No More Learning

38
In the nal analysis, however, our problem is not that of knowing which Aristo Marcus read. According to the testimony of Pliny, the jurisconsult Titus Aristo used to live like a philosopher, and he too can perfectly well, a er all, have written philosophical works. The only thing we can say with certainty is that the letter reveals the complete upheaval
that his reading ofphilosophical books brought about in Marcus.
It is nevertheless di cult to admit that it was the mere reading of Aristo of Chios-if the books in question were genuinely by him-that
brought about Marcus' conversion and had a considerable in uence on his thought, r the characteristics which, according to ancient tradition, distinguished the teaching ofAristo ofChios are not und in the Medita­ tions ofMarcus Aurelius. On this point, I must correct an inte retation which I had proposed in a previous study, and I shall return later to this doctrinal problem. 39
Marcus states quite clearly in the rst book of his Meditations that the decisive in uence on him came om his reading of the Discourses of Epictetus, which Junius Rusticus had obtained r him. We must imag­ ine Marcus' conversion rather as a slow evolution, brought about by his equenting of Junius Rusticus, and of other philosophers of whom I shall speak shortly. Besides, we must not rget that many of Marcus' letters to Fronto are lost. It is probable that, in other missives, the student let his teacher know that he was becoming more and more detached om rhetoric, and that he wanted to devote himselfto the improvement of his inner dispositions. He tried to do so with delicacy, and a bit of self-deprecating irony, as in the present letter. Marcus' reading ofAristo, whoever he may have been, represents only a moment and a milestone in a long process. Marcus certainly read many other authors, just as he listened to di erent philosophy teachers. What is ofinterest here, how­ ever, is that the rst evidence we have of his adherence to philosophy may be dated approximately om his twenty- h year.
Professors and ends
In addition to Junius Rusticus, Marcus and the ancient historians name other philosophy teachers, in particular Apollonius of Chalcedon and Sextus of Chaeronea. Junius Rusticus was the spiritual guide who was very close to his disciple, whereas Apollonius and Sextus were professors
The Emperor-Philosopher 1 5
in charge of a school, where Marcus had to go hear their lectures. According to the Historia Augusta, Apollonius-whom the ancient histo­ rians depict as a Stoic-re sed to come to the palace to give lessons to his royal student: "The disciple must come to the master," he is supposed to have said, "and not the master to the disciple. " The emperor Anton­ inus Pius, who had had him sent r at great expense om distant Chal­ cedon to teach the young Caesar Stoicism, remarked on this occasion40 that it was easier to get Apollonius to come om Chalcedon to Rome than to get him to come om his house to the palace.
In the rst book ofthe Meditations (I, 8), Marcus mentions Apollonius immediately a er Rusticus. Here again, Marcus makes no allusion to the content ofApollonius' teaching; rather, what he retains om his teacher are moral attitudes and practical advice: on eedom; on the art ofrecon­ ciling extremes- r example, to come to a decision a er lengthy re ec­ tion, but without putting it o to be on the alert but at the same time relaxed;41 not to consider oneself bound by the vors one has received, but not to disdain them either. In Marcus' eyes, Apollonius was a teacher who did not give himselfthe airs ofa great pro ssor. He did not consider the experience and teaching skills he had acquired to be his main quali­ ties, and he did not go in r nitpicking when it came to the explanation of texts. When Apollonius died be re Marcus became emperor, the latter was deeply grieved, and wept abundantly. The courtiers re­ proached Marcus r his demonstration of a ection, probably because they considered his philosophical pretensions to be a joke, and wanted to show him that he was being un ith l to his own principles. However, the emperor Antoninus Pius said to them: "Let him be a man. Neither philosophy nor the Empire can uproot a ections. "42
Marcus, then, attended the school of Apollonius while he was still a young Caesar. It seems, however, that it was a er he became emperor, when Marcus was already growing old, that he attended the lectures of Sextus of Chaeronea. The latter was, according to the Histo a Augusta,43 a Stoic, whereas the collection known as the Souda44 calls him a skeptic, no doubt con sing him with the mous skeptic Sextus Empiricus. Ac­ cording to the Souda, Marcus equently took Sextus along as his assessor when he had trials to judge. The story was told that a certain Lucius, a philosopher of Marcus' time mous r his uninhibited speech, asked Marcus why he went to Sextus' school. Marcus replied: "Learning is a good thing, even r one who is growing old. From Sextus the philoso­ pher I shall learn what I do not yet know. " Lucius raised his hands
16 THE INNER CITADEL
skyward: "Oh Zeus," he cried, "the a ng Emperor of the Romans is hanging tablets around his neck in order to go to school, while my king Alexander died at the age of thirty-two ! "45
Sextus also appears in the rst book ofMarcus' Meditations (I, 9), right after Apollonius. Among other things, what Marcus retained om Sextus were his benevolence, the way in which he directed his household, the model he provided ofa li in accordance with nature, his simple gravity, his gi of guessing his iends' feelings, his patience, his abili to adapt himselfto each person, and tojoin together impassibility and tenderness. At the same time, however, Marcus also evokes part ofSextus' teachings, r instance his ability to set in order "the ndamental principles (dog­ mata) necessary r life, with evidence and method," and above "the idea of a life in con rmity with nature. " This last detail does seem to con rm that Sextus was a Stoic.
We have no way of knowing whether there were any di erences between the teachings ofApollonius and those ofSextus. It is likely that there were few, and that the Stoics of the time were all more or less dependent upon the teachings of Musonius Ru s and his student Epictetus. Fronto, at least, considered that the mous philosophers ofhis day-Euphrates, Dion, Timocrates, and Athenodotus-were disciples of Musonius Ru s. 46 Besides, if Marcus llowed a regular course of study in the schools of Apollonius and of Sextus, this means that he studied the three parts ofphilosophy: not only ethics, but also the theory of nature and dialectics. When, in a letter to Marcus, Fronto reproaches him47 r studying dialectics and the re tation ofsophisms, it is perhaps not a case of rhetorical exaggeration.
Apart om these philosophers in charge of schools, whose classes Marcus attended, we nd among his teachers Roman statesmen who pro ssed philosophy. It seems to me that this is clea y apparent om the plan of the rst book of the Meditations, in which Marcus evokes succes­ sively his parents; the educators he had during his childhood, in particu­ lar Diognetus; the dominant gure ofhis spiritual guideJunius Rusticus, who, r Marcus, was linked to his conversion to philosophy; Apollonius and Sextus, the two professors whose schools he attended; Alexander the Grammarian and Fronto, his grammar and rhetoric teachers; and Alexan­ der the Platonist,48 a rhetorician who became Marcus' secretary r Greek correspondence about I70. The Emperor considered the last­ named gure as a " iend," and retained om him some lessons about moral conduct.
