Table Of Content

THE INNER CITADEL The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Pierre Hadot Translated by Michael Chase HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England 1998 Copyright© 1 998 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College Printed in the United States of America All rights reserved Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from the French Ministry of Culture. Originally published as La Citadelle Interieure: Introduction aux "Pensees" de Marc Aure/e by Pierre Hadot, copyright © l 992 Librairie Artheme Fayard. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hadot, Pierre. [Citadelle intfaieure. English] The inner citadel : the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius I Pierre Hadot ; translated by Michael Chase. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 0-674-46 171-1 (alk. paper) r. Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, 1 2 1 - 1 80. Meditations. 2. Ethics. 3 . Stoics. 4. Life. I. Title. B 5 8 3 .H3 3 1 3 1 998 l 8 8 -dc2 1 97-46971 C O N T E N T S Preface Vil Note on Transliteration and Quotation XI Translator's Note XII 1 The Emperor-Philosopher 2 A First Glimpse of the Meditations 21 3 The Meditations as Spiritual Exercises 35 4 The Philosopher-Slave and the Emperor-Philosopher 54 5 The Stoicism of Epictetus 73 6 The Inner Citadel, or the Discipline of Assent 101 7 The Discipline ofDesire, or Amor Fati 128 8 The Discipline of Action, or Action in the Service of Mankind 183 9 Virtue and Joy 232 10 Marcus Aurelius in His Meditations 243 Conclusion 307 Abbreviations 315 Notes 317 Index 339 P RE F A C E Soon, you will have forgotten everything. Soon, everybody will have forgotten you! Meditations, VII, 2r Marcus Aurelius was wrong. Eighteen centuries-almost two millen nia-have passed, and the Meditations are still alive. Nor have their pages been reserved to a few aristocrats of the intellect, like Shaftesbury, Frederick II, or Goethe: on the contrary, for centuries they have brought reasons to live to innumerable unknown people, who have been able to read them in the multiple translations of the Meditations which have been made in every corner of the earth; and they still do so today. The Meditations are an inexhaustible source of wisdom; an "eternal Gospel, " in Renan's words. Apparently, the Meditations do not hold any particular difficulties in store for their readers. Aphorisms and brief dis sertations follow one another without any apparent order, and as the reader leafs through the book, he or she winds up finding a striking or moving formula which seems to speak by itself, and to need no exegesis. It is not a book to be read in one sitting. One must return to it often, in order to discover in it, day by day, some nourishment which suits the momentary states of our soul. The modern reader can perfectly well understand a given aphorism by Marcus Aurelius, like the one I have quoted as an epigraph. This is what is always attractive about the Medita tions: their sayings, whose limpidity can never grow old. And yet, what a deceptive limpidity! For besides these formulas, there are others which are much more obscure, and which have been under stood by historians in widely varying ways. The overall meaning of the book, its purpose, and some of its affirmations are very hard for us to grasp. Nor is this the case only with Marcus Aurelius. For all kinds of reasons, of which chronological distance is not the most important, our understanding of ancient works has grown more and more dim. To gain access to them once more, we will have to practice a kind of spiritual Vlll Preface exercise or intellectual ascetics, in order to free ourselves from certain prejudices and rediscover what is, for us, almost another way of thinking. This is what we shall attempt to do throughout the present work. Before we set out upon this itinerary, however, it may be helpful to become aware of these prejudices and illusions, which threatep to cause the modern reader to go astray when reading a work from antiquity. In the first place, the reader will perhaps imagine that the text has remained constant since the distant era in which it appeared, as do our contemporary printed texts. But we must not forget that ancient texts were, precisely, not printed: for centuries they were copied by hand, and copying errors were thereby constantly introduced. We can hardly blame the ancient scribes for this, if we think of our modern books, which, although they are printed, are often filled with printer's errors, which sometimes deform the author's thought to the point of rendering it unintelligible. That, however, is another question. It cannot be overem phasized that it is thanks to the efforts of the scholars who investigate and classify the manuscripts in which ancient works have been preserved, and who attempt, using the critical method of the classification of errors, to reconstitute the original state of the text, that we can now read the works of antiquity in a state which is more or less satisfactory, but can never be perfect. I feel I must insist upon this point, which is sometimes com pletely ignored by some scientific authorities or historians of philosophy, who imagine that one can hold forth about the theories of a particular ancient author without knowing what he really wrote. In the case of Marcus Aurelius, the greatest uncertainty often reigns with regard to certain words of his text. This does not affect the totality of the work, but it nevertheless remains true that some passages present almost insur mountable difficulties, and we should not be surprised if these difficulties are reflected in the translations which have been made of this author. The modern reader tends too often to imagine that there is only one possible translation of a Greek text, and he or she may be surprised to find considerable differences. This fact should, however, make the reader aware of the distance that separates us from the ancients. Translation presupposes, first of all, a choice with regard to the Greek text, in those cases in which this text is sometimes uncertain. But the translators' hesi tations often also correspond to the difficulties they have in under standing the text, and to the sometimes radically different interpretations of it which they propose. In the case of Marcus Aurelius, for example, many have not been able to render in an exact manner the technical terms, peculiar to the Stoic system, which are found on every page of the Preface lX Meditations. Moreover, in the case of Marcus, the