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

philosopher was not put to the same test, and we cannot therefore say that he would have been able to bear it. ↩

In this passage the distinction must be observed between θέλω and βουλομαι, which the Latin translators have not observed, nor Elizabeth Carter. See Johann Schweighäuser’s note on s. 90. ↩

ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ: he means “on earth.” ↩

Johann Schweighäuser expresses his surprise that Epictetus has applied this word (ὁρμάς) to God. He says that Hieronymus Wolf has translated it “Dei appetitionem,” and John Upton “impetum.” He says that he has translated it “consilium.”

It is not unusual for men to speak of God in the same words in which they speak of man. ↩

See book II chapter I at 18. Johann Schweighäuser expected that Epictetus would have said “body and possessions etc.” I assume that Epictetus did say “body and possessions etc.,” and that his pupil or some copyist of manuscripts has omitted the word “body.” ↩

“The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away. Job 1:21.” —⁠Elizabeth Carter ↩

The initiated (μύσται) are those who were introduced with solemn ceremonies into some great religious body. These ceremonies are described by Dio Chrysostom, Orations xii, quoted by John Upton. ↩

“And is this all the comfort, every serious reader will be apt to say, which one of the best philosophers, in one of his noblest discourses, can give to the good man under severe distress? ‘Either tell yourself that present suffering, void of future hope, is no evil, or give up your existence and mingle with the elements of the Universe!’ Unspeakably more rational and more worthy of infinite goodness is our blessed Master’s exhortation to the persecuted Christian: ‘Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven.’ ” —⁠Elizabeth Carter.

I do not think that Carter has represented correctly the teaching of Epictetus. He is addressing men who were not Christians, but were, as he assumes, believers in God or in the Gods, and his argument is that a man ought to be contented with things as they are, because they are from God. If he cannot be contented with things as they are, and make the best of them, the philosopher can say no more to the man. He tells him to depart. What else could he say to a grumbler, who is also a believer in God? If he is not a believer, Epictetus might say the same to him also. The case is past help or advice.

The Christian doctrine, of which probably Epictetus knew nothing, is very different. It promises future happiness on certain conditions to Christians, but to Christians only, if I understand it right. ↩

See the note of Johann Schweighäuser on this passage. ↩

The word is καρπίστην δίδως. See book III chapter XXIV at 76 and note 583: also John Upton’s note on this passage. Johann Schweighäuser says that he does not quite understand why Epictetus here says διδόναι καρπίστην, “dare vindicem” or “adsertorem,” instead of saying “vindicate sese in libertatem.” ↩

See book III chapter XXIV at 66; book II chapter XIII at 24. ↩

See the same story in Aulus Gellius (Attic Nights ii chapter 18), who says that Xeniades, a Corinthian, bought Diogenes, manumitted him and made him the master of his children. ↩

See Johann Schweighäuser’s note 15. ↩

See note 21. ↩

I do not know if dogs sweat; at least in a state of health I have never seen it. But this is a question for the learned in dog science. ↩

See Johann Schweighäuser’s note. ↩

As John Upton remarks, Epictetus is referring to the four categories of the Stoics. ↩

Epictetus, Enchiridion chapter 52. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Thomas Gataker’s second edition 1697, Annot. p. 96. ↩

Stoicus occidit Baream, delator amicum,
Discipulumque senex.

—⁠Juvenal, Satires iii 116

Epictetus is supposed to allude to the crime of Egnatius Celer who accused Barea Soranus at Rome in the reign of Nero (Tacitus, The Annals xvi 32). ↩

Elizabeth Carter says that “there is much obscurity and some variety of reading in several lines of the original.” But see Johann Schweighäuser’s notes. Epictetus is showing that talk about philosophy is useless: philosophy should be practical. ↩

Horace Satires ii 5. ↩

Aprulla is a Roman woman’s name. It means some old woman who is courted for her money. ↩

Compare Plato (Symposium, p. 206): “All men conceive both as to the body and as to the soul, and when they have arrived at a certain age, our nature desires to procreate. But it cannot procreate in that which is ugly, but in that which is beautiful. For the conjunction of man and woman is generation; but this act is divine, and this in the animal which is mortal is divine, conceiving and begetting.” See what is said in note 420 on marrying. In a certain sense the procreation of children is a duty, and consequently the providing for them is also a duty. It is the fulfilling of the will and purpose of the Deity to people the earth; and therefore the act of procreation is divine. So a man’s duty is to labor in some way, and if necessary, to earn his living and sustain the life