Clarify Your Beliefs by Humanizing Your Heroes
By: T.C. Gunter
Tags: Self Improvement, History, Philosophy, Stoicism, Belief

Clarify Your Beliefs by Humanizing Your Heroes

Marcus Aurelius used to be my hero, but hero-worship distorted my reasoning.

Photo by Muhd Asyraaf on Unsplash

Killing your idols reminds us they are fallible. Realizing their fallacies helps us avoid errors of our own. Consider the double standard fallacy, where we judge two situations or people by different standards when we should use the same. Indeed, this is the fallacy we often commit with our idols. We don’t hold them to the same standards as other people.

For example, despite several encounters and discussions, we set a boundary with a friend whereby if they undergo adulterous behavior, we will no longer associate ourselves with them. However, when a venerated sports figure commits this same act, we tend to give them a pass and continue to support them by buying merchandise. Perhaps we are willing to forgive them for what they give us in return.

Marcus Aurelius was known as the last ‘good’ emperor of ancient Rome and a famous practitioner of stoicism. Also, in his famous work Meditations, he espoused the only freedom is of one’s soul. And, we can only command what occurs inside us and not outside.

However, Marcus still held the power to free all the slaves in Rome. According to this article published under The American Law Register, “The master might free his slave by having his name enrolled on the list of citizens, the census.” In fact, “The law had ruled a roman citizen who evaded the census should thereby become a slave. Per contra [on the other hand], it came to be held that if on the motion of his master a slave’s name were inscribed on the census he thereby becomes free.” So, we have the mechanism by which a slave can become free. But, does Marcus have the power to enforce “a master” to put his slave’s name on the census?

Alex Mann, M.A. History & Latin, states the powers of a princep, the unofficial title of a Roman emperor from Augustus who (reigned 27 bc–ad 14) to Diocletian (reigned ad 284–305), are as follows:

He had lifetime Imperium- meaning he was immune from prosecution. He was the censor for Rome- meaning he could manipulate voting blocks and basically select who got elected to the Senate. He was the Pontifex Maximus- this was the head religious official in Rome and basically made him the authority on Roman morality. He [could have] stacked the Senate with loyal friends and allies- He would decide on a new law, and the Senate would pass it without question. He had control over the mint and the production of Roman money.

Above, I added ‘could have’ to item number four as this was probable. His reign was from 161 CE to 180 CE, which places him within the time of the princeps.

As censor of Rome, Marcus was in the position to create any law he saw fit. However, this would not have been in line with his character. According to his legal and administrative work, he “showed a great deal of respect to the Roman Senate and routinely asked them for permission to spend money even though he did not need to do so as the absolute ruler of the Empire.” Therefore, we could reason that Marcus could have, at least, presented a law to the senate enforcing all slave owners to place their slave’s names on the next census.

Yet, in his 19 years of leading the entire roman empire, we have no evidence he did anything to that end. I would be remiss to assert he could do this without consequences. Thirty percent of the city of Rome consisted of slaves during his reign. A plan needed development to ease Rome out of slavery for its success. This was another avenue completely within his control. But, no such plan ever emerged. He had the means to follow his beliefs, yet he didn’t.