Marcus Aurelius: A Life [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 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.

The first review offered on this Kindle version was highly unlaudatory. Please permit me to transfer over a review from the hardcover version Marcus Aurelius: A Life that I wrote before. You cannot find it in my list of reviews because my Amazon login was perverted by my probable ignorance and I had to start from scratch.

"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 waste of time. It is written by someone who wants to tear down Stoicism at the expense of writing a decent biography. Much of the book has nothing to do with Marcus Aurelius. There is a lot of historical background of ancient Rome. Unfortunately, you get the feeling that the author wants to prove that he is smarter than poor Marcus Aurelius.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 3 reviews  3.0 out of 5 stars