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

were resolved into it,” an opinion afterwards adopted by the Stoics. It is not so extravagant as it may appear to some persons, to suppose that the earth had a beginning, is in a state of continual change, and will finally be destroyed in some way and have a new beginning. See Seneca, Epistle 9 “cum resolute mundo, diis in unum confusis, paulisper oessante natura, adquiescit sibi Jupiter, cogitationibus suis traditus.” ↩

The Latin translation is: “hoe etiam nonnulli facturum eum in conflagratione mundi⁠ ⁠… aiunt.” But the word is ποιεῖ; and this may mean that the conflagration has happened, and will happen again. The Greek philosophers in their speculations were not troubled with the consideration of time. Even Herodotus (The Histories ii 11), in his speculations on the gulf, which he supposes that the Nile valley was once, speaks of the possibility of it being filled up in 20,000 years, or less. Modern speculators have only recently become bold enough to throw aside the notion of the earth and the other bodies in space being limited by time, as the ignorant have conceived it. ↩

See book III chapter I at 43. ↩

“What a melancholy description of death and how gloomy the ideas in this consolatory chapter! All beings reduced to mere elements in successive conflagrations! A noble contrast to the Stoic notions on this subject may be produced from several passages in the Scripture⁠—‘Then shall the dust return to the earth, as it was; and the spirit shall return to God who gave it,’ Ecclesiastes 12:7.”⁠—Elizabeth Carter; who also refers to 1 Thessalonians 4:14; John 6:39⁠–⁠40, 11:25⁠–⁠26; 1 Corinthians 6:14, 15:53; 2 Corinthians 5:14, etc.

Carter quotes Ecclesiastes, but the author says nearly what Epicharmus said, quoted by Plutarch, παραμυθ. Πρὸς Ἀπολλώνιον, vol. i p. 435 ed. Wytt.

συνεκρίθη καὶ διεκρίθη καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ὅθεν ἦλθε πάλιν,
γᾶ μὲν ἐς γᾶν, πνεῦμα δ᾽ ἄνω τί τῶνδε χαλεπόν; οὐδὲ ἕν.

Euripides in a fragment of the Chrysippus, fragment 836, ed. Johan August Nauck, says

τὰ μὲν ἐκ γαίας φύντ᾽ εἰς γαῖαν,
τὰ δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ αἰθερίου βλαστόντα γονῆς
εἰς οὐράνιον πάλιν ἦλθε πόλον.

I have translated the words of Epictetus ὅσον πνευματίου, εἰς πνευμάτιον by “of air (spirit), to air”: but the πνευμάτιον of Epictetus may mean the same as the πνεῦμα of Epicharmus, and the same as the “spirit” of Ecclesiastes.

An English commentator says that “the doctrine of a future retribution forms the great basis and the leading truth of this book (Ecclesiastes),” and that “the royal Preacher (Ecclesiastes) brings forward the prospect of a future life and retribution.” I cannot discover any evidence of this assertion in the book. The conclusion is the best part of this ill-connected, obscure and confused book, as it appears in our translation. The conclusion is (12:13⁠–⁠14): “Fear God and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man, for God shall bring every work into judgment with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.” This is all that I can discover in the book which can support the commentator’s statement; and even this may not mean what he affirms.

Johann Schweighäuser observes that here was the opportunity for Epictetus to say something of the immortality of the soul, if he had anything to say. But he says nothing unless he means to say that the soul, the spirit, “returns to God who gave it” as the Preacher says. There is a passage (book III chapter XXIV at 94) which appears to mean that the soul of man after death will be changed into something else, which the universe will require for some use or purpose. It is strange, observes Schweighäuser, that Epictetus, who studied the philosophy of Socrates, and speaks so eloquently of man’s capacity and his duty to God, should say no more: but the explanation may be that he had no doctrine of man’s immortality, in the sense in which that word is now used. ↩

The text has ἀρχομένων, but it probably ought to be ἀρχομένῳ. Compare book I chapter I at 8, πᾶσα δύναμις ἐπισφαλής.

The text from φέρειν οὖν δεῖ to τῷ φθισικῷ is unintelligible. Lord Shaftesbury says that the passage is not corrupt, and he gives an explanation; but Johann Schweighäuser says that the learned Englishman’s exposition does not make the text plainer to him; nor does it to me. Schweighäuser observes that the passage which begins πᾶσα μεγάλη and what follows seem to belong to the next chapter, xiv. ↩

See Johann Schweighäuser’s note, and the Latin version ↩

All the manuscripts have “good” (καλοί), which the critics have properly corrected. As to σκόπει see Johann Schweighäuser’s note. ↩

This section is not easy to translate. ↩

Compare Enchiridion 29.

“This chapter has a great conformity to Luke 14:28 etc. But it is to be observed that Epictetus, both here and elsewhere, supposes some persons incapable of being philosophers; that is, virtuous and pious men: but Christianity requires and enables all to be such.” —⁠Elizabeth Carter.

The passage in Luke contains a practical lesson, and so far is the same as the teaching of Epictetus: but the conclusion in verse 33 does not appear to be helped by what immediately precedes verses 28⁠–⁠32. The remark that Christianity “enables all to be such” is not true, unless Carter gives to the word “enables” a meaning which I do not see. ↩

The commentators refer us to Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:25. Compare Horace, Ars Poetica, 39:

Versate diu quid ferre recusent,
Quid valeant humeri.

↩

Hieronymus Wolf thought that the