Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (top romance novels .txt) đź“–
- Author: Marcus Aurelius
- Performer: 0140441409
Book online «Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (top romance novels .txt) 📖». Author Marcus Aurelius
illegal acts, it would have had no meaning, for that could have been done
without asking the emperor’s advice. The real purpose of the rescript is
that Christians must be punished if they persisted in their belief, and
would not prove their renunciation of it by acknowledging the heathen
religion.
In the time of M. Antoninus the opposition between the old and the new
belief was still stronger, and the adherents of the heathen religion
urged those in authority to a more regular resistance to the invasions of
the Christian faith. Melito in his Apology to M. Antoninus represents the
Christians of Asia as persecuted under new imperial orders. Shameless
informers, he says, men who were greedy after the property of others,
used these orders as a means of robbing those who were doing no harm. He
doubts if a just emperor could have ordered anything so unjust; and if
the last order was really not from the emperor, the Christians entreat
him not to give them up to their enemies. We conclude from this that
there were at least imperial rescripts or constitutions of M. Antoninus
which were made the foundation of these persecutions. The fact of being a
Christian was now a crime and punished, unless the accused denied their
religion. Then come the persecutions at Smyrna, which some modern critics
place in A.D. 167, ten years before the persecution of Lyon. The
governors of the provinces under M. Antoninus might have found enough
even in Trajan’s rescript to warrant them in punishing Christians, and
the fanaticism of the people would drive them to persecution, even if
they were unwilling. But besides the fact of the Christians rejecting all
the heathen ceremonies, we must not forget that they plainly maintained
that all the heathen religions were false. The Christians thus declared
war against the heathen rites, and it is hardly necessary to observe that
this was a declaration of hostility against the Roman government, which
tolerated all the various forms of superstition that existed in the
empire, and could not consistently tolerate another religion, which
declared that all the rest were false and all the splendid ceremonies of
the empire only a worship of devils.
If we had a true ecclesiastical history, we should know how the Roman
emperors attempted to check the new religion; how they enforced their
principle of finally punishing Christians, simply as Christians, which
Justin in his Apology affirms that they did, and I have no doubt that he
tells the truth; how far popular clamor and riots went in this matter,
and how far many fanatical and ignorant Christians—for there were many
such—contributed to excite the fanaticism on the other side and to
imbitter the quarrel between the Roman government and the new religion.
Our extant ecclesiastical histories are manifestly falsified, and what
truth they contain is grossly exaggerated; but the fact is certain that
in the time of M. Antoninus the heathen populations were in open
hostility to the Christians, and that under Antoninus’ rule men were put
to death because they were Christians. Eusebius, in the preface to his
fifth book, remarks that in the seventeenth year of Antoninus’ reign, in
some parts of the world, the persecution of the Christians became more
violent, and that it proceeded from the populace in the cities; and he
adds, in his usual style of exaggeration, that we may infer from what
took place in a single nation that myriads of martyrs were made in the
habitable earth. The nation which he alludes to is Gallia; and he then
proceeds to give the letter of the churches of Vienna and Lugdunum. It is
probable that he has assigned the true cause of the persecutions, the
fanaticism of the populace, and that both governors and emperor had a
great deal of trouble with these disturbances. How far Marcus was
cognizant of these cruel proceedings we do not know, for the historical
records of his reign are very defective. He did not make the rule against
the Christians, for Trajan did that; and if we admit that he would have
been willing to let the Christians alone, we cannot affirm that it was in
his power, for it would be a great mistake to suppose that Antoninus had
the unlimited authority which some modern sovereigns have had. His power
was limited by certain constitutional forms, by the Senate, and by the
precedents of his predecessors. We cannot admit that such a man was an
active persecutor, for there is no evidence that he was, though it is
certain that he had no good opinion of the Christians, as appears from
his own words. But he knew nothing of them except their hostility to the
Roman religion, and he probably thought that they were dangerous to the
state, notwithstanding the professions false or true of some of the
Apologists. So much I have said, because it would be unfair not to state
all that can be urged against a man whom his contemporaries and
subsequent ages venerated as a model of virtue and benevolence. If I
admitted the genuineness of some documents, he would be altogether clear
from the charge of even allowing any persecutions; but as I seek the
truth and am sure that they are false, I leave him to bear whatever blame
is his due. I add that it is quite certain that Antoninus did not derive
any of his ethical principles from a religion of which he knew nothing.
There is no doubt that the Emperor’s Reflections—or his Meditations, as
they are generally named—is a genuine work. In the first book he speaks
of himself, his family, and his teachers; and in other books he mentions
himself.
