Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-wr9vw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-25T10:42:39.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2025

Edited by
John Sellars
John Sellars
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway, University of London
Get access

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Companion to Marcus Aurelius' Meditations , pp. 282 - 300
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abel, K. 1983. ‘Das Propatheia-Theorem: Ein Beitrag zur stoischen Affektenlehre’, Hermes 111: 78–97.Google Scholar
Ackeren, M. van 2006. ‘“Sage zu Dir selbst … ” ‒ Zur Dialogizität bei Marc Aurel’, in Meyer, M. F. (ed.), Zur Geschichte des Dialogs: Philosophische Positionen von Sokrates bis Habermas. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 54–67.Google Scholar
Ackeren, M. van 2011. Die Philosophie Marc Aurels. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackeren, M. van (ed.) 2012. A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118219836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackeren, M. van 2013. ‘Die Selbstbetrachtungen Marc Aurels. Ein stoischer Selbstdialog’, in Erler, M. and Hessler, J. E. (eds.), Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Berlin: De Gruyter, 371–88.Google Scholar
Ackeren, M. van 2017. ‘Self-Knowledge in Later Stoicism’, in Renz, U. (ed.), Self-Knowledge: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackeren, M. van, and Opsomer, J. (eds.) 2012. Selbstbetrachtungen und Selbstdarstellungen: Der Philosoph und Kaiser Marc Aurel im interdisziplinären Licht. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Ademollo, F. 2020. ‘Cosmic and Individual Soul in Early Stoicism’, in Inwood, B. and Warren, J. (eds.), Body and Soul in Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113–44.Google Scholar
Adler, A. 1928–38. Suidae Lexicon. 5 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Africa, T. W. 1961. ‘The Opium Addiction of Marcus Aurelius’, Journal of the History of Ideas 22: 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesse, F. 2001. ‘Il tema delle affezioni nell’antropologia di Marco Aurelio’, in Brancacci, A. (ed.), Antichi e moderni nella filosofia di età imperial. Naples: Bibliopolis, 111–36.Google Scholar
Alesse, F. 2009. ‘Neurospastia: La problematica di corpo e anima in Marco Aurelio’, in Lapini, W., Malusa, L., and Mauro, L. (eds.), Gli antichi e noi: Scritti in onore di Antonio Mario Battegazzore. 2 vols. Genova: Brigati, vol. 1, 255–67.Google Scholar
Alexandre, M. 1979. ‘Le travail de la sentence chez Marc Aurèle: philosophie et rhétorique’, La Licorne 3: 125–58.Google Scholar
Ameling, W. 1983. Herodes Atticus. 2 vols. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Annas, J. 1992. Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annas, J. 1993. The Morality of Happiness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Annas, J. 1995. ‘Eudaimonism and the Appeal to Nature in the Morality of Happiness’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55: 599–610.10.2307/2108441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annas, J. 2002. ‘My Station and Its Duties: Ideals and the Social Embeddedness of Virtue’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102: 109–23.Google Scholar
Annas, J. 2004. ‘Marcus Aurelius: Ethics and Its Background’, Rhizai 2: 103–19.Google Scholar
Arnim, H. von (ed.) 1903–24. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. 4 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Arnold, M. 1865. Essays in Criticism. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1989. ‘The Stoicism of Marcus Aurelius’, in Haase, W. (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II: 36.3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2228–52.Google Scholar
Aubert, S. 2011. ‘La φιλοστοργία chez Fronton, une vertu sans équivalent latin?’, Aitia 1, online at https://doi.org/10.4000/aitia.179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avenarius, M. 2012. ‘Marc Aurel und die Dogmatik des römischen Privatrechts: Kaiserliche Rechtspflege im System der Rechtsquellen und die Ausfüllung von Gestaltungsspielräumen in einer Übergangszeit der Rechtsentwicklung’, in van Ackeren, M. and Opsomer, J. (eds.), Selbstbetrachtungen und Selbstdarstellungen: Der Philosoph und Kaiser Marc Aurel im interdisziplinären Licht. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 203–82.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S., and Wray, D. (eds.) 2009. Seneca and the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baudouin, C., and Lestchinsky, A. 1924. The Inner Discipline, trans. E. and C. Paul. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Beck, A. T. 1976. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. New York: International University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, A. T., and Alford, B. A. 2009. Depression: Causes and Treatment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., and Emery, G. 1979. Cognitive Therapy of Depression. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Behlman, L. 2011. ‘The Victorian Marcus Aurelius: Mill, Arnold, and the Appeal of the Quasi–Christian’, Journal of Victorian Culture 16: 1–24.10.1080/13555502.2011.554672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bénatouïl, T. 2006. Faire usage: La pratique du stoïcisme. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Bénatouïl, T. 2009. Les stoïciens III: Musonius – Épictète – Marc Aurèle. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bénatouïl, T. 2013. ‘Théoria and Scholê in Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius: Platonic, Stoic or Socratic?’, in Long, A. G. (ed.), Plato and the Stoics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 147–73.Google Scholar
Bénatouïl, T. 2019. ‘Épictète et la doctrine des indifférents et du telos d’Ariston à Panétius’, Elenchos 40: 99–121.10.1515/elen-2019-0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergamo, M. 2022. ‘“Always Remember … ”: The Role and Character of the Citations of Heraclitus in Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations’, in Bruno, N., Dovico, G., Montepaone, O., and Pelucchi, M. (eds.), The Limits of Exactitude in Greek, Roman, Byzantine Literature and Textual Transmission. Berlin: De Gruyter, 231–67.Google Scholar
Berryman, S. A. 2010. ‘The Puppet and the Sage: Images of the Self in Marcus Aurelius’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 38: 187–209.Google Scholar
Birley, A. R. 1987. Marcus Aurelius: A Biography. Revised edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Birley, A. R. 1997. Hadrian: The Restless Emperor. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Birley, A. R. 2012. ‘Cassius Dio and the Historia Augusta’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 11–28.10.4324/9780203137598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birley, A. R. 2013. ‘The Emperor Marcus Aurelius and the Sarmatians’, in Eck, W., Fehér, B., and Kovács, P. (eds.), Studia epigraphica in memoriam Geza Alföldy. Bonn: Habelt, 39–50.Google Scholar
Blackson, T. 2017. ‘Impulsive Impressions’, Rhizomata 5: 91–112.Google Scholar
Bobzien, S. 1998. Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Boeri, M. D. 2016. ‘L’οἰκείωσις et les rapports avec les dieux selon Hiéroclès’, in Gourinat, J.-B. (ed.), L’éthique du stoïcien Hiéroclès. Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeri, M. D., and Salles, R. (eds.) 2014. Los filósofos stoicos: Ontología, lógica, física y ética. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.Google Scholar
