Marcus Aurelius on the Capitoline Hill

8/9/2019 Marcus Aurelius on the Capitoline Hill

1/8

Marcus Aurelius on the Capitoline HillAuthor(s): James S. Ackerman

Reviewed work(s):Source: Renaissance News, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Summer, 1957), pp. 69-75Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2857501 .

Accessed: 28/09/2012 13:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and Renaissance Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Renaissance News.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2857501?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2857501?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/8

tonio Cocco

of

abstaining

rom further

playwriting

was

still

being

observed

by

Piccolomini

in

I568

(69).

Since

at

this time he

was

in

need of the Medici

patronage,

Piccolomini

would have committed

a

seriousblunder

n

refusing

Francesco

he

first favor

he

had ever asked

andin

denying

ever having written a comedy for Cosimo I, a deed

which would

have

endeared

him

to the Medici

family.

The statements ound

in

Piccolomini's

printed

works,

the corres-

pondence

with

the

Medici

family,

and

especially

he letter

to

Span-

nocchi,

prove

that he did not

write

the

Ortensio.

The real

authorsof

the

piece

were

the membersof the

Accademia

degl'Intronati

s

is

stated

on the title

page

and also

by

Piccolomini

himself.

Specifically,

he let-

terto Spannocchinforms usthatthe Ortensiowasfirstperformedon

January

26,

1561,

instead of

October

I560

(as suggested

by

Sanesi).

It also

invalidates

Sanesi'sand

Rossi's conclusion

that

Piccolomini

played

the

limited role of

counselling

the

Intronati.

n

saying

'non

mi

sono

trovatone

a

comporla,

ne a

censurarla,

e a volerla

comprovare',

Piccolomini disavows

even this

responsibility

which was

officially

his

as

a

'censore'of the

Academy.16

PENNSYLVANIA

STATE

UNIVERSITY

write the

comedy

which he had

recently

requested

(see

above).

16

Another work

erroneously

attributed to

Piccolomini

by

early biographers

is

the

tragedy

entitled

La

Conversione

di

S.

Cipriano.

The

real

author

was

Giovanni Fazio da

Urbino

(see

Salvioli,

Bibliografia

universale

del teatrodrammatico

taliano, Venezia,

I903,

I,

878).

The first edition

of this

tragedy,

which

appeared

in

Urbino

in

1626,

bears the

words

StorditoAccademico nsensato

n

the

place

of Fazio's name.

It is

clear that the false

attribution arose

when

early

biographers

confused the Stordito Accademico Insensato

with

Piccolomini,

whose academic

pseudonym

was

Stordito

ntronato.

Marcus

Aurelius

on the

Capitoline

Hill

by

JAMES

S. ACKERMAN

IN

A

RECENT

book,

Dante

poeta

veltro

(Florence,

I953),

Leo-

nardoOlschki

discussed

he statuesof Castorand Pollux

that stand

at the top of the rampleadingonto the Capitolinehill in Rome. He

showed

that

these

representations

f the Dioscures were

brought

to

the heart of

the

Renaissance

city

not

merely

as works of

art,

but

as

symbols: symbols

of

heavenly protection (they

are the Geminiof

the

tonio Cocco

of

abstaining

rom further

playwriting

was

still

being

observed

by

Piccolomini

in

I568

(69).

Since

at

this time he

was

in

need of the Medici

patronage,

Piccolomini

would have committed

a

seriousblunder

n

refusing

Francesco

he

first favor

he

had ever asked

andin

denying

ever having written a comedy for Cosimo I, a deed

which would

have

endeared

him

to the Medici

family.

The statements ound

in

Piccolomini's

printed

works,

the corres-

pondence

with

the

Medici

family,

and

especially

he letter

to

Span-

nocchi,

prove

that he did not

write

the

Ortensio.

The real

authorsof

the

piece

were

the membersof the

Accademia

degl'Intronati

s

is

stated

on the title

page

and also

by

Piccolomini

himself.

Specifically,

he let-

terto Spannocchinforms usthatthe Ortensiowasfirstperformedon

January

26,

1561,

instead of

October

I560

(as suggested

by

Sanesi).

