[darkpuma]

Consider the existence of good people with bad parents. Should those bad parents be credited with the success of their children? It seems perverse to assume parents deserve full 'credit' in either scenario. There are many things other than parents that may influence that child's direction for better or worse.

[reitzensteinm]

Raising a bad child is one thing, but handing them the keys to the kingdom is another.

It's not enough to dismiss the philosophy, but parent comment is absolutely correct that you should keep it in mind as historical context.

[AmericanChopper]

If historical context is important, then you might want to mention that Rome was a hereditary empire. The 5 good emperors were all adopted by emperors who had no sons. In the historical context of Rome, Marcus didn’t hand Commodus anything, or empower him to become emperor. He rightfully inherited the position.

[reitzensteinm]

At the time of Aurelius, I'm not so sure that's an accurate description. The only non-adopted sons given power from Julius through Marcus were those of Vespasian (though a lot of adoptions were of extended family members).

Of course, to not hand power to Commodus would have meant his death. I'm not judging him for his decision, but given his absolute power and obvious clarity of thought, it was a conscious decision to choose his son's life over the good of the empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors

[AmericanChopper]

> it was a conscious decision to choose his son's life over the good of the empire.

The generally contrived nature of this argument aside, this is really just revisionism. Commodus was 18 when Aurelius died, and he didn't become a lunatic until a fair bit after his fathers death. If you're looking for flaws in Marcus Aurelius (there's plenty), this isn't one of them.

[reitzensteinm]

Commodus did plenty as a child, even if it was overshadowed by later lunacy. My argument was poorly made though. I'll try to restate:

It's easy to get swept up in Meditations, viewing Marcus as the stoic Philosopher King that has profound lessons for us even today.

Parent tried to remind everyone about Commodus, and in my opinion correctly so; if Marcus lived up to the myth surrounding him, he'd have intuited the situation and dealt with it.

But he either didn't see what was coming, or decided to do nothing. Because for all the hype, he was just a man. Keeping this in mind is an antidote to getting carried away by what is a genuinely compelling piece of writing.

I wouldn't make this argument in a vacuum, but I saw OP get downvoted and wanted to jump in because I thought it was a fair enough point.

[AmericanChopper]

So if he was as great as people say he was, then he would have intuited the fact that his son would eventually turn out to be a bad emperor, and would have murdered him? Hmmm...

[pewpewpew777]

Even partial credit seems enough to question the wisdom of Marcus Aurelius's philosophy.

He raised Commodus, and co-ruled with him for a time. - He was was either unaware of his son's (lack) of fitness or - He was aware but unwilling to take corrective action or - He was aware but unable to take corrective action

[darkpuma]

Considering the extreme excesses of Commodus came after his father was no longer in the picture, Marcus Auerelius being unaware of what his son would do in the future seems rather likely.