Bonhöffer, A. 1890. Epictet und die Stoa: Untersuchungen zur stoischen Philosophie. Stuttgart: Enke.Google Scholar
Bonner, S. F. 1977. Education in Ancient Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourbon, M. 2019. Penser l’individu: Genèse stoïcienne de la subjectivité. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Boys-Stones, G. 1996. ‘The ἐλευστικὴ δύναμις in Aristo’s Psychology of Action’, Phronesis 41: 75–94.10.1163/156852896321051792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, T. 2000. ‘Reservation in Stoic Ethics’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 82: 149–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, T. 2003. ‘Stoic Moral Psychology’, in Inwood, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 257–94.Google Scholar
Brennan, T. 2005. The Stoic Life: Emotions, Duties, and Fate. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0199256268.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooke, C. 2012. Philosophic Pride: Stoicism and Political Thought from Lipsius to Rousseau. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brouwer, R. 2014. The Stoic Sage: The Early Stoics on Wisdom, Sagehood, and Socrates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139162487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brucker, J. 1766–7. Historia Critica Philosophiae. 2nd ed. 6 vols. Leipzig: Impensis Haered. Weidemanni et Reichii.Google Scholar
Brunschwig, J. 2005 ‘Sur deux notions de l’éthique stoïcienne: De la “réserve” au “renversement”’, in Gourinat, J.-B. and Romeyer-Dherbey, G. (eds.), Les stoïciens. Paris: J. Vrin, 357–80.Google Scholar
Brunt, P. A. 1974. ‘Marcus Aurelius in His Meditations’, The Journal of Roman Studies 64: 1–20 (repr. in Brunt 2013: 360–93).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunt, P. A. 1975. ‘Stoicism and the Principate’, Papers of the British School at Rome 43: 7–35 (repr. in Brunt 2013: 275–309).10.1017/S0068246200008217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunt, P. A. 1998. ‘Marcus Aurelius and Slavery’, in Austen, M., Harries, J., and Smiths, C. (eds.), Modus Operandi: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman. London: Institute of Classical Studies, 139–50 (repr. in Brunt 2013: 394–406).Google Scholar
Brunt, P. A. 2013. Studies in Stoicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buddeus, J. F. 1706a. Dissertatio Philosophica de Spinozismo ante Spinozam. Halle: Typis Chr. Henckelii.Google Scholar
Buddeus, J. F. 1706b. Analecta Historiae Philosophicae. Halle: Sumptibus Orphanotrophii.Google Scholar
Buddeus, J. F. 1729. Introductio ad Philosophiam Stoicam ex Mente Sententiaque M. Aurelii Antonimi Imp., published with Marci Antonini Imperatoris ac Philosophy Libri XII eorum quae de seipso as seipsum. Leipzig: Samuel Banjamin Walther.Google Scholar
Candiotto, L. and Renaut, O. (eds.) 2020. Emotions in Plato. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004432277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capelle, W. 1967. Marc Aurel: Selbstbetrachtungen. Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
Casaubon, I. 1603. Historiae Augustae Scriptores Sex. Paris: Ambrosius & Hieronymus Drovart.Google Scholar
Casaubon, I. 1605. Auli Persi Flacci Satirarum Liber. Paris: Ambrosius & Hieronymus Drovart.Google Scholar
Casaubon, M. 1634. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus The Roman Emperor, His Meditations Concerning Himselfe. London: Richard Mynne.Google Scholar
Casaubon, M. 1643. Marci Antonini Imperatoris De Seipso et Ad Seipsum Libri XII. London: R. Mynne.Google Scholar
Ceporina, M. 2012. ‘The Meditations’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 45–61.10.1002/9781118219836.ch3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerro Calderón, G. del 1997. ‘Los diminutivos en las Meditaciones de Marco Aurelio’, Estudios Clásicos, 39/112: 35–48.Google Scholar
Champlin, E. 1980. Fronto and Antonine Rome. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674331785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collette, B. 2022. The Stoic Doctrine of Providence: A Study of Its Development and Some of Its Major Issues. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Collier, J. 1708. The Emperor Marcus Antoninus, his Conversation With Himself. 2nd ed. London: Richard Sare.Google Scholar
Collis, K. 2016. ‘How Shaftesbury Read Marcus Aurelius: Two “Curious and Interesting” Volumes with His Manuscript Annotations’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 79: 263–93.10.1086/JWCI26322525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J. M. 1995. ‘Eudaimonism and the Appeal to Nature in the Morality of Happiness’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55: 587–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J. M. (ed.) 1997. Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. M. 2004. ‘Moral Theory and Moral Improvement: Marcus Aurelius’, in hisKnowledge, Nature, and the Good: Essays on Ancient Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 335–68.Google Scholar
Cortassa, G. 1997. ‘La missione del bibliofilo: Areta e la “riscoperta” dell’ “A se stesso” di Marco Aurelio’, Orpheus: Rivista di umanità Classica e Cristiana 18: 112–40.Google Scholar
Cudworth, R. 1678. The True Intellectual System of the Universe: The First Part wherein all the Reason and Philosophy of Atheism is Confuted and its Impossibility Demonstrated. London: Richard Royston.Google Scholar
Dalfen, J. 1967. Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Selbsbetrachtungen Marc Aurels. Bonn: Habelt in KommissionGoogle Scholar
Dalfen, J. 1987. Marci Aurelii Antonini ad se ipsum libri XII. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Dalfen, J. 2000. ‘Autobiographie und Biographie: der Fall Marc Aurel’, Grazer Beiträge 23: 187–211.Google Scholar
Dandelet, T. 2016. ‘Imagining Marcus Aurelius in the Renaissance: Forgery, Fiction, and History in the Creation of the Imperial Ideal’, in Blair, A. and Goeing, A.-S., eds., For the Sake of Learning: Essays in Honor of Anthony Grafton. Leiden: Brill, 729–43.Google Scholar
Daraki-Mallet, M. 1978. ‘Les fonctions psychologiques du Logos’, in Brunschwig, J. (ed.), Les Stoïciens et leur logique. Paris: Vrin, 87–119.Google Scholar
Davenport, C. 2019. A History of the Roman Equestrian Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davenport, C. 2021. ‘War and Peace: Imperial Leadership in Dio’s Second-Century Narrative’, in Davenport, C. and Mallan, C. (eds.), Emperors and Political Culture in Cassius Dio’s Roman History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 52–73.10.1017/9781108923019.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, C. and Manley, J. (eds.) 2014. Fronto: Selected Letters. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, C. and McEvoy, M. (eds.) 2023. The Roman Imperial Court in the Principate and Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780192865236.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Blois, L. 2012. ‘The Relation of Politics and Philosophy under Marcus Aurelius’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 171–82.Google Scholar
De Boer, W. 1937. Galeni De Propriorum Animi Cuiuslibet Affectuum Dignotione et Curatione, De Animi Cuiuslibet Peccatorum Dignotione et Curatione, De Atra Bile, CMG 5.4.1.1. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Decleva Caizzi, F. 1988. ‘La materia scorrevole: Sulle tracce di un dibattito perduto’, in Barnes, J. and Mignucci, M. (eds.), Matter and Metaphysics. Naples: Bibliopolis, 425–70.Google Scholar
