be visited by calamity. The great blot on his name, and one
hard indeed to explain, is his treatment of the Christians.
In his reign Justin at Rome became a martyr to his faith,
and Polycarp at Smyrna, and we know of many outbreaks of fanaticism
in the provinces which caused the death of the faithful.
It is no excuse to plead that he knew nothing about the atrocities
done in his name: it was his duty to know, and if he did not he would
have been the first to confess that he had failed in his duty.
But from his own tone in speaking of the Christians it is clear
he knew them only from calumny; and we hear of no measures
taken even to secure that they should have a fair hearing.
In this respect Trajan was better than he.

To a thoughtful mind such a religion as that of Rome would
give small satisfaction. Its legends were often childish
or impossible; its teaching had little to do with morality.
The Roman religion was in fact of the nature of a bargain:
men paid certain sacrifices and rites, and the gods
granted their favour, irrespective of right or wrong.
In this case all devout souls were thrown back upon philosophy,
as they had been, though to a less extent, in Greece.
There were under the early empire two rival schools which practically
divided the field between them, Stoicism and Epicureanism.
The ideal set before each was nominally much the same.
The Stoics aspired to the repression of all emotion,
and the Epicureans to freedom from all disturbance; yet in
the upshot the one has become a synonym of stubborn endurance,
the other for unbridled licence. With Epicureanism we have nothing
to do now; but it will be worth while to sketch the history
and tenets of the Stoic sect. Zeno, the founder of Stoicism,