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. The 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 a 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. Stoicism provided a rational form of spirituality for Marcus, and it offers the same for moderns. Stoicism is an alternative for those who consider themselves spiritual but not religious. If you’re uncomfortable with the dogmas of organized religion and the nihilism of atheism, Stoicism offers a middle ground. Stoicism provides a spiritual way of life guided by reason. Stoicism relies on our innate connection with the rationality permeating the cosmos to guide our human reason toward a relationship with the divine that inspires us to develop our moral character and thereby experience true well-being.
As Mark Forstater wrote in his insightful book The Spiritual Teachings of Marcus Aurelius:
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 the mediation of priests. He was looking for psychological strength and consolation which could allow him to keep his mind pure in trying times and under troublesome circumstances. Marcus discovered the personal religious practice he was looking for within the deeply spiritual philosophy of Stoicism.[7] As a result, his life became an example of the power of Stoicism 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.
Body, soul, intellect: for the body, sense-impressions; for the soul, impulses; for the intellect, judgements. To receive impressions by means of images is something that we share even with cattle; and to be 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; and 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. If you share everything else with those whom I have just mentioned, there remains the special characteristic of a good person, namely, to love and welcome all that happens to him and is spun for him as his fate, and not to defile the guardian-spirit seated within his breast, nor to trouble it with a host of fancies, but to preserve it in cheerful serenity, following God in an orderly fashion, never uttering a word that is contrary to the truth nor performing an action that is contrary to justice.
In this passage, Marcus outlined three aspects of the Stoic Self and their corresponding capacities; then, he uses these to delineate four behavior models. First, let’s look at the three aspects of Self:
- Body (soma)—sense-impressions (phantasia)
- Soul (pneuma)—impulses (horme)
- Intellect (nous)—judgments
It would be a mistake to impose a Platonic conception of a divided mind here. The mind is a unified whole in Stoicism. As Christopher Gill notes in his note on the Robin Hard translation of Meditations, where Marus used this same language:
This threefold division differs from the standard Stoic view that psychological processes are also physical and are functions of an animating ‘breath’ (pneuma); see LS 47, 53. However, the division is probably best taken as an essentially ethical one (Marcus urges himself to identify with his rational and potentially virtuous mind or ‘ruling centre’), rather than indicating the deliberate adoption of a non-standard, Platonic-style view of psychology.[9]
In his Introduction to the same translation, Gill wrote:
…[Marcus] sometimes stresses that we are, essentially, our ‘ruling’ or ‘governing’ centre (or ‘mind’, hēgemonikon), sometimes contrasting this with other aspects of our self, including ‘flesh’, and, more surprisingly, psuchē (which he uses to mean ‘breath’ or ‘vitality’).25 On the face of it, this looks like a shift towards a Platonic-style dualism, distinguishing between the disembodied mind and the body in a way that is quite inconsistent with the Stoic view that our psychological functions are also bodily ones. But, examined more closely, it is clear that such passages are really making an ethical point, and one that reflects the first Stoic theme noted earlier. What Marcus is stressing (like Epictetus in similar phrases) is that the really important aspect of human nature is the capacity to use the mind, or ‘governing part’, to try to live virtuously, rather than attaching supreme value to ‘matters of indifference’ such as material goods or sensual pleasures.[10]
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 the 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 and modern times, people of high intellect often used it to gain power and 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). As used by Marcus and Epictetus, the concept of the daimon 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 of 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, we will see the characteristics of those guided by the divine within each of us.
- 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” who:
- 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 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 could 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.[11] 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.).[12]
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 physics and theology from Stoicism to suit their prior commitment to atheism.
Likewise, some modern scholars accuse Marcus and other late Stoics of engaging in “psychological rationalization” concerning their trust in a providential cosmos. John Sellars acknowledges Marcus Aurelius’ dependence on providencein 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 support 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.”[13]
Even though the meaning of some of Marcus’ “providence or atoms” passages 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…[14]
While addressing a 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 actuallycompleted 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.[15]
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.[16]
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.[17]
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.”[18] 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.[19]
After pointing out that Marcus leaves the competing hypotheses of several “unresolved issues in Stoic physics” open, David Sedley 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.[20]
In several passages, 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 chooses. Instead, Marcus states 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 essential to Marcus.[21]
As David Sedley notes in his chapter titled Marcus Aurelius on Physics, in A Companion to Marcus Aurelius:
In reminding himself to apply physical thinking to every idea he entertains, Marcus captures a vital aspect of his meditations. The question what part physics plays in Stoic ethics has been a frequent subject of modern debate. In Marcus we may find no theoretical answer to that question, but we get to see, worked out in practice, his recognition that reflection on how the cosmos functions is an absolutely integral part of the Stoic moral life. Throughout his reflections on human values, he can be seen constantly turning to the cosmos as a concept to think with.
