MARCUS AURELIUS AND HIS TIMES:
The Transition from Paganism to Christianity
Introduction by
Irwin Edman
Walter J. Black, Inc.
Hardcover, 306 pages
Born
in a Greek colony in the north of
As a plea for tolerance and justice, and written by someone skilled in rhetoric, the arguments of The First Apology are clumsy and offensive for Justin asserts that if the emperor will not provide justice, then justice will be delivered to the emperor after death, in the next life, through eternal punishment. With this antagonistic approach to authority, it is understandable why Marcus Aurelius referred to Christians by telling others not to be obstinate as Christians were.
Edman speculates that Justin s Apology, though addressed to Aurelius, never reached him. If it had, and if Aurelius had looked past its antagonistic tone, he might have found much to favor, for Justin primarily sought for Christians what Aurelius himself held as the basic principles of how one should live life that all should be treated fairly, with justice, and with truth as paramount.
Even Justin s argument that you can kill us, but you cannot harm us, might have appealed to Aurelius because, as he often said in his Meditations, death was not to be feared, for a man had only the present, not the past or the future, and therefore he could not lose the past or the future, but only the present. Therefore, a man who dies now or a hundred years from now loses the same thing the present. Although Justin s argument about death aimed toward the recognition that nothing is lost now because of the reward of an eternal life, and Aurelius argument about death aimed toward only the present could be lost two very different concepts in certain respects Aurelius philosophy was probably closer to the teachings of Jesus than Justin. Specifically, Aurelius, like Jesus, advocated discipline of the mind to live in the present. This seems to have been lost on Justin, who said, our thoughts are not fixed on the present, and therefore it matters not when men put us to death.
Instead, Justin s Apology explained the carrot and stick approach of Christianity as he knew it that fear of eternal punishment and the reward of eternal bliss combined to cause humans to do what was right. And the good the early Christians attempted to do was good chastity while abstaining from lust, sharing their goods and possessions with others, and praying for and loving their enemies. If Justin had appealed to Aurelius in this manner, it is possible Aurelius might have found much in common with Christianity. Although Aurelius Meditations do not reveal any philosophy of an afterlife based on reward or punishment, he clearly advocated equal rights, acting fairly, judgment without arrogance, a kindly disposition and the life of the good man, and that it is each man s duty to do good to men and to help men. In a statement which sounds as if it could have come from Jesus, Aurelius says:
Only
one thing here is worth much, to pass your life in truth and justice, and show
benevolence even to liars and unjust men.
And
this from a man who held the absolute power as emperor of
But
if you say only you are a part, you do not yet love mankind from your heart;
doing good does not yet delight you for its own sake; you still do it merely as
an act of politeness, not yet as doing good to yourself.
In Aurelius view, the use of reason holds within it something inherently good:
My
duty is to be good; just as gold, or an emerald, or purple always says:
Whatever anyone else does or says, I must be an emerald and keep my color.
For Aurelius, punishment did not occur in an unknown afterlife, but today: You get what you deserve: for you choose rather to become good tomorrow than to be good today. Likewise:
He
who does wrong does wrong against himself. He who acts unjustly acts unjustly
to himself, because he makes himself bad.
It is one of history s great ironies that Justin appealed to Aurelius for tolerance for Christians intolerant of other religions. And in many ways, Aurelius Meditations seem more Christian than many actual Christian advocates. As Aurelius said:
If
you are able, correct by teaching those who do wrong; but if you cannot,
remember that charity is given you for this purpose.
Where he takes a different path is on the issue of whether a creator provides a reward. Instead, Aurelius asserted we should be content in doing something in harmony with our own nature, for the eye does not demand a reward for seeing, the foot for walking. This was consistent with his view of the universe as essentially a living, rational whole in which the universe was one living being, not too far removed from contemporary Gaia theory that the earth is a living organism.
And similar to Buddhists, Aurelius advocated a rational examination of the world specifically an examination of the nature of the universe as a whole, the nature of yourself, and how each part of the universe related to the universe as a whole. And like Thomas, a disciple of Jesus, Aurelius recognized that you must find the divinity of the universe within yourself.
He further believed, as do the Buddhists, that everything had a cause and effect, that nothing can come from nothing, and therefore a rational design must emanate throughout the universe. If this sounds similar to the intelligent design theories of contemporary fundamentalist Christians, it is. But Aurelius viewed this principle differently not as a justification for creationism over evolution, but because the logic and rational order of the natural world allowed him to logically and rationally face the disorder and chaos of humanity all about him.
Aurelius therefore believed that natural order was one of harmony, and that, through self-discipline, we can find the natural harmony within ourselves so that we can live in harmony with the universe. As he asked, does the sun attempt to do the work of the rain? And don t the stars, all different, work together to the same end?
For we are made for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another thus is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed and to turn away from.
Against this logic, Justin asserted faith in miracles such as ancient prophecies of the coming of Messiah, the miracle of the virgin birth of Jesus, the miracle of his rising from the dead, and his ascension into heaven. It seems unlikely these fantastic occurrences could sway a man of reason such as Aurelius, and Justin probably knew this, because he argued the miracles that formed the foundation of Christian faith were little different than basic pagan beliefs in similar occurrences. This may seem novel to many contemporary Christians who may view ancient paganism with contempt while the various miracles of Jesus are unique evidence of his divinity, but, in an attempt to prove Christian beliefs as compatible with Roman beliefs, Justin stressed that the biblical prophecies of the Messiah were akin to pagan reliance on the prophecies of oracles, that the virgin birth of Jesus was similar to the virgin birth of the sons of Zeus, that Jesus rising from the dead was no less a miracle than the birth of a baby inside a woman from a man s semen, and that Jesus ascension to heaven was no different than Caesar s ascension to heaven. As for the reward or punishment provided by an afterlife, Justin asserted this was similar to the theories of Plato and the Stoics. And the eucharist of wine and bread as the blood and body of Christ was not too different from Mithras rites.
To compare Christian beliefs to pagan beliefs may seem surprising today, but not to Justin in the early days of Christianity. And as between Christians and Aurelius, there were more compelling similarities those relating to how to live life that if Justin had more humbly expressed, he might have found a willing audience in Aurelius. Consider these philosophical principles outlined by Aurelius, and how easily they might be folded within the teachings of Jesus:
1. It is very possible to be godlike and to be recognized as such by no one. Always bear this in mind; and also that very little indeed is necessary for a happy life.
2. Think less of what you have not, than of what you have.
3. If someone does you wrong, consider with what notions of good and evil he acting in doing wrong . . . For either you think the same thing to be good that he does or something of the same kind; it is your duty to pardon him; but if you do not hold the same notions of good and evil, you will more readily be charitable to him who is in error.
4. When you are offended at any man s fault, turn to yourself and study your own failings.
5. Suppose men kill you, cut you in pieces, curse you. What then can these things do to prevent your mind from remaining pure, wise, sober, just? For instance, if a man should stand by a limpid pure spring, and curse it, the spring does not stop sending up pure water; and if he should cast dirt and filth into it, it will speedily disperse them and wash them out, and will not be at all polluted. How then shall you possess a perpetual fountain? By imbuing yourself hourly with freedom, benevolence, simplicity, and modesty.
Yet Aurelius was also a realist, and while he believed you might render yourself pure as a pure spring of water, and although it might be possible to fly from your own wickedness, he knew it was impossible to fly from the wickedness of others, and that it is impossible that bad men should not do bad deeds. For all that was wrong with humanity, he urged us to Be like the cliff against which the waves continually break; but it stands firm and tames the fury of the water around it. This did not mean, however, that you should close your mind, as many fundamentalists do today. Instead, he recognized that the universe is transformation. Similarly, as soon as a thing has happened it is carried away, and another comes in its place; and this will be carried away, too.
Observe
constantly that all things come about by change; accustom yourself to reflect
that the nature of the universe loves nothing so much as changing things that
are and making new things like them. For everything that exists is in a way the
seeds of what will be.
By necessity, then, life consisted of a succession of views.
Consider
that we ought not to act and speak as if we were asleep, for in sleep we seem
to be acting and speaking; and that we ought not, like children who lean only
from their parents, simply act and speak as we have been taught.
However, for Aurelius, an open mind was not a mind open to just anything. An open mind should be open within the limits of reason, what is fair and just, and what would be useful in the service of others. Such service to others a powerful sense of duty was always foremost to Aurelius philosophy. For him, unlike most in positions of power, power was a position of responsibility, not to be abused, but to be administered with justice and benevolence. In what might be considered a foreshadowing of what Thomas Jefferson wrote nearly 1,500 years later, Aurelius took pains to emphasize that his own father considered himself no more than any other citizen. Aurelius further instructed that we should be neither the tyrant nor the slave of any man.
And yet, as ruler of a vast empire, and as a Roman accustomed to Roman supremacy, he also recognized, within both the natural world and humanity, that the universe has made inferior things for the sake of the superior. While this can easily be perverted into the evils of Social Darwinism, nationalism, racism, and repression of any kind, Aurelius was pointing more to the natural order regarding cooperation for the better of the whole:
Do
you not see the little plants, the little birds, the ants, the spiders, the
bees working together to set in order their several parts of the universe? And
are you not willing to do the work of a human being, not eager to do what
belongs to your nature?
If Aurelius basic principles make much sense, what is more difficult to grasp is his argument that nature itself contains no evil. This seems a clear contradiction of his recognition that it is impossible for some men not to do wrong, although he explains this by asserting that when a man acts wrong, he has deviated from his nature. Some more cynical might argue this deviation occurs when man does good. But Aurelius saw the universe and humanity as a construction designed for the good for the whole.
I
am part of the whole which is governed by nature; next, I am intimately related
to the parts which are of the same kind with myself. For remembering this,
inasmuch as I am a part, I shall be discontented with none of the things which
are assigned to me out of the whole; for nothing is injurious to the part, if
it is advantageous to the whole. For the whole contains nothing which is not
for its own good; and all natures indeed have this common principle, but the
nature of the universe has this principle besides, that it cannot be compelled
even any external force to generate anything harmful to itself.
To drive the point
home, Aurelius asks, Did nature herself design to do evil to things which are
parts of herself, and to make them subject to evil and of necessity fall into
evil, or have such things happened without her knowing it? Certain ecologists might agree with
this. When
What he does tell us is to Think of universal substance, of which you have a very small portion; and of universal time, of which a short and indivisible moment has been assigned to you. He suggests we see how few things we need to live a life which flows in quiet, and is like the life of the gods and to not expect the occurrence of Plato s Republic, but be content if the smallest thing goes on well, and consider such an event to be no small matter. Unlike Justin s theory of Christianity, it s hardly a promise of an eternal afterlife, but it s simple advice, simple to understand, though no simple thing to apply.
#