What do you think?
Rate this book
Marcus Aurelius
The vivid, magisterial and long-awaited biography of Marcus Aurelius — the last of the “five good emperors” of the Roman Empire.
Emperor Marcus Aurelius — the embodiment of the philosopher’s king — is the one figure of antiquity who still speaks vividly to us today, over 2000 years after his death. We may thrill to the exploits of Alexander the Great, Hannibal or Caesar, and historical novelists may beguile us with their imaginative reconstructions of this life or that, but the only voice from the Greco-Roman world that still seems to have contemporary relevance is that of the man who ruled the Roman Empire from 161 to 180 A.D. His book of reflections, Meditations , continues to sell in large numbers in numerous editions.
Though a persecutor of Christians, Marcus holds out the prospect of spirituality for atheists, happiness without God, joy without heaven and morality without religion. He truly was a man for all seasons, and those seasons include the twenty-first century.
His reign foreshadowed the eventual decline and fall of the Roman Empire, and his life itself represents the fulfillment of Plato’s famous dictum that mankind will prosper only when philosophers are rulers and rulers philosophers. Marcus Aurelius by acclaimed historian Frank McLynn, promises to be the definitive biography of this monumental historical figure — now known very widely through the Oscar-winning film Gladiator .
From the Hardcover edition.
Emperor Marcus Aurelius — the embodiment of the philosopher’s king — is the one figure of antiquity who still speaks vividly to us today, over 2000 years after his death. We may thrill to the exploits of Alexander the Great, Hannibal or Caesar, and historical novelists may beguile us with their imaginative reconstructions of this life or that, but the only voice from the Greco-Roman world that still seems to have contemporary relevance is that of the man who ruled the Roman Empire from 161 to 180 A.D. His book of reflections, Meditations , continues to sell in large numbers in numerous editions.
Though a persecutor of Christians, Marcus holds out the prospect of spirituality for atheists, happiness without God, joy without heaven and morality without religion. He truly was a man for all seasons, and those seasons include the twenty-first century.
His reign foreshadowed the eventual decline and fall of the Roman Empire, and his life itself represents the fulfillment of Plato’s famous dictum that mankind will prosper only when philosophers are rulers and rulers philosophers. Marcus Aurelius by acclaimed historian Frank McLynn, promises to be the definitive biography of this monumental historical figure — now known very widely through the Oscar-winning film Gladiator .
From the Hardcover edition.
544 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
132 people are currently reading
2253 people want to read
About the author
Frank McLynn
39 books102 followersFrank McLynn is an English author, biographer, historian and journalist. He is noted for critically acclaimed biographies of Napoleon Bonaparte, Robert Louis Stevenson, Carl Jung, Richard Francis Burton and Henry Morton Stanley.
McLynn was educated at Wadham College, Oxford and the University of London. He was Alistair Horne Research Fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford (1987–88) and was visiting professor in the Department of Literature at the University of Strathclyde (1996–2001) and professorial fellow at Goldsmiths College London (2000 - 2002) before becoming a full-time writer.
McLynn was educated at Wadham College, Oxford and the University of London. He was Alistair Horne Research Fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford (1987–88) and was visiting professor in the Department of Literature at the University of Strathclyde (1996–2001) and professorial fellow at Goldsmiths College London (2000 - 2002) before becoming a full-time writer.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews
May 16, 2021
This was a rich and well-researched book on one of the Roman greats. I thought the book was very heavy in details. There were a lot of historical figures, places, and events. If you are not super familiar with Roman history of this time, you will probably spend a lot of time looking them up (like I did). It was very informative but the reading slowed me down at times.
January 26, 2016
Although I can't fault the scholarship and I learned a great deal more about Aurelius and Roman society, I cannot recommend this book, for reasons other reviewers touched on.
The first is the author's long, opinionated digressions. Normally, I enjoy a good romp through intellectual history, comparing Aurelius' Meditations to Augustine's Confessions, even if I disagree. However, McLynn is overwhelmingly negative and seemed only interested in flaunting his erudition and sense of superiority to every subject he covers. Ultimately, it comes across the me as misanthropic. He has nothing good to say about anyone, it seems, and his opinions of other works are largely irrelevant to understanding Aurelius. I didn't think this would bother me when I read the other reviews, but these discussions were interminable and unpleasant.
The second is the writing style. There is no real structure to the book, no thought of what should be inserted where to maximum effect and clarity. It is, roughly, chronological, but instead of weaving the characters and events into a readable story, he deposits huge packets of dense factual information, often in poorly constructed, dull, long paragraphs between long digressions about why he doesn't like this or that person and why every historian who has another opinion is wrong.
It's hard for me to believe that a book on a beloved Roman emperor could be so pointedly mean-spirited and so chock full of pointless digression.
The first is the author's long, opinionated digressions. Normally, I enjoy a good romp through intellectual history, comparing Aurelius' Meditations to Augustine's Confessions, even if I disagree. However, McLynn is overwhelmingly negative and seemed only interested in flaunting his erudition and sense of superiority to every subject he covers. Ultimately, it comes across the me as misanthropic. He has nothing good to say about anyone, it seems, and his opinions of other works are largely irrelevant to understanding Aurelius. I didn't think this would bother me when I read the other reviews, but these discussions were interminable and unpleasant.
The second is the writing style. There is no real structure to the book, no thought of what should be inserted where to maximum effect and clarity. It is, roughly, chronological, but instead of weaving the characters and events into a readable story, he deposits huge packets of dense factual information, often in poorly constructed, dull, long paragraphs between long digressions about why he doesn't like this or that person and why every historian who has another opinion is wrong.
It's hard for me to believe that a book on a beloved Roman emperor could be so pointedly mean-spirited and so chock full of pointless digression.
June 14, 2011
This was a difficult book to rate.
The sections that were actually about Marcus Aurelius were very good. However, there were way too many instances where the author got off topic and it dragged on and on and on.
Out of 19 chapters, two were devoted to the author's own personal views on Marcus Aurelius' beliefs and philosophies. I don't find that necessary. (You're writing a biography. Just stick to the facts. Nobody cares about your opinions and personal beliefs.)
One chapter focussed entirely on Marcus' son when he took over as emperor after the death of Aurelius.
Another chapter was devoted to Aurelius' effect on the philosophical world up to the present time.
And within many of the other chapters, he compares between Marcus and his times to past emperors, events and times for perspective. However, these comparisons went on for page after page after page.
This work could easily have been cut in half. But I give it a decent rating since the actual biographical portion that dealt with the facts of Marcus Aurelius the man, the emperor and the philosopher was quite good.
The sections that were actually about Marcus Aurelius were very good. However, there were way too many instances where the author got off topic and it dragged on and on and on.
Out of 19 chapters, two were devoted to the author's own personal views on Marcus Aurelius' beliefs and philosophies. I don't find that necessary. (You're writing a biography. Just stick to the facts. Nobody cares about your opinions and personal beliefs.)
One chapter focussed entirely on Marcus' son when he took over as emperor after the death of Aurelius.
Another chapter was devoted to Aurelius' effect on the philosophical world up to the present time.
And within many of the other chapters, he compares between Marcus and his times to past emperors, events and times for perspective. However, these comparisons went on for page after page after page.
This work could easily have been cut in half. But I give it a decent rating since the actual biographical portion that dealt with the facts of Marcus Aurelius the man, the emperor and the philosopher was quite good.
September 26, 2023
It pains me to admit that I did not like this book as much as I had hoped. I agree with the points that Don Morrison makes in his review, but I wouldn't go as far as giving this book one star. Frank McLynn is very knowledgeable about the time period but unnecessarily adds his opinion throughout the book, not only on emperors such as Hadrian and Trajan but also on the philosophy of Stoicism as a whole. This feels so out of place for me and makes me take this history book less seriously. Sometimes he refers to Trajan as a 'homosexual' or 'drunkard' which to me feels extremely unnecessary in the context of him mentioning Trajan. Yes, he was homosexual. Who cares? Especially when you're discussing his military campaigns, it just seems odd to mention his sexuality as well.
McLynn also goes on way too long about certain topics which are not very relevant for a biography of Marcus Aurelius in my opinion. Not that this was always boring though, as I really enjoyed the chapter on pagan criticism of Christianity. On the other hand, towards the end of the book, McLynn writes with way too much detail about the writers and thinkers that Marcus Aurelius has inspired, which because of its depth was extremely boring to me.
As for the structure, the book is generally written in chronological order, but not always, which makes it somewhat confusing sometimes as some chapters do not follow the main story of Marcus' life. Another simple thing that bothers me is that none of the chapters are named, making it a bit harder to go back to the chapters that I liked or to see what each chapter was about.
But as you can see, aside from all this critique, I still gave this book three stars. I still learnt a lot about the reign and life of Marcus Aurelius and some chapters were very well written, especially those on Marcus's military campaigns against the Germanic tribes and Lucius' campaign in the East. These great chapters saved this book from a bad rating, but I can't give this book higher than three stars. This is a shame because Marcus Aurelius was a great emperor and a very interesting character, he is one of the Romans on whom we have a lot of sources, including his famous Meditations. His reign saw the spread of plagues and massive invasions from the northern frontiers, as well as war with the Parthians. He was quite unprepared for these challenges but he still managed very well under the circumstances. His son Commodus however, was absolutely terrible and it is no wonder that some historians regard the death of Marcus Aurelius as the end of the Roman Golden Age.
McLynn also goes on way too long about certain topics which are not very relevant for a biography of Marcus Aurelius in my opinion. Not that this was always boring though, as I really enjoyed the chapter on pagan criticism of Christianity. On the other hand, towards the end of the book, McLynn writes with way too much detail about the writers and thinkers that Marcus Aurelius has inspired, which because of its depth was extremely boring to me.