The three names which llow-Catulus, Severus, and Maximus-
The Emperor-Philosopher 17
rm a group not ofprofessors but offriends. They were no doubt older men who, like Junius Rusticus, either were statesmen or least had had a political career, but who also had an in uence on the development of Marcus' philosophical li . The Maximus in question was Claudius Maximus, proconsul of A ica and philosopher, whom Apuleius men­ tions in his Apology. The Historia Augusta presents Claudius Maximus and Cinna Catulus as Stoics, and there is no good reason to doubt this testimony, since the same Historia Augusta is perfectly well aware that Severus-that is, Claudius Severus Arabianus, consul in 146-was an Aristotelian. 49 The son of this individual, also a consul, was also an Aris­ totelian; this is explicitly stated by Galen,50 who tells how Severus' son used to attend the public sessions of anatomy, with commentary, which the mous doctor had organized r the Roman nobility. 51
Marcus then goes on to evoke the Emperor Antoninus (I, 16), of whom Marcus paints, as it were, the portrait of the ideal prince that he himself would have liked to be. Philosophy is not absent om this description, r Antoninus is compared to Socrates, who was able both to enjoy pleasures and to abstain om them, according to the circum­ stances.
Book I concludes with Marcus recalling all the bene ts he has re­ ceived om the gods, remost among which, he says, were his encoun­ ters with the philosophers Apollonius, Rusticus, and Maximus. The nal lines of this rst book do seem to allude to chapter 7, in which the Emperor had expressed his gratitude to Rusticus r having dissuaded him om sophistical ambition, bookish dissertations, and pretentious declamations, and r having thus revealed to him that philosophy was a way oflife.
According to his own testimony in Book I, then, it was to Junius Rusticus that Marcus owed his discovery of true philosophy and of the thought of Epictetus. The Stoic teachings of Apollonius and of Sextus were then added to this decisive contribution, while om his " iends" Alexander the Platonist, Claudius Maximus, Claudius Severus, and Cinna Catulus he received the advice and the examples which helped him to live his philosophical life.
The philosopher-emperor
When, on March 7, r6r, Marcus became emperor, it was an unexpected and extraordinary event. Rome now had an emperor who professed to be a philosopher-not only that, but a Stoic philosopher. Fronto, r
18 THE INNER CITADEL
one, was less than reassured to see such a man governing the Empire: philosophy, he felt, could be a bad inspiration. In a letter to Au dius Victorinus about a juridical problem Marcus was cing concerning the will of his extremely wealthy aunt Matidia, Fronto wrote: " I was greatly a aid that his philosophy might persuade him to make the wrong deci­ sion. "52 For Fronto, moreover, Stoic philosophy as Marcus understood it was the enemy ofeloquence, which Fronto held to be indispensable r a sovereign. He wrote to the Emperor:
Even should you attain the wisdom of Cleanthes or of Zeno, you shall still be obliged, like it or not, to wear the purple pallium, and not that ofthe philosophers, made ofcoarse wool. 53
". . . and so," we are to understand, "you are darned well going to have to speak in public, and remember my rhetoric classes. "
Throughout the years in which Marcus was weighed down by the heavy burdens of the Empire, Fronto was to become the advocate of common sense, as opposed to philosophical rigor. For example, he ad­ vised the Emperor to relax and take a real vacation during his stay on the coast at Alsium: "Even your Chrysippus himsel they say, used to get plastered every day. "54 When Fronto speaks of "your Chrysippus, " by the way, it should be noted that although some modern historians-no doubt nd of paradoxes-have wondered whether or not Marcus con­ sidered himselfa Stoic,55 his friend Fronto certainly had no such doubts. When he speaks of the Emperor's philosophy, he spontaneously brings up the great names of Stoicism: Cleanthes, Zeno, and Chrysippus. It is clear that Marcus made no secret ofhis Stoic a nities.
Sometimes, Fronto is content to smile at the Emperor's in tuation: in keeping with his dogmas (instituta tua), says Fronto, Marcus must have remained imperturbable in a situation in which his li was threatened. 56 On another occasion, speaking about the Emperor's children whom he hadjust visited, Fronto observed that one ofthem was holding a piece of black bread in his hand, just like a real philosopher's son. 57
The people, both in Rome and throughout the Empire, seem to have been aware that the Emperor was a philosopher. Thus when, during his reign, at the height ofthe Danubian wars, Marcus was rced to enlist the gladiators, the current joke in Rome was that Marcus wanted to make the people renounce their pleasures and constrain them to philosophy. 58 In this regard, the dedications of the Apologies that some Christian apolo­ gists used to send to the Emperor are interesting. The emperors' titles
The Emperor-Philosopher 19
usually included the names they gave themselves a er a victory, but in Marcus' case we see that the Christian apologist Athenagoras added the title of "philosopher" to the list: "To the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, Armenians, Sarmatians, and above all philosophers. " Here Commodus, Marcus' unworthy son, bene ts om his ther's reputation. The same holds true r Marcus' adoptive brother Lucius Verus, in the dedication-un rtunately corrupt in its present state-which Justin placed at the beginning of his Apology. In any case, Marcus, then still a Caesar, is called "philosopher" in it, together with Lucius Verus. The reason these dedications mention the title of "philosopher" is that the Apologists' arguments ran as llows: Christianity is a philosophy-indeed the best of all philosophies. There­ re, a philosopher-emperor must tolerate it.
In order to gove , the Emperor surrounded himself with philoso­ phers. I have already spoken of his Stoic " iends": Junius Rusticus, consul in the year 162, Prefect ofRome around 165; Claudius Maximus, proconsul ofA ica; and Cinna Catulus. But there were not only Stoics; there were also convinced Aristotelians like Claudius Severus, consul in
1 73 and Marcus' son-in-law, as well as all those whom Galen mentions in the context of his sessions of dissection. Above all, there was the circle which gravitated around the Peripatetic philosopher Eudemus of Per­ gamon: Sergius Paulus, consul in 168, proconsul of Asia in 166-167, Prefect ofRome around 168; Flavius Boethius, Governor ofPalestinian Syria around 166-168, who had been the student of the Peripatetic Alexander of Damascus, and nally M. Vetulenus Civica Barbarus, con­ sul in 1 57, who had accompanied Marcus' daughter Lucilla on her trip to Antioch, where she was to marry Lucius Verus. 59
Galen's testimony allows us to glimpse an intense philosophical activ­ ity in the circles of the Roman aristocracy of Marcus' time, and it must be emphasized once more that these philosophical statesmen were not amateurs, vaguely interested in philosophical doctrines, but that they had consciously chosen their philosophical school. Some were enthusiastic Aristotelians, others Stoics. Thus, it was not just one philosopher who governed the Empire at that time, but several philosophers. Galen re­ counts, moreover, that there was a radical opposition between the court of Marcus Aurelius and that of his adoptive brother Lucius Verus. Around Marcus, it was the shion to have one's head shaved, Stoic-style: the poet Persius had referred to the adepts of this school as "sheared youths,"60 who slept and ate but little. At Lucius Verus' court, by con­ trast, the shion was to wear one's hair long; and Lucius used to call
20 THE INNER CITADEL
Marcus' entourage "mimologoi," or mimes, probably because he thought they were playing at being philosophers in order to imitate the Emperor. 61 Cassius Dio, r his part, writes that under the reign ofMar­ cus Aurelius, many people gave the appearance ofbeing philosophers, in the hopes of attracting the Emperor's liberality. 62
We have so far attempted, albeit too brie y, to impse how Marcus became a philosopher. We now must ask ourselves how he came to write the Meditations.