It also

invalidates

Sanesi'sand

Rossi's conclusion

that

Piccolomini

played

the

limited role of

counselling

the

Intronati.

n

saying

'non

mi

sono

trovatone

a

comporla,

ne a

censurarla,

e a volerla

comprovare',

Piccolomini disavows

even this

responsibility

which was

officially

his

as

a

'censore'of the

Academy.16

PENNSYLVANIA

STATE

UNIVERSITY

write the

comedy

which he had

recently

requested

(see

above).

16

Another work

erroneously

attributed to

Piccolomini

by

early biographers

is

the

tragedy

entitled

La

Conversione

di

S.

Cipriano.

The

real

author

was

Giovanni Fazio da

Urbino

(see

Salvioli,

Bibliografia

universale

del teatrodrammatico

taliano, Venezia,

I903,

I,

878).

The first edition

of this

tragedy,

which

appeared

in

Urbino

in

1626,

bears the

words

StorditoAccademico nsensato

n

the

place

of Fazio's name.

It is

clear that the false

attribution arose

when

early

biographers

confused the Stordito Accademico Insensato

with

Piccolomini,

whose academic

pseudonym

was

Stordito

ntronato.

Marcus

Aurelius

on the

Capitoline

Hill

by

JAMES

S. ACKERMAN

IN

A

RECENT

book,

Dante

poeta

veltro

(Florence,

I953),

Leo-

nardoOlschki

discussed

he statuesof Castorand Pollux

that stand

at the top of the rampleadingonto the Capitolinehill in Rome. He

showed

that

these

representations

f the Dioscures were

brought

to

the heart of

the

Renaissance

city

not

merely

as works of

art,

but

as

symbols: symbols

of

heavenly protection (they

are the Geminiof

the

[69]69]


3/8

Zodiac)

and

of

Liberty (to

Dante

they

stood for

popular

resistanceo

tyranny),

n

which

roles

they

had been

the

guardians

of

Rome

since

ancient

times.

In

addition,

Olschki discovered

an

attribute

appended

for

political

reasons

by

a

sixteenth-century

Pontiff,

Clement

VII,

hat

made the twins

respectively

he

Pope

and the

Emperor-co-rulers

of

the modern

Roman

Empire.

If

the

sculpture

at the

gateway

to the

wonderfulRenaissance

square

on the

Capitol

s

chosen

with

such deliberate

symbolic

ntention,

then

other

statues

on

the

hill

probably

were

placed

there for

good

reasons.

Particularly

his must be

true

of the bronze

equestrian

monument

of

Marcus

Aurelius,

brought

to the

hill

in

1538

and

placed

n the center

of the ovalpiazza on the axis of the entire architecturalcomposition.

Its

presence

here

is a

puzzle: given

the

significance

of the

Dioscures,

why

did

Pope

Paul

in

(Clement'ssuccessor)

put

an

imperial

portrait

in

the

place

of honor?

Why

was this

particular

portrait

so

desirable

that it had to be stolen from

the

Chapter

of

St.

John

in

the

Lateran,

which had

held

title

to it for

over

a

millennium?

Finally,

why,

when

Michelangelo

Buonarrotiwas commissioned o

design

the

square,

he

buildings,

and even

an

elegant

base

for the

new

acquisition,

was

he

not alsorequired o executea statuehimself;a monument not to pa-

gan,

but to

Christian

Rome?

Contemporary

reporters

do

not

quite

answer

these

questions

be-

cause

they

areconfused about the

identity

of

the

rider.

Antiquarians

and

guides

assureus

that

they

know

him to be Marcus

Aurelius,

but

add

that

the

public

is confused on

the

subject.

Bernardo

Gamucci's

guidebook

of

1565

is

typical:

... nel mezo rinchiugono come in un centro quella famosa statua equestre di Marco

Aurelio condottavi dalla Chiesa

di san

Giovanni Laterano

al

tempo

di Paolo

terzo

Pont.

Ott.

Max.

laquale

e'

chiamata

da'

volgari

de' nostri

tempi

il

gran

Villano.

Alcuni

credono che

questa

statua sia di

Settimio

Severo,

altri

dicono di Lucio

Vero;

il

che a

me non

pare,

per

non

s'assomigliare

in

alcuna

parte

al

vero

ritratto

delle

loro

medaglie.

