(urth) Marcus Aurelius (re)visited

[David Stockhoff]

I've begun reading the Meditations, and I find very little in the 
Meditations themselves that suggest much of a connection to Wolfe in 
style or substance.

However, the introduction stopped me cold. I find several passages to be 
quite suggestive in the context of Severian the Stoic Emperor. I just 
wish I could find out who wrote it---but the Gutenberg Project gives no 
information on that point. The HTML is here: 
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2680/2680-h/2680-h.htm.

I offer the following without much comment, except to say that there are 
two ways the emperor could have influenced Wolfe's conception of  
Severian: first, by offering an opposing example of an almost good and 
thoughtful man, raised as such and groomed to be emperor; second, by 
similarity, as a dutiful, if not entirely good, man in a bad world who 
becomes emperor by "accident." Since the combination of these could 
allow anything, I'll just let the passages speak for themselves; I'll 
let others consider how a man bred to the throne might actually resemble 
an orphaned puppet of time-traveling aliens.

But Marcus was pretty well known as a symbol of just and dutiful service 
to the Empire and, to Christians, as a man almost "good" enough to be 
one of their own. Wolfe patterned the Commonwealth after Byzantium, but 
I don't think the Greek emperors had anyone quite like Marcus. I have no 
doubt that Severian is meant as a kind of Stoic; this is the first and 
only instance I have ever seen of the word "autarch" used in the sense 
that Wolfe uses it (allowing some latitude for SFal repurposing). But I 
do not see Severian as a recreation of Marcus, rather as the result of 
an experiment in first-person narration inspired by the memoirs of the 
Roman emperors in general and of Marcus in particular as a unique 
combination of character, chance of birth, and philosophy. Severian 
struggles with many of the same questions in different form and may not 
reach the same answers, but the highly controlled persona he projects is 
much like that described below.

Observe especially the words and images used by the writer.

. . . .

As a soldier we have seen that Marcus was both capable and successful; 
as an administrator he was prudent and conscientious. Although steeped 
in the teachings of philosophy, he did not attempt to remodel the world 
on any preconceived plan. He trod the path beaten by his predecessors, 
seeking only to do his duty as well as he could, and to keep out 
corruption. . . . But the strong point of his reign was the 
administration of justice. Marcus sought by-laws to protect the weak, to 
make the lot of the slaves less hard, to stand in place of father to the 
fatherless. Charitable foundations were endowed for rearing and 
educating poor children. The provinces were protected against 
oppression, and public help was given to cities or districts which might 
be visited by calamity. The great blot on his name, and one hard indeed 
to explain, is his treatment of the Christians. . . .

To a thoughtful 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. The Roman religion was in fact 
of the nature of a bargain: men paid certain sacrifices and rites, and 
the gods granted their favour, irrespective of right or wrong. In this 
case all devout souls were thrown back upon philosophy, as they had 
been, though to a less extent, in Greece. . . .

. . . .

The universe, then, is God, of whom the popular gods are manifestations; 
while legends and myths are allegorical. The soul of man is thus an 
emanation from the godhead, into whom it will eventually be re-absorbed. 
The divine ruling principle makes all things work together for good, but 
for the good of the whole. The highest good of man is consciously to 
work with God for the common good, and this is the sense in which the 
Stoic tried to live in accord with nature. In the individual it is 
virtue alone which enables him to do this; as Providence rules the 
universe, so virtue in the soul must rule man.

In Logic, the Stoic system is noteworthy for their theory as to the test 
of truth, the Criterion. They compared the new-born soul to a sheet of 
paper ready for writing. . . . 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 adiofora. All these things are merely 
the sphere in which virtue may act. The ideal Wise Man is sufficient 
unto himself in all things, autarkhs and knowing these truths, he will 
be happy even when stretched upon the rack. It is probable that no Stoic 
claimed for himself that he was this Wise Man, but that each strove 
after it as an ideal much as the Christian strives after a likeness to 
Christ. . . . It is again instructive to note that Christian sages 
insisted on the same thing. Christians are taught that they are members 
of a worldwide brotherhood, where is neither Greek nor Hebrew, bond nor 
free and that they live their lives as fellow-workers with God.

Such is the system which underlies the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. 
Some knowledge of it is necessary to the right understanding of the 
book, but for us the chief interest lies elsewhere. We do not come to 
Marcus Aurelius for a treatise on Stoicism. He is no head of a school to 
lay down a body of doctrine for students; he does not even contemplate 
that others should read what he writes. . . .

It is instructive to compare the Meditations with another famous book, 
the Imitation of Christ. There is the same ideal of self-control in 
both. It should be a man's task, says the Imitation, 'to overcome 
himself, and every day to be stronger than himself.' 'In withstanding of 
the passions standeth very peace of heart.' 'Let us set the axe to the 
root, that we being purged of our passions may have a peaceable mind.' 
To this end there must be continual self-examination. . . .

But there is one great difference between the two books we are 
considering. The Imitation is addressed to others, the Meditations by 
the writer to himself. We learn nothing from the Imitation of the 
author's own life, except in so far as he may be assumed to have 
practised his own preachings; the Meditations reflect mood by mood the 
mind of him who wrote them. In their intimacy and frankness lies their 
great charm. These notes are not sermons; they are not even confessions. 
There is always an air of self-consciousness in confessions; in such 
revelations there is always a danger of unctuousness or of vulgarity for 
the best of men. St. Augustine is not always clear of offence, and John 
Bunyan himself exaggerates venial peccadilloes into heinous sins. But 
Marcus Aurelius is neither vulgar nor unctuous; he extenuates nothing, 
but nothing sets down in malice. He never poses before an audience; he 
may not be profound, he is always sincere. And it is a lofty and serene 
soul which is here disclosed before us. Vulgar vices seem to have no 
temptation for him; this is not one tied and bound with chains which he 
strives to break. The faults he detects in himself are often such as 
most men would have no eyes to see. . . .

. . . .

If his was that honest and true heart which is the Christian ideal, this 
is the more wonderful in that he lacked the faith which makes Christians 
strong. . . .

But although Marcus Aurelius may have held intellectually that his soul 
was destined to be absorbed, and to lose consciousness of itself, there 
were times when he felt, as all who hold it must sometimes feel, how 
unsatisfying is such a creed. Then he gropes blindly after something 
less empty and vain. 'Thou hast taken ship,' he says, 'thou hast sailed, 
thou art come to land, go out, if to another life, there also shalt thou 
find gods, who are everywhere.' . . .

. . . .

On 4/2/2012 1:35 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:
> on second thought, maybe some of the thoughts about "obeying" and duty and order in Severian's philosophy, but I just don't think it is definitely an outgrowth of Aurelius, but the practical application of a far more dualistic, top heavy philosophy.
>
> --- On Mon, 4/2/12, Marc Aramini<marcaramini at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
>> From: Marc Aramini<marcaramini at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: (urth) Fairies and Wolfe
>> To: "The Urth Mailing List"<urth at lists.urth.net>
>> Date: Monday, April 2, 2012, 10:30 AM
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 4/2/12, David Stockhoff<dstockhoff at verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Exactly my thought(s). BTNS seems soaked in Hellenistic philosophy. I wanted to be cautious on the gnostic aspect here, but it's not far off.
>>>
>>> I've wondered if Severian's account owes any debt to the memoirs of Marcus Aurelius, which I've never read. Has anyone here?
>> A while ago.  eh, they are quoted sometimes directly in
>> the Chrasmological Writings so I'm sure Wolfe has read them,
>> but I don't think they relate much to the actual cosmology
>> of New Sun except insofar as all ancient epistemology might
>> contribute to it.
>