Dickson, K. 2009. ‘Oneself as Others: Aurelius and Autobiography’, Arethusa 42: 99–125.10.1353/are.0.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diels, H. 1879. Doxographi Graeci. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Dodds, E. R. 1965. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downey, G., and Norman, A. F. 1965–74. Themistii Orationes quae supersunt. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Dryden, W., and Still, A. 2012. The Historical and Philosophical Context of Rational Psychotherapy: The Legacy of Epictetus. London: Karnac.Google Scholar
Dubois, P. 1905. The Psychic Treatment of Nervous Disorders. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.Google Scholar
Dubois, P. 1909. Self-Control and How to Secure It. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.Google Scholar
Dubois, P., and Gallatin, L. 1908. The Influence of the Mind on the Body. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.10.1037/13661-001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyson, H. 2009. ‘The God Within: The Normative Self in Epictetus’, History of Philosophy Quarterly 26: 235–53.Google Scholar
Eck, W. 2012. ‘Senatorisches Leben jenseits von Politik, Militär und Administration: Die öffentliche Repräsentation der intellektuellen Seite der Führungsschicht’, in van Ackeren, M. and Opsomer, J. (eds.), Selbstbetrachtungen und Selbstdarstellungen: Der Philosoph und Kaiser Marc Aurel im interdisziplinären Licht. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 169–86.Google Scholar
Ellenberger, H. F. 1970. The Discovery of the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. 1962. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. 2019. How to Control Your Anxiety before It Controls You. London: Robinson.Google Scholar
Ellis, A., and Harper, R. A. 1997. A Guide to Rational Living. 3rd ed. Chatsworth, CA: Wilshire Book Company.Google Scholar
Ellis, A., and MacLaren, C. 2005. Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy: A Therapist’s Guide. 2nd ed. Oakland, CA: Impact Publishers.Google Scholar
Ellis, A., and Tafrate, R. C. 1997. How to Control Your Anger before It Controls You. New York: Birch Lane.Google Scholar
Ellis, H. 2016. ‘Stoicism in Victorian Culture’, in Sellars, J. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook to the Stoic Tradition. Abingdon: Routledge, 319–30.Google Scholar
Enfield, W. 1819. The History of Philosophy, From the Earliest Times to the Beginnings of the Present Century, Drawn up from Brucker’s Historia Critica Philosophiae. 2 vols. London: William Baynes and R. Priestley.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, T. 1998. ‘Marcus Aurelius on Emotions’, in Sihvola, J. and Engberg-Pedersen, T. (eds.), The Emotions in Hellenistic Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer, 305–37.Google Scholar
Erbse, H. 1954. ‘Die Vorstellung von der Seele bei Marc Aurel’, in Müller, W. (ed.), Festschrift für Friedrich Zucker zum 70. Geburtstage. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 127–52.Google Scholar
Erler, M. 2012. ‘Aspects of Orality in (the Text of) the Meditations’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 346–61.Google Scholar
Farquharson, A. S. L. 1944. The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Farquharson, A. S. L. 1951. Marcus Aurelius: His Life and His World. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fentress, E., and Maiuro, M. 2011. ‘Villa Magna near Anagni: The Emperor, his Winery and the Wine of Signia’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 24: 333–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fideler, D. R. (ed.) 1987. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press.Google Scholar
Finkenauer, T. 2010. Die Rechtsetzung Mark Aurels zur Sklaverei. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Fittschen, K. 1982. Die Bildnistypen der Faustina Minor und die Fecunditas Augustae. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Fleury, P. 2006. Lectures de Fronton: Un rhéteur latin à l’époque de la Seconde Sophistique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Fleury, P. 2012. ‘Marcus Aurelius’ Letters’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 62–76.10.1002/9781118219836.ch4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleury, P. 2014. ‘Marc Aurèle épistolier: comment faire écrire un empereur romain de l’Antiquité au XVIe siècle?’, Anabases 19: 133–53.10.4000/anabases.4634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Föllinger, S., and Müller, G. M. (eds.) 2013. Der Dialog in der Antike. Formen und Funktionen einer literarischen Gattung zwischen Philosophie, Wissenvermittlung und dramatischer Inszenierung. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Forschner, M. 1995. Die stoische Ethik: Über den Zusammenhang von Natur-, Sprach- und Moralphilosophie im altstoischen System. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1984. Histoire de la sexualité 3: Le souci de soi. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1988. The Care of the Self: Volume 3. The History of Sexuality. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 2005. The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1981–1982. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-137-09483-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frede, D. 2002. ‘Theology and Providential Care in Stoicism’, in Frede, D. and Laks, A. (eds.), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, Its Background and Aftermath. Leiden: Brill, 85–117.10.1163/9789047401063_004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fryde, E. 2000. The Early Palaeologan Renaissance (1261–c. 1360). Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004474260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuentes González, P. P. 2015. ‘La diatribe est-elle une notion utile pour l’histoire de la philosophie et de la littérature antiques?’, in Cassin, B. (ed.), La rhétorique au miroir de la philosophie: définitions philosophiques de la rhétorique et définitions rhétoriques de la philosophie. Paris: Vrin, 127–73.Google Scholar
Fuentes González, P. P. 2019. ‘La prétendue “diatribe” antique, fantôme ou instrument herméneutique?’, in Favreau-Linder, A.-M. and Giorgio, J.-P. De (eds.), La diatribe antique: Enquête sur les formes dialogiques du discours philosophiques. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas, 21–39.Google Scholar
Gangloff, A. 2019. Pouvoir impérial et vertus philosophiques: L’évolution de la figure du bon prince sous le Haut-Empire. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Gataker, T. 1652. Marci Antonini Imperatoris de rebus suis, sive de eis qae ad se pertinere censebat, Librii XII. Cambridge: Thomas Buck.Google Scholar
Giavatto, A. 2008. Interlocutore di se stesso: La dialettica di Marco Aurelio. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Giavatto, A. 2012a. ‘The Style of the Meditations’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 333–45.Google Scholar
Giavatto, A. 2012b. ‘Logic and the Meditations’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 408–20.Google Scholar
Gill, C. 1996. Personality in Greek Epic, Tragedy, and Philosophy: The Self in Dialogue. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oso/9780198146766.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, C. 2006. The Structured Self in Hellenistic and Roman Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, C. 2007a. ‘Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations: How Stoic and How Platonic?’, in Bonazzi, M. and Helmig, C. (eds.), Platonic Stoicism – Stoic Platonism: The Dialogue between Platonism and Stoicism in Antiquity. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 189–207.Google Scholar
