Date: 01/21/03 04:35:14 PM
Name: "Diogenes"
Subject: Opening of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius :
Introductory remarks
City/Location: Chicago
Some, more interested in the validation of their pride than in
understanding, will stop paying attention when it suits them. The
passage I'm about to cite must be read in its entirety, though, if it
is to be appreciated at all. Unlike a newspaper writer, who must
design his articles to be cut from the bottom on up, as he knows his
editor will do, and thus must begin his writing in sound bites upon
which he expands, Marcus Aurelius expects to be heard uninterrupted.
Why not ? He was, after all, the emperor, and would be used to expecting such consideration even in live discussion. How much more so he would be justified in expecting this in his writing where he, unlike too many modern writers, would have final (indeed, exclusive) editorial control. This, we all know consciously, perhaps, but it is good to remind ourselves of this anyway, so that we may work past the reflex of reading him as we would many contemporary authors who write as if they were transcribing a speech made before an unruly crowd.
Freed from the limitations of a top-down writing style, he is free to adopt a more fluid writing style in which the end of a passage may well give context to its beginning. This can be a startling one to those from a so-called "mainstream American" cultural background, of some of whom Emerson and the American Transcendentalists would write millenia later, when they would say things like "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds". (Or was that "bugaboo" ? I forget).
One is expected to write and speak as one would build a house : progressively, with as few second thoughts on the part of all involved as possible. If the foundation we lay down in the beginning is seen to be bad, the rest is suitable only for demolition. Such a standard is imposed on all who speak, and all are expected to react as if they anticipated this. So entrenched is our self-styled cultural mainstream in this point of view, in which "Bwuhahahaha !" is the knee-jerk response to any hesitation on the part of the speaker, that some forget that it is actually a fairly peculiar one, not shared by all cultures, and if truth be told, not a very well thought out one.
We never act with either perfect knowledge or perfect judgement, and so our conclusions can never be drawn with perfect certitude. "So", say some, "we can never know anything, so why not just accept that you have your opinions and I have mine and move on ?" This "wisdom" has lead to discussions that are little more than exchanges of opinions backed up by little more than ranting, before audiences drawn from a population that in each passing year seems to become a little more inarticulate.
Marcus Aurelius and his intended audience know better. Absolute skepticism is a position that was discredited a long time ago, so easily that the rebuttal is almost a cliche. Merely by asserting "one can not know anything", the speaker is asserting that he does, indeed, know something, namely that "one can not know anything" and thus, in principle, acknowledges the possibility of knowledge.
The problem here lies in confusing the notion of relative certitude with that of total ignorance. Justifiable confidence comes as something that the cultural assumptions of some get in the way of dealing with : it is a matter of degree, a degree that increases as we acquire experience. The non-linear, non-journalistic style of a pre-modern author, then, should not, as some would argue, be seen as an invitation to circular logic, but as a sign of recognition that the reader's viewpoint is not a static thing, but one which will come in a series of revisions, as he hears more. One can never really return to the point where one was before, as one speaks to the reader, because he has since moved on, beginning from a different perspective than the one he began from, before. Knowing this, why should we be surprised if the end should tell us something about the beginning ? Even though they are the same words, the state of mind they suggest has changed.
As the book opens, Marcus Aurelius, the author (and emperor of Rome) is doing one of the most Roman of things : honoring his predecessors, ancestors and teachers alike. What he says could not stand in greater contrast to the indulgent New Age perspective some would try to project onto the ancients. He is thanking those who came before him for teaching him self-control.
- From my grandfather Verus I learned good morals and the governance of my temper
- From the reputation and remembrance of my father, modesty and a manly character.
- From my mother, piety and generosity, and abstinence, not only from evil deeds but even from evil thoughts; and further, simplicity in my way of living, far removed from the habits of the rich.
- From my great-grandfather, not to go to the public schools, but to have good teachers at home, and to know that on such things a man should spend liberally.
- From my tutor, to be neither of the Green nor of the Blue party at the games in the Circus, nor a partisan either of the Parmularius or the Scutarius at the gladiator's fights; from him too I learned endurance of hardship, and to want little, and to work with my own hands, and not to meddle with other people's affairs, and not to be ready to listen to slander.
- From Diognetus, not to busy myself about trifling things, and not to give credit to what miracle-workers and jugglers may say about incantations and the driving away of demons and such things; and not to breed quails or give myself up passionately to such things; and to tolerate freedom of speech; and to become intimate with philosophy; and to be a hearer, first of Bacchius, then of Tandasus and Marcianus; and to like a plank bed and skin, and whatever else belongs to the Grecian discipline.
