No More Learning

4. Life. I. Title. B583. H3313 1998
l88-dc21
97-469 7 1
CONTENTS
Pre ce Vil Note on Transliteration and Quotation XI Translator's Note XII
1 The Emperor-Philosopher
2 A First Glimpse ofthe Meditations 21
3 The Meditations as Spiritual Exercises 35
4 The Philosopher-Slave and the Emperor-Philosopher 54
5 The Stoicism ofEpictetus 73
6 The Inner Citadel, or the Discipline ofAssent 101
7 The Discipline ofDesire, or Amor Fati 128
8 The Discipline ofAction, or Action in the
Service ofMankind 183
9 Virtue andJoy 232
10 Marcus Aurelius in His Meditations 243 Conclusion 307
Abbreviations 315 Notes
Index 339
317
PREFACE
Soon, you w have rgotten everything. Soon, everybody w have rgotten you!
Meditations, VII, 2r
Marcus Aurelius was wrong. Eighteen centuries-almost two millen­ nia-have passed, and the Meditations are still alive. Nor have their pages been reserved to a few aristocrats of the intellect, like Shaftesbury, Frederick II, or Goethe: on the contrary, r centuries they have brought reasons to live to innumerable unknown people, who have been able to read them in the multiple translations ofthe Meditations which have been made in every corner ofthe earth; and they still do so today.
The Meditations are an inexhaustible source of wisdom; an "eternal Gospel," in Renan's words. Apparently, the Meditations do not hold any particular di culties in store r their readers. Aphorisms and brief dis­ sertations llow one another without any apparent order, and as the reader lea through the book, he or she winds up nding a striking or moving rmula which seems to speak by itsel and to need no exegesis. It is not a book to be read in one sitting. One must return to it often, in order to discover in it, day by day, some nourishment which suits the momentary states of our soul. The modern reader can perfectly well understand a given aphorism by Marcus Aurelius, like the one I have quoted as an epigraph. This is what is always attractive about the Medita­ tions: their sayings, whose limpidity can never grow old.
And yet, what a deceptive limpidity! For besides these rmulas, there are others which are much more obscure, and which have been under­ stood by historians in widely varying ways. The overall meaning of the book, its purpose, and some of its a rmations are very hard r us to grasp. Nor is this the case only with Marcus Aurelius. For kinds of reasons, ofwhich chronological distance is not the most important, our understanding ofancient works has grown more and more dim. To gain access to them once more, we will have to practice a kind of spiritual
Vlll Pre ce
exercise or intellectual ascetics, in order to ee ourselves om certain prejudices and rediscover what is, r us, almost another way ofthinking. This is what we shall attempt to do throughout the present work. Be re we set out upon this itinerary, however, it may be help l to become aware of these prejudices and illusions, which threatep to cause the modern reader to go astray when reading a work om antiquity.
In the rst place, the reader will perhaps imagine that the text has remained constant since the distant era in which it appeared, as do our contemporary printed texts. But we must not rget that ancient texts were, precisely, not printed: r centuries they were copied by hand, and copying errors were thereby constantly introduced. We can hardly blame the ancient scribes r this, if we think of our modern books, which, although they are printed, are often lled with printer's errors, which sometimes de rm the author's thought to the point of rendering it unintelligible. That, however, is another question. It cannot be overem­ phasized that it is thanks to the e orts ofthe scholars who investigate and classi the manuscripts in which ancient works have been preserved, and who attempt, using the critical method of the classi cation of errors, to reconstitute the original state of the text, that we can now read the works of antiquity in a state which is more or less satis ctory, but can never be perfect. I feel I must insist upon this point, which is sometimes com­ pletely ignored by some scienti c authorities or historians ofphilosophy, who imagine that one can hold rth about the theories of a particular ancient author without knowing what he really wrote. In the case of Marcus Aurelius, the greatest uncertainty often reigns with regard to certain words ofhis text. This does not a ect the totality ofthe work, but it nevertheless remains true that some passages present almost insur­ mountable di culties, and we should not be surprised if these di culties are re ected in the translations which have been made ofthis author.
The modern reader tends too o en to imagine that there is only one possible translation of a Greek text, and he or she may be surprised to nd considerable di erences. This ct should, however, make the reader aware of the distance that separates us om the ancients. Translation presupposes, rst of all, a choice with regard to the Greek text, in those cases in which this text is sometimes uncertain. But the translators' hesi­ tations o en also correspond to the di culties they have in under­ standing the text, and to the sometimes radically di erent interpretations of it which they propose. In the case of Marcus Aurelius, r example, many have not been able to render in an exact manner the technical terms, peculiar to the Stoic system, which are und on eve page ofthe
Pre ce lX
Meditations. Moreover, in the case ofMarcus, the division ofthe text into chapters is very uncertain, and often the limits of each "meditation" are not absolutely clear. Thus, the very appearance of the text can vary widely.
