Discourses, Epictetus [the beginning after the end read novel TXT] 📗

of his birth is not stated, but it is said that he lived to the age of ninety.

See Thomas Woodhouse Levin’s Six Lectures Introductory to the Philosophical Writings of Cicero, 1871. Lecture II, “On the Pyrrhonian Ethic;” Lecture III, “On the grounds of Scepticism.” ↩

ἀπώλετο does not mean that the father is dead, and that the mother is dead. They survive and lament. Compare Euripides, Alcestis, v 825:

ἀπωλόμεσθα πάντες, οὐ κείνη μόν

↩

Homer, Iliad, xii verse 328: ἴομεν, ἠὲ τῳ εὐχος ὀρέξομεν ἦέ τις ἡμῖν. ↩

“This means, the received opinion about the knowledge and certainty of things, which knowledge and certainty the Sceptic philosophers attack by taking away general assent or consent” (Hieronymus Wolf). Lord Shaftesbury accepts this explanation. See also Johann Schweighäuser’s note. ↩

“The chief question which was debated between the Pyrrhonists and the Academics on one side, and the Stoics on the other, was this, whether there is a criterion of truth; and in the first place, the question is about the evidence of the senses, or the certainty of truth in those things which are perceived by the senses.” —⁠Johann Schweighäuser.

The strength of the Stoic system was that “it furnishes a groundwork of common sense, and the universal belief of mankind, on which to found sufficient certitude for the requirements of life: on the other hand, the real question of knowledge, in the philosophical sense of the word, was abandoned.” Thomas Woodhouse Levin’s Six Lectures Introductory to the Philosophical Writings of Cicero, p. 70. ↩

ὡς πρὸς σκοπόν, Johann Schweighäuser’s emendation in place of ὡς προκόπτων. ↩

For the word συνήθειαν, which occurs in s. 20, Johann Schweighäuser suggests ἀλήθειαν here, and translates it by “veritas.” See his notes on this chapter, s. 15 and s. 20. ↩

See chapter XVIII of this book. ↩

We cannot conceive that the number of stars is either even or odd. The construction of the word ἀποπάσχειν is uncertain, for, says Johann Schweighäuser, the word is found only here. ↩

The Medea of Euripides, 1079, “where, instead of δρᾶν μέλλω of Epictetus, the reading is τολμήσω” (John Upton). “τολμήσω (Adolf Kirchoff), with the best manuscripts, for δρᾶν μέλλω, which, however is the reading cited by several ancient authors.” Frederick Apthorp Paley’s Euripides, note. ↩

This is the literal version. It does not mean “that it appeared right,” as Elizabeth Carter translates it. Alexander never thought whether it was right or wrong. All that appeared to him was the possessing of Helene, and he used the means for getting possession of her, as a dog who spies and pursues some wild animal. ↩

Johann Schweighäuser proposes to erase μὴ from the text, but it is, I suppose, in all the manuscripts: and it is easy to explain the passage without erasing the, μὴ. ↩

The expression τὸ φαινόμενον often occurs in this chapter, and it is sometimes translated by the Latin “sententia” or “opinio”: and so it may be, and I have translated it by “opinion.” But Epictetus says (s. 30) ἀλλὰ τί ἐφάνη, καὶ εἰθὺς ποιῶ τὸ φανέν: which means that there was an appearance, which was followed by the act. The word generally used by Epictetus is φαντασία, which occurs very often. In the Enchiridion (i 5) there is some difference between φαντασία and τὸ φαινόμενον, for they are contrasted: τὸ φαινόμενον is the phenomenon, the bare appearance: φαντασία in this passage maybe the mental state consequent on the φαινόμενον: or as Diogenes Laërtius says, Παντασία ἐστι τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ. ↩

The word is οὐσία. The corresponding Latin word which Cicero introduced is “essentia” (Seneca, Epistles 58). The English word “essence” has obtained a somewhat different sense. The proper translation of οὐσία is “being” or “nature.” ↩

This is the maxim of Horace, Epistles i 6; and Macleane’s note:

Nil admirari prope res est una, Numici,
Solaque quae possit facere et servare beatum.

on which John Upton remarks that this maxim is explained very philosophically and learnedly by Lord Shaftesbury (the author of the Characteristics), vol. iii p. 202. Compare Marcus Aurelius, Meditations xii 1; Seneca, De Vita Beata, chapter 3, writes, “Aliarum rerum quae vitam instruunt diligens, sine admiratione cujusquam.” Marcus Aurelius (Meditations i 15) expresses the “sine admiratione” by τὸ ἀθαύμαστον. ↩

This is explained by what follows. Opinion does not really conquer itself; but one opinion can conquer another, and nothing else can. ↩

The two chief prosecutors of Socrates (Plato, Apology, chapter 18; book II chapter II at 15). ↩

See book I chapter XVIII at 15. ↩

ὠφέλησαι. See Johann Schweighäuser’s note. ↩

One of those who cry out “Philosopher,” etc. ↩

See book I chapter IX at 20. ↩

See book I chapter VI at 13. ↩

Socrates was condemned by the Athenians to die, and he was content to die, and thought that it was a good thing; and this was the reason why he made such a defense as he did, which brought on