Latest / Marcus Aurelius: Rome's Philosopher King — Fexingo History / Marcus Aurelius and the Banishment of Philosophers
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've talked a lot about Marcus Aurelius as the philosopher on the throne — the man who wrote the Meditations while camped along the Danube. But there's a moment in his reign that feels almost contradictory, and it's one we haven't touched on yet. Luna: Wait — contradictory how? Lucas: In 176 CE, Marcus Aurelius — the Stoic emperor, the student of Epictetus — issued a decree banishing philosophers from Rome. Specifically, he expelled Cynic and some other teachers, accusing them of corrupting the youth. Luna: The philosopher king banished philosophers? That's a twist. Lucas: Right? It sounds like something out of a satire — and in fact, the satirist Lucian did write a piece about it called The Runaways, which mocks the whole affair. But to understand why Marcus did it, we have to look at the intellectual and political climate of the late 170s. Lucas: You know, if any of this is landing for you — if today's episode feels worth a coffee — there's a link for that. It's buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure, just a way for listeners who enjoy these conversations to keep them ad-free. Luna: Yeah, that's the spot. And honestly, the fact that we can dive into things like a philosopher-banning philosopher is exactly why this stuff matters. Lucas: Absolutely. So back to 176. The Antonine Plague is raging, the Marcomannic Wars are ongoing, and Rome is under strain. In that environment, public morality becomes a hot topic. Traditionalists blame the gods for the plague, and they point fingers at newfangled Greek philosophies for undermining Roman piety. Luna: So the philosophers were scapegoats. Lucas: Partly. But there was a specific catalyst: the sophist Aelius Aristides gave a speech in Smyrna around that time, calling for the expulsion of 'charlatans' who pretended to be philosophers. He was a conservative orator in the Second Sophistic movement, and he had Marcus's ear. Another key figure was the Cynic Peregrinus Proteus, who had a huge following and a reputation for theatrical self-promotion — he later immolated himself at the Olympic Games. Lucas: Marcus's decree specifically targeted Cynics, who were seen as disruptive. They preached poverty and criticized authority, often in public squares. But the ban wasn't limited to them — it included any philosopher deemed to be a public nuisance. Cassius Dio reports that Marcus issued an edict ordering all philosophers to leave the city, though the Historia Augusta claims it was only those who 'taught publicly without restraint'. Luna: Did he actually enforce it, or was it more symbolic? Lucas: It was enforced, at least for a time. Several known figures were expelled, including a Cynic named Antiochus of Cilicia. Lucian's satire describes philosophers being rounded up and shipped off like criminals. But the expulsion wasn't permanent — within a few years, the atmosphere relaxed, and by the time Commodus took over, philosophers were back in favor. Lucas: What's fascinating is that Marcus himself was a philosopher, yet he saw some of these teachers as a threat to social order. It shows that his Stoicism was very much filtered through the lens of Roman traditionalism. He wasn't a radical; he was a conservative reformer who believed philosophy should serve the state, not undermine it. Luna: So it's like he drew a line between 'good' philosophy — like his own Stoicism — and 'bad' philosophy that stirred up trouble. Lucas: Exactly. The Cynics rejected all social conventions, which in a time of plague and war looked like sedition. Marcus's own teacher, Junius Rusticus, had introduced him to Stoicism, but that was a philosophy of duty and acceptance — not the kind that would tell people to ignore the gods or refuse military service. Lucas: There's also a personal dimension. By 176, Marcus had been through a lot: the death of Lucius Verus, the rebellion of Avidius Cassius, and constant pressure on the frontiers. He may have felt that Rome needed unity, not intellectual dissent. The banishment was a way to project control. Luna: Did any prominent philosophers push back? Lucas: Not directly, because the decree targeted the fringe. But there was a notable figure named Demonax, a Cynic philosopher in Athens who was so well-respected that even when other Cynics were expelled, he was left alone. Lucian, who was a friend of Demonax, wrote that Demonax 'never gave offense and was never offensive to the city'. Lucas: So the expulsion wasn't a blanket ban on all philosophy — it was a surgical strike against the troublemakers. But it's still a striking image: the philosopher emperor, the author of the Meditations, signing an order to kick philosophers out of Rome. It reminds us that Marcus was first and foremost a Roman emperor, not just a Stoic sage. Luna: It's almost like he was trying to protect philosophy by purging its bad reputation. Lucas: That's a great way to put it. Aelius Aristides had argued that false philosophers were giving the whole pursuit a bad name. By expelling them, Marcus might have thought he was saving the reputation of true philosophy — the kind that helps people live virtuously, not the kind that disrupts public order. Lucas: The episode also highlights the tension between Greek intellectual culture and Roman pragmatism. Marcus was a Hellenophile, but he was also a Roman aristocrat who believed in pietas and tradition. The banishment was a very Roman solution to a Greek problem. Luna: So in the end, was it hypocritical, or was it consistent with Stoicism? Lucas: That's the key question. On one hand, Stoicism teaches that we should accept the world as it is and do our duty. If Marcus believed that expelling a few Cynics would stabilize Rome, then it was his duty as emperor to do it. On the other hand, there's a whiff of hypocrisy in silencing voices that challenge the status quo. But maybe that's the reality of power — it forces compromises. Lucas: What's certain is that this event didn't tarnish Marcus's reputation in antiquity. Later writers, like the fourth-century historian Ammianus Marcellinus, praised him precisely because he combined philosophy with effective rule. The banishment was seen as a necessary act of statesmanship. Luna: And it gives us a more rounded picture of the man behind the Meditations. Lucas: Exactly. The Meditations are full of advice about being true to yourself, but they were private writings. In public, Marcus was a ruler who made hard calls. The banishment of the philosophers shows us that even a philosopher king had to govern, not just think.