2
A FIRST GLIMPSE OF THE MEDITATIONS
The te ofa text
In our time, now that the printing and distribution of books are banal, everyday operations, we no longer re ize to what extent the survival of any work of antiquity represented an almost miraculous adventure. I after having been dictated or written onto relatively agile materials, and then having been more or less dis gured by copyists' mistakes, a text managed to survive until the birth ofprinting, it was only because it had the good rtune not to be burned in one ofthe numerous library res of antiquity, or else simply did not fall into useless pieces. The odyssey of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations seems to have been particula y risky.
In all probability, the Emperor wrote r himself and his own private use, rather than by dictation. At his death, the notes Marcus wrote in this way were saved and conserved by a mily member, a iend, or an admirer. Was it ever published, that is to say, copied down and distrib­ uted to bookstores? It is di cult to say. Some scholars have thought that they recognize analogies between the Meditations and the speech which, according to the historian Cassius Dio, writing a few years after the Emperor's death, Marcus delivered be re his soldiers on the occasion of the rebellion ofAvidius Cassius. 1 In ct, however, the analogies in ex­ pression are not very speci c; these were rmulas which were fairly widespread in the philosophical and literary tradition.
It does seem that, two centuries after Marcus, the philosopher Them­ istius knew of the existence of the work: he speaks of para elmata2 or " exhortations " written by Marcus. The historian Aurelius Victor and the Historia Augusta claim that Marcus, be re leaving on his expedition to the Danubian ont, had publicly set rth the precepts ofhis philosophy in the rm ofa series ofexhortations. 3 This is an interesting detail, r it reveals that the writing of the Meditations was linked in a con sed way
22 THE INNER CITADEL
with the wars against the Germans, which is not completely false. Much later, in the urteenth century, it would be imagined that the work was a book composed with a view to the education of Marcus' son Com­ modus. 4 In any case, it seems that none ofthese authors had direct access to the book ofwhich they were speaking.
It was not until the Byzantine tenth century that we nd testimonies to the reading and copying of Marcus' works. The great Byzantine lexicon entitled the Souda, which dates om that period, contains several extracts om the Meditations, and speci es that Marcus Aurelius' work consists of twelve books. 5 In addition, the bishop Arethas, in a letter of 907 addressed to Demetrius, metropolitan of Heraclea, speaks of a copy of the philosopher-emperor's work in his possession, which is readable but in poor condition. He has had it recopied, he writes, and can thus bequeath it to posterity in renewed condition. 6 There are, moreover, several literal quotations om the Meditations in Arethas' works. 7 In the Byzantine world, the Meditations were read throughout the llowing centuries. 8
In the West, we do not nd quotations om Marcus until the begin­ ning ofthe sixteenth century: the De arte cabalistica ofJohannes Reuchlin, published in 1 5 1 7, contains quotations of two passages om the Medita­ tions, probably taken om a manuscript in Reuchlin's possession. 9 It was not until 1559 that a printed edition appeared, brought out by Andreas Gesner of Zurich. Based on a now-lost manuscript, this edition was accompanied by a Latin translation made by Xylander (Wilhelm Holzmann). Besides this edition, we have only one complete manuscript ofthe Emperor's works: the Vaticanus Graecus 1950, which dates om the urteenth century.
We can thus surmise that it is only a matter ofluck that we happen to know the Meditations ofMarcus Aurelius. We must admit, however, that in the case of a number of passages- rtunately not very numerous­ the state ofthe text as we now possess it is less than satis ctory; and given the small number ofmanuscripts, it is di cult to improve upon the text. In order to reestablish the text with the highest degree of probability, there re, we are sometimes reduced to making conjectures.
The text, is, in any event, rather di cult to understand, and the reader should not be surprised if he nds that the original translation I am proposing is sometimes rather di erent om other extant translations. Moreover, it is because my interpretation of the thought of Marcus Aurelius is based upon my way of translating the text that I have und it necessary to include lengthy quotations om his work.
A First Glimpse of the Meditations 23
Neither in the manuscripts nor in the rst edition, moreover, is there any division ofthe work into chapters; and there are few paragraphs. The rst editors and translators who, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centu­ ries, worked with the rst edition proposed a variety ofdivisions; but the modern numeration is that of the Latin translation by Thomas Gataker, published in Cambridge in 1652. 10 Gataker's division, however, is in need of complete revision. Some chapters must be reunited, and, above all, many others must be subdivided, since a number of passages with very di erent subject matter have been unjusti ably grouped together. The reader should not be surprised, there re, to encounter the divisions I have introduced into a particular text, which will seem di erent om those und in the other extant translations.
The title
As we have seen, it was the edition of 1559 which revealed Marcus Aurelius to the West. The work quickly became a huge success, with editions of the Greek text, and translations into Latin and the various European languages, coming st and rious. Soon, however, the l­ lowing question arose: under which genre should the work be classi ed? In antiquity, a book's title allowed its readers to recognize immediately in which category it should be situated. Moreover, it was not usually the philosopher who gave the title to his writings: more o en than not, the classes he had written entered his school's library without a title. Then, r convenience, his disciples and successors got the habit ofreferring to the work by the part ofphilosophy or the speci c question with which it dealt- r example, Classes on Physi -sometimes accompanied by the name of the addressee (Nichomachean Ethi ). No doubt Plato chose the titles of dialogues himsel but they are usually taken om the names of the protagonists of the discussion: Charmides, Phaedo, Philebus. A book's title was not then, as it is now, an invention ofthe author, by means of which he tries to show o his originality and attract the reader by the unusual nature ofhis rmulations, as in The Bald Soprano, The Dancer and the Chatterton, The Cook and the Man-eater. 11
It is highly likely that when Marcus was writing what we now call the Meditations, he had no idea of giving a title to these notes intended only r himsel£ In antiquity, moreover, as long as a book remained unpub­ lished-through a public reading, r instance-it was almost always the case that the author did not give it a title. Thus, we nd the physician Galen and the philosopher Plotinus entrusting their texts to friends,
24 THE INNER CITADEL
without providing them with titles. 12 Their works, which they had given to their entourage, were in the state of what the ancients used to call hypomnemata: that is to say, notes not yet quite revised r publication, and lacking a title. This is all the more true i as is probably the case, Marcus' work was made up ofa collection ofstrictly personal and private notes. When Arethas13 (ninth to tenth centuries), to whom we no doubt owe the preservation of our precious text, describes the condition of his manuscript, he merely designates it as " the very pro table book of the Emperor Marcus. " The ct that he does not give it a title may well lead us to believe that the manuscript did not bear one. Likewise, the epigram dedicated to Marcus' book, perhaps composed by Theophylactus Simo­ cattes (seventh century), does not give any title. 14 When Arethas wrote his scholia on Lucian, he quotes the work as llows: Marcus in "the ethical writings addressed to himself" (ta eis heauton Ethika). The Byzan­ tine dictionary called the Souda15 says ofMarcus: "He consigned the rule (agoge) ofhis personal life in twelve books. " Finally, let us reca that Themistius, in the third century, made extremely vague allusions to some para elmata, or "exhortations" ofMarcus Aurelius.