--------------------------------------------------------
Note : "To not breed quails" ... Marcus Aurelius is not
objecting to poultry breeding. Quail fighting was a
popular sport in his era. What he is rejecting here is
a cruel pasttime.
--------------------------------------------------------- From Rusticus I got the idea that my character needed improvement and discipline; and from him I learned not to be led astray to sophistic vanity, or write on speculative matters, or to deliver little moral harangues, or to show myself off as a man who practice much discipline or does benevolent acts in order to make a display; and to refrain from rhetoric and poetry and fine writing; and to not walk about in the house in my outdoor robe, or to do other things of the kind; and to write my letters with simplicity, like the letter which he wrote from Sinuessa to my mother; and with regard to persons who have offended me by words, or done me wrong, to be easily pacified and reconciled as soon as they have shown a desire to be reconciled; and to read carefully, and not to be satisfied with a superficial understanding of a book; nor hastily to give my assent to those who talk overmuch; and I am indebted to him for my acquaintance with the discourses of Epictetus, which he gave me out of his own collection.
- From Apollonius I learned freom of will and undeviating steadiness of purpose; and to look at nothing else, not even for a moment, but reason; and to always be the same, even in sharp pains, in the loss of a child, and in long illness; and to see clearly from his living example that the same man can be most resolute and lenient, and not peevish in giving his instruction. I had before my eyes a man who clearly considered his experience and skill in expounding philosophical principles as the smallest of his merits; and from him I learned how to recieve from friends what are considered favors, without being either humbled by them or letting them pass without notice.
- From Sextus, good humor and the example of a family governed in a fatherly manner, and the idea of living in accord with nature; and gravity without affectation, and to look carefully after the interests of friends, and to tolerate ignorant persons, and those friends who form opinions without consideration. He had the power of readily adapting himself to all, so that conversation with him was more delightful than any flattery. At the same time he was most highly venerated by those who associted with him; and he had the faculty of discovering and stating, in an intelligent and methodical way, the principles necessary for living; and he never showed anger or any other passion, but was entirely free from passion, and also most affectionate; and he could express approbation without noisy display; and he possessed great knowledge without ostentation.
- From Alexander, the grammarian, to refrain from faultfinding, and not in a reproachful way to chide those who uttered any barbarous or incorrect or strange-sounding expression; but tactfully to introduce the very expression which they ought to hae used, in the course of an answer or assent or inquiry about the thing, not about the word; or by some other suitable suggestion.
- From Fronto I learned to observe what envy and duplicity and hypocrisy are in a tyrant; and that those of us who are cslled Patricians are rather deficient in paternal affection.
- From Alexander the Platonist, not frequently nor without necessity to say to anyone, or to write in a letter, "I have no time"; nor to continually excuse the neglect of duties required by our relation to those we lie with, by alleging urgent business.
- From Catullus, not to be deaf when a friend finds fault, even if he should find fault without reason, but to try to restore him to his usual humor; and always to speak well of my teachers, as Domitius and Athenodotus are aid to have done; and to love my children dearly.
- From my brother Severus, to love my kin, and to love truth, and to love justice; and through him Ilearnd to love Thrasea, Helvidius, Cato, Dion, Brutus; and from him I received the idea of a state in which there is the same law for all, a state administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed. I learned from him also consistency and undeviating steadiness in my regard for philosophy, and a disposition to do good, and to give to others readily, and to cherish good hopes, and to believe that I am loved by my friends; and in him I observed no concealment of his opinion of those whom he condemned, and that his friends had no need to conjecture what he wished or did not wish, but it was quite plain. "
--------------------------------------------------------
Note from me : The italics are mine. Those who were eager
to say "see, see, the ancients were against negativity"
will find their rebuttal in that highlighted observation.
Read the rest and you will find that we are not
contributing to the misunderstanding of the author on this
point. As always, patience is essential to understanding.
The passage is not done, but this post is already quite
long. I'll post this, and come back with the rest. In case
my purpose here is unclear, I'm tossing this passage out as
a topic of discussion. You shouldn't start discusing,
though, until you've read the whole thing. Any misspellings
you see are most likely mine, and not the translator's. As I
can only type by hunt and peck, I don't see the screen
while I'm typing, and some things do slip past me.
--------------------------------------------------------