Was Marcus Aurelius Cuckolded?
Responding to a recurring question about Faustina's alleged infidelities
I’ve been asked several times to comment on this Reddit post about Marcus Aurelius. As the answer isn’t simple, I’ll go into it in a bit more detail in this analysis below.
My initial reaction to this was: who cares? Or rather, I think the ancient Stoics would have advised us to view the feelings experienced by the author of this post as an unhealthy passion or irrational fear. Stoic philosophy would encourage us to question the assumptions on which this fear is based. Why, for instance, should more importance be placed on the alleged actions of Marcus Aurelius’ wife than upon his philosophy?
As the author of a recent biography of Marcus Aurelius, though, I’d like to comment on the historical claims. As is often the case, what we’re reading here is, I think, a slightly distorted version of the truth. Let me begin by explaining the historical source to which, I assume, the author of the post must be referring. The only source that makes this claim is the Historia Augusta, which was written perhaps two centuries after the death of Marcus Aurelius.
The Historia Augusta is generally considered to be a highly problematic source. It contains a considerable amount of material drawn from earlier Roman histories, alongside very dubious additions and embellishments. On one hand, its chapter about Marcus Aurelius is considered among the better sections, on the other, the letters and gossip, etc, are considered some of its worst material. Most scholars, moreover, believe that the section of the chapter in which this anecdote occurs appears to consist in the awkward interpolation of text from another, presumably earlier but otherwise unknown, source.
The author of the Historia Augusta makes it clear from the outset that this particular story is being presented as hearsay. He even goes out of his way to warn the reader that this anecdote has been embellished by popular gossip.
Some say, and it seems plausible, that Commodus Antoninus, his son and successor, was not begotten by him, but in adultery; they embroider this assertion, moreover, with a story current among the people. — italics added
Of course, it might still be true. Then again, it might not. We’re not dealing, for instance, with an event happening in public, such as a war, that has been witnessed by many people. Rather, we’re being told about something that allegedly happened in private, without knowing who, if anyone, supposedly leaked the information.
This sort of material should, therefore, be treated with caution, especially as it’s not reported by other Roman historians, and only appears in the dubious Historia Augusta. When we’re dealing with ancient history, incidentally, it’s useful to imagine drawing two columns and placing in one hearsay, or events that are being reported based on rumor, and in the other events that actually occurred in public view or are being reported based on an identifiable source, such as a credible witness. Let’s try to apply this sort of distinction to the claims about Marcus’ wife…
Before we go further into the story, we can already respond, I think, to the sensational claim that Marcus was not Commodus’ real father. How would anyone except Marcus and Faustina know this? For what it’s worth, the surviving statues of Marcus and Commodus, of which there are many, show them to be strikingly similar in physical appearance. It would therefore be rather surprising if Commodus, who happens to look so much like his father, was not Marcus’ real son.
When we’re dealing with hearsay, we should ask what the potential motive could be for spreading false information. In this case, the answer appears obvious. Most of the rumors about Marcus relate to his wife’s fidelity and the legitimacy of his son. These clearly served to cast doubt on Commodus’ claim to the throne. Rival contenders to the throne, of course, would have circulated rumors such as these in order to place Commodus’ right to rule in question. The main candidate being, without question, Avidius Cassius, who actually instigated a civil war against Marcus and Commodus, in order to lay claim to the empire. Cassius’ supporters would, almost certainly, have cast doubt on the paternity of Commodus and the decision to name him as Marcus Aurelius’ successor. The Historia Augusta uses this rumor, about Commodus not being the real son of Marcus Aurelius, in order to absolve Marcus of blame for the way he turned out. Nevertheless, I think it probably does so by repeating gossip which had initially served to cast doubt on Commodus’ claim to the throne.
With all of this in mind, let’s dive into the hearsay reported by this source:
On a certain occasion, it was said, Faustina, the daughter of Pius and wife of Marcus, saw some gladiators pass by, and was inflamed for love of one of them; and afterwards, when suffering from a long illness, she confessed the passion to her husband. And when Marcus reported this to the Chaldeans, it was their advice that Faustina should bathe in his [the gladiator’s] blood and thus couch with her husband. When this was done, the passion was indeed allayed, but their son Commodus was born a gladiator, not really a prince; for afterwards as emperor he fought almost a thousand gladiatorial bouts before the eyes of the people, as shall be related in his life.
This rather salacious anecdote seems to be the part of the story which even the the author of the Historia Augusta, not known for his reliability, feels compelled to warn us is an embellishment rather than historical fact. Moreover, Marcus had fourteen children with Faustina. We’d need to have much better reason than gossip to countenance the assertion that Commodus was not his real son, especially given their obvious physical likeness to one another. The fact that Commodus liked to fight in the arena, of course, provides no evidence whatsoever that his father was actually a gladiator. If that’s the best reason his detractors could give for doubting his paternity, it’s clear they were scraping the barrel. Gossip thrives on spurious associations like this but we can’t take them seriously if we’re concerned with historical fact.
The Historia Augusta continues:
This story is considered plausible, as a matter of fact, for the reason that the son of so virtuous a prince had habits worse than any trainer of gladiators, any play-actor, any fighter in the arena, anything brought into existence from the offscourings of all dishonour and crime.
Again, the fact that Commodus reputedly had a vicious character may have convinced some ancient Romans that he could not really be the son of Marcus Aurelius but I doubt many modern readers would be convinced by this reasoning. It may have fueled gossip to the effect that he was the son of a gladiator but it clearly does not provide any evidence that this was the case. The Historia Augusta, despite having begun by casting doubt on this story, nevertheless, persists with it.
