I’ve long wondered why Marcus Aurelius seemed to be more popular among modern readers than Epictetus or Seneca, and I think this answers it for me: Marcus was writing to himself with the detached “you”, but I think readers perceive him as talking directly to *them*. Perhaps that strong use of the second person feels more personal, more imperative.
I agree. And it's interesting that he manages to hit both sides of it.
With the possible exception of Book 1, his writing is general enough — and paired with the 2nd/3rd person perspective — to make it seem like he's talking to us personally about universal experiences we're familiar with.
But there are hints of his personal struggles and life events sprinkled throughout, so we feel like we're having a give-and-take with a powerful man with a lot of agency and wealth who nonetheless struggles to live up to his own ideals and to bend the world toward his idealized outcomes.
Enjoyed this. I have a section on my substack called In Second Person and this gave me a new way to look at it
Thanks! Glad you liked it.
I’ve long wondered why Marcus Aurelius seemed to be more popular among modern readers than Epictetus or Seneca, and I think this answers it for me: Marcus was writing to himself with the detached “you”, but I think readers perceive him as talking directly to *them*. Perhaps that strong use of the second person feels more personal, more imperative.
I agree. And it's interesting that he manages to hit both sides of it.
With the possible exception of Book 1, his writing is general enough — and paired with the 2nd/3rd person perspective — to make it seem like he's talking to us personally about universal experiences we're familiar with.
But there are hints of his personal struggles and life events sprinkled throughout, so we feel like we're having a give-and-take with a powerful man with a lot of agency and wealth who nonetheless struggles to live up to his own ideals and to bend the world toward his idealized outcomes.
It's a powerful pairing.