Cornelius
Motschmann: Die Religionspolitik Marc Aurels. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag 2002 (Hermes
Einzelschriften 88). 296 pp. Euro 74,-- ISBN 3-515-08166-6.
The
winner of the crown for best Roman emperor in Julian the Apostate's fictitious
competition, blamed by posterity only for letting his monstrous son Commodus
succeed him and accordingly put an end to Gibbon's period during which the condition
of the human race was most happy and prosperous, earned his regard above all from
his so-called Meditations, the modern name for a wide-ranging collection of
philosophic reflections showing him to be a man of high moral standards.[1]
Motschmann's study of the religious politics of Marcus Aurelius, a revised
version of his doctoral thesis (Freie Universität Berlin, 2000), has a threefold starting
point. Firstly, he expresses the hope that an investigation of the emperor's Religionspolitik
will complement the picture of his character as gained from the famous collection of wise
phrases, the moralistic element of which Ancient authors are said to have regarded
als einen wesentlichen Bestandteil der Religiosität des Kaisers (11).
Secondly, he aims to contribute to the debate on the influence of Marcus' philosophic
convictions on his political decisions. Thirdly, he intends to answer the question of
whether the emperor's 'religious politics' hastened or delayed the religious crisis within
the empire. The four chapters of the book accordingly focus on what are seen to be the
main elements of Marcus Aurelius' religious politics and on how these relate
to those of his predecessors.
In chapter two (Römische Religiosität, philosophische Gottesverehrung - ein
Widerspruch?) Motschmann sets out to unite what he describes as the emperor's
monotheistic beliefs[2] with his inevitable position
in the very centre of the Römische Religionspraxis (34). It remains of course
to be seen how literally Marcus' monotheism ought to be taken, as Asklepios
and a fertility goddess appear in his Meditations as well (5,8; 6,43). In any case,
as has been remarked by others before,[3] Marcus' religiosity does
not stand out in an unequivocal manner from his personal writings. As for his cultic
activities, Motschmann first assesses the influences from his mother (Domitia Lucilla, who
is alleged to have protested against the attempts of her twelve-years old son to sleep on
the ground in imitation of philosophers, Hist. Aug. Marc. Aur. 2,6), his tutor Fronto, and
his predecessor Antoninus, and then discusses the various priesthoods to which the young
Marcus belonged.
In chapter three (Religionspolitik und Herrschaftslegitimation)
Motschmann asks a question which he finds often overlooked in the study of the
religious politics of Marcus Aurelius, since the latter's elevation of Lucius
Verus to co-Augustus and promotion of Commodus are often seen as unfit for his image of
philosopher on the imperial throne: in what manner did Marcus apply religious elements to
the legitimation of his own position and that of his family? Since 12 BC each emperor
occupied the position of chief priest of Rome, and thus unified sacerdotal and executive
authority, was ihm die Möglichkeit bot, die Religion in den Dienst seiner Politik
zu stellen (70). In a long section Motschmann discusses the simple fact that Marcus
may have made Verus co-Augustus, but kept the title of Pontifex Maximus to himself,[4]
without introducing a double chief pontificate in the same way as happened in 238 with
Pupienus and Balbinus after the death of the first two Gordians.[5]
The section is certainly interesting, but also a bit too much ado about nothing: in AD 161
it was, apparently, still fully natural that only the more senior Marcus became pontifex
maximus.[6]
The discussion that follows on the imperial cult under Marcus
seine philosophische Position stand zu der Vergöttlichung eines Menschen
grundsätzlich nicht im Widerspruch (81) - would have gained from taking into
consideration Lendon's important thesis that such cultic acts ought to be interpreted
above all in terms of honour.[7]
In the longest chapter four (Religion als Instrument der
Krisenbewältigung) Motschmann reviews in detail a long series of ceremonial
measures taken by the emperor to brave situations of crisis caused by wars, epidemics or
other disasters, such as the rites of atonement at the outset of the Roman offensive in
the Marcomannic Wars, the purge of the cult of Serapis, the interpretation of the famous
Rain Miracle that made Marcus' army beat the Quadi, the donations made to the sanctuary at
Eleusis after its partial destruction by enemy tribes and Marcus' subsequent initiation in
the local Mysteries, and the traditional declaration of war in his capacity as fetialis
at the outset of the second Marcomannic war. Looking for the intentions with which Marcus
undertook those ritual actions, Motschmann makes, not surprisingly with such a starting
point, the rather general and noncommittal statement dass sich Marc Aurel bei seinen
religionspolitischen Entscheidungen in einem Spannungsfeld zwischen religiöser, der
Staatsräson untergeordneter Pflichterfüllung und individuellen Glaubenswahrheiten
bewegte, der er miteinander zu verbinden suchte (168).
