Self-contemplations

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marcomannic Wars: Marcus Aurelius pardons Germanic chiefs
(relief, Rome, Capitoline Museums )

The self-contemplations ( ancient Greek Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτόν Ta eis heautón ) of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius are the last significant legacy from the philosophical school of the younger Stoa . They are counted among world literature. They were created at the end of Mark Aurel's reign in field camps on the northern border of the Roman Empire . In a multitude of personal observations of aphoristic style, the emperor unfolds his worldview in self-dialogue.

The decisive guideline for his own thinking and acting were for him the classification in and the agreement with the "all-nature". Leadership of reason and orientation towards the common good are among the constants of self-contemplation, varied in numerous phrases, to which Mark Aurel also drove the repercussions of his office on himself: "Do not emperor!"

Since the first printed edition appeared in the second half of the 16th century, Marcus Aurelius and his work have achieved great esteem and role models. In Germany alone, the author of the self-contemplation has a following among the rulers and government officials from Friedrich II to Helmut Schmidt .

Developmental context

Marcus Annius Verus is said to have had a tendency towards philosophy early on. From an early age he was said to be serious. Emperor Hadrian , with whom he was distantly related and who later included him in arranging his succession, called him "verissimus" - the most truthful. At the age of 12, following the example of the Cynics, instead of a comfortable bed , he prescribed a hard bed for the night on the floor and dressed in a short cloak in the manner of the philosophers. Among his teachers, in the first book of self-contemplation, he particularly gratefully points out those who introduced him to philosophy and made him think and act according to philosophical principles. The Stoic Rustinus, for example, taught him that he always had to work on the formation and improvement of his own character, that he should not set up empty theories or give speeches for the sake of applause, and that he should not be seen as an important ascetic or benefactor in front of people should play. From Apollonios from Chalcis he learned to think freely and to be guided unswervingly by reason; neither pain nor the death of loved ones should be able to unbalance one's own soul. Marcus Aurelius names other of his teachers as role models for political orientation, love of justice and the uncompromising fulfillment of duties.

Philosophizing emperor

The imperial philosopher in public
(relief section, Capitoline Museums)

According to the references contained in the work itself, Marcus Aurel's self-reflections come from the last decade of his life, which he spent largely in camps on the northern border of the Roman Empire. The emperor does not explicitly state the purpose of his notes, but the nature and content of the notes show that they are essentially aphoristic principles for one's own orientation, self-assurance and life practice. They were created in ancient Greek , the Koine , which was considered the original language of philosophy and was consistently mastered by educated Romans. It is uncertain whether these reflections were also intended for later publication. The first records of tradition were found in Byzantium in the 10th century ; the work title is most likely not from Marcus Aurelius.

Collected aphorisms may have existed as a separate literary genre even before Marcus Aurelius. With the handbook ( encheiridion ) on the guiding maxims of Epictetus , which his pupil Arrian had put together, there was also a model that was close to Mark Aurel's philosophical way of thinking. Pierre Hadot saw the author's endeavor to "adopt the principles, dogmas, rules of life, formulas that allow him to put himself in the right inner position, to act morally or to accept his fate," as an essential motive for writing the self-contemplations . always 'at hand' under whatever circumstances ”.

Above all, the double demands that Mark Aurel made of himself as emperor and philosopher justified the interest of posterity in his reflections. Mark Aurel has repeatedly addressed the area of ​​tension that arises in this double requirement and has to be absorbed by him, exemplarily in the intensification:

“Be careful not to become a tyrannical emperor! [...] Wrestle with the fact that you remain the man that philosophy wanted you to be. "

In his two-volume study of the philosophy of Mark Aurel, Marcel van Ackeren seeks to determine the practical meaning of philosophizing for ancient thought in general and for Mark Aurel in particular. Since its inception, philosophy has been understood as medicine for the soul, analogous to medicine. For Marcus Aurelius it presents itself, among other things, personality-building and determines one's own life direction. It shows the way to virtuous behavior in every life situation; it makes life bearable - and your own person for others.

Stoic foundation

The philosophical doctrine to which Marcus Aurelius had devoted himself from his youth was the Stoa . To be a philosopher in antiquity did not necessarily mean developing new philosophical theories and putting them into writing. It was essential to live according to certain philosophical principles. The Stoa in the reading conveyed by Panaitios and Poseidonios to the Romans was already widespread in leading social circles during the republican period. According to Jörg Fündling, it was "an indispensable part of Rome in the second quarter of the 2nd century" in its distancing and balancing effect on the stressful, hectic goings-on in the Roman metropolis.

The younger Stoa of Seneca , Musonius , Epiktet, and Mark Aurel was primarily devoted to ethical questions and aspects of social responsibility. Physics and logic were not disregarded as pillars of the original Stoic doctrine; but mainly it was about action-related ethics . It was a matter of mediating between the philosophical principles on the one hand and the everyday situations and challenges on the other - a lifelong balancing act for the Stoic.

Mark Aurel, according to Gretchen Reydams-Schils, could also have been about justifying his own power to himself by seeing himself as a philosophically guided ruler. His ambitions were not directed towards the utopian:

“Do not hope for Plato's state, but be satisfied if there is even the smallest progress, and remember that this result is no small thing. Because who can change the principles according to which people regulate their lives? "

Accordingly, Marcus Aurelius was concerned with a realistic view of the possibilities and limits laid out in human nature as well as a policy with correspondingly limited goals. On the one hand, he saw it as his task to convince and to enforce what was reasonable and just against resistance; but where violent resistance prevented him from executing, the opportunity was to be used to practice another virtue: carefree serenity. Because without it, without being in harmony with his own destiny, the stoic cannot achieve his highest goal, the happiness of peace of mind. In Pierre Hadot's interpretation : “I intended to do good, and that is the main thing. Fate willed it differently. I have to accept his will, to come to terms with practicing no longer the virtue of justice but that of consent. "

Write for yourself

Mark Aurel did not explicitly give reasons for his notes. That he addressed it to himself is unmistakable; the writing motifs can only be accessed indirectly. An intention to publish cannot be completely ruled out, but it can hardly be considered as a main motive. Instead, Van Ackeren's interest is directed towards the question “what status writing or formulating can have as an element of a philosophical art of living model”. He sees it as a special form of therapeutic use of words. The relevant ancient approaches to this can be found in the Corpus Hippocraticum , the contents of which Mark Aurel probably knew, possibly mediated by his personal physician Galen . According to van Ackeren, there are many correspondences between the self-contemplation and the writing of the ancient physicians trained in Heraclitus' aphorisms .

The philosopher and emperor Marcus Aurelius may not have written his notes as reading for others and not even primarily as reading for himself. Because they contain numerous content repetitions with only minimal linguistic variations. However, the point of reference is very often current problem considerations, from which van Ackeren concludes that for Marcus Aurelius the formulation was more important than the repeated reading because it required more concentration and developed a greater psychagogical effect. The withdrawal into a writing situation that kept concentration was therefore an act of self-help:

“Don't act haphazardly anymore. Because you have neither the opportunity to read your notes nor the deeds of the ancient Romans and Greeks and the excerpts from their writings, which you have put aside for your age. So hurry up without heavy luggage, give up empty hopes and help yourself if something is important to you, as long as it is possible. "

Philosophical ideology

Even if the day-to-day business constantly challenged the ruler and gave him the main reason to reflect and orientate his actions ethically, behind or above it, in the last instance, was (all) nature, which according to Marcus Aurelius one has to fit in in a predetermined way. This dictates reason and logic, which should control one's own actions. They demand and bring about a consistent orientation towards the common good. Sustained personal progress in this way requires regular testing in self-dialogue.

