Everything suits me that suits your designs, O my universe. Nothing is too early or too late for me that is in your own good time. All is fruit for me that your seasons bring, O nature. All proceeds from you, all subsists in you, and to you all things return. (Meditations 4.23)
The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius was a deeply spiritual person and that fact comes across clearly in his Meditations. American philosopher and religious scholar Jacob Needleman suggests the combination of “metaphysical vision, poetic genius, and the worldly realism of a ruler” within the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius inspire us and give us “honorable and realistic hope in our embattled lives.”[1] As result, he argues,
[The Meditations] deserves its unique place among the writings of the world’s great spiritual philosophers.[2]
Needleman elaborates on the spiritual impact Marcus’ Meditations has on many of its readers,
Marcus is seeking to experience from within himself the higher attention of what he calls the logos, or Universal Reason, so too the sensitive reader begins to listen for that same finer life within his own psyche. That is to say, the reader— you and I— is not simply given great ideas which he then feeds into his already formed opinions and rules of logic. The action of many of these meditations is far more serious than that, and far more interesting and spiritually practical. In a word, in such cases, in many of these meditations, we are being guided—without even necessarily knowing what to call it—we are being guided through a brief moment of inner work. We are being given a taste of what it means to step back in ourselves and develop an intentional relationship to our own mind.[3]
The practice of Stoicism for Marcus was a means to find his place in the cosmos. He sought congruity with Nature and learned to love what fate had in store for him because he trusted in a providential cosmos. As David Hicks asserts,
The Stoicism in which Marcus believed is rooted in an all-encompassing nature. Everything in man and in the universe, everything that is or ought to be, everything fated and everything free, and the logos or rational principle that informs everything and ties everything together and is ultimately identified with the deity – all of this is found in nature, and there is nothing else.[4]
Stoicism provided Marcus with more than an abstract, intellectual understanding of human and cosmic Nature. The religious nature of Stoic philosophy differentiated it from other philosophies as well as organized religions. I covered the religious nature of Stoicism previously, so I will not address it fully here. However, it is important to understand that Stoicism was more than an intellectual endeavor for Marcus. Then and now, Stoicism provides an alternative for those who do not find what they are looking for in organized religion or atheism. Stoicism is a religious philosophy—a spiritual way of life.
Until the time of Neoplatonism, Stoicism was the most highly spiritualised form of philosophy in ancient Greece and Rome. It was so spiritualised that it is as accurate to call it a religion as a philosophy.[5]
As Henry Sedgewick points out in his biography of Marcus Aurelius, the traditional religions did not provide what he was looking for,
Marcus was seeking a religion, as I have said, but there was none at hand that he could accept. The old Roman religion was a mere series of ceremonies, with nothing sacred except lingering patriotic sentiment, and withal marred by superstitions, such as those at Lanuvium. Foreign religions were no better. Syrian priests, like mountebanks, trundled images of the Magna Mater about the countryside, hoping to wheedle peasants out of their pennies; the worshippers of the Egyptian gods offered sensuous exaltation, and mysteries that disregarded reason. Christianity, as we understand it, was utterly unknown to him. He was compelled to look for religion in philosophy; for there only, as he thought, and perhaps thought truly, could a man, without doing wrong to his reason, find spiritual help to enable him to do his duty and keep his soul pure.[6]
Marcus did not find consolation in the rituals of traditional religions or intercession of priests. He was looking for psychological strength and consolation which could allow him to keep his mind pure in trying times and under vexing circumstances. Marcus discovered the personal religious practice he was looking for within the philosophy of Stoicism.[7] As a result, he became an exemplar of Stoicism’s power in a person’s inner life. Sedgewick argues,
Marcus Aurelius is not a prodigy among men, unheralded by what has come before; on the contrary he is the ripe product of the spiritual movement that expressed itself in the Stoic philosophy, or rather, as it had then become, the Stoic religion.[8]
As can be seen in his Meditations, Marcus followed the Stoic path and became his own priest, in service to the gods,
For such a man, who no longer postpones his endeavour to take his place among the best, is indeed a priest and servant of the gods, behaving rightly towards the deity stationed within him, so ensuring that the mortal being remains unpolluted by pleasures, invulnerable to every pain, untouched by any wrong, unconscious of any evil, a wrestler in the greatest contest of all… (Meditations 3.4.3)
In Meditations 3.16, Marcus draws upon the importance of the divine while discussing four models of human behavior. First, Marcus outlines the three aspects of the Stoic Self and their corresponding capacities:
- Body (soma)—sense-impressions (phantasia)
- Soul (pneuma)—impulses (horme)
- Intellect (nous)—judgements
Next, Marcus uses these aspects of the Self to delineate four models of behavior:
- Those who are driven by sense impressions (phantasia):
“To receive impressions by means of images is something that we share even with cattle”
- Those who are driven by desires (horme):
“Drawn this way and that by the puppet-strings of impulse, we share with wild beasts, with catamites, and with a Phalaris or a Nero”
- Those who are driven by their intellect (nous) alone:
“To have the intellect as a guide towards what appear to be duties is something that we share with those who do not believe in the gods, with those who betray their country, with those who will do anything whatever behind locked doors.”
