I had a difficult time following this, and there are some holes in the notes, but here is the raw impression from reading the introduction to Meditations as found on Gutenberg.
Born April 26, 121 CE. Marcus Annius Verus.
Wording is interesting:
He was sprung of a noble family.
His father Annius Verus held a high office.
Had been thrice Consul?
Adopted by his grandfather when his father died.
Emperor Hadrian called him Verissimus?
Marcus was made Equestrian at age six. (by Hadrian) Made Salian priesthood at 8. (by Hadrian?)
His Aunt, Annia Galeria Faustina was married to Antoninus Pius, who became emprorer. Antoninus had no children, so he adopted Marcus and betrothed Marcus to his daughter Faustina.
He was trained in Stoicism. He had a weak constitution?
Raised to consulship in 140, married in 145.
Antoninus Pius died in 161, Marcus became emperor.
Antoninus had adopted Commodus at the same time as Marcus, naming him Lucius Aurelius Verus. Lucius was training to succeed Marcus?
War broke out in 162. Lucius went to put down an uprising (in Syria?) where he he then became a drunkend debuacherer.
War was left to his officers.
The text keeps picking the most ambiguous parts of people’s names to refer to them. Who is Verus at this point? Lucius Aurelius Verus?
Mentions the struggles Marcus faced, selling various assets.
Verus brought home diseases, weather brought famine.
Cassius thought Marcus was dead, was going to assume the role of emporer, but when he found out Marcus was still alive his own followers assassinate him?
The ones that murdered Casius tried to present his head to Marcus. Marcus refused it as a gift and refused to see those that would gift it to him.
Faustina (his wife) died on that trip (176). He went to war in Germany, was successful, but died in Pannonia on March 17, 180.
Commodus (his youngest son) took up the role of emporer but failed miserably in at war. But he wa a Tyrant for 12 years. It’s a bit confusing after that.
Scandal has made free with the name of Faustina herself, who is accused not only of unfaithfulness, but of intriguing with Cassius and egging him on to his fatal rebellion.
Wasn’t she dead? Who is Cassius?
It goes into some confusing monologue about the treatment of Christians and some discussion about whether Marcus was actually aware, supporting, or fighting what was happening to the Christians.
To a throughful mind such a religion as that of Rome would give small satisfaction. Its legends were often childish or impossible; its teaching had little to do with morality.
It sounds like a value based judgement by the author from the lens of the author’s culture and values without providing any explanation of what he’s talking about. I’m going to have to find some other texts to figure out what the hell this is even trying to convey.
He goes on to describe the Religion of Rome as having nothing to do with morality and everything to do with sacrificing to the gods for favor with no regard for right or wrong.
I read elsewhere, perhaps Hays saying that this (morality and ethics) was not the goal of religion at the time, at all, rather that of philosophy. Religion was rites and rituals, philosophy was how to live well and morally.
He mentions Stoicism and Epicureanism. He makes the claim that the goal of Stoicism was to repress emotion (ἁπάθεια) but every modern discussion I’ve seen of stoicism is very careful to point out that the goal of Stoicism was to act rationally and according to reason regardless of one’s emotional state. Furthermore, that emotions were to be experienced to the fullest, just not allowed to rule ones actions.
He says that the goal of Epicureanism is to be free from disturbances (ἀταραξία).
I can’t follow what he’s saying about Epicureanism. It’s strange because Wikipedia says it came about 307 CE. Wikipedia stated the goal of it was to avoid pain and seek pleasure, but to live a simple life.
At this point the author begins to discuss Zeno and Stoicism. Mentions living in conformity with nature by living according to Virtue. Here it conforms to what Hays says about Physics, Logic, and Ethics.
He asserts that stoics believed in spiritual and physical elements to reality. The spritual force he mentions sounds like the logos of the universe, or the breath of life, but he doesn’t use that terminology.
This is where it becomes interesting, but also annoying, because no concrete definitions or explanations are given for some ancient greek terms that are dropped.
In Logic, the Stoic system is noteworthy for their theory as to the test of truth, the Criterion.
Upon [the new-born soul] the senses write their impressions (φαντασίαι), and by experience of a number of these the soul unconsciously conceives general notions (κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι) or anticipations (προλήψεις). When the impression was such as to be irresistible it was called (καταληπτικὴ φαντασία) one that holds fast, or as they explained it, one proceeding from truth.
(κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι) – Common notions, natural notions, somehow necessary to ordain truth
προλήψεις - primary conception, preconception
(καταληπτικὴ φαντασία) - true comprehension, clear perception
I’m unable to reconcile the use of ancient greek with the English descriptions here.
It goes on to make assertions like the following:
The highest good was the virtuous life. Virtue alone is happiness, and vice is unhappiness. Carrying this theory to its extreme, the Stoic said that there could be no gradations between virtue and vice, though of course each has its special manifestations. Moreover, nothing is good but virtue, and nothing but vice is bad. Those outside things which are commonly called good or bad, such as health and sickness, wealth and poverty, pleasure and pain, are to him indifferent (ἀδιάφορα). All these things are merely the sphere in which virtue may act. The ideal Wise Man is sufficient unto himself in all things (αὐταρκής); and knowing these truths, he will be happy even when stretched upon the rack.
There might be some circular definitions here.
Virtue is happiness. Vice is unhappiness. Things usually called good or bad are really indifferents which may be preferred or dispreferred and so-called good or bad if they may in some way help or hinder in the pursuit of virtue/vice.
He goes on to discuss the Dichotomy of Control.
The universe is predetermined by the Gods. It’s unclear what makes man special, but it seems to hint at the idea of sharing some piece of the Gods when it’s contrasted with Christianity and unity of man with the universe. Or I’m just reading too much into it to make an association to something I’ve seen before.
The author begins to discuss the Imitation of Christ and asserts that self-control is a goal of both Meditations and Imitation.
Let us set the axe to the root, that we being purged of our passions may have a peaceable mind.
I’m going to have to disagree with the author here, this sounds more like his original impression that the point of Stoicism is to cast out emotion, which this quote sounds in line with, but from what I’ve seen/read/heard the goal is to overcome it, not to cast it out.
Wikipedia article for Epicureanism
updated: 2023-04-19 23:38:28
generated: 2024-07-08