The Vatican manuscript gives no title to the Emperor's work. Some manuscript collections of extracts om it do bear the notice: ta kat' heauton, which could be translated: "Writing concerning Himsel " or " Private Writing. "
After the publication of the Greek text in 1 5 59, various translations, corresponding to various theories and interpretations, were given to the work. Xylander's translation, which accompanied the Greek text in 1559, proposed the title De seipso seu vita sua ("On Himself or on His Life"). In the editions of Strasburg (1590) and ofLyon (1626), the title was De vita sua ("On his life"). When Meric Casaubon published his Graeco-Latin edition in London in 1643, he preferred the title De seipso et ad seipsum ("About Himself and to Himself"); but when the English translation appeared in 1634, he had entitled it Meditations conce ing himse . Thomas Gataker, another En ish humanist of the same period, placed the llowing rmula at the beginning of his Latin translation with commentary: De rebus suis sive de eis quae ad se pertinere censebat (" On His Private A irs, or the Matters which He Thought Concerned H1"m").
Thus, the work was to receive all kinds of titles, in all sorts of lan­ guages. In Latin: De o cio vitae ("On the Duty ofLife"); Pugillaria ("Tab­ lets"); Commentaria quae ipse sibi scripsit ("Notes which He Wrote r Himself"). In French: Pensees mo les ("Moral Thoughts"); Pensees
A First Glimpse ofthe Meditations 25
("Thoughts"); A moi-meme ("To Myself"). In English: Conversations with Himse Meditations; Though ; To Himse Communings with Himse and in German, Betrachtungen uber sich selbst or mit sich selbst ("Re ections on Himself" or "with Himself"); Selbstbetrachtungen ("Re ections on Him­ self"); Wege zu sich selbst ("Paths toward Himself").
Hypotheses on the work's literary genre
Many historians and readers of the Meditations did not understand, and still do not understand, what Marcus Aurelius' intentions were in writing them down. Consequently, they have projected back upon him, in a totally anachronistic way, the prejudices and literary habits of their own time. The rst editor, "Xylander" (Holzmann), noting that the text he was publishing lacked the ne structure of a dialogue by Plato or a treatise by Cicero, had already co ectured that the Meditations, in the state in which they existed in the manuscript he was editing, were only loose extracts om the works ofMarcus Aurelius, and that the Emperor's book had come down to us mutilated, incomplete, and in utter disor­ der. 16 It seemed to him inconceivable that Marcus could have left these obscure, disorderly texts to posteri , since in this period the systematic treatise was considered the perfect rm ofphilosophical production.
Meric Casaubon, who translated Marcus Aurelius into English and Latin in the seventeenth century (1634 and 1643 respectively), seems to have been much better in rmed about the variety of literary genres in antiquity. In the Pre ce to his Latin translation, he reminds his readers that there then existed the literary genre of the aphorism-used, r example, by Theognis and Phocylides-which consisted in expressing one's thoughts in the rm of short sayings; he added that Epictetus' Manual, as composed by Arrian, was presented entirely in this way. Moreover, he adds, ifone is able to discern the real unities that make up the text, one be better able to understand both the ow of ideas within each passage and the themes which often recur throughout the work.
Besides, Casaubon went on, we must not rget that Marcus was writing r himsel and was not seeking clarity, as an author would who was addressing himselfto the public. This gives Casaubon17 the opportu­ nity to criticize the custom that had arisen in his time ofquoting Marcus' work by the title De vita sua ("On His Life"). True, he writes, some emperors-such as Augustus-did write books about their lives; but their subject was the acts and events of their public and private lives.
26 THE INNER CITADEL
With Marcus this is not the case; rather, as the Souda indicated, what we have is a writing dealing with "the rule of his own li . " Some editors had expressed this idea by means of the title De cio suo ("On His Duty"); but this did not render the speci city ofthe title Eis heauton, which, in order to be rendered with exactitude, must be translated as De seipso et ad seipsum ("About Himselfand to Himself"). Thus, the work is a dialogue Marcus had with himself and about himself Casaubon here reminds the reader that Solon was supposed to have written some "In­ structions r Himself" (hypothekas eis heauton); above all, he reminds the reader that, r the Platonists and the Stoics, the "self" was the soul or the spirit.
Thomas Gataker de nes the speci c character ofthe work even more precisely. He opposes the Discourses of Epictetus-transmitted to us by his disciple Arrian, who was thus their editor, just as the Evangelists were in the case of Christ-to the writings of Marcus, which emanated om his own notes. Gataker uses the word adversaria, meaning "that which is always in ont of one," or "the rough draft which one always has handy. " The Emperor's mind, says Gataker, was always devoted to philosophical occupations, and he developed the habit ofwriting down the thoughts that came to him in the course of his meditations, without feeling compelled to put them into any kind of order. They were ar­ ranged solely in accordance with the places and times in which he had either composed them himsel or encountered them in the course ofhis readings and conversations. This is shown, moreover, by such remarks as "In the Land ofthe Quades" and "At Carnutum," placed at the begin­ ning of Books II and III. This resulted in some inconsistencies and repetitions, and a style that is o en elliptical or abrupt: su cient to allow the Emperor to recall such-and-such an idea, but liable to lead to a great deal ofobscurity. These were notes intended r Marcus' personal use. 18
As early as the beginning of the seventeenth century, however, the philologist Caspar Barth,19 writing in 1624, emphasized that traces of organization, and sometimes even long chains of reasoning, could be und in Marcus' writings. Barth thus returned to the theory of Xylan­ der, according to which the text, in the state in which it had been preserved, represented mere extracts (eclogai) taken om a vast systematic treatise on ethics which the Emperor was supposed to have composed.
In the eighteenth century, an analogous opinion was set rth by Jean-Pierre de Joly, who edited and translated the Meditations in 1 742 and again in l773. Marcus, saidJoly, had composed a systematic treatise on ethics, written on tablets which were dispersed after his death; an editor
A First Glimpse ofthe Meditations
then published them in their state of disorder. The task of the modern editor, then, was to rediscover the systematic order of the treatise; and this is what Joly attempted to do by publishing a systematic presentation of the Meditations, divided into thirty- ve sections. 20
In the twentieth century, A. S. L. Farquharson published, in I 944, an edition, English translation, and commentary on Marcus' text which was remarkable in every respect. He took up the hypothesis ofBarth andJoly om another angle: r a period of ten to fteen years, he thought, Marcus had accumulated materials of every variety with a view to the composition of "a work of consolation and of encouragement. " Indeed, certain meditations do show signs of highly conscientious literary com­ position. After the Emperor's death, it was perhaps a secretary who made a choice om among these notes. Their present disorder could be the result either of the ct that the secretary le them as they were, or that he introduced into them an order which does not satis us, or the ct that the text has been mutilated or disorganized by scribes through the course of the years. In any event, Marcus' intention was to write a handbook of use l advice r the philosophical li . In Farquharson's view, Marcus' Meditations can be compared to the Meditations of Guigues of Chartres, the well-known Rel io Medici of Thomas Browne, and above all the Pensees ofPascal. 21
The apparent lack of order of the Meditations did not disturb nine­ teenth-century readers at . In the century of Romanticism, it was thought that the work was the Emperor's own "journal intime. " "It is probable, " wrote Renan,22 " that Marcus kept a private diary of his inner states starting om an early age. In it, he would inscribe in Greek the maxims to which he had recourse in order to rti himself, reminis­ cences om his vorite authors, passages om those moralists who most impressed him, the principles which had sustained him throughout the day, and sometimes the reproaches which his scrupulous conscience thought it had to address to itself " I should state right away that, if we understand by "dia " notes which one writes r oneself and which accumulate day after day, then we can indeed say, with G. Misch in his Histo Autobiography,23 that the Emperor did write a "diary," or, in the words ofP.