So far, we see the progression from behaviors we share with animals in #1 and #2, to the use of intellect (rationality) in #3, which is unique to humans. For the Stoics, rationality is not ‘good’ per se, because intellect can be used for virtuous and vicious ends. Marcus paints a pretty ugly picture of those who use their intellect (rationality) to live non-virtuous lives. In ancient Rome as well as in modern times, people of high intellect often use it gain power and to manipulate and control people to vicious ends. Thus, intellect alone is not a sign of excellence (virtue).
Marcus draws a clear distinction between those who rely on intellect alone and those guided by their guardian-spirit (daimon). The concept of the daimon, as used by Marcus and Epictetus, creates some difficulties that are impossible to fully resolve from the surviving texts. However, one thing is clear; the daimon within each of us connects us to the divine. Thus, it is the God that dwells within, which we saw in Seneca and Epictetus. The point here is this: man is not the measure if all things, contra Protagoras. The divine cosmos (Nature) is the measure of all things, and the Stoics suggest our guiding principle—that fragment of the logos within us—provides a connection to Nature that allows us to both understand and follow her. In #4 below, we see the characteristics of those who are guided by that portion of us that is divine.
- Those guided by their guardian-spirit (daimon) to love what happens and use events to live virtuously:
“If you share everything else with those whom I have just mentioned, there remains the special characteristic of a good person”
Marcus describes that “special characteristic” as follows:
- loves and welcomes all that happens to them and is spun for them as their fate
- does not defile the guardian-spirit seated within their breast,
- nor trouble it with a host of fancies,
- but preserves it in cheerful serenity,
- follows God in an orderly fashion,
- never utters a word that is contrary to the truth,
- never acts contrary to justice.
The first characteristic of the person who is guided by their guardian-spirit is their love for “all that happens to them.” Again, in Meditations 2.12-13, Marcus juxtaposes the persons who “hold fast to the guardian-spirit within” with those whose sole focus is on intellectual pursuits:
Consider too how a human being makes contact with God, and through what part of himself, and how that part of him must be disposed if he is to do so. There is nothing more pitiable than the person who makes the circuit of everything and, as the poet says, ‘searches into the depths of the earth’, and tries to read the secrets of his neighbour’s soul, yet fails to perceive that it is enough to hold fast to the guardian-spirit within him and serve it single-mindedly; and this service is to keep it pure from passion and irresponsibility and dissatisfaction with anything that comes from gods or human beings. For what comes from the gods is worthy of reverence because of their goodness, and what comes from human beings should be dear to us because we share a common nature…
Both of these passages provide an expression of Marcus’ trust in a providential cosmos, which is a fundamental part of the practice of Stoicism.
