This is a modern-English version of A Selection from the Discourses of Epictetus with the Encheiridion, originally written by Epictetus.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
A SELECTION FROM THE DISCOURSES OF EPICTETUS WITH THE ENCHEIRIDION
TRANSLATED BY GEORGE LONG
CONTENTS.
EPICTETUS (BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE). |
A SELECTION FROM THE DISCOURSES OF EPICTETUS. |
THE ENCHEIRIDION, OR MANUAL. |
EPICTETUS.
Very little is known of the life of Epictetus. It is said that he was a native of Hierapolis in Phrygia, a town between the Maeander and a branch of the Maeander named the Lycus. Hierapolis is mentioned in the epistle of Paul to the people of Colossae (Coloss. iv., 13); from which it has been concluded that there was a Christian church in Hierapolis in the time of the apostle. The date of the birth of Epictetus is unknown. The only recorded fact of his early life is that he was a slave in Rome, and his master was Epaphroditus, a profligate freedman of the Emperor Nero. There is a story that the master broke his slave’s leg by torturing him; but it is better to trust to the evidence of Simplicius, the commentator on the Encheiridion, or Manual, who says that Epictetus was weak in body and lame from an early age. It is not said how he became a slave; but it has been asserted in modern times that the parents sold the child. I have not, however, found any authority for this statement.
Very little is known about Epictetus's life. He is believed to have come from Hierapolis in Phrygia, a town located between the Maeander River and a branch of it called the Lycus. Hierapolis is mentioned in Paul's letter to the people of Colossae (Coloss. iv., 13); from this, it is assumed that there was a Christian church in Hierapolis during the time of the apostle. The exact date of Epictetus's birth remains unknown. The only confirmed fact about his early life is that he was a slave in Rome, owned by Epaphroditus, a notorious freedman of Emperor Nero. There’s a story that his master broke his leg while torturing him, but it's better to rely on the account of Simplicius, the commentator on the Encheiridion, or Manual, who mentions that Epictetus was physically weak and lame from a young age. It's unclear how he ended up a slave, but some contemporary sources claim that his parents sold him. However, I haven’t found any credible evidence to support this claim.
It may be supposed that the young slave showed intelligence, for his master sent or permitted him to attend the lectures of C. Musonius Rufus, an eminent Stoic philosopher. It may seem strange that such a master should have wished to have his slave made into a philosopher; but Garnier, the author of a “Mémoire sur les Ouvrages d’Epictète,” explains this matter very well in a communication to Schweighaeuser. Garnier says: “Epictetus, born at Hierapolis of Phrygia of poor parents, was indebted apparently for the advantages of a good education to the whim, which was common at the end of the Republic and under the first emperors, among the great of Rome to reckon among their numerous slaves grammarians, poets, rhetoricians, and philosophers, in the same way as rich financiers in these later ages have been led to form at a great cost rich and numerous libraries. This supposition is the only one which can explain to us how a wretched child, born as poor as Irus, had received a good education, and how a rigid Stoic was the slave of Epaphroditus, one of the officers of the imperial guard. For we cannot suspect that it was through predilection for the Stoic doctrine, and for his own use, that the confidant and the minister of the debaucheries of Nero would have desired to possess such a slave.”
It might be assumed that the young slave showed intelligence, as his master sent or allowed him to attend lectures by C. Musonius Rufus, a well-known Stoic philosopher. It may seem odd that such a master would want his slave to become a philosopher, but Garnier, the author of a "Mémoire sur les Ouvrages d’Epictète," clarifies this in his communication to Schweighaeuser. Garnier states: “Epictetus, born in Hierapolis of Phrygia to poor parents, seemingly owed his good education to a trend common at the end of the Republic and during the early emperors, where the wealthy of Rome often included grammarians, poets, rhetoricians, and philosophers among their many slaves, just as wealthy financiers today invest heavily in building extensive libraries. This assumption is the only one that explains how a miserable child, born as poor as Irus, received a good education, and how a strict Stoic ended up being the slave of Epaphroditus, one of the officials in the imperial guard. We cannot assume that it was out of fondness for Stoic philosophy, or for his own benefit, that the confidant and accomplice of Nero's excesses would have wanted to have such a slave.”
Some writers assume that Epictetus was manumitted by his master, but I can find no evidence for this statement. Epaphroditus accompanied Nero when he fled from Rome before his enemies, and he aided the miserable tyrant in killing himself. Domitian (Sueton., Domit. 14), afterwards put Epaphroditus to death for this service to Nero. We may conclude that Epictetus in some way obtained his freedom, and that he began to teach at Rome; but after the expulsion of the philosophers from Rome by Domitian, A.D. 89, he retired to Nicopolis in Epirus, a city built by Augustus to commemorate the victory at Actium. Epictetus opened a school or lecture room at Nicopolis, where he taught till he was an old man. The time of his death is unknown. Epictetus was never married, as we learn from Lucian (Demonax, c. 55, torn, ii., ed. Hemsterh., p. 393). When Epictetus was finding fault with Demonax, and advising him to take a wife and beget children, for this also, as Epictetus said, was a philosopher’s duty, to leave in place of himself another in the universe, Demonax refuted the doctrine by answering: Give me then, Epictetus, one of your own daughters. Simplicius says (Comment., c. 46, p. 432, ed. Schweigh.) that Epictetus lived alone a long time. At last he took a woman into his house as a nurse for a child, which one of Epictetus’ friends was going to expose on account of his poverty, but Epictetus took the child and brought it up.
Some writers believe that Epictetus was freed by his master, but I can't find any proof of this claim. Epaphroditus was with Nero when he fled from Rome to escape his enemies, and he helped the sad tyrant end his own life. Later, Domitian (Sueton., Domit. 14) executed Epaphroditus for his loyalty to Nero. We can assume that Epictetus somehow gained his freedom and started teaching in Rome; however, after Domitian expelled philosophers from the city in A.D. 89, he moved to Nicopolis in Epirus, a city that Augustus built to celebrate the victory at Actium. Epictetus opened a school or lecture hall in Nicopolis, where he taught until he was very old. The exact time of his death remains unknown. Epictetus never married, as noted by Lucian (Demonax, c. 55, torn, ii., ed. Hemsterh., p. 393). When Epictetus criticized Demonax and suggested he marry and have children—because, as Epictetus stated, it was a philosopher’s duty to leave behind another person in the universe—Demonax countered by saying: "Then give me one of your daughters." Simplicius says (Comment., c. 46, p. 432, ed. Schweigh.) that Epictetus lived alone for a long time. Eventually, he took a woman into his home to care for a child that one of Epictetus’ friends was about to abandon due to poverty, but Epictetus took the child in and raised it.
Epictetus wrote nothing; and all that we have under his name was written
Epictetus didn't write anything himself; everything we have attributed to him was written
Photius (Biblioth., 58) mentions among Arrian’s works “Conversations with Epictetus,” [Greek: Homiliai Epichtaeton], in twelve books. Upton thinks that this work is only another name for the Discourses, and that Photius has made the mistake of taking the Conversations to be a different work from the Discourses. Yet Photius has enumerated eight books of the Discourses and twelve books of the Conversations. Schweighaeuser observes that Photius had not seen these works of Arrian on Epictetus, for so he concludes from the brief notice of these works by Photius. The fact is that Photius does not say that he had read these books, as he generally does when he is speaking of the books which he enumerates in his Bibliotheca. The conclusion is that we are not certain that there was a work of Arrian entitled “The Conversations of Epictetus.”
Photius (Biblioth., 58) mentions among Arrian’s works "Conversations with Epictetus" [Greek: Homiliai Epichtaeton], which consists of twelve books. Upton believes that this work is just another name for the Discourses and thinks Photius mistakenly believes the Conversations to be a separate work from the Discourses. However, Photius lists eight books of the Discourses and twelve books of the Conversations. Schweighaeuser points out that Photius had not seen these works by Arrian about Epictetus, as he concludes from Photius’s brief mention of them. The fact is, Photius does not say he has read these books, which he usually does when talking about the books he lists in his Bibliotheca. Therefore, we cannot confirm that there was a work by Arrian titled "The Conversations of Epictetus."
Upton remarks in a note on iii., 23 (p. 184, Trans.), that “there are many passages in these dissertations which are ambiguous or rather confused on account of the small questions, and because the matter is not expanded by oratorical copiousness, not to mention other causes.” The discourses of Epictetus, it is supposed, were spoken extempore, and so one thing after another would come into the thoughts of the speaker (Wolf). Schweighaeuser also observes in a note (ii., 336 of his edition) that the connection of the discourse is sometimes obscure through the omission of some words which are necessary to indicate the connection of the thoughts. The reader then will find that he cannot always understand Epictetus, if he does not read him very carefully, and some passages more than once. He must also think and reflect, or he will miss the meaning. I do not say that the book is worth all this trouble. Every man must judge for himself. But I should not have translated the book, if I had not thought it worth study; and I think that all books of this kind require careful reading, if they are worth reading at all.
Upton notes in a comment on iii., 23 (p. 184, Trans.) that “there are many passages in these discussions that are unclear or rather confusing due to minor questions, and because the content is not expanded enough with oratorical richness, not to mention other reasons.” It's believed that Epictetus’s talks were delivered spontaneously, so different thoughts would come to the speaker one after another (Wolf). Schweighaeuser also points out in a note (ii., 336 of his edition) that the flow of the discourse can sometimes be unclear due to the omission of certain words that are needed to show the connection of ideas. Thus, the reader will find that they can't always understand Epictetus unless they read him very carefully, and maybe even revisit some passages. They also need to think and reflect, or they will miss the meaning. I don’t claim that the book is worth all this effort. Each person has to decide for themselves. But I wouldn’t have translated the book if I didn’t think it was worth studying; and I believe that all books of this kind require careful reading if they are worth reading at all.
G.L.
G.L.
A SELECTION FROM THE DISCOURSES OF EPICTETUS.
OF THE THINGS WHICH ARE IN OUR POWER AND NOT IN OUR POWER.—Of all the faculties (except that which I shall soon mention), you will find not one which is capable of contemplating itself, and, consequently, not capable either of approving or disapproving. How far does the grammatic art possess the contemplating power? As far as forming a judgment about what is written and spoken. And how far music? As far as judging about melody. Does either of them then contemplate itself? By no means. But when you must write something to your friend, grammar will tell you what words you should write; but whether you should write or not, grammar will not tell you. And so it is with music as to musical sounds; but whether you should sing at the present time and play on the lute, or do neither, music will not tell you. What faculty then will tell you? That which contemplates both itself and all other things. And what is this faculty? The rational faculty; for this is the only faculty that we have received which examines itself, what it is, and what power it has, and what is the value of this gift, and examines all other faculties: for what else is there which tells us that golden things are beautiful, for they do not say so themselves? Evidently it is the faculty which is capable of judging of appearances. What else judges of music, grammar, and the other faculties, proves their uses, and points out the occasions for using them? Nothing else.
OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IN OUR CONTROL AND NOT IN OUR CONTROL.—Out of all the abilities (except for one I'll mention soon), none can reflect on itself, and therefore none can approve or disapprove itself. How much can grammar reflect? Only to the extent of forming a judgment about what is written and spoken. And what about music? Only to the extent of judging melodies. Do either of them reflect on themselves? Not at all. When you need to write something to your friend, grammar will tell you what words to use; however, it won't tell you whether you should write at all. The same goes for music regarding musical notes; it won’t tell you whether you should sing or play the lute right now, or do neither. So, what will tell you? The faculty that reflects on both itself and everything else. And what is this faculty? The rational faculty; it’s the only one we have that thinks about itself, its nature, its power, and the value of its gifts, and it evaluates all other faculties. Because what else informs us that golden things are beautiful if they can’t say so themselves? Clearly, it’s the faculty that judges appearances. What also judges music, grammar, and the other faculties, evaluates their usefulness, and indicates when to use them? Nothing else.
What then should a man have in readiness in such circumstances? What else than this? What is mine, and what is not mine; and what is permitted to me, and what is not permitted to me. I must die. Must I then die lamenting? I must be put in chains. Must I then also lament? I must go into exile. Does any man then hinder me from going with smiles and cheerfulness and contentment? Tell me the secret which you possess. I will not, for this is in my power. But I will put you in chains. Man, what are you talking about? Me, in chains? You may fetter my leg, but my will not even Zeus himself can overpower. I will throw you into prison. My poor body, you mean. I will cut your head off. When then have I told you that my head alone cannot be cut off? These are the things which philosophers should meditate on, which they should write daily, in which they should exercise themselves.
What should a person be ready for in such situations? What else but this? What belongs to me, and what doesn’t; what I'm allowed to do, and what I'm not. I have to die. Should I die feeling sorry for myself? I have to be imprisoned. Should I also mourn that? I have to go into exile. Is there anyone who can stop me from leaving with a smile, being cheerful, and feeling content? Share your secret with me. I won’t, because that’s within my control. But I’ll put you in chains. Seriously, what are you saying? Me, in chains? You can restrain my body, but my will is something even Zeus can’t conquer. I’ll throw you in jail. My poor body, right? I’ll cut off your head. When did I ever say that my head alone could be cut off? These are the thoughts that philosophers should reflect on, write about every day, and practice.
What then did Agrippinus say? He said, “I am not a hindrance to myself.” When it was reported to him that his trial was going on in the Senate, he said: “I hope it may turn out well; but it is the fifth hour of the day”—this was the time when he was used to exercise himself and then take the cold bath,—“let us go and take our exercise.” After he had taken his exercise, one comes and tells him, “You have been condemned.” “To banishment,” he replies, “or to death?” “To banishment.” “What about my property?” “It is not taken from you.” “Let us go to Aricia then,” he said, “and dine.”
What did Agrippinus say? He said, “I’m not going to get in my own way.” When he heard that his trial was happening in the Senate, he said, “I hope it goes well; but it’s the fifth hour of the day”—the time he usually exercised and then took a cold bath—“let’s go work out.” After he finished exercising, someone came and told him, “You’ve been condemned.” “To exile,” he asked, “or to death?” “To exile.” “What about my property?” “It won’t be taken from you.” “Then let’s go to Aricia and have dinner,” he said.
HOW A MAN ON EVERY OCCASION CAN MAINTAIN HIS PROPER CHARACTER.—To the rational animal only is the irrational intolerable; but that which is rational is tolerable. Blows are not naturally intolerable. How is that? See how the Lacedaemonians endure whipping when they have learned that whipping is consistent with reason. To hang yourself is not intolerable. When then you have the opinion that it is rational, you go and hang yourself. In short, if we observe, we shall find that the animal man is pained by nothing so much as by that which is irrational; and, on the contrary, attracted to nothing so much as to that which is rational.
HOW A MAN ON EVERY OCCASION CAN MAINTAIN HIS PROPER CHARACTER.—Only rational beings find the irrational unbearable; however, that which is rational is tolerable. Painful experiences aren't naturally unbearable. How is that? Look at how the Spartans endure whipping once they've learned to see it as reasonable. Choosing to hang yourself isn’t inherently intolerable. When you believe it’s a rational choice, you may go ahead and take that step. Ultimately, if we pay attention, we’ll see that, for human beings, nothing causes more distress than the irrational, while nothing draws them in more than the rational.
Only consider at what price you sell your own will: if for no other reason, at least for this, that you sell it not for a small sum. But that which is great and superior perhaps belongs to Socrates and such as are like him. Why then, if we are naturally such, are not a very great number of us like him? Is it true then that all horses become swift, that all dogs are skilled in tracking footprints? What then, since I am naturally dull, shall I, for this reason, take no pains? I hope not. Epictetus is not superior to Socrates; but if he is not inferior, this is enough for me; for I shall never be a Milo, and yet I do not neglect my body; nor shall I be a Croesus, and yet I do not neglect my property; nor, in a word, do we neglect looking after anything because we despair of reaching the highest degree.
Just think about what price you're willing to accept for your own will: if for no other reason, at least make sure it’s not for a small amount. But maybe what’s truly great and exceptional belongs to Socrates and those like him. So why, if we have that potential, are so few of us actually like him? Is it really the case that all horses become fast, that all dogs are good at following scents? Then, since I am naturally slow, should I just give up trying? I hope not. Epictetus isn’t better than Socrates, but if he’s not worse, that’s enough for me; I may never be a Milo, but I still take care of my body; nor will I ever be a Croesus, but I still look after my wealth; in short, we shouldn’t neglect anything just because we might not reach the highest level.
HOW A MAN SHOULD PROCEED FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF GOD BEING THE FATHER OF ALL MEN TO THE REST.—If a man should be able to assent to this doctrine as he ought, that we are all sprung from God in an especial manner, and that God is the father both of men and of gods, I suppose that he would never have any ignoble or mean thoughts about himself. But if Cæsar (the emperor) should adopt you, no one could endure your arrogance; and if you know that you are the son of Zeus, will you not be elated? Yet we do not so; but since these two things are mingled in the generation of man, body in common with the animals, and reason and intelligence in common with the gods, many incline to this kinship, which is miserable and mortal; and some few to that which is divine and happy. Since then it is of necessity that every man uses everything according to the opinion which he has about it, those, the few, who think that they are formed for fidelity and modesty and a sure use of appearances have no mean or ignoble thoughts about themselves; but with the many it is quite the contrary. For they say, What am I? A poor, miserable man, with my wretched bit of flesh. Wretched, indeed; but you possess something better than your bit of flesh. Why then do you neglect that which is better, and why do you attach yourself to this?
HOW A MAN SHOULD PROCEED FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF GOD BEING THE FATHER OF ALL MEN TO THE REST.—If a person truly understands and accepts this idea that we all come from God in a special way, and that God is the father of both humans and gods, then I believe they would never have low or shameful thoughts about themselves. But if Caesar (the emperor) were to adopt you, no one would tolerate your arrogance; and if you knew that you were the son of Zeus, wouldn’t you feel proud? Yet we don’t think like that; instead, because our nature includes both physical bodies, like animals, and reason and intelligence, like the gods, many people lean towards their common, miserable, and mortal kinship; while a few aspire to what is divine and joyful. Since every person necessarily acts based on their beliefs, those few who see themselves as destined for loyalty and humility, and who use appearances wisely, don’t harbor low or shameful thoughts about themselves. In contrast, the majority think otherwise. They say, What am I? A poor, miserable person with my little piece of flesh. Wretched, indeed; but you have something far greater than your flesh. So why do you ignore what is better and cling to this?
Through this kinship with the flesh, some of us inclining to it become like wolves, faithless and treacherous and mischievous; some become like lions, savage and bestial and untamed; but the greater part of us become foxes, and other worse animals. For what else is a slanderer and malignant man than a fox, or some other more wretched and meaner animal? See then and take care that you do not become some one of these miserable things.
Through this connection with our physical selves, some of us who lean into it become like wolves—disloyal, deceitful, and cunning; some turn into lions, fierce, brutal, and wild; but most of us become like foxes and even worse creatures. After all, what is a slanderer or a malicious person but a fox or some other more pitiful and contemptible animal? So be aware and make sure you don't become one of these miserable beings.
OF PROGRESS OR IMPROVEMENT.—He who is making progress, having learned from philosophers that desire means the desire of good things, and aversion means aversion from bad things; having learned too that happiness and tranquillity are not attainable by man otherwise than by not failing to obtain what he desires, and not falling into that which he would avoid; such a man takes from himself desire altogether and confers it, but he employs his aversion only on things which are dependent on his will. For if he attempts to avoid anything independent of his will, he knows that sometimes he will fall in with something which he wishes to avoid, and he will be unhappy. Now if virtue promises good fortune and tranquillity and happiness, certainly also the progress towards virtue is progress towards each of these things. For it is always true that to whatever point the perfecting of anything leads us, progress is an approach towards this point.
OF PROGRESS OR IMPROVEMENT.—A person who is making progress understands from philosophers that desire is a longing for good things, while aversion is a rejection of bad things. They also learn that happiness and peace can't be achieved unless they are able to get what they want and avoid what they don’t want. This individual lets go of desire completely but directs their aversion only toward things that are within their control. Because if they try to avoid anything outside of their control, they realize that they might encounter something they want to escape, leading to unhappiness. Since virtue offers good fortune, peace, and happiness, it's clear that moving toward virtue means moving toward these outcomes as well. It's always true that whatever level of perfection we aim for, progress takes us closer to that goal.
How then do we admit that virtue is such as I have said, and yet seek progress in other things and make a display of it? What is the product of virtue? Tranquillity. Who then makes improvement? Is it he who has read many books of Chrysippus? But does virtue consist in having understood Chrysippus? If this is so, progress is clearly nothing else than knowing a great deal of Chrysippus. But now we admit that virtue produces one thing, and we declare that approaching near to it is another thing, namely, progress or improvement. Such a person, says one, is already able to read Chrysippus by himself. Indeed, sir, you are making great progress. What kind of progress? But why do you mock the man? Why do you draw him away from the perception of his own misfortunes? Will you not show him the effect of virtue that he may learn where to look for improvement? Seek it there, wretch, where your work lies. And where is your work? In desire and in aversion, that you may not be disappointed in your desire, and that you may not fall into that which you would avoid; in your pursuit and avoiding, that you commit no error; in assent and suspension of assent, that you be not deceived. The first things, and the most necessary are those which I have named. But if with trembling and lamentation you seek not to fall into that which you avoid, tell me how you are improving.
How then can we say that virtue is as I’ve described it, and still pursue progress in other areas and show it off? What does virtue produce? Peace of mind. So who is it that makes progress? Is it someone who has read a lot of Chrysippus? But does virtue come from simply understanding Chrysippus? If that’s the case, progress is just about knowing a lot of Chrysippus. Yet we agree that virtue has one effect, and we say that getting closer to it is something else, specifically progress or improvement. Someone might say, "That person can now read Chrysippus on their own." Indeed, you’re making significant progress. What kind of progress is that? But why are you making fun of the person? Why distract them from realizing their own misfortunes? Won't you show them the impact of virtue so they can learn where to look for improvement? Look there, unfortunate one, where your effort lies. And where is your effort? It's in your desires and aversions, to avoid being disappointed in what you want and to steer clear of what you dread; in your pursuits and rejections, so you don’t make mistakes; in agreeing or withholding agreement, to avoid being misled. The most essential things are those I just mentioned. But if you are anxiously trying to avoid what you fear, tell me how you are making progress.
Do you then show me your improvement in these things? If I were talking to an athlete, I should say, Show me your shoulders; and then he might say, Here are my Halteres. You and your Halteres look to that. I should reply, I wish to see the effect of the Halteres. So, when you say: Take the treatise on the active powers ([Greek: hormea]), and see how I have studied it, I reply: Slave, I am not inquiring about this, but how you exercise pursuit and avoidance, desire and aversion, how you design and purpose and prepare yourself, whether conformably to nature or not. If conformably, give me evidence of it, and I will say that you are making progress; but if not conformably, be gone, and not only expound your books, but write such books yourself; and what will you gain by it? Do you not know that the whole book costs only five denarii? Does then the expounder seem to be worth more than five denarii? Never then look for the matter itself in one place, and progress towards it in another. Where then is progress? If any of you, withdrawing himself from externals, turns to his own will ([Greek: proairesis]) to exercise it and to improve it by labor, so as to make it conformable to nature, elevated, free, unrestrained, unimpeded, faithful, modest; and if he has learned that he who desires or avoids the things which are not in his power can neither be faithful nor free, but of necessity he must change with them and be tossed about with them as in a tempest, and of necessity must subject himself to others who have the power to procure or prevent what lie desires or would avoid; finally, when he rises in the morning, if he observes and keeps these rules, bathes as a man of fidelity, eats as a modest man; in like manner, if in every matter that occurs he works out his chief principles ([Greek: ta proaegoumena]) as the runner does with reference to running, and the trainer of the voice with reference to the voice—this is the man who truly makes progress, and this is the man who has not travelled in vain. But if he has strained his efforts to the practice of reading books, and labors only at this, and has travelled for this, I tell him to return home immediately, and not to neglect his affairs there; for this for which he has travelled is nothing. But the other thing is something, to study how a man can rid his life of lamentation and groaning, and saying, Woe to me, and wretched that I am, and to rid it also of misfortune and disappointment, and to learn what death is, and exile, and prison, and poison, that he may be able to say when he is in fetters, Dear Crito, if it is the will of the gods that it be so, let it be so; and not to say, Wretched am I, an old man: have I kept my gray hairs for this? Who is it that speaks thus? Do you think that I shall name some man of no repute and of low condition? Does not Priam say this? Does not Oedipus say this? Nay, all kings say it! For what else is tragedy than the perturbations ([Greek: pathae]) of men who value externals exhibited in this kind of poetry? But if a man must learn by fiction that no external things which are independent of the will concern us, for my part I should like this fiction, by the aid of which I should live happily and undisturbed. But you must consider for yourselves what you wish.
Do you then show me how you've improved in these areas? If I were speaking to an athlete, I would say, "Show me your shoulders," and he might respond, "Here are my weights." You and your weights should focus on that. I would reply, "I want to see the results of using those weights." So when you say: "Check out my study on the active powers," I respond: "No, I'm not asking about that. I want to know how you pursue and avoid things, how you desire and reject, how you plan and prepare yourself—whether it's in line with nature or not. If it is, show me proof of it, and I’ll agree you’re making progress; but if it’s not, then leave. Don't just explain books—write your own; but what will you really achieve? Don’t you know that the whole book costs only five denarii? Does it really seem like the person explaining it is worth more than that? Never look for the actual matter in one place and make progress towards it in another. So where is the progress? If someone stops focusing on external things and turns to their own will to work on it and make it aligned with nature—elevated, free, unrestrained, unaffected, faithful, modest—and if they’ve learned that desiring or avoiding things beyond their control means they can’t be faithful or free, but must instead shift with them and be tossed around like in a storm, inevitably submitting to those who can give or take away what they want to avoid; then when they wake up in the morning, if they follow these principles, behave like a faithful person, eat like someone modest, and in every situation, work out their core principles just like an athlete training for a race or a vocal coach training for singing—this is the person who is truly making progress, and this person hasn’t traveled in vain. But if he has focused all his efforts on just reading books and that's all he cares about, and he’s traveled for this, I would tell him to go home right away and not neglect his business there; because what he has traveled for is useless. But the real thing is learning how to get rid of complaints and sorrows, and lamentations of "Woe to me!" and "How wretched I am!" and to also eliminate misfortune and disappointment, and to understand what death, exile, prison, and poison really are, so he can confidently say when he’s in chains, "Dear Crito, if this is the will of the gods, so be it," and not say, "How wretched am I, an old man: have I preserved my gray hairs for this?" Who is it that speaks like this? Do you think I'm referring to some unknown, low-status person? Doesn’t Priam say this? Doesn’t Oedipus express this? No, all kings do! For what else is tragedy but the emotional struggles of people who value external things, as shown through this kind of poetry? If a person needs to learn through stories that external things beyond our will don't concern us, personally, I’d prefer this kind of story, which would allow me to live happily and undisturbed. But you all must decide for yourselves what you truly want.
What then does Chrysippus teach us? The reply is, to know that these things are not false, from which happiness comes and tranquillity arises. Take my books, and you will learn how true and conformable to nature are the things which make me free from perturbations. O great good fortune! O the great benefactor who points out the way! To Triptolemus all men have erected temples and altars, because he gave us food by cultivation; but to him who discovered truth and brought it to light and communicated it to all, not the truth which shows us how to live, but how to live well, who of you for this reason has built an altar, or a temple, or has dedicated a statue, or who worships God for this? Because the gods have given the vine, or wheat, we sacrifice to them; but because they have produced in the human mind that fruit by which they designed to show us the truth which relates to happiness, shall we not thank God for this?
What does Chrysippus teach us? The answer is to recognize that the things that bring happiness and peace of mind are not false. Read my books, and you’ll understand how true and natural those things are that set me free from disturbances. Oh, what wonderful fortune! Oh, great benefactor who shows us the way! People have built temples and altars to Triptolemus because he gave us food through farming; but who among you has built an altar, a temple, or dedicated a statue to the one who uncovered the truth and shared it with everyone? Not just the truth that teaches us how to live, but how to live well. Why is it that we sacrifice to the gods because they provided the vine or wheat, yet we don’t thank them for inspiring the human mind with the knowledge that leads us to true happiness?
AGAINST THE ACADEMICS.—If a man, said Epictetus, opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not arise either from the man’s strength or the teacher’s weakness; for when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument?
AGAINST THE ACADEMICS.—If a person, Epictetus said, refuses to accept obvious truths, it's hard to find arguments that will change their mind. This isn't due to the person's strength or the teacher's weakness; when someone, despite being proven wrong, remains as unyielding as stone, how can we then persuade them with arguments?
Now there are two kinds of hardening, one of the understanding, the other of the sense of shame, when a man is resolved not to assent to what is manifest nor to desist from contradictions. Most of us are afraid of mortification of the body, and would contrive all means to avoid such a thing, but we care not about the soul’s mortification. And indeed with regard to the soul, if a man be in such a state as not to apprehend anything, or understand at all, we think that he is in a bad condition; but if the sense of shame and modesty are deadened, this we call even power (or strength).
Now there are two types of hardening: one of the understanding and the other of the sense of shame, when a person is determined not to agree with what’s obvious or to stop contradicting. Most of us fear physical humiliation and will do everything we can to avoid it, but we often neglect the humiliation of the soul. In fact, concerning the soul, if someone is in a state where they can't grasp anything or understand at all, we consider that a bad situation; but if the sense of shame and modesty are dulled, we see this as a sign of power (or strength).
OF PROVIDENCE.—From everything, which is or happens in the world, it is easy to praise Providence, if a man possesses these two qualities: the faculty of seeing what belongs and happens to all persons and things, and a grateful disposition. If he does not possess these two qualities, one man will not see the use of things which are and which happen: another will not be thankful for them, even if he does know them. If God had made colors, but had not made the faculty of seeing them, what would have been their use? None at all. On the other hand, if he had made the faculty of vision, but had not made objects such as to fall under the faculty, what in that case also would have been the use of it? None at all. Well, suppose that he had made both, but had not made light? In that case, also, they would have been of no use. Who is it then who has fitted this to that and that to this?
OF PROVIDENCE.—From everything that exists or happens in the world, it's easy to appreciate Providence if a person possesses two qualities: the ability to see what belongs to and happens to everyone and everything, and a grateful attitude. Without these qualities, one person may fail to see the usefulness of things that exist and occur, while another might not feel thankful for them, even if he recognizes them. If God had created colors but had not given us the ability to see them, what would their purpose be? None. On the other hand, if He had given us the ability to see but had not created visible objects, what would have been the point of that? None either. Now, imagine if He had made both vision and colors but had not created light? Again, they would serve no purpose. So, who is it that has matched this to that and that to this?
What, then, are these things done in us only? Many, indeed, in us only, of which the rational animal had peculiar need; but you will find many common to us with irrational animals. Do they then understand what is done? By no means. For use is one thing, and understanding is another; God had need of irrational animals to make use of appearances, but of us to understand the use of appearances. It is therefore enough for them to eat and to drink, and to copulate, and to do all the other things which they severally do. But for us, to whom he has given also the intellectual faculty, these things are not sufficient; for unless we act in a proper and orderly manner, and conformably to the nature and constitution of each thing, we shall never attain our true end. For where the constitutions of living beings are different, there also the acts and the ends are different. In those animals then whose constitution is adapted only to use, use alone is enough; but in an animal (man), which has also the power of understanding the use, unless there be the due exercise of the understanding, he will never attain his proper end. Well then God constitutes every animal, one to be eaten, another to serve for agriculture, another to supply cheese, and another for some like use; for which purposes what need is there to understand appearances and to be able to distinguish them? But God has introduced man to be a spectator of God and of his works; and not only a spectator of them, but an interpreter. For this reason it is shameful for man to begin and to end where irrational animals do; but rather he ought to begin where they begin, and to end where nature ends in us; and nature ends in contemplation and understanding, and in a way of life conformable to nature. Take care then not to die without having been spectators of these things.
What, then, are these things done only in us? Many, indeed, are unique to us, as the rational beings have a specific need for them; however, you will find many that we share with non-rational animals. Do they understand what happens? Not at all. Usage is one thing, and understanding is another; God needed non-rational animals to make use of appearances, but needed us to comprehend the use of those appearances. For them, it is enough to eat, drink, reproduce, and perform all the other activities they typically do. But for us, who have also been given intellectual capability, these actions are not enough; unless we act properly and orderly, in accordance with the nature and constitution of each thing, we will never reach our true purpose. As the constitutions of living beings vary, so do their actions and goals. In animals whose constitution is adapted only for use, mere use suffices; but in a being (human) that also has the ability to understand that use, without the proper exercise of that understanding, the right end will never be achieved. God designed every animal for a specific purpose: one to be eaten, another for farming, another to produce milk, and so on; for these roles, what need is there to understand appearances and be able to distinguish them? But God has created humans to be spectators of God and His works; and not only to witness them but to interpret them as well. For this reason, it is shameful for humans to begin and end where non-rational animals do; rather, they should start where those animals begin and conclude where nature ends in us; and nature ends in contemplation and understanding, along with a way of life that aligns with nature. Make sure not to die without having witnessed these things.
But you take a journey to Olympia to see the work of Phidias, and all of you think it a misfortune to die without having seen such things. But when there is no need to take a journey, and where a man is, there he has the works (of God) before him, will you not desire to see and understand them? Will you not perceive either what you are, or what you were born for, or what this is for which you have received the faculty of sight? But you may say, There are some things disagreeable and troublesome in life. And are there none at Olympia? Are you not scorched? Are you not pressed by a crowd? Are you not without comfortable means of bathing? Are you not wet when it rains? Have you not abundance of noise, clamor, and other disagreeable things? But I suppose that setting all these things off against the magnificence of the spectacle, you bear and endure. Well then and have you not received faculties by which you will be able to bear all that happens? Have you not received greatness of soul? Have you not received manliness? Have you not received endurance? And why do I trouble myself about anything that can happen if I possess greatness of soul? What shall distract my mind, or disturb me, or appear painful? Shall I not use the power for the purposes for which I received it, and shall I grieve and lament over what happens?
But you take a trip to Olympia to see Phidias's work, and all of you think it's unfortunate to die without experiencing such things. But when there's no need to travel, and where a person is, there are the works (of God) right in front of him, don't you want to see and understand them? Don't you realize either who you are, what you were born for, or what this is for which you have been given the ability to see? But you might say, there are some unpleasant and troublesome things in life. Aren't there also some at Olympia? Don't you get burned? Are you not pushed around by a crowd? Do you have comfortable options for bathing? Do you stay dry when it rains? Isn't there a lot of noise, shouting, and other annoying things? But I guess when you compare all these inconveniences to the grandeur of the experience, you put up with it. Well then, haven't you been given the abilities to handle everything that happens? Haven't you received strength of character? Haven't you received courage? Haven't you received resilience? And why should I worry about anything that can occur if I have strength of character? What can distract or upset me, or seem painful? Shouldn't I use the abilities I was given for their intended purpose, rather than grieve and complain about what happens?
Come, then, do you also having observed these things look to the faculties which you have, and when you have looked at them, say: Bring now, O Zeus, any difficulty that thou pleasest, for I have means given to me by thee and powers for honoring myself through the things which happen. You do not so; but you sit still, trembling for fear that some things will happen, and weeping, and lamenting, and groaning for what does happen; and then you blame the gods. For what is the consequence of such meanness of spirit but impiety? And yet God has not only given us these faculties, by which we shall be able to bear everything that happens without being depressed or broken by it; but, like a good king and a true father, He has given us these faculties free from hindrance, subject to no compulsion, unimpeded, and has put them entirely in our own power, without even having reserved to Himself any power of hindering or impeding. You, who have received these powers free and as your own, use them not; you do not even see what you have received, and from whom; some of you being blinded to the giver, and not even acknowledging your benefactor, and others, through meanness of spirit, betaking yourselves to fault-finding and making charges against God. Yet I will show to you that you have powers and means for greatness of soul and manliness; but what powers you have for finding fault making accusations, do you show me.
Come on, take a look at the abilities you have. After you’ve noticed them, say: "Bring on any challenge, Zeus, because you've given me the tools and the strength to honor myself through the things that happen." But instead, you just sit there, shaking in fear of what might happen, crying and complaining about what does happen; and then you blame the gods. What results from such a weak spirit but a lack of reverence? Yet God has not only given us these abilities to handle everything that comes our way without being crushed by it, but like a good ruler and a true father, He has given us these abilities freely, without any restrictions or compulsion, and has placed them entirely in our hands, not even holding back any power to obstruct us. You, who have received these abilities freely and as your own, don’t use them; you don’t even recognize what you’ve been given and who gave it to you; some of you overlook the giver, failing to acknowledge your benefactor, while others, out of weakness, resort to complaining and accusing God. Yet I will show you that you have the power and means for greatness of spirit and courage; but what abilities do you have for finding fault and making accusations? Show me that.
HOW FROM THE FACT THAT WE ARE AKIN TO GOD A MAN MAY PROCEED TO THE CONSEQUENCES.—I indeed think that the old man ought to be sitting here, not to contrive how you may have no mean thoughts nor mean and ignoble talk about yourselves, but to take care that there be not among us any young men of such a mind, that when they have recognized their kinship to God, and that we are fettered by these bonds, the body, I mean, and its possessions, and whatever else on account of them is necessary to us for the economy and commerce of life, they should intend to throw off these things as if they were burdens painful and intolerable, and to depart to their kinsmen. But this is the labor that your teacher and instructor ought to be employed upon, if he really were what he should be. You should come to him and say: Epictetus, we can no longer endure being bound to this poor body, and feeding it, and giving it drink and rest, and cleaning it, and for the sake of the body complying with the wishes of these and of those. Are not these things indifferent and nothing to us; and is not death no evil? And are we not in a manner kinsmen of God, and did we not come from him? Allow us to depart to the place from which we came; allow us to be released at last from these bonds by which we are bound and weighed down. Here there are robbers and thieves and courts of justice, and those who are named tyrants, and think that they have some power over us by means of the body and its possessions. Permit us to show them that they have no power over any man. And I on my part would say: Friends, wait for God: when he shall give the signal and release you from this service, then go to him; but for the present endure to dwell in this place where he has put you. Short indeed is this time of your dwelling here, and easy to bear for those who are so disposed; for what tyrant, or what thief, or what courts of justice are formidable to those who have thus considered as things of no value the body and the possessions of the body? Wait then, do not depart without a reason.
HOW FROM THE FACT THAT WE ARE AKIN TO GOD A MAN MAY PROCEED TO THE CONSEQUENCES.—I truly believe that the wise person should be here, not to figure out how you can avoid having low thoughts or engage in low and demeaning conversations about yourselves, but to ensure that there are no young people among us with such a mindset. When they recognize their connection to God, and understand that we are tied down by these bonds, meaning the body and its possessions, as well as everything else essential for our daily life and business, they might think about getting rid of these things as if they were unbearable burdens, and leaving to be with their divine family. But this is the work that your teacher and guide should be focused on if he truly is what he ought to be. You should go to him and say: Epictetus, we can no longer tolerate being attached to this weak body, feeding it, giving it drink and rest, cleaning it, and complying with the demands of others for the body’s sake. Aren't these things insignificant and worthless to us? And isn't death just another experience? Aren't we, in a way, related to God, having come from him? Let us return to where we came from; allow us to finally break free from these bonds that weigh us down. Here, there are thieves and robbers, and courts, and those who call themselves tyrants, believing they have power over us through the body and its possessions. Let us show them they have no power over anyone. And I would say: Friends, wait for God; when He signals and frees you from this obligation, then go to Him; but for now, endure living in this place where He has set you. This period of your stay here is short and manageable for those who are willing to see it that way; for what tyrant, thief, or court is threatening to those who regard the body and its possessions as worthless? So, wait, and don't leave without a valid reason.
OF CONTENTMENT.—With respect to gods, there are some who say that a divine being does not exist; others say that it exists, but is inactive and careless, and takes no forethought about anything; a third class say that such a being exists and exercises forethought, but only about great things and heavenly things, and about nothing on the earth; a fourth class say that a divine being exercises forethought both about things on the earth and heavenly things, but in a general way only, and not about things severally. There is a fifth class to whom Ulysses and Socrates belong, who say:
OF CONTENTMENT.—Regarding gods, some people claim that a divine being doesn’t exist; others argue that it does exist but is inactive and indifferent, paying no attention to anything; a third group believes that such a being exists and is attentive, but only to significant and celestial matters, ignoring everything on earth; a fourth group asserts that a divine being cares about both earthly and heavenly matters, but only in a general sense and not about specific issues. There is a fifth group, including Ulysses and Socrates, who say:
I move not without thy knowledge.—Iliad, x., 278.
I don’t act without your knowledge.—Iliad, x., 278.
Before all other things then it is necessary to inquire about each of these opinions, whether it is affirmed truly or not truly. For if there are no gods, how is it our proper end to follow them? And if they exist, but take no care of anything, in this case also how will it be right to follow them? But if indeed they do exist and look after things, still if there is nothing communicated from them to men, nor in fact to myself, how even so is it right (to follow them)? The wise and good man then, after considering all these things, submits his own mind to him who administers the whole, as good citizens do to the law of the state. He who is receiving instruction ought to come to be instructed with this intention, How shall I follow the gods in all things, how shall I be contented with the divine administration, and how can I become free? For he is free to whom everything happens according to his will, and whom no man can hinder. What then, is freedom madness? Certainly not; for madness and freedom do not consist. But, you say, I would have everything result just as I like, and in whatever way I like. You are mad, you are beside yourself. Do you not know that freedom is a noble and valuable thing? But for me inconsiderately to wish for things to happen as I inconsiderately like, this appears to be not only not noble, but even most base. For how do we proceed in the matter of writing? Do I wish to write the name of Dion as I choose? No, but I am taught to choose to write it as it ought to be written. And how with respect to music? In the same manner. And what universally in every art or science? Just the same. If it were not so, it would be of no value to know anything, if knowledge were adapted to every man’s whim. Is it then in this alone, in this which is the greatest and the chief thing, I mean freedom, that I am permitted to will inconsiderately? By no means; but to be instructed is this, to learn to wish that everything may happen as it does. And how do things happen? As the disposer has disposed them? And he has appointed summer and winter, and abundance and scarcity, and virtue and vice, and all such opposites for the harmony of the whole; and to each of us he has given a body, and parts of the body, and possessions, and companions.
Before anything else, it’s essential to examine each of these beliefs to see if they are true or not. If there are no gods, why should we follow them? And if they do exist but don’t care about anything, then how is it right to follow them? Even if they do exist and look after things, if there’s no communication from them to people, including myself, how can it be right to follow them? The wise and good person, after considering all these aspects, aligns their mind with the one who governs everything, just like good citizens do with their country’s laws. A person seeking knowledge should do so with the intention of asking, "How can I follow the gods in everything? How can I accept the divine order? How can I achieve freedom?" For a person is free if everything aligns with their will and if no one can stop them. So, is freedom insanity? Absolutely not; madness and freedom can’t coexist. But you say, “I want everything to turn out exactly how I want it.” You are delusional, out of touch with reality. Don’t you realize that freedom is something noble and valuable? Yet, for me to wish foolishly for things to go my way seems not only unworthy but downright base. How do we approach writing? Do I wish to write the name of Dion however I want? No, I am taught to write it as it should be written. And what about music? The same applies. And in every skill or field of knowledge? Exactly the same. If it were otherwise, knowing anything wouldn’t hold any value, if knowledge were shaped by everyone’s whims. So, is it only in this most important and greatest thing—freedom—that I can wish foolishly? Not at all; being educated means learning to wish for everything to unfold as it does. And how do things happen? As the one in charge has arranged them. They have set summer and winter, abundance and scarcity, virtue and vice, and all other opposites for the harmony of the whole. To each of us, they have given a body, body parts, possessions, and companions.
What then remains, or what method is discovered of holding commerce with them? Is there such a method by which they shall do what seems fit to them, and we not the less shall be in a mood which is conformable to nature? But you are unwilling to endure, and are discontented; and if you are alone, you call it solitude; and if you are with men, you call them knaves and robbers; and you find fault with your own parents and children, and brothers and neighbors. But you ought when you are alone to call this condition by the name of tranquillity and freedom, and to think yourself like to the gods; and when you are with many, you ought not to call it crowd, nor trouble, nor uneasiness, but festival and assembly, and so accept all contentedly.
What then is left, or what way is there to interact with them? Is there a way for them to do what they think is right, while we still feel aligned with nature? But you refuse to accept this, and you’re unhappy; if you're alone, you see it as loneliness; if you’re with others, you call them deceitful and greedy; and you complain about your own parents and kids, siblings and neighbors. But when you're alone, you should think of this state as peace and freedom, and consider yourself god-like; and when you’re with others, you shouldn’t call it a crowd, or chaos, or discomfort, but rather a celebration and gathering, and embrace it all with gratitude.
What then is the punishment of those who do not accept? It is to be what they are. Is any person dissatisfied with being alone? Let him be alone. Is a man dissatisfied with his parents? Let him be a bad son, and lament. Is he dissatisfied with his children? Let him be a bad father. Cast him into prison. What prison? Where he is already, for he is there against his will; and where a man is against his will, there he is in prison. So Socrates was not in prison, for he was there willingly. Must my leg then be lamed? Wretch, do you then on account of one poor leg find fault with the world? Will you not willingly surrender it for the whole? Will you not withdraw from it? Will you not gladly part with it to him who gave it? And will you be vexed and discontented with the things established by Zeus, which he, with the Moirae (fates) who were present and spinning the thread of your generation, defined and put in order? Know you not how small a part you are compared with the whole. I mean with respect to the body, for as to intelligence you are not inferior to the gods nor less; for the magnitude of intelligence is not measured by length nor yet by height, but by thoughts.
What is the punishment for those who refuse to accept? It’s simply to remain as they are. Is anyone unhappy about being alone? Then let them be alone. Is someone unhappy with their parents? Let them be a bad son and feel sorry for themselves. Are they unhappy with their children? Let them be a bad father. Throw them into prison. What prison? The one they’re already in, because they’re there against their will; and wherever someone is against their will, that’s their prison. Socrates wasn’t in prison because he was there willingly. Should my leg really be crippled? Seriously, are you going to complain about the world over one injured leg? Wouldn’t you willingly give it up for the greater good? Would you pull away from it? Wouldn’t you gladly part with it to the one who gave it to you? And will you be frustrated and unhappy with the things that Zeus established, which he, along with the Fates who were there spinning the thread of your life, arranged and set in motion? Don’t you realize how small a part you are in comparison to the whole? I’m talking about the body; as for intelligence, you’re not inferior to the gods. Intelligence isn’t measured by size or height, but by thought.
HOW EVERYTHING MAY BE DONE ACCEPTABLY TO THE GODS.—When some one asked, How may a man eat acceptably to the gods, he answered: If he can eat justly and contentedly, and with equanimity, and temperately, and orderly, will it not be also acceptable to the gods? But when you have asked for warm water and the slave has not heard, or if he did hear has brought only tepid water, or he is not even found to be in the house, then not to be vexed or to burst with passion, is not this acceptable to the gods? How then shall a man endure such persons as this slave? Slave yourself, will you not bear with your own brother, who has Zeus for his progenitor, and is like a son from the same seeds and of the same descent from above? But if you have been put in any such higher place, will you immediately make yourself a tyrant? Will you not remember who you are, and whom you rule? That they are kinsmen, that they are brethren by nature, that they are the offspring of Zeus? But I have purchased them, and they have not purchased me. Do you see in what direction you are looking, that it is towards the earth, towards the pit, that it is towards these wretched laws of dead men? but towards the laws of the gods you are not looking.
HOW EVERYTHING MAY BE DONE ACCEPTABLY TO THE GODS.—When someone asked, How can a person eat in a way that's pleasing to the gods, he replied: If he can eat fairly, happily, calmly, moderately, and in an orderly manner, wouldn’t that also be acceptable to the gods? But if you’ve asked for warm water and the servant hasn’t heard, or if he did hear but brought only lukewarm water, or if he isn’t even in the house, then to not be angry or to not explode with rage, isn't that pleasing to the gods? How can one endure people like this servant? If you can tolerate such a servant, won’t you be able to bear with your own brother, who has Zeus as his ancestor and is like a son from the same lineage and of the same origin? But if you've been given a position of authority, will you instantly turn into a tyrant? Won't you remember who you are and who you have authority over? That they are your relatives, that they are naturally your brothers, that they are the descendants of Zeus? But I have bought them, and they have not bought me. Do you see where your focus is—that it’s directed toward the earth, toward the pit, towards these miserable laws created by dead men? But you aren’t looking toward the laws of the gods.
WHAT PHILOSOPHY PROMISES.—When a man was consulting him how he should persuade his brother to cease being angry with him, Epictetus replied: Philosophy does not propose to secure for a man any external thing. If it did (or if it were not, as I say), philosophy would be allowing something which is not within its province. For as the carpenter’s material is wood, and that of the statuary is copper, so the matter of the art of living is each man’s life. When then is my brother’s? That again belongs to his own art; but with respect to yours, it is one of the external things, like a piece of land, like health, like reputation. But Philosophy promises none of these. In every circumstance I will maintain, she says, the governing part conformable to nature. Whose governing part? His in whom I am, she says.
WHAT PHILOSOPHY PROMISES.—When a man asked him how to convince his brother to stop being angry with him, Epictetus replied: Philosophy doesn’t aim to secure any external things for a person. If it did (or if it weren’t, as I say), philosophy would be stepping outside its bounds. Just as a carpenter works with wood and a sculptor with copper, the focus of the art of living is each person’s life. So then, what about my brother’s life? That is his own responsibility; but regarding yours, it is one of those external things, like land, health, or reputation. But Philosophy promises none of these. In every situation, she says, I will keep the governing part aligned with nature. Whose governing part? It’s his in whom I am, she says.
How then shall my brother cease to be angry with me? Bring him to me and I will tell him. But I have nothing to say to you about his anger.
How can my brother stop being mad at me? Bring him to me and I’ll talk to him. But I have nothing to say to you about his anger.
When the man who was consulting him said, I seek to know this, How, even if my brother is not reconciled to me, shall I maintain myself in a state conformable to nature? Nothing great, said Epictetus, is produced suddenly, since not even the grape or the fig is. If you say to me now that you want a fig, I will answer to you that it requires time: let it flower first, then put forth fruit, and then ripen. Is then the fruit of a fig-tree not perfected suddenly and in one hour, and would you possess the fruit of a man’s mind in so short a time and so easily? Do not expect it, even if I tell you.
When the man consulting him said, "I want to know this: How, even if my brother isn't on good terms with me, can I keep myself aligned with nature?" Epictetus replied, "Nothing great happens all at once; not even grapes or figs do. If you ask me for a fig right now, I’ll tell you it takes time: first, it needs to blossom, then produce fruit, and finally ripen. So, isn’t the fruit of a fig tree not fully developed in an hour, and do you expect to have the wisdom of a person’s mind just as quickly and easily? Don’t expect that, even if I tell you."
THAT WE OUGHT NOT TO BE ANGRY WITH THE ERRORS (FAULTS) OF OTHERS.—Ought not then this robber and this adulterer to be destroyed? By no means say so, but speak rather in this way: This man who has been mistaken and deceived about the most important things, and blinded, not in the faculty of vision which distinguishes white and black, but in the faculty which distinguishes good and bad, should we not destroy him? If you speak thus you will see how inhuman this is which you say, and that it is just as if you would say, Ought we not to destroy this blind and deaf man? But if the greatest harm is the privation of the greatest things, and the greatest thing in every man is the will or choice such as it ought to be, and a man is deprived of this will, why are you also angry with him? Man, you ought not to be affected contrary to nature by the bad things of another. Pity him rather; drop this readiness to be offended and to hate, and these words which the many utter: “These accursed and odious fellows.” How have you been made so wise at once? and how are you so peevish? Why then are we angry? Is it because we value so much the things of which these men rob us? Do not admire your clothes, and then you will not be angry with the thief. Consider this matter thus: you have fine clothes; your neighbor has not; you have a window; you wish to air the clothes. The thief does not know wherein man’s good consists, but he thinks that it consist in having fine clothes, the very thing which you also think. Must he not then come and take them away? When you show a cake to greedy persons, and swallow it all yourself, do you expect them not to snatch it from you? Do not provoke them; do not have a window; do not air your clothes. I also lately had an iron lamp placed by the side of my household gods; hearing a noise at the door, I ran down, and found that the lamp had been carried off. I reflected that he who had taken the lamp had done nothing strange. What then? To-morrow, I said, you will find an earthen lamp; for a man only loses that which he has. I have lost my garment. The reason is that you had a garment. I have a pain in my head. Have you any pain in your horns? Why then are you troubled? For we only lose those things, we have only pains about those things, which we possess.
THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE ANGRY WITH THE MISTAKES OF OTHERS.—Shouldn't we just get rid of this robber and this adulterer? Absolutely not! Instead, let’s think of it this way: This man who has been misguided and deceived about the most significant matters, and who is blinded, not by the ability to see black and white, but by the ability to understand right and wrong—should we really destroy him? If you put it like that, you’ll realize how inhumane your suggestion is, as if you were saying, Should we not destroy this blind and deaf person? But if the greatest harm is the loss of the most important things, and the most crucial thing in every person is their will or choice as it should be, and if someone is deprived of that will, why should you be angry with him? You shouldn’t let the bad actions of others upset you. Instead, feel compassion for him; let go of your urge to be offended and to hate, and stop using phrases like "those cursed and disgusting people." How did you become so wise all of a sudden? And why are you so irritated? So why do we get angry? Is it because we value the things these people steal from us so much? Don’t hold your clothes in such high regard, and you won't be angry with the thief. Think about it this way: you have nice clothes; your neighbor doesn’t; you have a window; you want to air out your clothes. The thief doesn’t understand where true goodness lies; he thinks it lies in having nice clothes, just like you do. Doesn’t that mean he’s likely to take them? If you show a cake to greedy people and eat it all yourself, do you expect them not to grab it from you? Don’t tempt them; don’t leave a window open; don’t air your clothes. I recently had an iron lamp placed by my household gods; when I heard a noise at the door, I ran down and found the lamp had been stolen. I reflected that the person who took the lamp hadn’t done anything unusual. So what? Tomorrow, I said, you’ll find a clay lamp instead; after all, a person only loses what they possess. I’ve lost my garment. The reason? Because you had a garment. I have a headache. Do you have pain in your horns? So why are you upset? We only lose things we own; we only feel pain over what we possess.
But the tyrant will chain—what? The leg. He will take away—what? The neck. What then will he not chain and not take away? The will. This is why the ancients taught the maxim, Know thyself. Therefore we ought to exercise ourselves in small things, and beginning with them to proceed to the greater. I have pain in the head. Do not say, Alas! I have pain in the ear. Do not say alas! And I do not say that you are not allowed to groan, but do not groan inwardly; and if your slave is slow in bringing a bandage, do not cry out and torment yourself, and say, Every body hates me; for who would not hate such a man? For the future, relying on these opinions, walk about upright, free; not trusting to the size of your body, as an athlete, for a man ought not to be invincible in the way that an ass is.
But the tyrant will chain—what? The leg. He will take away—what? The neck. So what will he not chain and not take away? The will. This is why the ancients taught the saying, Know thyself. Therefore, we should practice in small things and start with them before moving on to the bigger ones. I have a headache. Don’t say, Oh no! I have an earache. Don’t say oh no! And I’m not saying you can’t groan, but don’t groan on the inside; and if your servant is slow in bringing a bandage, don’t yell and torture yourself, saying, Everybody hates me; because who would not dislike such a person? In the future, based on these thoughts, walk around straight and free; don’t rely on the size of your body like an athlete, as a man shouldn’t be unbeatable like a donkey.
HOW WE SHOULD BEHAVE TO TYRANTS.—If a man possesses any superiority, or thinks that he does when he does not, such a man, if he is uninstructed, will of necessity be puffed up through it. For instance, the tyrant says, I am master of all! And what can you do for me? Can you give me desire which shall have no hindrance? How can you? Have you the infallible power of avoiding what you would avoid? Have you the power of moving towards an object without error? And how do you possess this power? Come, when you are in a ship, do you trust to yourself or to the helmsman? And when you are in a chariot, to whom do you trust but to the driver? And how is it in all other arts? Just the same. In what, then, lies your power? All men pay respect to me. Well, I also pay respect to my platter, and I wash it and wipe it; and for the sake of my oil-flask, I drive a peg into the wall. Well, then, are these things superior to me? No, but they supply some of my wants, and for this reason I take care of them. Well, do I not attend to my ass? Do I not wash his feet? Do I not clean him? Do you not know that every man has regard to himself, and to you just the same as he has regard to his ass? For who has regard to you as a man? Show me. Who wishes to become like you? Who imitates you, as he imitates Socrates? But I can cut off your head. You say right. I had forgotten that I must have regard to you, as I would to a fever and the bile, and raise an altar to you, as there is at Rome an altar to fever.
HOW WE SHOULD BEHAVE TO TYRANTS.—If someone has any kind of superiority, or thinks they do when they really don’t, that person, if they lack guidance, will inevitably get inflated by it. For example, the tyrant says, "I am in charge of everything! What can you do for me? Can you give me unblocked desires? How could you? Do you have the guaranteed power to avoid what you want to avoid? Can you move toward something without making a mistake? And how do you have this power? Come on, when you’re on a boat, do you rely on yourself or the helmsman? And when you’re in a chariot, who do you trust but the driver? It’s the same in every other skill. So where does your power really lie? Everyone respects me. Well, I also respect my platter; I wash it and wipe it down. For the sake of my oil-flask, I drive a peg into the wall. So, are these things better than I am? No, but they meet some of my needs, and that’s why I take care of them. Well, don’t I care for my donkey? Don’t I wash his feet? Don’t I clean him? Don’t you see that everyone looks after themselves, and they regard you just like they regard their donkey? Because who really respects you as a person? Show me. Who wants to be like you? Who tries to imitate you as they do Socrates? But I can take your head off. You’re right. I had forgotten that I should regard you the same way I would regard a fever or bile, and maybe even build an altar to you, just like there’s an altar to fever in Rome.