Finally, the modem reader might imagine-and no one is sa om this error-that the ancient author lives in the same inte ectual world as he does. The reader will treat the author's a rmations exactly as if they came om a contemporary author, and will there re think he has im­ mediately understood what the author meant. In ct, however, this understanding will be anachronistic, and the reader will often run the risk of committing serious mistranslations. To be sure, it is shionable now­ adays to a rm that, in any case, we cannot know exactly what an author meant, and that, moreover, this does not matter at all, r we can give the works any meaning we please. For my part, and without entering into this debate, I would say that be re we discover "unintentional" mean­ ings, it seems to me both possible and necessary to discover the meaning which the author intended. It is absolutely indispensable to go in the direction of a basic meaning, to which we can then refer in order to uncover, if we should so wish, those meanings of which the author was perhaps not conscious. It is true, however, that this reconstitution is extremely di cult r us, because we project attitudes and intentions proper to our era into the past. I� order to understand ancient works, we must relocate them within their context, in the widest sense ofthe term, which can signi the material, social, and political situation as well as the political and rhetorical universe ofthought. In particular, we must recall that the mechanisms of literary composition were very di erent then om what they are now. In antiquity, the rules of discourse were rigor­ ously codi ed. In order to say what he wanted to say, an author had to say it in a speci c way, in accordance with traditional models, and ac­ cording to rules prescribed by rhetoric or philosophy. Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, r instance, are not the spontaneous outpourings of a soul that wants to express its thoughts immediately, but rather an exercise, accomplished in accordance with de nite rules. As we shall see, they presuppose a pre-existing canvas, upon which the philosopher-emperor could only embroider. Often, Marcus says certain things only because he has to say them, by virtue ofthe models and precepts imposed upon him. The meaning ofthe Meditations can, there re, only be understood once we have discovered, among other things, the pre bricated schemes which have been imposed upon it.
My intention, which is to o er the modem reader an introduction to
x Pre ce
the reading of the Meditations, will thus perhaps not be without use l­ ness. I will try to discover what Marcus wanted to accomplish by writing them, to speci the literary genre to which they belong, and, especia y, to de ne their relationship with the philosophical system which inspired. them. Finally, without trying to produce a biography of the emperor, I will try to determine how much of him is visible in his work.
I have chosen to quote the Meditations abundantly. I hate those mono­ graphs which, instead ofletting the author speak and staying close to the text, engage in obscure elucubrations which claim to carry out an act of decoding and reveal the "unsaid" of the thinker, without the reader's having the slightest idea of what that thinker really "said. " Such a method un rtunately permits all kinds of de rmations, distortions, and sleight of hand. Our era is captivating r all kinds of reasons: too often, however, om the philosophical and litera point ofview, it could be de ned as the era ofthe misinterpretation, ifnot ofthe pun: people can, it seems, say anything about anything. When I quote Marcus Aurelius, I want my reader to make contact with the text itself, which is superior to any commentary. I would like him to see how my interpretation tries to base itself on the text, and that he can veri my a rmations directly and immediately. The translation I o er is completely original. I have been working on Marcus Aurelius r more than twenty years, in particular on a new edition and translation of the Meditations, which will be published within the next few years. In the course ofthis work, interpretation and translation have gone hand in hand, and this is why I could not illustrate my arguments by referring the reader to existing translations, which would have been di erent om mine, and which might not have corre­ sponded exactly with my idea of the philosopher-emperor's work.
I should like to thank Michael Chase r his sensitive and philologi­ cally astute translation, as well as Angela Armstrong. Finally, my thanks go to Margaretta Fulton and Mary Ellen Geer at Harvard University Press, as well as Brian Stock at the University of Toronto, r their patient and help l advice.
Note on Transliteration and Quotation
I have sometimes und it use l to allude to certain Greek technical terms which are peculiar to Stoic philosophy. I have tried to transliterate them as simply as possible, using the letter e to represent the Greek letter eta, and o to represent the letter omega.
In order not to multiply my notes unnecessarily, the references r the quotations om Marcus Aurelius and the Discourses of Epictetus have been indicated in parentheses within the text. In both cases, the rst number refers to the number of the book, the second to the chapter number, and the third to the paragraph number within the chapter. Unless I indicate otherwise, the references given in Chapters 4 and 5 always refer to the text ofthe Discourses ofEpictetus.
The Greek text ofMarcus Aurelius on which my translations are based is generally that of W. Theiler, Marc Aurel, Wege zu sich selbst (Zurich: Artemis Verlag, 1974).
Translator's Note
I have used the llowing procedure in rendering Pierre Hadot's transla­ tions: I rst literally translated Hadot's French version, and then com­ pared it with the original Greek or Latin texts. We have exchanged correspondence about doubt l cases, and this process has resulted in a number of corrections with regard to the 1992 French edition of this work. The nal result is, I hope, a translation which, inso r as is possible, is ith l both to Pierre Hadot and to the Greek and Latin authors to whom he has so fruit lly dedicated his li . Finally, all notes enclosed in square brackets are my own.
