office within an ecclesiastical system in order to encourage devotion to the system rather than the Gospel ... which is something I should hope was not a motive for this for the story teller’s sake.
Whatever the motive this represents a fundamental injustice in its asserted application because, if it were so, as I said, it leaves all the little people without such a recourse, affecting only the great and the beloved as humans judge things for who else should attract much “intercession” long after they were gone? To not represent an injustice would require permitting some other methodology for salvation for anyone besides what Christ has done ... IOW a different gospel. This when pushed to its logical extreme amounts to the idea that only the really bad people are damned.
But if a small case of this guff or a big case of it, either way it tends to ignore that the basic human defect and why we require salvation is NOT because we are inherently immoral since the Fall but because we are not holy. The Fall was one from a state of holiness (yes, just derivative holiness ... I would not claim anything else) to be merely moral beings (the tree was for the knowledge of good and evil, not just evil).
Being moral, while a benefit to men now that we’re in this mess, is no cause for justification before the Lord. It is simply what we ought to be doing anyway no matter who we are. Human morality doesn’t save anyone. Indeed, since men have so grievously come to confuse morality with the whole notion of free will (though recently it seems many have degenerated further to confuse niceness and tolerance with morality and thus with having volition at all) we’ve seen at least one so called moral philosopher opine that being moral beings demands men reject God (the guy in question, his name escapes me for the moment, seemed to somehow think that Christians in obedience to the Lord ceased from having their own wills).
As for the defect of not being holy, which Christ resolves when the gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed, I would point you to Isaiah. Now, while the Aaronic priesthood still stood as a legitimate way to approach the Lord, in accordance to what He had revealed, I do not question that there was ceremonial holiness available to those that benefitted from the system, and with Isaiah who was a ministering priest he had an official access to far more of that than any ordinary Israelite, or even Levite, might have hoped for. And it should be fairly safe to assert that Isaiah wasn’t sloppy when it came to his morality either ... Isaiah was as much the real deal as mortal men might hope to be ... but when he saw the Lord, when the Holiness of thee Lord was revealed to him, he recognized that he deserved to die.
Yes, “a man of unclean lips among a people of unclean lips” seems to easily represent him realizing that there were things in his life that he didn’t previously recognize as being wrong and which were not recognized as being wrong by his culture; but, even if he had somehow been without any particular sin he would have still fallen short for having “only” had the ceremonial holiness ... recall that we are told that the Lord isn’t terribly impressed with the holiness of the holy angels, do you think men apart from Christ should fare better?
I ask that hypothetically because I consider that you would not when it is placed in such stark terms. But the story invites a different opinion because of the lack of timeliness for the “intercession” claimed and because the person being interceded for, even if said intercession had somehow been timely, still doesn’t seem to have accepted Christ by any witness we have of his life.
I think it reasonable, or rather I would hope for his sake, that the story teller did not intend to craft a different gospel than the one given for all time; but, he wanted to believe someone that he admired was somehow not damned. But whatever his motivation, he was conveying a different gospel. One where the great intercede for the great no matter what the other earlier guy may have chosen in his life.
Hitherto I’ve been ignoring that the story is spurious when considering the principals involved, for the story teller was not involved for the “intercession” anymore than he was involved for the man not accepting the Gospel during his life. Likewise he simply should be out of the know to assert anything about the efficacy of such “intercession”. But I mention this last of all.
I’ve sometimes observed that the communists weren’t so much offended by the concept of HUAC but only that it was being used against them and not being used by them to hammer their opponents.
Indeed at the time the Useful Idiots eagerly glossed over worse that their compatriots used elsewhere.
Now that the Left is so drenched in the influence of Cultural Marxism that it has become atmospheric to them (it its influence suddenly vanished from their attitudes would they recognize themselves?) we should expect no less from them than every man oppressing their own neighbors, where the masses of the self-described kind and enlightened bully anyone who dares step out of line with whatever the culture seems to be doing at the moment. The self-proclaimed individualists are so much so that you can hardly tell them apart anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.