Gill, C. 2007b. ‘Marcus Aurelius’, in Sorabji, R. and Sharples, R.W. (eds.), Greek and Roman Philosophy 100 bc–200 ad. 2 vols. London: Institute of Classical Studies, vol. 1, 175–87.Google Scholar
Gill, C. 2009. ‘Seneca and Selfhood: Integration and Disintegration’, in Bartsch, S. and Wray, D. (eds.), Seneca and the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 65–83.Google Scholar
Gill, C. 2012a. ‘Marcus Aurelius: Philosophy and the Rest of Life’, in van Ackeren, M. and Opsomer, J. (eds.), Selbstbetrachtungen und Selbstdarstellungen: der Philosoph und Kaiser Marc Aurel in interdisziplinärem Licht. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 35–64.Google Scholar
Gill, C. 2012b. ‘Marcus and Previous Stoic Literature’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 382–95.Google Scholar
Gill, C. 2013. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Books 1–6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gill, C. 2016. ‘Positive Emotions in Stoicism: Are They Enough?’, in Caston, R. R. and Kaster, R. A. (eds.), Hope, Joy, and Affection in the Classical World. New York: Oxford University Press, 143–60.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (ed.) 2008. The End of Dialogue in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gourinat, J.-B. 2012a. ‘The Form and Structure of the Meditations’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 317–32.Google Scholar
Gourinat, J.-B. 2012b. ‘Ethics’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 420–36.Google Scholar
Gourinat, J.-B. 2012c. ‘Was Marcus Aurelius a Philosopher?’, in van Ackeren, M. and Opsomer, J. (eds.), Selbstbetrachtungen und Selbstdarstellungen: der Philosoph und Kaiser Marc Aurel in interdisziplinärem Licht. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 65–85.Google Scholar
Gourinat, J.-B. (ed.) 2016 L’éthique du stoïcien Hiéroclès. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.10.4000/books.septentrion.88621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gourinat, J.-B. 2020. ‘Self-Knowledge, Self-Perception and Perception of One’s Body in Stoicism’, in Leigh, F. (ed.), Self-Knowledge in Ancient Philosophy: The Eighth Keeling Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gourinat, J.-B. 2021. ‘La division dans l’ancien stoïcisme et ses applications éthiques’, in Delcomminette, S. and Van Daele, R. (eds.), La méthode de division de Platon à Érigène. Paris: Vrin, 59–83.Google Scholar
Graver, M. 2007. Stoicism and Emotion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226305202.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graver, M. 2014. ‘Ethics II: Action and Emotion’, in Damschen, G. and Heil, A. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Seneca, Philosopher and Dramatist. Leiden: Brill, 257–75.Google Scholar
Graves, R. 1792. The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. London: G. G. J. and J. Robinson.Google Scholar
Grieb, V. 2017. Marc Aurel: Wege zu seiner Herrschaft. Gutenberg: Computus Druck Satz & Verlag.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. 2014. ‘The Prince and His Tutor: Candour and Affection’, Scripta Classica Israelica 33: 67–85.10.71043/sci.v33i.2435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimal, P. 1979. Sénèque ou la conscience de l’Empire. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Guevara, A. de. 1534. Marco aurelio con el relox de principes. Seville: Juan Cromberger.Google Scholar
Guevara, A. de. 1535. The Golden Boke of Marcus Aurelius Emperour and Eloquent Oratour, trans. J. Bourchier. London: Thomas Bertheletus.Google Scholar
Guevara, A. de. 1557. The Diall of Princes, trans. T. North. London: John Waylande.Google Scholar
Hadot, I. 1969. Seneca und die griechisch-römische Tradition der Seelenleitung. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110840933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadot, I. 2014. Sénèque: Direction spirituelle et pratique de la philosophie. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. 1972. ‘La physique comme exercise spirituel ou pessimisme et optimisme chez Marc Aurèle’, Revue de théologie et de philosophie 22: 225–39 (repr. in Hadot 2002: 145–64).Google Scholar
Hadot, P. 1978. ‘Une clé des Pensées de Marc Aurèle: les trois topoi philosophiques selon Epictète’, Les Etudes philosophiques 62: 65–83 (repr. in Hadot 2002: 165–92).Google Scholar
Hadot, P. 1991. ‘Philosophie, discours philosophique, et divisions de la philosophie chez les Stoïciens’, Revue internationale de philosophie 45: 205–19.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. 1992. La citadelle intérieure: Introduction aux Pensées de Marc Aurèle. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. 1995a. Qu’est-ce que la philosophie antique? Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. 1995b. Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault, trans. M. Chase. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. 1998. The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, trans. M. Chase. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. 2002. Exercises spirituels et philosophie antique. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
Hadot, P., and Luna, C. 1998. Marc Aurèle: Écrits pour lui-même, vol. 1. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Haines, C. R. 1916. The Communings with Himself of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
Haines, C. R. 1919–20. Fronto: Correspondence. 2 vols. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. 2006. Marcus Aurelius: Meditations. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hard, R. 2011. Marcus Aurelius: Meditations, ed. Gill, C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harriman, B. 2019. ‘Disjunctions and Natural Philosophy in Marcus Aurelius’, Classical Quarterly 69: 858–79.10.1017/S0009838820000051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, W. V. 2001. Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hays, G. 2003. Marcus Aurelius: Meditations. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Herrmann, K. 2012. ‘Herrschaftskonzeption und Herrschaftspraxis bei Marc Aurel und eine neue Optimus princeps-Konzeption im 3. Jahrhundert’, in van Ackeren, M. and Opsomer, J. (eds.), Selbstbetrachtungen und Selbstdarstellungen: der Philosoph und Kaiser Marc Aurel in interdisziplinärem Licht. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 187–202.Google Scholar
Horn, C. and Rapp, C. (eds.) 2002. Wörterbuch der antiken Philosophie. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Horst, C. 2013. Marc Aurel: Philosophie und politische Macht zur Zeit der Zweiten Sophistik. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.10.25162/9783515104159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horst, P. W. van der 1978. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, with Introduction and Commentary. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004675490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, A. 2022. ‘The Imperial Family’, in Kelly, B. and Hug, A. (eds.), The Roman Emperor and His Court c. 30 bc–c. ad 300. Vol. 1: Historical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 60–84.10.1017/9781009063760.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, M. L. 1997. ‘Michel Foucault on Writing and the Self in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius and Confessions of St. Augustine’, Arethusa 30: 125–38.10.1353/are.1997.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutcheson, F. 1730. De Naturali Hominum Socialitate Oratio Inauguralis. Glasgow: Typis Academicis.Google Scholar
