The Emperor Marcus Aurelius : $b A study in ideals — Marcus Aurelius — John Shaqi
The Emperor Marcus Aurelius : $b A study in ideals
Marcus Aurelius · en
Thus did he try by force of argument, often the merest sophistry, to
conjure away the dread realities of human existence. But when death
called for one after another of his children, he realised how futile
his doctrine was. Yet it was the best he could adhere to, and he did
but share in the cruel disenchantment that comes sooner or later to all
who follow a false philosophy of life. The self-deception which makes
these systems plausible in the abstract vanishes at the cold touch of
death or at a thrill of love from a kindred heart. All that is most
sacred in life, its morality and its ideals, the foundations of society
and the aspirations of the individual; the problems that vex men as
to the ultimate grounds of obligation, beauty and love; the problems
of freedom, of evil and of immortality; the need of the human heart
for guidance and support can receive no adequate explanation except in
the acceptance of integral Christianity--namely Catholicism. Hence the
folly of our neo-pagan revival. Paganism was tried and is dead with the
souls and the hopes it slew; the future lies with a vigorous fighting
Catholicity. It is vain to attempt to resurrect the corpse which
Constantine prepared for burial. Wisdom and duty bid us follow the
system which our whole nature cries out for: reason alone or sentiment
alone is a blind guide; truth lies in the leading of the whole man.
Yet the moral greatness which Marcus had attained in spite of all the
limitations of his system was made very clear by the universal grief
and reverence which was expressed at his death. When his body was
brought to Rome the whole city went into mourning. Henceforth we are
told men spoke of him no longer by his imperial titles, but old men
spoke of him as “Marcus, my son”; young men, as “Marcus, my father”;
and men of his own age, as “Marcus, my brother”; such was the affection
of all for him. The decreeing of divine honours was not in his case, as
it was in that of so many of the Emperors, a formality or a burlesque:
it was from the heart; the _vox populi_ proclaimed him “propitious
god” before the Senate passed the formal decree. And, truly, as St.
Augustine said of Plato, we might well pardon the pagans if they
raised a temple to him rather than to the gods they honoured. For more
than a century after his death his statue was to be seen amongst the
household gods in the hearth-shrines of the whole Western Empire, and
men looked askance at a chance defaulter to this cult. He was the model
of succeeding Emperors, and Christian writers vied with pagans in their
praises of him. Even in our own time that strange, melancholy figure
is dear to all that know him: there is a pathos and an interest in his
life and thoughts which is unique: “Everyone of us wears mourning in
his heart for Marcus Aurelius as though he died but yesterday.”