(All-) nature as a guide

Canopus - imperial resort in Villa Adriana

As individuals are part of the universal nature, they are also subject to its principles or law and are well advised to make this the basis of their actions and striving: “go straight to your goal, following your individual and general nature . But both have only one way. ”For Marcus Aurelius, cosmological knowledge appears to be a prerequisite for successful action. His ethics is based on cosmology and has a reciprocal relationship to it:

“He who doesn't know what the cosmos is, doesn't know where he is. He who does not know what he was created for does not know who he is, nor what the cosmos is. But if you do not understand one of them, you could not say what it is for. "

Marcus Aurelius shares the stoic view of the cyclical growth and decay of the cosmos. In turn, with death in the sense of continuous change and decay, nothing else awaits man than the cosmos as a whole. But what happens to the whole, so the comforting perspective, cannot be bad for individual parts:

“So always think of these two things: first, that everything has been the same for ages and repeats itself in a constant cycle and that it does not matter whether someone will see the same thing in a hundred or two hundred years or in infinite time; second, that the one who has lived the longest loses the same thing as the other who has to die very early. "

For Marcus Aurelius, the divine is expressed primarily in nature, as an active principle. There is no description of one's own religious experiences. Van Ackeren draws the conclusion from his investigation that self-contemplation can be assessed as a “particularly consistent manifestation of a pantheistic idea”.

Exclusive steering and control body

Only the leading part of the soul can pave the way to happiness, peace of mind, the goal of philosophical striving - the hegemonicon . It is the sole source of knowledge and judgment:

“Things stand outside the door for themselves and neither know nor provide information about themselves. So who can provide information about them? The guiding principle of the soul. "

With the hegemonicon, it is important to constantly check what really matters, what to do and what to leave as unnecessary or superfluous:

“Limit your activity to a few, says Democritus, if you want to be calm inside. Perhaps it would be better to say: do what is necessary and what the reason of a being determined by nature to be a community of states commands and as it commands; this gives us satisfaction not only that comes from doing right, but also that that comes from doing little. Indeed, if we left out most of what is unnecessary in what we say and do, we would have more leisure and less restlessness. So ask yourself about every thing: Is this one of the unnecessary things? One must avoid not only useless actions but also useless thoughts; because the latter are also the cause of the superfluous actions. "

The hegemonicon is self-sufficient; it is enough and regulates itself:

“The leading part of the soul is the part that awakens itself, gives itself its own direction and makes itself what it wants, and which causes everything that happens to appear to it as it does it want."

The sensory impressions as well as the desires and passions arising from them must also be subjected to the test by the hegemonicon. Bad passion arises when the hegemonicon agrees or gives space to harmful sensory impressions and ideas.

“The pain is either an evil for the body - then let it show it - or for the soul. But she has the option of keeping her peculiar calm and not assuming that he is an evil. Every judgment, every drive, every desire and every rejection arises in us, and nothing comes in from outside. "

Reason free from passions becomes a castle, a refuge for the individual, in which nothing can harm him.

Action based on reason

Head of Marcus Aurelius
(London, British Museum )

Reason, which serves as a guideline and means of differentiation for the guiding part of the soul, is part of human nature and related to stoic logic . However, this does not only apply to operations of the mind, but also to virtue-driven action, so it is much more comprehensive than the modern concept of logic. It is the same Logos, the same reason that is found in nature, in human community and in individual reason. For the Stoic, the right use of reason, accessible to all, in the complex cosmic-worldly structure of conditions is essential. In the self-contemplations it says, for example:

“You always have to form a definition or a concept of the object that comes before your eyes so that you can see it in its nature completely undisguised and in all details and the name belonging to it and the names of all parts from which it is composed is and in which he will be dissolved again, can call himself. Nothing contributes so much to generating inner superiority as the ability to methodically consistently and realistically examine and clarify every situation that occurs in life, and the habit of always looking at things in such a way that one becomes aware of what kind from the world what use the thing brings and what value it has on the one hand for the whole and on the other hand for the person as a citizen of the highest community to which the other communities belong as it were like houses, furthermore (that one is aware) what that is, that now gives me the idea of ​​what it is made of and how long it can be preserved according to its nature and what qualifications are required for it, such as indulgence, bravery, truthfulness, loyalty, simplicity, independence and the other qualifications. "

At the same time, Marcus Aurelius was aware that the abundance of the conditionalities of all circumstances of existence cannot be fully opened up to one's own knowledge and that there are coincidences in the structure of effects surrounding the human being that cannot be foreseen for the individual. And so the emperor reflected on the limits of his own knowledge and ability:

“Is this overwhelming my thinking ability or not? If it is sufficient, I use it as a tool given to me by the nature of the world as a whole to carry out my task. If it is not enough, I will not tackle the task and leave it to someone else who can do it [...]. "

Reservation of error and the anticipation of possible failure did not delegitimize or devalue Mark Aurel's own actions. For it is not the outcome or the result of the respective action that are decisive from a stoic point of view, but the reasonable preliminary examination and the virtuous intention. With such a reservation to act, the stoic protects himself from errors and frustrations, “and at the same time the only good, virtue, is excluded from the reservation. Because it only depends on free reason and not on the unavailable course of things in the cosmos. "On this basis, Marcus Aurelius determined his own limits:

“Try to convince people, but also act against their will when the spirit of justice decides to do so. However, if someone gets in your way with the threat of violence, take it easy, take no offense, use the handicap to achieve another virtue, and remember that you are only moving with caution and not after the impossible wanted to strive. "

Social embedding and orientation towards the common good

The human individual's gift of reason, which he shares with all other people, makes him a political being by nature. The community of people therefore exists entirely by itself, it does not have to be brought about first through reasonable judgment:

“If we have the mind in common, then the reason through which we are reasonable is also common to us. If so, then common sense that determines what to do and what not to do is common to all of us. If so, the law is common to all of us. If that is correct, then we are all citizens. In this case we are part of some kind of state. If so, then the cosmos is in a sense a state. For to which common state, one might ask, should the entire human race otherwise belong? But from there, that is, from this common state, we have our intellectual faculties, our rational being and our need for the law. "

Respect for one's own nature requires one to act in a way that benefits the community. Passivity in this regard would be wrong:

"The weal and woe of the rational and politically active living being lies not in passive behavior, but in being active, just as its good and bad qualities are not effective in passive behavior, but in being active."

Marcus Aurelius declares solidarity with fellow human beings to be the most important characteristic of human nature. As a person and a philosopher, he likes the idea of ​​a state "in which everyone has the same rights and duties and which is administered in the sense of equality and general freedom of speech, and of a monarchy that above all respects the freedom of its citizens." The importance of the personal social environment for Marcus Aurelius, his relationships with family, friends and important teachers is already clearly expressed at the beginning of the self- reflection. They are concrete people who have exemplified and conveyed virtues and thus helped to shape their own special nature in retrospect, exemplifying community orientation.

