[1] Esnik's presentation of the Marcionite system is a late
production, and contains many speculations that cannot be charged
upon Marcion himself.
[2] On the relation of matter to the Creator, Marcion himself seems
not to have speculated, though his followers may have done so.
[3] Marcion's teaching at this point forestalls the patripassian
christology of Noetus and Praxeas (see Neander, _Church Hist._ ii.
143).--[ED.]
[4] Marcion was the earliest critical student of the New Testament
canon and text. It is noteworthy that he refused to admit the
genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles and said that the letter to the
Ephesians was really addressed to the Laodiceans (Tertullian, _Adv.
Marc._ v. 11, 21).--(ED.)
[5] Some have seen a reference to this work in 1 Tim. vi. 20.--(ED.)
MARCOMANNI (i.e. men of the mark, or border), the name of a Suevic
tribe. With kindred peoples they were often in conflict with the Roman
Empire, and gave their name to the Marcomannic War, a struggle waged by
the emperor Marcus Aurelius against them and the Quadi. The Marcomanni
disappeared from history during the 4th century, being probably merged
in the Baiouarii, the later Bavarians.
See SUEBI; also F. M. Wittmann, _Die älteste Geschichte der
Markomannen_ (Munich, 1855), and E. Devrient, "Hermunduren und
Markomannen" in _Neues Jahrb. f. das klassische Altertum_ (1901), 51.
MARCOS DE NIZA (c. 1495-1558), a Franciscan friar born in Nice about
1495. He went to America in 1531, and after serving his order zealously
in Peru, Guatemala and Mexico, was chosen to explore the country north
of Sonora, whose wealth was pictured in the hearsay stories of Alvar
Nunez Cabeza de Vaca. Preceded by Estevanico, the negro companion of
Cabeza de Vaca in his wanderings and the "Black Mexican" of Zuni
traditions, Fray Marcos left Culiacan in March 1539, crossed
south-eastern Arizona, penetrated to Zuni or the "Seven Cities of
Cibola," and in September returned to Culiacan. He saw Zuni only from a
distance, and his description of it as equal in size to the city of
Mexico was probably exact; but he embodied much mere hearsay in his
report, the _Descubrimiento de las siete ciudades_, which led F. V. de
Coronado to make his famous expedition next year to Zuni, of which Fray
Marcos was the guide; and the realities proved a great disappointment.
Fray Marcos was made Provincial of his order for Mexico before the
second trip to Zuni, and returned in 1541 to the capital, where he died
on the 25th of March 1558.
The _Descubrimiento_ is one of the world's famous narratives of
travel. It may be found in J. F. Pacheco's _Documentos_ (vol. iii.)
and Hakluyt's _Voyages_ (vol. iii.); also in G. Ramusio, _Navigazione_
(vol. iii.) and H. Ternaux-Compans, _Voyages_ (vol. iii.). See A. F.
A. Bandelier, _The Gilded Man_ (_El Dorado_), (New York, 1893); H. H.
Bancroft, _Arizona and New Mexico_ (San Francisco, 1888), and, for
critical opinions, G. P. Winship, "The Coronado Expedition," in _U.S.
Bureau of Ethnology, Fourteenth Annual Report_ (for 1892-1893),
(Washington, 1896).
MARCOU, JULES (1824-1898), Swiss-American geologist, was born at Salins,
in the department of Jura, in France, on the 20th of April 1824. He was
educated at Besançon and at the college of St Louis, Paris. He worked in
early years with J. Thurmann (1804-1855) on the geology of the Jura
mountains. In 1847 he went to North America as travelling geologist for
the _Jardin des Plantes_, and in the following year in Boston he joined
Agassiz, whom he had met in Switzerland, and accompanied him to the Lake
Superior region. Marcou spent two years in studying the geology of
various parts of the United States and Canada, and returned to Europe
for a short time in 1850. In 1853 he published a _Geological Map of the
United States, and the British Provinces of North America_. In 1855 he
became professor of geology and palaeontology at the polytechnic school
of Zurich, but relinquished this office in 1859, and in 1861 again
returned to the United States, when he assisted Agassiz in founding the
Museum of Comparative Zoology. In 1861 he published his _Geological Map
of the World_ (2nd ed. 1875). Of his published papers the more
noteworthy are those on the Jura-Cretaceous formations of the Jura, on
the "Dyas" (Permian) of Nebraska, and on the Taconic rocks of Vermont
and Canada. His other works include _Lettres sur les roches du Jura et
leur distribution géographique dans les deux hémisphères_ (1857-1860)
and _Geology of North America_ (1858). Marcou died at Cambridge, Mass.,
on the 17th of April 1898.
MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS (121-180), Roman emperor and Stoic
philosopher, was born in Rome A.D. 121, the date of his birth being
variously stated as the 6th, 21st and 26th of April. His original name
was Marcus Annius Verus.[1] His mother Domitia Calvilla (or Lucilla) was
a lady of consular rank, and the family of his father Annius Verus
(prefect of the city and thrice consul), originally Spanish, had
received patrician rank from Vespasian. Marcus was three months old when
his father died, and was thereupon adopted by his grandfather. The moral
training which he received from his grandfather and his mother must have
been all but perfect. The noble qualities of the child attracted the
attention of Hadrian, who, playing upon the name "Verus," said that it
should be changed to "Verissimus" (BHPICCIMOC on medals). Hadrian
adopted, as his successor, Titus Antoninus Pius (uncle of Marcus), on
condition that he in turn adopted both Marcus (then seventeen) and
Lucius Ceionius Commodus, the son of Aelius Caesar, who had originally
been intended by Hadrian as his successor, but had died before him.
Marcus had been, at the age of fifteen, betrothed to Fabia, the sister
of Commodus; the engagement was broken off by Antoninus Pius, and he was
betrothed to Faustina, the daughter of the latter. In 139 the title of
Caesar was conferred upon him and he dropped the name of Verus. The full
name he then bore was Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus, Aelius coming
from Hadrian's family, and Aurelius being the original name of Antoninus
Pius. In 140 he was made consul.
The education of Aurelius in his youth was minute (see _Medit._ i.
1-16). A better guardian than Antoninus Pius could not be conceived.
Marcus himself says, "To the gods I am indebted for having good
grandfathers, good parents, a good sister, good teachers, good
associates, good kinsmen and friends, nearly everything good." He was
educated, not at school, but by tutors, Herodes Atticus and M. Cornelius
Fronto (q.v.) in the usual curriculum of rhetoric and poetry; but at the
age of eleven he became acquainted with Diognetus the painter and Stoic
philosopher (_Hist. script. aug._ i. 305, notes), was fascinated by the
philosophy he taught, assumed the dress of his sect, and ultimately
abandoned rhetoric and poetry for philosophy and law, having among his
teachers of the one Sextus of Chaeronea, grandson of Plutarch, and later
Q. Junius Rusticus, and of the other L. Volusius Maecianus (or
Metianus), a distinguished jurist. He went thoroughly into the practice
as well as the theory of Stoicism, and lived so abstemious and laborious
a life that he injured his health. From his Stoic teachers he learned to
work hard, to deny himself, to avoid listening to slander, to endure
misfortunes, never to deviate from his purpose, to be grave without
affectation, delicate in correcting others, "not frequently to say to
any one, nor to write in a letter, that I have no leisure," nor to
excuse the neglect of duties by alleging urgent occupations. Through all
his Stoical training Aurelius preserved the natural sweetness of his
nature.
During the reign of Antoninus Pius (138 to 161), the concord between him
and Aurelius was complete; Capitolinus (_c_. 7) says "nec praeter duas
noctes per tot annos mansit diversis vicibus." The two were associated
in the administration and in the simple country occupations of the
seaside villa of Lorium, the birthplace of Pius, to which he loved to
retire. It has been assumed on the strength of a passage in Capitolinus
that Aurelius married Faustina in 146, but the passage is not clear, and
other evidence points strongly to 140; at all events it seems certain
that a daughter was born to him in 140. Antoninus Pius died in 161,
having recommended as his successor Aurelius, then forty years of age,
without mentioning Commodus, his other adopted son, commonly called
Lucius Verus. It is believed that the senate urged Aurelius to take the
sole administration. But he showed the magnanimity of his nature by at
once admitting Verus as his partner, giving him the tribunician and
proconsular powers, and the titles Caesar and Augustus. This was the
first time that Rome had two emperors as colleagues. Verus, a weak,
self-indulgent man, had a high respect for his adoptive brother, and
deferred uniformly to his judgment. In the first year of his reign
Faustina gave birth to twins, one of whom became the emperor Commodus.
The early part of the reign of Aurelius was clouded by national
misfortunes. An inundation of the Tiber swept away a large part of Rome,
destroying fields, drowning cattle, and causing a famine (162); then
came earthquakes, fires and plagues of insects; the soldiers in Britain
tried to induce their general Statius Priscus to proclaim himself
emperor; finally, the Parthians under Vologaeses III. resumed
hostilities, annihilated the Roman forces under Severianus at Elegia in
Cappadocia, and devastated Syria. Verus, originally a man of
considerable courage and ability, was sent to oppose the Parthians, but
gave himself up to sensual excesses, and the Roman cause in Armenia
would have been lost, and the empire itself, perhaps, imperilled, had
not Verus had under him able generals,[2] the chief of whom was Avidius
Cassius (see CASSIUS, AVIDIUS). By them the Parthian War was brought to
a conclusion in 165, but Verus and his army brought back with them a
terrible pestilence, which spread through the whole empire. The people
seem to have thought that the last days of the empire had come. The
Parthians had at the best been beaten, not subdued; the Britons
threatened revolt; there were signs that various tribes beyond the Alps
intended to break into Italy. Indeed, the bulk of the reign of Aurelius
was spent in efforts to ward off the attacks of the barbarians. He went
himself to the wars with Verus in 167, first to Aquileia and then on
into Pannonia and Noricum, wintering at Sirmium in Pannonia. Ultimately
the Marcomanni, the fiercest of the tribes that inhabited the country
between Illyria and the sources of the Danube, sued for peace in 168. In
January or February 160 Verus died at Altinum, apparently of apoplexy,
though some ventured to say that he was poisoned by Aurelius.
Aurelius was thenceforth indisputed master of the empire, during one of
the most troubled periods of its history. His reign is well described by
F. W. Farrar (_Seekers after God_): "He regarded himself as being, in
fact, the servant of all. The registry of the citizens, the suppression
of litigation, the elevation of public morals, the care of minors, the
retrenchment of public expenses, the limitation of gladiatorial games
and shows, the care of roads, the restoration of senatorial privileges,
the appointment of none but worthy magistrates, even the regulation of
street traffic, these and numberless other duties so completely absorbed
his attention that, in spite of indifferent health, they often kept him
at severe labour from early morning till long after midnight. His
position, indeed, often necessitated his presence at games and shows,
but on these occasions he occupied himself either in reading, in being
read to, or in writing notes. He was one of those who held that nothing
should be done hastily, and that few crimes were worse than the waste of
time." The comprehensiveness of his legal and judicial reforms is very
striking. Slaves, heirs, women and children, were benefited, and he made
serious attempts to deal with the steady fall in the birth-rate of
legitimate children.
In the autumn of 169 two of the German tribes, the Quadi and the
Marcomanni, with their allies the Vandals, Iazyges and Sarmatians,
renewed hostilities and, for three years, Aurelius resided almost
constantly at Carnuntum. In the end the Marcomanni were driven out of
Pannonia, and were almost destroyed in their retreat across the Danube.
In 174 Aurelius gained over the Quadi a decisive victory, which is
commemorated by one of the sculptures on the column of Antonine. The
story is that the Romans, entangled in a defile, were suffering from
thirst. A sudden storm gave abundance of rain, while hail and thunder
confounded their enemies, and enabled the Romans to gain an easy and
complete victory. This triumph was universally considered at the time,
and for long afterwards, to have been a miracle, and bore the title of
"The Miracle of the Thundering Legion." The pagan writers (e.g. Dio
Cassius, lxx. 8-10) ascribed the victory to the magic arts of an
Egyptian named Arnuphis who prevailed on Mercury and other gods to give
relief, while the Christians attributed it to the prayers of their
brethren in a legion to which, they affirmed, the emperor then gave the
name of "The Thundering." Dacier, however, and others who adhere to the
Christian view of the miracle, admit that the appellation of
"Thundering" or "Lightning" ([Greek: keraunobolos], or [Greek:
keraunophoros]) was given to the legion because there was a figure of
lightning on their shields. It has also been virtually proved that it
had the title even in the reign of Augustus.