Hutcheson, F. 2006. Logic, Metaphysics, and the Natural Sociability of Mankind, ed. Moore, J. and Silverthorne, M.. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Hutcheson, F. 2007. Philosophiae Moralis Institutio Compendiaria with A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy, ed. Turco, L.. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Hutcheson, F. 2008. An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue in Two Treatises, ed. W. Leidhold, . Rev. ed. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Hutcheson, F., and Moor, J. 2008. The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, ed. Moore, J. and Silverthorne, M.. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Ierodiakonou, K. 1999. ‘Introduction. The Study of Stoicism: Its Decline and Revival’, in Ierodiakonou, K. (ed.), Topics in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1–22.10.1093/oso/9780198237686.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ildefonse, F. 2022. Le multiple dans l’âme: sur l’intériorité comme problème. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. 1985. Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. 1995. Review of J. Annas, Morality of Happiness, Ancient Philosophy 15: 647–65.10.5840/ancientphil199515227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inwood, B. 1999. ‘Rules and Reasoning in Stoic Ethics’, in Ierodiakonou, K. (ed.), Topics in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 95–127.10.1093/oso/9780198237686.003.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inwood, B. 2005. Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oso/9780199250899.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inwood, B. 2007. Seneca: Selected Philosophical Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. 2009. ‘Why Physics?’, in Salles, R. (ed.), God and Cosmos in Stoicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 201–23.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. 2014. ‘Walking and Talking: Reflections on Divisions of the Soul in Stoicism’, in Corcilius, K. and Perler, D. (eds.), Partitioning the Soul: The Debates from Plato to Leibniz. Berlin: De Gruyter, 63–83.10.1515/9783110311884.63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inwood, B. 2019. ‘What Kind of Stoic Are You? The Case of Marcus Aurelius’, in David, B. (ed.), Passionate Mind: Essays in Honor of John M. Rist. Baden-Baden: Academia Verlag, 155–80.Google Scholar
Inwood, B., and Donini, P. 1999. ‘Stoic Ethics’, in Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schofield, M. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 675–738.10.1017/CHOL9780521250283.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inwood, B., and Gerson, L. 2008. The Stoics Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A. 1980. Aristone di Chio e lo stoicismo antico. Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Irwin, T. 1998. ‘Stoic Inhumanity’, in Sihvola, J. and Engberg-Pedersen, T. (eds.), The Emotions in Hellenistic Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer, 219–42.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. 1906. The Thoughts of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jagu, A. 1946. Épictète et Platon. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Kamtekar, R. 2017. ‘Marcus Aurelius’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcus-aurelius/>..>Google Scholar
Kasulke, C. T. 2005. Fronto, Marc Aurel und kein Konflikt zwischen Rhetorik und Philosophie im 2. Jh. n. Chr. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110929188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, B. 2023. ‘Was the Roman Imperial Court an “Emotional Community”?’, in Davenport, C. and McEvoy, M. (eds.), The Roman Imperial Court in the Principate and Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 121–41.Google Scholar
Kelly, B. and Hug, A. (eds.) 2022. The Roman Emperor and His Court c. 30 bc–c. ad 300. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, J. 2015. ‘Making Sense of Stoic Indifferents’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 49: 227–81.Google Scholar
Knight, G. R. 2005. ‘Friendship and Erotics in the Late-Antique Verse Epistle: Ausonius to Paulinus Revisited’, Rheinisches Museum 148: 361–403.Google Scholar
Koch, I. 2009. ‘Plotin critique de l’épistémologie stoïcienne’, Philosophie antique 9: 81–113.10.4000/philosant.2620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstan, D. 2006. ‘The Concept of Emotion from Plato to Cicero’, Méthexis 19: 139–51.10.1163/24680974-90000497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstan, D. 2016. ‘Hiéroclès, sur la famille et l’économie domestique’, in Gourinat, J.-B. (ed.), L’éthique du stoïcien Hiéroclès. Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 145–55.Google Scholar
Kraye, J. 2000. ‘“Ethnicorum omnium sanctissimus”: Marcus Aurelius and His Meditations from Xylander to Diderot’, in Kraye, J. and Stone, M. W. F. (eds.), Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy. London: Routledge, 107–34.10.4324/9780203272596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraye, J. 2012. ‘Marcus Aurelius and Neostoicism in Early Modern Philosophy’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 515–31.Google Scholar
Kühn, W. 2011. ‘L’attachement à soi et aux autres’, in Goulet-Cazé, M.-O. (ed.), Études sur la théorie stoïcienne de l’action. Paris: Vrin, 237–366.Google Scholar
Kühner, R., and Gerth, B. 1897–1904. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Hannover: Hahn.Google Scholar
La Penna, A. 2004. ‘Corpusculum e sômation: Qualche nota e un problema circa Seneca ed Epitteto’, Paideia 59: 235–42.Google Scholar
Laes, C. 2009. ‘What Could Marcus Aurelius Feel for Fronto?’, Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 10: 1–7.Google Scholar
Lendon, J. E. 1997. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oso/9780198150794.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levick, B. M. 2014. Faustina I and II: Imperial Women of the Golden Age. New York: Oxford University Press10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195379419.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lino, P., and Canedo, G. 1946. ‘Las obras de Fray Antonio de Guevara’, Archivo Ibero-Americano 6: 441–603.Google Scholar
Lipsius, J. 1675. Opera Omnia. 4 vols. Wesel: Andreas ab Hoogenhuysen et Societas.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. 1975–6. ‘Heraclitus and Stoicism’, Philosophia 5–6: 132–153 (repr. in Long 1996: 35–57).Google Scholar
Long, A. A. 1996. Stoic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. 2002. Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0199245568.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, A. A. 2012. ‘The Self in the Meditations’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 465–80.Google Scholar
Long, A. A., and Sedley, D. N. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, A. G. 2013. Conversation and Self-Sufficiency in Plato. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199695355.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, A. G. 2019. Death and Mortality in Ancient Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316091562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, G. 1862. The Thoughts of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus. London: Bell and Daldy.Google Scholar
Lorenz, M. 2020. Von Pflanzen und Pflichten: Zum naturalistischen Ursprung des stoischen kathêkon. Basel: Schwabe.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Männlein-Roberts, I. 2012. ‘The Meditations as a (Philosophical) Autobiography’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 362–81.Google Scholar
