Customer Reviews

Marcus Aurelius: A Life

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Frank McLynn is an author that you either love or hate. He is very opinionated, self-satisfied, and confident in his opinions and he likes nothing better than to dismiss other author's works as being wrong. He also likes to use large words and complicated sentences. Normally that last wouldn't bother me, but I'm a fast reader and when you have to spend ages on every page since each sentence is so convoluted it becomes problematic. Not everyone will have problems with this. It encourages you to take your time so if you enjoy really savoring a book then you might prefer it this way. McLynn isn't an expert in this field. I think he likes it that way since he's written most of his books in fields he isn't an expert in. Personally, I think he feels he has something to prove but whatever it is he does research the periods he writes about well. Along the same line he also has a tendency to include comparisons to somewhat obscure historical figures that many of his readers will not recognize. It seems to fall under his desire to prove how smart he is. I'm sure that there could be another explanation for all of his writing quirks but that is the way that I interpret them.

Now onto the book. First off this is a really big book. I know that you can see that by just looking at the page numbers on this site but you don't always appreciate that till you see it. I think that each one of his books gets bigger and bigger, which is a shame since I prefer some of his shorter writings like 1066: The Year of the Three Battles. Now I'm not intimidated by a book's size but this one can be a chore. There is already an excellent biography on Marcus Aurelius by Anthony Birley which is about half the size of this one and is written by an expert in the field. Having read that I was rather curious what McLynn could say that would take up so much extra space. Would it be a more in-depth and detailed look at the era that he lived in? Would it include details about his life that Birley left out? Would it include a detailed analysis of his personality, a subject that McLynn is particularly strong at? I have to say that when it did either of those things it was a very enjoyable read, but most of the book seemed to focus on his philosophy. Now, I suppose that this is to be expected when the subject wrote his own philosophy on life down, but I'm really not interested in a discourse on philosophy and a comparison of how Aurelius matched up with later philosophers. I'm even less interested in hearing McLynn's views on philosophy as he states that several beliefs are wrong or show poor reasoning. Frankly, the reason that there are so many different philosophies out there is that every philosophy appeals to a different aspect of the human experience. There is no single philosophy that can make everybody happy. Stating that philosophical beliefs are wrong shows the most arrogant presumption I've seen in a long time. Just because you disagree with a philosophical concept doesn't make it incorrect. I certainly don't agree with all the philosophers he mentions but that doesn't mean that I'm going to call them mistaken. I know that the author is intelligent and that he presumably has a philosophy of beliefs, but he doesn't need to keep showing off the former and I couldn't care less about his opinions on the latter. As far as his analysis of Aurelius' philosophy goes this book is an utter failure. It is McLynn at his worst: uninteresting, arguing ideas of interest only to himself, and unspeakably arrogant. Quite frankly, a little of McLynn goes a long ways. When he keeps it short his works usually deliver.

So, the good news: The rest of the book is pretty good. It suffers from all of the faults I mentioned when discussing his writing style earlier, but it is also well researched and interesting. First off, his interpretation of Aurelius' personality seems pretty much spot on. His insight that a certain humorlessness can lead to difficulty handling depression seems to fit Marcus quite well. He doesn't go into quite as much annoying psychoanalysis as he did in his book on Napoleon, and the absence of such extremely questionable neuroses is very welcome. Actually, since he has the discourse on philosophy early on it leaves the rest of the book reasonably free of such annoyances. Characterizations have always been McLynn's strong point and his vivid characterizations in this book are interesting, and he expresses them quite clearly even if he is extremely blunt in his personal judgments. Some of the characterizations are odd though, such as when he refers to Hadrian as a psychopath. I don't know what information he's looking at but there is nowhere near enough data to make that sort of a statement. In "Napoleon" he stated that nearly every leader in history could be considered a psychopath which has always kind of rankled me. Even assuming a generous definition of psychopath, I wouldn't call any harsh action that they take psychotic. Leaders have to make hard decisions, but that isn't the same thing as saying that they get some sort of sick thrill out of it. The section on Marcus' life is certainly worth reading and I only wish that it wasn't preceded by such a pretentious distraction. I honestly think that the rest of this book is worth the purchase price. Still, the book can't just be divided into good and bad sections and reviewed separately, so I'm giving this book three stars as an average between them. That's probably being overly generous since the good section doesn't deserve a full five stars but the book deserves better than a two. I have a feeling that future reviewers will not be so kind, but I definitely recommend reading this if you're at all interested in the subject matter and don't mind a long slog.