What is it then that disturbs and terrifies the multitude? Is it the tyrant and his guards? (By no means.) I hope that it is not so. It is not possible that what is by nature free can be disturbed by anything else, or hindered by any other thing than by itself. But it is a man’s own opinions which disturb him. For when the tyrant says to a man, I will chain your leg, he who values his leg says, Do not; have pity. But he who values his own will says, If it appears more advantageous to you, chain it. Do you not care? I do not care. I will show you that I am master. You cannot do that. Zeus has set me free; do you think that he intended to allow his own son to be enslaved? But you are master of my carcase; take it. So when you approach me, you have no regard to me? No, but I have regard to myself; and if you wish me to say that I have regard to you also, I tell you that I have the same regard to you that I have to my pipkin.
What is it that actually disturbs and scares the masses? Is it the tyrant and his guards? (Not at all.) I hope that’s not the case. It’s impossible for something that is naturally free to be disturbed by anything other than itself. It’s a person’s own thoughts that upset him. When the tyrant tells someone, "I will chain your leg," the person who values his leg might respond, "Please don’t; have mercy." But the person who values his own will says, "If it seems better for you, go ahead and chain it. Do you care? I don’t care. I’ll show you that I’m in control. You can’t do that. Zeus has set me free; do you really think he meant for his own son to be enslaved? But you may own my body; take it. So when you come to me, you don’t care about me? No, I care about myself; and if you want me to say I care about you too, I’ll tell you that I regard you the same way I regard my cooking pot."
What then? When absurd notions about things independent of our will, as if they were good and (or) bad, lie at the bottom of our opinions, we must of necessity pay regard to tyrants: for I wish that men would pay regard to tyrants only, and not also to the bedchamber men. How is it that the man becomes all at once wise, when Cæsar has made him superintendent of the close stool? How is it that we say immediately, Felicion spoke sensibly to me? I wish he were ejected from the bedchamber, that he might again appear to you to be a fool.
What then? When ridiculous ideas about things beyond our control—thinking they are good or bad—underlie our opinions, we inevitably have to pay attention to tyrants. I wish people would only pay attention to tyrants and not to the courtiers. How is it that a man suddenly appears wise when Caesar appoints him as the caretaker of the toilet? How is it that we immediately say, "Felicion was sensible with me"? I wish he were kicked out of the inner circle so you could see him as a fool again.
Has a man been exalted to the tribuneship? All who meet him offer their congratulations; one kisses his eyes, another the neck, and the slaves kiss his hands. He goes to his house, he finds torches lighted. He ascends the Capitol; he offers a sacrifice on the occasion. Now who ever sacrificed for having had good desires? for having acted conformably to nature? For in fact we thank the gods for those things in which we place our good.
Has a man been promoted to the tribuneship? Everyone he meets congratulates him; one kisses his eyes, another kisses his neck, and the slaves kiss his hands. He goes home to find torches lit. He climbs the Capitol and makes a sacrifice to celebrate. But who has ever sacrificed for simply having good intentions? For acting in accordance with nature? Because, in reality, we thank the gods for those things in which we find our goodness.
A person was talking to me to-day about the priesthood of Augustus. I say to him: Man, let the thing alone; you will spend much for no purpose. But he replies, Those who draw up agreements will write my name. Do you then stand by those who read them, and say to such persons, It is I whose name is written there? And if you can now be present on ail such occasions, what will you do when you are dead? My name will remain. Write it on a stone, and it will remain. But come, what remembrance of you will there be beyond Nicopolis? But I shall wear a crown of gold. If you desire a crown at all, take a crown of roses and put it on, for it will be more elegant in appearance.
Someone was talking to me today about the priesthood of Augustus. I said to him: Man, just let it go; you’ll spend a lot for nothing. But he replied, Those who make agreements will write my name. So, do you stand by those who read them and say to those people, It’s my name that’s written there? And if you can be present at all these events now, what will you do when you’re gone? My name will endure. Write it on a stone, and it will last. But tell me, what memory of you will exist beyond Nicopolis? But I will wear a crown of gold. If you want a crown at all, put on a crown of roses instead, because it will look much nicer.
AGAINST THOSE WHO WISH TO BE ADMIRED.—When a man holds his proper station in life, he does not gape after things beyond it. Man, what do you wish to happen to you? I am satisfied if I desire and avoid conformably to nature, if I employ movements towards and from an object as I am by nature formed to do, and purpose and design and assent. Why then do you strut before us as if you had swallowed a spit? My wish has always been that those who meet me should admire me, and those who follow me should exclaim, O the great philosopher! Who are they by whom you wish to be admired? Are they not those of whom you are used to say that they are mad? Well, then, do you wish to be admired by madmen?
AGAINST THOSE WHO WANT TO BE ADMIRED.—When someone is in their right place in life, they don’t chase after things beyond it. So, what do you really want to happen? I’m happy if I desire and avoid things in line with nature, if I move toward and away from something according to how I’m naturally made, and if I have intention and agreement. So why do you strut around like you've got a stick up your rear? I’ve always hoped that those who encounter me would admire me, and that those who follow me would shout, "Oh, the great philosopher!" Who exactly do you want to admire you? Aren't they the ones you usually call crazy? So, do you really want to be admired by madmen?
ON PRÆCOGNITIONS.—Præcognitions are common to all men, and præcognition is not contradictory to præcognition. For who of us does not assume that Good is useful and eligible, and in all circumstances that we ought to follow and pursue it? And who of us does not assume that Justice is beautiful and becoming? When then does the contradiction arise? It arises in the adaptation of the præcognitions to the particular cases. When one man says, “He has done well; he is a brave man,” and another says, “Not so; but he has acted foolishly,” then the disputes arise among men. This is the dispute among the Jews and the Syrians and the Egyptians and the Romans; not whether holiness should be preferred to all things and in all cases should be pursued, but whether it is holy to eat pig’s flesh or not holy. You will find this dispute also between Agamemnon and Achilles; for call them forth. What do you say, Agamemnon? ought not that to be done which is proper and right? “Certainly.” Well, what do you say, Achilles? do you not admit that what is good ought to be done? “I do most certainly.” Adapt your præcognitions then to the present matter. Here the dispute begins. Agamemnon says, “I ought not to give up Chryseis to her father.” Achilles says, “You ought.” It is certain that one of the two makes a wrong adaptation of the præcognition of “ought” or “duty.” Further, Agamemnon says, “Then if I ought to restore Chryseis, it is fit that I take his prize from some of you.” Achilles replies, “Would you then take her whom I love?” “Yes, her whom you love.” “Must I then be the only man who goes without a prize? and must I be the only man who has no prize?” Thus the dispute begins.
ON PRÆCOGNITIONS.—Præcognitions are common to everyone, and one type of præcognition doesn’t contradict another. After all, who among us doesn’t believe that good things are useful and desirable, and that we should pursue them in every situation? And who doesn’t think that justice is beautiful and worthwhile? So, when does the contradiction come in? It comes in when we try to apply our præcognitions to specific situations. When one person says, “He has done well; he is a brave man,” and another counters, “No, he has acted foolishly,” that’s when arguments start. This is the disagreement among the Jews, Syrians, Egyptians, and Romans; it’s not about whether holiness should be prioritized above all else and pursued in every case, but whether it’s holy to eat pork or not. You can see this conflict between Agamemnon and Achilles as well; let’s bring them in. What do you think, Agamemnon? Shouldn’t we do what’s right and proper? “Absolutely.” And Achilles, do you agree that what is good should be done? “I certainly do.” Now, apply your præcognitions to the situation at hand. This is where the disagreement starts. Agamemnon claims, “I shouldn’t give up Chryseis to her father.” Achilles insists, “You should.” Clearly, one of them is misapplying the idea of “ought” or “duty.” Moreover, Agamemnon states, “If I have to return Chryseis, then it’s fair that I take a prize from some of you.” Achilles responds, “Are you really going to take the one I love?” “Yes, the one you love.” “So am I to be the only one without a prize? Must I be the only one with nothing?” And this is how the argument begins.
What then is education? Education is the learning how to adapt the natural præcognitions to the particular things conformably to nature; and then to distinguish that of things some are in our power, but others are not. In our power are will and all acts which depend on the will; things not in our power are the body, the parts of the body, possessions, parents, brothers, children, country, and, generally, all with whom we live in society. In what then should we place the good? To what kind of things ([Greek: ousia]) shall we adapt it? To the things which are in our power? Is not health then a good thing, and soundness of limb, and life, and are not children and parents and country? Who will tolerate you if you deny this?
What is education, then? Education is learning how to adapt our natural instincts to specific situations in a way that aligns with nature, and then figuring out which things are within our control and which are not. What we can control are our will and all actions that depend on it; what we cannot control includes our body, body parts, possessions, parents, siblings, children, country, and, in general, everything related to our social life. So, where should we find what is good? To what kinds of things should we align it? To the things that are in our control? Isn't health a good thing, along with physical well-being, life itself, as well as children, parents, and our country? Who would accept you if you deny this?
Let us then transfer the notion of good to these things. Is it possible, then, when a man sustains damage and does not obtain good things, that he can be happy? It is not possible. And can he maintain towards society a proper behavior? He can not. For I am naturally formed to look after my own interest. If it is my interest to have an estate in land, it is my interest also to take it from my neighbor. If it is my interest to have a garment, it is my interest also to steal it from the bath. This is the origin of wars, civil commotions, tyrannies, conspiracies. And how shall I be still able to maintain my duty towards Zeus? For if I sustain damage and am unlucky, he takes no care of me. And what is he to me if he cannot help me? And further, what is he to me if he allows me to be in the condition in which I am? I now begin to hate him. Why then do we build temples, why setup statues to Zeus, as well as to evil demons, such as to Fever; and how is Zeus the Saviour, and how the giver of rain, and the giver of fruits? And in truth if we place the nature of Good in any such things, all this follows.
Let’s then apply the concept of good to these things. Is it possible for a person who suffers and doesn’t get good things to be happy? It’s not possible. And can he behave properly toward society? He can’t. I am naturally inclined to look out for my own interests. If it benefits me to own land, it also benefits me to take it from my neighbor. If it’s in my interest to have a piece of clothing, it’s also in my interest to steal it from the bath. This is where wars, civil unrest, tyranny, and conspiracies come from. And how can I still fulfill my duty to Zeus? If I suffer and am unfortunate, he doesn’t care for me. What’s he to me if he can’t help me? And what’s he to me if he lets me remain in my current state? I’m starting to resent him. So why do we build temples, why do we create statues for Zeus, as well as for evil spirits like Fever? How is Zeus our Savior, the one who brings rain, and the giver of fruits? Honestly, if we equate the nature of Good with such things, all of this follows.
What should we do then? This is the inquiry of the true philosopher who is in labor. Now I do not see what the good is nor the bad. Am I not mad? Yes. But suppose that I place the good somewhere among the things which depend on the will; all will laugh at me. There will come some greyhead wearing many gold rings on his fingers, and he will shake his head and say: “Hear, my child. It is right that you should philosophize; but you ought to have some brains also; all this that you are doing is silly. You learn the syllogism from philosophers; but you know how to act better than philosophers do.” Man why then do you blame me, if I know? What shall I say to this slave? If I am silent, he will burst. I must speak in this way: “Excuse me, as you would excuse lovers; I am not my own master; I am mad.”
What should we do then? This is the question of the true philosopher who is working hard. Right now, I can't tell what’s good or bad. Am I crazy? Yes. But let’s say I think the good is somewhere among the things that depend on our will; everyone will just laugh at me. Some old guy with a bunch of gold rings on his fingers will come along, shake his head, and say, “Listen, kid. It’s good that you’re thinking deeply; but you should also have some sense; all this you’re doing is foolish. You learn logic from philosophers, but you know how to act better than they do.” Well then, why do you criticize me, if I do know? What should I say to this guy? If I say nothing, he’ll blow up. I have to respond like this: “Please excuse me, like you would excuse someone in love; I don’t have control over myself; I’m crazy.”
HOW WE SHOULD STRUGGLE WITH CIRCUMSTANCES.—It is circumstances (difficulties) which show what men are. Therefore when a difficulty falls upon you, remember that God, like a trainer of wrestlers, has matched you with a rough young man. For what purpose? you may say. Why, that you may become an Olympic conqueror; but it is not accomplished without sweat. In my opinion no man has had a more profitable difficulty than you have had, if you choose to make use of it as an athlete would deal with a young antagonist. We are now sending a scout to Rome; but no man sends a cowardly scout, who, if he only hears a noise and sees a shadow anywhere, comes running back in terror and reports that the enemy is close at hand. So now if you should come and tell us: “Fearful is the state of affairs at Rome; terrible is death; terrible is exile; terrible is calumny; terrible is poverty; fly, my friends, the enemy is near,” we shall answer: “Begone, prophesy for yourself; we have committed only one fault, that we sent such a scout.”
HOW WE SHOULD STRUGGLE WITH CIRCUMSTANCES.—It’s the circumstances (difficulties) that reveal what people are really made of. So, when a challenge comes your way, remember that God, like a coach for wrestlers, has put you up against a tough opponent. You might wonder why. It’s so you can become a champion, but that doesn't happen without effort. In my view, no one has faced a more beneficial challenge than you have, if you decide to tackle it like an athlete facing a young rival. We are currently sending a scout to Rome; however, no one sends a cowardly scout who, at the slightest noise or shadow, rushes back in fear and reports that the enemy is close. So, if you were to come and say, “The situation in Rome is dire; death is terrifying; exile is horrifying; slander is awful; poverty is dreadful; run, my friends, the enemy is near,” we would respond: “Go away, predict that for yourself; our only mistake was sending such a scout.”
Diogenes, who was sent as a scout before you, made a different report to us. He says that death is no evil, for neither is it base; he says that fame (reputation) is the noise of madmen. And what has this spy said about pain, about pleasure, and about poverty? He says that to be naked is better than any purple robe, and to sleep on the bare ground is the softest bed; and he gives as a proof of each thing that he affirms his own courage, his tranquillity, his freedom, and the healthy appearance and compactness of his body. There is no enemy near, he says; all is peace. How so, Diogenes? “See,” he replies, “if I am struck, if I have been wounded, if I have fled from any man.” This is what a scout ought to be. But you come to us and tell us one thing after another. Will you not go back, and you will see clearer when you have laid aside fear?
Diogenes, who was sent ahead as a scout, gave us a different report. He says that death isn’t a bad thing because it’s not something shameful; he claims that fame is just the noise of crazy people. And what does this scout say about pain, pleasure, and poverty? He says that being naked is better than wearing a fancy purple robe, and that sleeping on the bare ground is the most comfortable bed. He backs up each of his claims with his own courage, calmness, freedom, and the healthy look and strength of his body. He insists that there’s no enemy around; everything is peaceful. How can that be, Diogenes? “Look,” he answers, “if I’m struck, if I’m wounded, if I’ve run away from anyone.” That’s how a scout should act. But you come to us with one story after another. Why don’t you go back? You’ll see things more clearly when you let go of your fear.
ON THE SAME.—If these things are true, and if we are not silly, and are not acting hypocritically when we say that the good of man is in the will, and the evil too, and that everything else does not concern us, why are we still disturbed, why are we still afraid? The things about which we have been busied are in no man’s power; and the things which are in the power of others, we care not for. What kind of trouble have we still?
ON THE SAME.—If these things are true, and if we’re not foolish and aren’t being hypocritical when we say that a person's good comes from their will, and the same for evil, and that everything else doesn’t matter to us, then why are we still anxious and afraid? The things we've been preoccupied with are out of anyone's control; and the things that are in others' power, we don’t care about. What kind of issues do we still have?
But give me directions. Why should I give you directions? Has not Zeus given you directions? Has he not given to you what is your own free from hindrance and free from impediment, and what is not your own subject to hindrance and impediment? What directions then, what kind of orders did you bring when you came from him? Keep by every means what is your own; do not desire what belongs to others. Fidelity (integrity) is your own, virtuous shame is your own; who then can take these things from you? who else than yourself will hinder you from using them? But how do you act? When you seek what is not your own, you lose that which is your own. Having such promptings and commands from Zeus, what kind do you still ask from me? Am I more powerful than he, am I more worthy of confidence? But if you observe these, do you want any others besides? “Well, but he has not given these orders,” you will say. Produce your præcognitions ([Greek: prolaepseis]), produce these proofs of philosophers, produce what you have often heard, and produce what you have said yourself, produce what you have read, produce what you have meditated on; and you will then see that all these things are from God.
But just give me directions. Why should I give you directions? Hasn’t Zeus already given you guidance? Hasn’t he provided you with what is rightfully yours, free from obstacles, and what isn’t yours is subject to those obstacles? So, what directions did you bring when you came from him? Always keep what is yours; don’t covet what belongs to others. Integrity is yours, virtuous shame is yours; who can take those away from you? Who but yourself can stop you from using them? But how do you behave? When you chase after what isn’t yours, you lose what is. Given that you have such insights and commands from Zeus, what else are you still asking from me? Am I more powerful than he? Am I more trustworthy? But if you follow these, do you need anything else? “Well, he hasn’t given those orders,” you might say. Show me your prior knowledge, show me the proofs from philosophers, show me what you’ve often heard, what you’ve said yourself, what you’ve read, what you’ve thought about; and you will see that all these things come from God.
If I have set my admiration on the poor body, I have given myself up to be a slave; if on my poor possessions, I also make myself a slave. For I immediately make it plain with what I may be caught; as if the snake draws in his head, I tell you to strike that part of him which he guards; and do you be assured that whatever part you choose to guard, that part your master will attack. Remembering this, whom will you still flatter or fear?
If I focus my admiration on my poor body, I become a slave; if I fixate on my meager possessions, I also become a slave. I quickly reveal what can hold me captive; just like a snake retracts its head, I warn you to strike the part it protects. Be certain that whatever you choose to guard, that’s the part your master will go after. With this in mind, who will you still flatter or fear?
But I should like to sit where the Senators sit. Do you see that you are putting yourself in straits, you are squeezing yourself? How then shall I see well in any other way in the amphitheatre? Man, do not be a spectator at all, and you will not be squeezed. Why do you give yourself trouble? Or wait a little, and when the spectacle is over, seat yourself in the place reserved for the Senators and sun yourself. For remember this general truth, that it is we who squeeze ourselves, who put ourselves in straits; that is, our opinions squeeze us and put us in straits. For what is it to be reviled? Stand by a stone and revile it, and what will you gain? If then a man listens like a stone, what profit is there to the reviler? But if the reviler has as a stepping-stone (or ladder) the weakness of him who is reviled, then he accomplishes something. Strip him. What do you mean by him? Lay hold of his garment, strip it off. I have insulted you. Much good may it do you.
But I’d like to sit where the Senators sit. Do you see that you’re putting yourself in a tight spot? How else will I see well in the amphitheater? Listen, don’t be a spectator at all, and you won’t feel squeezed. Why give yourself that stress? Or wait a bit, and when the show is over, take a seat in the Senator’s area and enjoy the sun. Remember this simple truth: we are the ones who squeeze ourselves and create our own tight spots; our opinions do that to us. What does it mean to be insulted? Stand next to a stone and insult it—what do you gain? If someone listens like a stone, what does the insulter gain? But if the insulter relies on the weakness of the person being insulted, then they achieve something. Strip him. What do you mean by him? Grab his garment, take it off. I’ve insulted you. Hope that does you some good.
This was the practice of Socrates; this was the reason why he always had one face. But we choose to practise and study anything rather than the means by which we shall be unimpeded and free. You say: “Philosophers talk paradoxes.” But are there no paradoxes in the other arts? And what is more paradoxical than to puncture a man’s eye in order that he may see? If any one said this to a man ignorant of the surgical art, would he not ridicule the speaker? Where is the wonder, then, if in philosophy also many things which are true appear paradoxical to the inexperienced?
This was Socrates' approach; that's why he always had a consistent demeanor. But we prefer to practice and study anything other than the ways we can be unburdened and free. You say, “Philosophers speak in paradoxes.” But aren’t there paradoxes in other fields as well? What could be more paradoxical than stabbing someone's eye so they can see? If someone told this to a person who didn't understand surgery, wouldn’t they laugh at the speaker? So why should we be surprised that many things in philosophy seem paradoxical to those who aren't familiar with it?
IN HOW MANY WAYS APPEARANCES EXIST, AND WHAT AIDS WE SHOULD PROVIDE AGAINST THEM.—Appearances are to us in four ways. For either things appear as they are; or they are not, and do not even appear to be; or they are, and do not appear to be; or they are not, and yet appear to be. Further, in all these cases to form a right judgment (to hit the mark) is the office of an educated man. But whatever it is that annoys (troubles) us, to that we ought to apply a remedy. If the sophisms of Pyrrho and of the Academics are what annoys (troubles), we must apply the remedy to them. If it is the persuasion of appearances, by which some things appear to be good, when they are not good, let us seek a remedy for this. If it is habit which annoys us, we must try to seek aid against habit. What aid, then, can we find against habit? The contrary habit. You hear the ignorant say: “That unfortunate person is dead; his father and mother are overpowered with sorrow; he was cut off by an untimely death and in a foreign land.” Hear the contrary way of speaking. Tear yourself from these expressions; oppose to one habit the contrary habit; to sophistry oppose reason, and the exercise and discipline of reason; against persuasive (deceitful) appearances we ought to have manifest præcognitions ([Greek: prolaepseis]), cleared of all impurities and ready to hand.
IN HOW MANY WAYS APPEARANCES EXIST, AND WHAT AIDS WE SHOULD PROVIDE AGAINST THEM.—Appearances come to us in four ways. Either things appear as they really are; or they do not exist and don’t even appear to exist; or they exist but do not seem to be; or they do not exist yet appear to be. In all these situations, forming a correct judgment (hitting the mark) is the responsibility of an educated person. Whatever troubles us, we should apply a remedy to that. If it's the arguments of Pyrrho and the Academics that trouble us, we need to address those. If it's the misleading nature of appearances, where some things seem good but aren't, we should find a solution for that. If it's habit that's bothering us, we need to seek help against habit. So, what kind of help can we find against habit? The opposite habit. You hear the uneducated say: “That unfortunate person is dead; his father and mother are devastated with grief; he died an untimely death in a foreign land.” Listen to the opposite way of speaking. Separate yourself from these expressions; counter one habit with the opposite habit; oppose sophistry with reason and the practice and training of reason; against deceptive appearances, we should have clear understandings (præcognitions), free of all impurities and readily available.
When death appears an evil, we ought to have this rule in readiness, that it is fit to avoid evil things, and that death is a necessary thing. For what shall I do, and where shall I escape it? Suppose that I am not Sarpedon, the son of Zeus, nor able to speak in this noble way. I will go and I am resolved either to behave bravely myself or to give to another the opportunity of doing so; if I cannot succeed in doing anything myself, I will not grudge another the doing of something noble. Suppose that it is above our power to act thus; is it not in our power to reason thus? Tell me where I can escape death; discover for me the country, show me the men to whom I must go, whom death does not visit. Discover to me a charm against death. If I have not one, what do you wish me to do? I cannot escape from death. Shall I not escape from the fear of death, but shall I die lamenting and trembling? For the origin of perturbation is this, to wish for something, and that this should not happen. Therefore if I am able to change externals according to my wish, I change them; but if I cannot, I am ready to tear out the eyes of him who hinders me. For the nature of man is not to endure to be deprived of the good, and not to endure the falling into the evil. Then at last, when I am neither able to change circumstances nor to tear out the eyes of him who hinders me, I sit down and groan, and abuse whom I can, Zeus and the rest of the gods. For if they do not care for me, what are they to me? Yes, but you will be an impious man. In what respect, then, will it be worse for me than it is now? To sum up, remember that unless piety and your interest be in the same thing, piety cannot be maintained in any man. Do not these things seem necessary (true)?
When death feels like a bad thing, we should remember that it's wise to avoid what's harmful and that death is unavoidable. What can I do? Where can I run from it? Let’s say I’m not Sarpedon, the son of Zeus, and I can't speak this way. I’ll go and I’m determined to either be brave myself or give someone else a chance to be brave; if I can’t do anything myself, I won’t resent someone else achieving something noble. But if it’s beyond my control to act this way, isn’t it within my power to think this way? Tell me where I can run from death; show me the place, show me the people who aren’t affected by it. Find me a way to escape death. If I don’t have one, what do you expect me to do? I can't avoid death. Should I not only fear death but also die in fear and anguish? The root of anxiety is wanting something to happen but it doesn't. So if I can change what’s external according to my wishes, I will; but if I can't, I’m ready to lash out at whoever stands in my way. Because human nature can’t stand to be deprived of what’s good and can’t bear to fall into what’s bad. Finally, when I can neither change my circumstances nor lash out at those who hinder me, I just sit down and complain, cursing whoever I can, including Zeus and the other gods. If they don’t care about me, what are they to me? But you might say I’d be acting unjustly. How would it be worse for me than it is now? In short, remember that unless your moral duty and your interests align, you can’t truly uphold moral duty. Don’t these ideas seem essential to you?
THAT WE OUGHT NOT TO BE ANGRY WITH MEN; AND WHAT ARE THE SMALL AND THE GREAT THINGS AMONG MEN.—What is the cause of assenting to anything? The fact that it appears to be true. It is not possible then to assent to that which appears not to be true. Why? Because this is the nature of the understanding, to incline to the true, to be dissatisfied with the false, and in matters uncertain to withhold assent. What is the proof of this? Imagine (persuade yourself), if you can, that it is now night. It is not possible. Take away your persuasion that it is day. It is not possible. Persuade yourself or take away your persuasion that the stars are even in number. It is impossible. When then any man assents to that which is false, be assured that he did not intend to assent to it as false, for every soul is unwillingly deprived of the truth, as Plato says; but the falsity seemed to him to be true. Well, in acts what have we of the like kind as we have here truth or falsehood? We have the fit and the not fit (duty and not duty), the profitable and the unprofitable, that which is suitable to a person and that which is not, and whatever is like these. Can then a man think that a thing is useful to him and not choose it? He cannot. How says Medea?
THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE ANGRY WITH PEOPLE; AND WHAT ARE THE SMALL AND THE BIG THINGS AMONG PEOPLE.—What makes us agree with something? Simply that it seems to be true. Therefore, we can't agree with something that doesn’t seem true. Why not? Because our understanding naturally leans towards what’s true and feels uncomfortable with what’s false, and in situations where there’s doubt, we hold back our agreement. How can we prove this? Try to convince yourself that it’s nighttime right now. It’s impossible. Remove your belief that it’s daytime. You can’t do it. Convince yourself, or dismiss the idea, that the stars are an even number. That’s impossible too. So, when someone agrees with something false, know that they didn’t intend to agree with it as false, because every person is unwillingly deprived of the truth, as Plato says; instead, the falsehood just seemed true to them. In actions, what do we have that’s similar to truth or falsehood? We have what is right and what is wrong (what’s a duty and what isn’t), what’s beneficial and what isn’t, what suits a person and what doesn’t, and things like that. Can someone think a thing is useful to them and not choose it? No, they can’t. How does Medea say it?
“’Tis true I know what evil I shall do,
But passion overpowers the better counsel.”
“It’s true I know what wrong I’m about to do,
But my feelings are stronger than good advice.”
She thought that to indulge her passion and take vengeance on her husband was more profitable than to spare her children. It was so; but she was deceived. Show her plainly that she is deceived, and she will not do it; but so long as you do not show it, what can she follow except that which appears to herself (her opinion)? Nothing else. Why then are you angry with the unhappy woman that she has been bewildered about the most important things, and is become a viper instead of a human creature? And why not, if it is possible, rather pity, as we pity the blind and the lame, so those who are blinded and maimed in the faculties which are supreme?
She believed that indulging her passion and getting back at her husband was more beneficial than protecting her children. It was true, but she was mistaken. If you show her clearly that she's wrong, she won't go through with it; but as long as you don't reveal that to her, what else can she follow besides her own perspective? Nothing. So why get upset with the unfortunate woman for being confused about the most important issues and turning into a viper instead of a human? And why not, if it's possible, feel pity for her, just like we do for the blind and the lame, for those who are blinded and damaged in their highest faculties?
Whoever then clearly remembers this, that to man the measure of every act is the appearance (the opinion), whether the thing appears good or bad. If good, he is free from blame; if bad, himself suffers the penalty, for it is impossible that he who is deceived can be one person, and he who suffers another person—whoever remembers this will not be angry with any man, will not be vexed at any man, will not revile or blame any man, nor hate, nor quarrel with any man.
Whoever clearly remembers that for people, the measure of every action is how it appears (the opinion), whether it seems good or bad. If it seems good, they are free from blame; if it seems bad, they face the consequences themselves, because it’s impossible for the one who is deceived to be a different person from the one who suffers. Whoever keeps this in mind will not get angry with anyone, won't be annoyed with anyone, won't slander or blame anyone, and won’t hate or argue with anyone.
So then all these great and dreadful deeds have this origin, in the appearance (opinion)? Yes, this origin and no other. The Iliad is nothing else than appearance and the use of appearances. It appeared to Alexander to carry off the wife of Menelaus. It appeared to Helene to follow him. If then it had appeared to Menelaus to feel that it was a gain to be deprived of such a wife, what would have happened? Not only would the Iliad have been lost, but the Odyssey also. On so small a matter then did such great things depend? But what do you mean by such great things? Wars and civil commotions, and the destruction of many men and cities. And what great matter is this? Is it nothing? But what great matter is the death of many oxen, and many sheep, and many nests of swallows or storks being burnt or destroyed? Are these things then like those? Very like. Bodies of men are destroyed, and the bodies of oxen and sheep; the dwellings of men are burnt, and the nests of storks. What is there in this great or dreadful? Or show me what is the difference between a man’s house and a stork’s nest, as far as each is a dwelling; except that man builds his little houses of beams and tiles and bricks, and the stork builds them of sticks and mud. Are a stork and a man then like things? What say you? In body they are very much alike.
So all these significant and terrifying actions have this origin, in perception (opinion)? Yes, it all starts there and nowhere else. The Iliad is nothing but perception and the use of appearances. It seemed to Alexander that taking Menelaus's wife was a good idea. It seemed to Helen that following him was the right choice. If Menelaus had perceived it was a gain to lose such a wife, what would have happened? Not only would the Iliad have been lost, but the Odyssey too. Such major events depended on such a minor issue? But what do you mean by major events? Wars, civil unrest, and the destruction of countless people and cities. And is that not a significant matter? But what’s significant about the death of many oxen, sheep, or the destruction of many swallows' or storks' nests? Are these things really comparable? Very much so. People’s bodies are destroyed, just like the bodies of oxen and sheep; human homes are burned, just like the nests of storks. What’s so great or terrible about this? Or tell me the difference between a man’s house and a stork’s nest, considering they both serve as homes; except that man builds his little houses with beams, tiles, and bricks, and the stork builds theirs with sticks and mud. Are storks and men really so different? What do you think? In body, they are quite similar.
Does a man then differ in no respect from a stork? Don’t suppose that I say so; but there is no difference in these matters (which I have mentioned). In what then is the difference? Seek and you will find that there is a difference in another matter. See whether it is not in a man the understanding of what he does, see if it is not in social community, in fidelity, in modesty, in steadfastness, in intelligence. Where then is the great good and evil in men? It is where the difference is. If the difference is preserved and remains fenced round, and neither modesty is destroyed, nor fidelity, nor intelligence, then the man also is preserved; but if any of these things is destroyed and stormed like a city, then the man too perishes: and in this consist the great things. Alexander, you say, sustained great damage then when the Hellenes invaded and when they ravaged Troy, and when his brothers perished. By no means; for no man is damaged by an action which is not his own; but what happened at that time was only the destruction of stork’s nests. Now the ruin of Alexander was when he lost the character of modesty, fidelity, regard to hospitality, and to decency. When was Achilles ruined? Was it when Patroclus died? Not so. But it happened when he began to be angry, when he wept for a girl, when he forgot that he was at Troy not to get mistresses, but to fight. These things are the ruin of men, this is being besieged, this is the destruction of cities, when right opinions are destroyed, when they are corrupted.
Does a man really not differ at all from a stork? Don't think that I'm saying that; but in the matters I've mentioned, there's no difference. So where is the difference? Look closer, and you'll find that the difference lies in something else. See whether it's not in a man's understanding of what he does, in community, in loyalty, in modesty, in perseverance, in intelligence. Where then is the real good and evil in men? It's where the difference exists. If that difference is maintained and protected, and if modesty, loyalty, and intelligence are not lost, then the man is also preserved. But if any of these are destroyed, like a city under siege, then the man perishes too: and therein lies the true significance. You say Alexander suffered great losses when the Greeks attacked and destroyed Troy, and when his brothers died. Not at all; no man is harmed by actions that aren't his own; what occurred back then was merely the destruction of stork nests. Alexander's downfall was when he lost his sense of modesty, loyalty, respect for hospitality, and decency. When was Achilles ruined? Was it when Patroclus died? Not at all. It happened when he became angry, when he cried over a woman, when he forgot that he was at Troy to fight, not to pursue lovers. These are the things that ruin men; this is being under siege, this is the destruction of cities, when right opinions are lost and corrupted.
ON CONSTANCY (OR FIRMNESS).—The being (nature) of the good is a certain will; the being of the bad is a certain kind of will. What, then, are externals? Materials for the will, about which the will being conversant shall obtain its own good or evil. How shall it obtain the good? If it does not admire (over-value) the materials; for the opinions about the materials, if the opinions are right, make the will good: but perverse and distorted opinions make the will bad. God has fixed this law, and says, “If you would have anything good, receive it from yourself.” You say, No, but I will have it from another. Do not so: but receive it from yourself. Therefore when the tyrant threatens and calls me, I say, Whom do you threaten? If he says, I will put you in chains, I say, You threaten my hands and my feet. If he says, I will cut off your head, I reply, You threaten my head. If he says, I will throw you into prison, I say, You threaten the whole of this poor body. If he threatens me with banishment, I say the same. Does he then not threaten you at all? If I feel that all these things do not concern me, he does not threaten me at all; but if I fear any of them, it is I whom he threatens. Whom then do I fear? the master of what? The master of things which are in my own power? There is no such master. Do I fear the master of things which are not in my power? And what are these things to me?
ON CONSTANCY (OR FIRMNESS).—The essence of good is a certain kind of will; the essence of bad is a different kind of will. So, what are external things? They are materials for the will, through which the will can achieve its good or bad outcomes. How can it achieve good? By not overvaluing those materials; because if our opinions about those materials are right, they make the will good, but twisted opinions make the will bad. God has established this rule: "If you want anything good, find it within yourself." You might say, "No, I want it from someone else." But that's not right; you should find it within yourself. So, when the tyrant threatens me, I ask, "Who do you think you’re threatening?" If he says, "I’ll put you in chains," I reply, "You’re just threatening my hands and feet." If he says, "I’ll cut off your head," I say, "You’re threatening my head." If he claims, "I’ll throw you in prison," I respond, "You’re threatening my entire body." If he threatens exile, I give the same response. Does he not threaten you at all? If I realize that none of these threats affect me, then he doesn’t threaten me at all; but if any of them make me feel fear, then it’s me he threatens. So, what do I fear? The master of what? The master of things that are in my control? There’s no such master. Do I fear the master of things that are out of my control? And how do those things matter to me?
Do you philosophers then teach us to despise kings? I hope not. Who among us teaches to claim against them the power over things which they possess? Take my poor body, take my property, take my reputation, take those who are about me. If I advise any persons to claim these things, they may truly accuse me. Yes, but I intend to command your opinions also. And who has given you this power? How can you conquer the opinion of another man? By applying terror to it, he replies, I will conquer it. Do you not know that opinion conquers itself, and is not conquered by another? But nothing else can conquer will except the will itself. For this reason too the law of God is most powerful and most just, which is this: Let the stronger always be superior to the weaker. Ten are stronger than one. For what? For putting in chains, for killing, for dragging whither they choose, for taking away what a man has. The ten therefore conquer the one in this in which they are stronger. In what then are the ten weaker? If the one possesses right opinions and the others do not. Well then, can the ten conquer in this matter? How is it possible? If we were placed in the scales, must not the heavier draw down the scale in which it is.
Do you philosophers teach us to look down on kings? I hope not. Who among us suggests we should claim the power over what they own? Take my body, take my possessions, take my reputation, take those close to me. If I tell anyone to claim these things, they could justly accuse me. Yes, but I also intend to influence your views. And who gave you that power? How can you overpower someone else's opinion? By using fear, he replies, I will compel it. Don’t you know that opinion defeats itself and isn’t defeated by someone else? Nothing can conquer the will except the will itself. That’s why God’s law is the most powerful and just: The stronger should always dominate the weaker. Ten are stronger than one. Why? To bind, to kill, to drag wherever they choose, to take away what someone has. Therefore, ten defeat one in what they are stronger. But in what are the ten weaker? If the one holds the right opinions and the others do not. So, can the ten win in this? How is that possible? If we were weighed in scales, wouldn’t the heavier side pull down the scale it’s in?
How strange then that Socrates should have been so treated by the Athenians. Slave, why do you say Socrates? Speak of the thing as it is: how strange that the poor body of Socrates should have been carried off and dragged to prison by stronger men, and that anyone should have given hemlock to the poor body of Socrates, and that it should breathe out the life. Do these things seem strange, do they seem unjust, do you on account of these things blame God? Had Socrates then no equivalent for these things? Where then for him was the nature of good? Whom shall we listen to, you or him? And what does Socrates say? “Anytus and Melitus can kill me, but they cannot hurt me.” And further, he says, “If it so pleases God, so let it be.”
How strange it is that Socrates was treated this way by the Athenians. Slave, why do you mention Socrates? Let's be clear: how odd it is that the poor body of Socrates was taken away and dragged to prison by stronger men, and that someone administered hemlock to the poor body of Socrates, causing it to breathe its last. Do these things seem strange, do they seem unfair, do you blame God for all this? Did Socrates have no equivalent to these experiences? Where, then, was his sense of what is good? Whom should we listen to, you or him? And what does Socrates say? “Anytus and Melitus can kill me, but they cannot truly harm me.” Moreover, he says, “If it pleases God, then so be it.”
But show me that he who has the inferior principles overpowers him who is superior in principles. You will never show this, nor come near showing it; for this is the law of nature and of God that the superior shall always overpower the inferior. In what? In that in which it is superior. One body is stronger than another: many are stronger than one: the thief is stronger than he who is not a thief. This is the reason why I also lost my lamp, because in wakefulness the thief was superior to me. But the man bought the lamp at this price: for a lamp he became a thief, a faithless fellow, and like a wild beast. This seemed to him a good bargain. Be it so. But a man has seized me by the cloak, and is drawing me to the public place: then others bawl out, Philosopher, what has been the use of your opinions? see, you are dragged to prison, you are going to be beheaded. And what system of philosophy ([Greek: eisagogaen)] could I have made so that, if a stronger man should have laid hold of my cloak, I should not be dragged off; that if ten men should have laid hold of me and cast me into prison, I should not be cast in? Have I learned nothing else then? I have learned to see that everything which happens, if it be independent of my will, is nothing to me. I may ask, if you have not gained by this. Why then do you seek advantage in anything else than in that in which you have learned that advantage is?
But show me that someone with lower principles can overpower someone with higher principles. You won't be able to show this, nor come close to demonstrating it; because it’s a natural law and a law of God that the superior always overcomes the inferior. In what way? In whatever they are superior in. One body is stronger than another; many are stronger than one; the thief is stronger than someone who isn't a thief. That's why I lost my lamp, because when I was awake, the thief was stronger than me. The man bought the lamp at this cost: to get a lamp, he became a thief, a dishonest person, and like a wild animal. This seemed like a good deal to him. So be it. But a man has grabbed my cloak and is pulling me to the public square; then others shout, Philosopher, what good are your beliefs? Look, you’re being dragged to prison, you’re about to be executed. And what kind of philosophy could I have developed so that if a stronger man grabbed my cloak, I wouldn’t be pulled away? That if ten men grabbed me and threw me in prison, I wouldn’t be locked up? Have I learned nothing else? I’ve learned to see that everything that happens, if it’s beyond my control, means nothing to me. I might ask if you’ve gained anything from this. So why do you seek gain in anything other than what you’ve learned brings you gain?
Will you not leave the small arguments ([Greek: logaria]) about these matters to others, to lazy fellows, that they may sit in a corner and receive their sorry pay, or grumble that no one gives them anything; and will you not come forward and make use of what you have learned? For it is not these small arguments that are wanted now; the writings of the Stoics are full of them. What then is the thing which is wanted? A man who shall apply them, one who by his acts shall bear testimony to his words. Assume, I intreat you, this character, that we may no longer use in the schools the examples of the ancients, but may have some example of our own.
Will you not leave the petty arguments about these issues to others, to those who are just sitting around, earning a miserable wage, or complaining that no one gives them anything? Instead, will you step up and apply what you’ve learned? It’s not these trivial debates that are needed right now; the writings of the Stoics are full of those. So, what is actually needed? A person who will put these ideas into practice, someone whose actions will reflect their words. I urge you to take on this role, so we can move beyond using examples from the past and have some contemporary examples of our own.
To whom then does the contemplation of these matters (philosophical inquiries) belong? To him who has leisure, for man is an animal that loves contemplation. But it is shameful to contemplate these things as runaway slaves do; we should sit, as in a theatre, free from distraction, and listen at one time to the tragic actor, at another time to the lute-player; and not do as slaves do. As soon as the slave has taken his station he praises the actor and at the same time looks round; then if any one calls out his master’s name, the slave is immediately frightened and disturbed. It is shameful for philosophers thus to contemplate the works of nature. For what is a master? Man is not the master of man; but death is, and life and pleasure and pain; for if he comes without these things, bring Cæsar to me and you will see how firm I am. But when he shall come with these things, thundering and lightning, and when I am afraid of them, what do I do then except to recognize my master like the runaway slave? But so long as I have any respite from these terrors, as a runaway slave stands in the theatre, so do I. I bathe, I drink, I sing; but all this I do with terror and uneasiness. But if I shall release myself from my masters, that is from those things by means of which masters are formidable, what further trouble have I, what master have I still?
To whom do these philosophical inquiries belong? They belong to those who have free time because humans are creatures that enjoy contemplation. However, it's disgraceful to think about these matters like runaway slaves do; we should sit, as if in a theater, without distractions, and listen to the tragic actor at one moment and to the lute-player at another, not like slaves. As soon as a slave takes his place, he praises the actor but constantly looks around; if someone calls his master’s name, the slave immediately becomes scared and anxious. It’s embarrassing for philosophers to contemplate the works of nature this way. What is a master? Man isn’t the master of man; rather, death, life, pleasure, and pain are. If you bring Caesar to me without these things, you’ll see how steadfast I am. But when he comes with these forces, roaring and thundering, and I fear them, what do I do except recognize my master like a runaway slave? But as long as I have any break from these fears, just like a runaway slave in the theater, I enjoy myself. I bathe, I drink, I sing; but I do all of this with anxiety and unease. If I can free myself from my masters—those things that make masters intimidating—what else do I have to worry about? What master do I still have?
What then, ought we to publish these things to all men? No, but we ought to accommodate ourselves to the ignorant ([Greek: tois idiotais]) and to say: “This man recommends to me that which he thinks good for himself. I excuse him.” For Socrates also excused the jailer who had the charge of him in prison and was weeping when Socrates was going to drink the poison, and said, “How generously he laments over us.” Does he then say to the jailer that for this reason we have sent away the women? No, but he says it to his friends who were able to hear (understand) it; and he treats the jailer as a child.
What should we do, then? Should we share these things with everyone? No, we should adjust our message for those who don't understand and say, “This person is recommending what he believes is good for himself. I can forgive him.” Socrates also forgave the jailer who was responsible for him in prison and was crying when Socrates was about to drink the poison, saying, “How kindly he mourns for us.” Does he then tell the jailer that this is why we’ve sent the women away? No, he says it to his friends who can comprehend it; he treats the jailer like a child.
THAT CONFIDENCE (COURAGE) IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH CAUTION.—The opinion of the philosophers perhaps seem to some to be a paradox; but still let us examine as well as we can, if it is true that it is possible to do everything both with caution and with confidence. For caution seems to be in a manner contrary to confidence, and contraries are in no way consistent. That which seems to many to be a paradox in the matter under consideration in my opinion is of this kind; if we asserted that we ought to employ caution and confidence in the same things, men might justly accuse us of bringing together things which cannot be united. But now where is the difficulty in what is said? for if these things are true, which have been often said and often proved, that the nature of good is in the use of appearances, and the nature of evil likewise, and that things independent of our will do not admit either the nature of evil or of good, what paradox do the philosophers assert if they say that where things are not dependent on the will, there you should employ confidence, but where they are dependent on the will, there you should employ caution? For if the bad consists in the bad exercise of the will, caution ought only to be used where things are dependent on the will. But if things independent of the will and not in our power are nothing to us, with respect to these we must employ confidence; and thus we shall both be cautious and confident, and indeed confident because of our caution. For by employing caution towards things which are really bad, it will result that we shall have confidence with respect to things which are not so.
THAT CONFIDENCE (COURAGE) IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH CAUTION.—Some people might think the philosophers' views are a paradox, but let's take a closer look to see if it’s really possible to act with both caution and confidence. Caution seems to oppose confidence, and opposites don't mix well. What many perceive as a paradox in this discussion is, in my view, of this nature: if we claim that we should use caution and confidence simultaneously in the same situations, people might rightly accuse us of trying to combine things that can’t be joined. But what’s really difficult about this idea? If it’s true that good is found in the proper use of appearances and evil is similar, and that things beyond our control are neither good nor evil, where's the contradiction when philosophers say we should be confident in areas outside of our control, while being cautious in situations dependent on our will? If wrongdoing comes from a misapplication of choice, then caution should only be applied where choices matter. Yet, when we confront things beyond our control, we have no reason to be concerned, so we should approach those with confidence. In this way, we can be both cautious and confident, and indeed, our confidence will stem from our caution. By exercising caution toward genuinely harmful things, we will find confidence in matters that aren’t harmful.
We are then in the condition of deer; when they flee from the huntsmen’s feathers in fright, whither do they turn and in what do they seek refuge as safe? They turn to the nets, and thus they perish by confounding things which are objects of fear with things that they ought not to fear. Thus we also act: in what cases do we fear? In things which are independent of the will. In what cases on the contrary do we behave with confidence, as if there were no danger? In things dependent on the will. To be deceived then, or to act rashly, or shamelessly, or with base desire to seek something, does not concern us at all, if we only hit the mark in things which are independent of our will. But where there is death or exile or pain or infamy, there we attempt to run away, there we are struck with terror. Therefore, as we may expect it to happen with those who err in the greatest matters, we convert natural confidence (that is, according to nature) into audacity, desperation, rashness, shamelessness; and we convert natural caution and modesty into cowardice and meanness, which are full of fear and confusion. For if a man should transfer caution to those things in which the will may be exercised and the acts of the will, he will immediately by willing to be cautious have also the power of avoiding what he chooses; but if he transfer it to the things which are not in his power and will, and attempt to avoid the things which are in the power of others, he will of necessity fear, he will be unstable, he will be disturbed; for death or pain is not formidable, but the fear of pain or death. For this reason we commend the poet, who said:
We find ourselves in a situation similar to deer; when they flee from the hunters and their arrows in fear, where do they go for safety? They head towards the nets, and as a result, they end up trapped by confusing things that are frightening with those they shouldn’t fear. We do the same: what do we fear? We fear things that are beyond our control. On the other hand, when do we act confidently, as if there’s no threat? We do so regarding things we can control. Being misled, acting recklessly, shamefully, or driven by base desires doesn’t really concern us as long as we are accurate about the things that are outside our control. But when it comes to death, exile, pain, or disgrace, we try to escape and are filled with terror. Therefore, just as we might expect from those who make serious mistakes, we turn natural confidence (which is instinctive) into audacity, desperation, recklessness, and shamelessness; and we turn natural caution and modesty into cowardice and meanness, which are full of fear and confusion. If a person were to apply caution to those matters where their will can be exercised and the acts of the will, they would immediately gain the power to avoid what they choose simply by being cautious. But if they apply caution to things that are out of their control and try to avoid what others can influence, they will inevitably feel fear, become unstable, and be disturbed; for death or pain itself is not what is terrifying, but rather the fear of pain or death. For this reason, we admire the poet who said:
“Not death is evil, but a shameful death.”
“It's not death that's bad, but a disgraceful death.”
Confidence (courage) then ought to be employed against death, and caution against the fear of death. But now we do the contrary, and employ against death the attempt to escape; and to our opinion about it we employ carelessness, rashness, and indifference. These things Socrates properly used to call tragic masks; for as to children masks appear terrible and fearful from inexperience, we also are affected in like manner by events (the things which happen in life) for no other reason than children are by masks. For what is a child? Ignorance. What is a child? Want of knowledge. For when a child knows these things, he is in no way inferior to us. What is death? A tragic mask. Turn it and examine it. See, it does not bite. The poor body must be separated from the spirit either now or later as it was separated from it before. Why then are you troubled if it be separated now? for if it is not separated now, it will be separated afterwards. Why? That the period of the universe may be completed, for it has need of the present, and of the future, and of the past. What is pain? A mask. Turn it and examine it. The poor flesh is moved roughly, then on the contrary smoothly. If this does not satisfy (please) you, the door is open; if it does, bear (with things). For the door ought to be open for all occasions; and so we have no trouble.
Confidence should be used against death, while caution should be used against the fear of death. But we do the opposite; we try to escape death and respond with carelessness, rashness, and indifference. Socrates aptly called these tragic masks; just like children find masks frightening because they don't understand them, we react to life events in the same way for the same reason. What is a child? Ignorance. What is a child? A lack of knowledge. Once a child understands, they are not inferior to us. What is death? A tragic mask. Turn it around and look at it. See, it doesn’t bite. The body must eventually separate from the spirit, whether now or later, just as it has been separated before. So why are you worried if it separates now? Because if it doesn’t happen now, it will happen later. Why? To complete the cycle of the universe, which requires the present, the future, and the past. What is pain? A mask. Turn it around and look at it. The body may feel discomfort at first, then it may feel relief. If this doesn’t satisfy you, the option to leave is there; if it does satisfy you, endure it. The option should always be there for every situation; that way, we can avoid worry.
What then is the fruit of these opinions? It is that which ought to be the most noble and the most becoming to those who are really educated, release from perturbation, release from fear. Freedom. For in these matters we must not believe the many, who say that free persons only ought to be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say that the educated only are free. How is this? In this manner: Is freedom anything else than the power of living as we choose? Nothing else. Tell me then, ye men, do you wish to live in error? We do not. No one then who lives in error is free. Do you wish to live in fear? Do you wish to live in sorrow? Do you wish to live in perturbation? By no means. No one then who is in a state of fear or sorrow or perturbation is free; but whoever is delivered from sorrows and fears and perturbations, he is at the same time also delivered from servitude. How then can we continue to believe you, most dear legislators, when you say, We only allow free persons to be educated? For philosophers say we allow none to be free except the educated; that is, God does not allow it. When then a man has turned round before the prætor his own slave, has he done nothing? He has done something. What? He has turned round his own slave before the prætor. Has he done nothing more? Yes: he is also bound to pay for him the tax called the twentieth. Well then, is not the man who has gone through this ceremony become free? No more than he is become free from perturbations. Have you who are able to turn round (free) others no master? is not money your master, or a girl or a boy, or some tyrant or some friend of the tyrant? Why do you trouble then when you are going off to any trial (danger) of this kind? It is for this reason that I often say, study and hold in readiness these principles by which you may determine what those things are with reference to which you ought to be cautious, courageous in that which does not depend on your will, cautious in that which does depend on it.
What, then, is the outcome of these beliefs? It should be the most noble and fitting thing for those who are truly educated: liberation from turmoil, liberation from fear. Freedom. In these matters, we should not trust the many who claim that only free people should be educated, but rather, we should believe the philosophers who argue that only the educated are free. How is that so? Consider this: Is freedom anything other than the ability to live as we choose? Nothing else. So tell me, do you want to live in ignorance? We do not. Therefore, anyone who lives in ignorance is not free. Do you want to live in fear? Do you want to live in sadness? Do you want to live in turmoil? Absolutely not. Thus, no one who is experiencing fear, sadness, or turmoil is free; but whoever is freed from sorrows, fears, and disturbances is also freed from servitude. How, then, can we keep believing you, dear lawmakers, when you say, "We only allow free people to be educated"? For philosophers maintain that no one is free except the educated; that is, it is not permitted by God. When a man has turned his own slave before the magistrate, has he done nothing? He has done something. What? He has turned his own slave before the magistrate. Has he done nothing more? Yes: he is also required to pay the tax known as the twentieth. So, has the man who has gone through this ceremony become free? No more than he has become free from disturbances. Do you who can turn others around (free them) have no master? Is not money your master, or a girl or a boy, or some tyrant or a friend of the tyrant? Why then do you worry when you are facing any trial (danger) of this sort? This is why I often say, study and prepare these principles so you can figure out which things you should approach with caution, and be brave about those that don’t depend on your will, and cautious about those that do.
OF TRANQUILLITY (FREEDOM FROM PERTURBATION).—Consider, you who are going into court, what you wish to maintain and what you wish to succeed in. For if you wish to maintain a will conformable to nature, you have every security, every facility, you have no troubles. For if you wish to maintain what is in your own power and is naturally free, and if you are content with these, what else do you care for? For who is the master of such things? Who can take them away? If you choose to be modest and faithful, who shall not allow you to be so? If you choose not to be restrained or compelled, who shall compel you to desire what you think that you ought not to desire? who shall compel you to avoid what you do not think fit to avoid? But what do you say? The judge will determine against you something that appears formidable; but that you should also suffer in trying to avoid it, how can he do that? When then the pursuit of objects and the avoiding of them are in your power, what else do you care for? Let this be your preface, this your narrative, this your confirmation, this your victory, this your peroration, this your applause (or the approbation which you will receive).
OF TRANQUILITY (FREEDOM FROM DISTURBANCE).—Think about what you want to uphold and what you want to achieve as you head into court. If you want to stay true to your natural will, you have every assurance and ease, and you face no troubles. If you focus on what is within your control and is naturally free, and if you are satisfied with this, what else matters to you? Who is the master of these things? Who can take them away? If you decide to be humble and honest, who can stop you from being that way? If you choose not to be restricted or forced, who can make you want what you believe you shouldn’t want? Who can make you avoid what you think isn’t worth avoiding? But what about your concern? The judge might rule against you in a way that seems intimidating; but how can he cause you any suffering just in your attempt to escape it? When the pursuit of desires and the avoidance of them are in your control, what more do you need? Let this be your introduction, your story, your affirmation, your triumph, your conclusion, and your praise (or the recognition you will receive).
Therefore Socrates said to one who was reminding him to prepare for his trial, Do you not think then that I have been preparing for it all my life? By what kind of preparation? I have maintained that which was in my own power. How then? I have never done anything unjust either in my private or in my public life.
Therefore, Socrates said to someone who was reminding him to get ready for his trial, "Don’t you think I’ve been preparing for it all my life? What kind of preparation? I’ve focused on what I could control. How? I’ve never done anything wrong, either in my personal life or in my public life."
But if you wish to maintain externals also, your poor body, your little property, and your little estimation, I advise you to make from this moment all possible preparation, and then consider both the nature of your judge and your adversary. If it is necessary to embrace his knees, embrace his knees; if to weep, weep; if to groan, groan. For when you have subjected to externals what is your own, then be a slave and do not resist, and do not sometimes choose to be a slave, and sometimes not choose, but with all your mind be one or the other, either free or a slave, either instructed or uninstructed, either a well-bred cock or a mean one, either endure to be beaten until you die or yield at once; and let it not happen to you to receive many stripes and then to yield. But if these things are base, determine immediately. Where is the nature of evil and good? It is where truth is: where truth is and where nature is, there is caution: where truth is, there is courage where nature is.
But if you want to hold onto appearances, like your poor body, your little possessions, and your self-image, I suggest you start preparing right now. Then, think about both your judge and your opponent. If you need to bow down, then bow down; if you need to cry, cry; if you need to groan, groan. Because once you’ve submitted your true self to external things, then accept being a slave without resisting. Don't waver between being a slave sometimes and not at others; commit fully in your mind to one path or the other—either be free or enslaved, either educated or uneducated, either a noble creature or a lowly one. Either endure to be beaten to death or give in right away; don't let it be that you take many hits before you eventually submit. But if these actions are dishonorable, decide quickly. Where is the essence of good and evil? It lies where truth is: where truth and nature reside, there is caution; where truth is, there is courage in nature.
For this reason also it is ridiculous to say, Suggest something to me (tell me what to do). What should I suggest to you? Well, form my mind so as to accommodate itself to any event. Why that is just the same as if a man who is ignorant of letters should say, Tell me what to write when any name is proposed to me. For if I should tell him to write Dion, and then another should come and propose to him not the name of Dion but that of Theon, what will be done? what will he write? But if you have practised writing, you are also prepared to write (or to do) anything that is required. If you are not, what can I now suggest? For if circumstances require something else, what will you say, or what will you do? Remember then this general precept and you will need no suggestion. But if you gape after externals, you must of necessity ramble up and down in obedience to the will of your master. And who is the master? He who has the power over the things which you seek to gain or try to avoid.
For this reason, it's silly to say, "Suggest something to me (tell me what to do)." What should I suggest? I should shape my mind to adapt to any situation. That’s just like someone who doesn’t know how to write asking, "Tell me what to write when a name comes up." If I tell him to write "Dion," and then someone else comes along and suggests "Theon," what will he write? If you've practiced writing, you're ready to write (or do) anything that comes your way. If you haven't, what can I suggest to you now? If the situation calls for something different, what will you say or do? Keep this general principle in mind, and you won't need any suggestions. But if you chase after external things, you'll end up helplessly following your master’s commands. And who is the master? It's the one who has control over the things you want to gain or avoid.
HOW MAGNANIMITY IS CONSISTENT WITH CARE.—Things themselves (materials) are indifferent; but the use of them is not indifferent. How then shall a man preserve firmness and tranquillity, and at the same time be careful and neither rash nor negligent? If he imitates those who play at dice. The counters are indifferent; the dice are indifferent. How do I know what the cast will be? But to use carefully and dexterously the cast of the dice, this is my business. Thus then in life also the chief business is this: distinguish and separate things, and say: Externals are not in my power: will is in my power. Where shall I seek the good and the bad? Within, in the things which are my own. But in what does not belong to you call nothing either good or bad, or profit or damage or anything of the kind.