THE INNER CITADEL
1
THE EMPEROR-PHILOSOPHER
A happy youth, a tormented reign
The ture Marcus Aurelius, who was to receive this name later on, as a result ofhis adoption by the emperor Aurelius Antoninus Pius, was born in Rome in l2l, and was initially named Marcus Annius Verus. The milies of his mother and ther possessed a number of brick ctories,1 which represented an enormous rtune and a considerable investment ofcapital. Such wealth allowed its holders to exercise political in uence, and the ctory owners often attained positions om which they could in uence construction programs, as was the case r Marcus Aurelius' grand ther.
After his grand ther died during his early childhood, Marcus was noticed, protected, and vored by the emperor Hadrian. Just be re his death in 1 3 8 , the latter, in order to ensure his succession, adopted Anton­ inus-uncle-in-law of the ture Marcus Aurelius-and asked him to adopt Marcus as well as Lucius Verus, the son ofAelius Caesar, whom Hadrian had initially chosen as his successor, but who had just died.
OnJuly IO, 138, HadrianwassucceededbyAntoninus. Oneyearlater, the ture Marcus Aurelius, at the age of eighteen, was raised to the dignity of Caesar. In 145, he married Faustina, daughter of Antoninus. The couple had thirteen children, of whom only six survived beyond childhood: ve daughters and one son, the ture emperor Commodus. 2
The correspondence which Marcus exchanged with his rhetoric teacher Fronto, which lasted nearly thirty years- om 139 to 166/r67, the date of Fronto's death3-provides us with precious details on this period ofMarcus Aurelius' life, as well as on the atmosphere at the court ofthe Antonines: mily life, children's illnesses, wine-making, the ture emperor's studies and readings, the rhetorical homework which he punctually sent to Fronto, and the tender iendship which linked not only the master and the student, but also the milies ofMarcus Aurelius
2 THE INNER CITADEL
and ofFronto. At the death ofAntoninus (161), Marcus Aurelius, then thirty-nine years old, became emperor, and he immediately had equal power conferred upon his adoptive brother, Lucius Verus.
In the same year as their common accession to the throne, the Parthians invaded the eastern provinces of the Empire. The campaign began with a disaster r the Roman army, whereupon Lucius was sent east, where, under the command oftwo seasoned warriors, Statius Pris­ cius and Avidius Cassius, the Roman troops regained the upper hand (163-166). They invaded the Parthian kingdom, and seized Ctesiphon and Seleucia.
No sooner had the ceremonies celebrating the two emperors' victory of 166 ended when most alarming news arrived om another border of the Empire. The Marcomanni and the Quadi, Germanic peoples om the re on ofthe Danube, were threatening the North ofltaly. The two emperors were obliged to come and restore order to the situation, and spent the winter at Aquileia. At the beginning ofthe year l69, however, Lucius died in the carriage in which he was riding along with Marcus Aurelius. From 169 to 175, the Emperor then had to carry out military operations in the region ofthe Danube.
In 175, at the ve moment when he was beginning to enjoy some success, Marcus received word ofthe rebellion ofAvidius Cassius, who, as a result of a plot which had spread through several provinces of the East and of Egypt, had himself proclaimed Emperor. Marcus Aurelius was probably saved on this occasion by the loyalty ofMartius Verus, the governor of Cappadocia. At any rate, as the Emperor was preparing to leave r the East, he learned of the assassination of Avidius Cassius, which put an end to this tragic episode.
Marcus Aurelius nevertheless decided to travel to the eastern prov­ inces, accompanied by Faustina and their son Commodus; he went to Egypt, Syria, and Cilicia, where Faustina died. Ancient historians loved to linger over Faustina's numerous adulteries; whatever may be the truth behind this gossip, the Emperor was pro undly a ected by her loss, and it is with deep emotion that, in the Meditations (I, 17, 18), he evokes the memory ofhis wife, so "docile, so loving, and so upright. "
On his way back to Rome, the Emperor passed through Smyrna and then Athens, where, together with Commodus, he was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries. The festivities celebrating the victories over the Germans and the Sarmatians took place at Rome, on December 23, 176,
but Marcus Aurelius had to leave once again r the Danubian ont in 178. He died at Sirmium or at Vienna in 180.
The Emperor-Philosopher
3
The Empire was ravaged by natural catastrophes even more than by wars during this period: oodings of the Tiber (161), earthquakes at Cyzicus (161) and at Smyrna (178), and above all the terrible plague epidemic brought back om Asia by Roman troops returning om the Parthian war (166). As ]. F. Gilliam has shown,4 this plague did not perhaps bring about the vast depopulation which has been described by certain historians, who have made it the decisive cause of the decline of Rome, but it certainly did have serious consequences r the social and economic li ofthe Empire.