Mansfeld, J. 1999. ‘Theology’, in Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schofield, M. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 452–78.Google Scholar
Manuwald, B. 2012. ‘Marc Aurel und sein Lehrer Fronto: Philosophie vs. Rhetorik?’, in van Ackeren, M. and Opsomer, J. (eds.), Selbstbetrachtungen und Selbstdarstellungen: Der Philosoph und Kaiser Marc Aurel im interdisziplinären Licht. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 285–307.Google Scholar
Marrone, L. 1997. ‘Le Questioni logiche di Crisippo (PHerc. 307)’, Cronache Ercolanesi 27: 83–100.Google Scholar
Martinazzoli, F. 1948. ‘Δοξάριον: I diminutivi nello stilo Epitteteo’, Parola del Passato 3: 262–68.Google Scholar
Masterson, M. 2010. ‘Erotics and Friendship in Emperor Julian’s Fourth Oration’, Scholia 19: 79–110.Google Scholar
Masterson, M. 2014. Man to Man: Desire, Homosociality, and Authority in Late-Roman Manhood. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Maurer, C. 2016. ‘Stoicism and the Scottish Enlightenment’, in Sellars, J. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook to the Stoic Tradition. Abingdon: Routledge, 254–69.Google Scholar
Mezzatesta, M.P. 1984. ‘Marcus Aurelius, Fray Antonio de Guevara, and the Ideal of the Perfect Prince in the Sixteenth Century’, The Art Bulletin 66: 620–33.10.1080/00043079.1984.10788214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1859. On Liberty. London: J. W. Parker and Son.Google Scholar
Millar, F. G. B. 1964. A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Misch, G. 1902. Geschichte der Autobiographie. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Momigliano, A. 1971. The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
More, H. 1668. Enchiridion Ethicum. London: J. Flesher.Google Scholar
More, H. 1690. An Account of Virtue. London: B. Tooke.Google Scholar
More, H. 1739. Enthusiasm Explained. London: T. Gardner.Google Scholar
Mouroutsou, G. 2020. ‘The Plasticity of the Present Moment in Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations’, Ancient Philosophy 40: 411–34.10.5840/ancientphil202040227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. M. (ed.) 2021. Figurengestaltung und Gesprächsinteraktion im antiken Dialog. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Németh, A. 2017. Epicurus on the Self. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315207001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nezu, A. M., and D’Zurilla, T. J. 2006. Problem-Solving Therapy: A Positive Approach to Clinical Intervention. 3rd ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Noreña, C. F. 2009. ‘The Ethics of Autocracy in the Roman World’, in Balot, R. K. (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 266–79.Google Scholar
Osgood, J. 2007. ‘The vox and verba of an Emperor: Claudius, Seneca and le prince ideal’, Classical Journal 102: 329–53.Google Scholar
Perkins, J. 1992. ‘The “Self” as Sufferer’, Harvard Theological Review 85: 245–72.10.1017/S001781600000331XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pià-Comella, J. 2012–13. ‘Du théologique au religieux: l’usage de la rhétorique dans les pensées de Marc-Aurèle’, Ítaca: Quaderns Catalans de Cultura Clàssica 28–9: 83–103.Google Scholar
Pià-Comella, J. 2016. ‘Prière et “appropriation” des dogmes dans le stoïcisme impérial romain’, Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 90: 139–64.Google Scholar
Piaia, G., and Santinello, G. 2011. Models of the History of Philosophy II: From the Cartesian Age to Brucker. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, S. B. 2007. The Murder of Regilla: A Case of Domestic Violence in Antiquity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674042209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, J. I. 2017. ‘Time for Foucault: Reflections on the Roman Self from Seneca to Augustine’, Foucault Studies 22: 113–33.Google Scholar
Priwitzer, S. 2009. Faustina minor: Ehefrau eines Idealkaisers und Mutter eines Tyrannen. Bonn: Habelt.Google Scholar
Rabbow, P. 1954. Seelenführung: Methodik der Exerzitien in der Antike. Munich: Kösel.Google Scholar
Rabe, H. 1906. Scholia in Lucianum. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Ramelli, I. 2009. Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments, and Excerpts, trans. D. Konstan. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.Google Scholar
Ranocchia, G. 2020. ‘La vita di Aristone di Chio nella [Rassegna degli stoici] di Filodemo (P. Herc. 1018, coll. 10 e 33–37): Edizione, Introduzione e Commento’, Analecta Papyrologica 32: 7–160.Google Scholar
Rees, D. A. 2000. ‘Joseph Bryennius and the Text of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations’, Classical Quarterly 50: 584–96.10.1093/cq/50.2.584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, K. 1926. Kosmos und Sympathie: Neue Untersuchungen über Poseidonios. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Remes, P., and Sihvola, J. (eds.) 2008. Ancient Philosophy of the Self. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-8596-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rendall, G. H. 1898. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus to Himself: An English Translation with Introductory Study on Stoicism and the Last of the Stoics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Reydams-Schils, G. 2005. The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility, and Affection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reydams-Schils, G. 2012. ‘Social Ethics and Politics’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 437–52.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. 2006a. Marcus Aurelius in Love. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. 2006b. ‘Fronto + Marcus: Love, Friendship, Letters’, in Kuefler, M. (ed.), The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 111–29.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. 2011. ‘Parallel Lives: Domitia Lucilla and Cratia, Fronto and Marcus’, Eugesta 1: 163–203.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. 2012. ‘The Sanctification of Marcus Aurelius’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 497–514.10.1002/9781118219836.ch32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rist, J. M. 1969. Stoic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rist, J. M. 1982. ‘Are You a Stoic? The Case of Marcus Aurelius’, in Meyer, B. F. and Sanders, E. P. (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, Volume 3: Self-Definition in the Graeco-Roman World. London: SCM Press, 23–45, 190–2.Google Scholar
Rist, J. M. 1989. ‘Seneca and Stoic Orthodoxy’, in Haase, W. (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II: 36.3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993–2012.Google Scholar
Robertson, D. J. 2010. The Philosophy of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT): Stoic Philosophy as Rational and Cognitive Psychotherapy. London: Karnac.Google Scholar
Romeyer Dherbey, G. 2005. ‘La naissance de la subjectivité chez les Stoïciens’, in Gourinat, J.-B. (ed.), Les Stoïciens. Paris: Vrin, 277–92.Google Scholar
Roskam, G. 2012. ‘Siren’s Song or Goose’s Cackle? Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations and Ariston of Chios’, in van Ackeren, M. and Opsomer, J. (eds.), Selbstbetrachtungen und Selbstdarstellungen: Der Philosoph und Kaiser Marc Aurel im interdisziplinären Licht. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 87–109.Google Scholar
Ruffing, K. 2017. ‘Finanzpolitische und wirtschaftliche Maßnahmen unter Marc Aurel’, in Grieb, V. (ed.), Marc Aurel: Wege zu seiner Herrschaft. Gutenberg: Computus Druck Satz & Verlag, 233–48.Google Scholar