HOW MAGNANIMITY IS CONSISTENT WITH CARE.—Things themselves (materials) don't matter much; but how we use them does. So how can a person stay strong and calm while also being careful and not acting impulsively or being careless? They should look to those who play dice. The chips don’t matter; the dice don’t matter. How do I know what the outcome will be? But it’s my job to use the outcome of the dice carefully and skillfully. Similarly, in life, the main task is to distinguish and separate things, and recognize: External matters are out of my control; my will is within my control. Where should I find what is good and what is bad? Inside, in what belongs to me. But in matters that don’t belong to you, label nothing as good or bad, or beneficial or harmful, or anything like that.
What then? Should we use such things carelessly? In no way: for this on the other hand is bad for the faculty of the will, and consequently against nature; but we should act carefully because the use is not indifferent, and we should also act with firmness and freedom from perturbations because the material is indifferent. For where the material is not indifferent, there no man can hinder me or compel me. Where I can be hindered and compelled, the obtaining of those things is not in my power, nor is it good or bad; but the use is either bad or good, and the use is in my power. But it is difficult to mingle and to bring together these two things—the carefulness of him who is affected by the matter (or things about him), and the firmness of him who has no regard for it; but it is not impossible: and if it is, happiness is impossible. But we should act as we do in the case of a voyage. What can I do? I can choose the master of the ship, the sailors, the day, the opportunity. Then comes a storm. What more have I to care for? for my part is done. The business belongs to another, the master. But the ship is sinking—what then have I to do? I do the only thing that I can, not to be drowned full of fear, nor screaming nor blaming God, but knowing that what has been produced must also perish: for I am not an immortal being, but a man, a part of the whole, as an hour is a part of the day: I must be present like the hour, and past like the hour. What difference then does it make to me how I pass away, whether by being suffocated or by a fever, for I must pass through some such means.
What now? Should we treat such things carelessly? Absolutely not; this would harm our will and go against nature. Instead, we should be cautious because how we use these things matters, and we should also act with confidence and without disturbances since the material itself is neutral. Where the material isn't neutral, no one can stop or force me. When I can be stopped or forced, getting those things is outside my control, and they're not inherently good or bad; however, how I use them is either good or bad, and that is within my control. It’s challenging to mix these two approaches—the caution of someone affected by the material and the confidence of someone who isn't concerned by it—but it’s not impossible; if it were, happiness would be unattainable. We should approach it like planning for a trip. What can I control? I can choose the captain, the crew, the day, and the right time. Then a storm hits. What more can I do? My part is done. The rest is up to someone else, the captain. But if the ship is sinking, what should I do? I can only try not to drown in fear, not scream or blame God, but accept that what comes into being must also come to an end: I’m not immortal but a human, a part of the whole, just as an hour is part of the day: I must exist like the hour and then pass away like it. So, what does it matter to me how I leave this world, whether by drowning or fever, since I have to go through something like that anyway?
How then is it said that some external things are according to nature and others contrary to nature? It is said as it might be said if we were separated from union (or society): for to the foot I shall say that it is according to nature for it to be clean; but if you take it as a foot and as a thing not detached (independent), it will befit it both to step into the mud and tread on thorns, and sometimes to be cut off for the good of the whole body; otherwise it is no longer a foot. We should think in some such way about ourselves also. What are you? A man. If you consider yourself as detached from other men, it is according to nature to live to old age, to be rich, to be healthy. But if you consider yourself as a man and a part of a certain whole, it is for the sake of that whole that at one time you should be sick, at another time take a voyage and run into danger, and at another time be in want, and in some cases die prematurely. Why then are you troubled? Do you not know, that as a foot is no longer a foot if it is detached from the body, so you are no longer a man if you are separated from other men. For what is a man? A part of a state, of that first which consists of gods and of men; then of that which is called next to it, which is a small image of the universal state. What then must I be brought to trial; must another have a fever, another sail on the sea, another die, and another be condemned? Yes, for it is impossible in such a universe of things, among so many living together, that such things should not happen, some to one and others to others. It is your duty then since you are come here, to say what you ought, to arrange these things as it is fit. Then some one says, “I shall charge you with doing me wrong.” Much good may it do you: I have done my part; but whether you also have done yours, you must look to that; for there is some danger of this too, that it may escape your notice.
How is it said that some external things are natural and others are not? It can be understood like this: imagine if we were separated from society. To the foot, I can say it’s natural for it to be clean; but when you think of it as part of a whole body, it’s also normal for it to step in mud, walk on thorns, or even get cut off for the good of the body. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a foot anymore. We should think about ourselves in a similar way. What are you? A human. If you see yourself as separate from other people, then naturally it makes sense to live a long life, to be wealthy, to be healthy. But if you view yourself as a part of a whole, then for the sake of that whole, sometimes you should be sick, sometimes you may travel and face danger, at times you could be in need, and in some cases, you might die young. So why are you worried? Don’t you realize that just like a foot is not truly a foot when it's detached from the body, you’re no longer a human if you’re separate from other people? Because what is a human? A part of a community, which first includes both gods and humans; then there's the smaller community that reflects the larger society. Should I be put on trial while someone else has a fever, another sails the sea, someone else dies, and another gets sentenced? Yes, because in such a vast universe, among so many living beings, it’s impossible that random events don’t happen, some to one person and others to another. Since you are here, it’s your responsibility to say what you need to say and to handle these situations appropriately. Then someone might say, “I will accuse you of wronging me.” Good luck with that; I’ve done my part. Whether you’ve done yours is something you need to check, because it’s possible that you might overlook that.
OF INDIFFERENCE.—The hypothetical proposition is indifferent: the judgment about it is not indifferent, but it is either knowledge or opinion or error. Thus life is indifferent: the use is not indifferent. When any man then tells you that these things also are indifferent, do not become negligent; and when a man invites you to be careful (about such things), do not become abject and struck with admiration of material things. And it is good for you to know your own preparation and power, that in those matters where you have not been prepared, you may keep quiet, and not be vexed, if others have the advantage over you. For you too in syllogisms will claim to have the advantage over them; and if others should be vexed at this, you will console them by saying, “I have learned them, and you have not.” Thus also where there is need of any practice, seek not that which is acquired from the need (of such practice), but yield in that matter to those who have had practice, and be yourself content with firmness of mind.
OF INDIFFERENCE.—The hypothetical statement is neutral: the judgment about it isn’t neutral, but it’s either knowledge, opinion, or mistake. Life itself is neutral: how we use it is not. So when someone tells you that these things are also neutral, don’t be careless; and when someone urges you to be cautious about these things, don’t become submissive and overly impressed by material things. It’s important for you to know your own readiness and abilities so that in areas where you aren’t prepared, you can stay quiet and not get upset if others have the upper hand. Because in arguments, you will also want to claim superiority; and if others get frustrated, you’ll reassure them by saying, “I’ve learned this, and you haven’t.” Similarly, when it comes to needing practice, don’t chase what comes from that need, but defer to those who have experience, and find contentment within yourself.
Go and salute a certain person. How? Not meanly. But I have been shut out, for I have not learned to make my way through the window; and when I have found the door shut, I must either come back or enter through the window. But still speak to him. In what way? Not meanly. But suppose that you have not got what you wanted. Was this your business, and not his? Why then do you claim that which belongs to another? Always remember what is your own, and what belongs to another; and you will not be disturbed. Chrysippus therefore said well, So long as future things are uncertain, I always cling to those which are more adapted to the conservation of that which is according to nature; for God himself has given me the faculty of such choice. But if I knew that it was fated (in the order of things) for me to be sick, I would even move towards it; for the foot also, if it had intelligence, would move to go into the mud. For why are ears of corn produced? Is it not that they may become dry? And do they not become dry that they may be reaped? for they are not separated from communion with other things. If then they had perception, ought they to wish never to be reaped? But this is a curse upon ears of corn to be never reaped. So we must know that in the case of men too it is a curse not to die, just the same as not to be ripened and not to be reaped. But since we must be reaped, and we also know that we are reaped, we are vexed at it; for we neither know what we are nor have we studied what belongs to man, as those who have studied horses know what belongs to horses. But Chrysantas when he was going to strike the enemy checked himself when he heard the trumpet sounding a retreat: so it seemed better to him to obey the general’s command than to follow his own inclination. But not one of us chooses, even when necessity summons, readily to obey it, but weeping and groaning we suffer what we do suffer, and we call them “circumstances.” What kind of circumstances, man? If you give the name of circumstances to the things which are around you, all things are circumstances; but if you call hardships by this name, what hardship is there in the dying of that which has been produced? But that which destroys is either a sword, or a wheel, or the sea, or a tile, or a tyrant. Why do you care about the way of going down to Hades? All ways are equal. But if you will listen to the truth, the way which the tyrant sends you is shorter. A tyrant never killed a man in six months: but a fever is often a year about it. All these things are only sound and the noise of empty names.
Go and greet a certain person. How? Not rudely. But I have been shut out, since I haven’t figured out how to get in through the window; and when I find the door closed, I either have to come back or enter through the window. But still, speak to him. How? Not rudely. But what if you don’t get what you wanted? Was that your concern, not his? So why do you claim what belongs to someone else? Always remember what is yours and what belongs to others, and you won’t be upset. Chrysippus wisely said that as long as the future is uncertain, I’ll always stick to what aligns better with nature’s order; for God himself has given me the ability to make such choices. But if I knew it was destined for me to be sick, I would still head toward it; just as a foot, if it had intelligence, would move toward the mud. Why do ears of corn grow? Isn’t it so they can dry out? And do they not dry out so they can be harvested? They’re not separated from the connections with other things. If they had perception, would they want to never be harvested? But it’s a curse for ears of corn never to be harvested. So we must understand that for humans, it’s also a curse not to die, just like it is for corn not to ripen and be harvested. But since we must be harvested, and we know this, we get upset about it; because we neither know what we are nor have learned what it means to be human, just as those who study horses understand what it means to be a horse. But Chrysantas, when he was about to engage the enemy, paused when he heard the retreat trumpet: it seemed better to follow the general’s orders than his own desires. But none of us choose to obey, even when necessity calls; we suffer what we must with tears and groans, and we call them “circumstances.” What kind of circumstances, man? If you refer to the things around you as circumstances, then everything is a circumstance; but if you label hardships as such, what hardship is there in the death of something that has grown? The things that destroy are either a sword, a wheel, the sea, a tile, or a tyrant. Why do you worry about how you're going to the afterlife? All paths are the same. But if you want to hear the truth, the path the tyrant sends you on is shorter. A tyrant never takes six months to kill someone, but a fever can linger for a year. All these are just sounds and the noise of empty words.
HOW WE OUGHT TO USE DIVINATION.—Through an unreasonable regard to divination many of us omit many duties. For what more can the diviner see than death or danger or disease, or generally things of that kind? If then I must expose myself to danger for a friend, and if it is my duty even to die for him, what need have I then for divination? Have I not within me a diviner who has told me the nature of good and of evil, and has explained to me the signs (or marks) of both? What need have I then to consult the viscera of victims or the flight of birds, and why do I submit when he says, It is for your interest? For does he know what is for my interest, does he know what is good; and as he has learned the signs of the viscera, has he also learned the signs of good and evil? For if he knows the signs of these, he knows the signs both of the beautiful and of the ugly, and of the just and of the unjust. Do you tell me, man, what is the thing which is signified for me: is it life or death, poverty or wealth? But whether these things are for my interest or whether they are not, I do not intend to ask you. Why don’t you give your opinion on matters of grammar, and why do you give it here about things on which we are all in error and disputing with one another?
HOW WE OUGHT TO USE DIVINATION.—Many of us place too much importance on divination and as a result, neglect our responsibilities. What can a diviner really predict, other than death, danger, or illness, or generally things of that nature? If I need to put myself in harm's way for a friend, and it's my duty even to die for him, then what use do I have for divination? Don’t I have an inner guide that has made me aware of what is good and what is bad, and has shown me the signs of both? Why should I consult the entrails of animals or the flight patterns of birds? Why do I listen when they say, "This is in your best interest"? Does the diviner truly know what's best for me? Does he understand what is good, and just because he can interpret the signs of animal organs, does that mean he can also interpret the signs of good and evil? If he knows those signs, then he should also recognize the distinctions between beauty and ugliness, and justice and injustice. So, tell me, what are you suggesting for me: is it life or death, poverty or wealth? But whether these things are beneficial for me or not, I have no intention of asking you. Why don’t you share your opinions on grammar instead, and why are you commenting here on matters where there’s so much disagreement among us?
What then leads us to frequent use of divination? Cowardice, the dread of what will happen. This is the reason why we flatter the diviners. Pray, master, shall I succeed to the property of my father? Let us see: let us sacrifice on the occasion. Yes, master, as fortune chooses. When he has said, You shall succeed to the inheritance, we thank him as if we received the inheritance from him. The consequence is that they play upon us.
What makes us turn to divination so often? Fear, the anxiety about what’s to come. That’s why we flatter the diviners. "Please, master, will I inherit my father’s property?" Let’s find out: let’s make a sacrifice for this. Yes, master, as fate decides. When he says, "You will inherit," we thank him as if the inheritance came from him. The result is that they take advantage of us.
Will you not then seek the nature of good in the rational animal? for if it is not there, you will not choose to say that it exists in any other thing (plant or animal). What then? are not plants and animals also the works of God? They are; but they are not superior things, nor yet parts of the gods. But you are a superior thing; you are a portion separated from the Deity; you have in yourself a certain portion of him. Why then are you ignorant of your own noble descent? Why do you not know whence you came? will you not remember when you are eating who you are who eat and whom you feed? When you are in social intercourse, when you are exercising yourself, when you are engaged in discussion, know you not that you are nourishing a god, that you are exercising a god? Wretch, you are carrying about a god with you, and you know it not. Do you think that I mean some god of silver or of gold, and external? You carry him within yourself, and you perceive not that you are polluting him by impure thoughts and dirty deeds. And if an image of God were present, you would not dare to do any of the things which you are doing; but when God himself is present within and sees all and hears all, you are not ashamed of thinking such things and doing such things, ignorant as you are of your own nature and subject to the anger of God. Then why do we fear when we are sending a young man from the school into active life, lest he should do anything improperly, eat improperly, have improper intercourse with women; and lest the rags in which he is wrapped should debase him, lest fine garments should make him proud. This youth (if he acts thus) does not know his own God; he knows not with whom he sets out (into the world). But can we endure when he says, “I wish I had you (God) with me.” Have you not God with you? and do you seek for any other when you have him? or will God tell you anything else than this? If you were a statue of Phidias, either Athena or Zeus, you would think both of yourself and of the artist, and if you had any understanding (power of perception) you would try to do nothing unworthy of him who made you or of yourself, and try not to appear in an unbecoming dress (attitude) to those who look upon you. But now because Zeus has made you, for this reason do you care not how you shall appear? And yet is the artist (in the one case) like the artist in the other? or the work in the one case like the other? And what work of an artist, for instance, has in itself the faculties, which the artist shows in making it? Is it not marble or bronze, or gold or ivory? and the Athena of Phidias, when she has once extended the hand and received in it the figure of Victory, stands in that attitude for ever. But the works of God have power of motion, they breathe, they have the faculty of using the appearances of things and the power of examining them. Being the work of such an artist do you dishonor him? And what shall I say, not only that he made you, but also entrusted you to yourself and made you a deposit to yourself? Will you not think of this too, but do you also dishonor your guardianship? But if God had entrusted an orphan to you, would you thus neglect him? He has delivered yourself to your own care, and says: “I had no one fitter to entrust him to than yourself; keep him for me such as he is by nature, modest, faithful, erect, unterrified, free from passion and perturbation.” And then you do not keep him such.
Won't you then look for the essence of good in the rational being? Because if it's not there, you wouldn't claim it exists in anything else (like plants or animals). So, what about it? Aren't plants and animals also creations of God? They are; but they're not superior beings, nor are they parts of the divine. But you are a superior being; you are a piece separated from the Divine; you contain a part of Him within you. So why are you unaware of your noble heritage? Why don’t you know where you came from? Will you remember, while you're eating, who you are, who eats, and who you're feeding? In social interactions, during your exercise, in discussions, don’t you realize that you are nurturing a god, that you are exercising a god? You poor thing, you carry a god within you, and you don’t even know it. Do you think I'm talking about some external god of silver or gold? You carry Him inside you and don't see that you're tarnishing Him with impure thoughts and dirty actions. If an image of God were before you, you wouldn't dare do the things you do; yet when God Himself is within you, seeing and hearing everything, you aren’t ashamed of your thoughts and actions, oblivious to your true nature and vulnerable to God's anger. So why do we worry when sending a young man from school into the real world, fearing he might act inappropriately, eat improperly, or have inappropriate relationships; and that the rags he wears might bring him down or that fancy clothes might make him arrogant? This young man (if he behaves that way) doesn't know his own God; he doesn’t realize whom he’s heading into the world with. But can we tolerate it when he says, “I wish I had you (God) with me”? Don't you have God with you? Are you looking for someone else while you already have Him? Or will God tell you anything different than this? If you were a statue by Phidias, whether of Athena or Zeus, you'd consider both yourself and the artist, and if you had any sense, you'd avoid doing anything unworthy of the one who created you or of yourself, and you'd strive not to present yourself poorly to those who look at you. But now, since Zeus made you, do you really not care how you appear? And is the artist in one case the same as the artist in the other? Or is the work in one case like the work in the other? And what artistic creation, for example, possesses the abilities that the artist exhibits in crafting it? Isn’t it marble, bronze, gold, or ivory? And Phidias's Athena, once she has raised her hand and taken the figure of Victory, remains in that pose forever. But God’s creations have the power to move, they breathe, they can perceive things and have the ability to examine them. Being the creation of such an artist, do you dishonor Him? And what more can I say, not only that He made you, but also that He entrusted you to yourself and made you a steward of yourself? Will you overlook this too, and dishonor your responsibility? But if God had entrusted an orphan to your care, would you neglect him like this? He has given you yourself to look after, and says: “I couldn’t find anyone better to entrust him to than you; keep him as he is by nature: modest, faithful, upright, fearless, and free from passion and disturbance.” And yet, you don't keep him that way.
But some will say, Whence has this fellow got the arrogance which he displays and these supercilious looks? I have not yet so much gravity as befits a philosopher; for I do not yet feel confidence in what I have learned and in what I have assented to. I still fear my own weakness. Let me get confidence and then you shall see a countenance such as I ought to have and an attitude such as I ought to have; then I will show to you the statue, when it is perfected, when it is polished. What do you expect? a supercilious countenance? Does the Zeus at Olympia lift up his brow? No, his look is fixed as becomes him who is ready to say:
But some will say, where did this guy get the arrogance he shows and those haughty looks? I don’t have the seriousness that a philosopher should have yet; I still don’t feel sure about what I’ve learned and agreed to. I’m still worried about my own weaknesses. Let me gain some confidence, and then you’ll see the expression I should have and the attitude I should possess; I will show you the finished statue once it’s complete and polished. What do you expect? A haughty expression? Does the Zeus at Olympia raise his brow? No, his gaze is steady, as befits someone who is ready to say:
Irrevocable is my word and shall not fail.—Iliad, i., 526.
Irrevocable is my word and will not fail.—Iliad, i., 526.
Such will I show myself to you, faithful, modest, noble, free from perturbation. What, and immortal, too, except from old age, and from sickness? No, but dying as becomes a god, sickening as becomes a god. This power I possess; this I can do. But the rest I do not possess, nor can I do. I will show the nerves (strength) of a philosopher. What nerves are these? A desire never disappointed, an aversion which never falls on that which it would avoid, a proper pursuit ([Greek: hormaen]), a diligent purpose, an assent which is not rash. These you shall see.
I will present myself to you as faithful, modest, noble, and calm. What’s more, immortal too, except for aging and sickness? No, I will die as a god should, weakening as a god should. I have this power; I can do this. But I do not have the rest, nor can I do it. I will show you the strength of a philosopher. What does that strength look like? A desire that is never unfulfilled, a refusal that never touches what it wants to avoid, a genuine pursuit, a determined purpose, and a careful agreement that is not hasty. These you will see.
THAT WHEN WE CANNOT FULFIL THAT WHICH THE CHARACTER OF A MAN PROMISES, WE ASSUME THE CHARACTER OF A PHILOSOPHER.—It is no common (easy) thing to do this only, to fulfil the promise of a man’s nature. For what is a man? The answer is, A rational and mortal being. Then by the rational faculty from whom are we separated? From wild beasts. And from what others? From sheep and like animals. Take care then to do nothing like a wild beast; but if you do, you have lost the character of a man; you have not fulfilled your promise. See that you do nothing like a sheep; but if you do, in this case also the man is lost. What then do we do as sheep? When we act gluttonously, when we act lewdly, when we act rashly, filthily, inconsiderately, to what have we declined? To sheep. What have we lost? The rational faculty. When we act contentiously and harmfully and passionately and violently, to what have we declined? To wild beasts. Consequently some of us are great wild beasts, and others little beasts, of a bad disposition and small, whence we may say, Let me be eaten by a lion. But in all these ways the promise of a man acting as a man is destroyed. For when is a conjunctive (complex) proposition maintained? When it fulfils what its nature promises; so that the preservation of a complex proposition is when it is a conjunction of truths. When is a disjunctive maintained? When it fulfils what it promises. When are flutes, a lyre, a horse, a dog, preserved? (When they severally keep their promise.) What is the wonder then if man also in like manner is preserved, and in like manner is lost? Each man is improved and preserved by corresponding acts, the carpenter by acts of carpentry, the grammarian by acts of grammar. But if a man accustoms himself to write ungrammatically, of necessity his art will be corrupted and destroyed. Thus modest actions preserve the modest man, and immodest actions destroy him; and actions of fidelity preserve the faithful man, and the contrary actions destroy him. And on the other hand contrary actions strengthen contrary characters: shamelessness strengthens the shameless man, faithlessness the faithless man, abusive words the abusive man, anger the man of an angry temper, and unequal receiving and giving make the avaricious man more avaricious.
THAT WHEN WE CAN'T LIVE UP TO WHAT A PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO BE, WE TAKE ON THE ROLE OF A PHILOSOPHER.—It's not easy to simply fulfill what a person's nature promises. So, what is a person? The answer is a rational and mortal being. By using our rational abilities, we separate ourselves from wild animals. And from whom else? From sheep and similar creatures. So, be careful not to act like a wild animal; if you do, you've lost your humanity and haven't fulfilled your promise. Make sure not to behave like a sheep either; if you do, you've also lost your humanity. So how do we act like sheep? When we indulge excessively, when we act inappropriately, when we act recklessly, in a filthy manner, or thoughtlessly, where do we end up? Like sheep. What have we lost? Our rational abilities. When we act in a combative, harmful, passionate, or violent way, where do we end up? Like wild animals. As a result, some of us are like great wild beasts, and others are small, nasty little creatures, leading us to say, "Let me be eaten by a lion." But in all these ways, the promise of a person acting as they should is destroyed. When is a complex proposition maintained? When it fulfills what its nature promises; thus, maintaining a complex proposition is about being a conjunction of truths. When is a disjunction upheld? When it delivers on what it promises. When are flutes, a lyre, a horse, or a dog preserved? (When they fulfill their respective purposes.) So, why should it be surprising that a person is similarly preserved or lost? Each person is improved and preserved through their actions—like a carpenter through carpentry and a grammarian through proper grammar. But if someone gets used to writing incorrectly, their skills will inevitably deteriorate. Modest actions preserve the modest person, while immodest actions destroy them; actions of fidelity preserve the faithful, while the opposite actions lead to their destruction. Conversely, contrary actions strengthen contrary traits: shamelessness strengthens the shameless, faithlessness strengthens the faithless, abusive language strengthens the abusive, anger strengthens the angry person, and imbalanced giving and receiving make the greedy person even greedier.
For this reason philosophers admonish us not to be satisfied with learning only, but also to add study, and then practice. For we have long been accustomed to do contrary things, and we put in practice opinions which are contrary to true opinions. If then we shall not also put in practice right opinions, we shall be nothing more than the expositors of the opinions of others. For now who among us is not able to discourse according to the rules of art about good and evil things (in this fashion)? That of things some are good, and some are bad, and some are indifferent: the good then are virtues, and the things which participate in virtues; and the bad are the contrary; and the indifferent are wealth, health, reputation. Then, if in the midst of our talk there should happen some greater noise than usual, or some of those who are present should laugh at us, we are disturbed. Philosopher, where are the things which you were talking about? Whence did you produce and utter them? From the lips, and thence only. Why then do you corrupt the aids provided by others? Why do you treat the weightiest matters as if you were playing a game of dice? For it is one thing to lay up bread and wine as in a storehouse, and another thing to eat. That which has been eaten, is digested, distributed, and is become sinews, flesh, bones, blood, healthy color, healthy breath. Whatever is stored up, when you choose you can readily take and show it; but you have no other advantage from it except so far as to appear to possess it. For what is the difference between explaining these doctrines and those of men who have different opinions? Sit down now and explain according to the rules of art the opinions of Epicurus, and perhaps you will explain his opinions in a more useful manner than Epicurus himself. Why then do you call yourself a Stoic? Why do you deceive the many? Why do you act the part of a Jew, when you are a Greek? Do you not see how (why) each is called a Jew, or a Syrian, or an Egyptian? and when we see a man inclining to two sides, we are accustomed to say, This man is not a Jew, but he acts as one. But when he has assumed the affects of one who has been imbued with Jewish doctrine and has adopted that sect, then he is in fact and he is named a Jew.
For this reason, philosophers warn us not to be satisfied with just learning, but to also include study and then practice. We have long been used to doing the opposite, acting on beliefs that are not true. If we don’t also act on true beliefs, we become nothing more than explainers of other people's opinions. Now, who among us can’t talk about good and evil according to the rules of the art? Some things are good, some are bad, and some are neutral: the good are virtues and those that embody virtues; the bad are the opposites; and the neutral are wealth, health, and reputation. So, if in the middle of our conversation there’s a louder noise than usual, or if someone starts laughing at us, we become unsettled. Philosopher, where are the ideas you were discussing? Where did they come from? Just from your lips. Why then do you undermine the insights provided by others? Why do you treat the most important matters like a game of dice? It’s one thing to stockpile bread and wine as if they’re in a warehouse, and another to actually eat them. What’s been eaten is digested, distributed, and has become muscles, flesh, bones, blood, healthy color, and breath. What’s stored can be taken out and shown at will, but you benefit from it only in that you seem to possess it. What’s the difference between explaining these doctrines and those of people with different views? Now sit down and explain Epicurus' ideas according to the rules of the art, and you might explain them more effectively than Epicurus himself. So why do you call yourself a Stoic? Why mislead the many? Why pretend to be a Jew when you’re actually Greek? Don’t you see why each is called a Jew, or a Syrian, or an Egyptian? When we see someone leaning towards two sides, we usually say, “This person isn’t a Jew, but acts like one.” But when someone takes on the characteristics of someone drawn to Jewish teachings and joins that sect, then they are indeed considered and called a Jew.
HOW WE MAY DISCOVER THE DUTIES OF LIFE FROM NAMES.—Consider who you are. In the first place, you are a man; and this is one who has nothing superior to the faculty of the will, but all other things subjected to it; and the faculty itself he possesses unenslaved and free from subjection. Consider then from what things you have been separated by reason. You have been separated from wild beasts; you have been separated from domestic animals ([Greek: probaton]). Further, you are a citizen of the world, and a part of it, not one of the subservient (serving), but one of the principal (ruling) parts, for you are capable of comprehending the divine administration and of considering the connection of things. What then does the character of a citizen promise (profess)? To hold nothing as profitable to himself; to deliberate about nothing as if he were detached from the community, but to act as the hand or foot would do, if they had reason and understood the constitution of nature, for they would never put themselves in motion nor desire anything otherwise than with reference to the whole. Therefore, the philosophers say well, that if the good man had foreknowledge of what would happen, he would co-operate towards his own sickness and death and mutilation, since he knows that these things are assigned to him according to the universal arrangement, and that the whole is superior to the part, and the state to the citizen. But now because we do not know the future, it is our duty to stick to the things which are in their nature more suitable for our choice, for we were made among other things for this.
HOW WE MAY DISCOVER THE DUTIES OF LIFE FROM NAMES.—Think about who you are. First of all, you are a human being; and this means that nothing is greater than your ability to choose, while everything else is subject to it; and that ability itself is yours, unchained and free. Now consider what you have been separated from through reason. You have been separated from wild animals; you have been separated from domestic animals. Furthermore, you are a citizen of the world and a part of it, not one of the subordinate parts, but one of the leading parts, because you can understand the divine order and think about the connections between things. What does being a citizen promise? It means holding nothing as beneficial only to yourself; deliberating on nothing as if you were disconnected from the community, but acting like a hand or foot would if they had reason and understood the structure of nature, as they would never move or desire anything unless it benefited the whole. Thus, the philosophers wisely say that if a good person knew what would happen, they would accept their own sickness and death and injury, knowing these things are part of the universal order, and that the whole is greater than the part, and the state is greater than the citizen. But since we don’t know the future, it’s our responsibility to focus on what’s more appropriate for our choices, as we were created for this purpose.
After this, remember that you are a son. What does this character promise? To consider that everything which is the son’s belongs to the father, to obey him in all things, never to blame him to another, nor to say or do anything which does him injury, to yield to him in all things and give way, co-operating with him as far as you can. After this know that you are a brother also, and that to this character it is due to make concessions; to be easily persuaded, to speak good of your brother, never to claim in opposition to him any of the things which are independent of the will, but readily to give them up, that you may have the larger share in what is dependent on the will. For see what a thing it is, in place of a lettuce, if it should so happen, or a seat, to gain for yourself goodness of disposition. How great is the advantage.
After this, remember that you are a son. What does this role mean? It means recognizing that everything belonging to the son is also the father's, obeying him in everything, never blaming him to anyone else, and not saying or doing anything that harms him. You should yield to him in all things and cooperate with him as much as you can. After this, know that you are also a brother, and this role requires you to make compromises; to be easily convinced, to speak positively about your brother, never to contest any of the things outside of your control, but to willingly let them go so that you can have a greater share in what is within your control. Think about how much better it is to gain a good attitude instead of fighting over something trivial, like a piece of lettuce or a seat. What a significant advantage that is.
Next to this, if you are a senator of any state, remember that you are a senator; if a youth, that you are a youth; if an old man, that you are an old man; for each of such names, if it comes to be examined, marks out the proper duties. But if you go and blame your brother, I say to you, You have forgotten who you are and what is your name. In the next place, if you were a smith and made a wrong use of the hammer, you would have forgotten the smith; and if you have forgotten the brother and instead of a brother have become an enemy, would you appear not to have changed one thing for another in that case? And if instead of a man, who is a tame animal and social, you are become a mischievous wild beast, treacherous, and biting, have you lost nothing? But (I suppose) you must lose a bit of money that you may suffer damage? And does the loss of nothing else do a man damage? If you had lost the art of grammar or music, would you think the loss of it a damage? and if you shall lose modesty, moderation ([Greek: chtastolaen]) and gentleness, do you think the loss nothing? And yet the things first mentioned are lost by some cause external and independent of the will, and the second by our own fault; and as to the first neither to have them nor to lose them is shameful; but as to the second, not to have them and to lose them is shameful and matter of reproach and a misfortune.
Next to this, if you are a senator from any state, remember that you are a senator; if you’re young, remember that you’re young; if you’re an old man, remember that you’re old; because each of these roles defines the appropriate duties. But if you go and blame your brother, I say to you, you have forgotten who you are and what your identity is. Furthermore, if you were a blacksmith and misused the hammer, you would have forgotten what it means to be a blacksmith; and if you forget your brother and instead of being a brother become an enemy, would it not seem like you have swapped one thing for another? And if instead of being a social and tame individual, you become a dangerous wild animal, treacherous and biting, have you lost nothing? But I suppose you must suffer some financial loss to feel damaged? Does losing nothing else harm a person? If you lost your grasp of grammar or music, would you not consider that a loss? And if you lose modesty, self-control, and kindness, do you think that’s nothing? Yet the first things mentioned can be lost due to external factors beyond our control, while the second group is lost by our own actions; in the case of the first, neither possessing them nor losing them is shameful; but for the second, not having them and losing them is shameful, reproachable, and a misfortune.
What then? shall I not hurt him who has hurt me? In the first place consider what hurt ([Greek: blabae]) is, and remember what you have heard from the philosophers. For if the good consists in the will (purpose, intention, [Greek: proaireeis]), and the evil also in the will, see if what you say is not this: What then, since that man has hurt himself by doing an unjust act to me, shall I not hurt myself by doing some unjust act to him? Why do we not imagine to ourselves (mentally think of) something of this kind? But where there is any detriment to the body or to our possession, there is harm there; and where the same thing happens to the faculty of the will, there is (you suppose) no harm; for he who has been deceived or he who has done an unjust act neither suffers in the head nor in the eye nor in the hip, nor does he lose his estate; and we wish for nothing else than (security to) these things. But whether we shall have the will modest and faithful or shameless and faithless, we care not the least, except only in the school so far as a few words are concerned. Therefore our proficiency is limited to these few words; but beyond them it does not exist even in the slightest degree.
What then? Should I not hurt someone who has hurt me? First, think about what hurt really is and recall what you’ve heard from philosophers. If good is defined by our intention, and evil also defined by our intentions, consider this: Since that person has harmed himself by doing something unjust to me, should I harm myself by doing something unjust to him? Why don’t we mentally picture something like this? When there’s damage to the body or to our possessions, we see that as harm; but when it comes to the will, we think there’s no harm done. Someone who has been deceived or who committed an unjust act doesn’t suffer in their head, their eye, or their hip, and they don’t lose their belongings; all we care about are those physical things. But whether our will is modest and faithful or shameless and untrustworthy, we hardly care, except maybe in an academic sense when it comes to a few words. So, our understanding is limited to those few words; beyond that, we don’t have any real grasp at all.
WHAT THE BEGINNING OF PHILOSOPHY IS.—The beginning of philosophy, to him at least who enters on it in the right way and by the door is a consciousness of his own weakness and inability about necessary things; for we come into the world with no natural notion of a right-angled triangle, or of a diesis (a quarter tone), or of a half-tone; but we learn each of these things by a certain transmission according to art; and for this reason those who do not know them do not think that they know them. But as to good and evil, and beautiful and ugly, and becoming and unbecoming, and happiness and misfortune, and proper and improper, and what we ought to do and what we ought not to do, who ever came into the world without having an innate idea of them? Wherefore we all use these names, and we endeavor to fit the preconceptions to the several cases (things) thus: he has done well; he has not done well; he has done as he ought, not as he ought; he has been unfortunate, he has been fortunate; he is unjust, he is just; who does not use these names? who among us defers the use of them till he has learned them, as he defers the use of the words about lines (geometrical figures) or sounds? And the cause of this is that we come into the world already taught as it were by nature some things on this matter ([Greek: topon]), and proceeding from these we have added to them self-conceit ([Greek: oiaesin]). For why, a man says, do I not know the beautiful and the ugly? Have I not the notion of it? You have. Do I not adapt it to particulars? You do. Do I not then adapt it properly? In that lies the whole question; and conceit is added here; for beginning from these things which are admitted men proceed to that which is matter of dispute by means of unsuitable adaptation; for if they possessed this power of adaptation in addition to those things, what would hinder them from being perfect? But now since you think that you properly adapt the preconceptions to the particulars, tell me whence you derive this (assume that you do so). Because I think so. But it does not seem so to another, and he thinks that he also makes a proper adaptation; or does he not think so? He does think so. Is it possible then that both of you can properly apply the preconceptions to things about which you have contrary opinions? It is not possible. Can you then show us anything better towards adapting the preconceptions beyond your thinking that you do? Does the madman do any other things than the things which seem to him right? Is then this criterion sufficient for him also? It is not sufficient. Come then to something which is superior to seeming ([Greek: tou dochein]). What is this?
WHAT THE BEGINNING OF PHILOSOPHY IS.—The start of philosophy, at least for someone who approaches it correctly, comes from being aware of one’s own weaknesses and limitations regarding essential matters. We enter the world without any natural understanding of a right-angled triangle, a quarter tone, or a half-tone; we learn about these concepts through a process based on skill and teaching. That's why people who don't understand these concepts don't think they know them. But when it comes to understanding good and evil, beauty and ugliness, what is appropriate and inappropriate, happiness and misfortune, and what we should or shouldn’t do, who comes into the world without an inherent idea of these things? This is why we all use these terms and try to match our preconceived notions to different situations: he did well; he didn’t do well; he acted how he should, not how he shouldn’t; he was unfortunate, he was fortunate; he is unjust, he is just; who doesn’t use these terms? Who among us waits to use them until we’ve learned them, like we would with geometrical figures or sounds? The reason behind this is that we enter the world with some understanding of these concepts, as if innately, and from there we add our own biases. A person might ask, why don’t I know what is beautiful and what is ugly? Don’t I have an understanding of it? You do. Do I not apply it to specific situations? You do. Then why do I not apply it correctly? That’s the whole point of the issue; and here comes the bias, because starting from these accepted ideas, people move to areas of disagreement through inadequate applications. If they really did possess the ability to apply their concepts accurately in addition to their knowledge, what would stop them from being perfect? But since you believe you apply your preconceptions correctly, tell me where this belief comes from (assuming you do). Because I think so. But another person doesn’t see it that way, and he also believes he applies it correctly; or does he not think so? He thinks so. Is it then possible that both of you can accurately apply your preconceptions to issues where you disagree? It’s not possible. Can you show us anything better for applying the preconceptions than simply believing you do? Does a madman do anything other than what seems right to him? Is this standard enough for him as well? It isn’t. So let’s look for something that is superior to mere opinion. What is that?
Observe, this is the beginning of philosophy, a perception of the disagreement of men with one another, and an inquiry into the cause of the disagreement, and a condemnation and distrust of that which only “seems,” and a certain investigation of that which “seems” whether it “seems” rightly, and a discovery of some rule ([Greek: chanonos]), as we have discovered a balance in the determination of weights, and a carpenter’s rule (or square) in the case of straight and crooked things.—This is the beginning of philosophy. Must we say that all things are right which seem so to all? And how is it possible that contradictions can be right?—Not all then, but all which seem to us to be right.—How more to you than those which seem right to the Syrians? why more than what seem right to the Egyptians? why more than what seems right to me or to any other man? Not at all more. What then “seems” to every man is not sufficient for determining what “is”; for neither in the case of weights nor measures are we satisfied with the bare appearance, but in each case we have discovered a certain rule. In this matter then is there no rule superior to what “seems”? And how is it possible that the most necessary things among men should have no sign (mark), and be incapable of being discovered? There is then some rule. And why then do we not seek the rule and discover it, and afterwards use it without varying from it, not even stretching out the finger without it? For this, I think, is that which when it is discovered cures of their madness those who use mere “seeming” as a measure, and misuse it; so that for the future proceeding from certain things (principles) known and made clear we may use in the case of particular things the preconceptions which are distinctly fixed.
Look, this is the start of philosophy: recognizing that people disagree with each other, questioning why they disagree, criticizing and doubting what merely “seems” right, and investigating whether what “seems” is actually right. We aim to discover some standard, just as we find a balance for measuring weights and a carpenter's square for determining straightness. This is the foundation of philosophy. Should we claim that everything that seems right to everyone actually is right? How can contradictions be right? So not everything is, but only what seems right to us. Why should our perception hold more weight than what seems right to the Syrians? Or more than what seems right to the Egyptians? Not more at all. What seems right to everyone isn’t enough to define what “is”; just as we don’t settle for mere appearances in weights and measures, we’ve established a certain standard. In this respect, is there no rule beyond what “seems”? How can the most essential things for humans go without a sign and be untraceable? Therefore, there must be some rule. So why don’t we seek out that rule, find it, and then stick to it without straying, not even slightly? I think this discovery is what cures those who rely on mere “seeming” as a measure and misuse it. This way, we can proceed from certain known and clarified principles to apply clear preconceptions to specific situations.
What is the matter presented to us about which we are inquiring? Pleasure (for example). Subject it to the rule, throw it into the balance. Ought the good to be such a thing that it is fit that we have confidence in it? Yes. And in which we ought to confide? It ought to be. Is it fit to trust to anything which is insecure? No. Is then pleasure anything secure? No. Take it then and throw it out of the scale, and drive it far away from the place of good things. But if you are not sharp-sighted, and one balance is not enough for you, bring another. Is it fit to be elated over what is good? Yes. Is it proper then to be elated over present pleasure? See that you do not say that it is proper; but if you do, I shall then not think you worthy even of the balance. Thus things are tested and weighed when the rules are ready. And to philosophize is this, to examine and confirm the rules; and then to use them when they are known is the act of a wise and good man.
What issue are we looking into? Pleasure, for example. Let's apply a standard and weigh it. Should something good be something we can rely on? Yes. Should we trust in it? It should be trustworthy. Is it reasonable to depend on something unreliable? No. So, is pleasure something we can rely on? No. Then let's reject it and remove it from the list of good things. But if you're not discerning, and one scale isn't enough for you, bring in another. Is it appropriate to feel joy about what is good? Yes. Is it appropriate to feel joy about immediate pleasure? Make sure you don't claim it is appropriate; if you do, I won't consider you deserving of the scale at all. This is how things are tested and weighed once the standards are established. Philosophizing means examining and confirming the standards, and then applying them when recognized is the mark of a wise and good person.
OF DISPUTATION OR DISCUSSION.—What things a man must learn in order to be able to apply the art of disputation, has been accurately shown by our philosophers (the Stoics); but with respect to the proper use of the things, we are entirely without practice. Only give to any of us, whom you please, an illiterate man to discuss with, and he cannot discover how to deal with the man. But when he has moved the man a little, if he answers beside the purpose, he does not know how to treat him, but he then either abuses or ridicules him, and says, He is an illiterate man; it is not possible to do anything with him. Now a guide, when he has found a man out of the road, leads him into the right way; he does not ridicule or abuse him and then leave him. Do you also show the illiterate man the truth, and you will see that he follows. But so long as you do not show him the truth, do not ridicule him, but rather feel your own incapacity.
OF DISPUTATION OR DISCUSSION.—The things a person needs to learn to effectively engage in discussion have been clearly outlined by our philosophers (the Stoics); however, when it comes to the proper application of this knowledge, we lack real practice. If you give any of us a person who is uneducated to talk to, we often struggle to engage with him. After making some progress in the conversation, if he responds off-topic, we don’t know how to handle it; instead, we either insult or mock him and say, "He’s uneducated; there’s no point in trying to communicate with him." A guide, when he encounters someone who has lost their way, helps them find the right path; he doesn’t mock or insult them before abandoning them. You should also show the uneducated person the truth, and you’ll find that he will follow. But as long as you’re not showing him the truth, don’t mock him; instead, acknowledge your own shortcomings.
Now this was the first and chief peculiarity of Socrates, never to be irritated in argument, never to utter anything abusive, anything insulting, but to bear with abusive persons and to put an end to the quarrel. If you would know what great power he had in this way, read the Symposium of Xenophon, and you will see how many quarrels he put an end to. Hence with good reason in the poets also this power is most highly praised:
Now, the most significant thing about Socrates was that he never got angry during arguments, never said anything rude or insulting, but always tolerated abusive people and managed to resolve conflicts. If you want to understand the great influence he had in this regard, read Xenophon's Symposium, and you’ll see how many disputes he settled. That’s why this ability is also highly praised in poets:
Quickly with skill he settles great disputes.
Hesiod, Theogony, v. 87.
Quickly and skillfully, he resolves major conflicts.
Hesiod, Theogony, v. 87.
ON ANXIETY (SOLICITUDE).—When I see a man anxious, I say, What does this man want? If he did not want something which is not in his power, how could he be anxious? For this reason a lute player when he is singing by himself has no anxiety, but when he enters the theatre, he is anxious, even if he has a good voice and plays well on the lute; for he not only wishes to sing well, but also to obtain applause: but this is not in his power. Accordingly, where he has skill, there he has confidence. Bring any single person who knows nothing of music, and the musician does not care for him. But in the matter where a man knows nothing and has not been practised, there he is anxious. What matter is this? He knows not what a crowd is or what the praise of a crowd is. However, he has learned to strike the lowest chord and the highest; but what the praise of the many is, and what power it has in life, he neither knows nor has he thought about it. Hence he must of necessity tremble and grow pale. Is any man then afraid about things which are not evils? No. Is he afraid about things which are evils, but still so far within his power that they may not happen? Certainly he is not. If then the things which are independent of the will are neither good nor bad, and all things which do depend on the will are within our power, and no man can either take them from us or give them to us, if we do not choose, where is room left for anxiety? But we are anxious about our poor body, our little property, about the will of Cæsar; but not anxious about things internal. Are we anxious about not forming a false opinion? No, for this is in my power. About not exerting our movements contrary to nature? No, not even about this. When then you see a man pale, as the physician says, judging from the complexion, this man’s spleen is disordered, that man’s liver; so also say, this man’s desire and aversion are disordered, he is not in the right way, he is in a fever. For nothing else changes the color, or causes trembling or chattering of the teeth, or causes a man to
ON ANXIETY (SOLICITUDE).—When I see someone anxious, I think, What does this person want? If they didn't desire something out of their control, how could they be anxious? That's why a lute player singing alone doesn't feel anxious, but when they go on stage, they do, even if they have a great voice and play well; they not only want to perform well but also to receive applause, and that's not entirely in their hands. So, where they have skill, they have confidence. If you bring someone who knows nothing about music, the musician won’t care about them. But when someone lacks knowledge and experience, that's when they feel anxious. What’s this about? They don’t understand what a crowd is or what crowd praise means. They may know how to hit the lowest and highest notes, but they haven’t grasped the importance of public approval and its impact on life. Therefore, they must inevitably tremble and turn pale. Is anyone really afraid of things that aren’t bad? No. Are they afraid of things that are bad, but still within their control so they might not happen? Certainly not. If the things that are out of our control aren’t good or bad, and everything that is within our control is ours to choose, then where does anxiety come from? Yet, we worry about our fragile bodies, our little property, and the whims of Cæsar, but not about our inner selves. Are we anxious about forming a false opinion? No, because that's something I can control. Am I concerned about acting against nature? No, not even about that. So when you see someone pale, as a doctor might say based on their complexion, this person’s desire and aversion are disordered, they’re not on the right path, they’re in a state of distress. For nothing else causes a change in color, or leads to trembling or chattering of the teeth, than this.
Sink in his knees and shift from foot to foot.
Iliad, xiii., 281.
Sink to his knees and shift from foot to foot.
Iliad, xiii., 281.
For this reason, when Zeno was going to meet Antigonus, he was not anxious, for Antigonus had no power over any of the things which Zeno admired; and Zeno did not care for those things over which Antigonus had power. But Antigonus was anxious when he was going to meet Zeno, for he wished to please Zeno; but this was a thing external (out of his power). But Zeno did not want to please Antigonus; for no man who is skilled in any art wishes to please one who has no such skill.
For this reason, when Zeno was about to meet Antigonus, he wasn’t worried, because Antigonus had no control over the things Zeno valued; and Zeno didn’t care about the things Antigonus could influence. However, Antigonus felt anxious before meeting Zeno, as he wanted to impress him; but that was something outside of his control. On the other hand, Zeno didn’t feel the need to impress Antigonus, because no one who is skilled in a craft seeks to impress someone who lacks such skill.
Should I try to please you? Why? I suppose, you know the measure by which one man is estimated by another. Have you taken pains to learn what is a good man and what is a bad man, and how a man becomes one or the other? Why then are you not good yourself? How, he replies, am I not good? Because no good man laments or groans or weeps, no good man is pale and trembles, or says, How will he receive me, how will he listen to me? Slave, just as it pleases him. Why do you care about what belongs to others? Is it now his fault if he receives badly what proceeds from you? Certainly. And is it possible that a fault should be one man’s, and the evil in another? No. Why then are you anxious about that which belongs to others? Your question is reasonable; but I am anxious how I shall speak to him. Cannot you then speak to him as you choose? But I fear that I may be disconcerted? If you are going to write the name of Dion, are you afraid that you would be disconcerted? By no means. Why? is it not because you have practised writing the name? Certainly. Well, if you were going to read the name, would you not feel the same? and why? Because every art has a certain strength and confidence in the things which belong to it. Have you then not practised speaking? and what else did you learn in the school? Syllogisms and sophistical propositions? For what purpose? was it not for the purpose of discoursing skilfully? and is not discoursing skilfully the same as discoursing seasonably and cautiously and with intelligence, and also without making mistakes and without hindrance, and besides all this with confidence? Yes. When then you are mounted on a horse and go into a plain, are you anxious at being matched against a man who is on foot, and anxious in a matter in which you are practised, and he is not? Yes, but that person (to whom I am going to speak) has power to kill me. Speak the truth, then, unhappy man, and do not brag, nor claim to be a philosopher, nor refuse to acknowledge your masters, but so long as you present this handle in your body, follow every man who is stronger than yourself. Socrates used to practice speaking, he who talked as he did to the tyrants, to the dicasts (judges), he who talked in his prison. Diogenes had practised speaking, he who spoke as he did to Alexander, to the pirates, to the person who bought him. These men were confident in the things which they practised. But do you walk off to your own affairs and never leave them: go and sit in a corner, and weave syllogisms, and propose them to another. There is not in you the man who can rule a state.
Should I try to please you? Why? I guess you know how one person judges another. Have you made an effort to understand what makes a good person and what makes a bad person, and how someone becomes one or the other? Then why aren’t you good yourself? How, he replies, am I not good? Because a good person doesn’t lament, groan, or weep; a good person isn’t pale, trembling, or asking, “How will he receive me? How will he listen to me?” Just like a slave, it depends on his mood. Why do you care about what belongs to others? Is it his fault if he reacts poorly to what you offer? Absolutely. And can one person's fault cause harm to another? No. So why are you worried about other people's reactions? Your question makes sense; but I’m anxious about how I’ll talk to him. Can’t you just speak to him as you like? But I’m afraid I might get flustered. If you were going to write the name Dion, would you be afraid of getting flustered? Not at all. Why? Isn’t it because you’ve practiced writing that name? Definitely. Well, if you were reading the name, wouldn’t you feel the same? And why? Because every skill gives you a certain strength and confidence in its practice. Haven’t you practiced speaking? What else did you learn in school? Syllogisms and tricky arguments? For what purpose? Wasn’t it to talk skillfully? And isn’t talking skillfully about being timely, careful, intelligent, and confident, and doing so without mistakes or interruptions? Yes. Now, when you’re on a horse and facing a person on foot in an area where you’re skilled, are you worried? Yes, but that person I’m going to speak to has the power to kill me. Tell the truth, then, unfortunate man; don’t boast, don’t pretend to be a philosopher, and acknowledge your teachers. As long as you have that weakness in you, follow anyone stronger than yourself. Socrates practiced speaking; he talked the way he did to tyrants and judges, and even while in prison. Diogenes practiced speaking too; he talked the way he did to Alexander, pirates, and the person who bought him. These men were confident in their skills. But you just go about your own affairs and never leave them: go sit in a corner, weave syllogisms, and propose them to others. There’s no way you can govern a state.
TO NASO.—When a certain Roman entered with his son and listened to one reading, Epictetus said, This is the method of instruction; and he stopped. When the Roman asked him to go on, Epictetus said, Every art when it is taught causes labor to him who is unacquainted with it and is unskilled in it, and indeed the things which proceed from the arts immediately show their use in the purpose for which they were made; and most of them contain something attractive and pleasing. For indeed to be present and to observe how a shoemaker learns is not a pleasant thing; but the shoe is useful and also not disagreeable to look at. And the discipline of a smith when he is learning is very disagreeable to one who chances to be present and is a stranger to the art: but the work shows the use of the art. But you will see this much more in music; for if you are present while a person is learning, the discipline will appear most disagreeable; and yet the results of music are pleasing and delightful to those who know nothing of music. And here we conceive the work of a philosopher to be something of this kind: he must adapt his wish ([Greek: boulaesin]) to what is going on, so that neither any of the things which are taking place shall take place contrary to our wish, nor any of the things which do not take place shall not take place when we wish that they should. From this the result is to those who have so arranged the work of philosophy, not to fail in the desire, nor to fall in with that which they would avoid; without uneasiness, without fear, without perturbation to pass through life themselves, together with their associates maintaining the relations both natural and acquired, as the relation of son, of father, of brother, of citizen, of man, of wife, of neighbor, of fellow-traveller, of ruler, of ruled. The work of a philosopher we conceive to be something like this. It remains next to inquire how this must be accomplished.
TO NASO.—When a Roman came in with his son and listened to a reading, Epictetus said, "This is the way of teaching," and then he paused. When the Roman asked him to continue, Epictetus stated, "Every skill, when taught, requires effort from someone who doesn’t know it and isn’t good at it. The results of these skills clearly show their purpose and most of them have something attractive and enjoyable about them. For instance, watching a shoemaker learn isn't very pleasant; but the shoe itself is useful and also nice to look at. The learning process of a blacksmith can be quite unpleasant for someone who’s not familiar with the craft, but the finished product reveals the usefulness of the skill. You’ll notice this even more in music; if you watch someone learning, it can seem really frustrating, yet the outcome of music is enjoyable and delightful to those who know nothing about it. We see the work of a philosopher as similar: they need to align their desires with what’s happening, ensuring that nothing occurs against their wishes, and that things they want to happen do occur. The result for those who have organized their philosophical work is that they don’t fail in their desires and avoid what they wish to stay away from; they can pass through life calmly, without anxiety, fear, or disturbance, alongside their friends, while maintaining all kinds of relationships—whether it's as a son, father, brother, citizen, man, wife, neighbor, fellow traveler, ruler, or ruled. This is how we understand the work of a philosopher. Next, we should explore how this can be achieved."
We see then that the carpenter ([Greek: techton]) when he has learned certain things becomes a carpenter; the pilot by learning certain things becomes a pilot. May it not then in philosophy also not be sufficient to wish to be wise and good, and that there is also a necessity to learn certain things? We inquire then what these things are. The philosophers say that we ought first to learn that there is a God and that he provides for all things; also that it is not possible to conceal from him our acts, or even our intentions and thoughts. The next thing is to learn what is the nature of the gods; for such as they are discovered to be, he, who would please and obey them, must try with all his power to be like them. If the divine is faithful, man also must be faithful; if it is free, man also must be free; if beneficent, man also must be beneficent; if magnanimous, man also must be magnanimous; as being then an imitator of God he must do and say everything consistently with this fact.
We see that a carpenter, once he learns certain skills, becomes a carpenter; a pilot becomes a pilot by acquiring specific knowledge. So, in philosophy, isn’t it also true that just wanting to be wise and good isn’t enough, and that learning certain things is necessary? We then ask what these things are. Philosophers say we should first learn that there is a God who takes care of everything; also, that it’s impossible to hide our actions, intentions, or thoughts from Him. Next, we need to understand the nature of the gods; because, to please and obey them, we must strive to be like them in every way possible. If the divine is faithful, then humans must also be faithful; if it is free, then humans should be free too; if it is kind, then we must also be kind; if it is noble, then we should be noble as well. As imitators of God, we must align our actions and words with this truth.
TO OR AGAINST THOSE WHO OBSTINATELY PERSIST IN WHAT THEY HAVE DETERMINED.—When some persons have heard these words, that a man ought to be constant (firm), and that the will is naturally free and not subject to compulsion, but that all other things are subject to hindrance, to slavery, and are in the power of others, they suppose that they ought without deviation to abide by everything which they have determined. But in the first place that which has been determined ought to be sound (true). I require tone (sinews) in the body, but such as exists in a healthy body, in an athletic body; but if it is plain to me that you have the tone of a frenzied man and you boast of it, I shall say to you, Man, seek the physician; this is not tone, but atony (deficiency in right tone). In a different way something of the same kind is felt by those who listen to these discourses in a wrong manner; which was the case with one of my companions, who for no reason resolved to starve himself to death. I heard of it when it was the third day of his abstinence from food, and I went to inquire what had happened. “I have resolved,” he said. “But still tell me what it was which induced you to resolve; for if you have resolved rightly, we shall sit with you and assist you to depart, but if you have made an unreasonable resolution, change your mind.” “We ought to keep to our determinations.” “What are you doing, man? We ought to keep not to all our determinations, but to those which are right; for if you are now persuaded that it is right, do not change your mind, if you think fit, but persist and say, We ought to abide by our determinations. Will you not make the beginning and lay the foundation in an inquiry whether the determination is sound or not sound, and so then build on it firmness and security? But if you lay a rotten and ruinous foundation, will not your miserable little building fall down the sooner, the more and the stronger are the materials which you shall lay on it? Without any reason would you withdraw from us out of life a man who is a friend and a companion, a citizen of the same city, both the great and the small city? Then while you are committing murder and destroying a man who has done no wrong, do you say that you ought to abide by your determinations? And if it ever in any way came into your head to kill me, ought you to abide by your determinations?”
TO OR AGAINST THOSE WHO PERSISTENTLY STICK TO THEIR DECISIONS.—When some people hear that a person should be consistent and that the will is naturally free and not forced, while everything else can be hindered, enslaved, or controlled by others, they think they should stick to every decision they've made without change. But first, the decision made must be sound (true). I want strength (tone) in the body, like that of a healthy, athletic body; but if it’s obvious to me that you have the strength of a man in frenzy and you take pride in it, I’ll say to you, "Man, seek a doctor; this isn’t strength, but lack of it." Similarly, something like this is felt by those who misunderstand these talks; like one of my friends who unreasonably decided to starve himself to death. I learned about it on the third day of his fasting, and I went to find out what happened. “I have made a resolution,” he said. “But tell me what made you decide that; if your decision is right, we’ll support you in leaving, but if it’s an unreasonable decision, change your mind.” “We should stick to our resolutions.” “What are you doing, man? We should stick not to all our resolutions, but only to the right ones; if you believe it’s right, don’t change your mind if you don’t want to, but persist and say, 'We should stick to our decisions.' Will you not begin by questioning whether the decision is sound or not, and then build your firmness and security on that? But if you lay a rotten foundation, won’t your unfortunate little structure collapse all the sooner, the more you add to it? Would you foolishly take away a friend and companion, a citizen of the same city, both the great and the small city? Then while you’re committing murder and destroying someone who’s done no wrong, do you really believe you should stick to your decisions? And if it ever crossed your mind to kill me, should you stick to your decisions?”