Aurelius next marched to Germany. There news reached him that Avidius
Cassius, the commander of the Roman troops in Asia, had revolted and
proclaimed himself emperor (175). But after three months Cassius was
assassinated, and his head was brought to Aurelius, who with
characteristic magnanimity, persuaded the senate to pardon all the
family of Cassius. It is a proof of the wisdom of Aurelius's clemency
that he had little or no trouble in pacifying the provinces which had
been the scene of rebellion. He treated them all with forbearance, and
it is said that when the correspondence of Cassius was brought him he
burnt it without reading it. During his journey of pacification,
Faustina, who had borne him eleven children, died. Dio Cassius and
Capitolinus charge Faustina with the most shameless infidelity to her
husband, who is even blamed for not paying heed to her crimes. But none
of these stories rests on trustworthy evidence; on the other hand, there
can be no doubt that Aurelius trusted her while she lived, and mourned
her loss.
After the death of Faustina and the pacification of Syria, Aurelius
proceeded, on his return to Italy, through Athens, and was initiated in
the Eleusinian mysteries, the reason assigned for his doing so being
that it was his custom to conform to the established rites of the
countries he visited. He gave large sums of money for the endowment of
chairs in philosophy and rhetoric, with a view to making the schools the
resort of students from all parts of the empire. Along with his son
Commodus he entered Rome in 176, and obtained a triumph for victories in
Germany. In 177 occurred that persecution of Christians, the share of
Aurelius in which has been the subject of so much controversy. Meanwhile
the German War continued, and the two Quintilii, who had been left in
command, begged Aurelius once more to take the field. In this campaign
Aurelius, after a series of successes, was attacked, according to some
authorities, by an infectious disease, of which he died after a seven
days' illness, either in his camp at Sirmium (Mitrovitz), on the Save,
in Lower Pannonia, or at Vindobona (Vienna), on the 17th of March 180,
in the fifty-ninth year of his age. Other accounts are: (1) that he was
poisoned in the interests of Commodus (Dio. Cass. lxxi. 33, 4), (2) that
he died of a chronic stomachic disease; the latter is perhaps the most
likely. His ashes (according to some authorities, his body) were taken
to Rome. By common consent he was deified and all those who could afford
the cost obtained his statue or bust; for a long time his statues held a
place among the penates of the Romans. Commodus, who was with his father
when he died, erected to his memory the Antonine column (now in the
Piazza Colonna at Rome), round the shaft of which are sculptures in
relief commemorating the miracle of the Thundering Legion and the
various victories of Aurelius over the Quadi and the Marcomanni. A
bronze equestrian statue was set up in the Forum, now on the Capitol.
Aurelius throughout his reign was hostile to Christianity. The
Christians suffered from systematic persecution, and many historians,
with a strange lack of historical insight, have poured denunciation upon
him for an attitude which was the natural outcome of his convictions.
During his reign the atmosphere of Roman society was heavily charged
with the popular Greek philosophy to which, ethics apart, Christianity
was diametrically opposed. Under Antoninus the "pursuit" of Christians
was unknown; under Trajan and Hadrian it was forbidden (cf. Keim, _Aus
dem Urchrist_, p. 99). But Aurelius was an eager patriot and a man of
logical mind. From his earliest youth he had learned to identify the
ritual of the Roman religion with the very essence of the imperial idea.