Brunt24 in his excellent study entitled "Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations," a "spiritual diary. " I however, we understand by "diary" a writing to which one consigns the outpourings of one's heart and spiri­ tual states, then the Meditations are not a "diary," and the ct that Marcus Aurelius wrote his Meditations does not allow us, as Renan claimed, to know whether or not the Emperor had an uneasy soul. Renan was too
28 THE INNER CITADEL
much inclined to imagine the philosopher-emperor as a kind ofAmiel or Maurice de Guerin, expressing their worries and su erings every day. Following Renan, twentieth-century historians have taken pleasure in the image of Marcus nding consolation om reality by exhaling his resignation, pessimism, or resentment into his Meditations.
A strange work
We must try to imagine the state in which the rst humanists discovered the manuscript containing the copy of Marcus Aurelius' book. They were ced with a work without a title, which began with a list of the examples or advice which Marcus had received om his parents, his teachers, his iends, and om the emperor Antoninus Pius, as well as a list of the vors which the gods had accorded to him. After this enu­ meration-in the manuscript, at any rate, which was used r the estab­ lishment of the editio princeps-one could read a note which was both geographical and chronological in nature: "Written in the land of the Quades, on the banks of the Gran. " Then there came a series of re ec­ tions, several pages long, which sometimes contained divisions, marked by a paragraph and by capital letters, which do not always correspond to our modern-day division ofthe work into chapters. At the beginning of what we now call chapter III, we nd the llowing indication: "Written in Carnutum. " The re ections then begin again, and continue until the end ofthe work. In the Vaticanus, the books are not numbered: the most this manuscript contains is a two-line separation between what are today Books I and II; between today's Books II and III; between today's Book IV and Book V; between today's Book VIII and Book IX; and a dividing mark between today's Book XI and Book XII. This means that the divisions between Books III and IV; V and VI; VI and VII; VII and VIII; and IX and X are not indicated.
Who is responsible r remarks like "in the land ofthe Quades" or "in Carnutum? " Was it Marcus himsel who wanted to remind himself of the circumstances in which a speci c group of notes had been written? Or was it some secretary responsible r preserving the Emperor's docu­ ments, who added a kind oftag to the package that had been entrusted to him? The rst hypothesis is the more likely; but if so it is, I believe, something unique in the entire history of ancient literature, and well suited to show to what extent we are dealing with writings recorded day by day and linked, not perhaps to precise circumstances, but to the variations in the spiritual state of their author. Did such geographical
A First Glimpse ofthe Meditations 29
indications exist among the other books, and did they then become lost? Or was the greater part ofthe book written at Carnutum? Was it Marcus himselfwho gave up supplying such indications? We do not know. Did the twelve books which we distinguish today correspond to twelve groups which represented, in the view of their author, sequences of thoughts having their own unity and di erent om one another? Or was this division purely accidental, due, r instance, to the rm and dimen­ sions of the physical materials of Marcus' writing? Again, were the books separated by an editor, either just after Marcus' death, or by Arethas, when he produced an edition ofthe text in the tenth century? We have seen that the breaks between books, at any rate in the Vaticanus, were intly marked, if not nonexistent.
The contents of the work are rather disconcerting as well. After Book I, which presents an undeniable unity in its evocation of those, gods and men, to whom Marcus is expressing his gratitude, the rest ofthe work is nothing but a completely incoherent series-at least in appear­ ance-of re ections which are not even composed in accordance with the rules of the same litera genre. We encounter many very short sentences, often quite striking and well written, r example:
Soon you will have rgotten everything, and soon everyone will have rgotten you (VII, 21).
Everything is ephemeral, that which remembers and that which is remembered (IV, 3 5) .
The best way to get even with them is not to resemble them (VI, 6).
Alongside these short rmulas, we nd a certain number of longer developments, which vary in length om twenty to sixty lines; they may have the rm of a dialogue with a ctitious interlocutor, or of one that Marcus carries out with himself In them, Marcus exhorts himself to llow a speci c moral attitude, or else he discusses certain general philo­ sophical problems: if souls survive after death, r instance, where can they be located (IV, 21)? In most ofthese passages, whether they are long or short, Marcus' individuality can scarcely be discerned; most of the time, we have to do with exhortations addressed to a moral person. We also nd, however, some passages in which Marcus speaks to himselfas an Emperor (VI, 30, 1; VI, 44, 6); or in which he speaks ofhis attitude toward li at court (V, 16, 2; VI, 12; VIII, 9); about the way he must
30 THE INNER CITADEL
express himselfin the Senate (VIII, 30); about his ults (V, 5, l); or about his entourage (X, 36). He also evokes the people he has known in his life (VIII, 37, l; X, 3l, 1), in imaginatory exercises in the course ofwhich, in order to prepare himself r death, he represents to himselfthe agility of all things human, and the continuity of the processes of metamorphosis, which will not spare anyone in his entourage.
In addition to these various litera rms, we must also add two collections of quotations in Books VII (p-51) and XI (22-39). Bor­ rowed om the tragedians, Plato, and Epictetus, they have obviously been chosen r their moral ef cacy.
How, then, are we to de ne this work, which, by its multiple aspects and unusual tone, seems to be the only example of its genre in all of antiquity?
The Meditations as personal notes (hypomnemata)
It's time to stop rambling. You will no longer reread the notes ypomnematia) that you had taken, the great deeds of the ancient Greeks and the Romans, or the extracts om the works you had
been putting aside until your old age (III, 14).
Here we can catch a glimpse ofthe intellectual activity to which Marcus devoted himselfall his life. Already in his youth, when still the student of Fronto, he assiduously copied out extracts om Latin authors. 25 He must later have gone to the trouble ofmaking up " r his old age" an anthol­ ogy of edi ing quotations, of which we can discover traces in some pages of the Meditations. He had also put together a historical collection: "the great deeds ofthe ancient Greeks and Romans. " Finally, Marcus also speaks of his "personal notes, " using the diminutive word hypomne­ matia. It has often been suggested that these notes should be identi ed with the Meditations. 26 It is extremely di cult to give a de nitive judg­ ment on this point; nevertheless, with the help of other ancient parallels, we can at any rate imagine the way in which the Meditations were composed.
In the rst place, it seems that, as he wrote the Meditations, Marcus decided to change completely the nality of his literary activity. In Books II and III, we nd numerous allusions both to the imminence of death weighing upon Marcus, who was then engaged in the military campaigns of the Danube, and to the urgency of the total conversion he
A First Glimpse of the Meditations 3 1 felt he was about to undergo, and the change in his literary activity which
would be a necessary result of this:
Leave your books alone. Don't let yourselfbe distracted any longer; youcan'tallowyourselfthatanymore (II, 2, 2).
Throw away your thirst r reading, so that when you die, you will not be grumbling, but will be in true serenity, thanking the gods om the bottom ofyour heart (II, 3, 3).