What a tormented reign it was! No sooner had Marcus Aurelius as­ cended the throne than he was suddenly overwhelmed by natural disas­ ters, military and political di culties, and family cares and mournings, which rced him to engage in a battle every day.
The sober-alb it partial-judgment of Cassius Dio5 is one of the mostjust that have been made on the subject ofMarcus: "He didn't have the luck which he deserved . . . but was con onted, throughout his reign, by a multitude of disasters. That is why I admire him more than any other, r it was amidst these extraordinary and unparalleled di cul­ ties that he was able to survive, and to save the Empire. "
As Ferdinand Lot has written,6 "The Roman world saw a series of sovereigns succeed to the throne the likes of which history has never seen since, and this happened precisely at the time rst ofthe stagnation, and then of the decline of the ancient world. " A er enumerating the examples of Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Diocletian, Julian, and Theodosius, among others, he continues: "Statesmen, legislators, warri­ ors, they sped om Brittany to the Rhine, om the Rhine to the Danube, om the Danube to the Euphrates, in order to de nd the Roman world and civilization against the Germanic or Sarmatian Bar­ barians, against the Parthians, and then against the Persians. They all knew that their lives were constantly threatened . . . And they aban­ doned themselves fearlessly to their tragic destiny as supermen. For if ever supermen have existed, we have to look r them among the em­ perors of the second to the urth century. " Such is the perspective within which we must situate the personality of Marcus Aurelius, if we hope to catch a glimpse of it.
Evolution toward philosophy
In this work, however, the goal is not to write the biography of one of these "supermen. "7 Our task shall only be to ask how Marcus Aurelius
4
THE INNER CITADEL
came to write the Meditations; and this is the same as asking how he became a philosopher, and how the Meditations could represent r him a part ofhis philosophical activity.
First, it is perhaps not inappropriate to recall that a philosopher in antiquity was not necessarily a theoretician of philosophy, as is all too often supposed. In antiquity, a philosopher was someone who lived like a philosopher-that is, who led a philosophical life. Cato the Younger, a statesman ofthe rst century B. c. , was a Stoic philosopher, but he did not write a sin e philosophical treatise. Rogatianus, a statesman ofthe third century A. D. , was a Platonic philosopher, the disciple ofPlotinus, and yet he wrote no philosophical treatise. Neverthless both men considered themselves philosophers, because they had adopted a philosophical way oflife. Let it not be said, moreover, that they were amateur philosophers. In the view of the masters of ancient philosophy, authentic philosophy was not that which discoursed upon theories or commented upon authors. In the words ofEpictetus (III, 21, 5), a Stoic who had a consid­ erable in uence upon Marcus Aurelius: "Eat like a man, drink like a man, get dressed, get married, have children, lead the life ofa citizen. . . . Show us all this, so that we can see whether or not you have really learned something om the philosophers. "8
Ancient philosophers thus had no need to write. If, moreover, they did write, it was not necessary r them to invent a new theory, or develop any speci c part of a system. It was enough r them to rmu­ late the ndamental principles of the school in vor of which they had made their choice ofli . When Marcus was writing the Meditations, he did not invent anything new, and did not bring about any progress within Stoic doctrine. This, however, is not to say that he was not a philosopher, and especially not a Stoic philosopher. 9
On the other hand, the ct of having taken some philosophy courses did not necessarily mean that one was a philosopher. Lucius Verus, Marcus Aurelius' adoptive brother, received instruction om the same philosophy teachers as his brother, but no one would think ofcalling him a philosopher. 10 The Latin author Aulus Gellius, Marcus' contemporary, was a student of the Platonic philosopher Taurus at Athens. There is no doubt that Gellius was interested in philosophy, and he cites many philo­ sophical texts in his works, but he makes no claim to lead a philosophical life. Rhetoricians and statesmen und in philosophy courses training r dialectics, and material to develop commonplaces in their discourses. As Pronto wrote to Marcus: "Philosophy will give you the substance of
The Emperor-Philosopher 5
your discourse, and rhetoric its rm. "11 They did not, however, feel obliged to live like philosophers. This is why the Discourses ofEpictetus, as reported by Arrian, constantly remind the philosopher's audience that philosophy does not consist in dialectical skill lness or beauti l lan­ guage, but in the way one lives day-to-day life. To be a philosopher was not to have received a theoretical philosophical education, or to be a professor ofphilosophy. Rather, it was to pro ss, as a result ofa conver­ sion which caused a radical change of life-style, a way of life di erent om that ofother people.
It would be extremely interesting to know, in all its details, the man­ ner in which Marcus' conversion to philosophy took place. Yet many points remain obscure.