As for the structure, the book is generally written in chronological order, but not always, which makes it somewhat confusing sometimes as some chapters do not follow the main story of Marcus' life. Another simple thing that bothers me is that none of the chapters are named, making it a bit harder to go back to the chapters that I liked or to see what each chapter was about.
But as you can see, aside from all this critique, I still gave this book three stars. I still learnt a lot about the reign and life of Marcus Aurelius and some chapters were very well written, especially those on Marcus's military campaigns against the Germanic tribes and Lucius' campaign in the East. These great chapters saved this book from a bad rating, but I can't give this book higher than three stars. This is a shame because Marcus Aurelius was a great emperor and a very interesting character, he is one of the Romans on whom we have a lot of sources, including his famous Meditations. His reign saw the spread of plagues and massive invasions from the northern frontiers, as well as war with the Parthians. He was quite unprepared for these challenges but he still managed very well under the circumstances. His son Commodus however, was absolutely terrible and it is no wonder that some historians regard the death of Marcus Aurelius as the end of the Roman Golden Age.
March 18, 2011
There is an overwhelming amount of criticism in this book; particularly of Stoicism. I bought this book because I am a fan of Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations." So I thought I would find here a sympathetic biography of the great Philosopher. Instead, the author seems bent on "proving" the logical fallacies of Stoicism, and thus the flawed thinking of Aurelius. The author seems almost angry or disturbed by the fact that the subject of his book was human, and thus subject to inconsistencies and the foibles that make biographies interesting in the first place.
I am no Christian, but I found it offensive that the author went on a diatribe against Christianity. He began with a quasi-objective perspective; discussing the religion from the perspective of the contemporaries of Aurelius (and previous thinkers); but he derails into his own seething criticisms of the religion.
To wit, this biography is fraught with long chapters on subjects somewhat related to the life and times of M Aurelius, but there is not a great deal of information about the man himself. This is understandable, given the relatively scant information available to us today; but the author probably should have kept this in mind -- he ends up with a 500+ page monster of a book, too long and too many digressions.
The author carries on with several chapters after the death of the emperor, discussing the exploits (fascinating yet disturbing) or his heir and son, Commodus. There are other chapters discussing the broad social and economic aspects of the empire after the death of M Aurelius. A bit too broad in scope and overly verbose, could have edited and ended up with a much more concise, and thus engaginge, read.
I am no Christian, but I found it offensive that the author went on a diatribe against Christianity. He began with a quasi-objective perspective; discussing the religion from the perspective of the contemporaries of Aurelius (and previous thinkers); but he derails into his own seething criticisms of the religion.
To wit, this biography is fraught with long chapters on subjects somewhat related to the life and times of M Aurelius, but there is not a great deal of information about the man himself. This is understandable, given the relatively scant information available to us today; but the author probably should have kept this in mind -- he ends up with a 500+ page monster of a book, too long and too many digressions.
The author carries on with several chapters after the death of the emperor, discussing the exploits (fascinating yet disturbing) or his heir and son, Commodus. There are other chapters discussing the broad social and economic aspects of the empire after the death of M Aurelius. A bit too broad in scope and overly verbose, could have edited and ended up with a much more concise, and thus engaginge, read.
May 11, 2021
The chapters dealing with Marcus' life are fun to read and well-written. On the other hand, the chapters on Christianity and Stoicism are digressive, redundant and very opinionated. I understand that a background knowledge of Marcus' philosophical school is indispensable to any book about him, but the other goes out of his way to show how "inhuman" Stoicism is.
March 17, 2013
Frank McLynn's account of the life and world of Emperor Marcus Aurelius does lack for detail. McLynn explains the life of a young Roman aristocrat who lives in a world of increasing inequality. To use a modern phrase, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. To put a more precise point on it, the Augustan Principate as a system government now seems to be suffering from the same fate as the Republican Senatorial establishment that it had replaced. Rome is facing great troubles and the government that is supposed to solve Rome's problems is either ignoring them at best or encouraging them at worst.* Gaining the notice of the Emperor Hadrian, young Marcus is adopted into the imperial family and is put on the direct path to the imperial throne. After an over two decade stint as the presumptive heir under Emperor Antonius Pious, he ascends to the imperial throne. As emperor he does many things but very little to solve Rome's larger problems.
Frank McLynn comes across in his writing as very knowledgeable about various topics, unfortunately it can somewhat drag his writing down. I understand why stoic philosophy is important to understanding Marcus Aurelius as a person. So McLynn, as the biographer, feels the need to explain stoic philosophy. However in contrast with author Anthony Everitt, who was able to explain stoicism in one page with a few examples**, McLynn not only dedicates a whole appendix to it, but he also drags on for entire chapters on the Emperor's view and writings on the topic. It is also one thing to sum up how his work is observed in later time periods when discussing his legacy and impact in the final chapter, however in the middle of the book I do not need to know how the Emperor's philosophy measures up Immanuel Kant. Often while reading this book I felt the need to yell "Get to the point, already!"
The structure of the book leaves a lot to be desired. For example I like to have my table of contents to tell me the pages of each of the individual chapters not just the introduction, preface, and appendixes. As a reader I find that a full table of contents helps me pace myself while reading. As a reviewer a full table of contents in a book it makes the book easier to go back over. He also has inconsistent capitalization of titles, McLynn will sometimes capitalize titles and other times he will not. For example, you will see King Louis IX of France and emperor Hadrian of Rome.
During the course of the book McLynn often refers to Marcus Aurelius as the 'greatest of the emperors of Rome' even occasionally adding the adverb 'unquestionably'. The funny thing is, the way Marcus Aurelius and his reign are described in the book gives the reader the impression he was a substandard emperor at best. This could highlight the author's low view of all of Rome's emperors--his views on Hadrian are very different from Anthony Everitt's. Nevertheless it comes off as an odd claim. I, myself, tend to judge leaders on three main criteria. The criteria I use are: how did the state*** look before leader X took over; how did leader X respond to the problems that he or she encountered; and what was the condition of the state when leader X left relative to when his or her time began. Clearly, the 'greatest emperor' was Augustus. He entered politics when Rome was being rocked by civil wars, he ended the civil wars and established a new form of government far more effective than the earlier one it replaced, and left Rome more powerful than ever in the stable hands of Emperor Tiberius.**** In contrast, Marcus Aurelius is handed Rome from Emperor Antonius Pious--who I always viewed as being a sort of Calvin Coolidge of Ancient Rome, an emperor who neatly managed the Empire, tended to trust his subordinates to do their jobs, with no major crisis hitting the Roman Empire during his watch as head of state--; Aurelius' response to the problems that faced Rome were only effective in the short term (he defended the borders but had never quite solved the problems); and lastly he left the Roman Empire to his psychopathic son, Emperor Commodus.
In the end, I would recommend this book to someone with a strong handle on academic jargon and love of philosophy. If you just want to read about Rome stick with Adrian Goldsworthy.
*This is my personal observation not the author's.
**Everitt discussed Stoic philosophy in his book Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome when explaining the Stoic opposition to the Flavian emperors.
***You can substitute 'state' with kingdom, empire, or organization of any kind.
****Emperor Tiberius was not always great but at the start of his reign he was not that bad. In general, he was a capable ruler.
Frank McLynn comes across in his writing as very knowledgeable about various topics, unfortunately it can somewhat drag his writing down. I understand why stoic philosophy is important to understanding Marcus Aurelius as a person. So McLynn, as the biographer, feels the need to explain stoic philosophy. However in contrast with author Anthony Everitt, who was able to explain stoicism in one page with a few examples**, McLynn not only dedicates a whole appendix to it, but he also drags on for entire chapters on the Emperor's view and writings on the topic. It is also one thing to sum up how his work is observed in later time periods when discussing his legacy and impact in the final chapter, however in the middle of the book I do not need to know how the Emperor's philosophy measures up Immanuel Kant. Often while reading this book I felt the need to yell "Get to the point, already!"
The structure of the book leaves a lot to be desired. For example I like to have my table of contents to tell me the pages of each of the individual chapters not just the introduction, preface, and appendixes. As a reader I find that a full table of contents helps me pace myself while reading. As a reviewer a full table of contents in a book it makes the book easier to go back over. He also has inconsistent capitalization of titles, McLynn will sometimes capitalize titles and other times he will not. For example, you will see King Louis IX of France and emperor Hadrian of Rome.
During the course of the book McLynn often refers to Marcus Aurelius as the 'greatest of the emperors of Rome' even occasionally adding the adverb 'unquestionably'. The funny thing is, the way Marcus Aurelius and his reign are described in the book gives the reader the impression he was a substandard emperor at best. This could highlight the author's low view of all of Rome's emperors--his views on Hadrian are very different from Anthony Everitt's. Nevertheless it comes off as an odd claim. I, myself, tend to judge leaders on three main criteria. The criteria I use are: how did the state*** look before leader X took over; how did leader X respond to the problems that he or she encountered; and what was the condition of the state when leader X left relative to when his or her time began. Clearly, the 'greatest emperor' was Augustus. He entered politics when Rome was being rocked by civil wars, he ended the civil wars and established a new form of government far more effective than the earlier one it replaced, and left Rome more powerful than ever in the stable hands of Emperor Tiberius.**** In contrast, Marcus Aurelius is handed Rome from Emperor Antonius Pious--who I always viewed as being a sort of Calvin Coolidge of Ancient Rome, an emperor who neatly managed the Empire, tended to trust his subordinates to do their jobs, with no major crisis hitting the Roman Empire during his watch as head of state--; Aurelius' response to the problems that faced Rome were only effective in the short term (he defended the borders but had never quite solved the problems); and lastly he left the Roman Empire to his psychopathic son, Emperor Commodus.