As far as the personal chances of success of community action are concerned, the reservation mentioned above also applied to Marcus Aurelius: “People are there for one another, so teach or tolerate them.” Not to abandon the goal of “the general benefit and what is appropriate to the circumstances” effect is one of his frequently repeated self-admonitions. He didn't have time to waste:

“One must not only consider the thought that our life is consumed every day and that the rest is getting smaller with each passing day, but one must also consider that, if one could extend one's existence into old age, it is uncertain whether our thinking power will always retain the same mental faculty for that contemplation which is the basis for the science of divine and human things. Indeed, when one begins to become childish, one retains the ability to breathe, to digest, to have ideas and desires, and more like effects; but to make use of oneself, to observe one's duty every time punctually, to dissect the impressions precisely, to check when it is time to leave this life, in short, everything that requires a trained mind has died out in us. That is why we have to hurry, not only because we are always approaching death, but also because the comprehension and the concepts in us often cease before death. "

Self-motivation and course fixing in self-dialogue

The address to yourself - often dressed in the form of invitations to a you, that alone says the author - is a special feature that the Meditations apart from other texts of antiquity with selbstdialogischen elements. Because only with the self-contemplation does the self -dialogue according to Marcel van Ackeren become the defining moment of a text and its form. In this, the hegemonicon, the leading part of the soul, is concerned with itself and with the examination of sensory impressions and ideas:

“Pay attention to your ability to take things into your consciousness. It is only up to them that there is no longer any conception in your guiding reason that does not correspond to the nature and quality of the rational living being. "

With Marcus Aurelius, self-dialogue becomes a technique that he prescribes as a systematic exercise program, for example, when it says: “Say to yourself in the morning: Today I am going to meet a careless, ungrateful, impudent, deceitful, envious, unsociable person meet. [...] Nobody can harm me, because I will not be seduced into a vice. "

According to van Ackeren, Mark Aurel's self-dialogues serve a number of purposes: Among other things, they are a prophylactic exercise that prepares a later attitude, emotional reaction or behavior; they are used as mnemonics to internalize central tenets; If necessary, they have a healing effect, serve for self-examination, practical decision-making, concentration on oneself and on one's own principles. Van Ackeren comes to the conclusion that Mark Aurel's self-dialogue does not only contain statements about the philosophical art of living, but "as a whole represents the practice of such an art."

Relationships between content and form

Location of Carnuntum on the Upper Pannonian Limes

Pierre Hadot describes the self-contemplation as a "strange work" at first glance, the structure and context of which has given rise to different interpretations . When the traditional copy was discovered in the 16th century, there was neither a title nor the division into 12 books that is common today. The special position of the first book, in which Marcus Aurelius outlines his intellectual career on the basis of particularly impressive personalities in his social environment, is underlined with the reference to the place of origin on the banks of the River Gran . In addition, there is only one other geographical reference, namely at the beginning of the third book: "Written in Carnuntum ". Otherwise, between some of the books of today's reading there were sometimes double blank lines, sometimes a separator, but nothing of the same between others. And the series of notated reflections fluctuates between extremely brief sentences and long trains of thought of twenty to sixty lines.

Sometimes it was concluded that these are only fragments of a larger work, sometimes that the notations by Marcus Aurelius were originally put into a different order than the traditional one. Without such hypotheses, anyone who, like Hadot or van Ackeren, assumes with recent research that it is a matter of hypomnémata - personal notes written from one day to the next, regardless of whether the emperor wrote them down himself or possibly a scribe dictated.

Under the impression that Marcus Aurelius tried hard to bring his reflections into a refined literary form in spite of limited time reserves, research does not only seek to determine the philosophical content of self-contemplation ; rather, correspondence between the content of the statement and the formal text design is also checked. Specific concept creations, choice of metaphors and aphoristic style are among the distinctive elements in this regard.

The first book as a special part of the work

Bust of the adoptive father and predecessor Antoninus Pius
(British Museum)

“If you want to be happy, then think about the virtues of those around you. This is e.g. For example, with one person the drive, with the other the restraint, with the next generosity, with another something else. Because nothing is as much joy as the manifestations of the virtues that are visible in the characters of our fellow human beings and - as far as possible - come together in large numbers. That's why you always have to have them to hand. "

The first book of Self-Contemplations is written in this spirit , as Joachim Dalfen has already made clear, who at the same time rejected assumptions that, due to the peculiarities of content and form, this chapter could be a chapter that does not belong at all or that it was created after the other books Act Mark Aurel's work. The first book is the shortest of them all, and both thematically and formally it is more uniform than any of the following. It is consistently about desirable qualities that Marcus Aurelius encountered in people in his social environment and that he regards as exemplary. In the last section he sums up the positive influences and circumstances of his career by thanking the gods for it.

A prominent feature of the uniform form of the first book is that all sections begin with the opening formula " Παρὰ ..." (From ...) together with a reference to the respective role model or recipient of thanks, followed by what is to be thanked for . For Richard B. Rutherford there is nothing in all of classical literature that corresponds to the first book of Mark Aurel's Self-Contemplations .

Like a programmatic draft for the first book, van Ackeren's remarks by Mark Aurel on the virtues and virtues of fellow human beings appear to be what one should be happy about and orientate oneself. Unlike Pierre Grimal , who sees a Marcus Aurelius who is aware of his age and who has a limited life expectancy, essentially looking back on his intellectual career and his influences, van Ackeren paints the image of an emperor who in this first book mainly focuses on the virtues and their representatives in his Life insures because he intends to continue working on their acquisition.

However, there are also differences with regard to the formal design of the sections in the first book: While the characterizations initially very briefly connect people with virtues, the length of the appraisals increases in the following up to Antoninus Pius , to whom almost 100 characteristics are ascribed, in part explained depending on the situation. Last but not least, Rutherford sees this as a critical confrontation between Mark Aurel and the predecessors of his adoptive father as emperor, who were therefore politically less suitable for the office due to the lack of certain characteristics and skills.

For the essential in a nutshell and clarity

“Always take the short way. But the way that corresponds to nature is short; as a result, you say and do everything in the healthiest way possible. Because such a resolution saves you from boasting, exaggeration, imprecise formulation and subtlety. "

Mark Aurel also followed this general guideline for action in the self-contemplations by leaving aside everything that seemed superfluous to him - mostly also the concrete circumstances and people that gave him cause for certain reflections - in order to deal with those compelling truths, detached from the daily confusion that determine human life. It was about him to recognize the facts of life in naked nakedness and to bring them to the language, z. B. in the phrase:

“What are the people who only eat, sleep, mate, empty and only perform animal functions? And what if they play the masters, walk proudly, behave indignantly and throw reproachful words around them from their heights? "

To say the truth is a frequent concern of the imperial philosopher, to which he urges himself. In doing so, he again resorts to the nature of the world as a whole, which is closely related to everything that exists. But all-nature is also called truth, and it is the first cause of all truth. Therefore, Marcus Aurelius seeks and finds examples of the true very often in nature or in its individual manifestations. Occasionally he also uses drastic cynicisms :

"Just as bathing, the oil, the sweat, the dirt, the greasy water and everything else seem disgusting to you, so also every part of life and every object."

It is not uncommon for Mark Aurel's insight into truth to have a bitter aftertaste. What is then exposed and naked is sometimes not very attractive. In addition, as can be observed in nature, what is found is also subject to constant change, changing in its composition, inconsistent and without value in the long term.

“So what is it that we need to direct all of our concern to? Only one thing: a just mindset, non-profit action, constant truth in speaking and a mood to accept everything that happens to us with surrender like a necessity, a known thing that has the same source and origin with us. "

Some of Mark Aurel's utterances, formulated in laconic brevity, appear downright puzzling at first glance. The meaning of the statement “upright, not erect” can hardly be deciphered without the help of another passage: “Then one finds the serenity of the soul when one gets used to doing without the help from outside and to our rest from other people not to be needed. One should stand upright without being held upright. "

Concept creation, use of images and metaphors

Mark Aurel on
horseback (partial illustration, Capitoline Museums)

“Always imagine the world as a creature that consists of only one matter and one single spirit. See how everything fits in with one feeling; how, by virtue of a unified driving force, everything is in a well-founded connection with everything that is becoming and of what kind the intimate connection and interaction is. "

The use of diverse stylistic devices in the self-contemplation shows that Marcus Aurelius also attached importance to formal design elements when writing his reflections. Van Ackeren describes the wealth of words and the use of word combinations, especially those with the prefix “συν”, as striking. Around 150 such compounds are included in the self-contemplation, including some that are not otherwise documented in all of ancient literature. "These compound words, especially the newly formed ones, are testimony to the effort to ensure the unity that dominates the entire cosmos, also through the linguistic expression," says Dalfen. The emperor's thought revolves constantly around the unity of the cosmos in all its members, around "the kinship of all human beings", out of which for every human being, but especially for the emperor, the "obligations to the community" arise.