Marcus’ cosmos or world is recognizably and indeed technically Stoic. It is a single, finite, cohesive organism, surrounded by void. Partly as a consequence, it is entirely self-contained and cohesive in its functioning, internally governed by the inexorable sequence of causes known as ‘fate’. So far as its underlying constitution is concerned, it is composed out of two ultimate items, of which one is a pliable material substrate, and the other, acting upon this, a single intelligent divine causal power, sometimes identified with its ‘seminal reason’ (spermatikos logos).[22]
Marcus did not ignore or reject Stoic physics. Instead, by the time Marcus was practicing Stoicism in the second century (CE), almost five hundred years after the founding of the Stoa by Zeno, there was no need to elaborate or defend technical philosophical arguments supporting Stoic physics. Those who chose the Stoic path assented to the providential nature of the cosmos as a fundamental axiom of Stoic physics in the same way they assented to “virtue is the only good” as an axiom of Stoic ethics. They understood neither could be proven, yet both were necessary to live the Stoic life. The early Greek Stoics established the veracity of these axioms and integrated them into their holistic philosophical system. By the time Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus chose the Stoic path, these axioms were accepted without a great deal of argumentation or elaboration as essential for the practice of Stoicism.
Many moderns question the necessity of providence for the practice of Stoicism. To do so, they must modify Stoicism in ways that remove one of its most potent psychological tools—a trust that all events in nature, even those we would typically judge as bad, have a purpose and serve the good of the whole. This trust and the attitude of gratitude that springs from it are expressed beautifully by Marcus in one of my favorite passages.
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)
It is simply not possible to make sense of passages like this apart from Marcus’ absolute and unequivocal trust in the providential nature of the cosmos. These are not the words of a begrudging acceptance of life’s events. Marcus exhibits something far more perceptive than a bear and forbear attitude toward events that were not up to him. No, he is expressing a profound trust that every event in Nature has a purpose. Marcus didn’t need to remind himself about the detailed, technical, philosophical arguments for providence in his journal; he lived it every day of his life, and that was proof enough for him.
The Inspirational Nature of Marcus’ Meditations
In his inspirational book titled Seekers After God, the late Reverend F.W. Farrar wrote the following about Marcus:
I sometimes imagine that I see him seated on the borders of some gloomy Pannonian forest or Hungarian marsh; through the darkness the watchfires of the enemy gleam in the distance; but both among them, and in the camp around him, every sound is hushed, except the tread of the sentinel outside the imperial tent; and in that tent long after midnight sits the patient Emperor by the light of his solitary lamp, and ever and anon, amid his lonely musings, he pauses to write down the pure and holy thoughts which shall better enable him, even in a Roman palace, even on barbarian battlefields, daily to tolerate the meanness and the malignity of the men around him; daily to amend his own shortcomings, and, as the sun of earthly life begins to set, daily to draw nearer and nearer to the Eternal Light. And when I thus think of him, I know not whether the whole of heathen antiquity, out of its gallery of stately and royal figures, can furnish a nobler, or purer, or more lovable picture than that of this crowned philosopher and laurelled hero, who was yet one of the humblest and one of the most enlightened of all ancient “Seekers after God.”[23]
In Marcus’ Meditations, we encounter a Roman Emperor who wielded unimaginable power over people. With a word, he could have condemned anyone to death. Likewise, Marcus had access to riches beyond the imaginations of the world’s wealthiest today. He could have purchased anything his heart desired. Therefore, when we read his Meditations in modern times, we cannot relate to him as a Roman Emperor; his life is nothing like ours. Yet, as we read his Meditations, the thoughts and attitude of a powerful, wealthy Roman Emperor are curiously absent. Instead, we are confronted with the aspirations of a person who desires to live an excellent human life. His aim is not a life of fame and fortune but moral excellence, genuineness, service, and compassion. We see an authentic human soul confronted by war and surrounded by “meddling, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people” (2.1). Nevertheless, he chose not to surrender to anger and hatred. We see a Stoic who is wholly engaged in the affairs of humanity while keeping his attention on the ideal of moral excellence and trusting that everything that happens is good for the whole.
The Meditations do not entice us with philosophical theory, even though Stoic doctrines are evident throughout. They lack the protreptic tone we see in Epictetus’ Discourses when he scolds us and challenges us to live a moral life. Equally, the eloquence of Seneca is absent from most of its pages. Nevertheless, as we read the Meditations, we find our soul resonating with the inspirational thoughts of a Stoic, who regularly shed the purple robe of the emperor to express his humanity in his personal diary.
No, we cannot relate to Marcus the Emperor. Fortunately, we can be inspired and uplifted by Marcus the Stoic, who left us a bread-crumb trail in his Meditations which leads toward moral excellence and a profound, life-changing trust in the providential order of the cosmos.
ENDNOTES:
[1] See Christopher Gill (2013) for 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).
[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] Hard, Robin. Marcus Aurelius Meditations: With Selected Correspondence. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2011. p. 147
[10] Ibid. pp. xviii-xix
[11] Gill, C. (2013). Marcus Aurelius Meditations, Books 1-6. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, p. 121
[12] 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
[13] Sellars, J. (2012). Marcus Aurelius in Contemporary Philosophy. In Ackeren, M. A companion to Marcus Aurelius., West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 542
[14] Hadot, P., & Chase, M. (1998). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 149
[15] 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
[16] Gill (2013), p. liii
[17] Ibid, p. lxxiii
[18] Ibid
[19] Hard, R. (2011) Marcus Aurelius Meditations, with an introduction and notes by C. Gill, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. xxii-xxiii
[20] Sedley, D (2012) Marcus Aurelius on Physics in Ackeren, M. V. (2012). A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 406
[21] Aurelius, M., Needleman, J., & Piazza, J. P. (2008). The Essential Marcus Aurelius. New York: Tarcher/Penguin, pp. x
[22] Ibid, p. 396
[23] Farrar, R. F. W. (1890). Seekers After God. Cosimo Classics.
