Marcus Aurelius: Warrior, Philosopher, Emperor [Paperback]

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's 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.

This book has great strengths but one can't ignore its defects.

Still, let's begin with the strengths because the author deserves much credit. As well as giving a good, clear account of the life of Marcus Aurelius he goes out of his way to put that life in context by frequently stopping to explain various features of the economic, social, political and military world within which Marcus Aurelius operated. This is highly welcome. Those long, contextual sections, combined with the analytical chapter at the end, helped to give me a great deal more insight into the Roman Empire than I was expecting. McLynn also does a good job of keeping a complex cast of characters and story moving along without it getting too confusing. I got completely absorbed.

The most significant problem, to my mind, comes with the analysis of Stoicism. Within the body of the book, McLynn is forever tearing a strip off Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus for their inconsistencies and gaps. He knows very well that Aurelius was writing a private journal for his own edification, head-clearing and analysis and that Epictetus did not even 'write' his books since they are basically collections of lecture notes - and, in the case of the Enchiridion, merely extracts from them - made by one of his pupils. Now, if a student of mine wrote down my lecture notes and published them in a book without my having a chance to edit them I'm pretty sure there would be a lot of gaps and probably some inconsistencies. It's not that Epictetus can't be criticised; I can easily do so myself. It's just that on this basis McLynn's criticisms of the extant writings of both Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus seem harsh to put it mildly. It was like reading something by Victor Meldrew when he's had too many cups of coffee.

The same goes for his criticisms of Stoicism in general, both in the main body of the text and in the first appendix. To be honest, I didn't even recognise it as a description of the Stoicism that I am familiar with. For example, McLynn refers to the "Stoic condemnation of pity". My reading of Epictetus, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius suggest not a condemnation of pity but an encouragement to keep it in proportion. All three of those authors, in different ways, encourage generosity, empathy and fellow-feeling. They do suggest that we should interrogate those feelings and be guided above all by our reason with respect to how we follow them up, but that is something quite different. Then there is the claim that Stoicism "subscribes to the dreadful doctrine that if someone suffers misfortune, he himself is responsible". That's just slipshod and misleading. Stoics would say that we are responsible for our REACTIONS to misfortune, which is something quite different. I could go on for several more paragraphs, but I would doubtless bore the reader and certainly bore myself. Suffice to say, if you went by McLynn's account you simply wouldn't have a clue as to why Stoicism has held such appeal to so many people over so many centuries. McLynn says that Stoicism "lacks all nuance" but it is, rather, his analysis that lacks nuance.

I'm also puzzled by McLynn's claim (p.208) that Epictetus died about AD 100. Every single one of my half-dozen sources (books and articles) on Epictetus, some very recent, suggest that he died in about AD 135. Either they are all wrong or McLynn is. If he has some radical new information which suggests that Epictetus died at about the age of 40, information which overturns our previous biographical knowledge, then he should at least have commented on this in the book.

I was also rather disappointed with the chapter looking at the subsequent influence of Marcus Aurelius. Much of it seemed to consist of looking to see if similar ideas are expressed by other thinkers, without necessarily knowing if they have actually read the Meditations. This seems a bizarre methodology. Anyone who has enjoyed grandstanding over a few pints in a pub knows that it is quite common to come up with philosophical ideas that remind your companions of other thinkers that you've never heard of. Also, I frequently engaged in pantheistic reveries as a teenager, before I was even aware of philosophy, let alone Marcus Aurelius. I won't share these thoughts with you here; again, I don't think our boredom thresholds could stand it.

Let's finish on a good note. Due to the depth of McLynn's work I came away enriched. I had a deeper much more sophisticted view of both Marcus Aurelius and the Roman Empire. Indeed, my thinking about both has changed significantly and is now much more mixed - dare I say 'nuanced' - than it was. I wasn't expecting quite that level of impact. So, for that reason alone, and notwithstanding the above points, I'd still recommend this book if you want to understand the man and his time.

While i enjoyed this book, it is a heavy mix of roman history, biography, and philosophy. Hard going in places and fascinating in others. Not for the faint hearted.