We possess two documents ofcapital importance on Marcus Aurelius' evolution. The rst is the correspondence between Marcus and his rhetoric teacher Pronto, ofwhich I have already spoken; un rtunately, it has come down to us in a palimpsest discovered in the nineteenth cen­ tury; thus this collection ofletters has been covered over by other writ­ ing, and the chemical products which were used to make it legible have caused irreparable deterioration ofthe manuscript, which contains gaps and is often unreadable. The second piece of evidence comes om the Emperor himsel who, as he wrote the rst book of his Meditations, mentioned all he owed to his parents, teachers, and iends; this is an extremely concise text, which leaves us terribly unsatis ed. Still, with the help of the meager indications we can glean om these sources, we can distinguish a certain number of phases in Marcus' evolution toward philosophy. Although later hagiographers asserted that he was "serious" om childhood on,12 we can discern an initial period of care ee youth, which seems to have continued until the age of twenty, that is, into the period when he was already Caesar. It is possible, however, that under the in uence of Diognetus, one of the teachers Marcus speaks about in his Meditations (I, 6) , the desire to live as a philosopher may have touched him already at this period.
Marcus' conversion to philosophy seems to have been the work of Junius Rusticus, who revealed to him the teachings ofEpictetus, and his conversion can probably be dated to the years 144-147. In any case, when Marcus was twenty- ve, in 146-147, he wrote Pronto a letter which leaves no doubt as to his new state of nd. Besides, throughout the rst years of Marcus' elevation to the throne, Pronto makes almost constant allusions to the philosophical way ofli ofhis Imperial student.
6 THE INNER CITADEL Care ee li ofa young prince and dreams ofa life ofausterity
Marcus' letters to Pronto-particula y those he wrote when he was still a young eighteen- or twenty-year-old Caesar-allow us to catch a glimpse ofthe simple, miliar way oflife which was led at the court of Marcus' adoptive ther Antoninus, particularly in the Imperial villas, r away om Rome, to which Antoninus often liked to withdraw. The mily took part in the labors of the grape harvests, and there was no luxury in the meals served, or even in the heating. The ture emperor liked physical exercise-especially hunting-which he seems to have practiced without any particular scruples with regard to his subjects. This, at least, is what we can glimpse om a letter which could date om the years 14 143, only the rst part ofwhich has been preserved:
. . . When my ther came back home om the vineyards, I went riding, as usual. I got started and we gradually moved away. Sud­ denly, in the middle ofthe road, there was a big ock ofsheep, and the place was deserted: there were ur dogs, two shepherds, and nothing else. When they saw this group ofhorsemen coming, one ofthe shepherds said to the other, "Watch out r these horseman; they're the kind that usually cause the most trouble. " No sooner did I hear this than I spurred my horse and headed him straight r the ock; the terri ed beasts scattered, running every which way, bleat­ ing and in the utmost con sion. The shepherd threw his sta at me, but it landed on the rider who was llowing me, and we ed. Thus, he who was a aid oflosing a lamb wound up losing his sta Do you think I made this story up? No, it's true. I'd write you still more about it, but they're coming to get me r my bath. 13
In this childish prank, we catch the ture emperor in an act of olish­ ness and senselessness. We are a long way om the philosopher who will later try, among other things, to renderjustice with the utmost scrupu­ lousness. Most of the time, moreover, the tone of these letters to Fronto is very play l. It appears as though the young Caesar, that passionate reader, who was no doubt trying his hardest to polish his skills at rhetoric, was not thinking about anything else.
It does seem, however, that even in his childhood Marcus Aurelius had seen what the ideal ofa philosophical life could be. In the rst book ofhis Meditations (I, 6), he attributes this aspiration r a life ofausterity to the in uence of a certain Diognetus. 14 The latter was one of the rst
The Emperor-Philosopher 7
teachers Marcus had; he had taught him to write dialogues "while he was still a child, " and had turned him away om a game which had long been practiced by young Greeks: mentioned by Aristophanes and Plato, it consisted essentially in playing with quails by striking them lightly on the head. 15 It was Diognetus, said Marcus, who gave him his love r phi­ losophy and inspired in him "the desire to sleep on a cot and a simple animal-skin, and r things of this sort which belong to the 'Hellenic' way oflife. " We shall return to this last phrase. For the moment, let us note the correspondence between this note om the Meditations and the indications given us by The Life ef Marcus Aurelius in the Histo a Augusta:16 "At the age of twelve, he adopted the costume of a philoso­ pher, and a little later the endurance of one, too. He used to study dressed in a pallium-that is, a philosophers' cloak-and sleep on the ground; his mother had all kinds ofdi culty in getting him to stretch out on a bed covered with animal skins. "
A short cloak and a hard bed were the symbols ofthe Stoic philosophi­ cal li . We nd them in Seneca, who advises his disciple Lucilius to practice this austerity om time to time, evoking Demetrius the Cynic lying on his cot; in the younger Pliny, who speaks of the jurist Aristo­ more ofa philosopher than the so-called philosophers-whose bed called to mind the simplicity of life of the ancients; and nally in the Stoic Musonius, teacher of Epictetus, who declared that a cot and a simple animal-skin are enough r sleeping. 17
On this topic, we can well wonder whether "Hellenic way of life (agoge), " the reading of the manuscripts of the Meditations, ought to be preserved, or whether we should emend the reading to "Laconian way of life (agoge).