Now this man was with difficulty persuaded to change his mind. But it is impossible to convince some persons at present; so that I seem now to know what I did not know before, the meaning of the common saying, that you can neither persuade nor break a fool. May it never be my lot to have a wise fool for my friend; nothing is more untractable. “I am determined,” the man says. Madmen are also, but the more firmly they form a judgment on things which do not exist, the more hellebore they require. Will you not act like a sick man and call in the physician?—I am sick, master, help me; consider what I must do: it is my duty to obey you. So it is here also: I know not what I ought to do, but I am come to learn.—Not so; but speak to me about other things: upon this I have determined.—What other things? for what is greater and more useful than for you to be persuaded that it is not sufficient to have made your determination and not to change it. This is the tone (energy) of madness, not of health.—I will die, if you compel me to this.—Why, man? What has happened?—I have determined—I have had a lucky escape that you have not determined to kill me—I take no money. Why?—I have determined—Be assured that with the very tone (energy) which you now use in refusing to take, there is nothing to hinder you at some time from inclining without reason to take money, and then saying, I have determined. As in a distempered body, subject to defluxions, the humor inclines sometimes to these parts, and then to those, so too a sickly soul knows not which way to incline; but if to this inclination and movement there is added a tone (obstinate resolution), then the evil becomes past help and cure.
Now this man was hard to convince to change his mind. But some people just can't be persuaded these days; I now understand the saying that you can't persuade or break a fool. I hope I never have a wise fool as a friend; nothing is more difficult to deal with. “I'm set on my decision,” the man says. Madmen are the same way; the more firmly they believe in things that aren't real, the more help they need. Will you not act like a sick person and call in a doctor?—I’m sick, master, help me; think about what I should do: I need to follow your guidance. It’s the same here: I don't know what I should do, but I’m here to learn.—Not at all; talk to me about other things: I’m set on this—What other things? What could be more important and helpful than you realizing that it’s not enough to just make a decision without considering changing it? That’s the mindset of madness, not of health.—I’ll die if you force me into this.—Why, man? What’s wrong?—I’ve made my decision—I’ve been lucky that you haven’t decided to kill me—I won’t take any money. Why?—I’ve made my decision—Know that with the very same tone you’re using to refuse, there’s nothing stopping you from suddenly deciding to take money and then saying, I’ve made my decision. Just like with an unwell body, which can be thrown off balance, sometimes the imbalance leads one way, sometimes another; a sick soul doesn’t know which way to turn; but if this stubbornness is added to that movement, the problem becomes impossible to fix.
THAT WE DO NOT STRIVE TO USE OUR OPINIONS ABOUT GOOD AND EVIL.—Where is the good? In the will. Where is the evil? In the will. Where is neither of them? In those things which are independent of the will. Well then? Does any one among us think of these lessons out of the schools? Does any one meditate (strive) by himself to give an answer to things as in the case of questions?—Is it day?—Yes.—Is it night?—No.—Well, is the number of stars even?—I cannot say.—When money is shown (offered) to you, have you studied to make the proper answer, that money is not a good thing? Have you practised yourself in these answers, or only against sophisms? Why do you wonder then if in the cases which you have studied, in those you have improved; but in those which you have not studied, in those you remain the same? When the rhetorician knows that he has written well, that he has committed to memory what he has written, and brings an agreeable voice, why is he still anxious? Because he is not satisfied with having studied. What then does he want? To be praised by the audience? For the purpose then of being able to practise declamation he has been disciplined; but with respect to praise and blame he has not been disciplined. For when did he hear from any one what praise is, what blame is, what the nature of each is, what kind of praise should be sought, or what kind of blame should be shunned? And when did he practise this discipline which follows these words (things)? Why then do you still wonder, if in the matters which a man has learned, there he surpasses others, and in those in which he has not been disciplined, there he is the same with the many. So the lute player knows how to play, sings well, and has a fine dress, and yet he trembles when he enters on the stage; for these matters he understands, but he does not know what a crowd is, nor the shouts of a crowd, nor what ridicule is. Neither does he know what anxiety is, whether it is our work or the work of another, whether it is possible to stop it or not. For this reason if he has been praised, he leaves the theatre puffed up, but if he has been ridiculed, the swollen bladder has been punctured and subsides.
THAT WE DO NOT STRIVE TO USE OUR OPINIONS ABOUT GOOD AND EVIL.—Where is the good? In the will. Where is the evil? In the will. Where is neither of them? In those things that are independent of the will. So what? Does anyone among us think about these lessons outside of school? Does anyone reflect (try) by themselves to answer questions?—Is it day?—Yes.—Is it night?—No.—So, is the number of stars even?—I can’t say.—When money is shown (offered) to you, have you learned to respond properly, that money is not a good thing? Have you practiced these responses, or only against trick questions? Why are you surprised then if in areas you have studied, you’ve improved; but in those you haven’t studied, you remain the same? When the speaker knows that he has written well, memorized what he has written, and has a pleasant voice, why is he still anxious? Because he’s not satisfied with just studying. So what does he want? To be praised by the audience? For the purpose of being able to perform well, he has been trained; but regarding praise and blame, he hasn’t been trained. When has he ever heard from anyone what praise is, what blame is, what each one’s nature is, what kind of praise should be sought, or what kind of blame should be avoided? And when did he practice this training that follows those concepts? So why are you still surprised if in the matters a person has learned, he excels beyond others, and in those in which he hasn’t been trained, he remains on the same level as the rest? Just like a musician knows how to play, sings well, and wears nice clothes, yet he still trembles when he steps on stage; he understands these things, but he doesn't know what a crowd is, nor the cheers of a crowd, nor what ridicule is. He also doesn’t know what anxiety feels like, whether it comes from our actions or someone else’s, or if it can be stopped or not. For this reason, if he’s praised, he leaves the stage feeling great, but if he is mocked, the inflated ego gets deflated and goes back to normal.
This is the case also with ourselves. What do we admire? Externals. About what things are we busy? Externals. And have we any doubt then why we fear or why we are anxious? What then happens when we think the things, which are coming on us, to be evils? It is not in our power not to be afraid, it is not in our power not to be anxious. Then we say, Lord God, how shall I not be anxious? Fool, have you not hands, did not God make them for you? Sit down now and pray that your nose may not run. Wipe yourself rather and do not blame him. Well then, has he given to you nothing in the present case? Has he not given to you endurance? Has he not given to you magnanimity? Has he not given to you manliness? When you have such hands do you still look for one who shall wipe your nose? But we neither study these things nor care for them. Give me a man who cares how he shall do anything, not for the obtaining of a thing, but who cares about his own energy. What man, when he is walking about, cares for his own energy? Who, when he is deliberating, cares about his own deliberation, and not about obtaining that about which he deliberates? And if he succeeds, he is elated and says, How well we have deliberated; did I not tell you, brother, that it is impossible, when we have thought about anything, that it should not turn out thus? But if the thing should turn out otherwise, the wretched man is humbled; he knows not even what to say about what has taken place. Who among us for the sake of this matter has consulted a seer? Who among us as to his actions has not slept in indifference? Who? Give (name) to me one that I may see the man whom I have long been looking for, who is truly noble and ingenuous, whether young or old; name him.
This is also true for us. What do we admire? The surface things. What are we busy with? The surface things. And do we really doubt why we feel fear or anxiety? What happens when we think the challenges we face are bad? It's not in our power to stop being afraid or anxious. Then we say, "Lord God, how can I not feel anxious?" Fool, do you not have hands? Did God not make them for you? Sit down and pray that your nose doesn't run. Instead, wipe it yourself and don’t blame Him. Well then, has He given you nothing for this situation? Has He not given you endurance? Has He not given you courage? Has He not given you strength? With such hands, do you still expect someone else to wipe your nose? But we don’t pay attention to these things or care about them. Give me a man who cares about how he does anything, not for the sake of achieving something, but who cares about his own effort. What man, while walking around, cares about his own effort? Who, when making decisions, focuses on his own thought process, instead of just on what he’s trying to achieve? And when he succeeds, he feels proud and says, "We deliberated well; didn’t I tell you, brother, that if we think it through, it’s bound to turn out this way?" But if it doesn't go as planned, the poor guy is crushed; he doesn't even know what to say about what happened. Who among us has sought advice from a seer for this reason? Who among us has not been indifferent about their actions? Who? Give me the name of one so I can see the person I’ve been looking for, who is truly noble and genuine, whether they are young or old; name them.
What then are the things which are heavy on us and disturb us? What else than opinions? What else than opinions lies heavy upon him who goes away and leaves his companions and friends and places and habits of life? Now little children, for instance, when they cry on the nurse leaving them for a short time, forget their sorrow if they receive a small cake. Do you choose then that we should compare you to little children? No, by Zeus, for I do not wish to be pacified by a small cake, but by right opinions. And what are these? Such as a man ought to study all day, and not to be affected by anything that is not his own, neither by companion nor place nor gymnasia, and not even by his own body, but to remember the law and to have it before his eyes. And what is the divine law? To keep a man’s own, not to claim that which belongs to others, but to use what is given, and when it is not given, not to desire it; and when a thing is taken away, to give it up readily and immediately, and to be thankful for the time that a man has had the use of it, if you would not cry for your nurse and mamma. For what matter does it make by what thing a man is subdued, and on what he depends? In what respect are you better than he who cries for a girl, if you grieve for a little gymnasium, and little porticos, and young men, and such places of amusement? Another comes and laments that he shall no longer drink the water of Dirce. Is the Marcian water worse than that of Dirce? But I was used to the water of Dirce. And you in turn will be used to the other. Then if you become attached to this also, cry for this too, and try to make a verse like the verse of Euripides,
What are the things that weigh us down and upset us? What else but our opinions? What else burdens the person who leaves their friends, places, and familiar habits? Little children, for example, when they cry because their caregiver leaves them for a bit, forget their sadness if they get a small treat. So, do you want to be compared to little children? No way, because I don't want to be comforted by a small treat, but by correct opinions. And what are those? They're the ideas a person should reflect on all day, unaffected by anything that isn't their own—neither friends nor places nor the gym, and not even their own body—but instead to keep the law in mind and always in view. And what is the divine law? It's to respect what belongs to oneself and not to take what's others', to use what is offered, and when it's not offered, not to desire it; and when something is taken away, to let it go easily and quickly and to appreciate the time one had it, if you don't want to cry for your caregiver and mother. What difference does it make what a person is attached to or depends on? How are you any better than someone who cries for a girl if you're upset over a gym, a tiny colonnade, young men, or places of fun? Someone else might lament that they will no longer drink from the Dirce fountain. Is the Marcian water worse than Dirce's? But I was used to Dirce's water. Well, you'll get used to the other one too. Then if you get attached to this one as well, go ahead and lament this too, and try to make a verse like Euripides did.
The hot baths of Nero and the Marcian water.
The hot baths of Nero and the Marcian water.
See how tragedy is made when common things happen to silly men.
See how tragedy unfolds when ordinary things happen to foolish people.
When then shall I see Athens again and the Acropolis? Wretch, are you not content with what you see daily? Have you anything better or greater to see than the sun, the moon, the stars, the whole earth, the sea? But if indeed you comprehend Him who administers the whole, and carry him about in yourself, do you still desire small stones and a beautiful rock?
When will I see Athens and the Acropolis again? Aren’t you satisfied with what you see every day? Is there anything better or greater than the sun, the moon, the stars, the whole earth, and the sea? But if you really understand the one who runs everything and hold him within you, do you still want mere stones and a pretty rock?
HOW WE MUST ADAPT PRECONCEPTIONS TO PARTICULAR CASES.—What is the first business of him who philosophizes? To throw away self-conceit ([Greek: oiaesis]). For it is impossible for a man to begin to learn that which he thinks that he knows. As to things then which ought to be done and ought not to be done, and good and bad, and beautiful and ugly, all of us talking of them at random go to the philosophers; and on these matters we praise, we censure, we accuse, we blame, we judge and determine about principles honorable and dishonorable. But why do we go to the philosophers? Because we wish to learn what we do not think that we know. And what is this? Theorems. For we wish to learn what philosophers say as being something elegant and acute; and some wish to learn that they may get profit from what they learn. It is ridiculous then to think that a person wishes to learn one thing, and will learn another; or further, that a man will make proficiency in that which he does not learn. But the many are deceived by this which deceived also the rhetorician Theopompus, when he blames even Plato for wishing everything to be defined. For what does he say? Did none of us before you use the words good or just, or do we utter the sounds in an unmeaning and empty way without understanding what they severally signify? Now who tells you, Theopompus, that we had not natural notions of each of these things and preconceptions ([Greek: prolaepseis])? But it is not possible to adapt preconceptions to their correspondent objects if we have not distinguished (analyzed) them, and inquired what object must be subjected to each preconception. You may make the same charge against physicians also. For who among us did not use the words healthy and unhealthy before Hippocrates lived, or did we utter these words as empty sounds? For we have also a certain preconception of health, but we are not able to adapt it. For this reason one says, Abstain from food; another says, Give food; another says, Bleed; and another says, Use cupping. What is the reason? is it any other than that a man cannot properly adapt the preconceptions of health to particulars?
HOW WE MUST ADAPT PRECONCEPTIONS TO PARTICULAR CASES.—What is the first task of someone who thinks deeply? To let go of self-importance. Because it's impossible for someone to start learning what they believe they already know. When it comes to actions we should or shouldn't take, and what is good or bad, beautiful or ugly, we all discuss these topics casually and turn to philosophers for guidance; and on these subjects, we praise, criticize, accuse, blame, judge, and form opinions about what’s honorable and dishonorable. But why do we seek out philosophers? Because we want to learn what we think we don’t know. And what is this? Principles. We want to learn what philosophers express as something insightful and clever; some want to gain practical benefits from this knowledge. It’s absurd to think that someone wants to learn one thing but ends up learning another; or that someone can excel in something they don’t learn. Yet many are misled by this same misunderstanding that led the rhetorician Theopompus to criticize Plato for insisting everything should be defined. What is he implying? Did any of us use the terms good or just before you came along, or did we just say those words mindlessly without grasping their meanings? But who tells you, Theopompus, that we didn’t already have natural understanding of these concepts? However, it’s not possible to match our preexisting notions to what they relate to if we haven’t analyzed them and investigated what specific thing each notion should apply to. You can make the same point about doctors. After all, who among us didn’t use the terms healthy and unhealthy before Hippocrates, or did we just say them without real meaning? We have an inherent understanding of health, but we struggle to apply it correctly. That's why one person says, "Don’t eat;" another says, "Eat;" one suggests, "Get bloodletting;" and another advises, "Try cupping." What is the reason for these differing opinions? Is it anything other than the fact that a person can’t accurately connect the concept of health to specific situations?
HOW WE SHOULD STRUGGLE AGAINST APPEARANCES.—Every habit and faculty is maintained and increased by the corresponding actions: the habit of walking by walking, the habit of running by running. If you would be a good reader, read; if a writer, write. But when you shall not have read for thirty days in succession, but have done something else, you will know the consequence. In the same way, if you shall have lain down ten days, get up and attempt to make a long walk, and you will see how your legs are weakened. Generally then if you would make anything a habit, do it; if you would not make it a habit, do not do it, but accustom yourself to do something else in place of it.
HOW WE SHOULD STRUGGLE AGAINST APPEARANCES.—Every habit and skill is developed and strengthened through the actions that correspond with it: you build the habit of walking by walking, the habit of running by running. If you want to be a good reader, read; if you want to be a writer, write. But if you go without reading for thirty days and do something else instead, you’ll know the impact. Similarly, if you lie down for ten days, then try to go for a long walk, you’ll realize how weak your legs have become. So, if you want to make something a habit, do it; if you don’t want to make it a habit, then don’t do it, but get used to doing something else instead.
So it is with respect to the affections of the soul: when you have been angry, you must know that not only has this evil befallen you, but that you have also increased the habit, and in a manner thrown fuel upon fire.
So it is with the feelings of the soul: when you get angry, you need to realize that not only has this bad thing happened to you, but you have also strengthened the habit and, in a way, added fuel to the fire.
In this manner certainly, as philosophers say, also diseases of the mind grow up. For when you have once desired money, if reason be applied to lead to a perception of the evil, the desire is stopped, and the ruling faculty of our mind is restored to the original authority. But if you apply no means of cure, it no longer returns to the same state, but being again excited by the corresponding appearance, it is inflamed to desire quicker than before: and when this takes place continually, it is henceforth hardened (made callous), and the disease of the mind confirms the love of money. For he who has had a fever, and has been relieved from it, is not in the same state that he was before, unless he has been completely cured. Something of the kind happens also in diseases of the soul. Certain traces and blisters are left in it, and unless a man shall completely efface them, when he is again lashed on the same places, the lash will produce not blisters (weals) but sores. If then you wish not to be of an angry temper, do not feed the habit: throw nothing on it which will increase it: at first keep quiet, and count the days on which you have not been angry. I used to be in passion every day; now every second day; then every third, then every fourth. But if you have intermitted thirty days, make a sacrifice to God. For the habit at first begins to be weakened, and then is completely destroyed. “I have not been vexed to-day, nor the day after, nor yet on any succeeding day during two or three months; but I took care when some exciting things happened.” Be assured that you are in a good way.
In this way, as philosophers say, mental illnesses develop. When you first start wanting money, if you use reason to recognize the negative effects, that desire can be controlled, allowing your mind to regain its proper authority. But if you don’t take any steps to fix it, the desire doesn’t go back to how it was; instead, it gets triggered by similar situations and becomes even stronger. When this happens repeatedly, it becomes set (hardened), and the mental illness strengthens the craving for money. Just like someone who has had a fever and recovered isn’t the same as before unless they’re fully healed, a similar thing happens with the soul’s ailments. Certain marks and scars remain, and unless a person fully removes them, re-experiencing triggers in those areas will lead to wounds, not just temporary irritation. So if you want to avoid being angry, don’t feed that habit: don’t add anything that will make it grow. First, stay calm, and keep track of the days you haven’t been angry. I used to get angry every day; now it’s every other day, then every third, then every fourth. But if you go thirty days without anger, make an offering to God. The habit starts to weaken and can eventually disappear. “I haven’t been upset today, or yesterday, or for two or three months now, but I was careful when certain triggering things happened.” Rest assured that you’re on the right path.
How then shall this be done? Be willing at length to be approved by yourself, be willing to appear beautiful to God, desire to be in purity with your own pure self and with God. Then when any such appearance visits you, Plato says, Have recourse to expiations, go a suppliant to the temples of the averting deities. It is even sufficient if you resort to the society of noble and just men, and compare yourself with them, whether you find one who is living or dead.
How can this be achieved? Be ready to approve of yourself, be willing to be seen as beautiful in the eyes of God, and strive to be pure in your own essence and with God. When any such vision comes to you, as Plato suggests, turn to purification rituals and seek refuge in the temples of the protective deities. It's enough to surround yourself with noble and just people and compare yourself to them, whether they are alive or dead.
But in the first place, be not hurried away by the rapidity of the appearance, but say, Appearances, wait for me a little; let me see who you are, and what you are about; let me put you to the test. And then do not allow the appearance to lead you on and draw lively pictures of the things which will follow; for if you do, it will carry you off wherever it pleases. But rather bring in to oppose it some other beautiful and noble appearance, and cast out this base appearance. And if you are accustomed to be exercised in this way, you will see what shoulders, what sinews, what strength you have. But now it is only trifling words, and nothing more.
But first, don’t be swept away by how quickly things seem to show up. Instead, say, “Hold on, appearances; let me figure out who you are and what you’re doing. Let me test you.” And don’t let the appearance lead you away with enticing visions of what might come next, because if you do, it will take you wherever it wants. Instead, bring in another beautiful and noble idea to counter it, and push aside this shallow appearance. If you get used to doing this, you’ll discover your own strength and resilience. Right now, though, it's just empty talk, and nothing more.
This is the true athlete, the man who exercises himself against such appearances. Stay, wretch, do not be carried away. Great is the combat, divine is the work; it is for kingship, for freedom, for happiness, for freedom from perturbation. Remember God; call on him as a helper and protector, as men at sea call on the Dioscuri in a storm. For what is a greater storm than that which comes from appearances which are violent and drive away the reason? For the storm itself, what else is it but an appearance? For take away the fear of death, and suppose as many thunders and lightnings as you please, and you will know what calm and serenity there is in the ruling faculty. But if you have once been defeated and say that you will conquer hereafter, and then say the same again, be assured that you will at last be in so wretched a condition and so weak that you will not even know afterwards that you are doing wrong, but you will even begin to make apologies (defences) for your wrong-doing, and then you will confirm the saying of Hesiod to be true,
This is the true athlete, the person who pushes against such appearances. Hold on, you miserable one, don’t get swept away. The struggle is great, the work is noble; it’s for kingship, for freedom, for happiness, and for peace of mind. Remember God; call on Him as a helper and protector, like sailors at sea call on the Dioscuri in a storm. Because what is a greater storm than the one caused by violent appearances that disrupt reason? And what is the storm itself but an appearance? Take away the fear of death, and you can imagine as many thunderous roars and flashes of lightning as you want, and you’ll discover the calm and serenity within your own reasoning. But if you’ve been defeated once and claim you’ll do better next time, then say it again, and rest assured that you’ll eventually find yourself in such a miserable state and so weak that you won’t even realize you’re doing wrong. Instead, you’ll start making excuses for your mistakes, and then you’ll prove Hesiod’s saying true.
With constant ills the dilatory strives.
With ongoing troubles, the slowpoke struggles.
OF INCONSISTENCY.—Some things men readily confess, and other things they do not. No one then will confess that he is a fool or without understanding; but quite the contrary you will hear all men saying, I wish that I had fortune equal to my understanding. But men readily confess that they are timid, and they say: I am rather timid, I confess; but as to other respects you will not find me to be foolish. A man will not readily confess that he is intemperate; and that he is unjust, he will not confess at all. He will by no means confess that he is envious or a busybody. Most men will confess that they are compassionate. What then is the reason?
OF INCONSISTENCY.—Some things people easily admit, while others they won't. No one will admit that they're a fool or lacking in understanding; instead, you'll often hear everyone saying, "I wish my luck matched my intelligence." However, people are quick to admit that they're shy, and they'll say, "I'm a bit timid, I admit; but in other ways, you'll find I'm not foolish." A person won't easily admit to being indulgent, and they definitely won't confess to being unjust. They certainly won't admit to being envious or meddlesome. Most people will admit that they're empathetic. So what’s the reason for this?
The chief thing (the ruling thing) is inconsistency and confusion in the things which relate to good and evil. But different men have different reasons; and generally what they imagine to be base, they do not confess at all. But they suppose timidity to be a characteristic of a good disposition, and compassion also; but silliness to be the absolute characteristic of a slave. And they do not at all admit (confess) the things which are offences against society. But in the case of most errors for this reason chiefly they are induced to confess them, because they imagine that there is something involuntary in them as in timidity and compassion; and if a man confess that he is in any respect intemperate, he alleges love (or passion) as an excuse for what is involuntary. But men do not imagine injustice to be at all involuntary. There is also in jealousy, as they suppose, something involuntary; and for this reason they confess to jealousy also.
The main issue is the inconsistency and confusion surrounding what is considered good and evil. Different people have different justifications, and usually, they don't admit what they see as shameful at all. They think being timid is a sign of a good character, and they see compassion that way too, while they see silliness as the defining trait of a slave. They completely deny the things that are considered wrong by society. For many mistakes, they often end up admitting to them mainly because they believe there's something involuntary about them, like with timidity and compassion. If someone admits to being indulgent in any way, they'll use love (or passion) as an excuse for what they see as unintentional. However, people don’t believe that injustice is unintentional. They also think jealousy has some involuntary aspect to it, which is why they admit to feeling jealous too.
Living then among such men, who are so confused, so ignorant of what they say, and of the evils which they have or have not, and why they have them, or how they shall be relieved of them, I think it is worth the trouble for a man to watch constantly (and to ask) whether I also am one of them, what imagination I have about myself, how I conduct myself, whether I conduct myself as a prudent man, whether I conduct myself as a temperate man, whether I ever say this, that I have been taught to be prepared for everything that may happen. Have I the consciousness, which a man who knows nothing ought to have, that I know nothing? Do I go to my teacher as men go to oracles, prepared to obey? or do I like a snivelling boy go to my school to learn history and understand the books which I did not understand before, and, if it should happen so, to explain them also to others? Man, you have had a fight in the house with a poor slave, you have turned the family upside down, you have frightened the neighbors, and you come to me as if you were a wise man, and you take your seat and judge how I have explained some word, and how I have babbled whatever came into my head. You come full of envy, and humbled, because you bring nothing from home; and you sit during the discussion thinking of nothing else than how your father is disposed towards you and your brother. What are they saying about me there? now they think that I am improving, and are saying, He will return with all knowledge. I wish I could learn everything before I return; but much labor is necessary, and no one sends me anything, and the baths at Nicopolis are dirty; everything is bad at home, and bad here.
Living among people who are so confused and ignorant about what they say, the problems they have or don’t have, why they have them, or how they can fix them, I think it’s worth it for a person to constantly reflect and ask: Am I like them? What do I imagine about myself? How do I behave? Am I acting wisely? Am I acting with restraint? Do I say that I’ve been taught to be ready for whatever might happen? Do I have the awareness that someone who knows nothing should have—that I know nothing? Do I approach my teacher like people go to oracles, ready to follow their advice? Or do I, like a whiny kid, go to school just to learn history and understand the texts I didn’t grasp before, trying to explain them to others too? Man, you’ve had a dispute at home with a poor slave, you’ve turned the household upside down, scared the neighbors, and you come to me as if you’re wise, judging how I’ve explained certain words and how I’ve rambled on about whatever came to mind. You arrive filled with jealousy and feeling low because you bring nothing from home, and during the discussion, you can’t stop thinking about how your father feels about you and your brother. What are they saying about me there? Now they believe I’m making progress and think, “He'll come back fully knowledgeable.” I wish I could learn everything before I return, but it requires a lot of effort, and no one sends me anything. Plus, the baths at Nicopolis are filthy; everything is bad at home, and bad here.
ON FRIENDSHIP.—What a man applies himself to earnestly, that he naturally loves. Do men then apply themselves earnestly to the things which are bad? By no means. Well, do they apply themselves to things which in no way concern themselves? Not to these either. It remains then that they employ themselves earnestly only about things which are good; and if they are earnestly employed about things, they love such things also. Whoever then understands what is good can also know how to love; but he who cannot distinguish good from bad, and things which are neither good nor bad from both, how can he possess the power of loving? To love, then, is only in the power of the wise.
ON FRIENDSHIP.—What a person seriously dedicates themselves to, they naturally love. Do people seriously dedicate themselves to things that are bad? Absolutely not. Well, do they focus on things that have nothing to do with them? Not those either. It follows that they only seriously engage with things that are good; and if they are seriously engaged with something, they love it too. Therefore, anyone who understands what is good is also capable of love; but someone who cannot differentiate between good and bad, and things that aren't clearly good or bad, how can they truly have the capacity to love? Love, then, is a power only the wise possess.
For universally, be not deceived, every animal is attached to nothing so much as to its own interests. Whatever then appears to it an impediment to this interest, whether this be a brother, or a father, or a child, or beloved, or lover, it hates, spurns, curses; for its nature is to love nothing so much as its own interests: this is father, and brother, and kinsman, and country, and God. When then the gods appear to us to be an impediment to this, we abuse them and throw down their statues and burn their temples, as Alexander ordered the temples of Aesculapius to be burned when his dear friend died.
For universally, don’t be fooled, every animal is focused on its own interests above everything else. So, anything that gets in the way of this interest, whether it’s a sibling, a parent, a child, a beloved, or a lover, is met with hatred, rejection, and cursing; because its nature is to prioritize its own interests above all else: this is what it considers family, homeland, and even God. When the gods seem to obstruct this, we insult them, tear down their statues, and burn their temples, just like Alexander ordered the temples of Aesculapius to be burned when his dear friend died.
For this reason, if a man put in the same place his interest, sanctity, goodness, and country, and parents, and friends, all these are secured: but if he puts in one place his interest, in another his friends, and his country and his kinsmen and justice itself, all these give way, being borne down by the weight of interest. For where the I and the Mine are placed, to that place of necessity the animal inclines; if in the flesh, there is the ruling power; if in the will, it is there; and if it is in externals, it is there. If then I am there where my will is, then only shall I be a friend such as I ought to be, and son, and father; for this will be my interest, to maintain the character of fidelity, of modesty, of patience, of abstinence, of active co-operation, of observing my relations (towards all). But if I put myself in one place, and honesty in another, then the doctrine of Epicurus becomes strong, which asserts either that there is no honesty or it is that which opinion holds to be honest (virtuous).
For this reason, if a person places their interests, values, goodness, country, parents, and friends all in the same priority, they are all secure: but if they separate their interests from their friends, country, relatives, and even justice, then everything is compromised, being overwhelmed by the weight of self-interest. Where the "I" and "mine" are focused, that’s where a person will naturally lean; if it's in the physical body, that’s where the control lies; if it's in the will, it stays there; and if it’s in external factors, it is there as well. So, if I am where my will is, then I will truly be the friend, child, and parent I should be; my interest will be in upholding qualities like loyalty, modesty, patience, self-control, and maintaining my relationships with everyone. But if I place myself in one priority and honesty in another, then Epicurus's concept gains strength, which suggests either that honesty doesn’t exist or that it's merely what people believe is honest (virtuous).
It was through this ignorance that the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians quarrelled, and the Thebans with both; and the great king quarrelled with Hellas, and the Macedonians with both: and the Romans with the Getae. And still earlier the Trojan war happened for these reasons. Alexander was the guest of Menelaus, and if any man had seen their friendly disposition, he would not have believed any one who said that they were not friends. But there was cast between them (as between dogs) a bit of meat, a handsome woman, and about her war arose. And now when you see brothers to be friends appearing to have one mind, do not conclude from this anything about their friendship, not even if they swear it and say that it is impossible for them to be separated from one another. For the ruling principle of a bad man cannot be trusted; it is insecure, has no certain rule by which it is directed, and is overpowered at different times by different appearances. But examine, not what other men examine, if they are born of the same parents and brought up together, and under the same pedagogue; but examine this only, wherein they place their interest, whether in externals or in the will. If in externals, do not name them friends, no more than name them trustworthy or constant, or brave or free; do not name them even men, if you have any judgment. For that is not a principle of human nature which makes them bite one another, and abuse one another, and occupy deserted places or public places, as if they were mountains, and in the courts of justice display the acts of robbers; nor yet that which makes them intemperate and adulterers and corrupters, nor that which makes them do whatever else men do against one another through this one opinion only, that of placing themselves and their interests in the things which are not within the power of their will. But if you hear that in truth these men think the good to be only there, where will is, and where there is a right use of appearances, no longer trouble yourself whether they are father or son, or brothers, or have associated a long time and are companions, but when you have ascertained this only, confidently declare that they are friends, as you declare that they are faithful, that they are just. For where else is friendship than where there is fidelity, and modesty, where there is a communion of honest things and of nothing else.
It was because of this ignorance that the Athenians and the Spartans fought, and the Thebans with both; and the great king fought with Greece, while the Macedonians contended with both: and before that, the Trojan War started for similar reasons. Alexander was a guest of Menelaus, and if anyone had seen how friendly they were, they would not have believed anyone who claimed they were not friends. But a piece of meat was thrown between them (like between dogs)—a beautiful woman—and war erupted over her. So now, when you see friends who appear to share the same mind, don’t assume anything about their friendship, even if they swear they can’t be separated from each other. The guiding principle of a bad person can’t be trusted; it’s unstable, lacks a certain guiding rule, and is influenced by different things at different times. Instead, look at what others overlook: not just whether they share the same parents and were raised together under the same teacher, but examine where they place their interests—whether in external things or in their will. If it’s in external things, don’t call them friends, any more than you would label them trustworthy, constant, brave, or free; don’t even call them human if you have any sense. For that’s not a principle of human nature that causes them to harm each other, mistreat each other, occupy abandoned places or public spots as if they were mountains, or to display the actions of thieves in court; nor is it what leads them to be intemperate, adulterous, or corrupt; nor does it drive them to do any of the negative things people do to one another based only on this singular idea that they place themselves and their interests in things outside their control. But if you hear that these men truly believe the good is found only in places of will, and where there’s a proper use of appearances, don’t worry about whether they are father and son, brothers, or have been close companions for a long time. Just confirm this, and you can confidently say they are friends, just as you would say they are faithful and just. For where else can friendship exist except where there’s faithfulness and decency, where there’s a sharing of honorable things and nothing else?
But you may say, Such a one treated me with regard so long; and did he not love me? How do you know, slave, if he did not regard you in the same way as he wipes his shoes with a sponge, or as he takes care of his beast? How do you know, when you have ceased to be useful as a vessel, he will not throw you away like a broken platter? But this woman is my wife, and we have lived together so long. And how long did Eriphyle live with Amphiaraus, and was the mother of children and of many? But a necklace came between them: and what is a necklace? It is the opinion about such things. That was the bestial principle, that was the thing which broke asunder the friendship between husband and wife, that which did not allow the woman to be a wife nor the mother to be a mother. And let every man among you who has seriously resolved either to be a friend himself or to have another for his friend, cut out these opinions, hate them, drive them from his soul. And thus first of all he will not reproach himself, he will not be at variance with himself, he will not change his mind, he will not torture himself. In the next place, to another also, who is like himself, he will be altogether and completely a friend. But he will bear with the man who is unlike himself, he will be kind to him, gentle, ready to pardon on account of his ignorance, on account of his being mistaken in things of the greatest importance; but he will be harsh to no man, being well convinced of Plato’s doctrine that every mind is deprived of truth unwillingly. If you cannot do this, yet you can do in all other respects as friends do, drink together, and lodge together, and sail together, and you may be born of the same parents, for snakes also are: but neither will they be friends, nor you, so long as you retain these bestial and cursed opinions.
But you might say, "Someone treated me well for a long time; didn’t he love me?" How do you know, really, if he didn’t view you the same way he wipes his shoes with a sponge or how he cares for his animal? How do you know that once you’re no longer useful, he won’t just toss you aside like a broken plate? "But this woman is my wife, and we’ve been together for so long." Sure, but how long did Eriphyle stay with Amphiaraus, and she was a mother of children, too? Yet a necklace came between them, and what is a necklace? It’s just a belief about such things. That is the barbaric principle that shattered the bond between husband and wife, preventing the woman from being a wife and the mother from being a mother. So, let every man among you who is serious about being a friend or having a friend, cut out these beliefs, despise them, and drive them from your soul. This way, you won’t blame yourself, be at odds with yourself, change your mind, or torture yourself. Next, to another person who is like you, you will be a true and complete friend. But you will also be patient with those who are not like you; you’ll be kind, gentle, and forgiving because of their ignorance and their mistakes about important things. Yet you won’t be harsh with anyone, fully convinced of Plato’s belief that every mind seeks the truth unwillingly. If you can’t do this, you can still act like friends in many other ways: drink together, stay together, travel together; you might even come from the same parents, just like snakes do. But they won’t be friends, and neither will you, as long as you hold on to these barbaric and cursed beliefs.
ON THE POWER OF SPEAKING.—Every man will read a book with more pleasure or even with more ease, if it is written in fairer characters. Therefore every man will also listen more readily to what is spoken, if it is signified by appropriate and becoming words. We must not say then that there is no faculty of expression: for this affirmation is the characteristic of an impious and also of a timid man. Of an impious man, because he undervalues the gifts which come from God, just as if he would take away the commodity of the power of vision, or hearing, or of seeing. Has then God given you eyes to no purpose? and to no purpose has he infused into them a spirit so strong and of such skilful contrivance as to reach a long way and to fashion the forms of things which are seen? What messenger is so swift and vigilant? And to no purpose has he made the interjacent atmosphere so efficacious and elastic that the vision penetrates through the atmosphere which is in a manner moved? And to no purpose has he made light, without the presence of which there would be no use in any other thing?
ON THE POWER OF SPEAKING.—Everyone enjoys reading a book more when it's written in clear, attractive letters. Similarly, people are more inclined to listen to spoken words when they're expressed with appropriate and fitting language. We can't say that there's no ability to express ourselves; claiming that is the mark of someone ungrateful and fearful. A grateful person recognizes the gifts from God, just like they wouldn't think to deny the value of sight or hearing. Did God give you eyes for no reason? And did He instill in them a powerful, intricate spirit capable of reaching far and shaping the forms of what we see? What other messenger is as swift and attentive? And did He create the surrounding atmosphere to be so effective and adaptable for no purpose, allowing vision to extend through this dynamic air? And did He make light, without which nothing else would have any value, for no reason?
Man, be neither ungrateful for these gifts nor yet forget the things which are superior to them. But indeed for the power of seeing and hearing, and indeed for life itself, and for the things which contribute to support it, for the fruits which are dry, and for wine and oil give thanks to God: but remember that he has given you something else better than all these, I mean the power of using them, proving them, and estimating the value of each. For what is that which gives information about each of these powers, what each of them is worth? Is it each faculty itself? Did you ever hear the faculty of vision saying anything about itself? or the faculty of hearing? or wheat, or barley, or a horse, or a dog? No; but they are appointed as ministers and slaves to serve the faculty which has the power of making use of the appearances of things. And if you inquire what is the value of each thing, of whom do you inquire? who answers you? How then can any other faculty be more powerful than this, which uses the rest as ministers and itself proves each and pronounces about them? for which of them knows what itself is, and what is its own value? which of them knows when it ought to employ itself and when not? what faculty is it which opens and closes the eyes, and turns them away from objects to which it ought not to apply them and does apply them to other objects? Is it the faculty of vision? No, but it is the faculty of the will. What is that faculty which closes and opens the ears? what is that by which they are curious and inquisitive, or on the contrary unmoved by what is said? is it the faculty of hearing? It is no other than the faculty of the will. Will this faculty then, seeing that it is amidst all the other faculties which are blind and dumb and unable to see anything else except the very acts for which they are appointed in order to minister to this (faculty) and serve it, but this faculty alone sees sharp and sees what is the value of each of the rest; will this faculty declare to us that anything else is the best, or that itself is? And what else does the eye do when it is opened than see? But whether we ought to look on the wife of a certain person, and in what manner, who tells us? The faculty of the will. And whether we ought to believe what is said or not to believe it, and if we do believe, whether we ought to be moved by it or not, who tells us? Is it not the faculty of the will?
Hey, don’t be ungrateful for these gifts, but don’t forget the things that are even more important. Be thankful for the ability to see and hear, for life itself, and for the things that help support it, like dry fruits, wine, and oil; but remember that God has given you something even better than all of these, which is the ability to use them, test them, and understand their value. What is it that helps you understand each of these abilities and their worth? Is it the ability itself? Have you ever heard the power of sight talking about itself? Or the power of hearing? Or wheat, barley, a horse, or a dog? No, they serve as helpers and slaves to the power that can make use of the appearances of things. If you want to know the value of each thing, who do you ask? Who gives you the answers? How can any other ability be more powerful than this one, which uses the rest as helpers and evaluates each one? What knows what it is and what its own value is? Which of them knows when to act and when not to? What power opens and closes the eyes, turning them away from things they shouldn't focus on and directing them to other things? Is it the power of sight? No, it’s the power of will. What power opens and closes the ears? What decides whether they show curiosity and interest or remain indifferent to what’s being said? Is it the power of hearing? It’s none other than the power of will. This power, which stands apart from all the other blind and mute abilities that can only perform the tasks made for them to serve it, is the only one that sees clearly and understands the value of the rest; will it claim that anything else is better, or that it itself is? And what does the eye do when it’s open other than see? But whether we should look at someone’s spouse, and how we should do so, who tells us? The power of will. And whether we should believe what we hear or not, and if we do believe, whether we should be affected by it or not, who informs us? Isn't it the power of will?
But if you ask me what then is the most excellent of all things, what must I say? I cannot say the power of speaking, but the power of the will, when it is right ([Greek: orthae]). For it is this which uses the other (the power of speaking), and all the other faculties both small and great. For when this faculty of the will is set right, a man who is not good becomes good: but when it fails, a man becomes bad. It is through this that we are unfortunate, that we are fortunate, that we blame one another, are pleased with one another. In a word, it is this which if we neglect it makes unhappiness, and if we carefully look after it, makes happiness.
But if you ask me what the best thing of all is, what should I say? I can't say it's the ability to speak, but rather the power of the will when it’s aligned properly. It's this will that guides the ability to speak and all other skills, big or small. When the will is in the right place, someone who isn’t good can become good; but when it falters, a person becomes bad. This is how we experience misfortune and fortune, how we blame each other or take pleasure in each other. In short, if we ignore this will, it leads to unhappiness, but if we nurture it, it brings happiness.
What then is usually done? Men generally act as a traveller would do on his way to his own country, when he enters a good inn, and being pleased with it should remain there. Man, you have forgotten your purpose: you were not travelling to this inn, but you were passing through it. But this is a pleasant inn. And how many other inns are pleasant? and how many meadows are pleasant? yet only for passing through. But your purpose is this, to return to your country, to relieve your kinsmen of anxiety, to discharge the duties of a citizen, to marry, to beget children, to fill the usual magistracies. For you are not come to select more pleasant places, but to live in these where you were born and of which you were made a citizen. Something of the kind takes place in the matter which we are considering. Since by the aid of speech and such communication as you receive here you must advance to perfection, and purge your will and correct the faculty which makes use of the appearances of things; and since it is necessary also for the teaching (delivery) of theorems to be effected by a certain mode of expression and with a certain variety and sharpness, some persons captivated by these very things abide in them, one captivated by the expression, another by syllogisms, another again by sophisms, and still another by some other inn ([Greek: paudocheiou]) of the kind; and there they stay and waste away as they were among sirens.
What usually happens then? People tend to act like a traveler on their way home who stops at a nice inn and decides to stay there. But you’ve forgotten your purpose: you weren’t traveling to this inn, you were just passing through. Yes, it's a nice inn. But how many other inns are nice? And how many fields are nice? Yet they’re only for passing through. Your goal is to return home, to ease your family's worries, to fulfill your duties as a citizen, to marry, to have children, to take on the usual offices. You didn't come to find nicer places, but to live where you were born and where you are a citizen. Something similar happens with the topic we're discussing. With the help of conversation and the insights you gain here, you must strive for improvement, refine your will, and correct how you perceive things; and since it’s also necessary for the teaching of concepts to be done with a certain style and variety, some people get so caught up in these very things that they settle in them—one gets hooked on the way things are expressed, another on syllogisms, yet another on sophisms, and still another on some other kind of distraction; and they remain there, wasting away as if they were among sirens.
Man, your purpose (business) was to make yourself capable of using conformably to nature the appearances presented to you, in your desires not to be frustrated, in your aversion from things not to fall into that which you would avoid, never to have no luck (as one may say), nor ever to have bad luck, to be free, not hindered, not compelled, conforming yourself to the administration of Zeus, obeying it, well satisfied with this, blaming no one, charging no one with fault, able from your whole soul to utter these verses:
Dude, your goal (business) was to make yourself capable of naturally adapting to the situations you face, so your desires aren't disappointed, and your dislikes don't lead you into what you want to avoid—always having good luck, never being unlucky, being free, not restricted or forced, aligning yourself with the way Zeus runs things, accepting it, being content with it, blaming no one, and holding no one responsible for their faults, able to wholeheartedly express these verses:
Lead me, O Zeus, and thou too Destiny.
Lead me, O Zeus, and you too, Destiny.
TO (OR AGAINST) A PERSON WHO WAS ONE OF THOSE WHO WERE NOT VALUED (ESTEEMED) BY HIM.—A certain person said to him (Epictetus): Frequently I desired to hear you and came to you, and you never gave me any answer; and now, if it is possible, I entreat you to say something to me. Do you think, said Epictetus, that as there is an art in anything else, so there is also an art in speaking, and that he who has the art, will speak skilfully, and he who has not, will speak unskilfully?—I do think so.—He then who by speaking receives benefit himself, and is able to benefit others, will speak skilfully; but he who is rather damaged by speaking and does damage to others, will he be unskilled in this art of speaking? And you may find that some are damaged and others benefited by speaking. And are all who hear benefited by what they hear? Or will you find that among them also some are benefited and some damaged? There are both among these also, he said. In this case also then those who hear skilfully are benefited, and those who hear unskilfully are damaged? He admitted this. Is there then a skill in hearing also, as there is in speaking? It seems so. If you choose, consider the matter in this way also. The practice of music, to whom does it belong? To a musician. And the proper making of a statue, to whom do you think that it belongs? To a statuary. And the looking at a statue skilfully, does this appear to you to require the aid of no art? This also requires the aid of art. Then if speaking properly is the business of the skilful man, do you see that to hear also with benefit is the business of the skilful man? Now as to speaking and hearing perfectly, and usefully, let us for the present, if you please, say no more, for both of us are a long way from everything of the kind. But I think that every man will allow this, that he who is going to hear philosophers requires some amount of practice in hearing. Is it not so?
TO (OR AGAINST) A PERSON WHO WAS ONE OF THOSE WHO WERE NOT VALUED (ESTEEMED) BY HIM.—A certain person said to him (Epictetus): I often wanted to listen to you and came to see you, but you never answered me. Now, if possible, I beg you to say something to me. Epictetus replied, Do you think that just like there’s a skill in everything else, there’s also a skill in speaking? And someone who has this skill will speak well, while someone who doesn’t will speak poorly? —I believe so. —Then someone who benefits from speaking and can help others will speak well; but someone who harms themselves by speaking and damages others will be unskilled in this art of speaking? You might find that some people are harmed while others benefit from speaking. And are all who listen better off because of what they hear? Or among them, do you think some get better and some worse? There are both types among them, he said. In this situation, those who listen well benefit, while those who listen poorly are harmed? He agreed. So, is there also a skill in listening, like there is in speaking? It seems so. If you want, consider this another way. Who practices music? A musician. And who properly makes a statue? A sculptor. And does looking at a statue skillfully seem to require any art? That too needs the help of art. So if speaking well is the job of the skilled person, do you see that to listen beneficially is also the job of the skilled person? Now, as for speaking and listening perfectly and effectively, let’s not say more for now, since we’re both far from mastering that. However, I think everyone would agree that someone who wants to hear philosophers should have some practice in listening. Wouldn’t you agree?
Why then do you say nothing to me? I can only say this to you, that he who knows not who he is, and for what purpose he exists, and what is this world, and with whom he is associated, and what things are the good and the bad, and the beautiful and the ugly, and who neither understands discourse nor demonstration, nor what is true nor what is false, and who is not able to distinguish them, will neither desire according to nature nor turn away nor move towards, nor intend (to act), nor assent, nor dissent, nor suspend his judgment: to say all in a few words, he will go about dumb and blind, thinking that he is somebody, but being nobody. Is this so now for the first time? Is it not the fact that ever since the human race existed, all errors and misfortunes have arisen through this ignorance?
Why then do you say nothing to me? I can only tell you this: someone who doesn’t know who they are, why they exist, what this world is about, who they’re connected to, what is good and bad, and what is beautiful and ugly, and who doesn’t understand discussion or evidence, nor what is true or false, and cannot tell them apart, will neither desire what is natural nor turn away from it, nor move toward it, nor plan to act, nor agree, nor disagree, nor hold back their judgment. To sum it all up, they will wander around dumb and blind, believing they are someone, but really being nobody. Is this the first time this has happened? Haven’t all the mistakes and misfortunes throughout human history come from this ignorance?
This is all that I have to say to you; and I say even this not willingly. Why? Because you have not roused me. For what must I look to in order to be roused, as men who are expert in riding are roused by generous horses? Must I look to your body? You treat it disgracefully. To your dress? That is luxurious. To your behavior, to your look? That is the same as nothing. When you would listen to a philosopher, do not say to him, You tell me nothing; but only show yourself worthy of hearing or fit for hearing; and you will see how you will move the speaker.
This is all I have to say to you, and I say it reluctantly. Why? Because you haven’t inspired me. What should I look to for inspiration, like skilled riders do with impressive horses? Should I look at your body? You treat it poorly. Your clothes? Those are lavish. Your behavior and appearance? They amount to nothing. When you listen to a philosopher, don’t say to him, “You’re not telling me anything.” Instead, just show that you're worthy of listening, and you’ll see how you’ll motivate the speaker.
THAT LOGIC IS NECESSARY.—When one of those who were present said, Persuade me that logic is necessary, he replied, Do you wish me to prove this to you? The answer was, Yes. Then I must use a demonstrative form of speech. This was granted. How then will you know if I am cheating you by my argument? The man was silent. Do you see, said Epictetus, that you yourself are admitting that logic is necessary, if without it you cannot know so much as this, whether logic is necessary or not necessary?
THAT LOGIC IS NECESSARY.—When one of the people present said, "Convince me that logic is necessary," he replied, "Do you want me to prove this to you?" The answer was, "Yes." Then I need to use a method of clear reasoning. This was agreed upon. "But how will you know if I'm misleading you with my argument?" The man was silent. "You see," Epictetus said, "you're admitting that logic is necessary since without it, you can't even determine whether logic is necessary or not."
OF FINERY IN DRESS.—A certain young man, a rhetorician, came to see Epictetus, with his hair dressed more carefully than was usual and his attire in an ornamental style; whereupon Epictetus said, Tell me if you do not think that some dogs are beautiful and some horses, and so of all other animals. I do think so, the youth replied. Are not then some men also beautiful and others ugly? Certainly. Do we then for the same reason call each of them in the same kind beautiful, or each beautiful for something peculiar? And you will judge of this matter thus. Since we see a dog naturally formed for one thing, and a horse for another, and for another still, as an example, a nightingale, we may generally and not improperly declare each of them to be beautiful then when it is most excellent according to its nature; but since the nature of each is different, each of them seems to me to be beautiful in a different way. Is it not so? He admitted that it was. That then which makes a dog beautiful, makes a horse ugly; and that which makes a horse beautiful, makes a dog ugly, if it is true that their natures are different. It seems to be so. For I think that what makes a Pancratiast beautiful, makes a wrestler to be not good, and a runner to be most ridiculous; and he who is beautiful for the Pentathlon, is very ugly for wrestling. It is so, said he. What then makes a man beautiful? Is it that which in its kind makes both a dog and a horse beautiful? It is, he said. What then makes a dog beautiful? The possession of the excellence of a dog. And what makes a horse beautiful? The possession of the excellence of a horse. What then makes a man beautiful? Is it not the possession of the excellence of a man? And do you then, if you wish to be beautiful, young man, labor at this, the acquisition of human excellence? But what is this? Observe whom you yourself praise, when you praise many persons without partiality: do you praise the just or the unjust? The just. Whether do you praise the moderate or the immoderate? The moderate. And the temperate or the intemperate? The temperate. If then you make yourself such a person, you will know that you will make yourself beautiful; but so long as you neglect these things, you must be ugly ([Greek: aischron]), even though you contrive all you can to appear beautiful.
OF FINERY IN DRESS.—A young man, a rhetorician, visited Epictetus with his hair styled more elaborately than usual and dressed in an ornate way. Epictetus then asked him, "Do you think that some dogs are beautiful and some horses, and so on for all other animals?" "I do think so," the young man replied. "Then aren’t some men beautiful and others ugly?" "Certainly." "Do we then call each of them beautiful for the same reason, or for something unique?" "You should judge this matter this way: Since we see a dog made for one thing, and a horse for another, and a nightingale for yet another, we can generally say each is beautiful when it excels according to its nature. But since their natures are different, each of them seems beautiful in its own way. Isn’t that right?" He agreed. "What makes a dog beautiful makes a horse ugly, and what makes a horse beautiful makes a dog ugly, if their natures truly differ." "That seems to be the case." "I think what makes a Pancratiast beautiful would make a wrestler look bad, and a runner look ridiculous; and someone beautiful in the Pentathlon would not look good in wrestling." "That's true," he said. "So what makes a man beautiful? Is it what makes both a dog and a horse beautiful?" "Yes," he replied. "Then what makes a dog beautiful? The qualities that make a dog excellent. What makes a horse beautiful? The qualities that make a horse excellent. What makes a man beautiful? Is it not the qualities that make a man excellent? If you want to be beautiful, young man, focus on this, the pursuit of human excellence." "But what is this?" "Notice whom you praise when you praise many people without bias: do you praise the just or the unjust?" "The just." "Do you praise the moderate or the immoderate?" "The moderate." "And the temperate or the intemperate?" "The temperate." "If you make yourself this kind of person, you'll realize you're making yourself beautiful; but as long as you ignore these things, you will remain ugly, even if you do everything you can to appear beautiful."
IN WHAT A MAN OUGHT TO BE EXERCISED WHO HAS MADE PROFICIENCY; AND THAT WE NEGLECT THE CHIEF THINGS.—There are three things (topics, [Greek: topoi]) in which a man ought to exercise himself who would be wise and good. The first concerns the desires and the aversions, that a man may not fail to get what he desires, and that he may not fall into that which he does not desire. The second concerns the movements towards an object and the movements from an object, and generally in doing what a man ought to do, that he may act according to order, to reason, and not carelessly. The third thing concerns freedom from deception and rashness in judgment, and generally it concerns the assents ([Greek: sugchatatheseis]). Of these topics the chief and the most urgent is that which relates to the affects ([Greek: ta pathae] perturbations); for an affect is produced in no other way than by a failing to obtain that which a man desires or falling into that which a man would wish to avoid. This is that which brings in perturbations, disorders, bad fortune, misfortunes, sorrows, lamentations, and envy; that which makes men envious and jealous; and by these causes we are unable even to listen to the precepts of reason. The second topic concerns the duties of a man; for I ought not to be free from affects ([Greek: apathae]) like a statue, but I ought to maintain the relations ([Greek: scheseis]) natural and acquired, as a pious man, as a son, as a father, as a citizen.
IN WHAT A MAN OUGHT TO BE EXERCISED WHO HAS MADE PROFICIENCY; AND THAT WE NEGLECT THE CHIEF THINGS.—There are three areas (topics, [Greek: topoi]) where a person should focus if they want to be wise and good. The first is about desires and aversions, making sure a person doesn’t miss out on what they want and avoids what they don’t want. The second is about moving towards or away from things, generally ensuring that actions are done thoughtfully, according to reason, and not haphazardly. The third area is about being free from deception and hasty judgments, focusing on how we give our agreement ([Greek: sugchatatheseis]). Among these topics, the most important and pressing one relates to emotions ([Greek: ta pathae] perturbations); because emotions arise when a person fails to get what they desire or ends up experiencing what they want to avoid. This leads to disturbances, chaos, bad luck, misfortune, sadness, regrets, and jealousy; it’s what makes people envious and resentful, and these feelings can prevent us from even hearing the guidance of reason. The second topic addresses a person's responsibilities; I shouldn’t be devoid of emotions ([Greek: apathae]) like a statue, but should maintain both natural and acquired relationships ([Greek: scheseis]), acting as a pious individual, a son, a father, and a citizen.
The third topic is that which immediately concerns those who are making proficiency, that which concerns the security of the other two, so that not even in sleep any appearance unexamined may surprise us, nor in intoxication, nor in melancholy. This, it may be said, is above our power. But the present philosophers neglecting the first topic and the second (the affects and duties), employ themselves on the third, using sophistical arguments ([Greek: metapiptontas]), making conclusions from questioning, employing hypotheses, lying. For a man must, it is said, when employed on these matters, take care that he is not deceived. Who must? The wise and good man. This then is all that is wanting to you. Have you successfully worked out the rest? Are you free from deception in the matter of money? If you see a beautiful girl do you resist the appearance? If your neighbor obtains an estate by will, are you not vexed? Now is there nothing else wanting to you except unchangeable firmness of mind ([Greek: ametaptosia])? Wretch, you hear these very things with fear and anxiety that some person may despise you, and with inquiries about what any person may say about you. And if a man come and tell you that in a certain conversation in which the question was, Who is the best philosopher, a man who was present said that a certain person was the chief philosopher, your little soul which was only a finger’s length stretches out to two cubits. But if another who is present says, You are mistaken; it is not worth while to listen to a certain person, for what does he know? he has only the first principles, and no more? then you are confounded, you grow pale, you cry out immediately, I will show him who I am, that I am a great philosopher. It is seen by these very things: why do you wish to show it by others? Do you not know that Diogenes pointed out one of the sophists in this way by stretching out his middle finger? And then when the man was wild with rage, This, he said, is the certain person: I have pointed him out to you. For a man is not shown by the finger, as a stone or a piece of wood; but when any person shows the man’s principles, then he shows him as a man.
The third topic is about those who are striving for improvement, specifically regarding the security of the other two topics, ensuring that nothing surprises us—whether in sleep, under the influence of alcohol, or in sadness. It might be said that this is beyond our control. However, today's philosophers ignore the first two topics (emotions and responsibilities) and focus on this third one, using misleading arguments, drawing conclusions from questions, making assumptions, and being dishonest. It is said that when dealing with these issues, one must be careful not to be deceived. Who needs to be careful? The wise and good person. So, this is all you need. Have you worked out everything else successfully? Are you free from deception regarding money? When you see an attractive person, do you resist that temptation? If your neighbor inherits a fortune, does it not bother you? Is there anything you lack except for unshakeable mental strength? Yet, you listen to these thoughts with fear and anxiety about whether someone will look down on you and what others might say about you. If someone tells you that in a conversation about who is the best philosopher, another person claimed a certain individual is the top philosopher, your little ego, which is only a fingertip long, stretches out to two cubits. But if another person present says, "You're mistaken; it's not worth listening to that person, they only know the basics," then you’re thrown off, you turn pale, and you immediately shout, "I'll show him who I am; I’m a great philosopher!" It’s clear from these very actions: why do you seek validation from others? Don’t you know that Diogenes pointed out a sophist by simply raising his middle finger? And when that man was furious, Diogenes said, "This is the person: I've pointed him out to you." Because a person isn't identified in the same way as a stone or a piece of wood; when someone reveals a person's principles, they show them as a human being.
