I really don't know if the casual link is as firm as you insist. To what extent are parents are culpable for the crimes of their of-age children? And is there any indication that the philosophy expounded in the Meditations would lead to a maladjusted child? It feels like you're dismissing all of Aurelius' thought on the basis of something that may or may not be his fault, instead of contending with his thought directly.

There is maladjustment as in individual sickness. And then there are value systems, beliefs and philosophies that leads to or enable bad behavior or bad actors.

Dealing with thought only in abstract often ignores real world consequences of that thought system. It makes sense to ask what part of that thought lead to different behavior in real world.

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.

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.

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.

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

> 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.

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.

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...

Yes, that is my argument.

I don't think most people would consider inability to predict events that will occur after your death, and the act of not committing filicide to be very serious character shortcomings.

Commodus renounced Stoicism after his fathers death, and didn't do any of the terrible things he was known for until after then either.

This argument is beyond weak in terms of criticising Stoicism or Marcus.

There's a big difference between using Commodus as proof of Marcus' flaws, and using him as proof that Marcus was only human.

If the argument were that weak, you wouldn't bother with the strawman to counter it.

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

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.

What was parenthood like in Roman times? Were parents involved in the day to day lives of their children, or was that task generally distributed to teacher-slaves and other staff?

Probably the latter, especially for an emperor. People who Had Money and who Got Shit Done before modern times seem not to have spent a ton of time on their kids compared to (relative) poors, then and now, even if they did like them. See also The Great Gatsby for some people who Have Money but do not bother to Get Shit Done doing the same.

Probably that's still kinda true for most people who have kids but are famous for accomplishing just about anything. And anyway even poors pay for childcare now, what with two-income households, and between that and school end up spending maybe 1/4 of their kids' waking hours even kinda near them, at best, and much of that occupied with meals and morning/night routines (so, a good bit of it the stuff people who can afford it tend to outsource, though also they usually outsource a good deal of cleaning so the time-spent-together may be a wash), so maybe a little instruction by example but little time for anything like serious coursework or major instruction from parents.