In the end, I would recommend this book to someone with a strong handle on academic jargon and love of philosophy. If you just want to read about Rome stick with Adrian Goldsworthy.
*This is my personal observation not the author's.
**Everitt discussed Stoic philosophy in his book Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome when explaining the Stoic opposition to the Flavian emperors.
***You can substitute 'state' with kingdom, empire, or organization of any kind.
****Emperor Tiberius was not always great but at the start of his reign he was not that bad. In general, he was a capable ruler.
March 7, 2021
Disappointing. Would support much of the other negative opinions on this site.
Put simply, the guy just doesn't understand his subject. Aurelius and McLynn seem to be very different people. McLynn has a florid, expansive writing style that at times obscures his meaning entirely. Aurelius's style is austere and reserved and his meaning is appealing bald. McLynn can use a thousand words to completely misunderstand a central tenet of Stoicisim like living in the present, and Aurelius can disarm with a single, sincere sentence. In the end, this vast difference in perspective and personality makes McLynn a terrible match for his subject and, frankly, you get the feeling that he doesn't really like the guy.
Put simply, the guy just doesn't understand his subject. Aurelius and McLynn seem to be very different people. McLynn has a florid, expansive writing style that at times obscures his meaning entirely. Aurelius's style is austere and reserved and his meaning is appealing bald. McLynn can use a thousand words to completely misunderstand a central tenet of Stoicisim like living in the present, and Aurelius can disarm with a single, sincere sentence. In the end, this vast difference in perspective and personality makes McLynn a terrible match for his subject and, frankly, you get the feeling that he doesn't really like the guy.
December 24, 2021
Serving as my very first book on Roman history, Marcus Aurelius’s biography was a warm welcome to the period as it introduces providing plenty of background information on Roman society. The book opens with Rome’s socio-economic layout. The distribution of wealth in the Roman Empire was extremely low, with not even modern-day equivalents such as the Middle East drawn for comparison due to the extent of this issue. The book then provides useful context for Marcus Aurelius’ reign, describing the careers of Hadrian and Antonius Pious who Marcus was likely influenced by when growing up.
Hadrian is portrayed, like much of the Roman emperors in Lynn’s mind, as a sociopath. Hadrian believed himself to be an academic genius amongst men, being a supposed expert in trailblazing ‘flavour of the day’ Roman disciplines such as astronomy. Due to his position as emperor, he was not dare questioned, and thus Roman scholars merely bowed to his absurd academic propositions. Hadrian was a very proactive emperor, who can at least be said to have committed himself fully to the Roman cause in Lynn’s. Essentially, he was merely “bad” compared to some of the “horrific” emperors who reigned in ancient Rome. This context is, again, super useful set-up by Lynn as it gets the reader more accustomed to both the authority of Roman emperors and the potential dynamics between their subjects.
Marcus’s father, Antonius, is also explored. Known as Antonius “Pious”, his name derives from his close-working relationship with the senate: He consulted the senate frequently and would ask for permission (such as when withdrawing state funds) even if permission was not really required. Antonius was a strict conservative, like his peers, but did make it illegal to kill a slave for no good reason. What a guy. Similarly, any trials slaves would have to attend would be conducted in the same area as the crime, but not in the slave master’s property. This was to stop slave masters letting their subjects free or influencing the proceedings in any way. Many reviewers have written that Lynn appears to have a personal dislike of many of the subjects he writes about, which is definitely correct, but Antonius does seem an exception to the rule.
With the composition of society and his key paternal figures discussed, Lynn begins to discuss the life of Marcus Aurelius and there’s some interesting Roman concepts of upbringing discussed. Born in 121 A.D, Marcus was withdrawn from his parents immediately, and put into the care of a nurse. Lynn’s exploration of this tradition is insightful, explaining that this was usual practice for the Romans, who would give up their baby immediately to a nurse until the age of three. This was due to the high rates of child death, and as a result parents would seek to avoid the emotional torment of losing a child by handing them over to a nurse. ensuring they would not have enough time with their child to build a relationship. Marcus’s bringing was intense, having numerous professors teach him the basic academic arts such as language, rhetoric and philosophy. Scholars had previously assumed that Marcus lived an inactive childhood physically, being mainly a reader. However, this may be incorrect as Marcus did partake in various sports such as boxing, with the assumption of Marcus being inactive due to his frail body in later life.
The most documented relationship Marcus held was with rhetorician Fronto who taught Marcus the art of rhetoric and ‘spin’. Unfortunately, and greatly to Fronto’s annoyance, Marcus would ultimately ditch rhetoric in exchange for his philosophical interests. Fronto would not take this lightly, and did attempt to show resistance and contempt for Marcus’s decision. This was in vain, however, and Marcus would largely abandon this study. Fronto’s letters however provide a valuable source as the two continue to write to each other throughout their lives. Lynn spends considerable time voicing personal criticism of Fronto, calling him an extreme hypochondriac, and that he used his letters to Marcus as a medium to voice his various ills, aches and pains constantly. Even when Marcus complained of his own pains, Fronto always attempted to one-up Marcus. That being said, the two continued their correspondence, at least intermittently, until Fronto’s death. As per with ancient history, the human element and dynamic paints to life much of the drier storytelling, however Lynn’s personal dislike of his subjects is extremely apparent here and pulls down the text as a result.
Lynn tries to balance Marcus’s legacy by emphasising that he inherited a troublesome throne and that Rome was embroiled in trouble from the very beginning. Therefore, whilst Roman life was in jeopardy throughout Marcus’s reign, this wasn’t necessarily his fault. Lynn pins the ultimate problem of the Romans as being their conservatism, and the fact that the Romans would not reform their system regardless of the changes within society. I believe Lynn takes this approach to try and find a “catch-all” approach to the decline of Roman society, as he points out that scholars have a phenomenal and exhausting list of reasons for the Roman Empires decline. One author, in particular, gives 800 reasons for the fall of Rome. Therefore, Lynn just calls it an overall failure of the system and that the Romans never sought to reform. Even Marcus’s reign adhered to the conservative stance on the empire, which was required to appease contemporary political populism.
One of the biggest problems of the Empire during Marcus’s reign was the shortage of manpower. The plague wreaked havoc across Rome, and Roman scientists were unaware of its spread through mosquitos. The effects of this plague cannot be understated, as Romans would suffer a drawn out and painful death in little over a week following infection, with no effective and consistent cures. There was a further catalyst to this crisis in the form of the Parthian and Germanic wars. These wars naturally demanded huge levels of manpower to be taken out of Rome, compounding the issue. Therefore, it is no wonder that Marcus would strike a deal with the Germanic Quadi tribe, in which he offered them citizenship in Rome in exchange for them to move into the empire and abandon their previous culture – a trade which is more commonly viewed as an instrumental tactic in expanding the Roman empire and preventing war on multiple fronts. Much of the book is weighed in these military matters, but the text is also complicated, rather unengaging and hard to follow due to it being overly descriptive in geography.
Lynn despairs that Marcus’ reign was so filled with military conflicts, detracting from Marcus’s philosophical pursuits. Marcus’s first problem would come from the Parthian Empire. The history of the Parthian empire can be difficult to document as education was predominantly taught orally. The Roman-Parthian conflict was nothing new, stemming from earlier conflicts in which the Romans crushed the Parthians. However, a new conflict emerged as the Roman frontiers, which would be swiftly attended to by Marcus and his co-emperor, Lucius Verus.
Marcus had initially assigned his co-emperor to deal with the Parthian threat. However, Lynn views Verus was a man of extreme hedonism, and was more concerned with pleasure than state duties. After being sent to the frontier, Lucius Verus sought to pursue recreational hunting, rather than attend to the conflict at hand. Luckily, Verus had some outstanding Roman generals, and the Parthian’s were crushed. Verus, rather disingenuously, employed the services of none other than Fronto to write an official chronicle of the Parthians defeat at the hands of the Romans. These letters to Fronto are insightful to the historian, as they show the clear employment of bias in the ancient chronicling. Lucius Verus was, therefore, awarded numerous titles and celebratory coinage to celebrate his victory. Instead of an extensive appendix by Lynn detailing his personal dislike of Marcus’s stoicism at the end of the book, a breakdown on sources like this would have been much more useful and engaging.
Whilst Lynn’s tackling of stoicism is disappointing and based on his own personal dislike of the philosophy, one of the book’s strengths is its description of the early spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire. The Romans persecuted Christians, however there seems to be a lack of a codified rule set towards prosecuting these heretics. This is seen in one of the earliest historical sources, a letter by Pliny the Younger. The letter, dating from 49 A.D, writes that Christianity was spreading and that the author was unsure of what course of action to take. The appeal of Christianity to the Romans was that it offered an afterlife, whilst stoicism merely taught those to accept death. Christianity was a threat as it represented a strike against the status quo. If the Romans began to accept a new religion, different from the Olympian Gods which they were formally taught, then this was seen as possibly leading the public into questioning other areas of the Roman regime. Lynn calls Christianity a feminist religion, as woman were the predominant demographic which spread the word of Christ, which was one of my favourite aspects covered in the book. Lynn believes some historians have been unable to come to terms with the fact that Marcus Aurelius did prosecute Christians, and often severely. This was keeping true to the form of his predecessors, and Lynn recounts many graphic tales of Christians being slaughtered for their beliefs.
Overall, the scale of Lynn’s scholarship is fantastic and it’s clear the author has read widely about his subject. When Lynn remains at a distance, his writing is fantastic, clear, objective, insightful and beautifully detailed. When Lynn brings his own personal dislikes on elements of Roman society into the fray, they serve little purpose and end-goal.