Marcus Aurelius is probably one of the better known figures from antiquity, although he does not nearly have the notoriety or fame of more vivid, melodramatic figures such as Julius Caesar or Mark Antony. To most familiar with the 2nd-Century emperor, he is the embodiment of Plato's "philosopher king," an intellectual whose real passion was for the life of the mind who nonetheless devoted himself to the thankless task of ruling simply from a sense of duty.

In this biography, Frank McLynn, while plainly an admirer of his subject, nonetheless seeks to disabuse modern readers of romantic preconceptions about the last of the truly "good" emperors. He points out that, like any other human being, Aurelius was a product of his time and place and thus subject to the mores and viewpoint of that era. Despite the apparently modern, almost Zen-like views which Aurelius frequently expresses in his Meditations, his personal compilation of Stoic aphorisms, McLynn ably demonstrates how he was nonetheless a typical aristocratic Roman with rigid, hierarchical views and an unshakable faith in the rightness of Roman ways. One good example of this is the emperor's readiness to persecute anyone opposed to Roman order, specifically Christians, a fact which many modern admirers would prefer to ignore. McLynn also notes that, like all other Roman emperors, Aurelius had to be ruthless, to the point of exterminating blood kin or any other potential rival for the purple.

Even while noting these flaws, however, McLynn devotes the bulk of his biography to Aurelius's good points: his devotion to duty, his steadfast courage, so strong that he didn't lose his philosophical detachment even in the face of death. Beset with crises such as plague and barbarian incursions throughout the length of his reign, Aurelius never despaired, never gave way to weakness, stuck to his guns to the bitter end. The author concludes that, if anyone ever deserved the title of philosopher king, it was Aurelius.

For a layman with little knowledge of antiquity, this book will probably be a pretty hard slog. McLynn devotes a great deal of the biography to discussion of philosophy in the ancient world, with a particular focus on Stoicism, Aurelius's preferred doctrine (there is even a fairly lengthy appendix at the end of the book on Stoicism). When the fairly complicated politics of the early Empire is also factored in (most of which depended on complex, extensive personal relationships), this adds up to a fairly daunting prospect. Nonetheless, I recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about 2nd-Century Roman history and to fans of biography in general.

McLynn always goes to great lengths to inform himself and he has read a wide variety of source material on Aurelius. The problem is that simply researching does not make for a good history book. McLynn frquently fails to analyze the information he has discovered. Too often, he'll pluck a quote from Meditations to buttress a poorly analyzed point and move on, certain he has convinced the reader because he has a quote to back it up (even if he misses the context of that quote). He quite clearly despises Stoic philosophy and this blinds him in his argumentation and leads to simplistic analysis. McLynn was just as biased in Richard and John, where he was smitten with King Richard and this blinded him to the faults historians generally agree that Richard exhibited. In this book on Aurelius, McLynn can't get over his hatred of Marcus' philosophy and this often makes the book infuriating for an ancient historian. This is not a terrible book but I would not recommend it. The problem I see is that historians aren't going to like his analytical deficiencies and obvious bias while regular readers won't slog through 700+ pages (with long winding detours to provide background) to inform themselves. Regardless, Aurelius deserves better than this.