He became a Salian priest at the age of eight, and soon knew by heart
all the forms and liturgical order of the official worship, and even the
sacred music. In the earliest statue we have he is a youth offering
incense; he is a priest at the sacrificial altar in the latest triumphal
reliefs. Naturally he felt that the prevalence of Christianity was
incompatible with his ideal of Roman prosperity, and therefore that the
policy of the Flavian emperors was the only logical solution of an
important problem. Neumann argued that the recrudescence of active
persecution was initiated by a deliberate ad hoc rescript issued
probably in A.D. 176. Sir W. M. Ramsay, however, doubts this (_The
Church in the Roman Empire_, London, 1893), and argues that it was due
to a long series of instructions to provincial governors (_mandata_, not
_decreta_) who interpreted their duty largely in conformity with the
attitude of the reigning emperor. In other words the governors were
ordered merely to punish sacrilege, and, under Aurelius, Christianity
was regarded as such. In the second place, though it is true that the
persecutions indicated by Celsus (Origen, _Celsus_, viii. 69), Justin,
Melito (in Eusebius, _H.E._, iv. 26), Athenagoras (_Libellus pro
Christianis_) and the _Acts of Martyrs_, were greatly in excess of those
recorded in previous reigns, it must not be forgotten that it was only
in this period that the Christians began to keep records. Thirdly, there
can be no doubt that the Christians had recently assumed a much bolder
attitude, and thus segregated themselves from the mass of those
unorthodox sects which the Roman could afford to despise. Like the
Druids in Gaul (cf. T. Mommsen, _Prov. Rom. Emp._, Eng. trans. i. 105,
and V. Duruy, _Rev. archéol._, Apr. 1880), the Christians were
particularly dangerous, inasmuch as they taught a unity which
transcended that of the Roman Empire, and must, therefore, have been
regarded as antagonistic to the existing political and social organism.
When, therefore, we remember that Aurelius knew little of the
Christians, that the only mention of them in the _Meditations_ is a
contemptuous reference to certain fanatics of their number whom even
Clement of Alexandria compares for their thirst for martyrdom to the
Indian gymnosophists, and finally that the least worthy of them were
doubtless the most prominent, we cannot doubt that Aurelius was acting
unquestionably in the best interests of a perfectly intelligible ideal.
He was "Roman in resolution and repression, Roman in civic nobility and
pride, Roman in tenacity of imperial aim, Roman in respect for law,
Roman in self-effacement for the service of the State" (G. H. Rendall).
_Philosophy._--The book which contains the philosophy of Aurelius is
known by the title of his _Reflections_, or _Meditations_, although
that is not the name which he gave to it himself ([Greek: Tà eis
heauton]). Of the genuineness of the work no doubts are now
entertained. It is believed that he wrote also an autobiography, which
has perished. The _Meditations_ were written, it is evident, as
occasion offered--in the midst of public business, and on the eve of
battles on which the fate of the empire depended--hence their
fragmentary appearance, but hence also much of their practical value
and even of their charm. It is believed by many critics that they were
intended for the guidance of Aurelius's son, Commodus (q.v.); at all
events they are generally considered as one of the most precious of
the legacies of antiquity. Renan even called them "the most human of
all books," and they are described by J. S. Mill in his _Utility of
Religion_ as almost equal in ethical elevation to the Sermon on the
Mount.
Aurelius throughout his life adhered to the Stoical philosophy. But,
as Tenneman says, he imparted to it "a character of gentleness and
benevolence, by making it subordinate to a love of mankind, allied to
religion." His thoughts represent a transitional movement, and it is
difficult to discover in them anything like a systematic philosophy.
From the manner, however, in which he seeks to distinguish between
matter and cause or reason, and from the earnestness with which he
advises men to examine all the impressions on their minds, it may be
inferred that he held the view of Anaxagoras--that God and matter
exist independently, but that God governs matter. There can be no
doubt that Aurelius believed in a deity, although Schultz is probably
right in maintaining that all his theology amounts to this--the soul
of man is most intimately united to his body, and together they make
one animal which we call man; and so the deity is most intimately
united to the world or the material universe, and together they form
one whole. We find in the _Meditations_ no speculations on the
absolute nature of the deity, and no clear expressions of opinion as
to a future state. We may also observe here that, like Epictetus, he
is by no means so decided on the subject of suicide as the older
Stoics. Aurelius is, above all things, a practical moralist. The goal
in life to be aimed at, according to him, is not happiness, but
tranquillity, or equanimity. This condition of mind can be obtained
only by "living conformably to nature," that is to say, one's whole
nature, and as a means to that man must cultivate the four chief
virtues, each of which has its distinct sphere--wisdom, or the
knowledge of good and evil; justice, or the giving to every man his
due; fortitude, or the enduring of labour and pain; and temperance, or
moderation in all things. It is no "fugitive and cloistered virtue"
that Aurelius seeks to encourage; on the contrary, man must lead the
"life of the social animal," must "live as on a mountain"; and "he is
an abscess on the universe who withdraws and separates himself from
the reason of our common nature through being displeased with the
things which happen." While the prime principle in man is the social,
"the next in order is not to yield to the persuasions of the body,
when they are not conformable to the rational principle which must
govern." This divinity "within a man," this "legislating faculty,"
which, looked at from one point of view, is conscience, and from
another is reason, must be implicitly obeyed. He who thus obeys it
will attain tranquillity of mind; nothing can irritate him, for
everything is according to nature, and death itself "is such as
generation is, a mystery of nature, a composition out of the same
elements, and a decomposition into the same, and altogether not a
thing of which any man should be ashamed, for it is not contrary to
the nature of a reasonable animal, and not contrary to the reason of
our constitution."