Marcus is no longer t o disperse himself by gathering extracts om authors in the course of his readings, r he no longer has time to read. He is no longer, out of intellectual curiosity or speculative interest, to write great quantities of "note-cards, " as we would call them nowadays: rather, he is to write only in order to in uence himsel and concentrate on the essential principles (II, 3, 3):
Let these thoughts be enough, if they are life-principles (dogmata) r you.
Marcus, then, is to keep on writing. From now on, however, he will write only e cacious thoughts: that is, those which totally trans rm his way ofliving.
As he wrote these texts, which were to become our Meditations, Mar­ cus no doubt used these "note-cards" which he was a aid he would no longer have the time to reread; just as he no doubt had recourse to his co ections of extracts in order to take om them the quotations om authors which he reproduced in several books ofthe Meditations.
Formally, then, Marcus' literary activity did not change. He continued to write down r himself all kinds of notes and re ections ypomne­ mata); but the nality of these intellectual exercises had become com­ pletely modi ed. From the point ofview ofthe imminence ofdeath, one ' thing counts, and one alone: to strive always to have the essential rules of life present in one's mind, and to keep placing oneselfin the ndamental disposition of the philosopher, which consists essentially in controlling one's inner discourse, in doing only that which is of bene t to the human community, and in accepting the events brought to us by the course ofthe Nature ofthe .
Thus, the Meditations belong to that type ofwriting called hypomnemata in antiquity, which we could de ne as "personal notes taken on a day-to-
THE INNER CITADEL
day basis. " This was a very widespread practice, and on this point we have the remarkable testimony ofPamphila, a married woman who lived at the time of Nero in the rst century A. D. , who had published her hypomnemata. In the introduction she had placed at the beginning ofthis collection-now un rtunately lost-she tells the reader that, during the course ofthirteen years ofmarried li , which "was not interrupted r a day nor even r an hour," she noted down what she learned om her husband, om visitors who came to the house, and om the books she read. "I wrote them down," she said, "in the rm ofnotes (hypomne­ mata), in no special order, and without sorting them out and distinguish­ ing them according to their subject matter. Rather, I wrote them down at random, in the order in which each matter presented itselfto me. " She could, she adds, have ordered them by subject matter with a view to their publication, but she und variety and the absence of a plan more pleas­ ant and more grace l. that she wrote under her own name was an overall introduction and, apparently, a few transitional passages. The notes she had gathered together dealt with the lives of philosophers, history, rhetoric, and poetry. 27
In the llowing century, the Latin author Aulus Gellius also published his personal notes, under the title ofAttic N hts. In his pre ce, he writes: "Whether I was reading a Greek or a Latin book, or whether I had heard someone say something worthy of being remembered, I jotted down what interested me, of whatever kind it was, without any order, and I then set it aside, in order to support my memory [this is the etymological meaning ofhypomnemata]". The book he is now o ering to the public, he adds, will preserve the same variety and disorder as his notes. 28
At the beginning ofhis treatise On the T nquillity the Soul, Plutarch explains to the work's addressee that, since he was in a hurry to hand over his manuscript to the mail-courier who was just about to leave r Rome, he had not had the time to put together a well-written treatise, but had merely communicated to him the notes (hypomnemata) that he had gathered together on this theme. 29
It is probable that many educated people-and especially philoso­ phers-were in the habit of making such collections of all kinds of notes r their personal use: both in order to in rm themselves, and also in order to rm themselves; that is, to ensure their spiritual progress. It was no doubt with this goal in mind that Plutarch had put together his collection on the tranquillity ofthe soul.
This, then, is the genre of writings among which we should place the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. It is important to emphasize, however,
A First Glimpse ofthe Meditations 33
that in his case, most of these notes were exhortations to himsel or a dialogue with himsel usually composed with the utmost care.
Inner dialogue gave rise to a highly particular literary genre, ofwhich we know only one written and published example: the Soliloquies of Augustine. For him the writer's ego is no longer situated-as is o en the case with Marcus-at the level of Reason, exhorting the soul. Rather, Augustine's ego takes the place ofthe soul listening to Reason:
For a long time, I had being going over a thousand thoughts in my mind; indeed, r many days I had been ardently searching r myself and my good, and r that evil which I had to avoid, when suddenly I was told (was it I who was speaking, or someone, either outside me or within me, I do not know; that is precisely what I am trying with all my strength to nd out) ; at any rate, I was told. . . .
What the voice tells Augustine is that he must write down what it is going to make known to him. He himselfis to write, not dictate, r it is not tting to dictate things so intimate: they demand absolute solitude. 30
Let us pause r a moment and consider this extremely interesting remark. Throughout antiquity, authors either wrote themselves, or else they dictated their works. For instance, we know om Po hyry that Plotinus wrote his treatises by hand. 31 There were many drawbacks to dictation, as was pointed out by that great user of secretaries, St. Jerome: "It is one thing to twirl one's pen around in its ink several times be re one writes, and thus to write only that which is worthy ofbeing retained; but it is another to dictate to a secretary everything that comes into one's head, r fear of lling silent, because the secretary is waiting. "32 Augustine, however, allows us to glimpse a wholly other point ofview: it is only in the presence of ourselves, he implies, that we can re ect upon that which is most intimate to us. The presence of another, to whom one speaks or dictates, instead ofspeaking to onesel makes inner discourse in some way banal and impersonal. This, in all probability, is
why Marcus too wrote his Meditations in his own hand, as he also did in the case ofthe letters he wrote to his friends. 33
Tiziano Dorandi34 has recently drawn attention to the variety ofstages leading to the completion of a literary work in antiquity. As a rst stage, the author might compose rough drafts, written on tablets ofwax or of wood. Alternatively, he might, either at the outset or a er this stage, compose a provisional version ofhis work. Then, in the third stage, came the de nitive revision of the work, which was indispensable be re its
34 THE INNER CITADEL
nal publication. Now, Marcus was clearly writing only r himself, and we must imagine that he probably never envisaged this third stage. our evidence points to the conclusion that Marcus, as he wrote down his thoughts om day to day, always remained at the rst stage. He probably used tablets ugillares), or some other medium use l r handwritten notes, such as leaves (schedae). 35 At what point was this material copied and corrected by a scribe? Possibly during Marcus' lifetime, r his own personal use. It is also possible, however, and perhaps more probable, that it was after his death; and on this hypothesis we may imagine, without having recourse to the destruction postulated by Joly,36 that the tablets or leaves may not have been copied down in the precise order in which they were written. It is perhaps not irrelevant in this context that our Book I, which was in all probability written later and independently om the others, was placed at the beginning ofthe collection. Neverthe­ less, the essential part seems to be in order. Each book is characterized, at least in part, by a specialized vocabulary and by its emphasis on certain themes; this allows us to suppose that each book has its own unity, and was written during a period when the Emperor's attention was concen­ trated on a speci c question.
Obviously, it is di cult, and even impossible, to obtain a clear idea of what really happened. We must, it would seem, be content with three certainties: rst of all, the Emperor wrotefor himse . 37 Second, he wrote day by day, without attempting to write a uni ed work, destined r the public. This is to say that his works remained in the state of hypomnemata or personal notes, perhaps written on a "mobile" kind ofmedium like tablets. In the third place, Marcus took the trouble to write down his thoughts, aphorisms, and re ections in a highly r ned litera form, since it was precisely the perfection of the rmulas which could ensure their psychological e cacy and persuasive rce.
