That, and her characterization of Marcus Aurelius as a "misanthropic, warmongering emperor" and his Meditations as having been written "for his own edification" as if it were some kind of selfish or self-aggrandizing work worthy of dismissal.

As far as I was aware, Marcus Aurelius had a reputation as a wise and temperate philosopher king in his lifetime, and was later considered the last of the "five good emperors". If he was a warmonger then let us remind ourselves that even in the modern day our leaders have spent the last hundred years waging war somewhere or another in order to maintain a sphere of power too. And Meditations was in reality his private diary - like any regular person would routinely keep - and was not intended to ever be published. Characterizing it like she did is uncharitable at best and misleading at worst.

(Meditations is also an excellent read for those interested in Stoic philosophy.)