Marius the Epicurian
The introduction to this book states that it is the best novel ever written in the English language. With an endorsement like that I had to buy it. It was written in Victorian times and so the language is quite complex. Initially I thought that it would be unreadable for me, but with some persistence I found it quite eloquent. Some bits I had to read several times but in the end they all paid off.
According to other net sources, Pater was promulgating his asceticism and “cult of beauty” which influenced the Aesthetic movement and people such as Oscar Wilde. I guess I can see this, he wouldn’t be writing about Epicurians if he wasn’t interested in beauty and satisfaction of the senses. But he was hardly the originator of either asceticism or a love of beauty. The term “cult” is probably pejorative, unless they were actually donning cloaks, secret rituals and mixing up cool-aid.
The book pulls together philosophical and religious thought from the ancient Greeks to Victorian England, contrasting the early Cyrenaics and Cynics with the Epicurians and Stoics of the Roman era and with modern sentiments and Christianity. He shows how the Stoics and Epicurians take different paths and end up meeting with the ideal of Temperance. Stoicism and Epicurianism are contrasted in a practical sense by the description of a day at the “games”, i.e. gladiatorial, where the events are described in all of their gore and the effects they cause on Marius and Aurelius, who represent the two philosophies.
I guess the book is kind of a comparison of religion from the early worship of natural forces, to the Philosophical schools of ancient Greece and the later semi-dogmatic schools of Roman times and then to Christianity. The author seems to knock one down after the other by showing where they fall short. I found the section where Marius finds Christianity to be reminiscent of a kid at his first rock concert. Also the attempt to show the failure of Socrates, which humorously takes the form of a Socratic dialog, is interesting only as humor. How can one use logic and reason to prove that logic and reason are useless as tools to find truth?
Anyway, if anyone wants my copy, let me know. Its quite beautifully written, a pain to get through though and I’d be bragging to say I understood half of it.
Comments: