PHILOSPHER-EMPEROR

A review of Frank McLynn's Marcus Aurelius: A Life (2009)

(Rating 2 of 5)

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—; his 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.

{Scene from the movie Gladiator, not a very historically accurate movie but Richard Harris plays a very good Emperor Marcus Aurelius}

AT THE HEIGHT OF POWER

A review of Anthony Everitt's Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (2009)

(Rating 5 of 5)

Antony Everitt's biography of the Emperor Hadrian is very different from his earlier biographies on the Emperor Augustus and the orator Cicero. The reason is the difference of subjects' time periods. In the two earlier books, one system, the Republic, is coming to an end, while a new system, the Principate of the Roman Empire, is established. Cicero tries to save the Republic and dies in the attempt, while Augustus creates the Principate and rules until his seventies. When Hadrian was born the Principate had been established for over a hundred years. Rome was now in the reign of Emperor Vespasian, who took over at the brief interruption of the Pax Romana, the Year of the Four Emperors. Hadrian would be born a citizen of Rome, living under the rule of emperors until ultimately becoming the Emperor himself.


(Emperor Hadrian)

Hadrian's family came from the province of Spain, his ancestors having settled there after the Second Punic War. Through political connections his father would rise to become a senator of Rome. Because of his family and the fact that his father died when he was rather young he received a guardian named Trajan. Trajan was a soldier who would also rise to the height of Roman society by wearing the imperial purple.


(Hadrian's guardian, adopted father, and predcessor: Emperor Trajan)

Everitt's biography of Hadrian is actually a history of Rome during the mid-imperial period. While Hadrian rises through the ranks of the military and Roman upper-class senatorial society, Everitt also tells the story of the Flavian dynasty of Emperor Vespasian and his two sons, Emperors Titus and Domitian. The three emperors do battle not only in the field but at home in the Senate. The Stoic opposition, senators who resisted these three emperors with civil disobedience, to use a modern term, are quite a handful for the three rulers.

When Emperor Domitian is assassinated he is replaced by a senior senator named Emperor Nerva. Nerva has a short but important reign, he is known as the first of the five good emperors, who guide Rome in what is regarded as its Golden Age. Emperor Nerva adopts Trajan as his son and successor. This puts Hadrian in direct contact with the imperial throne. He works his way up during Trajan's reign, fighting in the army and assisting in the administration of the Empire. He is adopted by Emperor Trajan and succeeds him upon his death.

The book then goes in to the reign of the middle emperor of Rome's five good ones. Hadrian as an emperor was active, liked to travel though his empire, and was generally a good ruler. Emperor Hadrian stops Rome's conquests, wishing to change the Empire's mission from unlimited expansion to defense and internal improvement. Hadrian is a great builder who improves the city and the provinces. Everitt tells of his love affair with Antinous, his trials in the Senate, and his undying love of Greek culture.



The only one complaint I have about this book is the capitalization. I realize I should not care that much but I really cannot stand it. ‘Emperor Hadrian succeeds emperor Trajan as ruler of the Roman empire.’ Seriously, it drives both me and my grammar check nuts. Everitt has retained this practice from his book Augustus, but he did not in Cicero.

Nevertheless this is a great book and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the Roman Empire and its rulers.

{Video posted from YouTube}

A BOY ARMED ONLY WITH HIS NAME

A review of Anthony Everitt's Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor (2006)

(Rating 5 of 5)

Anthony Everitt tells the amazing story of the young Gaius Octavius, who grows up to become the man we know as Emperor Augustus. Everitt gives the treatment of Augustus’ life the same way he treated the orator Cicero's. Everitt has an easy to follow narrative that guides the reader from the chaotic early life to the stable rule as the first Emperor of Rome, or what Augustus called his new regime: the Principate.

Born during Cicero's consulship, the young boy grows up in the period of political instability that would result in civil war. His granduncle, Julius Caesar, would be one of the primary actors and winner of the first round. The young boy's life is changed forever when the Dictator is assassinated and he is named Caesar's heir. As Caesar's adopted son, he has Caesar's name as his (only) weapon. It turns out to be a really good weapon as he is able to raise an army and challenge the famous general Mark Antony for control of Rome. Everitt tells the story of them ultimately teaming up and combining their forces to defeat Caesar's assassins, Brutus and Cassius, at the battle of Philippi ending all hope of a restored Republic.

“When they disagreed, it was always Octavian who got his way. When he wanted something, he tended to pursue it with single-minded intensity, whereas Antony, seeing himself as the senior partner in government, had the careless self-confidence to give way.” (p.133)

Woe Unto Rufus Tranquillus.

The Second Triumvirate is unstable and it is not long until civil war resumes and the future Augustus and his number one man Agrippa defeat the forces of Antony and Queen Cleopatra at Actium. Antony and the Queen decide to commit suicide than fall into the hands of the merciless young Caesar.


From there on the story is about Augustus' long reign as emperor. Everitt explains the various settlements that were made that let Augustus build up so much power that eventually would create a new indispensable position in Rome. He would redesign the city, and that new design would allow him to gloat that he found Rome made of brick and left it made of marble.





On a slight side note there is one odd difference between Everitt's work on Augustus and his biography on Cicero. The difference is in capitalization. In the previous work, Everitt chose to capitalize titles—which I prefer—and now he does not. I have noticed a change in trend when in grammar when it comes to titles. As a reader of many books it is easy to see the change and I do not like it. I do not know who is leading the charge but I wish they would stop. I much prefer to see Emperor Tiberius of the Roman Empire than emperor Tiberius of the Roman empire—heck even my grammar check thinks this is wrong. The former looks elegant and clean, the later looks like a pile of written horse crap. I am going to be reading another book by Everitt and I hope he returns to his old habits as opposed to his new ones. Nevertheless, I highly recommend this book it is a great and exciting read.

{Scenes from the HBO classic series Rome}