The morality of Marcus Aurelius cannot be said to have been new when
it was given to the world. Its charm lies in its exquisite accent and
its infinite tenderness. But above all, what gives the sentences of
Marcus Aurelius their enduring value and fascination, and renders them
superior to the utterances of Epictetus and Seneca, is that they are
the gospel of his life. His precepts are simply the records of his
practice. To the saintliness of the cloister he added the wisdom of
the man of the world; he was constant in misfortune, not elated by
prosperity, never "carrying things to the sweating-point," but
preserving, in a time of universal corruption, unreality and
self-indulgence, a nature sweet, pure, self-denying, unaffected.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--P. B. Watson's _M. Aurelius Antoninus_ (1884) contains
a general account--life, character, philosophy, relations with
Christianity--as well as a bibliography; see also art. in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Realencyclopädie_, s.v. "Annius" (No. 94), col. 2279.
For special points see: (1) _Historical:_ Authorities under ROME:
_Ancient History_; S. Dill, _Roman Society from Nero to M. Aurelius_
(London, 1904). (2) _Relations to Christianity:_ Sir W. M. Ramsay,
_op. cit._; W. Moeller, _History of the Christian Church_, A.D. 1-600
(Eng. trans., A. Rutherford, 1892); W. E. Addis, _Christianity and the
Roman Empire_ (1893); E. G. Hardy, _Christianity and the Roman
Government_ (1894), pp. 145 sqq., which criticizes both Neumann and
Ramsay; Leonard Alston, _Stoic and Christian of the 2nd century_
(1906); J. Dartigue-Peyrou, _Marc-Aurèle dans ses rapports avec le
christianisme_ (Paris, 1897). (3) _Philosophical:_ Besides article
STOICS, E. Renan, _Marc. Antoninus et la fin du monde antique_ (Paris,
1882; Eng. trans., W. Hutchinson, 1904); W. Pater, _Marius the
Epicurean_ (London, 1888); Matthew Arnold's _Essays_; C. H. W. Davis,
_Greek and Roman Stoicism_ (1903); editions of the _Meditations_ (5,
below). (4) _Military:_ E. Napp, _De rebus imperat. M. Aurel. Anton,
in oriente gestis_ (Bonn, 1879); Conrad, _Mark Aurels
Markomannenkrieg_ (1889); Th. Mommsen, _Provinces of the Roman Empire_
(Eng. trans., W. P. Dickson, London, 1886); for the Aurelius column,
E. Petersen, A. von Domaszewski, and G. Calderini, _Die Marcussäule_
(Munich, 1896), with historical introduction by Th. Mommsen. (5) The
_Meditations_ were published by Xylander in 1558; the best critical
edition is that of J. Stich in the Teubner series (Leipzig, 1882; 2nd
ed., 1903); textual emendations also in _Journal of Philology_, xxiii.
116-160 (G. H. Rendall); _Classical Review_, xix. (1905), pp. 18 sqq.
(Herbert Richards), ibid., pp. 301 sqq. (A. J. Kronenberg).
Translations exist in almost every language; that of George Long
(London, 1862, re-edited 1900) has been superseded by those of G. H.
Rendall (London, 1898, with valuable introduction) and J. Jackson
(Oxford, 1906, with introduction by Charles Bigg). (6) For a full
account of the correspondence of Aurelius and Fronto, see Robinson
Ellis, _Correspondence of Fronto and M. Aurelius_ (Oxford, 1904).
(J. M. M.)