It is plain that the emperor wrote down his thoughts or reflections as
the occasions arose; and since they were intended for his own use, it is
no improbable conjecture that he left a complete copy behind him written
with his own hand; for it is not likely that so diligent a man would use
the labor of a transcriber for such a purpose, and expose his most secret
thoughts to any other eye. He may have also intended the book for his son
Commodus, who however had no taste for his father’s philosophy.
The last reflection of the Stoic philosophy that I have observed is in
Simplicius’ Commentary on the Enchiridion of Epictetus. Simplicius was
not a Christian, and such a man was not likely to be converted at a time
when Christianity was grossly corrupted. But he was a really religious
man, and he concludes his commentary with a prayer to the Deity which no
Christian could improve. From the time of Zeno to Simplicius, a period of
about nine hundred years, the Stoic philosophy formed the characters of
some of the best and greatest men. A man’s greatness lies not in wealth
and station, as the vulgar believe, nor yet in his intellectual capacity,
which is often associated with the meanest moral character, the most
abject servility to those in high places, and arrogance to the poor and
lowly; but a man’s true greatness lies in the consciousness of an honest
purpose in life, founded on a just estimate of himself and everything
else, on frequent self-examination, and a steady obedience to the rule
which he knows to be right, without troubling himself, as the emperor
says he should not, about what others may think or say, or whether they
do or do not do that which he thinks and says and does.
THE THOUGHTS OF MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS.
BOOK 1.
1. From my grandfather Verus [I learned] good morals and the government
of my temper.
2. From the reputation and remembrance of my father, modesty and a manly
character.
3. From my mother, piety and beneficence, and abstinence, not only from
evil deeds, but even from evil thoughts; and further, simplicity in my
way of living, far removed from the habits of the rich.
4. From my great-grandfather, not to have frequented public schools, and
to have had good teachers at home, and to know that on such things a man
should spend liberally.
5. From my governor, to be neither of the green nor of the blue party at
the games in the Circus, nor a partisan either of the Parmularius or the
Scutarius at the gladiators’ fights; from him too I learned endurance of
labor, and to want little, and to work with my own hands, and not to
meddle with other people’s affairs, and not to be ready to listen to
slander.
6. From Diognetus, not to busy myself about trifling things, and not to
give credit to what was said by miracle-workers and jugglers about
incantations and the driving away of daemons and such things; and not to
breed quails [for fighting], nor to give myself up passionately to such
things; and to endure freedom of speech; and to have become intimate with
philosophy; and to have been a hearer, first of Bacchius, then of
Tandasis and Marcianus; and to have written dialogues in my youth; and to
have desired a plank bed and skin, and whatever else of the kind belongs
to the Grecian discipline.
7. From Rusticus I received the impression that my character required
improvement and discipline; and from him I learned not to be led astray
to sophistic emulation, nor to writing on speculative matters, nor to
delivering little hortatory orations, nor to showing myself off as a man
who practices much discipline, or does benevolent acts in order to make a
display; and to abstain from rhetoric, and poetry, and fine writing; and
not to walk about in the house in my outdoor dress, nor to do other
things of the kind; and to write my letters with simplicity, like the
letter which Rusticus wrote from Sinuessa to my mother; and with respect
to those who have offended me by words, or done me wrong, to be easily
disposed to be pacified and reconciled, as soon as they have shown a
readiness to be reconciled; and to read carefully, and not to be
satisfied with a superficial understanding of a book; nor hastily to give
my assent to those who talk overmuch; and I am indebted to him for being
acquainted with the discourses of Epictetus, which he communicated to me
out of his own collection.
8. From Apollonius I learned freedom of will and undeviating steadiness
of purpose; and to look to nothing else, not even for a moment, except to
reason; and to be always the same, in sharp pains, on the occasion of the
loss of a child, and in long illness; and to see clearly in a living
example that the same man can be both most resolute and yielding, and not
peevish in giving his instruction; and to have had before my eyes a man
who clearly considered his experience and his skill in expounding
philosophical principles as the smallest of his merits; and from him I
learned how to receive from friends what are esteemed favors, without
being either humbled by them or letting them pass unnoticed.
9. From Sextus, a benevolent disposition, and the example of a family
governed in a fatherly manner, and the idea of living conformably to
nature; and gravity without affectation, and to look carefully after the
interests of friends, and to tolerate ignorant persons, and those who
form opinions without consideration: he had the power of readily
accommodating himself to all, so that intercourse with him was more
agreeable than any flattery; and at the same time he was most highly
venerated by those who associated with him: and he had the faculty both
of discovering and ordering, in an intelligent and methodical way, the
principles necessary for life; and he never showed anger or any other
passion, but was entirely
Comments (0)