The

emperors

were

already

mentioned

by

Fulvius

n

I527,

and later

AntoninusPius is added

as

well.

In

1536

the German ravelerFichard

speaks

of

them, too,

but

adds,

'itaque

nescitur

cuius-es

ist

ein

sehr

sch6nstuck'.

But the humanists

who

argued

over which Antonine

emperor

is

represented

were

too learned or their

contemporaries.

Even the

mis-

takes

they

correctedwere

such

good

mistakes

hat

only

rival archaeol-

[70]


4/8

ogists

could have made them.

Evidently

the

'vulgar'

did not

listen,

but

preferred

a folk

legend ('gran

Villano')

that denied the

figure any

imperial

dentity.

Nor did the humanists

manage

to convince the ed-

ucated

classes,

because

documents

in

which

the statue

is

mentioned

seldom

identify

it

correctly.

I found a

variety

of

opinions expressed

just

in

the

year

that

the

monument came to

the

Capitol.

One

record,

a

decreeof

complaint

from

the Lateran

Chapter,

names

the

Emperor

correctly;

anotherrecords he advice of

Michelangelo

for the 'refor-

matione statue

M. Antonii'.

A

more

common

error s

represented

y

entries

of

1538

n

two

diaries,

hat of Cola

Colleine,

who

says,

'lo ca-

vallo

di Costantino

u messo

nella

piazza

di

Campidoglio',

and

that

of

Blasio di Martinelli,who mentions 'locumCapitoliinoviterexplana-

tum cum

aequo

(sic)

aereoConstantini

x

Laterano ranslato'.

Of

course,

the

attempts

to

identify

the statue

did not

begin

at

the

time

of

its arrival

on

the

Capitoline

hill.

This was

one

of the few

mas-

terpieces

of

Roman

art

that had been on

view

throughout

the Middle

Ages,

and recordsof

many

centuries

how

that

Romans seldom were

satisfied o leave the rider without a name.

I

cannot tell the

intricate

and

fascinating

history

of

these

legends

here,

but

perhaps

I

can indi-

cate

sketchily

the distantbackgroundof the RenaissancesourcesI

have

quoted by outlining

the

origins

and

suggesting

the causes

of

three

major

traditions,

hose

identifying

the statue

as

Constantine,

as

the

'gran

Villano',

and

as an

Antonine

Emperor.

Conlstantine

This

identification

may

be traced

back

to the tenth

century

and

is

possibly

Carolingian

n

origin.

The

choice

of Constantine

provided

a

name thatwas famousenough to be generallyknown, one that was

Christian,

and

one

that

recalled he time

when

Constantinople

was

a

satelliteof

Rome

and not

a

rival.

In

the Middle

Ages,

however,

the

statuewas not

principally

a

portrait

or a

monument,

but

a

symbol

for

Roman

Law. Traitorsand

criminals

were executed before

it,

or

even

hung

from

the

neck of the horse.

In

its

dual

role as

a

reminder

of the

power

of

the

Emperor

and of

the

protection

of

Roman

Law the

stat-

ue

expressed

he concern

of

Carolingian

and

post-Carolingian

Rome

for the revival of ancient

glories:

Renovatio.

I think that the

original

impetus

for

the

Constantine

legend

was

just

romantic or

nostalgic,

and that

t

was some

time before

t

began

to

gatherpolitical

overtones

resulting

rom

controversy

between

Popes

and

Emperors.

[71]


5/8

Gran

Villano

By

the

mid-twelfth

century

a rival

legend

had

arisen-with

a

pur-

pose.

The authors of the earliest

manuscripts

of

the

Mirabilia

Urbis

Ronae not

only

offer

a

new

attributionbut take

pains

to

refutethe old

one: 'LateranisstquidamcaballusaereusquediciturConstantini, ed

ita

non

est;

quia

quicumque

voluerit veritatem

cognoscere

hoc

perle-

gat.'

Then

follows

an

elaborate egend

set

'in

the time of

the consuls

and senators'.Rome

is

besieged

by

a

powerful

oriental

king,

and

the

city

is

powerless

to defend itself.

An

'armiger'

of

great

beauty

and

virtue

appears

before the Senate

claiming

that

he

can rout

the

enemy,

and

the Senate

agrees

o

give

him a limitless

reward

f

he

is

successful.