Hadrian is portrayed, like much of the Roman emperors in Lynn’s mind, as a sociopath. Hadrian believed himself to be an academic genius amongst men, being a supposed expert in trailblazing ‘flavour of the day’ Roman disciplines such as astronomy. Due to his position as emperor, he was not dare questioned, and thus Roman scholars merely bowed to his absurd academic propositions. Hadrian was a very proactive emperor, who can at least be said to have committed himself fully to the Roman cause in Lynn’s. Essentially, he was merely “bad” compared to some of the “horrific” emperors who reigned in ancient Rome. This context is, again, super useful set-up by Lynn as it gets the reader more accustomed to both the authority of Roman emperors and the potential dynamics between their subjects.
Marcus’s father, Antonius, is also explored. Known as Antonius “Pious”, his name derives from his close-working relationship with the senate: He consulted the senate frequently and would ask for permission (such as when withdrawing state funds) even if permission was not really required. Antonius was a strict conservative, like his peers, but did make it illegal to kill a slave for no good reason. What a guy. Similarly, any trials slaves would have to attend would be conducted in the same area as the crime, but not in the slave master’s property. This was to stop slave masters letting their subjects free or influencing the proceedings in any way. Many reviewers have written that Lynn appears to have a personal dislike of many of the subjects he writes about, which is definitely correct, but Antonius does seem an exception to the rule.
With the composition of society and his key paternal figures discussed, Lynn begins to discuss the life of Marcus Aurelius and there’s some interesting Roman concepts of upbringing discussed. Born in 121 A.D, Marcus was withdrawn from his parents immediately, and put into the care of a nurse. Lynn’s exploration of this tradition is insightful, explaining that this was usual practice for the Romans, who would give up their baby immediately to a nurse until the age of three. This was due to the high rates of child death, and as a result parents would seek to avoid the emotional torment of losing a child by handing them over to a nurse. ensuring they would not have enough time with their child to build a relationship. Marcus’s bringing was intense, having numerous professors teach him the basic academic arts such as language, rhetoric and philosophy. Scholars had previously assumed that Marcus lived an inactive childhood physically, being mainly a reader. However, this may be incorrect as Marcus did partake in various sports such as boxing, with the assumption of Marcus being inactive due to his frail body in later life.
The most documented relationship Marcus held was with rhetorician Fronto who taught Marcus the art of rhetoric and ‘spin’. Unfortunately, and greatly to Fronto’s annoyance, Marcus would ultimately ditch rhetoric in exchange for his philosophical interests. Fronto would not take this lightly, and did attempt to show resistance and contempt for Marcus’s decision. This was in vain, however, and Marcus would largely abandon this study. Fronto’s letters however provide a valuable source as the two continue to write to each other throughout their lives. Lynn spends considerable time voicing personal criticism of Fronto, calling him an extreme hypochondriac, and that he used his letters to Marcus as a medium to voice his various ills, aches and pains constantly. Even when Marcus complained of his own pains, Fronto always attempted to one-up Marcus. That being said, the two continued their correspondence, at least intermittently, until Fronto’s death. As per with ancient history, the human element and dynamic paints to life much of the drier storytelling, however Lynn’s personal dislike of his subjects is extremely apparent here and pulls down the text as a result.
Lynn tries to balance Marcus’s legacy by emphasising that he inherited a troublesome throne and that Rome was embroiled in trouble from the very beginning. Therefore, whilst Roman life was in jeopardy throughout Marcus’s reign, this wasn’t necessarily his fault. Lynn pins the ultimate problem of the Romans as being their conservatism, and the fact that the Romans would not reform their system regardless of the changes within society. I believe Lynn takes this approach to try and find a “catch-all” approach to the decline of Roman society, as he points out that scholars have a phenomenal and exhausting list of reasons for the Roman Empires decline. One author, in particular, gives 800 reasons for the fall of Rome. Therefore, Lynn just calls it an overall failure of the system and that the Romans never sought to reform. Even Marcus’s reign adhered to the conservative stance on the empire, which was required to appease contemporary political populism.
One of the biggest problems of the Empire during Marcus’s reign was the shortage of manpower. The plague wreaked havoc across Rome, and Roman scientists were unaware of its spread through mosquitos. The effects of this plague cannot be understated, as Romans would suffer a drawn out and painful death in little over a week following infection, with no effective and consistent cures. There was a further catalyst to this crisis in the form of the Parthian and Germanic wars. These wars naturally demanded huge levels of manpower to be taken out of Rome, compounding the issue. Therefore, it is no wonder that Marcus would strike a deal with the Germanic Quadi tribe, in which he offered them citizenship in Rome in exchange for them to move into the empire and abandon their previous culture – a trade which is more commonly viewed as an instrumental tactic in expanding the Roman empire and preventing war on multiple fronts. Much of the book is weighed in these military matters, but the text is also complicated, rather unengaging and hard to follow due to it being overly descriptive in geography.
Lynn despairs that Marcus’ reign was so filled with military conflicts, detracting from Marcus’s philosophical pursuits. Marcus’s first problem would come from the Parthian Empire. The history of the Parthian empire can be difficult to document as education was predominantly taught orally. The Roman-Parthian conflict was nothing new, stemming from earlier conflicts in which the Romans crushed the Parthians. However, a new conflict emerged as the Roman frontiers, which would be swiftly attended to by Marcus and his co-emperor, Lucius Verus.
Marcus had initially assigned his co-emperor to deal with the Parthian threat. However, Lynn views Verus was a man of extreme hedonism, and was more concerned with pleasure than state duties. After being sent to the frontier, Lucius Verus sought to pursue recreational hunting, rather than attend to the conflict at hand. Luckily, Verus had some outstanding Roman generals, and the Parthian’s were crushed. Verus, rather disingenuously, employed the services of none other than Fronto to write an official chronicle of the Parthians defeat at the hands of the Romans. These letters to Fronto are insightful to the historian, as they show the clear employment of bias in the ancient chronicling. Lucius Verus was, therefore, awarded numerous titles and celebratory coinage to celebrate his victory. Instead of an extensive appendix by Lynn detailing his personal dislike of Marcus’s stoicism at the end of the book, a breakdown on sources like this would have been much more useful and engaging.
Whilst Lynn’s tackling of stoicism is disappointing and based on his own personal dislike of the philosophy, one of the book’s strengths is its description of the early spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire. The Romans persecuted Christians, however there seems to be a lack of a codified rule set towards prosecuting these heretics. This is seen in one of the earliest historical sources, a letter by Pliny the Younger. The letter, dating from 49 A.D, writes that Christianity was spreading and that the author was unsure of what course of action to take. The appeal of Christianity to the Romans was that it offered an afterlife, whilst stoicism merely taught those to accept death. Christianity was a threat as it represented a strike against the status quo. If the Romans began to accept a new religion, different from the Olympian Gods which they were formally taught, then this was seen as possibly leading the public into questioning other areas of the Roman regime. Lynn calls Christianity a feminist religion, as woman were the predominant demographic which spread the word of Christ, which was one of my favourite aspects covered in the book. Lynn believes some historians have been unable to come to terms with the fact that Marcus Aurelius did prosecute Christians, and often severely. This was keeping true to the form of his predecessors, and Lynn recounts many graphic tales of Christians being slaughtered for their beliefs.
Overall, the scale of Lynn’s scholarship is fantastic and it’s clear the author has read widely about his subject. When Lynn remains at a distance, his writing is fantastic, clear, objective, insightful and beautifully detailed. When Lynn brings his own personal dislikes on elements of Roman society into the fray, they serve little purpose and end-goal.
June 11, 2010
Plato, in his "Republic," spoke of the value of the philosopher-king, arguing that that government would be best which was headed by philosophers, who understood "truth." If so, then Marcus Aurelius should have been one of the great rulers of his era. This book explores, in considerable detail and with a broad scope, his philosophy, his life, and his rule.
He was designated as a future ruler by Hadrian, to follow what was expected to be a short reign by Antoninus Pius (who was rather elderly when he took the throne)--who, however, lived quite some time. Thus, Marcus Aurelius became emperor (actually, co-emperor) at an age older than otherwise expected.
The book is good at providing context. At the outset, McLynn notes the importance of this work (Page xi): ". . .the only voice that still seems to have contemporary relevance is that of the man who ruled the Roman empire from 161-180 AD." He also observes that (Page 9): "We continue to use the tag 'Marcus Aurelius' for a ruler who is wise." Then, he discusses the Roman economy (including the role of slaves, which was not altogether positive in its impact on the economy) and government. Given the importance of the emperor Hadrian, the book spends some time discussing his rule and the effects of his exercise of power. Hadrian was a hard person, willing to "take out" those whom he thought might endanger his rule. McLynn refers to him as a "very dark character." Indeed, one characteristic of this volume, and one that sometimes becomes obtrusive, is his running commentary and highly judgmental comments in the middle of his narrative. Personally, I would have preferred his analysis to come at the end. On the other hand, the reader as always aware of the author's perspective, and that has its own merit.
The childhood and early adulthood of Marcus Aurelius is well described, including his education, his belief in Stoicism, and his experience with the world of Roman politics. Hadrian designated Marcus to become emperor, and the volume describes the logic nicely. Under the emperorship of Antoninus, Marcus was kept in Rome, involved in administrative tasks. He was never really trained or developed any experience with respect to war and command of the Roman legions. Thus, he had to learn while doing later on (although he did reasonably well in command of his forces, generally good generals to assist him. We learn of his family life and of his son, the horrific Commodus, one of the most wretched of emperors (well described in the text). Indeed, some judge Marcus Aurelius negatively for having such faith in a son who turned out so vilely.
