Marcus Aurelius and his humanitarian ideas

At 05:05 PM 4/10/2004 -0700, David Rivers wrote: >Your quotations don't prove anything. They show that some Romans didn't have >humanitarian ideas. We already know this, and there is no argument about it. > >I quoted Marcus Aurelius to show that *some* people in the Roman world *did* >have humanitarian ideas, perhaps going even further than in modern >societies. You haven't refuted this, nor do I think it can be refuted, since >MA states his ideas so clearly and at such length. Also MA was not a unique >anomaly. He was a product of a whole stoic school of thought, and he refers >to many teachers, friends, and relatives who shared his values. > >As to whether his ideas were 'Roman', certainly no one could be more Roman >than the Emperor. (Yes, I am aware that some emperors were of Hispanic or >Germanic origin.) > >The point is that modern Western humanitarian values are not exclusive to >the modern West. They have been present, at least as a minority viewpoint, >in many (all?) other societies and times. > >David

*If you are wondering, it's a pigeon on his head.

I did not say modern Western humanitarian values are exclusive to the modern West (in fact, I bracketed Western and put in a question mark). Once again, what I said was "I think this attitude is an imposition of modern (Western?) values on a very different culture, presupposing that human life has always been regarded highly, and that humanitarian ideals have always been the norm". A minority viewpoint, or even the viewpoint of a school of philosophy, is not the norm.from http://janusquirinus.org/

You said my quotations, which I chose because they were by some of the authors who were widely supposed to oppose gladiatorial games because of their humanitarian ideas, didn't prove anything. Fair enough. How about this quotation then: "As it happens to thee in the amphitheatre and such places, that the continual sight of the same things and the uniformity make the spectacle wearisome, so it is in the whole of life; for all things above, below, are the same and from the same. How long then?" Do you also think this author did not have humanitarian ideas? After all, he was complaining only of boredom.from http://janusquirinus.org/

Further on, he wrote: "For to continue to be such as thou hast hitherto been, and to be torn in pieces and defiled in such a life, is the character of a very stupid man and one overfond of his life, and like those half-devoured fighters with wild beasts, who though covered with wounds and gore, still intreat to be kept to the following day, though they will be exposed in the same state to the same claws and bites." No humanitarian concern of the victims either--at best, a matter-of-fact attitude; at worst, disgust.from http://janusquirinus.org/

These quotations are from Marcus Aurelius' Meditations (VI.46. and X.8 respectively), translated by George Long, the same Marcus Aurelius who you said "have humanitarian ideas, perhaps going even further than in modern societies". The one other passage in the Med. about gladiators is that just from his tutor, not to be a partisan either of the Parmularius or the Scutarius at the gladiators' fights (I.5).You see, I am not convinced that Marcus Aurelius opposed the games for humanitarian reasons any more than Seneca, Cicero et al. I think it might as well be fiscal concerns and Stoic abhorrence of public spectacles and crowds, along the lines of Seneca: that death should serve a purpose, public spectacles should be avoided by the rational elite, etc. Marcus Aurelius had no problems permitting the supply of condemned men for use as arena victims--they were cheaper than the cheapest gladiators. At Hadrian's death, he gave a gladiatorial spectacle (SHA Marcus V.1). "And while absent from Rome he left forceful instructions that the amusements of the Roman people should be provided by the richest givers of public spectacles, because, when he took the gladiators away to the war, there was talk among the people that he intended to deprive them of their amusements and thereby drive them to the study of philosophy." (ibid, 23.4-5, Loeb translation).from http://janusquirinus.org/

Furthermore, the humanitarian ideas of this philosopher (and [some of?] his teachers, friends, and relatives) appeared to be limited. Christians were apparently not covered. If you believe Eusebius, "Caesar wrote that they should be tortured to death, but that if any should recant they should be let go, and at the beginning of the local feast (and this is widely attended by the concourse of all the heathen to it) the governor led them to the judgment seat, making a show and spectacle of the blessed men to the mob. He accordingly interrogated them again, beheaded all who appeared to possess Roman citizenship, and sent the rest to the beasts. . ." [Ecc. Hist. V.1, Loeb translation]. Even if you don't, remember that the only large-scale persecution of the Christians during the second century occurred in his reign.from http://janusquirinus.org/

I'm probably going to pay for this catty comment, but maybe the "mere obstinacy", as opposed to a readiness which comes from a man's own judgement (Med XI.3), made the Christians not very "rational" nor human. Remember that this was the man who said "remember[..] that every rational animal is his kinsman, and that to care for all men is according to man's nature" (ibid 3.4)? "[C]ertainly no one could be more Roman than the Emperor".from http://janusquirinus.org/