Runia, D. T. 1986. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004320666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, R. B. 1989. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: A Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Salles, R. 2007. ‘Epictetus on Moral Responsibility for Precipitate Action’, in Destrée, P. and Bobonich, C. (eds.), Akrasia in Greek Philosophy. Leiden: Brill, 289–302.Google Scholar
Schäfer, C. 2017. ‘Der Kaiser als Feldherr: Kriege im Donauraum’, in Grieb, V. (ed.), Marc Aurel: Wege zu seiner Herrschaft. Gutenberg: Computus Druck Satz & Verlag, 93–107.Google Scholar
Schicker, R. 1990. ‘Strukturvergleichende Interpretationen zum philosophie-geschichtlichen Standort M. Aurels’, Grazer Beiträge 17: 207–24.Google Scholar
Schofield, M. 1991. The Stoic Idea of the City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schofield, M. 1995. ‘Two Stoic Approaches to Justice’, in Laks, A. and Schofield, M. (eds.), Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 191–21.Google Scholar
Schofield, M. 2003. ‘Stoic Ethics’, in Inwood, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 233–56.Google Scholar
Schrader, W. H. 1995. ‘Selbst’, in Ritter, J., Gründer, K., and Gabriel, G. (eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 9. Basel: Schwabe, 293–305.Google Scholar
Schubert, C. 2021. Isonomia: Entwicklung und Geschichte. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110723663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedley, D. 1999. ‘The Stoic-Platonist Debate on kathêkonta’, in Ierodiakonou, K. (ed.), Topics in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 128–52.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 2003. ‘The School, from Zeno to Arius Didymus’, in Inwood, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 7–32.10.1017/CCOL052177005X.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedley, D. 2012. ‘Marcus Aurelius on Physics’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 396–407.10.1002/9781118219836.ch25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, J. 2003. The Art of Living: The Stoics on the Nature and Function of Philosophy. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Sellars, J. 2007. ‘Stoic Practical Philosophy in the Imperial Period’, in Sorabji, R. and Sharples, R. W. (eds.), Greek and Roman Philosophy 100 bc–200 ad. 2 vols. London: Institute of Classical Studies, vol. 1, 115–40.Google Scholar
Sellars, J. 2011. ‘Is God a Mindless Vegetable? Cudworth on Stoic Theology’, Intellectual History Review 21: 121–33.10.1080/17496977.2011.574339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, J. 2012a. ‘The Meditations, and the Ancient Art of Living’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 453–64.Google Scholar
Sellars, J. 2012b. ‘Marcus Aurelius in Modern Philosophy’, in van Ackeren, M. (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 532–44.Google Scholar
Sellars, J. 2016. ‘Shaftesbury, Stoicism, and Philosophy as a Way of Life’, Sophia 55: 395–408.10.1007/s11841-015-0483-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, J. 2017. ‘Henry More as Reader of Marcus Aurelius’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 25: 916–31.10.1080/09608788.2017.1306772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, J. 2018. ‘Roman Stoic Mindfulness: An Ancient Technology of the Self’, in Dennis, M. and Werkhoven, S. (eds.), Ethics and Self-Cultivation: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge, 15–29.10.4324/9781315102269-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, J. 2019. ‘Socratic Themes in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius’, in Moore, C. (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Socrates. Leiden: Brill, 293–310.Google Scholar
Sellars, J. 2020. ‘Self or Cosmos: Foucault versus Hadot’, in Faustino, M. and Ferraro, G. (eds.), The Late Foucault: Ethical and Political Questions. London: Bloomsbury, 37–52.10.5040/9781350134386.ch-002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, J. 2021. Marcus Aurelius. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sellars, J. 2023. ‘Marcus Aurelius and the Tradition of Spiritual Exercises’, in Garani, M., Konstan, D., and Schils, G. Reydams (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 74–86.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328383.013.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaftesbury, A. Ashley Cooper, Earl of. 1727. Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. 4th ed. 3 vols. [London.]Google Scholar
Shaftesbury, A. Ashley Cooper, Earl of. 1900. The Life, Unpublished Letters, and Philosophical Regimen of Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury. London: Sawn Sonnenschein.Google Scholar
Shaftesbury, A. Ashley Cooper, Earl of. 2008. Standard Edition: Complete Works, Correspondence and Posthumous Writings, II,5 Chartae Socraticae: Design of a Socratick History. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Shaftesbury, A. Ashley Cooper, Earl of. 2011. Standard Edition: Complete Works, Correspondence and Posthumous Writings, II,6 Askêmata. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Sharples, R. W. 2010. Peripatetic Philosophy, 200 bc to ad 200: An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511781506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sihvola, J., and Engberg-Pedersen, T. (eds.) 1998. The Emotions in Hellenistic Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-015-9082-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, P. N. 2013. Galen: Psychological Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 1790. The Theory of Moral Sentiments: The Sixth Edition, with Considerable Additions and Corrections. 2 vols. London: A. Strahan, etc.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. 2000. Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. 2006. Self: Ancient and Modern Insights about Individuality, Life, and Death. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. 2007. ‘What Is New on the Self in Stoicism after 100 bc?’, in Sorabji, R. and Sharples, R. W. (eds.), Greek and Roman Philosophy: 100 bc–200 ad. 2 vols. London: Institute of Classical Studies, vol. 1, 141–62.Google Scholar
Speidel, M. A. 2017. ‘Der Philosoph als Imperator: Marc Aurel und das Militär’, in Grieb, V. (ed.), Marc Aurel: Wege zu seiner Herrschaft. Gutenberg: Computus Druck Satz & Verlag, 49–74.Google Scholar
Stanton, G. R. 1968. ‘The Cosmopolitan Ideas of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius’, Phronesis 13: 183–95.10.1163/156852868X00146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, G. R. 1969. ‘Marcus Aurelius, Emperor and Philosopher’, Historia 18: 570–87.Google Scholar
Steinmetz, P. 1994. ‘Die Stoa’, in Flashar, H. (ed.), Die hellenistische Philosophie. 2 vols. Basel: Schwabe, vol. 2, 495–716.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. A. 2000. ‘Preliminary Impulse in Stoic Psychology’, Ancient Philosophy 20: 139–68.10.5840/ancientphil200020116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, D. 1828. The Philosophy of the Active and Moral Powers of Man. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Adam Black.Google Scholar
Stewart, M. A. 1991. ‘The Stoic Legacy in the Early Scottish Enlightenment’, in Osler, M. J. (ed.), Atoms, Pneuma, and Tranquillity: Epicurean and Stoic Themes in European Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 273–96.Google Scholar
Strawson, G. 1997. ‘The Self’, Journal of Consciousness Studies 4: 405–28.Google Scholar
