Yep. The article points out "The stoicism that has become popular today draws on Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, three men living during the Roman Empire..." and discusses each. The same book I quoted has a similar sentence "The most important of the Roman Stoics—and the Stoics from whom, I think, modern individuals have the most to gain—were Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius." Each of them gets a few pages of personal history, their refinements to or deviations from the Stoicism of their time, and how the two connect. I didn't want to post a ton of quotes to try to rebut every detail of the article, but you're right that I missed the opportunity to mention that's available as well.
>> The attention to Aurelius as emperor comes at the price of overlooking the young Marcus, a lover writing erotic letters to his teacher, the African orator Fronto:
There isn't a lot offered to support the conclusion that stoicism somehow caused Aurelius to turn away from love and accept power. I would be hesitant of drawing such a conclusion based on the paucity of evidence; but the author just asserts it. The trope of the philosopher more interested in contemplation than earthly affairs is just that: a trope. There isn't really an argument here, just indignation at this ancedote.
I don't get it. We have actual, historical sources, that point to what the Stoics were all about, not a lot mind you, but primary sources of any sort from that time period are rare. Nevertheless, we have them. You've gotta be an actual historian to be able to contextualize them, but we're in luck here, people have done that!
But people will go with the pithiest pop philosophy and pooh pooh the real history. And worse, claim that theirs is the more well-sourced position! Based on non-historical pop takes! Ah well. Stoicism, just like all pop takes on Roman culture, will never die.
Like, look at your argument here. You're dismissing the authors examples, keep in mind that these are direct sources from the time period, by a practicing historian, with the reasoning that "it's just fitting a common trope." Nothing to replace it with, nothing to the contrary except "it's a trope". At least the other reply appealed to an authority!
I'm trying to work out in my head just how close to a degree in history you have to be, either through self-study or matriculated study, in order to actually be able to appreciate history, to not make these kinds of basic category errors regarding sourcing. I guess it's a lot.