Providence or Atoms
But perhaps you are discontented with what is allotted to you from the whole? Then call to mind the alternative, ‘either providence or atoms’ and all the proofs that the universe should be regarded as a kind of constitutional state. (Meditations 4.3.5)
Marcus Aurelius understood and accepted the Stoic worldview, which includes a rationally ordered and providential cosmos. Additionally, Marcus relied on the Stoic theory of psychology, which asserts that our emotions are connected to our value judgments. Therefore, he understood how one’s accepted worldview can affect their judgments of events in the world. In his Meditations, Marcus links acceptance of a providential worldview to a ‘cheerful mind’ (2.3) and sees a call to action within it (2.4). Again, in Meditations 4.3.5, he suggests our resentment of the circumstance of our lives is the result of denying providence.[9] As Dragona-Monachou makes clear,
Divine providence is a firm belief of Marcus Aurelius’s. He declares: “The gods exist and have concern for human affairs” (2, 11, 3). The “whole divine economy is pervaded by providence” (2, 3, 1). He considers “life not worth living unless there exist providential gods” (2, 11, 2), and believes that the existence of providential gods is a by far more plausible and acceptable alternative to atoms, chance or confusion (4, 3, 3; 4, 27; 9, 9; 7, 19, etc.).[10]
Some people attempt to downplay Marcus’ commitment to the Stoic providential cosmos by suggesting his ‘providence or atoms’ theme is demonstrative of ambivalence or agnosticism about providence. There is scant scholarly support for such an assertion beyond those with clear intent to remove teleology from Stoicism to suit their prior commitment to atheism. At least, Lawrence Becker was intellectually honest about his removal of teleology from Stoicism when he admitted,
It seems that the book cannot be a work of stoic ethics without the cosmic teleology, but that it cannot be a credible work of ethics with such a cosmology.[11]
Likewise, some modern scholars accuse Marcus and other late Stoics of engaging in “psychological rationalization” with regard to their trust in a providential cosmos. John Sellars acknowledges Marcus Aurelius’ dependence on providence in his contribution to A Companion to Marcus Aurelius, and defends Marcus from this accusation. He points out that Marcus employed the concept of providence to defend Stoic value theory. While Sellars acknowledges that “few modern philosophers are likely to embrace the Stoic conception of Providence.” Nevertheless, he considers its use in this argument a “considered philosophical position.”[12]
Even though the meaning of some of the passages in Marcus’ “providence or atoms” theme appear unclear when considered individually, few scholars doubt Marcus’ commitment to providence. As Pierre Hadot writes,
Whatever modern historians may claim, the dilemma “either providence or chance,” when used by Seneca or by Marcus Aurelius, does not signify either the renunciation of Stoic physical theories or an eclectic attitude which refuses to decide between Epicureanism and Stoicism. In fact, we can see that Marcus has already made his choice between Epicureanism and Stoicism, by the very way in which he describes the Epicurean model with a variety of pejorative terms…[13]
While addressing the common question “How much of a Stoic is Marcus Aurelius in the Meditations?” Christopher Gill writes,
On the one hand, apart from his explicit allegiance to Stoicism (e.g., I 7– 8), the dominating themes are strongly Stoic and there are clear signs of the influence of Epictetus’ ethical programme. On the other hand, the style is idiosyncratic, with strong Heraclitean, Cynic, and Platonic colouring… Most puzzling of all, despite his frequent adoption of a cosmic perspective on ethical life, he sometimes expresses indifference about which worldview is correct: the Stoic providential one or the Epicurean view that the universe is a fortuitous collection of atoms… The ‘providence or atoms’ theme is more puzzling, though in some passages the question seems more open than in others. But it may be important that Marcus acknowledges, in Meditations I 17, that he has not himself actually completed the three-part Stoic curriculum (including logic and physics) that would yield the cosmic understanding he seeks to apply to his own life. Hence, the Stoic worldview has to be, in this respect, taken on trust (though Marcus overwhelmingly does take it on trust) – a fact perhaps acknowledged in his use of the ‘providence or atoms’ theme.[14]
In his detailed analysis of the Meditations, Gill writes,
On the ethical significance of the natural universe, his views are largely consistent with earlier Stoic thinking, even in most of the passages in which he poses the alternative, ‘providence or atoms’, despite a few exceptional passages.[15]
Then, after a thorough analysis of all the passages in the ‘providence or atoms’ theme, Gill concludes,
[Marcus’] repeated probing of the ‘providence or atoms’ question indicates that he is aiming at an understanding that embraces, and brings out the relationship between, Stoic physics and ethics.[16]