Let us look at your principles also. For is it not plain that you value not at all your own will ([Greek: proairesis]), but you look externally to things which are independent of your will? For instance, what will a certain person say? and what will people think of you? Will you be considered a man of learning; have you read Chrysippus or Antipater? for if you have read Archedamus also, you have every thing (that you can desire). Why you are still uneasy lest you should not show us who you are? Would you let me tell you what manner of man you have shown us that you are? You have exhibited yourself to us as a mean fellow, querulous, passionate, cowardly, finding fault with everything, blaming everybody, never quiet, vain: this is what you have exhibited to us. Go away now and read Archedamus; then if a mouse should leap down and make a noise, you are a dead man. For such a death awaits you as it did—what was the man’s name—Crinis; and he too was proud, because he understood Archedamus. Wretch, will you not dismiss these things that do not concern you at all? These things are suitable to those who are able to learn them without perturbation, to those who can say: “I am not subject to anger, to grief, to envy: I am not hindered, I am not restrained. What remains for me? I have leisure, I am tranquil: let us see how we must deal with sophistical arguments; let us see how when a man has accepted an hypothesis he shall not be led away to any thing absurd.” To them such things belong. To those who are happy it is appropriate to light a fire, to dine; if they choose, both to sing and to dance. But when the vessel is sinking, you come to me and hoist the sails.
Let’s examine your principles too. Isn't it obvious that you don’t value your own choices at all? Instead, you focus on things outside your control. For example, what will someone say about you? What will others think of you? Will people see you as knowledgeable? Have you read Chrysippus or Antipater? If you've read Archedamus as well, you think you have everything you could want. Why are you still anxious about showing us who you are? Can I tell you how you’ve presented yourself to us? You’ve shown yourself to be petty, complaining, emotional, cowardly, always criticizing everything and everyone, never at peace, and vain. That’s how you’ve come across. Now go read Archedamus; if a mouse jumps down and makes a noise, you’ll think you’re done for. A fate like that awaits you, just like it did—what was the guy’s name—Crinis; he was also boastful because he understood Archedamus. Come on, will you just let go of these things that don’t concern you at all? Those ideas are meant for people who can learn without getting upset, for those who can say: “I’m not subject to anger, sadness, or jealousy; I’m not held back or restrained. What’s left for me? I have time, I’m calm: let’s figure out how to tackle tricky arguments; let’s see how someone can accept an assumption without being led to anything ridiculous.” Those are the ones who truly belong to such matters. For those who are genuinely happy, it’s right to light a fire, enjoy a meal, and if they want, to sing and dance. But when the ship is sinking, you come to me and raise the sails.
WHAT IS THE MATTER ON WHICH A GOOD MAN SHOULD BE EMPLOYED, AND IN WHAT WE OUGHT CHIEFLY TO PRACTISE OURSELVES.—The material for the wise and good man is his own ruling faculty: and the body is the material for the physician and the aliptes (the man who oils persons); the land is the matter for the husbandman. The business of the wise and good man is to use appearances conformably to nature: and as it is the nature of every soul to assent to the truth, to dissent from the false, and to remain in suspense as to that which is uncertain; so it is its nature to be moved towards the desire for the good, and to aversion from the evil; and with respect to that which is neither good nor bad it feels indifferent. For as the money-changer (banker) is not allowed to reject Cæsar’s coin, nor the seller of herbs, but if you show the coin, whether he chooses or not, he must give up what is sold for the coin; so it is also in the matter of the soul. When the good appears, it immediately attracts to itself; the evil repels from itself. But the soul will never reject the manifest appearance of the good, any more than persons will reject Cæsar’s coin. On this principle depends every movement both of man and God.
WHAT IS THE MATTER ON WHICH A GOOD PERSON SHOULD FOCUS, AND IN WHAT WE SHOULD MAINLY PRACTICE OURSELVES.—The key for a wise and good person is their own ability to think clearly: the body is the focus for a doctor and the personal trainer (the person who oils others); the land is the focus for the farmer. The role of a wise and good person is to align perceptions with nature: just as every soul naturally agrees with the truth, disagrees with the false, and remains undecided about the uncertain, it is also drawn to what is good and repelled by what is evil; regarding things that are neither good nor bad, it feels indifferent. Just as a banker is not allowed to refuse Cæsar’s coin, nor is a seller of herbs allowed to do so, if you present the coin, whether they want to or not, they must exchange their goods for it; the same principle applies to the soul. When goodness is present, it immediately attracts; evil pushes away. But the soul will never reject the clear presence of goodness, just as people will not refuse Cæsar’s coin. This principle underlies all actions of both humans and the divine.
Against (or with respect to) this kind of thing chiefly a man should exercise himself. As soon as you go out in the morning, examine every man whom you see, every man whom you hear; answer as to a question, What have you seen? A handsome man or woman? Apply the rule. Is this independent of the will, or dependent? Independent. Take it away. What have you seen? A man lamenting over the death of a child. Apply the rule. Death is a thing independent of the will. Take it away. Has the proconsul met you? Apply the rule. What kind of a thing is a proconsul’s office? Independent of the will or dependent on it? Independent. Take this away also; it does not stand examination; cast it away; it is nothing to you.
In relation to this kind of thing, a person should focus on self-improvement. As soon as you step outside in the morning, observe every person you see or hear; respond to the question: What have you noticed? A good-looking man or woman? Apply the principle. Is this something that can be controlled or not? Not controlled? Disregard it. What have you noticed? A person grieving over the death of a child. Apply the principle. Death is something that cannot be controlled. Disregard it. Have you encountered the proconsul? Apply the principle. What is the nature of a proconsul’s position? Something that can be controlled or not? Not controlled? Discard that too; it cannot withstand scrutiny; let it go; it means nothing to you.
If we practised this and exercised ourselves in it daily from morning to night, something indeed would be done. But now we are forthwith caught half asleep by every appearance, and it is only, if ever, that in the school we are roused a little. Then when we go out, if we see a man lamenting, we say, He is undone. If we see a consul, we say, He is happy. If we see an exiled man, we say, He is miserable. If we see a poor man, we say, He is wretched; he has nothing to eat.
If we practiced this and worked on it every day from morning to night, we would actually make progress. But instead, we quickly get distracted by everything around us and are only occasionally stirred awake in school. Then when we go out, if we see a man upset, we think he is failing. If we see a powerful person, we think he is fortunate. If we see someone in exile, we believe he is suffering. If we see a poor person, we say he is miserable; he has no food to eat.
We ought then to eradicate these bad opinions, and to this end we should direct all our efforts. For what is weeping and lamenting? Opinion. What is bad fortune? Opinion. What is civil sedition, what is divided opinion, what is blame, what is accusation, what is impiety, what is trifling? All these things are opinions, and nothing more, and opinions about things independent of the will, as if they were good and bad. Let a man transfer these opinions to things dependent on the will, and I engage for him that he will be firm and constant, whatever may be the state of things around him. Such as is a dish of water, such is the soul. Such as is the ray of light which falls on the water, such are the appearances. When the water is moved, the ray also seems to be moved, yet it is not moved. And when then a man is seized with giddiness, it is not the arts and the virtues which are confounded, but the spirit (the nervous power) on which they are impressed; but if the spirit be restored to its settled state, those things also are restored.
We should eliminate these negative beliefs, and for that, we need to focus all our efforts. What is crying and mourning? It’s just a belief. What is misfortune? Just a belief. What is civil unrest, conflicting opinions, blame, accusations, impiety, or trivial matters? All of these are simply beliefs about things outside our control, as if they were good or bad. If a person shifts these beliefs to things within their control, I assure you they will remain strong and steady, no matter what happens around them. The soul is like a dish of water. The light that hits the water represents appearances. When the water moves, the light seems to move too, but it doesn’t actually move. Similarly, when someone feels dizzy, it’s not the skills and virtues that are disturbed, but rather the spirit (the nervous system) that carries them; however, if the spirit returns to its stable state, those skills and virtues will also return.
MISCELLANEOUS.—When some person asked him how it happened that since reason has been more cultivated by the men of the present age, the progress made in former times was greater. In what respect, he answered, has it been more cultivated now, and in what respect was the progress greater then? For in that in which it has now been more cultivated, in that also the progress will now be found. At present it has been cultivated for the purpose of resolving syllogisms, and progress is made. But in former times it was cultivated for the purpose of maintaining the governing faculty in a condition conformable to nature, and progress was made. Do not then mix things which are different, and do not expect, when you are laboring at one thing to make progress in another. But see if any man among us when he is intent upon this, the keeping himself in a state conformable to nature and living so always, does not make progress. For you will not find such a man.
MISCELLANEOUS.—When someone asked him why, despite the fact that reason has been cultivated more by people today, the progress made in the past seems greater, he replied, in what ways has it been more cultivated now, and in what ways was the progress greater then? Because in the areas where it has been more cultivated now, progress will also be found. Right now, it is cultivated to solve syllogisms, and progress is being made. But in the past, it was cultivated to keep the governing faculty aligned with nature, and progress was achieved. So, don’t mix different things and don’t expect to make progress in one area while focusing on another. Look to see if there is anyone among us who, while focused on staying aligned with nature and living this way consistently, does not make progress. You won’t find such a person.
It is not easy to exhort weak young men; for neither is it easy to hold (soft) cheese with a hook. But those who have a good natural disposition, even if you try to turn them aside, cling still more to reason.
It's not easy to encourage weak young men; it’s like trying to hold soft cheese with a hook. However, those who have a good natural disposition will cling even more to reason, even if you try to steer them off course.
TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FREE CITIES WHO WAS AN EPICUREAN.—When the administrator came to visit him, and the man was an Epicurean, Epictetus said, It is proper for us who are not philosophers to inquire of you who are philosophers, as those who come to a strange city inquire of the citizens and those who are acquainted with it, what is the best thing in the world, in order that we also after inquiry may go in quest of that which is best and look at it, as strangers do with the things in cities. For that there are three things which relate to man—soul, body, and things external, scarcely any man denies. It remains for you philosophers to answer what is the best. What shall we say to men? Is the flesh the best? and was it for this that Maximus sailed as far as Cassiope in winter (or bad weather) with his son, and accompanied him that he might be gratified in the flesh? When the man said that it was not, and added, Far be that from him. Is it not fit then, Epictetus said, to be actively employed about the best? It is certainly of all things the most fit. What then do we possess which is better than the flesh? The soul, he replied. And the good things of the best, are they better, or the good things of the worse? The good things of the best. And are the good things of the best within the power of the will or not within the power of the will? They are within the power of the will. Is then the pleasure of the soul a thing within the power of the will? It is, he replied. And on what shall this pleasure depend? On itself? But that cannot be conceived; for there must first exist a certain substance or nature ([Greek: ousia]) of good, by obtaining which we shall have pleasure in the soul. He assented to this also. On what then shall we depend for this pleasure of the soul? for if it shall depend on things of the soul, the substance (nature) of the good is discovered; for good cannot be one thing, and that at which we are rationally delighted another thing; nor if that which precedes is not good, can that which comes after be good, for in order that the thing which comes after may be good, that which precedes must be good. But you would not affirm this, if you are in your right mind, for you would then say what is inconsistent both with Epicurus and the rest of your doctrines. It remains then that the pleasure of the soul is in the pleasure from things of the body; and again that those bodily things must be the things which precede and the substance (nature) of the good.
TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FREE CITIES WHO WAS AN EPICUREAN.—When the administrator visited him, and the man was an Epicurean, Epictetus said, It makes sense for us, who aren’t philosophers, to ask you, who are philosophers, just like travelers in a new city ask locals what the best thing is, so that we too, after asking around, can seek out what is best and experience it, just like visitors do in cities. There are definitely three things related to humans—soul, body, and external things—no one denies that. It’s up to you philosophers to say what is the best. What should we tell people? Is the body the best? And did Maximus really travel all the way to Cassiope in winter (or bad weather) with his son just to satisfy his physical desires? When the man said it wasn’t, and added, That’s far from it. Isn’t it then reasonable, Epictetus said, to be actively involved in seeking what’s best? It’s undoubtedly the most suitable of all pursuits. So what do we have that’s better than the body? The soul, he replied. And are the good things linked to the best better, or the good things linked to the worse? The good things of the best. And can the good things of the best be controlled by our will or not? They can be controlled by our will. Is the pleasure of the soul something we can control with our will? It is, he replied. And what does this pleasure depend on? On itself? But that can’t be possible; there has to be a certain substance or nature of good that we acquire in order to have pleasure in the soul. He agreed with this too. So what should we rely on for this pleasure of the soul? If it depends on the things of the soul, then the essence of good is found; good can’t be one thing and what brings us rational delight another; and if what comes before isn’t good, then what follows can’t be good either, because for something that follows to be good, what comes before has to be good. But you wouldn’t claim this if you were thinking clearly, because then you would contradict Epicurus and the rest of your beliefs. It follows then that the pleasure of the soul relies on pleasures from bodily things; and again, those bodily things must be what precede and the nature of good.
Seek for doctrines which are consistent with what I say, and by making them your guide you will with pleasure abstain from things which have such persuasive power to lead us and overpower us. But if to the persuasive power of these things, we also devise such a philosophy as this which helps to push us on towards them and strengthens us to this end, what will be the consequence? In a piece of toreutic art which is the best part? the silver or the workmanship? The substance of the hand is the flesh; but the work of the hand is the principal part (that which precedes and leads the rest). The duties then are also three: those which are directed towards the existence of a thing; those which are directed towards its existence in a particular kind; and third, the chief or leading things themselves. So also in man we ought not to value the material, the poor flesh, but the principal (leading things, [Greek: ta proaegoumena]). What are these? Engaging in public business, marrying, begetting children, venerating God, taking care of parents, and generally, having desires, aversions ([Greek: echchlinein]), pursuits of things and avoidances, in the way in which we ought to do these things, and according to our nature. And how are we constituted by nature? Free, noble, modest; for what other animal blushes? what other is capable of receiving the appearance (the impression) of shame? and we are so constituted by nature as to subject pleasure to these things, as a minister, a servant, in order that it may call forth our activity, in order that it may keep us constant in acts which are conformable to nature.
Look for beliefs that align with what I’m saying, and by making them your guide, you’ll gladly avoid things that have such a persuasive power to lead and overwhelm us. But if we create a philosophy that supports and strengthens our attraction to those persuasive things, what will happen? In a piece of sculpture, what’s more important—the material or the craftsmanship? The substance is the flesh, but the craftsmanship is what matters most (the part that leads the rest). There are three types of responsibilities: those focused on the existence of something; those focused on its existence in a specific form; and lastly, the primary or leading responsibilities themselves. Similarly, in humanity, we shouldn’t value the physical form, the fragile flesh, but the primary responsibilities (leading things). What are these? Engaging in civic duties, marrying, having children, honoring God, taking care of our parents, and generally, having desires, dislikes, pursuits, and avoidances in a way that aligns with our true nature. And how are we naturally made? Free, noble, and modest; what other animal feels shame? What other can experience the feeling of embarrassment? We’re naturally designed to keep pleasure in check, like a servant, so that it can inspire our actions and keep us aligned with what’s natural.
HOW WE MUST EXERCISE OURSELVES AGAINST APPEARANCES ([Greek: phantasias]).—As we exercise ourselves against sophistical questions, so we ought to exercise ourselves daily against appearances; for these appearances also propose questions to us. A certain person’s son is dead. Answer; the thing is not within the power of the will: it is not an evil. A father has disinherited a certain son. What do you think of it? It is a thing beyond the power of the will, not an evil. Cæsar has condemned a person. It is a thing beyond the power of the will, not an evil. The man is afflicted at this. Affliction is a thing which depends on the will: it is an evil. He has borne the condemnation bravely. That is a thing within the power of the will: it is a good. If we train ourselves in this manner, we shall make progress; for we shall never assent to anything of which there is not an appearance capable of being comprehended. Your son is dead. What has happened? Your son is dead. Nothing more? Nothing. Your ship is lost. What has happened? Your ship is lost. A man has been led to prison. What has happened? He has been led to prison. But that herein he has fared badly, every man adds from his own opinion. But Zeus, you say, does not do right in these matters. Why? because he has made you capable of endurance? because he has made you magnanimous? because he has taken from that which befalls you the power of being evils? because it is in your power to be happy while you are suffering what you suffer? because he has opened the door to you, when things do not please you? Man, go out and do not complain!
HOW WE MUST TRAIN OURSELVES AGAINST APPEARANCES ([Greek: phantasias]).—Just like we train ourselves to deal with tricky questions, we should also practice daily against appearances; these appearances also present questions to us. Someone's son has died. What’s the right response? This situation is beyond our control: it’s not a bad thing. A father has cut off his son from inheritance. What do you think about that? It's out of our control, not a bad thing. Caesar has sentenced someone. That’s beyond our control, not a bad thing. The person affected feels distressed. Distress is something we can choose: it is a bad thing. He has handled the sentence bravely. That’s something within our control: it’s a good thing. If we train ourselves this way, we'll make progress; we won’t agree to anything unless there's an appearance we can understand. Your son has died. What happened? Your son has died. Anything else? No. Your ship is lost. What happened? Your ship is lost. A man has been imprisoned. What happened? He has been imprisoned. But that he is suffering badly is something everyone interprets in their own way. But you say, Zeus does not act justly in these situations. Why? Because he has made you capable of enduring? Because he has made you noble? Because he has taken away the power of what happens to you being true evils? Because you can be happy even while facing your struggles? Because he has given you the option to step away when you’re unhappy? Man, step out and don't complain!
Hear how the Romans feel towards philosophers, if you would like to know. Italicus, who was the most in repute of the philosophers, once when I was present, being vexed with his own friends and as if he was suffering something intolerable, said: “I cannot bear it, you are killing me; you will make me such as that man is,” pointing to me.
Hear how the Romans feel about philosophers, if you're interested. Italicus, who was the most respected of the philosophers, once when I was there, frustrated with his own friends and as if he was enduring something unbearable, said: “I can't take it, you’re driving me crazy; you’re going to make me turn into someone like that guy,” pointing to me.
TO A CERTAIN RHETORICIAN WHO WAS GOING UP TO ROME ON A SUIT.—When a certain person came to him, who was going up to Rome on account of a suit which had regard to his rank, Epictetus inquired the reason of his going to Rome, and the man then asked what he thought about the matter. Epictetus replied: If you ask me what you will do in Rome, whether you will succeed or fail, I have no rule ([Greek: theoraema]) about this. But if you ask me how you will fare, I can tell you: if you have right opinions ([Greek: dogmata]), you will fare well; if they are false, you will fare ill. For to every man the cause of his acting is opinion. For what is the reason why you desired to be elected governor of the Cnossians? Your opinion. What is the reason that you are now going up to Rome? Your opinion. And going in winter, and with danger and expense? I must go. What tells you this? Your opinion. Then if opinions are the causes of all actions, and a man has bad opinions, such as the cause may be, such also is the effect! Have we then all sound opinions, both you and your adversary? And how do you differ? But have you sounder opinions than your adversary? Why? You think so. And so does he think that his opinions are better; and so do madmen. This is a bad criterion. But show to me that you have made some inquiry into your opinions and have taken some pains about them. And as now you are sailing to Rome in order to become governor of the Cnossians, and you are not content to stay at home with the honors which you had, but you desire something greater and more conspicuous, so when did you ever make a voyage for the purpose of examining your own opinions, and casting them out, if you have any that are bad? Whom have you approached for this purpose? What time have you fixed for it? What age? Go over the times of your life by yourself, if you are ashamed of me (knowing the fact) when you were a boy, did you examine your own opinions? and did you not then, as you do all things now, do as you did do? and when you were become a youth and attended the rhetoricians, and yourself practised rhetoric, what did you imagine that you were deficient in? And when you were a young man and engaged in public matters, and pleaded causes yourself, and were gaining reputation, who then seemed your equal? And when would you have submitted to any man examining and showing that your opinions are bad? What then do you wish me to say to you? Help me in this matter. I have no theorem (rule) for this. Nor have you, if you came to me for this purpose, come to me as a philosopher, but as to a seller of vegetables or a shoemaker. For what purpose then have philosophers theorems? For this purpose, that whatever may happen, our ruling faculty may be and continue to be conformable to nature. Does this seem to you a small thing? No; but the greatest. What then? does it need only a short time? and is it possible to seize it as you pass by? If you can, seize it.
TO A CERTAIN RHETORICIAN WHO WAS GOING UP TO ROME ON A SUIT.—When a person came to him, who was heading to Rome for a case related to his status, Epictetus asked why he was going to Rome, and the man then asked what Epictetus thought about it. Epictetus replied: If you’re asking me what will happen in Rome, whether you’ll succeed or fail, I have no guidance on that. But if you want to know how you’ll do, I can tell you: if you have the right beliefs, you’ll do well; if they’re wrong, you won’t do well. Because for every person, the reason for acting is opinion. Why did you want to be elected governor of the Cnossians? Because of your opinion. Why are you going to Rome now? Because of your opinion. And you’re going in winter, facing danger and expense? You feel you must go. What tells you that? Your opinion. So, if opinions are the causes of all actions, and someone has bad opinions, the effect will match the cause! Do we then all have sound opinions, you and your opponent? How are you different? Do you have better opinions than your opponent? Why? Because you think so. And he thinks his opinions are better; so do people who are insane. That’s a poor standard. But show me that you've questioned your opinions and made an effort regarding them. Just like you’re currently sailing to Rome to become the governor of the Cnossians and aren’t satisfied with the honors you’ve had, but want something greater and more visible, when did you ever go on a journey to examine your own opinions and get rid of any bad ones? Who have you talked to about this? What time have you set for it? What age? Reflect on your life if you’re embarrassed by me; when you were a boy, did you question your own opinions? Or did you just do as you do now? And when you were young and practiced rhetoric, what did you think you were missing? And when you were a young man involved in public affairs, pleading cases and gaining a reputation, who seemed your equal then? When would you have agreed to someone showing you that your opinions were wrong? What do you want me to say to you? Help me with this. I don’t have a rule for this. And if you came to me for this reason, you didn't come as a philosopher, but like someone going to a vegetable seller or a shoemaker. Why then do philosophers have principles? For this reason, so that whatever happens, our reasoning can be and remain aligned with nature. Does that seem minor to you? No; it’s the most important thing. What then? Does it only require a short time? Can you grasp it as you pass by? If you can, go ahead and grasp it.
Then you will say, I met with Epictetus as I should meet with a stone or a statue: for you saw me and nothing more. But he meets with a man as a man, who learns his opinions, and in his turn shows his own. Learn my opinions: show me yours; and then say that you have visited me. Let us examine one another: if I have any bad opinion, take it away; if you have any, show it. This is the meaning of meeting with a philosopher. Not so (you say): but this is only a passing visit, and while we are hiring the vessel, we can also see Epictetus. Let us see what he says. Then you go away and say: Epictetus was nothing; he used solecisms and spoke in a barbarous way. For of what else do you come as judges? Well, but a man may say to me, if I attend to such matters (as you do), I shall have no land as you have none; I shall have no silver cups as you have none, nor fine beasts as you have none. In answer to tins it is perhaps sufficient to say: I have no need of such things; but if you possess many things you have need of others: whether you choose or not, you are poorer than I am. What then have I need of? Of that which you have not? of firmness, of a mind which is conformable to nature, of being free from perturbation.
Then you might say, I met Epictetus like I would meet a stone or a statue: you saw me and that was it. But he engages with a person as a person, who learns his views and shares his own in return. Share my views: show me yours; and then say that you've visited me. Let's examine each other: if I have any bad opinions, let’s get rid of them; if you have any, show them to me. This is what it means to meet with a philosopher. You might argue, but this is just a brief visit, and while we’re arranging the boat, we can also check out Epictetus. Let’s see what he says. Then you leave and say: Epictetus was nothing; he made mistakes and spoke poorly. What else are you judging? Well, someone might say to me, if I focus on such things (as you do), I won’t own land like you don’t; I won’t have silver cups like you don’t, nor fine animals like you don’t. In response to this, it’s probably enough to say: I don’t need those things; but if you have many possessions, you need even more: whether you like it or not, you are poorer than I am. So what do I need? What you don’t have? Strength, a mind that aligns with nature, and freedom from disturbance.
IN WHAT MANNER WE OUGHT TO BEAR SICKNESS.—When the need of each opinion comes, we ought to have it in readiness: on the occasion of breakfast, such opinions as relate to breakfast; in the bath, those that concern the bath; in bed, those that concern bed.
IN WHAT MANNER WE OUGHT TO BEAR SICKNESS.—When the need for each opinion arises, we should have it ready: at breakfast, opinions related to breakfast; in the bath, those that concern the bath; in bed, those that relate to bed.
Let sleep not come upon thy languid eyes
Before each daily action thou hast scann’d;
What’s done amiss, what done, what left undone;
From first to last examine all, and then
Blame what is wrong, in what is right rejoice.
Let sleep not close your weary eyes
Before you've reviewed each day's actions;
What went wrong, what was done, what’s still to do;
From start to finish, check it all, and then
Critique what’s wrong, and celebrate what’s right.
And we ought to retain these verses in such way that we may use them, not that we may utter them aloud, as when we exclaim, “Paean Apollo.” Again in fever we should have ready such opinions as concern a fever; and we ought not, as soon as the fever begins, to lose and forget all. A man who has a fever may say: If I philosophize any longer, may I be hanged: wherever I go, I must take care of the poor body, that a fever may not come. But what is philosophizing? Is it not a preparation against events which may happen? Do you not understand that you are saying something of this kind? “If I shall still prepare myself to bear with patience what happens, may I be hanged.” But this is just as if a man after receiving blows should give up the Pancratium. In the Pancratium it is in our power to desist and not to receive blows.
We should keep these verses in a way that allows us to use them, not just to say them out loud, like when we shout, “Paean Apollo.” When we’re dealing with a fever, we should have insights ready that relate to it; we shouldn’t forget everything as soon as the fever hits. A person with a fever might say: If I keep thinking philosophically, I might as well be hanged: wherever I go, I need to take care of my poor body to avoid getting a fever. But what does it mean to think philosophically? Isn’t it about preparing for what might happen? Don’t you see that you’re expressing something like this? “If I keep getting ready to deal with whatever comes my way, may I be hanged.” But that’s like someone who, after taking hits, decides to quit the Pancratium. In the Pancratium, we have the option to stop and avoid getting hit.
But in the other matter if we give up philosophy, what shall we gain? What then should a man say on the occasion of each painful thing? It was for this that I exercised myself, for this I disciplined myself. God says to you: Give me a proof that you have duly practised athletics, that you have eaten what you ought, that you have been exercised, that you have obeyed the aliptes (the oiler and rubber). Then do you show yourself weak when the time for action comes? Now is the time for the fever. Let it be borne well. Now is the time for thirst, bear it well. Now is the time for hunger, bear it well. Is it not in your power? Who shall hinder you? The physician will hinder you from drinking; but he cannot prevent you from bearing thirst well: and he will hinder you from eating; but he cannot prevent you from bearing hunger well.
But if we give up philosophy, what do we gain? What should a person say when faced with each painful situation? This is why I trained myself, why I practiced self-discipline. God asks you: Show me proof that you've practiced well, that you've eaten what you should, that you've exercised, that you've followed the trainer's advice. Then do you show yourself weak when it's time to act? Now is the time for the fever. Endure it well. Now is the time for thirst; handle it well. Now is the time for hunger; manage it well. Isn’t it in your control? Who will stop you? The doctor may keep you from drinking, but he can't stop you from enduring thirst well; he can prevent you from eating, but he can't stop you from enduring hunger well.
But I cannot attend to my philosophical studies. And for what purpose do you follow them? Slave, is it not that you may be happy, that you may be constant, is it not that you may be in a state conformable to nature and live so? What hinders you when you have a fever from having your ruling faculty conformable to nature? Here is the proof of the thing, here is the test of the philosopher. For this also is a part of life, like walking, like sailing, like journeying by land, so also is fever. Do you read when you are walking? No. Nor do you when you have a fever. But if you walk about well, you have all that belongs to a man who walks. If you bear a fever well, you have all that belongs to a man in a fever. What is it to bear a fever well? Not to blame God or man; not to be afflicted at that which happens, to expect death well and nobly, to do what must be done: when the physician comes in, not to be frightened at what he says; nor if he says you are doing well, to be overjoyed. For what good has he told you? and when you were in health, what good was that to you? And even if he says you are in a bad way, do not despond. For what is it to be ill? is it that you are near the severance of the soul and the body? what harm is there in this? If you are not near now, will you not afterwards be near? Is the world going to be turned upside down when you are dead? Why then do you flatter the physician? Why do you say if you please, master, I shall be well? Why do you give him an opportunity of raising his eyebrows (being proud; or showing his importance)? Do you not value a physician, as you do a shoemaker when he is measuring your foot, or a carpenter when he is building your house, and so treat the physician as to the body which is not yours, but by nature dead? He who has a fever has an opportunity of doing this: if he does these things, he has what belongs to him. For it is not the business of a philosopher to look after these externals, neither his wine nor his oil nor his poor body, but his own ruling power. But as to externals how must he act? so far as not to be careless about them. Where then is there reason for fear? where is there then still reason for anger, and of fear about what belongs to others, about things which are of no value? For we ought to have these two principles in readiness, that except the will nothing is good nor bad; and that we ought not to lead events, but to follow them. My brother ought not to have behaved thus to me. No, but he will see to that; and, however he may behave, I will conduct myself towards him as I ought. For this is my own business; that belongs to another: no man can prevent this, the other thing can be hindered.
But I can't focus on my philosophical studies. And what's the point of pursuing them? Is it not to be happy, to be steady, to live in harmony with nature? What stops you from keeping your mind aligned with nature when you're sick? Here's the proof, the test of a philosopher. This is just a part of life, like walking, sailing, or traveling; fever is the same. Do you read while walking? No. And you don't read when you have a fever either. But if you walk well, you experience everything a person walking experiences. If you deal with a fever well, you experience everything a person with a fever experiences. What does it mean to handle a fever well? It means not blaming God or anyone else; not being upset by what happens; facing the prospect of death with grace; doing what needs to be done: when the doctor comes in, don’t panic at what he says; and if he says you're doing well, don’t get overly excited. What good does that do you? And when you were healthy, what benefit was that? And if he tells you that you're not well, don’t lose hope. What does it mean to be ill? Is it that you’re close to the separation of body and soul? What harm could that be? If you’re not close now, won't you be later? Will the world fall apart when you're gone? Why then do you flatter the doctor? Why do you say, “If you please, sir, I hope to recover”? Why give him a chance to feel important? Do you treat a doctor any differently than a shoemaker measuring your foot or a carpenter building your house? Treat the doctor as you would someone working on a body that isn’t yours and is ultimately just temporary. If you’re ill, you have the chance to act like this: if you do, you possess what is truly yours. A philosopher should not focus on external things—like wine, oil, or a fragile body—but on his own mind. But what about external matters? He should not be careless with them. So, where’s the reason for fear? Where’s the reason for anger about what belongs to others, about things that don’t matter? We should keep two principles in mind: that nothing is good or bad except our will, and that we should not try to control events but rather accept them. My brother shouldn't have treated me this way. No, but he will handle that; and however he acts, I will respond appropriately. This is my responsibility; that belongs to him: no one can stop me from this, but he can influence the other.
ABOUT EXERCISE.—We ought not to make our exercises consist in means contrary to nature and adapted to cause admiration, for if we do so, we who call ourselves philosophers, shall not differ at all from jugglers. For it is difficult even to walk on a rope; and not only difficult, but it is also dangerous. Ought we for this reason to practice walking on a rope, or setting up a palm-tree, or embracing statues? By no means. Every thing which is difficult and dangerous is not suitable for practice; but that is suitable which conduces to the working out of that which is proposed to us. And what is that which is proposed to us as a thing to be worked out? To live with desire and aversion (avoidance of certain things) free from restraint. And what is this? Neither to be disappointed in that which you desire, nor to fall into anything which you would avoid. Towards this object then exercise (practice) ought to tend. For since it is not possible to have your desire not disappointed and your aversion free from falling into that which you would avoid, without great and constant practice, you must know that if you allow your desire and aversion to turn to things which are not within the power of the will, you will neither have your desire capable of attaining your object, nor your aversion free from the power of avoiding that which you would avoid. And since strong habit leads (prevails), and we are accustomed to employ desire and aversion only to things which are not within the power of our will, we ought to oppose to this habit a contrary habit, and where there is great slipperiness in the appearances, there to oppose the habit of exercise. Then at last, if occasion presents itself, for the purpose of trying yourself at a proper time you will descend into the arena to know if appearances overpower you as they did formerly. But at first fly far from that which is stronger than yourself; the contest is unequal between a charming young girl and a beginner in philosophy. The earthen pitcher, as the saying is, and the rock do not agree.
ABOUT EXERCISE.—We shouldn’t make our exercises involve methods that go against nature and are meant to impress others, because if we do, we who call ourselves philosophers will no longer be different from entertainers. After all, it's hard enough to walk on a tightrope; it’s not only challenging, but also risky. Should we therefore practice walking on a tightrope, climbing palm trees, or hugging statues? Absolutely not. Just because something is hard or dangerous doesn’t mean it’s suitable for practice; what’s suitable is what helps us achieve our goals. And what is that goal? To live with desires and aversions (the urge to avoid certain things) without feeling restricted. What does this mean? It means neither being let down by what you desire nor ending up in situations you want to avoid. Therefore, our practice should aim at this goal. Since it’s impossible to avoid disappointment in our desires and to steer clear of things we want to avoid without extensive and consistent practice, we need to recognize that if we let our desires and aversions focus on things outside our control, we won’t have the ability to achieve what we desire or to avoid what we want to steer clear of. And because strong habits take hold easily, and we tend to direct our desires and aversions only toward things that are beyond our control, we need to counter this habit with a different one. Where there’s a high chance of being misled by appearances, we should apply the habit of practice. Finally, when the time is right, you’ll test yourself to see if those appearances have the same power over you as they did before. But initially, keep your distance from anything stronger than you; the contest is unfair between a charming young woman and a philosophy novice. As the saying goes, an earthen pitcher and a rock don’t mix.
WHAT SOLITUDE IS, AND WHAT KIND OF PERSON A SOLITARY MAN IS.—Solitude is a certain condition of a helpless man. For because a man is alone, he is not for that reason also solitary; just as though a man is among numbers, he is not therefore not solitary. When then we have lost either a brother, or a son, or a friend on whom we were accustomed to repose, we say that we are left solitary, though we are often in Rome, though such a crowd meet us, though so many live in the same place, and sometimes we have a great number of slaves. For the man who is solitary, as it is conceived, is considered to be a helpless person and exposed to those who wish to harm him. For this reason when we travel, then especially do we say that we are lonely when we fall among robbers, for it is not the sight of a human creature which removes us from solitude, but the sight of one who is faithful and modest and helpful to us. For if being alone is enough to make solitude, you may say that even Zeus is solitary in the conflagration and bewails himself saying, Unhappy that I am who have neither Hera, nor Athena, nor Apollo, nor brother, nor son, nor descendant, nor kinsman. This is what some say that he does when he is alone at the conflagration. For they do not understand how a man passes his life when he is alone, because they set out from a certain natural principle, from the natural desire of community and mutual love and from the pleasure of conversation among men. But none the less a man ought to be prepared in a manner for this also (being alone), to be able to be sufficient for himself and to be his own companion. For as Zeus dwells with himself, and is tranquil by himself, and thinks of his own administration and of its nature, and is employed in thoughts suitable to himself; so ought we also to be able to talk with ourselves, not to feel the want of others also, not to be unprovided with the means of passing our time; to observe the divine administration, and the relation of ourselves to everything else; to consider how we formerly were affected towards things that happened and how at present; what are still the things which give us pain; how these also can be cured and how removed; if any things require improvement, to improve them according to reason.
WHAT SOLITUDE IS, AND WHAT KIND OF PERSON A SOLITARY MAN IS.—Solitude is a state of a powerless person. Just because someone is alone doesn’t mean they are truly solitary; similarly, a person in a crowd can still feel alone. When we lose a brother, son, or friend whom we relied on, we often say we feel lonely, even when surrounded by people in a bustling city like Rome or among many others, including numerous servants. A solitary person is typically seen as vulnerable and open to harm from those around them. This is particularly clear when we travel and encounter dangers like robbers; we feel especially lonely not because of the mere presence of other people, but because we long for someone who is loyal, kind, and supportive. If being alone defined solitude, then one might claim that even Zeus is solitary in chaos, lamenting that he is miserable without Hera, Athena, Apollo, a brother, a son, or any kin. Some suggest that he may express this sorrow while alone amidst destruction. Many fail to understand how a person lives in solitude, as they base their views on a natural desire for community, love, and the joy of conversation. Nevertheless, one should be prepared for solitude by learning to rely on oneself and be one’s own company. Just as Zeus finds peace in his own company, focusing on his own affairs and thoughts, we too should learn to converse with ourselves, not feel the absence of others, and be equipped to fill our time wisely. We need to witness the greater order of the universe and understand our place within it—reflecting on our past feelings and current emotions, identifying what still causes us pain, how to heal those pains, and if improvements are needed, to pursue them with reason.
Well then, if some man should come upon me when I am alone and murder me? Fool, not murder You, but your poor body.
Well then, what if someone finds me alone and kills me? Fool, they wouldn't murder you, just your poor body.
What kind of solitude then remains? what want? why do we make ourselves worse than children; and what do children do when they are left alone? They take up shells and ashes, and they build something, then pull it down, and build something else, and so they never want the means of passing the time. Shall I then, if you sail away, sit down and weep, because I have been left alone and solitary? Shall I then have no shells, no ashes? But children do what they do through want of thought (or deficiency in knowledge), and we through knowledge are unhappy.
What kind of solitude is left? What do we lack? Why do we make ourselves worse than kids? And what do kids do when they're left alone? They grab shells and ashes, build something, then knock it down, and build something new, so they never run out of ways to keep themselves busy. So, if you sail away, should I just sit down and cry because I'm alone? Should I have no shells or ashes? But kids do what they do because they don't think much (or they don't know any better), while we are unhappy because we do know.
Every great power (faculty) is dangerous to beginners. You must then bear such things as you are able, but conformably to nature: but not ... Practise sometimes a way of living like a person out of health that you may at some time live like a man in health.
Every major skill is risky for beginners. You have to endure what you can, but in a way that fits with nature: but not ... Sometimes live as if you're not well so that at some point, you can live like a healthy person.
CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.—As bad tragic actors cannot sing alone, but in company with many, so some persons cannot walk about alone. Man, if you are anything, both walk alone and talk to yourself, and do not hide yourself in the chorus. Examine a little at last, look around, stir yourself up, that you may know who you are.
CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.—Just as terrible tragic actors can’t perform alone but need a crowd, some people can’t stand on their own either. Man, if you are anything, walk alone and talk to yourself; don’t blend in with the crowd. Take some time to reflect, look around, and motivate yourself so that you can understand who you truly are.
You must root out of men these two things, arrogance (pride) and distrust. Arrogance then is the opinion that you want nothing (are deficient in nothing); but distrust is the opinion that you cannot be happy when so many circumstances surround you. Arrogance is removed by confutation; and Socrates was the first who practised this. And (to know) that the thing is not impossible inquire and seek. This search will do you no harm; and in a manner this is philosophizing, to seek how it is possible to employ desire and aversion ([Greek: echchlisis]) without impediment.
You need to eliminate two things from people's minds: arrogance and distrust. Arrogance is the belief that you lack nothing; however, distrust is thinking that you can’t be happy because of all the circumstances around you. You can get rid of arrogance through valid arguments, and Socrates was the first to demonstrate this. To understand that something isn’t impossible, you should inquire and seek answers. This search won’t harm you; in a way, this is what philosophizing is about—discovering how to engage desire and aversion without obstacles.
I am superior to you, for my father is a man of consular rank. Another says, I have been a tribune, but you have not. If we were horses, would you say, My father was swifter? I have much barley and fodder, or elegant neck ornaments. If then you were saying this, I said, Be it so: let us run then. Well, is there nothing in a man such as running in a horse, by which it will be known which is superior and inferior? Is there not modesty ([Greek: aidos]), fidelity, justice? Show yourself superior in these, that you may be superior as a man. If you tell me that you can kick violently, I also will say to you, that you are proud of that which is the act of an ass.
I am better than you because my father holds a consular position. Another person claims, I've been a tribune, but you haven’t. If we were horses, would you say, My dad was faster? I have plenty of barley and hay, or fancy decorations for my neck. If you said that, I would respond, Fine: let’s race then. So, isn’t there something in a person like running in a horse that shows who’s better and who’s not? Isn’t there modesty, loyalty, and justice? Prove that you’re superior in these qualities if you want to be seen as better as a person. If you brag about how forcefully you can kick, I will point out that you take pride in what’s simply the behavior of a donkey.
THAT WE OUGHT TO PROCEED WITH CIRCUMSPECTION TO EVERYTHING.[Footnote: Compare Encheiridion, 29.]—In every act consider what precedes and what follows, and then proceed to the act. If you do not consider, you will at first begin with spirit, since you have not thought at all of the things which follow; but afterwards when some consequences have shown themselves, you will basely desist (from that which you have begun).—I wish to conquer at the Olympic games.—(And I too, by the gods; for it is a fine thing.) But consider here what precedes and what follows; and then, if it is for your good, undertake the thing. You must act according to rules, follow strict diet, abstain from delicacies, exercise yourself by compulsion at fixed times, in heat, in cold; drink no cold water, nor wine, when there is opportunity of drinking it. In a word, you must surrender yourself to the trainer, as you do to a physician. Next in the contest, you must be covered with sand, sometimes dislocate a hand, sprain an ankle, swallow a quantity of dust, be scourged with the whip; and after undergoing all this, you must sometimes be conquered. After reckoning all these things, if you have still an inclination, go to the athletic practice. If you do not reckon them, observe you will behave like children who at one time play as wrestlers, then as gladiators, then blow a trumpet, then act a tragedy, when they have seen and admired such things. So you also do: you are at one time a wrestler (athlete), then a gladiator, then a philosopher, then a rhetorician; but with your whole soul you are nothing: like the ape you imitate all that you see; and always one thing after another pleases you, but that which becomes familiar displeases you. For you have never undertaken anything after consideration, nor after having explored the whole matter and put it to a strict examination; but you have undertaken it at hazard and with a cold desire. Thus some persons having seen a philosopher and having heard one speak like Euphrates—and yet who can speak like him?—wish to be philosophers themselves.
THAT WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL ABOUT EVERYTHING. [Footnote: Compare Encheiridion, 29.]—In every action, think about what comes before and what comes after, and then proceed with the action. If you don’t think things through, you might start off with enthusiasm, because you haven't considered the consequences; but later, when you face those consequences, you may give up on what you began. —I want to win at the Olympic games.—(So do I, by the gods; it’s a great achievement.) But consider what leads up to it and what follows; then, if it’s truly beneficial for you, go for it. You need to stick to a strict regimen, follow a strict diet, avoid indulgent foods, force yourself to train at set times, regardless of the weather; don’t drink cold water or wine when you have the chance. In short, you must submit yourself to the trainer just like you would to a doctor. Then during the competition, you’ll be covered in sand, might injure a hand, twist an ankle, inhale a lot of dust, and get whipped; and after enduring all this, you might still lose. After weighing all these factors, if you’re still interested, pursue the athletic training. If you don’t consider these things, you’ll act like children who one moment are playing wrestlers, then gladiators, then playing a trumpet, then performing a tragedy, having seen and admired those things. You too, at one moment you’re an athlete, then a gladiator, then a philosopher, then a speaker; but deep down you’re not really committed to anything: like a monkey, you just mimic everything you see; one thing captivates you for a while, but once it becomes familiar, it no longer interests you. Because you’ve never taken on anything after thoughtful consideration or a thorough examination; instead, you’ve jumped into it aimlessly and with a half-hearted desire. Just like some people, after seeing a philosopher and hearing someone speak like Euphrates—and who can match him?—decide they want to be philosophers themselves.
Man, consider first what the matter is (which you propose to do), then your own nature also, what it is able to bear. If you are a wrestler, look at your shoulders, your thighs, your loins: for different men are naturally formed for different things. Do you think that, if you do (what you are doing daily), you can be a philosopher? Do you think that you can eat as you do now, drink as you do now, and in the same way be angry and out of humor? You must watch, labor, conquer certain desires, you must depart from your kinsmen, be despised by your slaves, laughed at by those who meet you, in everything you must be in an inferior condition, as to magisterial office, in honors, in courts of justice. When you have considered all these things completely, then, if you think proper, approach to philosophy, if you would gain in exchange for these things freedom from perturbations, liberty, tranquillity. If you have not considered these things, do not approach philosophy: do not act like children, at one time a philosopher, then a tax collector, then a rhetorician, then a procurator (officer) of Cæsar. These things are not consistent. You must be one man either good or bad; you must either labor at your own ruling faculty or at external things; you must either labor at things within or at external things; that is, you must either occupy the place of a philosopher or that of one of the vulgar.
Man, first think about what you're planning to do, and then consider your own abilities. If you're a wrestler, check your shoulders, thighs, and lower back; different people are naturally suited for different activities. Do you really believe that by continuing what you're doing every day, you can become a philosopher? Do you think you can keep eating and drinking the way you do, and still feel angry and out of sorts? You need to be vigilant, work hard, overcome certain desires, distance yourself from your relatives, be looked down upon by your servants, and laughed at by everyone you encounter. In all aspects, you must accept being in a lower position in terms of authority, prestige, and legal matters. Once you've fully contemplated all of this, then, if you still believe it's right, pursue philosophy, if you're willing to trade these things for freedom from anxiety, independence, and peace of mind. If you haven't thought this through, stay away from philosophy: don’t behave like children, switching from being a philosopher one moment to a tax collector, then a rhetorician, and then an officer of Caesar. These roles don’t go together. You must be one type of person, either good or bad; you either have to focus on managing your own mind or on external matters; you must either work on inner things or deal with the outside world; in other words, you must either take on the role of a philosopher or that of an ordinary person.
A person said to Rufus when Galba was murdered: Is the world now governed by Providence? But Rufus replied: Did I ever incidentally form an argument from Galba that the world is governed by Providence?
A person asked Rufus when Galba was killed: Is the world now under the control of Providence? But Rufus replied: Did I ever accidentally make a case from Galba that the world is controlled by Providence?
THAT WE OUGHT WITH CAUTION TO ENTER INTO FAMILIAR INTERCOURSE WITH MEN.—If a man has frequent intercourse with others either for talk, or drinking together, or generally for social purposes, he must either become like them, or change them to his own fashion. For if a man places a piece of quenched charcoal close to a piece that is burning, either the quenched charcoal will quench the other, or the burning charcoal will light that which is quenched. Since then the danger is so great, we must cautiously enter into such intimacies with those of the common sort, and remember that it is impossible that a man can keep company with one who is covered with soot without being partaker of the soot himself. For what will you do if a man speaks about gladiators, about horses, about athletes, or what is worse about men? Such a person is bad, such a person is good; this was well done, this was done badly. Further, if he scoff, or ridicule, or show an ill-natured disposition? Is any man among us prepared like a lute-player when he takes a lute, so that as soon as he has touched the strings, he discovers which are discordant, and tunes the instrument? Such a power as Socrates had who in all his social intercourse could lead his companions to his own purpose? How should you have this power? It is therefore a necessary consequence that you are carried about by the common kind of people.
THAT WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL ABOUT GETTING CLOSE TO OTHERS.—If a person spends a lot of time with others for chatting, drinking, or just hanging out, they will either start to act like them or try to change them to be more like themselves. It’s like placing a piece of cold charcoal next to a hot piece; either the cold one will cool down the hot one, or the hot one will heat up the cold one. Since the risk is so significant, we should be cautious when forming close relationships with average people, and recognize that if someone hangs out with someone who’s dirty, they will end up getting dirty themselves. What do you do when someone talks about fighters, horses, athletes, or even worse, about people? This one is bad, this one is good; this was done well, this was done poorly. Moreover, if they mock or ridicule or show a negative attitude? Is anyone among us prepared like a musician who, when picking up an instrument, can immediately tell which strings are out of tune and fix it? Such was the ability of Socrates, who could guide his friends to his own way of thinking in all his interactions. How can you have that ability? It’s inevitable that you’ll be influenced by average people.
Why then are they more powerful than you? Because they utter these useless words from their real opinions; but you utter your elegant words only from your lips; for this reason they are without strength and dead, and it is nauseous to listen to your exhortations and your miserable virtue, which is talked of everywhere (up and down). In this way the vulgar have the advantage over you; for every opinion ([Greek: dogma]) is strong and invincible. Until then the good ([Greek: chompsai]) sentiments ([Greek: hupolaepseis]) are fixed in you, and you shall have acquired a certain power for your security, I advise you to be careful in your association with common persons; if you are not, every day like wax in the sun there will be melted away whatever you inscribe on your minds in the school. Withdraw then yourselves far from the sun so long as you have these waxen sentiments. For this reason also philosophers advise men to leave their native country, because ancient habits distract them and do not allow a beginning to be made of a different habit; nor can we tolerate those who meet us and say: See such a one is now a philosopher, who was once so and so. Thus also physicians send those who have lingering diseases to a different country and a different air; and they do right. Do you also introduce other habits than those which you have; fix you opinions and exercise yourselves in them. But you do not so; you go hence to a spectacle, to a show of gladiators, to a place of exercise ([Greek: chuston]), to a circus; then you come back hither, and again from this place you go to those places, and still the same persons. And there is no pleasing (good) habit, nor attention, nor care about self and observation of this kind. How shall I use the appearances presented to me? according to nature, or contrary to nature? how do I answer to them? as I ought, or as I ought not? Do I say to those things which are independent of the will, that they do not concern me? For if you are not yet in this state, fly from your former habits, fly from the common sort, if you intend ever to begin to be something.
Why then are they more powerful than you? Because they express their true opinions, while you only speak pretty words that come from your lips. That's why your words lack strength and sound empty. It's exhausting to hear your preachy attitudes and your pathetic sense of virtue that everyone talks about. In this way, ordinary people have the upper hand because every opinion is strong and unbeatable. Until genuine good feelings are established within you and you gain some real power for your security, I advise you to be careful about hanging out with everyday folks. If you’re not, whatever you learn in school will melt away like wax in the sun. So keep your distance from distractions as long as your thoughts are so easily influenced. That’s why philosophers suggest people leave their hometowns; old habits can distract them and prevent them from adopting new ones. We can’t stand those who claim, “Look at that person; now they’re a philosopher, when once they were this or that.” Similarly, doctors send patients with lingering illnesses to other countries for a change of air, and they’re right to do so. You should also embrace new habits instead of sticking to the old ones; solidify your opinions and practice them. But you don’t do this; you go out to events, to gladiator shows, to sports arenas, then come back here, and repeat the same cycle with the same people. There’s no constructive habit, no focus, no self-care, or serious reflection on your part. How should I respond to the situations I encounter? Naturally, or against nature? Am I engaging with them properly or improperly? Do I tell myself that things outside my control don’t concern me? If you’re not at that point yet, break away from old habits and the ordinary crowd if you ever want to start becoming something more.
ON PROVIDENCE.-When you make any charge against Providence, consider, and you will learn that the thing has happened according to reason. Yes, but the unjust man has the advantage. In what? In money. Yes, for he is superior to you in this, that he flatters, is free from shame, and is watchful. What is the wonder? But see if he has the advantage over you in being faithful, in being modest; for you will not find it to be so; but wherein you are superior, there you will find that you have the advantage. And I once said to a man who was vexed because Philostorgus was fortunate: Would you choose to lie with Sura? May it never happen, he replied, that this day should come? Why then are you vexed, if he receives something in return for that which he sells; or how can you consider him happy who acquires those things by such means as you abominate; or what wrong does Providence, if he gives the better things to the better men? Is it not better to be modest than to be rich? He admitted this. Why are you vexed then, man, when you possess the better thing? Remember then always and have in readiness the truth, that this is a law of nature, that the superior has an advantage over the inferior in that in which he is superior; and you will never be vexed.
ON PROVIDENCE.-When you criticize Providence, take a moment to reflect, and you'll realize that things happen for a reason. Sure, the unjust person may seem to have an upper hand. In what way? In wealth. Yes, because he has the advantage of being manipulative, unashamed, and observant. What’s surprising about that? But check if he has the edge over you in being honest and humble; you’ll see that’s not the case. Where you excel, you truly have the upper hand. Once, I spoke to a man who was upset because Philostorgus was lucky: Would you rather be in a relationship with Sura? He replied, I hope that day never comes. So why are you upset if he gains something for what he trades? How can you consider him fortunate if he acquires things through methods you despise? And what wrong has Providence done if it gives better things to better people? Isn’t being humble better than being wealthy? He agreed with that. So why are you upset, my friend, when you have the better quality? Always remember and keep this truth in mind: it’s a natural law that the superior is advantaged over the inferior in their strengths, and you won’t feel upset.
But my wife treats me badly. Well, if any man asks you what this is, say, my wife treats me badly. Is there then nothing more? Nothing. My father gives me nothing. (What is this? my father gives me nothing. Is there nothing else then? Nothing); but to say that this is an evil is something which must be added to it externally, and falsely added. For this reason we must not get rid of poverty, but of the opinion about poverty, and then we shall be happy.
But my wife treats me badly. If any man asks you what this is, just say, my wife treats me badly. Is there nothing more? Nothing. My father gives me nothing. (What does that mean? My father gives me nothing. Is there anything else then? Nothing); but calling this an evil is something we must add from the outside, and it's a false addition. For this reason, we shouldn't try to eliminate poverty, but rather the way we think about poverty, and then we'll be happy.
ABOUT CYNICISM.—When one of his pupils inquired of Epictetus, and he was a person who appeared to be inclined to Cynicism, what kind of person a Cynic ought to be, and what was the notion ([Greek: prolaepsis]) of the thing, we will inquire, said Epictetus, at leisure; but I have so much to say to you that he who without God attempts so great a matter, is hateful to God, and has no other purpose than to act indecently in public.
ABOUT CYNICISM.—When one of his students asked Epictetus, who seemed to lean towards Cynicism, what kind of person a Cynic should be and what the idea of it was, Epictetus replied that they would explore it more thoroughly later. However, he added that anyone who tries to tackle such an important issue without God is unworthy in God's eyes and only aims to behave improperly in public.
In the first place, in the things which relate to yourself, you must not be in any respect like what you do now; you must not blame God or man; you must take away desire altogether, you must transfer avoidance ([Greek: echchlisis]) only to the things which are within the power of the will; you must not feel anger nor resentment or envy nor pity; a girl must not appear handsome to you, nor must you love a little reputation, nor be pleased with a boy or a cake. For you ought to know that the rest of men throw walls around them and houses and darkness when they do any such things, and they have many means of concealment. A man shuts the door, he sets somebody before the chamber; if a person comes, say that he is out, he is not at leisure. But the Cynic instead of all these things must use modesty as his protection; if he does not, he will be indecent in his nakedness and under the open sky. This is his house, his door; this is the slave before his bedchamber; this is his darkness. For he ought not to wish to hide anything that he does; and if he does, he is gone, he has lost the character of a Cynic, of a man who lives under the open sky, of a free man; he has begun to fear some external thing, he has begun to have need of concealment, nor can he get concealment when he chooses. For where shall he hide himself and how? And if by chance this public instructor shall be detected, this pædagogue, what kind of things will he be compelled to suffer? when then a man fears these things, is it possible for him to be bold with his whole soul to superintend men? It cannot be: it is impossible.
First of all, concerning your personal matters, you must not be at all like you are now; you shouldn't blame God or anyone else; you need to let go of desire completely, and direct your avoidance only toward things within your control; you must not feel anger, resentment, envy, or pity; a girl shouldn't seem attractive to you, nor should you care for a bit of reputation, nor delight in a boy or a treat. You should understand that others build walls, houses, and darkness around themselves when they indulge in such things, and they have many ways to hide. A person closes the door, places someone in front of the room; if someone comes, they say he’s not home, he’s busy. But the Cynic, instead of all this, must rely on modesty as his shield; if he doesn’t, he will appear indecent in his nakedness under the open sky. This is his home, his door; this is the guard at his entrance; this is his darkness. He should not want to hide anything he does; and if he does, he has lost the essence of a Cynic, of someone who lives in the open, of a free person; he has started to fear something external, he has begun to need concealment, and he won't be able to hide when he wants to. Where will he go to hide, and how? And if this public teacher is caught, what will he have to endure? When a person fears these things, can he truly be brave enough to oversee others? No, it’s impossible.
In the first place then you must make your ruling faculty pure, and this mode of life also. Now (you should say), to me the matter to work on is my understanding, as wood is to the carpenter, as hides to the shoemaker; and my business is the right use of appearances. But the body is nothing to me: the parts of it are nothing to me. Death? Let it come when it chooses, either death of the whole or of a part. Fly, you say. And whither; can any man eject me out of the world? He cannot. But wherever I go, there is the sun, there is the moon, there are the stars, dreams, omens, and the conversation ([Greek: omilia]) with gods.
First, you need to make your mind clear, and live this way too. Now, you should focus on improving your understanding, just like wood is essential to a carpenter or hides are to a shoemaker; my job is to use perceptions correctly. But my body means nothing to me: its parts mean nothing to me. Death? Let it come when it wants, whether it's the end of everything or just a part. You say to run away. But where would I go? No one can kick me out of this world. They can't. But wherever I am, there's the sun, the moon, the stars, dreams, omens, and the conversation with the gods.
Then, if he is thus prepared, the true Cynic cannot be satisfied with this; but he must know that he is sent a messenger from Zeus to men about good and bad things, to show them that they have wandered and are seeking the substance of good and evil where it is not, but where it is, they never think; and that he is a spy, as Diogenes was carried off to Philip after the battle of Chaeroneia as a spy. For in fact a Cynic is a spy of the things which are good for men and which are evil, and it is his duty to examine carefully and to come and report truly, and not to be struck with terror so as to point out as enemies those who are not enemies, nor in any other way to be perturbed by appearances nor confounded.
