Thank you for sharing!! For the record, the Annotated Meditations is a great version of the book as the translation is quite readable and the notes very useful.
However, I don't like that the article pushes as a fact the notion that Marcus Aurelius was not heterosexual, an idea that is sadly derived from the book
Marcus Aurelius in Love, a very biased book with little historical context and quite a few episodes of butchering of MA's writings. There is no indication that he was not heterosexual - quite the contrary he had a wife and several kids. Now, it is possible that he was homosexual (he would've not been the only Roman emperor to be one), but the truth is that we
do not know because there is no evidence of it. Sadly, the idea is due to a clearly biased reading of his letters to Fronto, which in modern language contain a lot of "I love you" and such, which were actually regular courtesies exchanged from one person to another especially when there was some power imbalance. (see
https://digitalcommons.macalester.e...sredir=1&article=1013&context=classics_honors). The truth is that Fronto was Marcus Aurelius' rhetoric teacher, we don't know much about them, and all the letters between them (at least those that survive) are exercises in extreme rhetoric. Here's a much better study on the matter:
https://www.academia.edu/8178444/Wh...Studia_Humaniora_Tartuensia_10_A_3_2009_p_1_7
Now, does any of this impact MA's legacy (both good and bad) in any way whatsoever? No, but I'd like to set the historical record straight, especially when a figure is mythologized to the excess (and I might be guilty of it myself) is involved.