This book has so much background information, you sometimes forget you are reading about Marcus Aurelius.You will read about Julius Caesar`s war plans for the Parthian Empire. How Mark Anthony`s battle with the Parthian Empire, enabled Augustus to become the Emperor of Rome. Yes it was all very interesting, but just a little off track. The book ends up being much longer then necessary. The book does not have a table of contents, and the title of each chapter is blank.
The reader will end up getting all the details of Aurelius`s life. It is just going to take a while. The chapter on Emperor Commodus, was quite gripping. Commodus combines Stalin like purges of the government, with the sadistic living of a serial killer.
In the very last chapter there was a reference to Ulysses S. Grant`s Personal Memoirs, and Aurelius`s Meditations. This gives you an idea, just how far off track McLynn manages to get.
If this book was re-titled and indicated some sort of general Roman history, I would perhaps recommend it. I would recommend the reader to look elsewhere, in regards to a Marcus Aurelius biography.

I picked up this book to learn about Marcus Aurelius and Stoic philosophy. Sadly the author spent 700 pages telling an interesting story that could have been done in 200. He also does not provide maps, kinship charts, historical timelines or most importantly a graphic of Roman classes that would have been invaluable in trying to follow his run-on sentences describing kinships and casts that could have been done in one graphic that the reader could refer to.

The sad thing is there is a good story and interesting things buried in all this. You keep reading for one or two interesting bits per 5 pages of words. Who edited this mess -- or should I say DID NOT edit it? Stephen King???

I also do not think that the author liked Marcus or stoic philosophy all that much. I can see why - he made it too boring and hard to understand.

After about 150 pages I started skimming for the good bits and finished it.

Too bad it could have been a fascinating and informative book.

Frank McLynn has nothing but contempt for Stoicism, and little apparent respect for Marcus Aurelius as a thinker; after reading this book I suspected that he wrote it in order to place himself (in his own mind) above his subject in intellect and significance. I hope he enjoyed it, because I didn't. Other reviews here note that McLynn is a very self satisfied writer; he'd better be, because any reader who comes to this book with more interest in Marcus Aurelius than in Frank McLynn isn't likely to be satisfied at all. My advice, look elsewhere; read or reread Marcus Aurelius himself and your time will be much better spent.

Too lengthy? Not for this reader. I read Gibbon nearly a half century ago and enjoyed the tale. Later, I reread sections and loved the style.

Now, when I read McLynn I can enjoy the tale and his English at the same time. I marvel at McLynn's felicitous prose and his depth of knowledge. No, McLynn is not showing off, being blessed with an eidetic memory and iron pants while he amassed his knowledge, he is kind enough to share his talents with us. Thank God there are people who can synthesize their thoughts as well as he does.

Gibbon, of course, was opinionated. McLynn is far easier on the early Christians than he although he scorns stoics.

McLynn breaks from the normal historians in a telling way. Usually, when a new character enters, a brief intro is offered. Frank, instead, may wait for a chapter or two before presenting him at length. My curiosity was whetted; who was Herodes Atticus? Then McLynn develops him in the round. HA was the second century's equivalent of a Bernie Madoff and Glen Beck. What fun!

More than a biography of Marcus Aurelius, it is an exposition that Rome did not become rotten back when J. Caesar died but later, after the reign of the Antonines, the five good emperors. They weren't that good, read the dirt. Better than a gossip column. Don't ignore the footnotes that have gems interspersed throughout and the pages, too few in my opinion, will race by.

Frank McLynn is not only a historian but a raconteur.