These characteristics su ce to distinguish the personal notes ofMar­ cus Aurelius om those of Pamphila or of Aulus Gellius, or even om the "note-cards" assembled by Plutarch in order to compose his treatise on the tranquillity of the soul-as well as om the notes taken by Arrian at the classes of Epictetus. It seems, in ct, that unlike these other hypomnemata, the Meditations ofMarcus Aurelius were spiritual exercises, practiced in accordance with a speci c method. We must now explore what this means.
3
THE MEDITATIONS AS SPIRITUAL EXERCISES
"Theory" and "practice"
The Meditations have only one theme: philosophy. We can see this om passages such as the llowing:
What is it that can escort you in order to protect you in this life? Only one thing: philosophy. It consists in keeping your inner god ee om pollution and om damage (II, 1 7 , 3 ) .
Be care l of becoming "caesarized" . . . Keep yourself simple, good, pure, grave, natural, a iend ofjustice. Revere the gods, be benevolent, a ectionate, and rm in accomplishing your duties. Fight in order to remain as philosophy has wished you to be (VI, 3 0, r-3).
For the ancients m general, but particularly r the Stoics and r Marcus Aurelius, philosophy was, above all, a way oflife. This is why the Meditations strive, by means of an ever-renewed e ort, to describe this way of life and to sketch the model that one must have constantly in view: that of the ideal good man. Ordinary people are content to think in any old way, to act haphazardly, and to undergo grudgin y whatever be s them. The good man, however, will try, inso r as he is able, to act
justly in the service of other people, to accept serenely those events which do not depend on him, and to think with rectitude and veracity (VII, 54):
Always and everywhere, it depends o n you piously to b e satis ed with the present conjunction of events,
36
THE INNER CITADEL
to conduct yourselfjustly toward whatever other people are pre­ sent, and
to apply the rules of discernment to the inner representation you are having now, so that nothing which is. not objective may in l­ trate its way into you.
Many of the Meditations present these three rules of life-or one or another ofthem-in a variety of rms. But these practical rules manifest a global attitude, a vision of the world, and a ndamental inner choice, which is expressed in a " discourse, " or in universal rmulas which Marcus, llowing Epictetus,1 calls dogmata (Marcus Aurelius II, 3 , 3 ; III, I 3, I; IV, 49, 6). A dogma is a universal principle which unds and
justi es a speci c practical conduct, and which can be rmulated in one or in several propositions. Our word "dogma" has, moreover, retained something ofthis meaning, r instance in Victor Hugo: "Liberty, Equal­ ity, Fraternity: these are dogmas of peace and of harmony. Why should we make them seem ightening? "2
In addition to the three rules ofli , then, the Meditations rmulate, in every possible way, those dogmas which express, in discursive rm, the indivisible inner disposition that mani sts itself in the three rules of action.
Marcus himself ves us good examples of the relationship between general principles and rules of life . We have seen that one of the rules of life he proposes consists in consenting with serenity to events willed by Destiny, which do not depend on us. But he also exhorts himse in the llowing terms (IV, 49, 6) :
On the occasion ofeverything that causes you sadness, remember to use this "dogma": not only is this not a mis rtune, but it is a piece ofgood rtune r you to bear up under it courageously.
This dogma is deduced om the ndamental dogma of Stoicism, which is the undation r a Stoic behavior: only moral good, or virtue, is a good, and only moral evil, or vice, is an evil. 3 Marcus rmu­ lates this explicitly elsewhere (VIII, I , 6):
What does happiness consist of? It consists ofdoing that which the nature of mankind desires. How shall we do this? By possessing those dogmas which are the principles of impulses and of action. Which dogmas? Those which pertain to the distinction ofwhat is
The Meditations as Spiritual Exercises 3 7
good om what is bad: there is no good r mankind but that which renders him just, temperate, courageous and ee, and there is no evil r mankind, except that which brings about in him the con­ trary vices.
Marcus also employs the word theorema to designate the "dogmas," inasmuch as every art entails principles, and consequently so too does that art of living called philosophy (XI , 5 ) :
What art do you practice? That of being good. How can you practice this except by starting out om theorems, some ofwhich concern the Nature of the , and others of which deal with the constitution proper to mankind?
Dogmas, as Marcus says (VII, 2), run the risk ofdying out, ifone does not constantly reignite those inner images, or phantasiai, which make them present to us.
Thus, we can say that the Meditations-with the exception of Book I-are wholly made up of the repeated, ever-renewed rmulation of the three rules of action which we have just seen, and of the various dogmas which are their undation.
Do as and their rmulation
These dogmas, or undational and ndamental rules, were the subject ofdemonstrations within the Stoic schools. Marcus learned such demon­ strations om his Stoic teachers Junius Rusticus, Apollonius, and Sextus, to whom he renders homage in the rst book ofthe Meditations. Above , he read about them in the Discourses of Epictetus as collected by Arrian. In his Meditations, Marcus mentions "the large number ofproofs by which it is demonstrated that the world is like a City," or else the teachings he has received on the subject of pleasure and pain, and to which he has given his assent (IV, 3 , 5, 6) .
With the aid ofthese demonstrations, the dogmas imposed themselves upon Marcus with absolute certainty, and he usually restricts himself to rmulating them in the rm of a simple proposition, as he does in Book II, r , 3 . The nature of the good, he says there, is moral good (to kalon); while that of evil is moral evil (to aischron). This condensed rm is su cient to evoke the theoretical demonstration ofwhich they were the subject, and it allows the inner disposition which was a result ofhis clear
THE INNER CITADEL
view o f these principles-that is, the resolution to do good-to b e re­ awakened within his soul. To repeat the dogmas to onesel or write them down r onesel is "to retreat," as Marcus says (IV, 3, 1), "not to the countryside, the seashore, or the mountains, " but within oneself It is there that one can nd the rmulas "which shall renew us. " "Let them be concise and essential," Marcus continues, in order that their e cacy be complete. This is why, in order to be ready to apply the three rules of action, Marcus sometimes gathers together a series of chapter-heads ephalaia), extremely briefin rm, which constitute an enumeration of points which, by their very accumulation, can increase their psychic e cacy (II, 1; IV, 3; IV, 26; VII, 22, 2; VIII, 21, 2; XI, 18; XII, 7; XII, 8; XII, 26). I cannot quote these lists in their entirety, but I shall take one example (XII, 26) in which eight kephalaia, or ndamental points, pro­ vide a group ofresources with a view to the practice ofthat rule ofaction which prescribes that we must serenely accept that which happens to us, but does not depend on our will:
Ifyou are annoyed at something, it is because you have rgotten: (1) that everything happens in accordance with universal Nature; (2) that whatever ult was committed is not your concern;
(3) and, moreover, that everything that happens has always hap­
pened thus and will always happen thus, and is, at this very mo­ ment, happening thus everywhere;
(4)how close is the relationship between man and the whole human race: r this is no community ofblood or ofseed, but ofthe intellect.