Strazdins, E. 2019. ‘The King of Athens: Philostratus’ Portrait of Herodes Atticus’, Classical Philology 114: 238–64.10.1086/702307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Striker, G. 1996. Essays on Hellenistic Epistemology and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139172783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stróżyński, M. 2017. ‘Rhetoric and Spiritual Exercises in Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations’, Eos 104: 285–301.Google Scholar
Szumska, D. 1964. ‘Uwagi o deminutywach u Epikteta i Marka Aureliusza’, Eos 54: 230–8.Google Scholar
Taoka, Y. 2013. ‘The Correspondence of Fronto and Marcus Aurelius: Love, Letters, Metaphor’, Classical Antiquity 32: 406–38.10.1525/CA.2013.32.2.406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thom, J. C. 2001. ‘Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and the Pythagorean Golden Verses’, Acta Classica 44: 197–219.Google Scholar
Thom, J. C. 2017. ‘Sayings as “Lebenshilfe”: The Reception and Use of Two Pythagorean Collections’, in Riedweg, C. (ed.), Philosophia in der Konkurrenz von Schulen, Wissenschaften und Religionen: zur Pluralisierung des Philosophiebegriffs in Kaiserzeit und Spätantike. Berlin: De Gruyter, 75–97.10.1515/9781501505249-007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomasius, J. 1676. Exercitatio de Stoica Mundi Exustione. Leipzig: Friedrich Lankisch.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. 1747. The Commentaries of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, Containing His Maxims of Science and Rules of Life, Wrote for His Own Use and Addressed to Himself. London: T. Parker.Google Scholar
Thomson, M. 2012. Studies in the Historia Augusta. Brussels: Latomus.Google Scholar
Turcan, R. 2019. ‘Marc Aurèle et l’au-delà’, L’Antiquité classique 88: 179–89.Google Scholar
Urbán Fernández, Á. C. 1994. ‘Los diminutivos en Marco Aurelio y en Epicteto’, in Actas del VIII congreso español de estudios clásicos. 3 vols. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, vol. 1, 309–13.Google Scholar
Van den Hout, M. P. J. (ed.) 1988. M. Cornelii Frontonis Epistulae. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Van den Hout, M. P. J. (ed.) 1999. A Commentary on the Letters of M. Cornelius Fronto. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004351301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vassallo, C. 2012. ‘Diatriba e dialogo socratico dal punto di vista della classificazione dei generi letterari’, Museum Helveticum 69: 45–61.Google Scholar
Veillard, C. 2016. ‘Hiéroclès, les devoirs envers la patrie et les parents’, in Gourinat, J.-B. (ed.), L’éthique du stoïcien Hiéroclès. Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 105–43.Google Scholar
Veillard, C. 2020. ‘Soul, Pneuma, and Blood: The Stoic Conception of the Soul’, in Inwood, B. and Warren, J. (eds.), Body and Soul in Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 145–70.Google Scholar
Vesperini, P. 2016. Droiture et mélancolie: sur les écrits de Marc Aurèle. Paris: Verdier.Google Scholar
Vesperini, P., and Ceporina, M. 2015. ‘Quinze citations de Marc Aurèle dans Reuchlin’, Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 89: 123–50.Google Scholar
Vogt, K. M. 2008. Law, Reason, and the Cosmic City: Political Philosophy in the Early Stoa. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320091.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogt, K. M. 2017. ‘The Stoics on Virtue and Happiness’, in Bobonich, C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–99.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C. and Hense, O. (eds.) 1884–1912. Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium. 5 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1981. ‘The Emperor and His Virtues’, Historia 30: 298–323.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1982. ‘Civilis princeps: Between Citizen and King’, Journal of Roman Studies 72: 32–48.10.2307/299114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warburton, W. 1809. Letters from a Late Prelate to One of his Friends. 2nd ed. London: Cadell and Davies.Google Scholar
Waterfield, R. 2021. Marcus Aurelius: Meditations. The Annotated Edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wehner, B. 2000. Die Dialogstruktur in Epiktets Diatriben. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Weiss, P. 2008. ‘Die vorbildliche Kaiserehe: Zwei Senatsbeschlüsse beim Tod der älteren und der jüngeren Faustina, neue Paradigmen und die Herausbildung des “antoninischen” Prinzipats’, Chiron 38: 1–45.Google Scholar
Westerink, L. G. 1968–72. Arethae Archiepiscopi Caesariensis Scripta Minora. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Wickham Legg, J. 1910. ‘A Bibliography of the Thoughts of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus’, Transactions of the Bibliographical Society 10: 15–81.Google Scholar
Wiedemann, T. 1989. Adults and Children in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wildberger, J. 2006. Seneca und die Stoa: Der Platz des Menschen in der Welt. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wildberger, J. 2013. ‘Paraenesis and Argument in Arrian, Discourses of Epictetus 1.4’, in Erler, M. and Hessler, J. E. (eds.), Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Berlin: De Gruyter, 411–34.Google Scholar
Wildberger, J. 2018. The Stoics and the State: Theory – Practice – Context. Stuttgart: Nomos.10.5771/9783845274485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildberger, J. 2019. ‘Cosmic Beauty in Stoicism: A Foundation for an Environmental Ethic as Love of the Other?’, in Hunt, A. and Marlow, H. (eds.), Ecology and Theology in the Ancient World: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury, 63–74.10.5040/9781350004078.ch-006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. 2012. Reading Roman Friendship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511777134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willms, L. 2011–12. Epiktets Diatribe Über die Freiheit (4.1) – Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar. 2 vols. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Wolf, E. 2015. ‘Marcus Aurelius and Non-Tragic Living’, Graeco-Latina Brunensia 20: 189–98.Google Scholar
Wolf, E. 2016. ‘Others as Matter of Indifference in Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philologica 2: 13–23.Google Scholar
Xylander, G. 1559. M. Antonini Imperatoris Romani, et Philosophi De seipso seu vita sua Libri XII. Zurich: Andreas Gesner.Google Scholar
Zimmern, A. 1887. ‘Marcus Aurelius’, inThe Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, Translated from the Greek by Jeremy Collier, Revised, with an Introduction and Notes, by Alice Zimmern. London: Walter Scott, vii–xxvii.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

The PDF of this book complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by John Sellars, Royal Holloway, University of London
  • Book: The Cambridge Companion to Marcus Aurelius' <i>Meditations</i>
  • Online publication: 02 July 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108939928.014
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by John Sellars, Royal Holloway, University of London
  • Book: The Cambridge Companion to Marcus Aurelius' <i>Meditations</i>
  • Online publication: 02 July 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108939928.014
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by John Sellars, Royal Holloway, University of London
  • Book: The Cambridge Companion to Marcus Aurelius' <i>Meditations</i>
  • Online publication: 02 July 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108939928.014
Available formats
×