Then, if he’s truly prepared, the real Cynic can’t settle for just that; he must understand that he is sent as a messenger from Zeus to humanity about what’s good and what’s bad. His role is to show people that they’ve lost their way and are searching for the essence of good and evil in the wrong places, while they never consider where it actually is. He is like a spy, just as Diogenes was taken to Philip after the battle of Chaeroneia as a spy. Because, in reality, a Cynic is a spy on what’s good and bad for people, and it’s his duty to carefully investigate and report back honestly. He shouldn’t be so terrified that he mistakes those who aren’t enemies for enemies, nor should he be swayed or confused by appearances in any way.
It is his duty then to be able with a loud voice, if the occasion should arise, and appearing on the tragic stage to say like Socrates: Men, whither are you hurrying, what are you doing, wretches? like blind people you are wandering up and down; you are going by another road, and have left the true road; you seek for prosperity and happiness where they are not, and if another shows you where they are, you do not believe him. Why do you seek it without? In the body? It is not there. If you doubt, look at Myro, look at Ophellius. In possessions? It is not there. But if you do not believe me, look at Croesus: look at those who are now rich, with what lamentations their life is filled. In power? It is not there. If it is, those must be happy who have been twice and thrice consuls; but they are not. Whom shall we believe in these matters? You who from without see their affairs and are dazzled by an appearance, or the men themselves? What do they say? Hear them when they groan, when they grieve, when on account of these very consulships and glory and splendor they think that they are more wretched and in greater danger. Is it in royal power? It is not: if it were, Nero would have been happy, and Sardanapalus. But neither was Agamemnon happy, though he was a better man than Sardanapalus and Nero; but while others are snoring, what is he doing?
It’s his responsibility, then, to raise his voice loudly if the situation calls for it, and to stand on the tragic stage and say like Socrates: “Hey, people, where are you rushing off to? What are you doing, you poor souls? Like blind individuals, you’re wandering around aimlessly; you’re choosing a different path and have abandoned the right one. You’re looking for success and happiness where they do not exist, and when someone else points out where they actually are, you refuse to believe them. Why do you search for it outside of yourselves? In your bodies? It’s not there. If you’re unsure, look at Myro, look at Ophellius. In possessions? It’s not there either. But if you don’t believe me, look at Croesus and others who are rich now; their lives are filled with lamentation. In power? It’s not there. If it were, those who have been consuls more than once or twice should be happy, but they are not. Who should we trust on this? You, who only see their lives from the outside and are dazzled by appearances, or the people themselves? What do they say? Listen to them when they moan, when they suffer, when they think they’re more miserable and at greater risk because of those very consulships, glory, and splendor. Is it in royal power? It’s not there either: if it were, Nero would have been happy, and so would Sardanapalus. But Agamemnon wasn’t happy either, even though he was a better man than Sardanapalus and Nero; while others are sleeping, what is he doing?
Much from his head he tore his rooted hair:
Iliad, x., 15.
Much of his hair he ripped from his head:
Iliad, x., 15.
and what does he say himself?
and what does he mean?
“I am perplexed,” he says, “and
Disturb’d I am,” and “my heart out of my bosom
Is leaping.”
Iliad, x., 91.
“I’m confused,” he says, “and
I’m upset,” and “my heart is pounding
Out of my chest.”
Iliad, x., 91.
Wretch, which of your affairs goes badly? Your possessions? No. Your body? No. But you are rich in gold and copper. What then is the matter with you? That part of you, whatever it is, has been neglected by you and is corrupted, the part with which we desire, with which we avoid, with which we move towards and move from things. How neglected? He knows not the nature of good for which he is made by nature and the nature of evil; and what is his own, and what belongs to another; and when anything that belongs to others goes badly, he says, Woe to me, for the Hellenes are in danger. Wretched is his ruling faculty, and alone neglected and uncared for. The Hellenes are going to die destroyed by the Trojans. And if the Trojans do not kill them, will they not die? Yes; but not all at once. What difference then does it make? For if death is an evil, whether men die altogether, or if they die singly, it is equally an evil. Is anything else then going to happen than the separation of the soul and the body? Nothing. And if the Hellenes perish, is the door closed, and is it not in your power to die? It is. Why then do you lament (and say), Oh, you are a king and have the sceptre of Zeus? An unhappy king does not exist more than an unhappy god. What then art thou? In truth a shepherd: for you weep as shepherds do, when a wolf has carried off one of their sheep: and these who are governed by you are sheep. And why did you come hither? Was your desire in any danger? was your aversion ([Greek: echchlisis])? was your movement (pursuits)? was your avoidance of things? He replies, No; but the wife of my brother was carried off. Was it not then a great gain to be deprived of an adulterous wife? Shall we be despised then by the Trojans? What kind of people are the Trojans, wise or foolish? If they are wise, why do you fight with them? If they are fools, why do you care about them?
Wretch, what's going wrong in your life? Is it your possessions? No. Your body? No. But you have plenty of gold and silver. So what's your issue? That part of you, whatever it is, has been neglected and is decaying—the part that makes you desire things, avoid things, and move toward or away from them. How neglected? You don't even understand what the good is that you were meant for and what the bad is; you don’t know what belongs to you and what belongs to others. When something goes wrong for others, you say, "Woe is me, because the Greeks are in danger." Your mind is miserable, and it’s the only thing you've neglected and ignored. The Greeks are about to be destroyed by the Trojans. And if the Trojans don’t kill them, will they not still die? Yes, but not all at once. So what does it matter? If death is a bad thing, whether people die all at once or one at a time, it's equally bad. So is anything else going to happen except for the separation of the soul and the body? Nothing. And if the Greeks perish, is that the end, and isn't it still within your power to die? It is. Why then do you mourn and say, "Oh, you're a king and have the scepter of Zeus?" An unhappy king is no more possible than an unhappy god. So what are you? In truth, you are a shepherd: you cry like shepherds do when a wolf takes one of their sheep, and those you govern are like sheep. And why did you come here? Was your desire at risk? Was your aversion? Were your pursuits threatened? Did you want to avoid something? He replies, No; but my brother's wife was taken. Wasn't it a great gain to be rid of an unfaithful wife? Will the Trojans then look down on us? What kind of people are the Trojans, wise or foolish? If they’re wise, why are you fighting them? If they’re fools, why do you care what they think?
Do you possess the body then free or is it in servile condition? We do not know. Do you not know that it is the slave of fever, of gout, ophthalmia, dysentery, of a tyrant, of fire, of iron, of everything which is stronger? Yes, it is a slave. How then is it possible that anything which belongs to the body can be free from hindrance? and how is a thing great or valuable which is naturally dead, or earth, or mud? Well then, do you possess nothing which is free? Perhaps nothing. And who is able to compel you to assent to that which appears false? No man. And who can compel you not to assent to that which appears true? No man. By this then you see that there is something in you naturally free. But to desire or to be averse from, or to move towards an object or to move from it, or to prepare yourself, or to propose to do anything, which of you can do this, unless he has received an impression of the appearance of that which is profitable or a duty? No man. You have then in these things also something which is not hindered and is free. Wretched men, work out this, take care of this, seek for good here.
Do you have a free body or is it enslaved? We don’t know. Don't you realize that it’s a slave to fever, gout, eye infections, dysentery, a tyrant, fire, iron, and everything stronger than it? Yes, it is a slave. So how can anything that belongs to the body be free from limitations? And how can something that is naturally lifeless, like earth or mud, be considered great or valuable? So, do you have anything at all that is free? Maybe not. And who can force you to agree with what seems false? No one. And who can stop you from agreeing with what seems true? No one. This shows that there’s something in you that is naturally free. But who can desire or dislike, move toward or away from something, or prepare or plan to do anything, without having been influenced by the idea of what is beneficial or a duty? No one. So, in these matters, you also have something that is unimpeded and free. Poor souls, work on this, take care of this, seek goodness here.
THAT WE OUGHT NOT TO BE MOVED BY A DESIRE OF THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT IN OUR POWER.—Let not that which in another is contrary to nature be an evil to you; for you are not formed by nature to be depressed with others nor to be unhappy with others, but to be happy with them. If a man is unhappy, remember that his unhappiness is his own fault; for God has made all men to be happy, to be free from perturbations. For this purpose he has given means to them, some things to each person as his own, and other things not as his own; some things subject to hindrance and compulsion and deprivation; and these things are not a man’s own; but the things which are not subject to hindrances, are his own; and the nature of good and evil, as it was fit to be done by him who takes care of us and protects us like a father, he has made our own. But you say, I have parted from a certain person, and he is grieved. Why did he consider as his own that which belongs to another? why, when he looked on you and was rejoiced, did he not also reckon that you are a mortal, that it is natural for you to part from him for a foreign country? Therefore he suffers the consequences of his own folly. But why do you or for what purpose bewail yourself? Is it that you also have not thought of these things? but like poor women who are good for nothing, you have enjoyed all things in which you took pleasure, as if you would always enjoy them, both places and men and conversation; and now you sit and weep because you do not see the same persons and do not live in the same places. Indeed you deserve this, to be more wretched than crows and ravens who have the power of flying where they please and changing their nests for others, and crossing the seas without lamenting or regretting their former condition. Yes, but this happens to them because they are irrational creatures. Was reason then given to us by the gods for the purpose of unhappiness and misery, that we may pass our lives in wretchedness and lamentation? Must all persons be immortal and must no man go abroad, and must we ourselves not go abroad, but remain rooted like plants; and if any of our familiar friends goes abroad, must we sit and weep; and on the contrary, when he returns, must we dance and clap our hands like children?
THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE DISTRESSED BY WANTING WHAT WE CAN'T CONTROL.—Don’t let someone else’s natural struggles affect you; you weren’t meant to be brought down by others or to share in their unhappiness, but to find joy alongside them. If someone is unhappy, remember that it’s their own responsibility; God designed everyone to be happy, free from turmoil. To achieve this, He has given us different means: some things for each person to own, and other things that aren’t theirs. Some things can be obstructed, forced, or taken away; those are not truly ours. But the things that cannot be obstructed are ours, and the essence of good and evil—just as it should be, like a caring father—has been made ours. But you might say, “I’ve lost a certain person, and they’re upset.” Why did they claim as their own what belongs to someone else? Why, when they were happy looking at you, didn’t they acknowledge your mortality and the fact that it’s natural to part ways for a while? So, they’re facing the consequences of their own foolishness. But why do you moan or for what reason? Is it because you haven’t considered these thoughts? Like helpless women, you’ve reveled in the things that pleased you, thinking they would always be yours—places, people, and conversations. Now you sit and weep because you don’t see the same people or live in the same places. You truly deserve to be more miserable than crows and ravens, who can fly wherever they want, shift their nests, and cross seas without lamenting their past. Yes, but they can do that because they lack reason. Was reason given to us by the gods to lead us into misery? Are we supposed to wish for everyone to be immortal, for no one to leave, and for us to remain rooted like plants? If one of our friends leaves, do we just sit and cry? And when they return, are we supposed to jump for joy and clap like children?
But my mother laments when she does not see me. Why has she not learned these principles? and I do not say this, that we should not take care that she may not lament, but I say that we ought not to desire in every way what is not our own. And the sorrow of another is another’s sorrow; but my sorrow is my own. I then will stop my own sorrow by every means, for it is in my power; and the sorrow of another I will endeavor to stop as far as I can; but I will not attempt to do it by every means; for if I do, I shall be fighting against God, I shall be opposing Zeus and shall be placing myself against him in the administration of the universe; and the reward (the punishment) of this fighting against God and of this disobedience not only will the children of my children pay, but I also shall myself, both by day and by night, startled by dreams, perturbed, trembling at every piece of news, and having my tranquillity depending on the letters of others. Some person has arrived from Rome. I only hope there is no harm. But what harm can happen to you, where you are not? From Hellas (Greece) some one is come; I hope that there is no harm. In this way every place may be the cause of misfortune to you. Is it not enough for you to be unfortunate there where you are, and must you be so even beyond sea, and by the report of letters? Is this the way in which your affairs are in a state of security? Well then suppose that my friends have died in the places which are far from me. What else have they suffered than that which is the condition of mortals? Or how are you desirous at the same time to live to old age, and at the same time not to see the death of any person whom you love? Know you not that in the course of a long time many and various kinds of things must happen; that a fever shall overpower one, a robber another, and a third a tyrant? Such is the condition of things around us, such are those who live with us in the world; cold and heat, and unsuitable ways of living, and journeys by land, and voyages by sea, and winds, and various circumstances which surround us, destroy one man, and banish another, and throw one upon an embassy and another into an army. Sit down then in a flutter at all these things, lamenting, unhappy, unfortunate, dependent on another, and dependent not on one or two, but on ten thousands upon ten thousands.
But my mom gets upset when she doesn’t see me. Why hasn’t she figured this out? I’m not saying we shouldn’t do what we can to stop her from being upset, but I believe we shouldn’t crave what isn’t ours in every way. The sorrow of someone else is their own sorrow; mine is mine. So, I’ll do whatever I can to ease my own sorrow because that’s within my control. I’ll also try to help alleviate someone else’s sorrow as much as I can, but I won’t go to extreme lengths to do it; if I do, I’ll be fighting against God, going against Zeus, and positioning myself against him in how the universe works. The consequence of this rebellion against God and this disobedience won’t just fall on my children, but I’ll suffer too, day and night, disturbed by dreams, anxious, jumpy about every piece of news, with my peace depending on other people’s messages. Someone has arrived from Rome. I just hope there’s no bad news. But what could happen to you where you aren’t? Someone has come from Greece; I hope there’s nothing wrong. In this way, every place can bring misfortune to you. Isn’t it enough for you to be unfortunate where you are already? Do you really need to suffer even across the sea, based on what you hear in letters? Is this how you find security in your life? Well then, suppose my friends have died far away from me. What else have they faced than what comes with being human? Or how can you want to live a long life and also not witness the death of anyone you care about? Don’t you realize that over time, many different things can happen? One person might be struck down by a fever, another may be robbed, and yet another may fall victim to a tyrant. That’s just how life is, that’s how those around us exist; cold and heat, unhealthy living conditions, land journeys, sea voyages, winds, and many different circumstances surround us, destroying one person, exiling another, sending one into a diplomatic mission and another into war. So, sit there anxious about all these things, lamenting, unhappy, unfortunate, dependent on others—not just one or two people, but tens of thousands upon tens of thousands.
Did you hear this when you were with the philosophers? did you learn this? do you not know that human life is a warfare? that one man must keep watch, another must go out as a spy, and a third must fight? and it is not possible that all should be in one place, nor is it better that it should be so. But you neglecting to do the commands of the general complain when anything more hard than usual is imposed on you, and you do not observe what you make the army become as far as it is in your power; that if all imitate you, no man will dig a trench, no man will put a rampart round, nor keep watch, nor expose himself to danger, but will appear to be useless for the purposes of an army. Again, in a vessel if you go as a sailor, keep to one place and stick to it. And if you are ordered to climb the mast, refuse; if to run to the head of the ship, refuse; and what master of a ship will endure you? and will he not pitch you overboard as a useless thing, an impediment only and bad example to the other sailors? And so it is here also: every man’s life is a kind of warfare, and it is long and diversified. You must observe the duty of a soldier and do every thing at the nod of the general; if it is possible, divining what his wishes are; for there is no resemblance between that general and this, neither in strength nor in superiority of character. Know you not that a good man does nothing for the sake of appearance, but for the sake of doing right? What advantage is it then to him to have done right? And what advantage is it to a man who writes the name of Dion to write it as he ought? The advantage is to have written it. Is there no reward then? Do you seek a reward for a good man greater than doing what is good and just? At Olympia you wish for nothing more, but it seems to you enough to be crowned at the games. Does it seem to you so small and worthless a thing to be good and happy? For these purposes being introduced by the gods into this city (the world), and it being now your duty to undertake the work of a man, do you still want nurses also and a mamma, and do foolish women by their weeping move you and make you effeminate? Will you thus never cease to be a foolish child? know you not that he who does the acts of a child, the older he is, the more ridiculous he is?
Did you hear this when you were with the philosophers? Did you learn this? Don’t you know that human life is a battle? One person has to keep watch, another has to go out as a spy, and a third has to fight. It’s not possible for everyone to be in one place, nor is it better for it to be so. Yet you, neglecting the orders of the leader, complain when something tougher than usual is asked of you, and you don’t realize what kind of army you're shaping as much as you can; that if everyone mimics you, no one will dig a trench, no one will build a rampart, nor keep watch, nor put themselves in danger, but will seem useless for an army's purposes. Likewise, if you’re a sailor on a ship, stay in one spot and stick to it. If you’re told to climb the mast, refuse; if you’re asked to go to the front of the ship, refuse; and what captain will put up with you? Won’t he throw you overboard as someone useless, just a hindrance and a bad example to the other sailors? It’s the same here: every person’s life is a sort of battle, long and varied. You must fulfill your duty as a soldier and do everything at the command of the leader; if possible, understanding what he wants; for there’s no similarity between that leader and this one, not in strength nor in character. Don’t you realize that a good person does nothing for show, but for what’s right? What advantage is it then for them to have done right? And what’s the benefit for someone writing the name of Dion to write it properly? The advantage is simply having done it. Is there no reward then? Are you looking for a reward for a good person greater than just doing what is good and just? At Olympia, you want nothing more, but it seems enough to be crowned at the games. Does it seem so small and worthless to be good and happy? For these reasons, being brought into this city (the world) by the gods, and now it being your duty to take on the responsibilities of a man, do you still want caregivers and a mother, allowing foolish women’s tears to move you and make you weak? Will you always remain a foolish child? Don’t you know that the more childish acts someone does, the more ridiculous they look as they get older?
So in this matter also: if you kiss your own child, or your brother or friend, never give full license to the appearance ([Greek: phantasian]), and allow not your pleasure to go as far as it chooses; but check it, and curb it as those who stand behind men in their triumphs and remind them that they are mortal. Do you also remind yourself in like manner, that he whom you love is mortal, and that what you love is nothing of your own; it has been given to you for the present, not that it should not be taken from you, nor has it been given to you for all time, but as a fig is given to you or a bunch of grapes at the appointed season of the year. But if you wish for these things in winter, you are a fool. So if you wish for your son or friend when it is not allowed to you, you must know that you are wishing for a fig in winter. For such as winter is to a fig, such is every event which happens from the universe to the things which are taken away according to its nature. And further, at the times when you are delighted with a thing, place before yourself the contrary appearances. What harm is it while you are kissing your child to say with a lisping voice: To-morrow you will die; and to a friend also: To-morrow you will go away or I shall, and never shall we see one another again? But these are words of bad omen—and some incantations also are of bad omen; but because they are useful, I don’t care for this; only let them be useful. But do you call things to be of bad omen except those which are significant of some evil? Cowardice is a word of bad omen, and meanness of spirit, and sorrow, and grief, and shamelessness. These words are of bad omen; and yet we ought not to hesitate to utter them in order to protect ourselves against the things. Do you tell me that a name which is significant of any natural thing is of evil omen? say that even for the ears of corn to be reaped is of bad omen, for it signifies the destruction of the ears, but not of the world. Say that the falling of the leaves also is of bad omen, and for the dried fig to take the place of the green fig, and for raisins to be made from the grapes. For all these things are changes from a former state into other states; not a destruction, but a certain fixed economy and administration. Such is going away from home and a small change: such is death, a greater change, not from the state which now is to that which is not, but to that which is not now. Shall I then no longer exist? You will not exist, but you will be something else, of which the world now has need; for you also came into existence not when you chose, but when the world had need of you.
So in this matter too: if you kiss your child, brother, or friend, never let yourself be completely carried away by the moment, and don’t let your pleasure take over; instead, hold back and remind yourself that just like those cheering at a victory, you too need to remember that you are mortal. Remind yourself that the one you love is mortal, and that what you cherish isn’t truly yours; it has been given to you for now, not forever, and it can be taken away at any time. It’s like receiving a fig or a bunch of grapes in season. If you wish for those things in winter, you are being foolish. Similarly, if you desire your son or friend when it’s not possible, understand that you’re longing for a fig in winter. Just as winter is to a fig, every event that happens in the universe aligns with the nature of what is removed. Moreover, during your joyful moments, consider the opposite possibilities. What’s the harm in gently saying while you hold your child, “Tomorrow, you might die,” or to a friend, “Tomorrow, you might leave, and we may never see each other again?” These may seem like bad omens, and while some things sound ominous, if they serve a purpose, I don’t mind. But do we only label things as bad omens if they signify some evil? Cowardice, meanness, sorrow, grief, and shamelessness are indeed bad omens. Yet we shouldn’t shy away from saying them if it helps us guard against those realities. Do you tell me that a name representing something natural is a bad omen? You might say that harvesting ears of corn is a bad omen since it means the end of them, but not the end of the world. You could say that fallen leaves are a bad omen, that dried figs replace green ones, or that grapes become raisins. All these changes are transitions from one state to another, not destruction but part of a greater order and process. Leaving home is a small change; death is a larger change—not from something that is to something that isn’t, but to something that isn’t now. Will I cease to exist? You may not exist, but you will become something else that the world needs; you came into being not on your own terms, but when the world needed you.
Let these thoughts be ready to hand by night and by day; these you should write, these you should read; about these you should talk to yourself and to others. Ask a man: Can you help me at all for this purpose? and further, go to another and to another. Then if anything that is said be contrary to your wish, this reflection first will immediately relieve you, that it is not unexpected. For it is a great thing in all cases to say: I knew that I begot a son who is mortal. For so you also will say: I knew that I am mortal, I knew that I may leave my home, I knew that I may be ejected from it, I knew that I may be led to prison. Then if you turn round and look to yourself, and seek the place from which comes that which has happened, you will forthwith recollect that it comes from the place of things which are out of the power of the will, and of things which are not my own. What then is it to me? Then, you will ask, and this is the chief thing: And who is it that sent it? The leader, or the general, the state, the law of the state. Give it me then, for I must always obey the law in everything. Then, when the appearance (of things) pains you, for it is not in your power to prevent this, contend against it by the aid of reason, conquer it: do not allow it to gain strength nor to lead you to the consequences by raising images such as it pleases and as it pleases. If you be in Gyara, do not imagine the mode of living at Rome, and how many pleasures there were for him who lived there and how many there would be for him who returned to Rome; but fix your mind on this matter, how a man who lives in Gyara ought to live in Gyara like a man of courage. And if you be in Rome, do not imagine what the life in Athens is, but think only of the life in Rome.
Keep these thoughts close at all times, both day and night; write them down, read them, and talk about them with yourself and others. Ask someone: Can you help me with this? Then ask another person and another. If anything said goes against your wishes, remember this: it’s not unexpected. It’s important to acknowledge: I know I fathered a child who is mortal. Just as you can say: I know I am mortal, I know I might leave my home, I know I could be kicked out, I know I might be taken to prison. Then, if you pause and reflect on where this situation is coming from, you'll remember that it arises from things outside your control and things that aren’t yours. So what does it mean for me? Then you should ask the key question: Who is responsible for this? The leader, the general, the state, the law of the state. So let it come, because I must always obey the law in everything. When the situation causes you pain, since you can’t stop it, fight against it with reason, and overcome it: don’t let it take over or lead you to consequences by conjuring up whatever it wants. If you find yourself in Gyara, don’t dwell on life in Rome and the pleasures available there, but focus on how a person in Gyara should live with courage. And if you’re in Rome, don’t think about life in Athens, just concentrate on living in Rome.
Then in the place of all other delights substitute this, that of being conscious that you are obeying God, that not in word, but in deed you are performing the acts of a wise and good man. For what a thing it is for a man to be able to say to himself: Now whatever the rest may say in solemn manner in the schools and may be judged to be saying in a way contrary to common opinion (or in a strange way), this I am doing; and they are sitting and are discoursing of my virtues and inquiring about me and praising me; and of this Zeus has willed that I shall receive from myself a demonstration, and shall myself know if he has a soldier such as he ought to have, a citizen such as he ought to have, and if he has chosen to produce me to the rest of mankind as a witness of the things which are independent of the will: See that you fear without reason, that you foolishly desire what you do desire; seek not the good in things external; seek it in yourselves: if you do not, you will not find it. For this purpose he leads me at one time hither, at another time sends me thither, shows me to men as poor, without authority, and sick; sends me to Gyara, leads me into prison, not because he hates me—far from him be such a meaning, for who hates the best of his servants? nor yet because he cares not for me, for he does not neglect any even of the smallest things; but he does this for the purpose of exercising me and making use of me as a witness to others. Being appointed to such a service, do I still care about the place in which I am, or with whom I am, or what men say about me? and do I not entirely direct my thoughts to God and to his instructions and commands?
Then in place of all other pleasures, focus on this: being aware that you are following God's will, that not just in words, but in actions, you are living like a wise and good person. What a powerful thing it is for someone to be able to say to themselves: No matter what others might solemnly discuss in schools or say in ways that contradict common belief (or seem odd), I am doing this; while they sit around talking about my virtues, asking about me and praising me; and by the will of Zeus, I will receive proof from myself and truly know if he has a soldier like he should have, a citizen like he should have, and if he has chosen to present me to the rest of humanity as a witness to things that are beyond our control: Look at how you irrationally fear, how you foolishly desire what you do; don’t seek good in external things; seek it within yourselves: if you don’t, you won’t find it. For this reason, he sometimes leads me here, other times sends me there, shows me to people as poor, without power, and sick; he sends me to Gyara, brings me to prison, not because he hates me—far from it, for who would hate their best servant?—nor because he doesn't care about me, because he pays attention even to the smallest things; but he does this to test me and use me as a witness for others. Given that I’ve been assigned such a role, do I still care about where I am, who I’m with, or what people say about me? Or do I focus entirely on God and his teachings and commands?
Having these things (or thoughts) always in hand, and exercising them by yourself, and keeping them in readiness, you will never be in want of one to comfort you and strengthen you. For it is not shameful to be without something to eat, but not to have reason sufficient for keeping away fear and sorrow. But if once you have gained exemption from sorrow and fear, will there any longer be a tyrant for you, or a tyrant’s guard, or attendants on Cæsar? Or shall any appointment to offices at court cause you pain, or shall those who sacrifice in the Capitol on the occasion of being named to certain functions, cause pain to you who have received so great authority from Zeus? Only do not make a proud display of it, nor boast of it; but show it by your acts; and if no man perceives it, be satisfied that you are yourself in a healthy state and happy.
Keeping these thoughts at your fingertips and practicing them on your own will ensure that you always have something to comfort and strengthen you. It's not shameful to be hungry, but not having a solid reason to overcome fear and sadness is a different matter. Once you free yourself from sorrow and fear, will there be any tyrant or their guards that can control you? Will a position at court make you anxious, or will those who make sacrifices at the Capitol for certain roles bother you when you have received such great authority from Zeus? Just remember not to flaunt it or boast; let your actions speak for themselves. And if no one else notices, find contentment in your own well-being and happiness.
TO THOSE WHO FALL OFF (DESIST) FROM THEIR PURPOSE.—Consider as to the things which you proposed to yourself at first, which you have secured, and which you have not; and how you are pleased when you recall to memory the one, and are pained about the other; and if it is possible, recover the things wherein you failed. For we must not shrink when we are engaged in the greatest combat, but we must even take blows. For the combat before us is not in wrestling and the Pancration, in which both the successful and the unsuccessful may have the greatest merit, or may have little, and in truth may be very fortunate or very unfortunate; but the combat is for good fortune and happiness themselves. Well then, even if we have renounced the contest in this matter (for good fortune and happiness), no man hinders us from renewing the combat again, and we are not compelled to wait for another four years that the games at Olympia may come again; but as soon as you have recovered and restored yourself, and employ the same zeal, you may renew the combat again; and if again you renounce it, you may again renew it; and if you once gain the victory, you are like him who has never renounced the combat. Only do not through a habit of doing the same thing (renouncing the combat), begin to do it with pleasure, and then like a bad athlete go about after being conquered in all the circuit of the games like quails who have run away.
TO THOSE WHO GIVE UP (STOP) IN THEIR ENDEAVOR.—Think about the goals you originally set for yourself, what you have achieved, and what you haven't; notice how you feel pleased when you remember the accomplishments and pained about the failures; and if possible, work to recover what you missed. We shouldn’t back down when we're in the toughest fight, but instead, we should be prepared to take some hits. The battle we're facing isn't just a wrestling match or a pankration, where both winners and losers can be admirable, or where fortune can shine or fade; instead, it’s about achieving good fortune and happiness themselves. Alright, even if we’ve given up on this fight (for good fortune and happiness), no one stops us from starting it again. We don't have to wait another four years for the next Olympic games; as soon as you're ready, if you bring back that same determination, you can jump back into the fight; and if you decide to step out again, you can always come back. If you win once, it's as if you’ve never backed down. Just don't let this habit of giving up become comfortable, or like a poor athlete, you’ll wander around defeated like quails that have fled.
TO THOSE WHO FEAR WANT.—Are you not ashamed at being more cowardly and more mean than fugitive slaves? How do they when they run away leave their masters? on what estates do they depend, and what domestics do they rely on? Do they not after stealing a little, which is enough for the first days, then afterwards move on through land or through sea, contriving one method after another for maintaining their lives? And what fugitive slave ever died of hunger? But you are afraid lest necessary things should fail you, and are sleepless by night. Wretch, are you so blind, and don’t you see the road to which the want of necessaries leads?—Well, where does it lead?—to the same place to which a fever leads, or a stone that falls on you, to death. Have you not often said this yourself to your companions? have you not read much of this kind, and written much? and how often have you boasted that you were easy as to death?
TO THOSE WHO FEAR WANT.—Are you not ashamed to be more cowardly and mean than runaway slaves? How do they manage when they escape from their masters? What estates do they depend on, and which servants do they rely on? After taking just enough to get them through the first few days, don’t they keep moving, whether by land or sea, finding one way after another to survive? And how many runaway slaves have ever starved to death? But you worry about running out of necessities and can’t sleep at night. Wretch, are you so blind that you don’t see where the fear of lacking necessities leads?—Well, where does it lead?—To the same place that a fever leads you or a rock falling on you, to death. Haven’t you often said this to your friends? Haven’t you read and written about this many times? And how many times have you claimed to be at ease about death?
Learn then first what are the things which are shameful, and then tell us that you are a philosopher: but at present do not, even if any other man calls you so, allow it.
Learn first what things are shameful, and then tell us that you are a philosopher; but for now, don’t accept that title, even if someone else calls you one.
Is that shameful to you which is not your own act, that of which you are not the cause, that which has come to you by accident, as a headache, as a fever? If your parents were poor, and left their property to others, and if while they live, they do not help you at all, is this shameful to you? Is this what you learned with the philosophers? Did you never hear that the thing which is shameful ought to be blamed, and that which is blamable is worthy of blame? Whom do you blame for an act which is not his own, which he did not do himself? Did you then make your father such as he is, or is it in your power to improve him? Is this power given to you? Well then, ought you to wish the things which are not given to you, or to be ashamed if you do not obtain them? And have you also been accustomed while you were studying philosophy to look to others and to hope for nothing from yourself? Lament then and groan and eat with fear that you may not have food to-morrow. Tremble about your poor slaves lest they steal, lest they run away, lest they die. So live, and continue to live, you who in name only have approached philosophy, and have disgraced its theorems as far as you can by showing them to be useless and unprofitable to those who take them up; you, who have never sought constancy, freedom from perturbation, and from passions; you who have not sought any person for the sake of this object, but many for the sake of syllogisms; you who have never thoroughly examined any of these appearances by yourself, Am I able to bear, or am I not able to bear? What remains for me to do? But as if all your affairs were well and secure, you have been resting on the third topic, that of things being unchanged, in order that you may possess unchanged—what? cowardice, mean spirit, the admiration of the rich, desire without attaining any end, and avoidance ([Greek: echchlisin]) which fails in the attempt? About security in these things you have been anxious.
Is it shameful to you to feel embarrassed about something that isn't your fault, something that happened to you by chance, like a headache or a fever? If your parents were poor and left their assets to others, and didn't help you at all while they were alive, does that shame you? Is that what you learned from philosophers? Did you never hear that shameful things should be blamed and that blameworthy things deserve criticism? Who do you blame for something that isn't their doing, something they didn’t cause? Did you make your father who he is, or can you change him? Is that power even in your hands? So, should you wish for things you can’t have, or feel ashamed if you don’t get them? And have you gotten so used to looking at others and expecting nothing from yourself while studying philosophy? Then go ahead and lament, groan, and eat in fear that you might not have food tomorrow. Worry about your poor slaves—what if they steal, run away, or die? Live like this, you who have only pretended to embrace philosophy and have tarnished its teachings by making them seem useless and unhelpful to those who engage with them; you who have never sought stability, freedom from anxiety, or control over your emotions; you who haven't looked for anyone for the sake of these goals, but many just for debates; you who have never really questioned whether you can endure or not. What’s left for me to do? But it seems all your affairs are secure and well, as you cling to the idea that things stay the same, hoping to keep what? Cowardice, low spirit, admiration for the wealthy, desires without achieving any goals, and avoidance that fails in its efforts? You have been anxious about security in these matters.
Ought you not to have gained something in addition from reason, and then to have protected this with security? And whom did you ever see building a battlement all around and encircling it with a wall? And what doorkeeper is placed with no door to watch? But you practise in order to be able to prove—what? You practise that you may not be tossed as on the sea through sophisms, and tossed about from what? Show me first what you hold, what you measure, or what you weigh; and show me the scales or the medimnus (the measure); or how long will you go on measuring the dust? Ought you not to demonstrate those things which make men happy, which make things go on for them in the way as they wish, and why we ought to blame no man, accuse no man, and acquiesce in the administration of the universe?
Shouldn't you have gained something more from reason and then secured it? Have you ever seen anyone build a wall around something without a battlement? And what doorkeeper stands watch without a door? But what are you practicing for? You practice so you don’t get tossed around by clever arguments, but tossed around by what? Show me first what you possess, what you measure, or what you weigh; show me the scales or the measure you use. How long will you keep measuring the dust? Shouldn’t you demonstrate the things that make people happy, that help things go the way they want, and explain why we shouldn't blame anyone, accuse anyone, and why we should accept the way the universe is run?
ABOUT FREEDOM.—He is free who lives as he wishes to live; who is neither subject to compulsion nor to hindrance, nor to force; whose movements to action ([Greek: hormai]) are not impeded, whose desires attain their purpose, and who does not fall into that which he would avoid ([Greek: echchliseis aperiptotoi]). Who then chooses to live in error? No man. Who chooses to live deceived, liable to mistake, unjust, unrestrained, discontented, mean? No man. Not one then of the bad lives as he wishes; nor is he then free. And who chooses to live in sorrow, fear, envy, pity, desiring and failing in his desires, attempting to avoid something and falling into it? Not one. Do we then find any of the bad free from sorrow, free from fear, who does not fall into that which he would avoid, and does not obtain that which he wishes? Not one; nor then do we find any bad man free.
ABOUT FREEDOM.—A person is free when they live as they choose; when they aren't forced, restricted, or coerced; when their ability to act isn't blocked, their desires are fulfilled, and they don't end up in situations they want to avoid. So, who would choose to live in error? No one. Who would choose to live deceived, prone to mistakes, unjust, uncontrolled, unhappy, or petty? No one. None of the bad people live as they wish; therefore, they are not free. And who wants to live in sadness, fear, envy, pity, wanting things and failing, trying to avoid something and ending up in it? No one. Do we find any bad person free from sadness, free from fear, who doesn’t end up in what they want to avoid, and who gets what they desire? Not one; thus, we don’t find any bad person who is free.
Further, then, answer me this question, also: does freedom seem to you to be something great and noble and valuable? How should it not seem so? Is it possible then when a man obtains anything so great and valuable and noble to be mean? It is not possible. When then you see any man subject to another or flattering him contrary to his own opinion, confidently affirm that this man also is not free; and not only if he do this for a bit of supper, but also if he does it for a government (province) or a consulship; and call these men little slaves who for the sake of little matters do these things, and those who do so for the sake of great things call great slaves, as they deserve to be. This is admitted also. Do you think that freedom is a thing independent and self-governing? Certainly. Whomsoever then it is in the power of another to hinder and compel, declare that he is not free. And do not look, I entreat you, after his grandfathers and great-grandfathers, or inquire about his being bought or sold, but if you hear him saying from his heart and with feeling, “Master,” even if the twelve fasces precede him (as consul), call him a slave. And if you hear him say, “Wretch that I am, how much I suffer,” call him a slave. If, finally, you see him lamenting, complaining, unhappy, call him a slave, though he wears a praetexta. If, then, he is doing nothing of this kind do not yet say that he is free, but learn his opinions, whether they are subject to compulsion, or may produce hindrance, or to bad fortune, and if you find him such, call him a slave who has a holiday in the Saturnalia; say that his master is from home; he will return soon, and you will know what he suffers.
Furthermore, answer me this: do you think freedom is something great, noble, and valuable? How could it not be? Is it even possible for someone who achieves something so significant, valuable, and noble to be petty? It’s not possible. So when you see anyone under the control of another or flattering someone against their own beliefs, you can confidently say that this person is not free; and this applies not only if they do it just to get a meal, but also if they do it for a government position or a consulship. Call these individuals little slaves who do such things for trivial reasons, and those who do it for more important things are great slaves, as they deserve to be labeled. This is generally accepted. Do you think freedom is something independent and self-governing? Absolutely. Therefore, if someone has the power to hinder or constrain another, declare that person is not free. And don't get caught up in their lineage or whether they’ve been bought or sold; if you hear someone sincerely say “Master,” even if twelve fasces precede him as consul, call him a slave. If you hear him say, “What a wretch I am, how much I suffer,” refer to him as a slave. Finally, if you see him lamenting, complaining, or unhappy, call him a slave, even if he’s wearing a praetexta. But if you notice he’s not showing any of these signs, don't jump to call him free just yet. Instead, learn his views—whether they’re influenced by coercion, can be obstructed, or are prone to misfortune—and if you find out he is, consider him a slave on holiday during the Saturnalia; say that his master is away, but will return soon, and then you’ll know what he truly endures.
What then is that which makes a man free from hindrance and makes him his own master? For wealth does not do it, nor consulship, nor provincial government, nor royal power; but something else must be discovered. What then is that which when we write makes us free from hindrance and unimpeded? The knowledge of the art of writing. What then is it in playing the lute? The science of playing the lute. Therefore in life also it is the science of life. You have then heard in a general way; but examine the thing also in the several parts. Is it possible that he who desires any of the things which depend on others can be free from hindrance? No. Is it possible for him to be unimpeded? No. Therefore he cannot be free. Consider then, whether we have nothing which is in our own power only, or whether we have all things, or whether some things are in our own power, and others in the power of others. What do you mean? When you wish the body to be entire (sound) is it in your power or not? It is not in my power. When you wish it to be healthy? Neither is this in my power. When you wish it to be handsome? Nor is this. Life or death? Neither is this in my power. Your body then is another’s, subject to every man who is stronger than yourself. It is. But your estate is it in your power to have it when you please, and as long as you please, and such as you please? No. And your slaves? No. And your clothes? No. And your house? No. And your horses? Not one of these things. And if you wish by all means your children to live, or your wife, or your brother, or your friends, is it in your power? This also is not in my power.
What, then, makes a person free from obstacles and their own master? It's not wealth, political office, provincial government, or royal power; instead, we need to find something else. What allows us to write freely and without hindrance? The skill of writing. What about playing the lute? The expertise of playing the lute. So, in life, it’s about the knowledge of how to live. You’ve heard this in broad terms, but let's break it down further. Can someone who desires things dependent on others truly be free from obstacles? No. Can they be unimpeded? No. Therefore, they cannot be free. So, let’s consider whether we have anything that is completely within our control, or if we have everything, or if some things are within our control while others aren’t. What do you mean? When you want your body to be whole and sound, is that within your control? No, it isn’t. When you want it to be healthy? That’s not in my control either. When you want it to be attractive? That isn’t either. Life or death? That is also beyond my control. Your body, then, belongs to others, subject to anyone stronger than you. It does. But your possessions—are they yours to keep whenever you want, for as long as you want, and as you want? No. And your servants? No. Your clothes? No. Your house? No. Your horses? None of those are truly yours. And if you want your children, your wife, your brother, or your friends to live, is that in your control? That’s also not in my control.
Whether then have you nothing which is in your own power, which depends on yourself only and cannot be taken from you, or have you anything of the kind? I know not. Look at the thing then thus, and examine it. Is any man able to make you assent to that which is false? No man. In the matter of assent then you are free from hindrance and obstruction. Granted. Well; and can a man force you to desire to move towards that to which you do not choose? He can, for when he threatens me with death or bonds he compels me to desire to move towards it. If then you despise death and bonds, do you still pay any regard to him? No. Is then the despising of death an act of your own or is it not yours? It is my act.
Do you have anything that's completely within your control, something that can’t be taken away from you, or not? I don’t know. Look at it this way and think about it. Can anyone make you agree to something that’s false? No one can. So, when it comes to agreeing, you are free and unblocked. Agreed? Okay; and can someone force you to want to move towards something you don’t want? They can, because if they threaten me with death or imprisonment, they make me want to move in that direction. But if you disregard death and imprisonment, do you still care about what they say? No. Is not caring about death something you choose to do, or is it not your choice? It’s my choice.
When you have made this preparation, and have practised this discipline, to distinguish that which belongs to another from that which is your own, the things which are subject to hindrance from those which are not, to consider the things free from hindrance to concern yourself, and those which are not free not to concern yourself, to keep your desire steadily fixed to the things which do concern yourself, and turned from the things which do not concern yourself; do you still fear any man? No one. For about what will you be afraid? About the things which are your own, in which consists the nature of good and evil? and who has power over these things? who can take them away? who can impede them? No man can, no more than he can impede God. But will you be afraid about your body and your possessions, about things which are not yours, about things which in no way concern you? and what else have you been studying from the beginning than to distinguish between your own and not your own, the things which are in your power and not in your power, the things subject to hindrance and not subject? and why have you come to the philosophers? was it that you may nevertheless be unfortunate and unhappy? You will then in this way, as I have supposed you to have done, be without fear and disturbance. And what is grief to you? for fear comes from what you expect, but grief from that which is present. But what further will you desire? For of the things which are within the power of the will, as being good and present, you have a proper and regulated desire; but of the things which are not in the power of the will you do not desire any one, and so you do not allow any place to that which is irrational, and impatient, and above measure hasty.
Once you've prepared yourself and practiced this discipline—distinguishing what belongs to others from what belongs to you, recognizing what can be hindered and what cannot—focus on things that truly concern you, and let go of those that don’t. Keep your desires aimed at what matters to you and turn away from what doesn’t. Do you still fear anyone? No, because what is there to be afraid of? The things that are truly yours, which define good and evil for you—who has the power over these? Who can take them from you or hinder them? No one can, any more than they can hinder God. But will you fear for your body and possessions—things that aren’t really yours, that don’t concern you at all? What have you been studying all along if not to make that distinction: between what is yours and what isn’t, between what’s in your control and what isn’t, and between what can be hindered and what cannot? Why have you turned to philosophers? Was it so you could remain unfortunate and unhappy? If you’ve done as I assume, you'll be free from fear and distress. What is grief to you? Fear comes from what you anticipate, while grief comes from what is present. But what else do you want? For the things that are within your will's power, which are good and present, you have a healthy and ordered desire; but for those outside your control, you do not desire at all, allowing no room for irrationality, impatience, or excessive haste.
Then after receiving everything from another and even yourself, are you angry and do you blame the giver if he takes anything from you? Who are you, and for what purpose did you come into the world? Did not he (God) introduce you here, did he not show you the light, did he not give you fellow-workers, and perceptions and reason? and as whom did he introduce you here? did he not introduce you as subject to death, and as one to live on the earth with a little flesh, and to observe his administration, and to join with him in the spectacle and the festival for a short time? Will you not then, as long as you have been permitted, after seeing the spectacle and the solemnity, when he leads you out, go with adoration of him and thanks for what you have heard and seen? No; but I would still enjoy the feast. The initiated too would wish to be longer in the initiation; and perhaps also those at Olympia to see other athletes. But the solemnity is ended; go away like a grateful and modest man; make room for others; others also must be born, as you were, and, being born, they must have a place, and houses, and necessary things. And if the first do not retire, what remains? Why are you insatiable? Why are you not content? why do you contract the world? Yes, but I would have my little children with me and my wife. What, are they yours? do they not belong to the giver, and to him who made you? then will you not give up what belongs to others? will you not give way to him who is superior? Why then did he introduce me into the world on these conditions? And if the conditions do not suit you, depart. He has no need of a spectator who is not satisfied. He wants those who join in the festival, those who take part in the chorus, that they may rather applaud, admire, and celebrate with hymns the solemnity. But those who can bear no trouble, and the cowardly, he will not unwillingly see absent from the great assembly ([Greek: panaeguris]) for they did not when they were present behave as they ought to do at a festival nor fill up their place properly, but they lamented, found fault with the deity, fortune, their companions; not seeing both what they had, and their own powers, which they received for contrary purposes, the powers of magnanimity, of a generous mind, manly spirit, and what we are now inquiring about, freedom. For what purpose then have I received these things? To use them. How long? So long as he who has lent them chooses. What if they are necessary to me? Do not attach yourself to them and they will not be necessary; do not say to yourself that they are necessary, and then they are not necessary.
After you've received everything from others and even from yourself, do you feel angry and blame the giver if he takes something from you? Who are you, and why did you come into this world? Didn't he (God) bring you here, show you the light, give you companions, as well as perceptions and reason? And how did he introduce you here? Did he not introduce you as someone subject to death, as one who will live on earth with a little flesh, to observe his management, and to participate in the spectacle and festival for a short time? Will you not then, as long as you’re allowed, after witnessing the spectacle and the ceremony, when he leads you out, go with gratitude towards him and thankfulness for what you have heard and seen? No; I would still like to enjoy the celebration. The initiated would also want to stay longer in the initiation; perhaps those at Olympia would like to see more athletes. But the ceremony is over; leave like a thankful and humble person; make way for others; others must be born, just like you were, and when they are born, they need a place, homes, and basic things. And if the first ones don’t step aside, what remains? Why are you never satisfied? Why are you not content? Why are you shrinking the world? Yes, but I want my little children and my wife with me. What, are they yours? Don't they belong to the giver and the one who created you? Then will you not give up what belongs to others? Will you not yield to him who is greater? Why then did he bring me into the world under these conditions? And if those conditions don’t suit you, leave. He doesn’t need a spectator who isn’t happy. He wants those who join in the celebration, those who participate in the chorus, so they can applaud, admire, and celebrate the solemnity with songs. But those who cannot handle discomfort, and the cowardly, he will not mind seeing absent from the great assembly ([Greek: panaeguris]) because they did not behave as they should at a festival nor properly fill their spot, but instead complained, criticized the deity, fate, their friends; not recognizing both what they had and their own strengths, which they received for different purposes, the strengths of courage, a generous spirit, and what we are now questioning, freedom. For what purpose then have I received these things? To use them. How long? For as long as he who has lent them chooses. What if they are essential to me? Don't cling to them and they won’t be essential; don’t tell yourself they are necessary, and then they won’t be.
You then, a man may say, are you free? I wish, by the gods, and pray to be free; but I am not yet able to face my masters, I still value my poor body, I value greatly the preservation of it entire, though I do not possess it entire. But I can point out to you a free man, that you may no longer seek an example. Diogenes was free. How was he free? Not because he was born of free parents, but because he was himself free, because he had cast off all the handles of slavery, and it was not possible for any man to approach him, nor had any man the means of laying hold of him to enslave him. He had everything easily loosed, everything only hanging to him. If you laid hold of his property, he would have rather let it go and be yours, than he would have followed you for it; if you had laid hold of his leg, he would have let go his leg; if of all his body, all his poor body; his intimates, friends, country, just the same. For he knew from whence he had them, and from whom, and on what conditions. His true parents indeed, the gods, and his real country he would never have deserted, nor would he have yielded to any man in obedience to them and to their orders, nor would any man have died for his country more readily. For he was not used to inquire when he should be considered to have done anything on behalf of the whole of things (the universe, or all the world), but he remembered that everything which is done comes from thence and is done on behalf of that country and is commanded by him who administers it. Therefore see what Diogenes himself says and writes: “For this reason,” he says, “Diogenes, it is in your power to speak both with the King of the Persians and with Archidamus the King of the Lacedaemonians, as you please.” Was it because he was born of free parents? I suppose all the Athenians and all the Lacedaemonians, because they were born of slaves, could not talk with them (these kings) as they wished, but feared and paid court to them. Why then does he say that it is in his power? Because I do not consider the poor body to be my own, because I want nothing, because law is everything to me, and nothing else is. These were the things which permitted him to be free.
You might ask, "Are you free?" I wish I could say I am, but I’m not quite ready to confront those in charge. I still care about my poor body; I really want to keep it whole, even though it’s not entirely mine. But I can show you a truly free person, so you don’t have to look for an example anymore. Diogenes was free. How was he free? Not because he came from free parents, but because he was free in himself—he had shed all the chains of slavery, and no one could approach him or have the means to enslave him. Everything in his life was easily let go; it was just loosely attached to him. If you took his things, he would rather let them go and be yours than chase after them. If you grabbed his leg, he’d just let you have it; if you grabbed his whole body, he’d let you take all of him, even his friends, country, everything. He understood where he got these things, who gave them to him, and under what conditions. His real parents were the gods, and he would never abandon his true country, nor would he submit to anyone else’s authority over them; no one would be quicker to die for his country than he was. He didn’t wait to be recognized for doing something for the greater good because he remembered that everything done comes from that broader duty and is commanded by the one who oversees it. So look at what Diogenes said and wrote: “For this reason,” he claimed, “Diogenes, you have the ability to speak with the King of the Persians and with Archidamus, the King of the Lacedaemonians, whenever you want.” Was this because he was born to free parents? I would guess that all Athenians and all Lacedaemonians, born of slaves, couldn’t talk freely with those kings; they were scared and acted deferentially toward them. So why did he say it was within his power? Because he didn’t see his poor body as truly his, because he wanted for nothing, because law meant everything to him, and nothing else mattered. These were the reasons that allowed him to be free.
Think of these things, these opinions, these words; look to these examples, if you would be free, if you desire the thing according to its worth. And what is the wonder if you buy so great a thing at the price of things so many and so great? For the sake of this which is called liberty, some hang themselves, others throw themselves down precipices, and sometimes even whole cities have perished; and will you not for the sake of the true and unassailable and secure liberty give back to God when he demands them the things which he has given? Will you not, as Plato says, study not to die only, but also to endure torture, and exile, and scourging, and, in a word, to give up all which is not your own? If you will not, you will be a slave among slaves, even if you be ten thousand times a consul; and if you make your way up to the palace (Cæsar’s residence), you will no less be a slave; and you will feel that perhaps philosophers utter words which are contrary to common opinion (paradoxes), as Cleanthes also said, but not words contrary to reason. For you will know by experience that the words are true, and that there is no profit from the things which are valued and eagerly sought to those who have obtained them; and to those who have not yet obtained them there is an imagination ([Greek: phantasia]), that when these things are come, all that is good will come with them; then, when they are come, the feverish feeling is the same, the tossing to and fro is the same, the satiety, the desire of things, which are not present; for freedom is acquired not by the full possession of the things which are desired, but by removing the desire. And that you may know that this is true, as you have labored for those things, so transfer your labor to these: be vigilant for the purpose of acquiring an opinion which will make you free; pay court to a philosopher instead of to a rich old man; be seen about a philosopher’s doors; you will not disgrace yourself by being seen; you will not go away empty nor without profit, if you go to the philosopher as you ought, and if not (if you do not succeed), try at least; the trial (attempt) is not disgraceful.
Consider these thoughts, these opinions, these words; look to these examples if you want to be free and seek what truly matters. Isn’t it astonishing that you would pay such a high price for something so valuable? For the sake of what we call liberty, some take their own lives, others leap from heights, and sometimes entire cities have been lost. Will you not, for the sake of true, unwavering, and secure freedom, return to God what He has given when He asks for it? As Plato said, should you not aim to not just avoid death, but also withstand torture, exile, and punishment, in short, release everything that isn’t truly yours? If you don’t, you will be a slave among slaves, no matter how many times you attain the title of consul; even if you manage to ascend to the palace (Caesar’s residence), you will still be a slave. You may sense that philosophers speak words that go against popular opinion (paradoxes), as Cleanthes also noted, but not words that go against reason. You will come to realize through experience that their words are true, and those things that are highly valued and eagerly pursued bring no real benefit to those who possess them; those who have yet to obtain them imagine that when they do, all good things will follow. But once they have arrived, the restless feeling remains the same, the constant yearning is unchanged, the dissatisfaction and craving for what is absent continue; freedom is gained not by fully possessing what you desire, but by letting go of that desire. And to confirm this truth, as you have worked for those things, shift your focus towards these: be proactive in gaining a mindset that will lead to your freedom; seek out a philosopher instead of a wealthy elder; linger around a philosopher’s door; you won’t embarrass yourself by being seen there; you won’t leave empty-handed or without gain if you approach a philosopher with the right intent; and if not (if you don’t succeed), at least make the effort; trying is never disgraceful.
ON FAMILIAR INTIMACY.—To this matter before all you must attend, that you be never so closely connected with any of your former intimates or friends as to come down to the same acts as he does. If you do not observe this rule, you will ruin yourself. But if the thought arises in your mind, “I shall seem disobliging to him and he will not have the same feeling towards me,” remember that nothing is done without cost, nor is it possible for a man if he does not do the same things to be the same man that he was. Choose then which of the two you will have, to be equally loved by those by whom you were formerly loved, being the same with your former self; or, being superior, not to obtain from your friends the same that you did before.
ON FAMILIAR INTIMACY.—You need to pay attention to this important matter: do not get so close to any of your old friends or acquaintances that you start acting like them. If you ignore this advice, you will end up harming yourself. If you find yourself thinking, “I don’t want to seem rude to him, and he won’t feel the same way about me,” remember that everything has its price, and it's impossible to remain the same person you were if you don’t act in the same way. So choose which path you want: to be equally loved by those who used to love you, while staying true to your former self; or, to rise above and not expect the same kind of affection from your friends as you once did.
WHAT THINGS WE SHOULD EXCHANGE FOR OTHER THINGS.—Keep this thought in readiness, when you lose anything external, what you acquire in place of it; and if it be worth more, never say, I have had a loss; neither if you have got a horse in place of an ass, or an ox in place of a sheep, nor a good action in place of a bit of money, nor in place of idle talk such tranquillity as befits a man, nor in place of lewd talk if you have acquired modesty. If you remember this, you will always maintain your character such as it ought to be. But if you do not, consider that the times of opportunity are perishing, and that whatever pains you take about yourself, you are going to waste them all and overturn them. And it needs only a few things for the loss and overturning of all—namely, a small deviation from reason. For the steerer of a ship to upset it, he has no need of the same means as he has need of for saving it; but if he turns it a little to the wind, it is lost; and if he does not do this purposely, but has been neglecting his duty a little, the ship is lost. Something of the kind happens in this case also; if you only fall a nodding a little, all that you have up to this time collected is gone. Attend therefore to the appearances of things, and watch over them; for that which you have to preserve is no small matter, but it is modesty and fidelity and constancy, freedom from the affects, a state of mind undisturbed, freedom from fear, tranquillity, in a word liberty. For what will you sell these things? See what is the value of the things which you will obtain in exchange for these.—But shall I not obtain any such thing for it?—See, and if you do in return get that, see what you receive in place of it. I possess decency, he possesses a tribuneship: he possesses a prætorship, I possess modesty. But I do not make acclamations where it is not becoming: I will not stand up where I ought not; for I am free, and a friend of God. and so I obey him willingly. But I must not claim (seek) anything else, neither body nor possession, nor magistracy, nor good report, nor in fact anything. For he (God) does not allow me to claim (seek) them, for if he had chosen, he would have made them good for me; but he has not done so, and for this reason I cannot transgress his commands. Preserve that which is your own good in everything; and as to every other thing, as it is permitted, and so far as to behave consistently with reason in respect to them, content with this only. If you do not, you will be unfortunate, you will fail in all things, you will be hindered, you will be impeded. These are the laws which have been sent from thence (from God); these are the orders. Of these laws a man ought to be an expositor, to these he ought to submit, not to those of Masurius and Cassius.
WHAT THINGS WE SHOULD EXCHANGE FOR OTHER THINGS.—Always keep this in mind: when you lose something external, focus on what you gain instead; and if what you gain is worth more, don’t say, "I’ve suffered a loss." Whether you replace a donkey with a horse, a sheep with an ox, or a bit of money with a good deed, or if you trade idle chatter for the calm that suits a person, or lewd talk for modesty, remember this. If you keep this perspective, you’ll maintain your character as it should be. But if you forget it, be aware that opportunities are slipping away, and all your efforts to improve yourself will go to waste. It just takes a tiny slip from reason to lose everything. Just like a ship can be capsized by a slight turn into the wind rather than a major action, the same happens here: if you become a bit careless, everything you’ve built can vanish. So, pay attention to how things appear, and guard them closely. What you need to protect is significant—not small things, but modesty, fidelity, consistency, freedom from passion, a steady mind, freedom from fear, peace, in short, your liberty. What would you trade those for? Consider the value of what you might get in exchange. But what if I can’t get anything similar? Look at what you would receive instead. I have decency, while he has a political title; he holds an office, while I have modesty. But I won’t cheer inappropriately; I won’t stand where it isn’t right; I’m free and a friend of God, and I follow Him willingly. I shouldn't seek anything else—my body, my possessions, political office, a good reputation, or anything at all. God doesn’t permit me to seek those, because if they were good for me, He would have given them to me; since He hasn’t, I can’t go against His wishes. Keep what is good for you above all else, and in relation to everything else, only pursue what aligns with reason and be satisfied with that. If you don’t, you’ll struggle, you’ll find failure everywhere, you’ll face obstacles. These are the laws sent from above (from God); these are the rules. A person should interpret these laws and submit to them, not to those of Masurius and Cassius.