" For among the ancients, the "Hellenic way oflife" tended
rather to designate Greek culture and civilization, both in its spiritual and in its material rms: literature and philosophical discourses, to be sure, but also the gymnasia and social way ofli . 18 The expression "Laconian way oflife," by contrast, traditionally designated the "rough life" which characterized at the same time Spartan education and philosophical askesis. The word agoge was, moreover, o en used by itself to designate the life-style ofthe Lacedaemonians. 19 In his li ofthe Spartan legislator Lycurgus, Plutarch20 describes the way in which Spartan children were brought up: once they reached the age oftwelve, they lived without any tunic, received only one cloak r the whole year, and slept on mattresses which they themselves had made out ofreeds.
The model of this style of life was strongly idealized by the philoso­ phers, especially the Cynics and Stoics. This was what F. Ollier21 has
8 THE INNER CITADEL
termed the "Spartan mirage," and it was all the more a mirage in that Sparta was a warlike, totalitarian state which " shioned its citizens to become the docile instruments ofits ," whereas the Cynics and Stoics considered personal moral value as the only goal of life. From Spartan education, they retained only its training r perseverance, its return to a natural li , and its contempt r social conventions. To cite only one example: the Stoic Musonius considered that a disciple "educated Spar­ tan style" was in a better condition to receive philosophical instruction, and he had praised at length the Lacedaemonians' frugal li -style. 22 One might add that the philosophers' cloak (Greek tribon, Latin pallium) worn by the young Marcus Aurelius was none other than the Spartan cloak, made of coarse cloth, that had been adopted by Socrates, Antisthenes, Diogenes, and the philosophers ofthe Cynic and Stoic tradition. 23
How did Diognetus transmit to Marcus the desire r the austere li of the philosophers and the Spartans? We do not know. Did he boast to him of the ee life of the Cynic or Stoic philosophers? Following the example of Plutarch, did he tell him about the life of Lycurgus or of Cleomenes? Be this as it may, he brought about in his student what we might call an initial conversion toward philosophy.
Nevertheless, in the letters om Marcus to Fronto which date om be re the years 146-147, we do not perceive the slightest trace ofthis youthful-or rather, childish-enthusiasm r the Spartan-style philo­ sophical way oflife. No doubt it had been short-lived; and yet this re, though apparently extinguished, continued to smolder, and it would not be long be re it ared up once again.
Junius Rusticus
Ancient historians are unanimous in recognizing the vitally important role played by Junius Rusticus in Marcus' evolution toward philosophy. "His vorite teacher, " says the Historia Augusta,24 "was Junius Rusticus, whose disciple he was and r whom he had the greatest respect. This Rusticus was as e ective in war as he was in peace, and he was a great practitioner of the Stoic way of life . Marcus Aurelius consulted him on all his business, whether public or private; he used to greet him with a kiss even in ont of the Praetorian prefect; honored him with a second consulate, and, after his death, requested that the Senate raise statues of him. " The Historia Augusta could, moreover, have added that Rusticus' rst consulate, in 162 (the year after Marcus became emperor), was certainly intended as a sign ofthe disciple's gratitude toward his master. When the historian Cassius Dio25 speaks ofMarcus' philosophy teachers,
The Emperor-Philosopher 9
he mentions only Junius Rusticus and Apollonius of Chalcedon, both of whom he depicts as Stoics. Later, in the urth century, Themistius still speaks of the privileged relationship between Junius Rusticus and the Emperor. 26
It will come as no su rise that a statesman, who was to become Pre ct of the City om 162 to 168, should be at the same time a philosophy teacher. There was nothing extraordinary about this in antiq­ uity: Cicero and Seneca were also statesmen, and they too did not hesi­ tate to present themselves as philosophy teachers. There were two rea­ sons r this: in the rst place, ancient philosophy was not restricted to specialists and professionals, so that statesmen could perfectly well live as philosophers and master philosophical discourse. Moreover, as has been well shown by I. Hadot,27 there was at Rome an old tradition according to which young people attached themselves to older and more experi­ enced personages who initiated them into political life, but also into ethical li . This was in particular the way they studied law-as Cicero did under Scaevola-but young people could also be initiated into the philosophical li in this way. From this perspective, we may say that
Junius Rusticus gave Marcus Aurelius private philosophy lessons, and that he was at the same time his iend and his spiritual guide.
The rst book of the Meditations renders him an extended homage­ the longest ofany, in ct, except r that accorded to Marcus' adoptive ther, the emperor Antoninus (I, 7) :
From Rusticus. To have had some idea of the need I had to straighten out my moral condition, and to take care ofit.