The use of diminutive forms in self-contemplations can often be found , which could serve as linguistic diminutions in order not to overestimate the value of the adiaphora , the indifferent things according to Stoic teaching. Comparisons in which humans are equated with ants, frightened mice or leaves in the wind, as was done by Homer , also aim to relativize and reduce meaning . Mark Aurel uses comparisons and metaphors particularly abundantly, be it that life is taken for a drama, be it that it is viewed as a theater of war, as a competition or as a boat trip from one bank to the other.

"The duration of human life is a moment, the being is a constant current, the sensation is a dark appearance, the body is a decaying mass, the soul is a top, fate is a riddle, the call is something undecided."

The effect of comparisons and images is increased by building rows. In close succession, they each convey their own statements and, according to van Ackeren, seem catchy and convincing even without explanation. At best, Rutherford observes that the use of images in Mark Aurel's reflections rarely serves the purpose of decoration; rather, they are an integral part of the context to be expressed and the resulting effect.

Variation and continuation of key ideas in aphorisms

“If you complain about anything, you have forgotten that everything happens in accordance with all-nature and that foreign transgressions should not challenge you; further forget that everything that happens has always happened this way, will always happen this way, and is now happening everywhere; forget what close relationship there is between the individual and the whole human race; for here there is not both a community of blood and semen, but rather participation of the same spirit. But you have also forgotten that the thinking spirit of everyone is, as it were, a god and an effluent of the godhead; forget that no one has anything exclusively his own, but that his child as well as his body and even his soul came to him from that source; Finally forget that everyone only lives the present moment and consequently only loses this. "

Dalfen has emphasized this section of self- reflection as an important sequence of key sentences (Kephalaia) , intended to be at hand to the emperor when he was preparing to be angry with his fellow men. Rutherford and Hadot followed Dalfen in assessing the seminal importance of the Kephalaia. In such catalog-like arrangements, according to Rutherford, the function of self-contemplation becomes clearly recognizable for the author; it shows what mainly occupies him and what is fundamentally important to him. Hadot sees a “laconic reminder” in the eight aspects mentioned, which are often found separately from each other in Mark Aurel's reflections, sometimes provided with explanations and evidence.

Following Rutherford, Van Ackeren emphasizes the moment of linguistic variation in the various thematic revivals of Mark Aurel. The combination of variation and iteration - in the sense of thematic continuation - determined the self-observations as a whole: “The various linguistic variants are attempts to formulate the possibly situational necessity. They may correspond to current moods or needs, although the procedure is not arbitrary, but by means of a methodological framework. In addition, the variations can be explained by the thought of preparation. With the variants, Marc Aurel develops different pharmaceuticals or derivatives of a therapeutic instrument in order to be prepared for different situations. "

In terms of style, according to van Ackeren, Mark Aurel preferred the forms of the epigram and the aphorism . An epigrammatic approach is evident not only in the compactness of the form and the rhetorical means, but also in the choice of topics, which is often aimed at the death of famous men:

Heraclitus , who had made so many natural philosophical considerations about the end of the world through fire, died of dropsy, his body wrapped in cow manure. The worm disease killed Democritus , vermin of another kind killed Socrates . What do I mean by that? You have embarked, sailed through the sea, are in the harbor: get off now! If it is a different life, the gods are nowhere missing, not even there! If, on the other hand, it is no longer possible to feel, then your pains and your pleasures end, your confinement in a vessel that is all the more unworthy as the one who lives in it is far more noble. Because this is reason, your genius, the other only earth and rot. "

In comparing the texts of the Corpus Hippocraticum with the self- reflections of Mark Aurel, van Ackeren sometimes shows clear parallels, especially with regard to the aphoristic form. As a didactic instrument, the aphoristic style appears helpful in both cases for learning as well as for deepening and remembering. However, according to van Ackeren, the self-contemplations also consistently meet six out of seven criteria of today's aphorism definition. The legal decrees of Marcus Aurelius, to which Hadot points out: great care in the details; an almost "exaggerated zeal in explaining points that were already clear"; Striving for purity in both Greek and Latin usage; meticulous search for the most impartial, humane, fairest solution.

Reception and aftermath

Mark Aurel in military armor
(Paris, Louvre )

As the last important representative of the younger Stoa, Marcus Aurelius only appears in the modern perspective. From late antiquity and the Middle Ages , such a classification and explicit examination of the self-observations has not been handed down. Mark Aurel's philosophical orientation can be found in the sources everywhere. The admiration as a “good emperor” that was shown to his image in many Roman households centuries after his death may have more to do with the ruler than with his philosophical thinking. Finally, with him, the heyday of the adoptive empire and the flourishing Roman Empire ended.

For the modern reception, on the other hand, it is above all the self-contemplations that have made Marcus Aurelius a captivating historical greatness, which invites discussion and is directed towards the partly ongoing willingness to identify. Scientific investigations deal, among other things, with the question of the philosophical independence of self-contemplation ; with the question of how positively or negatively charged the emperor's image of man and his attitude to emotions are; with Mark Aurel's relationship to rhetoric and religion.

Controversial originality

Whether there is an independent contribution to philosophy by Marcus Aurelius and what it consists of is a matter of dispute in research. Dalfen was of the opinion that you are doing Marcus Aurelius no wrong if you attribute the content and formal elements of the self-contemplation to his teachers alone: ​​“The emperor's greatness does not lie in having taught something new or his own, but in the fact that he follows the teachings He kept philosophy open throughout his life, felt obliged to them as rulers and therefore constantly recalled them. But that alone would mean little if he had not also shaped his actions according to the teachings. And history testifies that he did this. "

For Hadot, the key to Mark Aurel's self-contemplation lies in Epictetus and the three rules of life that he derived from the Stoic doctrine: the disciplining of ideas and judgment, the disciplining of the drive and action, and the disciplining of desire: "The doctrine of the three Exercise topics, the three disciplines, and the three rules of life thus contain, in a great way, the whole essence of stoicism. It calls on people to radically transform their view of the world and their ordinary way of life. Marc Aurel, the emperor-philosopher, was able to magnificently develop these themes in his exhortations to himself and to orchestrate them with rich harmonies. "

Van Ackeren explicitly opposes a reduction of self-contemplation to Epictet's rules of life. The fact that, contrary to Hadot's assumption, it is not just a matter of a little notebook in the manner of the hypomnemata in the sense of Hadot, is already evident in formal terms, since it is not a disordered text but “the artful combination of many stylistic elements known from ancient genres ". The stimulants of Mark Aurel's reflections cited in the self-contemplations include not only Epictetus but also Seneca and Heraclitus . At Seneca, self-dialogue is closely related to interpersonal dialogue, and is thus supplemented and corrected. But it is only with self-contemplation , according to van Ackeren, that self-dialogue becomes the defining moment of a text and its form: "With Marc Aurel, the Stoa concentrates on the matter and form on self-dialogue."