division of the text into chapters is very uncertain, and often the limits of each "meditation" are not absolutely clear. Thus, the very appearance of the text can vary widely. Finally, the modem reader might imagine-and no one is safe from this error-that the ancient author lives in the same intellectual world as he does. The reader will treat the author's affirmations exactly as if they came from a contemporary author, and will therefore think he has im mediately understood what the author meant. In fact, however, this understanding will be anachronistic, and the reader will often run the risk of committing serious mistranslations. To be sure, it is fashionable now adays to affirm that, in any case, we cannot know exactly what an author meant, and that, moreover, this does not matter at all, for we can give the works any meaning we please. For my part, and without entering into this debate, I would say that before we discover "unintentional" mean ings, it seems to me both possible and necessary to discover the meaning which the author intended. It is absolutely indispensable to go in the direction of a basic meaning, to which we can then refer in order to uncover, if we should so wish, those meanings of which the author was perhaps not conscious. It is true, however, that this reconstitution is extremely difficult for us, because we project attitudes and intentions proper to our era into the past. I� order to understand ancient works, we must relocate them within their context, in the widest sense of the term, which can signify the material, social, and political situation as well as the political and rhetorical universe of thought. In particular, we must recall that the mechanisms of literary composition were very different then from what they are now. In antiquity, the rules of discourse were rigor ously codified. In order to say what he wanted to say, an author had to say it in a specific way, in accordance with traditional models, and ac cording to rules prescribed by rhetoric or philosophy. Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, for instance, are not the spontaneous outpourings of a soul that wants to express its thoughts immediately, but rather an exercise, accomplished in accordance with definite rules. As we shall see, they presuppose a pre-existing canvas, upon which the philosopher-emperor could only embroider. Often, Marcus says certain things only because he has to say them, by virtue of the models and precepts imposed upon him. The meaning of the Meditations can, therefore, only be understood once we have discovered, among other things, the prefabricated schemes which have been imposed upon it. My intention, which is to offer the modem reader an introduction to x Preface the reading of the Meditations, will thus perhaps not be without useful ness. I will try to discover what Marcus wanted to accomplish by writing them, to specify the literary genre to which they belong, and, especially, to define their relationship with the philosophical system which inspired. them. Finally, without trying to produce a biography of the emperor, I will try to determine how much of him is visible in his work. I have chosen to quote the Meditations abundantly. I hate those mono graphs which, instead ofletting the author speak and staying close to the text, engage in obscure elucubrations which claim to carry out an act of decoding and reveal the "unsaid" of the thinker, without the reader's having the slightest idea of what that thinker really "said. " Such a method unfortunately permits all kinds of deformations, distortions, and sleight of hand. Our era is captivating for all kinds of reasons: too often, however, from the philosophical and literary point of view, it could be defined as the era of the misinterpretation, if not of the pun: people can, it seems, say anything about anything. When I quote Marcus Aurelius, I want my reader to make contact with the text itself, which is superior to any commentary. I would like him to see how my interpretation tries to base itself on the text, and that he can verify my affirmations directly and immediately. The translation I offer is completely original. I have been working on Marcus Aurelius for more than twenty years, in particular on a new edition and translation of the Meditations, which will be published within the next few years. In the course of this work, interpretation and translation have gone hand in hand, and this is why I could not illustrate my arguments by referring the reader to existing translations, which would have been different from mine, and which might not have corre sponded exactly with my idea of the philosopher-emperor's work. I should like to thank Michael Chase for his sensitive and philologi cally astute translation, as well as Angela Armstrong. Finally, my thanks go to Margaretta Fulton and Mary Ellen Geer at Harvard University Press, as well as Brian Stock at the University of Toronto, for their patient and helpful advice. Note on Transliteration and Quotation I have sometimes found it useful to allude to certain Greek technical terms which are peculiar to Stoic philosophy. I have tried to transliterate them as simply as possible, using the letter e to represent the Greek letter eta, and o to represent the letter omega. In order not to multiply my notes unnecessarily, the references for the quotations from Marcus Aurelius and the Discourses of Epictetus have been indicated in parentheses within the text. In both cases, the first number refers to the number of the book, the second to the chapter number, and the third to the paragraph number within the chapter. Unless I indicate otherwise, the references given in Chapters 4 and 5 always refer to the text of the Discourses of Epictetus. The Greek text of Marcus Aurelius on which my translations are based is generally that of W. Theiler, Marc Aurel, Wege zu sich selbst (Zurich: Artemis Verlag, 1974). Translator's Note I have used the following procedure in rendering Pierre Hadot's transla tions: I first literally translated Hadot's French version, and then com pared it with the original Greek or Latin texts. We have exchanged correspondence about doubtful cases, and this process has resulted in a number of corrections with regard to the 1992 French edition of this work. The final result is, I hope, a translation which, insofar as is possible, is faithful both to Pierre Hadot and to the Greek and Latin authors to whom he has so fruitfully dedicated his life. Finally, all notes enclosed in square brackets are my own. T H E I N N E R C I TA D EL