You have also rgotten:
(s)that the intellect of each person is God, and that it has owed down here om above;
(6) and that nothing belongs to any of us in the strict sense, but that our child, our body and our soul come om above;
(7)and that everything is ajudgment-value;
(8) and the only thing each ofus lives and loses is the present.
the points presented here in the rm of a laconic aide-memoire, which does nothing but evoke demonstrations with which Marcus is miliar om elsewhere, can be und separated om one another throughout the Meditations: they are repeated, ruminated upon; but also explained and sometimes demonstrated. If we assemble these series of kephalaia (II, 1; IV, 3; IV, 26; VII, 22, 2; VIII, 21, 2; XI, 18; XII, 7; XII,
The Meditations as Spiritual Exercises 39
8; XII, 26) we can thus discover almost all the themes announced or developed in the Meditations. By connecting them to the most nda­ mental dogmas of Stoicism, we can present, in a structured rm, the whole ensemble of doctrines which constitute the essential core of the Meditations.
From the absolutely primary principle according to which the only good is moral good and the only evil is moral evil (II, 1, 3), it llows that neither pleasure nor pain are evils (IV, 3, 6; XII, 8); that the only thing shame l is moral evil (II, 1, 3); that ults committed against us cannot touch us (II, 1, 3; XII, 26); that he who commits a ult hurts only himself (IV, 26, 3); and that the ult cannot be und elsewhere than within oneself(VII, 29, 7; XII, 26). It rther llows that I can su er no harm whatsoever om the actions ofanyone else (II, 1, 3; VII, 22, 2).
From the general principles
1 . only that which depends on us can be either good or evil; and
2. ourjudgment and our assent depend on us (XII, 22),
it llows that the only evil or trouble there can be r us resides in our own judgment; that is to say, in the way we represent things to ourselves (IV, 3, 10; XI, 18, I I); and that people are the authors of their own problems (IV, 26, 2; XII, 8). Everything, there re, is a matter ofjudg­ ment (XII, 8; XII, 22; XII, 26). The intellect is independent ofthe body (IV, 3 , 6) , and things do not come inside us in order to trouble us (IV, 3 , 10). If everything is a matter ofjudgment, every ult is in ct a false
judgment, and proceeds om ignorance (II, 1, 2; IV, 3, 4; XI, 18, 4-5).
I n the enumeration of kephalaia in Book XI (XI , 1 8 , 2) , Marcus tells
himsel
Go higher up still, starting om the principle that if we reject atoms, it must be Nature which governs the All.
In the list in Book IV, he says:
Remember the disjunction: either providence or atoms.
These brief mentions of a principle, which it is assumed is known, allow us to glimpse that Marcus is here again alluding to teachings he has received, which placed ce to ce the Epicurean position (atoms) and the Stoic position (Nature and providence) , to conclude in vor of the
40 THE INNER CITADEL
latter. I shall return to this point. For the moment, suf ce it to say that om the dogma that a rms a unity and rationality of the world, many consequences may be drawn, to which Marcus alludes in his series of kephalaia. Everything comes om universal Nature and in con rmity with the will of universal Nature (XII, 26)-even the malevolence of mankind (XI, 18, 24), which is a necessa consequence of the gi of liberty. Everything occurs in con rmity with Destiny (IV, 26, 4) : thus, it is in con rmity with the order of the universe that all things undergo continuous metamorphosis (IV, 3 , I I ; XII, 21), but are also ceaselessly repeated (XII, 26), and that we must die (IV, 3, 4; XI, 18, rn). Universal Reason gives rm and energy to matter that is docile, but without strength; this is why we must always and everywhere distinguish the causal (reason) and the material (XII, 8; XII, 18). It is om universal Reason that comes that reason which is common to all mankind and assures its relatedness, which is not a community of blood or of seed (II, 1, 3; XII, 26). This is why people are made r one another (II, 1, 4; IV, 3, 4; XI, 18, 1-2).
One last series ofkephalaia can be grouped around the grandiose vision of the immensity of universal Nature, and the in nity of space and of time (IV, 3, 7; XII, 7). From this perspective, the whole oflife seems to be ofminuscule duration (VIII, 21, 2; IV, 26, 5; XII, 7); the instant seems in nitesimal (II, 14, 3; XII, 26); the earth seems like a point (IV, 3, 8; VIII, 21, 2); current me and posthumous glory seem completely vain (IV, 3, 8; VIII, 21, 3; XII, 21; IV, 3, 7), all the more so since they can only be obtained om people who contradict themselves and each other (IV, 3, 8; VII, 21, 3), and whom one cannot respect, ifone sees them as they really are (XI, 18, 3).
All these "dogmas" can, then, be deduced om more ndamental dogmas. Yet they all become crystallized around the three rules or disci­ plines ofli , which we have distinguished. The discipline ofthought, r example, obviously presupposes the dogmas which concern eedom of
judgment; the discipline of action presupposes those which a rm the existence of a community of reasonable beings; and the discipline of consent to events presupposes the dogma ofthe providence and rational­ ity of the universe. We can glimpse a similar grouping in IV, 3 .
Lists of kephalaia or ndamental points: such is the rst mode of rmulation of dogmas in the Meditations. Yet these ndamental points are also taken up by themselves and equently repeated throughout the course of the work. Thus the invitation, rmulated in one of the series of kephalaia (XII, 8), to discern what is causal in each thing, is repeated
The Meditations as Spiritual Exercises 41
eight times in isolated rm, without any commentary or explanation, in the body ofthe Meditations (IV, 21, 5; VII, 29, 5; VIII, u ; IX, 25; IX, 37; XII, rn; XII, 18; XII, 29). Likewise, the a rmation " isjudgment," which gures in two lists of kephalaia (XII , 8 and XII , 26) is und twice by itself, either without commentary or accompanied by a very brief explanation (II, 15; XII, 22). Above , the dogma according to which our troubles come only om our judgments, and that things do not penetrate within us (IV, 3, 1o), recurs eighteen times in the course ofthe Meditations, sometimes repeated almost word r word, and sometimes in slightly di erent rm (V, 19; VI, 52; VII, 2; VIII, 47; IX, 13; IX, 15; XI, 11; XI, 16; XII, 22; XII, 25; IV, 7; IV, 39, 2; V, 2; VII, 14; VII, 16; VIII, 29; VIII, 40; VIII, 49).
Let us now consider another theme which we have encountered in the series ofkephalaia: that ofthe eternal repetition ofall things both in universal Nature and in human history (XII, 26, 3). This, too, is a point which is dear to Marcus, and which he goes over inde tigably. It does not matter, he writes, whether one attends the spectacle ofthe world r a short or a long time, since the totality ofbeing is present at each instant and in each thing. All things are thus homoeideis; that is, they have the same content, and there re repeat themselves in nitely.
From all eternity, all things have identical contents, and pass through the same cycles (II, 14, 1).
Everything is ofthe same kind, and ofidentical contents (VI, 37). From all eternity, all things are produced with identical contents,
and r in nity there will be other things of this kind (IX, 3 5) .
In a sense, a man of rty-if he is not devoid of intelligence-has seen all that has been and all that shall be, once he recognizes that all things have identical contents (XI, 1, 3).
It would be tedious to cite other examples ofthe many repetitions which one nds all throughout the work.