“Either there is an inevitably necessary destiny and an inviolable order of things or a forgiving providence or a confused, blind approximation. Now, if there is an unchanging necessity, why do you resist it? But if there is a providence that can be reconciled, make yourself worthy of divine assistance. If blind chance finally reigns, enjoy the thought that in the midst of such a torrent you have a guide in your reason. "

The above reflection, which can be found in various modifications in the self-contemplations , has been turned critically against Marcus Aurelius in two respects; on the one hand, because in the alternative view as such there would be a deviation from the stoic position; on the other hand, because the consideration of blind chance as a principle of shaping the world, which goes back to Democrit's atomic theory, should be classified as eclectic . Van Ackeren, on the other hand, sees this alternative, “Providence or Atoms”, first considered in detail by Marcus Aurelius, as a discussion of the relationship between physics and ethics in the Stoa.

Marcus Aurelius resorts to Heraclitus' thinking, for example, to make it clear that people who act contrary to reason also have a designated place in the structure of the world as a whole:

“We all work together towards one goal: some with full consciousness, others ignorant, like Heraclitus, too, I believe, who calls sleepers active collaborators in what is happening in the cosmos. One participates in this, the other in that way, but also the one who complains constantly and tries to counter the course of the world and stop it. Because the cosmos also needs such a person. You now have to be clear about which people you belong to. The one who directs the whole world will use you correctly in any case and include you as an important part of the ranks of his co-workers and helpers. "

The fact that Marcus Aurelius drew on many sources when writing the self-contemplations , without restricting himself exclusively to stoic ideas, was interpreted not only as eclecticism, but also as a lack of philosophical originality and meaning. Van Ackeren, on the other hand, gives the impression of a special philosophy concept, which not only justifies, thematizes and reflects on the stoic art of living, but also updates it. The self-contemplation made it possible in an unprecedented way to “look over the shoulder of an author while practicing the art of living. That is also unique. "

Multilayered image of man

As shown, Mark Aurel's image of man is determined by the idea of ​​common participation of all in universal reason and by the related human coexistence, which, however, is also subject to disturbances:

“But a person separates himself from his fellow man because he hates him and turns away from him. But he does not know that he has cut himself off from the community as a whole. Apart from that, that community is a gift from Zeus who brought them together. It is possible for us to grow back together with our neighbors and again to help ensure that the whole thing is completed. If, of course, this type of separation occurs more frequently, the result is that the part that is separated can only be reunited with the rest with difficulty and can hardly be integrated. In general, the branch that has grown together with the others from the start and remained in a community with them is no longer the same as the one that is grafted back in after separation, let the gardeners say what they want. "

Van Ackeren sees opportunities and limits of possible rehabilitation for people who have split off from the community due to their misconduct. Their reintegration is therefore possible and encouraged. However, this does not succeed completely and without problems, and it becomes more and more difficult with relapse. For Marcus Aurelius, excellent means of maintaining community are teaching and love, friendship and benevolence.

In a peculiar tension to these guiding principles are statements in the self-contemplations that seem to aim at callousness in the interpersonal area, for example with a view to the possible death of one's own child: "Epictetus said that when you kiss a child, you have to silently say to yourself: 'Tomorrow you may already be dead.' ” Martha Nussbaum has critically inferred an inhumane position of Mark Aurel from such sentences, because feelings are given too little space in social life and are rated negatively. Van Ackeren, on the other hand, maintains that although it is indeed the Stoic doctrine to immunize oneself against the paralyzing effects of grief as much as possible, the criticism in this regard ignores the positive emotions that Marcus Aurelius often addressed.

Adoptive brother and co-emperor Lucius Verus

According to Pierre Grimal, the sometimes not particularly cheerful grounding of the reflections of the imperial philosopher can be explained not least with the life situation of Marcus Aurelius at the time the self-contemplations were created. According to his own understanding and attestation, the emperor was an old man at this point; chronic stomach and sleep problems troubled him. It might be time to turn to your own destiny. In 175 his wife Faustina and other family members died. Grimal, looking for references between certain Mark Aurelian experiences and individual passages in the self-contemplation , sees the following correspondence

“Are Panthea or Pergamus still sitting at the tomb of Verus ? Or Chabrias and Diotimus on Hadrian ? That would be ridiculous. [...] Wasn't it your necessary skill to first age and then die? And can the plaintiffs escape death? This whole body is mold and rot. "

Ambivalent rhetoric

Like philosophy, rhetoric was one of Mark Aurel's basic areas of training. His long-time rhetoric teacher was the then famous lawyer and speaker Marcus Cornelius Fronto , who carried out a revival of the republican rhetorical tradition and thus helped to educate his contemporaries. A controversial question in research aims at Mark Aurel's attitude towards rhetoric and specifically at a possibly clear departure from it.

As evidence for this, statements are used in the self-contemplations in which Mark Aurel Quintus Junius Rusticus , his stoic teacher, gratefully points out, among other things, for having saved him above all oratory and poetic verbosity as well as from artificial speech; there are also parts of the correspondence between Marcus Aurelius and Fronto, which u. U. could also indicate Mark Aurel's disdain for and turning away from rhetoric.

In this regard, Christoph Tobias Kasulke has come to different conclusions on several levels. According to this, there was no demonstrable disdain for rhetoric on the part of Marcus Aurelius until the last years of his life, because in 175/176 on the occasion of an inspection trip to the east of the empire he asked, enjoyed and honored the rhetorical abilities of three renowned sophists and already in Athens previously the chair for rhetoric was filled with the sophist Iulius Theodotus . In the course of the takeover of power in 161, Mark Aurel explicitly wrote to Fronto in a letter to provide him with high-quality reading from his collection - without any recognizable philosophical reference. Kasulke does not attribute the discrepancies between Fronto and Marcus Aurelius in questions of rhetoric, which soon afterwards emerged from the correspondence, to a drastic departure from Marcus Aurelius from rhetoric as such - the reigning emperor could hardly do without it - but to Fronto's disappointment Perhaps I had hoped "to see his individual literary-rhetorical taste enthroned by the person of the emperor, as it were, and established throughout the empire." However, Marcus Aurelius protested against this by rejecting Fronto's references to the need for special rhetorical exercises and style maintenance and one to his own disposition appropriate speech.

Bernd Manuwald derives a clearer departure from rhetoric by Mark Aurel than Kasulke from his source interpretation. It is noticeable that Mark Aurel does not name any of the teachers mentioned in the first book who introduced him to rhetoric. Fronto is mentioned briefly, but not as a rhetoric teacher, but with reference to ethical insights. Already in the young Marcus there were reservations about certain aspects of the fronton rhetoric and about his requirements for rhetorical refinement. And statements by both made it clear that from a certain point in time onwards, Mark Aurel no longer embarked on rhetorical perfection in the sense of Frontos, but consciously turned away from it. Jürgen Hammerstaedt sees a deliberate contrast between Marcus Aurelius and prominent contemporary representatives of the Second Sophistics articulated in the self-contemplations , for example when he thanks the gods that he did not come across any sophist when he was drawn to philosophy. Using the example of Apuleius of Madauros, Hammerstaedt developed striking contrasts to Mark Aurel's self-image and his guiding principles.