Upon his accession (with a mediocrity as co-emperor), Marcus set about the task of keeping the empire on solid footing. There were many challenges. The economy was beginning to creak, and this he stage for future deterioration. His effort to link philosophy with rule is touched on, showing the great challenges facing a philosopher who would be king. He did not like the spectacles of Rome, but had to fund them to keep the people happy, for instance. War fi8nally broke out to the north and east, and he performed pretty well as commander-in-chief--against the Germans and others who wished to break free from Roman rule.
McLynn sometimes seems to wander back and forth in judgment of Marcus' rule. Sometimes, he seems to note that he never lived up to his promise; at other times he observes that he did about as well as anyone could, given the emerging problems of the empire. The last chapter does a very solid job of putting Marcus Aurelius in a larger context.
All in all, if one be interested in Marcus Aurelius the person, the philosopher, and the emperor, this book would be well worth reading. . . .
He was designated as a future ruler by Hadrian, to follow what was expected to be a short reign by Antoninus Pius (who was rather elderly when he took the throne)--who, however, lived quite some time. Thus, Marcus Aurelius became emperor (actually, co-emperor) at an age older than otherwise expected.
The book is good at providing context. At the outset, McLynn notes the importance of this work (Page xi): ". . .the only voice that still seems to have contemporary relevance is that of the man who ruled the Roman empire from 161-180 AD." He also observes that (Page 9): "We continue to use the tag 'Marcus Aurelius' for a ruler who is wise." Then, he discusses the Roman economy (including the role of slaves, which was not altogether positive in its impact on the economy) and government. Given the importance of the emperor Hadrian, the book spends some time discussing his rule and the effects of his exercise of power. Hadrian was a hard person, willing to "take out" those whom he thought might endanger his rule. McLynn refers to him as a "very dark character." Indeed, one characteristic of this volume, and one that sometimes becomes obtrusive, is his running commentary and highly judgmental comments in the middle of his narrative. Personally, I would have preferred his analysis to come at the end. On the other hand, the reader as always aware of the author's perspective, and that has its own merit.
The childhood and early adulthood of Marcus Aurelius is well described, including his education, his belief in Stoicism, and his experience with the world of Roman politics. Hadrian designated Marcus to become emperor, and the volume describes the logic nicely. Under the emperorship of Antoninus, Marcus was kept in Rome, involved in administrative tasks. He was never really trained or developed any experience with respect to war and command of the Roman legions. Thus, he had to learn while doing later on (although he did reasonably well in command of his forces, generally good generals to assist him. We learn of his family life and of his son, the horrific Commodus, one of the most wretched of emperors (well described in the text). Indeed, some judge Marcus Aurelius negatively for having such faith in a son who turned out so vilely.
Upon his accession (with a mediocrity as co-emperor), Marcus set about the task of keeping the empire on solid footing. There were many challenges. The economy was beginning to creak, and this he stage for future deterioration. His effort to link philosophy with rule is touched on, showing the great challenges facing a philosopher who would be king. He did not like the spectacles of Rome, but had to fund them to keep the people happy, for instance. War fi8nally broke out to the north and east, and he performed pretty well as commander-in-chief--against the Germans and others who wished to break free from Roman rule.
McLynn sometimes seems to wander back and forth in judgment of Marcus' rule. Sometimes, he seems to note that he never lived up to his promise; at other times he observes that he did about as well as anyone could, given the emerging problems of the empire. The last chapter does a very solid job of putting Marcus Aurelius in a larger context.
All in all, if one be interested in Marcus Aurelius the person, the philosopher, and the emperor, this book would be well worth reading. . . .
August 29, 2023
Very disappointing attempt at a biography.
I'd been looking forward to finally reading this book for a long time, and I'm sad to say I've given up. I can deal with dry books, I can deal with rambling books. I can't deal with Frank McLynn. I didn't finish this one.
Marcus Aurelius was a man who lived a difficult life, filled with loss, challenge, and unasked for responsibility. In order to cope with this Marcus delved into Stoic philosophy and his writings on the subject are still read today by countless people who find them inspiring and comforting. So, inspired by what I read I was keen to learn more about the true philosopher emperor behind Meditations.
Frank comes barreling into this subject with all the grace of a mediocre student writing his first interminable essay on the subject. Let's break it down into three main areas:
1. Overall focus. The main message that Frank wants you to know is that Frank is smarter than Marcus. He will tell you this a lot. You see, Frank doesn't get sotic philosophy so he constantly berates it and anyone who follows it. This means he's constantly berating Marcus. Does Marcus use his philosophy to try to make peace with the deaths of his children? Well to many that sounds like a reasonable coping mechanism, and we see in his letters that he cares for his kids...but hang on, let's see what Frank thinks! Frank thinks that trying to accept death as part of life makes Marcus cruel, inhuman, and unfeeling! Thanks for that Frank. There's a lot of Frank's opinions on Marcus's philosophy. Entire chapters of it. None of it is worth reading.
2. The actual narrative of Marcus's life. This is messy at best. It feels like it's crammed around Frank's drunken rambling. Mostly and vaguely in chronological order, the book flows unsteadily from slow sections recounting his letters, to sudden info dumps, to attempts to bring Freud and Jung into all this. Oh how he likes to bring Freud and Jung into this.
3. The reliability. Eh. The author has read relevant sources but doesn't have much general knowledge of the subject, which is fair enough given that he's not a Rome specialist. This makes some of his points shaky at best. He's looked over Artemidorus's book on the interpretation of dreams and noticed that it has ways of interpreting sex dreams. This leads to two things. Firstly he gets very excited about the interpretation of dreams of sex with parents and starts rambling about Freud again. Secondly he uses this as evidence that Imperial Romans had open and permissive attitudes to sex and that by not having lots of sex outside his marriage, Marcus must have been some great hater of sex. Which is all wild. Really wild and I don't believe it's accurate at all. And this is even before we talk about the more questionable sources he uses without clear critical thought (I'm looking at you, Historia Augusta!).
Overall it wasn't worth it. Why slug through such a large book filled with opinionated rambling just to try to learn from a not-overly-reliable and shakily presented biography? Somewhere in here there's a decent biography trying to escape, but it's buried well.
Overall it's probably deserving of two stars for the glimmers of actual biography in here, the good readability when he gets to the point, and the genuinely good asides to matters such as grain supply...buuut I excitedly chose this as my holiday book and now I'm disappointed beside the fjords. And, isn't a long, opinionated, very confident, rambling review perfectly apt for this book?
I'd been looking forward to finally reading this book for a long time, and I'm sad to say I've given up. I can deal with dry books, I can deal with rambling books. I can't deal with Frank McLynn. I didn't finish this one.
Marcus Aurelius was a man who lived a difficult life, filled with loss, challenge, and unasked for responsibility. In order to cope with this Marcus delved into Stoic philosophy and his writings on the subject are still read today by countless people who find them inspiring and comforting. So, inspired by what I read I was keen to learn more about the true philosopher emperor behind Meditations.
Frank comes barreling into this subject with all the grace of a mediocre student writing his first interminable essay on the subject. Let's break it down into three main areas:
1. Overall focus. The main message that Frank wants you to know is that Frank is smarter than Marcus. He will tell you this a lot. You see, Frank doesn't get sotic philosophy so he constantly berates it and anyone who follows it. This means he's constantly berating Marcus. Does Marcus use his philosophy to try to make peace with the deaths of his children? Well to many that sounds like a reasonable coping mechanism, and we see in his letters that he cares for his kids...but hang on, let's see what Frank thinks! Frank thinks that trying to accept death as part of life makes Marcus cruel, inhuman, and unfeeling! Thanks for that Frank. There's a lot of Frank's opinions on Marcus's philosophy. Entire chapters of it. None of it is worth reading.
2. The actual narrative of Marcus's life. This is messy at best. It feels like it's crammed around Frank's drunken rambling. Mostly and vaguely in chronological order, the book flows unsteadily from slow sections recounting his letters, to sudden info dumps, to attempts to bring Freud and Jung into all this. Oh how he likes to bring Freud and Jung into this.
3. The reliability. Eh. The author has read relevant sources but doesn't have much general knowledge of the subject, which is fair enough given that he's not a Rome specialist. This makes some of his points shaky at best. He's looked over Artemidorus's book on the interpretation of dreams and noticed that it has ways of interpreting sex dreams. This leads to two things. Firstly he gets very excited about the interpretation of dreams of sex with parents and starts rambling about Freud again. Secondly he uses this as evidence that Imperial Romans had open and permissive attitudes to sex and that by not having lots of sex outside his marriage, Marcus must have been some great hater of sex. Which is all wild. Really wild and I don't believe it's accurate at all. And this is even before we talk about the more questionable sources he uses without clear critical thought (I'm looking at you, Historia Augusta!).
Overall it wasn't worth it. Why slug through such a large book filled with opinionated rambling just to try to learn from a not-overly-reliable and shakily presented biography? Somewhere in here there's a decent biography trying to escape, but it's buried well.
Overall it's probably deserving of two stars for the glimmers of actual biography in here, the good readability when he gets to the point, and the genuinely good asides to matters such as grain supply...buuut I excitedly chose this as my holiday book and now I'm disappointed beside the fjords. And, isn't a long, opinionated, very confident, rambling review perfectly apt for this book?
February 11, 2012
Beautifully written biography of one of the most interesting Roman emperors. A contradictory figure, both philosofer, statesman and warrior. Interestingly, the best light to be shed on Marcus Aurelius in this work is found when reading about his son Commodus, his successor as emperor and a total and utter failure at the job! These last 50 or so pages make Marcus really shine as maybe the best Roman emperor there has been.
As an almost final afterthought (I would have preferred the chapter as an introduction), McLynn describes 'the decline and fall of the Roman empire' and places Marcus Aurelius in this perspective and his inability to right the symptomatic wrongs of the empire (failing economy, falling population, endemic banditry and the way the army took the empire hostage).
