I am not sure that Publius Suillius Rufus would have agreed with the article’s charitable view of Seneca. As Tacitus records, Suillius asked:
“By what kind of wisdom or philosophical principles had Seneca, within four years of royal favour, amassed three hundred million sesterces? In Rome, the wills of the childless were, as it were, caught in his net, while Italy and the provinces were drained by boundless usury.” (Annals 13.42)
Yet that kind of charge is common enough though out history. We hear it not only about Seneca, but also about Marcus Aurelius and others. To me, it is a bit like discovering your father’s hidden vices, it may be unsettling, but in the end it changes nothing. Perhaps they were not sages, nor did they claim to be. But as this article rightly points out, their works have helped many to examine their lives and to flourish. That legacy endures, regardless of the flaws of the man behind the words.
I am not sure that "historical record" is the best term as history is a subjective best guess based on sources and analysis. Some suggest there was a contradiction between what Marcus wrote and how he was as a man, such as persecution of Christians, Commodus as successor, wars, and reliance on slavery. My point is, if this is true or not, it does not really matter.
You are very right, Sir! No Homo sapiens is perfect in this world. Maybe that is why we had to invent God in the first place. Thoughts apart, what Marcus wrote in his Meditation still remains “worthy” to us; this is what it matters most to me. The rest is “unchange-able past” in Macus’s words and a little unknown too. If through the twists and turns of life of an Emperor, Marcus could scribble his “Meditation”, I take it with great respect and boundless gratitude!
I am not sure that Publius Suillius Rufus would have agreed with the article’s charitable view of Seneca. As Tacitus records, Suillius asked:
“By what kind of wisdom or philosophical principles had Seneca, within four years of royal favour, amassed three hundred million sesterces? In Rome, the wills of the childless were, as it were, caught in his net, while Italy and the provinces were drained by boundless usury.” (Annals 13.42)
Yet that kind of charge is common enough though out history. We hear it not only about Seneca, but also about Marcus Aurelius and others. To me, it is a bit like discovering your father’s hidden vices, it may be unsettling, but in the end it changes nothing. Perhaps they were not sages, nor did they claim to be. But as this article rightly points out, their works have helped many to examine their lives and to flourish. That legacy endures, regardless of the flaws of the man behind the words.
What does recorded history tell about major faults in emperor Marcus Aurelius?
I am not sure that "historical record" is the best term as history is a subjective best guess based on sources and analysis. Some suggest there was a contradiction between what Marcus wrote and how he was as a man, such as persecution of Christians, Commodus as successor, wars, and reliance on slavery. My point is, if this is true or not, it does not really matter.
You are very right, Sir! No Homo sapiens is perfect in this world. Maybe that is why we had to invent God in the first place. Thoughts apart, what Marcus wrote in his Meditation still remains “worthy” to us; this is what it matters most to me. The rest is “unchange-able past” in Macus’s words and a little unknown too. If through the twists and turns of life of an Emperor, Marcus could scribble his “Meditation”, I take it with great respect and boundless gratitude!
That didn't really end very good for him.