Unorthodox religiosity

Mark Aurel's religiosity also stands in a field of tension that allows for different interpretations and accents to his philosophical thinking. The concept of God in the self-contemplation , described by Cornelius Motschmann as "extremely vague", oscillates between the comprehensive all-nature on the one hand, Zeus as a single greatness of God on the other and "the gods" in a traditional polytheistic twist. Mark Aurel dispels doubts about the existence of higher powers as follows:

"Answer those who ask, 'Where did you see the gods you worship so much, or how did you come to the conclusion that they exist?' First, they are also visible to the eyes. Second: I haven't seen my soul either, and yet I honor it. This also applies to the gods: From the fact that I feel their power again and again, I conclude that they exist and that is why I worship them. "

Van Ackeren specifies Mark Aurel's religiosity in contrast to Epictets: While Epictets conception of God is primarily monotheistic and personalized, Mark Aurel completely dispenses with the description of religious experiences and allows the divine principle to be expressed primarily in nature: “On the religious zeal of Epictetus is hardly noticeable in the self-contemplations. "With the exception of one passage that can be understood as a prayer to the cosmos, according to van Ackeren, religiosity is not practiced in self-contemplation - unlike the practical philosophy that is emphasized in writing . "Religiousness seems to be impersonal for Marc Aurel because it is not central to him."

Adoration and critical distance

Museum equestrian statue - partial view

Mark Aurel received praise, admiration and respect like hardly any other Roman emperor before or after him, whereby according to Motschmann the sincerity of his nature and the immediacy of his diary - like self- examination are the main reasons. Anthemic ruled Ernest Renan : "Fortunately, the box that hid the written down on the shores of Gran and in Carnuntum thoughts saved. [...] Representing a truly eternal Gospel, the thoughts of Marcus Aurelius will never grow old, because they do not proclaim dogma. The gospel is out of date in some of its parts, as science no longer allows for the naive notion of the supernatural that underlies it. The supernatural is only a small, insignificant spot in the mind that does not affect the wonderful beauty of the basic content. If science had the power to destroy God and the soul, thoughts would still remain young with life and filled with truth. The religion of Marcus Aurelius is, as it was sometimes that of Jesus, the absolute religion, that which results from the simple fact of a high moral consciousness in the face of the universe. It is a religion that does not belong to any race or country. No revolution, no progress, no discovery will be able to change it. "

Incentives for identification offered the Meditations in the 18th century for Frederick II. , Than themselves, supported by Voltaire , to Roi philosophe swung open. In a letter to Voltaire in 1777, he found Mark Aurel as a personality so superior to all rulers and even to all philosophers because of his moral practice that any comparison with him would be bold. Andreas Pečar emphasizes the instrumental character of Frederick's Mark Aurel worship. During his time as Crown Prince, it had served him to identify himself as one of your own among philosophers. After taking power, however, he used the imperial philosopher Mark Aurel as a role model to distance himself from the good advice of the “only” philosophers in the sense of his duties as ruler.

Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt repeatedly explained Mark Aurel's self- observations as an important personal basis for orientation, also in the contemporary horizon, which he received from his uncle for confirmation , carried in his pack during World War II and made his own through lifelong employment. “Marcus Aurelius was a role model for me. His admonitions have become natural to me. His two most important commandments for me, inner serenity and the fulfillment of duties, were always in mind. ”In difficult political decision-making situations as Federal Chancellor, inner calm gave him the strength to fulfill his duties. Schmidt suspects “that the moment I remembered Marcus Aurelius, calmness returned every time.” From his point of view today, the Marcus Aurelius of self-contemplation is particularly exemplary for Schmidt , “a kind of ideal catalog for what is just and wise Rule. ”Schmidt assesses the actual political actions of Mark Aurel as emperor as critical in several respects (slave torture, persecution of Christians, wars to assert imperial interests).

As shown above, critical approaches in scientific research relate on the one hand to a lack of philosophical originality in self-contemplation , on the other hand to an all too apathetic and negative image of man. Jörg Fündling would like to build on the "magnetism of the overall picture": "Solid as a rock of unwanted wars, harmonious personality, adored and yet deplorable, so he is as close to us." The, according to his will, unconditional, inwardly free Mark Aurel must be in his dependencies, Obstacles to thinking and conventions are set back. "Another duty is the search for disharmonies or possible negative consequences of its harmony."

For Richard B. Rutherford are the Meditations expression of the pursuit of an ideal. In view of the severity of this ideal, however, tints of despondency and dissatisfaction in Marcus Aurelius' utterances are understandable. It is a work charged with tension through this striving, which for good reasons continues to develop its moving and enlightening effect today. Alexander Demandt takes the compilation of ten principles that Marcus Aurelius prescribes for his attitude towards other people in Book XI, 18 as the starting point for ten guiding principles with which he tries to grasp the wisdom of the imperial philosopher as a whole. Demandt's conclusion in this regard is: “There are never before books on philosophy. The topic of wisdom has been a nil since Marc Aurel. "

Text output

  • Gernot Krapinger (ed. And transl .): Self-contemplations . Reclam, Ditzingen 2019.
  • Christopher Gill (trans. And comm.): Meditations, Books 1-6 . Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013.
  • Robin Hard (translator): Meditations ( Oxford World's Classics ). Oxford et al. 2011.
  • Rainer Nickel (ed. And transl.): Self-contemplations ( Tusculum Collection ). Greek and German, 2nd edition, Mannheim 2010.
  • Wilhelm Capelle (transl.): Self-reflection . 13th, revised edition, Kröner, Stuttgart 2008.
  • Otto Kiefer (transl.): Self-Contemplations . Insel, Frankfurt am Main / Leipzig 2003.
  • Joachim Dalfen (Ed.): Marci Aurelii Antonini Ad se ipsum libri XII ( Bibliotheca Teubneriana ). 2nd, improved edition, Teubner, Leipzig 1987.
  • Willy Theiler (ed. And transl.): Paths to oneself . Greek and German. 3rd, improved edition, Artemis, Zurich 1984.
  • HM Endres (transl.): Self-reflection . Goldmann, Munich 1961.
  • Albert Wittstock (transl.): Self-contemplations . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949.
  • Arthur SL Farquharson (ed., Comm. And transl . ): Ta eis heauton . Greek and English. 2 volumes, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1944.
  • Charles Reginald Haines (ed. And transl.): Marcus Aurelius . Greek and English ( Loeb Classical Library ). Improved edition, Cambridge (MA) 1930.
  • Heinrich Schenkl (Ed.): Marci Antonini Imperatoris In semet ipsvm libri XII ( Bibliotheca Teubneriana ). Ed. maior., Leipzig 1913.
  • Johannes Stich (Ed.): D. imperatoris Marci Antonini Commentariorum quos sibi ipsi scripsit libri 12 . Teubner, Leipzig 1882.
  • Johann Matthias Schultz (transl. And comm.): Marc. Aurel. Antonin's conversations with himself . Schleswig 1799.

literature

  • Marcel van Ackeren : The philosophy of Marc Aurel. 2 volumes, de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2011, ISBN 978-3-11-025542-3 .
  • Marcel van Ackeren (Ed.): “Self-Contemplations” and Self-Representations. The philosopher and emperor Marc Aurel in an interdisciplinary light; Files from the Interdisciplinary Colloquium Cologne July 23-25, 2009 . Reichert, Wiesbaden 2012, ISBN 978-3-89500-929-7 .
  • Guido Cortassa: Il filosofo, i libri, la memoria. Poeti e filosofi nei Pensieri di Marco Aurelio . Tirrenia Stampatori, Turin 1989, ISBN 88-7763-624-6 .
  • Joachim Dalfen : Form-historical investigations into the self-contemplation of Marcus Aurelius. Bonn 1967 (= dissertation, University of Munich 1966).
  • Pierre Hadot : The inner castle. Instructions for reading Marcus Aurelius. Eichborn, Frankfurt am Main 1997, ISBN 3-8218-0642-7 .
  • Christoph Tobias Kasulke: Fronto, Marc Aurel and no conflict between philosophy and rhetoric in the 2nd century AD Saur, Munich, Leipzig 2005, ISBN 3-598-77830-9 .
  • Richard B. Rutherford: The meditations of Marcus Aurelius. A study. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989, ISBN 0-19-814879-8 .