Leaving

the

Roman forceswithin

the

city walls,

he

goes

out alone to

find

a

certain

grove

of

trees that

the

besieging

king

visits

nightly

to

relieve himself.

He

is able

to

locate

this

by

hearing

a

cuckoo,

whose

nightly

song

is set off

by

the

visitors o the

grove.

Approaching

n

dis-

guise,

the

hero

captures

he

king,

and succeeds

n

carrying

him back

into the

city

before the retainers an

stop

him. He thenleads the

Ro-

man

army

out to

slaughter

and

capture

he

besiegers.

n

appreciation

of

thisfeat the

Senate

rewards he hero

with

a

great

fortune and with

our equestrianstatue,memorializinghim with his right arm out-

stretched o

seize the

king,

the

cuckoo

sitting

on

the horse's

head

(the

bound

top-knot

of the mane does

resemble

a

bird),

and the

king

un-

derfoot,

represented

s a

'dwarf',

with

his arms

tied behind

his

back

(the

bound

captive, originally

a featureof the

monument,

was lost

in

the laterMiddle

Ages).

Master

Gregorius,

who

repeats

this

story

in

about

I200,

tells

us

that,

while the Constantine

legend

is

still

adheredto

by

the

people,

the

'Clericsand

Cardinalsof the

Roman Curia'

support

his version.

Even

without

Gregory'shelp

we

can

see

the

story

as a

clever

work of

papalpropaganda.

t

unmistakably

akes

place

in

Republican

Rome;

the folk-hero-a

poor

but honest soldier-overcomes

a

king

who

is

debased

both

in

stature

and

in

the

circumstances f his

capture.

The

story

succeeds

both in

extolling

the virtues of ancient Rome

and

its

populace

and

in

playing

down the

concept

of

Empire

and

Emperor.

I am not familiarenoughwith the historyof the twelfth century pa-

pacy

to

suggest

what

party

or

Pope

first

may

have found this

legend

useful,

but

it

is

too

pointedly

political

to

pass

as

a

simple

tale such

as

guides

love to

repeat.

Without

entirely

vanquishing

he Constantine

[72]


6/8

legend,

this

Guelph story,

if

I

may

call it

that,

persists

nto

the

six-

teenth

century.

Surely

the

early

Renaissance ssociated he statue

with

this

folk

hero,

becausethe common soldierswho achieved

glory

in

the

quattrocento

ere memorialized

in

equestrianportraits

modeled

on that of MarcusAurelius.Donatello'sGattemelata,Ucello'sHawk-

wood,

Castagno's

Niccolo

da

Tolentino,

Verrocchio's

Colleoni,

and

Leonardo'sG.

G.

Trivulzio

all

were

mercenary

oldiersof

great

brav-

ery

who

vanquished

rulersand achieved richesand fame.

The

rulers

themselves

rarelyappeared

n

horseback.

MarcusAurelius

The

identificationof the

statue

with

figures

other

than

Constantine

and the anonymoushero did not commence until the fifteenth cen-

tury.

Humanism

approached

he

problem

in

a

scientificrather han a

symbolic

fashion,

and

starting

with attributions

o

Commodus and

Septimus

Severus,

scholars

gradually

nearedthe

mark

by

Gamucci's

method,

arriving

at

the

proper

answer

n about

I470.

But the

Renaissance

was

not

archaeological

o the core. Even

the

antiquarians

f the sixteenth

century

had to

admit,

when

they

had

ar-

rived at the

right

answer,

that the

old romancesstill

remained

popu-

lar. It

appears

hat the MarcusAureliusdid not come to the

Capito-

line

merely

as

a

great

bronze statue of

a

given

ruler-it came

also

as

Constantine,

emperor

and

symbol

of Roman

Law,

and

finally

as the

'Villano':

folk-hero,

anti-imperialist,

he

symbol

of

the

liberty

of

Roman

citizensas

maintained

by

their

governor,

the

Pope.

So

perhaps

o the

sixteenth-century

isitor

the

central

figure

on

the

Capitoline

square

and the

twin

Dioscuresat its entrance

meant much

the samething-Liberty securedby the harmoniousrule of the Pope

and

Emperor.

Round

about

n

every

direction

were statues

hat

com-

pleted

the

symbolic

poem.

At the

rear,

he

GoddessRoma

(Michelan-

gelo

had

planned

a

Jupiter

n

her

place)

flanked

by

the

Nile and the

Tiber-rivers

of the East and

West;

and on the

forward

railing,

tro-

phies thought

to

be

Republican,

statuesof Constantineand

Constan-

tius,

and

mileposts

from

the

Via

Appia

bearing

spheressymbolizing

universal

ule.

The

story

would be

incomplete

without an

attempt

to

explainwhy

Michelangeloplaced

the

statue

on an

ovoid mound

rising

from a

ring

of

steps

that borders

he

piazza

and decoratedwith

a

twelve-pointed

stellated

pattern.

It has been

called

a

segment

of the

terrestrial

globe

[73]


7/8

anda

representation

f

the

Caput

Mundi

(the

medieval

designation

or

the

Capitol),

which s

plausible

without

being

convincing.

have

no

proven

answer,

but

I

detectboth

an

antique

nd

a

medieval ource.

The former

may

be

a

Roman

shield,

which

would

explain

both

its

ovalshape nd hefact hat t is raised atherhan lat.Theportrait n

the

shield-imagoclipeata-was

an

imperialprerogative

n

ancient

timesandwastransferred

o

Christ.

Themedieval

ource

s

one of the

cosmological

iagrams

schemata)

n

St.

Isidor'sDe natura

erumhat

symbolizes

he concordance f the

lunar

cycle

with other

temporal

inferencesf thenumber

welve,

particularly

onths,Hours,

and he

Zodiac.1

t differsrom

Michelangelo's

istinctive

tar

formed

y

in-

tersectingrcs ather hantriangles)nlyin being nscribedwithina

circle nstead

f an

oval.

So

the

Marcus urelius

ecomes he

Roman

heroelevated

upon

he

symbol

of the cosmos:

ts

varied raditions re

merged

nto a

testimony

o the restoration f

Roman

dignity

and

pre-eminence

nder

he

Church.

If

each

age

is

typifiedby

the

symbolism

ppended

o the bronze

horseman,

hen

the modern

period

mustbe

characterized

y

a

story

at

once

hemostmaterialisticnd

hemost

pessimistic

f all

time.

It

is

toldbythegreatRomanhumorist,G.G.Belli:

CAMPIDOJJO

Ecchesce

ar

Campidojjo,

indove Tito

Venne a mmercato

tanta

ggente

abbrea.

Questa

se

chiama

la

Rupa Tarpea

Dova

Creopatra

bbutto

ggiu

er

marito.

Marcurelio

sta 11 ttutto vestito

Senza

pavura

un cazzo de

tropea.

E un

giorno,

disce er zor abbate

Fea,

C'ha da esse

oro

infinamente

a

un

dito.

E ssi ttu

gguardi

er culo

der cavallo

E la

faccia

dell'omo,

quarche

innizzio

Gia vvederai de

scappa

ffora

er

giallo.

1

owe

the

discovery

of this

diagram

to

Prof.

Harry

Bober,

who

is

preparing

a book

on the schemata.

[74]


8/8

Quanno

e

ppoi

tutta

d'oro,

addio

Donizzio:

Se va

a

ffa

fotte

puro

er

piedistallo,

Che

amanca

poco

ar

giorno

der

giudizzio.2

UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

2

'Here's the

Campidoglio,

where

Titus sold

so

many Jews

at market.

This

is

called

the

Tarpeian

Rock,

from

which

Cleopatra

threw

down her husband. Marcus Aurelius

stays

there all dressed

up

without fear

of

storms. And

one

day,

says

Abbot

Fea,

it

will

all

become

gold,

down to the last

finger

[some

of

the

original gilding

of

the bronze

is

preserved,

ed.].

And if

you

examine

the

horse's

arse and the

man's

face,

you

can al-

ready

see

some

sign

that

the

yellow

is

bursting

out.

And

when

it is

all

gold,

that's

the

end: even the

pedestal

will come

crashing

down,

andJudgment Day

will be close.'