As Gill points out, because Marcus did not complete the physics portion of his Stoic training, he “cannot provide the kind of argumentation that would settle decisively the question which world-view is true.” Thus, he “has to take this aspect of Stoic theory on trust, relying on the arguments of others.”[17] In his introduction to the Robin Hard translation of Meditations, Gill writes,
One might suggest that his comments acknowledge that both Stoicism and Epicureanism offered a world-view that claimed to provide the basis for peace of mind. This is true, but does not match his general approach in the Meditations, which is strongly Stoic and not close to Epicureanism in ethics or world-view… on the whole [Marcus] signals his confidence that the Stoic providential world-view is true and that this can support the ethical programme he follows in the Meditations.[18]
David Sedley, after pointing out that Marcus leaves the competing hypotheses of several “unresolved issues in Stoic physics” open, writes:
His unexpected openness to Epicurean physics as an alternative to the Stoic model reads as if it were an extension of this same policy, despite the obvious difference that he is palpably committed to the truth of Stoicism and hence the falsity of Epicureanism.[19]
Marcus does assert that one must live like a Stoic regardless of which worldview one assents to; however, that is not an endorsement of the chance universe of the Epicureans. Neither is Marcus suggesting the outcome will be the same regardless of which worldview one assents to. Instead, Marcus is stating the obvious: the operation of either a providential cosmos or a random universe is outside of our control. Therefore, it is pointless and psychologically disturbing to fight against it either way. One must live like a Stoic (rationally) regardless of which worldview one accepts. Nevertheless, the psychological consolations derived from trust in a providential cosmos are important to Marcus.[20]
The Meditations have inspired multitudes over the intervening centuries. The distinguished classicist Edith Hamilton provides a reason why the Discourses of Epictetus and the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius have been so influential and inspirational. She suggests that within these two men we get a glimpse of what Aristotle’s meant when he asserted “the true nature of anything is what it becomes at its highest.” She argues,
Stoicism is a proof for Aristotle. It started in Greece in the early third century B.C., but it can be known in its true nature only in Rome in the second century A.D. There in the persons of two men, one a slave and one an emperor, it showed itself at its highest… It was a religion first, a philosophy only second.[21]
It was the deeply religious nature of Stoicism in general and his trust in a providential cosmos, in particular, that allowed Marcus to write,
Everything suits me that suits your designs, O my universe. Nothing is too early or too late for me that is in your own good time. All is fruit for me that your seasons bring, O nature. All proceeds from you, all subsists in you, and to you all things return. (Meditations 4.23)
ENDNOTES:
[1] Aurelius, M., Needleman, J., & Piazza, J. P. (2008). The essential Marcus Aurelius. New York: Tarcher/Penguin, pp. x
[2] Ibid, pp. x-xi
[3] Ibid, pp. xiii-xiv
[4] Aurelius, M., Hicks, C. S., & Hicks, D. V. (2002). The Emperor’s Handbook: A new translation of The Meditations. New York: Scribner, p. 14
[5] Forstater, M. (2000). The spiritual teachings of Marcus Aurelius. New York: HarperCollins, p. 82
[6] Sedgwick, H. (1921). Marcus Aurelius. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 117
[7] Festugiere, A. (1952) Personal Religion among the Greeks. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
[8] Sedgewick, p. 31
[9] Gill, C. (2013). Marcus Aurelius Meditations, Books 1-6. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, p. 121
[10] Dragona-Monachou, M. (1994). ‘Divine Providence in the Philosophy of the Empire’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2.36.7:4417–90, p. 4448
[11] Becker, L. C. (1998). A New Stoicism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 6
[12] Sellars, J. (2012). ‘Marcus Aurelius in Contemporary Philosophy’, In Ackeren, M. A companion to Marcus Aurelius., West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 542
[13] Hadot, P., & Chase, M. (1998). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 149
[14] Gill, C. (2003). ‘The School in the Imperial Period’, in Inwood, B. The Cambridge companion to the Stoics. New York.: Cambridge University Press, p. 50
[15] Gill (2013), p. liii
[16] Gill (2013), p. lxxiii
[17] Ibid
[18] Hard, R. (2011) Marcus Aurelius Meditations, with an introduction and notes by C. Gill, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. xxii-xxiii
[19] Sedley, D (2012) ‘Marcus Aurelius on Physics’, in Ackeren, M. V. (2012). A companion to Marcus Aurelius. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 406
[20] See Christopher Gill (2013) for a detailed analysis of the relationship between Stoic ethics and physics in general and Marcus’ ‘providence or atoms’ disjunction in particular. Gill also provides excellent commentary on these issues in his introduction to the Robin Hard translation of Meditations (see Hard, 2011).
[21] Hamilton, E. (1957). The echo of Greece. New York: Norton, p. 157