In chapter five (Marc Aurel und die monotheistischen Religionen)
Motschmann assembles the relevant material relating to the emperor's attitude to Jews and
Christians. He discusses both the well-known passage in Ammianus (22,5,5) where Marcus,
travelling through Palestine, exclaims at the petitioning[8] Jews that they are even more
excitable than the Marcomanni and Quadi, and the Talmudic legend which presents the
emperor as a lifelong friend of Rabbi Juda, concluding that neither tradition has the
final say. In the second, much longer part of this chapter, Motschmann aims to investigate
why it was precisely under Marcus that the contrast between pagans and Christians reached
such dramatic heights. The martyrdoms of Polycarpus and Justinus and the cases against
Christians in Lyon pass the review, leading to the author's judgement that although the
emperor should not be held responsible for the infamous persecutions under his regime,
doch wirkte seine bewusste Förderung traditioneller Religionsbräuche als
Katalysator, um den Gegensatz zwischen Heiden und Christen zu verstärken (272-273).[9]
It is clear that a lot of knowledge and learning has found its way into
Motschmann's book, and the analysis of sources will be a great help for students working
on the reign of Marcus Aurelius. However, its eventual value remains questionable. As
Motschmann himself admits, mit der vorliegenden Monographie über die
Religionspolitik Marc Aurels wird zwar kein wissenschaftliches Neuland betreten, aber doch
zum ersten Mal diesem Thema eine eigene Studie gewidmet (17). One problem with the
book, of course a characteristic feature of biographies, is that its main character is
given too central a role. It is implicitly implied that Marcus' personal religious
convictions had a far-reaching effect on the religious history of the empire
as a whole during his reign, although there is no evidence that Marcus ever forced his
personal opinions about the divine on his subjects. It is a pity that Motschmann decides
(15) to make only limited use of numismatic and archaeological material, as a detailed
look at the use of religious symbolism, above all on coins, would have contributed to a
more complete understanding of any message that Marcus wanted the inhabitants
of his empire to receive. It is not unimportant that the latter never read (and were
indeed never meant to read) his so-called Meditations. Without something such as a
centrally issued coinage reflecting religious preference, how relevant are
individual cult activities in the provinces? Last but not least, my main criticism of
Motschmann's book is the christianising distinction between religion and
politics, not only in the context of his discussion of the imperial cult
wenngleich dieser vorwiegend politischen Zwecken diente und nach modernem
Verständnis nicht unbedingt der religiösen Sphäre zuzuordnen ist (14)[10]
-, but inherent in the whole approach. Comparing Marcus' cult practice on the one hand
with his personal conviction (as learned from his philosophical reflections)
on the other is, naturally, very tempting, but the precise relationship will always remain
in the dark.[11]
Ted
Kaizer, Corpus Christi College, Oxford
ted.kaizer@corpus-christi.oxford.ac.uk[12]
[1].
Jul. Apost., Symp., esp. 333-5. E. Gibbon: The History of the Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire (1776), vol.I. ch.3. For a new approach to Commodus, see now the
fundamental work by O. Hekster, Commodus. An Emperor at the Crossroads (Amsterdam 2002),
and on the emperor's intent to be succeeded by his son as a matter of course, esp. id.,
All in the family: the appointment of emperors designate in the second century
AD in L. de Blois (ed.), Administration, Prosopography and Appointment Policies in
the Roman Empire. Impact of Empire I (Amsterdam 2001), p. 35-49.
[2].
Cf. 68: Marc Aurels Glaube war monotheistisch (with reference to Med.
7,9), and 58 n. 152: Wie alle Stoiker denkt Marc Aurel monotheistisch.
[3].
E.g. A.R. Birley, Marcus Aurelius. A Biography (London/New York, sec. ed. 1987), p. 222:
It is difficult to define Marcus' religious position. To some he appears deeply
imbued with traditional piety. But at times in his writings he seems more like an
agnostic, although believing that it was right to carry out formal acts of religious
cult.
[4].
Verus was given the title occasionally in inscriptions from some of the provinces (cf. 72
n.183), but this said doubtless more about the response to central developments by the
periphery than about the central developments themselves.
[5].
Motschmann refers to Marcus' decision to keep the pontificate for himself as
keineswegs selbstverständlich (16), but see his own words on the pontificate
later on: Wenn dies im Jahre 238 von Pupienus und Balbinus kollegial besetzt wurde,
so ergibt sich dies aus deren durchaus andersgeartetem Herrschaftsantritt und beweist
nicht, dass man das auch schon bei Marc Aurel erwarten durfte (77).
[6].
See also Birley, Marcus Aurelius, p. 117: the highest priesthood being
indivisible.
[7].
J.E. Lendon: Empire of Honour. The Art of Government in the Roman World (Oxford 1997), p.
160-172, at p. 161: acts of divine cult for the emperors were honours, holding a
place at the top of a continuum of honours which an individual, city, or provincial
council might bestow. See now also the equally important work by I. Gradel, Emperor
Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford 2002), esp. p. 29: divine worship was an honour
which differed from secular honours ... only in degree, not in kind.
[8].
Motschmann convincingly follows a text conjecture that reads (se) petentium rather
than the insulting fetentium. Contra Birley, Marcus Aurelius, p. 193, who commented
that on more than one occasion he apparently found their riotous behaviour and lack
of concern with hygiene something of a trial, Ammianus records.
[9].
Cf. 263, where he states that Marcus' religious politics had contributed
dass der vorhandene Antagonismus zwischen Heiden und Christen sich unter
spezifischen lokalen Gegebenheiten in gewalttätigen Aktionen entlud, die wiederum zur
Einleitung der Verfahren führten. Cf. 269, where he argues that an analysis of the
martyracts shows dass sich die gesetzliche Grundlage der Christenprozesse unter Marc
Aurel nicht verändert hat.
[10].
The statement is especially surprising because Motschmann has put S. Price, Rituals and
Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984) on his bibliography.
[11].
It is therefore not surprising that Motschmann's conclusion is slightly vague: Die
Erörterung von Marc Aurels Religiosität führte zu dem Schluss, dass römische
Religionspraxis und philosophischer Gottesglaube für ihn keinen Widerspruch darstellten,
sondern sich gegenseitig ergänzten und so zu einer eigentümlichen Synthese
gelangten (272).
[12].
Thanks are due to the British Academy for support through the award of a Postdoctoral
Fellowship.