TO THOSE WHO ARE DESIROUS OF PASSING LIFE IN TRANQUILLITY.—Remember that not only the desire of power and of riches makes us mean and subject to others, but even the desire of tranquillity, and of leisure, and of travelling abroad, and of learning. For, to speak plainly, whatever the external thing may be, the value which we set upon it places us in subjection to others. What then is the difference between desiring to be a senator or not desiring to be one; what is the difference between desiring power or being content with a private station; what is the difference between saying, I am unhappy, I have nothing to do, but I am bound to my books as a corpse; or saying, I am unhappy, I have no leisure for reading? For as salutations and power are things external and independent of the will, so is a book. For what purpose do you choose to read? Tell me. For if you only direct your purpose to being amused or learning something, you are a silly fellow and incapable of enduring labor. But if you refer reading to the proper end, what else is this than a tranquil and happy life ([Greek: eusoia])? But if reading does not secure for you a happy and tranquil life, what is the use of it? But it does secure this, the man replies, and for this reason I am vexed that I am deprived of it.—And what is this tranquil and happy life, which any man can impede, I do not say Cæsar or Cæsar’s friend, but a crow, a piper, a fever, and thirty thousand other things? But a tranquil and happy life contains nothing so sure as continuity and freedom from obstacle. Now I am called to do something: I will go then with the purpose of observing the measures (rules) which I must keep, of acting with modesty, steadiness, without desire and aversion to things external; and then that I may attend to men, what they say, how they are moved; and this not with any bad disposition, or that I may have something to blame or to ridicule; but I turn to myself, and ask if I also commit the same faults. How then shall I cease to commit them? Formerly I also acted wrong, but now I do not: thanks to God.
TO THOSE WHO WANT TO LIVE A PEACEFUL LIFE.—Remember that it's not just the desire for power and wealth that makes us small and subject to others; even the desire for peace, leisure, travel, and knowledge can do that. To put it simply, whatever it is we want from the outside world, valuing it puts us under the control of others. So what's the difference between wanting to be a senator or not? What's the difference between wanting power or being happy with a quiet life? What's the difference between saying, "I’m unhappy, I have nothing to do, but I’m stuck with my books like a corpse," and saying, "I’m unhappy, I don’t have time to read?" Just as greetings and power are external and not controlled by our will, so too is a book. Why do you choose to read? Tell me. If your goal is just to entertain yourself or learn something, you're being foolish and can't handle hard work. But if you read with the right intention, isn't that a path to a peaceful and happy life? But if reading doesn't give you that happy, peaceful life, what's the point? "But it does provide that," someone might say, "and that's why I’m frustrated when I can’t do it."—And what is this peaceful and happy life that anyone can interfere with, not just Cæsar or his friends, but a crow, a piper, a fever, and countless other things? A peaceful and happy life really needs consistency and freedom from obstacles. Now I'm called to do something: I will go with the intention of following the rules I need to keep, acting with modesty, steadiness, without desire or aversion to external things; and then I’ll pay attention to people—what they say, how they react; and not with a negative attitude or to criticize or mock them; but I’ll turn this focus back on myself and ask if I’m making the same mistakes. So how can I stop doing that? I used to act wrongly, but now I don’t: thanks to God.
What then is the reason of this? The reason is that we have never read for this purpose, we have never written for this purpose, so that we may in our actions use in a way conformable to nature the appearances presented to us; but we terminate in this, in learning what is said, and in being able to expound it to another, in resolving a syllogism, and in handling the hypothetical syllogism. For this reason where our study (purpose) is, there alone is the impediment. Would you have by all means the things which are not in your power? Be prevented then, be hindered, fail in your purpose. But if we read what is written about action (efforts, [Greek: hormae]), not that we may see what is said about action, but that we may act well; if we read what is said about desire and aversion (avoiding things), in order that we may neither fail in our desires, nor fall into that which we try to avoid; if we read what is said about duty (officium), in order that remembering the relations (of things to one another) we may do nothing irrationally nor contrary to these relations; we should not be vexed, in being hindered as to our readings, but we should be satisfied with doing the acts which are conformable (to the relations), and we should be reckoning not what so far we have been accustomed to reckon: To-day I have read so many verses, I have written so many; but (we should say), To-day I have employed my action as it is taught by the philosophers; I have not employed my desire; I have used avoidance ([Greek: echchlisei]) only with respect to things which are within the power of my will; I have not been afraid of such a person, I have not been prevailed upon by the entreaties of another; I have exercised my patience, my abstinence, my co-operation with others; and so we should thank God for what we ought to thank him.
What’s the reason for this? The reason is that we’ve never approached reading with this goal in mind; we’ve never written with this intention. Instead, we simply focus on understanding what’s said and explaining it to others, solving logical problems, and dealing with hypothetical scenarios. This is why our intention is where the obstacle lies. Do you really want things that are beyond your control? Then be prepared to be stopped, to struggle, and to miss your goals. However, if we read about actions not just to know what’s written but to act correctly; if we read about desire and what to avoid so that we don’t fail in our wants or end up doing what we want to escape; if we read about duty so that by remembering the relationships of things, we act rationally and in line with those relationships; we shouldn’t be frustrated when our reading gets interrupted but should instead be content with taking actions that align with those relationships. We should stop counting how many verses we’ve read or how much we’ve written; instead, we should say, "Today, I’ve acted according to philosophical teachings; I haven’t let my desires take over; I’ve avoided what’s within my control; I haven’t feared certain people or been swayed by someone’s pleas; I’ve practiced patience, restraint, and cooperation with others; and for that, we should thank God for what we ought to."
There is only one way to happiness, and let this rule be ready both in the morning and during the day and by night: the rule is not to look towards things which are out of the power of our will, to think that nothing is our own, to give up all things to the Divinity, to Fortune; to make them the superintendents of these things, whom Zeus also has made so; for a man to observe that only which is his own, that which cannot be hindered; and when we read, to refer our reading to this only, and our writing and our listening. For this reason I cannot call the man industrious, if I hear this only, that he reads and writes; and even if a man adds that he reads all night, I cannot say so, if he knows not to what he should refer his reading. For neither do you say that a man is industrious if he keeps awake for a girl, nor do I. But if he does it (reads and writes) for reputation, I say that he is a lover of reputation. And if he does it for money, I say that he is a lover of money, not a lover of labor; and if he does it through love of learning, I say that he is a lover of learning. But if he refers his labor to his own ruling power that he may keep it in a state conformable to nature and pass his life in that state, then only do I say that he is industrious. For never commend a man on account of these things which are common to all, but on account of his opinions (principles); for these are the things which belong to each man, which make his actions bad or good. Remembering these rules, rejoice in that which is present, and be content with the things which come in season. If you see anything which you have learned and inquired about occurring to you in your course of life (or opportunely applied by you to the acts of life), be delighted at it. If you have laid aside or have lessened bad disposition and a habit of reviling; if you have done so with rash temper, obscene words, hastiness, sluggishness; if you are not moved by what you formerly were, and not in the same way as you once were, you can celebrate a festival daily, to-day because you have behaved well in one act, and to-morrow because you have behaved well in another. How much greater is this a reason for making sacrifices than a consulship or the government of a province? These things come to you from yourself and from the gods. Remember this, who gives these things and to whom, and for what purpose. If you cherish yourself in these thoughts, do you still think that it makes any difference where you shall be happy, where you shall please God? Are not the gods equally distant from all places? Do they not see from all places alike that which is going on?
There’s only one path to happiness, and keep this rule in mind both in the morning, during the day, and at night: the rule is to not focus on things that are beyond our control, to acknowledge that nothing truly belongs to us, to surrender everything to the Divine and Fortune; let them oversee these matters, as Zeus has done. A person should pay attention only to what is theirs, to what cannot be impeded; and when we read, we should apply our reading to this alone, along with our writing and listening. For this reason, I can’t call someone industrious just because they read and write; even if someone claims to read all night, I can’t label them that unless they know the purpose of their reading. You wouldn’t say someone is industrious if they stay up for a girl, nor would I. But if someone reads and writes for status, I’d say they seek fame. If they do it for money, I’d call them a lover of wealth, not a lover of hard work; and if it’s out of love for learning, then they are a lover of knowledge. But if they direct their efforts to their own sense of control, aiming to live in harmony with nature, then I’d say they’re truly industrious. Never praise someone for things that everyone does, but for their beliefs, as these shape whether their actions are good or bad. Remember these rules, take joy in what’s present, and be satisfied with what comes in due time. When you see something you’ve learned or sought applied in your life, take delight in it. If you’ve let go of negative attitudes and the habit of criticizing; if you’ve overcome rashness, vulgar language, impatience, or laziness; if you’re no longer affected by how you once were, and not in the same way, celebrate each day—today because you’ve acted well in one instance, tomorrow for another. How much more worthy is this for celebration than a consulship or governing a province? These achievements come from you and the gods. Remember who gives and receives these things, and why. If you hold these thoughts dear, does it really matter where you find happiness or where you please the gods? Are the gods not equally distant from all places? Do they not observe everything happening from everywhere alike?
AGAINST THE QUARRELSOME AND FEROCIOUS.—The wise and good man neither himself fights with any person, nor does he allow another, so far as he can prevent it. And an example of this as well as of all other things is proposed to us in the life of Socrates, who not only himself on all occasions avoided fights (quarrels), but would not allow even others to quarrel. See in Xenophon’s Symposium how many quarrels he settled, how further he endured Thrasymachus and Polus and Callicles; how he tolerated his wife, and how he tolerated his son who attempted to confute him and to cavil with him. For he remembered well that no man has in his power another man’s ruling principle. He wished therefore for nothing else than that which was his own. And what is this? Not that this or that man may act according to nature, for that is a thing which belongs to another; but that while others are doing their own acts, as they choose, he may nevertheless be in a condition conformable to nature and live in it, only doing what is his own to the end that others also may be in a state conformable to nature. For this is the object always set before him by the wise and good man. Is it to be commander (a prætor) of an army? No; but if it is permitted him, his object is in this matter to maintain his own ruling principle. Is it to marry? No; but if marriage is allowed to him, in this matter his object is to maintain himself in a condition conformable to nature. But if he would have his son not to do wrong or his wife, he would have what belongs to another not to belong to another: and to be instructed is this, to learn what things are a man’s own and what belongs to another.
AGAINST THE QUARRELSOME AND FEROCIOUS.—A wise and good person doesn’t fight with anyone themselves, nor do they let others do so, as far as they can help it. A great example of this, along with other lessons, can be found in the life of Socrates, who always avoided fights and didn’t permit others to quarrel either. Look at how many disputes he resolved in Xenophon’s Symposium, how he put up with Thrasymachus, Polus, and Callicles; how he tolerated his wife and his son when they tried to challenge him and argue with him. He understood well that no one has control over another person’s principles. Therefore, he desired nothing more than what was his own. And what is that? It’s not about this or that person acting naturally—that’s someone else’s concern—but rather that while others are doing what they choose, he can still be in harmony with nature and live that way, only focusing on what is his own so that others can also be in a natural state. This is the goal always set before a wise and good person. Is it to lead an army? No; but if that’s allowed for him, his aim in this case is to stay true to his own principles. Is it to marry? No; but if marriage is an option for him, his focus in that matter is to remain aligned with nature. However, if he wants his son or his wife to do what’s right, he’s trying to control what belongs to someone else. Learning is about understanding what belongs to oneself and what belongs to others.
How then is there left any place for fighting (quarrelling) to a man who has this opinion (which he ought to have)? Is he surprised at any thing which happens, and does it appear new to him? Does he not expect that which comes from the bad to be worse and more grievous than that what actually befalls him? And does he not reckon as pure gain whatever they (the bad) may do which falls short of extreme wickedness? Such a person has reviled you. Great thanks to him for not having struck you. But he has struck me also. Great thanks that he did not wound you. But he wounded me also. Great thanks that he did not kill you. For when did he learn or in what school that man is a tame animal, that men love one another, that an act of injustice is a great harm to him who does it. Since then he has not learned this and is not convinced of it, why shall he not follow that which seems to be for his own interest? Your neighbor has thrown stones. Have you then done anything wrong? But the things in the house have been broken. Are you then a utensil? No; but a free power of will. What then is given to you (to do) in answer to this? If you are like a wolf, you must bite in return, and throw more stones. But, if you consider what is proper for a man, examine your storehouse, see with what faculties you came into the world. Have you the disposition of a wild beast, have you the disposition of revenge for an injury? When is a horse wretched? When he is deprived of his natural faculties, not when he cannot crow like a cock, but when he cannot run. When is a dog wretched? Not when he cannot fly, but when he cannot track his game. Is then a man also unhappy in this way, not because he cannot strangle lions or embrace statues, for he did not come into the world in the possession of certain powers from nature for this purpose, but because he has lost his probity and his fidelity? People ought to meet and lament such a man for the misfortunes into which he has fallen; not indeed to lament because a man has been born or has died, but because it has happened to him in his lifetime to have lost the things which are his own, not that which he received from his father, not his land and house, and his inn, and his slaves; for not one of these things is a man’s own, but all belong to others, are servile, and subject to account ([Greek: hupeithuna]), at different times given to different persons by those who have them in their power: but I mean the things which belong to him as a man, the marks (stamps) in his mind with which he came into the world, such as we seek also on coins, and if we find them we approve of the coins, and if we do not find the marks we reject them. What is the stamp on this sestertius? The stamp of Trajan. Present it. It is the stamp of Nero. Throw it away; it cannot be accepted, it is counterfeit. So also in this case: What is the stamp of his opinions? It is gentleness, a sociable disposition, a tolerant temper, a disposition to mutual affections. Produce these qualities. I accept them: I consider this man a citizen, I accept him as a neighbor, a companion in my voyages. Only see that he has not Nero’s stamp. Is he passionate, is he full of resentment, is he fault-finding? If the whim seizes him, does he break the heads of those who come in his way? (If so), why then did you say that he is a man? Is everything judged (determined) by the bare form? If that is so, say that the form in wax is an apple and has the smell and the taste of an apple. But the external figure is not enough: neither then is the nose enough and the eyes to make the man, but he must have the opinions of a man. Here is a man who does not listen to reason, who does not know when he is refuted: he is an ass; in another man the sense of shame is become dead: he is good for nothing, he is anything rather than a man. This man seeks whom he may meet and kick or bite, so that he is not even a sheep or an ass, but a kind of wild beast.
How is there any room for fighting to a person who holds this opinion (which they should)? Are they surprised by anything that happens, or does it seem new to them? Do they not expect that what comes from bad people will be worse and more painful than what actually happens to them? And do they not see any benefit in whatever harm they might do that falls short of extreme wickedness? Someone has insulted you. Thank them for not having hit you. But they hit me too. Thank goodness they didn’t seriously hurt you. But I was hurt as well. Thank goodness they didn’t kill you. When did they learn or where did they get the idea that people are gentle creatures, that people care for one another, or that committing an injustice is a significant harm to the one who does it? Since they haven’t learned this or are not convinced by it, why wouldn’t they act in a way that seems to serve their own interests? Your neighbor threw stones. Did you do anything wrong? But things in the house have been broken. Are you just a tool? No; you’re a being with free will. What then should you do in response? If you act like a wolf, you’ll want to bite back and throw more stones. But, if you consider what is appropriate for a person, look into yourself, see what abilities you came into this world with. Do you have the instincts of a wild animal, or do you feel the need for revenge when wronged? When does a horse suffer? When it's deprived of its natural abilities, not because it can’t crow like a rooster, but because it can’t run. When does a dog suffer? Not because it can’t fly, but because it can’t track its prey. Is a person unhappy in the same way—not because they can’t strangle lions or embrace statues, which they were never meant to do, but because they have lost their honesty and loyalty? People should gather to mourn someone for the misfortunes they’ve faced; not to mourn their birth or death, but to grieve for how they have lost what truly belongs to them—not what they inherited from their parents, nor their land, house, inn, or slaves; since none of those things truly belong to a person, but are rather possessions of others, temporary and accountable, passed around by those who hold power over them. I mean the qualities that belong to them as a human being, the traits imprinted on their mind from birth, similar to how we assess coins. When we find the right marks, we accept the coin; if we don’t, we reject it. What is the mark on this coin? The mark of Trajan. Present it. It’s the mark of Nero. Discard it; it cannot be accepted; it’s fake. So too in this case: What is the mark of their views? It’s kindness, a sociable nature, a tolerant temperament, a capacity for mutual affection. Show these qualities. I accept them: I see this person as a citizen, as a neighbor, a travel companion. Just make sure they don’t have Nero’s mark. Are they angry, resentful, critical? If they feel like it, do they lash out at those in their way? If so, how can you say they are a human being? Is everything judged just by outward appearance? If that’s the case, you could say that a wax figure looks like an apple and has the smell and taste of one. But just having the right look isn’t enough: the nose and eyes alone don’t make a person; they must have a human mindset. Here’s a person who doesn’t listen to reason, who doesn’t know when they’ve been proven wrong: they’re a fool; in another, a sense of shame has completely faded: they are worthless, they are anything but a human. This person looks for someone to attack, making them less than a sheep or a donkey, but more like a wild beast.
What then? would you have me to be despised?—By whom? by those who know you? and how shall those who know you despise a man who is gentle and modest? Perhaps you mean by those who do not know you? What is that to you? For no other artisan cares for the opinion of those who know not his art. But they will be more hostile to me for this reason. Why do you say “me”? Can any man injure your will, or prevent you from using in a natural way the appearances which are presented to you? In no way can he. Why then are you still disturbed and why do you choose to show yourself afraid? And why do you not come forth and proclaim that you are at peace with all men whatever they may do, and laugh at those chiefly who think that they can harm you? These slaves, you can say, know not either who I am, nor where lies my good or my evil, because they have no access to the things which are mine.
What now? Do you want people to think badly of me?—By whom? By those who know you? And how can those who know you look down on someone who is kind and humble? Maybe you're talking about those who don’t know you? What does that matter to you? No other craftsman cares about the opinions of those who don’t understand their craft. But they’ll be even more hostile to me for that reason. Why do you say “me”? Can anyone harm your will or stop you from responding naturally to the situations that come your way? No, they can’t. So why are you still upset, and why do you act like you’re scared? Why don’t you step up and declare that you're at peace with everyone, no matter what they do, and laugh mainly at those who think they can hurt you? You can say that these people don’t know who I am or where my true good or bad lies since they have no access to what belongs to me.
In this way also those who occupy a strong city mock the besiegers (and say): What trouble these men are now taking for nothing; our wall is secure, we have food for a very long time, and all other resources. These are the things which make a city strong and impregnable; but nothing else than his opinions makes a man’s soul impregnable. For what wall is so strong, or what body is so hard, or what possession is so safe, or what honor (rank, character) so free from assault (as a man’s opinions)? All (other) things everywhere are perishable, easily taken by assault, and if any man in any way is attached to them, he must be disturbed, except what is bad, he must fear, lament, find his desires disappointed, and fall into things which he would avoid. Then do we not choose to make secure the only means of safety which are offered to us, and do we not choose to withdraw ourselves from that which is perishable and servile and to labor at the things which are imperishable and by nature free; and do we not remember that no man either hurts another or does good to another, but that a man’s opinions about each thing, is that which hurts him, is that which overturns him; this is fighting, this is civil discord, this is war? That which made Eteocles and Polynices enemies was nothing else than this opinion which they had about royal power, their opinion about exile, that the one is the extreme of evils, the other the greatest good. Now this is the nature of every man to seek the good, to avoid the bad; to consider him who deprives us of the one and involves us in the other an enemy and treacherous, even if he be a brother, or a son, or a father. For nothing is more akin to us than the good; therefore, if these things (externals) are good and evil, neither is a father a friend to sons, nor a brother to a brother, but all the world is everywhere full of enemies, treacherous men, and sycophants. But if the will ([Greek: proairesis], the purpose, the intention) being what it ought to be, is the only good; and if the will being such as it ought not to be, is the only evil, where is there any strife, where is there reviling? about what? about the things which do not concern us? and strife with whom? with the ignorant, the unhappy, with those who are deceived about the chief things?
In this way, those who live in a strong city mock the besiegers by saying: What a hassle these guys are going through for nothing; our walls are secure, we have food for a long time, and all other resources. These are the things that make a city strong and unassailable; but nothing besides our beliefs makes a person's soul unshakeable. For what wall is so strong, what body so tough, what possession so safe, or what honor so protected from attack as a person's beliefs? All other things are temporary, easily taken over, and if someone is attached to them in any way, they will be troubled—except for bad things—they will fear, mourn, find their desires unmet, and fall into situations they want to avoid. So shouldn’t we choose to secure the only means of safety that we have and withdraw from what is temporary and degrading, working towards what is enduring and inherently free? And shouldn't we remember that no one really harms another or does good for another; it's a person's beliefs about each situation that causes their pain and turmoil; this is fighting, this is civil strife, this is war? What turned Eteocles and Polynices into enemies was nothing other than their differing opinions about royal power and their views on exile—one seen as the worst evil and the other as the greatest good. It’s human nature to seek the good and avoid the bad; we see anyone who takes away the good or pushes us into the bad as an enemy and a traitor, even if they’re a sibling, child, or parent. For nothing is closer to us than the good; thus, if these external things are seen as good and evil, then a father is not a friend to his children, nor a brother to a brother, and the world is full of enemies, traitors, and deceivers. But if our will (proairesis—the purpose, the intention)—when it is as it should be—is the only good; and if the will is not as it should be, that’s the only evil, where is the conflict, where is the insult? About what? About things that don’t concern us? And conflict with whom? With those who are ignorant, unhappy, or misled about the most important matters?
Remembering this Socrates managed his own house and endured a very ill-tempered wife and a foolish (ungrateful?) son.
Remembering this, Socrates managed his own household and put up with a very bad-tempered wife and a foolish (ungrateful?) son.
AGAINST THOSE WHO LAMENT OVER BEING PITIED.—I am grieved, a man says, at being pitied. Whether then is the fact of your being pitied a thing which concerns you or those who pity you? Well, is it in your power to stop this pity? It is in my power, if I show them that I do not require pity. And whether then are you in the condition of not deserving (requiring) pity, or are you not in that condition? I think that I am not; but these persons do not pity me, for the things for which, if they ought to pity me, it would be proper, I mean, for my faults; but they pity me for my poverty, for not possessing honorable offices, for diseases and deaths and other such things. Whether then are you prepared to convince the many, that not one of these things is an evil, but that it is possible for a man who is poor and has no office ([Greek: anarchonti)] and enjoys no honor to be happy; or to show yourself to them as rich and in power? For the second of these things belong to a man who is boastful, silly, and good for nothing. And consider by what means the pretence must be supported. It will be necessary for you to hire slaves and to possess a few silver vessels, and to exhibit them in public, if it is possible, though they are often the same, and to attempt to conceal the fact that they are the same, and to have splendid garments, and all other things for display, and to show that you are a man honored by the great, and to try to sup at their houses, or to be supposed to sup there, and as to your person to employ some mean arts, that you may appear to be more handsome and nobler than you are. These things you must contrive, if you choose to go by the second path in order not to be pitied. But the first way is both impracticable and long, to attempt the very thing which Zeus has not been able to do, to convince all men what things are good and bad. Is this power given to you? This only is given to you, to convince yourself; and you have not convinced yourself. Then I ask you, do you attempt to persuade other men? and who has lived so long with you as you with yourself? and who has so much power of convincing you as you have of convincing yourself; and who is better disposed and nearer to you than you are to yourself? How then have you not yet convinced yourself in order to learn? At present are not things upside down? Is this what you have been earnest about doing, to learn to be free from grief and free from disturbance, and not to be humbled (abject), and to be free? Have you not heard then that there is only one way which leads to this end, to give up (dismiss) the things which do not depend on the will, to withdraw from them, and to admit that they belong to others? For another man then to have an opinion about you, of what kind is it? It is a thing independent of the will—Then is it nothing to you? It is nothing. When then you are still vexed at this and disturbed, do you think that you are convinced about good and evil?
AGAINST THOSE WHO LAMENT OVER BEING PITIED.—A man says, "I feel sad about being pitied." But does it really matter to you that you’re being pitied, or is it about those who pity you? Well, can you stop them from feeling that way? I can, if I show them I don’t need their pity. But do you actually not deserve pity, or do you? I believe I don’t; yet these people don't pity me for my faults—if they should pity me for anything, it should be for that—but they pity me for being poor, for not having respectable jobs, for my illnesses and griefs, and other such things. Are you ready to convince others that none of these things are truly bad, and that a guy can be happy even if he’s poor, without a position, and without any honors? Or would you rather show off wealth and power? The latter is a path for someone who is arrogant, foolish, and worthless. Think about what you need to do to keep up that appearance. You’ll have to hire servants, get some silver items, and show them off in public if possible, even if it’s often the same stuff, all while trying to hide that they are. You’ll need fancy clothes and all sorts of things to display yourself, showing that you're connected to influential people and trying to eat with them or make it seem like you do, possibly using tricks to appear more handsome or noble than you are. You’ll need to coordinate all this if you choose that second path to avoid being pitied. But the first path is both impossible and lengthy—the very thing that Zeus hasn’t accomplished: convincing everyone about what is good and bad. Is that power given to you? The only thing given to you is the ability to convince yourself; and you haven't even succeeded in that. So I ask you, why are you trying to persuade other people? Who has spent more time with you than you have with yourself? Who is more capable of convincing you than you are at convincing yourself? Who is closer and more aligned with you than you are with yourself? So how is it that you haven’t yet convinced yourself to learn? Aren’t things a bit upside down right now? Is this what you’ve been working hard to achieve: to learn how to be free from pain, free from disturbance, not feeling degraded, and to be free? Haven’t you heard that there’s only one way to achieve this: to let go of things that aren’t up to your control, to step away from them, and recognize that they belong to others? So, what kind of opinion does another person have about you? It’s something outside of your control—so does it really matter to you? It doesn’t. If you’re still upset and bothered by this, do you really believe you understand what is good and what is evil?
ON FREEDOM FROM FEAR.—What makes the tyrant formidable? The guards, you say, and their swords, and the men of the bedchamber, and those who exclude them who would enter. Why then if you bring a boy (child) to the tyrant when he is with his guards, is he not afraid; or is it because the child does not understand these things? If then any man does understand what guards are and that they have swords, and comes to the tyrant for this very purpose because he wishes to die on account of some circumstance and seeks to die easily by the hand of another, is he afraid of the guards? No, for he wishes for the thing which makes the guards formidable. If then any man neither wishing to die nor to live by all means, but only as it may be permitted, approaches the tyrant what hinders him from approaching the tyrant without fear? Nothing. If then a man has the same opinion about his property as the man whom I have instanced has about his body; and also about his children and his wife, and in a word is so affected by some madness or despair that he cares not whether he possesses them or not, but like children who are playing with shells (quarrel) about the play, but do not trouble themselves about the shells, so he too has set no value on the materials (things), but values the pleasure that he has with them and the occupation, what tyrant is then formidable to him, or what guards or what swords?
ON FREEDOM FROM FEAR.—What makes a tyrant so intimidating? You might say it's the guards, their swords, the chamber attendants, and those who keep out anyone who wants to enter. But if you take a child to the tyrant when he’s with his guards, why isn’t the child scared? Is it because the child doesn’t grasp these concepts? Now, if there’s someone who understands what guards are and knows they have swords, and he approaches the tyrant because he actually wants to die due to some situation and is looking for an easy way out at the hands of another, is he afraid of the guards? No, because he actually desires what makes the guards intimidating. If someone else doesn’t want to die nor is overly eager to live, but only wants to live as long as he’s allowed, what stops him from approaching the tyrant without fear? Nothing. If a person values his possessions the same way as that man values his body; and feels the same about his children and wife, and is somehow driven by madness or despair to the point that he doesn’t care whether he has them or not—just like children who fight over playthings but don’t care about the objects themselves—then he too places no value on the things but enjoys the experiences and activities with them. In that case, what tyrant is intimidating to him, or what guards, or swords?
What hinders a man, who has clearly separated (comprehended) these things, from living with a light heart and bearing easily the reins, quietly expecting everything which can happen, and enduring that which has already happened? Would you have me to bear poverty? Come and you will know what poverty is when it has found one who can act well the part of a poor man. Would you have me to possess power? Let me have power, and also the trouble of it. Well, banishment? Wherever I shall go, there it will be well with me; for here also where I am, it was not because of the place that it was well with me, but because of my opinions which I shall carry off with me, for neither can any man deprive me of them; but my opinions alone are mine and they cannot be taken from me, and I am satisfied while I have them, wherever I may be and whatever I am doing. But now it is time to die. Why do you say to die? Make no tragedy show of the thing, but speak of it as it is. It is now time for the matter (of the body) to be resolved into the things out of which it was composed. And what is the formidable thing here? what is going to perish of the things which are in the universe? what new thing or wondrous is going to happen? Is it for this reason that a tyrant is formidable? Is it for this reason that the guards appear to have swords which are large and sharp? Say this to others; but I have considered about all these things; no man has power over me. I have been made free; I know his commands, no man can now lead me as a slave. I have a proper person to assert my freedom; I have proper judges. (I say) are you not the master of my body? What then is that to me? Are you not the master of my property? What then is that to me? Are you not the master of my exile or of my chains? Well, from all these things and all the poor body itself I depart at your bidding, when you please. Make trial of your power, and you will know how far it reaches.
What stops someone who clearly understands these things from living with a light heart and easily managing their circumstances, calmly anticipating whatever may happen, and accepting what has already happened? Do you want me to endure poverty? Come and you'll see what poverty is when it finds someone who can truly play the role of a poor person. Do you wish for me to have power? Okay, let me have power, along with all the stress that comes with it. What about exile? Wherever I go, I will be fine; for it’s not the place that makes me well off, but my beliefs that I’ll take with me, and no one can take those away from me. My beliefs are mine alone, and I feel content as long as I have them, no matter where I am or what I'm doing. But now it's time to die. Why speak of death dramatically? Just talk about it as it is. It’s time for the body to break down into the elements it came from. And what’s the big deal here? What is going to perish in the universe? What new or amazing thing is going to happen? Is that why a tyrant seems so frightening? Is that why the guards look like they have big, sharp swords? Tell that to others; I have thought about all this; no one has power over me. I am free; I know their commands, and no one can make me a slave now. I have the ability to claim my freedom; I have fair judges. Are you the master of my body? What does that matter to me? Are you the master of my possessions? What does that matter to me? Are you the master of my exile or my chains? Well, I will leave all these things, and even the poor body itself, when you wish. Test your power, and you’ll see how far it goes.
Whom then can I still fear? Those who are over the bedchamber? Lest they should do, what? Shut me out? If they find that I wish to enter, let them shut me out. Why then do you go to the doors? Because I think it befits me, while the play (sport) lasts, to join in it. How then are you not shut out? Because unless some one allows me to go in, I do not choose to go in, but am always content with that which happens; for I think that what God chooses is better than what I choose. I will attach myself as a minister and follower to him; I have the same movements (pursuits) as he has, I have the same desires; in a word, I have the same will ([Greek: sunthelo]). There is no shutting out for me, but for those who would force their way in. Why then do not I force my way in? Because I know that nothing good is distributed within to those who enter. But when I hear any man called fortunate because he is honored by Cæsar, I say what does he happen to get? A province (the government of a province). Does he also obtain an opinion such as he ought? The office of a Prefect. Does he also obtain the power of using his office well? Why do I still strive to enter (Cæsar’s chamber)? A man scatters dried figs and nuts: the children seize them, and fight with one another; men do not, for they think them to be a small matter. But if a man should throw about shells, even the children do not seize them. Provinces are distributed: let children look to that. Money is distributed; let children look to that. Prætorships, consulships, are distributed; let children scramble for them, let them be shut out, beaten, kiss the hands of the giver, of the slaves: but to me these are only dried figs and nuts. What then? If you fail to get them, while Cæsar is scattering them about, do not be troubled; if a dried fig come into your lap, take it and eat it; for so far you may value even a fig. But if I shall stoop down and turn another over, or be turned over by another, and shall flatter those who have got into (Cæsar’s) chamber, neither is a dried fig worth the trouble, nor anything else of the things which are not good, which the philosophers have persuaded me not to think good.
Whom should I fear now? Those who are by the bedroom door? What can they do? Keep me out? If they see that I want to come in, let them keep me out. So why do you go to the doors? Because I think it’s fitting for me to join in while the game is on. So how am I not shut out? Because unless someone lets me in, I don’t want to go in, and I’m always fine with what happens; I believe what God chooses is better than what I choose. I will attach myself as a servant and follower to Him; I have the same ambitions as He does, I have the same desires; in short, I have the same will. There’s no shutting me out, but there are those who try to force their way in. So why don’t I force my way in? Because I know that nothing good is given to those who enter. But when I hear someone called lucky just because they’re honored by Caesar, I ask, what do they really get? A province. Do they also get the respect they deserve? The title of Prefect. Do they also gain the ability to perform their role well? Why should I still want to enter Caesar’s chamber? A man throws out dried figs and nuts, and the kids grab them and fight over them; adults don’t, because they see it as trivial. But if someone throws out shells, even the kids won’t grab those. Provinces are handed out: let the children worry about that. Money is handed out; let the children worry about that. Prætorships and consulships are given out; let the kids fight for them, let them be shut out, beaten, and kiss the hands of the giver, the slaves: but to me, these are just dried figs and nuts. So what if you miss out on them while Caesar is handing them out, don’t stress about it; if a dried fig lands in your lap, take it and eat it; you can value even that. But if I stoop down to turn another over, or if someone turns me over, and I flatter those who have entered Caesar’s chamber, then neither a dried fig nor anything else that isn’t good is worth the trouble, nor anything that philosophers have taught me not to consider valuable.
TO A PERSON WHO HAD BEEN CHANGED TO A CHARACTER OF SHAMELESSNESS.—When you see another man in the possession of power (magistracy), set against this the fact that you have not the want (desire) of power; when you see another rich, see what you possess in place of riches: for if you possess nothing in place of them, you are miserable; but if you have not the want of riches, know that you possess more than this man possesses and what is worth much more.
TO A PERSON WHO HAD BEEN CHANGED TO A CHARACTER OF SHAMELESSNESS.—When you see someone else in power, remember that you don't crave power; when you see someone wealthy, think about what you have instead of riches. Because if you have nothing to offer in place of wealth, you're truly unhappy; but if you don't desire wealth, understand that you have more than that person has, and what you have is worth so much more.
WHAT THINGS WE OUGHT TO DESPISE AND WHAT THINGS WE OUGHT TO VALUE.—The difficulties of all men are about external things, their helplessness is about external. What shall I do? how will it be? how will it turn out? will this happen? will that? All these are the words of those who are turning themselves to things which are not within the power of the will. For who says, How shall I not assent to that which is false? how shall I not turn away from the truth? If a man be of such a good disposition as to be anxious about these things I will remind him of this: Why are you anxious? The thing is in your own power, be assured; do not be precipitate in assenting before you apply the natural rule. On the other side, if a man is anxious (uneasy) about desire, lest it fail in its purpose and miss its end, and with respect to the avoidance of things, lest he should fall into that which he would avoid, I will first kiss (love) him, because he throws away the things about which others are in a flutter (others desire) and their fears, and employs his thoughts about his own affairs and his own condition. Then I shall say to him: If you do not choose to desire that which you will fail to obtain nor to attempt to avoid that into which you will fall, desire nothing which belongs to (which is in the power of) others, nor try to avoid any of the things which are not in your power. If you do not observe this rule, you must of necessity fail in your desires and fall into that which you would avoid. What is the difficulty here? where is there room for the words How will it be? and How will it turn out? and Will this happen or that?
WHAT THINGS WE OUGHT TO DESPISE AND WHAT THINGS WE OUGHT TO VALUE.—The struggles of all people are about external things, and their helplessness is also about the external. What should I do? How will it be? How will it turn out? Will this happen? Will that? All these questions come from people focusing on things that are beyond their control. Who asks, How can I not agree with what is false? How can I not turn away from the truth? If someone is wise enough to worry about these matters, I will remind him of this: Why are you worried? The situation is within your control, rest assured; don’t rush to agree before you apply common sense. On the other hand, if someone is anxious about their desires, fearing they might not succeed, or worried about avoiding things they don’t want to encounter, I will first show him love, because he ignores the things that others are frantic over and focuses on his own issues and conditions. Then I’ll say to him: If you choose not to desire what you won’t achieve or to try to avoid what you can’t escape, then don’t desire anything that belongs to others, nor try to steer clear of things that are out of your control. If you disregard this rule, you will surely fail in your desires and end up in situations you want to avoid. What’s the problem here? Where is there space for questions like How will it be? and How will it turn out? and Will this happen or that?
Now is not that which will happen independent of the will? Yes. And the nature of good and of evil, is it not in the things which are within the power of the will? Yes. Is it in your power then to treat according to nature everything which happens? Can any person hinder you? No man. No longer then say to me, How will it be? For, however it may be, you will dispose of it well, and the result to you will be a fortunate one. What would Hercules have been if he said: How shall a great lion not appear to me, or a great boar, or savage men? And what do you care for that? If a great boar appear, you will fight a greater fight; if bad men appear, you will relieve the earth of the bad. Suppose then that I lose my life in this way. You will die a good man, doing a noble act. For since he must certainly die, of necessity a man must be found doing something, either following the employment of a husbandman, or digging, or trading, or serving in a consulship, or suffering from indigestion or from diarrhoea. What then do you wish to be doing when you are found by death? I, for my part, would wish to be found doing something which belongs to a man, beneficent, suitable to the general interest, noble. But if I cannot be found doing things so great, I would be found doing at least that which I cannot be hindered from doing, that which is permitted me to do, correcting myself, cultivating the faculty which makes use of appearances, laboring at freedom from the affects (laboring at tranquillity of mind); rendering to the relations of life their due. If I succeed so far, also (I would be found) touching on (advancing to) the third topic (or head) safety in forming judgments about things. If death surprises me when I am busy about these things, it is enough for me if I can stretch out my hands to God and say: The means which I have received from thee for seeing thy administration (of the world) and following it I have not neglected; I have not dishonored thee by my acts; see how I have used my perceptions, see how I have used my preconceptions; have I ever blamed thee? have I been discontented with anything that happens, or wished it to be otherwise? have I wished to transgress the (established) relations (of things)? That thou hast given me life, I thank thee for what thou hast given. So long as I have used the things which are thine I am content. Take them back and place them wherever thou mayest choose, for thine were all things, thou gavest them to me. Is it not enough to depart in this state of mind? and what life is better and more becoming than that of a man who is in this state of mind? and what end is more happy?
Isn’t now the moment that will happen regardless of our will? Yes. And isn’t the nature of good and evil determined by what we can control? Yes. So, can you treat everything that happens according to nature? Can anyone stop you? No one can. So don’t ask me, "How will it be?" Because, no matter what happens, you’ll handle it well, and it will turn out in your favor. What if Hercules had said, "How can I avoid facing a huge lion, or a giant boar, or savage men?" And why does that bother you? If a giant boar comes your way, you’ll fight a bigger fight; if bad people show up, you’ll rid the earth of them. Now, suppose I lose my life in that way. You would die a good person, doing something honorable. Since we all must die, when that time comes, we should be found doing something, whether it's farming, digging, trading, serving in a leadership role, or dealing with a stomach ache. So what do you want to be doing when death comes? Personally, I want to be found doing something meaningful, beneficial, aligned with the common good, noble. But if I can't be doing something that grand, I’d at least like to be caught doing what I can't be stopped from doing, what I'm allowed to do—bettering myself, honing the ability to interpret what I see, working on achieving peace of mind; giving life’s relationships their due. If I manage that, I'd also be touching on the next theme: safety in judging things. If death catches me while I'm engaged in these pursuits, it’s enough for me to stretch my hands to God and say: I haven't neglected the gifts you've given me to understand your management of the world and follow it. I haven't dishonored you by my actions; look at how I've used my perceptions and my beliefs; have I ever blamed you? Have I been unhappy with anything that happens or wished it were different? Have I wanted to violate the established order? For the life you've given me, I thank you for what you've provided. As long as I’ve made use of what belongs to you, I am satisfied. Take them back and place them wherever you see fit, because everything belongs to you, and you gave it to me. Isn’t it enough to depart with this mindset? And what life is better and more fitting than that of a person who holds this perspective? What ending could be happier?
ABOUT PURITY (CLEANLINESS).—Some persons raise a question whether the social feeling is contained in the nature of man; and yet I think that these same persons would have no doubt that love of purity is certainly contained in it, and that if man is distinguished from other animals by anything, he is distinguished by this. When then we see any other animal cleaning itself, we are accustomed to speak of the act with surprise, and to add that the animal is acting like a man; and on the other hand, if a man blames an animal for being dirty, straightway, as if we were making an excuse for it, we say that of course the animal is not a human creature. So we suppose that there is something superior in man, and that we first receive it from the gods. For since the gods by their nature are pure and free from corruption, so far as men approach them by reason, so far do they cling to purity and to a love (habit) of purity. But since it is impossible that man’s nature ([Greek: ousia]) can be altogether pure, being mixed (composed) of such materials, reason is applied, as far as it is possible, and reason endeavors to make human nature love purity.
ABOUT PURITY (CLEANLINESS).—Some people question whether social feelings are inherent to human nature; however, I believe these same people would agree that a love for purity is definitely part of it, and that if there's anything that sets humans apart from other animals, it's this trait. When we see other animals cleaning themselves, we often react with surprise and remark that they’re acting like humans. Conversely, if a human criticizes an animal for being dirty, we quickly justify it by saying that, of course, the animal isn’t a human being. This suggests that there’s something superior in humans, a quality we receive from the gods. Since the gods are inherently pure and uncorrupted, as humans strive towards them through reason, we tend to aspire to purity and develop a habit of valuing it. However, since it's impossible for human nature ([Greek: ousia]) to be completely pure, being made up of various elements, reason is applied as much as possible to encourage human nature to embrace a love for purity.
The first then and highest purity is that which is in the soul; and we say the same of impurity. Now you could not discover the impurity of the soul as you could discover that of the body; but as to the soul, what else could you find in it than that which makes it filthy in respect to the acts which are her own? Now the acts of the soul are movement towards an object or movement from it, desire, aversion, preparation, design (purpose), assent. What then is it which in these acts makes the soul filthy and impure? Nothing else than her own bad judgments ([Greek: chrimata]). Consequently the impurity of the soul is the soul’s bad opinions; and the purification of the soul is the planting in it of proper opinions; and the soul is pure which has proper opinions, for the soul alone in her own acts is free from perturbation and pollution.
The first and highest form of purity is found in the soul, and the same applies to impurity. Unlike the impurity of the body, you can't easily identify the impurity of the soul. However, when it comes to the soul, what else can you find that makes it dirty except for the actions that belong to it? The soul's actions include moving toward something or away from it, desire, aversion, planning, intention, and agreement. So, what is it in these actions that makes the soul dirty and impure? It's nothing other than its own poor judgments. Therefore, the impurity of the soul is rooted in its bad opinions, while the purification of the soul comes from cultivating proper opinions. A soul is pure when it holds proper opinions, because in its own actions, the soul is free from disturbance and pollution.
For we ought not even by the appearance of the body to deter the multitude from philosophy; but as in other things, a philosopher should show himself cheerful and tranquil, so also he should in the things that relate to the body. See, ye men, that I have nothing, that I want nothing; see how I am without a house, and without a city, and an exile, if it happens to be so, and without a hearth I live more free from trouble and more happily than all of noble birth and than the rich. But look at my poor body also and observe that it is not injured by my hard way of living. But if a man says this to me, who has the appearance (dress) and face of a condemned man, what god shall persuade me to approach philosophy, if it makes men such persons? Far from it; I would not choose to do so, even if I were going to become a wise man. I indeed would rather that a young man, who is making his first movements towards philosophy, should come to me with his hair carefully trimmed than with it dirty and rough, for there is seen in him a certain notion (appearance) of beauty and a desire of (attempt at) that which is becoming; and where he supposes it to be, there also he strives that it shall be. It is only necessary to show him (what it is), and to say: Young man, you seek beauty, and you do well; you must know then that it (is produced) grows in that part of you where you have the rational faculty; seek it there where you have the movements towards and movements from things, where you have the desires towards and the aversion from things; for this is what you have in yourself of a superior kind; but the poor body is naturally only earth; why do you labor about it to no purpose? if you shall learn nothing else, you will learn from time that the body is nothing. But if a man comes to me daubed with filth, dirty, with a moustache down to his knees, what can I say to him, by what kind of resemblance can I lead him on? For about what has he busied himself which resembles beauty, that I may be able to change him and say, Beauty is not in this, but in that? Would you have me to tell him, that beauty consists not in being daubed with muck, but that it lies in the rational part? Has he any desire of beauty? has he any form of it in his mind? Go and talk to a hog, and tell him not to roll in the mud.
For we shouldn't even let the way we look stop people from pursuing philosophy; just like in other areas of life, a philosopher should appear happy and calm, and the same goes for how they care for their bodies. Look at me, guys—I have nothing, I need nothing; see how I have no house, no city, and I live as an exile, if that's what it is, and without a home, I live more freely and more happily than anyone of noble birth or the wealthy. But check out my poor body and see that it's not harmed by my tough lifestyle. If someone tells me this while looking and dressing like a condemned man, what god could convince me to embrace philosophy if it results in people becoming like that? Absolutely not; I wouldn't choose that, even if it might lead me to wisdom. Honestly, I would prefer that a young man starting out in philosophy come to me with his hair neatly groomed instead of dirty and messy, because it shows he has an idea of beauty and a desire for what looks good; and wherever he thinks that beauty is, that's where he'll focus his efforts. All I need to do is show him what it truly is and say: Young man, you're seeking beauty, and that's a good thing; you should know that it grows in the part of you that has reason; look for it where you feel things pulling you toward or away from different things, where you have desires and dislikes; this is what you have in yourself that's truly valuable; your body is just dirt by nature; why waste your energy on it? If you don't learn anything else, you'll eventually realize that the body means nothing. But if a person approaches me covered in filth, dirty, with a mustache down to his knees, what can I say to him? How can I guide him? What pursuit of beauty has he been engaged in that I could point out to help him realize, "Beauty isn't in this—it's in that"? Should I tell him that beauty isn’t found in being covered in muck, but instead lies in the rational part? Does he even have a desire for beauty? Does he have any idea of what it is in his mind? Go talk to a pig and tell it not to roll in the mud.
ON ATTENTION.—When you have remitted your attention for a short time, do not imagine this, that you will recover it when you choose; but let this thought be present to you, that in consequence of the fault committed today your affairs must be in a worse condition for all that follows. For first, and what causes most trouble, a habit of not attending is formed in you; then a habit of deferring your attention. And continually from time to time you drive away by deferring it the happiness of life, proper behavior, the being and living conformably to nature. If then the procrastination of attention is profitable, the complete omission of attention is more profitable; but if it is not profitable, why do you not maintain your attention constant? Today I choose to play. Well then, ought you not to play with attention? I choose to sing. What then hinders you from doing so with attention? Is there any part of life excepted, to which attention does not extend? For will you do it (anything in life) worse by using attention, and better by not attending at all? And what else of the things in life is done better by those who do not use attention? Does he who works in wood work better by not attending to it? Does the captain of a ship manage it better by not attending? and are any of the smaller acts done better by inattention? Do you not see that when you have let your mind loose, it is no longer in your power to recall it, either to propriety, or to modesty, or to moderation; but you do everything that comes into your mind in obedience to your inclinations.
ON ATTENTION.—When you've let your focus slip for a while, don’t think you can just get it back whenever you want. Instead, remember that because of the mistake you made today, your situation will be worse from here on out. First, and this is what causes the most issues, you start to develop a habit of not paying attention; then you fall into the habit of putting off your focus. And time after time, by postponing it, you’re pushing away the happiness of life, good behavior, and living in line with nature. If procrastinating on your attention is helpful, then completely ignoring it must be even better; but if it’s not helpful, why not keep your focus steady? Today I choose to play. Well then, shouldn’t you play with focus? I choose to sing. So what’s stopping you from doing that with attention? Is there any part of life where attention doesn’t apply? Will you do anything in life worse by using attention and better by ignoring it altogether? And what else in life is done better by those who don’t pay attention? Does a carpenter work better by not focusing? Does a ship captain navigate better without attention? And are any of the smaller tasks done better through inattention? Don’t you see that when you let your mind wander, you can no longer bring it back to decency, modesty, or moderation; instead, you act on whatever pops into your head, following your impulses.
First then we ought to have these (rules) in readiness, and to do nothing without them, and we ought to keep the soul directed to this mark, to pursue nothing external, and nothing which belongs to others (or is in the power of others), but to do as he has appointed who has the power; we ought to pursue altogether the things which are in the power of the will, and all other things as it is permitted. Next to this we ought to remember who we are, and what is our name, and to endeavor to direct our duties towards the character (nature) of our several relations (in life) in this manner: what is the season for singing, what is the season for play, and in whose presence; what will be the consequence of the act; whether our associates will despise us, whether we shall despise them; when to jeer ([Greek: schopsai]), and whom to ridicule; and on what occasion to comply and with whom; and finally, in complying how to maintain our own character. But wherever you have deviated from any of these rules, there is damage immediately, not from anything external, but from the action itself.
First, we should have these rules ready and not do anything without them. We need to keep our focus on this goal, avoiding anything external and anything that belongs to others or is under their control. Instead, we should follow what the one in power has established; we must strive for the things that lie within our will and approach everything else as permitted. We also need to remember who we are and what our identity is, directing our responsibilities according to the nature of our various relationships in life: when it’s appropriate to sing, when to play, and in whose presence; what the consequences of our actions will be; whether our friends will look down on us or if we will look down on them; when to tease and whom to mock; in what situations we should go along with others and with whom; and finally, how to stay true to our character while compromising. But whenever we stray from any of these rules, we cause immediate harm, not due to outside factors, but from the action itself.
What then? is it possible to be free from faults (if you do all this)? It is not possible; but this is possible, to direct your efforts incessantly to being faultless. For we must be content if by never remitting this attention we shall escape at least a few errors. But now when you have said, Tomorrow I will begin to attend, you must be told that you are saying this, Today I will be shameless, disregardful of time and place, mean; it will be in the power of others to give me pain; today I will be passionate and envious. See how many evil things you are permitting yourself to do. If it is good to use attention tomorrow, how much better is it to do so today? if tomorrow it is in your interest to attend, much more is it today, that you may be able to do so tomorrow also, and may not defer it again to the third day.
What then? Is it possible to be free from faults (if you do all this)? It's not possible; but what is possible is to keep directing your efforts towards being faultless. We should be satisfied if, by consistently focusing on this, we manage to avoid at least a few mistakes. But now, when you say, "Tomorrow I will start paying attention," what you're really saying is, "Today I will be shameless, careless about time and place, and mean; others will have the power to hurt me; today I will embrace passion and envy." Look at how many bad things you’re allowing yourself to do. If it’s good to pay attention tomorrow, how much better is it to do so today? If it's beneficial to focus tomorrow, it’s even more important today, so that you can still have that ability tomorrow and not push it off again to the third day.
AGAINST OR TO THOSE WHO READILY TELL THEIR OWN AFFAIRS.—When a man has seemed to us to have talked with simplicity (candor) about his own affairs, how is it that at last we are ourselves also induced to discover to him our own secrets and we think this to be candid behavior? In the first place, because it seems unfair for a man to have listened to the affairs of his neighbor, and not to communicate to him also in turn our own affairs; next, because we think that we shall not present to them the appearance of candid men when we are silent about our own affairs. Indeed, men are often accustomed to say, I have told you all my affairs, will you tell me nothing of your own? where is this done? Besides, we have also this opinion that we can safely trust him who has already told us his own affairs; for the notion rises in our mind that this man could never divulge our affairs because he would be cautious that we also should not divulge his. In this way also the incautious are caught by the soldiers at Rome. A soldier sits by you in a common dress and begins to speak ill of Cæsar; then you, as if you had received a pledge of his fidelity by his having begun the abuse, utter yourself also what you think, and then you are carried off in chains.
AGAINST OR TO THOSE WHO READILY SHARE THEIR OWN AFFAIRS.—When someone seems to speak openly and honestly about their own life, why do we feel compelled to reveal our own secrets to them and think that’s being open ourselves? First, it feels unfair for someone to listen to our problems without us returning the favor and sharing our own. Second, we believe that if we stay silent about our own lives, we won’t come across as honest people. In fact, people often say, "I’ve shared everything with you, why won’t you share anything about yourself?" Where does this happen? Additionally, we think we can trust someone who has already opened up to us; we assume they won’t betray our confidence because they’re careful about protecting their own secrets too. This is how the naive can get caught by soldiers in Rome. A soldier sits next to you in casual clothes and starts criticizing Caesar; then, feeling like you can trust him because he started it, you share your thoughts too, and next thing you know, you’re being taken away in chains.
Something of this kind happens to us also generally. Now as this man has confidently intrusted his affairs to me, shall I also do so to any man whom I meet? (No), for when I have heard, I keep silence, if I am of such a disposition; but he goes forth and tells all men what he has heard. Then, if I hear what has been done, if I be a man like him, I resolve to be revenged, I divulge what he has told me; I both disturb others, and am disturbed myself. But if I remember that one man does not injure another, and that every man’s acts injure and profit him, I secure this, that I do not anything like him, but still I suffer what I do suffer through my own silly talk.
Something like this generally happens to us too. Now that this guy has confidently trusted me with his affairs, should I do the same with every person I meet? (No), because when I hear something, I keep quiet, if that's how I am; but he goes out and tells everyone what he’s heard. Then, if I find out what he's done and I'm like him, I decide to get back at him, and I share what he told me; I end up disturbing others and being disturbed myself. But if I remember that one person doesn’t harm another, and that everyone’s actions only affect themselves, I ensure that I don’t act like him, even though I still face the consequences of my own foolish words.
True, but it is unfair when you have heard the secrets of your neighbor for you in your turn to communicate nothing to him. Did I ask you for your secrets, my man? did you communicate your affairs on certain terms, that you should in return hear mine also? If you are a babbler and think that all who meet you are friends, do you wish me also to be like you? But why, if you did well in intrusting your affairs to me, and it is not well for me to intrust mine to you, do you wish me to be so rash? It is just the same as if I had a cask which is water-tight, and you one with a hole in it, and you should come and deposit with me your wine that I might put it into my cask, and then should complain that I also did not intrust my wine to you, for you have a cask with a hole in it. How then is there any equality here? You intrusted your affairs to a man who is faithful and modest, to a man who thinks that his own actions alone are injurious and (or) useful, and that nothing external is. Would you have me intrust mine to you, a man who has dishonored his own faculty of will, and who wishes to gain some small bit of money or some office or promotion in the court (emperor’s palace), even if you should be going to murder your own children, like Medea? Where (in what) is this equality (fairness)? But show yourself to me to be faithful, modest, and steady; show me that you have friendly opinions; show that your cask has no hole in it; and you will see how I shall not wait for you to trust me with your own affairs, but I myself shall come to you and ask you to hear mine. For who does not choose to make use of a good vessel? Who does not value a benevolent and faithful adviser? Who will not willingly receive a man who is ready to bear a share, as we may say, of the difficulty of his circumstances, and by this very act to ease the burden, by taking a part of it.
Sure, but it's unfair when you've shared your neighbor's secrets, and you expect nothing in return. Did I ask for your secrets, my friend? Did you share your affairs on the condition that I should share mine too? If you're a chatterbox and think everyone you meet is a friend, do you want me to be like you? But why would it be okay for you to trust me with your affairs, while it's not good for me to trust you with mine? That would be reckless! It’s like I have a sealed barrel, and you have one with a hole in it. You come and pour your wine into my barrel, then complain that I won’t give you my wine, even though you have a leaky barrel. Where’s the fairness in that? You trusted your matters to someone who is loyal and humble, someone who believes his own actions are what cause harm or benefit, while external things don’t matter. Would you have me trust you, a person who has compromised his own will and is willing to do anything for a little money or a job in the emperor’s court, even if it means committing terrible acts, like Medea? Where’s the fairness in that? But if you prove to me that you are faithful, humble, and reliable; if you show me you have good intentions; if you demonstrate that your barrel is not leaking, then you’ll see that I won't wait for you to trust me with your affairs. I’ll come to you and ask you to hear mine. Who wouldn’t want to use a good vessel? Who wouldn’t appreciate a kind and trustworthy advisor? Who wouldn’t gladly accept someone willing to share the burden of their troubles, making it lighter by taking on part of it?
THE ENCHEIRIDION, OR MANUAL.
I.
Of things some are in our power, and others are not. In our power are opinion ([Greek: hupolaepsis]), movement towards a thing ([Greek: hormae]), desire, aversion ([Greek: echchlisis]), turning from a thing; and in a word, whatever are our acts. Not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices (magisterial power), and in a word, whatever are not our own acts. And the things in our power are by nature free, not subject to restraint or hindrance; but the things not in our power are weak, slavish, subject to restraint, in the power of others. Remember then, that if you think the things which are by nature slavish to be free, and the things which are in the power of others to be your own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed, you will blame both gods and men; but if you think that only which is your own to be your own, and if you think that what is another’s, as it really is, belongs to another, no man will ever compel you, no man will hinder you, you will never blame any man, you will accuse no man, you will do nothing involuntarily (against your will), no man will harm you, you will have no enemy, for you will not suffer any harm.
Some things are within our control, and others are not. What we can control includes our opinions, our motivations, our desires, our aversions, and our actions. On the other hand, we cannot control our bodies, our possessions, our reputations, or positions of power; in short, we cannot control anything that isn't an action of our own. The things we can control are inherently free and not subject to force or interference, while the things we can't control are weak and subject to the influence of others. Keep in mind that if you mistakenly believe that the things that are fundamentally controlled by others are actually free, or if you think that external factors belong to you, you'll face obstacles, you will complain, you will feel upset, and you will blame both gods and people. However, if you recognize that only what is truly yours is under your control, and see that what belongs to others is genuinely theirs, no one will ever be able to force you, hinder you, or make you blame anyone. You won't accuse anyone, you won’t act against your will, no one will hurt you, and you will have no enemies, as you won’t experience any harm.
If then you desire (aim at) such great things remember that you must not (attempt to) lay hold of them with a small effort; but you must leave alone some things entirely, and postpone others for the present. But if you wish for these things also (such great things), and power (office) and wealth, perhaps you will not gain even these very things (power and wealth) because you aim also at those former things (such great things); certainly you will fail in those things through which alone happiness and freedom are secured. Straightway then practise saying to every harsh appearance: You are an appearance, and in no manner what you appear to be. Then examine it by the rules which you possess, and by this first and chiefly, whether it relates to the things which are in our power or to things which are not in our power; and if it relates to anything which is not in our power, be ready to say that it does not concern you.