Many writers, however, state that Commodus was really begotten in adultery, since it is generally known that Faustina, while at Caieta, used to choose out lovers from among the sailors and gladiators. When Marcus [Aurelius] Antoninus was told about this, that he might divorce, if not kill her, he is reported to have said "If we send our wife away, we must also return her dowry". And what was her dowry? the Empire, which, after he had been adopted at the wish of Hadrian, he had inherited from his father-in-law Pius.
It’s been observed by several modern commentators that this quip attributed to Marcus seems implausible because the empire, in fact, was not bequeathed to him as a “dowry” for marrying Faustina, the daughter of Emperor Antoninus Pius. Marcus could have divorced Faustina without losing his claim to the throne. Indeed, Marcus was already earmarked by Emperor Hadrian to succeed Antoninus long before he was betrothed to Faustina and, in fact, he was originally betrothed to another girl, the daughter of Lucius Aelius Caesar. This “dowry” anecdote appears, therefore, to be a later embellishment of the gossip, as it is inconsistent with the details of Marcus’ life.
The historian concludes by adding:
But truly such is the power of the life, the holiness, the serenity, and the righteousness of a good emperor that not even the scorn felt for his kin can sully his own good name. For since Antoninus held ever to his moral code and was moved by no man's whispered machinations, men thought no less of him because his son was a gladiator, his wife infamous. — italics added
So the professed intention of reporting these “whispered machinations” about Commodus, in this case, appears to be to praise Marcus for his serenity and dignity, despite the gossip circulating about his wife and son.
In addition to these comments in the Historia Augusta, we find the following remark in history of Cassius Dio, a contemporary of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, who is considered more reliable being closer to the events.
[Marcus] himself, then, refrained from all offences and did nothing amiss whether voluntarily or involuntarily; but the offences of the others, particularly those of his wife, he tolerated, and neither inquired into them nor punished them.
Cassius Dio, nevertheless, makes no mention of her sleeping with gladiators, only that Faustina was rumored to have conspired with the usurper Avidius Cassius.
Elsewhere, Dio makes it clear that Marcus publicly heaped honors upon his wife.
And it was decreed by the senate that silver images of Marcus and Faustina should be set up in the temple of Venus and Rome, and that an altar should be erected [presumably at Marcus’ behest] whereon all the maidens married in the city and their bridegrooms should offer sacrifice; also that a golden statue of Faustina should be carried in a chair into the theatre, on every occasion when the emperor was to be a spectator, and placed in the special section from which she herself had been wont, when alive, to view the games, and that the most influential women should sit round about it. — italics added
The Historia Augusta attempts to explain this apparent contradiction by claiming that Marcus “was either ignorant or affected ignorance” of his wife’s infidelity.
He asked the senate to decree her divine honours and a temple, and likewise delivered a eulogy of her, although she had suffered grievously from the reputation of lewdness. Of this, however, Antoninus was either ignorant or affected ignorance. He established a new order of Faustinian girls in honour of his dead wife, expressed his pleasure at her deification by the senate, and because she had accompanied him on his summer campaign, called her "Mother of the Camp". And besides this, he made the village where Faustina died a colony, and there built a temple in her honour.
Dio likewise confirms that Faustina was honored with the title “Mother of the Camp”, because she accompanied Marcus to the legionary fortresses.
Whatever we may think of the claim above, that Marcus was ignorant of Faustina’s bad behavior, it is elsewhere contradicted by the author of the Historia Augusta who elsewhere explicitly states that Marcus was rumored to know of the allegations against his wife. We’re left with the Historia Augusta’s second claim, which portrays Marcus as a man who knew of his wife’s infidelities but chose to heap praise and honors upon her in public, and turn a blind eye to her bad behavior.
How does this compare with what Marcus himself says? The Meditations, his private notes to himself, are arguably our most reliable source. As most scholars agree these were never intended for publication. Marcus therefore has no motive to misrepresent his wife’s character as he’s addressing these words to himself alone. Indeed, Marcus felt able to criticize, or discount, other important figures in the Meditations.
However, contrary to the rumors, he specifically refers to his wife, Faustina, as loyal, affectionate, and honest (Med. 1.17). That stands in contrast to the depiction of her in this piece of hearsay, reported centuries later by the Historia Augusta. It’s completely consistent, however, with the way he commemorated her life in public, such as having the Senate deify her. In his private notes, and his public actions, therefore, there’s nothing but praise for Faustina. It’s only in the hearsay reported in Cassius Dio and the Historia Augusta that we find allegations against her, and only the Historia Augusta, written a couple of centuries after the events, and known for its flights of fancy, reports the lurid story that she slept with gladiators and was then required to bathe in the blood of a dead gladiator before making love to her husband.
Conclusion
The rumors about Faustina the Younger are likely exaggerated and perhaps completely unfounded. The specific claim about a gladiator being the father of Commodus is found in a single, unreliable source written centuries after the events. Even the author of that history prefaces this anecdote by warning that, though it seems plausible to him, it has been embellished by rumor.
Marcus Aurelius’ own writings and public actions suggest a very different picture of his relationship with his wife. When encountering such salacious claims, and conflicting evidence, it is therefore important to critically evaluate the sources and consider potential biases and motives. In any case, while the gossip about Marcus’ wife might be intriguing, it does not diminish the value of his philosophy.
An intelligent, reasonable, AND persuasive response!