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ In research it is very likely that Mark Aurel's records, like many other ancient writings, had no title at all. The various existing titles are therefore all makeshift solutions. The Greek title, adapted to the original language ( Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτόν ), is translated ad se ipsum in Latin or is used under meditationes ; Italian optionally Colloqui con sé stesso , Ricordi , Meditazioni or Pensieri ; French: Pensées pour moi-même ; English: meditations . In German, in addition to self-contemplation , paths to oneself are also common. Marcel van Ackeren argues for self- observation, among other things because of the ease of use of the language. (Marcel van Ackeren: The emperor and philosopher Marc Aurel as an object of interdisciplinary research. In: Ders. (Ed.), Wiesbaden 2012 (files of the Interdisciplinary Colloquium Cologne 2009), p. 9.)
  2. ^ Jörg Fündling : Marc Aurel. Emperor and philosopher . Darmstadt 2008, pp. 18, 20.
  3. ^ Marcus Aurelius I, 7.
  4. ^ Marcus Aurelius I, 8.
  5. Marcus Aurelius I, 14.
  6. Hadot 1997, pp. 43 and 46.
  7. Hadot 1997, p. 96.
  8. Mark Aurel VI, 30. Gretchen Reydams-Schils makes this phrase in the translation “Verkaisere nicht!” The starting point of her treatise The Roman Stoics. Self, responsibility, and affection (Chicago and London 2005); Pierre Hadot also assigns it central importance (Hadot 1997, p. 62) and refers to it several times.
  9. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 1, pp. 27-29, referring to Mark Aurel VI, 30; VIII, 1; XII, 27; VI, 12.
  10. Hadot refers as an example to Cato the Younger , who was a stoic philosopher but who did not write any philosophical writings. (Hadot 1997, p. 19)
  11. ^ Jörg Fündling: Marc Aurel. Emperor and philosopher . Darmstadt 2008, p. 42 f.
  12. Gretchen Reydams-Schils: The Roman Stoics. Self, responsibility, and affection. Chicago and London 2005, p. 3.
  13. "But crucial differences still remain: for Stoics, the turn toward the self is a lifelong balancing act between two parallel sets of norms, philosophical and sociopolitical, that can create serious and far-reaching tensions." (Gretchen Reydams-Schils: The Roman Stoics. Self, responsibility, and affection. Chicago and London 2005, p. 91.)
  14. Gretchen Reydams-Schils: The Roman Stoics. Self, responsibility, and affection. Chicago and London 2005, p. 8.
  15. ^ Marcus Aurelius IX, 29; quoted from Hadot 1997, p. 414.
  16. Hadot 1997, p. 417.
  17. Mark Aurel VI, 50.
  18. Hadot 1997, p. 288.
  19. Van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 316.
  20. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 1, p. 318.
  21. Van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 319 f. and 326 f.
  22. Van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 336 f.
  23. Mark Aurel III, 14; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 342.
  24. Mark Aurel XI, 13: "For what bad thing would there be for you, if you always voluntarily do what is appropriate to your nature, us as a human being, destined to promote the common good in every possible way accept what all-nature finds useful right now. "
  25. Mark Aurel V, 3; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 371.
  26. Mark Aurel VIII, 52; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 442.
  27. Mark Aurel II, 14; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 367.
  28. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 2, p. 704.
  29. Mark Aurel IX, 15; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 573.
  30. Mark Aurel IV, 24; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprinted 1995, p. 49.
  31. Mark Aurel VI, 8; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 572.
  32. Mark Aurel VIII, 28; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 663.
  33. Mark Aurel VIII, 48: “That is why reason free from passions is a castle ( διὰ τοῦτο ἀκρόπολίς ἐστιν ἡ ἐλευθέρα παθῶν διάνοια ). Because man has nothing that is even stronger. If man seeks refuge there, he should be invincible in the future. ”(Quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 573, footnote 853.)
  34. Hadot 1997, p. 120.
  35. Mark Aurel III, 11; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 555.
  36. Van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 687 f.
  37. Mark Aurel VII, 5; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 683, footnote 1329.
  38. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 2, p. 695.
  39. Mark Aurel VI, 50; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 694.
  40. Mark Aurel VI, 4; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 505 f.
  41. Mark Aurel IX, 16; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 507, footnote 609.
  42. τὸ μὲν οὖν προηγούμενον ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατασκευῇ τὸ κοινωνικόν ἐστι. Marcus Aurelius VII, 55; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 508 f. Note 616.
  43. Mark Aurel I, 14; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 515.
  44. Van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 548 f.
  45. Mark Aurel VIII, 59; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprint 1995, p. 128.
  46. ( εἰς τὸ κοινῇ χρήσιμον καὶ εὐάρμοστον ) Mark Aurel VII, 5, quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 683.
  47. Mark Aurel III, 1; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprinted 1995, p. 31.
  48. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 1, p. 259.
  49. Mark Aurel III, 9; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 273.
  50. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 1, p. 275; Marcus Aurelius II, 1; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprint 1995, p. 22 f.
  51. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 1, p. 346 / Vol. 2, p. 700.
  52. Hadot 1997, pp. 52-54.
  53. Hadot 1997, pp. 57-60; van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 317.
  54. Hadot 1997, p. 61.
  55. Rutherford, for example, focuses on "the intimate relation in Marcus' writing between style and thought, between the rhetoric of his prose (vocabulary, metaphor, figures of speech, and so forth) and his philosophic argument." (Rutherford 1989 , P. 126)
  56. Mark Aurel VI, 48; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 53.
  57. Dalfen 1967, p. 11 f .; confirming Pierre Grimal: "Nous penserions volontiers que ce livre est véritablement le point de départ de tout ce qui suit." (Pierre Grimal: Marc Aurèle . Paris 1991, p. 317)
  58. ^ Marcus Aurelius I, 17.
  59. Dalfen 1967, p. 6 f.
  60. "There is quite simply nothing else like Book I of the Meditations in the whole of classical literature." (Rutherford 1989, p. 48)
  61. See above, Mark Aurel IV, 48.
  62. ^ Pierre Grimal: Marc Aurèle . Paris 1991, p. 319.
  63. van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 1, pp. 59-80. “The first book names people to whom virtues are exemplified. These virtues will then be admonished in the course of further books. "(Ibid. P. 74)
  64. van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 72.
  65. Rutherford 1989, p. 108 f.
  66. Mark Aurel IV, 51; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 291.
  67. "Marcus Strives to rise above the petty distractions of individual circumstances and events, in order to discern amid apparent chaos the absolute truths Which govern our lives. Hence the rarety of contemporary allusions, and even of personal names. "(Rutherford 1989, p. 143)
  68. Mark Aurel X, 19; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprint 1995, p. 153.
  69. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 2, p. 582.
  70. Mark Aurel VIII, 24; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 299.