That I did not let myselfbe dragged into sophistical ambition, or to compose treatises on philosophical theorems, to declaim ne exhortatory speeches, or, nally, to try to strike my audience's imagination by parading myself ostentatiously as a man who prac­ tices philosophical exercises, or is generous to a ult.
To have given up rhetoric, poet , and re ned expressions.
Not to walk around in a toga while I'm home, and not to let myselfgo in such matters.
To write letters simply, just like the letter he himself wrote to my mother om Sinuessa.
To be disposed, with regard to those who are angry with you and o end you, in such a way as to be ready to respond to the rst call, and to be reconciled as soon as they themselves wish to return to you.
To study texts with precision, without being content just to skim
IO
THE INNER CITADEL
over them in a general, approximate way; and not to give my assent too quickly to smooth talkers.
To have been able to read the notes taken at the courses of Epictetus, which he lent to me om his own library.
What Marcus learned om Rusticus was thus, in a sense, the opposite ofwhat he had learned om Diognetus. As Epictetus28 had said, the goal ofphilosophy is not to wear a cloak, but to reason correctly. Philosophy does not consist in sleeping on the ground, nor in writing dialogues, but in recti ing one's character. It resides neither in sophistry, bookish dis­ sertations, nor pretentious declamations, nor in ostentatiousness, but rather in simplicity. In this text, we can glimpse the con ict that sepa­ rated Franta and Rusticus in the orientation ofMarcus' education: "To have given up rhetoric, poetry, and re ned expressions. " Franta himself referred to this opposition when, declaring himself delighted to see that the new Emperor had spoken eloquently in public, although it had been several years since he had re sed to continue his rhetorical studies, he wrote to him: "Of all the people I have known, I have never und anyone gi ed with a greater natural gift r eloquence. . . . My dear Rusticus, our Roman, who would give his li or sacri ce it willingly to save your little nger, was then rced to concede-much against his will, and with a disgusted look on his ce-that what I used to say about your rhetorical talents was right. "29
His role as spiritual guide cannot always have been easy r Rusticus. The mention ofRusticus' attitude toward those who got angry with him does seem to be an allusion to the attitude ofMarcus himsel in the same rst book ofhis Meditations, Marcus thanks the gods r having brought it about that, although he equently became angry with Rusticus, he never went so r as to do something he might later regret (I, 1 7, 1 4) . No doubt relations between the two men were stormy, both during Marcus' youth, when Rusticus pointed out to his disciple that he needed to re rm his character (I, 7, r), and during the period when Rusticus was one ofthe Emperor's advisers. Thus, Rusticus, by his indulgence and his gentleness, showed Marcus the attitude that he too should adopt vis-a-vis those who became irritated with him. It does seem as though one ofthe Emperor's principal character defects was his tendency to become irritated easily.
Marcus Aurelius does not say a word about the Stoic doctrines taught to him by Junius Rusticus. There is nothing surprising about this, r although the rst book of the Meditations draws up a list of what the Emperor has received om his parents, his teachers, his friends, and the
The Emperor-Philosopher I I
gods, it is a list of the models and practical advice which have been o ered to him, and not the description of a purely intellectual itinerary. From this perspective, however, the mention of the notes taken during the classes of Epictetus is su cient, r compared to Epictetus, the Stoic teachers ofMarcus' time were mere epigones. As r as Stoicism is concerned, the gure ofEpictetus dominated the entire second century. For Marcus, this was the greatest bene t he had received om Rusticus, r his Meditations were to be no more than variations-often superbly orchestrated-on themes proposed by the philosopher-slave.
The reading of "A sto "
Conversions are often thought to be events that happen instantaneously in unexpected circumstances. History is lled with anecdotes of this kind, whether they be about Polemon, after a night of debauchery, stumbling by chance into the class of the Platonic philosopher Xeno­ crates; Augustine hearing a child's voice telling him to "take this and read it"; or Saul blinded on the road to Damascus. It would be nice to nd the traces of a sudden conversion to philosophy in the case of our philoso­ pher-emperor as well, and they have long been thought to have been discovered in a letter om Marcus to his teacher Fronto,30 in which he says that he is so upset that he is sad and is no longer eating.
At the beginning of this letter, Marcus mentions-in a half-joking tone and without entering into details-a discussion he had had with his friend Au dius Victorinus, Fronto's son-in-law. Au dius is bursting with pride at having been a judge during an arbitration; he boasts-certainly less than seriously-that he is the mostjust of the men who had come to Rome om Umbria, and he considers himself superior to Marcus Aurelius, who is only an assessor and is happyjust to sit and yawn beside the judge. As Caesar-we learn om the rest of the letter that Marcus was twenty- ve years old at the time-Marcus had to assist the emperor Antoninus in his judicial activity, and it is to this nction that Au dius is probably alluding. 31
After telling this story, Marcus moves on to another topic. Fronto is coming to Rome, intending, as was his custom, to check on his pupil's literary work. To be sure, Marcus is happy at the thought ofhis master's visit, but he is extremely upset that he has not read the texts Fronto had assigned to him (Plautus and Cicero, it would seem), and especially that he has not written a rhetorical argument in which he was to plead r both the pro and the contra side.
