The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman EmpireGlover, T. R. (Terrot Reaveley)
Religion
The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire
Glover, T. R. (Terrot Reaveley)
Christianity and other religions; Church history -- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600; Rome -- Religion
"Look down from above on the countless swarms of men, their countless
initiations, and their varied voyage in storm and calm, their changing
combinations, as they come into being, meet, and pass out of being.
Think too of the life lived by others of old, of the life that shall be
lived by others after thee, of the life now lived among the barbarian
nations; and, of how many have never heard thy name, and how many will
at once forget it, and how many may praise thee now perhaps but will
very soon blame thee; and how neither memory is of any account, nor
glory, nor anything else at all....
"The rottenness of the material substance of every individual
thing--water, dust, bones, stench.... And this breathing element is
another of the same, changing from this to that....
"Either the gods have no power, or they have power. If they have not,
why pray? If they have, why not pray for deliverance from the fear, or
the desire, or the pain, which the thing causes, rather than for the
withholding or the giving of the particular thing? For certainly, if
they can co-operate with men, it is for these purposes they can
co-operate. But perhaps {200} thou wilt say, The gods have put all
these in my own power. Then is it not better to use what is in thine
own power and be free, than to be set on what is not in thy power--a
slave and contemptible? And who told thee that the gods do not help us
even to what is in our own power?"[6]
This handful of short passages all from the same place, with a few
omitted, may be taken as representing very fairly the mind of Marcus
Aurelius. The world was his to rule, and he felt it a duty to remember
how slight a thing it was. This was not the temper of Alexander or of
Caesar,--of men who make mankind, and who, by their belief in men and in
the power of their own ideas to lift men to higher planes of life,
actually do secure that advance is made,--and that advance not the
smallest. Yet he speaks of Alexander as a "tragic actor."[7] For a
statesman, the attitude of Marcus is little short of betrayal. He
worked, he ruled, he endowed, he fought--he was pure, he was
conscientious, he was unselfish--but he did not believe, and he was
ineffectual. The Germans it might have been beyond any man's power to
repel at that day, but even at home Marcus was ineffectual. His wife
and his son were by-words. He had almost a morbid horror of defilement
from men and women of coarse minds,--a craving too for peace and
sympathy; he shrank into himself, condoned, ignored. Among his
benefactors he does not mention Hadrian, who really gave him the
Empire--and it is easy to see why. In everything the two are a
contrast. Hadrian's personal vices and his greatness as a ruler, as a
man handling men and moving among ideas[8]--these were impossible for
Marcus.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account