This book is a conundrum. There is no doubt that the author has extensively researched his subject but it falls short in a number of areas. The first two hundred pages are beautifully crafted and I was learning a great deal about the life of Marcus Aurelius. Particularly touching was the well-documented interaction between Fronto, Marcus's narcissistic and hypochondriacal teacher, and Marcus via the many letters that they exchanged. This perhaps more than any other documentation gives the reader keen insight into the development of Marcus from heir apparent to emperor. We can see how Marcus, the adolescent, evolved into Marcus the emperor. The book nicely portrays the relationship between emperor Antoninin Pius, Marcus's adoptive parent, and himself. The detail that the author provides the reader is nothing short of astounding given that these events occurred nearly two thousand years ago. On the humorous side, Marcus's interaction with his co-emperor Lucius Verus, could not provide a more stark contrast between these two men. Marcus the serious, Marcus the introvert is the antithesis of his cohort who spends most of his time partying and socializing with a large coterie of artists, actors and other sycophants. This part of the book was most illuminating and entertaining, which is why I was so struck by the diametrically opposite change in the book's tenor, which started at chapter 9. For the next one hundred pages, the author seems to have left behind the notion that "Marcus Aurelius, a life" is essentially a biographical work and has instead changed course and steers the reader into a polemic concerning Stoical philosophy. Some of this is necessary since Marcus was the "philosopher emperor" who followed the tenets of Stoicism but as the author continues to rail against perceived notions of illogic and other aspects of this philosophy, the book took on more of the characteristics of an opinion piece decrying the inadequacies of Stoicism rather than explaining in layman's terms how Stoicism would have influenced Marcus's actions. Declarative statements such as "a more priggish, inhuman, killjoy, and generally repulsive doctrine would be hard to imagine, but it will be abundantly clear why the programme appealed to Marcus Aurelius" do not advance the agenda of any book which serves to elucidate and not to inculcate. In the diatribe that follows that statement, the only clear impression is that the author certainly detests the tenets of Stoicism, especially when contrasted against the beginnings of Christianity. Some of this is understandable, since it is now two thousand years later and we have the luxury of examining from our armchairs the development of one of the world's great religions but this was not known in Marcus's time. Instead, I would have preferred a careful exposition of Stoical beliefs without the obvious opinion laden suppositions.
Another detracting aspect of this book is the author's varied, if not colloquial, vocabulary that kept me scrambling to the dictionary every third page. Words such as "febrifuge, po-faced, donnybrook, biter bit, olio, catamite, etc" may well be the diction of certain academics but for those of us who hail from the great-unwashed masses these are unfamiliar terms. They serve to separate the author from the reader and are ultimately pedantic in nature.

I have to admit that I felt a bit intimidated by Frank McLynn's Marcus Aurelius: A Life. At 550+ pages, plus 100+ pages of notes, it is a hefty tome. That, and McLynn's previous book, Richard and John, was extremely interesting while also being very dry and hard to get through. And it was shorter! Still, my continuing interest in many things Roman made me decide to pick it up. Much like the previous book, McLynn made me both happy and sad that I had made that choice.

The first thing I have to say about the book is that it's extremely detailed and well-researched. There are 120-200 notes in every chapter giving the source for various passages in the book. Many of them are from Aurelius' own writings, the Meditations; still others are from the Historia Augusta, a relatively contemporary (within a couple hundred years of Marcus' life) or from various other histories written at the time. He uses letters written by Marcus to his mentor, Cornelius Fronto, and letters between Marcus and other philosophers or tutors. There is a lot of original sourcing in the book, though I don't know about the strengths of these sources, never having studied them in any great depth. The copious notes do add some authority to McLynn's writing, however.

Unlike some history books, where the notes are only important to give you the author's source, McLynn uses some of the notes to expand on the point raised in the main narrative, making it important to at least periodically glance at the notes, all of which are at the back of the book. Thankfully, they're numbered notes, or I wouldn't have bothered. I tended to have one bookmark in the notes section and one denoting where I currently was in the reading of the book.

The problem with Marcus Aurelius, however, is that it seems very bloated for what is supposed to be a biography (at least that's what the subtitle "a Life" means to me). McLynn spends a lot of time at the beginning of the book giving the reader a primer on stoicism (the main area of philosophy that Marcus espoused), going on for what seems like 100 pages about it. He does use examples of Marcus' writings as well as his debates or disagreements with other philosophers to illustrate his points, but I don't believe we need such an in-depth study of the philosophy in order to understand how Marcus thought. What's even worse is that the first appendix is even more about it!

