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

id="note-422" epub:type="endnote">

Chrysippus wrote a book on the resolution of Syllogisms. Diogenes Laërtius (Lives vii) says of Chrysippus that he was so famous among Dialecticians that most persons thought, if there was Dialectic among the Gods, it would not be any other than that of Chrysippus. ↩

See Johann Schweighäuser’s note on ἀκαταληκτικῶς. ↩

“That is, let us not now consider whether I am perfect in the art of speaking, and you have a mind well prepared to derive real advantage from philosophical talk. Let us consider this only, whether your ears are sufficiently prepared for listening, whether you can understand a philosophical discussion.” Johann Schweighäuser ↩

See Johann Schweighäuser’s note. ↩

In the ninth book of the Iliad, where Achilles answers the messengers sent to him by Agamemnon. The reply of Achilles is a wonderful example of eloquence. ↩

See book II chapter XVII. ↩

Compare Xenophon, Memorabilia iii 9, 4. ↩

There is some deficiency in the text. Cicero (Academica Priora i 12), “ut enim necesse est lancem in libra ponderibus impositis deprimi; sic snimum perspicuis cedere,” appears to supply the deficiency. ↩

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations v 28; x 4. ↩

A Pancratiast is a man who is trained for the Pancratium, that is, both for boxing and wrestling. The Pentathlon comprised five exercises, which are expressed by one Greek line,

Leaping, running, the quoit, throwing the Javelin, wrestling.

Compare Aristotle, Rhetoric i 5. ↩

Compare Horace, Satires ii 3, v 253.

Quacro, faciasne quod olim
Mutatus Polemon? etc.

The story of Polemon is told by Diogenes Laërtius. He was a dissolute youth. As he was passing one day the place where Xenocrates was lecturing, he and his drunken companions burst into the school, but Polemon was so affected by the words of the excellent teacher that he came out quite a different man, and ultimately succeeded Xenocrates in the school of the Academy. See book IV chapter XI at 30. ↩

Laius consulted the oracle at Delphi how he should have children. The oracle told him not to beget children, and even to expose them if he did. Laius was so foolish as to disobey the god in both respects, for he begot children and brought them up. He did indeed order his child Oedipus to be exposed, but the boy was saved and became the murderer of Laius. ↩

Plato, Apology, i 9, etc. and chapter 17. ↩

See note 20. ↩

Cicero, De Finibus ii 11; Horace, Epistles i 10, 12. This was the great principle of Zeno, to live according to nature. Bishop Butler in the preface to his Sermons says of this philosophical principle, that virtue consisted in following nature, that it is “a manner of speaking not loose and undeterminate, but clear and distinct, strictly just and true.” ↩

The bare use of objects (appearances) belongs to all animals; a rational use of them is peculiar to man. Elizabeth Carter, Introduction §7. ↩

ὅλον δι᾽ ὅλων αὐτὸ ποίησον. Hieronymus Wolf proposed an emendation which Johann Schweighäuser does not put in his text, but he has expressed it in the Latin version. The Greek is intelligible, if we look to what follows. ↩

From the Odyssey, i 37, where Zeus is speaking of Aegisthus. ↩

In place of προκόψαντα Johann Schweighäuser suggests that we should read προκόψοντα: and this is probable. ↩

καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός is the usual Greek expression to signify a perfect man. The Stoics, according to Joannes Stobaeus, absurdly called “virtue,” καλόν (beautiful), because it naturally “calls” (καλεῖ) to itself those who desire it. The Stoics also said that everything good was beautiful (καλός), and that the good and the beautiful were equivalent. The Roman expression is Vir bonus et sapiens. (Horace Epistles i 7, 22 and 16, 20). Perhaps the phrase καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός arose from the notion of beauty and goodness being the combination of a perfect human being. ↩

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations xi 37, “as to sensual desire he should altogether keep away from it; and as to avoidance [aversion] he should not show it with respect to any of the things which are not in our power.” ↩

To point out a man with the middle finger was a way of showing the greatest contempt for him. ↩

As to Archedemus, see book II chapter IV at 11. Ἀπέχεις ἅπαντα: this expression is compared by John Upton with Matthew 6:2, ἀπέχουσι μισθὸν. ↩

Hieronymus Wolf suggests οἷος. Crinis was a Stoic philosopher mentioned by Diogenes Laërtius. We may suppose that he was no real philosopher, and that he died of fright. ↩

See this chapter above. ↩

τοὺς σιφάρους. On this reading the student may consult the note in Johann Schweighäuser’s edition. The word σιφάρους, if it is the right reading, is not clear; nor the meaning of this conclusion.

The philosopher is represented as being full of anxiety about things which do not concern him, and which are proper subjects for those only who are free from disturbing passions and are quite happy, which is not the philosopher’s condition. He is compared to a sinking ship,