  71. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 2, pp. 591-593.
  72. Mark Aurel IV, 33; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprinted 1995, p. 52.
  73. Hadot 1997, p. 352.
  74. ( Ὀρθός, ἢ ὀρθούμενος. ) Mark Aurel VII, 12; quoted from Hadot 1997, p. 352.
  75. Mark Aurel III, 5; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprinted 1995, p. 35.
  76. ( Ὡς ἓν ζῷον τὸν κόσμον, μίαν οὐσίαν καὶ ψυχὴν μίαν ἐπέχον, συνεχῶς ἐπινοεῖν καὶ πῶς εἰς αἴσθησιν μίαν τὴν τούτου πάντα ἀναδίδοται καὶ πῶς ὁρμῇ μιᾷ πάντα πράσσει καὶ πῶς πάντα πάντων τῶν γινομένων συναίτια καὶ οἵα τις ἡ σύννησις καὶ συμμήρυσις . ) Mark Aurel IV, 40; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprinted 1995, p. 54.
  77. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 1, p. 293.
  78. Dalfen 1967, p. 95. “Marc Aurel was obviously of the opinion that the idea that was so important to him, that all things and people in the cosmos form a community with close relationships, needed special new words. And that makes it clear that he was able to implement these considerations rhetorically. ”(Van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 294)
  79. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 1, pp. 294-296.
  80. ( Τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου βίου ὁ μὲν χρόνος στιγμή, ἡ δὲ οὐσία ῥέουσα, ἡ δὲ αἴσθησις ἀμυδρά, ἡ δὲ ὅλου τοῦ σώματος σύγκρισις εὔσηπτος, ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ ῥεμβός, ἡ δὲ τύχη δυστέκμαρτον, ἡ δὲ φήμη ἄκριτον˙ ) Mark IV Aurel, 17; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprint 1995, p. 30.
  81. Van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 300 f.
  82. "Marcus' imagery, like the other techniques already discussed, and like his exempla and quotations, is rarely developed as ornamentation: rather, it is integral to the structure and effect of the passage in question." (Rutherford 1989, p. 147 )
  83. Mark Aurel XII, 26; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprinted 1995, p. 184.
  84. Dalfen 1967, p. 234.
  85. Rutherford 1989, pp. 33 and 131.
  86. Hadot 1997, p. 66 f.
  87. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 1, p. 307.
  88. Mark Aurel III, 3; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprinted 1995, p. 33.
  89. The criteria mentioned are: contextual isolation, prose form, non-fictionality, concision, linguistic and factual pointedness; the seventh criterion, the single sentence, is also occasionally fulfilled in the self-contemplations . (Van Ackeren 2011, vol. 1, p. 315 and 323–327, partly with reference to H. Fricke: Aphorismus. Stuttgart 1984, p. 1 ff.)
  90. ^ Hadot 1997, p. 356, with reference to W. Williams: Individuality in the Imperial Constitutions: Hadrian and the Antonines. In: The Journal of Roman Studies, Volume 66, 1976, pp. 78-82.
  91. A few references to a possible familiarity in antiquity can be found in Hadot. The philosopher Themistius seems to have known of the existence of the work by speaking of paraggelmata , that is, of written admonitions from the emperor. Aurelius Victor ( Caesares 16, 9) and the Historia Augusta ( Avidius Cassius 3, 6-7) in turn claimed that Mark Aurel publicly presented his philosophical commandments for three days before he set out on the Danube campaign. (Hadot 1997, p. 42 f.)
  92. Dalfen 1967, p. 239.
  93. Hadot 1997, p. 149.
  94. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 2, p. 699.
  95. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 1, p. 239.
  96. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 1, p. 259.
  97. Mark Aurel XII, 14; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprint 1995, p. 180.
  98. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 2, pp. 428 and 703.
  99. Mark Aurel VI, 42; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 527.
  100. This thesis does not mean, however, that the stoic practical philosophy is updated exclusively in the self-contemplations for Marc Aurel. However, for him, philosophy can also be practiced through verbalization, "because the writing of texts realizes part of the philosophy." (Van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 700 f.)
  101. Mark Aurel XI, 8; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 525.
  102. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 2, p. 526.
  103. Mark Aurel XI, 34; quoted from van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 677.
  104. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 2, pp. 669-677. “People should love other people, have affections, but for the stoics that doesn't mean that one has to mourn them.” From the stoic unwillingness to mourn, however, the critics draw the questionable conclusion that ties should not exist at all. "As if the grief after the end of the bond through death changes the emotional quality of the relationship itself." (Ibid., P. 677)
  105. Mark Aurel II, 2.
  106. ^ Pierre Grimal: Marc Aurèle . Paris 1991, pp. 319 and 324 f.)
  107. γράσος πᾶν τοῦτο καὶ λύθρον ἐν θυλάκῳ. Mark Aurel VIII, 37; quoted after the translation by Albert Wittstock: Marc Aurel: Self-reflections . Reclam, Stuttgart 1949; Reprinted 1995, p. 121.
  108. ^ Marcus Aurelius I, 7.
  109. Kasulke 2005, p. 203.
  110. Kasulke 2005, p. 267 f.
  111. Kasulke 2005, p. 381.
  112. Kasulke 2005, p. 371.
  113. ^ Marcus Aurelius I, 11.
  114. Bernd Manuwald: Marc Aurel and his teacher Fronto: Philosophy vs. Rhetoric? In: Marcel van Ackeren (Ed.), Wiesbaden 2012 (files of the Interdisciplinary Colloquium Cologne 2009), pp. 297 and 306.
  115. ^ Marcus Aurelius I, 17.
  116. Jürgen Hammerstaedt: The Second Sophistic as a background to Marcus Aurelius "Self-Contemplations" . In: Marcel van Ackeren (Ed.), Wiesbaden 2012 (files of the Interdisciplinary Colloquium Cologne 2009), pp. 309–312 and 320–322.
  117. “In his conception of the deity, Marc Aurel remains extremely vague in part. It appears here as the all-ruling Logos, there as benevolent Providence, as cosmos or simply as φύσις τῶν ὅλων in its various hypostases . ”(Cornelius Motschmann: Die Religionspolitik Marc Aurels. Stuttgart 2002, p. 58)
  118. Mark Aurel XII, 28; quoted from Cornelius Motschmann: The religious policy of Marcus Aurelius. Stuttgart 2002, p. 56
  119. Van Ackeren 2011, vol. 2, p. 450.
  120. Van Ackeren 2011, Vol. 2, p. 473.
  121. Cornelius Motschmann: The religious policy of Marcus Aurelius. Stuttgart 2002, p. 11.
  122. ^ Ernest Renan: Marc Aurèle et la fin du monde antique. Paris 1882. Quoted from the paperback edition of 1984, p. 166, after Hadot 1997, p. 420 f.
  123. “Et Marc-Aurèle personnellement était si supérieur par sa morale practique aux souverains, et, j'ose dire, aux philosophes mêmes, que tout comparaison qu'on fait avec lui est téméraire”. (Quoted from Cornelius Motschmann: Die Religionspolitik Marc Aurels. Stuttgart 2002, p. 11)
  124. ^ Andreas Pečar: Frederick the Great as Roi Philosophe. Rome and Paris as reference points for the royal image. Contribution to the series of the Foundation Prussian Palaces and Gardens Berlin-Brandenburg on the occasion of the 300th birthday of Frederick II: Frederick the Great: Politics and Cultural Transfer in a European Context.
  125. Helmut Schmidt: Duty and Serenity. In: Die Zeit , February 26, 2015, p. 9.
  126. ^ Jörg Fündling: Marc Aurel. Emperor and philosopher . Darmstadt 2008, p. 11 f.
  127. "... the meditations represent a striving towards an ideal. The despondency and dissatisfaction of their author were in part the consequence of the harshness of that ideal; the tensions involved in his repeated efforts to reach it are embodied in a work which, as doctrine and as art, deservedly continues to move and to enligthen readers today. "(Rutherford 1989, p. 125)
  128. Alexander Demandt: Marc Aurel. The emperor and his world . Munich 2018, p. 398 f.