12
THE INNER CITADEL
The reason r his lling behind, says Marcus, is his reading ofArista:
Aristo's books are ajoy r me, and at the same time a torture. They are a joy, in that they teach me better things; but when they show me to what extent my inner dispositions (ingenium) are distant om these better things, then too often your disciple blushes and is angry with himselfbecause, at the age oftwenty- ve, I have not yet assimilated into my soul any of the salutary dogmas and purest reasonings. This is why I am tormented, angry, andjealous, and I no longer eat.
In the third part of his letter, Marcus announces to Fronto that he is going to llow the advice of an ancient orator: under certain circum­ stances, the laws must be allowed to sleep. He will there re let Aristo's books sleep a little, and devote himself to the rhetorical work he had promised his teacher. However, in his current state ofmind, it would be impossible r him to argue simultaneously r and against some mat­ ter-that is, we are to understand, as if the justice or injustice of the matter in question were indi erent to him.
Traditionally, this letter has been considered as the story of Marcus' conversion, which would thus have occurred at the age of twenty- ve, and the Arista spoken of here has consequently been identi ed with Arista ofChios, a Stoic ofthe third century B. C. On this interpretation, it was the reading ofthis author which brought about this sudden trans r­ mation.
E. Champlin has recently expressed his doubts about this interpreta­ tion. 32 This author starts o om the observation that the beginning and end of the letter allude to jurisprudence, with the beginning evoking Au dius' pride as a judge, and the end speaking, a propos of Aristo's books, of "letting the laws sleep, " and he concludes that the middle part ofthe letter is also to be interpreted in the context ofjurisprudence. The books mentioned by Marcus would there re be those not ofArista of Chios, but of Titus Arista, a Roman jurisconsult of the time of Trajan, whose ascetic image had been evoked in one of the letters of Pliny the Younger. When he describes the e ect made on him by these works, there re, Fronto's student is not at all speaking of his regrets at not yet being a philosopher, but of his sadness at not yet having su ciently studied jurisprudence. This is why at the end of the letter, the books of
Arista are identi ed with the laws which must sometimes be allowed to sleep .
The Emperor-Philosopher 13
This interpretation has been criticized by R. B. Rutherford, H. Gorgemanns, and mysel£33 In the rst place, it seems completely unlikely that, at the age oftwenty- ve, Marcus could cry out, a propos of some books onjurisprudence: "At the age oftwenty- ve, I have not yet assimilated into my soul any of the salutary dogmas and the purest rea­ sonings, " and that he could speak of the distance of his "inner disposi­ tions" as compared to the ideal he has discovered. Moreover, the irrita­ tion, sadness, and loss of appetite,34 even when we take rhetorical ampli cation into account, would seem highly exaggerated if they were the result ofa temporary passion rjurisprudence.
Second, it is somewhat cile to attempt to interpret the letter as ifit dealt with the one theme ofjurisprudence, and with that theme alone. The story of Au dius Victorinus rms a whole, independent of what llows it. Finally, the rmula "to let the laws sleep" was a proverbial expression,35 meaning that, in cases of serious crises, we must sometimes resign ourselves to silencing our moral principles.
Champlin bases his argument on the ct that, already in antiquity, all the works of Aristo of Chios were considered to be apocryphal. To be sure, it is virtually certain that this philosopher, like many others om Socrates down to Epictetus, gave only oral instruction and wrote noth­ ing. Yet the list ofhis "works" as it existed in antiquity enumerated, r the most part, such titles as hypomnemata, scholai, and diat bai, which designated notes taken during class by students. 36 This is also how the teachings ofEpictetus have come down to us: thanks to the notes taken by Arrian, a statesman of the beginning of the second century A. D. It is not impossible that Marcus had access to these notes taken at Aristo's classes, or to extracts om the letter preserved in the Stoic schools. He may also have read a collection of "Comparisons" (Homoiomata) by the same Aristo, which was popular down to the end ofantiquity, and which
moreover does seem authentic, since it accords with what we know of Aristo's teaching om other sources. For instance, we know that he considered dialectics to be useless, and we nd sayings in this collection which illustrate this view. The reasonings ofthe dialecticians, says Aristo, are like spiders' webs: completely useless, but ingenious. Those who conduct advanced studies of dialectics are like people eating cray sh: they struggle with a lot of shell r very little nourishment. Dialectics is like mud on the road: it is completely useless, and it makes those who walk ll down. We should also note the llowing remark on the brevity of li : the time and life accorded to men are very short; sleep, like a tutor, takes away half of it om us. 37 It should be noted as well that
14 THE INNER CITADEL
Marcus could have known Aristo through Cicero and Seneca, who had spoken about him. 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.