A lot of space is devoted to his stoistic way of thinking and the way it has influenced his rule. Interestingly that was almost the undoing of christianity and how history would have changed had Marcus Aurelius suppressed the christians even more than he passively did!
What is also enlightning, is the way you get to see the great balancing act any emperor had to perform, balancing between the roman elite and the plebs, between war on foreign enemies and bribing them into peacefull co-existance with the empire. Great read and heartily recommended
As an almost final afterthought (I would have preferred the chapter as an introduction), McLynn describes 'the decline and fall of the Roman empire' and places Marcus Aurelius in this perspective and his inability to right the symptomatic wrongs of the empire (failing economy, falling population, endemic banditry and the way the army took the empire hostage).
A lot of space is devoted to his stoistic way of thinking and the way it has influenced his rule. Interestingly that was almost the undoing of christianity and how history would have changed had Marcus Aurelius suppressed the christians even more than he passively did!
What is also enlightning, is the way you get to see the great balancing act any emperor had to perform, balancing between the roman elite and the plebs, between war on foreign enemies and bribing them into peacefull co-existance with the empire. Great read and heartily recommended
September 7, 2009
A fairly balanced look at the life of Marcus Aurelius, McLynn seeks not condemnation nor encomium of Aurelius, but rather explanation. The book does a fairly good job of that, though at times it does have the character of a farrago, for it launches off from the biography of Aurelius (and his predecessor Antoninus, co-emperor Verus, and later co-emperor/successor Commodus) into lengthy essays on Roman economics, social structure, military history, etc. Still, I heartily recommend the book to classicists, philosophers, and anyone else interested in Marcus Aurelius!
May 12, 2025
An interesting history of the ‘meditating’ emperor. It is difficult to call this a biography per se, as not an enormous amount of evidence survives for any ancient emperor, (though more for Marcus than most others). Aurelius still appears to me to be an enigma, the last of the supposed ‘good’ emperors. The book surveys the available data, and posits some of the opinions of his rule, particularly his own persecution of Christians which seems at variance with his supposedly liberal meditations. An emperor who seems to advocate peace, but who spent most of his reign at war. This very long book shows the enigma, but does not pretend to know the solution. Perhaps, simply, Marcus has been feted too much by later generations, the mistaken hagiography by later liberal republicans and democrats.
The book deals much with the pre-history of Aurelius’ rule and also of the military conflicts long before his birth that involved him in his own conflicts. Also over a quarter of the book deals with his successor, Commodus, and the possible influence of his Stoic philosophy on later thinkers. In many ways, the author triggers questions about Marcus’ life, sometimes unintentionally, which are not answered, and indeed cannot be answered by available evidence. One can only await further archeological discoveries. Perhaps the digging of the new Rome metro line will dig up something new about Aurelius and his clan, as it has for his predecessor, Hadrian.
The book deals much with the pre-history of Aurelius’ rule and also of the military conflicts long before his birth that involved him in his own conflicts. Also over a quarter of the book deals with his successor, Commodus, and the possible influence of his Stoic philosophy on later thinkers. In many ways, the author triggers questions about Marcus’ life, sometimes unintentionally, which are not answered, and indeed cannot be answered by available evidence. One can only await further archeological discoveries. Perhaps the digging of the new Rome metro line will dig up something new about Aurelius and his clan, as it has for his predecessor, Hadrian.
January 21, 2023
Marcus Aurelius was, in a word, a BEAST. And that's exactly how I'd describe this book. When I first ordered it on Amazon I didn't bother to check how long it was. I was thus overwhelmed by the almost biblically dense tome arriving on my doorstep. But alas, I can't have my 4 Goodreads followers think of me a man who starts something without finishing it, so here we are. My thoughts on the book are mixed, on one hand the amount of detail is mind-numbing and truly allows for a look not only into the times Marcus Aurelius found himself but into the man's unique psychology. McLynn does an excellent job of highlighting the philosopher king's admirable attributes without falling prey to an idyllic revisionist history account of the emperor. On the other hand, it was almost too much detail. For example he spends two whole chapters on the persecution of christians endemic to the second century AD. The intention being to illustrate the phenomenon's relevance for Aurelius's reign. As far as I'm concerned, one chapter would have sufficed. That and the authors constant interjection of his own opinions definitely took me out of the book at times. At any rate, it's a brilliantly researched account if nothing else. Realistically I'd give it a 3.5 but I don't think Goodreads lets you do that.
September 26, 2016
Thanks to the historical fiction of Ben Kane, who writes so vividly about Roman times, I’ve developed more of an interest in history than I ever had in school. However, it was the film “Gladiator” that first sparked my interest in that era, as I’m sure it did with many people, so when a biography of the emperor depicted in that film, Marcus Aurelius, became available to me, I thought I would give it a try. As it turns out, whilst truth may be stranger than fiction, fiction makes for a better read.
The film gives very little about Marcus Aurelius that you will find from this book, other than that his son, Commodus, apparently did enjoy fighting in the gladiatorial arena and that Rome was fighting in Germany during his reign. Marcus Aurelius turned out to be far greater a man than a supporting role in a Hollywood blockbuster would suggest. As the subtitle of the book suggests, he wasn’t just an emperor and warrior, he was also a philosopher. He wrote “Meditations”, which were thoughts on life based around his Stoic philosophy.
Frank McLynn goes into Marcus’ life in great detail, covering all aspects of it. He starts with Marcus’ early years and the education that was arranged for him, as he was marked out as a potential emperor from a relatively young age. There are sections on philosophy in general and Stoic philosophy in particular as well as how Marcus took sections from it for his own. There are parts on the wars that were undertaken under Marcus’ predecessor and under Marcus himself and also about life under his successor Commodus and his approach to being emperor. There is also a long section about Christianity at the time and how the Christians were persecuted under Marcus’ reign.
The problem with this book is not the subject, who appears to have lived a varied life, albeit from fairly protected beginnings, but the author. It seems as if, having spent so much time doing research into the topic, he feels he should be rewarded by being the star of the piece and wanting to prove himself at least as intelligent as his subject and many of those whose works he has used as part of his research. I also felt at many points that McLynn didn’t want a single thing he had discovered to go to waste, with the result being that there is a lot of extraneous information presented in a very difficult to understand way.
I found reading this book a highly frustrating process in many ways. It was over researched in the sense that there were long segments on Christian persecution, Stoic philosophy and Commodus’ reign as emperor that seemed to have no relation to Marcus Aurelius at all, other than that parts of them happened in his lifetime. There seemed to be three or four chapters that could have been cut out entirely or should have at least been clearer about how Marcus Aurelius was involved as the relevance to this book either becomes obvious only very late on, or never becomes entirely clear.
McLynn also seems to want to think himself better than the reader and other writers. He is frequently dismissive of other writers and provides huge amounts of personal opinion, not just on what Marcus believed, but what other writers have stated. He frequently uses very harsh language to dismiss other writers, referring to their views as “absurd”, ludicrous” and that a point could be “unhesitatingly dismissed as nonsense” and often states his views as being “obvious”. He used several long quotes which achieved little other than to prove his point about another writer, but says little about his subject and, having called a point made by someone else myopic, he then uses it to make a point of his own.
Despite all the research that has gone into this book, he repeats himself on a couple of occasions. There were a couple of points he made in exactly the same way in almost exactly the same words. Amusingly, he later on refers to critics who accused Marcus of using endless repetition to say something about endless repetition. From what I can see of the author, I suspect the irony may be somewhat lost on him.
The other major problem I found with the book was that it was very difficult to read. McLynn likes using long and less commonly used words, which was a little awkward when you have to keep stopping to look words up. I realise that my vocabulary may not be the best, but I’ve never had to look up nearly as many words in a single book as I have done here. This interrupts any flow and this is made worse by not being presented in a strict chronological order, making information difficult to glean, as there is no obvious way of knowing where in the book it is likely to be located.
The result is a book that fails on a number of levels. It’s not much use as a textbook as it is tough to use as a research guide, due to the difficulty in finding information, the frequent irrelevancies and the amount of the author’s personal opinion on show. It’s no use as a book to be read, as the language and tone used mean it’s impossible to settle into it as a book to read for pleasure. However, the style of the book does suggest it may work well as a lecture and I wonder if this is a book that may actually work better as an audiobook than as a print copy.
Sadly, this isn’t a format the book is available in, so you’re stuck with a print copy, the prices of which suggest textbook prices for a book that isn’t entirely successful at being a textbook. The level of research is indeed impressive and the subject of the book is fascinating enough to be worthy of a book like this, but I cannot recommend this book by this author as he does not allow the subject to shine through. I finished the book without a greatly changed opinion about Marcus Aurelius, but knowing I was not a fan of Frank McLynn, when I would hope that the main aim of a biographer should be for the reverse to be true.
The film gives very little about Marcus Aurelius that you will find from this book, other than that his son, Commodus, apparently did enjoy fighting in the gladiatorial arena and that Rome was fighting in Germany during his reign. Marcus Aurelius turned out to be far greater a man than a supporting role in a Hollywood blockbuster would suggest. As the subtitle of the book suggests, he wasn’t just an emperor and warrior, he was also a philosopher. He wrote “Meditations”, which were thoughts on life based around his Stoic philosophy.
Frank McLynn goes into Marcus’ life in great detail, covering all aspects of it. He starts with Marcus’ early years and the education that was arranged for him, as he was marked out as a potential emperor from a relatively young age. There are sections on philosophy in general and Stoic philosophy in particular as well as how Marcus took sections from it for his own. There are parts on the wars that were undertaken under Marcus’ predecessor and under Marcus himself and also about life under his successor Commodus and his approach to being emperor. There is also a long section about Christianity at the time and how the Christians were persecuted under Marcus’ reign.
