Page:Marcus Aurelius (Haines 1916).djvu/422

Rh it do nothing that it doth not will, even if it refuse from mere unreasoning opposition ." Here the word is used in exactly the same connexion as in xi. 3, and by no means in a sense entirely condemnatory. It seems to me quite possible that the Emperor may have had the Christians in mind here as well as in xi. 3. Conduct such as that of the Christians was precisely what Marcus is never tired of recommending, viz., not under any compulsion to transgress the demands of the ruling Reason, and if it were found impossible to act up to the standard of right set by the conscience owing to external causes, then to depart cheerfully from life. It appears to me that Marcus in both these passages is really approving of the resistance.

Again the actual mention of the Christians here requires to be considered. The word itself was taboo with the pagan stylists as a barbarism. Even when they are apparently alluding to Christians, such writers as Epictetus, Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, Aristides, Apuleius, Dio Cassius, Philostratus, do not use the term—much as an Arnold or a Pater would hesitate to use the word "Salvationist." We do not find it in Fronto's extant works nor Galen's. Lucian, however, employed it in the Alexander and the Peregrinus, if (which some deny) these works are by him. Marcus would no doubt have used the word, as Trajan, Pliny and Hadrian did, in rescripts and official documents, but it is a question whether his literary purism and the example of his favourite Epictetus would have allowed him to employ it in a Greek philosophical treatise. When we look at the clause,, as here inserted, we see that it is outside the construction, and in fact ungrammatical. It is in the very form of a marginal note, and has every appearance of being a gloss foisted into the text. But even if the words be omitted, Marcus may still have had the 382