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

epub:type="endnote">

Cicero, De Finibus ii 30, 31, speaking of the letter which Epicurus wrote to Hermarchus when he was dying, says “that the actions of Epicurus were inconsistent with his sayings,” and “his writings were confuted by his probity and morality.” ↩

Paul says, Corinthians 1:15, 32: “If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” The words “let us eat and drink, etc.” are said to be a quotation from the Thais of Menander. The meaning seems to be, that if I do not believe in the resurrection of the dead, why should I not enjoy the sensual pleasures of life only? This is not the doctrine of Epictetus, as we see in the text. ↩

It would give security to the Epicureans, that they would enjoy all that they value, if other men should be persuaded that we are all made for fellowship, and that temperance is a good thing. ↩

See John Upton’s note. ↩

I have followed Johann Schweighäuser who suggests προσεξεργάσασθαι in place of the manuscripts’ προσεργάσασθαι. ↩

Polybius (The Histories vi 56), when he is speaking of the Roman state, commends the men of old time, who established in the minds of the multitude the opinions about the gods and Hades, wherein, he says, they acted more wisely than those in his time who would destroy such opinions. ↩

Epictetus alludes to the Spartans who fought at Thermopylae, 480 BC against Xerxes and his army. Herodotus (The Histories vii 228) has recorded the inscription placed over the Spartans:

Stranger, go tell the Spartans, Here we lie
Obedient to those who bade us die.

The inscription is translated by Cicero, Tusculan Disputations i 42. ↩

When Xerxes was advancing on Athens, the Athenians left the city and embarked on their vessels before the battle of Salamis, 480 BC. See Cicero, De Officiis, iii 11. ↩

He is now attacking the Academics, who asserted that we can know nothing. ↩

Epictetus is speaking according to the popular notions. To deny Demeter and to eat the bread which she gives is the same thing in the common notions of the Greeks, as it would be for Epictetus to deny the existence of God and to eat the bread which he gives. ↩

The manuscripts have παράσχωμεν. Παράσχωσι would be in conformity with the rest of the passage. But this change of persons is common in Epictetus. ↩

“This resembles what our Saviour said to the Jewish rulers: Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.” Matthew 21:31. (Elizabeth Carter.)

To an Academic who said he comprehended nothing, the Stoic Ariston replied, “Do you not see even the person who is sitting near you?” When the Academic denied it, Ariston said, “Who made you blind? who stole your power of sight?” (Diogenes Laërtius Lives vii 163. John Upton.) ↩

Johann Schweighäuser has some remarks on the title of this chapter. He says “that this discourse does not keep to the same subject, but proceeds from that with which it began to other things.” ↩

καταστολὰς ποιήσας. I have omitted these words because I don’t understand them; nor do the commentators. The word καταστολή occurs in book II chapter X at 15, where it is intelligible. ↩

Literally, “because to you or for you nothing is brought from home.” Perhaps the meaning is explained by what follows. The man has no comfort at home; he brings nothing by the thought of which he is comforted. ↩

See book I chapter VII. ↩

See book II chapter XVII at 34. ↩

τί με ταῦτα ὠφελήσει; Johann Schweighäuser in his note says that he has written the text thus; but he has not. He has written τί μετὰ ταῦτα ὠφελήσει; The με appears to be necessary, and he has rendered the passage accordingly; and rightly, I think. ↩

See note 32 on Halteres. ↩

See book II chapter XXV. ↩

“In this dissertation is expounded the Stoic principle that friendship is only possible between the good.”⁠—Johann Schweighäuser. He also says that there was another discourse by Epictetus on this subject, in which he expressed some of the opinions of Musonius Rufus (note 13). Johann Schweighäuser draws this conclusion from certain words of Joannes Stobaeus; and he supposes that this dissertation of Epictetus was in one of the last four books of Epictetus’ discourses by Arrian, which have been lost.

Cicero (De Amicitia chapter 5) says “nisi in bonis amicitiam ease non posse,” and chapter 18. ↩

The first verse is from the Alcestis of Euripides, line 691. The second in Epictetus is not in Euripides. Johann Schweighäuser thinks that it has been intruded into the text from a trivial scholium. ↩

From the Phoenissae of Euripides, line 723, etc. ↩

Compare Euripides, Hecuba, line 846, etc.:

δεινόν γε θνητοῖς ὡς ἅπαντα συμπίτνει·
καὶ τὰς ἀνάγκας ὡς νόμοι διώρισαν,
φίλους τιφέντες τούς γε πολεμιωτάτους
ἐχθρούς τε τοὺς πρὶν εὐμενεῖς ποιούμενοι.

↩

Alexander did this when Hephaestion died. Arrian, Expedition of Alexander, vii 14. ↩

Matthew 6:21, “for where your treasure