The problem with this book is not the subject, who appears to have lived a varied life, albeit from fairly protected beginnings, but the author. It seems as if, having spent so much time doing research into the topic, he feels he should be rewarded by being the star of the piece and wanting to prove himself at least as intelligent as his subject and many of those whose works he has used as part of his research. I also felt at many points that McLynn didn’t want a single thing he had discovered to go to waste, with the result being that there is a lot of extraneous information presented in a very difficult to understand way.
I found reading this book a highly frustrating process in many ways. It was over researched in the sense that there were long segments on Christian persecution, Stoic philosophy and Commodus’ reign as emperor that seemed to have no relation to Marcus Aurelius at all, other than that parts of them happened in his lifetime. There seemed to be three or four chapters that could have been cut out entirely or should have at least been clearer about how Marcus Aurelius was involved as the relevance to this book either becomes obvious only very late on, or never becomes entirely clear.
McLynn also seems to want to think himself better than the reader and other writers. He is frequently dismissive of other writers and provides huge amounts of personal opinion, not just on what Marcus believed, but what other writers have stated. He frequently uses very harsh language to dismiss other writers, referring to their views as “absurd”, ludicrous” and that a point could be “unhesitatingly dismissed as nonsense” and often states his views as being “obvious”. He used several long quotes which achieved little other than to prove his point about another writer, but says little about his subject and, having called a point made by someone else myopic, he then uses it to make a point of his own.
Despite all the research that has gone into this book, he repeats himself on a couple of occasions. There were a couple of points he made in exactly the same way in almost exactly the same words. Amusingly, he later on refers to critics who accused Marcus of using endless repetition to say something about endless repetition. From what I can see of the author, I suspect the irony may be somewhat lost on him.
The other major problem I found with the book was that it was very difficult to read. McLynn likes using long and less commonly used words, which was a little awkward when you have to keep stopping to look words up. I realise that my vocabulary may not be the best, but I’ve never had to look up nearly as many words in a single book as I have done here. This interrupts any flow and this is made worse by not being presented in a strict chronological order, making information difficult to glean, as there is no obvious way of knowing where in the book it is likely to be located.
The result is a book that fails on a number of levels. It’s not much use as a textbook as it is tough to use as a research guide, due to the difficulty in finding information, the frequent irrelevancies and the amount of the author’s personal opinion on show. It’s no use as a book to be read, as the language and tone used mean it’s impossible to settle into it as a book to read for pleasure. However, the style of the book does suggest it may work well as a lecture and I wonder if this is a book that may actually work better as an audiobook than as a print copy.
Sadly, this isn’t a format the book is available in, so you’re stuck with a print copy, the prices of which suggest textbook prices for a book that isn’t entirely successful at being a textbook. The level of research is indeed impressive and the subject of the book is fascinating enough to be worthy of a book like this, but I cannot recommend this book by this author as he does not allow the subject to shine through. I finished the book without a greatly changed opinion about Marcus Aurelius, but knowing I was not a fan of Frank McLynn, when I would hope that the main aim of a biographer should be for the reverse to be true.
February 17, 2019
Very massive, almost 600 page long. Often times derailed into subjects not necessarily very relevant. But if you are history buff who wants to know Aurelius' Rome context, and has the stamina, you might enjoy it.
November 16, 2023
This should have been two books: (1) a book about the Meditations and their influences and impact and (2) a biography of Marcus Aurelius. It's a bit disconcerting to read the two mixed together.
August 3, 2014
What it lacks in editing, it makes up in quantity. The references alone account for more than 100 pages of the book's length! McLynn is certainly a well read guy but one gets the sense he tried harder to demonstrate how well read he is than to form a coherent whole of this work. One particular issue I had with this book is the lack of apparent structure. While generally chronological, McLynn often jumps around between topics and through time. The reader will not find any useful chapter names or section headers to help structure the biographical account. As the author jumps around, it often appeared he himself did not know where he was going with the bits of information he was writing. It reads in sections like a data dump of sorts. There are large swaths of text and quotes that do not seem to serve a purpose other than filling up pages. This characteristic of the content reaches its zenith in McLynn's rambling critique of Stoicism halfway through the book which may very well have been written in an all night cram writing session.
More frustrating are his opinions he feels do not require rigorous logic or evidence to support. Around pg. 250, I very nearly gave up on this book. So acerbic are his opinions on Marcus's Stoic beliefs that one is astonished this was written by a historian with over 20 published books. I would have enjoyed a well formulated critique of Marcus's stoicism, but what McLynn presents here is little more than school yard name calling.
While sprinkled throughout with very interesting information and perspective about Marcus, the book is undermined by what appears to be a lack of editor input. A really excellent biography is buried here under issues that could've been remedied by some editorial trimming. One would hope someone must've told the author to organize the content better, eliminate the unnecessarily lengthy (and unseemly) opinionated sections, and try to formulate a more coherent whole before publication, but it does not appear that actually happened here.
One of the more startling problems seems to be ethically questionable issues with the references. In multiple places I noticed where, in making some particular claim, the author actually references one of his own books! This would not necessarily be an issue if he were referencing work published in a peer-reviewed journal, but in this case they appear to be books which likely did not go through such a process. In other places, he references works that are either in a different time period or place to support an argument about Marcus.
In the end, I do feel more informed about Marcus's life but am left wondering to what degree have I been misinformed as well.
More frustrating are his opinions he feels do not require rigorous logic or evidence to support. Around pg. 250, I very nearly gave up on this book. So acerbic are his opinions on Marcus's Stoic beliefs that one is astonished this was written by a historian with over 20 published books. I would have enjoyed a well formulated critique of Marcus's stoicism, but what McLynn presents here is little more than school yard name calling.
While sprinkled throughout with very interesting information and perspective about Marcus, the book is undermined by what appears to be a lack of editor input. A really excellent biography is buried here under issues that could've been remedied by some editorial trimming. One would hope someone must've told the author to organize the content better, eliminate the unnecessarily lengthy (and unseemly) opinionated sections, and try to formulate a more coherent whole before publication, but it does not appear that actually happened here.
One of the more startling problems seems to be ethically questionable issues with the references. In multiple places I noticed where, in making some particular claim, the author actually references one of his own books! This would not necessarily be an issue if he were referencing work published in a peer-reviewed journal, but in this case they appear to be books which likely did not go through such a process. In other places, he references works that are either in a different time period or place to support an argument about Marcus.
In the end, I do feel more informed about Marcus's life but am left wondering to what degree have I been misinformed as well.
June 6, 2017
I have read a few books by Frank Mcylnn and I know what to expect from him, and my relationship with the man as a writer is already on shaky ground. He assumes many things to a great degree, he is very opinionated and not very neutral in his analysis. As a classics and history student at university I can recognize a good biographer when I see one. I can definitely say that this one will be my last of him.
A high percentage of the book thus far has not been about Marcus Aurelius to a tremendous degree. It is very enjoyable when he is the centerpiece of the chapter but McLynn does once again as he always does and goes off on tangents. I understand that there may not be extensive information known about Marcus Aurelius, and that's fine, I totally understand, but it seems to me that much of this book is filler. The book could easily have been cut in half. There is a lot of background information that is vital to understanding Marcus as a man and I enjoy those parts but I do not like how McLynn goes off for pages upon pages with Marcus nowhere to be seen. Perhaps it is just me that is noticing this, or I am being too overly critical but thus far I am terribly impressed.
To conclude, after finishing the book it was a mixed bag for me, some of it was good some of it was a slog to get through and felt as though it could have been cut in half to make it seem more concentrated. Given the others reviews I have seen on this book, this feeling does seem to be a recurring theme. I am however grateful that it did teach me a lot about Marcus as I did want to learn about him and I did do so. I will be reading Anthony Birley's Marcus Aurelius soon and will see comparatively which one I prefer, but as it stands now I do not think this will be the first book I come back to in order to refresh myself on the man, nor would I quickly recommend it to a friend.
A high percentage of the book thus far has not been about Marcus Aurelius to a tremendous degree. It is very enjoyable when he is the centerpiece of the chapter but McLynn does once again as he always does and goes off on tangents. I understand that there may not be extensive information known about Marcus Aurelius, and that's fine, I totally understand, but it seems to me that much of this book is filler. The book could easily have been cut in half. There is a lot of background information that is vital to understanding Marcus as a man and I enjoy those parts but I do not like how McLynn goes off for pages upon pages with Marcus nowhere to be seen. Perhaps it is just me that is noticing this, or I am being too overly critical but thus far I am terribly impressed.
To conclude, after finishing the book it was a mixed bag for me, some of it was good some of it was a slog to get through and felt as though it could have been cut in half to make it seem more concentrated. Given the others reviews I have seen on this book, this feeling does seem to be a recurring theme. I am however grateful that it did teach me a lot about Marcus as I did want to learn about him and I did do so. I will be reading Anthony Birley's Marcus Aurelius soon and will see comparatively which one I prefer, but as it stands now I do not think this will be the first book I come back to in order to refresh myself on the man, nor would I quickly recommend it to a friend.
April 8, 2011
This is the second McLynn book I've read, the first being 'Lionheart and Lackland'. There's no doubting that this author is consistently producing highly acclaimed historical tomes. I've also no doubt that this 2009 published 'Marcus Aurelius' must be similarly highly regarded. Approaching almost six hundred pages, this is not just a simple self contained biography of the second century Roman emperor. Mclynn looks first at Hadrians reign, to explain Marcus' adoption to emperor Antoninus Pius and also continues on after Marcus' death to include the psychotic reign of his son Commodus. In fact with Marcus on the funeral pyre, there is still another one hundred and fifty pages to go!