Further to that, there are instances like Marcus' wars against the German tribes. McLynn isn't content to just give a brief overview of the history of Roman wars with these Germans to set up Marcus' actions. He gives an extremely detailed account of these wars dating back to Julius Caesar, which is about 300 years. McLynn also does this with Roman life while Marcus was growing up, giving a detailed history of Rome under Antoninus Pius (Marcus' adopted father), giving great detail about how the Roman society and economy worked and a (thankfully) briefer history of Roman interaction with (and occasional persecution of) Christianity. Basically, the book often seems like a history of Rome rather than a biography of Marcus. It doesn't help that the second appendix is an even more detailed history of Rome under Pius.

Much like Richard and John, McLynn's writing style can be hard to get through sometimes though the information he provides is extremely interesting. Paragraphs are sometimes a page long or more, the information contained within very valuable but the prose working against the reader trying to actually get through it. I found my pace through the book was plodding along, like sowing a field of grain by hand: you know the results are going to be worth it, but what a chore to actually do it.

That's ultimately why I give Marcus Aurelius a middle-of-the-road grade. The information within is fascinating stuff. I was startled when Marcus died with 100 pages still left in the main narrative, but McLynn also gives us how Marcus has affected human thought throughout the ages, even up to the modern day. He addresses the impact Marcus made, not just at the time he lived, but in future generations when his writings were rediscovered. Once I was finished with the book, I was very happy that I had made my way through it.

It's unfortunate that it has to be such a struggle to get through, because it's definitely worth the trip. Marcus was an intriguing man, with his writings sometimes contradicting the policies he put forth as emperor when the realities of Roman existence conflicted with the philosophy he tried to follow. Many loved him. Many others hated him. Sadly for the Empire, he left it in the care of his psychotic and paranoid son, and thus the Empire's downfall began.

McLynn tells you all about that, too.

Originally published on Curled Up With a Good Book © David Roy, 2009

An intense reflection on the life and challenges of arguably one of the most respected of the Roman emperors. The author gracefully moves from historian to story teller holding the reader's interest by both educating and being drawn into Marcus' world. We are given a comprehensive understanding of the social, economic, political, philosophical and theological aspects of the Roman Empire.

Interest in Marcus Aurelius can be best described by Montesquieu, "We feel a secret pleasure within ourselves in speaking of this emperor [Marcus]; we cannot read his life without experiencing a kind of tenderness. Such is the effect it produces that we have a better opinion of ourselves because we have a better opinion of men'

Matthew Arnold rates Marcus as the greatest of the Stoics: "...the sentences of Seneca are stimulating to the intellect; the sentences of Epictetus are fortifying to the character; the sentences of Marcus Aurelius fine their way to the soul"

The story begins with an examination of the Empire prior to introducing Marcus to history. Details of the daily life are offered, the principle influences driving the Roman system are addressed and the economy and political challenges are presented, all in a readable and interest capturing format.

The author supports the facts and the opinions with 100 pages of footnotes, appendices and a rich bibliography. A majority of the sources are first person correspondence between principles, formal published works of the principles, and secondary authoritative sources are relied upon.

Marcus's paramount Stoic work, Meditations, is highlighted and the context in which his musings are discussed. The author offers the range of influences upon Marcus forming his philosophy directly as teachers and mentors and indirectly in those great minds who he maintained ongoing correspondence. Furthermore, Marcus as an influence upon developing philosophic and theological thought is offered. A comprehensive summary of the Stoic tenets is provided in a appendix with commentary on those writers and thinkers who draw upon Marcus, including the irony of a point by point comparison between the paragon of Christian thought Thomas a' Kempis in his Imitation of Christ and Meditations. Stoicism is found to be lacking in applicability to contemporary thinking. The author concludes that stoicism "... denies human nature by recommending what most sane people would regard as chimerical: braving torture, mocking death, conquering sexual passions. It subscribes to the dreadful doctrine that if someone surfers misfortune, he himself is responsible."