Marvell's

Bermudas'

nd

he

Puritan

Paradise

by

ROSALIE

L. COLIE

IT

IS often difficult o remember

hat

Andrew

Marvell he

poet

wasalso

a

polemical

uritan nd

practical olitician,

o littledo

his

survivingpoemsreflecthispublicactivity.Leastof all, one would

think,

could

his Garden

poems,

where his

private

ntentions eem

most

highly

developed

nd his

general

Neoplatonism

most

sharply

particularized,

ield

up any

reference

o hisPuritanife.But

whenwe

examine is

'Bermudas',

ne

of Marvell'subtlest horter

poems

and

strikingly

loseto 'The Garden'

n

both

ts

imagery

and ts

implica-

tions

of

paradise,

e

cannot ail to realize

ts

background

f

English

expansionntothe New Worldand of thereligiousdrives hatsent

Englishmen

ut from heir sland

ntoharsherlimates

n

the

expecta-

tion of some sort of

practical

Eden. Marvell's

song

is

the

song

of

praise

of his mariners

o

the God

that ed

them

'through

he

watry

Maze' o another

sland,

ong

hidden

rom their

knowledge

and

far

kinder han

England

tself.

The last twelve lines of

the

poem carry

very

strong

suggestions

f

the

'colonizing

activities

f

the

English

Puritans':1

1

For a

study

of

this

subject,

see Arthur

Percival

Newton,

The

Colonizing

Activities

of

the

English

Puritans

(New

Haven and

London,

I914)

and

Louis

B.

Wright, Religion

and

Empire.

The

Alliancebetween

iety

andCommercen

English

Expansion.

558-1625

(Chapel

Hill,

1943).

Quanno

e

ppoi

tutta

d'oro,

addio

Donizzio:

Se va

a

ffa

fotte

puro

er

piedistallo,

Che

amanca

poco

ar

giorno

der

giudizzio.2

UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

2

'Here's the

Campidoglio,

where

Titus sold

so

many Jews

at market.

This

is

called

the

Tarpeian

Rock,

from

which

Cleopatra

threw

down her husband. Marcus Aurelius

stays

there all dressed

up

without fear

of

storms. And

one

day,

says

Abbot

Fea,

it

will

all

become

gold,

down to the last

finger

[some

of

the

original gilding

of

the bronze

is

preserved,

ed.].

And if

you

examine

the

horse's

arse and the

man's

face,

you

can al-

ready

see

some

sign

that

the

yellow

is

bursting

out.

And

when

it is

all

gold,

that's

the

end: even the

pedestal

will come

crashing

down,

andJudgment Day

will be close.'

Marvell's

Bermudas'

nd

he

Puritan

Paradise

by

ROSALIE

L. COLIE

IT

IS often difficult o remember

hat

Andrew

Marvell he

poet

wasalso

a

polemical

uritan nd

practical olitician,

o littledo

his

survivingpoemsreflecthispublicactivity.Leastof all, one would

think,

could

his Garden

poems,

where his

private

ntentions eem

most

highly

developed

nd his

general

Neoplatonism

most

sharply

particularized,

ield

up any

reference

o hisPuritanife.But

whenwe

examine is

'Bermudas',

ne

of Marvell'subtlest horter

poems

and

strikingly

loseto 'The Garden'

n

both

ts

imagery

and ts

implica-

tions

of

paradise,

e

cannot ail to realize

ts

background

f

English

expansionntothe New Worldand of thereligiousdrives hatsent

Englishmen

ut from heir sland

ntoharsherlimates

n

the

expecta-

tion of some sort of

practical

Eden. Marvell's

song

is

the

song

of

praise

of his mariners

o

the God

that ed

them

'through

he

watry

Maze' o another

sland,

ong

hidden

rom their

knowledge

and

far

kinder han

England

tself.

The last twelve lines of

the

poem carry

very

strong

suggestions

f

the

'colonizing

activities

f

the

English

Puritans':1

1

For a

study

of

this

subject,

see Arthur

Percival

Newton,

The

Colonizing

Activities

of

the

English

Puritans

(New

Haven and

London,

I914)

and

Louis

B.

Wright, Religion

and

Empire.

The

Alliancebetween

iety

andCommercen

English

Expansion.

558-1625

(Chapel

Hill,

1943).

[75]75]

Marcus Aurelius on the Capitoline Hill

Documents

Transcript of Marcus Aurelius on the Capitoline Hill