The 'gory' that was Rome is given a full intricate autopsy to bring the life and career of Marcus Aurelius into fine focus. Through the Mclynn lens we get a clear picture of the Aurelian administration, warts and all. His legal and financial policies, his relations with the Senate, his wars with Parthia and the German tribes, his understanding of the second century Christian sect, his contempt for Roman games and spectacles, his attitude to his family, sexuality, hedonism, his alleged addiction to opium and even his dreams go under scrutiny. As the author of The Meditations, it is Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher king, that seems incredible, in second century Rome. Not only that but he was chairman of the board for almost twenty years without serious plots, poisoning or army revolt! Treatment is given to Stoicism, Platonism, Holism, Pantheism, Epicureanism, Christianity and the Eleusinian mysteries, all very essential to understand the personality, beliefs and thoughts of the man. Hail Marcus!
The 'gory' that was Rome is given a full intricate autopsy to bring the life and career of Marcus Aurelius into fine focus. Through the Mclynn lens we get a clear picture of the Aurelian administration, warts and all. His legal and financial policies, his relations with the Senate, his wars with Parthia and the German tribes, his understanding of the second century Christian sect, his contempt for Roman games and spectacles, his attitude to his family, sexuality, hedonism, his alleged addiction to opium and even his dreams go under scrutiny. As the author of The Meditations, it is Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher king, that seems incredible, in second century Rome. Not only that but he was chairman of the board for almost twenty years without serious plots, poisoning or army revolt! Treatment is given to Stoicism, Platonism, Holism, Pantheism, Epicureanism, Christianity and the Eleusinian mysteries, all very essential to understand the personality, beliefs and thoughts of the man. Hail Marcus!
June 12, 2022
I actually read this one while I was still working. Then, when my wife got sick, I’d read it on my phone in the doctor’s office. After she passed away, I’d read it on my phone in restaurants. I even got lost and started over at least once. So, yeah, I think it’s pretty good. And, yeah, Marcus is a good guy to have around when the world looks dark and cold.
Why’d I keep reading and rereading this book? Well, I love Roman history. And it finally connected me with Marcus as a person. I’ve read “The Meditations” a couple of time, and it escaped me a little bit. I’m a big fan of Epictetus and Marcus seemed a lesser light. He was somehow a little elusive. You knew where you stood with Epictetus. (“Slave!”). Marcus wrote in his tent at night, talking to himself. Not to you.
Finally I got it. We like Epictetus because he knows all the answers. He’s the grumpy philosophy guru, stomping around the classroom stopping to wack you in the head with his walking stick. We like Marcus because he’s just as lost as the rest of us. He’s wondering what the hell is going on, and it seems that he’s found some answers, some things that help. And he’s talking to himself. He has no intention that anyone else will ever see what he’s written. He just writes in his tent at night and gets up the next day to kill some more Germans. He’s not that crazy about it, but he’s the Emperor and it’s just what he’s supposed to do. Then at night, when the camp is quiet, he goes back to it, scribbling, scribbling, searching, searching, just like the rest of us.
Why’d I keep reading and rereading this book? Well, I love Roman history. And it finally connected me with Marcus as a person. I’ve read “The Meditations” a couple of time, and it escaped me a little bit. I’m a big fan of Epictetus and Marcus seemed a lesser light. He was somehow a little elusive. You knew where you stood with Epictetus. (“Slave!”). Marcus wrote in his tent at night, talking to himself. Not to you.
Finally I got it. We like Epictetus because he knows all the answers. He’s the grumpy philosophy guru, stomping around the classroom stopping to wack you in the head with his walking stick. We like Marcus because he’s just as lost as the rest of us. He’s wondering what the hell is going on, and it seems that he’s found some answers, some things that help. And he’s talking to himself. He has no intention that anyone else will ever see what he’s written. He just writes in his tent at night and gets up the next day to kill some more Germans. He’s not that crazy about it, but he’s the Emperor and it’s just what he’s supposed to do. Then at night, when the camp is quiet, he goes back to it, scribbling, scribbling, searching, searching, just like the rest of us.
October 4, 2022
This book at times goes on tangents for entire chapters. Some tangents are excellent explorations of cultural history (Marcus and the early church is very helpful) or the politics of the times, just as many are distractions to the subject matter. The entire last chapter, 50 pages, is an evaluation and appraisal of the ways Marcus has influenced Western culture. This chapter in particular gets long in the tooth. Overall I am glad to have read this book since it has greatly helped me in my own writing projects, but it is not an example of Biography at its finest.
January 28, 2023
DNF @ Page 141
First DNF of the year, and it is such a shame that it was this one. I was really looking forward to learning more about one of my favourite historical figures. The quote from Boris Johnson on the front should have been my first warning. Unfortunately, - and ironically - there is very little on Marcus Aurelius in this biography. What made me DNF was the multiple pages without even a mention of Marcus's name. I understand that context is essential, but Frank McLynn's frequent non-sequiturs reeked of lousy editing, not good research.
I appreciate the amount of work that went into this book, but if you cannot present it to your readers in a way that feels approachable and informative, the book has failed. I think anyone without an academic background would struggle to read this. I also despised the frequent repetition. McLynn mentioned Rome's homosexuality laws in every chapter I read! Again, another marker of lousy editing. The author also seems not to understand Stoicism. It is not cold for Stoics to meditate on the death of children. It is an unfortunate reality. I do not understand why McLynn would choose to write on one of Stoicism's most significant figures when he clearly hates the philosophy. Overall, I would not recommend this book to anyone. Hopefully, I'll be able to find a more approachable study of Marcus Aurelius.
First DNF of the year, and it is such a shame that it was this one. I was really looking forward to learning more about one of my favourite historical figures. The quote from Boris Johnson on the front should have been my first warning. Unfortunately, - and ironically - there is very little on Marcus Aurelius in this biography. What made me DNF was the multiple pages without even a mention of Marcus's name. I understand that context is essential, but Frank McLynn's frequent non-sequiturs reeked of lousy editing, not good research.
I appreciate the amount of work that went into this book, but if you cannot present it to your readers in a way that feels approachable and informative, the book has failed. I think anyone without an academic background would struggle to read this. I also despised the frequent repetition. McLynn mentioned Rome's homosexuality laws in every chapter I read! Again, another marker of lousy editing. The author also seems not to understand Stoicism. It is not cold for Stoics to meditate on the death of children. It is an unfortunate reality. I do not understand why McLynn would choose to write on one of Stoicism's most significant figures when he clearly hates the philosophy. Overall, I would not recommend this book to anyone. Hopefully, I'll be able to find a more approachable study of Marcus Aurelius.
March 31, 2015
Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus*
(Roma Antiga,121 a 180,Imperador Romano)
"O homem comum é exigente com os outros; o homem superior é exigente consigo mesmo".
"Mudar de opinião e seguir quem te corrige é também o comportamento do homem livre".
"Escava dentro de ti. É lá que está a fonte do bem, e esta pode jorrar continuamente, se a escavares sempre".
"Muitas vezes erra não apenas quem faz, mas também quem deixa de fazer alguma coisa".
"Nada de desgosto, nem de desânimo; se acabas de fracassar, recomeça".
"A experiência é um troféu composto por todas as armas que nos feriram".
"Não se é menos culpado não fazendo o que se deve fazer do que fazendo o que não se deve fazer".
"A nossa vida é aquilo que os nossos pensamentos fizerem dela".
"Quanto não ganha em tranquilidade quem não se preocupa com o que o vizinho diz, faz ou pensa, mas apenas com os seus próprios actos".
"Antes o reprovamento por um génio do que um louvor de um idiota".
(Roma Antiga,121 a 180,Imperador Romano)
"O homem comum é exigente com os outros; o homem superior é exigente consigo mesmo".
"Mudar de opinião e seguir quem te corrige é também o comportamento do homem livre".
"Escava dentro de ti. É lá que está a fonte do bem, e esta pode jorrar continuamente, se a escavares sempre".
"Muitas vezes erra não apenas quem faz, mas também quem deixa de fazer alguma coisa".
"Nada de desgosto, nem de desânimo; se acabas de fracassar, recomeça".
"A experiência é um troféu composto por todas as armas que nos feriram".
"Não se é menos culpado não fazendo o que se deve fazer do que fazendo o que não se deve fazer".
"A nossa vida é aquilo que os nossos pensamentos fizerem dela".
"Quanto não ganha em tranquilidade quem não se preocupa com o que o vizinho diz, faz ou pensa, mas apenas com os seus próprios actos".
"Antes o reprovamento por um génio do que um louvor de um idiota".
July 29, 2020
This book should be re-titled to be "What I hate about Stoicism". McLynn spends entirely too much time tearing down the philosophy and injecting his own. There is much about Stoicism that appeals to me and at first I found his approach interesting. Soon however it became tiresome and eventually clouded my opinion of his book. There is much to be admired about Marcus Aurelius and if you are looking for a biography him, my suggestion would be that you look elsewhere.
February 21, 2018
Terrible biography. Author does not stay on topic, meandering from subject to subject while digressing on his digressions. It was a Repetitive and highly opinionated diatribe that was difficult to read. I do not recommend this book to anyone.
January 10, 2021
This book is full of many many facts if you are a history buff of ancient history then it will be easy to get through it I agree with others who have stated that the author gets on a topic and then goes of into many directions. Beyond that I did enjoy this book.
May 30, 2021
A magisterial treatment of Marcus as emperor, soldier, and philosopher. As with all magisterial treatments, it suffers from unrestrained digressions at times, but these are mitigated by the wealth of information provided.
July 17, 2021
This book could have been just 200 pages but the author was truly dedicated in talking about anything but Marcus Aurelius.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews