[llm_nerd]

Eh, their comment reads more like gatekeeping. And I wouldn't call any translation the "original". Each are doing precisely what this video does, though obviously to different degrees.

Speaking of which, too many are far too focused on this being a "video". It's an "audiobook" with some AI images. The use of YouTube for audio is pretty common.

It's something one might casually listen to in the background while doing other things, marvelling that Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, arguably the most powerful and richest person on the planet at the time -- five hundred years before the birth of Islam and barely after Christ -- had such approachable, reasonable, "modern" thoughts and concerns and outlooks.

[kstrauser]

You raise good points I wouldn’t argue against.

You mention something important I left out of my micro-review in another post. I was fascinated that a book so old sounded so utterly modern. It was so candid and intimate with little flowery pontificating (which you wouldn’t expect from it, but still). Instead of a history lesson, it’s a guidebook for modern living.

Clever guy, our Mark.

[wharvle]

I'm a big fan of Staniforth's translation. It reads remarkably close to a literal translation. I've done line-by-line, side-by-side comparisons with the Greek & Greek-English dictionary lookup, a painfully-literal English translation, and several major English translations, to see which one belonged on my shelves. It is also a breezy, modern-feeling read—for this sort of work, at any rate. It's new enough that it lacks most of the outdated-feeling English of earlier translations, which earlier translations typically deviate more than Staniforth from the original text, anyway, so it's not like they were in some way better.

Most of the "easier" or "updated" modern translations inject a ton of their own style, erasing that of the original text. One that really irks me is a translation that "fixes" the style of the opening "from so-and-so, I learned such-and-such" sentences by making them clipped little fragments, with the claim that it's more in keeping with the stylistic "quick, dashed-off notes" intent of the original—but it isn't! That is not how it's written! Some translators made those more flowery than necessary, but they definitely aren't written like that! Staniforth's reads damn near identically the original Greek, but without being at all hard to read. It's the closest I could find to ideal fidelity that also isn't clunky—it mutates the language just enough that it's entirely acceptable and easy-reading English.

[HPsquared]

It has timeless appeal. That's what makes it a true classic.