If you want to achieve great things, keep in mind that you can’t grab them with just a little effort; you have to completely let go of some things and put others on hold for now. But if you also want these great things, as well as power and wealth, you might not even get those because you’re aiming for those earlier goals. You’ll definitely miss out on the things that truly bring happiness and freedom. So, right away, start telling yourself about every harsh situation: "This is just an appearance, and it’s not what it seems." Then examine it using the guidelines you have, especially focusing on whether it relates to things within your control or things outside of it; if it’s about something you can't control, be ready to say it doesn’t involve you.
II.
Remember that desire contains in it the profession (hope) of obtaining that which you desire; and the profession (hope) in aversion (turning from a thing) is that you will not fall into that which you attempt to avoid; and he who fails in his desire is unfortunate; and he who falls into that which he would avoid is unhappy. If then you attempt to avoid only the things contrary to nature which are within your power you will not be involved in any of the things which you would avoid. But if you attempt to avoid disease, or death, or poverty, you will be unhappy. Take away then aversion from all things which are not in our power, and transfer it to the things contrary to nature which are in our power. But destroy desire completely for the present. For if you desire anything which is not in our power, you must be unfortunate; but of the things in our power, and which it would be good to desire, nothing yet is before you. But employ only the power of moving towards an object and retiring from it; and these powers indeed only slightly and with exceptions and with remission.
Keep in mind that desire includes the hope of getting what you want; and the hope in avoiding something is that you won't end up with what you're trying to steer clear of. Someone who fails to achieve their desires is unlucky, and someone who ends up with what they want to avoid is unhappy. If you focus on avoiding only the things that are unnatural and within your control, you won’t get tangled up in what you want to avoid. But if you try to evade illness, death, or poverty, you will be unhappy. So, remove aversion from everything that’s beyond our control, and direct it toward the unnatural things that we can influence. But for now, let go of desire completely. If you wish for anything that's not within your power, you’re bound to feel unfortunate; and among the things we can desire that would actually be good, nothing is currently within your reach. Instead, just use the ability to move towards something or pull away from it, and do this with caution and only when necessary.
III.
In everything which pleases the soul, or supplies a want, or is loved, remember to add this to the (description, notion): What is the nature of each thing, beginning from the smallest? If you love an earthen vessel, say it is an earthen vessel which you love; for when it has been broken you will not be disturbed. If you are kissing your child or wife, say that it is a human being whom you are kissing, for when the wife or child dies you will not be disturbed.
In everything that brings joy to your soul, meets a need, or is cherished, remember to consider this in your understanding: What is the true nature of each thing, starting from the smallest? If you love a clay pot, acknowledge that it’s a clay pot you love; because when it breaks, you won’t be upset. If you are kissing your child or spouse, recognize that it’s a human being you are kissing, so when your spouse or child passes away, you won’t be troubled.
IV.
When you are going to take in hand any act remind yourself what kind of an act it is. If you are going to bathe, place before yourself what happens in the bath; some splashing the water, others pushing against one another, others abusing one another, and some stealing; and thus with more safety you will undertake the matter, if you say to yourself, I now intend to bathe, and to maintain my will in a manner conformable to nature. And so you will do in every act; for thus if any hindrance to bathing shall happen let this thought be ready. It was not this only that I intended, but I intended also to maintain my will in a way conformable to nature; but I shall not maintain it so if I am vexed at what happens.
When you're about to do something, remind yourself what kind of action it is. If you're going to take a bath, think about what happens in the bath: some people splash the water, others push against each other, some argue, and a few might even steal. By keeping this in mind, you'll approach it with more awareness, telling yourself, "I plan to bathe and to stay true to my intentions in a way that's natural." You should do this for every action; if any obstacles come up while bathing, let this thought be ready. It wasn't just the bathing that I intended; I also meant to stay aligned with my true self. If I get upset about what's happening, then I won't maintain that alignment.
V.
Men are disturbed not by the things which happen, but by the opinions about the things; for example, death is nothing terrible, for if it were it would have seemed so to Socrates; for the opinion about death that it is terrible, is the terrible thing. When then we are impeded, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never blame others, but ourselves—that is, our opinions. It is the act of an ill-instructed man to blame others for his own bad condition; it is the act of one who has begun to be instructed, to lay the blame on himself; and of one whose instruction is completed, neither to blame another, nor himself.
Men are not upset by the things that happen, but by how they think about those things. For example, death isn't something terrible; if it were, Socrates would have thought so. The idea that death is terrible is what actually makes it terrible. So when we feel blocked, upset, or sad, let’s not blame others, but ourselves—that is, our opinions. It's a sign of ignorance to blame others for our own situation; it's a sign of learning to take responsibility for ourselves; and when someone is fully learned, they don't blame anyone, not even themselves.
VI.
Be not elated at any advantage (excellence) which belongs to another. If a horse when he is elated should say, I am beautiful, one might endure it. But when you are elated, and say, I have a beautiful horse, you must know that you are elated at having a good horse. What then is your own? The use of appearances. Consequently when in the use of appearances you are conformable to nature, then be elated, for then you will be elated at something good which is your own.
Don't feel proud of any advantage or excellence that belongs to someone else. If a horse, when feeling proud, were to say, "I am beautiful," it might be tolerable. But when you feel proud and say, "I have a beautiful horse," you need to realize that your pride comes from owning a good horse. So, what do you really have? The ability to appreciate appearances. Therefore, when your appreciation of appearances aligns with nature, then you can feel proud, because you’ll be proud of something good that actually belongs to you.
VII.
As on a voyage when the vessel has reached a port, if you go out to get water it is an amusement by the way to pick up a shellfish or some bulb, but your thoughts ought to be directed to the ship, and you ought to be constantly watching if the captain should call, and then you must throw away all those things, that you may not be bound and pitched into the ship like sheep. So in life also, if there be given to you instead of a little bulb and a shell a wife and child, there will be nothing to prevent (you from taking them). But if the captain should call, run to the ship and leave all those things without regard to them. But if you are old, do not even go far from the ship, lest when you are called you make default.
Just like on a trip when the ship has docked, if you step out to collect water, it's a nice distraction to find a shell or some bulb. However, your main focus should be on the ship, and you should always keep an eye out for the captain's call. When that happens, you need to drop everything and not get caught up like sheep. Similarly, in life, if you're given more than just a bulb and a shell, like a wife and child, there's nothing stopping you from embracing them. But if the captain calls, hurry back to the ship and leave those things behind without a second thought. And if you're older, don't wander too far from the ship, or you might miss your call.
VIII.
Seek not that the things which happen should happen as you wish; but wish the things which happen to be as they are, and you will have a tranquil flow of life.
Don't wish for things to happen the way you want; instead, wish for things to be as they are, and you'll experience a peaceful life.
IX.
Disease is an impediment to the body, but not to the will, unless the will itself chooses. Lameness is an impediment to the leg, but not to the will. And add this reflection on the occasion of everything that happens; for you will find it an impediment to something else, but not to yourself.
Disease is a setback for the body, but not for the will, unless the will chooses otherwise. Lameness hinders the leg, but not the will. Keep this in mind whenever something happens; you’ll find it may be a barrier to something else, but not to you.
X.
On the occasion of every accident (event) that befalls you, remember to turn to yourself and inquire what power you have for turning it to use. If you see a fair man or a fair woman, you will find that the power to resist is temperance (continence). If labor (pain) be presented to you, you will find that it is endurance. If it be abusive words, you will find it to be patience. And if you have been thus formed to the (proper) habit, the appearances will not carry you along with them.
Whenever something happens to you, take a moment to reflect on how you can make the most of it. If you encounter a good-looking man or woman, you'll realize that the ability to resist is self-control. If you're faced with work or difficulty, you'll discover that it's about perseverance. If someone uses harsh words, you'll find that it's about patience. And if you've developed the right mindset, these situations won't sway you easily.
XI.
Never say about anything, I have lost it, but say I have restored it. Is your child dead? It has been restored. Is your wife dead? She has been restored. Has your estate been taken from you? Has not then this also been restored? But he who has taken it from me is a bad man. But what is it to you, by whose hands the giver demanded it back? So long as he may allow you, take care of it as a thing which belongs to another, as travellers do with their inn.
Never say you've lost something; instead, say you've restored it. Is your child dead? They have been restored. Is your wife dead? She has been restored. Has your property been taken from you? Hasn't that also been restored? But the person who took it from me is a bad man. But why does it matter to you who took it back? As long as you're allowed to have it, take care of it as if it belongs to someone else, just like travelers do with their inn.
XII.
If you intend to improve, throw away such thoughts as these: if I neglect my affairs, I shall not have the means of living: unless I chastise my slave, he will be bad. For it is better to die of hunger and so to be released from grief and fear than to live in abundance with perturbation; and it is better for your slave to be bad than for you to be unhappy. Begin then from little things. Is the oil spilled? Is a little wine stolen? Say on the occasion, at such price is sold freedom from perturbation; at such price is sold tranquillity, but nothing is got for nothing. And when you call your slave, consider that it is possible that he does not hear; and if he does hear, that he will do nothing which you wish. But matters are not so well with him, but altogether well with you, that it should be in his power for you to be not disturbed.
If you want to improve, get rid of thoughts like these: if I ignore my responsibilities, I won’t be able to make a living; if I don’t punish my slave, he’ll turn out badly. It’s better to starve and be free from worry and fear than to live in comfort but feel anxious; and it’s better for your slave to be bad than for you to be unhappy. So start with small things. Is the oil spilled? Did someone steal a little wine? Remember that this is the cost of freedom from anxiety; this is the price of peace, but nothing comes for free. And when you call your slave, keep in mind that he might not hear you; and if he does hear you, he may not do what you want. But things should be fine for him, and all the more so for you, so that he can help you stay calm.
XIII.
If you would improve, submit to be considered without sense and foolish with respect to externals. Wish to be considered to know nothing; and if you shall seem to some to be a person of importance, distrust yourself. For you should know that it is not easy both to keep your will in a condition conformable to nature and (to secure) external things: but if a man is careful about the one, it is an absolute necessity that he will neglect the other.
If you want to improve, be ready to be seen as foolish and lacking common sense when it comes to superficial things. Aim to be seen as someone who knows nothing; and if some people think you're important, doubt yourself. You need to understand that it's not easy to maintain your will in harmony with nature while also focusing on external things. If someone prioritizes one, they will inevitably neglect the other.
XIV.
If you would have your children and your wife and your friends to live for ever, you are silly; for you would have the things which are not in your power to be in your power, and the things which belong to others to be yours. So if you would have your slave to be free from faults, you are a fool; for you would have badness not to be badness, but something else. But if you wish not to fail in your desires, you are able to do that. Practise then this which you are able to do. He is the master of every man who has the power over the things which another person wishes or does not wish, the power to confer them on him or to take them away. Whoever then wishes to be free let him neither wish for anything nor avoid anything which depends on others: if he does not observe this rule, he must be a slave.
If you want your kids, your wife, and your friends to live forever, you’re being unrealistic; you’re trying to have control over things that you can’t, and you want what belongs to others to be yours. So if you expect your servant to be flawless, you’re being foolish; you want badness to not be badness, but something different. However, if you want to avoid disappointment in your wishes, you can do that. Focus on what you can actually control. The person who holds power over what someone else desires or avoids is in charge; they can give or take those things away. So, if someone wants to be free, they shouldn’t wish for anything or try to avoid anything that relies on other people. If they don’t follow this guideline, then they must be a slave.
XV.
Remember that in life you ought to behave as at a banquet. Suppose that something is carried round and is opposite to you. Stretch out your hand and take a portion with decency. Suppose that it passes by you. Do not detain it. Suppose that it is not yet come to you. Do not send your desire forward to it, but wait till it is opposite to you. Do so with respect to children, so with respect to a wife, so with respect to magisterial offices, so with respect to wealth, and you will be some time a worthy partner of the banquets of the gods. But if you take none of the things which are set before you, and even despise them, then you will be not only a fellow banqueter with the gods, but also a partner with them in power. For by acting thus Diogenes and Heracleitus and those like them were deservedly divine, and were so called.
Remember that in life you should act like you're at a banquet. Imagine that something is being passed around and it's in front of you. Reach out and take a portion with grace. If it passes by you, don’t hold it back. If it hasn’t come to you yet, don’t rush your desire towards it; just wait until it’s in front of you. Do this with children, with a spouse, with authority positions, and with wealth, and you'll eventually become a worthy guest at the banquets of the gods. But if you ignore everything that is offered to you and even look down on it, then you won't just be seated with the gods; you'll also share in their power. By living this way, Diogenes and Heraclitus and others like them were rightly considered divine and were referred to as such.
XVI.
When you see a person weeping in sorrow either when a child goes abroad or when he is dead, or when the man has lost his property, take care that the appearance do not hurry you away with it, as if he were suffering in external things. But straightway make a distinction in your own mind, and be in readiness to say, it is not that which has happened that afflicts this man, for it does not afflict another, but it is the opinion about this thing which afflicts the man. So far as words then do not be unwilling to show him sympathy, and even if it happens so, to lament with him. But take care that you do not lament internally also.
When you see someone crying out of sadness, whether it's when a child leaves home, when someone dies, or when a person loses their belongings, be careful not to let their sorrow completely pull you in as if they're suffering solely due to those external circumstances. Instead, make a quick distinction in your mind and be ready to remind yourself that it’s not the event itself that causes this person's pain—since others may not feel the same way about it—but rather their perception of it that brings them distress. So, when it comes to words, don't hesitate to express sympathy and, if necessary, to mourn with them. Just be sure to avoid feeling that sorrow yourself internally.
XVII.
Remember that thou art an actor in a play, of such a kind as the teacher (author) may choose; if short, of a short one; if long, of a long one: if he wishes you to act the part of a poor man, see that you act the part naturally; if the part of a lame man, of a magistrate, of a private person, (do the same). For this is your duty, to act well the part that is given to you; but to select the part, belongs to another.
Remember that you are an actor in a play, of whatever kind the teacher (author) chooses; if it's short, in a short one; if it's long, in a long one: if he wants you to play the part of a poor person, make sure you play it naturally; if it's the part of a disabled person, a magistrate, or a private individual, do the same. Your duty is to perform well the part assigned to you, but choosing the part is up to someone else.
XVIII.
When a raven has croaked inauspiciously, let not the appearance hurry you away with it; but straightway make a distinction in your mind and say, None of these things is signified to me, but either to my poor body, or to my small property, or to my reputation, or to my children, or to my wife: but to me all significations are auspicious if I choose. For whatever of these things results, it is in my power to derive benefit from it.
When a raven has cawed ominously, don't let its presence rush you away with it; instead, immediately differentiate in your mind and say, None of this means anything to me personally, but rather to my body, my possessions, my reputation, my children, or my spouse. However, to me, all meanings are positive if I decide they are. Whatever happens, I have the power to make something good out of it.
XIX.
You can be invincible, if you enter into no contest in which it is not in your power to conquer. Take care then when you observe a man honored before others or possessed of great power or highly esteemed for any reason, not to suppose him happy, and be not carried away by the appearance. For if the nature of the good is in our power, neither envy nor jealousy will have a place in us. But you yourself will not wish to be a general or senator ([Greek: prutanis]) or consul, but a free man: and there is only one way to this, to despise (care not for) the things which are not in our power.
You can be unbeatable if you only engage in challenges where you have the ability to succeed. So, be cautious when you see someone respected by others, powerful, or admired for any reason—don’t assume they’re happy just based on appearances. If true happiness comes from what’s within our control, then we won’t feel envy or jealousy. You should want to be a free person, not a general, senator, or consul. The only way to achieve this is to disregard the things that aren’t under our control.
XX.
Remember that it is not he who reviles you or strikes you, who insults you, but it is your opinion about these things as being insulting. When then a man irritates you, you must know that it is your own opinion which has irritated you. Therefore especially try not to be carried away by the appearance. For if you once gain time and delay, you will more easily master yourself.
Remember that it's not the person who insults or hits you, but rather your own perception of those actions as being insulting. So, when someone annoys you, realize that it’s your opinion that’s making you feel that way. Therefore, especially try not to be swayed by appearances. If you can take a moment and pause, you'll find it easier to control yourself.
XXI.
Let death and exile and every other thing which appears dreadful be daily before your eyes; but most of all death: and you will never think of anything mean nor will you desire anything extravagantly.
Let death, exile, and everything else that seems terrible be in front of you every day; but especially death: and you will never think of anything lowly nor will you crave anything excessively.
XXII.
If you desire philosophy, prepare yourself from the beginning to be ridiculed, to expect that many will sneer at you, and say, He has all at once returned to us as a philosopher; and whence does he get this supercilious look for us? Do you not show a supercilious look; but hold on to the things which seem to you best as one appointed by God to this station. And remember that if you abide in the same principles, these men who first ridiculed will afterwards admire you; but if you shall have been overpowered by them, you will bring on yourself double ridicule.
If you want to pursue philosophy, be ready from the start to be mocked, and expect that many will sneer at you, saying, "Look, he suddenly thinks he's a philosopher; where did he get this arrogant attitude?" Don’t adopt a haughty demeanor; instead, hold on to what you believe is right as someone chosen by God for this path. And remember, if you stick to your principles, those who initially ridiculed you will eventually respect you; but if you let them sway you, you’ll face even more mockery.
XXIII.
If it should ever happen to you to be turned to externals in order to please some person, you must know that you have lost your purpose in life. Be satisfied then in everything with being a philosopher; and if you wish to seem also to any person to be a philosopher, appear so to yourself, and you will be able to do this.
If you ever find yourself focused on outside things just to please someone, you need to realize that you've lost sight of your life's purpose. So, be content with just being a philosopher; and if you want others to see you as a philosopher too, first see yourself that way, and you'll be able to achieve it.
XXIV.
Let not these thoughts afflict you, I shall live unhonored and be nobody nowhere. For if want of honor ([Greek: atimia]) is an evil, you cannot be in evil through the means (fault) of another any more than you can be involved in anything base. Is it then your business to obtain the rank of a magistrate, or to be received at a banquet? By no means. How then can this be want of honor (dishonor)? And how will you be nobody nowhere, when you ought to be somebody in those things only which are in your power, in which indeed it is permitted to you to be a man of the greatest worth? But your friends will be without assistance! What do you mean by being without assistance? They will not receive money from you, nor will you make them Roman citizens. Who then told you that these are among the things which are in our power, and not in the power of others? And who can give to another what he has not himself? Acquire money then, your friends say, that we also may have something. If I can acquire money and also keep myself modest and faithful and magnanimous, point out the way, and I will acquire it. But if you ask me to lose the things which are good and my own, in order that you may gain the things which are not good, see how unfair and silly you are. Besides, which would you rather have, money or a faithful and modest friend? For this end then rather help me to be such a man, and do not ask me to do this by which I shall lose that character. But my country, you say, as far as it depends on me, will be without my help. I ask again, what help do you mean? It will not have porticos or baths through you. And what does this mean? For it is not furnished with shoes by means of a smith, nor with arms by means of a shoemaker. But it is enough if every man fully discharges the work that is his own: and if you provided it with another citizen faithful and modest, would you not be useful to it? Yes. Then you also cannot be useless to it. What place then, you say, shall I hold in the city? Whatever you can, if you maintain at the same time your fidelity and modesty. But if when you wish to be useful to the state, you shall lose these qualities, what profit could you be to it, if you were made shameless and faithless?
Don’t let these thoughts bother you; I will live without recognition and be nobody anywhere. If lack of honor (atimia) is bad, you cannot be affected by someone else’s faults any more than you can be involved in something shameful. Is it really your concern to become a magistrate or to be invited to a banquet? Absolutely not. So how can this be a lack of honor (dishonor)? And how will you be nobody anywhere when you should be someone in the areas that are within your control, where you have the opportunity to be a person of great worth? But what about your friends; they’ll be without support! What do you mean by being without support? They won't get money from you or become Roman citizens through you. Who told you that these things are within our control and not in others’ hands? And who can give to someone else what they don’t have themselves? So, your friends say to acquire money so they can have something too. If I can make money while also staying modest, faithful, and noble, show me how, and I will. But if you want me to sacrifice the good things that I truly own so you can gain things that aren’t good, see how unfair and ridiculous that is. Besides, would you rather have money or a loyal and modest friend? So, help me be that man instead of asking me to do something that would make me lose that character. But you say, my country will lack my help as far as it depends on me. I ask again, what kind of help do you mean? It won’t have porticos or baths because of you. So what does that mean? It doesn’t get shoes from a smith or weapons from a shoemaker. It’s enough if everyone does their own part: and if you give it another loyal and modest citizen, wouldn’t that be beneficial? Yes. Then you also can’t be useless to it. So what position should I hold in the city, you ask? Whatever you can, as long as you keep your loyalty and modesty. But if you lose those qualities when trying to be helpful to the state, how could you possibly be of any benefit if you become shameless and untrustworthy?
XXV.
Has any man been preferred before you at a banquet, or in being saluted, or in being invited to a consultation? If these things are good, you ought to rejoice that he has obtained them; but if bad, be not grieved because you have not obtained them. And remember that you cannot, if you do not the same things in order to obtain what is not in our own power, be considered worthy of the same (equal) things. For how can a man obtain an equal share with another when he does not visit a man’s doors as that other man does; when he does not attend him when he goes abroad, as the other man does; when he does not praise (flatter) him as another does? You will be unjust then and insatiable, if you do not part with the price, in return for which those things are sold, and if you wish to obtain them for nothing. Well, what is the price of lettuces? An obolus perhaps. If then a man gives up the obolus, and receives the lettuces, and if you do not give up the obolus and do not obtain the lettuces, do not suppose that you receive less than he who has got the lettuces; for as he has the lettuces, so you have the obolus which you did not give. In the same way then in the other matter also you have not been invited to a man’s feast, for you did not give to the host the price at which the supper is sold; but he sells it for praise (flattery), he sells it for personal attention. Give then the price, if it is for your interest, for which it is sold. But if you wish both not to give the price and to obtain the things, you are insatiable and silly. Have you nothing then in place of the supper? You have indeed, you have the not flattering of him, whom you did not choose to flatter; you have the not enduring of the man when he enters the room.
Has any guy been favored over you at a party, or in being greeted, or being asked to join a discussion? If those things are good, you should be happy he got them; but if they're not, don't be upset that you didn't get them. And remember, you can't be considered deserving of the same things unless you do the same actions to get what isn’t in our control. How can someone get the same as another if he doesn’t go to the guy’s place like the other guy does; if he doesn’t accompany him when he goes out, like the other one does; if he doesn’t compliment him like the other guy does? You would be unfair and greedy if you don’t pay the price for what those things cost and if you want to get them for free. So, what’s the cost of lettuces? Maybe an obolus. If someone pays the obolus and gets the lettuces, and you don’t pay the obolus and don’t get the lettuces, don’t think you’re getting less than the one who has the lettuces; because while he has the lettuces, you have the obolus that you didn’t give up. In the same way, you haven’t been invited to a guy’s feast because you didn’t give the host the payment for the dinner; but he sells it for compliments, he sells it for attention. So give the price, if it benefits you, for what it’s sold. But if you want to get things without paying, you’re greedy and foolish. Don’t you have anything to replace the meal? You do, you have the choice not to flatter the person you didn’t want to flatter; you have the choice not to endure the guy when he comes in.
XXVI.
We may learn the wish (will) of nature from the things in which we do not differ from one another: for instance, when your neighbor’s slave has broken his cup, or anything else, we are ready to say forthwith, that it is one of the things which happen. You must know then that when your cup also is broken, you ought to think as you did when your neighbor’s cup was broken. Transfer this reflection to greater things also. Is another man’s child or wife dead? There is no one who would not say, This is an event incident to man. But when a man’s own child or wife is dead, forthwith he calls out, Woe to me, how wretched I am! But we ought to remember how we feel when we hear that it has happened to others.
We can understand the will of nature through the things we all have in common. For example, when your neighbor's servant breaks a cup, we quickly say, it's just one of those things that happen. You should keep in mind that when your own cup breaks, you should think the same way you did when your neighbor's cup broke. Apply this way of thinking to bigger issues too. If someone else's child or spouse dies, no one would argue that it’s just part of life. But when it happens to someone’s own child or spouse, they immediately cry out, "Woe is me, how unfortunate I am!" We need to remember how we react when we hear about such things happening to others.
XXVII.
As a mark is not set up for the purpose of missing the aim, so neither does the nature of evil exist in the world.
As a target isn’t established to miss the goal, similarly, the nature of evil doesn’t exist in the world.
XXVIII.
If any person was intending to put your body in the power of any man whom you fell in with on the way, you would be vexed; but that you put your understanding in the power of any man whom you meet, so that if he should revile you, it is disturbed and troubled, are you not ashamed at this?
If someone planned to control your body through someone you encountered on the way, you'd be upset; yet you allow your mind to be controlled by anyone you meet, so that if they insult you, it gets disturbed and unsettled. Aren't you ashamed of this?
XXIX.
In every act observe the things which come first, and those which follow it; and so proceed to the act. If you do not, at first you will approach it with alacrity, without having thought of the things which will follow; but afterwards, when certain base (ugly) things have shown themselves, you will be ashamed. A man wishes to conquer at the Olympic games. I also wish indeed, for it is a fine thing. But observe both the things which come first, and the things which follow; and then begin the act. You must do everything according to rule, eat according to strict orders, abstain from delicacies, exercise yourself as you are bid at appointed times, in heat, in cold, you must not drink cold water, nor wine as you choose; in a word, you must deliver yourself up to the exercise master as you do to the physician, and then proceed to the contest. And sometimes you will strain the hand, put the ankle out of joint, swallow much dust, sometimes be flogged, and after all this be defeated. When you have considered all this, if you still choose, go to the contest: if you do not you will behave like children, who at one time play at wrestlers, another time as flute players, again as gladiators, then as trumpeters, then as tragic actors. So you also will be at one time an athlete, at another a gladiator, then a rhetorician, then a philosopher, but with your whole soul you will be nothing at all; but like an ape you imitate everything that you see, and one thing after another pleases you. For you have not undertaken anything with consideration, nor have you surveyed it well; but carelessly and with cold desire. Thus some who have seen a philosopher and having heard one speak, as Euphrates speaks—and who can speak as he does?—they wish to be philosophers themselves also. My man, first of all consider what kind of thing it is; and then examine your own nature, if you are able to sustain the character. Do you wish to be a pentathlete or a wrestler? Look at your arms, your thighs, examine your loins. For different men are formed by nature for different things. Do you think that if you do these things, you can eat in the same manner, drink in the same manner, and in the same manner loathe certain things? You must pass sleepless nights, endure toil, go away from your kinsmen, be despised by a slave, in everything have the inferior part, in honor, in office, in the courts of justice, in every little matter. Consider these things, if you would exchange for them, freedom from passions, liberty, tranquillity. If not, take care that, like little children, you be not now a philosopher, then a servant of the publicani, then a rhetorician, then a procurator (manager) for Cæsar. These things are not consistent. You must be one man, either good or bad. You must either cultivate your own ruling faculty, or external things. You must either exercise your skill on internal things or on external things; that is you must either maintain the position of a philosopher or that of a common person.
In everything you do, pay attention to what comes first and what follows; then move forward with your actions. If you don’t, you might dive in with enthusiasm without considering the consequences, but later, when unpleasant realities arise, you’ll feel ashamed. A person aims to win at the Olympic games. I want that too, as it’s an admirable goal. But be aware of both the initial steps and the outcomes, and then start. You need to follow the rules: eat strictly, avoid treats, train as instructed at specific times, in heat or cold, drink only water as told, and avoid drinking wine whenever you want; in short, you must submit to the coach like you would to a doctor, and only then prepare for the competition. Sometimes you might injure your hand, twist your ankle, choke on dust, face punishment, and even end up losing. After considering all this, if you still want to compete, go for it. If not, you’ll end up like children who switch from pretending to be wrestlers to flute players, then gladiators, trumpeters, and tragic actors. So, one moment you’ll be an athlete, the next a gladiator, then a public speaker or a philosopher, but with all your heart, you’ll be nothing at all, just mimicking everything you see, easily distracted by one thing after another. You haven’t truly committed to anything thoughtfully or carefully; instead, you’re acting on a whim with half-hearted desire. Thus, some who have listened to a philosopher speak, like Euphrates—and who speaks like him?—want to be philosophers too. First, consider what that entails, then reflect on whether you have what it takes to embody that role. Do you want to be a pentathlete or a wrestler? Look at your arms, thighs, and evaluate your body. People are naturally suited for different things. Do you believe you can engage in these activities while eating, drinking, and feeling the same way as before? You’ll have sleepless nights, endure hardships, separate from loved ones, face disdain from a servant, often take the lesser role in honor, responsibilities, and even in small matters. Think about whether you’d trade those for freedom from desires, liberty, and peace. If not, be careful not to bounce around like a child, being a philosopher one moment, then a tax collector, then a public speaker, and finally a manager for Caesar. These roles don’t align. You need to be one person, either good or bad. You must develop your own judgment or focus on external matters. You need to either sharpen your skills on internal issues or focus on external ones; in other words, you must either commit to being a philosopher or simply be an ordinary person.
XXX.
Duties are universally measured by relations ([Greek: tais schsesi]). Is a man a father? The precept is to take care of him, to yield to him in all things, to submit when he is reproachful, when he inflicts blows. But suppose that he is a bad father. Were you then by nature made akin to a good father? No; but to a father. Does a brother wrong you? Maintain then your own position towards him, and do not examine what he is doing, but what you must do that your will shall be conformable to nature. For another will not damage you, unless you choose: but you will be damaged then when you shall think that you are damaged. In this way then you will discover your duty from the relation of a neighbor, from that of a citizen, from that of a general, if you are accustomed to contemplate the relations.
Duties are universally understood through relationships. Is someone a father? The rule is to take care of him, to give in to him in everything, to submit when he criticizes or when he gets physical. But what if he’s a terrible father? Were you meant to be similar to a good father by nature? No, just to a father. Does your brother mistreat you? Then hold your position toward him and don’t focus on what he’s doing, but on what you need to do to keep your will aligned with nature. No one can hurt you unless you allow it: you will feel hurt only when you believe you are. This way, you can figure out your duties from your relationships as a neighbor, as a citizen, as a leader, if you are used to reflecting on those relationships.
XXXI.
As to piety towards the gods you must know that this is the chief thing, to have right opinions about them, to think that they exist, and that they administer the All well and justly; and you must fix yourself in this principle (duty), to obey them, and to yield to them in everything which happens, and voluntarily to follow it as being accomplished by the wisest intelligence. For if you do so, you will never either blame the gods, nor will you accuse them of neglecting you. And it is not possible for this to be done in any other way than by withdrawing from the things which are not in our power, and by placing the good and the evil only in those things which are in our power. For if you think that any of the things which are not in our power is good or bad, it is absolutely necessary that, when you do not obtain what you wish, and when you fall into those things which you do not wish, you will find fault and hate those who are the cause of them; for every animal is formed by nature to this, to fly from and to turn from the things which appear harmful and the things which are the cause of the harm, but to follow and admire the things which are useful and the causes of the useful. It is impossible then for a person who thinks that he is harmed to be delighted with that which he thinks to be the cause of the harm, as it is also impossible to be pleased with the harm itself. For this reason also a father is reviled by his son, when he gives no part to his son of the things which are considered to be good; and it was this which made Polynices and Eteocles enemies, the opinion that royal power was a good. It is for this reason that the cultivator of the earth reviles the gods, for this reason the sailor does, and the merchant, and for this reason those who lose their wives and their children. For where the useful (your interest) is, there also piety is. Consequently he who takes care to desire as he ought and to avoid ([Greek: echchlinein]) as he ought, at the same time also cares after piety. But to make libations and to sacrifice and to offer first-fruits according to the custom of our fathers, purely and not meanly nor carelessly nor scantily nor above our ability, is a thing which belongs to all to do.
Regarding your duty to the gods, it’s essential to understand that the main thing is to have the right beliefs about them: to believe that they exist and that they manage everything justly and well. You should commit to this principle and obey them, accepting everything that happens as part of their wise plan. If you do this, you’ll never blame the gods or accuse them of neglecting you. The only way to achieve this is by letting go of things outside our control and focusing on what is within our power. If you consider anything beyond your control to be good or bad, then when you don’t get what you want or encounter things you don’t want, you will inevitably complain and resent those responsible. All living beings are naturally inclined to avoid what seems harmful and to seek out what is beneficial. Thus, it is impossible for someone who believes they are being harmed to feel good about what they view as the source of that harm, just as it's impossible to feel satisfied with the harm itself. This explains why a son may lash out at his father when he feels deprived of what is considered good; this is also why Polynices and Eteocles became enemies, each seeing royal power as advantageous. Farmers curse the gods for this reason, as do sailors and merchants, and so do those who lose their spouses and children. Where your interests lie, that's where piety is found. Therefore, those who strive to desire appropriately and avoid what they should also tend to their sense of piety. Making offerings, sacrifices, and first-fruits according to our ancestors' customs—purely, abundantly, sincerely, and within our means—is something everyone should do.
XXXII.
When you have recourse to divination, remember that you do not know how it will turn out, but that you are come to inquire from the diviner. But of what kind it is, you know when you come, if indeed you are a philosopher. For if it is any of the things which are not in our power, it is absolutely necessary that it must be neither good nor bad. Do not then bring to the diviner desire or aversion ([Greek: echchlinein]): if you do, you will approach him with fear. But having determined in your mind that everything which shall turn out (result) is indifferent, and does not concern you, and whatever it may be, for it will be in your power to use it well, and no man will hinder this, come then with confidence to the gods as your advisers. And then when any advice shall have been given, remember whom you have taken as advisers, and whom you will have neglected, if you do not obey them. And go to divination, as Socrates said that you ought, about those matters in which all the inquiry has reference to the result, and in which means are not given either by reason nor by any other art for knowing the thing which is the subject of the inquiry. Wherefore when we ought to share a friend’s danger, or that of our country, you must not consult the diviner whether you ought to share it. For even if the diviner shall tell you that the signs of the victims are unlucky, it is plain that this is a token of death, or mutilation of part of the body, or of exile. But reason prevails, that even with these risks, we should share the dangers of our friend, and of our country. Therefore attend to the greater diviner, the Pythian god, who ejected from the temple him who did not assist his friend, when he was being murdered.
When you turn to divination, remember that you don't know how things will turn out; you're there to ask the diviner. You should understand what kind of questions you're asking before you approach, especially if you're a philosopher. If the matter is something beyond your control, it mustn't be seen as good or bad. Don't bring your wants or dislikes into the session; if you do, you'll approach with fear. Instead, decide in your mind that whatever the outcome is, it doesn't affect you, and no matter what it is, you'll be able to handle it well, and no one can stop that. So, come confidently to the gods for guidance. And once you receive any advice, remember who you sought guidance from and whom you’ll disregard if you don't follow their counsel. Approach divination, as Socrates recommended, for issues tied to the outcome, where there aren't clear ways to know the answer through reason or any other skill. Therefore, when it comes to sharing a friend's danger or that of your country, you shouldn't consult the diviner about whether you should get involved. Even if the diviner says the signs are unfavorable, it clearly indicates risk of death, injury, or exile. However, reason suggests that even with these dangers, we should stand by our friends and our country. So, listen to the greater diviner, the Pythian god, who expelled anyone from the temple who did not help their friend during a violent situation.
XXXIII.
Immediately prescribe some character and some form to yourself, which you shall observe both when you are alone and when you meet with men.
Immediately define some traits and a persona for yourself that you will stick to whether you are by yourself or interacting with others.
And let silence be the general rule, or let only what is necessary be said, and in few words. And rarely, and when the occasion calls, we shall say something; but about none of the common subjects, not about gladiators, nor horse-races, nor about athletes, nor about eating or drinking, which are the usual subjects; and especially not about men, as blaming them or praising them, or comparing them. If then you are able, bring over by your conversation, the conversation of your associates, to that which is proper; but if you should happen to be confined to the company of strangers, be silent.
And let silence be the general rule, or only say what's necessary, and keep it brief. We should only speak occasionally and when the time is right, but not about common topics like gladiators, horse races, athletes, or food and drinks, which are typical subjects; and especially not about people, whether it's criticizing or praising them or comparing them. If you can, steer your conversations with others towards more appropriate topics; but if you're stuck with strangers, just keep quiet.
Let not your laughter be much, nor on many occasions, nor excessive.
Don't laugh too much, too often, or excessively.
Refuse altogether to take an oath, if it is possible; if it is not, refuse as far as you are able.
Refuse to take an oath completely, if you can; if you can't, refuse as much as you can.
Avoid banquets which are given by strangers and by ignorant persons. But if ever there is occasion to join in them, let your attention be carefully fixed, that you slip not into the manners of the vulgar (the uninstructed). For you must know, that if your companion be impure, he also who keeps company with him must become impure, though he should happen to be pure.
Avoid banquets hosted by strangers and ignorant people. However, if you ever find yourself at one, pay close attention so you don't adopt the behaviors of the uneducated. You should understand that if your companion is corrupt, even someone who is pure will become tainted just by being in their company.
Take (apply) the things which relate to the body as far as the bare use, as food, drink, clothing, house, and slaves; but exclude everything which is for show or luxury.
Take what you need for your body, like food, drink, clothing, shelter, and help; but leave out anything that's just for show or luxury.
As to pleasure with women, abstain as far as you can before marriage; but if you do indulge in it, do it in the way which is conformable to custom. Do not however be disagreeable to those who indulge in these pleasures, or reprove them; and do not often boast that you do not indulge in them yourself.
As for enjoying time with women, avoid it as much as possible before marriage; but if you do partake, make sure it's in a way that follows social norms. However, don't be unkind to those who enjoy these pleasures, or criticize them; and try not to brag too much about your own abstinence.
If a man has reported to you, that a certain person speaks ill of you, do not make any defence (answer) to what has been told you; but reply, The man did not know the rest of my faults, for he would not have mentioned these only.
If a guy tells you that someone is talking bad about you, don’t bother defending yourself against what he said; just respond, “That person doesn’t know all my flaws, or else he wouldn’t have only mentioned these.”
It is not necessary to go to the theatres often: but if there is ever a proper occasion for going, do not show yourself as being a partisan of any man except yourself, that is, desire only that to be done which is done, and for him only to gain the prize who gains the prize; for in this way you will meet with no hindrance. But abstain entirely from shouts and laughter at any (thing or person), or violent emotions. And when you are come away, do not talk much about what has passed on the stage, except about that which may lead to your own improvement. For it is plain, if you do talk much, that you admired the spectacle (more than you ought).
You don't need to go to the theater all the time, but if you have a good reason to go, don’t support anyone but yourself. Just want whatever happens to happen, and let the person who deserves the award win it; this way, you won’t face any issues. Avoid shouting or laughing at anything or anyone, and keep your emotions in check. Once you leave, don’t spend too much time discussing what happened on stage, unless it helps you grow. If you talk a lot about it, it’s obvious you enjoyed the show more than you should have.
Do not go to the hearing of certain persons’ recitations, nor visit them readily. But if you do attend, observe gravity and sedateness, and also avoid making yourself disagreeable.
Don't go to the recitations of certain people, and don't visit them too often. But if you do go, act serious and calm, and also try not to be unpleasant.
When you are going to meet with any person, and particularly one of those who are considered to be in a superior condition, place before yourself what Socrates or Zeno would have done in such circumstances, and you will have no difficulty in making a proper use of the occasion.
When you're about to meet someone, especially someone who is seen as superior, think about what Socrates or Zeno would do in that situation, and you'll find it easy to handle the moment appropriately.
When you are going to any of those who are in great power, place before yourself that you will not find the man at home, that you will be excluded, that the door will not be opened to you, that the man will not care about you. And if with all this it is your duty to visit him, bear what happens, and never say to yourself that it was not worth the trouble. For this is silly, and marks the character of a man who is offended by externals.
When you’re meeting with someone powerful, keep in mind that he might not be home, you might be turned away, the door could be closed to you, and he may not show any interest in you. But if it's your responsibility to visit him, deal with whatever happens and don’t tell yourself it wasn’t worth it. That’s just foolish and shows that you’re the kind of person who is bothered by external things.
In company take care not to speak much and excessively about your own acts or dangers; for as it is pleasant to you to make mention of your own dangers, it is not so pleasant to others to hear what has happened to you. Take care also not to provoke laughter; for this is a slippery way towards vulgar habits, and is also adapted to diminish the respect of your neighbors. It is a dangerous habit also to approach obscene talk. When then, anything of this kind happens, if there is a good opportunity, rebuke the man who has proceeded to this talk; but if there is not an opportunity, by your silence at least, and blushing and expression of dissatisfaction by your countenance, show plainly that you are displeased at such talk.
In social settings, be mindful not to talk too much about your own actions or troubles; while discussing your own experiences might feel good to you, it’s probably not enjoyable for others to listen to. Avoid making jokes that provoke laughter; this can lead to crass behavior and diminish the respect others have for you. It’s also risky to engage in inappropriate conversations. If such topics come up, take the chance to call out the person who brought it up. If it’s not a good time to say anything, at least show your disapproval through your silence, blushing, and facial expressions.
XXXIV.
If you have received the impression ([Greek: phantasion]) of any pleasure, guard yourself against being carried away by it; but let the thing wait for you, and allow yourself a certain delay on your own part. Then think of both times, of the time when you will enjoy the pleasure, and of the time after the enjoyment of the pleasure, when you will repent and will reproach yourself. And set against these things how you will rejoice, if you have abstained from the pleasure, and how you will commend yourself. But if it seem to you seasonable to undertake (do) the thing, take care that the charm of it, and the pleasure, and the attraction of it shall not conquer you; but set on the other side the consideration, how much better it is to be conscious that you have gained this victory.
If you feel tempted by any pleasure, protect yourself from getting swept away by it; let it wait for you, and give yourself some time before acting. Then think about both moments: the time when you’ll enjoy the pleasure and the time after, when you might regret it and criticize yourself. Consider how happy you’ll feel if you choose to avoid the pleasure and how proud you'll be of yourself. But if you think it’s a good time to go for it, make sure that the excitement and attraction don't overpower you; instead, remind yourself how much better it is to know that you’ve won this battle.
XXXV.
When you have decided that a thing ought to be done, and are doing it, never avoid being seen doing it, though the many shall form an unfavorable opinion about it. For if it is not right to do it, avoid doing the thing; but if it is right, why are you afraid of those who shall find fault wrongly?
When you’ve decided something needs to be done and you’re doing it, don’t shy away from being seen doing it, even if many people have a negative opinion about it. If it’s not the right thing to do, then you should avoid it; but if it is the right thing, why worry about those who will criticize you unfairly?
XXXVI.
As the proposition, it is either day, or it is night, is of great importance for the disjunctive argument, but for the conjunctive, is of no value, so in a symposium (entertainment) to select the larger share is of great value for the body, but for the maintenance of the social feeling is worth nothing. When, then, you are eating with another, remember, to look not only to the value for the body of the things set before you, but also to the value of the behavior towards the host which ought to be observed.
As the statement that it is either day or night is very important for a disjunctive argument but holds no value for a conjunctive one, in a gathering (like a party), choosing the larger portion is significant for physical needs, but it does nothing for maintaining social connections. So, when you're eating with someone else, remember to consider not just the physical value of the food in front of you, but also the importance of your behavior toward the host that should be respected.
XXXVII.
If you have assumed a character above your strength, you have both acted in this manner in an unbecoming way, and you have neglected that which you might have fulfilled.
If you've taken on a role beyond your ability, you've not only behaved inappropriately, but you've also ignored the responsibilities you could have handled.
XXXVIII.
In walking about, as you take care not to step on a nail, or to sprain your foot, so take care not to damage your own ruling faculty; and if we observe this rule in every act, we shall undertake this act with more security.
As you walk around, be cautious to avoid stepping on a nail or twisting your ankle; similarly, be careful not to harm your own judgment. If we follow this guideline in everything we do, we'll approach our actions with greater confidence.
XXXIX.
The measure of possession (property) is to every man the body, as the foot is of the shoe. If then you stand on this rule (the demands of the body), you will maintain the measure; but if you pass beyond it, you must then of necessity be hurried as it were down a precipice. As also in the matter of the shoe, if you go beyond the (necessities of the) foot, the shoe is gilded, then of a purple color, then embroidered; for there is no limit to that which has once passed the true measure.
The measure of ownership (property) is like the body to every person, just as the foot is to a shoe. If you stick to this principle (the needs of the body), you'll keep the proper balance; but if you go beyond it, you’ll inevitably find yourself falling into chaos. Similarly, with a shoe, if you exceed what the foot requires, it gets decorated, then dyed in purple, then embroidered; because once you exceed the true measure, there are no limits.
XL.
Women forthwith from the age of fourteen are called by the men mistresses ([Greek: churiai], dominæ). Therefore, since they see that there is nothing else that they can obtain, but only the power of lying with men, they begin to decorate themselves, and to place all their hopes in this. It is worth our while then to take care that they may know that they are valued (by men) for nothing else than appearing (being) decent and modest and discreet.
Women from the age of fourteen are referred to by men as mistresses. So, since they realize that the only thing they can really gain is the ability to be with men, they start to beautify themselves and put all their hopes into this. It's important that we ensure they understand they are valued by men for nothing more than looking decent, modest, and discreet.
XLI.
It is a mark of a mean capacity to spend much time on the things which concern the body, such as much exercise, much eating, much drinking, much easing of the body, much copulation. But these things should be done as subordinate things; and let all your care be directed to the mind.
It shows a lack of depth to focus so much on physical things like exercising a lot, eating a lot, drinking a lot, taking it easy a lot, and having sex a lot. These activities should be secondary; instead, focus all your attention on your mind.
XLII.
When any person treats you ill or speaks ill of you, remember that he does this or says this because he thinks that it is his duty. It is not possible then for him to follow that which seems right to you, but that which seems right to himself. Accordingly if he is wrong in his opinion, he is the person who is hurt, for he is the person who has been deceived; for if a man shall suppose the true conjunction to be false, it is not the conjunction which is hindered, but the man who has been deceived about it. If you proceed then from these opinions, you will be mild in temper to him who reviles you; for say on each occasion, It seemed so to him.
When someone treats you badly or talks negatively about you, remember that they do it because they believe it's their duty. They can't follow what seems right to you, only what seems right to them. So if they're wrong in their beliefs, they're the ones who suffer because they've been misled. If someone thinks what's actually true is false, it's not the truth that's affected, but the person who was confused about it. With this perspective, you can remain calm when someone insults you; just remind yourself, It seemed that way to them.
XLIII.
Everything has two handles, the one by which it may be borne, the other by which it may not. If your brother acts unjustly, do not lay hold of the act by that handle wherein he acts unjustly, for this is the handle which cannot be borne; but lay hold of the other, that he is your brother, that he was nurtured with you, and you will lay hold of the thing by that handle by which it can be borne.
Everything has two sides: one that you can handle, and one that you can't. If your brother does something unfair, don't focus on his unfairness because that's the side that’s hard to deal with; instead, focus on the fact that he’s your brother, that you grew up together, and you’ll be able to approach the situation in a way that you can manage.
XLIV.
These reasonings do not cohere: I am richer than you, therefore I am better than you; I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better than you. On the contrary, these rather cohere: I am richer than you, therefore my possessions are greater than yours; I am more eloquent than you, therefore my speech is superior to yours. But you are neither possession nor speech.
These arguments don't make sense: I'm richer than you, so that means I'm better than you; I'm more eloquent than you, so that means I'm better than you. On the other hand, these do make sense: I'm richer than you, so my possessions are greater than yours; I'm more eloquent than you, so my speaking skills are better than yours. But you are neither your possessions nor your speaking skills.
XLV.
Does a man bathe quickly (early)? do not say that he bathes badly, but that he bathes quickly. Does a man drink much wine? do not say that he does this badly, but say that he drinks much. For before you shall have determined the opinion how do you know whether he is acting wrong? Thus it will not happen to you to comprehend some appearances which are capable of being comprehended, but to assent to others.
Does a man take a quick bath? Don’t say he bathes poorly, just say he bathes quickly. Does a man drink a lot of wine? Don’t say he does it poorly, just say he drinks a lot. Because before you decide what you think, how do you know if he’s doing something wrong? So, it won’t happen that you understand certain things that can be understood, but you’ll agree with others.
XLVI.
On no occasion call yourself a philosopher, and do not speak much among the uninstructed about theorems (philosophical rules, precepts); but do that which follows from them. For example, at a banquet do not say how a man ought to eat, but eat as you ought to eat. For remember that in this way Socrates also altogether avoided ostentation. Persons used to come to him and ask to be recommended by him to philosophers, and he used to take them to philosophers, so easily did he submit to being overlooked. Accordingly, if any conversation should arise among uninstructed persons about any theorem, generally be silent; for there is great danger that you will immediately vomit up what you have not digested. And when a man shall say to you that you know nothing, and you are not vexed, then be sure that you have begun the work (of philosophy). For even sheep do not vomit up their grass and show to the shepherds how much they have eaten; but when they have internally digested the pasture, they produce externally wool and milk. Do you also show not your theorems to the uninstructed, but show the acts which come from their digestion.
Never call yourself a philosopher, and don’t talk too much about theories or philosophical rules with people who aren’t educated in the subject; instead, just do what those theories suggest. For example, at a meal, don’t lecture on how someone should eat, just eat properly yourself. Remember that Socrates also avoided showiness this way. People would come to him asking for introductions to philosophers, and he would gladly take them to meet philosophers, not minding being overlooked himself. So, if a discussion comes up among uneducated people about any theory, it’s usually best to stay quiet; there’s a big risk that you’ll blurt out ideas you haven’t fully processed. And when someone tells you that you know nothing, and it doesn’t bother you, that’s a good sign you’re on the right path in philosophy. Even sheep don’t regurgitate their grass to show the shepherds how much they’ve eaten; instead, after digesting their food, they produce wool and milk. Similarly, don’t showcase your theories to those who aren’t knowledgeable; instead, demonstrate the actions that come from understanding those theories.
XLVII.
When at a small cost you are supplied with everything for the body, do not be proud of this; nor, if you drink water, say on every occasion, I drink water. But consider first how much more frugal the poor are than we, and how much more enduring of labor. And if you ever wish to exercise yourself in labor and endurance, do it for yourself, and not for others. Do not embrace statues; but if you are ever very thirsty, take a draught of cold water and spit it out, and tell no man.
When you can get everything you need for basic living at a low cost, don’t let that make you arrogant; and if you drink water, don’t keep saying, “I drink water.” Instead, think about how much more frugal the poor are compared to us and how much better they handle hard work. If you want to challenge yourself with hard work and endurance, do it for your own sake, not for others. Don’t idolize statues; but if you’re really thirsty, take a sip of cold water, spit it out, and don’t tell anyone.
XLVIII.
The condition and characteristic of an uninstructed person is this: he never expects from himself profit (advantage) nor harm, but from externals. The condition and characteristic of a philosopher is this: he expects all advantage and all harm from himself. The signs (marks) of one who is making progress are these: he censures no man, he praises no man, he blames no man, he accuses no man, he says nothing about himself as if he were somebody or knew something; when he is impeded at all or hindered, he blames himself; if a man praises him he ridicules the praiser to himself; if a man censures him he makes no defence; he goes about like weak persons, being careful not to move any of the things which are placed, before they are firmly fixed; he removes all desire from himself, and he transfers aversion ([Greek: echchlisin]) to those things only of the things within our power which are contrary to nature; he employs a moderate movement towards everything; whether he is considered foolish or ignorant he cares not; and in a word he watches himself as if he were an enemy and lying in ambush.
The state and trait of a person who hasn’t been taught is this: they never expect to gain or lose from themselves, but purely from outside factors. The state and trait of a philosopher is this: they expect all gains and losses to come from within themselves. The signs of someone who is making progress are these: they don’t criticize anyone, they don’t praise anyone, they don’t blame anyone, they don’t accuse anyone, and they say nothing about themselves as if they’re special or knowledgeable; when they face obstacles, they blame themselves; if someone praises them, they laugh at the praise inwardly; if someone criticizes them, they don’t defend themselves; they move through life like someone who's cautious, being careful not to disturb anything that isn’t securely in place; they let go of all desires and only resent those things that are within our control but go against nature; they approach everything with moderation; they don’t care if they’re seen as foolish or ignorant; in short, they observe themselves as if they were an enemy lying in wait.
XLIX.
When a man is proud because he can understand and explain the writings of Chrysippus, say to yourself, If Chrysippus had not written obscurely, this man would have had nothing to be proud of. But what is it that I wish? To understand nature and to follow it. I inquire therefore who is the interpreter? and when I have heard that it is Chrysippus, I come to him (the interpreter). But I do not understand what is written, and therefore I seek the interpreter. And so far there is yet nothing to be proud of. But when I shall have found the interpreter, the thing that remains is to use the precepts (the lessons). This itself is the only thing to be proud of. But if I shall admire the exposition, what else have I been made unless a grammarian instead of a philosopher? except in one thing, that I am explaining Chrysippus instead of Homer. When, then, any man says to me, Read Chrysippus to me, I rather blush, when I cannot show my acts like to and consistent with his words.
When someone feels proud because they can understand and explain the writings of Chrysippus, I think to myself, If Chrysippus hadn't written in such a confusing way, this person wouldn't have anything to be proud of. But what do I really want? To understand nature and follow it. So, I ask who the interpreter is, and when I find out it's Chrysippus, I go to him (the interpreter). But I don’t really understand what’s written, so I look for the interpreter. So far, there's still nothing to be proud of. But once I find the interpreter, what’s left is to apply the lessons. That’s the only thing worth being proud of. But if I just admire the explanation, what does that make me other than a grammarian instead of a philosopher? The only difference is that I’m explaining Chrysippus instead of Homer. So when someone says to me, Read Chrysippus to me, I feel embarrassed if I can’t show that my actions match his words.
L.
Whatever things (rules) are proposed to you (for the conduct of life) abide by them, as if they were laws, as if you would be guilty of impiety if you transgressed any of them. And whatever any man shall say about you, do not attend to it; for this is no affair of yours. How long will you then still defer thinking yourself worthy of the best things, and in no matter transgressing the distinctive reason? Have you accepted the theorems (rules), which it was your duty to agree to, and have you agreed to them? what teacher then do you still expect that you defer to him the correction of yourself? You are no longer a youth, but already a full-grown man. If, then, you are negligent and slothful, and are continually making procrastination after procrastination, and proposal (intention) after proposal, and fixing day after day, after which you will attend to yourself, you will not know that you are not making improvement, but you will continue ignorant (uninstructed) both while you live and till you die. Immediately then think it right to live as a full-grown man, and one who is making proficiency, and let everything which appears to you to be the best be to you a law which must not be transgressed. And if anything laborious or pleasant or glorious or inglorious be presented to you, remember that now is the contest, now are the Olympic games, and they cannot be deferred; and that it depends on one defeat and one giving way that progress is either lost or maintained. Socrates in this way became perfect, in all things improving himself, attending to nothing except to reason. But you, though you are not yet a Socrates, ought to live as one who wishes to be a Socrates.
Whatever rules are proposed to you for living, follow them as if they were laws, as if you would be committing a grave offense if you broke any of them. And whatever anyone says about you, ignore it; it’s not your concern. How much longer will you keep putting off believing you deserve the best and continue violating what sets you apart through reason? Have you accepted the principles you were supposed to agree with? What teacher do you expect to correct you now? You are not a youth anymore; you are already an adult. If you keep being careless and lazy, procrastinating over and over, setting new goals day after day for when you’ll start taking care of yourself, you won’t realize that you aren’t improving; you’ll stay uninformed, both in life and until you die. So start living like an adult who is striving to improve, and let everything you believe to be best be a law you must not break. If something challenging, enjoyable, glorious, or shameful comes your way, remember that this is the competition, this is the Olympics, and they can’t be postponed; whether you succeed or not hinges on one defeat or one failure to persist. Socrates achieved greatness by continually improving himself, focusing solely on reason. But you, even if you aren’t a Socrates yet, should live as someone who wants to become one.
LI.
The first and most necessary place (part, [Greek: topos]) in philosophy is the use of theorems (precepts, [Greek: theoraemata]), for instance, that we must not lie; the second part is that of demonstrations, for instance, How is it proved that we ought not to lie? The third is that which is confirmatory of these two, and explanatory, for example, How is this a demonstration? For what is demonstration, what is consequence, what is contradiction, what is truth, what is falsehood? The third part (topic) is necessary on account of the second, and the second on account of the first; but the most necessary and that on which we ought to rest is the first. But we do the contrary. For we spend our time on the third topic, and all our earnestness is about it; but we entirely neglect the first. Therefore we lie; but the demonstration that we ought not to lie we have ready to hand.
The first and most essential aspect of philosophy is the use of principles, like the idea that we shouldn't lie. The second aspect involves demonstrations, for example, how do we prove that we shouldn't lie? The third aspect supports and explains the first two, such as how something qualifies as a demonstration. We need to understand what a demonstration is, what consequence means, what contradiction is, what truth signifies, and what falsehood implies. The third aspect is necessary for the second, and the second is necessary for the first; however, the most important one, the foundation we should rely on, is the first. Instead, we often focus on the third aspect and pour our energy into it, completely neglecting the first. As a result, we end up lying, even though we have the proof that we shouldn't.
LII.
In every thing (circumstance) we should hold these maxims ready to hand:
In every situation, we should have these principles at the ready:
Lead me, O Zeus, and thou O Destiny,
The way that I am bid by you to go:
To follow I am ready. If I choose not,
I make myself a wretch, and still must follow.
But whoso nobly yields unto necessity,
We hold him wise, and skill’d in things divine.
Lead me, Zeus, and you, Destiny,
To the path you’ve set for me:
I'm ready to follow. If I don’t,
I make myself miserable, and still have to follow.
But whoever nobly submits to necessity,
We consider wise and skilled in divine matters.
And the third also: O Crito, if so it pleases the gods, so let it be; Anytus and Melitus are able indeed to kill me, but they cannot harm me.
And the third one too: O Crito, if that’s what the gods want, so be it; Anytus and Melitus can definitely kill me, but they can’t harm me.
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!